# USA, MEXICO & CANADA - 2026 FIFA World Cup™



## GEwinnen

Kobo said:


> F the US 1994 World Cup still holds the record for highest attendance of any World Cup.


The attandance of a world cup depends on the size of the stadiums! Alle big european football nations (Spain, France, Germany, England, Italy) could beat the US record easily, if they had the stadiums like the USA in 1994. My hometown (just 250,000 inh.) hosted the QF England vs. Portugal in 2006. Estimated 80,000 englishmen without a ticket were in the city!

Imagine a World Cup in the "Big5": 
Bernabeu: 81,000
Nou Camp: 99,000
New Mestalla: 70,000
Stade de France: 81,000
Velodrome: 68,000
Wembley: 90,000
Old Trafford: 76,000
Twickenham: 82,000
Allianz Arena: 71,000
Olympic Stadium Berlin: 74,000
San Siro: 80,000
Stadio Olympico Rome: 80,000

Average: 72,500 x 64 = 4,640,000

The "Big5" (population 360,000,000) are comparable to the USA.

Anyway, the USA would host a great tournament, no doubt about it.


----------



## Hansadyret

Pretty sure 2026 will be in noth america but i don't think Mexico wil get it this time since they already hosted twice.

It seems Soccer/football and espcially the World Cup have been growing in US and Canada over the last decades. It won't bee like in 1994 when many didn't even know what the world cup was.

Canada would be nice, but are they really prepared to invest billions in new stadiums for a sport they as of now are far from competing with the best in?

I think USA will end up getting 2026


----------



## carlosfng

That London Fella said:


> Slightly unrelated but I feel that the US should also focus on getting some club world cups. In my opinion it should be played there every year.
> 
> Its the easiest location for everyone to get to from all continents firstly. I'm sorry but playing this tournament in Japan just kills it for European teams who are the main draw, because its so far away! Also easier for Mexican, south American and African teams to get to the US
> 
> Secondly, soccer is really taking off in America and I'm sure most US fans would love the prospect of a European champion like real Madrid etc coming to the country mid season when they are in full flight domestically to play competitive football rather than the pre season friendlies currently played.
> 
> In addition to this, the fact that the US has so many nationalities means that the south American nations, Mexican especially (less so for the African and Asian teams) Will have massive support there. Of course US based Barca/Bayern/real etcfans would also be cheering on their team.
> 
> In addition the fact that the MLS champion would compete in the tournament would be great for the MLS. The galaxy or sounders having the opportunity to go up against the best Europe and south America has to offer would only further increase interest.
> 
> I think it's a no brainer. Then again I'm not entirely sure what the costs of staging the tournament are and the added fact that its played during NFL season and US winter is a problem.


I think that you're only taking the European side of the coin - for South Americans, it was and still is always pretty neat for us to wake up, have breakfast, and watch our champion battle it out in Japan. Thus the last few editions in UAE/Morocco haven't been that paid attention to in our region. So in that sense, maybe we like the time difference Japan has with us - and maybe that helps us value the CWC more than you guys ever did heh.

Either way, you're right in your other positive points about the US hosting the CWC - but then again, your negatives are correct too, costs (again, UAE/Morocco hosting it now, must be for a reason), winter, and NFL scheduling would be a problem.


----------



## fidalgo

Kazakhstan examine bid for 2026 World Cup



> Kazakhstan are examining a bid to host the 2026 World Cup, the country's football chief Yerlan Kozhagapanov was quoted as saying in Russia's Sport Express daily Tuesday.
> 
> "We're currently consulting with the government and analysing our possibilities," Kozhagapanov, who is also the deputy mayor of Kazakhstan's capital Astana, said.
> 
> "Our country is rapidly developing, our economy is on the rise. Why not?


https://sports.yahoo.com/news/kazakhstan-examine-bid-2026-world-cup-000430601--sow.html


----------



## Laurence2011

I think 2026 will still be a bit early... 2034 could work


----------



## andydie

some interesting articles:

World Cup 2026: United States dream of celebrating 250th anniversary of independence with World Cup final
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/usa/11486936/World-Cup-2026-United-States-dream-of-celebrating-250th-anniversary-of-independence-with-World-Cup-final.html

kazakhstan-considering-bid-to-host-2026-world-cup
http://www.espnfc.com/fifa-world-cup/story/2373924/kazakhstan-considering-bid-to-host-2026-world-cup

morocco-to-host-the-2026-world-cup
http://en.starafrica.com/football/morocco-to-host-the-2026-world-cup.html


----------



## Walbanger

andydie said:


> some interesting articles:
> 
> *World Cup 2026: United States dream of celebrating 250th anniversary of independence with World Cup final*
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/usa/11486936/World-Cup-2026-United-States-dream-of-celebrating-250th-anniversary-of-independence-with-World-Cup-final.html


Would that be the right motivation for England to actually put a team on the park and win the thing?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I don't think any anniversary would make any difference to the motivation to win the World Cup.

The idea of playing the World Cup final in the USA on the 250th anniversary of independence is a good one. Assuming the hoopla of the day in the USA doesn't overshadow the sport at all.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

According to Sunil Gulati



> “We’ll host it. No doubt,” Gulati, who is also a member of the FIFA executive council, predicted Thursday during a panel discussion that closed the two-day IMG World Congress of Sports in Los Angeles. “It’s at least as important for the international community to be in the United States as it is for the United States to have the international community here.”





> Gulati said the U.S. is so rich in infrastructure -- stadiums, airports, hotels and the like -- that if could play host to a World Cup next week if needed.
> 
> “But,” he added, “if we had a choice between hosting a World Cup next week or, I’ll say 11 1/2 years from now, I’d take 11 1/2 years from now.”
> 
> That would give U.S. Soccer and FIFA a chance to build support and develop sponsorships while thoroughly evaluating as many as 50 cities that Gulati expects to seek World Cup games.
> 
> Plus a 2026 tournament here has one more factor going for it: By scheduling the opener for July 4, a Saturday, FIFA could guarantee the U.S. a game on the country’s 250th birthday.
> 
> Or Gulati could ask for the final to be played that day in hopes the U.S. makes it to the championship game.
> 
> “Winning the World Cup at home? That would be pretty cool,” he said.
> 
> “Doing it tomorrow would not be the fulfillment of what a World Cup can bring to a country,” Weil said. “You need to have the lead-up. You need to have the preparation. You need to have the communication. The people locally also to start to think about [the] World Cup.”


http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-us-world-cup-return-20150410-story.html


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Gulati sounds arrogant there. Of course the USA could host it any time. It could host several concurrently. Saying it is more important for the international community to come to the USA than for the USA to host the international community is not the way to win friends. It isn't true in any case unless you are of the opinion that the USA places no importance in hosting.

I think the US should host in 2026. Better be a bit more diplomatic and gracious though.


----------



## poguemahone

New Zealand are apparently keen to Co-Host the world Cup with Australia.

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/apr/13/new-zealand-eye-world-cup-bid-with-australia

Could be a decent Idea as It could add 4 additional cities to an Australian Bid (Auckland, Wellington, Dunedin and Christchurch). Absolutely beautiful country and they have actually played in the world cup a couple of times (unlike one host who can only buy their way in), including being undefeated at the 2010 world cup finishing above world champions Italy in their group.

They Also have some class stadiums over there. 

Eden Park (Auckland) 50,000










Westpac Stadium (Wellington) 34,500










Forsyth Barr Stadium (Dunedin) 30,000










New Christchurch Stadium 35,000 (the old stadium is being demolished due to damage from the 2011 earthquake)


----------



## master_klon

Seems unlikely that Australia would want to co-host an event of this size. 
It would be a good opportunity though to expand and polish up both Auckland and Wellington's stadiums, and Christchurch still hasn't entered the planning stage yet so their stadium could easily be bumped up to meet FIFA's 40k minimum. I doubt Dunedin stadium would be expandable by that much though. FIFA would need to make a lot of exceptions to allow us to host, but the biggest selling point for NZ will be that this would be the only opportunity for Oceania Confederation to host a World Cup...unless we find some oil.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Would adding New Zealand strengthen an Australian bid significantly? I'm not sure it would. I don't think I like the extra distance involved either. Perth to Auckland is 3,322 miles. By comparison Manaus to Porto Alegre is 1,947. There was enough travelling in Brazil! I know this can be mitigated with careful planning but it is not ideal. Australia would already be a very expensive World Cup for supporters attending from Europe and the Americas.

The only reason that Australia would go for this is if they didn't feel they had enough stadia of their own (excluding the possibility that NZ has great influence within FIFA that I'm unaware of). Which brings me to this question: which stadia would Australia use for a tournament and which would likely get the chop to allow 3 New Zealand grounds to be used?


----------



## GunnerJacket

In theory you could simply assign one group to play all their group-stage games in NZ, and then the rest of the event takes place in Australia. Thus, the really long flights only occur once. You'd just have to make sure their Round of 16 match-ups take place in eastern Australia.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Would adding New Zealand strengthen an Australian bid significantly? I'm not sure it would.


It would be a trans-confederation bid, which certainly has its merits. I've been toying with the idea myself. As alluded above, the main merit of a transcontinental bid is that it allows bringing the World Cup in a weaker confederation, where it would otherwise be much harder to get it without external help. It would certainly boost an Australian bid.


----------



## fidalgo

The OZ/NZ bid would be great, but probably, Australia, would accept it in a 50/50 partition, and would make it more like the 2018 Portugal/Spain WC bid, in a way Australia gets 8 venues and New Zealand 4


----------



## GunnerJacket

It would have to be like that because I don't see NZ having more than 3 WC capable venues. The Forsyth Barr stadium in Dunedin appears less viable for expansion to 40k, and that would likely be an expense not worth the effort for likely just 1 game. 

1 Group of four teams would only need 2 stadiums, really. 3 at best. Then you'd only need the venues in Auckland, Wellington and possibly Christchurch, with each getting 2 games. Minimal investment required, then the lot could fly off to Australia for the rest of the tournament.

- - - -

I can even smooth over the co-hosting logistical issue: There's popular opinion favoring a joint Uruguay-Argentina bid for 2030. Since the Oceanic champion plays the 5th place team from Conmebol for rights to play in the WC, the two confederations could work out a deal. When NZ co-hosts with Australia Conmebol is only allotted 4 spots for that tournament, then when Arg-Uru co-hosts the Oceanic Champion faces a pay-off with the last Asian qualifier (as legacy from Australia's hosting). Barring further clarification of the co-hosting rules and parameters that's not a difficult or unfair solution to making these special occasions work. I think, anyway.


----------



## poguemahone

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Would adding New Zealand strengthen an Australian bid significantly? I'm not sure it would. I don't think I like the extra distance involved either. Perth to Auckland is 3,322 miles. By comparison Manaus to Porto Alegre is 1,947. There was enough travelling in Brazil! I know this can be mitigated with careful planning but it is not ideal. Australia would already be a very expensive World Cup for supporters attending from Europe and the Americas.
> 
> The only reason that Australia would go for this is if they didn't feel they had enough stadia of their own (excluding the possibility that NZ has great influence within FIFA that I'm unaware of). *Which brings me to this question: which stadia would Australia use for a tournament and which would likely get the chop to allow 3 New Zealand grounds to be used?*


It would save us having to build 3 completely new stadiums probably.

IF there was a Australia, New Zealand World Cup I'd expect these cities and stadiums used to be.

Australia
Sydney- Olympic Stadium 83,500 , Sydney Football Stadium 45,500
Melbourne - Melbourne Cricket Ground 100,000
Brisbane - Lang Park 52,500
Newcastle - Hunter Stadium 33,000 (currently going through a long term expansion to 40,000)
Perth - New Stadium (Currently under construction) 60,000
Canberra - New Stadium or expand current one
Gold Coast - Carrara Stadium currently being expanded to 40,000 for Commonwealth games
Adelaide Oval - Expansion finished last year, now 53,500

New Zealand
Auckland- Eden Park 50,000
Wellington- Westpac Stadium 34,500 (this can be expanded easily by another 1,000 like they did for the 2010 world cup qualifier)
Christchurch - New Stadium 35,000 (in planning atm so can be expanded) 

Are FIFA really that strict about 40k stadiums though? Rustenberg was only 38k. Wellington would be a tough one to expand if so. 

The above stadiums would give you 12 in 11 different cities. 

You wouldn't need to play whole groups in just New Zealand too, flights to Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane are roughly 3 hours so thats fine to play between them. Also would mean only 1 new stadiums would actually need to be built for the event in Canberra, but there are rough plans to build a new stadium there in the next 10-15 years anyway.

If you wanted to add another couple of cities and stadiums in, new stadiums could be built in Geelong or Townsville (which were part of the original world cup bid) there is also Docklands stadium in Melbourne which holds 53,000. Also could potentially add another 6k or so to Dunedin with an expansion in the corners of the current to bring it up to about 36k.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

The MCG would be a fantastic venue for the final.


----------



## RobH

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The MCG would be a fantastic venue for the final.


In terms of capacity and history, yes. But otherwise, not so sure:


----------



## RobH

English forum, English please


----------



## alexandru.mircea

5portsF4n said:


> Colombia's not getting a World Cup anytime soon.
> 
> After Qatar it's almost inconceivable to imagine China and the US not getting the next two. Add in another big Euro country, and you're talking about getting close to 2038 again before a South American nation will host again.


Even if continental rotation is not a policy, you can't possibly have two Asian and two European World Cups between 2014 and the next time South America hosts - IF there is a worthy South American bid in that period, of course.


----------



## Jim856796

5portsF4n said:


> Colombia's not getting a World Cup anytime soon.


Is 2026 even "anytime soon"? This comment just shows that we're running out of potential FIFA WC hosts _fast_.


----------



## Laurence2011

Yes, but the host will be decided in 2017, countries are planning their bids now.


----------



## blacktrojan3921

Jim856796 said:


> About Canada's bid for the 2026 FIFA World Cup:
> 
> It'll be tough to get over 8 to 12 stadiums within Canada to meet the strict requirements for hosting FIFA WC games. Al venues must have at least 40,000 for group and second round matches, and 60,000 for the quarter-finals and beyond. The majority of stadiums in any FIFS WC bid from Canada will be stadiums where a Canadian Football League team is the primary tenant. The only stadium in Canada that is capable of hosting a WC final (or rather, anything beyond the quarterfinal stage) is Montreal's Olympic Stadium, which has a capacity of 65,000. If a potential WC final venue were to be created for Toronto (likely over a 70,000 capacity), it would easily end up a white elephant after the WC, like Montreal's Olympic Stadium.


Not necessarily; considering the fact that one of the biggest ideas of the NFL is to establish a league in Toronto (which I don't like considering it would interfere with the Argos), making a stadium that will fit the criteria for the WC Final will be the perfect stadium to host a NFL team. 

As for where to host the quarter final matches; the only logical places would be Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto because they are the only places that have stadiums close enough to reach the 60'000 mark. 

Plus; it would be a good way for the CFL to expand as it would mean building a couple new stadiums that reach the 40,000 mark. Most likely one in the Maritimes, one in Quebec City, and maybe even Saskatoon, Windsor and London.


----------



## Calvin W

blacktrojan3921 said:


> Not necessarily; considering the fact that one of the biggest ideas of the NFL is to establish a league in Toronto (which I don't like considering it would interfere with the Argos), making a stadium that will fit the criteria for the WC Final will be the perfect stadium to host a NFL team.
> 
> As for where to host the quarter final matches; the only logical places would be Edmonton, Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto because they are the only places that have stadiums close enough to reach the 60'000 mark.
> 
> Plus; it would be a good way for the CFL to expand as it would mean building a couple new stadiums that reach the 40,000 mark. Most likely one in the Maritimes, one in Quebec City, and maybe even Saskatoon, Windsor and London.


The NFL Has NO plans of establishing a team or league in Toronto. You have a source for that claim? 

Any 70,000 seat stadium in Toronto, won't be a white elephant, but sure as heck won't be a huge money maker as well.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Calvin W said:


> The NFL Has NO plans of establishing a team or league in Toronto. You have a source for that claim?
> 
> Any 70,000 seat stadium in Toronto, won't be a white elephant, but sure as heck won't be a huge money maker as well.


The league hasn't said anything official, obviously, but they've supported the Bills exhibition games there and were mum on the subject when potential Bills buyers commented on the potential for relocation to Toronto. Meanwhile, several pundits have offered their thoughts on Toronto as part of any long-term global expansion plans.

fivethirtyeight.com

Joe Montana

So, no, Toronto isn't on the NFL radar in a way comparable to London right now. No other city is. But it makes sense when you think about it - If the NFL is truly looking to go global then skipping an international destination of more than 6M+ that happens to be in your back yard is rather silly.


----------



## Calvin W

GunnerJacket said:


> The league hasn't said anything official, obviously, but they've supported the Bills exhibition games there and were mum on the subject when potential Bills buyers commented on the potential for relocation to Toronto. Meanwhile, several pundits have offered their thoughts on Toronto as part of any long-term global expansion plans.
> 
> fivethirtyeight.com
> 
> Joe Montana
> 
> So, no, Toronto isn't on the NFL radar in a way comparable to London right now. No other city is. But it makes sense when you think about it - If the NFL is truly looking to go global then skipping an international destination of more than 6M+ that happens to be in your back yard is rather silly.


Let me see, how did those Bills games turn out? Hmmm? Think they played to a hell of lot of empty seats. Not exactly a ringing endorsement to expand when you can't put 50,000 people in a stadium to watch a game. But maybe this year the Bills will sell out in Toronto, oh wait they cancelled the contract to play games there.... Maybe Detroit might come up for a game, Cleveland, Pittsburgh? Don't see too many teams knocking at the stadium door....


----------



## GunnerJacket

I concede your point, but there's a decided difference between seeing the Bills vs. a team of their own as part of an international NFL. Meanwhile those other teams you mentioned have their nice new stadiums and less impetus to test those waters vs. Buffalo and their aging venue issues.

I'm not saying Toronto is too of the queue, but they're not being ignored, either.


----------



## WorldCupWatcher

Jim856796 said:


> Is 2026 even "anytime soon"? This comment just shows that we're running out of potential FIFA WC hosts _fast_.


There are a couple of perfects hosts for a WC: England, Germany, US, France, Spain. I don't get why we should have "forced" world cups in countries that are clearly not ready to host such an event. South Africa and Brazil weren't exactly textbook examples of how one should organize a WC. Just rotate the World Cup between the countries that actually can do a good job and don't have to spend ridiculous amounts of money on stadiums and infrastructure that will not be used after a WC.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

WorldCupWatcher said:


> There are a couple of perfects hosts for a WC: England, Germany, US, France, Spain.


France will ony be having 7 complying stadiums in 6 cities for the medium term (with the current FIFA requirements), so they're not a viabile option on their own. Maybe on the long term things change, or maybe (and better?) the requirements soften a bit.


----------



## carlosfng

So let's just rotate the World Cup amongst developed European nations + the US? Maybe we should stop calling it the _World _Cup then. That comment also forgets that countries like Spain or France aren't that developed stadium-wise, and still have older infrastructure - which ironically is there thanks to the world cups they hosted before. Why not give that chance to others then? Also, has there been a textbook example of how to host the World Cup?

I do agree that spending and requirements should be relaxed a bit. That way you don't need oil money to host. And I do think the US should and probably will get it in 2026, as Concacaf hasn't seen a WC in a while. 2030 I'd like a South American, but if not England should be good. 2034, if England/Europe didn't host in 2030, should do so then; if they did, South America or Africa. 2038 for Africa or one of the two Asian giants.


----------



## WorldCupWatcher

carlosfng said:


> So let's just rotate the World Cup amongst developed European nations + the US? Maybe we should stop calling it the _World _Cup then. That comment also forgets that countries like Spain or France aren't that developed stadium-wise, and still have older infrastructure - which ironically is there thanks to the world cups they hosted before. Why not give that chance to others then? Also, has there been a textbook example of how to host the World Cup?


I think that World Cup should be hosted by nations that don't have to spend billions on stadiums and infrastructure in order to host the event. Because ultimately, the local citizens pay the price for it. Brazil cut back on education, public transportation and health-care, while spending billions on the World Cup. South Africa, same thing. Nations should meet the basic demands and needs of their citizens first, and only organize a WC if they have enough money left and their citizens don't have to pay for it. 

Every nation in the world would like to host a World Cup, but very few actually can. But because of FIFA's bidding process any nation has the possibility to try to host the event. This is where it goes wrong. FIFA has ridiculous demands and some nations actually want to meet these demands, and no one pays attention to the state of the nation or the local citizens. 

And also, this whole bidding-process for World Cups is just a breeding ground for corruption. Or do you think the 2018 and 2022 WC's are awarded to Russia because it was the best bid and far better than the competing nations? And Qatar because it is just a perfect place to host a WC?




carlosfng said:


> So let's just rotate the World Cup amongst developed European nations + the US?





carlosfng said:


> Why not give that chance to others then?


From a moral and humanitarian standpoint, countries like Brazil and South Africa should be forbidden to host a WC. How can you possibly justify spending 11 billion on a month-long tournament while your citizens lack education and health care and millions are living in slums. So yeah, let's rotate, the people in countries like Brazil and South Africa will thank you for it.



carlosfng said:


> Maybe we should stop calling it the _World _Cup then


Why? It's not a WC if you host a WC in developed countries only while every nation is invited?



carlosfng said:


> That comment also forgets that countries like Spain or France aren't that developed stadium-wise, and still have older infrastructure - which ironically is there thanks to the world cups they hosted before.


It only takes a fraction of the money spend on previous WC's to prepare these nations for a WC. The only stadium build for the 1982 WC was Estadio Nuevo José Zorrilla in Valladolid, and 7 were renovated or expanded. The 98 WC also only saw one new stadium, Stade de France, and 6 were renovated or expanded. 



carlosfng said:


> Also, has there been a textbook example of how to host the World Cup?


 I'd say Germany 2006 comes close to a textbook example.


----------



## carlosfng

WorldCupWatcher said:


> I think that World Cup should be hosted by nations that don't have to spend billions on stadiums and infrastructure in order to host the event. Because ultimately, the local citizens pay the price for it. Brazil cut back on education, public transportation and health-care, while spending billions on the World Cup. South Africa, same thing. Nations should meet the basic demands and needs of their citizens first, and only organize a WC if they have enough money left and their citizens don't have to pay for it.


So there was no government money at all spent in Japan-Korea, Germany, France, etc? Those nations are obviously developed, but they did need government support in varying degrees to fulfill their WC bids. Obviously in Brazil and South Africa they spent money they should spend elsewhere. But that kind of tells you how leaders in Brazil and South Africa are always - not just thanks to the WC do they steal.



> Every nation in the world would like to host a World Cup, but very few actually can. But because of FIFA's bidding process any nation has the possibility to try to host the event. This is where it goes wrong. *FIFA has ridiculous demands* and some nations actually want to meet these demands, and no one pays attention to the state of the nation or the local citizens.


The process goes wrong when precisely FIFA makes ridiculous demands. Soccer City in Johannesburg or Estadio Nacional in Brasilia would have been huge expenses for any country in the world. So therefore FIFA needs to cut back on those demands, being them the ones who in theory set the rules right?



> And also, this whole bidding-process for World Cups is just a breeding ground for corruption. Or do you think the 2018 and 2022 WC's are awarded to Russia because it was the best bid and far better than the competing nations? And Qatar because it is just a perfect place to host a WC?


Qatar we can all agree with, but I don't see how Russia was a bad bid. That being said, wasn't always the bidding process a controversial affair? Right from the start, when Uruguay was given hosting in 30 many Europeans (most notably those who created the game) boycotted the cup. Argentinians would boycott all cups between 30 and 58. The choice of Chile in 62, Argentina in 78, Colombia in 86 (had to be reverted to Mexico), US in 94, and Japan-Korea in 02 were all disputed. And even some European cups had stuff like in 66 Wembley wouldn't be available for a game because of a race, or in 90 the backwards stadia presented by Italy. And of course the unspoken favoritism host countries and continents historically have had... so therefore, we can conclude bidding and hosting were always controversial, were always breeding ground for corruption. And this wont change - in fact it will only increase - if everything is about building the biggest baddest stadiums in the world, when there is inequality in every country of the earth and money could be spent better elsewhere than in mass entertainment.



> From a moral and humanitarian standpoint, countries like Brazil and South Africa should be forbidden to host a WC. How can you possibly justify spending 11 billion on a month-long tournament while your citizens lack education and health care and millions are living in slums. So yeah, let's rotate, the people in countries like Brazil and South Africa will thank you for it.


From a moral and humanitarian standpoint, World Cups shouldn't be that expensive to host; whether in Dubai or London or Bangladesh money would still be wasted in varying degrees.



> Why? It's not a WC if you host a WC in developed countries only while every nation is invited?


In football home advantages are important. In the WC this has been seen historically. There's only been one South American champion in Europe, and viceversa. So therefore, for the sake of sportsmanship, it is fair that the WC is rotated continentally. The problem is the rising costs, regardless of where it is hosted.



> It only takes a fraction of the money spend on previous WC's to prepare these nations for a WC. The only stadium build for the 1982 WC was Estadio Nuevo José Zorrilla in Valladolid, and 7 were renovated or expanded. The 98 WC also only saw one new stadium, Stade de France, and 6 were renovated or expanded.


With current FIFA standards however, they would still spend a lot of money today. And even the standards between 82 and 98 were quite different, 82 stadiums still had standing terraces! And the Spanish just used like 16 different stadiums they already had to cut on costs. The French used several stadia too for that purpose, and splurged on the Stade de France. I'm not saying that was wrong - I'm saying, why don't we repeat that again? Why this rise in the price of hosting? That is what I am against. Otherwise, if you had your way Uruguay 30, Brazil 50, Chile 62, Mexico 70-86, Argentina 78 should have never happened - those countries were quite worse than they are now, and the disparity with Europe was always there.



> I'd say Germany 2006 comes close to a textbook example.


Germany 2006, lovely organization in the most economically developed country in Europe... so why then bother hosting the European Championships in Austria/Switzerland and (specially) Poland/Ukraine afterwards, and not just give them to Germany? Oh and it was a very Eurocentric (and kinda boring) World Cup in terms of football. Which is what should matter in the end. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Maplyier

the Textbook example on how to host the World Cup is probably to us 6 minor-renovated stadium (500m on all of them max), 3-4 new stadiums stadiums to be built regardless and the rest new/majorly renovated stadiums, with the final venue in the first category.
It is very sad that from 2010-2022 they (FIFA) have had almost all stadiums majorly renovated or newly built, climaxing with Qatar 2022, the epitome of how to wast money on a sporting event.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

carlosfng said:


> From a moral and humanitarian standpoint, World Cups shouldn't be that expensive to host; whether in Dubai or London or Bangladesh money would still be wasted in varying degrees.


Word


----------



## isaidso

Calvin W said:


> The NFL Has NO plans of establishing a team or league in Toronto.


We rarely agree but you're 100% correct. The NFL will likely NEVER come to Canada for a plethora of reasons. The NFL already garners tons of revenue from Canada. All a Toronto NFL team would do is re-distribute that revenue heavily towards the Canadian team, it wouldn't increase the pie. There is no financial incentive to add a Canadian based team and the NFL knows it.

Arrival of the NFL could potentially devastate the CFL. Not only does the NFL view the CFL as an asset to its own business but the negative fallout from the destruction of a central and storied piece of the Canadian sports landscape isn't something that they would ever recover from.

A Canadian WC? An 80,000 seat stadium for the final would have to be built but it wouldn't be used to host a potential NFL team in Toronto. It would be used as the host stadium for a Toronto summer Olympics. Afterwards it would likely be shrunk down for either the incumbent MLS or CFL team. It's all moot if Canada manages to massively screw up hosting the 2015 Women's WC which starts in 2 weeks. The chances of that happening is next to nil. Canada would have to get hit by an asteroid the size of Montreal.


----------



## Hamzawi

My opinion is FIFA World Cup 2026 should be held in a Western European country


----------



## quanman247

Hamzawi said:


> My opinion is FIFA World Cup 2026 should be held in a Western European country


Unless the current rotation rule doesn't hold, World Cup 2026 cannot be held in Europe.


----------



## MarkLanegan

andydie said:


> So as we know Voting for the World Cup HOST will be in May 2017 and so far i think we have 5 official bids from
> 
> - CANADA
> - THE UNITED STATES
> - MEXICO
> - COLOMBIA
> - MOROCCO
> 
> other possible bids:
> 
> - A joint Colombia, Ecuador and Peru bid
> - China
> - England
> - Kazhakstan


Possibly, this edition host would going to American Continent  :banana: 



CaliforniaJones said:


> There are some instructions for the US bid committee at the last presentation at FIFA Congress :
> 
> No Morgan Freeman
> No boring speech
> Act like underdog
> Build international appeal
> Say "football" instead of "soccer"
> Humility
> Deliver emotional speeches
> Impres the voters
> ...


WTF Morgan Freeman mean ? 



dvjmarcomatheus said:


> -2014 Brazil
> -2018 Russia
> -2022 Quatar
> -2026 EUA
> -2030 England [100 Ediction]
> -2034 China
> -2038 Colombia
> -2042 Spain
> -2046 India


EUA ? You mean United Arab Emirates ? 
Sorry, Qatar has been held 2022 edition. So, no chances for any other asian countries near 8 years :lol: 



Manitopiaaa said:


> These were the candidate host cities for the US 2022 bid. Suffice it to say, I thought they could have done better:
> 
> Atlanta: Georgia Dome
> Baltimore: M&T Bank Stadium
> Boston (Foxborough): Gillette Stadium
> Dallas: Cotton Bowl
> Dallas (Arlington): Cowboys Stadium
> Denver: Invesco Field
> Houston: Reliant Stadium
> Indianapolis: Lucas Oil Stadium
> Kansas City: Arrowhead Stadium
> Los Angeles: Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
> Los Angeles (Pasadena): Rose Bowl
> Miami (Miami Gardens): SunLife Stadium
> Nashville: LP Field
> New York (East Rutherford): MetLife Stadium
> Philadelphia: Lincoln Financial Field
> Phoenix (Glendale): University of Phoenix Stadium
> San Diego: Qualcomm Stadium
> Seattle: CenturyLink Field
> Seattle: Husky Stadium
> Tampa: Raymond James Stadium
> Washington: FedEx Field
> 
> They were missing 3 major metros: Chicago, Detroit, and San Francisco. They also made some really shitty choices. Indianapolis is not a soccer city, it's not really an exciting place either for foreign visitors. Remove it. Nashville is not a soccer city. Remove it. Baltimore is not a soccer city and is close to Washington. Remove it. Those 3 alone provide space for the 3 big ones missed. I would also have replaced Phoenix with Portland, which has a very, very strong soccer culture. Tampa should also be replaced with Orlando which has a strong new club and would draw major crowds. But that one is secondary given how close Orlando and Tampa are.
> 
> So...
> -Baltimore
> -Indianapolis
> -Nashville
> -Phoenix
> -Tampa
> 
> +Chicago
> +Detroit
> +Orlando
> +Portland
> +San Francisco
> 
> For...
> Atlanta
> Boston
> Chicago
> Dallas
> Denver
> Detroit
> Houston
> Kansas City
> Los Angeles
> Miami
> New York
> Orlando
> Philadelphia
> Portland
> San Diego
> San Francisco
> Seattle
> Washington
> 
> and I'm bump it up to 24 cities like in the 2006 World Cup. Japan and South Korea have about 177 million people between them and did 20. I think the United States, approaching 325 million can handle 24 cities. And with 24 an effort should be made to fill in the remaining US MLS host cities: +Columbus, +Minneapolis*, +Salt Lake City and then add in Austin, Tampa and a wild card like Las Vegas or Honolulu (neither could host right now though)


Premium cities will get privillage for held this one :banana: 
Hope Seattle will get this one too 



GEwinnen said:


> The attandance of a world cup depends on the size of the stadiums! Alle big european football nations (Spain, France, Germany, England, Italy) could beat the US record easily, if they had the stadiums like the USA in 1994. My hometown (just 250,000 inh.) hosted the QF England vs. Portugal in 2006. Estimated 80,000 englishmen without a ticket were in the city!
> 
> Imagine a World Cup in the "Big5":
> Bernabeu: 81,000
> Nou Camp: 99,000
> New Mestalla: 70,000
> Stade de France: 81,000
> Velodrome: 68,000
> Wembley: 90,000
> Old Trafford: 76,000
> Twickenham: 82,000
> Allianz Arena: 71,000
> Olympic Stadium Berlin: 74,000
> San Siro: 80,000
> Stadio Olympico Rome: 80,000
> 
> Average: 72,500 x 64 = 4,640,000
> 
> The "Big5" (population 360,000,000) are comparable to the USA.
> 
> Anyway, the USA would host a great tournament, no doubt about it.


Big 5 ? 

BTW Twickenham is just for rugby only :lol: 

So, it will going to Olympic Stadium of London :lol:


----------



## rantanamo

ugh, is the US really bidding?


----------



## Sochifan

Personally as an American I do not want us to get it because the establishment needs to be sent a message that if you do everything possible to hurt an event (massive propaganda, fear mongering) etc then shouldn't be rewarded with the event soon after.

The establishment did this with the Olympics and already formulating their campaign for the WC.


----------



## Hamzawi

*USA Bid*

You are absolutely right. The choice of Baltimore and Indianapolis over Chicago and San Francisco is a joke. With all respect those two cities are among the most boring in the US. However I would keep Nashville (a culturally-rich city and a good stadium) and Phoenix (booming metropolis and great stadium with roof). As for Portland yes it may have some sort of soccer culture however it lacks a big stadium and big sports teams. If I were to bid for 2026 I would pick the following 14 venues:

NORTHEAST 
New York/New Jersey (Metlife Stadium)
Washington DC (FedEx Stadium)
Boston (Gillette Stadium)
Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field)

MIDWEST/MOUNTAIN WEST
Phoenix (U of P Stadium)
Denver (INVESCO at Mile High)
Chicago (Soldier Field)

SOUTH 
Dallas (AT&T Stadium)
Houston (Reliant Stadium)
Miami (Dolphin Stadium)
Nashville (LP Field)

WEST COAST
Seattle (CenturyLink Field)
Los Angeles (Rose Bowl or New Stadium)
San Francisco (Levis Stadium)

I think based on the current situation and what developments we know would happen in the near future, these venues would be the most suitable to host. This ensures good geographic distribution but the schedule has to be tailored so that teams don't have to travel long distances.






Manitopiaaa said:


> These were the candidate host cities for the US 2022 bid. Suffice it to say, I thought they could have done better:
> 
> Atlanta: Georgia Dome
> Baltimore: M&T Bank Stadium
> Boston (Foxborough): Gillette Stadium
> Dallas: Cotton Bowl
> Dallas (Arlington): Cowboys Stadium
> Denver: Invesco Field
> Houston: Reliant Stadium
> Indianapolis: Lucas Oil Stadium
> Kansas City: Arrowhead Stadium
> Los Angeles: Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum
> Los Angeles (Pasadena): Rose Bowl
> Miami (Miami Gardens): SunLife Stadium
> Nashville: LP Field
> New York (East Rutherford): MetLife Stadium
> Philadelphia: Lincoln Financial Field
> Phoenix (Glendale): University of Phoenix Stadium
> San Diego: Qualcomm Stadium
> Seattle: CenturyLink Field
> Seattle: Husky Stadium
> Tampa: Raymond James Stadium
> Washington: FedEx Field
> 
> They were missing 3 major metros: Chicago, Detroit, and San Francisco. They also made some really shitty choices. Indianapolis is not a soccer city, it's not really an exciting place either for foreign visitors. Remove it. Nashville is not a soccer city. Remove it. Baltimore is not a soccer city and is close to Washington. Remove it. Those 3 alone provide space for the 3 big ones missed. I would also have replaced Phoenix with Portland, which has a very, very strong soccer culture. Tampa should also be replaced with Orlando which has a strong new club and would draw major crowds. But that one is secondary given how close Orlando and Tampa are.
> 
> So...
> -Baltimore
> -Indianapolis
> -Nashville
> -Phoenix
> -Tampa
> 
> +Chicago
> +Detroit
> +Orlando
> +Portland
> +San Francisco
> 
> For...
> Atlanta
> Boston
> Chicago
> Dallas
> Denver
> Detroit
> Houston
> Kansas City
> Los Angeles
> Miami
> New York
> Orlando
> Philadelphia
> Portland
> San Diego
> San Francisco
> Seattle
> Washington
> 
> and I'm bump it up to 24 cities like in the 2006 World Cup. Japan and South Korea have about 177 million people between them and did 20. I think the United States, approaching 325 million can handle 24 cities. And with 24 an effort should be made to fill in the remaining US MLS host cities: +Columbus, +Minneapolis*, +Salt Lake City and then add in Austin, Tampa and a wild card like Las Vegas or Honolulu (neither could host right now though)


----------



## DanMB

WorldCupWatcher said:


> I think that World Cup should be hosted by nations that don't have to spend billions on stadiums and infrastructure in order to host the event. Because ultimately, the local citizens pay the price for it. Brazil cut back on education, public transportation and health-care, while spending billions on the World Cup. South Africa, same thing. Nations should meet the basic demands and needs of their citizens first, and only organize a WC if they have enough money left and their citizens don't have to pay for it.
> 
> Every nation in the world would like to host a World Cup, but very few actually can. But because of FIFA's bidding process any nation has the possibility to try to host the event. This is where it goes wrong. FIFA has ridiculous demands and some nations actually want to meet these demands, and no one pays attention to the state of the nation or the local citizens.
> 
> And also, this whole bidding-process for World Cups is just a breeding ground for corruption. Or do you think the 2018 and 2022 WC's are awarded to Russia because it was the best bid and far better than the competing nations? And Qatar because it is just a perfect place to host a WC?


Well from a footballing growth perspective doesn't a world cup in Russia make much more sense than a world cup in England, Germany or Spain? Not because Russia would fix a better world cup than those countries but for the simple fact that football in England, Germany and Italy is already enormously popular, there is not a lot of potential for future growth in these countries. While football in Russia is popular but has much more potential to evolve and develop in the future with a world cup and with new stadiums. One of the goals of FIFA is to help football to grow in countries where that is possible and Russia is the biggest European country and thus has the biggest potential in Europe for growth in football.

This is also very true for the US, the US also has an enormous potential for future growth when it comes to football, so for me it makes sense to give world cups to countries such as the US, Russia, China etc that are still relatively undeveloped when it comes to football rather than to countries such as England, Germany etc where football already is a totally dominant sport with a very developed league system and stadiums.


----------



## GunnerJacket

quanman247 said:


> Unless the current rotation rule doesn't hold, World Cup 2026 cannot be held in Europe.


Lest I'm mistaken there is no longer a rule in place but FIFA is scheduled to vote on a new one before the next selection. The new rule will simply affirm that a confederation cannot bid for the next two World Cups after hosting. 



rantanamo said:


> ugh, is the US really bidding?


Yes, and til now they've been the sentimental favorite since many folks feel they had the best bid for 2022 (highest technical score of bids offered) and got jilted at the altar. Mexico is making a hard push, though, aided by some new stadium construction and an earnest effort among their fans to reassert their favored-son status in the region. 


Sochifan said:


> Personally as an American I do not want us to get it because the establishment needs to be sent a message that if you do everything possible to hurt an event (massive propaganda, fear mongering) etc then shouldn't be rewarded with the event soon after.
> 
> The establishment did this with the Olympics and already formulating their campaign for the WC.


So you're asserting this is purely political spite and by such you're implying that FIFA is completely clean, correct? 

The US isn't an innocent lamb on the world stage but that doesn't mean the accusations our nation/corporations make are without merit, either. The misgivings about the Sochi games had very legitimate claims and the hype was only used to draw attention to the issues, which they succeeded to do. During that process the US didn't disparage the IOC anymore than they've done for other times nor did they ever seriously threaten to boycott. That was merely press hype, and around here the press is free to say what they want.

As to this new matter the US does indeed have strict and defined tax laws, so if individuals and/or corporations were engaging in money laundering (tax evasion) on US soil or abusing US laws then the attorney general has every right to pursue the case. Heck, he's already received 2 confessions of guilt! What's more the US case is NOT involving the bids for 2018 and 2022 but rather matters taking place before. 

Bottom line: This is not some wild goose chase to hurt FIFA out of spite. You don't waste tax dollars this way. And if FIFA then gives the US the cold shoulder in response then that tells me a) they're likely guilty and b) they're hurting themselves because the US harbors a great deal of sponsorship and broadcast money for FIFA.



DanMB said:


> Well from a footballing growth perspective doesn't a world cup in Russia make much more sense than a world cup in England, Germany or Spain?
> 
> ...
> 
> This is also very true for the US, the US also has an enormous potential for future growth when it comes to football, so for me it makes sense to give world cups to countries such as the US, Russia, China etc that are still relatively undeveloped when it comes to football rather than to countries such as England, Germany etc where football already is a totally dominant sport with a very developed league system and stadiums.


The best rule in this regard is, IMO, not to make one. Sometimes there should be a push to go where the game needs the help a WC can bring, other times you want to reward those nations that have already invested so much into the game. So long as you're not sticking too heavily with one or the other you'll be fine. 

there should be a caveat about the host nation being able to do the job, however. Wanting to spur growth in a developing nation is one thing, but you need to ensure this doesn't create too burdensome an investment and/or leave a legacy of debt, unused stadiums and so forth. Set standards for hosting and simply move on from there.


----------



## Gaoutso

So, about the US bid.. all these brand new and spectacular stadiums such as Georgia Dome, MetLife, Reliant, Cowboys, Invesco field, Lucas Oil, Phoenix University, FedEx and many more, do they have the proper pitch dimensions to host a soccer game (wich are about 105-68 meters) or because the are built mainly for hosting American Football they all are about 50 meters wide?
I'm saying this because back in '94 most of the stadium that hosted the WC were a little bit smaller than the typical soccer field.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Gaoutso said:


> So, about the US bid.. all these brand new and spectacular stadiums such as Georgia Dome, MetLife, Reliant, Cowboys, Invesco field, Lucas Oil, Phoenix University, FedEx and many more, do they have the proper pitch dimensions to host a soccer game (wich are about 105-68 meters) or because the are built mainly for hosting American Football they all are about 50 meters wide?
> I'm saying this because back in '94 most of the stadium that hosted the WC were a little bit smaller than the typical soccer field.


The USSF won't submit a venue nomination that doesn't comply with FIFA's requirements, so it's safe to say that they'll all accommodate a proper pitch. Some of them will undoubtedly feature retractable stands to accommodate that larger field, which makes for some views that can't see fully into the near corner: In Philly and the stadium under construction in Atlanta, for example, if you're in the corner of the lower bowl then you may not be able to see the man taking the corner kick on your side. Apart from this, however, all the venues should meet FIFA standards. 

I think this is why Soldier Field has been left out, because they can't meet WC standards.


----------



## en1044

Hamzawi said:


> You are absolutely right. The choice of Baltimore and Indianapolis over Chicago and San Francisco is a joke. With all respect those two cities are among the most boring in the US.


Indianapolis is probably one of the better "big event" cities in the country.


----------



## isaidso

GunnerJacket said:


> there should be a caveat about the host nation being able to do the job, however. Wanting to spur growth in a developing nation is one thing, but you need to ensure this doesn't create too burdensome an investment and/or leave a legacy of debt, unused stadiums and so forth. Set standards for hosting and simply move on from there.


Agree. It bears mentioning that any country that wants to host the world needs to respect all its citizens, not just the ones it feels like respecting. I can't, in good conscience, support a WC or Olympics going to any nation that doesn't treat all people with equality regardless of race, religion/no religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

And that can't just mean while the event goes on. Arguing that gays, women, Blacks, Jews, etc. will be welcomed at the event is not good enough when these same people aren't afforded respect, dignity, equality, and protection under law in in the host country.

It's simple. Want to host the world? Then you must include the world.


----------



## rrtrauts

Hamzawi said:


> You are absolutely right. The choice of Baltimore and Indianapolis over Chicago and San Francisco is a joke. With all respect those two cities are among the most boring in the US. However I would keep Nashville (a culturally-rich city and a good stadium) and Phoenix (booming metropolis and great stadium with roof). As for Portland yes it may have some sort of soccer culture however it lacks a big stadium and big sports teams. If I were to bid for 2026 I would pick the following 14 venues:
> 
> NORTHEAST
> New York/New Jersey (Metlife Stadium)
> Washington DC (FedEx Stadium)
> Boston (Gillette Stadium)
> Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field)
> 
> MIDWEST/MOUNTAIN WEST
> Phoenix (U of P Stadium)
> Denver (INVESCO at Mile High)
> Chicago (Soldier Field)
> 
> SOUTH
> Dallas (AT&T Stadium)
> Houston (Reliant Stadium)
> Miami (Dolphin Stadium)
> Nashville (LP Field)
> 
> WEST COAST
> Seattle (CenturyLink Field)
> Los Angeles (Rose Bowl or New Stadium)
> San Francisco (Levis Stadium)
> 
> I think based on the current situation and what developments we know would happen in the near future, these venues would be the most suitable to host. This ensures good geographic distribution but the schedule has to be tailored so that teams don't have to travel long distances.


I believe Chicago hosted during last World Cup in 1994, as did San Francisco. They were trying to move things around and include cities that have changed a lot since 1994. 

Also I would put Atlanta in over Nashville. Atlanta has a large Hispanic population and Atlanta has already sold more than 20,000 tickets for an MLS expansion team. Nashville has little soccer tradition that I am aware of, whereas the Atlanta Silverbacks, apart of the North American Football League have been very successful. Atlanta would appeal more internationally than Nashville.


----------



## Hamzawi

I agree that Atlanta may be a bigger and more exciting city than Nashville However stadium-wise I think LP field is better than Georgia dome which I think is becoming too old. Maybe its just me but I don't like fully-covered stadiums. As for Chicago and SF I think they are still considered among the most important metros in the US culturally and economically so they must be included.



rrtrauts said:


> I believe Chicago hosted during last World Cup in 1994, as did San Francisco. They were trying to move things around and include cities that have changed a lot since 1994.
> 
> Also I would put Atlanta in over Nashville. Atlanta has a large Hispanic population and Atlanta has already sold more than 20,000 tickets for an MLS expansion team. Nashville has little soccer tradition that I am aware of, whereas the Atlanta Silverbacks, apart of the North American Football League have been very successful. Atlanta would appeal more internationally than Nashville.


----------



## Dexter Morgan

I would also replace Nashville with Atlanta, and if Solider Field in Chicago can't be used than I think Minnesota and their new stadium should replace it.


----------



## Dexter Morgan

Hamzawi said:


> I agree that Atlanta may be a bigger and more exciting city than Nashville However stadium-wise I think LP field is better than Georgia dome which I think is becoming too old. Maybe its just me but I don't like fully-covered stadiums. As for Chicago and SF I think they are still considered among the most important metros in the US culturally and economically so they must be included.


Atlanta has a brand new stadium currently under construction.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1331695


----------



## Hamzawi

Great stadium. Completion is due 2017. Should definitely be a candidate



Dexter Morgan said:


> Atlanta has a brand new stadium currently under construction.
> 
> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1331695


----------



## Laurence2011

Is the field big enough to fit a pitch?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Laurence2011 said:


> Is the field big enough to fit a pitch?


If you go to the thread for the stadium you'll find various images for how some of the stands can pull away to make room for the pitch. People in the corners will have a tough angle for the corner nearest them, but apart from that it should be fine.



RMB2007 said:


>


----------



## JYDA

If a gangster's stash house gets raided by the police, do you think the gangster will turn around and do a massive favour for the police? Personally, I don't think so. 

If people within FIFA are upset at the Americans cracking down on their corrupt activities, I highly doubt they'll be giving them a world cup as thanks.


----------



## GunnerJacket

JYDA said:


> If people within FIFA are upset at the Americans cracking down on their corrupt activities, I highly doubt they'll be giving them a world cup as thanks.


Since there's already a high degree of guilt proven it means either there'll be enough turnover within FIFA that the new leadership won't hold any grudges (if not actually being thankful), or that the corruption remains in which case the US won't want to be caught up in the mire. 

This isn't simply the British press screaming wild accusations and the bulk of the US investigation is beyond the failed 2022 bid. It's 14 confessions of guilt (and counting) and documentation of hundreds of millions of dollars violating US financial laws. If FIFA doesn't like it then they shouldn't have done it and/or gotten caught.


----------



## Archbishop

FIFA won't even be around in 2026 now. The schism is going to happen after Blatter's re-election. I'd be surprised if we make it to 2018.

In the new football federation, there needs to be stringent guidelines on how many stadiums have to already be existing for there to be a World Cup. It should be something like, 12 stadiums for every World Cup, 8 must already be built and no more than 3 or 4 can need extensive updating.


----------



## JYDA

I suspect there will be more drama to come tomorrow. The executive committee is meeting in the morning and will decide the world cup berths for each confederation. The past two world cups the host confederation has got to keep their full allocation PLUS the host but there were rumours back in March that UEFA won't be given this privilege. If this happens it could truly send UEFA over the edge. 

From the sounds of Blatter's victory speech he wants Oceania to get a full berth.


----------



## GEwinnen

I guess Sepp Blatter will do his best to prevent a World Cup in the USA as long as possible. This will be his legacy for what US authorities did to his Fifa.

2030 will be Europe's turn, may be US can go for the 2034 edition.


----------



## Sochifan

More like the world is sick of this bullying and meddling. These type actions have a boomerang affect.


----------



## SkyLinePana

the work is sick of fifa.


----------



## Riise

Archbishop said:


> FIFA won't even be around in 2026 now. The schism is going to happen after Blatter's re-election. I'd be surprised if we make it to 2018.


I think people are overestimating the effectiveness of the kind of investigation/crusade taking place and underestimating the investments various people have made in Blatter & Co..




Archbishop said:


> In the new football federation, there needs to be stringent guidelines on how many stadiums have to already be existing for there to be a World Cup. It should be something like, 12 stadiums for every World Cup, 8 must already be built and no more than 3 or 4 can need extensive updating.


A standard that a majority of members of this new federation would not be able to meet eh? That would definitely be passed at the first meeting...


----------



## GunnerJacket

GEwinnen said:


> I guess Sepp Blatter will do his best to prevent a World Cup in the USA as long as possible. This will be his legacy for what US authorities did to his Fifa.


A) That would be his loss considering the potential revenue an event in the US would bring. 
B) What "US authorities did" is catch someone stupid enough to try and launder tens of millions of dollars in the US. How dare they!


----------



## RobH

*BIG NEWS: FIFA has just changed the rules for 2026, confirmed this morning. The previous host continent is unable to bid but the one before that CAN bid.*

*http://sports.yahoo.com/news/soccer...ow.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter*

*So Asia cannot host 2026 but Europe is back in the picture.*

England has said it will not bid for any FIFA tournaments whilst Blatter is in charge. With Blatter coming out against the US so strongly today for its arrests (claiming it's political), I'm unsure whether we'll see government support for a US bid anytime soon.

Does anyone else think that could see SPAIN as the favourite. They voted for Blatter yesterday, and clearly want a World Cup soon.

Horrible, ******* corrupt organisation - goes without saying - but an interesting dynamic emerging for the next bid race which until a few days ago looked very likely to be the USA's.

.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Well, considering to whom (Fox) and how (no bid) the US rights for 2026 were awarded I don't want the US to host that year, anyway. Spain would be a fair choice and given how Madrid hates UEFA their support for Blatter is understandable.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Hah! Spell Check keeps wanting to change it to "Blather!"


----------



## quanman247

So Europe is eligible for WC 2026, will be any chance that the Spain/Portugal bid will be brought back to life? In case WC 2018 is stripped off from Russia, that bid is the bid I want to be chosen the most.


----------



## Weebie

The US are retarded.

They could have 2026 in the bag, if they stop this charade.

Europe have no chance of getting this.


----------



## RobH

Weebie said:


> fifa are retarded.


Corrected for you


----------



## GunnerJacket

Weebie said:


> The US are retarded.
> 
> They could have 2026 in the bag, if they stop this charade.


14+ confessions of guilt. $150M+ in bribe money identified. 40+ charges brought by the FBI after a 3 year investigation. 

If FIFA is capable of giving the World cup to Qatar what's to say the US or anyone has one of these events "in the bag?" Seriously, today it's Qatar, tomorrow it's Kazakhstan or whoever else pays the most.


----------



## RobH

Seriously, going through all the FIFA threads over the past five years it amazes me how many people say the UK Press should stop reporting on FIFA, or now US is being retarted by aresing FIFA members. Seems these people would rather the world to danced to FIFA's tune. It's bizarre don't you think?


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> The recent corruption scandal will no way affect the US chances of getting the bid for the 2026 World Cup, the president of the International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA), Sepp Blatter, told reporters on Saturday.


http://tass.ru/en/sports/797736?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=ITAR-TAS

Potential Candidates:
Concacaf: Canada, Mexico, United States
CAF: Morrocco
UEFA: England, Spain, Kazakhstan
CONMEBOL: Colombia

The FIFA Executive Committee will select 3 bids before the FIFA Congress on May 10th 2017.


----------



## RobH

You can cross England off that list.


----------



## will101

CaliforniaJones said:


> http://tass.ru/en/sports/797736?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=ITAR-TAS
> 
> Potential Candidates:
> Concacaf: Canada, Mexico, United States
> CAF: Morrocco
> UEFA: England, Spain, Kazakhstan
> CONMEBOL: Colombia
> 
> The FIFA Executive Committee will select 3 bids before the FIFA Congress on May 10th 2017.


With FIFA's recent record on human rights, I would expect the front-runners to be the Islamic State in Iraq/Syria, the Boko Haram group in Nigeria, and North Korea.


----------



## SkyLinePana

Weebie said:


> The US are retarded.
> 
> They could have 2026 in the bag, if they stop this charade.
> 
> Europe have no chance of getting this.


most people in the us dont want the damn cup.
its a waste of money for the taxpayers. 
and it gives rich people more money.


----------



## Weebie

You guys are muppets.

Deluded by b*llshit you hear in the media.

Firstly: It's not fair on Qatar to classify as infrastructure projects as world cup deaths when in reality currently no one has died in the building of a World Cup Stadium. As someone who works in Engineering for a country with the OHS standards that America has is laughable to point the finger at Qatar. Construction related deaths in the US are still on par with 3rd world nations per capita. Yesterday I saw some workers on a 4th floor not wearing a safety harness. Would I see that in Qatar??? absolutely not.

I'm Australian but I live in the US. Did Qatar deserve the world cup?? in my opinion probable...it was the most superior bid and won easily along with Russia.

Does the US Deserve the 2022 World Cup??? Absolutely not They had it in 1994 it's still soon. The only reason that the world cup would go to America would be the chance to push it over the line as a major sport in the US? Will that happen with hosting the 2022 World Cup? No i don't think so, I think America is still another decade or two from that happening.

Qatar TV Timezone: Qatar has the optimal tv time zone for the world. this leads to more revenue that leads to more development of the game globally. Ok so the world cup is being hosted in Qatar but realistically this is an Arab world cup. Much like South Africa was an African world cup. 1/3 world cups will go to asia you guys should stop whinging that you won't have to wake up at 2am to watch matches.

Qatar will apparently build new stadiums then rebuild them elsewhere. What happens to the other nations. Well Australia can't really even afford the stadiums. the USA plan to make little upgrades and the NFL benefits anyway. 

England is pointless nation to have a world cup a waste of a world cup in promoting the game. Do they deserve it? no. Does Russia deserve it? well other than the current Ukrainian Crisis there is no reason why England would get the world cup over a nation who, will gain from the infrastructure, hasn't hosted it. and new middleclass will get to go. English get quality football all year round.


As for the corruption enquiry...Personally?? who cares?? the US is about 10 years late in prosecuting these guys and much of the corruption relates to the US buying the Copa America 2016. But that isn't being reported in the US. Being reported elsewhere. The main evidence is a fat corrupt scheister who isn't trustworthy.

There is a reason why the US is doing this though and it has nothing with football. It's all about winning confidence with the IOC. Currently as previously been seen the US is basically banned from hosting the olympics until they clean they're corrupt sporting system up with regards to doping. This is part of the Boston 2024 bid plan I assure you gentlemen.


----------



## Archbishop

Wow you bought the Qatar propaganda strong. Saying no one has died in construction in Qatar is hilarious.

This is punishment for trying to stop corruption. Oh well. Ending corruption is more important than hosting this tarnished event. Give it to some country that will waste billions, force people out of their homes, and have workers die. If FIFA cared it would be here for 2022, not in an awful repressive slave state like Qatar.


----------



## Calvin W

How do you sleep at night weebie, with a head full of bs?

2026 Will go to whoever pads the pockets the most for one last big pay off before FIFA implodes.

I'm hoping for a fifa revolt from European nations and others. Might be time to say screw you fifa and start a new organization to compete directly against fifa.


----------



## Weebie

Archbishop said:


> Wow you bought the Qatar propaganda strong. Saying no one has died in construction in Qatar is hilarious.
> 
> This is punishment for trying to stop corruption. Oh well. Ending corruption is more important than hosting this tarnished event. Give it to some country that will waste billions, force people out of their homes, and have workers die. If FIFA cared it would be here for 2022, not in an awful repressive slave state like Qatar.


No one has died building a stadium in Qatar? People have died building projects in Qatar. Do you want the US numbers related to workplace deaths every year? it isn't pretty.


----------



## RMB2007

Please keep the thread about bids for the 2026 World Cup, not Qatar 2022. Thanks.


----------



## Archbishop

Workers that die in America aren't in slave conditions and can go home to their families. Furthermore we have unions and federal agencies to help prevent deaths. Worker deaths are also dropping in America.

Qatar they have slaves die. One Nepalese every two days. In a country with less than a million actual citizens and many more slaves.


----------



## Archbishop

It's always pathetic to see people step out and defend banana republics like Qatar.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

en1044 said:


> Indianapolis is probably one of the better "big event" cities in the country.


So is Las Vegas. Both are still poor choices.


----------



## Archbishop

Both Indy and Vegas would be great choices. The difference is that the weather would be great in Indy and Indy has a stadium.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

Archbishop said:


> Both Indy and Vegas would be great choices. The difference is that the weather would be great in Indy and Indy has a stadium.


When I think 'soccer', Indiana is the last place I think of. It doesn't even have an MLS team and it hosts lots of events because it has the history of hosting them (Superbowl, NCAA Final Four, Indy 500) so it can make a pitch that it is 'tested'. Not so for soccer. Not to mention that Indianapolis gets far because it has a large corporate base. In a World Cup, there's already a built in line of companies with contracts and deals with FIFA. So local corporate influence also does not matter. Lastly, it's not an interesting city for tourists. It's a 'raise your family' city. Not a bad place at all, but certainly America has more lively and interesting places to offer (no offense meant)

As for Vegas, heat is terrible. It has a reputation for gambling, corruption and vice (the last thing FIFA needs). It also has no soccer culture and building a soccer stadium for either a future MLS team or NASL has proven to be very controversial. There's also the problem of not having a stadium. It's the opposite of Indy in other ways. I would say it's "too fun" and that branding would be difficult. There's also LA and Phoenix nearby which crowd out the other regional options (I oppose Phoenix as well, for what it's worth)


----------



## SkyLinePana

Weebie said:


> You guys are muppets.
> 
> Deluded by b*llshit you hear in the media.
> 
> Firstly: It's not fair on Qatar to classify as infrastructure projects as world cup deaths when in reality currently no one has died in the building of a World Cup Stadium. As someone who works in Engineering for a country with the OHS standards that America has is laughable to point the finger at Qatar. Construction related deaths in the US are still on par with 3rd world nations per capita. Yesterday I saw some workers on a 4th floor not wearing a safety harness. Would I see that in Qatar??? absolutely not.
> 
> I'm Australian but I live in the US. Did Qatar deserve the world cup?? in my opinion probable...it was the most superior bid and won easily along with Russia.
> 
> Does the US Deserve the 2022 World Cup??? Absolutely not They had it in 1994 it's still soon. The only reason that the world cup would go to America would be the chance to push it over the line as a major sport in the US? Will that happen with hosting the 2022 World Cup? No i don't think so, I think America is still another decade or two from that happening.
> 
> Qatar TV Timezone: Qatar has the optimal tv time zone for the world. this leads to more revenue that leads to more development of the game globally. Ok so the world cup is being hosted in Qatar but realistically this is an Arab world cup. Much like South Africa was an African world cup. 1/3 world cups will go to asia you guys should stop whinging that you won't have to wake up at 2am to watch matches.
> 
> Qatar will apparently build new stadiums then rebuild them elsewhere. What happens to the other nations. Well Australia can't really even afford the stadiums. the USA plan to make little upgrades and the NFL benefits anyway.
> 
> England is pointless nation to have a world cup a waste of a world cup in promoting the game. Do they deserve it? no. Does Russia deserve it? well other than the current Ukrainian Crisis there is no reason why England would get the world cup over a nation who, will gain from the infrastructure, hasn't hosted it. and new middleclass will get to go. English get quality football all year round.
> 
> 
> As for the corruption enquiry...Personally?? who cares?? the US is about 10 years late in prosecuting these guys and much of the corruption relates to the US buying the Copa America 2016. But that isn't being reported in the US. Being reported elsewhere. The main evidence is a fat corrupt scheister who isn't trustworthy.
> 
> There is a reason why the US is doing this though and it has nothing with football. It's all about winning confidence with the IOC. Currently as previously been seen the US is basically banned from hosting the olympics until they clean they're corrupt sporting system up with regards to doping. This is part of the Boston 2024 bid plan I assure you gentlemen.


obvious bribed troll.


----------



## Weebie

Archbishop said:


> Workers that die in America aren't in slave conditions and can go home to their families. Furthermore we have unions and federal agencies to help prevent deaths. Worker deaths are also dropping in America.
> 
> Qatar they have slaves die. One Nepalese every two days. In a country with less than a million actual citizens and many more slaves.


My point exactly. That data relates to stadium deaths other than Qatar. Qatar hasnt begun construction on any stadiums yet so technically they should be at 0.


----------



## Dexter Morgan

Weebie said:


> My point exactly. That data relates to stadium deaths other than Qatar. Qatar hasnt begun construction on any stadiums yet so technically they should be at 0.


how much do you get paid per post?


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN

Archbishop, Dexter, Sky..... you can all shove your Americanized Opinions up to ur A****..... if the opinion does not agree with what you want "its paid".... die in ur agony..2022 in Qatar , wether they killed 1000000 workers or not....how many innocent people have USA killed in the last 10 years hmmmm 10,000,000 ppl.... man just shut up and stop talking bullshit and start talking about the BID


----------



## RobH

DR.SHREJMAN said:


> Archbishop, Dexter, Sky..... you can all shove your Americanized Opinions up to ur A****..... if the opinion does not agree with what you want "its paid".... die in ur agony..2022 in Qatar , wether they killed 1000000 workers or not....how many innocent people have USA killed in the last 10 years hmmmm 10,000,000 ppl.... man just shut up and stop talking bullshit and start talking about the BID


I'm fed up with your ilk on this forum questioning people's opinions because of their nationality, so I'm going to ensure the moderators make good on ther promise in the Qatar thread.

:wave:

You won't be missed.


----------



## xalexey

In Sochi? - It's a lie (delusions and propaganda). From where information?
In Sochi, died less than in Brazil.


----------



## ReNaHtEiM

xalexey said:


> In Sochi? - It's a lie (delusions and propaganda). From where information?
> In Sochi, died less than in Brazil.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house

You are one of them, aren't you? hno:


----------



## Yellow Fever

DR.SHREJMAN said:


> Archbishop, Dexter, Sky..... you can all shove your Americanized Opinions...


you obviously didn't take my last warning seriously, next offense will be a ban.

cheers!


----------



## Sochifan

Almost every one they are trying to say died in Sochi was probably guys that died of natural causes, drug overdoes, alcoholics, suicides etc on the job and not bc of working conditions. Its just propaganda.


----------



## Dexter Morgan

Sochifan said:


> Almost every one they are trying to say died in Sochi was probably guys that died of natural causes, drug overdoes, alcoholics, suicides etc on the job and not bc of working conditions. Its just propaganda.


I'd kill myself too (be it by the needle or bottle or other) if I was a slave to the state.

It's fascinating to hear/read people who would defend such despicable things like what's going on in Qatar or in your case, the acts of a tyrant.


----------



## xalexey

ReNaHtEiM said:


> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
> 
> You are one of them, aren't you? hno:


You are one of them, aren't you?
https://www.nsa.gov/


----------



## xalexey

In Sochi, killing 12 workers.
4 workers - fell from the roof.
2 - were poisoned by carbon monoxide.
2 - crushed wood.
3 - have fallen scaffolding.
1 - drowned in the sea (the construction of the sea port).
In Sochi, built new infrastruktura ..- ports, railways, tunnels, bridges, roads, hospitals, promenade, stadiums, urban sewerage (upgrade), a new airport, a new railway station, power stations, etc ... (to build a new city).

In Qatar, died - 185 workers. (Construction of the stadium).

Do not engage in propaganda. Russia - a free and democratic country.
I find it funny to read propaganda (lies) about Russia


----------



## ben77

Weebie said:


> My point exactly. That data relates to stadium deaths other than Qatar. Qatar hasnt begun construction on any stadiums yet so technically they should be at 0.


What a dick you are, the fact that slave labour is used and their lives aren't valued in this fraudulent and bigoted society says everything you need to know. 1200 construction worker deaths related to this world cup is an absolute outrage and the fact you are trying to argue against it makes my stomach turn. To put this into perspective the panama canal (one of the biggest construction projects of al time) took 10 years to build and around 5000 died (most of disease) this was 100 years ago, most that died of disease would survive today with modern medicine. Qatar doesn't care, shouldn't have the world cup and hopefully the backlash to this will haunt the country for years to come..


----------



## Juanpabloangel

I would love to see a World Cup between Uruguay and Argentina... but as Brasil has the new stadiums how about a 3 way bid from there with the final in Buenos Aires and the Opening game and a Semi final in Uruguay... with all the other games split evenly. For the anniversary this would be great... the remaining south america teams play in a panamerican qualifying which would see the most competetive qualifying ever! Especially if they used Curritiba and Porto Alegre which are in the south and perhaps Rio for a semi final. This would be an epic world cup and leave less pressure on the Argentines to have the stadia ready for a huge event... you would have El Monumental, in BA: Estadio Unico, La Plata; and then a stadium in Rosario and Cordoba, both of which hosted in 78 and Mendoza too... with a further stadium in the north of Argentina.


----------



## Guest

carlosfng said:


> Agree on all your points. Plus you can bet Qatar 2022 stays, way too much has been spent on it already for it to be stopped (including human lives, I suppose)...
> 
> Do wonder though, if this has any implications towards 2030. The US hosting in 2026 will probably make it harder for the Conmebol bid to win, since it will also be in the western hemisphere. Although to be honest, the Argentina-Uruguay bid seems more like a fantasy with each passing year. The expanded format (which is also disappointing, no one likes early playoff rounds) indeed requires a bigger country, co-hosting, lessening of stadium size requirements, or all of the above. Only one of those new potential elements is friendly to a South American bid, the use of smaller stadia - but, it is also something I consider unlikely to happen. Who knows though, it's long into the future...


Yep, 2030 will almost certainly be in Europe again. Collectively European broadcasters still pay the most money, and having a 12 year difference between timezone friendly WCs seems unlikely. 

After that, you'd think China will put in a bid for 2034. Think it might be at least 22 years before we see a CONMEBOL nation host again.


----------



## fidalgo

*Morocco / Algeria*

venues in:

Casablanca
Rabat
Agadir
Marrakech
Fes
Tanger

Algiers
Oran
Annaba
Constantine
Sidi Bel Abbès
Tizi-Ouzou


----------



## quanman247

I think Morocco can totally host by itself

Casablanca
Rabat
Agadir
Marrakech
Fes
Tanger
Oujda
Meknes
Safi
Kenitra
El Aaiún
Mohammedia

Damn, the rotation rule is stupid. Why must exclude Europe as well? I really want England not to be screwed over again.


----------



## Laurence2011

I really hope this means that a potential future england bid could also see stadia such as NWHL, olympic stadium and the new everton stadium being included..


----------



## Guest

Laurence2011 said:


> I really hope this means that a potential future england bid could also see stadia such as NWHL, olympic stadium and the new everton stadium being included..


With Wembley, I suspect one of Em, NWHL, StamBri, OL would be chosen. My guess is a refurbished StamBri, considering NWHL and Em are in similar part of London to Wembley. OL would miss the cut because of its ovalness I suspect.


----------



## Laurence2011

5portsF4n said:


> With Wembley, I suspect one of Em, NWHL, StamBri, OL would be chosen. My guess is a refurbished StamBri, considering NWHL and Em are in similar part of London to Wembley. OL would miss the cut because of its ovalness I suspect.


Stamford bridge is west london, wembley is north west.. NWHL is east as is the OS, but if the format is expanded then I would hope that wembley, emirates, NWHL and OS are included... maybe the bridge too


----------



## Rokto14

Laurence2011 said:


> I really hope this means that a potential future england bid could also see stadia such as NWHL, olympic stadium and the new everton stadium being included..


I don't think the new Everton stadium will be included because there is Anfield stadium in Liverpool. Well of course unless England FA wants 2 stadiums in Liverpool to host the WC.


----------



## Guest

Rokto14 said:


> I don't think the new Everton stadium will be included because there is Anfield stadium in Liverpool. Well of course unless England FA wants 2 stadiums in Liverpool to host the WC.


We don't know what Anfield will look like in a 10-20 years, but with Everton actually building a new stadium, there's really no reason for it not be ahead of Anfield. History or not, chances are high that it will be a far better stadium all round.


----------



## Gombos

Marsupalami said:


> possible 3 ways : though allowing all of these in without qualification may seem unfair!
> 
> Ireland/Scot/ENG ( will be all on its own by the near future)
> Holland, Belgium/ Lux
> Slovenia/Bosnia/Croatia ( too soon? - I left out Serbia so maybe?)
> Peru/Bolivia/Paraguay
> Thailand/Malaysia/Singapore


:lol: some countries have 0 stadiums, 0 infrastructure. I noticed you are living in Australia.

maybe Holland and Belgium, but even Belgium isn't that interested to build stadiums. Luxembourg is out of discussion, nobody would build there a 30k-seater.

next Tanganyika will host it.  I WISH AUSTRALIA WOULD DO IT!


----------



## Gombos

I don't understand why you are all against-Qatar. ok, Qatar sucks in terms of football, but the infrastructure will be perfect. I just don't like the Mecca on stadiums.

it is not that others out of Europe don't suck. South Africa hosted it for nothing. FOR NOTHING. there is no development there after the World Cup. nothing in terms of finances too.


----------



## RobH

Laurence2011 said:


> Stamford bridge is west london, wembley is north west.. NWHL is east as is the OS, but if the format is expanded then I would hope that wembley, emirates, NWHL and OS are included... maybe the bridge too


New WHL is north London.

Although it shouldn't require many (if any) more stadiums, I hope with FIFA's plans to expand the world cup also comes a relaxing of the rules about how many stadiums a city can use. Choosing _between_ Anfield and a new Everton stadium, or between Old Trafford and the Etihad, or leaving out two good 60k London football stadiums would be a bit of a waste. Especially if it means including something like Stadium MK instead.

I can understand the idea of getting a good geographical spread and if it incentivises clubs to expand stadiums it's worth doing. But some countries and their footballing culture are centralised around a few big cities and current rules make things harder than they should be for those nations.



Gombos said:


> I don't understand why you are all against-Qatar.


Labour conditions, draconian Labour laws and confiscation of passports for foreign labourers, severe heat, lack of substantial footballing history, questionable stadium legacy in such a small area, questions over the bidding process, not especially visitor friendly, Islamic law, buying of players from other nations rather than developing their own for their national teams, having to rework the footballing calandar for the seasons around the world cup. Apart from that, a stonkingly good choice.

Anyway, I've just realised this is the 2026 World Cup thread and my posts have been about a speculative 2030 England bid and Qatar 2022. :lol:


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> We don't know what Anfield will look like in a 10-20 years, but with Everton actually building a new stadium, there's really no reason for it not be ahead of Anfield. History or not, chances are high that it will be a far better stadium all round.


I'll challenge this assertion. For starters Everton don't have a site confirmed, let alone a design or, more importantly, a budget. Then, even after they get all that together it's unlikely they'll do much beyond 50k capacity (I feel, anyway) as they want to hit a sweet spot that maximizes return on a per seat basis. Much larger than that and I'm not sure they do that.

Lastly, if the venues are comparable in size there will a popular emphasis on Anfield given the club's more historic global profile. Put simply, more fans will be enthused about the chance to see Anfield than they would a new Everton venue. This isn't a knock on Everton but am acknowledgment of Liverpool's appeal.


----------



## RobH

GunnerJacket said:


> I'll challenge this assertion. For starters Everton don't have a site confirmed, let alone a design or, more importantly, a budget. Then, even after they get all that together it's unlikely they'll do much beyond 50k capacity (I feel, anyway) as they want to hit a sweet spot that maximizes return on a per seat basis. Much larger than that and I'm not sure they do that.
> 
> Lastly, if the venues are comparable in size there will a popular emphasis on Anfield given the club's more historic global profile. Put simply, more fans will be enthused about the chance to see Anfield than they would a new Everton venue. This isn't a knock on Everton but am acknowledgment of Liverpool's appeal.


Latest ITK from Everton suggests they're looking at 60k and with clubs like Spurs and West Ham having that kind of capacity, why not? I'm also not sure they'd build smaller than Liverpool's 54k.

Also, worth bearing in mind that Anfield's pitch is currently smaller than FIFA standard. And reading the Anfield thread (it's not a ground I've visited) the older stands have subpar facilities and awful legroom.

Any new build Everton does would have the correct dimensions for the pitch and very likely better facilities too.

But as you rightly say, all of this is contingent on them getting the project off the ground, which isn't certain even though lots of things are now pointing in the right direction. If a World Cup bid was launched tomorrow there'd be no choice. In future, unless Liverpool expands again, a new Everton stadium will likely be ahead of Anfield in most respects except for its fame.


----------



## Guest

RobH said:


> Latest ITK from Everton suggests they're looking at 60k and with clubs like Spurs and West Ham having that kind of capacity, why not? I'm also not sure they'd build smaller than Liverpool's 54k.
> 
> Also, worth bearing in mind that Anfield's pitch is currently smaller than FIFA standard. And reading the Anfield thread (it's not a ground I've visited) the older stands have subpar facilities and awful legroom.
> 
> Any new build Everton does would have the correct dimensions for the pitch and very likely better facilities too.
> 
> But as you rightly say, all of this is contingent on them getting the project off the ground, which isn't certain even though lots of things are now pointing in the right direction. If a World Cup bid was launched tomorrow there'd be no choice. In future, unless Liverpool expands again, a new Everton stadium will likely be ahead of Anfield in most respects except for its fame.


Agreed. _Something _will happen at Everton in the next 14 years (the earliest timeframe at this point before the WC returns to Europe). Then again, Liverpool might get bought out by Chinese and they could build a stadium in the adjacent park as previously planned. Hard to say with certainty, but if it's a modern Everton stadium vs rebuilt Anfield, you'd have to like the chances for the Everton stadium.


----------



## GunnerJacket

RobH said:


> Also, worth bearing in mind that Anfield's pitch is currently smaller than FIFA standard. And reading the Anfield thread (it's not a ground I've visited) the older stands have subpar facilities and awful legroom.
> 
> Any new build Everton does would have the correct dimensions for the pitch and very likely better facilities too.


I did forget about this part so thanks for the reminder. I agree that would be a large factor. 

I'm still unconvinced about them initially building larger than 50k. It's not like they're charging London prices and can offer huge discounts to fill the stands, especially since they're not selling out every match the past couple years. But this is a topic for another thread.


----------



## Nacre

I wish the USA would not bid for 2026. It is more than a little pathetic to complain about FIFA being corrupt and then turn around and want to get into bed with them the very next bid cycle.


----------



## TEBC

Canada/USA 2026

Toronto
Montreal
Vancouver
Edmonton
Winnipeg
Calgary
Halifax
Ottawa

New York
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Dallas
Chicago
Miami
Boston
Washington


Opening - Toronto
First Round: Calgary, Miami, Ottawa, Edmonton, Halifax, Winnipeg, Boston and Washington
8s: Los Angeles, Toronto, Chicago, Montreal, Dallas, New York 
quarter: Vancouver, Montreal, New York and San Francisco
Semi: Toronto and Los Angeles
3d: Vancouver
Final: New York


----------



## Rokto14

I think we kind of know how Canada, USA and Mexico would go about hosting the 2026 edition. I am quite interested in how Columbia would go about hosting 2026 edition since they are the only confirmed bid from CONMEBOL.


----------



## quanman247

Since Morocco is the only potential bid from CAF, I love to see how they would go on this. Fingers cross that their effort will eventually get paid off.


----------



## Kot Bazilio

2026 Canada or US
2030 UK or China


----------



## CaliforniaJones

quanman247 said:


> Since Morocco is the only potential bid from *AFC*, I love to see how they would go on this. Fingers cross that their effort will eventually get paid off.


Morocco member association of CAF (Confederation of African Football).


----------



## Red85

quanman247 said:


> Since Morocco is the only potential bid from AFC, I love to see how they would go on this. Fingers cross that their effort will eventually get paid off.


hno:
Another potential white elephant country? No thanks. I think after two World Cups, the footballworld wants something good. Russia will not be good and Qatar even worse. 

England, yes please.


----------



## Rokto14

Red85 said:


> hno:
> Another potential white elephant country? No thanks. I think after two World Cups, the footballworld wants something good. Russia will not be good and Qatar even worse.
> 
> England, yes please.


Russia will do a great job for 2018 WC in my opinion. I don't think they are lacking with anything like labour shortage, slow construction. Qatar I am not even sure. It seems very early to say anything about Qatar. Yes it do has issues now that need to be rectified fast. We will see how it progresses in 2019/2020. 

And I am 100% sure FIFA WC will come back to Europe for 2026 edition because of the new FIFA rules. I will put my bets with CONCACAF nations like USA, Canada or Mexico. And among these 3 countries, I would prefer Canada to host the WC because it hasn't hosted one before compared to USA and Mexico. Sure both USA and Mexico have existing infrastructures to host one. Still would want to see Canada hosting it.


----------



## quanman247

CaliforniaJones said:


> Morocco member association of CAF (Confederation of African Football).


Edited. My bad.


----------



## quanman247

Rokto14 said:


> And I am 100% sure FIFA WC will come back to Europe for 2026 edition because of the new FIFA rules. I will put my bets with CONCACAF nations like USA, Canada or Mexico. And among these 3 countries, I would prefer Canada to host the WC because it hasn't hosted one before compared to USA and Mexico. Sure both USA and Mexico have existing infrastructures to host one. Still would want to see Canada hosting it.


Well, thanks to the new rules, the only hope for Europe is that every single eligible candidates either have no interest in bidding for the WC at all; or fail to meet the technical and financial requirements of FIFA.


----------



## Rokto14

quanman247 said:


> Well, thanks to the new rules, the only hope for Europe is that every single eligible candidates either have no interest in bidding for the WC at all; *or fail to meet the technical and financial requirements of FIFA*.


I am very sure USA, Canada and Mexico have the potential to have the technical and financial requirements for FIFA. USA and Mexico has enough stadiums. Whereas Canada needs some major upgrading works to their current stadiums.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Chimbanha said:


> The decision on allowing joint bidding is obviously setting the stage for the expansion, which would probably require 3-4 new venues on the current 12. That is disappointing, I'd much prefer the current 32-team format and more chances for medium-sized countries to host.


France, Japan, South Korea, Germany, South Africa, Brazil and Russia are all big countries. The 32 team format isn't conducive to medium sized countries hosting*. Even joint bids were a stretch for them (see Netherlands-Belgium). Even before that, the last time I can think of a medium sized country hosting is Chile in 1962. 



(* I think we can agree that giving 2022 to Qatar was an aberration.)


----------



## fidalgo

Kot Bazilio said:


> 2026 Canada or US
> 2030 UK or China


if Europe cannot bid for 2026, then Asia sould not be able to bid for 2030


----------



## Nacre

The USA-Canada joint bid idea just refuses to die. Why would the USA ever agree to a joint bid when it has at least three times the number of required stadiums in its own borders?



Red85 said:


> Another potential white elephant country? No thanks. I think after two World Cups, the footballworld wants something good. Russia will not be good and Qatar even worse.


Morocco is a real country, not a city state, and it has lots of quality football players and enough people to fill the stadiums. I don't see anything wrong with them hosting. They have the same climate as California, so if Los Angeles is acceptable for the World Cup or the Summer Olympics then so are Casablanca and Tangier.


----------



## Guest

Nacre said:


> The USA-Canada joint bid idea just refuses to die. Why would the USA ever agree to a joint bid when it has at least three times the number of required stadiums in its own borders?


Because the US should accept Canada as a partner in an expanded competition out of goodwill. We are talking not about 64 games anymore, but potentially 80 games. If 10 were held in Canada, would it really be a travesty? They don't have to host final, semis, or even quarters. But throwing them a bone wouldn't be a terrible idea. Heck, even if they held a handful of the pre-qualifying games to whittle down the numbers to 32 again, under Infantino's recent plan.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Nacre said:


> Morocco is a real country, not a city state, and it has lots of quality football players and enough people to fill the stadiums. I don't see anything wrong with them hosting. They have the same climate as California, so if Los Angeles is acceptable for the World Cup or the Summer Olympics then so are Casablanca and Tangier.


Indeed. Morocco has a solid football scene, and in terms of football supporter culture this specialized blog considers it the most underrated in the world:

https://supportersnotcustomers.com/2015/05/14/the-worlds-best-ignored-football-cultures/

This is also worth opening: https://supportersnotcustomers.com/2015/05/25/scenes-of-the-week-2/

I don't know if they have enough clubs to warrant the number of big stadiums required by FIFA for the next WC format, but they could use the EURO 2008 model that would leave them with 20k-30k stadiums after the tournament, where larger stadiums are not needed. Ideally, they would host jointly with Algeria, but the Algerians I have talked to are telling me that for some reason these two countries just don't get along, don't cooperate. Also the security context of the present would have to be a thing of the past by then, and it has to be said that Algeria's climate is considerably hotter in the summer than Morocco's.


----------



## Rokto14

alexandru.mircea said:


> Indeed. Morocco has a solid football scene, and in terms of football supporter culture this specialized blog considers it the most underrated in the world:
> 
> https://supportersnotcustomers.com/2015/05/14/the-worlds-best-ignored-football-cultures/
> 
> This is also worth opening: https://supportersnotcustomers.com/2015/05/25/scenes-of-the-week-2/
> 
> I don't know if they have enough clubs to warrant the number of big stadiums required by FIFA for the next WC format, but they could use the EURO 2008 model that would leave them with 20k-30k stadiums after the tournament, where larger stadiums are not needed. Ideally, they would host jointly with Algeria, but the Algerians I have talked to are telling me that for some reason these two countries just don't get along, don't cooperate. Also the security context of the present would have to be a thing of the past by then, and it has to be said that Algeria's climate is considerably hotter in the summer than Morocco's.


Even if Algeria doesn't want to host the WC with Morocco, it shouldn't be a problem. Morocco has 4 45,000+ capacity stadiums, 2 60,000+ capacity stadiums, 4 stadiums with 25,000-35,000 capacity. If the WC becomes a 40 team format, there are still 4 more 20,000 capacity stadiums which can be upgraded. So it won't be a bad idea for Morocco to host it alone.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Indeed. That said, the problem with Morocco (and Algeria) is that their stadiums tend to be athletics stadiums. It would require a lot of money for complete rebuilds. The one upside is that they shouldn't become white elephants, if planned wisely. The worst thing is that Algeria is building *now* some of its flagship stadiums as athletics stadiums.


----------



## Nacre

5portsF4n said:


> Because the US should accept Canada as a partner in an expanded competition out of goodwill. We are talking not about 64 games anymore, but potentially 80 games. If 10 were held in Canada, would it really be a travesty? They don't have to host final, semis, or even quarters.


Perhaps the Canadian fans on here can respond to this. How would Canadians view a "joint" bid with the USA wherein Canada got 1 out of 8 matches and no matches in the final three rounds of the tournament?

The Canadian Soccer Association is furious at the USA _for not changing the United States Constitution_ to help out Canadian football/soccer players. (It is illegal to discriminate against people based on their country of origin, only on the basis of US citizenship, so MLS can't install any kind of league-wide Canadian player quota.) They demand to be treated as equals with the USSF. How do you think they will feel about being told we will let them host a handful of the worst games in a joint World Cup?

It would be better to treat the CSA as equals and encourage them to bid for the World Cup on their own.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

World Cup in USA in 2026 and then I guess England will host in 2030...

Whilst it is ludicrous that the USA can host the tournament so quickly... I don't expect FIFA will risk my preferred choice of a world cup in Argentina, so these two countries will probably be the ones that get it. 

I would love to see in the next few decades... Argentina/Uruguay, Spain, Australia all getting their turn. Not so sure about China and Qatar will need to work out how to host all the people who are coming to the world cup, otherwise they may not travel.


----------



## abdeka

alexandru.mircea said:


> Indeed. That said, the problem with Morocco (and Algeria) is that their stadiums tend to be athletics stadiums. It would require a lot of money for complete rebuilds. The one upside is that they shouldn't become white elephants, if planned wisely. *The worst thing is that Algeria is building *now* some of its flagship stadiums as athletics stadiums.*


No. ^^

The new stadiums in Algiers (Baraki) and Tizi-Ouzou have no tracks. 



















http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1160569&page=5&highlight=algeria

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=856508&page=6&highlight=algeria


----------



## Kerrybai

quanman247 said:


> Since Morocco is the only potential bid from CAF, I love to see how they would go on this. Fingers cross that their effort will eventually get paid off.



Why do all the stadiums have atheltics tracks? Its ridiculous, are Morrocans crazy about atheltics?

The country has the capacity for a world cup but the stadiums would all need to be rebuilt.


----------



## Rokto14

^^ Algeria is building such gigantic stadiums but Bangladesh can't even build a football stadium of good standards hno:hno:


----------



## D.I.P.

I'll be shocked if it doesn't get awarded to the USA.


----------



## PAO13

Red85 said:


> hno:
> Another potential white elephant country? No thanks. I think after two World Cups, the footballworld wants something good. Russia will not be good and Qatar even worse.
> 
> England, yes please.


I'm 100% sure Russia will be amazing.


----------



## Ioannes_

I can´t imagine a World Cup Rugby and Winter Olympics in Cuba (perhaps in Dubai, because they are able to buy everything).The reason is that a World Cup played in countries where football is the first sport in the country and a historical tradition.

In recent editions money and corrupt FIFA has decided where the World Cup is played, with absurdities like:

Arena Amazônia
-Mané Garrincha in Brasilia
-Mineirao
-Olympic Stadium of Sochi
-*A World Cup in Qatar !!!!!!* 
-A world in a racist country, ultras and violent homophobes than two years of the world, the Russians don´t like the football.

In this line of nonsense, posit countries as:

-Australia... A Word Cup Rugby in Spain...(imagine a "australian jaca" in Seville with 200 spectators dying of laughter)

-China....(Could not miss the Chinese money for FIFA)..

-USA...where socer is a woman´s sport..

If it is sensible to bring the World Cup to Argentina, Colombia and Uruguay. But if there is a country that can guarantee a world football really is Spain:


Coruña: Riazor
Vigo: Balidos
Sevilla: Cartuja
Valencia: Mestalla
Zaragoza: La Romareda
Almería: Juegos Mediterraneos.
Madrid: Nuevo Estadio Atlético de Madrid.
Barcelona: Camp Nou.
Málaga: La Rosaleda.
Oviedo: Carlos Tartiere.

and 10 could be configured forms, all guarantee success and instrument of renewal of the Spanish stadiums:

A Coruña (Riazor), Alicante (Rico Pérez), Badajoz (Nuevo Vivero), Barcelona (Camp Nou y Olímpico Lluis Companys), Bilbao (Nuevo San Mamés), Gijón (El Molinón), Madrid (Santiago Bernabéu y Nuevo Estadio de Madrid), Málaga (Nueva Rosaleda), Murcia (Nueva Condomina), San Sebastián (Anoeta), Santander (Nuevo Sardinero), Sevilla (Olímpico), Valencia (Nuevo Mestalla), Valladolid (Nuevo Zorrilla), Vigo (Nuevo Balaídos) y Zaragoza (Nueva Romareda).


----------



## fidalgo

Ioannes_ said:


> I can´t imagine a World Cup Rugby and Winter Olympics in Cuba .The reason is that a World Cup played in countries where football is the first sport in the country and a historical tradition.
> 
> In recent editions money and corrupt FIFA has decided where the World Cup is played, with absurdities like:
> 
> Arena Amazônia
> -Mané Garrincha in Brasilia
> -Mineirao


If there is a country where football is number one by a landslide is Brazil.
I can understand, the oddity of the stadium in Manaus, although is the 7th most populated city.
I can even understand, the financial disaster thar Brasilia stadium is, but it was a host choice to make it the way it is.
but Mineirão?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Nacre said:


> The Canadian Soccer Association is furious at the USA _for not changing the United States Constitution_ to help out Canadian football/soccer players. (It is illegal to discriminate against people based on their country of origin, only on the basis of US citizenship, so MLS can't install any kind of league-wide Canadian player quota.) They demand to be treated as equals with the USSF. How do you think they will feel about being told we will let them host a handful of the worst games in a joint World Cup?


A disingenuous depiction of the issue. The CSA is upset with MLS because for now Canadian players count as internationals on MLS teams, which means there's a limit on how many can be on a roster. Since MLS is a multinational corporation with business license agreements in Canada, and because MLS has contractual obligations to the CSA as part of the league's role in being _Canada's_ top flight, it stands to reason that the league shouldn't be doing anything that could be construed as punitive to the development of CSA talent. 

This isn't a citizenship issue, per se, and is simply an adjustment to the quota system that was last changed in (IIRC) 2011. So it stands to reason that if MLS wishes to keep their Canadian teams then they should find a way to make this work.



Ioannes_ said:


> -USA...where socer is a woman´s sport..


 I won't suggest the US has anything close to the soccer culture of the top nations but no nation can compare when it comes to stadium infrastructure and the pedigree of WC'94, Copa America '16, and MLS demonstrate that the US would provide a bountiful setting for a World Cup. If your sum takeaway regarding soccer in the US in 2016 is with the outdated perspective then I'm truly questioning your credibility on the matter.


----------



## Nacre

GunnerJacket said:


> This isn't a citizenship issue, per se, and is simply an adjustment to the quota system that was last changed in (IIRC) 2011. So it stands to reason that if MLS wishes to keep their Canadian teams then they should find a way to make this work.


OK. Explain to me how you would create a legal way of treating Canadian-born players as domestic while Mexican-born players would be treated as internationals.

The only way to "make it work" and get more Canadian players into the league is to have the Canadian teams treat Americans as internationals and Canadians as domestic. I would be fine with that, but the Canadians teams don't accept that because they know the Canadian player pool is much shallower than the American pool.


----------



## aquamaroon

You know, if Canada soccer is angry with the MLS treatment of Canadian players then they should be more than welcome to form their own top level soccer league. As far as I know they're the only country in the world that uses another country's top flight soccer league as their own, and the fact is that Canadian soccer needs MLS FAR more than MLS needs Canada.


----------



## carlosfng

fidalgo said:


> If there is a country where football is number one by a landslide is Brazil.
> I can understand, the oddity of the stadium in Manaus, although is the 7th most populated city.
> I can even understand, the financial disaster thar Brasilia stadium is, but it was a host choice to make it the way it is.
> but Mineirão?


Don't mind him, he is just bitching in every thread because Spain is too broke to host anything.

Um, why all the talk of a US-Canada joint bid? I understand that the expanded format allows for more co-hosting opportunities; but, if the US as a lone host involves huge distances, I cannot fathom then how players would love shuttling between Vancouver and DC, or Montreal and Houston... That being said, Canada probably cannot host alone in the expanded format, so who knows, they might campaign for the idea enough that the US accepts it.

The Morocco idea is interesting, but I doubt Africa has a shot before the 2030s. Does anyone know about the status of Colombia's bid? I do remember they were planning on 2030 alongside its neighbors first, but if that was unrealistic I do not see it being any different for their lone bid in 2026...


----------



## TEBC

Rokto14 said:


> I think we kind of know how Canada, USA and Mexico would go about hosting the 2026 edition. I am quite interested in how Columbia would go about hosting 2026 edition since they are the only confirmed bid from CONMEBOL.


Colombia has 0,5% of chances since Conmebol support Argentina and Uruguay for 2030


----------



## carlosfng

^^ To be honest, post-Fifagate both the Colombia and Argentina-Uruguay bids have lost a lot of steam. Specially so the latter bid, considering that the Argentina FA is nearly leaderless right now. At least I have barely heard anything in the news regarding both the Conmebol bids in a couple years...


----------



## Ioannes_

That's the problem, organize a world cup football is not just a matter of infrastructure:

the football is not vips boxes, or big and modern stadiums that after the event are useless. 

The countries that organize a World Cup must feel the passion for football, live inside and outside the stadiums and leave a legacy for teams fubol of their cities. So Spain needs a football World Cup. Although we have the best league in the world, two of the best soccer clubs in the world, and stadiums are always filled, we need an incentive to do renew all stages, but already been projected real gems as:

New Cam Nou
new Bernabeu
Nuevo stadium Atletico de Madrid
new Mestalla
New San Mames

It is absurd to think of countries like China, USA or Australia before England, Argentina or Spain.
Spain can organize a World Cup cricket, but who the hell cares that sport in Spain, and more realistic example: a world of Rugby ... probably the Spaniards fill stadiums, but more as a mere event in the city.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Nacre said:


> OK. Explain to me how you would create a legal way of treating Canadian-born players as domestic while Mexican-born players would be treated as internationals.


MLS doesn't operate in Mexico. It does operate in Canada and has contractual rights and obligations to serve as the Division 1 league for pro soccer in Canada. With those arrangements MLS becomes a multi-national corporation where trade and labor agreements take affect and treatment regarding Canadian nationals can be addressed differently than other foreign nationals. This is why the original quota _requiring_ Canadian players was much higher. (Started at 8, I believe.) If they couldn't treat Canadians differently then they would never have had the quota to begin with. 


> The only way to "make it work" and get more Canadian players into the league is to have the Canadian teams treat Americans as internationals and Canadians as domestic. I would be fine with that, but the Canadians teams don't accept that because they know the Canadian player pool is much shallower than the American pool.


I agree, but it's equally silly that Canadian players count against the limit for internationals the same as for the US teams, and thus acting as a soft cap on the number of internationals the 3 Canadian teams can sign at all. If they could shift the Canadian players to the domestic side, at the expense of US player spots, they could sign more foreign nationals. Now, no one has said explicitly that they want to do this or are trying to punish American players, but so long as these MLS teams are obliged to carry Canadian players in support of MLS agreements with the CSA then they shouldn't likewise be punished by saying their limit on foreign nationals is capped at a lower figure than the other MLS teams. 

Especially since none of this is likely to make a huge impact on the pitch it seems arbitrary and capricious that the rule even exists at all, so just let Canadians as domestics across the board and the market will take care of the rest. I say, anyway.



Ioannes_ said:


> The countries that organize a World Cup must feel the passion for football, live inside and outside the stadiums and leave a legacy for teams fubol of their cities.


If you do this you won't grow the game and you'll eventually feel push back from international fans who tire of seeing the event be rewarded to the same nations time and time again. Scoff all you want about taking the event to Japan, the US, etc., but those moves helped raise the global appeal of football to where it is now, and has seen billions of dollars invested in facilities, leagues and talent development in many nations. Now the US and China have leagues in the top 10 of average attendance levels even as their locals show even more love to the European clubs they supported before domestic leagues hit the scene. 

I agree local passion should be _one factor_ in the consideration, but if you make it a mandate and simply wish to reward the countries with past support then all you're doing is "paying the wealthy," as it were, and soon they'll be the only ones left to enjoy the event.


> It is absurd to think of countries like China, USA or Australia before England, Argentina or Spain.


You act like the event will never find it's way back to Europe, which I think is an unfounded fear. England, Spain, Italy and the rest will all get to host in time. Hopefully the Netherlands and Belgium and others will also host someday. In the meantime the movement of the WC around the globe has spurred the investment that in the future it will be able to return to a place like Korea or South Africa and find duly suitable structures and even stronger passion than upon the first visit. 

Plus you have to think logistically. Argentina has incredible passion for the game but many signs suggesting they lack the financial strength to manage an event before 2030. Too many venues would need work, too many host cities would need to upgrade infrastructure, etc. They could over-promise and under-deliver like Brazil, risking domestic unrest and mismanaging money, but is that really what we want simply so that they could host before, say, the US? Hosting a World Cup is a tremendous enterprise and it takes a lot more than passion to pull it off.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Ioannes_ said:


> That's the problem, organize a world cup football is not just a matter of infrastructure:
> 
> the football is not vips boxes, or big and modern stadiums that after the event are useless.
> 
> The countries that organize a World Cup must feel the passion for football, live inside and outside the stadiums and leave a legacy for teams fubol of their cities. So Spain needs a football World Cup. Although we have the best league in the world, two of the best soccer clubs in the world, and stadiums are always filled, we need an incentive to do renew all stages, but already been projected real gems as:
> 
> New Cam Nou
> new Bernabeu
> Nuevo stadium Atletico de Madrid
> new Mestalla
> New San Mames
> 
> It is absurd to think of countries like China, USA or Australia before England, Argentina or Spain.
> Spain can organize a World Cup cricket, but who the hell cares that sport in Spain, and more realistic example: a world of Rugby ... probably the Spaniards fill stadiums, but more as a mere event in the city.


Spain should hose the Euros. Absolutely perfect for it. I'd go. The World Cup was there in 1982 and that isn't very long ago.


----------



## Nacre

GunnerJacket said:


> MLS doesn't operate in Mexico. It does operate in Canada and has contractual rights and obligations to serve as the Division 1 league for pro soccer in Canada. With those arrangements MLS becomes a multi-national corporation where trade and labor agreements take affect and treatment regarding Canadian nationals can be addressed differently than other foreign nationals.


The US-based teams still have to comply with US labor laws, though.

The Canadian player quota _only affected the Canadian teams_. LA Galaxy have never been required to give a job to a Canadian player instead of a Mexican or Guatemalan player. If they did the league would be (successfully) sued.

As I said, I would have no problem forcing each Canadian team to treat Canadians as domestic players and Americans as internationals. That would give at least a dozen more Canadian players jobs in the league. But the Canadian franchises don't accept that because it would be a massive drop in the quality of their teams.

And therein is the fundamental problem: Canada gets screwed either way. Either the Canadian MLS franchises are penalized by being forced to give roster slots to inferior Canadian players, or the Canadian Soccer Association is screwed by a Canadian first tier league that doesn't include many Canadian players. Pick your poison.


----------



## Kerrybai

What are some people against the US as a host? I understand the majority of Americans don't follow the sport like those in some European and South American countries but they 94 world cup had an average attendance of something like 68,000 which was far higher than Germany. In the US you won't have any stadiums under 60,000 and attendance records will be smashed. 

The only issue is travel between stadiums costing fans a lot of money but thats something you would just have to accept.


----------



## Nacre

Kerrybai said:


> The only issue is travel between stadiums costing fans a lot of money but thats something you would just have to accept.


It can be addressed in part by clustering, though. IE California could host Group A, Florida could host Group B, Texas could host Group C, etc. The USA is also a really cheap place to travel compared to Europe (except for train service), so I don't think it would be intolerable if they do a better job of clustering venues.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Nacre said:


> The US-based teams still have to comply with US labor laws, though. ....


In the end it seems you and I agree on the issue, so we'll leave it here so as to avoid further threadjacking. 



Kerrybai said:


> What are some people against the US as a host?


Typically it's one or a combination of the following reasons:

- Other real football nations still haven't hosted since the US last hosted, or hosted as often as the US;
- The US isn't a "real" football nation;
- I simply want my favored nation to host;
- I hate the USA.



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Spain should *hose* the Euros.


Works for me!


----------



## HDI 0.548

carlosfng said:


> The Morocco idea is interesting, but I doubt Africa has a shot before the 2030s. Does anyone know about the status of Colombia's bid? I do remember they were planning on 2030 alongside its neighbors first, but if that was unrealistic I do not see it being any different for their lone bid in 2026...


Theoretically, Africa has many possible hosts (in the future at least). 
1.Morocco
2.Egypt
3.Algeria
4.A maghreb bid (distance is not big. It's pretty much Casablanca to Tunis, the Mediterranean cities).
5.Nigeria (a giant country)
6.Ethiopia (can have government mobilization)
7.East Africa (East Africa Community bid- Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda)
***
It's not too far fetched that Africa can have options in 10 years. Though USA really is the best bid hands down in this case. Maybe only 10 other countries cab go toe to toe with them.


----------



## Kot Bazilio

So US has decided bid alone without Canada or Mexico? I have heard that they will try to bid with Canada + US or US + Mexico..


----------



## Ioannes_

I dissolve the rotary system choice, the choice of the venue of the World Cup must be made between pasises whose teams have more selections and FIFA ranking, eliminating barbarities as Australia, Canada, China ...

The elections of countries that Qatar and Russia have corrupted the system of choice. Is inconsequential for football countries like Australia, USA or Canada canto be easily bids.

Realistically, the next time the World Cup back to Europe, will be for England. The British lobby, get a rotten convince FIFA that wants to wash its image in the hallway of a hotel with a bet low cost on the already built. It happened to the 2012 Summer Olympics.

Spain although it could organize the World Qatar alredy, never will host a Euro or World Cup in the next five editions, not for money but for the "mamoneo" FIFA and UEFA.


----------



## Rokto14

Ioannes_ said:


> That's the problem, organize a world cup football is not just a matter of infrastructure:
> 
> 
> *It is absurd to think of countries like China, USA or Australia before England, Argentina or Spain.*
> Spain can organize a World Cup cricket, but who the hell cares that sport in Spain, and more realistic example: a world of Rugby ... probably the Spaniards fill stadiums, but more as a mere event in the city.


Why would you think that way? Just because England, Argentina and Spain have more football history than the other 3 teams you have mentioned? That's wrong. Yes England, Argentina and Spain might have the football legacy to host a WC. But during the WC bidding process, what if countries like China, USA or Australia present a far better bid to FIFA? Then obviously one of these countries will be voted to host a WC. 

And why would Spain even host a Cricket World Cup??? :lol::lol: FIFA and ICC are totally different. The way countries bid for FIFA WC and ICC WC is different. So you can't compare. That's like comparing apple with orange.


----------



## Guest

^In a 48 team world cup, three-country bids become a real possibility, especially in confederations where the hosts are regular wc participants. Where a US, Mex, Can wc is implausible in the current environment, it looks real good in a 48 team wc.


----------



## Kot Bazilio

slipperydog said:


> The president of the CSA seems to be just fine with a joint North American WC.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.espnfc.us/fifa-world-cup...26-world-cup-bid-a-possibility-concacaf-chief


Three counties will bid WC? OMG, i hate this. Perhaps now US, Canada, Mexico is too poor to afford build all stadiums alone. :dunno:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

There'll be a match between LA, NY and Mexico city to host the final.


----------



## JYDA

CaliforniaJones said:


> There'll be a match between LA, NY and Mexico city to host the final.


Not if Red Deer or Moose Jaw have anything to say about it


----------



## CFCman

Spiderpig60 said:


> Why would they reduce minimum stadium requirements? US has plenty of stadiums of adequate size now, and ticket sales for WC '94 were very strong in a nation that was still discovering a kind of football that doesn't require helmets.
> 
> There is not going to be a Chargers stadium in Mission Valley. The only stadium for the Chargers will be in Inglewood.
> 
> The only way I see Columbus being chosen is if they play in the Horseshoe, and that's not likely. I think the list of stadiums developed for the USA WC 2022 bid would largely be recycled. Inglewood might be added in place of the LA Coliseum. Qualcomm was on the list for 2022; I would expect a replacement for that as well. Detroit was a strong site in WC '94; I could see the addition of Ford Field there.


Sure, the US and England (or Great Britain) can provide many 40k+ stadia, but I'm not so sure many African, Asian or South American nations (bar Brazil) can provide 12 or more stadia with such a capacity. I mean, it wouldn't be economically prudent to host a Thailand v Cape Verde match in a 45,000 seater arena in a developing country.

Well, I personally want a venue in San Diego so that I can attend 1 or 2 games, lol. Even if it entails refurbishing the Qualcomm stadium, I'm all for it.

If Columbus doesn't get a game, I'd consider the football stadium in Vegas, or Ford Field as you said.


----------



## Rover030

Why would the US want to do a joint bid? They could easily organise a world cup themselves and a joint bid would only take away attention from them and give Canada and/or Mexico more attention.

If they would do it on their own, coordination would be easier as well.


----------



## CFCman

An African 2026 bid would likely come from Nigeria, or from a joint Ghana/Nigeria bid. The North African nations would be at a disadvantage because Qatar would have hosted the prior WC.

A Ghana/Nigeria WC would utilize 13 stadia in 13 different cities. Potential host cities could be:
Ghana 
Accra (Accra Sports stadium, 40k; could be upgraded to 65k)
Kumasi (Baba Yara stadium, 40,528k)
Sekondi Takoradi (Sekondi-Takoradi stadium, 20,088)

Nigeria
Lagos (new 70k soccer stadium)
Abuja (60k National stadium)
Ibadan 
Abeokuta
Port Harcourt
Uyo
Asaba
Jos
Enugu
Kano

With the exception of Lagos, Abuja, Jos, Accra and Kumasi, the other stadia are all below 40k seating capacity. Uyo's stadium seats 30k people. This is where both countries could get waivers from FIFA to use 30k-seater arenas for the group, round of 32, and round of 16 matches.

An attraction of this bid would be the relative short distances that teams would cover if traveling between both nations - the longest plane ride from Uyo to Kumasi lasts about 1hr and 30 mins.
Moreover, it could cost up to $3.5bn to upgrade most of the proposed venues too; funding could come from both national governments, sub-national governments, and the private sector.

Accra would host the opening match, another group game, round of 32, round of 16 and a semifinal match.

Lagos would host 3 group matches, a round of 32 game, round of 16 game, a quarter-final, and the final.

Abuja gets a semifinal, a quarter-final, a round of 16 match, a round of 32 match, and 2 group matches.

The 3rd place match takes place in Kumasi. The final draw ceremony could be held in Uyo. 

2017 to 2026 is a 9 year period which I believe is sufficient time for both nations to get their act together


----------



## CFCman

Rover030 said:


> Why would the US want to do a joint bid? They could easily organise a world cup themselves and a joint bid would only take away attention from them and give Canada and/or Mexico more attention.
> 
> If they would do it on their own, coordination would be easier as well.


I agree with you. The US should go it alone. Besides, it won't be fun for a team to travel 5 or more hours from Mexico City to Vancouver, or 4.5 hours from NY to Ottawa


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> ^In a 48 team world cup, three-country bids become a real possibility, especially in confederations where the hosts are regular wc participants. Where a US, Mex, Can wc is implausible in the current environment, it looks real good in a 48 team wc.


But a) a 48 team World Cup would suck, and b) as has been implied if we're making the event so large that it needs bids of this scale to support it then we're going about this backwards. In fact, I'd rather the scale of the event remain as is so that even the possibility of a Qatar remains rather than make it a behemoth that all but a few countries could host on their own.

To say nothing of point "a" again!


----------



## RobH

A 48 team world cup is fixing something which ain't broke, but I don't see why (m)any more stadiums would be needed. Some of the smaller stadiums in world cups only host one or two matches as is, so adding one or two more to their schedule wouldn't be a big issue.

The biggest problems are:

1. Finding training bases and hotels for all the extra teams. 
2. Finding accommodation for extra fans.

and....

3. The stupid situation where fans travelling half way around the world to follow their team may see their team knocked out within days. It hardly seems worth the effort.


----------



## GunnerJacket

RobH said:


> A 48 team world cup is fixing something which ain't broke, but I don't see why (m)any more stadiums would be needed. Some of the smaller stadiums in world cups only host one or two matches as is, so adding one or two more to their schedule wouldn't be a big issue.
> 
> The biggest problems are:
> 
> 1. Finding training bases and hotels for all the extra teams.
> 2. Finding accommodation for extra fans.
> 
> and....
> 
> 3. The stupid situation where fans travelling half way around the world to follow their team may see their team knocked out within days. It hardly seems worth the effort.


Exactly. it's this behind the scenes stuff that becomes a bigger chore, to say nothing of the imbalanced schedules groups of 3 would create. It's an asinine attempt to, as you perfectly say, fix something that isn't broken. They're not trying to improve it but rather simply find a way to milk it for more money and/or political clout.

The event is perfectly framed and poised as is, and compared to this proposal I'm confident they'll come to find that less is more. Alas, it's not human nature to simply let things remain as is, even an Eden. 

F*** Infantino.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ **** Sepp. He started this whole snowball with his proposal to cut the European berth in the World cup by a few teams, during the campaign for those last FIFA elections that he won. It was only right that UEFA was always going to try to defend the interests of its countries, hence the idea to allow more African Asian etc teams by allowing more teams in generally instead of just chopping down the European contingent. That said I'd rather have an expansion to 40 instead of 48. EDIT: and of course what I would have really had myself would have been Sepp keeping his mouth shut, or better not even running that one last time for president, as he had promised.


----------



## Nacre

Rover030 said:


> Why would the US want to do a joint bid? They could easily organise a world cup themselves and a joint bid would only take away attention from them and give Canada and/or Mexico more attention.


Americans don't want to host with Canada or Mexico. But CONCACAF has a Canadian president, and both Canada and Mexico want to host the world cup without having to pay for new stadiums.

I think this is an utterly disastrous idea all around. 


Canadians are going to be furious when they realize that a "joint" Canadian bid only gets them the Canadian group stage games and one knockout match in Montreal.
 Mexicans will only get a few more matches, and will be equally angry being treated as junior partners.
The USA can easily host two simultaneous world cups on their own, and Americans will be irritated at having to coordinate the world cup with Mexico and Canada.
Fans trying to follow their national team from the beginning of the tournament to the finals would have to fly about 15,000 km.
National teams would face similar travel problems.
It would be an absolute nightmare for FIFA having to organize a triple country world cup and referee the fighting between the three countries over which country gets to host which matches.
If they are really going to allow a whole continent to bid, then why not let Africa host with 6 countries?


----------



## carlosfng

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ **** Sepp. He started this whole snowball with his proposal to cut the European berth in the World cup by a few teams, during the campaign for those last FIFA elections that he won. It was only right that UEFA was always going to try to defend the interests of its countries, hence the idea to allow more African Asian etc teams by allowing more teams in generally instead of just chopping down the European contingent. That said I'd rather have an expansion to 40 instead of 48. EDIT: and of course what I would have really had myself would have been Sepp keeping his mouth shut, or better not even running that one last time for president, as he had promised.


How about UEFA just defending its dozen spots, instead of trying to cram more in? The fact that they needed to sweeten the deal for Africans and Asians by adding more spots kind of shows how even UEFA tacitly recognizes the injustice in having so many WC spots for teams that will go out after three games anyway. At any rate, Blatter was terrible, but Infantino has only marginally improved on him, and sometimes just proven the old Who song right so far with some of his fixing-what-is-not-broken ideas: "meet the new boss, same as the old boss"... Anyway, here is hoping that everyone comes to its senses regarding the 48-team idea.



> I hopefully that Spain will never celebrate a world cup of football, Euro, nor an Olympics. Is the best thing that can happen to us.
> 
> Spain has one thing that does not have the United States, Russia, England, Qatar and all those countries that will be hosting beautiful stadiums that will not be worth anything after.
> 
> Spain has football, the real football, the best football in the world, the best hobby in the world and the stadiums where soccer is played, live and real football.
> 
> Not celebrating a World Cup in Spain, is like telling the Vatican that they can not celebrate a Holy Mass.
> 
> So countries like USA, Russia .. that celebrate their World Cups ..
> 
> The poor devils cheated by FIFA, they now eat potatoes: Soccer City, Green Point Cape Town, Arena Amazonia, National Stadium of Brasilia, Arena Pantanal, etc. etc.
> 
> And you will see Qatar and Russia: the white elephants' feast, in the Olympic Stadium style of Sochi ...
> 
> Do you know the best football stadium in Spain? The Madrigal. There is more soccer and passion in that stadium than in the sum of all of the next 5 world cups to be held.


Friend, I do not deny that Spain is a traditional football nation and has a right for consideration... but grow up and recognize truths, so instead of bitching you can solve things (classical Hispanic school of thought, across the pond we your descendants suffer from it too). The English can make your Vatican argument and beat you on it. Every single big club stadium they have now will probably be used for the WC they will host in the future as well, so no white elephants there. USA's big stadiums usually get full of NFL fans so they are not white elephants either. On passion and atmosphere, aside from El Madrigal, Sanchez Pizjuan, Calderon (about to be replaced), and San Mames, the rest of Spanish stadiums only get full and buzzing in order to see Madrid or Barcelona play. If it was only due to passion or atmosphere, Argentina or Turkey or Greece should be the only ones allowed to host, they trump Spain in atmosphere every weekend. If you want a WC without at least some shiny corporate influence, guess you gotta bomb the FIFA offices in Zurich or get a time machine. I agree that it should be reduced, but the humongous amounts of cash rolling into FIFA coffers from 2014 does not agree. Best football in the world? Again, aside from 3-4 teams, La Liga is lackluster. At any rate, if your country presents a good, concise, 12 modern stadium bid, with sound financing, you can compete with the English. But claiming Spain can host this weekend, it is a stretch. Nou Mestalla is not even done yet, and a tournament without the city of Valencia having a modern stadium is a non-starter.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

carlosfng said:


> How about UEFA just defending its dozen spots, instead of trying to cram more in?


They did, and they lost. Sepp won the elections on that platform of reducing the European WC berth. Fact is, Europe (even if allied with South America) will always be largely outvoted by Africa + Asia + the Carribean inside FIFA, if the interests of these blocks diverge.


----------



## JimB

Ioannes_ said:


> Gianni Infantino has already hinted that the next World Cup in Europe is sold to England.





carlosfng said:


> About the host, it is clear it will be 2026 for USA and 2030 for England. I do agree the English have it bought already


Have I missed something? What did Infantino say about England being awarded the next World Cup to be held in Europe (after 2018)? And what do you fellas mean by it having been "sold" or "bought"?

Seems to me that an awful lot will have to change for a sufficient number of FIFA delegates to support an English bid given that previous English bids have fared so poorly.


----------



## RobH

Ioannes is the alt account of Almeria80 who was banned trolling the Olympic threads after Madrid lost to London (and then again after they lost to Rio and Tokyo). He believes anything Spain loses its rigged or bought, and that Spain would do a better job than the chosen host. See his drivel in the 2024 Olympics thread recently. Nationalistic tin foil hattery.

As I said into my PM to you about heresjohnny's alt account, I'm not quite sure why the mod team think banned members getting a new name and avatar but being obviously the same person is ok. :dunno:


----------



## RobH

Anyway, back to the real world...



JimB said:


> Seems to me that an awful lot will have to change for a sufficient number of FIFA delegates to support an English bid given that previous English bids have fared so poorly.


All bets are off Jim. The voting system has been changed completely since the 2018/22 vote. Those hosts were the last voted on by FIFA's 24 man Executive Committee. Future hosts will be voted on by FIFA Congress, which means one country, one vote. 200+ delegates instead of 24. Who knows who that'll favour?

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/13613128)


----------



## JimB

Ioannes_ said:


> Spain has one thing that does not have the United States, Russia, England, Qatar and all those countries that will be hosting beautiful stadiums that will not be worth anything after.
> 
> Spain has football, the real football, the best football in the world, the best hobby in the world and the stadiums where soccer is played, live and real football.
> 
> Not celebrating a World Cup in Spain, is like telling the Vatican that they can not celebrate a Holy Mass.
> 
> ....Do you know the best football stadium in Spain? The Madrigal. There is more soccer and passion in that stadium than in the sum of all of the next 5 world cups to be held.


Umm.........where to start with this? :lol:

Qatar, I grant you........by a huge margin, the most bizarre, outrageous and blatantly corrupt decision in FIFA's history.

But Russia? A huge country of 145 million people that has never previously hosted a World Cup. It would be hard to deny that its time had come.

USA - already hosted one of the most successful World Cups ever; unrivalled stadium infrastructure (that couldn't be further from being a white elephant); and an increasingly well established domestic league. No brainer for FIFA to go back there.

And England......not hosted the World Cup for 50 years (64 years by 2030); birthplace of the game; passion and tradition aplenty; great clubs; great stadia (with commensurate attendances); guaranteed financial success for any World Cup staged there.

To dismiss any of those in the way that you did is plain silliness. To talk of Spain as the only country where one would find "real" football (whatever that means) is mere self regarding pomposity.

Yes, Spain is a great footballing country that is currently enjoying a high with the national team, Real and Atletico Madrid, Barcelona and Sevilla all enjoying recent international success. And sure, there is great passion for the game there and good attendances. But Spain is not unique in those respects.

Undoubtedly, Spain will get to host another World Cup eventually. Rightly so. But it has no special claim to do so now. Arguably, in fact, it has less of a claim than England given that Spain last hosted the World Cup as recently as 1982. Not to mention the likes of the Netherlands and Belgium, which have never before hosted a World Cup.


----------



## JimB

RobH said:


> Ioannes is the alt account of Almeria80 who was banned trolling the Olympic threads after Madrid lost to London (and then again after they lost to Rio and Tokyo). He believes anything Spain loses its rigged or bought, and that Spain would do a better job than the chosen host. See his drivel in the 2024 Olympics thread recently. Nationalistic tin foil hattery.
> 
> As I said into my PM to you about heresjohnny's alt account, I'm not quite sure why the mod team think banned members getting a new name and avatar but being obviously the same person is ok. :dunno:


Ah, I see.

I had noticed that he seems to crowbar some pejorative mention of the London Olympic stadium into a fair number of his posts - regardless of relevance to the thread.


----------



## Guest

Assuming 48 teams, here's how I believe the breakdown will go:

Host 1 (if multiple hosts, take away from participating confederation)
Uefa 16
Concacaf 6
Conmebol 6
Afc 10.5
Caf 8
Ofc 0.5

Playoff between asia and oceania for 1 spot. Oceania wont get full spot. There are politics, and oceania has a number of votes, but I believe africa and asia were enough to ensure Infantinos election. 

And yes, I believe asia will become the biggest beneficiary, more so than Africa. Whatever people say about asian teams, this region represents 2/3rds of the worlds population, and half the worlds wealth. It will, at the very least, double its number, which should ensure chinas qualification for, well, forever from that point. 

South am will be appeased with 6 spots in total, up from 4.5, meaning 60% will qualify. 

Europe will be rewarded with 3 spots for going along with expansion. 

Concacaf will also win big, with 2.5 extra spots. At the very least it will have 5 spots, im not convinced itll get the sixth, but not sure where that sixth would go. Mostly like europe or asia.

Not only does 48 work well for the suggested format, but it is the easiest way of appeasing all the confederations. 40 creates problems both from a formatting perspective, and in deciding how to spread those spots out.


----------



## CFCman

5portsF4n said:


> Assuming 48 teams, here's how I believe the breakdown will go:
> 
> Host 1 (if multiple hosts, take away from participating confederation)
> Uefa 16
> Concacaf 6
> Conmebol 6
> Afc 10.5
> Caf 8
> Ofc 0.5
> 
> Playoff between asia and oceania for 1 spot. Oceania wont get full spot. There are politics, and oceania has a number of votes, but I believe africa and asia were enough to ensure Infantinos election.
> 
> And yes, I believe asia will become the biggest beneficiary, more so than Africa. Whatever people say about asian teams, this region represents 2/3rds of the worlds population, and half the worlds wealth. It will, at the very least, double its number, which should ensure chinas qualification for, well, forever from that point.
> 
> South am will be appeased with 6 spots in total, up from 4.5, meaning 60% will qualify.
> 
> Europe will be rewarded with 3 spots for going along with expansion.
> 
> Concacaf will also win big, with 2.5 extra spots. At the very least it will have 5 spots, im not convinced itll get the sixth, but not sure where that sixth would go. Mostly like europe or asia.
> 
> Not only does 48 work well for the suggested format, but it is the easiest way of appeasing all the confederations. 40 creates problems both from a formatting perspective, and in deciding how to spread those spots out.


I think a 40-team tournament, comprising 10 groups of 4 teams, is the best way to go. In this format, the top 3 teams in each group and the best bottom teams across the groups advance to the knockout round of 32. This means that a greater number of group games, in comparison to the present format, would be truly competitive and wouldn't be dead-rubber matches.

I'd allocate the continental spots as follows:

UEFA - 15
CAF - 7
CONMEBOL - 6
CONCACAF -4
AFC - 6
Oceania - 1
Host nation - 1
If there is more than one host, the affected confederation would lose a qualifying spot. For eg, if the US and Mexico get to co-host the 2026 edition, then CONCACAF's spots would be reduced to 3; if it is a co-hosting arrangement between two African countries, CAF's qualifying spots would be reduced to 6, and so on.


----------



## JYDA

A year ago when the 40 team plan was being discussed by the FIFA reform committee, this was the proposed allocation. Shows where the political pull is

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/Docume...2015.11.27Annexe4_Neutral.pdf?t=1449143282551
_
Annexe 4 to the 2016 FIFA Reform Committee Report 27.11.2015
Increased participation in the FIFA World Cup™ (men’s)
 AFC: 6
 CAF: 7
 CONCACAF: 5
 CONMEBOL: 5
 OFC: 1
 UEFA: 14
 Host: 1
 The remaining team to reach the total number of 40 shall be determined 
based on sporting merits using a method yet to be defined. _


----------



## CFCman

JYDA said:


> A year ago when the 40 team plan was being discussed by the FIFA reform committee, this was the proposed allocation. Shows where the political pull is
> 
> Increased participation in the FIFA World Cup™ (men’s)
>  AFC: 6
>  CAF: 7
>  CONCACAF: 5
>  CONMEBOL: 5
>  OFC: 1
>  UEFA: 14
>  Host: 1
>  The remaining team to reach the total number of 40 shall be determined
> based on sporting merits using a method yet to be defined. [/I]


Either CONMEBOL or AFC would get the additional spot. If it goes to the former, it would bring renewed hope for the likes of Peru and Venezuela of playing at the mundial. 

However, the commercial prospects of China's 1 billion watching their team on tv during the World Cup may prove irresistible to the suits at FIFA


----------



## Rokto14

If FIFA really wants a expanded WC, they might want to expand to a 40-team WC from the current format. This will help them see the success of a 40-team WC. I find that jumping to a 48-team WC from the current 32-team WC format will be bad for FIFA and even the host nation(s). FIFA should plan properly on how a 40-team WC can be held and set new requirements for stadia and host nation(s).


----------



## Dan Caumo

I think either 40 or 48-team WC would be exhausting for the audience and the players. The average quality of the matches would decrease with many contests as Iran vs Bosnia or Honduras vs Jordan, as the attendance could be very low to many matches.

The 32-team WC format is perfect IMHO.


----------



## Guest

Dan Caumo said:


> I think either 40 or 48-team WC would be exhausting for the audience and the players. The average quality of the matches would decrease with many contests as Iran vs Bosnia or Honduras vs Jordan, as the attendance could be very low to many matches.
> 
> The 32-team WC format is perfect IMHO.


Im sure people said the same thing when it was being expanded to 24, then 32 teams. 

Since no one watches all 64 games anyway, and most people just watch their own country, plus a few high profile games, the exhaustion is in your mind. 

And how would it be exhausting for players when they would have to play the same number of games to win the WC in a 48 team tournament as they do in a 32 team one.....?


----------



## Dan Caumo

5portsF4n said:


> Im sure people said the same thing when it was being expanded to 24, then 32 teams.
> 
> Since no one watches all 64 games anyway, and most people just watch their own country, plus a few high profile games, the exhaustion is in your mind.
> 
> And how would it be exhausting for players when they would have to play the same number of games to win the WC in a 48 team tournament as they do in a 32 team one.....?


So just the winner of each group and the four best runner-up will qualify for round of 16? I don't think it would be a good idea. The reasonable solution would be a round of 32 or 8 groups of 6 teams. Those solution means a team would play 8 or 9 matches played during a month (a game each 3,33 or 3,75 days), I believe it is very exhausting if the players need to travel through long distances (even more if they decided several countries must host the cup together because more matches would demand more stadiums). Unless they decide the cup will last longer than a month (what it's not a good idea IMHO). 

About the audience I can assure you a lot of people I know watch the much of matches they can, some take vacations during the cup and watch the 56 matches they can watch live (as the last round of the groups has two matches simultaneously), of course many others just watch your own countries, but the real fans (those who watch the much as they can and follow the media related to the cup) are the ones who really matters for FIFA and for the commercial interests. At least the journalists, and I have some friends who are sport journalist and covered the 2014 WC, watch every match and write about them all.

Other than you say, I read and listen more commentators missing the time the world cup had 24 teams and each match had a higher level than the 32-teams format where some matches are very ordinary.


----------



## JYDA

Dan Caumo said:


> So just the winner of each group and the four best runner-up will qualify for round of 16? I don't think it would be a good idea. The reasonable solution would be a round of 32 or 8 groups of 6 teams. Those solution means a team would play 8 or 9 matches played during a month (a game each 3,33 or 3,75 days), I believe it is very exhausting if the players need to travel through long distances (even more if they decided several countries must host the cup together because more matches would demand more stadiums). Unless they decide the cup will last longer than a month (what it's not a good idea IMHO).


No, the proposed format is 16 groups of 3. 



> the real fans (those who watch the much as they can and follow the media related to the cup) are the ones who really matters for FIFA and for the commercial interests.
> Other than you say, I read and listen more commentators missing the time the world cup had 24 teams and each match had a higher level than the 32-teams format where some matches are very ordinary.


A country like China qualifying for the world cup adds a billion viewers. If India ever gets its act together there's another billion. You and your friends may complain on a message board but the fact is you're still going to watch.

The main driver of popularity in world cups and even the Olympics is nationalism. They're wars without guns providing a safe outlet for flag waving. It's why your grandmother or your sister will watch when they would never otherwise care about the underlying sport. This is why international football has the power to aggregate bigger viewing audiences than club football in spite of its inferior quality. Euro 2016 was the most watched in history purely because more people in more countries had a reason to tune in. That reason had nothing to do with the quality of play, the silly format, or any other complaint relating to dilution.


----------



## Dan Caumo

JYDA said:


> No, the proposed format is 16 groups of 3.


Groups of 3 is the craziest choice they could make for two reasons: if two teams qualify for next round the two teams who face each other in the last match of the group can play for the result that qualify both, if just one qualify it wouldn't be uncommon the team A beating B, B beating C and C beating A and the qualification being decided by yellow cards or dices.


----------



## JYDA

Dan Caumo said:


> Groups of 3 is the craziest choice they could make for two reasons: if two teams qualify for next round the two teams who face each other in the last match of the group can play for the result that qualify both, if just one qualify it wouldn't be uncommon the team A beating B, B beating C and C beating A and the qualification being decided by yellow cards or dices.


FIFA's proposal to solve this is holding penalty shootouts after group stage matches ending in draws.


----------



## CorliCorso

If I may throw an idea about, how about having a qualifying tournament on the eve of the main tournament? 

Here's how it would go: 24 teams qualify automatically for the main tournament (one of them possibly being the host - more on that in a bit). Then 24 others qualify for a secondary tournament, which is a straightforward group stage consisting of 8 groups of 3. The top team from each group qualifies for the main tournament, bringing it up to 32.

The qualifiers would take place in the period leading up to the main tournament, which is when teams have usually already travelled to the host country and play a couple of friendlies anyway. 2 games a day would give us a 12 day schedule, and teams would have either 4 or 8 days between games, which is plenty of time. The stadiums used could be ones being used for the main tournament (I don't know about other countries, but in Britain new stadiums usually need to hold events at reduced capacity before they can be opened fully; this could give that opportunity) or, if the host is a country with a lot of stadiums already, you could use it to showcase smaller ones, or an excuse to build them in cities that don't need 40,000+ stadia.

Now on to the matter of hosts. Currently any bid that has multiple hosts is at something of a disadvantage, because it means fewer qualifying berths. However, with this format, you could add a requirement that such hosts would be placed in the qualifying tournament instead. A hypothetical combined Nordic bid, consisting of stadia from Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, would currently be unlikely as it would put the amount of places at the finals down to 28. But under this format it would be 24 + 20, which is a lot less off-putting. 

Most importantly of all, it retains the ideal 32-team format for the main tournament, whilst also giving something towards the smaller nations (and avoids the mental gymnastics that were required to understand the 3rd place format at Euro 2016)


----------



## CabaMatutador

The qualifiers are there for a reason. I don't see the point in increasing yet again the number of federations in the finals.


----------



## Guest

CabaMatutador said:


> The qualifiers are there for a reason. I don't see the point in increasing yet again the number of federations in the finals.


Qualifiers narrow it down to 32 from 200+. Narrowing it down to 48 from 200+ isn't that drastic.


----------



## miguelon

CFCman said:


> Sure, the US and England (or Great Britain) can provide many 40k+ stadia, but I'm not so sure many African, Asian or South American nations (bar Brazil) can provide 12 or more stadia with such a capacity. I mean, it wouldn't be economically prudent to host a Thailand v Cape Verde match in a 45,000 seater arena in a developing country.
> 
> Well, I personally want a venue in San Diego so that I can attend 1 or 2 games, lol. Even if it entails refurbishing the Qualcomm stadium, I'm all for it.
> 
> If Columbus doesn't get a game, I'd consider the football stadium in Vegas, or Ford Field as you said.


Probably you can host more games at each stadium, with the current 32 teams World Cup, some stadiums are only used 3 - 4 games. Why not host daily group stage games or at least 6 - 7 games.. That would be a carnival for a any host city. Some cities are currently building stadium they don't need for only 3 or 4 games, why not at least have 6 or 7 instead.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Increasing the number of matches does reduce the number of nations that can host a World Cup. You could host more matches at each venue but the proposal (16 groups of 3) leads to 48 group games rather than 32 and these are to be played in the same time frame. That means you need more hotel rooms. If one assumes that modern pitches can take an extra 50% wear then the limiting factors are accommodation, transport and security. With this many nations involved people are going to be much more picky about which matches to attend. Some smaller stadia should be used but the difficulty will be in finding a way to allocate the most attractive matches to the biggest stadiums.

The majority of nations in FIFA will never host a World Cup whatever size it is so this factor will largely be ignored. At least for now.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Increasing the number of matches does reduce the number of nations that can host a World Cup. You could host more matches at each venue but the proposal (16 groups of 3) leads to 48 group games rather than 32 and these are to be played in the same time frame. That means you need more hotel rooms. If one assumes that modern pitches can take an extra 50% wear then the limiting factors are accommodation, transport and security. With this many nations involved people are going to be much more picky about which matches to attend. Some smaller stadia should be used but the difficulty will be in finding a way to allocate the most attractive matches to the biggest stadiums.
> 
> The majority of nations in FIFA will never host a World Cup whatever size it is so this factor will largely be ignored. At least for now.


You do realize there are 48 group stage games in a 32 team WC too? Have no idea where youre getting 32 from. In other words, no difference in number of games in group stage in a 32 or 48 team WC.

The only difference is that there would be a round of 32 (so 16 more games in total).


----------



## Jim856796

Spiderpig60 said:


> Why would they reduce minimum stadium requirements? US has plenty of stadiums of adequate size now, and ticket sales for WC '94 were very strong in a nation that was still discovering a kind of football that doesn't require helmets.


Well, these reduced requirements wouldn't be for countries as large/populous as the United States, of course.

One reason is that Russia is going to have two stadiums with a capacity of below 40,000 host FIFA World Cup matches in 2018. Also, I think there are some countries that may not be willing to develop an 80,000+-seat stadium just for a FIFA WC.

The lowered minimum stadium capacity requirements that CFCman suggested could be a way to open the door for more countries to host a FIFA World Cup. In some of those countries, even smaller ones, FIFA can maybe allow up to three sub-40,000-capacity stadiums to reduce the likelihood of white elephants.


----------



## eomer

5portsF4n said:


> Assuming 48 teams, here's how I believe the breakdown will go:
> 
> Host 1 (if multiple hosts, take away from participating confederation)
> Uefa 16
> Concacaf 6
> Conmebol 6
> Afc 10.5
> Caf 8
> Ofc 0.5


Only 16 for UEFA ? I don(t agree.
- UEFA should get at least 20.
- COMMEBOL: 6 seams OK
- CONCACAF: 5 is enough according to results.
- AFC: 9
- CAF: 6 (but OFC takes Turkey)
- OFC: 1 
- Host: 1

Of course, best bid for 2026 would be England with some games played in Cardiff, Glasgow and Edimburg but Europe won't get it. The host will be USA or Mexico.


----------



## endrity

Surely an increased WC would allow for some smaller stadiums in the 30-35k range?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> You do realize there are 48 group stage games in a 32 team WC too? Have no idea where youre getting 32 from. In other words, no difference in number of games in group stage in a 32 or 48 team WC.
> 
> The only difference is that there would be a round of 32 (so 16 more games in total).


Yes, I was being a bit dumb there. No idea where I got that from either. I can only guess that I got distracted by something of minor importance, such as work, whilst posting. 6 x 8 = 48 and 3 x 16 also = 48. I think Infantino's plan is for the group stage and additional round of 32 to take place in the same time as the current group stage. So 48 match group stage + 16 match new round = 64 matches when, until now, there have been 48. The first 10 days or so would be particularly busy, including the 48 group stage matches. Could you do all those in 12 stadia? 16 would be more realistic.


----------



## Rover030

With 12 stadiums you'd get 5 or 6 games per stadium in those 10 days, meaning that there is one day (or zero) in between for cleaning and other logistical things. I guess that is possible, especially if one day the game is at 15:00 and the next day on 21:00.

They would need very good grass though. I don't think that would be possible in countries with tropical climates, like Brazil where they had to paint fields so that they looked green.

With 16 stadia it would be only 4 games per stadium and you could put 2 groups (that would play the round of 32 between them) in two close locations, to limit travel time for those 6 teams and their fans within the first 10 days. Scheduling (equal rest days etc.) would be easier that way than with 12 stadiums. 

The problem however, is that there are very few countries that have or are willing to build 16 35,000+ stadiums. So you would see more joint bids I guess.


----------



## CFCman

Rover030 said:


> With 12 stadiums you'd get 5 or 6 games per stadium in those 10 days, meaning that there is one day (or zero) in between for cleaning and other logistical things. I guess that is possible, especially if one day the game is at 15:00 and the next day on 21:00.
> 
> They would need very good grass though. I don't think that would be possible in countries with tropical climates, like Brazil where they had to paint fields so that they looked green.
> 
> With 16 stadia it would be only 4 games per stadium and you could put 2 groups (that would play the round of 32 between them) in two close locations, to limit travel time for those 6 teams and their fans within the first 10 days. Scheduling (equal rest days etc.) would be easier that way than with 12 stadiums.
> 
> The problem however, is that there are very few countries that have or are willing to build 16 35,000+ stadiums. So you would see more joint bids I guess.


Another issue to factor in for a US 2026 bid would be kickoff times for the matches. FIFA would do anything to please the TV audience in Europe, so brace yourself for some super early kickoff times, especially on the West coast.

Kickoff times on the West coast could be between 12pm and 2pm PT. East Coast kickoff times could also be between 4pm and 6pm. 

But no such dilemma would exist if Ghana/Nigeria get to host the world cup jointly. Games could kickoff at 7pm or 8pm local time, and still be convenient for the European audience


----------



## eomer

Instead of 16 groups of 3, I think it would be better to have a preliminary round with 16 qualified team and then playoff with 32 teams.
Playoff should be between confederations.

With 16 groups of 3, there will be seeded teams and super-seeded teams to avoid big clashs during "round of 32": it will look like a tennis tournament....


----------



## alexandru.mircea

More participants also means higher chances of multiple hosts, because the larger number of participants diminishes the impact of potential hosts with poor teams on the quality of the tournament... So expansion means, through this path, making the hosting more accessible to new or smaller countries via co-hosting.

In theory, at least...


----------



## marokko

^^I'm looking forward to the firtst scandinavian, balkan, ... bid


----------



## dinamo_zagreb

16 more teams means 16 additional training-camps. Huge investments will be needed, only few countries will be able to host it alone. Like US, China, England, France, Germany.

We are headed into new era, era of unbalanced competitions with teams that take part only because competition was expanded. Shame that World had to meet two clowns from Nyon whose mission was to expand everything they could, to change everything that was perfect.


----------



## ane.lt

Bayern for sure;]


----------



## Guest

dinamo_zagreb said:


> 16 more teams means 16 additional training-camps. Huge investments will be needed, only few countries will be able to host it alone. Like US, China, England, France, Germany.
> 
> We are headed into new era, era of unbalanced competitions with teams that take part only because competition was expanded. Shame that World had to meet two clowns from Nyon whose mission was to expand everything they could, to change everything that was perfect.


Can guarantee you people were saying that before it was expanded to 32. In 50 years, when it gets expanded to 64 teams, people will be pining for the days of the perfect 48 team format..


----------



## Samacado

I have a set up a modus for a 48-world-cup which simply washes away most of the obstacles. It would have 88 matches (only 24 more than the current format). It can be played in 31-32 days. It will give every participant a minmum of 3 matches. It will have parallel last group matches.

Curious now? Here are details with an example*http://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7VQA4JGUo5ZWHNyMG1VY21qWlU


----------



## Rover030

Samacado said:


> I have a set up a modus for a 48-world-cup which simply washes away most of the obstacles. It would have 88 matches (only 24 more than the current format). It can be played in 31-32 days. It will give every participant a minmum of 3 matches. It will have parallel last group matches.
> 
> Curious now? Here are details with an example


Strong proposal. At first I thought it would be very complicated, but it is no more complicated than looking at strongest 3rd places. I do have a few remarks and questions though.

First: it benefits top teams a lot, but not much more than the current system. There are people complaining about that however. 

Second: did you test the number of different possibilities of the draws? Cause making sure teams of the same confederation can't be in the same hex might limit the number of possibilities, but I'm not sure. Doesn't mean that it isn't random of course, but the draw could look a bit silly like with the CL group stage draws. 

Third: this is just a small remark, but in reality the knock out games wouldn't be spread out so fair. They would probably limit the amount of days without a game as much as possible. 

Fourth and last: FIFA will probably never select this format, because they find it too complicated or something, but you should still try to campaign for it, because it's a great proposal!


----------



## Alanzeh

This new format increases the chances of a regional World Cup because of the aditional hosting structure that will be required


----------



## Samacado

Rover030 said:


> Strong proposal. At first I thought it would be very complicated, but it is no more complicated than looking at strongest 3rd places. I do have a few remarks and questions though.
> 
> First: it benefits top teams a lot, but not much more than the current system. There are people complaining about that however.
> 
> Second: did you test the number of different possibilities of the draws? Cause making sure teams of the same confederation can't be in the same hex might limit the number of possibilities, but I'm not sure. Doesn't mean that it isn't random of course, but the draw could look a bit silly like with the CL group stage draws.
> 
> Third: this is just a small remark, but in reality the knock out games wouldn't be spread out so fair. They would probably limit the amount of days without a game as much as possible.
> 
> Fourth and last: FIFA will probably never select this format, because they find it too complicated or something, but you should still try to campaign for it, because it's a great proposal!


Thank you for your feedback

4th: I am already in contact with a competition manager at FIFA. So they at least know about it. 

3rd: I checked the knock out schedule of current world cups and did not change anything there.

2nd: it depends a lot on berth allocations by FIFA which I don`t know. So i went an easy way to have 8 africans all in one of the six pots. If they chose 7 or 9 the drawing will be more complicated. But you are right, there might be teams of the same confed within one hex, i guess, as long as they don`t face each other in one of the three matches.

1st: You are right. Therefore I posted an alternative in the end. In the second alternative, the big teams are not having the easier opponents. Each team of one pool of 3 will there exactly face one topseed, one midseed and one lowseed, as teams don´t play against the two other teams in their own pool, but each of there teams of the twin pool. it is more even, but in my scenario it create an brazil-italy first round match and as only 2 of 6 advance within a hex to the round of 16 the big ones are under much more pressure. Only after my proposal, i read, that fifa like such high end matches also in group phase, so i guess that if they consider really my proposal, that would go with the second alternative

in the end, a non-round-robin first round is common in other sports, e.g. american football and no one really complains about. i think it is the nicest death to die, as you cannot overcome all obstacles. but if you sacrifice round-robin, you will achieve all other goals.


----------



## noize

It's official, the new gang in charge just ruined the greatest sport event in the world. Sad day for football...


----------



## Juanpabloangel

So this World Cup (2026) to be in the USA with the most stadiums available and probably the most attendees. England will presumably follow, unless the Europeans vote to give it to Spain and Portugal, Brexit should be in full swing by then.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Lets have a winners cup instead of the Confederations cup... only world cup winning nations can play.

Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, England, Germany, France, Italy, Germany, Spain and the host! two groups of 5 with top 2 into the semi finals from each group. 

Only two cities host, so we have the biggest possible stadiums and a real competition.

Much as I love the Confederations cup... as Australia is in it, this year NZ too... I would love this idea!


----------



## Guest

noize said:


> It's official, the new gang in charge just ruined the greatest sport event in the world. Sad day for football...


They made it better. This, and goal line tech, are the best Fifa decisions this century, by miles.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> Can guarantee you people were saying that before it was expanded to 32. In 50 years, when it gets expanded to 64 teams, people will be pining for the days of the perfect 48 team format..


64 for would arguably be better than 48 because it enables a more balanced and equitable scheduling. But unlike, say the NCAA tournament the logistics of hosting is a HUGE issue that becomes geometrically more complex (and expensive) with each expansion. What's more the impetus is purely for personal gain for FIFA, not to improve the event. 

This is FIFA's New Coke. They're allowed to do it, but that doesn't mean we all have to smile and say it's as good as the current version.



Samacado said:


> I have a set up a modus for a 48-world-cup which simply washes away most of the obstacles. It would have 88 matches (only 24 more than the current format). It can be played in 31-32 days. It will give every participant a minmum of 3 matches. It will have parallel last group matches.
> 
> Curious now? Here are details with an example*http://drive.google.com/open?id=0B7VQA4JGUo5ZWHNyMG1VY21qWlU


That's a well thought out approach, so I applaud your effort. Here's a thought, what if the teams within each group only play teams IN THE OTHER GROUP? This way each team is guaranteed 3 games (just like now) and they play the same schedule (just like now). It's a bit odd to think you don't play anyone in your own group, but this way the primary issues of schedule equality and minimal number of games is addressed. 



5portsF4n said:


> They made it better.


Well, that's your opinion.


----------



## Red85

5portsF4n said:


> They made it better. This, and goal line tech, are the best Fifa decisions this century, by miles.


How on Earth is this the best decision? 32 countries tournament is the best. Mathematics wise, as for quality. 
This is a total devaluation of the tournament, sports and everything together. Only money money money. 

Over the top this one. Nobody is waiting for an Albania - Nepal game on the world cup...


----------



## Red85

Juanpabloangel said:


> So this World Cup (2026) to be in the USA with the most stadiums available and probably the most attendees. England will presumably follow, unless the Europeans vote to give it to Spain and Portugal, Brexit should be in full swing by then.


What has Brexit to do with the world cup? 

Why is everybody in a mindset 'after Brexit the world stops', I tell you, it doesn't. GB will still be a country. Politicians only worsen it and some idiots are following. 
Stop it.


----------



## Guest

Red85 said:


> How on Earth is this the best decision? 32 countries tournament is the best. Mathematics wise, as for quality.
> This is a total devaluation of the tournament, sports and everything together. Only money money money.
> 
> Over the top this one. Nobody is waiting for an Albania - Nepal game on the world cup...


Then don't watch. The Albanians and Nepalese will be quite happy to watch. 

In case you're wondering, don't worry, Nepal won't be making the World Cup. If Asia gets 3-6 new spots, it'll be made up of the likes of China, Indonesia, Thailand, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, etc. 

You know, countries all bigger than where you're from...


----------



## Guest

5portsF4n said:


> Assuming 48 teams, here's how I believe the breakdown will go:
> 
> Host 1 (if multiple hosts, take away from participating confederation)
> Uefa 16
> Concacaf 6
> Conmebol 6
> Afc 10.5
> Caf 8
> Ofc 0.5


This image is doing the rounds on twitter of rumored allocation. 

I'm gonna toot my own horn. Nailed UEFA and Conmebol. 

Surprised that Oceania is getting a full spot. It basically means New Zealand will qualify for every single WC from 2026! 

Africa I was off by 1. Though I agree that Africa should have more than Asia for now. Got Asia wrong too, went higher than this suggests. 

And Concacaf, off by 0.5. Oh Canada! Canada will still manage to fail to qualify lol...


----------



## RobH

Here's a crazy idea...(and it probably is, I haven't given it much thought)....

All this stems from the ongoing arguments about how many spots each Confederation gets. Why not scrap Confederation qualifying for World Cups? Have a worldwide qualifying system over two years instead (possibly with pre-qualifiers for the really tiny nations). FIFA could set aside a pot of money which all nations contribute to to help with travel costs etc. Possibly a security and logistical nightmare, but maybe not impossible with football being as global and wealthy as it now is?


----------



## Observador_SJC

5portsF4n said:


> This image is doing the rounds on twitter of rumored allocation.
> 
> I'm gonna toot my own horn. Nailed UEFA and Conmebol.
> 
> Surprised that Oceania is getting a full spot. It basically means New Zealand will qualify for every single WC from 2026!
> 
> Africa I was off by 1. Though I agree that Africa should have more than Asia for now. Got Asia wrong too, went higher than this suggests.
> 
> And Concacaf, off by 0.5. Oh Canada! Canada will still manage to fail to qualify lol...


They also intend to merge CONCACAF and COMENBOL qualifying, so the 2 confederations would have a total of 12.5 spots.


----------



## cyril sneer

FFS Fifa. The World Cup didn't need fixing. It works perfectly fine in the current format. You only have to see with the recently expanded Euros to see how many pointless games there were in the group stages and even the first knockout round. The argument FIFA are putting out to bring the World Cup experience to more nations is like the liberal notion of giving all children a medal at sports day. It won't do these up and coming nations any good to be walloped 6-0 on the World stage by one of the big nations. 

As for hosting, it will undoubtably mean the need for more hotels, media centres, training facilities, etc, for bidding nations to accommodate.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> And Concacaf, off by 0.5. Oh Canada! Canada will still manage to fail to qualify lol...


Okay, I admit it. I laughed!



>


Lot of folks I've heard/read crying foul about the possibility of CONCACAF getting more than CONMEBOL, but people forget that region has many more countries and a notably larger population. Let's see if the likes of El Salvador and Guatemala take advantage of this opportunity.



RobH said:


> Here's a crazy idea...(and it probably is, I haven't given it much thought)....
> 
> All this stems from the ongoing arguments about how many spots each Confederation gets. Why not scrap Confederation qualifying for World Cups?


Boy, you would suck at politics. :tongue2: You can't manage a controlled system of graft and mutual back-scratching unless you have some determination of the outcomes. You need fiefdoms in order to maintain a pyramidal structure of control, don'tcha know! 

Seriously, though, I do like having a fixed sense of regional flavor and it gives the confederation qualifying some heady importance. Er, at least it did prior to this change.



GunnerJacket said:


> Here's a thought, what if the teams within each group only play teams IN THE OTHER GROUP? This way each team is guaranteed 3 games (just like now) and they play the same schedule (just like now). It's a bit odd to think you don't play anyone in your own group, but this way the primary issues of schedule equality and minimal number of games is addressed.


Quoting myself because I thought for sure I'd get some feedback on this idea, yet nothing? Not even a "_What were you thinking_?!" But I'm truly curious about your thoughts.


----------



## fidalgo




----------



## Rover030

GunnerJacket said:


> Quoting myself because I thought for sure I'd get some feedback on this idea, yet nothing? Not even a "_What were you thinking_?!" But I'm truly curious about your thoughts.


That idea was also already in the proposal of Samacado that was worked out a bit more. So I guess that explains it a bit.


----------



## slipperydog

Rob Harris ‏@RobHarris
United States considered favourites to host first 48-team WC in 2026 - potentially co-hosting w/Mexico & Canada

Makes you wonder which cities in Mexico and Canada would host, as I'm not sure how many stadiums in those countries are currently suitable for a World Cup. And from a funding/entitlement/construction perspective, nine years isn't as long as you think.


----------



## Observador_SJC

^^

Mexico has plenty of stadia to host a World Cup alone.


----------



## slipperydog

Mexico would have to do a lot of work on its stadiums for it to be ready to host its own World Cup, assuming a minimum capacity of 35-40k. Currently, in a combined 2026 World Cup I would guess Mexico would get 3-4 host cities (Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara, and perhaps Puebla).


----------



## Observador_SJC

^^
Still less work than Canada, IMO.


----------



## cmc

_*In my opinion 48 teams is too many...
if any change, should've been 40*_


----------



## carlosfng

As expected, Conmebol got f'ed in the a by everyone else. I sure hope Asian and African teams stop being mediocre before 2026, so they justify having more spots than Conmebol and Concacaf. Also hope the eventual dead rubbers won't cause shady backhand agreements again (penalty shootouts in group stages - great, why not make penalty shootouts obligatory in every draw ever; oh and lots of fun 0-0s will arise in the group stage too). Oh and of course Europe had to add even more unnecessary spots - might as well make the attendance of whatever remains of the eurozone by 2026 obligatory. Reminds me of when in ancient times the Home Nations wanted guaranteed spots, just because...



JimB said:


> Have I missed something? What did Infantino say about England being awarded the next World Cup to be held in Europe (after 2018)? And what do you fellas mean by it having been "sold" or "bought"?
> 
> Seems to me that an awful lot will have to change for a sufficient number of FIFA delegates to support an English bid given that previous English bids have fared so poorly.


Figure of speech, at least in my case. I believe that this current FIFA leadership is more friendly to England, and I also believe that in 2030 England's bid will probably be favored over any South American one. Simply because of financial reasons, therefore the use of the word "bought". Granted, the new voting procedure now makes it a bit unpredictable. For better or worse...



alexandru.mircea said:


> They did, and they lost. Sepp won the elections on that platform of reducing the European WC berth. Fact is, Europe (even if allied with South America) will always be largely outvoted by Africa + Asia + the Carribean inside FIFA, if the interests of these blocks diverge.


Well for starters, I think even as of today Europe has too many spots. But even disregarding that opinion, Infantino was the undersecretary of the biggest Europhile in FIFA, and yet here he is pandering to Blatter's base again. FIFAGate was just a changing of the guard, it seems.



CFCman said:


> I think a 40-team tournament, comprising 10 groups of 4 teams, is the best way to go. In this format, the top 3 teams in each group and the best bottom teams across the groups advance to the knockout round of 32. This means that a greater number of group games, in comparison to the present format, would be truly competitive and wouldn't be dead-rubber matches.
> 
> I'd allocate the continental spots as follows:
> 
> UEFA - 15
> CAF - 7
> CONMEBOL - 6
> CONCACAF -4
> AFC - 6
> Oceania - 1
> Host nation - 1
> If there is more than one host, the affected confederation would lose a qualifying spot. For eg, if the US and Mexico get to co-host the 2026 edition, then CONCACAF's spots would be reduced to 3; if it is a co-hosting arrangement between two African countries, CAF's qualifying spots would be reduced to 6, and so on.


I like your idea better. I personally would have 14 Europe, 6 for Asia-Africa-Americas, 1 Oceania and 1 for the host. Though then again, the multinational host issue would still loom.


----------



## carlosfng

Observador_SJC said:


> They also intend to merge CONCACAF and COMENBOL qualifying, so the 2 confederations would have a total of 12.5 spots.


That may happen now with the expanded format, though to be honest no one in Conmebol likes the idea, due to the long travels. Depends on how they arrange the qualifiers though. Hopefully they keep them entertaining, unlike in other places of the world...

Something I found on twitter, on how USA 2026 might look. Factor in the penalty shootouts. How exciting, lol:


----------



## Observador_SJC

^^

For the long distances, they could do the same as in NBA: an "on the road" system where during one round teams from the South travel to North and play only as visitors, and vice versa. This way the number of long travels will be minimal.


----------



## endrity

It's actually a great decision and a great format. Top teams still play a max of 7 games, the additional 16 teams will only play 2 games. It changes very little to be honest. 

As for diluting, it's clear that more and more teams are able to play at a professional level. What we saw in the Euros was that every team was able to set up properly and defend. Now, the incentives will work a bit differently here as teams need to try to win so it should actually make for some more interesting games. 

In Africa the differences between the top teams aren't very large. The additions of Egypt or Nigeria are hardly going to dilute the tournament. There are a few extra teams in Asia that play at a similar level, though it's clear that the 7th-9th spots are reserved for China. FIFA wants to get China to play football, and no one can blame them. 

North America is a bit tricky, there aren't 3-4 extra good teams there but I actually like the idea of uniting the South and North Americas qualification tournament. 12 teams should be good enough to get the good South Americans plus US and Mexico in. So with the possible exception of 1-2 extra teams from Asia, hardly a lot diluting going on. 

The main challenge will be hosting and logistics. But with the US being the favorite to host the initial tournament, that won't be much of a problem. It is expected that countries will profit from the larger tournament so as to allow for larger investments. England (probably hosting some games in Cardiff and Glasgow?) is probably favorite after that given that it will have been away from Europe for 12 years, and they also have all the necessary stadiums and training fields to host it. 2034 is probably going to go back to Asia and China should have developed well enough to have stadiums and training fields at that point.


----------



## Guest

slipperydog said:


> Rob Harris ‏@RobHarris
> United States considered favourites to host first 48-team WC in 2026 - potentially co-hosting w/Mexico & Canada
> 
> Makes you wonder which cities in Mexico and Canada would host, as I'm not sure how many stadiums in those countries are currently suitable for a World Cup. And from a funding/entitlement/construction perspective, nine years isn't as long as you think.


Azteca
Monterrey CF new stadium
And stadio omnilife (Chivas Gudalajara)

I think for now, those would certainly feature. And let's face, that's probably it. It wouldn't be more than three host venues in Mexico or Canada. 3 in Mex, 3 in Canada, and perhaps 9 in US.


----------



## GunnerJacket

carlosfng said:


> As expected, Conmebol got f'ed in the a by everyone else.


South America is the least populated of the confederations yet 60% of their members will qualify! 70% in years they host! How is that getting "_f'ed_?" 

Africa has 3x the population of South America and Asia has 10x, and they're becoming larger and larger financial contributors to the event. If you're gonna rant about UEFA getting preferential treatment then you've no grounds for suggesting CONMEBOL deserves more. I think it's also safe to say that in the future the allotments will be redistributed again as populations change and Asia and Africa grow stronger leagues, so this is merely the beginning of a trend.


----------



## Guest

GunnerJacket said:


> South America is the least populated of the confederations yet 60% of their members will qualify! 70% in years they host! How is that getting "_f'ed_?"
> 
> Africa has 3x the population of South America and Asia has 10x, and they're becoming larger and larger financial contributors to the event. If you're gonna rant about UEFA getting preferential treatment then you've no grounds for suggesting CONMEBOL deserves more.


Agree, when 60% of your confederation qualifies, you can't have much to complain about.

The other point is that this expansion was made based on political pressure from Africa/Asia primarily. 

UEFA and Conmebol have been given sweeteners, but a confederation with 10 members is never going to have as much clout as ones with 50.


----------



## Rover030

Knitemplar said:


> For 2026, even if it were a pan-CONCACAF World Cup, this is how I would see 2026 spread out (depending on whether LA gets the 2024 or 2028 Summer Olympic Games). If LA gets the 2028 Summer Games, this is how WC 2026 wil be distributed:
> 
> Opening game & OC - Los Angeles
> 
> Because of their relative populations and soccer heritage, it would be fair if Canada (35 mil) got two hosting venues (its 2 biggest cities -- Toronto and Montreal), and Mexico (100+ million) got 3 venues: Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City. Leaving 11 venues for the US (NYC, LA, Chicago, DC, SF Bay Area, Dallas, St. Louis, Boston, Houston, Denver, Miami)
> 
> The 2 semi-final games would probably be Chicago and Washington, DC.
> 
> And the Final Game would be in New York City. (So a reverse of 1994.)


I don't see why Canada and Mexico would agree with not getting any of the opening, semi-final and final matches. It would make more sense if the US got the final, Mexico the opening game and a semi-final and Canada one semi-final.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

The 16x3 format is the best way to deal with 48 teams.

I don't like the idea of a USA-Mexico-Canada tournament. Nothing against those nations as they all have a lot to commend them. My problem is with the geographical dilution of it all. It is an entire continent and the fans will be lost amongst it. You won't have the same feel as was present in Rio where it felt like the World Cup and football supporters had taken over. At least not to the same extent. There is also the vast cost, both financial and in terms of time, involved in flying large distances between matches. For the visiting supporter the experience will be inferior. Environmentally it is far from ideal too.

Last year I went to a very French Euros. In 2014 I attended a wonderfully Brazilian World Cup. I think something will be lost if that national flavour is diminished.

The obvious upside is that larger stadia will be used on average so more people will get to attend. Would they charge the same ticket prices in Mexico as in the USA and Canada? That could cause a problem.


----------



## cyril sneer

USA can hold the tournament in its own right without any stadia from Mexico or Canada.

I worry this will set a precedent for future continental based tournaments rather than individual bidding nations.


----------



## GunnerJacket

slipperydog said:


> I don't understand why people are so focused on the "one bid, one host country" model. Yes, it's been tradition to just have one host country, but if you're expanding the tournament, it makes sense to expand the number of host countries of a tournament. It is the WORLD cup after all. It's part of being open-minded and evolving and adapting.


- Do all host nations receive automatic berths, and if so is it simply assumed those cut into the allotment from their confederation?
- How many different languages/customs/laws do teams/visitors now need to prepare for when traveling to these events? How difficult does this make for travel planning for teams and tourists? How far flung might someone have to travel to follow their team deep into the event?
- What if there's a decided difference in the calibre of facilities hosting the teams? This applies to single hosts, too, now that the scope of event has grown so large, but can be more marked across different nations. 
- How different will be the gameday climates, and will that give some teams certain advantages over the course of the event?

I'm certainly not against the idea, but I do think it becomes a little unwieldy. More specifically, if I'm the US and perfectly capable of hosting on my own then I'm hesitant to share because it means several cities will miss out. At the least I'd only share with Canada since there's a very real chance Mexico could host on their own someday, too. 

As I said long ago, FIFA should inventory the hosting capacities of all their members and then see how their standards would permit or restrict the ability of nations to host. For instance, does this increase in teams make a Netherlands/Belgium bid infeasible? Does it mean the only way certain regions host is by requiring joint bids? After all, I'm unsure South Africa could accommodate so many teams. Ditto Australia and many others. 

It's not impossible, it's simply more complex and cumbersome.


----------



## CFCman

carlosfng said:


> That is the only way it would work, regionalized group play. At least in the NAFTA 2026 or China 2034 examples. Other regions will have it easier *(UK 2030, Benelux or Iberian bids)*. For other regions not as developed, it will be hard to nearly impossible. But guess we have to wait and see how development happens in the following decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes the most sense. Still think it should be 40 at most, with more teams probably only given to Concacaf, CAF and AFC; but it's done I guess. Plus, a Conmebol-Concacaf union was eventually happening anyway and will now be inevitable to keep balance, even as it will be painful to implement. Anyway, if too many teams were wanted then let there be too many games; no penalty shootout nonsense, so the grinding 0-0 teams do not get encouraged to do so for three points. The (mostly European) clubs that tend to complain about international duty will have to suck it up. Usually it is the reverse that happens, club duty impacting player form at the international level.


The bolded will be feasible bids. For instance, England and Wales could submit a joint bid for 2030, with England providing 11 stadia, while Wales provide 2 stadia.

English venues:
London (Wembley, Stamford Bridge)
Liverpool (Anfield)
Manchester (Old Trafford and Etihad stadium)
Southampton (St. Mary's stadium)
Newcastle (Sports Direct Arena)
Birmingham (Villa Park)
Leeds (Elland Road)
Leicester (King Power stadium/new stadium)
Coventry (Ricoh Arena)

Wales venues:
Cardiff (Millennium and City of Cardiff stadium)

The opening game could hold at the Millennium stadium, while Wembley gets the final.
The 2 semifinals may be played at Stamford Bridge and Millennium stadium.


----------



## Nacre

The differences are that 1) Wales does not see itself as the equal of England, and 2) Wales is in close geographical proximity to England. 

Canada and Mexico will not be content with a 15% share of a World Cup. They will not be satisfied being treated as junior partners. Montreal will want to host either the opening match, the finals or semi-finals, and so will Mexico City.

It would also become a logistical nightmare coordinating a World Cup across a continent, three languages and four legal systems.

This is only being pushed because CONCACAF's president is Canadian and the Canadians want to host the World Cup without building any new stadiums. It makes no sense for the USA or Mexico.


----------



## Knitemplar

Juanpabloangel said:


> Can't see why you need to add in Canada and Mexico to any US bid... surely there is enough capacity of stadia in that country. Besides the Canadian national team is not the best.
> 
> I would say that in terms of a world cup in South America with the number of countries involved, the logical answer would be a three way tournament. Argentina, Uruguay and Chile could host... or likewise Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil (who have enough stadia themselves)- but I would like to see an anniversary games and it would leave less pressure on the other two countries.
> 
> Still think USA will get the next one ( i imagine FIFA has already agreed with sponsors) and England or Spain afterwards... though an English world cup is long overdue.
> 
> After that the South Americans or the Chinese would be in the mix... much as i'd like an Australia/NZ world cup


They're talking this joint continental bid -- even though the US could handle it very well on its own -- to pave the way for a joint Argentina-Uruguay 2030 Centennial World Cup. Obviously, Uruguay will not be able to host 48 teams; therefore it will have to partner with Argentina; and between the 2 of them, host the 48-team format. That's the only reason they're talking about a joint hosting for 2026.


----------



## Rover030

GunnerJacket said:


> - Do all host nations receive automatic berths, and if so is it simply assumed those cut into the allotment from their confederation?
> - How many different languages/customs/laws do teams/visitors now need to prepare for when traveling to these events? How difficult does this make for travel planning for teams and tourists? How far flung might someone have to travel to follow their team deep into the event?
> - What if there's a decided difference in the calibre of facilities hosting the teams? This applies to single hosts, too, now that the scope of event has grown so large, but can be more marked across different nations.
> - How different will be the gameday climates, and will that give some teams certain advantages over the course of the event?
> 
> I'm certainly not against the idea, but I do think it becomes a little unwieldy. More specifically, if I'm the US and perfectly capable of hosting on my own then I'm hesitant to share because it means several cities will miss out. At the least I'd only share with Canada since there's a very real chance Mexico could host on their own someday, too.
> 
> As I said long ago, FIFA should inventory the hosting capacities of all their members and then see how their standards would permit or restrict the ability of nations to host. *For instance, does this increase in teams make a Netherlands/Belgium bid infeasible?* Does it mean the only way certain regions host is by requiring joint bids? After all, I'm unsure South Africa could accommodate so many teams. Ditto Australia and many others.
> 
> It's not impossible, it's simply more complex and cumbersome.


I'm from the Netherlands, and yes, hosting a world cup together with Belgium is impossible now. It would already be very difficult to get community/government support, but now it's impossible. If there is a need for 16 stadiums, which all have to be 35k+ (assuming the requirement goes down because of the increase in teams), the Netherlands would need 8, Belgium 7 and we could probably convince Luxembourg to build one indoor-kind of stadium with a capacity of 35k.

Right now, the 8th stadium in the Netherlands has a capacity of 22k... Within that top 8, at least 3, probably 5 of the stadia would never reach 80% attendance after the world cup again, while they are now perfect for their use.

In Belgium, the situation is even worse. So I can pretty safely say that there will never be a world cup bid from the Netherlands and Belgium again, except if Germany was somehow willing to work together with us, but I can't see that happening as Germany could organise it themselves (and has done so recently).


----------



## quanman247

CFCman said:


> The bolded will be feasible bids. For instance, England and Wales could submit a joint bid for 2030, with England providing 11 stadia, while Wales provide 2 stadia.
> 
> English venues:
> London (Wembley, Stamford Bridge)
> Liverpool (Anfield)
> Manchester (Old Trafford and Etihad stadium)
> Southampton (St. Mary's stadium)
> Newcastle (Sports Direct Arena)
> Birmingham (Villa Park)
> Leeds (Elland Road)
> Leicester (King Power stadium/new stadium)
> Coventry (Ricoh Arena)
> 
> Wales venues:
> Cardiff (Millennium and City of Cardiff stadium)
> 
> The opening game could hold at the Millennium stadium, while Wembley gets the final.
> The 2 semifinals may be played at Stamford Bridge and Millennium stadium.


I think Old Trafford would be preferable than Stamford Bridge. And Wales will need at least a new 50,000 or over capacity stadium in Swansea. And here we go:
- Final: Wembley
- Semi-final: Old Trafford and Cardiff respectively
- Quarter-finals: St. James Park, Anfield, Wembley and the new stadium in Swansea


----------



## cyril sneer

I don't know why there is all this talk of a England/Wales bid. England wouldn't need any Welsh stadiums. We are one of only a handful of nations who have ample of stadia that could host the expanded World Cup all by ourselves along with USA, China, Russia, Germany, France and maybe Spain.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

^^

If they want a Centenary world cup.. which both the presidents of Argentina and Uruguay agree about incidentally, I would struggle to see how they would manage 12 world cup standard stadia. Certainly Uruguay can manage one... Argentina has big standing areas and would need significant structural works... with Buenos Aires having two decent sized stadiums, one which is new, home of Independiente and the final venue from 1978 of my team River Plate. Rosario, Cordoba and Mendoza have decent sized stadia and there is a modern stadium in La Plata, which is part of the province of Buenos Aires.
The home of Velez which hosts Argentine rugby team, is big enough to expand but the question is who pays for the bill... I can only see a combination with Brazil as a viable option for the number of countries that would have to be hosted.

As for the USA bid... happy to see another world cup there, although I am inclined to think England should get a second edition before any mediocre North American football nation... only because England is the indisputable home of football! 

If there is an English bid... definitely not in Chelsea's stadium... It would have to be Wembley but it should be taken to all other cities before a second London venue is picked.


----------



## Knitemplar

Juanpabloangel said:


> ^^
> 
> As for the USA bid... happy to see another world cup there, although I am inclined to think England should get a second edition before any mediocre North American football nation... only because England is the indisputable home of football!


Uhmmm... England / Europe is precluded from being considered for 2026 because Europe last hosted in 2018 (Russia). So much for your distorted judgment.



> If there is an English bid... definitely not in Chelsea's stadium... It would have to be Wembley but it should be taken to all other cities before a second London venue is picked.


There would be at least 3 suitable venues for London: as you said Wembley, CHelsea, and Olympic Stadium (if they haven't torn it down by 2034). BTW, 2034 will be the next time Asia can bid (after Qatar 2022); so I think China's going to get the 2034 World Cup. England will be a LONNNNG WAY off. 

To wit:

2018 - Europe / Russia
2022 - Asia / Qatar
2026 - No. American / USA
2030 - possible So. America / Uruguay- Argentina

2034 - probably between Africa / Oceania and Asia. So, maybe Morocco-Tunisia-Algeria; China of course; and Australia. It will be China's turn. 

2038 - having done the other continents, back to Europe:

- the 4 Scandinavian countries? 
- Spain-Portugal (Spain last hosted in 1982)? 
- Germany again? 
- Poland / Hungary / Czech Rep / Slovakia bloc? 
- _but the UK (like the Benelux are too small for the 48-nation format) 
_


----------



## Kerrybai

Knitemplar said:


> Uhmmm... England / Europe is precluded from being considered for 2026 because Europe last hosted in 2018 (Russia). So much for your distorted judgment.
> 
> 
> 
> There would be at least 3 suitable venues for London: as you said Wembley, CHelsea, and Olympic Stadium (if they haven't torn it down by 2034). BTW, 2034 will be the next time Asia can bid (after Qatar 2022); so I think China's going to get the 2034 World Cup. England will be a LONNNNG WAY off.
> 
> To wit:
> 
> 2018 - Europe / Russia
> 2022 - Asia / Qatar
> 2026 - No. American / USA
> 2030 - possible So. America / Uruguay- Argentina
> 
> 2034 - probably between Africa / Oceania and Asia. So, maybe Morocco-Tunisia-Algeria; China of course; and Australia. It will be China's turn.
> 
> 2038 - having done the other continents, back to Europe:
> 
> - the 4 Scandinavian countries?
> - Spain-Portugal (Spain last hosted in 1982)?
> - Germany again?
> - Poland / Hungary / Czech Rep / Slovakia bloc?
> - _*but the UK (like the Benelux are too small for the 48-nation format) *
> _


How is the UK too small ? It can easily host a 48 team tournament, the stadiums are already in place.


----------



## cyril sneer

The four Scandinavian nations can barely muster enough venues to host the Euros let alone the World Cup. 

2026 will almost certainly be awarded to USA. 

I'm not expecting England to ever host the World Cup in my lifetime. FIFA hate England because we exposed their corrupt set up for all the world to see.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Juanpabloangel said:


> ^^
> 
> If they want a Centenary world cup.. which both the presidents of Argentina and Uruguay agree about incidentally, I would struggle to see how they would manage 12 world cup standard stadia. Certainly Uruguay can manage one... Argentina has big standing areas and would need significant structural works... with Buenos Aires having two decent sized stadiums, one which is new, home of Independiente and the final venue from 1978 of my team River Plate. Rosario, Cordoba and Mendoza have decent sized stadia and there is a modern stadium in La Plata, which is part of the province of Buenos Aires.
> The home of Velez which hosts Argentine rugby team, is big enough to expand but the question is who pays for the bill... I can only see a combination with Brazil as a viable option for the number of countries that would have to be hosted.
> 
> As for the USA bid... happy to see another world cup there, although I am inclined to think England should get a second edition before any mediocre North American football nation... only because England is the indisputable home of football!
> 
> If there is an English bid... definitely not in Chelsea's stadium... It would have to be Wembley but it should be taken to all other cities before a second London venue is picked.


This is why I think the expansion is problematic in terms of hosting. You could host with Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil. Perhaps including cities as far north as Sao Paulo. As soon as you do that Brazil is going to want Rio involved and then you've lost the focus on Argentina and Uruguay. Those two hosting would be a great story but it is hard to see it happening now. Are there 48 quality training camp facilities in the two countries? Forgive my ignorance if there are.

I would go the other way to some extent for an English bid. The country is geographically very small and everyone would be within easy reach of a stadium if we followed the proposal I set out below. I think that 16 stadia are required for a 48 team tournament. The later stages should be geographically spread but more cities should be able to use more than one stadium.

London 3 (Wembley plus two from Stamford Bridge, White Hart Lane and Arsenal)
Manchester 2 (Old Trafford and City)
Liverpool 2 (Anfield and a new Everton stadium)
Newcastle (St James' Park)
Sunderland (Stadium of Light)
Middlesbrough (Riverside, expanded and a nod to history as they hosted in 66)
Leeds (Elland Road - modernised)
Sheffield (probably Hillsborough but possibly Bramall Lane - modernised/expanded)
Birmingham (Villa Park)
Leicester (expanded)
Southampton (expanded)
1 other from Bristol, Norwich, Derby or Wolverhampton.

Geographically that lot cover England very well. Particularly if Bristol is in a position to grab the last spot. We're right at the limits of England being able to sensibly host and I would be including 4 grounds that would need expanding or replacing with larger venues. Although none of the clubs that would occupy these would disgrace a 40,000 seater many would prefer 35,000 and Bristol is the biggest doubt but best placed geographically to complement the others.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

carlosfng said:


>


I like this. Looks much better than I would have expected, and I'm in favour (only just) of the expansion.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Some decent groups there.

Argentina - Honduras - Italy
Brazil - Mexico - Ireland
Portugal - Ghana - Iran
France - Senegal - Equador
Chile - Congo - Netherlands

However, we would have to plumb even greater depths to screw up England - Panama - UAE


----------



## GunnerJacket

cyril sneer said:


> I don't know why there is all this talk of a England/Wales bid. England wouldn't need any Welsh stadiums.





Kerrybai said:


> How is the UK too small ? It can easily host a 48 team tournament, the stadiums are already in place.


In response to both, I think the concern stems from FIFA's current guidelines that limits to 1 the number metro areas with 2 stadiums involved. Under these current policies you couldn't have all of London, Liverpool and Manchester featuring 2+ stadiums. So unless this policy is changed for the expanded tournament that could make hosting at least a little bit more difficult even for England and Spain. At the least you're likely looking at 1-2 more venues added to the roster that would need upgrades to make sure of the quality of the bid compared to what England had on offer last time. 



Knitemplar said:


> There would be at least 3 suitable venues for London: as you said Wembley, CHelsea, and Olympic Stadium (if they haven't torn it down by 2034).


The catch with many English stadia is FIFA's preference for large amounts of open space surrounding the facilities. For security, fan events, merchandising, etc. Would be tougher to manage those same conditions surrounding any of the Emirates, the New WHL, or the proposed expanded Bridge. I'm not saying it's impossible or couldn't be managed for a mere 3-5 games, but FIFA has a stated preference for venues with more open space available.


----------



## Ioannes_

GunnerJacket said:


> In response to both, I think the concern stems from FIFA's current guidelines that limits to 1 the number metro areas with 2 stadiums involved. Under these current policies you couldn't have all of London, Liverpool and Manchester featuring 2+ stadiums. So unless this policy is changed for the expanded tournament that could make hosting at least a little bit more difficult even for England and Spain. At the least you're likely looking at 1-2 more venues added to the roster that would need upgrades to make sure of the quality of the bid compared to what England had on offer last time.
> 
> The catch with many English stadia is FIFA's preference for large amounts of open space surrounding the facilities. For security, fan events, merchandising, etc. Would be tougher to manage those same conditions surrounding any of the Emirates, the New WHL, or the proposed expanded Bridge. I'm not saying it's impossible or couldn't be managed for a mere 3-5 games, but FIFA has a stated preference for venues with more open space available.


Is an insult to true football fans, to consider the London Olympic Stadium as a football field worthy of a world cup.


----------



## cyril sneer

London - Wembley, Emirates
Manchester - Old Trafford
Liverpool - Anfield
Newcastle - St James Park
Birmingham - Villa Park
Sheffield - Hillsborough
Leeds - Elland Road
Southampton - St Marys
Brighton - Amex
Nottingham - The City Ground
Coventry - Ricoh
Derby - Pride Park
Sunderland - Stadium of light

14 venues should do it, out of those only Brighton, Nottingham, Southampton,Derby and Coventry would need a small capacity increase. Still have the likes of Milton Keynes, Middlesborugh, Norwich, Bristol, etc, in reserve too.


----------



## CFCman

I believe FIFA's policy only limits a city/town to a max of 2 stadia. So that could mean that Manchester's venue would be only Old Trafford. 

As long as this policy is in place, a Wales/England bid for a 48-team World Cup is very much realistic.


----------



## cyril sneer

Wales would only be able to contribute one stadium though. The rest are far too small.


----------



## CFCman

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> This is why I think the expansion is problematic in terms of hosting. You could host with Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil. Perhaps including cities as far north as Sao Paulo. As soon as you do that Brazil is going to want Rio involved and then you've lost the focus on Argentina and Uruguay. Those two hosting would be a great story but it is hard to see it happening now. Are there 48 quality training camp facilities in the two countries? Forgive my ignorance if there are.
> 
> I would go the other way to some extent for an English bid. The country is geographically very small and everyone would be within easy reach of a stadium if we followed the proposal I set out below. I think that 16 stadia are required for a 48 team tournament. The later stages should be geographically spread but more cities should be able to use more than one stadium.
> 
> London 3 (Wembley plus two from Stamford Bridge, White Hart Lane and Arsenal)
> Manchester 2 (Old Trafford and City)
> Liverpool 2 (Anfield and a new Everton stadium)
> Newcastle (St James' Park)
> Sunderland (Stadium of Light)
> Middlesbrough (Riverside, expanded and a nod to history as they hosted in 66)
> Leeds (Elland Road - modernised)
> Sheffield (probably Hillsborough but possibly Bramall Lane - modernised/expanded)
> Birmingham (Villa Park)
> Leicester (expanded)
> Southampton (expanded)
> 1 other from Bristol, Norwich, Derby or Wolverhampton.
> 
> Geographically that lot cover England very well. Particularly if Bristol is in a position to grab the last spot. We're right at the limits of England being able to sensibly host and I would be including 4 grounds that would need expanding or replacing with larger venues. Although none of the clubs that would occupy these would disgrace a 40,000 seater many would prefer 35,000 and Bristol is the biggest doubt but best placed geographically to complement the others.


FIFA could likely lower the minimum stadium capacity to 30k for group games and Round of 16 matches. So, some English/Welsh stadia with such a capacity would be cleared to host WC matches. 

In my 'revised' list, I'd still go with:
England-
Manchester (Old Trafford)
London (Wembley and Chelsea's 60k arena; because Emirates, WHL, and Wembley are all located in North London)
Leeds (Elland Road)
Liverpool (Anfield)
Birmingham (Villa Park)
Sheffield (Hillsborough modernized)
Southampton (St Mary's stadium)
Newcastle (St James Park)
Middlesbrough (Riverside stadium)

Wales-
Millennium stadium and Cardiff City stadium (Cardiff)
Swansea (Liberty stadium could be expanded, which is more likely; or the Welsh may build a new stadium).

Millennium stadium and Old Trafford get the semis; Wembley hosts the final; Millennium gets the opening match; Cardiff City stadium and Swansea would be amongst the Round of 16 hosts; while Anfield, Stamford Bridge, St James Park and Millennium stadium host the q/finals. 


Of course, Wales is a separate country from England, so Cardiff can have two venues.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Ioannes_ said:


> Is an insult to true football fans, to consider the London Olympic Stadium as a football field worthy of a world cup.


"Glass houses..." and all that, sir. And seeing as I didn't even mention that venue...


----------



## cyril sneer

CFCman said:


> FIFA could likely lower the minimum stadium capacity to 30k for group games and Round of 16 matches. So, some English/Welsh stadia with such a capacity would be cleared to host WC matches.


In that case, my list of English stadias tick the boxes without Wales measley contribution. We have more stadias in reserve than Wales have that meet the criteria for Pete's sake.


----------



## Knitemplar

Kerrybai said:


> How is the UK too small ? It can easily host a 48 team tournament, the stadiums are already in place.


You must have missed the comment at the 2022 selection when England was booted out FIRST in the voting. Sure, the UK has the minimum number of stadia to fulfill the current 32-team format. But FIFA's main comment was that there is NOT enough open space around the stadia to fill hospitality tents, fan zones, and generally some wide open space for Security and Emergency vehicles to come and go, together with the Hospitality tents and Fan zones that are now _de rigeur_ for such events. You can either take that to heart or dismiss it. But that does exist in the minds of the FIFA planners and their consultants and sponsors. 

Notice that at the terrorist attack outside the Stade de France last year, there were very few fatalities outside the stadium because the Stade has considerable open space around the stadium, which half of England's stadia does not. So unless, they demolish houses around the stadia in question, the UK will not be hosting a World Cup in the next 3 decades at least.


----------



## cyril sneer

FIFA seem to make the rules up as they go along to make sure whoever bribes them wins. They changed the rules on the number of stadias per city to suit Russia and Qatar.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

I was saying that the USA as a football nation shouldn't have had held the world cup more times than England, or indeed Spain.. they only add geography to the world cup, as do Mexico... yes they both bring fans but it beggars belief they can host twice... they will of course.. its already been awarded to them by FIFA... no one has any doubt about that.

The Southern Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay bid would be one to welcome (I have suggested it before too).. adding Curritiba, Porto Alegre plus possibly Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo to the cities I mentioned before would be an awesome world cup... in that case the two stadiums in Buenos Aires would be River Plates's Monumental, and Estadio Unico of La Plata... Uruguay would have one but I would award them a semi final and Opening game.

Moreover I would love to see a Pan American qualifying let the northern teams really qualify for a change.

England bid..

Wembley
Old Trafford, Manchester
City of Manchester, the owners of this club may have expanded it to a million by then.
Anfield, Liverpool
St James, Newcastle
St of Light, Sunderland
Derby, expanded
Villa Park, Birmingham, I think 50k plan has permission
Bristol, expanded
Southampton, expanded
Brighton, expanded
and back to London for the last spot... I see your point about North/South in London, if Chelsea's new ground is better than the London stadium then so be it!


----------



## Juanpabloangel

FIFA wants more space around the stadia does it... who votes for proper football stadia where we watch football for a world cup where football comes home. Open up all the convention centres for world cup hospitality.


----------



## Ioannes_

cyril sneer said:


> FIFA seem to make the rules up as they go along to make sure whoever bribes them wins. They changed the rules on the number of stadias per city to suit Russia and Qatar.





This is a sterile debate, FIFA has already sold the next World Cups to England and the United States to clean up its corrupt image that assigned Qatar and Russia WC, on the condition of half exploiting the extra profits and stopping corruption investigations.
Even the members of the Spanish Football Federation are proud to know the plan, which went on to appoint José María Villar UEFA President in UEFA / FIFA bleaching operation

Stop wasting time hypothesis.


FIFA = CIO


----------



## Knitemplar

Juanpabloangel said:


> FIFA wants more space around the stadia does it... who votes for proper football stadia where we watch football for a world cup where football comes home. Open up all the convention centres for world cup hospitality.


Uhmmm, you're never going to be a bid consultant. That's not how it works.


----------



## Rekarte

I think would be more interesting England + Scotland than England + Wales


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Rover030 said:


> I'm from the Netherlands, and yes, hosting a world cup together with Belgium is impossible now.


It had already been impossible in the 32 team format. Even if there were enough stadiums, they wouldn't have been large enough and wouldn't have had enough hospitality facilities, nowhere near. 


===

The "one stadium per city" policy will surely change definitely now. We could start the snowball rolling... By doing a petition on Change.org. Is anyone interested? 

===

RE the USA hosting: I don't find 32 years of wait between hosting the World Cup as "too soon". Germany also had the World Cup awarded 32 years after a previous time they hosted it. 

Bringing the World Cup to the USA doesn't mean just that, it also means bringing the tournament in a certain confederation and making it easier for all the fans in that confederation to attend. Even if their countries can't host right now for one reason or another, it means making it comfortable for fans from Mexico, Central America, the Carribean, Canada etc. to attend. That's 565 million people. You can't keep putting them on the longest roads edition after edition because the only country able to host, right now, in that confederation has had the WC already, once, a fairly long time ago. This of course applies to Africa and Asia too. In Europe, for example, after one's country has hosted, those people will soon have another country very close to them that hosts the World Cup, where they can reach very easily. In the 16 years from 1990 to 2006 the heart of Europe has had three World Cups in very close distance: Italy, France and Germany. The longest distance from the cities that have hosted is 1735km from Palermo to Hamburg - that's like the US East Coast hosting three times in 16 years, as Foxborough to Orlando is 1760km. And next year we in Europe are going to have the WC nearby once again, not *as* close as in the previous three editions but still much, more convenient compared to how it is to travel if you come from, say, Costa Rica, South Africa or Australia.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Europe is hosting too often, I'm saying that when a certain confederation's "turn" has come and you really can't justify more wait for them, if there's only one country in that confederation that can host, then so be it, that country should host regardless. This applies to Africa too: if 30 years on since it hosted South Africa is still the only country in Africa that can host, then South Africa should host again. Three decades for _an entire confederation_ is already a hugely long time.

The way I see it:

2010 Africa
2014 South America
2018 Europe
2022 Asia (20 years of wait)
2026 North America (32 years of wait) (US)
2030 South America (16 years of wait) (Uruguay and Argentina for the Centenary's sake)
2034 Africa (24 years of wait) 
2038 Europe (20 years of wait)
2042 Asia (20 years of wait)

* Without the occasion of the Centenary I'd have had Africa in 2030 instead and South America in 2034, so 20 years of wait for each of these confederations. But the Centenary is worth properly celebrating IMO.


----------



## cyril sneer

Realistically, what African nation would have the infrastructure and stadiums to host a World Cup, other than South Africa? I don't think we'll see another African World Cup for a long time.


----------



## bigchrisfgb

cyril sneer said:


> The four Scandinavian nations can barely muster enough venues to host the Euros let alone the World Cup.
> 
> 2026 will almost certainly be awarded to USA.
> 
> *I'm not expecting England to ever host the World Cup in my lifetime. FIFA hate England because we exposed their corrupt set up for all the world to see.*


I only think we should focus on a Euro bid instead.


----------



## Rover030

cyril sneer said:


> Realistically, what African nation would have the infrastructure and stadiums to host a World Cup, other than South Africa? I don't think we'll see another African World Cup for a long time.


Well Morocco got pretty close to winning the 2010 bid. Some sources say they should have won it even. With the new format, they can't host it on their own I think, but a joint North African bid could be a possibility, if Morocco somehow fix both their political (Western Sahara) and their football problems (not doing Africa Cup 2015) with the neighbouring countries.

Because of the new voting system, joint bids that get the support from at least their entire confederation have a larger chance of succeeding anyway.


----------



## Rokto14

cyril sneer said:


> Realistically, what African nation would have the infrastructure and stadiums to host a World Cup, other than South Africa? I don't think we'll see another African World Cup for a long time.


Actually there are African nations who can host a WC other than just South Africa. Don't forget that its still more than 10 years away. Like c'mon if 2026 is held in North America, 2030 in Europe, 2034 can be held in Africa. Countries like Egypt, Morocco and Algeria can definitely host it. And anyway, African nations have the experience of hosting African Nations Cup every 2 years.


----------



## Knitemplar

Rokto14 said:


> Actually there are African nations who can host a WC other than just South Africa. Don't forget that its still more than 10 years away. Like c'mon if 2026 is held in North America, 2030 in Europe, 2034 can be held in Africa. Countries like Egypt, Morocco and Algeria can definitely host it. And anyway, African nations have the experience of hosting African Nations Cup every 2 years.


:lol: How young are you?


----------



## CFCman

My dream USA World Cup host cities would be:

Los Angeles (Rams stadium in Inglewood)
San Francisco (Levi's stadium)
Seattle (Century Link Field)
Phoenix (Univ of Phoenix stadium)
Washington D.C. (RFK stadium)
New Jersey (MetLife stadium)
Atlanta (Mercedes Benz stadium) 
Miami (Sunlife stadium) 
Houston (Reliant stadium)
Dallas (AT&T stadium)
Minneapolis (New Minneapolis stadium)
Indianapolis (Lucas oil stadium)
Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field)

*The Philadelphia choice is partly down to sentiments. As the US would be hosting the WC on its 250th independence anniversary, it would be a nice touch to host matches in the nation's first capital city, and the site of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.


----------



## isaidso

Knitemplar said:


> Because of their relative populations and soccer heritage, it would be fair if Canada (35 mil) got two hosting venues (its 2 biggest cities -- Toronto and Montreal), and Mexico (100+ million) got 3 venues: Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City. Leaving 11 venues for the US (NYC, LA, Chicago, DC, SF Bay Area, Dallas, St. Louis, Boston, Houston, Denver, Miami)
> 
> The 2 semi-final games would probably be Chicago and Washington, DC.
> 
> And the Final Game would be in New York City. (So a reverse of 1994.)


I doubt being limited to 3 cities would be acceptable to the CSA or Canadians, let alone 2. Then having 2 semi-finals and the final in the US? You'd have to split those 3 games between the 3 countries or it would be a non-starter. Who gets the final should be decided by lottery.

Anything less is tantamount to a US WC with crumbs being thrown to Canada/Mexico as an after thought. No thanks.


----------



## slipperydog

isaidso said:


> I doubt being limited to 3 cities would be acceptable to the CSA or Canadians, let alone 2. Then having 2 semi-finals and the final in the US? You'd have to split those 3 games between the 3 countries or it would be a non-starter. Who gets the final should be decided by lottery.
> 
> Anything less is tantamount to a US WC with crumbs being thrown to Canada/Mexico as an after thought. No thanks.


Sorry, but you guys don't really have the leverage to be making demands here.

Not acceptable to CSA or Canadians? Then by all means, go ahead and sit this one out. Means more for us.


----------



## Rokto14

Knitemplar said:


> :lol: How young are you?


The page number is my age


----------



## marokko

> Realistically, what African nation would have the infrastructure and stadiums to host a World Cup, other than South Africa? I don't think we'll see another African World Cup for a long time.


Actually it's very possible to expect a Moroccan bid for 2026. They are already lobbying for it at Fifa and Moroccan media constantly hint to such a possibility. I think Morocco deserves after 4/5 bids to host it ones. The country really loves the sport of football a lot. They are crazy about it


----------



## Knitemplar

marokko said:


> Actually it's very possible to expect a Moroccan bid for 2026. They are already lobbying for it at Fifa and Moroccan media constantly hint to such a possibility. I think Morocco deserves after 4/5 bids to host it ones. The country really loves the sport of football a lot. They are crazy about it


What weed are you smoking? Do you really think after the fiasco that is Qatar 2022 in the making, FIFA will return to another "muslim" country? Are you nuts?? hno:


----------



## Laurence2011

I wouldn't rule Morocco out, they could put together a fairly decent bid, but would need more time, even 9 years to prep for a WC isn't that long these days


----------



## Genbank

Knitemplar said:


> What weed are you smoking? Do you really think after the fiasco that is Qatar 2022 in the making, FIFA will return to another "muslim" country? Are you nuts?? hno:


As opposed to: after the fiasco of Brazil's world cup how FIFA could return to a Christian country? :nuts:


----------



## Knitemplar

Genbank said:


> As opposed to: after the fiasco of Brazil's world cup how FIFA could return to a Christian country? :nuts:


Who says Brazil 2014 was a fiasco? Making up your own news, I see.

Further, Russia was picked in 2010 before Brazil 2014 happened. And no, the 2014 WC was not as disastrous as you paint it; or as financially failed as the 2016 Olympics were. Whereas, Qatar 2022 is just 5 years away, and the world knows of all the human rights maltreatment of their workers, and you come up with a ridiculous statement like that? I see logic and common sense aren't your strong suits.


----------



## cyril sneer

Am I missing something here? Where are all these FIFA standard stadiums going to come from in Morroco? I just Wikipedia'd Morroco and it seems they have 8 or 9 stadums with suitable capacity all of which being athletics stadiums bar one. If thats the case, then no thanks.


----------



## isaidso

*Keep things civil folks and lets steer the conversation away from religion please. This is a 'Sports and Arenas' section of SSC and discussion should focus on that. A little leeway is fine but within reason. Thank you.*


----------



## isaidso

slipperydog said:


> Not acceptable to CSA or Canadians? Then by all means, go ahead and sit this one out. Means more for us.


Don't shoot the messenger. Sharing a WC means precisely that. The South Korea-Japan WC is a good example of what that looks like. If that's not going to happen, I doubt Canada would want to participate. Sitting it out would be preferable.

I'd much rather wait another 16-20 years and host a proper Canadian WC than be treated as a side show. It's not as if Canada is too small to host by itself. More than half the WC suitable stadia already exists and Canada already hosted a very successful Women's World Cup in 2015. The biggest obstacle has always been having a competitive men's side.

Montreal Olympic Stadium - holds 66,000; would need turf re-surfacing
Ottawa TD Place - holds 40,000
Toronto BMO Field - holds 40,000
Hamilton Tim Hortons - holds 40,000 
Winnipeg IGF Field - holds 40,000 
Regina New Mosaic - holds 40,000 
Edmonton Commonwealth - holds 56,000
Vancouver BC Place - holds 54,000 

Calgary, Quebec City, and Halifax would need new stadia. Likely a new 80,000 seat Olympic/WC stadium for Toronto as well. The investment required isn't insignificant but less than what other WC hosts have had to build.

*Canada's newest stadium in Regina*








Courtesy of the Regina Leader-Post


----------



## Ioannes_

CFCman said:


> My dream USA World Cup host cities would be:
> 
> Los Angeles (Rams stadium in Inglewood)
> San Francisco (Levi's stadium)
> Seattle (Century Link Field)
> Phoenix (Univ of Phoenix stadium)
> Washington D.C. (RFK stadium)
> New Jersey (MetLife stadium)
> Atlanta (Mercedes Benz stadium)
> Miami (Sunlife stadium)
> Houston (Reliant stadium)
> Dallas (AT&T stadium)
> Minneapolis (New Minneapolis stadium)
> Indianapolis (Lucas oil stadium)
> Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field)
> 
> *The Philadelphia choice is partly down to sentiments. As the US would be hosting the WC on its 250th independence anniversary, it would be a nice touch to host matches in the nation's first capital city, and the site of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.





