FIFA WC USA-Mexico-Canada 2026

[TeamBlakeUSA]

Yeah Ansel, That's Getting On My Nerves.

[Ansem]

9 hours ago, Nacre said:

The problem for Canada is not its workforce but its stadiums. Is there really appetite in Canada for spending $2+ billion CDN in public money on football stadiums? And if so, how will Canada handle the legacy issue?

The CSA (Canadian Soccer Association) announced their intention to bid for the World Cup back in 2014. I can honestly say that most Canadians including myself were shaking our heads and laughing at the idea. We were under a Conservative government for almost 10 years with no appetite for infrastructure spending and subsidizing special events, hence Toronto 2024 bid not happening as the province of Ontario wouldn't commit to Toronto without Ottawa, same thing for Edmonton. The Women's World Cup, 2010 Vancouver Olympics Winter games and Toronto 2015 Pan Am games were approved by the previous Liberal Government. So you can see why no one believed a World Cup in Canada would happen.

After those 3 events I've listed above, Canadians suddenly were enthusiastic again about hosting major events. Then the Liberals of Justin Trudeau won the election last year with a plan to run deficits by spending $125 Billions over the next 10 years by covering 50% of any project costs to stimulate the stagnating economy.  The CSA already received support for a Canada bid from Ottawa, which means the provinces and cities will also follow.

That being said regarding the legacy issue, the CSA is launching the CPL "Canadian Premier League" around 2018. The plan is to have the teams play from existing CFL stadiums and existing soccer fields. New soccer specific stadiums would go to CPL teams.

FIFA past requirements were 40k minimum for stadiums and at least 1 at a minimum of 80k seats for a total of between 10 to 12 stadiums. So I'll try to list the current stadiums, their capacity, know expandable capacity, who would use it after and new stadiums needed

• Olympic Stadium (Montreal, Quebec), 61k seats for soccer, Expandable to around 70K seats, CFL and MLS local teams use it for playoffs games

• Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton, Alberta), approx. 60k seats, Expandable to around 70k+ seats, Home of the CFL Edmonton Eskimos

• BC Place (Vancouver, British Columbia), 54.5k seats, Home of the CFL BC Lions & MLS Vancouver Whitecaps

• Rogers Centre (Toronto, Ontario), 47.5k seats for soccer, Home of Toronto Blue Jays & MLS Toronto FC Champions League games in the winter and friendlies

• McMahon Stadium (Calgary, Alberta), 37k seats, Expandable to 46k seats, home of the CFL Calgary Stampeders

• New Mosaic Stadium (Regina, Saskatchewan), 33k seats. Expandable to 40k seats, home of the CFL Saskatchewan Roughriders as of 2017

•  Investors Group Field (Winnipeg, Manitoba), 33k seats, Expandable to 40k seats, home of the CFL Winnipeg Blue Bombers

• BMO Field (Toronto, Ontario), 30k seats, Expandable to 40k seats, home of the MLS Toronto FC & CFL Toronto Argonauts

• TD Place Stadium (Ottawa, Ontario), 24k seats, Expandable to 40k seats, home of the CFL Ottawa Red and Blacks & NASL Ottawa Fury

• Tim Horton Field (Hamilton, Ontario), 22.5k seats, Expandable to 40k seats, home of the CFL Hamilton Tiger-Cats & Future CPL Franchise

So as you can see, we have already have 10 stadiums right from the get go. Russia is using 12 stadiums for a 32 team World cup, so if FIFA expends the tournament to 40 teams as rumoured, Canada would be missing 5 stadiums including 1 big stadium for the final as Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto have the stadiums for quarter-finals and semi finals.

Potential location:

• 80k seats + (Toronto, Ontario): Toronto is the most logical place to build that stadium. It's the 4th biggest city in North America behind only Mexico City, New York City and Los Angeles. Toronto is linked to a 2028 Olympic bid (pending Los Angeles losing to Paris for 2024). Rogers Communications, owners of the Toronto Blue Jays, have been pursuing an NFL franchise for years with the failed bid to buy the Buffalo Bills. So that stadium could be link to either of these projects or both.
• Halifax, Nova Scotia: With the CPL (Canadian Premier League) set to start around 2018, a stadium in the biggest city in the Maritimes will happen. This would allow the CFL to also expand as well
• Vancouver, British Columbia: The MLS Vancouver Whitecaps have been pursuing a waterfront soccer stadium for years, however the city is not willing to give up that piece of land. The project is still pending but it seems more likely that they would have to build it somewhere else. It would most likely be like Toronto BMO field, hence meeting FIFA requirements
• Quebec City, Quebec: The city is rumoured to be a founding member of the CPL (Canadian Premier League) set to start around 2018. They would start from the Laval University stadium but with the CPL starting and a world cup bid, Quebec City would be a logical location for a new soccer specific stadium meeting FIFA requirements
• Calgary, Alberta: The Calgary Stampeders are looking to build a new downtown stadium by the river which would be part of the "Calgary Next" project. The tenants would be the new CPL team and the CFL Stampeders. So they could keep the upgraded McMahon stadium around for the world cup and demolish it afterwards.

