Canada, USA, Mexico or Morocco - 2026 WC

[TiffToff88]

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

 

Apparently The Football associations of Canada, Mexico and The USA are putting in a joint bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

 

This has raised a few issues with me. Correct me if i'm wrong with any of this)

 

 Firstly, the sheer distance between the stadiums. The USA is big enough as it is, without adding Canada and Mexico to the mix. The amount of travelling that will be required of teams and fans will be immense, not to mention the cost of travel to the fans!

 

Secondly, Don't FIFA require the free movement of people in and out of the Host countries? This could cause problems for fans (and teams) of the likes of Saudi Arabia and other potential qualifying nations from the Islamic World - North Africa, the Middle East etc, if their games are in the USA.

 

Thirdly, i thought FIFA banned joint bids anyway?

 

Also, would they allow 3 host nations to qualify automatically? 

[foxile5]

For all the legitimate arguments against this it will probably happen...there's more money in the pot to be milked.

 

We won't see a World Cup in England again, we don't bribe enough and we already have the stadia...there's no money to be shuffled around and laundered.

[Finnegan]

To be fair, by 2026 there'll be five hundred teams in the world cup, you'll need a bid with about a hundred eligible stadiums just to host em all.

[Jattdogg]

49 minutes ago, TiffToff88 said:

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

 

Apparently The Football associations of Canada, Mexico and The USA are putting in a joint bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

 

This has raised a few issues with me. Correct me if i'm wrong with any of this)

 

 Firstly, the sheer distance between the stadiums. The USA is big enough as it is, without adding Canada and Mexico to the mix. The amount of travelling that will be required of teams and fans will be immense, not to mention the cost of travel to the fans!

 

Secondly, Don't FIFA require the free movement of people in and out of the Host countries? This could cause problems for fans (and teams) of the likes of Saudi Arabia and other potential qualifying nations from the Islamic World - North Africa, the Middle East etc, if their games are in the USA.

 

Thirdly, i thought FIFA banned joint bids anyway?

 

Also, would they allow 3 host nations to qualify automatically? 

Canada may be the second biggest country  in the world but 80 to 90% of our population lives something like 150km frm the US border.  

 

I cant see how this would work unless teams stayed close to major cities. So for example toronto- NY is 1 hour flight. Toronto to montreal is 45 minute flight. 

 

Toronto to newyork is 1 hour.  Toronto to boston is 1 hour. Toronto to Chicago is 1 hour.  Driving between toronto and these 3 cities is about 8 hours trek.

 

Also detroit is a 4 hour drive.  Montreal is a 5 hour drive.  But the stadiums in montreal and toronto arent big enough. Skydome could be used but they have to ship in grass over the concrete floor and its not setup for football.

 

 Having said that the cost for me to fly from toronto to vancouver is like $600 cdn. Probably 400 or soto fly to newyork or chicago. You can fly cheaper deals but as with anything depends on the day etc.

 

Mexico is not safe for tourists right now and thats the reason alone why this bid would fail. If they drop mexico it stands a better chance

 

Edited 7 April 2017 by Jattdogg

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

For all the legitimate arguments against this it will probably happen...there's more money in the pot to be milked.

 

We won't see a World Cup in England again, we don't bribe enough and we already have the stadia...there's no money to be shuffled around and laundered.

 

England shouldn't get anywhere near hosting a world cup, anyway, I don't know why the English get so whiny and entitled over this.

 

Should go to developing footballing countries where there's a genuine market for expanding the base or the game.

 

Japan/Korea was the right idea, Australia should have gotten 2020 too. Canada is a pretty good shout, to be fair.

 

What's the point of another major sporting tournament coming to the UK?

 

In recent memory the UK has hosted two rugby world cups, a couple of champions league finals, Euro 96, the Olympics, a cricket world cup with another just round the corner and probably plenty I'm missing.

 

Basically, everything except the world cup which at least you HAVE hosted before.

[AKCJ]

It'd be good if America got it to be fair.

 

Plenty of seriously amazing stadia. Over 100 with a 50k plus capacity.

 

The AT&T Stadium

 

The Michigan Stadium

 

Kyle Field

 

The Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium (I'm not joking)

 

[Jattdogg]

3 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It'd be good if America got it to be fair.

 

Plenty of seriously amazing stadia. Over 100 with a 50k plus capacity.

 

The AT&T Stadium

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Michigan Stadium

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Kyle Field

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

The Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium (I'm not joking)

 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

See for me they have hosted it before so i would rather it goes elsewhere. Joint bid with canada makes sense because weve never hosted one before  but we also dont have the mamouth newer stadiums/grounds like the states

Edited 7 April 2017 by Jattdogg

[TiffToff88]

In terms of readily available stadiums and countries who have not yet hosted a World Cup, I think the 2 most obvious candidates, if they want it, are Australia or China. Although some works would be needed in Australia to achieve the required number of stadiums with the minimum required capacity, it would still make a hell of a lot more sense than the Qatar WC

Edited 7 April 2017 by TiffToff88

[Costock_Fox]

19 minutes ago, AKCJ said:

It'd be good if America got it to be fair.