*Why a country without a football tradition like the USA has to repeat 30 years after a soccer World Cup before others where football is part of the lives of its citizens ?:
*
Spain, England, Mexico, Argentina, Germany, Chile, Uruguay, Morocos...

The mere fact of raising countries like Canada, USA, Qatar or Australia, I disgust in the hands of who is the soccer.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Ioannes_ said:


> *Why a country without a football tradition like the USA has to repeat 30 years after a soccer World Cup before others where football is part of the lives of its citizens ?:
> *
> Spain, England, Mexico, Argentina, Germany, Chile, Uruguay, Morocos...
> 
> The mere fact of raising countries like Canada, USA, Qatar or Australia, I disgust in the hands of who is the soccer.


a) Welcome to a world that is not as Eurocentric as in the past. 
b) Because of a), FIFA as an organization is vested in political and business relations with the rest of the planet. Europe does and will continue to get more than it's fair share of privileges, but FIFA's charge includes broadening the appeal of the game and making the most money. This means it's not there to simply reward established footballing powers.


----------



## sweet-d

The reality is the US has nothing to gain from doing a joint bed with Canada and Mexico. Canada and Mexico will also want more than three cities in the world cup. The most obvious choice is just for each country to bid alone and see who wins.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Diplomatic relations are a bigger concern than stadium and non-stadium infrastructure development for Morrocco and Algeria to co-host a World Cup almost two decades from now.


----------



## Ioannes_

GunnerJacket said:


> a) Welcome to a world that is not as Eurocentric as in the past.
> b) Because of a), FIFA as an organization is vested in political and business relations with the rest of the planet. Europe does and will continue to get more than it's fair share of privileges, but FIFA's charge includes broadening the appeal of the game and making the most money. This means it's not there to simply reward established footballing powers.


Excellent, let's globalize:

-Super bowl 2020 in Albacete (Spain).

-The World Cup Cricket 2027 in Italy.

-Alpine Ski World Championship 2023 in the Gobi Desert (Mongolia).

-World Curling Championship 2018 in Rio de Janeiro, Copacabana beach.

-World Championship of Volleyball Beach of 2015 (feminine): Al Raqqa (Syria).

-New Delhi Bullfighting Fair 2018.


-Rugby World Cup 2023 (that which is played with a ball in the form of
cantaloupe): Andalusia, Spain..


FIFA, if it worries about soccer, would benefit countries that need to regenerate their infrastructures and stadium safety like Brazil, although in the end, the dark side of money has rotted from the 2014 World Cup.

The World Cups in the United States, Canada or Australia ... are unnecessary overruns.

A World Cup in China or Qatar: aberrations for money.

England deserves a World Cup? Of course. Spain ?, does not deserve it, but it needs it just like Argentina.

It should skip the rotation of continents: England 2026, -Spain 2030 / Argentina 2030, Italy 2034, Holland 2038.

Only continents with football tradition, not headquarters that report money to the vicious circle of FIFA.


----------



## Knitemplar

/\/\ Silly. hno:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Knitemplar said:


> You must have missed the comment at the 2022 selection when England was booted out FIRST in the voting. Sure, the UK has the minimum number of stadia to fulfill the current 32-team format. But FIFA's main comment was that there is NOT enough open space around the stadia to fill hospitality tents, fan zones, and generally some wide open space for Security and Emergency vehicles to come and go, together with the Hospitality tents and Fan zones that are now _de rigeur_ for such events. You can either take that to heart or dismiss it. But that does exist in the minds of the FIFA planners and their consultants and sponsors.
> 
> Notice that at the terrorist attack outside the Stade de France last year, there were very few fatalities outside the stadium because the Stade has considerable open space around the stadium, which half of England's stadia does not. So unless, they demolish houses around the stadia in question, the UK will not be hosting a World Cup in the next 3 decades at least.


England did badly in voting for 2018 for political reasons. The technical report was very good. Qatar did very badly in their technical report but did very well in the vote for political reasons.

I have attended World Cup matches and thought that English grounds don't have the space around them that a lot of other countries tend to have around their stadia. In my opinion this is a good thing. I rather clubs that are a part of the city rather than separate and on the fringe. If you attend somewhere like the Arena Pernambuco near Recife you need to get into a fan zone as there is nothing else to do nearby. If you go to Stamford Bridge, St James' Park, Old Trafford, etc you are going to an area that has hosted football for over a hundred years. The neighbourhood is geared up for it. This just means things would have to be arranged differently. As far as the corporates are concerned there a plenty of facilities for them inside the stadia. The requirements are similar to those for an Olympics and football grounds around the UK were used for that.

British police have a long history of dealing with terrorism and are fairly good at it. The Premier League is watched around the world and as such is a massive and obvious target. Nobody has yet managed to carry out an attack. Lets hope that continues.

England will either host or not host a World Cup based on politics. The capability to do so is not in doubt. At least not at 48 teams!


----------



## Knitemplar

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I have attended World Cup matches and thought that English grounds don't have the space around them that a lot of other countries tend to have around their stadia. In my opinion this is a good thing. I rather clubs that are a part of the city rather than separate and on the fringe. If you attend somewhere like the Arena Pernambuco near Recife you need to get into a fan zone as there is nothing else to do nearby. If you go to Stamford Bridge, St James' Park, Old Trafford, etc you are going to an area that has hosted football for over a hundred years. The neighbourhood is geared up for it. This just means things would have to be arranged differently. As far as the corporates are concerned there a plenty of facilities for them inside the stadia. The requirements are similar to those for an Olympics and football grounds around the UK were used for that.


That's not how FIFA and their security experts/consultants view it; and they're the ones picking the hosts -- not you or anyone here. :uh:


----------



## GunnerJacket

Ioannes_ said:


> Excellent, let's globalize:
> 
> -Super bowl 2020 in Albacete (Spain).


a) The NFL isn't played everywhere.
b) But they are looking to expand so don't be surprised if you see something like this in the future. They'll pick a place that they know will sell out and still draw viewers. 


> -The World Cup Cricket 2027 in Italy.
> 
> -Rugby World Cup 2023 (that which is played with a ball in the form of
> cantaloupe): Andalusia, Spain..


If the event would financially succeed why not? If it won't bring in the money then they won't go there, which is the difference between a WC and your scenario.



> -Alpine Ski World Championship 2023 in the Gobi Desert (Mongolia).
> 
> -World Curling Championship 2018 in Rio de Janeiro, Copacabana beach.
> 
> -World Championship of Volleyball Beach of 2015 (feminine): Al Raqqa (Syria).
> 
> -New Delhi Bullfighting Fair 2018.


None of these equate to the same conditions as what we're discussing. That YOU don't think soccer's showcase doesn't belong in a less established footballing nation isn't anywhere near the same inhibitor as a climatic difference or religious deterrent. Especially when you also offer thoughts like this: 



> FIFA, if it worries about soccer, would benefit countries that need to regenerate their infrastructures and stadium safety like Brazil,


In this breath you are charging FIFA with investing in and safeguarding the game. For the millions of others who have helped create and raise football to where it is today _that very same thought_ means doing more than simply reinvesting in established footballing nations. It isn't the Euro-South American Cup. It's the World Cup.



> ...although in the end, the dark side of money has rotted from the 2014 World Cup.


So even though Brazil needed and wanted the benefits that come from hosting they still suffered issues?! Guess that means politics happens everywhere, which suggests the benefit from simply going to established powers is marginal, at best, and arguably provides less return and benefit to FIFA overall depending on the calibre of the host. 



> The World Cups in the United States, Canada or Australia ... are unnecessary overruns.
> 
> A World Cup in China or Qatar: aberrations for money.


Few would argue with you on the point about Qatar, so we'll skip over that. China and the US, however are huge markets that help not only with FIFA but feed money into the established soccer nations via large media deals, merchandise sales and touring friendlies. Think Atletico Madrid doesn't want to tap more deeply into their global fan base as they seek to compete with the likes of Real and Barca? If FIFA reserves the WC for the privileged few then why invite teams from Africa and Asia at all? For that matter why bother having teams from Belgium in the UEFA Champions League? Why bother showing those games around the world. Let's just restrict the CL broadcasts to Europe! Apparently the established nations don't need global revenues.



> England deserves a World Cup? Of course. Spain ?, does not deserve it, but it needs it just like Argentina.


And what will be put into place to ensure Argentina's leaders don't abuse the event like we saw in Brazil or South Africa? 



> It should skip the rotation of continents: England 2026, -Spain 2030 / Argentina 2030, Italy 2034, Holland 2038.
> 
> Only continents with football tradition, not headquarters that report money to the vicious circle of FIFA.


If you restrict it to only countries with football tradition then none of the other countries will ever establish a tradition of their own. That's like an employer never hiring someone from school because that employee doesn't have experience! The market will eventually die if you don't give the newcomers a chance to gain experience.

If none of this makes sense to you then I can't help you and we'll simply agree to disagree.


----------



## slipperydog

5portsF4n said:


> As long as the US exists as a sovereign nation, Canada won't be hosting any men's World Cups. Joint bid is a different matter, and their best shot really.


Don't forget about #calexit.


----------



## Nacre

5portsF4n said:


> As long as the US exists as a sovereign nation, Canada won't be hosting any men's World Cups. Joint bid is a different matter, and their best shot really.


Canada can host on its own. I don't think it should - even in an expanded World Cup it probably will not get out of the group stages and Toronto does not need a national stadium. But if Canada wants to waste $5 billion hosting the World Cup it can.


----------



## Faiyez

cyril sneer said:


> Sorry for not being politically correct but its the way it is at present. You can't get away from the very serious security risks in that region.


But Qatar in particular is safe. Qatar World Cup does not represent an obviously bigger security risk than anywhere else.

If we're going to argue how bad of a choice Qatar is, stick to the valid criticisms, such as human rights score and calendar issues. Don't make arguments that make you look like you don't understand the first thing about the region.


----------



## Guest

Agree. lets be honest, it is less safe hosting in germany or france than it is in qatar.


----------



## pram_semarang

I hope indonesia can participate to bid it...
this is 15 hostable venue at indonesia...

*JAKARTA*
*BUNG KARNO MAIN STADIUM* (Under Renovation)
CAPACITY : 77.000 

 


*SURABAYA*
*BUNG TOMO STADIUM*
CAPACITY : 55.000

 

*SAMARINDA*
*PALARAN STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 60.000




*PEKANBARU*
*RIAU MAIN STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 45.000 

 

*BANDUNG*
*BANDUNG LAUTAN API STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 38.000 




*BOGOR*
*PAKANSARI STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 35.000 

 

*YOGYAKARTA*
*MAGUWOHARJO STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 40.000 

 


*BEKASI*
*WIBAWA MUKTI STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 40.000


 

*BEKASI*
*PATRIOT STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 30.000 




*PALEMBANG*
*JAKABARING STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 40.000 

 

*KUTAI KARTANEGARA*
*AJI IMBUT STADIUM* 
CAPACITY : 45.000




*BALIKPAPAN*
*BATAKAN STADIUM* (Under Construction
)
CAPACITY : 40.000 

  

*SEMARANG*
*JATIDIRI STADIUM* (Under Renovation
)
CAPACITY : 60.000 




*MAKASSAR*
*BAROMBONG STADIUM* (Under Construction
)
CAPACITY : 50.000 




*BANDA ACEH*
*HARAPAN BANGSA STADIUM* CAPACITY : 35.000


----------



## Rokto14

^^Since Qatar is hosting the FIFA WC in 2022, Asian countries won't be able to bid for a WC until 2034 onwards. 2026 WC will definitely go to one of the North American countries. I think USA has the best chance of hosting it.


----------



## Laurence2011

I'm sure FIFA would want to see less track stadia as well, most WCs only have one or two, the rest are football-specific


----------



## alexandru.mircea

FIFA president Giani Infantino has went on the record a few days ago that with the new format he is open to three-host bids and even four-host bids. That is good.


----------



## Bobby3

I'd rather Canada host it than us, a Canadian bid has greater legacy potential. Of the three realistic North American hosts, they'd benefit the most.


----------



## cmc

_with a good bid...2026 is for Concacaf_


----------



## CxIxMaN

England would be the best


----------



## carlosfng

5portsF4n said:


> In a 24 team WC, a 3 team group stage makes no sense in terms of maximizing financial rewards through number of games played. In a 48 team world cup, at picture changes drastically.


Financial rewards are also based on the amount of people tuning in for entertainment purposes. While I have warmed to the fact that several new nations from underappreciated confederations might make the tournament fairer and more enjoyable, there are many others that will not gather 20k to the stands and will look terrible on TV. And with groups of 3, penalty shootouts to avoid draws, and the consequent grinding teams that will try to eke out said shootouts, the entertainment factor (aka rating$) might go down. Sometimes, a product appreciates more precisely because it is select. A World Cup is supposed to be a select product in that regard, it is supposed to be the most entertaining and high-quality sporting event in the world. Therefore, while several new teams will indeed make an impact (perhaps allowing for some time while they get used to the big stage), these many teams combined with a haphazard 3-group solution might probably cause lots of traditional viewers (and therefore, the TV channels that want them) to tune out for the group stage unless their team is involved. So where are the financial rewards for that - or is the money from the Chinese and Indian viewers going to balance that loss in traditional viewership? Idk, perhaps I am biased because I won't watch the whole WC anymore thanks to this... so at least, if the 48 teams are set in stone, then I hope they consider the fixtures and tournament organization more closely.

And speaking of that, let's not even mention the logistical aspect, which the last few pages of this thread have touched upon. If the UK or the Benelux cannot host in this new format, then it is more limiting than I thought. I read about the need for 48 training camps, for not more than 2 stadiums per metro area, for wide spaces around stadiums, etc - FIFA might need to relax standards A LOT, else we will have to play subcontinental or continental WC's in some cases... and considering that the standards have become wacky (Qatar 2022), then idk what they will come up with. For example, a Home Nations bid sounds quite interesting, but how do you replicate that in other regions or continents?

At any rate, I doubt the 2026 WC will be anywhere else than the USA (and unlike some posters, I do not mind; whether in traditional or exotic countries, the WC can succeed or fail for other reasons). Unless the USSF really wants to do Canadians and Mexicans a favor by not bidding by itself.


----------



## marokko

Deleted


----------



## Xoussef

marokko said:


> The president of CAF has suggested that Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria or Morocco should bid for 2026 ...


Please let it NOT be Morocco!


----------



## Marsupalami

I think Indonesia would be good - or a Malaysia; Indo; Singapore joint bid 
- Those stadiums though... so many tracks and yet still shite at athletics ! 



pram_semarang said:


> I hope indonesia can participate to bid it...
> this is 15 hostable venue at indonesia...
> 
> *JAKARTA*
> *BUNG KARNO MAIN STADIUM* (Under Renovation)
> CAPACITY : 77.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SURABAYA*
> *BUNG TOMO STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 55.000
> 
> 
> 
> *SAMARINDA*
> *PALARAN STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 60.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PEKANBARU*
> *RIAU MAIN STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 45.000
> 
> 
> 
> *BANDUNG*
> *BANDUNG LAUTAN API STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 38.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BOGOR*
> *PAKANSARI STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 35.000
> 
> 
> 
> *YOGYAKARTA*
> *MAGUWOHARJO STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 40.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BEKASI*
> *WIBAWA MUKTI STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 40.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BEKASI*
> *PATRIOT STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 30.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PALEMBANG*
> *JAKABARING STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 40.000
> 
> 
> 
> *KUTAI KARTANEGARA*
> *AJI IMBUT STADIUM*
> CAPACITY : 45.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BALIKPAPAN*
> *BATAKAN STADIUM* (Under Construction
> )
> CAPACITY : 40.000
> 
> 
> 
> *SEMARANG*
> *JATIDIRI STADIUM* (Under Renovation
> )
> CAPACITY : 60.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *MAKASSAR*
> *BAROMBONG STADIUM* (Under Construction
> )
> CAPACITY : 50.000
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *BANDA ACEH*
> *HARAPAN BANGSA STADIUM* CAPACITY : 35.000


----------



## Marsupalami

Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore would be good 



alexandru.mircea said:


> FIFA president Giani Infantino has went on the record a few days ago that with the new format he is open to three-host bids and even four-host bids. That is good.


----------



## Rokto14

marokko said:


> The president of CAF has suggested that Nigeria, Egypt, Algeria or Morocco should bid for 2026 ...


I would love either Egypt, Algeria or Morocco to bid but most likely they will get to host in 2034. CONCACAF will most likely get 2026 followed by UEFA in 2030. 2034 is more open for AFC, CAF and COMNEBOL countries.

These are my votes:

2026- USA
2030- England
2034- China


----------



## CaliforniaJones

U.S. Travel Restrictions Would Damage 2026 World Cup Bid, UEFA President Says

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/...26-world-cup-bid-uefa.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1


----------



## chibimatty

alexandru.mircea said:


> FIFA president Giani Infantino has went on the record a few days ago that with the new format he is open to three-host bids and even four-host bids. That is good.


Certainly would be good to see some of the smaller CONMEBOL countries co-hosting a tournament.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

> *Morocco, Portugal and Spain to launch bid for 2026 World Cup
> *​
> 
> Mohamed VI has asked King Felipe VI to join in a joint bid for the World Cup with Portugal to challenge USA, Canada and Mexico. Infantino backs the idea.


more : http://en.as.com/en/2017/03/07/football/1488900660_615809.html


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ ha!

So, kings read SSC, it turns out.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> Trump Travel Ban May Derail U.S. World Cup Bid, FIFA Head Says
> by Tariq Panja
> 9 mars 2017 à 16:58 UTC+1
> FIFA president said access to 2026 event should be open to all
> U.S. interested in staging event, possibly with Mexico too
> U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s travel ban risks derailing America’s bid to host soccer’s World Cup.
> 
> The most important business stories of the day.
> Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
> 
> Enter your email
> Sign Up
> The U.S., considered the favorite to stage sport’s most-watched event in 2026 after losing previous bids, is weighing a bid, either on its own or in a joint effort with Mexico and Canada. Trump’s updated policy, which limits entry for citizens of six Muslim majority countries, is incompatible with regulations for tournament hosts, according to Gianni Infantino, president of soccer’s governing body FIFA.
> 
> "Any team, including the supporters and officials of that team, who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup," Infantino told reporters following a meeting with soccer leaders from around the globe held in London.
> 
> Representatives of the Somali federation were among those invited to the summit at a hotel near Heathrow airport. Under revised regulations unveiled this week they’d be barred from entering the U.S. Infantino pointed out the Los Angeles’s competition with Paris to host the 2024 Summer Olympics might also be affected by Trump’s policy.
> 
> "The requirements will be clear," Infantino said of FIFA’s regulations for future hosts, which are likely to be completed later this year. "And then each country can make up their decision, whether they want to bid or not based on the requirements. Nothing to do with the U.S. or not, it’s general sporting criterion."
> 
> Infantino’s comments mirror those of Aleksander Ceferin, the head of European soccer. The Slovenian told the New York Times recently that U.S. restrictions would "not help" the country bring the tournament back for the first time since 1994.
> 
> During the last round of bidding in 2010, Qatar secured hosting rights after the tiny, gas-rich emirate beat an American offer. Allegations of wrongdoing by voters -- including some who were later charged in a separate corruption case by the U.S. -- led FIFA to change the way World Cup hosts are selected.
> 
> The 2026 winner will be picked via a poll of the organization’s entire 211-nation membership, rather than just its executive board. Bids have to be submitted by December 2018, with the host to be decided in May 2020.
> 
> Trump’s original ban led to nationwide protests, and was blocked by court challenges. The latest edition -- which also targets citizens of Iran, Yemen, Syria, Sudan and Yemen -- is also facing legal challenges.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...n-may-derail-u-s-world-cup-bid-fifa-head-says

Next WC
2026: Canada
2030: England
2034: China
2038: South America
2042: Europe
2046: Africa
2050: USA


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> U.S. travel ban won't harm 2026 World Cup bid - CONCACAF president
> 
> MILLBRAE, Calif. -- CONCACAF president Victor Montagliani said that the immigration and travel policies specified by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump are something that the confederation will "just have to work through" as it relates to the U.S. bidding to host the 2026 World Cup.
> 
> The Trump Administration released a revised executive order on Monday, one that bars new visas from six Muslim majority countries, and temporarily shuts down the U.S. refugee program.
> 
> FIFA is preparing the rules for bidding on the 2026 World Cup, and will determine the host in 2020. The U.S. Soccer Federation has yet to formally declare its intentions, but it's widely expected to be a candidate to host the tournament, either as part of a joint bid with other CONCACAF countries, or on its own.
> 
> As for the U.S. government's recent change in immigration policy, Montagliani said he wasn't concerned.
> 
> "I don't think you can worry about those kind of things in the context of [2026]," said Montagliani in an exclusive interview with ESPN FC. "Leaders will come and go, policies will come and go. And to be quite frank, every country has immigration policies, and every country has the right to have those immigration policies.
> 
> "When an event is put on in any country in the world, whether it's an Olympic Games or a World Cup, those are things that you need to be taking into consideration when you have a whole bunch of people coming.
> 
> "The No. 1 priority is the teams obviously and the players. Then after that it's the fans and the safety of the fans. Those are things that you just have to work through and I think we'll be willing to work through them."
> 
> FIFA president Gianni Infantino on Thursday said that a U.S. travel ban could affect the U.S.'s chances at the 2026 bid.
> 
> "Any team, including the supporters and officials ... who qualify for a World Cup need to have access to the country, otherwise there is no World Cup. That is obvious," Infantino said.
> 
> A CONCACAF country hasn't hosted a World Cup since the U.S. did back in 1994. The U.S. is currently one of the few countries capable of hosting the tournament on its own, but FIFA is encouraging applications to co-host the tournament. That could pave the way for a joint bid involving the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, and Montagliani feels there are some advantages to having three countries join forces.
> 
> "You could also make a case that by having three countries, especially the three countries we're speaking about in North America, it has some compelling storylines there," he said. "The football economics in North America is shared quite a bit. Mexico is pretty influential in the U.S.; the U.S. is pretty influential in Canada.
> 
> "We have three leagues that the U.S. and Canada shares. We have a women's league that we share together. So it's pretty intriguing possibilities, so I think it behooves us to look at that opportunity."
> 
> That said, Montagliani indicated he had no preference in terms of single or joint bids.
> 
> "I want it in CONCACAF at the end of the day. That's the preference," he said. "As a CONCACAF president, the more countries that are involved in it, the better off it is, so from that perspective absolutely. But at the end of the day it's important to get it here."


http://www.espnfc.com/united-states...rld-cup-bid-concacaf-chief-victor-montagliani


----------



## aquamaroon

Just for fun I thought I would list out my idea of a 2026 US World Cup. It would have 16 stadiums, each hosting 4 games, 3 group stage and an additional one. One quick caveat, I apologize that some of these photos are of American football but these are all NFL Stadiums (I'll also use their NFL team names for simplicity). So 16 stadiums in four regions:

*PART 1*:

*EAST*

New York - Metlife Stadium (Group Stage, Third Place Match)









New England - Gilette Stadium (Group Stage, Round of 16)









Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field (Group Stage, Round of 16)

















Washington D.C. - New Washington Stadium (Opening Match, Group Stage, Quarterfinals)









*SOUTH*
Atlanta - Mercedes Benz Stadium (Group Stage, Quarterfinals)









Miami - Hard Rock Stadium (Group Stage, Round of 16)

















Houston - NRG Stadium (Group Stage, Round of 16)

















Dallas - AT&T Stadium (Group Stage, Semifinals)


----------



## aquamaroon

*PART 2*:

*MIDWEST*

Indianapolis - Lucas Oil Stadium (Group Stage, Round of 16)









Minnesota - U.S. Bank Stadium (Group Stage, Quarterfinals)









Arizona - University of Phoenix Stadium (Group Stage, Round of 16)

















(I know Arizona isn't in the MidWest had to shoehorn them in :lol

Chicago - Soldier Field (Group Stage, Semifinal)









*WEST*

Las Vegas - New Raiders Stadium (Group Stage, Quarterfinals)









San Francisco - Levi's Stadium (Group Stage, Round of 16)









Seattle - CenturyLink Field (Group Stage, Round of 16)

















Los Angeles - L.A. Stadium (Group Stage, Final)

















and that is that. If anyone else has any different ideas for a USA world cup would love to see them :cheers:


----------



## GEwinnen

aquamaroon said:


> Just for fun I thought I would list out my idea of a 2026 US World Cup. It would have 16 stadiums, each hosting 4 games, 3 group stage and an additional one.


The 2026 World Cup will have 80 matches (48 group stage).



New York - Metlife Stadium (Group Stage, Third Place Match)









Isn't the pitch too small for football?

Anyway, your crazy president will be responsible for the failure of an US bid for this World Cup.


----------



## SalopianShrew

Qualifiers for US WC:
China
Iraq
Iran
Pakistan
North Korea.

Europe:
Ukraine
Bosnia & Herzegovina
Albania
Turkey,
Israel.
Russia

North America:
Cuba
Mexico

Africa
Sudan
Algeria
Morocco
Egypt
Tunisia

That's how to win it ban all the qualifiers players. England, Germany, France & Holland could possibly by then have a large number second generation Muslims in their squads.

Is their a sub forum for the wall to keep Americans out of Mexico?


----------



## aquamaroon

GEwinnen said:


> The 2026 World Cup will have 80 matches (48 group stage).


16 x 3 = 48
add an additional game to each stadium for the knockout rounds. (i'm assuming that would be a round of 32?)



> New York - Metlife Stadium (Group Stage, Third Place Match)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the pitch too small for football?


I don't believe so, the length is plenty long, and the Metlife field is ~64m wide at the edges, which is within International standards for a soccer field. Here is Metlife during the Copa America:









It is a tight fit to be fair, and for a World Cup they might have to do some alterations to get some breathing room at the edges. 



> Anyway, your crazy president will be responsible for the failure of an US bid for this World Cup.


Well Trump will be long gone by 2026 regardless. But yeah, you're probably right! Oh well, disappointing for soccer fans in the US but it is important for FIFA not to sully their moral standing. They're well known for turning down money in order to uphold higher ideals, and taking stands on human rights. They'll hold off on the US until it gets its house in order, in favor of hosts like Russia and Qatar.


----------



## GEwinnen

aquamaroon said:


> It is a tight fit to be fair, and for a World Cup they might have to do some alterations to get some breathing room at the edges.
> 
> 
> 
> Well Trump will be long gone by 2026 regardless. But yeah, you're probably right! Oh well, disappointing for soccer fans in the US but it is important for FIFA not to sully their moral standing. They're well known for turning down money in order to uphold higher ideals, and taking stands on human rights. They'll hold off on the US until it gets its house in order, in favor of hosts like Russia and Qatar.


The Fifa regualtions requires a minimum distance of 7.5 metres from the stands to the pitch. I guess Metlife would be out of the race.

Trump will be still in office in 2019, what a pity for all football lovers in the US if he and his weird politics will be responsible for a rejected bid. :-(


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Hm, fair enough! Though I imagine Metlife would work with FIFA to get the Stadium up to the standard they wanted. My guess is they would remove seats in the lower bowl, then return them for NFL season. I mean they're plenty of other stadiums in the US to choose from, I just have a hard time imagining a US World Cup without New York and their $1 billion stadium.

And yeah, it really is a shame for US fans that politics has gotten in the way . The same thing is happening with US's Olympic bid. Not to get too political, but if that does happen hopefully that will effect public opinion in the US and help to change policy. (And the less said about FIFA's moral authority the better :lol


----------



## JYDA

For the '94 World Cup, several stadiums including the Rose Bowl and the Cotton Bowl removed sections of seats to accommodate a full sized pitch. I know Metlife and Nrgi Stadium were built with removable seating sections in the corners for this very reason. Despite this, the dimensions are still tight.


----------



## aquamaroon

JYDA said:


> For the '94 World Cup, several stadiums including the Rose Bowl and the Cotton Bowl removed sections of seats to accommodate a full sized pitch. I know Metlife and Nrgi Stadium were built with removable seating sections in the corners for this very reason. Despite this, the dimensions are still tight.


Oh cool didn't know that! Thanks for the info :cheers: You're right though, still an intimate fit given the stadiums normally host a playing surface that's roughly ~49m wide (thankfully the lengths are very comparable, with the NFL being longer)


----------



## aquamaroon

I think it might be good for future reference to visually show the size difference between NFL and Association Football fields/pitches. It'll help to show how an NFL Stadium may look in a World Cup (many of these stadiums already host Association Football matches anyways)

Here are a Pitch and NFL Field side by side:









And here is an example of an NFL field with the touchlines still drawn on (the yellow lines behind the standing players):









So if the US were to get a World Cup we will see what they do I guess :cheers:


----------



## Lumbergo

As much as I would love for the USA to host it - England deserves it more than perhaps anyone.


----------



## Guest

aquamaroon said:


> I think it might be good for future reference to visually show the size difference between NFL and Association Football fields/pitches. It'll help to show how an NFL Stadium may look in a World Cup (many of these stadiums already host Association Football matches anyways)
> 
> So if the US were to get a World Cup we will see what they do I guess :cheers:


Alternatively, we could post hundreds of images of soccer games being played in nfl stadiums, which would give a better idea. Ultimately, since we know field dimensions wouldnt be a probelm at any nfl stadium, since most are built to be able to host soccer anyway, not much point to either


----------



## Ioannes_

Lumbergo said:


> As much as I would love for the USA to host it - England deserves it more than perhaps anyone.


Why? England is one of the top 5 football clubs in Europe, and a level of selections has only won a rigged World Cup.


England has the same right as Italy, Spain, Germany, Germany ..

*
In addition, it has been demonstrated the violence of hooligans is a great handicap*


----------



## GEwinnen

@aquamaroon:
The Veltins Arena in my hometomwn was one of the first stadiums built regarding the new Fifa-regulations, the distances from the pitch to the stands are huge: (my photo taken during the Champions League Final 2004)

Champions League Final 2004 FC Porto vs. AS Monaco by Andreas1104, auf Flickr




Ioannes_ said:


> Why? England is one of the top 5 football clubs in Europe, and a level of selections has only won a rigged World Cup.
> 
> 
> England has the same right as Italy, Spain, Germany, Germany ..


1st: Countries are not clubs
2nd: Italy, Spain and Germany (twice) have hosted World Cups after England 1966. The next WC in Europe will go to England, no doubt!
According to the continental rotation this will happen in 2030. 

A 100 years WC celebration in the motherland of football would be great.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Ioannes_ said:


> Why? England is one of the top 5 football clubs in Europe, and a level of selections has only won a rigged World Cup.
> 
> 
> England has the same right as Italy, Spain, Germany, Germany ..
> 
> *
> In addition, it has been demonstrated the violence of hooligans is a great handicap*


Italy, Spain and Germany have all hosted the World Cup more recently than England. I presume you meant to include France but they have also hosted as recently as 1998 (the only time they won it also).

As for hooligans they're about to have a World Cup in Russia...


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Some of those American stadia are nice but I don't get why mid-level sections behind the goals are often left empty in favour of much worse seating high in the corners. It would certainly have a difference aesthetic and narrow stadia would be good if the seats start closer to the pitch.


----------



## cmc

_*The US can easily host the 2026 WC, let's just see how the Fifa/US relations go... hint the Blatter and Qatar 2022 situation.*_


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Rover030 said:


> I've heard horrible stories about people's experience at the euros in France in that respect though.
> 
> The stadium in Nice, Stade de Nice, is actually located some 10 km outside the city. There were buses, there was a possibility to go by car, but it was all very badly organised which led to most people having to walk the last 3km in 35-40 degrees Celsius (100 degrees Fahrenheit) heat, which was very bad for old people and people that had had a few drinks already.
> 
> So it's really important that such a transport problem is solved in the right way and that it doesn't result in a Nice situation.


Possibly Nice was the exception to the rule. Certainly Lille and Lyon were very easy to reach. Lyon was a bit Wembley-esque queuing up to leave (Italy - Belgium was an excellent match and you could really see how well Conte had Italy organised, they were brilliant that day). In Brazil the Arena Pernambuco was somewhere near but certainly not in Recife. The transport was well run with busses taking people on from the nearest train station. Still quite a long walk at the end. It was a good job I could speak a little Portuguese to buy the tickets at a smaller metro station.


----------



## Rover030

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ the stories you were told seem quite exaggerated, the recorded temperatures in Nice during the four EURO matchdays were 23, 22, 25 and 25 degrees Celsius respectively. That said the location is indeed out of city centre (not out of city limits) and public transport takes a lot to get there because it needs to go round a chain of cliffs that sepparate it from the old town, which is why the club's attendances are mediocre.


Yeah these are just the stories that I've heard. I just wanted to show the other side of having stadium locations outside city centres.


----------



## CFCman

Okay..After all has been said and done, here are my final 'choices' as hosts of the 2026 WC: USA, or an England/Wales/Scotland triple hosting arrangement. 
For the latter option, England could use 10 stadia, Scotland 2 stadia, and Wales 2 stadia.


----------



## Rover030

Does anyone know how FIFA feels about having multiple stadiums in one city?

I know Moscow has two stadiums, but I'm not sure if it has happened before.

England has only 6 cities with a 40k+ stadium. UK has a whole has 9 cities with a 40k+ stadiums.

Spain and Portugal have 7 cities with 40k+ stadia. Morocco (it was an idea by the Moroccan king to do a combination that includes Morocco, Spain and Portugal) has 6, but they are all athletics stadia.

Even France doesn't get past 7 40k+ stadia in different cities.

Of European countries, only Germany has 15 different cities with 40k+ stadia, but this does include standing areas.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Rover030 said:


> Yeah these are just the stories that I've heard. I just wanted to show the other side of having stadium locations outside city centres.


And I'll back you on your general point. The best scenario is, by far, when the new stadium gets built over the old one. The French "influencers" that I follow on Twitter seem to hate these new stadiums, too. On one side they find them unfit for purpose (too large and too far away), on the other hand they don't like the very expensive public-private partnerships through which they've been built at the expense of the tax-payer. So far they seem to be right... Hopefully in times the situation improves.



Rover030 said:


> Does anyone know how FIFA feels about having multiple stadiums in one city?


I expect FIFA to be sensible and become flexible on this. It just doesn't make sense to keep insisting with it nowadays. I don't think they've had any official position yet on the issue.


----------



## Walbanger

Rover030 said:


> Does anyone know how FIFA feels about having multiple stadiums in one city?.



I don't recall if it was a specific rule but FIFA did heavily lean to a maximum of 2 stadiums in a Metropolitan area. It certainly used to weigh into the suitability of bid against others.

In Germany 2006, North Westphalia's Rhine/Ruhr metro was limited to 2 venues (Cologne and Dortmund), leaving out a brand new retractable roofed 50000 seat Stadium in Düsseldorf.

In South Africa 2010, greater Johannesburg had 2 stadiums, Ellis Park in JoBurg proper and Soccer City in Soweto. While only 70km north was Pretoria's Loftus Versfeld Stadium. 
Distances within the dimensions of Metropolitan areas in the lines of Australia and the USA.
Rustenburg was within 2 hours drive from Johannesburg also.

This used to be taken as seriously as a make or break issue when preparing bids. The failed Australian bid for 2022 fretted over the inclusion of 3 stadiums in Greater Sydney and another in Newcastle, when the area spread was larger than the previously mentioned South African cluster.

All that was completely thrown out the window when Qatar "won" the 2022 bid with all but 1 venue proposed within the Doha Metropolitan area. They obfuscated the venue spread by naming the locations after the local municipalities even when they belong to one metropolitan area with venues less than 10km apart.

So god knows what FIFA permits. The goalposts change depending on source of the respective bids.


----------



## aquamaroon

Rover030 said:


> Does anyone know how FIFA feels about having multiple stadiums in one city?


A$ £ong a$ th€ gam€ do€$n’t $uff€r I think that FIFA i$ willing to a¢¢omodat€ ¢hange$ to their ru£€$. After a££ the $anctit¥ of th€ b€autifu£ gam€ i$ what’$ mo$t important.


----------



## goldy21

Rover030 said:


> Does anyone know how FIFA feels about having multiple stadiums in one city?


There are going to be 6 venues in the same city for Qatar 2022.


----------



## Rover030

goldy21 said:


> There are going to be 6 venues in the same city for Qatar 2022.


:lol: 

forgot about that...


----------



## Juanpabloangel

If you were to have a world cup in England only. Wembley, Villa Park, Old Trafford, Anfield, St James Park, Stadium of Light would be the 6 in cities... the question is if you add in an extra stadium in London. Which I guess would be fine from an accommodation point of view and to be fair the World cup should be a party. 

Elland Road and Hillsborough are still over 40k unless they had to downsize, I thought. They ought to be totally renovated if used...


----------



## slipperydog

*US, Canada and Mexico set to submit joint bid to host 2026 World Cup*

A joint bid from the US, Canada and Mexico to host the enlarged 2026 World Cup is expected to be finalised this year for submission to Fifa, according to Victor Montagliani, the president of the region’s Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Football Associations (Concacaf). Speaking to the Guardian before Saturday’s annual Concacaf congress in the Caribbean island of Aruba, Montagliani contrasted the prospect of the countries’ cooperating on a World Cup with the division represented by the wall along the Mexican border planned by US president, Donald Trump.

“Canada, the US and Mexico are aiming for a joint bid, the idea has been around for a while, discussions are continuing and it is a very exciting proposition if it comes to fruition,” Montagliani said. “We have had nothing but positive remarks about it and it is a very strong sign of what football can do to bring countries together.”

...Fifa’s new process for countries bidding to host the 2026 World Cup, announced last year under the new presidency of Gianni Infantino, set out a period from June this year to December 2018 for the preparation of bids. Evaluation of countries’ suitability by Fifa is scheduled for January 2019 to February 2020, with the final decision to be taken at Fifa’s congress in May 2020. Concacaf’s proposed joint bid is considered by far the early favourite to host the tournament, which has not been held in the region since the US World Cup of 1994. The previous Fifa president, Sepp Blatter, lobbied for the US to host the 2022 World Cup, as part of a continued push to grow football as a sport in the country, before a majority on the Fifa executive committee voted controversially instead for Qatar.

The development of the Concacaf bid, together with running a successful Gold Cup tournament this summer, is a key element in Montagliani’s campaign as its new president to refocus on football itself, following the arrests, criminal indictments and revelations of huge corruption at the confederation under his predecessors.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/06/us-canada-mexico-joint-world-cup-bid-2026


----------



## GunnerJacket

Good grief.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

So they want to take it from the geographically smallest tournament in 2022 to a continent-sized monstrosity in 2026.


----------



## Alanzeh

USA could host one alone, even with 48 teams. They have the infrastructure, the stadiums and the public to fill it. Sincerely, I don't undesrtand this bid


----------



## cmc

*For 2026....
48 teams too much, at most 40
and as for the host US/Canada or US/Mexico.*

*and for that matter, Qatar 2022, really...
FIFA bending the rules for money, just move the 2026 host for 2022.*


----------



## Rover030

So we'll get Canada-US-Mexico vs Spain-Portugal-Morocco (http://en.as.com/en/2017/03/07/football/1488900660_615809.html). Will be interesting...


----------



## Guest

Pretty sure fifa has said an african/uefa bid is a non starter. 

Either way, Us, can, mex bid would crush it.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

This is so stupid.. Instead of concentrating the games in as small a geographic area as possible, such as California or the Northeast corridor, they want to stretch games from Toronto to Mexico City? Are these people dense?


----------



## elekto

excellent NAFTA World Cup!!!!


----------



## aquamaroon

slipperydog said:


> https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/06/us-canada-mexico-joint-world-cup-bid-2026


:bash::bash:



OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> So they want to take it from the geographically smallest tournament in 2022 to a continent-sized monstrosity in 2026.


Monstrosity is correct. So as you point out, they are going from a country of 2.5 million people (most of whom are ex-pats) with one metro area of 1.35 million people and a total land area of 11,586 km... to a continent sized conglomeration of 3 countries with a total population of over 480 million people, almost 12 million km in area size (so over *104 times bigger than Qatar*), and containing about fifty metro areas bigger than Qatar's largest city.(_source_) OK, yeah that makes sense.

Anyways, this is a LOT of mouths to feed. How on Earth are Mexico, Canada and the US going to keep each other happy in the divvying out of venues?


----------



## slipperydog

aquamaroon said:


> Anyways, this is a LOT of mouths to feed. How on Earth are Mexico, Canada and the US going to keep each other happy in the divvying out of venues?


Proportional to population and/or GDP? Seems fair. :lol:

To be fair, Canada and Mexico should feel fortunate to be included in this bid, especially because the United States (or California) could easily do so on its own. Also, Euro 2020 is going to be a continental tournament (Azerbaijan to Spain), so it's not like this is unprecedented.

I'm not really understanding the consternation over this one.


----------



## aquamaroon

slipperydog said:


> To be fair, Canada and Mexico should feel fortunate to be included in this bid, especially because the United States (or California) could easily do so on its own.


Oh for sure :cheers:, I think the unneeded complexity to the US bid is where the consternation is coming from tbh. This plan turns what would be a solid U.S. bid into a logistical headache spread out across three countries.
And aside from the U.S.'s perspective, I'd have to imagine Mexico would like to host their own future world cup, why would they want to settle for 2-3 venues in a "North American" world cup? (Canada though I could see much more willing to be part of this scheme, and attach their bid to the US and Mexico)


----------



## Juanpabloangel

First world cup with three official languages! North American French, Spanish and English!

I would prefer a pan South American bid instead!


----------



## Guest

Juanpabloangel said:


> First world cup with three official languages! North American French, Spanish and English!
> 
> I would prefer a pan South American bid instead!


And you'll get one eventually. People are completely blind as to what's happening. 

They think the pan-European Euros is a one off. They think combined Copa America is a one off. They think continental FIFA co-hosting is a one off...

I love what FIFA is doing. And the 'logistical nightmares' people are bringing up are borderline irrelevant.


----------



## Rover030

slipperydog said:


> Proportional to population and/or GDP? Seems fair. :lol:
> 
> To be fair, Canada and Mexico should feel fortunate to be included in this bid, especially because the United States (or California) could easily do so on its own. Also, Euro 2020 is going to be a continental tournament (Azerbaijan to Spain), so it's not like this is unprecedented.
> 
> I'm not really understanding the consternation over this one.


Euro 2020 will be continental, yes, and a lot of people hate that. So I don't think it's hard to see why people don't like a continental world cup either.


----------



## Rokto14

Rover030 said:


> So we'll get Canada-US-Mexico vs Spain-Portugal-Morocco (http://en.as.com/en/2017/03/07/football/1488900660_615809.html). Will be interesting...


Is a UEFA and CAF combined bid possible? Didn't FIFA state about host countries from the same continential confederation?


----------



## GunnerJacket

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> So they want to take it from the geographically smallest tournament in 2022 to a continent-sized monstrosity in 2026.


This would be hilarious if not for also being so sad.



LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> This is so stupid.. Instead of concentrating the games in as small a geographic area as possible, such as California or the Northeast corridor, they want to stretch games from Toronto to Mexico City? Are these people dense?


It's FIFA, so "_Yes_." And they have the precedence to prove it.



slipperydog said:


> To be fair, Canada and Mexico should feel fortunate to be included in this bid, especially because the United States (or California) could easily do so on its own. Also, Euro 2020 is going to be a continental tournament (Azerbaijan to Spain), so it's not like this is unprecedented.
> 
> I'm not really understanding the consternation over this one.


Precedence alone doesn't mean it was/will be the right call, as society progresses by learning from its mistakes. At the moment a lot of people think the EURO scenario will prove just that, especially given how it will be applied versus how it was envisioned. The concept came about as a means of giving smaller nations a chance to host when otherwise it would never be possible, with an eye toward eastern European nations or Scandinavia. It morphed into something that showcases again a few prominent cities that didn't need another international showcase. 

Meanwhile the travel logistics remain a concern for many, from both fans and teams alike. Players and coaches have voiced passive objections to increased travel/decreased rest compared to a normal Euros scenario. Those same concerns would apply tenfold in a continental World Cup, and would add greater expense to any fans thinking of travel all over to see their teams.

More over, as you said the US could host on its own. (As could Mexico, eventually.) So by going continental you're basically sacrificing some US destinations for Mexican and Canadian options. Does this mean in order to get the event back to this region it will have to be continental every time? Does that mean it will be the same biggest cities ever time? That flies in the face of what FIFA has been doing the past 2 decades in trying to spur interest and support in the game by bringing the event to places like Korea and South Africa. Say what we will about the corruption and shortcomings of some recent events but the intent was well meaning and the outcomes had many benefits. 

Put simply, this is, IMO, that bridge too far. It's one step beyond what's needed for reasons that don't benefit the event or the fans. I'd rather the event stay humble enough that the rotation could continue to bring new and exotic places with each rotation, rather than reducing the number of viable host options to the same 5-6 places over and over again.



5portsF4n said:


> They think the pan-European Euros is a one off. They think combined Copa America is a one off.


Not many people think the latter will be a one off, and those are different thigs, regardless. The pan-Euros idea was a reaction to the volume of nations involved and creating an opportunity for smaller countries to be involved. The bi-continental Copa America (in addition to a money grab) isn't searching for hosting options but merely trying to build the calibre of event based on deeper competition pools. 



> They think continental FIFA co-hosting is a one off...


Not sure to what you're referring, here. 



> I love what FIFA is doing. And the 'logistical nightmares' people are bringing up are borderline irrelevant.


That depends. What had been a simple and obvious approach for including the host nation is now subject to change with each event. What is typically event with one set of native visa laws, currency and customs is now subject to multiples of each. What is typically an event with 1-2 time zones is now subject to 4+. What is typically an event with travel within 90 minutes between destinations is now looking at 3+ hours. 

Are these things that can be managed? Absolutely. The question is whether or not the benefit is there to warrant the extra costs/details needed, and I'm among those that don't think it's so. There is no substantial benefit to adding another nation to a US bid, and the same could be said for many countries/potential hosts. Co-hosting isn't by itself bad, it simply needs a reason. Netherlands + Belgium? Absolutely, since neither could host on their own. Argentina + Uruguay? Sure, due to sentiment and giving a smaller nation a chance to participate. 

Us + Mexico + Canada? Why?


----------



## slipperydog

GunnerJacket said:


> Are these things that can be managed? Absolutely. The question is whether or not the benefit is there to warrant *the extra costs/details needed*, and I'm among those that don't think it's so. There is no substantial benefit to adding another nation to a US bid, and the same could be said for many countries/potential hosts. Co-hosting isn't by itself bad, it simply needs a reason. Netherlands + Belgium? Absolutely, since neither could host on their own. Argentina + Uruguay? Sure, due to sentiment and giving a smaller nation a chance to participate.


Still pretty vague. There are some additional issues involved, but nothing that can't be pulled off with advance notice and some planning. Regarding travel, I would venture that there will be some geographic pooling to minimize travel to the extent possible.

No one is arguing the US couldn't host on its own. But I'm still not seeing a convincing argument as to why a combined tournament is such a travesty. We're really talking about Mexico. Canada is a virtual non-issue from a co-hosting perspective. And US-Mexico relations have been tumultuous, especially recently. So one might even argue that because of the technology and marketing and infrastructure capabilities of the United States, the PR advantages of a unified tournament outweigh any logistical issues that will be required to be sorted.


----------



## Rover030

Rokto14 said:


> Is a UEFA and CAF combined bid possible? Didn't FIFA state about host countries from the same continential confederation?


I thought so too. The AS article however, says this



> The Fifa president backs a bid that will take place in Africa and Europe and between Muslim and Christian societies. Infantino sees the possibility of a successful bid as a unique opportunity to demonstrate that football can bridge cultural divides and also serve to have Fifa nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for the initiative in order to clean up the organization’s image after a series of corruption scandals.


I can't find any source for Infantino saying this. However, I would say that there should be no problems with a world cup from different confederations, apart from the logistical nightmare it will inevitably be.

 The article


----------



## aquamaroon

GunnerJacket said:


> More over, as you said the US could host on its own. (As could Mexico, eventually.) So by going continental you're basically sacrificing some US destinations for Mexican and Canadian options. *Does this mean in order to get the event back to this region it will have to be continental every time? Does that mean it will be the same biggest cities ever time?* That flies in the face of what FIFA has been doing the past 2 decades in trying to spur interest and support in the game by bringing the event to places like Korea and South Africa. Say what we will about the corruption and shortcomings of some recent events but the intent was well meaning and the outcomes had many benefits.


I think this is a very good point. If this bid is successful I think it will set a precedent that all CONCACAF world cup bids will be in the US-Canada-Mexico format. If Mexico wants the World Cup I could see the US swinging in to get a few games in exchange for 2026, same with Canada. YMMV on whether or not that's a good thing, but I do think it'll be hard for any of the three countries to go back to being solo hosts.


----------



## Chevy114

Still scratching my head on why Canada and Mexico were included. Thanks for love with the women's world cup Canada lol


----------



## GunnerJacket

slipperydog said:


> There are some additional issues involved, but nothing that can't be pulled off with advance notice and some planning. Regarding travel, I would venture that there will be some geographic pooling to minimize travel to the extent possible.


No doubt, though that would also countermand the premise of the continental approach, no? Some visitors would only see a portion of the territory, while those that do have teams winning enough to cause an extended trip would then be urged into greater costs. And while I don't have the vast experience to know if traversing across the US is more expensive then traveling across, say, Spain, I'd have to wager that under most circumstances it is. 

Perhaps this is how the World Cup shifts its consumer targets much like sports teams? No longer expecting fans to see multiple games but instead pricing upward based on the whole-day experience. 



> No one is arguing the US couldn't host on its own. But I'm still not seeing a convincing argument as to why a combined tournament is such a travesty.


Agreed, travesty is too strong. For me I'm sounding a cautionary alarm merely because I don't like the trend. It's the opposite extreme from Qatar but both represent an approach to hosting that detracts from the simplicity and the beauty of the event, IMO. It's overthinking, as if change for change's sake is automatically beneficial when reality often shows it's not the case.



> We're really talking about Mexico... And US-Mexico relations have been tumultuous, especially recently. So one might even argue that because of the technology and marketing and infrastructure capabilities of the United States, the PR advantages of a unified tournament outweigh any logistical issues that will be required to be sorted.


A noble idea but IMO hardly a practical approach. And if we're completely honest we'd recognize that if such an event could have such impact then it could likewise make matters worse. El Tri fans and USMNT fans mix like motor oil and BBQ sauce, after all. 

Ultimately my reservations are thus:

1. How soon will the event be able to return to the region, and will it have to be multi-national once more? (Same if the event is multinational but held elsewhere.)

2. Which US markets are being sacrificed to make this multi-national format work? Will those markets ever get their chance in the future? (Again, apply the same to other countries in same boat.)

3. How big is too big? Are we trending toward a 64 team event spread across two continents? Are we reaching a scale where only a few select countries could host even under bids with 3-4 host nations? 



Just because I don't approve of FIFA's management of the bid process and their corrupt practices doesn't mean I thought the event was broken. If anything the World Cup was still so "perfect" that it's was so popular and thus allowed FIFA to get drunk with their power. But the event was, IMO, finely scaled both for the graceful scheduling and conveniently fitting into 1 (or 2) host nations. That we saw enormous budgets, graft, etc wasn't due to problems with the event but simply its management. I looked forward to seeing would would be the next host nation and how the event could leave a beneficial legacy across a whole nation/culture. Now, I doubt it would have the same effect.

Is the continental/mutlinational version a travesty? No. But I do think it detracts from the event, so I'm speaking up now before this gets carried away. But that's just me.


----------



## tinyslam

I am conflicted on this bid. On the one hand I think the joint bid gives a better chance of us hosting sooner as apposed to if another CONCACAF country bid and FIFA favored it because it has only been 30 years since our last. But if the joint bid wins does that mean we have to wait an even longer time for another joint CONCACAF host. On the other hand I am worried that Atlanta won't be included in a tri-country bid where we would definitely be included in a US only bid.

Then there is the issue of Auto-Qualification. Will all three hosts be in automatically? What will the hex look like without USA and Mexico?


----------



## slipperydog

Sorry, still not seeing how a combined North American bid would somehow preclude legacy in smaller and/or developing nations. If anything it would serve as a positive precedent, a blueprint for how to construct a North African bid, a Balkans bid, or a Southeast Asian bid. Which would undoubtedly leave a lasting legacy across those countries, even if they are not hosting alone.


----------



## Guest

slipperydog said:


> Sorry, still not seeing how a combined North American bid would somehow preclude legacy in smaller and/or developing nations. If anything it would serve as a positive precedent, a blueprint for how to construct a North African bid, a Balkans bid, or a Southeast Asian bid. Which would undoubtedly leave a lasting legacy across those countries, even if they are not hosting alone.


The luddites doing what they do best. People are hostile to change of any kind.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> The luddites doing what they do best. People are hostile to change of any kind.


a) Read the posts before offering assumptions and generalizations, please. 
b) Change for change's sake isn't always positive. Feel free to explain why you think this model is good, because I'm always open to learning and am genuinely curious what the alleged positives of this tri-nations bid.


----------



## slipperydog

GunnerJacket said:


> Feel free to explain why you think this model is good, because I'm always open to learning and am genuinely curious what the alleged positives of this tri-nations bid.


I don't know, maybe the simple fact that three nations get to experience the joy of hosting a World Cup instead of one (without having to wait 30 years or whatever on a rotation basis). Not to mention setting a model, as I already mentioned, of how to work a multi-national bid, and a North American bid is probably the safest way to test this idea. Which would allow countries the chance of a lifetime who would never otherwise get the chance to host on their own. The logistical drawbacks are overstated IMO.


----------



## JYDA

tinyslam said:


> Then there is the issue of Auto-Qualification. Will all three hosts be in automatically? What will the hex look like without USA and Mexico?


They're asking for all three to get in. 

FIFA already announced that CONCACAF will get 6 automatic berths and 2 playoff places for 2026. If all three go in automatically there would still be 3 automatics and 2 playoff spots to play for.


----------



## Rokto14

Rover030 said:


> I thought so too. The AS article however, says this
> 
> 
> 
> I can't find any source for Infantino saying this. However, I would say that there should be no problems with a world cup from different confederations, apart from the logistical nightmare it will inevitably be.
> 
> The article


I wonder which other countries would win the bid if both USA-Mexico-Canada and Spain-Portugal-Morocco bid fails. Seems that both the bids have pros and cons of their own.


----------



## Nacre

I suppose the positive side of this is that the airlines will get to benefit from some fans flying Guadalajara to Seattle to Montreal to follow their national team. I sure as heck won't be one of them, though.



slipperydog said:


> I don't know, maybe the simple fact that three nations get to experience the joy of hosting a World Cup instead of one


Then why have bidding countries at all? Just assign each world cup to a continent and let individual cities bid.


----------



## ElvisBC

LEAFS FANATIC said:


> Smaller countries, geographically? Sure. Population-wise? Maybe. The vast majority of these "smaller" countries have much larger populations than Canada and are, historically, true football nations and as such, have the proper stadiums required to host a World Cup.
> 
> For Canada to ever host alone it would, at minimum, have to build 6-8 new true football stadiums which would then remain empty and unused forever in cities like Saskatoon and Moncton. I am not being negative and I love this country very much. I am just being a realist.



I think many people in Canada have no clue what FIFA World Cup is, and what requirements exist for that event, that's why all that negative response. People know there was successfull Women's World Cup there and think why not a real one too? But hardly anyone knows that in real world these two World Cups have nothing in common, apart maybe the name itself!


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

^^

Soccer is much more popular in Canada than what you may think.

During CL season, there are multiple free Champions League matches nationally televised live on the country's sports channels. Each weekend at least 4-5 EPL matches are shown nationally, live. The same goes for Euro and WC Qualifiers when they take place.

Soccer is now the most played sport by children and teenagers at the organized level and this is in a hockey-mad country. Full sized indoor soccer domes are being built in cities all over the place so that leagues can run in the winter and fall when it is too cold to play outside. I personally play in a league every Friday night.

What Canada lacks is what the smaller soccer-rich countries have and that is a robust domestic soccer league with history which means modern, large, true-soccer stadiums in each city. Sure the MLS is growing and is well attended in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver but it is not enough, CURRENTLY, to provide for an adequate hosting of a WC, especially now that it will grow to 40+ countries....


----------



## ElvisBC

Look, the point is : Not even Brasil was able to organize World Cup (and that was 32 teams cup) without building several white elephants, not to talk about South Africa or elsewhere. With World Cup being blown up to 48 teams the same automatically applies to any country in the world (apart from maybe 5-6 of them), therefore Canada as well, where football is not even top 3 sport. You even call it soccer, which is a proof for itself. So doing it as minor partner to USA is perfectly fine. People will get their games and canadian national team will play world Cup again, simple win-win situation! Well Done!! Whoever opposes and claims it might have been done better is clueless!!! 

FIFA is a swamp of greed and they will destroy football as we know it. But until then we have to adjust to what we have and try to enjoy it as long as it goes, not being greedy ourselves!


----------



## Irene Grandi

slipperydog said:


> *US, Canada and Mexico set to submit joint bid to host 2026 World Cup*
> 
> A joint bid from the US, Canada and Mexico to host the enlarged 2026 World Cup is expected to be finalised this year for submission to Fifa, according to Victor Montagliani, the president of the region’s Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Football Associations (Concacaf). Speaking to the Guardian before Saturday’s annual Concacaf congress in the Caribbean island of Aruba, Montagliani contrasted the prospect of the countries’ cooperating on a World Cup with the division represented by the wall along the Mexican border planned by US president, Donald Trump.
> 
> “Canada, the US and Mexico are aiming for a joint bid, the idea has been around for a while, discussions are continuing and it is a very exciting proposition if it comes to fruition,” Montagliani said. “We have had nothing but positive remarks about it and it is a very strong sign of what football can do to bring countries together.”
> 
> ...Fifa’s new process for countries bidding to host the 2026 World Cup, announced last year under the new presidency of Gianni Infantino, set out a period from June this year to December 2018 for the preparation of bids. Evaluation of countries’ suitability by Fifa is scheduled for January 2019 to February 2020, with the final decision to be taken at Fifa’s congress in May 2020. Concacaf’s proposed joint bid is considered by far the early favourite to host the tournament, which has not been held in the region since the US World Cup of 1994. The previous Fifa president, Sepp Blatter, lobbied for the US to host the 2022 World Cup, as part of a continued push to grow football as a sport in the country, before a majority on the Fifa executive committee voted controversially instead for Qatar.
> 
> The development of the Concacaf bid, together with running a successful Gold Cup tournament this summer, is a key element in Montagliani’s campaign as its new president to refocus on football itself, following the arrests, criminal indictments and revelations of huge corruption at the confederation under his predecessors.
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/06/us-canada-mexico-joint-world-cup-bid-2026


This is beyond stupid, its already difficult enough to get a Visa to one of these countries, let alone all 3, just the paperwork to get them would cost 6 months of your life to us mortals who arent from a western country.


----------



## LEAFS FANATIC

ElvisBC said:


> Look, the point is : Not even Brasil was able to organize World Cup (and that was 32 teams cup) without building several white elephants, not to talk about South Africa or elsewhere. With World Cup being blown up to 48 teams the same automatically applies to any country in the world (apart from maybe 5-6 of them), therefore Canada as well, where football is not even top 3 sport. You even call it soccer, which is a proof for itself. So doing it as minor partner to USA is perfectly fine. People will get their games and canadian national team will play world Cup again, simple win-win situation! Well Done!! Whoever opposes and claims it might have been done better is clueless!!!
> 
> FIFA is a swamp of greed and they will destroy football as we know it. But until then we have to adjust to what we have and try to enjoy it as long as it goes, not being greedy ourselves!



Dude...I actually agree with you. Re-read my post, especially the last paragraph.


----------



## RegiON4

Irene Grandi said:


> This is beyond stupid, its already difficult enough to get a Visa to one of these countries, let alone all 3, just the paperwork to get them would cost 6 months of your life to us mortals who arent from a western country.


You dont need VISAS in the WC, your WC ticket Match literally is your VISA for join to the Host Country. They can´t rejected you.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

RegiON4 said:


> You dont need VISAS in the WC, your WC ticket Match literally is your VISA for join to the Host Country. They can´t rejected you.


i doubt that, are you sure of this? This seems extremely unlikely


----------



## slipperydog

That might work in Russia, there's no way in hell that's gonna fly in the US.


----------



## ElvisBC

RegiON4 said:


> You dont need VISAS in the WC, your WC ticket Match literally is your VISA for join to the Host Country. They can´t rejected you.


good joke
you obviously never went to the world cup. this was never the case. 
AFAIK, it was the case only once in sports, for the champions league final in moscow 2008, and it might happen again for the world cup 2018, but that's it


----------



## RegiON4

ElvisBC said:


> good joke
> you obviously never went to the world cup. this was never the case.
> AFAIK, it was the case only once in sports, for the champions league final in moscow 2008, and it might happen again for the world cup 2018, but that's it


Is not a joke is one of all requieriments to be The Host Country. Buy your tickets in FIFA 6-8 months before to the WC. Process your Visa and documents and for obligation you are accepted .


----------



## slipperydog

RegiON4 said:


> Is not a joke is one of all requieriments to be The Host Country. Buy your tickets in FIFA 6-8 months before to the WC. Process your Visa and documents and for obligation you are accepted .


Everyone has to have a visa. If you buy World Cup tickets, you can submit proof of purchase as the reason for your visit, and you will likely be granted a temporary tourist visa. But simply buying a ticket doesn't guarantee you a visa or admission into the country. So no, your WC ticket is not your visa.


----------



## RegiON4

slipperydog said:


> Everyone has to have a visa. If you buy World Cup tickets, you can submit proof of purchase as the reason for your visit, and you will likely be granted a temporary tourist visa. But simply buying a ticket doesn't guarantee you a visa or admission into the country. So no, your WC ticket is not your visa.


The WC is so organized, when you use your tickets you need to back to your country. The tourism agencys practically send you to F*** Off.


----------



## GunnerJacket

RegiON4 said:


> You dont need VISAS in the WC, your WC ticket Match literally is your VISA for join to the Host Country. They can´t rejected you.


Tickets to a sporting event does not allow anyone to circumnavigate the entry laws into any nation. Someone trying to enter the US will need a form of documentation that can be a) authenticated by the US, b) be cross-referenced with the nation of origin, and c) is able to be tied to that individual via other forms of ID. That's the reason visa's were created in the first place, so as to affirm the travel arrangements of foreigners within a given country. World Cup tickets cannot function in that capacity as they are a wholly third-party document not exclusively tied to the holder.


----------



## Irene Grandi

RegiON4 said:


> You dont need VISAS in the WC, your WC ticket Match literally is your VISA for join to the Host Country. They can´t rejected you.


Yes you do, I had to experience the horrors of it during the world cup in Brazil, flew into the embassy in the capital, applied, got rejected then applied again with a hotel confirmed and the photocopy of a brasileña citizen passport and her riginal legalized paperwork sent through mail. 

I am sorry but it is a legitimate concern for us living in the third world, it took me a total of 2 months and an invasive interview to get a Brazilian visa, so imagine a US and a Canadian visa, its a nightmare.


----------



## ElvisBC

Irene, I think US visa might be easier to obtain than Brasil one, even though that may sound strange. Of course it may also depend on the thirld world country you're coming from.

Or you can simply go there and say I do not need a visa, RegiON4 told me so :colgate:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Fast Track letter


----------



## Jim856796

Because Qatar ruined everything, I am not sure which country should host the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The selection of Qatar as hosts for the 2022 FIFA World Cup means that Australia will not host its first FIFA World Cup until 2038, because Qatar and Australia are part of the same confederation (Asian Football Confederation (AFC)). 

I think the decision to go with a joint bid between Canada, Mexico, and the United States is because there is no way that Canada would host a FIFA World Cup by itself.

Could the door be opened for a Colombia bid? Remember, Colombia was initially selected to host the 1986 FIFA World Cup, but withdrew its hosting rights. Last time I posted about this (in 2015), SportsF4n said that Colombia shouldn't host a FIFA WC. I think Colombia should be the next South American nation to host a FIFA WC... if Uruguay and Argentina can't get their dream bid for the 2030 FIFA WC realized.

Also, it was reported some time ago that the current RFK Stadium site will not be used for a future "National Stadium of the USA" of any kind. I think some sort of mixed-use development will be built on that site instead. How will this affect any future United States bid for a FIFA WC? Which venue should host the WC Final in the U.S. now: New York/New Jersey (New Meadowlands Stadium), Los Angeles (New Inglewood Stadium), or Dallas/Fort Worth (Cowboys Stadium)?


----------



## elekto

Colombia has no chance vs Argentina-Uruguay


----------



## JYDA

Jim856796 said:


> Because Qatar ruined everything, I am not sure which country should host the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The selection of Qatar as hosts for the 2022 FIFA World Cup means that Australia will not host its first FIFA World Cup until 2038, because Qatar and Australia are part of the same confederation (Asian Football Confederation (AFC)).


I think that was one of the few downsides for Australia joining Asia. If they were still in the OFC they would have a much better chance of hosting a world cup. They would have the "our confederation has never hosted" card to play.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ they could bring in New Zealand, like I suggested some time before (I think I called them intercontinental bids, and apparently Infantino likes the idea).


----------



## ElvisBC

you've got to be realistic, australia is out of the game for at least next 25 years


----------



## guillermo_panama

Could two countries in differents confederation host a Fifa WC?

*Colombia-Panamá*


----------



## ElvisBC

and what would panama bring in? the channel? :colgate:

you should not underestimate minimum needs (do not want to say requirements) for hosting a 48-team world cup.


----------



## blacktrojan3921

So I b belatedly found out Canada, US and Mexico are planning to host the WC together.

I am honestly skeptical that this would work. Not to mention that from looking at the proposal, it kind of bugs me that the US would host 60 out of the 80 matches, while Canada and Mexico would host 10 each. That is pretty damn unfair to be honest.


----------



## Guest

blacktrojan3921 said:


> So I b belatedly found out Canada, US and Mexico are planning to host the WC together.
> 
> I am honestly skeptical that this would work. Not to mention that from looking at the proposal, it kind of bugs me that the US would host 60 out of the 80 matches, while Canada and Mexico would host 10 each. That is pretty damn unfair to be honest.


1. Of course it's going to work. There's nothing that can go wrong with it. Literally nothing. 

2. It's a US World Cup, with breadcrumbs doled out to the other two to make it a North America inclusive World Cup, all lovey-dovey and together. They should thank their lucky stars they are fortunate enough to even host 1 game, because they're certainly not needed in this bid. Be gracious, accept what you get, and let the good times roll.


----------



## Calvin W

5portsF4n said:


> 1. Of course it's going to work. There's nothing that can go wrong with it. Literally nothing.
> 
> 2. It's a US World Cup, with breadcrumbs doled out to the other two to make it a North America inclusive World Cup, all lovey-dovey and together. They should thank their lucky stars they are fortunate enough to even host 1 game, because they're certainly not needed in this bid. Be gracious, accept what you get, and let the good times roll.


Umm, no. Canada and Mexico are not USA's bitches. 

Thank you for let using be the token boy, forget about it......


----------



## TommyVercetti

USA and Canada could have a joint bid if they only keep the North-East USA+East Canada: New York, DC, Boston, Baltimore, Philly, Toronto, Montreal and eventually Ottawa. 
Else it's LAME.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

MANAMA, Bahrain -- The United States-led bid to bring the 2026 World Cup to North America looks to be well on track for success, with multiple high-ranking football sources here indicating that this week's vote by the FIFA Congress is expected to go strongly in the bid's favor.

Barring a last-minute change -- which, with global sporting politics, can never be entirely ruled out -- support for the bid's proposal to fast-track the awarding of the World Cup rights appears broad. A victory would bring the world's biggest sporting event back to the United States for the first time since 1994.

With the 2018 World Cup in Russia and the 2022 event in Qatar, FIFA's current rules prohibit European or Asian countries from bidding on the 2026 tournament.

South America's confederation is expected to bid for the 2030 event and has supported the North American bid. That leaves Africa, where Morocco was said to be entertaining a challenge but has yet to declare anything publicly.

Normally, a vote on the 2026 bid would not take place for several years, but given the restrictions on possible competitors, the North American bid has proposed that FIFA's Congress essentially draw up a list of specifications that the bid must meet within a certain time frame (guaranteeing stadiums, hotels and government support for security programs, for example), and, if the specifications are met, have the bid simply awarded to North America then and there.

Given the infrastructures of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, as well as their histories of hosting major sporting events, actually meeting the list of specifications is largely a formality.

The Congress, which includes 211 member nations, will vote on the proposal on Thursday. If it passes, the North American bid will have until March of 2018 to meet the technical requirements; the Congress would then formally approve the hosting rights in June of 2018, just before the World Cup begins in Russia.

By all measures, however, Thursday's vote is the one that matters most and is being seen as a de facto awarding of the rights. If it passes, the current understanding is that the United States would host 60 games in the 2026 event while Canada and Mexico would each host 10 games. All the games from the quarterfinals onward would be played in the United States, including the final, as FIFA stages its first 48-team World Cup.

If Thursday's proposal does not pass, the traditional (and significantly more elongated) bidding process would be required.

Article


----------



## blacktrojan3921

Honestly, they should at least give ten more matches to Canada and Mexico each. Because this bid (as of now) doesn't even look North America-centric as much as it looks US-centric but is spreading the remaining games into Canada and Mexico so that the US costs of hosting the games will not be so high.

Hell, this is not even taking into consideration the "Trump Factor".


----------



## hngcm

No, give Mexico's 10 matches to Canada and just make it a USA-Canada bid. 

No need for Mexico to hold matches a third time


----------



## Guest

Calvin W said:


> Umm, no. Canada and Mexico are not USA's bitches.
> 
> Thank you for let using be the token boy, forget about it......


Yes you are. Deal with it.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Kvetch all we want but the die has been cast. Arguing the case either way is futile and misses the point that this was done this way for a reason and everyone is obviously complicit with the measure. No one has to like it but don't assume it will be or _sh_ould be different, either. It _c_ould be, but it won't. 



blacktrojan3921 said:


> Hell, this is not even taking into consideration the "Trump Factor".


For now the Trump factor is simply a _potential_ obstacle, so until he actually enacts something that will well and truly impact hosting an international event then there's little to offer on this front. As of right now I don't know that he's formally implemented a policy that would lead to some form of boycott or international protest. Especially by the time the event actually takes place, when he'll be long out of office either way.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Has anybody other than Unimexada put in a bid or indicated that they still want to? Even as a token to put down a marker for next time? The USA appears to have pulled off an excellent manoeuvre here.


----------



## ElvisBC

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Has anybody other than Unimexada put in a bid or indicated that they still want to? Even as a token to put down a marker for next time? The USA appears to have pulled off an excellent manoeuvre here.


nope, and it doesn't seem someone could either! FIFA gave yesterday everyone else three months time to announce interest, otherwise its going to Unimexada as you call it

here text from the FIFA website:
_Based on specific regulations to be issued by the Council, the FIFA administration shall establish a bidding procedure inviting initially only the member associations of CAF, CONCACAF, CONMEBOL and the OFC as candidates to submit to FIFA bids to host the final competition of the 2026 FIFA World Cup by 11 August 2017. The 68th FIFA Congress (spring 2018) will decide on the selection of the candidate host associations. _


----------



## Skizo91

World cup needs to be in Europe or Americas for timezone reasons... Japan 2002 was a total failure because of the timezone difference to where most football fans are around the world.


----------



## Guest

Skizo91 said:


> World cup needs to be in Europe or Americas for timezone reasons... Japan 2002 was a total failure because of the timezone difference to where most football fans are around the world.


I'd argue there are more soccer fans in Asia than there are in Europe. 

I'd also concede that there's still more money to be made in a Euro-friendly timezone than there is outside it (at least for now). 

So how about the best of both worlds? 2026 Americas, 2030 Europe, 2034 Asia.


----------



## elekto

FIFA will approve North America's bid kay: awesome Mexico hosting 3rd time


----------



## twk

blacktrojan3921 said:


> Honestly, they should at least give ten more matches to Canada and Mexico each. Because this bid (as of now) doesn't even look North America-centric as much as it looks US-centric but is* spreading the remaining games into Canada and Mexico so that the US costs of hosting the games will not be so high.
> *
> Hell, this is not even taking into consideration the "Trump Factor".


If you think the US agreed to let Mexico and Canada tag along for any reason other than presenting a unified front and expediting the process, then you need a reality check. You could host the World Cup in multiple regions of the US without having to construct any facilities, let alone looking across the entire USA. Cost to construct facilities for this bid, or any other US bid, will be virtually zero (some minor touchups to address soccer vs. football is about all). Canada could never host a World Cup on its own, and although Mexico has done so in the past, doing so in today's environment would be difficult. This also sets a precedent that probably means we will see this configuration every time it's CONCACAF'S turn to host, so think of it as 10 WC matches every 20-24 years, instead of one WC in a lifetime.


----------



## Good Karma

5portsF4n said:


> So how about the best of both worlds? 2026 Americas, 2030 Europe, 2034 Asia.


Well looks like FIFA will be changing the rules AGAIN so that it is no longer required for confederations to be restricted from bidding if their confederation has hosted in the previous 2 world cups. Just to let China host in 2030 even though Asia would have hosted in 2022 (Qatar).

Looks like nothing has changed with FIFA even with a change in leadership. hno:


----------



## ElvisBC

Good Karma said:


> Well looks like FIFA will be changing the rules AGAIN so that it is no longer required for confederations to be restricted from bidding if their confederation has hosted in the previous 2 world cups. Just to let China host in 2030 even though Asia would have hosted in 2022 (Qatar).
> 
> Looks like nothing has changed with FIFA even with a change in leadership. hno:


It definitely changed, now they are alle more careful when taking the money :colgate:

Apart from that, you're right, Infantino is at least as bad as Blatter or Platini were, if not worse.


----------



## Marsupalami

Re: Qatar then China so close together :
Thing is - the sand pit isn't really Asia. The Gulf region isn't Asia proper - Im sure Arabs don't think of themselves as "Asian" the same way that a Chinese person might? *conjecture*
- its a massive continent. really a distinction between West and East Asia is needed.


----------



## RobH

It's the confederations which determine which nation is in which continent. Some Europeans don't like the fact Turkey bids for European events but Turkey is in UEFA so they have every right to. And regardless of cultural differences Qatar and China are both in the AFC. We open up huge cans of worms if we start drawing the boundaries based on our own personal perceptions of a place.


----------



## Marsupalami

I suppose aye - Africa and Europe confederations have 40-50 a piece.
How many does the Asian Confederation have?


----------



## tinyslam

Marsupalami said:


> I suppose aye - Africa and Europe confederations have 40-50 a piece.
> How many does the Asian Confederation have?


47

Member Federations:
AFC (Asia): 47
CAF (Africa): 56
CONCACAF (North and Central America and the Caribbean): 41
CONMEBOL (South America): 10
OFC (Oceania): 14
UEFA (Europe): 55

according to wikipedia.


----------



## Good Karma

Marsupalami said:


> Re: Qatar then China so close together :
> Thing is - the sand pit isn't really Asia. The Gulf region isn't Asia proper - Im sure Arabs don't think of themselves as "Asian" the same way that a Chinese person might? *conjecture*
> - its a massive continent. really a distinction between West and East Asia is needed.


In that case Europe should be allowed to bid in 2026 since Russia who host in 2018 isn't really Europe. Heck Russia is mostly in Asia. I think Asia is hosting way too many World Cups now. See how silly this all sounds, that's how your post sounds too. You either keep to a rule (I'm talking about FIFA) or you dont have any rules at all.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ no trolling please


----------



## Good Karma

alexandru.mircea said:


> ^ no trolling please


Please re-read my post.


----------



## Marsupalami

Im assuming because of the whole Ural question, though the body of the beast that is Russia IS Asian... the head ( and most of the cities hosting) is in the European designated half of that nation. 
Special geaographic circumstances that no other nation shares


----------



## alejo25

elekto said:


> Colombia has no chance vs Argentina-Uruguay


Actually Colombia has never hosted a WC and on top of that the country is remaking itself around the peace deal with FARC and this can make the whole difference.


----------



## ElvisBC

alejo25 said:


> Actually Colombia has never hosted a WC and on top of that the country is remaking itself around the peace deal with FARC and this can make the whole difference.


yeah, but they gave it back once in the past, that doesn't count well for them

whatever, it would be great to experience world cup in argentina once, no other country lives football like gauchos do ... but I am not sure if that's happening in my lifetime


----------



## CFCman

With the expansion of the world cup, surely, FIFA has to reduce the minimum stadium seating capacity (for group games, Round of 16 and quarter final games) to between 25,000 - 30,000.


----------



## Lord David

^^ What's to reduce? If matches are randomize, you could easily have 2 large football nations play a group game in a mere 25,000 seater venue. 

Yes, it would reduce for the need of excessive building or upgrading, but I doubt the 40,000 minimum will change.


----------



## GEwinnen

Good Karma said:


> In that case Europe should be allowed to bid in 2026 since Russia who host in 2018 isn't really Europe. Heck Russia is mostly in Asia.



All host cities of the 2018 World Cup are in the european part of Russia!


----------



## Good Karma

GEwinnen said:


> All host cities of the 2018 World Cup are in the european part of Russia!


I know that, I'm not sure you understood the point of my post at all.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Good Karma said:


> Please re-read my post.


I did, it's still a pile of provocative nonsense.


----------



## ElvisBC

GEwinnen said:


> All host cities of the 2018 World Cup are in the european part of Russia!


nope. yekaterinburg is in asia, area of sverdlovsk. it was also called sverdlovsk in the past


----------



## Guest

Europe isn't a continent, just putting that out there...


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Europe isn't a continent, just putting that out there...


and what is it then? rock band or jupiter moon?? :colgate:


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> and what is it then? rock band or jupiter moon?? :colgate:


Part of the Eurasian continent of course. We could go a step further and add Africa to that, but we don't need to. A quick look at a map would tell anyone that there is nothing continental about Europe. It is a mental construct by a people that consider themselves superior to the Asian peoples they separated themselves from in creating the 'European' continent.


----------



## Brunarino

If Europe is a fake continente then also Asia means nothing since East Asia, Siberia, India and Arab countries has basically nothing in common.

Btw I'd split the Asian Federation in East Asia Federation and West Asia Federation with India, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh cancelled from any federation, none cares about football over there.


----------



## ElvisBC

that is definitely wrong, at least about India. I was watching indian championship finals this year, that was real fun!


----------



## invincibletiger

Brunarino said:


> Btw I'd split the Asian Federation in East Asia Federation and West Asia Federation with *India*, Pakistan, Bhutan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh cancelled from any federation, none cares about football over there.


These are all pictures from India.


----------



## Brunarino

India has 1 billions people, it's physiological you'll find someone in a soccer stadium...


----------



## JYDA

FIFA will get an additional $300 million in television contract bonuses if the North American bid wins.

_
New details of FIFA’s contracts reveal Fox and Telemundo bought the 2026 television rights in the lucrative U.S. and Canadian markets for the same price as the 2022 event. Telemundo agreed to pay at least $350 million with FIFA getting a $115 million bonus if the U.S. ended up hosting; Fox’s fee was $300 million, with a $180 million bonus.

Canada’s Bell Media also received the rights to the 2026 tournament, with a $5 million additional fee if World Cup games were played in Canada. 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...et-for-500-million-windfall-on-2026-world-cup
_


----------



## Good Karma

alexandru.mircea said:


> I did, it's still a pile of provocative nonsense.


That's exactly my point it is nonsense. Im not sure you understood the english meaning of my post. You missed the point of the post entirely.

I'm showing how absurd it is to say China isn't part of the Asian confederation. It's the same as saying Russia isn't part of European confederation. You don't understand what you read. As I said REREAD my post. Everyone else seemed to understand except you.

So Asia hosts in 2022 and shouldn't be allowed to bid for 2030. This was FIFAs rule. Europe hosts in 2018 and they should be preferred in 2030.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ If you did a "reduction to absurdity" there, it doesn't really come off that well from your wording, but I think I get it now that you've tried to explain it. All's well that ends well.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

When do we find out what cities are getting hosting privileges for the USA "North American" bid?


----------



## adeaide




----------



## GunnerJacket

Manitopiaaa said:


> When do we find out what cities are getting hosting privileges for the USA "North American" bid?


My guess would be next year or later. Assuming things go as scheduled, FIFA will officially award the bid this year and then the host nations will consult with candidate cities who will then put forth their own bids for inclusion, at which point FIFA will get involved in the final review and selection of the formally accepted host venues/cities. 

Although the options for Mexico and Canada are likely already determined based on existing stadiums and markets.


----------



## Knitemplar

Manitopiaaa said:


> When do we find out what cities are getting hosting privileges for the USA "North American" bid?


It will probably be the usual suspects-- the leading metropolitan areas per country. Alphabetically, for

CANADA - it certainly be Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver (however FIFA wants to split the 10 Games set for Canada)

MEXICO - DF and Guadalajara for sure. Probably add Monterrey and possible Tijuana there. 

USA - at least the top 12 metro areas (where there are MLS franchises), and sort of balanced out geographically. So, 

1. NYC and 2. LA (might have at least 2 venues each), 
3. Chicago, 
4. Wash, DC; 
5. Boston for the Northeast. 
6. Philadelphia 
7. Atlanta 
8. Miami 
9. Orlando 
10. Dallas 
11. Houston (since each has an MLS franchise); 
12. San Jose/San Francisco for the Bay Area 

maybe Seattle, Kansas City and Columbus,OH, for early prelims.


----------



## eurocup2016

Why would the U.S.A need to do a joint bid with Canada and Mexico. It has a higher population than both countries combined and has the facilities needed to host the World Cup. They did a good job hosting it in 1994 and soccer didn't even have the popularity it does now and the MLS was just getting off the ground. The U.S should go at it alone.


----------



## Knitemplar

eurocup2016 said:


> Why would the U.S.A need to do a joint bid with Canada and Mexico.


Because FIFA has deemed it best that it be a joint bid. And you can't fight City Hall!!


----------



## Fabio1976

I hope in a 40k soccer stadium in NYC for 2016.


----------



## Guest

Knitemplar said:


> Because FIFA has deemed it best that it be a joint bid. And you can't fight City Hall!!


Fifa had nothing to do with the joint bid?


----------



## Juanpabloangel

What happens to qualifying in the region if the USA, Canada and Mexico all get a spot awarded as hosts? One country misses out? Canada doesn't make the world cup usually... however with 40 teams they may need a different qualifying tournament anyway. I'd hope for more inter continental play offs.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Part of the Eurasian continent of course. We could go a step further and add Africa to that, but we don't need to. A quick look at a map would tell anyone that there is nothing continental about Europe. It is a mental construct by a people that consider themselves superior to the Asian peoples they separated themselves from in creating the 'European' continent.


This is not completely accurate. Some geographers find the term useful and have use it in their work for thousands of years.

The point is that the Urals, Black Sea and Mediterranean form a rough physical separation. To the west and north are the linguistically Slavic, Nordic and Romance language people plus smaller groups mixed in who share a common history, religion and cultural derivation from Greek and Roman roots. Terms do no usually last for thousands of years if they have no basis in any reality.

Incidentally, the pop psychology you use is pretty much worthless. The term is used by those who loath European culture (including well-known Germans, Frenchmen, Danes, etc.) as well as those who exalt it. Although they reject European values, they recognize that there is a useful distinction embodied by the term.


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> Manitopiaaa said:
> 
> 
> 
> When do we find out what cities are getting hosting privileges for the USA "North American" bid?
> 
> 
> 
> My guess would be next year or later. Assuming things go as scheduled, FIFA will officially award the bid this year and then the host nations will consult with candidate cities who will then put forth their own bids for inclusion, at which point FIFA will get involved in the final review and selection of the formally accepted host venues/cities.
> 
> Although the options for Mexico and Canada are likely already determined based on existing stadiums and markets.
Click to expand...

yepp. probably some time after world cup is officially awarded to the north american bid

it will be interesting to see which stadiums will get selected and even more which one will get the final game, that's not going to be an easy task, there are certain FIFA requirements for the final game and even though USA has so many great stadiums it won't be easy to find the perfect fit! I even think such stadium doesn't exist (yet) in the USA, at least not in configuration desired by FIFA


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> yepp. probably some time after world cup is officially awarded to the north american bid
> 
> it will be interesting to see which stadiums will get selected and even more which one will get the final game, that's not going to be an easy task, there are certain FIFA requirements for the final game and even though USA has so many great stadiums it won't be easy to find the perfect fit! I even think such stadium doesn't exist (yet) in the USA, at least not in configuration desired by FIFA


:bash:

Yes it does. It's called MetLife stadium, and thats where it will be held. The only other pretender is LA, but since it is on the west coast, and further from European timezone, NY is a lock for 2026 WC Final.


----------



## pesto

Inglewood Stadium will be the most advanced (and beautiful) stadium in the world in terms of suites, built-in electronics, interactivity and access to on-demand link-ups to any site in the world (among many other features). As with the Olympics, fans will be able to interact in real time with fans back in the home countries, say, in Picadilly, at the Eiffel Tower, Trevi Fountain, etc.

Holding the finals there and the semis in the Rose Bowl and Coliseum will create a mass of international fans and utilize venues that will already be prepared for hosting soccer for the Olympics 2 years later. 

Tie-ins to the beaches, amusement parks and other entertainment venues, and other sports in anticipation of the 2028 Olympics will make for a huge festive atmosphere while encouraging more people to come to America not only for the World Cup but for the first Olympics in 32 years.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

5portsF4n said:


> :bash:
> 
> Yes it does. It's called MetLife stadium, and thats where it will be held. The only other pretender is LA, but since it is on the west coast, and further from European timezone, NY is a lock for 2026 WC Final.


Ya, that's not gonna happen. Inglewood will host the final, even though it should be the rose bowl


----------



## Guest

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Ya, that's not gonna happen. Inglewood will host the final, even though it should be the rose bowl


Because it did in 94? Unless asia becomes fifas most important market in the next decade, ny is a win-win for everyone. It makes it manageable for asia, while making it easier on europe.


----------



## ielag

5portsF4n said:


> :bash:
> 
> Yes it does. It's called MetLife stadium, and thats where it will be held. The only other pretender is LA, but since it is on the west coast, and further from European timezone, NY is a lock for 2026 WC Final.


LA being on West Coast doesn't really change much. The '94 Final kicked off at 12:30 pst. I believe the last 3 WC finals have kicked off at 11:30 am pst.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Because it did in 94? Unless asia becomes fifas most important market in the next decade, ny is a win-win for everyone. It makes it manageable for asia, while making it easier on europe.


Isn't there going to be the same difference between Asia and Europe regardless of what coast the match is played on? You just move the west coast start time to fit what you consider the "ideal" east coast time.

Btw, Inglewood Stadium is being built with soccer in mind. There will be standing sections that will bring capacity to over 100k for major matches.


----------



## Bruce Huang

China making sports for publilc health, not just making proud of people to the world. I'am living in Shenzhen, China, you can see the sports in every area, even in the industrial park, and I worked for a sports company: Avant Sports, also build in 1994, but with very fast develop. www.avantseating.com you can learn that, fast more than America company.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> :bash:
> Yes it does. It's called MetLife stadium, and thats where it will be held. The only other pretender is LA, but since it is on the west coast, and further from European timezone, NY is a lock for 2026 WC Final.





pesto said:


> Inglewood Stadium will be the most advanced (and beautiful) stadium in the world in terms of suites, built-in electronics, interactivity and access to on-demand link-ups to any site in the world (among many other features). As with the Olympics, fans will be able to interact in real time with fans back in the home countries, say, in Picadilly, at the Eiffel Tower, Trevi Fountain, etc.
> 
> Holding the finals there and the semis in the Rose Bowl and Coliseum will create a mass of international fans and utilize venues that will already be prepared for hosting soccer for the Olympics 2 years later.
> 
> Tie-ins to the beaches, amusement parks and other entertainment venues, and other sports in anticipation of the 2028 Olympics will make for a huge festive atmosphere while encouraging more people to come to America not only for the World Cup but for the first Olympics in 32 years.





LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Ya, that's not gonna happen. Inglewood will host the final, even though it should be the rose bowl


You are all more or less wrong. There are several "requirements and recommendations" for the final stadium that were met for all finals since World Cup was in the USA last time. Of course it all may be changed and adjusted if FIFA finds it necessary (as they always do), but currently final stadium is supposed to be open air stadium with roof (or call it canopy) covering the seats and it should acommodate over 70k seats (ratehr 80k) plus VIP area and (pretty big) media section.
There is currently no such stadium in the USA. MetLife size would just fit, but it has no roof. Rose Bowl has no roof either and in reality it is too small. I know this might sound ridiculous to most americans who see Rose Bowl as 100k stadium and holy grail of USA football (or soccer as you ridiculously call the mother of all ball games), but if you remove the bleachers, install single seats with FIFA standard gaps and add media stand, you could hardly get more than 60k seats in there. 
What's left are domed stadiums with retractable roofs, or Jerryworld that can open both the roof and the doors .. and of course Inglewood! 

Therefore I assume FIFA will have to accept Inglewood as a (good) compromise and that's it. 

And @pesto, while I find the idea to hold semis in Rose Bowl and Coliseum great, there is zero chance for that to happen. FIFA currently does not approve more than two stadiums in one city (ofd course that might be "adjusted") but I do not see why USA Soccer Assotiation should piss off other cities by giving LA three host stadiums.


----------



## ElvisBC

Bruce Huang said:


> China making sports for publilc health, not just making proud of people to the world. I'am living in Shenzhen, China, you can see the sports in every area, even in the industrial park, and I worked for a sports company: Avant Sports, also build in 1994, but with very fast develop. www.avantseating.com you can learn that, fast more than America company.


You will get your World Cup very soon. Unless something crazy happens China is a front runner for 2034 or 2038. But Europe will not give 2030 away, and that's where football comes from, and there were never more than two World Cups in a row outside Europe and it is going to stay that way!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> You are all more or less wrong. There are several "requirements and recommendations" for the final stadium that were met for all finals since World Cup was in the USA last time. Of course it all may be changed and adjusted *if FIFA finds it necessary (as they always do*), but currently final stadium is supposed to be open air stadium with roof (or call it canopy) covering the seats and it should acommodate over 70k seats (ratehr 80k) plus VIP area and (pretty big) media section.
> There is currently no such stadium in the USA. MetLife size would just fit, but it has no roof. Rose Bowl has no roof either and in reality it is too small. I know this might sound ridiculous to most americans who see Rose Bowl as 100k stadium and holy grail of USA football (or soccer as you ridiculously call the mother of all ball games), but if you remove the bleachers, install single seats with FIFA standard gaps and add media stand, you could hardly get more than 60k seats in there.
> What's left are domed stadiums with retractable roofs, or Jerryworld that can open both the roof and the doors .. and of course Inglewood!
> 
> Therefore I assume FIFA will have to accept Inglewood as a (good) compromise and that's it.
> 
> And @pesto, while I find the idea to hold semis in Rose Bowl and Coliseum great, there is zero chance for that to happen. FIFA currently does not approve more than two stadiums in one city (ofd course that might be "adjusted") but I do not see why USA Soccer Assotiation should piss off other cities by giving LA three host stadiums.


It's a bit odd to say that everyone is wrong since nothing works under the rules but then say the rules regularly change. Why not just say everyone is right and that all the mentioned stadiums are possible?

Inglewood as a good compromise? Maybe FIFA could also f themselves in the process? You may not understand how un-desperate the US is to host the tournament. I'm sure the Rams and Chargers will somehow survive the blow. 

I agree that there won't be 3 stadiums used in LA; but it was an interesting thought. You have a stadium which an architect called so far ahead of everything else that it's like it skipped 2.0 and went straight to 3.0. The site of three Olympics; and the Rose Bowl as your 3rd choice. Compared to the big turd of Jersey or Jerry's embarrassingly over-built palace, it's not a bad choice.


----------



## Guest

There will be no stadium issue for the final. 

And yes, the US is desperate to host the world's biggest sporting event, and what will be the biggest sporting event ever held on this soil.


----------



## pesto

US soccer doesn't move the gauge. Sure it's the biggest sport in the world but it's just not that big here. Aside from this website, the sports people I know haven't a clue who's in first place in the MLS even though they can discuss 4th round NFL picks with expertise.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

5portsF4n said:


> Because it did in 94? Unless asia becomes fifas most important market in the next decade, ny is a win-win for everyone. It makes it manageable for asia, while making it easier on europe.


No, because the rose bowl is the greatest setting, has a 95,000 capacity and would have perfect weather


----------



## ElvisBC

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> No, because the rose bowl is the greatest setting, has a 95,000 capacity and would have perfect weather


Rose Bowl has 95k capacity for college football, and for the rest as long as you keep the bleachers and squeeze in as much people as you can. Modern World Cup capacity would probably be somewhere between 65k ands 70k

Same with many other stadiums in the USA. Lambeau Field has given capacity over 80k, and that's fine as long as Packers fans want to warm each other while they freeze, but if they install single seats with FIFA standards the capacity would go under 60k

These modern FIFA standards are almost identical to what most NFL stadiums use, and that's why none of them has capacity as most college stadiums with bleachers do. Apart from Lambeau and DawgPound section in Cleveland I am not aware of any NFL stadium with bleachers. OK, Oakland in those closed uppers, but that's about it.


----------



## nandoer

Oh boy... Northamerica 2026 seems to be messy I mean, 48 teams and only 20 games outside the US. Still, I'm not gonna lie that its my only chance to attend a WC (as a Centralmerican )


----------



## ElvisBC

that will be fine world cup, no reason why something should get messy. 

stadium selection will be interesting, if they do that well nothing can go wrong. there are quite a few stadiums in the states with terrible locations you can't reach without the car and even then you might be stuck for hours in the parking lot after the game. hope they will be smart and give those stadiums earlier kickoff times.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> that will be fine world cup, no reason why something should get messy.
> 
> stadium selection will be interesting, if they do that well nothing can go wrong. there are quite a few stadiums in the states with terrible locations you can't reach without the car and even then you might be stuck for hours in the parking lot after the game. hope they will be smart and give those stadiums earlier kickoff times.


I assume you mean fantastic locations away from private homes and quiet neighborhoods, with plenty of parking so you don't approach the game out of a rat-hole blinking your eyes but instead can party outdoors with your friends over bbq and beer before the match starts? 

Only a very small percentage of football or soccer fans take transit. There is normally transit available to matches but it is lightly used.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> I assume you mean fantastic locations away from private homes and quiet neighborhoods, with plenty of parking so you don't approach the game out of a rat-hole blinking your eyes but instead can party outdoors with your friends over bbq and beer before the match starts?
> 
> Only a very small percentage of football or soccer fans take transit. There is normally transit available to matches but it is lightly used.


Those locations are impractical for an international event like this, where fans are usually more dependent on public transport and where one of the things fans enjoy is creating a nice atmosphere in a city. Doing that in a parking lot in the middle of nowhere away from the city just doesn't have the same ring to it.


----------



## RobH

Regardless of the subjective differences between fan cultures, and pesto has every right to have a different opinion, the practicalities of using a stadium with no public transport for an event attracting hundreds of thousands of visiting fans means such a stadium wouldn't be chosen.


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> Regardless of the subjective differences between fan cultures, and pesto has every right to have a different opinion, the practicalities of using a stadium with no public transport for an event attracting hundreds of thousands of visiting fans means such a stadium wouldn't be chosen.


I wouldn"t be so sure. Guess we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't be surprised to see few nightmare locations selected, such as Gillette stadium, or Levi's stadium for an example (just to name few). But we"ll know that pretty soon, then we can discuss it here over and over again :colgate:


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> I wouldn"t be so sure. Guess we'll have to wait and see. I wouldn't be surprised to see few nightmare locations selected, such as Gillette stadium, or Levi's stadium for an example (just to name few). But we"ll know that pretty soon, then we can discuss it here over and over again :colgate:


Gillette will almost certainly feature. And Levi's is highly likely too.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

ElvisBC said:


> that will be fine world cup, no reason why something should get messy.


One reason would be the poor selection of fixtures which could force travelling fans into long impractical back and forth travels from one end of the tournament's geographical footprint to the other. Hopefully it will not be the case.


----------



## ElvisBC

there is no such thing as selection of fixtures at the world cup because gameplan is made in advance, long before the draw.
of course they will have to take care about the regional aspect for the group games (do not forget, under new format each group will have three games only), but after that anything may happen. they might keep the group winner in the same area, but at this cup we will have a round of 32, so some teams and therefore many fans will have to travel quite a bit. it has been that way since the world cup was extended to 32 teams, and it will stay that way in the future.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

ElvisBC said:


> there is no such thing as selection of fixtures at the world cup because gameplan is made in advance, long before the draw.


And it can get as a result a ridiculous discrepancy in travel length for various teams, like it was the case in Brazil. It is exactly what I am referring to. It ddn't seem to affect the team performances as much as feared (the US, the team with the most kilometres, managed to qualify out of the Group of Death), I haven't seen any study on it, but it could certainly impact the quality of the fan experience.


----------



## ElvisBC

Well, with 32 teams advancing to the second round there will be path A or path B for each team, so not impossible to plan, but definitely a lot of traviling.
I have been to 6 world cups in the past and I have no intention going again (The only thing that would change that would be a world cup in Argentina but that is unlikely to happen in my lifetime), and there will be world cup coming soon to me anyway :colgate: :colgate: Still, having good friends near LA and near Chicago, I might pay them a visit in 2026, see a game or two and relax a bit during the world cup, but I absolutely have no intentions traveling around "just to see another game"


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Wow, six World Cups? Please tell us what was your favourite, seasoned with a few anecdotes from your overall WC experience.


----------



## GunnerJacket

alexandru.mircea said:


> And it can get as a result a ridiculous discrepancy in travel length for various teams, like it was the case in Brazil.


This issue should be resolved in the selection of host cities or even up front with the selection of the host nation. Having 1-2 outlying cities involved that even presents the possibility of that type of disruptive impact shouldn't be allowed, I feel. Again, this is where FIFA should have a more defined set of guidelines or outright standards for hosting to address this type of matter but they don't, so we're left with conditions that leave open the potential for such problems or politics. Alas.


----------



## ElvisBC

alexandru.mircea said:


> Wow, six World Cups? Please tell us what was your favourite, seasoned with a few anecdotes from your overall WC experience.


all of them were different, all of them were fun, most of them were really good. of course over the years world cup changed quite a bit, so it would be unfair to compare old cups with modern ones. still, Italy 1990 was one huge party all the way thru, so if I have to choose one, then Italy 1990. but that's subjective, of course. for an example, my best mate who went to all cups with me (apart from south africa) claims Germany 2006 was by far the best one!


----------



## pesto

Ok, so Rose Bowl and Inglewood are out as well since 90 percent plus arrive by car (oddly Mexicans, Brazilians and residents of 20 other countries have managed to pack the Rose Bowl by driving cars there, but apparently this is beyond the skill of some).

And if we can survive the nightmares of Gillette and Levi's, why not toss in Inglewood just for a fun nightmare? Ninety percent will come by car but, who knows, maybe Germans, Brazilians, Argentines, Italians and other likely finalists actually know more about driving cars than they let on?


----------



## Rover030

I heard they are extending the metro/train to Inglewood? So that would be okay.

If you're a football supporter that's going to a world cup, hiring a car in every city you have to go to would probably be very expensive, as car rent companies will surely charge very high prices if all those people were forced to go by car. They'll probably do something with shuttle busses, but having a downtown location like in Atlanta is still better, like it or not.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I heard they are extending the metro/train to Inglewood? So that would be okay.
> 
> If you're a football supporter that's going to a world cup, hiring a car in every city you have to go to would probably be very expensive, as car rent companies will surely charge very high prices if all those people were forced to go by car. They'll probably do something with shuttle busses, but having a downtown location like in Atlanta is still better, like it or not.


"Like it or not" lol.

Only a small fraction will go by rail under any circumstances. In the NFL the last I saw Seattle was by far the highest (poor weather for driving and tailgating) and it is maybe 15-20 percent.

Inglewood is doubtful. The rail is over a mile away and then you will use a bus shuttle. There is talk of adding a rail spur but last I heard that wasn't happening and for sure it would make no sense to add it for one WC match which could be played somewhere else in any event. Likewise the Olympic ceremonies at Inglewood will use the enormous number of adjacent parking spaces.

There are an awful lot of rental car companies in LA and 70-100k events which attract very large numbers of out of town fans are quite common (USC, UCLA, Bowl games). And if they do try to increase prices, Uber is very plentiful.


----------



## tinyslam

Pesto you can't compare the NFL and tailgating to the world cup. They're two different atmospheres. Even NFL and MLS are different fan experiences. And even if the majority of people drive it is still an enormous benefit to have alternate modes of transportation to a stadium.


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> Pesto you can't compare the NFL and tailgating to the world cup. They're two different atmospheres. Even NFL and MLS are different fan experiences. And even if the majority of people drive it is still an enormous benefit to have alternate modes of transportation to a stadium.


Agree that they are different. Disagree that transit is a material benefit. 

But I guess if FIFA doesn't like the transit situation at the stadiums that the US is proposing, they can go to whoever the back-up is. Assuming they have great transit systems.


----------



## RobH

tinyslam is undoubtedly right. Get to the airport, walk to the station, buy a travelcard and you're sorted. Much easier than get to the airport, queue for car hire, fill in all the forms and insurance details, wait for the ok, try to figure out how new car works and directions to everywhere you need plus parking at everywhere you want to go, try to figure out unfamiliar roads and signs.

Stadiums don't even need to be downtown, as long as they're accessible by some form of public transport that's a huge plus for world cup visitors and should be in the thinking of the organising committee even if it isn't THE determining factor (I agree it'd be silly to leave out the very best stadiums for this reason).

All that said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if USA offers way more stadiums than are needed then FIFA whittles down the list to best suit their needs. The USA are in a position where they can offer that, and iirc FIFA were intending to do that with Brazil before the Brazilian organising committee went nuts and decided to use every damn city in the country! :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> tinyslam is undoubtedly right. Get to the airport, walk to the station, buy a travelcard and you're sorted. Much easier than get to the airport, queue for car hire, fill in all the forms and insurance details, wait for the ok, try to figure out how new car works and directions to everywhere you need plus parking at everywhere you want to go, try to figure out unfamiliar roads and signs.
> 
> Stadiums don't even need to be downtown, as long as they're accessible by some form of public transport that's a huge plus for world cup visitors and should be in the thinking of the organising committee even if it isn't THE determining factor (I agree it'd be silly to leave out the very best stadiums for this reason).
> 
> All that said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if USA offers way more stadiums than are needed then FIFA whittles down the list to best suit their needs. The USA are in a position where they can offer that, and iirc FIFA were intending to do that with Brazil before the Brazilian organising committee went nuts and decided to use every damn city in the country! :lol:


anything is possible and it will be very interesting to see who will bid and whom US soccer assotiation will chose. I am sure we will have a great discussion here when the host cities are finally announced :colgate:


as far as I know FIFA has the last word on opening venue, and definitely when it comes to the final stadium! the host has free choice of other venues as long as these meet the requirements set by FIFA (currently single-seat all-seaters with capacity of at least 40.000 plus hospitality/VIP areas and parking slots). there is recommendation that most seats should be covered, but that's not going to work for 2026 and will probably be decisive factor for the final only (and eventually for the opening game).

because of this single seater thing, majority of college stadiums will fall out of consideration. I am not sure who would be ready to reconfigure their stadiums twice within two months just to host a couple of world cup games. it also depends who stadium operators are, not every college stadium is owned by the college that plays there. sites such as rose bowl and citrus bowl will likely bid. I somehow can't imagine world cup in the states without rose bowl. and yes, it will be very interesting to find out what FIFA capacity of rose bowl will be :colgate:

all this leaves NFL stadiums as most logical hosts since these fullfill all those requirements. some of those are located in the city/downtown or nearby (chicago, baltimore, pittsburgh, charlotte, atlanta, nashville, detroit, indy, seattle, cleveland, cinci, minnesotta, even mile high and jacksonville) or have great connections to the city (new york, houston, philly, washington even stadium is terrible and san diego even not NFL stadium any more). all these would be an easy choice that would perfectly fit needs and habits of football fans worldwide. on the top of this there are great stadiums reachable only by car or shuttle that will probably be selected such as glendale and jerryworld. I would add miami and raymond james to this group, I do not think they will leave out any of these four. same applies unfortunately to two stadiums with nightmare locations, gillette and levi's. impossible to reach and even then you might be stuck in the parking lot for hours. definitely two most idiotic locations in the NFL. in the end you have stadiums that do not fit at all such as oakland, buffalo and lambeau. and then there will be vegas, and there is coliseum. no clue what US soccer assotiation will do with three stadiums in LA and with vegas. they actually must select vegas too! and I forgot kansas city, no clue where to put kansas city :colgate:

will be fun and there will be many very dissapointed potential hosts


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> tinyslam is undoubtedly right. Get to the airport, walk to the station, buy a travelcard and you're sorted. Much easier than get to the airport, queue for car hire, fill in all the forms and insurance details, wait for the ok, try to figure out how new car works and directions to everywhere you need plus parking at everywhere you want to go, try to figure out unfamiliar roads and signs.
> 
> Stadiums don't even need to be downtown, as long as they're accessible by some form of public transport that's a huge plus for world cup visitors and should be in the thinking of the organising committee even if it isn't THE determining factor (I agree it'd be silly to leave out the very best stadiums for this reason).
> 
> All that said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if USA offers way more stadiums than are needed then FIFA whittles down the list to best suit their needs. The USA are in a position where they can offer that, and iirc FIFA were intending to do that with Brazil before the Brazilian organising committee went nuts and decided to use every damn city in the country! :lol:


Suffice to say you have a very small vision of what people do on trips to California. Some like the ocean, mountains, deserts, forests, lakes, etc. In fact, practically all of them do.

Even in London, you should have said "wait for shuttle train and take it (along with 8 pieces of luggage) to another terminal; stand in an endless cue; buy the $25 (per person) train ticket; wait another half hour IF the train is on time; 40 minute ride to an overcrowded urban train station; find that your hotel takes two transfers by subway; try to get the wife and kids to stop screaming/crying; finally give up and take cab (another, say $40).

But, it's up to FIFA what they want to feature in US stadiums; ideally the stadium will give you transit options.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> anything is possible and it will be very interesting to see who will bid and whom US soccer assotiation will chose. I am sure we will have a great discussion here when the host cities are finally announced :colgate:
> 
> 
> as far as I know FIFA has the last word on opening venue, and definitely when it comes to the final stadium! the host has free choice of other venues as long as these meet the requirements set by FIFA (currently single-seat all-seaters with capacity of at least 40.000 plus hospitality/VIP areas and parking slots). there is recommendation that most seats should be covered, but that's not going to work for 2026 and will probably be decisive factor for the final only (and eventually for the opening game).
> 
> because of this single seater thing, majority of college stadiums will fall out of consideration. I am not sure who would be ready to reconfigure their stadiums twice within two months just to host a couple of world cup games. it also depends who stadium operators are, not every college stadium is owned by the college that plays there. sites such as rose bowl and citrus bowl will likely bid. I somehow can't imagine world cup in the states without rose bowl. and yes, it will be very interesting to find out what FIFA capacity of rose bowl will be :colgate:
> 
> all this leaves NFL stadiums as most logical hosts since these fullfill all those requirements. some of those are located in the city/downtown or nearby (chicago, baltimore, pittsburgh, charlotte, atlanta, nashville, detroit, indy, seattle, cleveland, cinci, minnesotta, even mile high and jacksonville) or have great connections to the city (new york, houston, philly, washington even stadium is terrible and san diego even not NFL stadium any more). all these would be an easy choice that would perfectly fit needs and habits of football fans worldwide. on the top of this there are great stadiums reachable only by car or shuttle that will probably be selected such as glendale and jerryworld. I would add miami and raymond james to this group, I do not think they will leave out any of these four. same applies unfortunately to two stadiums with nightmare locations, gillette and levi's. impossible to reach and even then you might be stuck in the parking lot for hours. definitely two most idiotic locations in the NFL. in the end you have stadiums that do not fit at all such as oakland, buffalo and lambeau. and then there will be vegas, and there is coliseum. no clue what US soccer assotiation will do with three stadiums in LA and with vegas. they actually must select vegas too! and I forgot kansas city, no clue where to put kansas city :colgate:
> 
> will be fun and there will be many very dissapointed potential hosts


Why is Levi's bad? Rail serving all of Santa Clara County goes right to the door and with an easy connection in Mt. View (on the immediately adjacent platform) it connects to the Peninsula and SF. 

Santa Clara is the center of support for the team; SF has fewer fans than Sacramento County, 80 miles away. The team noted that the average commute time was lowered by 25 minutes when they move out of SF. The team sells out in spite of being awful.

Otherwise, this discussion is beginning to get a bit worrisome:

Very few college stadiums will have transit; they are typically well outside cities in areas with plenty of space for parking and walking from campus

Rose Bowl seems automatically out: transit in non-existent. In fact, it is such a bad location that 20-40k Brazilians, Argentines, Mexicans, etc., are forced to party outside in the surrounding wooded parking areas for hours before the match with food, music, dancing, impromptu soccer matches. 

Las Vegas has transit; it has a roof as well but when you step outside it could be 100; you may prefer to take complimentary private vehicles provided by the casinos rather than walk to the station.

Oakland is in very poor condition and soon will have no tenants. It will likely have been torn down well before 2026.

The LA Coliseum is great on transit. But a full size pitch requires adding a temporary deck.

Cal stadium has poor transit; Stanford is marginal; it’s a long walk from the station through the very extensive parking lots filled with people eating, drinking, etc., in same style at the Rose Bowl.

I would say the West Coast is very doubtful; maybe Seattle.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

UNITED BID COMMITTEE FOR CANADA, MEXICO AND UNITED STATES OFFICIALLY FORMED FOR 2026 FIFA WORLD CUP



> CHICAGO (July 6, 2017) – The National Federations of Canada, Mexico and the United States have officially formed a United Bid Committee to kick off the bidding process to bring the 2026 FIFA World Cup to North America. Uniquely suited to handle the expanded format of a 48-team tournament, this unprecedented joint bid will be best positioned to unite the world in celebrating the biggest sporting event on the planet.
> 
> As part of the launch, John Kristick has been hired as the Executive Director for the United Bid Committee for the three CONCACAF member federations, and is joined by Jim Brown as Managing Director, Technical Operations. In addition, Canada Soccer General Secretary Peter Montopoli has been appointed Canada Bid Director and Televisa Vice President Yon De Luisa as Mexico Bid Director.


http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/201...nited-states-official-for-2026-fifa-world-cup


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> oddly Mexicans, Brazilians and residents of 20 other countries have managed to pack the Rose Bowl by driving cars there, but apparently this is beyond the skill of some


Those Mexicans and Brazilians are mostly Mexican-American and Brazilian-American locals, not foreign visitors.



pesto said:


> Suffice to say you have a very small vision of what people do on trips to California. Some like the ocean, mountains, deserts, forests, lakes, etc. In fact, practically all of them do.


You are making an apples to oranges comparison.

When I go to NFL games in Seattle I take the train. When I go hiking in the rain forest or snowboarding I drive. Why the difference? Because I don't have rush hour traffic and 68,000 other people trying to go hiking or snowboarding with me.

Very few foreigners are going to want to drive to a world cup stadium, and that should inform the stadium selection process. Downtown stadiums with commuter rail stations and trams are far more convenient for non-locals than suburban stadiums without rail access.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I know Californians take a very liberal view on drink driving laws but Europeans, mostly, won't drink and drive. Driving means not drinking.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I know Californians take a very liberal view on drink driving laws but Europeans, mostly, won't drink and drive. Driving means not drinking.


Yeah, no. 

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road...f_alcohol_consumption/crashes_and_injuries_en

Drink-driving is a problem anywhere where cars and alocohol are sold.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> Yeah, no.
> 
> https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road...f_alcohol_consumption/crashes_and_injuries_en
> 
> Drink-driving is a problem anywhere where cars and alocohol are sold.


Only going by my experiences in California. Drink driving is much more prevalent than in Europe.

http://dui.drivinglaws.org/california.php

Most of the EU has a limit of 0.05 compared to 0.08 in California. Further to that the penalties tend to be tougher.

Flawed statistics here drink drive deaths divided by population would be better. However, South Africa doesn't come out of this very well.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> Those Mexicans and Brazilians are mostly Mexican-American and Brazilian-American locals, not foreign visitors.
> 
> 
> 
> You are making an apples to oranges comparison.
> 
> When I go to NFL games in Seattle I take the train. When I go hiking in the rain forest or snowboarding I drive. Why the difference? Because I don't have rush hour traffic and 68,000 other people trying to go hiking or snowboarding with me.
> 
> Very few foreigners are going to want to drive to a world cup stadium, and that should inform the stadium selection process. Downtown stadiums with commuter rail stations and trams are far more convenient for non-locals than suburban stadiums without rail access.


I have spent much time in Mexico and am comfortable with the idea that either Mexicans or Mexican-Americans can drive to soccer matches with little difficulty. Can't speak to Brazilians except the ones I have dealt with in the US and they generally drive like bats out of Hell.

The rest of your comments I believe to be inventions and largely false.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

CFCman said:


> An agreement can be reached between FIFA, the LOC and the management of Metlife stadium to install temporary Teflon roofing for the duration of the World Cup. Of course, the structural integrity of the arena has to be taken into account before such a decision is made.
> 
> However, if no agreement can be reached, Inglewood (with its roof:lol can host the final, provided that it takes place on a Saturday no later than 3pm PT (11pm in the UK, midnight in France). Alternatively, an LA final can also hold on a Sunday at 2:30 PT (10:30pm in the U.K., 11:30pm in France). But everyone in the stadium, especially the players, should brace themselves for a 105-110F afternoon temperature.


105 to 110 in Inglewood? Are you high?


----------



## CFCman

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> 105 to 110 in Inglewood? Are you high?


Lol. My bad. I did a bit of research and found out that the average max afternoon temp (in June and July) is between 92-95F.


----------



## pesto

CFCman said:


> Lol. My bad. I did a bit of research and found out that the average max afternoon temp (in June and July) is between 92-95F.


Not sure where your data comes from. Inglewood's average high in June is 75F. That makes the likely prevailing temperature at game time maybe 70, assuming an early start.

In June there is likely to be overcast from the ocean which usually dissipates more or less in the afternoon. So bring sunglasses for glare. After the match, you might want to do down to the beach for a while so bring some sunscreen.

There will be essentially zero chance of rain, wind, heat, cold, locusts, etc. That's why most LA people objected to the canopy. But for events from December to March the risk of rain goes up.


----------



## flierfy

CFCman said:


> With regard to qualification of the host nations, FIFA are yet to make a decision on whether all 3 countries would gain automatic qualification or not.
> 
> However, I have a hunch that, should the North American joint bid be successful, FIFA will restrict automatic qualification to only two of the host nations. It won't be a surprise if the USA and Mexico get the automatic slots due to their previous World Cup histories and FIFA ranking.


One would think that Canada would get the place of the host in case not all three hosts qualify automatically. Unlike the other two Canada actually needs this sort of an uplift.


----------



## pesto

flierfy said:


> One would think that Canada would get the place of the host in case not all three hosts qualify automatically. Unlike the other two Canada actually needs this sort of an uplift.


That make some marketing logic, given they are a wealthy country but not huge soccer fans.

But what if the US doesn't make it, which is a substantial possibility? Seems like a marketing disaster especially since the great majority of matches are in the US and US viewers are a major target audience who won't watch, say, Uruguay vs. Holland.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> That make some marketing logic, given they are a wealthy country but not huge soccer fans.
> 
> But what if the US doesn't make it, which is a substantial possibility? Seems like a marketing disaster especially since the great majority of matches are in the US and US viewers are a major target audience who won't watch, say, Uruguay vs. Holland.


It's a 48 team World Cup. There is a less than zero chance the US doesn't qualify even if FIFA decided not to give hosts automatic qualification.


----------



## CFCman

Guys, do you all think the FirstEnergy stadium in Cleveland would be a possible WC venue? It has a 67,000 seating capacity too, but only about half the stadium's circumference is covered by a roof.


----------



## Guest

CFCman said:


> Guys, do you all think the FirstEnergy stadium in Cleveland would be a possible WC venue? It has a 67,000 seating capacity too, but only about half the stadium's circumference is covered by a roof.


100% no.


----------



## CFCman

5portsF4n said:


> 100% no.


I'd wonder why


----------



## CFCman

LA and NY aren't the only front-runners to host the WC final. I will also put Dallas in the mix. 
Dallas' AT&T stadium (80,000 capacity) would meet the minimum requirement to host the final. 

However, I have a hunch that if MetLife is chosen, LA and Dallas would get the semis. If LA gets the final, which is the more popular option, Id fancy Dallas and Atlanta hosting the semifinals. 

In either scenario, Philadelphia should get to host, at least, the 3rd place match in the spirit of the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.
The LA final may be a 3pm/4pm CT (4pm/5pm ET) kick off time


----------



## Guest

CFCman said:


> I'd wonder why


NY
LA
Chicago
Boston
Dallas
Seattle
Atlanta
DC
Miami
Philadelphia
Houston
San Francisco/San Jose
Minneapolis
Denver
Charlotte
Kansas City
Nashville
Indianapolis
Cincinnnati

There are the 19 reasons off the top of my head that Cleveland wont see the light of day at the WC





CFCman said:


> LA and NY aren't the only front-runners to host the WC final. I will also put Dallas in the mix.
> Dallas' AT&T stadium (80,000 capacity) would meet the minimum requirement to host the final.
> 
> However, I have a hunch that if MetLife is chosen, LA and Dallas would get the semis. If LA gets the final, which is the more popular option, Id fancy Dallas and Atlanta hosting the semifinals.
> 
> In either scenario, Philadelphia should get to host, at least, the 3rd place match in the spirit of the 250th anniversary of the US Declaration of Independence.
> The LA final may be a 3pm/4pm CT (4pm/5pm ET) kick off time


If NY gets final, LA and Dallas get semis, but if LA gets final, NY gets nothing? Im still firmly in the NY hosting the final camp, but either way it is most definitely going to host a semi at the very least.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> It's a 48 team World Cup. There is a less than zero chance the US doesn't qualify even if FIFA decided not to give hosts automatic qualification.


Actually it's greater than zero and it would be a disaster of the first order. So FIFA has to ask themselves one question.


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> Actually it's greater than zero and it would be a disaster of the first order. So FIFA has to ask themselves one question.


:lol:


----------



## pesto

NY and LA seem obvious and if it weren't for Inglewood I would say NY is the favorite since LA hosted the finals the last time around.

But Inglewood promises to be such a jewel and in the middle of hotels, restaurants and a casino with DT Inglewood a short walk away. It would be a shame not to use it for the biggest exposure event.


----------



## CFCman

pesto said:


> NY and LA seem obvious and if it weren't for Inglewood I would say NY is the favorite since LA hosted the finals the last time around.
> 
> But Inglewood promises to be such a jewel and in the middle of hotels, restaurants and a casino with DT Inglewood a short walk away. It would be a shame not to use it for the biggest exposure event.


My exact thoughts. Without the new stadium in Inglewood, NY would be the automatic choice for the final. 

But the New Yorkers would say they deserve the final because LA hosted it in 1994. The only thing that would prevent NY from hosting it is the absence of a roof over the MetLife stadium. I'm not sure whether FIFA will grant the LOC the concession to host their showpiece match in a roof-less arena. 

But like I posted earlier, if the LOC, FIFA, and the MetLife management can come to an agreement to put, at least, temporary roofing over the stadium, the chances of NY getting the final would increase exponentially. 

If we get a NY final, I can bet that the opening game takes place in Inglewood.


----------



## CFCman

pesto said:


> Actually it's greater than zero and it would be a disaster of the first order. So FIFA has to ask themselves one question.


FIFA will do the needful in order to guarantee the commercial success of the tourney - name the USA and Mexico as automatic qualifiers. I think that Canada would have to go thru the qualifying series. I just don't see how there would be 3 automatic host qualifiers to a World Cup.


----------



## pesto

CFCman said:


> FIFA will do the needful in order to guarantee the commercial success of the tourney - name the USA and Mexico as automatic qualifiers. I think that Canada would have to go thru the qualifying series. I just don't see how there would be 3 automatic host qualifiers to a World Cup.


You hit the key when you ignore rules (existing or invented) and talk about reality: "FIFA will do the needful in order to guarantee the commercial success of the tourney".

My only difference is that I can see 3 automatic qualifiers as a possibility. Another approach would be to grant two automatic qualifiers to be selected by the local organizers after the qualifying play.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> NY
> LA
> Chicago
> Boston
> Dallas
> Seattle
> Atlanta
> DC
> Miami
> Philadelphia
> Houston
> San Francisco/San Jose
> Minneapolis
> Denver
> Charlotte
> Kansas City
> Nashville
> Indianapolis
> Cincinnnati
> 
> 
> After San Jose your list gets pretty thin. Cleveland COULD go ahead of those cities, although I don't really want to get into debating things that are pretty much unknowable 9 years in advance.
> 
> On a different point, I can see DC as home for the finals if they get their act together and have an interesting venue in 9 years.


----------



## CFCman

20 stadiums can be the maximum needed for the tournament. As the US will get to hoist 75% of the matches, the country could provide 15 stadia.
Canada should have two venues, while Mexico provides 3 venues due to the fact that soccer is way more popular in Mexico than in Canada.

My Mexican venues would be:
Estadio Azteca (87,000) - Mexico City
BBVA Bancomer (53,500) - Nuevo Leon
Estadio Chivas (45,364) - Jalisco

The Canadian venues could be:
BC Place (54,320) - Vancouver
Olympic stadium (56,000) - Montreal; or BMO Field (30,991) in Toronto.

USA venues:
Los Angeles (Inglewood)
Seattle (Century Link field)
Las Vegas stadium
New Jersey (Metlife)
Atlanta
Washington DC/Maryland/Virginia (wherever the new Redskins stadium would be built)
Houston
Dallas
Philadelphia
Chicago
Minneapolis
Boston
Detroit (Ford Field, 65k capacity)
Santa Clara (CA)


----------



## ElvisBC

CFCman said:


> I'd wonder why


of course it could get selected, why not? we do not know what criterias us soccer assotiation/world cup loc will use for the selection of the venues, and what FIFA will additionaly require for the hosts 2026 to fullfill (not talking about their holy final but about all hosts), but it definitely could! I expect strong regional division of the hosts, depending on how FIFA decides to host all those groups of three (for an example, two groups in three stadiums or simmilar. that will also strongly influence host appointments in mexico and canada)

on the top of this, stadium owners will have to apply for hosting, if they do not there will be zero chance for the city to host.

cleveland is a great sport city and has a great stadium, the pitch is wide enough to accomodate association football field as it just did for the gold cup, so why not? it is definitely not one of the big favorites to host, but I do not see it as an outsider either! of course, cleveland doesn't have the best image around, and that might be one of the points against it, but who knows...


----------



## ElvisBC

Bit more about host city allocation. Since Canada and Mexico are to get 10 games each, and may host games until round of 16 it is very simple to predict allocation of the games. I am also pretty sure the allocation will be identical to both countries.

Both countries will get either:
- two groups of three (6 games) + 3 games in round of 32 + one game in round of 16
or
- two groups of three (6 games) + 2 games in round of 32 + 2 games in round of 16

The only question left is which stadiums will host? And how many? (this does not have to be symmetrical). Canada doesn't have any stadium that perfectly fits FIFA requirements, but they will fit in somehow, there are few big stadiums there. Mexico has four perfect stadiums as of today, but two of them in Guadalajara. Both can change until 2026 of course. I assume both countries will appoint 3-4 host stadiums. 


Now to USA. USA has nearly hundred of stadiums that could host the World Cup, most of them not quite as FIFA desires, but still all great or amazing stadiums that would need minor cosmetic changes here and there, setting up the grass turf on many of them and hardly anything else. Considering what was written above, USA would host 12 groups of three, and these group games are likely to get allocated by the regional key, in order to keep group games in nearby areas. The only question is how the hosts will be assigned, 3 stadiums for two groups or some other way. 3 stadiums for two groups would mean 18 stadiums, which could explain Gulatis words "rather more venues than less" during the bid presentation in April.

If they assign 3 stadiums for 2 groups that might look like this (lets take Florida as an example): 3 of Miami/Tampa/Orlando/Jacksonville/Gainsville/Tallahassee. Assuming Miami can't be left out this leaves FIFA and USSF to select between other five . NFL stadiums might be preffered but I wouldn't count out Orlando with all that money pumped into the city and hotel capacities better than elsewhere. 

And then do the same for other areas of the USA. Just think about the northeast and you'll get enough headache. Philly, Baltimore, NY, Boston and even potential new stadium in DC (old one sucks) ... how to select only three. Even four won't be easy. And then think great lakes with Chicago, Cleveland, Indy, also Pittsburgh and Cinci, even Detroit and then add all of those great college stadiums there ... you can call it a nightmare, or plenty of choice that will leave many dissapointed. And then think about other areas .... 

All in all not an easy task. It is not just reading what Wikipedia says, where the biggest stadiums are etc, there are going to be a lot of other things involved in the final host decission, not only FIFA requirements and recent venues of Gold Cup and Copa America.

I'd expect 15 to 18 venues to get sellected (I think 15-18 venues would provide more turnover than 12, which would work too) , 2-3 group games each, then most of them getting two of second stage games (USA will host 24 of these knockout games). 

Few stadiums are must select (Miami/NY/Inglewood/Philly/Dallas/RoseBowl ...) with few others also very likely such as Chicago (home of USSF) etc, but I am sure there will be few surprises and not every great stadium will apply for hosting either. 

But let's wait for August, 11th first. If noone else announces the bid by then, the 2026 World Cup will be allocated to the CONCACAF bid and then we'll find out the host procedure pretty fast, I'm sure about that


----------



## CFCman

ElvisBC said:


> Bit more about host city allocation. Since Canada and Mexico are to get 10 games each, and may host games until round of 16 it is very simple to predict allocation of the games. I am also pretty sure the allocation will be identical to both countries.
> 
> Both countries will get either:
> - two groups of three (6 games) + 3 games in round of 32 + one game in round of 16
> or
> - two groups of three (6 games) + 2 games in round of 32 + 2 games in round of 16
> 
> The only question left is which stadiums will host? And how many? (this does not have to be symmetrical). Canada doesn't have any stadium that perfectly fits FIFA requirements, but they will fit in somehow, there are few big stadiums there. Mexico has four perfect stadiums as of today, but two of them in Guadalajara. Both can change until 2026 of course. I assume both countries will appoint 3-4 host stadiums.
> 
> 
> Now to USA. USA has nearly hundred of stadiums that could host the World Cup, most of them not quite as FIFA desires, but still all great or amazing stadiums that would need minor cosmetic changes here and there, setting up the grass turf on many of them and hardly anything else. Considering what was written above, USA would host 12 groups of three, and these group games are likely to get allocated by the regional key, in order to keep group games in nearby areas. The only question is how the hosts will be assigned, 3 stadiums for two groups or some other way. 3 stadiums for two groups would mean 18 stadiums, which could explain Gulatis words "rather more venues than less" during the bid presentation in April.
> 
> If they assign 3 stadiums for 2 groups that might look like this (lets take Florida as an example): 3 of Miami/Tampa/Orlando/Jacksonville/Gainsville/Tallahassee. Assuming Miami can't be left out this leaves FIFA and USSF to select between other five . NFL stadiums might be preffered but I wouldn't count out Orlando with all that money pumped into the city and hotel capacities better than elsewhere.
> 
> And then do the same for other areas of the USA. Just think about the northeast and you'll get enough headache. Philly, Baltimore, NY, Boston and even potential new stadium in DC (old one sucks) ... how to select only three. Even four won't be easy. And then think great lakes with Chicago, Cleveland, Indy, also Pittsburgh and Cinci, even Detroit and then add all of those great college stadiums there ... you can call it a nightmare, or plenty of choice that will leave many dissapointed. And then think about other areas ....
> 
> All in all not an easy task. It is not just reading what Wikipedia says, where the biggest stadiums are etc, there are going to be a lot of other things involved in the final host decission, not only FIFA requirements and recent venues of Gold Cup and Copa America.
> 
> I'd expect 15 to 18 venues to get sellected (I think 15-18 venues would provide more turnover than 12, which would work too) , 2-3 group games each, then most of them getting two of second stage games (USA will host 24 of these knockout games).
> 
> Few stadiums are must select (Miami/NY/Inglewood/Philly/Dallas/RoseBowl ...) with few others also very likely such as Chicago (home of USSF) etc, but I am sure there will be few surprises and not every great stadium will apply for hosting either.
> 
> But let's wait for August, 11th first. If noone else announces the bid by then, the 2026 World Cup will be allocated to the CONCACAF bid and then we'll find out the host procedure pretty fast, I'm sure about that


I think 18 stadia is too much. I'd rather prefer 14-15 stadia to ensure maximum utilization of the US venues. With 15 venues, each stadium would host, on average, 4 matches.


----------



## ElvisBC

I am afraid it is not up to what we expect or prefer, they will simply choose the option that creates the biggest turnover, fullstop! That's how FIFA runs its business. Therefore it was definitely not accidental that Sunil Gulati mentioned "many venues" in his speech.

Also about each stadium hosting 4 games, this is far from realistic. Just take a look to the recent World Cups, since they turned to 32 teams. There were stadiums hosting 3 games only, and there were stadiums hosting 8 games. The same will happen in the USA!

I'm expecting at least 15 venues, probably more, with non-linear game allocation across the selected venues!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> I am afraid it is not up to what we expect or prefer, they will simply choose the option that creates the biggest turnover, fullstop! That's how FIFA runs its business. Therefore it was definitely not accidental that Sunil Gulati mentioned "many venues" in his speech.
> 
> Also about each stadium hosting 4 games, this is far from realistic. Just take a look to the recent World Cups, since they turned to 32 teams. There were stadiums hosting 3 games only, and there were stadiums hosting 8 games. The same will happen in the USA!
> 
> I'm expecting at least 15 venues, probably more, with non-linear game allocation across the selected venues!


Just a few thoughts, no predictions:

Toronto and Vancouver are in the US for all practical purposes and Montreal a bit further but close to the Eastern US. So I think that there could be considerable flexibility in use of stadiums.

I would think that how many games are assigned to Canada and Mexico is a function of acceptable stadiums, projected revenues and hopes for developing the sport. In the reverse order. As a side note, the GNP of Canada is 150 percent of Mexico.

Two stadiums in LA to be selected? Sounds reasonable but it's going to upset someone.

Why so many in Florida? It's likely to be 90 by June with high humidity. Going to need the A/C at full blast to keep people from dying.


----------



## ElvisBC

from the bid committee statement:

_The deadline for the submission of the formal bid to FIFA is March 16, 2018. With less than nine months remaining and anticipating a record number of cities that will compete to serve as official host cities, the Bid Committee will begin formal outreach to cities and stakeholders immediately_

http://www.ussoccer.com/stories/201...nited-states-official-for-2026-fifa-world-cup

I think the venue selection will go fast once the CONCACAF bid has bern awarded the world cup, but that's still 10 months away


----------



## ElvisBC

this is what I was talking about:

Orlando Sentinel - City of Orlando contacted about 2026 World Cup bid

so, obviously "formal bid documents" are sent to all potential candidates! would be great to find out the list :colgate:


----------



## ElvisBC

OK, I missed this one somehow. Boston is going to be one of the venues, no way around it! The worst possible location and the hardest NFL stadium to reach and even worse to come back from! Awful!!!

Robert Kraft was named the honorary chairman of the board for the United Bid Committee


----------



## CFCman

ElvisBC said:


> OK, I missed this one somehow. Boston is going to be one of the venues, no way around it! The worst possible location and the hardest NFL stadium to reach and even worse to come back from! Awful!!!
> 
> Robert Kraft was named the honorary chairman of the board for the United Bid Committee


I'm seriously hoping it doesn't go to Boston or New England, too. Two venues in the DMV area, and New Jersey should do for the north-east. Moreover those areas are way more diverse than New England


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Atlanta

Atlanta contacted about 2026 World Cup


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> Atlanta
> 
> Atlanta contacted about 2026 World Cup



I am pretty sure almost all the cities with appropriate stadiums (existing, in construction and few proposed) were contacted! 

Here the final list from unsuccessful US 2022 bid, for comparison:
18 cities were selected for that bid, with intention to cut the list down to 12-15 venues in the end: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa and Washington, D.C.


----------



## ElvisBC

here the venue map from the US 2022 bid:










obviously all NFL plus only two college stadiums both in LA. I guess it won't be much different in 2026 either. still, I expect them to deploy the venues by certain regional key.


----------



## Aminjumi

Are they gonna use artificial turf during WC 2026? I'm talking about U.S stadiums.


----------



## ElvisBC

99,9% no, not in the USA nor in Canada or Mexico.


----------



## ElvisBC

Seems like Morroco might try to annoy americans a bit :colgate:

Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) president Pinnick: Morocco capable of hosting World Cup and they will bid!


----------



## GunnerJacket

ElvisBC said:


> obviously all NFL plus only two college stadiums both in LA.


By then the new NFL venue in Inglewood will be available and likely replace the LA Coliseum as a candidate venue. 



Aminjumi said:


> Are they gonna use artificial turf during WC 2026? I'm talking about U.S stadiums.


As of right now FIFA still doesn't allow turf for the World Cup, so it would take special dispensation or a policy change before turf is considered acceptable.


----------



## CFCman

pesto said:


> Just a few thoughts, no predictions:
> 
> Toronto and Vancouver are in the US for all practical purposes and Montreal a bit further but close to the Eastern US. So I think that there could be considerable flexibility in use of stadiums.
> 
> I would think that how many games are assigned to Canada and Mexico is a function of acceptable stadiums, projected revenues and hopes for developing the sport. In the reverse order. As a side note, the GNP of Canada is 150 percent of Mexico.
> 
> Two stadiums in LA to be selected? Sounds reasonable but it's going to upset someone.
> 
> Why so many in Florida? It's likely to be 90 by June with high humidity. Going to need the A/C at full blast to keep people from dying.


For me, it will be unrealistic that two stadia will be chosen in LA. With the vast geographical diversity of the US, the LOC would be better served in selecting one venue per host city/met area. So, instead of choosing two venues in LA, it will be better to pick San Diego (if the proposed new stadium ever takes off) as the 2nd Southern California venue.


----------



## ElvisBC

with FIFA anything is possible and nothing is logical

anyway, here, found the the map with US stadiums over 65k, so you can choose whichever you prefer :colgate: 
obviously red is NFL (as expected in 2026) and blue all the others, and there are also few smaller but "important" stadiums on the map, such as soldier field etc.

have fun choosing! :colgate:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

My choice:

New York
Boston
Philadelphia
DC
Atlanta
Miami
Chicago
Houston
Dallas
Denver
Phoenix
Seattle
San Francisco
Los Angeles


----------



## GunnerJacket

ElvisBC said:


> with FIFA anything is possible and nothing is logical


/closethread


----------



## pesto

CFCman said:


> For me, it will be unrealistic that two stadia will be chosen in LA. With the vast geographical diversity of the US, the LOC would be better served in selecting one venue per host city/met area. So, instead of choosing two venues in LA, it will be better to pick San Diego (if the proposed new stadium ever takes off) as the 2nd Southern California venue.


It would be very odd to choose anything in SD if it means eliminating Inglewood or the Rose Bowl. SD doesn't add much to viewing the diversity of the US over what greater LA offers and you would lose an iconic venue.


----------



## Aminjumi

I think US should host World Cup alone, no need for them to with a joint bidding.


----------



## ElvisBC

I think USA should not host World Cup at all, but that is not the subject here. 

Joint CONCACAF bid is present reality and if Morroco does not pop up with their bid in next 12 days the World Cup is going to USA/Mexico/Canada. All that is left is to discuss what normally comes after, such as venues, groups, organisation, financials, travel, accommodation, tickets, teams etc ...


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> I think USA should not host World Cup at all, but that is not the subject here.
> 
> Joint CONCACAF bid is present reality *and if Morroco does not pop up with their bid in next 12 days the World Cup* is going to USA/Mexico/Canada. All that is left is to discuss what normally comes after, such as venues, groups, organisation, financials, travel, accommodation, tickets, teams etc ...


Im not sure itll make any difference.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Im not sure itll make any difference.


it won't for sure, but it would prevent "fast track selection" as desired by CONCACAF bid!


----------



## Aminjumi

ElvisBC said:


> I think USA should not host World Cup at all


Why did you say that ?


----------



## ElvisBC

just my personal opinion


----------



## N3XY

Billionaire Kraft appointed honorary chairman of North American bid for 2026 World Cup



> Billionaire businessman Robert Kraft has been named honorary chairman of the board for the joint 2026 FIFA World Cup bid from the United States, Canada and Mexico.
> 
> Kraft, who owns Super Bowl champions the New England Patriots and Major League Soccer franchise the New England Revolution, claimed the World Cup returning to North America was "long overdue" after the US last hosted it in 1994.
> 
> The 76-year-old's appointment comes after the United Bid Committee was officially formed earlier this month, with US Soccer head and FIFA Council member Sunil Gulati serving as chairman.
> 
> The joint bid from the three nations was announced in April and is to be submitted to FIFA by March 16 next year.


----------



## Nacre

Other than being one of the worst owners in MLS, what does Kraft bring to the table for a World Cup bid?


----------



## aquamaroon

This past month the US hosted two big soccer tournaments! The COCACAF Gold Cup and the International Champions Cup (for European Clubs) And several of the stadiums that may be in line for 2026 hosted the games!

I thought it may be interesting to see how these american football stadiums would look like in soccer mode for a potential World Cup. Anyways, here is a sampling of some of the stadiums used in the past month for your viewing pleasure :cheers::



*Gillette Stadium - Foxborough(Boston Area), MA*









https://twitter.com/jtv212/status/891969586492567552



*MetLife Stadium - New York, NY*
You can see the "cutouts" in the corners of field where the Soccer pitch has been fit in:

















https://twitter.com/MLStadium



*Hard Rock Stadium - Miami, FL*

















https://twitter.com/HardRockStadium



*Levi's Stadium - Santa Clara (San Francisco Area), CA*









https://twitter.com/LevisStadium








https://twitter.com/beachboy619/status/890389278240329732



*NRG Stadium - Houston, TX*
(couldn't really find any good pics)









https://twitter.com/nrgparkfan








https://twitter.com/ManCity


----------



## ElvisBC

Nacre said:


> Other than being one of the worst owners in MLS, what does Kraft bring to the table for a World Cup bid?


other than bring along the worst possible stadium as one of the venues? well, he may help usa win the world cup by using cheats used by his american football team!


----------



## mybola

Surely there will be a new surprise for a big event like FIFA 2026 mendatag. In this case I will champion my favorite Italian team as champion


----------



## Rover030

Morocco is going for the world record of most failed world cup bids haha. They already have 5 iirc. On the US stadiums with cut-outs to fit the pitch: in Atlanta and New York you can't see the corners. I think around 10% of the seats is impacted in those stadiums. Would that make them less likely to be selected, or will FIFA/the organsing committee ignore the problem?


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> Morocco is going for the world record of most failed world cup bids haha. They already have 5 iirc. On the US stadiums with cut-outs to fit the pitch: in Atlanta and New York you can't see the corners. I think around 10% of the seats is impacted in those stadiums. Would that make them less likely to be selected, or will FIFA/the organsing committee ignore the problem?


probably. this will be the world cup that is going to create huge turnover, FIFA is going to earn much more money than they ever did! and (nearly) all the rules and requirements set by FIFA during last 20 years will be forgotten over night! in the USA there will be only one rule, the bigger, the better, the $$$$-er


----------



## ElvisBC

Miami wants to be included in 2026 World Cup bid

I'm surprised it is not written "Miami contacted about hosting games for 2026 World Cup" 

Whatever, now we know host cities are expected to submit their bids "by September"!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Miami wants to be included in 2026 World Cup bid
> 
> I'm surprised it is not written "Miami contacted about hosting games for 2026 World Cup"
> 
> Whatever, now we know host cities are expected to submit their bids "by September"!


I get the impression that outside the US Miami is viewed as a major US sports center? It certainly isn't viewed that way within the US. 

By value of local sports teams, the big markets are NY, LA, SF Bay area, Boston, Chicago, Dallas and DC. Pro sports teams in Miami are not highly valued compared to the cities listed nor are they known for intense fans. Their baseball team has the worst attendance in MLB.

That would put Miami loosely in the company of Houston, Seattle, Phoenix, Philadelphia, SD and Atlanta (no offense to anyone I left off).


----------



## Gadiri

ElvisBC said:


> I think USA should not host World Cup at all, but that is not the subject here.
> 
> Joint CONCACAF bid is present reality and if* Morroco does not pop up with their bid in next 12 days the World Cup is going to USA/Mexico/Canada*. All that is left is to discuss what normally comes after, such as venues, groups, organisation, financials, travel, accommodation, tickets, teams etc ...





5portsF4n said:


> Im not sure itll make *any difference*.


Look the past and *1994 bid :
- USA 10
- Morocco 7*
- Brazil 2

In 1989 in Morocco there was only 60 km of highway, now 1800 km (24 of 27 cities up 100.000 inhabitants connected), 350 km high speed rail up 220KM/h (including the 320 km/h HSR), international airport in all bidding cities, 11 millions tourists this year ... *If we convinced 1/3 of voting in 1989, we can convinced 1/2 of them in 2020.*

We organized FIFA clubs WC 2012-2013 in 3 different cities,* we have now 6 FIFA stadiums standards up 45.000 seats ready* which are not the most beautiful of earth I agree (Tangiers, Rabat, Casablanca, Marrakesh, Agadir) and* 1 under construction* (Tetouan). We will not begin from 0.

Now AFCON changed from 16 to 24 teams, Cameroon in late for *hosting AFCON 2019*, Morocco is favorite to host it and to show that we are able to host 24 teams (like for 1994) *just only few months before 2026 poll in 2020*. When we lost against France 12/7 for 1998 it was for 32 teams, and 2026 those are 48 teams. 









Nothing is official for Morocco 2026, we worked on it from annuncement for 48 teams it was difficult to consider hosting it only that's why it deals about Morocco/Spain commun bid but Spain can't because of Russia 2018. 

An hypothetic Morocco - Algeria - Tunisa was annunced but it's funny (border with Algeria closed since 1994).

We will go alone (and it seems that Qatar is helping us). ^^


----------



## ElvisBC

Gadiri said:


> ... *If we convinced 1/3 of voting in 1989, we can convinced 1/2 of them in 2020.*


the verb "to convince" is called a little bit different at FIFA :colgate:



Gadiri said:


> We will go alone (and it seems that Qatar is helping us). ^^


who plays with devil.....


----------



## Gadiri

ElvisBC said:


> the verb "to convince" is called a little bit different at FIFA :colgate:


When you can taste Mamounia Palace 1 time, you just and to come again. 

*Morocco payed bribes as other.* Believe that in 1989 between USA and Morocco it was not about differencie but about gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap between 2 countries. USA was so far advanced in all levels. 

Now it's less important. If you consult all bidding you will see it's about stadium of course but also about training grounds, transportation, health infrastructure, telecom network (4G network between in Morocco than in UK and France), hotels ...



ElvisBC said:


> who plays with devil.....


We don't know how (temporay stands ...)


----------



## ElvisBC

Gadiri,
how serious is that with Morocco bid? you hear anything locally? we definitely don't and there are only 8 days left!


----------



## tinyslam

I wouldn't mind a future World Cup in Morocco, but I think it's a waste of time and money to try to go against a USA/Mexico/Canada bid for Morocco. Obviously I am biased. Thanks for the information about Morocco Gadiri.


----------



## pesto

So the economic play in the US is to leverage fantastic new stadiums, reach a large population that has a very disproportionate part of the world's disposable income and does not really embrace soccer yet, and take advantage of the most sophisticated new media marketing expertise.

What is the economic play in Morocco? It doesn't appear to be the local market. It is in the same time zone as Europe but the European market is going to watch the World Cup regardless. Is there an Islamic tie-in that can be elaborated? Is there something I'm missing here?


----------



## N3XY

The "NAFTA 2026" bid has officially kicked off; Mexico City requesting World Cup games.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

CaliforniaJones said:


> My choice:
> 
> New York
> Boston
> Philadelphia
> DC
> Atlanta
> Miami
> Chicago
> Houston
> Dallas
> Denver
> Phoenix
> Seattle
> San Francisco
> Los Angeles


Agreed with all of the above, but I'd add 5 more cities:


Atlanta
Boston
Chicago
Dallas
Denver
Detroit (more Midwest presence)
Houston
Los Angeles
Miami
Minneapolis (more Midwest presence)
New York
Orlando (big soccer city)
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Portland (more Northwest presence)
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa (more Southeast presence)
Washington


----------



## Guest

There won't be 19 US host cities with Mexico and Canada thrown into the mix. Completely unnecessary.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> I get the impression that outside the US Miami is viewed as a major US sports center? It certainly isn't viewed that way within the US.
> 
> By value of local sports teams, the big markets are NY, LA, SF Bay area, Boston, Chicago, Dallas and DC. Pro sports teams in Miami are not highly valued compared to the cities listed nor are they known for intense fans. Their baseball team has the worst attendance in MLB.
> 
> That would put Miami loosely in the company of Houston, Seattle, Phoenix, Philadelphia, SD and Atlanta (no offense to anyone I left off).


They do have a nice stadium for association football, I think that's why everyone expect them to be a host. I don't think people view them as a major sports centre, but more as a major city and Miami (from outside the US) appears to have more of a unique character than the midwest and Texas cities. That's just my European perspective.


----------



## Rover030

I have been to Morocco and the people are nice, the infrastructure is good and the cities have a nice mix of classic (and very touristic) Moroccan neighbourhoods and modern neighbourhoods. They are also football crazy. Their main "economic play" is that they are a touristic country and probably can get a lot of financing from other Arabic countries.

However, there is no competing against a US bid, so there are two ways I see them ever hosting a world cup. The first is when FIFA or concensus decides it's "Africa's turn" (If NA gets 2026, SA or Europe 2030, Europe or SA 2034, it could be 2038), they could easily win a joint bid, or with more difficulty a solo bid. The other possibility is if they can join a Spain/Portugal bid in 2030. They could help out Spain and Portugal and ensure those countries don't need to invest any money in stadiums.


----------



## Guest

Miami is probably only 3rd to New York and LA in terms of clout internationally (no, Chicago doesn't beat it, and Las Vegas is debatable, but not quite there). 

Not to mention, since the NBA is a colossus globally compared to relatively insignificant NFL/MLB, people would associate success with Miami with LBJ and the Heat.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Rover030 said:


> The other possibility is if they can join a Spain/Portugal bid in 2030. They could help out Spain and Portugal and ensure those countries don't need to invest any money in stadiums.


Welcome to the transconfederation bid advocacy group, previously consisting of one person


----------



## CFCman

Looks like the Canadians may back out of the bid due to the possibility of Calgary hosting the 2026 Winter Olympics, and other issues..


> The World Cup is a different beast.
> What do we know about it so far? Almost nothing. We know it will be held in two or three cities and feature 10 of 80 total games, one of which might be a knockout contest.
> Canada has no stadiums that currently meet both of FIFA’s key criteria – to hold at least 40,000 spectators as well as have natural grass (and not the kind shipped in on pallets and stapled onto concrete a week before kickoff).
> There is a further problem in that all World Cup arenas must be “clean” – unused for any other purpose – in the month before the tournament starts and for its two-month run.
> If you owned a stadium, would you be willing to install grass or expand seating for just one event? Would you want to shut down your operation for an entire summer in order to play host to four or five soccer games? And how much would you want to be paid for doing those things?
> You might be amenable if the games were guaranteed hot tickets. These won’t be.
> This tournament will be the first to feature 48 participants. If you design your own flag and paint a border around your house, it’s possible you may qualify for World Cup 2026.
> Most of the countries involved will be competitive chum. Guess where those sides will be playing? You can forget about Brazil-Germany. We’ll be getting Uzbekistan-Peru.
> Presumably, we’ll also get the games featuring our own team. Given the state of the national program, that might be worse. In all likelihood, Canada will be paying for front-row seats to its own international sporting humiliation.
> So while co-hosting the World Cup sounds like a good idea now, it’s highly probable that it’s going to seem much less so by the time it rolls around. By then, it’ll be an expensive annoyance for most people. In the week before, I predict the ratio of sports-specific hallelujahs to commuting-apocalypse screeds to be running at something like 1 to 4.
> And that’s all fine. If it can be done cheaply and without crippling our metropolises, Canada should be proud to share in a little of the World Cup’s reflected glory (because that’s all it will be).
> But if there is one hint that it will derail or unsettle Calgary’s Olympic bid – an event that rallies the entire country and promises to show us at our very best – it cannot be contemplated.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...about-hosting-2026-world-cup/article35833861/


----------



## CFCman

In the unlikely event that Canada's FA withdraws from the joint bid, Mexico could get 20 matches, and the US gets the remaining 60. 

Also, both the US and Mexico may still be limited to 20 total venues. In that scenario, it won't be totally surprising if the U.S. presents 15/16 venues, while Mexico hosts in four stadia.


----------



## HDI 0.548

Rover030 said:


> I have been to Morocco and the people are nice, the infrastructure is good and the cities have a nice mix of classic (and very touristic) Moroccan neighbourhoods and modern neighbourhoods. They are also football crazy. Their main "economic play" is that they are a touristic country and probably can get a lot of financing from other Arabic countries.
> 
> However, there is no competing against a US bid, so there are two ways I see them ever hosting a world cup. The first is when FIFA or concensus decides it's "Africa's turn" (If NA gets 2026, SA or Europe 2030, Europe or SA 2034, it could be 2038), they could easily win a joint bid, or with more difficulty a solo bid. The other possibility is if they can join a Spain/Portugal bid in 2030. They could help out Spain and Portugal and ensure those countries don't need to invest any money in stadiums.


I doubt Morocco would even get a future African turn World Cup. There's a bad perception of Morocco in Africa from other traditional influential countries over their current political maneuvers in the continent. Including subverting the 2019 AFCON host, Cameroon. The country was told to host a 16 team tournament but later changed to 24, Morocco is considered a beneficiary of this as they will get the competition. They have a close relationship with the new CAF leadership. 
A future African World Cup in the 2030s would likely be given to Nigeria, Egypt or East Africa before Morocco.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Miami is probably only 3rd to New York and LA in terms of clout internationally (no, Chicago doesn't beat it, and Las Vegas is debatable, but not quite there).
> 
> Not to mention, since the NBA is a colossus globally compared to relatively insignificant NFL/MLB, people would associate success with Miami with LBJ and the Heat.


The world rankings of city brands are usually LA, NY, SF, Las Vegas, Chicago, DC, Atlanta, Boston and Dallas and then the drop off. Miami, Houston and such presumably come in somewhere after that.

The NBA comment is odd since LBJ hasn't been in Miami for years and I doubt non-US hoops fans are that far behind the times. But I suppose it's possible. 

In any event, in the US Miami is not a place you think of when you talk about sports prowess, fans, attendance or such. They are on the cusp of getting matches I would think.


----------



## pesto

CFCman said:


> Looks like the Canadians may back out of the bid due to the possibility of Calgary hosting the 2026 Winter Olympics, and other issues..
> 
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opi...about-hosting-2026-world-cup/article35833861/


This is why the Olympics and FIFA are always worried about multinational bids. It's really easy for one party or another to feel slighted, have a different agenda, have political issues, etc.

Fortunately here it will make little difference since the US can fill the gap relatively easily. In fact, Seattle and Buffalo and fill in for Vancouver and Toronto and the Canadian fans could still keep their tickets. :lol:


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> The world rankings of city brands are usually LA, NY, SF, Las Vegas, Chicago, DC, Atlanta, Boston and Dallas and then the drop off. Miami, Houston and such presumably come in somewhere after that.
> 
> The NBA comment is odd since LBJ hasn't been in Miami for years and I doubt non-US hoops fans are that far behind the times. But I suppose it's possible.
> 
> In any event, in the US Miami is not a place you think of when you talk about sports prowess, fans, attendance or such. They are on the cusp of getting matches I would think.


Can't reply with a straight face if you think any of those cities outside of LA/NY are more recognizable than Miami internationally. Do a straw poll on this site and see how many people think of Atlanta or Boston before Miami lol. 

It doesn't matter than LeBron plays for the Cavs now. Those years created a new generation of Heat fans, and helped spread Miami's brand from a sporting perspective. There is a reason why the Heat have the 2nd most Facebook likes in basketball after the Lakers. And it's not because of Wade's 2005/06 win. 



HDI 0.548 said:


> I doubt Morocco would even get a future African turn World Cup. There's a bad perception of Morocco in Africa from other traditional influential countries over their current political maneuvers in the continent. Including subverting the 2019 AFCON host, Cameroon. The country was told to host a 16 team tournament but later changed to 24, Morocco is considered a beneficiary of this as they will get the competition. They have a close relationship with the new CAF leadership.
> A future African World Cup in the 2030s would likely be given to Nigeria, Egypt or East Africa before Morocco.


I think any successful African bid in the future is going to be pan-African. The precedent being set by Euro 2020 and WC 2026 is not going to be a one off. And especially so if the African continent wants to host a WC again.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Can't reply with a straight face if you think any of those cities outside of LA/NY are more recognizable than Miami internationally. Do a straw poll on this site and see how many people think of Atlanta or Boston before Miami lol.
> 
> It doesn't matter than LeBron plays for the Cavs now. Those years created a new generation of Heat fans, and helped spread Miami's brand from a sporting perspective. There is a reason why the Heat have the 2nd most Facebook likes in basketball after the Lakers. And it's not because of Wade's 2005/06 win.
> 
> 
> 
> I think any successful African bid in the future is going to be pan-African. The precedent being set by Euro 2020 and WC 2026 is not going to be a one off. And especially so if the African continent wants to host a WC again.


The rankings I refer to are professionally prepared based on actual responses from human beings, not something you pulled out of your....hip pocket. 

Are you arguing that the Heat are the 2nd most popular team in the NBA? By value, they are number 10, behind teams from NY, LA, SF, Chicago, Boston, Houston and Dallas, which is about what you would expect given those cities' brands. NY and LA have multiple teams of course.


----------



## Guest

I told you the metric by which the Heat are second (Facebook likes, which suggests global popularity and brand recognition on a GLOBAL scale), and you bring up 'value', which is almost entirely decided by economic factors _inside_ the US re arena value/domestic TV broadcast/player value etc.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> I told you the metric by which the Heat are second (Facebook likes, which suggests global popularity and brand recognition on a GLOBAL scale), and you bring up 'value', which is almost entirely decided by economic factors _inside_ the US re arena value/domestic TV broadcast/player value etc.
> 
> You're a dopey **** at the best of times, but hey, what's new?


It seems you are having trouble with reading again. I was asking if people outside the US had a mistaken view of the significance of Miami as a sports center among Americans. That means that you have to look at American metrics and then see if non-Americans view Miami differently. 

Just to summarize, look at team valuations, attendance, etc., and you will see that NY, LA, SF, Boston, Dallas, Chicago, Metro DC, just blow away Miami in fans, revenues and recognition. These are publicly available statistical facts. There really is no argument supporting the idea that Miami is viewed by Americans as a sports mecca. 

International studies also support the lack of recognition of Miami as a brand outside the US, so maybe there is no difference between the US view and non-US view to begin with. But even if non-US people view Miami as a sports center, that does not change the fact that Americans don't.


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> They do have a nice stadium for association football, I think that's why everyone expect them to be a host. I don't think people view them as a major sports centre, but more as a major city and Miami (from outside the US) appears to have more of a unique character than the midwest and Texas cities. That's just my European perspective.


Yepp! It may sound strange for many here (both clueless and those pretending to know eveything) but it is the only stadium in the USA that fullfills current FIFA criteria for the World Cup stadium. Of course FIFA will change those criterias for the cup in the USA, it will bring them turnover and win as never before, but that's FIFA. preaching one thing for decades, forcing the hosts to build white elephants with roofs, huge VIP zones and thousands of seats in the middle of nowhere, and then simply pull down their pants in front of everyone and take the billions mighty america is offering!


----------



## ElvisBC

three more days for morroco 
they either negotiate with FIFA/CONCACAF behind the closed doors or have no intention to bid! hno:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> It seems you are having trouble with reading again. I was asking if people outside the US had a mistaken view of the significance of Miami as a sports center among Americans. That means that you have to look at American metrics and then see if non-Americans view Miami differently.
> 
> Just to summarize, look at team valuations, attendance, etc., and you will see that NY, LA, SF, Boston, Dallas, Chicago, Metro DC, just blow away Miami in fans, revenues and recognition. These are publicly available statistical facts. There really is no argument supporting the idea that Miami is viewed by Americans as a sports mecca.
> 
> International studies also support the lack of recognition of Miami as a brand outside the US, so maybe there is no difference between the US view and non-US view to begin with. But even if non-US people view Miami as a sports center, that does not change the fact that Americans don't.


People don't want to visit a city because of the size of its sporting market. They want to visit it because of its culture and renown as a tourist destination. Miami has a certain glamour that Chicago and Boston don't. Sao Paulo is the most important city in South America but people would rather visit Rio de Janeiro or Buenos Aires. Would you rather go to Berlin or Dortmund? The latter is far more important in sport.

The matches will sell out in any city chosen as the USA is such a vast country with such a large population. The size of the local sports market hardly matters as anywhere with a large enough stadium will sell all available tickets. This isn't like setting up a new franchise.

Miami is the 5th most visited location in the USA. Two of the locations that beat it are mostly there because of Disney resorts. Few people outside the USA are particularly interested in the size of the respective sports markets. Especially when it comes to soccer. It isn't like visiting the Maracana, Wembley, San Siro, Bombonera or Camp Nou. Soldier Field might have a bit of cache with some. Wrigley Field, Yankee Stadium and Fenway Park would also but they're not practical. A big plus for Miami is its ability to handle lots of tourists. People visiting the USA for the World Cup are not going to want to base themselves in Dallas or even Washington D.C. Visit for a couple of days for a match, sure. They will want to base themselves in New York, Miami and California.
http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-most-visited-cities-in-the-us.html

Edit: It doesn't really matter where foreigners want to visit as the USA will put matches where they want. Miami Beach would look good on TV though and the broadcasters would likely want to go there.


----------



## Faiyez

slipperydog said:


> The last World Cup was held in Brazil. Just FYI.


Held in the winter. Playing in Brazil was more comfortable than Germany in 2006.


----------



## d.henney

Dont see a chance for Maghribiya for 2026. But they together with Dschazair should go for 2030. The world cup with 48 partipicans is to big for a small country like Maghribiya alone. There is a high chance after South America, Europe, Asia and North America for an african candidate. Ah yeah: I think 2030 would be to soon for Zhongguo because their players arent ready for a home world cup that time in my opinion. The league is gaining more importance, but for a competitive national team zhonggua needs better players than the current ones. They only can get them if they train their youth and the best youth players grew out of supporting groups from national football clubs or successful playersin Europe. I think most of the youth now is still not familiar enough with football, the league is okay, but there are no good players in Europe. But lets say in 5 years the league will be good enough and in 5 years there will be at least one good player in Europe (maybe the guy at Bremen right now) … And the youth (12 years) in 2023 will be 23 years old in 2034. 23 and some older ones is the best age for a good football team with ambitions, perfect for their home world cup. If I were an upper personality in that field in Zhongguo, i would wait for 2034, after Africa got its world cup.


----------



## ElvisBC

Faiyez said:


> slipperydog said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last World Cup was held in Brazil. Just FYI.
> 
> 
> 
> Held in the winter. Playing in Brazil was more comfortable than Germany in 2006.
Click to expand...

well, I was there, haven't seen any snow and that day in Manaus vs Italy ... that was nothing but one huge sauna :colgate:


----------



## Faiyez

You were in Germany?


----------



## slipperydog

Germany and Korea were both very hot and humid during the World Cup. So, the humidity in Miami isn't going to be a deal breaker in 2026.


----------



## aquamaroon

Wow, alright... Morocco! Looks like the North American group will have to actually bid after all!

Welp I have to admit I didn't know much about the Moroccan bid until they put in for 2026. I went on Wikipedia and got some info about their 2026 bid. Looks like there are six stadia currently listed as potential World Cup hosts. Here they are in photos:

*Casablanca - Stade Mohamed V* (67,000)










*Rabat - Stade Prince Moulay Abdellah* (52,000)










*Adrar - Stade Adrar* (45,480)










*Marrakech - Stade de Marrakech* (45,240)










*Fez - Fez Stadium* (45,000)









*Tanger - Stade Ibn Batouta* (45,000)










So that's what's listed now, looks like there are two stadiums under construction - a new stadium for Tetouan:








and one for the city of Kenitra. There's also a plan for a new Casablanca stadium that was cancelled, but I guess may be revived for a potential 2026 World Cup? :dunno:
So 6 with up to 9. My guess is the bid'll end up having 8 stadiums. With 80 matches in a 48 team World Cup, that works out to 10 matches per stadium.

Hopefully we can get the list of North American Stadiums soon and compare the two! :cheers:


----------



## ElvisBC

looks like FIFA sticks on the fast track plan:


_Before the passing of the 11.8. deadline, FIFA received:

-a joint expression of interest submitted by the Canadian Soccer Association, the Mexican Football Association and the United States Soccer Federation
-an expression of interest submitted by the Moroccan Football Association

The interested Member Associations will now move on to officially register their bids and agree to the terms and conditions of the enhanced bidding process that will select the venue of the first FIFA World Cup to be played with 48 teams. The next steps in this process are:

-FIFA to issue the bidding registration documents for the Member Associations to fill in
-FIFA to issue bidding documents so that the Member Associations may commence their preparations
-Member Associations to submit their bid book to FIFA by March 2018
-FIFA to carry out an evaluation process, which will result in a report
-Based on this report, the FIFA Council to designate the bids to be submitted to the FIFA Congress for a final decision

*Finally, the decision on whether to select one of the above bidders to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be taken by the 68th FIFA Congress, which will convene in Moscow on 13 June next year, on the eve of the opening match of the 2018 FIFA World Cup.*_


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> looks like FIFA sticks on the fast track plan:
> 
> 
> _Before the passing of the 11.8. deadline, FIFA received:
> 
> -a joint expression of interest submitted by the Canadian Soccer Association, the Mexican Football Association and the United States Soccer Federation
> -an expression of interest submitted by the Moroccan Football Association
> 
> The interested Member Associations will now move on to officially register their bids and agree to the terms and conditions of the enhanced bidding process that will select the venue of the first FIFA World Cup to be played with 48 teams. The next steps in this process are:
> 
> -FIFA to issue the bidding registration documents for the Member Associations to fill in
> -FIFA to issue bidding documents so that the Member Associations may commence their preparations
> -Member Associations to submit their bid book to FIFA by March 2018
> -FIFA to carry out an evaluation process, which will result in a report
> -Based on this report, the FIFA Council to designate the bids to be submitted to the FIFA Congress for a final decision
> 
> *Finally, the decision on whether to select one of the above bidders to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup will be taken by the 68th FIFA Congress, which will convene in Moscow on 13 June next year, on the eve of the opening match of the 2018 FIFA World Cup.*_


Sounds good: 10 months of wining, dining, hookers, bribery, insults and general skullduggery is enough. Except for the wining, dining and hookers.

Interesting to see FIFA HQ at work to shape the vote.


----------



## dakhla

pesto said:


> But do they want to go to Morocco instead of Miami? :lol:


they will feel like home with no visa needed to get to morocco.

between a 100 degree and 100% humidity of Miami and tropical rain twice a day or 75 to 90 degree in tangier or Casablanca..... I don't see why not.

summer in morocco is a lot of fun in a country of football and free music festivals all summer and where you can travel between all the stadiums by hwys or train .... in only few ours or minutes by airplain or high speed train. compare to days between US Canada Mexico.


----------



## dakhla

ElvisBC said:


> usa bid promises so much money to everyone, noone would pass on that, and we all know what FIFA is all about :colgate:


it's no more the decision of 24 fifa members that morocco was victim of, it is in the hand of all the world federation and all world countries. 

it was easier to bribe few fifa members but it no more the case unless if trump go crazy political about it witch I doubt with all the hatred he showed for foreigners and Mexican. 

morocco have a at least 70 confirm votes not including europe and need 30 while the UCM have 30 confirmed vote and need 70.


----------



## ElvisBC

dakhla said:


> it's no more the decision of 24 fifa members that morocco was victim of, it is in the hand of all the world federation and all world countries.
> 
> it was easier to bribe few fifa members but it no more the case unless if trump go crazy political about it witch I doubt with all the hatred he showed for foreigners and Mexican.
> 
> morocco have a at least 70 confirm votes not including europe and need 30 while the UCM have 30 confirmed vote and need 70.


I know the procedure, don't worry about that!

do you know how infantino became the president? and what were the promises behind that?

honestly, I wouldn't mind morocco hosting the world cup, but I am pretty sure thats not gonna happen, not alone!


----------



## Juanpabloangel

I guess the US will win the bid, and the stadia in Morocco don't look all that great.


----------



## marokko

double post


----------



## marokko

aquamaroon said:


> So that's what's listed now, looks like there are two stadiums under construction - a new stadium for Tetouan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and one for the city of Kenitra. There's also a plan for a new Casablanca stadium that was cancelled, but I guess may be revived for a potential 2026 World Cup? :dunno:
> So 6 with up to 9. My guess is the bid'll end up having 8 stadiums. With 80 matches in a 48 team World Cup, that works out to 10 matches per stadium.
> 
> Hopefully we can get the list of North American Stadiums soon and compare the two! :cheers:


Actually Morocco loves Football. Maybe that will be an advantage on the USA/Canada/(Mexico) bid. At the moment there are more stadiums under construction or are planned to start being built in the coming year. All the new stadiums do not have a track:

1. The city of Tetouan is indeed building a new stadium currently
2. Kenitra is also building a new stadium at the moment. Unfortunately it is only for 25000/30000 spectators. 
3. Preration work is started now for the new El Hoceima stadium:










4. The city of Oujda is planning to build a stadium.The budget is ready and construction will start soon










5. If Morocco get the world cup, I am quite sure this 80.000+ stadium project will be revived for Casablanca








^

6. It may be a possibility that Qatar will donate 1 or 2 of those "IKEA" stadiums to Morocco after its WC
7. The Stadium in Tangier will probably be extended to 69.000 spectators
8. The Stadium in Marrakech will probably be expanded to 70.000 spectators

Btw, I would like a World Cup in Morocco, but it has a very strong competition. The new voting system may be an advantage though. Lastly, Morocco did not forward officially a bid yet. It just showed yesterday officially that it is interested in the FIFA event.


----------



## Faiyez

dakhla said:


> they will feel like home with no visa needed to get to morocco.


Most will have to transit through a country that requires a visa or similar requirements, in order to get to Morocco. 

e.g. USA


----------



## pesto

dakhla said:


> they will feel like home with no visa needed to get to morocco.
> 
> between a 100 degree and 100% humidity of Miami and tropical rain twice a day or 75 to 90 degree in tangier or Casablanca..... I don't see why not.
> 
> summer in morocco is a lot of fun in a country of football and free music festivals all summer and where you can travel between all the stadiums by hwys or train .... in only few ours or minutes by airplain or high speed train. compare to days between US Canada Mexico.


Well, I think we are all looking forward to learning about Morocco over the next months; I assume getting some additional tourism is why they are spending money on a bid. 

At least for now, even without the World Cup, Miami seems to attract Latin visitors pretty well, largely Brazilians, Argentines and Colombians. Probably a market that the Morocco tourist officials would like to target.


----------



## pesto

dakhla said:


> it's no more the decision of 24 fifa members that morocco was victim of, it is in the hand of all the world federation and all world countries.
> 
> it was easier to bribe few fifa members but it no more the case unless if trump go crazy political about it witch I doubt with all the hatred he showed for foreigners and Mexican.
> 
> morocco have a at least 70 confirm votes not including europe and need 30 while the UCM have 30 confirmed vote and need 70.


Oddly, in spite of Trump, Mexico and its 130M rabid soccer fans are signed up with Canada and the US to host FIFA 26. If you have some issue that will keep you from getting a US visa maybe you can go to matches in Canada or Mexico?


----------



## dakhla

HDI 0.548 said:


> I doubt Morocco would even get a future African turn World Cup. There's a bad perception of Morocco in Africa from other traditional influential countries over their current political maneuvers in the continent. Including subverting the 2019 AFCON host, Cameroon. The country was told to host a 16 team tournament but later changed to 24, Morocco is considered a beneficiary of this as they will get the competition. They have a close relationship with the new CAF leadership.
> A future African World Cup in the 2030s would likely be given to Nigeria, Egypt or East Africa before Morocco.


You sound like mugabe or ANC communist leaders who are a minority in the continent.

There is no such thing as influent african countries over other African countries. It s all depend on how hard you work and convincing you are, but for major decisions in African football morocco is part of it and it has, the full support of African confederation. 

Last month in rabat






For the rest Educate yourself about the country because you don't know nothing about it.


----------



## N3XY

Morocco deserves the 2030 World Cup.


----------



## pesto

N3XY said:


> Morocco deserves the 2030 World Cup.


And everyone else doesn't? What is your thinking here re entitlement? Shouldn't the decision be made based on the best economic package that a country can offer to FIFA?


----------



## CFCman

As someone posted on this thread in the past, it's really a foregone conclusion that the 2026 and 2030 WCs will be awarded to the US/Mexico, and England (or GB) respectively. 

All these talk of Argentina/Uruguay hosting in 2030 won't go beyond fantasy.

Moreover, I won't be shocked if Canada pulls out of the entire arrangement due to the fact that Calgary is bidding for the Winter Olympics in the same year. There is an unwritten rule that bars countries from hosting the Winter Olympics and World Cup in the same year. Surely, hosting the Winter Olympics would be a bigger deal to Canadian sports fans than hosting Zambia v UAE Lets face it, the big name countries in soccer will most likely be based in the US and Mexico if Canada continues to be part of the bid.


----------



## marokko

> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by N3XY View Post
> Morocco deserves the 2030 World Cup.
> 
> 
> 
> And everyone else doesn't? What is your thinking here re entitlement? Shouldn't the decision be made based on the best economic package that a country can offer to FIFA?
Click to expand...

I am probably a bit biased towards my country of birth, but I think Morocco really deserves a world cup. My explanation: Morocco already made 5 bids in the last 3 decades. If I remember well, it became in at least 3 of those bids second. In my opinion it became only second during those bids, because the other party had more money for bribing. Morocco lost e.g. in 1994 a bid against USA, later against France, etc. For example in the last report of FIFA, FIFA concluded that if bribing was not part of the voting, Morocco would probably have won the bid for 2010.

This is for example a foreign article talking about it (Telegraph):

FIFA corruption - Morocco won 2010 World Cup vote


----------



## alexandru.mircea

CFCman said:


> There is an unwritten rule that bars countries from hosting the Winter Olympics and World Cup in the same year.


Hmm, it's the first time I hear about this. Has it impacted potential bids before?


----------



## GunnerJacket

CFCman said:


> There is an unwritten rule that bars countries from hosting the Winter Olympics and World Cup in the same year.


I doubt this. In fact I'd wager this is an internet-created urban legend. It could be difficult for some nations to pull off because you're asking for a lot of investment, but I doubt there is any formal arrangement that would anger other cities/nations if some country tried to do this. After all there's minimal cross over seeing as the WC bid is only using 1 venue and a couple training grounds.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> I am probably a bit biased towards my country of birth, but I think Morocco really deserves a world cup. My explanation: Morocco already made 5 bids in the last 3 decades. If I remember well, it became in at least 3 of those bids second. In my opinion it became only second during those bids, because the other party had more money for bribing. Morocco lost e.g. in 1994 a bid against USA, later against France, etc. For example in the last report of FIFA, FIFA concluded that if bribing was not part of the voting, Morocco would probably have won the bid for 2010.
> 
> This is for example a foreign article talking about it (Telegraph):
> 
> FIFA corruption - Morocco won 2010 World Cup vote


Do you have any statistics to back up these claims that Morocco would have won without bribery? Media revenues, attendance revenues, benefits to the FIFA brand, winning more fans to soccer, etc.? I wouldn't doubt that there was plenty of bribery, from the petty to the gross, during these contests but you have to mount a statistical argument that it made a difference.

Likewise, purely on the face of it, it seems that a bid from countries with 500M people, a huge economy, a surplus of quality stadiums and a population who is only moderately interested in soccer would be a desirable place to hold a colorful event such as the WC. A public relations bonanza. Do you have some numbers that indicate that hosting in Morocco would be more economically beneficial?


----------



## CFCman

GunnerJacket said:


> I doubt this. In fact I'd wager this is an internet-created urban legend. It could be difficult for some nations to pull off because you're asking for a lot of investment, but I doubt there is any formal arrangement that would anger other cities/nations if some country tried to do this. After all there's minimal cross over seeing as the WC bid is only using 1 venue and a couple training grounds.


Lol. Canada will present only one stadium? Damn, that's cold :lol:


----------



## GunnerJacket

CFCman said:


> Lol. Canada will present only one stadium? Damn, that's cold :lol:


D'oh! I should've clarified.

Not the country but the alleged city hosting the Winter Olympics.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> D'oh! I should've clarified.
> 
> Not the country but the alleged city hosting the Winter Olympics.


If it's any consolation, I understood what you meant. Only one venue in any WC host city will be used so even if the same city hosted the Olympics it wouldn't be much more burden for it to host the WC. 

.....right? :lol:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> The United States, which will stage 60 of the 80 matches, has more than 30 venue candidates, including most every big city on the map, from Boston to Los Angeles and Miami to Seattle. Mexico, which would have 10 matches, will propose three locations (Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey). Canada, which would also host 10 games, is offering at least six cities.
> 
> The United Bid Committee will narrow the list before submitting its formal bid to FIFA in March. If North America is awarded the World Cup next June, the committee would then work to finalize approximately 16 host cities across the three countries.
> 
> Mexico is aiming to stage matches in all three of its proposed venues and Canada seems likely to receive two or three locations, leaving the United States with at least 10.


Which U.S. (and Mexican and Canadian) cities would host World Cup in 2026?


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Which U.S. (and Mexican and Canadian) cities would host World Cup in 2026?


If Mexico gets 3 then Canada will probably want 3. Sounds reasonable at any rate. So it sounds like we are at 10 for the US (maybe 1 or 2 more)?

1.	Boston
2.	NY/NJ
3.	Philadelphia
4.	DC 
5.	Atlanta
6.	Miami
7.	Chicago
8.	Dallas
9.	Houston
10.	Denver
11.	Phoenix
12.	Inglewood
13.	SJ/SF
14.	Seattle
15.	Las Vegas
16.	Tampa
17.	Orlando
18.	Charlotte
19. KC

Eliminate 9


----------



## Fabio1976

Will be in 2018 or 2020 the definitive choice ?


----------



## N3XY

next year just before Russia's World Cup.


----------



## Rokto14

N3XY said:


> next year just before Russia's World Cup.


The meeting before FIFA 2018 WC is going to be finalising the decision for the host, right? The finalising of the venues should be much later.


----------



## aquamaroon

pesto said:


> If Mexico gets 3 then Canada will probably want 3. Sounds reasonable at any rate. So it sounds like we are at 10 for the US (maybe 1 or 2 more)?
> 
> 1.	Boston
> 2.	NY/NJ
> 3.	Philadelphia
> 4.	DC
> 5.	Atlanta
> 6.	Miami
> 7.	Chicago
> 8.	Dallas
> 9.	Houston
> 10.	Denver
> 11.	Phoenix
> 12.	Inglewood
> 13.	SJ/SF
> 14.	Seattle
> 15.	Las Vegas
> 16.	Tampa
> 17.	Orlando
> 18.	Charlotte
> 19. KC
> 
> Eliminate 9




Yeesh! Only 16 cities total, and 10-11 for the US? That's much fewer than I thought! If that's a case then a lot of great cities with fine stadiums will be left out of the World Cup. And I see what you were getting at pesto, at 10 even a city like Miami is almost on the bubble!

So with 10 cities... here is my list of who I think makes the cut for the US:

*1. Boston (Foxborough)*
*2. New York/NJ*
*3. Washington*
*4. Atlanta*
*5. Miami*
*6. Dallas*
*7. Chicago*
*8. Los Angeles*
*9. San Francisco*
*10. Seattle*

I think that's a good distribution of markets and stadia across the country given the small number with which they are working. It'd leave some great cities and stadiums out though  (of course Mexico and Canada can say the same thing!)


----------



## Nacre

Chicago is difficult choice because it is a major city but the recent stadium was awful and left them with only 61,500 seats.

On the other hand if they pick Foxborough or Green Bay they might as well just not sell any tickets to international fans.


----------



## aquamaroon

Yep! I agree with you there on both points. Soldier field isn't a GREAT stadium for a World Cup, a little on the small side and it has a field designed with American Football in mind. That said, Chicago is too important a market and too well situated for a big chunk of the US to leave out! :cheers:

Just for reference, here are some quick shots of Soldier Field in Chicago in "soccer" mode:

Stadium as is:









https://twitter.com/cpacentenario16/status/769763197490499585

And the MLS all star game this year:









https://twitter.com/SoldierField/status/892949055982141441


----------



## ElvisBC

noone knows how many stadiums are going to be used, it is way too early to say. at least now we have a list with 37 potential us venues.

seems only mexicans know what they are doing, they already selected their three!


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

I don't see why the USA would restrict itself to 10 stadia. The 2014 World Cup in Brazil used 12 for 64 matches. Russia is doing likewise. 5.3 matches per stadium. You could easily justify 12 for 60 or 5 matches per stadium. 11 is just under 6 matches each. If the USA has just 10 then some stadiums are going to host 7 or even 8 matches. Is that a good idea? Cities in Mexico and Canada would also look very 2nd class hosting just 3 or 4 matches each in comparison.

Whilst there are some extra costs setting up around 12 stadia rather than 10 there is the benefit of marketing in more still fairly major markets. I would go with 12 in the USA.


----------



## ElvisBC

noone knows that. sunil gulati was talking about more venues than ever before in his press conference right after announcing the bid. but we do not know what is going on behind the closed doors, if FIFA is making any influences etc. but we'll find it out, rather sooner than later!


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I don't see why the USA would restrict itself to 10 stadia. The 2014 World Cup in Brazil used 12 for 64 matches. Russia is doing likewise. 5.3 matches per stadium. You could easily justify 12 for 60 or 5 matches per stadium. 11 is just under 6 matches each. If the USA has just 10 then some stadiums are going to host 7 or even 8 matches. Is that a good idea? Cities in Mexico and Canada would also look very 2nd class hosting just 3 or 4 matches each in comparison.
> 
> Whilst there are some extra costs setting up around 12 stadia rather than 10 there is the benefit of marketing in more still fairly major markets. I would go with 12 in the USA.


No one knows how many stadiums will be used but the Wash. Post article explains why fewer stadiums are used: lower expenses and less travel.


----------



## ElvisBC

one thing has come across my mind, no world cup final has ever had temporary seating!


----------



## Ioannes_

Let someone explain to me, what happened in 1994 for the United States to must *REPEAT a World Cup* over a dozen countries with a thousand times more football tradition. Have we definitively lost dignity with Qatar and Russia or do we need more to *exterminate the true football fan?*


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> Let someone explain to me, what happened in 1994 for the United States to must *REPEAT a World Cup* over a dozen countries with a thousand times more football tradition. Have we definitively lost dignity with Qatar and Russia or do we need more to *exterminate the true football fan?*


FIFA has been pretty suffering some time from an image of corruption. The moderately corrupt are now getting rid of the most corrupt and rationalizing operations. This includes focusing on the maximum income and exposure for the sport. That can be done by bringing it to the largest market in the world who it turns out is only moderately interested in soccer so there is enormous upside potential. Seems to make a lot of sense.


----------



## pesto

CFCman said:


> Now that we know that 18 US stadia are under consideration, it looks likely that 14-15 will make the final list.
> It's also interesting to note that NY, LA, Dallas and the DMV area are being put up as the only options to host the final. Dallas, of course, has a covered stadium, but I can't see past the North-eastern cities or LA hosting the final.
> 
> However, a dilemma exists for both the LOC and FIFA: both the proposed Washington D.C. stadium and the Metlife stadium aren't covered by roofs. Could they persuade the folks building the Redskins stadium to add at least teflon roofing (or a retractable roof, which will ensure the field is in a playable condition during the winter), and an additional 4,000-10,000 seats, in order to raise the capacity from 66k to 70k or 76k.
> 
> The additional seats could as well be temporary, with them being removed after the world cup.
> 
> Here's the latest render of the proposed Redskins stadium
> ]


FIFA will be there in June and the weather will be fine.

Winter weather is part of American football; DC has a milder climate than probably 100 college and professional stadiums in the US. The whole point of American football is the control of the field through strength and tactics; it is not about who is the biggest wuss.


----------



## FCIM

tinyslam said:


> If you look at the list of stadia above its about 50/50 for dense urban location vs suburban parking lot off of a highway. Las Vegas, Atlanta, Chicago, San Antonio, Indiannapolis, Minnesota, Seattle, and Philly (kind-of) all have there stadia located close to downtown. Good transit connections are an important benefit for those stadia.


Thats what i'm thinking.

Put it this way, if its a choice between Las Vegas & Phoenix, Las Vegas will get the nod because of its proximity to the hotels etc.

This is why I also have doubts about AT&T stadium in Dallas getting chosen as well. I think Houston gets the nod over them. If the stadium was where the Cotton bowl is then it would be a certainty.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Ioannes_ said:


> Let someone explain to me, what happened in 1994 for the United States to must *REPEAT a World Cup* over a dozen countries with a thousand times more football tradition. Have we definitively lost dignity with Qatar and Russia or do we need more to *exterminate the true football fan?*


- FIFA and the World Cup represent the whole of the footballing world, not just Europe and South America. But don't worry, over time Europe will continue to host more than its fair share of tournaments.

- FIFA is also charged with growing the game around the world, and uses the World Cup to raise enthusiasm and support in burgeoning markets. Places like Spain are already saturated with a love for futbol, so on the whole the sport doesn't necessarily grow from continued investment there.

- FIFA is a business, and in order to make money they need to move around to where they'll garner the most return on their investment. Given the GDP of North America it makes sense to go there sometime.

We can bicker all we want about historic pedigree and whether or not some nations "deserve" a World Cup. For instance, I'd love for Netherlands and Belgium to host someday and clearly those nations have contributed greatly to soccer culture. But the sense of deservedness is but a small part of FIFA's formal voting considerations, and left to the eye of those voting. So, yeah, hopefully someday soon Spain and England will get to host again, but so long as FIFA is FIFA they will make their decisions based on more than some romantic notion of which host nation has earned their soccer stripes. For better or for worse.


----------



## RobH

This gap feels about right to me and I wouldn't have been unhappy with USA 2022 either (though I hoped the Ozzies would get it). The embryonic USA 2014 bid (link) - had it won - would've been a bit of a piss take though.


----------



## pesto

FCIM said:


> Thats what i'm thinking.
> 
> Put it this way, if its a choice between Las Vegas & Phoenix, Las Vegas will get the nod because of its proximity to the hotels etc.
> 
> This is why I also have doubts about AT&T stadium in Dallas getting chosen as well. I think Houston gets the nod over them. If the stadium was where the Cotton bowl is then it would be a certainty.


Sorry, I have to disagree with much of this. 

First, Dallas seems already effectively chosen; it is mentioned as a potential place for a finals which to me means it is almost certain for an earlier knock-out round match. Houston is for sure a serious contender as well.

If LV is chosen over Phoenix it will NOT be over transit. It will be because LV is the entertainment capital of the world and they will stage monster celebrations every night that FIFA is in town. Think about the visuals of fireworks, sports and movie stars, 6 ft. tall women wearing nothing, etc. 

It's useful to remember the order of things: first, the Raiders, NFL and LV officials thought about the desirability of having a presence in LV; then they chose a stadium site, ignoring some that had better transit; then some discussion started about extending the existing (rarely used) transit to vaguely near the stadium (other side of the freeway). Transit is just a non-player here as it was in Oakland, where the Raiders had excellent transit to the stadium but left anyway.


----------



## Ioannes_

GunnerJacket said:


> - FIFA and the World Cup represent the whole of the footballing world, not just Europe and South America. But don't worry, over time Europe will continue to host more than its fair share of tournaments.
> 
> - FIFA is also charged with growing the game around the world, and uses the World Cup to raise enthusiasm and support in burgeoning markets. Places like Spain are already saturated with a love for futbol, so on the whole the sport doesn't necessarily grow from continued investment there.
> 
> - FIFA is a business, and in order to make money they need to move around to where they'll garner the most return on their investment. Given the GDP of North America it makes sense to go there sometime.
> 
> We can bicker all we want about historic pedigree and whether or not some nations "deserve" a World Cup. For instance, I'd love for Netherlands and Belgium to host someday and clearly those nations have contributed greatly to soccer culture. But the sense of deservedness is but a small part of FIFA's formal voting considerations, and left to the eye of those voting. So, yeah, hopefully someday soon Spain and England will get to host again, but so long as FIFA is FIFA they will make their decisions based on more than some romantic notion of which host nation has earned their soccer stripes. For better or for worse.



I'm 35 years old, and I'm sure I will not see a football world or Euro in Spain before being a grandfather.

When Spain can bid for an international soccer championship or Olympic Games, it will be necessary to do a Metropolitan Wanda for being demoted old.


2026: USA
2030: England
2034: China
2038: Argentina-Uruguay
2042: Italia
2046: Canadá
2050: Morocco.


----------



## pesto

Ioannes_ said:


> I'm 35 years old, and I'm sure I will not see a football world or Euro in Spain before being a grandfather.
> 
> When Spain can bid for an international soccer championship or Olympic Games, it will be necessary to do a Metropolitan Wanda for being demoted old.
> 
> 
> 2026: USA
> 2030: England
> 2034: China
> 2038: Argentina-Uruguay
> 2042: Italia
> 2046: Canadá
> 2050: Morocco.


Why not:
2030: UK, Benelux, Ireland
2034: China, Korea, Japan
2038: Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay
2042: Italy, Spain, Portugal
etc.?

Of course, I am not wed to the details; the point is to have multi-national bids when they make geographic sense and will bring fan attention to places that are unlikely to get the tournament on their own?


----------



## Ioannes_

*I subscribe to 100% written by GunnerJacket.*

I think everyone who writes in this forum, have an internal struggle between their love of architecture and their passion for football, but to a certain extent.

Football fans, we see with disappointment, as our countries and fans, will miss the opportunity to enjoy a world cup in our renovated stadiums, with our national teams playing at home while other nations host the event, such as going to a fair ..


----------



## FCIM

Ioannes_ said:


> I'm 35 years old, and I'm sure I will not see a football world or Euro in Spain before being a grandfather.
> 
> When Spain can bid for an international soccer championship or Olympic Games, it will be necessary to do a Metropolitan Wanda for being demoted old.
> 
> 
> 2026: USA
> 2030: England
> 2034: China
> 2038: Argentina-Uruguay
> 2042: Italia
> 2046: Canadá
> 2050: Morocco.


I'd go : 

2026: USA-Mexico-Canada 
2030: England-Scotland-Wales
2034: China
2038: Argentina-Uruguay
2042: Spain-Portugal

48 team world cup will stop a lot of single countries hosting it. Will be a lot of dual bids in the future.


----------



## FCIM

pesto said:


> Sorry, I have to disagree with much of this.
> 
> First, Dallas seems already effectively chosen; it is mentioned as a potential place for a finals which to me means it is almost certain for an earlier knock-out round match. Houston is for sure a serious contender as well.
> 
> If LV is chosen over Phoenix it will NOT be over transit. It will be because LV is the entertainment capital of the world and they will stage monster celebrations every night that FIFA is in town. Think about the visuals of fireworks, sports and movie stars, 6 ft. tall women wearing nothing, etc.
> 
> It's useful to remember the order of things: first, the Raiders, NFL and LV officials thought about the desirability of having a presence in LV; then they chose a stadium site, ignoring some that had better transit; then some discussion started about extending the existing (rarely used) transit to vaguely near the stadium (other side of the freeway). Transit is just a non-player here as it was in Oakland, where the Raiders had excellent transit to the stadium but left anyway.


I think the only two cities that are guaranteed in the USA are LA & NY. 

Everyone else is fighting for the rest of the spots.


----------



## ElvisBC

Nothing is guaranteed :colgate: but I think LA, NY, Boston and Dallas are pretty sure, Miami as well being the only US stadium that perfectly fits FIFA concept.

For the rest expect games behind the closed doors with some happy and many dissapointed bidders


----------



## pesto

LA, NY and Dallas for sure. I’m not sure how you can pass up the most colorful stadium and owner in the country. I would put DC here also but they may find a way to blow this.

The next group is not certain but very strong. DC, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago. The nation’s capital and the capital of the South. Boston and Chicago are traditional sports centers and huge metros with high profiles. It would be difficult to explain why any of these was left off and, say, Denver or Seattle, which are 3rd tier sports cities, are let in. 

That gives 7. The next group is the tough one because some may really get left out: SJ, Houston, Philadelphia, Miami, LV, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, roughly in that order. I put LV higher than most since it will have a fabulous stadium and provides exceptional visuals. Very tourist and media friendly.

Edit: sorry, left out Philly on the first list.


----------



## CarlosBlueDragon

pesto said:


> Why not:
> 2030: UK, Benelux, Ireland
> 2034: China, Korea, Japan
> 2038: Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay
> 2042: Italy, Spain, Portugal
> etc.?
> 
> Of course, I am not wed to the details; the point is to have multi-national bids when they make geographic sense and will bring fan attention to places that are unlikely to get the tournament on their own?


Benelux mean Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg?

I like...

2022 - Australia 32teams (return bid again after Qatar failed and exit group A Asian Qualification!!

2026 - USA or Mexico 48teams

2030 - Uruguay/Argentina 48teams

2034 - Belgium/Netherlands 48teams (No need Luxembourg) 

2038 - China 48teams

2042 - Canada or Egypt 48teams

2046 - Portugal/Spain or England/Ireland Rep. 48teams

2050 - Chile/Paraguay or Colombia/Venezuela 64teams :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## pesto

I guess any discussions for post-2026 should move to the 2030 thread, which is pretty loosey-goosey at this point.


----------



## pesto

CarlosBlueDragon said:


> Benelux mean Belgium/Netherlands/Luxembourg?
> 
> I like...
> 
> 2022 - Australia 32teams (return bid again after Qatar failed and exit group A Asian Qualification!!
> 
> 2026 - USA or Mexico 48teams
> 
> 2030 - Uruguay/Argentina 48teams
> 
> 2034 - Belgium/Netherlands 48teams (No need Luxembourg)
> 
> 2038 - China 48teams
> 
> 2042 - Canada or Egypt 48teams
> 
> 2046 - Portugal/Spain or England/Ireland Rep. 48teams
> 
> 2050 - Chile/Paraguay or Colombia/Venezuela 64teams :lol::lol::lol:


Yes, Benelux refers to those countries.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Ioannes_ said:


> *I subscribe to 100% written by GunnerJacket.*
> 
> I think everyone who writes in this forum, have an internal struggle between their love of architecture and their passion for football, but to a certain extent.
> 
> Football fans, we see with disappointment, as our countries and fans, will miss the opportunity to enjoy a world cup in our renovated stadiums, with our national teams playing at home while other nations host the event, such as going to a fair ..


This is why I wish FIFA had clear qualifications and standards for host nations that spell out at least a degree of stadium infrastructure already in place, because while it is nice to see them reaching out into "new" countries like South Africa and Qatar, it also invites more politics into the equation that otherwise shouldn't be a factor. Put another way, Qatar is capable of building all the necessary venues and training facilities but they're not all needed and they weren't going to be built until the event was awarded. But if FIFA mandated that there should ALREADY be at least 5 WC ready stadiums already in place it would've forced Qatar to wait and develop their infrastructure at a more practical pace. 

Couple this with other standards about clear and viable financing in advance and you then give the more reasonable candidates (Spain, England, Australia...) a better chance. 

I feel, anyway.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> This is why I wish FIFA had clear qualifications and standards for host nations that spell out at least a degree of stadium infrastructure already in place, because while it is nice to see them reaching out into "new" countries like South Africa and Qatar, it also invites more politics into the equation that otherwise shouldn't be a factor. Put another way, Qatar is capable of building all the necessary venues and training facilities but they're not all needed and they weren't going to be built until the event was awarded. But if FIFA mandated that there should ALREADY be at least 5 WC ready stadiums already in place it would've forced Qatar to wait and develop their infrastructure at a more practical pace.
> 
> Couple this with other standards about clear and viable financing in advance and you then give the more reasonable candidates (Spain, England, Australia...) a better chance.
> 
> I feel, anyway.


