Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Kenadian
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.espnfc.com/united-states/story/3049369/sunil-gulati-says-us-wc-bid-secondary-to-president-trump-immigration-ban

Gulati says U.S. WC bid 'secondary' to President Trump immigration ban

 

SAN DIEGO -- U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati said on Sunday that the American federation still hasn't decided whether it will bid for the 2026 World Cup, while adding that he's taking a wait-and-see approach to how President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration might impact the potential bid.

"Sports obviously involves international movement and free movement of players, of ideas," Gulati told a small group of reporters at half-time of the U.S. men's national team's scoreless tie in a friendly match against Serbia.

"How this plays out in terms of international events, I think that's frankly a secondary issue right now. The issue involving the executive order and its implications are far broader than that."

Gulati declined to comment when asked if the United States Soccer Federation had a public stance on the highly controversial order, which temporarily bans entry to the U.S. of all refugees and most visitors from seven majority Muslim countries and sparked protests throughout the country and criticism from some governments around the world.

But Gulati also said he had no problem with U.S. captain Michael Bradley, who slammed Trump on Saturday in a message posted to his Instagram account, voicing his opinion.

Bradley wrote: "When Trump was elected, I only hoped that the President Trump would be different from the campaigner Trump [and] that the xenophobic, misogynistic and narcissistic rhetoric would be replaced by a more humble and measured approach to leading our country. I was wrong. The Muslim ban is just the latest example of someone who couldn't be more out of touch with our country."

Of the Bradley post, Gulati said: "I saw Michael's comments yesterday and they were clearly heartfelt. Absolutely no issue whatsoever."

As for if the current political climate in the country could influence whether the U.S. bids for the 2026 competition alone or along with one or both of North American neighbors Mexico and Canada, Gulati said the federation would continue to consider its options.

Earlier this month, FIFA approved the expansion of the competition from 32 to 48 teams in 2026, and FIFA president Gianni Infantino has said repeatedly that he's open to having two or more countries co-host the planet's biggest sporting event.

"We haven't made any commitments about '26," Gulati said. "The rules still haven't been completely clarified, although more of them are now known in terms of numbers of teams, joint bids, but the process is still very much up in the air. Until we know more about that we'll sit tight.

"We're challenged by a number of things that are going on in the world. So let's see how those play out over the next few weeks before we make any decision about co-hosting or going alone or bidding at all."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.as.com/en/2017/03/07/football/1488900660_615809.html

Morocco, Portugal and Spain to launch bid for 2026 World Cup

Mohamed VI has asked King Felipe VI to join in a joint bid for the World Cup with Portugal to challenge USA, Canada and Mexico. Infantino backs the idea.

Mohamed VI of Morocco has asked Spain’s King Felipe VI to consider a joint bid including Portugal to host the 2026 World Cup. The idea has the backing of Fifa president Gianni Infantino and would be a counter-bid to challenge the USA, Canada and Mexico, who are also planning to run but have been weakened by the election of Donald Trump to the White House.

Trump competition

Morocco has set its sights on hosting the 2026 World Cup in conjunction with Spain and Mohamed VI is confident of counting on the aid of his counterpart King Felipe VI. Both countries also wish to include Portugal in the bid after the Iberian neighbours’ failed attempt to win the right to host the 2022 World Cup. The next two World Cups will take place in Russia (2018) and Qatar (2022). On the basis of continental rotation the joint North and Central American bid is the frontrunner after Germany played host in 2006 but the immigration policies of newly elected US President Donald Trump may work against their designs.

Infantino support

The Fifa president backs a bid that will take place in Africa and Europe and between Muslim and Christian societies. Infantino sees the possibility of a successful bid as a unique opportunity to demonstrate that football can bridge cultural divides and also serve to have Fifa nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for the initiative in order to clean up the organization’s image after a series of corruption scandals. Ángel María Villar has yet to comment on the idea as to do so he will first need to be re-elected as president of the Spanish Football Federation.

Felipe VI on board

The Spanish monarch sees a joint bid as a good idea, but only if it has a genuine chance of success. That may depend on the course that Trump’s migration policy takes. There is plenty of time to prepare: Fifa will not elect a host nation for the 2026 World Cup until May 2020.

