Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Kenadian
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Ansem said:

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".

Probably by 2021, if not sooner.  Yes, FIFA is saying that.  Will the votes actually reflect that they mean it?  And yes, for the umpteenth time, I'm as aware as you are how unpredictable US politics are right now and likely will be in the next 3 years before the vote.  But once again, put into context what a quote today means in terms of a vote 3 years from now.  It's not the end all be all you seem to want it to be.

8 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

Impossible, no.  Highly improbable, sure.  How are we sure a future Canadian president wouldn't come along and be just as much of a fire starter as Trump is, considering as you say no one could have seen this coming?

That you're bringing up terrorist attacks in relation to Trump's ban is extremely ignorant.  Did a specific incident set him off?  Not the last time I checked.  And you're going to try and predict what the response would be to an attack in 2026 when Trump will have long been out of office?

And not for nothing, we all saw the chaos that came from the original travel ban.  Now here's this new travel ban, which has been modified.  Who knows what form the next one will take.  So unless you think you can predict the future, don't offer this up like it's the new normal in the United States and will be for years to come.  Unpredictable is the right word to use right now, but this is the usual spin from you.  And it's ridiculous to argue with you on it.

8 hours ago, Ansem said:

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.

From the organization that awarded a World Cup to Qatar, they wish "something major going wrong" would be the accessibility of a particular country.  You're not doing a cost-benefit analysis or assessing risk.  You're isolating 1 particular factor and trying to blow it out of proportion.  It's obvious this will get taken into account, but it gets weighed along with everything else that goes into the decision.  And you keep posting about this issue as if you think I'm ignoring it.  How about we meet in the middle here, and I know that's difficult for you because you really really want to frame this to where a US bid in anything becomes a non-starter.  Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not going to happen.  Maybe FIFA or the IOC believe all this is an acceptable risk, especially so far as the 2026 World Cup is concerned where Trump is long gone.  

Either way, you know as well as I do that Paris was likely to beat LA for 2024 before all this happened.  Nothing that has happened in the past few months has significantly altered those odds.  Perceptions may have changed, but you are one of the last people on these forums that should be speaking for what the IOC is likely to take into account as risk.

I'm done with this.  If you want to root against the United States because you're Canadian and see this as an opportunity for Canada to capitalize, go for it.  But stop with this bullshit where you're going to be the guy who has to point the finger every time something negative about the US comes to light and pretending you're all about "facts" when clearly you have an agenda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

But stop with this bullshit where you're going to be the guy who has to point the finger every time something negative about the US comes to light and pretending you're all about "facts" when clearly you have an agenda

Boy, that sure does sound an awful lot like a certain someone else around here over in the L.A. thread, doesn't it! :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Will the votes actually reflect that they mean it?

definitely, hence the USSF needing Mexico and Canada to get the votes they wouldn't on their own, especially now.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

It's not the end all be all you seem to want it to be.

What I want is irrelevant, I'm not the one issuing a racist travel ban. Personally, and that's my opinion, it's refreshing for these kind of events to go somewhere new and FIFA mandate is to grow the game.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

How are we sure a future Canadian president wouldn't come along and be just as much of a fire starter as Trump is, considering as you say no one could have seen this coming?

We don't have a President. We have a Prime Minister. Our political system makes it easy to remove a nutjob as Prime Minister where yours doesn't. We don't vote for the Prime Minister. We vote for our local Member of Parliament. The party that wins the most seats win the election. That same party choose its leader and that leader becomes "Prime Minister" in this case, Justin Trudeau.

If Trudeau goes nuts, the party can fire him as leader and he'd be downgraded as a Member of Parliament. Then the party would choose a new Prime Minister. A Trump wouldn't last 2 years in Canada.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

That you're bringing up terrorist attacks in relation to Trump's ban is extremely ignorant.  Did a specific incident set him off?

He's the one using hypothetical, fictional and out of context terrorist attacks to justify his racist ban, not me. Gun control would save more lives than this racist travel ban.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And you're going to try and predict what the response would be to an attack in 2026 when Trump will have long been out of office?

Americans are known to "overreact" when stuff like this happen. Sorry but 9/11 was a huge overreaction that costs Trillions to you taxpayers. Yes overreaction, especially with that illegal Iraq war...completely destroying an entire nation that was never a threat to the United States based on fabricated evidence.