 

8 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

certainly don't doubt the Canada's ability to host a successful WC games, but I am doubting the public's interest in doing so.

Soccer has never been this hot in Canada. MLS ratings in Canada are high when Canadian clubs plays in the CONCACAF Champions League and when they play each other. We're huge consumers of the EPL and UEFA Champions Leagues. Soccer is the #1 sport in terms of participation in Canada, more people registers in soccer leagues than even hockey. The political interest is there and so is the public's.

8 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Sure Canada just hosted the women's WC and the Pan Am games last year, but both events are miniscule in size compared to a men's WC. Most of the stadiums used in last year's WC would not make the cut for minimum requirements that stadiums in a men's WC have. I just cannot see the public supporting major stadium renovations or even building brand new stadiums that the public wouldn't want and wouldn't need after their games.

As listed above, stadiums would be upgraded to meet FIFA requirements while stadiums like Moncton that were used last year would be dropped. The public hate public money being used to build stadiums but for events like the World Cup or Olympics, it's met with support.

8 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Their CFL league doesn't have the fan base to motivate the public to finding the need for new and/or more improved stadiums. Canada doesn't even run an adequate soccer league they have 5 city teams playing for the US run MLS and NASL. They could maybe entice FIFA into giving them the games by promising to create a real national league, much like the US did for their 1994 games but I don't think those Canadian teams from the MLS would want to leave that league.

The CSA is creating the Canadian Premier League which should start around 2018. Canada is taking the extra step to start the league before presenting their bid, which the US didn't due for 1994. The world cup would solidify the league in Canada, which corresponds to FIFA's mandate of growing the game. That's a major reason the USA were awarded the tournament in 1994 over the mecca of soccer, Brazil. The USA was an untapped market and FIFA wanted to grow the game in North America. This time, Canada needs to grow it here as we're the untapped market which explains MLS expanding in Canada with Toronto FC becoming the 4th most valuable team in the league and with the highest payroll. Canadians can indeed run high profile professional teams and leagues.

Right now the MLS & USSF are at odds with the CSA over the domestic issue within MLS. CSA blocked new Canadian teams from joining American leagues while MLS already said they wouldn't expand further in Canada. Their hope is to replicate what's being done in the NBA, MLB and NHL; Canadians picking a team and supporting it. Soccer is very different in that regard and most Canadians outside of the big 3 markets don't care about MLS and won't watch it, hence the CSA capitalizing on this untapped market with CPL.

As for the 3 MLS teams joining the CPL, it's unlikely but the CSA has the power to expel MLS from Canada by withdrawing their sanctioning of those teams. MLS not respecting their end of the bargain has angered the CSA to the point that they threatened MLS to do just that if the issue of Canadian players being considered "domestic" wasn't fixed.

8 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Also there is a chance that Canada may not even put forth a bid for the games. Toronto backed out of the 2024 Olympic bid race and Edmonton dropped out of consideration for the 2022 Commonwealth Games. Both cities said it's not worth the financial burden. Canadians have always been smarter than the US about their government spending so I can't see them putting in a bid unless they have a massive public support for it, which they won't. 

That was because the Conservatives were in power. Now that they're gone, it totally changed the landscape. The Liberals already supports the bid, and most likely would support a 2028 Toronto bid.

[baron-pierreIV]

 

[zekekelso]

Dear Canada,

Dont do this. Don't build any stadiums for a bloated, irresponsible World Cup. Bid with what you have, including upgrades to existing stadiums. Give FIFA the option of a responsible bid and model for going forward. They'll probably turn you down; if so tell them to **** off, but politely because, Canada.

[Quaker2001]

23 hours ago, Ansem said:

http://www.oddschecker.com/football/football-specials/fifa/who-will-host-the-2026-world-cup

Odds according to the website

• Canada 4/1
• USA 8/1
• Mexico 13/2
• Columbia 13/2
• Morocco 16/1
• Joint Australia/New Zealand 20/1

Perhaps most people think the USA are a no brainer and are most likely right, but we can't for get that FIFA is a different kind of animal compared to all the other leagues...meaning, you can dismiss the "USA biais" from the get go...same for the 2024 which I'd be shocked if Paris didn't win the games.

Canada pending a quality bid would be a strong opponent and as shown above, oddschecker already likes Canada's chances at hosting the tournament. Here's a few factors to consider:

• Mexico held the World Cup twice already
• USA held it once in 1994 and they are trying to host it twice in a row for the same confederation, which has never happened in the history of the World Cup
• Outside of USA & Mexico, Canada is the most viable country capable of holding a World Cup in CONCACAF
• After Russia and Qatar, FIFA will need a drama and scandal free World Cup for 2026. Canada is the safer choice.
• FIFA's mandate is to grow the game. Canada is the most logical choice as they never hosted the tournament. Also, with the new Canadian Premier League set to start around 2018, a World Cup in 2026 would solidify the new league for good and grow the game in Canada, which remains an untapped market with tons of potential.
• Victor Montagliani, the current CONCACAF President is also by default  a FIFA Vice-President and member of the executive of FIFA, happens to be Canadian (a very patriotic one) and most likely already have made his homework through his contacts within that FIFA inner circle on what to do to win the bid. He's most likely already lobbying on Canada's behalf.
• Canada held every World Cup except the main one and they we're all successful while breaking several past attendance records.

