Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Kenadian
 Share

Recommended Posts

Tony, I'm trying to be more tolerant of you now. But please, for the love of God stop saying My England and MY London.

Ok. Sorry, but back to topic, what I was saying is I like it when the Final and Opening Match are in the Capital city. Most of the time, they are. Because alot of countries have a front runner city. Like England or Britain, is London. Argentina, you always think of Buenos Aires. Obviously, it's a different story with Brazil, with Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and Brasilia and with South Africa, with Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, and even Pretoria or Bloemfontein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final is usually in the biggest city or the capital and often these are the same thing. Recent exceptions are 1994, 2002 and 2014. It's mostly a question of the best and most suitable infrastructure and in most countries that is found in the biggest urban centres.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The final is usually in the biggest city or the capital and often these are the same thing. Recent exceptions are 1994, 2002 and 2014. It's mostly a question of the best and most suitable infrastructure and in most countries that is found in the biggest urban centres.

The reason why the Final of the 2014 Fifa World Cup went to Rio de Janeiro and not Sao Paulo or Brasilia, is because of the history of the Maracana Stadium. Fifa and the 2014 World Cup Organising Committee couldn't deny the Final to the Maracana Stadium. That's also why they gave the Opening Match to Sao Paulo, because Sao Paulo is the largest City in Brazil, so they were fair with not having Rio de Janeiro host the Opener aswell. Brasilia should of had a Semi-Final IMO, instead of Belo Horizonte. I know Belo Horizonte is more of a historic Stadium, but Brasilia is the Capital city. Belo Horizonte should of been given a Quarter-Final and the 3rd/4th Place Play-Off, instead of Brasilia, but that's just my view on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that Brasilia should HAVE had a semifinal, but at least the play-off for bronze medals will be there. However, instead of Belo Horizonte I would have switched Brasilia's place with Sao Paulo who will also have the opener.

With all due respect, a Semi-Final is much more important than the 3rd/4th Place Play-Off. You can sense that the effort is sometimes not there in a 3rd/4th Place, because they can't win the main trophy. Brasilia and Sao Paulo should of had the Semi-Finals. Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia and Sao Paulo are the main cities in Brazil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brasilia is in world cup only because it's the capital. The city has no football tradition, unlike Belo Horizonte has two clubs that win the Copa Libertadores. The best club of Brasilia is in the third division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may be explained by the fact that the first capital of Brazil was Salvador and then Rio de Janeiro. These cities are very old (were founded in 1549 and 1565). But Brasilia has been built more recently, in 1960. When football started in Brazil, there was nothing in that region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the current policy stops European nations to bid this time. But honestly, this one should go to England. The big five in Europe, England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France should all be hosting a World Cup every 50-70 years. In 2026 it will be 60 years since 1966. And 30 years since Euro 1996. It's time for England.

Also I honestly believe that the current policy gives Europe to few tournaments. The current policy allows Europe to host at maximum every third World Cup. That gives Europe 7 of the next 21 World Cups. Read from 2018 and including 2098. Russia has taken one of those 7. The big five will take one each. That only leaves one left. In my opinion however, it should be room for both a possible Netherlands/Belgium tournament, and a dark horse in Poland, Ukraine or Turkey. And a third one in England when that time comes again.

By having Europe alternating between hosting every second, and every third World Cup. Europe would host 9 tournaments until 2098.
This gives one each to the big five. Russia has already taken one. It gives one to Netherlands/Belgium. One to one of the dark horses in Poland, Ukraine or Turkey. And a third one to England when its 50-70 years since 2026.

When 2026, 2038, 2046, 2058, 2066, 2078, 2086 and 2098 has been given to Europe. The Americas (read both north and south) hosts every third World Cup. Unless it crashes with an European year. Where it will host every fourth. Including this years World Cup in Brazil, that gives them 7 tournaments. Or 2014, 2030, 2042, 2054, 2070, 2082 and 2094. The remaining World Cups alternates between being hosted in Asia and Africa. 2022, 2050 and 2074 to Asia. And 2034, 2062 and 2090 to Africa.

That's in my opinion a fair distribution between the continents.

