FIFA WC USA-Mexico-Canada 2026

[BTHarner]

Brazil had an advantage in that they played their semi in the Rose Bowl and didn't have to travel. Italy played their semifinal at Giants Stadium on the same day three time zones away and had to travel across the country for the Final. It made for a brutal final.

Other than that I would say World Cup USA94 was the greatest month in our nation's sporting history. I can't believe the 20th anniversary is coming up next summer because it just seems like it happened recently.

[reindeer]

Agreed about the tournament. The final was thrilling, despite the lack of goals.

No, unfortunately it was not. Of course it was exciting for the fans of Brazil and Italy but certainly not for neutral spectators. Like I said, in that tournament I supported Brazil but still found the final disappointing. Besides, maybe you were not referring to me but I'm not American and have seen exciting matches ending scoreless but the '94 final was not among them. Yes, there were a few scoring opportunities but other than that it was like a sleepwalking contest in the middle of the pitch, much like that parody of a football match in the Simpsons. Like BTHarner said, much of the blame goes to the huge distances that the teams had to travel during a month plus the fact that matches were played in preposterous conditions in midday heat. In the end the teams must have been exhausted.

[MrCatra]

94 was the most boring wc ever, maybe close to 90.

Not because of the host or anything like that, but because of the heat. The overwhelming high temperatures created very boring games.

and for sure the most boring final ever. Exhausted Italians with their catennacio, and Parreira's Brazil trying to win at any cost. Incredibly boring. Great nonetheless, because we won. I celebrated a lot, I was a kid, tho.

[reindeer]

I strongly disagree on that. Sure there were a few matches that were dull and by the time the final was played it's possible that heat had some effect but overall the matches were entertaining and many goals were scored. I don't judge football purely by the number of goals scored but it is an indication of something. I don't recall anyone else ever claiming that WC '94 was boring and for me each one of the tournaments in this century were more tedious.

Also it wasn't the first time that the competition was held in North America with matches kicking off at noon. Mexico staged two WC tournaments that are usually considered vintage and in case of the first one in 1970 even the greatest ever, despite the heat AND high altitude which were a great cause of concern back then, some irony, heh?

I would also suggest that you get to know what catenaccio really means. Italy's coach in 1994, Arrigo Sacchi, was the biggest innovator and modernizer of calcio in the late '80's.

[baron-pierreIV]

94 was the most boring wc ever, maybe close to 90.

Not because of the host or anything like that, but because of the heat. The overwhelming high temperatures created very boring games.

and for sure the most boring final ever. Exhausted Italians with their catennacio, and Parreira's Brazil trying to win at any cost. Incredibly boring. Great nonetheless, because we won. I celebrated a lot, I was a kid, tho.

The daytime matches were scheduled thus to accommodate the primetime viewers in Europe. If the organizers had they way, they were going to schedule them at night, but FIFA and the EUro networks said no.

[ofan]

It's soccer, every WC is boring....

[Quaker2001]

It's soccer, every WC is boring....

Good attitude for a resident of the country hosting the next Women's World Cup

[ofan]

Good attitude for a resident of the country hosting the next Women's World Cup

Well I'll admit when Canada played the US in the Olympics in that bs game that Canada should've won, it was one of the greatest games I've ever watched in any sport. So I guess soccer isn't so bad when Canada's playing, especially in women's where we are actually good

[yoshi]

Are Canada going to use 2015 to try & launch a World Cup bid for the men's competition?

[intoronto]

Are Canada going to use 2015 to try & launch a World Cup bid for the men's competition?

Maybe it will be the only Fifa event besides the womens u17 tournament they haven't hosted. However any bid is a long shot

[Faster]

I would say Canada is more likely to land a World Cup than a Summer Olympics.

[gotosy]

USA seeks assurances on 2026 World Cup bid process

AFP - The president of the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) said on Wednesday that his organisation will only bid to host the 2026 World Cup if FIFA tightens up its bidding process.

The United States submitted a bid to host the 2022 tournament, only to lose out to Qatar.

That was despite doubts about the Gulf state's capacity to host the event being expressed in a technical report submitted to FIFA's executive committee before the hosting rights were allocated.

USSF president Sunil Gulati, who was the head of the US bid for the 2022 tournament, called on world governing body FIFA to make the process of attributing hosting rights more robust.

