United States, Mexico and Canada to host 2026 World Cup

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...
Mostly people from those countries though.

And rightfully so. It does get annoying when English fans and the press slam every other host though. Especially when this is based on votes from all the other countries. All the countries selected have been capable hosts, and thats all thats needed. You have have at least 8 years to prepare for a reason. You dont need to have the infrastructure in place.

No country had their stadiums completed 4 years before the next tournament. Not even Germany. Usually its around 2 years before, when these are then tested out.
 
klsv said:
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.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Since England hosted it, they have bot twice. Once, after they had a deal with Germany to help their bid if they help England host Euros 1996, but after the Euros (which England hosted), they backtracked in their word, alienating UEFA's president and most of UEFA's countries. And that was only the first scandal from England. And Germany are hardly nobodies, they are significantly more successful than England when it comes to football, having an even better infrastructure.

Second time, a better bid but facing competition from Worlds Second superpower, a country with 3 times the population of England and who has never hosted it. In addition, another bid from back then World's top country at football (Spain) combining forces with Portugal. And Holland-Belgium bid was hardly that bad. So, 4 really strong candidates. Every word you can say about England not hosting it, you can say the same for Spain/Portugal (in fact even more) and to some degree for Holland/Belgium (never hosted it).
 
RobinLFC said:
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.
Click to expand...
Would have been great for it to go Morocco.

I like the world cup going to new markets. Would love it to go to China and Australia/New Zealand soon. And new countries in Europe too. Think of a world cup in a Croatia or a Czech Republic.
 
K2K said:
Would have been great for it to go Morocco.

I like the world cup going to new markets. Would love it to go to China and Australia/New Zealand soon. And new countries in Europe too. Think of a world cup in a Croatia or a Czech Republic.
Click to expand...
China most likely will host it on 2034, and now that Aussies have decided to play in Asia, it makes very unlikely for them to host a World Cup until 2050.
 
klsv said:
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.
Click to expand...

Didn't know all this. Well there you have - quit being lazy gits England and actually do something to get the WC.

As mentioned before, English FA should reach out to Irish (both), Scottish and Welsh and do a massive joint bid. Brings it back to England but in a grander scale with a twist of originality FIFA might actually appreciate.
 
Minimalist said:
Didn't know all this. Well there you have - quit being lazy gits England and actually do something to get the WC.

As mentioned before, English FA should reach out to Irish (both), Scottish and Welsh and do a massive joint bid. Brings it back to England but in a grander scale with a twist of originality FIFA might actually appreciate.
Click to expand...
Indeed. And UEFA's president is trying to unite UEFA to have a single bidding candidate (in order to not split votes). Make a good bid, especially by mixing with other UK states and possibly Ireland, and there is a good chance of defeating combined S. American bid.
 
K2K said:
Isn't the continental rotation over though?

After the whole Brazil debacle.
Click to expand...
Nope. Under the current rules, China cannot bid for 2030. Only in cases when there aren't satisfactory bids from eligible confederations, countries from non eligible confederates are allowed to bid.

So, Asia and CONCACAF cannot bid for 2030. It will be between UEFA, S. America and Africa.
 
duffer said:
I don't agree with that. Final should be in Mexico City and if not, at least in a stadium designed for football.
Click to expand...

I would strongly agree with this. As much as people might assume it'll be in the US, the final really should be in the nation with the strongest association with the game.
 
Minimalist said:
I would strongly agree with this. As much as people might assume it'll be in the US, the final really should be in the nation with the strongest association with the game.
Click to expand...

Think it is certain the final is in New Jersey?
 
Minimalist said:
I would strongly agree with this. As much as people might assume it'll be in the US, the final really should be in the nation with the strongest association with the game.
Click to expand...
In that case Mexico should have bid alone. It never was 3 equal partners in this bid, it was US with ten irrelevant matches taking place both in Mexico and Canada. All quarters, semis in addition to the 3rd place game and the final will be held in US.
 
Revan said:
In that case Mexico should have bid alone. It never was 3 equal partners in this bid, it was US with ten irrelevant matches taking place both in Mexico and Canada. All quarters, semis in addition to the 3rd place game and the final will be held in US.
Click to expand...

I said that in the vein of 'in an ideal world' but I would have predicted prior to any discussion that it will be a US city/stadium hosting the final.
 
