Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Kenadian
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

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

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/calgarynext-council-study-1.3655082

City council decided to study further. This plan came out while the Conservatives were still in power. The City of Calgary is showing some backbone by not agreeing right away to pour public funds in it.

Since there's some transit and city building component to the project, having a new liberal government willing to invest could be the missing key in this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ansem said:

China will happen in 2030 (I'm calling it right now).

 

Uhmmm... 1.  Last I checked, China is in Asia; and since 2022 will be played in Asia; that all but eliminates your sure pick, China, from 2030.

2. Early word being put out there; and which is why FIFA is again talking of joint bids, is to pave the way for the joint Centennial bid of Argentina--Uruguay for 2030.  But in your own pretentions, snarky way, you would say... "That nobody on the planet would give a sh*t (or something like that), about the 250th annvy of America...", so similarly, why should anyone but FIFA care that it's the   Centennial of their biggest event?  

 Please, Ansem, don't make me laugh with your predictions.   

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Uhmmm... 1.  Last I checked, China is in Asia; and since 2022 will be played in Asia; that all but eliminates your sure pick, China, from 2030.

Not necessarily. Europe is allowed to bid for 2026 as a back up in case CONCACAF can't submit a successful bid.

Uruguay-Argentina should bid but we don't know if they will meet the minimum standards yet. Brazil is the richest country in South America and look at how the last world cup hurt them economically and made FIFA look bad in the process.

Uruguay isnt an economical super power like Brazil and Argentina is even worse off. Will FIFA risk another Brazil? Don't know, but they don't want to be labelled as economic leeches anymore.

China is a safer choice as CONCACAF can'take bid, Africa can't host. England is overdue but will FIFA delay penetrating the lucrative Chinese market? Doubtful. 

5 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Early word being put out there; and which is why FIFA is again talking of joint bids, is to pave the way for the joint Centennial bid of Argentina--Uruguay for 2030.

Where's your source? What does Argentina has to do with the Centennial? Yes the centennial is being hyped but not by FIFA as it would damage the bidding process by showing favoritism this early on.

I'm just being skeptical on the joint bid formula as its more complicated for FIFA after Japan-South Korea. They didn't make as much money and the logistics were a nightmare.

They might allow it to take pressure off smaller nations willing to bid as a group but it's far from being their preference.

5 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

But in your own pretentions, snarky way, you would say... "That nobody on the planet would give a sh*t (or something like that), about the 250th annvy of America...", so similarly, why should anyone but FIFA care that it's the   Centennial of their biggest event?  

 Please, Ansem, don't make me laugh with your

Snarky way? You've been condescending towards me and Canada from the get go, downright rude.

There's nothing inaccurate by saying that no one cares outside of America about the 250th anniversary of the declaration of independence, just as much no one cares outside of Canada that next year will be Canada 150th anniversary. There's nothing snarky about it. 

Aso for the Centennial of the World Cup, FIFA has their PR to repair. They want to start a new ethical Era. Theye don't want another Brazil where social programs were cut and people quality of life either stagnated or dropped because the country had to pay billions to host a sport event. Brazil is the mecca of soccer yet people were protesting. There's nothing ethicall about that.

So no, it's not a given that Uruguay will host and Argentina even less. There's a reason we still don't know the new requirements for hosting 2026. After the scandals, Brazil, Russia and Qatar, they are changing all the requirements and rules. They have no choice as major sponsors already threaten FIFA of dropping them if theyou didn't change.

Making you laugh with my prediction? Says the one who says the USA hosting 2026 is a slam dunk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Uhmmm... 1.  Last I checked, China is in Asia; and since 2022 will be played in Asia; that all but eliminates your sure pick, China, from 2030.

We've seen FIFA changing their bidding rules to suit their own ends between cycles many, many times. A year ago FIFA ruled any nation could bid for 2026, as long as it's outside of Asia (the 2022 host). Last week, probably because Infantino promised 2026 to North America during his Presidential campaign, they instead decided Europe can't bid after all.

