FIFA WC USA-Mexico-Canada 2026

[Nacre]

Football fans don't do stupid things like have tail gate parties. That's why.

"Bar-gating" is very common, in my experience. At least they do in Germany, Scotland and in Seattle. The difference is that most stadiums in Europe aren't surrounded by a sea of parking lots/car parks like the suburban stadiums in the USA.

UK stadia are too tight. Not enough auxiliary room for tail-gate parties and sponsors' tents. That's why.

I don't think that's really an issue. Consider that the American equivalent to European style stadiums -a downtown stadium- have generally hosted the best Super Bowls, All-Star Games, etc, while sprawling cities like Jacksonville are usually the worst for fans. There's enough room around Wembley for a few sponsor tents.

England lost out on the bidding for political reasons.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Nacre

[binary]

"Bar-gating" is very common, in my experience. At least they do in Germany, Scotland and in Seattle. The difference is that most stadiums in Europe aren't surrounded by a sea of parking lots/car parks like the suburban stadiums in the USA.

I don't think that's really an issue. Consider that the American equivalent to European style stadiums -a downtown stadium- have generally hosted the best Super Bowls, All-Star Games, etc, while sprawling cities like Jacksonville are usually the worst for fans. There's enough room around Wembley for a few sponsor tents.

And big events go to big cities that can handle the influx of people. Also i dont think any of the nba,nfl,mlb,nhl, etc care where the stadium/arena is, they care if you give them what THEY want, and a big part of that is event space, and that event space usually ends up as a bunch of tents on a parking lot surrounding the stadium. One example, supposed fan hellhole Jacksonville has hosted the superbowl before.

[Nacre]

And big events go to big cities that can handle the influx of people. Also i dont think any of the nba,nfl,mlb,nhl, etc care where the stadium/arena is, they care if you give them what THEY want, and a big part of that is event space, and that event space usually ends up as a bunch of tents on a parking lot surrounding the stadium. One example, supposed fan hellhole Jacksonville has hosted the superbowl before.

Well, I'm talking about the fans, media and corporate affiliates who are involved in sporting events.

The Indianapolis Super Bowl, despite being in a sub-optimal city (midwestern, cold weather, not a major city, etc) was one of the best Super Bowls precisely because fans, media, corporate people, etc could walk between the "NFL experience zone," parties, sponsor events, etc that Baron noted. Whereas in sprawling Jacksonville (a theoretically fun, warm weather city in Florida) there was no public transit and people couldn't get around to the parties and events.

The World Cup is very similar to the Super Bowl in the number of local vs traveling fans. For a regular season domestic football game in the USA, over 90% of fans will be locals. For the Super Bowl 75% of tickets are sold by the two teams to their fans, with a total of something like 85% of tickets going to non-locals. World Cups usually have about 65% of tickets sold to non-locals.

The fact that most English stadiums have decent mass transit options rather than a sea of parking spaces around them is a good thing for a major event like this, because few foreigners want to drive when they travel another country. Very, very, very few people from Germany would rent a car and go tailgating in Dallas. They are going to want to use mass transit to get to the stadium.

If the USA wins 2026, I really hope we choose cities with downtown stadiums for the World Cup rather than picking satellites of the biggest cities. Indianapolis, Seattle and Minneapolis would be better than Foxboro or Scottsdale.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Nacre

[Faster]

Foxboro has a fairly efficient transportation system for gamedays. Plus a direct rail link. Lets also not forgot that two of South Africa's stadiums were in the middle of nowhere adjacent to smallish cities.

I have been to football games in Denver and Boston and taken public transportation both times to the stadiums. Denver's stadium is downtown adjacent about 2 miles from LoDo. It was an absolute breeze to take public transportation to the stadium and I would estimate that at least a 1/3 of the crowd did take it. Boston was a little bit longer of a process but it was still a straight-forward experience. Plus with Boston and Foxboro you can also set up transportation from Providence and Boston which makes hotel considerations a lot easier.

[Nacre]

Foxboro has a fairly efficient transportation system for gamedays. Plus a direct rail link. Lets also not forgot that two of South Africa's stadiums were in the middle of nowhere adjacent to smallish cities.

I have been to football games in Denver and Boston and taken public transportation both times to the stadiums. Denver's stadium is downtown adjacent about 2 miles from LoDo. It was an absolute breeze to take public transportation to the stadium and I would estimate that at least a 1/3 of the crowd did take it. Boston was a little bit longer of a process but it was still a straight-forward experience. Plus with Boston and Foxboro you can also set up transportation from Providence and Boston which makes hotel considerations a lot easier.