I think it's coming. Ecological factors, social welfare and waste of government money have too much of a spotlight on them in the democracies.


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> This is why I wish FIFA had clear qualifications and standards for host nations that spell out at least a degree of stadium infrastructure already in place, because while it is nice to see them reaching out into "new" countries like South Africa and Qatar, it also invites more politics into the equation that otherwise shouldn't be a factor. Put another way, Qatar is capable of building all the necessary venues and training facilities but they're not all needed and they weren't going to be built until the event was awarded. But if FIFA mandated that there should ALREADY be at least 5 WC ready stadiums already in place it would've forced Qatar to wait and develop their infrastructure at a more practical pace.
> 
> Couple this with other standards about clear and viable financing in advance and you then give the more reasonable candidates (Spain, England, Australia...) a better chance.
> 
> I feel, anyway.


FIFA has other things in their mind, they do not give a shit about real world values as soon as they see $$$$$ for their own pockets and FIFA as well :colgate:


----------



## Rover030

A new Belgium/Netherlands bid is really not going to happen. At least for the Netherlands, there is a lot of conservatism with regards to building new stadiums that aren't really needed. Belgium currently has 0 stadiums fit for a world cup, maybe 1 in the future if the new Brussels stadium is getting build someday.

A bid with UK(+Ireland?) or Germany would make more sense, but then you have the problem that both those countries don't need us.

The only thing I see happening is bidding for the Euros again like for 2000, if UEFA accepts a few 30k capacity stadiums.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> This is why I wish FIFA had clear qualifications and standards for host nations that spell out at least a degree of stadium infrastructure already in place, because while it is nice to see them reaching out into "new" countries like South Africa and Qatar, it also invites more politics into the equation that otherwise shouldn't be a factor. Put another way, Qatar is capable of building all the necessary venues and training facilities but they're not all needed and they weren't going to be built until the event was awarded. But if FIFA mandated that there should ALREADY be at least 5 WC ready stadiums already in place it would've forced Qatar to wait and develop their infrastructure at a more practical pace.
> 
> Couple this with other standards about clear and viable financing in advance and you then give the more reasonable candidates (Spain, England, Australia...) a better chance.
> 
> I feel, anyway.


Probably better to treat this as two issues. 

As for internal technical issues re stadiums, etc., there is no particular set of rules that should apply for all time; these should adapt themselves to the potential host countries. The point of the WC is NOT to have, say, stadiums with 30k people or canopies or transit, etc.; the point is to maximize the success of the events and thereby make money and add brand value. The internal rules act as guidelines but can and should be changed or ignored when not conducive to maximizing long-term value. 

Every large organization operates like this. When you are about to go against your internal policies or by-laws you notify your legal people as to what needs to be changed and you have that passed by the relevant board or committee prior to their taking action on the substantial actions.

Social issues (ecological, health, welfare, costs to host cities, etc.) are in a different category. Here it seems likely that there will be pressures applied that FIFA can either respond to or face the consequences. PR departments and lawyers exist to advise on these choices.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> A new Belgium/Netherlands bid is really not going to happen. At least for the Netherlands, there is a lot of conservatism with regards to building new stadiums that aren't really needed. Belgium currently has 0 stadiums fit for a world cup, maybe 1 in the future if the new Brussels stadium is getting build someday.
> 
> A bid with UK(+Ireland?) or Germany would make more sense, but then you have the problem that both those countries don't need us.
> 
> The only thing I see happening is bidding for the Euros again like for 2000, if UEFA accepts a few 30k capacity stadiums.


An interesting situation. Benelux with 30M people can't mount a WC bid but Morocco with about the same population and 1/5th the income can. This alone is worth an extensive study about comparative economics, politics and social development. 

FIFA should figure out that some multinational bids will draw greater interest than single nation ones, especially when there are close social and economic ties like the Benelux countries with the UK, Germany or France. I suppose the Dutch could also go with the Scandinavian countries.

Others, like Spain/Portugal/Italy seem very obvious (at least to someone such as myself who is ignorant of the situation :lol it would weed out some of the lesser stadiums in each country and require much less in the way of refurbishment and upgrades (I assume). 

Of course the internal politics of leaving out some stadium could get ugly. But, hey, that's what international sport is all about.


----------



## RobH

^^ Bel/Ned's "problem", stadiums and infrastructure aside, is that the Dutch government was - uniquely amongst the 2018/22 bidders - the only one not to approve FIFA's demands (including e.g. tax exemption). They decided not to kowtow to them so their bid was the only one without government approval going into the final vote. Admirable given how onerous these kinds of demands often are, but it does mean any future bid is unlikely unless FIFA changes its demands. Like the NFL with American cities, FIFA plays countries against one another in this regard. If one country says no, another will say yes.

Back on topic, would agree with the article below. 2026 set to be the USA's, only Trump can bugger it up now...



> *Only 'crazy action' by Trump can stop US-led 2026 World Cup, says executive*
> 
> US sports executive Charlie Stillitano believes only a “crazy action” by Donald Trump would prevent the United States from winning the right to stage the 2026 World Cup.
> 
> The US has made a joint bid with neighbours Canada and Mexico for the expanded 48-team tournament, with US venues getting 60 of the 80 games and every match from the quarter-finals onward.
> 
> Stillitano, the boss of the company which organises the International Champions Cup summer tournaments, said the American bid is a firm favourite to beat Morocco for the right to stage the event, with its only weakness perceived to be the US president.


https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...sa-bid-donald-trump-football?CMP=share_btn_tw


----------



## zakaria89

I feel that the Moroccan candidacy is not seriously taken here, but well the psychopath Trump could send us a nuclear bomb .... it is good to remain discreet


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> ^^ Bel/Ned's "problem", stadiums and infrastructure aside, is that the Dutch government was - uniquely amongst the 2018/22 bidders - the only one not to approve FIFA's demands (including e.g. tax exemption). They decided not to kowtow to them so their bid was the only one without government approval going into the final vote. Admirable given how onerous these kinds of demands often are, but it does mean any future bid is unlikely unless FIFA changes its demands. Like the NFL with American cities, FIFA plays countries against one another in this regard. If one country says no, another will say yes.
> 
> Back on topic, would agree with the article below. 2026 set to be the USA's, only Trump can bugger it up now...
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...sa-bid-donald-trump-football?CMP=share_btn_tw


The quote re Trump is just using his name to try to attract attention. When you have nothing to say, mention Trump to attract attention to yourself.

Trump was also raised as a potential problem in the Olympic competition. It turned out that he and Bach hit it off well and Bach came to Washington to talk with him about the LA bid and leveraging US security and technical skills for the Olympics long term.

More interesting re FIFA are the comments as to why the US is going to be chosen: far more than enough stadiums are already in place (plus, as a bonus, Inglewood well under construction); all roads and transit are done; hotels, entertainment, etc., available and in place. These are the kinds of things that organizers and support staff like to see and which makes it easy to run an attractive event in a very large media market.


----------



## RobH

Trump could easily have been a problem with the IOC voting members (very comparable to Chirac's foot-in-mouth syndrome c2005). LA is lucky circumstances meant the vote never happened and yes, they have Bach to thank for that. With FIFA's shiny new voting system (one country, one vote) being tried for the first time for 2026, a big **** up by Trump could swing votes. But the US has very little competition for 2026 so it'd have to be one enormous **** up. Stillitano is probably right in saying that's the only conceivable thing that could deny the US at this stage.

Yes, the comments about the US being ready are all fairly obvious. FIFA refused Europe a chance to bid this time because, despite your joke above about Europe selling its hosting berth to Qatar, what _actually_ happened was the US' chance was sold-off. This time, they've made very, very sure the US is very, very unlikely to lose.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> Trump could easily have been a problem with the IOC voting members (very comparable to Chirac's foot-in-mouth syndrome c2005). LA is lucky circumstances meant the vote never happened and yes, they have Bach to thank for that. With FIFA's shiny new voting system (one country, one vote) being tried for the first time for 2026, a big **** up by Trump could swing votes. But the US has very little competition for 2026 so it'd have to be one enormous **** up. Stillitano is probably right in saying that's the only conceivable thing that could deny the US at this stage.
> 
> Yes, the comments about the US being ready are all fairly obvious. FIFA refused Europe a chance to bid this time because, despite your joke above about Europe selling its hosting berth to Qatar, what _actually_ happened was the US' chance was sold-off. This time, they've made very, very sure the US is very, very unlikely to lose.


Like I said, when you have nothing much to say, talk about Trump.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> As for internal technical issues re stadiums, etc., there is no particular set of rules that should apply for all time; these should adapt themselves to the potential host countries. The point of the WC is NOT to have, say, stadiums with 30k people or canopies or transit, etc.; the point is to maximize the success of the events and thereby make money and add brand value. The internal rules act as guidelines but can and should be changed or ignored when not conducive to maximizing long-term value.


FIFA already has minimal technical specs for their host venues based on seating and media capacity, safety standards, etc. It wouldn't be hard to expand on this to simply ask that a certain minimum number (3? 4?) of these structures already exist, which not only would demonstrate the viability of the event but would ensure that you're cutting down on the costs. And let's be honest, this would barely impact most of the viable candidates. In fact, the only ones it would impact are the ones building most/all venues from scratch, which is exactly part of the scenario we've said shouldn't be considered. 

In other words, no more extraordinary compromises a la Qatar at the expense of viable host nations.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> FIFA already has minimal technical specs for their host venues based on seating and media capacity, safety standards, etc. It wouldn't be hard to expand on this to simply ask that a certain minimum number (3? 4?) of these structures already exist, which not only would demonstrate the viability of the event but would ensure that you're cutting down on the costs. And let's be honest, this would barely impact most of the viable candidates. In fact, the only ones it would impact are the ones building most/all venues from scratch, which is exactly part of the scenario we've said shouldn't be considered.
> 
> In other words, no more extraordinary compromises a la Qatar at the expense of viable host nations.


Of course safety and security are not very flexible. I am talking about seating, media capacity, roofs, turf, etc. These should be flexible (assuming no safety or security issues). The idea is to maximize brand value long-term not to show that you are anally retentive.

If the concern is bribery or other variations from maximizing FIFA benefit, that should be handled by other legal means, not by limiting flexibility that is appropriate to local country standards, traditions or prevailing conditions.


----------



## CFCman

Although the North American bid has a 95% chance of winning the hosting rights, a sticky issue could scupper the entire effort. 

Assuming FIFA set a condition that requires the hosting country(ies) to accept world cup tickets as visas from traveling fans, and the Department of Homeland Security/State Department oppose this condition, the Moroccans may just nick it in the end. I'm pretty sure that the Moroccan government would accept such a condition if it guarantees that they (Morocco) are 5th time lucky in bidding to host the world cup.


----------



## ElvisBC

CFCman said:


> Although the North American bid has a 95% chance of winning the hosting rights, a sticky issue could scupper the entire effort.
> 
> Assuming FIFA set a condition that requires the hosting country(ies) to accept world cup tickets as visas from traveling fans, and the Department of Homeland Security/State Department oppose this condition, the Moroccans may just nick it in the end. I'm pretty sure that the Moroccan government would accept such a condition if it guarantees that they (Morocco) are 5th time lucky in bidding to host the world cup.


noone can require that! you can not compromise laws regarding national security of one country just to host the world cup there. 

that was done only once in the past (russia, champions league final 2008), but that was one single game and I think its not happening again.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> An interesting situation. Benelux with 30M people can't mount a WC bid but Morocco with about the same population and 1/5th the income can. This alone is worth an extensive study about comparative economics, politics and social development.
> 
> FIFA should figure out that some multinational bids will draw greater interest than single nation ones, especially when there are close social and economic ties like the Benelux countries with the UK, Germany or France. I suppose the Dutch could also go with the Scandinavian countries.
> 
> Others, like Spain/Portugal/Italy seem very obvious (at least to someone such as myself who is ignorant of the situation :lol it would weed out some of the lesser stadiums in each country and require much less in the way of refurbishment and upgrades (I assume).
> 
> Of course the internal politics of leaving out some stadium could get ugly. But, hey, that's what international sport is all about.


I don't think an extensive study is needed haha. Both Netherlands (over 10 million out of 17 watch important world cup mtaches)/Belgium and Morocco are football crazy. Benelux however, has strong democratic and bureaucratic institutions and a generally sceptical population which makes government support towards private companies difficult, such as with the FIFA tax exemption and building new stadiums (see Feyenoord, see Brussels). The 2018 world cup bid was also the cleanest bid of them all, the FIFA corruption report devoted like 9 lines to us. The same also holds for Scandinavia. Governments are just not willing to spend money that benefits an organisation that is seen as corrupt, even though many people would like to see an international tournament in their country (see the success of the women's euro).

Meanwhile the Moroccan government (and their people I hope?) are willing to build 40k stadiums for an event that they likely won't even get and which are very likely to become white elephants. There is just no competing with bids that dedicated.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I don't think an extensive study is needed haha. Both Netherlands (over 10 million out of 17 watch important world cup mtaches)/Belgium and Morocco are football crazy. Benelux however, has strong democratic and bureaucratic institutions and a generally sceptical population which makes government support towards private companies difficult, such as with the FIFA tax exemption and building new stadiums (see Feyenoord, see Brussels). The 2018 world cup bid was also the cleanest bid of them all, the FIFA corruption report devoted like 9 lines to us. The same also holds for Scandinavia. Governments are just not willing to spend money that benefits an organisation that is seen as corrupt, even though many people would like to see an international tournament in their country (see the success of the women's euro).
> 
> Meanwhile the Moroccan government (and their people I hope?) are willing to build 40k stadiums for an event that they likely won't even get and which are very likely to become white elephants. There is just no competing with bids that dedicated.


The is just about right. But what is really interesting is how the average Dutchman and the average Moroccan can be so different in what he values, what he is willing to do, what institutions he is willing to accept, etc., considering that at birth you start with essentially the same human being. For some countries the hope for a bright future is dead by the time the children are 5 years old.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> noone can require that! you can not compromise laws regarding national security of one country just to host the world cup there.
> 
> that was done only once in the past (russia, champions league final 2008), but that was one single game and I think its not happening again.


Yes, if that is the standard, pack your bags for the Maghreb. :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon

Yeah seriously, just to agree with above... if FIFA requires that the US (and Canada/Mexico for that matter) have to treat game tickets as legal visas to enter the country, then they can just award the World Cup to Morocco right now :lol: (and I say that as someone who's pretty liberal and would like to see the US think more globally!)


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Yeah seriously, just to agree with above... if FIFA requires that the US (and Canada/Mexico for that matter) have to treat game tickets as legal visas to enter the country, then they can just award the World Cup to Morocco right now :lol: (and I say that as someone who's pretty liberal and would like to see the US think more globally!)


Does the US have to think more globally or does the rest of the world need to think more like the US?

Please no answers; just use this question as the basis for silent meditation. :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon

pesto said:


> Please no answers; just use this question as the basis for silent meditation. :lol:


Haha OK, no response from me and I'll instead think about whether or not US Soccer should figure out a way to include Minnesota's new stadium in their bid :lol:


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Haha OK, no response from me and I'll instead think about whether or not US Soccer should figure out a way to include Minnesota's new stadium in their bid :lol:


Interesting: I wouldn't. I think of it as architectural theory gone wrong. But no use getting into that here.


----------



## Rover030

Rover030 said:


> If the MBS raises the playing field by 1-2 metres the viewing experience is much better than Wanda Metropolitano. Sightlines from the upper tiers especially are much better. But that can be expected from a stadium that is over 4 times more expensive ($1600 million vs €300 million) and isn't an athletics stadium conversion that can still potentially contain an athletics track.


It turns out that Wanda Metropolitano has a similar problem to MBS. I thought I should post it for the sake of unbiasedness, as this shows that all added up, sightlines aren't better in the Metropolitano after all. It seems like at least the lowest 3-4 rows on the middle stand behind the grada animación are affected:


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Just means everyone will stand up... when the ball is at this end... its not a place to sit with your kid though.


----------



## ElvisBC

simply unbelievable!!


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Juanpabloangel said:


> Just means everyone will stand up... when the ball is at this end... its not a place to sit with your kid though.


The problem is because people are stood up, some stood on their seats, in the lower tier. Standing up at the front of the middle tier just reduces the problem.

Shame they stuck to this design so long after Madrid pulled out of bidding for the Olympics. The stadium could be so much better.


----------



## ElvisBC

end of september is near, the list of 20+ stadiums is supposed to be coming soon :cheer: :wink2:


----------



## Molino Dorino M6

Please, could anyone post the list of countries interested in hosting the tournament?


Is confirmed the interesting of Colombia, Kazakhstan and Australia?


----------



## ElvisBC

usa, north korea, syria and eritrea, evereyone else bailed out, FIFA set the bar too high!


----------



## Rover030

Only Canada-USA-Mexico and Morocco made a bid.


----------



## Molino Dorino M6

Rover030 said:


> Only Canada-USA-Mexico and Morocco made a bid.



When will be the final decision?


----------



## RobH

^^ Decision will be made June next year.


----------



## ElvisBC

for anyone who still didn't figure out pitch size differences between assotiation football and american football, here screenshot from wembley yesterday. lines from last tottenham game were stil visible, so it was easy to mark them. 
this way you can easily compare them to diverse american football stadiums in consideration for the 2026 world cup :hi:


----------



## FCIM

Not sure what FIFA are thinking when they see whats being played out in the USA at the moment , but Morocco will look better every day.


----------



## brandpb

USA 2026 :cheers:


----------



## Colonel Ned

FCIM said:


> Not sure what FIFA are thinking when they see whats being played out in the USA at the moment , but Morocco will look better every day.


I agree

Seems that gringos have forgotten that the executive commitee does not vote anymore ... the decision will be taken by 209 national federations ... and all africa and europe are supporting Morocco more than 100 countries (+ arab countries in asia)

the only chance for USA to organize WC is to be taken back from Qatar for 2022, so USA will be automatically chosen (because they were the rival for that edition)

for 2026, the major part of the games are scheduled in USA (wich means that mexico and canada are simply racing hares)


----------



## ElvisBC

just heard something interesting: sunil gulati might lose USSF presidental elections in february, but would stay as head of us/concacaf bid, no matter what happens.
if that happens just 3-4 months before decission in moscow, there is real question what is going to happen there. probably nothing, but you never know ...


and we have almost end of september ... no 20-25 venues list yet.


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> I agree
> 
> Seems that gringos have forgotten that the executive commitee does not vote anymore ... the decision will be taken by 209 national federations ... and all africa and europe are supporting Morocco more than 100 countries (+ arab countries in asia)
> 
> the only chance for USA to organize WC is to be taken back from Qatar for 2022, so USA will be automatically chosen (because they were the rival for that edition)
> 
> for 2026, the major part of the games are scheduled in USA (wich means that mexico and canada are simply racing hares)


A couple of general comments that might help you understand the context.

It could simply have been the US bidding without Mexico and Canada. Those countries jumped at the opportunity to bid with the US and get matches based on their relative size. There is little chance for them to get a WC under current standards.

"Racing hares"? The Canadian economy is 15 times the size of Morocco's; Mexico's is 10 times the size and has 130M rabid soccer fans.

Millions of people cross back and forth between Canada, the US and Mexico annually and there are billions of dollars of commerce. There are about 400M legal crossings of the US/Mexico border annually, making it the world's busiest border. Basically, anyone who is reasonably likely to return to Mexico is admitted to the US.


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> A couple of general comments that might help you understand the context.
> 
> It could simply have been the US bidding without Mexico and Canada. Those countries jumped at the opportunity to bid with the US and get matches based on their relative size. There is little chance for them to get a WC under current standards.
> 
> "Racing hares"? The Canadian economy is 15 times the size of Morocco's; Mexico's is 10 times the size and has 130M rabid soccer fans.
> 
> Millions of people cross back and forth between Canada, the US and Mexico annually and there are billions of dollars of commerce. There are about 400M legal crossings of the US/Mexico border annually, making it the world's busiest border. Basically, anyone who is reasonably likely to return to Mexico is admitted to the US.


Well jjjj

You consider that a strong economy is the only fact that FIFA will consider to chose the country ?
Well, FIFA does not see any more cash flows as before, the priority os to celebrate football and humanity
The focus is : THE SUPPORTER

BEcause ... as a europeen or african OR EVEN LATINO AMERICAN supporter, I have to get 3 visas, and save a lot of money for my long trip traveling and food between cities, dealing meanwile with jet lag ??!! 
Morocco has already good infrastructures, diverisified culture and landscapes, cost of life does not matter much, 
So I think the Moroccan bidding is the best because it puts the supporter inside the interest 

Instead of supporting the economy of an emerging country, rich countries (CAN-USA-MEX) prefers to share the cake with no significant effect on their economy I wish humanity could celebrate football where it's deserved ... Pray for dear Africa ... It's a batlle between David (Morocco) and Goliath (North America continent) 

Coming from Europe to watch the game and go back the next day to work (flights takes less than 1h to a max of 3h30 for 3$ to 200$ max) is very convenient for a lot..

Morocco is well positionned because of :
- Traveling Factor which is the most most important (Visa regulations, Best Location, Easy and very affordable access by Air, Ferry, Car from Europe and Africa )
- The Timezone Factor ( 1 hour to 3 hours difference between Morocco and most Football popular countries such as UK, France, Spain, Portugal, whole of Africa, Russia, Middle East etc...)
- Cost of living: Hotels, Food, Transport are extremely cheap comparing to USA Canada.
- Travelling proximity within the country: Eg (England my second national team passed the group stage which was hosted in Casablanca city and now will have to play 1/16 final in Tanger.. so i have to take the train for 10$ for 2hours to reach there)


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Colonel Ned said:


> Well jjjj
> 
> You consider that a strong economy is the only fact that FIFA will consider to chose the country ?
> Well, FIFA does not see any more cash flows as before, the priority os to celebrate football and humanity
> The focus is : THE SUPPORTER
> 
> BEcause ... as a europeen or african OR EVEN LATINO AMERICAN supporter, I have to get 3 visas, and save a lot of money for my long trip traveling and food between cities, dealing meanwile with jet lag ??!!
> Morocco has already good infrastructures, diverisified culture and landscapes, cost of life does not matter much,
> So I think the Moroccan bidding is the best because it puts the supporter inside the interest
> 
> Instead of supporting the economy of an emerging country, rich countries (CAN-USA-MEX) prefers to share the cake with no significant effect on their economy I wish humanity could celebrate football where it's deserved ... Pray for dear Africa ... It's a batlle between David (Morocco) and Goliath (North America continent)
> 
> Coming from Europe to watch the game and go back the next day to work (flights takes less than 1h to a max of 3h30 for 3$ to 200$ max) is very convenient for a lot..
> 
> Morocco is well positionned because of :
> - Traveling Factor which is the most most important (Visa regulations, Best Location, Easy and very affordable access by Air, Ferry, Car from Europe and Africa )
> - The Timezone Factor ( 1 hour to 3 hours difference between Morocco and most Football popular countries such as UK, France, Spain, Portugal, whole of Africa, Russia, Middle East etc...)
> - Cost of living: Hotels, Food, Transport are extremely cheap comparing to USA Canada.
> - Travelling proximity within the country: Eg (England my second national team passed the group stage which was hosted in Casablanca city and now will have to play 1/16 final in Tanger.. so i have to take the train for 10$ for 2hours to reach there)


As a European I'd far rather travel to the USA to watch matches. I'm not going to travel to Morocco for a day trip. Not going to happen. Day trips and international flights do not mix. I have been to the USA and crossed the border into Mexico and back again. It is easy. Crossing between the USA and Canada is even easier. My parents are flying to Montreal this week and will be visiting Boston and New York before coming back. Very easy.


----------



## Colonel Ned

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> As a European I'd far rather travel to the USA to watch matches. I'm not going to travel to Morocco for a day trip. Not going to happen. Day trips and international flights do not mix. I have been to the USA and crossed the border into Mexico and back again. It is easy. Crossing between the USA and Canada is even easier. My parents are flying to Montreal this week and will be visiting Boston and New York before coming back. Very easy.


Since you speek for yourself, your opinion is respectful
Many supporters don't have your money
I see that you're regeistred here since 2015, wich is good cause Ihave only one ask : BE HERE NEXT JUNE 2018 I really want to see your reaction :cheers:


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> Well jjjj
> 
> You consider that a strong economy is the only fact that FIFA will consider to chose the country ?
> Well, FIFA does not see any more cash flows as before, the priority os to celebrate football and humanity
> The focus is : THE SUPPORTER
> 
> BEcause ... as a europeen or african OR EVEN LATINO AMERICAN supporter, I have to get 3 visas, and save a lot of money for my long trip traveling and food between cities, dealing meanwile with jet lag ??!!
> Morocco has already good infrastructures, diverisified culture and landscapes, cost of life does not matter much,
> So I think the Moroccan bidding is the best because it puts the supporter inside the interest
> 
> Instead of supporting the economy of an emerging country, rich countries (CAN-USA-MEX) prefers to share the cake with no significant effect on their economy I wish humanity could celebrate football where it's deserved ... Pray for dear Africa ... It's a batlle between David (Morocco) and Goliath (North America continent)
> 
> Coming from Europe to watch the game and go back the next day to work (flights takes less than 1h to a max of 3h30 for 3$ to 200$ max) is very convenient for a lot..
> 
> Morocco is well positionned because of :
> - Traveling Factor which is the most most important (Visa regulations, Best Location, Easy and very affordable access by Air, Ferry, Car from Europe and Africa )
> - The Timezone Factor ( 1 hour to 3 hours difference between Morocco and most Football popular countries such as UK, France, Spain, Portugal, whole of Africa, Russia, Middle East etc...)
> - Cost of living: Hotels, Food, Transport are extremely cheap comparing to USA Canada.
> - Travelling proximity within the country: Eg (England my second national team passed the group stage which was hosted in Casablanca city and now will have to play 1/16 final in Tanger.. so i have to take the train for 10$ for 2hours to reach there)


I sympathize, but the fact is that size of the economy is a factor. The question can be raised if Morocco should be spending this much money on a single sporting event when time, money and energy could be spent in other ways. The US will spend no money on new development.

For sure the cost of living is cheaper in Morocco; but if that it a critical factor then W. Europe, N. America, Australia, Japan, etc., are permanently out.

Time zones are an ambiguous factor. Do you want to make it convenient for the established fans? Or do you want to make it convenient for the new fans or the people with lots of money that you hope to convert to fandom, knowing that the established fans will tune in in any event?

The travel factor is an odd one to raise since the US gets more foreign visitors than any country except France, which is surrounded by a dozen high density EU neighbors who generally need no formalities to enter. The US, of course, has a problem that 10's of millions of people try to enter illegally every year and even those entering legally for a limited time often disappear and remain in the country. Some level of border control is required.


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> I sympathize, but the fact is that size of the economy is a factor. The question can be raised if Morocco should be spending this much money on a single sporting event when time, money and energy could be spent in other ways. The US will spend no money on new development.
> 
> For sure the cost of living is cheaper in Morocco; but if that it a critical factor then W. Europe, N. America, Australia, Japan, etc., are permanently out.
> 
> Time zones are an ambiguous factor. Do you want to make it convenient for the established fans? Or do you want to make it convenient for the new fans or the people with lots of money that you hope to convert to fandom, knowing that the established fans will tune in in any event?
> 
> The travel factor is an odd one to raise since the US gets more foreign visitors than any country except France, which is surrounded by a dozen high density EU neighbors who generally need no formalities to enter. The US, of course, has a problem that 10's of millions of people try to enter illegally every year and even those entering legally for a limited time often disappear and remain in the country. Some level of border control is required.


Many thanks for your opinion

Well, I have my own idea about Morocco, I think they have already 8 stadiums with FIFA standards and 3 stadiums are under construction (regardless to WC) ... with good infrastructures (highways of european standards, airports, hotels ...), so I think in 2026 they can invest more (It's easy to find in financial websites how moroccan economy are growing so fast and it's one of the best economy in africa and meadle east.

For USA, Everybody knows that they can organize a wonderful competition today before tomorrow, giving the infrastructures and stadiums ... (may be some problems of criminality to resolve).

What I really believe (and strongly want as may be many people), is :
- That USA host the WC (without Canada or Mexico), no needs of many countries and many visa regulations
- That happens for 2022, because I belong to fans who believe that Qatar got the WC by bribery (and in the actual context : blockade of neighboring countries, conflicts, dubious connection with the financing of terrorism, death of workers, slavery, unbearable heat, tiny surface of the country ...) means that their competition can be removed and assigned automatically to the USA (which was their rival in the vote)

So why have I to wait untel 2026 if I can host it in 2022 ??


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> Many thanks for your opinion
> 
> Well, I have my own idea about Morocco, I think they have already 8 stadiums with FIFA standards and 3 stadiums are under construction (regardless to WC) ... with good infrastructures (highways of european standards, airports, hotels ...), so I think in 2026 they can invest more (It's easy to find in financial websites how moroccan economy are growing so fast and it's one of the best economy in africa and meadle east.
> 
> For USA, Everybody knows that they can organize a wonderful competition today before tomorrow, giving the infrastructures and stadiums ... (may be some problems of criminality to resolve).
> 
> What I really believe (and strongly want as may be many people), is :
> - That USA host the WC (without Canada or Mexico), no needs of many countries and many visa regulations
> - That happens for 2022, because I belong to fans who believe that Qatar got the WC by bribery (and in the actual context : blockade of neighboring countries, conflicts, dubious connection with the financing of terrorism, death of workers, slavery, unbearable heat, tiny surface of the country ...) means that their competition can be removed and assigned automatically to the USA (which was their rival in the vote)
> 
> So why have I to wait untel 2026 if I can host it in 2022 ??


I am no defender of Qatar but I have no reason to believe that such a change is going to happen. 

Nor are Mexico and Canada going to be dropped. Travel between those countries is very easy assuming you have proper documents and are likely to leave the country after your visit. Hundreds of millions come and go every year. And if you don't like to cross borders, just see matches in one of the countries.


----------



## slipperydog

Some relatively significant news...Potential host cities for the 2026 World Cup have been cut from 41 to 32.

Sorry Birmingham and Regina.


----------



## aquamaroon

The next cutdown list for the "United" bid is out!












> *SOCCER
> 
> USA, Mexico, Canada 2026 World Cup Bid Trims Potential Host List to 32 Cities*
> 
> 
> BRIAN STRAUS
> 22 minutes ago
> As the U.S. national team prepares for a pair of do-or-die World Cup qualifiers over the next week, the U.S. Soccer Federation—in conjunction with counterparts in Canada and Mexico—continues to refine its bid to host the quadrennial tournament in 2026.
> 
> They are proposing to stage the first 48-team World Cup in all three countries and on Wednesday afternoon, the United Bid Committee unveiled a list of 32 cities in contention to host matches. A total of 41 markets in the USA (32), Mexico (three) and Canada (six) officially expressed interest last month. Nine then were eliminated by the host committee.
> 
> Those nine are: Birmingham, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Pittsburgh and San Antonio in the USA; and Ottawa and Regina in Canada.
> 
> "We have more than double the number of cities required to stage matches in 2026. We have a vision for growing the game and engaging fans as never before. Our biggest challenge will be finding ways to honor the enthusiasm of all the people across Canada, Mexico and the United States through the development of our united hosting concept,” USSF president and UBC chairman Sunil Gulati said.
> 
> The nine eliminated markets, as well as those that didn’t apply at all, could be the site of team base camps or other tournament-related facilities, the UBC said. Meanwhile, representatives from the 32 candidate cities will meet with UBC officials next month in Houston as work on the bid and the required documents continues.
> 
> 
> *The 32 potential hosts are:
> 
> USA (25)
> 
> Atlanta (Mercedes-Benz Stadium)
> 
> Baltimore (M&T Bank Stadium)
> 
> Boston/Foxborough (Gillette Stadium)
> 
> Charlotte (Bank of America Stadium)
> 
> Chicago (Soldier Field)
> 
> Cincinnati (Paul Brown Stadium)
> 
> Dallas/Arlington (Cotton Bowl and/or AT&T Stadium)
> 
> Denver (Sports Authority Field at Mile High)
> 
> Detroit (Ford Field)
> 
> Houston (NRG Stadium)
> 
> Kansas City (Arrowhead Stadium)
> 
> Las Vegas (new Raiders stadium)
> 
> Los Angeles (Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, Rose Bowl and/or the new Hollywood Park NFL stadium)
> 
> Miami (Hard Rock Stadium)
> 
> Minneapolis (US Bank Stadium)
> 
> Nashville (Nissan Stadium)
> 
> New York/New Jersey (MetLife Stadium)
> 
> Orlando (Camping World Stadium)
> 
> Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field)
> 
> Phoenix/Glendale (University of Phoenix Stadium)
> 
> Salt Lake City (Rice-Eccles Stadium)
> 
> San Francisco Bay Area (Levi’s Stadium)
> 
> Seattle (CenturyLink Field)
> 
> Tampa (Raymond James Stadium)
> 
> Washington D.C./Landover (FedEx Field)
> 
> CANADA (4)
> 
> Edmonton (Commonwealth Stadium)
> 
> Montreal (Stade Olympique)
> 
> Toronto (BMO Field)
> 
> Vancouver (BC Place)
> 
> MEXICO (3)
> 
> Guadalajara (Estadio Chivas)
> 
> Mexico City (Estadio Azteca)
> 
> Monterrey (Estadio Rayados)*
> 
> “Each of the 32 potential host cities features existing or already planned stadiums and other world-class infrastructure, meeting or exceeding the requirements outlined by FIFA,” the UBC said.
> 
> The committee originally contacted 44 markets and asked for expressions of interest. San Diego, Green Bay and Calgary opted not to bid at that time. The UBC’s official 2026 bid package is due to FIFA on March 16, 2018. Morocco also is vying to host the competition. If the North American proposal is chosen, the USA likely will host 60 games—including knockout matches from the quarterfinals on—while Mexico and Canada split the remaining 20.
> 
> FIFA is expected to make its decision next June.


https://www.si.com/soccer/2017/10/0...m&utm_medium=social&xid=socialflow_twitter_si (full article)


Just a quick glance, no surprises so far! And no tough decisions yet, though that'll come! Curious to see what you all think :cheers:


ETA: slipperydog's faster on the draw than me! :lol:


----------



## CaliforniaJones




----------



## ElvisBC

aquamaroon said:


> The next cutdown list for the "United" bid is out
> 
> 
> Just a quick glance, no surprises so far! And no tough decisions yet, though that'll come! Curious to see what you all think :cheers:
> 
> 
> ETA: slipperydog's faster on the draw than me! :lol:


Yepp, no surprise cuts, but I must say I‘m surprised Superdome is out this early. Legendary venue and great city for fun!

About the others, Pittsburgh would have been a great host, Three Rivers Stadium (yes, I know, new one is called different, ketchup or simmilar  ) has a great surrounding, it would offer lot of pre game fun and you can walk there from the downtown, but there was very little chance for them to get selected anyway.

Indy and Cleveland same story, two more downtown stadiums out fast. Rest as expected. For me the real surprise is they kept so many cities in the game!


----------



## Colonel Ned

2022 must comeback to USA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe6yMPeU0DE


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> The next cutdown list for the "United" bid is out!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick glance, no surprises so far! And no tough decisions yet, though that'll come! Curious to see what you all think :cheers:
> 
> ETA: slipperydog's faster on the draw than me! :lol:


Yes, no surprises. The ones eliminated were the obvious non-starters, included just to keep various parts of the country at least a little bit interested.

I would still say it's NY, LA, Dallas, DC area, Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, SJ/SF in the lead with Miami, Houston, LV, Philadelphia, Denver, Phoenix, Seattle in the next pack.

Charlotte, Cincinnati, Detroit, KC, Minneapolis, Nashville, Orlando, Salt Lake and Tampa are the next ones out, in my opinion. That would leave 16 in the US. Only one of DC and Baltimore is in so 15 are left at that point.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Can't wait for this world cup! Well, unless I figure out a trip that includes a stopover in Qatar, that the wife will agree to!! 

I imagine it will be hard to get a ticket...


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> Can't wait for this world cup! Well, unless I figure out a trip that includes a stopover in Qatar, that the wife will agree to!!
> 
> I imagine it will be hard to get a ticket...


Depends on the match. I suppose Argentina will be relatively tougher than most.

Many matches do not sell-out except in a technical sense: the major sponsors are typically required to "purchase" tickets as part of their payments for sponsorship. This makes it their problem to unload them as best they can.

During the last US WC I was effectively heading up a department for one of the major sponsors and was assigned 80 seats to give away to a match that was less than 20 percent sold out. The catch was that I was responsible for the people actually showing up so the stands wouldn't look empty.

Of course this doesn't apply for the high demand matches.


----------



## hngcm

How is SLC still in the running?

Isn't their stadium 45K or so?

You'd think Indy would have lasted longer


----------



## Guest

hngcm said:


> How is SLC still in the running?
> 
> Isn't their stadium 45K or so?
> 
> You'd think Indy would have lasted longer


Does it really matter? Most of those 32 will be culled as well. You could have the kibbie dome in Idaho thrown in there for good measure.


----------



## Rover030

5portsF4n said:


> Does it really matter? Most of those 32 will be culled as well. You could have the kibbie dome in Idaho thrown in there for good measure.


I personally always like some transparacy about selections like this one, so I don't think it's a weird question to ask.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I personally always like some transparacy about selections like this one, so I don't think it's a weird question to ask.


Agree in principle; but any explanations are likely to be made in terms of what is considered publicly acceptable rather than how the decision was really made. The real factors tend to be profits and brand value.


----------



## FCIM

Indy missing out is the only surprise for me.


----------



## pesto

An LA Times article reiterates that there are likely to be 12 or fewer stadiums in the US. I suppose this means either 10 or 12. 

In my view, this leaves the following fighting for 2 or 4 spots:

Miami, Philadelphia, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Denver, LV

The rest are dark horses I think.


----------



## Guest

Miami isn't fighting for anything. It will 100% be part of the World Cup.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Miami isn't fighting for anything. It will 100% be part of the World Cup.


Sure, I'm easy.

Philadelphia, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Denver, LV are fighting for 1 or 3 spots.

Or is there something else I'm missing? :lol:


----------



## Alanzeh

My guess is that Seattle wil be a part of the World Cup too.


----------



## miguelon

Alanzeh said:


> My guess is that Seattle wil be a part of the World Cup too.


The fact that you have 3 countries bidding, and even Canada and Mexico with some effort can host by themselves, let alone the US. No matter how you arrange the host cities, you will have to left out at least 6-8 cities in the US, 1 in Canada and 3 more in Mexico, that can/could host at least first stage matches without problems and little investment required.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> What do you mean by that?


Imagine if the marketing staff at Google or Apple or Facebook said they were proposing a strategy which had a high chance of losing the US market. They would be fired on the spot.

The goal of FIFA is to make as much money as possible. To do that they must get the US market without losing the others. Therefore it is their staff's task to make sure that the US gets in one way or another.

I am being facetious when I say it should be by automatic pass since this would alienate too many existing fans and sponsors. But it must be accomplished in such a way that it is as sure as if it were by automatic pass.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Just to tag on, for sure FIFA's only focus in life is to make money for themselves. However, ostensibly their second goal(heh) is to grow the game of Association Football around the world. However as it stands, of the five most populous countries in the world:

- China
- India
- USA
- Indonesia
- Pakistan

NONE of them are in the World Cup! And of those five countries, two are the most important emerging markets (China head and shoulders above) with two right behind them in Indonesia and Pakistan, and the fifth has been FIFA's Great White Whale for the past 30 years. While it shouldn't disadvantage countries that love the game, FIFA could at the same time probably do more to ensure that the major non-soccer markets are in the World Cup more often.
Which, to be fair, is what I think they're doing with the new 48 team format. With 48 teams you're making it more likely that China and maybe even India can get into the competition, let alone the USA. And of course, when it comes to expanding the market for soccer the biggest arrow in FIFA's quiver is awarding the World Cup to a country. And that's where the 2026 World Cup comes in, which a lot of us think FIFA will use to "grow/nurture the game" by giving it to the USA/Canada/Mexico.
Or, I guess they could just go back to Qatar! :lol:


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> Imagine if the marketing staff at Google or Apple or Facebook said they were proposing a strategy which had a high chance of losing the US market. They would be fired on the spot.
> 
> The goal of FIFA is to make as much money as possible. To do that they must get the US market without losing the others. Therefore it is their staff's task to make sure that the US gets in one way or another.
> 
> I am being facetious when I say it should be by automatic pass since this would alienate too many existing fans and sponsors. But it must be accomplished in such a way that it is as sure as if it were by automatic pass.


The goal of FIFA as a registered charity is to govern the game and ensure sporting integrity, they are a business second.

OK, I can't say that with a straight face. :lol:

But really, aquamaroon is right, the CONCACAF quali system should make qualification for a country with the size and resources of the USA pretty much a formality. After Oceania it's the easiest there is. You say you're being facetious when you say it should be by automatic pass, but that'd be literally the only thing that could make it any easier for the US. It shows how much of an epic fail this year has been on the pitch for USMNT that they couldn't get to the world cup.


----------



## aquamaroon

Well, if the USMNT keeps playing as they have been, I mean... Hawaii IS in Oceania, just sayin' FIFA :lol:


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Oceania does not want you! New Zealand is happy with its automatic place once the expansion happens... I was happy the play off for Australia isn't against the USA although I have no idea how good our opponents are other than Mexico gave them a win to knock the USA out perhaps? 

Perhaps the USa can do a nice tournament with Holland, Chile and Italy when they don't qualify from the play offs... probably be a nice money spinner.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Well, if the USMNT keeps playing as they have been, I mean... Hawaii IS in Oceania, just sayin' FIFA :lol:


LOL. FIFA could give 10 spots to Oceania just to be safe. :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

Some fresh news:
There has been some sort of online press conference yesterday with John Kristick, CEO of LOC. Looks like there will be no further host city cuts soon, at least not until formal bid is officially presented to FIFA next March when number of potential host will be reduced to 20+
The final decision will be done few years from now, after consultations with FIFA (as widely expected). 
And obviously there have been discussions if distances, missing/fixed/retractable roofs and history hosting FIFA events are going to be significant advantages for the selection or not etc ... 
Obviously LOC wants more hosts while FIFA sticks with less. Three hosts in Mexico and two in Canada have been mentioned as well as max 16 host cities (not stadiums) as desired by FIFA

here the links to these fresh news:
Broad public support for North American World Cup bid

North America 2026 World Cup poll shows high interest in hosting

2026 World Cup bid organizers give Philadelphia more good news 

U.S. considers potential host cities for 2026 World Cup bid


EDIT: so nothing realy breaking ... but few nice infos to keep it warm :colgate:


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Some fresh news:
> There has been some sort of online press conference yesterday with John Kristick, CEO of LOC. Looks like there will be no further host city cuts soon, at least not until formal bid is officially presented to FIFA next March when number of potential host will be reduced to 20+
> The final decision will be done few years from now, after consultations with FIFA (as widely expected).
> And obviously there have been discussions if distances, missing/fixed/retractable roofs and history hosting FIFA events are going to be significant advantages for the selection or not etc ...
> Obviously LOC wants more hosts while FIFA sticks with less. Three hosts in Mexico and two in Canada have been mentioned as well as max 16 host cities (not stadiums) as desired by FIFA
> 
> here the links to these fresh news:
> Broad public support for North American World Cup bid
> 
> North America 2026 World Cup poll shows high interest in hosting
> 
> 2026 World Cup bid organizers give Philadelphia more good news
> 
> U.S. considers potential host cities for 2026 World Cup bid
> 
> 
> EDIT: so nothing realy breaking ... but few nice infos to keep it warm :colgate:


Thanks for the post. Nice to see how things are progressing.

With 16 as a limit and Canada and Mexico getting at least 5, the US seems to be looking at 11 locations max. But it could go as low as 7 if FIFA gets its way.

The hints about locations, costs, roofs, regions, etc., seems too vague and contradictory to be of much help. The NE is presumably going to get at least Boston, NY, DC area, but the rest are pretty scattered unless there are some surprises.

The Post gives precedence to Boston, New York, Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Seattle and Houston may be the weakest but that would still leave 9. Not sure who goes after that.


----------



## dwbakke

pesto said:


> Thanks for the post. Nice to see how things are progressing.
> 
> With 16 as a limit and Canada and Mexico getting at least 5, the US seems to be looking at 11 locations max. But it could go as low as 7 if FIFA gets its way.
> 
> The hints about locations, costs, roofs, regions, etc., seems too vague and contradictory to be of much help. The NE is presumably going to get at least Boston, NY, DC area, but the rest are pretty scattered unless there are some surprises.
> 
> The Post gives precedence to Boston, New York, Washington, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. Seattle and Houston may be the weakest but that would still leave 9. Not sure who goes after that.


Would be bizarre if FIFA didn't let the US have 11 stadiums. FIFA let Russia and Brazil have 12 for a 64 game tournament because they wanted to spread the tournament across big countries, and almost all of those stadiums still had to be built. The US gets 60 games, so 11 would seem right, and they all exist already. It would make no sense for FIFA to make a country as big as the US with so many existing stadiums to have fewer venues than they allowed Russia and Brazil.


----------



## pesto

dwbakke said:


> Would be bizarre if FIFA didn't let the US have 11 stadiums. FIFA let Russia and Brazil have 12 for a 64 game tournament because they wanted to spread the tournament across big countries, and almost all of those stadiums still had to be built. The US gets 60 games, so 11 would seem right, and they all exist already. It would make no sense for FIFA to make a country as big as the US with so many existing stadiums to have fewer venues than they allowed Russia and Brazil.


The tournament is using 16 stadiums altogether and each stadium involves substantial incremental costs (local suppliers, logistics, security, building improvements, press offices, field preparation, etc.). Cutting 2 or 3 stadiums makes for lower costs, less travel and better rested players and fans.

Offsetting this is the possibility of getting local interest stirred up in various regions of the country. As an alternative to scheduling a full list of matches, it may be cheaper to have special events in some regional cities.


----------



## ElvisBC

another new info: all bidding cities must submit their final bids by early january

article:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/chicagos-chance--host-2026-world-cup-looks-strong/


----------



## Rover030

American football stadiums are generally not used during the summer months right? They could definitely do events with open training events of world cup teams back to back with a friendly match between MLS teams/all star teams/legend teams, all of whom will be in the US to watch the world cup anyway. That would also make it easier to spread "world cup fever" amongst the locals in such a large country that isn't that enthusiastic about the sport. With 48 teams, you could organise a shitload of events in every region of the country.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> American football stadiums are generally not used during the summer months right? They could definitely do events with open training events of world cup teams back to back with a friendly match between MLS teams/all star teams/legend teams, all of whom will be in the US to watch the world cup anyway. That would also make it easier to spread "world cup fever" amongst the locals in such a large country that isn't that enthusiastic about the sport. With 48 teams, you could organise a shitload of events in every region of the country.


Yes, that clearly seems to way to go. You want to have live players making appearances at locally recognizable places and/or playing matches with people they have heard of (local players, celebrities who can play some soccer, legends, etc.).

Maybe they will limit the number of stadiums but spread them around a bit so that people in smaller towns can make it to a match with a short drive.


----------



## dwbakke

pesto said:


> The tournament is using 16 stadiums altogether and each stadium involves substantial incremental costs (local suppliers, logistics, security, building improvements, press offices, field preparation, etc.). Cutting 2 or 3 stadiums makes for lower costs, less travel and better rested players and fans.
> 
> Offsetting this is the possibility of getting local interest stirred up in various regions of the country. As an alternative to scheduling a full list of matches, it may be cheaper to have special events in some regional cities.


While I understand about the stadium logistics, the travel things makes no sense. Considering they've had no regional groups in Brazil or Russia (all teams played in three different cities all across the country) and will probably do that again, cutting cities almost certainly won't cut travel for teams or fans. If you wanted to cut travel, the actual way to do it would be to actually add cities, and then you could regionalize groups much more effectively than with fewer cities.


----------



## pesto

dwbakke said:


> While I understand about the stadium logistics, the travel things makes no sense. Considering they've had no regional groups in Brazil or Russia (all teams played in three different cities all across the country) and will probably do that again, cutting cities almost certainly won't cut travel for teams or fans. If you wanted to cut travel, the actual way to do it would be to actually add cities, and then you could regionalize groups much more effectively than with fewer cities.


Let’s take the most extreme example, one city. Travel is zero. With two cities you just have half of the groups playing each other at the same stadium and travel is near zero.

Think of putting all first round matches in 4 stadiums and all knock-out stage matches in one of those stadiums. Even if it’s NY, Miami, Seattle, LA travel is still very small.

At the other extreme, say 100 cities, there is frequent travel since you have to use all the stadiums. It is hard to believe that anyone can minimize travel with 100 (or 50 or 20) locations as well as with 2 or 4 or 8.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> The FIFA Council also ratified the decision of the Bureau of the Council of 6 September 2017 to approve the enhanced Bidding Regulations for the 2026 FIFA World Cup™, and appointed the members of the Bid Evaluation Task Force.
> 
> According to the Bidding Regulations, the Task Force must be composed of the chairpersons of the Audit & Compliance Committee and the Governance Committee – in this case, Tomaz Vesel and Mukul Mudgal respectively – as well as a member of the Organising Committee for Competitions (Ilco Gjorgioski was appointed), together with experts from the administration: Deputy Secretaries General Zvonimir Boban (football) and Marco Villiger (administration).


FIFA.com

Regulations

Bidding Regulations and Registration

Structure,
Content and Format of Bid


----------



## dwbakke

pesto said:


> Let’s take the most extreme example, one city. Travel is zero. With two cities you just have half of the groups playing each other at the same stadium and travel is near zero.
> 
> Think of putting all first round matches in 4 stadiums and all knock-out stage matches in one of those stadiums. Even if it’s NY, Miami, Seattle, LA travel is still very small.
> 
> At the other extreme, say 100 cities, there is frequent travel since you have to use all the stadiums. It is hard to believe that anyone can minimize travel with 100 (or 50 or 20) locations as well as with 2 or 4 or 8.


I'm operating under the assumption that every team will play their early games in different venues (which has been the case at every World Cup since 1998, even in big countries like Russia and Brazil). If you take that assumption, then yes, 4 venues would be crazy travel. Your first 4 games could be going from Dallas to NY to LA back to NY. Put it in 24 cities and you could play Houston, Dallas, Kansas City in the first round/knockout round, then maybe Atlanta as it starts going deeper in the tournament. The later rounds are going to be a lot of travel no matter what, whether it's 4 cities or 24, but you can lower travel in the early rounds with more venues.


----------



## pesto

dwbakke said:


> I'm operating under the assumption that every team will play their early games in different venues (which has been the case at every World Cup since 1998, even in big countries like Russia and Brazil). If you take that assumption, then yes, 4 venues would be crazy travel. Your first 4 games could be going from Dallas to NY to LA back to NY. Put it in 24 cities and you could play Houston, Dallas, Kansas City in the first round/knockout round, then maybe Atlanta as it starts going deeper in the tournament. The later rounds are going to be a lot of travel no matter what, whether it's 4 cities or 24, but you can lower travel in the early rounds with more venues.


For sure marketing considerations may drive the spreading of matches to more cities. But the article says there will be an effort to minimize travel, which means limiting the number of venues that one team has to travel too. Otherwise, they are not serious about trying to minimize travel.

If you are playing 4 matches is 2 stadiums you only travel once. If you play 4 matches in 4 stadiums you travel 3 times. 

There is also a difference between the amount of travel and the distance travelled. Your approach is going to have people taking more journeys for shorter distances. This is bad because each flight requires hours of getting to the airplane, security, etc., and then getting from the airport to the stadium. In many cases it will also require a change of lodging which is another couple of hours. Better to take one medium length flight than 2 or 3 short ones.

In any event, should be interesting to see what system they come up with.


----------



## ElvisBC

nice new document

GUIDE TO THE BIDDING PROCESS FOR THE 2026 FIFA WORLD CUP

and for those who like more details 

Bidding Regulations

Host City Declaration

Bid Structure

Government Support

Government Declaration


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Interesting Guide.

Now we can read all bidders' bid book. I'm glad there'll be a good focus on transparency and human rights, in particular following the controversies for the 2022 World Cup.

Many people could think there could be an issue for the United Bid, on visas, immigration and possibility sustainable development. However US government sent all guaranties for LA 2028 .

Concerning Morocco, we're impatient tosse the infrastructure, hotels, team base camps.
I know Morocco is not Qatar, but has some touristic infrastructure.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Interesting Guide.
> 
> Now we can read all bidders' bid book. I'm glad there'll be a *good focus on *transparency and *human rights*, in particular following the controversies for the 2022 World Cup.
> 
> Many people could think there could be an issue for the United Bid, on visas, immigration and possibility sustainable development. However US government sent all guaranties for LA 2028 .
> 
> Concerning Morocco, we're impatient tosse the infrastructure, hotels, team base camps.
> I know Morocco is not Qatar, but has some touristic infrastructure.


For sure. An internet discussion regarding which countries violate human rights always generates calm, well-reasoned arguments and gives an edifying and enlightening perspective on human nature. :lol:


----------



## pesto

Per SF Chron: "Raiders Prez Marc Badain says he's trying to get Super Bowl in Vegas in 2024 or 2025 and FIFA championship in 2026." 

No surprise here. The new Raiders stadium will make a nice site on its own or as part of a hub with two stadiums in LA or one each in LA and SF.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Cities bidding to host World Cup 2026 games will make presentations in Houston



> The process of selecting prospective venues for the 2026 World Cup continues next week in Houston, where 32 cities in Canada, Mexico, and the United States that have survived the first cut will make presentations to the United Bid Committee. *Presentations will be made starting Monday*.





> During the Official Host City selection process factors such as city profile, stadium and support facilities (training sites, hotels) and services (e.g., transportation) are evaluated. The number of venues to be proposed to host World Cup games has not been specified; *12-16 stadiums is the target*.


https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...ding-to-host-world-cup-2026-games-will-m.html

FIFA accepts 2 to 4 additional stadiums for the bids.
The United Bid would surely go for 20 stadiums in its bid.

Proposition for the Qualification Draw: Toronto, Montréal
Proposition for the Final Phase Draw: Mexico City
FIFA Congress and Opening match: NY, LA, Dallas
Final: NY, LA


----------



## pesto

Sounds like not much new. Target is 12-16 plus whatever US can wheedle. NY, LA and Dallas are the heavy hitters. Assuming 3 each for Mexico and Canada, the US is looking at 10 or 12; possibly 14.

NY, LA, Dallas, Boston, Chicago, Atlanta, SF, DC Metro seem difficult to leave out.

Houston is the biggest metro area remaining. LV and Miami are the biggest tourist destinations. Philly is close to NY and DC. Seattle may be expendable if Vancouver is getting one of Canada's spots. Denver and Phoenix are out there by themselves and only moderate in size.


----------



## nandoer

Curiosully, Morocco quialified for the WC today


----------



## ElvisBC

interesting decission by FIFA

FIFA to reveal all 2026 World Cup votes, aims for clean bids


----------



## Mojeda101

The US has been to 10 out of the 20 world cups so far while a country like Argentina has been to 17. Brazil is the only country that has been present in every single world cup. Italy has been in 18 out of 19 tries while they missed out of 1958. Germany has been in 19 out of 19 attempts aside from 1930 and 1950 as they refused to enter in those due to obvious reasons.


----------



## Colonel Ned

since voting is no longer a matter of 24 member who is interested in business and bribes

since the vote will be made by 211 associations concerned with facilitating the movements and the well-being to their supporters

Given the geographical and political constraints, do you seriously believe that the USA has a chance to convince everyone?

Morocco has the support of 56 African countries and at least 30 European countries in addition to the countries of the Middle East and West Asia ... it can exceed half the votes!

even concacaf countries are not motivated because 3 wasted places that will be awarded automatically (Canada or Mexico will be easily qualified with just a few matches to shelter ?? !!)

and you are here to keep dreaming which American city is suitable host the matches ?? but wake up !!!

unless USA get back the 2022 edition from Qatar, it will be seriously hard for this beautiful country to do it (I mean a co-bidding is a mistake, USA can host it alone)


----------



## Rover030

The member associations probably look at the future as well. For Europe it could be more beneficial if North America hosts 2026, which makes a European world cup in 2030 more likely than if Morocco, an almost European country, hosts the 2026 world cup. 

In case Morocco wins 2026, North America/US again and Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay would be more likely to get worldwide support in 2030 than a European bid (British isles bid?, Spain+Portugal+Morocco?) I think.

Next to that the North American bid will make the FIFA and thus the member associations more money, which surely is a factor for them as well. It might be closer than people think, but not as close as 1998 and 2010.


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> since voting is no longer a matter of 24 member who is interested in business and bribes
> 
> since the vote will be made by 211 associations concerned with facilitating the movements and the well-being to their supporters
> 
> Given the geographical and political constraints, do you seriously believe that the USA has a chance to convince everyone?
> 
> Morocco has the support of 56 African countries and at least 30 European countries in addition to the countries of the Middle East and West Asia ... it can exceed half the votes!
> 
> even concacaf countries are not motivated because 3 wasted places that will be awarded automatically (Canada or Mexico will be easily qualified with just a few matches to shelter ?? !!)
> 
> and you are here to keep dreaming which American city is suitable host the matches ?? but wake up !!!
> 
> unless USA get back the 2022 edition from Qatar, it will be seriously hard for this beautiful country to do it (I mean a co-bidding is a mistake, USA can host it alone)


This is a fabulous opportunity for you to make a killing at the betting parlors. Put everything you own on Morocco and you could become a multi-millionaire. I am serious, you should do this; maybe talk your friends and family into betting also.


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> This is a fabulous opportunity for you to make a killing at the betting parlors. Put everything you own on Morocco and you could become a multi-millionaire. I am serious, you should do this; maybe talk your friends and family into betting also.


hahaha
sounds good idea man 
:banana::cheers:


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> Cities bidding to host World Cup 2026 games will make presentations in Houston
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.socceramerica.com/publi...ding-to-host-world-cup-2026-games-will-m.html
> 
> FIFA accepts 2 to 4 additional stadiums for the bids.
> The United Bid would surely go for 20 stadiums in its bid.
> 
> Proposition for the Qualification Draw: Toronto, Montréal
> Proposition for the Final Phase Draw: Mexico City
> FIFA Congress and Opening match: NY, LA, Dallas
> Final: NY, LA


where did you get these infos from? can't find them in the link.


----------



## ElvisBC

about the bids, once again: FIFA=greedy=CONCACAF bid wins, everything else is secondary including local interests


----------



## ElvisBC

according to 13actionNews Raiders will have their presentation in Houston today!

Raiders aim to host World Cup, Super Bowl at new Las Vegas Stadium


----------



## CaliforniaJones

ElvisBC said:


> where did you get these infos from? can't find them in the link.


In these links.

Guide to the Bidding Process for the 2026 FIFA World Cup English

Bidding Registration (FIFA WC 2026)

Structure, Content and Format of Bid (FIFA WC 2026)


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Source: @houstonsportsjs (twitter)










Source: @orlandomayor


----------



## Rover030

I don't think it deserves its own thread as it's just a friendly tournament like the Club World Cup international champions cup, but the US Soccer Federation and Soccer United Marketing are trying to organise a small tournament with nations that missed out on the world cup:



> *U.S. exploring games with Italy, others that will miss World Cup*
> 
> LEIRIA, Portugal -- The U.S. Soccer Federation is looking into the possibility of hosting pre-World Cup international matches involving the United States, Italy, the Netherlands, Ghana and Chile.
> 
> U.S. Soccer told ESPN FC and other media outlets on Tuesday that it was exploring the idea with Major League Soccer's marketing arm, Soccer United Marketing.
> The USSF indicated that talks are in the exploratory stage, so it is unclear if an actual tournament will be held involving the above-mentioned teams or just a series of friendlies.
> Each of the teams referenced has failed to qualify for the 2018 World Cup in Russia.
> Italy's failure to get past Sweden in a two-legged playoff saw the Azzurri miss out on the World Cup for the first time since 1958.
> The U.S. failed to qualify for the first time since 1986, while one has to go back to 2002 to find the last time Ghana or the Netherlands were eliminated during qualification.
> Chile, the reigning South American champions, missed out on the World Cup as recently as 2006.
> 
> North America also figures to be an appealing destination for friendlies for some of the countries that qualified for Russia, especially teams from Central and South America as they make their way to Europe.


These might be the kind of events that we can expect around the 2026 world cup as well.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I don't think it deserves its own thread as it's just a friendly tournament like the Club World Cup, but the US Soccer Federation and Soccer United Marketing are trying to organise a small tournament with nations that missed out on the world cup:
> 
> 
> 
> These might be the kind of events that we can expect around the 2026 world cup as well.


Funny, my initial thought on hearing Italy was out was to call sports investors I know and ask if this was on the table. It is a potential moneymaker if you can pull it together. 

This is a failure of FIFA: you CANNOT leave the US and Italy out and shouldn't leave out others who are big names in their regions. You are inviting competition. 

The KEY FACTOR for a successful cartel is that you hold a monopoly of the product that the market demands. If you allow others to see you as vulnerable, the billionaires, marketers and their friends in government will swoop down on you.

Fortunately, the move to 48 should help avoid this. But FIFA has to do some fence mending with sponsors and major markets.


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> This is a failure of FIFA: you CANNOT leave the US and Italy out and shouldn't leave out others who are big names in their regions. You are inviting competition.


:rofl:

The US and Italy weren't "left out", they didn't qualify. :lol: That can (and ought to be able to) happen under any system. 

As for inviting competition, do you honestly think anyone in the world will be avidly watching the losers' tournament? I doubt FIFA are quaking in their boot's too much form this competition.

Get better at football, there's your answer. Anyway, you can't have it both ways. Yesterday you were saying how most people in the US would greet non-qualification with a shrug.


----------



## Faiyez

RobH said:


> :rofl:
> 
> The US and Italy weren't "left out", they didn't qualify. :lol: That can (and ought to be able to) happen under any system.


I think he was being sarcastic.

I hope.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

ElvisBC said:


> is there anywhere anything more written about these presentations in houston? can‘t find anything!
> 
> the only thing I found (cincinnati article) is that the next step is LOC visiting all bidding cities


*Montreal*
Will Montreal host 2026 World Cup games?

*Deadline*


> *Written proposals* must be submitted to the United Bid Committee by *Jan. 19* for formal consideration.


*DC and Maryland stadia*


> Event officials representing Washington, D.C., and the Maryland Stadium Authority presented to leaders of the United Bid Committee in Houston last week, the News4 I-Team learned. D.C. representatives proposed *FedEx Field* in Landover as a host site for World Cup matches. The Maryland Stadium Authority is offering *Ravens Stadium* in Baltimore.


*Training sites*


> Maryland’s proposal also specifies several venues to be used for training sites for World Cup 2026, including *Towson University*, *University of Maryland Baltimore County* and *Goucher College*.
> 
> D.C.’s proposal was drafted by officials with Destination D.C. A spokeswoman did not specify the possible training sites included in D.C.’s bid, but Maryland officials said it’s likely the U*niversity of Maryland* could be added as a possible training site by D.C. or Maryland officials before formal bids are submitted.


D.C., Maryland Pitch Proposals to Be Hosts of 2026 World Cup


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> *Montreal*
> Will Montreal host 2026 World Cup games?
> 
> *Deadline*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Written proposals must be submitted to the United Bid Committee by Jan. 19 for formal consideration.
Click to expand...

thanks, great interview with Tony Loffreda!
-bid must be in by march 16th (we knew this)
-there will be between 16 and 20 host cities total, possibly 18 (we more or less knew this)

and then this:
-fifa will decide on how many cities, and obviously will have a strong word when chosing the hosts, opposite to what many here used to claim!
Q:"What was their criteria, what were they looking for?"
A:"The stadium is important, minimum for the game is 40.000 capacity. Security is important, and you need stadium with open roof and natural grass, experience, population etc...."

sounds very interesting, if this with open roof is correct, that would exclude 70% of US candidates including NY and LA, so it can't be correct!


----------



## Calvin W

WTF are u smoking? Since when does NY have a dome stadium?


----------



## RobH

^^ The sentence reads it must have an "open roof" - i.e. must have a roof covering the stands which neither the Coliseum nor Giants Stadium have. I can't imagine e.g. Giants Stadium being ruled out on that basis alone though, so as Elvis says it's questionable if this is true.


----------



## Rover030

He is probably talking about the natural grass part as well. That shouldn't be a huge issue, as NFL stadiums are more or less vacant from february, so there is enough time to remove the artificial surface and grow a grass pitch. That's not even necessary by the way, it's also possible to grow grass elsewhere and lay it directly on top of the artifical turf. I've read quite some criticism towards the latter kind though, so a proper pitch would be better.

Edit: or the open roof part like Rob said, didn't think of that interpretation of the word open roof. I would say that they mean that a stadium can't have a full dome that is unable to open, otherwise the requirement would be too strict and the bid becomes very expensive, just like Morocco's bid (Morocco has not a single stadium with a roof covering all the stands yet, and at least one of the stadiums they're going to build doesn't have that either).


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> ^^ The sentence reads it must have an "open roof" - i.e. must have a roof covering the stands which neither the Coliseum nor Giants Stadium have. I can't imagine e.g. Giants Stadium being ruled out on that basis alone though, so as Elvis says it's questionable if this is true.


Are you sure it means that? Temporary seats at Sao Paulo were certainly uncovered - I sat in one. Temporary seats in Russia next year will be uncovered. It is vague language to say the least.


----------



## ElvisBC

AFAIK covered seats was recommendation by FIFA, not requirement. 
Actually it was requirement but only for the opening game and for the final.

We'll see how this one goes on.


----------



## ElvisBC

Trump will be happy to read this :colgate:

FIFA demands visa, work permit and tax exemptions for 2026 World Cup

I mean work permit for FIFA executives is clear, that should be no issue, tax exemption is matter of deal, if FIFA wants to negotiate, but visa free travel will not sit well with current US administration  
I see the World Cup moving closer to North Africa


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> He is probably talking about the natural grass part as well. That shouldn't be a huge issue, as NFL stadiums are more or less vacant from february, so there is enough time to remove the artificial surface and grow a grass pitch. That's not even necessary by the way, it's also possible to grow grass elsewhere and lay it directly on top of the artifical turf. I've read quite some criticism towards the latter kind though, so a proper pitch would be better.
> 
> Edit: or the open roof part like Rob said, didn't think of that interpretation of the word open roof. I would say that they mean that a stadium can't have a full dome that is unable to open, otherwise the requirement would be too strict and the bid becomes very expensive, just like Morocco's bid (Morocco has not a single stadium with a roof covering all the stands yet, and at least one of the stadiums they're going to build doesn't have that either).


That sounds right; he said "open roof" but probably meant "open stadium" or "no roof". He is just being too casual in his use of language.

This issue also came up for the Inglewood Stadium where someone insisted that it had a roof. But the architects called it a canopy while noting that a "roof" is the top part of the structural elements that form an envelope (air and water tight). If there is a big hole in the middle then you don't have a roof. Those coverings are awnings; if they are very extended they are canopies.

But, of course, use can vary on this kind of thing and can revert to slang for public purposes.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Trump will be happy to read this :colgate:
> 
> FIFA demands visa, work permit and tax exemptions for 2026 World Cup
> 
> I mean work permit for FIFA executives is clear, that should be no issue, tax exemption is matter of deal, if FIFA wants to negotiate, but visa free travel will not sit well with current US administration
> I see the World Cup moving closer to North Africa


“Ha, ha, ha! You are too funny, Mr. Trump! I doubt that I could actually fornicate myself at my age! But you really thought I meant visas, tax exemption, etc.? Really you are such a funny man! What I meant was that you would not publicly object to FIFA issuing a statement that we are satisfied with whatever arrangements the US may place upon participants and visitors to the game in the US.” 

"No, please don't hang up; I don't want to go to (obscenity deleted) Africa instead; we are actually quite happy with the US bid. We do have great experience with African bank accounts but are trying to not talk about that."


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> “Ha, ha, ha! You are too funny, Mr. Trump! I doubt that I could actually fornicate myself at my age! But you really thought I meant visas, tax exemption, etc.? Really you are such a funny man! What I meant was that you would not publicly object to FIFA issuing a statement that we are satisfied with whatever arrangements the US may place upon participants and visitors to the game in the US.”
> 
> "No, please don't hang up; I don't want to go to (obscenity deleted) Africa instead; we are actually quite happy with the US bid. We do have great experience with African bank accounts but are trying to not talk about that."


FIFA will have no problems with President Trump at all. The IOC just agreed to go to LA in 2028. Same issues would apply with that event if money wasn't more important.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> FIFA will have no problems with President Trump at all. The IOC just agreed to go to LA in 2028. Same issues would apply with that event if money wasn't more important.


Yes. The new management at the IOC has figured out that the method of having power at the level of the local countries is archaic. A central organization can choose what cities are the best for maximizing long-term goals (brand, revenues, respect in the market) and make sure they get them at the best deal they can manage. In any event, visas and such are a non-concern in the US and I suspect all first world countries if you don't have a criminal record or terrorist connections.

I am hopeful that the era of world class disasters is over for both the Olympics and WC.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Logo in Facebook


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Logo in Facebook


Too bad. I was hoping they could work in a moose and a couple of eagles fighting over a serpent. :lol:


----------



## afonso_bh

England should host it. No better place to have it. And with 48 teams they sure have enough stadiums.


----------



## RobH

afonso_bh said:


> England should host it. No better place to have it. And with 48 teams they sure have enough stadiums.


England isn't bidding for and can't bid for 2026. Keep up.


----------



## RobH

United 2026 just sounds like an airliner (lo and behold if you type it into Google you get the flight schedule for that plane top and centre with the world cup bid website further down the page).

I wonder, if FIFA _are _keen on having joint hosts more often, whether they'll simply drop (or relegate to a smaller font) the location in the logos and stick to the e.g. 'FIFA World Cup 2026' brand? Of course the graphical elements of the logo could still reflect the host nations but maybe FIFA will take a leaf out of UEFA's book and do as they've done for the pan-European 2020 tournament:












Of course, at the bidding stage Usmexcan has to distinguish its 2026 bid from its rival, hence the awkward 'United' moniker, but assuming they win I can see FIFA simplifying things when the actual branding and design happen.

Whatever, I can't see "United 2026" taking off, unless it's from O'Hare.


----------



## pesto

Welcome to the 2050 Current and Former Members of the United Kingdom Plus Holland World Cup!

Welcome to the 2054 Any Sovereign Country Within 100 Miles of the Gran Chaco World Cup!


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> United 2026 just sounds like an airliner (lo and behold if you type it into Google you get the flight schedule for that plane top and centre with the world cup bid website further down the page).
> 
> I wonder, if FIFA _are _keen on having joint hosts more often, whether they'll simply drop (or relegate to a smaller font) the location in the logos and stick to the e.g. 'FIFA World Cup 2026' brand? Of course the graphical elements of the logo could still reflect the host nations but maybe FIFA will take a leaf out of UEFA's book and do as they've done for the pan-European 2020 tournament:
> 
> Of course, at the bidding stage Usmexcan has to distinguish its 2026 bid from its rival, hence the awkward 'United' moniker, but assuming they win I can see FIFA simplifying things when the actual branding and design happen.
> 
> Whatever, I can't see "United 2026" taking off, unless it's from O'Hare.


Why is "united" awkward?


----------



## GunnerJacket

I'm sure there's a joke in here somewhere about "United 2026" and the US/Mexico border wall. Give me a minute and I'll think of something.


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> Why is "united" awkward?


It simultaneously says absolutely nothing to the casual observer ("United 2026" needs explaining to make any sense at all), and for anyone who actually follows football it comes across as odd because "United" is very strongly associated with particular clubs, not international football. It satisfies neither group.

In fact, when associated with FIFA, it manages mostly to conjure up memories of this hubristic car crash - http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/united-passions-fifa-film-sepp-blatter

Also, as I said, it sounds like an airliner.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> It simultaneously says absolutely nothing to the casual observer ("United 2026" needs explaining to make any sense at all), and for anyone who actually follows football it comes across as odd because "United" is very strongly associated with particular clubs, not international football. It satisfies neither group.
> 
> In fact, when associated with FIFA, it manages mostly to conjure up memories of this hubristic car crash - http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/united-passions-fifa-film-sepp-blatter
> 
> Also, as I said, it sounds like an airliner.


Probably true for the hardcore fan, especially if he is not too swift.

But as a casual follower none of that crossed my mind. My thought was an interest in finding out who or what was going to be united in 2026.

And, of course, "United" appears in the name of the two larger countries involved.


----------



## Colonel Ned

*2026 World Cup: Why North America Must Take Morocco's Bid Seriously*

*Steve Price*
NOV 8, 2017 @ 07:47 AM
forbes #SportsMoney
www.forbes.com


FIFA released its guide to the 2026 World Cup bidding process this week, which, on the surface at least, promises a democratic and transparent way of deciding who gets to host the first 48-team World Cup in the tournament’s history.

That is a welcome change. When choosing the hosts of previous World Cups, technical reports and the suitability of a country to actually host the tournament were thrown out the window when it came round to the Executive Committee’s vote, with Qatar, ranked as "high risk" in one of the technical report's categories, coming out on top for the 2022 World Cup.

The new bidding process for the 2026 World Cup should be music to the ears of the United Bid Committee, representing the U.S., Mexico and Canada. The North American bid will score highly on most of the technical categories, with great infrastructure and opportunities for FIFA to rake in commercial revenue, not to mention enough stadiums to probably host a 200-team tournament. While the U.S. national team shocked the world on the pitch by managing to miss out on next year’s World Cup in what is probably the easiest confederation to qualify from, surely it won’t also miss out on a chance to host, along with Canada and Mexico, the 2026 World Cup.


But North America’s bid isn’t the only one on the table, and when it comes to international voting, it pays to not count your chickens before they hatch. Morocco may seem like a distant outsider, but there are plenty of reasons why North America shouldn’t get too complacent.

First, the bidding for the 2026 World Cup is decided by a vote of all 211 FIFA member states. Ahmed Ahmed, the Malagasy head of the African Football Confederation, has already pledged his support for Morocco’s bid, and it’s likely that a lot of African nations, which make up about a quarter of the total votes, and other Arabic-speaking nations will support Morocco.

It’s assumed that Europe will generally back the North American bid, but the continent has reason to back Morocco, as the short distance and similar time zones between Europe and Morocco make it more practical for European fans to enjoy the World Cup than they would if it were held on the other side of the Atlantic. Of course, it’s not the fans who vote, and soccer’s governing body often ignores their wishes. Either way, the voting will be much closer than the landslide victory some North Americans might expect.

Before the vote, each bid is assessed by the technical committee, but Morocco is unlikely to fall down here. It didn’t have any glaring problems in its 2010 World Cup bid, with decent stadiums, excellent infrastructure and a hotel sector described by FIFA as "first rate." If this were a 32-team World Cup then Morocco’s bid would have no problems at all, as shown by their 2010 bid. 48 teams is a big step up, but given Spain and Portugal’s proximity, teams could base themselves on the Iberian Peninsula, which European clubs often use for pre-season fitness camps due to the world-class facilities on offer.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has already said that Morocco is capable of hosting the competition, and they have hosted the Club World Cup, FIFA’s showcase club competition, twice before in 2013 and 2014. Former FIFA head Sepp Blatter, not that his opinion counts for much these days, also hinted he was in favor of Morocco's bid, claiming the North America bid 'doesn't work'.

Many Americans feel the U.S. deserves to host the World Cup in 2026 because they were "cheated" out of the 2022 World Cup, but there have also been allegations suggesting that Morocco was cheated out of the 2010 World Cup which went to South Africa, with claims that the Morocco bid actually got the most votes. Also, the USA has already hosted the World Cup, and Mexico has hosted it twice. Given FIFA’s remit to try and spread football to new regions of the world, a North African World Cup may have a lot of support from inside FIFA.

Morocco’s bid still has plenty of question marks over it, from the dismal human rights situation in Western Sahara, which is occupied by Morocco, to its widely criticized decision to pull out of hosting the African Cup of Nations in 2015 over fears of Ebola -- the competition was played that year in Equatorial Guinea instead. While Morocco looks capable of hosting a 32 team world cup, the tournament’s expansion might be a step too far for the nation. Morocco isn’t as wealthy as South Africa or Brazil, and its economy may struggle to digest the ever-increasing costs of hosting soccer's top tournament.

But despite these problems, FIFA politics is unpredictable, even if it does become more transparent. Although North America’s bid still looks the heavy favorite to win the rights to host the 2026 World Cup, while Morocco are in the running, the United Bid Committee can’t afford to be complacent.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steveprice/2017/11/08/2026-world-cup-why-north-america-must-take-moroccos-bid-seriously/#45697084e794


----------



## Colonel Ned

for whom who are interested by money :

The 2026 Bid Evaluation Task Force will be established with a mandate to a report assessing each bid in terms of infrastructure (70%) and Commercial (30%). The specific categories and weighting within each are as follows:
Stadiums 35% (so ... about 1/3)
Fan Festival Sites 3%
International Broadcast Centre 7%
Transportation and mobility 13%
Accommodations 6%
Team and Referee Facilities 6%
Revenue (in combination) -------> *Only 20% (!)*
Projected Costs 10%

The question is: Will the revenues be distributed to 211 soccer associations?

In the past, there were only 24 members who voted, so certainly the interest in the income was great because those memebers get paid directly (and indirectly) by the revenue of the competition

Now with the era of transparency and justice for peoples ... we must believe that the *paradigm* has really changed

So ... amigos mios, *keep singing "money money"* ...


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Colonel Ned said:


> for whom who are interested by money :
> 
> The 2026 Bid Evaluation Task Force will be established with a mandate to a report assessing each bid in terms of infrastructure (70%) and Commercial (30%). The specific categories and weighting within each are as follows:
> Stadiums 35% (so ... about 1/3)
> Fan Festival Sites 3%
> International Broadcast Centre 7%
> Transportation and mobility 13%
> Accommodations 6%
> Team and Referee Facilities 6%
> Revenue (in combination) -------> *Only 20% (!)*
> Projected Costs 10%
> 
> The question is: Will the revenues be distributed to 211 soccer associations?
> 
> In the past, there were only 24 members who voted, so certainly the interest in the income was great because those memebers get paid directly (and indirectly) by the revenue of the competition
> 
> Now with the era of transparency and justice for peoples ... we must believe that the *paradigm* has really changed
> 
> So ... amigos mios, *keep singing "money money"* ...


And the percentage given for politics, visas, etc appears to be zero.

10% for projected costs as well as 20% for income. Plenty to swing the evaluation report.

The USA also wipes the floor with just about anyone when it comes to transportation, accommodation and team facilities. There are some European countries who might do better on transportation as they combine 1st rate rail and roads with relative compactness.

As for the idea of an era of transparency and justice, who are you trying to kid? This is the era of fake news and media manipulation.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> And the percentage given for politics, visas, etc appears to be zero.
> 
> 10% for projected costs as well as 20% for income. Plenty to swing the evaluation report.
> 
> The USA also wipes the floor with just about anyone when it comes to transportation, accommodation and team facilities. There are some European countries who might do better on transportation as they combine 1st rate rail and roads with relative compactness.
> 
> As for the idea of an era of transparency and justice, who are you trying to kid? This is the era of fake news and media manipulation.


It is also the era of celebrity, glitz, making it rain, Apple, fame for 15 seconds, flash, street food, trash media, Disney, total freedom, Asian fusion, insanity, digital billboards, cosmetic surgery, everything on demand. Things that LV, LA, NY and Miami specialize in. 

Oh, yeah, and sustainability and eco-friendliness. :lol:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

John Kristick‏ @johnkristick



> Thanks to @MLS for making the @United2026 Bid team feel so welcomed at our NY office.


----------



## ElvisBC

I showed the logo to some people at work, everyone liked it
It is a great logo, will be interesting to see how and if they are going to implement it into the final World Cup logo if/when they win the bid!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

About Edmonton



> "It's a big kick to the knees to that World Cup process," Steven Sandor said in an interview Monday with CBC Radio's Edmonton AM.
> 
> "*There might be one or two Canadian cities* that might get games, and the competition is fierce, especially when a lot of the influence is going to come from major league soccer, because they're so intertwined with the bid."
> 
> Citing low attendance and a chronic lack of corporate sponsorship, FC Edmonton announced Friday that it was leaving the North American Soccer League and shutting down its professional franchise operations immediately.


Folding of FC Edmonton could scrub city from FIFA host list


----------



## kidrobot

So about this bid.

How is it supposed not to become a logistical nightmare?

Will all three countries introduce something like a FAN ID, like Russia does for WC 2018, or are fans supposed to get visas to three different countries to follow their team?
And then there are the distances one has to cover, soem people say distances in Russia are too big, but it's nothing compared to travelling from Mexico to Canada.

I'm pretty sure US will get it with all the lobbyists, but how will they make it into a seamless and comfortable experience?


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> About Edmonton
> 
> 
> 
> Folding of FC Edmonton could scrub city from FIFA host list


Edmonton has the same problem as Denver: there really isn't very much near there to make a bid logistically attractive. The Canadian population is mostly just across the US border, primarily near the Great Lakes, which makes Toronto, Montreal and the rest of Ontario and Quebec the best sites.


----------



## pesto

kidrobot said:


> So about this bid.
> 
> How is it supposed not to become a logistical nightmare?
> 
> Will all three countries introduce something like a FAN ID, like Russia does for WC 2018, or are fans supposed to get visas to three different countries to follow their team?
> And then there are the distances one has to cover, soem people say distances in Russia are too big, but it's nothing compared to travelling from Mexico to Canada.
> 
> I'm pretty sure US will get it with all the lobbyists, but how will they make it into a seamless and comfortable experience?


I assume you mean that Canada, Mexico and the US will get it with all their lobbyists? Glad to hear they are doing their job!

Logistically, it will require some work. As we have discussed above, nodes seem to be called for, say:

Boston, NY, DC
Montreal, Toronto, Chicago
LA, LV, SF 
Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, (Miami?)
DF, Monterrey, Guadalajara

This puts every match in as large a metropolis as you are likely to get or in LV, which has no trouble attracting out-of-town guests. Connections are generally short and easy by car or air or train.


----------



## RobH

Whatever disagreements we might have on this forum around stadium selection, transport, fan culture etc. here is the reason USA and co will win 2026...



> *As Sponsors Shy Away, FIFA Faces World Cup Shortfall*
> 
> FIFA, the global governing body for soccer, ordinarily enjoys huge revenue streams — in the hundreds of millions of dollars — from sponsorship deals attached to the world’s most-watched sporting event, the World Cup. But less than a year before the next edition of the tournament, the organization is having trouble finding companies willing to be a partner.
> 
> The sport is more popular than ever. What is different this time is FIFA’s reputation.
> 
> While the field of 32 nations is set for the 2018 tournament in Russia, the tournament’s roster of sponsors remains noticeably undersubscribed — a reflection of how much the reputational damage from a much-publicized 2015 corruption crisis continues to hurt FIFA’s bottom line. Days before Friday’s World Cup draw at the Kremlin, along with a trial in a New York courtroom further battering its reputation, FIFA could be facing a significant financial shortfall.
> 
> Six months before the final draw for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, FIFA declared its sponsorship program — which after television rights is the organization’s most important revenue generator — “sold out.” This year, while FIFA has refilled its ranks of top-tier partners with firms in Russia, Qatar and China, only one of the 20 slots available to regional tournament sponsors has been claimed.
> 
> ....
> 
> The financial headache comes at a critical time for FIFA, and for its president. Infantino’s election victory was built in part on his promise of almost $1 billion in financial handouts for the organization’s 211 member associations. Those promises, and the continued legal costs linked to the corruption scandal, make the success of the 2018 tournament vital to Infantino’s plan to win re-election in 2019.


More @ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/sports/soccer/world-cup-sponsors-russia-2018.html


----------



## aquamaroon

Yep, thanks for cutting to the quick Rob. For all this talk of stadia and passion for the game, the fact is that if FIFA is suffering financially at the moment then there is no way they're going to turn down the massive windfall of a North American/USA World Cup.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I've lived in Quebec City, Quebec, Canada since 17 years. I think PEPS could be a Team base camp facility training during a 2026 FIFA World Cup.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Yep, thanks for cutting to the quick Rob. For all this talk of stadia and passion for the game, the fact is that if FIFA is suffering financially at the moment then there is no way they're going to turn down the massive windfall of a North American/USA World Cup.


That is still 9 years from now. So we are probably cutting to the chase not to the quick. :lol:

But, yes, there seems to be little doubt.


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> Whatever disagreements we might have on this forum around stadium selection, transport, fan culture etc. here is the reason USA and co will win 2026...
> 
> More @ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/28/sports/soccer/world-cup-sponsors-russia-2018.html


the disagreements are mostly due to americans not realy knowing how FIFA acts in organizing World Cups, not only stadium and host city selection but some other things as well, but they are getting better .... call it learning by reading 

apart from that, there is full consensus on everything else here, how corrupt FIFA was and is with all their greediness and how desperate they are for a big cash tournament such as 2026 CONCACAF World Cup that, apart from few dreamers from north africa, we all expect to happen!


----------



## ElvisBC

talking about stadiums in general, here nice old FIFA brochure related to general subject "stadiums", might be worth reading it. chapter 6 is very interesting :hi:


FIFA: Football Stadiums - Technical recommendations and requirements 


EDIT: this is older version, I have the most recent one at home, but can't find the link at the moment. It is not much different than this one, some updates on media, multimedia (WiFi etc.) and concession stands


----------



## aquamaroon

ElvisBC said:


> the disagreements are mostly due to americans not realy knowing how FIFA acts in organizing World Cups, not only stadium and host city selection but some other things as well, but they are getting better


I'm just excited that the rest of the world wants to host a football playoff in the US! I'm excited to see the state of Quarterback play around the globe, just hope our guys don't get overwhelmed by some of the D-lines from these other countries! :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

sort of ..... at least as long as average american sports fan calls it soccer and is more interested in which smoothie brady is drinking than in host city selection process


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> sort of ..... at least as long as average american sports fan calls it soccer and is more interested in which smoothie brady is drinking than in host city selection process


Oy. Must be that time of the month. Hang in there and avoid talking to people.

What name you call it seems wholly irrelevant to anything. Many countries do not use "football" in referring to the game. Just like all the countries who use different words to describe what we would call "petty whininess".

As for the selection process, could you let us know what the selection process really is? I, for one, would like to be enlightened.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> Morocco and the three-nation ticket of the United States, Mexico, and Canada formally confirmed their bids to host the 2026 World Cup on Thursday’s deadline.


Read More


----------



## Stardust.Y

Morocco's bid up against that 3 giant-nation-bid is kinda funny. But man if they give it to us, the event will be so huge it's gonna give a push to our fragile slow growing economy


----------



## pesto

Stardust.Y said:


> Morocco's bid up against that 3 giant-nation-bid is kinda funny. But man if they give it to us, the event will be so huge it's gonna give a push to our fragile slow growing economy


Not sure about that. The country spends huge money for a one time event and then mostly empty stadiums. Sounds sort of like Greece.

Like the Olympics, it seems better to look for somewhere with existing facilities rather than one where there is a need to spend heavily to build or expand them.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

pesto said:


> Not sure about that. The country spends huge money for a one time event and then mostly empty stadiums. Sounds sort of like Greece.
> 
> Like the Olympics, it seems better to look for somewhere with existing facilities rather than one where there is a need to spend heavily to build or expand them.


I agree.

FIFA asks 72 team base camps (hotel+training camp).
48-team FIFA World Cup makes the host country spend more money on base camps.



> Currently, with 32 teams, each bidding nation has to provide 64 team base camps (hotel + training center) for the participants to choose from. Should they keep the ratio from 2026 onwards, the requirement would be 96!
> 
> That may be fine with USA or China (who aren’t eligible to bid for 2026) but it’s a gargantuan effort for medium-sized countries. It’s worth noting that the highest number offered in the 2018 and 2022 bidding process was that from Spain and Portugal (82), other countries were either just within the required 64 or even fell short.


2026 World Cup: What '48 teams' means for the hosts


----------



## Stardust.Y

I understand, but I meant that Morocco's economy is small and slow growing which means the infrastructure construction during the years before the event and the tourism during that year will no doubt give a push to growth.

Just as an example, a very small event by comparaison the WTCC race in Marrakech makes a sensible impact every year.

But in any case, Morocco's state budget is (at least for now) too low for the size of investment needed. Unless maybe to find oil or something


----------



## pesto

Stardust.Y said:


> I understand, but I meant that Morocco's economy is small and slow growing which means the infrastructure construction during the years before the event and the tourism during that year will no doubt give a push to growth.
> 
> Just as an example, a very small event by comparaison the WTCC race in Marrakech makes a sensible impact every year.
> 
> But in any case, Morocco's state budget is (at least for now) too low for the size of investment needed. Unless maybe to find oil or something


Again, that is the Greece argument (and, in general, the leftist argument): put people to work by having the government fund big construction projects. It leads to problems that are quite well known.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> Jonathan Tannenwald‏ @thegoalkeeper
> 
> Media going to the MLS Cup Final may like to know that 2026 World Cup bid honchos Steven Reed, Decio de Maria, Sunil Gulati and John Kristick will hold a press conference about the bid on the morning of *Dec. 9*.


The 2018 FIFA World Cup Final Draw was exciting.
For the 2026 FIFA World Cup, Canada, Mexico and the United States should share competition-related events.
Preliminary Draw (July 2023): Toronto, Vancouver
Final Draw (November/December 2025): Mexico City, Guadalajara(Jalisco Stadium)
Team Workshop: Washington DC, Chicago
FIFA Congress: New York City, LA


----------



## Colonel Ned

Stardust.Y said:


> I understand, but I meant that Morocco's economy is small and slow growing which means the infrastructure construction during the years before the event and the tourism during that year will no doubt give a push to growth.
> 
> Just as an example, a very small event by comparaison the WTCC race in Marrakech makes a sensible impact every year.
> 
> But in any case, Morocco's state budget is (at least for now) too low for the size of investment needed. Unless maybe to find oil or something


you just proved that you don't have a single idea about this country ... :lol:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Interview from the mayor of Toronto

Youtube


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Host-city Information Session, Houston, November 2017
From Facebook

Entire Team



























Atlanta Team









Baltimore team









Boston Team









Charlotte Team









Cincinnati Team









Dallas Team









Denver Team









Detroit Team









Edmonton Team









Guadalajara Team









Houston Team









Kansas City Team









Las Vegas Team









Los Angeles Team









Mexico City Team









New York Team









San Francisco Team


----------



## pesto

Good to see that many teams had their token person of color along with them. The others probably left them to park the limo. :lol:


----------



## Леонид

is this a done deal? the 2026 world cup is gonna be held in between three countries? why?


----------



## smokiboy

What's up with posting all of those photos of people sitting in an office??? 1, maybe 2 photos would have been more than enough.


----------



## pesto

Леонид;143862009 said:


> is this a done deal? the 2026 world cup is gonna be held in between three countries? why?


Either Morocco or the United Group (Canada, Mexico, USA) will host the 2026 WC.

As for why there is a single bid for all 3 North American countries vs. separate bids for one or more of the countries, I can only imagine that that discussion would lead to some heated comments and hurt feelings. :lol:


----------



## Colonel Ned

Леонид;143862009 said:


> is this a done deal? the 2026 world cup is gonna be held in between three countries? why?


not for sure (only speculators here)

gringos here are thinking old way : ( believe that it is FIFA of old regime who will vote). while the vote will emanate from 211 soccer associations, half of which are already supporting Morocco ...

for me, I would have liked to see the United states as only organizers but I can't always understand why integrate mexico, and and why force canada to submit too ...


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> not for sure (only speculators here)
> 
> gringos here are thinking old way : ( believe that it is FIFA of old regime who will vote). while the vote will emanate from 211 soccer associations, half of which are already supporting Morocco ...
> 
> for me, I would have liked to see the United states as only organizers but I can't always understand why integrate mexico, and and why force canada to submit too ...


LOL. As I said, it wouldn't take long for someone to post a nasty comment re the United bid. 

Canada was hardly "forced" in; they joined quite freely and after a couple of years of discussion, both privately and in the press.


----------



## Bouqebaz

Colonel Ned said:


> not for sure (only speculators here)
> 
> gringos here are thinking old way : ( believe that it is FIFA of old regime who will vote). while the vote will emanate from 211 soccer associations, half of which are already supporting Morocco ...
> 
> for me, I would have liked to see the United states as only organizers but I can't always understand why integrate mexico, and and why force canada to submit too ...


You forget the Trump-effect.

btw, United 2026 Sounds like a flight number. 
Something like The Americas 2026 makes more sense


----------



## Stardust.Y

Colonel Ned said:


> you just proved that you don't have a single idea about this country ... :lol:


Oh, sorry my bad. I mean I'm just a Moroccan so how could I possibly know about my own country.. hno:

FYI, a drop in rainfall during 2016 resulted in a gdp growth of only 1% instead of the usual 3 to 4%. No matter how much the king and the government are trying to stimulate the industry, our country's economy is still largely dependent on mainly non-irrigated agriculture and thus rainfall.

But anyway, as I said on my first post: Go Morocco !! (if they let us host the event..)


----------



## aquamaroon

delete.


----------



## aquamaroon

aquamaroon said:


> In the interest of discussion I thought it'd be fun to see what these groups are actually selling. So below are the stadiums each group from the US is bringing to the bid.


Revisiting this because I missed one! Just to be a completist, here it is:

*Dallas - Cotton Bowl Stadium*





















So yeah like LA Dallas is bringing multiple stadiums to the bid; AT&T Stadium and the Cotton Bowl Stadium above. However, also like LA, it's highly unlikely the Cotton Bowl will be picked and instead the United bid will probably go with the NFL Stadium in the city if they pick Dallas. (though I could see the Rose Bowl hosting a match or two because of its status hosting the final last time; that said its not like LA would get extra matches or anything.)


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> *Dallas*
> 
> Source


awesome article!

interesting to see they aim for one of the semis, so final is definitely LA/NY/FIFA thing

dallas can also be one of the winners of dispute LOC/FIFA for more/less hosts if they decide to go compromise with less hosts but two stadiums each in LA and dallas. the only issue might be cotton bowl FIFA compatibility, it needs a lot of work to meet FIFA level. another issue might be the fair is far too close to the stadium, no way to create standard size FIFA buffer zone around it. to be honest I see no way to make it work!


@aquamaroon , if any city gets two stadiums, it will also get more matches


EDIT: found these images of old version of cotton bowl in single seater configuration ... great ones! miles ahead of current ugly bleacher version!! :colgate:


----------



## ElvisBC

if anyone gets the link to the united bid presser today please link it here


----------



## alexandru.mircea

ElvisBC said:


> the only reason why concacaf bid will be selected is enormous revenue that world cup is going to create


Let's not forget the World Cup will be returning to CONCACAF after 32 years which is shocking, as a Central/North American fan I would have been fuming. This IMO would have surely not been the case with a "clean" CONCACAF hierarchy. But why push an agenda favourable to your constituency when you can vote for others, cash in the bribes and sit on your ass.


----------



## RobH

It's probably only four years later than expected to be honest.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ that would have been just marginally better...


----------



## ElvisBC

nope, you’re wrong! anything that would mean no world cup in qatar would have been worlds better!


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ how does that contradict anything I have said...


----------



## ElvisBC

because the difference between the world with qatar world cup and the one without it is immense!

and thanks god there is ignore function on these forums! just extended my list


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> awesome article!
> 
> interesting to see they aim for one of the semis, so final is definitely LA/NY/FIFA thing
> 
> dallas can also be one of the winners of dispute LOC/FIFA for more/less hosts if they decide to go compromise with less hosts but two stadiums each in LA and dallas. the only issue might be cotton bowl FIFA compatibility, it needs a lot of work to meet FIFA level. another issue might be the fair is far too close to the stadium, no way to create standard size FIFA buffer zone around it. to be honest I see no way to make it work!
> 
> 
> @aquamaroon , if any city gets two stadiums, it will also get more matches
> 
> 
> EDIT: found these images of old version of cotton bowl in single seater configuration ... great ones! miles ahead of current ugly bleacher version!! :colgate:


That all sounds right. The size of the LA metro and its attractions as a city to visit would make it convenient to have two stadiums involved and save travel. Just for reference, the 2028 Olympics will utilize Inglewood and the Coliseum for opening/closing ceremonies (among other events) and the Rose Bowl for soccer.

But it would definitely draw protests from the cities left out.

The Cotton Bowl is a longer-shot; as you say, a lot is needed to bring it to current standards. Likewise I would guess that only one stadium in the DC metro will be chosen.


----------



## ElvisBC

so, presser is over
if someone finds a decent transcript please post

all I‘ve got are few twitter posts like these, definitely nothing significant:
http://twitter.com/BrianStraus


----------



## ElvisBC

ok, news starting to pop up :colgate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...026-world-cup-matches/?utm_term=.912cfdac245e

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/canad...as-much-about-the-eight-year-runway-1.3714575

http://sbisoccer.com/2017/12/unifie...rgeting-15-18-cities-as-bid-process-continues

really nothing new!
total number of stadiums definitely to be 15-18 with host city decission in 2021, rest were irrelevant jokes about de marias mother and us airspace


----------



## ElvisBC

the problem with these press conferences is that journalists that attend them do not care about anything but catering! 
they have zero interest in finding out anything new, that way it is easier to write a report, an article already half-prepared, the less adjustment needed the better, and if anyone asks the question it is mostly a very stupid one. awful


----------



## CaliforniaJones




----------



## alexandru.mircea

ElvisBC said:


> because the difference between the world with qatar world cup and the one without it is immense!


A have no clue what you are getting at. I"m just as against the Qatar WC as any other guy.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> ok, news starting to pop up :colgate:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...026-world-cup-matches/?utm_term=.912cfdac245e
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/canad...as-much-about-the-eight-year-runway-1.3714575
> 
> http://sbisoccer.com/2017/12/unifie...rgeting-15-18-cities-as-bid-process-continues
> 
> really nothing new!
> total number of stadiums definitely to be 15-18 with host city decission in 2021, rest were irrelevant jokes about de marias mother and us airspace


So 15-18 less 6 for Mex/Can means 9-12 for the US. The Post mentions 8 cities (NY, LA, SF, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas and Houston) as among the leaders due to being metros with large and modern stadiums. They are also very large metros, which seems to mean that most of the talk about smaller cities getting in is just talk. 

I would guess 1 or 2 surprises but you have to ask who they are going to bump. And officials are also talking about FIFA limiting stadiums and lowering costs, so why go to a smaller city unless it has a very large stadium?

Who is number 9? Maybe Boston, which is a large metro with a large but older stadium. Or maybe Las Vegas, which is smaller as a metro but will have the newest fairly large stadium and the ability to offer joint ventures to increase revenues (how much would MGM, Wynn or Adelson pay for some prominent name placement?).

And from reading the articles, apparently no one believes ecology, sustainability, diversity, human rights, transit, etc., have anything to do with the stadium selection process.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Honestly as an American who's at most a casual soccer fan (I'll check out the World Cup and kinda see how the local MLS team is doing occasionally) I wouldn't be bummed if we lost out on 2026; to tell the truth it would be FAR too hilarious if we lost to Morocco for me to be upset :lol:


I agree. In fact, I am hoping that Morocco wins just to see how FIFA and Morocco would go about their PR, funding and preparations. I am a far bigger fan of the process (that is, the real process, not the formal rules) than of soccer. 

The average American has no idea that the US is even bidding to be a host and would certainly not care if we lost.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Importance of relations*


> If the United 2026 officials need to understand how important good relationships are, they need look no further than efforts to host an Olympic Games in the U.S.
> 
> After stunning rebukes to New York to host the 2012 Olympics and Chicago’s failed bid for the 2016 Games, the United States Olympic Committee spent years repairing fences and were finally rewarded for their efforts earlier this year with Los Angeles landing the 2028 summer Games.
> 
> “An important part of what we are doing has got very little to do with the sport frankly, it’s a lot to do with the countries and given what is going on in the world we have always had a special relationship with these two federations,” said Sunil Gulati, head of the U.S. Soccer Federation.
> 
> “The countries have been partners and there are some ongoing discussions that everybody in the room is familiar with about that so hopefully the message this sends about relationships and international relationships is extraordinarily important.”


*Commercial opportunities*


> “We believe between the size of stadiums, which obviously impacts attendance, the level of hospitality available at stadiums that affects revenue and the commercial opportunities that will be available to FIFA, this will be by far the most successful financial World Cup and this is probably a pretty good time for that to happen for FIFA,” said Gulati.
> 
> “It is part of the score card FIFA looks at... it’s not lost on us and we will make sure it is not lost on 207 voters, many of them whom rely on FIFA for their financial stability.”


Source


----------



## CaliforniaJones

There's a tendancy on multinational host for international competitions. The main goal is to reduce costs.


> FIFA has never staged a World Cup in three countries — Japan and South Korea shared in 2002 — but with the tournament expanding to 48 teams from 32 starting in 2026, *multinational bids are probably going to become more common*. With an array of stadium options and economic muscle, the North American bid is a heavy favorite to win hosting rights.


Source

Recently I learnt FIBA awarded the 2023 FIBA World Cup to Japan, The Philippines and Indonesia.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> *Importance of relations*
> 
> *Commercial opportunities*
> 
> Source


I don't know about these writers. I guess they figure that melodrama is the only way they can attract readers.

He is still thinking in terms of the historical method of conducting affairs, which has continued well past its death in the aristocratic institutions of international sport. They are infused with the idea of you do something for me, I do something for you. The implication is that you have friends or enemies; those who are looking to help or harm you and those you are looking to help or harm.

The new model (which means for 100 years in modern economies) is that business does not run by threats or vendettas; it runs by discussions as to how the parties can make mutually beneficial arrangements. This usually includes some effort at public relations so that the market views you as working honestly, fairly and in the public interest in carrying out your activities.

So if you have your officers being dragged into US courts, you could try to get even with the US by choosing Morocco. But it would probably be easier to work with the US and win fans by showing Cristiano or Neymar kicking a ball with Lady Gaga or hanging with Mickey and Minnie. 

Not only is it easier than getting to Tetouan, but you end up making an additional 10B or so in the process.


----------



## irving1903

ElvisBC said:


> awesome article!
> 
> interesting to see they aim for one of the semis, so final is definitely LA/NY/FIFA thing
> 
> dallas can also be one of the winners of dispute LOC/FIFA for more/less hosts if they decide to go compromise with less hosts but two stadiums each in LA and dallas. the only issue might be cotton bowl FIFA compatibility, it needs a lot of work to meet FIFA level. another issue might be the fair is far too close to the stadium, no way to create standard size FIFA buffer zone around it. to be honest I see no way to make it work!
> 
> 
> @aquamaroon , if any city gets two stadiums, it will also get more matches
> 
> 
> EDIT: found these images of old version of cotton bowl in single seater configuration ... great ones! miles ahead of current ugly bleacher version!! :colgate:
> ]


How do you see it not working ? The State Fair is only in October. The only problem I see is the seat conversion.


----------



## ElvisBC

irving1903 said:


> How do you see it not working ? The State Fair is only in October. The only problem I see is the seat conversion.


well, the article says they would rather put fan fest into the fair than in the downtown (I think it was klyde warren or another downtown park), and I do not see that working. no way with current FIFA regulations!

also I do not know if you've been to cotton bowl recently, it is not only about installing single seats, it would need much more work to pimp it up to suit FIFA rules, every single concourse needs much work, space is pretty limited and I am not sure about security issues either. 

furthermore, due to upper level extenstion (was done pretty much low cost way) there are simply too many obstructed view seats and that is what FIFA does not like at all. IMHO one of the reasons why stadiums such as FedEx Field in DC have zero chance to get selected. cotton bowl either!

if you're not sure what I mean, this is one example:











United bid committee always says stadiums are there, nothing must be done etc .... maybe nothing will be build from scratch but there is a lot that will have to be done, as with every world cup, and I am sure they are aware of that, that's just the bidding policy. Montreal, for an example, is going to build a brand new retractable roof for the olympic stadium with signifficant cost ....... not what they repeat telling us, isn't it?


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> well, the article says they would rather put fan fest into the fair than in the downtown (I think it was klyde warren or another downtown park), and I do not see that working. no way with current FIFA regulations!
> 
> also I do not know if you've been to cotton bowl recently, it is not only about installing single seats, it would need much more work to pimp it up to suit FIFA rules, every single concourse needs much work, space is pretty limited and I am not sure about security issues either.
> 
> furthermore, due to upper level extenstion (was done pretty much low cost way) there are simply too many obstructed view seats and that is what FIFA does not like at all. IMHO one of the reasons why stadiums such as FedEx Field in DC have zero chance to get selected. cotton bowl either!
> 
> United bid committee always says stadiums are there, nothing must be done etc .... maybe nothing will be build from scratch but there is a lot that will have to be done, as with every world cup, and I am sure they are aware of that, that's just the bidding policy. Montreal, for an example, is going to build a brand new retractable roof for the olympic stadium with signifficant cost ....... not what they repeat telling us, isn't it?


I imagine that over the next 9 years a number of the proposed stadiums will go through renovation, upgrades, repairs, etc. In general, they are stadiums used regularly for a wide variety of events. Two don't even exist yet (LA and LV) but are under construction and will be in huge demand. 

Montreal's roof is not a FIFA expenditure since it was being talked about and is being carried-out regardless of FIFA; in fact it is just a replacement of the old, dilapidated, poorly-functioning roof. That makes it similar to, say, the LA Coliseum, which is going through 300M of renovations over the next two years, but none of which are related to the Olympics or FIFA. 

More generally, I doubt that technical specifications or security issues are going to be an issue in any proposed United venue.


----------



## smokiboy

re.: Canadian Potential Host Cities,

So Montréal's Olympic stadium is to be renovated, Vancouver will use BC Place, but what about Toronto? Skydome (Yeah, I still call it that)? Would need a major retrofit to meet FIFA standards. BMO Field is way to small.


----------



## pesto

smokiboy said:


> re.: Canadian Potential Host Cities,
> 
> So Montréal's Olympic stadium is to be renovated, Vancouver will use BC Place, but what about Toronto? Skydome (Yeah, I still call it that)? Would need a major retrofit to meet FIFA standards. BMO Field is way to small.


That is an interesting question. The latest comments from the United leaders are that Canada will have "2 or 3" stadiums for its 10 matches, seeming to indicate that Toronto is an open question. I am guessing that means that some push-back from FIFA is expected.

It's all kind of ironic since when you only have 10 matches it seems more efficient to drop Vancouver and use only Toronto and Montreal; but that's not where the FIFA-ready stadiums are.


----------



## smokiboy

Since Canada is to have 10 matches I would like to see them spread out in four cities. Adding perhaps Edmonton. They are/were known as the hot bed of Canadian soccer. The national team has played there many times to sell out crowds. Perhaps someone from Alberta can confirm.

So, Toronto & Montréal 3 games each, Vancouver & Edmonton 2 each.

This is also a good distribution of games throughout Canada.


----------



## aquamaroon

smokiboy said:


> So Montréal's Olympic stadium is to be renovated, Vancouver will use BC Place, but what about Toronto? Skydome (Yeah, I still call it that)? Would need a major retrofit to meet FIFA standards. BMO Field is way to small.



Yep! That is THE question for the Canadian part of the bid, maybe for the bid as a whole! As you point out the main large stadium in Toronto is for Baseball; the Rogers Centre:










As we can see not exactly ideal for soccer. On the other side; Toronto's BMO Field is far too small for the World Cup, especially for Canada's premier city:












So what to do? If you build a new stadium for the World Cup, who would play in it? I guess you could build it to entice an NFL team there, but that seems a little too risky to warrant building a possible white elephant. And on there other hand how to you use current stadia in Toronto while giving the world a first-class soccer experience?

My take: I think Toronto will end up using a modified BMO field. As we can see there's plenty of room to expand. Here are temporary bleachers set up for the Grey Cup:










And of course temporary stands are no oddity to the World Cup; just look at Brazil and Russia!




















I think with just a little bit of work BMO Field can turn into a fine stadium with a temporary capacity of 40,000+, and be an excellent venue for Toronto for the World Cup.


----------



## smokiboy

Definitely against building a new stadium in Toronto. When the Skydome is in Football mode is it suitable for a FIFA regulation field? And what would the seating capacity be? And can extra seating be added?

If the answer is it can hold between 50,000-60,000 with all the modifications, then, Skydome, Ok, Rogers Centre, is the stadium to be used in Toronto.


----------



## aquamaroon

That's right! You know my bad, I forgot that the Stadium was also designed to host rectangular fields as well (NFL/CFL/Soccer etc.):










Here is a shot of the stadium in soccer mode:











So like you say, the question becomes is the Rogers Centre able to hold a FIFA sized field? And given the fact that it hosts Canadian Football I can comfortably say it can without doing any research. So yeah I have to eat a bit of crow here, I'll say Rogers Centre (with possible renovations between now and 2026?) will be the stadium to host Toronto's matches (BMO Field can get in on the action as a training site etc.)


----------



## pesto

smokiboy said:


> Since Canada is to have 10 matches I would like to see them spread out in four cities. Adding perhaps Edmonton. They are/were known as the hot bed of Canadian soccer. The national team has played there many times to sell out crowds. Perhaps someone from Alberta can confirm.
> 
> So, Toronto & Montréal 3 games each, Vancouver & Edmonton 2 each.
> 
> This is also a good distribution of games throughout Canada.


Four might be a stretch. 

FIFA wants to limit costs by limiting the number of stadiums. It's generally believed that there will be 15-18 stadiums total and 3 in Mexico. Allocating 4 to Canada would mean allocating 8-11 to the US which has 10 times the population of Canada and easily 30 appropriate stadiums.


----------



## Rover030

I would pay a higher price for a ticket in BMO field that is built for a rectangular pitch than for Rogers centre which also seems to have very shallow sightlines in the lower tiers. Rogers Centre probably has more hospitality I guess?


----------



## tinyslam

My vote would be on an expanded BMO field. Whether it is a temporary expansion or permanent expansion I'm not sure of. If TFC's success continues they could probably justify another expansion by the time this world cup rolls around, but I could also see the ownership being cautious about over expansion. We don't need half empty giant stadiums in MLS.


----------



## AceOfSpades

Morocco will win.


----------



## smokiboy

There seems to be a lot of empty space behind each of the goals. Probably could add a few thousand seats. Site-lines for soccer aren't the greatest at Rogers Centre for soccer, but for 3-4 games we can live with that. Plus look at all the revenue generating sky-boxes.


----------



## Colonel Ned

there are major and serious chance for that to happen ...


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> there are major and serious chance for that to happen ...


Wait a minute; "serious chance"? I thought you said that it was a foregone conclusion that Morocco wins? It already has more than half of the votes and the United bid can expect more or less no votes from Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America? Are you walking back your prediction? Maybe you could focus in a little more tightly on that?

Also I am interested in how the proposed but not yet build new roads, airports, stadiums, water and power infrastructure, hotels, training facilities, fan centers, etc., are coming along. If you have some detail on this it would be interesting to see how they develop as time goes by.


----------



## aquamaroon

pesto said:


> Wait a minute; "serious chance"? I thought you said that it was a foregone conclusion that Morocco wins? It already has more than half of the votes and the United bid can expect more or less no votes from Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America? Are you walking back your prediction? Maybe you could focus in a little more tightly on that?
> 
> Also I am interested in how the proposed but not yet build new roads, airports, stadiums, water and power infrastructure, hotels, training facilities, fan centers, etc., are coming along. If you have some detail on this it would be interesting to see how they develop as time goes by.


Well yeah Pesto we're all just having fun here, it's not like the United bid will win or anything! After all Morocco has Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and parts of the outer Solar System on its side; it's too much! And if Qatar has shown anything, it's that actually having you know, stuff, can work against you!

It's just fun to imagine what North America could have put together had the colossus from Casablanca not gotten in its way :lol:


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> Wait a minute; "serious chance"? I thought you said that it was a foregone conclusion that Morocco wins? It already has more than half of the votes and the United bid can expect more or less no votes from Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America? Are you walking back your prediction? Maybe you could focus in a little more tightly on that?
> 
> Also I am interested in how the proposed but not yet build new roads, airports, stadiums, water and power infrastructure, hotels, training facilities, fan centers, etc., are coming along. If you have some detail on this it would be interesting to see how they develop as time goes by.


no you wait a minute

I was answering "AceOfSpades" and you can see that I liked his post. It's just a little mistake thatmy reply was under other post.

I don't understand the reason why you get my post for funny while I give much respect for yours ...

For your information, and you can find that easily on internet I don't have much time to give sources (it's find to find anyway), Morocco has already :
- Africa : A bloc of 55 vots (sit up by Ahmed Ahmed)
- Asia : 14 arab countries + Iran (islamic state, that President Trump deny access to USA for their citizen ... USA can have the support of Israel of course in this region of middle east) + islamic states :Malaysia, Thailand, Indonisia ...). 
Some countires like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea can just make a white vote (they wouldn't vote for USA anyway)
- Europe : Southern countries are already supporting Morocco : Gibraltar, Spain, Portugal, France, Malta, Turkey (for information, spanish local govenments of Ceuta, Mellila suggested camps and hotels to help Morocco in order to promote their own tourism ...

Also, you have to know that the number of voters is 207 : 211 minues the 4 competitors (wich means that 3 votes of Concacaf are lost)

Well, I don't remember where I have seen a list of almost 100 countries ... voting is the serious topic not us stadiums nore even business. You can post as much as you want stadia photos while other are more realistic

For yout information, Morocco can easily match with FIFA requirments, I found that they have alreay 8 stadiums and are building 2 others, so in 9 years, they can add 2 or 3 venues ... I don't know why you ask me about their airports, but I can tell you that they have 2 of top ranked airports (casablanca and marrakech) and each city has its own airport, cities are also connected by train and highways ...

anyway, there will be an inspection committee who can tell us more in the near future

well am glad to read, with all respect, your posts


----------



## Colonel Ned

aquamaroon said:


> Well yeah Pesto we're all just having fun here, it's not like the United bid will win or anything! After all Morocco has Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America, and parts of the outer Solar System on its side; it's too much! And if Qatar has shown anything, it's that actually having you know, stuff, can work against you!
> 
> It's just fun to imagine what North America could have put together had the colossus from Casablanca not gotten in its way :lol:


same answer I gave to Mr Pesto


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> no you wait a minute
> 
> I was answering "AceOfSpades" and you can see that I liked his post. It's just a little mistake thatmy reply was under other post.
> 
> I don't understand the reason why you get my post for funny while I give much respect for yours ...
> 
> For your information, and you can find that easily on internet I don't have much time to give sources (it's find to find anyway), Morocco has already :
> - Africa : A bloc of 55 vots (sit up by Ahmed Ahmed)
> - Asia : 14 arab countries + Iran (islamic state, that President Trump deny access to USA for their citizen ... USA can have the support of Israel of course in this region of middle east) + islamic states :Malaysia, Thailand, Indonisia ...).
> Some countires like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea can just make a white vote (they wouldn't vote for USA anyway)
> - Europe : Southern countries are already supporting Morocco : Gibraltar, Spain, Portugal, France, Malta, Turkey (for information, spanish local govenments of Ceuta, Mellila suggested camps and hotels to help Morocco in order to promote their own tourism ...
> 
> Also, you have to know that the number of voters is 207 : 211 minues the 4 competitors (wich means that 3 votes of Concacaf are lost)
> 
> Well, I don't remember where I have seen a list of almost 100 countries ... voting is the serious topic not us stadiums nore even business. You can post as much as you want stadia photos while other are more realistic
> 
> For yout information, Morocco can easily match with FIFA requirments, I found that they have alreay 8 stadiums and are building 2 others, so in 9 years, they can add 2 or 3 venues ... I don't know why you ask me about their airports, but I can tell you that they have 2 of top ranked airports (casablanca and marrakech) and each city has its own airport, cities are also connected by train and highways ...
> 
> anyway, there will be an inspection committee who can tell us more in the near future
> 
> well am glad to read, with all respect, your posts


I only mention the building projects because the Morocco bid promises they will build several new airports, highways, stadiums, etc., as part of the bid. I was curious how this building might be progressing or how funding was being put together. It would give us all some further views of the Moroccan cities mentioned in the bid.

As for voting, I thought you said that Morocco had over half the votes locked up; I guess I was wrong. It sounds like you believe the Islamic nations and Africa will vote solidly for Morocco and after that you get hazy. Won't Morocco get Europe solidly as well due to time zone and convenience of getting there? And the Latin Americans who hate the US will vote for Morocco as well?


----------



## smokiboy

I've only been following this thread the last few pages so forgive me if I missed something from earlier, but how is it that people are already counting votes, and quite certain how certain countries will vote? I mean just because Morocco is in Africa does not mean all of the African delegates will vote for them. I would assume a majority, but not necessarily all. Same can be said for Concacaf countries voting for the United bid.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Guys, wait and see the bid books, now FIFA will publish it to the public.
Before heading to the FIFA Congress, the FIFA Council will select the best candidates after reading the report written by the evaluation commission.

Infantino has pushed regional World Cups concept since before he was elected. So it seems joint bids will probably be the norm going forward.


----------



## pesto

smokiboy said:


> I've only been following this thread the last few pages so forgive me if I missed something from earlier, but how is it that people are already counting votes, and quite certain how certain countries will vote? I mean just because Morocco is in Africa does not mean all of the African delegates will vote for them. I would assume a majority, but not necessarily all. Same can be said for Concacaf countries voting for the United bid.


Agree. I would also like to get more detail and support for some of the assertions regarding voting.


----------



## Cjones2451

It won't be SkyDome, Rogers Centre or whatever it is called by that time....

The Blue Jays are not going to go on a one month road trip to facilitate that. They already dug up the concrete to add a dirt infield. It is a baseball stadium for the most part now and any improvements made to it will be with the Blue Jays in mind.



aquamaroon said:


> That's right! You know my bad, I forgot that the Stadium was also designed to host rectangular fields as well (NFL/CFL/Soccer etc.):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a shot of the stadium in soccer mode:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So like you say, the question becomes is the Rogers Centre able to hold a FIFA sized field? And given the fact that it hosts Canadian Football I can comfortably say it can without doing any research. So yeah I have to eat a bit of crow here, I'll say Rogers Centre (with possible renovations between now and 2026?) will be the stadium to host Toronto's matches (BMO Field can get in on the action as a training site etc.)


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Guys, wait and see the bid books, now FIFA will publish it to the public.
> Before heading to the FIFA Congress, the FIFA Council will select the best candidates after reading the report written by the evaluation commission.
> 
> Infantino has pushed regional World Cups concept since before he was elected. So it seems joint bids will probably be the norm going forward.


LOL. So you believe that the decision is influenced by FIFA HQ and is not just a matter of letting the inmates decide on how to run the asylum?

Sort of like the Olympics where the staff reviews the facilities and economics and then Bach tells the local countries how to vote if they want to continue to be part of the Games in the future?


----------



## Rover030

^^pesto can you explain why what CaliforniaJones said what was wrong? It sounds like a pretty normal process to decide who wins the bid. I hope this isn't part of your personal vendetta against CaliforniaJones in the Olympics threads :lol:


----------



## smokiboy

@ Cjones2451

Say it ain't' so. There must be a way to temporarily adapt SkyDome/Rogers Centre, infield dirt and all, to FIFA specifications. And a month ain't so long for the Blue Jays to play away. (they could even play some home games in Buffalo for example).

If there's a will, there's away. And I think Rogers Centre is the ONLY place in Toronto were a few FIFA World Cup games should be played. Toronto definitely does not need a new stadium. When and if Toronto ever gets an NFL franchise they can play in Rogers Centre, take it or leave it.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^pesto can you explain why what CaliforniaJones said what was wrong? It sounds like a pretty normal process to decide who wins the bid. I hope this isn't part of your personal vendetta against CaliforniaJones in the Olympics threads :lol:


No I can't since I agree 100 percent with it. It's some others here who seem to think that voters will be left out there to vote for whatever they want, no matter how crazy, without any review. 

In fact, this is just what FIFA is legally under pressure to do: put systems in place to make sure that voters do not vote for choices there are irrational or outside the stated guidelines. And that those who do are closely examined for signs of corruption, personal favoritism or other behavior indicating a failure to exercise their responsibilities to protect the best interests of the organization.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^pesto can you explain why what CaliforniaJones said what was wrong? It sounds like a pretty normal process to decide who wins the bid. I hope this isn't part of your personal vendetta against CaliforniaJones in the Olympics threads :lol:


What personal vendetta? I agree with CaliforniaJones on practically everything.

Maybe you are thinking of Californiadreams? My problem with him is not a "vendetta". I just point out that he violates the rules of the thread (as has pointed out by the administrators) by wandering off topic onto his fixations with the aesthetics of prior Olympics. There is nothing personal about it at all and I would happily discuss topics with him if they are relevant to the thread.


----------



## Rover030

^^Oh sorry, I mistook those usernames. I took your "LOL" as being condescending instead of sarcastically agreeing and the prison reference was a bit vague to me, so that caused some confusion. I couldn't come up with anything that was wrong with CaliforniaJones' statement. Too many Californians in here:lol:

For clarity I used to smily in that other post to signal that it was not a real vendetta of course, but the negative responses looked a bit over the top to me (although that's kind of your style haha), so I thought maybe there was some kind of history as I've not been around for so long.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^Oh sorry, I mistook those usernames. I took your "LOL" as being condescending instead of sarcastically agreeing and the prison reference was a bit vague to me, so that caused some confusion. I couldn't come up with anything that was wrong with CaliforniaJones' statement. Too many Californians in here:lol:
> 
> For clarity I used to smily in that other post to signal that it was not a real vendetta of course, but the negative responses looked a bit over the top to me (although that's kind of your style haha), so I thought maybe there was some kind of history as I've not been around for so long.


It was my fault; I understood that I was agreeing with him while at the same time phrasing it in a way that could be taken as ironic.

And I admit that the style of my comments is far more colorful and sarcastic than it should be. Just try to disregard it and see if there is any value at all that you can find there. After all, it's free. :lol:


----------



## JYDA

Skydome was already dropped from the bid. An expanded BMO Field is *the* stadium proposed. 

https://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/2017/09/07/rogers-centre-dropped-from-2026-world-cup-bid.html

The four candidates in Canada are BC Place (Edmonton), Commonwealth (Edmonton), BMO Field, and the Olympic Stadium (Montreal).


----------



## smokiboy

^^ Thanks for that update. 

That means that BMO Field will have to add about 10,000 seats, temporary or permanent to reach the minimum capacity of circa 40,000 seats for a World Cup game. If they build permanent seating not sure if TFC can fill 40,000 for every home game. Maybe yes, considering they season they've had.

Still think they should work something out with the Blue Jays. Rogers Centre would have been so much more dramatic a location.


----------



## pesto

JYDA said:


> Skydome was already dropped from the bid. An expanded BMO Field is *the* stadium proposed.
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/2017/09/07/rogers-centre-dropped-from-2026-world-cup-bid.html
> 
> The four candidates in Canada are BC Place (Edmonton), Commonwealth (Edmonton), BMO Field, and the Olympic Stadium (Montreal).


That was what was submitted. But I suspect it can be changed if FIFA has an interest in getting a larger venue in Canada and the Canadians commit to making the stadium suitable and available.


----------



## Calvin W

pesto said:


> That was what was submitted. But I suspect it can be changed if FIFA has an interest in getting a larger venue in Canada and the Canadians commit to making the stadium suitable and available.


Soccer at Skydome, Rogers, whatever would have a capacity no more than 50,000 max. Absolutely no chance to expand it. Not worth it when BMO can be expanded to 40k or more for a hell of a lot less and actually look and feel better.

Canada's large contributions for stadiums will fall outside Ontario. Edmonton would be 60k+ Vancouver close to 60k, even Montreal would be 60k.


----------



## pesto

Calvin W said:


> Soccer at Skydome, Rogers, whatever would have a capacity no more than 50,000 max. Absolutely no chance to expand it. Not worth it when BMO can be expanded to 40k or more for a hell of a lot less and actually look and feel better.
> 
> Canada's large contributions for stadiums will fall outside Ontario. Edmonton would be 60k+ Vancouver close to 60k, even Montreal would be 60k.


I am just noting that IF the parties want they can agree to switch stadiums from what is in the bid.

As to the likelihood, FIFA COULD want to switch into a larger stadium and MAY not be that interested in Edmonton (after all, Toronto is THE city in Canada; leaving it out is like leaving out NY in the US or the DF in Mexico). That's all I am saying. If the parties are happy with BMO, that's fine.


----------



## smokiboy

I think that 50,000+ at Skydome is better than 40,000+ at BMO.


----------



## Cjones2451

smokiboy said:


> @ Cjones2451
> 
> Say it ain't' so. There must be a way to temporarily adapt SkyDome/Rogers Centre, infield dirt and all, to FIFA specifications. And a month ain't so long for the Blue Jays to play away. (they could even play some home games in Buffalo for example).
> 
> If there's a will, there's away. And I think Rogers Centre is the ONLY place in Toronto were a few FIFA World Cup games should be played. Toronto definitely does not need a new stadium. When and if Toronto ever gets an NFL franchise they can play in Rogers Centre, take it or leave it.


If it involved a 1/4 or semi final game, I maybe would agree with you, but if it is a group game with Saudi Arabia vs. Nigeria, I am not sure if it is worth it. If they can spend some $$ on BMO and get it to 45K seats for them, I think that is the best option. Keep in mind the suites, etc. are all less than 2 years old and it is natural grass too, which is already going to be a challenge in BC Place and Olympic Stadium.


----------



## pesto

Cjones2451 said:


> If it involved a 1/4 or semi final game, I maybe would agree with you, but if it is a group game with Saudi Arabia vs. Nigeria, I am not sure if it is worth it. If they can spend some $$ on BMO and get it to 45K seats for them, I think that is the best option. Keep in mind the suites, etc. are all less than 2 years old and it is natural grass too, which is already going to be a challenge in BC Place and Olympic Stadium.


Again, I have no ax to grind here; just trying to look at what’s going on.

You have to be careful if you really want matches to be played in Toronto. Bid leaders have already suggested there may be only two stadiums from Canada chosen.

It may just come down to optics: Toronto is the major city of Canada and one of the major cities of North America (along with LA, Mexico City, NY, Chicago, Boston, SJ/SF, DC Metro, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc.). None of those cities is proposing a jimmied-up mid-sized MLS stadium as their showcase.

I’m not sure how FIFA feels about that, but they might not like it.


----------



## Cjones2451

pesto said:


> Again, I have no ax to grind here; just trying to look at what’s going on.
> 
> You have to be careful if you really want matches to be played in Toronto. Bid leaders have already suggested there may be only two stadiums from Canada chosen.
> 
> It may just come down to optics: Toronto is the major city of Canada and one of the major cities of North America (along with LA, Mexico City, NY, Chicago, Boston, SJ/SF, DC Metro, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, etc.). None of those cities is proposing a jimmied-up mid-sized MLS stadium as their showcase.
> 
> I’m not sure how FIFA feels about that, but they might not like it.


I get that, but BMO is not Crew stadium either. While Skydome may have that major feel to it is was built as a multi purpose stadium and the rake of the lower level is too shallow and the way the seats have to be moved are not ideal for soccer, and I still don't see the Blue Jays handing the keys over for a month. No benefit for them.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Kasey Keller video


----------



## smokiboy

Cjones2451 said:


> I get that, but BMO is not Crew stadium either. While Skydome may have that major feel to it is was built as a multi purpose stadium and the rake of the lower level is too shallow and the way the seats have to be moved are not ideal for soccer, and I still don't see the Blue Jays handing the keys over for a month. No benefit for them.


The Blue Jays can always be bribed. I mean club teams have left their home cities for major events before like the Olympics, World Cup, etc. So I really don't see that as any factor.

True that the slope of the lower tier bowl seats are fairly shallow, but fans could live with that for what 2-3 games. And I'm sure that the stadium capacity for soccer can be raised to close to 55,000 or so with some modifications.

All in all, this would probably be a cheaper alternative, more impressive for visitors and locals alike, and present a cooler image for Toronto. Plus fan support centres and can be set up right near Skydome. And fans are walking distance to downtown.


----------



## Calvin W

smokiboy said:


> The Blue Jays can always be bribed. I mean club teams have left their home cities for major events before like the Olympics, World Cup, etc. So I really don't see that as any factor.
> 
> True that the slope of the lower tier bowl seats are fairly shallow, but fans could live with that for what 2-3 games. And I'm sure that the stadium capacity for soccer can be raised to close to 55,000 or so with some modifications.
> 
> All in all, this would probably be a cheaper alternative, more impressive for visitors and locals alike, and present a cooler image for Toronto. Plus fan support centres and can be set up right near Skydome. And fans are walking distance to downtown.


When was the last time a baseball stadium was used in a soccer World Cup?

Rogers after the last renovations is set up with a capacity of 47,500 for soccer. If they were to use this for the World Cup they would probably lose 4 or 5 thousand capacity for the World press. Can't see them cracking 50,000 even if they can magically expand the stadium.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Kasey Keller video


Anyone who was thinking of getting me one of those sweaters for Christmas, please consider a Starbucks card instead. :lol:

Please.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

At least BMO field can show its use as the home of a football team with a passionate fanbase... I am sure if Atlanta can get 70k then Toronto should be able to fill a 40-45k stadium if expanded.


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> At least BMO field can show its use as the home of a football team with a passionate fanbase... I am sure if Atlanta can get 70k then Toronto should be able to fill a 40-45k stadium if expanded.


If you want to show-off the ability to fill a stadium then you should go with the larger venue, right? Same as the other Canadian, Mexican and US cities did.


----------



## Colonel Ned

*Canada should forget about hosting 2026 World Cup*

Canada should forget about hosting 2026 World Cup, acording to Cathal Kelly

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/kelly-canada-should-forget-about-hosting-2026-world-cup/article35833861/


----------



## JYDA

Colonel Ned said:


> Canada should forget about hosting 2026 World Cup, acording to Cathal Kelly
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/kelly-canada-should-forget-about-hosting-2026-world-cup/article35833861/


Cathal Kelly? This guy is a shock jock columnist with a horrible track record whose shtick is to poke enough people in the eye to drive web traffic. Not to be taken seriously. The whole column is facepalm inducing nonsense.


----------



## smokiboy

The article makes some legitimate points, like potential cost overruns, creating white elephants, and the fact that Canada may get games like; Ivory Coast vs. Honduras.

But to say that these 10 or so games in Canada would detract or take attention away from a potential Calgary 2026 Winter Olympics is silly. Canada can handle two major sporting events in the same year, some six months apart, and not even in the same city.

Also 48 teams for the 2026 tournament is way too much. 40 teams should be the maximum.

And BTW, I would go to a Ivory Coast vs. Honduras game if it was in Toronto.


----------



## JYDA

smokiboy said:


> The article makes some legitimate points, like potential cost overruns, creating white elephants, and the fact that Canada may get games like; Ivory Coast vs. Honduras.



White elephants? The stadiums exist already and likely only 2 of them will be used. Putting in grass or adding a few thousand temp seats are immaterial costs.


----------



## isaidso

pesto said:


> The average American has no idea that the US is even bidding to be a host and would certainly not care if we lost.


It's not exactly common knowledge in Canada either. Likely more Canadians would care if we lost but the vast majority wouldn't care that much one way or the other.


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> Canada should forget about hosting 2026 World Cup, acording to Cathal Kelly
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/kelly-canada-should-forget-about-hosting-2026-world-cup/article35833861/


Seems like he only has a tenuous grasp of what is going on. Unfortunately there are lots of American columnists of the same ilk.

But if Canada drops out, that's more stadiums for the US and there seems no shortage of people wanting in on the action. Mexico might want to put in for a 4th city.


----------



## Sportsfan

Calvin W said:


> When was the last time a baseball stadium was used in a soccer World Cup?


2002 - Primarily a baseball venue with movable grandstands, Sapporo Dome was used quite successfully in three First Round games.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I see many reasons why New York City should be the host of the 2026 FIFA World Cup Final:

A 80,000 places stadium
NY is the biggest city and the economic center of the United States
NY could be the headquarter of the Organizing Committee, after being the one for the bid committee
The final could be held at 3pm Eastern Time, so European fans could watch at 9pm CET.

What about holding the Final Draw at Philadelphia or the Washington Mall ?


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> I see many reasons why New York City should be the host of the 2026 FIFA World Cup Final:
> 
> A 80,000 places stadium
> NY is the biggest city and the economic center of the United States
> NY could be the headquarter of the Organizing Committee, after being the one for the bid committee
> The final could be held at 3pm Eastern Time, so European fans could watch at 9pm CET.
> 
> What about holding the Final Draw at Philadelphia or the Washington Mall ?


Well, first, NY at 23M is the biggest metro only if you include parts of NJ all the way to Philly, NY, Connecticut and Pennsylvania in the total. Otherwise the LA metro (LA, the OC, the IE) will be around 20M and very comparable; you have to argue over what to include and what to exclude to determine which is larger. And, of course, LA is growing more rapidly.

NY is the largest single economic center, but it is not the center of US economic activity like London or Paris is in their countries. The economy is spread across the country among 20 or so large centers and many small ones. Remember that NY State is now the 4th largest state. Even NY and NJ combined has fewer people than Texas, and they trail California by 12M.

MetLife stadium is very good; but LA will be better in almost every way. MetLife will be 16 years old, LA 5; LA has a full transparent canopy and is open on all sides; LA weather is far more stable; LA has 100k capacity including standing room; LA is on an urban train line, surrounded by retail, hotels, restaurants and two major covered event centers (the Forum at 20k and an on-site venue at 6k). MetLife is remote from any city and surrounded by parking lots.

But, getting real, none of this matters. MetLife is likely to get chosen since LA got the finals last time.


----------



## Calvin W

pesto said:


> Well, first, NY at 23M is the biggest metro only if you include parts of NJ all the way to Philly, NY, Connecticut and Pennsylvania in the total. Otherwise the LA metro (LA, the OC, the IE) will be around 20M and very comparable; you have to argue over what to include and what to exclude to determine which is larger. And, of course, LA is growing more rapidly.
> 
> NY is the largest single economic center, but it is not the center of US economic activity like London or Paris is in their countries. The economy is spread across the country among 20 or so large centers and many small ones. Remember that NY State is now the 4th largest state. Even NY and NJ combined has fewer people than Texas, and they trail California by 12M.
> 
> MetLife stadium is very good; but LA will be better in almost every way. MetLife will be 16 years old, LA 5; LA has a full transparent canopy and is open on all sides; LA weather is far more stable; LA has 100k capacity including standing room; LA is on an urban train line, surrounded by retail, hotels, restaurants and two major covered event centers (the Forum at 20k and an on-site venue at 6k). MetLife is remote from any city and surrounded by parking lots.
> 
> But, getting real, none of this matters. MetLife is likely to get chosen since LA got the finals last time.


LA is only 20 million if you include other areas as well. LA current metro population is around 13 million.


----------



## pesto

Calvin W said:


> LA is only 20 million if you include other areas as well. LA current metro population is around 13 million.


The LA combined Metro is around 19M (and growing); NY around 23M (this includes NJ all the way to TRENTON, which is a suburb of and just across the river from Philadelphia; parts of Pennsylvania including the ABE (Lehigh Valley) area; and Connecticut through to New Haven). LA does not include Northern SD County, which has monster traffic jams commuting into LA every workday. 

In any event, the difference in population does not seem large enough to be material in determining who hosts the finals. But difference in stadium quality and the surrounding area does seem material. 

Starting matches at noon Pacific time would make them quite accessible to Europe.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

pesto said:


> The LA combined Metro is around 19M (and growing); NY around 23M (this includes NJ all the way to TRENTON, which is a suburb of and just across the river from Philadelphia; parts of Pennsylvania including the ABE (Lehigh Valley) area; and Connecticut through to New Haven). LA does not include Northern SD County, which has monster traffic jams commuting into LA every workday.
> 
> In any event, the difference in population does not seem large enough to be material in determining who hosts the finals. But difference in stadium quality and the surrounding area does seem material.
> 
> Starting matches at noon Pacific time would make them quite accessible to Europe.


LA's 19 million includes Needles, on the Arizona border, all the way to Death Valley. Palm Springs is included in that 19 million and Palm Springs is nearly 2 hours away.

New York to Trenton on the train is less than an hour.

You're being purposefully obtuse and biased. New York is bigger than Los Angeles by every metric.


----------



## pesto

Manitopiaaa said:


> LA's 19 million includes Needles, on the Arizona border, all the way to Death Valley. Palm Springs is included in that 19 million and Palm Springs is nearly 2 hours away.
> 
> New York to Trenton on the train is less than an hour.
> 
> You're being purposefully obtuse and biased. New York is bigger than Los Angeles by every metric.


The outer desert reaches of SB County are included in the LA metro but they are irrelevant because they have no people; the people in SB County are pressed against the LA border. Check out Montclair where on one side of the street you are in LA; on the other in SB. This is absolutely continuous urban grid development without a break.

Trenton, New Haven, the ABE area and other parts of Pennsylvania are not continuous; instead there are rivers, mountains, woods and just plain empty area in between. Trenton is actually contiguous to Philadelphia but is included in NY. (The history of this effort to keep expanding NY goes back to the 1950's, but that is way off subject for here.) 

But on the worst case, it is 23M for NY and 19M for LA as of 2016, with LA having a faster growth rate. It's hard to build an argument that NY is so much bigger as to warrant a preference for MetLife being the site of the finals.


----------



## ElvisBC

Colonel Ned said:


> Canada should forget about hosting 2026 World Cup, acording to Cathal Kelly
> 
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/kelly-canada-should-forget-about-hosting-2026-world-cup/article35833861/


this is 6 months old irrelevant article.


regarding discussion about final venue, LA/NY etc, I simply do not see final being played in the stadium where seats are not covered, knowing FIFA (and final venue is solely their choice) .... simply no way!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*United Bid weaknesses*


> Behind the scenes, those familiar with the tri-nation effort are worried many FIFA member countries - and, by extension, continental voting blocs - are leaning toward Morocco.
> 
> The reasons have nothing to do with the sterling credentials of the North American bid or the certainty that the tournament would fill both stadiums and coffers. Rather, they stem from a precipitous decline in U.S. popularity around the world and, to a smaller extent, the fact that the American judicial system took the lead in prosecuting FIFA scandals. While the exposure of misconduct has helped cleanse the sport's tarnished international governing body, some in world soccer apparently aren't happy with the U.S. government's aggressive role.
> 
> The inclusion of Mexico and Canada should broaden the bid's appeal. Of the 80 matches, 60 would take place in U.S. venues and 10 apiece in the other two countries. The 2026 World Cup will be the first with 48 teams, an increase of 16.
> 
> The North American campaign is bracing for a hard fight.


*Morocco's bid weaknesses*


> Morocco is bidding for the fifth time after failed attempts to host the 1994, 1998, 2006 and 2010 tournaments. In August, the country suggested nine stadiums. Doubts about Morocco's infrastructure to handle an expanded tournament will loom large ahead of the vote.


Source


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> Trenton, New Haven, the ABE area and other parts of Pennsylvania are not continuous; instead there are rivers, mountains, woods and just plain empty area in between. Trenton is actually contiguous to Philadelphia but is included in NY.


1: No mountains divide the area. The mountains you may be thinking of are in NW Jersey and PA and they are not the Rocky's so they are not much of a physical barrier. 

2: Trenton is not across the river from Philly, that's Camden.

3: How can you say that Trenton is contiguous to Philadelphia when it is also disconnected by a river. 

4: I would argue that there is a continuous urban stretch all the way from New Haven, Connecticut to Philadelphia (and beyond). Yes sometimes this urbanity is just a single built up road or highway, but it is there. 

5: A lot of people live in that area and that is the point when talking about Metro statistics. 

Now I'm not getting into the argument about who should host the final (Atlanta obviously) :lol:


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> 1: No mountains divide the area. The mountains you may be thinking of are in NW Jersey and PA and they are not the Rocky's so they are not much of a physical barrier.
> 
> 2: Trenton is not across the river from Philly, that's Camden.
> 
> 3: How can you say that Trenton is contiguous to Philadelphia when it is also disconnected by a river.
> 
> 4: I would argue that there is a continuous urban stretch all the way from New Haven, Connecticut to Philadelphia (and beyond). Yes sometimes this urbanity is just a single built up road or highway, but it is there.
> 
> 5: A lot of people live in that area and that is the point when talking about Metro statistics.
> 
> Now I'm not getting into the argument about who should host the final (Atlanta obviously) :lol:


I'm down with Atlanta. :lol:

Generally I agree. But, there are no hills in the Lehigh Valley? That's part of the NY metro. 

The point is that by 2026 (assuming the NY metro isn't enlarged again) LA and NY will have nearly the same population. Whatever difference there is is immaterial to who should host the WC final. More relevant considerations are quality and location of the stadium, weather and transit access.

BTW, the purpose of metro areas is to make it more convenient to aggregate census statistics. Their publications warn against the use of their statistics for commercial, legislative, emergency planning or other uses. As an example, in the Bay Area if you cross the street to go from your office to lunch you may go from the SF metro to the SJ metro. Likewise in LA.


----------



## Manitopiaaa

pesto said:


> The outer desert reaches of SB County are included in the LA metro but they are irrelevant because they have no people; the people in SB County are pressed against the LA border. Check out Montclair where on one side of the street you are in LA; on the other in SB. This is absolutely continuous urban grid development without a break.
> 
> Trenton, New Haven, the ABE area and other parts of Pennsylvania are not continuous; instead there are rivers, mountains, woods and just plain empty area in between. Trenton is actually contiguous to Philadelphia but is included in NY. (The history of this effort to keep expanding NY goes back to the 1950's, but that is way off subject for here.)
> 
> But on the worst case, it is 23M for NY and 19M for LA as of 2016, with LA having a faster growth rate. It's hard to build an argument that NY is so much bigger as to warrant a preference for MetLife being the site of the finals.


New York's CSA has 23,689,255 people. Los Angeles's has 18,688,022 people.

1) You are conveniently rounding down New York to '23' while rounding up Los Angeles to '19'

2) The difference between New York's CSA and Los Angeles's CSA is 5 million people. That, in and of itself, would be a Top 12 city in the U.S.

3) Since 2010, New York CSA has grown by an average of 102,099 people per year. Los Angeles CSA has grown by 135,169 per year. 

So let's do some quick math, New York is bigger by 5,001,233 but LA closes the gap by 33,070 per year. At that rate, LA becomes the #1 metro in the Year...2168.

It's one thing to be a booster for your city. It's another to be purposefully biased and obtuse. And I say that as someone with no ties to either city who thinks highly of both of them.


----------



## JYDA

The more I think about it, this might not be the slam dunk I expected. If Morocco can convince Africa and the rest of the Muslim world to vote as blocs they would have a base of approximately 85 votes out of the required 106. It's a big "if" but that's an enormous chunk. 

I'm curious to see how UEFA members will vote. Morocco's proximity to Europe would make this the closest thing to a World Cup in Europe without being hosted by a UEFA member. In fact, it's a better time zone and closer to many UEFA members than Russia.

I still don't think voters will necessary cast their ballot based on who has the best bid. Politics will play into this.

I honestly think the best way for the North America bid to ensure victory is to articulate to all of the small nations just how much more money the North American WC will generate. More importantly, that this will lead to greater FIFA disbursements and development money. Montserrat and Micronesia will give zero f###s about anything else.


----------



## pesto

Manitopiaaa said:


> New York's CSA has 23,689,255 people. Los Angeles's has 18,688,022 people.
> 
> 1) You are conveniently rounding down New York to '23' while rounding up Los Angeles to '19'
> 
> 2) The difference between New York's CSA and Los Angeles's CSA is 5 million people. That, in and of itself, would be a Top 12 city in the U.S.
> 
> 3) Since 2010, New York CSA has grown by an average of 102,099 people per year. Los Angeles CSA has grown by 135,169 per year.
> 
> So let's do some quick math, New York is bigger by 5,001,233 but LA closes the gap by 33,070 per year. At that rate, LA becomes the #1 metro in the Year...2168.
> 
> It's one thing to be a booster for your city. It's another to be purposefully biased and obtuse. And I say that as someone with no ties to either city who thinks highly of both of them.


I will keep it short.

LA metro needs to be increased by 2M to make it closer to reality; NY needs to be decreased to make it more accurate (it includes parts of 4 states, including one state that is not even contiguous to NY STATE). And growth rates compound over time, you don't just add them. 

Did you read the census bureau site? The politics behind metros is very intense because businesses, pro sports teams and others used them to select where to locate. Congressmen lobbied the Census Bureau intensely to expand their metro. That's why the bureau says NOT to use these statistics for commercial or other planning purposes; they are artificial conveniences for information sorting. (If you have access to a legal or business library, check out the political history of the NY metro expanding its size under intense lobbying from the 1960's on.)

Finally I didn't say LA is as large as NY; I said the difference is small enough so that it is not as significant in determining who should be chosen as are stadium quality, transit, contiguous hotels and other activities, weather, ancillary venues, etc. The same sort of analysis as happened during the 1994 WC when LA was chosen for the final.


----------



## isaidso

ElvisBC said:


> regarding discussion about final venue, LA/NY etc, I simply do not see final being played in the stadium where seats are not covered, knowing FIFA (and final venue is solely their choice) .... simply no way!


Wasn't the 1994 WC Final played at the Rose Bowl? Besides, why would you need covered seats?


----------



## ElvisBC

isaidso said:


> Wasn't the 1994 WC Final played at the Rose Bowl? Besides, why would you need covered seats?


under the blue sky! 1930 final too, and legend says first football games middle of 19th century as well!!

but now it is different, take a look to the pics of new stadiums in russia, all seats are covered with plastic


----------



## Rover030

JYDA said:


> The more I think about it, this might not be the slam dunk I expected. If Morocco can convince Africa and the rest of the Muslim world to vote as blocs they would have a base of approximately 85 votes out of the required 106. It's a big "if" but that's an enormous chunk.
> 
> I'm curious to see how UEFA members will vote. Morocco's proximity to Europe would make this the closest thing to a World Cup in Europe without being hosted by a UEFA member. In fact, it's a better time zone and closer to many UEFA members than Russia.
> 
> I still don't think voters will necessary cast their ballot based on who has the best bid. Politics will play into this.
> 
> I honestly think the best way for the North America bid to ensure victory is to articulate to all of the small nations just how much more money the North American WC will generate. More importantly, that this will lead to greater FIFA disbursements and development money. Montserrat and Micronesia will give zero f###s about anything else.


If we're really going to dive into international politics, Morocco might be the most controversial country in Africa, both with respect to actual politics and football politics. They have only rejoined the African Union this year, after a 33 year absence because of their occupation of the Western Sahara. This issue has also lead to a bad relationship with the neighbouring country of Algeria.

Their position in CAF is also not that great. They were supposed to organise 2015's Africa Cup to show the world they're capable of organising an international football tournament, but they refused to host it a few months in advance because of the Ebola crisis. It was held in Equatorial Guinea instead, which was much closer to Ebola territory anyway. Morocco was originally suspended for the 2017 and 2019 editions, but that ban was lifted by CAS.

I think they're probably able to convince Africa and the near East to vote for them, but I don't think it's a won race and the North American bid definitely has a chance to even beat them at their home turf, so to speak. Especially if they promise some of that sweet money for the "development of football" or something.


----------



## Colonel Ned

Rover030 said:


> They have only rejoined the African Union this year, after a 33 year absence because of their occupation of the Western Sahara. This issue has also lead to a bad relationship with the neighbouring country of Algeria.


you put your self in a political affairs that don't concern you. who are you to talk about this ?? the Western sahara is not occupied, since the population of the sahara gives allegiance to the throne, it is rather a terrtoire which has an autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty (as cataluña in spain).

since you're from utrech, I guess you're a fan of the far-right party, you're only giving false information and you're being racist against Arab countries ...

but we are not here to discuss politics, rather to speak in a concrete and pragmatic way, Morocco has a bloc of 53 African + Middle Eastern and half Asian countries, not to mention the southern countries of europe who are originally behind the idea of his candidacy

don't forget that at the beginning, the candidature was : Spain/Potugal/Morocco, G. Infantino himself enjoyed a WC competition linking two continents, but the countries of concacaf and conmebol who opposed in the congress of 2017 ...

FIFA organized a workshop on December 6 and 7 where there were 6 members of the Moroccan bid committee and 6 others from the American committee, and the first observation was that Morocco met the FIFA requirements perfectly (except some little points that can be improved with time).

the problem now is that the North American candidacy is "oversized" ... a maximum of 16 stadia for a whole vast continent ... FIFA is ridiculising USA !


----------



## Rover030

Colonel Ned said:


> you put your self in a political affairs that don't concern you. who are you to talk about this ?? the Western sahara is not occupied, since the population of the sahara gives allegiance to the throne, it is rather a terrtoire which has an autonomy under Moroccan sovereignty (as cataluña in spain).


I know how Moroccans think about the issue, I've been to Morocco and everybody had the opinion that Western Sahara=Morocco. That doesn't change that it is a controversial situation worldwide.



> since you're from utrech, I guess you're a fan of the far-right party, you're only giving false information and you're being racist against Arab countries ...


The last time Utrecht was connected to far-right politics was during the second world war, when the NSB (nazi party) had their headquarters here. Utrecht is a very liberal and progressive city nowadays. I almost voted for a half-Moroccan candidate of GroenLinks (Greens), but I decided to vote for D66, who are the complete opposite of the PVV on almost every social issue. Of course it doesn't make you immune from being racist, but I've played football with Dutch-Moroccan guys almost my entire life and have multiple Dutch-Moroccan friends. I'm honestly quite offended that you think I'm a racist because I try to give some background information about the political situation around Morocco.



> but we are not here to discuss politics, rather to speak in a concrete and pragmatic way, Morocco has a bloc of 53 African + Middle Eastern and half Asian countries, not to mention the southern countries of europe who are originally behind the idea of his candidacy


The president of CAF has said he supports the bid, but has not said that all federations will vote for Morocco. Only a handful of federations have pledged their support to Morocco. No European federation has done that yet. 

I think you're being way too optimistic about Morocco's chances. I would really be happy for Morocco if they finally get their world cup, but I don't think it's going to happen this time.


----------



## ElvisBC

many things rule the world untill money comes into the play, then money takes over and rules the world alone!

you'll see that latest in june :hi:


----------



## pesto

LOL. I just want it on record that I didn’t bring up any of the geo-political, social, human rights, sexual rights, etc., issues that relate to Morocco. Oh, and a special laugh for a Moroccan questioning a Dutchman about being socially conservative, Holland being a country where the trannie hookers get a hurt look when they see you don’t like how their fake boobs feel.

As for money, as someone said, it doesn’t talk, it screams. And that isn’t a bad thing. The managers of organizations are generally committed to developing and protecting the long-range success of the organization. This involves meeting the goals in its charter and almost always requires a lot of money, the more the better. Otherwise you have to limit the scope of your activities or just shut down.

FIFA has had problems with petty favoritism, bribery and general corruption but is now hopefully back on track. As such they will presumably be briefing voters on what accomplishes FIFA’s goals and questioning those who vote otherwise. Those with weak answers will understand they may lose their influence within the organization. And receive a visit from the local prosecutor.

Nothing odd here; that’s what all private organizations do. (The problem arises when governmental organizations run this way as well. :lol


----------



## JYDA

pesto said:


> Holland being a country where the trannie hookers get a hurt look when they see you don’t like how their fake boobs feel.


Speaking from experience?:lol:


----------



## pesto

JYDA said:


> Speaking from experience?:lol:


Yes. Some places you find trannies so sweet and so excited about their additions that they want you to partake a bit at no charge. I always try to sound excited about how feminine they look since it makes them so happy. Amsterdam is one of those cities, for sure. Not sure about Morocco.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

ElvisBC said:


> many things rule the world untill money comes into the play, then money takes over and rules the world alone!
> 
> you'll see that latest in june :hi:


Sunil Gulati understands Money talks in FIFA World.
Interview

From the Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission


> Angelenos: Help us show the world why L.A. is the perfect host city for the 2026 World Cup! Tweet us a photo of what makes L.A. great with #United2026.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Sunil Gulati understands Money talks in FIFA World.
> Interview
> 
> From the Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission


Where are the Angelyne billboards when you need them? :lol:


----------



## Sportsfan

JYDA said:


> I still don't think voters will necessary cast their ballot based on who has the best bid. Politics will play into this.


No no no no no no! As delegates, it is their ONE job to vote for the BEST bid. Not based on politics. Not based on how much money they are bribed with. Not based on who they are friendly with. Not based on Europe-friendly time zones.

FIFA wonders why the public looks at them with suspicion when they vote for ridiculously corrupt and unsuitable bids like Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022. It's time for FIFA to regain the trust and vote for the only bid that makes sense. I'm sorry if anyone's offended by this, but Morocco is not capable of effectively hosting a 48 team tournament with only 9 stadia. It's just not realistic. It provides no value whatsoever to the sport or to FIFA.


----------



## Colonel Ned

Sportsfan said:


> Morocco is not capable of effectively hosting a 48 team tournament with only 9 stadia.


Where did you find 9 stadia ? are you well informed about their bid ??

+ 9 is the number of existing stadia : Casablanca, Rabat, Tanger, Marakesh, Agadir, Fez, Meknes, Oujda, Kenitra (last 4 need major renovations) 
+ 2 other stadiums is under construction in the north cities (formal spanish territoy) : tetuan and hoceima
+ 1 stadium is going to be built (the biggest in Africa, Grand Casablanca, works are starting)
+ 4 others are proposed in other cities 

May be you are not capable to admet beautiful cityscape and landscape in Morocco, but it's not a reason to give false information ...

For me , I still believe USA make a mistake to include Canda and Mexico with them, USA can host it alone


----------



## Sportsfan

Colonel Ned said:


> Where did you find 9 stadia ? are you well informed about their bid ??
> 
> + 9 is the number of existing stadia : Casablanca, Rabat, Tanger, Marakesh, Agadir, Fez, Meknes, Oujda, Kenitra (last 4 need major renovations)
> + 2 other stadiums is under construction in the north cities (formal spanish territoy) : tetuan and hoceima
> + 1 stadium is going to be built (the biggest in Africa, Grand Casablanca, works are starting)
> + 4 others are proposed in other cities
> 
> May be you are not capable to admet beautiful cityscape and landscape in Morocco, but it's not a reason to give false information ...
> 
> For me , I still believe USA make a mistake to include Canda and Mexico with them, USA can host it alone


I've got two words for you: WHITE ELEPHANTS


----------



## Guest

bigchrisfgb said:


> A few months ago I began writing an article on the rise of popularity of football (soccer) in Canada. A lot of the article compared my personal experiences of the sport in 2003 and 2016, however it also documented what has happened in between.
> 
> From this research, it is my opinion that Canada co-hosting the World Cup is a natural conclusion. The sport is visibly becoming more popular over there, *ok it will likely never become the most popular sport there, but it doesn't need to be*.


It will be. Just relax and enjoy the show.


----------



## Calvin W

5portsF4n said:


> It will be. Just relax and enjoy the show.


Going to be a very long wait. Pockets of Canada have embraced soccer, but a huge area might not ever....


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Recquirements for accomodation




> Match-related Accommodation:
> The peak requirements for the FIFA World Cup for each Host City, depending on the Matches and further Competition-related Events held in a Host City are as follows:
> • five thousand and ten (5,010) guest rooms in the Host City of the Opening Match and the FIFA Congress;
> • one thousand seven hundred and sixty (1,760) guest rooms in the Host Cities of a group stage match, round-of-32 Matches or round-of-16 Matches;
> • three thousand and sixty (3,060) guest rooms in the Host Cities of a quarter final Match and third place Match;
> • six thousand two hundred and eighty (6,280) guest rooms in the Host Cities of a semi final Match; and
> • eight thousand and eighty (8,080) guest rooms in the Host Cities of the Final Match;


I heard somewhere a poll was realized among member assocations:
Morocco: 90 votes
USA: 10 votes


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Recquirements for accomodation
> 
> 
> I heard somewhere a poll was realized among member assocations:
> Morocco: 90 votes
> USA: 10 votes


Yes, as I mentioned above, Morocco at this point has a huge lead; I would guess perhaps 170+ votes to the United group's 20-30. But as huge underdogs Mexico, Canada and the US will fight the good fight and try to chip away a vote here and there.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Appreciation from Infantino



> “We want the best World Cup ever in 2018 and 2022, but for 2026, we have to organise as well the best bidding process. Joint biddings are certainly positive. *And let me say one more thing, to have Canada, US and Mexico coming together for a joint project, already this is a positive message.*”


Source


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Appreciation from Infantino
> 
> Source


Ah, reading the tea leaves.

Assuming Infantino is interested in improving the quality of FIFA's product and is being diplomatic, what exactly is he saying here and what action should current and future bidders take in response?


----------



## Bouqebaz

Rover030 said:


> If we're really going to dive into international politics, Morocco might be the most controversial country in Africa, both with respect to actual politics and football politics. They have only rejoined the African Union this year, after a 33 year absence because of their occupation of the Western Sahara. This issue has also lead to a bad relationship with the neighbouring country of Algeria.
> 
> Their position in CAF is also not that great. They were supposed to organise 2015's Africa Cup to show the world they're capable of organising an international football tournament, but they refused to host it a few months in advance because of the Ebola crisis. It was held in Equatorial Guinea instead, which was much closer to Ebola territory anyway. Morocco was originally suspended for the 2017 and 2019 editions, but that ban was lifted by CAS.
> 
> I think they're probably able to convince Africa and the near East to vote for them, but I don't think it's a won race and the North American bid definitely has a chance to even beat them at their home turf, so to speak. Especially if they promise some of that sweet money for the "development of football" or something.


"most controversial country in africa"?? lol, you know shit about Africa, thats for sure


Kom op man, Marokko's "vijanden" zijn op een hand te tellen. die van de VS daarentegen... als dat een rol gaat spelen heeft Marokko het wk al binnen.


----------



## Rover030

^^

Nice selective quoting. I said "might be" and "with respect to actual politics and football politics" and in the rest of my post explained why, with easily verifiable facts. Sure, that sentence was an exaggeration, but you should see that in the context of the comments I was responding acting as if Morocco was way ahead politically and has the world cup in the bag. Of course there are countries in Africa where the situation is way worse, with wars going on, but that really wasn't the point I was making. As you have noticed, I didn't really mention the internal problems of Morocco, like the troubles in the Rif area in the past months. I tried to focus on the international effects.

You're right about the US having more "enemies" internationally than Morocco, but seen as the focus with that topic was really on the US I thought I should post something regarding the Morocco as well.

I'm sure you know much more about Morocco and Africa than I do, so go ahead, correct me and educate us instead of only baiting. This thread could really use some level-headed perspectives and information on the Moroccan bid instead of either ridiculously biased people or interested people who try to follow it from outside. You can decide for yourself which category I'm in :cheers:


----------



## pesto

Or maybe we could avoid politics and who has more friends altogether? You know, pretend like the decision will be based on stadiums and other infrastructure, finances, security, uses for stadiums after the WC, etc.

A longshot for sure, but I thought I would give it a try. :lol:


----------



## Sportsfan

pesto said:


> Or maybe we could avoid politics and who has more friends altogether? You know, pretend like the decision will be based on stadiums and other infrastructure, finances, security, uses for stadiums after the WC, etc.
> 
> A longshot for sure, but I thought I would give it a try. :lol:


^^^^^^
Exactly! I don't understand how Morocco could even be considered when a sure-fire North American option is available to FIFA. FIFA would be an absolute joke of an organisation if it gave a 48 TEAM EVENT to Morocco which is only proposing 10 VENUES to cover 80 games within 32 days!!! After the embarrassingly CORRUPT decisions to give 2018 to Russia and 2022 to Qatar (to anyone who disputes this fact, you are a fool), FIFA is in desperate need of a decision that will not make international football (and FIFA specifically) a laughing stock. I only hope that the late North American bid came up because the powers that be at FIFA put in a request to avoid said embarrassment.

Please understand that this is not a dig at Morocco. It's a dig at FIFA.:bash:


----------



## Bouqebaz

Rover030 said:


> ^^
> 
> Nice selective quoting. I said "might be" and "with respect to actual politics and football politics" and in the rest of my post explained why, with easily verifiable facts. Sure, that sentence was an exaggeration, but you should see that in the context of the comments I was responding acting as if Morocco was way ahead politically and has the world cup in the bag. Of course there are countries in Africa where the situation is way worse, with wars going on, but that really wasn't the point I was making. As you have noticed, I didn't really mention the internal problems of Morocco, like the troubles in the Rif area in the past months. I tried to focus on the international effects.
> 
> You're right about the US having more "enemies" internationally than Morocco, but seen as the focus with that topic was really on the US I thought I should post something regarding the Morocco as well.
> 
> I'm sure you know much more about Morocco and Africa than I do, so go ahead, correct me and educate us instead of only baiting. This thread could really use some level-headed perspectives and information on the Moroccan bid instead of either ridiculously biased people or interested people who try to follow it from outside. You can decide for yourself which category I'm in :cheers:


You tried to introduce the amount of "enemies", "bad relationships"...etc as a measure of one's ability to hold a WC not me. Im just following your line of reasoning. 
If you want to compare (bidding)countries based on problems, controversies..etc. fine. but do your homework properly.
Morocco's (internal/external) problems are nowhere near US' problems...let alone Mexico. No need to elaborate. Again, I'm just following your line of reasoning.

That kind of reasoning is childish


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Sportsfan said:


> ^^^^^^
> Exactly! I don't understand how Morocco could even be considered when a sure-fire North American option is available to FIFA. FIFA would be an absolute joke of an organisation if it gave a 48 TEAM EVENT to *Morocco which is only proposing 10 VENUES to cover 80 games *


Plz, tell us where did you see that, i've just heard here in a local sport radio from a member of the Moroccan FA, that Morocco will prpose 13 or 14 stadiums and 70 training camps accross the country and the complete bidding dossier will be public by March, so Morocco will provide the adequate sport venues for the 48 teams event.


----------



## Bouqebaz

Rabat with love 2 said:


> *Plz, tell us where did you see that*, i've just heard here in a local sport radio from a member of the Moroccan FA, that Morocco will prpose 13 or 14 stadiums and 70 training camps accross the country and the complete bidding dossier will be public by March, so Morocco will provide the adequate sport venues for the 48 teams event.


Its just Speculation

There is no official proposal yet, in March we will see .


----------



## Rover030

Bouqebaz said:


> You tried to introduce the amount of "enemies", "bad relationships"...etc as a measure of one's ability to hold a WC not me. Im just following your line of reasoning.
> If you want to compare (bidding)countries based on problems, controversies..etc. fine. but do your homework properly.
> Morocco's (internal/external) problems are nowhere near US' problems...let alone Mexico. No need to elaborate. Again, I'm just following your line of reasoning.
> 
> That kind of reasoning is childish


First, it wasn't a comparison or anything, it was just a response to someone suggesting that/wondering if Morocco would get the votes from Africa and the Middle East and I tried to explain that that's not as easy as it seems for two main reasons. 

Second, I didn't introduce politics as a reason to vote for one or the other bid, people did that long before me, although they were mostly focused on why the United bid would suffer from the political situation in the US. I thought: why not show a bit of the other side.

Third, if you think politics are irrelevant, why did you not just ignore my weeks old post, instead of taking one third of a sentence out of context and attacking me based on that, partly in Dutch, which isn't the language here. 

Get your shit together man, and don't call me childish while you started the irrelevant stuff while I was trying to make serious contributions to this thread.

Edit: don't mistake my posts for propaganda against the Moroccan bid by the way. I have a lot of sympathy for their bid and I hope they will win for multiple, partly personal reasons, such as timezone convenience, cheaper travel, accommodation and tickets (if I decide to go), that I liked the country when I visited it, that they tried so many times before and didn't win at least once because of corruption, and that they are a football loving nation, as opposed to the other bid where 2 of the 3 countries don't even have association football as a top 3 sport.


----------



## ElvisBC

football is becoming more and more irrelevant anyway, getting destroyed by FIFA greed and corruption and enormous TV money and absurd contracts, so in the end it really doesn't matter which bid wins. sadly, by 2026 world cup will be less relevant than ever before!


----------



## Faiyez

ElvisBC said:


> football is becoming more and more irrelevant anyway, getting destroyed by FIFA greed and corruption and enormous TV money and absurd contracts, so in the end it really doesn't matter which bid wins. sadly, by 2026 world cup will be less relevant than ever before!


I guarantee you will tune in.


----------



## pesto

Rabat with love 2 said:


> Plz, tell us where did you see that, i've just heard here in a local sport radio from a member of the Moroccan FA, that Morocco will prpose 13 or 14 stadiums and 70 training camps accross the country and the complete bidding dossier will be public by March, so Morocco will provide the adequate sport venues for the 48 teams event.


The Morocco bid (and my summary above) sets forth what already exists, what needs updating or expansion, and what needs to be built from scratch. 

The problem with things that are not already in place and in regular use is that they become a lightning rod for criticism of FIFA. The on-going Tokyo Olympics debacle shows that there is a real difference between construction in-place and on-the-drawing-board. Sometimes billions of dollars and years of time (and bad publicity day after day).

Having to build new facilities for the WC implies that there is no real need for them other than for the WC; that no one has thought it was a good expenditure of public funds up until now; that there is no reason to believe they will be in general use after the WC; and that popular support may be lacking. 

Morocco has already had some issues with training facilities and tried to reach agreements with Spain and Portugal to do a joint bid or use training facilities there. However, FIFA objected to this solution and I believe it is not under current consideration.


----------



## pesto

Faiyez said:


> I guarantee you will tune in.


He probably will. But far fewer people will tune-in in the US than will in the world's poorest countries (mostly Africa, south Asia). That's one of the issues driving the marketing decisions by FIFA: getting viewership in the high-income markets to the same level as in the low income markets.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> For the president, FIFA is looking forward to examine candidates proposals, adding that the federation already knows that there are still nine years ahead the tournament. “Those who compare Morocco to the US economically are absolutely wrong,” Lekjaa told Al Massae.
> 
> FIFA has advised Morocco to build more stadiums with limited capacity, according to Lekjaa. He added that Morocco only needs stadiums that can offer 25,000 seats. “We are obliged to make investments, but they are not heavy ones,” he added.


Source

I'm not against Morocco. I like going to Morocco. I have many Moroccan friends and I like Moroccan cooking.


----------



## CaliforniaJones




----------



## Herms

CaliforniaJones said:


> Source
> 
> I'm not against Morocco. I like going to Morocco. I have many Moroccan friends and I like Moroccan cooking.


What a shame.
Fortunately the vote will arrive quickly, in 6 months, we will end with circus !


----------



## ElvisBC

Faiyez said:


> I guarantee you will tune in.


Oh, I will watch for sure, no matter which one of these two suboptimal hosts gets selected, but the whole value of World Cup is decreasing and it is decreasing fast! 



CaliforniaJones said:


> Source
> 
> I'm not against Morocco. I like going to Morocco. I have many Moroccan friends and I like Moroccan cooking.


Very interesting statement: 
_"Lekjaa also said that the three-American bidders tried to negotiate for their files to pass without a vote, assuring that he refused the deal after a whole day of talk"_

So they were offered something :colgate:


----------



## Sportsfan

Rabat with love 2 said:


> Plz, tell us where did you see that, i've just heard here in a local sport radio from a member of the Moroccan FA, that Morocco will prpose 13 or 14 stadiums and 70 training camps accross the country and the complete bidding dossier will be public by March, so Morocco will provide the adequate sport venues for the 48 teams event.


Where did I see this? My figure of 10 came from the most up to date information on Wikipedia, which also suggests an EXTRA 10 venues that could be built/renovated - potentially MAKING 20, YES 20 STADIA OF OVER 40000 SEATS in a country the size of Morocco - That's on par with the white-elephantness that Qatar is going to see after all is said and done in 2022!!! EVEN WITH THE REMOVAL OF SOME SEATS after the event. And, just so you know, for future reference: It's folly to base your own numbers off something you heard from someone on the radio.

Meanwhile, what on Earth is a country the size of Morocco going to need with 13-20 international-class, FIFA-sized stadia and 70 training facilities once the World Cup is over? It's madness!

Finally, and I'm sorry to have to bring it up, but you give me no choice: Morocco is not exactly a shining beacon for human rights, either.
Freedom of the Press is sketchy at best.
Child labor exploitation is rife and unofficially condoned by the very authorities who put laws in place against it.
Women are openly harassed in public, despite laws against such activity. Also, they are only guaranteed 10% representation in parliamentary elections.
LGBTIQ relationships are not recognised by law and there is no sign of improvement in this lack of recognition. Homosexual activity is punishable by up to 3 years in prison.
No country with these kinds of violations of international law and decency should be awarded such a prestigious event.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Sportsfan said:


> * in a country the size of Morocco* - That's on par with the white-elephantness that Qatar is going to see after all is said and done in 2022!!! EVEN WITH THE REMOVAL OF SOME SEATS after the event.
> 
> Meanwhile, what on Earth is a country the size of Morocco going to need with 13-20 international-class, FIFA-sized stadia and 70 training facilities once the World Cup is over? It's madness!


you have no idea about my country , you are talking about size like if Morocco is Qatar , Morocco is a country of 34 millions inhabitants with an area of 710,850 km2 , we have many big cities , so it's not a tiny country at all , football is the most popular sport here , we have thousands of clubs professionnals and amateurs , about the 70 training facilities we gonna need them in anyways simply because we have a lack of world class training facilities and with or without the world cup we are planning to build hundreds of training ground all over the country , concerning the 13 stadiums we already have six big stadiums ( Rabat - Casablanca - Tanger - Fez - Marrakech and Agadir ) and there's 3 more stadiums which are currently under-construction ( Tetouan - Al Hoceima - Oujda ) and it has been so many years that we are projecting to build another new stadium in Casablanca and in Meknes .

in fine with or without the world cup we gonna have 11 or 12 world class stadiums .

Morocco is a touristic country with very friendly people , each year we receive 12 millions foreign tourists (mostly europeans) and the industry of tourism here is still booming 

all the listed cities have international airports and are all connected with a Motorway network and soon some of them with a high speed rail network .

we also deserve to host the world cup in 8 years from now and its gonna be all about the vote


----------



## Herms

Sportsfan said:


> Where did I see this? My figure of 10 came from the most up to date information on Wikipedia, which also suggests an EXTRA 10 venues that could be built/renovated - potentially MAKING 20, YES 20 STADIA OF OVER 40000 SEATS in a country the size of Morocco - That's on par with the white-elephantness that Qatar is going to see after all is said and done in 2022!!! EVEN WITH THE REMOVAL OF SOME SEATS after the event. And, just so you know, for future reference: It's folly to base your own numbers off something you heard from someone on the radio.
> 
> Meanwhile, what on Earth is a country the size of Morocco going to need with 13-20 international-class, FIFA-sized stadia and 70 training facilities once the World Cup is over? It's madness!
> 
> Finally, and I'm sorry to have to bring it up, but you give me no choice: Morocco is not exactly a shining beacon for human rights, either.
> Freedom of the Press is sketchy at best.
> Child labor exploitation is rife and unofficially condoned by the very authorities who put laws in place against it.
> Women are openly harassed in public, despite laws against such activity. Also, they are only guaranteed 10% representation in parliamentary elections.
> LGBTIQ relationships are not recognised by law and there is no sign of improvement in this lack of recognition. Homosexual activity is punishable by up to 3 years in prison.
> *No country with these kinds of violations of international law and decency should be awarded such a prestigious event*.


I'm also against the moroccan candidacy because I think it will only increase the debt of the country whereas there are other priority projects.

But by reading your comment, I had a headache !

What international law are you talking about ? 
Who are you to decide which country would merit or not to organize the WC ?
And above all, by what right do you allow yourself to assert lies !
Go educate yourself please.

Firstly, there are more women parliamentarians in Morocco than in USA, then if we look at crime statistics, Morocco is the most safe place compared to 3 other countries.
http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

Homosexuals are nothing to fear in Morocco as long as they don't display their sexuality in the public space, it's like an outrage of modesty.
In Europe, police fined women who suckle their baby in public...


----------



## CaliforniaJones

We live in an uncertain period in organizing sports events. IOC has hardly found candidates to bid, because of costs. Having a 48-teams FIFA World Cup will increase costs and require more infrastructure.

Infantino is right to say there would be a hude burden for a country to host a 48-teams FIFA World Cup. So joint bid will become the norm.

The main issue for Morocco will be the cost not only to build and renovate many stadia, trainning facilities, but also update transportation to host many supporters. There's a possibility the cost will be huge for this World Cup.
Morocco has good accomodation capacity.
I could see possibilities for joint bids for Morocco:
* Morocco/Spain/Portugal
* Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia/Egypt

There's also another issue: rebuild FIFA's reputation and credibility and attract sponsors again.


----------



## pesto

Herms said:


> I'm also against the moroccan candidacy because I think it will only increase the debt of the country whereas there are other priority projects.
> 
> But by reading your comment, I had a headache !
> 
> What international law are you talking about ?
> Who are you to decide which country would merit or not to organize the WC ?
> And above all, by what right do you allow yourself to assert lies !
> Go educate yourself please.
> 
> Firstly, there are more women parliamentarians in Morocco than in USA, then if we look at crime statistics, Morocco is the most safe place compared to 3 other countries.
> http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm
> 
> *Homosexuals are nothing to fear in Morocco as long as they don't display their sexuality in the public space*, it's like an outrage of modesty.
> In Europe, police fined women who suckle their baby in public...


That is, gays have nothing to fear as long as no one finds out about it. :lol: 

But you shouldn't be wasting your time on this thread. You should be writing a tour book or helping the European, American and Asian countries re-write their travel advice for visitors to Morocco. They seem to have it all wrong.


----------



## pesto

delete


----------



## hafidmarocmaroc95

Sportsfan said:


> Meanwhile, what on Earth is a country the size of Morocco going to need with 13-20 international-class, FIFA-sized stadia and 70 training facilities once the World Cup is over? It's madness!


Morocco is small but the public better than public of North America


----------



## nandoer

hafidmarocmaroc95 said:


> Morocco is small but the public better than public of North America


Although fans seem crazy in Morocco, Mexican crouds are pretty mad too. Such a pity the will get few games...


----------



## pesto

https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/3/16847374/rams-nfl-stadium-los-angeles-chargers-construction-photos

A nice article on the Inglewood Stadium. Looks like a pretty strong case is being made for being a site for the WC opening, finals or semi's.

Of course, the Super Bowl, Olympics and NCAA Football Championships are already signed up.

Btw, clicking-through on tabs in the article gives some idea of the surrounding development.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Interesting News and Infos from the City San Jose (San Francisco)
*Stadium*: Levi’s Stadium
*Training facilities*: Avaya Stadium, Stanford University, Santa Clara University, and San Jose State
*Airport*: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport

To be a Host City candidate, the City of San Jose must execute the proposed Airport Agreement by January 18, 2018.

Source


I like Mexico City Stadium. I can suggest seats could be painted with green, white and red colors, or others.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Interesting News and Infos from the City San Jose (San Francisco)
> *Stadium*: Levi’s Stadium
> *Training facilities*: Avaya Stadium, Stanford University, Santa Clara University, and San Jose State
> *Airport*: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport
> 
> To be a Host City candidate, the City of San Jose must execute the proposed Airport Agreement by January 18, 2018.
> 
> Source
> 
> 
> I like Mexico City Stadium. I can suggest seats could be painted with green, white and red colors, or others.


Interesting. SF itself has no stadiums that would be of interest (assuming ATT is needed for baseball). I doubt that Oakland could commit to much since O.co needs major work and may very well not be around by then.

Ayaya, SJS and the airport are in SJ but Levi's and Stanford are not.


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> Interesting News and Infos from the City San Jose (San Francisco)
> *Stadium*: Levi’s Stadium
> *Training facilities*: Avaya Stadium, Stanford University, Santa Clara University, and San Jose State
> *Airport*: Norman Y. Mineta San Jose International Airport
> 
> To be a Host City candidate, the City of San Jose must execute the proposed Airport Agreement by January 18, 2018.
> 
> Source
> 
> 
> I like Mexico City Stadium. I can suggest seats could be painted with green, white and red colors, or others.


great paper :applause:

few very cool things inside :colgate:

_"The Airport Agreement requires the Airport to defend and indemnify FIFA for any claims arising out of or attributable to any breach of the Agreement by the Airport, and further requires the Airport to waive claims against FIFA. The Agreement is subject to the laws of Switzerland"_.
_
"Rather than signing the Airport Agreement, several cities are considering approaching the UBC with a letter offering to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding or Letter of Support which would evidence a commitment to providing world-class facilities and services if selected as a 2026 World Cup Host City. This alternative may result in better terms and conditions than those currently proposed. However, such an approach may negatively impact the (Bay Area) bid"_


----------



## Bouqebaz

Sportsfan said:


> Where did I see this? My figure of 10 came from the most up to date information on Wikipedia, which also suggests an EXTRA 10 venues that could be built/renovated - potentially MAKING 20, YES 20 STADIA OF OVER 40000 SEATS in a country the size of Morocco - That's on par with the white-elephantness that Qatar is going to see after all is said and done in 2022!!! EVEN WITH THE REMOVAL OF SOME SEATS after the event. And, just so you know, for future reference: It's folly to base your own numbers off something you heard from someone on the radio.
> 
> Meanwhile, what on Earth is a country the size of Morocco going to need with 13-20 international-class, FIFA-sized stadia and 70 training facilities once the World Cup is over? It's madness!
> 
> Finally, and I'm sorry to have to bring it up, but you give me no choice: *Morocco is not exactly a shining beacon for human right*s, either.
> Freedom of the Press is sketchy at best.
> Child labor exploitation is rife and unofficially condoned by the very authorities who put laws in place against it.
> Women are openly harassed in public, despite laws against such activity. Also, they are only guaranteed 10% representation in parliamentary elections.
> LGBTIQ relationships are not recognised by law and there is no sign of improvement in this lack of recognition. Homosexual activity is punishable by up to 3 years in prison.
> *No country with these kinds of violations of international law and decency should be awarded such a prestigious event*.


Yeah, because Usa/mexico are shining examples of human rights...are u f*king serious???:crazy:
"human rights" & "adhering to international law & decency blabla" really???:lol: :lol:

In Morocco when a policemen uses his gun its breaking news the whole day, in your country...its. more like meeh another day at the office. I'm pretty sure the average Moroccan values human life much and much more then your average trigerhappy psychopath in uniform. just one of the many examples, 

No country that doesnt value human life should be awarded such a prestigious event, what about that?


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> Yeah, because Usa/mexico are shining examples of human rights...are u f*king serious???:crazy:
> "human rights" & "adhering to international law & decency blabla" really???:lol: :lol:
> 
> In Morocco when a policemen uses his gun its breaking news the whole day, in your country...its. more like meeh another day at the office. I'm pretty sure the average Moroccan values human life much and much more then your average trigerhappy psychopath in uniform. just one of the many examples,
> 
> No country that doesnt value human life should be awarded such a prestigious event, what about that?


Well, looks like some people just don't want to discuss stadium construction, funding, local support, infrastructure, etc.

So, instead, I'm trying to update my WC possibilities list. Just to help me out, among WC possibles, what would be, say, the 10 countries with the strongest human rights protection and the 10 with the worst?


----------



## Bouqebaz

pesto said:


> Well, looks like some people just don't want to discuss stadium construction, funding, local support, infrastructure, etc.
> 
> So, instead, I'm trying to update my WC possibilities list. Just to help me out, among WC possibles, what would be, say, the 10 countries with the strongest human rights protection and the 10 with the worst?


I had to react, I can't help it.
My whole point was: dont try to be a moralist, because it doesnt make sense.

But I agree, back to non-political WC2026 discussions...


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I was talking about FIFAgate consequences on reputation and finances. Many 
sponsors choose to distance themselves from FIFA.



> Legal proceedings are ongoing, but the damage to Fifa has been significant. Sponsors are deserting in droves and blue-chip companies like Sony, Emirates, Castrol and Continental Tyres have all decided to distance themselves from football’s beleaguered governing body.
> 
> Under normal circumstances, 2018 would be the most lucrative year in Fifa history given the World Cup in Russia, which kicks off on June 14. But the event may not be big enough to dissipate the dark cloud which hangs over the federation.
> 
> “[The corruption scandal] has, and will, continue to cost them quite a bit,” says Rob Wilson, principal lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, who specialises in football finance.
> 
> “They have plenty of legal fees to pay, estimated at around $50m this year, and a number of very high profile sponsors have not renewed their contracts.”


Source

The main issue will be to restablish FIFA's reputation and credibility.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Baltimore


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> Baltimore



great stuff! where do you find these things? kay:


I saw this: Baltimore set to approve an agreement to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup soccer games here if North America is selected as the host continent. 

But your file is great!!!


----------



## RobH

CaliforniaJones said:


> I was talking about FIFAgate consequences on reputation and finances. Many
> sponsors choose to distance themselves from FIFA.


Yep, that's my feeling as well. Sporting organisations which are in a good place can afford riskier hosts. FIFA is demonstrably not one of these right now.


----------



## Sportsfan

Bouqebaz said:


> But I agree, back to non-political WC2026 discussions...


Okie-Dokie. What the hell is Morocco going to do with 13-20 FIFA-standard stadia once the circus leaves town??? I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face - FIFA would be crazy to award the event to Morocco, because there is no legacy in having a large number of white elephant venues located so close to one another. Is that non-political and stadium-specific enough for you?


----------



## pesto

So now we have two sets of arguments. One focuses on technical and financial issues. It says that Morocco bid would result in a dozen or so stadiums that would lie empty once the WC ends and this will attract media attention and bad publicity to FIFA. This is especially bad for the new leadership of FIFA who are trying to get away from the shadow of the prior leadership who made decisions based on corrupt motives. 

In addition, there is a large financial advantage to the North American bid. So implicitly this argument says that the voters will pay attention to the technical and financial committees, as well as FIFA’s and their own economic best interest and vote accordingly. 

The other group argue that it doesn’t matter what the technical and financial committees say or how crappy or wasteful the Morocco bid is or how they will fund any of these projects without cutting back on clean water and repaired roads. This is because the vote is by individual nations, and all of Africa and the Muslim world will vote for them; plus most of Latin America who hate the US; plus Asia who hate the US; plus Europe who are in the right time zone (Europeans apparently go to bed early and will miss games in NA). The US will be lucky to get a dozen votes and those will have to be bought, so who gives a bleep about things like how much money the Moroccan government spends on playing soccer?


----------



## Rover030

^^ Your post makes sense, but I'm not sure why you put the timezone topic in the second set of arguments. European leagues cater to the Asian market (see the last Clásico, which was at 13:00 while it's typically in the evening) increasingly more often and the World Cup adapts their playing times to timezones as well (Brazil: 13:00 and 17:00 local time, South Africa: 16:00 and 20:30) even though that has negative consequences for the level of football and the comfort of spectators. In North America they would need to play even earlier than in Brazil, and with the Asian market becoming more important because of the increase in countries from that region and because of their increased interest in football in general, they might need to go even more early.

In the Americas watching European football leagues is in some places more popular than watching the local football leagues (US for instance) and in Asia it's the same, while in Europe the vast majority of people is used to their own playing times. Having a world cup in the European time zones makes it easier to maximise viewership across the entire world, so that's surely something to consider.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Rover030 said:


> ^^ Your post makes sense, but I'm not sure why you put the timezone topic in the second set of arguments. European leagues cater to the Asian market (see the last Clásico, which was at 13:00 while it's typically in the evening) increasingly more often and the World Cup adapts their playing times to timezones as well (Brazil: 13:00 and 17:00 local time, South Africa: 16:00 and 20:30) even though that has negative consequences for the level of football and the comfort of spectators. In North America they would need to play even earlier than in Brazil, and with the Asian market becoming more important because of the increase in countries from that region and because of their increased interest in football in general, they might need to go even more early.
> 
> In the Americas watching European football leagues is in some places more popular than watching the local football leagues (US for instance) and in Asia it's the same, while in Europe the vast majority of people is used to their own playing times. Having a world cup in the European time zones makes it easier to maximise viewership across the entire world, so that's surely something to consider.


I understand.

*1986 FIFA World Cup*
Mexico: 12:00 and 16:00 CST (local)
Link

*1994 FIFA World Cup*
USA: from 12:00 (EDT/CST/PDT) to 19:30 (EDT/CST/PDT)
Link

*2015 FIFA Women's World Cup*
Canada: from 12:00 (EDT/CST/MDT/PDT) to 19:30 (EDT/CST/MDT/PDT)
Link


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> In the Americas watching European football leagues is in some places more popular than watching the local football leagues (US for instance)


in europe people also watch more NFL than their local american football leagues. when something sucks it sucks :colgate:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

More information



> If the U.S. and its partner countries win the bid, that's when cities like Orlando, New York, Los Angeles, Miami, Tampa and 27 other cities in U.S., Canada and Mexico will have five years to make their cases, a source close to the discussions told Orlando Business Journal.
> 
> Between mid-2018 and 2021, candidate host cities like Orlando will gather resources to show the United Bid Committee they have the chops to host the World Cup. After proposals are submitted in 2021, the United Bid Committee is expected to review the proposals over two years — which most likely includes personally visiting candidate cities to see venues — and then it would name the host cities by 2023.
> 
> That large gap in time is why it's complex for rapidly-transforming cities like Orlando to make the best proposal. Central Florida has several game-changing projects underway like the Interstate 4 renovations, the new south terminal at Orlando International Airport, the future Brightline rail connecting Orlando to Miami, as well as several others still on the drawing board.


Source

Gallup poll on soccer


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Sportsfan said:


> Okie-Dokie. *What the hell is Morocco going to do with 13-20 FIFA-standard stadia once the circus leaves town?*?? I'll keep saying it until I'm blue in the face - FIFA would be crazy to award the event to Morocco, because there is no legacy in having a large number of white elephant venues located so close to one another. Is that non-political and stadium-specific enough for you?


I've already answerd you in a previous post but you keep posting nonsense posts about it .
I'll stick with the idea that you have no clue about Morocco .
We will win this bid , deal with it and its not about the fifa anymore , but the whole world will vote .


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^ Your post makes sense, but I'm not sure why you put the timezone topic in the second set of arguments. European leagues cater to the Asian market (see the last Clásico, which was at 13:00 while it's typically in the evening) increasingly more often and the World Cup adapts their playing times to timezones as well (Brazil: 13:00 and 17:00 local time, South Africa: 16:00 and 20:30) even though that has negative consequences for the level of football and the comfort of spectators. In North America they would need to play even earlier than in Brazil, and with the Asian market becoming more important because of the increase in countries from that region and because of their increased interest in football in general, they might need to go even more early.
> 
> In the Americas watching European football leagues is in some places more popular than watching the local football leagues (US for instance) and in Asia it's the same, while in Europe the vast majority of people is used to their own playing times. Having a world cup in the European time zones makes it easier to maximise viewership across the entire world, so that's surely something to consider.


I was being facetious since I don't think Europeans really worry all that much about starting times. In the Spanish league I know starting times can be quite late and I watched the WC final between Germany and Argentina in Berlin and lots of people were up until the next morning (or passed out on benches).

In any event, a noon start in California is 21:00 on the continent so there seem to be easy ways to do the scheduling. It's not like an Am. football match than can last 3 1/2 hours.


----------



## pesto

Rabat with love 2 said:


> I've already answerd you in a previous post but you keep posting nonsense posts about it .
> I'll stick with the idea that you have no clue about Morocco .
> We will win this bid , deal with it and its not about the fifa anymore , but the whole world will vote .


A better answer would be to pretend you are writing a letter to FIFA explaining why their concerns re stadiums, practice facilities, etc., are invalid and listing major events scheduled to be played in each stadium and facility on a regular basis.

That's pretty much the Olympic standard: what uses have been demonstrated for such stadiums already and what will they be used for in the future. I assume FIFA will do something similar.

Or are you adopting the position that the technical and financial reviews are just for show and that the vote is already determined based on hate for Mex/Can/US and solidarity with Morocco? Then you don't need to talk about stadiums, etc.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> More information
> 
> 
> 
> Source
> 
> Gallup poll on soccer


So Orlando is saying look at what we will be like in 8 years, not what we are now. 

I think that when there are already 20 cities that are excellent choices, you have to do something pretty spectacular to break out of the pack. More than a new road or enlarging the airport. There may be only 8 to 11 US cities and NY, LA, SF, Dallas, DC, Boston, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Houston make 10 already. You have to argue for the Disney facilities to be a positive factor; but that's tough because the other cities are tourist centers as well.


----------



## marokko

pesto said:


> A better answer would be to pretend you are writing a letter to FIFA explaining why their concerns re stadiums, practice facilities, etc., are invalid and listing major events scheduled to be played in each stadium and facility on a regular basis.
> 
> That's pretty much the Olympic standard: what uses have been demonstrated for such stadiums already and what will they be used for in the future. I assume FIFA will do something similar.
> 
> Or are you adopting the position that the technical and financial reviews are just for show and that the vote is already determined based on hate for Mex/Can/US and solidarity with Morocco? Then you don't need to talk about stadiums, etc.


He just means that Morocco does not need to build 13-20 stadiums as some forummers or you do argue. The country will already have around 2020 8/9 stadiums that meet FIFA requirements. (They are maybe not the most beautiful due to tracks, but they exist). In addition, FIFA does not require 12+ stadiums, but just 9/10 stadiums. Lastly, FIFA also just told Morocco that 25.000 stadiums would be okay for them. So in short: The costs are not as much as some people argue here.

Another argument in my opinion in favor of Morocco, except that everybody hates USA and likes Morocco's timezone, is transport. Morocco has basically in every city airports of which some are being upgraded, all WC cities will be connected to European standards of highways and maybe in 2026 most of the cities will be connected to high speed rail. Furthermore the country is a growing touristic market and wants to use the event to increase its popularity. Distances in NAFTA are very big, which makes transport for fans very expensive. Do not forget about the 3 visas needed and Trump policy that forbids entrance of some nationals across the world. FIFA is against that policy.

Nevertheless, the NAFTA bid is still a very strong challenger. They just have a lot of money and some very nice stadiums and hospitals compared to Morocco. The bling North America offers could catch FIFA's attention just like Qatar and Russia did ...


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Required Number of stadiums*


> The number of stadiums selected for the Competition shall be determined by FIFA at the conclusion of the Stadium selection process as described in the Hosting Agreement and is expected to be *twelve (12)* Stadiums.
> In this section 8 of the Bid Book, the Member Association shall provide:
> (i) a confirmation to host the Competition in *twelve (12) Stadiums* and a proposal for a minimum of *fourteen (14) and a maximum of sixteen (16) Stadiums* to ensure that a joint selection process by FIFA and the Member Association can properly take place; or alternatively
> (ii) a confirmation to host the Competition using a different number of Stadiums and, in such case
> a) a proposal for a minimum of *two (2) and a maximum of four (4) additional Stadiums* to ensure that a joint selection process by FIFA and the Member Association can properly take place; and
> b) in the event that the total number of Stadiums to be used to host the Competition is less than twelve (12) Stadiums, a feasibility and impact study to be based on a risk assessment, addressing all operational challenges which may be caused by such lower number of Stadiums and by the consequential higher number of matches per Stadium, such as pitch quality, Accommodation, transport, security & safety, match and Stadium preparation as well as the benefits which may be caused by such lower number of Stadiums, especially with regard to cost-savings, environmental protection and other sustainability matters;


STRUCTURE, CONTENT, PRESENTATION, FORMAT AND DELIVERY OF BID BOOK


----------



## Rover030

^^ So in addition to the stadiums that are already being built in Morocco independent of the world cup, which according to wikipedia makes the total 10, at least two more stadiums are needed, which are already under the "planned" part.

The stadium of Tanger needs a temporary enlargement to go towards 60k, and in Casablanca an 80k stadium needs to be built and there is a 50k stadium planned in Oujda. I'm going to assume that these will not be built without world cup, but I'm not sure if that true. It's not unrealistic to assume that if the Morocco bid wins, this is enough for FIFA. Russia and Qatar also got permission to reduce the number of stadiums.

That means that there are only 2 stadiums that would not have been built without a world cup. Of course the 6 stadiums that they currently have need renovations. This is obviously more work than the North America bid needs to do on their stadiums, but compared to past world cups it's almost nothing.

Qatar: 1 existing stadium, 1 renovated and 6 new.
Russia: 4 existing stadiums (Sochi, Kazan, Spartak Moscow, Saint Petersburg), 2 renovated/rebuild, 6 new.
Brazil: 5 renovated, 7 new
South Africa: 5 renovated, 5 new

So I think the North American bid is going to win based on financial considerations and because their stadiums are better, not because countries want to prevent Morocco invest about $1 billion in their stadiums, which really isn't that much compared to previous years.


