For the bookies, the answer is clear.
A leading betting website on Saturday rated Fabio Capello’s men 8/1 fourth-favourites to triumph in South Africa, behind Spain (4/1), Brazil (9/2) and Argentina (13/2).
The odds I could find on the race to host the 2018 competition, meanwhile, made England narrow favourites at around 11/8.
This was ahead of Russia (6/4), Spain/Portugal (between 11/2 and 6/1), Australia (between 6.3/1 and 10/1), Holland/Belgium (10.5-14/1) and the US (18.1-50/1).
For my money, both sets of odds for England are too crimped to be tempting.
But their relative judgement – that England is roughly six times more likely to win the right to stage the 2018 World Cup than to lift the trophy itself on July 11 in Johannesburg looks about right to me.
Which leads, in turn, to some interesting conclusions.
England’s World Cup bid, by contrast, has been the boardroom equivalent of a football team in permanent flux; a side so regularly tinkered with that you hardly know what players will be selected from one match to the next.
I tried to work out in preparation for this column how many "transfers" in and out of the England bid’s board there have been in the 20 months or so since its prototype was unveiled in October 2008.
I wouldn’t necessarily vouch for the absolute accuracy of my tally, but I reckon it has been something like 14.
And that is without counting a number of highly significant changes, such as Geoff Thompson’s recent elevation to chairman or the arrival in February of David Dein as the bid’s International President.
And yet, in spite of all of this, the English bid is – I think now justifiably – the favourite to win.
That is not of course to suggest that things cannot change in the last six months of the campaign.
I would never be so mean spirited as to wish problems on the 2010 World Cup organisers, nor I am sure would anyone in the England 2018 bid, but it could be argued that England’s chances of winning hosting rights in eight years’ time would strengthen if South Africa 2010 is beset by glitches.
Under this line of reasoning, a "difficult" tournament in coming weeks might encourage FIFA Executive Committee members to plump for "safe" old England for 2018.
Their decision, after all, will be taken this December – just five months after this year’s winners get their hands on the golden trophy.
The timing of the vote, with the economic crisis still fresh in everyone’s mind, might also work to England’s advantage by providing further encouragement for FIFA to play safe, even though the recession should – one hopes! – be a distant memory by the time the 2018 World Cup actually takes place.
This is unless market sentiment regarding the size of the deficits being recorded by Governments in Western Europe deteriorates further.
If that happens, Russia could benefit at England and Spain/Portugal’s expense.
Returning to the 2010 World Cup, if I am unlikely to be betting on England to taste glory in South Africa next month, what might constitute a more attractive wager?
I think the fact that the competition will unfold, for the first time, on African soil, does make for a greater element of unpredictability than usual, with the low temperatures expected possibly working to the Europeans’ – and the spectators' – advantage.
Having won the World Cup seven times between them, I find odds of 14 or even 16/1 on Germany and Italy almost impossible to resist, especially as you can back them each-way.
And, if I had the stomach for it, I’d be tempted to lay Spain and Argentina.
Recent tournaments, meanwhile, have tended to throw up one at least mildly surprising semi-finalist: in 1994 we had Bulgaria; in 1998 Croatia; in 2002 South Korea and Turkey; in 2006 Portugal.
For 2010, how about Uruguay?