-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
US, Canada and Mexico set to submit joint bid to host 2026 World Cup
- Thread starter Perfect Blue
- Start date
- Status
Alex_Mexico
Member
Round of 32? O sea "Dieciseisavos de final"? We getting groups of 3 instead of 4 now? I'm confused!
Question is how many stadiums does Mexico can that can support it? Also can they secure the cities, transportation, hotels, etc. It all has to be done in a reasonable time frame too. That means clearing out between games.
For example, Mexico has 7 stadiums above 40k
US has 40+ above 40k. Basically a 6 to 1 ratio.
Mexico nor Canada can support a solo bid. US can. FIFA won't vote for the US alone, so this seems like the best option where all three countries are using each other. Mexico and Canada can host without having to build up. America gets their World Cup, while footing most of the bill. This seems like a Win Win for everyone
The big reasons why Canada can't host a solo bid and also eliminates a lot of places for the joint bid. The popularity of soccer in Canada has improved significantly but limited facilities hold back hosting possibilities.
A joint bid is good for Canada. We get a few games, and of course if it means Canada gets in the tournament then it's double good.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Uh, not really. The distances between the major cities in Canada can be quite massive, but the US has both shorter possible distances and a built in infrastructure for the World Cup because we have a billion ridiculous public-funded stadiums already built.
The US is practically the best option for an event like the World Cup infrastructure wise, not just out of the three, but in general.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
The format is 16 groups of three with the top two teams advancing to a Round of 32.
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
We have 30+ stadiums that seat 60K+ and lots and lots of training facilities all over the place. All of this already exists.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Those requirements can be taxing for any country but if there ever was one that could do that by itself it was the US so I agree with you.
Regulus Tera
Romanes Eunt Domus
Even so this means a lot of cities are gonna be stuck with only one game, whereas before FIFA made sure stadiums got at least three. We understand the US should get most of the payload for logistical reasons, but it's still awfully imbalanced. 40/20/20 would be a lot fairer.
I'm pretty indifferent about it. It's a decade away.
FIFA most likely will select this bid.
CONCACAF were in Aruba two days ago, today they are in New York to promote the bid fort he World Cup. I'd say that they are looking to have the final in New York.
When the Gold Cup comes around, they host a press conference in the host city of the final.
It's pretty smart to palm off some of the group games and second round matches to another nation.
FIFA most likely will select this bid.
CONCACAF were in Aruba two days ago, today they are in New York to promote the bid fort he World Cup. I'd say that they are looking to have the final in New York.
When the Gold Cup comes around, they host a press conference in the host city of the final.
It's pretty smart to palm off some of the group games and second round matches to another nation.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Round of 32 sounds so funny. why not just put those 32 in 8 groups of 4 to get three more games and then knock out rounds? That way we can get more games and Mexico could have a chance of finally playing 5 goddamn games in a WC before getting the boot, lol.
Mexico can definitely host a world cup by itself.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Brazil faced massive civil unrest and turmoil over hosting the World Cup due to large government spending on it, and it has a bigger economy than Mexico.
Canada could, but they'd never want to. It would cost too much for too little value, they're smarter than that.
The World Cup in 1986 was nothing like the World Cups of modern days.
That's probably a requirement for the bid. Possibly there are plans on the board for Montreal and Vancouver as well because right now it would be only Edmonton capable of meeting those requirements.
Pegasus Actual
Member
I'm not buying the three country thing. US should host alone. I guess adding in Canada could work geographically since they huddle up on our border for warmth. But Canada plus Mexico City? Too much. Brazil was kind of a shit-show so superimposing it over North America and saying 'close enough' doesn't sell me on it.
I had a discussion with Null Pointer and had predicted the US would get the final but perhaps Mexico and Canada might get the Semis. Very surprising how it's shaking out though.
Alex_Mexico
Member
Didnt you hear? Out of 80 games the US is getting 60 of them including the final,both semifinals, and the quarterfinals.
The current WC format has 64 games so the US is practically getting the 2026 WC to themselves.