 

Plenty of seriously amazing stadia. Over 100 with a 50k plus capacity.

 

The AT&T Stadium

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Michigan Stadium

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Kyle Field

 

  Hide contents

 

 

The Gaylord Family Oklahoma Memorial Stadium (I'm not joking)

 

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Buzzing to have a stadium named after me that isn't the Gaylord tbh.

[Aus Fox]

Australia will never get it simply because of the other sporting codes.

June/July is the main season for AFL and Rugby League.

They hold contracts over the countries biggest stadiums in this time and will not give up their big stadiums for a month to accommodate their biggest rival in sporting terms at a junior level.

 

If they did give it up, places like the MCG, Adelaide Oval and the SCG are terrible grounds to watch football games. Think every game being played at West Hams Olympic Stadium although further away from the pitch.

 

The actual football stadiums here don't hold more than 30,000.

Would love to see it here but can't see it anytime soon.

[Aus Fox]

38 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

England shouldn't get anywhere near hosting a world cup, anyway, I don't know why the English get so whiny and entitled over this.

 

Should go to developing footballing countries where there's a genuine market for expanding the base or the game.

 

Japan/Korea was the right idea, Australia should have gotten 2020 too. Canada is a pretty good shout, to be fair.

 

What's the point of another major sporting tournament coming to the UK?

 

In recent memory the UK has hosted two rugby world cups, a couple of champions league finals, Euro 96, the Olympics, a cricket world cup with another just round the corner and probably plenty I'm missing.

 

Basically, everything except the world cup which at least you HAVE hosted before.

Why shouldn't an established nation get it every now and then?

Japan/South Korea was great, but so was Germany.

Qatar is a disaster and I don't know a single supporter who would like to go.

England hosted it over 50 years ago, USA only 20 odd years ago.

Whats the point in it coming to the UK?

It could be hosted tomorrow no dramas no extra expense. Look at the problems South Africa and Brazil have had with empty multi million dollar stadiums, wasted tax payers money.

[ousefox]

1 hour ago, Finnegan said:

 

England shouldn't get anywhere near hosting a world cup, anyway, I don't know why the English get so whiny and entitled over this.

 

Should go to developing footballing countries where there's a genuine market for expanding the base or the game.

 

Japan/Korea was the right idea, Australia should have gotten 2020 too. Canada is a pretty good shout, to be fair.

 

What's the point of another major sporting tournament coming to the UK?

 

In recent memory the UK has hosted two rugby world cups, a couple of champions league finals, Euro 96, the Olympics, a cricket world cup with another just round the corner and probably plenty I'm missing.

 

Basically, everything except the world cup which at least you HAVE hosted before.

Because the fact we haven't had one in 50 years is ridiculous. Why should it go to countries who want to expand the game and how is that fair as a no.1 criteria? Japan, Korea, SA, Brazil etc don't appear to have had much of a legacy from it apart from a few local teams playing in empty stadiums. They give it to countries like Qatar where hundreds have people have died to provide us with a football tournament. It's absolutely crazy. 

 

England/Britain has all the infrastructure ready, invented the game and has some of the most passionate supporters in the world. I'd say we are definitely entitled to a World Cup pretty soon.

[Detroit Blues]

The US should have just got the solo-bid for 2022 instead of Qatar and none of this would be a problem.

[Stadt]

Spain (maybe with Portugal) would be pretty good if they were to host one. Last hosted in '82, the stadiums are there especially with the Nuevo Mestella and Wanda Metropolitano (Atleti's new ground ) in the pipeline plus The Bernabeu, Camp Nou and San Mames. Better for fans to travel to as well.

[Kitchandro]

Yeh it's a terrible idea. But we're having one in Qatar so anything goes now.

 

Shame because Mexico & America already put on great world cups separately.

[Kitchandro]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

 

England shouldn't get anywhere near hosting a world cup, anyway, I don't know why the English get so whiny and entitled over this.

 

Should go to developing footballing countries where there's a genuine market for expanding the base or the game.

 

Japan/Korea was the right idea, Australia should have gotten 2020 too. Canada is a pretty good shout, to be fair.

 

What's the point of another major sporting tournament coming to the UK?

 

In recent memory the UK has hosted two rugby world cups, a couple of champions league finals, Euro 96, the Olympics, a cricket world cup with another just round the corner and probably plenty I'm missing.

 

Basically, everything except the world cup which at least you HAVE hosted before.

This is either a wind up or your Welsh bitterness has gone out of control

 

Countries should be showing they're footballing places and capable of hosting such an event BEFORE they get the world cup, so that crowds will be high and stadiums won't be a crippling waste of space and money after the tournament has ended.

