baron-pierreIV Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 One of the reasons the USA was awarded 1994 is because they didn't have a league, and the World Cup would be a springboard into creating one. I KNOW that. And doncha think Fee-FI-FUm would be appreciative and even self-honoring with a return to the US..."Look what our first award in 1994 did. And we return here in 2026 to acknowledge and HONOR the success of that earlier vision"? Wouldn't that be the right thing to do? How does Canada figure into that equation (other than 3 of the 20 clubs are located north of the border), while 17 are below? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofan Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 Yes, and look what it did for the profile of the sport here in the country, not to mention the popularity of the World Cup. But are they going to see similar effects by awarding a World Cup to Canada? Particular where, as noted, their 3 most prominent cities already have franchises in the US-based league. Not sure what FIFA would gain from having a World Cup in Canada. The Women's World Cup makes a ton of sense there. It's a smaller event, but the women's team has had success in the sport. And on the men's side, that's not to say that Canada needs to have more success before they should be considered as host. Much as we talk about with the Summer Olympics, the problem is that they're next door to the United States, so if the 2 are in the running together, to me that's a no-brainer whom FIFA would prefer. I don't think its really as big of a "no-brainer" as you think. FIFA is very hard to read and predict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 The major money would be there regardless of if the tournament is in the USA or Canada. That is just a given since the money comes through sponsorship. But the potential for 4 million plus ticket sales in the USA compared to the high 2 millions for Canada is significant. If the bidding was Canada vs. Morocco vs. Argentina there is a strong case to be made for Canada. But if the Americans bid, it would be hard to rationally justify going to Canada over the United States. But FIFA justified going to Qatar over Japan, Korea, Australia and the USA. So.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quaker2001 Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 I don't think its really as big of a "no-brainer" as you think. FIFA is very hard to read and predict. What Faster said. Obviously there are ulterior motives that will always be involved and who knows how those will turn out, but all things being equal (and they never are), there's not much out there that gives Canada the edge over the United States Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistercorporate Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 But between a nation of 30 mil and another one of 310 mil, what political and economic points would anyone make by going with the smaller nation whose soccer teams don't even have a League of their own but are hangers-on to MLS? And don't even say Qatar, because that was a political move and mistake more than anything else. The idea of staging a men's WC in Canada is romantic more than anything else. What a nonsensical and trolly post. Your lack of knowledge about the MLS is quite telling. The 3 Canadian MLS franchises are some of the most important and well supported in MLS. Toronto FC single-handedly changed fan culture in MLS (admitted matter of factly by none other than President of MLS himself, who made many visits to Toronto to study how they inspire such spirited fans) in the dark days when football,s future in North America was in doubt and MLS teams were struggling. The Vancouver Whitecaps have one of the best stadiums in MLS, Montreal Impact is right now playing in the Semi-finals of the CONCACAF Cup and Toronto FC has made some of the most high profile international signings in MLS history, recently acquiring 27 year old Juventus and Italia player Sebastian Giovinco. There are many people who appreciate variety in World Cup hosts, that includes those who would appreciate a Canadian World Cup bid, regardless of your own subjective taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 What a nonsensical and trolly post. Your lack of knowledge about the MLS is quite telling. The 3 Canadian MLS franchises are some of the most important and well supported in MLS. Toronto FC single-handedly changed fan culture in MLS (admitted matter of factly by none other than President of MLS himself, who made many visits to Toronto to study how they inspire such spirited fans) in the dark days when football,s future in North America was in doubt and MLS teams were struggling. The Vancouver Whitecaps have one of the best stadiums in MLS, Montreal Impact is right now playing in the Semi-finals of the CONCACAF Cup and Toronto FC has made some of the most high profile international signings in MLS history, recently acquiring 27 year old Juventus and Italia player Sebastian Giovinco. There are many people who appreciate variety in World Cup hosts, that includes those who would appreciate a Canadian World Cup bid, regardless of your own subjective taste. What a truly poppycock and nonsensical post. Aggrandizing 3 franchises vs. 17 other teams and which could actually increase by 4 more US teams in the lower 48 states by 2020. Your sense of scale is truly outlandish and -able. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intoronto Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 What a truly poppycock and nonsensical post. Aggrandizing 3 franchises vs. 17 other teams and which could actually increase by 4 more US teams in the lower 48 states by 2020. Your sense of scale is truly outlandish and -able. Not bad to have 15% of the teams, with just tenth of the population. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Not bad to have 15% of the teams, with just tenth of the population. Never said it was. Those figures represent the true proportion of the activity in both populations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherRob Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 England could consider a bid to host the 2026 World Cup, says Football Association chairman Greg Dyke. Dyke says any bid is dependent on whether Sepp Blatter remains in charge of governing body Fifa during the process - and on other factors. He said the appointment of Englishman David Gill on to the Fifa executive committee could prove influential. "If David can assure us there's a proper system and it's fair then we could be persuaded," he said. "But at the moment the policy is straightforward - we don't bid while Mr Blatter's there." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32040304 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 England could consider a bid to host the 2026 World Cup, says Football Association chairman Greg Dyke. Dyke says any bid is dependent on whether Sepp Blatter remains in charge of governing body Fifa during the process - and on other factors. He said the appointment of Englishman David Gill on to the Fifa executive committee could prove influential. "If David can assure us there's a proper system and it's fair then we could be persuaded," he said. "But at the moment the policy is straightforward - we don't bid while Mr Blatter's there." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32040304 Dyke. *snickers* As popular as soccer/football is in England, they alone cannot host the event. They'll definitely be looking to stadiums in Scotland to host some of the games. But if FIFA doesn't bend the rules, then technically they wouldn't be able to qualify to host the games until 2030. Russia and England are considered part of Europe, and there is that rule that would also prevent a China bid for the WC from hosting until 2034. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheOtherRob Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Dyke. *snickers* As popular as soccer/football is in England, they alone cannot host the event. They'll definitely be looking to stadiums in Scotland to host some of the games. Of course England can host the event alone! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotguy Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 England are more than capable of hosting the WC alone, but like recent tournaments, may use the Millenium Stadium in Cardiff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Where's TELA when u need him? Tony? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacre Posted March 24, 2015 Report Share Posted March 24, 2015 Of course England can host the event alone! To be fair it would be pretty hard to justify hosting without Wales and Scotland if the UK is going to provide any funding. Why are the Welsh and Scottish FA's so determined to maintain independence? It's not as if estrangement from England has led to the Welsh Premier League to flourish anyway. Aren't Swansea and Cardiff City FC -both in the English system- the two biggest clubs in Wales? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LatinXTC Posted March 25, 2015 Report Share Posted March 25, 2015 Where's TELA when u need him? Tony? Ugh, damn you for saying that 2nd name! Now he'll definitely respond! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DamC Posted March 26, 2015 Report Share Posted March 26, 2015 True that if there is government funding from the whole UK, it will be hard to justify only having stadiums in England. But as FIFA considers the UK as four different nations, will they allow some stadiums in another country (Scotland and/or Wales)? This has never happened in a FIFA tournament, has it? But at the same time, the UK is a single country, and travelling from Glasgow to Manchester would be as easy as going from London to Manchester, they could accept it. But then, Scotland and Wales could claim the right to being treated like a host nation and qualify automatically... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromit Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Dyke. *snickers* As popular as soccer/football is in England, they alone cannot host the event. They'll definitely be looking to stadiums in Scotland to host some of the games. But if FIFA doesn't bend the rules, then technically they wouldn't be able to qualify to host the games until 2030. Russia and England are considered part of Europe, and there is that rule that would also prevent a China bid for the WC from hosting until 2034. England cannot hold alone? What a load of total rubbish Here are the stadia that meet the criteria for the World Cup in England alone Wembley 90,000 seats Old Trafford 75,000 seats (possible expansion to 91,000 seats) Etihad Stadium 62,700 seats Emirates 60,432 seats new Spurs stadium 56,000 seats Olympic stadium 54,000 seats St James Park 52,500 