"Would we be interested in bidding for 2026? The procedures would need to be very different to what they are now," he told the Leaders in Football conference in London.

"If the critical issue is taking it to new lands, then tell us in advance, because we won't bother.

"The rules need to be clearer and tighter. And the process needs to be better. If you are stepping onto a field of play, you know what the rules are.

"We'd want more clarity on the bidding and the whole process. For instance, is there going to be a system of rotation, or not? This needs to be established well enough in advance so people know.

"Also, my personal view is that it should also be a public vote. And the technical report should matter in some concrete way, otherwise it's an unnecessary expenditure of funds and time."

...

AFP

http://www.france24.com/en/20131009-usa-seeks-assurances-2026-world-cup-bid-process?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_source=RSS_public&ns_mchannel=RSS&ns_fee=0&ns_linkname=20131009_usa_seeks_assurances_2026_world_cup

[Athensfan]

USA seeks assurances on 2026 World Cup bid process

AFP - The president of the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) said on Wednesday that his organisation will only bid to host the 2026 World Cup if FIFA tightens up its bidding process.

The United States submitted a bid to host the 2022 tournament, only to lose out to Qatar.

That was despite doubts about the Gulf state's capacity to host the event being expressed in a technical report submitted to FIFA's executive committee before the hosting rights were allocated.

USSF president Sunil Gulati, who was the head of the US bid for the 2022 tournament, called on world governing body FIFA to make the process of attributing hosting rights more robust.

"Would we be interested in bidding for 2026? The procedures would need to be very different to what they are now," he told the Leaders in Football conference in London.

"If the critical issue is taking it to new lands, then tell us in advance, because we won't bother.

"The rules need to be clearer and tighter. And the process needs to be better. If you are stepping onto a field of play, you know what the rules are.

"We'd want more clarity on the bidding and the whole process. For instance, is there going to be a system of rotation, or not? This needs to be established well enough in advance so people know.

"Also, my personal view is that it should also be a public vote. And the technical report should matter in some concrete way, otherwise it's an unnecessary expenditure of funds and time."

...

AFP

http://www.france24.com/en/20131009-usa-seeks-assurances-2026-world-cup-bid-process?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_source=RSS_public&ns_mchannel=RSS&ns_fee=0&ns_linkname=20131009_usa_seeks_assurances_2026_world_cup

EXCELLENT. Call a spade a spade.

I am SO pleased to read this. Every national federation needs to take a similar approach.

These points are totally reasonable. He is not being obnoxious or insulting, he's just being very clear.

Your turn FIFA.

[intoronto]

I totally agree on this one.

[Gangwon]

It's not so much about going to new lands or rotation than it is about the farce that was Qatar. Would the USA be saying this if Australia had won? That's a new land and that's still rotation.

Let's focus on the real issue here. FIFA has to follow through with their criteria but it's not about new lands. Weren't you supposed to have 10 cities that could host games? Weren't you supposed to play in summer? Qatar didn't have 10 cities. Qatar promised a summer games. Ok, so Qatar made up 10 boroughs and called them cities by spreading them out on a map on a scale of 1 km:1 cm. But how do they get around the summer games? That cooling technology? Put up or shut up. FIFA should give Qatar until 2019 to have that cooling technology ready. If not, Qatar didn't deliver what was promised.

[FYI]

It's not so much about going to new lands or rotation than it is about the farce that was Qatar. Would the USA be saying this if Australia had won? That's a new land and that's still rotation.

Let's focus on the real issue here.

I agree. It's a competition afterall, & if one isn't going to like the end result bcuz it's go your way, then Gulati is right, don't bother. If Australia had won instead, this whole debacle that is the World Cup 2022 wouldn't be an issue whatsoever.

*bcuz it didn't go your way.

[Athensfan]

The bid process is long and expensive. It's totally reasonable for bidders to ask what the rules are and whether they have a realistic chance of winning before bidding.

Irrespective of the 2022 result, it's fair to say that if FIFA is set on "new lands" they should say so and save the "non-new lands" the trouble of bidding.