Mohamed VI to pull out all the stops

A Morocco-Spain-Portugal candidacy – an Alliance of Civilizations -- is viewed favourably by the Moroccan and Spanish monarchs and also by Infantino. Working in its favour is the fact that Morocco holds the record as the country most often turned down by Fifa (the North African nation launched failed bids for 1994, 1998, 2006 and 2010) and that the joint Iberian campaign did not profit due to alleged irregularities in the bidding process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups.

48 competing countries

The 2026 World Cup will be an historic one as it will be the first with an expanded participation of 48 national teams placed into 16 groups of three for the first round. Draws will also be prohibited in the final round of group games and decided by a penalty shoot with no extra time. Morocco, Spain and Portugal hope to be the countries whose names go in the history books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Europe is out for 2026. FIFA has said this. That article is quote-free. If you can find me an actual quote saying Infantino supports Spain/Portugal/Morocco putting themselves forward I'd be more inclined to believe this. As it is, it flies in the face of what we already know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2017/03/210312/king-mohammed-vi-asks-king-felipe-host-2026-world-cup-morocco-spain/

FIFA president, Gianni Infantino, supports the Kings proposal. Infantino supports a world cup by horse back between African And Europe, between Christians and Muslims.

According AS, Infantino believes that the 2026 World Cup would be an opportunity to demonstrate that futbol (soccer) can be used to overcome differences and in this way also gain FIFA a nomination for a Nobel Peace Prize. Infantino added that having Morocco, Spain and Portugal host the 2026 World cup could help clear FIFA’s current image of being a corrupted organization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ansem said:

More than ever, Canada needs to do this solo, no USA

The problem is that I don't think Canadians really want to do it on their own. A national stadium in Toronto for the World Cup finals and Olympics would . . .

  1. cost $800 million CAD at a minimum
  2. cost a lot of money to maintain
  3. leave Toronto with a stadium w/ no obvious sport team as a tenant
  4. make people in Quebec really unhappy

Canadians are very patriotic, but they are also very smart. Until the stadium issues can be worked out it does not make sense for Canada to bid for the World Cup, and I think the public knows that.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

That's cute you still think that.

Yes, the US are now officially the weakest link of a North American bid...see below

 

U.S. travel ban could affect chances of hosting 2026 World Cup - FIFA chief

http://www.espnfc.us/blog/fifa/243/post/3078614/us-travel-ban-could-affect-chances-of-hosting-2026-world-cup-fifa-chief

Quote

Infantino said in London on Thursday: "When it comes to FIFA competitions, any team, including the supporters and officials of that team, who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup. That is obvious."

The competition will be expanded from 32 to 48 teams in 2026.

Of the countries affected by the executive order, Iran has the highest-ranked team in the FIFA rankings at 33rd and they have qualified for four World Cups. Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen are the other countries on the list.

FIFA is finalising the requirements for bidding for the 2026 tournament, which in 2018 will be hosted in Russia and in 2022 in Qatar.

Infantino added: "Mr. Trump is the president of the United States of America and as such of course [I have] huge respect for what he does.

"He's in charge, together with his government, to take decisions that are best for his country. That's why he has been elected.

"In the world there are many countries who have bans, travel bans, visa requirements and so on and so forth.

"We are now in the process of defining the bid requirements.

"The requirements will be clear. And then each country can make up their decision, whether they want to bid or not based on the requirements.

"It's general sporting criteria."

UEFA president Aleksander Ceferin made a similar observation in a recent interview.

What else do you need???

The top 2 most influential and powerful figures in FIFA, Infantino FIFA President & Ceferin UEFA President, said that the ban will hurt a US bid. On top of that, Infantino clearly hints that no travel bans must be in effects or they will look elsewhere. Trump could care less about soccer and I think it could mean that the USSF could pass on a bid.

Canada will bid solo if that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, zekekelso said:

Morocco has roughly the same population as Canada, and significantly more large football stadiums. I'll believe they will solo host before I believe Canada will. 

Canada is a G7 nation and a much richer country than Morocco. It's laughable to say that Morocco can host better than Canada. We already have stadiums that can be expended, just like Brazil did for some of theirs. We're rich enough to build stadiums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Nacre said:

The problem is that I don't think Canadians really want to do it on their own.