----------



## ElvisBC

actually very funny, this thread
some highly sofisticated posts, few ordinary ones, most of them crap and then my favourite ones, those where moroccans and americans defend and glorify their bids :colgate:

honestly, I would never give world cup to any of these two, but if I had to choose I'd rather give it to morocco simply because football has some meaning there. nevertheless, I am totally convinced US is going to get it!


----------



## marokko

^^ Indeed. In my opinion it is the question during every WC bid again: Is it about football (Morocco), which is soccer for USA/Canada people, or about money (NAFTA)? As we have learned from the previous bids, it is money that wins. My only hope for Morocco would be the new voting system introduced by FIFA. It is more difficult to bribe 12-20 people (old system) then 200+ people (new voting system). I actually guess Africa and Arab world will choose Morocco's side, which is approximately 60 votes. Then it is basically up to Europe to decide with its +/- 50 votes . (France/Spain/portugal will probably choose Morocco due to linked history). Asian countries (minus some muslim countries) and Latin American countries I am still not sure about. 

In any case.If Morocco wins, I will like it, because that would mean new infrastructure for locals. If Morocco loses, I will like it, because that would mean Morocco saves a bit of money (1-2 billion euro). Lastly, I wouldn't mind NAFTA winning. Those are also good countries


----------



## tinyslam

There is plenty of soccer passion/tradition in the joint North America bid. Mexico has tons of it and while it is not the number one sport in the US and Canada, there are a large number of supporters and MLS is only growing. I don't know much about Moroccan passion for soccer other then what has been posted in this thread and I'm sure it would be a great World Cup if they were chosen, but I think it is disingenuous to simply say that Morocco is the clear winner in terms of soccer passion/tradition.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> actually very funny, this thread
> some highly sofisticated posts, few ordinary ones, most of them crap and then my favourite ones, those where moroccans and americans defend and glorify their bids :colgate:
> 
> honestly, I would never give world cup to any of these two, but if I had to choose I'd rather give it to morocco simply because football has some meaning there. nevertheless, I am totally convinced US is going to get it!


A couple of thoughts:

First, Mexico has four times the population of Morocco and a far higher level of people following soccer. 

http://nielsensports.com/global-interest-football/ (There are other similar studies available on-line that show similar results.)

Second, your theory would almost always put the WC in south Asia or Africa where there are the highest rates of soccer participation and fans and high rates of population and income growth. European countries other than Italy and Spain would rarely be chosen.

In any event, wouldn't FIFA want to put the matches where support is relatively low and there is room for substantial growth? Or you prefer coal to Newcastle? Soccer's got more than enough fans even without NA and China and other marginal markets? :lol:


----------



## Colonel Ned

*See Moroccan Bid in other way*

Hello friends,

I see that the thread takes great dimensions day after day, but please try to avoid speculative bubbles, and stay on the ground of reality.

As promised, I report some notes that may interest you on the Moroccan offer.

*Stadia:*
Existing Stadiums (9):

Rabat Moulay Abdellah (52K),
Casablanca Mohamed V (67K to be renovated to remove the athletics track, as Brazilian stadiums model),
Fez (40K),
Marrakech (45K to increase to 75K with layout of seats instead of athletics track),
Agadir Adrar (45K),
Tangier (45K to increase to its capacity initially decided 80K with added bleachers behind goals),
Kenitra Municipal (first phase of 25K in progress, a second phase to reach 40K will start in 2020),
Oujda Honour (current capacity 20K, will be increased to 40K with the addition of a floor. There is also a project to build a new stadium but it has not started yet, the decisions converge to the enlargement of the existing stadium),
Meknes Honour (the current Stadium can accommodate 20K, there is a possibility to make it at 40K with fixed or temporary stands, with major interior and exterior fittings required)
>>> These stadiums need to be upgraded, but this will not pose any major problems.

Stadiums currently in progress (2 of new generation stadiums):
Tetouan (42K), El Hoceima (40K)

Decided construction of new stadiums: Financial package closed and studies phase finalized (3):
Salé (neighbor city of Rabat, for 40K), El Jadida (40K),
+ Grand Casablanca (100K, Morocco wants to have the biggest stadium in Africa)

Optional construction (mentionned by media and public opinion):
Nador (40K), Mohammedia (40K), Meknes (new, 40K)

FIFA has agreed to Morocco that only 2 stadiums can be 25K but with provisional seats provided during the competition to reach 40K (as in Brazil, Russia and Qatar). It will probably be the El Hoceima and Nador stadiums.

The required number is therefore respected, FIFA has demanded this number of stadiums (wit hsuch capacity) because it is the break-even point calculated for them to make profit.

*White elephants?*

This is a word that some forum members like to dump every time to show that there is a burden to bear for Morocco. 

But, be assured, this shows only one reality: those members really ignore Morocco!

You can not compare a WC with Olympic Games. Sports facilities that Rio or Athens have built have become empty, but regarding soccer stadiums, they work very well. Morocco is a country passionate about soccer, the people love the local championship and closely follow the neighboring championship (Spain / Portugal), some still go on weekends to see games and return to work on Monday. The championship is experiencing a significant improvement, as attested by FIFA itself: this is the legacy that FIFA can offer.

You should know that the neighboring country (Algeria) is about to open 3 new stadiums of 40K in one shot (Tizi-Ouzou, Beraki and Oran) and is building 2 others (douera, Setif), it means that this region knows an orientation towards the construction of new sports buildings because of the justified need.

The existing stadiums are regularly filled in Morocco, and some stadiums offer parallel activities (conferences, animations, ...)

Morocco does not need to have an authorization by each stadium its bidding like the USA, there is only one authority for stadiums (SONARGES and Ministry of Sport)

*Airports:*

Each city is connected to an international airport of international standard.

Casablanca, El Jadida: Mohamed V Airport (5th largest in Africa) + Benslimane Airport
Marrakesh: Menara Airport (Awarded Best Airport in Africa and Ranks 4th Most Beautiful in the World)
El Hoceima: Charif Al Idrissi Airport
Rabat, Salé : Salé Rabat Airport
Fes: Saïss Airport
Meknes: Bassatine Airport
Oujda: Angad Airport
Agadir: Al Massira Airport
Tangiers: Ibn Batuta Airport
Tetouan: Saniat Rmel Airport
Nador: El Aroui Airport
Beni Mellal: Beni Mellal Airport
Essaouira: Mogador Airport
Ifrane: Ifrane Airport
Taza: Taza Airport

In addition, Morocco is a signatory of the Open Sky, hence the existence of several bases of low cost airlines and also a significant number of routes especially with all cities in Europe.

In addition, the airports are managed by a single authority: ONDA, while in the US, each airport is independent.

It will be necessary to add to this list some ports on the Mediterranean: Tanger Med (biggest in Mediterranean sea), El Hoceima and Nador (the ferries and the cruises are numerous between southern Europe and Morocco).

Not to mention Highways and high-speed train (...)

*Team Base Camp facilities*
Morocco has several training camps. Their offer goes well beyond what FIFA requires (through the use of club centers, professional centers, prestigious university campuses, municipal stadiums, tourist villages: Morocco can offer up to 250 camps).

But the challenge is to upgrade those camps and make them have all necessarities (spa, conference center, swiming-pool, fields, massages, medical, residencies, catering ...)

Some examples of camps on the only city of Rabat (there are several others in Rabat and everywhere else) with GPS to see on Google Earth
Club Camp FUS _33 ° 58'11 "N 6 ° 53'2" W_
National Institue for Athletism	_33 ° 57'25 "N 6 ° 53'29" W_
Maamora National Camp _34 ° 1'19 "N 6 ° 43'47" W_
Sports Camp FAR _34 ° 2'18 "N 6 ° 43'30" W_

In addition: some European countries (Spain, France, Portugal, England) can easily opt for the Costa Del Sol or the Canaries or even Ceuta, Gibraltar ... without being condemned by FIFA.

In addition also, Morocco regularly receives football teams who carry out concentration training given the good weather condition and sports facilities and tourism (Sports Tourism).

*Financial ressources :*
The economy of Morocco is a growing economy with stable perspectives, the existing stadiums were financed entirely by State. The budget allocated for the construction of the new stadiums and the renovation of the old ones was decided on the basis of a public-private partnership, to guarantee the speed and the quality of execution.

Morocco got a strong financial support of some friendly countries (notably UAE and KSA), moreover it is what pushed Infantino to make his statement in Dubai, where he favored a tripartite candidacy instead of having to bear the costs to One country, he had noticed the support of gulf countries to promote the Moroccan Bid, and wanted to balance things for North Americans, who still slept under snowstorms.

In this game, whatever the result, FIFA will not be condemned or accused, because the choice doesn't come from it, it will come from the vote of 207 countries. The FIFA ​​is there to set requirements, control transparency, and evaluate technical and financial offers.

So his role will stop with the dissemination of the inspection reports where each application will be given a rank and evaluated, then it will submit the decision to the General Assembly which is sovereign.

*Trump is Morocco's number 1 ally*
Although the American Bid Committee is active in terms of promotion and communication, no positive sign has come from the White House, the rumors rather suggest a reluctance of Trump that USA can be an open door for foreigners in 2026.
In addition, the bridges cut between USA and UN (+UNESCO : FIFA's main partners) and the non-signature of the Kyoto Protocol (which is inconsistent with FIFA's policy on climate change), is considered a highly negative point for the US Bid.


*Other arguments:*
- Morocco is a stable country with a low crime rate (unlike in the United States where the use of weapons is allowed, with a high risk of mass killing, which is risky for fans and soccer supporters, not to mention Mexico where drug barons kill each other every day and police can not even protect tourists)
- As a supporter, Morocco remains the best option: No need for visas, affordable distances between cities cities, very low living costs, festivity and colors ...
- Morocco is a friendly country to the environment, it organized in 2016 the COP22 mega event, while the USA withdrew to ratify any agreement that protects the environment
- The US, although it is a country that conveys messages of peace and tolerance, is a country involved in the horrors of wars, and commercializes weapons of mass destruction (the biggest criminal state ever on earth)
- In 1994, Morocco lost to the USA, I find it normal that the world gives reason to Morocco this time which is at its 5th application since the end of 80s
- As USA for 2022 bid, Morocco was victim of corruption for the organization of WC 2010.
- The real soccer stadiums in the USA are very small (except Miami and few others), otherwise the offer is based on stadiums belonging to football NFL (wich is shameful I think)
- Moroccan bid is a topic that the whole people discuss while in USA or Canada: Nobody knows about any bidd (may be 5% of population or less have heard about american bid) !
- True Americans care more about snow storms, hurricanes, forest fires and harder-to-manage living conditions than talking about soccer competition
- In recent years Morocco has advanced in terms of infrastructure and events
- Fan Fest: Morocco is a country that loves big festivals and events, it organizes mega famous concerts that attract hundreds of thousands of spectators (like Mawazine where the world stars come every year)

*In conclusion,*
Morocco has all the necessary assets: stadiums, infrastructures, city landskapes, nature landskapes, nice people ....
Those who support the North American candidacy in this forum, are not all real Americans, most are not native in USA, they are Latinos or Mexicans in general. The Americans do not care about WC bid.
The problem is that those members continue to think old way voting and believe that it is the decision of FIFA (FIFA grants ... FIFA has interest in ... FIFA must see ... if FIFA awards the FIFA organization to such and such a country .... FIFA FIFA FIFA ...) but guys, FIFA does not do any of that anymore, FIFA just sets requirements, evaluates the offer and watch the voting process (end of the story)

In my opinion, it's not Morocco who challenges USA this time, but it's the opposite!


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^ So in addition to the stadiums that are already being built in Morocco independent of the world cup, which according to wikipedia makes the total 10, at least two more stadiums are needed, which are already under the "planned" part.
> 
> The stadium of Tanger needs a temporary enlargement to go towards 60k, and in Casablanca an 80k stadium needs to be built and there is a 50k stadium planned in Oujda. I'm going to assume that these will not be built without world cup, but I'm not sure if that true. It's not unrealistic to assume that if the Morocco bid wins, this is enough for FIFA. Russia and Qatar also got permission to reduce the number of stadiums.
> 
> That means that there are only 2 stadiums that would not have been built without a world cup. Of course the 6 stadiums that they currently have need renovations. This is obviously more work than the North America bid needs to do on their stadiums, but compared to past world cups it's almost nothing.
> 
> Qatar: 1 existing stadium, 1 renovated and 6 new.
> Russia: 4 existing stadiums (Sochi, Kazan, Spartak Moscow, Saint Petersburg), 2 renovated/rebuild, 6 new.
> Brazil: 5 renovated, 7 new
> South Africa: 5 renovated, 5 new
> 
> So I think the North American bid is going to win based on financial considerations and because their stadiums are better, not because countries want to prevent Morocco invest about $1 billion in their stadiums, which really isn't that much compared to previous years.


I think you are being more disingenuous than usual.

Isn't this the very kind of statistic that the Olympics and FIFA are trying to get away from? Are you advising repeating the same mistakes that have brought a decade of negative publicity and have led government officials and building contractors to give and take bribes on a regular basis?

And "investing" is hardly the right word. Investment implies expecting a return on the expenditure that is substantially beyond what is being spent and what is being foregone (e.g., water purification, sewage systems, technical schools, etc.). I think the word for stadiums with very little use at any time is "white elephant". Likewise for trains, terminals, roads, etc., that are built "only if" Morocco wins the bid.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> You would be happy for the people of Morocco? You mean as if something good happened to them?
> 
> It’s always nice to root for the little guy, but it is unfortunate when 3rd world countries get into these discussions. The stadium expenditures benefit the very rich but come at the expense of the laborers, children, widows, disabled, etc., who effectively lose income or benefits. That’s just the economics of building stadiums for which to date there has been no demand. The economy as a whole suffers.
> 
> The world has moved toward requiring “charitable” organizations to be productive and open to public scrutiny rather than being run as private clubs funneling funds to the local oligarchs. Even a year or so ago I thought that it could take another decade for change to come to the Olympics. But I was surprised with the speed with which Bach imposed his will, centralizing power so that you had financial analysts, technical people and marketing experts making decisions instead of the halfwits. The results were brilliant with two cities selected which do not require spending on unneeded projects and have excellent financial and technical controls in place. Plus obvious losing bids were stopped before they wasted time and money.
> 
> I am pretty sure FIFA does not want to be looking at another decade of bad press over wasteful practices. But who knows if their time has come yet.


I don't understand why you suddenly have this mentality. Seems disingenuous. Normally you just care about profits or at least passionately defend the very rich who do so. I remember from the MLS discussion that you weren't hesitant at all to create a white elephant in Columbus.

Anyway, I don't know how many times I need to tell you, but sports is about emotion and hosting a world cup of their favourite sports is something that can make a country incredibly proud. For Americans that's different with just 7% listing football as their favourite sport, and your other sports don't have prestigious world cups anyway, so I understand you don't see it.

Of course there must be opponents of the world cup in Morocco, but if they really were that numerous, there would have large protests about it that we would have surely heard about by now.

Like I have clearly stated before, the united bid is the wise financial decision so I think they will go for that one this time.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

ElvisBC said:


> honestly, I would never give world cup to any of these two, but if I had to choose I'd rather give it to morocco simply because football has some meaning there.


1994 has called and it wants its opinion back!

Nowadays the US is a leading country in terms of popularity of national team football. When the timezones are right like it was in 2014, the World Cup will mean in the US a huge lot of excitement, with fan gatherings in city centres, stadiums, bars and all sorts of venues:











And that's just for the USMNT! But there are several other national teams that are well supported in the US.

I live in a traditional football country of Europe (France) and the levels of excitement and their public manifestation do not even come close to comparing to those from the videos above.


----------



## Rover030

^^ We have all seen that the US is more than capable of supporting their national team and many others in the past years and during the 2016 Copa America Centenario. However, in terms of TV viewership, a good measure for general interest, calling them leading is a bit over the top. Their viewership record is almost 25 million. France, with one sixth of the people has almost 21 million viewers as record, and they are not even that special like you said.


----------



## aquamaroon

Rover030 said:


> ^^ We have all seen that the US is more than capable of supporting their national team and many others in the past years and during the 2016 Copa America Centenario. However, in terms of TV viewership, a good measure for general interest, calling them leading is a bit over the top. Their viewership record is almost 25 million. France, with one sixth of the people has almost 21 million viewers as record, and they are not even that special like you said.


Yeah just for comparison here in the states the NFL wildcard playoff games this past weekend, the first round of the playoffs, hit 31 million viewers on TV, and that was *low* and a cause for alarm to the NFL! (they usually hit 39-40 million viewers). It also bears saying that that 25 million viewership number is the result of 6.5 million viewers on the Spanish Language channel Univision (18.5 million watched the English broadcast). Not that Spanish speaking viewers aren't important! Just that it's a sign of Soccer being a somewhat cultural niche in the wider American sporting scene.


I think for most Americans, can't speak for everybody of course but just my experience, soccer is basically an "Olympic" sport. I.E. soccer comes up in the news once every four years with the USMNT playing, and then goes into hibernation with MLS puttering around in the background of the sports scene. Regardless it'll be interesting to see how the World Cup in Russia does this year ratings wise in the U.S. without the USMNT playing! I guess we'll see how popular the world cup is outside of nationalistic fervor.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

Rover030 said:


> ^^ We have all seen that the US is more than capable of supporting their national team and many others in the past years and during the 2016 Copa America Centenario. However, in terms of TV viewership, a good measure for general interest, calling them leading is a bit over the top. Their viewership record is almost 25 million. France, with one sixth of the people has almost 21 million viewers as record, and they are not even that special like you said.


Well yeah, but for me going out to support the team in a form of public manifestation shows much more meaningful appropriation of football than tuning in from your home, in your armchair in front of the TV. At least that's how I think ElvisBC constructed his argument, as about meaningfulness. Otherwise you are definitely correct in terms of TV markets.

@aquamaroon: not sure why you would hold against US soccer fans the diversity of the US sports culture and the huge support the traditional US sports have. In the end this is a discussion comparing the what soccer means for the soccer fans in different countries.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I don't understand why you suddenly have this mentality. Seems disingenuous. Normally you just care about profits or at least passionately defend the very rich who do so. I remember from the MLS discussion that you weren't hesitant at all to create a white elephant in Columbus.
> 
> Anyway, I don't know how many times I need to tell you, but sports is about emotion and hosting a world cup of their favourite sports is something that can make a country incredibly proud. For Americans that's different with just 7% listing football as their favourite sport, and your other sports don't have prestigious world cups anyway, so I understand you don't see it.
> 
> Of course there must be opponents of the world cup in Morocco, but if they really were that numerous, there would have large protests about it that we would have surely heard about by now.
> 
> Like I have clearly stated before, the united bid is the wise financial decision so I think they will go for that one this time.


How did I support any misuse of funds in Columbus? I would never encourage any government to build a stadium and offer a private company less than FMV rentals. If sports fans are desperate for sports let them pay for them not dump the costs on the taxpayers. 

Virtually all non-essentials are based upon exploiting emotions (sports, movies, sports cars, yachts, the sex industry, luxury goods, vanity goods, any time you buy the "premium" product instead of the "ordinary" product, etc.). That's what marketers are paid to do: exploit people's emotions to generate sales.

I don't have any comment on support for the WC in Morocco. 

I haven't seen analyses of the revenues/costs of the two bids, but I assume FIFA has analyzed these in considerable detail in conjunction with their broadcast customers.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^ We have all seen that the US is more than capable of supporting their national team and many others in the past years and during the 2016 Copa America Centenario. However, in terms of TV viewership, a good measure for general interest, calling them leading is a bit over the top. Their viewership record is almost 25 million. France, with one sixth of the people has almost 21 million viewers as record, and they are not even that special like you said.


The last I saw the US had the 7th largest market in the world for watching soccer in raw numbers. That is relevant but more relevant is that it is very low as a percentage of the total market.

But what is even more relevant is the size of the expected market 5, 10 or 20 years from now. In 20 years the US and China will just swamp any other countries in size and wealth of the markets. It's up to FIFA (and the EPL, MLS, etc.) to make sure that that money is being spent on soccer not on Am. football, basketball, movies, concerts or any other entertainment.

Europe (Portugal to the Urals, arctic circle to Sicily) will be a comparable market. But it will speak 50 languages and vary enormously in culture. The US and China will have 1 language each and a consistent historical tradition. And unlike Europe, huge numbers of people are not already committed to a particular team or league. That's why FIFA needs to get into these markets by whatever means possible as soon as possible.

And, really, what better way than by having 48 countries show up in 200 locations with coverage on many of the local and national US sports channels? It's a marketer's dream.


----------



## aquamaroon

alexandru.mircea said:


> @aquamaroon: not sure why you would hold against US soccer fans the diversity of the US sports culture and the huge support the traditional US sports have. In the end this is a discussion comparing the what soccer means for the soccer fans in different countries.


Yeah I know it's hard to bring up without coming across as xenophobic and I apologize. I mean, for the record I AM hispanic (Colombian/Cuban on my dad's side) so it's not like I have anything against Spanish speaking television! :lol:

I just bring it up because a.) it's such a huge portion of the rating (by comparison most sports in the US have minimal ratings on ESPN deportes etc. compared to an English simulcast) and b.) it's something of a sign that a big chunk of soccer's popularity in the US is the result of immigrants bringing their game to the US rather than it being a fundamental bedrock element of american sporting culture. Now as those immigrants and especially their children become more and more a part of US society as the US becomes more multi-cultural as a whole? Then absolutely there'll be no separation there and soccer'll be as american as apple pie. But for now it's just a sign that soccer occupies a bit of a cultural niche here.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Yeah I know it's hard to bring up without coming across as xenophobic and I apologize. I mean, for the record I AM hispanic (Colombian/Cuban on my dad's side) so it's not like I have anything against Spanish speaking television! :lol:
> 
> I just bring it up because a.) it's such a huge portion of the rating (by comparison most sports in the US have minimal ratings on ESPN deportes etc. compared to an English simulcast) and b.) it's something of a sign that a big chunk of soccer's popularity in the US is the result of immigrants bringing their game to the US rather than it being a fundamental bedrock element of american sporting culture. Now as those immigrants and especially their children become more and more a part of US society as the US becomes more multi-cultural as a whole? Then absolutely there'll be no separation there and soccer'll be as american as apple pie. But for now it's just a sign that soccer occupies a bit of a cultural niche here.


Agree. A lot of the "plain vanilla" US fans are EPL or Champions League fans rather than fans of the US or any other country. Latin, Middle East and Caribbean ethnics make up a high percentage of fans in many parts of the country.

FIFA's job is mostly not with these people; they are going to watch much of the WC wherever it is. It's the rest of the US where the great marketing push has to come.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

aquamaroon said:


> soccer's popularity in the US is the result of immigrants bringing their game to the US rather than it being a fundamental bedrock element of american sporting culture.


That's debatable, but regardless, you're talking about club soccer, while the discussion I started is about national team support. If you look at the videos I posted you will see that the comfortable majority of faces there are faces of American ethnics instead of Latinos or other ethnicities. The latter are supporting the teams of the countries of their descent, which is also pretty remarkable on its own.


----------



## Rover030

alexandru.mircea said:


> That's debatable, but regardless, you're talking about club soccer, while the discussion I started is about national team support. If you look at the videos I posted you will see that the comfortable majority of faces there are faces of American ethnics instead of Latinos or other ethnicities. The latter are supporting the teams of the countries of their descent, which is also pretty remarkable on its own.


Doesn't the same happen in France? Many Dutch Moroccans and Turks support Morocco/Turkey first and the Netherlands second. Same with quite some players. I know that for the players at least the same happens in France, but maybe that's more due to the extremely high level of the squad.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

^ yes, it happens with Algeria, to a lesser extent Tunisia I think, and during the Euro 2016 final win it happened with Portugal as well. In fact, other than the Champs-Elysée march after the 1998 World Cup final win, all the spontaneous street partying by fans that I can think of here has been done by Algerians.


----------



## hafidmarocmaroc95

pesto said:


> This has been heavily in the news lately.
> 
> Morocco should form a joint bid with its neighbors (Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, etc.). The whole point of joint bids is to keep smaller poor countries from wasting money on projects that only benefit a few very wealthy construction companies and leave the taxpayers paying the check.



Algeria, Tunisia, Libya they are not safe countries


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Just a question.
In my own list, I selected 10 US host cities: NY, Washington DC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, SF and LA.

For the two last spots, I have the following choices:
* Boston or Philadelphia
* Las Vegas, Denver or Phoenix

In terms of transportation, accomodation, training facilities and stadium, what should be the two last cities to select ?


----------



## hafidmarocmaroc95




----------



## CaliforniaJones

Juanpabloangel said:


> I would say its going to go to North America... however an option for a future world cup might be if there was a joint bid between Morocco and Spain or Portugal. The primary host being the African nation with its own group games and and all successive rounds, including the final. They could aim for three or four world class venues which would certainly get filled each week and then offer one of the Iberians the chance to use their excellent infrastructure to complete all the other games... the other host getting the same deal for its group games and successive rounds excluding the final. That would be a world cup that I would enjoy attending.
> 
> It would annoy England too... I daresay they think they have the following world cup, as Europe is a certainty for the following edition.


I agree with that.

*Spainish stadia*

Camp Nou, Barcelona (99 354)
Estadio Santiago Bernabéu, Madrid (85 454)
Wanda Metropolitano, Madrid (67 703)
Estadio de La Cartuja, Sevilla (60 000)
Estadio Mestalla, Valencia (55 000)
San Mamés Barria, Bilbao (53 289)

*Portugese stadia*

Estádio da Luz, Lisbon (66 147)
Estádio do Dragão, Porto (50 948)
Estádio Jose Alvalade, Lisbon (50 044)

*Moroccan stadia*

Grand stade, Casablanca (80 000)
Stade Mohamed V, Casablanca (67 000)
Stade Moulay Abdallah, Rabat (65 000)
Stade Adrar, Agadir (45 480)
Stade de Marrakech, Marrakech (45 240)
Complexe Sportif de Fès, Fes (45 000)
Stade de Tanger, Tangier (45 000)

So Morocco would concentrate to upgrade some stadiums, transportation and other facilities.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Just a question.
> In my own list, I selected 10 US host cities: NY, Washington DC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, SF and LA.
> 
> For the two last spots, I have the following choices:
> * Boston or Philadelphia
> * Las Vegas, Denver or Phoenix
> 
> In terms of transportation, accomodation, training facilities and stadium, what should be the two last cities to select ?


Unfortunately, I think it is doubtful that more than 10 US cities get in; 5 or 6 spots are taken by Mexico and Canada. I drop Seattle and put in Boston from your basic 10 and leave it there.

If there is more, LV is next given the new stadium, the tourist potential and the media attention the city would get. Sight lines, transit, etc., are secondary when you are talking 65k in attendance and 200M watching, but LV has a huge airport and is walkable around the strip in any event.


----------



## pesto

hafidmarocmaroc95 said:


> Algeria, Tunisia, Libya they are not safe countries


If you don't want to partner with Algeria, Tunisia, etc., just say so. :lol: I was just mentioning a possibility for Morocco that would save huge expenditures on infrastructure and which FIFA has been promoting. If FIFA doesn't want those countries they could offer guidance on the issue.

On your theory you seem to eliminate practically all western European countries, including Spain which Morocco was negotiating with a few months back. Most of the rest of the world as well.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> I agree with that.
> 
> *Spainish stadia*
> 
> Camp Nou, Barcelona (99 354)
> Estadio Santiago Bernabéu, Madrid (85 454)
> Wanda Metropolitano, Madrid (67 703)
> Estadio de La Cartuja, Sevilla (60 000)
> Estadio Mestalla, Valencia (55 000)
> San Mamés Barria, Bilbao (53 289)
> 
> *Portugese stadia*
> 
> Estádio da Luz, Lisbon (66 147)
> Estádio do Dragão, Porto (50 948)
> Estádio Jose Alvalade, Lisbon (50 044)
> 
> *Moroccan stadia*
> 
> Grand stade, Casablanca (80 000)
> Stade Mohamed V, Casablanca (67 000)
> Stade Moulay Abdallah, Rabat (65 000)
> Stade Adrar, Agadir (45 480)
> Stade de Marrakech, Marrakech (45 240)
> Complexe Sportif de Fès, Fes (45 000)
> Stade de Tanger, Tangier (45 000)
> 
> So Morocco would concentrate to upgrade some stadiums, transportation and other facilities.


Sounds very much like what FIFA is recommending. 

Other potential groups are Arg/Ur/Para, SE Asia, or my favorite, the "Not England" group: Ireland, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and Holland. The Dutch could also link up with Scandinavia.

The point is to minimize the construction of new stadiums or other facilities not likely to get much future use. Plus the average stadium quality will go up since you would pick only the top 1-5 in each nation.


----------



## Knitemplar

CaliforniaJones said:


> Just a question.
> In my own list, I selected 10 US host cities: NY, Washington DC, Atlanta, Miami, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Seattle, SF and LA.
> 
> For the two last spots, I have the following choices:
> * Boston or Philadelphia
> * Las Vegas, Denver or Phoenix
> 
> In terms of transportation, accomodation, training facilities and stadium, what should be the two last cities to select ?


I'd say NYC, LA, Chicago, SF, DC, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, I think Orlando/Tampa over Miami; Seattle, and maybe Denver and LV. Remember, some cities w/ the under 70,000 stadia will probably get the elimination rounds; and then w/ quarters, semi-s, you build up to the cities with the larger stadia. So I'd say the US will go with at least 12 cities.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

News from Edmonton



> The community and public services committee hopes city council will approve a bid to host 2026 FIFA matches in Edmonton, bringing in an estimated US$170 million in economic impact, according to a report to be discussed at the committee meeting on Jan. 17.
> 
> The committee will also discuss bid timelines, requirements by the city, benefits and economic impacts for Edmonton that come from playing host.


Source


----------



## ElvisBC

_"To be part of the bid process, the city has to sign a FIFA host city agreement, stadium agreement and the training site agreement by Jan. 24, all of which are legally binding on the city"_
it is likely that some of potential host cities might find serious flaws in those documents and decide not to sign such a paper that legally binds them and carries heavy obligations as well. 


EDIT: also everyone here talks about DC being a strong candidate, all nice and fine, but DC does not have a single stadium that fits FIFA norms, and it is not even close to having one, so I see DC out unless they decide to build a brand new stadium!


----------



## Rover030

CaliforniaJones said:


> I agree with that.
> 
> *Spainish stadia*
> 
> Camp Nou, Barcelona (99 354)
> Estadio Santiago Bernabéu, Madrid (85 454)
> Wanda Metropolitano, Madrid (67 703)
> *[*]Estadio de La Cartuja, Sevilla (60 000)*
> *[*]Estadio Mestalla, Valencia (55 000)*
> San Mamés Barria, Bilbao (53 289)
> 
> *Portugese stadia*
> 
> Estádio da Luz, Lisbon (66 147)
> Estádio do Dragão, Porto (50 948)
> Estádio Jose Alvalade, Lisbon (50 044)
> 
> *Moroccan stadia*
> 
> Grand stade, Casablanca (80 000)
> Stade Mohamed V, Casablanca (67 000)
> Stade Moulay Abdallah, Rabat (65 000)
> Stade Adrar, Agadir (45 480)
> Stade de Marrakech, Marrakech (45 240)
> Complexe Sportif de Fès, Fes (45 000)
> Stade de Tanger, Tangier (45 000)
> 
> So Morocco would concentrate to upgrade some stadiums, transportation and other facilities.


Great selection, I would only suggest to replace Estadio de la Cartuja by Estadio Benito Villamarín, which is 60,720 right now, but they still need to replace the main stand and build a roof, so the capacity could increase or decrease a bit. Mestalla will probably be replaced by Nou Mestalla by then.

Also, Camp Nou will be 105k in ~2022 :cheers:

This would be a better world cup than Morocco only. It's a shame that this wasn't allowed for 2026 because of the Russia 2018. In 2030 much of the competition will fish from the same pond for votes so to speak.


----------



## marokko

hafidmarocmaroc95 said:


>


I think they forgot the Fez stadium, which already exists and which has currently also approximately 40.000 seats. Maybe it needs a bit of renovation though. Meknes is also an important city that is not mentioned. An there were also plans for a stadium at the Marchica lagoon at Nador close to the airport which is being expanded now. They could have chosen El Hoceima instead of Nador though. Both quite similar places, with nice nature and beaches. We will figure out soon I think ...


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> _"To be part of the bid process, the city has to sign a FIFA host city agreement, stadium agreement and the training site agreement by Jan. 24, all of which are legally binding on the city"_
> it is likely that some of potential host cities might find serious flaws in those documents and decide not to sign such a paper that legally binds them and carries heavy obligations as well.
> 
> 
> EDIT: also everyone here talks about DC being a strong candidate, all nice and fine, but DC does not have a single stadium that fits FIFA norms, and it is not even close to having one, so I see DC out unless they decide to build a brand new stadium!


On the other hand, it is the nation's capital; the 4th largest metro area (CSA); and full of monuments and such that look great on TV. I have seen at least 20 lists of guesses as to who's in and don't remember any that don't put it on. I would guess that every broadcaster would push for it.

I doubt there will be a new DC stadium by 2026 but it's possible. Landover seems the likely spot though some have argued that Baltimore (part of the DC Metro) is more likely.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Morocco 2026 World Cup Bid Hires International Consultants



> The Morocco 2026 World Cup bid, which has presented scarce details with six months until the vote, has hired international strategy consultants.
> 
> London-based VERO, which worked on Qatar's 2022 World Cup bid, says it will "shape the vision" of the expanded 48-team tournament in Morocco.


Source


----------



## marokko

Trumps comments today will not help USA I think. I think that not many "shithole countries" want to vote on USA. And I think that Trump, if asked, he would probably not like the WC in his country, because it could attract some people from "shithole countries". Maybe Mexico or Canada can repair some of the damage. Those are too influential countries.

:troll:


----------



## tinyslam

Again Trump will not be president in 2026 so I really don't think his idiocy should affect this.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

lol , the vote will be held in june , no one cares about what will happen in 2026

We are winning this


----------



## Colonel Ned

tinyslam said:


> Again Trump will not be president in 2026 so I really don't think his idiocy should affect this.


Would you mind usin' your brain please ??

YEs Trump will not be the president in 2026, it's ibvious ...
but the vote will be next june ... and I think Trump at that time shoud be much president than ever 

https://citizen.co.za/phakaaathi/phakaaathi-world/1781386/fbl-wc-2026-trump-concacaf-politics-immigration/

:bash::bash::bash:


----------



## Colonel Ned

Colonel Ned said:


> Hello friends,
> 
> I see that the thread takes great dimensions day after day, but please try to avoid speculative bubbles, and stay on the ground of reality.
> 
> As promised, I report some notes that may interest you on the Moroccan offer.
> 
> *Stadia:*
> Existing Stadiums (9):
> 
> Rabat Moulay Abdellah (52K),
> Casablanca Mohamed V (67K to be renovated to remove the athletics track, as Brazilian stadiums model),
> Fez (40K),
> Marrakech (45K to increase to 75K with layout of seats instead of athletics track),
> Agadir Adrar (45K),
> Tangier (45K to increase to its capacity initially decided 80K with added bleachers behind goals),
> Kenitra Municipal (first phase of 25K in progress, a second phase to reach 40K will start in 2020),
> Oujda Honour (current capacity 20K, will be increased to 40K with the addition of a floor. There is also a project to build a new stadium but it has not started yet, the decisions converge to the enlargement of the existing stadium),
> Meknes Honour (the current Stadium can accommodate 20K, there is a possibility to make it at 40K with fixed or temporary stands, with major interior and exterior fittings required)
> >>> These stadiums need to be upgraded, but this will not pose any major problems.
> 
> Stadiums currently in progress (2 of new generation stadiums):
> Tetouan (42K), El Hoceima (40K)
> 
> Decided construction of new stadiums: Financial package closed and studies phase finalized (3):
> Salé (neighbor city of Rabat, for 40K), El Jadida (40K),
> + Grand Casablanca (100K, Morocco wants to have the biggest stadium in Africa)
> 
> Optional construction (mentionned by media and public opinion):
> Nador (40K), Mohammedia (40K), Meknes (new, 40K)
> 
> FIFA has agreed to Morocco that only 2 stadiums can be 25K but with provisional seats provided during the competition to reach 40K (as in Brazil, Russia and Qatar). It will probably be the El Hoceima and Nador stadiums.
> 
> The required number is therefore respected, FIFA has demanded this number of stadiums (wit hsuch capacity) because it is the break-even point calculated for them to make profit.
> 
> *White elephants?*
> 
> This is a word that some forum members like to dump every time to show that there is a burden to bear for Morocco.
> 
> But, be assured, this shows only one reality: those members really ignore Morocco!
> 
> You can not compare a WC with Olympic Games. Sports facilities that Rio or Athens have built have become empty, but regarding soccer stadiums, they work very well. Morocco is a country passionate about soccer, the people love the local championship and closely follow the neighboring championship (Spain / Portugal), some still go on weekends to see games and return to work on Monday. The championship is experiencing a significant improvement, as attested by FIFA itself: this is the legacy that FIFA can offer.
> 
> You should know that the neighboring country (Algeria) is about to open 3 new stadiums of 40K in one shot (Tizi-Ouzou, Beraki and Oran) and is building 2 others (douera, Setif), it means that this region knows an orientation towards the construction of new sports buildings because of the justified need.
> 
> The existing stadiums are regularly filled in Morocco, and some stadiums offer parallel activities (conferences, animations, ...)
> 
> Morocco does not need to have an authorization by each stadium its bidding like the USA, there is only one authority for stadiums (SONARGES and Ministry of Sport)
> 
> *Airports:*
> 
> Each city is connected to an international airport of international standard.
> 
> Casablanca, El Jadida: Mohamed V Airport (5th largest in Africa) + Benslimane Airport
> Marrakesh: Menara Airport (Awarded Best Airport in Africa and Ranks 4th Most Beautiful in the World)
> El Hoceima: Charif Al Idrissi Airport
> Rabat, Salé : Salé Rabat Airport
> Fes: Saïss Airport
> Meknes: Bassatine Airport
> Oujda: Angad Airport
> Agadir: Al Massira Airport
> Tangiers: Ibn Batuta Airport
> Tetouan: Saniat Rmel Airport
> Nador: El Aroui Airport
> Beni Mellal: Beni Mellal Airport
> Essaouira: Mogador Airport
> Ifrane: Ifrane Airport
> Taza: Taza Airport
> 
> In addition, Morocco is a signatory of the Open Sky, hence the existence of several bases of low cost airlines and also a significant number of routes especially with all cities in Europe.
> 
> In addition, the airports are managed by a single authority: ONDA, while in the US, each airport is independent.
> 
> It will be necessary to add to this list some ports on the Mediterranean: Tanger Med (biggest in Mediterranean sea), El Hoceima and Nador (the ferries and the cruises are numerous between southern Europe and Morocco).
> 
> Not to mention Highways and high-speed train (...)
> 
> *Team Base Camp facilities*
> Morocco has several training camps. Their offer goes well beyond what FIFA requires (through the use of club centers, professional centers, prestigious university campuses, municipal stadiums, tourist villages: Morocco can offer up to 250 camps).
> 
> But the challenge is to upgrade those camps and make them have all necessarities (spa, conference center, swiming-pool, fields, massages, medical, residencies, catering ...)
> 
> Some examples of camps on the only city of Rabat (there are several others in Rabat and everywhere else) with GPS to see on Google Earth
> Club Camp FUS _33 ° 58'11 "N 6 ° 53'2" W_
> National Institue for Athletism	_33 ° 57'25 "N 6 ° 53'29" W_
> Maamora National Camp _34 ° 1'19 "N 6 ° 43'47" W_
> Sports Camp FAR _34 ° 2'18 "N 6 ° 43'30" W_
> 
> In addition: some European countries (Spain, France, Portugal, England) can easily opt for the Costa Del Sol or the Canaries or even Ceuta, Gibraltar ... without being condemned by FIFA.
> 
> In addition also, Morocco regularly receives football teams who carry out concentration training given the good weather condition and sports facilities and tourism (Sports Tourism).
> 
> *Financial ressources :*
> The economy of Morocco is a growing economy with stable perspectives, the existing stadiums were financed entirely by State. The budget allocated for the construction of the new stadiums and the renovation of the old ones was decided on the basis of a public-private partnership, to guarantee the speed and the quality of execution.
> 
> Morocco got a strong financial support of some friendly countries (notably UAE and KSA), moreover it is what pushed Infantino to make his statement in Dubai, where he favored a tripartite candidacy instead of having to bear the costs to One country, he had noticed the support of gulf countries to promote the Moroccan Bid, and wanted to balance things for North Americans, who still slept under snowstorms.
> 
> In this game, whatever the result, FIFA will not be condemned or accused, because the choice doesn't come from it, it will come from the vote of 207 countries. The FIFA ​​is there to set requirements, control transparency, and evaluate technical and financial offers.
> 
> So his role will stop with the dissemination of the inspection reports where each application will be given a rank and evaluated, then it will submit the decision to the General Assembly which is sovereign.
> 
> *Trump is Morocco's number 1 ally*
> Although the American Bid Committee is active in terms of promotion and communication, no positive sign has come from the White House, the rumors rather suggest a reluctance of Trump that USA can be an open door for foreigners in 2026.
> In addition, the bridges cut between USA and UN (+UNESCO : FIFA's main partners) and the non-signature of the Kyoto Protocol (which is inconsistent with FIFA's policy on climate change), is considered a highly negative point for the US Bid.
> 
> 
> *Other arguments:*
> - Morocco is a stable country with a low crime rate (unlike in the United States where the use of weapons is allowed, with a high risk of mass killing, which is risky for fans and soccer supporters, not to mention Mexico where drug barons kill each other every day and police can not even protect tourists)
> - As a supporter, Morocco remains the best option: No need for visas, affordable distances between cities cities, very low living costs, festivity and colors ...
> - Morocco is a friendly country to the environment, it organized in 2016 the COP22 mega event, while the USA withdrew to ratify any agreement that protects the environment
> - The US, although it is a country that conveys messages of peace and tolerance, is a country involved in the horrors of wars, and commercializes weapons of mass destruction (the biggest criminal state ever on earth)
> - In 1994, Morocco lost to the USA, I find it normal that the world gives reason to Morocco this time which is at its 5th application since the end of 80s
> - As USA for 2022 bid, Morocco was victim of corruption for the organization of WC 2010.
> - The real soccer stadiums in the USA are very small (except Miami and few others), otherwise the offer is based on stadiums belonging to football NFL (wich is shameful I think)
> - Moroccan bid is a topic that the whole people discuss while in USA or Canada: Nobody knows about any bidd (may be 5% of population or less have heard about american bid) !
> - True Americans care more about snow storms, hurricanes, forest fires and harder-to-manage living conditions than talking about soccer competition
> - In recent years Morocco has advanced in terms of infrastructure and events
> - Fan Fest: Morocco is a country that loves big festivals and events, it organizes mega famous concerts that attract hundreds of thousands of spectators (like Mawazine where the world stars come every year)
> 
> *In conclusion,*
> Morocco has all the necessary assets: stadiums, infrastructures, city landskapes, nature landskapes, nice people ....
> Those who support the North American candidacy in this forum, are not all real Americans, most are not native in USA, they are Latinos or Mexicans in general. The Americans do not care about WC bid.
> *The problem is that those members continue to think old way voting and believe that it is the decision of FIFA (FIFA grants ... FIFA has interest in ... FIFA must see ... if FIFA awards the FIFA organization to such and such a country .... FIFA FIFA FIFA ...) but guys, FIFA does not do any of that anymore, FIFA just sets requirements, evaluates the offer and watch the voting process (end of the story)*
> 
> In my opinion, it's not Morocco who challenges USA this time, but it's the opposite!


in addition to that, according to Moroccan Ministry of Tourism : "At the end of 2016, classified bed capacity attained 242 624 beds, accounting for about 11 290 additional beds compared to 2015. Three, four, and five-star hotels and hotel clubs represent 58% of the overall classified tourism accommodation establishments."

http://www.tourisme.gov.ma/en/tourism-figures/key-figures


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Morocco 2026 World Cup Bid Hires International Consultants
> 
> Source


As the article notes, Morocco has presented virtually no details on its plans with only 5 months to go. Finally getting some professional help at pulling a bid together has become critical.

It should be interesting to watch VERO's approach to setting forth Morocco's case in a more coherent form, and addressing outstanding legal issues.


----------



## Bouqebaz

marokko said:


> Trumps comments today will not help USA I think. I think that not many "shithole countries" want to vote on USA. *And I think that Trump, if asked, he would probably not like the WC in his country,* because it could attract some people from "shithole countries". Maybe Mexico or Canada can repair some of the damage. Those are too influential countries.
> 
> :troll:


Trump doesnt like to lose, let alone from an african "shithole" country. So I do think he will support it. Even if he doesnt support it, Morocco shouldnt think they can sit down and let mr Trump do the job for them.

The united-bid can easily use their celebrity-power for the marketing to cancel out the negativity. If they make someone like Oprah winfrey their ambassador and include a bunch of other influential people .....+ trump keeps his mouth shut during the last month, The United bid can absolutely win.


----------



## hafidmarocmaroc95

> The Royal Moroccan Football Federation (FRMF) has appointed London-based VERO Communications as the lead international communications and strategy agency to the Morocco 2026 FIFA World Cup bid.
> 
> VERO will work with the Federation and the Morocco 2026 Bid Committee to help shape the vision of a welcoming, passionate and authentic tournament in one of Africa’s most dynamic nations. VERO will be the lead agency on all aspects of international media and social media communications and work closely with bid leaders on overall campaign strategy.
> 
> VERO’s appointment comes after a hugely successful 2017 for the agency, which included advising Paris in its successful campaign to win the right to host the 2024 Olympic and Paralympic Games, as well as Andrew Parsons in his election as President of the International Paralympic Committee.
> 
> Mike Lee, Chairman of VERO Communications, said:
> 
> “We are delighted to be joining the Morocco 2026 Bid at this time and look forward to this exciting journey all the way to the FIFA Congress in June.
> 
> “Morocco is a truly welcoming country with an authentic passion for football, providing excellent conditions for players, easy for fans to access and get around and all in a single time zone. Its location at the crossroads of Europe and Africa, and East and West, means it also offers FIFA a superb commercial proposition.
> 
> “This promises to be a very interesting campaign as a country from Africa seeks the honour to host the most important footballing event on the planet.”


http://aroundtherings.com/site/A__6...-Morocco-2026-FIFA-World-Cup-Bid/292/Articles


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> Trumps comments today will not help USA I think. I think that not many "shithole countries" want to vote on USA. And I think that Trump, if asked, he would probably not like the WC in his country, because it could attract some people from "shithole countries". Maybe Mexico or Canada can repair some of the damage. Those are too influential countries.
> 
> :troll:


Trump has been a big supporter of the Olympic games and has entertained IOC Pres. Bach for hours at the White House. Bach found him to be a great supporter of international sport. The Homeland Security Dept. has said that it is very simple, everyone who wants to come to the games will be able to do so. Compare this to some countries who have limitations on people of particular religions, sexual orientations, political views, etc.

Likewise Trump is 100 percent in favor of the WC coming to the Canada, Mexico and the US. There will be no travel restrictions other than those that apply to anyone coming into the US. The head of the United bid has thanked Trump for his unqualified support.


----------



## marokko

pesto said:


> As the article notes, Morocco has presented virtually no details on its plans with only 5 months to go. Finally getting some professional help at pulling a bid together has become critical.
> 
> It should be interesting to watch VERO's approach to setting forth Morocco's case in a more coherent form, and addressing outstanding legal issues.


Just want to say that with most of my comments that I try to show that a lot of people way underestimate Morocco in this bid and that quite some people way overestimate the NAFTA bid. The NAFTA bid has more cracks than some want to admit (except stadiums and sponsors) and Morocco has some pretty strong arguments too (cheaper and greener WC than previous editions in a nice timezone) that people do not always want to admit. At first, I personally believed that Morocco's strategy was to organize WC 2030 (together with Spain and Portugal), but I think the country starts to believe that it actually can win against the NAFTA bid. Maybe that is why they are hiring now more organizations.


----------



## ElvisBC

@marokko

yes, you‘re right, most people underestimate morocco bid and there is a good reason for that. there has been close to zero information about it. they announced intention to bid few hours before the deadline and then kept their mouth shut! thats not the way how you normally bid. there has been some speculation morocco could refrain from bidding at the last moment and I think thats quite possible . I know a guy from tetouan, and his younger brother is huge potters fan, season ticket holder etc, we talk football whenever we meet. he told me few things that point into that direction. apoarently trump is the only chance they see, their biggest ally, but is that enough? 

FIFA world is rotten and corrupt, money is the only language 99% of members understand and money united bid promises is huge, everything else is secondary. so unless trump reallly screws up big time I see zero chance for moroccan bid, not even that much. yes, I‘d give it to morocco before I‘d give it to football ignorant americans, but thats not the way how FIFA works, so enjoy the bidding time and prepare yourself to lose. everything else would be shocker of the year, even bigger than qatar.


----------



## pesto

A slow day so I'll repeat myself once more.

Some seem to believe that people in leadership positions react to political comments in the same way that 5 year olds do: “Mommy, that man said a bad word. I won’t ever drink Coca Cola, watch Star Wars or listen to Justin Bieber again (unless he moves back to Canada).” 

Really, do you think that’s how sports business executives make their decisions? You figure CEO's go to their board and say “President Trump made me feel really sad with something he said so we decided to choose the proposal with the weaker stadiums and infrastructure, 2B less revenue for us and less penetration of the enormous US market which is our number 1 priority.” What choice would the board have but to fire you? 

That's the point of a well run organization. Your personal feeling should be wholly removed from the process. No matter how much you love Oprah.


----------



## Bouqebaz

ElvisBC said:


> @marokko
> 
> yes, youÂ‘re right, most people underestimate morocco bid and there is a good reason for that. there has been close to zero information about it. they announced intention to bid few hours before the deadline and then kept their mouth shut! thats not the way how you normally bid. there has been some speculation morocco could refrain from bidding at the last moment and I think thats quite possible . I know a guy from tetouan, and his younger brother is huge potters fan, season ticket holder etc, we talk football whenever we meet. he told me few things that point into that direction. apoarently trump is the only chance they see, their biggest ally, but is that enough?
> 
> FIFA world is rotten and corrupt, money is the only language 99% of members understand and money united bid promises is huge, everything else is secondary. so unless trump reallly screws up big time I see zero chance for moroccan bid, not even that much. yes, IÂ‘d give it to morocco before IÂ‘d give it to football ignorant americans, but thats not the way how FIFA works, so enjoy the bidding time and prepare yourself to lose. everything else would be shocker of the year, even bigger than qatar.


Don't forget July 1988, when they voted for WC 1994. US had 10 votes, Morocco 7! The main reason was its lack of infrastructure (only 2 stadiums ready). 30 years later, its infrastructure is no longer an obstacle. 


https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jul/04/usa-world-cup-94-inside-story

So if they lost in 1988 by such small difference while the country's infrastructure was almost non-existent, how can u be so certain u will definitely win now?

Both money & politics will play a big role.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> @marokko
> 
> yes, you‘re right, *most people underestimate morocco bid* and there is a good reason for that. there has been close to zero information about it. they announced intention to bid few hours before the deadline and then kept their mouth shut! thats not the way how you normally bid. there has been some speculation morocco could refrain from bidding at the last moment and I think thats quite possible . I know a guy from tetouan, and his younger brother is huge potters fan, season ticket holder etc, we talk football whenever we meet. he told me few things that point into that direction. apoarently trump is the only chance they see, their biggest ally, but is that enough?
> 
> FIFA world is rotten and corrupt, money is the only language 99% of members understand and money united bid promises is huge, everything else is secondary. so unless trump reallly screws up big time *I see zero chance for moroccan bid*, not even that much. yes, I‘d give it to morocco before I‘d give it to football ignorant americans, but thats not the way how FIFA works, so enjoy the bidding time and prepare yourself to lose. everything else would be shocker of the year, even bigger than qatar.


Oh, I see. :lol:


----------



## marokko

pesto said:


> A slow day so I'll repeat myself once more.
> 
> Some seem to believe that people in leadership positions react to political comments in the same way that 5 year olds do: “Mommy, that man said a bad word. I won’t ever drink Coca Cola, watch Star Wars or listen to Justin Bieber again (unless he moves back to Canada).”
> 
> Really, do you think that’s how sports business executives make their decisions? You figure CEO's go to their board and say “President Trump made me feel really sad with something he said so we decided to choose the proposal with the weaker stadiums and infrastructure, 2B less revenue for us and less penetration of the enormous US market which is our number 1 priority.” What choice would the board have but to fire you?
> 
> That's the point of a well run organization. Your personal feeling should be wholly removed from the process. No matter how much you love Oprah.


Yes, I indeed believe that politicians are like children, especially if you see who is ruling the USA and many other countries at this moment.

So thanks for the summary :troll:


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> Yes, I indeed believe that politicians are like children, especially if you see who is ruling the USA and many other countries at this moment.
> 
> So thanks for the summary :troll:


If you would like to make your beliefs more consistent with reality you should get off the internet and get involved in a business or well-run charitable organization. The leadership may be abrasive but they understand what the goals are. They would not tolerate you for long unless you focus on executing their ideas quickly, within budget and with high quality.

Politics has more PR and media obscuring reality since many people are ignorant of the processes and economic reality. But behind it is the same system: results or get out.


----------



## ElvisBC

Bouqebaz said:


> So if they lost in 1988 by such small difference while the country's infrastructure was almost non-existent, how can u be so certain u will definitely win now?


I ???
this was really good one :colgate:


----------



## Colonel Ned

dear Pesto, ElvisBC, and some others who know theirselves

I have a simple question for you, when you say
- *FIFA* is looking for money
- *FIFA* will be blamed for giving organization to Morocco
- *FIFA*'s decision is based on money
- *FIFA* shoud do this or that 
- *FIFA* will take into consideration this or that
- *FIFA* will chose the best or will decide about something ...

*How does FIFA decide? by what person? by which entity?*

Frankly, I just want to understand this point in your own words

Because if you insist on involving FIFA in the choice of the host country, you really off-side !

FIFA can not prevent a country (or group of countries) from submitting an offer (if Zimbabwe wants to apply it have the right).

_But who will decide to award the WC ?_

Before, it was FIFA (I totally agree and I say it loudly : FIIIIIIIIIIIFFFAAAAAAA !!!!), through its executive committee (the 24 corrupted members)

Now this is no longer the case, it is the whole planet that chooses (211 FA except candidates)

FIFA has stated and specified in the new procedure that it will limit itself to *setting requirementsand*, *evaluate offers* technically and financially before *submetting them to the general assembly* for *VOTE*.

Precisely, this is the reason why they innovated this procedure : to guarantee transparency and to no longer be accused of corruption

There is a *eliminatory step*, when the inspection commission evaluates offers on the basis of infrastructures, stadiums, transportations, hotels ..., and of course on the financial plan to attribute a notation (the eliminatory note is 2, if a candidate gets less than 2 he will be eliminated)

Do you understand the meaning and the phylosophy of my question?

Sincerely, if Morocco succed to pass the eliminatory stage of the inspection commission, it means that its offer will be submitted for the vote, and at that moment, I think that Morocco should have a serious option chance to get it.

Personally, I find that each offer has its strengths and weakness, but what is beautiful is the game of contrast: the two offers are opposed, the strengths of one are the weaknesses of the other

United // Morocco
- Bas time zone // Better time zone
- Totally existing infrastructure // partially existing infrastructure (almost are ready, need for few stadiums)
- Need a visa // no need (top ranked welcoming country)
- High cost for the poor fans // Affordable cost for all fans of the world
- Great distance between host cities // Short distance
- ... etc

So, let the inspection commission judge first if the two offers are admissibles, then let's go to speculation, and please, be more specific when you tell something about FIFA's role in this attribution :cheers:


----------



## Herms

Let's remember guys, the USA has already been beaten by a small emirate !
If they ever lose this bid, it will be a huge humiliation !


----------



## Colonel Ned

Herms said:


> Let's remember guys, the USA has already been beaten by a small emirate !
> If they ever lose this bid, it will be a huge humiliation !


A huge humiliation for the 3 (including Canada, wrongly trained by the USA in this weard bidd)

But for 2022, that was a case of huge bribery. 

USA still have the opportunity to recover its legimate right to organize 2022 if Qatar lose it (USA can even ask FIFA to allocate 48 places for 2022 at that moment)


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Seattle



> Chris Daniels‏Verified account
> @ChrisDaniels5
> Follow Follow @ChrisDaniels5
> More
> NEW: @SeattleCouncil to vote Tuesday on resolution in support for bringing the 2026 @FIFAcom World Cup to Seattle.
> 
> #Soccer #USMNT @SoundersFC #Seattle


----------



## Bouqebaz

ElvisBC said:


> I ???
> this was really good one :colgate:


Lol, Thought u were american

think because of ur name. makes me think of Elvis presley, therefore America.


----------



## pesto

Herms said:


> Let's remember guys, the USA has already been beaten by a small emirate !
> If they ever lose this bid, it will be a huge humiliation !


Yes, so big that no one in the US would even know, because virtually no one knows what FIFA is or cares about the WC. 

In truth, I hope Morocco wins. The big loser is FIFA who will have set up 9 years of Russia, Qatar and Morocco and non-stop headaches. And the big winner is the US, who doesn't have to waste money on stadiums, security, etc., and can let those who are interested watch on TV.


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> dear Pesto, ElvisBC, and some others who know theirselves
> 
> I have a simple question for you, when you say
> - *FIFA* is looking for money
> - *FIFA* will be blamed for giving organization to Morocco
> - *FIFA*'s decision is based on money
> - *FIFA* shoud do this or that
> - *FIFA* will take into consideration this or that
> - *FIFA* will chose the best or will decide about something ...
> 
> *How does FIFA decide? by what person? by which entity?*
> 
> Frankly, I just want to understand this point in your own words
> 
> Because if you insist on involving FIFA in the choice of the host country, you really off-side !
> 
> FIFA can not prevent a country (or group of countries) from submitting an offer (if Zimbabwe wants to apply it have the right).
> 
> _But who will decide to award the WC ?_
> 
> Before, it was FIFA (I totally agree and I say it loudly : FIIIIIIIIIIIFFFAAAAAAA !!!!), through its executive committee (the 24 corrupted members)
> 
> Now this is no longer the case, it is the whole planet that chooses (211 FA except candidates)
> 
> FIFA has stated and specified in the new procedure that it will limit itself to *setting requirementsand*, *evaluate offers* technically and financially before *submetting them to the general assembly* for *VOTE*.
> 
> Precisely, this is the reason why they innovated this procedure : to guarantee transparency and to no longer be accused of corruption
> 
> There is a *eliminatory step*, when the inspection commission evaluates offers on the basis of infrastructures, stadiums, transportations, hotels ..., and of course on the financial plan to attribute a notation (the eliminatory note is 2, if a candidate gets less than 2 he will be eliminated)
> 
> Do you understand the meaning and the phylosophy of my question?
> 
> Sincerely, if Morocco succed to pass the eliminatory stage of the inspection commission, it means that its offer will be submitted for the vote, and at that moment, I think that Morocco should have a serious option chance to get it.
> 
> Personally, I find that each offer has its strengths and weakness, but what is beautiful is the game of contrast: the two offers are opposed, the strengths of one are the weaknesses of the other
> 
> United // Morocco
> - Bas time zone // Better time zone
> - Totally existing infrastructure // partially existing infrastructure (almost are ready, need for few stadiums)
> - Need a visa // no need (top ranked welcoming country)
> - High cost for the poor fans // Affordable cost for all fans of the world
> - Great distance between host cities // Short distance
> - ... etc
> 
> So, let the inspection commission judge first if the two offers are admissibles, then let's go to speculation, and please, be more specific when you tell something about FIFA's role in this attribution :cheers:



I agree with much of this and I'm glad to see you are off the Trump rants which really are zeros in the big picture.

As with the Olympics, the move in international sports (among many other quasi-governmental institutions) has been toward openness, accountability and proper management. I was surprised how quickly IOC Pres. Bach had centralized power and minimized the roll of the individual national organizations, which were run by 19th century "old boy" methods and resulted in scandals and horrible wastes of money, sometimes in very poor countries.

The upcoming FIFA selection process will give some indication if Infantino is successfully moving FIFA out of the world of voting based on bribes, mutual deals among countries, decisions based on religious, racial or political hatred, etc. and into the 21st century. 

Some signs are positive (elimination of costs and waste, emphasis on joint bids, emphasis on financial and technical review) but it's not clear to me to what extent the bad actors have been cleared out of the national organizations and replaced with professional managers, financial and technical people. 

To me, the most interesting thing for the next several months will be the talks and maneuvering re establishing effective central control and rational operating principles.


----------



## aquamaroon

pesto said:


> In truth, I hope Morocco wins. The big loser is FIFA who will have set up 9 years of Russia, Qatar and Morocco and non-stop headaches. And the big winner is the US, who doesn't have to waste money on stadiums, security, etc., and can let those who are interested watch on TV.



You got that right! :cheers:


----------



## marokko

pesto said:


> If you would like to make your beliefs more consistent with reality you should get off the internet and get involved in a business or well-run charitable organization. The leadership may be abrasive but they understand what the goals are. They would not tolerate you for long unless you focus on executing their ideas quickly, within budget and with high quality.
> 
> Politics has more PR and media obscuring reality since many people are ignorant of the processes and economic reality. But behind it is the same system: results or get out.


So childish again. I got a very good job in the bussines sector. And worked for UN in the past ... I hear now trump kind of reasoning from you: if you don't have a good argument left in your favor (In this case politics related), then use a personal attack to divert a discussion. Very cheap stuff. And all of this just because my opinion is that some overestimate NAFTA chances and some underestimate Morocco's chances. In 1988 Morocco just lost by 3 votes from the USA and now you have Trump and that actually does worry the head of CONCACAF. 

As I said earlier, I really don't mind NAFTA to get it, because they are also good options for the WC. Morocco and NAFTA (if it still exist next year) are also good friends. Did you e.g. know that Morocco was officially the first country on earth that recognized USA's independence? In addition, A WC would probably be a headache for Morocco due to the media. I already see western media again complaining about all kind of stuff. We saw that happening to all non-western developing countries that organized a big event. It all is just too predictable lately.

Lastly, I'm going to refrain myself from this thread as you wanted haha. Just don't think this discussion is worth my time


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> Yes, so big that no one in the US would even know, because virtually no one knows what FIFA is or cares about the WC.
> 
> In truth, I hope Morocco wins. The big loser is FIFA who will have set up 9 years of Russia, Qatar and Morocco and non-stop headaches. And the big winner is the US, who doesn't have to waste money on stadiums, security, etc., and can let those who are interested watch on TV.


Would you mind please explaining how FIFA risks going bankrupt? 

Then, what's the point of setting high levels of requirements for bidders in this case ?

*FIFA will never go bankrupt as long as soccer exists in the world*

However, if you have sympathy for their funds, why don't you, as an American, claim to recover your right to organize the 2022 edition, instead of facing a beautifull country that deserves it more than USA ?!

Are you afraid of Mexicans who will get mad? they want to have a 3rd organization (via only 10 games), while Canadians want an undeserved and automatic qualification with only 10 games ...and why not qualify Cuba also by giving them 1 or 2 games ?

USA, although it is one soccer association, but it is a groupment of 50 states, so in the end, the USA could well organize the WC alone (a joint offer of 20 states under the umbrella of one association)

I invite you to create a hashtag # on social networks to get back your legitimate right to organize the 2022 edition as long as you can, before other countries jump on the occasion, because Qatar in my opinion, will never organize any WC game, their situation is complicated day after day and they will surely give up under international community pressure.

And don't be afraid of Mexicans (it's the only "UnitedBid" people interested in the WC story, it's not even Canadian or American), I say that and I know that Mexican members here will hate me (I guess you too are latino native regarding you name) ... but I have a calm conscience.

I think that a scenario Russia 18 / USA 22 (offering 48 teams too) / Morocco 26 will leave the whole planet happy ...:cheers: think about it


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> So childish again. I got a very good job in the bussines sector. And worked for UN in the past ... I hear now trump kind of reasoning from you: if you don't have a good argument left in your favor (In this case politics related), then use a personal attack to divert a discussion. Very cheap stuff. And all of this just because my opinion is that some overestimate NAFTA chances and some underestimate Morocco's chances. In 1988 Morocco just lost by 3 votes from the USA and now you have Trump and that actually does worry the head of CONCACAF.
> 
> As I said earlier, I really don't mind NAFTA to get it, because they are also good options for the WC. Morocco and NAFTA (if it still exist next year) are also good friends. Did you e.g. know that Morocco was officially the first country on earth that recognized USA's independence? In addition, A WC would probably be a headache for Morocco due to the media. I already see western media again complaining about all kind of stuff. We saw that happening to all non-western developing countries that organized a big event. It all is just too predictable lately.
> 
> Lastly, I'm going to refrain myself from this thread as you wanted haha. Just don't think this discussion is worth my time


Sorry to hear you are leaving the thread; I thought your posts were getting a bit better. You do worry me if you are working for groups making decisions based on Trump's rants. Did they cancel their other news services and just scan his Twitter page? I guess it really saves on staff and consultants as well.

You are right that a WC would be bad for Morocco. Basically for everyone except the very rich construction companies who would feast on taxpayer funds that could have gone for other uses. And of course the politicians who have to be fed to get the contracts. But some think this is OK because it allows local sports fans to brag in chat rooms like this one and the poor who lose far, far more don't post much. :lol:


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> Would you mind please explaining how FIFA risks going bankrupt?
> 
> Then, what's the point of setting high levels of requirements for bidders in this case ?
> 
> *FIFA will never go bankrupt as long as soccer exists in the world*
> 
> However, if you have sympathy for their funds, why don't you, as an American, claim to recover your right to organize the 2022 edition, instead of facing a beautifull country that deserves it more than USA ?!
> 
> Are you afraid of Mexicans who will get mad? they want to have a 3rd organization (via only 10 games), while Canadians want an undeserved and automatic qualification with only 10 games ...and why not qualify Cuba also by giving them 1 or 2 games ?
> 
> USA, although it is one soccer association, but it is a groupment of 50 states, so in the end, the USA could well organize the WC alone (a joint offer of 20 states under the umbrella of one association)
> 
> I invite you to create a hashtag # on social networks to get back your legitimate right to organize the 2022 edition as long as you can, before other countries jump on the occasion, because Qatar in my opinion, will never organize any WC game, their situation is complicated day after day and they will surely give up under international community pressure.
> 
> And don't be afraid of Mexicans (it's the only "UnitedBid" people interested in the WC story, it's not even Canadian or American), I say that and I know that Mexican members here will hate me (I guess you too are latino native regarding you name) ... but I have a calm conscience.
> 
> I think that a scenario Russia 18 / USA 22 (offering 48 teams too) / Morocco 26 will leave the whole planet happy ...:cheers: think about it


Why should FIFA go bankrupt? I assume you are being facetious. Qatar was unfortunate but looks like a done deal. I don't understand what your Mexico or 50 states talk is about but I am guessing it is also facetious.

If we are negotiating, how about United 2026? Morocco could work with its neighbors for 2034. This would give enough time to develop and begin a general plan for cooperation and growth that would better support the expenses required to host a WC. If FIFA is not yet ready for change, at least in a few years it will be taking more interest in re-usability, rational expenditures and related issues.


----------



## ElvisBC

america and fans .. half heinz field already went home
fifa, please give the world cup to morocco


----------



## CaliforniaJones

United 2026 Transportation





































There should be clusters between close host cities, such as:
*Montreal, Boston, NY
*Toronto, Chicago
*Seattle, Vancouver
*Montere, Dallas
*Guadalajara, LA
*Miami, Mexico City

And many other combinations.


----------



## pesto

Ground transit is a medium risk. I guess that means that it's not practical to drive from NY to LA. Or maybe that the 405 could be jammed a bit. :lol:

That is one thing that visitors to the US should adjust to: you WANT a car (not a train or bus) in the US. The spectacular sights are often the oceans, mountains, falls, rivers, etc. Car rentals (even mid-size cars) and gas are cheap.

I also like the fact that the Mandarin Oriental is in play. Maybe they can get a nice suite for under 3k.


----------



## ElvisBC

isn't that the evaluation report from 7 years ago?


----------



## AceOfSpades

pesto said:


> A slow day so I'll repeat myself once more.
> 
> Some seem to believe that people in leadership positions react to political comments in the same way that 5 year olds do: “Mommy, that man said a bad word. I won’t ever drink Coca Cola, watch Star Wars or listen to Justin Bieber again (unless he moves back to Canada).”
> 
> Really, do you think that’s how sports business executives make their decisions? You figure CEO's go to their board and say “President Trump made me feel really sad with something he said so we decided to choose the proposal with the weaker stadiums and infrastructure, 2B less revenue for us and less penetration of the enormous US market which is our number 1 priority.” What choice would the board have but to fire you?
> 
> That's the point of a well run organization. Your personal feeling should be wholly removed from the process. No matter how much you love Oprah.


100% true. Unfortunately for you and fortunately for us Moroccans, it's not the organization (FIFA) that is choosing the winner but all the member FAs.


----------



## AceOfSpades

pesto said:


> You are right that a WC would be bad for Morocco. Basically for everyone except the very rich construction companies who would feast on taxpayer funds that could have gone for other uses. And of course the politicians who have to be fed to get the contracts. But some think this is OK because it allows local sports fans to brag in chat rooms like this one and the poor who lose far, far more don't post much. :lol:


So does your logic apply to Moroccans building high speed railways, deep sea ports, organizing world class music and cinema festivals, increasing culture governmental budgets, hotel and resorts building..... all that don't directly benefit the very poor as bad investments? So how is this nation supposed to prosper if it's not for projects like these? 

The truth is that Morocco only needs to build 2 new stadiums and renovate the rest. This is way within our financial capabilities. All of the rest (Hotels, Trams, High speed railways.....) are already included in our yearly development strategies, with or without a world cup. 

You and Mr Orangutan-in-the-white house share the same idea that Morocco is a shithole, while this is a vibrant society with a solid and diversified economy as well as a decentralized urban planning that guarantees consistent levels of development throughout the kingdom. 

As for the very rich preying on the very poor.... Isn't America the "1%" nation? Don't you have a meth epidemic to take care of? Aren't your poor bedridden because the only food they can afford is fattening poison? Aren't your poor men and women sent to die in the battlefields for corporate interests? 

I think that it's about time you start showing some decency in your comments and a minimum of respect towards Morocco.


----------



## ElvisBC

I think most of you are going too far with this one. It is fine to defend your own countries and point their advantages but it should stop there. This was very nice discussion until emotions came into play. 

Luckily this is a great forum and it has beautiful ignore function ...


----------



## AceOfSpades

Every discussion is bound to a minimum of decency and respect. I'm just pointing out a flaw in the way some messages are worded.


----------



## DimadimaAsia

Although I'm Moroccan honestly Morocco has nothing to do with the organisation of a WC we're still struggling to create enough jobs for the growing population, All those investments should go to upgrade the infrastructure and build new factories where people are still struggling to make a living! Heck even China has suspended the application until it makes sense, the USA is going to win this for sure


----------



## AceOfSpades

DimadimaAsia said:


> Although I'm Moroccan honestly Morocco has nothing to do with the organisation of a WC we're still struggling to create enough jobs for the growing population, All those investments should go to upgrade the infrastructure and build new factories where people are still struggling to make a living! Heck even China has suspended the application until it makes sense, the USA is going to win this for sure


1- Governments don't use public funds to build factories. 
2- China is more than ready to host a WC. They aren't allowed to bid because Qatar, an Asian country will host the 2022 WC. 

I would be against a Moroccan bid for the olympics but not a WC. Events like these can propel a nation to the next level and generate a sense of pride and positivity in society.


----------



## pesto

AceOfSpades said:


> So does your logic apply to Moroccans building high speed railways, deep sea ports, organizing world class music and cinema festivals, increasing culture governmental budgets, hotel and resorts building..... all that don't directly benefit the very poor as bad investments? So how is this nation supposed to prosper if it's not for projects like these?
> 
> The truth is that Morocco only needs to build 2 new stadiums and renovate the rest. This is way within our financial capabilities. All of the rest (Hotels, Trams, High speed railways.....) are already included in our yearly development strategies, with or without a world cup.
> 
> You and Mr Orangutan-in-the-white house share the same idea that Morocco is a shithole, while this is a vibrant society with a solid and diversified economy as well as a decentralized urban planning that guarantees consistent levels of development throughout the kingdom.
> 
> As for the very rich preying on the very poor.... Isn't America the "1%" nation? Don't you have a meth epidemic to take care of? Aren't your poor bedridden because the only food they can afford is fattening poison? Aren't your poor men and women sent to die in the battlefields for corporate interests?
> 
> I think that it's about time you start showing some decency in your comments and a minimum of respect towards Morocco.


How do I show lack of respect for Morocco? I apply the same standards to US projects that involve public funds.

It is just a fact that the IOC and other international organizations have been catching heat and are now reforming so that countries will not spend huge amounts on unneeded projects. Check the Olympics threads.

Morocco and the United bid should be equally scrutinized to see if the expenditures are in line with the guidelines that organizations have adopted. Among these are whether the costs involved are reasonable given the continuing use of the project (stadium, roads, trains, etc.). This is simply a part of the process, just like analyzing revenues, media deals, security, etc. This is precisely what this discussion is about: how do the two bids stack up in terms of the FIFA standards.

The US has no issues over new construction because there essentially won't be any (see the FIFA reports on stadiums, transit, etc.). But if there were issues you can be completely assured that I would point them out and criticize the US bid. I criticize US cities constantly on other threads.


----------



## pesto

DimadimaAsia said:


> Although I'm Moroccan honestly Morocco has nothing to do with the organisation of a WC we're still struggling to create enough jobs for the growing population, All those investments should go to upgrade the infrastructure and build new factories where people are still struggling to make a living! Heck even China has suspended the application until it makes sense, the USA is going to win this for sure


A perfectly reasonable post. I take the same attitude.

Like the people of many cities I oppose spending any public funds on having the Olympics in the US. I supported the LA bid because it was PRIVATELY financed. No monies were transferred away from city or state public projects or uses.

I would suggest that every country follow this rule. A key test of this might be to see if the hospitality industry and other economic beneficiaries are willing to be taxed to fund the costs of construction. This will show whether there really is any economic benefit expected generally or if it all goes to the rich few.


----------



## pesto

AceOfSpades said:


> So does your logic apply to Moroccans building high speed railways, deep sea ports, organizing world class music and cinema festivals, increasing culture governmental budgets, hotel and resorts building..... all that don't directly benefit the very poor as bad investments? So how is this nation supposed to prosper if it's not for projects like these?
> 
> The truth is that Morocco only needs to build 2 new stadiums and renovate the rest. This is way within our financial capabilities. All of the rest (Hotels, Trams, High speed railways.....) are already included in our yearly development strategies, with or without a world cup.
> 
> You and Mr Orangutan-in-the-white house share the same idea that Morocco is a shithole, while this is a vibrant society with a solid and diversified economy as well as a decentralized urban planning that guarantees consistent levels of development throughout the kingdom.
> 
> As for the very rich preying on the very poor.... Isn't America the "1%" nation? Don't you have a meth epidemic to take care of? Aren't your poor bedridden because the only food they can afford is fattening poison? Aren't your poor men and women sent to die in the battlefields for corporate interests?
> 
> I think that it's about time you start showing some decency in your comments and a minimum of respect towards Morocco.



Why would I object to any project that results in a useful, productive asset? 

I would object to a port project if the port were never going to be used or if its cost were excessive in terms of available alternatives. This would seem to imply some pay-offs between the builder and the government officials involved in the decision, but in any event is an economic waste. A "white elephant".


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> isn't that the evaluation report from 7 years ago?


That would explain it. The years are a bit off and the discussion is of events that have taken place some time back.


----------



## GunnerJacket

AceOfSpades said:


> 1- Governments don't use public funds to build factories.


It isn't unheard of for governments to provide tax breaks and/or other incentives to businesses however in exchange for the development of a new factory or to relocate into their jurisdiction. Amazon is expected to land $300M + in terms of financial incentives to build their second headquarters that might employ 5,000 people.


----------



## Bouqebaz

pesto said:


> *Ground transit is a medium risk*. I guess that means that it's not practical to drive from NY to LA. Or maybe that the 405 could be jammed a bit. :lol:
> 
> That is one thing that visitors to the US should adjust to: you WANT a car (not a train or bus) in the US. The spectacular sights are often the oceans, mountains, falls, rivers, etc. Car rentals (even mid-size cars) and gas are cheap.
> 
> I also like the fact that the Mandarin Oriental is in play. Maybe they can get a nice suite for under 3k.


not only the big distances are impractical.
what about 3 different currencies visitors need,
need to cross borders every time a match is in another country...etc.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Bouqebaz said:


> not only the big distances are impractical.
> what about 3 different currencies visitors need,
> *need to cross borders every time a match is in another country*...etc.


yep and many fans need 3 visas for that :lol:


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> not only the big distances are impractical.
> what about 3 different currencies visitors need,
> need to cross borders every time a match is in another country...etc.


If FIFA is really very concerned about travel, they just have to eliminate a few cities. Canada would eliminate Vancouver and stick to Toronto and Quebec, which are near the US border and can easily form groups with Chicago, NY, Boston, Detroit, Philadelphia and DC.

Monterrey is not far from Dallas and Houston. The DF is near Guadalajara but not near anything else, so that's a bit of a problem.

The West Coast could be LA (3 stadiums, no travel), LV and SJ (45 minutes by air) and Phoenix (1 hr. by air). And the airports are VERY near the stadiums in all three cities.

They may just have to abandon Seattle, Vancouver, Denver, Atlanta and Miami as locations. But I doubt FIFA is that fixated on minimizing travel.


----------



## pesto

Rabat with love 2 said:


> yep and many fans need 3 visas for that :lol:


I suspect you are right; this will be a bit of nuisance. But I would guess that few or no teams will play in all three countries. That just seems like poor planning.

I also would suggest that you have proof of having a job or other means of support and a fixed home address. Besides terrorism the big worry in the US is that people come in on a one month visa and stay 40 years. :lol:


----------



## pesto

A couple of stray thoughts.

I have assumed that in June either Morocco or the United bid will be selected. But there is also the possibility that FIFA will find issues with each and re-open the bidding. As I understand it, in that case any country or group of countries could enter a bid.

Such action could also arise if FIFA is unhappy with the polling and needs more time to get the local federations in line with FIFA policy.

It will also be interesting to see what public strategy VERO adopts. They presumably will avoid talking about stadiums and infrastructure and emphasize (as we have done here) the intensity of local fans, same time zone markets, etc.

Even more interesting will be any leaks about what VERO is discussing privately with FIFA, Morocco and the federations. This of course could vary dramatically from the public discussions.


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> A couple of stray thoughts.
> 
> I have assumed that in June either Morocco or the United bid will be selected. But there is also the possibility that FIFA will find issues with each and re-open the bidding. As I understand it, in that case any country or group of countries could enter a bid.


Yeah, except FIFA - doing what they always do - changed their rules to get this bid over the line (eliminating the possibility of bids from Europe, the strongest competition the US could've faced, and allowing joint bids). I can't see it being rejected. They've done everything in their power to ease its passage so far.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> Yeah, except FIFA - doing what they always do - changed their rules to get this bid over the line (eliminating the possibility of bids from Europe, the strongest competition the US could've faced, and allowing joint bids). I can't see it being rejected. They've done everything in their power to ease its passage so far.


Combined with lots of talk about how multi-national bids are the future. Don't be surprised if they're talking about the benefits of a compact World Cup when it comes to bidding for 2030. FIFA will always have an agenda (money) and the rules will change to suit that agenda.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Combined with lots of talk about how multi-national bids are the future. Don't be surprised if they're talking about the benefits of a compact World Cup when it comes to bidding for 2030. *FIFA will always have an agenda (money) and the rules will change to suit that agenda*.


Joint bids are just too obvious a solution to pass-by. They will almost always result in higher quality stadiums and less spending on infrastructure and will bring smaller countries into the process. 

But I'm not sure how joint bids help with money for FIFA except in the indirect sense of relieving it from criticism and broadening the base of eligible countries. It's stretching the meaning of "money-hungry" or "greed" when it is also egalitarian, eco-friendly and saves the bidders money.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Morocco Wants to Host the World Cup. Just Don’t Ask for Any Details.



> In contrast to the joint candidacy of the United States, Mexico and Canada — a bid announced last August atop the Freedom Tower in New York with firm handshakes and signed contracts — Morocco revealed its entry into the race in a two-sentence statement that, in hindsight, seems verbose. Five months later, Moroccan soccer officials have provided scant detail about how they propose to stage the world’s biggest sporting event.
> 
> There are five months to go before FIFA selects the 2026 host, Morocco only last week named a chairman of its bid committee. As yet the bid has no logo to paste on billboards, no slogan to trumpet in news releases, no flashy stadium plan to share with potential voters. It doesn’t even have a website. In the past, bid committees have had all of these basic features in place more than a year ahead of a selection vote, and bid leaders would have long ago commenced globe-trotting campaign trips to attempt to secure support, sharing an outline of a bid’s plans for matches, transportation and accommodations along the way.
> 
> Last week, numerous local soccer officials recoiled when asked to comment on the plans and declined to discuss the bid on the record. On the city’s labyrinthine streets, some merchants, like the fish-seller and self-described soccer fan Abdulrahman Koudri, said they had no idea Morocco was even trying to secure what would be the biggest sporting event ever held on the African continent.


New York Times


----------



## Bouqebaz

> MoroccoÂ’s plan for the World Cup will include the construction of *several new stadiums that can be reduced in size after the tournamen*t, according to an official with direct knowledge of the bid. The official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said *matches would be held in as many as 15 cities*, and that the compact size of the country relative to its rival bidders also would be promoted.


interesting.

I think:

Agadir 
Al Hoceima 
Casablanca (2x)
El Jadida
Beni mellal 
Kenitra 
Khouribga 
Marrakech 
Meknes
Fes
Rabat 
Sale
Tanger 
TÃ©touan
Oujda


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Sunil Gulati: Perceptions of U.S. affecting 2026 World Cup bid



> The joint bid is considered a heavy favorite to win given the superior stadiums and tourism infrastructure that the three countries have compared to Morocco, the lone competitor.
> 
> But Gulati acknowledged there is much more to winning the bid than those aforementioned attributes.
> 
> "This is not only about our stadiums and our hotels and all that," he said on Thursday during a public forum hosted by Fox broadcaster Alexi Lalas at the United Soccer Coaches convention.
> 
> "It's about perceptions of America, and it's a difficult time in the world. So there's only certain things we can control. We can't control what happens at the 38th parallel in Korea, we can't control what happens with embassies in Tel Aviv, and we can't control what happens with climate change accords.
> 
> "We do the best we can. We have the support of Washington."


ESPN


----------



## Colonel Ned

ElvisBC said:


> yes, I know some facts, other than you and few others who write long posts here based on assumptions and who claim their opinion to be the ultimate truth and repeat themselves over and over. I have no intention enlightening you because Im nor sure if that's possible, but here for the others:
> 
> about financials, here, you can read it:
> FIFA Financial Reports
> 
> FIFA Financial Report 2016
> FIFA Financial and Governance Report 2015
> FIFA Financial Report 2014
> .....etc
> 
> in short lines, in the past it was around 1 million USD, infantino then promised, and paid double if elected. he also promised much more coming thanks to 40 (later increased to 48) teams world cup. this would obviously get much more with united bid than with moroccan one.
> 
> so I am telling money rules the world, you say politics. we'll find out whos right in few months from now












_



FIFA spent a total of USD 1,052 million or *20% of overall expenditure* on development projects, allocating USD 538 million to the Financial Assistance Programme (FAP), which included, due to the financial success of the 2011-2014 period, an extraordinary FAP payment of USD 261 million to all its member associations and the confederations (see also page 46), USD 123 million to the Goal Programme and USD 391 million for other development projects.

Click to expand...

_Is that FIFA's solidarity with all FAs?

Only 20% of its income from WC 2014 was allocated to projects? (including the Goal program that I mentioned above)

Well ... I know how feverish you are to see this WC in the USA, but hopefully it's not every day that money buys everything, and it's not 20% of revenue that will buy all the voices of the world.

Fortunately there is still wisdom in the world ...

And for those who dare to insult the nations by calling them "poor", those persons are the truly poor in their spirit, because they are so materialistic that they have no real sense of life.

And for information, Morocco benefits from a huge financial support to upgrade all its sports facilities (friendly countries of gulf, European partners, and even FIFA itself will contribute as it did for Brazil and South Africa), without forgetting the public-private-partnership as far as opening door to private sector to invest in soccer infrastructures. So, by what right do you dare to say that Morocco will finance it by the citizen's money?

you have a chronic illness: Blind arrogance (same as current potus)

Pray for Morocco to not pass the voting stage, otherwise the day when the world will kick US' ass will be unforgettable.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Its all about the vote , we need 104 votes to win .
The US newspapers say that they are heavy favorite !! favortie in what exaclty ? Infrastructures ? Yes 
But its gonna be all about the vote


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Dikembe Mutombo wearing a scarf of United Bid.


Wow! Great to see Dikembe again! The only two times I went to a basketball game just to see a specific player were for him and Manute Bol. 

NOT IN MY HOUSE!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

From the Whashington Post



> Mexico has hosted the World Cup twice (1970 and 1986) and the United States staged the tournament in 1994. The latter event set attendance records and turned enormous profits for both FIFA and the local organizing committee.
> 
> Those factors, combined with a three-nation bid featuring dozens of quality stadiums and a rising fervor for the sport in the United States and Canada, seemed to give the North American campaign a giant advantage over a small country. Available infrastructure and facilities to accommodate the first World Cup with a field of 48 teams — a 50 percent increase — furthered strengthened the bid.





> Even though Trump would not be in office in 2026, his administration has had to provide *assurances to FIFA that the government will support the tournament*. *And a victory in the FIFA vote would, by extension, be a victory for the current administration.*


LA was awarded the 2028 Olympics, without Trump's help. His administration gave all guarantees to the IOC.



> Gulati and other bid officials will continue their campaign in London and Lausanne, Switzerland, next week and Muscat, Oman, in a few weeks.


I expect the bid committee will outline strong infrastructures, with no extra expenses, accomodation, venues and many others. It could use some of Infantino's vision about joint-bids. But the most important would be to choose ambassadors among some former mls foreign players, representatives of diversity and veterans from 1970, 1986 and 1994 World Cups. The key word would be solidarity and unity among inside countries, between joint bidders and with the World.
It would have to also have some distance from Trump.
Money could be interesting if it's said to be given to FIFA for small FA members.
Why not invite Obama ?

But wait and see all Bid Books.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> From the Whashington Post
> 
> LA was awarded the 2028 Olympics, without Trump's help. His administration gave all guarantees to the IOC.
> 
> I expect the bid committee will outline strong infrastructures, with no extra expenses, accomodation, venues and many others. It could use some of Infantino's vision about joint-bids. But the most important would be to choose ambassadors among some former mls foreign players, representatives of diversity and veterans from 1970, 1986 and 1994 World Cups. The key word would be solidarity and unity among inside countries, between joint bidders and with the World.
> It would have to also have some distance from Trump.
> Money could be interesting if it's said to be given to FIFA for small FA members.
> Why not invite Obama ?
> 
> But wait and see all Bid Books.


A bit mixed in quality.

He misses on Trump who spoke with Bach and met with him at the White House regarding security, travel and other issues. LA Mayor Garcetti (a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton) said that Trump did everything he was asked to do to support the bid, including guaranteeing there would be no travel issues and full payment for security.

For sure we need to wait for the bid books. I suspect that VERO is in to help bring them together and to sweet talk FIFA about what could be done with more time and more money. FIFA will want to understand how that works since it is wary of deals or solutions that could land people in courtrooms. 

Interesting to see what the FIFA review will say about the potential for corruption or self-dealing by political insiders, their friends, families and affiliated companies (in both Morocco and the United countries).

Also interesting to see what process changes (if any) are made by FIFA.


----------



## AceOfSpades

pesto said:


> So we seem to have 4 theories going now:
> 
> 1. FIFA will look to the best bid based on stadiums, attendance, media revenues, security, long-term growth, etc. Very few supporters.
> 
> 2. FIFA wants to penetrate the US market by holding the WC there. Very few supporters.
> 
> 3. FIFA and the countries will follow whatever makes the most money short-term. Many supporters.
> 
> 4. *The countries run the show, have no interest in money, and will pick Morocco because of hatred of Trump. Many supporters.*
> 
> If 4 is selected it would indicate why some countries are much poorer than others. Leadership making those kinds of economic decisions sound like they are more interested in non-economic issues that in development. Of course, the leadership is already wealthy so it's easy for them to go that way.


Why do you assume that a Moroccan hosted WC will not generate huge amounts of money? 

You make it seem like it would be an emotional decision while it couldn't be further from the truth. 

The "Money" aspect of a Moroccan WC, for Morocco as a nation, FIFA as an organization as well as Multinationals is undeniable.


----------



## Colonel Ned

AceOfSpades said:


> Why do you assume that a Moroccan hosted WC will not generate huge amounts of money?
> 
> You make it seem like it would be an emotional decision while it couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> The "Money" aspect of a Moroccan WC, for Morocco as a nation, FIFA as an organization as well as Multinationals is undeniable.


Apparently we are dealing with a teenager or an ignorant (or me bay an amateur) of the international economic scene. He is wrongly content with the aggregates of state accounting

This *Pesto* only repeats a misconception in different ways. 
(by the way his nickname reminds me the french word "peste" :lol:

He has forgotten that Morocco is the crossroads of high level economic circuits between Europe / Africa / Middle East, and the money that circulates every day in the Moroccan Hub gives nausea.

But no worries, after June 13, he will disappear from this thread, like all arrogant UnitedBid supporters like him, and this page will be animated only by the wise people who support Morocco ... 

:cheers::dj::cheers1::fiddle::cheer::smug:


----------



## pesto

AceOfSpades said:


> Why do you assume that a Moroccan hosted WC will not generate huge amounts of money?
> 
> You make it seem like it would be an emotional decision while it couldn't be further from the truth.
> 
> The "Money" aspect of a Moroccan WC, for Morocco as a nation, FIFA as an organization as well as Multinationals is undeniable.


The last WC in the US set records for revenues and profitability which have not been broken since. The estimates in the press are that between 1 and 2B more income will be generated by a United WC in 2026.

I don't have the analyses but I assume the biggest difference is in regional media and stadium revenues. Presumably there will also be higher hospitality revenues which will allow FIFA to establish joint marketing with hotel chains, food, airlines and other consumer companies.

The presence of the WC in the US will also help attract Americans to soccer; this is a very large untapped market with very high income. In this, FIFA is competing against not just American sports leagues but against the major clubs around the world. This will give them a lengthy showpiece event that could be worth billions in revenues. Not choosing United would slow this process.

I am sure others can provide more detail.


----------



## Bouqebaz

pesto said:


> So we seem to have 4 theories going now:
> 
> 1. FIFA will look to the best bid based on stadiums, attendance, media revenues, security, long-term growth, etc. Very few supporters.
> 
> 2. FIFA wants to penetrate the US market by holding the WC there. Very few supporters.
> 
> 3. FIFA and the countries will follow whatever makes the most money short-term. Many supporters.
> 
> 4. The countries run the show, have no interest in money, and will pick Morocco because of hatred of Trump. Many supporters.
> 
> *If 4 is selected it would indicate why some countries are much poorer than others.* Leadership making those kinds of economic decisions sound like they are more interested in non-economic issues that in development. Of course, the leadership is already wealthy so it's easy for them to go that way.


Ever heard of the term "solidarity"? no? well thats why despite the us being so extremely wealthy 1 out of 8 americans are starving , Thats why your people are dieing because they cant afford simple medical care while they have the resources to do someting about it. no, instead they're pumping trillions in wars and all kind of violent bullshit.
Your "interest in money" doesnt help the average citizen in need of (medical) care, food..etc



Go learn what solidarity means, It makes ur life better.


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> Ever heard of the term "solidarity"? no? well thats why despite the us being so extremely wealthy 1 out of 8 americans are starving , Thats why your people are dieing because they cant afford simple medical care while they have the resources to do someting about it. no, instead they're pumping trillions in wars and all kind of violent bullshit.
> *Your "interest in money" doesnt help the average citizen in need of (medical) care, food..etc
> 
> *Go learn what solidarity means, It makes ur life better.


Actually it's the only thing that does help. As Marx noted: industrialization is the pre-condition of the welfare state.

But the topic here is the WC and which bids look like the best for obtaining it. That's what I am trying to talk about. I would suggest we not shift topics.


----------



## Bouqebaz

> Actually it's the only thing that does help. As Marx noted: industrialization is the pre-condition of the welfare state.


 U need Karl Marx to prove your point?
I didnt say anything about industrialisation:nuts:
The USA is fully industrialised and wealthy, so why are there so much people in the us living in poverty and starving? 





pesto said:


> Actually it's the only thing that does help. As Marx noted: industrialization is the pre-condition of the welfare state.
> 
> But the topic here is the WC and which bids look like the best for obtaining it. That's what I am trying to talk about. * I would suggest we not shift topics.*


Then why do you start this discussion about "shithole" countries being 4ever shitholes if they dont fall for the money-argument?:nuts:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I supported Morocco for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. I remember they began earlier and had a website, even a non-official website. 

Since he became FIFA President, Infantino seems to favor joint-bids. He saw many advantages when he worked at UEFA. The 2020 UEFA Euro was a model to promote joint-bids and share the competition to many cities in many countries. I remember joint-bids were not favored by his predecessor Sepp Blatter for 2018 and 2022.
With 48 teams to host, I would not be surprised joint-bids will be the norm. Argentina, Paraguay and Uraguy will be a joint-bid to host the 2030 FIFA World Cup. The main reason is to reduce the costs, especially even the IOC would like to do it and struggles to attract more candidates.

In french


> Gianni Infantino, le président de la FIFA, l’a signifié à sa manière, jeudi 28 décembre, à l’occasion d’une conférence internationale à Dubaï. Avec diplomatie, mais sans faire mystère de sa préférence. *« Les candidatures conjointes sont de bonnes choses, et le fait que le Canada, les Etats-Unis et le Mexique s’unissent dans un projet commun est un message positif »*, a suggéré publiquement le dirigeant suisse.





> Difficile de faire plus direct. A l’heure où le CIO peine à convaincre les pays de se lancer dans l’aventure d’une candidature olympique, la *FIFA ouvre en grand la porte au partage des forces. Une tendance qui devrait profiter au dossier commun porté par les Etats-Unis, le Canada et le Mexique pour le Mondial 2026. Puis, à moyen terme, à la candidature déjà annoncée de l’Argentine, le Paraguay et l’Uruguay pour l’édition 2030.*
> 
> Pour Gianni Infantino, *il ne serait pas juste que la FIFA « impose de lourdes charges sur un seul pays si un événement peut être organisé dans plusieurs. » Le Mondial 2026 sera le premier de l’histoire à rassembler 48 équipes, contre 32 aujourd’hui. Le surcoût s’annonce inévitable pour le ou les pays hôtes, d’où l’intérêt d’en répartir le poids sur plusieurs nations.*


FrancsJeux

These keywords should be suggested for the United Bid to promote United 2026: Unity, Share, Cooperation, Diversity, United and many others.


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> U need Karl Marx to prove your point?
> I didnt say anything about industrialisation:nuts:
> The USA is fully industrialised and wealthy, so why are there so much people in the us living in poverty and starving?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you start this discussion about "shithole" countries being 4ever shitholes if they dont fall for the money-argument?:nuts:


You have a very odd idea of the US. But that is off subject.

I have no idea what discussion I started. As for your question re developing economies, probably the best move for the very poor countries is to try to force out their old hereditary elites and use their enormous fortunes (plus savings from clean government) to modernize areas where they have a comparative advantage (typically ag and basic manufacturing). Establishing technical education centers is also a good move since it creates a population that is marketable anywhere in the world.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Nashville*



> Nashville is moving forward with its bid to be a host city for the 2026 FIFA World Cup following action by the Metro Sports Authority on Thursday.
> 
> The sports authority voted 7-1 to approve an amendment to the city’s Nissan Stadium lease agreement with the NFL’s Tennessee Titans that would require Metro pay back the Titans for any stadium modifications undertaken because of potential requests by FIFA.


The Tennessean


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> *Nashville*
> 
> 
> 
> The Tennessean


Wow; props for Music City! (if you don't consider "country music" to be a contradiction in terms). :lol:

This adds to their active search for MLS and MLB teams and is an indicator of their rapid development.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> You have a very odd idea of the US. But that is off subject.
> 
> *I have no idea what discussion I started.* As for your question re developing economies, probably the best move for the very poor countries is to try to force out their old hereditary elites and use their enormous fortunes (plus savings from clean government) to modernize areas where they have a comparative advantage (typically ag and basic manufacturing). Establishing technical education centers is also a good move since it creates a population that is marketable anywhere in the world.


Oh come on, you know exactly what you're doing. You've been making these antagonizing, denigrating side remarks about poorer countries for days in almost all of your posts in this thread. I was tempted to respond as well, and even did so, but decided not to feed the troll so I deleted it.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> Oh come on, you know exactly what you're doing. You've been making these antagonizing, denigrating side remarks about poorer countries for days in almost all of your posts in this thread. I was tempted to respond as well, and even did so, but decided not to feed the troll so I deleted it.


B/s. Could you be more specific?

Are you talking about saying that poor countries don't have the funds to waste on sports events, that these often generate projects that are not useful to the society, that there is a problem with corruption and theft from the poor so bad that it breaks your hear to read about it, etc.?

These are endemic in many countries, including much of Latin America where I come from. These are the very things that FIFA and the Olympics have been hammered over for a decade and I doubt they are going to take any chance on ignoring them (or becoming complicit in them) this time around.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Mexico City*

@ADN_Deportivo
More
#Entérate | ¡La #CDMX está lista para el Mundial 2026! ⚽

Hoy se entregaron los documentos que avalan el cumplimiento de requisitos que FIFA pide a la capital mexicana en su candidatura para ser ciudad sede #United2026













































































































Reuters MX


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> Wow; props for Music City! (if you don't consider "country music" to be a contradiction in terms). :lol:
> 
> This adds to their *active search for MLS* and MLB teams and is an indicator of their rapid development.


Nashville is no longer in the search for MLS. They are a confirmed expansion team.


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> Nashville is no longer in the search for MLS. They are a confirmed expansion team.


True; I was considering the process as a whole. But you are right that one leg of the process is completed.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

I don't think anyone needs to add anything more related to the merits of the two bids... all the points have been covered already, until we know what both bids plan maybe the thread should close. 

I would enjoy a world cup in either of the two possibilities.... they will offer a very different world cup...either way.

One question I do have without wishing to stir up any angst. What is the general view of alcohol for foreign visitors in Morocco? Clearly we will have a "dry" world cup in Qatar and following it up with another one may be a novel idea for a lot of us. 

It certainly will be interesting to see what fans will do when out in Qatar, I am sure there will be huge numbers from the middle eastern states who won't be too put out.

I live in Australia and here you can have a beer/wine whilst you watch any sport.


----------



## pesto

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article195237064.html

Put this in the category of not really news: Miami has qualms about signing the airport indemnification agreement re hosting the WC. 

I guess they have some years to work on this unless it all becomes moot in June.


----------



## Bouqebaz

pesto said:


> You have a very odd idea of the US. But that is off subject.
> 
> I have no idea what discussion I started. As for your question re developing economies, probably the best move for the very poor countries is to try to force out their old hereditary elites and use their enormous fortunes (plus savings from clean government) to modernize areas where they have a comparative advantage (typically ag and basic manufacturing). Establishing technical education centers is also a good move since it creates a population that is marketable anywhere in the world.


whatever


ontopic. If ( big if  ) Morocco loses, the US should consider dumping at least canada. Canada just want a free ride to a wc they dont deserve


----------



## Bouqebaz

Juanpabloangel said:


> I don't think anyone needs to add anything more related to the merits of the two bids... all the points have been covered already, until we know what both bids plan maybe the thread should close.
> 
> I would enjoy a world cup in either of the two possibilities.... they will offer a very different world cup...either way.
> 
> One question I do have without wishing to stir up any angst. What is the general view of alcohol for foreign visitors in Morocco? Clearly we will have a "dry" world cup in Qatar and following it up with another one may be a novel idea for a lot of us.
> 
> It certainly will be interesting to see what fans will do when out in Qatar, I am sure there will be huge numbers from the middle eastern states who won't be too put out.
> 
> I live in Australia and here you can have a beer/wine whilst you watch any sport.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Alcohol_in_Morocco


btw, Alcohol/tobacco/mcdonalds/cocalcola/redbull...etc. all those brands have no place in sports imho. Let dole or chiquita advertise instead


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> I don't think anyone needs to add anything more related to the merits of the two bids... all the points have been covered already, until we know what both bids plan *maybe the thread should close.
> *
> I would enjoy a world cup in either of the two possibilities.... they will offer a very different world cup...either way.
> 
> One question I do have without wishing to stir up any angst. What is the general view of alcohol for foreign visitors in Morocco? Clearly we will have a "dry" world cup in Qatar and following it up with another one may be a novel idea for a lot of us.
> 
> It certainly will be interesting to see what fans will do when out in Qatar, I am sure there will be huge numbers from the middle eastern states who won't be too put out.
> 
> I live in Australia and here you can have a beer/wine whilst you watch any sport.


Wishful thinking. :lol:

In fact, the most interesting part is coming up. Negotiations will continue and "accidental" leaks and releases trying to manage expectations will be coming out.

It could get nasty if not handled right; let's see how Infantino does. The mark of success is that everyone comes out claiming they are satisfied without being laughed at.


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> whatever
> 
> 
> ontopic. If ( big if  ) Morocco loses, the US should consider dumping at least canada. Canada just want a free ride to a wc they dont deserve


You mean if the United group wins the US should dump Canada and develop a new bid? 

Is that the way you do business? Not a single person in the US bid process would consider that and neither would FIFA.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Thanks for the links... What can the spectator have whilst in a stadium in Morocco? They don't serve Coca Cola? You can't expect fans to sit in a hot stadium and not get served cold beverages.... what replaces Coca Cola then?


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Estadio Azteca no será modificado para Mundial 2026



> “Sufrió un proceso de remodelación de todas las áreas de lujo hace poco. Redujimos la capacidad, ampliamos las áreas VIP y mejoramos los accesos. Los requisitos se verán con FIFA en 2023 y nos sentaremos a revisar los requisitos tecnológicos que se soliciten y cumpliremos”, señaló.


ESPN MX

Nuevo estadio de Cruz Azul sería considerado para el Mundial de 2026



> Al ser presentada la candidatura de la Ciudad de México como sede para el Mundial 2026 dentro de la propuesta de México-Estados Unidos-Canadá para albergar dicha Copa del Mundo, de ganar la organización dentro de ocho años, el Estadio Azteca sería la única sede donde se disputen partidos, aunque de construirse un nuevo Estadio de Cruz Azul, no está completamente descartado.


Publimetro


----------



## Bouqebaz

Juanpabloangel said:


> Thanks for the links... What can the spectator have whilst in a stadium in Morocco? They don't serve Coca Cola? You can't expect fans to sit in a hot stadium and not get served cold beverages.... what replaces Coca Cola then?


No they can drink it, but I mean it is weird having a sport which is all about being fit and healthy promoting unhealthy products. They should rethink their sponsorships


----------



## Herms

Juanpabloangel said:


> I don't think anyone needs to add anything more related to the merits of the two bids... all the points have been covered already, until we know what both bids plan maybe the thread should close.
> 
> I would enjoy a world cup in either of the two possibilities.... they will offer a very different world cup...either way.
> 
> One question I do have without wishing to stir up any angst. What is the general view of alcohol for foreign visitors in Morocco? Clearly we will have a "dry" world cup in Qatar and following it up with another one may be a novel idea for a lot of us.
> 
> It certainly will be interesting to see what fans will do when out in Qatar, I am sure there will be huge numbers from the middle eastern states who won't be too put out.
> 
> I live in Australia and here you can have a beer/wine whilst you watch any sport.


Alcohol consumption is more problematic for Moroccans than foreigners.

You can easily find alcohol in the tourist hotels, in some bars, nightclub in town, in some supermarkets like Carrefour and some tourist restaurants can also serve to the foreigners on their terrace.
What is forbidden is to fall into ebriety.

If Morocco wins this organization, I'm sure that there will be some facilitions for foreigners but not for Moroccans.


----------



## marokko

FIFA decides about drunks, because they own the stadiums during WC. NAFTA as well as Morocco do not decide the soda/alcohol. At least that is hiw it was last wc i think


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Estadio Azteca no será modificado para Mundial 2026
> 
> 
> 
> ESPN MX
> 
> Nuevo estadio de Cruz Azul sería considerado para el Mundial de 2026
> 
> Publimetro


Interesting that the DF may not even use Estadio Azteca (although I would bet that they will). But I guess that LA may not use either the Rose Bowl or Coliseum; youth must be served.


----------



## nandoer

pesto said:


> Interesting that the DF may not even use Estadio Azteca (although I would bet that they will). But I guess that LA may not use either the Rose Bowl or Coliseum; youth must be served.


Reallyyyy? Thats quite weird, Azteca may not be the best stadium in Mexico but its iconic. What will be the capacity of Cruz Azul's?

(Not DF anymore, now its called Mexico City  the people at the aiport get pissed when you call the city "el DF" it happened to me last year  )


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> FIFA decides about drunks, because they own the stadiums during WC. NAFTA as well as Morocco do not decide the soda/alcohol. At least that is hiw it was last wc i think


I think FIFA gets a short-term lease (or license to use) the stadium. In such case the owner remains liable for tortious actions that take place in the stadium. 

The local police decide on who will be detained for drunkenness, not FIFA.


----------



## pesto

nandoer said:


> Reallyyyy? Thats quite weird, Azteca may not be the best stadium in Mexico but its iconic. What will be the capacity of Cruz Azul's?
> 
> (Not DF anymore, now its called Mexico City  the people at the aiport get pissed when you call the city "el DF" it happened to me last year  )


True. Legally you are right; but it is still called the DF by the locals here, whether VC's, the guy at the deli, or contractors I use. Probably because it is so much shorter.

But I still say Canton and Calcutta, so what do I know. :lol:


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> No they can drink it, but I mean it is weird having a sport which is all about being fit and healthy promoting unhealthy products. They should rethink their sponsorships


I agree. But doing that would be a big problem.

Soccer is televised as a means of selling alcohol, soft drinks, automobiles, travel, small electronics, etc. Hardly anything that doesn't imply unhealthy activities, environmental pollution, abused labor, etc.

Other advertisers would only pay a fraction of the amounts paid by the existing advertisers. I doubt that the owners of teams would want to cut their value in half or the players take huge cuts in salaries.

And if one is really interested in health you would forbid using the head and require greater padding. And you would probably just eliminate American football, cycling, motor sports and many snow activities altogether.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Estimation of costs excluding security and venues*



















Source


----------



## AceOfSpades

Juanpabloangel said:


> Thanks for the links... What can the spectator have whilst in a stadium in Morocco? They don't serve Coca Cola? You can't expect fans to sit in a hot stadium and not get served cold beverages.... what replaces Coca Cola then?


Are you freaking kidding me? 

I am Moroccan, atheist and an alcohol consumer. Never was my lifestyle threatened in Morocco. 

There are countless bars, nightclubs, beach clubs, hotels and concert venues that sell alcohol. Supermarkets also sell all kinds of alcoholic drinks. 

Just like in the USA, and many European countries, you can't drink in public, AKA the street. 

Because the tickets will be on the high end of the economic scale, you can be certain that stadiums will sell beer to spectators during the world cup. 

Alcohol tends to be problematic when the ghetto brigade get their hands on it, but they will be priced out during the world cup so no worries. 

PS: Morocco is Morocco. We aren't Saudi Arabia or Iran. We have our own identity and customs. While the majority of the population is Muslim, Drinking alcohol is pretty much part of Moroccan party life..... So is Marijuana. Haha.


----------



## ElvisBC

marokko said:


> FIFA decides about drunks, because they own the stadiums during WC


:colgate: actually one of the best posts ever here!


----------



## GunnerJacket

Thread reopened.

Folks, please refrain from personal attacks. Also, this is thread is about the World Cup bids and not the larger arena of politics or social commentary. Try to stick to the _logistics of hosting_ and not delve into opinions of cultural merits. Thanks.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Thread reopened.
> 
> Folks, please refrain from personal attacks. Also, this is thread is about the World Cup bids and not the larger arena of politics or social commentary. Try to stick to the _logistics of hosting_ and not delve into opinions of cultural merits. Thanks.


Agree completely. But FIFA has made one of the criteria for hosting the WC the status of human rights in the country. When Morocco announced their bid the head of their bid, who is also a very senior government minister, was asked about this from reporters. So it seems relevant to the selection process.

I would suggest that people here look at the many international charts on human rights (HRW, Freedom House, GAN Anti-corruption, etc.) but not mention them in this thread so that we can stick to soccer specific issues.


----------



## Bouqebaz

pesto said:


> Agree completely. But FIFA has made one of the criteria for hosting the WC the status of human rights in the country. When Morocco announced their bid the head of their bid, who is also a very senior government minister, was asked about this from reporters. So it seems relevant to the selection process.
> 
> I would suggest that people here look at the many international charts on human rights (HRW, Freedom House, GAN Anti-corruption, etc.) but not mention them in this thread so that we can stick to soccer specific issues.


Here, read this before pointing fingers:

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/united-states

I really dont understand why you think the us bid is any better when it comes to human rights. Personally I think its worse then morocco.

A fair comparison is almost impossible. 
on certain issues the us is performing better and on other issues Morocco performs better. And what people find important differs. For americans gunownership is a humanright, for moroccans its bread and education.

I also think most of these so called human rights groups are biased because they are mostly western groups looking at things from a western perspective. They try to squeeze all these countries in a standard (western) mold. That doesnt work and will never work.

Lets stick to football, this humanrights-requirements fifa has are still too vague to be discussed now and to be honest I dont think they're that heavy that it will have any noticeable consequence on both bids.

Just for you info, im not anti-american nor against its bid, I do understand your enthusiasm for the united bid but the way youre doing that is very annoying.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

The United Bid Committee should adopt the same strategy as LA 2028: distance itself from Trump, but to receive guarantees. They must position as a CONCACAF Bid, waiting for hosting a FIFA World Cup since 32 years.



> At the time, Los Angeles were still very much competing for 2024, along with Paris, before they eventually settled for the 2028 edition.
> 
> *Los Angeles 2024 officials were constantly reminding us that the size of the US meant the President was not as important to the bid as in other nations. They positioned themselves as a Californian bid, rather than an American one.*
> 
> The United 2026 team are probably feeling something similar, even if Montagliani did not admit it, but their bid is unquestionably in a better position than that of their Moroccan challengers even with Trump doing his best to try to derail it.


Inside the Games


----------



## Guest

Bouqebaz said:


> Here, read this before pointing fingers:
> 
> Just for you info, im not anti-american nor against its bid, I do understand your enthusiasm for *the united bid but the way youre doing that is very annoying*.


Guy is a troll. People that engage with him are just feeding him. Doesn't follow the sport, says he doesn't care about US winning the bid, yet is in this thread every single day tapping away at the keyboard endlessly, presumably because there's nothing of note to talk about in the pointyball threads.


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> Here, read this before pointing fingers:
> 
> https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/united-states
> 
> I really dont understand why you think the us bid is any better when it comes to human rights. Personally I think its worse then morocco.
> 
> A fair comparison is almost impossible.
> on certain issues the us is performing better and on other issues Morocco performs better. And what people find important differs. For americans gunownership is a humanright, for moroccans its bread and education.
> 
> I also think most of these so called human rights groups are biased because they are mostly western groups looking at things from a western perspective. They try to squeeze all these countries in a standard (western) mold. That doesnt work and will never work.
> 
> Lets stick to football, this humanrights-requirements fifa has are still too vague to be discussed now and to be honest I dont think they're that heavy that it will have any noticeable consequence on both bids.
> 
> Just for you info, im not anti-american nor against its bid, I do understand your enthusiasm for the united bid but the way youre doing that is very annoying.


Well, like I said, just look at the impartial on-line analyses. 

I also believe that human rights compliance will be given substantial consideration by FIFA, if not by the voting nations. And (as a guess) I believe that Elalamy was informed of this in discussions over the last week or two.


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> Here, read this before pointing fingers:
> 
> https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/united-states
> 
> I really dont understand why you think the us bid is any better when it comes to human rights. Personally I think its worse then morocco.
> 
> A fair comparison is almost impossible.
> on certain issues the us is performing better and on other issues Morocco performs better. And what people find important differs. For americans gunownership is a humanright, for moroccans its bread and education.
> 
> I also think most of these so called human rights groups are biased because they are mostly western groups looking at things from a western perspective. They try to squeeze all these countries in a standard (western) mold. That doesnt work and will never work.
> 
> Lets stick to football, this humanrights-requirements fifa has are still too vague to be discussed now and to be honest I dont think they're that heavy that it will have any noticeable consequence on both bids.
> 
> Just for you info, im not anti-american nor against its bid, I do understand your enthusiasm for the united bid but the way youre doing that is very annoying.


duplicate


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Guy is a troll. People that engage with him are just feeding him. Doesn't follow the sport, says he doesn't care about US winning the bid, yet is in this thread every single day tapping away at the keyboard endlessly, presumably because there's nothing of note to talk about in the pointyball threads.


You may find it hard to believe but a person can enjoy soccer and football at the same time. I see wonderful futures for each of them and plan to root for Costa Rica this summer.

In any event, it makes little difference what you enjoy; you can still think about the economic and social logic of large businesses and how they respond to international trends and pressures. The owners and managers make their best efforts to maximize the attraction in what they are doing whether it's football, soccer, the Olympics, golf, tennis or whatever.

Btw, "pointyball" is very juvenile.


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> Thread reopened.
> 
> Folks, please refrain from personal attacks. Also, this is thread is about the World Cup bids and not the larger arena of politics or social commentary. Try to stick to the _logistics of hosting_ and not delve into opinions of cultural merits. Thanks.


better .... some people should simply stop posting in this thread (they repeat the same over and over again), that would make it great again :colgate:

people seem to forget what skyscrapercity is about ... building the world and sharing the infos, pics and videos about it!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Guadalajara

Guadalajara presenta su candidatura para el Mundial 2026 - Se suma a la Ciudad de México para compartir sede, aún queda pendiente la intención de Monterrey

Video


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Guadalajara
> 
> Guadalajara presenta su candidatura para el Mundial 2026 - Se suma a la Ciudad de México para compartir sede, aún queda pendiente la intención de Monterrey


Seems likely Monterrey will join them. :lol:


----------



## nandoer

Ok. Lets be the devils advocate, if for any reason Monterrey doesnt joins the bid, then which city would? Maybe Puebla? 

Mates, dont get sensitive, everyone knows Monterrey will be the bidder


----------



## pesto

nandoer said:


> Ok. Lets be the devils advocate, if for any reason Monterrey doesnt joins the bid, then which city would? Maybe Puebla?
> 
> Mates, dont get sensitive, everyone knows Monterrey will be the bidder


Good question. It's a bit of a drop off on city and stadium size and historical significance. I assume you can't choose a second stadium in Mexico City or Guadalajara? 

Puebla seems likely; there aren't many choices over 40k.

Of course, this is not to imply that Monterrey won't bid.


----------



## pesto

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/29/sports/soccer/2026-fifa-world-cup-warning.html

FIFA warns the bidding parties about the new rules.


----------



## Knitemplar

Oops, wrong thread.


----------



## ElvisBC

I think January 18th was deadline for potential host cities to sign the papers and submit the bid. Any infos if all cities did it?


----------



## marokko

^^I think it was march. Around 15th March we will know a lot more about both bids, including the host cities. The 211 federations will vote on June 13th 2018 and will make their decisions based on the technical reports provided by NAFTA and Morocco in March 2018 and FIFA's own technical reports about both bids. We should have a little bit more patience I think


----------



## ElvisBC

nope, that's something else, official bids must be presented to FIFA by march 16th. 

I was talking about internal deadline given to CONCACAF host city candidates to accept rules of bidding and sign contracts including all exemptions and guarantees as required by FIFA, and that's quite a lot so it can't be taken for granted! to be honest, I was ecpecting at least one or two cities to bail out


----------



## marokko

SCC is a forum for construction, projects and other development issues. Hereby I decided to share some information about three stadiums in Morocco that are being build now or are in the preparation phase. These cities are not located in the largest cities in Morocco. Population of this cities is approximately 300-500 thousand citizens per city. These stadiums were actually planned before Morocco made its bid and were part of the new decentralized regional model for development Morocco started to implement since 2016. The cost of each stadium is approximately 25 million euro, which makes the total investment for all three stadiums less than a 100 million dollars. Construction costs are very cheap in Morocco. Those are 40-45 thousand seat stadiums. These are some picture from Google Images:

1. Oujda city









2. El Hoceima/Taza city









3.Tetouan city









At the moment Kenitra stadium is also getting an upgrade to 25000 seats with the possibility to increase the capacity to 45000 seats. These cities are not as famous as Casablanca, Tangier, Marrakesh, Rabat, Fez, Agadir etc. I know these cities are probably also not known yet in the Americas, but they are quite known in the Arab world and in parts of Africa and Europe. A WC would be a great opportunity for these cities (small and big) to showcase their attractions to the world and would be a big incentive for the growing tourism sector in Morocco.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I'd like Mexico should choose the mythic Jalisco Stadium in the bid.
It could have revived powerful and legendary sensations.
I like Chivas stadium anyway.
Jalisco Stadium should be used as fan fest.


----------



## GunnerJacket

marokko said:


> 3.Tetouan city


An early concept rendering but I find the design of this one quite appealing. Have any of these ideas been explored further?


----------



## marokko

^^ It is currently under construction 

Morocco always likes to create buildings that show tradition and modernity at the same time. They are very proud about their past. When you e.g. zoom in on the front of the stadium, you will notice that big entrance. That is traditional Andalusian/Moorish architecture. The culture in Morocco is a combination of Arabic, Berber, European, and African culture. Picture of the entrance:


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> An early concept rendering but I find the design of this one quite appealing. Have any of these ideas been explored further?


appealing .... well, maybe from architectural point of view, in reality it is pure bulls***. making a huge roof on one side and leaving the opposite side open with approx 10% of seats covered ... such a thing can only be done by a brainless designer who ignores practical issues and who probably isn't living in a real world either!


----------



## marokko

^^Morocco is sunny and the city has normally very nice temperatures around 15-25 degrees celcius. And it costs only approximately 30 million dollars ...


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> appealing .... well, maybe from architectural point of view, in reality it is pure bulls***. making a huge roof on one side and leaving the opposite side open with approx 10% of seats covered ... such a thing can only be done by a brainless designer who ignores practical issues and who probably isn't living in a real world either!


No, but seriously, without pulling any punches, how do you really feel about it? :lol:


----------



## Rover030

GunnerJacket said:


> An early concept rendering but I find the design of this one quite appealing. Have any of these ideas been explored further?


There actually is a thread on the Moroccan forum that is regularly being updated. Latest news is that they stopped construction, again...

Here is more from the design on the international thread:



Gadiri said:


> http://www.amush.org/grand-stade-de-tetouan-nawfal-bakhat/


The roof apparently covers 30% of the spectators. Tetouan has 1 average rain day in June and July, but from September to April it rains on average 8 days per month. Luckily the World Cup is usually played in summer. I think the lack of a full roof makes the design more interesting, but it's not ideal of course.

I guess the United bid is not a very scary competitor when it comes to roofs, excluding the newest NFL stadiums such as the new LA stadium, Mercedes Benz Stadium (does the roof already retract?) and the Vikings stadium.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Vancouver



> Vancouver City Clerk @VanCityClerk
> #VanCityCouncil approves United 2026 Bid unanimously.





















Presentation


----------



## Rabat with love 2

:lol:


----------



## Bouqebaz

ElvisBC said:


> appealing .... well, maybe from architectural point of view, in reality it is pure bulls***. making a huge roof on one side and leaving the opposite side open with approx 10% of seats covered ... such a thing can only be done by a brainless designer who ignores practical issues and who probably isn't living in a real world either!


The design is inspired by the symbol of Tetouan, a white dove.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Los Angeles



> The Los Angeles City Council moved forward Tuesday on an attempt to be a host city of the 2026 FIFA World Cup men's soccer tournament, as part of a joint bid by the United States, Mexico and Canada.


Patch


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Los Angeles
> 
> 
> 
> Patch


LOL. Remember, you heard it first in the Northridge Patch! I had no idea LA was running such a tight budget.

For those not in the US, the (name your city) Patch are local websites that aggregate news by neighborhood. I don't believe they have any reporters, just editors and some corporate staff. And, of course, people who will gladly help you with you advertising needs.


----------



## will101

Deleted


----------



## pesto

Will: We are sort of on probation here from talking too much about non-soccer specific stuff even though they are part of the 2026 bid determination process.

You may want to delete?


----------



## RobH

marokko said:


> ^^ It is currently under construction
> 
> Morocco always likes to create buildings that show tradition and modernity at the same time. They are very proud about their past. When you e.g. zoom in on the front of the stadium, you will notice that big entrance. That is traditional Andalusian/Moorish architecture. The culture in Morocco is a combination of Arabic, Berber, European, and African culture. Picture of the entrance:


That looks decent. You see a lot of these buildings where the addition of "traditional" architecture (but newly built) looks like a very tacky afterthought, but that looks reasonably well integrated to me. Will be interesting to see if it looks this consistent when it's completed.


----------



## marokko

> That looks decent. You see a lot of these buildings where the addition of "traditional" architecture (but newly built) looks like a very tacky afterthought, but that looks reasonably well integrated to me. Will be interesting to see if it looks this consistent when it's completed.


This image below is of a stadium in Morocco in the city of Fez. The stadium has a capacity of 37000 and could be upgraded for a WC. It is not the most beautiful stadium, but you can see how that large door could look like for the new stadium in Tetouan. The color will probably be slightly different, because Fez is characterized by yellowish architecture, while Tetouan is characterized by white architecture like Casablanca. Most cities in Morocco choose a color and standardize it for all architecture, like the red color in the famous city of Marrakesh.


----------



## Colonel Ned

> World Cup 2026: Does Morocco hold the Trump card?
> by Paul Kennedy
> @pkedit, Jan 24, 2018
> 
> Until the Aug. 10 deadline for submissions, no one in Morocco believed Morocco would even submit a bid. But five months later, Morocco is not only running, it is given a chance against the United bid from the USA, Canada and Mexico.
> 
> One big reason: changing opinions around the world about the United States in the aftermath of the election of President Donald Trump, including his most recent remarks about African countries.
> 
> "It's about perceptions of America," Sunil Gulati, the outgoing president of U.S. Soccer and chairman of United Bid Committee board, said a Q&A sessionat the United Soccer Coaches Convention in Philadelphia on Thursday, "and it's a difficult time in the world. So there's only certain things we can control. We can't control what happens at the 38th parallel in Korea, we can't control what happens with embassies in Tel Aviv, and we can't control what happens with climate change accords. We do the best we can."
> 
> 
> At a press conference with Mexican soccer federation president Decio de Maria and Canadian Victor Montagliani, the Concacaf president, on Tuesday in London to promote the United bid effort, Gulati played up the strengths of the North American bid.
> 
> “We think the certainty and risk-aversion we can provide for the central piece of revenue for FIFA going forward is pretty compelling,” Gulati said.
> 
> He tried to downplay the Trump factor.
> 
> “Whether it’s the Olympics or the World Cup," he added, "we cannot control the politics. It will change over time and we have all of the assurances we need from all three governments to support the bid."
> 
> Process. The two bidders have until March 16 to submit their final bids. One key requirement: guarantees about visa-exemptions for fans, players, coaches and staff during the tournament.
> 
> A FIFA technical team will then conduct an inspection tour and present its findings to the FIFA Council (the expanded executive committee), which will make a recommendation to the FIFA Congress before its vote.
> 
> Vote. FIFA's members -- 211 national associations, minus the USA, Canada, Mexico and Morocco -- will vote, and every vote will be open to public viewing.
> 
> That is a change from the scandal-ridden process of secret balloting of FIFA executive committee members that plagued the votes on the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosting rights won by Russia and Qatar in 2010.
> 
> The concern: Congress members will vote against the USA, not because of the technical merits of the United bid or the FIFA Council's recommendations, but because of fear of how their vote for Trump's USA will look back home.
> 
> *FIFA Members:
> 55 Europe
> 54 Africa
> 46 Asia
> 35 Concacaf
> 11 Oceania
> 10 Conmebol*
> 
> The Moroccan view is that it can win on its own without the Trump factor, beginning with its support in Africa and the Arab world.
> 
> *“We will not be playing the Trump card,” Hisham El-Amrani, chief executive of the Moroccan campaign, told Bloomberg on Tuesday at its bid launch in Casablanca. “We are confident in the assets of our bid and we wish our opponents the best of luck in their campaign.”*


https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/76516/world-cup-2026-does-morocco-hold-the-trump-card.html

As FIFA start to be afraid from Morocco (since he got the official support of African countries), FIFA sent Memo to all FA's arround the world asking NOT TO REVEAL for which Bid they will vote (in order to preserve transparency)

I think things are still equals at the end of January :

Morocco : *53 potential votes* (54 from Africa - Bidder)

United : *51 potential votes* (35 Concacaf + 11 Oceania + 10 Conmebol - Venezuela - Cuba - 3 bidders)

The war should split European and Asian voices (101) in the next months :
55 Europe
46 Asia

Do not forget that will be certainly some white votes (somme FA will not vote for any bid)


----------



## GunnerJacket

Thread closed... again... for a day. 

Just breathe, people, just breathe.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Okay, let's try this again. 

*Short Version*

- SSC has rules and conduct codes for posting on this site located here. Please know them and abide. 

- THIS THREAD is a STADIUM ORIENTED thread. While we all know politics and other such will possibly be involved in votes for things like the Olympics and World Cup it is entirely possible to discuss the logistics of the bids without regressing into politics. It is especially verboten to delve into prejudicial hyperbole, personal attacks, or any dialogue that will not only detract from the main topic but steers us into inflammatory rhetoric. If you wish to start a thread to deal specifically with that then go to a Skybar section and carry on there, but here in the Stadiums and Arenas section we prefer to stay on point. 

- Be civil. You don't have to respect one another but you will strive to avoid attacks, trolling, etc. And if someone does it to you just notify a mod: Don't drag the episode out further. 

*Short Short Version*
Don't be a d***.


I get it that we're passionate and opinionated about the topic and this board is here to serve that dialogue, but it is exactly for that - Dialogue, not ego contests. I would like to see this thread enjoy a nice, long life but if we can't get this right we can just lock the thread for good. Would certainly make my life easier.

Thread reopened.


----------



## pesto

So back to roofs and sightlines and parking lots. :lol:

I guess the good news is that there are only 4 more months left (or less, if FIFA effectively forces an early decision).


----------



## Nacre

In addition to the political advantage (which I won't discuss in detail) Morocco also has a major logistical and time zone advantages.

The USA has a huge volume of air travelers and large airports. But that does nothing to change the fact that Seattle to Miami is a longer flight than London to Baghdad. (flight map) When I am forced to fly from Seattle to Boston it effectively uses a full day for me. And if we cluster our venues in North America there is still the issue of Amtrak's putrescence and inefficiency.

Meanwhile Morocco's high speed rail system should begin service this year, and they are modernizing their airports. Morocco would be much more convenient for the national teams and officials than the CA/MX/USA bid.

I think that some people are too eager to dismiss the threat of the Morocco bid to the "united bid." My aunt and uncle are currently living in Morocco, and while it is definitely a second world country I don't think it is any less developed than Mexico. The climate is also very similar to California.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> Even though an American World Cup would spike TV revenues in their own market.





> It might sound unlikely for the big power-brokers of Europe and Asia to get behind Morocco, rather than the American-led bid. Theirs is a concise pitch, an argument ultimately about logistics and TV. But they are a nation of 33million people, up against the combined might of half a billion, and three of the world’s top 20 economies. With four months until the vote, they have plenty of convincing to do.


The Independent


----------



## marokko

^^Same Article:



> the World Cup is going to have 16 nations from Europe and nine from Africa that are within the same time-zone. *Europe is more than half the world in terms of revenue generation*. And the Middle East is increasingly important.”


I mean if FIFA wants to make serious money, countries should vote on Morocco. We have for example the same time-zone as UK, which is where the same paper (independent) is settled. NAFTA's argument should be that they will generate more money for FIFA due to higher stadium attendance (bigger stadiums)


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> For sure a few Australians or Nigerians or Dutchmen are going to have to fly more if they insist on seeing every match their team is in; but the 40M Californians, or 100M southerners, etc., that FIFA is interested in attracting will fly less. And those people will constitute the overwhelming majority of those attending every match.
> 
> The system is not being built for YOU. It presumably will be built for the 500M or so people in N. America.


You are ignoring the issue of voting, though, which is what this discussion is about.

If the attitude of the United bid is that international fans, athletes, officials, media, etc do not matter and that this World Cup bid is only "for the 500M or so people in N America" then why should those Australians, Nigerians and Dutchmen vote for the United bid?

Beyond that, though, I think you are seriously underestimating the number of foreign fans at the World Cup. 25-30% of WC tickets go to fans outside of the host country.


----------



## Rover030

^^ It's more than 25-30% for Russia.

https://www.mos.ru/en/news/item/35191073/


> Kicking off in 150 days the 2018 FIFA World Cup is considered one of the most large-scale events. As the sales continue, organisers note that the demand for tickets keeps growing not only in Russia but the rest of the world as well.
> 
> Since December, when the second sales phase begun, over 3.1 million football fans, mostly Russians, have ordered tickets. Germany, Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Peru, Colombia, the US, Spain, Poland and China are the other big ticket buyers. In total, foreign fans have ordered *38 percent* of the tickets.


And this does not even take into account Russian people selling their tickets to visitors during the world cup itself. Anyway, lots of foreign fans are what makes the world cup so special, and with the member associations voting, I don't think the United bid team are going to say anything in the direction of preferring locals over the loyal, visiting fans.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> ^^Same Article:
> 
> 
> I mean if FIFA wants to make serious money, countries should vote on Morocco. We have for example the same time-zone as UK, which is where the same paper (independent) is settled. NAFTA's argument should be that they will generate more money for FIFA due to higher stadium attendance (bigger stadiums)


Absurd.

El Amrani seems to just invent as he goes. As I said before * by 2030 China, the US, Japan and India will be over half the GDP of the entire world.* And interest in soccer is low. These are THE places where serious money is to be made. FIFA, the bidders, the advertisers, the media, the financial people, etc., know it and it isn't worth talking about. The Europeans are going to watch anyway so focus on the potential new fans.

Of course, stadium attendance will also be much larger. But the key is the enormous upside in the US and Asia.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> You are ignoring the issue of voting, though, which is what this discussion is about.
> 
> If the attitude of the United bid is that international fans, athletes, officials, media, etc do not matter and that this World Cup bid is only "for the 500M or so people in N America" then why should those Australians, Nigerians and Dutchmen vote for the United bid?
> 
> Beyond that, though, I think you are seriously underestimating the number of foreign fans at the World Cup. 25-30% of WC tickets go to fans outside of the host country.


First, no one was coming because of visas, being unwelcome, etc.: now they are 25 percent of the total in spite of no flights, long distances and high costs. I guess I lose either way. :lol:

In any event, fans do not vote. The local federations vote, under the guidance of FIFA HQ. These people travel in private jets and limos to $1000 a night luxury hotels (the Mandarin in NY) and aren't concerned about local travel. They are interested in spreading the popularity of soccer, which is another way of saying "making money".


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^ It's more than 25-30% for Russia.
> 
> https://www.mos.ru/en/news/item/35191073/
> 
> 
> And this does not even take into account Russian people selling their tickets to visitors during the world cup itself. Anyway, lots of foreign fans are what makes the world cup so special, and with the member associations voting, I don't think the United bid team are going to say anything in the direction of preferring locals over the loyal, visiting fans.


OK, Nacre: are you behind the 25 or 38% number? If so, then it seems the long distances are not scaring people off. Or aren't you, in which case they are only a small component of the total and we should make things convenient for the residents of Atlanta, Miami, Houston, Chicago, LA, SF, etc. :lol:


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> Absurd.
> 
> El Amrani seems to just invent as he goes. As I said before * by 2030 China, the US, Japan and India will be over half the GDP of the entire world.* And interest in soccer is low. These are THE places where serious money is to be made. FIFA, the bidders, the advertisers, the media, the financial people, etc., know it and it isn't worth talking about. The Europeans are going to watch anyway so focus on the potential new fans.
> 
> Of course, stadium attendance will also be much larger. But the key is the enormous upside in the US and Asia.


If increasing Chinese, American, Japanese and Indian viewership is important, then Morocco has an advantage because there they can play at for instance 15:00, during which it's 7:00 in LA and 00:00 in Tokyo and the rest of the world is in between. That's also a timeslot fans from all around the world are used to.

If the United bid wants to do that, they either have to play so early in the morning that no one will show up, or they play in the evening, which means it's in the middle of the night in Europe and Africa (half of the participating countries), where there is no culture of watching football in the middle of the night or very early in the morning.

I think opening up Asian markets is one of the weaknesses of the United bid. Opening up the US market obviously is one of their strong points, which is backed by the $300 million bonus in the TV contract.

Another benefit for the United bid is that Qatar will probably cater to (Eastern) Asia more already.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Cumulative TV viewing audiences (000's Indiv)

*Italy 1990* (UTC+2): 26,692,759
_Europe_: 7,643,445
_N. America & Caribbean_: 389,552
_Central & South America_: 3,281,546
_Africa_: 2,552,388
_Middle East_: 498,016
_Asia-Pacific_: 12,318,054

*USA 1994* (UTC-5 to UTC-8): 32,115,652
_Europe_: 6,773,389
_N. America & Caribbean_: 373,149
_Central & South America_: 4,289,105
_Africa_: 3,387,024
_Middle East_: 1,474,677
_Asia-Pacific_: 15,797,360

*France 1998* (UTC+2): 24,770,446
_Europe_: 6,368,982
_N. America & Caribbean_: 431,806
_Central & South America_: 4,470,734
_Africa_: 5,339,088
_Middle East_: 2,352,122
_Asia_: 5,763,257
_Oceania_: 44,457

*Korea-Japan 2002* (UTC+9): 28,843,581
_Europe_: 4'115'793
_N. America & Caribbean_: 468,814
_Central & South America_: 4,470,734
_Africa_: 5,162,737
_Middle East_: 1,028,552
_Asia_: 11,157,368
_Oceania_: 89,588

*Germany 2006* (UTC+2): 26,288,753
_Europe_: 5,334,805
_N. America & Caribbean_: 829,063
_Central & South America_: 3,913,539
_Africa_: 4,963,049
_Middle East_: 847,956
_Asia_: 8,279,287
_Oceania_: 62,672
_Out of home viewing_: 2,058,382

FIFA document


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> If increasing Chinese, American, Japanese and Indian viewership is important, then Morocco has an advantage because there they can play at for instance 15:00, during which it's 7:00 in LA and 00:00 in Tokyo and the rest of the world is in between. That's also a timeslot fans from all around the world are used to.
> 
> If the United bid wants to do that, they either have to play so early in the morning that no one will show up, or they play in the evening, which means it's in the middle of the night in Europe and Africa (half of the participating countries), where there is no culture of watching football in the middle of the night or very early in the morning.
> 
> I think opening up Asian markets is one of the weaknesses of the United bid. Opening up the US market obviously is one of their strong points, which is backed by the $300 million bonus in the TV contract.
> 
> Another benefit for the United bid is that Qatar will probably cater to (Eastern) Asia more already.


First, matches starting at 5:00 in LA (8:00 NY) will be mid-day in Japan and China. You hit all the 1B plus time zones. The Latin powers (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, etc.) will play in nearly the East Coast time zone so early evening matches work well. We already agreed a few pages back that starting times at, say, 12:00, 2:00 or 4:00 Eastern Time Zone are workable in Europe, where league matches often start in the later evening. And of course you are in the middle of the largest market in the world.

But assuming Morocco is better overall for time zone, it still loses. The key here is whether people in the US, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, etc., (to say nothing of Europe) will more likely watch a match in Fez or in LA; Al Hoceima or NY; Rabat or Las Vegas; Kenitra or Miami, etc.. The marketers (who are paid to do this right) believe that both the in-person crowds and the media crowds will be larger with regard to the second city of each pairing.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Maybe it's just me but hedging the benefits of a location on the relative time zone is weak or disingenuous because the World Cup as an event, for all intents and purposes, has to move around the globe eventually. Thus, it will sometimes have to be in a time zone that's inconvenient for Europe, or Asia, or North America, etc. And likewise it will eventually get back to a time zone that's most beneficial to one or the other region. The whole premise of touring the event is to make sure no one region is shown perpetual favoritism. 

Just saying.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> *First, matches starting at 5:00 in LA (8:00 NY) will be mid-day in Japan and China.* You hit all the 1B plus time zones. The Latin powers (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, etc.) will play in nearly the East Coast time zone so early evening matches work well. We already agreed a few pages back that starting times at, say, 12:00, 2:00 or 4:00 Eastern Time Zone are workable in Europe, where league matches often start in the later evening. And of course you are in the middle of the largest market in the world.
> 
> But assuming Morocco is better overall for time zone, it still loses. The key here is whether people in the US, Canada, China, Japan, Korea, etc., (to say nothing of Europe) will more likely watch a match in Fez or in LA; Al Hoceima or NY; Rabat or Las Vegas; Kenitra or Miami, etc.. The marketers (who are paid to do this right) believe that both the in-person crowds and the media crowds will be larger with regard to the second city of each pairing.


I assume you mean 5PM/17:00 with that, but then it would be 9:00 AM in Beijing and 02:00 AM in continental Europe. Give or take one hour because of summer time. Not ideal times, so I think the other playing times you mentioned would work better and Asia is f*cked.

But I agree with the rest of your post, I think that overall, the United bid wins when it comes to media, also because "the Arabs" (I am fully aware that there are huge cultural differences between Morocco and Qatar, but most in the world isn't) already had their turn and had the opportunity to cater to Asia. Next to that the North American cities are more glamorous to most people like you said. I'm not sure what the average person thinks of the NFL style stadiums in the US, but they'll find them more impressive than the current Moroccan stadiums for sure (the under construction/planned ones look great to me though).

For instance, I personally don't really like the look of the inside of the new LA stadium in renders. Looks enormous, but way too fragmentised. It's a shame because there are three stadiums that do/did that better around LA. The outside and roof of the new stadium is incredibly elegant though, in my opinion.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Maybe it's just me but hedging the benefits of a location on the relative time zone is weak or disingenuous because the World Cup as an event, for all intents and purposes, has to move around the globe eventually. Thus, it will sometimes have to be in a time zone that's inconvenient for Europe, or Asia, or North America, etc. And likewise it will eventually get back to a time zone that's most beneficial to one or the other region. The whole premise of touring the event is to make sure no one region is shown perpetual favoritism.
> 
> Just saying.


Yes! But some here insist on ignoring reality and assuming that Europe is the only place that counts. They would argue against China or SE Asia or India on the same general theory. Morocco would win against anybody if this argument had any merit.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I assume you mean 5PM/17:00 with that, but then it would be 9:00 AM in Beijing and 02:00 AM in continental Europe. Give or take one hour because of summer time. Not ideal times, so I think the other playing times you mentioned would work better and Asia is f*cked.
> 
> But I agree with the rest of your post, I think that overall, the United bid wins when it comes to media, also because "the Arabs" (I am fully aware that there are huge cultural differences between Morocco and Qatar, but most in the world isn't) already had their turn and had the opportunity to cater to Asia. Next to that the North American cities are more glamorous to most people like you said. I'm not sure what the average person thinks of the NFL style stadiums in the US, but they'll find them more impressive than the current Moroccan stadiums for sure (the under construction/planned ones look great to me though).
> 
> For instance, I personally don't really like the look of the inside of the new LA stadium in renders. Looks enormous, but way too fragmentised. It's a shame because there are three stadiums that do/did that better around LA. The outside and roof of the new stadium is incredibly elegant though, in my opinion.


Of course nothing works for everybody, but with some crafting you can usually get at least one time-zone appropriate team into every match (except for the matches that aren't going to be popular anywhere). :lol:

Otherwise, thanks for the agreement. I will take anybody who agrees with me on anything!


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Cumulative TV viewing audiences (000's Indiv)
> 
> *Italy 1990* (UTC+2): 26,692,759
> _Europe_: 7,643,445
> _N. America & Caribbean_: 389,552
> _Central & South America_: 3,281,546
> _Africa_: 2,552,388
> _Middle East_: 498,016
> _Asia-Pacific_: 12,318,054
> 
> *USA 1994* (UTC-5 to UTC-8): 32,115,652
> _Europe_: 6,773,389
> _N. America & Caribbean_: 373,149
> _Central & South America_: 4,289,105
> _Africa_: 3,387,024
> _Middle East_: 1,474,677
> _Asia-Pacific_: 15,797,360
> 
> *France 1998* (UTC+2): 24,770,446
> _Europe_: 6,368,982
> _N. America & Caribbean_: 431,806
> _Central & South America_: 4,470,734
> _Africa_: 5,339,088
> _Middle East_: 2,352,122
> _Asia_: 5,763,257
> _Oceania_: 44,457
> 
> *Korea-Japan 2002* (UTC+9): 28,843,581
> _Europe_: 4'115'793
> _N. America & Caribbean_: 468,814
> _Central & South America_: 4,470,734
> _Africa_: 5,162,737
> _Middle East_: 1,028,552
> _Asia_: 11,157,368
> _Oceania_: 89,588
> 
> *Germany 2006* (UTC+2): 26,288,753
> _Europe_: 5,334,805
> _N. America & Caribbean_: 829,063
> _Central & South America_: 3,913,539
> _Africa_: 4,963,049
> _Middle East_: 847,956
> _Asia_: 8,279,287
> _Oceania_: 62,672
> _Out of home viewing_: 2,058,382
> 
> FIFA document


Oh, why do you have to spoil all the fun with facts! 

So am I confused or did more Europeans watch the US WC than the ones in France or Germany?


----------



## Nacre

Rover030 said:


> ^^ It's more than 25-30% for Russia.


Seating capacity in Russia is lower than in North America. 20,000 foreign fans in a 40,000 seat stadium is 50% but the same number is only 25% in an 80,000 seat stadium.

Russia is also more convenient for European travelers, so it has higher numbers. Only 28% of tickets were sold to foreign fans in the 2014 cup in Brazil.



pesto said:


> First, no one was coming because of visas, being unwelcome, etc.: now they are 25 percent of the total in spite of no flights, long distances and high costs. I guess I lose either way. :lol:


The issue is that the World Cup is _supposed_ to be for the whole world, not just the host country/countries. The logistics of a triple CONCACAF cup work strongly against that.

FIFA may very well choose the money over the interests of fans and pick the United bid. But if we are being honest, the fans from the rest of the world will hate it. So very simply, which is more important for Americans: being able to go to one World Cup match near you, or the goodwill of the rest of the world?


----------



## Rabat with love 2

tic tac , june 13 is coming ... :lol: 

we are winning this .


----------



## Bouqebaz

I think Morocco should also focus on the carbon footprint difference. 

The carbon footprint of the united bid is much much much bigger.
Promising the greenest World cup ever. In three yrs (2020 already) 42% of Morocco's energy = green, let alone 2026.


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> I think Morocco should also focus on the carbon footprint difference.
> 
> The carbon footprint of the united bid is much much much bigger.
> Promising the greenest World cup ever. In three yrs (2020 already) 42% of Morocco's energy = green, let alone 2026.


I would definitely focus on the green issue if I were Morocco. But not if you are getting money from Qatar. :lol:


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> Seating capacity in Russia is lower than in North America. 20,000 foreign fans in a 40,000 seat stadium is 50% but the same number is only 25% in an 80,000 seat stadium.
> 
> Russia is also more convenient for European travelers, so it has higher numbers. Only 28% of tickets were sold to foreign fans in the 2014 cup in Brazil.
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that the World Cup is _supposed_ to be for the whole world, not just the host country/countries. The logistics of a triple CONCACAF cup work strongly against that.
> 
> FIFA may very well choose the money over the interests of fans and pick the United bid. But if we are being honest, the fans from the rest of the world will hate it. So very simply, which is more important for Americans: being able to go to one World Cup match near you, or *the goodwill of the rest of the world*?


Please. You do understand that the US and Morocco are working on arms deals and exchanges of information and have been doing so for decades? Morocco and the US have called each other strong allies. The US buys and sells billions around the world and people travel in and out for a million reasons every day. Korea, China and Western Europe exist as countries because of the US and vice-versa for Nazi Germany and the USSR. This is mouse nuts. Don't confuse it with the real world.

In any event, wouldn't it be FIFA that earns the enmity of the world? All that Can/Mex/US did was put in a bid. Go get those Swiss bastards, tiger, I'm right behind you. :lol:

Finally, there's already been a WC in the US. Huge success. Record breaker. You know what people did? They flew in airplanes, they rented cars, they drove all over the place. A lot stayed (some illegally, as happens at every event hosted in the US). It was a blast. You ought to try it.


----------



## marokko

ElvisBC said:


> thats all still well possible.
> the point is you can‘t blaim someone for taking the bigger wallet, thats how this rotten world works
> 
> infantino is clearly playing the big money card, the one he needs for re-election, and do not forget, they only have to make it past 2022, after that really big money will start falling from the sky: us (united) world cup, europe (uk?) world cup, china world cup. and even if south american centenial bid makes it, it is still huge money. all infantino needs is united bid to win and then sky is the limit


Yeah, but it is not something to be proud about or something you should encourage. In addition, this kind of rethoric is also double standards from the North Americans. When Russia and Qatar use their money, it is a shame. However when USA uses its money, military, etc., it is logical, smart, right. So in the end, the argument of the North Americans now becomes: We are the same and as rotten as Russia and Qatar and we don't mind? I just try to understand the rethoric of some North Americans here...

Lastly, I want to say that Football is not only the property of rich countries. From a sportive point of view, there are many nations that deserve the WC more than a USA and FIFA needs to take that also into account. I mean the USA isn't even able to qualify for WC 2018! This is a a very wealthy nation of 300 million people in a relatively easy region to qualify. They got the chance in 1994 to develop the sport, but not much happened.


----------



## AceOfSpades

To summarize, America is flushing all of its democratic, transparant principles down the toilet to act like corrupt Qatar and Russia because they are worried that little Morocco have a few aces up their sleeve? :lol:


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> And what point are you making about stadiums? :lol:
> 
> If an employer interviews people for a job and one candidate fits all of the requirements and another doesn't have what is needed, the employer hires the one that fits the needs. This is not prejudice or corruption or a "fix". It's what employers do: they make a decision between alternatives based on what is best for their situation. This seems to be what FIFA is doing at this point.


I expect the stronger candidate to come out on top and that's the USetc bid. But this business about restricting presentations for the African bid whilst no similar restrictions exist for the N American bid looks incompetent at best and murky at worst.

There might be a stronger candidate (and I agree that there certainly is), but to alter your analogy, this is like asking two candidates to prepare a presentation for their interview and only giving one the PowerPoint projector. It's weird that when FIFA is trying (apparently :lol to clean up its image it lets things like this happen.


----------



## pesto

AceOfSpades said:


> You are quite a character i'll give you this.
> 
> This isn't an employee interview. FIFA rotates the WC host nations in order to bring it closer to all football fans around the world.
> 
> I'm also quoting Infantino when i say that it is beneficial for countries who need to improve and upgrade their infrastructure.
> 
> If the WC is reserved to big, wealthy nations only then what's the point?
> 
> The USA and Mexico hosted it already. Time for another nation to do so.
> 
> FIFA chose a new democratic way of picking host nations. Now they are reclaiming despotic power.
> 
> If the FIFA was the one who had the power to pick, then i wouldn't even comment, but it's not the case. FAs vote, not the FIFA.
> 
> As for religion, please know that i'm an atheist and have no ties whatsoever with Qatar or any other islamic nation. I am Moroccan not a muslim.
> 
> Morocco needs the stadiums. I've given you enough arguments on this matter so i will refrain from responding to it.


So I believe (and maybe now you agree) that:

- the bid which is best for FIFA is the one that the African and Islamic nations (and atheists too) should vote for; 

- a subset of voters forming blocs and agreeing that they will vote for each other so as to take advantage of funds from other groups within the organization (or society) is democracy of the most vicious sort; 

- this morning FIFA could announce that they regret the childish and self-serving antics of some members and that they are forced to cancel the vote and have the decision made by a select group of soccer industry experts with no national ties, prejudices, hatreds or self-dealing ways of running an organization.

This is really all I am saying: it's FIFA's ballgame and the people who work for it, from Infantino down, are required by law to work for its benefit, not their own.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Guys, can we PLEASE just put all this crap behind us? If we want/need I can open a thread simply to bag on FIFA in general.


----------



## pesto

I agree and will happily stay on stadiums. 

Just as a side note, in the Morocco site there is a thread on the Morocco WC bid and it seems to feel free to bring up politics, development, better uses of money and all the other issues that the 2026 bid entails. Unfortunately it is mostly not in English.


----------



## pesto

http://www.aipsmedia.com/2018/02/19/22404/morocco-united-2026-2026-world-cup-fifa

An interesting status report on Morocco's planned stadiums, funding and the rush to put together a plan for the FIFA review team in March; plus some comments about the hurdles the United bid must face.

Plus some other issues that are off-topic.


----------



## RobH

To put this one to bed, FIFA now realises it's fecked up and has backtracked. As I said, they're not used to organising a clean bidding process, they're still finding their feet poor souls...



> *FIFA has lifted a ban on voters publicly endorsing a 2026 World Cup bid.*
> 
> Soccer’s governing body last month ordered officials not to openly discuss the merits of either the joint Northern American bid, featuring the United States, Canada and Mexico, or the rival Morocco contender.
> 
> It led to Confederation of African Football President Ahmad, who goes by just one name, expressing frustration at being restricted from backing his continent’s bid.
> 
> But FIFA Secretary General Fatma Samoura informed members this week of an about-turn in a letter to member associations offering new guidance on the bid rules of conduct.
> 
> In the letter seen by The Associated Press, Samoura now writes that “all public statements by football officials in support of one bidder are admissible provided that they meet the underlying principles of ethical behavior.”
> 
> The entire FIFA Congress, which features 211 soccer nations, is due to vote in June on the 2026 host.


https://apnews.com/4649c5cd6f2c4caf994599f208b1875e


----------



## pesto

http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...ding-rules-clear-warns-fifa-auditing-members/

Ouch! With this kind of friends who needs enemies? This guy tries to paint FIFA as the bad guys and Morocco as the good guys but only gets there by pointing out the rank incompetence of the Morocco team.

In brief, the United group followed FIFA’s published rules and Morocco didn’t.

Infantino had one other comment re the 2026 bid: if you are spending our money on personal activities (antics for the benefit of yourself rather than FIFA) you will be audited. 

This seems like a very frank public statement, not a diplomatic message behind closed doors. Could be some interesting reviews and discussions in March.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Letter from US Senators


----------



## Guest

This WC is going to North America 100%. I don't really know what else there is to say beyond that.


----------



## ElvisBC

Very very likely, I'd say 99%. FIFA might even play hard ball and (after evaluating the bids) authorise only north american bid to enter the voting, I even expect them to do so if they sense any uncertainty about the voting result. 

Nevertheless, I would still give it to Morocco! :colgate:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I'd be careful about this endorsement.



> Joseph S Blatter @SeppBlatter
> 
> World Cup 2026: Co-Hosting rejected by FIFA after 2002 (also applied in 2010 and 2018). And now: Morocco would be the logical host! And it is time for Africa again! #Fifa #CAF #@FIFAWorldCup


----------



## RobH

^^ Oh, poor Morocco! :lol:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

^^

It's as tasty as tadjin with arsenic.


----------



## ElvisBC

Blatter should travel to the US to explain that in person to Loretta Lynch :colgate:


----------



## PAO13

The Moroccan bid looks very interesting, I hope they win!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Very very likely, I'd say 99%. FIFA might even play hard ball and (after evaluating the bids) authorise only north american bid to enter the voting, I even expect them to do so if they sense any uncertainty about the voting result.
> 
> Nevertheless, I would still give it to Morocco! :colgate:


Sounds right, but I don't think that's hard ball. Unfortunately, explaining what hard ball is and the issues involved is outside our discussion limits.


----------



## RobH

Those who've followed FIFA for a while will remember the huge amount of flack and international ridicule they got for their 2011 Presidential "election". If they only get one bid, fine, but there's _no way_ they'd voluntarily put themselves in a position of having one option on a ballot paper again!


----------



## marokko

ElvisBC said:


> Very very likely, I'd say 99%. FIFA might even play hard ball and (after evaluating the bids) authorise only north american bid to enter the voting, I even expect them to do so if they sense any uncertainty about the voting result.
> 
> Nevertheless, I would still give it to Morocco! :colgate:


That's what I am afraid about too: The option that FIFA won't even allow Morocco to get voted on. If FIFA plays fair, than Morocco has definitely a good chance winning on June 13th. There are just too many nations already in favor of Morocco ...


----------



## marokko

An image from an article from jeuneafrique, a known Francophone journal in Africa, which shows current status of infrastructure for WC in Morocco:










*Explanation: *Purple is airport capacity, red is current stadium capacity and stadiums already under construction before bid intention, Blue is hotel capacity, line are major highways, dots are major train infrastructure,

A few sidenotes: 
1. El Hoceima city (40.000 seat stadium) probably won't be part of a Moroccan bid, because of the low hotel capacity. 
2. Current Casablanca stadium (67.000 seats), will not be part of a Moroccan bid. It is just too old and will be replaced by a national stadium with a capacity of 100.000 seats. 
3. Multiple large cities and infrastructure in Morocco are not mentioned on this map, but will be part of a Moroccan bid.
4. The Moroccan bid will be quite concentrated compared to NAFTA with easy traveling for fans (ports, airports, trains, highways). The goal of the bidding committee is to result in a situation that distance between two stadiums is less than 2 hours. The bid is also quite green (almost 50 percent of national electric production will be from renewable energy)
5. The total budget for the bidding process till June 13th is actually just 10.5 million euros / 12-13 million dollars


----------



## Rabat with love 2

PAO13 said:


> The Moroccan bid looks very interesting, I hope they win!


i've no doubt about winning this bid , we will get more than 104 votes :cheers:


----------



## Rabat with love 2

marokko said:


> That's what I am afraid about too: The option that FIFA won't even allow Morocco to get voted on. If FIFA plays fair, than Morocco has definitely a good chance winning on June 13th. There are just too many nations already in favor of Morocco ...


i can assure you that we have a full and complete bid bood that can't be rejected , everybody will see it next month


----------



## CaliforniaJones

These days I've heard so many rumors about hypothetical support from the US government to the United Bid and its possibility to withdraw.
Also, I heard Sunil Gulati was not welcomed at the UEFA. There're too many trolls on the social media concerning this campaign.

I only refer to the FACTS. So I'm waiting to read the bid books.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I feel from 2026, FIFA will surely favor joint-bids.
With 48 teams, one country will spend more money to build or upgrade infrastructure, manage security and many others. Also, the few last 32-teams World Cups were very expensive for sole countries. In joint-bids, countries can share expenses.
If Morocco made a joint-bid with Spain, Portugal, Algeria, Tunisia or Egypt, it could be less complicated and expensive.

FIFA considering having 4 countries co-host 2026 World Cup



> “*We will encourage co-hosting for the World Cup because we need FIFA to show we are reasonable and we have to think about sustainability long-term*,” said Infantino.
> 
> “(We could) …maybe bring together two, three, *four countries who can jointly present a project with three, four, five stadiums each*. We will certainly encourage it. Ideally the countries will be close to each other.”
> 
> Infantino’s statements could lend credence to the idea of the United States, Canada and Mexico co-hosting the 2026 tournament in triplicate, but with international relations in flux, security concerns, and the overall logistics of a three-country tournament, it’s far from a simple ask.
> 
> *Still, the idea evidently has support from a number of nations, including Sweden’s FA chair Karl-Erik Nilsson, who supported the idea of co-hosting for the World Cup.*
> 
> “It’s a good idea, and Europe has of course previously worked in this way on the European Championships,” said Nilsson.
> 
> “We are used to it and it works well, it makes it possible for more countries to arrange (tournaments), and in that way it is positive.”


----------



## Lagnom

*Diagram of 3 mexican cities that could host the World Cup*



mteregdl said:


> *3 Ciudades de México si sus edificios estuviesen juntos.*
> 
> *Monterrey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guadalajara
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puebla
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> :horse:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

LA’s bid to host 2026 FIFA World Cup back on track



> Los Angeles’ effort to be part of the North American bid to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup is back on track Friday as issues over the host city contract that threatened to derail its participation appear to have been worked out.
> 
> Eight City Council members signed their names to a resolution that pledges the city’s support to a new limited liability company that has been formed to lead the city’s effort to participate in the bid.


My News LA


----------



## CaliforniaJones

MetLife stadium has a big shot to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup final.


----------



## aquamaroon

Yep I think Metlife and the new LA Stadium in Inglewood are the two frontrunners for the final if the United bid wins:











Then I think there are two dark horses: AT&T Stadium in Dallas and a new Washington NFL stadium:











https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2016/03/*******-stadium-washington-big-usa-diagram_dezeen_05.gif










Then I think there is one more stadium on the fringe: the Rose Bowl in honor of its hosting the 1994 final (that's a LONG shot though, especially considering the new Inglewood stadium is right there in the metro area!):


----------



## pesto

I think that's just about it: MetLife and Inglewood are the leaders; something new in DC if it is done to a high standard. 

MetLife seems the likely leader since LA got it last time.


----------



## aquamaroon

At the risk of getting political! Thought this article from the UK would be of interest, and shows where the money is going:

World Cup bidding concerns raised as it is revealed that FIFA insisted on £216m TV bonus if 2026 tournament is held in USA, Mexico and Canada



> FIFA insisted on clauses in broadcasting contracts that will earn them windfall bonuses of $302m (£216m) from North American broadcasters if the 2026 World Cup is awarded to the USA and its neighbours.
> The revelation is sure to raise concerns that football's world governing body is 'gaming the system' and has a preferred destination for the event, driven by financial reasons, to the detriment of the USA's sole rival, Morocco.
> There are only two bids in play for the 2026 tournament, a joint bid by the USA with Mexico and Canada and the bid by Morocco.
> 
> ----------------
> 
> FOX Sports would be due to pay FIFA $182m (£130m) on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars already agreed for rights, sources say, while NBC would have to pay $115m (£82m) on top the sums already committed for their Spanish-language arm Telemundo, and Canadian broadcasters would pay an extra $5m (£3.6m).
> As the Mail on Sunday revealed last month, Qatar's state-owned TV company beIN Sports, agreed an extra $100m payment to FIFA before the vote for the 2022 tournament in the event Qatar was picked to host it, as transpired. There is nothing illegal about such payments and beIN and FIFA declined to confirm details.
> On the £216m FIFA could land in bonuses from 2026, FIFA said: 'Specific contractual details pertaining to business relationships maintained by FIFA with its media rights licensees are subject to confidentiality clauses, which is in line with commonly applied business practices.'



So this is being painted as a "scandal" by the Daily Mail but I think that's slightly disingenuous: the reason the 2026 World Cup rights were so cheap for Fox in the first place is because FIFA came to them and made them swallow a winter World Cup in 2022, at the height of the NFL season (as well as European soccer season for that matter.) And so the bonuses amount to what one could consider a fair market value for those TV rights if the WC came to the US.

All that said, it is a huge disadvantage that the Moroccan bid has to deal with: If the 2026 World Cup is in North America FIFA will receive *$302 million USD more* than if the World Cup was held in Africa. THAT SAID, this is a unique voting case where all the various federations worldwide will get a vote, as opposed to just the top FIFA brass. And so perhaps the financial windfall won't be as persuasive as it would have been in previous bidding contests! (FIFA as an organization won't be happy though :runaway


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> At the risk of getting political! Thought this article from the UK would be of interest, and shows where the money is going:
> 
> World Cup bidding concerns raised as it is revealed that FIFA insisted on £216m TV bonus if 2026 tournament is held in USA, Mexico and Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this is being painted as a "scandal" by the Daily Mail but I think that's slightly disingenuous: the reason the 2026 World Cup rights were so cheap for Fox in the first place is because FIFA came to them and made them swallow a winter World Cup in 2022, at the height of the NFL season (as well as European soccer season for that matter.) And so the bonuses amount to what one could consider a fair market value for those TV rights if the WC came to the US.
> 
> All that said, it is a huge disadvantage that the Moroccan bid has to deal with: If the 2026 World Cup is in North America FIFA will receive *$302 million USD more* than if the World Cup was held in Africa. THAT SAID, this is a unique voting case where all the various federations worldwide will get a vote, as opposed to just the top FIFA brass. And so perhaps the financial windfall won't be as persuasive as it would have been in previous bidding contests! (FIFA as an organization won't be happy though :runaway


I suspect that the 300M is only a small percentage of the total economic benefit that FIFA will reap if the United bid wins. 

This "situation" arises only because the economics of having the US as the host was well understood by both parties and Fox was willing to commit more funds to FIFA if the pot was going to be huge, and less if it wasn't. 

Who wouldn't? This isn't discrimination against Morocco; it's discrimination against the size of the broadcast market they are able to command.


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> MetLife stadium has a big shot to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup final.


no roof no final :nono:



aquamaroon said:


> At the risk of getting political! Thought this article from the UK would be of interest, and shows where the money is going:
> 
> World Cup bidding concerns raised as it is revealed that FIFA insisted on £216m TV bonus if 2026 tournament is held in USA, Mexico and Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this is being painted as a "scandal" by the Daily Mail but I think that's slightly disingenuous: the reason the 2026 World Cup rights were so cheap for Fox in the first place is because FIFA came to them and made them swallow a winter World Cup in 2022, at the height of the NFL season (as well as European soccer season for that matter.) And so the bonuses amount to what one could consider a fair market value for those TV rights if the WC came to the US.
> 
> All that said, it is a huge disadvantage that the Moroccan bid has to deal with: If the 2026 World Cup is in North America FIFA will receive *$302 million USD more* than if the World Cup was held in Africa. THAT SAID, this is a unique voting case where all the various federations worldwide will get a vote, as opposed to just the top FIFA brass. And so perhaps the financial windfall won't be as persuasive as it would have been in previous bidding contests! (FIFA as an organization won't be happy though :runaway


that is nothing new, that clause is well known :hi:


----------



## marokko

There are some rumors from french/arabic daily mirror kind of sources in Morocco that USA or Britain will get WC 2022 after re-evalution of current situation in Qatar, which would increase Morocco's chances to host 2026.

Anybody read something about this in more trustworthy sources?


----------



## ElvisBC

nope, thats just bullshit the sun wrote ... even though such move would be a giant leap for mankind :colgate:


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> no roof no final :nono:
> :


Are you saying that MetLife doesn't qualify? Or do you just need to have awnings over the seating area to have a "roof"?

And I have forgotten, do you count canopies as roofs?


----------



## cmc

_*LA likely to close WC in prep for 2028 games...*_


----------



## ElvisBC

cmc said:


> _*LA likely to close WC in prep for 2028 games...*_


can you please translate that for us?


----------



## RobH

marokko said:


> There are some rumors from french/arabic daily mirror kind of sources in Morocco that USA or Britain will get WC 2022 after re-evalution of current situation in Qatar, which would increase Morocco's chances to host 2026.
> 
> Anybody read something about this in more trustworthy sources?


Yes, it's in lots of papers but if you read it it becomes clear it's an absolute non-story. Amazed so many in the media actually ran with it. It's originates from quotes from Saudi's sports chief, not from any FIFA source.

Qatar 2022 was the stupidest decision ever, but let's not get too excited at what is a salvo launched by a Saudi government minister at a country they have frosty relations with at the moment. As I said, I'm amazed the media took the bait here.


----------



## Knitemplar

cmc said:


> _*LA likely to close WC in prep for 2028 games...*_


He doesn't know what he's talking about. The WC events in LA will complicate preparations for LAOOC-28 rather than help them.


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

pesto said:


> http://nielsensports.com/global-interest-football/
> 
> Your Euro-centrism may be checking in. Per the attached, the most intense soccer nations are Nigeria, Indonesia, Thailand, Mexico, Argentina and various smaller non-European countries.
> 
> Spain and Italy are a bit further down. The UK doesn’t check in until the third level down, way below S. Korea and HK among many others.
> 
> But the most relevant news for FIFA is that China, the US, Canada and India are even lower. That’s half the world. And it’s really the main driver for this process.


Interestingly, according to these statistics http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/nigeria-population/ 14% of Nigeria's population is under the age of 4. I appreciate that very young kids like football but it does sound iffy to say that 83% of the population state that they are interested in football.


----------



## pesto

Sheppard Fiddler said:


> Interestingly, according to these statistics http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/nigeria-population/ 14% of Nigeria's population is under the age of 4. I appreciate that very young kids like football but it does sound iffy to say that 83% of the population state that they are interested in football.


Persons polled normally do not include small children, those in institutions (prisons, hospitals, etc.) or non-residents.


----------



## Rover030

ElvisBC said:


> yes for sure, whoever wins will be a good host, this is not qatar insanity, but it is still just another world cup somewhere where it doesn‘t really belong. it is really sad that FIFA limits the choice of hosts with its stupid and extreme rules. since I am going to world cups, for nearly thirty years now, FIFA awarded it only three times to a true football country, and as it looks like at the moment, in next 20 years it might happen once, twice at best! that really sucks! nothing against usa or morocco but world cup belongs elsewhere, and everyone who went to italy in 1990 or to germany 2006 knows what I‘m talking about, the others can‘t really know it!
> 
> I only hope I‘m going to get one more chance to experience another true world cup in 2030, if health allows, otherwise I gave up long time ago ....thank you FIFA hno:


What is your third _true football country_? France or Brazil?


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> What is your third _true football country_? France or Brazil?


brazil of course, 1998 world cup was one of the worst overall, mainly due to zero world cup spirit expressed by the host nation


----------



## Rover030

^^ I already thought so, so we can establish that it's not euro-centrism :nuts:


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^ I already thought so, so we can establish that it's not euro-centrism :nuts:


As I said above: 4 WC's in Europe with every 5th one in Latin America just to show how open-minded you are. :lol:

And, again, the relevant criteria for FIFA are who is NOT yet loving soccer as much as we would like them to; the European market is already very well developed.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> As I said above: 4 WC's in Europe with every 5th one in Latin America just to show how open-minded you are. :lol:
> 
> And, again, the relevant criteria for FIFA are who is NOT yet loving soccer as much as we would like them to; the European market is already very well developed.


That would have been a better outcome than what has happened in the past 20 years :lol:

In my opinion the world cup should be the end, not the means. I'm not interested in having sub-par world cups just to spread the game. I just want a good world cup. Partly because of the continent rotation policies, the North American bid probably is that world cup. They will at least make more money than Morocco which FIFA needs after a horrible world cup in Qatar.

But for 2030 you will probably support China if you're serious about your "relevant criteria". I prefer a UK or Spain+ world cup because that will just be a better world cup.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> That would have been a better outcome than what has happened in the past 20 years :lol:
> 
> In my opinion the world cup should be the end, not the means. I'm not interested in having sub-par world cups just to spread the game. I just want a good world cup. Partly because of the continent rotation policies, the North American bid probably is that world cup. They will at least make more money than Morocco which FIFA needs after a horrible world cup in Qatar.
> 
> But for 2030 you will probably support China if you're serious about your "relevant criteria". I prefer a UK or Spain+ world cup because that will just be a better world cup.


That's sort of like liking elections as goals in themselves. Leave out all that political, social and economic stuff. :lol:

I'm not sure what the WC purpose would be: if you really want to find the best team you limit participants and have multiple loss elimination among the elite group. But few beyond age 16 believe that that is a serious goal of the WC. The real goal is that of the organizers (FIFA and the broadcast companies): to make lots of countries happy by being participants and to have close matches so they can say "we almost made it" and to show plenty of happy, cheering, dancing fans so people everywhere want to watch the show and feel like they would like to see more soccer.

As for future games, I will wait to see what the proposals look like and then judge based on that. Certainly the Chinese (and East Asian) market is a factor but also important are the quality of stadiums, infrastructure, local politics and social issues and all the other things that make an event either a success to cheer about or a debacle to try to outlive.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> Persons polled normally do not include small children, those in institutions (prisons, hospitals, etc.) or non-residents.


Those Nielsen stats are arrant nonsense. They should be ashamed to associate themselves with them. Take the UK participation rate at 33%. Definitely not. Ludicrously high. The idea that 1 in 3 play football/soccer at least once a week is laughable.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> That's sort of like liking elections as goals in themselves. Leave out all that political, social and economic stuff. :lol:
> 
> I'm not sure what the WC purpose would be: if you really want to find the best team you limit participants and have multiple loss elimination among the elite group. But few beyond age 16 believe that that is a serious goal of the WC. The real goal is that of the organizers (FIFA and the broadcast companies): to make lots of countries happy by being participants and to have close matches so they can say "we almost made it" and to show plenty of happy, cheering, dancing fans so people everywhere want to watch the show and feel like they would like to see more soccer.
> 
> As for future games, I will wait to see what the proposals look like and then judge based on that. Certainly the Chinese (and East Asian) market is a factor but also important are the quality of stadiums, infrastructure, local politics and social issues and all the other things that make an event either a success to cheer about or a debacle to try to outlive.


You're missing my point judging by that weird comparison to elections. Not a problem, you also missed ElvisBC's point about true football countries and showed some stats that are debatable to say the least.

What I want from a WC is some sort of balance between those two elements you mentioned. Having a good WC should be one of the goals for FIFA. Not spreading the game at the _expense_ of the world cup, like going from 32 to 48 countries or hosting it in a country that has no football culture whatsoever. 

Call me eurocentric, egoistic all you want, but for me and other fans in Europe, especially those from smaller countries, there are no real benefits from having the game grow on other continents anyway. They only watch the big leagues abroad so all extra TV money goes there and that reduces the relative strength of for instance the Eredivisie even further. Maybe the group of talented players will grow because of this, but that's compensated for by players leaving for the Chinese Super League or the MLS, where they are not really watchable for me.

To return to your initial comparison, do you not think having fair and democratic elections should be a goal in itself? Or do you not care in what way government policy is made, as long as you agree with it? It's offtopic but it might help me understand your opinions a bit better.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Those Nielsen stats are arrant nonsense. They should be ashamed to associate themselves with them. Take the UK participation rate at 33%. Definitely not. Ludicrously high. The idea that 1 in 3 play football/soccer at least once a week is laughable.


Nielsen is consistently among the most respected polling organizations and has thousands of clients and billions in revenue. Really you should look into their methodology rather than just calling the results nonsense.

In fact, the results look to me to be very reasonable. For sure the relative country rankings appear very accurate, with exactly who I expected at the top, upper middle, lower middle and bottom.


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> ^^ I already thought so, so we can establish that it's not euro-centrism :nuts:


eurocentrism .... great word :colgate:


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> You're missing my point judging by that weird comparison to elections. Not a problem, you also missed ElvisBC's point about true football countries and showed some stats that are debatable to say the least.
> 
> What I want from a WC is some sort of balance between those two elements you mentioned. Having a good WC should be one of the goals for FIFA. Not spreading the game at the _expense_ of the world cup, like going from 32 to 48 countries or hosting it in a country that has no football culture whatsoever.
> 
> Call me eurocentric, egoistic all you want, but for me and other fans in Europe, especially those from smaller countries, there are no real benefits from having the game grow on other continents anyway. They only watch the big leagues abroad so all extra TV money goes there and that reduces the relative strength of for instance the Eredivisie even further. Maybe the group of talented players will grow because of this, but that's compensated for by players leaving for the Chinese Super League or the MLS, where they are not really watchable for me.
> 
> To return to your initial comparison, do you not think having fair and democratic elections should be a goal in itself? Or do you not care in what way government policy is made, as long as you agree with it? It's offtopic but it might help me understand your opinions a bit better.


I didn't call you Euro-centric; I said that about Elvis and I doubt that he denies it. But in this comment you do sound like you are focused locally, which is very unusual for the Dutch I know.

As for selling product worldwide, that is just the way the economy works, whether its caviar or anime; cell phones or automobiles. If you don't have many sales in China, you try to build that market. I certainly have no issue with baseball going to Mexico, the NFL going to Europe. 

You said the WC should be an end and not a means. I compared this to elections, which are means, and not ends in themselves. The ends are to establish government that carries out certain tasks in a fair and efficient manner; the election is a means that hopefully accomplishes this end. Likewise the WC is a means of spreading love of soccer to many countries.


----------



## pesto

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/06/sports/soccer/world-cup.html

This is a nice political move to help squelch the anti-US complaints in light of the approaching decisions. I would guess the PR process has already started and there is more to come; there almost has to be since it's hard to sell the idea that anyone except the US will really be making the decisions.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> Nielsen is consistently among the most respected polling organizations and has thousands of clients and billions in revenue. Really you should look into their methodology rather than just calling the results nonsense.
> 
> In fact, the results look to me to be very reasonable. For sure the relative country rankings appear very accurate, with exactly who I expected at the top, upper middle, lower middle and bottom.


I'm sure they're able to correctly compile figures for Oscar night viewing but those numbers are just wrong. Shame as we wouldn't have such a problem with obesity if they were correct.

Sport England's research (which involves very large samples the most recent of which was 163,108) shows around 5% of adults over 16 in England play football/soccer regularly.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/490242/football-participation-uk/

More available on Sport England's website but it is a pain to navigate. Little more than a third of adults in England do a half hour session of any exercise each week.

Nielsen are massively wrong on participation. That is definable. Interest is on a continuum and therefore harder to measure. If they can get participation so wrong they can get interest wrong too, although those figures do appear more believable.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I'm sure they're able to correctly compile figures for Oscar night viewing but those numbers are just wrong. Shame as we wouldn't have such a problem with obesity if they were correct.
> 
> Sport England's research (which involves very large samples the most recent of which was 163,108) shows around 5% of adults over 16 in England play football/soccer regularly.
> 
> https://www.statista.com/statistics/490242/football-participation-uk/
> 
> More available on Sport England's website but it is a pain to navigate. Little more than a third of adults in England do a half hour session of any exercise each week.
> 
> Nielsen are massively wrong on participation. That is definable. Interest is on a continuum and therefore harder to measure. If they can get participation so wrong they can get interest wrong too, although those figures do appear more believable.


You trust the guys whose job it is to lobby for more government funds for sports so that they can keep their paper-shuffling desk jobs, over someone who has no particular ax to grind other than to impress potential clients with the quality of their analysis and service? 

But, if you question Nielsen's numbers, give them a call or email about their methodology. They will most likely let you know just to show how good the quality of their work is.

In any event, if you DO want to rank England lower, then do so. It just makes my point all the more than Europe is in the middle ranks when it comes to the popularity of soccer. And that is not consistent with the claim made by others that Europe is uniquely suited as a location for WC's.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> You trust the guys whose job it is to lobby for more government funds for sports so that they can keep their paper-shuffling desk jobs, over someone who has no particular ax to grind other than to impress potential clients with the quality of their analysis and service?


I don't trust Nielsen. As their shares are worth less than they were 5 years ago, despite a long running bull market elsewhere, I don't think I'm the only one.

Sport England aren't helped by declining sporting activity rates. The demand from Government is for increased participation. There have been calls in The Times in the last week for Sport England to be disbanded precisely because it is failing its participation targets. No jobs for paper-shufflers then or at least not the same ones. Ipsos Mori do the survey. They're reputable.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I don't trust Nielsen. As their shares are worth less than they were 5 years ago, despite a long running bull market elsewhere, I don't think I'm the only one.
> 
> Sport England aren't helped by declining sporting activity rates. The demand from Government is for increased participation. There have been calls in The Times in the last week for Sport England to be disbanded precisely because it is failing its participation targets. No jobs for paper-shufflers then or at least not the same ones. Ipsos Mori do the survey. They're reputable.


A couple of contradictions here (they're reputable and about to be disbanded; govt. wants to disband them even though sports participation is declining). But in any event, you want to rely on information gathered by someone who is failing at their goals and has every reason to distort numbers to save their jobs? 

As for Nielsen, even though 30 other countries are listed no one else has seen anything to complain about. Did you call Nielsen and ask? Seriously, they will tell you their methodology (which in this case may very well include school children who play frequently).

Sorry to get a bit off topic.


----------



## ElvisBC

9 days left ... then we can hopefully analyse the bid books, if they make them available.

as far as I can remember they never made these available, only FIFA own summaries of the bids (it was officially called "FIFA World Cup XXXX bid evaluation report"), and even that pretty late and close to the vote


----------



## nandoer

ElvisBC said:


> 9 days left ... then we can hopefully analyse the bid books, if they make them available.
> 
> as far as I can remember they never made these available, only FIFA own summaries of the bids (it was officially called "FIFA World Cup XXXX bid evaluation report"), and even that pretty late and close to the vote


Yeah... such a pitty, in contrast with Olympic bids.


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

pesto said:


> It just makes my point all the more than Europe is in the middle ranks when it comes to the popularity of soccer. And that is not consistent with the claim made by others that Europe is uniquely suited as a location for WC's.


Interestingly, I remember reading that the Faroe Islands had some of the highest participation of football in the world. This article shows something similar... http://www.sportingintelligence.com...s-iceland-cyprus-scotland-and-england-020403/

Participation is fairly easy to record if you are referring to attending games, you count attendances. As regards to what 'engaged', 'interested' and 'participation' refers to in terms of Nigeria, for example, I have no idea how you'd calculate that.
I agree that the 'popularity' of football is crazy in lots of global areas, especially in some African and South American, and now South Asian as well but trying to measure an abstract concept is always going to be challenging.

It always seems odd to me when you see a club like Real Madrid or Manchester United say they have 300million fans in Malaysia or something - what does that even mean?


----------



## pesto

Sheppard Fiddler said:


> Interestingly, I remember reading that the Faroe Islands had some of the highest participation of football in the world. This article shows something similar... http://www.sportingintelligence.com...s-iceland-cyprus-scotland-and-england-020403/
> 
> Participation is fairly easy to record if you are referring to attending games, you count attendances. As regards to what 'engaged', 'interested' and 'participation' refers to in terms of Nigeria, for example, I have no idea how you'd calculate that.
> I agree that the 'popularity' of football is crazy in lots of global areas, especially in some African and South American, and now South Asian as well but trying to measure an abstract concept is always going to be challenging.
> 
> It always seems odd to me when you see a club like Real Madrid or Manchester United say they have 300million fans in Malaysia or something - what does that even mean?


It means that they have large numbers of people who follow the results, know every player on the roster and, most importantly, watch their matches. That's why they are worth 3B, and that's why the major European leagues are spending big on the Asian and US markets. 

LAFC didn't even have a team or stadium in place when Dortmund scheduled a match with them in LA. There's gold in them thar hills.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

From twitter: One of our proposed fan-fest sites is Liberty State Park �� (with a capacity of 80,000).


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> From twitter: One of our proposed fan-fest sites is Liberty State Park �� (with a capacity of 80,000).


I never liked fanfest sites that far outside! why no central park?

ok, liberty park has nice manhattan and jersey city view, statue of liberty possibly as well but it‘s far outside! I‘m not even sure how to reach it, take path and then one of those tramways I guess. 

not the best solution IMHO


----------



## CaliforniaJones

LAFC enter fray to keep Los Angeles in 2026 World Cup bid



> Changes have occurred within North America’s bid to host the 2026 World Cup – including the addition of Los Angeles as a potential host city, after it appeared the second-largest city in the United States may opt to sit out altogether.
> 
> On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council approved a measure allowing Los Angeles World Cup 2026 Host Committee, LLC to represent several Southern California cities in seeking out the international tournament.
> 
> The committee includes Los Angeles Football Club and plans to bid for hosting rights for the cities of Los Angeles, Inglewood and Pasadena, according to the Los Angeles Times.


Angels on Parade












> In other news, the official written bid for the North American effort closed Tuesday night and will be printed in seven languages ahead of next week’s FIFA deadline.


Sports Illustrated


----------



## ElvisBC

wow! didn‘t know gulati was sacked! they are scared indeed at united bid headquarters!

7 languages is great! wouldn‘t surprise me if morocco stays low profile with this one as well! I think we never had a bid with as little information as with moroccan bid 2026! Sometimes less is more, I know, but I do not think that‘s gonna work this time!


----------



## pesto

Expo Park seems a strong contender, especially with the variety of museums and open area nearby. But then again so are Inglewood and the Rose Bowl.

But I think an area away from the heart of a major city is better. The US is not basically an urban country; it's attractions include its mountains, oceans, rivers, rugged plains and smaller cities. Agriculture is still very big business.

Mid-sized cities east of the Mississippi would give you more penetration into the hundreds of cities that aren't quite large enough for hosting actual matches (e.g., Memphis, Nashville, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, among many others). These all have millions of people and others within easy driving distance, and can also handle tourists with ease. 

Of course, any of the larger cities that don't get matches are prime candidates as well.


----------



## Knitemplar

Seven languages? English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Klingon? Braille? ALS? Tamil? Ebonics? Euskera? :nuts:


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Well don't forget, they are probably publishing it in both forms of English: standard English and 'Murican (simplified English) :lol:


----------



## Rover030

Could it be that the "New York" bid is a New Jersey effort only? Because liberty park is the same distance from the stadium as central park, so that isn't an advantage either. 

I imagine organising an event is much easier in liberty park, but the reputation of central park as one of the most famous parks in the world should surely compensate by bringing in lots more interest and money. I mean, in my city alone we have an hotel called central park, a festival called central park and there will be a 90m high-rise called central park. Meanwhile I can't think of anything named after liberty park


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Seven languages? English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Klingon? Braille? ALS? Tamil? Ebonics? Euskera? :nuts:


Klingon's can't vote since some unfortunate publicity about authoritarianism, brutality and slavery.

Ebonics? Fo' shizzle!

ALS? Is that ASL for dyslexics? 

:lol:


----------



## Colonel Ned

Knitemplar said:


> Seven languages? English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Chinese, Klingon? Braille? ALS? Tamil? Ebonics? Euskera? :nuts:


may be in Cherokee language too


----------



## Colonel Ned

ElvisBC said:


> wow! didn‘t know gulati was sacked! they are scared indeed at united bid headquarters!
> 
> 7 languages is great! wouldn‘t surprise me if morocco stays low profile with this one as well! I think we never had a bid with as little information as with moroccan bid 2026! Sometimes less is more, I know, but I do not think that‘s gonna work this time!


Morocco is a seriuous competitor and they really want to organize a wonderful world cup

I think it's logical that they keep their work out of light in order to protect what they are preparing

but we will not wait for long time ... next march 16th, the bid book will be submitted to FIFA.

and then, when all information about both bids will be revealed (or released), we can discuss in this forum (between men who have much respect for all nations)


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> A couple of contradictions here (they're reputable and about to be disbanded; govt. wants to disband them even though sports participation is declining). But in any event, you want to rely on information gathered by someone who is failing at their goals and has every reason to distort numbers to save their jobs?
> 
> As for Nielsen, even though 30 other countries are listed no one else has seen anything to complain about. Did you call Nielsen and ask? Seriously, they will tell you their methodology (which in this case may very well include school children who play frequently).
> 
> Sorry to get a bit off topic.


I know we're well of topic and I don't want to bore everybody else to death.

Sport England are separate to Ipsos Mori, who are a large multinational survey/research firm. The latter are reputable and carry out the survey. Sport England have been heavily criticised because they have failed to increase participation in sport, particularly since the London Olympics. This might be a cross Atlantic cultural difference. If something is failing here funding is cut. At least in sport. UK Sport, another different organisation, cuts funding to elite sports programmes that are failing and gives it to those that do well. The targets being Olympic medals. Hence the UK doing well at sports like cycling, rowing and Skeleton Bob. The money gets funnelled into those. This works if you give all medals equal value. We end up targeting sports where there is either a technology component or a lack of competition. Sport England could well have their funding cut or be replaced. The money could be partially re-directed towards other health-related activities. It might be better spent on anti-obesity or smoking programmes. The incentive for Sport England is very clearly to distort numbers upwards not downwards. However, Ipsos Mori are not going to do that for them and the survey is on a massive scale.

I'm not _that_ bothered about the methodology. However, they would not be comparing like with like if school children are involved. Over half the population of Nigeria are under 18. In fact it isn't like for like unless age is accounted for. Developed countries have much higher average ages and few old people are capable of playing football.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

ElvisBC said:


> 9 days left ... then we can hopefully analyse the bid books, if they make them available.
> 
> as far as I can remember they never made these available, only FIFA own summaries of the bids (it was officially called "FIFA World Cup XXXX bid evaluation report"), and even that pretty late and close to the vote


From FIFA Guidelines


> Every step of the bidding process is open to the public. The Bid Book content and the hosting requirements are all publicly available, as will be the evaluation reports for each candidature. Based on these reports, the FIFA Council will make a decision and shortlist the bids that qualify to be voted by the FIFA Congress. During this process, all individual votes will be disclosed.
> The final decision by FIFA’s supreme legislative body is the result of an open voting process.
> Moreover, the bidding process is governed by significantly extended rules of conduct and, for the first time, it will be scrutinised by an independent audit company appointed by FIFA. In other words, the football community knows what it takes to be chosen as the host of the FIFA World Cup, and why a choice has been made. Not a single decision is guarded away from public scrutiny.


I'm impatient to read all the bid books.

I think there's a strategy behind change of leadership od the United Bid. I feel there could be some surprises in their bid book.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Blatter: North American bid ‘afraid’ to lose 2026 World Cup



> ”They give the impression that they are not any longer very sure that they will win, that’s my impression,” Blatter said. ”But I don’t know why they are afraid.”
> 
> Last month, Blatter wrote on Twitter that Morocco was the ”logical host” of the 2026 tournament. FIFA preferred single-nation World Cup hosts under Blatter’s leadership.
> 
> Still, Blatter declined to fully endorse Morocco’s ability to host a 48-team tournament alone. The 2026 edition will have the 16 extra teams wanted by Blatter successor Gianni Infantino, who supports multi-nation bids.
> 
> ”I don’t know if the Moroccans are able to organize a World Cup of 48,” Blatter told invited reporters at a briefing in Zurich related to his own legal issues.


Fox Sports


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Blatter: North American bid ‘afraid’ to lose 2026 World Cup
> 
> Fox Sports


Blatter seems to believe Morocco is the logical choice but not capable of handling it? If that's how he talks I wouldn't want to be his lawyer. :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> From FIFA Guidelines
> 
> 
> I'm impatient to read all the bid books.
> 
> I think there's a strategy behind change of leadership od the United Bid. I feel there could be some surprises in their bid book.


thanks, I had the document but missed somehow that part about availability! and about surprises in the united bid, I do not expect too many, but can‘t wait to find out details! they removed gulati who was obviously connected with too many failures, not sure about the rest!
but what I‘m really looking for is reading moroccan bid! everyone expects slim and pretty much basic bid, use of previous ones updated to current standards!

anyway, looks like some weeks of fun very soon


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> thanks, I had the document but missed somehow that part about availability! and about surprises in the united bid, I do not expect too many, but can‘t wait to find out details! they removed gulati who was obviously connected with too many failures, not sure about the rest!
> 
> anyway, looks like some weeks of fun very soon


Yes, I'm buying my suit of armor and gas mask in preparation.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I read in a french speaking newspaper many sportsment don't suppurt the United bid because of avoiding to be associated to Trump. Guess what.



















Beware of rumors and trolls.


----------



## ElvisBC

reading blatters statement once again and reading a bit between the lines, I think he shares my opinion :colgate: “check morocco bid well and give them world cup if they can really pull it off! if not give it to united bid!“. that simple!!


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

Blatter's strategy has always been to 'support' the African block of federations as this is what he built his power basis on. It was this group who were most easily persuaded with development funds and was a reaction against the perceived Eurocentric/Anglicised/Western preference of the previous presidents, before Havelange.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

As I have always said, the main issue will be to restore FIFA's credibility and finances.



> I look at the situation here, and I want to be very clear: If you’re voting for who’s going to host this World Cup, there are a lot of reasons to vote for the North American bid. In part, economic, where Gianni Infantino, the FIFA president, has promised so much more money going out to each FIFA member nation that just from an economic standpoint, FIFA needs to make as much money as possible off the one event—the World Cup—that it gets its money from. *That includes ticket sales. That includes TV rights. That includes sponsorships*.
> 
> *FIFA’s an organization that hasn’t gotten a new sponsor from outside of Russia, Qatar or China since the FIFA scandal. They need new American sponsors to come on. They need the money that comes with that.* And obviously, the ’94 World Cup in the U.S. made a ton of money. So Gianni Infantino, my guess, is pushing for the North American bid to get voted on. And even the countries that have an issue with Trump, I think, want the money to come in. FIFA’s lost money the last couple of years.


Sports Illustrated


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Just be cool guys , its almost just 3 months left :cheers:


----------



## GunnerJacket




----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


>


:lol:

Better than :bash:


----------



## Colonel Ned

Sheppard Fiddler said:


> Blatter's strategy has always been to 'support' the African block of federations as this is what he built his power basis on. It was this group who were most easily persuaded with development funds and was a reaction against the perceived Eurocentric/Anglicised/Western preference of the previous presidents, before Havelange.


Any news about any kind of official feedback from the White House to Congressmen letter begging Trump for support ??

opcorn:


----------



## Samacado

Colonel Ned said:


> Any news about any kind of official feedback from the White House to Congressmen letter begging Trump for support ??
> 
> opcorn:


yes, a joint US / North Korea bid.

Mexico and Canada are covfefe and out.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> @CityOfBoston's Boston Common, America’s oldest public park – created in 1634 - is ready to welcome 200,000 fans in 2026. #Opportunity2026 #United2026


----------



## pesto

Yeah, I love that dirty water!

Boston makes a nice combo with NY (Federal Hall, Ellis Is., Statue of Liberty) and DC. Some great open spaces, views, architecture and history.

And, of course, Philly is in there too.


----------



## ElvisBC

that would be the dream scenario ... us withdrawing the bid and morocco bid insufficient, so FIFA letting everyone bid :colgate:


----------



## Colonel Ned

ElvisBC said:


> that would be the dream scenario ... us withdrawing the bid and morocco bid insufficient, so FIFA letting everyone bid :colgate:


hillarious hhhh
and then both of them droped off
so FIFA will ask for some other countrie to bid in 2020
BTW, official government support is a pilar of the bid (now you understand De Maria & Gulati actions)


----------



## Rabat with love 2

ElvisBC said:


> that would be the dream scenario ... us withdrawing the bid and morocco bid insufficient, so FIFA letting everyone bid :colgate:


As far as i know , the moroccan bid can't be rejected and it's not insufficient as it respects fifa's specifications one by one , morocco will present a very strong bid book which prove that the country has what it takes to host a 48 teams WC in 8 years from now 

This bid is seen as an african bid not only moroccan , it has not only the support of CAF and african FAs but also some african presidents have signed their support for Morocco 2026 ...


----------



## Mouadex

Fifa is showing the democracy in its most despicable and dishonest form. They pretend to give the right to vote to all world's countries but keep in hands the right to disqualify any candidate. The point is that, and apart from few countries in the world, Fifa can easily find a reason to disqualify a candidate. So there is still a big probability of Corruption either from the weak candidate to bribe and keep his bid alive, or the stronger side to bribe and avoid the vote of the world. 

After FIFA scandal, it seems to me clear that Infantino wants to clean FIFA relations with US and I wonder if the decision of making the world cup 48 teams wasn't also for this Purpose ( more teams, more benefits.. pure American vision + 6.5 teams qualified from CONCACAF !!! ). 

The Moroccan bid is in the limit between the rejection and the acceptation and taking into account Infantino's clear endorsement for US bid, I believe that FIFA will disqualify Moroccan bid.

PS : the best bid would have been Morocco / Spain as it fulfils largely FIFA requirements and it sends many positive messages by unifying Africa and Europe, but Infantino, of course, rejected it claiming that he cares about respecting the order of the continents in the attribution of the world cup organisation ( Europe already organise 2018 so can't organise it for 2026 ). In this case, shouldn't be Morocco the only candidate for 2026 since America already hosted it in 2014... because in case we separate north and south America, United will organise the world cup every 20 years.. and then we have to separate east and west Europe...


