Jump to content

England 2026


gromit
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 30th May, the FIFA Executive Committee decided that any country could bid for the FIFA World Cup providing their association had not hosted the previous event. European countries are now officially allowed to bid for the World Cup in 2026.

2 months earlier, on 24th March, Greg Dyke, the chairman of the Football Association had announced a possible bid for 2026 provided Sepp Blatter was no longer FIFA president. This will now be the case.

Could England now be the favourite? The only two confirmed bidders are Canada (sufficient infrastructure?) and Mexico (hosts in 1970 and 1986).

Advantages that England would have include:

  • No competing sporting or cultural events
  • Games held in one time zone
  • Multiple facilities of proven quality for training, accommodation etc
  • Proven ability to host a multi event and multi team event (Olympics, Cricket, Rugby etc.)
  • Multi cultural society with proven ability to support multiple teams throughout such an event
  • Excellent infrastructure
  • Purpose built football stadia already in place with guaranteed full usage after the event and minimum modifications required if any at all
  • FIFA delegates will hate one nation even more than England for exposing their levels of corruption

Potential stadiums

Newcastle

Sunderland

Liverpool

Manchester - Old Trafford,

Manchester - Etihad Stadium,

Leeds

Sheffield

Derby

Leicester

Birmingham - Villa Park

Southampton

Milton Keynes

London - Wembley

London - Emirates Stadium

London - Stamford Bridge

London - New White Hart Lane

London - Olympic Stadium

All are built/building and have been designed to temporarily/permanently exceed the minimum 40,000 seat capacity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against Canada and England they're a shoe-in. Canada might need the US to come in and help them out to host because they clearly don't have the current infrastructure to host.

But I'd like to see the US host it, both them and England are the current heavy favorites to host the World Cup, not just for 2026 but in general. Everyone knows they both got screwed over for the 2018 and 2022 WCs. And all the stadiums are there, with all of them having a minimum capacity of 60k. Nothing new needs to be built just for the games, the current new stadiums being built would be World Cup non-related. And with massive ticket sales in 1994, the US is sure to repeat that success for any future bids, and break their own record since there are now 32 teams in the tournament instead of 24.


*Against Canada and Mexico, England is a shoe-in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against Canada and England they're a shoe-in. Canada might need the US to come in and help them out to host because they clearly don't have the current infrastructure to host.

But I'd like to see the US host it, both them and England are the current heavy favorites to host the World Cup, not just for 2026 but in general. Everyone knows they both got screwed over for the 2018 and 2022 WCs. And all the stadiums are there, with all of them having a minimum capacity of 60k. Nothing new needs to be built just for the games, the current new stadiums being built would be World Cup non-related. And with massive ticket sales in 1994, the US is sure to repeat that success for any future bids, and break their own record since there are now 32 teams in the tournament instead of 24.

*Against Canada and Mexico, England is a shoe-in.

South Africa hosted alone. And you are trying to tell me Canada doesn't have the infrastructure. You straight out your damn mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Africa hosted alone. And you are trying to tell me Canada doesn't have the infrastructure. You straight out your damn mind.

By current infrastructure I meant they don't currently have a sufficient amount of already prepared stadiums to host the event. The advantage of an England and US bid is they need no new stadiums. Currently Canada has 4, maybe 5 that are fit to host the World Cup. It doesn't have an 80k+ stadium, or a 60k+ stadium. It would need to build an 80k capacity stadium, preferably in Toronto that also will host a future Summer Olympic games, as heavily renovate a lot of their other stadium or build brand new ones altogether. And I don't see Canadians feeling all too welcome in spending money for renovations that aren't even needed.

And you're talking about a time before the scandals have been coming out. While I wouldn't put it passed them to give the games to another situation like South Africa, Russia and Qatar where so much has to be built from scratch, I think right now to save face they're going to be looking for a much safer choice, and right now that's England and the US. I don't doubt that Canada can pull it off, but FIFA I think will be looking for a cost-cutting bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England's problems are:

1. FIFA. A thorough culture change is needed before I believe we have a chance or before I'd be happy to see public money put towards a bid.

2. The concentration of large stadiums in a few cities. London will - remarkably - have five 60,000+ stadiums (six if we're to include Twickenham) by the end of the decade. Manchester/Liverpool will have three. The inclusion in the 2018 bid of speculative stadiums such as Portsmouth's new ground (not going to happen now!) and a new Nottingham Forest stadium (any word on that?) shows how difficult it became to come up with a good geographical spread of stadiums outside London and the Northwest.

Apart from that, we've got what it takes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England's problems are:

1. FIFA. A thorough culture change is needed before I believe we have a chance or before I'd be happy to see public money put towards a bid.