Cal? said:
I agree that a certain balance needs to be had regarding (2), but the way it's split now, AFC teams already mostly finish rock bottom and only occasionally make the 2nd round. If you give them more places, it'll just result in many more dead rubber games.
Click to expand...
As I've been saying, Asia teams are AWFUL.
 
duffer said:
I don't agree with that. Final should be in Mexico City and if not, at least in a stadium designed for football.
Click to expand...
What we wish for personally is irrelevant. The deal made by the US with Canada and Mexico gives them the pick of the games. Mexico would not have gotten a WC by itself and they know it. By what I can read, they’re actually quite pleased with what they’re getting.
 
klsv said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lol::lol:
 
It's 10 US cities and 3 each for Mexico and Canada. Be interesting to see how they place the groups and whatnot. Perhaps one region hosts x amount of groups?

Reading the format and everything sounds like a nightmare. 48 teams in 16 groups of 3? Madness. Not even going to try to make sense of any of it just yet. It does appear Russia 2018 is the last "normal" World Cup though.
 
Minimalist said:
Didn't know all this. Well there you have - quit being lazy gits England and actually do something to get the WC.

As mentioned before, English FA should reach out to Irish (both), Scottish and Welsh and do a massive joint bid. Brings it back to England but in a grander scale with a twist of originality FIFA might actually appreciate.
Click to expand...
A combined UK bid? I think it would be very interesting, especially if you spin the Historical meaning of this (where football started, etc etc...).
 
Inter Yer Nan said:
It's 10 US cities and 3 each for Mexico and Canada. Be interesting to see how they place the groups and whatnot. Perhaps one region hosts x amount of groups?

Reading the format and everything sounds like a nightmare. 48 teams in 16 groups of 3? Madness. Not even going to try to make sense of any of it just yet. It does appear Russia 2018 is the last "normal" World Cup though.
Click to expand...
10, 3 and 3, and 16 groups of 3?

In this case, the US have 10 groups, and Mexico and Canada have each 3, and each group plays in the same stadium in fact, no?
 
I'd bet in 12 groups of 4 and an extra knock-out round. So the group stage would have the top two and the eight best third teams qualifying for the knock-outs.

It's just a duplication of the formats from WCs 86, 90 and 94. Nothing difficult about it.
 
Revan said:
In that case Mexico should have bid alone. It never was 3 equal partners in this bid, it was US with ten irrelevant matches taking place both in Mexico and Canada. All quarters, semis in addition to the 3rd place game and the final will be held in US.
Click to expand...

We're not really in the condition to host a WC right now. Specially one with 48 teams.

Azteca stadium needs serious upgrades, the other two stadiums are great: Akron Stadium (by the way, Manchester United - CD Guadalajara was the first match played there, part of the deal for Javier Hernandez) & BBVA Bancomer Stadium.
 
Arruda said:
I'd bet in 12 groups of 4 and an extra knock-out round. So the group stage would have the top two and the eight best third teams qualifying for the knock-outs.

It's just a duplication of the formats from WCs 86, 90 and 94. Nothing difficult about it.
Click to expand...

It's been decided that it'll be 16 groups of 3 with 32 going to the knock-outs.

Though 12 groups of 4 is a better idea. Dunno why FIFA want 16 groups of 3. Trust them to do the wrong thing.
 
For me everything after Euro 2016 is a mess. I just don't see myself going to the competitions, the traveling is just too much to watch 2-3 games of football.
 
Minimalist said:
Didn't know all this. Well there you have - quit being lazy gits England and actually do something to get the WC.

As mentioned before, English FA should reach out to Irish (both), Scottish and Welsh and do a massive joint bid. Brings it back to England but in a grander scale with a twist of originality FIFA might actually appreciate.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If England wants to win a WC bid they have to drop the "you owe it to us" and "we invented the game" discourse. The rich, powerful men who vote for these things don't like being talked down to. It hasn't gone down well in the past. Granted the process was rife with corruption, but even without it, England wasn't a lock to win.

Instead have a positive, future looking approach focusing on the world class stadiums, fantastic fan culture and atmosphere at matches. Don't let the old suits at the FA run the whole thing. And yeah, bringing in Scotland and Wales for a British bid might make the whole thing more palatable for some voters.

Wembley, Emirates, Old Trafford, Anfield, Villa Park, St. James Park, Stadium of Light would be a good start. But adding Millenium Stadium, Hampden, Murrayfield and Celtic Park would really be something to chew on.
 
RoyH1 said:
Agreed. If England wants to win a WC bid they have to drop the "you owe it to us" and "we invented the game" discourse. The rich, powerful men who vote for these things don't like being talked down to. It hasn't gone down well in the past. Granted the process was rife with corruption, but even without it, England wasn't a lock to win.

