Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Recommended Posts

There is NO problem with the US hosting that ridiculous # of teams.  But when it gets to 2030 and they want to award the Centennial to Uruguay AND Argentina, then you'll get into problems.  Between the 2 of them, you could probably get 8 decent-sized cities, ALTHO that would be stretching it to host 48 teams.  Why do these sports organizations GET STUPIDER by the day?? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If they were to host some sort of clustering would like happen. Divide 5 west venues (Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, Regina) into one zone and (Toronto, Hamilton, Ottawa, Montreal, Eastern Ca

That's why I question the theory that people seem to think 2030 is headed for Argentina/Uruguay just because of the centennial (how'd that work out for Athens in 1996). They're going to make Europe,

Yes. That meets World Cup capacity requirements. It would be a second Toronto stadium to supplement a proposed 80,000 plus seater centrepiece.

11 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

And if it goes to up 40 teams  (or even 48 teams which is really stupid) -- that means there's more than enough host cities in the US to fulfill that req. :

NYC (MetLife),

LA (2 sites: new LA Galaxy stadium, StubHub, new NFL stadium; Rose Bowl will be too old by then) )  

SF Bay Area (2 sites: Avaya, Levi Stadium, Stanford or AT&T Park),

one each for the following:  

Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Miami, Tampa or Orlando(?), Dallas, Houston, Wash, DC., St. Louis. 

Maybe's? - Philly, Denver, San Antonio, San Diego

Actually Houston can host in 3 stadiums, NRG stadium, TDECU UH Cougars Stadium, and Rice Owls stadium. But I think they'll try and aim for having one stadium per city with a couple of exceptions like LA. I can also see San Antonio getting in there, as well as PHX (despite its insane heat) and Nashville in there as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

There is NO problem with the US hosting that ridiculous # of teams.  But when it gets to 2030 and they want to award the Centennial to Uruguay AND Argentina, then you'll get into problems.  Between the 2 of them, you could probably get 8 decent-sized cities, ALTHO that would be stretching it to host 48 teams.  Why do these sports organizations GET STUPIDER by the day?? 

Expanding it is an extremely irresponsible decision and will limit who can bid for the games in the future. The US is probably the only country that could host by itself to handle a 40+ team WC and meet the minimum requirements in seating capacity that FIFA demands. Everyone else would have to consider joint bids, and even that would still limit potential bids. 

If they expand it to 40 or 48 teams, even Uruguay and Argentina as a joint bid for 2030 won't have enough stadiums. They'll have to ask someone else to join in, like Chile. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LatinXTC said:

 and meet the minimum requirements in seating capacity that FIFA demands. Everyone else would have to consider joint bids, and even that would still limit potential bids. 

If they expand it to 40 or 48 teams, even Uruguay and Argentina as a joint bid for 2030 won't have enough stadiums. They'll have to ask someone else to join in, like Chile. 

 

Actually, US NFL stadia will be too big, even for the prelims.  Can't see a Rwanda v. Korea game filling up a 50,000 seater.  If there are enough of the 20-30,000 seaters for the prelim matches (unless it's USA, Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, UK or Germany match); and then move up to the 40-50,000 for the quarters, 50-65,000 for the semis, 75-90,000 for the Finals, then it should work perfectly.  But that would also stretch the whole tournament to like 5 - 6 weeks, and a top team would've played, what? at least 6 matches to reach the finals -- by which time they would be pretty ragged already.   And the cost to their fans would be tremendous, just to hang around and follow the team all the way to the finals.  It's really ridiculous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Expanding it is an extremely irresponsible decision and will limit who can bid for the games in the future. The US is probably the only country that could host by itself to handle a 40+ team WC and meet the minimum requirements in seating capacity that FIFA demands.

A couple of points:

1. The 48 team proposal, as it stands, sees 16 teams knocked out after one match. It's a bloody stupid idea, but it's effectively a normal world cup with a knockout round before it. Therefore, I'm not sure many more stadiums would be required.

2. Bear in mind, at the moment, some stadiums hold very few matches anyway. Adding one extra match to the roster of a few 'group stage' stadiums wouldn't be a huge logistical problem.

But even if a future World Cup required many more stadiums, I'm not sure it'd be impossible for other nations to host alone. One tweak FIFA could make which would make things easier would be to allow big cities to use more of their stadium infrastructure. So by 2030 London should have six stadiums with a capacity greater than 60k, Manchester already has two, it's likely Liverpool will have two before then also.