US stadiums usually have some mass transit access, and it works fine for a normal game. Foxboro has a rail link, but 96% of fans use cars to get to the stadium. Serious problems occur when 40,000+ fans are trying to use mass transit (rail and bus) to get to or from the games when the system is designed for 10,000 fans.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/10392144/super-bowl-several-collapse-overcrowded-new-jersey-train-station

Denver is a good example of a city I would endorse for a US world cup: it has a stadium within the city accessed by two light rail lines. Mile High Stadium has a lot of parking space, but it's still within biking distance from downtown.

Anyway, the point isn't that parking spaces are bad, but that they don't add anything for people planning to use a taxi, bus or rail to get to the stadium. American stadiums need them because of the numbers of people using a car to get to the stadium. Most European stadiums don't need as much parking space because far more people use mass transit. And for a World Cup the mass transit model works better anyway.

[ofan]

For the record Jacksonville does suck. It's one of the worst cities I've ever seen.

[gromit]

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 --

1. continental rotation used to be an official rule. It is no longer an official rule. So IN FACT, any nation can bid for 2026. Continental rotation was the PREVIOUS POLICY - in fact only CONACAFs Jeffrey Webb is calling for it be retained. All the executive committee does is provide a short list and after the debacle of 2014, when there was a single choice, it is extremely unlikely this would continue if only one bid is put forward from the Americas

2. if the WC is expanded to 36-40 teams then Argentina under enormous debt and Uruguay will struggle. FIFA do not want the stress of Brazil when the opening game stadium received its safety certificate only days before the tournament start

Even with 2018 and 2022 there have been significant compromises on location, design, capacity of venues.

Nothing like awarding a bid to a country where you can just sit back and relax where it would be the No1 event of the year

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.

Oh under your voting criteria - USA 8 votes = 0

And at least ENGLAND lost to a genuine football nation ... the USA could not even beat Qatar LOL

Or are you saying that there was not a level playing field for the USA for 2022, but all was fair at the same meeting for the 2018 award?

There is a term for this - hyprocrisy

[ofan]

^gromit I hope that is a joke. We know that both elections were corrupted and that England's wasn't the strongest bid to begin with. If all was fair the U.S. should be hosting 2022

[Rob2012]

Think you missed the point. Baron was saying England lost becuase of space around the stadiums. Going by Baron's logic none of the corruption or bad process mattered. In that case, you have to logically conclude USA was beaten on merit by Qatar. He's only following Baron's argument to its logical conclusion.

[baron-pierreIV]

Gromit. Jeez, with a name like that, how do you expect it to think? No. FIFA was NOT crazy about the UK for all its exposures, etc, etc. The "limited space" around the stadia was a small monkey wrench thrown in. As for the rest of "gromit"'s screwed-up interpretation of my take, I'm not even going to waste any more energy on it. Not worth it.

[Quaker2001]

1. continental rotation used to be an official rule. It is no longer an official rule. So IN FACT, any nation can bid for 2026. Continental rotation was the PREVIOUS POLICY - in fact only CONACAFs Jeffrey Webb is calling for it be retained. All the executive committee does is provide a short list and after the debacle of 2014, when there was a single choice, it is extremely unlikely this would continue if only one bid is put forward from the Americas

That's incorrect. The rotation policy where they designated a World Cup to a specific continent (as they did for 2010 and 2014) was scrapped. But the policy remains that the confederation of the previous 2 hosts are ineligible to bid, as it was for 2018 and 2022. So Europe and Asia CANNOT bid for 2026 (that is, unless FIFA changes their policy, and this is FIFA after all. 2026 does not have to go to CONCACAF.. CAF and CONMEBOL and OFC are all eligible.

[gromit]

That's incorrect. The rotation policy where they designated a World Cup to a specific continent (as they did for 2010 and 2014) was scrapped. But the policy remains that the confederation of the previous 2 hosts are ineligible to bid, as it was for 2018 and 2022. So Europe and Asia CANNOT bid for 2026 (that is, unless FIFA changes their policy, and this is FIFA after all. 2026 does not have to go to CONCACAF.. CAF and CONMEBOL and OFC are all eligible.

Unfortunately it is you who is incorrect. The Rotation policy where if a confederation had previously held the cup, they couldn't hold it for two rotations is now also over.

This was a policy of FIFA's Executive Committee. The decision is no longer that of the Executive Committee.

Do you seriously think that the English Football Association would even comment about bidding for 2026 if the rules said they couldn't?