It seems to me if they fancy a trip to China in 2030 they'll alter the rules again to make it happen.

Not that I'm agreeing with Ansem's prediction. But I  really wouldn't share your faith that FIFA will stick with the rule they came up with just last week beyond 2026. They might, if it suits their needs, but if it doesn't they'll change things again...as they always have done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ansem said:

Making you laugh with my prediction? Says the one who says the USA hosting 2026 is a slam dunk

I NEVER said that outright.  I think a US bid for 2026 is the strongest one going in.  And OK, Canada can probably present a nice, glossy bid--but I don't really see any equality on the scales.  It's not like the US and Canada have roughly similar numbers as say, Japan and Korea (insofar as sizeable cities, their corresponding venues, etc., etc.)  Just in population alone -- NEEDED to support these mega-events like an Olympics and an (expanded) World Cup, then economic clout of disposable income to buy tickets and allied products, and intensity of the following of the sport weigh heavily, what is there to even compare?  And I do feel like it's overkill to mention those things again...but it seems in my communication with you, it cannot be overstated enough.  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rob. said:

We've seen FIFA changing their bidding rules to suit their own ends between cycles many, many times. A year ago FIFA ruled any nation could bid for 2026, as long as it's outside of Asia (the 2022 host). Last week, probably because Infantino promised 2026 to North America during his Presidential campaign, they instead decided Europe can't bid after all.

It seems to me if they fancy a trip to China in 2030 they'll alter the rules again to make it happen.

Not that I'm agreeing with Ansem's prediction. But I  really wouldn't share your faith that FIFA will stick with the rule they came up with just last week beyond 2026. They might, if it suits their needs, but if it doesn't they'll change things again...as they always have done.

 

yeah, sure -- but they've played fast and loose with that last-2 confderation rule, in the waning days of the Blatter regime.  Now that their ship of state has sort of righted--for the moment, the cooler heads have prevailed and the seemingly rational ban-the-last-2-confeds from bidding, has returned.  So I would perhaps go with that for at least, going into the 2030 race.  China has waited all these years, they can wait another 4 for 2034.  What's the rush to have them host for 2030?.  I hope the "Not-the-last-two-confeds" rule holds up for a few more rounds--to be fair to everyone caught up in that disastrous 2018-2022 selection farce.    

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

NEVER said that outright.

Then show some respect for opinions diverging from your own. Petty put downs are childish and pointless.

28 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

I think a US bid for 2026 is the strongest one going in. And OK, Canada can probably present a nice, glossy bid--but I don't really see any equality on the scales.

We haven't seen either bids, so you don't know...do you? All we can do is to speculate on how it will be. Bigger isn't always better.

30 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

It's not like the US and Canada have roughly similar numbers as say, Japan and Korea (insofar as sizeable cities, their correspdoning venues, etc., etc.)

Similar numbers in what?

31 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Just in population alone

You do know that Toronto is #4 in North America, right? Only Mexico, NYC and LA are bigger. What about Population? When has population ever was a prerequisite to host a World Cup???

33 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Just in population alone -- NEEDED to support these mega-events like an Olympics

Montreal 1976, Calgary and Vancouver had Olympics... Your point is???

34 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

and an (expanded) World Cup

What insight do you have to claim that Canada (a G7 Country) is incapable of hosting a World Cup?

39 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

certainly the population numbers, the economic might and intensity of the following of the sport weigh heavily.  And I do feel like it's overkill to mention those things again...but it seems in my communication with you, it cannot be overstated enough.  

Population? If Sweden could host a world cup when their population was around 8.5 Million, Canada can with 36 Million.

