Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Kenadian
 Share

Recommended Posts

58 minutes ago, Ansem said:

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.

Well let's see.. Qatar could make a case as the richest for 2022 (certainly in terms of what they were willing to spend).  Russia was the biggest for 2018.  Brazil and South Africa were largely unopposed.  The IOC's dynamics are different in that it's cities bidding, many of whom are repeat bidders.  But that said, look what happened with them with 2022.

What you're saying about Americans is probably true, but the reverse is likely true of Canadians.  Will they not embrace a US World Cup and cross the border themselves?  Again, I'm not trying to downplay the popularity of soccer in Canada and on a percentage basis, the ratings there are likely to be higher than we could get here.  But still, that's a relative statistic based on the size of the respective nations.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

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 :)

I'd like to say this isn't about cheerleading and more about making a sensible argument, but no poster in the history of Gamesbids has ever been given that latitude, so I'm not going to ask for it.:ph34r:

Let's be clear about something.. I'm not implying Canada can't do it.  If given the opportunity, I have every confidence they would do a wonderful job.  But the question is a choice.  Which country is better equipped to handle (purely from an economic and logistical standpoint, politics being a separate issues) an event on the magnitude of the World Cup given FIFA's requirements and the expansion of the tournament?  No contest there, IMO.  If FIFA wants an 80,000+ seat stadium, the United States has that.  Canada would need to build one.  If FIFA is setting the minimum capacity for stadiums at 35,000 or 40,000, then Canada needs to renovate or expand some of their stadiums, particularly if they need 12 of them.  So again, I don't doubt that Canada could do what they need to reach whatever minimums are required in terms of stadium capacity and accommodation and the like.  At the same time though, let's not pretend that they're at that point already.  The United States is.  You can't say "but we're a G7 nation" (so is Japan and they still needed a co-hosted bid with Korea) and pretend like that puts Canada on the same level as the United States when it comes to infrastructure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Well let's see.. Qatar could make a case as the richest for 2022 (certainly in terms of what they were willing to spend).  Russia was the biggest for 2018.  Brazil and South Africa were largely unopposed.  The IOC's dynamics are different in that it's cities bidding, many of whom are repeat bidders.  But that said, look what happened with them with 2022.

What you're saying about Americans is probably true, but the reverse is likely true of Canadians.  Will they not embrace a US World Cup and cross the border themselves?  Again, I'm not trying to downplay the popularity of soccer in Canada and on a percentage basis, the ratings there are likely to be higher than we could get here.  But still, that's a relative statistic based on the size of the respective nations.

I'd like to say this isn't about cheerleading and more about making a sensible argument, but no poster in the history of Gamesbids has ever been given that latitude, so I'm not going to ask for it.:ph34r:

Let's be clear about something.. I'm not implying Canada can't do it.  If given the opportunity, I have every confidence they would do a wonderful job.  But the question is a choice.  Which country is better equipped to handle (purely from an economic and logistical standpoint, politics being a separate issues) an event on the magnitude of the World Cup given FIFA's requirements and the expansion of the tournament?  No contest there, IMO.  If FIFA wants an 80,000+ seat stadium, the United States has that.  Canada would need to build one.  If FIFA is setting the minimum capacity for stadiums at 35,000 or 40,000, then Canada needs to renovate or expand some of their stadiums, particularly if they need 12 of them.  So again, I don't doubt that Canada could do what they need to reach whatever minimums are required in terms of stadium capacity and accommodation and the like.  At the same time though, let's not pretend that they're at that point already.  The United States is.  You can't say "but we're a G7 nation" (so is Japan and they still needed a co-hosted bid with Korea) and pretend like that puts Canada on the same level as the United States when it comes to infrastructure.