The only thing the United States have is the number of existing stadiums. That doesn't mean that Canada can't build new stadiums to meet FIFA requirements. With the new Liberal Government in Canada, infrastructure spending is the cornerstone of their political platform, meaning, that the Federal Government will back a CSA World Cup bid and contribute to the construction of new stadiums, something the previous Conservative government would never do.

In term of architecture, technical requirements, transit, logistics, good governance, sponsors and spectators, there's nothing the USA can do that Canada can't do either or better. Seems that Canada has been flying below the radar the entire time and should get a second look, before they surprise everyone... 

The part that's in red.. I assume it's that way because it's not factually correct?  Mexico had 1970 followed by 1986.  Yes, I'm aware that 1986 was originally awarded to Columbia, but it was put back up for bids in a contest that included Canada and the United States.  So yes, a country has hosted twice in a row from the same confederation, unless you're discounting "in the history of the World Cup" on a technicality.

No question FIFA can't exactly be counted on to be predictable.  And I remember at least a couple of odds sites had Qatar higher up on the list than most expected, so it wasn't a complete stunner that they won.  I thought it was a ridiculous short-sighted decision to pick Qatar over the United States for 2022, especially if "grow the game" is a priority of theirs.  And yea, that's me being a biased American.  So is this..

Canada could very ably host a World Cup.  But if their competition is the United States, how is that going to compare in terms of logistics and sponsors and spectators.  I'd flip that statement to say "there's nothing Canada can do that the USA can't do either or better."  TV rights.  9 times the population.  That's what they're up against.  Canada may be an untapped market, but how much does the "game" stand to grow with another World Cup here at a time when interest in international soccer has been trending upwards for years now, in spite of the old "Americans will never embrace soccer" claims.  Interest in the World Cup speaks otherwise.

Again, anyone's best guess if FIFA will see it that way.  But if you're going to put a USA bid up alongside Canada's, you're already making the case that they're the underdog, odds or otherwise.  In that regard, maybe they're not all that even.

[Quaker2001]

On 10/17/2016 at 0:44 PM, zekekelso said:

I wouldn't count on '94 repeating itself. When you only have 24 teams, there are few "bad" games from fan interest standpoint. '94 also benefited from the newness of being able to see world-class soccer in America. Finally, I expect FIFA to get greedy with ticket prices... so even for fans out there a sports bar or home HDTV setup is a nice alternative. 

I hope planners don't just look at '94, but also look at things like the '2016 Copa. 

In 1994, Americans barely knew what World Cup soccer looked like, so many spectators didn't know the difference between good games and bad.  A larger World Cup means more games in more cities, so it's spreading yourself a little thinner.  Easier to fill a stadium for a "bad" game in a New York or LA than it might be in a smaller, less culturally diverse city.  You're right about looking at Copa America from this year, but that's practically an international friendly compared to what the World Cup would be in this country now that interest has grown as opposed to 1994 when it was something we had never seen before.  Pretty good chance a 2026 World Cup would be as successful as 1994.  It just wouldn't be revolutionary on the same level to where that last World Cup generated interest in an event that was a non-entity in the US.  Don't forget also the precedent from the `84 and `96 Olympics where attendance for the football tournaments where was very solid.

[baron-pierreIV]

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

This quote box won't disappear.  

And speaking of previous FIFA hosting experience, here are stats from the last seven  Women's World Cups as well:  

Host - # of matches played -  Total attendance figures -  Ave per match - Highest match attended  

 

1 1991 China  26  510,000  18,344  65,000^[12]

2 1995 Sweden  26    112,213   4,316^[12]

3 1999 USA     32   1,214,209   37,944    90,185^[12]

4 2003 USA     32    679,664      21,240    34,144^[12]

5 2007 China  32   1,190,971    37,218   55,832^[12]

6 2011 Germany   32    845,751    26,430    73,680^[12][13]

7 2015 Canada   52    1,353,506    26,029    54,027^[14]

 

The figures are self-explanatory.   Certainly the figures from 1999 and 2003 would fortify a Men's bid.  See how the Average  (4th column) and Highest Attended match, dropped from USA 1999 to Canada 2015, considering 20 more matches were played last year.  

Edited October 18, 2016 by baron-pierreIV

[Ansem]

8 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

The part that's in red.. I assume it's that way because it's not factually correct?  Mexico had 1970 followed by 1986.  Yes, I'm aware that 1986 was originally awarded to Columbia, but it was put back up for bids in a contest that included Canada and the United States.  So yes, a country has hosted twice in a row from the same confederation, unless you're discounting "in the history of the World Cup" on a technicality.

Yes that's why it's in red as I'm aware of Mexico hosting twice for the same confederation in a row, but it was mainly due to Columbia's withdrawal, but this is what truly happened:

http://www.worldsoccer.com/features/skulduggery-that-led-to-us-losing-1986-world-cup-finals-to-mexico-370181

New evidence has been revealed of how the then FIFA president Joao Havelange comprehensively stitched up the United States over the award of the 1986 finals to Mexico.