Saying Brazil civil unrest happened because of the World Cup is a little bit simplistic, second saying Brazil has a bigger economy than Mexico is true (although Mexico has a higher per capita) but Mexico receives as 5 times as many tourists than Brazil every year and Liga MX is the 4th soccer league with the biggest attendance (10th of all leagues worldwide), so situations are different.
And also Mexico in the 80s was going through its worst economic period and 9 months before the world cup Mexico was struck by perhaps is worst disaster in the country's modern history, the 1985 Mexico City earthquake.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
I'm not saying there weren't other issues in Brazil, but many people objected to the massive spending to host the World Cup when Brazil has plenty of other pressing issues to deal with, like poverty and education.
Honestly, this proposal is the best way for Canada and Mexico to get a piece of the World Cup. They are a part of it, but won't have to devote nearly the money or resources they would have to if they were solely hosting. And economists widely agree that the costs outweigh the benefit for hosting events like these, at least when large infrastructure projects need to be completed in order to host.
perfectchaos007
Member
Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal need to be the 3 Canadian host cities. Mexico City, Monterrey and Guadalajara should be the Mexican host cities...Juarez and Tijuana are unfortunately too dangerous.
Squirrel Killer
Member
The US is huge.
In exchange for having all the World Cup matches sometime this generation? Probably, yes.
Flat out bullshit. If Qatar can support a bid, so can two of the fifteen largest countries in the world, one of which is one of the most soccer-crazy countries in the world. If Mexico and Canada can't support a solo bid, what non-Euro/US country could ever hope to?
Alex_Mexico
Member
There are other bigger cities that could host games you know? Juarez and Tijuana dont even have big enough stadiums. Not even close. Juarez doesnt even have one fit for tier-1 Liga MX games, let alone international official games! But I agree Mexico City, MTY and GDL should be in for sure.
I think nobody would complain if there were more games, and i think Mexico is accepting the bid because they know the chances of getting a bid by ourselves are slim since it would be our third world cup, but i don't think we should blew up our chances our getting a new world cup just to have 10 games.
And also, Whats for the US in this? Is the USSF afraid the political climate may hurt their chances of a self bid?
perfectchaos007
Member
If I were Mexico's FIFA president, I would try to convince the US to have one of their sites at the Sun Bowl in El Paso. Its just on the other side of the river form Juarez, and its in one of the safest cities in the country. If Mexico makes the quarter finals, that would be a great site to play since Mexico would have a home crowd. Lots of Mexican Expats that escaped the cartels in Juarez live in El Paso
It's the opposite. USSF is completely opposed to the immigration ban currently at hand. So pretty much do the exact opposite. A joint bid with two countries with one of them being the one Trump wants to build a wall against. It's a political statement in itself (which I support).
Alex_Mexico
Member
Dude. Mexico can play in almost any city in the US and still play with a home crowd. They dont need to play near the border. I've seen Mexico play friendlies in Seattle with a home crowd! Not to mention cities like Chicago, Los Angeles or NY just to name a few. Why do you think USSoccer insists on playing at Columbus Ohio when playing WC qualifiers against Mexico? Is one of the few places the USMNT team can guarantee a home crowd as opposed to a Mexican one.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
This was probably in the works since before Trump won the election, so I doubt it has anything to do with him.
The U.S. has been trying for years to get a World Cup. They didn't get '18 or '22. I suspect that they felt they would land more votes internationally by including Canada and Mexico, while still keep the vast majority of games for themselves.
Personally, I like it. The U.S. could have won the bid on their own potentially, but it's nice to throw Canada and Mexico a bone and show we can still be a united North America in some respects.
smokeandmirrors
Banned
Tbh there's no way the World Cup isn't gonna be in North America. Europe and Asia already having the last two and I'd bet FIFA are waiting for 2030 to do a centennial World Cup in Uruguay/ South America.
perfectchaos007
Member
Yeah the one in Russia is basically a joint Asian and European World Cup. Russia straddles both continents as we know
gutter_trash
Banned
why Canada? they only have two stadiums
I almost hope there is someway to upgrade and schedule the multi purpose fields rather than do upgrades on places like BMO. BMO has already undergone one 10k upgrade in seating hasn't it?