Economic might? G7 member and world's 10th economy

Intensity of following the sport? Record attendances in World cups in Canada, strong TV ratings for MLS Canadian Clubs (when they play each other), Strong viewership of EPL, Sell out crowds for Gold Cup matches and National Team matches (Canada vs Mexico sold 50 000 tickets in Vancouver)

Perhaps you should adjust your communication. All of your "opinions" not arguments are just that opinions, not facts. You come across as confrontational and rude. If those are your opinions, then I respectfully respect them, but please, stop posting your opinions as facts, otherwise, deconstructing them one by one is beginning to make my day!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

Don't twist my logic into a point I'm not making.  Population isn't the one and only determining factor.  That's ridiculous.  But it does enter into the equation in THIS instance if it's Canada and the United States.  I'm in complete agreement with your last point, but I still think the United States has an edge, even if it's not a landslide.  Don't lump me in with other posters who think it will be just because my money is on a US bid beating out a bid from Canada.  Big difference from FIFA's perspective about driving up TV ratings and sponsorship dollars in the United States versus Canada.  There's value in the latter.  I believe there's a lot more in the former.  Not trying to make a generalization, but rather making it specifically about this potential head-to-head.

19 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

Again, please stop telling me what my logic is.  Or to argue that the US South is an untapped hockey market.  Las Vegas is not the US South.  There's 3 teams in relatively close proximity in LA, Anaheim, and Arizona.  The US South consists of markets like Nashville and Atlanta, whose team fled north to Canada.  Wouldn't be so sure we'd see a team in a place like New Orleans before we see another one in Canada.  But I digress.

Yes, Canada is an untapped market when it comes to soccer.  Does that mean putting a World Cup here would grow the game and establish a presence like the `94 World Cup did here in the US?  I'm sure it would, but again, what's the value there versus an incremental gain here in the United States.  That's the equation.  Don't know why you feel the need to repeat yourself in bold red letters here.  Would a large number of Americans head north of the border?  Many probably would, but wouldn't the same logic hold true with Canadians travelling south of the border?  Again, 1 World Cup every 4 years.  If this is their only trip to North America for the next couple of decades, they need to make it count.  Where does it count more is the question.  To which I don't know the answer.

19 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

I don't think it'll be a landslide either.  We have a pretty good baseline of what a US bid will look like from their 2022 effort.  And a decent idea of what a Canadian bid would look like.  Don't see it being a joint bid simply because that's not a need from either side to pair up with another country the way South Korea and Japan did for 2002.  The US certainly won't need to do that, and if Canada tries for that, then they've probably already lost.

19 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

Not really all that much I don't know here.  I'm aware that North America is not FIFA's stronghold.  So what a perfect opportunity to make further inroads with a World Cup here.  Maybe from their perspective some sort of joint bid would be the best option.  It goes without saying that the transformative effect that the `94 World Cup had on the state of soccer in this country is not going to happen with a 2026 US World Cup and who knows what it would do for Canada.  Still though, interest in international soccer has become a big deal here and if FIFA awards a World Cup to the United States with several years of lead time, maybe that would be a boost to MLS.  Like you alluded to, soccer in this country will always suffer from the fact that the United States does not have the world's pre-eminent league in the sport and never will.  That said, don't under-estimate the value of what a US-hosted World Cup would bring to the sport that they may not get from Canada and if they did, it could be a generation before we start seeing those effects, just like we've seen here.

19 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

So it still begs the question.. would those potential fans start consuming soccer if there was a World Cup held in Canada?  I mentioned the per capita GDP argument earlier and that works in their favor.  Still, Canada is a fraction of the size of the United States.  And before you tell me my "logic" is that bigger is better, put the 2 side by side rather than putting the Canadian bid in a vacuum.  There are huge gains to be made from that, but are those inroads as significant as what they could gain in the United States, even though it's a very saturated market in terms of sports.  Again, I don't know what the answer is, but be careful about painting a picture where Canada is an untapped market when they've had a number of major FIFA tournaments already held in Canada, just not the big one.  How much are those TV contracts and sponsorship dollars worth there versus what they'd gain in the United States?  FIFA is well aware of what the IOC has gotten from NBC in terms of TV dollars.  The United States will never be the source of income for FIFA that it is to the IOC, but there could be a lot of potential there.

