Jump to content
talkfootball365
  • Welcome to talkfootball365!

    The better place to talk football.

North America 2026 World Cup Bid Successful


Recommended Posts

The New York/New Jersey area, Los Angeles, Toronto and Mexico City are among the 23 candidate host cities for the joint United States, Canada and Mexico bid for the 2026 World Cup, bid officials said on Thursday.

The cities were announced on the eve of the submission of the North American bid to FIFA and followed the withdrawal of Vancouver and Chicago as potential host cities because of concerns over the unpredictable costs.

Seventeen of the cities are in the United States and three each in Canada and Mexico. Matches will be played in each country if the bid is successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sign up to remove this ad.
  • Replies 132
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I would say it's a given that the US will win that bid for the World Cup.  Europe will surely be out of the reckoning...

But unless political tensions calm down and hypothetically speaking with an absence of President Orange, then it could provide big issues for traveling fans to North America, not so much Mexico where it's the easiest thing in the world to get a visiting VISA for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SirBalon said:

I would say it's a given that the US will win that bid for the World Cup.  Europe will surely be out of the reckoning...

But unless political tensions calm down and hypothetically speaking with an absence of President Orange, then it could provide big issues for traveling fans to North America, not so much Mexico where it's the easiest thing in the world to get a visiting VISA for.

Trump's 8 years will end in 2025, so it shouldn't be much of a concern. Any travel restrictions enacted by him will be in the form of executive orders which can easily be repealed by the next president.

For citizens of most countries, though, it's quite easy to be granted entry to the USA; many don't even need a visa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Also discussed here.

The latest news, I thought, that it wasn't as straightforward as first believed for the North American bid. Well, that was the words from Sepp Blatter. And we may ridicule him, but he seems to hold a lot of sway from some countries. 

America could easily host the World Cup tomorrow with the stadiums and infrastructure already in place. With Morocco the only other bidder, and with their proposals mostly made up of proposed stadiums, can they really award the World Cup to them and risk creating another legacy of white elephants like Brazil has created?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Subscriber

Morocco aren't fit to host it. Do think there's probably a bigger football culture there than realised but they're a way off being able to host a world cup.

Forgot that this is going to have 48 teams in it. Fuck sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/16/2018 at 07:14, Cannabis said:

USA had it as recently as 1994. Surely there are others out there? Australia, China or even a Nordic collaboration would be better than 'murica again.

Retarded. I'm mentioned it a million times but Australia is a poor choice for the WC. 

  • Not a soccer country
  • Conflicts with the two major sports, NRL and AFL.
  • Not in a 'fooball timezone'.
  • Small and decentralised population spread over a landmass (near?) larger than Europe
  • Not many large stadiums, and aforementioned; it would conflict with AFL and NRL, who'd fight tooth and nail to prevent the WC.
  • Australia doesn't need to spend millions of dollars on a sport that isn't culturally relevant. 
  • Expensive to travel to.
  • Expensive to travel in.
  • It is unreasonable to have the WC in four cities, and it's unreasonable to have games in Perth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joint bid with NZ would be fairer to our kiwi brothers 

9 hours ago, Spike said:

Retarded. I'm mentioned it a million times but Australia is a poor choice for the WC. 

  • Not a soccer country
  • Conflicts with the two major sports, NRL and AFL.
  • Not in a 'fooball timezone'.
  • Small and decentralised population spread over a landmass (near?) larger than Europe
  • Not many large stadiums, and aforementioned; it would conflict with AFL and NRL, who'd fight tooth and nail to prevent the WC.
  • Australia doesn't need to spend millions of dollars on a sport that isn't culturally relevant. 
  • Expensive to travel to.
  • Expensive to travel in.
  • It is unreasonable to have the WC in four cities, and it's unreasonable to have games in Perth.

I disagree. For Australia there's plenty to gain. 

For Fifa there would be an incredibly well attended tournament full of passionate fans in a welcoming country that could comfortably afford it and has excellent security. A good cup to potentially restore the brand after the chaos and disgrace that now follows that organisation around like a bad smell.

Not more compelling than a US Canada bid except that they have recently held the tournament. Still not a frontrunner but a worthy contestant that does eventually deserve to get picked if we be good and sit quietly with our hand raised.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As i have said before this doubt that whether some countries are fit enough to host the world cup or not can be cleared if the Confederations Cup is used as a test rather then a rehearsal for the World Cup.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azeem98 said:

Didn't Morocco refused to host the AFCON after being given the right just one year before the tournament ?  How can they even be considered after having a record like that

Because they didn't want ebola, which at the time was a pretty big epidemic, entering their country. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morocco has the stadiums to host it, its just the size of the country as well as everything else that needs to be improved (hotels, infrastructure). 48 team World Cup's needs to be for the USA, as much as I hate the country, its the most fitting and most ready to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Harry said:

Joint bid with NZ would be fairer to our kiwi brothers 

I disagree. For Australia there's plenty to gain. 

