Jump to content
Kenadian

FIFA World Cup 2026

Recommended Posts

Argentina only has 1 Stadium up to Standards.

Brazil had 0 when has been chosen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure by the time bidding for 2026 becomes concrete, FIFA will skip the blocking of the most recent hosting confeds and allow European bids, so that 2030 will be all clear for centennial WC in Uruguay and possibly Argentina.

It wouldn't be unlike FIFA to change the rules to suit their own needs, but I still don't get why everyone is buying this push for Argentina/Uruguay for sentimental reasons. Does that sound like something an organization as money-hungry and corrupt as FIFA is going to get behind?

I'm very much with Kenadian on this one.. the 100th anniversary of the inaugural World Cup will be a big deal, but that being the case, put it in England or some other traditional football strong-hold where it will make more sense to host the tournament. After a run of Brazil-Russia-Qatar, what a novel idea it would be to host the tournament in countries who don't have to spend billions of dollars in construction and can be counted on to host a stress-free tournament. England 2030 is just what they need.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be unlike FIFA to change the rules to suit their own needs, but I still don't get why everyone is buying this push for Argentina/Uruguay for sentimental reasons. Does that sound like something an organization as money-hungry and corrupt as FIFA is going to get behind?

Well, isn't the Argentinian FA boss (Grondona?) very influential in FIFA himself? I guess he could get his troops to march in the direction of 2030 easily, and not only because out of sentimental reasons, but just as well because of money-hunger too. Imagine all the money to be handed out for stadium building again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they wanna use a similiar stadium plan for Argentina/Uruguay as for Spain/Portugal bid. 8 in Argentina 4 in Uruguay... The diference being all stadiums must be rebuilt. But who says FIFA is so sure about that, the IOC gave the Centennial Games to Atlanta :lol: if that's the case England 2030 for me.

Back to topic (2026) Canada will me amazing: opening Vancouver - final Toronto :rolleyes: they need to gain mire level on their national team thou...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uruguay I would say 3 is enough, the country just doesn't have that many big cities with people to fill those stadiums with. Two in Montevideo and sorroundings (New Centenario should be one, the other one maybe could be an enlargment of Nacional's stadium), another one in... hmm... Punta del Este maybe? it's the biggest vacational city of the country.

In Argentina I would imagine renovations in: Buenos Aires, Cordoba, Rosario, La Plata, Mendoza, Santa Fe (This 6 cities host for sure)

Then new-builts in: maybe Mar del Plata, one in the northwest (San Juan, Salta or Jujuy), one in northeast (Corrientes or Entre Rios), and maaaaaybe one in the south, though I doubt because it's cold as f*ck in June/July.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally 5 ( in 5 cities if possible) for Uruguay is the answer. It's a stretch, but would make the joint world cup look less of a mere symbolic hosting for Uruguay, when Argentina can clearly host in their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there is only one city in Uruguay with a population over a million - Montevideo. All the others are 100,000 or less. The whole country has less than 3.5 million. Argentina has over 40 million. They aren't really equal partners. Now...how would it be to throw Chile into the mix? Probably complicated, but still, that would add a large city like Santiago and then a few near-million cities. Anyway...just a thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just quote myself from another thread here and the post that I answered to:

I would change two things. Buenos Aires can have two stadiums, and instead of Quilmes I'd choose Vélez Sarsfield's José Amalfitani which has an easier access (next to a railway line and two important avenues) and is arguably more modern. It was also used for the 1978 WC and was the main venue in the U-20 World Championhips in 2001. Although Quilmes is not part of the actual city of Buenos Aires, it's part of the greater metropolitan area.

Even if Santa Fe could be an option, it's in the same province as Rosario. I'd rather see the competition spread to the north west and Salta. Firstly, Salta is an important tourist city and could maybe better take care of the visitors than Santa Fe. It's also a very attractive city with a pleasant climate, which is a factor considering that this would be a winter World Cup. The city has quite a new stadium, built for the 2001 competition that I mentioned earlier and used for Copa América 2011. It could have a temporary enlargement, but there's no need for roof because it very rarely rains in Salta in June-July.

I guess every one of 1978 sites should be used to minimize the risk of white elephants. They are all being used regularly anyway and just need renovation. Generally stadiums in Argentina need to be updated so this could provide an opportunity to do that. Uruguay should find a two or three modern stadiums useful too, at least in Montevideo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Argentina-Uruguay could be a reasonable 75/25 arrangement co-hosting - Perhaps Montevideo could have two or three venues, and the rest scattered throughout Argentina. Maybe the opening match in Montevideo, and Final in BA.