The way that stadiums are being constructed in Canada lately seem to be working quite well. They have a singular purpose and are built to capacity such that it will usually reasonably be filled. BMO can expand to 40K temporary, which is good for one-off events, but can TFC and the Argos typically sell out at those numbers?
Commonwealth and what other stadium? I assume there are plans to upgrade other stadiums to Wold Cup standards, but as of right now it's only Edmonton that meet the requirements.
It is only 10 games scheduled for Canada. I'm sure there are plenty of Canadian cities who would love to host a World Cup game or two, but they're going to have to construct permanent facilities to get some.
What you think we can't build another one???
perfectchaos007
Member
Hows the value of the Looney looking post oil collapse?
Vancouver (BC Place), Toronto (Rogers Centre) and Montreal (Olympic Stadium) are all multi use facilities that have been used for soccer which have imported Real Grass in the past I believe. They are all older stadiums though (built between 1979-89).
I believe there is a proposal complex in Calgary that includes a FIFA sanctioned soccer stadium that is piggy backing on a Hockey Arena.
Damn fine depending one where you live. You think Alberta is the only province in Canada?
gutter_trash
Banned
Canada only has BMO in Toronto and BC Place in Vancouver.
Saputo Stadium (Monteal)is too small while the Big-O is unfit and delapitaded
The Big-O has only recently been paid off while it sits there unuesed 85% of the year.
I don't see public money
Saputo Stadium (Monteal)is too small while the Big-O is unfit and delapitaded
Edmonton is not World Class City and does not deserve a venue
Local politics, Provincially and Municipally have appetitie to toss public money around.
The Big-O has only recently been paid off while it sits there unuesed 85% of the year.
I don't see public money
The obvious ones. Attempts at importing real grass have had mixed results. I'm not sure laying down temporary sod would meet FIFA standards. Perhaps for one game, maybe two.
I would think a seat increase for BMO would be preferable. At least that would ensure Edmonton, Toronto, and possibly Calgary could host.
Obviously to get the bid there would have to be concrete plans to provide suitable facilities. Perhaps FIFA has already approved a temporary sod plan for Big O, Rogers, and BC Place.
60:10:10? This is no joint bid, it's the US bidding for a WC as we have nowadays and giving the extra games to the other "hosts countries". Also, how is it a joint bid if the games in the other countries only happen at the begining of the WC?
As others have said a 40:20:20 would have been a lot better, at least the US would only have half of the games and not 3 quarters of it.
Anyway, I do prefer that the US gets this one and not Colombia or another South American country, because then Uruguay can host the 2030 WC. Do it Uruguay, you have to get the WC 100 years after the first one.
As others have said a 40:20:20 would have been a lot better, at least the US would only have half of the games and not 3 quarters of it.
Anyway, I do prefer that the US gets this one and not Colombia or another South American country, because then Uruguay can host the 2030 WC. Do it Uruguay, you have to get the WC 100 years after the first one.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Make no mistake, this is only a joint bid because the U.S. is doing Canada and Mexico a favor, while potentially using them as a bargaining chip due to their more favored status internationally among some groups. The U.S. could make the bid alone and likely succeed.
Good enough to host a Commonwealth Games, a World Track and Field Championships, a World Women's Rugby Championships, Women's World Cup soccer matches, as well as several other World sporting events like junior baseball (twice), figure skating, curling, and several grand prix events.
perfectchaos007
Member
The US is going to have some badass venues by 2026. The new football stadium in Los Angeles will be completed, and probably the Las Vegas Raiders will have a brand new stadium as well. Jerry World in Dallas will be average by comparison to the new venues across the US. I bet the Finals will be hosted at the new Los Angeles stadium. New York and Dallas will host the semi finals.
nature boy
Member
With Europe and Asia unable to bid, I'm sure it's going to be some variation of that proposal.
Question is what concessions FIFA will get regarding travelling fans.
Question is what concessions FIFA will get regarding travelling fans.
Unless Trump can manage to change the Constitution to get a third term, we'll probably be fine by 2026.
perfectchaos007
Member
He doesn't have to change the constitution, he just has to get America fighting in a war. FDR served 3 terms due to WWII. If WWIII gets going....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked