Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Kenadian
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Nacre said:

I don't think it will ruin the World Cup if teams like Jamaica, Peru, Sweden and China qualify.

Okay, it's my ancestral pride showing, but Sweden's been to 11 of 20 WCs, reached the semi-finals four times and the final once (1958). They're not Brazil, Germany or Italy, but I'd rate them a bit above WC minnows or novices.

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nacre said:

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.

It won't ruin the World Cup to have those teams added, but what kind of matchups are we going to get with all those extra teams?  Is Jamaica-Netherlands supposed to get me excited because it's the World Cup?  Right now with 8 groups, you're pretty much guaranteed to have a handful of matchups between top teams in group play.  This past World Cup, we have NED, CHI, and ESP all in a group.  Ditto with URU, ITA, and ENG.  In this new format, those teams are probably all in 6 different groups.  Very few of the group stage matchups will be compelling and it probably won't be until the Round of 16 that things start to get interesting. 

FIFA is going for quantity over quality.  Not a fan of this at all.  Good for all the teams that will make it to the World Cup finals.  Not sure that's a good thing for everyone involved though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not as if normal people watch all of the existing group stage matches either, though. People watch their country and the best teams. And while there would be may poor matchups in the first three games of the World Cup, that would also mean 1) more total matches to choose from, and 2)

40 minutes ago, Sir Rols said:

Okay, it's my ancestral pride showing, but Sweden's been to 11 of 20 WCs, reached the semi-finals four times and the final once (1958). They're not Brazil, Germany or Italy, but I'd rate them a bit above WC minnows or novices.

That is kind of my point. Many of the teams that are currently just outside of World Cup qualification are competent sides. Sure, Sweden are not going to win the cup and might get pummeled by Germany or Brazil in the occasional match. But they won't detract from the tournament.

Peru is also a decent team, having played in the World Cup several times before and won the Copa America twice. And the Reggae Boyz are a really fun team, though admittedly a step behind Sweden and Peru. It won't make the tournament awful if we "have" to watch Sweden vs Jamaica.

FIFA are greedy and corrupt, but they may have done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The best thing about this sport is that it is the world's sport. Not Europe's sport or South America's sport. That is what separates it from baseball, rugby, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nacre said:

It's not as if normal people watch all of the existing group stage matches either, though. People watch their country and the best teams. And while there would be may poor matchups in the first three games of the World Cup, that would also mean 1) more total matches to choose from

Normal people?  LOL.  You're making a quantity over quality argument.  More total matches to choose from?  That's not a good thing if the quality of those matches is diminished.  And with 16 groups instead of 8, that's exactly what's going to happen.  To me, this feels like what we would have seen if the NCAA Tournament expanded to 96 teams.  Sure there are more teams in the running, but is that first level of matches really going to be that interesting?  To that end..

8 hours ago, Nacre said:

That is kind of my point. Many of the teams that are currently just outside of World Cup qualification are competent sides. Sure, Sweden are not going to win the cup and might get pummeled by Germany or Brazil in the occasional match. But they won't detract from the tournament.

Peru is also a decent team, having played in the World Cup several times before and won the Copa America twice. And the Reggae Boyz are a really fun team, though admittedly a step behind Sweden and Peru. It won't make the tournament awful if we "have" to watch Sweden vs Jamaica.

FIFA are greedy and corrupt, but they may have done the right thing for the wrong reasons. The best thing about this sport is that it is the world's sport. Not Europe's sport or South America's sport. That is what separates it from baseball, rugby, etc.

I had always thought the theory behind expanding the tournament was to get more sides from Europe and South America into the tournament.  13 countries from Europe isn't enough?  We need more than 5 (out of 10) from South America?  Well shoot, then let's just invite everyone in the world so they can say they took part!

Yes, this will give us more soccer, but it's not going to lead to a better tournament IMO.  Group play now is intriguing because a couple of decent sides will make it through to the knockout phase and a couple of better teams won't.  If the group phase is about advancing 2 out of every 3 teams to get to a 32-team knockout phase, it seems counter-intuitive.  Not to mention all the arguments that this could lead to collusion since it's an odd number of teams in a group.  And how often before everyone is even on points and goal differential and we need to go to a dreaded coin flip?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait, so it's official now, the World Cup tournament is expanding to include more teams??? 

