United States, Mexico and Canada to host 2026 World Cup

Could be a chance I'l be in Canada by then since I'm a citizen and plan on moving there :drool:
 
Cal? said:
That's all very well, but there needs to be some semblance of meritocracy, otherwise you may just as well invite the 48 nations with the highest GDP? Actually, even if you did that, UEFA would have 19 teams there.

You have yourself named plenty of examples of 2nd-3rd tier Europeans teams doing well. Let's not forget Africa has NEVER had a team in the SF, and Asia only had one in the last half century due to the farce in Korea.
Click to expand...

There already is "some semblance of meritocracy". That's why the top 16 European and top 6 South American sides are there. Its not like its evenly divided among the continents.

Part of the problem is the continents are oddly defined in football. Geographically the caucuses are not really Europe but Armenia, Georgia and Turkey play in Europe for "cultural" reasons. Same with Israel which shouldn't really be part of UEFA. Russia even could be argued to be in Asia. If all those countries were shifted to the Asian federation it would help to balance things. But all those countries want the UEFA money. So they overload Europe. Its a trade off for them. They could have easier time qualifying from Asia.

not sure why you think its such a big deal. The fact Qatar got the world cup and its now supposed to be a winter WC is a far greater worry.
 
Ridiculous that we won't have had one for 60+ years, whereas the fecking USA get two in the span of 30 years.
 
Redplane said:
Disappointed Vancouver, Chicago and Detroit didn't offer themselves up as host cities. But then again - it doesnt seem like you host world cup games to make a ton of money as a city.
Click to expand...

Bit surprised about Vancouver myself. Got a great stadium. Would be great if England got placed there.

One thing's for sure, tickets will go in no time for this WC
 
I like the idea of more countries in the wc tbh. I love the competition and i watch everything. I could watch Saudi Arabia x Fiji.
 
Revan said:
I don't get why people are complaining. The infrastructure will be top notch, Mexico has a football culture, while US are the best at organising these things (US 1994 is the best organized WC ever). And all three of them qualifying isn't a problem considering that US and Mexico would have been (most likely) qualified anyway, so it is only Canada who gets an undeserved spot.

It will easily be the best WC since Germany 2006 if not longer.
Click to expand...

Because a lot of people here don't want a World Cup. They want a European championship +Brasil and Argentina and it has to be held in western Europe every time.
 
The finals going to be in New York. I hope the Azteca gets a semi final but think it’s obly scheduled for a last 16 game.
 
duffer said:
Where is the final going to be? The Azteca in Mexico would be awesome, so much history there.
Click to expand...

I've read somewhere that it's going to be in New York at the stadium where the Giants and Jets play. But surely it will be in the USA.

The good thing about this WC (particularly for those who are always very concerned about what others do with their money) is that no new white elephants need to be built. The stadiums are all there and are actively used. They might need an upgrade or two (Azteca surely does), but it will be taken care of with private money.
 
I might sound crazy but could it be that England didn't get it because there was no bid from England?

You should turn your frustration towards the FA, not FIFA, they're currently "considering a bid for 2030", are you expecting FIFA to scrap the bidding process and hand it to England?
 
"I will host a great World Cup, and no one hosts better than me, believe me, and it will be very inexpensive. I will host a great World Cup and Mexico/Canada will pay for it."
 
oneniltothearsenal said:
There already is "some semblance of meritocracy". That's why the top 16 European and top 6 South American sides are there. Its not like its evenly divided among the continents.

Part of the problem is the continents are oddly defined in football. Geographically the caucuses are not really Europe but Armenia, Georgia and Turkey play in Europe for "cultural" reasons. Same with Israel which shouldn't really be part of UEFA. Russia even could be argued to be in Asia. If all those countries were shifted to the Asian federation it would help to balance things. But all those countries want the UEFA money. So they overload Europe. Its a trade off for them. They could have easier time qualifying from Asia.

not sure why you think its such a big deal. The fact Qatar got the world cup and its now supposed to be a winter WC is a far greater worry.
Click to expand...
There really isn't, there is just no way the 8th best AFC team is on par with the 16th best Uefa team.