7 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

And not for nothing, we all saw the chaos that came from the original travel ban.  Now here's this new travel ban, which has been modified.  Who knows what form the next one will take.  So unless you think you can predict the future, don't offer this up like it's the new normal in the United States and will be for years to come.  Unpredictable is the right word to use right now, but this is the usual spin from you.  And it's ridiculous to argue with you on it.

Quite frankly, I could care less about what the US do with their borders. Every countries are entitled to do whatever they want with it and people should just spend their money elsewhere by choosing other vacation spots. It's just funny that some people want to have their cake and eat it too. It's not only those 6 countries that are condemning the racist ban, the whole world is (except Israel), same for that ridiculous wall with Mexico. It's clearly a discrimination exercise and that's not a good message to send when trying to get tournaments or events based on peace, respect and solidarity.

The US have the right to ban whoever they want, but the world has the right to say, we're not having our mega party over there. All 203 (or 209) federations will vote for the 2026 tournament in 2020. Good luck convincing Central and South America (those bad hombres...), Africa & Asia (FIFA biggest voting block where the Middle-East is along with the Chinese block), and even the UEFA (Merkel and the EU are just terrible and vive Brexit...) to side with the United States.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

From the organization that awarded a World Cup to Qatar, they wish "something major going wrong" would be the accessibility of a particular country.  You're not doing a cost-benefit analysis or assessing risk.

Qatar first of all, out-manoeuvered and most likely out bribe the US in 2010. According to Sepp Blatter, a deal was made backstage to have Russia in 2018 and the US in 2022. So can we stop pretending the US didn't play the same game as everyone else? At the last minute, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, UEFA President Michel Platini got the Qatari in the room with Sepp Blatter and pushed for Qatar instead. It was a secret ballot and votes switched from the US to Qatar. That FBI crackdown of FIFA was most likely a way to retaliate.

Second, Qatar has most likely poured way more money into FIFA and soccer than the USA ever will. They own and sponsor the world top teams like Barcelona. In term of money and infrastructure, there was virtually no risk.

Then you have political stability as it's a monarchy.

We all know they have questionable human rights and I believe the extreme treatment of their foreign workers blindsided everyone, including FIFA. Not because they care about humans rights but they care about their image and this was a PR disaster for them.

From a cost-benefits analysis and risk assessment point of view, Qatar made sense from FIFA's perspective but they failed to take into account that poor human rights would end up burning them and although they contemplated backtracking from 2022, it was too late.

After Brazil, Russia and Qatar problems, Infantino has been clear about doing business differently. Developing countries and those with poor human rights will have a hard time getting tournaments going forward. Again, not because FIFA cares, but because the #1 thing they care about is their image.

Which brings me to the US. Unless the president himself signs a paper stating that no bans would be in effect during a World Cup tournament (no matter what happens until then), in advance of the vote, as Infantino and UEFA President said, it will be held against the US.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

You're isolating 1 particular factor and trying to blow it out of proportion.  It's obvious this will get taken into account, but it gets weighed along with everything else that goes into the decision.  And you keep posting about this issue as if you think I'm ignoring it.

Most Americans are minimizing it and are either not inform or oblivious to the rest of the world take on it. In regard of 2026, it's the world who will be judging those bids. It's wishful thinking that nations will just forget about it.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

How about we meet in the middle here, and I know that's difficult for you because you really really want to frame this to where a US bid in anything becomes a non-starter.  Sorry to disappoint you, but that's not going to happen.  Maybe FIFA or the IOC believe all this is an acceptable risk, especially so far as the 2026 World Cup is concerned where Trump is long gone.  

Acceptable risk? Top 2 FIFA men just said that a ban as a non-starter. Unless they get a guarantee, it will absolutely be held against the US.  The IOC would be the one more willing to take a chance ahead of FIFA. The US influence is FIFA is really not a big as you think and unlike the IOC, finding bids is far from being a problem for them.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Either way, you know as well as I do that Paris was likely to beat LA for 2024 before all this happened.  Nothing that has happened in the past few months has significantly altered those odds.  Perceptions may have changed, but you are one of the last people on these forums that should be speaking for what the IOC is likely to take into account as risk.

I just said that the IOC would be more willing to accommodate the US. The US influence in the Olympic movement is undeniable, hence not being surprise that people within the IOC supports awarding both Paris and LA for 2024 and 2028. FIFA however, is entirely different beast. Like it or not, the US influence in FIFA is really not that big.