All fair points. We'll wait and see what happens until then. We might end up co-bidding. If not, solo bids will be submitted and may the best bid win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, FYI said:

That's another thing; the U.S. this time around ain't getting both the Olympics & the World Cup (at least not the 2024 Olympics & 2026 World Cup. Maybe 2026 & 2028, perhaps). Same goes for Canada. Both will likely get one or the other, though. 

Why not?  Let's say the US gets the 2026 World Cup.  Do you think LA's 2028 chances would be affected by that?  Conversely, if hell were to freeze over and LA got 2024, would that prevent the US from getting the 2026 World Cup?

Brazil had both (even though they shouldn't have).  Russia had both.  If you look at the particulars - and Donald Troll's foreign policy issues aside - is it really that unforeseeable for the United States to land both a couple of years apart?  Don't forget that Calgary is looking at an Olympic bid for 2026, so that could affect their prospects of a World Cup, especially since the Olympic vote will come first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Btw - Russia did have both, but 2014 was a WINTER Olympics (where the competition there is not as formidable), FIFA going to Russia 2018 was new territory, & 2014-2018 is over four years apart, not just a couple of years. So that one at least gets an asterisk*, at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, FYI said:

Btw - Russia did have both, but 2014 was a WINTER Olympics (where the competition there is not as formidable), FIFA going to Russia 2018 was new territory, & 2014-2018 is over four years apart, not just a couple of years. So that one at least gets an asterisk*, at best.

Gee, that sounds just like the logic of a certain other poster who doesn't want to count Mexico as having hosted the World Cup in 1986 since it wasn't originally awarded to them .  Put an asterisk by that one as well, it shouldn't really count!  Should we put an asterisk next to Brazil too since 2016 was new territory for them with the IOC? :D

That aside, you know better than to put up past precedent as a reason something will or won't happen.  Again, if the US did get 2024 in LA, I don't think it would necessarily hurt the chances of a 2026 World Cup.  Likewise with 2026/2028.  I'll certainly argue that Canada ain't getting both, but I don't think the same is true of the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Again, if the US did get 2024 in LA, I don't think it would necessarily hurt the chances of a 2026 World Cup.  Likewise with 2026/2028.  I'll certainly argue that Canada ain't getting both, but I don't think the same is true of the United States.

Why don't we ask your buddy here what he thinks about that! :lol::P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering that an LA Olympic bid knocks down most of the financial burden of venues since the majority of them have are ready now or require minor renovations, and the rest of the US already has World Cup ready venues, it's not unrealisic to see them host back to back events. They did it in 1994 and 1996, they can do it again 30 years later at the earliest.

And even with the US having to deal with Cheeto Hitler as our president, we stand a good chance of getting the World Cup since by that time the worst possible outcome (a 2-term presidency) will have been over.

Plus, the US would follow two, maybe even 4 depending how you see SA and Brazil, world cup hosts that has been riddled with corruption and guaranteed financial losses to the host nation. If FIFA were smart they would give it to the US because financially it's a smart choice. Enlgand/UK wouldn't be a bad choice either, but to hell with them lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Plus, the US would follow two, maybe even 4 depending how you see SA and Brazil, world cup hosts that has been riddled with corruption and guaranteed financial losses to the host nation. If FIFA were smart they would give it to the US because financially it's a smart choice. Enlgand/UK wouldn't be a bad choice either, but to hell with them lol

What was the financially smart choice for 2022?  Sure as hell wasn't Qatar.  I know some have argued - bribery aside - the sponsorship dollars that come from there.  But let's not give FIFA credit here for making financially sound decisions.

2 hours ago, zekekelso said:

You think FIFA cares about financial losses in the home country?

By awarding 2022 to Qatar, they made it clear they don't care about human losses either.  Less they had any illusions about who would build those stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/02/2017 at 6:52 PM, FYI said:

Why don't we ask your buddy here what he thinks about that! :lol::P

FIFA and IOC are unrelated. Brazil just proved that. So anything can happen.

As for the WC, it's up to the USSF to decide want to do. The CSA is bidding one way or another. We either co-bid with the US or solo.