No they don't, they play in Uefa because they're in Europe, in fact Turkey are in the EU. Russia have traditionally been more European than Asian culturally and everything, probably to do with the fact that east Russia is sparsely populated.

Israel are the only ones who are situated in Asia and play in Uefa.

It's a big deal when you always have much better European teams fail to make the WC at the expense of dreadful sides from the rest of the world, thus massively lowering the level of the WC.
 
@Cal? Turkey is not member of the EU, and I suspect with Erdogan they don't want to be there.
 
klsv said:
I might sound crazy but could it be that England didn't get it because there was no bid from England?

You should turn your frustration towards the FA, not FIFA, they're currently "considering a bid for 2030", are you expecting FIFA to scrap the bidding process and hand it to England?
Click to expand...
Yeah, but it is important to complain. England has a God given right to host the World Cup, regardless if the other countries agree or not, and regardless if England applies or not (to be fair, it was impossible to apply for 2026 considering that it wasn't UEFA's turn). And then regardless of who wins the bid, Englishmen have to complain.

It is known.

2030 will be difficult too, considering the joint bid of Uruguay, Argentina and Paraguay (in addition to being a century since the first world cup which was hold in Uruguay), and S. America's last WC was in 2014, while Europe's was in 2018. Then there are rumors that China might make a bid too.
 
Schneckerl said:
The "co host" thing is a bit of a joke actually. USA will host 60 out of 80 games and all game from the QF onwards.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It is a tournament played in US, with a few matches in Mexico and Canada. I mean each of those two countries is getting just 10 matches, all of them either in group stage or in 1/8th of final.
 
So... I guess teams will need to use airplanes to go from USA to Mexico, because of the wall.
 
fergies coat said:
England 1 World Cup in 60 years.
USA 2 in 32 years.
Mexico 3 in 56 years.
Click to expand...

That's why the Euro 2004 was a major surprise for us. There is no way the portuguese federation had more money for bribery than any of the other contestants.
 
I’m fairly pleased but I’d prefer it if Mexico and Canada had more games. Say twenty each with 40 US ones.
 
Imo having wc spread out across so much land just reduces the general vibe and atmosphere so much for the fans. It should have been only one of those countries not feckin 3.

Edit: Ok, I figured that vast majority of the games will be held in the US, a bit misleading to call it a joint bid then.
 
fergies coat said:
England 1 World Cup in 60 years.
USA 2 in 32 years.
Mexico 3 in 56 years.
Click to expand...
Hardly. Hosting 10 matches (non of which is in quarters, semis and final) doesn't really qualify as hosting a World Cup. I mean if that is the case, then England is hosting Euro 2020 considering that they're hosting the final, both semis and some matches in group stage and 1/8th of final. Yet it doesn't stop Englishmen from complaining about the injustice.

Also, other important (more so than England when it comes to international football) which have hosted World Cup only once: Argentina, Spain, Uruguay. Holland hasn't ever done it, yet you hardly hear people of those countries cry how the evil corrupted FIFA dares to not give the world cup hosting rights to saviors of football England.

Really the cry over this is pathetic considering that Europe (and Asia) was excluded from the bidding process because they had host one of the last two World Cups. Similarly, North America and Asia will be excluded from the bidding process of WC 2030. CONCACAF had by far the best chance of hosting it considering that the last time they host a world cup was in 1994. UEFA had host 3 times since, Asia twice, Africa and S. America once. And three biggest CONCACAF countries made a joint bid. It was always going to end this way, and deservedly so.
 
Revan said:
Hardly. Hosting 10 matches (non of which is in quarters, semis and final) doesn't really qualify as hosting a World Cup. I mean if that is the case, then England is hosting Euro 2020 considering that they're hosting the final, both semis and some matches in group stage and 1/8th of final. Yet it doesn't stop Englishmen from complaining about the injustice.

Also, other important (more so than England when it comes to international football) which have hosted World Cup only once: Argentina, Spain, Uruguay. Holland hasn't ever done it, yet you hardly hear people of those countries cry how the evil corrupted FIFA dares to not give the world cup hosting rights to saviors of football England.

