FIFA WC USA-Mexico-Canada 2026

[Quaker2001]

1 hour ago, Mack_king said:

No one knows but insiders stated that a solo US bid would have had a very hard time winning the bid. Africa and Asia are FIFA's biggest voting block with 100 votes while CONCACAF and CONMEBOL would have most likely sided with Mexico or Canada. US best bet would be some UEFA vote and AFC but CAF would have snubbed a solo bid. You know...politics. The division of the vote could have allowed Canada to sllip through the cracks as they are the only G7 nation that never hosted the tournament. The US could have still won off course but it seems the USSF wanted to be 100% sure to win, hence co-bidding with Canada and Mexico ensured that. 100% chance of victory is better than 50%, wouldn't you agree?

I don't know what the odds were before.  Probably not quite 100% now.  There's a lot of assumptions being made about how the voting would go.  It's all hypothetical how that all would have gone down.  I couldn't tell you why the USSF chose the course they did.  But according to your numbers, if they went from a 50% chance at hosting 80 games to a 100% chance of hosting 60, that math makes a lot of sense to me.

2 hours ago, Mack_king said:

You're mistaken to think that FIFA forgot what the US department of justice did to them. Politics played a heavy hand in damaging the solo bid. CONMEBOL, AFC and CAF aren't pro Americans while easily half of the UEFA don't take the US seriously. Canada and Mexico partnering with the US made the bid untouchable. Deny it all you want, Canada and Mexico are a big reason why the US are getting the 2026 WC, you should be happy and thankful instead of "rubbing it in"

Well first off, they haven't won anything yet, so let's not jump to that conclusion just yet.  This is great for all 3 nations, if it comes to fruition.  Wouldn't call it a done deal yet and I'm not discounting Canada and Mexico's contribution to this.  But the biggest reason the US might be getting the 2026 World Cup is the US.  And the only reason that Mexico and Canada are in the position they are right now is because of the US.  That's not rubbing it in, that's stating a simple fact.  Which can't really be denied.

2 hours ago, Mack_king said:

Everyone knows that that and it was made clear during the press conference. By sour winners, you shouldn't feel targeted personally, only those who mocks Mexico and Canada for only getting 10 days. All I'm saying, they deserve the US gratitude, because they also saved the USSF millions of dollars since they won't need to go through the costly bidding process. USSF just asked FIFA to expedite it. That's money the USSF gets to reinvest in amateur football in America instead of making FIFA bureacrats richer.

Again, who is being targeted?  Less you want to read any or all of the first 50 pages of this thread that you just stumbled upon.  You're right that this makes it easier to FIFA to say yes to without a formal bid process.  Easier said than done.  And they're still getting almost all of the important matches from the tournament.

2 hours ago, Mack_king said:

Right now, you'd be the only one to think otherwise, assuming you understand the world of football. Anyone knowing how FIFA works, Canada and Mexico handed that world cup to America by ensuring that hostile nation would back a unified bid.

Let me re-state the question for you, and I highlighted the key word earlier.. Did the United States *need* help from other countries to make this happen?  That's debatable.  The United States could have won this without help.  Would have been a lot harder with a much great chance of winding up with nothing.  This may be a hostile nation, but there's an awful lot of money to be made here.  I'm not discounting what Canada and Mexico have done to make this closer to happening.  But whether or not it was a necessarily move is and will continue to be debatable.

2 hours ago, Mack_king said:

Like I pointed out earlier, they most likely got something in return. Ironically, if the Canadian Association gets a bigger piece of the profits, they will invest it in their new top league which is making noise all the way to London. The CPL is set to rival MLS in North America within 10 years. Mexico is the biggest loser in all of this. The US obviously win while Canada actually gained more than people realized.

I'm sure we'll find out in time what everyone got.  Not sure I'd call Mexico a loser in this.  Pretty good chance they weren't going to win anything if they went at this alone.  Now they have 10 games.  That's a lot better than nothing.