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> Fifa is showing the democracy in its most despicable and dishonest form. They pretend to give the right to vote to all world's countries but keep in hands the right to disqualify any candidate. The point is that, and apart from few countries in the world, Fifa can easily find a reason to disqualify a candidate. So there is still a big probability of Corruption either from the weak candidate to bribe and keep his bid alive, or the stronger side to bribe and avoid the vote of the world.
> 
> After FIFA scandal, it seems to me clear that Infantino wants to clean FIFA relations with US and I wonder if the decision of making the world cup 48 teams wasn't also for this Purpose ( more teams, more benefits.. pure American vision + 6.5 teams qualified from CONCACAF !!! ).
> 
> The Moroccan bid is in the limit between the rejection and the acceptation and taking into account Infantino's clear endorsement for US bid, I believe that FIFA will disqualify Moroccan bid.
> 
> PS : the best bid would have been Morocco / Spain as it fulfils largely FIFA requirements and it sends many positive messages by unifying Africa and Europe, but Infantino, of course, rejected it claiming that he cares about respecting the order of the continents in the attribution of the world cup organisation ( Europe already organise 2018 so can't organise it for 2026 ). In this case, shouldn't be Morocco the only candidate for 2026 since America already hosted it in 2014... because in case we separate north and south America, United will organise the world cup every 20 years.. and then we have to separate east and west Europe...


We still seem to be on two paths here. One says that Morocco will win because all of Africa and South Asia will vote for them out of blind ethnic and religious hatred of the US and with disregard for the benefits to FIFA. Their big fear is that FIFA HQ will effectively forestall or suppress any votes that are based on voters disregard of their legal mandate to support FIFA’s best interests, but instead prefer to continue to follow FIFA’s historical approach and engage in local politics and dealing. 

The other group says that the vote should be on the basis of quality of facilities, expected financial return and the like which will benefit FIFA’s ability to fund the expansion of soccer throughout the world. Their fear is that Infantino has not yet brought FIFA into the modern world of business-like decisions and votes based on factors relevant to FIFA’s charter. Basically, this means having decisions made by a small group of people who have only FIFA's interests in mind and will respond to technical and financial arguments.

It’s hard to say who will win since we have two such divergent models of human nature.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Vancouver


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Joe Tutino with Cobi Jones, having a #united2026 scarf


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> <blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/BgOZsH6nMkz/" data-instgrm-version="8" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:8px;"> <div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:37.5% 0; text-align:center; width:100%;"> <div style=" background:url(); display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;"></div></div> <p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/BgOZsH6nMkz/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Let’s bring the cup back to North America #united2026</a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">Une publication partagée par <a href="https://www.instagram.com/joetutino/" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px;" target="_blank"> Joe Tutino</a> (@joetutino) le <time style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;" datetime="2018-03-12T13:34:42+00:00">12 Mars 2018 à 6*:34 PDT</time></p></div></blockquote> <script async defer src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>


:colgate: :cheers1:


----------



## pesto

Vancouver is a beautiful city in the summer but it a long way from anything else in Canada. If they are to be part of a group it would have to be with Seattle, but then you have a lot of matches in an area that is remote from the big population centers (NE, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, Florida, Texas, California).

To me, it just doesn't seem important enough to FIFA to put 6 or more matches in that area.


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> *Fifa is showing the democracy in its most despicable and dishonest form. *They pretend to give the right to vote to all world's countries but keep in hands the right to disqualify any candidate. The point is that, and apart from few countries in the world, Fifa can easily find a reason to disqualify a candidate. So there is still a big probability of Corruption either from the weak candidate to bribe and keep his bid alive, or the stronger side to bribe and avoid the vote of the world.
> 
> 
> I would say that FIFA is rescuing democracy from its most despicable form.
> 
> Pure democracy is among the worst forms of government (e.g., it permits the 51 to vote to execute the other 49 for any reason). That is why there are only constitutional democracies, that is, ones that protect a core set of rights and values that cannot be impinged.
> 
> They also limit what issues are subject to popular votes and which are decided by those with particular skills or interests (e.g., business matters, scientific and technical issues, private issues generally). These issues are normally decided by those with a legal and economic interest in the decision using technical analysis, and not democratically by the population generally. This is why FIFA (and others) have technical committees to review bids that are not adequate in some fundamental way.
> 
> Democracy (from "demos", people) also implies that people (not countries) have equal status as agents: each person has the same rights and responsibilities. It’s clear that this principle is not operating when one country has 1.4 billion people and can be dictated to by 2 countries of 20k or so each.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

March 16th is the deadline and we have no idea about the host cities of the north american bid and neither if the 3 governements support this bid :lol:


----------



## Cjones2451

pesto said:


> Vancouver is a beautiful city in the summer but it a long way from anything else in Canada. If they are to be part of a group it would have to be with Seattle, but then you have a lot of matches in an area that is remote from the big population centers (NE, Great Lakes, Mid-Atlantic, Florida, Texas, California).
> 
> To me, it just doesn't seem important enough to FIFA to put 6 or more matches in that area.


So does that mean only 2 Canadian Cities get it, They wouldn't take Edmonton over Vancouver.

Or is Seattle the odd man out? Tough to ignore their level of support for soccer though


----------



## CaliforniaJones

ElvisBC said:


> :colgate: :cheers1:


Sorry, I wanted to put a picture from Instagram, but I didn't make it correctly.


----------



## Mouadex

pesto said:


> Mouadex said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Fifa is showing the democracy in its most despicable and dishonest form. *They pretend to give the right to vote to all world's countries but keep in hands the right to disqualify any candidate. The point is that, and apart from few countries in the world, Fifa can easily find a reason to disqualify a candidate. So there is still a big probability of Corruption either from the weak candidate to bribe and keep his bid alive, or the stronger side to bribe and avoid the vote of the world.
> 
> 
> I would say that FIFA is rescuing democracy from its most despicable form.
> 
> Pure democracy is among the worst forms of government (e.g., it permits the 51 to vote to execute the other 49 for any reason). That is why there are only constitutional democracies, that is, ones that protect a core set of rights and values that cannot be impinged.
> 
> They also limit what issues are subject to popular votes and which are decided by those with particular skills or interests (e.g., business matters, scientific and technical issues, private issues generally). These issues are normally decided by those with a legal and economic interest in the decision using technical analysis, and not democratically by the population generally. This is why FIFA (and others) have technical committees to review bids that are not adequate in some fundamental way.
> 
> Democracy (from "demos", people) also implies that people (not countries) have equal status as agents: each person has the same rights and responsibilities. It’s clear that this principle is not operating when one country has 1.4 billion people and can be dictated to by 2 countries of 20k or so each.
> 
> 
> 
> What you say is really interesting, however you in your logic FIFA is a neutral side which is, and from I saw, not the case. Democracy has its weaknesses as it gives the right to "unqualified people to choose" but in the same time it allows not keeping the right of making decisions under one entity/person which raise the probability of corruption and reduce transparency.
> 
> You can think about another alternative apart from the vote of countries but definitly not keeping decision in FIFA hands.
Click to expand...


----------



## CaliforniaJones

News from Canada



> Duane Rollins @24thminute
> 
> The CSA and the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities are making *“A major sport announcement on behalf of the government of Canada”* tomorrow at 9am at BMO Field.





> Canada Soccer @CanadaSoccerEN
> 
> *TUESDAY : Minister Duncan to make an important sport announcement in #Toronto*
> 
> The Honourable Kirsty Duncan will be in Toronto on Tuesday to make a major sport announcement on behalf of the Government of Canada. Minister Duncan will be joined by &#55356;&#57153;⚽ Peter Montopoli


----------



## ElvisBC

Rabat with love 2 said:


> March 16th is the deadline and we have no idea about the host cities of the north american bid and neither if the 3 governements support this bid :lol:


and some might say march 16th is the deadline and we have no idea about anything regarding morocco bid 

just another point of the view thing


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> Sorry, I wanted to put a picture from Instagram, but I didn't make it correctly.


I realized that, was just kidding


----------



## pesto

Cjones2451 said:


> So does that mean only 2 Canadian Cities get it, They wouldn't take Edmonton over Vancouver.
> 
> Or is Seattle the odd man out? Tough to ignore their level of support for soccer though


I really don' know. Personally, I discount the "travel issue" humbug that Morocco is pushing. The environmental damage of Morocco building or fundamentally upgrading 12 stadiums has to swamp 1000-fold that of half a dozen airplanes flying with a few more passengers on board (it's not like anyone will schedule more flights). So I would go with Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto.

Seattle I might leave out because you don't need that many matches so remote and there are so many great stadiums in or near population centers. But if FIFA allows more stadiums, they are a contender.


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> pesto said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you say is really interesting, however you in your logic FIFA is a neutral side which is, and from I saw, not the case. Democracy has its weaknesses as it gives the right to "unqualified people to choose" but in the same time it allows not keeping the right of making decisions under one entity/person which raise the probability of corruption and reduce transparency.
> 
> You can think about another alternative apart from the vote of countries but definitly not keeping decision in FIFA hands.
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, thanks for the friendly and intelligent reply. Those are rare here.
> 
> My view: FIFA is not a country, it is a private organization with private goals. It must operate consistently with the rules of the countries it operates in, but that doesn't imply anything "democratic". Decisions are made by the CEO and the board and they are legally responsible for them.
> 
> If there is corruption involved, the offending parties can be sued. But FIFA cannot be told how to make internal decisions. Those legally HAVE to be made by the CEO or board. This time they chose to make it a vote of member countries, which was a mistake, because it looks like the CEO and board are abdicating their responsibility to operate in the best interests of FIFA and some took it as license to revert to ethnic and regionalist tactics. Now FIFA is left in a difficult position.
Click to expand...


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Beside the fact that the USA is not a football loving country compared to others in the world, they do have huge infrastructure benefits for a world cup and will probably be the highest grossing world cup... 

Mexico being combined and of course Canada will hopefully ensure it doesn't go there again for at least a generation. It will have been three world cups since 1986. 

When you take the fact that neither England or Spain have not had a world cup in that time and have only had one each... it is time for another visit to Europe after 2026. I have no issue with Russia holding the world cup... a huge football country not to have held it before.

After which I would love to see a world cup return to South America. Uruguay with a supporting country like Argentina and/or Brazil. 

Presumably after which I think China will be ready.. unless the smog has choked everyone by then.


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> Beside the fact that the USA is not a football loving country compared to others in the world, they do have huge infrastructure benefits for a world cup and will probably be the highest grossing world cup...
> 
> Mexico being combined and of course Canada will hopefully ensure it doesn't go there again for at least a generation. It will have been three world cups since 1986.
> 
> When you take the fact that neither England or Spain have not had a world cup in that time and have only had one each... it is time for another visit to Europe after 2026. I have no issue with Russia holding the world cup... a huge football country not to have held it before.
> 
> After which I would love to see a world cup return to South America. Uruguay with a supporting country like Argentina and/or Brazil.
> 
> Presumably after which I think China will be ready.. unless the smog has choked everyone by then.


All of this is reasonable, but one side comment: the US has far more soccer fans than England or France or Spain, etc. It is a huge, wealthy market and attendance in 2026 will demonstrate this, barring more scandals or such.

I believe that future Europe WC's will be joint efforts, since 48 teams is a lot for all but the very largest countries.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

ElvisBC said:


> and some might say march 16th is the deadline and we have no idea about anything regarding morocco bid
> 
> just another point of the view thing


http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145876159&postcount=2002

12 cities , 14 venues , we have some official outlines of the moroccan bid 

but nothing from the american bid ...


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> the US has far more soccer fans than England or France or Spain, etc.


me : jjjjj
Soccer community : hahahaha
Gulati : icard:
Trump : :bowtie:


----------



## marokko

Colonel Ned said:


> me : jjjjj
> Soccer community : hahahaha
> Gulati : icard:
> Trump : :bowtie:


Totally agree! It is just a way of marketing the USA bid. With that logic China has more fans. Oh no I forgot almost about India. I mean countries should be compared in percentages and not absolute numbers ...


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I'd not be surprised Atlanta would be a key player for the United bid.




























_Not bad_


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Rabat with love 2 said:


> http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=145876159&postcount=2002
> 
> 12 cities , 14 venues , we have some official outlines of the moroccan bid
> 
> *but nothing from the american bid* ...


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> I'd not be surprised Atlanta would be a key player for the United bid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Not bad_


to be honest, for me this is very bad! you do not see important parts of the pitch! not even the goalline! obviously great futuristic design but awful stadium for association football!


----------



## Rover030

Hopefully when they lay grass in it, the pitch will be raised like half a metre to make it a bit better, even if they don't intend it.


----------



## tinyslam

ElvisBC said:


> to be honest, for me this is very bad! you do not see important parts of the pitch! not even the goalline! obviously great futuristic design but awful stadium for association football!


This is my view from standing low in the supporters' section. Yes it's not perfect, the goal is partially obstructed by the capo stand and the corners by people standing, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. The atmosphere is crazy and if I can't see the action I can look up at the huge halo board (it is much bigger then this panorama suggests) and see the action. Notice the whole stadium is standing and having a good time. I would not describe any of my experiences at MBS as "very bad". If you want to see every inch of the pitch there are plenty of sections where you can.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> Sport Canada @SportCanada_EN
> 
> The Government of Canada announced today in #Toronto its support for the #United2026 Bid to co-host the 2026 FIFA World Cup⚽ in Canada����, Mexico���� and the United States����. #SupportSport #WorldCup


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> Hopefully when they lay grass in it, the pitch will be raised like half a metre to make it a bit better, even if they don't intend it.





tinyslam said:


> This is my view from standing low in the supporters' section. Yes it's not perfect, the goal is partially obstructed by the capo stand and the corners by people standing, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere else. The atmosphere is crazy and if I can't see the action I can look up at the huge halo board (it is much bigger then this panorama suggests) and see the action. Notice the whole stadium is standing and having a good time. I would not describe any of my experiences at MBS as "very bad". If you want to see every inch of the pitch there are plenty of sections where you can.


I have been to the new dome (Packers game) and I saw how geat the stadium is, but that obviously applies to american football only. Also the roof was open, it was great evening and drinks were cheaper than anywhere else ..... simply great! but the stadium was obviously designed for american football only, everything else is a heavy compromise! That's the fact and that's actually huge failure bearing in mind that Atlanta United FC was always supposed to play there!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> Kristick said the group’s more than 700-page submission has nearly 50,000 separate agreements between cities, stadiums, training sites, airports and transit systems, and governments. The bulk of that will be sent to FIFA as a digital bid book, while a separate executive summary will be translated into seven different languages and delivered by hand to FIFA in Zurich.


Sports Business Journal (Subscription)


----------



## Colonel Ned

CaliforniaJones said:


> Sports Business Journal (Subscription)



all this effort means how fear against Morocco is serious

this little country that has sown terror in the US&Co bid

congratulations my dear Canada you lost your sovereignty and your dignity against the Gringos and by givin' em your support today. 

is all this to host 10 miserable games and have a direct qualification for free ? 

but hopefully, the principal concerned has not yet announced his Gov' support.

but am tellin' tell you, luckily this bid will not succeed, you might be strong as hercules, but you can't defeat physical law ... the same as USA can't be in opposition to the whole world

next time you'll be able to make your bid alone and free.


----------



## tinyslam

ElvisBC said:


> I have been to the new dome (Packers game) and I saw how geat the stadium is, but that obviously applies to american football only. Also the roof was open, it was great evening and drinks were cheaper than anywhere else ..... simply great! but the stadium was obviously designed for american football only, everything else is a heavy compromise! That's the fact and that's actually huge failure bearing in mind that Atlanta United FC was always supposed to play there!


Well yes it was designed for the Falcons first, but I wouldn't say they didn't think about soccer at all. The bowl is adjustable to fit a full size pitch and still leave room for players to take corners. The turf system was designed for no football lines during soccer games. I certainly wouldn't call it a huge failure and I encourage you to come to a AUFC game if you can. It is night and day to a Falcons game.


----------



## Rover030

It's not bad of course, but looking at Tottenham Hotspur's new stadium in London there definitely is a better solution. Costs a lot more money, but then you have full visibility of the pitch for soccer and a proper grass surface. I don't want to call the stadium a huge failure, but I do think the emphasis was a bit too much on gimmicks instead of practical solutions for the problems at hand.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> Totally agree! It is *just a way of marketing the USA bid.* With that logic China has more fans. Oh no I forgot almost about India. I mean countries should be compared in percentages and not absolute numbers ...


Finally, you get it! That's the whole point of having the WC in the US/Canada/Mexico. And I agree with you that China should be the next big target. I would hold off on India (and Indonesia, etc.) for now since their economies are less developed than China, but FIFA should keep an eye on them.

Countries ARE compared by percentages: you try to focus on those with the highest income and the lowest percentages of current customers. Then you roll up your sleeves and get to work.


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> all this effort means how fear against Morocco is serious
> 
> this little country that has sown terror in the US&Co bid
> 
> congratulations my dear Canada you lost your sovereignty and your dignity against the Gringos and by givin' em your support today.
> 
> is all this to host 10 miserable games and have a direct qualification for free ?
> 
> but hopefully, the principal concerned has not yet announced his Gov' support.
> 
> but am tellin' tell you, luckily this bid will not succeed, you might be strong as hercules, but you can't defeat physical law ... the same as USA can't be in opposition to the whole world
> 
> next time you'll be able to make your bid alone and free.


Really, this is nothing but insults to Canada without adding the slightest to the discussion.

Btw, Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world geographically and 9th largest economy in the world, about the size of Italy and 14 times the size of Morocco. With its growth rate it will pass England and France even with half the population.


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> Really, this is nothing but insults to Canada without adding the slightest to the discussion.
> 
> Btw, Canada is the 2nd largest country in the world geographically and 9th largest economy in the world, about the size of Italy and 14 times the size of Morocco. With its growth rate it will pass England and France even with half the population.


reason why it has to bid alone

reason why it has to keep its dignity

reason why it has to show its ability to stand and not be under american rules

and I know what am talking about (I understand you feel so upset because untill now, no signs from american govenment about supporting the bid of Gulati, but you can blame your own politicians not me)


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> It's not bad of course, but looking at Tottenham Hotspur's new stadium in London there definitely is a better solution. Costs a lot more money, but then you have full visibility of the pitch for soccer and a proper grass surface. I don't want to call the stadium a huge failure, but I do think the emphasis was a bit too much on gimmicks instead of practical solutions for the problems at hand.


of course, but we all agree it is falcons first, and yes, many gimmicks but thats how these new stadiums are designed

and 'bout new WHL, let's wait first until its completed and then judge about it. experience tells me you can't really do it before seeing it live, and with NWHL that means in both PL and NFL mode


----------



## ElvisBC

Something else, about all those new stadiums, for years now I have seen many of them, and whenever I get an opportunity to see one more I go there, some of these buildings are simply amazing....... but not a single one can match Santiago Bernabeu. Outside yes, at the gates yes, in the corridors yes, but not when you enter the stands! And that's what counts the most! Jerryworld is amazing, but uppers are pointless, Atlanta is a great design, but for Falcons only, MetLife is amazing stadium but no sun and rain protection degrades it to second category stadium! Maracana is simply too big and too flat, and Wembley ... New Wembley is a crime! Not a single one of these stadiums can match Santiago Bernabeu, no chance! 

I am very keen to see how new renovated Luzhniki looks like, I will be going to Moscow for a World Cup weekend to see Argentina-Iceland in Spartak stadium and Germany-Mexico in Luzhniki itself ... that is the most promising stadium in the world at the moment, if judging by the pictures only! Who knows how its is really going to be ....


----------



## aquamaroon

So just for fun to compare and contrast, here are the three stadia being discussed at the moment (New White Hart Lane is a render for now of course) and their three different solutions for the seating bowl. So this is how a top of the line NFL stadium looks in soccer mode compared to two world class Soccer stadia! :cheers::


*New White Hart Lane*










*Mercedes-Benz Stadium*










*Santiago Bernabeu*


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> reason why it has to bid alone
> 
> reason why it has to keep its dignity
> 
> reason why it has to show its ability to stand and not be under american rules
> 
> and I know what am talking about (I understand you feel so upset because untill now, no signs from american govenment about supporting the bid of Gulati, but you can blame your own politicians not me)


Canadian sport leaders have noted that they are not close to having sufficient sites that qualify and the cost would be a waste of money. Also, note the FIFA policy to encourage joint bids.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Something else, about all those new stadiums, for years now I have seen many of them, and whenever I get an opportunity to see one more I go there, some of these buildings are simply amazing....... but not a single one can match Santiago Bernabeu. Outside yes, at the gates yes, in the corridors yes, but not when you enter the stands! And that's what counts the most! Jerryworld is amazing, but uppers are pointless, Atlanta is a great design, but for Falcons only, MetLife is amazing stadium but no sun and rain protection degrades it to second category stadium! Maracana is simply too big and too flat, and Wembley ... New Wembley is a crime! Not a single one of these stadiums can match Santiago Bernabeu, no chance!
> 
> I am very keen to see how new renovated Luzhniki looks like, I will be going to Moscow for a World Cup weekend to see Argentina-Iceland in Spartak stadium and Germany-Mexico in Luzhniki itself ... that is the most promising stadium in the world at the moment, if judging by the pictures only! Who knows how its is really going to be ....


Seriously? I found it very disappointing; and needs some work if we have to be honest. Definitely not top tier. But this is off-topic and I don't want to get into stadium comparisons.


----------



## Cjones2451

Looks like the BC government may potentially make the decision on Vancouver before anyone else.......

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-government-may-pull-out-of-fifa-world-cup-bid


I personally think this is just pandering to their support base and they will support it, but you never know


----------



## pesto

Cjones2451 said:


> Looks like the BC government may potentially make the decision on Vancouver before anyone else.......
> 
> http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-government-may-pull-out-of-fifa-world-cup-bid
> 
> 
> I personally think this is just pandering to their support base and they will support it, but you never know


Yes, sometimes I wonder how much of this is the cities (and FIFA) drawing out the process so as to get more air time and publicity.

Actually, I don't wonder; I know! :lol:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> What North American park used to be a steel factory, has over 7 million visitors each year and may be home to a FIFA World Cup™ *Fan Fest* in 2026? Monterrey’s @parquefundidora – with its capacity for 100,000 fans from around the world. #Certainty2026 #United2026


----------



## pesto

A very cool idea to keep the old buildings. It looks like a whole different world to most people now, which it really was given how much life and industry have changed.

I bet Gehry or Thom Mayne bring their sketch pads when they visit.


----------



## slipperydog

Vancouver officially out, wonder if that opens the door for Regina or Ottawa. Also, I'm a bit surprised Winnipeg never put a bid in. They have a new stadium that is expandable.

Sportsnet 650
@Sportsnet650
BREAKING NEWS: Sources tell @Sportsnet650 that the United 2026 committee has informed Vancouver they are no longer a part of the bidding process after the city failed to meet the deadline.

Listen to #OnPoint as we bring you all our information.


----------



## miguelon

slipperydog said:


> Vancouver officially out, wonder if that opens the door for Regina or Ottawa. Also, I'm a bit surprised Winnipeg never put a bid in. They have a new stadium that is expandable.
> 
> Sportsnet 650
> @Sportsnet650
> BREAKING NEWS: Sources tell @Sportsnet650 that the United 2026 committee has informed Vancouver they are no longer a part of the bidding process after the city failed to meet the deadline.
> 
> Listen to #OnPoint as we bring you all our information.


It is a shame, Vancouver's BC Place is currently the only soccer stadium in Canada that is ready to host the FIFA WC in a month. Plus a very interesting destination for visitors.

Is it me? Or the apparent mighty United 2026 bid is showing cracks everywhere. I don't sense any support either from the Mexican public, the feeling is that we are wasting a chance to host the WC in the next 50 years for only 10 games. Kind of insulting for a soccer crazy country that with some effort can pull the whole tournament on its own.


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> It is a shame, Vancouver's BC Place is currently the only soccer stadium in Canada that is ready to host the FIFA WC in a month. Plus a very interesting destination for visitors.
> 
> Is it me? Or the apparent mighty United 2026 bid is showing cracks everywhere. I don't sense any support either from the Mexican public, the feeling is that we are wasting a chance to host the WC in the next 50 years for only 10 games. Kind of insulting for a soccer crazy country that with some effort can pull the whole tournament on its own.


Not insulting at all. The three-way United bid was actually brokered by FIFA as part of their new policy of preferring joint bids. FIFA and the IOC have been scorched recently over the huge losses and parade of white elephants that hosting countries have generated and it's good to see them adopt an approach that may minimize that issue.

I find Vancouver a bit odd. Somehow no other Canadian, US or Mexican cities were unable to find workarounds for this issue.


----------



## slipperydog

*Chicago withdraws from effort to bring the 2026 World Cup to North America*

Chicago has withdrawn from the effort to bring the 2026 World Cup to North America, a spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday.

Soldier Field was one of 32 potential venues on a list released last year by the joint bid committee that’s vying to bring the world’s biggest sporting event to the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

But Emanuel spokesman Matt McGrath said Chicago had pulled out of the joint bid and would not host any World Cup games, even if FIFA chooses to bring the tournament to North America in 8 years.

“FIFA could not provide a basic level of certainty on some major unknowns that put our city and taxpayers at risk,” the mayor’s office said in a statement Wednesday. “The uncertainty for taxpayers, coupled with FIFA’s inflexibility and unwillingness to negotiate, were clear indications that further pursuit of the bid wasn’t in Chicago’s best interests.”

A spokesman for U.S. Soccer, Neil Buethe, declined to comment on Chicago’s withdrawal from the bid, saying the final list of potential venues would be released Thursday.

The 2026 tournament will be the first 48-team World Cup and Chicago, with its central location, diversity and infrastructure, figured to be a good bet to get games in the expanded event.

But the American-Canadian-Mexican bid, once considered a shoo-in to win the rights to host the tournament, is in danger of losing out to Morocco when FIFA executives cast their votes later this year, ESPN reported recently.

Officials in Vancouver also said Wednesday that the Canadian city — which was another of the 32 finalists — would no longer be part of the joint bid.

Soldier Field hosted the opening game and four other matches during the 1994 World Cup, the only time that the U.S. has hosted the tournament.

But in January 2010, city officials pulled Chicago out of the U.S.’ ultimately unsuccessful bid for the World Cup in either 2018 or 2022. At that time, officials said then-Mayor Richard M. Daley’s administration dropped out because the city declined to promise to spend an estimated $10 million likely required to host games.

https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/emanuel-pulls-chicago-out-of-world-cup-bid/


----------



## aquamaroon

WOW! :shocked:


So no Vancouver, no Chicago, Los Angeles BARELY stayed in after getting some sort of special arrangement... it seems like many of the North American cities are saying F U to FIFA and their ridiculous demands for hosting their little soccer exhibition. This seems like a trend and I wonder what cities may say no next... and maybe our loud and braggadocios friends from Morocco in this thread may have a reason to celebrate soon?


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> *Chicago withdraws from effort to bring the 2026 World Cup to North America*
> 
> Chicago has withdrawn from the effort to bring the 2026 World Cup to North America, a spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Wednesday.
> 
> Soldier Field was one of 32 potential venues on a list released last year by the joint bid committee that’s vying to bring the world’s biggest sporting event to the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
> 
> But Emanuel spokesman Matt McGrath said Chicago had pulled out of the joint bid and would not host any World Cup games, even if FIFA chooses to bring the tournament to North America in 8 years.
> 
> “FIFA could not provide a basic level of certainty on some major unknowns that put our city and taxpayers at risk,” the mayor’s office said in a statement Wednesday. “The uncertainty for taxpayers, coupled with FIFA’s inflexibility and unwillingness to negotiate, were clear indications that further pursuit of the bid wasn’t in Chicago’s best interests.”
> 
> A spokesman for U.S. Soccer, Neil Buethe, declined to comment on Chicago’s withdrawal from the bid, saying the final list of potential venues would be released Thursday.
> 
> https://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/emanuel-pulls-chicago-out-of-world-cup-bid/


Interesting. There were rumors for some time that Canada might only get two cities; maybe that was because Vancouver already had some issues. Chicago deciding to pull out this late suggests to me that they were told something that we don't know. Admittedly the above is speculation.

So my guess would be LA, NY, Dallas, Boston, DC area, Miami, Atlanta, SJ, Houston, Seattle; maybe Philly or Denver if the US gets another location or two. Just guessing, of course.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> WOW! :shocked:
> 
> 
> So no Vancouver, no Chicago, Los Angeles BARELY stayed in after getting some sort of special arrangement... it seems like many of the North American cities are saying F U to FIFA and their ridiculous demands for hosting their little soccer exhibition. This seems like a trend and I wonder what cities may say no next... and maybe *our loud and braggadocios friends from Morocco in this thread may have a reason to celebrate soon*?


I would be more concerned if Chicago had quit and joined the Morocco bid. :lol:


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ _Morocco 2026! Casablanca, Rabat and... Da Bears :lol:_


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ _Morocco 2026! Casablanca, Rabat and... Da Bears :lol:_


Rahm Emanuel's middle name is "Israel" so they still have to iron out some of the details before they join Team Morocco. :lol:


----------



## marokko

^^ Arguments from North America are getting really low. 



> So no Vancouver, no Chicago, Los Angeles BARELY stayed in after getting some sort of special arrangement... it seems like many of the North American cities are saying F U to FIFA and their ridiculous demands for hosting their little soccer exhibition. This seems like a trend and I wonder what cities may say no next... and *maybe our loud and braggadocios friends from Morocco *in this thread may have a reason to celebrate soon?


Personally I think it is the opposite. Moroccans are down to earth and Americans try to show a form of superiority, but fail to use arguments, because they don't really know much about the world, especially about a third world country like Morocco. Most Moroccans are actually confident about their bid, but don't get this low with our comments. Maybe Americans would be ashamed losing from a "sh*th*le"country like Morocco. Personally I wish NAFTA all the best and I hope they can deliver tomorrow a good and strong technical bid at FIFA headquarters. May the best win!



> Rahm Emanuel's middle name is "Israel" so they still have to iron out some of the details before they join Team Morocco.


Really, why are some people from the USA are so self-centered and don't know anything about the outside world. Did you know that almost one million of the Jews living in Israel are of Moroccan decedent, including ministers. Actually one of the most trusted advisers of the king is also a Jew. Morocco was one of the few countries that decided not to murder its Jews. Did you know that our previous king said to Hitler: "There are no Jews in Morocco, but only Moroccans". The current king even put Jewish heritage in our constitution as part of Moroccan culture ...


----------



## aquamaroon

OK sure whatever, I will say that I have yet to see a supporter of the Moroccan bid on this thread refrain from attacking America and Americans in general, like you just did in your comment above, and Moroccan supporters seem to be unable to discuss their own bid without pointing what a terrible country the United States is. Frankly it gets tiring and makes me disinterested in even discussing the merits of either bid on this thread. So I will bid you adieu, and GunnerJacket please feel free to delete this post if it's too incendiary! :cheers:


----------



## ElvisBC

slipperydog said:


> A spokesman for U.S. Soccer, Neil Buethe, declined to comment on Chicago’s withdrawal from the bid, saying the final list of potential venues would be released Thursday.


ok. looking forward to it! let's see if we get more surprises!


----------



## ElvisBC

aquamaroon said:


> WOW! :shocked:
> 
> 
> So no Vancouver, no Chicago, Los Angeles BARELY stayed in after getting some sort of special arrangement... it seems like many of the North American cities are saying F U to FIFA and their ridiculous demands for hosting their little soccer exhibition. This seems like a trend and I wonder what cities may say no next... and maybe our loud and braggadocios friends from Morocco in this thread may have a reason to celebrate soon?


The problem is that it is just the opposite, we are talking about worlds biggest sports event by a huge margin

I always expected couple of cities to reject FIFA's terms&conditions, nothing really surprising with that! Of course Chicago rejection puts a bad light onto the bid since USSF headquarters are in Chicago, and Chicago is a great city as well, but you can't force anyone into bidding! 

Later today we will know much more, I guess!

EDIT: and Saturday as well: Elalamy to Unveil Morocco’s 2026 World Cup Bid Content Saturday


----------



## Guest

Doubt Chicago wouldve pulled out if someone didnt know something. Could be an admission that the WC bid is dead.


----------



## Colonel Ned

Chigago quit
Vancouver quit (so glad for that)
De Maria quit
Gulati seems to stay against hios own will 
Pesto&Co (will quit soon)

Soon we will be able to discuss details of both bid.

Morocco will release its details this saturday, march 17 at 3:00pm (GMT+0)

Moulay Hafid Elalamy, president of the Moroccan bid committee (also a minister representing Government), will unveil the elements of the technical file of the Moroccan bid: stadiums, cities, locations, budget ...

This Thursday, March 15th, the file will be deposited in Lausanne. The abstract will be printed in 300 copies. 

The rest of the file, which represents more than *40,000 pages*, will be delivered on a USB support.

so ... soon we will get clear and serious issues to discuss


----------



## Colonel Ned

5portsF4n said:


> Doubt Chicago wouldve pulled out if someone didnt know something. Could be an admission that the WC bid is dead.


Decision makers who take such significant decisions are wise and aware ... There's no doubt that must be something

kay:


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Colonel Ned said:


> Chigago quit
> Vancouver quit (so glad for that)
> De Maria quit
> Gulati remains in spite of himself (sure that he want to leave)
> Pesto&Co (will quit soon)
> 
> Soon we will be able to discuss details of both bid.
> 
> Morocco will release its details this saturday, march 17 at 3:00pm (GMT+0)
> 
> Moulay Hafid Elalamy, president of the Moroccan bid committee (also a minister representing Government), will unveil the elements of the technical file of the Moroccan bid: stadiums, cities, locations, budget ...
> 
> This Thursday, March 15th, the file will be deposited in *Lausanne*. The abstract will be printed in 300 copies.
> 
> The rest of the file, which represents more than *40,000 pages*, will be delivered on a USB support.
> 
> so ... soon we will get clear and serious issues to discuss


FIFA's headquarter is at Zurich. IOC is located at Lausanne.


----------



## ElvisBC

_The Moroccan committee has finalized its formal application for the international football organization, FIFA, to be submitted on Friday in Bogotá, Colombia._
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/20...moroccos-2026-world-cup-bid-content-saturday/

no clue why bogota! maybe fake news, no idea!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

aquamaroon said:


> OK sure whatever, I will say that I have yet to see a supporter of the Moroccan bid on this thread refrain from attacking America and Americans in general, like you just did in your comment above, and Moroccan supporters seem to be unable to discuss their own bid without pointing what a terrible country the United States is. Frankly it gets tiring and makes me disinterested in even discussing the merits of either bid on this thread. So I will bid you adieu, and GunnerJacket please feel free to delete this post if it's too incendiary! :cheers:


You right. They also underestimate their rivals.

As ElvisBC said, I expect also many surprises. Can't wait to read the bid books.


----------



## Colonel Ned

ElvisBC said:


> _The Moroccan committee has finalized its formal application for the international football organization, FIFA, to be submitted on Friday in Bogotá, Colombia._
> https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/20...moroccos-2026-world-cup-bid-content-saturday/
> 
> no clue why bogota! maybe fake news, no idea!


seems that there is some thing related to FIFA council will be held in Bogota. I don't know

http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news...meeting-agenda-available-now-on-fifa-com.html

if you see the agenda details, there is something about 2026 bid process

9. 2026 FIFA World Cup™ bidding process
9.1. Update on the 2026 FIFA World Cup bidding process
9.2. Voting procedure for the 2026 FIFA World Cup (for approval – encl.) 

http://resources.fifa.com/mm/docume...28/Councilno.6_AgendaMarch2018_EN_Neutral.pdf


----------



## Herms

CaliforniaJones said:


> FIFA's headquarter is at Zurich. IOC is located at Lausanne.





ElvisBC said:


> _The Moroccan committee has finalized its formal application for the international football organization, FIFA, to be submitted on Friday in Bogotá, Colombia._
> https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/20...moroccos-2026-world-cup-bid-content-saturday/
> 
> no clue why bogota! maybe fake news, no idea!





Colonel Ned said:


> seems that there is some thing related to FIFA council will be held in Bogota. I don't know
> 
> http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news...meeting-agenda-available-now-on-fifa-com.html
> 
> if you see the agenda details, there is something about 2026 bid process
> 
> 9. 2026 FIFA World Cup™ bidding process
> 9.1. Update on the 2026 FIFA World Cup bidding process
> 9.2. Voting procedure for the 2026 FIFA World Cup (for approval – encl.)
> 
> http://resources.fifa.com/mm/docume...28/Councilno.6_AgendaMarch2018_EN_Neutral.pdf


I think there was simply a translation error.



> *Mondial 2026: le "Bid Book" du Maroc déposé ce jeudi matin à Zurich
> *
> Moulay Hafid Elalamy et une délégation restreinte composée d'experts déposent ce jeudi matin 15 mars 2018, au siège de la FIFA à Zurich, le Bid Book marocain.
> 
> Ce dossier de candidature du Maroc pour l'organisation du Mondial 2026 répond aux exigences de la FIFA. Il comprend 24 sections, en 40.000 pages ainsi que l'engagement du gouvernement et de toutes les parties marocaines concernées, y compris les villes devant accueillir la compétition.
> 
> Le contenu du dossier marocain sera dévoilé samedi à 15H à Casablanca. Ce dossier a été entouré du plus grand secret en raison de la concurrence avec la candidature Mexique-USA-Canada.


https://www.medias24.com/MAROC/Les-plus-de-Medias-24/181232-Mondial-2026-le-Bid-Book-du-Maroc-depose-ce-jeudi-matin-a-Zurich.html


----------



## ElvisBC

makes sense:

online translation:
_This Bid Book from Morocco for the organization of the 2026 World Cup meets the requirements of FIFA. It includes 24 sections, in 40,000 pages as well as the commitment of the government and all the Moroccan parties concerned, including potential host cities.
The content of the Moroccan file will be unveiled Saturday at 15H in Casablanca. This file was surrounded by the greatest secrecy because of the competition with the Mexico-USA-Canada bid._


----------



## slipperydog

5portsF4n said:


> Doubt Chicago wouldve pulled out if someone didnt know something. *Could be an admission that the WC bid is dead.*


So dramatic, lol.

More like this is why...


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> it's a matter of "significant" signs
> 
> who get those signs ?? ==> Soccer community that will vote
> 
> so ... it's a collapsing image for the UnitedBid
> 
> Chicago and Minneapolis are close to Canada, so the only cluster that (until this time seems to hold) is NY NJ DC Phili Boston Montreal
> 
> I still don't see the point of including Mexico in this bid
> 
> it is good that FIFA encourage joint bid between countries, but the problem is that the USA is already a gathering of 50 "countries", its bid alone is more than sufficient (it's as if you say the European Union represented by a single FA)
> 
> FIFA requires 12 stadiums (out of 14 proposed), so if Mexico gives 3 and Canada gives 3, the US must offer 6 only stadia
> 
> Will those 6 stages reflect the true diversity of the USA? of course not !
> 
> I think that Canada, the USA and Mexico, each have the means to host and organize the WC alone. but the 3 at the same time, it will become the nightmare for the whole planet.
> 
> I wrote in a post (that was deleted by mod) that if there was a mass shooting in the US or a kidnapping in Mexico, we will have the blood of innocent supporters in the hands.
> 
> the supporter does not only risk that, he risks the major difficulties to seek 3 visas, to move between cities in planes for several hours, to confront an expensive level of life ...
> 
> you say there will be a great audiance. I agree, because surely it is the American citizens who will fill the stadiums. but soccer is a global sport, and the WC is a global event, all the fans of the world have the right to travel into USA and live the intense moments ... still need to facilitate visas


You seem to be concerned about travel issues. The US gets 40M foreign visitors a year, not counting Canada and Mexico who travel cross border in huge numbers. These numbers dwarf the numbers that will come from outside the United area.

The problem is that most of the visitors from many countries would like to remain in the US permanently. If you can show that you are reasonably likely to leave when your visa expires, getting in is not a problem. 

I don't think you will find the US more expensive than western Europe or Japan. Car rental and gasoline are cheap; fast food is everywhere; cheap motels are available except in the center or the biggest cities. Transit is much cheaper than, say, London.


----------



## aquamaroon

Bobby3 said:


> Charlotte, Detroit, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake, and Tampa are also out.


The cities from the linked article (emphasis mine):



> The 2026 hosts are expected to be announced on June 13.
> 
> *Canada: Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto
> 
> Mexico: Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterrey
> 
> United States: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York/New Jersey, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle, Washington DC*



So this is the final 23, with obviously the US still needing to make a few more cuts. hmm... some food for thought here!


----------



## marokko

Morocco is trying to attract votes from these countries I think:










Unfortunately the slide presentation (shared by louna20 in Moroccan forum) does not provide other new information. Saturday maybe we will know more about stadiums and host cities.


----------



## isaidso

pesto said:


> I'm sorry, I expressed that poorly. Vancouver dropping out is helpful in the sense that it resolves an issue that was otherwise difficult to solve: if you include them because of the excellent stadium what do you do about their remoteness or forming a group? Joining them up with Seattle or Edmonton made for too many matches away from the other population centers of Mex/Can/US.


In the Canadian context, Vancouver isn't remote. It's one of our biggest population centres and the western counter balance to Montreal/Toronto. We'd consider Iqaluit remote. 

The root of the problem was Canada only getting 10 games. By extension it meant that no Canadian geographic grouping in our west was possible. Otherwise they'd be Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and possibly Regina which has the best stadium in the country imo. Btw, everything in the western part of the continent is further apart. It's far less densely populated than the east.

It's all moot at this point though.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> The cities from the linked article (emphasis mine):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So this is the final 23, with obviously the US still needing to make a few more cuts. hmm... some food for thought here!


No real surprises among the leaders other than Chicago who eliminated themselves. I had LV as a long-shot but the United group felt differently. Assuming 11 are chosen, I would say:

Atlanta 
Baltimore or Washington DC
Boston
Los Angeles
New York/New Jersey
Dallas
San Francisco Bay Area 
Miami
Philadelphia
Seattle
Houston

Cincinnati fills a large hole in the Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan area now that Chicago and Detroit are out.

Denver, Orlando, Kansas City and Nashville each can fill niches, but smaller ones I think.


----------



## ElvisBC

ok, so the list is final, three cities pulled back, thats it!

now all we need is to get those bod books for reading :colgate:


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> We still don't know how many stadiums there will be in tota for the United bid. The number of 12 is a minimum. The Japan-Korea world cup had 20 host cities.
> 
> 2 out of 12 from that region might be too much, but for instance 2 out of 20 isn't that bad for the 20th (Seattle) and the 28th (Vancouver) metro area of the three host countries, with the 30th (Portland) nearby for North American standards.
> 
> I think it's a shame Vancouver, Minneapolis and Chicago are out. It's one good stadium, two unique stadiums and nice cities as well. Of course you have a point that the distances are less bad right now, but that's not what the United bid is going to win it for anyway.
> 
> I still think the United bid will win, but it leaves a sour taste that it won't even be the best stadiums and cities now. Of course FIFA is not going to compromise because that would set a very bad precedent for future bids, for FIFA.


I agree, but what can you say? FIFA brought the problem on themselves. 

I like the Pacific NW too, but the numbers are not there. The NE, Gt. Lakes, Florida, Texas, California and mid-South pack numbers in the 30-50M range, while the NW is maybe 9M, including Portland. 

And, of course, Seattle is still in the running, and you can always drop by Chicago and Minneapolis after watching the matches in other cities.


----------



## pesto

isaidso said:


> In the Canadian context, Vancouver isn't remote. It's one of our biggest population centres and the western counter balance to Montreal/Toronto. We'd consider Iqaluit remote.
> 
> The root of the problem was Canada only getting 10 games. By extension it meant that no Canadian geographic grouping in our west was possible. Otherwise they'd be Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, and possibly Regina which has the best stadium in the country imo. Btw, everything in the western part of the continent is further apart. It's far less densely populated than the east.
> 
> It's all moot at this point though.


Iqaluit is about the same distance from Montreal as Vancouver is. :lol: 

But the point is that BC is not a population center of the magnitude of the NE, Gt. Lakes, Florida, etc.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Nashville*











> The American markets that made the cut span the North American continent: Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington in the East; Atlanta, Nashville, Orlando and Miami in the Southeast; Cincinnati, Kansas City, Dallas, Houston and Denver in the Midwest and Mountain West; and Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle on the West Coast.


About LA, they presented the Rose Bowl stadium and preserve the Inglewood stadium.


> For another example, the Rose Bowl is the listed Los Angeles site in the bid book, but the book also mentions a proposed N.F.L. stadium in Inglewood, Calif., in making the city’s case.
> 
> “Inglewood is not being bid to host the World Cup,” Kristick said. “It’s being built as an N.F.L. stadium, and they are making it available to be a possible stadium for the World Cup.”


New York Times


----------



## aquamaroon

> About LA, they presented the Rose Bowl stadium and preserve the Inglewood stadium.


Oh wow! That's interesting, and to me for all the world this feels like Local Politics run amok. In a similar case for the 2028 Olympics, the LA City Council demanded that the LA Coliseum be involved in the Opening and Closing Ceremonies in some way, even though the preference was to have the entire event at the new LA Stadium (To be fair I think the solution they came up with was a great one.)

This is interesting though in that the Rose Bowl is NOT in the city of Los Angeles, but rather the city of Pasadena. My thinking? This is LA playing hardball with the Inglewood City Council: If you want the World Cup in the new stadium don't think you can just sit there and not pay for the security, logistics et al. around the event and expect the city of LA to pick up the tab for everything. All that said, sure the Rose Bowl is an excellent soccer venue, but I think it'd be a little silly if the World Cup came to the LA area and LA's brand new $2.6 Billion would just sit there during it collecting dust :lol:


----------



## Rabat with love 2

:lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> New York Times


this does not sound good!

_Kristick said the bid book has chosen specific stadiums in each market, a group that includes MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. (New York); Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass. (Boston); AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Tex. (Dallas); and Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif. (San Francisco).
_
so, bid book prefers awful stadium in the middle of the silicone valley, unreachable foxboro stadium in the land far far away from the civilisation and met life, all three without the roof, so let us show everyone in our bid book that we do not give a shit about football fans from the whole world, let them burn their skin and sit in the rain like our stupid american football fans, show them how it was thirty years ago for the sake of good old times.... and add jerryworld to this, just to minimize the casulties ..... insane! and as a sugar on the top, let‘s take inglewood stadium out of the bid, they might ask questions about it we can‘t answer yet!

nice start of the bid, shoot yourself in the foot first, then nothing can be that bad afterwards


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> this does not sound good!
> 
> _Kristick said the bid book has chosen specific stadiums in each market, a group that includes MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. (New York); Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Mass. (Boston); AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Tex. (Dallas); and Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, Calif. (San Francisco).
> _
> so, bid book prefers awful stadium in the middle of the silicone valley, unreachable foxboro stadium in the land far far away from the civilisation and met life, all three without the roof, so let us show everyone in our bid book that we do not give a shit about football fans from the whole world, let them burn their skin and sit in the rain like our stupid american football fans, show them how it was thirty years ago for the sake of good old times.... and add jerryworld to this, just to minimize the casulties ..... insane! and as a sugar on the top, let‘s take inglewood stadium out of the bid, they might ask questions about it we can‘t answer yet!
> 
> nice start of the bid, shoot yourself in the foot first, then nothing can be that bad afterwards


Silicon Valley. Silicone is what you put in boobs and the heads of boobs.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Oh wow! That's interesting, and to me for all the world this feels like Local Politics run amok. In a similar case for the 2028 Olympics, the LA City Council demanded that the LA Coliseum be involved in the Opening and Closing Ceremonies in some way, even though the preference was to have the entire event at the new LA Stadium (To be fair I think the solution they came up with was a great one.)
> 
> This is interesting though in that the Rose Bowl is NOT in the city of Los Angeles, but rather the city of Pasadena. My thinking? This is LA playing hardball with the Inglewood City Council: If you want the World Cup in the new stadium don't think you can just sit there and not pay for the security, logistics et al. around the event and expect the city of LA to pick up the tab for everything. All that said, sure the Rose Bowl is an excellent soccer venue, but I think it'd be a little silly if the World Cup came to the LA area and LA's brand new $2.6 Billion would just sit there during it collecting dust :lol:


I think you are reading too much into this. As you say, the Rose Bowl is not in LA either, so what is the issue? 

I would assume Inglewood will pay for its own security; LA has no jurisdiction there as the city council mentioned before. Did I miss something? Doesn't Inglewood provide security for the Forum and everything else in the city limits?

As for using the stadium, that is up to FIFA ultimately. Why wouldn't they use it?


----------



## Rabat with love 2




----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> I think you are reading too much into this. As you say, the Rose Bowl is not in LA either, so what is the issue?
> 
> I would assume Inglewood will pay for its own security; LA has no jurisdiction there as the city council mentioned before. Did I miss something? Doesn't Inglewood provide security for the Forum and everything else in the city limits?
> 
> As for using the stadium, that is up to FIFA ultimately. Why wouldn't they use it?


I would assume Inglewood said something like "most people (especially foreigners) won't even realise they're technically not in Los Angeles while they're here, therefore this world cup will predominantly improve the image of Los Angeles and Los Angeles should pay something". 

I guess most people will stay and consume stuff in the entire LA county, not just Inglewood, so I kind of understand their position. To add to that, most likely the entire block of the stadium will be part of the FIFA tax free zone so that further reduces income for Inglewood.


----------



## CaliforniaJones




----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


>


???


----------



## CaliforniaJones

^^
I found this picture in this link.


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> ^^
> I found this picture in this link.


united bid hosting strategy ...... only problem: this pic shows exactly what united bid does not offer!

but great find :colgate: ^^:applause:


----------



## aquamaroon

CaliforniaJones said:


> I'm asking some questions about Rose Bowl of Pasadena.
> Will it be possible to put seats instead of benches ?
> How to make it more comfortable for the 2026 FIFA World Cup ?
> 
> I'm impatient to read the bid book.



Good question! And to be honest I don't know. Even though it hosted the final in 1994, it's not really up to Soccer World Cup snuff since a.) it has uncovered seating and b.) it has bench seating at either end as you point out.

In all honesty, it feels to me like the Rose Bowl is a placeholder until the United Bid can satisfy all the SoCal stakeholders and submit the new LA Stadium as part of the bid.


----------



## aquamaroon

ElvisBC said:


> about stadiums, yes, minister said all would be 100% compatible with all FIFA requirements. as with any other host in last 20 years, only americans would be allowed to bid with their idiotic american football stadiums designed to take money away from the fans without offering them maximum comfort! let them freeze, get wet and burn their skin and make them believe thats the right thing to do!


Come on man it's _fuhbawl!_ :lol:

So your point got me thinking... how is the United bid looking, with our NFL stadiums, in terms of roofs? Well to start, here's what I think is a reasonable Final selection for the United bid:

-Edmonton
*-Toronto*
*-Montreal*
*-Gudalajara
-Monterrey
-Mexico City
-Seattle*
*-San Francisco**
*-Los Angeles**
-New York
-Boston
-Washington
*-Dallas
-Atlanta
-Miami
-Houston*


OK, so with that bid, you have 11 of the 16 currently with spectator roofs (Asterisk for LA and LA Stadium.) And then there is the unique case of San Francisco: while Levi's Stadium has no canopy structure now, there are discussions to build one soon:

Report: 49ers considering ways to add shade for fans at Levi's Stadium

And I imagine with a World Cup on its way a canopy structure to bring it in line with world soccer stadiums would be implemented.

So IF San Francisco were to add some sort of canopy roof, that would mean 12 of the 16 stadiums would have some kind of covering for spectators: either a roof, full dome or retractable dome. And who knows? Perhaps in the intervening years Metlife Stadium will add a roof and Washington will decide to go with a roofed venue (for now though the plans for their new stadium are open air). You're right though, North America is probably given special dispensation no other bid would get. Though in our defense, if needed we have plenty of domed/roofed stadiums that we aren't even planning on using for a potential 2026 World Cup:








































































Of the seven stadiums above, NONE of them are in the current United plan. However, if absolutely needed, they could join and get us up to 16 fully covered stadia with no sweat :cheers:


----------



## FCIM

On paper, the Morocco bid looks impressive. 

Stadiums look good and being close to Europe and in the desired TV zone will be an advantage. 

Also, unlike what we have seen in the USA and Canada, they wouldnt have any issues with signing off all of FIFA's demands. That could be a key factor in the decision. 

However, the question becomes is it right for Morocco to spend $16 Billion USD on stadiums and infrastructure ? 

Whilst i dont have a problem with upgrading airports and rail links etc, unecessary stadiums and training facilities that end up as white elephants like they did in Sth Africa, Brazil and soon in Qatar need to be avoided. 

CONCACAF's bid isnt perfect, some of the best stadiums aren't being used, some of the infrastucture has a lot to be desired and politically the USA is a mess, however it won't end up costing the earth to host. 

At any rate, the next step is the inspections and it will be interesting to see what the FIFA inspection teams have to say about both bids.


----------



## marokko

^^ Within the bid 3 billion dollar is reserved for FIFA infrastructure, including stadiums. This also includes 5 modular stadiums, which can be reduced in capacity after WC and these parts could be used to upgrade other stadiums in morocco's professional league. 3 Billion is still a lot for a country like Morocco, but definitely okay if you divide it about 8 years. The remaining 9 billion is investment in rail, road, anf health projects. The country needs the investment anyway and the government seems just to speed up construction for projects that were already planned. Lasly, the government is expecting an additional 3 billion private investment in the touristic sector, which makes the 15 billion everybody is talking about (3 Billion FIFA infrastructure, 9 billion state financed developlment plans, 3 billion private investment in tourism). The 3 billion private investment is also underestimated in my opinion though.


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> Seriously? $15.8B is 15 percent of the Moroccan economy. That's equivalent to an expenditure of 3 trillion dollars in the US.
> 
> For the EU it's the equivalent of Germany not producing anything for an entire year. Except white elephants.
> 
> Think about what 15.8B could produce: say, 5 world class technical schools, plus a couple of world class medical centers. And I mean Stanford or MIT quality technical schools, or UCSF or Mayo Clinic quality medical centers.
> 
> And that excludes over-runs, pay-offs and such. Add another 5B easy.



Only* $3Bn *for stadiums and sport infrastuctures

what remains is to *accelerate other infrastructures already planned with or without WC * (including $3.2 Bn from private sector, especially for hotels and services, regarding also to $1.1 Bn as tax revenues)
Not to mention that the budget will be spread over 8 years to master all impacts.
I am satisfied with the financial part 
you can take your time to read details of their bid (or simply hire a financial analyst that can explain things to you easily)

5 stadiums will be "legacy modulars", well I really like this new concept !!! I think it's a good thing because Morocco give the example that any country can bid to host WC (even your origin country can bid so your family and childhood friends can really live it)

Now I understand reason why no counry wanted to risk bid.

for sure, if Unitedbid win, FIFA will win on short term, but no other country can risk bidding because never a WC can reach the standards set by USA.

but with Morocco as host, FIFA will get more impressive bid at middle and long term. In my opinion, Moroccan file meets all requirements and offers real opportunity to enjoy a wonderful WC, for supporters, for fans and for everybody.




FCIM said:


> On paper, the Morocco bid looks impressive.
> 
> Stadiums look good and being close to Europe and in the desired TV zone will be an advantage.
> 
> Also, unlike what we have seen in the USA and Canada, they wouldnt have any issues with signing off all of FIFA's demands. That could be a key factor in the decision.
> 
> However, the question becomes is it right for Morocco to spend $16 Billion USD on stadiums and infrastructure ?
> 
> Whilst i dont have a problem with upgrading airports and rail links etc, unecessary stadiums and training facilities that end up as white elephants like they did in Sth Africa, Brazil and soon in Qatar need to be avoided.
> 
> CONCACAF's bid isnt perfect, some of the best stadiums aren't being used, some of the infrastucture has a lot to be desired and politically the USA is a mess, however it won't end up costing the earth to host.
> 
> At any rate, the next step is the inspections and it will be interesting to see what the FIFA inspection teams have to say about both bids.


(same as Pestolero)


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> I'm asking some questions about Rose Bowl of Pasadena.
> Will it be possible to put seats instead of benches ?
> How to make it more comfortable for the 2026 FIFA World Cup ?
> 
> I'm impatient to read the bid book.
> 
> 
> 
> aquamaroon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good question! And to be honest I don't know. Even though it hosted the final in 1994, it's not really up to Soccer World Cup snuff since a.) it has uncovered seating and b.) it has bench seating at either end as you point out.
> 
> In all honesty, it feels to me like the Rose Bowl is a placeholder until the United Bid can satisfy all the SoCal stakeholders and submit the new LA Stadium as part of the bid.
Click to expand...

installation of single seats shouldn‘t be the big issue, that can be done for the world cup. it would reduce the capacity of course (maybe down to 70-75k) but I do not think rose bowl is in consideration for the final anyway. I am also not sure about its VIP/hospitality capacities either, but that obviously can be done since it is part of the bid.

IMHO LA has missed huge opportunity due to short minded actions of USC. olympics are coming, world cup is coming, coliseum is amazing stadium, intelligent renovation of the coliseum (modularity/roof/vip/hospitality/club seating etc) could have given them everything, possibly the final as well.

about rose bowl being placeholder for inglewood, I am not sure about this. in the end we might end with two stadiums in LA as well. the only issue with inglewood is its capacity, 72k as stated is cool but it is not enough for the final and looking all the renders, I do not see how it could be extended to 90k as stated. IMHO impossible! so FIFA might be forced to stage the final in jerryworld and I am pretty sure noone wants that


----------



## ElvisBC

aquamaroon said:


> Come on man it's _fuhbawl!_ :lol:
> 
> So your point got me thinking... how is the United bid looking, with our NFL stadiums, in terms of roofs? Well to start, here's what I think is a reasonable Final selection for the United bid:
> 
> -Edmonton
> *-Toronto*
> *-Montreal*
> *-Gudalajara
> -Monterrey
> -Mexico City
> -Seattle*
> *-San Francisco**
> *-Los Angeles**
> -New York
> -Boston
> -Washington
> *-Dallas
> -Atlanta
> -Miami
> -Houston*
> 
> 
> OK, so with that bid, you have 11 of the 16 currently with spectator roofs (Asterisk for LA and LA Stadium.) And then there is the unique case of San Francisco: while Levi's Stadium has no canopy structure now, there are discussions to build one soon:
> 
> Report: 49ers considering ways to add shade for fans at Levi's Stadium
> 
> And I imagine with a World Cup on its way a canopy structure to bring it in line with world soccer stadiums would be implemented.
> 
> So IF San Francisco were to add some sort of canopy roof, that would mean 12 of the 16 stadiums would have some kind of covering for spectators: either a roof, full dome or retractable dome. And who knows? Perhaps in the intervening years Metlife Stadium will add a roof and Washington will decide to go with a roofed venue (for now though the plans for their new stadium are open air). You're right though, North America is probably given special dispensation no other bid would get. Though in our defense, if needed we have plenty of domed/roofed stadiums that we aren't even planning on using for a potential 2026 World Cup:
> .
> .
> .
> .
> Of the seven stadiums above, NONE of them are in the current United plan. However, if absolutely needed, they could join and get us up to 16 fully covered stadia with no sweat :cheers:



As you said united bid will be accepted without roofs and I do not think that is the end of the world, roof is mandatory for the opener and the final and FIFA and everyone else will survive the rest. 

I only wanted to point out two things: 1. united bid gets thru with these stadiums due to high revenue promised, and 2. united bid shows zero intention to improve anything. restricted view and missing roofs in the first place, but also transfer issues - foxboro would never get accepted in any other bid but hey, robert kraft can‘t get ommited!

what annoys me is their arrogance! they continue to repeat thier bulls*** story about perfect stadiums knowing that is not true. otherwise they wouldn‘t put miami stadium picture as the main pic of the stadium section. pure arrogance, including their letters to FIFA. and we all know who else in the usa is perfect example for arrogance!


something else, the other domed stadiums you mentioned do exist but some of those cities refused to sign FIFA contracts, so they are out, especially after publicly critisizing FIFA, and couple of them can‘t accomodate association football pitch. and do not forget, NY did not sign anything either, it is all done under NJ flag and there will be no fan fest in the central park. apart from that, it is still highly questionable how LA will position itself. 

all these things might hurt united bid if brought up by someone. FIFA will stay quiet of course, they need that extra money and we are talking about a billion extra at least, but I am not sure how this will develop until june


----------



## indepadib

Wait wait wait a second you're really escaping something interesting i will explain : the FIFA will chose a country witch infrastructure , big stadiums ... will be used as it was on the World Cup , for example if a stadium can carry 50000 or 100000 spectators on the World cup , could it be useful after the end of the world cup ? this is the big issue , and the solution is so simple , the stadiums should be flexible so after the world cup some seat could be removed and used to develop other stadiums .


----------



## indepadib

hafidmarocmaroc95 said:


> Morocco 2026 Stadiums (Confirmed)


in fact just 12 of them will be taken if Morocco is organizing the event , that's what moulay hafid elalami said when presenting the document


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> Only* $3Bn *for stadiums and sport infrastuctures
> 
> what remains is to *accelerate other infrastructures already planned with or without WC * (including $3.2 Bn from private sector, especially for hotels and services, regarding also to $1.1 Bn as tax revenues)
> Not to mention that the budget will be spread over 8 years to master all impacts.
> I am satisfied with the financial part
> you can take your time to read details of their bid (or simply hire a financial analyst that can explain things to you easily)
> 
> 5 stadiums will be "legacy modulars", well I really like this new concept !!! I think it's a good thing because Morocco give the example that any country can bid to host WC (even your origin country can bid so your family and childhood friends can really live it)
> 
> Now I understand reason why no counry wanted to risk bid.
> 
> for sure, if Unitedbid win, FIFA will win on short term, but no other country can risk bidding because never a WC can reach the standards set by USA.
> 
> but with Morocco as host, FIFA will get more impressive bid at middle and long term. In my opinion, Moroccan file meets all requirements and offers real opportunity to enjoy a wonderful WC, for supporters, for fans and for everybody.
> 
> (same as Pestolero)


Doesn't it concern you that maybe 10B (with overruns, interest and other left-out costs) is being spent on stadiums that will never be used again, when 15B is required to bring local clinics up to MINIMUM 3rd world standards? 

How about spending the money on a 10 year project to bring Morocco a truly world class medical center? Then, in 10-15 years you will have about 10,000 professional jobs with European level wages, foreign exchange from all over Europe and Africa (since you can beat European prices and the rest of Africa on quality). Worldwide recognition and publicity every day. Comparable quality to the best in Germany or the UK.

Or you can have 20 minimum wage jobs guarding the crumbling stadiums.

This is the real issue for FIFA; what kind of press and images do they want for the next 20 years.


----------



## pesto

indepadib said:


> Wait wait wait a second you're really escaping something interesting i will explain : the FIFA will chose a country witch infrastructure , big stadiums ... will be used as it was on the World Cup , for example if a stadium can carry 50000 or 100000 spectators on the World cup , could it be useful after the end of the world cup ? this is the big issue , and the solution is so simple , the stadiums should be flexible so after the world cup some seat could be removed and used to develop other stadiums .


Seems a bit disingenuous that much of that would really happen. Lots of costs and hazards involved in dismantling large buildings and then you have to be able to work them into the new site. And why didn't they build in the new site in the first place if there is need there?

Likewise for bringing the hospitals to minimum health standards. How long after the WC before they are back to their old condition? After all, in the absence of the WC no one was concerned about these places being below standard.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

> FIFA's tax requirements for countries bidding for the World Cup


https://twitter.com/RobHarris/status/974333246606643201


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ haha wow, good job Chicago, Minneapolis, Vancouver and Phoenix for telling them to stuff it!




ElvisBC said:


> I only wanted to point out two things: 1. united bid gets thru with these stadiums due to high revenue promised, and 2. united bid shows zero intention to improve anything. restricted view and missing roofs in the first place, but also transfer issues - foxboro would never get accepted in any other bid but hey, robert kraft can‘t get ommited!
> 
> what annoys me is their arrogance! they continue to repeat thier bullshit story about perfect stadiums knowing that is not true. otherwise they wouldn‘t put miami stadium picture as the main pic of the stadium section. pure arrogance, including their letters to FIFA. and we all know who else in the usa is perfect example for arrogance!



Yeah thats fair! Though I don't know if arrogance is the right word; I'm sure the forces behind the United bid would love to present FIFA a bid of 16 UEFA style stadia. They're just saddled with a reality of American sports: the USA will NEVER build +60,000 seat Soccer Stadiums, and certainly not for the sole purpose of hosting a World Cup. The idea that we would do what say, Morocco is doing, proposing a >$15 billion bid with 12 new or completely renovated stadia, is ridiculous to the average American sports fan. And that's to say nothing of FIFA's insane tax and visa requirements, to which several north american cities have said screw off. 

Now does that mean that we shouldn't host the World Cup, since we don't love it enough to go to ridiculous lengths, both in infrastructure and bending our own laws, to land the WC? Maybe! That's a fair argument; England, Spain and Argentina would all love the WC more than us. But as long as FIFA is interested in having us, sadly for world soccer loving Americans, for any bid it's NFL stadiums or nothing :dunno:


----------



## Herms

Presentation of the Bid
Press Pack



https://www.morocco26.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/kit-Press-VEN.pdf


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ haha wow, good job Chicago, Minneapolis, Vancouver and Phoenix for telling them to stuff it!
> 
> Yeah thats fair! Though I don't know if arrogance is the right word; I'm sure the forces behind the United bid would love to present FIFA a bid of 16 UEFA style stadia. They're just saddled with a reality of American sports: the USA will NEVER build +60,000 seat Soccer Stadiums, and certainly not for the sole purpose of hosting a World Cup. The idea that we would do what say, Morocco is doing, proposing a >$15 billion bid with 12 new or completely renovated stadia, is ridiculous to the average American sports fan. And that's to say nothing of FIFA's insane tax and visa requirements, to which several north american cities have said screw off.
> 
> Now does that mean that we shouldn't host the World Cup, since we don't love it enough to go to ridiculous lengths, both in infrastructure and bending our own laws, to land the WC? Maybe! That's a fair argument; England, Spain and Argentina would all love the WC more than us. But as long as FIFA is interested in having us, sadly for world soccer loving Americans, for any bid it's NFL stadiums or nothing :dunno:




What is the problem with countries agreeing to respect the tax-free status of FIFA? Aren't the IOC and all of its local committees exempt from local taxes? The issue is to make sure the local countries don't levy confiscatory taxes once local operations are set, and to exempt yourself from local laws, which are often whatever the royal family feels like decreeing that week and are enforced without need for trials. 

Generally, Swiss law is as good as any other barring the US and UK. Of course, FIFA can't apply different rules for different countries so the US gets the 3rd world treatment. Similar for the Olympics I would assume.

I have done little work for tax exempts but whenever going to a country with poorly enforced legal rights (most of the world other than Europe, N. America and East Asia), you operate through independent 3rd parties with local clout. And you never let substantial assets accumulate without being paid for in hard currency in US accounts.

These are just general comments; I haven't read any of the relevant agreements or know much of Swiss law.


----------



## marokko

Just want to say this before NAFTA fans will say Moroccans are "arrogant". For the millionth time: FIFA infrastructure in Morocco costs 3Bn dollars.

The remaining sum is used for development and accelarating the building of current (existing) projects. These will be built with or without a WC. So please don't be arrogant regarding the facts and accuse later Moroccans that they are the arrogant ones. To some forummers: Please show a bit of class, faireness, and don't change facts so they will fit your personal argument. Don't use Trump kind of reasoning, because that is the main reason USA is probably going to lose the bid. Rather show the strength of your bid.


----------



## ElvisBC

aquamaroon said:


> ^^ haha wow, good job Chicago, Minneapolis, Vancouver and Phoenix for telling them to stuff it!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah thats fair! Though I don't know if arrogance is the right word; I'm sure the forces behind the United bid would love to present FIFA a bid of 16 UEFA style stadia. They're just saddled with a reality of American sports: the USA will NEVER build +60,000 seat Soccer Stadiums, and certainly not for the sole purpose of hosting a World Cup. The idea that we would do what say, Morocco is doing, proposing a >$15 billion bid with 12 new or completely renovated stadia, is ridiculous to the average American sports fan. And that's to say nothing of FIFA's insane tax and visa requirements, to which several north american cities have said screw off.
> 
> Now does that mean that we shouldn't host the World Cup, since we don't love it enough to go to ridiculous lengths, both in infrastructure and bending our own laws, to land the WC? Maybe! That's a fair argument; England, Spain and Argentina would all love the WC more than us. But as long as FIFA is interested in having us, sadly for world soccer loving Americans, for any bid it's NFL stadiums or nothing :dunno:


yepp, thats reality, driven by nearly one billion $ more for fifa, and that's fine

as I said many times, we have two less than perfect bids this time, and whoever wins we will have a good world cup. I'd prefer morocco but I'm fine with usa as well. 

and then in 2030 we will have world cup as it should be! I hope I'm gonna make it that far!


----------



## RobH

Colonel Ned said:


> 5 stadiums will be "legacy modulars", well I really like this new concept !!! I think it's a good thing because Morocco give the example that any country can bid to host WC


It's a not a new concept at all. The idea of distributing seats to smaller legacy venues has been done many times before. London did it with a lot of the seats in the wings of the 2012 Aquatic Centre.

And on a larger scale, Qatar 2022 is building stadiums they claim will be demountable and reused in bits elsewhere. So Morocco is in fact copying Qatar in this respect, and we don't yet know if Qatar is going to deliver anything other than a few fantastically expensive and unneeded white elephants. I'd still be surprised if this idea of modularity actually works without being prohibitively expensive and difficult.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

FIFA should think about implementing an IOC's 2020 Agenda to reduce costs and risks. The application should begin for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. This agenda should also recommend joint bids with expanded FIFA World Cups and competition.
Many citizens have become aware about over spendings and are fed up with white elephants.


*Are cities starting to see World Cup hosting duties as a poisoned chalice ?*


----------



## ElvisBC

in reality it's a bulls***. after the event they might reduce the capacity of the "modular" stadium or simply demolish it (they call it disassembling in such case), but I am still to hear about someone using it on another site afterwards!


----------



## marokko

^^It is a new concept/technology, which is used for Qatar 2022 (a big supporter of the Moroccan bid). So it is not weird, you didn't see much results of modular stadiums yet, because it did not happen yet in a arge scale. However not everything new is bulls***. The idea is to dismantle the upper tier I think and use those materials in another city/stadium to improve the infrastructural quality of the whole Football League in Morocco


----------



## ElvisBC

and you believe in santa as well?


----------



## RobH

marokko said:


> ^^It is a new concept/technology, which is used for Qatar 2022 (a big supporter of the Moroccan bid). So it is not weird, you didn't see much results of modular stadiums yet, because it did not happen yet in a arge scale. However not everything new is bullshit. The idea is to dismantle the upper tier I think and use those materials in another city/stadium to improve the infrastructural quality of the whole Football League in Morocco


And I'll believe it when I see it. It is, whatever anyone says, a huge gamble for Morocco and FIFA. Qatar has money to burn so can afford inefficient, costly stadiums like this and may spend more than they need to to prove they were right and everyone else is wrong. In the real world, I'm unsure of the expense or practicalities of this. And it looks especially risky when lined up against a bid with no stadium building to do.


----------



## marokko

ElvisBC said:


> and you believe in santa as well?


Yes, don't you believe in it? Especially when it would be a good argument in favor of your own bid/goal ...


But outside of the trolling, I just want to explain the idea behind the 5 proposed modular stadiums. The country is crazy about Football. Therefore it would be a good thing to be able to use certain parts in other stadiums in Morocco after the WC to improve the whole league. Like in cities of Al hoceima and Kenitra in which there are also football projects, but which were excluded from the bid due to a low hotel capacity:


----------



## pesto

I like the idea of mobile stadiums. If traffic is bad in one part of town you can move it to another part, or even a whole different city. In fact your home stadium could follow you all over the league and your fans could keep their same seats! 

If you get good at doing this, you can have just one stadium for each 8 team league: schedule 2 games per location and three days later in another city and keep on movin'!


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> "Cada loco con su tema" as my mother would say.
> 
> It isn't the NFL and their greed. College stadiums (hundreds of them) don't have roofs; high school stadiums (thousands) don't have roofs; in general, baseball and soccer stadiums don't have roofs.
> 
> Btw, in London the parks are packed with people on those rare days the sun comes out. Testy discussions over who has rights to spots in the sun as the tree shadows move across the grass. And if you come to LA, the Brits are packing the pools until they challenge the lobsters in pinkness.


I nearly got sun burnt in the Mineirão in Belo Horizonte at the last World Cup. The stewards/security people confiscated my small bottle of lotion on entry. Typically my seat was in the sunny corner of the stadium despite the roof. Had to buy a cap at half time. Some of us Brits really don't want to get burnt.

It is only really in very hot or wet cities that a roof should be necessary. In the former, and that would include LA in summer, you want a fully enclosed stadium with air conditioning. The new NFL stadium would be perfect in that regard. FIFA's rules ought to allow flexibility in deciding what is appropriate for each city. You wouldn't want an uncovered stadium in the UK but it would be fine in many places.

There were uncovered seats in Sao Paulo four years ago (I stood in front of one) and there will be in Ekaterinburg this year.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> It's a not a new concept at all. The idea of distributing seats to smaller legacy venues has been done many times before. London did it with a lot of the seats in the wings of the 2012 Aquatic Centre.
> 
> And on a larger scale, Qatar 2022 is building stadiums they claim will be demountable and reused in bits elsewhere. So Morocco is in fact copying Qatar in this respect, and we don't yet know if Qatar is going to deliver anything other than a few fantastically expensive and unneeded white elephants. I'd still be surprised if this idea of modularity actually works without being prohibitively expensive and difficult.


The Rio Olympics adapted the London idea with a rather clever plan to re-assemble some of their facilities as schools and other public buildings. Not sure how far they've got yet or if they will get anywhere at all but it was a good idea.


----------



## RobH

Yes, but that was a big box shape to start with (iirc it was the fencing arena or something similar, not a stadium in the normal sense). Turning a box shaped arena that contained (presumably) temporary scaffold seating into a box shaped school I would think is far, far easier than trying to reconfigure the upper tier of a stadium into a new smaller stadium somewhere else.


----------



## marokko

^^ I heard the head of the bidding committee e.g. saying that the second stadium of Marrakech will be built in an area in which convention centers are very needed. The city organizes many conferences during the year. So the idea of this stadium is to renovate it after the WC into a center for conferences. I do not have the details, but maybe that could answer your question a bit.

Secondly, I could imagine peoples concerns about the 5 modular stadiums that could become white elephants. Modular stadiums are maybe not the most optimal solution, but they are necessary for small nations to be able to organize international events nowadays. Otherwise only large countries like USA and China can organize the event in the future, which would be bad for FIFA's reputation (outside of its revenue from these countries). *But even a country like USA does not have enough soccer stadiums for a FIFA WC event nowadays.* This obligated North America e.g. to use stadiums for the WC that were actually built for other sports that interest Americans and are stadiums that do not always fulfill the criteria of a soccer stadium. So I don't know what is worst with current FIFA criteria's: The use of 5 modular stadiums or the use of stadiums that were not designed for soccer. In the Moroccan forum, participants actually like a lot the idea of modular stadiums, because it will result in less investment in stadiums and saves a larger budget for other infrastructure (3 billion stadiums and 9 billion for roads, trains, and hospitals). In general, modular stadiums from the Moroccan perspective means lower capacity after the WC and not another purpose (except Marrakech maybe) : 










Thirdly, even a country like Russia uses these type of stadiums for the coming WC (32 teams). The term modular stadiums is just not used:









Source: US.pressfrom.com


----------



## carlosfng

The true test of the whole "modular stadium" idea will probably be Qatar 2022. If they pull it off without vast expense that only an oil-rich nation can make on its own (if not a Western nation), then maybe Morocco can. But I doubt it, at least not without spending quite more than just $15 billion USD. Which is why the NAFTA bid will probably win, as interesting as the Moroccan one is I don't see how all those stadiums can only cost $3 billion. Even if I do assume Morocco is quite better economically than at any other time in its history, and I also assume it is quite football-friendly as well, it's a whole 'nother thing to compete with countries that are a few steps above in infrastructure, and can host more easily the 48-team megacups that are the way of the future (apparently). Not that Morocco doesn't have some advantages, namely it is more open to FIFA demands, prettier stadiums (then again, not cheap, and 5 modular ones as well), nice intentions (for what they're worth), and it is easier for TV and travel of Europeans (who still rule football even when they pretend they don't). Security might be an issue, but if Qatar is going ahead, why not Morocco... Anyway, we will see.

EDIT: The modular technology is not new, it will not only be seen in Russia but was also seen in Brasil 2014, in Sao Paulo at Corinthians' stadium.
That said, that stadium was rushed and overpriced before the WC, and it was only two terraces that were moved afterwards. Which did not look that aesthetically pleasing either. I suppose a full modular stadium would be tougher, not to mention 5. Then again, the tech might be advanced enough in 8 years?


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> I nearly got sun burnt in the Mineirão in Belo Horizonte at the last World Cup. The stewards/security people confiscated my small bottle of lotion on entry. Typically my seat was in the sunny corner of the stadium despite the roof. Had to buy a cap at half time. Some of us Brits really don't want to get burnt.
> 
> It is only really in very hot or wet cities that a roof should be necessary. In the former, and that would include LA in summer, you want a fully enclosed stadium with air conditioning. The new NFL stadium would be perfect in that regard. FIFA's rules ought to allow flexibility in deciding what is appropriate for each city. You wouldn't want an uncovered stadium in the UK but it would be fine in many places.
> 
> There were uncovered seats in Sao Paulo four years ago (I stood in front of one) and there will be in Ekaterinburg this year.


The LA style is to be outdoors; if you need a cap and lotion, then use them. I don't object to awnings; it's only "roofs" (meaning the top element on the envelope that seals a building from weather) that I object to. There are 26 major stadiums in California and not one has a roof. Many have awnings, overhangs and such.

Inglewood is much milder in the summer than Paris, for example. It is near the coast and heat will be a non-factor except rarely in September. In fact evenings get cool and breezy even in summer.

But they put a canopy on it anyway (no heating or A/C). The Rams' CEO objected but Kroenke over-ruled him because of potential conventions, concerts and such. It's a nice compromise since you won't (allegedly) lose the feeling of being outdoors.


----------



## RobH

There is a problem with terminology in this thread and others in this section of the forum. Fully enclosed stadiums are not common here and we're much more used to the idea of individual stands, so we tend to use the word roof to mean an awning or canopy (i.e. a roof over each stand) whereas it seems N Americans use it for a full stadium covering. Not the first time this has caused confusion and won't be the last! 

In general pesto, if you see a European - particularly a Brit - writing about roofs, they will still be talking about a stadium with a field open to the weather.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> There is a problem with terminology in this thread and others in this section of the forum. Fully enclosed stadiums are not common here and we're much more used to the idea of individual stands, so we tend to use the word roof to mean an awning or canopy (i.e. a roof over each stand) whereas it seems N Americans use it for a full stadium covering. Not the first time this has caused confusion and won't be the last!


I think Americans do as well, when speaking loosely: anything over your head is a roof of a sort.


----------



## ElvisBC

united bid media conference call brought nothing new. I have a feeling united bid is easily losing the punch. you do such a major media event with all three chairmans present and show nothing new, just keep repeating same things over and over. not the best marketing approach!

here one link:
United 2026 chiefs downplay concerns about politics hurting bid's chances


----------



## marokko

^^ Finally an honest source about Morocco's bid:



> Morocco, by contrast, will need to build nine stadiums, refurbish five others and build or renovate 130 training grounds to the tune of $3 billion. That is just part of the $12.6 billion needed to be spent to get the country ready.


Morocco is *only aiming to spend 3 Bn dollar* on 12 stadiums and 130 training grounds (FIFA infrastructure). The remaining investment is meant for roads, trains, hospitals and tourism (The 9 billion will be spent if Morocco gets the WC or not)


----------



## apinamies

Toronto stadium doesn't look impressive at all... I'm bit surprised they have guts to propose it.


----------



## Colonel Ned

apinamies said:


> Toronto stadium doesn't look impressive at all... I'm bit surprised they have guts to propose it.


not at all you're right

but for any bid (individual or joint), FIFA should pick 12 stadiums among 14 suggested.

Untill now, UnitedBId want to be impressive with 23 stadiums, but if Canada and Mexico get 3 stadiums each, USA must use what remain (only 6).

in the best case, if Canada and Mexico get 2 each, USA will have to use 8 stadia (and it's not also a good scenario)

but, let's think crazy way, let's say UnitedBid win, and in 2020 while FIFA will pick the 12 stadiums, only american NFL stadiums got the final approbation, what should Canada and Mexico do ?? can they hope for the free qualification they was attributed ?? can they consider that USA use them like **** ??

anyway, it's just a thinking (because in the bidding procedures, nothing is mentionned about wether or not FIFA has to pick stadiums in each country in case of joint bid)

the UnitedBid is the weired bidding I saw ever ... plenty of black points ...


----------



## Colonel Ned

*Richard Branson* was in his property in a Moroccan village, and gaves a wonderful image about how nice people of Morocco are passionate by soccer (some few words to meditate)












> As usual, I’ve been getting active too. I went for a few beautiful long hikes into the Atlas Mountains, taking in stunning views of the landscape and sharing the path with mountain goats. Before the first climb, I joined some local children in a quick game of football, and found myself in goal. As you can see, the cheeky kid took no mercy!












https://twitter.com/richardbranson/status/974738382994771970



> It really is one of the most wonderful places in the world here in Morocco, full of the most charming people and gorgeous countryside.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Before the task force giving its verdict, lobbying will be very intense the next weeks.
Look at this symposium which will be held in London from tomorrow.



















Coliseum Summit Europe


----------



## Colonel Ned

CaliforniaJones said:


> Before the task force giving its verdict, lobbying will be very intense the next weeks.
> Look at this symposium which will be held in London from tomorrow.
> 
> Coliseum Summit Europe


what the hell are "Raiders" doing here ?? 
is this a summit of soccer or american football ?
why not they didn't bring Chicaco Bulls (from NBA) and NY Yankees (from MLB) too ??

I don't think that the lobbying will perfectly work because you have there PSG (owned by Qatar, defending Morocco), and Professionnal leagues like France and Spain that already expressed their choice.

You want to understand what's real lobbying ?

Look : United stadiums are already built. Morocco need to build 9 new stadiums, and what if I tell you that tenders and public infrastructures are opened for European contractors ? (Algeria is building cuurently 4 stadiums with chineese contractors), which means that $16Bn is a real investment opportunity for European companies ... think about it

Am in Nice (south of France) now, and I already hear about european companies interest to take advantage on Moroccan bid (construction, hotels, TV, marketing, flights ...), so those companies will probably do what we call "Lobbying"


----------



## Herms

Knitemplar said:


> Here's the thing. Will those who vote for Morocco be its real friends? *Why will they send a country whose FIFA plans are just 75% on paper*, on a building, white-elephant spree while the other bid has 100% of the structures alive and operating, and just waiting for the games to come and be played on them?


It was the same case for Brazil and Russia.
Most of the organizing countries are taking advantage of WC to upgrade their infrastructure.


----------



## Knitemplar

Herms said:


> It was the same case for Brazil and Russia.
> Most of the organizing countries are taking advantage of WC to upgrade their infrastructure.
> .


Uhmm, Morocco isn't exactly on the same scale or might as Russia and Brazil which have populations of 145 mil and 200 mil people respectively, to USE those stadia after their hosting turns. Their resources and manpower are infinitely more than Morocco's, multi-fold. 

Countries can well upgrade their infrastructure by building more hospitals, homes, sewer systems, schools -- WITHOUT using a gigantic 1-month ONLY sports extravaganza as an excuse to do that. The cost of stadia EATS up most of the "improvement" budget which can go to homes and schools DIRECTLY -- but you CAN'T eat concrete and steel. 

Also, for saner minds, the paradigm selection criteria has changed since 2007 and 2010 when a rival bid of nearly 450 million people, with a combined GNP/GDP greater than Europe's, and NO NEW stadia to be built, is staring you in the face. 

*And look what's happened to the Russian and Brazilian economies after that "honor," despite their having 10-15x greater than Morocco's GNP/GDP. *

Finally, a combined North American bid for 2026 will bolster Argentina-Uruguay and Paraguay's joint bid for 2030 as well.


----------



## pesto

Another article on stadium construction. This is a rather sarcastic website that criticizes wasteful expenditures on sports stadiums, usually by cities that have no likelihood of getting any return for their money:

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/


----------



## Colonel Ned

*United Bid Committee tries new approach to rescue 2026 World Cup bid*
http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-mls-south-americans-baxter-20180310-story.html

USA is responding on the fact that 60 games are seen too much, nothing was given to Canada or Mexico ... so may be it's a kind on another try


----------



## Colonel Ned

why not see the WC as an opportunity for these countries to catch up and have the necessary infrastructure for their economic take-off ?

why FIFA has to chose a country that is already ready (and who will not win too much)?

Germany, south Africa, Brazil, Russia (and even Qatar) have developed their infrastructures and their people have mobilized to rise the challenge of modernity and turn the page and catch up with the great nations.


----------



## pesto

First, and most simply, if there is an economic need for these stadiums (that is, if it makes economic sense to build them) then why hasn’t anyone built them already? The WC is maybe 3 matches so what you need to show is that there will be many more matches with high levels of attendance and revenues over a period of, say, 20-30 years minimum. Budgets with numbers based on firm revenues with specific names attached, based on polling of major advertisers and promoters. With signatures. The fact that no one has made public such numbers or acted upon them indicates that there is no such likelihood. Until such documents are presented no rational investor would agree to fund a project of this type.

Second, there is the some doubt where the supporting revenue could possibly come given the size of the local economies of some of these cities. 

Third you have to do alternative analysis. This basically says “what could I get for this money it I spent it for other uses?” You take the value of these uses (say, technical schools and universities) and match it against the value of the stadiums, each properly discounted for the time value of money and risks of not attaining goals. The losers in this analysis are white elephants.

The bigger picture: the difference between rich and poor countries lies almost entirely in worker productivity. This is driven by capital investment per worker and implies that developing countries should spend their existing capital on resources which will directly improve the productivity of their workers rather than on projects which are for entertainment and consumption purposes.


----------



## Colonel Ned

you know what, am working on a scientific publication on this case of WC2026 and how it will shift the foreign policy paradigm. when I was in Europe I I did a survey on what country is the best. believe it or not, I had : Canada, then Morocco, then Mexico, then USA (it's weird I know, but if Canada was the only bidder, it could win easily because it's the most friendly of all). it's about image that's it


----------



## Colonel Ned

interesting video from Moroccan Bid Committee CEO

*CEO explaining about why Morocco wants to host 2026 and why they are confident*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwFGttJ-x_M

---

*Some good articles to share may be :*

*Morocco's umpteenth offensive to host the World Cup - Turkey Telegraph*
http://www.turkeytelegraph.com/world/morocco-s-umpteenth-offensive-to-host-the-world-cup-h16496.html

*Marruecos podría ganarle el Mundial del 2026 a la Concacaf*
http://www.marca.com/claro-mx/futbol/seleccion-mx/2018/03/06/5a9e0ec2468aebc21f8b4637.html

*Las leyes de Trump acercan a Marruecos al Mundial 2026*
https://as.com/futbol/2018/03/04/mundial/1520118120_277484.html

*Maroc, le temps de l'action (Morocco, the time for action)*
https://www.francefootball.fr/news/Maroc-le-temps-de-l-action/885943

*Football : Qui du Maroc ou des Etats-Unis organisera la Coupe du Monde 2026 ?
CANUSAMEX, A TRIO THAT DOES NOT GO
MOROCCO, THE RISING CHALLENGER *
https://www.minutenews.fr/sport/football-maroc-etats-unis-organisera-coupe-monde-2026-308402.html

---

*Some actions on ground :*

*Serbia and Luxembourg support for Moroccan bid (official)*
http://www.mapexpress.ma/actualite/...president-de-la-federation-serbe-de-football/
http://lionsdelatlas.ma/24868-la-se...candidature-marocaine-pour-le-mondial-de-2026
http://www.lesiteinfo.com/maroc/mondial-2026-nouveaux-soutiens-a-la-candidature-marocaine/
http://www.lesiteinfo.com/maroc/mondial-2026-nouveaux-soutiens-a-la-candidature-marocaine/

*Azerbaïdjan, Kazakhstan and Turkey sounded to support Moroccan bid*
http://sport.le360.ma/football/mondial-2026-le-maroc-poursuit-sa-tournee-asiatique-54915

Also : It's not on english or french media yet, but arab media juste released that *Russia will vote for Morocco *
(Am just informed by a friend who send me those linkes, and I used google translate)
it seems that senior officials in Russian association said on Saturday that their country would vote for Morocco's bid to host the 2026 World Cup, but it's not official yet.
http://alkhaleejonline.net/articles...أمريكا-روسيا-تدعم-المغرب-لتنظيم-مونديال-2026/
https://www.almountakhab.com/node/183972
http://www.2m.ma/ar/news/الفدرالية-...ت-لصالح-المغرب-لاحتضان-مونديال-2026-20180324/
https://al3omk.com/281484.html
https://alaw9at.com/article/200027/...ذه-الأسباب-سندعم-المغرب-لاحتضان-مونديال-2026/
https://www.alayam24.com/articles-53413.html

Before this, Russian TV channel "*Russia Today*" (RT) has stressed that Morocco has every opportunity and potential to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup
http://www.mapnews.ma/en/top-news/s...ity-be-host-country-2026-world-cup-russian-tv

---

Please, no one is obliged to click on all the links, I just put them for those who want to check or read, otherwise, only titles are enough to share information amicably.

But I tell you something, USA still have the chance, only if FIFA taskforce disqualify Morocco before june 13 (and then the challenge remain to obtain 104 votes of YES)


----------



## Knitemplar

that will be a big test of whether FIFA is a mature organization subscribing to the saner, larger goals which are also beneficial to the organization; rather than being driven by petty, non-sporting, political motives which, in the end, could lead to FIFA shooting itself in the foot once more. But then again, we've seen it before.


----------



## Colonel Ned

remember that :

it's the 5th time that Morocco bid to host WC (he lost it's first time at 1988 to USA for WC 1994)
the task force is independent FYI
Morocco can not be disqualified because the eliminatory mark is 2 out of 5, and this county is well developed in terms of infrastructures (you can learn more about Morocco and you will enjoy it like me and like anyone)



We love all the USA, only there are countries that must also have their chance to get more developed

as you see, more and more countries are standing for Morocco (may be it could be the same for Canada if it was the only bidder), so, try to think smart and different, you can not face the whole world to enforce your will


----------



## pesto

And we Americans all love Morocco as well. This hasn't the slightest to do with Morocco; if it were Sierra Leone or Myanmar or Belgium we would look at the same facts and try to draw a conclusion on which country had the better stadiums, infrastructure, financing, etc.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Guys, 

I'm honestly trying to let this all go and hope everyone can get along, but invariably the fact that this bid process has come down to simply two very divergent bid options some people posting here are compelled to use that as a platform to make derogatory points about the other bidding nation(s), their people, culture, leaders, or whatever. This is not the forum to debate the comparable moral worth of nations, nor is this the platform to try and resolve all of FIFA's political woes. 

Do we know there is a degree of politics involved in the bids? Sure, but that's not an opening to belittle the general government/politics/culture of either country. So if it's not too much to ask please keep any opinions that stray into this realm 1) within the parameters of only as how it pertains to FIFA and the bid and 2) based on news or factual reason and not simply your own biases. (In other words, posts with a "_We rule, you suck!_" approach will be deleted.) 

So, once more unto the breach...


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Guys,
> 
> I'm honestly trying to let this all go and hope everyone can get along, but invariably the fact that this bid process has come down to simply two very divergent bid options some people posting here are compelled to use that as a platform to make derogatory points about the other bidding nation(s), their people, culture, leaders, or whatever. This is not the forum to debate the comparable moral worth of nations, nor is this the platform to try and resolve all of FIFA's political woes.
> 
> Do we know there is a degree of politics involved in the bids? Sure, but that's not an opening to belittle the general government/politics/culture of either country. So if it's not too much to ask please keep any opinions that stray into this realm 1) within the parameters of only as how it pertains to FIFA and the bid and 2) based on news or factual reason and not simply your own biases. (In other words, posts with a "_We rule, you suck!_" approach will be deleted.)
> 
> So, once more unto the breach...


Well, glad to see that my discussion re "white elephants" made the cut. It really is simply a summary of the kind of analysis people normally go through in determining if a project makes any sense. 

FIFA (as well as the IOC) has been receiving adverse press coverage over the last few years over such expenditures and is likely committed to minimizing it for the future.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> FIFA (as well as the IOC) has been receiving adverse press coverage over the last few years over such expenditures and is likely committed to minimizing it for the future.


I don't disagree with this but I'd rather that be a facet in the general IOC/ FIFA threads instead of here.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Any news from the united bid ?? Any details besides the 23 "potential" candidates cities ? :cheers:


----------



## Colonel Ned

Rabat with love 2 said:


> Any news from the united bid ?? Any details besides the 23 "potential" candidates cities ? :cheers:


*Nothing new* ... except that they still running to get the support of Trump before June (otherwise the file will not even be submitted to the FIFA Congress : Defect of Form)

Americans (I talk about soccer officials) have a special approach, they first wanted to impose their will on FIFA, as told in the article (see link) that reveals the American maneuver in Bahrain to prevent Morocco to run as a candidate (they knew that Morocco intends to present its file)
https://ledesk.ma/2018/03/08/mondial-2026-les-americains-ont-tente-de-passer-en-force/

the tone with which this letter was written shows how they wanted to impose his candidacy offers









another try from United to give positive image and confidence on their bid, *they claim that FIFA's decision will be strategic (meaning a joint bid)*, with no references at all (??!!! here again they impose their words in FIFA's place ??)


> "Because if this bid happens, in the future countries will be able to get together and organise FIFA tournaments all around the world in a form that is more difficult to do alone"


https://www.insidethegames.biz/arti...on-on-future-of-world-cup-when-selecting-host

the craziest thing is this article bringing some oposit statments from Iñigo Riestra, the adeputy director of Mexican Bid, (this guy seems to be realistic at least, when talking about seeking votes) 
*Candidatura conjunta sigue en búsqueda de votos para Mundial 2026*
http://espndeportes.espn.com/futbol...-sigue-en-busqueda-de-votos-para-mundial-2026



> The deputy director of the Mexican Bid, Iñigo Riestra, said that they can not believe the competition they have with Morocco.





> "We are not confident, we are convinced that it is different. We are working hard and there is a work and a large team that is visiting the federations and we are trying to give them the elements to vote for us and see that this bid is different" he said





> "we know that there are some affinities between certain countries, but we want to send a message to federations and he is convincing them with the facts of our candidacy, but it will be each one's decision where his vote will go." he said


what else ...
another article in mexican website
*‘Norteamérica tiembla ante Marruecos por Mundial de 2026’*
_North America trembles against Morocco for the 2026 World Cup' (evoking about Blatter awakening of conscience)_
https://www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx...embla-ante-marruecos-por-mundial-de-2026.html

Here I think we can take some minutes to think about it :
- Sunil Gulati leaves
- Changing board (3 co-chairmen)
- Announcing Mexico as host of openning game ...

seriously, would they have done all these things if they were not really scared?

---

About Asia votes, I think Morocco made the point by starting by the WAFF (West Asian Football Federations), as Jordania support to Morocco include making some influence ... that is a key - region.



> WAFF is made up of 13 federations – Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Palestine, Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Qatar , Oman and Yemen. The Moroccan delegation was reportedly welcomed by the President of the Jordanian Football Federation, Prince Ali bin Al Hussein, who knows a thing or two about lobbying and voting patterns having twice tried and failed to become FIFA president.


http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...026-vote-nascimento-calls-african-solidarity/


----------



## CaliforniaJones

FIFA will publish both bid books, including summaries on monday.
Have great reading.


----------



## Knitemplar

Colonel Ned said:


> seriously, would they have done all these things if they were not really scared?
> 
> -


Sure, would you not have done the same as the United bid is doing? But you know, in the long run, it's NOT the North Americans that will be the ultimate losers. I mean, so what? The North American bid will still have all its stadia (and more coming in the pipeline) regardless of where 2026 will land. Then there will be the Summer Olympics in LA for 2028; and possibly a Winter Games in 2030 for either Calgary or a US city. So not getting FIFA 2026 won't be that big of a loss. 

Trump wouldn't have that big on effect on the vote in June. Conversely, Obama's presence in Copenhagen in 2009, didn't deliver the vote for Chicago for 2016. At the same time, Trump seems to have good connections with the royal family of Saudi Arabia and Qatar; so who knows, the WH could lean on S.A. to bring in a few of the Arab votes? 

Also, don't forget that there will be horse-trading for votes for candidates for 2030. So, it's not JUST the geo-political considerations for 2018-2026 that will matter in June. It will have consequences on the vote for 2030. 

And maybe the way the 2026 WOG plays out will minimize the importance of FIFA 2026 even more. If the WOG 2026 European bids fall by the wayside before October; and say, only Calgary (and a possible US venue for 2030) are left standing; then the IOC could again do a double-award as they did for Summers 2024 and 2028; and make *two consecutive* WOGs in North America. I think even the big sports sponsors and major networks would prefer that over summer FIFA WC 2026.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

@Knitemplar

Agree.

And don't forget the next FIFA World Cups in 2034, 2038 and 2042.
I see North America/Africa, Asia and Europe hosting after 2030.


----------



## Tered

You think they'll ever have Australia & New Zealand together host a future WC?

Just asking! ⚽


----------



## GunnerJacket

I'm gonna try something here:


Colonel Ned said:


> seriously, would they have done all these things if they were not really scared?


Ned, I'm unsure if this is a second-language issue you for you or simply a matter of perception but I think you're coming across too strongly with your consistent portrayal of the North American (NA) bid as "scared," or desperate, etc. So when you say stuff like that naturally some posters are going to respond with equally strong language. 

Let's be clear - The NA bid isn't scared. These are people who are smart enough and familiar enough with this process that they're fully aware of how political it can be. They've seen it before and lost, and win or lose they'll bid again sometime in the future. The same can equally be said for Morocco, so all we're seeing is the typical salesmanship that is adjusting to the landscape and will continue until the selection is made. Maybe some individuals assumed the bid process would be easier, but that doesn't mean these folks would relax before the event was actually awarded. They know better.

So everyone needs to calm down about assumptions that either bid is panicking. Don't overreact to sensationalist headlines by article writers that are just wanting you to read their stuff. Don't overreact to other posters who disagree with your sentiments. And above all else let's realize that this merely about the rights to host one sporting event, and not some grand moral contest between nations or continents. 

It's football, folks. Just football. And there will be many more world cups long after this one.


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> FIFA will publish both bid books, including summaries on monday.
> Have great reading.


great! I already started to doubt 

I guess we'll find out many many very interessting things inside we havent't heard about at all! not that it matters, but it should be fun! ^^


----------



## Colonel Ned

GunnerJacket said:


> I'm gonna try something here:
> 
> Ned, I'm unsure if this is a *second*-language issue you for you or simply a matter of perception but I think you're coming across too strongly with your consistent portrayal of the North American (NA) bid as "scared," or desperate, etc. So when you say stuff like that naturally some posters are going to respond with equally strong language.


yes it's second language
am basically french speaker
may be the term I should use is "worry" or so ?
anyway, you made things clear
thx


----------



## ChesterCopperpot

Bid books are out - http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2018/m=3/news=2026-fifa-world-cup-bid-books-now-available.html


----------



## Colonel Ned

ChesterCopperpot said:


> Bid books are out - http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/news/y=2018/m=3/news=2026-fifa-world-cup-bid-books-now-available.html


Now let's begin real discussion 

/:^)


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> @Knitemplar
> 
> Agree.
> 
> And don't forget the next FIFA World Cups in 2034, 2038 and 2042.
> I see North America/Africa, Asia and Europe hosting after 2030.


They already have their threads but they are much calmer and reasoned in their approach than this thread. So far nothing but rational discussions of pro's and con's.


----------



## Tered

3/26/2018

As reported by 'Sports Illustrated' today. The United bids proposal for host stadiums -

Quote: "The countries proposed that MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, host the final, with the semifinals being held at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta and AT&T Stadium in Dallas."

Full article here - https://www.si.com/soccer/2018/03/26/usa-world-cup-bid-proposal-sites


----------



## GunnerJacket

Holy shnikes! Atlanta for a semi? Great googly moogly but I'd love to see that! 

For the record I don't presume my fair metro area to be that grand a tourist destination, but I promise we fans would do our part to make it go over in a huge way.


----------



## ElvisBC

united bid shot themselves in the foot. proposing the final in the stadium with no roof and one of the semis in the dome with heavy view obstruction .... cheers!

IMHO ... unbelievable. their arrogance is going to cost them the world cup!


----------



## Rabat with love 2

:lol:


----------



## Bouqebaz

Meanwhile in Europe... 




> Serbia, Luxembourg support Morocco's bid for 2026 FIFA WC


http://www.business-standard.com/ar...co-s-bid-for-2026-fifa-wc-118032500673_1.html



Any news about United bid endorsements?


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Colonel Ned said:


> Now let's begin real discussion
> 
> /:^)


There's nothing new in the united bid book , i feel like it's not a serious bid ...


----------



## ElvisBC

both bids are very serious.

I‘m going to read the books first


----------



## fidalgo

is there a full list of confirmed endorsements we could see?


----------



## ElvisBC

here explanation of the voting process:

FIFA has given its 200-plus member federations a clear path in the formal voting procedure to reject both current bids.

On the ballot paper there will be three options: 
-“united bid“
-“moroccan bid“
-“None of the Bids -- Reopen Bidding Process.“

If the rejection option wins, a new process lasting months or even years would begin -- excluding the United States, Canada, Mexico and Morocco. This would let European and Asian bidders enter a race they are currently barred from because Russia and Qatar host the two previous World Cups. China could then join the contest.

A first-round winner will be declared if it gets a simple majority, more than 50 percent, of valid votes. Abstentions do not count.

If there is no majority in the first round, but the North American and Morocco bids combine to have more votes than the rejection option, they will advance to a second round where a simple majority wins.

—————————————

so there is still hope the world could reject both sub par bids and put the world cup somewhere where it belongs! :colgate:


----------



## Rabat with love 2

^^ yeah like in china ...

2026 will be in Morocco , we will get the majority....


----------



## Vizemeister

After reading both summaries, Morocco would have my vote. Guess the financial expectations of ticketing revenue and other merch will win the vote for the United bid though.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan

So the United bid doesnt think that we should have a semi or final west of Dallas? Inglewood, perhaps the worlds most expensive / grand stadium and the Rose Bowl, arguably the greatest setting for sports in North America, which are located in a soccer loving region, both shut out? How does that make any sense?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Rabat with love 2 said:


> There's nothing new in the united bid book , i feel like it's not a serious bid ...


All that matters right now is whether or not it fits the bill for FIFA, not John Q Public.


----------



## GunnerJacket

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> So the United bid doesnt think that we should have a semi or final west of Dallas? Inglewood, perhaps the worlds most expensive / grand stadium and the Rose Bowl, arguably the greatest setting for sports in North America, which are located in a soccer loving region, both shut out? How does that make any sense?


One man's guess: They could be working their way from west to east with the knock-out rounds so as to save teams from the harshest travel distances and to optimize the time zone for the final. Would be rather unfair if the two finalists had radically different travel conditions making it to the final.


----------



## Knitemplar

Rabat with love 2 said:


> There's nothing new in the united bid book , i feel like it's not a serious bid ...


I don't feel Morocco is a serious bid. It's 85% *only on paper*. :lol: The other one has ALL their stadia up. Hey, Rabat, watch out for your friends voting for you. They are actually putting you in a $$ sinkhole. But, hey, if that's what Morocco wants . . .


----------



## Bouqebaz

The funny thing is that both bidbooks reflect their respective countries. 

Morocco's Bidbook much more readable and compact, 193 pages.

The North-American bidbook: 530 pages, enormous fonts and a lot of colors hurting the eyes. They use 5x the space as Morocco for the same info = more paper = not so good fo the environment.



I go for Morocco


----------



## ratipok

The govenrment wants to invest billions into stadium infrastructure, while at the same time Moroccan nationals are amongst the top five that are "fleeing" into Europe for welfare checks and economic opportunities. 

I would imagine a number of votes from Africa and Europe going to Morocco. Africans will stick with Africans and Europeans will stick to their time zone.


----------



## Rover030

GunnerJacket said:


> One man's guess: They could be working their way from west to east with the knock-out rounds so as to save teams from the harshest travel distances and to optimize the time zone for the final. Would be rather unfair if the two finalists had radically different travel conditions making it to the final.


That's exactly what they say in the bid book (page 142) (*HUGE* PDF WARNING), that they are going from West to East:



> ■ General flow from West to East for the
> Knockout matches
> ■ As a Final Venue the United Bid Committee
> proposes New York/New Jersey, with
> MetLife Stadium having a capacity of
> 84,953, the airports having connections
> to over 181 countries, and offering over
> 100,000 high quality (3, 4 or 5-star)
> hotel beds
> ■ Considering geographic location, travel
> distances, and stadium capacity, the United
> Bid also proposes to hold the two Semifinals
> in Atlanta and Dallas


----------



## fidalgo

Rover030 said:


> That's exactly what they say in the bid book (page 142) (*HUGE* PDF WARNING), that they are going from West to East:


doesnt teams stay on the same place through all tournment? and travel to the stadium cities the day before? usually it is that way.


----------



## Colonel Ned

Knitemplar said:


> I don't feel Morocco is a serious bid. It's 85% *only on paper*. :lol: The other one has ALL their stadia up. Hey, Rabat, watch out for your friends voting for you. They are actually putting you in a $$ sinkhole. But, hey, if that's what Morocco wants . . .


WOULD YOU MIND SHOWING US HOW DID YOU CALCULATE THIS RATE OF 85% ?


----------



## Colonel Ned

ElvisBC said:


> united bid shot themselves in the foot. proposing the final in the stadium with no roof and one of the semis in the dome with heavy view obstruction .... cheers!
> 
> IMHO ... unbelievable. their arrogance is going to cost them the world cup!


UNBELIEVABLE !

only 5 stadiums are covered ??!!

are they daring to challenge FIFA ? or simply they couldn't convince stadium' owners to make roof ??

Final without roof ?? seriously ?? 

NFL stadiums don't mach with soccer, to closed to the pitch so you can't even see lines (only canadian and mexican stadiums are suitable for high quality soccer show)


----------



## Colonel Ned

fidalgo said:


> is there a full list of confirmed endorsements we could see?


there is no list, it can't be any, lot of countries still keeping silence until D day.

but media are predicting

for example, this article on BBC Africa

*World 2026: Morocco continues its seduction operation*
http://www.bbc.com/afrique/sports-43537491

but I expect media to make some articles in the coming few weeks 

Morocco has already received many official support from Africa, Asia, and Europe (last are France, Luxembourg, Serbia and Russia)
You can go abck on this forum to see some articles I shared.
in addition, there are other articles :

*Russia Backs Morocco 2026 World Cup*
https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2018/03/243199/russia-moroccos-2026-world-cup/
*Moroccan official were also invite to joint the last game between Russia and Brazil*
http://sport.le360.ma/football/diap...roc-2026-sinvite-au-match-russie-bresil-54905

I think it's logical, especially when USA and Canada rejected russian diplomats today (The weight of russia is decisive in the area of central asia)

---

There is also some articles analyzing Bidbooks :
*FIFA publishes World Cup 2026 bid books as Morocco closes on US-led United bid*
https://www.eurosport.com/football/...s-on-us-led-united-bid_sto6691359/story.shtml


> With the 2026 World Cup growing from 32 to 48 teams, the United bid has been the hot favourite to win the vote in Moscow on June 13 since AmericaÂ’s interest first emerged, but recent events have made this race much closer than anybody could have predicted.





> Taken together, these factors could add up to another shock, particularly as this decision will be decided by 207 member associations and not the bosses on FIFAÂ’s Council.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

@Rover030

The choice to move from West to East is due to prevent teams to make long travels through the country. Also, putting the final in NY would mean having a final at 3 pm Eastern Time meanwhile European public would watch it at 9 pm CET.
This is the same for the quarter and semi finals.

I read also there'll be a great reduction of seats, not only from NFL capacities, but also for VIPs and Press.
On stadia, we will see what the FIFA technical committee will say after their inspection visit.


----------



## GunnerJacket

fidalgo said:


> doesnt teams stay on the same place through all tournment? and travel to the stadium cities the day before? usually it is that way.


During the group stage they typically stay in one city, play 1-2 games in that same city and the other group stage games in 1 other city. Once the knock-out round starts, however, the dynamic changes and teams invariably have to travel. And that applies no matter who is hosting. 



Colonel Ned said:


> WOULD YOU MIND SHOWING US HOW DID YOU CALCULATE THIS RATE OF 85% ?


Relax, Ned, he's being facetious. Don't take others' opinions as anything more than what they are, but realize that a lot of media stories are merely opinion, as well. 



Colonel Ned said:


> UNBELIEVABLE !
> 
> only 5 stadiums are covered ??!!
> 
> are they daring to challenge FIFA ? or simply they couldn't convince stadium' owners to make roof ??
> 
> Final without roof ?? seriously ??
> 
> NFL stadiums don't mach with soccer, to closed to the pitch so you can't even see lines (only Canadian and Mexican stadiums are suitable for high quality soccer show)


Dude, again, relax. If FIFA demands a roof then obviously they'll filter any and all bids so as to meet they're requirements. However, you do realize that the roof issue is more a UEFA thing than FIFA, and plenty of stadiums in Latin America and elsewhere are played without the sacred roof. I prefer them myself but as a matter of practicality they're not critical to the game of football/soccer. I don't think the players and fans will melt if they experience a little extra sunlight for a few hours, and I say that as someone who's learned to adapt after bouts with skin cancer. 

Meanwhile, the NFL stadiums will work out better than recent host venues that have featured running tracks or obstructed views. So if you don't like it that's fine, but FIFA may be perfectly fine otherwise. But keep this in mind: The US venues are all but already completely built, and they all feature top of the line amenities, including plenty of FIFA's oh-so sacred suites for their hallowed leadership. So if you're going to provide a critical analysis of the US venues then please do so with an even hand.

Thanks.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> During the group stage they typically stay in one city, play 1-2 games in that same city and the other group stage games in 1 other city. Once the knock-out round starts, however, the dynamic changes and teams invariably have to travel. And that applies no matter who is hosting.
> 
> Relax, Ned, he's being facetious. Don't take others' opinions as anything more than what they are, but realize that a lot of media stories are merely opinion, as well.
> 
> Dude, again, relax. If FIFA demands a roof then obviously they'll filter any and all bids so as to meet they're requirements. However, you do realize that the roof issue is more a UEFA thing than FIFA, and plenty of stadiums in Latin America and elsewhere are played without the sacred roof. I prefer them myself but as a matter of practicality they're not critical to the game of football/soccer. I don't think the players and fans will melt if they experience a little extra sunlight for a few hours, and I say that as someone who's learned to adapt after bouts with skin cancer.
> 
> Meanwhile, the NFL stadiums will work out better than recent host venues that have featured running tracks or obstructed views. So if you don't like it that's fine, but FIFA may be perfectly fine otherwise. But keep this in mind: The US venues are all but already completely built, and they all feature top of the line amenities, including plenty of FIFA's oh-so sacred suites for their hallowed leadership. So if you're going to provide a critical analysis of the US venues then please do so with an even hand.
> 
> Thanks.


Thanks for this.

I assume both bid committees are in contact with FIFA to determine what sorts of things they are interested in and will not propose anything that is not in-line with what they hear back. 

All the more in the case of the United bid where FIFA was involved in the formation of the group.


----------



## Rover030

Morocco's approach to the stadiums is interesting. They basically took the blueprint from FIFA's stadium requirements/recommendations and adapted all their stadiums as closely to this as possible. The existing stadiums all get a $50m+ renovation, although there will still be 4 running track stadiums.

Building a new stadium for the final is also a big plus, especially because in some ways it's better than the MetLife stadium: higher capacity, covered stands, perfectly fits the FIFA requirements, and it still has a lot of VIP seats looking at the small stadium plans they provided. The score of the final and opening match stadium counts double, by the way.

However, Morocco will still end up with a lower score for the stadiums I think, as you get a 4% discount rate for each non-existing stadiums, which compounds, so with 7 to 9 new stadiums, depending how they count stadiums that were already planned, those 7 to 9 stadiums will have a 32 to 42% lower score, which includes the best stadium, the new Casablanca stadium.

The legacy part is only a yes/no question in the assesment by the way, and they look at expected attendance for the stadiums based on city size using the European model as a base (page 17 of technical evaluation *PDF*). The legacy modular stadiums will all easily meet the European model, but might be higher than the non-European model, but from the text that doesn't seem to be a problem.

The United bid has quite some stadiums that barely meet the required pitch size and have no roof (which is part of 20% of the stadium score which is 35% of the total), but all their stadiums exist already and have a legacy, so there's no problem with that part I guess. I'm curious what FIFA will do when scoring the stadiums. Will they take the average of all 23, of which a few probably drag the average down quite a bit, or will they take the average of 3 Canadian, 3 Mexican and the best 8/10 US stadiums? Either way, I think they will end up above the Morocco bid for this aspect because of the discount for Morocco and because of the high scores the United bid will receive for capacity and technical installations (screens, studios etc.)


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> During the group stage they typically stay in one city, play 1-2 games in that same city and the other group stage games in 1 other city. Once the knock-out round starts, however, the dynamic changes and teams invariably have to travel. And that applies no matter who is hosting.


nope, last world cup where that was the case was 1990



GunnerJacket said:


> Dude, again, relax. If FIFA demands a roof then obviously they'll filter any and all bids so as to meet they're requirements. However, you do realize that the roof issue is more a UEFA thing than FIFA, and plenty of stadiums in Latin America and elsewhere are played without the sacred roof. I prefer them myself but as a matter of practicality they're not critical to the game of football/soccer. I don't think the players and fans will melt if they experience a little extra sunlight for a few hours, and I say that as someone who's learned to adapt after bouts with skin cancer.


it is not the end of the world if there are no roofs, but it would be clear step back after what it will be 6 world cups with stadiums with roofs by 2026.
they will of course find the way to solve that, I do not think that is major issue. by carefully reading united bid book you might find that united bid offers dallas as optional final venue if FIFA, as assumed, does not accept NY because of no roof. in the executive summary book there is another hint for this: it says: "FIFA Main HQ: Dallas or New York/New Jersey" and that is directly related to the final venue. however I am really surprised the whole world cup is clearly planned as primarily east coast tournament. that's probably why inglewood stadium is pretty much irrelevant in the united bid, as opposed to many expectations



GunnerJacket said:


> Meanwhile, the NFL stadiums will work out better than recent host venues that have featured running tracks or obstructed views. So if you don't like it that's fine, but FIFA may be perfectly fine otherwise. But keep this in mind: The US venues are all but already completely built, and they all feature top of the line amenities, including plenty of FIFA's oh-so sacred suites for their hallowed leadership. So if you're going to provide a critical analysis of the US venues then please do so with an even hand.
> Thanks.


there hasn't been a world cup stadium with obstructed views for a long long time, and NFL stadiums have exactly this problem. Atlanta will probably have to lift the pitch to overcome this. Also several other stadiums listed in the bid are not wide enough and there are a lot obstructed seats when these are in association football configuration, as Rover030 just wrote. but NFL stadiums do have top of the line amenities, as you say, and huge number of seats that equals huge number of tickets that will compensate that!


----------



## ElvisBC

went thru both both bid books ... big read and a lot of crap, many copy/paste lines from their old bid books for sure, and you got to read between the lines to understand few things. overall united bid bid book is much more detailed, it is obvious they invested more time, until now at least!


there are several statement like this one in united bid:
"Our three countries enjoy the full support of our national and local government leaders"

but all details about that are in appendix we can't see. morocco's commitment is at least clear and the point that their minister of industry presented the bid himself speaks for them 

Also following is funny:
"President Donald J. Trump’s job approval currently registers at low levels in some surveys, but he enjoys significant support from his base. Due to term limits, he will not be eligible to be President in 2026"

So they are aware Trump is a burden and they found it necessary to stress he will not be there in 2026 

very interesting part is about ticketing revenues:
- morocco states: "Forecast attendance is currently 90% as an overall average" which is probably realistic and "Overall revenues of USD 785 million are forecast from ticket sales. These revenues will not be subject to any taxation nor other legal requirement with the exception of VAT, guaranteed to be levied at 10% "
- united bid states: "FIFA requests a ticketing revenue budget based on a 12 Host City/Stadium model, which we forecast to generate USD $1.8 billion"

of course 16 stadium model would significantly reduce the ticketing revenue of the united bid, and not all 80 games will be sellouts no matter what they claim, but revenue would still end close to 1,5 billion. that plus extra TV money gives a billion extra to the FIFA. definitely not peanuts and main reason why FIFA will do everything in their power to give this one to the united bid

fan fests are funny part. united bid even calls it "public viewing" hno: :colgate: 
united bid has proposed one smaller and one really huge venue for many cities, that sits well. of course they stole some ideas like screens in the middle of ohio river in cincy (frankfurt 2006) but that's fine. good to see central park did make it in! morocco fan fests are presented far too conservative, I am surprised they haven't employed more imagination into this part 

also with volunteers, united bid has perfect situation: "More than 300 different languages are spoken in North America, and one in five people speaks two or more languages Â– providing a vast resource pool of potential volunteers who can help to welcome visitors and fans from around the world."
morocco goes other way: "The FRMF is committed to attracting volunteers from outside Morocco, especially from Africa in partnership with other African Member Associations."


and in the end, the biggest crap are the parts about human rights, labor standards and environmental protection. simple copy/paste crap and boring facts noone cares about!


I will read it once again this weekend, but basically united bid looks mighty. apart from many stadiums that are not really FIFA compatible and arrogant approach with zero intention to improve them with ridiculous idea of staging the final in stadium with uncovered seats and of course trump himself, a lot speaks for them. Is it going to be enough? no clue! we will see!


----------



## ElvisBC

FCIM said:


> Well i guess it comes down to whether the FIFA members thinks its necessary for Morocco to be building these stadiums or if they vote on political issues.
> 
> As touchy as the USA is at the moment, I still think the Concacaf bid wins. Pity some of the newer & better stadiums wont be part of the tournament though.
> 
> 
> 
> As for the schedule, If Mexico & Canada get 3 stadiums each and the USA get 10 stadiums and once again assuming 10 games each for mexico and canada:
> 
> Group games - 48 games - 3 per host city (9 in Mexico and 9 in Canada)
> 
> Rd 32 - 16 games - 1 in Canada, 1 in Mexico, 14 in USA
> 
> (With only 10 stadiums in the USA, 4 of them would have to double up with games which isn't going to easy to schedule)
> 
> Rd 16 - 8 games - 8 in USA
> 
> Qtr Finals - 4 games - 4 in USA
> 
> Semi Finals - 2 games - 2 in USA
> 
> 3rd/4th Playoff - 1 game - 1 in USA
> 
> Final - 1 game - 1 in USA
> 
> 
> 
> If Mexico get 3 stadiums and Canada get 2 and the USA get 11 stadiums (once again assuming 10 games for mexico and canada):
> 
> Group games - 48 games - 3 per host city (9 in Mexico and 6 in Canada)
> 
> Rd 32 - 16 games - 2 in Canada, 1 in Mexico, 13 in USA
> 
> (With 11 stadiums in the USA, 2 of them would have to double up with games)
> 
> Rd 16 - 8 games - 2 in Canada, 6 in the USA
> 
> Qtr Finals - 4 games - 4 in USA
> 
> Semi Finals - 2 games - 2 in USA
> 
> 3rd/4th Playoff - 1 game - 1 in USA
> 
> Final - 1 game - 1 in USA
> 
> 
> I still think the 2/2/12 stadium mix is the easiest to schedule.


united bid book, chapter 8c, page 140
3 stadiums each in mexico and canada
2 of them in each country get 2 group games plus R32 game
1 (main) stadium in each country gets 3 group games plus R16 game



GunnerJacket said:


> During the group stage they typically stay in one city, play 1-2 games in that same city and the other group stage games in 1 other city. Once the knock-out round starts, however, the dynamic changes and teams invariably have to travel. And that applies no matter who is hosting.


see united bid book, chapter 8c, page 140
every team travels around, even no groups that stay completely in canada or mexico
only groups A and E (presumably mexico group and canada group) with both local games for mexico (E1) and canada (A1)

ridiculous!


----------



## Mouadex

It looks more like USA bid with some games attributed to neighbours countries than a United bid. 

Moreover it will be a very costly world cup for Fans and with huge lost time travel. I don't say that to favour Moroccan Bid which has also its weaknesses but as a football fan I already find it very hard to plan my shifting inside Russia I don't want it to be hard and costly in 2026.


----------



## ElvisBC

Mouadex said:


> It looks more like USA bid with some games attributed to neighbours countries than a United bid.
> 
> Moreover it will be a very costly world cup for Fans and with huge lost time travel. I don't say that to favour Moroccan Bid which has also its weaknesses but as a football fan I already find it very hard to plan my shifting inside Russia I don't want it to be hard and costly in 2026.


you can always go to qatar 2022 :colgate:


good read here:
Inside World Football - World Cup 2026: Morocco fear FIFA politics are pushing them to a pre-vote exclusion


----------



## Mouadex

ElvisBC said:


> you can always go to qatar 2022 :colgate:


Not sure if we qualify for 2022 but for 2026 edition we have more chance to do, and starting from 2030 I would probably be a father so no time for world cup :lol:




> good read here:
> Inside World Football - World Cup 2026: Morocco fear FIFA politics are pushing them to a pre-vote exclusion


That's something I have predicted in one of my old posts:



Mouadex said:


> After FIFA scandal, it seems to me clear that Infantino wants to clean FIFA relations with US and I wonder if the decision of making the world cup 48 teams wasn't also for this Purpose ( more teams, more benefits.. pure American vision + 6.5 teams qualified from CONCACAF !!! ).
> 
> *The Moroccan bid is in the limit between the rejection and the acceptation and taking into account Infantino's clear endorsement for US bid, I believe that FIFA will disqualify Moroccan bid.*
> 
> PS : the best bid would have been Morocco / Spain as it fulfils largely FIFA requirements and it sends many positive messages by unifying Africa and Europe, but Infantino, of course, rejected it claiming that he cares about respecting the order of the continents in the attribution of the world cup organisation ( Europe already organise 2018 so can't organise it for 2026 ). In this case, shouldn't be Morocco the only candidate for 2026 since America already hosted it in 2014... because in case we separate north and south America, United will organise the world cup every 20 years.. and then we have to separate east and west Europe...


----------



## fidalgo

i think its time to add a poll to this thread


----------



## GunnerJacket

ElvisBC said:


> nope, last world cup where that was the case was 1990


If you're correct then I've learned something today. Good to know.



> there hasn't been a world cup stadium with obstructed views for a long long time,


Berlin ('06), Kaiserslauten ('06), and Yokohama ('02) say hi. St. Petersburg this year also looks to feature the same unless they restrict sales near the corner columns.



> Atlanta will probably have to lift the pitch to overcome this.


Fortunately the pitch would automatically be raised since they would have to bring in a natural grass surface.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> went thru both both bid books ... big read and a lot of crap, many copy/paste lines from their old bid books for sure, and you got to read between the lines to understand few things. overall united bid bid book is much more detailed, it is obvious they invested more time, until now at least!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and in the end, the *biggest crap are the parts about human rights, labor standards and environmental protection*. simple copy/paste crap and boring facts noone cares about!
> 
> I will read it once again this weekend, but basically united bid looks mighty. apart from many stadiums that are not really FIFA compatible and arrogant approach with zero intention to improve them with ridiculous idea of staging the final in stadium with uncovered seats and of course trump himself, a lot speaks for them. Is it going to be enough? no clue! we will see!


So true in so many ways.

But, hey, let's get back to awnings. :lol:


----------



## pesto

Mouadex said:


> Not sure if we qualify for 2022 but for 2026 edition we have more chance to do, and starting from 2030 I would probably be a father so no time for world cup :lol:
> 
> 
> That's something I have predicted in one of my old posts:


Could be. But I will comment in more detail after the decision so as to keep us from being closed again. :lol:


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Belgium supports Morocco 2026

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2018/03/243231/belgium-endorses-moroccos-2026-world-cup-bid/

We are winning this :cheers:


----------



## Colonel Ned

Official, just few hours

As expected : *Belgium announce to vote for Morocco 2026 and to fully support Moroccan FA' to host WC*

https://lematin.ma/express/2018/bel...-maroc-lorganisation-mondial-2026/289660.html

http://sport.le360.ma/maroc/mondial-2026-la-belgique-soutient-officiellement-le-maroc-55065

https://www.infomediaire.net/maroc-2026-la-belgique-annonce-son-soutien/


----------



## Colonel Ned

I think that LMS (Legacy Modular Stadium) is not only a simple new concept provided by Morocco

It's a message : While USA try to convice the world that only rich counties are allowed to host WC, Morocco (the smartest guy) open the possibility of hosting to all countries accross the world, confirming that stadiums are no longer an obstacle if any soccer nation want to host : smart stadiums for smart soccer.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

Colonel Ned said:


> I think that LMS (Legacy Modular Stadium) is not only a simple new concept provided by Morocco
> 
> It's a message : While USA try to convice the world that only rich counties are allowed to host WC, Morocco (the smartest guy) open the possibility of hosting to all countries accross the world, confirming that stadiums are no longer an obstacle if any soccer nation want to host : smart stadiums for smart soccer.


+1 

That's why we are winning this bid everybody support Morocco , i think even mexico is gonna support us :lol:


----------



## Colonel Ned

GunnerJacket said:


> Meanwhile, the NFL stadiums will work out better than recent host venues that have featured r*unning tracks or obstructed views*.





Rover030 said:


> Morocco's approach to the stadiums is interesting. They basically took the blueprint from FIFA's stadium requirements/recommendations and adapted all their stadiums as closely to this as possible. The existing stadiums all get a $50m+ renovation, although there will still be *4 running track stadiums*.


the UnitedBid include actually a staium with running track ...

a stadium that I know very, very, very well


----------



## tinyslam

Colonel Ned said:


> I think that LMS (Legacy Modular Stadium) is not only a simple new concept provided by Morocco
> 
> It's a message : While USA try to convice the world that only rich counties are allowed to host WC, Morocco (the smartest guy) open the possibility of hosting to all countries accross the world, confirming that stadiums are no longer an obstacle if any soccer nation want to host : smart stadiums for smart soccer.


Modular stadiums are not new and they are not simple. Unfortunately the biggest test for modular stadiums will be 2022 in Qatar so we will not see how realistic or practical they work before this vote. I have my doubts as we have already seen Qatar change up some plans, but we will see. If these modular stadiums end up being more affordable after all of the take down and replacement costs though it would be a good option for the future and it could open it up for more nations to host.


----------



## ElvisBC

that is all BS and pure windows dressing to reduce the usual white elephant talk!
I never heard about any stadium being transfered to other location. not even a sport hall or arena! the only two options are reduction of seating space and demolishion, with difference that some parts of “modular“ stadiums might get recycled. but rebuilding them elsewhere ... be serious!


----------



## Colonel Ned

ElvisBC said:


> that is all BS and pure windows dressing to reduce the usual white elephant talk!
> I never heard about any stadium being transfered to other location. not even a sport hall or arena! the only two options are reduction of seating space and demolishion, with difference that some parts of “modular“ stadiums might get recycled. but rebuilding them elsewhere ... be serious!


Nobody has mentionned a transfer of location. it's just reduction of seating (the fix part is 20 to 25K, the other levels are demontables, stadiums will be used also for other issues to guarantee revenues and to respond to local needs (smart huh ?).

Here is description from Moroccan BB 



> The Legacy Modular Stadium (LMS) concept sits at the heart of Morocco’s bid. It serves as a symbol and a proof point of the vision and legacy project. The LMS will be stateof- the-art, 100% environmentally responsible and conceived with a sustainable philosophy to reduce construction costs and complexity.
> 
> The *stadiums will perfectly fit their local context*, leaving a strong legacy for local communities and Moroccan football development.
> 
> The LMS has been designed to meet all 2026 FIFA World Cup™ requirements and enable the smoothest possible event preparations and operations, creating an incredible tournament experience for all participants.
> 
> FIFA and other client groups will benefit from all the facilities they need at the stadium at tournament time.
> 
> After the FIFA World Cup™, *the stadiums will be adapted* to meet the cities’ real needs, and with an aim of enabling greater community participation in football and broader sports and culture. Local clubs will serve as anchortenants, in charge of identifying their capacity requirements and other needs.
> 
> The LMS is a revolutionary concept, *which goes beyond modular approaches of the past by offering reconfiguration potential in addition to flexible capacity*. This enables a legacy emphasis on accessibility and community participation. The stadiums are designed to become active venues, fully embedded in local communities and integrated with local environments.
> 
> Every single area of the LMS is intended and designed *to be transformed after the event*. It will moreover enable a wide range of different requirements to be met – from postevent
> capacity or hospitality provision


----------



## tomek1187

It's quite surprising, but to be honest for now it's Morroco to lose and I love it. I was there in 2015 and it was the best holiday in my life! It's not poor country and they tried so many times and they love football. Good for them!


----------



## Nacre

Historically temporary stadiums cost 1/2 to 3/4ths of the cost of a permanent stadium. So a $300 million USD permanent stadium would cost about $200 million USD as a temporary venue. The cost savings come more from avoiding future maintenance costs than from initial construction.

However Morocco is a large country comparable to Poland or Canada in population and it also loves football, so most of the new stadiums should be well used.


----------



## fidalgo

tinyslam said:


> Modular stadiums are not new and they are not simple. Unfortunately the biggest test for modular stadiums will be 2022 in Qatar so we will not see how realistic or practical they work before this vote. I have my doubts as we have already seen Qatar change up some plans, but we will see. If these modular stadiums end up being more affordable after all of the take down and replacement costs though it would be a good option for the future and it could open it up for more nations to host.


there was before some examples of huge temporary stands in big events

















for example

not sure, if Atlanta was modular


----------



## Guilherme Santos

fidalgo said:


> there was before some examples of huge temporary stands in big events
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for example
> 
> not sure, if Atlanta was modular


Kobe (2002), Cape Town, Durban (2010), São Paulo, Natal (2014), Yekaterinbug (2018)


----------



## fidalgo

i was trying to think the earliest examples i know. didnt reminded Kobe, and Natal barely counts, it was minor stands


other is the Tivoli in Innsbruck, that doubled its capacity for the Euro2008 with temporary stands


----------



## FCIM

*North American 2026 World Cup bid plans three-nation opening day*

http://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-wor...-world-cup-bid-plans-three-nation-opening-day

So it looks like they have decided how they will split the games in the USA/Canada/Mexico 

_The plan for the U.S. to host every game from the quarterfinals remains, however. The bid book proposal calls for Mexico and Canada to each host seven group-stage games, two matches in the round of 32, and one in the round of 16.

The bid also proposed for the final the 84-953 capacity MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey -- just outside of New York City -- as well as Atlanta's Mercedes-Benz Stadium and Dallas' AT&T Stadium for the semifinals.

Under consideration for the quarterfinals are Baltimore, Cincinnati, Denver, Foxborough, Houston, Kansas City, Miami, Nashville, Orlando, Philadelphia, Santa Clara, Seattle and Washington.

The proposal said the knockout matches would follow a "general flow from west to east," and that no stadium would host more than seven games._


----------



## tinyslam

Well do those stadium count as modular stadiums? As far as I know they only included temporary stands that were removed after the event. A modular stadium would have to have temporary stands that would then be used as a new venue(s). That is the idea in Qatar and I believe for Morocco. We will see if it ends up just being temporary stands that are demolished or if they will actually re-use them in Qatar, but the problem is that will be in 2022 long after the vote.


----------



## ElvisBC

tinyslam said:


> Well do those stadium count as modular stadiums? As far as I know they only included temporary stands that were removed after the event. A modular stadium would have to have temporary stands that would then be used as a new venue(s). That is the idea in Qatar and I believe for Morocco. We will see if it ends up just being temporary stands that are demolished or if they will actually re-use them in Qatar, but the problem is that will be in 2022 long after the vote.


whole qatar story is big pile of BS. I am absolutely sure no 2022 stadium will be rebuilt elsewhere.

morocco idea is something else but nothing new, many did it in the past, innsbruck as well as fidalgo wrote. I was there 2008 for sweden-spain game and I had no clue they plan to build it back! It looked great with those steep uppers! the only new thing in moroccan modular design might be if they make those removables recyclable, which I seriously doubt!


----------



## Rover030

tinyslam said:


> Well do those stadium count as modular stadiums? *As far as I know they only included temporary stands that were removed after the event.* A modular stadium would have to have temporary stands that would then be used as a new venue(s). That is the idea in Qatar and I believe for Morocco. We will see if it ends up just being temporary stands that are demolished or if they will actually re-use them in Qatar, but the problem is that will be in 2022 long after the vote.


Yes, you're right. This is exactly the idea. That way they'll end up with 20k stadiums instead of 45k stadiums. This is necessary to meet the requirements of the technical inspection. You can see in the Moroccan bid book at around page 77 (of the PDF double pages) that they aren't cheap either, they all cost around $150 million.


----------



## fidalgo

tinyslam said:


> Well do those stadium count as modular stadiums? As far as I know they only included temporary stands that were removed after the event. A modular stadium would have to have temporary stands that would then be used as a new venue(s). That is the idea in Qatar and I believe for Morocco. We will see if it ends up just being temporary stands that are demolished or if they will actually re-use them in Qatar, but the problem is that will be in 2022 long after the vote.


then what is the difference between modular and temporary? the intention in afterwards?

those temporary stands were designed for those stadiums, dimensions, and so on.
I guess if there was a intention to rebuild them in another stadium, they could do it. just had to be a concern in the design and assembly process


----------



## zakaria89

> Countries pledging support to one or the other bids, shows once again the Evaluation process becoming pointless and it might come down to geo-politics.
> 
> However, I wouldn't be surprised if the Morocco bid doesn't pass the evaluation phase.



if it was politics it will be enough for trump to write a tweet, and everyone will vote for the united, maybe even Morocco :lol:


----------



## xStof

> *Moroccan suspicion over FIFA’s last minute bid criteria manipulations*
> 
> 
> Gianni Infantino’s insistence that the voting process to choose the 2026 World Cup hosts will be scrupulously fair and clean has come under grave scrutiny amid suspicions of underhand tactics by FIFA over the scoring system being used to assess the two contenders.
> 
> In a move viewed in some circles as a ploy to throw Morocco out of the race and hand the tournament to the North American favourites – understood to be Infantino’s preferred candidate – Insideworldfootball has learned that FIFA added previously undisclosed changes to the eligibility criteria in the final hours before the deadline for bid books to be handed over earlier this month.
> 
> Morocco say they knew nothing about the last-minute alterations, which they claim affect them far more than the heavyweight USA-Canada-Mexico bid and came as a complete surprise. The timing of the additional requirements makes them technically impossible to be met ahead of the all-important inspection visits by FIFA’s evaluation panel next month....


http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2018/03/30/exclusive-morocco-suspicion-fifas-last-minute-bid-criteria-manipulations/


----------



## marokko

^^I mentioned that corruption since day 1, but people kept insisting that FIFA is still learning how to be transparent, and that there is miscommunication, etc., because it was this time not a Qatar or Russia that were bidding ...

Fortunately, a lot of parties mention this nowadays and CAF/UEFA have decided to support Morocco to prevent such a scenario. So, I just hope FIFA and Infantino get a bit scared/embarrassed so they will let just everybody have a vote on June 13th instead of letting 5 persons choose a suitable host country. Those 5 persons were btw chosen by one person that clearly favors a certain bid and this committee changed the criteria a few days ago to favor also a certain bid and prevent an open voting process.


----------



## Bouqebaz

> Hence why the Moroccans are furious at the raft of newly-imposed conditions they claim were not part of the original bid requirements ratified by the FIFA Council last October.
> 
> *Among the new demands is a guarantee that host cities must have a population of at least 250,000; minimum airport capacity of 60 million passengers a year; increased size of fan fests; and a maximum 90-minute distance between airport and host city.* Conversely it is also understood that FIFA have watered down the need for government guarantees, something the Moroccans believed would be a pre-requisite and which could play into the hands of United 2026.
> 
> “In effect, the scoring system adds several new technical criteria which were not part of the original regulations,” writes Lekjaa. “*These elements were never conveyed to the FRMF (Moroccan FA) during the preparation of the bid book.”*


Wtf, this is so bizarre. They dont even try to pretend to be impartial:nuts:

I am curious what our pro-unitedbid friends here think of this last minute manipulation. "fair play"?



APRIL 1, lol


----------



## Rokto14

^^ Wait wait, how do you have a city which has a minimum population of 250 000 and also has a airport with a capacity of handling 60 million passengers a year? This is damn sick. I am very sure a lot of the cities in the United bid also doesn't have airports which can handle that many passengers. If FIFA impose these kind of regulations for bidding nations, Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay can forget about bidding for 2030 FIFA WC :lol:


----------



## Knitemplar

Yeah, everybody thought Mrs. Clinton was going to win last November. It will be a big surprise for those counting their Tagine chickens for June 13. Now, when does FIFA announce their Evaluation results??

BTW, this is a very BIASED forum.


----------



## Knitemplar

Colonel Ned said:


> Please provide us reliable source (official announce or media news)
> 
> the majority of those countries didn't indicate for whome they will vote.
> 
> + The same for Argenita, Chile and Uruguay who are planning to bid for Centenario Copa del Mundo


I would think a joint bid would favor their own pursuit of the 2030 Centennial WC.


----------



## Bouqebaz

xStof said:


> http://www.insideworldfootball.com/2018/03/30/exclusive-morocco-suspicion-fifas-last-minute-bid-criteria-manipulations/



I think it's an April fool. A good one, they got me:lol:

With those "requirements", even a combined bid of Germany/Netherlands/France would be almost impossible


----------



## Tered

Bouqebaz said:


> I think it's an April fool. A good one, they got me:lol:
> 
> With those "requirements", even a combined bid of Germany/Netherlands/France would be almost impossible


DITTO - I Agree! :bash:


----------



## Nacre

Knitemplar said:


> BTW, this is a very BIASED forum.


It is a biased planet.

This will be the first time the World Cup will be picked directly by the associations rather than by FIFA's executive committee, and the associations will vote at least in part based on the politics of their country. Whatever bid you think will or should win, you have to at least acknowledge that politics will influence the votes.

We cannot discuss world politics here, but that does not mean we should pretend politics does not exist.


----------



## hafidmarocmaroc95

zakaria89 said:


> I think the vote will run like this, I have not counted


South Africa - (United) source :nuts:???


----------



## Colonel Ned

Things are going crazy ...

*Explicacion COMPLETA Proceso para Mundial 2026 - México-EUA-Canada vs Marruecos ¿Quien ganarà?*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rH-qI4k68

In this show, a terrible thing was announced :


> "Listen well, last night, a person who was present in meetings in Colombia, heard a discussion between President Infantino and the president of the American FA Carlos Cordeiro, Gianni told him : *Get ready, 2026 will be yours*" said the journalist, insisting that he made sure of the veracity of his sources.


It's for sure a new FIFA Gate, I never saw Morocco mentionned all over media like those couple of days !!!

Well, until we get any news for this Task Force, let's see some reactions :

*CONCACAF splitting? St Lucia says it will back Morocco in 2026 vote*
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...ng-st-lucia-says-will-back-morocco-2026-vote/

*Saint Lucia Supports Morocco’s 2026 World Cup Bid*


> “My country’s government will be strong and will back Morocco’s bid *200 percent*, which will do *justice and honor to the African continent and the Caribbean countries*,” Edmund Estephane, Minister of Development and Sports


http://www.nextpost.gdn/bs-politics/saint-lucia-supports-moroccos-2026-world-cup-bid/

https://lematin.ma/express/2018/sainte-lucie-soutient-candidature-maroc/289853.html

https://www.africanewshub.com/news/...sainte-lucie-soutient-la-candidature-du-maroc

https://fr.le7tv.ma/2018/03/30/coupe-du-monde-2026-la-sainte-lucie-soutient-le-maroc/

https://www.h24info.ma/sport/coupe-du-monde/mondial-2026-maroc-obtient-soutien-de-sainte-lucie/

So ... in Concacaf, no votes for United :
guatemala : Suspended
usa can mex : Bidding countries
Cuba : No thanks
St lucia : Goes to Morocco
French guiana : Sounded to give support also to Morocco

In Switzerland : Martial Berset, President of the Swiss Association of Referees
*Mondial 2026 : Les arbitres suisses votent Maroc*
(Swiss referees vote Morocco)
https://www.infomediaire.net/mondial-2026-les-arbitres-suisses-votent-maroc/
*Martial Berset : Il est temps de rendre justice au Maroc et l'Afrique*
(*It is time to do justice to Morocco and Africa*)
https://www.libe.ma/Martial-Berset-...e-justice-au-Maroc-et-a-l-Afrique_a96232.html

In Qatar : crasy support hahaha
*World Cup 2026 - Qatar wants to offer its dismountable stadium to Morocco*
https://www.ajib.fr/mondial-2026-le-qatar-veut-offrir-son-stade-demontable-au-maroc/

More reactions are to come, I think Morocco is seen over the world as a victim than ever, so FIFA in fact, indirectly push things in favour of Morocco ... 

I don't understand the silence of Pesto, neither why Moderator delete my comment ... I just told the truth, FIFA is defending american interest.

Hey men, it's good to be american, congratulations, but first, you're human, and I think a country that try to host a WC since what ? *30 years (yes since 1988 !!!)*, deserves at least a chance ... it's not about politics for me, it's about people, *a nation happiness* (because in Canada and USA, who really care ? except our forum friends) ?

Have you ever seen something like that ? support coming from the four corners of the world ??


----------



## redspork02

My advice to you is not to get your hopes high as FIFA and other committees of this nature tend to follow the money. If Morocco can prove there is money to be made for the Associations and there pockets, they will get there votes. 

Sure, we'd (NA) like to host the WC but if you want it that bad........well then, good luck. Take it.


----------



## Colonel Ned

redspork02 said:


> My advice to you is not to get your hopes high as FIFA and other committees of this nature tend to follow the money. If Morocco can prove there is money to be made for the Associations and there pockets, they will get there votes.
> 
> Sure, we'd (NA) like to host the WC but if you want it that bad........well then, good luck. Take it.


the whole world is talking about it, am currently in Spain till may, and all soccer community talk about that, sure it's obvious they want their neigbors to host it.


here are some few articles if you have time to read :

http://campdesrecrues.com/2018/04/gianni-infantino-aurait-promis-aux-usa-le-mondial-2026/

http://www.afrik-foot.com/mondial-2026-la-fifa-le-maroc-crie-au-scandale

https://www.eurosport.fr/football/m...la-notation-de-la-fifa_sto6698550/story.shtml

http://rmcsport.bfmtv.com/football/...-les-etats-unis-le-maroc-denonce-1410340.html

http://www.goal.com/fr/news/le-maro...vers-la-candidature/m7kuk8gp5bvo1dms2dzni95vv

http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-04/02/c_137082253.htm

http://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/...iones-a-ultima-hora-que-ayudaria-a-eeuu.shtml

https://elnuevodiario.com.do/244752-2/


And there is as many as you can imagine.

I think Morocco will not let down, neither international community.










Journalists are also aware 

*Hervé Penot*, a famous sport journalist at "L'EQUIPE", french sport newspaper know over the world


> wahat's happening to obtain the WC 2026 must be followed very closely. T*o eliminate the Moroccan Bid would be proof that nothing changes at FIFA*. Let's hope there will be a vote on June 13th ... then make the best wins


Frankly, is it fair and logical to change rules *just 24 hours before bidbook deposit deadline ? *the rating system has also changed to be more convenient for United and disadvantageous for Morocco ? what can we call this ?? 24 hours befor submission date ?? really ?!

As Canadian, I can't accept that ... Canada is much bigger than that


----------



## redspork02

Colonel Ned said:


> what propaganda ?


All these tweets you post along with articles that align with your conclusions.

When the vote comes you will see. 

If Morocco wins, Congratulations. If they lose...Congratulations. A win/win. 

This four week party is costly for taxpayers. hopefully you could help finance the events from Canada.


----------



## Temujin GK




----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> Things are going crazy ...
> 
> *Explicacion COMPLETA Proceso para Mundial 2026 - México-EUA-Canada vs Marruecos ¿Quien ganarà?*
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rH-qI4k68
> 
> In this show, a terrible thing was announced :
> 
> 
> It's for sure a new FIFA Gate, I never saw Morocco mentionned all over media like those couple of days !!!
> 
> I don't understand the silence of Pesto, neither why Moderator delete my comment ... I just told the truth, FIFA is defending american interest.
> 
> Hey men, it's good to be american, congratulations, but first, you're human, and I think a country that try to host a WC since what ? *30 years (yes since 1988 !!!)*, deserves at least a chance ... it's not about politics for me, it's about people, *a nation happiness* (because in Canada and USA, who really care ? except our forum friends) ?
> 
> Have you ever seen something like that ? support coming from the four corners of the world ??


Sorry, I've been out of town. I am back for a week but will be in NY, Berlin and London the next few weeks working pretty much 24/7, so you will be free of my comments for awhile.

But mostly I don’t post because if I told the plain truth you would go insane again and the thread would be closed down. So just read my comments on the legal responsibility of FIFA management vs. PR antics and you will see my position.

Good luck to both bidding groups!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Knitemplar said:


> Yeah, everybody thought Mrs. Clinton was going to win last November. It will be a big surprise for those counting their Tagine chickens for June 13. Now, when does FIFA announce their Evaluation results??
> 
> BTW, this is a very BIASED forum.


I understand.
I predict lobbying phase will become so intense. In the FIFA World, History shows that promises and slaps on the back beforehand do not necessarily translate into *votes* on the day. Furthermore, I focus on the Task Force.

Please don't shoot me. I know the World of Football.


----------



## cmc

*FIFA should give 2022 to Morocco...*


----------



## GunnerJacket

This post applies to everyone on both sides, by the way.



Colonel Ned said:


> Things are going crazy ...
> 
> 
> In this show, a terrible thing was announced :
> 
> 
> It's for sure a new FIFA Gate, I never saw Morocco mentionned all over media like those couple of days !!!
> 
> ...
> 
> More reactions are to come, I think Morocco is seen over the world as a victim than ever, so FIFA in fact, indirectly push things in favour of Morocco


Ned, you absolutely need to stop hyping every little angle about this as if it's a grand conspiracy. IF, and that's a mighty big if, but IF there is some fix in then it is all on FIFA, in which case that's neither bad for Morocco nor for the US because all it would do is suggest this corrupt organization hasn't been fixed. But until then THIS FORUM is not for conspiracy theories or for ranting about any allege social justice tied to the vote. Keep it to the logistics of the event and stop stoking the flames of discord. 



> Hey men, it's good to be american, congratulations, but first, you're human, and I think a country that try to host a WC since what ? *30 years (yes since 1988 !!!)*, deserves at least a chance ... it's not about politics for me, it's about people, *a nation happiness*


This is where you're missing the point, where FIFA hasn't improved the vetting process, and as a result we can be dragged into a contest that unnecessarily paints one bidder as the good guys and the other as the enemy.

While we'd like to believe FIFA puts various altruistic measures into their voting process they are under no obligation to do so. Their obligation is to their membership and their organization, and in the end it's a bottom line issue. If Morocco had been bidding against other nations in their general region, such as the Netherlands and Belgium, then the tenor of your nation's virtues as a bidding party would look decidedly different. Likewise if the US were bidding against, say, Venezuela and Colombia. The point is that if there was a formula that could accurately depict whether or not nation "deserved" to be the host then quite frankly there wouldn't be a vote at all; FIFA would simply go down the list and then start over at some point in time. But there is not set formula so the perception of what one bidding nation deserves is purely that - Personal perception.

Morocco would make a fine host and I hope they get the honor someday, eventually if not this time around. I would like to think you'd find most everyone else feels the same way. But if they lose then it might actually be because the NA bid is equally "deserving" even if for different merits. ie: Neither bid is unworthy but neither bid is perfect. So accept that and move forward with positive discourse, please. Thank you.


----------



## GunnerJacket

ElvisBC said:


> FIFA doesn‘t give a s*** about white elephants, they never did and they never will! This bidding war is about extra billion for the FIFA and secondary effects of that plan!


I know that. My post was about the wish that they would and should take that into consideration. But enough general FIFA stuff.


----------



## RobH

There is something quite amusing about the fact that FIFA has the _minimum number of bidders possible_ for a bidding competition, yet they're still struggling to keep things on an even keel. :lol:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> There is something quite amusing about the fact that FIFA has the _minimum number of bidders possible_ for a bidding competition, yet they're still struggling to keep things on an even keel. :lol:


FIFA exists primarily to hold World Cups, sell the rights, distribute the income etc. They also play a part in the setting of the rules of the sport but that is a secondary role and not one that generates income. The most important decision that FIFA takes is the host of the Mens' World Cup. This drives the marketability of their product. The product is TV rights and sponsorship. Ticket sales are a nice sideline. FIFA executives are employed to maximise this and in any normal business would make the decisions based on doing so. You wouldn't have the member associations vote on each regional TV deal, the executives just choose the most lucrative (except for the alleged Jack Warner shenanigans of a few years ago). FIFA member associations benefit from more money but have other political considerations to consider that trump that money. No surprises it is an ever more dysfunctional organisation.


----------



## Colonel Ned

RobH said:


> There is something quite amusing about the fact that FIFA has the _minimum number of bidders possible_ for a bidding competition, yet they're still struggling to keep things on an even keel. :lol:


Yep.

those articles explain the FIFA "change of mind"

Marruecos reclama a FIFA cambios en la evaluación de candidaturas del Mundial 2026
https://as.com/futbol/2018/04/03/mundial/1522763603_192890.html

Marruecos expresa disgusto por cambios de FIFA para Mundial de 2026
http://prensa-latina.cu/index.php?o...usto-por-cambios-de-fifa-para-mundial-de-2026


----------



## Colonel Ned

Article on *Dominica* support released on insideworldfootball :
*Dominica joins Caribbean breakaway with support for Morocco 2026*
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...ins-caribbean-breakaway-support-morocco-2026/

In reaction to FIFA's answer on Moroccan legitimate objection
*France to support Morocco, not U.S.-led bid, in 2026 World Cup voting*
http://global.espn.com/football/fif...ates-led-bid-in-2026-world-cup-voting?src=com


> "Morocco is ready, even if they don't have the same means as their fellow contenders. France only has one vote, but perhaps *we will give momentum in Europe to choose Morocco*."





> Sources told ESPN FC in February that there is expected to be strong resistance to the North American bid, *with not only Africa but much of Asia and South America expected to support Morocco*.


*Golpe a Estados Unidos: Francia confirma su apoyo a candidatura de Marruecos para el 2026*
http://www.biobiochile.cl/noticias/...a-candidatura-de-marruecos-para-el-2026.shtml

*PALESTINE : L’union Palestinien réaffirme son soutien à la candidature du Maroc.*
(Palestinian FA reaffirms support for Morocco bid)
https://fr.hibapress.com/news-7371.html

*Egyptian FA to vote for Morocco*
http://sport.ahram.org.eg/News/314828/0.aspx

you see ? the only way to stop Morocco is to change scoring system to disqualify its bid before the june 13th.

Frankly, if both bids are allowed to go to the vote step (6/13), we will wach a historical showtime.:cheers:


----------



## Colonel Ned

*RFI *(International French Radio) criticizes the change of game rules by FIFA at a crutial moment, which proves the lack of transparency of the FIFA, suspected of wanting to remove Morocco from the general voting session, because Morocco will never have the time to modify its BidBook.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EeCX7uFY83s


----------



## Colonel Ned

The more is yet to come ...


----------



## marokko

^^ It is not weird that France is saying that, because they have promised to fully back the Moroccan bid. They also mentioned that they will help with the lobbying. Qatar did also promise this to Morocco. Same applies from other countries for the United bid. On Arab television I saw for example that Saoudia Arabia was promoting the United bid.

Blatter btw wrote today also a tweet in which he remembers FIFA about the rules. I don't know though if Morocco should be happy with that, because these were the same rules that got him rid of his job ...


----------



## RobH

That tweet pretty much confirms what I've been thinking for a while. That decision was Blatter's leaving present for his successor. I know I'm on my way out, you wanted a more democratic FIFA, I'll give you one....have fun!


----------



## Knitemplar

Bouqebaz said:


> I think these Fifa guys can no longer pretend to be impartial, if only because they're trying to influence votes by suggesting that Morocco's plans are white elephants.
> 
> They do everything to prevent Morocco from winning.
> 
> Morocco should sue them, The us would have done the same


Maybe they know something more that others who don't run organizations do? I'm sure FIFA knows the whole story of the mess the 2022 award that went to Qatar. What makes you think that just because you're backing a certain bid you KNOW MORE than those who are running the competition and have first-hand knowledge AND EXPERIENCE of the pitfalls that plagued previous bidding contests and have had to scramble to FIX THOSE unwise organizationsl choices?? hno:


----------



## Knitemplar

GunnerJacket said:


> B) Those of us who've seen several bidding processes by the IOC and FIFA are tired of seeing communities abused by these organizations and, more importantly, local leaders who've used these events as a means for graft and other nefarious purposes.
> .





ElvisBC said:


> FIFA doesn‘t give a s*** about white elephants, they never did and they never will! This bidding war is about extra billion for the FIFA and secondary effects of that plan!


Here's the thing; NO ONE is forcing anyone to bid. When cities/countries bid (on the terms set by FIFA, the IOC or whomever), you have to know what you are getting into. Those orgs are running tournaments, competitions of a certain standard. So, there are some over-reaching bids (i.e., Qatar, Morocco - thus foolish) who just want to show off that they can take on something that larger, wealthier countries can; or wise ones and just stay out of it. 

Occasionally, some sane bids (USA 2022 and United Bid 2026) will be put forth; but geo-political considerations and petty agendas somehow dominate; and the results are quite shambolic. 

One should stop blaming FIFA, the IOC, They have their own rules on running things. If you, as a would-be bidder, DON'T agree with the way they run things, then DON'T bid. No ONE is forcing anyone to bid.


----------



## pesto

Bouqebaz said:


> I think these Fifa guys can no longer pretend to be impartial, if only because they're trying to influence votes by suggesting that Morocco's plans are white elephants.
> 
> They do everything to prevent Morocco from winning.
> 
> Morocco should sue them, The us would have done the same


Yes, Morocco should definitely sue FIFA.


----------



## pesto

Rabat with love 2 said:


> There will be no white elephants , Morocco will built 6 LMS ( legacy modular stadium )
> 
> Morocco will win this bid ...


If the stadiums (plus training camps, hotels, airports, etc.) are NOT white elephants then private industry will make sure to build them and earn a nice profit on them.

You don't need the WC at all! In fact, you should *insist* that the government spend money on other projects since private developers will handle the WC stuff.


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> Yes, Morocco should definitely sue FIFA.


ABSOLUTELY! Why didn't I think of this also? There are many high-powered, well-connected, unemployed lawyers in Washington, DC, right now. I'm sure they'd love to represent Morocco yesterday!!


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Here's the thing; NO ONE is forcing anyone to bid. When cities/countries bid (on the terms set by FIFA, the IOC or whomever), you have to know what you are getting into. Those orgs are running tournaments, competitions of a certain standard. So, there are some over-reaching bids (i.e., Qatar, Morocco - thus foolish) who just want to show off that they can take on something that larger, wealthier countries can; or wise ones and just stay out of it.
> 
> Occasionally, some sane bids (USA 2022 and United Bid 2026) will be put forth; but geo-political considerations and petty agendas somehow dominate; and the results are quite shambolic.
> 
> One should stop blaming FIFA, the IOC, They have their own rules on running things. If you, as a would-be bidder, DON'T agree with the way they run things, then DON'T bid. No ONE is forcing anyone to bid.


(Gunnerjacket brought up the issue, so I will post on it although it seems to belong in the general thread.)

I think this is right as far as it goes. But the world press and public opinion have caught up with FIFA and resulted in their trying to reform at least the worst of the old ways of doing business. 

As with the Olympics, they are trying for transparency, avoidance of wasteful spending, rational decision-making processes and the other methods of well-run organizations. As far as I can see, Bach has done a great job so far and it looks like Infantino is heading in the right direction.

As some have noted, letting the locals vote was the last misdeed of a corrupt and backward looking administration. This has no more place in deciding where a world cup is held than Apple asking its shareholders what new technologies to use and how to market them. These kinds of decisions are way outside their fields of expertise.


----------



## Rover030

I don't see who would be more appropriate for deciding the host of the World Cup than the organisations that will both feel the financial consequences and that will participate in the tournament. They are the ones that can best assess _all_ aspects of the World Cup relevant to them.

The only problem I see with this voting procedure is that FAs with millions of members and who are very likely of reaching the world cup, like France, have the same number of votes as for instance small FAs like Dominica's.

We have seen what the previous voting procedure lead to. Few people that are not accountable at all are bribed to host the world cup in Qatar, which is in no one's interest, not in FIFA's financial interests and not in the participating countries' interests. Reports keep coming out to suggest that there has been bribery in all world cup bid procedures in like the past 20 years.

The other option would be letting the "Bid Evaluation Task Force" decide on the basis of the highest number of points. That used to be the best option to me. But then you read what FIFA has supposedly done with changing the requirements at the last moment, which suggests that this option can lead to just as much corruption as the previous procedure.

It's a shame that this sh*t with Qatar can't be reversed, because the best option for everyone except Qatar and associates would be to have the United bid host the world cup in 2022 and Morocco in 2026. They are both okay bids that would lead to fine world cups in my opinion. Of course, if China and Australia could bid for 2026, who knows if Morocco would even win?


----------



## Colonel Ned

Knitemplar said:


> Here's the thing; NO ONE is forcing anyone to bid. When cities/countries bid (on the terms set by FIFA, the IOC or whomever), you have to know what you are getting into. Those orgs are running tournaments, competitions of a certain standard. So, there are some over-reaching bids (i.e., *Qatar, Morocco - thus foolish*) who just want to show off that they can take on something that larger, wealthier countries can; or wise ones and just stay out of it.
> 
> Occasionally, some *sane bids (USA 2022 and United Bid 2026*) will be put forth; but geo-political considerations and petty agendas somehow dominate; and the results are quite shambolic.
> 
> One should stop blaming FIFA, the IOC, They have their own rules on running things. If you, as a would-be bidder, DON'T agree with the way they run things, then DON'T bid. No ONE is forcing anyone to bid.


there is no worse blind than the one who refuses to see.

off course Mod will keep your comment although it hurts rules of respect

you make a great mistake by equating Morocco to Qatar

Qatar has no soccer history, no well ranked national team, qatar is a desert in the middle of no where, it's hot all over the year, qatare is a small country by size, stadiums will be 200% white elephane, no soccer culture, ...

Morocco has a long soccer history, soccer is sport #1, size of country is much bigger and includ many cities, Morocco has several stadiums (including 9 big stadiums, where only 5 are proposed for renovation), the climate is mediterranean, it's not a 100% arab county (there are a mix of berber, french and spanish population -a part of population is jewish, - a part is african), stadiums can never be white elephants while there is a real soccer pubic, Morocc is openminded (you have fun and you drink every where ...) ...etc etc etc (I can't make a list)

your comment just prove how arrogante you are about being american, and how ignorant you are about the rest of the world.

but I don't blame you, because here is something you may miss : when you open internet in Canada and USA is not the same when you are abroad. you just try this, if you're in Canada or USA, google shows you more articles and top results giving good image on United (or at least what local media produce in terms of articles). while once you go to europe or africa, it's a european way, google provide at first news and articles from that part of the world ... so yes, people in america are isolated by the virtual wall created by some kind of algorithm or I don't know what, you have always to make additional effort to find informations (that kind of information running in the rest of the globe) ... 

the rest of the world goes different, even in soccer news, you must know this


----------



## Colonel Ned

Look look what I found ... verry interresting heuh !!! :lol::lol::lol:










https://www.scribd.com/document/375...-United-Bid-2026-Re-FIFA-World-Cup-United-Bid

The alarming report on human rights in Canada, USA and Mexico, submitted by the independent expert (ERGON Firm) to FIFA alerting on huge insecurity in Mexico, and warning on "*High risk of insecurity in Mexico, where there is a serious rate of significant risks in terms of security and protection of individual guarantees for FIFA World Cup 2026*"

So question: will FIFA take into consideration this ordered and paid report? will FIFA publish it? Or will FIFA hide it? in any case people in Europe, Africa and Asia are waiting to see FIFA reaction

Good reading


----------



## Colonel Ned

Knitemplar said:


> One should stop blaming FIFA, the IOC, They have their own rules on running things. *If you, as a would-be bidder, DON'T agree with the way they run things, then DON'T bid*. No ONE is forcing anyone to bid.


If rules was stopped and fixed since the biggining, I would agree with you. But what you seem to miss (again), is that FIFA has last year published the rules for bidding process (including the scoring system), and has set the 3/16 as deadline for submission of BidBooks.

But the surprising thing is : juste 24 hours befor deadline, and when both bidders have already finished their bidbooks edition, (which means all things fitting FIFA criterias : cities, stadiums, training sites ...), FIFA has adopted ijn Bogota Congress new rules and criteries on cities, airports, stadiums ... and has changed the scorring methode, which was no benefic for Morocco (Morocco could present a suitable BidBook if those new rules were adopter much earlier).

and of course UnitedBid is not concerned because all stadiums are built.

So question, if your professor at an exam let you untill last 2 mininutes, juste at the moment you're going to bring him your paper, and you disconver that he (in a discrete way) changed the mark systeme or changed some questions that you made efforts to work on, *is that FAIR for you* ?? 

So, again, I will quote a french newspaper "LeMonde", may be you can understand what happend, and why UEFA and CAF stressed FIFA on task force evaluation :


> The scoring system, which adds new technical criteria *that were not included in the prescriptions initially transmitted by FIFA* to bidders, was transmitted to Moroccan Footbal Federation on March 14 at 4:18 pm, ie *less than 24 hours before the submission deadline of the technical file by Morocco and just over 48 hours before the regulatory deadline of March 16 at 5pm*


http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/artic...once-la-notation-de-la-fifa_5280095_3212.html

this is what happen exactly, please open your mind, I know you're smart enough to understand how serious and unfair it is (Morocco can be eliminated by Task Force from this race before June 13) ... 

Well if UnitedBid wins it's Ok finally for me, but they have to win on their own right ?? at least, let both bids go the voting day, and let the planete decides what country deserves to host WC.



Rover030 said:


> The other option would be letting the "Bid Evaluation Task Force" decide on the basis of the highest number of points. That used to be the best option to me. But then you read what *FIFA has supposedly done with changing the requirements at the last moment*, which suggests that this option can lead to just as much corruption as the previous procedure.


Thank you !!! I really feel good when I read your wise comment. you got the point !

here is an interesting article on "LeFigaro", french newspaper, confirming your thinking, and there still favoritism in and sporting decisions (FIFA or IOC or whatever)
*CHANGING THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME, IS NOT FAIR-PLAY*
http://sport24.lefigaro.fr/football...-est-pas-fair-play-deplore-el-guerrouj-903950



Rover030 said:


> It's a shame that this sh*t with Qatar can't be reversed, because the best option for everyone except Qatar and associates would be to have the *United bid host the world cup in 2022 and Morocco in 2026*. They are both okay bids that would lead to fine world cups in my opinion. Of course, if China and Australia could bid for 2026, who knows if Morocco would even win?


That would be the utopian scenario, really the whol soccer community will be OK (USA can even ask to increase number of team up to 48 for 2022, and all infrastructures is in place, after all, is their legitimate right to host 2022, it was for USA you know that)


----------



## Rover030

I think a big problem for FIFA is that it's basically all or nothing for them now if they want the united bid to win and if it's true that so many countries are backing Morocco now. 

With a fair procedure, that was established well ahead in time and that takes the white elephant risk into account in a reasonable way, the United bid would easily win this technical evaluation because of the advantages they have, and FIFA would be one step closer to the commercial walhalla in North America.

Because of the current controversy, the reliability of the technical evaluation is compromised and I don't think national FAs will take it as seriously as they would without the controversy. And that's great for Morocco, because it will shift attention to the factors Morocco wants to emphasise: compact, close to over half of the participants and a "proper" football culture. Politics might play a bigger role as well.

What I think will happen is that the technical evaluation disqualifies Morocco because they can't meet the new requirements. But I'm not too confident about it. Who knows what happens if the technical evaluation is finished.


----------



## marokko

Just have read in Moroccan media that FIFA can expect a new lettre from Morocco by its bidding committee. The only difference with the previous lettre is that this one is written by lawyers. To be continued ...


----------



## GunnerJacket

For Ned and all those supporting the Moroccan bid - As best as I can tell no one here or in the US based press corps disagrees with you about any last-minute changes or gamesmanship by FIFA. No one wants to win the vote by underhanded or unfair means, as that would only serve to undercut the "success" of the process and allow the same scrutiny currently applied to Qatar and Russia to follow the 2026 host. No one wants that.

Frankly I wish the US bid would just take the high ground and withdraw so that everyone would drop their accusational stances and diffuse the hyper-political nature that has evolved around this vote. It never needed to reach this point and the people wanting it to be this way are doing so for all the wrong reasons.

US doesn't need to have Mexico and/or Canada involved, anyway, so just pull out and then aim for 2034.


----------



## Knitemplar

@ Ned, if you read the fine print of articles of incorporation of responsible organizations, it will probably state that ". . . it (i.e., the board or its CEOs) has the right to alter or rescind major decisions if the Board feels it's the right thing to do" (or in so many words). 

An experienced board of ANY reasonable organization is empowered to do that because the people who sit on there are more experienced and see the larger picture vs., say, the shareholders who are usually concerned about the value of their stocks. 

A responsible board, like any wise human being, also learns from its mistakes. It installs checks and balances in its structure so that the same mistakes, in its estimate, are NOT made again, causing great and far-reaching injury to the organization as a whole.

I don't know if you have any legal background or what -- so I don't know if these legal concepts mean anything to you at all or not. I see you operating on a purely emotional level rather than on a rational or organizational one. 

Long story short, a responsible board cannot or SHOULD NOT allow the inmates to run the asylum, because it would then be complicit in what would then be perpetuating IRRESPONSIBLE decisions, especially after having just encountered similar ones recently.

So, how come you, Ned, aren't on the FIFA board? :shocked:


----------



## Knitemplar

GunnerJacket said:


> 1. Frankly I wish the US bid would just take the high ground and withdraw so that everyone would drop their accusational stances and diffuse the hyper-political nature that has evolved around this vote. It never needed to reach this point and the people wanting it to be this way are doing so for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> 2. US doesn't need to have Mexico and/or Canada involved, anyway, so just pull out and then aim for 2034.


1. But why should it? It's presenting a turn-key, ready-to-go-next-week project vs. one which FIFA will have to guide, spend sleepless nights over, are deadlines met?, is the "right" legacy they are passing on to another developing country, etc.--over a period of 7/8 years?

Indeed, it's become very heated now -- but again this is FIFA's own doing, The United bid asked them, like what? months ago, to shut down the bidding already. Its Executive board then decided that would not be seemly. So here we are/there they are, today.

2. Shudda, cudda. It is what it is.


----------



## Rover030

Knitemplar said:


> @ Ned, if you read the fine print of articles of incorporation of responsible organizations, it will probably state that ". . . it (i.e., the board or its CEOs) has the right to alter or rescind major decisions if the Board feels it's the right thing to do" (or in so many words).
> 
> An experienced board of ANY reasonable organization is empowered to do that because the people who sit on there are more experienced and see the larger picture vs., say, the shareholders who are usually concerned about the value of their stocks.
> 
> A responsible board, like any wise human being, also learns from its mistakes. It installs checks and balances in its structure so that the same mistakes, in its estimate, are NOT made again, causing great and far-reaching injury to the organization as a whole.
> 
> I don't know if you have any legal background or what -- so I don't know if these legal concepts mean anything to you at all or not. I see you operating on a purely emotional level rather than on a rational or organizational one.
> 
> Long story short, a responsible board cannot or SHOULD NOT allow the inmates to run the asylum, because it would then be complicit in what would then be perpetuating IRRESPONSIBLE decisions, especially after having just encountered similar ones recently.
> 
> So, how come you, Ned, aren't on the FIFA board? :shocked:


 I'm not sure what your actual point is. Should FIFA's equivalent of a board make the decision about the world cup host? Because that is the previous procedure, in which the members of the former FIFA Executive Committee (now FIFA Council) voted on the world cup host. That is how Qatar and Russia got elected. The Executive Committee was the epicentre of FIFA's corruption issues.

By the way, in the US boards have a relatively large amount of decision making power compared to continental Europe. It wouldn't be weird to let the shareholders (in FIFA's case the Congress) make fundamental business decisions like this.

Also, in the US there are ways for shareholders to increase/change control of an organisation if they think the board doesn't act in their interests. That's what happened at FIFA after they realised that their equivalent of a board was guilty of making irresponsible decisions.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I don't see who would be more appropriate for deciding the host of the World Cup than the organisations that will both feel the financial consequences and that will participate in the tournament. They are the ones that can best assess _all_ aspects of the World Cup relevant to them.
> 
> The only problem I see with this voting procedure is that FAs with millions of members and who are very likely of reaching the world cup, like France, have the same number of votes as for instance small FAs like Dominica's.
> 
> We have seen what the previous voting procedure lead to. Few people that are not accountable at all are bribed to host the world cup in Qatar, which is in no one's interest, not in FIFA's financial interests and not in the participating countries' interests. Reports keep coming out to suggest that there has been bribery in all world cup bid procedures in like the past 20 years.
> 
> The other option would be letting the "Bid Evaluation Task Force" decide on the basis of the highest number of points. That used to be the best option to me. But then you read what FIFA has supposedly done with changing the requirements at the last moment, which suggests that this option can lead to just as much corruption as the previous procedure.
> 
> It's a shame that this sh*t with Qatar can't be reversed, because the best option for everyone except Qatar and associates would be to have the United bid host the world cup in 2022 and Morocco in 2026. They are both okay bids that would lead to fine world cups in my opinion. Of course, if China and Australia could bid for 2026, who knows if Morocco would even win?


The chief skill of a local FIFA boss in 2/3 of the countries is that he is related to or works for some wealthy person and is good at posing for pictures. Why would you want him analyzing technical aspects of stadiums, airports, etc.? Or analyzing marketing data with advanced mathematical models? 

I own stock in Apple and in Google. Does that mean I should vote on what the next generation of their products should be or if the return/risk ratio for driverless vehicles makes the risk worthwhile?

The answer is "no". That's why Apple and every other company hires a core group of people who are extremely skilled at what they do. In effect, I pay them so that the organization doesn't have to rely on my opinion, which would be pretty much useless in this context in spite of my very strong economic, financial and deal background. 

Relying on my expertise would really be letting the animals run the zoo. Each person pushes his own needs, but can't see enough to understand the process or group as a whole. Factions form; antagonisms breed; and eventually the system would break apart and get new leadership, presumably under people who did have this broader, deeper vision.


----------



## Colonel Ned

Well whenever I discuss the 2026 issue with people in Europe, while watching asoccer games in a pub or taking drink or what so ever ... I hear many times that if Morocco wins that edition, it would be a very good advantage for USA.

because soccer community expect that FIFA will start to stress and make pressure on Qatar (stadiums and infrastructures) once WC 2018 ends.

people expect also FIFA to send warnings to Qatar because of delays and high polical risk (learn more about Qatar Blockade and Guf Crisis between Qatar and its neighbors)

FYI Qatar lives a dramatic situation all projects are moving slowly because of embargo ... borders are closed, cost of importation has climbed in a crazy way ... they are resisting in fact, but ... FIFA will not wait for them.

So may be in 2020 (juste 2 years before WC), FIFA has the ability and the power to cancel Qatar option and re-open a new bid. And that time, no "super hero country" on this earth will be ready and able to save FIFA except USA (alone, without need to canada or mexico), with all infrastructures already in place

and this is the reason why I repeat since months in this forum that 2022 still a realistic option (why have we to wait 8 long years while we can enjoy it in just 4 years ??)

this is the card FIFA still handle


----------



## tinyslam

Ned unfortunately Qatar will host in 2022. The time to take it away from them has passed. They are already building the stadiums and infrastructure. Check some of the threads here for their progress. FIFA stripping Qatar at this point would be a really low blow.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> The chief skill of a local FIFA boss in 2/3 of the countries is that he is related to or works for some wealthy person and is good at posing for pictures. Why would you want him analyzing technical aspects of stadiums, airports, etc.? Or analyzing marketing data with advanced mathematical models?
> 
> I own stock in Apple and in Google. Does that mean I should vote on what the next generation of their products should be or if the return/risk ratio for driverless vehicles makes the risk worthwhile?
> 
> The answer is "no". That's why Apple and every other company hires a core group of people who are extremely skilled at what they do. In effect, I pay them so that the organization doesn't have to rely on my opinion, which would be pretty much useless in this context in spite of my very strong economic, financial and deal background.
> 
> Relying on my expertise would really be letting the animals run the zoo. Each person pushes his own needs, but can't see enough to understand the process or group as a whole. Factions form; antagonisms breed; and eventually the system would break apart and get new leadership, presumably under people who did have this broader, deeper vision.


Please come up with a realistic alternative approach then. I explained pretty clearly why it is a bad idea to let FIFA's equivalent of their executive board make the decisions, shown by past experiences of the same organisation.

You and Knitemplar keep coming up with the same comparison to a regular large company with shareholders. I get it, at Apple you don't want shareholders making industry-specific judgements. Even that is arguable by the way: I'm pretty sure that if Apple's shareholders don't want Apple to make certain big decisions, they have ways to stop it. And we're definitely talking about big decisions here.

However, the past paragraph and half of your comment are not relevant for the issue at hand: FIFA, a worldwide football association that consists of members that represent the football industry of their country, making their most important decision, one they have to make every 4 years. 

I agree, the current procedure is not ideal because of several reasons. However, we've seen that the previous procedure is much worse. So what's your alternative?


----------



## Knitemplar

Rover030 said:


> So what's your alternative?


If I may answer? Simple. 2 choices:

1. Scrap the whole wasteful extravaganza altogether; or

2. Be open and transparent, open it up to the HIGHEST BIDDERS, with winning cash bids made public! (e.g., to stage Miss Universe, while the MUO sort of pre-selects their preferred host cities, nonetheless, the preferred host has to pay at least the $12 million staging rights for the "honor.") So something like that, but might as have everything open, and FIFA can still pick and choose if they want to.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> Just have read in Moroccan media that FIFA can expect a new lettre from Morocco by its bidding committee. The only difference with the previous lettre is that this one is written by lawyers. To be continued ...


I suspect that Morocco has been warned that penalties and suspensions are being considered. Otherwise, Morocco would want to settle its issues more discreetly, n'est-ce pas?

Another waste of taxpayer money. You think the lawyers are good friends of the politicos and royal family?


----------



## Rover030

Knitemplar said:


> If I may answer? Simple. 2 choices:
> 
> 1. Scrap the whole wasteful extravaganza altogether; or
> 
> 2. Be open and transparent, open it up to the HIGHEST BIDDERS, with winning cash bids made public! (e.g., to stage Miss Universe, while the MUO sort of pre-selects their preferred host cities, nonetheless, the preferred host has to pay at least the $12 million staging rights for the "honor.") So something like that, but might as have everything open, and FIFA can still pick and choose if they want to.


I kinda like the basics of the idea of outsourcing the entire thing. But because I'm an annoying d*ck, I can immediately think of problems. Qatar would bid the most because they clearly don't care about white elephants and they have all kinds of companies that can pay for it too: BeIn Sports overpays for the TV rights, Qatar airways overpays for the travel sponsoring for instance.

But of course Qatar don't want to organise it each time. So then the USA come into play. They organise a world cup with horrible travel times, insanely high ticket prices, and unfortunate TV times because that is the most profitable. Is that what we want? Or should FIFA regulate the whole process that far until we're back in the current situation? And what part of FIFA makes that decision?


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> If I may answer? Simple. 2 choices:
> 
> 1. Scrap the whole wasteful extravaganza altogether; or
> 
> 2. Be open and transparent, open it up to the HIGHEST BIDDERS, with winning cash bids made public! (e.g., to stage Miss Universe, while the MUO sort of pre-selects their preferred host cities, nonetheless, the preferred host has to pay at least the $12 million staging rights for the "honor.") So something like that, but might as have everything open, and FIFA can still pick and choose if they want to.


There is so much silliness being posted about high ground, Qatar, minor local functionaries making decisions, how businesses are managed in Europe, etc., that it's hard to comment. 

But, yes, the move away from bribery, petty grudges and "who you know" as the method for reaching decisions will presumably be a move toward economic rationality.

Here, the advantage of the United bid isn't just the 2B or so in added cash receipts. The far bigger factor is the ability to get the attention of Mexico, Canada and the US for a build-up period of years and then several weeks of intense coverage. This is certainly worth billions in terms of long-term growth of the brand.

And, just to agree: FIFA can change their policies at any time for any reason or no reason at all (assuming no laws are violated). Same as the Olympics did when they chose two host cities at once. Any organization changes (or "clarifies") its policies when they are no longer suitable for its organizational goals.


----------



## Bouqebaz

GunnerJacket said:


> For Ned and all those supporting the Moroccan bid - As best as I can tell no one here or in the US based press corps disagrees with you about any last-minute changes or gamesmanship by FIFA. No one wants to win the vote by underhanded or unfair means, as that would only serve to undercut the "success" of the process and allow the same scrutiny currently applied to Qatar and Russia to follow the 2026 host. No one wants that.
> 
> *Frankly I wish the US bid would just take the high ground and withdraw so that everyone would drop their accusational *stances and diffuse the hyper-political nature that has evolved around this vote. It never needed to reach this point and the people wanting it to be this way are doing so for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> US doesn't need to have Mexico and/or Canada involved, anyway, so just pull out and then aim for 2034.


That's a bad idea. People will only see it as a confirmation that the United Bid never had the intention to play it fair, just a face-saving measure to avoid an embarrasing defeat in the heart of their "enemy (?)", Moscow. I would rather see them doing their best to have a fair vote instead of withdrawing. Moroccans would be the first to congratulate you if it's fair and all. 


The Moroccan & United bid should ask fifa to give them more time. Appoint new INDEPENDENT people for this task-force (people both Morocco as US-MEX-CA trust) and let INDEPENDENT people set the requirements. Give both contenders time to adjust their bids and have a vote on a new date & location. 

And if possible a new president please, Infantino is only harming Fifa


----------



## Bouqebaz

https://theeagleonline.com.ng/fashola-wants-nigeria-to-bid-for-2026-world-cup/



> The Minister of Power, Works and Housing, Babatunde Raji Fashola, has said he would want Nigeria to bid to host the 2026 World Cup jointly with Morocco.
> Fashola said the “indomitable” spirit of Nigerians would rise to the occasion and deliver a superb tournament.
> “Morocco are bidding to host the 2026 World Cup, Nigeria should have jointly bid with Morocco because we can do it,” said the Manchester United fan.


this guy is waaay too late


----------



## GunnerJacket

Knitemplar said:


> 1. But why should it?


They're under no obligation and I agree it's a turnkey, cost effective solution. And being perfectly honest I want to see the event come here again before I die, and who knows if I'll make it much past 2040, if at all. 

But...

1. The degree that this bidding process has become/remains political indicates how badly FIFA remains broken, ans as a reault the US is gonna catch ridicule whether they win or lose.

2. I honestly believe the event would go much smoother, and offer better value for the US if it wasn't shared.

But these are just my opinions.



> 2. Shudda, cudda. It is what it is.


Regardless, I will find it fascinating reading about how the US will react when this is all done.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Mod note: Guys, I'm trying to let this all go but please keep it civil. It's clear this particular bid has become hyper political in some circles so all I ask is be respectful and factual about it, okay?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Colonel Ned said:


> Well whenever I discuss the 2026 issue with people in Europe, while watching asoccer games in a pub or taking drink or what so ever ... I hear many times that if Morocco wins that edition, it would be a very good advantage for USA.
> 
> because soccer community expect that FIFA will start to stress and make pressure on Qatar (stadiums and infrastructures) once WC 2018 ends.


No offense but those opinions don't hold water and sound like people are making stuff up just to justify a US loss. There is no connection between these two items, and if FIFA needs a Morocco win for '26 in order to put pressure on Qatar then that's beyond a poor excuse for doing their job. In fact it's insulting. 

Any failings over Qatar '22 are germane only to Qatar and FIFA, not to Morocco, the US, or '26.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> They're under no obligation and I agree it's a turnkey, cost effective solution. And being perfectly honest I want to see the event come here again before I die, and who knows if I'll make it much past 2040, if at all.
> 
> But...
> 
> 1. The degree that this bidding process has become/remains political indicates how badly FIFA remains broken, ans as a reault the US is gonna catch ridicule whether they win or lose.
> 
> 2. I honestly believe the event would go much smoother, and offer better value for the US if it wasn't shared.
> 
> But these are just my opinions.
> 
> Regardless, I will find it fascinating reading about how the US will react when this is all done.


1. FIFA, as far as I can tell, is looking clearly at the quality of facilities, risks of non-performance, finances and such; this is about as un-political as you can get in the real world. 

The politics come from the Morocco/old-boy school who want to avoid any kind of decision based on financial or technical analysis. Morocco understands they have no chance on this basis and are trying to put together a religious, ethnic, regional political block to vote for them regardless of any other bids. 

2. Sharing is the wave of the future and the mechanics can be dealt with. It is a move toward inclusion, efficiency (fewer white elephants) and wider spread of the games.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Bouqebaz said:


> That's a bad idea. People will only see it as a confirmation that the United Bid never had the intention to play it fair, just a face-saving measure to avoid an embarrasing defeat in the heart of their "enemy (?)", Moscow. I would rather see them doing their best to have a fair vote instead of withdrawing. Moroccans would be the first to congratulate you if it's fair and all.


If people are already griping about vote buying and rigged FIFA procedures then we've already moved past the possibility of the US (and Mexico and Canada) ever winning the event via a fair vote. Some are already implying that's the only way US could win, so why bother feeding those inane conspiracy theories? 

If everything Ned is touting is true then in light of what others are bringing into this process, both politically and as a public relations matter, there is no way the US can win this bid without people crying foul and there is no way the US can lose the bid without everyone else trumpeting their triumph over the big, bad bogeyman. The only way to win this game is not to play. 



> The Moroccan & United bid should ask fifa to give them more time. Appoint new INDEPENDENT people for this task-force (people both Morocco as US-MEX-CA trust) and let INDEPENDENT people set the requirements. Give both contenders time to adjust their bids and have a vote on a new date & location.
> 
> And if possible a new president please, Infantino is only harming Fifa


Again, anything short of FIFA fixing this process on a permanent basis with clear rules and requirements of the bidding parties for all future bids means we're applying a band-aid to a broken limb. And in this instance it might also make it look worse, as if there is no inherent FIFA issue but that this was all due to just to the two parties involved.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> :lol: Really? Just because someone says it, doesn't make it so.
> 
> Ned, yeah, the sun sets in the East. *Doesn't make it so.* hno:


This is not to put down Morocco, which is a fine country, but to clarify a bit about the expression "crossroads of east and west".

For starters, San Francisco says that also. As does Istanbul, Crete and pretty much all the eastern Mediterranean. Hawaii. HK. Singapore. Probably most of the Emirates.

Actually, Morocco is the teetering edge of the desert pressed against the ocean. Its economy is the size of Nebraska. On three sides there is very little for thousands of miles. Its largest airport is smaller than Sacramento airport which would make it about the 8th largest in California.

Not much of a “crossroads” it seems.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

We still gonna win this , we will see who will laugh on june 13th :cheers:


----------



## DR.SHREJMAN

Rabat with love 2 said:


> We still gonna win this , we will see who will laugh on june 13th :cheers:


you don't have decent Infrastructure... ^^


----------



## Herms

Just for info, as regards infrastructure, Morocco(54/137) is ranked in front of Mexico(62/137) in 2017.

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2017-2018/05FullReport/TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2017%E2%80%932018.pdf


----------



## pesto

Herms said:


> Just for info, as regards infrastructure, Morocco(54/137) is ranked in front of Mexico(62/137) in 2017.
> 
> Am I confused? From your attached link:
> 
> 
> The Global Competitiveness Index 2017–2018 Rankings
> 
> Covering 137 economies, the Global Competitiveness Index 2017–2018 measures national competitiveness—defined as the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity.
> 
> 2 US
> 14 Canada
> 51 Mexico
> 71 Morocco
> 
> In any event, focusing just on infrastructure, Mexico only proposes to deliver *3 cities *with stadiums and supporting infrastructure. All of these are already there.
> 
> Morocco is proposing *14 stadiums *completely built from scratch or undergoing massive renovations, in *12 different cities.* Not counting airports, training facilities and roads.


----------



## Genbank

pesto said:


> Am I confused? From your attached link:
> 
> 
> The Global Competitiveness Index 2017–2018 Rankings
> 
> Covering 137 economies, the Global Competitiveness Index 2017–2018 measures national competitiveness—defined as the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity.
> 
> 2 US
> 14 Canada
> 51 Mexico
> 71 Morocco
> 
> In any event, focusing just on infrastructure, Mexico only proposes to deliver *3 cities *with stadiums and supporting infrastructure. All of these are already there.
> 
> Morocco is proposing *14 stadiums *completely built from scratch or undergoing massive renovations, in *12 different cities.* Not counting airports, training facilities and roads.


:lol: You seem confused indeed. 



> Global Competitiveness Index 2017–2018 measures national competitiveness—defined as the set of institutions, policies and factors that determine the level of productivity.


Why the hell are you showing us a competitiveness index ranking? Wasn't the purpose to organise à World Cup? :lol:


----------



## Knitemplar

hno: hno: hno:


----------



## pesto

Genbank said:


> :lol: You seem confused indeed.
> 
> Why the hell are you showing us a competitiveness index ranking? Wasn't the purpose to organise Ã* World Cup? :lol:


Herms posted a link which included a ranking of countries by development criteria that showed Morocco ranked ahead of Mexico. I pointed out that in the rankings Mexico came out ahead in the overall potential productivity rankings but in any event, the Mexican facilities are ALREADY THERE in huge, bustling cities and the Moroccan ones are not. This makes these rankings largely irrelevant to our discussion.

Btw, for those who don't deal much in economic development, getting productivity higher is considered the most basic goal in creating strong economic growth. This is generally accomplished by directing capital AWAY from consumption projects and TOWARD capital projects. 

One might suggest that Morocco direct resources away from modular stadiums and white elephant projects and toward say, world quality medical centers and technical schools, which create generation after generation of people with world class skills and an institutional storehouse of basic knowledge and cutting-edge skills and techniques.


----------



## Herms

To be clear, I answered the guy who affirmed without any proof, that Morocco doesn't have decent infrastructure.

I published the last report of the world economic forum to show everyone that *in terms of infrastructure*, Morocco is in front of Mexico for example.


----------



## pesto

Herms said:


> To be clear, I answered the guy who affirmed without any proof, that Morocco doesn't have decent infrastructure.
> 
> I published the last report of the world economic forum to show everyone that *in terms of infrastructure*, Morocco is in front of Mexico for example.


He may have been reading the discussions about how Morocco has to build or fundamentally renovate every stadium, build new airports, roads, tourist facilities, medical facilities, training fields, etc. $16B is their estimated budget, which typically means at least double that amount, excluding interest and other related costs which are often pushed into other accounts.

For the sake of comparison, 16B for an economy Morocco's size is equivalent to $3 trillion for the US. Or for the EU, roughly like the entire German economy for an entire year.


----------



## marokko

^^ To be clear, he answered the guy who affirmed without any proof, that Morocco doesn't have decent infrastructure.

Herms published *the last report of the world economic forum to show everyone that in terms of infrastructure, Morocco is in front of Mexico* for example.
__________________


----------



## Spomasz

I would rather go to Morocco, then travel across three different countries to get to host city, unless FIFA will pay for flights. 

Even though I dream about travel to USA or Mexico to see World Cup i can not accept idea of three hosts while those Countires has possibilities to host competitions alone.


----------



## GunnerJacket

*IF* Morocco (or any bid, for that matter) has issues with infrastructure then that will bear out in the bid review phase or FIFA is guilty of negligence. Debating that as a commentary about the bidding nation(s) is thus foolish. 

Move along, people.


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> This is not to put down Morocco, which is a fine country, but to clarify a bit about the expression "crossroads of east and west".
> 
> For starters, San Francisco says that also. As does Istanbul, Crete and pretty much all the eastern Mediterranean. Hawaii. HK. Singapore. Probably most of the Emirates.
> 
> Actually, Morocco is the teetering edge of the desert pressed against the ocean. Its economy is the size of Nebraska. On three sides there is very little for thousands of miles. Its largest airport is smaller than Sacramento airport which would make it about the 8th largest in California.
> 
> Not much of a “crossroads” it seems.


Understand that Cross Road means that point where there is link between Europe and Africa, and the point in the middle betwwen America and Asia.


----------



## Colonel Ned

Knitemplar said:


> BTW, what about this report?
> 
> https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...ianni-infantino-jack-pittbrooke-a8195131.html


Ok, thank's for sharing, but at that time when I read it, Ive reported already that isn't a factual analysis, just an article making advertising for UnitedBId ... 

thank's anyway, if you have any other articles (more realistic and recent perhaps), we'll be pleased to read


----------



## Colonel Ned

hi guys, hope your week-end was good.

may be some ouside USA media borders staffs (articles / news ...)

the thread (until Jun 13) can include infrastructures but also all kind of articles or news on Bid (after June 13 may be we can change its name into 2026 stadiums) 

So, let's starting with some People :

*ESCLUSIVA TMW - Mondiali 2026, Trezeguet ambasciatore per il Marocco*
Former player David Trezeguet is the new ambassador for Morocco 2026, making his actions in Monaco and Italy








https://www.tuttomercatoweb.com/alt...trezeguet-ambasciatore-per-il-marocco-1097478

*Isco advertising for Morocco with a picture on his Instagram*









*Theo doin' the same*









*Christiano Ronaldo' Mum, Maria Dolores, making some advertise also of Marrakesh with her daughter (in the city and his son's hotel), also in Instagram*

























So, you will ask me :
What the hell those pictures are related to the thread ?

My answer in advance :
Here in Europe, in soccer community psycologie (or mind), the image of WC 2026 sticks more with Morocco rather than United

And then a question :
Why Morocco is doing very well his marketing campaign ? United sound are absent outside USA ... like they're pushing "MUTE" botton in the rest of the globe, people in Europe still asking wether or not United are serious about their bid, even with infrastures ...

I don't remember who posted here (while answering to me) that Morocco is going with emotions. now I can answer that Morocco got the point by going on emotional way, because soccer at fist is an emotional sport, and people in Europe and Africa, believe more in passion and emotions rather than revenues ... (to be discussed if you want)


----------



## Colonel Ned

Last time I taked about that Moroccan advertizing in the heart of NYC (Red Bull Arena) 

that was like they scored a goal on United (at their home) ...










But, when I saw this one (especially in that time)... I've really felt like ... *incredible and funny Morocco* !










may be a next advertising at United home to come 

/:^)


----------



## Colonel Ned

Finally !!! US media talking about that report on High Risk of security

that report was ordered by the FIFA and was made by a known independant expert firm. 

Now the FIFA is in truble, because Mexico is qualifying as a dangerous country (remember when I was talking about kidnaping in Mexico huh ???!!!)

*FIFA to evaluate risk of violence if Mexico co-hosts 2026 World Cup*
http://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-wor...of-violence-if-mexico-co-hosts-2026-world-cup

*Study: Violence risks rise if Mexico co-hosts 2026 World Cup*
https://www.washingtonpost.com/spor...d2e19b79966_story.html?utm_term=.294b650e5711

(I still remember also when I announced in this thread that the WC is an issue of vonting not infrastructures, but at that time some people was keeping believe that only FIFA who still chose the country)


----------



## marokko

Thanks for the contributions to this thread Ned. I could imagine that it costs time to collect and share all information, but it is informative as always and fun to read


----------



## Colonel Ned

marokko said:


> Thanks for the contributions to this thread Ned. I could imagine that it costs time to collect and share all information, but it is informative as always and fun to read


well not that much

once you're in Europe, you have all that staff available at first sight (RSS, social networks, media ...)

but it's hard when you're in NA (US media are monopolizing, thei're on every first places ... mays be it's a question of internet business I don't know)


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> understand that Cross Road means that point where there is link between Europe and Africa, and the point in the middle betwwen America and Asia.