 

The 1986 finals had been allocated to the Americas and no South American nations were economically capable. Canada and the United States both expressed interest. But already, according to Fernandez and Paxman, the die was cast.

“Once the commission members had been shown Mexico’s likely facilities by Canedo, they flew directly to Europe without bothering to consider the US and Canada.

“FIFA’s rules required an inspection of all potential hosts but the committee made an exception on the grounds of omissions on the application files of those two countries. In March 1983 the commission presented a report recommending the choice of Mexico.”

Kissinger and his team spent an hour outlining their bid in private to the exco. The Canadians needed half an hour. Del Castillo went in for just eight minutes and joked later: “Actually, I needed only one minute to convince them.” The vote for Mexico, announced Havelange afterwards, had been unanimous

As you can see, while Canada didn't have the right bid for 86, the United States bid was superior to Mexico, but the bidding was fixed for Mexico regardless. So the USA should have host the World Cup in 1986 instead of 1994. After Qatar, it will have been FIFA's second time screwing the Americans out of a World Cup.

 

That's why I put it in red. Hosting twice in a row for your federation (outside of bribing/fixing) has "unofficially" never been done.

 

26 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

No question FIFA can't exactly be counted on to be predictable.  And I remember at least a couple of odds sites had Qatar higher up on the list than most expected, so it wasn't a complete stunner that they won.  I thought it was a ridiculous short-sighted decision to pick Qatar over the United States for 2022, especially if "grow the game" is a priority of theirs.  And yea, that's me being a biased American.  So is this..

It was bribery, not about the game.

27 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Canada could very ably host a World Cup.  But if their competition is the United States, how is that going to compare in terms of logistics and sponsors and spectators.  I'd flip that statement to say "there's nothing Canada can do that the USA can't do either or better."  

It goes both ways. Spectators are a none issue, it would be sold out regardless of where the tournament would be held.

29 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

TV rights.  9 times the population.  That's what they're up against.

FIFA holds all the cards in TV rights. Regardless of where the tournament is being held, the whole planet will watch it regardless.

35 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Canada may be an untapped market, but how much does the "game" stand to grow with another World Cup here at a time when interest in international soccer has been trending upwards for years now, in spite of the old "Americans will never embrace soccer" claims.  Interest in the World Cup speaks otherwise.

MLS was established because of the World Cup. Without it, there would have been no MLS. Because of that league, indirectly, it brought more consumers to FIFA other products. Again, FIFA is a different animal altogether. Where leagues like NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA are bigger than their respective sports, in the world of soccer, FIFA owns the sport. Nothing in bigger than FIFA in soccer and nothing happens without their sanctioning. They want to be everywhere and expand where it beneficiate them and the game.

There's lots of money in Canada. A nation of only 36 Millions is the 10th biggest economy on the planet which is surprising actually. Anyone thinking that FIFA are uninterested into permanently establish themselves in that market are mistaken. I get the USA are bigger, but with that logic, FIFA would only bring the World Cup only in England, USA, Brazil, China and South Africa and forget the rest but that's not what's happening, isn't it? They have a preference to move their show around.

 

48 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, anyone's best guess if FIFA will see it that way.  But if you're going to put a USA bid up alongside Canada's, you're already making the case that they're the underdog, odds or otherwise.  In that regard, maybe they're not all that even.

You answered your own question. FIFA won't see it that way. They act and think differently which has been proven historically. The mistake most of us North Americans make about everything is to see everything from our own perspective, and we're close minded to accept that there's other perspective out there.

Where American leagues like the NHL and others won't expand in Canada makes sense business wise from their perspective isn't how FIFA sees it nor operates. That's why they're the biggest show on the planet, they want to be everywhere and control everything about their sport. From that perspective, penetrating the Canadian market who happens to be the 10th economy on the planet makes total sense.

I don't know how it went this far to be honest... I never presumed that a Canadian bid was the favorite. I was highlighting why a Canadian bid had all the elements to be just as strong and shouldn't be dismissed. Where everyone already sees the US winning the bid by a landslide, all I was saying was that it will be a closer race than expected.

 

 

[Ansem]

31 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

And speaking of previous FIFA hosting experience, here are stats from the last seven  Women's World Cups as well:  

Host - # of matches played -  Total attendance figures -  Ave per match - Highest match attended  

 

1 1991 China  26  510,000  18,344  65,000^[12]

2 1995 Sweden  26    112,213   4,316^[12]

3 1999 USA     32   1,214,209   37,944    90,185^[12]

4 2003 USA     32    679,664      21,240    34,144^[12]

5 2007 China  32   1,190,971    37,218   55,832^[12]

6 2011 Germany   32    845,751    26,430    73,680^[12][13]

7 2015 Canada   52    1,353,506    26,029    54,027^[14]

 

The figures are self-explanatory.   Certainly the figures from 1999 and 2003 would fortify a Men's bid.  See how the Average  (4th column) and Highest Attended match, dropped from USA 1999 to Canada 2015, considering 20 more matches were played last year.  

That's not what interest FIFA. They are looking only at the first column. Not trying to aggravate you but they are the one saying it, not me. It's the total number of spectator that they care about and Canada was a success as more spectators with pricier tickets than 1999 and 2003 meant they made more money in Canada.