The biggest problems with expanding to 48 teams, it seems to me, may be training bases, team hotels and fan accommodation. And the biggest problem in the current 48 team proposal is the idea that fans of 16 teams will pay thousands to travel half-way around the world only to see their team knocked out after one match. As I said, bloody stupid.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If they must expand it, 48 is far more sensible than 40. If they have 40, they'll need to deal with multiples of 5 eventually (look at the Rugby WC for how messy that can get). With 48, it is only one match - any country that can host a WC now should be able to with that format. They could also do a UEFA & allow 30000 seat grounds instead of only 40000 plus. That'd increase the number of possible stadiums any country can use. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rob. said:

And the biggest problem in the current 48 team proposal is the idea that fans of 16 teams will pay thousands to travel half-way around the world only to see their team knocked out after one match. As I said, bloody stupid.

 

It will be a sour, distasteful, sobering and expensive experience with FIFA gaining a few more thousand enemies than friends.  It could probably result in a lot of vandalized hotels or AirBnBs after fans go home after only ONE match.  What is FIFA's MORONIC idea for the day today??

Link to post
Share on other sites

People travel to see their team get eliminated after one match in the NCAA tournament (the USA's college basketball championship), and the tournament works very well. (Although I have to admit that the playoff spots are the weakest portion of the tournament.) Single elimination would be hard on traveling fans, but it works very well for television.

It is a major change, but the 48 team solution is the best solution to expanding the World Cup. A five team group stage with 40 teams would make for awful matches as too many teams would be playing for draws. And the status quo is seen as unfair by the many, many teams outside of the tournament.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nacre said:

People travel to see their team get eliminated after one match in the NCAA tournament (the USA's college basketball championship), and the tournament works very well. (Although I have to admit that the playoff spots are the weakest portion of the tournament.) Single elimination would be hard on traveling fans, but it works very well for television.

 
 

What?  That's all w/in the contiguous 48 pretty much.  No place is more distant than 5.5 hours; and domestic fares are NOT as exorbitant as International AIR FARES.  American motels too are cheaper than 3-4-5=star international hotels.  

The other one involves int'l travel; visas; inoculation, more rigid airport  security, etc.,etc.  Americans too have deep pockets for silly things like NCAA champs or the Super Bowl.  Foreign fans, esp where the economies are weaker, don't often have that luxury.  So there is no comparison for the most part, Nacre.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/15/2016 at 4:01 AM, baron-pierreIV said:

Actually, US NFL stadia will be too big, even for the prelims.  Can't see a Rwanda v. Korea game filling up a 50,000 seater.  If there are enough of the 20-30,000 seaters for the prelim matches (unless it's USA, Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, UK or Germany match); and then move up to the 40-50,000 for the quarters, 50-65,000 for the semis, 75-90,000 for the Finals, then it should work perfectly.  But that would also stretch the whole tournament to like 5 - 6 weeks, and a top team would've played, what? at least 6 matches to reach the finals -- by which time they would be pretty ragged already.   And the cost to their fans would be tremendous, just to hang around and follow the team all the way to the finals.  It's really ridiculous. 

Our big stadiums weren't a problem when we hosted in 1994. To this day, the 1994 WC in the US stil holds the record for the most attendance in the WC as well as highest average attendance per match. And this when the format only consisted of 24 teams and not 32. So filling up stadiums won't be a problem. Plus there is no huge financial loss if one match delivers a crappy attendance because no money was spent to build any new stadiums just for the WC.

Also FIFA requires all stadiums to have a minimum seating capacity of 40,000, although they're willing to go lower if need be, but not by much. Most soccer-specific stadiums in the MLS league average at about half that number so they wouldn't meet the minimum requirement of seating capacity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Our big stadiums weren't a problem when we hosted in 1994. To this day, the 1994 WC in the US stil holds the record for the most attendance in the WC as well as highest average attendance per match. And this when the format only consisted of 24 teams and not 32. So filling up stadiums won't be a problem. Plus there is no huge financial loss if one match delivers a crappy attendance because no money was spent to build any new stadiums just for the WC.

Also FIFA requires all stadiums to have a minimum seating capacity of 40,000, although they're willing to go lower if need be, but not by much. Most soccer-specific stadiums in the MLS league average at about half that number so they wouldn't meet the minimum requirement of seating capacity.

 

I am fully aware that the 1994 WC still holds the top attendance records, and that was mostly because of the huge stadia.

And the 40,000-minimum has held true from the 24-team format to the current 32-team format.  However, if they raise the starting number to 48, and it's a Knockout round for the first round, then -- and again the US will have an abundance of also smaller stadia, it might look "better" if smaller stadia (so 35,000 and less) are used, just so the TV cameras won't be directed to NOT cover the upper reaches if those stands aren't full.  