20 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

Bribery aside, I get the argument for opening themselves up to that Middle Eastern market, but was there really that much to gain from tapping that market?  The population of the entire Middle East is less than that of the United States.  Again, not an argument that population is the be all end all, but put that side by side with the United States at a time when interest in the World Cup was trending upward.  Just like penetrating new markets is not FIFA's sole goal.  Russia 2018 fit the bill in that regard.  Qatar 2022, not so much.  And any reasonable person could have seen what a trainwreck this would be.  FIFA fell for false promises and obviously got suckered with bribe money and now they're paying the consequences.  I'm sure they didn't think they'd get called out on it.  Yet they did.  And it's glorious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

Missed that your 2030 prediction was in your response to me, so let me address this one further.

So by your logic, is FIFA never again going to a country that's hosted the World Cup before?  Or at least not until they've gone to all of those untapped markets before they look at anyone else?

I know that's not actually your logic, but you keep pushing this idea of penetrating new markets as if that's FIFA's first and foremost priority.  Not sure we can talk about determination with an organization like FIFA, especially when they just awarded a World Cup to Asia and it wasn't in Australia or India or China.  It was Qatar.  A tiny oil-rich nation that bribed their way to a win.  If FIFA had any serious foresight, they could have gone to the US in 2022 and then China would have been there for 2026.  Instead, now the next Asian hosting has to be pushed back and I can't see that being 2030.  We know that FIFA can and will change the rules to suit their needs.  But do we really think they've going to pass over Europe for China?  Assuming 2026 is in North America, that leaves 2030 wide open for a European bid and since I don't buy into the idea of an Argentina-Uruguay bid to celebrate the centennial of the World Cup (Athens 1996 says hi), why not put the Centennial World Cup in Europe rather than making them wait another 4 years to go 2 out of 3 in Asia?  China can then get the next one, and that's assuming they're interested in bidding, although I believe that the World Cup will be their next big get after both a Summer and Winter Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Big difference from FIFA's perspective about driving up TV ratings and sponsorship dollars in the United States versus Canada.  There's value in the latter.  I believe there's a lot more in the former.  Not trying to make a generalization, but rather making it specifically about this potential head-to-head.

I concede that the United States have more weight than Canada in a cold bid vs bid scenario. I wanted to give you my view on sponsorship and TV ratings which are arguments that keeps coming back. It's a fact that regardless of where the world cup is being help, viewers and sponsors will line up and FIFA will make their money.

FIFA TV rights are insanely high and a world cup in Canada vs USA won't change a thing in regards to TV Contract money, same for sponsors who line up regardless of where it is. As for viewership, it's not going to affect the TV contract. The number of people watching the tournament on TV or not due to the United States holding the tournament or not will cause a variation domestically, but won't have a worldwide effect, not in the scope to influence TV contracts.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Yes, Canada is an untapped market when it comes to soccer.  Does that mean putting a World Cup here would grow the game and establish a presence like the `94 World Cup did here in the US?  I'm sure it would, but again, what's the value there versus an incremental gain here in the United States.

Don't get me wrong, it would absolutely grow the game in the States if a second world cup was there. However, I question by how much. The first time around, FIFA penetrated the American market which was huge for them. It helped establishing the MLS as well and got people interested in soccer.

But we have to put things in perspective. Soccer was more popular post 1994 but there's an exaggeration by "how much". What the world cup did was forcing the USSF to get serious about their soccer program. Putting better teams on the field and consistently qualifying for subsequent World Cup is a bigger reason for soccer's popularity in the United States as very patriotic Americans were rightfully cheering for their team who kept getting better.  I agree completely. This is where I will elaborate on why I think it's being exaggerated.