seats Stadium of Light 49,000 seats Villa Park 42,785 seats Stamford Bridge 41,623 seats Goodison Park 40,569 seats 11 stadium Existing stadium ALREADY planned to be expanded Elland Road 37,900 seats to 40,000 seats+ Hillsborough 39,812 seats to 45,000 seats+ St Marys' 32,689 seats to 50,000 seats Stadiums already built with easy temporary or permanent expansion beyond 40,000 seats King Power Stadium Pride Park Stadium MK That's 17 stadiums that would meet FIFA's requirements and be in place and in use before 2026 was even awarded in 2017 Even if FIFA reintroduced the rule about only one city having more than one stadium, that is still 12 stadiums to host the games, all in excess of the minimum 40,000 seat requirement Oh, and because 2026 will be first games awarded under the NEW system, the previous policy of continental rotation is officially null and void True that if there is government funding from the whole UK, it will be hard to justify only having stadiums in England. But as FIFA considers the UK as four different nations, will they allow some stadiums in another country (Scotland and/or Wales)? This has never happened in a FIFA tournament, has it? But at the same time, the UK is a single country, and travelling from Glasgow to Manchester would be as easy as going from London to Manchester, they could accept it. But then, Scotland and Wales could claim the right to being treated like a host nation and qualify automatically... Stadiums in the UK are unlike in Europe, exclusively privately funded and are under total club ownership There might be some infrastructure investment which a UK government would say was needed anyway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 UK stadia are too tight. Not enough auxiliary room for tail-gate parties and sponsors' tents. That's why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zekekelso Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Ugh, damn you for saying that 2nd name! Now he'll definitely respond! Only if you say it three times in front of a mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reindeer Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Even if FIFA reintroduced the rule about only one city having more than one stadium, that is still 12 stadiums to host the games, all in excess of the minimum 40,000 seat requirement When has this rule been officially changed? Ok, you could say Qatar but I guess that is an exceptional case in every way. And I think too that with many English stadiums the biggest issue is the tight spaces around them because of their ancient inner-city locations which are nice in their own way but easily create logistical nightmares. Capacities shouldn't pose any problems though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromit Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 UK stadia are too tight. Not enough auxiliary room for tail-gate parties and sponsors' tents. That's why. Football fans don't do stupid things like have tail gate parties. That's why. And as the stadia are no tighter than Germany 2006, there is no reason why sponsor's events can't be held throughout the city, as real football fans would realise. That's why Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Football fans don't do stupid things like have tail gate parties. That's why. And as the stadia are no tighter than Germany 2006, there is no reason why sponsor's events can't be held throughout the city, as real football fans would realise. That's why Well, why did the UK have 0 votes at the 2010 awarding? THe main criticism was that there wasn't enough "party" or sponsor space around the stadia. If you don't believe, then go and cry to FIFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoshi Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 No, the main reason for that was that we have a free press - & one that challenged & exposed FIFA at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gromit Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 Well, why did the UK have 0 votes at the 2010 awarding? THe main criticism was that there wasn't enough "party" or sponsor space around the stadia. If you don't believe, then go and cry to FIFA. Really? 1. Russia ... were overly generous with getting votes as Michael Garcia's report stated. You are so naïve as to think it had anything to do with party space ... you think FIFA care for the genuine fan? 2. England actually received 2 votes - PLEASE GET YOUR INFORMATION CORRECT.... and if you weren't aware the new voting structure is not 24 people deciding but all 209 FIFA affiliated nations voting, making such 'generosity' impossible ... plus allowing the anti-USA block to have a stronger voice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted March 27, 2015 Report Share Posted March 27, 2015 and if you weren't aware the new voting structure is not 24 people deciding but all 209 FIFA affiliated nations voting, making such 'generosity' impossible ... plus allowing the anti-USA block to have a stronger voice Two votes still = 0. I know of the changes. What makes you think you're the only one aware of it? Besides, Europe and Asia are out for 2026 anyway. And I don't see why they should change the continental rotation rules again, anyway. CONCACAF - 2026; South American for 2030 -- in commemoration of 100 years of the WC -- so as has been proposed, Argentina and Uruguay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.