The CSA said they would bid solo as early as 2014. Even when the first talks of co-bidding came out between Mexico and the USA, the CSA kept saying Canada would do it solo. The will is definitely there. Montagliani was the president of the CSA and won the CONCACAF presidency last year which made him a FIFA Vice-President. He's a powerful ally for a Canadian bid.

The man is a very skilled politician while being very nationalistic, he went as far as threatening the MLS of de-sanctioning them in Canada which would ban the league if they didn't improve their domestic rules for Canadians. Finally, he's the catalyst of the creation of CPL "Canadian Premier League", a Division 1 league set to begin in 2018-2019 which is part of the bid component for the 2026 World Cup.

So yes, the CSA is very serious about it and all level of government supports the bid

16 hours ago, Nacre said:

A national stadium in Toronto for the World Cup finals and Olympics would . . .

  1. cost $800 million CAD at a minimum

In the 1976 Summer games, Montreal Olympic stadium had over 70k spectators to the final men's soccer match. The stadium could be reconfigured to have the number of seats exceeding 70k which is a number acceptable for a FIFA final match. It would cost way less to do this than build a brand new giant stadium.

  • 2014 Estádio do Maracanã, Brazil = 74k seats
  • 2006 Olympiastadion, Germany= 69k seats
  • 2002 International Stadium Yokohama, Japan= 69k seats
  • 1990 Stadio Olimpico, Italy= 73k seats
  • 1978 Estadio Monumental, Argentina= 71k seats
  • 1976 Stade Olympique, Summer Olympics soccer finals, Montreal, Canada= 71 617https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_at_the_1976_Summer_Olympics

So no, in theory, we don't need to build a stadium for the finals, we already have one.

16 hours ago, Nacre said:

cost a lot of money to maintain

We're a G7 nation, we can maintain infrastructure and we have been maintaining the Olympic Stadium the entire time

16 hours ago, Nacre said:

leave Toronto with a stadium w/ no obvious sport team as a tenant

Toronto doesn't need a stadium as shown above except for a 2028 Summer game

16 hours ago, Nacre said:

make people in Quebec really unhappy

Actually, I've shown that Montreal would most likely get the finals

 

16 hours ago, Nacre said:

Canadians are very patriotic, but they are also very smart. Until the stadium issues can be worked out it does not make sense for Canada to bid for the World Cup, and I think the public knows that.

Yes we are both patriotic and smart, hence we're looking at this scenario with stadiums meeting or can be upgraded to meet FIFA Requirements:

  • Stade Olympique - Montreal, QC = around 70k seats (Finals)
  • Commonwealth Stadium - Edmonton, AB
  • BC Place - Vancouver, BC
  • Rogers Centre - Toronto, ON
  • McMahon Stadium - Calgary, AB
  • Investors Group Stadium - Winnipeg, MB
  • Mosaic Stadium - Regina, SK
  • BMO Field - Toronto, ON
  • TD Place Stadium - Ottawa, ON
  • Tim Horton's Field - Hamilton, ON

Since FIFA said that 12 stadium are need to host a 48 team World Cup, we're missing only 2. Theses projects would be fast-tracked for a World Cup:

  • Vancouver Waterfront Stadium: MLS Vancouver Whitecaps have been pursuing their own stadium from the City of Vancouver on the Waterfront. This stadium happens if the city cave to the team at giving them a Waterfront spot or the team accepting to build elsewhere. Legacy? Vancouver Whitecaps
  • CalgaryNext project: The Calgary Sports and Entertainment, who owns all the major sports teams in the city wants to build a multi-billion complex for hockey, football and a FIFA Soccer Stadium. Legacy? Calgary CPL team
  • Halifax: With the launch of the CPL "Canadian Premier League", a stadium will be built in Halifax, Nova Scotia. A world Cup bid would justify the construction of a permanent stadium meeting FIFA requirements Legacy? Halifax CPL team
  • Other potential city? Quebec City

So, I think we're good in term of costs and avoiding building white elephants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

What else do you need???