This is too ridiculous to continue discussing, so just a couple of facts. 

The largest airport in Morocco has only two flights per day to the US. How can anyone use that as a crossroads? Two flights to Latin America (an entire continent!). No flights to East Asia. Really, Paris and other Moroccan cities are the main customers.


----------



## Rabat with love 2

:cheers: 

2026 is for Morocco


----------



## pesto

Good idea: post pictures of a soccer player's mother instead of a picture of the stadiums. Or, sorry, I mean renderings of a stadium. Well, really conceptual drawings of what a stadium might look like if we were to actually design one, and we'll worry about specs later, but only if we get the bid.

But at least now we have proof positive that there is a hotel in Morocco. Or wait a minute is that photo-shopped? :lol:


----------



## RobH

It's a slogan, I think we're getting too worked up over it. We've got one bid with a fairly meaningless name that sounds like an aeroplane taking off just before half eight, and another essentially using a variation of Istanbul's slogan when they kept bidding and kept failing to land the Olympics.

Neither are particularly inspiring in this sense. I think both will look at starting from scratch with their branding if they win.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> It's a slogan, I think we're getting too worked up over it. We've got one bid with a fairly meaningless name that sounds like an aeroplane taking off just before half eight, and another essentially using a variation of Istanbul's slogan when they kept bidding and kept failing to land the Olympics.
> 
> Neither are particularly inspiring in this sense. I think both will look at starting from scratch with their branding if they win.


So you have no problem with "Miami: Where Democracy Was Born" or "Mumbai: Birthplace of Galileo". Just spoon it on thick; who knows the dif', anyhow? :lol:


----------



## Colonel Ned

Something official may probably happen next days with Spain and Portugal










*Marruecos espera el apoyo de España frente a los EE UU*


> Mohammed VI, who is involved in his country's bid for the WC 2026, has celebrated the support of France and he's expecting the support of Spain.


https://as.com/futbol/2018/04/07/mundial/1523136999_967301.html


----------



## Colonel Ned

pesto said:


> Good idea: post pictures of a soccer player's mother instead of a picture of the stadiums. Or, sorry, I mean renderings of a stadium. Well, really conceptual drawings of what a stadium might look like if we were to actually design one, and we'll worry about specs later, but only if we get the bid.
> 
> But at least now we have proof positive that there is a hotel in Morocco. Or wait a minute is that photo-shopped? :lol:


hahaha
so funny
I can feel how frustrated you are
but no worries, just after Jun 13, you will see stadiums posters (especially building and renovation process) like never you saw before 

But please, when you talk on economical staff, don't base your analysis on a past or current situation, we're talking about an event that will come after 8 long years. So, business plans and realistic forecasts may be are more relevant (am also a finance Ph D professor so I know what am talking about)


----------



## pesto

Colonel Ned said:


> hahaha
> so funny
> I can feel how frustrated you are
> but no worries, just after Jun 13, you will see stadiums posters (especially building and renovation process) like never you saw before
> 
> But please, when you talk on economical staff, don't base your analysis on a past or current situation, we're talking about an event that will come after 8 long years. So, business plans and realistic forecasts may be are more relevant (am also a finance Ph D professor so I know what am talking about)


Sorry, I didn't know I was dealing with an expert in economic development. So most of this is for others not as educated as you.

As you know, maybe 1 of 100 business plans actually gets funded and implemented. Almost always way over budget. This is far more likely when the funder is the government working with private contractors. Almost 100 percent likelihood where the government and the major contractors are the same family or close friends and allies.

You basically have huge profits to foreign contractors and companies favored by the government, and large bribes to the government officials. All of this leaves the country and is invested somewhere else; essentially none of the profits go back into the local banking system. Instead it goes to Switzerland or similar off-shore accounts. Hard currency of course.

In Morocco you get locals working on low-skill jobs. This perpetuates low wages, no advance in worker skills or education, and perpetuation of 3rd world status.

But you do hint at one good point: none of this will get built unless Morocco gets the bid on June 13. This is the ultimate proof that they would have been white elephants.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Colonel Ned said:


> but it's hard when you're in NA (US media are monopolizing, thei're on every first places ... mays be it's a question of internet business I don't know)


It's not a conspiracy or a logistical failing, Ned, it's just business metrics. Morocco is on Europe's doorstep and appealing to UEFA nations is the wise but easy thing for Morocco to do. They're not geniuses for this approach, in fact I'd be more surprised and disappointed if Morocco's bid organizers did NOT do this. 

Conversely, the US connections take a little more work, especially at the footballing level. This is why the US bid focuses on programmatic viability rather than emotional appeal.

Neither approach is wrong, it's merely each bidder playing up to their strengths. Which is exactly what we should expect from the process.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Folks, if you have a problem with a post or person in this thread you take that up with a mod. DO NOT deal with it in the thread, please, as that just compounds the issue.


----------



## nandoer

This is way off topic but I needed to tell you that readining this thread is so entretaining, I mean... I get more notifications of this tread than my gf chat.   

Its like a soap opera, despite we all know what the ending will be, each point seems intresting. Keep it up mates


----------



## marokko

^^Morocco hosted many african championships, it hosted a few years ago FiFA world cup for clubs (twice) and european clubs play sometimes in Morocco games like last time PSG and Monaco for the French cup in Tangier ...

I tried mainly to focus with events on Football. There are also non sport events hosted by Morocco during the last few years, like UN climate conference COP22 (20 thousand diplomats from around the world). Furthermore, Morocco is currently the number 1 tourist spot in Africa (above countries like Egypt and South Africa)


----------



## GunnerJacket

Alright, here's the deal: I'm done. Unless the chief 3-4 actors from both sides of this thread PM me and convince me to reopen the thread and that they can play together nicely I see no reason to do so, because this has been consistently reduced to useless and derogatory banter. Those wishing to simply wave their own banner can do so via another medium, and those wishing bona fide news can seek that through the outlet of their choice, but it's no longer worth it for the mods to babysit this thread. We have jobs and lives of our own to tend. 

Cheers.


----------



## Knitemplar

*WC 2026 goes to United Bid!*

Congrats to Canada - Mexico - and USA. :banana:

Congrats too to Morocco. You too will get to host someday, and your continent just had its turn EIGHT years ago. No. America's turn was 24 years ago -- so I don't think that's a very unfair foundation! And don't worry, everyone, Agent Orange will be gone by then!! 

Vote was 

Morocco - 65
United Bid - 134*. 

* With 7 member Association votes recused or forbidden to vote (and 6 of those votes would have gone for the United bid anyway. So, the vote was quite fair and still overwhelming. 

Now, let's watch 2018!


----------



## Guest

We're slowly moving towards intra-national and even continental tournaments. I don't think Morocco will ever be a single host, or any African nation for that matter. 

Ultimately, the right decision was made. Nothing to do with bias. If we're judging the bids on merit, it's not really a contest.


----------



## SounderBruce

The United States/Canada/Mexico bid has been selected to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup. It was a landslide of a vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/13/world-cup-2026-vote-north-america-morocco


----------



## fidalgo

Knitemplar said:


> Vote was
> 
> Morocco - 65
> United Bid - 134*.
> 
> * With 7 member Association votes recused or forbidden to vote (and 6 of those votes would have gone for the United bid anyway. So, the vote was quite fair and still overwhelming.
> 
> Now, let's watch 2018!


is it known who voted who?


----------



## Dopersky




----------



## Knitemplar

fidalgo said:


> is it known who voted who?


It says the details will appear on the FIFA website soon -- but surprisingly, it seems that even Russia voted for the United bid. (I guess, even North Korea now.)

So, I haven't seen the results either, but with 64 votes for Morocco, that means about 50 from Africa, and only about 15 from elsewhere.


----------



## Laurence2011

Can't believe that Vancouver isn't hosting ...


----------



## Guest

Laurence2011 said:


> Can't believe that Vancouver isn't hosting ...


Vancouver dropped out. As did Chicago and Minneapolis. Chicago is by far the biggest missing piece. Still, life goes on, and there will be plenty of great host cities. My biggest disappointment is that Minneapolis' stadium won't feature at the WC.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/voting-results-for-the-2026-fifa-world-cup.pdf?cloudid=vpnl19m2xr8zk50mnor3

Very interesting.


----------



## Knitemplar

5portsF4n said:


> Vancouver dropped out. As did Chicago and Minneapolis. Chicago is by far the biggest missing piece. Still, life goes on, and there will be plenty of great host cities. My biggest disappointment is that Minneapolis' stadium won't feature at the WC.


Well, Chicago was the Opener venue in 1994. So I guess poor Chicago just wants to revel in its memories. 

I'm surprised that a semi-final might go to Atlanta. I know -- with the new Stadium and tons of affordable hotel space there. Of course, Atlanta missed out in 1994, so I guess Atlanta might fill in where Chicago and Vancouver will miss out.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

The cities above aren't the final selection, are they? A few of the USA ones will be cut.


----------



## tinyslam

Knitemplar said:


> Well, Chicago was the Opener venue in 1994. So I guess poor Chicago just wants to revel in its memories.
> 
> I'm surprised that a semi-final might go to Atlanta. I know -- with the new Stadium and tons of affordable hotel space there. Of course, Atlanta missed out in 1994, so I guess Atlanta might fill in where Chicago and Vancouver will miss out.


Not to mention that we are breaking all kinds of MLS attendance records with our new team and stadium.


----------



## Knitemplar

ABSTENTIONS or DID NOT VOTE: Cuba, Slovenia and Spain. IRAN voted for NONE OF THE BIDS--obviously, Iran hates both the US and the Moroccan Royal family. 

Quicker this way: most African nations plus Albania, Belarus, Brazil??, Brunei, the two Chinas, the 3-Benelux countries (surprisingly???) , Estonia???, France???, Italy??, Kazakhstan, Korea DPR, Palestine, Qatar, Serbia, Slovakia, Syria and Turkey went for Morocco. Now we know who *will NOT *be on the Donald's Christmas card list. 

Those who will be:

9 African nations which voted for the United bid: Botswana, Cape Verde, Guinea, Lesotho, Liberia, Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Zimbabwe. _(So, it wasn't a solid bloc for Morocco.)_ (Ghana was a no-show.) 

Even the so-called Arab-muslim bloc was split: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, UAE, Kuwait, Oman, Afghanistan.

Interesting.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

The three Benelux countries have large north African populations (I'm assuming so in the case of Luxembourg). France also. Italy may have been due to proximity. The surprise in Europe is Portugal voting United and Spain abstaining. I thought Russia would vote United.


----------



## RobH

UEFA (55): 41-12 for United 2026.
CAF (54) 11-41
AFC (46): 33-11
Concacaf (35): 29-0.
Oceania (11): 11-0
Conmebol (10): 9-1


----------



## Knitemplar

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The cities above aren't the final selection, are they? A few of the USA ones will be cut.


Yeah, the US list will be tweaked further (to a dozen, I think). I don't see Kansas City, possibly Denver, making the final cut.


----------



## 1772

Knitemplar said:


> It says the details will appear on the FIFA website soon -- but surprisingly, it seems that even Russia voted for the United bid. (I guess, even North Korea now.)
> 
> So, I haven't seen the results either, but with 64 votes for Morocco, that means about 50 from Africa, and only about 15 from elsewhere.


Why would Russia vote for Marocco?


----------



## Knitemplar

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The three Benelux countries have large north African populations (I'm assuming so in the case of Luxembourg). France also. Italy may have been due to proximity. The surprise in Europe is Portugal voting United and Spain abstaining. I thought Russia would vote United.


Re Benelux - yeah, but voting for the United bid would bolster any futue Benelux bids; but I guess they figure that 48 teams would just be too much for their small countries. 

Yes, rUSsiA voted United. (The Donald connection worked.) :wink: 

The Portuguese bloc was odd: Brazil, Angola and Macau the hold-outs but mother Portugal, Timor-L'este and the other African Portuguys went United. 

_Donald will now send Macron a whoppee cushion! _:nuts: 

I guess Argentina, Chile and Paraguay feel just a little more confident now (for 2030).


----------



## Knitemplar

1772 said:


> Why would Russia vote for Marocco?


To poke the US in the eye; but I guess they will add the vote now to the Donald Dossier.


----------



## Bossman1

I live in Canada and although happy the United bid won, I am not to excited - at least for Canada. I mean 10 games we are hosting out of 80 while US hosts 60. Not too much of joint bid in my eyes. A 40-20-20 split or even 50-15-15 split seems adequate. A Canadian city gets 3 games and form what I understand the semis and final are all in the US.
I am not too keen on Canada getting any big games or match ups with this set up. And with it being 48 federations in the tournament, there will be a lot of garbage games in the first round. You loose a lot of the exclusivity of qualifying for the WC with a 48 team tournament.


----------



## Knitemplar

Bossman1 said:


> I live in Canada and although happy the United bid won, I am not to excited - at least for Canada. I mean 10 games we are hosting out of 80 while US hosts 60. Not too much of joint bid in my eyes. A 40-20-20 split or even 50-15-15 split seems adequate. A Canadian city gets 3 games and form what I understand the semis and final are all in the US.
> I am not too keen on Canada getting any big games or match ups with this set up. And with it being 48 federations in the tournament, there will be a lot of garbage games in the first round. You loose a lot of the exclusivity of qualifying for the WC with a 48 team tournament.


You're lucky you even got in. :wink: Be grateful for your team. :cheers:


----------



## GunnerJacket

All right, I'm reopening the old thread and have merged it with the one from today after the FIFA announcement. Remember to keep it civil or face board restrictions. No gloating, whining, insults, etc.


----------



## Lumbergo

As if there was ever any doubt! I hope to attend a couple of matches!


----------



## Lumbergo

and the best news - the USMNT automatically qualifies!


----------



## Alanzeh

Where will be hosted the knockout games? The final will go to New meadowlands?


----------



## triodegradable

awesome !


----------



## Alanzeh

Good decision. Hopefully I'll see a lot of matches. start planning now
There is any decision on where the knockout games will be hosted? The final will go to New Meadowlands or LA?


----------



## GunnerJacket

The locations for the final matches are not yet confirmed. FIFA will make that determination in a few years after all the prospective hosts are confirmed and have been reviewed by their committees.


----------



## GEwinnen

Congratualations, but this World Cup will far surpass Brazil and Russia in distances. And Brazil and Russia are not small countries. 2030 then please again a "normal" European country, a British application would be fine!


----------



## Dopersky

I see there will be clusters of host cities connected by high speed rail and the clusters will be interconnected by plane, so basically you will visit a region within a continent and move to a different cluster if needed.










East Coast
West Coast
Southwest


----------



## 1772

Knitemplar said:


> To poke the US in the eye; but I guess they will add the vote now to the Donald Dossier.


Maybe, just maybe, they thought it was bonkers to host a world cup in the desert in july and thought the north american bid was better?


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> All right, I'm reopening the old thread and have merged it with the one from today after the FIFA announcement. Remember to keep it civil or face board restrictions. No gloating, whining, insults, etc.


guess we can focus on stadiums now! 

I hoped for Morocco but all in all expected result, will be fun world cup for sure!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

For the logo, I expect to see the World Cup Trophy with the three colors: Red Blue and Green+White.

The typography should be: Niagara or Microsoft

Mascot: a beaver, a chihuahua and an eagle. All will be dressed like football players.

*Another idea*


----------



## CaliforniaJones




----------



## Dopersky

I like the scarf


----------



## Rover030

1772 said:


> Maybe, just maybe, they thought it was bonkers to host a world cup in the desert in july and thought the north american bid was better?


Climate has barely been mentioned, because it's not a big deal. Morocco could have let their inland cities (less than half) play matches at 18:00 and 21:00 local time, when the temperature is fine. The hottest cities of the United bid do have to host matches in the middle of the day, but they are almost all airconditioned, except for Monterrey, and Miami to an extent, but Miami is more humid than hot, similar to some Brazilian cities at the 2014 world cup.


----------



## will101

The vote went as follows:
For the United bid; Afghanistan, American Samoa, Andorra, Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Benin, Bermuda, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, British Virgin Islands, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Cabo Verde, Cayman Islands, Chile, Colombia, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Croatia, Curacao, Cyprus, Czechia, Denmark, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, England, Faroe Islands, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Gibraltar, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, India, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, FYR Macedonia, Malaysia, Maldives, Malta, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Montserrat, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Ireland, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Samoa, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, South Korea, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Sweden, Switzerland, Tahiti, Thailand, Timor L'Este, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Turks and Caicos Islands, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Wales, Zimbabwe.

For Morocco: Albania, Algeria, Angola, Belarus, Belgium, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, China PR, Chinese Taipei, Comoros, Congo, Congo DR, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Estonia, France, Gabon, The Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Italy, Kazakhstan, Kenya, North Korea, Libya, Luxembourg, Macau, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Rwanda, Sao Tome e Principe, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Slovakia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Turkey, Uganda, Yemen, Zambia.

Not voting: Canada, Guam, Mexico, Morocco, Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, United States of America.

Abstaining: Cuba, Slovenia, Spain.

Voted for None of the Bids: Iran.

Not present: Ghana.


----------



## afonso_bh

If the United Bid manages to fix ridiculous sightlines problems on many of the USA stadiums, then I'm fine with it. 

And please, please, do not advocate for turf. I'm saying this because 8 years is plenty of time for FIFA to go along with this nonsense. 

Don't make things worse than it already is with all this 48 teams bull.


----------



## will101

afonso_bh said:


> If the United Bid manages to fix ridiculous sightlines problems on many of the USA stadiums, then I'm fine with it.


For example?


----------



## Dopersky

Brazil voted against the United bid???


----------



## pekenno_birlo0

*MEXICAN STADIUMS!*


*AKRON (GUADALAJARA) 50,000 *





























*BBVA STADIUM (MONTERREY)53,500*






























*AZTECA STADIUM (MEXICO CITY) 87,000-105,000 (will be under renovation soon)
*


----------



## SuCumaethor

Congratulations. And congratulations to Morocco. But i think this bid is surely over the top. In USA, Canada and Mexico live more than 480 million people, all have best or one of the best economies in the world and almost whole continent will be part of WC. No bid in near future will be able to come close to this one (except maybe China). USA would have been more than fine alone. PS I am little bit surprised that Russia voted for US.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

https://twitter.com/CanadaSoccerEN/status/1006901065210458112


----------



## afonso_bh

will101 said:


> For example?


Atlanta, Foxborough, East Rutherford, Dallas, Houston, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Denver, Seattle, and even Rose Bowl. 90% of the american stadiums.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Yeah, the US list will be tweaked further (to a dozen, I think). I don't see Kansas City, possibly Denver, making the final cut.


Some reports say there will be 10 US stadiums and the Rose Bowl will be the opening match. But I suspect this is still very much under discussion since the US has so many stadiums that are available.

I also would think that FIFA would want to use the new Inglewood Stadium.


----------



## Rover030

^^ They didn't put the new Inglewood stadium in the bid so that they wouldn't get a points deduction (-5 or -10% iirc) in the evaluation for having an unfinished stadium. So they'll probably use it. 

On the sightlines, hopefully when they put in proper grass (so not just one layer of pre-grown turf, but a layer of soil and all), the ground level is raised enough to make the problem much smaller, even if they don't intend it. Because of the high first rows, sightlines from the first row should still be good. Field suites are a problem with that though, so they might sacrifice the sightlines for more income.


----------



## Dopersky

Los Angeles, Mexico City and New York are the only opening match candidates.


----------



## pesto

afonso_bh said:


> If the United Bid manages to fix ridiculous sightlines problems on many of the USA stadiums, then I'm fine with it.
> 
> And please, please, do not advocate for turf. I'm saying this because 8 years is plenty of time for FIFA to go along with this nonsense.
> 
> Don't make things worse than it already is with all this 48 teams bull.


Oy, back to sightline issues? Please move on.

And artificial vs. natural turf is almost as boring. It's been discussed to death in other threads.


----------



## will101

Dopersky said:


> Los Angeles, Mexico City and New York are the only opening match candidates.


I would support the opening match in Canada. They have never been a host before.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

CaliforniaJones said:


> For the logo, I expect to see the World Cup Trophy with the three colors: Red Blue and Green+White.
> 
> The typography should be: Niagara or Microsoft
> 
> Mascot: a beaver, a chihuahua and an eagle. All will be dressed like football players.
> 
> *Another idea*


Very good but your cup is a week old! I reckon you were in on the fix and prepared this a week ago :lol:

Well done to the winners and commiserations to the losers. Should be an excellent and fun World Cup.


----------



## pesto

SuCumaethor said:


> Congratulations. And congratulations to Morocco. But i think this bid is surely over the top. In USA, Canada and Mexico live more than 480 million people, all have best or one of the best economies in the world and almost whole continent will be part of WC. No bid in near future will be able to come close to this one (except maybe China). USA would have been more than fine alone. PS I am little bit surprised that Russia voted for US.


I think the motivation was that FIFA is looking to improve their reputation by encouraging joint bids. This will have the effect of eliminating useless construction projects, winning local popular approval and limiting financial outlays. This in turn results in less dependence on authoritarian governments that have the power to ignore such issues. 

By getting even the US (which could easily host two 48-team tournaments simultaneously) into a joint bid, it will encourage others to do so.


----------



## Rover030

will101 said:


> There is nothing wrong with the sightlines of any of the places mentioned. This is just you insulting the US.


There is something wrong, you can't see the goal line in Atlanta and in most of the other stadiums you can't see the corners. It's not a huge issue, but it would be good if it can be solved and it's interesting to see how the bid and FIFA handle it.

It's a shame that within a few hours of reopening this thread, accustations of insults are already being thrown around even though it is a legitimate issue AND it has to do with stadiums.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

SuCumaethor said:


> Congratulations. And congratulations to Morocco. But i think this bid is surely over the top. In USA, Canada and Mexico live more than 480 million people, all have best or one of the best economies in the world and almost whole continent will be part of WC. No bid in near future will be able to come close to this one (except maybe China). USA would have been more than fine alone. PS I am little bit surprised that Russia voted for US.


It is over too large an area but it was the better bid. We will go from the ridiculously small to the ridiculously big. It will be a great World Cup. Whoever follows will be able to top it in some ways. More compact, football/soccer specific stadia and easier transport between venues. They won't be able to top total attendance though. And they will struggle to top revenue or legacy.

I'm not surprised Russia voted for the US (plus Mexico and Canada). Voting against would be symbolic. Russia would have known the USA would win. Why not symbolically vote in friendship? Russia works in its interests behind the scenes. Everything that is supposedly against the US is deniable. Here they are being friendly on the surface. No surprise.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^ They didn't put the new Inglewood stadium in the bid so that they *wouldn't get a points deduction *(-5 or -10% iirc) in the evaluation for having an unfinished stadium. So they'll probably use it.
> 
> On the sightlines, hopefully when they put in proper grass (so not just one layer of pre-grown turf, but a layer of soil and all), the ground level is raised enough to make the problem much smaller, even if they don't intend it. Because of the high first rows, sightlines from the first row should still be good. Field suites are a problem with that though, so they might sacrifice the sightlines for more income.


Exactly. I wouldn't be surprised if Infantino told them to do that. :lol:


----------



## afonso_bh

will101 said:


> There is nothing wrong with the sightlines of any of the places mentioned. This is just you insulting the US.


Why would I insult a country I admire, have visited, and even would live in? 

Maybe that's just some forumers not wanting to address some of the issues with USA stadiums. Problems that can be fixed I might add.


----------



## GEwinnen

Knitemplar said:


> Well, Chicago was the Opener venue in 1994. So I guess poor Chicago just wants to revel in its memories.


That was a really bad game back then. Like the final in Pasadena.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> It is over too large an area but it was the better bid. We will go from the ridiculously small to the ridiculously big. It will be a great World Cup. Whoever follows will be able to top it in some ways. More compact, football/soccer specific stadia and easier transport between venues. They won't be able to top total attendance though. And they will struggle to top revenue or legacy.
> 
> I'm not surprised Russia voted for the US (plus Mexico and Canada. Voting against would be symbolic. Russia would have known the USA would win. Why not symbolically vote in friendship? Russia works in its interests behind the scenes. Everything that is supposedly against the US is deniable. Here they are being friendly on the surface. No surprise.


An interesting analysis. When there is going to be a vote that one side is going to win easily, there is always room to pick up some diplomatic points by unexpectedly voting for one party.

Likewise, I suspect Morocco was passed on the technical reviews only because it was clear that the US would win in a landslide. It's much more politic to let decision go to a vote.


----------



## Rover030

Deleted


----------



## slipperydog

A few notes just so everyone is on the same page:

1. The 17 US candidate host cities will be pared down to a list of final 10 

2. New stadiums not yet built will still be eligible to host even if not listed in bid book

3. The current proposal is for there to be THREE games on the opening day of the tournament


----------



## fidalgo

afonso_bh said:


> If the United Bid manages to fix ridiculous sightlines problems on many of the USA stadiums, then I'm fine with it.
> 
> 
> will101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the sightlines of any of the places mentioned. This is just you insulting the US.
Click to expand...


















cant see the side line or the corner :|, but nothing is wrong


----------



## afonso_bh

slipperydog said:


> A few notes just so everyone is on the same page:
> 
> 1. The 17 US candidate host cities will be pared down to a list of final 10
> 
> 2. New stadiums not yet built will still be eligible to host even if not listed in bid book
> 
> 3. The current proposal is for there to be THREE games on the opening day of the tournament


I like the 3 games on opening day proposal. 

Always liked 2 games on the opening day, with the back of the Group A playing later, it already gave a good feeling for the tournament. 

Brazil started this trend of 1 game on opening day, probably due to their egos. And I say that as a brazilian.


----------



## tinyslam

The sight line "issue" in Atlanta hopefully will be resolved by putting real grass on top of the turf which will raise the field some. But I honestly don't see the problem of not being able to see every corner. What little action that takes place there can easily be viewed on the Halo Board and it is usually in the stage of the game where players are trying to kill the clock anyway.


----------



## afonso_bh

Problem is that we go to the stadium to watch the field, not a videoboard. Maybe that is some of the cultural difference, especially in these out of this world american stadiums. And I say this as an american football fan. A Packers fan.


----------



## tinyslam

afonso_bh said:


> Problem is that we go to the stadium to watch the field, not a videoboard. Maybe that is some of the cultural difference, especially in these out of this world american stadiums. And I say this as an american football fan. A Packers fan.


I'm all for watching the action on the field. Maybe it is because you don't have the giant video boards that we do that you are so against it. Imagine you are sitting behind the goal and there is action going on at an opposite corner. Do you 1) squint really hard and try to see the play in detail, 2) pull out your binoculars, or 3) look up at the massive video board to see the mm of space in between the ball and the touch line.

Now I'm not saying watch the whole game on the video board, just for those rare times when you personal sight is not adequate, like the "ridiculous sight line issue" that you brought up.


----------



## will101

pesto said:


> An interesting analysis. When there is going to be a vote that one side is going to win easily, there is always room to pick up some diplomatic points by unexpectedly voting for one party.


I'm still trying to figure out why we lost three of the four China votes.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

will101 said:


> I'm still trying to figure out why we lost three of the four China votes.


China is buying up African resources. Could be related to that. So positive towards Africa rather than negative towards the USA. Also Russia and China are different cultures. It may be that in China it is necessary to be seen to be standing up to the USA in light of all the trade disputes. I don't get the impression that Russians have a dislike for Americans. They want the best for Russia and are patriotic but that doesn't mean they wish the USA badly outside of any direct confrontation. There is no direct confrontation here. It may be different with parts of Chinese society. That is just an idea/guess not knowledge.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Seriously? 

Seriously?!

Enough with the assuming every post is dripping with political or cultural overtones. Comments with which you disagree don't mean you get to jump on the other person, and this vote/event is not some grand statement about the virtues of either country. Just chill and be polite or I got no problem closing this up again, cause life seemed to survive without it.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Final breakdown of the vote
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Non-African/Arab countries to vote for Morocco:
> 
> France
> Italy
> Netherlands
> Belgium
> Luxembourg
> Slovakia
> Belarus
> Estonia
> Albania
> Serbia
> Turkey
> Kazakhstan
> Tajikistan
> China
> Chinese Taipei
> Macau
> North Korea
> Brunei
> Brazil


As expected, you have mostly the authoritarians and the opportunists. 

The saddest is the cynicism of France, Italy, and Benelux, who didn't for a minute believe that the Moroccan bid was better, but could see the benefits of making a few bribes to the right people to bring fat construction profits at the expense of the Moroccan taxpayer.

Oh, well, business is business. :lol:


----------



## Knitemplar

RobH said:


> If nothing else, at least this will give Diana Ross a second chance at scoring that penalty.


:lol: Actually, they can fix gaffes like that now, digitally and instantaneously.


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> The saddest is the cynicism of France, Italy, and Benelux, who didn't for a minute believe that the Moroccan bid was better, but could see the benefits of making a few bribes to the right people to bring fat construction profits at the expense of the Moroccan taxpayer.
> l:


That, plus Brazil, are really hard to fathom. Well, not to worry, France, Italy, Brazil & the Benelux will be placed in the deepest RED states (the southern Trumpie states) in 2026. And I am sure the leader, DT, will be sending them rotten eggs for Christmas. :lol:


----------



## marokko

We had sometimes a few heated discussions over here, but congratualations United! The bidding commitee played the game well. I am sure that United will host a very succesful event. Good luck over there !


----------



## pesto

EPA001 said:


> It is a shame to me that these cities/stadiums did not make it into the bid. But to include them now and let another city down seems quite unfair to me. Also a pity (imho) that Chicago and Las Vegas did not make it in the bid.
> 
> Overall the decision to award the WC-2026 to the United-bid is the logical and by far the best choice imho. Especially with now 48 countries attending a big organisation is necessary, with many stadiums. And these three countries have of some of the best stadiums available to the sport.
> 
> Also, I think that especially in the US the WC-2026 will be experienced so much different then in 1994. In the 70's and '80's old, famous European and South-American players were brought to the US (and well paid for it) to promote Football in the US. That attempt was not very successful imho.
> 
> But the WC-1994 was the second attempt to get Football, or soccer as our American friends like to call the sport, into the country and it succeeded. Especially lately, starting with that WC-1994, football is the fastest growing sport in the US. With the girls/women leading the way, but now the MLS is gaining a lot of traction. And the sports thrives upon that. In 8 years time the WC-2026 will be received with much more enthusiasm by the American public, and the sport will benefit.
> 
> In Canada we might see the same positive result for the sport and Mexico was of course always a football crazy country in the most positive way.
> 
> Congratulations to the US, Canada and Mexico and to the winning cities. Although the list of cities where matches will be held is still too long for now, in the end a fantastic list of cities will be put up. I am looking very much forward to that WC already. Much more than I look forward to the WC-2022 in Qatar. That remains a bad decision imho, but we will have to deal with that.


If there are only 10 US cities:

NY/NJ
LA
Dallas
Atlanta
Boston
Miami
SF/SJ 
DC
Houston
Boston

If you want in, you have to explain why you are better than one or more of these (’m not saying that it would be impossible to knock someone out but you have to have a story).

I view Chicago and Minneapolis as out for good. They chose not to play.


----------



## marokko

pesto said:


> As expected, you have mostly the authoritarians and the opportunists.
> 
> The saddest is the cynicism of France, Italy, and Benelux, who didn't for a minute believe that the Moroccan bid was better, but could see the benefits of making a few bribes to the right people to bring fat construction profits at the expense of the Moroccan taxpayer.
> 
> Oh, well, business is business.


Not true, these countries just have a lot of people living in them with a Moroccan background. They are often the largest minorities in western Europe, exluding Britain and Germany I geuss. This is the reason why for example the Netherlands chose Morocco. In case of France, they always vote in favor of Morocco. Doesn't depend on which ocation, FIFA, UN, Europe, etc. So this were expected votes.

On the other hand in the Moroccan thread they are really amazed that United was able to get the votes from bassically all countries in the middle east, except yemen and syria. Espn and others say that SA helped with the lobbying for United in Asia. Maybe that explains this. In any case: United played a good chess game.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> We had sometimes a few heated discussions over here, but congratualations United! The bidding commitee played the game well. I am sure that United will host a very succesful event. Good luck over there !


Thanks. I never minded the heated discussions with you since you stuck to the point and made sense. Hope you stay in the discussion.


----------



## aquamaroon

So here is the stadium which is currently slated to host the World Cup Final: MetLife Stadium in NY/NJ





















Great venue obviously but have to admit, after all these roofed stadia it'll be a little odd to see the World Cup Final in a roofless stadium!


----------



## aquamaroon

marokko said:


> On the other hand in the Moroccan thread they are really amazed that United was able to get the votes from bassically all countries in the middle east, except yemen and syria. Espn and others say that SA helped with the lobbying for United in Asia. Maybe that explains this. In any case: United played a good chess game.


True, it's pretty obvious that Saudi Arabia is joined at the hip to the USA, ESPECIALLY this current Presidential Administration (In fact, Trump's first visit abroad was to Saudi Arabia) Outside of the gulf states and Iraq though it looks like Morocco did OK in that part of the world! They received the support of all of North Africa, Turkey and the Middle East States that are aligned with Iran.


----------



## pesto

marokko said:


> Not true, these countries just have a lot of people living in them with a Moroccan background. They are often the largest minorities in western Europe, exluding Britain and Germany I geuss. This is the reason why for example the Netherlands chose Morocco. In case of France, they always vote in favor of Morocco. Doesn't depend on which ocation, FIFA, UN, Europe, etc. So this were expected votes.
> 
> On the other hand in the Moroccan thread they are really amazed that United was able to get the votes from bassically all countries in the middle east, except yemen and syria. Espn and others say that SA helped with the lobbying for United in Asia. Maybe that explains this. In any case: United played a good chess game.


OK, let's continue the discussion. First, I respect all you say and do not intend this to be insulting; it's just the way I see it.

First, I don't believe that France, Italy or Benelux voted for Morocco for any reason other than getting in on the construction profits. France was the most cynical and most obvious, but the others had the same motivation. 

The reason the US won was not strategy, it was that they had stadiums, lodging, facilities, airports, etc., and Morocco didn't; and these things drove expected revenue. That is why the voters who voted for the US did so.

Politics, strategy, lobbying, etc., were complete non-factors (or, if you prefer, they were totally driven by the existence of stadiums and expectations of revenue). I told a poster some time back that we didn't need to wait for June 13, the US was going to win easily. Neither Trump nor the Saudis nor Islamic brotherhood or whatever was strong enough to change that.


----------



## marokko

^^ Sure, don't worry

United would have probably won in any case. United is clearly ready, but it had some geopolitical hurdles in my opinion due to the current foreign affairs of the USA. So I disagree only on that last point. I do believe their was a shift of some votes from Europe, Asia, and even Africa after that United was able to give some assurances and its good grade from the taskforce.


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Just want to also say, along with pesto, thank you marokko for the nice words and level-headed analysis, you're a good egg to talk stadiums with. :cheers: For what it's worth, I went into this competition knowing very little about Morocco's sporting culture, and I came away very impressed with both the passion the people have for soccer/football and for the impressive bid they put together. FWIW had Morocco won I would have been excited for you all and would have been excited to follow the developments up to 2026, and I wish you all the best luck in any sporting hosting competition your country competes in in the future :cheers:


----------



## Rover030

I think the Netherlands voted for Morocco to score points with Moroccan-Dutch people in the Netherlands. They only announced it two days before the vote when all the rumours were already saying that the United bid would win by a big margin. 

It's different from Belgium and France, who announced early on that they would campaign for the Moroccan bid and did so. Surely if you actually have the intention of getting in on big infrastructure projects, you get actively involved from the start and don't wait until the end.

There also is a missing link between the Dutch FA and the construction companies. The Dutch FA consists of football people, not oligarchs or something.


----------



## ElvisBC

afonso_bh said:


> Why would I insult a country I admire, have visited, and even would live in?
> 
> Maybe that's just some forumers not wanting to address some of the issues with USA stadiums. Problems that can be fixed I might add.


us stadiums have many issues when it comes to association football, and this world cup will probably be a big step down in stadium quality in FIFA terms (some terrible locations, serious view obstructions and no roofs plus some minor issues) but hey, those stadiums are huge and will bring billions more than Morroco would! so FIFA is happy, US bid is happy and fans, who cares about fans, it is all about money! let the fans pay huge prices (expected average ticket price in 2026 around 400 $), long distance flights and expensive as hell food and drinks in the stadiums, let them get wet and burn their skin and let them suffer, it is all their own fault in the end, they can watch it in telly as well! and let last 4 hosts look like idiots, after forcing them to build perfect stadiums for association football with some of them white elephants as well!


----------



## Knitemplar

Is there really a large community of Moroccon ex-pats in Holland? How big? Are they even represented on the Football or sports voting bodies? I think there are probably more ex-Indonesians in the Netherlands (than ex-Moroccans) since that is their ex-colony just as I understand (sort of) France's bid, since Morocco is very much aligned with French culture. 

I think the Benelux countries just voted Morocco out of spite for the United bid, since with 48 teams starting in 2026, even a joint Benelux bid would be hard pressed to host 48 teams. The Benelux are poor losers -- or would they actually have wanted to spite Morocco and saddle the unsuspecting country with over-bearing debt?


----------



## Dopersky

*GUADALAJARA*


----------



## Knitemplar

ElvisBC said:


> us stadiums have many issues when it comes to association football, and this world cup will probably be a big step down in stadium quality in FIFA terms (some terrible locations, serious view obstructions and no roofs plus some minor issues) but hey, those stadiums are huge and will bring billions more than Morroco would! so FIFA is happy, US bid is happy and fans, who cares about fans, it is all about money! let the fans pay huge prices (expected average ticket price in 2026 around 400 $), long distance flights and expensive as hell food and drinks in the stadiums, let them get wet and burn their skin and let them suffer, it is all their own fault in the end, they can watch it in telly as well! and let last 4 hosts look like idiots, after forcing them to build perfect stadiums for association football with some of them white elephants as well!


Ever thought of this 

http://www.picshouse2.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7063 

Or play in the evening hours? Imagine the 2026 logo on all of those umbrella-hats!


----------



## ElvisBC

aquamaroon said:


> So here is the stadium which is currently slated to host the World Cup Final: MetLife Stadium in NY/NJ
> 
> Great venue obviously but have to admit, after all these roofed stadia it'll be a little odd to see the World Cup Final in a roofless stadium!


I do not think this is going to happen, FIFA decides on final stadium, so they will chose something else, probably Jerryworld that was proposed as a backup venue for the finals in the bidbook! I wouldn't even exclude LA Rams stadium from the race, even though it was hardly mentioned in the bidbook!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Celebration in the Gilette Stadium


----------



## Rover030

Knitemplar said:


> Is there really a large community of Moroccon ex-pats in Holland? How big? Are they even represented on the Football or spots voting bodies? I think there are more ex-Indonesians in the Netherlands since that is their ex-colony just as I understand (sort of) France's bid, since Morocco is very much aligned with French culture.
> 
> I think the Benelux countries just voted Morocco out of spite for the United bid, since with 48 teams starting in 2026, even a joint Benelux bid would be hard pressed to host 48 teams. The Benelux are poor losers -- or would they actually have wanted to spite Morocco and saddle the unsuspecting country with over-bearing debt?


Check this out. It's in Dutch, but the nations are pretty easy to understand. Moroccans are the second largest non-western immigrant group in the Netherlands after Turks. Many have been here for 3 generations. There are more Dutch people with Indonesian backgrounds (not in this table, they are part of "Westerse migratieachtergrond"), but they are more mixed and often more integrated in Dutch culture, while Moroccans kept more of their own culture.

These accusations of being poor losers or corrupt are unfair. We can be proud of being completely cleared of any corruption (with only 4 lines in the report) for the 2018 bid and we've long moved on. Next to that the FA doesn't want to be corrupt, they are also not sophisticated enough to do something like that. The Dutch FA can be characterised as being a bit spineless, incapable maybe, but not as corrupt.

Moroccans are overrepresented in football, by the way. Not yet as coaches or managers, though. Unfortunately some of them chose to represent Morocco instead of the Netherlands. This move by the KNVB can be interpreted as trying to be more attractive to Moroccans to choose the Netherlands to play for.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Knitemplar said:


> *You* made that "consideration;" not the 2026 Organizing Committee. Why in San Francisco and why in the Chase Center? :nuts: SF at most will only be a quarter-final site and Chase Center isn't even an _official _venue. It will be at the General Assembly Hall of the United Nations.


It's written in the Bid Book, page 430.



> The United Bid recommends San Francisco Bay Area or Los Angeles to host the Final Draw. Both cities offer ultramodern, iconic, and LEED Platinum certified convention facilities and a unique and compelling broadcast
> presence worthy of global attention. The cities also feature major international airports with excellent national and international flights
> allowing easy travel for the participating member associations to the Draw and, immediately following the Draw, to the assigned Host Cities for pre-tournament inspections.


----------



## Knitemplar

CaliforniaJones said:


> It's written in the Bid Book, page 430.


It just says "recommends." A lot of things in the Bid books are quite rough, quite preliminary. When and after the Bid is nailed down, as it has, then they refine parts of it closer to reality. Doing it in San Francisco just doesn't make sense.

But the way the Bid is constructed, the matches move West to East as the tournament winds down, therefore, we are really looking at a New York finals. And I would site the Final Draw Ceremony either at the UN or at Javits Hall there. (But Javits has absolutely no personality nor history -- so it will probably be at the UN.)


----------



## ryebreadraz

Knitemplar said:


> It just says "recommends." A lot of things in the Bid books are quite rough, quite preliminary. When and after the Bid is nailed down, as it has, then they refine parts of it closer to reality. Doing it in San Francisco just doesn't make sense.
> 
> But the way the Bid is constructed, the matches move West to East as the tournament winds down, therefore, we are really looking at a New York finals. And I would site the Final Draw Ceremony either at the UN or at Javits Hall there. (But Javits has absolutely no personality nor history -- so it will probably be at the UN.)


Let's break a couple things down here:

He has cited the bid book, you have cited what you want and have decided it will "probably" be at the UN because that's what you think sounds nice and have dismissed his useful information for your dream world.

Historically, the draw is not held in the same city as the final, so if the final is going to be in New York then the draw likely will not be.

The bid book, while not absolute, is not just a bunch of words haphazardly thrown together. It is deeply considered and the proposals from it come after discussions not just within the committee, but local officials and governments to ensure that it is something the city wants and can pull off.

All things considered, San Francisco and Los Angeles are the likely hosts for the World Cup draw and the Chase Center is very much in play.


----------



## Knitemplar

ryebreadraz said:


> Let's break a couple things down here:
> 
> He has cited the bid book, you have cited what you want and have decided it will "probably" be at the UN because that's what you think sounds nice and have dismissed his useful information for your dream world.
> 
> Historically, the draw is not held in the same city as the final, so if the final is going to be in New York then the draw likely will not be.


So what? There's always _a first_ time. Historically, there have NOT been 3 host countries. 



> The bid book, while not absolute, is not just a bunch of words haphazardly thrown together. It is deeply considered and the proposals from it come after discussions not just within the committee, but local officials and governments to ensure that it is something the city wants and can pull off.
> 
> All things considered, San Francisco and Los Angeles are the likely hosts for the World Cup draw and the Chase Center is very much in play.


I know this Bid Business thingie; I have worked on a number of bid-prep committees plus working actually with LA 1984 and Atlanta 1996. So I know what I speak of. 

1994 was drawn in Las Vegas with the finals in Pasadena. 2026 is looking like an East Coast thing, even with the main Canadian and Mexican host cities. So, I disagree with your post. I don't think the Draw is going to happen on the West Coast. 

We shall see.


----------



## Rover030

This year, the draw was at the Kremlin in Moscow. If they can get a location as prestigious as the UN, I don't see why they wouldn't use it.

On the other hand, there was this idea of having a West to East flow in the knock-out stages (if the final is in NY/NJ). If you're partly advertising the world cup as a "Road to New York", which makes sense because of the additional knock-out round and a more boring group stage, having the draw as far away from New York as possible would make sense.


----------



## Knitemplar

Rover030 said:


> This year, the draw was at the Kremlin in Moscow. If they can get a location as prestigious as the UN, I don't see why they wouldn't use it.
> 
> On the other hand, there was this idea of having a West to East flow in the knock-out stages (if the final is in NY/NJ). If you're partly advertising the world cup as a "Road to New York", which makes sense because of the additional knock-out round and a more boring group stage, having the draw as far away from New York as possible would make sense.


The way I see it, it's having a Final Draw setting that is prestigious, iconic and sends positive messages to what it's all about and what it'll come down to. Plus, remember, 2026 will be the 250th Birthday Party of the USA, so say, having it at the UN not only confers a truly international glow to the entire tournament, PLUS it will serve as a balance to the great red-white-&-blue hoopla that will happen wherever Team USA will play.

Also, if they don't do the UN thing now -- when else will they do it? The UN's alternate headquarters are in Geneva -- and when will Switzerland lead host another major international sporting event? They just put a kibosh on WOG 2026. So . . .


----------



## pesto

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tenders/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9765de21a4a6

A few interesting thoughts here: Vancouver and Chicago are both still alive; Boston is for sure; Seattle is a contender, even though geography will be a major consideration.

Vancouver and Seattle makes some sense as a pairing. But that many matches in the NW, means other areas with larger populations may be skipped over. 

In summary: 4 certain: NJ, LA, Dallas, Boston

9 contenders: Atlanta, Washington, Houston, Miami, Seattle, SJ, Philly, Denver, Orlando

That's already 13 plus Chicago so I will skip the longshots. That means 4 may have to be cut given Chicago's appeal and excellent location near 40M or so people.


----------



## Calvin W

Vancouver will not be involved. The city and the province will not contribute one cent for this. The USA going to foot the bill? Fifa?


----------



## pesto

Calvin W said:


> Vancouver will not be involved. The city and the province will not contribute one cent for this. The USA going to foot the bill? Fifa?


I would assume that the United group would work with Canada, Vancouver and BC to see what the issues are. After all, NY, LA, Toronto and hundreds of cities all over the world have previously signed up. 

Not sure why the US would get involved unless Canada wants out in which case the US would grab as many cities as possible.

But, if Vancouver is not in, then it's presumably Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto.


----------



## Dopersky

CaliforniaJones said:


> Make your choices for Competition-Related Events Venues.
> 
> Preliminary Draw
> 
> *Miami Beach Convention Center*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Walter E. Washington Convention Center*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How awesome is North America for god's sake.
> 
> Final Draw
> 
> *Chase Center, San Francisco Bay Area*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Los Angeles Live Event Spaces, Los Angeles*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIFA Congress
> 
> *Centro Citibanamex, Convention and Exhibition Center, Mexico City*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Los Angeles Convention Center, Los Angeles*


How awesome is North America for God's sake.


----------



## Calvin W

pesto said:


> I would assume that the United group would work with Canada, Vancouver and BC to see what the issues are. After all, NY, LA, Toronto and hundreds of cities all over the world have previously signed up.
> 
> Not sure why the US would get involved unless Canada wants out in which case the US would grab as many cities as possible.
> 
> But, if Vancouver is not in, then it's presumably Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto.


Maybe more importantly why is Chicago not in the mix? When a top 5 city in the USA doesn't want to be involved, I would say that is a major issue.


----------



## will101

Calvin W said:


> Vancouver will not be involved. The city and the province will not contribute one cent for this. The USA going to foot the bill? Fifa?


Why on Earth not? The FIFA Congress is the ultimate in wealthy conventions. ~1,000 people willing to spend for the very best, and posing little risk of going berserk and rioting in the streets. The mountains would be echoing with the sound of cash registers ringing. San Jose would install gold faucets to attract this gig.


----------



## pesto

Calvin W said:


> Maybe more importantly why is Chicago not in the mix? When a top 5 city in the USA doesn't want to be involved, I would say that is a major issue.


When hundreds are in and a few are out you can usually smell politics. LA initially had issues since there was a group within the city council that wants to show it's tough on costs and smelled some political hay to be made. Plus the actual matches won't be in LA at all (Inglewood or Pasadena) so some clarification was legitimately needed.

In the end, private parties agreed to absorb the potential cost exposures. These included AEG and LAFC, who will get not just revenues but brand exposure you just can't get at any price.


----------



## Knitemplar

Calvin W said:


> Maybe more importantly why is Chicago not in the mix? When a top 5 city in the USA doesn't want to be involved, I would say that is a major issue.


I think that's misguided "il-logic." Like many things in the US, the WC is a "free choice" thing. Chicago, of their own volition, chose not to participate. It's entirely their decision; and you must respect it somehow. 

Maybe Chicago already had its fill in 1994? Besides, it's not like there will be lack of capable host cities. Chicago's, Vancouver's MNPLS' losses are other cities' gain.


----------



## master_klon

Not really a big deal that Vancouver didn't want their name in the hat. As a result though, Edmonton and Seattle will surely both be locks to be two of the hosting cities.


----------



## FCIM

pesto said:


> I would assume that the United group would work with Canada, Vancouver and BC to see what the issues are. After all, NY, LA, Toronto and hundreds of cities all over the world have previously signed up.
> 
> Not sure why the US would get involved unless Canada wants out in which case the US would grab as many cities as possible.
> 
> But, if Vancouver is not in, then it's presumably Edmonton, Montreal and Toronto.


They had their chance. 

It wouldn't be fair to the other cities to let them back in, now that the United bid has won. 

However, one could possibly see a situation where Edmonton doesnt meet FIFA expectations and its replaced by a US city.


----------



## Guest

believe it or not, it doesnt make one lick of difference who hosts. and even less so when chicagos proposed stadium seats 60000, a number you can regularly beat in markets a tenth the size of chicago. 

stadiums will be full, ticket prices will be the same, and all proposed cities can easily handle tourist influx. 

people in chicago will be aware that an event is going on, it’s not as if the WC needs a presence in any one city to resonate. 

in most host nations, there is an obvious list of cities that must be in. thats not the case here. there are 40+ cities that are practically indistinguishable in what theyll bring to the table. 

chicago wont be missed.


----------



## Guest

with 7 US cities getting the axe, my guess is final 10 are:

LA
NY
Dallas
Houston
Seattle
SF
Denver
Miami
Atlanta
Philadelphia (unless chicago actually sneaks back in [it shouldnt])


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> with 7 US cities getting the axe, my guess is final 10 are:
> 
> LA
> NY
> Dallas
> Houston
> Seattle
> SF
> Denver
> Miami
> Atlanta
> Philadelphia (unless chicago actually sneaks back in [it shouldnt])


Denver and Seattle over Boston and DC is a bold prediction. Especially at the 4th of July where the US iconography runs deep (Tea Party's, Paul Revere, White House, Capitol Dome, Washington Mon., Lincoln Mem. etc., etc.).


----------



## pesto

FCIM said:


> They had their chance.
> 
> It wouldn't be fair to the other cities to let them back in, now that the United bid has won.
> 
> However, one could possibly see a situation where Edmonton doesnt meet FIFA expectations and its replaced by a US city.


At a gut level I agree. But at a business level, you look around for who's the best and then see what it takes to get them.

Everyone seems agreed that Chicago and Vancouver are great tourist cities, have soccer connections, and good facilities. Plus Chicago is located where there is a large population with no WC cities near by, basically Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Minnesota. Well over 40M people.


----------



## pesto

master_klon said:


> Not really a big deal that Vancouver didn't want their name in the hat. As a result though, Edmonton and Seattle will surely both be locks to be two of the hosting cities.


Edmonton is very remote. Seattle less so, but still remote. I'm not saying they won't get in, but, again, you have to drop two of the following to fit them in.

NY
LA
Dallas
Boston
Atlanta
DC/Balt
Miami
SJ/SF
Chicago
Houston
Philly


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> This year, the draw was at the Kremlin in Moscow. If they can get a location as prestigious as the UN, I don't see why they wouldn't use it.
> 
> On the other hand, there was this idea of having a West to East flow in the knock-out stages (if the final is in NY/NJ). If you're partly advertising the world cup as a "Road to New York", which makes sense because of the additional knock-out round and a more boring group stage, having the draw as far away from New York as possible would make sense.


Honolulu?


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> The way I see it, it's having a Final Draw setting that is prestigious, iconic and sends positive messages to what it's all about and what it'll come down to. Plus, remember, 2026 will be the 250th Birthday Party of the USA, so say, having it at the UN not only confers a truly international glow to the entire tournament, PLUS it will serve as a balance to the great red-white-&-blue hoopla that will happen wherever Team USA will play.
> 
> Also, if they don't do the UN thing now -- when else will they do it? The UN's alternate headquarters are in Geneva -- and when will Switzerland lead host another major international sporting event? They just put a kibosh on WOG 2026. So . . .


The UN has some old timey symbolism and cache in the 3rd world so it would be a nice touch. And, unlike MetLife Stadium, it is in NY.

Chase Center sounds a bit off the wall, having no significance and being 9 years old by then. However, it would serve to pull SF into an event that is otherwise focused 40 miles south in SJ/Santa Clara.

LA has not just the adjacent Convention Center and LA Live/Staples Center but also Inglewood, which will include Rams/Chargers Stadium, two 20k venues (the Forum and the Clippers new stadium) and a 6k venue. Very convenient to LAX.

Sounds like a variety of possible choices just in those 3 metros.


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> Edmonton is very remote. Seattle less so, but still remote. I'm not saying they won't get in, but, again, you have to drop two of the following to fit them in.
> 
> NY
> LA
> Dallas
> Boston
> Atlanta
> DC/Balt
> Miami
> SJ/SF
> Chicago
> Houston
> Philly


I sort of agree on that list but should Chicago not get in, maybe Cincinnati for the Midwest? Is there a strong MLS franchise in Cincinnati? Do they have a good soccer/football stadium there?


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> The UN has some old timey symbolism and cache in the 3rd world so it would be a nice touch. And, unlike MetLife Stadium, it is in NY.


Also, for NYC, if it doesn't work out for the UN, there's *Radio City Music Hall* -- quite glitzy but definitely a New York City icon; and they can do a really gang-bang of a show with the Rockettes and a giant LED screen for the backdrop. :banana: No need to install one here. Radio City seats 6,000 -- more than enough for the needs of the FD.

A 3rd option is also, the *Metropolitan Opera House @ Lincoln Center*. Seats 3,800.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> I sort of agree on that list but should Chicago not get in, maybe Cincinnati for the Midwest? Is there a strong MLC franchise in Cincinnati? Do they have a good soccer/football stadium there?


I don't necessarily agree with the list either, but the point is to focus on who you would drop and why, because there are plenty of good choices.

If no Chicago, then KC, Cincy or Nashville would have to get some consideration. All are on the list and therefore should be able to host. Cincy seems closer to more people but has no MLS franchise at the moment. Could change by 2026.

And, again, even if you drop Chicago you have to drop one more to let Cincy in. Two if you think Orlando is getting in. :lol:


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> Cincy seems closer to more people but has no MLS franchise at the moment. Could change by 2026.


Cincinnati will be playing in MLS next year.


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> Cincinnati will be playing in MLS next year.


True, I should have added that! I focused on the reality as of today but that piece seems very likely to change by next year (like so many other things).


----------



## Knitemplar

ryebreadraz said:


> Let's break a couple things down here:
> 
> He has cited the bid book, you have cited what you want and have decided it will "probably" be at the UN because that's what you think sounds nice and have dismissed his useful information for your dream world.
> 
> Historically, the draw is not held in the same city as the final, so if the final is going to be in New York then the draw likely will not be.
> 
> The bid book, while not absolute, is not just a bunch of words haphazardly thrown together. It is deeply considered and the proposals from it come after discussions not just within the committee, but local officials and governments to ensure that it is something the city wants and can pull off.
> .


See the link for the latest in venue-switching for Paris 2024, which again, is proof that departures from their 2024 bid book happen; and that if better alternatives come up later, organizers will purposely depart from the original scenario -- which is NOT locked in stone. 

https://www.insidethegames.biz/arti...rst-day-for-ioc-coordination-commission-visit


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Also, for NYC, if it doesn't work out for the UN, there's *Radio City Music Hall* -- quite glitzy but definitely a New York City icon; and they can do a really gang-bang of a show with the Rockettes and a giant LED screen for the backdrop. :banana: No need to install one here. Radio City seats 6,000 -- more than enough for the needs of the FD.
> 
> A 3rd option is also, the *Metropolitan Opera House @ Lincoln Center*. Seats 3,800.


DC is, after all, the nation's capital so maybe something there makes more sense. NY/NJ is already getting the finals so little need to put more stuff there.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> See the link for the latest in venue-switching for Paris 2024, which again, is proof that departures from their 2024 bid book happen; and that if better alternatives come up later, organizers will purposely depart from the original scenario -- which is NOT locked in stone.
> 
> https://www.insidethegames.biz/arti...rst-day-for-ioc-coordination-commission-visit


Paris is just trying to show that Tokyo isn't the only one that can smash budgets. :lol:

But of course changes of venues and pushback from others is going to be a hallmark of any pluralistic country. That's why authoritarian regimes are so useful to the Olympic and WC organizers.


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> DC is, after all, the nation's capital so maybe something there makes more sense. NY/NJ is already getting the finals so little need to put more stuff there.


Symbolically, NOT good. Remember, it's three sovereign countries which start out hosting the tournament. Doing the FD in DC kinda pre-empts the participation of Canada and Mexico; so I would say, no go.

Besides, DC is like Brasilia, or Canberra, Pretoria, even the old Bonn. BORING towns, strictly exist for federal business and nothing else. No fun. 

So, because it is a North American tournament (even for starters), I think the UN grounds in New York would be the most representative and appropriate for the enterprise. I don't see how holding the all-important draw in DC can add value to the World Cup.


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> Denver and Seattle over Boston and DC is a bold prediction. Especially at the 4th of July where the US iconography runs deep (Tea Party's, Paul Revere, White House, Capitol Dome, Washington Mon., Lincoln Mem. etc., etc.).


Completely forgot Boston. Swap in Boston for Philadelphia. Even if Linc is much better than Gillete. 

But with Toronto and Montreal in, the idea of NY, DC, Phil, Boston all together seems very unlikely. Or even three of those. Two seems right. 

Denver and Seattle are in as they add in geographic spread with great stadiums (cant say the same for DC).

of course, all this goes to show how ridiculous the venue hosting rules are (or United’s decision to host in just 16 cities). for nations that have the existing stadiums in place, what reason does one venue have to host 5 or 6 games. it’s not that far from philadelphia to dc or pittsburgh. couldve easily spread the love.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Knitemplar said:


> Besides, DC is like Brasilia, or Canberra, Pretoria, even the old Bonn. BORING towns, strictly exist for federal business and nothing else. No fun.


I wouldn't say DC is boring. It's fabric is different than many cities but it has plenty of things to see around town, a strong rail network for accessibility and a very good parks system. More importantly, we have to think about this from the tourists' perspective. DC is the kind of place many visitors will come explicitly to see versus, say, my own city of Atlanta.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Symbolically, NOT good. Remember, it's three sovereign countries which start out hosting the tournament. Doing the FD in DC kinda pre-empts the participation of Canada and Mexico; so I would say, no go.
> 
> Besides, DC is like Brasilia, or Canberra, Pretoria, even the old Bonn. BORING towns, strictly exist for federal business and nothing else. No fun.
> 
> So, because it is a North American tournament (even for starters), I think the UN grounds in New York would be the most representative and appropriate for the enterprise. I don't see how holding the all-important draw in DC can add value to the World Cup.


You are 30 years behind the times. DC is a center for the arts, restaurants, sports, live theater and museums and, of course tours of the Treasury, FBI, Pentagon and many other sites. Not NY but holds its own with any other city in the Americas.

I would have no issue with holding events in Mexico City or Ottawa and I assume there will be some. And, of course, the US playing someone in DC on July 4 is just too obvious to miss (assuming the US makes it in).


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> You are 30 years behind the times. DC is a center for the arts, restaurants, sports, live theater and museums and, of course tours of the Treasury, FBI, Pentagon and many other sites. Not NY but holds its own with any other city in the Americas.
> 
> .


You can keep it. It's B-O-R-I-N-G and swampy in the summer, to say the least.


----------



## Rover030

From my foreign perspective, Washington DC is the capital and has the White House etc., while cities like Houston, Dallas, Denver and Atlanta look more or less interchangeable (just like midsized cities in other countries). I know there are differences between those cities and the people that live in them, but you could shoot a movie in one of those 4 cities and tell it's in any of the 3 others and at least 80% of non-Americans would believe you. Can't do that with Washington DC.


----------



## ElvisBC

Great we can talk stadiums again, and all those trolls are long gone :wave: kay:

About stadiums, I have a strong feeling Orlando could be the surprise, apart from that there will be usual suspects. And I do not see FedEx Field selected in any universe, capital or no capital, it won't matter! And I am absolutely sure FIFA will not select uncovered stadium as a final venue. But that's all nur guessing game, still long way to go, we'll find it out at some point.

I am also looking forward to see the gameplan and find out how they intend to move the games towards east cost as the cup progresses!


----------



## Rover030

^^ I thought the assumption in this discussion was that DC is getting a new stadium before the world cup. I don't think FIFA would select them if they can't make as much money with the current stadium compared to other cities.


----------



## FCIM

ElvisBC said:


> Great we can talk stadiums again, and all those trolls are long gone :wave: kay:
> 
> About stadiums, I have a strong feeling Orlando could be the surprise, apart from that there will be usual suspects. *And I do not see FedEx Field selected in any universe, capital or no capital, it won't matter! *And I am absolutely sure FIFA will not select uncovered stadium as a final venue. But that's all nur guessing game, still long way to go, we'll find it out at some point.
> 
> I am also looking forward to see the gameplan and find out how they intend to move the games towards east cost as the cup progresses!


Even the Redksins want out of Fedex field. If they can get a new stadium prior to 2026, then they'd be in with a better chance.


I was at the Copa America Centenario Final in NY. Had a blast and awesome stadium. Getting there on the trains though was pretty ordinary. So uncovered stadium wasnt that bad. 

Saying that, the 2hr delay due to storms in the semi final in Chicago is something FIFA would absolutely want to avoid. 

It is a reminder of the weather issues that can occur in parts of the US during summer. I'd imagine it might be a factor with kick off times.


----------



## JohnDee

Joakim3 said:


> I mean I love DC as much as the next person but you are 100% right... FedEx is such a poor stadium
> 
> 
> 
> An alternative would be to host DC's games at Baltimore M&T Bank. It's a million times better then FedEx in regards to the stadium/experience itself and is located in a _substantially_ better area relative to it's parent city (Horseshoe Casino/Camden Yards/Inner Harbor/etc). When you account that Baltimore is 37 miles from DC a person can make that drive in under an hour or use the MARC train if need be
> 
> 
> Try getting across _just_ downtown DC in under an hour, and that's before you jump on the hell hole that is the 495 Beltway.
> 
> 
> Still I hope DC gets it's stadium BS together


Baltimore is the murder capital of the country right now. Let's not reward that city with their incompetent city government.


----------



## JohnDee

Knitemplar said:


> You can keep it. It's B-O-R-I-N-G and swampy in the summer, to say the least.


Your opinion.
Dc is not boring anymore, this is not 1955.. Yes, if you come from NYC or LA, it will be. Howeer, most people don't come from those cities and live in suburbs like Dallas or Houston. Walk around Downtown Dc and then go to Denver. Which city is more urbane? Dc is every bit as fun as any mid sized US city and more so because it has unique attractions that they lack.


The world cup is going to frikkin DC, it's the capital of the country.


----------



## Rover030

JohnDee said:


> Baltimore is the murder capital of the country right now. Let's not reward that city with their incompetent city government.


Luckily for the United bid this wasn't and isn't a serious consideration. Of all of the Canadese provinces and Mexican and American states, only 3 have a murder rate lower than Morocco. Imagine if FIFA had said: "Let's not reward those countries with their incompetent governments," because of that.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> Luckily for the United bid this wasn't and isn't a serious consideration. Of all of the Canadese provinces and Mexican and American states, only 3 have a murder rate lower than Morocco. Imagine if FIFA had said: "Let's not reward those countries with their incompetent governments," because of that.


I would use "Canadian" but maybe you are going for French Canadian?


----------



## Rover030

^^ Coincidentally, Quebec is one of the provinces with the lower crime rate. It was a mistake because in Dutch it's "Canadees/Canadese" so it sounded right in my head.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> ^^ Coincidentally, Quebec is one of the provinces with the lower crime rate. It was a mistake because in Dutch it's "Canadees/Canadese" so it sounded right in my head.


You could use Canuck as well when referring to a person. Unlike many informal names it carries no negative implication I know of. In forex dealings the Canadian dollar was always Canuckers or Loonies.


----------



## Knitemplar

OK, just got word from my source inside WC2026, it will definitely be Orlando over Miami because of this -- the World's Tallest Roller Coaster will have its home in Orlando. FIFA Board members will be treated free on its inauguration. See simulated ride. 

http://spacecoastdaily.com/2017/03/...ter-coming-to-international-drive-in-orlando/


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> OK, just got word from my source inside WC2026, it will definitely be Orlando over Miami because of this -- the World's Tallest Roller Coaster will have its home in Orlando. FIFA Board members will be treated free on its inauguration. See simulated ride.
> 
> http://spacecoastdaily.com/2017/03/...ter-coming-to-international-drive-in-orlando/


Every little bit helps. :lol:


----------



## Dopersky

Quebecois in Quebec, Canucks the rest


----------



## pesto

Dopersky said:


> Quebecois in Quebec, Canucks the rest


For sure! There are actually 4 countries in the United Bid. :lol:


----------



## Knitemplar

^^ hno:

You forgot the First Nations of Canada + the United Tribes of the USA. So, I would say, THIRTY-SIX nations. :tongue:


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> ^^ hno:
> 
> You forgot the First Nations of Canada + the United Tribes of the USA. So, I would say, THIRTY-SIX nations. :tongue:


And you forgot the 626 which is New Asia. And NYC which is another planet, :lol:


----------



## SounderBruce

Knitemplar said:


> ^^ hno:
> 
> You forgot the First Nations of Canada + the United Tribes of the USA. So, I would say, THIRTY-SIX nations. :tongue:


There is no such thing as the "United Tribes"...there are 567 federally recognized Native American tribes, 326 reservations and homeland trusts, and thousands of unrecognized groups. They are their own sovereign, individual nations and are not to be grouped together haphazardly.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Knite was being sarcastic, Bruce.

Okay, gents, time to move past the sidebar. Back on topic, please.


----------



## Aminjumi

Is there any chance for Viking's stadium and Vegas stadium to get involved in 2026?


----------



## pesto

Aminjumi said:


> Is there any chance for Viking's stadium and Vegas stadium to get involved in 2026?


Most people believe that FIFA will look about for the best stadiums regardless of what the formal bid specified.

LV might very well have been held out of the bid due to its not being complete at that time. LV is iconic and a worldwide tourist magnet.

Minneapolis refused to sign up so they need further negotiations and their location and size just aren't that appealing. Chicago, if available would seem a better choice. But they still have a chance if they can market themselves.

Again, with only 10 US cities, who do you squeeze out?


----------



## Lumbergo

pesto said:


> Most people believe that FIFA will look about for the best stadiums regardless of what the formal bid specified.
> 
> LV might very well have been held out of the bid due to its not being complete at that time. LV is iconic and a worldwide tourist magnet.
> 
> Minneapolis refused to sign up so they need further negotiations and their location and size just aren't that appealing. Chicago, if available would seem a better choice. But they still have a chance if they can market themselves.
> 
> Again, with only 10 US cities, who do you squeeze out?


something like this would be a pretty fair spread:

Miami
Atlanta
Dallas or Houston
Las Vegas
Minneapolis or Chicago
Los Angeles
New York 
Seattle
Denver
Philadelphia or Washington DC


----------



## Naiansilva

In this news item they say about some cities that may be included

"The Canadian cities included in the bid are Edmonton, Montréal and Toronto, while the Mexican cities are Guadalajara, Mexico City and Monterrey. Cities selected as candidates for the US include Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York/New Jersey, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle and Washington DC.

Three cities— Chicago, Minneapolis and Vancouver— stated on Wednesday that they would drop out of contention for the bid, citing uncertainty regarding the public funds needed to host World Cup matches. Minneapolis also said money concerns were a factor involved in its exit from the bid.

Other cities removed from the last update provided by United 2026 in October include the US cities of Charlotte, Detroit, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Tampa."


http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/united-2026-announces-23-world-cup-host-cities


----------



## Dopersky

So, that's all folks


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Potential U.S. 2026 World Cup host cities, ranked 1-17



> The 2026 World Cup is coming to North America. Specifically, to the United States, Canada and Mexico. And the natural follow-up question is: Where exactly in the United States, Canada and Mexico will games be played.
> 
> For the U.S.’s neighbors, the decision has already been made. Canada will spread its 10 games around to Toronto, Montreal and Edmonton. Mexico will put its 10 in Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey.


Yahoo


----------



## CaliforniaJones

U.S. Soccer President Carlos Cordeiro: ‘There’s no timeline’ on hiring new coach



> Cordeiro has been in Russia since the bid vote, joining FIFA delegations attending matches around the country. It has allowed him to observe operations and continue discussions with FIFA leaders.
> 
> Cordeiro and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts, Decio de Maria and Steven Reed, chaired the bid campaign.
> 
> The United States is slated to host 60 of 80 matches in a tournament that in 2026 will expand to 48 teams from 32. Mexico and Canada will stage 10 games apiece.
> 
> Planning for the event will begin in earnest in September or October, Cordeiro said.
> 
> “We’re now working with FIFA as opposed to trying to convince them we are the better of the two candidates,” he said. “It will take on a cooperative, collaborative effort and not a competitive effort. We’re all on the same page: We want the best possible 2026 World Cup.”
> 
> While efforts behind the scenes will continue for almost eight years, the most visible issue is the selection of 16 venues from 23 metro areas. In consultation with the North American group, FIFA is aiming to make those decisions by December 2020.
> 
> Aside from the clear front-runners, such as New York, Los Angeles and Mexico City, FIFA will take geography into account. The goal is to minimize travel for the 16 three-team groups.
> 
> The United States will have between 10 and 12 venues, while Mexico and Canada will get two or three apiece.
> 
> FIFA could ask North American organizers to consider other cities, such as Chicago and Vancouver, which withdrew this year after souring on FIFA’s contractual requirements.
> 
> Said Cordeiro: “On one hand, anything is possible. On the other hand, is it [most] fair to the 23 that have been through the process? I never say never. At the end of the day, it’s FIFA’s tournament. They can change their minds on anything, but I’d like to think there would be respect for the 23 who have jumped through the hoops.”
> 
> FIFA President Gianni Infantino might visit the White House in the next year to discuss the buildup to the tournament, Cordeiro said. The bid’s success had hinged in part on assurances from the federal government regarding security needs and access to visas for thousands of fans from around the world.
> 
> Additionally, Cordeiro said North American organizers would recommend something similar to the Fan ID program used this summer in Russia. It’s essentially a preapproved security clearance at stadiums for ticket buyers.
> 
> With some fans traveling between three nations in 2026, Cordeiro said he hopes such a program would allow multiple entries into a country.
> 
> Addressing whether FIFA will grant automatic bids to all three host teams, Cordeiro said: “They want to grow the game. For them to have a successful tournament in North America, you can’t favor one out of three or two out of three. You’ve got to have all three or none. And you’re not going to have none because you are at the risk of one or two not qualifying. I think logic will prevail.”
> 
> Even with all three automatically qualified, the Concacaf region still would receive at least three additional slots in the expanded field.


Washington Post


----------



## pesto

Lumbergo said:


> something like this would be a pretty fair spread:
> 
> Miami
> Atlanta
> Dallas or Houston
> Las Vegas
> Minneapolis or Chicago
> Los Angeles
> New York
> Seattle
> Denver
> Philadelphia or Washington DC


Lots of opinion here, of course. But, leaving out SF/SJ and Boston for Seattle or Denver?


----------



## pesto

Naiansilva said:


> In this news item they say about some cities that may be included
> 
> "The Canadian cities included in the bid are Edmonton, Montréal and Toronto, while the Mexican cities are Guadalajara, Mexico City and Monterrey. Cities selected as candidates for the US include Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York/New Jersey, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle and Washington DC.
> 
> Three cities— Chicago, Minneapolis and Vancouver— stated on Wednesday that they would drop out of contention for the bid, citing uncertainty regarding the public funds needed to host World Cup matches. Minneapolis also said money concerns were a factor involved in its exit from the bid.
> 
> Other cities removed from the last update provided by United 2026 in October include the US cities of Charlotte, Detroit, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake City and Tampa."
> 
> 
> http://www.sportspromedia.com/news/united-2026-announces-23-world-cup-host-cities


That's kind of old news. Since then FIFA and the United Bid people have suggested that the stadiums on the bid and the stadiums finally used may be different. 

Some think that stadiums under construction were intentionally left out so as to have a higher score; some cities not on the list may find a way to accept FIFA's terms; new developments may occur that make some city more or less desirable. So Chicago, LV, Inglewood Stadium and Vancouver seem to still have some potential for getting in.


----------



## Knitemplar

Just looking @ the 2016-17 average attendance records of the MLS franchises, I think this would give an indication of who will likely get in as a Final 2026 host city:

Atlanta (48,200)
Seattle (43,666) - Seattle should take care of the NW area if Vancouver wants out
Toronto FC (27K+)
Orlando (25K)
New York (22,600)
LA Galaxy (22,200)
(Vancouver - 21K)
NYC Red Bulls (21K)
Portland (21K)
Minnesota
Montreal
San Jose
Kansas City
Boston 

Just going by these stats, with 2 teams in the NYC area, I think the Finals will definitely be awarded to NYC. So, insofar as geographic / population distribution / "host city ambiance" / infrastructure / MLS rewards, for the US, I would venture to guess:

NYC, LA, SF/SJ Bay Area, Orlando, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, Boston. I think the 10th US spot would be decided between Denver and Chicago (if they will let Chicago back in).

So that would be 3 for the West Coast, two for Texas, two for the South, two for the NE, and the toss-up either for the Mountain states or the Great Lakes area.


----------



## FCIM

Thinking about what Codeiro has said, I would honestly go for 12 venues in the usa, 2 in Mexico and 2 in Canada. 

I also agree with him that those who jumped through the hoops, should get the respect of being a host city, rather than letting others now back in the mix.


----------



## Knitemplar

FCIM said:


> Thinking about what Codeiro has said, I would honestly go for 12 venues in the usa, 2 in Mexico and 2 in Canada.


But it's FIFA that has initially said they only want 10 venues in the US. The 3 sites for Canada and Mexico are for optics. So the way it would work out, would be 9 teams each for Canada and Mexico, leaving 30 teams for the US, div. by 3 = ten host cities.

It's Canada's problem to get Vancouver (or maybe Victoria) back in the game over very remote Edmonton. But if Vancouver is in there, that might weaken Seattle's position. So maybe 3 Nordic teams can be assigned to Nanook of the North, Edmonton. :nuts:


----------



## pesto

Just looking @ the 2016-17 average attendance records of the MLS franchises, I think this would give an indication of who will likely get in as a Final 2026 host city:

Atlanta (48,200)
Seattle (43,666) - Seattle should take care of the NW area if Vancouver wants out
Toronto FC (27K+)
Orlando (25K)
New York (22,600)
LA Galaxy (22,200)
(Vancouver - 21K)
NYC Red Bulls (21K)
Portland (21K)
Minnesota
Montreal
San Jose
Kansas City
Boston 
-----------------------------------

Why does FIFA care about MLS's locations? And are you saying Dallas AND Houston AND Chicago are out and Portland and KC in? Seems a bit heavy in the NW with Portland, Seattle, Vancouver. And KC seems to have geographic problems as well (unless they get the Texas crowd).


----------



## pesto

FCIM said:


> Thinking about what Codeiro has said, I would honestly go for 12 venues in the usa, 2 in Mexico and 2 in Canada.
> 
> I also agree with him that those who jumped through the hoops, should get the respect of being a host city, rather than letting others now back in the mix.


The deal was said to be 10 matches and 3 sites (although subject to change). Mexico looks solid but Canada may only get 2. FIFA and United keep talking "geography" and the obvious problem is Edmonton. Vancouver remains to be seen. 

I doubt anyone outside the 23 is going to be brought in. But LV and Chicago appear to be at least alive at this point.

Several people on the internet seem to think it's Orlando over Miami. Either is OK with me, but both would be a lot of sticky weather.


----------



## Rover030

Why would they select Orlando over Miami? I'd guess FIFA select Miami over Orlando for multiple reasons. First, the stadium in Miami is better. The bid evaluation report gave Miami's stadium 4.3 points and 4.1 points for Orlando. 4.1 is the median, mean and mode score, while only Houston, San Francisco and Miami score 4.3, with Denver scoring 4.4. So it's a bigger difference than it seems.

On accommodation and transport combined, they score similar: Miami 5.0 and 4.0, Orlando 4.9 and 4.1. These scores are far above average. On Fan Fest they both scored 3.5, which is below average.

Interest in the sport in Miami is fine, Real Madrid, Barcelona and the International Champions Cup didn't select the location for no reason for their friendly Clasico. It's internationally more known than Orlando, of course.

So what are the reasons to prefer Orlando? Travel distance? Disney World?

Evaluation report PDF


----------



## aquamaroon

Rover030 said:


> Why would they select Orlando over Miami? I'd guess FIFA select Miami over Orlando for multiple reasons. First, the stadium in Miami is better. The bid evaluation report gave Miami's stadium 4.3 points and 4.1 points for Orlando. 4.1 is the median, mean and mode score, while only Houston, San Francisco and Miami score 4.3, with Denver scoring 4.4. So it's a bigger difference than it seems.



Wow Denver scored a higher bid than the rest? That's impressive! Especially for a stadium with no roof for the spectators.

As to your larger point, yes it's hard to imagine Orlando supplanting Miami for a variety of reasons (outside of MLS support I guess.)


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> Why would they select Orlando over Miami? I'd guess FIFA select Miami over Orlando for multiple reasons. First, the stadium in Miami is better. The bid evaluation report gave Miami's stadium 4.3 points and 4.1 points for Orlando. 4.1 is the median, mean and mode score, while only Houston, San Francisco and Miami score 4.3, with Denver scoring 4.4. So it's a bigger difference than it seems.
> 
> On accommodation and transport combined, they score similar: Miami 5.0 and 4.0, Orlando 4.9 and 4.1. These scores are far above average. On Fan Fest they both scored 3.5, which is below average.
> 
> Interest in the sport in Miami is fine, Real Madrid, Barcelona and the International Champions Cup didn't select the location for no reason for their friendly Clasico. It's internationally more known than Orlando, of course.
> 
> So what are the reasons to prefer Orlando? Travel distance? Disney World?
> 
> Evaluation report PDF


Yes, basically because of the closer proximity to Atlanta and DC which allows for formation of groups and because of the more family-friendly environment of Orlando; less likelihood of drugs, thugs and trouble.

But, again, these were miscellaneous commentators; I personally would guess Miami over Orlando, but I don't have access to marketing studies of potential visitors. I only mentioned it because it is the other end of the "geography" issue along with Seattle.

Just as a side comment, I would guess that stadium scores are irrelevant except in the most egregious cases. More relevant is appeal to tourists, how it looks on TV, celebs, historical tie-ins for July 4 and such.


----------



## Knitemplar

Real alligators and pythons in Miami; fake ones in Orlando.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Real alligators and pythons in Miami; fake ones in Orlando.


Powerful mouse in Orlando.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> The problem is location: either you include Seattle and have too many matches in a small a area; or you exclude one and get a remote location.


The issue has nothing to do with location. The regional governments in Vancouver and British Columbia refused to sign the hosting contract that said they would pay all costs of hosting the WC while FIFA takes all of the revenue.

Vancouver's hotels and restaurants are already near capacity during the summer, so they gain nothing economically by hosting. Any added world cup tourists would simply displace their regular Alaskan cruisers and ecotourists. That's true for Seattle as well, but the mayor here needs votes, so she is willing to pay for _panem et circensis_.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> The issue has nothing to do with location. The regional governments in Vancouver and British Columbia refused to sign the hosting contract that said they would pay all costs of hosting the WC while FIFA takes all of the revenue.
> 
> Vancouver's hotels and restaurants are already near capacity during the summer, so they gain nothing economically by hosting. Any added world cup tourists would simply displace their regular Alaskan cruisers and ecotourists. That's true for Seattle as well, but the mayor here needs votes, so she is willing to pay for _panem et circensis_.


The economics and politics may be true, but FIFA's issues are whether both Vancouver and Seattle makes sense (I say, perhaps not because that's too many matches in a remote area); and whether one of Vancouver or Seattle makes sense (I say, perhaps not, because they are too remote). 

If Vancouver is definitely out the issue reduces to whether Seattle is too remote given that FIFA and the United people are concerned about "geography". Plus we have our usual question of which city you would dump (Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston?).


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> Amanda Vandervort
> ‏
> 
> @vandey01
> Follow Follow @vandey01
> More
> Congrats again to the entire @united2026 team for bringing the #WorldCup to the &#55356;&#56826;&#55356;&#56824;+&#55356;&#56808;&#55356;&#56806;+&#55356;&#56818;&#55356;&#56829;. I was honored to make a cake for your last day in the office and will miss having you here! THANK YOU for the energy, vision & commitment you brought to this entire process #United2026


----------



## Dopersky

Im convinced, 2026 WC will be the greatest ever!


----------



## pesto

Dopersky said:


> Im convinced, 2026 WC will be the greatest ever!


Certainly could be. Some countries have one great city and then its Boringburg and Nowhereville for the other venues. The United bid provides at least 10 cities of legitimate interest (although I won't make the mistake of specifying them :lol.

Stadiums will be exceptional and huge numbers of seats available; hotels first rate (unless you intentionally choose bad ones); transportation easy (public transit, Lyft/Uber, car rental are all cheap). 

As I have said before, if you don't deal drugs or get into fights in dive bars, you will have a great time.


----------



## SounderBruce

The transit situation in a lot of cities isn't quite world class. We have a long ways to go to get close to the kind of inter-city and intra-city transit that Western Europe and East Asia boast.


----------



## The Game Is Up

10 Stadiums That Need To Host World Cup Games In 2026 And 10 FIFA Should Avoid

https://www.thesportster.com/soccer/stadiums-that-need-to-host-world-cup-games-in-2026/


----------



## FCIM

some extreme temperatures in the northeastern part of the usa at the moment. 

Not that it will be the same in 8 years, but weather conditions might play a factor in which stadiums get selected.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Nacre said:


> I don't know if this is either not being adequately explained to you or you simply don't want to get it. But many people in East Asia and Europe _do not drive_. In Britain only about 2/3 of people of working age own a driving license, for example. It is unlikely that people are going to want to get a driving license just to attend a world cup match in Dallas.


73% of adults in England have a driving licence. 80% of men. I suspect a higher percentage of those likely to want to go to a World Cup. If I didn't have a driving licence and there was no public transport I'd just get a taxi. I'd still get a taxi even though I can drive as I'd want to have a drink. The organisers are certain to put on some form of bus transport anyway.


----------



## pesto

Lord David said:


> Canada doesn't need to build new stadiums. It can easily use the modernized CFL ones in Grey Cup capacity (40,000).
> 
> If it were to be a 5 stadiums for Canada, 5 for Mexico and 6-8 for the US, I can easily see Canadian cities like Ottawa, Winnipeg, Regina and Hamilton hosting.
> 
> The most Canada should do in terms of construction is reconfigure Montreal Olympic Stadium's bowl. Make it 70,000 in CFL/Soccer mode.
> 
> Driving? Tour buses, flying and rail links are more than sufficient. Only die hards would actually do a road trip on their own.


Why would you have 5 stadiums in a country with 35M people and 6 in a country with 330M and higher income? Canada only has two metros larger than Charlotte, which is 25th in the US. California has more people and a bigger economy than Canada. 

The Canadian WC leadership and sports columnists have said that there was no chance Canada could host alone. I won't get off subject but there are real issues about even the limited role they are playing, with Vancouver opting out, Quebec getting pushback on stadium costs, Toronto not having a really good venue, Edmonton being remote, etc. 

I'm not saying that Canada won't come up with a great product for 3 venues; but any more than that was raising real issues.


----------



## pesto

FCIM said:


> some extreme temperatures in the northeastern part of the usa at the moment.
> 
> Not that it will be the same in 8 years, but weather conditions might play a factor in which stadiums get selected.


I would say that in Texas and Florida you should go with covered stadiums; otherwise playing at night helps but doesn't completely solve the issues.

Otherwise, you just have to take your chances. Sure you could move more matches to, say, Inglewood which probably has the least chance of hot or rainy weather. But you may just have to take your chances.

Btw, why is weather so significant? Football games are played in sub zero weather and baseball and football on steamy 100 degree days. I have seen soccer played in Germany and Holland at sub-freezing temperatures and in light snow.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> Many of the Canadian and Mexican cities either do not wish to host the World Cup (Vancouver) or do not have a large enough or modern enough stadium. Canada and Mexico will not build new stadiums for the World Cup like Brazil and Russia did.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is either not being adequately explained to you or you simply don't want to get it. But many people in East Asia and Europe _do not drive_. In Britain only about 2/3 of people of working age own a driving license, for example. It is unlikely that people are going to want to get a driving license just to attend a world cup match in Dallas.


Walk on any street in London or other large city and you will see every possible parking place full, streets jammed, highways jammed, parking lots nearly full and charging absurd prices because of huge demand. Essentially the same in any large city of Europe; people aren't being pulled around in rickshaws. 

If you don't want to drive use buses, trains, cabs, Uber, tours, etc. These all exist in Dallas, if that's where you want to go.

But I STRONGLY advise learning to drive in the 8 years before 2026 (I learned in about 2 months). Otherwise you will miss fabulous scenery, hiking, beaches, quaint towns, places where it is just you, the mountain and the sky for miles and miles.


----------



## Dopersky

Mexico only needs to refurbish the Azteca or build a brand new stadium, not more.


----------



## pesto

Dopersky said:


> Mexico only needs to refurbish the Azteca or build a brand new stadium, not more.


Yes. FIFA brokered the deal and I am sure limited Mexico and Canada to 3 stadiums in part so as to reduce construction costs.

Of course, there were other motivations as well.


----------



## master-chivas

Is there any plans of putting roofs on most of the uncovered stadiums in the US?

For Canada, it's a shame that Vancouver is almost out. Being a much much better venue than Edmonton, as well as its stadium.

And for Mexico as it has been said many times, only Azteca needs major renovation.


And I would've prefered to have 4 host cities in Canada and Mexico, I'm guessing
Toronto
Vancouver
Montreal
Edmonton (with a new, smaller stadium)

CDMX 
Monterrey
Guadalajara
Puebla (some improvements needed too)


----------



## pesto

master-chivas said:


> Is there any plans of putting roofs on most of the uncovered stadiums in the US?
> 
> For Canada, it's a shame that Vancouver is almost out. Being a much much better venue than Edmonton, as well as its stadium.
> 
> And for Mexico as it has been said many times, only Azteca needs major renovation.
> 
> 
> And I would've prefered to have 4 host cities in Canada and Mexico, I'm guessing
> Toronto
> Vancouver
> Montreal
> Edmonton (with a new, smaller stadium)
> 
> CDMX
> Monterrey
> Guadalajara
> Puebla (some improvements needed too)


FIFA is big on minimizing costs, and more stadiums means more costs with no additional revenue. 

As is, there could be metro areas in the US with 6 or 8M people (Houston, Philadelphia) that get no matches. So I wouldn't struggle to move to smaller Mexican and Canadian metros.


----------



## Knitemplar

master-chivas said:


> Is there any plans of putting roofs on most of the uncovered stadiums in the US?


Yes, I just heard that Qatar will be shipping 4 of its white camel-stadia to North America for 2026. hno:


----------



## FCIM

pesto said:


> I would say that in Texas and Florida you should go with covered stadiums; otherwise playing at night helps but doesn't completely solve the issues.
> 
> Otherwise, you just have to take your chances. Sure you could move more matches to, say, Inglewood which probably has the least chance of hot or rainy weather. But you may just have to take your chances.
> 
> Btw, why is weather so significant? Football games are played in sub zero weather and baseball and football on steamy 100 degree days. I have seen soccer played in Germany and Holland at sub-freezing temperatures and in light snow.


True, but playing in 100 degree heat on a continual basis can't be good, thats why I'd like to see more night games.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> I would say that in Texas and Florida you should go with covered stadiums; otherwise playing at night helps but doesn't completely solve the issues.
> 
> Otherwise, you just have to take your chances. Sure you could move more matches to, say, Inglewood which probably has the least chance of hot or rainy weather. But you may just have to take your chances.
> 
> Btw, why is weather so significant? Football games are played in sub zero weather and baseball and football on steamy 100 degree days. I have seen soccer played in Germany and Holland at sub-freezing temperatures and in light snow.


It's about the level of play and spectator comfort (higher ticket prices). Football in the snow often turns into a joke. Football in the heat is noticeably slower than in normal temperatures.

Spain has many open air stadiums, so August matches are played after 18:00 to deal with the heat. In the US the economics for roofs/coverings make sense for most new stadiums as well. 

But since the world cup is a one-off event, the above isn't that relevant. TV is much more important to FIFA, so there _will_ be matches at day time in roofless stadiums to reach audiences in the Americas, Europe, Africa and the Middle East all at once. 

By the time people find out that the weather is unenjoyable, tickets have already been sold. I'd say level of play also matters less, because for people who always watch, there isn't an alternative, and new viewers aren't as well aware of what they should expect.


----------



## pesto

FCIM said:


> True, but playing in 100 degree heat on a continual basis can't be good, thats why I'd like to see more night games.


Agree completely. But as a practical matter it isn't going to be 100 degrees for even one day, much less continuously. You don't make decisions based on freak weather events like hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc. Otherwise you would never go to California, Florida, Texas, any mountain or coastal region, etc.

You DO have to have plans in case of doomsday contingencies, however. Playing at night seems like a good one in case of excessive heat.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> It's about the level of play and spectator comfort (higher ticket prices). Football in the snow often turns into a joke. Football in the heat is noticeably slower than in normal temperatures.
> 
> Spain has many open air stadiums, so August matches are played after 18:00 to deal with the heat. In the US the economics for roofs/coverings make sense for most new stadiums as well.
> 
> But since the world cup is a one-off event, the above isn't that relevant. TV is much more important to FIFA, so there _will_ be matches at day time in roofless stadiums to reach audiences in the Americas, Europe, Africa and the Middle East all at once.
> 
> By the time people find out that the weather is unenjoyable, tickets have already been sold. I'd say level of play also matters less, because for people who always watch, there isn't an alternative, and new viewers aren't as well aware of what they should expect.


Speaking in general terms, this is not going to be an issue for US fans. I can't speak for others.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

There're two proposed Fan Fests in NY/NJ

* *Liberty State Park*, 200 Morris Pesin Drive, Jersey City, USA
* *Central Park*, 59th to 110th Street, from Central Park West to Fifth Avenue, New York City, USA

I'd choose Liberty State Park.


----------



## Dopersky

Theres another reason for not having more than 3 host cities, at least for Mexico. Not to atomize the touristic offer between so many cities for very few time. Is intended to host tourists several days in each city and seize the profits at the most.


----------



## pesto

Dopersky said:


> Theres another reason for not having more than 3 host cities, at least for Mexico. Not to atomize the touristic offer between so many cities for very few time. Is intended to host tourists several days in each city and seize the profits at the most.


Yes, FIFA seems to be very clear about this: more stadiums mean more costs without additional revenues. Having these kinds of concerns is a legitimate part of being an organization that respects the value of money not the value of bribes, booze and women.

And it really does make sense: if you are having 10 matches total, why would you have more than 3 stadiums go through the whole process of refurbishment, repairs, security, etc., to say nothing of travel time.


----------



## SounderBruce

For Seattle, I imagine that the Fan Fests would be in the CenturyLink Field parking lot (which was used as the main stage for a music festival recently), at Westlake Park (a bit on the small side), or at Cal Anderson Park.


----------



## Rover030

According to the bid book the parking lot of the stadium will be used as a "commercial area", meaning that FIFA will probably use it to sell merchandise etc. FIFA usually likes a lot of space around stadiums for stuff like that, see the new Russia World Cup stadiums that all have entrances really far from the actual stadium itself.

Fan fests are usually not directly situated next to the stadium anyway.

They suggest "Waterfront Seattle" and "The Seattle Center" as fan fest locations.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

EXCLUSIVE: City of Vancouver documents disprove NDP “Blank Cheque” for Vancouver 2026 World Cup



> Documents obtained by BC Soccer Web show that the BC NDP never faced a “blank cheque” scenario on the 2026 World Cup bid, and that FIFA negotiations would be ongoing with all three governments through 2020.
> 
> The documents obtained through the City of Vancouver show the city moved ahead with the 2026 bid on the expectation of future provincial / federal government and FIFA negotiations to determine estimated costs by 2020. Two of the Canadian bid cities, Toronto and Edmonton, are moving ahead under similar conditions.


Link

Report


----------



## Knitemplar

triodegradable said:


> Does anybody know how many stadiums are we going to build? where? when? I work in construction I would love to be a part of those projects, of course, if there is something being planned, Thanks in advance!


35 new stadia, each seating 150,000 (collapsible to 100,000); and then they will let FIFA choose 15! :wink2:


----------



## twk

FCIM said:


> Dont expect any coverings to be put on stadiums without them, nobody is going to outlay that money.
> 
> However, the field dimension (and surface) issue is a legitimate one and it will be interesting to see how stadiums go about it.


I would agree that none will be built solely for the World Cup, but there has been some talk about some kind of awning (for shade purposes) for Levi's already. I don't know if it will get done or not (don't know where they will find the money), but it might happen.


----------



## BoulderGrad

triodegradable said:


> Does anybody know how many stadiums are we going to build? where? when? I work in construction I would love to be a part of those projects, of course, if there is something being planned, Thanks in advance!


All stadiums listed in the bid book are existing stadiums. No new stadiums are currently planned to be built for the tournament. 

Cities and Stadiums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_FIFA_World_Cup#Candidate_cities_and_venues

That being said, some will need some minor renovations, updates, additions, etc to meet FIFA standards (Toronto is the big one that will need some new stands).

Also, one or two stadiums could eventually be replaced before the tournament but unrelated to the tournament. For an example; FedEx Field in the Washington D.C. region is being discussed for replacement because the NFL team that uses it wants a new home, but that is not because of the World Cup.


----------



## will101

twk said:


> I would agree that none will be built solely for the World Cup, but there has been some talk about some kind of awning (for shade purposes) for Levi's already. I don't know if it will get done or not (don't know where they will find the money), but it might happen.


The Niners have the money, that's not the problem. Their annual mortgage payment is about $30 million for Levi's, and they can cover that plus the cost of the players' salaries just from TV money. And the banks think of the Niners as a _very_ good customer, so financing should be easy.

They are just trying to balance cost (upwards of $50 million), design (is it worth building to protect from rain as opposed to just a sun shield, and how will it handle the wind), logistics (Levi's was shoehorned into a tiny plot of land), return on investment (this might get used 20 times a year, tops) and playing conditions (both the team and fans want to keep grass as the playing surface). I'd love to see some of the spreadsheets that their accounting department has for this, but alas those numbers will never see the light of day.


----------



## pesto

http://www.venuesnow.com/news/detail/inglewood

This article indicates that the Inglewood developers are positioning themselves to be a challenger for some top level events, presumably including WC games and related events. Interesting to see what's next on their agenda.

They could be looking for a full family resort, with LAX acting as the source of much of the clientele.


----------



## Lord David

triodegradable said:


> Does anybody know how many stadiums are we going to build? where? when? I work in construction I would love to be a part of those projects, of course, if there is something being planned, Thanks in advance!


Only Australia was silly enough to tout that we could "build" boutique stadiums (rectangular) for our 2022 World Cup bid that would be mostly temporary (seating can be used elsewhere post World Cup) at 40,000. Each stadium would have cost 250 million minimum. 

There will be no excessive construction for this World Cup. However, I wouldn't be surprised if Montreal decides to throw more money on that elephant of theirs the Olympic Stadium. I'd remove the entire lower bowl and do a total redo of it suiting CFL and Soccer only (not baseball). A replacement of the roof with a more functional retractable roof (similar to Vancouver's perhaps), with a suspended video screen (this allows the existing video board to become additional seating). Then you simply renovate the concessions and toilets. This would be a 70,000+ venue.


----------



## Leedsrule

Lord David said:


> Only Australia was silly enough to tout that we could "build" boutique stadiums (rectangular) for our 2022 World Cup bid that would be mostly temporary (seating can be used elsewhere post World Cup) at 40,000. Each stadium would have cost 250 million minimum.


I dont think this is fair. For the most part, Oval stadiums would be fine (Ideally with a temporary lower tier, but not essential). Better views than athletics stadiums and the bowls are similar to those used in 2010 and 2014. Only Darwin would have needed a stadium that wouldnt get used at all after the tournament, most of the other cities mentioned could/ do support an A-League or NRL team, or the stadiums could be cleverly designed to hold AFL/ Cricket afterwards.


----------



## pesto

There's always a red flag when you hear "could build" or "should build" for the WC. This is a one-time event with maybe 3 matches per stadium. That does not seem like a justification for building. If there is any continuing demand then why hasn't a stadium already been built? The most obvious answer is that there is no continuing demand. 

Moreover, the gut reaction is always going to be an exaggeration of the benefits of hosting. FIFA makes big money; construction makes big money; the hospitality industries make money for a few days. Taxpayers generally provide the funds.


----------



## Leedsrule

pesto said:


> There's always a red flag when you hear "could build" or "should build" for the WC. This is a one-time event with maybe 3 matches per stadium. That does not seem like a justification for building. If there is any continuing demand then why hasn't a stadium already been built? The most obvious answer is that there is no continuing demand.
> 
> Moreover, the gut reaction is always going to be an exaggeration of the benefits of hosting. FIFA makes big money; construction makes big money; the hospitality industries make money for a few days. Taxpayers generally provide the funds.


Thats not really true. The world cup/ euros/ olympics ect often provide an excuse and investment for development that otherwise may not immediately happen. There are plenty of examples of this, look at the stadiums built for France 2016 which are regularly filled now, but there just wasn't the money for them beforehand. It isnt always done right, granted, and white elephants can be left. But in a lot of instances they bring positive investment and are worthwhile even if the event as a whole makes a loss (Show me one Londoner who thinks the Olympics was a waste of money, despite making big losses).


----------



## pesto

Leedsrule said:


> Thats not really true. The world cup/ euros/ olympics ect often provide an excuse and investment for development that otherwise may not immediately happen. There are plenty of examples of this, look at the stadiums built for France 2016 which are regularly filled now, but there just wasn't the money for them beforehand. It isnt always done right, granted, and white elephants can be left. But in a lot of instances they bring positive investment and are worthwhile even if the event as a whole makes a loss (Show me one Londoner who thinks the Olympics was a waste of money, despite making big losses).


This is what I meant: fans badly want to believe that the stadiums really make economic sense when they don't. Again, if the demand was there in city after city, why was no French entrepreneur all over this making himself fabulously wealthy? Beaucoup bucks, eh?

One possible approach for an answer: who pays for the new WC stadium? The taxpayer, I suppose? And who benefits? The teams and their fans, I suppose? So the team and fans see the benefit and the taxpayer pays the bill? White elephant wearing a pair of sunglasses. :lol:


----------



## Leedsrule

Because football is famously unprofitable. Football teams, aside from the top premier league ones, struggle to make large amounts of money from ticket revenues to make redevelopment possible, even if they regularly achieve attendances of 90% of capacity. For example, nearly every side currently in the premier league or championship, who would like to expand or rebuild their stadia, but wouldnt be able to get the investment to do so as it would take a long time to see it back.

Investment surrounding a world cup or olympics does partly come from taxpayers, as well as sponsorship and other places. The country benefits by hosting a world cup or olympics for the sake of the population. The club benefits from having improved publicity and an improved stadium. The taxpayer isnt left with a white elephant for which it has to foot the bill for yearly, if the investment is done correctly. The taxman also benefits from the economic boost that comes with hosting such an event, even more so for the world cup than the olympics. Look how well every pub in Britain has done in the past week.


----------



## Rev Stickleback

Leedsrule said:


> I dont think this is fair. For the most part, Oval stadiums would be fine (Ideally with a temporary lower tier, but not essential). *Better views than athletics stadiums* and the bowls are similar to those used in 2010 and 2014.


Why on earth would you say that? AFL pitches are huge, typically larger than a football ground with an athletics track.













> or the stadiums could be cleverly designed to hold AFL/ Cricket afterwards.


Beyond GW Sydney and Gold Coast, who get poor crowds, all the AFL teams play in large stadiums already. They wouldn't need to move into reconfigured stadiums. Cricket gets really poor crowds, and doesn't need new stadiums.


----------



## Leedsrule

Well, that image does show the stadium with the widest AFL pitch in Australia (and the largest by area), but I understand your point. Mine still stands, you cant fit an athletics track inside most AFL pitches and stadiums with tracks can and have been used in the past. I agree they are not ideal, but if you include them Australia already has 80% of the stadiums it needs.

By clever design, I mean you can take a large oval, like you mentioned, place the pitch to the main side of it, and place three large but cheap temporary stands on the other three sides, for example. Much cheaper than building an entire stadium from scratch. Australia could certainly make use of any developments better than Qatar will, to keep them profitable enough after the tournament.


----------



## pesto

Leedsrule said:


> Because football is famously unprofitable. Football teams, aside from the top premier league ones, struggle to make large amounts of money from ticket revenues to make redevelopment possible, even if they regularly achieve attendances of 90% of capacity. For example, nearly every side currently in the premier league or championship, who would like to expand or rebuild their stadia, but wouldnt be able to get the investment to do so as it would take a long time to see it back.
> 
> Investment surrounding a world cup or olympics does partly come from taxpayers, as well as sponsorship and other places. The country benefits by hosting a world cup or olympics for the sake of the population. The club benefits from having improved publicity and an improved stadium. The taxpayer isnt left with a white elephant for which it has to foot the bill for yearly, if the investment is done correctly. The taxman also benefits from the economic boost that comes with hosting such an event, even more so for the world cup than the olympics. Look how well every pub in Britain has done in the past week.


I'm sorry, this is just nonsense now. If clubs don't make money, then the taxpayers have to support them and build them new stadiums? I thought the idea was that they have to raise ticket prices or reduce salaries or go broke. You know, like other businesses do.

Or is it that the billionaire Russians, Arab, Americans, etc., owners get a pass from the laws of economics? It's OK to lose money because it's soccer.

Same idea for the WC: great for construction companies and local pubs for a few days. Bad for the taxpayers (assuming they are proving some funding).


----------



## Leedsrule

pesto said:


> I'm sorry, this is just nonsense now. If clubs don't make money, then the taxpayers have to support them and build them new stadiums? I thought the idea was that they have to raise ticket prices or reduce salaries or go broke. You know, like other businesses do.
> 
> Or is it that the billionaire Russians, Arab, Americans, etc., owners get a pass from the laws of economics? It's OK to lose money because it's soccer.
> 
> Same idea for the WC: great for construction companies and local pubs for a few days. Bad for the taxpayers (assuming they are proving some funding).


Well they survive as shareholders put money into the club. You think Abramovic has made a profit from his investment in Chelsea? Of course not. If he invests in a new stadium, the club will increase its value and he will be able to sell the club for more, but like it's proving it isnt always easy to redevelop a stadium. Although hosting the world cup would make it easier. Clubs "struggle make large amounts of money from ticket revenue", and rely on sponsorship and TV money, neither of which is likely to increase if you expand the stadium. So it doesn't make sense to do it, even if they get 99% capacity attendances. Im not lying- why else wouldnt every club in the league expand if they are getting capacity crowds? Because it isnt profitable to do so. 

World cups are not bad value for the taxpayer, because like I said and like every event, they are worthwhile events for the country to invest in and host, for all of the benefits that they bring. Infrastructure improvements as well, which arent necessarily profitable, but benefit everyone in the country. Hosting the world cup or olympics gives us a chance to invest in these areas.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

For the 2026 FIFA Logo, I expect a more modern and stylized version of the following logos.


























Concerning the official poster, I suggest some inspirations from the 1986 FIFA World Cup and the 1994 FIFA World Cup posters, especially players attemping a bicycle and the map of Canada, Mexico and the USA.


















Suggested art styles:
* Jean-Paul Riopelle (Canada)
* Mexico Aztec art
* Shepard Fairey (USA)


I'm open to any suggestion.


----------



## aquamaroon

Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera influences would be great to see on the Mexican materials! (Though Rivera especially may be too political)


----------



## pesto

Leedsrule said:


> Well they survive as shareholders put money into the club. You think Abramovic has made a profit from his investment in Chelsea? Of course not. If he invests in a new stadium, the club will increase its value and he will be able to sell the club for more, but like it's proving it isnt always easy to redevelop a stadium. Although hosting the world cup would make it easier. Clubs "struggle make large amounts of money from ticket revenue", and rely on sponsorship and TV money, neither of which is likely to increase if you expand the stadium. So it doesn't make sense to do it, even if they get 99% capacity attendances. Im not lying- why else wouldnt every club in the league expand if they are getting capacity crowds? Because it isnt profitable to do so.
> 
> World cups are not bad value for the taxpayer, because like I said and like every event, they are worthwhile events for the country to invest in and host, for all of the benefits that they bring. Infrastructure improvements as well, which arent necessarily profitable, but benefit everyone in the country. Hosting the world cup or olympics gives us a chance to invest in these areas.


A couple of comments. 

WC's are probably a good investment if you have virtually all your stadiums, hotels, training facilities, highways, airports, medical facilities, etc. in place. The problem is that very few do, so the local government (under the influence of construction companies or some insane autocrat's vision of glory) funds whatever it takes to win. This makes the construction companies much richer and the taxpayers much poorer. Is that what you mean by good for the local economy? 

Most people don't. In fact, the image of decaying, unused facilities and serious poverty has led to FIFA (and the IOC) getting roasted in every news outlet in every democracy in the world. Both are now cleaning up their acts to avoid bad press by eliminating bids that will require huge spending that benefits only the builder and his political tools while pulling funds from social spending.

It is interesting that you believe that soccer loses money. It is certainly not true for any US sports. You may be confused because you are not taking into account the increase in the value of brand recognition. This explains why these "loser" businesses go up greatly in value yearly.


----------



## Knitemplar

aquamaroon said:


> Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera influences would be great to see on the Mexican materials! (Though Rivera especially may be too political)


I doubt it. It will probably all be _unified_ themes and graphics. Their works are controlled by their Foundations, so royalties would be required to reproduce their material. The Org Committees have NEVER done that and won't start this time.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Idea for the mascot(s): three birds wearing football jerseys.
* Canada: Grey jay, Canada goose
* Mexico: Golden eagle, Grey Hawk
* United States: Greater Roadrunner, Eastern bluebird


----------



## ElvisBC

might get tight in the end, between 2022 and 2026! each due to its own burden!


----------



## Nacre

I hope that they consider ease of use for visitors rather than international appeal alone. Santa Clara and Foxboro are both awful for visiting fans. MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford is also surrounded by a sea of parking lots with no bars, restaurants, etc. Calling them San Francisco, Boston and New York is a joke.

In general the baseball stadiums in American cities have good locations since baseball was historically the most popular sport in America. American football was mostly an amateur sport until the 1950's, so there are fewer American football stadiums within the core districts of American cities. Yankee Stadium has direct service from three rapid transit lines and one commuter rail line, while MetLife has only a limited service shuttle rail line.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/10392144/super-bowl-several-collapse-overcrowded-new-jersey-train-station


----------



## aquamaroon

^^ Also just to chime in on this point, another reason for suburban stadiums surrounded by a sea of parking is due to American Football's cultural tradition of "tailgating," essentially setting up a picnic around your car before the game:



















So for an NFL fan a gameday goes something like this: show up in your minivan/truck 2 hours before the game, set up your grill alongside your car, make some burgers and dogs, have some beers and mingle with other fans (and be sure to taunt the other team's fans if you see them going into the stadium!) So culturally the NFL is far more of a car based, suburban sort of fanbase than say UEFA soccer. I'd say to your point that you're right, baseball in America is far closer to European soccer than the NFL. If I'm going to see the Dodgers, Red Sox or Cubs? I hit up a bar near the stadium with some friends and then walk over to the ballpark. The Eagles, Chiefs or Pats? I'm pulling up to the parking lot two hours beforehand and mingle with as many tailgate parties as I can before the game starts!


----------



## Nacre

For me the question is how do you make that kind of stadium work for the World Cup? Some kind of temporary bus terminal will be needed, but they will also need to build something like the fan zones at the Super Bowl or MLB All Star Game to entertain visitors.


----------



## ElvisBC

Nacre said:


> I hope that they consider ease of use for visitors rather than international appeal alone. Santa Clara and Foxboro are both awful for visiting fans. MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford is also surrounded by a sea of parking lots with no bars, restaurants, etc. Calling them San Francisco, Boston and New York is a joke.......


santa clara and foxboro would be a no-go for anyone who employs logic, but I bet they're both going to get their games. foxboro has robert kraft anchored too deep inside the OC to be ommited, and santa clara has bay area flair around it, even the stadium itself was build at the most idiotic spot possible. foxboro will probably be the worst choice ever made for a world cup stadium, I'd even go that far to say building white elephants in Manaus and Samara was less stupid!

meadowlands stadium has that train connection from secaucus that actually works, they will only need to employ little bit of common sense that is missing around many us sport events and maybe let the trains run all the time and not only after the game. that plus few minor cosmetic things could make it work just fine. still, I simply can't believe they really want to put the final there!!!


----------



## ElvisBC

btw, transfer issues are always there, every world cup has its own and they mostly solve it well. just thinking about soccer city or belo horizonte ... what wasn't written in advance and in the end it all worked well!


----------



## tinyslam

Elvis, while I do agree with you that Foxboro is trash, it is rediculous to say building that stadium in Manaus makes more sense than hosting a game at Foxboro. The stadium is already there and used heavily by the Patriots and Revs. The stadium in Manaus is not even used today to my knowledge.

Now if you want a nice downtown stadium with good transit links come to Atlanta. If you get a seat in the upper half of the stadium you will have no problem with sight lines.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

Belo Horizonte had the fantastic Estadio Mineirao in a nice neighbourhood. Recife's Arena Pernambuco was properly named after the state as there was no way you could claim it was in Recife. Transport was suburban rail followed by a bus. Stadiums with lots of external space lend themselves well to World Cups in terms of having open air bars inside the ticket perimeter. I prefer city centre stadia but that is quite rare for modern large football grounds. So long as the transport is set up. Looks to me like they could do shuttles from Secaucus Junction to Metlife, for instance. Not perfect but doable.

Baseball stadiums are often in great locations.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Sportsfan said:


> GMT -8 (Seattle, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles)
> GMT -7 (Denver, Edmonton)
> GMT -6 (Dallas, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey)
> GMT -5 (Montreal, Toronto, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, New York, Washington/Philadelphia)
> 
> Thoughts?


*My list*
GMT -8 (Seattle, San Francisco Bay Area, Los Angeles)
GMT -7 (Denver, Edmonton)
GMT -6 (Dallas, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey)
GMT -5 (Montreal, Toronto, Miami, Atlanta, New York, Washington, Philadelphia)


----------



## ElvisBC

tinyslam said:


> Elvis, while I do agree with you that Foxboro is trash, it is rediculous to say building that stadium in Manaus makes more sense than hosting a game at Foxboro. The stadium is already there and used heavily by the Patriots and Revs. The stadium in Manaus is not even used today to my knowledge.
> 
> Now if you want a nice downtown stadium with good transit links come to Atlanta. If you get a seat in the upper half of the stadium you will have no problem with sight lines.


@tinyslam , I used to work for US company for nearly 20 years and I've been to most of these stadiums (actually all but Monterey and Edmonton, and Santa Clara only for a concert, not game) and I continue to visit new ones as well, last year I did Atlanta, this year I will go to Minneapolis for Packers SNF game (Thanksgiving weekend). New dome is a great stadium, with cool retractable roof, with even better drink/food prices etc. But World Cup stadium should offer great viewing experience to everyone, like most modern european stadium do! in bernabeu, allianz arena, wembley or luzhniki there is hardly any seat with obstruction and that is what FIFA was pushing for for years including roofs and transfers, just to waive all this as soon as american $$$ (a lot of them) showed up on the horizon hno:


----------



## tinyslam

ElvisBC said:


> But World Cup stadium should offer great viewing experience to everyone, like most modern european stadium do! in bernabeu, allianz arena, wembley or luzhniki there is hardly any seat with obstruction and that is what FIFA was pushing for for years including roofs and transfers, just to waive all this as soon as american $$$ (a lot of them) showed up on the horizon hno:


Alas we live in the real world where not everything can be perfect. There have been world cup games played in stadiums with tracks where the closest fans are pretty far away from the action. You have to balance the good with the bad to pull of a tournament of this size. Currently your choices are to have a "perfect" World Cup with every stadium being "perfect" in which case you would have to rotate between only a couple of countries capable of pulling it off, or you can have a pretty good World Cup in a larger number of countries around the world. You could also spend vast amounts of money building great stadiums that will then sit empty/underutilized after the event like Qatar. Overall our stadiums might not be the best for soccer, but they are big and we have a lot of fans who will fill them up for every game which will make it a great World Cup in my opinion. Nobody is going to say "Man what a shitty World Cup, I couldn't see Neymar stand over the ball in the corner and waste time at the end of the game because my sight line wasn't perfect."


----------



## GunnerJacket

Serious question: Do ice hockey fans ever complain about the fact that EVERY arena features obstructed views due to the walls around the rink? Should they?


----------



## Nacre

GunnerJacket said:


> Serious question: Do ice hockey fans ever complain about the fact that EVERY arena features obstructed views due to the walls around the rink? Should they?


Ice hockey's walls are necessary for safety. There is no comparable reason for obstructed views in a football/soccer stadium.


----------



## ElvisBC

you can go watch icehockey wherever you want and no matter where you sit you won't see the puck half of the time, and that has nothing to do with the walls :colgate:


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> It makes perfect sense to complain about their choice to compromise this specific aspect, especially in stadiums where you can't even see half of the goal when seated behind it.


Especially when that was one of main requirements for 20 years. But OK, it is what it is, who cares, 48 teams World Cup is going to suck anyway!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> santa clara and foxboro would be a no-go for anyone who employs logic, but I bet they're both going to get their games. foxboro has robert kraft anchored too deep inside the OC to be ommited, and santa clara has bay area flair around it, even the stadium itself was build at the most idiotic spot possible. foxboro will probably be the worst choice ever made for a world cup stadium, I'd even go that far to say building white elephants in Manaus and Samara was less stupid!
> 
> meadowlands stadium has that train connection from secaucus that actually works, they will only need to employ little bit of common sense that is missing around many us sport events and maybe let the trains run all the time and not only after the game. that plus few minor cosmetic things could make it work just fine. still, I simply can't believe they really want to put the final there!!!


A couple of comments.

Foxboro was intentionally chosen as a stadium site so as to be near both Providence and Boston. It is a very easy drive from either, and other parts of NE as well. In any event, virtually no one goes to football games via subway or other public transit. And there is no reason to subject yourself to public transit for soccer matches either when roads are excellent, the weather sunny and bright and brats are on the grill.

San Francisco is a beautiful city but the demographic is not good for sports (recent arrivals from Asia; gay; new age chic; spiritualist, politically radical, etc.), The 49ers noted that they at Candlestick they had more season ticketholders from Sacramento County (80 miles away) than from SF County where the stadium was located. By contrast Santa Clara County has strong sports demographics. The Raiders may use Levi's as well for a year if Oakland continues to be difficult.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> I'd certainly be annoyed by them if I ever wanted to watch ice hockey, because I'm used to having a perfect view of the pitch when watching the sport I watch most.
> 
> The standard in football is that you should be able to see the entire pitch from every seat. On the topic of walls, they exist in football too, but were removed in many places because they are bad for viewer experience and safety.
> 
> It makes perfect sense to complain about their choice to compromise this specific aspect, especially in stadiums where you can't even see half of the goal when seated behind it.


I disagree. It makes sense to complain about an obstructed view if you were not told that it was obstructed. If you are told that it is obstructed and you buy the ticket anyway there is no problem and noting left to discuss. You have made a personal choice. This happens regularly at concerts, theaters, sporting events, conferences, etc. London, for example, has many, many theaters with obstructed views.

Same for awnings, roofs, etc. Neither here nor there. If you don't like the sunshine and fresh air, then don't go. Some people here are trying to turn their peculiar preferences and idiosyncrasies into universal truths.


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> I disagree. It makes sense to complain about an obstructed view if you were not told that it was obstructed. If you are told that it is obstructed and you buy the ticket anyway there is no problem and noting left to discuss. You have made a personal choice. This happens regularly at concerts, theaters, sporting events, conferences, etc. London, for example, has many, many theaters with obstructed views.
> 
> Same for awnings, roofs, etc. Neither here nor there. If you don't like the sunshine and fresh air, then don't go. Some people here are trying to turn their peculiar preferences and idiosyncrasies into universal truths.


The thing is that those obstructed views will also impact my TV experience. I have no choice to pay or not, all matches are free to watch and the broadcasting rights are paid for by the taxpayer.

So yes, I am in effect a paying customer and I wasn't even faced with a choice, so naturally I am complaining about the problems with the product they have chosen for me, in the hope that it will get fixed.

And yes, I absolutely feel entitled to be able to see the entire pitch when I watch football I have paid for. That's really not a "peculiar preference" :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

Rover030 said:


> The thing is that those obstructed views will also impact my TV experience. I have no choice to pay or not, all matches are free to watch and the broadcasting rights are paid for by the taxpayer.
> 
> So yes, I am in effect a paying customer and I wasn't even faced with a choice, so naturally I am complaining about the problems with the product they have chosen for me, in the hope that it will get fixed.
> 
> And yes, I absolutely feel entitled to be able to see the entire pitch when I watch football I have paid for. That's really not a "peculiar preference" :lol:


of course!

apart from that, too many people here are absolutely clueless when it comes to world cup. I am sure 95% of them don't even know you can't really chose your seats when you buy world cup tickets! in many cases you can consider yourself quite lucky if you get any! ask people who went to moscow to see argentina-iceland and germany-mexico ... all regular preliminary round games, not talking finals or other extreme hard-to-get-ins!


----------



## Schorschico

pesto said:


> And there is no reason to subject yourself to public transit for soccer matches either when roads are excellent...


There is a big one: If you don't want to be trapped 90 min after the game stuck in traffic. (My experience during the Copa America at Foxborough). While a much better located and public transportation oriented stadium like Fenway you can be gone in minutes.

Now, I don't know if there are soccer-Fenways available somewhere in the US. I don't know if they have the right size, weather or geographic location to make it work with other stadiums, but to claim that Foxborough is ideal for a soccer World Cup makes no sense.

And I say this as somebody that lives 20 min from it, and I would give an arm to have games here, but I am not blind to claim that having a car-only place is suddenly great.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> The thing is that those obstructed views will also impact my TV experience. I have no choice to pay or not, all matches are free to watch and the broadcasting rights are paid for by the taxpayer.
> 
> So yes, I am in effect a paying customer and I wasn't even faced with a choice, so naturally I am complaining about the problems with the product they have chosen for me, in the hope that it will get fixed.
> 
> And yes, I absolutely feel entitled to be able to see the entire pitch when I watch football I have paid for. That's really not a "peculiar preference" :lol:


You have lost me completely here. You either buy a ticket with limited view or you don't. You either watch the broadcast of the game or you don't. Why would limited view seats affect what is broadcast? And why are taxpayers subsidizing the WC? This is a purely private event and in any event not being held in Holland.

If you are saying that FIFA sells tickets without telling you that they are obstructed views, then you have a legitimate complaint. But that is not the fault of the stadium owner or builder; that's an issue with the people operating the WC.


----------



## pesto

Schorschico said:


> There is a big one: If you don't want to be trapped 90 min after the game stuck in traffic. (My experience during the Copa America at Foxborough). While a much better located and public transportation oriented stadium like Fenway you can be gone in minutes.
> 
> Now, I don't know if there are soccer-Fenways available somewhere in the US. I don't know if they have the right size, weather or geographic location to make it work with other stadiums, but to claim that Foxborough is ideal for a soccer World Cup makes no sense.
> 
> And I say this as somebody that lives 20 min from it, and I would give an arm to have games here, but I am not blind to claim that having a car-only place is suddenly great.


First of all, Fenway is tiny and ancient. Not a relevant comparison to anything.

Otherwise I sympathize that your personal preferences aren't being met. But in a free economy, the choices of the majority are catered to, not the idiosyncrasies of the minorities. If the developer of the stadium has made a horrible mistake, it will be at his cost.

I agree (and so would a developer) that a perfect stadium would have easy access for all. But for large stadiums the logic is WAY in favor of putting them in moderate to low density areas away from urban homes, parks, weekend activities, etc. Look at Dallas, NY, SF, DC, LA and smaller cities as well which move stadiums to nearby smaller cities (Foxboro, Arlington, E. Rutherford, etc.) so as not to disturb urban neighborhoods, have far better security, plenty of parking, etc.

In the case of NY, there was an effort by big developers and their political tools to build a large stadium right in Manhattan, which would have basically destroyed several neighborhoods with traffic and rowdiness every Sunday. Instead public outrage drove them out and the area (along with neighboring areas) is now developing a huge housing, office, restaurant and outdoors landscaped area. 

Likewise in LA, where some got the bright idea of putting a stadium downtown. Instead it was pushed out of town to Inglewood and the original proposed site is going to be an appropriately urban mix of high and mid-rise hotels, housing convention center and nightlife, while the Inglewood site is a huge sport and entertainment complex that did not destroy any urban 'hoods. In fact, it has sparked concomitant development in the area.


----------



## ElvisBC

Schorschico said:


> There is a big one: If you don't want to be trapped 90 min after the game stuck in traffic. (My experience during the Copa America at Foxborough). While a much better located and public transportation oriented stadium like Fenway you can be gone in minutes.
> 
> Now, I don't know if there are soccer-Fenways available somewhere in the US. I don't know if they have the right size, weather or geographic location to make it work with other stadiums, but to claim that Foxborough is ideal for a soccer World Cup makes no sense.
> 
> And I say this as somebody that lives 20 min from it, and I would give an arm to have games here, but I am not blind to claim that having a car-only place is suddenly great.


don’t worry, you’ll get your games, there is no way they leave robert kraft out of the map.

everything else you wrote, I can only second that. that guy has no clue about anything anyway, and I’m sure he saw foxboro only in telly. I’ve been to foxboro three times and every time I hated myself for doing that. first time it was SNF, I parked in the cash lot on the other side of the road and needed three hours to reach the motorway. got to the hotel around 4 AM. second time it was 1PM game, I bought club parking next to the stadium, got home sometimes during the SNF game. last time I was “smarter”, playoff game vs houston, shit cold, I arrived very early, parked next to what I thought was exit and was about the last one out of the lot :bash:

I do not think I’m going there ever again


----------



## NorthStyle

ElvisBC said:


> you can go watch icehockey wherever you want and no matter where you sit you won't see the puck half of the time, and that has nothing to do with the walls :colgate:


What do you mean then it has nothing to do with the walls?

If you looking at comparing, the size of the puck is the same size of a baseball (when you look at the widest part). And it's black on white.


----------



## Nacre

I have been to roughly 2/3rds of the MLB stadiums in the US and maybe 1/4th of the NFL stadiums and the downtown stadiums are far preferable for anyone who isn't a suburban resident of that metro area. Al of the advantages of an urban stadium with nearby bars, nightclubs, hotels, public transit, etc. far outweigh the ability to tailgate.

For example when I visited Fenway I didn't even use public transit on my way back. I walked to the MFA after the game and then walked through Boston Common on my way back to my hotel near Paul Revere's house and the Old North Church. In comparison Foxboro is just a long drive in heavy traffic to a stadium next to a shopping mall owned by the Krafts.

It's a shame than Vancouver and Minneapolis are not host cities. I understand why they didn't want to participate, but they are two of the best locations in North America for away fans.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> I have been to roughly 2/3rds of the MLB stadiums in the US and maybe 1/4th of the NFL stadiums and the downtown stadiums are far preferable for anyone who isn't a suburban resident of that metro area. Al of the advantages of an urban stadium with nearby bars, nightclubs, hotels, public transit, etc. far outweigh the ability to tailgate.
> 
> For example when I visited Fenway I didn't even use public transit on my way back. I walked to the MFA after the game and then walked through Boston Common on my way back to my hotel near Paul Revere's house and the Old North Church. In comparison Foxboro is just a long drive in heavy traffic to a stadium next to a shopping mall owned by the Krafts.
> 
> It's a shame than Vancouver and Minneapolis are not host cities. I understand why they didn't want to participate, but they are two of the best locations in North America for away fans.


Agree with you for basketball, hockey and baseball if handled with respect for the people who live, work, play, raise children and visit near the stadium.

Urban is not appropriate for football stadiums which are too large and whose fans require acres and acres of room for parking and tailgating and are likely to disrupt an entire day with pre-game, game and post-game activity. No really large city has built a football stadium downtown for a long time (hopefully we don't start discussing which are the "large cities" :lol. 

I really believe that those with interests in travelling by subway are not going to like the US and may be well advised to stick to television or local pubs. It's a country where you want to go the beaches, rivers, mountains or deserts and do some hiking, biking, climbing, surfing, white-water rafting, sailing, boating, etc.. Really, you can ride a subway and sit in a bar anyplace so why do it on vacation?


----------



## Rover030

pesto said:


> You have lost me completely here. You either buy a ticket with limited view or you don't. You either watch the broadcast of the game or you don't. Why would limited view seats affect what is broadcast? And why are taxpayers subsidizing the WC? This is a purely private event and in any event not being held in Holland.
> 
> If you are saying that FIFA sells tickets without telling you that they are obstructed views, then you have a legitimate complaint. But that is not the fault of the stadium owner or builder; that's an issue with the people operating the WC.


Okay, I'll try to explain the problems with the stadiums (especially the one in Atlanta) and the concept of public TV. The design of the stadium also blocks the view of the nearby corners from the camera view. Next to that, it just hurts to watch a match in a stadium with obstructed views of any kind. 

The World Cup is and has always been broadcasted on public TV in the Netherlands. Public TV is free to watch for everyone who has any kind of device that can access the internet. The public TV network is financed partly by advertising revenues and partly by taxes (so not by a TV license like in the UK). The public TV network has to purchase the broadcasting rights from FIFA. That means that all World Cups that have been held since broadcasting rights were invented, have been subsidised by Dutch taxpayers (and taxpayers of other countries).

So yes, I am paying for the world cup even if I don't buy tickets and as a paying customer I feel entitled to non-obstructed views.


----------



## RobH

Like others, my personal preference would be a slightly smaller but well connected stadium over a slightly larger but badly served one. I'd imagine most visitors to a World Cup would feel the same. A stadium in the middle of nowhere surrounded by car parks doesn't sound much fun. The World Cup isn't an NFL game and visitors need to be accounted for as well as locals.

But preferences are subjective and we could go round in circles forever on this.

*So....does anyone actually know what FIFA's actual requirements are for public transport to and from stadiums?*

On the issue of sightlines, it's clear USA is a unique case, and there was always going to be some compromise required that wouldn't be required for other nations who either have or would build stadiums entirely suited to soccer. You could say they're making exceptions for the USA, but I think that's unreasonable - I think they're working with what they have.

Wouldn't it be possible to have a ticket lottery as they do for Olympics and World Cups, but once the seats are assigned, charge less for obstructed view seats (or automatic partial refunds)? Surely that's not beyond the realms of technological possibility?


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> Urban is not appropriate for football stadiums which are too large and whose fans require acres and acres of room for parking and tailgating and are likely to disrupt an entire day with pre-game, game and post-game activity. No really large city has built a football stadium downtown for a long time (hopefully we don't start discussing which are the "large cities" :lol.
> 
> I really believe that those with interests in travelling by subway are not going to like the US and may be well advised to stick to television or local pubs. It's a country where you want to go the beaches, rivers, mountains or deserts and do some hiking, biking, climbing, surfing, white-water rafting, sailing, boating, etc.. Really, you can ride a subway and sit in a bar anyplace so why do it on vacation?


The first paragraph applies to American Football. I'm not sure American Soccer fans think the same way. As you say other US sports have a different culture. Of course the biggest stadiums are set up with North America's biggest sport in mind. It is what it is. I also think that some of the car parking can be set aside for bars and catering if there is an expectation that much of the visiting crowd will be bussed in. I drank outside the stadiums in Sao Paulo and Belo Horizonte. I think that was inside the first ticket check and it was fun. Yes, having to get back to hotels, etc will be the most boring part of the day but not actually that bad so long as there are excited fans of the competing nations there.

Also there will be lots of time to go to downtown bars. Few people are going to go to more than a game every other day. Most will be one every three days at most. Has anything been said about fan zones yet?

If I go to this World Cup, and I'm tempted, I will want to go to bars but I will certainly want to enjoy some of the other things available. The National Parks are special. All the cities likely to be used have something interesting to see and do. Besides, I can't just get drunk all day every day.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

RobH said:


> Wouldn't it be possible to have a ticket lottery as they do for Olympics and World Cups, but once the seats are assigned, charge less for obstructed view seats (or automatic partial refunds)? Surely that's not beyond the realms of technological possibility?


Not a lottery but I'm pretty sure FIFA charges less for restricted view or makes it known in advance. Part of the reason for the drip, drip, drip release of tickets is that FIFA puts in extra camera positions, advertising, etc, that lead to usually good seats being restricted view. There are always stories of people who buy tickets that are classified as restricted view but turn out to be very good seats. They err on the side of caution that way.


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> Agree with you for basketball, hockey and baseball if handled with respect for the people who live, work, play, raise children and visit near the stadium.
> 
> Urban is not appropriate for football stadiums which are too large and whose fans require acres and acres of room for parking and tailgating and are likely to disrupt an entire day with pre-game, game and post-game activity. No really large city has built a football stadium downtown for a long time (hopefully we don't start discussing which are the "large cities" :lol.


So Atlanta and Minneapolis are not large cities? Or when you say "really large" do you mean NYC, LA, and Chicago? 



pesto said:


> I really believe that those with interests in travelling by subway are not going to like the US and may be well advised to stick to television or local pubs.


There are a number of decent transit systems in this country and the stigma that you are putting on them is outdated. Sure most of them are not up to par with European systems, but they get the job done for tourists.


pesto said:


> It's a country where you want to go the beaches, rivers, mountains or deserts and do some hiking, biking, climbing, surfing, white-water rafting, sailing, boating, etc.. Really, you can ride a subway and sit in a bar anyplace so why do it on vacation?


Not every city is in California.


----------



## ElvisBC

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> Not a lottery but I'm pretty sure FIFA charges less for restricted view or makes it known in advance. Part of the reason for the drip, drip, drip release of tickets is that FIFA puts in extra camera positions, advertising, etc, that lead to usually good seats being restricted view. There are always stories of people who buy tickets that are classified as restricted view but turn out to be very good seats. They err on the side of caution that way.


FIFA charges half price for those tickets, but last time everyone was entitled to buy them was back in 2006. Last three world cups obstructed view seats were sold to locals only, and always in last minute FCFS phase.

No clue how they will manage it in the states though, they never had stadiums with so many obstructed seats in the past. Guess we'll find it out in about 7 years!


----------



## GunnerJacket

Rover030 said:


> So yes, I am paying for the world cup even if I don't buy tickets and as a paying customer I feel entitled to non-obstructed views.


That's a stretch. Your line of thinking suggests that a) everyone should be likewise granted a TV or computer so as to partake in the viewing experience to which they're entitled, b) that everyone likes sports the same and thus makes the demand a universal right, and c) that not only are you entitled to the viewing experience but you're likewise entitled to a certain quality in that experience, erego even a privately financed stadium in a World Cup continents removed from you should amend their design simply because you're "entitled to non-obstructed views!" Does this mean you're likewise entitled to have only shorter people in front of you when attending an event? 

Sorry but even in the most dynamic application of rights incurred by use of your tax dollars that does not extend to mandating aesthetic qualifiers for an optional sporting event. Unobstructed views are a want, not a need or a right. 



RobH said:


> *So....does anyone actually know what FIFA's actual requirements are for public transport to and from stadiums?*


I didn't find anything on FIFA's web site and wouldn't be surprised if they're evolving from event to event. I would imagine they instead work with each candidate city to identify the various forces and issues at play to design the best solution for each. But if I had to guess I would assume the list of definitive criteria would look something like this:

- The means for safe and easy access for the teams, media, officials, and special guests to get into the venues and practice facilities from their respective hotel of operation;
- The means for visiting fans to have relatively safe, easy and affordable access to the venues and local attractions from popular hotel centers; 
- Accommodations necessary for disabled visitors in concert with the above goals;
- Policies and the means to manage the safety and well being of travelers along the intended routes provided.

That's obviously highly generalized but if those goals can be achieved by any combination of travel then I imagine FIFA would be happy. So if a particular community doesn't have rail access but they have sufficient busing and driver services that visitors can afford then that may be sufficient, and expectations are that likely not every city will feature the same issues and solutions. It's all about meeting those goals. 



pesto said:


> Really, you can ride a subway and sit in a bar anyplace so why do it on vacation?


There is a decided aspect of urban tourism that is predicated on a) being able to get around without needing a vehicle of your own, and b) wanting to experience local culture, food, music, etc. As a parent I know all too well the convenience of traveling only to find myself driving a rental while searching for a chain restaurant that will appease the kids, but I imagine more tourists for a World Cup are looking for the opposite. Once they establish their hotel base of operations it's all about the convenience an immersing yourself in the local scene, and communities with strong public transit not only have an additional travel option but typically feature nodes of destination around transit stops and volumes of maps readily posted for visitors to reference. When my friends and I go to places like Savannah, Philadelphia, etc, we're hoofing it as mush as possible or riding local transit.


----------



## Schorschico

pesto said:


> I really believe that those with interests in travelling by subway are not going to like the US...


Isn't NYC the biggest tourist destination in the US, or did I get that wrong?


----------



## Rover030

GunnerJacket said:


> That's a stretch. Your line of thinking suggests that a) everyone should be likewise granted a TV or computer so as to partake in the viewing experience to which they're entitled, b) that everyone likes sports the same and thus makes the demand a universal right, and c) that not only are you entitled to the viewing experience but you're likewise entitled to a certain quality in that experience, erego even a privately financed stadium in a World Cup continents removed from you should amend their design simply because you're "entitled to non-obstructed views!" Does this mean you're likewise entitled to have only shorter people in front of you when attending an event?
> 
> Sorry but even in the most dynamic application of rights incurred by use of your tax dollars that does not extend to mandating aesthetic qualifiers for an optional sporting event. Unobstructed views are a want, not a need or a right.


You're ignoring the original point of this discussion. Pesto said that people are only allowed to complain about something if they pay for it, so I explained that I do pay for it. That's really all there is to it.

Personally, I think that you should be allowed to complain anyway, but just for fun I was trying to show why I have the right to complain per pesto's rules. Or is it really a common believe in America that you cannot be unhappy with something another person or organisation does that impacts you if you are not paying that organistation or person?

Still, I'm not really getting your a) and b) points. I didn't say that everyone should be granted a device. I said that a) everyone that _has_ a device can watch the broadcast for free, because b) their tax money is paying for it. That's not an opinion or something, that's the factual truth of world cup broadcasts in the Netherlands.

Point c: I want a particular quality in return for my tax money. That's quite normal right? In the US you are very familiar with that concept, with referenda on specific taxations for specific government action, such as "Measure M" in Los Angeles County. If it turns out that the "promised" transit programmes cannot be delivered for the amount of money that was reserved for it, there will be disappointment of some degree for sure.
In the Netherlands democracy is not that direct, but I still personally want something for my tax money. That's what I mean with feeling entitled to it. Maybe I didn't choose the right word, I could have also said that "I want non-obstructed views for my tax money". 

Even disregarding the tax money, I still want non-obstructed views at the world cup. It just doesn't feel right that there are obstructed views in such modern stadia, of which some were even designed for football, allegedly. It's similar to people not wanting athletics stadiums for football, even if they are just watching on TV. It just feels wrong.

Most importantly, they actually have the ability to fix the problem. There is a tradeoff of course, but it makes sense for us to talk about it right now, because it's an interesting discussion.


----------



## pesto

Rover030 said:


> Okay, I'll try to explain the problems with the stadiums (especially the one in Atlanta) and the concept of public TV. The design of the stadium also blocks the view of the nearby corners from the camera view. Next to that, it just hurts to watch a match in a stadium with obstructed views of any kind.
> 
> The World Cup is and has always been broadcasted on public TV in the Netherlands. Public TV is free to watch for everyone who has any kind of device that can access the internet. The public TV network is financed partly by advertising revenues and partly by taxes (so not by a TV license like in the UK). The public TV network has to purchase the broadcasting rights from FIFA. That means that all World Cups that have been held since broadcasting rights were invented, have been subsidised by Dutch taxpayers (and taxpayers of other countries).
> 
> So yes, I am paying for the world cup even if I don't buy tickets and as a paying customer I feel entitled to non-obstructed views.


Sorry, a lot more explanation required. What you have said does not imply any kind of subsidy that would make you a "sponsor" of the broadcast. 

In any event, compare yourself to the Dutchman who doesn't watch the WC. Who is subsidizing and who is being subsidized?


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The first paragraph applies to American Football. I'm not sure American Soccer fans think the same way. As you say other US sports have a different culture. Of course the biggest stadiums are set up with North America's biggest sport in mind. It is what it is. I also think that some of the car parking can be set aside for bars and catering if there is an expectation that much of the visiting crowd will be bussed in. I drank outside the stadiums in Sao Paulo and Belo Horizonte. I think that was inside the first ticket check and it was fun. Yes, having to get back to hotels, etc will be the most boring part of the day but not actually that bad so long as there are excited fans of the competing nations there.
> 
> Also there will be lots of time to go to downtown bars. Few people are going to go to more than a game every other day. Most will be one every three days at most. Has anything been said about fan zones yet?
> 
> If I go to this World Cup, and I'm tempted, I will want to go to bars but I will certainly want to enjoy some of the other things available. The National Parks are special. All the cities likely to be used have something interesting to see and do. Besides, I can't just get drunk all day every day.


There certainly has been talk about where in NY or Boston or LA or SJ/SF to put fan zones. I expect they will also go to cities which do not have matches nearby (Indianapolis, Columbus, LV, New Orleans, Houston, etc.)

The Olympics in LA are talking about zones in Long Beach (where various water and other events will be held) and the Santa Monica area. Basically they are massive beach parties with live music day and night. And, of course, around downtown LA, where there are a dozen facilities near each other, and at Inglewood stadium there will be extended activities.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> There certainly has been talk about where in NY or Boston or LA or SJ/SF to put fan zones. I expect they will also go to cities which do not have matches nearby (Indianapolis, Columbus, LV, New Orleans, Houston, etc.)
> 
> The Olympics in LA are talking about zones in Long Beach (where various water and other events will be held) and the Santa Monica area. Basically they are massive beach parties with live music day and night. And, of course, around downtown LA, where there are a dozen facilities near each other, and at Inglewood stadium there will be extended activities.


Santa Monica would be great.


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> So Atlanta and Minneapolis are not large cities? Or when you say "really large" do you mean NYC, LA, and Chicago?
> 
> 
> There are a number of decent transit systems in this country and the stigma that you are putting on them is outdated. Sure most of them are not up to par with European systems, but they get the job done for tourists.
> 
> Not every city is in California.


Neither city you mention is in the top 10 consolidated metros. But, hey, if you can find 50-100 acres of open space in the middle of your DT, go for it. NY, LA, Dallas, SF, Boston, etc., couldn't.

I have nothing against US subways and bus lines. Even LA is going to have a decent one by 2028 for the Olympics. But they will not be nearly as effective in the US as rental car, Uber or taxi. NY is an exception but most other places you will find a private vehicle more useful.

For sure you want to get out of town in: Seattle, Bay Area, LA, Denver, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Houston (head to NoLa). No offense meant to others, I just don't know the areas that well.

The typical European spends about 2 weeks in California and hits SD, Malibu, Palm Springs, Yosemite, Sequoia, Tahoe, the wine country, Carmel and Monterey. The serious visitors go to Joshua Tree, hike the Pacific trail for a few days or go to redwood country (aka weed country). A cousin of mine who is Danish went to Yosemite and cancelled the rest of his trip so he could stay there an entire week.


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> Neither city you mention is in the top 10 consolidated metros. But, hey, if you can find 50-100 acres of open space in the middle of your DT, go for it. NY, LA, Dallas, SF, Boston, etc., couldn't.


Most of the "Top 10 Metros" contain multiple cities like NYC, LA, Dallas, Bay Area. For these it might make sense to put your stadium in a central location as apposed to in one of the downtowns, but I still think a good transit link is beneficial. The point that I am arguing is your claim that downtowns don't work for NFL stadiums, but if you look at the list of current stadiums about half of them are downtown or downtown adjacent. Some of them might be just across a physical barrier like a river, but they are still close to a downtown. I think that kind of setup is preferable to the other extreme where you have a stadium located on a highway in the middle of "nowhere" like Foxborough. Especially when it comes to a World Cup, granted these stadiums are not designed for the world cup and it is just a nice bonus. 



pesto said:


> For sure you want to get out of town in: Seattle, Bay Area, LA, Denver, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Houston (head to NoLa). No offense meant to others, I just don't know the areas that well.


There is plenty to do within these cities if you do not have/want the means to drive around with a car. I agree with you though that there are a lot of things to do outside those cities only accessible by a car, but that is the choice of those coming. I don't think it is genuine to say that you need a car to enjoy your trip to any of those cities. The "typical European" touring around California is probably not going to be the majority of people coming for this World Cup. Sure there will be plenty who take advantage of the situation like you say with a car, but I'm sure there will be many others who stick within the public transit footprint of the city and enjoy themselves that way. This is also why we must continue to fight for transit expansion as it gives tourists more options when exploring our cities.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Rover030 said:


> You're ignoring the original point of this discussion. Pesto said that people are only allowed to complain about something if they pay for it, so I explained that I do pay for it. That's really all there is to it.
> 
> Personally, I think that you should be allowed to complain anyway, but just for fun I was trying to show why I have the right to complain per pesto's rules. Or is it really a common believe in America that you cannot be unhappy with something another person or organisation does that impacts you if you are not paying that organistation or person?


To be sure there are different types of obstructed views. If you get a seat at Indianapolis' Lucas Oil Stadium that puts you adjacent to a column and blocks 1/3 of the field then, yes, you deserve to know this in advance and get a discount if you do buy the ticket. If you buy a seat at MBS in Atlanta and the only obstruction is part of the nearest corner that's a different level of grievance. Still an annoyance but less so. Yet you were talking about the view from TV. To wit, you're entitled to your opinion about something but you went one step further:


> So yes, I am paying for the world cup even if I don't buy tickets and as a paying customer I feel entitled to non-obstructed views.


To be entitled to something means it's owed to you by right, and when you're denied that right you have been unfairly aggrieved. If you're claiming your tax dollars entitle you to unobstructed views for sports then I'd appreciate seeing where that is listed in the related government acts behind your taxes. I pay taxes for fire protection and libraries, but that doesn't mean I get to demand the fire station be right next door or that the library be an architectural wonder. Instead I accept that the use of tax dollars enables a general condition and hope for the best. Likewise any taxes you pay that contribute to the venue are to be used in a general sense to provide the optimal, but reasonable, use and benefits of the community. To lure tourism, to generate jobs, to build a sense of community, etc. But I feel comfortable saying that a mandatory right to clean views is not part of the policies. 

To be sure, no one wants or favors obstructed views. Not me and clearly not you. Ideally this isn't a discussion for any venue or event, but the reality is that even modern construction involves compromises and sometimes this happen. In fact it happens frequently enough it's a regular debate, unfortunately. However improving this condition requires that people stop buying seats where there are obstructed views to force the change, or in the case of new venues demand this be a priority feature while accepting that condition may yield to a compromise elsewhere such as lower capacity. But we can't claim it as a right and simply complaining about it can be pointless. These boards have had plenty of people point out flaws at various stadiums yet we've not offered bona fide solutions to correct existing problems or ensure they don't get repeated!

So I'm not bagging on you for wanting clean views. Everyone wants that. But they're not a right for the TV viewer and simply kvetching about the problem won't change anything.

Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## SoroushPersepolisi

alot of the north american (canada + america) stadiums, though with some positive aspects like impressive scales , are not as elegant and visually flowing compared to some other stadiums (russia's stadiums were in between, other than a few like the luzhniki which was elegant)

i think its the lack of uniformity in the stands and roof lines, and the massive screens, they end up looking like theme parks a bit 









though i must say again, the scale of many american stadiums are just amazing. the mercedes arena roof is something


----------



## Tered

SoroushPersepolisi said:


> i think its the lack of uniformity in the stands and roof lines, and the massive screens, they end up looking like theme parks a bit


I would bet if Atlanta's stadiums' pitch would've looked like this instead, everyone here would be happy :banana:epper::banana2:


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> Most of the "Top 10 Metros" contain multiple cities like NYC, LA, Dallas, Bay Area. For these it might make sense to put your stadium in a central location as apposed to in one of the downtowns, but I still think a good transit link is beneficial. The point that I am arguing is your claim that downtowns don't work for NFL stadiums, but if you look at the list of current stadiums about half of them are downtown or downtown adjacent. Some of them might be just across a physical barrier like a river, but they are still close to a downtown. I think that kind of setup is preferable to the other extreme where you have a stadium located on a highway in the middle of "nowhere" like Foxborough. Especially when it comes to a World Cup, granted these stadiums are not designed for the world cup and it is just a nice bonus.
> 
> 
> 
> There is plenty to do within these cities if you do not have/want the means to drive around with a car. I agree with you though that there are a lot of things to do outside those cities only accessible by a car, but that is the choice of those coming. I don't think it is genuine to say that you need a car to enjoy your trip to any of those cities. The "typical European" touring around California is probably not going to be the majority of people coming for this World Cup. Sure there will be plenty who take advantage of the situation like you say with a car, but I'm sure there will be many others who stick within the public transit footprint of the city and enjoy themselves that way. This is also why we must continue to fight for transit expansion as it gives tourists more options when exploring our cities.


Sure, many will stick to the cities; I am just pointing out that the loss is theirs. Really, if you just come to, say, Boston to go to a soccer match and drink all day, you deserve what you get. Take transit if you want; rent a car if you want. Nobody's business but your own.

Again, sticking to large cities. Look at the top 10 metros. None are in city centers. NY, LA, Chicago, SJ/SF, Dallas, Boston, etc. Why Atlanta has so much empty space next to their DT is probably the real question but not for this thread.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> For sure you want to get out of town in: Seattle, Bay Area, LA, Denver, Boston, Atlanta, Miami, Houston (head to NoLa).



Yes, but to use Seattle as an example you don't need a car for the city itself. Visitors can take Link, the monorail and walk to get around the city. You only need a car to make a side trip to the rainforests, volcanoes, desert, the fjords and islands on the Pacific Ocean, the mountain ranges, etc.


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> Like others, my personal preference would be a slightly smaller but well connected stadium over a slightly larger but badly served one. I'd imagine most visitors to a World Cup would feel the same. A stadium in the middle of nowhere surrounded by car parks doesn't sound much fun. The World Cup isn't an NFL game and visitors need to be accounted for as well as locals.
> 
> But preferences are subjective and we could go round in circles forever on this.
> 
> *So....does anyone actually know what FIFA's actual requirements are for public transport to and from stadiums?*
> 
> On the issue of sightlines, it's clear USA is a unique case, and there was always going to be some compromise required that wouldn't be required for other nations who either have or would build stadiums entirely suited to soccer. You could say they're making exceptions for the USA, but I think that's unreasonable - I think they're working with what they have.
> 
> Wouldn't it be possible to have a ticket lottery as they do for Olympics and World Cups, but once the seats are assigned, charge less for obstructed view seats (or automatic partial refunds)? Surely that's not beyond the realms of technological possibility?


AFAIK just that public transfer must be provided from the main hub in the host city. 

and now be smart and define the hub in a city like LA :colgate:


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> Yes, but to use Seattle as an example you don't need a car for the city itself. Visitors can take Link, the monorail and walk to get around the city. You only need a car to make a side trip to the rainforests, volcanoes, desert, the fjords and islands on the Pacific Ocean, the mountain ranges, etc.


Agree completely. When in Paris I use Metro; when I go to the Loire or Versailles or Chartres I use a car. 

One is great when you know exactly where you are going and don't want to see anything else. The other is for when you want to explore, get off the beaten track, try the restaurant along the stream in the woods, etc.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> AFAIK just that public transfer must be provided from the main hub in the host city.
> 
> and now be smart and define the hub in a city like LA :colgate:


Great minds think alike. Six months ago when looking at the FIFA requirements that's the same though I had, only for several cities not just LA (e.g., SJ where the stadium is 40 miles from SF and 10 miles from Palo Alto, where many people will choose to stay).

I assume that FIFA couldn't get more detailed since the stadium and city center and tourist areas may be somewhat separated from each other. In that case temporary bus shuttles may make more sense than relying on existing transit.


----------



## aquamaroon

*h/t user 5portsF4n*

Here's Atlanta United and their fans celebrating an MLS cup berth; also, in the sightlines and the huge wall between the fans and the pitch, shows off the issues with selecting an NFL stadium for the World Cup :cheers:


----------



## GunnerJacket

aquamaroon said:


> *h/t user 5portsF4n*
> 
> Here's Atlanta United and their fans celebrating an MLS cup berth;


Almost. Still have the 2nd leg of the Conference Final vs New York on Thursday. I'm hopeful but no Atlanta sports fan counts their trophies til they're in hand!


----------



## ElvisBC

now they‘re in, as well as portland. not even mahones chearing helped KC! maybe hunt could have helped, he obviously knows how to kick hno:


still, huge silence around WC 2026. infantino only cares about his 25 billions and LOC waits on infantino ....


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> now they‘re in, as well as portland. *not even mahones chearing helped KC*! maybe hunt could have helped, he obviously knows how to kick hno:
> 
> 
> still, huge silence around WC 2026. infantino only cares about his 25 billions and LOC waits on infantino ....


https://twitter.com/ESPNFC/status/1...entertainment/patrick-mahomes-sporting-kc-mls - video



> Along with Kareem Hunt, Tyreek Hill, Travis Kelce, Chris Conley, Chad Henne, Gehrig Dieter and Demarcus Robinson, Mahomes led the KC fans in “I believe that we will win!” chants.


Not a Chiefs fan, but you won't ever catch 12 doing that at Gillette.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Not a Chiefs fan, but you won't ever catch 12 doing that at Gillette.


AFAIK arrowhead still has the loudest recorded crowd ... you may correct me if I’m wrong


----------



## George_D

can someone list the stadiums in 3 countries? USA-Canada-Mexico?


----------



## GunnerJacket

George_D said:


> can someone list the stadiums in 3 countries? USA-Canada-Mexico?


They're not finalized yet and won't be for a few years, but you can go to the Wikipedia page and get an idea.


----------



## pesto

Gunner has the right advice, but some are guessing that:

Most likely: NY, LA, Dallas, SF/SJ, DC or Baltimore
Solid: Miami, Boston, Atlanta 
Possible: Houston, Denver, Seattle, Philadelphia, Orlando, KC, Cincinnati, Nashville (choose 2-4)
Assumed out unless talked in: Chicago


----------



## parcdesprinces

^^ Great set of possible venues.


----------



## ElvisBC

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ Great set of possible venues.


not everyone shares that opinion. few of them are fine, at best, rest is somewhere between bad and awful!


----------



## pesto

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ Great set of possible venues.


Merci!

Don't pay attention to Elvis. He is fixated on corners and oblivious to everything else. :lol:

But I suppose revenues (ticketprice times attendance) is the real measure of what is desirable and what isn't.


----------



## ElvisBC

this is really strange, since the day of FIFA congress ... not a single word from LOC!


----------



## flierfy

How about building a Hampden-style platform in these NFL stadiums to better accommodate football? Raising the playing field by one or two metres does wonders in terms of sightlines. That may not be cheap. But in order to charge world class prices for 5 or 6 matches, it's probably worth the expenses to provide a world class experience.


----------



## ElvisBC

they will have to do anyway, especially in atlanta!


----------



## GunnerJacket

flierfy said:


> How about building a Hampden-style platform in these NFL stadiums to better accommodate football? Raising the playing field by one or two metres does wonders in terms of sightlines. That may not be cheap. But in order to charge world class prices for 5 or 6 matches, it's probably worth the expenses to provide a world class experience.


As Elvis said this is what will happen in any venue with artificial turf, and what they did when they used a temporary grass for the Silverdome back in '94. So, this will aid some sightlines to be sure.


----------



## Tered

GunnerJacket said:


> As Elvis said this is what will happen in any venue with artificial turf, and what they did when they used a temporary grass for the Silverdome back in '94. So, this will aid some sightlines to be sure.


Indeed...


----------



## ElvisBC

can’t really see it from that picture but if you say so 

for me the greatest configuration of silverdome was basketball one, pistons games with 40k-50k people in there, that was awesome scenery for awesome basketball team!


----------



## pesto

And I thought my seats at the Stones concert were bad!


----------



## Chevy114

Did the pistons ever play in Detroit before little Cesars?


----------



## pesto

Chevy114 said:


> Did the pistons ever play in Detroit before little Cesars?


You are so young! :lol:

Cobo Hall (as the old-timers called it); Bob Lanier, Dave Bing (His Honor, the Mayor), Dave Debusschere. (I think they all played there, give or take a year or two).


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

People paid money to sit that far away from basketball? Insane.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> People paid money to sit that far away from basketball? Insane.


Maybe...., but not necessarily. Those were disastrous years for Detroit and ticket giveaways for unemployed auto workers were common. In fact, it became a racial issue because the unemployed auto workers were mostly white and the rest of the unemployed were disproportionately black.

Ah, the good old days.


----------



## Chevy114

pesto said:


> You are so young! :lol:
> 
> Cobo Hall (as the old-timers called it); Bob Lanier, Dave Bing (His Honor, the Mayor), Dave Debusschere. (I think they all played there, give or take a year or two).


I'm scared to say this, but I was born in 83 lol


----------



## Guest

Hey Gunner, why dont you delete the last 10 posts for being offtopic? Oh no, I see youre giving out likes for offtopic comments. If only you were as consistent in your modding as your Gunners...


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Hey Gunner, why dont you delete the last 10 posts for being offtopic? Oh no, I see youre giving out likes for offtopic comments. If only you were as consistent in your modding as your Gunners...


This is an issue? The Silverdome came up in context of Atlanta's fitness for FIFA events and then someone posted a picture of how it was configured in the past. And then someone asked if there were ever arenas in Detroit proper instead of the suburbs so I commented on a very famous arena and team that had HOF players including one who subsequently became Mayor of Detroit.


----------



## Guest

pesto said:


> This is an issue? The Silverdome came up in context of Atlanta's fitness for FIFA events and then someone posted a picture of how it was configured in the past. And then someone asked if there were ever arenas in Detroit proper instead of the suburbs so I commented on a very famous arena and team that had HOF players including one who subsequently became Mayor of Detroit.


The last 7 posts before mine (make that 10 now with mine included) are offtopic, and have no relevance whatsoever to the 2026 WC. Meanwhile, you say anything offtopic in some of the other threads he tracks closely and they're gone. 

Why can Chevy make posts about the year he was born and pistons in a 2026 WC thread but we can't discuss MLS structure in the US/Can soccer stadium thread?

I expect my posts here will be deleted by a mod, which is fine and expected. Just wonder if they'll have the cojones to delete the other offtopic posts.


----------



## ElvisBC

The posts are just fine. We can't do anything about the fact that LOC completely shut down its public relations department after getting the Cup mid June. Zero infos for 8 months now! Great advertising for the World Cup as one would expect it when it comes to USA and the unknown sport they call soccer!!!!


----------



## parcdesprinces

flierfy said:


> How about building a Hampden-style platform in these NFL stadiums to better accommodate football?


Or maybe remove some rows in the corners like they did (if I remember correctly) for USA '94 at the Cotton Bowl & the Rose Bowl...not to mention using for this 2026 WC the _relatively recent_ & gorgeous Reliant Stadium (or whatever its new name is) in Houston with its 'already planned' removable rows.


:dunno:


----------



## ElvisBC

parcdesprinces said:


> Or maybe remove some rows in the corners like they did (if I remember correctly) for USA '94 at the Cotton Bowl & the Rose Bowl...not to mention using for this 2026 WC the _relatively recent_ & gorgeous Reliant Stadium (or whatever its new name is) in Houston with its 'already planned' removable rows.
> 
> 
> :dunno:


yepp, houston is perfect example for great combo of FIFA compatible stadium and a city infrastructure. houston reliant dome (or call it nrg dome) is a a great one, well planned for association football, they can open the roof as well and you can easily reach it from downtown by light rail. also lot of parking space around and enough boxes for fat FIFA asses!


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> The last 7 posts before mine (make that 10 now with mine included) are offtopic, and have no relevance whatsoever to the 2026 WC. Meanwhile, you say anything offtopic in some of the other threads he tracks closely and they're gone.
> 
> Why can Chevy make posts about the year he was born and pistons in a 2026 WC thread but we can't discuss MLS structure in the US/Can soccer stadium thread?
> 
> I expect my posts here will be deleted by a mod, which is fine and expected. Just wonder if they'll have the cojones to delete the other offtopic posts.


This seems to be technically correct but practically not very useful. The "off-topic" comments were brief, friendly and answered a question raised in the course of the discussion. It was not a "high-jacking" of the thread to fixate on some obscure issue or political position or insult someone. And now it's over.

I also agree with Elvis: there is some need to broaden the discussion here and it seems natural enough to talk about the adaptability of stadiums, surfaces and such.


----------



## GunnerJacket

5portsF4n said:


> The last 7 posts before mine (make that 10 now with mine included) are offtopic, and have no relevance whatsoever to the 2026 WC. Meanwhile, you say anything offtopic in some of the other threads he tracks closely and they're gone.
> 
> Why can Chevy make posts about the year he was born and pistons in a 2026 WC thread but we can't discuss MLS structure in the US/Can soccer stadium thread?
> 
> I expect my posts here will be deleted by a mod, which is fine and expected. Just wonder if they'll have the cojones to delete the other offtopic posts.


a) It's a message board. People shoulodn't take certain things too literally or personally. There's also no need to respond to every comment one doesn't like or with which one disagrees. 

We mods try to keep it like a pub discussion. So long as it doesn't get personal or detract from the main flow of discussion we try to let it slide. We're not actively looking for reasons to delete anything. 

b) Mods are volunteers. I don't spend my days applying a rigid, calculated rule to every single comment on every thread. We simply try to keep things from straying too far off track. This can get more complex than it seems on a globally accessible board where people obviously have varying degrees of sensitivities and triggers. It's not rare at all that I get PMs about posts from both sides of the issue, meaning we can't always win. 

We're also imperfect. I've been trigger happy sometimes and I've let some stuff go perhaps when I shouldn't. I'm human. Simple as. 

c) Every thread has a history and a character, which in some cases means "dead horse" material. Such is the case with pro/rel in the MLS stadium thread. I've no problem with discussion expansion options or stadiums in general but pro/rel is it's own idealism that got messy and led to mods receiving PMs. The topic is more than welcome on it's own thread, yet no one has bothered to make that.

If anyone has a personal grievance about my involvement or lack thereof they're welcome to send a PM to Jan or another mod. I don't pretend to be board dictator and actually hate when I have to intervene because it takes time and usually means someone is going to end up upset. 

So, is it possible we can now simply pick up and move on? Great! Cheers.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> yepp, houston is perfect example for great combo of FIFA compatible stadium and a city infrastructure. houston reliant dome (or call it nrg dome) is a a great one, well planned for association football, they can open the roof as well and you can easily reach it from downtown by light rail. also lot of parking space around and enough boxes for fat FIFA asses!


It's interesting to see Houston in the role of Urbanist's Delight!:lol:

So I'm guessing you would drop Boston/Gillette? We have to keep it at 10.


----------



## Tered

5portsF4n said:


> NY will host final.


I really hope NOT! -








Of course you're thinking of New Jersey's MetLife. BTW, this setup is a rarity for MLS NYCFC with a grass infield & the line through the pitchers mound which they don't normally do, making the pitch even narrower if you could believe it!


----------



## slipperydog

5portsF4n said:


> NY will host final.


Far from a foregone conclusion. It would be naive to overlook Los Angeles. Hollywood Park with its shops, parks, theater, entertainment, offices, etc. is pretty much FIFA's ideal setting for a final. No stifling mid-summer humidity either.


----------



## RobH

This thread has _once again_ got confused because Europeans and Americans mean different things by "roof" when talking about stadiums. :lol:

FWIW, this is what FIFA's evaluation said about the North American bid with regard to stadium roofs/canopies:



> Six of the 23 proposed stadiums are fully covered (including four which have retractable roofs). A further five stadiums are either predominantly or only slightly covered, while nearly half of the proposals (12 out of 23) involve stadiums without any roof. The ability to secure media and VIP tribune operations against the elements at those venues would require careful consideration and could lead at some stadiums to lower service levels.


They don't want the media to get wet or their VIP guests. Beyond that, there's not much else said.

That _could_ be enough to rule out Giants stadium for the biggest matches. Guess we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Brunarino

go on Youtube and watch old World Cups...
basically every stadium was with no roof and many with athletic track
now everything is covered and no track at all


----------



## Chevy114

This reminds me of how Miami hosted a super bowl and it rained, so within a few years they added a roof to cover the fans so they could get the super bowl back


----------



## Guest

Brunarino said:


> go on Youtube and watch old World Cups...
> basically every stadium was with no roof and many with athletic track
> now everything is covered and no track at all


You are confusing requirement with the natural evolution of stadium design. Few stadiums of large size are being built with tracks because they simply are not deemed necessary. The roof is a modern day consideration to improve fan experience. 

Neither are regulations stipulated by Fifa.


----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> This thread has _once again_ got confused because Europeans and Americans mean different things by "roof" when talking about stadiums. :lol:
> 
> FWIW, this is what FIFA's evaluation said about the North American bid with regard to stadium roofs/canopies:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't want the media to get wet or their VIP guests. Beyond that, there's not much else said.
> 
> That _could_ be enough to rule out Giants stadium for the biggest matches. Guess we'll have to wait and see.


Can't the VIP's and press be put in suites or under overhangs?

LOL. Gunner beat me to it. I have edited out my comment on roofs.

Of course FIFA can do whatever they want and certainly won't be bound by their own rules (or supposed rules). They can change them at any time for any reason or for no reason at all.


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod note:* Enough with the "roof" talk. It's taken the thread sideways and makes no one happy. Unless someone is posting a definitive LINKED FROM THE SOURCE mandate from FIFA concerning roofs/ awnings/overhangs/gigantic umbrellas then the matter is verboten for this thread. Why? Because FIFA and the host nations will sort it out regardless of our banter here.

So from now on consider the topic of stadium roofs here closed.


----------



## krnboy1009

I feel like Canada should just drop out and it should be US and Mexico only. Give Canada's share to Mexico.

Canada doesn't really have the venues, IMO. Only modern venue they have is BMO and that only seats 30,000.

It would be interesting to see how Atlanta manages to put in natural grass.


----------



## GunnerJacket

We're all in this together now and Canada has several years to make any necessary modifications, which they'll do.


----------



## pesto

krnboy1009 said:


> I feel like Canada should just drop out and it should be US and Mexico only. Give Canada's share to Mexico.
> 
> Canada doesn't really have the venues, IMO. Only modern venue they have is BMO and that only seats 30,000.
> 
> It would be interesting to see how Atlanta manages to put in natural grass.


Canada has certainly been a lingering issue here. Considering the size of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, they shouldn't be having this much difficulty. Of course, Vancouver isn't even trying. 

But, with 7 years to go and with the US having 20 or more venues ready today you can afford to think for awhile.


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> .
> 
> That _could_ be enough to rule out Giants stadium for the biggest matches. Guess we'll have to wait and see.


this is what I am telling all the time



GunnerJacket said:


> *Mod note:* Enough with the "roof" talk. It's taken the thread sideways and makes no one happy. Unless someone is posting a definitive LINKED FROM THE SOURCE mandate from FIFA concerning roofs/ awnings/overhangs/gigantic umbrellas then the matter is verboten for this thread. Why? Because FIFA and the host nations will sort it out regardless of our banter here.
> 
> So from now on consider the topic of stadium roofs here closed.


gunner, the real problem with this thread is that united2026 has entered mode of full silence in june 2018 and is still to put out a single official statement about the forthcoming cup! no host ever did that! not even close!!

the only things we‘ve heard recently were few words of self marketing from some potential hosts and some news from washington regarding potential new venue at jfk site apparently supported by trump administration as well. thats all!

do you think we should shut down this thread as well?


----------



## GunnerJacket

ElvisBC said:


> gunner, the real problem with this thread is that united2026 has entered mode of full silence in june 2018 and is still to put out a single official statement about the forthcoming cup! no host ever did that! not even close!!
> 
> the only things we‘ve heard recently were few words of self marketing from some potential hosts and some news from washington regarding potential new venue at jfk site apparently supported by trump administration as well. thats all!
> 
> do you think we should shut down this thread as well?


The absence of any formal news at this time invites us to speculate or to simply not care right now. The stakeholders involved are undoubtedly on top of what they need to be doing right now so there's no need for panic. We know FIFA will be giving cursory updates during the Women's WC this summer so we'll surely learn more then. 

Until that time if you all want to debate place vs place or venue vs venue to fill time that's fine, we're simply not going to regress into childish banter over something that's been covered aplenty on these boards. Have news or facts on the topic then by all means share, but no more he said vs he said without verification. That stuff is board killer.


----------



## cmc

_2026 ready..._


----------



## Vizemeister

United 2026 still has the luxury of seven years to settle on final venues. Germany for example had six years before kick-off-with massive changes to Frankfurt, Cologne and Hanover's original plans after the award. With that many stadia already "ready to go" for 2026, what news can you expect? The question(s) of the 2022 World Cup, the expansion plans and the possible co-hosts are much hotter, yet there's not even a dedicated thread for it (anymore?).


----------



## ElvisBC

Vizemeister said:


> United 2026 still has the luxury of seven years to settle on final venues. Germany for example had six years before kick-off-with massive changes to Frankfurt, Cologne and Hanover's original plans after the award. With that many stadia already "ready to go" for 2026, what news can you expect? The question(s) of the 2022 World Cup, the expansion plans and the possible co-hosts are much hotter, yet there's not even a dedicated thread for it (anymore?).


noone is arguing that, but I find it very strange that LOC hasn't put out a single official word about anything for 10 months now. that can either be intentional (for whatever reason) or there is somehting very wrong about it. 

I have been following world cups since ages and that was definitely never the case, even in times before internet we were getting official updates frequently!


----------



## Knitemplar

ElvisBC said:


> noone is arguing that, but I find it very strange that LOC hasn't put out a single official word about anything for 10 months now. that can either be intentional (for whatever reason) or there is somehting very wrong about it.
> 
> I have been following world cups since ages and that was definitely never the case, even in times before internet we were getting official updates frequently!


WHAT is there to put out? That they have enough venues coming out of their ears, even if Canada and Mexico bailed out, which they will not. The focus now is whether Qatar will make it or not; not what is NOT happening in the United 2026 bid. The United Bid has nearly everything in place. It is just waiting for 2022 to be over and done with; and 2026 and can go right ahead and have the spotlight to itself. In the meantime, there is enough drama with 2022, the Women's WCs and the jockeying for 2030. The stadia of North America waiting to host 2026 aren't going anywhere.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> noone is arguing that, but I find it very strange that LOC hasn't put out a single official word about anything for 10 months now. that can either be intentional (for whatever reason) or *there is somehting very wrong about it.
> *
> I have been following world cups since ages and that was definitely never the case, even in times before internet we were getting official updates frequently!


We know that the stadiums, airports, hotels and other facilities are off-the-charts. Long-term PR doesn't seem to be needed since the cities are generally world-famous. 

So what do you have in mind? Sounds kind of mysterious.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> We know that the stadiums, airports, hotels and other facilities are off-the-charts. Long-term PR doesn't seem to be needed since the cities are generally world-famous.
> 
> So what do you have in mind? Sounds kind of mysterious.


The stadia aren't off the charts. Only the newest are. LA, Las Vegas, Atlanta and Dallas have or will have excellent stadiums. New York/New Jersey, doesn't. Those precious VIPs not even protected from the weather. Washington is similar. San Francisco ditto. Canada is nowhere. With Mexico we know what the stadiums will be but I wouldn't say they are world-beating. There is history there, of course, and that counts for something.

What the stadia have, in general and with the current exception of Canada, is high capacity. Things have moved on a lot since 1994 when the size of US stadiums was sufficient to blow the world away.

This World Cup was announced early. There is a lot of time still to make decisions. I don't think we should have had a great deal more information by now. Hype begins after the 2022 World Cup. We may need it following that. It would be rude and crass to give promotion both barrels now. Before 2022 and ideally soon we could do with narrowing down the candidates for the US cities and some information about plans in Canada. This is information that should come out well before the Qatar World Cup.


----------



## RobH

I mean, *considering we still don't know for certain which countries will be hosting 2022*, I think we can ease off on expecting too many announcements from the 2026 hosts just yet.


----------



## cmc

Centurylink Field
*Seattle*


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The stadia aren't off the charts. Only the newest are. LA, Las Vegas, Atlanta and Dallas have or will have excellent stadiums. New York/New Jersey, doesn't. Those precious VIPs not even protected from the weather. Washington is similar. San Francisco ditto. Canada is nowhere. With Mexico we know what the stadiums will be but I wouldn't say they are world-beating. There is history there, of course, and that counts for something.
> 
> What the stadia have, in general and with the current exception of Canada, is high capacity. Things have moved on a lot since 1994 when the size of US stadiums was sufficient to blow the world away.
> 
> This World Cup was announced early. There is a lot of time still to make decisions. I don't think we should have had a great deal more information by now. Hype begins after the 2022 World Cup. We may need it following that. It would be rude and crass to give promotion both barrels now. Before 2022 and ideally soon we could do with narrowing down the candidates for the US cities and some information about plans in Canada. This is information that should come out well before the Qatar World Cup.


Are you saying there are issues with the stadiums? If so why isn't it public? Are you aware of some concerns they have re the quality of the stadiums? Or is this another "corners" and "first row sightlines" issue?

As for Mexico, FiFA WANTED them brought in; nobody is selling a bill of goods. They asked the US to pass up some of their very qualified stadiums to allow Mexico and Canada to become involved.

And if Canada doesn't perform we may have to fall back on Houston, Seattle, Denver or Philadelphia. Life is hard all over.


----------



## WesTexas

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The stadia aren't off the charts. Only the newest are. LA, Las Vegas, Atlanta and Dallas have or will have excellent stadiums. New York/New Jersey, doesn't. Those precious VIPs not even protected from the weather. Washington is similar. San Francisco ditto. Canada is nowhere. With Mexico we know what the stadiums will be but I wouldn't say they are world-beating. There is history there, of course, and that counts for something.
> 
> What the stadia have, in general and with the current exception of Canada, is high capacity. Things have moved on a lot since 1994 when the size of US stadiums was sufficient to blow the world away.
> 
> This World Cup was announced early. There is a lot of time still to make decisions. I don't think we should have had a great deal more information by now. Hype begins after the 2022 World Cup. We may need it following that. It would be rude and crass to give promotion both barrels now. Before 2022 and ideally soon we could do with narrowing down the candidates for the US cities and some information about plans in Canada. This is information that should come out well before the Qatar World Cup.


New York and San Francisco have amazing stadiums. If your only fear is not covered seating, get over it. We do things in the USA our own way.

For Canada
*BC Place* in Vancouver has a max capacity of 54,000, so it is fine for the world cup.
*Rogers Center* in Toronto can sit up to 50,000 in soccer mode.
*Olympic Stadium* in Montreal is undergoing a huge renovation and sits 61,000.

*How is Canada not ready?*


----------



## pesto

This thread gets more concerned about rain than any discussion since Katrina. :lol:


----------



## Vizemeister

WesTexas said:


> For Canada
> *BC Place* in Vancouver has a max capacity of 54,000, so it is fine for the world cup.



They're not part of it.


----------



## aquamaroon

Canada is the oddest host country of the three since their best stadium for soccer, BC Place, isn't currently planned to be used in the world cup!

























IF the city of Vancouver changes their mind, then I think BC Place, a renovated Olympic Stadium and an expanded BMO field will be up to par for a World Cup in 2026. :cheers:. (That said, a change to Vancouver would be unfair to Edmonton, a city that WAS willing to take on the burden of hosting a World Cup.)


----------



## aquamaroon

Just for a bit of comparison, probably the best US stadium at the moment not currently planned for the 2026 World Cup is a bit of a tie between US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis and the new Las Vegas Stadium in Las Vegas:












































(_The new LA Stadium in Inglewood is also not on the list, but it was mentioned by name in the bid book and almost certainly will end up in the World Cup_)


----------



## pesto

Agree with everything. Even if you assume that Minneapolis, Chicago and Vancouver are out and Canada only comes up with 1 stadium, you are probably looking at something like:

LA, NY, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, DC, Miami, SF, Houston, Seattle, Las Vegas, Denver.

That leaves Phoenix, Orlando, Philly, KC plus others still in reserve.

If there is no news these days, I would guess it is because there are TOO MANY good choices not TOO FEW and that has made stadium selection for 2026 a lower priority. If Vancouver, Chicago and Minneapolis can be lured in, they may still be selected; if not, then wait and see what LV looks like before getting into final discussions with cities at the margin.


----------



## ElvisBC

WesTexas said:


> New York and San Francisco have amazing stadiums. If your only fear is not covered seating, get over it.
> 
> *We do things in the USA our own way.*
> 
> For Canada
> *BC Place* in Vancouver has a max capacity of 54,000, so it is fine for the world cup.
> *Rogers Center* in Toronto can sit up to 50,000 in soccer mode.
> *Olympic Stadium* in Montreal is undergoing a huge renovation and sits 61,000.
> 
> *How is Canada not ready?*


thats cool, but we are talking FIFA world cup here, and it is always amazing to find out how little americans know about it, if anything at all!

but all fine, we'll talk about it when LOC finds it necessary to show any sign of life! this hybernation can not last forever!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> thats cool, but we are talking FIFA world cup here, and it is always amazing to find out how little americans know about it, if anything at all!
> 
> but all fine, we'll talk about it when LOC finds it necessary to show any sign of life! this hybernation can not last forever!


FIFA reviewed 23 stadiums and the review indicated that stadium risks were low and that the stadiums in general far exceeded FIFA standards for capacity, facilities, technology, safety, etc. They pointedly mentioned that both the inside and outside of all stadiums were well-suited for conducting WC related activities (which presumably means splashy events, large crowds, good camera angles and retail opportunities).

The main issues noted were lack of natural turf in some stadiums and the larger size of the soccer pitch. Remediation could result in obstructed views or effectively reduced capacity. Currently capacity at the 4 major stadiums averages about 82k and overall at about 70k.

This does not include Inglewood or LV or Minneapolis or Chicago. So, all in all it seems that the "problems" arise more from choosing among too many possibilities rather than from too few.

In any event, the report also notes that the United bid group was in complete agreement to make changes to bring everything to FIFA acceptability.


----------



## ElvisBC

btw, I really like a lot all three stadiums with fully/partialy transparent permanent roof (vegas, minny & LA) ... hard to believe they are really going to leave them out!


----------



## WesTexas

ElvisBC said:


> thats cool, but we are talking FIFA world cup here, and it is always amazing to find out how little americans know about it, if anything at all!
> 
> but all fine, we'll talk about it when LOC finds it necessary to show any sign of life! this hybernation can not last forever!


We literally have the world standard of stadiums, and more than dozens to chose from. we have the suites, the seating capacity, the room needed for press, fancy areas for corrupt FIFA bigwigs. The main complaint has always been that some fields are not real grass and some are not wide enough, but we are talking not wide enough by a few meters, which is within FIFA's acceptable standards.

The size of the fields will be ok. many of the indoor stadium and turf field will being in real grass. FIFA will be ok because they are about to make the most money they ever made off a world cup with the 2026 tournament.


----------



## cmc

_Monterrey_ 
2026 ready


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> Agree with everything. Even if you assume that Minneapolis, Chicago and Vancouver are out and Canada only comes up with 1 stadium, you are probably looking at something like:
> 
> LA, NY, Dallas, Atlanta, Boston, DC, Miami, SF, Houston, Seattle, Las Vegas, Denver.
> 
> That leaves Phoenix, Orlando, Philly, KC plus others still in reserve.
> 
> .


With 60 games allotted for the US, even at limiting US venues to just a dozen, that averages to 5 apiece. But I think to spread out the riches, they might give max of 4 games to some of the better venues (and I sure where Team USA will play, will probably get the bigger stadia), so 15 or 16 venues might come into play. 2026 is really an embarrassment of riches and why do I have this strange feeling that United 2026 might make more $$ than LA 2028 when the books are finally balanced?


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> With 60 games allotted for the US, even at limiting US venues to just a dozen, that averages to 5 apiece. But I think to spread out the riches, they might give max of 4 games to some of the better venues (and I sure where Team USA will play, will probably get the bigger stadia), so 15 or 16 venues might come into play. 2026 is really an embarrassment of riches and why do I have this strange feeling that United 2026 might make more $$ than LA 2028 when the books are finally balanced?


FIFA seems fixated on a maximum of 16 stadiums (10 in the US) due to the security and travel costs of adding more stadiums. But we don't know how they will come out on "spread the wealth" vs. "control costs".

The Olympics are not likely to be substantially profitable but I assume the WC will be immensely profitable (wasn't United talking about 10B of profits?).


----------



## Knitemplar

pesto said:


> (wasn't United talking about 10B of profits?).


Was that an early figure they bruited about? Even if United 2026 made $500 million alone, miGod, that would be fantastic. WC 1994 supposedly netted $100- $160 mil, which, based on the LA 1094 model, the top organizers gave themselves considerable bonuses from this goldmine. $500 mil alone from 2026 would be heart-stopping, and I hope most of that can be funneled to development, obviously, of soccer and other related charities--like the Paralympics and the Special Olympics.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I have two ideas for the official poster for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.

*Idea 1*
Three players, a canadian, a mexican and an american celebrating as they score a goal.

*Idea 2*
A canadian player making an assit.
A mexican player scoring like Negrete.
An American player celebrating like Landon Donovan.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> Was that an early figure they bruited about? Even if United 2026 made $500 million alone, miGod, that would be fantastic. WC 1994 supposedly netted $100- $160 mil, which, based on the LA 1094 model, the top organizers gave themselves considerable bonuses from this goldmine. $500 mil alone from 2026 would be heart-stopping, and I hope most of that can be funneled to development, obviously, of soccer and other related charities--like the Paralympics and the Special Olympics.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/sports/2026-world-cup.html

A wide-ranging article that cites 11B of profits including more than $5 billion in television rights fees; $3.6 billion for sponsorship and licensing; and at least $2.5 billion in ticket revenue. Of course, accuracy is always an issue.

Interestingly, there is a kind of implication that both Inglewood and the Rose Bowl could be considered. This could be an attractive alternative if they want to minimize travel. Inglewood was not included in the 23-team list since points are lost for stadiums not yet completed.


----------



## Knitemplar

CaliforniaJones said:


> I have two ideas for the official poster for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
> 
> *Idea 1*
> Three players, a canadian, a mexican and an american celebrating as they score a goal.
> 
> *Idea 2*
> A canadian player making an assit.
> A mexican player scoring like Negrete.
> An American player celebrating like Landon Donovan.


They will have several "official" posters.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

pesto said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/sports/2026-world-cup.html
> 
> A wide-ranging article that cites 11B of profits including more than $5 billion in television rights fees; $3.6 billion for sponsorship and licensing; and at least $2.5 billion in ticket revenue. Of course, accuracy is always an issue.
> 
> Interestingly, there is a kind of implication that both Inglewood and the Rose Bowl could be considered. This could be an attractive alternative if they want to minimize travel. Inglewood was not included in the 23-team list since points are lost for stadiums not yet completed.


The Rose Bowl? No. You don't eat a corned beef sandwich if offered a choice of that or beef wellington. FIFA rules on stadium selection are made to be broken. Where would the average FIFA exec or sponsor be sitting? That is what counts.

Those huge profits go to FIFA. I'd be more interested in the economic benefit to the host nations/cities themselves.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> The Rose Bowl? No. You don't eat a corned beef sandwich if offered a choice of that or beef wellington. FIFA rules on stadium selection are made to be broken. Where would the average FIFA exec or sponsor be sitting? That is what counts.
> 
> Those huge profits go to FIFA. I'd be more interested in the economic benefit to the host nations/cities themselves.


I can tell you about that: local facilities, hotels and food do quite well; politicians do well because these companies contribute to their re-election campaigns. Everyone else ("the average taxpayer") loses money.

I agree that it would be beyond peculiar not to use Inglewood. 

The more interesting idea is using two LA stadiums and perhaps creating a hub with LV, SJ (Levi's) and/or Phoenix. All of these are within 50 minutes flying time of LA, and the Inglewood, Levi's and LV stadiums are basically at the airport (for that matter, Phoenix and the Rose Bowl are also close to airports).


----------



## CaliforniaJones




----------



## Chevy114

That first one looks great!


----------



## smokiboy

Why the fluttering flags? Looks sloppy.


----------



## pesto

I don't think red, green, blue and white do it for me.


----------



## Knitemplar

I wish they'd move away from that ungainly trophy shape. It all looks so forced. One can do so much more with a less restrictive template.


----------



## pesto

Knitemplar said:


> I wish they'd move away from that ungainly trophy shape. It all looks so forced. One can do so much more with a less restrictive template.


Yes, it is about as bad as they get when it comes to trophies. Should be scrapped or given to an "ugly museum" as a lead attraction.


----------



## Chevy114

Can't we just do something like this again???


----------



## Knitemplar

Chevy114 said:


> Can't we just do something like this again???


That's actually one of the better FIFA WC logos.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Chevy114 said:


> Can't we just do something like this again???


Foolish mortal! Marketing principles mandate something different so more people have more reasons to buy. FIFA won't make as much money if those of us who were around in '94 could just dust off our old gear and join the party!


----------



## aquamaroon

hey man as long as I can rock my '94 Alexi Lalas jersey in 2026 I'm all good!


----------



## goldy21

aquamaroon said:


> hey man as long as I can rock my '94 Alexi Lalas jersey in 2026 I'm all good!


I'd love to see a subtle nod to this in the 2026 kits


----------



## Tered

Interesting article about those '94 USA kits from 5/19/2014

*The Horrifying True Story of the Ugliest Jerseys in U.S. Soccer History*
By Alan Siegel 

"The 1994 World Cup uniform looked as if it had been conjured by a stoned teenager using Microsoft Paint. ...Even shaggy-haired, guitar-playing center back Alexi Lalas, who once wrote and performed a song called “Kickin’ Balls,” hated it. In fact, he thought the squad had been pranked. “I’d be lying if I said people weren’t looking around for the hidden camera,” he says."

Full Article - https://slate.com/culture/2014/05/u...liest-jerseys-in-american-soccer-history.html


----------



## GunnerJacket

That was indeed a hideous kit. I cringed each time it appeared on TV. 

The 80's and 90's were known for some flamboyant designs at the club level and in youth leagues around the country. Any parent or coach who was purchasing team gear from the Umbro catalog or other brands will tell you there was a LOT more going on than the simple all blue or all red we see so much of today. But this denim-inspired US jersey looked about as noble as a party hat.


----------



## pesto

De gustibus, bro.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I've a link about the spainish compagny which created the video and the slide of the final presentation of the United bid. During the FIFA we could partially see all the slides. In this video, we can watch the presdentation and the slides.

Link


----------



## Chevy114

GunnerJacket said:


> Foolish mortal! Marketing principles mandate something different so more people have more reasons to buy. FIFA won't make as much money if those of us who were around in '94 could just dust off our old gear and join the party!


Some how logos have to be the same and different as to make no one mad, but make people buy new stuff every time. Look at the super bowl logos!


----------



## Chevy114

Also those denim jerseies we wore in 94 were ugly, but the design was nice


----------



## CaliforniaJones

The 80's and 90's are over. The design'll change.

For the mascot, I suggest to contact the creator of Dora the explorer and Go Diego, Go!, Chris Gifford.
I imagine one Canadian, one Mexican and one American, boy designed like Diego, being dressed with their respective National Team jersey and wearing police mounty hat, sombrero and stesson hat.

*Models*


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> The 80's and 90's are over. The design'll change.
> 
> For the mascot, I suggest to contact the creator of Dora the explorer and Go Diego, Go!, Chris Gifford.
> I imagine one Canadian, one Mexican and one American, boy designed like Diego, being dressed with their respective National Team jersey and wearing police mounty hat, sombrero and stesson hat.
> 
> *Models*


I'm afraid those images are not appropriate for the age of Openly Bisexual Woody. :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

infantino is the worst plague that ever hit the world football. compared to him havelange and blatter look like innocent children


----------



## ElvisBC

back to topic, a couple of days ago was one year aniversary of united bid appointment ... absolute silence since! not a single word from LOC! not even an meaningless statement or tweet, nothing! unprecedented in the history of world cup!!


----------



## ElvisBC

the only info we‘ve got is coming from potential host cities, not from LOC ... the most interesting and accurate one came from atlanta:

_The selection process is about to officially begin.

“(It) starts this summer,” Atlanta Sports Council president Dan Corso said recently. “The timeline for that will be this summer through next June. U.S. Soccer is required to propose to FIFA the 10 cities in the U.S. to host World Cup matches by June of 2020. FIFA will then consider those cities and will announce the (choices) no earlier than December of 2020. 

“So we’ve got a little bit of runway, but that work is starting up again.” _

https://www.ajc.com/sports/soccer/atlanta-world-cup-bid-starts-this-summer/JfHDhAUgcShByQkJjmK3oO/


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> for FIFA it absolutely doesn’t matter! we all know WC 2026 will have by far the worst stadiums any WC had in last 30 years, but that was the price of earnings as never before, so it really doesn‘t matter where the games are played.
> 
> for 30 years FIFA was forcing the hosts to build great football stadiums with perfect roofs and no viewing obstructions (they didn’t care at all quite a few of them becoming white elephants) just to drop all that in favor of those billions!
> 
> Infantino’s FIFA it is!


Italy 90 didnt have great stadiums. Rome, Turin, Naples, Bari, Florence, Udine, Verona, Palermo, Bologna ALL had athletics tracks.

94 was in the US.

98 France. Marseille had no roof to speak of. Ditto Montpellier. Stade de France only new stadium built. 

2002 again plenty of athletics tracks, Busan, Daegu, Incheon, Yokohama, Shizuoka, Osaka, Rifu, Oita, Niigata. 

Germany 06 built 6 stadiums, and all had a very strong legacy. This was the most sensible outcome of any world cup in past 30 years.

2010 and 2014 had good stadiums, but 2010 had 6 of 10 new builds, with 4 not having perfect roofs, or any at all. 

2014 and 2018 are really the only world cups where you had mostly new builds or major renovations and fully covered roofs. 

2026 will have some less than desirable stadiums, especially in Canada. The Mexican ones are good. 

If the US goes with New York, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, Miami, and then you use the new LA stadium, that’s 7 of 10 venues which are great stadiums. 

The only stadium thats regrettably not part of the bid is Minneapolis. The rest of the open air stadiums are interchangeable, and any of them are more or less like the other.

Also, they’ll all still look great when full. And they’ll have good sightlines and amenities for fans.


----------



## Nacre

ElvisBC said:


> back to topic, a couple of days ago was one year aniversary of united bid appointment ... absolute silence since! not a single word from LOC! not even an meaningless statement or tweet, nothing! unprecedented in the history of world cup!!


There's no news because there are no new stadiums being built and decisions on technical details won't be made for a long time.



ElvisBC said:


> greediness it is, nothing else, at any cost. at cost of football!
> 
> but you have no clue about football, so no way I could explain you anything about it!!


I didn't want the North American bid to be selected (because the travel will be absolutely awful for international fans) but the experience for fans once they get to the stadiums won't be any worse than South Africa. Or Qatar, for that matter. 

As for FIFA being greedy - sure they are. But so are UEFA, the English FA, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, et al.


----------



## Guest

Nacre said:


> There's no news because there are no new stadiums being built and decisions on technical details won't be made for a long time.
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't want the North American bid to be selected (because the travel will be absolutely awful for international fans) but the *experience for fans once they get to the stadiums won't be any worse than South Africa. Or Qatar, for that matter*.
> 
> As for FIFA being greedy - sure they are. But so are UEFA, the English FA, Manchester United, Liverpool, Tottenham, et al.


Not exactly true. American summer in open air stadiums with no covering roof can be uncomfortable experiences.

South Africa is southern hemisphere so world cup was during winter, and Qatar is moving out of summer, and will have covered/air conditioned stadia. But overall I agree 2026 stadiums will be perfectly fine


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Italy 90 didnt have great stadiums. Rome, Turin, Naples, Bari, Florence, Udine, Verona, Palermo, Bologna ALL had athletics tracks.
> 
> 94 was in the US.
> 
> 98 France. Marseille had no roof to speak of. Ditto Montpellier. Stade de France only new stadium built.
> 
> 2002 again plenty of athletics tracks, Busan, Daegu, Incheon, Yokohama, Shizuoka, Osaka, Rifu, Oita, Niigata.
> 
> Germany 06 built 6 stadiums, and all had a very strong legacy. This was the most sensible outcome of any world cup in past 30 years.
> 
> 2010 and 2014 had good stadiums, but 2010 had 6 of 10 new builds, with 4 not having perfect roofs, or any at all.
> 
> 2014 and 2018 are really the only world cups where you had mostly new builds or major renovations and fully covered roofs.
> 
> 2026 will have some less than desirable stadiums, especially in Canada. The Mexican ones are good.
> 
> If the US goes with New York, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, Miami, and then you use the new LA stadium, that’s 7 of 10 venues which are great stadiums.
> 
> The only stadium thats regrettably not part of the bid is Minneapolis. The rest of the open air stadiums are interchangeable, and any of them are more or less like the other.
> 
> Also, they’ll all still look great when full. And they’ll have good sightlines and amenities for fans.


yepp! there will always be one or another stadium with the race track, not easy to skip that. even germany had one, plus two more with stands quite far from the pitch. even qatar is going to have one, and new maracana stands are an insult to a good taste! but at least they all did something for the world cup, they all improved their stadiums and americans are doing nothing but just repeating same old bulls*** over and over! "our stadiums are great" and "no need to do anything". sorry but thats nothing but bulls* covered by FIFA that cares about their billions only! if american football fans are buying the lies their owners repeat for years, we (football fans) certainly do not!!


----------



## BhamJim

It would be a shame not to hold the final in NY in 2026 but unless they put a roof on Metlife surely that wont happen?


----------



## ElvisBC

Noone knows that outside most elite FIFA circles, it is their decission in the end.

I think it is unlikely, but if they see additional millions there anything is possible. The only viable alternative is Dallas, or eventually new LA stadium but that one might be too small.


----------



## Tered

BhamJim said:


> It would be a shame not to hold the final in NY in 2026 but unless they put a roof on Metlife surely that wont happen?


It was going to cost another BILLION to the price tag when built. So they decided not to add the roof which they originally intended to do. - Honestly we wished they did!


----------



## Knitemplar

5portsF4n said:


> Not exactly true. American summer in open air stadiums with no covering roof can be uncomfortable experiences.


That's why they sell hats and visors and play the games at night. Duh!


----------



## GunnerJacket

ElvisBC said:


> we all know WC 2026 will have by far the worst stadiums any WC had in last 30 years...


Prove it, if you can, otherwise that's just your opinion.



> for 30 years FIFA was forcing the hosts to build great football stadiums with perfect roofs and no viewing obstructions (they didn’t care at all quite a few of them becoming white elephants) just to drop all that in favor of those billions!


So are you saying that the US simply needs to be spending more money? Did we simply pull the trigger on Jerry World, MBS, and Inglewood too soon?


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note:* Keep the language clean, folks. This board needs to be as family friendly as possible.


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> Prove it, if you can, otherwise that's just your opinion.
> 
> So are you saying that the US simply needs to be spending more money? Did we simply pull the trigger on Jerry World, MBS, and Inglewood too soon?