The entire process has changed so whilst there is a school of thought that the games should be continued to rotated, this rule agreed previously by 24 members now has to be agreed to by 209 including probably 180 odd members who could never hope to hold the games themselves

[Faster]

Proof gromit? Because I have seen nothing that says the exclusion rule has been repelled. The ExCo still sets the rules of bidding.

[gromit]

and considering the absolute screw up that FIFA made regarding Qatar and the huge disruption it is going to cause to the European leagues, a sop to a UEFA member to bring the footballing community is something that can't be ruled out.

Remove UEFA from the World Cup .... and there is no World Cup

[gromit]

Proof gromit? Because I have seen nothing that says the exclusion rule has been repelled. The ExCo still sets the rules of bidding.

"Football Association chairman Greg Dyke has revealed England may consider a bid to host the 2026 World Cup finals."

"Fifa's executive committee are no longer responsible for the final say on which country is awarded a World Cup.

Instead, they will establish a shortlist before the 209 member nations of Fifa cast a vote for their preferred choice.

2026 will be the first tournament to be decided under the new system - a final decision will be made in May 2017 at Fifa's annual congress in Kuala Lumpur."

"Aren't the USA favourites for 2026? Yes. Having narrowly lost out to Qatar for 2022 there are plenty of people connected to US soccer who feel they deserve to be awarded 2026. And given Fifa's previous policy of rotating the World Cup around its confederations there is a school of thought which says only countries from Africa or North America, Central America or the Caribbean can bid.

If such a policy was adhered to - Concacaf president and Fifa vice-president Jeffrey Webb certainly thinks it should be - then the field of eligible candidates narrows dramatically.....But China would also love to host the World Cup, as would Australia"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32045238

For FIFA rules don't exist. The rule say one city can't host no more than 2 stadiums ... except Doha has 6. Or that it is a summer tournament ... except it will be held Nov-Dec 2022 causing huge revenue loss to leagues and clubs that pay the players

[Rob2012]

I don't think they've worked out what they're doing at the moment. The assumption is the current rotation rule will continue just because nobody has come out and said it won't, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they decided to scrap it and welcome in Europe and possibly even China into the bidding fold.

[zekekelso]

Tailgating is not only wicked fun, it's practical as it spreads traffic/arrivals over many hours.

Unfortunately, "big" events are often over planned with restrictions on parking, so little to no tailgating.

[Quaker2001]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32045238

Love how you chose to omit the next part of this article that completely disproves your assertion..

But China would also love to host the World Cup, as would Australia.

However both countries are members of the Asian Football Confederation and as a fellow member, Qatar, is hosting 2022 that would make them ineligible to be awarded 2026.

[Quaker2001]

US stadiums usually have some mass transit access, and it works fine for a normal game. Foxboro has a rail link, but 96% of fans use cars to get to the stadium. Serious problems occur when 40,000+ fans are trying to use mass transit (rail and bus) to get to or from the games when the system is designed for 10,000 fans.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/nfl/story/_/id/10392144/super-bowl-several-collapse-overcrowded-new-jersey-train-station

Denver is a good example of a city I would endorse for a US world cup: it has a stadium within the city accessed by two light rail lines. Mile High Stadium has a lot of parking space, but it's still within biking distance from downtown.

Anyway, the point isn't that parking spaces are bad, but that they don't add anything for people planning to use a taxi, bus or rail to get to the stadium. American stadiums need them because of the numbers of people using a car to get to the stadium. Most European stadiums don't need as much parking space because far more people use mass transit. And for a World Cup the mass transit model works better anyway.

Getting back to this for a second..

This is the problem when relying on public transportation like this. Faster gives examples of having attended NFL games before. The problem (and they learned this the hard way with the Super Bowl last year) is that when you have a regular game, most of the crowd is local and often will drive. Replace that with a crowd that is primarily not local and it can overwhelm public transportation. I know that Foxboro (as well as Giants Stadium) hosted games in the `94 World Cup, but this is where there needs to be a balance between those who might drive and those who don't have that option.

Tailgating is not only wicked fun, it's practical as it spreads traffic/arrivals over many hours.

Unfortunately, "big" events are often over planned with restrictions on parking, so little to no tailgating.

Again, the problem is that you're not dealing with the usual local crowd or folks on, say, a college football weekend who are planning an event out of it. As such, the event organizers are likely to set up group areas and so it's not in the same spirit as folks arriving to the game hours beforehand with a grill and a cooler full of beer. Harder to get that when you're dealing with tourists and visitors rather than locals.

