Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Kenadian
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Sheesh.  So what?  Those are just home viewership figures.   :rolleyes:

Those miniscule figures don't count when you're attracting worldwide audiences.  

Next ...

 

Pff I just blew your TV viewership argument that Americans will always have more viewership than Canadians out of the water. The CFL has more viewership than MLS...

Now of course you don't care and obviously don't understand how TV viewership works for World Cup.

Americans don't even watch their own league. Sounders vs Colorado only drew around 270k in the states while Canada, millions.

Canada just scored major points for their bid 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, BTHarner said:

I must apologize to my GB friends in Toronto, but as a Sounders fan, I hope they run TFC right out of BMO. Hope this doesn't make me some kind of ugly American.

BTW, I will be away next weekend and will not be able to watch the game until Sunday. Should TFC win and you feel the need to rub it in, I will retort once I'm done watching the game.

Lol its all good. Sounders are one hell of a team and actually worried me more than Montreal or New York did.

Of course I hope the MLS cup goes to Canada.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

Are They Gonna Have The Bid Logos As Soon As Possible?

Possibly - but not as soon as we have our logos ready to evaluate:

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners Cup - Pools A & B

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners Cup - Pools C & D

 

Meanwhile - why not try and beat them to it and design a logo of your own?

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Comp

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, baron-pierreIV said:

Yup.  Self-praise is no praise.  But say it a few more times, and you might actually believe yourself.  LOL!!

Says the one who bashed Canada bid on my very first post who didn't intend to say that Canada was guarantee the win but that a Canadian bid had merits.

You were a jerk after my very first post. Own up or shut up

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

Quite Ways Away For The Bid.

Don't worry - be happy! It's right now that we're having the traditional December logo comps!

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners Cup - Pools A & B

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners Cup - Pools C & D

 

Don't forget to get you logos in for this year's event!

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Comp

diet_set_tib.jpg

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fifa president Gianni Infantino to propose 48-team World Cup with 16 groups

 

 

Fifa president Gianni Infantino backed the expansion of the World Cup to include 48 teams, featuring 16 groups of three.

Infantino, who replaced disgraced predecessor Sepp Blatter earlier this year, had proposed the expanded competition but had originally suggested that although the event would feature 48 countries, only the traditional 32 would advance to the finals.

However, he appears to have changed his stance and will submit his latest proposal at a Fifa council meeting at their headquarters in Zurich on January 9th and 10th with view of making the changes for the 2026 World Cup.

 

His new proposition would divide the 48 teams into 16 groups, with  one side from each group being eliminated to whittle the competition back down to 32, with the tournament turning into a straight knock-out format from then on.

Initially brought up in October, Infantino rejected suggestions that expanding the event would not necessarily make it a weaker tournament.

“Whether it will be 40 or 48, it was a positive discussion. I don't agree it will dilute the quality,” Infantino said at the time.

 

“I would like to remind you that in the last World Cup, England and Italy were eliminated by Costa Rica. The level of football is increasing all over the world.

“In a 48-team format, the quality would be higher because the 32 teams would have a play off. The quality would improve and not decrease in any way.”

 

If the expansion did occur, it would follow the lead of the European Championships which saw traditionally smaller nations benefit with the likes of Wales, Northern Ireland and Iceland all reaching the knockout stages.

The last expansion of the World Cup was for the 1998 showpiece in France, when it increased to 32 teams from the 24 that was introduced in 1982.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

Alright We Look Forward For Russia 2018.

You don't need. To wait that long to look forward to the logo comps.

 

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 1 & 2

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 3 & 4

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Comp

diet_set_tib.jpg

 

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TeamBlakeUSA said:

2026 Is 10 Years From Now, Also It's Gonna Take A While. 

So why not while away some of that time by participating in the logo comps

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 1 & 2

GamesBids Olympic Logo Winners' Cup - Quarter Finals 3 & 4

10th Annual GamesBids Olympic Logo Design Comp

diet_set_tib.jpg

 

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

FIFA set to approve bigger, richer World Cup on Tuesday

 

FIFA is set to make the World Cup bigger and richer, even if the price to pay is lower quality soccer.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino hopes his ruling Council will agree Tuesday to expand the 2026 World Cup to 48 nations, playing in 16 groups of three teams.

 

A decision could be delayed if some Council members demand to know exactly how many qualifying places each continent will get before agreeing to scrap the 32-team format. It has been successful, popular and profitable since 1998 and is locked in for the next two World Cups in Russia and Qatar.

The prize of 16 extra places, and the biggest increases to Africa and Asia, has “overwhelming” support from FIFA’s 211 member federations, Infantino has said.

 

Their promise of extra funding from Zurich could also be secured by FIFA's forecast 20 per cent rise in rights fees paid by broadcasters and sponsors.

"Financially, the 48-team format is the most appealing or successful simply because the sporting element is prevailing and every match is important," Infantino said two weeks ago. "The decision should not be financially driven, neither in terms of revenue or costs ... but the driver should really be the development of football and boosting football all over the world."

World Cup champion Germany is not in favour. It argued that diluting the number of European and South American teams — which won all 20 titles since 1930 — could "strengthen the imbalance" seen at some tournaments.

"The (German soccer federation) fundamentally believe that the current 32-team format is the best option," its president Reinhard Grindel said last week. Germany has no delegate at Tuesday's meeting though Grindel is set to join the FIFA Council in May.

FIFA acknowledged the risk of lower standards in a research document sent to members last month, as first reported by The Associated Press.

The "absolute quality" of soccer, defined by high-ranked teams playing each other most often, is achieved by 32 teams, FIFA said, citing 10,000 tournament simulations made to reach that conclusion.

Still, Infantino promised voters more World Cup places and funding raises before his election last February.