What I'm saying is, the opening "48-team format" is untried and untested; and yes, the US will have enough stadia for whatever format FIFA decides on for 2026, but I just think it would be safer in terms of achieving or maintaining attendance records to aim low for the Knockout round; and just start with the smaller capacity stadia.  But how late in the game, the first 40 or 48 teams will be known, would also be a factor?   Because only ONCE those starting 48 teams AND the opening match-ups are finalized, I think would die-hard fans move and purchase tickets, then giving organizers a more credible basis on which to gauge attendance stats.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Our big stadiums weren't a problem when we hosted in 1994. To this day, the 1994 WC in the US stil holds the record for the most attendance in the WC as well as highest average attendance per match. And this when the format only consisted of 24 teams and not 32. So filling up stadiums won't be a problem. Plus there is no huge financial loss if one match delivers a crappy attendance because no money was spent to build any new stadiums just for the WC.

Also FIFA requires all stadiums to have a minimum seating capacity of 40,000, although they're willing to go lower if need be, but not by much. Most soccer-specific stadiums in the MLS league average at about half that number so they wouldn't meet the minimum requirement of seating capacity.

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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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... 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

/\/\ Uhmmm...currently, the US Men's team is ranked #22 in the world.  Canada is 81 places behind, tied at #103 with Liberia.  http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-table/men/index.html  Do you really think . . .?  :blink:

Sure, Canada can build more stadia -- but WHY, when soccer is NOT a major sport there?  :wacko:  Your (Canada's) passion is hockey -- NOT turf-based sports like soccer.  

How many training camps can Canada offer 48 nations?  :blink:   The US has a MAJOR Soccer Confederation (MLS) with 20 teams (only 3 of which are Canadian;  not the other way around) which can provide manpower muscle, infrastructure and technical back-up in staging the world's second largest sporting event.  What does Canada have in comparison?  

And don't you think the FIFA high ups weren't wringing their hands and beating their chests when Qatar squeaked thru in the last vote instead of the US?  Why would they make a similar mistake again? 

Besides, it's the USA's 250th birthday.  So . . . :P 

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

/\/\ Uhmmm...currently, the US Men's team is ranked #22 in the world.  Canada is 81 places behind, tied at #103 with Liberia.  http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-table/men/index.html  Do you really think . . .?  :blink:

You might forget that the USA was far from being a soccer power prior to 1994 and they still got awarded the World Cup...without even having a domestic league. As you can see and the rest of the world already knows, FIFA rankings doesn't mean anything in regards to bids. The point is to grow the game, just like it did to the United States post WC94

21 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Sure, Canada can build more stadia -- but WHY, when soccer is NOT a major sport there?  :wacko:  Your (Canada's) passion is hockey -- NOT turf-based sports like soccer.  

Canada is an untapped soccer market where more Canadians watch EPL than MLS. Toronto FC is the 4th most valuable franchise in all of MLS with Montreal and Vancouver also ranking high. Again, soccer wasn't a major sport in the United States for the longest time until Beckham decided to "retire" in MLS. The Canadian Soccer Association is preparing the launch of the CPL "Canadian Premier League" with the sanction Division1,  around 2018, prior to the 2026 World Cup bid, something the US didn't do for 1994

25 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

How many training camps can Canada offer 48 nations?  :blink:   The US has a MAJOR Soccer Confederation (MLS) with 20 teams (only 3 of which are Canadian;  not the other way around) which can provide manpower muscle, infrastructure and technical back-up in staging the world's second largest sporting event.  What does Canada have in comparison?  

Training Camps? You mean fields? Don't worry about them as you don't seem to know Canada very much, whatever is required by FIFA, Canada will match it.

MLS is FAR from MAJOR... The rest of the world stills views it as 2nd rate (I don't mean to offend). By the way, it's those Canadian Clubs that does the lion share of the work in CONCACAF Champions league with Montreal reaching the Finals, Toronto Semi-Final and Vancouver this year having the best record in the whole confederation at the group stage...and those 3 have "MULTIPLE" academies in Canada.

Manpower? If Wales with a population of 3 Millions people can rank HIGHER than the US, I'm sure a country of 36 Millions in Canada has the "manpower" to for a league and national team...:P... Canada went to the 1986 World Cup and won the 2000 Gold Cup after all...

32 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

And don't you think the FIFA high ups weren't wringing their hands and beating their chests when Qatar squeaked thru in the last vote instead of the US?  Why would they make a similar mistake again? 

Actually no. Americans still keep making the mistake that FIFA and the IOC are like the NFL. NBA and MLB... In the grand scheme of FIFA, The United States barely has any power in FIFA. Europe holds all the cards, not America... Also, FIFA happens to be one of the only organization where third world countries that politically has no power on the world stage actually does within FIFA. By the way, all those conviction against FIFA corrupted officials was needed, but it did pissed off those that weren't caught. You, FIFA's credibility was damaged and don't be so quick to think that they view the US as a "savior".