Really the cry over this is pathetic considering that Europe (and Asia) was excluded from the bidding process because they had host one of the last two World Cups. Similarly, North America and Asia will be excluded from the bidding process of WC 2030. CONCACAF had by far the best chance of hosting it considering that the last time they host a world cup was in 1994. UEFA had host 3 times since, Asia twice, Africa and S. America once. And three biggest CONCACAF countries made a joint bid. It was always going to end this way, and deservedly so.
Click to expand...
It’s the fact when we bid for the 2018 World Cup, fifa said they wanted to go to countries who haven’t had it before. So why not Morocco? The U.S have held it already and in recent memory.
 
Think this is a good move although, as an a Englishman, it's another slap in the face. The US and Mexico will both have had two WCs since we last hosted it. Given how much England has contributed to the global football boom, it's outrageous that we haven't had a World Cup in the post-hooligan era.

That said it's clearly the turn of the Americas to host this time and there's nothing wrong with that. Not the fault of the current Fifa regime that their predecessors overlooked England for financial reasons.

Mexico and the US have both hosted amazing tournaments in the past and they'll do so again, no doubt. Canada seems a bit ridiculous given they've not qualified in years, but given there'll be about 100 teams at the 2030 WC, no major football power will be squeezed out.
 
fergies coat said:
It’s the fact when we bid for the 2018 World Cup, fifa said they wanted to go to countries who haven’t had it before. So why not Morocco? The U.S have held it already and in recent memory.
Click to expand...
Because 2/3 of the countries voted for the other option. And probably because Morocco doesn't really have the infrastructure to host a World Cup. South Africa who is more developed really were such a shit host, and probably members of FIFA didn't want an another disaster.

US has easily the best infrastructure, and advertisement for a World Cup. US 1994 has by far the highest attendance for a world cup. And their only competitor was a third world country.

Finally, unlike in 2018 (which I think should have gone to England, but hardly a travesty that it went to Russia) and the travesty of 2022 going to Qatar instead of Australia, here all members (around 200) voted, instead of 20 or so corrupted FIFA politicians which did for those two world cups.
 
Revan said:
Hardly. Hosting 10 matches (non of which is in quarters, semis and final) doesn't really qualify as hosting a World Cup. I mean if that is the case, then England is hosting Euro 2020 considering that they're hosting the final, both semis and some matches in group stage and 1/8th of final. Yet it doesn't stop Englishmen from complaining about the injustice.

Also, other important (more so than England when it comes to international football) which have hosted World Cup only once: Argentina, Spain, Uruguay. Holland hasn't ever done it, yet you hardly hear people of those countries cry how the evil corrupted FIFA dares to not give the world cup hosting rights to saviors of football England.

Really the cry over this is pathetic considering that Europe (and Asia) was excluded from the bidding process because they had host one of the last two World Cups. Similarly, North America and Asia will be excluded from the bidding process of WC 2030. CONCACAF had by far the best chance of hosting it considering that the last time they host a world cup was in 1994. UEFA had host 3 times since, Asia twice, Africa and S. America once. And three biggest CONCACAF countries made a joint bid. It was always going to end this way, and deservedly so.
Click to expand...
It's not about which country has the best national team. By that yardstick, Belgium is a major football power and Holland are nobodies.

It's about who's done the most to grow global interest in the game and raise interest levels. After all, football would be nothing without people watching it, would it?

If you don't recognise England's role in spreading interest in the game over the last quarter of a century, there's no point arguing with you.
 
Revan said:
Hardly. Hosting 10 matches (non of which is in quarters, semis and final) doesn't really qualify as hosting a World Cup. I mean if that is the case, then England is hosting Euro 2020 considering that they're hosting the final, both semis and some matches in group stage and 1/8th of final. Yet it doesn't stop Englishmen from complaining about the injustice.

Also, other important (more so than England when it comes to international football) which have hosted World Cup only once: Argentina, Spain, Uruguay. Holland hasn't ever done it, yet you hardly hear people of those countries cry how the evil corrupted FIFA dares to not give the world cup hosting rights to saviors of football England.