My proposal with hosts.
2018: Europe (Russia, new)
2022: Asia (Australia, new) Yes, Qatar should lose the WC.
2026: Europe (England, 60 years since last time)
2030: Americas (Uruguay/Argentina, 100 years and 52 years)
2034: Africa (Nigeria, new)
2038: Europe (Netherlands/Belgium, both new)
2042: Americas (Canada, new)
2046: Europe (Spain, 64 years)
2050: Asia (China, new)
2054: Americas (Colombia, new)
2058: Europe (Italy, 68 years)
2062: Africa (Egypt, new)
2066: Europe (France, 68 years)
2070: Americas (Mexico, 84 years)
2074: Asia (Iran, new)
2078: Europe (Germany, 72 years)
2082: Americas (USA, 88 years)
2086: Europe (Turkey, new)
2090: Africa (Morocco, new)
2094: Americas (Brazil, 80 years)
2098: Europe (England, 72 years)

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal. Every World Cup will either be a new host, or ages since that host last hosted it.

Of course. I'm lucky if I'm still alive in 50 years. So why should I care who hosts it after that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that the current policy stops European nations to bid this time. But honestly, this one should go to England. The big five in Europe, England, Germany, Spain, Italy and France should all be hosting a World Cup every 50-70 years. In 2026 it will be 60 years since 1966. And 30 years since Euro 1996. It's time for England.

Also I honestly believe that the current policy gives Europe to few tournaments. The current policy allows Europe to host at maximum every third World Cup. That gives Europe 7 of the next 21 World Cups. Read from 2018 and including 2098. Russia has taken one of those 7. The big five will take one each. That only leaves one left. In my opinion however, it should be room for both a possible Netherlands/Belgium tournament, and a dark horse in Poland, Ukraine or Turkey. And a third one in England when that time comes again.

By having Europe alternating between hosting every second, and every third World Cup. Europe would host 9 tournaments until 2098.

This gives one each to the big five. Russia has already taken one. It gives one to Netherlands/Belgium. One to one of the dark horses in Poland, Ukraine or Turkey. And a third one to England when its 50-70 years since 2026.

When 2026, 2038, 2046, 2058, 2066, 2078, 2086 and 2098 has been given to Europe. The Americas (read both north and south) hosts every third World Cup. Unless it crashes with an European year. Where it will host every fourth. Including this years World Cup in Brazil, that gives them 7 tournaments. Or 2014, 2030, 2042, 2054, 2070, 2082 and 2094. The remaining World Cups alternates between being hosted in Asia and Africa. 2022, 2050 and 2074 to Asia. And 2034, 2062 and 2090 to Africa.

That's in my opinion a fair distribution between the continents.

My proposal with hosts.

2018: Europe (Russia, new)

2022: Asia (Australia, new) Yes, Qatar should lose the WC.

2026: Europe (England, 60 years since last time)

2030: Americas (Uruguay/Argentina, 100 years and 52 years)

2034: Africa (Nigeria, new)

2038: Europe (Netherlands/Belgium, both new)

2042: Americas (Canada, new)

2046: Europe (Spain, 64 years)

2050: Asia (China, new)

2054: Americas (Colombia, new)

2058: Europe (Italy, 68 years)

2062: Africa (Egypt, new)

2066: Europe (France, 68 years)

2070: Americas (Mexico, 84 years)

2074: Asia (Iran, new)

2078: Europe (Germany, 72 years)

2082: Americas (USA, 88 years)

2086: Europe (Turkey, new)

2090: Africa (Morocco, new)

2094: Americas (Brazil, 80 years)

2098: Europe (England, 72 years)

I don't see anything wrong with this proposal. Every World Cup will either be a new host, or ages since that host last hosted it.

Of course. I'm lucky if I'm still alive in 50 years. So why should I care who hosts it after that?

are you serious? You're predicting things almost 100 years from now like its certain fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going to talk about "every 50-70 years" for an event that has only been around for 84 years? Yeesh


So let me see if I have this straight.. the list of nations that will get a World Cup before you project the United States gets one include Nigeria, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Mexico and Iran? For serious?


First off, unlike many Olympic sports federations, there is no "Americas" in the eyes of FIFA. You have CONCACAF and CONMEBOL which are very distinct entities that don't get combined.


I don't think it's unfair for Europe to sometimes get more than every 3rd World Cup, but it depends on what other nations are out there. I sincerely doubt Nigeria is ready to host a World Cup in the next 20 years (if they are, more power to them). And if Uruguay/Argentina does in fact get 2030 (which I don't think they will), not sure who's next in South America.


