Jump to content

FIFA World Cup 2026


Kenadian
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 3/30/2017 at 1:44 PM, gotosy said:

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

 

Of for pete's sake. With that many spots, who doesn't get it? Other than Canada of course :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, gotosy said:

US, Canada and Mexico set to submit joint bid to host 2026 World Cup

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/06/us-canada-mexico-joint-world-cup-bid-2026

Oh f**k this stupidass decision. The US DOES NOT need a joint bid with any country. With all of its 30+ NFL stadiums readily available and easily converted for a soccer game it can handle a World Cup twice its current size. If anything Canada and Mexico need each other to cut the costs of hosting the event, especially with their now expanded roster. I'm already rooting for any bid to defeat this ridiculous 3-way bid.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Oh f**k this stupidass decision. The US DOES NOT need a joint bid with any country. With all of its 30+ NFL stadiums readily available and easily converted for a soccer game it can handle a World Cup twice its current size. If anything Canada and Mexico need each other to cut the costs of hosting the event, especially with their now expanded roster. I'm already rooting for any bid to defeat this ridiculous 3-way bid.

Spoken like a true American! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, intoronto said:

Spoken like a true American! :rolleyes:

Spoken like someone from a country that has the financial resources and facilities to host a FIFA World Cup event without the assistance of any other country. I would say the exact same thing if I was French, Spanish, Germany or British.

Didn't you already make the same exact claim about Canada fully capable of hosting the World Cup all by themselves, even after the team expansion was announced? If my comment bothered you enough to respond to it, it's clear you don't believe your own BS.

Either way, wanting to make a joint bid with a country our current president is trying to build a multi-billion dollar wall between looks rather ridiculous.

Also, the Japan and South Korea joint bid had lots of logisitical issues, what makes you think FIFA will go for a 3-way bid? Now Quebec's joint bid with NY for a winter Olympic games doesn't at all seem as ridiculous. At least if the United Kingdom put forth a bid that included all of England, Scotland, Wales, and even Northern Ireland it would make more sense since they share the government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

Didn't you already make the same exact claim about Canada fully capable of hosting the World Cup all by themselves, even after the team expansion was announced? If my comment bothered you enough to respond to it, it's clear you don't believe your own BS.

Psst, it's called hypocrisy (which goes on a lot on these boards). It may have been, though. But that was also our other, new Canadian "friend" here that starts with the letter 'A' that started with that.

I actually get quite tired of these snarky north of the border types always wanting to generalize all Americans with the same brush. Especially when they get ticked when some Americans generalize Canadians. Again, hypocrisy. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does seem odd. In a year when realistically only the USA is a serious contender to make a joint bid with the other big countries of North America. I am guessing there is FIFA politics are at work here.

From a logistics point of view this would be a crappy World Cup for fans. Mexico City to Montreal to Los Angeles anyone? 

Edited by Faster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, FYI said:

Psst, it's called hypocrisy (which goes on a lot on these boards). It may have been, though. But that was also our other, new Canadian "friend" here that starts with the letter 'A' that started with that.

I actually get quite tired of these snarky north of the border types always wanting to generalize all Americans with the same brush. Especially when they get ticked when some Americans generalize Canadians. Again, hypocrisy. 

I think it was both actually. While Intoronto pointed out that Canada could host the World Cup on its own, it was Asthma, or Asinine, or whatever his name was went into great detail over the existing stadiums they have and future plans for stadiums.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LatinXTC said:

I think it was both actually. While Intoronto pointed out that Canada could host the World Cup on its own, it was Asthma, or Asinine, or whatever his name was went into great detail over the existing stadiums they have and future plans for stadiums.

Close..

Ka0AKTE.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Faster said:

It does seem odd. In a year when realistically only the USA is a serious contender to make a joint bid with the other big countries of North America. I am guessing there is FIFA politics are at work here.

From a logistics point of view this would be a crappy World Cup for fans. Mexico City to Montreal to Los Angeles anyone? 

Why make it easy?  How about Guadalajara to Edmonton to Kansas City!

That aside, 48 teams organized into 16 groups of 3 and then a 32-team knockout tournament.  From a standpoint of logistics, they've already crapped up the World Cup.  I would assume, similar to 2002, that they arrange it so that crossing borders would be fairly minimal.  That said, having 3 countries instead of 2 would make that pretty difficult.  And I would like to hope that it would NOT be an even distribution of stadiums between the 3 countries, less anyone assume we're going to have equal partners here.  I have no problem with Azteca hosting some of the more prominent matches.  But let's not pretend that the stadiums in Mexico after that are on par with what the United States offers.  That's not being arrogant, that's simply stating facts.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Quaker2001 said:

Why make it easy?  How about Guadalajara to Edmonton to Kansas City!

That aside, 48 teams organized into 16 groups of 3 and then a 32-team knockout tournament.  From a standpoint of logistics, they've already crapped up the World Cup.  I would assume, similar to 2002, that they arrange it so that crossing borders would be fairly minimal.  That said, having 3 countries instead of 2 would make that pretty difficult.  And I would like to hope that it would NOT be an even distribution of stadiums between the 3 countries, less anyone assume we're going to have equal partners here.  I have no problem with Azteca hosting some of the more prominent matches.  But let's not pretend that the stadiums in Mexico after that are on par with what the United States offers.  That's not being arrogant, that's simply stating facts.