Best example was the 2016 Copa America Centenario in the United States. The tournament broke the attendance record which is all CONMEBOL cares about, not the average per match which I doubt was the highest as some of the match barely had any spectators while they sell out in South America. CONMEBOL made more money in the United States than in South America and that's their bottom line. That's a good thing by the way since the Gold Cup is getting pointless.

[intoronto]

12 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Well, I don't what lovers spat I walked into and I don't care.

I certainly don't doubt the Canada's ability to host a successful WC games, but I am doubting the public's interest in doing so.

Sure Canada just hosted the women's WC and the Pan Am games last year, but both events are miniscule in size compared to a men's WC. Most of the stadiums used in last year's WC would not make the cut for minimum requirements that stadiums in a men's WC have. I just cannot see the public supporting major stadium renovations or even building brand new stadiums that the public wouldn't want and wouldn't need after their games.

Their CFL league doesn't have the fan base to motivate the public to finding the need for new and/or more improved stadiums. Canada doesn't even run an adequate soccer league they have 5 city teams playing for the US run MLS and NASL. They could maybe entice FIFA into giving them the games by promising to create a real national league, much like the US did for their 1994 games but I don't think those Canadian teams from the MLS would want to leave that league.

Also there is a chance that Canada may not even put forth a bid for the games. Toronto backed out of the 2024 Olympic bid race and Edmonton dropped out of consideration for the 2022 Commonwealth Games. Both cities said it's not worth the financial burden. Canadians have always been smarter than the US about their government spending so I can't see them putting in a bid unless they have a massive public support for it, which they won't. 

Minuscule? Those two events listed are major global events. 

Canada at this point only needs to build one stadium and use its current stock (with temp. seating). 

Toronto didn't bid for 2024, because the decision was rushed from the Pan Am Games (ie they needed to ululate the games first). Also coming of Pan Am there wasn't any appetite to bid from the private sector. Edmonton dropped out because of the oil collapse. They are likely to bid for 2026. 

[baron-pierreIV]

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

That's not what interest FIFA. They are looking only at the first column. Not trying to aggravate you but they are the one saying it, not me. It's the total number of spectator that they care about and Canada was a success as more spectators with pricier tickets than 1999 and 2003 meant they made more money in Canada.

Best example was the 2016 Copa America Centenario in the United States. The tournament broke the attendance record which is all CONMEBOL cares about, not the average per match which I doubt was the highest as some of the match barely had any spectators while they sell out in South America. CONMEBOL made more money in the United States than in South America and that's their bottom line. That's a good thing by the way since the Gold Cup is getting pointless.

 

I just present the Women's World Cup figures to show that twice the USA has given FIFA tremendous numbers + of course the still unbroken attendance records of the 1994 Men's WC.  For WC 2010 in RSA, I believe the USA sent the largest contingent of Sam's Army of (est) 56,000 fans who traveled there in support of the US team.  I KNOW what FIFA wants.  Stop talking to me like you're the only one who knows that.  

[Ansem]

15 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I just present the Women's World Cup figures to show that twice the USA has given FIFA tremendous numbers + of course the still unbroken attendance records of the 1994 Men's WC.  For WC 2010 in RSA, I believe the USA sent the largest contingent of Sam's Army of (est) 56,000 fans who traveled there in support of the US team.  I KNOW what FIFA wants.  Stop talking to me like you're the only one who knows that.  

I'm not dismissing your numbers but you're dismissing the bottom line that Canada is the one holding the attendance record.

Every countries that's participating in the world cup has huge contingent of fans that follow them. Not disputing tour numbers but I doubt the US were the ones who sent the most fans.

I'm not saying I'm the only one who knows how FIFA works but you've been calling MLS "confederation" in past posts... so about you knowing what FIFA wants,  the jury is out on this one

[zekekelso]

1 hour ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I just present the Women's World Cup figures to show that twice the USA has given FIFA tremendous numbers + of course the still unbroken attendance records of the 1994 Men's WC.  For WC 2010 in RSA, I believe the USA sent the largest contingent of Sam's Army of (est) 56,000 fans who traveled there in support of the US team.  I KNOW what FIFA wants.  Stop talking to me like you're the only one who knows that.  

Psst. Baron... your stats show Canada drawing more fans in total, average per game and highest game than the last time the US hosted. 

[BTHarner]

That would have been the time the US organized the tournament on roughly 100 days notice. The games were played in September and October instead of the more favorable summer months. Given the rushed build-up, it was quite an accomplishment. 

[baron-pierreIV]

1 hour ago, zekekelso said:

Psst. Baron... your stats show Canada drawing more fans in total, average per game and highest game than the last time the US hosted. 

 

I'm aware that the 2003 numbers are lower than Canada's 2015.  BUt look at the 1999 numbers when there were only32 matches vs. the slightly higher number for Canada (of which of course, a great number of fans were south of the border) w/ 52 (!) matches for 2015 vs. 32 only in 1999.  And as BT Harner pointed out, the 2003 WC was organized on roughly 100 days' notice and NOT in the usual favorable Summer slot.  And nonetheless, the 2003 Org Committee was still able to sell almost 680,000 tickets on such short notice.  But, hey, not everyone knows how to extrapolate properly.  And that includes you, f*ckhead Phlegm - Ansem.   