Also, awarding the tournament to Canada wouldn't be a mistake, it would be pretty much applaud across the board.

37 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Besides, it's the USA's 250th birthday.  So . .

So... the rest of the planet doesn't care and probably won't even notice....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ansem said:

You might forget that the USA was far from being a soccer power prior to 1994 and they still got awarded the World Cup...without even having a domestic league. As you can see and the rest of the world already knows, FIFA rankings doesn't mean anything in regards to bids. The point is to grow the game, just like it did to the United States post WC94

 
 
1

Yeah, yeah,  Spin...spin.  :rolleyes:   Untapped ..untapped.   :rolleyes:   So is India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria.  I don't exactly see them on top of  FIFA's list.  They'll go where the money, the infrastructure and the purchasing power are.  Uhmmm, opening up new markets like Qatar?  :rolleyes:  Look where that got them.   Canada 2026 ain't happening.  :lol:

Quote

Manpower? If Wales with a population of 3 Millions people can rank HIGHER than the US, I'm sure a country of 36 Millions in Canada has the "manpower" to for a league and national team...:P... Canada went to the 1986 World Cup and won the 2000 Gold Cup after all...

 
 
1

You obviously don't know that "manpower" refers to in terms of organizing a major sports event.  But why would you know that?  I'm giving you too much credit.  ;)

Quote

So... the rest of the planet doesn't care and probably won't even notice....

Well, a nation of 330 million by then, WILL care.  FIFA would obviously care -- because the issue has come up; and we DON'T care what the rest of the planet thinks or not.  And kindly give me your name so we can add it to the DO NOT ADMIT list at the border.  BTW, I can play this jingoism game as well as the next person.  :P  Want to go on?? 

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, baron-pierreIV said:

Yeah, yeah,  Spin...spin.  :rolleyes:   Untapped ..untapped.   :rolleyes:   So is India, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria.  I don't exactly see them on top of  FIFA's list.  Canada 2026 ain't happening.  :lol:

Those countries aren't bidding. Canada is. Don't get confused so easily and try to keep up :D

Canada 2026 is not up to you to decide but to FIFA council where one of the Vice-Presidents happens to be Canadian...so who knows?

3 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

You obviously don't know that "manpower" refers to in terms of organizing a major sports event.  But why would you know that?  I'm giving you too much credit.  ;)

Expo 67

Summer Games of 1976 in Montreal

Winter Games of Calgary in 88 and Vancouver in 2010

All the FIFA World Cups except the senior Man

Commonwealth and Pan Am games...etc

ok genius...:rolleyes:

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Well, a nation of 330 million by then, WILL care.  FIFA would obviously care -- because the issue has come up; and we DON'T care what the rest of the planet thinks or not.   I can play this jingoism game as well as the next person.  :P  Want to go on?? 

hmm...Not disputing that 330 Million Americans care about their own birthday, but just highlighting that the rest of us "Billions" don't, neither does FIFA in regards to who gets it's tournament or not...:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Canada 2026 is not up to you to decide but to FIFA council where one of the Vice-Presidents happens to be Canadian...so who knows?

Expo 67

Summer Games of 1976 in Montreal

Winter Games of Calgary in 88 and Vancouver in 2010

All the FIFA World Cups except the senior Man

Commonwealth and Pan Am games...etc

ok genius...:rolleyes:

 

 
 

Obviously, you DON'T understand it.  So let me explain to an ignorant know-it-all how it works.  For a skill specific event like a football World Cup, they will build the staffs to run it with personnel with experience in soccer -- THUS drawing from the MLS staffers and volunteers -- and NOT just for the actual 2026 event but for the Confederations Cup as well.  Not from people who worked on an expo 59 YEARS AGO or a Winter Games 16 years earlier.   Duh, genius!!!  :rolleyes:

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Obviously, you DON'T understand it.  So let me explain to an ignorant know-it-all how it works.  For a skill specific event like a football World Cup, they will build the staffs to run it with personnel with experience in soccer -- THUS drawing from the MLS staffers and volunteers -- and NOT just for the actual 2026 event but for the Confederations Cup as well.  Not from people who worked on an expo 59 YEARS AGO or a Winter Games 16 years earlier.   Duh, genius!!!  :rolleyes:

And where did that "special staff" for the 1994 World Cup came from? An "imaginary" MLS that didn't exist??? :P:P

Cute from you to make stuff up.

If the US can organize a World Cup, hell even Qatar, so can Canada who just wrap up the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup who broke the record in attendance. Most would agree our "staff" was "adequate"

 

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...