2. The concentration of large stadiums in a few cities. London will - remarkably - have five 60,000+ stadiums (six if we're to include Twickenham) by the end of the decade. Manchester/Liverpool will have three. The inclusion in the 2018 bid of speculative stadiums such as Portsmouth's new ground (not going to happen now!) and a new Nottingham Forest stadium (any word on that?) shows how difficult it became to come up with a good geographical spread of stadiums outside London and the Northwest.

Apart from that, we've got what it takes.

Even with a one stadium per city rule we're talking 12 stadiums with Southampton replacing Portsmouth and Leicester/Derby replacing Nottingham. Geographical areas potentially missing out are the West Country and East Anglia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with a one stadium per city rule we're talking 12 stadiums with Southampton replacing Portsmouth and Leicester/Derby replacing Nottingham. Geographical areas potentially missing out are the West Country and East Anglia.

Oh what a shame. Areas of England that most people have never heard of, or even care much about, won't be represented in a world cup. That's just how things are it's impossible to generously cover all areas of a country. In the US Alaska and Hawaii are constantly left out of almost everything lol. But it would be a shame if Bristol is left out. I've never been there, but I know people from there. Looking at the stadiums they currently have they could renovate them to have at least a 35k capacity, which is what the Russians are getting away with as their minimum. It shouldn't be an issue with allowing England to have that as their minimum capacity.

Also I think they would allow England to have at least one city with multiple stadiums in use, but I think they should be allowed to get away with 2. London of course will be the one of those two, and I think Manchester should be the other one.

Here's a list of stadiums. I think if FIFA won't allow for multiple stadiums from a city but England is allowed to have a 35k minimum rather than a 40k minimum capacity, then there are a good number of stadiums in places such as Derby, Coventry, and Southampton that can make the proper renovations to meet those minimum capacities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_England

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh what a shame. Areas of England that most people have never heard of, or even care much about, won't be represented in a world cup.

Comparing Alaska and Hawaii with the West Country and East Anglia ... jaw drops in astonishment ... no-one in Europe really cares if the USA hosts the World Cup with its excessive commercialisation and attempts to Americanise the language of football (not soccer)

Most bidding nations attempt to extend such events to all corners if possible.

At present (which means now) there are 17 odd stadiums which could meet the FIFA criteria with no that difficult alteration. There is the possibility that Bristol might extend Ashton Gate beyond the 27,000 seat current plans, or Norwich might replace Carrow Road

This is a topic about England and most of the rest of the world have absolutely interest in the USA.

If you want to talk USA 2026 start a new topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly overagressive response there gromit. He was arguing by comparison, not trying to change the subject.

It's a fair point though. Spreading the tournament around the country is the ideal, but we've seen stadiums - e.g. the one in the Amazon in Brazil built just for the World Cup - underutilised afterwards. It's about getting the balance right.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no-one in Europe really cares if the USA hosts the World Cup with its excessive commercialisation and attempts to Americanise the language of football (not soccer)

This is a topic about England and most of the rest of the world have absolutely interest in the USA.

lol that's laughable. Over 3.5 million people, a lot of them visitors, certainly cared when the US hosted in 1994, and during a time when we didn't even have a national soccer league. If we ever host another one, it won't be any different people will still be scrambling like crazy for those tickets. And since all of our stadiums will have a minimum of 60k capacity, there are far more tickets to go around for everyone.

Comparing Alaska and Hawaii with the West Country and East Anglia ... jaw drops in astonishment ...

Most bidding nations attempt to extend such events to all corners if possible.

At present (which means now) there are 17 odd stadiums which could meet the FIFA criteria with no that difficult alteration. There is the possibility that Bristol might extend Ashton Gate beyond the 27,000 seat current plans, or Norwich might replace Carrow Road

If you want to talk USA 2026 start a new topic

I was obviously making a comparison that not every area of any country will successfully be able to be represented in the games, and that's ok. We will have 31 readily-available NFL stadiums to host a world cup event, but not every one of those cities will see a World Cup games. Hell in Russia you have no one beyond east of Yekaterinburg hosting a game in 2018. It's not a rule written in stone that you HAVE to spread your games around to every square inch of your nation.

But if England wants to have the games all over the country by expanding the stadium in Bristol and Norwich or building a brand new stadium then good yes go for that. But don't do it just for an event when a 35k+ capacity stadium is unneeded for that city at the expense of the government or whoever is going to pay for such renovations. I don't need to create a new topic to make that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you had any idea about football in England outside of the Premier League you'd realise the building of football stadiums in England does not create white elephants as you put it. Last week a team in the third tier of the game had a higher attendance than the MLS.

When the MLS has an attendance level to routinely fill your NFL stadiums then the USA deserve to host over a country where it is the No1 sport not the fifth rated sideshow.

To use Alaska and Hawaii is a nonsense as even at its extremes England has one time zone minimising impact on teams and fans alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the US should wait longer between World Cups than it should between Summer Olympics. They have good numbers of travelling fans to World Cups and sell good numbers of tickets when they host, but I don't think there's justification for them regularly hosting every 25 years or so when football is not really in the national consciousness in the way it is in other nations.