England should certainly be hosting a World Cup before the likes of South Africa (too much poverty and little enthusiasm for football) Brazil (too much poverty and unrest) Canada (nice country but not suitable for a world cup geographically & no footballing history) Russia (corrupt, cold, backward, morally reprehensible & unfit stadia) & Qatar (corrupt, too hot, backward, even more morally reprehensible & unfit stadia).

 

 

[RonnieTodger]

It should be a pre-requisite that the nation has qualified for it before. We all know how pathetic the Qatar decision was, so lets not even go into that. 

 

No problem with Canada hosting it (after an amazing 0-0-3 effort in 1986) and it's a nice country with big stadia. USA have not long had one and Mexico have had two. 

 

England is without doubt a great choice for any fans going to the tournament wanting to go to more than one game. We're not entitled to it, but the constant way we've been overlooked is a bit daft. I'm all for giving the World Cup to new nations that deserve it, but Kitchandro is right in that it's pathetic that South Africa and Brazil are left with mega footballing arenas that aren't being used. 

[stripeyfox]

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44038747

 

Just a few weeks away from decision on awarding the 2026 World Cup, with two bids on the table. A joint bid from USA/Mexico/Canada and one from Morocco

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morocco_2026_FIFA_World_Cup_bid

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–Mexico–United_States_2026_FIFA_World_Cup_bid

 

North American bid is presumably most likely but I really don't like the idea of an expanded 48 team World Cup with 16 Groups of 3 teams!

 

[Jattdogg]

Would love to catch some worldcup games here in canada. Hope we get it!

[RowlattsFox]

3 host nations is a bit of a joke. Should only happen with 2 hosts if they are quite small countries. 

[stripeyfox]

15 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

Would love to catch some worldcup games here in canada. Hope we get it!

You'd think that the North America bid would be nailed on but then again, this is FIFA so we'll probably be off to Morocco....

 

[stripeyfox]

14 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

3 host nations is a bit of a joke. Should only happen with 2 hosts if they are quite small countries. 

With a 48 team World Cup I can see more "continental" bids being the way forward, like Euro 2020. A 48 team tournament is a massive logistical deal for one country, or even two. 

 

But for me the three team groups is a real killer because it makes it much more likely to have "dead heat" groups and FIFA haven't been clear on how they'll be decided.

 

So if you have say Uruguay, Sweden and Japan (for example) in a group then it is not beyond the bounds of possibility to have:

 

Uruguay 1 - 0 Sweden

Sweden 1 - 0 Japan 

Japan  1 - 0 Uruguay

 

Three very cagey group games and you end up with all teams on same points, goal difference etc. 

 

The present 32 team format is perfect for a group + knockout tournament.

 

 

[boots60]

Sepp wants it in Morocco.

That's the best reason I can think of to hold it in North/central America.

[Jordan]

22 hours ago, RowlattsFox said:

3 host nations is a bit of a joke. Should only happen with 2 hosts if they are quite small countries. 

This is FIFA we're talking about; there's no room for your thinking and reason here.

[martyn]

On 07/04/2017 at 10:50, Jattdogg said:

Canada may be the second biggest country  in the world but 80 to 90% of our population lives something like 150km frm the US border.  

 

I cant see how this would work unless teams stayed close to major cities. So for example toronto- NY is 1 hour flight. Toronto to montreal is 45 minute flight. 

 

Toronto to newyork is 1 hour.  Toronto to boston is 1 hour. Toronto to Chicago is 1 hour.  Driving between toronto and these 3 cities is about 8 hours trek.

 

Also detroit is a 4 hour drive.  Montreal is a 5 hour drive.  But the stadiums in montreal and toronto arent big enough. Skydome could be used but they have to ship in grass over the concrete floor and its not setup for football.

 

 Having said that the cost for me to fly from toronto to vancouver is like $600 cdn. Probably 400 or soto fly to newyork or chicago. You can fly cheaper deals but as with anything depends on the day etc.

 

Mexico is not safe for tourists right now and thats the reason alone why this bid would fail. If they drop mexico it stands a better chance

 

 

Mexico is generally safe for Tourists - irrespective of what the Canadian travel advisories might have you believe off the back of some murders of Canadian citizens a while back.

 

I've spent about 6 months there across 12 visits and 20 different states as a tourist and have never encountered any issues anywhere. 

 

Of the mooted host cities, Mexico City and Guadalajara are statistically safer than a bunch of US cities and although Monterrey can be a bit sketchy, there is no more danger present than was at the World Cup in Brazil for example. No matches are going to be held in Cartelville.

 

Although it doesn't matter to FIFA these days, of the 3 countries as part of this bid, Mexico has the best football history, and the most iconic stadium by a distance, it should be front and centre of the bid.

Edited 10 May 2018 by martyn