As for the CPL, how about we wait until that actually exists before we talk about what they're going to rival.  Maybe they'll get there in time, but I'll believe it when I see if.  FIFA has a lot to gain investing in the game in Canada.  We've certainly seen that on the women's soccer.  Don't discount that MLS may get a boost of their own from this.

[Quaker2001]

2 hours ago, Mack_king said:

2030 would logically go to Uruguay and Argentina

2034 should be Europe, most likely England (no co-host required)

2038 China

2042 Oceania or Africa

2046 CONCACAF --> Canada 

Explain to me why it's logical that 2030 goes to Uruguay/Argentina (interesting that you led with Uruguay on that one, likely indicating this is about the centennial)  You don't think England will go after the 2030 tournament?  There were rumblings they were looking into 2026, although that's certainly out the window now with this 3 nation bid.  And it's not like Argentina (who clearly needs to be the leader on the bid) can claim to have gone longer without hosting the WC in a competition with England.  If FIFA wants to celebrate the centennial of their tournament, put it in 1 of the biggest football hotbeds on the planet in England.  Let South America bid for 2030, but I think they're going to lose that.  Then if this is about more than the centennial, come back for 2034 and roll the dice then if they want.

[baron-pierreIV]

I think what will intrigue me from now on, is how they will pick the 12 cities in the US, and how they will sort of assign the slots where the seeded teams would go.  

Like I said, France might start out in Montreal, or even Vancouver; Canada of course in Toronto.    

Brazil would probably go to LA;   

Germany I think would be NYC or Chicago.

Italy would be NYC or Boston.

Argentina and Spain would be be split between Florida and Mexico.

IF it were up to me, I would start the USA in Levi Stadium; 

I don't know where to put England and the Netherlands. 

I'd put Portugal in Canada.

And the Big Drawing, Id guess, would be in Las Vegas.  

 

 

[Quaker2001]

6 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I think what will intrigue me from now on, is how they will pick the 12 cities in the US, and how they will sort of assign the slots where the seeded teams would go.  

Like I said, France might start out in Montreal, or even Vancouver; Canada of course in Toronto.    

Brazil would probably go to LA;   

Germany I think would be NYC or Chicago.

Italy would be NYC or Boston.

Argentina and Spain would be be split between Florida and Mexico.

IF it were up to me, I would start the USA in Levi Stadium; 

I don't know where to put England and the Netherlands. 

I'd put Portugal in Canada.

And the Big Drawing, Id guess, would be in Las Vegas.  

 

 

Usually done by random draw. I doubt they'll assign teams that way. The 3 host nations will almost certainly be pre-assigned to groups and/or location. The rest of the teams, likely not so much

[baron-pierreIV]

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Usually done by random draw. I doubt they'll assign teams that way. The 3 host nations will almost certainly be pre-assigned to groups and/or location. The rest of the teams, likely not so much

They start the pots with the top seeded teams.  Those are assigned.  In 1994, with the help of the Org Committee, like Poland got assigned for starters in Chicago; Mexico in LA; etc., etc.  Perhaps it will be the same for 2026.   

[Nacre]

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

They start the pots with the top seeded teams.  Those are assigned.  In 1994, with the help of the Org Committee, like Poland got assigned for starters in Chicago; Mexico in LA; etc., etc.  Perhaps it will be the same for 2026.   

The host countries are also seeded, though, so France cannot be seeded in Montreal unless Canada does not play in Montreal.

It is a shame that Los Xolos do not have a bigger stadium. Tijuana + California would be a fun road trip for Europeans.

[LatinXTC]

I'm wondering if just doing a joint bid with Mexico would have been enough, since they would have been a more serious bidder for the 2026 world cup. Given Canada's history on bailing out of bidding for big events, like Toronto for the 2024 Olympic games and Edmonton for the 2022 Commonwealth games, surely they would have decided against hosting the World Cup as well. Currently the calgary bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics isn't a solid deal either.

 

There is also very vocal opposition from Canadian citizens about government spending on these events. They sure as hell would not have supported building new and renovating old stadiums with seating capacities that won't be needed after the games. But we will never know. Also there's still no guarantee will get every vote from North and South America. We sure as hell won't get Russian and middle eastern support, nor China's either.

[Ansem]

3 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Given Canada's history on bailing out of bidding for big events, like Toronto for the 2024 Olympic games and Edmonton for the 2022 Commonwealth games, surely they would have decided against hosting the World Cup as well. Currently the calgary bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics isn't a solid deal either.

Really?

Toronto 2024 was due to a lack of time to organize a bid so soon after 2015 and Alberta is recovering from a recession due to oil. It's called having priorities. Healthcare & Education or Commonwealth games that not a lot of people care about?

3 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

There is also very vocal opposition from Canadian citizens about government spending on these events. They sure as hell would not have supported building new and renovating old stadiums with seating capacities that won't be needed after the games.

Quebec City certainly didn't get the memo with their Videotron Centre arena paid 100% by public funds (which was dumb). Edmonton just built one of the most gorgeous NHL rink in the league

Halifax, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver are working on getting new stadiums. (MLS-CFL-CPL & MLB)

Hamilton, Regina and Winnipeg just got new stadiums (CFL)

Toronto and Ottawa renovated their stadiums (MLS and CFL)

So, doesn't seem you know what's going on here.

3 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Also there's still no guarantee will get every vote from North and South America. We sure as hell won't get Russian and middle eastern support, nor China's either.

CONCACAF bid ensured no one will oppose it. Morocco was willing to bid against individual bids from CONCACAF but they are unlikely to do so against the whole confederation. They were counting on multiple CONCACAF bids to split the votes and win by securing Africa, the Middle East and Asia which represent half of FIFA votes.

 

[Ansem]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

As for the CPL, how about we wait until that actually exists before we talk about what they're going to rival.  Maybe they'll get there in time, but I'll believe it when I see if.  FIFA has a lot to gain investing in the game in Canada.

The league is set to start right after Russia 2018 in a shorter season. The first full season will be 2019. They want 16 teams within 10 years across with the ultimate goal of getting back the 3 Canadian MLS clubs (Montreal Impact, Toronto FC and Vancouver Whitecaps) and their markets by having the CSA de-sanctioning MLS from Canada. It will be the 3rd highest paying league in CONCACAF after MLS and Liga MX.

All of this was done and made possible by Victor Montagliani, current CONCACAF president who took over the CSA in 2012 and resuscitate the National program.

[Mack_king]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

But the biggest reason the US might be getting the 2026 World Cup is the US.  And the only reason that Mexico and Canada are in the position they are right now is because of the US.  

This is what happened in a nutshell:

Sepp Blatter era:

• Sepp Blatter was no fan of returning so soon to the same host, hence willing to bankrupt nations just to bring the tournament to new locations
• The Mexicans could host but already had it 2 times, so they never stood a chance.
• The Canadians had planned for a 32 team World Cup. They had Sepp Blatter in their pockets who was dead set on seeing Canada hosting the World Cup. He went as far as telling publicly what Canada needed to do to host, hence the launch of their top league.
• The US was set NOT to bid in 2026 due to what had happened with Qatar. Blatter wanting new locations meant a US bid was always at a disadvantage due to 1994WC
• Gulati and Blatter didn't like each other and World Cups were awarded by secret ballots and only by the executive branch of FIFA...aka...Sepp Blatter

Then the US department of Justice stepped in and cleaned house (Thank God). Then this happened:

Infantino era:

• Blatter out
• Infantino in,  thanks to Gulati who was a major supporter of his candidacy
• Infantino expanded the World Cup to 48 teams (bad idea), Blatter was against it
• World Cup voting is now "1 vote per member" and there are 209 of them with African and Asia holding 100
• The Mexicans and Canadians didn't plan for an expanded World Cup which complicated their bids
• Infantino supporting "co-bids", something Blatter was against
• USSF now had all the ingredients to bid, at that point, it was a done deal
• Negotiations to get Canada and Mexico to get the votes they would not get on their own and block Africa

So this is a summary of what happened. Infantino facilitated a USSF bid which gave it the leverage to include Mexico and Canada as minor partners. So the turning point was  the expanding the tournament to a 48 nation World Cup. If it was still a 32 nation World Cup, Mexico, Morocco and Canada would have bid against the US.