Well, 2 things.  1) It would be nice to hear it from someone who isn't you who is actively rooting for the United States to falter or at the very least someone who doesn't have an inferiority complex when it comes to Canada versus the United States.

2) Would be nice if you didn't omit paragraphs which counter your argument.  Can't use the above link, but since it was sourced from elsewhere, let's use this..

Donald Trump travel ban could prevent USA from hosting 2026 World Cup

Quote

 

FIFA president Gianni Infantino has indicated Donald Trump's controversial travel ban could prevent the United States from hosting the World Cup.

The United States is favourite to win the right to host the 2026 World Cup, either on its own or in a cross-border bid with either, or both, Mexico and Canada.

But President Trump on Monday signed a new executive order banning immigration from six Muslim-majority countries, which could have implications for the nation's ability to host football's biggest tournament - and the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games which Los Angeles is bidding to stage.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

1) It would be nice to hear it from someone who isn't you who is actively rooting for the United States to falter or at the very least someone who doesn't have an inferiority complex when it comes to Canada versus the United States.

You don't like facts

1 minute ago, Quaker2001 said:

2) Would be nice if you didn't omit paragraphs which counter your argument.  Can't use the above link, but since it was sourced from elsewhere, let's use this..

Donald Trump travel ban could prevent USA from hosting 2026 World Cup

I quoted an American website quoting Infantino himself. Didn't omitted anything.

Quote

The United States is favourite to win the right to host the 2026 World Cup, either on its own or in a cross-border bid with either, or both, Mexico and Canada.

That's a journalistic opinion. It's not based on facts nor a direct quotation from a FIFA official. You already have 2 of the most powerful man in FIFA saying the opposite of what that journalist is saying based on his opinion. Hell, even Gulati, head of the USSF and member of the FIFA Council himself said the same thing multiple times.If that was true, why on earth is the USSF seeking to co-bid in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ansem said:

You don't like facts

LOL.  Facts.  Like you should talk.  You don't like facts so much as you like cherry picking which facts you want to present.  Doesn't make you wrong.  Just means there's more sides to an argument than the ones you want everyone to see.

8 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I quoted an American website quoting Infantino himself. Didn't omitted anything.

When you quote parts of an article and not the whole thing, then by definition you are omitting.  Post the link and let me read the article.  Don't do your usual bullshit where you put parts of it in bold or highlight certain text as if you're shoving parts of it in my face and choosing the points you want for emphasis.  That's extremely disingenuous of you.

12 minutes ago, Ansem said:

That's a journalistic opinion. It's not based on facts nor a direct quotation from a FIFA official. You already have 2 of the most powerful man in FIFA saying the opposite of what that journalist is saying based on his opinion. Hell, even Gulati, head of the USSF and member of the FIFA Council himself said the same thing multiple times.If that was true, why on earth is the USSF seeking to co-bid in the first place?

Good for direct quotations.  I'm not doubting that those things were said, but when it comes to FIFA and the IOC, sometimes what they say and what their actions speak are not 1 in the same.  Again, I am not doubting the obstacles that Trump is potentially creating here and what it might do for a potential solo US bid.  But don't sell us this line where the United States is the weak link simply because you say so and because a couple of quotes from FIFA give you confirmation bias.  That's why I'm saying let's hear this from someone who isn't you and who doesn't have an inferiority complex here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

LOL.  Facts.  Like you should talk.  You don't like facts so much as you like cherry picking which facts you want to present.  Doesn't make you wrong.  Just means there's more sides to an argument than the ones you want everyone to see.

You're funny. I quoted the entire article. If I had found that British article I would have quoted the entire thing too. As for both side of the argument, you're one to talk yourself. I've heard all the reasons why the USA can host, yet you hate the other side of it on why they shouldn't host.

Same for Canada, I keep hearing all the reasons we can't host, so I present the arguments on why we actually can host without dismissing the challenges for a Canadian bid. No bid is ever perfect.

7 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

When you quote parts of an article and not the whole thing, then by definition you are omitting.  Post the link and let me read the article.  Don't do your usual bullshit where you put parts of it in bold or highlight certain text as if you're shoving parts of it in my face and choosing the points you want for emphasis.  That's extremely disingenuous of you.