For Fifa there would be an incredibly well attended tournament full of passionate fans in a welcoming country that could comfortably afford it and has excellent security. A good cup to potentially restore the brand after the chaos and disgrace that now follows that organisation around like a bad smell.

Not more compelling than a US Canada bid except that they have recently held the tournament. Still not a frontrunner but a worthy contestant that does eventually deserve to get picked if we be good and sit quietly with our hand raised.

 

Mate you're from Melbourne (the city that would start a professional Mongolian wrestling league). You've got a twisted view on how popular the sport is.  Outside of Melbourne it is largely a sport for 'pooftas and Europeans'. 

You really think the AFL and NRL will be sharing their timeslots and stadiums for a month?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, Spike said:

Mate you're from Melbourne (the city that would start a professional Mongolian wrestling league). You've got a twisted view on how popular the sport is.  Outside of Melbourne it is largely a sport for 'pooftas and Europeans'. 

You really think the AFL and NRL will be sharing their timeslots and stadiums for a month?

I'd point to the Sydney Olympics example. Australia has a pride about putting on a show and wanting the world to like us that leads to us performing well on the big stage. 

Melbourne would be the spiritual centre of the tournament but no doubt the Sydney centric FFA would have it at Homebush. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Spike said:

Nah, I'd love it especially if I was home for it but that doesn't mean I think its a good idea. 

A question worthy of discussion is what should the selection criteria be? Should it be any different to the Olympic host cities which seem to focus on who's most likely to put on the best show? 

Should it be a strategic location to further the uptake of football around the world? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Harry said:

 

I'd point to the Sydney Olympics example. Australia has a pride about putting on a show and wanting the world to like us that leads to us performing well on the big stage. 

Melbourne would be the spiritual centre of the tournament but no doubt the Sydney centric FFA would have it at Homebush. 

The Olympics aren't a direct competitor with soccer unlike NRL and AFL. There is a reason why the A-League season is during the AFL and NRL offseason, it's because it'd die against those two. Australia has so much pride that people are groaning about the upcoming Commonwealth Games on the Gold Coast! The absolute dead sport of rugby union that is only played by private school boys that think they are from 'out bush' is more popular than soccer (pulls larger crowds per game). I just don't see the worth in spending huge amounts of money on a sport that people just don't care about. How utterly embarrassing it would be to have commentator's explain the rules live during games because people don't know the rules. The only sport that is universally popular back home is cricket, everything else is regional. I've met one person from QLD that likes AFL. I'd be more inclined to want a WC in Aus if it were a city that is easy to travel in, it's the size of the contiguous USA but with only 1/20 of the populaiton. Canada would be a poor choice for similar reasons to Australia.

Geez, the bolded part makes you look seem a stereotypical Melbournite (praising Melbourne and cursing Sydney in the same sentence). xD The country is more than those two bloody cities. 

 

29 minutes ago, Harry said:

A question worthy of discussion is what should the selection criteria be? Should it be any different to the Olympic host cities which seem to focus on who's most likely to put on the best show? 

Should it be a strategic location to further the uptake of football around the world? 

It should only be held in countries that can already support a World Cup.Recently we've seen too much public money wasted on WCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be totally for an Australia World Cup to be honest, but not the 48 teams. It can definitely hold 32, but 48 in a country with a lot of nothingness is kinda difficult. Doubt New Zealand can help much either. Their best bet is to ask Papua New Guinea :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

America is pretty much ready made with sporting venues across the country and including the major Canadian cities, so there’s less chance of white elephants like the aftermath of the Brazil World Cup. 

The level of interest in Football there has grown over the past twenty-odd years since they last hosted it and I think it could be a massive shot in the arm for what is an every growing league there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is why they haven't hosted the 'World Club Cup'. I imagine that the European clubs would be thrilled at being able to play there rather than in the Far East. 

And if South American clubs can take huge numbers to Asia, imagine the amount they could bring to America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ScoRoss said:

What I don't understand is why they haven't hosted the 'World Club Cup'. I imagine that the European clubs would be thrilled at being able to play there rather than in the Far East. 

And if South American clubs can take huge numbers to Asia, imagine the amount they could bring to America.

Good point, the European clubs would fill up too given how much gloryhunters exist there :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Sign up or subscribe to remove this ad.


×
×
  • Create New...