If so, this could help a USA bid for the tournament since they already have enough stadiums to make a much larger tournament happen, especially since they also still hold the record for most ticket sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

If so, this could help a USA bid for the tournament since they already have enough stadiums to make a much larger tournament happen, especially since they also still hold the record for most ticket sales.

Well, IMO yes and no. 

On the one hand, I don't think it changes the fact that at the moment the US is already and will certainly be a strong bid contender if they go for it in the near future. As you say, they're strong in facilities, a country that FIFA would like to grow the sport even more so within, a great market for FIFA, have progressed quite well in terms of its league, national team and supporter interest since it last hosted. The USMT is a team I could foresee moving up to being. Realistic title contender in the future. I'd say it's only a matter of time before the WC is hosted there again.

But then, yes, it could be a case though that it does put hosting the WC finals a bit more out of the reach, or more difficult for, some other countries. I think FIFA's saying that supposedly this doesn't change the existing requirements in terms of stadia etc, but it's not hard to figure that it has to carry some additional burden. So maybe the competition for the US would be lessened. On the other hand, and I'm not sure if this is something I've read and is true or just a half remembered opinion thrown out there sometime (in which case correct me if I'm wrong), but hasn't FIFA said they're also a bit more open to co-hosting in the future? In which case maybe the pool of potential hosts is already a little bit wider, and the notion of a Benelux or pan-Scandinavian cup is now on the board.

Whatever the case, I still think the US will host another WC sooner rather than later and the 48-team decision doesn't change that much. China's probably gonna host one soon as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2017 at 3:43 AM, yoshi said:

And if Euro 2020 goes well, they could be open to mega-co-hosting. We could see a WC spread across 10 countries in SE Asia, for example. 

Not gonna happen.  How do TEN Organizing Committees work together?  :blink:  Who leads?  Who follows?   TOTALLY unfeasible, yoshi.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, thatsnotmypuppy said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_AFC_Asian_Cup

 

The Asian Cup was co-hosted between Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam.  2 venues in each country.  Throw in Singapore, maybe Myanmar, Laos or give Indonesia/Malaysia another host city etc and there you go.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_AFC_Asian_Cup#Host_selection

Quote

Mohammed Bin Hammam proposed and presented a move to have four host nations for the 2007 Asian Cup. However, he later regretted this decision and called it his "mistake", citing the financial and logistic difficulties in organising an event across four countries. He said that "It is proving very difficult for [the executive committee as they] have to have four organising committees, four media centres and there are also financial considerations." He also revealed that "[He would] definitely [not do] it [again]", if he had the choice.

Yea, so there's that.  Don't see FIFA considering anything like this, so it's a stretch to say that Euro 2020 might lead to mega-hosting.  Not when there's an interesting bidder where they lacked one country willing to host the tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/16/2017 at 4:00 PM, baron-pierreIV said:

Not gonna happen.  How do TEN Organizing Committees work together?  :blink:  Who leads?  Who follows?   TOTALLY unfeasible, yoshi.  

nothing impossible. Euro 2022 will be hosted by 13 countries.

but for sure they will be challenging process to decide the venue for opening match and semi finals and final matches .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been lots of talk of co-bidding between Mexico-USA-Canada...but after this one

Quote

 

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

of jobs and companies lost. If Mexico is unwilling to pay for the badly needed wall, then it would be better to cancel the upcoming meeting.

 

 
Mexico will most likely be out and I sure hope Canada does a solo bid... Trump is pretty much making enemies out of everyone...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/28/2017 at 1:36 PM, Ansem said:

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=IjTPO8RC6es

We're taking names???<_<

God I hope we do a solo bid. Safe to say that CONMEBOL and some of the AFC & CAF  members would rather die than vote for a US bid

We're talking about FIFA.  This is an organization that decided it was a good idea to host a World Cup in Qatar.. speaking of a decision that actually will result in people dying.  They'll vote where the money tells them to vote.  If that's the United States, then it'll be the United States.  And if it's not, they'll vote elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Quaker2001 said:

We're talking about FIFA.  This is an organization that decided it was a good idea to host a World Cup in Qatar.. speaking of a decision that actually will result in people dying.  They'll vote where the money tells them to vote.  If that's the United States, then it'll be the United States.  And if it's not, they'll vote elsewhere.