I posted the ESPN link and entire article. You're nitpicking over 1 personal opinion from a journalist which wasn't the point of the overall article. The main point is now that the top 2 man in FIFA have now said on record that the Trump ban will hurt a US bid.

9 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Good for direct quotations.  I'm not doubting that those things were said, but when it comes to FIFA and the IOC, sometimes what they say and what their actions speak are not 1 in the same.  Again, I am not doubting the obstacles that Trump is potentially creating here and what it might do for a potential solo US bid.  But don't sell us this line where the United States is the weak link simply because you say so and because a couple of quotes from FIFA give you confirmation bias.  That's why I'm saying let's hear this from someone who isn't you and who doesn't have an inferiority complex here.

So you'll gladly take a journalist opinion saying that the US are favorites but dismiss an opposing opinion saying that it's the weakest link of a North American bid. Ok. Perhaps I should have clarified that the weakest link comment was my personal opinion, but it's based on the fact that the top FIFA man literally said BAN=NO CUP.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zekekelso said:

You keep using words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean. 

Infantino said in London on Thursday: "When it comes to FIFA competitions, any team, including the supporters and officials of that team, who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup. That is obvious."

Iran regularly qualifies for the World Cup as it is, he's saying that a scenario where Iran qualifies but the team, their fans and officials from Iran not being able to enter said country will not be allowed. FIFA isn't criticizing said ban, but they are clearly saying you can't expect to have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

You're funny. I quoted the entire article. If I had found that British article I would have quoted the entire thing too. As for both side of the argument, you're one to talk yourself. I've heard all the reasons why the USA can host, yet you hate the other side of it on why they shouldn't host.

Same for Canada, I keep hearing all the reasons we can't host, so I present the arguments on why we actually can host without dismissing the challenges for a Canadian bid. No bid is ever perfect.

No, you didn't quote the whole article.  I don't know how you think you did that.  And not for nothing, but click on the link and they changed the article.  It did say the line about the US being the favorite because it came from that British article.  But whatever.

And no, I don't hate the other side of the argument.  I'm well aware of what Trump's politics could do to the US bid.  Again, that's the key word there though.  Can/can't and should/shouldn't are different arguments.  By the same token, I have never once said that Canada can't host.  I have stated repeatedly that they can and would make a strong case.  Still, don't give us this attitude where you are putting sections of your posts in big bold letters.  That's a favorite tactic of baron.  And it's stupid.

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

I posted the ESPN link and entire article. You're nitpicking over 1 personal opinion from a journalist which wasn't the point of the overall article. The main point is now that the top 2 man in FIFA have now said on record that the Trump ban will hurt a US bid.

So you'll gladly take a journalist opinion saying that the US are favorites but dismiss an opposing opinion saying that it's the weakest link of a North American bid. Ok. Perhaps I should have clarified that the weakest link comment was my personal opinion, but it's based on the fact that the top FIFA man literally said BAN=NO CUP.

*said*

Donald Trump said he wants to build a wall.  Is there a wall?  No.  Will there be a wall?  Maybe.  And yes, that's your personal opinion.  We all get that, but don't quote an article and keep saying "facts" and then make this about your opinion.  I know what Infantino said.  I believe him when he says he would hold that against a US bid.  But much like all the nonsense that gets quoted with Thomas Bach, the actions of the voters may or may not follow from what their leader said.  Even still, as noted, we've got a ways off from the vote.  Donald Trump will not be president in 2026.  Yea, the American political landscape could get a whole lot uglier and if it does, you're 100% right that it could jeopardize a US World Cup bid.  But unless you have the ability to predict the future, all you're doing is offering your best guess at what will go down 3 years from now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Donald Trump said he wants to build a wall.  Is there a wall?  No.  Will there be a wall?  Maybe.  And yes, that's your personal opinion.  We all get that, but don't quote an article and keep saying "facts" and then make this about your opinion.  I know what Infantino said.  I believe him when he says he would hold that against a US bid.  But much like all the nonsense that gets quoted with Thomas Bach, the actions of the voters may or may not follow from what their leader said.  Even still, as noted, we've got a ways off from the vote.  Donald Trump will not be president in 2026.  Yea, the American political landscape could get a whole lot uglier and if it does, you're 100% right that it could jeopardize a US World Cup bid.  But unless you have the ability to predict the future, all you're doing is offering your best guess at what will go down 3 years from now.