Nor are Canada's stadiums on par with the US ones. Hell I'd even be bold to say that they pale in comparison to Mexico's. Mexico has at least one 80,000+ capacity stadium for soccer specific games and at least 2 50,000+ ones. The best soccer stadium Canada can offer is BC Place in Vancouver. Everything else bigger than 50,000+ capacity is designed for other sports that will give s**t views for people who would pay top dollar for a ticket.

And if the US were to stupidly be realistic about a joint bid, even with their sub-par stadiums I would take my chances with just Canada seeing as we are currently on friendlier terms and you would be able to deal with customs in Canada before entering the US to save time getting out of the airport. Not sure if this is the case in other cities, but I've traveled to Toronto 3 times and all 3 times I loved dealing with customs before boarding the flight coming back home rather than put up with it here in the US. Let's just dump all of the matches no one will care about to Canada, like Ivory Coast vs Iran lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

I think it was both actually. While Intoronto pointed out that Canada could host the World Cup on its own, it was Asthma, or Asinine, or whatever his name was went into great detail over the existing stadiums they have and future plans for stadiums.

Lmfao - Asthma/Asinine! LUV it!! :lol:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a fan of this idea. If it was joint it should be Canada-USA or USA-Mexico. All three is just too much. I'd assume that it would be Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal from Canada. Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City from Mexico. And your pick of 8 of; Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Nashville, Dallas, Houston, San Antonia, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix. 

I think I just provided the reasoning for no joint bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Faster said:

I am not a fan of this idea. If it was joint it should be Canada-USA or USA-Mexico. All three is just too much. I'd assume that it would be Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal from Canada. Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City from Mexico. And your pick of 8 of; Boston, Baltimore, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, New York, Atlanta, Charlotte, Miami, Orlando, New Orleans, Nashville, Dallas, Houston, San Antonia, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix. 

I think I just provided the reasoning for no joint bid.

San Antonio's sister city presumably. 

For the curious, 1994 host cities: Pasadena, Stanford, Pontiac, East Rutherford, Chicago, Orlando, Foxborough, Washington DC, Dallas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

Spoken like someone from a country that has the financial resources and facilities to host a FIFA World Cup event without the assistance of any other country. I would say the exact same thing if I was French, Spanish, Germany or British.

Didn't you already make the same exact claim about Canada fully capable of hosting the World Cup all by themselves, even after the team expansion was announced? If my comment bothered you enough to respond to it, it's clear you don't believe your own BS.

Either way, wanting to make a joint bid with a country our current president is trying to build a multi-billion dollar wall between looks rather ridiculous.

Also, the Japan and South Korea joint bid had lots of logisitical issues, what makes you think FIFA will go for a 3-way bid? Now Quebec's joint bid with NY for a winter Olympic games doesn't at all seem as ridiculous. At least if the United Kingdom put forth a bid that included all of England, Scotland, Wales, and even Northern Ireland it would make more sense since they share the government.

And Canada doesn't have the resources lol?? No one is doubting the USA was the presumed favourite if it was all single bids, but to just throw of Canada and Mexico as unable to host is just plain stupid. 

All three nations could host the event by themselves... but I do not believe I said that after the expansion of the World Cup was announced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm shocked that a joint 3-way bid is actually going to happen. I'm having conflicting feelings on this. On one side, I'm thinking I would rather be greedy and bid solo with a chance to host it by ourselves. But on the other hand, I have a feeling that FIFA would award this 3-way bid which atleast would give Canada a hosting gig and possibly a brand new stadium.

Logistics may be challenging. I'd love to see their plan on that.

Edited by dave199
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FYI said:

Ooooo he cute! Who is that?! :D

You don't know who that is???

clutch-my-pearls.gif

That's Jensen Ackles. He plays Dean Winchester on the CW show Supernatural. Not the best of shows out there but it's amusing. He and the guy who plays his brother on the show, Jared Padalecki, have a large gay following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LatinXTC said:

 You don't know who that is???

clutch-my-pearls.gif

That's Jensen Ackles. He plays Dean Winchester on the CW show Supernatural. Not the best of shows out there but it's amusing. He and the guy who plays his brother on the show, Jared Padalecki, have a large gay following.

Lmfao - I don't watch the CW. Just checked Jared as well, though. And nah, I'll stick with Jensen. For starters, long hair on guys is just so unattractive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, FYI said:

Lmfao - I don't watch the CW. Just checked Jared as well, though. And nah, I'll stick with Jensen. For starters, long hair on guys is just so unattractive.

I agree I don't like long hair on guys either, with very few exceptions. He isn't one of those. He does have a nicer body than Jensen, but I'll take Jensen over Jared regardless!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, LatinXTC said:

I agree I don't like long hair on guys either, with very few exceptions. He isn't one of those. He does have a nicer body than Jensen, but I'll take Jensen over Jared regardless!

Whoaaa, really?! :wub: Sounds like Jensen is my kind of guy all the way around then! I like some meat & potatoes on my man's bones!! :lol::DB)

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...