And most should admit that the co-bid scenario is originally the US idea...which is telling as everyone know they can easily host on their own. Co-bidding is a safe way to negate the Trump effect and being guarantee to host to some capacity. Head of USSF said it himself that a Trump presidency would hurt a US bid.

But as Trump is losing is composure, it's getting unlikely that Mexico will be co-bid. They most likely will go solo.

Canada-US is still possible but if Trump can be this brutal towards Australia, the next round of NAFTA renegotiation will define both countries relationship for years to come. 

So I don't know... Canada-US bid or the 3 countries bid solo. We'll find out by the end of the year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

FIFA to encourage co-hosting for 2026 World Cup

 

The 2026 soccer World Cup could be split between up to four countries, FIFA President Gianni Infantino said on Thursday, announcing the organization would encourage applications to co-host the tournament.

"We will encourage co-hosting for the World Cup because we need FIFA to show we are reasonable and we have to think about sustainability long-term," Infantino said.

"(We could) ...maybe bring together two, three, four countries who can jointly present a project with three, four, five stadiums each. We will certainly encourage it. Ideally the countries will be close to each other."

His remarks could open the way to a joint bid from the United States, Canada and Mexico, which have already said they intend to hold discussions over the possibility.

At the end of last year Victor Montagliani, president of the Concacaf federation that the three countries belong to, said he expected formal discussions to start once "all the rules and regulations" related to the bid were announced.

Concern has been raised about the financial burden placed on a single tournament host, and the bad publicity generated by stadiums built and then abandoned after use.

The only time FIFA has previously sanctioned co-hosting was in 2002 when Japan and South Korea staged a tournament that was widely heralded as a success.

The idea has taken off at the European Championship, with Belgium and the Netherlands co-hosting in 2000, Austria and Switzerland in 2008 and Poland and Ukraine in 2012. The next tournament in 2020 has been designated as Pan-European and is due to be staged in 13 cities in 13 counties.

...

Reuters

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-fifa-infantino-idUSKBN15V180

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/2/2017 at 4:45 PM, FYI said:

^Like I said, Quaker. I can see a 2026 & 2028 scenario more likely. But the rest of your post is fightin' words to your Canadian buddy here in this thread! :lol:

In that scenario, the USA will be the first country to have these both events (SOG and FIFA World Cup) in consecutive years twice!! Beating Mexico, Brazil and Germany.

But then idea of co-hosting, I know they probably want the Centenario, but maybe Argentina-Uruguay want to reconsiderate or Australia will keep an exception (For being at AFC) for making a co-hosting work with New Zealand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2017 at 1:15 AM, Roger87 said:

Ithey probably want the Centenario, but maybe Argentina-Uruguay want to reconsiderate or Australia will keep an exception 

2

Infantino isn't thinking that far ahead in giving the Centenary to Uruguay (where it was really held) - Argentina.  I think they will scale it down again to 32 teams if they want to give 2030 to Uruguay-Argentina.  (I imagine the Opening in Montevideo and the Closing in BA.)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infantino wants to make the WC more sustainable but why do I feel all of the decisions he's been recently making such as expanding the tournament to more countries are everything but making the tournament more affordable?

Also, WC 2002 a huge success? Didn't Blatter complained a lot back then about it to the point he said no more co-hosting? Or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/19/2017 at 2:05 PM, Ikarus360 said:

Also, WC 2002 a huge success? Didn't Blatter complained a lot back then about it to the point he said no more co-hosting? Or am I missing something?

 
1

I think that was because 2002 was divided by international waters and by two former adversarial societies.  But if you have a Benelux, an Iberian or an Uruguay-Argentina bid, those are adjoining countries whose cultures are not competitive but harmonious, then a joint hosting could still work in those medium-sized economies where fans can easily cross in train rides of just 2-3 hours perhaps.   