We'll see, won't we. FIFA is 2 things. Corrupt and political. USSF president said it himself, not me that a Trump presidency would harm the bid. Why? Because small nations have more weight in FIFA and IOC and politics counts. Trump in 2 weeks plus the campaign pissed of: 

CAF members (African nations with the ban)

AFC members (Middle East and the pro Chinese block)

CONMEBOL and CONCACAF  (They support Mexico and Cuba and I hope it's not news to you how much they really don't like the US)

Why do you think the LA2024 is going south? Same thing...

Regarding money, FIFA makes their money regardless of where it's being held. Unless you can bribe them which the US made sure couldn't happen anymore...then....good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Ansem said:

We'll see, won't we. FIFA is 2 things. Corrupt and political. USSF president said it himself, not me that a Trump presidency would harm the bid. Why? Because small nations have more weight in FIFA and IOC and politics counts. Trump in 2 weeks plus the campaign pissed of: 

CAF members (African nations with the ban)

AFC members (Middle East and the pro Chinese block)

CONMEBOL and CONCACAF  (They support Mexico and Cuba and I hope it's not news to you how much they really don't like the US)

Why do you think the LA2024 is going south? Same thing...

Regarding money, FIFA makes their money regardless of where it's being held. Unless you can bribe them which the US made sure couldn't happen anymore...then....good luck!

Yes, we will.  But the day of decision for the 2026 World Cup is still a ways off.  We don't know yet what the field of bidders will look like.  Contrast that with the 2024 Olympic bidding where the process has been in full swing for well over a year now.  No kidding LA2024 is in serious trouble, but that's because they're in the middle of the bid process.  I'm not naive to think that the Trump administration won't unleash even more policy changes that will hurt a potential US World Cup bid, but that's a lot closer to the end of his presidency, not the beginning.  That makes a difference.

And that's cute that you think FIFA makes money regardless of where it's being held.  Going to Africa in 2010 was about opening the sport to a continent that hadn't seen the World Cup yet.  Choosing Russia over the other options was about expanding the game to a region of the world where it's not as popular and hoping they'll invest more in the sport.  And aside from the obvious issues of bribery with the 2022 bids, there's a lot of money coming from that Middle East region that they don't want to dry up.  So there is a tiny element where there is some financial sense from making that decision, even though the logistics of them hosting the tournament are a steaming pile of horseshit in the form of mistreated workers and broken promises for air-conditioned stadiums.

Politics are unavoidable, but FIFA cares about the economics of where the World Cup is held.  A good case can be made for Canada to open up the sport to the new market, although have fun hosting 48 teams instead of 32 and dealing with 80 matches, up from 64.  But don't pretend that the potential of TV and sponsorship money coming from the United States isn't going to be a factor here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Politics are unavoidable, but FIFA cares about the economics of where the World Cup is held.  A good case can be made for Canada to open up the sport to the new market, although have fun hosting 48 teams instead of 32 and dealing with 80 matches, up from 64.  But don't pretend that the potential of TV and sponsorship money coming from the United States isn't going to be a factor here.

FIFA said that 12 stadiums would be required to hold all these games, even the expended version. They aim to have 4 games per day with no day offs. We have enough infrastructure and capital to meet any FIFA requirements. As for TV and sponsorship, Canada can do just as good in that area with precedent being documented in many instances.

We'll have to see if there will be a co-bid (less likely do to Trump tantrums) or everyone will go solo. Mexico hosted twice, USA once, Canada never. As you pointed out, the interest will be strong to penetrate the Canadian market for FIFA and hold the World Cup in a new country, drama and corruption free.