5portsF4n summarized it pretty well, no need for me to repeat it! 2006/2014/2018 had perfect stadiums, 2010 bit less than perfect but at least from quarterfinals on stadiums were covered

And yes, US should either spend more money to provide football fans decent WC stadiums with rain/sun protection and no viewing obstructions, or they should simply select stadiums that can do that ... but, hey, wait, US has hundreds of huge stadiums but not ten that can provide those basic requirements! 

just think of someone who pays even face value for world cup final ticket (in 2026 that's gonna cost somewhere between 1k and 2k depending on category) and then gets sunburn or even worse, gets wet sitting in your great open air met life stadium hno:


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

ElvisBC said:


> 5portsF4n summarized it pretty well, no need for me to repeat it! 2006/2014/2018 had perfect stadiums, 2010 bit less than perfect but at least from quarterfinals on stadiums were covered
> 
> And yes, US should either spend more money to provide football fans decent WC stadiums with rain/sun protection and no viewing obstructions, or they should simply select stadiums that can do that ... but, hey, wait, US has hundreds of huge stadiums but not ten that can provide those basic requirements!
> 
> just think of someone who pays even face value for world cup final ticket (in 2026 that's gonna cost somewhere between 1k and 2k depending on category) and then gets sunburn or even worse, gets wet sitting in your great open air met life stadium hno:


I nearly got sunburned in the Mineirao in 2014. Fully roofed but I was in the section where the sun angled under it. I knew it would be the case when my sun lotion was confiscated on entry.


----------



## Guest

BhamJim said:


> It would be a shame not to hold the final in NY in 2026 but unless they put a roof on Metlife surely that wont happen?


Brazil final was played at 4pm local time, which I think was 7 or 8pm in Europe. 

But 94 final was played in Los Angeles at 12pm! 

The time difference between LA and Europe makes a final there a harder sell, especially as it means they’ll have to play in midday heat potentially. 

New York time difference is better, and they could start at 4 or 5pm. 

While I think the final will be in New York, there’s reason to think that Dallas or Atlanta would make for better finals. Great stadiums, Dallas capacity similar to LA, Atlanta capacity similar to NY, and both are fully covered, so you could start the game at any time to benefit Europe and not detract from the performance on the field. 

But I still think a 4-5pm game ending at 6-7pm in NY makes the most sense, and that no roof wont make a difference to final decision.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> But I still think a 4-5pm game ending at 6-7pm in NY makes the most sense, and that no roof wont make a difference to final decision.


it will be very interesting decission by FIFA! everything speaks for NY apart from the roof, and while FIFA does not care about fans they do care about their VIPs! we'll see ... I think it is pretty open decission, could go any way!

btw, when 2026 WC starts, last WC game played in a stadion without roof will be 16 years old!


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> it will be very interesting decission by FIFA! everything speaks for NY apart from the roof, and while FIFA does not care about fans they do care about their VIPs! we'll see ... I think it is pretty open decission, could go any way!
> 
> btw, when 2026 WC starts, last WC game played in a stadion without roof will be 16 years old!


Lol yeah VIP's will get shade, no worries there.


----------



## Guest

Came across this on reddit, from user SounderBruce, showing proposed stadiums for 94 world cup in 1988. Some interesting frontrunners.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MLS/comments/c1wfcn/proposed_host_venues_for_the_1994_fifa_world_cup/


----------



## ElvisBC

well, pretty much nothing to do with the final stadium list 

but those were different times ...


----------



## Lumbergo

was very confused for a moment and had to look up the stadium in Blaine, MN because I had no idea there was ever a 90K stadium in Minnesota...


----------



## Guest

Lumbergo said:


> was very confused for a moment and had to look up the stadium in Blaine, MN because I had no idea there was ever a 90K stadium in Minnesota...


The same user on reddit mentioned it was a typo, linking to an old article. The proposed stadium was for 45k that would have been the home of any future Minnesota team. I guess Blaine couldve had the very first soccer specific stadium built.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

On the official ball, it should be suggested a mix of the 1986 and 1994 FIFA World Cup balls designs, with a canadian design. Colours: red blue green or donwgraded versions.


----------



## Knitemplar

Or they could have a neutral ball -- after all, after the first two weeks, everythng else will be played on US soil.


----------



## slipperydog

If this is indeed true, one has to wonder if the US would be seen as a prime replacement.

*FIFA evaluates moving the World Cup from Qatar*



> According to TNT Sports, the football governing body considers not to hold the competition there in 2022.
> 
> This Tuesday morning, the world of football was shocked by the arrest of Michel Platini in the framework of the investigation for alleged acts of corruption in the election of the headquarters of Qatar for the 2022 World Cup . According to French media, he was housed in the Anticorruption Office of the Judicial Police in Nanterre " for acts of active and passive bribery ".
> 
> The investigation focuses on a meeting held in 2010 by Platini himself along with the then president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, with authorities from Qatar. For the cause, Sophie Dion, a former adviser to the former French president , was also arrested .
> 
> Given this, as you may know TNT Sports , in FIFA there are "secret" meetings to find an immediate replacement for Qatar . According to Hernán Castillo in Halcones y Palomas, "they are studying if it is not convenient to take the 2022 World Cup from Qatar and take Qatar Airways as sponsor , because it has to do with the Qatari government, and pass the World Cup to another country." " It is not so easy, but today it is studied, " he added.


https://tntsportsla.com/history/5d08fca19a15c504f5faa757


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note:* This news does NOT mean the thread can become an inquest about FIFA and/or Qatar. Please keep the discussion to a "United N.A." bid.

Gracias.


----------



## flierfy

5portsF4n said:


> Italy 90 didnt have great stadiums. Rome, Turin, Naples, Bari, Florence, Udine, Verona, Palermo, Bologna ALL had athletics tracks.


Firenze and Palermo have no running track. And most of these stadiums are greatly located within walking distance from each town centre as well as the local railway station. But why do I expect an American to bother about those things.



5portsF4n said:


> 94 was in the US.
> 
> 98 France. Marseille had no roof to speak of. Ditto Montpellier. Stade de France only new stadium built.


The main stand in Marseille was covered back then already and so are three sides in Montpellier. The small number of new stadiums just shows that France doesn't need a construction craze to host a World Cup.



5portsF4n said:


> 2002 again plenty of athletics tracks, Busan, Daegu, Incheon, Yokohama, Shizuoka, Osaka, Rifu, Oita, Niigata.
> 
> Germany 06 built 6 stadiums, and all had a very strong legacy. This was the most sensible outcome of any world cup in past 30 years.
> 
> 2010 and 2014 had good stadiums, but 2010 had 6 of 10 new builds, with 4 not having perfect roofs, or any at all.
> 
> 2014 and 2018 are really the only world cups where you had mostly new builds or major renovations and fully covered roofs.
> 
> 2026 will have some less than desirable stadiums, especially in Canada. The Mexican ones are good.
> 
> If the US goes with New York, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, Miami, and then you use the new LA stadium, that’s 7 of 10 venues which are great stadiums.


What exactly is great about these stadiums? Most of them are located in the midst of a vast car park in the suburban fringes and nowhere near town.



5portsF4n said:


> The only stadium thats regrettably not part of the bid is Minneapolis. The rest of the open air stadiums are interchangeable, and any of them are more or less like the other.
> 
> Also, they’ll all still look great when full. And they’ll have good sightlines and amenities for fans.


The majority of them are pretty much inaccessible without a car.


----------



## Guest

Lol. 

They may not have running tracks, but they are not rectangular stadiums. There is a large gap between stands and field. Sightlines nowhere near ideal for spectators

So Marseille having one side covered now constitutes having a roof? It’s an open air stadium, offering no protection for vast majority of attendees.


----------



## pesto

flierfy said:


> The majority of them are pretty much inaccessible without a car.


Per the FIFA report, the majority of stadiums got good reviews for accessibility. Overall risk was low. So FIFA could just choose from within that group.

But each city singled out for weak gameday transportation has committed to providing FREE service to the stadium from the city center. 

However, I would recommend renting a car since it is so much faster, more private and allows for exploration of the beaches, mountains, parks, etc.


----------



## ElvisBC

while most european visitors to the states do rent a car, they do not want to do it for a gameday! 

traditional football culture is totally different than US american football culture. americans like to invest huge effort and amount of time to transport and set up their grills in front of the stadium just to eat those three sausages there, while rest of the world prefer it cool and easy! that means drinking and having snacks in the pubs and then walking to the stadium! "don't drink and drive" .... so no car involved, and no designated driver bulls*** either!!


----------



## Guest

What are we arguing about here? 

The US has hosted the most successful world cup in history. It's hosted the most successful Copa America in its history.

The majority of people attending 2026 will be locals. Especially in a region that has more than its fair share of locals who are fans of other teams. 

Getting people to stadiums isn't a problem. The international contingent will be fine.


----------



## ElvisBC

of course people will get there, there will cetrainly be some shuttles etc. people got to all games in the past, so US won't be any different!
I was talking about what people outside US prefer, and that has nothing in common with what US fans use to do. nothing else!

but let's take a look at the current list of potential hosts:
*rose bowl* - car only
*met life* - train, but as it is for NFL clearly below par, especially with trains not moving before the game is over
*DC* - far away from the city, there is metro + long walk option. metro hours end too early, even for NFL night games
*dallas* - car only
*KC* - car only
*philly* - good metro conenction
*houston* - good metro connection
*SF* - quite a nightmare, basically car only
*foxboro* - worst nightmare - car only
*miami *- car only

and then there are downtown stadiums:
*orlando* - not so short walk from downtown, but at least still a walk
*denver, nashville, baltimore, atlanta, seattle* and *cinci* as true downtown stadiums

I am not sure if any downtown stadium will be selected, I'd say only Atlanta is safe!


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

ElvisBC said:


> of course people will get there, there will cetrainly be some shuttles etc. people got to all games in the past, so US won't be any different!
> I was talking about what people outside US prefer, and that has nothing in common with what US fans use to do. nothing else!
> 
> but let's take a look at the current list of potential hosts:
> *rose bowl* - car only
> *met life* - train, but as it is for NFL clearly below par, especially with trains not moving before the game is over
> *DC* - far away from the city, there is metro + long walk option. metro hours end too early, even for NFL night games
> *dallas* - car only
> *KC* - car only
> *philly* - good metro conenction
> *houston* - good metro connection
> *SF* - quite a nightmare, basically car only
> *foxboro* - worst nightmare - car only
> *miami *- car only
> 
> and then there are downtown stadiums:
> *orlando* - not so short walk from downtown, but at least still a walk
> *denver, nashville, baltimore, atlanta, seattle* and *cinci* as true downtown stadiums
> 
> I am not sure if any downtown stadium will be selected, I'd say only Atlanta is safe!


It isn't exactly the end of the world! Some sort of transport will have to be arranged. I attended two matches at the Arena de Pernambuco in a forest somewhere near Recife. Getting there was a train followed by a coach. It wasn't a problem. The World Cup isn't designed to perfectly please you or I. As for safe I have definitely felt safer than walking to the station in Recife!


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note:* Mind the language, folks. Obscenities are not permitted. (And if I'm missing some that need cleaning elsewhere please let me know.)

And keep it civil and don't make this personal.


----------



## flierfy

5portsF4n said:


> Lol.
> 
> They may not have running tracks, but they are not rectangular stadiums. There is a large gap between stands and field. Sightlines nowhere near ideal for spectators
> 
> So Marseille having one side covered now constitutes having a roof? It’s an open air stadium, offering no protection for vast majority of attendees.


If you can't stand to be corrected, then don't spread false information in the first place.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> while most european visitors to the states do rent a car, they do not want to do it for a gameday!
> 
> traditional football culture is totally different than US american football culture. americans like to invest huge effort and amount of time to transport and set up their grills in front of the stadium just to eat those three sausages there, while rest of the world prefer it cool and easy! that means drinking and having snacks in the pubs and then walking to the stadium! "don't drink and drive" .... so no car involved, and no designated driver bulls*** either!!



Someone said you can't take transit from the city center to the stadium and I pointed out that is inaccurate for most and will be 100 percent fixed by the chosen host cities. 

I won't get personal. Just read the FIFA report and you can get a sense for what is important to FIFA and the organizers rather than overlaying issues regarding cars, rain, scorching heat, sunburns, etc.. FIFA addresses stadium access and quality issues and is very happy. 

Otherwise, accessibility, amenities, security, sufficient open space, etc., were complete non-concerns. You very much get the sense that FIFA was pleased by the quality of the bid.

Even better, with only 10 out of 23 being finally chosen it will be interesting to see how important your issues really are to the folks who run the WC. We'll see what criteria are actually reflected in the stadiums chosen.


----------



## pesto

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> It isn't exactly the end of the world! Some sort of transport will have to be arranged. I attended two matches at the Arena de Pernambuco in a forest somewhere near Recife. Getting there was a train followed by a coach. It wasn't a problem. The World Cup isn't designed to perfectly please you or I. As for safe I have definitely felt safer than walking to the station in Recife!


Yes. Most of the issues here (as always) are in the eye of the beholder.

The real measure of quality of stadiums is how many people attend and how much they will pay to do so. That's the definition of "demand" to view an event. If people really fear cars, rain, etc., or are interested in other aspects of the stadiums they will vote with their dollars and not attend. 

If they do attend, they are saying that they really don't care about these considerations; they kind of like driving with friends and being in the sunshine and open air, etc.

We will have to wait and see.


----------



## slipperydog

I see in the months since the last time I checked this thread, not much has changed. The same folks are repeating the same things, as if somehow the more they repeat it, the more valid their criticisms are. One has to imagine if they have anything better to do with their time, or whether they'll still be here in 2025.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> I see in the months since the last time I checked this thread, not much has changed. The same folks are repeating the same things, as if somehow the more they repeat it, the more valid their criticisms are. One has to imagine if they have anything better to do with their time, or whether they'll still be here in 2025.


Yes. It has even led to the ghastly conclusion that Blatter was the good old days and Infantino is the lead villain. :lol:

The bid city issues of actual significance to FIFA are discussed in the bid evaluations. This includes what remediation, if any, is being planned and what is not considered significant enough to require remediation.


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> I was talking about what people outside US prefer, and that has nothing in common with what US fans use to do. nothing else!


Ill put it this way: If you're spending thousands of dollars to travel to NA from overseas, and hundreds/thousands more for accommodation, and hundreds for tickets, you're probably going to be ok spending $30 on an Uber ride to the stadium. 

And there will probably be shuttle options from the city to the stadium. I just don't see any issue with international fans getting to the stadiums. They'll figure it out. 

People outside NA may prefer something else, but they'll adapt very quickly. 

When you've committed thousands of dollars to follow your country at a WC, you'd probably run to the stadium if all else fails.


----------



## pesto

en1044 said:


> "roof" here is almost certainly referring to an awning covering fans, which are fine.


No problem, I am neutral on awnings. 

But a specific person here and on other stadium threads is talking about having temperature controlled stadiums (besides rain, he worries about cold, which is not helped by simply having awnings).

FIFA is also worried about weather but not at the over-the-top level that he is. Their main points are in their bid evaluations and they have no irremediable issues with the 23 US stadiums. 

Hope we are done with this for now. :lol:


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> Hope we are done with this for now. :lol:


_"So let it be written..."_


----------



## Tered

GunnerJacket said:


> _"So let it be written..."_


----------



## Guest

Nothing wrong with going around in circles. 

Here's a list of 10 venues based on the aesthetic quality of the stadium, and not the location: 

WEST
LA Inglewood new
Las Vegas new
Dallas
Houston
Seattle or Phoenix

EAST
Minneapolis
Atlanta
New Jersey
Miami
Indianapolis

Then again, it provides a nice geographic spread too Texas aside.

Here's a cool fanclip from the Mexico game yesterday in Houston, which gives a good sense of what the stadium is like from a fan's perspective. Would be a crime if it's not in the final selection as it's the best stadium in the western United States I think, at least until LV and LA are up and running. And yet its proximity to Dallas could be its downfall
https://streamable.com/4z5sc


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Here's a cool fanclip from the Mexico game yesterday in Houston, which gives a good sense of what the stadium is like from a fan's perspective. Would be a crime if it's not in the final selection as it's the best stadium in the western United States I think, at least until LV and LA are up and running. And yet its proximity to Dallas could be its downfall
> https://streamable.com/4z5sc


or advantage if they want to keep groups in two stadiums and shorten distances, like miami+atlanta, LA+SF, Houston+Dallas, NY+Boston/Philly etc


----------



## Aminjumi

Is still possible for Indianapolis to host WC?


----------



## ElvisBC

Aminjumi said:


> Is still possible for Indianapolis to host WC?


anything is possible, but it is highly unlikely. even though (at least as far as I know) lucas oil dome can acommodate football pitch without any viewing obstruction and it even has retractable roof (that they normally never open )


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> or advantage if they want to keep groups in two stadiums and shorten distances, like miami+atlanta, LA+SF, Houston+Dallas, NY+Boston/Philly etc


Or that yep. 



Aminjumi said:


> Is still possible for Indianapolis to host WC?


It wasn't even on the shortlist IIRC, so definitely not.



ElvisBC said:


> anything is possible, but it is highly unlikely. even though (at least as far as I know) lucas oil dome can acommodate football pitch without any viewing obstruction and it even has retractable roof (that they normally never open )


And has one of the best exteriors in the country. But yeah the sightlines would be pretty good, as this image shows


----------



## Aminjumi

what are the best NFL. stadium in term of viewing angle and that accommodate football pitch properly i.e there is a room for corner kick taker to play?


----------



## ElvisBC

probably miami


----------



## GunnerJacket

Aminjumi said:


> what are the best NFL. stadium in term of viewing angle and that accommodate football pitch properly i.e there is a room for corner kick taker to play?


Any of the venues that has held a sanctioned tournament match or World Cup qualifier for the USMNT meets the field standards, which by my guess is about 15-20 venues. The issue for some is dealing with the idealized sightlines for fans in those corners because the seating is often folded away to accommodate the pitch. Some of the stadiums may also have less than ideal space to accommodate the staff and reserves on the sidelines, as well.


----------



## BhamJim

I think it would be good to use Portland (as well as Seattle).

The Timbers fans seem to be passionate and knowledgable and I think they deserve to be a host venue, even if for the lower key fixtures.


----------



## GunnerJacket

BhamJim said:


> I think it would be good to use Portland (as well as Seattle).
> 
> The Timbers fans seem to be passionate and knowledgable and I think they deserve to be a host venue, even if for the lower key fixtures.


While Portland is one of 3 cities offering themselves up as Soccer City, USA, they won't be hosting any games for this event simply because the venue is too small. FIFA's target is 40k per match and this facility is well short. However, when the US next hosts a women's World Cup or a youth event it's highly likely Providence Park will be called upon for such an event.


----------



## Nacre

Keep in mind that Portland and Seattle have a great atmosphere for club matches. National team matches are roughly the same or worse compared to other parts of the country. The "USA! USA!" stuff isn't as popular here as it is elsewhere in America.

I think that Seattle, Vancouver and Eugene would have been a good group for foreign fans. But without Vancouver and Eugene it honestly doesn't make sense to include the northwest at all. They should stick to geographical groups and skip Seattle.


----------



## Guest

Nacre said:


> Keep in mind that Portland and Seattle have a great atmosphere for club matches. National team matches are roughly the same or worse compared to other parts of the country. The "USA! USA!" stuff isn't as popular here as it is elsewhere in America.


How many USMNT games have been played at Providence Park since it's become a soccer stadium?

Just one, in 2013, against Belize at the Gold Cup.

It would easily be one of the better venues for USMNT World Cup qualifying games, with a crowd on par with anywhere else.

But PP will always be a hard sell for the USMNT as it's got turf.


----------



## FCIM

Could the weather factor decide stadium choice and kickoff times ? 

The USA v Jamaica Gold Cup game in Nashville last night was delayed for over 90 minutes due to a severe weather delay. 

It also happened at a 2016 Copa America game in Chicago, also played at night. 

So do they play games during the day as the did at USA 94, which then leads to games being played in hot temperatures or risk playing at night ? 

You would think FIFA would want to avoid a delay in game issue. Indoor stadiums would possibly have the edge ?


----------



## Guest

Not sure it really matters if there is an odd delay. There will definitely be night games, no doubt about it. It’s possible some of those may be in domed stadium, but Im not sure it poses a big enough hurdle to be a problem.


----------



## BhamJim

I think it does really matter if there are delays in games. It must be kept at the very forefront of any decisions that the biggest market here is Europe, the TV companies in this region pay and make a lot of money in showing the matches, a 90 minute delay to kick off is gonna cost a lot of money.


----------



## Guest

BhamJim said:


> I think it does really matter if there are delays in games. It must be kept at the very forefront of any decisions that the biggest market here is Europe, the TV companies in this region pay and make a lot of money in showing the matches, a 90 minute delay to kick off is gonna cost a lot of money.


European timezone is ahead of America by 5 hours in NY and 8 hours in LA.

FIFA cant control scheduling down to a tee, but big Euro nations will see plenty of games during the day to hit prime time in Europe. That said, the Americas and Asia are also a massive market, and playing games at night is imperative to hit primetime in the Americas and mornings in Asia closer to midday. 

Your concern is a complete non issue. And the likelihood of there being any weather delay is tiny. Games will be played at night.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> Your concern is a complete non issue. And the likelihood of there being any weather delay is tiny. Games will be played at night.


Depends on the venues chosen. I remember England playing a friendly at Miami prior to the 2014 World Cup and that was delayed by a long time. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/27383495. I can't remember a World Cup match being delayed for any reason. It probably has happened but it isn't usual and it should be avoided. If I was picking the venues I would factor it in. No reason to play anywhere where it is a significant risk.


----------



## BhamJim

It's not just kick off times and TV coverage. These players are assets worth 100's of millions of dollars in some cases. You delay the kick off you throw out their preparation, their food and drink intake and overall routine.

It would be madness to risk this happening when you could just use a venue where it wont be an issue.


----------



## pesto

BhamJim said:


> It's not just kick off times and TV coverage. These players are assets worth 100's of millions of dollars in some cases. You delay the kick off you throw out their preparation, their food and drink intake and overall routine.
> 
> It would be madness to risk this happening when you could just use a venue where it wont be an issue.


I would guess that FIFA takes the relevant weather issues into consideration, just as it does with revenues, stadiums, transit, security, etc. And since the WC has been held in the Americas or Asia 10 times, they must be pretty comfortable with the overall risks and economics of changing time zones or potential delays.

Incidentally, the US has 4 major time zones and it is common for athletes to play day and night matches in each of them over the course of a season, sometimes on consecutive days.


----------



## Guest

BhamJim said:


> It's not just kick off times and TV coverage. These players are assets worth 100's of millions of dollars in some cases. You delay the kick off you throw out their preparation, their food and drink intake and overall routine.
> .


I'm sure FIFA and the USSF's selection policy is much more in-depth than whatever conversation a few people are having on a stadium forum. 

In any case, here's a list of average number of thunderstorm days in June from 1961 to 1990 in the cities which are on the shortlist. 

Orlando - 15 days
Miami - 12 days
Denver - 10
Kansas City - 9
Atlanta - 8 - ROOF
Nashville - 8
Houston - 7 - ROOF
Cincinnati - 7
DC - 6
Dallas - 6 - ROOF
Philadelphia - 6
Baltimore - 5
NY - 4
Boston - 4
Seattle - 1
San Francisco/San Jose - 0
LA - 0 - May even be the new Inglewood stadium which has a roof, not that it's necessary

So right off the bat, 5 of the 10 likely US venues will have no issue with weather during the World Cup, which means plenty of scope for night games, even more so as LA/Dallas/Atlanta are in three different timezones.

There _will _be night games, and there won't be a problem.


----------



## FCIM

5portsF4n said:


> I'm sure FIFA and the USSF's selection policy is much more in-depth than whatever conversation a few people are having on a stadium forum.
> 
> In any case, here's a list of average number of thunderstorm days in June from 1961 to 1990 in the cities which are on the shortlist.
> 
> Orlando - 15 days
> Miami - 12 days
> Denver - 10
> Kansas City - 9
> Atlanta - 8 - ROOF
> Nashville - 8
> Houston - 7 - ROOF
> Cincinnati - 7
> DC - 6
> Dallas - 6 - ROOF
> Philadelphia - 6
> Baltimore - 5
> NY - 4
> Boston - 4
> Seattle - 1
> San Francisco/San Jose - 0
> LA - 0 - May even be the new Inglewood stadium which has a roof, not that it's necessary
> 
> So right off the bat, 5 of the 10 likely US venues will have no issue with weather during the World Cup, which means plenty of scope for night games, even more so as LA/Dallas/Atlanta are in three different timezones.
> 
> There _will _be night games, and there won't be a problem.


Well the Rapids v Revolution MLS game the other night was delayed till 1.00am in the morning........Not sure that would be an ideal situation for anyone broadcasting/attending a world cup match.


----------



## GEwinnen

1.00 AM Colorado time is 8.00 AM CET. That would be very bad for Europe, the main football market.


----------



## pesto

GEwinnen said:


> 1.00 AM Colorado time is 8.00 AM CET. That would be very bad for Europe, the main football market.


Worse, that would be bleeping horrible for the Colorado market. :lol:

Also, wouldn't it be 9:00 CET?


----------



## CaliforniaJones

US bill would link 2026 World Cup funds to women's equal pay



> Washington (AFP) - US government funding for the 2026 World Cup would be denied until the US Soccer Federation provides equal pay for women's and men's teams under a bill introduced Tuesday.
> 
> US Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, submitted the bill to US lawmakers two days after the American women won a second consecutive Women's World Cup title by defeating the Netherlands 2-0 in France.
> 
> Fans chanted "Equal pay, equal pay," in the stadium after the US women's victory, the squad having filed a lawsuit against US Soccer in March making their case for money and support equal to a men's team with far worse results.
> 
> The United States will co-host the 2026 World Cup tournament along with neighbors Mexico and Canada.
> 
> "No federal funds may be appropriated or otherwise made available to provide support for the 2026 World Cup, including support for a host city, a participating state or local agency, the United States Soccer Federation, the Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF), or the Federation de Football Association (FIFA), until the date on which the United States Soccer Federation agrees to provide equitable pay to the members of the United States Women's National Team and the United States Men's National Team," the bill reads.


Yahoo Sports


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> US bill would link 2026 World Cup funds to women's equal pay
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo Sports


Talk about something that has the potential to get both ridiculous and ugly. :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

women football is awful, they simply can‘t play and noone is really interested in that sport, equal pay would break all rules of logic and fairness!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> women football is awful, they simply can‘t play and noone is really interested in that sport, equal pay would break all rules of logic and fairness!


You go too far on the quality and entertainment value of women's soccer, but I agree in principle. It strikes me that "player for women's soccer" and "player for men's soccer" are two different jobs and therefore the issue of "same pay for the same job" isn't relevant.

I also note that the bill refers to "equitable" pay not "equal" pay. I'd like to have that meaning parsed a bit.


----------



## Tered

It's a splash in the water!


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> women football is awful, they simply can‘t play and noone is really interested in that sport, equal pay would break all rules of logic and fairness!


1. I'll preface this by saying that I don't like women's soccer either. 

2. Men get the bulk of their wages paid by their clubs. Players get an appearance fee for playing in the national team, but this figure is obviously smaller compared to their earnings at a club. 

3. A typical USMNT player makes $13k per appearance, compared to $5k for women. 

4. In the US, unlike anywhere else on the planet, the women team's popularity, visibility, marketability, and even ratings are not that disproportionate to the men's team. In many metrics, especially in a women's world cup year such as this, the USWNT trumps the men's handily.

5. For women, a more equal appearance fee is life changing in the kind of way that it will never be for the men who earn most of their money with their clubs. Women make a pittance with their clubs, and that's not going to change. But there is certainly an argument to be made in the US that they should get a higher appearance fee, considering the revenue they bring in. 

6. On the other hand, the USSF keeps the women's pro league in the US afloat. So they get paid by the USSF for playing with their club and country. And top players can already earn up to half a million a year. 

7. Ultimately, the USSF will raise their pay if it makes sense financially. But we should make it clear that we're talking about the US here and not England. That's a whole different kettle of fish when comparing men's and women's soccer.


----------



## The Game Is Up

Denver Leaders Will Make A 2026 World Cup Announcement At Broncos Stadium Thursday

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/07/10/denver-2026-world-cup-host-city-announcement/


----------



## Urmstoniain

5portsF4n said:


> 1. I'll preface this by saying that I don't like women's soccer either.
> 
> 2. Men get the bulk of their wages paid by their clubs. Players get an appearance fee for playing in the national team, but this figure is obviously smaller compared to their earnings at a club.
> 
> 3. A typical USMNT player makes $13k per appearance, compared to $5k for women.
> 
> 4. In the US, unlike anywhere else on the planet, the women team's popularity, visibility, marketability, and even ratings are not that disproportionate to the men's team. In many metrics, especially in a women's world cup year such as this, the USWNT trumps the men's handily.
> 
> 5. For women, a more equal appearance fee is life changing in the kind of way that it will never be for the men who earn most of their money with their clubs. Women make a pittance with their clubs, and that's not going to change. But there is certainly an argument to be made in the US that they should get a higher appearance fee, considering the revenue they bring in.
> 
> 6. On the other hand, the USSF keeps the women's pro league in the US afloat. So they get paid by the USSF for playing with their club and country. And top players can already earn up to half a million a year.
> 
> 7. Ultimately, the USSF will raise their pay if it makes sense financially. But we should make it clear that we're talking about the US here and not England. That's a whole different kettle of fish when comparing men's and women's soccer.


Agreed.

This is just about the money paid to the USMNT and USWNT for representing the country - based on the unique situation of the USA, where the federation's income from the two teams is broadly equitable (at least in the 4 year cycle after the men don't qualify for the World Cup).

Any suggestion that club football - or national teams other than the USA (and maybe a handful of others) - should also have pay equity is very dubious from my point of view.

It's like saying that an actor in a minor regional repertory theatre company should get the same as a Broadway or Hollywood star - just because they do (a version of) the same job.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> 1. I'll preface this by saying that I don't like women's soccer either.
> 
> 2. Men get the bulk of their wages paid by their clubs. Players get an appearance fee for playing in the national team, but this figure is obviously smaller compared to their earnings at a club.
> 
> 3. A typical USMNT player makes $13k per appearance, compared to $5k for women.
> 
> 4. In the US, unlike anywhere else on the planet, the women team's popularity, visibility, marketability, and even ratings are not that disproportionate to the men's team. In many metrics, especially in a women's world cup year such as this, the USWNT trumps the men's handily.
> 
> 5. For women, a more equal appearance fee is life changing in the kind of way that it will never be for the men who earn most of their money with their clubs. Women make a pittance with their clubs, and that's not going to change. But there is certainly an argument to be made in the US that they should get a higher appearance fee, considering the revenue they bring in.
> 
> 6. On the other hand, the USSF keeps the women's pro league in the US afloat. So they get paid by the USSF for playing with their club and country. And top players can already earn up to half a million a year.
> 
> 7. Ultimately, the USSF will raise their pay if it makes sense financially. But we should make it clear that we're talking about the US here and not England. That's a whole different kettle of fish when comparing men's and women's soccer.


Yes, at least in the US I think everyone understands that this is election year politics not economics.

And think of poor FIFA (I never thought I would say that)!: they put on the women's WC which makes a few American soccer players famous; and now they can't bring the men's tournament to the US unless some US organizations change how they pay the US women's team.


----------



## Knitemplar

CaliforniaJones said:


> US bill would link 2026 World Cup funds to women's equal pay
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo Sports


Well, look who's sponsoring the bill -- NOT even a lady US Senator, but this "fake" Democratic senator from a very red state, Manchin. Really strange, but I doubt that many West Virginia women even care about the US WNT, let alone the 2026 World Cup.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Yes, at least in the US I think everyone understands that this is election year politics not economics.
> 
> And think of poor FIFA (I never thought I would say that)!: they put on the women's WC which makes a few American soccer players famous; and now they can't bring the men's tournament to the US unless some US organizations change how they pay the US women's team.


wait ... you mean there is still hope to move world cup somewhere where locals would appreciate it :colgate:  :colgate:


----------



## GunnerJacket

Careful folks. Don't stray too close to the sun, as it were.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> wait ... you mean there is still hope to move world cup somewhere where locals would appreciate it :colgate:  :colgate:


I knew that was coming. :lol:

But remember, why open another Dunkin' Donuts in NYC when you make more money by opening them in California? 

FIFA wants to go to where they can teach the locals * to appreciate * soccer, just like the enlightened few on the British Archipelago.


----------



## pesto

The Game Is Up said:


> Denver Leaders Will Make A 2026 World Cup Announcement At Broncos Stadium Thursday
> 
> https://denver.cbslocal.com/2019/07/10/denver-2026-world-cup-host-city-announcement/


Denver has to be one of those borderline cities. 

Most seem to assume LA, NY, Dallas, Atlanta, DC/Balt, Miami, SF/SJ. Then there is Boston, Philly, Houston, Seattle, Denver which make the leading 12? Orlando and KC? Or our wild cards: Chicago, Las Vegas, Minneapolis? 

And there are legitimate issues as to playing at altitude and whether there is enough population in the general area to justify it. On the other hand, tourism is great assuming you like mountains and hiking and are willing to drive through Colorado, Utah, etc.


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> It is FIFA decission and we are simply unsure if they are going to accept roofless stadium with some viewing obstructions for their big final, that simple.
> 
> Otherwise Metlife would have been no brainer, clearly favored by LOC, huge, in preferred time zone and while not perfect still acceptable for football. There is a good reason why Dallas was proposed as a backup option in the bidding book.
> 
> We have no clue if LA is considered as an option due to sub par time zone and we can only assume appropriate stadium in DC might be an option as well, but who knows what games are played in the background. Do not forget, it is FIFA, they gave the World cup to Qatar, so I wouldn't be too surprised if they decide to play their final in Montana!


The timezone is less relevant than it appears. Whether it starts at 12:30pm in LA like in 94 or 3pm in NY, it's still going to be 8pm in Europe. 

12:30 in LA in a stadium that isnt potentially steaming hot could be ideal. 

At the end of the day, while NY would be ideal for obvious reasons, it really doesnt matter. I know I made a big deal out the importance of NY above, but a WC final hosted even in Dallas would be a huge f****** deal so it's not fatal. Hell, Chicago isnt even hosting games. 

At the very least, youll be able to sell more tickets in Dallas than in NY. 

It'll be fine whatever they go with. And if that means a new stadium in DC, so be it.

You've swayed me on Dallas.


----------



## rebelheartous

pesto said:


> Just absurd. First someone implies DC is to NY as Birmingham is to London. This logically implies that DC is to Birmingham as NY is to London (and London is to NY as Birmingham is to DC) both of which strike me as odd.
> 
> And now we analogize a third world country where the capital is an afterthought in the middle of nowhere to the US where the capital has been a worldwide symbol of democracy and freedom for 200 years. And someone calls it a perfect analogy. How embarrassing.
> 
> Well, I guess I'll play straight-man and say that I still believe that a very high quality stadium in DC will be seriously considered for the finals or other high-profile match. Even without a roof. :lol:


Brazil is not a third world country. 

Secondly, go back to the last World Cup in Russia. The final was held on Luzhniki as opposed to Zenit's stadium although the latter one being the better venue and just slightly smaller. What prevailed here was the view of Luzhniki as a landmark venue and historical football site that hosted various events in the past.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

5portsF4n said:


> Just how it is. It’s a byproduct of being the biggest and most influential city. I would think it’s no different in London, Paris, Tokyo, etc.
> 
> When it comes to sports, DC is even more irrelevant. NY, LA, Chicago, Boston, Dallas all drive the conversation more than DC.


There must be a different mindset when it comes to a country on a vast scale such as the USA. Distance matters a lot more when it is measured in thousands of miles rather than tens or hundreds.

A big difference is also the importance of the football/soccer to the country. The Superbowl has only been held in New York once but it doesn't matter as it is the biggest sporting event in the USA each year. If there were a World Cup in England/UK and the final was in Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham there would be no difference to the level of domestic coverage. In fact a large proportion of the population would be very pleased that it was in somewhere not-London. London is loved and hated in the UK. Sometimes even by the same people. I get the feeling that New York is similar in the eyes of many Americans. The Yankees may be the evil empire in part because they're the most historically successful but also because they're brash New Yorkers. The USA held an Olympics in Atlanta and they weren't worried about that being a secondary city. The NFL have hosted matches in London because they're targeting Europe.


----------



## Guest

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> There must be a different mindset when it comes to a country on a vast scale such as the USA. Distance matters a lot more when it is measured in thousands of miles rather than tens or hundreds.
> 
> A big difference is also the importance of the football/soccer to the country. The Superbowl has only been held in New York once but it doesn't matter as it is the biggest sporting event in the USA each year. If there were a World Cup in England/UK and the final was in Manchester, Liverpool or Birmingham there would be no difference to the level of domestic coverage. In fact a large proportion of the population would be very pleased that it was in somewhere not-London. London is loved and hated in the UK. Sometimes even by the same people. I get the feeling that New York is similar in the eyes of many Americans. The Yankees may be the evil empire in part because they're the most historically successful but also because they're brash New Yorkers. The USA held an Olympics in Atlanta and they weren't worried about that being a secondary city. The NFL have hosted matches in London because they're targeting Europe.


As I said in a reply to Elvis, I'm not as wedded to NY as I make out in reality. As you say, it'd be a success wherever it was hosted, so it doesn't really matter. What I would say is that organizers typically end up going with the obvious picks, be it LA or NY. And I don't think it will change this time around. 

A few points:

The SB is held in early February, when it's cold, and the weather not ideal in northern parts of the country, including the northeast. Warmer-weather cities in the south are prioritized because of that. 

A WC final in England anywhere would naturally have a different feel as soccer is all-dominating there. This isn't the same as in the US where even big-time sports like baseball are regional, to say nothing of soccer. It just wouldn't have the same sense of occasion if it was held outside NY or LA. 

Don't get me wrong, the final will probably attract 30-40 million on TV. But it would have that extra sense of gravitas held in NY or LA.


----------



## ElvisBC

rebelheartous said:


> Brazil is not a third world country.
> 
> Secondly, go back to the last World Cup in Russia. The final was held on Luzhniki as opposed to Zenit's stadium although the latter one being the better venue and just slightly smaller. What prevailed here was the view of Luzhniki as a landmark venue and historical football site that hosted various events in the past.


have you been to luzhniki and krestovsky both? both great but it is actually the opposite, luzhniki is simply amazing, one of very best stadiums in the world!


EDIT: I'd say luzhniki is the best stadium reconstruction/rebuild ever, by far!


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> have you been to luzhniki and krestovsky both? both great but it is actually the opposite, luzhniki is simply amazing, one of very best stadiums in the world!
> 
> 
> EDIT: I'd say luzhniki is the best stadium reconstruction/rebuild ever, by far!


Agree 100%. Luzhniki is one of most elegant stadiums in the world. Oozes class.


----------



## pesto

rebelheartous said:


> Brazil is not a third world country.
> 
> Secondly, go back to the last World Cup in Russia. The final was held on Luzhniki as opposed to Zenit's stadium although the latter one being the better venue and just slightly smaller. What prevailed here was the view of Luzhniki as a landmark venue and historical football site that hosted various events in the past.


Brazil is a 3rd world country. I have taught development economics and can go through the criteria that economists normally use if you would like. But why bother? There just isn't any doubt.

Otherwise, I agree. There's no problem with using a historically interesting location (like the Rose Bowl the last time in the US). But MetLife is not a historical landmark. Nothing against it, but even New Yorkers say it's nothing special and in the middle of nowhere (even worse, in New Jersey!).

What is interesting is that it is the only stadium in the largest US city, which is a very logical place to hold a major match. But so is DC, assuming it has a first quality stadium in a properly developed and attractive site.


----------



## pesto

Per various reports, Snyder denies the 'Skins are for sale or that there is a new stadium being discussed with Bezos; in fact, he says he hasn't seen Bezos in over a decade.

So, for the moment we're probably back to MetLife in the lead with Arlington and SoFi somewhere in the running.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> And now we analogize a third world country where the capital is an afterthought in the middle of nowhere to the US where the capital has been a worldwide symbol of democracy and freedom for 200 years. And someone calls it a perfect analogy. How embarrassing.


We are comparing the cities, not the countries. Washington is the political center of the USA, but not a commercial or cultural center. It is a planned political city like Ottawa, Brasilia or Canberra, and is only the 6th most populous metropolitan area in the USA. Washington is to New York and LA as Brasilia is to Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro.

And like it or not the political issues are a big deal. Although I would personally find it amusing if the Iranian national team were drawn to play in D.C. with a pre-planned visit to the White House for all the teams playing there, I can't imagine the State Department or the police in Washington want to deal with that.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> We are comparing the cities, not the countries. Washington is the political center of the USA, but not a commercial or cultural center. It is a planned political city like Ottawa, Brasilia or Canberra, and is only the 6th most populous metropolitan area in the USA. Washington is to New York and LA as Brasilia is to Sao Paolo and Rio de Janeiro.
> 
> And like it or not the political issues are a big deal. Although I would personally find it amusing if the Iranian national team were drawn to play in D.C. with a pre-planned visit to the White House for all the teams playing there, I can't imagine the State Department or the police in Washington want to deal with that.


I have to disagree.

DC is a huge population and economic center, having passed Chicago as the number 3 metro in the country. Only NY and LA are larger and neither is growing nearly as fast. There are hundreds of corporate HQ's in DC and N. Virginia and Maryland. 

Culturally its opera, symphony, theater, many art museums, historical institutions are top tier and, of course, its tourist attractions are plentiful and well attended. Funky and hip 'hoods abound and the cuisine is as you would expect where everyone is on somebody else's credit card and there are 200 embassies and missions.

Politics is a complete zero issue. There are thousands of international meetings, conferences, public and private events, tours of Congress, the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI, etc.) every year, with Americans of every political persuasion and people from every country on earth attending. The major European and Asian languages are commonplace. It is all apolitical and the hotels are used to dealing with foreign languages and special needs.


----------



## ElvisBC

yepp! LA is hollywood, NY is money and DC is showplace of US history, power and dominance. it is always going to be that, it will always be shown to the world as such, no matter what any locals think!

it is definitely neither the biggest market nor the most important city in the US, but it is US capital and a great place as well, and there is no reason why final shouldn‘t be staged there.... well, apart from not having a stadium :colgate:


----------



## Joakim3

pesto said:


> Just absurd. First someone implies DC is to NY as Birmingham is to London. This logically implies that DC is to Birmingham as NY is to London (and London is to NY as Birmingham is to DC) both of which strike me as odd.
> 
> And now we analogize a third world country where the capital is an afterthought in the middle of nowhere to the US where the capital has been a worldwide symbol of democracy and freedom for 200 years. And someone calls it a perfect analogy. How embarrassing.
> 
> _Well, I guess I'll play straight-man and say that I still believe that a very high quality stadium in DC will be seriously considered for the finals or other high-profile match. Even without a roof. :lol:_


To play devils advocate that same symbol of democracy has also led to a little thing called capitalism

I'm from the DC area and if you think the district will host the finals over LA or NYC (even with a fancy new stadium).. wellllllll


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> yepp! LA is hollywood, NY is money and DC is showplace of US history, power and dominance. it is always going to be that, it will always be shown to the world as such, no matter what any locals think!
> 
> it is definitely neither the biggest market nor the most important city in the US, but it is US capital and a great place as well, and there is no reason why final shouldn‘t be staged there.... well, apart from not having a stadium :colgate:


As Onwards said, there's no reason for Manchester not to hold a WC final either. Only thing is, it wouldn't ever host a final over London. 

Just like Dallas or Chicago or DC or whatever, they could all host a final, and it'd be great. But no one with any influence on the matter will choose them, so what's the point of even considering it?


----------



## pesto

Joakim3 said:


> To play devils advocate that same symbol of democracy has also led to a little thing called capitalism
> 
> I'm from the DC area and if you think the district will host the finals over LA or NYC (even with a fancy new stadium).. wellllllll


All I said was that with a truly quality stadium they are in the running.

Ultimately FIFA will want to choose something that has a world rep and can generate strong visuals and that seems to me to mean NY, LA or DC.


----------



## BhamJim

Washington is nothing like Brasilia, Ottawa or Canberra. It is a massive tourist pull and an attractive host city.

The US doesn't have any iconic football stadia or hotbed football cities/regions. Its a totally blank canvas. England would have to use Wembley, Brazil would have to use the Maracana. 

The US has the opportunity to do what South Africa did in Soweto and create it's own iconic venue. There is no reason whatsoever that this couldn't and shouldn't be in it's capital city. In fact it seems to me like the perfect opportunity.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> As Onwards said, there's no reason for Manchester not to hold a WC final either. Only thing is, it wouldn't ever host a final over London.
> 
> Just like Dallas or Chicago or DC or whatever, they could all host a final, and it'd be great. But no one with any influence on the matter will choose them, so what's the point of even considering it?


what's the point? the point is metlife has no roof and it has some viewing obstructions in football configuration (the corners and sidelines as well) and that opens the opportunity for the others!

we have no clue how FIFA sees that, all we know is LOC prefers metlife. guess we'll have to wait another year to year and a half to find out that!


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> what's the point? the point is metlife has no roof and it has some viewing obstructions in football configuration (the corners and sidelines as well) and that opens the opportunity for the others!
> 
> we have no clue how FIFA sees that, all we know is LOC prefers metlife. guess we'll have to wait another year to year and a half to find out that!


But a hypothetical stadium in DC built for the Redskins is going to have flawless sightlines for soccer? 

Metlife has hosted a Copa America final, and it looked fantastic. Marginal viewing obstructions are not a concern, as those tickets will sell, and at a premium.

You're right, we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> But a hypothetical stadium in DC built for the Redskins is going to have flawless sightlines for soccer?


we do not know that, but if they build it with purpose and with world cup in sight anything is possible. look what they did in miami, that stadium is perfect for both, and they even play tennis masters inside 


5portsF4n said:


> Metlife has hosted a Copa America final, and it looked fantastic. Marginal viewing obstructions are not a concern, as those tickets will sell, and at a premium.
> 
> You're right, we'll have to wait and see.


yepp. for year and a half we hope to hear a single word from LOC but they are dead silent. that really sucks!


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> we do not know that, but if they build it with purpose and with world cup in sight anything is possible. look what they did in miami, that stadium is perfect for both, and they even play tennis masters inside
> !


Whatever they build in DC will be fit to host soccer, as all new stadiums are, but it will not shape the design of the stadium, which needs to be adapted to the sport that is going to supply 99% of the events held in the stadium over the next century.


----------



## pesto

5portsF4n said:


> Whatever they build in DC will be fit to host soccer, as all new stadiums are, but it will not shape the design of the stadium, which needs to be adapted to the sport that is going to supply 99% of the events held in the stadium over the next century.


Agree. 

But what is far more likely is that Snyder keeps the Skins, Bezos buys in some other town, no significant stadium is ever built, and what IS built becomes embroiled in hotly contested issues re the environment, housing, traffic, over-runs and everything else that over 100k lobbyists, activists and other lowlifes can dream up. :lol:


----------



## ElvisBC

5portsF4n said:


> Whatever they build in DC will be fit to host soccer, *as all new stadiums are ......*


tell that to those guys in atlanta ...  :colgate:


----------



## Guest

ElvisBC said:


> tell that to those guys in atlanta ...  :colgate:


These guys? Looks like a soccer field to me, and doesn't seem to have put people off from attending.


----------



## pesto

I think "fit to host soccer" is much too ambiguous an expression for there to be much agreement coming out of this discussion. But it may at least clarify what we mean by "fit"


----------



## Chevy114

Does this section of seats hurt Chicago's chances of getting a WC spot?


----------



## miguelon

^^^^^^

WC spots are already, settled. And Chicago is not included.

And those "restricted seats", are not an issue at all for either this or other stadiums. Most FIFA WC stadiums get some seats blocked or temporarily removed anyways (for additional TV cameras, additional hospitality, TV sets, etc.


----------



## Chevy114

Sorry didn't realize they already narrowed it down


----------



## Sheppard Fiddler

Chevy114 said:


> Sorry didn't realize they already narrowed it down


I don't think Chicago ever wanted to be considered, which is why the City wouldn't sign the required tax wavers that FIFA require.


----------



## ElvisBC

shame for the great city of chicago, but that stadium is awful anyway, desecration of great soldier field name!


----------



## pesto

Just to be clear, there has been no final decision on the stadiums. At the moment there are 17 US stadiums seeking 10 spots. Chicago and LV are not on the list but could be added if the parties agree on terms. It may not be likely but it's just not good business to make a decision 8 years ahead of time and stick to it willy-nilly.

It also seems likely that LA will change its proposed stadium from the Rose Bowl to SoFi; every discussion of the new stadium assumes it will be used. FedEx also seems in doubt if the DC area were to build a more suitable venue.

Btw, I agree that Soldier Field is a great shame in an otherwise architecturally excellent city.


----------



## noize

pesto said:


> And now we analogize a third world country where the capital is an afterthought in the middle of nowhere to the US *where the capital has been a worldwide symbol of democracy and freedom for 200 years*. And someone calls it a perfect analogy. How embarrassing.


Sorry, but the symbol of US democracy and freedom worldwide is New York City, it's almost a common sense. Washington D.C. get the news sometimes just as secondary scenario for a meeting in the White House or the Pentagon.


----------



## pesto

noize said:


> Sorry, but the symbol of US democracy and freedom worldwide is New York City, it's almost a common sense. Washington D.C. get the news sometimes just as secondary scenario for a meeting in the White House or the Pentagon.


You could be right; there is a lot of ignorance out there. But I have worked internationally all my life and have never run into anyone who was that confused. And no Americans are so clueless as to view NY as the center of political power. 

You go to NY for Times Sq. the Empire St. Building, Wall St., etc.; business, money, entertainment. A great city, no doubt.

You go to DC for the White House, Capitol Bldg., Smithsonian, Declaration of Independence, Treasury, Pentagon, FBI, Supreme Ct., Washington Mon., Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, Arlington Cemetery, etc. Building a nation, protecting the constitution, defending the country and the world.


----------



## noize

pesto said:


> You could be right; there is a lot of ignorance out there. But I have worked internationally all my life and have never run into anyone who was that confused. And no Americans are so clueless as to view NY as the center of political power.
> 
> You go to NY for Times Sq. the Empire St. Building, Wall St., etc.; business, money, entertainment. A great city, no doubt.
> 
> You go to DC for the White House, Capitol Bldg., Smithsonian, Declaration of Independence, Treasury, Pentagon, FBI, Supreme Ct., Washington Mon., Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, Arlington Cemetery, etc. Building a nation, protecting the constitution, defending the country and the world.


_You could be right_, but as long americans live by cliches and ignorance as well (you can see by the absurd geopolitical answers in polls all around the internet and tv shows), the rest of the world is equal, and in the common sense and cliches of everyone else Washington D.C. doesn't exist, and New York is the center of the western culture in everything you are saying.


----------



## Joakim3

noize said:


> _You could be right_, but as long americans live by cliches and ignorance as well (you can see by the absurd geopolitical answers in polls all around the internet and tv shows), the rest of the world is equal, and in the common sense and cliches of everyone else Washington D.C. doesn't exist, and New York is the center of the western culture in everything you are saying.


NYC (and to an extension LA) have and always will be associated with wealth and American lifestyle/culture. Yes it has some aspects of politics because of the news being housed their but it has _never_ been de-facto city for projection America's international policies.

DC is the countries *sole* symbol for political & military power and projection of its democracy.


----------



## BhamJim

pesto said:


> You could be right; there is a lot of ignorance out there. But I have worked internationally all my life and have never run into anyone who was that confused. And no Americans are so clueless as to view NY as the center of political power.
> 
> You go to NY for Times Sq. the Empire St. Building, Wall St., etc.; business, money, entertainment. A great city, no doubt.
> 
> You go to DC for the White House, Capitol Bldg., Smithsonian, Declaration of Independence, Treasury, Pentagon, FBI, Supreme Ct., Washington Mon., Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials, Arlington Cemetery, etc. Building a nation, protecting the constitution, defending the country *and the world*.


OMG. I cant believe during your international work you ever met anyone who thought Washington (wonderful city though it may be) was the last bastion of defending the world!! :lol:

Not seriously anyway?


----------



## Guest

BhamJim said:


> OMG. I cant believe during your international work you ever met anyone who thought Washington (wonderful city though it may be) was the last bastion of defending the world!! :lol:
> 
> Not seriously anyway?


They're all terrorists, from Washington to Beijing to London. 

Now how about a mod clean up the last few pages of political drivel, this post included of course, that has nothing to do with stadiums or sport?


----------



## pesto

noize said:


> _You could be right_, but as long americans live by cliches and ignorance as well (you can see by the absurd geopolitical answers in polls all around the internet and tv shows), the rest of the world is equal, and in the common sense and cliches of everyone else Washington D.C. doesn't exist, and New York is the center of the western culture in everything you are saying.


A bit confusing. Somehow American ignorance makes the world believe that NY is the center of political power and Washington doesn't exist? 

The political news I see comes from reporters standing in front of the White House, Capitol Building, State Dept., Supreme Ct., etc. More commonly you get business news from NY; tech from Silicon Valley; entertainment from LA. Maybe your local news services are cutting corners a bit?

I guess this is part of the goal of the World Cup: providing new information for geographically confused visitors. When here, they can actually go to all 4 cities and see what is going on.


----------



## pesto

BhamJim said:


> OMG. I cant believe during your international work you ever met anyone who thought Washington (wonderful city though it may be) was the last bastion of defending the world!! :lol:
> 
> Not seriously anyway?


No use getting into politics and such. I will just stick to saying that people are aware that DC is the location where decisions are made on US social, economic, military, commercial and technical standards, funding of science and technology, agriculture, larger infrastructure, etc.


----------



## Chevy114

Wasn't Chicago our host city in 94? That would be weird if they didn't get it again


----------



## pesto

Chevy114 said:


> Wasn't Chicago our host city in 94? That would be weird if they didn't get it again


Yes, the opening match was at Soldier Field, although the finals were at the Rose Bowl. This year Chicago had economic and political issues and did not apply to be a host city.

Btw, I would guess that LA, NY and Dallas are the leaders for the opening, semis and finals but others are in the running. Canada and Mexico are excluded by agreement but I think Mexico City would be a great place as well.

DC we have already discussed. :lol:


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note: *Okay, folks, the sheriff is back in town so let's kill the banter about city status, brand appeal, etc.


----------



## Nacre

EDIT: Gunner Jacket is right. Nevermind.


----------



## cmc

Montreal 
2026 ready...​


----------



## BhamJim

pesto said:


> Yes, the opening match was at Soldier Field, although the finals were at the Rose Bowl. This year Chicago had economic and political issues and did not apply to be a host city.
> 
> Btw, I would guess that LA, NY and Dallas are the leaders for the opening, semis and finals but others are in the running. Canada and Mexico are excluded by agreement but I think Mexico City would be a great place as well.
> 
> DC we have already discussed. :lol:


There is more football appeal in one seat at the Azteca Stadium than in the entire United States and Canada put together.

That said it has already hosted two finals,

IMO it should be used for the opening ceremony.


----------



## Rokto14

BhamJim said:


> There is more football appeal in one seat at the Azteca Stadium than in the entire United States and Canada put together.
> 
> That said it has already hosted two finals,
> 
> *IMO it should be used for the opening ceremony.*


I agree with that since neither the Mexican stadiums nor the Canadian stadiums are getting any games after the Round of 16. It will great to have Azteca hosting the opening match. 

But is it confirmed that one of the stadiums in the US is going to host the opening game or is it still in the discussion?


----------



## Guest

Rokto14 said:


> I agree with that since neither the Mexican stadiums nor the Canadian stadiums are getting any games after the Round of 16. It will great to have Azteca hosting the opening match.
> 
> But is it confirmed that one of the stadiums in the US is going to host the opening game or is it still in the discussion?


I would think a Mexican, US and Canadian city will host the opening three games, featuring US, Mexican and Canadian national teams. 

But I think the first game will be US. I think you have to go big on opening night, because from day 2 you are already getting multiple games.

As the primary host, I'm certain the US will host opening night, and then Mexico and Canada getting day 2 all to themselves.


----------



## aidan88

When countries have shared events before (eg the Euros or Japan/S Korea World Cup), one country hosted the opening game and the other hosted the Final.

I think its more likely Azteca will host the opener and the final will be in the US.


----------



## Guest

aidan88 said:


> When countries have shared events before (eg the Euros or Japan/S Korea World Cup), one country hosted the opening game and the other hosted the Final.
> 
> I think its more likely Azteca will host the opener and the final will be in the US.


Euros + South Korea/Japan were true joint championships. South Korea and Japan split hosting duties down the line. Switz/Austria, Ukraine/Poland did the same. 

2026 is nothing like that. It's a US tournament with handouts for Mexico and Canada. 

10 games Mexico. 10 games Canada. 60 games US, with all games from quarters going to US.

I may be wrong, but I suspect US will host opening night. US, as the primary host will be first seed in Group A, which means it'll get opening game.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

aidan88 said:


> When countries have shared events before (eg the Euros or Japan/S Korea World Cup), one country hosted the opening game and the other hosted the Final.
> 
> I think its more likely Azteca will host the opener and the final will be in the US.


Japan and South Korea were more equal partners. Putting the opener in Mexico City would also bump Canada down to an obvious 3rd partner and makeweight.

The Azteca does have a huge history in the game though. Only a few other stadia worldwide are in the same category.


----------



## pesto

The US market is 20 times the size of the Mexican market and getting some early buzz will be critical in developing US interest. Starting in NY or DC or SoFi would be helpful for getting that to happen; starting in Mexico would be less so.

I see the Canada problem as well. They are clearly the odd man of this group and need to plan something special to compete with the US and Mexico.


----------



## ryebreadraz

The plan is for a three-match opening day, with each country hosting their national team's first match. The bid document says that the first match of the day will be in either Mexico City or Los Angeles, although obviously the bid document is just the thought as of 2018, with plenty of time for that change. The Mexican federation president has said that he expects the Azteca to host the first match of the day, but whether that's the working plan of the organizing committee or just what he thinks should happen is unclear.


----------



## pesto

ryebreadraz said:


> The plan is for a three-match opening day, with each country hosting their national team's first match. The bid document says that the first match of the day will be in either Mexico City or Los Angeles, although obviously the bid document is just the thought as of 2018, with plenty of time for that change. The Mexican federation president has said that he expects the Azteca to host the first match of the day, but whether that's the working plan of the organizing committee or just what he thinks should happen is unclear.


Thanks, I figured there must have been some thinking on this but couldn't find it. It seems they have our concerns in mind: Azteca for history and LA for the US market and SoFi. Also ties in with NY for the finals.

But, as you say, this is subject to tuning as things develop.


----------



## Guest

ryebreadraz said:


> The plan is for a three-match opening day, with each country hosting their national team's first match. The bid document says that the first match of the day will be in either Mexico City or Los Angeles, although obviously the bid document is just the thought as of 2018, with plenty of time for that change. The Mexican federation president has said that he expects the Azteca to host the first match of the day, but whether that's the working plan of the organizing committee or just what he thinks should happen is unclear.


Interesting, thanks for the update.

Super inefficient scheduling if that ends up being the case. 

It would mean Mexico would have to host early afternoon game. It would also be weird to finish the day with Canada, so US should get the evening slot. But if you put it on in the evening in LA, you're limiting east coast audience. So it'd have to start at around 6pm in LA.

Having Mexico and US play on the same day limits potential audience of both. Anything less than 35 million for USMNT would be disappointing.


----------



## bongo-anders

Will the 3 host all be seeded first or will they be allocated to their group by their seeding.

Like Canada will be allocated Group B but will be seeded last. 


Because if all 3 teams is seeded first I'm 100% sure that most teams from seeding pot 2, 3 etc knows what group they want to draw.


----------



## ElvisBC

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> ...... Putting the opener in Mexico City would also bump Canada down to an obvious 3rd partner and makeweight......


let’s be honest, thats how it is!

there will likely be three opening games, possibly with three opening ceremonies, but one of them will probably serve as the main one with all vips and fifa executives. distances are simply too big for them to attend all three! time zones might play the role as well! 

apart from that, reading recent posts, I am more and more surprised how little most of you know about these things and still taking big part in these discussions, no matter if we talk about football stadiums or world cup in general. no offense, but true football fan knows these by default.


----------



## Guest

bongo-anders said:


> Will the 3 host all be seeded first or will they be allocated to their group by their seeding.
> 
> Like Canada will be allocated Group B but will be seeded last.
> 
> 
> Because if all 3 teams is seeded first I'm 100% sure that most teams from seeding pot 2, 3 etc knows what group they want to draw.


We still don't know if all three will automatically qualify. 

Assuming it's direct qualification for all three, FIFA will likely seed them all as 1st seeds. As always, FIFA wants the tournament hosts to go as far as possible, and seeding them as 1st seeds goes a long way in doing that.

Since there will be 16 groups, I don't think it would compromise the integrity of the tournament.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> let’s be honest, thats how it is!
> 
> there will likely be three opening games, possibly with three opening ceremonies, but one of them will probably serve as the main one with all vips and fifa executives. distances are simply too big for them to attend all three! time zones might play the role as well!
> 
> apart from that, reading recent posts, I am more and more surprised how little most of you know about these things and still taking big part in these discussions, no matter if we talk about football stadiums or world cup in general. no offense, but true football fan knows these by default.


LOL You're such a hoot! A legend in his own mind. Personally, I'm glad to have you here, for a variety of reasons.


----------



## GunnerJacket

I'm an avid footie fan but even I'm trying to recall the last time the opening ceremonies for the World Cup actually mattered or impressed...


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards

GunnerJacket said:


> I'm an avid footie fan but even I'm trying to recall the last time the opening ceremonies for the World Cup actually mattered or impressed...


USA 94 when Diana Ross broke the goal by missing the target. It is the only thing I can remember well from any World Cup opening ceremony. I have a vague recollection of dull platitudinous speaking by Sepp Blatter and that could have been at any number of venues.

Opening ceremonies don't matter and are more of an Olympics thing.


----------



## RobH

GunnerJacket said:


> I'm an avid footie fan but even I'm trying to recall the last time the opening ceremonies for the World Cup actually mattered or impressed...





OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> USA 94 when Diana Ross broke the goal by missing the target.


Is the correct answer :check:


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> I'm an avid footie fan but even I'm trying to recall the last time the opening ceremonies for the World Cup actually mattered or impressed...


They may not matter to you because you are going to watch regardless. But it's the job of FiFA and the United Comm. to convince advertisers that they will be attracting viewers far beyond the soccer hard-core. That's what locations, celebs and manufactured heart-tugging stories are for.


----------



## ElvisBC

I haven't read any article with true "fresh info" for months, they are obviously just filling in the space


----------



## Rokto14

ElvisBC said:


> I haven't read any article with true "fresh info" for months, they are obviously just filling in the space


Most likely we won't get any fresh info until all the stadiums are confirmed in especially the USA.


----------



## pesto

https://www.bizjournals.com/philade...ia-world-cup-committee-gets-2m-in-grants.html

Some noise coming from the Main Line about FIFA 2026. Philly has been relatively quiet on this issue but it looks like the people with clout are pushing for a bid. With a little help from the hospitality industry.


----------



## The Game Is Up

A potentially big development that, if true, is going to have major repercussions on the selection process:



> The Redskins and D.C. leaders for years have hoped to return the team to the city by building a new home at the site of RFK Stadium, where fans once enjoyed a golden era.
> 
> Now that possibility appears as distant as the memory of Redskins Super Bowl victories. A stubborn Congress is refusing to give the District long-term access to the land, partly because some influential members don’t like the team name.
> 
> As a result, team owner Daniel Snyder has begun wooing state and county officials in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs. *Early signs suggest the most likely outcome will be a new stadium at the site of the current one, FedEx Field, in Landover in Prince George’s County.*
> 
> Many Redskins fans would not welcome that result. The site lacks a convenient Metro station, and is not close to restaurants or bars for postgame celebration — or mourning, given the team’s recent performance. *To addresss that, Snyder is promising a domed stadium, usable all year, to anchor a multipurpose entertainment complex including a hotel, restaurants and retail.*
> 
> Other locations could end up winning the prize, and the team says all options remain open. If the team moved to Northern Virginia, Prince William County appears to be the most likely destination. Congress may eventually hand over the RFK land to the District.
> 
> “We have great relationships with officials in Virginia, Maryland and D.C.,” the team said in an emailed statement. “We are just beginning discussions and open to opportunities in all three locations.”
> 
> But the Landover site offers so many advantages, and the alternatives pose so many obstacles, that Prince George’s has to be seen as the favorite for now.
> 
> For one thing, Snyder already owns more than 200 acres at and around FedEx Field. That means there’s plenty of land for the vision he’s pitching. In addition, top Prince George’s officials enthusiastically welcome the proposal. They don’t want to be stuck with an empty stadium if the team leaves.



Read the rest - https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...375460-4eb0-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html



It's still unknown in what type of dome it would be but this has the potential of knocking the D.C. area out of the running. If FedEx Field is as run down as they say it is, RFK is on its way to being torn down and if Audi Field is too small for major events, there's not many choices out there. I guess they could use Maryland's football stadium but that's a bit old and may be too narrow. Navy's stadium is old and out of the area a bit.

I guess the upside is that the roof would shield people from the sun during day hours but unless the stadium would have grass it's going to be a PITA.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Domes are the new goal for venues wanting to be multipurpose and cities wanting to host major events like bigger bowl games, Final Fours, etc. The dome allows the type of assured scheduling those events and their broadcasters prefer.


----------



## ryebreadraz

GunnerJacket said:


> Domes are the new goal for venues wanting to be multipurpose and cities wanting to host major events like bigger bowl games, Final Fours, etc. The dome allows the type of assured scheduling those events and their broadcasters prefer.


And it may all be a con that doesn't bring in enough revenue to justify the cost, but who cares when the public is footing the bill?


----------



## pesto

ryebreadraz said:


> And it may all be a con that doesn't bring in enough revenue to justify the cost, but who cares when the public is footing the bill?


Agree as a general principle, but Snyder has consistently said the stadium will be 100 percent paid for by him (transit and such paid by the relevant government). It would strike me as a very likely money-maker in a metro the size and wealth of DC.


----------



## ElvisBC

The Game Is Up said:


> A potentially big development that, if true, is going to have major repercussions on the selection process:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the rest - https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...375460-4eb0-11ea-bf44-f5043eb3918a_story.html
> 
> 
> 
> It's still unknown in what type of dome it would be but this has the potential of knocking the D.C. area out of the running. If FedEx Field is as run down as they say it is, RFK is on its way to being torn down and if Audi Field is too small for major events, there's not many choices out there. I guess they could use Maryland's football stadium but that's a bit old and may be too narrow. Navy's stadium is old and out of the area a bit.
> 
> I guess the upside is that the roof would shield people from the sun during day hours but unless the stadium would have grass it's going to be a PITA.


I am not sure if they have to down FedEx field first, they could do what NY, Tampa, Atlanta and few others did, build a new one next to current stadium first and then demolish old one. Only not so sure about landscape, as far as I can remember FedEx field site is not so flat, but I might be wrong

I also do not think Snyder cares 1% about the World Cup, but idea of World Cup final in the capital just sounds great to me! And please do not start another discussion how insignificant DC is and that FedEx filed site is not in DC either .... we had all that already!


----------



## pesto

For sure Snyder does not care about the World Cup; I doubt if any of the owners of potential stadiums view the World Cup as anything but another potential customer.

But hosting in a new, high quality stadium in a capital city known worldwide and with a host of iconic sites is a PR dream. Especially around the 4th of July when DC will be putting out for celebrations in any event.


----------



## The Game Is Up

ElvisBC said:


> I am not sure if they have to down FedEx field first, they could do what NY, Tampa, Atlanta and few others did, build a new one next to current stadium first and then demolish old one. Only not so sure about landscape, as far as I can remember FedEx field site is not so flat, but I might be wrong
> 
> I also do not think Snyder cares 1% about the World Cup, but idea of World Cup final in the capital just sounds great to me! And please do not start another discussion how insignificant DC is and that FedEx filed site is not in DC either .... we had all that already!


I'm not saying he couldn't build next to the old stadium. What I was trying to raise is the logistics of running a major event while construction is ongoing, depending on when he wants to start building. That's why I brought up alternative sites for the World Cup. If the new stadium is built in 2025 then it may be OK. But he also wants to build the stuff surrounding it. Imagine fans having to walk around construction equipment on their way to the matches.

Maybe I'm overthinking it a bit.


----------



## pesto

https://www.fifa.com/who-we-are/new...ributes-to-roadmap-to-the-2026-fifa-world-cup

It’s not easy being Canadian. Part of the purpose for the league is to get ready for 2026. But the best known cities have MLS teams and are only vaguely involved (the York region is adjacent to Toronto).


----------



## slipperydog

There's always the worst case scenario option of using the Baltimore Ravens stadium and branding the host site as "Washington D.C./Baltimore". Luckily, there's a convenient train connecting DC to Balitmore and vice versa for those worried about all the Euros being fish out of water. That said, I'm betting FedEx is eventually included and used for the tournament.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> There's always the worst case scenario option of using the Baltimore Ravens stadium and branding the host site as "Washington D.C./Baltimore". Luckily, there's a convenient train connecting DC to Balitmore and vice versa for those worried about all the Euros being fish out of water. That said, I'm betting FedEx is eventually included and used for the tournament.


I'm on-board. It's FedEx if it gets done on time and Baltimore if it doesn't. Not only is the DC/Baltimore metro the nation's capital but it is going to be the 3rd largest US metro by then and per capita the richest metro of in the world.


----------



## ElvisBC

fedex is by far the worst stadium in that list .. and in the NFL as well!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> fedex is by far the worst stadium in that list .. and in the NFL as well!


Just to be clear, I'm talking about the proposed new FedEx (or whatever it's called) in Landover. In its current state the old one loses to Baltimore.

You may be right about it being the worst stadium now that Oakland, Candlestick, SD and such have moved on. But I don't want to get into that.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Just a suggestion: Céline Dion and Christina Aguilera should sing the official song/anthem of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.


----------



## ElvisBC

much better: neil young, carlos santana plus anyone from USA. but whoever does it has no chance topping 1990 song!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> much better: neil young, carlos santana plus anyone from USA. but whoever does it has no chance topping 1990 song!


The main problem: Young and Santana will both be 80 or so and that's not an image that currently plays well in the under 30 sports, tech marketing world. But, yeah, let's wheel them out for the nostalgia.

Young is appropriate since he did his early work in LA (when he couldn't find gigs he ran a shuttle service between Cantor's and the Sunset Strip for musicians and fans who ate there and then blew their minds up on the Strip). He lives in Malibu now so it would be convenient for the Olympics as well.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Why not Jennifer Lopez ?
I saw her in the last Superbowl and I think she should sing for the anthem.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*FIFA visits Canada this week to hold 2026 World Cup candidate city workshops*



> The next step in the host city selection process for the 2026 World Cup takes place Thursday when FIFA representatives meet with the Canadian Soccer Association and representatives from Edmonton, Toronto and Montreal.
> 
> The travelling FIFA group, which numbers more than 10, is holding similar workshops in Mexico City and Dallas around the Toronto visit.
> 
> The three candidate Canadian venues will be represented by city, tourism and stadium officials. The workshops will cover everything related to the competition, from accommodations and training sites to transportation.
> 
> “It's the opportunity for FIFA to engage directly with the candidate host cities on the requirements,” said Peter Montopoli, general secretary of the Canadian Soccer Association. “There are other stages of the process ... (Thursday) is really the first engagement between FIFA and the candidates host cities.”


CTV


----------



## pesto

Canucklehead83 said:


> Gross. As if Vancouver deserves any sporting event over Edmonton? Clearly you know nothing about Canadian sporting heritage never-mind current venue capacities, etc


Of course Edmonton is the huge favorite here (who could argue otherwise?) But can't FIFA even TALK to Vancouver and see what the issues were? It might help FIFA's strengthen their skills for later negotiations with other marginal cities.

Same as US: it's hard to see what it hurts to get LV or Chicago to re-think their positions even if no one would be interested in those sleepy, no tourism or nightlife towns anyway. If it doesn't work, so be it.


----------



## slipperydog

FIFA chose Vancouver to host the final of the 2015 Women's World Cup for some reason.


----------



## Guil

They Could put both cities, but we know that bid are trying to do everything as economic and minimum as possible.


----------



## pesto

Guil said:


> They Could put both cities, but we know that bid are trying to do everything as economic and minimum as possible.


The problem is that Vancouver balked at the FIFA terms so FIFA got stuck with Edmonton. In a reasonable world, Canada would just have lost that city and, say, Houston or Denver would be added. But the deal was that Canada gets 3 cities.

The US has many good choices so the loss of Chicago or LV is not nearly as noticeable.


----------



## NorthStyle

Vancouver better be on


----------



## ElvisBC

noone knows whats happening behind the scenes. if vancouver re-enters the race that might increase the chances of seattle as well ...


----------



## Canucklehead83

I think it's either/or with Seattle vs Vancouver and although I am patriotic, Seattle has the bigger/better venue even though BC Place is one of the best recycled 1980's area domed venues anywhere. I'm still saddened by the loss of the Silverdome, Humphreydome, RCA Dome, Kingdome as are many architectural fans despite their apparent shortcomings... Both would be ideal but I'm realistic considering the close physical proximity and virtual unification of its TV market...


----------



## slipperydog

Canucklehead83 said:


> Both would be ideal but I'm realistic considering the close physical proximity and virtual unification of its TV market...


Once they get their NHL team, they're gonna want no part of you lol


----------



## Canucklehead83

slipperydog said:


> Once they get their NHL team, they're gonna want no part of you lol


It's the West Coast, as if I care. It might as well be Mars...


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I give a rate for each stadium.

*Canada*
Montreal: B
Toronto: B+
Edmonton: B

*Mexico*
Mexico City: A
Guadalajara: A-
Monterrey: A-

*United States*
Atlanta: A
Dallas: A
LA (Sofi Stadium): A+
Houston: A
Miami: A-
Seattle: B+
NY: B+
San Francisco: B+
Boston: B
Washington DC: B


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> I give a rate for each stadium.
> 
> *Canada*
> Montreal: B
> Toronto: B+
> Edmonton: B
> 
> *Mexico*
> Mexico City: A
> Guadalajara: A-
> Monterrey: A-
> 
> *United States*
> Atlanta: A
> Dallas: A
> LA (Sofi Stadium): A+
> Houston: A
> Miami: A-
> Seattle: B+
> NY: B+
> San Francisco: B+
> Boston: B
> Washington DC: B


Did you choose the 10 best US stadiums or the 10 best cities overall? 

It looks like a solid list for the 10 US sites, but I won't get into your grading choices.


----------



## Леонид

what stadium are the games going to be in DC?


----------



## OzStadiumGeek

Surely a new stadium for the Redskins.
Out of curiosity, what is the issue fans have with FedEx Field?


----------



## GunnerJacket

OzStadiumGeek said:


> Surely a new stadium for the Redskins.
> Out of curiosity, what is the issue fans have with FedEx Field?


There's a thread for that venue on these boards and several knowledgeable posters imply that it was done cheaply, has tight seating, etc. Folks in the back of the lower tiers don't like the overhang of the tier above, and at more than 23 years old it lacks most of the modern amenities of other NFL venues. It's design hearkens back to the day when all that mattered was getting as many people a possible into the venue. Nowadays the idea is about a comprehensive stadium experience, and it would cost a lot of money to bring FedEx to that level.


----------



## tinyslam

In addition its location isn't great. Its in the suburbs of DC so your only real option is driving and getting in and out of the parking lots is a real pain (there is no direct ramp from the highway so traffic really backs up). There is a subway stop for the mall across the highway, but to get to the stadium it is over a mile walk and you have to go under said highway. I went there for an ICC game a few years ago. Driving down from Baltimore and we were running a little late but not terrible. We got stuck in traffic getting into the area at around when kick off was happening and didn't get to our seats until ~5 min left in the first half. Which in an ICC match meant we only got to see the stars for a few minutes.


----------



## parcdesprinces

NorthStyle said:


> Vancouver better be on


Agreed!

But if Vancouver is in the short Canadian list.. does Montréal (Stade Olympique) will be in as well?? (just a question (?))

I ask..because if I had to choose... well... thankfully I won't LOL.


----------



## pesto

parcdesprinces said:


> Agreed!
> 
> But if Vancouver is in the short Canadian list.. does Montréal (Stade Olympique) will be in as well?? (just a question (?))
> 
> I ask..because if I had to choose... well... thankfully I won't LOL.


The general assumption is that Montreal and Toronto have to be in even if it means spending some money on expansion and improvements. The are not only famous cities, but located conveniently to the American NE.

Edmonton seems likely to go if Vancouver changes their mind.


----------



## Леонид

OzStadiumGeek said:


> Surely a new stadium for the Redskins.
> Out of curiosity, what is the issue fans have with FedEx Field?


Its does not have an easy access and its not pretty. it kinda sucks


----------



## ElvisBC

OzStadiumGeek said:


> Surely a new stadium for the Redskins.
> Out of curiosity, what is the issue fans have with FedEx Field?
> 
> 
> Леонид said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its does not have an easy access and its not pretty. it kinda sucks
Click to expand...

fedex field is not that old but it is one of those projects where everything went wrong. after playing for ages in RFK redskins built a huge monster quite outside of DC people were never happy about. it is not well accessible, not quite a nightmare like gillette, but definitely not easy to get in and out. there is a subway stop not that far away, nice walk actually, but it doesn‘t help you if it rains or snows. (ok, going for a game in rain or snow in a roofless stadium is sick anyway, but weather can also change during the game). and then one more thing, subway stops operating early, so if you go there by train for MNF or SNF and if there is extra time ... good luck!
also, for whatever reason it started to degrade faster than stadiums of simmilar age, no clue if that was up to poor maintanence or any other reason. could be they simply gave it up at some point, realizing the whole project was a failure. on the top of that it was too big (biggest NFL stadium), redskins couldn‘t really fill it, then they made a ridiculous decission and started to demolish upper sections, you can see it well on one of the pics below. never saw such a thing before! there are also many seats with more or less viewing obstruction where you feel like in the cage, even though many people prefer those due to rain protection.

all in all it looks awful, it is falling apart, it is not easy to reach and most of all, noone likes it! in short words, as leonid wrote: “it sucks!“ it wil be a disgrace if they decide to play world cup there, but you never know it with FIFA!


----------



## OzStadiumGeek

ElvisBC said:


> fedex field is not that old but it is one of those projects where everything went wrong. after playing for ages in RFK redskins built a huge monster quite outside of DC people were never happy about. it is not well accessible, not quite a nightmare like gillette, but definitely not easy to get in and out. there is a subway stop not that far away, nice walk actually, but it doesn‘t help you if it rains or snows. (ok, going for a game in rain or snow in a roofless stadium is sick anyway, but weather can also change during the game). and then one more thing, subway stops operating early, so if you go there by train for MNF or SNF and if there is extra time ... good luck!
> also, for whatever reason it started to degrade faster than stadiums of simmilar age, no clue if that was up to poor maintanence or any other reason. could be they simply gave it up at some point, realizing the whole project was a failure. on the top of that it was too big (biggest NFL stadium), redskins couldn‘t really fill it, then they made a ridiculous decission and started to demolish upper sections, you can see it well on one of the pics below. never saw such a thing before! there are also many seats with more or less viewing obstruction where you feel like in the cage, even though many people prefer those due to rain protection.
> 
> all in all it looks awful, it is falling apart, it is not easy to reach and most of all, noone likes it! in short words, as leonid wrote: “it sucks!“ it wil be a disgrace if they decide to play world cup there, but you never know it with FIFA!


Makes complete sense then. Seems the life expectancy of a sporting stadium in the U.S. is much lower than anywhere else! Hopefully something can be done with the RFK site and turn that into a more suitable venue. Correct me if I am wrong, but I also thought FIFA required WC stadiums to have at least a certain amount of seats "under cover", so unless they throw a roof on it (a.k.a. Hard Rock in Miami), then surely it won't be considered - but then again the same can be said about a few candidates - Levi's, Edmonton, New York, Kansas City, Denver, Baltimore, Nashville, Foxborough, Philadelphia & Orlando!


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> No matter which hosts are selected there will be some cities/venues in the US fully capable of hosting but invariably left out. This was certain once the event became multinational.
> 
> Such is the embarrassment of riches that is US stadia.





Aminjumi said:


> I really couldn't understand why it has to be multinational. Now USA has to wait for more than 20 years again to host WC.


Sounds like the attitude of some other countries. Sharing is somehow a sign of weakness and limitation. Personally, it brings a tear to my eye when I see my grandchildren willingly share. One of the signs that they are growing into human beings, not beasts.

FIFA now has a policy of making it easier for smaller countries to get involved by allowing groups of countries to bid. It seemed difficult for Mexico or Canada to host on their own, but it would build the game in those countries if the US would join with them. The bulk of the games go to the US for economic reasons but all countries benefit.


----------



## BhamJim

Mexico has hosted the World Cup, alone, twice previously. By 2026 it will have hosted it more than anywhere else.

There's no reason why it has to be involved in this. If the aim is to give other countries a chance then Canada could host more games, in more of it's cities and Mexico could be left out.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> Sounds like the attitude of some other countries. Sharing is somehow a sign of weakness and limitation. Personally, it brings a tear to my eye when I see my grandchildren willingly share. One of the signs that they are growing into human beings, not beasts.


Well that's coming at it from a very... unique angle. Allow me to refute.

a) The World Cup rotates around the globe, as it should, and I'm all for that. No skin off my back if they had chosen another nation just as capable and arguably overdue for a WC. Spain, Netherlands/Belgium, Australia... This system is another example of sharing, as everyone who's able gets a turn.

b) I've got nothing against co-op events, especially if it enables smaller nations that otherwise couldn't do the job alone have a chance to host. 

c) My point wasn't one of anger or disappointment, simply a stated fact that once it was confirmed the US would invite co-hosts that meant a cap on the # of cities from each nation. As a result multiple cities in the US, in Mexico, and in Canada that are fully capable of hosting will be left out this time compared to if each nation hosted on their own. Have those cities' opportunities to be involved now been pushed further out as the event steers away from North America for a while? It's a legit question for some cities who might want the opportunity, but I'm not crying about it because this is how it goes. 

Plus, even if the US hosted on its own doesn't mean every capable city would get the nod. The line gets drawn somewhere and sometimes you're below it.

d) I do have a grievance about event logistics regarding distance between venues, but this isn't a US thing. I simply think FIFA and the organizers should minimize the amount of time and costs spent on team and fan travel. Those were the biggest gripes from the events in Brazil and Russia and I'm sure we'll hear teams complain about the volume of flight hours for this one. But I'm not crying over it.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Well that's coming at it from a very... unique angle. Allow me to refute.
> 
> a) The World Cup rotates around the globe, as it should, and I'm all for that. No skin off my back if they had chosen another nation just as capable and arguably overdue for a WC. Spain, Netherlands/Belgium, Australia... This system is another example of sharing, as everyone who's able gets a turn.
> 
> b) I've got nothing against co-op events, especially if it enables smaller nations that otherwise couldn't do the job alone have a chance to host.
> 
> c) My point wasn't one of anger or disappointment, simply a stated fact that once it was confirmed the US would invite co-hosts that meant a cap on the # of cities from each nation. As a result multiple cities in the US, in Mexico, and in Canada that are fully capable of hosting will be left out this time compared to if each nation hosted on their own. Have those cities' opportunities to be involved now been pushed further out as the event steers away from North America for a while? It's a legit question for some cities who might want the opportunity, but I'm not crying about it because this is how it goes.
> 
> Plus, even if the US hosted on its own doesn't mean every capable city would get the nod. The line gets drawn somewhere and sometimes you're below it.
> 
> d) I do have a grievance about event logistics regarding distance between venues, but this isn't a US thing. I simply think FIFA and the organizers should minimize the amount of time and costs spent on team and fan travel. Those were the biggest gripes from the events in Brazil and Russia and I'm sure we'll hear teams complain about the volume of flight hours for this one. But I'm not crying over it.


I don't think I have any disagreement with you. Choosing the US (in this case) was a no-brainer; the potential economic results were too good to pass up. The only issue FIFA had was to see what additional goals they could address that the vast profitability of the US games would help fix. 

One of those was their policy of making soccer more relevant in smaller countries, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa, etc. Morocco alone made no sense but joined with Algeria, Italy, Spain, etc. it built bridges without ending up with a dozen clunker cities and economic waste. Same idea in the British Isles, Eastern Europe, South America. A dozen mid-sized countries that could easily contribute 2 or 3 stadiums without much expense, now can join with others to host a complete tournament..


----------



## GunnerJacket

Fair enough. Sorry if I misread your comment.


----------



## pesto

BhamJim said:


> Mexico has hosted the World Cup, alone, twice previously. By 2026 it will have hosted it more than anywhere else.
> 
> There's no reason why it has to be involved in this. If the aim is to give other countries a chance then Canada could host more games, in more of it's cities and Mexico could be left out.


Again we are back to "we can do it without them" thinking. But why? Does the US or Canada have something to prove? Being a soccer power may be the only hope for small or dying economies, but hardly for 2 of the wealthiest countries in the world. 

Mexico has 3 very good stadiums, a very large, growing, soccer-loving, population, but is a poor country with many social issues. Canada is much wealthier but has very few people. As is, they need to do work to provide stadiums of quality in Montreal and Toronto, and are proposing a stadium in an isolated metro of 1.3M a good thousand miles from any other host city. It seems like 3 is enough for each without sacrificing a major US city. In any event, it's what FIFA and the 3 countries agreed on.


----------



## ElvisBC

OzStadiumGeek said:


> ......Makes complete sense then. Seems the life expectancy of a sporting stadium in the U.S. is much lower than anywhere else!......


coming back to this one, slightly off topic, but just realized georgia dome was operating for less than 25 years, same as indy dome or seattle dome, metrodome held for 30 years, texas stadium for 35, just to name few ... not really long living buildings considering construction costs! no way that happens over here!

I won’t live long enough to find out if the same happens with modern domes such as jerryworld, minny, vegas, LA .... and I would really like to know that


----------



## Guil

Remembering Canada had a plan to host alone before the joint bid.


----------



## pesto

Guil said:


> Remembering Canada had a plan to host alone before the joint bid.


I remember the new guy in Canadian soccer wanted to stir things up in soccer circles a bit. I wonder if FIFA was already thinking about how big the US market was and that Canada and Mexico would help illustrate how relatively smaller countries could host matches without breaking the bank.


----------



## ElvisBC

surprised noone posted this one yet:






starting around 59:00 some talk about host cities and how nothing has been decided yet and anything is still possible. this way or another FIFA will chose the cities, not LOC


----------



## GunnerJacket

ElvisBC said:


> coming back to this one, slightly off topic, but just realized georgia dome was operating for less than 25 years, same as indy dome or seattle dome, metrodome held for 30 years, texas stadium for 35, just to name few ... not really long living buildings considering construction costs! no way that happens over here!
> 
> I won’t live long enough to find out if the same happens with modern domes such as jerryworld, minny, vegas, LA .... and I would really like to know that


Just my thoughts... When the first group of structures you referenced were built the nature of venues hadn't truly evolved from generations before, and apart from a few suite upgrades it was still a variant of herding people into the place. The only thing truly swanky was the indoor concept. 

The evolution in media technology changed that, not only in terms of display screens and electronic advertising becoming a prominent feature of modern venues but how it helped promote the concept of sports into a next-generation event experience. Sports leagues and teams grew in value and cultural status, creating a demand for more suites and premium experiences. Within a generation the idea of seeing a game went from as casual an exercise as seeing a movie to now being more like an all-day theme park adventure. Simply having enough seats didn't cut it anymore. 

I doubt we'll see quite the same leap within the next generation. Not in terms of demanding alternate structures, anyway.


----------



## ElvisBC

very likely, but I guess they thought the same 30-40 years ago


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Just my thoughts... When the first group of structures you referenced were built the nature of venues hadn't truly evolved from generations before, and apart from a few suite upgrades it was still a variant of herding people into the place. The only thing truly swanky was the indoor concept.
> 
> The evolution in media technology changed that, not only in terms of display screens and electronic advertising becoming a prominent feature of modern venues but how it helped promote the concept of sports into a next-generation event experience. Sports leagues and teams grew in value and cultural status, creating a demand for more suites and premium experiences. Within a generation the idea of seeing a game went from as casual an exercise as seeing a movie to now being more like an all-day theme park adventure. Simply having enough seats didn't cut it anymore.
> 
> I doubt we'll see quite the same leap within the next generation. Not in terms of demanding alternate structures, anyway.


Nice analysis. But as far as more changes: "they'v gone about as far as they can go" is always horribly wrong. lol.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Fair enough.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Ranking U.S. cities most deserving to host 2026 World Cup games*



> There are so many wonderful cities in these here United States, but only 10 of them can have the honor and privilege (and challenge) of playing host to World Cup games when the tournament arrives in June 2026.
> The United Bid that includes three cities each from Mexico and Canada included 17 possible locations in the U.S. But now that these three nations have won the right to stage the World Cup, the American list eventually will have to be trimmed by seven. The timing on the selection has been delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. It was expected to be wrapped up by early 2021. We now might be a year away from the ultimate decision.
> It’s nice to ponder, though, a time when we all expect to be able to attend big games, dine in restaurants and go to shows, shop for England or Italy or Senegal or USA jerseys, and appreciate the unbridled, global joy that accompanies a World Cup.
> *MORE: CONCACAF changes World Cup qualifying plans*
> Former U.S. Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro, noting the abundance of outstanding cities and venues, called it “a high-class problem” to pick among them.
> But it is a problem. This is not a list on which one would want to rank No. 11, but somebody must.
> Here's how we've ranked the U.S. cities most deserving to host World Cup games in 2026, based on amenities (accommodations, dining, other attractions), ease of access to stadium and whether the town/region has embraced soccer.
> 
> 
> *1 New York*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Venue:* Met Life Stadium (capacity: 87,157)
> *Positives:* It is the most diverse, dynamic city in the United States. Any World Cup visitor to New York, whether international or domestic, will have an overabundance of entertainment and dining options as well as plenty of choices in accommodations.
> *Negatives:* The stadium is across the river in New Jersey. Parking is ample for those driving. There is train service from Penn Station. It requires a connection, but since it’s only a one-time, gameday trek, it’s worth the inconvenience.
> *Soccer cred:* The stadium played host to the Copa America Centenario final in 2016; its predecessor had the World Cup semifinal and quarterfinal in 1994; original Major League Soccer city (New York Red Bulls) and 2015 expansion entrant (New York City FC).
> *Overview:* The only choice regarding the New York area is which games to give the Big Apple. It did not get the final in the 1994 World Cup because the Rose Bowl, which regularly has more than 90,000 for major events, was able to accommodate nearly six-figure crowds. That could be the deciding factor again with the final, but it appears the bid group is leaning toward NYC this time.
> 
> 
> *2 Los Angeles*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Venue:* Rose Bowl (capacity: 88,432)
> *Positives:* No place is always sunny and warm, but Southern California weather is pretty reliable. There would be an overabundance of lodging and dining options for visitors. The Rose Bowl often has been celebrated as one of the most iconic venues in American sports, in a setting of beauty.
> *Negatives:* Los Angeles traffic is no day at the beach, so to speak, and getting to/from the Rose Bowl will be a challenge for everyone who doesn’t live in the neighborhood. There is some rail service to the Rose Bowl area, although it can be time consuming depending on the origin of one’s trip.
> *Soccer cred:* This was the site of the 1994 World Cup final between Brazil and Italy and the 1999 Women’s World Cup final between the U.S. and China, as well as the soccer competition for the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics. One hesitates to say it is America’s “national stadium,” because it has been as welcoming to the Mexico national team as the U.S. They played each another at the Rose Bowl in the 2015 CONCACAF Cup and drew a capacity crowd. Mexico chose the Rose Bowl as the venue for its final friendly in advance of the 2018 World Cup, drawing 82,345.
> *Overview:* The Rose Bowl’s history as a soccer venue and large capacity will make it a busy venue once again.
> *MORE: Australia, New Zealand win bid to host 2023 Women's World Cup*
> 
> 
> *3 Atlanta*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Venue:* Mercedes-Benz Stadium
> *Capacity:* 75,000
> *Positives: *The stadium is within easy reach of downtown Atlanta’s hotels and restaurant district, which have proven to be highly functional for events as diverse as the NCAA Final Four and the Olympic Games. It’s either a nice hike (1.7 miles) or an easy cab ride from there.
> *Negatives:* As an indoor/retractable-roof stadium, it has a Field Turf surface, which means it would have to be covered with a temporary grass field. That’s been accomplished before, as with the Silverdome and Giants Stadium for the 1994 World Cup. The U.S. used a temporary grass field at CenturyLink Stadium in Seattle for a World Cup qualifier in 2013, and the surface was not praised by some who played on it.
> *Soccer cred:* With a reputation for being a tepid sports city, Atlanta has stunned the nation by becoming the hottest soccer town we have. Atlanta United, which played its first season in 2017, has shattered attendance records, including drawing 73,019 for the MLS Cup final in 2018.
> *Overview: *Atlanta’s embrace of the sport since becoming an MLS city is going to be rewarded with the chance to be a part of the World Cup. When the tournament was in the States in 1994, the closest venue (Orlando) was more than six hours away and the second-closest (Washington) was a 10-hour drive.


Article


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> *Ranking U.S. cities most deserving to host 2026 World Cup games*
> 
> 
> 
> Article


I'm not sure if "most deserving" is the same as "most likely".

This purports to be based on stadium, amenities and local soccer culture; but international name recognition and visitor appeal have to be in there as well. In any event, it is very forced and ignores glaring inconsistencies (KC is hotter in July than Miami and there's no ocean; the stadium is remote, tourist attractions are minimal; it's close to nothing)..

And not a word about SoFi? And SJ/SF off the deep end? Really?


----------



## GunnerJacket

I think every listicle published should have to pay some special (to, say, the Make a Wish foundation, Habitat for Humanity, etc.) to compensate for the likely overuse of this trite phenomena. As counterweight for the growing trend of people thinking opinion equates to news credibility.


----------



## ElvisBC

that article was written by clueless person, has zero value


----------



## slipperydog

Updates from US Soccer conference call today:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280165247001800709

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280159305933750274


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Updates from US Soccer conference call today:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280165247001800709
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1280159305933750274


Sounds like discussions are still going on with Chicago and Vancouver, so I would wait for a few more stakes in the heart before calling them "dead dead". The dead rise in droves when money or elections are at stake.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> Old Trafford is a 3 mile/5 km drive from the center of the city of Manchester. Foxborough is a 30 mile/50 km drive from Boston. In comparison Liverpool is a 35 miles/56 km drive from Manchester. I am not talking about stadiums located just outside of the urban core of a city. I am talking about stadiums being located in a completely different city than the host city named by the organizing committee.
> 
> The UK would never name Manchester as the host city of an event using a stadium in Huddersfield. We (the USA) should not put an event in Santa Clara and call it San Francisco, or an event in Foxborough and call it Boston.


Typically one says that St. Denis Cathedral is in Paris, but it isn't; it's in a suburb. In Europe the suburbs tend to be more compact because land is scarce. In the US land is more plentiful and highways are excellent so suburbs can be further away. But you use the main city in the area for ease of understanding.

Likewise, can you tell me what cities the Paris airports are in? Or the two major London airports? It's just a matter of convenience that they are called London or Paris Airports, not because they are actually there.

In the case of SF, Levi's Stadium is always talked about as in being in "SJ/SF" or "the Bay Area" even though it is in Santa Clara. No one believes it is in SF, the city; :that's just a short reference for the SF Bay Area.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Nacre said:


> The stadiums should be discussed in terms of where they are actually located. In the rest of the world they would never list a stadium in Reading as "London", a stadium in The Hague as "Amsterdam" or a stadium in Kyoto as "Osaka". The organizers should not be able to call a stadium in a different state or 50-75 km away "New York", "Boston" or "San Francisco".


While such brand association may be disingenuous this is hardly a sports phenomena, let alone anything evil or illegal. 

If I traveled abroad I'd tell someone I live in Atlanta to give them a sense of context. In reality I'm 40 miles north but no one without a good understanding of local geography would know about Gainesville, Georgia. Companies do the same thing, regularly promoting their location based on metropolitan area rather than specific suburb because of the social association inherent with major names. When the Olympics came to town in '96 the volume of businesses promoting themselves as being in "Atlanta" grew exponentially, even if they were way out in the exurbs, but if it helped them grow then kudos to them.

Savvy travelers and consumers manage around such advertising hyperbole, whereas less-knowledgeable folks probably couldn't care less.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> While such brand association may be disingenuous this is hardly a sports phenomena, let alone anything evil or illegal.
> 
> If I traveled abroad I'd tell someone I live in Atlanta to give them a sense of context. In reality I'm 40 miles north but no one without a good understanding of local geography would know about Gainesville, Georgia. Companies do the same thing, regularly promoting their location based on metropolitan area rather than specific suburb because of the social association inherent with major names. When the Olympics came to town in '96 the volume of businesses promoting themselves as being in "Atlanta" grew exponentially, even if they were way out in the exurbs, but if it helped them grow then kudos to them.
> 
> Savvy travelers and consumers manage around such advertising hyperbole, whereas less-knowledgeable folks probably couldn't care less.


Actually, it works both ways. People will say "London" or "Amsterdam" when they mean some smaller town in the general area. It's not so much "marketing hyperbole" as just common sense.


----------



## slipperydog




----------



## Joakim3

pesto said:


> Yes. Of course I was referring to "suitable" ball parks.
> 
> DC is in considerable flux at this point. I think Baltimore (50 miles away) will be chosen if there is no good DC area solution because DC offers big celebrations for July 4..


*38 miles (downtown to downtown). Beltway to Beltway is closer to 20 miles. 

Baltimore getting picked is 100% contingent on if DC bulldozes RFK and can get a new stadium up before the deadline (which consider COVID is ruined the economy for the next 1-2 years) is unlikely 

But who knows at this point


----------



## pesto

Joakim3 said:


> *38 miles (downtown to downtown). Beltway to Beltway is closer to 20 miles.
> 
> Baltimore getting picked is 100% contingent on if DC bulldozes RFK and can get a new stadium up before the deadline (which consider COVID is ruined the economy for the next 1-2 years) is unlikely
> 
> But who knows at this point


100 percent? Why is that? Aren't there potential sites in Maryland or Virginia that would work? If one of those happens then Baltimore is effectively out.


----------



## JJG

CaliforniaJones said:


> *Ranking potential 2026 World Cup venues*
> 
> Missing out
> 11. Kansas City
> 12. Philadelphia
> 13. Houston
> 14. Nashville
> 15. Orlando
> 16. Baltimore
> 17. Cincinnati
> 
> NBC Sports


...no way Houston is left out.


----------



## RobH

pesto said:


> No one is confused about the locations;


Well, maybe not in the states. In some cases it'll be wise for organisers to make very clear that some of the stadiums are a long way from the city they're being named after, because there's no reason why someone travelling from abroad to follow their team in a world cup should know these things. Of course, it's also up to people to look things up but if one stadium is being very heavily pushed as the New York Stadium or whatever, then I could see confusion arising.


----------



## pesto

For sure there is no problem with FIFA noting that the stadium is convenient to some airport, hotel, etc., or is remote from this or that tourist attraction. But are people outside the US so careless that they don't check before spending thousands on flights and hotels? 

In any event, MetLife is only about 7 miles in a straight line from midtown NY. Plenty of transit will be available. There will undoubtedly be events scheduled in and around Manhattan as well. When the Super Bowl was at Levi's many people stayed in SF and took shuttles; others stayed in SJ or Palo Alto or near other Bay Areas tourism centers.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> For sure there is no problem with FIFA noting that the stadium is convenient to some airport, hotel, etc., or is remote from this or that tourist attraction. But are people outside the US so careless that they don't check before spending thousands on flights and hotels?


From my very short stint in the travel industry, I would say most people will assume that if New York is the named host city that the stadium will also be in New York and not somewhere in New Jersey.

They need to make it very clear -both before people buy tickets and then on the actual ticket itself- where exactly the stadium is, and not leave it to people from Japan and Nigeria to do research prior to buying tickets.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> From my very short stint in the travel industry, I would say most people will assume that if New York is the named host city that the stadium will also be in New York and not somewhere in New Jersey.
> 
> They need to make it very clear -both before people buy tickets and then on the actual ticket itself- where exactly the stadium is, and not leave it to people from Japan and Nigeria to do research prior to buying tickets.


First of all, there may not even be paper tickets by then except as souvenirs; and the address doesn’t tell you anything about where it really is. Your phone has all the directions as to stadium location, routes to get there, nearby hotels, transit options, restaurants, etc. There will be many shuttles from NY to the Meadowlands or you can take a cab. This is a complete non-issue except for the generally high price of NY.

Arriving and departing NY is actually a bigger issue. JFK is twice as far from Manhattan as MetLife is, and it’s going to set you back $100 by cab. Or you can take the subway for 1 hr. plus and drag luggage up and down stairs in 90 degree heat. And risk your life it it’s at night.).


----------



## ElvisBC

Joakim3 said:


> *38 miles (downtown to downtown). Beltway to Beltway is closer to 20 miles.
> 
> Baltimore getting picked is 100% contingent on if DC bulldozes RFK and can get a new stadium up before the deadline (which consider COVID is ruined the economy for the next 1-2 years) is unlikely
> 
> But who knows at this point


covid is a problem, and situation in the states is awful, but there is brisk movement around redskins at the moment, name is gone and now would be perfect moment to at least pre-announce new stadium! snyder very likely doesn‘t care about the world cup, but there is enough time, it would be a perfect fit, and even though it currently doesn‘t look that way, I am sure there are enough smart people in US government who understand that leaving out DC would be a huge mistake. DC=display of US power to anyone coming there for the first time at least, you can‘t get any other impression.



JJG said:


> ...no way Houston is left out.


grat covered stadium with hardly any viewing obstruction and with perfect connection .... I would be truly shocked if it is left out! also close to dallas that is 100% host, would make perfect sense!


----------



## miguelon

Lets not kid ourselves, any of the potential host cities in any of the 3 countries, is more than capable to host WC matches, even you can make the case, that each city on its own could host at least a semifinal if given the chance.

Any of the issues with a particular venue discussed here, are not that different or similar to what other host cities have had in the past, and nothing that some planning or modest improvements can not take care of it.

You can have a lot of solutions, dedicated fan transport, free public transport access with tickets, additional shuttles, suspend classes or local government offices to clear up streets and use staff and students as "volunteers", temporary permit to turn local vehicles into UBER's, or, use the opportunity to bring forward a heavy investment transportation project, that needs some political/financial push to move forward.

Any major city in north america, can pull together during the summer, 100's of school buses to shuttle thousands of fans. Similar case in Canada and Mexico.


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> Lets not kid ourselves, any of the potential host cities in any of the 3 countries, is more than capable to host WC matches, even you can make the case, that each city on its own could host at least a semifinal if given the chance.
> 
> Any of the issues with a particular venue discussed here, are not that different or similar to what other host cities have had in the past, and nothing that some planning or modest improvements can not take care of it.
> 
> You can have a lot of solutions, dedicated fan transport, free public transport access with tickets, additional shuttles, suspend classes or local government offices to clear up streets and use staff and students as "volunteers", temporary permit to turn local vehicles into UBER's, or, use the opportunity to bring forward a heavy investment transportation project, that need the political/financial push to move forward.
> 
> Any major city in north american, can pull together during the summer, 100's of school buses to shuttle thousands of fans. Similar case in Canada and Mexico.


This is about the clearest, most accurate post ever made on this thread.


----------



## ElvisBC

unfortunately short sighted. I know you do not understand it either but it is far away from being accurate. differences what these cities may or may not offer in terms of World Cup are huge


----------



## pesto

https://www.gatewayla.org/

Speaking of where to stay, this is a site that covers SoFi, the Inglewood and LAX people movers, the Clippers arena and other transit issues in the LAX and Inglewood area. All of these are of interest to people coming to the Olympics and the 2026 World Cup if SoFi is selected (which seems likely).

As a practical matter, if you are coming in for just 1 match, you may want to stay near LAX, which has a huge concentration of hotels in various price ranges. You will be very near (or right at) SoFi and the entire complex of restaurants, shops and performance venues.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> unfortunately short sighted. I know you do not understand it either but it is far away from being accurate. differences what these cities may or may not offer in terms of World Cup are huge


There are no “huge” differences and what differences there are will be well within the tolerance of all except ultra-connoisseurs. 

Seriously: everywhere you go stadiums will exceed FIFA standards, transit, cabs and Uber available. You will have clean, sanitary conditions; wide choices of hotels, foods, entertainment. People speak English and most likely Spanish and other languages. Water, power and emergency services are excellent. Officials are polite and honest 

There will be interesting architecture, nightlife, scenery (some world famous), historical sites, etc. Some more than others, but you will not be isolated or limited in any substantial way.

I know you get into the minutia of stadiums and I don’t have an issue with that; I am fussy on some issues as well. But there just aren’t enough people with your views for FIFA to make them a priority.


----------



## Joakim3

pesto said:


> 100 percent? Why is that? Aren't there potential sites in Maryland or Virginia that would work? If one of those happens then Baltimore is effectively out.


Nope, literally the only options for the DC market are RFK (we all don’t want that despite how nice the city is) or M&T in Baltimore

_All_ the other stadiums in the region are less half the size of those two


----------



## pesto

Joakim3 said:


> Nope, literally the only options for the DC market are RFK (we all don’t want that despite how nice the city is) or M&T in Baltimore
> 
> _All_ the other stadiums in the region are less half the size of those two


Didn't DC make its bid using FedEx? And there were various proposals in Md. and Va. A new stadium at the RFK site would be good but you are saying that the other alternatives are not possible?


----------



## pesto

This is from an announcement of the cities talking with FIFA re hosting the 2026 world cup:

*USA*: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York/New Jersey, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area, Seattle and Washington DC.

NY/NJ and San Francisco Bay Area are used to clarify stadium location. Apparently the other “faux pas” in city names are considered immaterial.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Pitches from US cities: Houston and San Francisco.



> The Houston 2026 Bid Committee took the next steps toward pitching Houston as the host city for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
> 
> The committee gave a virtual presentation to members of FIFA and U.S. Soccer Monday in which they explained why Houston would be the best place to host the major sporting event, according to a news release.


Houston makes virtual presentation in bid to host 2026 FIFA World Cup



> The group looking to have the Bay Area be one of the 10 U.S. cities or regions to host games of the 2026 World Cup delivered its pitch on Tuesday, with Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara being the centerpiece.
> 
> The Bay Area Host Committee met virtually with FIFA and U.S. Soccer to present its bid to serve as one of the 10 host communities in the U.S. Tuesday’s meeting was the first opportunity to present the Bay Area Host Committee’s vision of hosting 2026 World Cup games, which will be played in the U.S., Mexico and Canada – the first time the tournament is hosted by three nations. The Bay Area is one of 17 U.S. finalists working to earn hosting rights for the tournament’s games.
> 
> In the presentation, the host committee highlighted the Bay Area’s established history of hosting major sporting events, and featured what the committee called “the crown jewel” of the bid, Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara. The home of the San Francisco 49ers received the second-highest evaluation score from FIFA during the initial review process in 2018 that culminated in the awarding of the 2026 tournament to the united U.S./Mexico/Canada bid.


Bay Area Host Committee Submits Bid For Hosting 2026 World Cup Games

San Francisco website
Philadelphia website
Washington DC


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Pitches from US cities: Houston and San Francisco.
> 
> 
> 
> Houston makes virtual presentation in bid to host 2026 FIFA World Cup
> 
> 
> 
> Bay Area Host Committee Submits Bid For Hosting 2026 World Cup Games
> 
> San Francisco website
> Philadelphia website
> Washington DC


Philly is right in the middle of things and is passionate about sports. But E. Rutherford is not that far away and neither are Baltimore and DC

SF Bay is big and a tourist attraction. But the people, tech and sports fans are way south in Silicon Valley where Levi's is located

DC is the national capital. But does that invite politics and demonstrations? Maybe put some minor teams playing there?


----------



## aquamaroon

CaliforniaJones said:


> San Francisco website
> Philadelphia website
> Washington DC


The Washington D.C. website is fascinating in that there is no venue mentioned for the bid! A pretty obvious sign that a brand new NFL Stadium for the Washington [INSERT NEW NAME HERE] is an integral component of their bid.


----------



## pesto

__
https://flic.kr/p/2jnCmiG

For those who are thinking of visiting MetLife in 2026, I've heard there's a big city east of there.


----------



## GunnerJacket

When first staring at that picture it took me a spell to distinguish that the big building in the midtown Manhattan skyline is actually 2 viewed next to each other! (Central Park Tower and 432 Park Ave.)


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> When first staring at that picture it took me a spell to distinguish that the big building in the midtown Manhattan skyline is actually 2 viewed next to each other! (Central Park Tower and 432 Park Ave.)


I assume you mean the "really big building"; not like those 40-70 story ones surrounding it? lol

In any event, it seems pretty clear that you don't want to build a stadium in MIdtown (or Downtown, not shown). Prices and congestion militate toward building in the suburbs.


----------



## GunnerJacket

True, though I often wonder what it would have been like if the Jets had been able to build their proposed dome on the Hudson Yards site. I thought the idea had merit.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> True, though I often wonder what it would have been like if the Jets had been able to build their proposed dome on the Hudson Yards site. I thought the idea had merit.


Really? A football stadium used 8 times a year, opposed by about 100 percent of the locals, on the Hudson within walking distance of most of Midtown? It's just ridiculous and the only way it got any support was by "influencing" officials. Opposing it may be the only good thing Dolan has ever done for NY.

And in place they got Hudson Yards: a dozen high rises, mostly beautiful; thousands of residences; the best shopping in NY (seriously, retailers on 5th Ave., fought it); unbelievably good ethnic and American dining and fast food; tourist attractions. Busy every day, year round, most of the day.


----------



## Guil

If I remember correctly, NY's bid for the 2012 Olympics had the plan to build a Olimpic 80k stadium in Queens where after the event would become home of Jets, in the site where today is the Citi Field.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> Really? A football stadium used 8 times a year, opposed by about 100 percent of the locals, on the Hudson within walking distance of most of Midtown? ...


It was intended to also be convention space and would be used for concerts, Final Fours, etc. Hence the dome. Projections had it used in full an average of 50 - 75 days a year, and would include other development and greenspace, depending on the design. And my cousin made it sound like most folks were favorable to it at the time, especially as the concept for what is now Hudson Yards hadn't been shuffled forth. One could easily see it also possibly being made available to an MLS side, as well.

I'm not saying it would've been the best option, merely viable.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> It was intended to also be convention space and would be used for concerts, Final Fours, etc. Hence the dome. Projections had it used in full an average of 50 - 75 days a year, and would include other development and greenspace, depending on the design. And my cousin made it sound like most folks were favorable to it at the time, especially as the concept for what is now Hudson Yards hadn't been shuffled forth. One could easily see it also possibly being made available to an MLS side, as well.
> 
> I'm not saying it would've been the best option, merely viable.


It was a horrible misuse of land and once the bidding opened up, Related and others brought in a world's who's who of designers, architects and urban specialists. When complete it is expected to be valued at 40-50B or so not counting the huge boost to the surrounding area.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*DALLAS PRESENTS HOST CITY PLAN TO FIFA FOR 2026 FIFA WORLD CUP*



> The Dallas Sports Commission, FC Dallas and the Dallas Cowboys today announced the status of Dallas’ potential role in hosting 2026 FIFA World Cup™ matches. The Dallas 2026 Host Committee met virtually with FIFA representatives in Zurich this morning, a key step in bringing the most electrifying sporting event in the world to Dallas.


Article

*Jerry Jones, Dan Hunt and Dallas 2026 Host Committee Present World Cup Plan to FIFA*


----------



## ElvisBC

_“We have a great opportunity and we’d love to host the final here,”_

if FIFA decides to go with the final in the covered stadium dallas seems to be the only option, unless DC builds one by 2026 of course.


----------



## pesto

Jerry will be 83 by then but presumably the stadium will still be in top condition and it's not like there is a shortage of sports money and managerial talent in Texas.


----------



## pesto

DC conducts key next step in FIFA World Cup host selection process


Washington, DC continued its 2026 World Cup bid.




www.soccerwire.com





FedEx shows up at the virtual meeting but otherwise stadiums don't get a mentioned here.

It's still hard to believe that FIFA would not want to be there for the 250th anniversary of the 4th of July; and of course you've got the embassies, etc., wanting to support their national team.


----------



## ryebreadraz

ElvisBC said:


> _“We have a great opportunity and we’d love to host the final here,”_
> 
> if FIFA decides to go with the final in the covered stadium dallas seems to be the only option, unless DC builds one by 2026 of course.


If they decide to go covered then I think LA is probably the most likely to host the final, but the bid book was put forth with NY hosting the final so my guess is they're ok being outside for it.


----------



## pesto

ryebreadraz said:


> If they decide to go covered then I think LA is probably the most likely to host the final, but the bid book was put forth with NY hosting the final so my guess is they're ok being outside for it.


Yes. I assume NY/NJ is what FIFA wants.

ATT will be 17 years old and that time of year Dallas is likely to be 100 degrees (and could be much higher); not good for outside events.

By contrast, SoFi. the LASED complex and Clippers arena will be freshly completed, making related events easy to arrange and get to. And, of course, many of the LA beach cities are 10-20 min away and can stage related FIFA events or serve as destinations in their own right. The weather should be excellent.


----------



## ElvisBC

yepp, makes sense, apart from SoFi being too small with just over 70k seats and general desire of LOC of moving the world cup towards east as the tournament progresses.

of course FIFA will decide and at current point noone here knows how


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> yepp, makes sense, apart from SoFi being too small with just over 70k seats and general desire of LOC of moving the world cup towards east as the tournament progresses.
> 
> of course FIFA will decide and at current point noone here knows how


Agree with that. NY/NJ is going to be the choice barring something strong from DC And Dallas is no slouch, just not as fan attractive in July as some places. They have had July's where every day was above 100; .

SoFi may be nice for some people to watch a broadcast of the Finals in a pleasant outdoor context with nice amenities and maybe dinner at the beach.


----------



## aidan88

They'll want to show the final at a European friendly time too, giving NY a further advantage. 

A new stadium with bells and whistles in DC might be the only thing that would change that. Think capacity would have to be 90k-100k for that to be considered though.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> yepp, makes sense, apart from SoFi being too small with just over 70k seats and general desire of LOC of moving the world cup towards east as the tournament progresses.
> 
> of course FIFA will decide and at current point noone here knows how


A few years back HKS described SoFi as hosting "over 100k" for FIFA 2026 matches. It will also be used for the major soccer matches for the Olympics in 2028.


----------



## ElvisBC

in no universe


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> in no universe


You could be right; we'll see what the LA committee presentation looks like.

I still think that MetLife is the presumptive Finals location but SoFi will be a nice spot for showing off the Olympic brand and trying to regain some of the luster it once had. Four major venues within strolling distance of each other; hotels; casino, shopping, apartment rentals, large open spaces; convenience to LAX and beaches (Venice, Redondo, Santa Monica, Malibu, etc.). You can take transit all the way or to save time a 4 minute Uber ride. And who knows maybe a well known athlete or celeb will drop by.


----------



## flierfy

aidan88 said:


> They'll want to show the final at a European friendly time too, giving NY a further advantage.


East Rutherford is a mere one hour closer to Europe than Arlington. I don't think that this hour will make a difference. Arlington on the other hand can provide predictable conditions under their stadium roof. This makes it way simpler to produce impeccable TV pictures. And TV pictures are what most people around the globe will see of this World Cup.


----------



## pesto

flierfy said:


> East Rutherford is a mere one hour closer to Europe than Arlington. I don't think that this hour will make a difference. Arlington on the other hand can provide predictable conditions under their stadium roof. This makes it way simpler to produce impeccable TV pictures. And TV pictures are what most people around the globe will see of this World Cup.


If you are looking for the largest audience don't you try to make it convenient for Asia? FIFA is trying to woo fans there. Europe already is a strong market so they will tend to watch even at hours that are not that convenient.

I have never heard of broadcast picture quality issues at MefLife. In any event, the matches last 1.5 hrs. The total world cup event in the city will be a week or longer. NY can provide a very diverse set of attractive images recognizable worldwide over that entire week. Dallas may be less recognizable and have less of a brand in many countries.


----------



## ElvisBC

whatever FIFA choses for the final it will be a compromise, as of today there is no perfect option for the final in the USA. and even if DC builds covered stadium, it is unlikely to be over 80k


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> whatever FIFA choses for the final it will be a compromise, as of today there is no perfect option for the final in the USA. and even if DC builds covered stadium, it is unlikely to be over 80k


LOL. Of course, no stadium is “perfect” in that every aspect of location, size, access. climate, amenities, beauty, world reputation, etc., is un-improvable. But you seem to imply that FIFA is making a choice between, say, a stadium with no running water and one that is accessible only by dogsled. In fact, “compromise” here means choosing from among several excellent choices that are all far above FIFA standards. 

In the US, the consensus of comments is that the final is almost certain to be in either MetLife or SoFi. I think that it right, with ATT more probable for semis.

Btw, those not following SoFi, might want to check out that thread; it is near completion and quite nice. The Clippers arena under “proposed stadiums” will also be part of the complex and would give FIFA a considerable private area to put their brand on display..


----------



## ElvisBC

you are wrong, majority of US stadiums are below FIFA standards. met life being one of them with quite a few areas with viewing obstructions plus uncovered seats. otherwise it would have been confirmed as final venue already. it is still a favorite, no question about that, but there is a good reason why that announcement hasn’t happened yet. berlin, luzhniki and maracana for an example were confirmed almost straight away after the cup has been awarded!

about SoFi, I truly hope this covid crap ends before start of 2021 NFL season, can’t wait to go there and check it live (same applies to raiders stadium of course).


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> you are wrong, majority of US stadiums are below FIFA standards. met life being one of them with quite a few areas with viewing obstructions plus uncovered seats. otherwise it would have been confirmed as final venue already. it is still a favorite, no question about that, but there is a good reason why that announcement hasn’t happened yet. berlin, luzhniki and maracana for an example were confirmed almost straight away after the cup has been awarded!
> 
> about SoFi, I truly hope this covid crap ends before start of 2021 NFL season, can’t wait to go there and check it live (same applies to raiders stadium of course).


FIFA specifically said in their report that all US stadiums exceeded FIFA standards, most of them by a considerable amount. And that was with FedEx and the Rose Bowl being proposed.

Are you seriously suggesting that FIFA is hesitating making the choice of MetLife due to how BAD it is? 

Or is it more likely that they have heard about SoFi which is a 100k open-air, covered stadium in a 350 acre complex with 2 state-of-the-art 18k arenas, a 6k venue, hotels, extensive retail, broadcast studios and sports marketing offices, located 3 miles from LAX and the LA beaches and with close ties to LA celebrities and the Asian market?

Or a DC stadium, presumably of top quality, with matches and events scheduled in the middle of 200 embassies on the 250th anniversary of American independence?


----------



## GunnerJacket

The US was awarded the event with full knowledge of the existing and proposed venues. If any of the venues are required by FIFA to undergo renovations then that was known in advance of the US bid and that will happen. However, if FIFA accepted the bid without making such requirements then they're fine with the venues as is save for minor modifications for grass fields and press accommodations. They're not turning around years later and changing the expectations.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> The US was awarded the event with full knowledge of the existing and proposed venues. If any of the venues are required by FIFA to undergo renovations then that was known in advance of the US bid and that will happen. However, if FIFA accepted the bid without making such requirements then they're fine with the venues as is save for minor modifications for grass fields and press accommodations. They're not turning around years later and changing the expectations.


Yes. It's not like settling for Old Snedgely Stadium and its 10 ft. jump "fire escape" because East Blimply Field found some remains from the Great Plague of 1437 in its kitchen pipes, which explains all the dead rats for the last 20 years. 

It's more like chatting with FIFA about facilities coming on-line that are so far above the venues that you have already fallen in love with that we thought you might like to think about whether they have a roll in your event planning.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> .....Or is it more likely that they have heard about SoFi which is a *100k open-air*, covered stadium....


and you truly believe in this myth?


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> and you truly believe in this myth?


Well, I can't vouch for it, but I don't find it amazing. People reporting it include HKS, Kevin Demoff, whoever wrote the Wikipedia article on SoFi and various articles over the years.

HKS said that the 70k "capacity" would be defined by excluding an upper level of seats and/or standing areas that would only be open for major events. The design would make it easy to obscure them from camera view for the normal Rams or Chargers game, which would not always sell-out.

I haven't heard of any change in that plan so for the moment I'm a believer.


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1287925401616936960


----------



## aquamaroon

Well at least we don't have to worry about qualifying this time! I don't think we could have taken on Trinidad and Tobago again lol.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Well, I can't vouch for it, but I don't find it amazing. People reporting it include HKS, Kevin Demoff, whoever wrote the Wikipedia article on SoFi and various articles over the years.
> 
> HKS said that the 70k "capacity" would be defined *by excluding an upper level *of seats and/or standing areas that would only be open for major events. The design would make it easy to obscure them from camera view for the normal Rams or Chargers game, which would not always sell-out.
> 
> I haven't heard of any change in that plan so for the moment I'm a believer.


this is nonsense, 70k includes all seats. noone ever planned leaving uppers empty, thats ridiculous. of course you can’t know that, you do not visit stadiums, you only write here about them

this 100k story is nothing but crap. repeat the same lie over and over and at some point it becomes “truth”

btw, it is very simmilar to at&t, for whatever reasons they want that 100k digit to be mentioned as often as possible even though there is no way to squeeze so many people in. for the superbowl xlv they tried as much as it goes, moved the chairs (rail mount) in the uppers closer to each other, installed temporary seats in any empty space they could fill and they still hardly reached 93k. in the end they let additional 10.000 people into the plaza and let them watch the game there on the video walls just to be able to use that 100k digit for their propaganda .... nothing but bullshit!


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Let's Bring the 2026 World Cup to Dallas!






It's nice to see Dirk Nowitzki.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Cincinnati


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Atlanta takes next step to host 2026 World Cup matches*



> Atlanta took its first big step toward hosting 2026 World Cup matches on Monday.
> 
> Atlanta reps and organizers held their first one-on-one meeting with FIFA as they continue their push to bring the World Cup to the city for the first time. Atlanta Sports Council, Atlanta United, Atlanta Convention and Visitors Bureau, Georgia World Congress Center and Mercedes-Benz Stadium were all represented in an hour-long Zoom meeting in which they made their pitch to FIFA and U.S. Soccer officials to why Atlanta is the most deserving candidate to host World Cup matches.


Atlanta Business Chronicle


----------



## GunnerJacket

ElvisBC said:


> this is nonsense, 70k includes all seats. noone ever planned leaving uppers empty, thats ridiculous. of course you can’t know that, you do not visit stadiums, you only write here about them
> 
> this 100k story is nothing but crap. repeat the same lie over and over and at some point it becomes “truth”
> 
> btw, it is very simmilar to at&t, for whatever reasons they want that 100k digit to be mentioned as often as possible even though there is no way to squeeze so many people in. for the superbowl xlv they tried as much as it goes, moved the chairs (rail mount) in the uppers closer to each other, installed temporary seats in any empty space they could fill and they still hardly reached 93k. in the end they let additional 10.000 people into the plaza and let them watch the game there on the video walls just to be able to use that 100k digit for their propaganda .... nothing but bullshit!


a) Yes, it's all marketing hyperbole but I'd contend it's hardly something so egregious as to be up in arms over the matter. When JerryWorld touted 100k (or whatever) for the Super Bowl that obviously included all the folks who were simply mulling about and couldn't actually see the field as they were in various party zones or SRO areas that could only see the screens, but they were there and could show their ticket to friends, etc. The concept seems stupid until you consider folks actually paid for those tickets, in which case you simply have to tip your hat to Jerry and shake your head at the lunacy of it all.

b) Mercedes Benz Stadium in Atlanta has about 2,500 auxiliary seats at the top of three sides that are only unfolded and used for special events like the SEC championship. (The seats in black in the image below, courtesy of stadiumsofprofootball.com) Not sure if SoFi does that but it's one way some venues have a normal capacity and an enhanced capacity for big occasions.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> *FIFA President meets US President and US Attorney General*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIFA.com


Infantino re the DOJ meetings: “I have had similar meetings in Switzerland, and FIFA’s lawyers are also in regular contact with prosecutors and law enforcement agencies wherever and whenever needed.” 

Doesn't exactly sound like a fun job.. But at least he can blame it on his predecessor. lol.


----------



## ElvisBC

long time quiet ...

here is recent philly press release: International - Press Releases PHILADELPHIA SOCCER 2026


----------



## CaliforniaJones




----------



## Rokto14

Does the change of Presidency and the government in the USA have any effect on the preparation of the 2026 WC?


----------



## pesto

Rokto14 said:


> Does the change of Presidency and the government in the USA have any effect on the preparation of the 2026 WC?


For sure it was not a big campaign issue. lol.

I would say it is a zero on every politician's list. Some cities may get some opposition but I've never heard anything but support at the national level.


----------



## aquamaroon

Yeah the Presidency changing hands has no effect whatsoever on the 2026 WC outside of maybe its effect on international perception of US politics and leadership. The WC will be organized by private entities in US Soccer (as well as Mexico and Canada of course) and the city municipal governments involved; the federal government WILL be responsible for the security preperations of the event but that's pretty apolitical. Unlike say in Qatar the WC is pretty much a sideshow if even that in US civic life.


----------



## aquamaroon

pesto said:


> For sure it was not a big campaign issue. lol.
> 
> I would say it is a zero on every politician's list. Some cities may get some opposition but I've never heard anything but support at the national level.


LOL I imagine more people voted for Kanye West than voted for President based on how they would handle soccer WC preparation 😂


----------



## slipperydog

Both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were involved in the bid for the 2022 World Cup, and that did NOT go well.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> LOL I imagine more people voted for Kanye West than voted for President based on how they would handle soccer WC preparation 😂


LOL. Way more. In the US there is no real connection between any sport and the federal government. And no one seems to feel that the politicos need get involved. This is especially true for soccer, which is not a part of most people's daily conversations or thinking to begin with.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton were involved in the bid for the 2022 World Cup, and that did NOT go well.


Of course part of the Prez's job is to act as front man for international events but it was never an issue for most people or any politicians on either side at the national level. Of course, I exclude radical fringe groups.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Estadio Azteca to be renovated for 2026 World Cup*



> "The stadiums will be remodeled, there will be more adaptations in the *Estadio Azteca* than, for example, in the 'Rayados' stadium, just because it was built 50 years ago," admitted *Yon de Luisa*, president of the *Mexican Football Federation,* during the SIS Master Class event.
> "Fortunately, with the people of *FIFA*, we have been working on these different remodeling plans. We can see that the stadium has *changed its entire lighting structure*, there will surely be changes in all the *VIP *areas, all the box sections, and other *dressing room issues,*" he said.


besoccer.com


----------



## João Paulo

I still can´t understand why 3 countries hosting this WC, nothing against any of the countries but I believe that each one could host it alone, distances will be tremendous.


----------



## pesto

João Paulo said:


> I still can´t understand why 3 countries hosting this WC, nothing against any of the countries but I believe that each one could host it alone, distances will be tremendous.


Canada could not host it alone. Neither could Mexico without diverting considerable expenditure to modernizing stadiums, which would attracts negative press coverage..

Given this, FIFA asked the US to bring Canada and Mexico into the bid so as to encourage their new policy of allowing smaller countries to experience world class soccer events in person rather than being permanently shut out of such competitions. For the future I would expect that most bids will be multi-national bids since there is little reason not to.

The distances can be minimized if FIFA wants to. But they don't since it is not often you get an opportunity to go live in front of 550M people at one WC.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> Canada could not host it alone. Neither could Mexico without diverting considerable expenditure to modernizing stadiums, which would attracts negative press coverage..


That is also true of South Africa or Brazil. Yet they built the stadiums needed anyway. So this is a departure from past history.


----------



## JohnDee

Where is the final going to be? I hope it's in NY or Mexico City.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> That is also true of South Africa or Brazil. Yet they built the stadiums needed anyway. So this is a departure from past history.


Very definitely a departure from past history.


----------



## pesto

JohnDee said:


> Where is the final going to be? I hope it's in NY or Mexico City.


It must be in the US. It is assumed that MefLife in NY/NJ will get it but there is some possibility for DC if they get a new stadium, or LA (Inglewood) or Dallas.


----------



## JohnDee

pesto said:


> It must be in the US. It is assumed that MefLife in NY/NJ will get it but there is some possibility for DC if they get a new stadium, or LA (Inglewood) or Dallas.


Ok, that's good. NY would be good for a change, although MetLife is not the most interesting stadium in the world.. DC would be interesting, but yes, the stadium situation is horrible right now.. FedEx Field is in no way suitable. I'll pass on Dallas personally.


----------



## pesto

JohnDee said:


> Ok, that's good. NY would be good for a change, although MetLife is not the most interesting stadium in the world.. DC would be interesting, but yes, the stadium situation is horrible right now.. FedEx Field is in no way suitable. I'll pass on Dallas personally.


There's always some issue: NY is THE city, but it is expensive and MetLife is isolated. DC has nothing usable. LA has the Rose Bowl and SoFi but hosted the Finals last time. Dallas is likely to have sweltering weather when you step outside.


----------



## slipperydog

Inglewood is easily is the best option from a stadium and access perspective. Proximity to LAX helps a lot.

But since LA is hosting the Olympics, FIFA may want to throw the east coast a bone, and avoid having the final played at 10:00am local time.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Inglewood is easily is the best option from a stadium and access perspective. Proximity to LAX helps a lot.
> 
> But since LA is hosting the Olympics, FIFA may want to throw the east coast a bone, and avoid having the final played at 10:00am local time.


Yes. LAX, subway, hotels and casino at your door, 3 additional large venues within walking distance and a huge open area with a park and covered patio. FIFA could sell tickets for viewing on screen from the plaza or from the other venues with bands and displays appropriate to the teams playing, video game tie-ins, celebs, etc..

As I recall there was some talk about FIFA progressing from west to east but it was not clear what that meant. It might be a bit anticlimactic to go from LA to Dallas to MetLife.


----------



## JohnDee

Maybe DC will have an adequate stadium by then, but unlikely. I don't see any movement on that.


----------



## ElvisBC

Atlanta enters bid to host FIFA World Cup games in 2026

nothing new, but obviously official bids are just being filed. as usual, zero info from LOC. they have world cup for three years now, close to zero infos released. awful ignorance.


----------



## Bj16🇳🇬

Can natural grass be laid at Mercedes Benz Stadium? If not I doubt FIFA will accept Atlanta's bid


----------



## pesto

Bj16🇳🇬 said:


> Can natural grass be laid at Mercedes Benz Stadium? If not I doubt FIFA will accept Atlanta's bid


Speaking out of complete ignorance (as I often do), I would assume that Atlanta plans to put in grass for the event.

Likewise, Kroenke has said that he would install grass if SoFi becomes part of a successful LA bid.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Bj16🇳🇬 said:


> Can natural grass be laid at Mercedes Benz Stadium? If not I doubt FIFA will accept Atlanta's bid


For now FIFA still demands natural grass fields for men's World Cup matches. (Recall there was a big kerfuffle over over FIFA allowing turf at recent women's World Cup matches, which was cited as an unfair double standard.) The folks here in Atlanta know this and their bid would include a temporarily installed natural grass surface laid over a "tray" which would allow enough room for roots, water, and base aggregate to keep the grass in fair shape for about 6-8 weeks. A similar model was used when the Silverdome hosted World Cup matches in USA '94. The good news is that this system would raise the field level approximately 18-24 inches (last I was told), so that would improve viewing angles in the corners.


----------



## ElvisBC

viewing obstruction nirvana, previously known as atlanta mercedes benz stadium 😁

atlanta is 99%in , there is zero chance for them being left out


----------



## Nacre

To be honest, the "tray" option is actually more dangerous for players than a good artificial surface like FieldTurf Revolution because the grass can slide slightly back and forth over the tray.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> viewing obstruction nirvana, previously known as atlanta mercedes benz stadium 😁
> 
> atlanta is 99%in , there is zero chance for them being left out


99 percent in
0 percent out
1 percent new math?


----------



## GunnerJacket

Nacre said:


> To be honest, the "tray" option is actually more dangerous for players than a good artificial surface like FieldTurf Revolution because the grass can slide slightly back and forth over the tray.


I'm confident any concern like that will be addressed. Last I heard FIFA has protocols for how a field has to be laid ahead of their tournaments, this to ensure that if, say, a new stadium with a fresh layer of sod is used before the matches then there has to be sufficient time to embed the roots, with different rolls of sod often being sewn together. Safe to assume similar policy would be applied to a temporary grass field, or at the least FIFA will confirm what they need to be satisfied.

Hopefully in another generation we reach the point where there is a fake turf good enough to at least end these debates. Lord knows the surface at MBS is a veritable plush carpet compared to the stuff I ran around on in the 90's.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> 99 percent in
> 0 percent out
> 1 percent new math?


1% no cup at all!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> 1% no cup at all!


LOL. Make it 5% and I'm in!


----------



## ElvisBC

Baltimore-Maryland 2026 Continues Push To Host FIFA World Cup Events


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Baltimore-Maryland 2026 Continues Push To Host FIFA World Cup Events


I admit I turned it off after he got the names wrong and made some joke about football and futbol. 

But the reality is that that just about summarizes the average American's thinking. They know 5 or so renowned sides and a few superstar players but after that it's just a bunch of skinny guys with silly haircuts. And it's time to talk about the NFL and NCAA in any event.

Fortunately, with 350M people, you only need 10 percent or so interested so as to make a good showing in ten cities.


----------



## ElvisBC

well, I found it somewhat interesting, otherwise I wouldn‘t have posted it. 

unfortunately the host has zero clue about the subject, so most of his questions were average at best, but these three guys (terry, bunmi and oguchi) were good choice. most interesting thing for me was getting insider view from one of the clear outsider bids, what drives them as well and what opportunities they see by taking part in bidding game, for maryland and for balrimore itself. of course, the whole zoom call is an hour long recording, not everyone has time to go thru the whole thing, but it gives slightly different perspective to the whole story compared to just quoting agency news with lists of bidders and/or playing guessing games on these boards.

and as oguchi says, “the world cup is sooo much bigger then the games itself“, it definitely offers quite a few opportunities even to those cities that are going to be left out when final decission is made, according to terry in late 2021


----------



## nyrmetros

Giants Stadium?


----------



## pesto

nyrmetros said:


> Giants Stadium?


Aka MetLife? It has no roof which is a negative, but still seems likely for matches including semis or finals given that it's as close to NY as FIFA can get.


----------



## ElvisBC

wow! website is online 😁









FIFA World Cup 2026™


FIFA World Cup 2026™




www.fifa.com





but nothing in there actually


----------



## Chevy114

I know they say they want a roof to cover the fans, but didn't we have a lot of all open air stadiums in 94?


----------



## GunnerJacket

The Silverdome was the only WC'94 venue with a roof and RFK the only one with some form of canopy. Confirmation.

Not every venue for '26 will have roofs or canopies, either. Somehow I think we'll all survive.


----------



## PHofKS

Thanks for the fair comments about Nashville's chances to host some games. I will make a couple of comments in response, hopefully not sounding argumentative. 


> No argument about the stadium being on par with many of the new ones. Hopefully, some of the planned upgrades will ameliorate many of the concerns of FIFA.
> The airport is a work in progress. It is one of the fastest growing in the nation and is currently implementing a 1.2 billion dollar upgrade which includes;



 tripling short term parking, 
a brand new, $270 million concourse (D), 
an international arrivals concourse bringing # gates from 1 to 6 (expecting flights to Japan and Europe as soon as runway 2L completes its extension)
expansion of TSA Security check-in lanes from 10 to 24
Overnight 292 room Hilton Hotel on top of the building
(sadly) only a net addition of 6 gates
many more amenities, and food options
all to be completed in 2023












> And I know we are not as big as most of the other candidates, but I feel Nashville can match most in providing a positive and unique experience with few glitches. It does know how to throw a party,,,












Thanks again


----------



## pesto

PHofKS said:


> Thanks for the fair comments about Nashville's chances to host some games. I will make a couple of comments in response, hopefully not sounding argumentative.
> 
> 
> tripling short term parking,
> a brand new, $270 million concourse (D),
> an international arrivals concourse bringing # gates from 1 to 6 (expecting flights to Japan and Europe as soon as runway 2L completes its extension)
> expansion of TSA Security check-in lanes from 10 to 24
> Overnight 292 room Hilton Hotel on top of the building
> (sadly) only a net addition of 6 gates
> many more amenities, and food options
> all to be completed in 2023
> 
> View attachment 1025423
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 1025434
> 
> 
> Thanks again


Thanks for all the interesting info. 

To overcome its size disadvantage I think Nashville could argue that in the absence of a Chicago bid, there is a very large area that includes Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Cincinnati, St. Louis, KC and Memphis, which has no really large cities but a very large population cumulatively.

They would argue that one of Nashville, Cincinnati and KC (who can make a similar argument).MUST be selected and then distinguish themselves from those two.


----------



## ElvisBC

Quebec pulls financial support for potential Montreal World Cup 2026 matches


----------



## GunnerJacket

Well, that's unfortunate. Not that I was convinced Olympic Stadium would have been a stand out venue for the event, but I appreciate that Montreal could be a great cultural addition to the list of destinations. Hopefully whichever other city wins the nod that was expected for Montreal now takes advantage of their extra moments in the sun.


----------



## pesto

Agree. I don't want to step on toes, but from the beginning stadium quality, remoteness and money seem to have been big problems. Quebec is far poorer than Ontario or BC and the Quebecois have not a had a good history with sports costs. 

You also wonder how this might affect their quest for a MLB team. The A's or Rays may want to put an asterisk by them and focus more on Portland, etc..

Any word on Toronto? Are they getting any pushback there? Ironic that there are so many US cities wanting to get a chance even with 10 spots guaranteed.


----------



## aquamaroon

The winner here is Edmonton IMO as that pretty much locks them in. And of course it seems to me like this makes Vancouver hosting inevitable, but they will have some incredible leverage on FIFA now. That said if they push to hard then FIFA could always play hardball back and leave just Toronto and Edmonton in the WC, I mean it's not like it would be that hard to find an additional extra host city and venue in the USA


----------



## Nacre

aquamaroon said:


> And of course it seems to me like this makes Vancouver hosting inevitable, but they will have some incredible leverage on FIFA now.


The province of British Columbia was already unwilling kick in the money needed for Vancouver to host even before Covid hit.



pesto said:


> You also wonder how this might affect their quest for a MLB team. The A's or Rays may want to put an asterisk by them and focus more on Portland, etc..


Portlanders will not put up public money for an MLB team. If some billionaire has the money to build their own stadium in Portland they can . . . but they could just as easily do that in Tampa or St Pete. Meanwhile Portland is not a big enough market to justify a fully private stadium, so MLB to Oregon is pretty much DOA.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> The winner here is Edmonton IMO as that pretty much locks them in. And of course it seems to me like this makes Vancouver hosting inevitable, but they will have some incredible leverage on FIFA now. That said if they push to hard then FIFA could always play hardball back and leave just Toronto and Edmonton in the WC, I mean it's not like it would be that hard to find an additional extra host city and venue in the USA


All good points. I assumed that if Montreal is backing out then Vancouver was unlikely to want back in. And FIFA is torn between being flexible, but at the same town does not encouraging bidders to win the bid and then using whatever crappy stadiums or locations they can get to play along.


----------



## pesto

Orlando’s World Cup stadium upgrade nears completion - Host City News

Orlando explains why it should be a FIFA 2026 host city. Lots of tourism, renovated stadium, etc. 

They also claim to be the US city most visited by tourists. Could be; it’s usually NY, LA, Orlando and LV at the top. But with Miami likely in, it seems like more heat and humidity than you really need..


----------



## slipperydog

Normally you promise big things, and then WAIT for a decision from these international governing body councils, before forking over hundreds of millions to upgrade a stadium that is barely used for anything outside of a handful of American football games and already recently underwent a massive renovation.


----------



## JohnDee

DC is 3rd in that NBC ranking. I hope they get a new stadium before then.

But we all know that they won't get the final, but maybe semi-final. That is what I'm hoping for.

USA can do a great world cup. I'd rather attend the world cup in America than in some authoritarian state like Russia, Qatar or China.. I don't support dictatorships or Kings. The fact that people compaing about the stadiums not being "European" enough is just biased anti-US soccer nonsense.


----------



## Nacre

JohnDee said:


> USA can do a great world cup. I'd rather attend the world cup in America than in some authoritarian state like Russia, Qatar or China.. I don't support dictatorships or Kings. The fact that people compaing about the stadiums not being "European" enough is just biased anti-US soccer nonsense.


The issue with US stadiums is not about being insufficiently European. Rather it is the problems of 1) having sightlines designed for American football instead of soccer (and potentially being unable to see the corners of a soccer field), 2) being designed for tailgating by locals rather than international fans using public transport, and 3) being located far outside from the actual host city.

There are many stadiums in the USA that are great for local events but mediocre for the Super Bowl and vice versa. _Indianapolis has been a great Super Bowl host city despite not being a great tourist city and having a mediocre stadium because they have a downtown stadium you can walk to from your hotel using the skywalk network_. Meanwhile all three of Dallas, New York and San Francisco have been disasters as Super Bowl host cities in large part because they were not the actual host cities. 80,000 locals driving to tailgate at a game in Arlington, East Rutherford or Santa Clara is very, very different than throwing a party for 80,000 visitors from out of town.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> The issue with US stadiums is not about being insufficiently European. Rather it is the problems of 1) having sightlines designed for American football instead of soccer (and potentially being unable to see the corners of a soccer field), 2) being designed for tailgating by locals rather than international fans using public transport, and 3) being located far outside from the actual host city.
> 
> There are many stadiums in the USA that are great for local events but mediocre for the Super Bowl and vice versa. _Indianapolis has been a great Super Bowl host city despite not being a great tourist city and having a mediocre stadium because they have a downtown stadium you can walk to from your hotel using the skywalk network_. Meanwhile all three of Dallas, New York and San Francisco have been disasters as Super Bowl host cities in large part because they were not the actual host cities. 80,000 locals driving to tailgate at a game in Arlington, East Rutherford or Santa Clara is very, very different than throwing a party for 80,000 visitors from out of town.


You may be exaggerating here. The simple truth is that the US stadiums will offer both extensive parking for those who prefer that, and dedicated shuttle services from downtown and other tourist areas to the stadiums who prefer not to drive for whatever reason.. 

And the host cities have all agreed to make whatever changes to seating that FIFA wants. In fact, these stadiums generally host football, soccer, conventions, concerts, etc., that require re-arrangement of seats or closing off of sections which are impacted by the staging of the event.. 

Of course, we have to wait and see if the non-Americans avoid the horrifying transit and seating issues that you have posited by not attending matches. But the guessing is that the numbers of people and prices of seats will break all existing records. Maybe non-US venues should provide MORE parking? lol.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> You may be exaggerating here. The simple truth is that the US stadiums will offer both extensive parking for those who prefer that, and dedicated shuttle services from downtown and other tourist areas to the stadiums who prefer not to drive for whatever reason..
> 
> And the host cities have all agreed to make whatever changes to seating that FIFA wants. In fact, these stadiums generally host football, soccer, conventions, concerts, etc., that require re-arrangement of seats or closing off of sections which are impacted by the staging of the event..
> 
> Of course, we have to wait and see if the non-Americans avoid the horrifying transit and seating issues that you have posited by not attending matches. But the guessing is that the numbers of people and prices of seats will break all existing records. Maybe non-US venues should provide MORE parking? lol.


The 1994 World Cup broke all attendance records despite not employing stadiums with perfect sightlines or super convenient public transport access.

People who think those things are non-starters when it comes to an enjoyable World Cup experience won't attend, while those who don't care about any of that will.


----------



## ElvisBC

JohnDee said:


> DC is 3rd in that NBC ranking. I hope they get a new stadium before then.
> 
> But we all know that they won't get the final, but maybe semi-final. That is what I'm hoping for.
> 
> USA can do a great world cup. I'd rather attend the world cup in America than in some authoritarian state like Russia, Qatar or China.. I don't support dictatorships or Kings. The fact that people compaing about the stadiums not being "European" enough is just biased anti-US soccer nonsense.


it is enough to read the word “soccer“ in your post to realize you understand little to nothing about this subject

nearly all us stadiums are built for american football and have moderate or significant viewing obstructions for football and that is very unfortunate. true football stadiums such as those built on purpose for previous world cups normally have none.

that is just one compromise out of many FIFA is taking in order to earn huge cash. noone is nearly as good as FIFA is in preaching one thing and then doing just the opposite to its own advantage, you do not have to go further than that winter world cup coming 😁

2026 world cup will be OK, mainly because people will make it that way, fans coming over from all around the world as they always do, but stadium experience will be on lowest level since long time ago. it will be OK, as long as weather does not ruin it, but in no universe it may be compared with germany, brasil or russia!


----------



## ElvisBC

slipperydog said:


> The 1994 World Cup broke all attendance records despite not employing stadiums with perfect sightlines or super convenient public transport access.
> 
> People who think those things are non-starters when it comes to an enjoyable World Cup experience won't attend, while those who don't care about any of that will.


world cup is huge brand, unmatched in the world of sports, nothing comes even close, not even olympics. therefore one can‘t judge on it just by number of spectators, those are always huge. in germany all games but one were sold out, and even that one (iran-angola) was close. in brazil only three games had a lot of seats available, one of which was nigeria-bosnia in a jungle far far away, one was meaningles in a huge stadium (bosnia-iran) and one was actually great, one of the best that year but was somehow less attractive (ivory coast-greece) .. and so on ....

us 94 had huge stadiums filled and united 2026 won’t be much different, but that is by no means measure for judging the particular world cup! we will be able to do it afterwards, not before!


----------



## Pinkerton89

Its interesting the amount of aspects of this tournament that are still being discussed, I thought certain elements were already decided / nailed on, including;

- The 6 venues in Mexico and Canada already being set (unsure how that works with Montreal possibly backing out - surprises me they can as I would have thought there would now be some kind of signed legal commitment now that they have been awarded the tournament).

- The final being in New York.

I thought the only bit up for debate would be the 10 US Venues.

Also surprises me how the games are distributed, I would have expected with 16 venues each venue would host a group and a minimum of 1 Round of 32 game each. This would have Canada and Mexico hosting 12 games each, with 4 at each venue, but somehow they are going to host 7 games in total with one knockout game, which means the distribution of games across the MASSIVE tournament area is going to be really scattered and uneven. I really have no idea what they are thinking, it looks a complete mess at the moment.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> world cup is huge brand, unmatched in the world of sports, nothing comes even close, not even olympics. therefore one can‘t judge on it just by number of spectators, those are always huge. in germany all games but one were sold out, and even that one (iran-angola) was close. in brazil only three games had a lot of seats available, one of which was nigeria-bosnia in a jungle far far away, one was meaningles in a huge stadium (bosnia-iran) and one was actually great, one of the best that year but was somehow less attractive (ivory coast-greece) .. and so on ....
> 
> us 94 had huge stadiums filled and united 2026 won’t be much different, but that is by no means measure for judging the particular world cup! we will be able to do it afterwards, not before!


As for judging beforehand, I suggested previously that you didn't need to wait for SoFi to be done or stadiums to be selected because it was already clear that you were going to find the stadiums deplorable. .

I understand purists see problems where other people might not (in California it happens with the wine crowd and the sailing crowd; they seem to sense things that mere mortals can't). But FIFA is interested in fans more generally; they review stadiums with regard to the criteria they believe is important and the stadiums have apparently passed with flying colors. It makes no sense to adjust for the few when the many don't care.

On a separate issue, if prior WC's have sold-out, FIFA should raise prices. A full stadium is a sign of money left on the table. The goal is net profits (roughly, total revenues since costs are relatively fixed) and that is what FIFA and the advertisers are focused on. They want to deliver what the fans want and not waste time on what they don't really care about in deciding whether to attend.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> You may be exaggerating here. The simple truth is that the US stadiums will offer both extensive parking for those who prefer that, and dedicated shuttle services from downtown and other tourist areas to the stadiums who prefer not to drive for whatever reason..


The issue is scope.

Arlington has no public transportation system at all, and almost all Cowboys fans use their own cars to get to the stadium. Adding a dozen charter buses is fine for a couple hundred visiting fans for a playoff NFL game, but it is not going to be sufficient to get 40,000 German and French fans to the stadium from hotels in Dallas.

For me, the fundamental problem is that many American world cup boosters are viewing the burden of hosting from the perspective of jingoism rather than rational analysis. The logistics of the world cup really are different than hosting a regular NFL game, and the hosts are going to have to do a lot of work to get things to work smoothly for visiting fans. Otherwise they are going to have the same problems with busing that plagued the Atlanta Olympics.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> The issue is scope.
> 
> Arlington has no public transportation system at all, and almost all Cowboys fans use their own cars to get to the stadium. Adding a dozen charter buses is fine for a couple hundred visiting fans for a playoff NFL game, but it is not going to be sufficient to get 40,000 German and French fans to the stadium from hotels in Dallas.
> 
> For me, the fundamental problem is that many American world cup boosters are viewing the burden of hosting from the perspective of jingoism rather than rational analysis. The logistics of the world cup really are different than hosting a regular NFL game, and the hosts are going to have to do a lot of work to get things to work smoothly for visiting fans. Otherwise they are going to have the same problems with busing that plagued the Atlanta Olympics.


The problem is that FIFA point blank disagrees with you, noting that the venues have agreed to every comment made by FIFA's review committees. I understand that it won't meet the personal preferences of some posters here, but FIFA apparently doesn't consider that important to fans generally.

And you might want to drive rather than take public transit. The only US city where I take much transit is NY. In SF, LA, SJ and Miami (the places I visit the most) driving is vastly superior to transit.. 

And most of the cities have attractions accessible best by car. Miami, Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Houston, SF/SJ, LA, Seattle have the ocean. Several also have woods, mountains and man-made attractions which are difficult to access via transit. And if you don’t hit the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Florida coast, Utah, the Rockies, etc., you are making a mistake.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> As for judging beforehand, I suggested previously that you didn't need to wait for SoFi to be done or stadiums to be selected because it was already clear that you were going to find the stadiums deplorable. .
> 
> I understand purists see problems where other people might not (in California it happens with the wine crowd and the sailing crowd; they seem to sense things that mere mortals can't). But FIFA is interested in fans more generally; they review stadiums with regard to the criteria they believe is important and the stadiums have apparently passed with flying colors. It makes no sense to adjust for the few when the many don't care.
> 
> On a separate issue, if prior WC's have sold-out, FIFA should raise prices. A full stadium is a sign of money left on the table. The goal is net profits (roughly, total revenues since costs are relatively fixed) and that is what FIFA and the advertisers are focused on. They want to deliver what the fans want and not waste time on what they don't really care about in deciding whether to attend.


I can’t judge on SoFi before I go there and that will have to wait until this crappy pandemic ends, or at least gets under control. Btw. SoFi wasn’t even included into the bid so noone knows what’s really gonna happen there. About the rest, I’ve been to every single one, most of them multiple times, so as opposite to you, I know well what I’m talking about.

And about the prices, you’re absolutely right, they are going to raise the ticket prices and those are going to be astronomical. That was already communicated, at least for US games and it is going to be the most expensive World Cup ever. But it is World Cup, many people are ready to pay insane prices to get in. Not everyone is able to get tickets at face value, especially not for the World Cup. That was always the case and that is not going to change any time soon


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> I can’t judge on SoFi before I go there and that will have to wait until this crappy pandemic ends, or at least gets under control. Btw. SoFi wasn’t even included into the bid so noone knows what’s really gonna happen there. About the rest, I’ve been to every single one, most of them multiple times, so as opposite to you, I know well what I’m talking about.
> 
> And about the prices, you’re absolutely right, they are going to raise the ticket prices and those are going to be astronomical. That was already communicated, at least for US games and it is going to be the most expensive World Cup ever. But it is World Cup, many people are ready to pay insane prices to get in. Not everyone is able to get tickets at face value, especially not for the World Cup. That was always the case and that is not going to change any time soon


Yes, speaking generally, raising prices for in-demand events diverts money to the organizers, local committees and sponsors instead of to scalpers and street hustlers. Seems like a good idea.. 

In any event, FIFA puts its efforts into getting more revenue by emphasizing those things that attract fans and not worrying about things that they don't care about. And we already seen how they feel about the large number of far above standards stadiums they have available.


----------



## ElvisBC

that depends on the definition of “standard”, and that‘s what FIFA adjusts to their benefits 🤨

there was a document on the FIFA website that was frequently updated in the past, it was called “FIFA Football Stadiums – Technical recommendation and requirements” but they stopped doing it at certain point and after latest webpage redisign it dissapeared


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> A full stadium is a sign of money left on the table.


This issue is at the crux of the business vs pleasure in professional sports. The business side says maximize profits while the pleasure side says maximize enjoyment/experience. Full stadiums are great for the latter, while the former doesn't care as long as they make the most money. As a fan I see the benefits of being business savvy when it comes to owning and operating a sports team, but if the balance is off their is a real risk of loosing fans from focusing too much on profits. To me I'd prefer to be in a full rowdy stadium over the owner making absolutely the most money they can. Now this is an issue where the balance is variable depending on the league/event/team. For MLS (what I have the most experience in as a fan) the current objectives are to maximize match day engagement over maximizing profit as the owners agree that good match day engagement will lead to more fans will lead to more profit. Now for the NFL or World Cup you could argue that the demand is there and the balance might lean more toward the business side, but you still risk alienating fans if prices are raised to an extreme where you don't sell out and put forward a mediocre atmosphere at an event. 



Nacre said:


> Otherwise they are going to have the same problems with busing that plagued the Atlanta Olympics.


Ironically probably not here in Atlanta though as our downtown stadium is well connected via our transit system (marta). It is funny reading this thread as someone who takes transit to tailgate at Atlanta United games. Although we will see what happens in the future as the lots where we tailgate are slated for development.


----------



## Eurostallion1

pesto said:


> Yes, speaking generally, raising prices for in-demand events diverts money to the organizers, local committees and sponsors instead of to scalpers and street hustlers. Seems like a good idea..
> 
> In any event, FIFA puts its efforts into getting more revenue by emphasizing those things that attract fans and not worrying about things that they don't care about. And we already seen how they feel about the large number of far above standards stadiums they have available.


In theory if future World Cups use something like the FAN ID scheme used in Russia or all virtual tickets on smart phones, it shouldn't be possible for people to buy tickets off touts and scalpers because if the name on the ticket doesn't match the name and photo on the ID then that person should be refused entry to the stadium.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> that depends on the definition of “standard”, and that‘s what FIFA adjusts to their benefits 🤨
> 
> there was a document on the FIFA website that was frequently updated in the past, it was called “FIFA Football Stadiums – Technical recommendation and requirements” but they stopped doing it at certain point and after latest webpage redisign it dissapeared


I suspect that they put it in because many countries were proposing unacceptable venues; it may have lost its significance once basic functionality, health and safety standards were common worldwide.

This general issue has come up before. Speaking somewhat metaphorically, FIFA does not MAKE these "decisions". They are informed of what decisions they HAVE to make by the media and sponsors, who in turn have obtained if from the "market". That's really the crux of the discussion here: the market in the US tells them that fans don't care about, say, covered stadiums; this is not something that is needed to drive full-houses at high prices.

FIFA then presumably drops this from the requirements and focuses on what DOES drive revenues: cities with attractive brands (visuals, vibrant nightlife; celebrity connections; central location, etc.) and acceptable lodging, transit and such.


----------



## pesto

Eurostallion1 said:


> In theory if future World Cups use something like the FAN ID scheme used in Russia or all virtual tickets on smart phones, it shouldn't be possible for people to buy tickets off touts and scalpers because if the name on the ticket doesn't match the name and photo on the ID then that person should be refused entry to the stadium.


Yes. FIFA seems to believe this is important for PR purposes in some parts of the world. Personally I don't have a problem with re-sellers. In fact I normally use their services, either on-line or the "streetwalkers".


----------



## Nacre

tinyslam said:


> Ironically probably not here in Atlanta though as our downtown stadium is well connected via our transit system (marta). It is funny reading this thread as someone who takes transit to tailgate at Atlanta United games. Although we will see what happens in the future as the lots where we tailgate are slated for development.


Yes, Atlanta is a good example of what the organizers should be looking for in a host city.

When I mentioned the bus problems at the Atlanta Olympics I was referring to the idea of bringing in tons of out of area bus drivers at the last minute rather than the city itself being deficient. Last minute planning + bus drivers who don't know the area = disaster.



pesto said:


> And most of the cities have attractions accessible best by car. Miami, Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Houston, SF/SJ, LA, Seattle have the ocean. Several also have woods, mountains and man-made attractions which are difficult to access via transit. And if you don’t hit the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Florida coast, Utah, the Rockies, etc., you are making a mistake.


I agree that you should use a car when visiting a national park or the ocean. But that is a bit different than going to an international sports event because 1) people drink at sports events, 2) there are tens of thousands of people arriving and leaving at once from a sporting event, 3) being stuck in traffic in a city is a lot less fun that driving to the beach, and 4) it's a lot harder to drive in a foreign country.

But it's clear that we won't convince each other. Although I do wonder if a couple thousand drunken Englishmen driving on the wrong side of the road in your home city might change your mind . . .


----------



## slipperydog

I would assume if the stadium in question has no shuttles or public transportation, foreigners will use taxis or rideshare services.

But cities like Inglewood are already planning shuttles and such, even for regular season Rams games. One would expect transportation options will be expanded for an event like a World Cup.

They hosted a World Cup in Brazil and South Africa, where multiple stadiums were only accessible by car. This isn't going to be a European World Cup, so folks shouldn't expect it to be.


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> Yes, Atlanta is a good example of what the organizers should be looking for in a host city.
> 
> When I mentioned the bus problems at the Atlanta Olympics I was referring to the idea of bringing in tons of out of area bus drivers at the last minute rather than the city itself being deficient. Last minute planning + bus drivers who don't know the area = disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that you should use a car when visiting a national park or the ocean. But that is a bit different than going to an international sports event because 1) people drink at sports events, 2) there are tens of thousands of people arriving and leaving at once from a sporting event, 3) being stuck in traffic in a city is a lot less fun that driving to the beach, and 4) it's a lot harder to drive in a foreign country.
> 
> But it's clear that we won't convince each other. Although I do wonder if a couple thousand drunken Englishmen driving on the wrong side of the road in your home city might change your mind . . .


Nothing to convince: every stadium will have available shuttles from tourist centers to the stadiums. That part of this discussion wasn't useful.

In LA, for example, you are likely to miss the following unless you use a car: Griffith Park (incl. planetarium and stunning views), the 2 amazing Getty museums (Brentwood and Malibu), the Huntington Lib., Galleries and Gardens, Venice, Malibu, Disneyland. And you will effectively miss much more since you will be in a hole most of the time and you will take twice as long to get places.

Those who are drunk have the option of taking Uber; they cannot legally be on public transit and will be arrested and hopefully promptly deported if they get unruly.

I have driven in every major country in Europe, east and west, and it is not difficult; you just walk in, rent the car and drive away. I suspect most will find driving in the US easier than at home, since the cities in general are built for cars and parking.


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> Those who are drunk have the option of taking Uber; they cannot legally be on public transit.


I just can't with this comment. I'd give anything to be on a train with a bunch of drunk fans after a win right now.


----------



## ElvisBC

Eurostallion1 said:


> In theory if future World Cups use something like the FAN ID scheme used in Russia or all virtual tickets on smart phones, it shouldn't be possible for people to buy tickets off touts and scalpers because if the name on the ticket doesn't match the name and photo on the ID then that person should be refused entry to the stadium.


have you been to 2018 world cup? or any before? name on the ticket never meant anything. I do not see that changing any time soon


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Yes. FIFA seems to believe this is important for PR purposes in some parts of the world. Personally I don't have a problem with re-sellers. In fact I normally use their services, either on-line or the "streetwalkers".


oh, come on, what for? we know you do not go watch football!



pesto said:


> Those who are drunk have the option of taking Uber; they cannot legally be on public transit and will be arrested and hopefully promptly deported if they get unruly.


oh dear lord!!!


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> I just can't with this comment. I'd give anything to be on a train with a bunch of drunk fans after a win right now.


Probably not nearly as much fun for the 99 percent of riders who are neither drunk nor hooligans, but need to get home.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> oh, come on, what for? we know you do not go watch football!


Football, basketball and baseball (as well as soccer) tickets are sold by a wide variety of re-sellers.


----------



## Nacre

pesto said:


> Those who are drunk have the option of taking Uber; they cannot legally be on public transit and will be arrested and hopefully promptly deported if they get unruly.


I guarantee you that at least a tenth of Seahawks fans using light rail or commuter rail after a game would not be able to pass a breathalyzer test. You may be arrested for starting fights, but I have never seen anyone arrested for being tipsy.

Someone once did a study on the BAC of NFL fanbases. The average BAC of the Bills fans was .076!
Top 10 Drunkest Fan Bases in the NFL


----------



## pesto

Nacre said:


> I guarantee you that at least a tenth of Seahawks fans using light rail or commuter rail after a game would not be able to pass a breathalyzer test. You may be arrested for starting fights, but I have never seen anyone arrested for being tipsy.
> 
> Someone once did a study on the BAC of NFL fanbases. The average BAC of the Bills fans was .076!
> Top 10 Drunkest Fan Bases in the NFL


Sure, and the derelicts are stoned out of their minds on whatever they could find. They will generally get away with riding around until they get aggressive or violent.

But, as FIFA well knows, soccer fans have a history of misbehaving while intoxicated. You known, like killing people. Google "soccer fan violence". I was on the London tube once when a station was closed because 20 drunk guys had fondled and assaulted 2 women who happened to be on the train they boarded and didn't support their club. 

So I would guess that that sort of thing is going to be monitored by all relevant parties.


----------



## slipperydog

There will be plenty of security at the rail stops nearest the stadium, which are the primary ones of concern. And if the "drunk Englishmen" are susceptible to acting inappropriately on the trains, they will likely be loud and belligerent as they arrive to the train queue and turnstiles and be held back. So then they are likely to just take a cab.


----------



## Eurostallion1

ElvisBC said:


> have you been to 2018 world cup? or any before? name on the ticket never meant anything. I do not see that changing any time soon


I did go to Russia 2018 and I did attend some matches. I bought my tickets through the official FIFA website only. I didn’t buy tickets from scalpers.

The FIFA website had lots of warnings that the name on the ticket had to match the name
on the person’s FAN ID and if it didn’t you’d be refused entry. To be clear it wasn’t just the name of the person purchasing the ticket, you had to provide the names of the people using the tickets. Getting a FAN ID was a similar process to getting a visa. Even Russians attending matches had to have a FAN ID. 

Whether, they really were refusing entry to people whose name on the FAN ID and ticket didn’t match I suspect not but I’m sure the warnings deterred a lot of would be scalpers and buyers.

Russia is a country where regular ID checks are part of everyday life. I doubt Americans would put up with such a ‘papers please’ culture even for a one off event like the World Cup. 

However, I suspect by 2026, paper tickets will be a thing of the past and it will be all on smart phones. That might make touting almost impossible without the need for invasive document checking. 

One thing you realise at a World Cup match, is that you can’t get near the stadium without going through various security perimeters. This limits the opportunities for scalpers outside the stadium.


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> Probably not nearly as much fun for the 99 percent of riders who are neither drunk nor hooligans, but need to get home.


In my experience taking marta home from Atlanta United games (>15 times a year), the trains are packed with fans and even if they are stone cold sober they will join in and enjoy the revelry of a win with their fellow drunk fans. I'd say 99 percent of riders are fans after games and the unfortunate few who are not are more upset with the massive crowd of people trying to get on the train. Now I'm not saying its always sunshine and roses and after a loss the mood is definitely different, but your original statement was just so far out of touch its clear you don't have the same game/match day experience as most of us.

I do appreciate your point of view when it comes to the business side of professional sports, but when I picture you going to a game I picture you driving in a private car to watch the game in a private suit (with maybe 10 other people) and then sitting in your private car for a half an hour after the game trying to get out of the parking lot. You get to experience being part of a massive crowd without actually being a part of that massive crowd. No doubt that there will be people like that attending the World Cup, but you can't design the experience for only those people as the vast majority of attendees will not be those people. I apologize if I'm way off the mark.


----------



## GunnerJacket

_- Looks in -_


----------



## pesto

Ticket brokers: As I said above, I'm not sure why you want to spend so much time regulating the ticket re-sale market I would guess that the initial distribution scheme is somehow flawed but that's just a guess..

In the US there are many such services, with StubHub being the best known. They help the market operate when people need to buy or sell at the last minute. A few keystrokes and the ticket is loaded on your phone or the proceeds in your bank account. As I recall, the Dodgers will automatically sign you up with one of these services when you buy a season ticket since it is typical not to be able to attend all 81 games.

Tinyslam: I have only sat in suites when needed for business purposes and that is not that common. I used to drive to games but now normally will take the subway to Laker or Dodger games (for the Dodgers there is a shuttle from Union Station). Almost always go with my kids (now adults).


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> Tinyslam: I have only sat in suites when needed for business purposes and that is not that common. I used to drive to games but now normally will take the subway to Laker or Dodger games (for the Dodgers there is a shuttle from Union Station). Almost always go with my kids (now adults).


Yea sorry I may have this caricature of you in my head that doesn't match up with reality and instead encapsulates the polar opposite of the kind of fan I am. I also haven't been to a game in almost a year and I have some pent up passion.


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> Yea sorry I may have this caricature of you in my head that doesn't match up with reality and instead encapsulates the polar opposite of the kind of fan I am. I also haven't been to a game in almost a year and I have some pent up passion.


No offense taken; I have been involved with very large companies but normally not on the sales/marketing side; those are the guys that regularly frequent the suites, Michelin restaurants, etc. And remember: no on has ever died regretting that he didn't spend more time in meetings and less time with his kids.


----------



## ElvisBC

Eurostallion1 said:


> I did go to Russia 2018 and I did attend some matches. I bought my tickets through the official FIFA website only. I didn’t buy tickets from scalpers.
> 
> The FIFA website had lots of warnings that the name on the ticket had to match the name
> on the person’s FAN ID and if it didn’t you’d be refused entry. To be clear it wasn’t just the name of the person purchasing the ticket, you had to provide the names of the people using the tickets. Getting a FAN ID was a similar process to getting a visa. Even Russians attending matches had to have a FAN ID.
> 
> Whether, they really were refusing entry to people whose name on the FAN ID and ticket didn’t match I suspect not but I’m sure the warnings deterred a lot of would be scalpers and buyers.
> 
> Russia is a country where regular ID checks are part of everyday life. I doubt Americans would put up with such a ‘papers please’ culture even for a one off event like the World Cup.
> 
> However, I suspect by 2026, paper tickets will be a thing of the past and it will be all on smart phones. That might make touting almost impossible without the need for invasive document checking.
> 
> One thing you realise at a World Cup match, is that you can’t get near the stadium without going through various security perimeters. This limits the opportunities for scalpers outside the stadium.


noone in russia checked if the name printed on the ticket matched the name on the fan ID. yes, fan ID was required to enter the stadium but all they randomly checked was if printed and live face match! did the whole thing prevent black market, hell no! maybe downsized it a bit but not significantly.

about digital entry in 2026, that‘s unfortunately quite possible, but even then it won‘t influence the resale.

the “problem“ with world cup ticketing is in its complexity and in the fact it is time consuming process. FIFA sells huge percentage of the tickets available before the fixtures are known and on the top of that many people are either not capable of buying them directly or they simply have no time to invest in this process. they have no other option but buying off touts!

same story every four years


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Football, basketball and baseball (as well as soccer) tickets are sold by a wide variety of re-sellers.


oh dear ....

p.s. I was shocked you were going to sports


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1365349446259675137


----------



## Vizemeister

Many times it has been brought up the new format would water down the quality of the tournament. So I thought about an "ideal" 48 teams World Cup. Here's my take:










It's what I call "FIFA's wet dream" in terms of market-access for including China, Indonesia and India for the AFC. But all other teams are plausible and have a history of participation.


----------



## JohnDee

And all this pedantry, perfectionism and angst over the stadiums on this thread is a joke.

LOL! Sorry Europeans, but the USA is going to be a soccer power some day, whether you like it or not. Just deal with it. Our stadiums may not be perfect, or we may not do things European enough for your refined taste, but we have the population and the growth and interest in footie is growing.. so you can't stop the future. Join us.


----------



## slipperydog

Some people are truly desperate for attention.


----------



## Bj16🇳🇬

JohnDee said:


> DC is 3rd in that NBC ranking. I hope they get a new stadium before then.
> 
> But we all know that they won't get the final, but maybe semi-final. That is what I'm hoping for.
> 
> USA can do a great world cup. I'd rather attend the world cup in America than in some authoritarian state like Russia, Qatar or China.. I don't support dictatorships or Kings. The fact that people compaing about the stadiums not being "European" enough is just biased anti-US soccer nonsense.


Its really funny hearing this from an American 😂😂😂
Of course you'll see your country as a saint same way citizens of those countries you tried to demonize will see their nation as saints. By the way, if you don't attend an event hosted by your country who will?


----------



## RobH

JohnDee said:


> And all this pedantry, perfectionism and angst over the stadiums on this thread is a joke.
> 
> LOL! Sorry Europeans, but the USA is going to be a soccer power some day, whether you like it or not. Just deal with it. Our stadiums may not be perfect, or we may not do things European enough for your refined taste, but we have the population and the growth and interest in footie is growing.. so you can't stop the future. Join us.


This is a thread in the stadiums section of SSC and it's about the 2026 World Cup. If you don't want stadium pedantry you're in the wrong place.


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1371961702539878401








Los Angeles Stadiums Participate in FIFA Workshops in Continued Bid to Host 2026 FIFA World Cup™ Matches - Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission


LASEC.net | Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission




www.lasec.net


----------



## pesto

It seems like there's no reason not to use SoFi. Kroenke has already agreed to putting in grass and making changes as needed. Plus you have the smaller venue, Forum and other LASED and Clipper facilities; LAX is adjacent and hotels are plentiful.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1371961702539878401
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Los Angeles Stadiums Participate in FIFA Workshops in Continued Bid to Host 2026 FIFA World Cup™ Matches - Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission
> 
> 
> LASEC.net | Los Angeles Sports & Entertainment Commission
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lasec.net


It seems like there's no reason not to use SoFi. Kroenke has already agreed to putting in grass and making changes as needed. Plus you have the smaller venue, Forum and other LASED and Clipper facilities; LAX is adjacent and hotels are plentiful.


----------



## ElvisBC

I never saw any logical reason not to use it, but that‘s FIFA.....the place where any logic dissapears!


----------



## miguelon

pesto said:


> It seems like there's no reason not to use SoFi. Kroenke has already agreed to putting in grass and making changes as needed. Plus you have the smaller venue, Forum and other LASED and Clipper facilities; LAX is adjacent and hotels are plentiful.


To bad they have to choose only 1 of those. Obviously both are more than OK to host, and each one of them, could very well host the opening or final game. 
But even thought SOFI is the shiny new toy. The Rose Boll can still hold a considerable higher amount of fans that SOFI, current capacity at SOFI (70,000) lets asume they can install 8,000 to 10,000 more seats, but then take away the usual, +5,000 seats to make way to press, etc. you end up with 75,000+/-. The Rose Bowl, current at 92,500, with a similar seat exclusion, will end up with 87,000 seats +/-.

And I know SOFI has more club seats, suites, etc, but FIFA will have so little trouble to fill the seats, that they can charge premium prices even if it were underground.


----------



## ElvisBC

I am pretty sure that if modern FIFA seating standards are applied, Rose Bowl would end much closer to 80.000, possibly even under if you consider huge number of press seats installed in every World Cup stadium!


----------



## Guil

miguelon said:


> To bad they have to choose only 1 of those. Obviously both are more than OK to host, and each one of them, could very well host the opening or final game.
> But even thought SOFI is the shiny new toy. The Rose Boll can still hold a considerable higher amount of fans that SOFI, current capacity at SOFI (70,000) lets asume they can install 8,000 to 10,000 more seats, but then take away the usual, +5,000 seats to make way to press, etc. you end up with 75,000+/-. The Rose Bowl, current at 92,500, with a similar seat exclusion, will end up with 87,000 seats +/-.
> 
> And I know SOFI has more club seats, suites, etc, but FIFA will have so little trouble to fill the seats, that they can charge premium prices even if it were underground.


They say supposedly SoFi can reach 100,000 to special events.









Los Angeles Rams stadium breaks ground in Inglewood, California


The Los Angeles Rams stadium features will be located in the City of Champions district, a purpose-built mixed-use, entertainment, and leisure neighborhood.




www.archpaper.com












Los Angeles to build world's most expensive stadium complex


Los Angeles is constructing a new 80,000-seat stadium complex and "NFL Disney World," expected to become the world's most expensive sports arena.




edition.cnn.com


----------



## pesto

Guil said:


> They say supposedly SoFi can reach 100,000 to special events.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Los Angeles Rams stadium breaks ground in Inglewood, California
> 
> 
> The Los Angeles Rams stadium features will be located in the City of Champions district, a purpose-built mixed-use, entertainment, and leisure neighborhood.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.archpaper.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Los Angeles to build world's most expensive stadium complex
> 
> 
> Los Angeles is constructing a new 80,000-seat stadium complex and "NFL Disney World," expected to become the world's most expensive sports arena.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edition.cnn.com


It seems a bit unclear what the 100k number refers to. It could be that it includes field seating and/or standing room; or perhaps the addition of more seats in remote area. And those were early comments; numbers my have changed a bit.

In any event, like in other human activities, size is important but not as important as the overall experience and whether you would pay to return for more of the experience.


----------



## slipperydog

miguelon said:


> To bad they have to choose only 1 of those. Obviously both are more than OK to host, and each one of them, could very well host the opening or final game.
> But even thought SOFI is the shiny new toy. The Rose Boll can still hold a considerable higher amount of fans that SOFI, current capacity at SOFI (70,000) lets asume they can install 8,000 to 10,000 more seats, but then take away the usual, +5,000 seats to make way to press, etc. you end up with 75,000+/-. The Rose Bowl, current at 92,500, with a similar seat exclusion, will end up with 87,000 seats +/-.
> 
> And I know SOFI has more club seats, suites, etc, but FIFA will have so little trouble to fill the seats, that they can charge premium prices even if it were underground.


I don't think it's certain that they _will _only choose 1 of them. There will be 16 host _cities_, but I haven't seen anything to say definitely that there will only be 16 actual _venues_.

Like a lot of things, FIFA often makes it up as they go along. Their primary goal is to sell tickets, generate sponsorship revenue, and thus create the most attractive fan experience.


----------



## Ramanaramana

tinyslam said:


> There's also a giant halo board that you can see all of the action on if your view of some corner play is obscured. The real crime would be omitting this stadium that holds everyone of the top 10 attendance records for regular season MLS games and has held the highest yearly attendance in the league since it opened.


I don't think anyone has to worry about that happening. Elvis is entitled to his views, but this is an Olympic city that fills a gaping hole on the US map. With high profile cities like Chicago rejecting FIFA's demands, I can't imagine an occasionally obscured corner flag from certain sections of the lower bowl will be a deal breaker.


----------



## ElvisBC

I absolutely understand that people going for a league game do not care about all those things, they just go in there and have fun. World Cup is a different beast though, it is holy grail of football and recently true perfection was required, just take a lok into german, brasilian or russian stadiums, all finest! And in 2026 they want to play in Atlanta, they are even talking about semis …. for me that’s insane and I find it totally wrong but I’m fine with whatever they select, I’m done with World Cup travels, I’m going to stick to my telly and cameras will be positioned well, and people all around the world will have no clue that half of the stadium can’t see the whole putch, no doubt about that!


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> *I absolutely understand that people going for a league game do not care about all those things, they just go in there and have fun. World Cup is a different beast though*, it is holy grail of football and recently true perfection was required, just take a lok into german, brasilian or russian stadiums, all finest! And in 2026 they want to play in Atlanta, they are even talking about semis …. for me that’s insane and I find it totally wrong but I’m fine with whatever they select, I’m done with World Cup travels, I’m going to stick to my telly and cameras will be positioned well, and people all around the world will have no clue that half of the stadium can’t see the whole putch, no doubt about that!


Discussion of viewing angles aside, I would argue your quote in bold is the complete opposite.

The person going to a World Cup is there for the experience, to get pissed, sing and party, and hopefully see their country win. Convincing a fan to pay and go to 15-25 matches a season to watch from 'bad seats' year after year is a much tougher ask. Those are the people that would care about viewing angles, not the tourist from China who'll never step foot in Atlanta again once the 90 minutes are up.


----------



## schulzte

I hope the Rose Bowl gets games; its the historical home of the big time matches in the United States. I hope the Rose Bowl get the final but FIFA will probably go with fancier digs this time. 
Cities should be Los Angeles (Final), San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Atlanta, New York/New Jersey, Boston


----------



## pesto

schulzte said:


> I hope the Rose Bowl gets games; its the historical home of the big time matches in the United States. I hope the Rose Bowl get the final but FIFA will probably go with fancier digs this time.
> Cities should be Los Angeles (Final), San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Miami, Atlanta, New York/New Jersey, Boston


A good group, but I think either DC or Baltimore (about 40 miles away) should be in since it will be 4th of July and DC has a wide variety of festivities.. 

I would like to include both SoFi and the Rose Bowl since they represent the past and the future. But with so many outstanding stadiums in the US it may have to be just one or the other.


----------



## Racing_PR

pesto said:


> A good group, but I think either DC or Baltimore (about 40 miles away) should be in since it will be 4th of July and DC has a wide variety of festivities..
> 
> I would like to include both SoFi and the Rose Bowl since they represent the past and the future. But with so many outstanding stadiums in the US it may have to be just one or the other.


El Rose Bowl ya fue en la copa Mundial 1994, hoy en día a comparación de estadios de los ultimos mundiales quedó antiguo, obsoleto, sin techo, encima si se juega ahí seguro es a las 14 hs local time para que en Europa se pueda ver, o sea pleno sol, sin techo... algo q a ni a FIFA, ni a la gente le gusta, salvo que hagan una muy buena remodelación, pero tienen el SOFI Stadium que sí podría ser para una final o apertura de Mundial.


----------



## ElvisBC

while pesto understands what you wrote, we do not, at least not without google translator, but it‘ just fine, you replied to his post

tradition and flair speak for rose bowl, as well as the fact that it was part of the bidding book, everything else speaks for inglewood with one unknown, and that is viewing obstruction for football (noone knows how it looks like since no football games were played in there)

as you (probably) wrote, rose bowl does not fullfill any of modern FIFA World Cup criteria established in last 20 years but neither FIFA nor LOC seem to care, as long as money is huge it suddenly doens’t matter if people get wet or their skin burned


----------



## Ramanaramana

It's inconceivable that Rose Bowl will be chosen now that the new stadium is up and running.

The bid book is more of a rough guide if Qatar is anything to go by. They had 12 stadiums in their bid book that has dwindled to 8 in reality. And we'll get the word on which venue the local committee has chosen any day now, mid-2021 is what I've read.

Seating obstruction should be no worse than at other NFL stadiums. Since we know Atlanta is going to be a host, and it's had criticism for sightlines, it's hard to believe SoFi will be any worse. Rugby has already been held there and while I didn't seek out reviews on sightlines, it seems like people liked it.

The yellow markings for rugby could give you a rough idea of what to expect for football.....










__
https://www.reddit.com/r/LosAngeles/comments/ndgf6h


----------



## ElvisBC

that looks no good  simmilar as in most NFL stadiums, you’re right. and yes, nothing is as bad as atlanta!

p.s. venues choice will likely slide into 2022


----------



## pesto

Racing_PR said:


> El Rose Bowl ya fue en la copa Mundial 1994, hoy en día a comparación de estadios de los ultimos mundiales quedó antiguo, obsoleto, sin techo, encima si se juega ahí seguro es a las 14 hs local time para que en Europa se pueda ver, o sea pleno sol, sin techo... algo q a ni a FIFA, ni a la gente le gusta, salvo que hagan una muy buena remodelación, pero tienen el SOFI Stadium que sí podría ser para una final o apertura de Mundial.


Can't say I disagree. SoFi is the current wonder of the world and an obvious choice. 

But the RB was chosen without a roof last time; and this time around some other leading choices have no roofs (e.g., MetLife, the probable location of the Finals). And technically, the RB was the stadium included in the winning bid.

Or perhaps it can be used for something other than matches. You minimize costs by using fewer venues, but if the RB is enough of an icon as to viewers, it warrants some thought to see if it has a use.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Look at the UEFA Euro 2020 intro.






This intro should be an inspiration for the 2026 FIFA World Cup intro, since matches will be played accross Canada, Mexico and the USA.


----------



## Leedsrule

Ramanaramana said:


>


This is pretty awful for Rugby to be honest. Not being able to see the entire try line is criminal. Less of an issue for football, but still a shame that new NFL stadiums haven't been designed with football in mind, particularly here with the Olympics as well as the World Cup bid. 

I'm no expert, but the larger renovated Memorial Coliseum might be a more attractive venue to FIFA for 2026. 

Atlanta isn't great either but at least there are retractable stands there which allow a full size football pitch. Despite what the bid documents say, most NFL and college football stadiums would struggle to fit a 68m wide pitch + run-offs and even if they can, there are sightline issues like those highlighted above. For a World Cup you might be willing to spend significant money on raising the pitch temporarily (a la Hamden Park in 2014) or amending the lower bowl geometry, but that expense will cut down the number of venues to choose from and some obvious candidates may be ruled out simply because they're not willing to do the work required.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Only thing Id add is that while 105x68 has become a default of sorts for FIFA, UEFA and top leagues, regulations allow for variance. NFL stadiums have hosted endless amounts of football matches no dramas, including top tier events like Copa America, and from my point of view there was no discernible difference or effect on the match as far as the field dimensions are concerned. If pitches were narrower, I couldn't tell. Still looked and played like any old football.

For NFL stadiums to cater to football to host a couple of matches every 30-50 years doesn't strike me as sensible. All the other football events they get to host like Concacaf events, Conmebol events, MLS, international and club football friendlies, and everything else but the world cup, they can do all that stuff without tailoring them to Fifa's specific requests. 

The financial details will probably decide whether Rose Bowl or Sofi gets it, but this stadium is better for fans and players overall. A fully covered stadium protecting fans and players from the elements gets my vote. Quality of football in summer during the day can suffer greatly. Sofi allows them to play matches at any time without having to think twice.


----------



## Leedsrule

Ramanaramana said:


> Only thing Id add is that while 105x68 has become a default of sorts for FIFA, UEFA and top leagues, regulations allow for variance. NFL stadiums have hosted endless amounts of football matches no dramas, including top tier events like Copa America, and from my point of view there was no discernible difference or effect on the match as far as the field dimensions are concerned. If pitches were narrower, I couldn't tell. Still looked and played like any old football.


Even Copa America allows 64m wide fields to be used, but the World Cup wouldn't. That difference matters to the way teams set up and play, even run-offs affect teams who use long throws, so you need them all to be consistent at that level.


----------



## pesto

Leedsrule said:


> This is pretty awful for Rugby to be honest. Not being able to see the entire try line is criminal. Less of an issue for football, but still a shame that new NFL stadiums haven't been designed with football in mind, particularly here with the Olympics as well as the World Cup bid.
> 
> I'm no expert, but the larger renovated Memorial Coliseum might be a more attractive venue to FIFA for 2026.
> 
> Atlanta isn't great either but at least there are retractable stands there which allow a full size football pitch. Despite what the bid documents say, most NFL and college football stadiums would struggle to fit a 68m wide pitch + run-offs and even if they can, there are sightline issues like those highlighted above. For a World Cup you might be willing to spend significant money on raising the pitch temporarily (a la Hamden Park in 2014) or amending the lower bowl geometry, but that expense will cut down the number of venues to choose from and some obvious candidates may be ruled out simply because they're not willing to do the work required.


The Coliseum has no roof, shades or awnings and has been modified from being a track and field venue., 

But it has hosted 100's of international friendlies; Latin country matches are part of their annual program and have been for many years,

But was not included in the United bid and there is little reason to use it ahead of SoFi or the RB, which has already hosted a FIFA Finals..


----------



## pesto

Mexico soccer fans banned for homophobic chant, but officials fear continued use of slurs could lead to worse

Some hand-ringing about homophobic chants by Mexican fans and also some buzz about penalties for Qatar or 2026.

The “nuclear threat” (Mexico being completely banned from the tournament) seems unlikely, but empty stadiums, having matches moved out of Mexico, or forcing El Tri to play outside of Mexico are hinted at by officials and commentators.


----------



## Racing_PR

If you choose the RB it would be to go back 30 years...., look at the last World Cups (1998/2002/2006/2010/2014/2018/2022) and you see the RB ... it leaves much to be desired, no matter how iconic it may be, you could a host a minor game, but not a semi-final or final....


----------



## pesto

Racing_PR said:


> If you choose the RB it would be to go back 30 years...., look at the last World Cups (1998/2002/2006/2010/2014/2018/2022) and you see the RB ... it leaves much to be desired, no matter how iconic it may be, you could a host a minor game, but not a semi-final or final....


True and I think you are right; SoFi is the way to go.

But the RB was listed as the proposed stadium in Los Angeles, and the review committee made no negative comments. And MetLife was proposed for the Finals in spite of having no roof and being built to football (NFL) standards and being in an area where heavy rain or high temperatures are common in July. 

The RB has no chance of rain and evenings will be mild (daytime temperatures COULD be hot but humidity is very low compared to most of the US or Europe)..


----------



## Racing_PR

pesto said:


> True and I think you are right; SoFi is the way to go.
> 
> But the RB was listed as the proposed stadium in Los Angeles, and the review committee made no negative comments. And MetLife was proposed for the Finals in spite of having no roof and being built to football (NFL) standards and being in an area where heavy rain or high temperatures are common in July.
> 
> The RB has no chance of rain and evenings will be mild (daytime temperatures COULD be hot but humidity is very low compared to most of the US or Europe)..


Of course, it is true, but the games will surely be played during daylight hours (local time 12 or maybe 2 pm, later not because in Europe they could not see the games) there are still 5 years left, I suppose they will be able to do a remodeling of the stadiums , both the NY stadium and the RB, although having the SOFI ....
For me the final should be in New York to be able to play at 4 or 5 PM
Atlanta should have at least one SEMI FINAL, Stadium BEAUTY.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> but empty stadiums, having matches moved out of Mexico, or forcing El Tri to play outside of Mexico are hinted at by officials and commentators.


sometimes your jokes are really good!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> sometimes your jokes are really good!


lol. Thank de Luisa and Martino; I'm just reporting.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Leedsrule said:


> Even Copa America allows 64m wide fields to be used, but the World Cup wouldn't. That difference matters to the way teams set up and play, even run-offs affect teams who use long throws, so you need them all to be consistent at that level.


It's still unrealistic to expect NFL teams to build stadiums for a specific dimension on the off chance a world cup comes along every 30 years, especially when it comes at the expense of the NFL fans' visibility of their sport. If I was an NFL owner, I can make as much money hosting some Mexico friendlies in a few years on a slightly narrower pitch than I would waiting a generation to host a couple of world cup games. There is zero sense in doing that, and as was mentioned in the article money can be spent to retrofit as required which, presumably, some stadiums will do prior to 2026.


----------



## ElvisBC

Ramanaramana said:


> It's still unrealistic to expect NFL teams to build stadiums for a specific dimension on the off chance a world cup comes along every 30 years, especially when it comes at the expense of the NFL fans' visibility of their sport. If I was an NFL owner, I can make as much money hosting some Mexico friendlies in a few years on a slightly narrower pitch than I would waiting a generation to host a couple of world cup games. There is zero sense in doing that, and as was mentioned in the article money can be spent to retrofit as required which, presumably, some stadiums will do prior to 2026.


depends on stadium design. if you chose wide solution, such as nashville, houston, tampa or in highest level miami it is very simple. if you go NFL first everything else last it gets complicated.
but with greedy FIFA, CONCACAF and CONMEBOL you do not have to worry at all, just offer enough expensive seats and they are going to involve you, no matter half of the people can’t see the pitch as in that insult for common sense better known as atlanta


----------



## JohnDee

I suppose DC will still be using fedex, given no news on a new stadium. The place sucks, but given the status of the city, probably will get some games.


----------



## JohnDee

ElvisBC said:


> depends on stadium design. if you chose wide solution, such as nashville, houston, tampa or in highest level miami it is very simple. if you go NFL first everything else last it gets complicated.
> but with greedy FIFA, CONCACAF and CONMEBOL you do not have to worry at all, just offer enough expensive seats and they are going to involve you, no matter half of the people can’t see the pitch as in that insult for common sense better known as atlanta


nice exaggeration. I’ve been there and it’s a good stadium, so just stop.

Biased anti us wc critics are obviously projecting their inner hatred for our rise in football, and our future world dominance onto stadium issues. Soccer will be a major sport in this country in 10 to 20 years, just get used to it


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note: * Language attacking other posters personally is not allowed.


----------



## ElvisBC

I will never understand why Americans immediately defend their stadiums when others point to their shortcomings. I always laugh when they start defending Lambeau Field because "it is so legendary" 😆

Atlanta is more than great for american football, one of the best, but no serious football should be played there, especially not something as special as FIFA World Cup.

It is fine not to agree with this, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to defend it only because it is american and claim others point to those lacks just because stadium is in the USA is ridiculous! London Stadium (Olympic) sucks as well when they play football in there, maybe even more but noone over here is telling it is great! That's the difference!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> I will never understand why Americans immediately defend their stadiums when others point to their shortcomings. I always laugh when they start defending Lambeau Field because "it is so legendary" 😆
> 
> Atlanta is more than great for american football, one of the best, but no serious football should be played there, especially not something as special as FIFA World Cup.
> 
> It is fine not to agree with this, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but to defend it only because it is american and claim others point to those lacks just because stadium is in the USA is ridiculous! London Stadium (Olympic) sucks as well when they play football in there, maybe even more but noone over here is telling it is great! That's the difference!


You are being a bit disingenuous. You bring up roofs, corners, etc., gratuitously even when someone is just making a passing comment about a stadium. And you ignore the fact that FIFA and the United stadiums have agreed to make minor changes requested by FIFA. 

More recently: in a recent poll, a great majority of Chicago football fans DO NOT WANT A ROOF on their proposed new football stadium. This in a city where it is often windy, snowing and temperatures well below freezing. Maybe we should let their opinion rule regardless of how many times you repeat the opposite or blame it on greedy or corrupt organizations?


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto, no minor change is going to help atlanta dome become football compatible, they simply designed it other way around. they will install gras pitch that will lift it for few inches, that's all, not going to help them overcome all those obstructions

about freezing, people tend to believe what they were told for ages. when I was in green bay I spoke to many fans, noone likes freezing and all they can say is "it has always been like this and it is part of our heritage" ... then you point them to all those sky boxes for their VIPs and heated seats in new sections and they says... "well, metal bleachers are not really the best thing ..." adam thielen told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he recently made comments about Lambeau 😄😁


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> I will never understand why Americans immediately defend their stadiums when others point to their shortcomings. I always laugh when they start defending Lambeau Field because "it is so legendary" 😆
> 
> London Stadium (Olympic) sucks as well when they play football in there, maybe even more but noone over here is telling it is great! That's the difference!


Sounds like the numpties who go around preaching how much better the Old Wembley was to the new one.

Is it really a surprise to you that people defend stadiums with so much history and that hold many fond memories for fans? Emotional attachment goes hand in hand with sports and the 'homes' of sports teams. Olympic Stadium is seen as soulless not because it's a crap stadium, but because it doesn't have a century of history behind it. By most measures, it's a far superior stadium to Upton Park.

To answer your question, most of the shortcomings you bring up relate to football being played in AF stadiums. Can it really be a shortcoming if the stadium was designed with a totally different sport in mind?

It's like criticising Everton's new stadium for not having a big enough space behind goals to accommodate rugby better. Who cares? If you want to play rugby on it, just accept there'll be smaller ingoal areas. Same with the US AF stadiums.....just accept it'll be a tighter squeeze and move on.

What many of the new batch of US stadiums have is fully covered roofs. If they played in 30 degree+ weather, it's going to be much more enjoyable for people in Atlanta than it would be for those watching in one of the uncovered stadiums. I reckon that takes precedence over being able to see a corner flag.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> pesto, no minor change is going to help atlanta dome become football compatible, they simply designed it other way around. they will install gras pitch that will lift it for few inches, that's all, not going to help them overcome all those obstructions
> 
> about freezing, people tend to believe what they were told for ages. when I was in green bay I spoke to many fans, noone likes freezing and all they can say is "it has always been like this and it is part of our heritage" ... then you point them to all those sky boxes for their VIPs and heated seats in new sections and they says... "well, metal bleachers are not really the best thing ..." adam thielen told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth when he recently made comments about Lambeau 😄😁


You are still on the old story that serves you in every discussion: American stadiums are bad for soccer; FIFA doesn't care because they are corrupt and only interested in money, so they pretend the stadiums are fine and laugh at the poor fans. Same thing for the American professional leagues (and colleges and high school as well)..