Either way, you can't project out the next 80 years of the World Cup and say "I don't see anything wrong with this." This is FIFA we're talking about. They have a bad habit of changing the rules as they go along. The fact they awarded a World Cup to Qatar (regardless of whether or not they do wind up hosting, FIFA made that decision to award it to them) should tell you things don't also go as planned. You have to take these things one-by-one, because if you throw off 1 host, then the domino effect could very well change every single one after it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predict World Cup 2102 will be on Mars."New"

They should be careful to avoid a scheduling clash with the WOG in Antarctica then.

Oh, can't forget Antarctica 2106. "New"

Oops, I swear I didn't see that post of yours before I made my comment ;-)

I hope South Pole City can handle two major events in 4 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're going to talk about "every 50-70 years" for an event that has only been around for 84 years? Yeesh
So let me see if I have this straight.. the list of nations that will get a World Cup before you project the United States gets one include Nigeria, Canada, Colombia, Egypt, Mexico and Iran? For serious?
First off, unlike many Olympic sports federations, there is no "Americas" in the eyes of FIFA. You have CONCACAF and CONMEBOL which are very distinct entities that don't get combined.
I don't think it's unfair for Europe to sometimes get more than every 3rd World Cup, but it depends on what other nations are out there. I sincerely doubt Nigeria is ready to host a World Cup in the next 20 years (if they are, more power to them). And if Uruguay/Argentina does in fact get 2030 (which I don't think they will), not sure who's next in South America.
Either way, you can't project out the next 80 years of the World Cup and say "I don't see anything wrong with this." This is FIFA we're talking about. They have a bad habit of changing the rules as they go along. The fact they awarded a World Cup to Qatar (regardless of whether or not they do wind up hosting, FIFA made that decision to award it to them) should tell you things don't also go as planned. You have to take these things one-by-one, because if you throw off 1 host, then the domino effect could very well change every single one after it.
First of all, I'm not predicting. I'm dreaming and suggesting. If I were to predict I would say that the USA gets it in 2026. Tough I see no reason to why they should. The USA should be out of the question until at least 2050. Five countries has hosted the WC twice so far. Mexico got their second tournament after 16 years. Though we all know they stepped in when Colombia had to back out. Italy got their second tournament after 56 years. France got their second tournament after 60 years. Germany their second after 32 years. Though a reunited Germany hosting the second one. While Brazil waited 64 years for their second tournament. Why should the USA get a second tournament only 32 years after their first? Why should the USA get a second tournament before big football nations like England or Spain? Or before the Netherlands gets its first? It makes no sense. And that's why the USA should be ruled out until at least 2050.
Second, FIFA operated with an "Americas" for 40 years from the first host distribution agreement in 1956, to the election of Japan and South Korea in 1996. The original agreement said every second tournament in Europe, and every second in the Americas. Which also was the case until Japan and South Korea.
20 years is a really long time mate. Go back to 1990 and say that in 20 years, South Africa will be hosting the World Cup. People would laugh at you. By 20 years, Nigeria is expected to be the 21st largest economy in the world. And should have no problems hosting a World Cup.

Potential hosts from South America after Uruguay/Argentina is at best Colombia, Venezuela, Peru, Chile, Ecuador and a joint bid with Bolivia and Paraguay. Where you most likely may scrap the last three. Leaving Colombia, Venezuela and Peru. Of those, Venezuela is yet to qualify for a World Cup. While Peru hasn't qualified since 1982.Of course, no one knows what the future bring when it comes to participations. For all we know, Venezuela might qualify for every World Cup from 2018. While Colombia don't qualify for any. But as it looks now. The next in line from South America after Uruguay/Argentina, should in my opinion be Colombia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100 Years is extreme. but 10 years is more predictable. Canada 2026, England 2030.

2026 will be in North America (probably Canada) and 2030 will be here in Europe (here in England). (IMO).

I know you're trying to do better Tony (and you have), but why on earth would you post almost exactly the same post/opinion within two of each posts of each other? The more you post an opinion doesn't make it more incontrovertable, nor does it get you more attention (well it does, but in an annoying way). It just seems a bad sign that you're sliding back to your old "I have to post lots and lots to get my name at the top of each thread" ways.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you're trying to do better Tony (and you have), but why on earth would you post almost exactly the same post/opinion within two of each posts of each other? The more you post an opinion doesn't make it more incontrovertable, nor does it get you more attention (well it does, but in an annoying way). It just seems a bad sign that you're sliding back to your old "I have to post lots and lots to get my name at the top of each thread" ways.

Na. I'm not going back to my old self, it was a silly mistake. Back to topic.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...