-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
North America wins the vote to host the FIFA World Cup in 2026
- Thread starter RBH
- Start date
It makes sense. If it were someone other than Morocco (both because you're already getting a WC in the Muslim World and because Morocco, like others of the Muslim monarchies, is not the best on human rights), i think the Trump effect would have pushed it over.
If they pick Boston it'll be at Gillette. It's the only option. Harvard Stadium is too small and doesn't have individual seats anyhow.
Really hope Kraft wins the bid to have some of the games played at Gilette! I will sell my soul to the devil if that is what it takes to attend one of the games!
I still find shit like this weird. Do you honestly think the nation of immigrants doesn't have a metric ton of football fans who watch international football/leagues?
EU is full of rich countries with up to date arenas so this argument flies a lot less.
And if FIFA didn't act like the fucking Mafia with retaining all the earnings for themselves and even forcing host countries to give up on taxing these earnings it would be easier for poorer countries. Why does a country have to have a stadium with a capacity of 80,000 in the current bid e.g.?
Neither Germany nor Brazil did have one.
Morocco doesn't have one, but has one that can be expanded to 70,000 places.
But 70,000 is not 80,000 so they would need to build a stadium that they probably would never be able to fill/use again just because.
User warned: trolling
Just give the whole tournament to Mexico. So few people care about soccer in the U.S.
Is that what you tell yourself, at night? I guess all those stadiums in the U.S do not exist and are imaginary?
So few that the US buys the most foreign tickets in every World Cup including Russia where we didn't even qualify.
Please come to Seattle. CenturyLink Field is a great venue and I would love to see a World Cup match in my lifetime.
they're confimed to be one of Canada's three hosts. and with Vancouver not hosting, it's a lock
While Soccer is not as popular as Am. Football, baseball, basketball, or hockey, it has come a long way. The MLS, once thought a pipedream, is exploding in popularity, and new cities are embracing soccer like Cincinnati and Atlanta. From a marketing viewpoint, it makes the most sense to put it in NA where there is the most room for growth.
One reason Quatar WC will take place in Winter,so degrees will be closer to Mexico during summer. Probably players will be in top shape during that time.
Because mostly their lower WC performance isnt due to the fatigue but because money is less than the CL.
52000 seat stadium with the experience of hosting the Women's World Cup (including the goddamn final), that was renovated less than 10 years ago for 150 million. And we're not hosting, because...NDP
Toronto - Montreal - Edmonton are the three potential cities in Canada.
Vancouver has gone full hipster and doesn't want to have any games.
Why?
They'd be going up against England and maybe Scotland/Wales will be joining too.
England has better stadiums. Can handle 48 team World Cup with no issues. By then you'd have quite a few more new or improved stadiums. Spurs are getting a nice new big stadium next season. Everton are going to get a new stadium. Liverpool and Man Utd are looking to increase the capacity of their grounds. City could easily increase their capacity by 2030 even though its empty most of the time. You got Newcastle and Leeds with big stadiums. Then you have Wembley, London Stadium and Emirates.
I'm looking at the stadiums in Uruguay. They have one that can fill 60k people. The other is 40k and the rest are under 30k.
If common sense prevails then England will get the 2030 World Cup. They have the stadiums and by 2030 they'd have even bigger stadiums.
The
Reading more into it, it seems that the NDP do have reasons. Tax payers are going to have to pay for all the upgrades and that is going to be costly. Is it okay for the government to front the Fifa bill? It would be a lot to ask.
Reading more into it, it seems that the NDP do have reasons. Tax payers are going to have to pay for all the upgrades and that is going to be costly. Is it okay for the government to front the Fifa bill? It would be a lot to ask.
The tournament will be a cluster fuck if a Trump like figure is still in power or if the US does not recover from this presidency.
I guess that of the 20 matches in Canada and Mexico all of the group stage ones the hosts play local.
I guess that of the 20 matches in Canada and Mexico all of the group stage ones the hosts play local.
You can use the big rugby stadiums like Twickenham and Cardiff too.
LOL! I also thought of this earlier today. Let's hope the 2026 North American World Cup succeds where the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) failed.
Obviously happy to have the World Cup close to home even though it seems silly to have an entire continent host the World Cup. I do hope Canada can actually have grass fields for their games. World Cup game played on turf would be absolutely disgusting. Also logistically it might be a nightmare trying to get visas for three different countries if your team is bouncing around.
But with the new 48 team format, I imagine this will be the trend going forward with multiple countries sharing the hosting duties. It's not just an issue of making more money, but multiple hosts reduce the strain on the individual host nations.