Edited October 18, 2016 by baron-pierreIV

[Ansem]

21 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I'm aware that the 2003 numbers are lower than Canada's 2015.  BUt look at the 1999 numbers when there were only32 matches vs. the slightly higher number for Canada (of which of course, a great number of fans were south of the border) w/ 52 (!) matches for 2015 vs. 32 only in 1999.  And as BT Harner pointed out, the 2003 WC was organized on roughly 100 days' notice and NOT in the usual favorable Summer slot.  And nonetheless, the 2003 Org Committee was still able to sell almost 680,000 tickets on such short notice.  But, hey, not everyone knows how to extrapolate properly.  And that includes you, f*ckhead Phlegm - Ansem.   

You're still lowering yourself at insulting people who can effectively debate you...ok.

I made my point above.

Let me help you here because I tend to have a big heart...

What helps the US to make their case is the 2016 Copa America they just held and using the past 94 world cup. Those are your main arguments here.

Not calling names and stubbornly stating that the average per match is what got FIFA in awe (which didn't)

[baron-pierreIV]

   Sorry, I reject your arguments.  

BTW, I don't need your f*cking condescending your attitude.  Which is why I told you to go f*ck yourself.  

Next.  

Edited October 19, 2016 by baron-pierreIV

[Ansem]

[baron-pierreIV]

[Quaker2001]

On 10/18/2016 at 2:34 PM, Ansem said:

Yes that's why it's in red as I'm aware of Mexico hosting twice for the same confederation in a row, but it was mainly due to Columbia's withdrawal, but this is what truly happened:

http://www.worldsoccer.com/features/skulduggery-that-led-to-us-losing-1986-world-cup-finals-to-mexico-370181

That's why I put it in red. Hosting twice in a row for your federation (outside of bribing/fixing) has "unofficially" never been done.

 

Didn't know the back story behind the `86 re-bid.  Not entirely surprised to hear that the whole thing was a sham and was pretty much put on for show.  That said.. it happened.  Officially.  Guess you forgot to put it in red when you said again that "the USA are attempting to host twice in a row for their confederation, which has never happened in the history of FIFA."  Again, not a factually correct statement.  If you want to put a asterisk next to Mexico `86 because of the circumstances, that's fine.  But if you're doing that, I guess Barcelona only "unofficially" hosted the 1992 Olympics since that was largely a fix as well.  The United States didn't actually host 2 Olympics six years apart because there was bribery involved.  And Qatar 2022 is probably just some sort of fantasy.

So no, the United States is not attempting to do something that has never been done before.  It has been done before, even if there is a story behind it.  Even if they were trying to do something unprecedented, this is still FIFA.  Pretty sure that factor is not going to mean much to an organization like theirs.

On 10/18/2016 at 2:34 PM, Ansem said:

MLS was established because of the World Cup. Without it, there would have been no MLS. Because of that league, indirectly, it brought more consumers to FIFA other products. Again, FIFA is a different animal altogether. Where leagues like NFL, MLB, NHL and NBA are bigger than their respective sports, in the world of soccer, FIFA owns the sport. Nothing in bigger than FIFA in soccer and nothing happens without their sanctioning. They want to be everywhere and expand where it beneficiate them and the game.

There's lots of money in Canada. A nation of only 36 Millions is the 10th biggest economy on the planet which is surprising actually. Anyone thinking that FIFA are uninterested into permanently establish themselves in that market are mistaken. I get the USA are bigger, but with that logic, FIFA would only bring the World Cup only in England, USA, Brazil, China and South Africa and forget the rest but that's not what's happening, isn't it? They have a preference to move their show around.

Not denying there's a lot of money in Canada.  On a per capita basis, there's more than there is in the United States, and you're right that it's impressive a country of that size has an economy as strong as they are.  Sure they want to be everywhere, but the World Cup can only be hosted in 1 country every 4 years.  Pretending for a sec that FIFA was actually motivated by which country's bid would give them the most value for the sport (which obviously wasn't the case with Qatar for 2022 and even with the bribes, how did they think that would be a smart move), the question is which is more valuable?  Expanding into brand new territory in Canada or the incremental gain in returning to the United States.  It's not simply the the US is bigger than Canada and FIFA will look for the most populous country.  There are gains to be made on both sides.  The question is where would they stand to benefit more from.

On 10/18/2016 at 2:34 PM, Ansem said:

You answered your own question. FIFA won't see it that way. They act and think differently which has been proven historically. The mistake most of us North Americans make about everything is to see everything from our own perspective, and we're close minded to accept that there's other perspective out there.

Where American leagues like the NHL and others won't expand in Canada makes sense business wise from their perspective isn't how FIFA sees it nor operates. That's why they're the biggest show on the planet, they want to be everywhere and control everything about their sport. From that perspective, penetrating the Canadian market who happens to be the 10th economy on the planet makes total sense.