Really the cry over this is pathetic considering that Europe (and Asia) was excluded from the bidding process because they had host one of the last two World Cups. Similarly, North America and Asia will be excluded from the bidding process of WC 2030. CONCACAF had by far the best chance of hosting it considering that the last time they host a world cup was in 1994. UEFA had host 3 times since, Asia twice, Africa and S. America once. And three biggest CONCACAF countries made a joint bid. It was always going to end this way, and deservedly so.
Click to expand...

Weak post.

Failing to recognise and understand the reasons England should have another WC is short sighted and naive to say the least.
 
Revan said:
Because 2/3 of the countries voted for the other option. And probably because Morocco doesn't really have the infrastructure to host a World Cup. South Africa who is more developed really were such a shit host, and probably members of FIFA didn't want an another disaster.

US has easily the best infrastructure, and advertisement for a World Cup. US 1994 has by far the highest attendance for a world cup. And their only competitor was a third world country.

Finally, unlike in 2018 (which I think should have gone to England, but hardly a travesty that it went to Russia) and the travesty of 2022 going to Qatar instead of Australia, here all members (around 200) voted, instead of 20 or so corrupted FIFA politicians which did for those two world cups.
Click to expand...
If we're still going by that weird cold war nonsense, Mexico is a third world country. As is Brazil, which hosted it just 4 years ago.
 
TheReligion said:
Weak post.

Failing to recognise and understand the reasons England should have another WC is short sighted and naive to say the least.
Click to expand...
Why England has the God's given right to organize a World Cup?

And no one gives a shit that you invented football 150 years ago. That won't help for a World Bid, same as you don't praise Italy everytime you eat spaghetti.

And no, I am not saying that England shouldn't organize a World Cup. Just that - unlike most of Englishmen - I don't think that there is a good prior to give it to England, or it should be favored. At the end of the day, it is a relatively irrelevant country when it comes to National team (pretty much a joke), and while it has great infrastructure, so have many other countries. In 2018, a very large country with pretty good infrastructure applied and (likely because of some corruption) won the bid. Next time England applies, if someone like Spain applies, it might get tricky. Argentina-Paraguay-Uruguay is also a very strong bid. If the only competitive bid to England would be someone like Peru, then obviously (in most likelihood), England would win it.
 
I always thought after the 2002 world cup in South Korea and Japan, that there would be more joint bids to stage the finals. The split in games allocated to each country in that seemed more fairer if I recall correctly, esp in the knockout stages. Really the amount of games Canada and Meyheco are getting is pitiful. With the added teams in that world cup, some of the group stages will have some very weak teams. I wish they'd give those 2 countries some more games, almost like a token gesture to them. It's effectively a US world cup
 
England can't fecking host it if they don't bid. FIFA cannot force a country to organize. It's also important to give an occasional chance to Africa and Asia.

World Cup 66 England
Actually in England

World Cup 70 Mexico
Nah

World Cup 74 West Germany
No bid from England

World Cup 78 Argentina
No bid from England

World Cup 82 Spain
No bid from England

World Cup 86 Mexico
No bid from England

World Cup 90 Italy
England placed a bid but withdrew

World Cup 94 USA
No bid from England

Meanwhile, Euro 96
Hosted in England

World Cup 98 France
England placed a bid, withdrew

World Cup 2002 Japan/Korea
No bid from England

World Cup 2006 Germany
England bid, eliminated in the 2nd round of voting losing to Germany and South Africa.

World Cup 2010 South Africa
Start of continental rotation, England not located in Africa

World Cup 2014 Brazil
Continental rotation, England not located in South America

World Cup 2018 Russia
Continental rotation, Europe's turn, England placed a bid. Eliminated in first round of voting, lost to joind bids of Netherlands/Belgium, Spain/Portugal and to Russia.

World Cup 2022 Qatar
Continental rotation, bids from Europe and South America were not allowed. England located in Europe.

World Cup 2026
Continental rotation, bids from Europe and Asia were not allowed. Despite Brexit, England still located in Europe.