[Faster]

I still think that many fans at any given game will still be local. Especially with stadiums in the 60,000+ capacity range you are going to be heavily relying on local populations to fill the stadiums. I just don't see transportation being that big of an issue for a US bid.

[gromit]

Love how you chose to omit the next part of this article that completely disproves your assertion..

But China would also love to host the World Cup, as would Australia.

However both countries are members of the Asian Football Confederation and as a fellow member, Qatar, is hosting 2022 that would make them ineligible to be awarded 2026.

Name any global event when the subsequent event is held in the same confederation unless there is an absent of bidders like in 2022 Winter Olympics .... save the IAAF World Championships in Athletics, a bi-annual event. That is why China and Australia would be ruled out.

And nobody has yet answered why would the English Football Association, the oldest in the world and always likely to be a contender if they chose to bid for the hosting rights for a World Cup, have even voiced the possibility of bidding for 2026 UNLESS there was a clear indication that such a bid would be admitted?

We are not talking about some press officer making an error, we are talking about the chairman of the Football Association

And so far has the USA even declared that they will bid for 2026? Confirmed bids have come from Mexico, Canada, and Colombia

[Rob2012]

And nobody has yet answered why would the English Football Association, the oldest in the world and always likely to be a contender if they chose to bid for the hosting rights for a World Cup, have even voiced the possibility of bidding for 2026 UNLESS there was a clear indication that such a bid would be admitted?

We are not talking about some press officer making an error, we are talking about the chairman of the Football Association

If FIFA decided to keep the rotation rules as they are, Greg Dyke's words will not have been in error. They will have been a reflection of the FA's position in March 2015 i.e. looking at a tentative world cup bid for 2026 if the circumstances allow.

The simple fact is, we don't know if the circumstances allow yet. And even if he has had indication from someone at FIFA that the rotation will be scrapped, you don't know this, you're simply speculating. You stated with some certainty earlier in this thread that the current rotation rules are history. It may be that FIFA scraps them (and it wouldn't surprise me), but they haven't said so yet.

(In any case, the first condition England has put on a World Cup bid is that it will only go forward if Sepp Blatter isn't President. I don't think we'll make it past that hurdle. So it won't matter what FIFA decides re: rotation in 2026 from our point of view anyway.)

Edited March 29, 2015 by Rob.

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

If FIFA decided to keep the rotation rules as they are, Greg Dyke's words will not have been in error. They will have been a reflection of the FA's position in March 2015 i.e. looking at a tentative world cup bid for 2026 if the circumstances allow.

The simple fact is, we don't know if the circumstances allow yet. And even if he has had indication from someone at FIFA that the rotation will be scrapped, you don't know this, you're simply speculating. You stated with some certainty earlier in this thread that the current rotation rules are history. It may be that FIFA scraps them (and it wouldn't surprise me), but they haven't said so yet.

(In any case, the first condition England has put on a World Cup bid is that it will only go forward if Sepp Blatter isn't President. I don't think we'll make it past that hurdle. So it won't matter what FIFA decides re: rotation in 2026 from our point of view anyway.)

This entire concept of rotation only exists to appease the African and Asian bloc, both of which are vital to the Blatter presidency surviving. It's quite absurd that a nation like England, with excellent stadia, hosting experience right up to the Summer Olympics, one of the world's leading footballing leagues and a healthy fan culture, would be slighted in favour of such non-entities like Qatar or Russia (and no, Russian football is a shadow of its Soviet glory days).

[Rob2012]

No, it's not. Russia had an excellent case for a World Cup, perhaps a better case than than South Korea '02, or South Africa '10 or the US '94 when they all bid. They're a huge country with a long-standing football culture that hadn't hosted before. I don't like their politics and I think it's unlikely that won't stain their hosting in one way or another (see Sochi), but Russia had a strong case for wanting to host.

The problem England has isn't who we lost to but the manner of how we lost, the shambles of the bid process, and the fact that FIFA seems to have reformed little since.

[plusbrilliantsexploits]

Well, my solution would be for the European FAs to split from FIFA and form their own world football association. Let's see how long FIFA survives without the continent with the most World Cup wins, the most prestigious leagues and the best players on Earth. More than anything, I'm baffled by how weak Platini is in this saga. He could have Blatter's head by threatening to end FIFA as a relevant force in football, yet he seems quite content with where he is. Inexplicable.

Let's start from the bottom up and make sure fools like Blatter are indicted and put behind bars.