That said, if FIFA's rotation means a choice between Qatar and the US, then the US should win out everytime!

Back to England and geographical spread. It's bizarre that if Southampton expands their stadium to 42k they will almost be certain of becoming a World Cup stadium. The same is possibly true of Derby as well. But we'll have a real battle to decide which London stadiums get the nod, and the same for the North West.

I'd pick Wembley and the New WHL in London as the two highest capacity amd most modern football stadiums, and use the Olympic Stadium and Olympic Park as a giant fanzone. Then ideally, Old Trafford and Anfield in the North West, (although actually. Anfield's pitch doesn't match FIFA standards right now). Would FIFA allow three stadiums in London and two in Manchester? If so, throw in the new Stamford Bridge and the Etihad.

A reminder of the 2018 bid stadiums:

article-0-0AE4A01A000005DC-583_634x479.j

Edited by Rob.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hopefully if we host we can get a few games at the New White Hart Lane (capacity 61k, opening 2018) B) B)

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/new-scheme/stadium/

http://www.tottenhamhotspur.com/new-scheme/stadium-tv/

1298_THFC_PRESS_AERIAL_VIEW-03B_REV_F3.j

1298_THFC_PRESS_AERIAL_VIEW-03B_NIGHT_RE

That venue's not going to fly. FIFA requires some open spaces around for sponsor hospitatlity tents. Where do you place them there??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That venue's not going to fly. FIFA requires some open spaces around for sponsor hospitatlity tents. Where do you place them there??

It's actually impossible to tell from the aerial renders (because there's a bloody great building in the way), but there are plans for a public square between the stadium and the hotel/residential buildings. In terms of area it will be comparable to Trafalgar Sq (see diagram below).

At planning meetings they've said it'll be modelled on Granary Sq at Kings Cross....

http://www.kingscross.co.uk/granary-square

This is obviously the space they'd use for sponsor tents if New WHL became a World Cup venue.

trafalgar-comparison-page.jpg

Edited by USA Rugby Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Blatter goes, we will get a Fifa World Cup. We will/did have an excellent world class bid, but Fifa are too corrupt. If Fifa want to play clean, pick England.


Wembley and Emirates Stadium's would be the London Venues too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wembley and Emirates Stadium's would be the London Venues too.

Wembley will certainly be one of the London venues.

The decision on the second London venue won't be quite as simple. In fact, I think it would be a really tough choice....

EMIRATES STADIUM (60k*)

Pros:

A top, modern stadium. At this stage it's a known quantity, in a decent area with good public transport.

Cons:

Smaller capacity than its main rival, the New White Hart Lane, and a generation 'older' - designed by the same architects many of the problems with the Emirates won't be replicated in N17. It's also another North London Stadium and organisers may prefer to choose a stadium in a different part of London.

gun__1289901490_club_level.jpg

* Possible 65k with costly expansion. Speculative and no plans for this have been released.

NEW WHITE HART LANE (61k)

Pros:

The largest of the true footballing stadiums in London aside from Wembley, built to the most modern standards.

Cons:

Not the most salubrious part of London. It's also another North London Stadium and organisers may prefer to choose a stadium in a different part of London.

CJaf2odWcAAb4kr.jpg

NEW STAMFORD BRIDGE (59k)

Pros:

Stunning architecturally, and will no doubt be a fantastically tight modern football ground with no expenses spared on amenities with Abramovich's money backing it. In West London so offers a spread, away from Wembley.

Cons:

Likely smallest capacity of the London venues capable of holding World Cup matches. Possibly too cramped to deal with things like sponsors tents etc.

CNnQ9TnUAAAXT1r.jpg

OLYMPIC STADIUM (54-66k)

Pros:

Public transport and surroundings are unmatched. Might get the nod as it will recoup money for taxpayers. In East London so offers a spread, away from Wembley.

Cons:

Easily the worst of the stadiums on offer from a footballing perspective. Whilst not awful, it's not going to be ideal for spectators either. With three world class football staidums on offer which would complement Wembley I'd prefer the OS was avoided.

image.jpg

Edited by USA Rugby Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wembley and Emirates Stadiums would be chosen. Emirates can be expanded to at least 65,000 seats, by filling in the corners etc. Tottenham have no expansion plan for their Stadium. Emirates would also be chosen, because Arsenal (My Football Team) is the most successful London club of all time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wembley and Emirates Stadiums would be chosen. Emirates can be expanded to at least 65,000 seats, by filling in the corners etc. Tottenham have no expansion plan for their Stadium. Emirates would also be chosen, because Arsenal (My Football Team) is the most successful London club of all time.

<_< Tony...Have good points made there BUT it's the last sentence that has tripped you up...wasn't needed. :mellow:

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...