8 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

I'm done with this.  If you want to root against the United States because you're Canadian and see this as an opportunity for Canada to capitalize, go for it.  But stop with this bullshit where you're going to be the guy who has to point the finger every time something negative about the US comes to light and pretending you're all about "facts" when clearly you have an agenda

You're done being told that sometimes (just sometimes) you're country is in the wrong and at a disadvantage on some stuff. Can't be #1 in everything, right? But I understand you're frustration and where it comes from.

Canada? My only argument was that we could host it, but hey, it's alright when Americans can keep ridiculing and pointing out everything wrong with other nations and how they will never measure up to them, but I'm supposed to just lower my head and accept that...ok. Well I don't and when I do the same thing in reverse, people just can't handle it and that's fine...even unbelievably entertaining.

Go back to my first post on this thread and tell me I was the one starting this BS that you find so vexing. Or don't, I don't care

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FYI said:

Boy, that sure does sound an awful lot like a certain someone else around here over in the L.A. thread, doesn't it! :lol:

Little bit.  I think the key difference is that certain other someone is mostly just trying to blow smoke up your ass.  This one has a giant stick up his ass.  Most likely a hockey stick, of course.  Again, MASSIVE inferiority complex.  He's not so much RuFF as he is RuFF around the edges :lol:.  And like I said earlier, he actually has a lot of baron in him as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Little bit.  I think the key difference is that certain other someone is mostly just trying to blow smoke up your ass.  This one has a giant stick up his ass.  Most likely a hockey stick, of course.  Again, MASSIVE inferiority complex.  He's not so much RuFF as he is RuFF around the edges :lol:.  And like I said earlier, he actually has a lot of baron in him as well

Says the kid posting childish images. MASSIVE superiority complex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Little bit.  I think the key difference is that certain other someone is mostly just trying to blow smoke up your ass.  This one has a giant stick up his ass.  Most likely a hockey stick, of course.  

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/9/2017 at 8:17 AM, Ansem said:

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

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.

 

Except the vote isn't happening today, this week, this year or in the next two years.  

Come back in 2019 and then we can talk.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Quaker2001 said:

Wow, so childish and immature posting images like that.  Glad to see I've rubbed off on you :D

..is exactly what someone with an inferiority complex would say.  Thank you for proving my point B):lol::P

Had to sunk to your level. I get why it's so funny. 

Oh...exactly what someone with a superiority complex would say. Thanks for proving my point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Bureau of the Council recommends slot allocation for the 2026 FIFA World Cup™

(FIFA.com) 30 Mar 2017
 

The Bureau of the FIFA Council – comprised of the FIFA President and the presidents of each of the six confederations – convened this Thursday at the Home of FIFA in Zurich and agreed on a proposed slot allocation for the FIFA World Cup™ as of the 2026 edition.

The recommendation will now be submitted for the ratification of the FIFA Council, whose next meeting is scheduled for 9 May in Manama, Bahrain, two days prior to the 67th FIFA Congress.

After 10 January, when the FIFA Council unanimously decided on expanding the FIFA World Cup to a 48-team competition, FIFA, the confederations and the Member Associations engaged in a consultation process, which resulted in the proposal recommended by the Bureau of the Council. According to this proposal, the split of direct berths is as follows:

 

Slot allocation*

 

·         AFC: 8 direct slots

·         CAF: 9 direct slots

·         CONCACAF: 6 direct slots

·         CONMEBOL: 6 direct slots

·         OFC: 1 direct slot

·         UEFA: 16 direct slots

* The host country would also automatically qualify for the FIFA World Cup, and its slot would be taken from the quota of its confederation. In the event of co-hosting, the number of host countries to qualify automatically would be decided by the FIFA Council.

 

Play-off tournament for two remaining slots


The above allocation accounts for 46 of the 48 participating teams. The proposal reviewed by the Bureau of the Council includes a play-off tournament involving six teams to decide the last two FIFA World Cup berths:

-          One team per confederation with the exception of UEFA + one additional team from the confederation of the host country;

-          Two teams to be seeded based on the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking. The seeded teams will play for a FIFA World Cup berth against the winners of the first two knockout games involving the four unseeded teams;

-          Tournament to be played in the host country(ies) and to be used as a test event for the FIFA World Cup;

-          Existing play-off window of November 2025 suggested as tentative date for the 2026 edition.

 

http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2017/m=3/news=bureau-of-the-council-recommends-slot-allocation-for-the-2026-fifa-wor-2878254.html

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...