[FYI]

Some say that about the IOC, too. But I don't see blatantly coming out with such a process as a solution. Thing is, doesn't FIFA have kind of a rule now that the same continent can't host twice in a row for the World Cup. And as far as soccer is concerned, the U.S. is still a "new land" for the sport. I think it's debatable, at the very least, that a World Cup in the U.S. would take the sport to a whole new, much bigger level. And a 2022 U.S. World Cup would've been a game changer for the sport here in this country. The U.S. just didn't offer enough cold, hard cash for FIFA's 2022 vote.

[baron-pierreIV]

The FIFA rule now is that a hosting continent or confederation has to sit out two rounds before being able to bid or host again. So 2026 would still rule out Europe and Asia -- leaving only CONCACAF, Africa, Oceania and So America to bid. So China's out for 2026 for sure--if the rules don't change again.

[Rob2012]

He's right to say the technical report should matter. Qatar is a farce of a host and FIFA can't even decide when they're going to hold the bloody thing. As Gangwon says, so many technical rules were broken or bent to give Qatar the nod that it's understandable rival bids are unhappy.

He's right to say the process needs to be clearer, cleaner and the rules tighter. I think nearly half the voting body from the 2018/22 process has now left under clouds of suspicion, been suspended or else remain with suspicion hanging over them. Why would a nation entrust their bid with such people?

He's wrong to say FIFA should put themselves in a position where they're rejecting bids at a very early stage because they might want a new frontier instead. Why would FIFA or the IOC put themselves in a position where they could end up with a field of very weak technical bids? Bidding against new lands is a risk all repeat hosts take when they bid again. And with South Africa and Brazil and before that Japan/Korea preceding 2018/22, it's not as though the US was unaware of the emotional appeal of new bids to FIFA. As others have said, if Australia won I don't think there'd be the same fuss.

All any bid can expect is to be judged on its merits in a fair process. That's asking a lot of the current FIFA voting body however, so I can see why the US and other countries are being massively cautious about bidding again.

[baron-pierreIV]

It still boggles my mind how 14 voters could see holding their 64-game, nearly 5-week long event in basically a one-city, oven state. It seems to me that on that day, the Exec Board simply decided: OK, we're doing the BIGGEST, coldest nation on earth the next time; let's do cozy and warm next...and try the pocket-sized state!

I bet if they had held the vote in an outdoor souk in Doha in July, the outcome would've been VASTLY different.

Edited October 10, 2013 by baron-pierreIV

[FYI]

If FIFA had a short-list process, we wouldn't be have these discussion TBW.

They need a better technical assessment evaluation.

[Athensfan]

Some say that about the IOC, too. But I don't see blatantly coming out with such a process as a solution. Thing is, doesn't FIFA have kind of a rule now that the same continent can't host twice in a row for the World Cup. And as far as soccer is concerned, the U.S. is still a "new land" for the sport. I think it's debatable, at the very least, that a World Cup in the U.S. would take the sport to a whole new, much bigger level. And a 2022 U.S. World Cup would've been a game changer for the sport here in this country. The U.S. just didn't offer enough cold, hard cash for FIFA's 2022 vote.

I don't accept that analysis. For starters, the IOC should revise their own bidding process. Next FIFA changes their own rules whenever it suits them. An American World Cup would've caused the sport to mushroom in this country. The market is ripe for the picking. If FIFA can't see that financial upside, they're blind as bats. I'm sure Qatar did offer more "cold hard cash" as you say, but it would've been wrong for the US to follow suit. Is this about paying people off or hosting a great tournament? The World Cup is an honor for the host, but is it worth matching the Qataris dollar for dollar, particularly when in all other respects your bid is far superior? No way.

Victory at any price is not necessarily victory.

[Quaker2001]

It's not so much about going to new lands or rotation than it is about the farce that was Qatar. Would the USA be saying this if Australia had won? That's a new land and that's still rotation.

Let's focus on the real issue here. FIFA has to follow through with their criteria but it's not about new lands. Weren't you supposed to have 10 cities that could host games? Weren't you supposed to play in summer? Qatar didn't have 10 cities. Qatar promised a summer games. Ok, so Qatar made up 10 boroughs and called them cities by spreading them out on a map on a scale of 1 km:1 cm. But how do they get around the summer games? That cooling technology? Put up or shut up. FIFA should give Qatar until 2019 to have that cooling technology ready. If not, Qatar didn't deliver what was promised.