The real issue is if Argentina would prefer to do it solo - as they have done it before in 1978, and near rivals Brazil doing it in 2014 - cohosting with a smaller neighbour might be seen as some sort of admission of inferiority?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but if they are pushing the centennial sentimentality card, they need Uruguay. I know that didn't work for the 1996 Athens bid, but FIFA isn't the IOC...just ask those folks in Doha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Argentina-Uruguay could be a reasonable 75/25 arrangement co-hosting - Perhaps Montevideo could have two or three venues, and the rest scattered throughout Argentina. Maybe the opening match in Montevideo, and Final in BA.

The real issue is if Argentina would prefer to do it solo - as they have done it before in 1978, and near rivals Brazil doing it in 2014 - cohosting with a smaller neighbour might be seen as some sort of admission of inferiority?

One City cannot have 3 Venues for the Fifa World Cup. The Rules are that 1 City may have 2 Venues, but only 1. For Example, Johannesburg had Soccer City and Ellis Park. The Other 8 Cities had 1 Stadium each. But each City can have 1 each if they choose, like the 2014 Fifa World Cup, 12 in 12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One City cannot have 3 Venues for the Fifa World Cup. The Rules are that 1 City may have 2 Venues, but only 1. For Example, Johannesburg had Soccer City and Ellis Park. The Other 8 Cities had 1 Stadium each. But each City can have 1 each if they choose, like the 2014 Fifa World Cup, 12 in 12.

The rules? How many stadiums for the 2022 World Cup are in Doha? If FIFA really has themselves set on Argentina/Uruguay for 2030, they'll bend or flat out break the rules to allow that to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules? How many stadiums for the 2022 World Cup are in Doha? If FIFA really has themselves set on Argentina/Uruguay for 2030, they'll bend or flat out break the rules to allow that to happen.

Like you said, it's Qatar. Fifa will always give exception to Qatar (COUGH MONEY BRIBERY), also, Qatar will cut the Number to 8 Stadiums, and 2 will be in mainland Doha, the others are like municipialities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the proposition of Punta del Este as the third and last city from Uruguay part.

Fellow Member's are saying a 75/25 Per Cent Split would be fine, well I disagree. If you are going to CO-Host, then it should be a fair 50/50 Split, like it was for UEFA Euro 2012 in Poland and Ukraine. 4 Stadiums each. Poland got Opening Match and Ukraine got The Final Match.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50-50 split is simply impossible in this case and FIFA isn't normally keen on joint bids, but this one might be an exception so they could bend the rules if they see it necessary. Normally Argentina would want to host alone but they understand that this time taking Uruguay along will increase their chances to host. Otherwise Argentina would probably have to wait longer and Uruguay would never host the World Cup again. Both countries see this as a unique opportunity and want to take advantage of it.


The centenary theme may carry this project to a victory even though it would not stand a chance in a normal case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50-50 split is simply impossible in this case and FIFA isn't normally keen on joint bids, but this one might be an exception so they could bend the rules if they see it necessary. Normally Argentina would want to host alone but they understand that this time taking Uruguay along will increase their chances to host. Otherwise Argentina would probably have to wait longer and Uruguay would never host the World Cup again. Both countries see this as a unique opportunity and want to take advantage of it.

The centenary theme may carry this project to a victory even though it would not stand a chance in a normal case.

If Qatar can host a World Cup by themselves, than Uruguay can surely share a World Cup 50/50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Qatar can host a World Cup by themselves, than Uruguay can surely share a World Cup 50/50.

You yourself have plenty of times mentioned what probably were the reasons for the Qatar decision - none of that applies to Uruguay.

Under normal circumstances, a country the (population) size of Uruguay cannot reasonably organise a World Cup of today with 32 participating teams (and who knows by how many the WC will be expanded by then because the Presidential candidates are making promises..).

It would just create many white elephant stadiums with no sustainable use afterwards. So co-hosting is the only option for Uruguay, but also e.g. for Scotland, Wales, the Scandinavian countries or Benelux.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Qatar can host a World Cup by themselves, than Uruguay can surely share a World Cup 50/50.

No, that's a preposterous idea to put it mildly. Look lad, you're maybe young but you should really use some common sense here. Just because Qatar is putting up a vanity project doesn't mean that a developing country like Uruguay without the same natural resources should start building needless stadiums of their own. Upgrading the country's existing football infrastructure to modern standards should be ok, but constructing a bunch of white elephants is another thing entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...