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

44 minutes ago, baron-pierreIV said:

And you know this because you polled the over 200 members?  You can read the minds of 200 delegations?  :lol:  Wake me again when you have a funnier story.  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marco-vicenzino/fifa-the-geo-politics-of-the-global-game_b_7902102.html

Quote

This dichotomy was on display during FIFA’s presidential election in May 2015 pitting the incumbent Blatter against Prince Ali of Jordan. For the 133 FIFA members that voted for Blatter, the bottom line is that Blatter delivered. His support came primarily from Asia and Africa, FIFA’s largest voting bloc.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-fifas-structure-lends-itself-to-corruption/
 

Quote

 

 

 

FIFA has 209 member-nations, and each one’s soccer association is equally powerful in the sport’s governing body. Every member, from China (population: 1.36 billion) to tiny Montserrat (population: 5,215), gets one vote in the FIFA Congress. That means each one gets to cast a vote in the FIFA presidential election scheduled for this Friday in Zurich. And each one — from Brazil (five men’s World Cup wins, one of the world’s best women’s teams) to, well, let’s stick to Montserrat (men’s team never ranked higher than No. 165, women’s team unranked) — will get equal say in choosing hosts of future World Cups.

 

In 2011, FIFA changed its voting rules. In future host selections, each member-association will get one vote. Multiplying the number of voters by nearly 10 should diminish the impact of any one corrupt vote.

 

Politics...The US plays the political game just as much as everyone else but got "outplayed" by the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, Qatari ruler and UEFA president Michel Platini.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbrennan/2015/11/29/fifa-geopolitics-and-the-shame-of-making-the-beautiful-game-the-ugly-circus-part-1/#138974fa160d

Quote

The problem now also lies in geopolitics, with England, Belgium and Holland seeking legal advice on whether to pursue compensation after Sepp alluded to an agreement in 2010 with Russian outlet TASS that the World Cup would go to Russia in 2018 and the USA in 2022.  Sharing the World Cup stage spotlight between the two biggest political powers is the unfortunate result of the politicization of sport and possibly propaganda. This bilateral agreement to share the World Cup between world powers was stymied though by Qatari influence and French ‘middle manning’. As Sepp admitted, “everything was good until the moment when Sarkozy came in a meeting with the present ruler of Qatar, (Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani). And at a lunch afterwards with Mr. Platini he said it would be good to go to Qatar. There was an election by secret ballot. Four votes from Europe went away from the USA … If the USA was given the World Cup, we would only speak about the wonderful World Cup 2018 in Russia and we would not speak about any problems at FIFA.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ceferin is the president of the UEFA, for those who don't know, it's the most influential, richest and most powerful confederation within FIFA

U.S. travel ban would hurt 2026 World Cup bid - UEFA chief

http://www.espnfc.com/blog/uefa/258/post/3070217/us-travel-ban-would-hurt-2026-world-cup-bid-uefa-chief
 

Quote

 

Ceferin told The New York Times that immigration restrictions would be among the areas considered during the evaluation of a United States bid.

Trump imposed a temporary U.S. travel ban last month for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, although it has since been blocked from being carried out by a federal court ruling.

"It will be part of the evaluation, and I am sure it will not help the United States to get the World Cup," Ceferin said. "If players cannot come because of political decisions, or populist decisions, then the World Cup cannot be played there. It is true for the United States, but also for all the other countries that would like to organise a World Cup.

"It is the same for the fans, and the journalists, of course. It is the World Cup. They should be able to attend the event, whatever their nationality is. But let's hope that it does not happen."

FIFA's target is May 2020 to choose the 2026 host, though that could change during meetings being held in Bahrain in May.

 

In May 2020, Trump will still be president, then FIFA will have to take that under consideration. If Trump still pushes for the ban I could see Mexico and Canada say "see you later" for a co-bid with the USA. The CSA still refuses to comment on a co-bid scenario. Seems they are using a "wait and see" approach.

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...