Instead have a positive, future looking approach focusing on the world class stadiums, fantastic fan culture and atmosphere at matches. Don't let the old suits at the FA run the whole thing. And yeah, bringing in Scotland and Wales for a British bid might make the whole thing more palatable for some voters.

Wembley, Emirates, Old Trafford, Anfield, Villa Park, St. James Park, Stadium of Light would be a good start. But adding Millenium Stadium, Hampden, Murrayfield and Celtic Park would really be something to chew on.
Click to expand...
It seems that they have understood it, and since the decision for WC 2018 (after the initial fallout), the behavior seems to have totally changed. Ceferin wants the World Cup 2030 to be held in England. He is pressuring FIFA to give it to UEFA, and to not change the rules again and allow China to bid (no one will be able to compete with China), while at the same time trying to unite UEFA in having a single bid, which at the moment seems to be England.

The only problem is that Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay is a very strong bid too. 2 double world champions, good infrastructure, football fan culture, and it will be 100 years since the first World Cup which was held in Uruguay, when Uruguay defeated Argentina in the final, so it also has the historical context. Morocco/Algeria united bid likely won't stand a chance against that bid and England's one.

England should definitely team up with other UK countries though. It will add some great stadiums and the appeal on a combined bid would be greater.
 
I'm extremely excited to have a World Cup in my adopted nation, although it's a shame that Chicago (my nearest 'big' city) isn't one of the host cities - Soldier Field is a great stadium, and was one of the venues in '94 I believe.
My son will be 9 by the time of the finals, so I cannot wait to take him to a couple of England games.

Look on the bright side - by 2026 Trump will be out of office, so at least it won't be quite the shambles it's in now.
 
mykelawrence said:
I'm extremely excited to have a World Cup in my adopted nation, although it's a shame that Chicago (my nearest 'big' city) isn't one of the host cities - Soldier Field is a great stadium, and was one of the venues in '94 I believe.
My son will be 9 by the time of the finals, so I cannot wait to take him to a couple of England games.

Look on the bright side - by 2026 Trump will be out of office, so at least it won't be quite the shambles it's in now.
Click to expand...

I simply cannot understand why a beautiful stadium like Soldier Field in the third city in the US was bypassed and a place like Nashville was chosen (no offense to any Nashvilleans on the CAF). Do you know the thinking that went behind that decision?
 
The absolute gulf in quality in the England v Panama match showing that the expansion to 48 teams will likely make the group stages a bit of a farce. Having 48 teams qualify will almost certainly mean that some teams worse than Panama will be at the World Cup in the future. Can you imagine the cricket scores that will happen when you get a team like Brazil or Germany playing the likes of New Zealand?
 
Tunisia and Iceland are ranked 21 and 22 in the world currently. They can obviously do a job. Expanding to 48 teams, especially with most of the extra teams not being Europe or South America is going to mean some very low ranked countries will qualify. Oceania gets a guaranteed spot for example and their highest ranked team is 120th in the world
 
RoyH1 said:
I simply cannot understand why a beautiful stadium like Soldier Field in the third city in the US was bypassed and a place like Nashville was chosen (no offense to any Nashvilleans on the CAF). Do you know the thinking that went behind that decision?
Click to expand...

The turf of Soldier field is terrible in the NFL. That alone should disqualify it.
 
ajay1002 said:
The absolute gulf in quality in the England v Panama match showing that the expansion to 48 teams will likely make the group stages a bit of a farce. Having 48 teams qualify will almost certainly mean that some teams worse than Panama will be at the World Cup in the future. Can you imagine the cricket scores that will happen when you get a team like Brazil or Germany playing the likes of New Zealand?
Click to expand...

Mmh, I don’t know how long you’ve watching football, but in the 2010 World Cup, there was one and only one team that went undefeated in the tournament.

New Zealand.
 
And the only other time New Zealand qualified in 1982, they lost all three of their group stage matches and finished on a GD of -10
 
RoyH1 said:
I simply cannot understand why a beautiful stadium like Soldier Field in the third city in the US was bypassed and a place like Nashville was chosen (no offense to any Nashvilleans on the CAF). Do you know the thinking that went behind that decision?
Click to expand...

Chicago didn't want to host a World Cup game due to the cost. Think it was a city council decision. Vancouver did the same thing.
 
ajay1002 said:
And the only other time New Zealand qualified in 1982, they lost all three of their group stage matches and finished on a GD of -10
Click to expand...
1982.
I hardly think that would happen to them again. No way a NZ team gives a Panama like performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.