Nacre

I know. My question is why they are all being held in one place rather than being spread out to Montreal and Ottowa. With only two groups, it seems like having the group stages at Saputo Stadium in Montreal and TD Place Stadium in Ottowa would sell more tickets overall than trying to sell out 40 games (12 group games and 8 elimination games per gender) in Hamilton in only two weeks. Giving a few events to Montreal and Ottowa would also presumably raise the awareness of the games a bit in the country as a whole.

Are the group stages for the Pan Am Games really in the same stadium as the elimination round games? Even for the Olympics hosts are allowed to spread these around. For football in the 2012 Olympics the group stages were in Cardiff, Manchester, Glasgow, etc. It certainly shines light on why everyone involved in the bid wants an artificial surface for the rugby stadium. You would never be able to play 40 rugby matches in three weeks on a natural grass field. It would simply be mud after three days. Why not have the group stages for a few events in Montreal and Ottowa and save ticket purchasing power in Toronto for other events?

The only solution is for fans to stop watching. But that will never happen.

The golden number of 32 is desirable not because the league likes symmetry but rather because expanding and eliminating the divisions would kill the divisional rivalry games that are a huge help in selling tickets. The owners are vehemently opposed to further expansion because of this. Expansion is possible only if it leaves the San Francisco vs Seattle, Chicago vs Green Bay and Pittsburgh vs Baltimore games intact. Which would require creating an additional division in Europe or Asia.

They have 32 teams already. There is a 0% chance they will create an expansion team unless it is part of a new European division.

Internal politics After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia experienced an economic depression worse than the great Depression in the 1930's. Russia was politically humiliated with the independence of her satellite countries such as Ukraine and Poland. The far right in Russia is outraged by their fall in prestige and power, and the best way (in Putin's eyes as an ex-KGB operative) to return to glory is through a return to the aggressive politics of the Soviet era. The crackdown on non-traditional lifestyles is not motivated by any real fear of Russia being overrun by gays, Catholics, or anything else, but rather the same scapegoating than happened in Germany in the late 1930's. The policies are intended to unify Russia in nationalism and traditionalism. The policies of hostility towards Poland, Ukraine, etc are a similar return to Russian prestige through military strength. And the strategy of tension is used to obtain public support -or at least indifference- for government policies such as assassinating journalists and critics of the government, corruption and increasing authoritarianism. Contrast that with China. China's record on human rights, the environment and democracy are poor, but you have to consider that the Chinese have gone from near feudalism to a modern society in 150 years. The Chinese middle class is growing in number and political influence, and you can start to see signs of democratization. Meanwhile Russia is moving backwards.

I really don't think so. Britain has the best league in the world and it doesn't seem to help them much in the World Cup. The key concern should be developing our players rather than importing more stars from abroad into MLS.

Because of bribery. Canada likely won't do that.

I agree. But in the eyes of FIFA: bigger stadiums = more tickets, and more tickets = more money for FIFA. FIFA collects all the ticket revenue, sponsorship funds and television rights fees from the World Cup.

It's not like FIFA has offered Canada the right to host, though. Canada would have to go through a long and expensive process of bidding it is a long shot at winning. Canada has two options. Beg the most corrupt organization in sports to let Canada build expensive stadiums it doesn't need so that organization can suck a lot of money out of Canada's economy. Take an almost guaranteed chance of hosting a much cheaper event that Canada can host almost entirely using its existing stadia.

Whereas the World Cup is a charity? Canada has a much stronger argument to make for hosting for the Gold Cup. They can't give it to the USA every time.

Canada should aim for the CONCACAF Gold Cup instead of the World Cup. They have never hosted it before (although they did host the 1990 NAFC Championship), and would likely be chosen for the Gold Cup host. Meanwhile it would fit with their stadium requirements much more closely than the World Cup.

China's top league is actually drawing very well: a bit better than MLS. They also have a number of new stadiums, including the centerpiece stadium in Beijing from the Olympics. China's national team is pretty bad considering its population, but so are most Asian teams. Canada would be a fine host, but the challenge is in seeing how they could top bids from England, China, Australia, the USA, etc. What can Canada offer that will enable it beat out countries with larger stadiums and more profits for FIFA?

I doubt it too, but it seems very possible at this point. Paris does not seem interested in bidding. Can Berlin get public support for a bid after the referendum failed in Munich? South Africa is still trying to find uses for its World Cup stadiums. China is going for 2022.

You're right, of course. I was thinking they would need another stadium for either field hockey or rugby (if it is added), but Stade Sébastien Charléty and Parc des Princes should work for that. It it amazing, but this could end up being another unopposed Los Angeles bid.