  • No one cared about MLS until David Beckham joined LA Galaxy in 2007. The league almost folded many times before because no one watch or would go to the games
  • Stadiums are empty during matches in the Gold Cup except when the US plays, Same thing happened during Copa America. Fans travelling from other countries made it seemed not as bad.
  • As of this year, attendance for some of the Men's national team for World Cup Qualifier were abysmal at times.
  • MLS TV rating are very low. Their attendance is increasing but not a lot of people watches it. Same for the All Star game and MLS Cup, nor CONCACAF Champions League

However, people are indeed participating and credit to the USSF to have accomplished miracles by having such a great soccer program. It just seems inconsistent in terms of interest outside of the World Cup, US teams in Olympic Games and US games that matters. MLS success is gate driven, not TV contracts, meaning it's more of a local thing than a national thing. Would a world cup bring more interest? Absolutely, 100% yes.

Ground breaking like 1994? I have my doubts. FIFA isn't a league. It's a planetary phenomenon and they are in the business of "Ground-breaking" events. 2026 USA would be a success, 1000% yes. Ground-breaking only after 32 years when most of us remember the last one? Doubtful and that why Mexico doesn't stand a chance.

Canada would be both ground-breaking and a financial success if the bid matches the US in "quality". No one argues Canada can't measure up to the US in "quantity and size".

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm aware that North America is not FIFA's stronghold.  So what a perfect opportunity to make further inroads with a World Cup here.

I don't disagree with you, but FIFA historically hasn't been in the business of doing that. For them, they penetrated the American market in 1994 and are satisfied with it's effects today.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Still though, interest in international soccer has become a big deal here and if FIFA awards a World Cup to the United States with several years of lead time, maybe that would be a boost to MLS.

The appeal of the United States was penetrating the market and the establishment of a professional league. Boosting that league isn't what the World Cup mandate is about.

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

would those potential fans start consuming soccer if there was a World Cup held in Canada?  I mentioned the per capita GDP argument earlier and that works in their favor.  Still, Canada is a fraction of the size of the United States.

Yes fans would absolutely start consuming soccer if we had a valid option. MLS was supposed to be that option when they pursued the CSA sanctioning to be able to start a team in Toronto and later Montreal & Vancouver. However, MLS didn't hold their end of the bargain. They established themselves in 3 of the most lucrative markets in North America and stopped their Canadian expansion while imposing strict restriction on Canadian players in the league. I think only 5 to 10% are Canadians which is a direct reason why our national team isn't good enough. Don't get me wrong, the whole thing is the CSA's fault for neglecting the program after 1986, so I applaud USSF for what they did for you. The CSA is now launching the CPL "Canadian Premier League" in 2018 with teams rumored to have salary cap in the MLS level.

Canada might be small but Toronto is the 4th most valuable team in MLS, one of the highest attendance in the league and has the highest payroll in all of MLS. Montreal Impact value is high and sold out the entire Olympic Stadium (60k) when playing Club America in the Champions League finals last year. Vancouver's value is very high and they have a perfect record this year in Champions League. TV ratings are very high here when Canadian Clubs play each other and for Champions league game. The World Cup qualifier between Canada and Mexico sold out in Vancouver. Every Gold Cup games in Canada sold out while stadiums were empty in the US.... and so on.

GDP can be misleading so I found this for you from the New York Time. GDP is higher in the US because of all the billionaires you guys have and how rich they are, but it's a misleading stats when you want the true overall picture of the situation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/23/upshot/the-american-middle-class-is-no-longer-the-worlds-richest.html?_r=0

After-tax middle-class incomes in Canada — substantially behind in 2000 — now appear to be higher than in the United States.

Median income in Canada pulled into a tie with median United States income in 2010 and has most likely surpassed it since then.

The most recent year in the LIS analysis is 2010. But other income surveys, conducted by government agencies, suggest that since 2010 pay in Canada has risen faster than pay in the United States and is now most likely higher.