I think that's where this is getting lost in translation a little. Clearly this bid process could use some major reforms. I don't think the United States objects to new lands so much as they can call FIFA out for what everyone knows (and everyone knew save for 14 people, apparently) is a piss poor decision. When FIFA selected Russia over England, I know that wasn't a well-received decision either by many, but a case could be made for Russia and at least they followed the rules that FIFA has laid out for this process. Qatar did no such thing and now the best FIFA can do to save face is find a way to keep the tournament in Qatar by whatever means necessary, even though it's going to cause logistical headaches up and down the line for them to do so.

Some say that about the IOC, too. But I don't see blatantly coming out with such a process as a solution. Thing is, doesn't FIFA have kind of a rule now that the same continent can't host twice in a row for the World Cup. And as far as soccer is concerned, the U.S. is still a "new land" for the sport. I think it's debatable, at the very least, that a World Cup in the U.S. would take the sport to a whole new, much bigger level. And a 2022 U.S. World Cup would've been a game changer for the sport here in this country. The U.S. just didn't offer enough cold, hard cash for FIFA's 2022 vote.

There's nothing "new" about the United States. It's been less than 20 years since the last World Cup here. I couldn't agree more than a 2022 World Cup in the United States would have been such a boon for FIFA that I still find it hard to fathom how they passed up that opportunity. At least FIFA has now gotten to the point where they admit they made a mistake.

And yes, FIFA does have that rule regarding continental rotation. But they've been known to change the rules to suit their own needs before and I think that's what USSF is trying to protect against. They don't want to go into another competition where they play by the rules and another bidder breaks the rules, but FIFA looks the other way. I know there's a comparison there with the IOC where they have certain rules in place (i.e. the 800 meter drop for the downhill) that they would break if compelled to do so, but there's so many layers of an Olympic bid that everyone is going to have flaws and probably certain areas where they're not quite up to snuff. But at least in terms of FIFA, they should (whether they would is a different story) lay out the ground rules and say if you can't adhere to these standards, we won't allow you to bid.

I don't accept that analysis. For starters, the IOC should revise their own bidding process. Next FIFA changes their own rules whenever it suits them. An American World Cup would've caused the sport to mushroom in this country. The market is ripe for the picking. If FIFA can't see that financial upside, they're blind as bats. I'm sure Qatar did offer more "cold hard cash" as you say, but it would've been wrong for the US to follow suit. Is this about paying people off or hosting a great tournament? The World Cup is an honor for the host, but is it worth matching the Qataris dollar for dollar, particularly when in all other respects your bid is far superior? No way.

Victory at any price is not necessarily victory.

Exactly. That's the issue at hand. We as Americans can get pissy that FIFA passed us over for the 2022 World Cup, but whatever. I think we're over that and that's FIFA's lost opportunity moreso than ours. And if USSF is entering a competition that's unfair from the start, that's no acceptable. Again, I know we can draw parallels to the IOC on this one, but as corrupt as the IOC can be, at least we can trust them to a large extent to not make a decision that goes against their best interests. Obviously the United States doesn't hold the same special place in the eyes of FIFA as it does with the IOC, but if FIFA is going to let bribery take over this process to the extent it is, it's hard to argue with USSF calling them out as a precursor to bidding again for 2026.

[FYI]

I didn't say that the U.S. should've bribed too. But like Rob said, the issue I have is Gulati taking it outta context & throwing in about "new lands". If Australia had won, would he be coming out now is saying such a thing? I think not. Lets talk about why Qatar really won, cuz it wasn't really about them being a 'new land'.

Why should the IOC & FIFA limit themselves bcuz some don't wanna go against new frontiers now. I agree that FIFA needs to revise their process, but the IOC last month chose a traditional & repeat host over a "new land" that they felt uncomfortable with ATM. And 2022 looks very much like it could go the same way. When the 2016 race first started, no one really gave Rio the benefit of the doubt.

Competing is always a risk. And any potential bidders need to evaluate for themselves if the difficult & expensive endeavor is worth all the hard work. And apparently that's what the USOC is doing with analyzing a potential 2024 bid. It's no big secret that these organizations sometimes heavily favor new frontiers, so I don't see how blatantly spelling that out for them would make any difference, especially when one never really knows how the dynamics of any race will play out. Just look at 2020, for starters. I'm sure there's at least a couple of NOC's out there that are slapping themselves now that they didn't join the 2020 fray.