World Cup 2030
Continental rotation, bids from Asia not allowed. Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay joint bid confirmed. Likely joint bid by Morocco and Algeria. England "considering", having a decent chance should they try.
 
Revan said:
Why England has the God's given right to organize a World Cup?

And no one gives a shit that you invented football 150 years ago. That won't help for a World Bid, same as you don't praise Italy everytime you eat spaghetti.

And no, I am not saying that England shouldn't organize a World Cup. Just that - unlike most of Englishmen - I don't think that there is a good prior to give it to England, or it should be favored. At the end of the day, it is a relatively irrelevant country when it comes to National team (pretty much a joke), and while it has great infrastructure, so have many other countries. In 2018, a very large country with pretty good infrastructure applied and (likely because of some corruption) won the bid. Next time England applies, if someone like Spain applies, it might get tricky. Argentina-Paraguay-Uruguay is also a very strong bid. If the only competitive bid to England would be someone like Peru, then obviously (in most likelihood), England would win it.
Click to expand...

You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about England and the English. Not sure why given you support an English club..

No one thinks it's a '''God given right" but I think the vast majority do feel that England, or GB and NI, should have hosted another WC since 1966. The history, infrastructure and fanbase is there, a major tournament could be held in England alone tomorrow with minimum fuss and planning. It's even more embarrassing when you have Russia having to errect temporary stands last minute to comply with regulations and the next host hasn't even finishing building their stadiums.

Perhaps try being a little more respectful and less prejudice.
 
TheReligion said:
You clearly have a bee in your bonnet about England and the English. Not sure why given you support an English club..

No one thinks it's a '''God given right" but I think the vast majority do feel that England, or GB and NI, should have hosted another WC since 1966. The history, infrastructure and fanbase is there, a major tournament could be held in England alone tomorrow with minimum fuss and planning. It's even more embarrassing when you have Russia having to errect temporary stands last minute to comply with regulations and the next host hasn't even finishing building their stadiums.

Perhaps try being a little more respectful and less prejudice.
Click to expand...
Nope. I cannot stand arrogance though.

The bid for WC 2006 was such a catastrophic failure after unprecedented arrogance and going out of their word to support Germany's bid for 2006, to the point that it alienated pretty much everyone. The bid for 2018 was better (though still arrogant in the sense that we must host the World Cup, instead of we might host the World Cup) but unfortunately, there were three other strong bids from Europe, each of which could have easily hosted a good World Cup. I mean, why it is a travesty that England didn't win the bid, but the same cannot be said for the joint bid of Spain and Portugal. Heck, Portugal hasn't ever host it, and Spain had host it only once.

Now the process is far more transparent (around 200 votes instead of 23), and it seems that for 2030 England will be UEFA's only contender. Of course that doesn't guarantee that England will host it. After all, the joint bid of Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay is probably stronger, having 2 world winners there, being at the century anniversary of the first WC which was hold in Uruguay, and S. America last hosting it in 2014 compared to Europe in 2018.

It is a better strategy than not having any allies and 'demanding' that the World Cup must be held in England though, like it happened for the last two times. It doesn't guarantee that England will get it, but it gives a good chance.
 
RobinLFC said:
Shit KO times, logistical nightmare for the fans, no real football culture, and they've hosted one (relatively) recently, meh.
Click to expand...

No happiness no matter where it's held. Constant moaning and negative vibes on this forum. This sums it up.

Fans who want to travel and can afford to do it can, the ones who don't can watch it on the box for free which is amazing privilege that's taken for granted FTA football all summer long. no moaning. Simple.
 
HorrorFan07 said:
No happiness no matter where it's held. Constant moaning and negative vibes on this forum. This sums it up.

Fans who want to travel and can afford to do it can, the ones who don't can watch it on the box for free which is amazing privilege that's taken for granted FTA football all summer long. no moaning. Simple.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter one bit for me personally whether it's held in Morocco or the USA, but they've had one as recent as '94 while there are hundreds of countries that haven't had the opportunity, including a football mad country like Morocco. I won't lose my sleep over it and it wasn't my intention to moan either, it's just a bit of a meh-choice for me that's all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.