Bid evaluation should be 2018-2019 and by 2020, it's decision time...Trump will still be president by that time, unless he nukes us all back to the stone age by then

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Ansem said:

FIFA said that 12 stadiums would be required to hold all these games, even the expended version. They aim to have 4 games per day with no day offs. We have enough infrastructure and capital to meet any FIFA requirements. As for TV and sponsorship, Canada can do just as good in that area with precedent being documented in many instances.

We'll have to see if there will be a co-bid (less likely do to Trump tantrums) or everyone will go solo. Mexico hosted twice, USA once, Canada never. As you pointed out, the interest will be strong to penetrate the Canadian market for FIFA and hold the World Cup in a new country, drama and corruption free.

Bid evaluation should be 2018-2019 and by 2020, it's decision time...Trump will still be president by that time, unless he nukes us all back to the stone age by then

Or he gets himself impeached.  But I'm not so optimistic to hold out hope that might actually happen.

Politics aside (and I'm not trying to minimize that factor because it could very well determine a winner here), this the same economic argument we seem to have a lot.  A case can be made for Canada, but put it up alongside the United States and I don't think it's as close as you want to make it out to be.  If you're going to cite the Women's World Cup or MLS playoffs as your precedent, that's all small potatoes compared to the World Cup.  And the unfortunate thing is that there's a new broadcaster in the United States that, after ESPN had 2014 in Brazil, Fox now has to deal with 2018 in a much more unfriendly timezone in Russia, and then the clusterfuck of Qatar trying to compete with NFL season for attention.  So I have a feeling some people - yourself included - will point to that as evidence of waning interest in soccer here and use that as fuel to say look at what a lucrative new market Canada.

Bottom line.. you can make an easy argument for Canada over the United States on the political front and I certainly can't disagree with that.  But on the economic front, as much as Canada presents a great opportunity for FIFA, I stick with my belief there's more to gain by coming to the US than to Canada.  To say nothing of how FIFA just upped the ante increasing the field by 50%, which isn't just a matter of holding the games, but dealing with all of the players and their fans and everything that comes with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Or he gets himself impeached.  But I'm not so optimistic to hold out hope that might actually happen.

Or removed by the CIA :lol:

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Politics aside (and I'm not trying to minimize that factor because it could very well determine a winner here), this the same economic argument we seem to have a lot.  A case can be made for Canada, but put it up alongside the United States and I don't think it's as close as you want to make it out to be.  If you're going to cite the Women's World Cup or MLS playoffs as your precedent, that's all small potatoes compared to the World Cup.  And the unfortunate thing is that there's a new broadcaster in the United States that, after ESPN had 2014 in Brazil, Fox now has to deal with 2018 in a much more unfriendly timezone in Russia, and then the clusterfuck of Qatar trying to compete with NFL season for attention.  So I have a feeling some people - yourself included - will point to that as evidence of waning interest in soccer here and use that as fuel to say look at what a lucrative new market Canada.

I don't dispute economical arguments and fair enough regarding the circumstances that Fox has to deal with. However, I'd like to point out that MLS playoffs did better than NHL hockey on those nights, which is the equivalent of Americans switching channels to watch MLS over the NFL...which I don't think will ever happen. To be fair, it could be Canadians British roots being responsible for that. All I was saying is Americans will watch the world cup on TV even if it's in Canada. Even better, they'll cross the boarder due to proximity. As past World Cup and Olympic bids as shown, it's not always the richest and biggest country that wins the bid.

12 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Bottom line.. you can make an easy argument for Canada over the United States on the political front and I certainly can't disagree with that.  But on the economic front, as much as Canada presents a great opportunity for FIFA, I stick with my belief there's more to gain by coming to the US than to Canada.  To say nothing of how FIFA just upped the ante increasing the field by 50%, which isn't just a matter of holding the games, but dealing with all of the players and their fans and everything that comes with it.

I respect your arguments and it's only natural that you cheer for the US. I'm not hear to say Canada is better, but I'm here to point out that Canada is just as able pointing out to other major events like the Olympics. I'm referring to you implying that Canada can't deal with dealing with all the players and their fans...I respectfully disagree on that. We're a G7 nation after all with all the same level of infrastructure as any modern nation. Logistic-wise, we're good :)

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...