As for people complaining about 48 teams, I personally would have preferred going from 32 to 40 first. But the game is growing and the World Cup expands roughly every 25-30 years to reflect that. And while we definitely currently don't have the depth to support a competitive 48 team tournament, allowing more teams into the World Cup does eventually strengthen and grow the talent pool worldwide. After 1990 and the amazing run of Cameroon, Africa was given more WC spots when the tournament expanded to 32 nations. And while WC success has still been fairly elusive for African nations, in that time we've had some fantastic African players in Europe. We're also slowly starting to see the fruits from the Korea/Japan 2002 World Cup. So while purist would like to see the WC format remain stable and try to keep it as an elite tournament, the truth is it's always been more celebration than elite competition. The club level has the best quality of soccer. But the World Cup has some of the best stories, legends and infamy. It's also a place where unknown players from a distant country get a chance to finally get noticed. Keep in mind too, if more countries have a legimate chance to make the WC, then they will actually spend more resources on training/developing their youth players and over time those countries will be more competitive.
That said, the blowouts in 2026 will be ugly. Assuming China or Russia hasn't annexed the US by then. The fate of the World Cup is literally in Mueller's hands.
But with the new 48 team format, I imagine this will be the trend going forward with multiple countries sharing the hosting duties. It's not just an issue of making more money, but multiple hosts reduce the strain on the individual host nations.
As for people complaining about 48 teams, I personally would have preferred going from 32 to 40 first. But the game is growing and the World Cup expands roughly every 25-30 years to reflect that. And while we definitely currently don't have the depth to support a competitive 48 team tournament, allowing more teams into the World Cup does eventually strengthen and grow the talent pool worldwide. After 1990 and the amazing run of Cameroon, Africa was given more WC spots when the tournament expanded to 32 nations. And while WC success has still been fairly elusive for African nations, in that time we've had some fantastic African players in Europe. We're also slowly starting to see the fruits from the Korea/Japan 2002 World Cup. So while purist would like to see the WC format remain stable and try to keep it as an elite tournament, the truth is it's always been more celebration than elite competition. The club level has the best quality of soccer. But the World Cup has some of the best stories, legends and infamy. It's also a place where unknown players from a distant country get a chance to finally get noticed. Keep in mind too, if more countries have a legimate chance to make the WC, then they will actually spend more resources on training/developing their youth players and over time those countries will be more competitive.
That said, the blowouts in 2026 will be ugly. Assuming China or Russia hasn't annexed the US by then. The fate of the World Cup is literally in Mueller's hands.
Generally dislike it when the tournament is given to countries who would not normally be at the tournament via qualification (South Africa, Russia, Qatar, USA, Canada).
This isn't coming from bias (I swear) but GB is long overdue hosting a tournament (WC or EUROs) so many great stadiums conducive to the best atmospheres. No one wants to watch football in a baseball stadium.
This isn't coming from bias (I swear) but GB is long overdue hosting a tournament (WC or EUROs) so many great stadiums conducive to the best atmospheres. No one wants to watch football in a baseball stadium.
hmm, i wonder which one of the us cities will be cut after getting rid of the 6 in canada and mexico.
Not necessarily, the FIFA Council will decide which hosts will automatically qualify at a later date https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/new...allocation-for-the-2026-fifa-wor-2878254.html
And even if all 3 automatically qualify there's still 3 spots up for grabs, which is quite a lot when you don't have to compete against Mexico and the US.
Canada and Mexico cool but US can go fuck itself. Joined bid is a lie since 90% will be in the US.
They don't even allow Iran to use their Nike football boots at the current world cup and they already had no friendly matches because of countries being afraid of US retaliation. Bet america will block countries they dont like from entering the WC at all.
They don't even allow Iran to use their Nike football boots at the current world cup and they already had no friendly matches because of countries being afraid of US retaliation. Bet america will block countries they dont like from entering the WC at all.
Same here! We watch it in soccer stadiums, or if need be, football stadiums.
disappointed at how many games are gonna be played on the US, like come on, so much for a joined bid
Are you talking about the extreme amount of sodium?
Last edited:
Oh cmon, USA? Really? They qualified to every WC from 1990 until 2014 and missed by the skin of their teeth 2018. I won't argue for the rest though.
I do agree that GB, specifically England, is long overdue a WC. You guys invented the sport and it's unbelievable you've only hosted once 50 years ago. Now that your shitty relationship with Blatter went away maybe you have a fighting chance in 2034 (sorry but 2030 will be in South America).
So does this mean the US, Canada, and Mexico are all automatic entries? That kind of stinks that three entire teams are taking spots.
Does that mean our team automatically makes it in to group play? I think I remember that being a thing.
US, Mexico, and Canada all get spots (alongside the seeded teams) in 2026 if memory serves.