This is perhaps a dumb question, but why doesn't Paris have better support for football? Paris St Germain is a major European club, but they are the only Ligue 1 team in Paris and there is no Ligue 2 team in the city. Moreover a lot of the lower tier teams such as Paris FC don't draw well at all. Conversely London has 5 Premier league teams in the city with one of them as the main Olympic Stadium tenant post-games. A second major team to go along with Paris St Germain seems like a very obvious part of the legacy plan for the venues of another Paris Olympiad. But is there any popular enthusiasm for another Ligue 1 team in the city?

If that's true then the National Basketball League and Major League Baseball aren't American either. The Seattle Sounders average over 44,000 per match, which is better than average in the Premier League. Admittedly they are an outlier, but average MLS attendance has also exceeded MLB's and the sport is growing fast in the USA as more kids play soccer and fewer play baseball and American football.

Even if the referendum is invalid, will politicians be willing to go forward with the bid with a referendum result of 31% Yes and 69% No? As sad as this is, a part of me thinks this will be good in the long run. Because the IOC needs a slap in the face.

Ultimately what a stadium looks like from the outside is probably the fifth most important thing, after structural soundness, functionality for athletes, interior views for fans, and expense. I don't dislike the aesthetics of this stadium, but it does look like "futuristic appearance" was given first priority over everything else.

Marseilles could be a good host. I think the issue is legacy rather than hosting ability. Marseilles doesn't need two big stadiums, but Paris does. Shopping is a tad more expensive (because of the higher taxes in Canada) but some other stuff is cheaper. I don't think there's a big difference, to be honest. However you can have your cake and each it too, and pick two cities like Vancouver and Seattle or Montreal and Boston. The train from Vancouver to Seattle is a beautiful trip and customs seems easier to me than when driving. I haven't taken the train from Toronto to New York or Montreal to Boston, but I assume it's much the same, though a much longer trip.

The same thing is true of Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Portland, etc. And I can't remember Seattle luring big name free agents despite its lack of state income tax and better nightlife and luxury goods than those other cities. I don't think Toronto struggles with NBA free agents because it is in Canada, but rather that it is a cold weather city without a large Afro-Canadian population. Yes, I know that Toronto is 9% black, but Minneapolis is 19% and is still considered a "white city." I agree entirely. Unfortunately it's not up to us.

It matters for both divisions and scheduling. 33, 34 and 35 don't work, so they would have to jump up to 36 teams if they were to add any teams. It's a horrible idea, but it's the only way to get a London franchise to work (because of the travel schedule), which they seem intent on. If they are really determined to play in Europe wish they would instead play a tournament of preseason games with each team adopting an overseas city. (Three games ala the world cup group stage to determine standings followed by a championship final between the top two teams for the fourth game.) That way foreign fans would get to see a team in person they could root for without screwing up the regular season or diluting the league. I agree, but building a new NFL stadium also costs at least twice as much as an NBA arena. Originally they said the trust operating the team would take about two years to complete the sale, but now they say it could be resolved by the end of this year. Either way a new Toronto ownership group would have enough time to negotiate with Toronto and build a new stadium for 2020. All of the TV deals will expire by the end of 2022. If the NFL wants a franchise in Toronto they can make it work for all parties. I don't know if they are motivated to do that, though. However I really question how angry CBS would be to "lose" the Bills, anyway. They would still have the right to broadcast the Bills games in the US, and the Bills are not a major draw: they only have a fan base in western New York and the games are often blacked out. I think a few million would easily set things right with CBS.

Also, I'm not sure that the NFL would even consider Buffalo to Toronto as a relocation, since Toronto technically falls within the Bills' home territory anyway. http://static.nfl.com/static/content//public/static/html/careers/pdf/co_.pdf

No. The NFL isn't going to add new franchises now that it has the magical number of 32 teams. The only way it would happen is if a European Division was added.

In the short term I agree, but even people in Buffalo think they will leave sometime after 2020. You have to consider the timeline. The Bills aren't leaving town tomorrow, but it would take a few years for Toronto to build a stadium anyway. A new stadium in six years is actually the right amount of time for Toronto to go through planning and construction. I have been accused of being too negative in another thread, but this is one case where I can see a very realistic positive side. (For Toronto, anyway.) The Bills are for sale, Toronto is close enough for their current fans to travel to the games, and an NFL team would make a 80k-90k capacity stadium work for the city of Toronto. Very few NFL franchises would agree to have an athletics track in their stadium, but the Bills would likely accept it as the cost of getting a new stadium in a much larger market.