So to your question:

• biggest reason the US might be getting the 2026 World Cup is the US: It's expanding the tournament to 48 countries and Sepp Blatter being out of the picture
• the only reason that Mexico and Canada are in the position they are right now is because of the US: After expanding the tournament, Absolutely

[Mack_king]

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Explain to me why it's logical that 2030 goes to Uruguay/Argentina (interesting that you led with Uruguay on that one, likely indicating this is about the centennial) 

The Centennial for sure and I'd be surprised if they were challenged

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You don't think England will go after the 2030 tournament?

It would have been longer for CONMEBOL (Brazil 2014) than UEFA (Russia 2018)

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

There were rumblings they were looking into 2026, although that's certainly out the window now with this 3 nation bid.

Europe and Asia was ruled out, otherwise, we would have won...even against the USA. We can host on our own and England being much smaller makes logistics much easier.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

 And it's not like Argentina (who clearly needs to be the leader on the bid) can claim to have gone longer without hosting the WC in a competition with England.

Who says no to Messi?

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

put it in 1 of the biggest football hotbeds on the planet in England.

FIFA takes us for granted. I wouldn't be surprised they give it to China in 2034 before thinking about England...2038?

[baron-pierreIV]

2 minutes ago, Mack_king said:

FIFA takes us for granted. I wouldn't be surprised they give it to China in 2034 before thinking about England...2038?

Well, if Scotland goes its own way, then the England bid could indeed become a 4-nation bid.  And yeah, China for 2034 would break the series of multi-nation bids.  Then back to same old, same old for 2038.  Would the 5 Scandianvian nations present a bid?  The Iberian bloc is also chomping at the bit; as are BeNeLux (altho that would be the most hard-pressed).  

[Mack_king]

36 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The league is set to start right after Russia 2018 in a shorter season. The first full season will be 2019. They want 16 teams within 10 years across

It's about time. Not having your own league is what mainly hurt Canada all these years. If you model your league on what Sweden and Denmark are doing, you will be successful.

40 minutes ago, Ansem said:

the ultimate goal of getting back the 3 Canadian MLS clubs (Montreal Impact, Toronto FC and Vancouver Whitecaps) and their markets by having the CSA de-sanctioning MLS from Canada.

De-sanctioning is a bit extreme and it won't be cheap to compensate those clubs and MLS, but those 3 clubs would make a Canadian League a regional player, there's no doubt about it. Canada and Mexico takes the champions League very seriously. Should be interesting.

[Mack_king]

1 minute ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Well, if Scotland goes its own way, then the England bid could indeed become a 4-nation bid.  And yeah, China for 2034 would break the series of multi-nation bids.  Then back to same old, same old for 2038.  Would the 5 Scandianvian nations present a bid?  The Iberian bloc is also chomping at the bit; as are BeNeLux (altho that would be the most hard-pressed).

I must say that North American solidarity is admirable. There's no way we would share with Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales lol! As for Scandinavia, an England bid would scare them with all the stadiums we already possess

[intoronto]

4 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

I'm wondering if just doing a joint bid with Mexico would have been enough, since they would have been a more serious bidder for the 2026 world cup. Given Canada's history on bailing out of bidding for big events, like Toronto for the 2024 Olympic games and Edmonton for the 2022 Commonwealth games, surely they would have decided against hosting the World Cup as well. Currently the calgary bid for the 2022 Winter Olympics isn't a solid deal either.

 

There is also very vocal opposition from Canadian citizens about government spending on these events. They sure as hell would not have supported building new and renovating old stadiums with seating capacities that won't be needed after the games. But we will never know. Also there's still no guarantee will get every vote from North and South America. We sure as hell won't get Russian and middle eastern support, nor China's either.

 

Only Edmonton has agreed to bid then withdraw after the fact...

I am sure if they have studied this for "years" that they have government support. 