The US Travel ban sets a dangerous precedent. That ban was written overnight by a president who didn't even bother telling is own people, and some of them found out the next morning about that order...This bring uncertainty, and that's never attractive for events of this magnitude, project management or business.

Sure, no one can predict what the future holds and yes Trump will be out of there by 2025 at the latest. We all get that. What FIFA is saying is that today's action still does have an effect. The US are seen by the rest of the world as "unpredictable".

Last year, France had 2 brutal terrorists attacks (Paris and Nice) and some of those criminals were not even from France. Did France issue a travel ban targeting Muslim countries? No. Like the British say, "they kept calm and carry on". Can you honestly tell me that the same thing happens in spring 2026 (US 250th anniversary of all years) in Manhattan and Miami by outsiders from that part of the world that US politicians won't reintroduce the ban? Maybe they won't, but it's reasonable to have that doubt that they would indeed reintroduce such ban and there's no way that a soccer tournament takes priority over national security in the United States. A year ago a Trump president was deemed impossible and it happened regardless. How sure are we another "unpredictable" president won't be in charge after him? A year ago, I would have said no way but today, I honestly have no clue, same for the rest of the globe.

This is where FIFA is coming from. Regardless of them being corrupted, hypocrites, criminals and a joke of an organization, they still have this "cost-benefits analysis and risk assessment" approach to a world cup, yes even in regards to Qatar. Awarding the tournament to the USA increases the risk of something major going wrong (like banning the entire Iranian team from entering the US). Hence, Paris will most likely win the 2024 Summer Games. It's less risky than LA and the IOC are less likely to take such a risk with their games on LA. There's a risk assessment in every project undertaken and the US just became "riskier" on that specific front. Does that mean they have no chance in hell? No, but hopefully you understand why yesterday, awarding mega events to the US was a no-brainer and now became "riskier". It's normal for FIFA and IOC to take a harder look at their options (which they have). That's how business work as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ansem said:

Hence, Paris will most likely win the 2024 Summer Games. It's less risky than LA and the IOC are less likely to take such a risk with their games on LA. There's a risk assessment in every project undertaken and the US just became "riskier" on that specific front. Does that mean they have no chance in hell? No, but hopefully you understand why yesterday, awarding mega events to the US was a no-brainer and now became "riskier". 

Oh, but not in the world according to Truff - (s)he is so convinced that L.A. is "significantly less risk" than Paris. Go figure! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ansem said:

Yes we are both patriotic and smart, hence we're looking at this scenario with stadiums meeting or can be upgraded to meet FIFA Requirements:

  • Stade Olympique - Montreal, QC = around 70k seats (Finals)

I thought the Olympic Stadium could no longer host 70,000 seats after the latest reconstruction, but I could be wrong. In any case Canada would need to a build a new stadium for the other semi-finals. BC Place and Commonwealth Stadium are not big enough.

For the record I think Canada would be a solid host country, but I seriously question the value for money for Canada compared to hosting the winter games in Calgary. You can argue Canada would only need another two or three stadiums, but three unneeded stadiums is still three too many.

Edited by Nacre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nacre said:

I thought the Olympic Stadium could no longer host 70,000 seats after the latest reconstruction, but I could be wrong

There was no reconstruction other than the roof. Theorically, they could reconfigure to the 1976 configuration which allowed over 71k seats.

2 hours ago, Nacre said:

In any case Canada would need to a build a new stadium for the other semi-finals. BC Place and Commonwealth Stadium are not big enough.

Commonwealth can be easily expended to beyond 70k. That stadium is huge as is and have lots of space for more seats. BC place can't so the new Calgary stadium being planned could be designed for a semi-final.

2 hours ago, Nacre said:

I seriously question the value for money for Canada compared to hosting the winter games in Calgary. You can argue Canada would only need another two or three stadiums, but three unneeded stadiums is still three too many.

2018 will be the start of the CPL, Canadian Premier League, our own division 1 league.

No stadium will be unneeded 

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...