I don't know how it went this far to be honest... I never presumed that a Canadian bid was the favorite. I was highlighting why a Canadian bid had all the elements to be just as strong and shouldn't be dismissed. Where everyone already sees the US winning the bid by a landslide, all I was saying was that it will be a closer race than expected.

I'm certainly not trying to dismiss a bid from Canada.  Wouldn't be a bad move on FIFA's part to put the World Cup there given what it could do for the sport in Canada.  Still, I don't think it measures up to what the United States is offering.  Yes, call me an arrogant American for thinking that.  What they gain from putting the World Cup here when interest in soccer in this country is rapidly growing (2022 was a huge missed opportunity for them.. I say that not because I'm upset Qatar won but because I fail to see how that helps the sport considering what it's done to FIFA's reputation to have made that decision).

[zekekelso]

Um, if we start excluding bids that are due to bribery or skullduggery we aren't going to have much left to talk about.

[Ansem]

18 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Didn't know the back story behind the `86 re-bid.  Not entirely surprised to hear that the whole thing was a sham and was pretty much put on for show.  That said.. it happened.  Officially.  Guess you forgot to put it in red when you said again that "the USA are attempting to host twice in a row for their confederation, which has never happened in the history of FIFA."  Again, not a factually correct statement.  If you want to put a asterisk next to Mexico `86 because of the circumstances, that's fine.  But if you're doing that, I guess Barcelona only "unofficially" hosted the 1992 Olympics since that was largely a fix as well.  The United States didn't actually host 2 Olympics six years apart because there was bribery involved.  And Qatar 2022 is probably just some sort of fantasy.

So no, the United States is not attempting to do something that has never been done before.  It has been done before, even if there is a story behind it.  Even if they were trying to do something unprecedented, this is still FIFA.  Pretty sure that factor is not going to mean much to an organization like theirs.

Fair, I was pointing out that it only happened due to bribery/fixing, otherwise the United States would have host in 1986, not 1994.

20 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Sure they want to be everywhere, but the World Cup can only be hosted in 1 country every 4 years.  Pretending for a sec that FIFA was actually motivated by which country's bid would give them the most value for the sport (which obviously wasn't the case with Qatar for 2022 and even with the bribes, how did they think that would be a smart move), the question is which is more valuable?  

I get that the United States have more population and more stadiums. Let's go four your logic for 1 second. If FIFA always followed your reasoning, this is what should happen from now on; Germany, South Africa, China, Brazil and the USA should bid every time to win back to back World Cups from now on as they are the best fit (population/economy). Yet, that's not what have happened historically nor going forward...

Why? Because it's more politics & economics...not just economics. Wherever FIFA holds a World Cup, they make insane amount of money. They hold all the cards in terms of TV rights and Sponsorship. Stadiums will sell out and TV ratings will be through the roof regardless of where it is.

Again, if Canada's CSA bid is bad one (turf instead of grass, not enough stadiums, no domestic leagues, not enough accommodations and poor logistics) they deserve to lose and the US should get the World Cup by all means. We can all agree on that. The only point I was making from my very 1st post is that if Canada can submit a bid meeting all of FIFA's criteria, it won't be the landslide that people are predicting. Let me repeat in bold:

Am I saying Canada will win? No, it comes down to the quality of the bids. All I'm saying is that it will be a close race or even a joint bid.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Expanding into brand new territory in Canada or the incremental gain in returning to the United States.  It's not simply the the US is bigger than Canada and FIFA will look for the most populous country.  There are gains to be made on both sides.  The question is where would they stand to benefit more from.

I can use an excellent parallel to this. The case of the NHL and Canada. The league was founded in Canada in 1917 but in the early 90s, headquarters were moved to NYC and a huge American expansion began. 7 Canadian clubs account for over 35% of all of the NHL revenues out of 30 clubs. The Canadian TV contract was over 5 billion dollars while in the US it was a few hundred millions despite having 10 times the population. So following your logic, the NHL should keep expanding in Canada.

Why haven't they? Why are they pursuing Las Vegas? Because penetrating new markets gives you more growth potential in the long term than investing into markets you already established yourself. Why? Because southern US is a  untapped hockey market and they prefer to get new fans which means new sources of revenue than trying to get existing fans to consume more than they already are. Sure you'll get more fans in established markets but it's more attractive to gain newer fans in untapped markets for more long term growth. That's why you'll see teams in Seattle or even Louisiana way before a second team in Toronto. So FIFA is doing the same, just on steroids. Where American League are satisfied with expanding at home, FIFA took the same approach but went worldwide.

Going back to FIFA, they view the USA as ''established". MLS attendance is increasing despite viewership remaining low. Are there new fans to be made in the United States? Absolutely, but I think people are overestimating by how much. Liga MX is the most watched league in the States ahead of MLS while the EPL TV contract in the US is way above MLS. Soccer will grow in the US but never above the traditional sports like football, baseball and basketball and not at a faster rate than people think due to it's high competitiveness. FIFA knows it but they are beyond happy with how it is now.

Canada, China and India are the only top 10 GDP countries to have never held the world cup. Those laughing at them holding the world cup, laugh all you want, but FIFA is determined to penetrate those markets. China will happen in 2030 (I'm calling it right now). The next round for AFC will be either Australia or India, guaranteed. Canada is literally and "untapped" market, just like the USA were prior to 1994.

