2026 World Cup to be held in U.S.A./Mexico/Canada

Agent Coulson

Euro 2020 is being played in 12 different Countries.

From Azerbaijan to Russia to Ireland thats a lot of miles to be covered and flights to be taken.

SlickRic

Freelance sports writer John Brewin has told Off The Ball AM...

"This World Cup bid will make between $11-14bn for FIFA"

America may be a better venue to host this, but it's ALL about the money.

citytillidie

Or it could be last time NA had the finals was 1994 and last time Africa had the finals was 2010

Scorpion Sting

Redemption awaits for Diana Ross.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAKsGT9-XB0

fyfe79

Ms Ross will be 82 by the time 2026 comes around - let's hope she's as mobile (if not accurate) as she was in 1994!

I wonder will Trump attempt to get his new buddy involved, in Mexico's stead of course, and co-host a couple of games in Pyongyang?

Dots1982

SlickRic wrote: »

Freelance sports writer John Brewin has told Off The Ball AM...

"This World Cup bid will make between $11-14bn for FIFA"

America may be a better venue to host this, but it's ALL about the money.

North America has bigger stadiums so more tickets can be sold and more people can go support their team.

Nothing wrong with that. People just do lazy hot takes that FIFA
are getting paid off.

Fromvert

North Americans in general have the cash and are used to the idea of paying $40-$250 for tickets to games while spending $10+ on a beer. Add to that the corporate culture of renting/owning boxes, large block booking tickets. The revenue from the gates will be huge!

I'm more shocked it took FIFA this long to go back to the US or in this case a North American joint bid.

Iused2likebusts

Delighted with this. I'll be going to that world cup now. I've never been to the states so will go and just pick a few places I want to see and try get tickets for games in those areas. If Ireland qualify I'll try get to one of their games.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Huexotzingo wrote: »

Strange to include Mexico. They have major problems with drug cartels?

Mexico has a lower homicide rate than Brazil, oddly enough.

Chardee MacDennis

banie01 wrote: »

It's a logistical nightmare really.
Yes flight schedules will be able to cope, but I'd have serious concerns as to whether TSA and airports can cope with the added volume.
I can see needing to be at airports for internal flights 4hrs before takeoff being a norm for this WC.
The VISA issues for fans will also be a nightmare, particularly if your team progress through to last 16.
Mexico is an entry stamp, but US and Canada require pre-approval.
What if your team ends up at Toronto NY and say Mexico City, and you get an ESTA but a Canadian refusal?

They've confirmed all three counties will respect each others visas. So you just need one.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Compared to Russia and Qatar cartels are like a annoying fly.


Mexico 86 was a great World Cup.

Speaking of cartels, that was the one that was supposed to be hosted by Colombia. It's better they didn't, from 1985 or so onwards was when violence skyrocketed in the country.

grumpymunster

grumpymunster wrote: »

There is no doubt the NAFTA world cup will be excellent from a spectacle point of view, the Yanks do love putting on a show. And in their turn it is a fantastic place to hold it but this is a world game which is becoming too marginalised, 48 teams at a final is crazy - there is no logic to that. This is akin to FFP in some ways.

Why not have all 211 playing around robin then one world cup can run seamlessly into another, junkets all round be deadly.

I actually quite like the format. It'll mean less chance for ****-ups from favorites in the group stage. Then it'll be a 32-team straight knock-out which I'm all in favour of. This way FIFA get their money and we get a great knock-out tournament. I'm sure I remember people complaining about the CL having group stages and it should just be a straight knockout.

Loafing Oaf

There’ll be some muck coming through concacaf qualification for that World Cup, assuming the hosts get a bye and they get 5 places on top of that.

Zebra3

48 teams in a WC cheapens it.

Lot like the Euros now which was perfect with 16 teams.

Say Your Number

I found the last Euro's tedious to watch, bloated with too many rubbish teams, I look back more fondly at Euro 2012 as a tournament, even though it was a nightmare for us, it was just way better overall.

This 48 teams is absolute nonsense, where will they draw the line, in 20/30 years will there be 72 teams in the World Cup, I think 32 is perfect number, there is a few rubbish teams but it doesn't drag too much, in 2026 I'll probably only bother with potential Ireland games and the knockout stages, this is the last World Cup I'll look forward too, once this one is over I won't care anymore, those eejits have destroyed it, thanks FIFA

Zebra3

sugarman wrote: »

People said the same thing when it went from 24 to 32 team world cup and with the Euros from 8 to 16. Neither made much of an impact on the overall quality.

Sure in 28 years between Italia 90 and Russia 2018, theres almost an extra 100 members of FIFA involved in qualifying with the break up of countries and formation of new ones. Theres been 23 in UEFA alone, and were not just talking about the ones making up numbers like Gibralter and San Marino. Theres several good footballing nations in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Rep, Ukraine.

...and still only 13 teams from UEFA qualify.

The Euros is a shambles now. Third place good enough for some teams to qualify from six team groups which include a hopeless side like Gibraltar or Andorra. Almost harder not to qualify.

24 teams make the group stages almost a waste of time. All those games to cut just eight teams. In two-thirds of the groups, third place in a four team group is good enough to progress.

A great tournament destroyed.

Kolido

sugarman wrote: »

People said the same thing when it went from 24 to 32 team world cup and with the Euros from 8 to 16. Neither made much of an impact on the overall quality.

Sure in 28 years between Italia 90 and Russia 2018, theres almost an extra 100 members of FIFA involved in qualifying with the break up of countries and formation of new ones. Theres been 23 in UEFA alone, and were not just talking about the ones making up numbers like Gibralter and San Marino. Theres several good footballing nations in Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Czech Rep, Ukraine.

...and still only 13 teams from UEFA qualify.

The biggest issue for me is the groups of 3, thats a terrible idea. You play 48 games just to loose 16 teams, which if the tournament was still 32 teams, they probably wouldnt have been there anyway. Obviously great from a financial pov and for the fans of lower teams, but from a football pov, tournament wont really start until the knockouts.

Liam O

Zebra3 wrote: »

The Euros is a shambles now. Third place good enough for some teams to qualify from six team groups which include a hopeless side like Gibraltar or Andorra. Almost harder not to qualify.

24 teams make the group stages almost a waste of time. All those games to cut just eight teams. In two-thirds of the groups, third place in a four team group is good enough to progress.

A great tournament destroyed.

You don't qualify from 3rd place in a qualifying group in the Euros. That was for 1 campaign. Why shouldn't it be inclusive rather than exclusive? I enjoyed the last tournament mainly because you had the likes of NI, Wales, Iceland etc do well with their chance. Some might like the same 16 teams being there every time but if it can be facilitated why not give others a chance? If only for the experience of going to a major finals?

Zebra3

The whole point of a tournament being exclusive is to make it an achievement getting there. Like NI did by winning their group.

Sure why not just invite everyone? Think of the craic???

And Ireland finished third in their group and qualified and it’s not and never has been the same 16 sides qualifying. But sure feel free to make stuff up. :rolleyes:

The tournament being the size it is has to do with logistics and optics rather than it being an achievement to get there.

Zebra3

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The tournament being the size it is has to do with logistics and optics rather than it being an achievement to get there.

Nope, it has to do with certain national associations voting for the expansion to increase their chances of qualifying.

Ireland and Scotland (LOL) pushed the expansion/destruction of the Euros.