Hosting a multi-sporting event costs more. For the WC a city only needs a stadium.

 

[Quaker2001]

13 minutes ago, Mack_king said:

The Centennial for sure and I'd be surprised if they were challenged

It would have been longer for CONMEBOL (Brazil 2014) than UEFA (Russia 2018)

Wow, 4 whole years.  Between a confederation that represents a grand total of 10 members and has 2 or maybe 3 viable hosts, versus a confederation that represents 55 members.  And you don't think anyone will challenge?  I'm obviously not in a position to speak expertly about England, but you think they'll pass on 2030?  Tell me, does this all mean nothing?..

Bid for 2030 World Cup, England are told

England's hopes of hosting 2030 World Cup given boost

21 minutes ago, Mack_king said:

Europe and Asia was ruled out, otherwise, we would have won...even against the USA. We can host on our own and England being much smaller makes logistics much easier.

Woulda.. Coulda.. Shoulda..  England was not eligible to bid unless there were no other viable bids to consider.  End of story.  Again though, and feel free to correct me here, but if England was interested in a 2026 World Cup they weren't allowed to bid for, what's stopping them from bidding for 2030?

23 minutes ago, Mack_king said:

Who says no to Messi?

That's easy... officials.

Lionel Messi shockingly suspended four games by FIFA for rant against referee

24 minutes ago, Mack_king said:

FIFA takes us for granted. I wouldn't be surprised they give it to China in 2034 before thinking about England...2038?

If it's China versus England, I could see them picking China because of the size and potential of that market.  But Argentina versus England?  Call me naive if you want, but that one goes to England.  You really think that FIFA would go a whole 20 years without a World Cup in Europe?

[intoronto]

8 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I think what will intrigue me from now on, is how they will pick the 12 cities in the US, and how they will sort of assign the slots where the seeded teams would go.  

Like I said, France might start out in Montreal, or even Vancouver; Canada of course in Toronto.    

Brazil would probably go to LA;   

Germany I think would be NYC or Chicago.

Italy would be NYC or Boston.

Argentina and Spain would be be split between Florida and Mexico.

IF it were up to me, I would start the USA in Levi Stadium; 

I don't know where to put England and the Netherlands. 

I'd put Portugal in Canada.

And the Big Drawing, Id guess, would be in Las Vegas.  

 

 

Canada would likely start in Vancouver. Toronto's stadium is going to be one of the smallest (if not, the smallest) so it won't be used I think for a Canada game.

Though the Toronto Star did raise a possibility of a new stadium.

[Mack_king]

 

48 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Wow, 4 whole years.  Between a confederation that represents a grand total of 10 members and has 2 or maybe 3 viable hosts, versus a confederation that represents 55 members.  And you don't think anyone will challenge?  I'm obviously not in a position to speak expertly about England, but you think they'll pass on 2030?  Tell me, does this all mean nothing?..

Bid for 2030 World Cup, England are told

England's hopes of hosting 2030 World Cup given boost

Woulda.. Coulda.. Shoulda..  England was not eligible to bid unless there were no other viable bids to consider.  End of story.  Again though, and feel free to correct me here, but if England was interested in a 2026 World Cup they weren't allowed to bid for, what's stopping them from bidding for 2030?

That's easy... officials.

Lionel Messi shockingly suspended four games by FIFA for rant against referee

If it's China versus England, I could see them picking China because of the size and potential of that market.  But Argentina versus England?  Call me naive if you want, but that one goes to England.  You really think that FIFA would go a whole 20 years without a World Cup in Europe?

We're easily the favorite against Argentina-Uruguay but I'm being cautions on the fact that we don't know FIFA's intentions regarding the celebrations of the Centinnial

[Quaker2001]

24 minutes ago, Mack_king said:

 

We're easily the favorite against Argentina-Uruguay but I'm being cautions on the fact that we don't know FIFA's intentions regarding the celebrations of the Centinnial

If you think England is "easily" the favorite, then why are we having this discussion?  England bidding for 2030 is certainly no guarantee that they'd win, but we do know that not bidding guarantees they won't win.  Have to be in it to win it.