So Canadians wants soccer and can definitely afford to spend on it.

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

How much are those TV contracts and sponsorship dollars worth there versus what they'd gain in the United States?  FIFA is well aware of what the IOC has gotten from NBC in terms of TV dollars.  The United States will never be the source of income for FIFA that it is to the IOC, but there could be a lot of potential there.

This is the best example I have for you:

NHL TV Contract

  • USA: 330 Million people/ 23 American Teams/ NBC contracts is $200M annually for 10 years= $2 Billions
  • Canada: 36 Million people/ 7 Canadian Teams/ Rogers Contract is $433M annually for 12 years= $5.2 Billions

As you can see, it's not that simple... I tried to find the Canadian TV contract for both MLS and EPL. Canadian Broadcasters keeps it a secret...No wonder my bill is so high :angry:

2 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Bribery aside, I get the argument for opening themselves up to that Middle Eastern market, but was there really that much to gain from tapping that market?  The population of the entire Middle East is less than that of the United States.

This is the reason:

Qatar Investment Authority owns Paris St-Germain, that's just one example. Lots of people from that region bought and own some of the most valuable teams in all sports. Also, they sponsor teams like crazy, so are the Chinese.

             Barcelona                     Real Madrid                       Arsenal                           Paris St-Germain

$_35.JPG?set_id=2real-madrid-ucl-home-shirt-2013-14.jpgCHkbxWyWIAASXLt.png84504.jpg

FIFA knows where the money is for soccer. That part of the middle east have been pumping billions in soccer for years and now the Chinese are. America dwarfs them in comparison. So yes, USA had the bigger bid but "other factors (as shown above) + bribery" won it for Qatar.

So where Canada fits in this?

As shown above, it's a false formula to calculate TV contracts and sponsorship solely on GDP and population size, because that NHL contract blows this argument out of the water. The more people consuming a sport product, the more valuable the publicity, sponsorship and TV contracts becomes. So why wouldn't FIFA wants to penetrate that market and replicate what the NHL has done? How big could CPL become if a world cup was held in Canada? Think of the potential extra revenues, TV contracts like the one above, attracting international sponsors, etc... FIFA already knows all of this.

Canadian companies are already the major sponsor of the CONCACAF Champions League on a annual basis. Scotiabank is a Canadian bank.

FEAT_SCCL_Cup-and-Stadium-769x395.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

Missed that your 2030 prediction was in your response to me, so let me address this one further.

So by your logic, is FIFA never again going to a country that's hosted the World Cup before?  Or at least not until they've gone to all of those untapped markets before they look at anyone else?

I know that's not actually your logic, but you keep pushing this idea of penetrating new markets as if that's FIFA's first and foremost priority.  Not sure we can talk about determination with an organization like FIFA, especially when they just awarded a World Cup to Asia and it wasn't in Australia or India or China.  It was Qatar.  A tiny oil-rich nation that bribed their way to a win.  If FIFA had any serious foresight, they could have gone to the US in 2022 and then China would have been there for 2026.  Instead, now the next Asian hosting has to be pushed back and I can't see that being 2030.  We know that FIFA can and will change the rules to suit their needs.  But do we really think they've going to pass over Europe for China?  Assuming 2026 is in North America, that leaves 2030 wide open for a European bid and since I don't buy into the idea of an Argentina-Uruguay bid to celebrate the centennial of the World Cup (Athens 1996 says hi), why not put the Centennial World Cup in Europe rather than making them wait another 4 years to go 2 out of 3 in Asia?  China can then get the next one, and that's assuming they're interested in bidding, although I believe that the World Cup will be their next big get after both a Summer and Winter Olympics.