FIFA expects $5.5 billion income tied to the 2018 World Cup in Russia, though 25 of 34 sponsorship slots are unsold. The research document predicted the equivalent of $6.5 billion revenue from a 48-team tournament in the "16x3" format, which would send two teams from each group to a new Round of 32 knockout bracket.

All 80 matches would play in an exclusive time slot. Currently, 64 World Cup matches have 56 broadcast slots because the eight four-team groups play their last matches simultaneously.

FIFA predicts organizing costs for "16x3" rising from $2 billion to $2.3 billion, giving a potential profit rise of $640 million.

Though a "16x3" World Cup would still need a maximum of 12 stadiums, the demand for 16 more top-quality training camps and hotels suggests FIFA would look for 2026 hosts with existing capacity.

A North American bid from two or three of the United States, Canada and Mexico is currently favoured in a contest that could start within weeks.

Five options are open Tuesday, including staying with 32 teams.

Infantino campaigned last year on a 40-team promise, in either eight groups of five teams or 10 groups of four teams. Neither impressed voters in recent regional meetings of FIFA member federations.

When the FIFA leader first proposed 48 teams, it included an opening playoff round. The 16 winners would join 16 seeded teams in a traditional 32-team group stage.

FIFA members disliked "one-and-done" teams going home before the "real" World Cup kicks off. It would also stretch to a 39-day event with more short-notice travel for fans.

Africa and Asia could be the big winners, and FIFA hopes new teams would include another Iceland, Wales and Costa Rica — over-achieving teams and feelgood stories at recent tournaments.

Still, hapless Tahiti was outclassed at the 2013 Confederations Cup, conceding 24 goals in three games.

"The goal of expanding the FIFA World Cup," it has told members, "is to further advance the vision to promote the game of football, protect its integrity and bring the game to all."

___

AP

http://www.sportsnet.ca/soccer/fifa-set-approve-bigger-richer-world-cup-tuesday/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am broadly in favour of expanding the World Cup, I don't think this is the right way to go about it. I am concerned that the 16 groups of three, while a more balanced proposal than others put forward, will disadvantage some teams unfairly and could even lead to a re-emergence of the kind of malpractice that has caused final group games to be played simultaneously at every major championship for as long as I can remember.

Both risks stem from the same issue, namely the odd number of teams and matches in each group. The teams that play in the third game in each group, and particularly the one that plays in games two and three, will be at an advantage over the team that plays in matches one and two. From there, it is not a great leap towards match three producing a result that mutually suits the two teams playing and eliminates the other. It risks a scandal like West Germany and Austria from 1982 all over again and it is a risk, in my opinion, that is not worth taking.

So what should FIFA do? Given the complexities, the simplest option might be to leave things alone. A 64-team tournament would be too big, and too long, and any 40 or 48 team format that starts with a group stage risks being too complicated. I understand the reservations about having an initial playoff round before the groups, but I think it's a better option than the one they look like going with.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, arwebb said:

It risks a scandal like West Germany and Austria from 1982 all over again and it is a risk, in my opinion, that is not worth taking.

Wow yeah, I hadn't considered that point, but you're right! It's almost as if a FIFA Presidential Election was won on the basis of giving some confederations more places, and nobody actually thought it through.

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, gotosy said:

Though a "16x3" World Cup would still need a maximum of 12 stadiums, the demand for 16 more top-quality training camps and hotels suggests FIFA would look for 2026 hosts with existing capacity.

I'm surprised that 12 stadiums is still enough to get that tournament going...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a crazy idea...

All this stems from the ongoing arguments about how many spots each Confederation gets. Why not scrap Confederation qualifying for World Cups? Have a worldwide qualifying system over two years instead (possibly with pre-qualifiers for the really tiny nations). FIFA could set aside a pot of money which all nations contribute to to help with travel costs etc. Possibly a security and logistical nightmare, but maybe not impossible with football being as global and wealthy as it now is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Rob. said:

Here's a crazy idea...

All this stems from the ongoing arguments about how many spots each Confederation gets. Why not scrap Confederation qualifying for World Cups? Have a worldwide qualifying system over two years instead (possibly with pre-qualifiers for the really tiny nations). FIFA could set aside a pot of money which all nations contribute to to help with travel costs etc. Possibly a security and logistical nightmare, but maybe not impossible with football being as global and wealthy as it now is?

Yeah, but FIFA wants this global thing visible in the WC, and with worldwide qualifiers, we'd get probably 22 European, 7 South American and 3 elsewhere...that's not what they want.

 

Of course the main point for Infantino's plan to increase the WC was to get elected by promising more spots (and revenue). The old trick worked for Platini and in a way also for Blatter when the 32 WC spots were slightly reallocated to UEFA's disadvantage. I think even Havelange used this trick when the WC went from 16 to 32 teams.

 

I hope Infantino quickly follows those men's paths out of job too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rob. said:

Here's a crazy idea...

All this stems from the ongoing arguments about how many spots each Confederation gets. Why not scrap Confederation qualifying for World Cups? Have a worldwide qualifying system over two years instead (possibly with pre-qualifiers for the really tiny nations). FIFA could set aside a pot of money which all nations contribute to to help with travel costs etc. Possibly a security and logistical nightmare, but maybe not impossible with football being as global and wealthy as it now is?

It would get rid of local rivalries, make it too hard for traveling fans, etc. If English fans are already unhappy about hosting San Marino at Wembley, imagine the annoyance of playing Suriname, Singapore or Samoa. And then there's the travel time issue for the players having to fly all over the world.

As for the expansion itself, personally I don't think it will ruin the World Cup if teams like Jamaica, Peru, Sweden and China qualify. The quality of teams around the world is improving, and the attitude of some European fans that think countries like Costa Rica are beneath them is not only insulting but foolish.

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...