A World Cup in Canada means that Americans fans would still cross the border to see it due to geographic. So FIFA can penetrate the Canadian market AND get additional growth in the US. That's another way to see it. But...Am I saying Canada will win? No, it comes down to the quality of the bids. All I'm saying is that it will be a close race or a joint bid.

59 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm certainly not trying to dismiss a bid from Canada.  Wouldn't be a bad move on FIFA's part to put the World Cup there given what it could do for the sport in Canada.  Still, I don't think it measures up to what the United States is offering.  Yes, call me an arrogant American for thinking that.

I prefer to call you patriotic than arrogant and that's fine. As for measuring up, we haven't seen the bids from either countries and FIFA requirements to hold the world cup haven't been released yet, so we'll see. It might end up be a joint bid so we don't know. Again, just highlighting why it wont be a landslide if there's a race.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

What they gain from putting the World Cup here when interest in soccer in this country is rapidly growing (2022 was a huge missed opportunity for them.

Without trying to sound negative towards Americans, FIFA and soccer might be the only planetary organization where the United States are far from having significant power nor being the centre of attention . I'll expand further about FIFA...

• Confederations: UEFA (Europe) is what keeps FIFA awake at night. It's their crown confederation. CONMEBOL (South America) is their second. At a very distant third comes CONCACAF (North America) which strangely is debatable. So you can understand how far down the list the United States are on FIFA's radar.
• Regional Tournaments : Euro is the crown regional cup of FIFA, easily the second most prestigious cup in all team sports after the world cup. Copa America is second in that hierarchy. North America's Gold Cup doesn't make the top 3 here. I'd put Africa or Asia above our embarrassingly boring Gold Cup which is held in the US almost exclusively because no one cares about it.
• Leagues: UEFA Champions League and its top leagues are the heart of FIFA (England EPL, Serie A Italy, Bundesliga Germany, Ligue 1 France and La Liga Spain). The champions League Cup is by far the 3rd biggest cup in all team sports. South American leagues and Copa Libertadores is #2. In comparison, our North American Champions league can thank Mexico for saving face with Liga MX. MLS? it's not even considered a 2nd rated league, more like a third rated and that's being polite.
• Teams: Not many could name an MLS team outside of the existing team's cities, let alone the world
• North America's MVP? Mexico by a mile...

As you can see, contrarily to popular belief in the US, North America outside of Mexico ranks pretty low on FIFA's list.

Is soccer growing in the United States? Yes of course but it's debatable by how much based on TV ratings, inconsistent attendance in MLS, abysmal attendance in Gold Cup and some of the US National team matches.

Canada is virtually an untapped market in terms of consumption (product, TV contracts etc...), not participation which is higher than even hockey. The world's 10th economy is barely consuming soccer outside of major tournaments hosted in Canada and when they are, even Gold Cup matches and National team matches are sellouts. All those potential fans and their money are up for grabs with nowhere to spend it outside of hockey. FIFA knows it too.

Did FIFA miss an opportunity in 2022? In retrospect, yes due to all the drama it caused but at the time, no,  from their point of view. It wasn't about economics but about politics and penetrating new markets. 2022 was really Australia's to lose but their bid was severely lacking in terms of stadiums and willingness to make up for it while Qatar was willing to build everything from scratch. Qatar wasn't the point, penetrating the oil rich nations in the Middle-East was the point of all this, and some took bribes in the process. On paper and in retrospect, the USA had the better bid and should have won as now we know Qatar won't be able to deliver their "air conditioning" stadiums and forces European leagues to stop in the middle of their seasons (They are beyond furious). If someone had the power to force FIFA from stripping Qatar from hosting, it was the UEFA, not the United States.

Is their reasoning counter-intuitive? Hell yeah, but that's why they are the most powerful sport organization on the planet I suppose, even bigger than the Olympics.

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I say that not because I'm upset Qatar won but because I fail to see how that helps the sport considering what it's done to FIFA's reputation to have made that decision).

It's the story of the cheater. Once you get caught cheating and have to face the consequences, you then ask yourself what was the point of cheating in the first place...

FIFA never expected the USA to lead an all out offensive against them on corruption. FIFA did what they did because until that operation, they thought they could get away with murder. That being said, it's a fabulous thing that FIFA got exposed. It's a good thing for the sport!

[zekekelso]

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

 

• Teams: Not many could name an MLS team outside of the existing team's cities, let alone the world

From Sports Night, the best TV show ever. A challenge to the staff of a sports show to see if they can name five MLS teams. Spoiler... they fail.... as Dan says, those are just made up names. Metrostars????

 

[thatsnotmypuppy]

On 10/19/2016 at 1:05 AM, Ansem said:

 

• Calgary, Alberta: The Calgary Stampeders are looking to build a new downtown stadium by the river which would be part of the "Calgary Next" project. The tenants would be the new CPL team and the CFL Stampeders. So they could keep the upgraded McMahon stadium around for the world cup and demolish it afterwards.

 

 

[thatsnotmypuppy]

Stupid edit - what i wanted to add was I thought 'Calgary Next' was dead in the water?