Qatar : By going to Qatar, as my example in the previous post shows, they wanted to stimulate interest in that part of the world who has been pumping billions into European Leagues and FIFA for years in sponsorship and by buying clubs. I get why they went there so more of those oil princes would be interested in investing even more by seeing it up close...might as well take some bribe money on top of it (old? FIFA mentality)

Passing Europe for China: The Chinese are investing tons of money now in soccer both domestically and abroad. China will dictate what happens in 2030 depending if they choose to bid there or wait for 2034. FIFA ignoring a bid from China is unlikely. They would have to forbid Asia from bidding in 2030. Returning to my NHL analogy, they totally take Europe for granted, more so England who are the no brainer choice. yep, just like the NHL takes Canada for granted and would rather go in the scorching deserts of Nevada and Arizona than implementing a second team in the biggest hockey market in the world.

Uruguay-Argentina: I don't buy that either for 2030 unless Argentina's economy completely turns around completely. Joint-bid makes sense to relieve pressure on both nation, FIFA has no appetite for another social crisis like Brazil and as of today, that's exactly what would happen, minus the crimes and pollution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Qatar : By going to Qatar, as my example in the previous post shows, they wanted to stimulate interest in that part of the world who has been pumping billions into European Leagues and FIFA for years in sponsorship and by buying clubs. I get why they went there so more of those oil princes would be interested in investing even more by seeing it up close...might as well take some bribe money on top of it (old? FIFA mentality)

 

And.... you lose. FIFA didn't go to Qatar to stimulate interest in that part of the world, and any attempt to say they did is just... well, you lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, zekekelso said:

And.... you lose. FIFA didn't go to Qatar to stimulate interest in that part of the world, and any attempt to say they did is just... well, you lose.

Not the interest you're thinking off. By interest in specifically mean more "oil princes" pouring more money in soccer as they have been doing for years.

Everyone knows that it wasn't about the game itself. It was bribes AND getting them to pour MORE money

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Canadian city of Bromont withdraws from hosting the World Equestrian Games of 2018; and the honor moves to Tryon, North Carolina.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1043302/tryon-to-host-2018-fei-world-equestrian-games-following-bromont-withdrawal 

If Canada cannot even raise funds to stage the much smaller World Equestrian Games, how much more effort would be required to put together, bid and stage the FAR LARGER FIFA Men's 2026 World Cup Tournament than this smaller World Equestrian Games?  :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is more than a little unfair, Baron. The World Equestrian Games was awarded before the host government agreed to fund it. Trying to strong-arm a government into funding a third rate event is doomed to failure in any country. It's not as if America's Cup stuck around in San Francisco for very long either.

- - -

Ansem, if you take your maple leaf tinted glasses off for a minute, you will see that although countries the size of Canada have hosted the World Cup before, they are countries in which association football is the primary sport. (Well, or Qatar.) If they have to pick between Canada and Argentina they will probably choose the #1 ranked country in the world over the #110 ranked country in the world.

FIFA Rankings

With no national stadium suitable for the finals, a really bad mens national team and limited public appetite for investment in the sport, it is hard for people who are not Canadian nationalists to conclude that the time is right for a Canadian World Cup bid. The focus of Canadian soccer fans should be on growth: if Canada can build a national stadium in Toronto and improve its national team to the point it can qualify for the World Cup without being hosts, then that would change. Until then it would be foolish to bid.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Canadian city of Bromont withdraws from hosting the World Equestrian Games of 2018; and the honor moves to Tryon, North Carolina.

http://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1043302/tryon-to-host-2018-fei-world-equestrian-games-following-bromont-withdrawal 

If Canada cannot even raise funds to stage the much smaller World Equestrian Games, how much more effort would be required to put together, bid and stage the FAR LARGER FIFA Men's 2026 World Cup Tournament than this smaller World Equestrian Games?  :blink:

:blink:

Just like the USA pulled out of hosting the second stop of the short track speed skating world cup last year and the event was moved to Toronto?????

How can the USA ever manage the World Cup when it can't host a 3 day sporting event????????? /end sarcasm

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...