[baron-pierreIV]

And I think this "48 teams" business, is good only after China hosts.  After that, like the Olympics, that huge mass is clearly untenable.  Even England will be hard-pressed to put on that size-tournament by itself,post-Brexit.  England, by itself, could probably handle a 40-team tournament without breaking its back.  As I have said, Argentina and Chile cannot handle that alone.  They will have to rope in Chile, and probably do a 50/15/15 spread but with only 2 sites in Uruguay (and probably the opener there); and perhaps 3 in Chile; and what? 6 or 8 in Argentina.  And the finals, of course, in BA.  

China, of course, can throw 25 cities into this thing.  What are all those ghost-cities waiting for?  A World Cup!! 

[Ansem]

3 hours ago, Mack_king said:

It's about time. Not having your own league is what mainly hurt Canada all these years. If you model your league on what Sweden and Denmark are doing, you will be successful.

Replicating Scandinavian nations seems to be the intent at first. We had to understand that as replicating what MLS has done is not viable for Canada

3 hours ago, Mack_king said:

De-sanctioning is a bit extreme and it won't be cheap to compensate those clubs and MLS, but those 3 clubs would make a Canadian League a regional player, there's no doubt about it. Canada and Mexico takes the champions League very seriously. Should be interesting.

It's extreme but we have no choice. The CSA & USSF association has been a failure of epic proportion for Canada. It's nowhere near the relationship England has with Wales. Right now, MLS is a huge obstacle to CPL reaching its potential as they are initially competing against MLS in the 3 biggest markets. However, Victor Montagliani already threatened MLS last year to strip them of the CSA sanction which would ban the league from Canada. We think it's a matter of time once we hit 16 teams.

[yoshi]

Whether Scotland does or doesn't go independent doesn't matter...they're independent in FIFA already. It may be rose-coloured glasses, but I rather suspect that FIFA had one eye on the UK when allowing mega-multi-nation, asymmetric co-hosting. If 18 is the magic number, then England, Wales, Scotland & NI (possibly the Republic too) could handle that. And even with the centennial link to Uruguay, would FIFA go with two WCs in a row in the American timezones?

[baron-pierreIV]

20 hours ago, yoshi said:

 And even with the centennial link to Uruguay, would FIFA go with two WCs in a row in the American timezones?

Well, it looks like it's headed that way anyway, since the 2 American candidate groups have already signified their intentions and FIFA so far has not shot them down.  If NE Asia will have 3 consecutive Olympic Games, and the world can survive  Qatar 2022, it will survive two consecutive American WC time zones.  

And it looks like the 2026 bid wants FIFA to lock in the bid by next month's FIFA  meeting in Bahrain.  For which the South AMerican group, if they can get their marbles together for 2030, might follow up with a similar request shortly.

Edited April 12, 2017 by baron-pierreIV

[dave199]

10 hours ago, intoronto said:

Canada would likely start in Vancouver. Toronto's stadium is going to be one of the smallest (if not, the smallest) so it won't be used I think for a Canada game.

Though the Toronto Star did raise a possibility of a new stadium.

This does give us a reason to build a new stadium that can be used as the centre piece for a 2028 Olympics as the article stated. I imagine those groups who previously tried to secure an NFL team a couple years ago would go at it again if stadium plans begin. It's all speculation now.

[Quaker2001]

3 hours ago, dave199 said:

This does give us a reason to build a new stadium that can be used as the centre piece for a 2028 Olympics as the article stated. I imagine those groups who previously tried to secure an NFL team a couple years ago would go at it again if stadium plans begin. It's all speculation now.

That is, assuming the 2028 Olympics haven't already been awarded to Los Angeles or Paris.

The decision for the 2026 World Cup will take place in 2020.  If Toronto is to bid for the 2028 Olympics, that effort would need to begin in 2019.  Not sure how they'd want to work that to propose a stadium that Toronto probably would not need without an Olympic bid.  They can probably change around cities after the fact, but tread carefully with that one.