But how do team and stadium owners keep making money if they don't provide what the fans want? It should be obvious that that model doesn't work for long. If fans don't like the stadium they buy fewer tickets; prices or attendance drops, and total revenues go down. The fans move on to different teams or sports, watching from home or bars, going to beaches, parks, mountains, etc.

More generally, in any commercial activity increasing net profit is a function of providing the customers what they are willing to pay for; and not providing them what they are not willing to pay for. This maximizes fan satisfaction, which maximizes total revenues. And the best estimates are that the revenues for FIFA 2026 will be very good

I think we have to accept the idea that the older version of stadiums is growing obsolete, and that the new ones will incorporate amenities that fans actually want, not the simpler and more traditional "you sit here and get drunk". It may not be as quaint and charming, but seems to be what people want.


----------



## slipperydog

I believe I've muted the person you all are responding to, because I can't see any of it.

the notion that the 2026 World Cup will somehow be a disaster because some fields aren't perfectly rectangular is laughable. I'd advise not to engage.


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note:* Folks, some of this is becoming a broken record and it's agitating posters. Let's not repeat the same points over and over please. Thank you.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> More generally, in any commercial activity increasing net profit is a function of providing the customers what they are willing to pay for; and not providing them what they are not willing to pay for. This maximizes fan satisfaction, which maximizes total revenues. And the best estimates are that the revenues for FIFA 2026 will be very good


in general yes, but there are products that sell no matter how you wrap‘em. FIFA World Cup is one of those products, put it into any country with high purchasing power and you can ask any price you want! it won‘t even matter football being deep down the popularity line in the US.
I am absolutely sure 2026 is going to be huge financial success no matter where they play


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> in general yes, but there are products that sell no matter how you wrap‘em. FIFA World Cup is one of those products, put it into any country with high purchasing power and you can ask any price you want! it won‘t even matter football being deep down the popularity line in the US.
> I am absolutely sure 2026 is going to be huge financial success no matter where they play


That's not true; any product is subject to improper handling; using Einstein in the mailroom would not be a success no matter how well he sorts letter. One great example is Microsoft, where some involved thought they should specialize in writing one-off operating systems in Seattle and could make 100k a year easy. That is NOT a success. A success is getting 2B people using a product that makes their lives better and creates countless new software companies and customer uses. 

The key here is whether people are willing to pay for it. Of course, they want lower prices but that's true of everything from houses to cars to restaurants. Should Covent Garden or the Met charge $2 for 5th row center seats? Or should they charge what people are willing to pay? It's a private transaction and all the evidence is that those work better when buyer and seller make the decisions.

As for stadiums, same story. FIFA and friends can decide whether a stadium fits their standards or is in need of changes. And, like all other private businesses, their internal rule and standards are guidelines, not laws of nature. They can be changed or disregarded when the context makes them of trivial consequence.


----------



## ElvisBC

we are talking about football here, world cup football. not sure you realize that.


----------



## Light Tower

Don't know what will their emblem look like yet? We will get the unveiling of the official emblem of the 2026 FIFA World Cup at an exact date as soon it's avilable.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Light Tower said:


> Don't know what will their emblem look like yet? We will get the unveiling of the official emblem of the 2026 FIFA World Cup at an exact date as soon it's avilable.


Do you have a date ?


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> we are talking about football here, world cup football. not sure you realize that.


The same basic economic rules apply: supply and demand, analyzing market demands, cost vs. return analysis, etc.

Recent decades have been a golden age for analysis of oligopoly, legalized market allocation, simultaneous cooperation and competition, etc. You have to understand the whole market and what products it is demanding. The opportunities are enormous for those who can deliver a better product.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Sir Alex Ferguson: “Houston Stadium Had Electrifying Effect”*



> Sir Alex Ferguson stated:
> “When we were designated to play against the MLS All-Stars, I was really more interested in the stadium, which was used for multipurpose competitions like American football, baseball and basketball, but soccer! What will the pitch be like? I was delighted to say it was excellent and it created the platform for a really interesting game. Major League Soccer has been improving every year, and I know from experience where soccer has made an amazing impact on the game today.
> “Houston was an amazing venue; to my mind the 70,000 supporters inside the stadium had an electrifying effect on all of us, plus it was Chicha’s first goal and the Mexican contingent went mad, it was ‘welcome to United!’, but it reflected the impact that soccer was making in Houston and with the Houston stadium as the perfect platform.”


Link

*City of the future’ tag gives Houston 2026 bid a boost*


> Houston’s bid to be one of the US cities selected to host the 2026 World Cup was given a boost last week after it was named in the top 10 ‘Americas Cities of the Future’.
> The study, by the fDi Intelligence Division of the Financial Times, compares cities that have the best prospects for inward investment, economic development and business expansion. Houston ranked third for business friendliness and fourth for connectivity.


Inside World Football

Houston'll definitely picked among the US host cities.


----------



## JYDA

Looks like Vancouver could be coming back in. The provincial government is looking at it.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1415009396929667081
FIFA VP Victor Montagliani, who is from Vancouver, mentioned in an interview a few months ago that the door is still open. The quote from the Premier mentioning "discussions with the FIFA representatives here in Canada" were most certainly Montagliani. Montagliani is also one of Infantino's allies on the council. I'm fairly certain this will happen.


----------



## Light Tower

CaliforniaJones said:


> *B.C. to 'entertain' hosting 2026 FIFA World Cup in Vancouver*
> 
> 
> Sportsnets


I agree with Vancouver hosting matches for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Thanks for the source.


----------



## pesto

LOL. Shows how the cruise ships not running for awhile can change one's perspective on things. Plus they should be able to work out something with the feds given the unfortunate press over Montreal.

And if Vancouver is in, is Seattle out? Do you need 2 sites in an area that remote? If Houston is bumped, then you have 40M people in Texas, Ok and Louisiana with 1 site vs. 6.5M in the NW with 2 sites.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> And if Vancouver is in, is Seattle out? Do you need 2 sites in an area that remote? If Houston is bumped, then you have 40M people in Texas, Ok and Louisiana with 1 site vs. 6.5M in the NW with 2 sites.


This might be viewed a little differently, wherein Vancouver is viewed more for its being a third Canadian city versus being conveniently near Seattle. True, Texas has more folks, but if you're conceding Canada gets 3 cities and they choose Vancouver...


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> This might be viewed a little differently, wherein Vancouver is viewed more for its being a third Canadian city versus being conveniently near Seattle. True, Texas has more folks, but if you're conceding Canada gets 3 cities and they choose Vancouver...


Clearly true. But if Vancouver is a GIVEN, then FIFA affirmatively creates an avoidable problem by selecting Seattle and rejecting Houston. The 3M Seattle people lose very little from having to go to BC; but the 32M people living in Texas (excluding Dallas), Oklahoma and Louisiana, have to squeeze into Dallas or travel 800 miles to Atlanta,

Or you can leave Houston in but drop Denver; then you have a huge hole between the West Coast and the East Coast, north of Texas. Or drop Philadelphia and lose the city where the Declaration of Independence was signed and made public on its 250th anniversary.


----------



## The Game Is Up

Baltimore puts in bid to host 2026 World Cup at M&T Bank Stadium


Come 2026 -- for the first time since 1994 -- the U.S. will host World Cup football matches, along with Canada and Mexico, and Baltimore is putting in a bid to be one of the host cities.




www.wbaltv.com


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*Ranking which U.S. cities should host 2026 World Cup*


> *Ranking potential 2026 World Cup venues*
> Host cities
> 1. New York/New Jersey
> 2. Los Angeles (Rose Bowl Stadium or Inglewood)
> 3. Washington, D.C.
> 4. Miami
> 5. Seattle
> 6. Atlanta
> 7. San Francisco/Bay Area
> 8. Dallas
> 9. Boston
> 10. Denver
> 11. Philadelphia
> Missing out
> 12. Kansas City
> 13. Houston
> 14. Nashville
> 15. Orlando
> 16. Baltimore
> 17. Cincinnati
> *Analyzing potential host cities in USA*
> The first five cities on this list pick themselves. New York, LA, Washington D.C., Miami and Seattle are all cities entrenched with rich soccer culture and they are spread in all four corners of the U.S.
> But then it starts to get tricky, Atlanta has jumped to the top of the list due to the success of Atlanta United in MLS, while logistically it makes sense to have games in the Bay Area, Dallas and Denver to link up the west coast and midwest respectively, while Boston’s rich sporting heritage has to be factored in.
> The likes of Baltimore, Cincinnati and Nashville seem like outsiders and even Orlando can be put in that category as Miami will likely get the nod in Florida.
> So that leaves Houston, Nashville and Kansas City as the three cities who could be interchangeable with Denver, Philadelphia and Boston, depending on how their site visits shake out. It seems like Philly could be the big winner from Montreal dropping out.


NBCSports


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> *Ranking which U.S. cities should host 2026 World Cup*
> 
> 
> NBCSports


So cut out Philly if Vancouver is back in? Or do you cut out Seattle for Vancouver since you don't need 2 sites in an area with so few people? Or maybe it doesn't matter, since Houston is already out, which leaves Tex/Ok/La with only 1 site in spite of having 40M people and being a magnet for Latin America?

And, of course, DC doesn't have a really good choice at the moment.


----------



## ElvisBC

what most of you don‘t understand and never will without going to the world cup:

whatever they choose it will be fine, infrastructure in the US is great and it really doesn‘t matter if played in denver, seattle, philly or elsewhere, zero difference for the world cup, zero! only difference worth mentioning might be those final digits but that‘s what FIFA cares about, not fans
US has just few football compatible stadiums and everything else is a compromise due to all those things mentioned thousand times. it won‘t matter either, games will be played and fans will enjoy them, pure viewing experience is not going to be as perfect as it was in the past but 95% fans absolutely don‘t really care about that. OK, Atlanta is on the verge of common sense, but even that doesn‘t matter at all, it is just few games in the end.

the only real problem this world cup is facing might be ignorance of local population and no football extasy that world cup normally produces in the whole country, but even that affects US and Canada only, Mexico will be different for sure. All that affects only visiting fans, 99% will be watching in TV and camera positioning will be perfect for sure.

so it’ all gonna be fine, whatever cities/stadiums they select ……… unless next pandemics or world war hit us, of course!


----------



## Ramanaramana

Most of us have been saying that it will be fine even with the restricted viewing, so why do you say that we don't understand that? If I remember correctly you've been one of the main voices who have criticised the use of stadiums with restricted viewing. 

I disagree about 2026 facing 'ignorance of local population and no football ecstasy'. Look at the kind of buzz generated during the last two world cups the US qualified for in 2010 and 2014. Or the fantastic tournament they put on with Copa 2016. With the world cup in their backyard, I reckon it'll be on another level. Looking at their pool of players and where they'll be in 5 years, there's a good chance of US going far, which should only help elevate expectations and excitement. 

No, it won't be like it is in Germany, England, Brazil, Argentina et al, but in order for the sport to continue growing in the US it has to have moments like these. Major League Soccer doesn't exist without 1994, and look how far it's come in less than 3 decades. 2026 is as much about catapulting the sport into the next phase of growth as anything, and for me that's what excites me most. 

I have no doubt the tournament will be a huge success, but I'm most interested in how the ramifications of the 2026 world cup play out over the next few decades. If 1994 is anything to go by, we can expect great things to result from this world cup.


----------



## ElvisBC

and what if I tell you I was in california and arizona during copa 2016? not for football though, but I’m not blind. zero buzz!

about the rest, yes, I will use every opportunity to write something sucks when it sucks😁 and MLS is fine in terms of growing football popularity, but in its current form it just makes zero sense, sort of disservice to real football!!

it is very simple, World Cup is soooo big that nothing can harm it big way. not even qatar, so no point talking about any danger of US world cup not being successful!


----------



## Ramanaramana

Can't argue with your opinion, but I think you understate the level of interest in the world cup.

Are there going to be people millions prowling the streets around the country honking cars after every US win? Probably not. Are there going to be full stadiums, tens of millions watching on TV, bars full of people and fanzones all across the country with thousands of people at each fanzone? Almost definitely. That's buzz. We can't expect the US to replicate the neighbourhoods of Buenos Aires.

Those things I mentioned have happened before, in 2010 and 2014. Just imagine what it will be when they actually host it.

The World Cup is the one football property that we can say is certifiably mainstream in the US.

If it was up to me, England and Germany would host every single World Cup on rotation, if we wanted the purest experience possible. Since that's not going to happen, the US is a good as host as anyone below those two in my view, though I guess we're not in agreement on that one.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> what most of you don‘t understand and never will without going to the world cup:
> 
> whatever they choose it will be fine, infrastructure in the US is great and it really doesn‘t matter if played in denver, seattle, philly or elsewhere, zero difference for the world cup, zero! only difference worth mentioning might be those final digits but that‘s what FIFA cares about, not fans
> US has just few football compatible stadiums and everything else is a compromise due to all those things mentioned thousand times. it won‘t matter either, games will be played and fans will enjoy them, pure viewing experience is not going to be as perfect as it was in the past but 95% fans absolutely don‘t really care about that. OK, Atlanta is on the verge of common sense, but even that doesn‘t matter at all, it is just few games in the end.
> 
> the only real problem this world cup is facing might be ignorance of local population and no football extasy that world cup normally produces in the whole country, but even that affects US and Canada only, Mexico will be different for sure. All that affects only visiting fans, 99% will be watching in TV and camera positioning will be perfect for sure.
> 
> so it’ all gonna be fine, whatever cities/stadiums they select ……… unless next pandemics or world war hit us, of course!


A lot of what you said is true. But your key point is that 95 percent of fans don't care. That's close but if you call it 99 percent I would agree completely. Many posters here are stadium aficionados and that's fine, but it doesn't describe the bulk of people anywhere. If it did, FIFA, the organizers, sponsors, media, etc., would focus on it.

As for "football ecstasy" that's focused in the home country by a large ratio.


----------



## aquamaroon

ElvisBC said:


> US has just few football compatible stadiums and everything else is a compromise due to all those things mentioned thousand times.


What are you talking about? The US has thousands of football stadiums many of extremely high quality.

Oh wait... by "football" you mean kicky soccer right? Yeah we have a few of those for the kids after school lol


----------



## Light Tower

We'll know the venues as soon as they decided for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.


----------



## Ramanaramana

aquamaroon said:


> What are you talking about? The US has thousands of football stadiums many of extremely high quality.
> 
> Oh wait... by "football" you mean kicky soccer right? Yeah we have a few of those for the kids after school lol


This is a thread for a football world cup tournament, it’s obvious what he meant. 

I’m sure there’s an AF world cup to discuss at length......oh wait, oops, nothing to discuss as no one plays your game lol


----------



## pesto

Montreal withdraws host bid for World Cup 2026, opening up market for US cities - Inside World Football

A soccer site that seems to think that economics was just an excuse for Montreal’s withdrawal and that the real reason was pressure from the US. I had also never heard that Canada would have been happy with fewer than 3 sites, although that makes some sense given the renovation issues with their stadiums.

And apparently the writer has not heard of the potential rebirth of Vancouver’s bid.


----------



## Light Tower

for Vancouver it might be possible to rejoin the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid.


----------



## aquamaroon

Ramanaramana said:


> This is a thread for a football world cup tournament, it’s obvious what he meant.
> 
> I’m sure there’s an AF world cup to discuss at length......oh wait, oops, nothing to discuss as no one plays your game lol












UNDISPUTED FOOTBALL WORLD CHAMPS SINCE 1869. (_going full troll because there's a good chance Gunner'll just delete this lol_)


----------



## GunnerJacket

aquamaroon said:


> UNDISPUTED FOOTBALL WORLD CHAMPS SINCE 1869. (_going full troll because there's a good chance Gunner'll just delete this lol_)


----------



## ElvisBC

flierfy said:


> No. FIFA forced South Africa and Brazil to build brand new stadiums which they hardly could afford, let alone maintain. By this standard the same FIFA can now force the 2026 host nations to provide adequate facilities which are able to accomodate the standard pitch size of 105 x 68 metres plus leeway as well as player tunnels at halfway line.
> 
> Standard size football pitch fit in NFL stadiums, albeit not without raising the pitch level. A pitch raising platform is therefore necessary. FIFA can and should insist on such a measure. This would also eliminate most sightline issues.


I share your opinion 100% , I was talking MLS or other irrelevant friendly football where noone cares about pitch size. Giving Atlanta World Cup is a crime and using all those incompatible sub par (for World Cup football) US stadiums is just another FIFA hypocrisy but unfortunately that is going to happen and FIFA is not going to force anything!

the only thing that is still unclear is if they are going for better stadiums (such as houston) or more important locations (boston, DC, SF …) and if FIFA is really willing to accept their holy grail, the final game, being played in uncovered stadium.


----------



## Labtec

tinyslam said:


> So you'd prefer a narrower pitch that would affect the play style as apposed to having a few areas of the pitch where you need to look up to the giant videoboard to see the action?


He hates everything and complains about every stadium... hmm...


----------



## ElvisBC

tinyslam said:


> So you'd prefer a narrower pitch that would affect the play style as apposed to having a few areas of the pitch where you need to look up to the giant videoboard to see the action?


when I want to watch the game on the screen I stay home and watch it on my telly 😁


----------



## ElvisBC

Labtec said:


> He hates everything and complains about every stadium... hmm...


nope, but nearly all americans on these boards obviously can‘t figure out one simple thing, we are not talking football in these stadiums, we are talking world cup football in there. difference is huge! actually enormous!!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> when I want to watch the game on the screen I stay home and watch it on my telly 😁


Big day. Both you and Californiadreams in peak form. lol.


----------



## tinyslam

ElvisBC said:


> when I want to watch the game on the screen I stay home and watch it on my telly 😁


You can fit 70,000 passionate fans in your home?


----------



## MGM

There is a topic that is not being discussed regarding the candidate-cities: timezone and weather.

*Do you know what time the 1994 FIFA WC FINAL took place in Pasadena, California, in July? 

12 PM (or 12h).*

Exactly. FIFA made this a requirement so the matches could be broadcasted in Europe at 8 PM. There's no sense in hosting a WC if it's not going to be seen in Europe, home of the last 4 WC winners.

Many games were terribly played in 1994 because of the intense hit in California, Texas, and Florida.

Perhaps the eastern cities should prevail now. And western cities should be chosen based on weather conditions. Otherwise, we're gonna see poor matches again.


----------



## pesto

MGM said:


> There is a topic that is not being discussed regarding the candidate-cities: timezone and weather.
> 
> *Do you know what time the 1994 FIFA WC FINAL took place in Pasadena, California, in July?
> 
> 12 AM.*
> 
> Exactly. FIFA made this a requirement so the matches could be broadcasted in Europe at 8 PM. There's no sense in hosting a WC if it's not going to be seen in Europe, home of the last 4 WC winners.
> 
> Many games were terribly played in 1994 because of the intense hit in California, Texas, and Florida.
> 
> Perhaps the eastern cities should prevail now. And western cities should be chosen based on weather conditions. Otherwise, we're gonna see poor matches again.
> 
> View attachment 1871192


In American usage i12 AM is midnight. Assuming you meant 12 PM (noon), then it shows FIFA did their demographics back then and presumably will do them again this time around. 

So would you take Houston or other covered stadium over all the open air stadiums? Or focus on Asia instead of Europe? Or mix and match depending on who's playing? I expect they will literally spend 10's of millions on developing the models to maximize the fan experience worldwide.


----------



## shivtim

ElvisBC said:


> Giving Atlanta World Cup is a crime and using all those incompatible sub par (for World Cup football) US stadiums is just another FIFA hypocrisy but unfortunately that is going to happen and FIFA is not going to force anything!


What are you on about? Have you even been to Mercedes Benz stadium in Atlanta? It has successfully hosted international football/soccer games and of course MLS games (holding the MLS record for highest attended game and highest average attendance). It's a fantastic venue. And yes, I have been to other global venues to make the comparison.


----------



## flierfy

ElvisBC said:


> Giving Atlanta World Cup is a crime and using all those incompatible sub par (for World Cup football) US stadiums is just another FIFA hypocrisy but unfortunately that is going to happen and FIFA is not going to force anything!


Atlanta will almost certainly be a host city for the simply reason that its stadium got a roof.


----------



## Labtec

ElvisBC said:


> nope, but nearly all americans on these boards obviously can‘t figure out one simple thing, we are not talking football in these stadiums, we are talking world cup football in there. difference is huge! actually enormous!!


Nah, the venues in 2018 Russia, 2014 Brazil, 2010 South Africa can't even compare to the Mega Billion stadiums in the United States.


----------



## pesto

flierfy said:


> Atlanta will almost certainly be a host city for the simply reason that its stadium got a roof.


It will almost certainly be a host, but that's not because it has a roof. Among others, NY. Miami and SF/SJ are roofless and are certain or near certain to be hosts. For that mater even LA has bid the Rose Bowl, not SoFi, and is considered certain.


----------



## pesto

Labtec said:


> Nah, the venues in 2018 Russia, 2014 Brazil, 2010 South Africa can't even compare to the Mega Billion stadiums in the United States.


I would mention some other countries whose stadiums are old, cramped, of questionable security and safety in case of emergencies or evacuations and have other issues. But that would just be continuing the pettiness and rudeness. 

As I have said, FIFA considered the stadiums far above their standards and their tone was like a kid in a candy shop. As well it should be.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Labtec said:


> Nah, the venues in 2018 Russia, 2014 Brazil, 2010 South Africa can't even compare to the Mega Billion stadiums in the United States.


I’m not agreeing with Elvis’ overall point that American stadiums are shite for football, because they’re not, but based on his specific criteria for football stadiums, he’s right. Most 2010/2014/2018 stadiums are better football stadiums than American ones by virtue of being actual football stadiums, and not ones built for another sport.

As someone who doesn’t care about obstructed views as I watch most football on TV, American stadiums have a tendency to raise the height of the stands behind the goals, presumably so people sitting there can see the other side of the pitch better. German stadiums do this too often, and it’s something I personally despise in stadiums as it obscures visibility of fans.

Watching on TV, give me Russia’s stadiums any day over American ones. Stands hugging the pitch, fans visible in their tens of thousands....as it should be. Even many MLS stadiums are better football stadiums than the ones being used in 26, again by virtue of being built primarily for the sport. As this is a discussion about a football tournament in America, it’s not a simple case of is Vegas a better stadium than Sochi (it is), as that would be missing the point.


----------



## MGM

pesto said:


> In American usage i12 AM is midnight. Assuming you meant 12 PM (noon), then it shows FIFA did their demographics back then and presumably will do them again this time around.
> 
> So would you take Houston or another covered stadium over all the open-air stadiums? Or focus on Asia instead of Europe? Or mix and match depending on who's playing? I expect they will literally spend 10's of millions on developing the models to maximize the fan experience worldwide.


I thought about those stadiums fully covered, but what about the temperature inside when is hot outside anyway? What about training facilities in those cities?

I think that California, Texas, Florida, and southern states should be out unless they have a city with moderate weather, like San Francisco.

Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, and Orlando should be out.

The US is far too big and has far too many stadiums to choose cities unfit for playing soccer games under the sun.

Wait and see what's gonna happen in Qatar next year. The main topic will be the unbearable temperatures.


----------



## pesto

MGM said:


> I thought about those stadiums fully covered, but what about the temperature inside when is hot outside anyway? What about training facilities in those cities?
> 
> I think that California, Texas, Florida, and southern states should be out unless they have a city with moderate weather, like San Francisco.
> 
> Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Miami, and Orlando should be out.
> 
> The US is far too big and has far too many stadiums to choose cities unfit for playing soccer games under the sun.
> 
> Wait and see what's gonna happen in Qatar next year. The main topic will be the unbearable temperatures.
> 
> View attachment 1875723


This sounds like the effete SF crowd when the 49ers moved to Santa Clara. They threatened lawsuits for cancer, nerve and brain damage, etc., because of the hell-like heat and direct sun exposure. The fact is that Santa Clara has absolutely glorious, mild weather in the summer and fall. The team suggested they wear hats and sunblock or, better, don't come since there were thousands of people on the wait list. 

There are no FIFA matches in SF; they will be in Santa Clara. LA has 50M tourists a year; the great bulk come in the May-September period which are the "hottest" months to enjoy OUTDOORS activities. I recommend short sleeves and a cap; a golf club, tennis racket or biking shorts. Or maybe the outdoor museums, gardens, restaurants and venues (Hollywood Bowl, Greek Theater, Dodger Stadium, Rose Bowl, Coliseum, etc., which are booming all summer).

LV, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and Phoenix are hot; that's why they are covered. Phoenix and LV are not on the list. Atlanta, Dallas and Houston do need to focus on activities in the evening or indoors during midday. But that's pretty much summer everywhere on earth.


----------



## MGM

I'm not familiar with American football stadiums. But I know that San Francisco Bay Area is a major metropolitan area in the US. As I mentioned before the WC FINAL in 1994 was in Pasadena, not Los Angeles, actually. So, doesn't matter if there is a right stadium for soccer in the main host city, as long as it's fit for the timezone and weather. No soccer player wants to play at mid-day on a hot Californian day.

By the way, you seem to be here to disagree mostly. That's not what discussions are made of. Finding points of connection is the purpose of any discussion.


----------



## pesto

MGM said:


> I'm not familiar with American football stadiums. But I know that San Francisco Bay Area is a major metropolitan area in the US. As I mentioned before the WC FINAL in 1994 was in Pasadena, not Los Angeles, actually. So, doesn't matter if there is a right stadium for soccer in the main host city, as long as it's fit for the timezone and weather. No soccer player wants to play at mid-day on a hot Californian day.
> 
> By the way, you seem to be here to disagree mostly. That's not what discussions are made of. Finding points of connection is the purpose of any discussion.


So I'm guessing you never did twice a day full-pads practices in Texas in August? lol.

In general, it makes little sense to post something that agrees with what has already been said; so I do tend to post when there are errors or misunderstandings in prior posts. 

You seemed to imply that SF and LA (Inglewood) are hot in the summer; they aren’t. You think that’s it’s hot in domed stadiums; it isn’t, it’s perfect. If you are worried about heat, then you should focus on NY or Miami, which are uncovered. But you instead focus on cities with covered stadiums where the temperature will be perfect and there is no chance of rain or wind.

FIFA has noted in their reviews which stadiums have little or no cover. That will presumably count against those stadiums. But it is not a critical point. The stadiums now under consideration are already a winnowed down group from a larger group that were themselves all qualified as far as FIFA was concerned.


----------



## Leedsrule

GunnerJacket said:


> You know, the cool thing about the internet is the capacity to check out facts. Like verifying the fact that the soccer pitch at Mercedes Benz Stadium is actually 75 yds (69 meters) wide.
> 
> Edit: Sorry to sound snarky but some of us are tired of hearing the same BS line over and over.


The Wikipedia link has no source and the other link I cant access in Europe- but fair enough- I may have mixed up the width with Atlanta United's previous stadium. That's good news. 

If the stadium also has the FIFA-mandated run-offs, then it's surely in business, especially as it holds MLS games regularly. 

I wonder if any other NFL stadiums will install similar retractable stand systems ahead of 2026.


----------



## ElvisBC

Noone knows that. FIFA mentioned some necessary adjustments in few stadiums apart from mandatory natural grass pitch, but that’s all. We’re going to find it out eventually, but I wouldn’t expect too much, the only thing they really care about is that final $ figure in their accounts.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Noone knows that. FIFA mentioned some necessary adjustments in few stadiums apart from mandatory natural grass pitch, but that’s all. We’re going to find it out eventually, but I wouldn’t expect too much, t*he only thing they really care about is that final $ figure in their accounts.*


Agree. And that's because they have no belief that there will be significantly more demand if those changes are made. You can rest assured they will make all the rational changes necessary to increase demand for their product..


----------



## slipperydog

MGM said:


> I'm not familiar with American football stadiums. But I know that San Francisco Bay Area is a major metropolitan area in the US. As I mentioned before the WC FINAL in 1994 was in Pasadena, not Los Angeles, actually. So, doesn't matter if there is a right stadium for soccer in the main host city, as long as it's fit for the timezone and weather. No soccer player wants to play at mid-day on a hot Californian day.
> 
> By the way, you seem to be here to disagree mostly. That's not what discussions are made of. Finding points of connection is the purpose of any discussion.


You should also realize that there is really no such thing as "typical Californian weather", unless you mean the humidity, which doesn't exist on the west coast but is prevalent almost everywhere in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains.

The average July high temperature in Pasadena is 89, whereas in Inglewood it's 75. Both cities are located within the LA metropolitan area and separated by less than 25 miles. Santa Clara isn't far from San Francisco, but it's much warmer.

In any case, this is really a non-issue, as Germany, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea (all countries known for hot summer weather) have all hosted World Cups in outdoor stadia.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> You should also realize that there is really no such thing as "typical Californian weather", unless you mean the humidity, which doesn't exist on the west coast but is prevalent almost everywhere in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains.
> 
> The average July high temperature in Pasadena is 89, whereas in Inglewood it's 75. Both cities are located within the LA metropolitan area and separated by less than 25 miles. Santa Clara isn't far from San Francisco, but it's much warmer.
> 
> In any case, this is really a non-issue, as Germany, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea (all countries known for hot summer weather) have all hosted World Cups in outdoor stadia.


Yes. As you know, this was also discussed in the Paris and LA Olympic threads. Paris is actually *hotter and far more humid* than Inglewood, Santa Monica or Carson, where many of the outdoor Olympic events (and the main FIFA 2026 events) will be staged. 

It is about the same as Long Beach, but there are typically cool ocean breezes in LB and people are lightly dressed and enjoying the weather.. The combination of low humidity and ocean breezes cools athletes and spectators much more than would occur in many humid European or Asian cities. .

Downtown LA is warmer than Paris by day and cooler in the evening (and, again, very low humidity); but FIFA doesn't have any events scheduled there and if they did, it would make more sense to have them in the evening which is typically very mild.


----------



## MGM

slipperydog said:


> You should also realize that there is really no such thing as "typical Californian weather" unless you mean the humidity, which doesn't exist on the west coast but is prevalent almost everywhere in the United States east of the Rocky Mountains.
> 
> The average July high temperature in Pasadena is 89, whereas in Inglewood it's 75. Both cities are located within the LA metropolitan area and separated by less than 25 miles. Santa Clara isn't far from San Francisco, but it's much warmer.
> 
> In any case, this is really a non-issue, as Germany, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea (all countries known for hot summer weather) have all hosted World Cups in outdoor stadia.


Great information regarding California weather. Now how do you match weather conditions with timezone?

Germany, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea didn't have games at 12 PM outdoor stadiums. Games in Brazil WC were played at 4 PM local time. Games in European WC were played at 8 PM local time. Games in Japan and South Korea were played at 8 PM local time. 

The WC is not the Oscars. European soccer fans won't be awake till the last envelope be opened.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Brazil is in the southern hemisphere. Even though it is a more tropical country than Australia, it’s still winter in June, and there were only 2 matches played in over 30 degree weather. Most was between 20 and 25 degrees.

That said, there were 24 matches played at 1pm local time in Brazil, many of which included big Euro teams to suit their audiences. 4pm was a timeslot used yes, but by no means the earliest one. This will be no different in 26.

I don’t see any conflict between weather conditions and timezone in 26. It will follow the same formula as 94, with the added bonus now that many stadiums are equipped with roofs. European audiences will still get matches at good times for them (the midday/1pm local kickoffs).

Some Matches will be played in awful conditions, as in 94, but that’s the possibility for any host in the northern hemisphere in June/July. You roll with the punches. As I said, the roofs will lessen the impact significantly, but not every venue will have a roof so we have to accept some matches will be affected.

On Europeans staying up, there’s a good reason Europe gets every other world cup. It’s a tradeoff for having wcs that aren’t ideal for European viewers in between. But for the most part the world cup is kindest to Europeans, so they’ll manage just fine.

It’s us in east Asia who get screwed hard almost every time as we’re in between the Americas and Europe. Post midnight/early morning football is a way of life.


----------



## slipperydog

MGM said:


> Great information regarding California weather. Now how do you match weather conditions with timezone?
> 
> Germany, Brazil, Japan, and South Korea didn't have games at 12 PM outdoor stadiums. Games in Brazil WC were played at 4 PM local time. Games in European WC were played at 8 PM local time. Games in Japan and South Korea were played at 8 PM local time.
> 
> The WC is not the Oscars. European soccer fans won't be awake till the last envelope be opened.


If I recall correctly, there were a number of World Cup games in Germany and Japan that were played during the daytime. I don't know what it is in Europe, but in the United States, the hottest part of the day can vary depending on latitude. For example, in California, 12pm isn't the hottest part of the summer day, 2-4pm is.

But as it pertains to 2026, FIFA will have to decide whether maximum player comfort or convenience for European television viewers are more important, simple as that. Luckily there are a number of covered stadiums being used for 2026, especially in the warmest cities, so intense heat will likely be an occasional, rather than frequent problem.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> If I recall correctly, there were a number of World Cup games in Germany and Japan that were played during the daytime. I don't know what it is in Europe, but in the United States, the hottest part of the day can vary depending on latitude. For example, in California, 12pm isn't the hottest part of the summer day, 2-4pm is.
> 
> But as it pertains to 2026, FIFA will have to decide whether maximum player comfort or convenience for European television viewers are more important, simple as that. Luckily there are a number of covered stadiums being used for 2026, especially in the warmest cities, so intense heat will likely be an occasional, rather than frequent problem.


LA has had two Olympics and a previous WC. If FIFA has issues with the heat, they can use indoor stadiums or play in the evening. I would recommend that in Houston, Dallas and Atlanta (which have covered stadiums). Not needed in LA or SF. 

I am starting to feel sorry for the poor lads out there playing. Do you think they might perspire excessively? I get the feeling that my 3-year old granddaughter has more stamina and love of playing than any of them. 

I would think that European audiences are a given; they will follow their teams regardless of time . Asians and Americans have to be lured in by good timing, interesting locations, extensive PR, events, tie-ins, etc. FIFA has a long-range view on this and will certainly use their demographics to shape the tournament. It's hard to get specific unless you have demographics rolled-out for, say, 30 years.


----------



## MGM

pesto said:


> LA has had two Olympics and a previous WC. If FIFA has issues with the heat, they can use indoor stadiums or play in the evening. I would recommend that in Houston, Dallas and Atlanta (which have covered stadiums). Not needed in LA or SF.
> 
> I am starting to feel sorry for the poor lads out there playing. Do you think they might perspire excessively? I get the feeling that my 3-year old granddaughter has more stamina and love of playing than any of them.
> 
> I would think that European audiences are a given; they will follow their teams regardless of time . Asians and Americans have to be lured in by good timing, interesting locations, extensive PR, events, tie-ins, etc. FIFA has a long-range view on this and will certainly use their demographics to shape the tournament. It's hard to get specific unless you have demographics rolled-out for, say, 30 years.


It's marvelous to see how much complacency one can have when the talking point confirms one bias.


----------



## pesto

MGM said:


> It's marvelous to see how much complacency one can have when the talking point confirms one bias.


I guess I agree in principle. But, if you want me to comment, can you tell me which of my biases you had in mind?


----------



## miguelon

The FIFA WC has been played in 1994 in the USA, and 1970 and 1986 in Mexico,

Both countries share same time zones (Mexico City is in the same time zone as Chicago, and 1 hr behind New York).

Between 1970, 1986 and 1994, we had only 1 domed stadium (Detroit).

2026 will offer infrastructure than is light years ahead from the mentioned world cups, I'm sure FIFA will find a way to make it work in 2026.

Its not that Germany 2006 or Russia 2018, didn't had sunny days for some games.

Between the USA, Mexico and Canada, they have hosted 5 Summer Olympic Games, 3 FIFA World Cups, also, they host on a yearly basis, 3 F1 races, 1 tennis grand slam, and a massive amount of other events, just think of all the friendly games played in North America, almost every major European club has them, on top of the Concacaf Gold Cup. I'm not saying that the issues mentioned above are not real, but I'm sure FIFA and IOC are ok, with any of the issues mentioned above or have an acceptable solution.


----------



## MGM

pesto said:


> I guess I agree in principle. But, if you want me to comment, can you tell me which of my biases you had in mind?


I don't want to. Thanks.


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> The FIFA WC has been played in 1994 in the USA, and 1970 and 1986 in Mexico,
> 
> Both countries share same time zones (Mexico City is in the same time zone as Chicago, and 1 hr behind New York).
> 
> Between 1970, 1986 and 1994, we had only 1 domed stadium (Detroit).
> 
> 2026 will offer infrastructure than is light years ahead from the mentioned world cups, I'm sure FIFA will find a way to make it work in 2026.
> 
> Its not that Germany 2006 or Russia 2018, didn't had sunny days for some games.
> 
> Between the USA, Mexico and Canada, they have hosted 5 Summer Olympic Games, 3 FIFA World Cups, also, they host on a yearly basis, 3 F1 races, 1 tennis grand slam, and a massive amount of other events, just think of all the friendly games played in North America, almost every major European club has them, on top of the Concacaf Gold Cup. I'm not saying that the issues mentioned above are not real, but I'm sure FIFA and IOC are ok, with any of the issues mentioned above or have an acceptable solution.


Yes. LA will become the only city to host 3 Olympics in the current format (with Olympics Villages, a tight 2-week schedule; thousands of athletes). And the other proposed American cities host professional teams valued at billions of dollars. Both FIFA and the IOC have expressed surprise and joy and what they have seen.


----------



## ElvisBC

Under Armour backs Baltimore’s FIFA World Cup 2026 Host City campaign

_Baltimore-Maryland 2026 Commercial Partners include:
§ Under Armour
§ Brown Advisory
§ FILA
§ State of Maryland
§ Sport and Entertainment Corporation of Maryland
§ TBC
§ BGE
§ Capelli
§ Whiting Turner
§ Continental Realty
§ Becton, Dickinson and Company
§ Merritt Properties
§ Arcimoto
§ PressBox
§ T. Rowe Price_

They should have better signed some of FIFA sponsors …


----------



## schulzte

Comparing the Philadelphia, Washington, and Baltimore stadiums, Baltimore definitely would be the best field for soccer. It has the widest field down in the corners and the sightlines are such that you can actually see some of the near football sidelines from the upper deck, so soccer viewing would be quite a bit better (if not perfect). Philadelphia and Washington would be pretty bad, similar corners to Atlanta. FedEx Field is an atrocity at this point anyway; I can't see how FIFA tours that facility and wants anything to do with it.

Best Soccer Viewing among US World Cup bid Cities

1. Miami
2. Orlando
3. San Francisco
4. LA (Rose Bowl, not SoFi Stadium)
5. Baltimore
6. Nashville
7. Denver

Miami and Orlando are both very good. San Francisco is surprisingly good. Rose Bowl is a shallow pitched stand but you can see the whole field at least. Baltimore, Nashville and Denver are all similar and pretty decent; should have almost all seats with decent views.

SoFi Stadium is pretty flawed for soccer. They rounded the corners off and the upper deck seats are super high, so the near corners will be obstructed for sure. But that's the case for several NFL venues. Atlanta, Washington, Philadelphia, and Dallas are especially bad, and even MetLife Stadium in New Jersey isn't good.


----------



## ElvisBC

most of that applies, but I wouldn‘t call SF good, decent at best. houston is good, you completely left out that one!

most of these stadiums will work well, not as we are all used when it comes to the world cup but it will be fine in TV. people in stadiums will miss a bit but that was the price for big money world cup, and of yourse FIFA doesn‘t really care.

you are absolutely right about fedex field, it is a disgrace that ruin is even being considered, atlanta has issues we all know about, about the rest, it will be swallowed, we do talk about it here, wide audience doesn‘t give a damn about it!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> most of that applies, but I wouldn‘t call SF good, decent at best. houston is good, you completely left out that one!
> 
> most of these stadiums will work well, not as we are all used when it comes to the world cup but it will be fine in TV. people in stadiums will miss a bit but that was the price for big money world cup, and of yourse FIFA doesn‘t really care.
> 
> you are absolutely right about fedex field, it is a disgrace that ruin is even being considered, atlanta has issues we all know about, about the rest, it will be swallowed, we do talk about it here, wide audience doesn‘t give a damn about it!


This is easy to agree with. This is a "connoisseur" website and discussion, and that is perfectly OK. But not something that FIFA or the general public care about. If you don't want a corner seat, don't buy one. Blaming FIFA for not focusing on this is just nonsense.

I get to hear wine, Asian art, goat cheese and other connoisseurs all too regularly. Likewise, they should understand it's a matter of taste and not something that vintners, museum directors or the general public are going to have any interest in. In general, the people who manage those businesses are not evil or crazy.


----------



## schulzte

I'm a little surprised Phoenix didn't bid. Their stadium is really good for soccer with an air conditioned retractable roof and grass field. But it is a billion degrees in Phoenix during World Cup, so visitors might not like visiting very well.


----------



## pesto

schulzte said:


> I'm a little surprised Phoenix didn't bid. Their stadium is really good for soccer with an air conditioned retractable roof and grass field. But it is a billion degrees in Phoenix during World Cup, so visitors might not like visiting very well.


It is certainly very hot but much more comfortable than Houston, Dallas, Miami or Atlanta since the humidity is very low. In fact, Phoenix is out for the same reasons as Chicago, Minneapolis and others: it didn't like the terms of the agreement with FIFA.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> This is easy to agree with. This is a "connoisseur" website and discussion, and that is perfectly OK. But not something that FIFA or the general public care about. *If you don't want a corner seat, don't buy one.* Blaming FIFA for not focusing on this is just nonsense.


ok, we‘re back to how little you know about the world cup. for the majority of tickets you can‘t choose the seats! there is random draw and if you‘re lucky they get assigned to you and after that it is simply the matter of luck what you get, it may be perfect view or the one that sucks.
sometimes, mostly during last minute FCFS selling phase, when tournament is ongoing, you may see the seats you‘re buying, but even then most people buy the first offer they get. there are not too many chances to get in, at least not for the top games! it is world cup pesto, not [email protected] five days in a row!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> ok, we‘re back to how little you know about the world cup. for the majority of tickets you can‘t choose the seats! there is random draw and if you‘re lucky they get assigned to you and after that it is simply the matter of luck what you get, it may be perfect view or the one that sucks.
> sometimes, mostly during last minute FCFS selling phase, when tournament is ongoing, you may see the seats you‘re buying, but even then most people buy the first offer they get. there are not too many chances to get in, at least not for the top games! it is world cup pesto, not [email protected] five days in a row!


Like I said, if you don't like the tickets you shouldn’t go. If you don't like the country, city, location or stadium, don't go. They are selling, say, 50k seats to a typical match to about 8B potential customers. They structure location, amenities, distribution, etc., to maximize demand from THEM, not for the guy who has a fixation on a particular seat in a particular venue.

But I think I’m seeing the problem now. Are you upset because you, even as an expert, are not allowed to choose the best stadiums, and your own seat and are treated as some ordinary fan? That would at least help explain the constant repetition of this issue.


----------



## aquamaroon

For something a bit different, the data from the 2020 US Census has been released, and for some perspective here are the rankings of the metro areas currently bidding. First the top ten and then rankings of cities beyond that (Some caveats after the list):

*1. New York* - 20,140,470
*2. Los Angeles* - 13,200,998
_3. Chicago - 9,618,502_
*4. Dallas Ft. Worth* - 7,637,387
*5. Houston* - 7,122,240
*6. Washington* - 6,385,162
*7. Philadelphia* - 6,245,051
*8. Miami* - 6,138,333
*9. Atlanta* - 6,089,815
*10. Boston* - 4,941,632
*---
12. San Francisco** - 4,749,008

*15. Seattle* - 4,018,762

*19. Denver* - 2,963,821

*20. Baltimore* - 2,844,510

*22. Orlando* - 2,673,376

*30. Cincinnati* - 2,256,884

*31. Kansas City* - 2,192,035

*36. Nashville *- 1,989,519

*_San Francisco is a bit of a complicated case as San Francisco and San Jose are counted as two separate metro areas even though many people would consider them one. San Jose alone is at 35. with over 2 million inhabitants, if you combine the two together you get a metro area of 6,749,476 which would place it at number 6._

There are a few quibbles with the methodology here (SF/SJ, Washington and Baltimore should probably be one area, LA doesn't include Riverside and San Bernardino) but it overall gives a good overview of the metro population of the candidates. Some quick thoughts:

- After Seattle there is a pretty big drop off in city size. Again Baltimore is probably better considered as part of the Washington Metro, which leaves Denver, Orlando, KC, Cincinnati and Nashville as all cities around ~2-3 million people fighting for a spot.

- Man does Chicago stick out like a sore thumb. It's still possible they may swing in to bid, especially if they Bears start construction on a brand new multi-billion dollar stadium.

- Las Vegas has been brought up, so just to be a completist they are listed as the 29th largest metro at 2,265,461, JUST above KC and Cincy.

Again there is more that goes into a host city than population size but thought it was interesting!


----------



## slipperydog

aquamaroon said:


> Again there is more that goes into a host city than population size but thought it was interesting!


Yes, for example there is a reason Columbus hosted every USMNT match vs Mexico for so many years. It had very little to do with the population size of the metro.


----------



## pesto

Combined statistical areas probably make more sense or maybe the NFL "100 mile" rule. Or a 300 mile rule, to try to approximate the distance people are willing to drive for a major special event.. 

LV illustrates another critical parameter: how many people have heard of the city or have any interest in going there or watching an event that takes place there.

As a side note, the SF numbers are very misleading in that they include Alameda County which includes Fremont, 40 miles from SF and actually bordering SJ. The 2M plus living in south Alameda and San Mateo Counties have more home and work connection to SJ/Silicon Valley than they do to SF.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> Combined statistical areas probably make more sense or maybe the NFL "100 mile" rule. Or a 300 mile rule, to try to approximate the distance people are willing to drive for a major special event..
> 
> LV illustrates another critical parameter: how many people have heard of the city or have any interest in going there or watching an event that takes place there.
> 
> As a side note, the SF numbers are very misleading in that they include Alameda County which includes Fremont, 40 miles from SF and actually bordering SJ. The 2M plus living in south Alameda and San Mateo Counties have more home and work connection to SJ/Silicon Valley than they do to SF.


This is why I have questions about "Boston" and "SF" as host cities. Fans who are unfamiliar with those areas may be surprised to find how difficult it is to get to the game if they plan on spending most of their time in the city.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> This is why I have questions about "Boston" and "SF" as host cities. Fans who are unfamiliar with those areas may be surprised to find how difficult it is to get to the game if they plan on spending most of their time in the city.


For sure. This played out when Levi's had the Super Bowl and the City of SJ had very small crowds and hotel usage since people stayed in SF. But, ironically, the city sponsored celebrations in SF caused the city millions in losses and drew anger from local residents, while SJ actually made money. 

The problem is that Boston and SF are tiny parts of their metro areas. Ninety percent live outside those cities. SJ is larger than SF and the SF sports demographic is abysmal.


----------



## d1e

A real football stadium 

Estadio BBVA Bancomer Monterrey 
MX









​


----------



## ElvisBC

slipperydog said:


> This is why I have questions about "Boston" and "SF" as host cities. Fans who are unfamiliar with those areas may be surprised to find how difficult it is to get to the game if they plan on spending most of their time in the city.


yepp, what atlanta is in terms of viewing obstructions these two stadiums are in terms of location and reachability. simply afwul. still, I bet all three will be selected!


----------



## slipperydog

d1e said:


> A real football stadium
> 
> Estadio BBVA Bancomer Monterrey
> MX
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


a fantastic stadium no doubt. glad it's being included


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> yepp, what atlanta is in terms of viewing obstructions these two stadiums are in terms of location and reachability. simply afwul. still, I bet all three will be selected!


I bet you are right on SF, Boston and Atlanta being selected. But you miss a lot with your fixations..

The NFL, MLB, MLS and NHL teams all chose SJ/Santa Clara over Oakland or SF (although the Giants were able to block the A's from actually moving there). SJ is larger than SF, and Santa Clara County is the economic engine of the Bay Area. 

SF is the tourism center but has very poor sports demographics. When they moved out, the 49ers noted that SF is the WORST location for fans, since (for example) there are more season ticketholders from Sacramento (60 miles away) than from SF. The average fan commute time is 20 minutes shorter in Santa Clara. 

So it isn't the local sports fans that are hurt. And with hotel prices lower and SJ airport almost adjacent, it is more convenient for visitors


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> a fantastic stadium no doubt. glad it's being included


Yes, fans will be very lucky if their teams go to any of the Mexican stadiums.


----------



## MGM

This would be the best list of US host cities candidates considering timezone and weather conditions.

Matches will be definitely be broadcasted in Europe at 8 PM London time. Avoiding west coast cities will avoid matches being held at 12 PM. I wonder who would go to a soccer game at lunchtime on a hot day, besides fans.


----------



## slipperydog

MGM said:


> View attachment 1940363
> 
> 
> This would be the best list of US host cities candidates considering timezone and weather conditions.
> 
> Matches will be definitely be broadcasted in Europe at 8 PM London time. Avoiding west coast cities will avoid matches being held at 12 PM. I wonder who would go to a soccer game at lunchtime on a hot day, besides fans.


Most of the cities on your map don't have stadiums that can support a World Cup match. Many of those cities also have terrible weather during the summer, especially at 8:00pm London time. FIFA will stagger the match schedule over multiple time slots, so that there is no overlap and they can maximize viewership per match.

There will be no issue holding games at 12:00pm on the west coast, especially if the stadium is indoor or covered. I also don't expect there to be any issue filling stadiums at lunchtime, as many treat the summer season as holiday time. And being able to attend a World Cup match in your home city/country is probably a once in a lifetime opportunity, so many people will plan to take off work to attend the game or watch on television.

Speaking of weather conditions, the stadium pictured above in Monterrey, Mexico has an average daytime high temperature of 96 degrees fahrenheit in June and July. It's a nice stadium, but it will be miserable for the players if it kicks off in the daytime.


----------



## aquamaroon

MGM said:


> View attachment 1940363
> 
> 
> This would be the best list of US host cities candidates considering timezone and weather conditions.
> 
> Matches will be definitely be broadcasted in Europe at 8 PM London time. Avoiding west coast cities will avoid matches being held at 12 PM. I wonder who would go to a soccer game at lunchtime on a hot day, besides fans.


Alright it's settled, world cup final in Akron! I wonder if Poughkeepsie can host the third place game...


----------



## pesto

MGM said:


> View attachment 1940363
> 
> 
> This would be the best list of US host cities candidates considering timezone and weather conditions.
> 
> Matches will be definitely be broadcasted in Europe at 8 PM London time. Avoiding west coast cities will avoid matches being held at 12 PM. I wonder who would go to a soccer game at lunchtime on a hot day, besides fans.


Are you saying that the Asian market can be better reached through these cities than any others? Because that is the primary target, not Europe. Europe is not growing; the existing fans have made their decisions on who they support; and will watch anyway. You don't discount them, but you don't cater to them.

And why Illinois, Wisconsin and other bits of Central Time, but not the rest?

I will leave aside the truly awful weather that many of these cities have in midsummer.


----------



## schulzte

MGM said:


> View attachment 1940363
> 
> 
> This would be the best list of US host cities candidates considering timezone and weather conditions.
> 
> Matches will be definitely be broadcasted in Europe at 8 PM London time. Avoiding west coast cities will avoid matches being held at 12 PM. I wonder who would go to a soccer game at lunchtime on a hot day, besides fans.


Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston all have air conditioned retractable domes (Indy too, but they're not in play). Miami is no worse than Nashville and Memphis in July.


----------



## Ramanaramana

MGM said:


> I wonder who would go to a soccer game at lunchtime on a hot day, besides fans.


Looks like you've answered your own question there. The only people you need to attend a world cup are football fans.

You're persistent with this idea, but as has been said already, we've been through this all before. It was 27 years ago. They held many, many matches at 1pm right across the United States, some in searing hot weather with no roof to protect anyone.


----------



## MGM

Ramanaramana said:


> Looks like you've answered your own question there. The only people you need to attend a world cup are football fans.
> 
> You're persistent with this idea, but as has been said already, we've been through this all before. It was 27 years ago. They held many, many matches at 1 pm right across the United States, some in searing hot weather with no roof to protect anyone.


If it's all about the fans (that are traveling to see their teams) why going West? All we need is a 40k stadium, nice weather, and matches starting at a time it can be broadcasted in Europe and South America at premium TV hours. WC and Olympics are made for TV, and for the nations that are protagonists. If no one is going to watch what's the meaning of hosting the WC? If Italians, Germans, Brazilians, Argentinians are not going to watch and their teams are not going to have the best conditions to perform what's the meaning of the WC? I don't think soccer fans want to see on TV a FINAL played by teams without tradition. The great thing about the WC and the Olympics it's the fact is a small club of winners, and people wanna see the protagonists.

Entertainment is all about the stars, not about the stage where they played. Incredibly, I am telling this to the people from the nation that invented the entertainment industry.


----------



## pesto

MGM said:


> If it's all about the fans (that are traveling to see their teams) why going West? All we need is a 40k stadium, nice weather, and matches starting at a time it can be broadcasted in Europe and South America at premium TV hours. *WC and Olympics are made for TV, and for the nations that are protagonists*. If no one is going to watch what's the meaning of hosting the WC? If Italians, Germans, Brazilians, Argentinians are not going to watch and their teams are not going to have the best conditions to perform what's the meaning of the WC? I don't think soccer fans want to see on TV a FINAL played by teams without tradition. The great thing about the WC and the Olympics it's the fact is a small club of winners, and people wanna see the protagonists.
> 
> Entertainment is all about the stars, not about the stage where they played. Incredibly, I am telling this to the people from the nation that invented the entertainment industry.


I can't address all of the absurdities but I will note that the WC is not made for the protagonists; it is made so as to spread the worldwide reach of soccer, which means Asia and N. America at the moment.

It's also interesting to remember that Morocco is on European time and a very short trip from Europe; but their revenue projection was, as I recall, about half the amount of the projected United bid.


----------



## alexandru.mircea

This myth about hot Californian noons is really quite something. First, everyone who lives in a place with hot summers knows that noon is far from the hottest time of the day. Late afternoon (between 4 and 6 PM) is by far hotter. Secondly, Californian summers are not necessarily extremely hot, because of the cooling Pacific breeze. My country Romania played four different matches at the Rose Bowl in 1994 and, despite the myth, the temperatures were fine. The Argentina - Romania match, probably the best match of the tournament, is often said to have taken place in scorching heat, but I made sure to check databases of historical weather records and on that day at 1PM at the start of the match the temperature was 25 degrees Celsius, which is ideal for football. By the end of the match it was 27.

During the entire tournament there was only one match in which Romania were outplayed, and that match was played in the Pontiac Silverdome, against the weakest opponent of them all. The Romanians had never played indoors and they really struggled. The players recount having difficulties to breath and feeling their knees melt (figuratively). They got destroyed 4-1 by Switzerland.


----------



## slipperydog

MGM said:


> If it's all about the fans (that are traveling to see their teams) why going West? All we need is a 40k stadium, nice weather, and matches starting at a time it can be broadcasted in Europe and South America at premium TV hours.


There will be plenty of matches in Western North America that will start at "premium" times for Europeans. And it won't be that hot either. So don't worry about it.

You really should be more concerned about games starting at 3:00pm in Nashville and New York (8pm in London) that are absurdly hot and humid. 12:00pm in Los Angeles should be far more comfortable. But understanding this requires some knowledge of North American geography and climates.


----------



## PHofKS

pesto said:


> FIFA to visit Nissan Stadium as Nashville pushes for 2026 World Cup host site
> 
> 
> FIFA will visit Nashville to assess Nissan Stadium, proposed training facilities and fan-fest sites as the city hopes to become a 2026 World Cup host.
> 
> 
> 
> www.tennessean.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIFA to visit Nashville. Now this is a chance to see the real America, not those places along the coasts where they don't hardly speak no English 'tal.
> 
> Beautiful area, some nice honky tonks, friendly God-fearing people. But they seem to realize that they need to show FIFA *their ability to deal with real size*.


I'll take the bait;













































Our very own version of LA LIVE in the works



























I repeat; the largest soccer specific stadium in the USA 









Very few of the candidate cities can claim this; repeat after me...watch, walk, play...









Our hotel stock is more than adequate in number and quality of rooms;









This guy has some Nashville plans;









And somethings for the Calisnobs to do... 









*Nashville can deal with real size!! No problem. Easy peasy! ⚽🎸
*


----------



## aquamaroon

PHofKS said:


> I'll take the bait;
> 
> *Nashville can deal with real size!! No problem. Easy peasy! ⚽🎸*


Wow I appreciate the effort!  No question Nashville is a great city for large events involving tourists, especially those looking for a slice of Americana, and it's a definitely a good party town (_just ask any bachelorette from SEC country lol._) The big question is if Nissan Stadium, showing its age a bit and fully open air with no covered seating, is impressive enough for FIFA. Hopefully when FIFA comes to visit we get some news about any proposed renovations! I guess they COULD bid the new MLS stadium, but it's just a tad too small at 30,000 to host a World Cup (_too big for MLS and too small for the World Cup, argh!_)


----------



## pesto

Yes, well done. But we come back to the question: which 3 do you dump from this list:

LA, NY, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, SF/SJ, Boston, Houston, Denver, Philadelphia, DC/Balt.? It's not like they haven't done similar events and have extensive facilities as well


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> Yes, well done. But we come back to the question: which 3 do you dump from this list:
> 
> LA, NY, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, Seattle, SF/SJ, Boston, Houston, Denver, Philadelphia, DC/Balt.? It's not like they haven't done similar events and have extensive facilities as well


Count me in the pro-Nashville group.

Dallas/Houston are redundant, especially with Monterrey around, choose 1

dump Santa Clara, it's a pain in the ass to get to with nothing around and uncovered

same thing with Foxboro, go with Philadelphia and DC for your "Celebrate America" vibe


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Count me in the pro-Nashville group.
> 
> Dallas/Houston are redundant, especially with Monterrey around, choose 1
> 
> dump Santa Clara, it's a pain in the ass to get to with nothing around and uncovered
> 
> same thing with Foxboro, go with Philadelphia and DC for your "Celebrate America" vibe


Not that I really care, but playing devil's advocate:

SF/SJ has much more tourist appeal; a larger and newer stadium; Santa Clara has perfect weather at that time of year (as compared to Nashville's steam-heat round the clock); it is far MORE convenient than SF which is why the 49ers moved there (the Sharks and 'Quakes agreed and Warriors and Giants had to be paid to come and stay).

Houston is a larger metro; has a covered stadium (Nashville doesn't); a much larger airport with great connections to Latin America.

Boston has the history angle; is a great tourist city and you can take the shuttle to the stadium and then come back to town for the Independence Day stuff and fan stuff. Easy connection to Europe and NY.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> Not that I really care, but playing devil's advocate:
> 
> SF/SJ has much more tourist appeal; a larger and newer stadium; Santa Clara has perfect weather at that time of year (as compared to Nashville's steam-heat round the clock); it is far MORE convenient than SF which is why the 49ers moved there (the Sharks and 'Quakes agreed and Warriors and Giants had to be paid to come and stay).
> 
> Houston is a larger metro; has a covered stadium (Nashville doesn't); a much larger airport with great connections to Latin America.
> 
> Boston has the history angle; is a great tourist city and you can take the shuttle to the stadium and then come back to town for the Independence Day stuff and fan stuff. Easy connection to Europe and NY.


I'm mostly thinking of cities that can throw a good party AND where the stadium is close to the festivities and not totally out in the boonies and far from anything exciting. San Jose and Houston are boring cities, I'm mostly thinking of places where fans will have a good time, not about population/metro sizes, which is bit irrelevant.

Also mostly irrelevant is the size of the airport. Local fans will probably attend a game or two in their area. Most international fans flying into the country, on the other hand, are there to follow their team, and thus will attend multiple games. So they'll fly direct into a major hub (Chicago/JFK/Miami/Atlanta/Houston), connect to whatever city their game is in, and then fly around domestically to follow their team once in-country. So the airport size doesn't matter that much on the whole, as long as we're not talking about a Grand Junction, Colorado sized airport.


----------



## PHofKS

I have a few comments regarding the stadium. I’ve been a season ticket holder since the beginning have a few experiences relatable to the subject at hand.

The stadium was built to accommodate soccer. The owner of the team at the time, Bud Adams, insisted that it be wide and deep enough for a pitch. It seems to support the Nashville SC just fine.
It has age, but there have been various improvements over the years and more proposed in the form of new seating, wi-fi, large video and ribbon boards, sound system, and concession access and option and restrooms. No one is going to starve to death or pee in their pants.
As well as it currently provides a comfortable stadium experience, the are plans for another $300 million of additional upgrades including
Event plazas in the end zones behind the scoreboards for whatever purpose is proposed.
End zone seating to boost total capacity well over 70,000 including various loge boxes.
Improved club rooms and similar ‘club’ rooms for non-club members (at an additional charge -I signed up)
And what seems to be a canopy over the upper deck. It doesn’t seem to be large enough to provide actual shelter from the sun or elements.

It can get hot in Nashville. However, I’ve only had one game in 21 years where I felt distressed. VIP’s will no doubt be in climate-controlled suites (144) I suppose. If there were a scoring factor to evaluate each proposal, I’m not sure the heat would be a major deciding factor.
To summarize, I have been to half the MLB stadiums and found that a seat is a seat regardless of the amount of money spent on the entire stadium. They are all comfortable enough for four hours as long as it keeps your butt off the ground. Hundreds of thousands of tourists come to Nashville weekly with little apparent concern for the summer weather.
Deduct 5 points off the scoring for 'not a new stadium'. Add 25 points for after-match party time!!

Some of the early FIFA upgrade renderings;









Sorry for the poor resolution


----------



## pesto

All good points. But, again, aren't those things Houston, Denver, Boston, etc., could say? If I were Nashville I would talk more about the number of people within 300 miles or so since the metro itself is quite small. It would also be nice if the upgrades were underway, to show some bona fides about putting the money into upgrading the stadium.. .

As for the rap on Kraft and Foxboro, I would note that he is Honorary Chairman of the United Bid Comm. and considered one of the forces behind the US winning bid in 1996. Foxboro was used at that time.


----------



## ElvisBC

slipperydog said:


> Count me in the pro-Nashville group.
> 
> Dallas/Houston are redundant, especially with Monterrey around, choose 1
> 
> dump Santa Clara, it's a pain in the ass to get to with nothing around and uncovered
> 
> same thing with Foxboro, go with Philadelphia and DC for your "Celebrate America" vibe


yepp, I absolutely agree, but Houston stadium is perfect, I do not think FIFA will drop them. ... even though that would somehow be very FIFA-like


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> All good points. But, again, aren't those things Houston, Denver, Boston, etc., could say? If I were Nashville I would talk more about the number of people within 300 miles or so since the metro itself is quite small. It would also be nice if the upgrades were underway, to show some bona fides about putting the money into upgrading the stadium.. .
> 
> As for the rap on Kraft and Foxboro, I would note that he is Honorary Chairman of the United Bid Comm. and considered one of the forces behind the US winning bid in 1996. Foxboro was used at that time.


1994, not 1996 but yes, you are right. still foxboro is the worst of the worst and awful to reach, if there is any common sense involved it should be omitted (I know it won't for the reasons you mention)

as to nashville, yes, cool city, nice stadium just across the bridge and perfect for football. actually raymond james clone, or other way around, not so sure which one is older, both are perfect for football with nissan stadium easier to reach from the city. the only thing missing is roof, otherwise great! unfortunately I don't have a feeling nashville having real chance being selected!


----------



## aquamaroon

pesto said:


> All good points. But, again, aren't those things Houston, Denver, Boston, etc., could say? *If I were Nashville I would talk more about the number of people within 300 miles or so since the metro itself is quite small.* It would also be nice if the upgrades were underway, to show some bona fides about putting the money into upgrading the stadium.. .


[Emphasis Mine]

This is an important point IMO that Nashville really needs to hammer home if they want to win a spot in the tournament. It's geographically central to a massive slice of the US population with tens of millions of people within a reasonable drive of it. Just to stop talking about Nashville for a second lol, Cincinnati should also be making the exact same case as they may even be better situated from a geographic perspective as Chicago isn't bidding (that said Nashville is probably more desirable as a host than the Queen City, no shade btw as personally I very much like Cincinnati and think it's a great town)


----------



## ElvisBC

just clicked the wc2026 website … interesting front picture choice


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> [Emphasis Mine]
> 
> This is an important point IMO that Nashville really needs to hammer home if they want to win a spot in the tournament. It's geographically central to a massive slice of the US population with tens of millions of people within a reasonable drive of it. Just to stop talking about Nashville for a second lol, Cincinnati should also be making the exact same case as they may even be better situated from a geographic perspective as Chicago isn't bidding (that said Nashville is probably more desirable as a host than the Queen City, no shade btw as personally I very much like Cincinnati and think it's a great town)


This is basically my post from 6 months ago, but you're welcome to it! lol

Once Chicago dropped out, there was a hole in the middle of the US between Atlanta and Denver, which Cincy, Nashville and KC can argue should be filled and that they can do it best (KC being a bit too far west). 

I also argued that if Vancouver is in, then Seattle should go and Houston come in since Seat/Van is an area with 6 M population near each other, while, say, Texas/OK/Louisiana has only 1 site (Dallas) for 40M people


----------



## blacktrojan3921

pesto said:


> Good choices. But, leave SF/SJ and Miami out? And nothing for the DC/Baltimore area even on the 250th anniversary of American independence on the 4th of July? That's leaving a lot of tourist events and sites on the table.
> 
> At the moment MefLilfe is proposed for the Finals, with Atlanta and Dallas for earlier rounds. But than can change, of course.


It's mostly based upon the stadiums in those areas. For SF/SJ, there has been a lot of criticism of Levi's Stadium as a football field (as this guy explained ). And as for DC/Baltimore. I can maybe see Baltimore via M&T Stadium, but there is no way they would go to FedEx field.




alexandru.mircea said:


> This piece of absolute nonsense needs to be saved for posterity in case of a later edit. Genuinely remarkable stuff.


It's especially silly when you consider the fact that the US Women's soccer team is one of the most successful national teams in the world.


----------



## MGM

pesto said:


> Largely agree. But that was under the prior administrations. At that time the old "aristocratic" style made it a method for making the administrators and those who played along with richer. Now the approach is to use modern demographics and marketing tools to maximize the image of the sport worldwide.
> 
> Btw, you are really flailing now. First, it was that FIFA was supposed to focus on Europe because that is where the most fans and strongest teams are. That is just marketing nonsense and not followed by anyone trying to expand an organization.
> 
> Now it's corruption that causes them to focus on Asia? Qatar and so forth came from the prior administration and was no doubt a legal and PR debacle. Post-2016 there has been new management and plenty of oversight.


Sorry, Mr.Italian Souce, but I never said FIFA is supposed to focus on Europe - meaning WC shouldn't be hosted outside of Europe. This is not about FIFA. It's about the audience. People everywhere in the World watch the world cup because of the G-8. The closed group of WC champions.

And through the global interest in watching European and South American stars playing FIFA is able to "spread the game". Otherwise, you can watch the Asian Cup.

This is why I insist this new USA WC (with Canada and Mexico playing fools) shall not have games starting at 12 PM. That's all.

For you to read ono your free time:









Qatar 2022 World Cup: The six biggest problems with the controversial tournament


It seemed almost impossible to believe in 2010, but five years after Fifa awarded the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, the prospect of the world's




www.cityam.com


----------



## pesto

blacktrojan3921 said:


> It's mostly based upon the stadiums in those areas. For SF/SJ, there has been a lot of criticism of Levi's Stadium as a football field (as this guy explained ). And as for DC/Baltimore. I can maybe see Baltimore via M&T Stadium, but there is no way they would go to FedEx field.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's especially silly when you consider the fact that the US Women's soccer team is one of the most successful national teams in the world.


I am not a Niners fan and they could lose all their games for all I care. But the criticism of the stadiums is almost entirely absurdities invented by San Franciscans who didn't realize until this happened that they are becoming minor league in sports interest. They criticized the location, the deal with Santa Clara, the heat, the traffic, the team management for being criminals, the stadium shape, the technology, the parking, tried to keep the team from using the name "SF", etc. They talked excitedly about supposed delays, cost over-runs, the abandonment of the whole project, the team crawling back begging for forgiveness.

Meanwhile, after the move the team increased seat licenses and sells out every game; serves as the site for MLS matches that are too big for Avaya (e.g., when Galaxy is in town), concerts, etc.. And SF had to pay the Warriors 500M to move to SF, just as they had to pay the Giants 500M to stay there. I think you get the picture.


----------



## pesto

As for Balt/DC I agree. But if DC has no real stadium are you gong to abandon the nation's capital during the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence? Baltimore is quite close and allows fans to go to the fireworks and other festivities in DC, which promise to be extensive (likewise for Philly and Boston).

And is FIFA playing to, say, 20k out-of-town fans or 1B out-of-town viewers?.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> As for Balt/DC I agree. But if DC has no real stadium are you gong to abandon the nation's capital during the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence? Baltimore is quite close and allows fans to go to the fireworks and other festivities in DC, which promise to be extensive (likewise for Philly and Boston).
> 
> And is FIFA playing to, say, 20k out-of-town fans or 1B out-of-town viewers?.


DC situation is just another prove of US ignorance not only of football but of the rest of the world as well, and it is awful and it is stupid! USA does not have a single stadium that really suits world cup final, the holy grail of sport worldwide (forget other 79 games), so use that opportunity and make the best out ouf it instead of showing even more ignorance and tenaciousness than usual!

there is a huge aniversary coming, it is happening in the middle of the tournament (even on one saturday) and it is huge opportunity to show the world the history and heritage of the US in the best light, in connection with the tournament you may not care about but the whole world does, does a lot! the whole world will be watching! so make that world come to you, to your capital. stage the final weekend there just after the celebration week, let the world visit all those free museums and all other showcase spots you built there and impress them. let them learn about what makes you so proud! make them be WOW!! make the world cup great (without again, it was always great)! just build the one damn 80K covered stadium in DC because current one is good for nothing and it is not even in DC, just burn one billion you have anyway (you have trillions you are blowing up worldwide), and play the final there! FIFA does not require you to touch any other stadium, infrastructure is existing and best possible, no other costs are involved, that would be the only high cost point and worth every penny! any other country would do it! the win for the US would be immense and worth that money! just ask germans what world cup 2006 did for that country ….

but no, you are smarter than everyone else, play it in met-life with no roof and with viewing obstructions and pray to god there is no rain that day! alternative is to play it in dallas where you killed your president ….. short sighted, can‘t say anything else!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> DC situation is just another prove of US ignorance not only of football but of the rest of the world as well, and it is awful and it is stupid! USA does not have a single stadium that really suits world cup final, the holy grail of sport worldwide (forget other 79 games), so use that opportunity and make the best out ouf it instead of showing even more ignorance and tenaciousness than usual!
> 
> there is a huge aniversary coming, it is happening in the middle of the tournament (even on one saturday) and it is huge opportunity to show the world the history and heritage of the US in the best light, in connection with the tournament you may not care about but the whole world does, does a lot! the whole world will be watching! so make that world come to you, to your capital. stage the final weekend there just after the celebration week, let the world visit all those free museums and all other showcase spots you built there and impress them. let them learn about what makes you so proud! make them be WOW!! make the world cup great (without again, it was always great)! just build the one damn 80K covered stadium in DC because current one is good for nothing and it is not even in DC, just burn one billion you have anyway (you have trillions you are blowing up worldwide), and play the final there! FIFA does not require you to touch any other stadium, infrastructure is existing and best possible, no other costs are involved, that would be the only high cost point and worth every penny! any other country would do it! the win for the US would be immense and worth that money! just ask germans what world cup 2006 did for that country ….
> 
> but no, you are smarter than everyone else, play it in met-life with no roof and with viewing obstructions and pray to god there is no rain that day! alternative is to play it in dallas where you killed your president ….. short sighted, can‘t say anything else!


LOL. Just a couple quick comments:

Stadiums are FIFA's call FIFA is begging to get the US market and use it to win the Asian market. The US is not desperate for a new sport. Several major US cities had no interest in hosting. 

Re Dallas: Lee Harvey Oswald moved to Russia, married a Russian woman and tried to legally become a Russian citizen. That seems to make him pretty European.

The US hardly needs a soccer tournament to attract world attention. As is, many cities are de facto multi-lingual. It’s been that way since the Dutch, French, British and Spanish came here 450 years ago.

You want to build a stadium at taxpayer expense for a specific event? That’s the sort of thing that got FIFA and the Olympics into so much disrepute. Get rid of the troublesome finance people and peasants and just build it. Thank you, Chairman Mao.


----------



## ElvisBC

washington desperately needs a new stadium, why not use the world cup to find the solution and make it a win-win situation. taxpayers pay for every crap, it is just the matter how you present it to them. tell them it is for the stadium it is going to fail, make it a global thing for the higher purpose and it is going to success. it simply works that way. and yes, snyder does not deserve any help, no question about that, he sucks, but call it collateral damage, helping him for bigger cause! and I am sure he would be ready to cover significan part of the cost as well!

second, it was usa decission to bid for the cup, noone was begging them, that claim is ridiculous! you simply know very little about the world cup, fifa etc, otherwise you wouldn’t have written many things you wrote in this thread. this was one of the best! and ask yourself, why is anyone bidding for the world cup in the first place?


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> MLS Soccer


An extremely good article; he catches all the variables and generally doesn’t dwell on absurd details. He recognizes that the goal is to maximize audience, so you find the cities and stadiums that will do that, and make whatever minor adjustments are needed.

Minor issues: he seems awfully cavalier in awarding 2 stadiums to LA (although they are among the most noteworthy sites). That means you effectively remove a city from hosting games.

He criticizes Boston and SF/SJ for having stadiums away from downtown. Other cities with stadiums away form downtown: LA (both candidates), NY, Dallas, Miami. The fact is that a suburban site gives you a large area over which you can control access, security, branding, timing, etc.


----------



## pesto

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/09/19/washington-dc-2026-world-cup-inspection/

A couple of noteworthy comments from the Post:

Per Montagliani, the committee will disregard borders and choose the sites that are best for FIFA. That seems to say that there could be more or fewer sites in Mexico and Canada. Could hint that LA gets more than 1 as well.

It pretty much goes without saying that FedEx is in. Likewise, LA, NY, Boston, Atlanta, one Florida site and one Texas site (presumably Miami and Dallas).

DC proposes the Mall for fan activities, and a merging of the World Cup and 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence festivities.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> Minor issues: he seems awfully cavalier in awarding 2 stadiums to LA (although they are among the most noteworthy sites). That means you effectively remove a city from hosting games.


Not sure that's true. LA can still count as one host city even if they have a couple venues.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Not sure that's true. LA can still count as one host city even if they have a couple venues.


You could give one LA site just 1 or 2 elimination matches or split a normal share of matches between the RB and SoFi. Or do something more complicated.

But one way or another you have to hold a smaller number of events in some city and/or the 2nd LA site. Either of those means preparation, logistics and security at another city with no additional revenue and one city that gets just part of a full hosting quota.


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1439924329119199236


----------



## Light Tower

miguelon said:


> I do not see that as a difficult task, Like I mentioned before, several one off events have done similar or bigger modifications.
> 
> Take these examples:
> Miami's tennis tournament, which happens in late March, only 3 months after the end of the NFL season. They mount a temporary arena and playing surface to, temporary toilets, seat removals, etc, and all of it, for an event much smaller than the FIFA World Cup.
> 
> Also, Phoenix hosted the NCAA Final 4 tournament and look at the modifications involved. with sections moved, added, etc.
> 
> Like I mentioned before, several one off events have done similar or bigger modifications.


You mention the Phoenix NCAA venue, i think this is a possible final draw venue for the 2026 FIFA World Cup Canada/Mexica/United States.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> An extremely good article ....


with conclusion in the end .... we've got no clue what FIFA is going to do


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> with conclusion in the end .... we've got no clue what FIFA is going to do


Largely true. But he hit pretty much everything we have talked about as a possible factor and did not try to be simplistic or dogmatic about how the decision will be made. And he notes that behind everything is the question "how does this help FIFA's long-term goal of spreading soccer?".


----------



## ElvisBC

he was reading here and made his summary


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Do you ever see Canada or Mexico pulling out of this World Cup. I say this for on thing is that the automatic qualification situation for the hosts is not sorted out so that leaves questions. I saw on the FIFA website that only two Canadian cities were available, one of which is the furthest CFL stadium from the American border. Also no offense to anyone from Mexico, I just think from a solely practical perspective, Mexico is not prepared to host the games. With all those things in mind, this could be a USA only tournament in my perspective considering how many of the games will happen there. Does anyone else agree with me?


----------



## aquamaroon

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1441216833894424579











> The early week showers parted Thursday morning, as if on cue, making way for a postcard-perfect sunny day as FIFA officials came to Miami for a whirlwind 2026 World Cup site inspection.
> They were greeted by enthusiastic local politicians and soccer officials, including Inter Miami co-owners Jorge Mas, who made a pitch in person, and David Beckham, who lives part-time in downtown Miami and recorded a passionate video plea to bring the World Cup to his adopted city.
> Miami is among 17 cities in contention for 10 or 11 U.S. game sites. Mexico is expected to have three venues and Canada two or three as the three nations co-host the event.
> 
> In addition to an extensive tour of Hard Rock Stadium, the delegation broke into groups and visited four potential training venues — FIU, which is home of the USL’s Miami FC; Barry University, which has hosted training for the U.S. national team and big-name clubs; the Dolphins’ new training facility the Baptist Health Training Complex; and Inter Miami’s complex in Fort Lauderdale, which features eight fields, a 50,000-square foot training facility and the 18,000-seat DRV PNK Stadium.
> Officials also inspected Lummus Park, the Miami Beach Convention Center and Bayfront Park in Downtown Miami as potential venues for a Fan Fest.
> 
> ...The World Cup is not only the biggest football event in the world, it’s the biggest sporting event in the world,” said FIFA vice president and CONCACAF pesident Vince Montagliani. “We’re here to do our due diligence. We all know Miami has hosted many, many big events. It’s an international city.
> “The diversity in the city, and the fact that now that you have an MLS team, it’s obviously a destination for this sport.”
> 
> ...Montagliani stressed that Miami and Orlando could both be selected, even though they are in the same state, as team and fan mobility are factors. “There’s no prejudice having two candidates in one state. Absolutely not.”
> 
> Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/sports/article254452898.html#storylink=cpy




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1441138136709570560


----------



## aquamaroon

Before Miami, Philadelphia and Lincoln Financial Field had their time to shine:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440691102894329859











__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440672326119395343




















__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1440804817752903680


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Time to take the 2026 World Cup out of Mexico
> 
> 
> FIFA needs to step in after another game is delayed due to homophobic chant by fans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deadspin.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Deadspin suggests FIFA toughen up anti-discrimination rules by removing 2026 matches from Mexico (although some of the offenses come from Mexican fans in LA, which you may or may not consider part of Mexico).
> 
> So if anyone believes homophobic chants are OK or believes FIFA is a racist, sexist, etc., organization, that discussion belongs somewhere else. But discussion as to whether there should be punishments levied relating to the 2026 World Cup belong here..


 If you are interested in the situation regarding Mexico, you should read this. USA, MEXICO & CANADA - 2026 FIFA World Cup™


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Do you ever see Canada or Mexico pulling out of this World Cup. I say this for on thing is that the automatic qualification situation for the hosts is not sorted out so that leaves questions. I saw on the FIFA website that only two Canadian cities were available, one of which is the furthest CFL stadium from the American border. Also no offense to anyone from Mexico, I just think from a solely practical perspective, Mexico is not prepared to host the games. With all those things in mind, this could be a USA only tournament in my perspective considering how many of the games will happen there. Does anyone else agree with me?


I wouldn't have given the whole thing to Mexico because that raises issues of why they don't use the money on social projects, and would presumably result in diminished revenues. But 3 cities which are very large in population and don't need to build from scratch seems reasonable.

Canada was more of an issue: Edmonton is small and remote; Montreal and Vancouver not interested in spending money; and even Toronto needed work. But, still, I don't think it's a major issue, and there really is value in sending a signal to the larger countries of the world that their bids will be benefitted by including smaller countries that could not reasonably host on their own..


----------



## Joakim3

FIFA officials tour Baltimore after seeing Ravens get big win over Kansas City Chiefs - Baltimore Business Journal


FIFA officials attended the Ravens' thrilling win against the Chiefs on Sunday night and are spending Monday touring the city as they prepare to select host sites for the 2026 World Cup.




www.bizjournals.com





Baltimore _definitely_ won the timing lottery on it’s FIFA visit coinciding with that Ravens vs. Chiefs game. 

The atmosphere in the stadium that night definitely made a lasting impression on them.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> I wouldn't have given the whole thing to Mexico because that raises issues of why they don't use the money on social projects, and would presumably result in diminished revenues. But 3 cities which are very large in population and don't need to build from scratch seems reasonable.
> 
> Canada was more of an issue: Edmonton is small and remote; Montreal and Vancouver not interested in spending money; and even Toronto needed work. But, still, I don't think it's a major issue, and there really is value in sending a signal to the larger countries of the world that their bids will be benefitted by including smaller countries that could not reasonably host on their own..


I like where you were going about big countries letting smaller countries host some games while most of the load is on a bigger country. However there is plenty of time before we find out about where the games are going to be played. It might take surprisingly long before we find out due to political issues and FIFA themselves are in a bit of a dilemma over the international calendar reform.


----------



## pesto

Joakim3 said:


> FIFA officials tour Baltimore after seeing Ravens get big win over Kansas City Chiefs - Baltimore Business Journal
> 
> 
> FIFA officials attended the Ravens' thrilling win against the Chiefs on Sunday night and are spending Monday touring the city as they prepare to select host sites for the 2026 World Cup.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bizjournals.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Baltimore _definitely_ won the timing lottery on it’s FIFA visit coinciding with that Ravens vs. Chiefs game.
> 
> The atmosphere in the stadium that night definitely made a lasting impression on them.


Good timing, but these are people who have seen 1000's of soccer matches, presumably including a number of WC matches with Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Germany, etc. They may be a bit more cold-blooded about their jobs, which are things like security, access, hotels, training grounds, airports, etc.

I would think that Baltimore's best chance is for a consensus to say that DC has no stadiums that meet the bill.


----------



## rafark

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Also no offense to anyone from Mexico, I just think from a solely practical perspective, Mexico is not prepared to host the games.





pesto said:


> I wouldn't have given the whole thing to Mexico because that raises issues of why they don't use the money on social projects, and would presumably result in diminished revenues.


Mexico has already hosted it not once but twice. Brazil which is poorer than Mexico just hosted it not long ago. Mexico has also hosted the olympics and several other events like the F1, I don’t see why you’d come to that conclusion.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

rafark said:


> Mexico has already hosted it not once but twice. Brazil which is poorer than Mexico just hosted it not long ago. Mexico has also hosted the olympics and several other events like the F1, I don’t see why you’d come to that conclusion.


Maybe I should have not been too harsh on Mexico as they already have stadiums although most need work in order to host the games. I might mention that the main reason I suggested there is a possibility that Mexico or Canada pull out is because it just would not be practical to host a games in three countries that have closed borders with each other. Lets say for comparison Spain and Portugal host a joint World Cup it would not be a problem as those countries have open borders with each other. Lastly unlike Korea Japan 2002 which the games were evenly split to the two countries, this tournament will be dominated by the United States making it less practical to host in multiple countries than in 2002.


----------



## pesto

rafark said:


> Mexico has already hosted it not once but twice. Brazil which is poorer than Mexico just hosted it not long ago. Mexico has also hosted the olympics and several other events like the F1, I don’t see why you’d come to that conclusion.


You may have missed the last 20 years. The IOC and FIFA have gotten withering heat from the world press for hosting in 3rd world or even 2nd world countries with very visible social needs. It has refocused its policies so that "white elephant" stadiums are not built with funds that should go toward, say, providing clean water or teaching rural women to read. Brazil is one of the prime examples.

The authoritarian PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) used automatic weapons on students protesting starvation and dilapidated housing in Mexico City around Olympic white elephants. Hundreds of unarmed people were shot and thousands "disappeared" in the wake of the massacre; the major universities closed down and thorough purging of students and others who criticized the government followed.


----------



## rafark

pesto said:


> with funds that should go toward, say, providing clean water or teaching rural women to read.


Excuse me what kind of country do you think mexico is? An overwhelming majority of people in Mexico has access to clean water










—-

Over 96% of Mexicans can read. 



pesto said:


> As for the Olympics, I'll assume you are just ignorant and not a psychopath. The authoritarian PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) used automatic weapons on students protesting starvation and dilapidated housing in Mexico City around Olympic white elephants.


Not only is this insulting (by calling me a psychopath) it’s so wrong it’s hilarious. Sorry but what you just say is nothing but BS. That was not the reason for the protests. At all. The olympics had nothing to do with it.

Anyway... back on topic, pretty much all the newest stadiums in Mexico have been built by private companies. As a matter of fact, all the stadiums in Mexico for this cup are privately-owned.


----------



## pesto

Please. I had family who were there. Cousins of mine left the DF to hide out when their friends were dragged out of their houses. It wasn't until Vicente Fox and PAN took some measure of control decades later that the truth started coming out about what is still called the Massacre of Tlatelolco. .

In SoCal it was a big deal to the Latin community. The IOC was reviled for even holding the matches in a blood thirsty dictatorship. There were demonstrations of solidarity on college campuses in the US and Europe.

As for economic, health, water, etc., standards, they are good in many parts of the country. And not good in many parts.


----------



## GunnerJacket

*Mod Note:* Folks, keep the discussion to the logistics of the event and avoid broader political debates. Thanks.


----------



## pesto

Thanks, Gunner. The point here was that FIFA made a determination that it wanted the US to host jointly with Canada and Mexico (for whatever reasons they may have had) and the parties agreed..


----------



## ElvisBC

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Maybe I should have not been too harsh on Mexico as they already have stadiums although most need work in order to host the games. I might mention that the main reason I suggested there is a possibility that Mexico or Canada pull out is because it just would not be practical to host a games in three countries that have closed borders with each other. Lets say for comparison Spain and Portugal host a joint World Cup it would not be a problem as those countries have open borders with each other. Lastly unlike Korea Japan 2002 which the games were evenly split to the two countries, this tournament will be dominated by the United States making it less practical to host in multiple countries than in 2002.


it is not a problem, there are many ways to sneak under/around the wall, one may even swimm across rio grande … just ask gunner for details

the whole discussion about mexico is ridiculous!!! they are football nation, they‘re in and they should get those games, there is absolutely nothing that speaks against!!!


----------



## pesto

Agree that the idea of Mexico pulling out is very odd. They wanted more cities not fewer. Canada is more complicated since Vancouver and Montreal couldn't see an advantage to hosting and there are fewer good choices for alternatives. 

In any event, the overwhelming majority of visitors will be coming in and out of Mexico by air. Few are going to drive from Mexico City or Guadalajara to the border. From Monterrey it is do-able, but then you have to drive across some of the US.


----------



## ElvisBC

may mean something or nothing for the final game decission, bur infantino was in met life for [email protected] game. he did not visit other stadiums …


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> may mean something or nothing for the final game decission, bur infantino was in met life for [email protected] game. he did not visit other stadiums …


That's true. It could be that he's taking a good look before signing-off on hosting a major match there. 

Or it could mean just drumming up some publicity for the tournament. The US is the one place where being seen at football games might actually attract more people to become interest in the WC. 

Let's see if the drops by Dallas or SoFi.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

GunnerJacket said:


> *Mod Note:* Folks, keep the discussion to the logistics of the event and avoid broader political debates. Thanks.


I was the one who first brought up the border. Did not mean it to be political. Just wanted to bring it up as it might be a logistical challenge.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I was the one who first brought up the border. Did not mean it to be political. Just wanted to bring it up as it might be a logistical challenge.


As for the other political topics other people brought up, I have nothing to do with it.


----------



## miguelon

pesto said:


> Please. I had family who were there. Cousins of mine left the DF to hide out when their friends were dragged out of their houses. It wasn't until Vicente Fox and PAN took some measure of control decades later that the truth started coming out about what is still called the Massacre of Tlatelolco. .
> 
> In SoCal it was a big deal to the Latin community. The IOC was reviled for even holding the matches in a blood thirsty dictatorship. There were demonstrations of solidarity on college campuses in the US and Europe.
> 
> As for economic, health, water, etc., standards, they are good in many parts of the country. And not good in many parts.


I have made the argument, that most of the candidate cities in the US are more than capable of hosting WC games, and that any current shortcoming, is relatively easy to solve.

That being said, you really need to take a plane to Mexico City, Guadalajara or Monterrey, they are as ready as any major American city to host this events. 

On the contrary, I think the mistake here, is that both Canada and Mexico are closer to being able to host the whole tournament on their own, and they are "wasting" a turn by only hosting 10 games. 
LigaMX before the pandemic had a healthy following with attendance averages at about 22-24,000. enough to absorbe new or enlarge stadiums without being white elephants. and contrary to the US, most soccer stadiums in Mexico are privately funded.


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> I have made the argument, that most of the candidate cities in the US are more than capable of hosting WC games, and that any current shortcoming, is relatively easy to solve.
> 
> That being said, you really need to take a plane to Mexico City, Guadalajara or Monterrey, they are as ready as any major American city to host this events.
> 
> On the contrary, I think the mistake here, is that both Canada and Mexico are closer to being able to host the whole tournament on their own, and they are "wasting" a turn by only hosting 10 games.
> LigaMX before the pandemic had a healthy following with attendance averages at about 22-24,000. enough to absorbe new or enlarge stadiums without being white elephants. and contrary to the US, most soccer stadiums in Mexico are privately funded.


I have to disagree on just about everything. Canada is nowhere near being able to host. Try listing the 16 stadiums they would use. They can't even get Montreal and Vancouver involved and Toronto had issues as well. This is in no way an attack on Canada any more than it would be on Holland, Austria, Scandinavia, Easter European countries, etc. They just happen to be relatively low population

As for Mexico, Mexican federation general secretary Guillermo Cantu said very few, possibly no countries could host it alone, which pretty much implies that he believes that Mexico could not host it alone. I won't speculate on what particular shortcomings he had in mind.


----------



## miguelon

Agree with Canada, is not that is not that easy with its current infrastructure, but they would have to go into an extensive construction program, which doesn't make much sense, since they dont really need it.

Mexico can't currently say much, since 2026 is a lead US tournament, and no point on arguing it.
But there are more cities on top of CDMX, GDL and MTY, that can host at least group stage games (some need new or improved stadium). Puebla, Leon, Tijuana, Queretaro, Cancun, Morelia, Toluca, Torreon.

but, no countries can host it alone? that is nonsense, If Brazil and South Africa pulled of World Cup, then, there is a couple of dozen countries capable, that being said, its not the same that they should. it would depend on each nation circumstance.

But I see 2 categories for potential host:
1- Ready to go - most infrastructure in place, even if some improvements are needed (stadiums, hotels, transportation, training grounds, etc.
2.- Doable but extensive investment needed (doable doesn't mean that is a good idea)

Category 1 (in no particular order)
1.- UK or England
2.- Germany
3.- France
4.- United States
5.- Russia
6.- China (counting current UC stadia)
7.- Brazil
8.- Spain


Category 2: big enough countries with at least part of the infrastructure ready, in no particular order.

1.- Italy
2.- Turkey
3.- Australia
4.- India
5.- Japan - close to Cat 1
6.- Korea
7.- South Africa - close to Cat 1
8.- Mexico
9.- Canada
10.- Indonesia


And several other combined hosts:
Argentina+ Uruguay + Chile
Morocco + Iberian/north African
Saudi Arabia + UAE
Malasia + Singapore
Colombia + Peru
Poland +Ukraine
Belgium + Netherlands
Vietnam + Thailand or Philippines


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> Agree with Canada, is not that is not that easy with its current infrastructure, but they would have to go into an extensive construction program, which doesn't make much sense, since they dont really need it.
> 
> but, no countries can host it alone? that is nonsense, If Brazil and South Africa pulled of World Cup, then, there is a couple of dozen countries capable, that being said, its not the same that they should. it would depend on each nation circumstance.
> 
> In no particular order, list of countries that could host a WC (not saying that they should or need to)
> England (Or combined UK)
> Spain
> Italy
> Germany
> France
> Russia
> Turkey
> India
> China
> Australia
> Japan
> Korea
> South Africa
> Brasil
> United States
> Mexico
> Canada
> Indonesia
> 
> And several other combined hosts:
> Argentina+ Uruguay + Chile
> Morocco + Iberian/north African
> Saudi Arabia + UAE
> Malasia + Singapore
> Colombia + Peru
> Poland +Ukraine
> Belgium + Netherlands


Strongly disagree with that list. You are really pulling in very low grade venues in some countries.. This is why FIFA has instituted the idea of joint bid. 

The combined lists make more sense, but you need to add 1 or 2 countries in some cases. Why use 3rd rate stadiums in cities of little interest when top quality stadiums and cities exist 100 miles across the border?

But I won't get specific. This belongs in another thread.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*5 Under-The-Radar Factors That Could Decide 2026 FIFA World Cup U.S. Host Cities*



> As the United States, Canada and Mexico prepare to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup continue, a delegation from FIFA made its first site visits to nine potential American host cities that wrapped up last week.
> 
> That prompted much handicapping in terms of which cities are likely to make the final cut (With 11 of 17 U.S. candidates expected to join two from Canada and three from Mexico). Such speculation, however, is not always reflective of the factors FIFA considers for its host cities and venues.
> Based on previous World Cups and FIFA’s own communications, here are five factors that could help decide successful bids that may not be getting enough attention.


Forbes


----------



## PHofKS

I don't see lack of transit being much of a negative for Nashville. All matches, entertainment activities and high end hotel rooms will be located within a few blocks of each other. And travel to and from the airport is easily improved with more frequent shuttles. The airport experiences 'black Monday' once a year when the CMA Fest (150,000 fans) and Bonnaroo (80,000 fans) close on the same Sunday without significant difficulty and can handle a hundred thousand world cup visitors with no problems. Even if they have to remove their cowgirl boots to get through security (the biggest slowdown).
Other than that, there weren't any positives, but no other negatives.


----------



## pesto

As a general comment, this article is poorly written; has spelling errors; grammatical errors and confusions throughout. Some of the judgements seem arbitrary (SoFi does NOT have climate control, but will have very decent transit to LAX and the dozens of hotels within blocks of the airport People Mover)..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Here is an article to read. https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/breaking-down-the-great-race-to-host-2026-fifa-world-cup-matches


----------



## ElvisBC

they all just continue repeating the same narrative, over and over again. nothing new! last useful info was the one confirming earliest host selection in spring of 2022

the whole process will strongly depend on how much is FIFA willing to accept compromises between narrow fields, locations in the middle of nowhere and no roofs in favor of getting into main markets and biggest cities, that’s all! I strongly assume they will accept any compromise that secures them bigger margins, they won’t truly care about all those things they were preaching for ages, but that’s my opinion, I may be wrong!

what noone knows yet, outside of FIFA inner circles (even they might be banging their heads against this particular wall), is the biggest question: are they going to accept roofles metlife stadium for the final? majority thinks they would … but there must be a good reason noone from FIFA ever gave a comment about that. all we have is FIFA silence, media guesses and LOC proposal, but even they offered jerryworld as second option in their bidbook!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> they all just continue repeating the same narrative, over and over again. nothing new! last useful info was the one confirming earliest host selection in spring of 2022
> 
> the whole process will strongly depend on how much is FIFA willing to accept compromises between narrow fields, locations in the middle of nowhere and no roofs in favor of getting into main markets and biggest cities, that’s all! I strongly assume they will accept any compromise that secures them bigger margins, they won’t truly care about all those things they were preaching for ages, but that’s my opinion, I may be wrong!
> 
> what noone knows yet, outside of FIFA inner circles (even they might be banging their heads against this particular wall), is the biggest question: are they going to accept roofles metlife stadium for the final? majority thinks they would … but there must be a good reason noone from FIFA ever gave a comment about that. all we have is FIFA silence, media guesses and LOC proposal, but even they offered jerryworld as second option in their bidbook!


LOL. Seems more like insults disguised as questions about priorities.

Once more: the stadiums are a dream come true for FIFA. The problem is that your set of criteria simply aren't shared by FIFA. They are looking at comfort, good repair, space, security, capacity and an interesting environment.

Their guidelines exist due to the collection of relics and firetraps that are often offered them. They can be ignored at will and certainly will be in the US when immaterial. Focus will be put on other aspects of the event.

And why fixate on old and crowded downtowns? Some of the greatest venues in the US are outdoors and in suburban, rural or even wilderness areas. Coachella, Burning Man and dozens of others, draw hundreds of thousands for a week or two. By contrast, Foxboro is hardly the middle of nowhere; it is a few miles from Boston and Providence and more convenient to the majority of those attending than is central Boston.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> and they have best stadiums for football, just one small irrelevant fact


Again, this is a site for those who like to discuss stadiums. But the issues raised are sometimes strictly for wonks or purists. The differences are too minor to count for the people who make these decisions and are tasked to look out for the future of soccer.

FIFA has already said that the United Bid presents more than enough stadiums substantially above FIFA's top standards and small issues (turf, transit to DT, etc.) will be addressed. That part is over. Now the job is to pick out those that will be EXCEPTIONAL host cities from among THE VERY GOOD. 

That means addressing thoroughly city reputations, tourism potential, brand tie-ins, regional logistics, time zones, etc. Anything that will make people change their minds about watching or not.


----------



## pesto

Light Tower said:


> Don't know exact date for the host cities to selected yet.


I would guess April since that is relatively quiet in American sports and you don't want your announcement to be stuck on the back pages (real or digital). 

Through mid-February is the Super Bowl; then the NCAA basketball tournaments are in March; and the NBA tournament in May and June. So April might be a good choice. 

But that's speculation.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> .……That means addressing thoroughly city reputations, tourism potential, brand tie-ins, regional logistics, time zones, etc. Anything that will make people change their minds about watching or not.


we do not know that, we can only guess until we find it out mid ‘22


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> we do not know that, we can only guess until we find it out mid ‘22


If by "know" you mean with absolute certainty, then I agree. And I am happy to stick "I believe" in front of my comment. 

But a quick review of the questions asked at the cities visited indicates that facilities were receiving "due diligence" from the senior brass, needed for preparing formal reports, NOT an examination with tough questions needing to be answered. I did not hear about late night sessions, tense discussions or calls for more extended visits when issues are better framed or resolved.. 

Combine that with the idea reported recently that FIFA is concerned with establishing better relationships with big sports capital, media and marketing, and it seems that they would not ignore those issues in selecting cities.


----------



## Ramanaramana

pesto said:


> Never said that. It is not in the same league as NY, Boston, Chicago, Philly and others as a "sports town" and therefore doesn't get a leg-up for its history and folklore. But it's strong for tourism and for visuals on TV. It should be high enough to get in above, say, Houston which has a low tourist rep, horrible weather in summer and no particular sports history..
> 
> But it wouldn't surprise me if both got in. They are large, well-known metros with money and facilities.


No offence but no one cares about the sports tradition of an American city for the football world cup. Fifa and host commitee are not going to consider NBA championships when selecting venues. It's loony to even suggest that.

Houston's stadium takes massive dumps on Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and New York. The weather is irrelevant as it has a retractable roof. And it has a strong history of hosting high profile football matches.

The only thing Houston has to worry about is Dallas and the possibility that they opt to spread it around more. Otherwise it's a cast iron guarantee.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> No offence but no one cares about the sports tradition of an American city for the football world cup. Fifa and host commitee are not going to consider NBA championships when selecting venues. It's loony to even suggest that.
> 
> Houston's stadium takes massive dumps on Philadelphia, Chicago, Boston and New York. The weather is irrelevant as it has a retractable roof. And it has a strong history of hosting high profile football matches.
> 
> The only thing Houston has to worry about is Dallas and the possibility that they opt to spread it around more. Otherwise it's a cast iron guarantee.


The American audience is one of the major targets for 2026, along with Asia. Most Americans know little about FIFA and soccer. Boston, Chicago, and NY bring much more name recognition and tourist appeal for US and non-US audiences as well. 

Philly not as much, but it will have tie-ins to the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (as discussed in their presentation) and FIFA may favor it and DC for that reason. It's location near Boston, NY, Baltimore and DC may count against it.

Houston is at the margin; most of the lists put it into 10th-13th. The covering for the stadium is a big plus, but you have to accept very high heat and humidity day and night. Same idea as Miami, except Houston is not as much of a tourist city. If LV and Chicago were in, I doubt that Houston would make it.

The nearness of Dallas is a possible negative, but with 40M people in OK, Tex and La., it's not unreasonable to have 2 cities. But there is always going to be the problem of cutting some worthy cities.


----------



## ElvisBC

For me it is unthinkable they omit Houston.
Same applies for LA, NY, Miami and Dallas


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> For me it is unthinkable they omit Houston.
> Same applies for LA, NY, Miami and Dallas


Great choices. What are your other 5 from SF, Seattle, Denver, Orlando, Atlanta, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, Cincinnati, Nashville, KC?


----------



## ElvisBC

none beside maybe orlando 😁

just kidding, we do not know if it is going to be five or six, and what I would choose is pretty much opposite from what I expect them to do. best example atlanta


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> none beside maybe orlando 😁
> 
> just kidding, we do not know if it is going to be five or six, and what I would choose is pretty much opposite from what I expect them to do. best example atlanta


I was interested in what you expect to be chosen. FIFA has a professional and legal responsibility to select the cities best for the long-term growth of soccer; we, of course, choose our personal preferences and don't have good access to data on what is good for the growth of the sport. . 

I looked at predictions by some national sports sources (NBC, Sports Illustrated, USA Today, some soccer organizations). Houston was in on only one list. The problem was not that it wasn't good; the problem is that you have to eliminate another good stadium to include it.


----------



## ElvisBC

it is not good stadium, it is after miami the best stadium and in terms of transport it even beats miami

I expect SF, Atlanta and Boston plus those five, then probably some solution for DC area and the last one may be anything!


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1448655574673997833


----------



## pesto

.


slipperydog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1448655574673997833


Edmonton in late November requires a bit of extra packing. Toronto isn't warm either.

They seem to have skipped LA on the western trip. Maybe they are waiting to examine it more closely from their Super Bowl suites? lol.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> .They seem to have skipped LA on the western trip. Maybe they are waiting to examine it more closely from their Super Bowl suites? lol.


Rumors are that FIFA is seriously looking at SoFi as the WC final venue. It makes sense, the roof/weather is a big plus for LA over New York and DC in summer.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Rumors are that FIFA is seriously looking at SoFi as the WC final venue. It makes sense, the roof/weather is a big plus for LA over New York and DC in summer.


So maybe my comment above isn't a joke, and they really would like to see it in NFL playoff or Super Bowl mode. It makes sense, although NY really is a great city and summers aren't as consistently bad as several other cities in contention. 

There should also be some fan uses for the RB which has a considerable history.


----------



## CWells2000

Light Tower said:


> Don't know exact date for the host cities to selected yet.


I believe they are selecting the 16 venues in late 2022


----------



## CWells2000

slipperydog said:


> Rumors are that FIFA is seriously looking at SoFi as the WC final venue. It makes sense, the roof/weather is a big plus for LA over New York and DC in summer.


Only issue is the time difference for the final.

Would the organisers be prepared to have a 12pm kick off time over a more reasonable one of 3pm in New York for example.


----------



## slipperydog

CWells2000 said:


> Only issue is the time difference for the final.
> 
> Would the organisers be prepared to have a 12pm kick off time over a more reasonable one of 3pm in New York for example.


Don't see why a noon kick-off would be an issue. Many footballers are accustomed to lunchtime kickoffs in their respective domestic leagues.


----------



## pesto

CWells2000 said:


> I believe they are selecting the 16 venues in late 2022








2026 World Cup: Ranking the U.S. cities in contention to host matches | FOX Sports


FIFA is currently touring potential U.S. host cities for the 2026 World Cup. Doug McIntyre ranks the list of contenders.




www.foxsports.com





The latest thinking I have seen is that an announcement could come in January or February, although some still say March or April. These flexible timelines may mean that the decisions are effectively made and now it's just a matter of finishing executive due diligence and deciding the best time to release.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Don't see why a noon kick-off would be an issue. Many footballers are accustomed to lunchtime kickoffs in their respective domestic leagues.


The issue is largely who the target audience is. Asia and N. America are the high priorities these day although you don't want to ignore the large European audience either.

I was in Berlin in 2014 and the locals had no problem with watching until midnight and partying until the police cleared them out at 10 the next morning.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> if you think fifa gives a shit about climate issues type following two words in google: manaus & cuiaba
> actually if you think fifa gives a shit about anything when selecting the host cities type following two words in google: manaus & cuiaba


Geographical decisions across countries and decades are not useful. Countries are different in too many ways, from quality of stadiums to terrorism to political issues.

We are in the US now; FIFA has repeatedly said they are good with the stadiums and that now they are focusing on time zones, climate, etc. Makes perfect sense since these impact both attendance and the remote viewer experience.


----------



## ElvisBC

your problem is you believe in what ”FIFA has said….“😁 normally that has close to zero value 


whatever, here the latest nbc interview with chris canetti, president of houston’s bid:
Canetti on Houston’s bid to host WC 2026 games

most important outtake:
“_I know rationally and in my heart that Houston is among the top 10. Does that mean we are guaranteed a spot? No. I don’t approach it that way whatsoever. I know there are lots of things that go into this. Lots of moving parts._”

and here one from dallas visit as well:
Dallas kicks it up for big party


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> your problem is you believe in what ”FIFA has said….“😁 normally that has close to zero value


Yeah, FIFA gives agency to the host country when it comes to venues. Brazil's decision to build a stadium in Manaus, to use your example, was as much politically motivated as anything as the Brazilian government and FA wanted to spread the geographic representation to the north so that it wasn't all concentrated in the political, economic and cultural centres in the south. It didn't really matter that daytime matches were going to be played in tropical summer heat.

FIFA would be more concerned with capacity and suites to maximise ticketing revenue and amenities for VIP guests.


----------



## ElvisBC

you’re right and wrong at the same time. yes, in 2014 and 2018 FIFA let LOC have a bigger part in stadium decission but that didn’t really matter since all but one were build from scratch matching highest FIFA WC criterias. in 2026 we have completely different situation, most stadiums clearly below those FIFA WC criterias, so they took decission in their own hands.

but that’s not what I wanted to say, my point was that anything FiFA officially said was more or less pointless PR crap and that reality is much much different! I guess we oth agree on that!


----------



## pesto

Reliving the past is OK; there are other posters stubbornly doing so on these threads. But it doesn't have much to do with what is happening now. FIFA, among others, has caught on that they were decades behind in data, organization, etc. 

Nothing is black and white, but the move has been away from the aristocratic model (old boys passing the decisions and loot around, as is their historic prerogative). Corruption wasn't a problem, it was the method. Unfortunately, it also resulted in enormous inefficiency

Now the turn is to data-driven marketing, which is sounder in determining what people want, developing the products to address it, and thereby increasing the profits from serving those needs.

That's what you are seeing now in the US. Citing institutional history is hardly relevant in determining whether Houston is going to work better than Seattle or Cincinnati in the overall process. 

The decision is driven by millions of data points and in some cases the indicators are contradictory (say, metro size vs. location). .Solving that is what is going on now. And it is being done by NBC, the sponsors and the Ph.D's, not by FIFA. It's their job to announce the results and mollify the losers.


----------



## slipperydog

FIFA to name 2026 World Cup cities by next April


Organisers will reveal the FIFA World Cup 2026 venues by April of next year as officials near the conclusion of all site visits.




www.thestadiumbusiness.com


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> FIFA to name 2026 World Cup cities by next April
> 
> 
> Organisers will reveal the FIFA World Cup 2026 venues by April of next year as officials near the conclusion of all site visits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestadiumbusiness.com


 A SF politician involved in the process was told that the cities would be informed in March and the names made public in late March or April. As I've said, sports news is relatively slow at that time. 

Btw, FIFA says they are amazed by the quality of facilities wherever they go, which they jokingly say makes the selection process more difficult, but they will take that situation anytime.


----------



## Light Tower

April 2022, Got it. We only have five months from now. Stay tuned for that.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> A SF politician involved in the process was told that the cities would be informed in March and the names made public in late March or April. As I've said, sports news is relatively slow at that time.
> 
> Btw, FIFA says they are amazed by the quality of facilities wherever they go, which they jokingly say makes the selection process more difficult, but they will take that situation anytime.


Yes, I'm sure people will be debating this city vs that city when the final decisions are made, but at least they can all agree that every host city up for consideration in 2026 is a decided upgrade on the location of the previous tournament.


----------



## ElvisBC

slipperydog said:


> Yes, I'm sure people will be debating this city vs that city when the final decisions are made, but at least they can all agree that every host city up for consideration in 2026 is a decided upgrade on the location of the previous tournament.


….. as any other city that ever hosted a world cup game


----------



## ElvisBC

slipperydog said:


> FIFA to name 2026 World Cup cities by next April
> 
> 
> Organisers will reveal the FIFA World Cup 2026 venues by April of next year as officials near the conclusion of all site visits.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thestadiumbusiness.com


it looks more and more there will be 11 cities in the US indeed, at least according to what Colin Smith said:
“_Smith said it is likely 16 cities will be selected for the 80 games due to be played in the first FIFA World Cup to feature 48 nations.”_


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

ElvisBC said:


> it looks more and more there will be 11 cities in the US indeed, at least according to what Colin Smith said:
> “_Smith said it is likely 16 cities will be selected for the 80 games due to be played in the first FIFA World Cup to feature 48 nations.”_


I do not know for sure if they will even do 48 teams as the final international calendar moving forward has yet to be finalized. We will probably have a good idea more about this World Cup by late December. FIFA Council endorses global summit to discuss the future of football


----------



## ElvisBC

od course they will, 48 teams and 80 games in (up to) 16 cities, no matter how the next world football calendar is adjusted! barring unforeseen circumstances of course. another world war or pandemics may come in between!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> it looks more and more there will be 11 cities in the US indeed, at least according to what Colin Smith said:
> “_Smith said it is likely 16 cities will be selected for the 80 games due to be played in the first FIFA World Cup to feature 48 nations.”_


I noticed that as well and think that 11 US cities is the most probable result. But it could be he meant 11 US stadiums, opening the possibility of 2 in LA. Both SoFi and the Rose Bowl would have some recognition and appeal.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I do not know for sure if they will even do 48 teams as the final international calendar moving forward has yet to be finalized. We will probably have a good idea more about this World Cup by late December. FIFA Council endorses global summit to discuss the future of football


That would certainly surprise a lot of sponsors, media, cities, etc. Some of whom might like to cut their support levels to make up for wasted efforts, loss of time, etc..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Thanks for the feedback everyone. In the world of FIFA, everything is unpredictable. They approved a expanded Club World Cup without the consent of the biggest clubs in the world. Had it not been for the pandemic, we would have seen an epic showdown between FIFA and the clubs. Any talks of a World Cup every two years or expanding the World Cup to 48 teams will definitely see backlash from clubs. Also players are complaining that they are playing too many games so they might be less willing to play in the World Cup if FIFA keeps up with its ways. Regarding the 2026 World Cup, very little is certain.


----------



## pesto

FIFA agree to new climate change targets - despite biennial World Cup plan | JOE.co.uk

We already know that the only “eco-friendly” Olympics is NO Olympics. Now it’s FIFA’s turn to hear from the “at home, shivering in the dark” crowd.


----------



## aquamaroon

Since we are a bit starved for news lol: Edmonton has partnered with 3D company Venue Twin to put together on interactive 3D Demo of the Stadium for the 2026 World Cup (presumably to show FIFA):









How Commonwealth Stadium uses Venue Twin to plan operations and future events


Commonwealth Stadium, Edmonton, uses Venue Twin to reconfigure its stadium for future events to give an instant view of how it will look




www.venuetwin.com





No public access unfortunately but there were a couple screengrabs of the stadium in World Cup mode. Mainly posting for those, just to give us a sense of how Commonwealth Stadium (which is primarily a CFL stadium with a larger and longer field) will look while hosting the World Cup:


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Since we are a bit starved for news lol: Edmonton has partnered with 3D company Venue Twin to put together on interactive 3D Demo of the Stadium for the 2026 World Cup (presumably to show FIFA):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Commonwealth Stadium uses Venue Twin to plan operations and future events
> 
> 
> Commonwealth Stadium, Edmonton, uses Venue Twin to reconfigure its stadium for future events to give an instant view of how it will look
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.venuetwin.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No public access unfortunately but there were a couple screengrabs of the stadium in World Cup mode. Mainly posting for those, just to give us a sense of how Commonwealth Stadium (which is primarily a CFL stadium with a larger and longer field) will look while hosting the World Cup:


I am guessing that FIFA is going to be really, really flexible about what Edmonton offers in spite of the relative isolation. It's hard to believe, but without them, it's down to just Toronto.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

aquamaroon said:


> Since we are a bit starved for news lol: Edmonton has partnered with 3D company Venue Twin to put together on interactive 3D Demo of the Stadium for the 2026 World Cup (presumably to show FIFA):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Commonwealth Stadium uses Venue Twin to plan operations and future events
> 
> 
> Commonwealth Stadium, Edmonton, uses Venue Twin to reconfigure its stadium for future events to give an instant view of how it will look
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.venuetwin.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No public access unfortunately but there were a couple screengrabs of the stadium in World Cup mode. Mainly posting for those, just to give us a sense of how Commonwealth Stadium (which is primarily a CFL stadium with a larger and longer field) will look while hosting the World Cup:


Unfortunately for Canada, it looks like it is game over for them. Edmonton is really far away form everything else and the stadium renders show this stadium will be horrible for soccer. That leaves only Toronto for Canada. There is no sense in having only one stadium in a different country just to say you have three host countries. The USA is ready to host a World Cup tomorrow (let alone 2026) and I am curious to see how Mexico pans out.


----------



## Ramanaramana

4pm local time in Sao Paulo is 8pm CET time. 

An 8pm local time kickoff in the Americas benefits the Americas and Asia. 4pm kickoff benefits Europe. Seeing as we can be fairly sure that a European team will make the final, which they did, it’s common sense to cater to game’s most important audience.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> 4pm local time in Sao Paulo is 8pm CET time.
> 
> An 8pm local time kickoff in the Americas benefits the Americas and Asia. 4pm kickoff benefits Europe. Seeing as we can be fairly sure that a European team will make the final, which they did, it’s common sense to cater to game’s most important audience.


Yes, but the other poster was arguing that a noon EST start is demonstrably better. I am just saying that we don't have access to demographics or LT strategy goals.


----------



## pesto

Colin Smith is quoted on several sties as saying that 16 stadiums was the original target but is subject to change, and that the announcement will be in March or April, presumably depending on competing news stories and how the media build-up progresses..

Local city officials have been told that they will be informed in March, so we can expect some rumors as City X or Y starts scrubbing the city hall steps and polishing the podiums.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Does anyone know how the automatic qualification will work as I feel all three countries qualifying may be a bit much. Personally I think only the United States should automatically qualify as of now as they will host the most games regardless of how much games either Canada or Mexico get. Also I am well aware this World Cup is supposed to be 48 teams big but I fell outside pressure from an organization like the ECA or FIFPro could leave FIFA no choice but keep it at 32 teams. If that is the case would it even be logical to host in three countries.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Does anyone know how the automatic qualification will work as I feel all three countries qualifying may be a bit much. Personally I think only the United States should automatically qualify as of now as they will host the most games regardless of how much games either Canada or Mexico get. Also I am well aware this World Cup is supposed to be 48 teams big but I fell outside pressure from an organization like the ECA or FIFPro could leave FIFA no choice but keep it at 32 teams. If that is the case would it even be logical to host in three countries.


I would say that it will be 48; that has been the word for years and is still being acted on consistently and without comment by FIFA, the United bid and cities..

I would guess all 3 get passes, but that is not a critical point as far as the quality of the action or the monetary success. Why gratuitously insult a host country that has cooperated for years in the process? \

Why would you not want to host in Canada, which has 50M people with first world income but currently has relatively low interest in soccer?. It adds no risk due to the open borders, common language, etc. Toronto is in the EST and right on the US border (across Lake Ontario). Fans from Western NY, Ohio and Pennsylvania may find it their best choice to view a match. 

There is now talk about 16 stadiums being an approximation. Using fewer saves money (security, travel). But this could be out-weighed if the demographics show viewer interest in particular cities or stadiums. Since there is talk, there could be something in the works.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> I would say that it will be 48; that has been the word for years and is still being acted on consistently and without comment by FIFA, the United bid and cities..
> 
> I would guess all 3 get passes, but that is not a critical point as far as the quality of the action or the monetary success. Why gratuitously insult a host country that has cooperated for years in the process? \
> 
> Why would you not want to host in Canada, which has 50M people with first world income but currently has relatively low interest in soccer?. It adds no risk due to the open borders, common language, etc. Toronto is in the EST and right on the US border (across Lake Ontario). Fans from Western NY, Ohio and Pennsylvania may find it their best choice to view a match.
> 
> There is now talk about 16 stadiums being an approximation. Using fewer saves money (security, travel). But this could be out-weighed if the demographics show viewer interest in particular cities or stadiums. Since there is talk, there could be something in the works.


Thanks for the response. You are right about FIFA, the bid committee and the potential host cities acting on it consistently and without comment that this tournament will be 48 teams big. However the decision to expand was made without the consent from organizations like the ECA and FIFPro. Remember a few months back when the Super League was about to become a thing. The only reason that it was canceled was due to outside pressure. If none of that happened I am all but certain the Super League would have gone ahead as planned. A similar kind of backlash could leave FIFA no choice but to keep it at 32.

As for Canada and Mexico I have nothing against those countries hosting games, it is I just see there could be possible geopolitical problems with those countries regarding a USA centric tournament.

What I know is true as of today is that the intention is that the USA, Canada and Mexico will host a 48 team tournament. However, starting December 20th this year, FIFA will be reaching out to various parties around the world involved in the beautiful game to come to a consensus regarding the future of the sport and such plans could have an impact on this tournament.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Thanks for the response. You are right about FIFA, the bid committee and the potential host cities acting on it consistently and without comment that this tournament will be 48 teams big. However the decision to expand was made without the consent from organizations like the ECA and FIFPro. Remember a few months back when the Super League was about to become a thing. The only reason that it was canceled was due to outside pressure. If none of that happened I am all but certain the Super League would have gone ahead as planned. A similar kind of backlash could leave FIFA no choice but to keep it at 32.
> 
> As for Canada and Mexico I have nothing against those countries hosting games, it is I just see there could be possible geopolitical problems with those countries regarding a USA centric tournament.
> 
> What I know is true as of today is that the intention is that the USA, Canada and Mexico will host a 48 team tournament. However, starting December 20th this year, FIFA will be reaching out to various parties around the world involved in the beautiful game to come to a consensus regarding the future of the sport and such plans could have an impact on this tournament.


This video will help clear anyone up who is confused what I am talking about.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> Why would you not want to host in Canada, which has *50M people* with first world income but currently has relatively low interest in soccer?


Canada is undergoing their latest Census, with most guessing putting their total population at just around/under 40mm. In 2016 they registered just over 35mm.

Also, let's not let this thread get sidetracked with debates about general FIFA proposals, please. Thank you.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> Canada is undergoing their latest Census, with most guessing putting their total population at just around/under 40mm. In 2016 they registered just over 35mm.
> 
> Also, let's not let this thread get sidetracked with debates about general FIFA proposals, please. Thank you.


Thanks for the correction; that's what i get for relying on memory. 

But even with, say, 42M in 2026 the point is the same: they are a high income country with relatively low interest in soccer; and it costs essentially nothing to have them in, even if it's only Toronto. 

And, as we all know, this is consistent with the FIFA policy of bringing more excitement regarding soccer to smaller countries who would have no chance of hosting on their own, whether in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas.


----------



## GunnerJacket

To be sure, and I wasn't intending to sound snarky. That's just info held over from discussions elsewhere about "_Why can't Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal play in a Canadian league?_!"


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> To be sure, and I wasn't intending to sound snarky. That's just info held over from discussions elsewhere about "_Why can't Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal play in a Canadian league?_!"


Reality is way too complicated (or organic or maybe just real) for things to happen as reason suggests. The mark of reason is the straight line; the mark of nature is chaos..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

GunnerJacket said:


> Canada is undergoing their latest Census, with most guessing putting their total population at just around/under 40mm. In 2016 they registered just over 35mm.
> 
> Also, let's not let this thread get sidetracked with debates about general FIFA proposals, please. Thank you.


Thanks, I only meant to share general FIFA proposals to clarify what I was saying on a post I made after someone else commented. I will try my best to keep talking about what is directly relevant about the thread. I will make a new thread about future tournaments run by FIFA and the six confederations.


----------



## GunnerJacket

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I will make a new thread about future tournaments run by FIFA and the six confederations.


I know we have a general IOC/Olympics thread, though it's now about 6 pages back. Thought we had the same for FIFA, but you can start one specific to proposed changes to the WC format and hosting conditions.


----------



## ElvisBC

there is definitely no need for another fifa thread, it is all covered in existing ones, but these boards are overmoderated anyway so it won‘t do any harm beside diverse beach soccer and futsal threads 😁


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

GunnerJacket said:


> I know we have a general IOC/Olympics thread, though it's now about 6 pages back. Thought we had the same for FIFA, but you can start one specific to proposed changes to the WC format and hosting conditions.


Thanks, I created a new forum. Future FIFA Competitions


----------



## ElvisBC

probably irrelevant for the selection itself, but florida is fully behind it‘s host candidates. florida authorities sending their message to FIFA

FL: Enterprise Florida Board OKs $10M to Support Bids for 2026 FIFA World Cup


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> probably irrelevant for the selection itself, but florida is fully behind it‘s host candidates. florida authorities sending their message to FIFA
> 
> FL: Enterprise Florida Board OKs $10M to Support Bids for 2026 FIFA World Cup


The idea that there will be 11 US sites may have raised hopes for Orlando. Otherwise, maybe someone just over-spent or was owed a political favor.


----------



## aquamaroon

Regarding a potential "Boston" hosting (really halfway between Boston and Providence) Bob Kraft and the Patriots recently came out with their plans for an upcoming renovation (h/t to RMB2007 for initially bringing the news to the board):


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1469316095802843141
And for our purposes here are the two most notable renders showing the bowl and the field:



















IMO it's a quite a nice renovation for American Football, but that said it has an obvious flaw for Soccer: *THE ALL IMPORTANT COVERED SEATING (DUN DUN DUN!!)* lol. That said for FIFA's purposes I can see this renovation being enough for them, as long as the money flows and their luxury boxes are ample (which are both the case here) I think they will be willing to look the other way on the roof issue for 2026.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Regarding a potential "Boston" hosting (really halfway between Boston and Providence) Bob Kraft and the Patriots recently came out with their plans for an upcoming renovation (h/t to RMB2007 for initially bringing the news to the board):
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1469316095802843141
> And for our purposes here are the two most notable renders showing the bowl and the field:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMO it's a quite a nice renovation for American Football, but that said it has an obvious flaw for Soccer: *THE ALL IMPORTANT COVERED SEATING (DUN DUN DUN!!)* lol. That said for FIFA's purposes I can see this renovation being enough for them, as long as the money flows and their luxury boxes are ample (which are both the case here) I think they will be willing to look the other way on the roof issue for 2026.


I agree. Luxury boxes are all the covered seating you need. I take this as a sign that Boston is in.


----------



## pesto

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-is-in-good-position-to-host-world-cup-soccer-lieutenant-governor-says/article_d44eee35-880e-5d9c-aa8f-15639e83f551.html



Governor of Missouri thinks KC is a near lock to be a 2026 host city.


----------



## pesto

Actually the Lt. Governor, but close enough.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-is-in-good-position-to-host-world-cup-soccer-lieutenant-governor-says/article_d44eee35-880e-5d9c-aa8f-15639e83f551.html
> 
> 
> 
> Governor of Missouri thinks KC is a near lock to be a 2026 host city.


Hmm. I might take that bet.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/missouri-is-in-good-position-to-host-world-cup-soccer-lieutenant-governor-says/article_d44eee35-880e-5d9c-aa8f-15639e83f551.html
> 
> 
> 
> Governor of Missouri thinks KC is a near lock to be a 2026 host city.


I hope no decision is a "near lock" as FIFA needs to prioritize the future international calendar over what cities get games in this world cup.


----------



## ElvisBC

they should prioritize the fact if the plums are ripe as well!!

stop the crap about calendar please, 2026 world cup with 48 teams is carved in stone and future football calendar is going to have zero influence onto that. it will be set around the world cup, not vice versa.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

ElvisBC said:


> they should prioritize the fact if the plums are ripe as well!!
> 
> stop the crap about calendar please, 2026 world cup with 48 teams is carved in stone and future football calendar is going to have zero influence onto that. it will be set around the world cup, not vice versa.


All I need to say is that the players and clubs still did not have input into the 48 team decision. A little bit of backlash can go a long way. It is only considered "carved in stone" by FIFA and the bid committee.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Sorry if I am sounding like I am beating a dead horse, but the big club sides of the world can still greatly affect the World Cup after the 2022 edition, including the tournament this thread is about. Still think I am a liar, I have a reputable source to back my claims. https://theathletic.com/news/global...ar-including-biennial-world-cup/YCToPb03TDhV/


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Sorry if I am sounding like I am beating a dead horse, but the big club sides of the world can still greatly affect the World Cup after the 2022 edition, including the tournament this thread is about. Still think I am a liar, I have a reputable source to back my claims. https://theathletic.com/news/global...ar-including-biennial-world-cup/YCToPb03TDhV/


And before you say it does not mention the 2026 World Cup, the international calendar they are coming up with will cover the 2026 tournament.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> And before you say it does not mention the 2026 World Cup, the international calendar they are coming up with will cover the 2026 tournament.


I say this is relevant to this tournament because the calendar they come with could possibly not accommodate a expanded World Cup so the bid committee has to be very careful when selecting stadiums as this unpredictable FIFA regime is making the beautiful game harder for all of us.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I say this is relevant to this tournament because the calendar they come with could possibly not accommodate a expanded World Cup so the bid committee has to be very careful when selecting stadiums as this unpredictable FIFA regime is making the beautiful game harder for all of us.


Shoot, I forgot to read this part of the article…

“FIFA, having won the battle to expand World Cups from 32 to 48 teams, wants to go further. Twice as many World Cups would mean more revenue for FIFA.”

However I am still skeptical about a 48 team World Cup.


----------



## JYDA

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I say this is relevant to this tournament because the calendar they come with could possibly not accommodate a expanded World Cup so the bid committee has to be very careful when selecting stadiums as this unpredictable FIFA regime is making the beautiful game harder for all of us.


The maximum number of days for the tournament (32) and maximum number of games for each team (7) remains unchanged from the 32 team format. FIFA confirmed this back in 2017 when it was finalized. There's nothing to debate with the calendar on this.










'A football decision, not a money grab'


Fifa president Gianni Infantino defends the expansion of the World Cup to 48 teams, saying the change is based on "sporting merit" not money.




www.bbc.com





_Responding to criticism from European clubs, Infantino added: "The game has changed. Football has now become a truly global game. Everyone is happy about investment in Europe, but what about helping outside Europe? They need to be open.
*
"The key message from clubs I appreciate fully has always been don't touch the calendar, the dates of the World Cup or the burden for the players, and both these commissions fulfil them*.

*"We will play 32 days like now, we play maximum seven matches like now*, 12 stadiums, like now, but give the chance for more countries to dream."

*How it would work?*


The World Cup's weirdest format changes

The number of tournament matches will rise to 80, from 64, *but the eventual winners will still play only seven games.

The tournament will be completed within 32 days - a measure to appease powerful European clubs, who objected to reform because of a crowded international schedule*_


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

JYDA said:


> The maximum number of days for the tournament (32) and maximum number of games for each team (7) remains unchanged from the 32 team format. FIFA confirmed this back in 2017 when it was finalized. There's nothing to debate with the calendar on this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'A football decision, not a money grab'
> 
> 
> Fifa president Gianni Infantino defends the expansion of the World Cup to 48 teams, saying the change is based on "sporting merit" not money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Responding to criticism from European clubs, Infantino added: "The game has changed. Football has now become a truly global game. Everyone is happy about investment in Europe, but what about helping outside Europe? They need to be open.
> 
> *"The key message from clubs I appreciate fully has always been don't touch the calendar, the dates of the World Cup or the burden for the players, and both these commissions fulfil them*.
> 
> *"We will play 32 days like now, we play maximum seven matches like now*, 12 stadiums, like now, but give the chance for more countries to dream."
> 
> *How it would work?*
> 
> 
> The World Cup's weirdest format changes
> 
> The number of tournament matches will rise to 80, from 64, *but the eventual winners will still play only seven games.
> 
> The tournament will be completed within 32 days - a measure to appease powerful European clubs, who objected to reform because of a crowded international schedule*_


I probably should just come to the conclusion that this one will be 48 as of now. I still will have my doubts but I will shut about the whole 32-48 team jump unless an announcement or debate happens (which could never even happen).


----------



## glksc

*Enterprise Florida Board Approves $10 Million to Support Bids by Miami and Orlando to Host the 2026 FIFA World Cup *










> TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – On December 8, Enterprise Florida, Inc.’s (EFI) Board of Directors voted to make $10 million in funds available to support Miami and Orlando’s ongoing bids to be selected as two of the ten U.S. host cities for the 2026 FIFA World Cup tournament. If selected as hosts, these funds will support the cities’ logistical needs to host hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of visitors over the month-long competition.
> 
> “Bringing the FIFA World Cup back to Florida would be an ideal complement to the attractions, amenities, and events already staged in the Sunshine State,” said Governor Ron DeSantis. “Today we are making sure that Orlando and Miami have the resources they need to bring the World Cup to the state.”
> 
> “Hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Florida would elevate Florida’s status as the world’s premier tourism destination even further, creating a tremendous and reverberating economic boom to the $57.4 billion impact that sports already has on our state,” said Acting Secretary of Commerce Marc Adler, President and CEO of Enterprise Florida, Inc. “We are proud to support Governor DeSantis in his mission to make Florida the world’s top sporting destination.”
> 
> “Florida has the infrastructure, workforce, and experience in tourism and hosting large scale events that make it a perfect fit to offer two host cities for the World Cup,” said Holly Borgmann, Vice Chairman of the Enterprise Florida Board of Directors. “Enterprise Florida is proud to be able to support Miami and Orlando’s efforts, which align perfectly with Governor DeSantis’ and our state’s economic development leaders’ efforts to keep Florida’s economy open, and consistently support business and industry and the world’s number one tourism economy.”


*State backs efforts to draw FIFA World Cup to Orlando, Miami*


> The state money wouldn’t be released until contracts are signed for either potential venue.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Does anyone have any idea which cities will host games in the 2026 World Cup. I personally think it will look something like the Gold Cup and it will be mostly in the United States with a handful of games going to Canada and Mexico. Not sure if they will stick to 60 10 10 split like the bid or even stick to just 16 venues as I have a good feeling this World Cup will have a Gold Cup feel to it in regards to venues and host cities.


----------



## ElvisBC

yes we do but it is big secret we do not give away to everyone

btw, I think you should stop posting here, no offense but nearly everything you posted on these boards is total nonsense


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

ElvisBC said:


> yes we do but it is big secret we do not give away to everyone
> 
> btw, I think you should stop posting here, no offense but nearly everything you posted on these boards is total nonsense


Thanks, I will take a break from this board as you and probably many others think what I say on hear is nonsense. Be sure to check out the board I created about future FIFA competitions.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Thanks, I will take a break from this board as you and probably many others think what I say on hear is nonsense. Be sure to check out the board I created about future FIFA competitions.











Future FIFA Competitions


On December 20th of 2021, FIFA will host a global summit on the future of football/soccer. This will be the start of talks about what the future of the sport will look like. For context, before this summit, the following things happened... FIFA pledged to expand the World Cup, starting with...




www.skyscrapercity.com


----------



## Pinkerton89

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Future FIFA Competitions
> 
> 
> On December 20th of 2021, FIFA will host a global summit on the future of football/soccer. This will be the start of talks about what the future of the sport will look like. For context, before this summit, the following things happened... FIFA pledged to expand the World Cup, starting with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.skyscrapercity.com


Genuinely wonder if CONMEBOL and UEFA might break away from FIFA if a biennial World Cup is pushed through by the other confederations.

They could easily hold their own Championship every 4 years instead and take most of the commercial interest with them.


----------



## pesto

Seems more like busy PR groups trying to keep their names in the news to build their brand. These are cartels, so in the end they will do whatever promises the most money over the midterm future. In the meantime, keep your profile high..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Developments from Mexico regarding 2026 World Cup. Let me know how you think Mexico's share of the 2026 World Cup will look. Canada's already took a blow with Montreal backing out. I think these negative developments hurt Mexico's chances of having three host cities as initially promised. Oh well, at least the United States still has 17 in the running. FIFA sanctions Mexico to 2 games behind closed doors for fans' homophobic chant FIFA says it takes World Cup security "seriously" during Mexico City visit


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Developments from Mexico regarding 2026 World Cup. Let me know how you think Mexico's share of the 2026 World Cup will look. Canada's already took a blow with Montreal backing out. I think these negative developments hurt Mexico's chances of having three host cities as initially promised. Oh well, at least the United States still has 17 in the running. FIFA sanctions Mexico to 2 games behind closed doors for fans' homophobic chant FIFA says it takes World Cup security "seriously" during Mexico City visit


Penalties such as empty stadiums or moving matches to the US is not good since it just emphasizes to the world that there is a problem. As an off-hand guess, they will make a show of trying to suppress the chants and then fine Mexico after they occur. .

You also have to wonder if the chants will follow El Tri to the US (especially California and Texas, which have huge Mexican communities and amenities).


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

miguelon said:


> With all due respect, the Gold Cup is such a bad tournament overall, in and out the pitch, its an amateurish tournament.
> 
> Been to several Gold Cup games myself in the US, and the only reason it get "big" its when the final involves Mexico vs USA.
> Often, they don't use all the venues facilities, (been to games, where they close out stadium restaurants, certain parking locations, etc.).
> 
> First round games, that do not involve Mexico, have the logistics of a High School american football game,
> 
> I'll take as a better precedent, the 2011 U-17 Fifa World Cup, or the 2011 Panamerican Games at Guadalajara, which were way bigger than 2 or 3 World Cup Games. Even the 2012 G20 meeting at Los Cabos and 2021 CELAC meeting with dozens of heads of state.
> 
> You might not be aware, but before Covid, LigaMX derbies, often involve attendances of over 80,000, with controlled access, and segregated crowds. with police operations that involve +3,000 police officers, in and around stadiums. with multiple checkpoint on extended perimeters to stadiums.


Lets not get into the debate about which trophies are prestigious and which are are not. However, it is worth pointing out that many seemingly lock ins with world class venues could not make the cut for the US and Canada as the cities could not meet FIFA's demands. The progress in Mexico is slower than the other two countries and I suggest hosting at least a few Gold Cup games as that is to me the closest thing to the World Cup and that will work like Olympic test events held a year before the Olympics. The ones holding Mexico back the furthest is their government as they really have not been saying much about how they will meet FIFA's demands.


----------



## Ramanaramana

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Maybe I should have not have brought up the parades. I would not say Mexico's three cities are a guarantee just yet as FIFA is the one that makes the final call and they can deem one of the stadiums unsuitable. Also the Mexican government needs to be on more even terms with FIFA as they have really been slow compared to Canada and the US.


What is it about the stadiums that you think Fifa might not find adequate? Guadalajara and Monterrey have excellent modern stadiums, better than anything Canada brings to the table, and more football-friendly than most American ones. Azteca has hosted World Cup finals and is deemed good enough for the national team, club matches, and NFL.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> What is it about the stadiums that you think Fifa might not find adequate? Guadalajara and Monterrey have excellent modern stadiums, better than anything Canada brings to the table, and more football-friendly than most American ones. Azteca has hosted World Cup finals and is deemed good enough for the national team, club matches, and NFL.


I think the stadiums are alright but the problem with Mexico is the government is seemingly hesitant to meet FIFA demands unlike the US and Canada. We will only know which stadiums make the cut when the final decision is made and that could be quite some time from now.


----------



## miguelon

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I think the stadiums are alright but the problem with Mexico is the government is seemingly hesitant to meet FIFA demands unlike the US and Canada. We will only know which stadiums make the cut when the final decision is made and that could be quite some time from now.


What demands they are refusing? 

I think that you underestimate the world cups popularity in Mexico and the way Mexico's goverment works. It's so overwhelmingly popular. That whatever it takes, it will be done. No questions asked.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

miguelon said:


> What demands they are refusing?
> 
> I think that you underestimate the world cups popularity in Mexico and the way Mexico's goverment works. It's so overwhelmingly popular. That whatever it takes, it will be done. No questions asked.


I remember the FIFA tournament organizer said that a lot needs to be done and not to mention the Mexican government might not want to meet FIFA’s demands like some American and Canadian cities. Plus there is this whole story about Mexico having its games behind closed doors because of a particular chant some of their fans make.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I remember the FIFA tournament organizer said that a lot needs to be done and not to mention Mexico might not want to meet FIFA’s demands like some American and Canadian cities. Plus there is this whole story about Mexico having its games behind closed doors because of a particular chant some of their fans make.


Those cities include Chicago, Minneapolis, Montreal and Vancouver.


----------



## pesto

These objections sound more theoretical than likely except for the chant. For the chant, Mexico will have to make reasonable efforts to suppress it or risk losing some matches.

But I'm not sure moving the matches to the US will suppress the chant completely. Might have to go to Edmonton?


----------



## miguelon

Chicago, Vancouver, Las Vegas, among others, have backed out, not because of lack of capacity, but because there was political unwillingness to go over the whole process, and probably they feared that the public opinion was not 100% sure to be behind this effort and giving logistical, financial and taxation aid.

In Mexico, the equation its the oposite, if a mayor or state governor passes away the opportunity to host FIFA WC games, then he/she would be in deeeep trouble. (Imagine that you only get to host the Super Bowl only every 60 years, and you said that prefer to pass)

Also, even thought you need the blessing of the Mexican federal government, in the end, most of the resources used for FIFA WC games, would come from states and cities. And each of the 3 proposed Mexican host cities, has on its own, more than enough resources to host only 3 games each. Each of the 3 stadiums are privately owned, the airports are private, let alone hotels, etc.

And the whole rationale to select Mexico City, Monterey and Guadalajara, was that they do not need to build anything, they already have the stadiums, thousands of hotel rooms, ready to go airports, ready to go public transport, convention centers, training grounds, etc. Just compare these 3 cities vs all the cities that hosted the 2018 World Cup (bar Moscow).


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> These objections sound more theoretical than likely except for the chant. For the chant, Mexico will have to make reasonable efforts to suppress it or risk losing some matches.
> 
> But I'm not sure moving the matches to the US will suppress the chant completely. Might have to go to Edmonton?


While I think little can be done to stop the chant, a lot of the problems with Mexico still remain as the progress there has been slow compared to the US and Canada and the reports are saying FIFA are having a hard time planning this tournament because of the countless stadiums trying to get games and what makes most sense for travel reasons. FIFA’s demands are high and Mexico are in a weaker position than either of the other co-hosts. FIFA will still probably keep punishing Mexico for the chant even though it clearly does not work. With all those things said I would not be surprised Mexico pulls out unless they hold some Gold Cup games as a test and it is successful. By the way, FIFA have yet to finalize the automatic qualification spots so El Tri could possibly not be hurt if Mexico doesn’t host.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

miguelon said:


> Chicago, Vancouver, Las Vegas, among others, have backed out, not because of lack of capacity, but because there was political unwillingness to go over the whole process, and probably they feared that the public opinion was not 100% sure to be behind this effort and giving logistical, financial and taxation aid.
> 
> In Mexico, the equation its the oposite, if a mayor or state governor passes away the opportunity to host FIFA WC games, then he/she would be in deeeep trouble. (Imagine that you only get to host the Super Bowl only every 60 years, and you said that prefer to pass)
> 
> Also, even thought you need the blessing of the Mexican federal government, in the end, most of the resources used for FIFA WC games, would come from states and cities. And each of the 3 proposed Mexican host cities, has on its own, more than enough resources to host only 3 games each. Each of the 3 stadiums are privately owned, the airports are private, let alone hotels, etc.
> 
> And the whole rationale to select Mexico City, Monterey and Guadalajara, was that they do not need to build anything, they already have the stadiums, thousands of hotel rooms, ready to go airports, ready to go public transport, convention centers, training grounds, etc. Just compare these 3 cities vs all the cities that hosted the 2018 World Cup (bar Moscow).


FIFA still makes the final call and they may deem Mexico unsuitable. As for the Mexican government, they still may not be willing to meet FIFA’s demands. Yes those cities will be heartbroken if they are not hosting games, however, the demands are still the demands.


----------



## miguelon

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> FIFA still makes the final call and they may deem Mexico unsuitable. As for the Mexican government, they still may not be willing to meet FIFA’s demands. Yes those cities will be heartbroken if they are not hosting games, however, the demands are still the demands.


Sure, FIFA has the final word, but, again:

What demands they are refusing to comply?
And why they may be redeem unsuitable? 

Or you are just making hypothetical questions, which in that case apply to every city.
I'm assuming these type of events have Plan B, C and D.

Heck, even the NFL has Plan B only within weeks from the SB, in case they cant go ahead with LA.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

miguelon said:


> Sure, FIFA has the final word, but, again:
> 
> What demands they are refusing to comply?
> And why they may be redeem unsuitable?
> 
> Or you are just making hypothetical questions, which in that case apply to every city.
> I'm assuming these type of events have Plan B, C and D.
> 
> Heck, even the NFL has Plan B only within weeks from the SB, in case they cant go ahead with LA.


I do know a lot as I do not speak for FIFA. All I heard were that the Mexican federation’s boss seemed willing to give up the games if FIFA keeps punishing Mexico. As for security, FIFA seems like they think more compromises need to be made for Mexico. The plan B is have less than three stadiums. Plan C is just chose from the American and Canadian stadiums.


----------



## pesto

The rea


chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I do know a lot as I do not speak for FIFA. All I heard were that the Mexican federation’s boss seemed willing to give up the games if FIFA keeps punishing Mexico. As for security, FIFA seems like they think more compromises need to be made for Mexico. The plan B is have less than three stadiums. Plan C is just chose from the American and Canadian stadiums.


People here are trying to explain that these are very remote possibilities, but you seem not to want to hear that. It's like earthquakes in California or hurricanes in Miami. It could happen but you don't plan your whole multi-nation program around them. It's understood that if they do happen you change plans.

The chant issue is more real because Mexicans pride themselves on not bowing to threats (there is a whole literature on this going back to the Spanish conquest, and it is well known among other Latins). So I'm not sure that Mexicans will stop chanting under any threat, even if it means moving matches or empty stadiums.

But it will be interesting to see where this goes and what FIFA can do about it.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> The rea
> 
> People here are trying to explain that these are very remote possibilities, but you seem not to want to hear that. It's like earthquakes in California or hurricanes in Miami. It could happen but you don't plan your whole multi-nation program around them. It's understood that if they do happen you change plans.
> 
> The chant issue is more real because Mexicans pride themselves on not bowing to threats (there is a whole literature on this going back to the Spanish conquest, and it is well known among other Latins). So I'm not sure that Mexicans will stop chanting under any threat, even if it means moving matches or empty stadiums.
> 
> But it will be interesting to see where this goes and what FIFA can do about it.


Maybe I was over emphasizing on Mexico. The only reason I was doing so is because all the news from there regarding 2026 seemed negative. I could have just as easily focused on natural disasters like you mentioned. How the 2026 World Cup will look relies heavily on the 2024 international calendar. If it stays four years, 48 teams seems like a perfect amount. If it bumps up to two years, FIFA might have to reconsider the World Cup expansion. Also progress for the stadium selection will definitely be stalled if talks about the calendar still continue into halfway this year.


----------



## Ramanaramana

I don't reckon there'll be any going back on the 48 expansion. Since every confederation benefits from it in the form of greater representation, that's one genie that's not going back in the bottle. More chance of 64 teams than 32 again I feel.

It's only 16 extra matches or something like that with the expansion.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> I don't reckon there'll be any going back on the 48 expansion. Since every confederation benefits from it in the form of greater representation, that's one genie that's not going back in the bottle. More chance of 64 teams than 32 again I feel.
> 
> It's only 16 extra matches or something like that with the expansion.


Yes, sounds like more money at minimal cost. You can use the same number of cities and stadiums but get more revenue. 

Plus you pique interest in a few more fairly large countries who don't consistently get into the group of 32 (say, Turkey, Iran, Australia, S. Africa). Right now it's basically Europe and Lat. Am..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Yes, sounds like more money at minimal cost. You can use the same number of cities and stadiums but get more revenue.
> 
> Plus you pique interest in a few more fairly large countries who don't consistently get into the group of 32 (say, Turkey, Iran, Australia, S. Africa). Right now it's basically Europe and Lat. Am..


My opinion is that the only way FIFA and its members will be willing to go back on expansion is if they double the frequency of the World Cup. The whole reason they voted to expand I think was for a short term solution to their problem of inequality in the international game. If they double the frequency, they should have no need to expand as more big teams will inevitably crash and burn and the smaller teams will be able take advantage of that. In my opinion, they chose the 48 team expansion because they were probably not thinking about doubling the frequency of the World Cup. FIFA has until 2024 to make any final decisions. I would prefer this conversation was on the forum I specifically created for these ideas than if it were on the forum about the 2026 World Cup.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> My opinion is that the only way FIFA and its members will be willing to go back on expansion is if they double the frequency of the World Cup. The whole reason they voted to expand I think was for a short term solution to their problem of inequality in the international game. If they double the frequency, they should have no need to expand as more big teams will inevitably crash and burn and the smaller teams will be able take advantage of that. In my opinion, they chose the 48 team expansion because they were probably not thinking about doubling the frequency of the World Cup. FIFA has until 2024 to make any final decisions. I would prefer this conversation was on the forum I specifically created for these ideas than if it were on the forum about the 2026 World Cup.











Future FIFA Competitions


On December 20th of 2021, FIFA will host a global summit on the future of football/soccer. This will be the start of talks about what the future of the sport will look like. For context, before this summit, the following things happened... FIFA pledged to expand the World Cup, starting with...




www.skyscrapercity.com


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> My opinion is that the only way FIFA and its members will be willing to go back on expansion is if they double the frequency of the World Cup. The whole reason they voted to expand I think was for a short term solution to their problem of inequality in the international game. If they double the frequency, they should have no need to expand as more big teams will inevitably crash and burn and the smaller teams will be able take advantage of that. In my opinion, they chose the 48 team expansion because they were probably not thinking about doubling the frequency of the World Cup. FIFA has until 2024 to make any final decisions. I would prefer this conversation was on the forum I specifically created for these ideas than if it were on the forum about the 2026 World Cup.


I doubt they would go back on expansion for the reasons people have given (let in more mid-sized countries, more publicity, more matches, more revenues) even if they go biennial; these proposals are aimed at different specific objectives.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> I doubt they would go back on expansion for the reasons people have given (let in more mid-sized countries, more publicity, more matches, more revenues) even if they go biennial; these proposals are aimed at different specific objectives.


Oh well we will just have to wait and see. I think my reasoning was perfect though. By the way if you want to talk about this, go to the forum I created because we are getting off topic on this forum.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I will be keeping close track of this. Wonder how this will influence FiFA's decision.


Azteca is an icon in world soccer but fell into some disrepair due to overuse and poor maintenance (you may recall when the NFL pulled a game out of it a couple of years ago due to the condition of the field).. This was embarrassing, heads rolled and the federal government said it wasn't going to happen again. They are making substantial improvements.

The local infrastructure plans have been in development some time and FIFA will be well aware of them. The Mayor of Mexico City (actually more like the governor of the region and a leading figure in Mexican politics) discussed the plans with them. The private parties are eager to start and the government is basically making sure that what is done is in compliance with local building standards and works for the locals 

Again, if some locals know more about this it would be nice to hear from them.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Azteca is an icon in world soccer but fell into some disrepair due to overuse and poor maintenance (you may recall when the NFL pulled a game out of it a couple of years ago due to the condition of the field).. This was embarrassing, heads rolled and the federal government said it wasn't going to happen again. They are making substantial improvements.
> 
> The local infrastructure plans have been in development some time and FIFA will be well aware of them. The Mayor of Mexico City (actually more like the governor of the region and a leading figure in Mexican politics) discussed the plans with them. The private parties are eager to start and the government is basically making sure that what is done is in compliance with local building standards and works for the locals
> 
> Again, if some locals know more about this it would be nice to hear from them.


I wonder how the Azteca will effect FIFA’s decision on CDMX. It will be interesting to find out as they want to make the decision in April but the deadline for feedback for the stadium district is over in October, well after the targeted date for the stadium selection.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I wonder how the Azteca will effect FIFA’s decision on CDMX. It will be interesting to find out as they want to make the decision in April but the deadline for feedback for the stadium district is over in October, well after the targeted date for the stadium selection.


I would say that FIFA knows they want Azteca and Mexico City. Based on information they have, they will announce Azteca in April on the assumption that public comments on the project will be immaterial to FIFA's plans. I would assume that leading Mexican politicians and business leaders have confirmed this.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> I would say that FIFA knows they want Azteca and Mexico City. Based on information they have, they will announce Azteca in April on the assumption that public comments on the project will be immaterial to FIFA's plans. I would assume that leading Mexican politicians and business leaders have confirmed this.


I would say announcing the Azteca would make sense if the thing outside the stadium is built. I think FIFA should have a backup plan if the Azteca stadium district does not get built as that could be vital to FIFA’s security needs. I am a bit skeptical about Monterrey and Guadalajara hosting games as those stadiums are smaller and will have a hard time competing with the might of the American stadiums. I would expect the logistics of CDMX to the rest of the cities to be similar to what CONCACAF did with Jamaica and Costa Rica in the 2019 Gold Cup.


----------



## miguelon

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I would say announcing the Azteca would make sense if the thing outside the stadium is built. I think FIFA should have a backup plan if the Azteca stadium district does not get built as that could be vital to FIFA’s security needs. I am a bit skeptical about Monterrey and Guadalajara hosting games as those stadiums are smaller and will have a hard time competing with the might of the American stadiums. I would expect the logistics of CDMX to the rest of the cities to be similar to what CONCACAF did with Jamaica and Costa Rica in the 2019 Gold Cup.


Are you really comparing Costa Rica and Jamaica, with the Gold Cup to the World Cup?

Monterrey at 52,000 and Guadalajara at 49,000, each would have been the 3rd biggest stadium in Russia 2018 or Qatar 2022. Also, each one of them, would have been the 2nd metro area in Russia, and bigger than all of Qatar.

Have you been to Monterrey or Guadalajara? at least checked their forums here?

What does the Azteca Stadium "district" (something that doesn't exist btw), is relevant? If anything, FIFA loves wide open spaces near their venues, so that they can use those areas for their own advantage/sponsors, etc. Also, facilitares, a buffer zone for security reasons. That being said, Azteca Stadium, needs to be remodeled, and soon, regardless of the 2026 World Cup or not.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

miguelon said:


> Are you really comparing Costa Rica and Jamaica, with the Gold Cup to the World Cup?
> 
> Monterrey at 52,000 and Guadalajara at 49,000, each would have been the 3rd biggest stadium in Russia 2018 or Qatar 2022. Also, each one of them, would have been the 2nd metro area in Russia, and bigger than all of Qatar.
> 
> Have you been to Monterrey or Guadalajara? at least checked their forums here?
> 
> What does the Azteca Stadium "district" (something that doesn't exist btw), is relevant? If anything, FIFA loves wide open spaces near their venues, so that they can use those areas for their own advantage/sponsors, etc. Also, facilitares, a buffer zone for security reasons. That being said, Azteca Stadium, needs to be remodeled, and soon, regardless of the 2026 World Cup or not.


The "district" I was talking about is the Conjunto Estadio Azteca, a proposed area next to the existing Estadio Azteca that will house various things related to hosting a big event. As for Monterrey and Guadalajara, they would be in a great position to host games in the 2026 World Cup if it was not for the fact that the US stadium roster is stacked with 60,000+ state of the art NFL stadiums that simply will make far more money than the stadiums in those two cities. Sources in Canada said their country was feeling pressure on missing out on a few games because of America's stadium roster, so I assume the feeling in Mexico is similar. I only suggested Jamaica and Costa Rica as them hosting games there back in the 2019 Gold Cup could provide similar logistics that we might see in the 2026 World Cup. Relevant Links: Mexico: Estadio Azteca getting ready for 2026 World Cup – StadiumDB.com Montreal withdraws host bid for World Cup 2026, opening up market for US cities - Inside World Football


----------



## miguelon

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The "district" I was talking about is the Conjunto Estadio Azteca, a proposed area next to the existing Estadio Azteca that will house various things related to hosting a big event. As for Monterrey and Guadalajara, they would be in a great position to host games in the 2026 World Cup if it was not for the fact that the US stadium roster is stacked with 60,000+ state of the art NFL stadiums that simply will make far more money than the stadiums in those two cities. Sources in Canada said their country was feeling pressure on missing out on a few games because of America's stadium roster, so I assume the feeling in Mexico is similar. I only suggested Jamaica and Costa Rica as them hosting games there back in the 2019 Gold Cup could provide similar logistics that we might see in the 2026 World Cup. Relevant Links: Mexico: Estadio Azteca getting ready for 2026 World Cup – StadiumDB.com Montreal withdraws host bid for World Cup 2026, opening up market for US cities - Inside World Football


Again, im assuming you don't follow football at all, if you did, you would know that there is nothing in common the logistics of the 1st round of the Gold Cup vs the FIFA World Cup?
Pretty much, a single game of Liga MX involves bigger logistics.

And that "feeling" is probably only in your mind, the 3 proposed stadiums for Mexico in 2026, are more than ok, even for quarterfinals. And that's the whole reasoning of getting involved in this way, you get a piece of the action, at minimum expense.

People forget, that 2026 is probably a unique scenario, when you have by far the biggest selection of potential host cities even. Honestly, if going by any other WC Standards, the 2026 bid has up to 40 potential host cities between the 3 countries, this is a unique problem. Your typical bid, has the oposite issue, only a few real major cities, and they have to help up the medium/smaller cities to get them up to FIFA demands.

Lets take again 2018, taking out Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the next largest cities to host games were Yekaterinburg and Kazan, with a metro areas of 1.4 million and 1.2 million, but being Russia's 4rd or 5th city, they were almost a given to host games. Kazan had 6 games, including a round of 16 and a quarterfinal on a 45,000 stadium.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

miguelon said:


> Again, im assuming you don't follow football at all, if you did, you would know that there is nothing in common the logistics of the 1st round of the Gold Cup vs the FIFA World Cup?
> Pretty much, a single game of Liga MX involves bigger logistics.
> 
> And that "feeling" is probably only in your mind, the 3 proposed stadiums for Mexico in 2026, are more than ok, even for quarterfinals. And that's the whole reasoning of getting involved in this way, you get a piece of the action, at minimum expense.


For logistics, it might not be that bad as if they fly, it will be relatively quick between Mexico and Houston or Dallas. As with the stadiums in Monterrey and Guadalajara, they are more than okay but they have less capacity than the American ones in the running so I do not know how that will affect things.


----------



## miguelon

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> For logistics, it might not be that bad as if they fly, it will be relatively quick between Mexico and Houston or Dallas. As with the stadiums in Monterrey and Guadalajara, they are more than okay but they have less capacity than the American ones in the running so I do not know how that will affect things.


What are you referring about fly in? how do you think that the bulk of Liga MX teams move around?


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> Again, im assuming you don't follow football at all, if you did, you would know that there is nothing in common the logistics of the 1st round of the Gold Cup vs the FIFA World Cup?
> Pretty much, a single game of Liga MX involves bigger logistics.
> 
> And that "feeling" is probably only in your mind, the 3 proposed stadiums for Mexico in 2026, are more than ok, even for quarterfinals. And that's the whole reasoning of getting involved in this way, you get a piece of the action, at minimum expense.
> 
> People forget, that 2026 is probably a unique scenario, when you have by far the biggest selection of potential host cities even. Honestly, if going by any other WC Standards, the 2026 bid has up to 40 potential host cities between the 3 countries, this is a unique problem. Your typical bid, has the oposite issue, only a few real major cities, and they have to help up the medium/smaller cities to get them up to FIFA demands.
> 
> Lets take again 2018, taking out Moscow and Saint Petersburg, the next largest cities to host games were Yekaterinburg and Kazan, with a metro areas of 1.4 million and 1.2 million, but being Russia's 4rd or 5th city, they were almost a given to host games. Kazan had 6 games, including a round of 16 and a quarterfinal on a 45,000 stadium.


And you didn't mention that Mexico has actually hosted the WC before, and that Monterrey and Guadalajara have multiple first division clubs. They know soccer far better than any of the US cities.

FIFA knew all about the size, quality and social context of the three cities back when they brokered Mexico's inclusion in the United Bid. The agreement that they would get 10 games in 3 cities was acceptable to all 3 countries. Attempting to make unilateral changes this late would have a dampening effect on FIFA's bona fides in future talks with potential bidders..


----------



## Ramanaramana

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> For logistics, it might not be that bad as if they fly, it will be relatively quick between Mexico and Houston or Dallas. As with the stadiums in Monterrey and Guadalajara, *they are more than okay but they have less capacity than the American ones in the running so I do not know how that will affect things.*


It won't affect them at all. The bid put together for 2026 didn't place the three countries on equal footing with the most "monetisable" venues being selected. There is a separate American bid, a Mexican bid, and a Canadian bid. Mexico is not going to lose matches to the US because there's a bigger venue going around. It will lose matches if, like in Canada's case, it decides it doesn't want to meet FIFA's hosting requirements. Only then would the option of replacing venues with American ones be looked at as an alternative.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> It won't affect them at all. The bid put together for 2026 didn't place the three countries on equal footing with the most "monetisable" venues being selected. There is a separate American bid, a Mexican bid, and a Canadian bid. Mexico is not going to lose matches to the US because there's a bigger venue going around. It will lose matches if, like in Canada's case, it decides it doesn't want to meet FIFA's hosting requirements. Only then would the option of replacing venues with American ones be looked at as an alternative.


Well FIFA still makes the final call. What was laid out by the bid book was merely a guideline. I read online Mexico was not guaranteed all of its stadiums. One article even stated Canada was being pressured out of some games because of the American stadium selection. Hope this clarifies things.


----------



## Ramanaramana

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Well FIFA still makes the final call. What was laid out by the bid book was merely a guideline. I read online Mexico was not guaranteed all of its stadiums. One article even stated Canada was being pressured out of some games because of the American stadium selection. Hope this clarifies things.


It was a guideline yes, but it was presented as a North American World Cup. Rather, the venues were a guide, not so much the cities. Changing it to Mexico City, Toronto and USA just because some American stadiums have more seats goes against the whole spirit of the bid. Not only that but it would cause outrage among fans and local organisers.

For an organisation keen to avoid bad publicity, kicking out Guadalajara or Monterrey so some US city like Cincinnati can get in is a really bad look.

The other point is that FIFA just wants venues that are suited to hosting matches and meet capacity/amenities requirements. They had no major input about Brazil’s stadiums, because the organisers/government were keen to make the World Cup feel national, which is why big stadiums were built in places that perhaps didn’t need them.

Seeing as they approved 2026 bid, it means they’re happy with Mexican selection. Any why wouldn’t they be? All meet FIFA’s guidelines, and all have long history and experience with large events, in addition to being high quality stadiums.

I can’t understand why you’re doubling down on this. The only way Mexico doesn’t have three venues is if one of the cities backs down, not because FIFA mandates it.

We’re going in circles, so I’ll leave it here.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> It was a guideline yes, but it was presented as a North American World Cup. Rather, the venues were a guide, not so much the cities. Changing it to Mexico City, Toronto and USA just because some American stadiums have more seats goes against the whole spirit of the bid. Not only that but it would cause outrage among fans and local organisers.
> 
> For an organisation keen to avoid bad publicity, kicking out Guadalajara or Monterrey so some US city like Cincinnati can get in is a really bad look.
> 
> The other point is that FIFA just wants venues that are suited to hosting matches and meet capacity/amenities requirements. They had no major input about Brazil’s stadiums, because the organisers/government were keen to make the World Cup feel national, which is why big stadiums were built in places that perhaps didn’t need them.
> 
> Seeing as they approved 2026 bid, it means they’re happy with Mexican selection. Any why wouldn’t they be? All meet FIFA’s guidelines, and all have long history and experience with large events, in addition to being high quality stadiums.
> 
> I can’t understand why you’re doubling down on this. The only way Mexico doesn’t have three venues is if one of the cities backs down, not because FIFA mandates it.
> 
> We’re going in circles, so I’ll leave it here.


We will just have to wait and see. I was basing my thoughts off what I was reading online.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Do any of you have predictions about which venues will be picked? I would love to hear what you think.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Do any of you have predictions about which venues will be picked? I would love to hear what you think.


We've been through this, but not for some time. 

For actual hosting, most say NY, LA, Dallas are for sure; Miami, Atlanta, SF, Seattle, DC likely; then choose 2 or 3 from Houston, Boston, Philly, Denver. Longer shots KC, Nashville, Cincinnati, Orlando, Baltimore..

CDMX, Monterrey, Guadalajara sure things. Edmonton and Toronto sure things. Vancouver and Montreal, dead.

We don't have any insight about whether a grouping approach will be used, although early on there was some talk of it. That could stir up the pot.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> We've been through this, but not for some time.
> 
> For actual hosting, most say NY, LA, Dallas are for sure; Miami, Atlanta, SF, Seattle, DC likely; then choose 2 or 3 from Houston, Boston, Philly, Denver. Longer shots KC, Nashville, Cincinnati, Orlando, Baltimore..
> 
> CDMX, Monterrey, Guadalajara sure things. Edmonton and Toronto sure things. Vancouver and Montreal, dead.
> 
> We don't have any insight about whether a grouping approach will be used, although early on there was some talk of it. That could stir up the pot.


Interesting predictions. I personally think Baltimore is better than Washington due to the former having a more modern stadium. I would be hesitant to call KC or one of Cincinnati or Nashville a longer shot as they can cover a long area in the US. Everything else in the US I agree. As for the other two countries I would consider Toronto and CDMX as near locks. As for Edmonton, Monterrey and Guadalajara they would need to host if the initial promises of the bid were kept to being as close as possible but I would not be surprised if one of those cities' slots goes to an American one. As for the grouping, I would expect it to be similar to the Gold Cup. Thanks a lot @pesto for sharing your predictions and I look forward to what other users have to say.


----------



## Ramanaramana

National spread won't be as important now that key cities like Chicago are out. Chicago pulling out has given hope to Nashville, Kansas City and Cincinnati because I think Chicago would've knocked them all out of the running.


Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle
Denver
Dallas
Houston
Kansas City
Miami
Atlanta
New York
Washington DC
Of the major cities in contention, Boston will be the biggest casualty. Washington will get in because the bid book specifies an expanded capacity of 91,000. Even in its current guise it's much bigger at 82,000 than Philadelphia or Baltimore, and those stadiums are not roofed to put them ahead. And it's Washington.....with all due respect to Philadelphia and Boston, it's a big selling point, especially with Chicago out. It'd be too much to not have both Chicago and Washington DC.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> National spread won't be as important now that key cities like Chicago are out. Chicago pulling out has given hope to Nashville, Kansas City and Cincinnati because I think Chicago would've knocked them all out of the running.
> 
> 
> Los Angeles
> San Francisco
> Seattle
> Denver
> Dallas
> Houston
> Kansas City
> Miami
> Atlanta
> New York
> Washington DC
> Of the major cities in contention, Boston will be the biggest casualty. Washington will get in because the bid book specifies an expanded capacity of 91,000. Even in its current guise it's much bigger at 82,000 than Philadelphia or Baltimore, and those stadiums are not roofed to put them ahead. And it's Washington.....with all due respect to Philadelphia and Boston, it's a big selling point, especially with Chicago out. It'd be too much to not have both Chicago and Washington DC.


Interesting predictions @Ramanaramana, I assume that you are using the 16 host model the bid envisioned and you gave all all Canada's and Mexico's candidates a prediction that they will get in. Thank you so much for the prediction and I hope more will follow.


----------



## Ramanaramana

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Interesting predictions @Ramanaramana, I assume that you are using the 16 host model the bid envisioned and you gave all all Canada's and Mexico's candidates a prediction that they will get in. Thank you so much for the prediction and I hope more will follow.


I consulted Wikipedia, which now states that USA has 11 venues with Vancouver out, rather than the 10-3-3 split originally intended. It makes it easier I think for picking US cities, as with 10 venues you have to be really ruthless.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Do any of you have predictions about which venues will be picked? I would love to hear what you think.


My Predictions...

Near Lock (world class cities and/or venues, always used to the big stage): Atlanta, CDMX, Dallas, LA, Miami, NYC, Toronto
Likely (ethier have decent venue, national spread or are what will bring it as closely to what was intended by bid): Boston, Denver, Edmonton, Guadalajara, Houston, KC, Monterrey, Seattle, SF
In The Mix (could get in but have to compete with each other): Baltimore, Cincinnati, DC, Nashville, Philadelphia
Unlikely (stadium lacks permanent tennant): Orlando


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> I consulted Wikipedia, which now states that USA has 11 venues with Vancouver out, rather than the 10-3-3 split originally intended. It makes it easier I think for picking US cities, as with 10 venues you have to be really ruthless.


That is what I meant.


----------



## pesto

Good choices. A couple of comments.

2026 is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and the 4th of July falls during the WC. DC and Philly each plan largescale celebrations (Boston as well, I would guess). Nothing against KC, but ahead of Boston and Philadelphia on the 250th anniversary of the US?

Maybe Philly just gets a fanfest, but DC is the nation's capital and FIFA would tie-in with iconic buildings and government leaders. 

As always, it's fine to say that KC, Cincy, Nashville, Baltimore, etc., are deserving. You also have to figure out who specifically you are eliminating and why.


----------



## Ramanaramana

The why is easy. High concentration of venues in the same part of North America. New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston and Toronto are all close to each other. To include all them but have nothing in the midwest isn't something I think organisers will choose to do.

Boston and Philadelphia are the easiest to cut from that region. Baltimore I don't believe should even be considered part of the discussion. Same with Cincinnati and Nashville, which seem like choices made on the back on new MLS teams creating some momentum.


----------



## ElvisBC

we have no clue what FIFA is thinking, apart from locks such as NY, LA, Dallas or Miami

and there is always one or another surprise, remember cuiaba or saransk?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Good choices. A couple of comments.
> 
> 2026 is the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, and the 4th of July falls during the WC. DC and Philly each plan largescale celebrations (Boston as well, I would guess). Nothing against KC, but ahead of Boston and Philadelphia on the 250th anniversary of the US?
> 
> Maybe Philly just gets a fanfest, but DC is the nation's capital and FIFA would tie-in with iconic buildings and government leaders.
> 
> As always, it's fine to say that KC, Cincy, Nashville, Baltimore, etc., are deserving. You also have to figure out who specifically you are eliminating and why.


I picked KC in the likely as that would cover a large area in the interior US. I put Boston in the same category as KC. The reason I put Philadelphia in the mix is because nearby NYC is a near lock and Philadelphia also has to compete with nearby Baltimore and DC. I would say Cincinnati and Nashville plus some of the cities in the northeast have to compete with each other, hope one of the likely category cities gets snubbed or hope Canada or Mexico give up one of their slots. Despite the small capacity I would consider Toronto a near lock and should the Mexican government fully commit to FIFA’s demands, CDMX is destined to get games. I only really see Edmonton, Guadalajara or Monterrey as cities that have some chance of missing out should the American cities get overly competitive.


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> we have no clue what FIFA is thinking, apart from locks such as NY, LA, Dallas or Miami
> 
> and there is always one or another surprise, remember cuiaba or saransk?


Different context. Brazil and Russia were new builds, so government and organising body would have worked hand in hand to deliver venues that ticked political boxes among other things. 

That won't be the case in USA. 

Also the wilcards on the table are all close to much better options. I'm betting on no surprises.


----------



## ElvisBC

well, I still think cincy, orlando and that ruin in DC would be quite a surprise, but yes, you‘re right, totally different than before since no newly builts. in the past they ccould have gone anywhere. as they did!


----------



## flierfy

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> As for Monterrey and Guadalajara, they would be in a great position to host games in the 2026 World Cup if it was not for the fact that the US stadium roster is stacked with 60,000+ state of the art NFL stadiums that simply will make far more money than the stadiums in those two cities.


Monterrey and Guadalajara have stadiums with covered stands and no sightline issues. They don't need to fear competition from any American candidate venue. Not that they directly compete against each other. The problem of these Mexican venues is rather their out-of-town location and the poor transport link to their respective towns. But this issue should be familiar in the USA as well.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

flierfy said:


> Monterrey and Guadalajara have stadiums with covered stands and no sightline issues. They don't need to fear competition from any American candidate venue. Not that they directly compete against each other. The problem of these Mexican venues is rather their out-of-town location and the poor transport link to their respective towns. But this issue should be familiar in the USA as well.


The reason I said those two cities as I feel they would not be as lucrative as CDMX and some of the lesser US cities could spend a lot of money in hopes of getting one or two of Mexico’s slots.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The reason I said those two cities as I feel they would not be as lucrative as CDMX and some of the lesser US cities could spend a lot of money in hopes of getting one or two of Mexico’s slots.


But to be fair I put Guadalajara and Monterrey in likely the second highest category I created as my reasoning is that it would be as close to what the bid had envisioned.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> The why is easy. High concentration of venues in the same part of North America. New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston and Toronto are all close to each other. To include all them but have nothing in the midwest isn't something I think organisers will choose to do.
> 
> Boston and Philadelphia are the easiest to cut from that region. Baltimore I don't believe should even be considered part of the discussion. Same with Cincinnati and Nashville, which seem like choices made on the back on new MLS teams creating some momentum.


Can't really disagree. 

But I would guess Boston gets in. Kraft is big in US soccer (the MLS people have pointed out that MLS wouldn't exist without him). He promises stadium improvements and development and there is the 4th of July connection. Boston is the number 6 combined metro area; KC is about 27th.

KC could get a fanfest, which seems appropriate for a city of that size and that remoteness (near no other cities of any size).

Philly, likewise could get a fanfest or similar special event. You can't just walk away from 4th of July in Philly on the semiquincentennial.


----------



## KiKE

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The reason I said those two cities as I feel they would not be as lucrative as CDMX and some of the lesser US cities could spend a lot of money in hopes of getting one or two of Mexico’s slots.











This is the new stadium of Tigres that is going to be built in Monterrey. The owners of the new stadium wants to use the stadium for NFL games and for the 2024 World Cup games.


----------



## pesto

**** said:


> This is the new stadium of Tigres that is going to be built in Monterrey. The owners of the new stadium wants to use the stadium for NFL games and for the 2024 World Cup games.


Going to be tough for FIFA to visit it before 2025.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Going to be tough for FIFA to visit it before 2025.


You are right it will be tough for FIFA to squeeze in a visit before 2025. Probably a better chance of Central America getting a game in the 2026 World Cup than for FIFA to have time to inspect a brand new venue.


----------



## KiKE

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> You are right it will be tough for FIFA to squeeze in a visit before 2025. Probably a better chance of Central America getting a game in the 2026 World Cup than for FIFA to have time to inspect a brand new venue.











Is going to be the most modern stadium in Latin America and you want to give a World Cup game to a Central America stadium? Hahah. The NFL staff when to Monterrey to talk with the owners of this future stadium and if is capable to have a nfl game it could have a World Cup game. Monterrey it would have 2 of the most modern stadiums of Latin America, I would bet that both stadium would get 1 game each.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

**** said:


> Is going to be the most modern stadium in Latin America and you want to give a World Cup game to a Central America stadium? Hahah. The NFL staff when to Monterrey to talk with the owners of this future stadium and if is capable to have a nfl game it could have a World Cup game. Monterrey it would have 2 of the most modern stadiums of Latin America, I would bet that both stadium would get 1 game each.


I was joking about Central America as they were not anywhere to be seen on the bid book. In all seriousness though, the sudden announcement of this new stadium has come with little notice from FIFA so it probably will not get in.


----------



## miguelon

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I was joking about Central America as they were not anywhere to be seen on the bid book. In all seriousness though, the sudden announcement of this new stadium has come with little notice from FIFA so it probably will not get in.


Probably because you don't follow Soccer or Mexican media, but this proposal from Tigres, has been in the talks for years, and today's announcement has been telegraphed for months. Today was only "formal presentation". Even the 2026 Bid mentions a possible new venue for Tigres. If they had Populous working for years on this one, trust me, FIFA knows. 

But yes, its already 2022, its going to be tight, but not impossible. can see them spreading games between them. You can almost make the case, that Monterrey y probably more lucrative than Mexico City. Its just a wealthier city, and a metro area of over 5 million.

As mentioned before, this is going to be probably the only FIFA World Cup, where perfectly fit cities/stadiums will be left out, just so many options.


----------



## Ramanaramana

A reminder of what Monterrey's current stadium looks like, and why talk of Tigres stadium being part of the bid is a complete waste of time........



















_Populous.com_


----------



## RMB2007

Tigres are aiming to get their new stadium done before the 2026 World Cup, with a capacity of 65,000. Capacity at Estadio BBVA is less.


_Tigres plans to inaugurate its new stadium in 2025, the megaproject will seek to host the World Cup and take that possibility away from BBVA de Monterrey_









Por qué el nuevo estadio de Tigres podría desbancar al BBVA para el Mundial de 2026


Tigres planea inaugurar su nuevo estadio en 2025, el megaproyecto buscará ser sede mundialista y arrebatarle esa posibilidad al BBVA de Monterrey




www.infobae.com


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I think that stadium location for this World Cup should take advantage of geography. Say game one in a group is in LA and game three is in Atlanta. The second game could easily be in Denver making travel much easier and more efficient.


Again, why double the trips to the airport and all the attendant packing, buses, check-in, etc, when it's only 1.5 hrs. longer to go to Atlanta nonstop?

It has been hinted that the final 16 or 32 will be west to east (say, LA and SF to Dallas to NY). Before that you IDEALLY would want some bunching of matches. But that doesn't work well except in the NE where distances are short. 

Pairs like LA to SF may not be bad, since in both cases the stadium is right next to the airport and it's a 50 min. flight or 5 hr. drive (6 if you go via Santa Barbara, Big Sur, Monterey, Carmel). You might want to stick to city pairs like Dallas/Houston or Miami/Orlando


----------



## pesto

FIFA wraps up inspection of potential 2026 World Cup venues

Re the announcement date discussion above:

I haven’t found the article from the local mayor, but this one from Reuters quotes Colin Smith to about the same effect: the public announcement will be made more likely in April than March.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Again, why double the trips to the airport and all the attendant packing, buses, check-in, etc, when it's only 1.5 hrs. longer to go to Atlanta nonstop?
> 
> It has been hinted that the final 16 or 32 will be west to east (say, LA and SF to Dallas to NY). Before that you IDEALLY would want some bunching of matches. But that doesn't work well except in the NE where distances are short.
> 
> Pairs like LA to SF may not be bad, since in both cases the stadium is right next to the airport and it's a 50 min. flight or 5 hr. drive (6 if you go via Santa Barbara, Big Sur, Monterey, Carmel). You might want to stick to city pairs like Dallas/Houston or Miami/Orlando


I think a city cluster might work out as the Texas cities are close enough to the west coast. Plus Texas is a crucial bridge to whatever cities in Mexico get selected. I may have been too harsh on Orlando just because their stadium does not have a tenant. I think pairing cities would be great.


----------



## Ramanaramana

The format for 2026 with groups of 3 means that just 16 of the 48 countries will play more than 3 matches, compared to now where all 32 countries play minimum of 3 matches.

I think that makes clustering less important, not least with 5 subs being used.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I think a city cluster might work out as the Texas cities are close enough to the west coast. Plus Texas is a crucial bridge to whatever cities in Mexico get selected. I may have been too harsh on Orlando just because their stadium does not have a tenant. I think pairing cities would be great.


Agree. If they want to go with a fanfest in LV, that would add something else that's close to LA (about 25 minutes from 5 different airports and 3.5 hrs. by car) . It will be hot during the day but there's plenty to do indoors. lol.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> The format for 2026 with groups of 3 means that just 16 of the 48 countries will play more than 3 matches, compared to now where all 32 countries play minimum of 3 matches.
> 
> I think that makes clustering less important, not least with 5 subs being used.


True. But the concern is that you go from tundra to where monkeys are indigenous; and across 4 time zones. So grouping will presumably be of some value. The NE, California and some other areas are also good for touring, although in July, Texas and Florida are not very hot (hotels and rentals will be cheaper, however).


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> True. But the concern is that you go from tundra to where monkeys are indigenous; and across 4 time zones. So grouping will presumably be of some value. The NE, California and some other areas are also good for touring, although in July, Texas and Florida are not very hot (hotels and rentals will be cheaper, however).


My Best Clusters:

Texas/Mexico. It would be perfect as Texas has two candidate host cities and Mexico is named as one of the co-hosts. Dallas and Houston have stadiums capable of hosting college bowl games/playoff, Final Four and Super Bowl. Monterrey is a natural halfway point between the Texas cities and the ones in Mexico. I think even numbers would be best per cluster. So probably Dallas, Houston and CDMX of course for maximum exposure and Monterrey for what I stated earlier. I unfortunately would have to cut Guadalajara to keep it at an even number and sadly for them they are probably what FIFA least desires given the mass exposure that will come from Dallas, Houston and CDMX as well as Monterrey's perfect geography.
Southeast US. Two biggest cities here are Atlanta and Miami. Those two I will say have a 99% chance of getting in. Can easily add Nashville and/or Orlando as well as the midwest city of Cincinnati. Personally me I think adding Cincinnati and Nashville to Atlanta and Miami would make the most sense as it would be more evenly spread out plus Orlando's stadium lacks a permanent tenant thus meaning it is tested less frequently than the others. 
Northeast US. For being arguably the most important city in the world, NYC should obviously be selected. Boston for me is the next easiest to pick if they go with four cities instead of two. The remaining cities would be Baltimore, DC and Philadelphia. 
West US. For me, the easiest city pair would be LA and SF. Seattle could also join this grouping but then it would be an odd number unless LA has two stadiums.
As for the cities I did not mention:

Edmonton. Far and away the most remote city in the running. At least some other remote cities like Denver and KC have cities surrounded multiple directions around them, the Alberta capital is far north from everything. Would not be surprised if Canada is left with one city for this reason.
Toronto. To keep Canada's promise, Toronto has to be selected if Edmonton is eliminated due to geography. At least Toronto is somewhat close to Cincinnati and some of the northeast US cities.
Denver and KC. Both cities are relatively remote. However with groups in mind, Denver will be kind of in between Texas/Mexico and the west coast so they might be my favorite wild card for hosting.
With that in mind I can come of with a clearer prediction of what cities make the cut and with that in mind here you go:

Texas/Mexico: CDMX, Dallas, Houston, Monterrey
Southeast US: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Miami, Nashville
Northeast US: Baltimore (has nicer stadium than DC and is like only 30 miles apart anyways), Boston, NYC, Philadelphia
California: LA (SoFi Stadium), SF
Other: Denver (between Texas/Mexico and California) and Toronto (between southeast and northeast US)


----------



## pesto

No stadium that has not been built can compete for the 2026 World Cup bid: Yon de Luisa

The translation is awful and I don’t know how accurate this is, but it quotes a key Mexican soccer figure as saying that the proposed new Monterrey Stadium can’t compete for a place in the 2026 WC due to prior agreement among the 3 hosts.

This wouldn’t surprise me since people have been involved for years and have made significant plans and expenditures around the event. But if the stadium is good enough a way can usually be found.


----------



## Regioman

pesto said:


> No stadium that has not been built can compete for the 2026 World Cup bid: Yon de Luisa
> This wouldn’t surprise me since *people have been involved for years and have made significant plans and expenditures around the event*. But if the stadium is good enough a way can usually be found.


IMO this agreement should apply for other cities that could planned new infrastructure to challenge initial candidate proposals.

In this case new stadia is being developed in one of initial candidates in Mexico, for me this only makes Monterrey candidature stonger.

10 matches are being offered to Mexico, maybe this could work:

4 matches Monterrey (2 BBVA / 2 new Tigres stadium - if finished)
3 matches CDMX
3 matches Guadalajara

or

1 match Monterrey Tigres new stadium - if finished (inaguration)
3 matches Monterrey's BBVA
3 matches CDMX
3 matches Guadalajara


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Regioman said:


> IMO this agreement should apply for other cities that could planned new infrastructure to challenge initial candidate proposals.
> 
> In this case new stadia is being developed in one of initial candidates in Mexico, for me this only makes Monterrey candidature stonger.
> 
> 10 matches are being offered to Mexico, maybe this could work:
> 
> 4 matches Monterrey (2 BBVA / 2 new Tigres stadium - if finished)
> 3 matches CDMX
> 3 matches Guadalajara
> 
> or
> 
> 1 match Monterrey Tigres new stadium - if finished (inaguration)
> 3 matches Monterrey's BBVA
> 3 matches CDMX
> 3 matches Guadalajara


I think they let SoFi Stadium be able to host games as it was built in time before the final inspection even though it was not there when the bid was won. The stadium selection will likely be over well before the new Tigres stadium will be complete. As for Mexico getting exactly ten games, that was the guideline of the bid but given the city clusters I brought up earlier or if a different amount of venues is selected other than the planned sixteen, the number of games each country gets could be adjusted. Although I look forward to the new Tigres stadiums and would like to see events like the Gold Cup, NFL International Series and the occasional Mexico national team game.


----------



## Regioman

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The stadium selection will likely be over well before the new Tigres stadium will be complete.


Definitly, but I think as local goverment is deeply involved in new stadium they could intervene with FIFA to split matches (group matches, not playoffs) between new one and BBVA if Monterrey is awarded as host city disregarding how many matches a country/city are planned.

if new stadium is suffering delays or is discarded they could give those matches easily to BBVA stadium as they were original stadia proposal for Monterrey.


----------



## Ramanaramana

pesto said:


> No stadium that has not been built can compete for the 2026 World Cup bid: Yon de Luisa
> 
> This wouldn’t surprise me since people have been involved for years and have made significant plans and expenditures around the event. *But if the stadium is good enough a way can usually be found.*


If the alternative is rubbish in comparison.

Let's face it, this isn't SoFi versus Rose Bowl, where SoFi represents a monumental leap in advancement. The gap between Rayados and Tigres stadiums will be much narrower, making changes to the bid unnecessary.

If the government start getting their mitts involved for political reasons that's another story. But the push to have Tigres stadium in the World Cup reads like fanfiction. Wouldn't surprise me if key people involved are Tigres fans and just want their club represented in 26.


----------



## Regioman

Ramanaramana said:


> Wouldn't surprise me if key people involved are Tigres fans and just want their club represented in 26.


Well, this is true


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> If the alternative is rubbish in comparison.
> 
> Let's face it, this isn't SoFi versus Rose Bowl, where SoFi represents a monumental leap in advancement. The gap between Rayados and Tigres stadiums will be much narrower, making changes to the bid unnecessary.
> 
> If the government start getting their mitts involved for political reasons that's another story. But the push to have Tigres stadium in the World Cup reads like fanfiction. Wouldn't surprise me if key people involved are Tigres fans and just want their club represented in 26.


I actually thought virtually the same thing and agree completely (although implying the RB is "rubbish" is probably not what you were aiming for). 

SoFi and RB are very different but iconic in their own ways. They are wonderful examples of why you can't judge stadium quality by any one narrow criterion. 

In Monterrey, you are getting similar venues, one of which is Johnny-come-lately trying to get some of the attention that others may have worked for for decades. That's likely to seriously annoy the old guard and I think that is what is playing out.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/01/19/washington-dc-world-cup-bid-fedex-field/


----------



## pesto

Good article. The combined Balt/DC selection make a lot of sense given how close the two are and the desire to take advantage of DC's iconic sites. I could foresee something similar for SoFi and the Rose Bowl (or the Coliseum, which is near downtown, Crypto, museums, convention centers, hotels, LA Live, etc.).

The "grass" and "corner" issues are legit as well but I imagine easily handled in most cases. The LA Coliseum had a NASCAR event this week and plans to raise the surface for the Olympics, so changes are not unusual..


----------



## pesto

Titans change ticket policy for playoff game in hopes of keeping Bengals fans mostly out of Nissan Stadium


The Titans are trying to keep Bengals fans out of Nissan Stadium




www.cbssports.com





Nashville tries to annoy visiting fans to death in the hopes of getting some locals to show up. You wonder if FIFA is watching and thinking about which city has better fans..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Titans change ticket policy for playoff game in hopes of keeping Bengals fans mostly out of Nissan Stadium
> 
> 
> The Titans are trying to keep Bengals fans out of Nissan Stadium
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbssports.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nashville tries to annoy visiting fans to death in the hopes of getting some locals to show up. You wonder if FIFA is watching and thinking about which city has better fans..


This is for a NFL playoff game. The Nashville authorities will be more welcoming to visitors if it is the World Cup.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> This is for a NFL playoff game. The Nashville authorities will be more welcoming to visitors if it is the World Cup.


The problem isn't the authorities; it's the Nashville fans, who (one could argue) don't support their own team very well. I understand that it's football not soccer but it still doesn't seem like news that the Nashville bidders would want FIFA to be reading.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> The problem isn't the authorities; it's the Nashville fans, who (one could argue) don't support their own team very well. I understand that it's football not soccer but it still doesn't seem like news that the Nashville bidders would want FIFA to be reading.


Qatar pretty much has no sports fans yet they still get to host. It is more about infrastructure and geography not how much locals support their team.


----------



## Soriehlam

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Qatar pretty much has no sports fans yet they still get to host.* It is more about infrastructure and geography* not how much locals support their team.


Qatar was selected neither for geography nor infrastructure, and you know it. But back to topic.


----------



## Ramanaramana

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Qatar pretty much has no sports fans yet they still get to host.


It’s a small country but, like all Arabs, Qataris love their football. There’s also a lot of migrants from South Asia that love their cricket.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Qatar pretty much has no sports fans yet they still get to host. It is more about infrastructure and geography not how much locals support their team.


Not sure where you were going with this. But you have to believe that FIFA has made substantial progress in eliminating the causes for Russia and Qatar being chosen. If not, then it's back to cronyism, bribes, etc.in the selection process.

My assumption is that FIFA is now looking to maximize profits long-term by choosing locations that generate high audience levels, particularly among non-committed fans in high income countries. That would militate toward their choosing cities which show-off FIFA viewers in a good light, which includes some displays of excited fans. On the face of it, Cincinnati fans are more excited than Nashville fans.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Soriehlam said:


> Qatar was selected neither for geography nor infrastructure, and you know it. But back to topic.


What I was saying was that as of right now in 2022 Qatar has the stadiums. Of course back in 2010 when it was awarded it was a huge gamble as nothing was there.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> It’s a small country but, like all Arabs, Qataris love their football. There’s also a lot of migrants from South Asia that love their cricket.


What is was saying was the Qatar Stars League has a relatively low fan turnout compared to other leagues of its quality.


----------



## tinyslam

pesto said:


> The problem isn't the authorities; it's the Nashville fans, who (one could argue) don't support their own team very well. I understand that it's football not soccer but it still doesn't seem like news that the Nashville bidders would want FIFA to be reading.


I don't think it's a fair comparison to look at. There's a big difference between support for a local team in the NFL vs a national team in the World Cup. A lot of Americans move around the country and continue to support their hometown team. That doesn't really matter when looking at national team support in a city vs city aspect.


----------



## Ramanaramana

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> What is was saying was the Qatar Stars League has a relatively low fan turnout compared to other leagues of its quality.


It's a small country, and most football fans follow the big teams from Europe. 

USA and Australia have better attendances than QSL but Qatar is more of a football country than either.


----------



## aquamaroon

> Washington might have to consolidate its 2026 World Cup venue bid with Baltimore because of concerns about the viability of playing at FedEx Field, a major blow to the city’s efforts of hosting soccer’s marquee event, people familiar with the matter said Wednesday.
> 
> As part of a joint regional effort, Baltimore’s M&T Bank Stadium would become the area’s game venue and the District would stage nongame events, such as large-scale watch parties on the National Mall, said two people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to openly discuss the situation.
> 
> In the fall, Washington received high marks for its presentation to FIFA, the sport’s global governing body, but FedEx Field, a Landover venue plagued with problems for years, did not, those people said.
> 
> The move would be a boon to Baltimore, which, without Washington’s prestige as the nation’s capital, faces long odds of becoming a venue.
> 
> It would also be a black eye to the D.C. area, one of America’s most vibrant soccer markets and a venue for the 1994 World Cup (at RFK Stadium) and 1999 and 2003 Women’s World Cups (at FedEx Field and RFK, respectively).





https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/01/19/washington-dc-world-cup-bid-fedex-field/



_h/t user The Game is Up for originally posting this in the FedEx Field thread_

Reality is finally settling in for the stakeholders behind Washington's bid: FedEx Field is just simply NOT a World Cup quality stadium. But reality on FIFA's end: the location itself is hard to pass up, the nation's capital on the 250th anniversary of its founding! My pipe dream is this finally gets things moving on the Washington To Be Decided's new stadium, but that's probably a pipe dream at best: as mentioned in the article Washington is contractually obligated to play at FedEx until 2027 and they aren't going to build a new stadium just for it to sit empty for two or three years. It seems like a Baltimore-D.C. pairing is what they are going with. That bid will be almost a shoo in if FIFA liked M&T Bank Stadium (despite the lack of roof.)









source









source


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Not sure where you were going with this. But you have to believe that FIFA has made substantial progress in eliminating the causes for Russia and Qatar being chosen. If not, then it's back to cronyism, bribes, etc.in the selection process.


fyi, russia was big favourite back then. yes, they may have pulled some coalition with qatar but they would have won anyway


----------



## pesto

tinyslam said:


> I don't think it's a fair comparison to look at. There's a big difference between support for a local team in the NFL vs a national team in the World Cup. A lot of Americans move around the country and continue to support their hometown team. That doesn't really matter when looking at national team support in a city vs city aspect.


I agree that it is far from a determinative issues and partly it's just kind of interesting and humorous.

But the point is that by far the most valuable and prominent Nashville sports team is currently trying to mess-up anyone from out-of-town trying to attend a game there and blowing their own fans out of the stadium. 

This can't be a positive for someone trying to decide between those two cities for where the most and best sports fans are.


----------



## pesto

Quote of the day:

FedEx is SO rundown that they couldn't even bribe FIFA to go there.


----------



## pesto

A 'convention center district' could be coming to Cincinnati


Cincinnati and Hamilton County officials want to create a full "convention district" Downtown with redevelopment of the Duke Energy Convention Center and surrounding properties, including a replacement for the Millennium Hotel.




www.wvxu.org





Cincy believes redevelopment of the convention center is critical to getting a FIFA bid. Apparently there is a Jan 31 deadline for additional submissions and they want the city to have some commitments on record..


----------



## PHofKS

From Pesto's quote 3 posts above;


> But the point is that by far the most valuable and prominent Nashville sports team is currently trying to mess-up anyone from out-of-town trying to attend a game there and blowing their own fans out of the stadium.
> 
> This can't be a positive for someone trying to decide between those two cities for where the most and best sports fans are.


I would suggest there is an economy at work that is unique to Nashville when it comes to filling the NFL stadium with local fans. From my posting on the Proposed Stadiums topic;


> .... When the Houston Oilers came to Nashville in 1998 and work on the stadium and name change to Titans was underway, they sold personal seat licenses (PSL's) to help finance the stadium. The PSL's entitled the owner to unchallenged renewal of tickets every season and a Christmas card from the owner. I know, I bought one.
> The sales in this brand-new major-league sports city were slow however, and many PSL's were bought by brokers (secondary market sellers). As the 1999 eventual Super Bowl team started winning sale of the licenses started booming, however, and went largely to the local population.
> That is why there is a heavy representation of opposing fans at some of the games. With the large number of tickets available on the secondary market and the fact that Nashville is a major destination and attraction in America, there is a huge out of market demand for these tickets. So, albeit on rare occasions, there might be a third of the stadium occupied by some of the better traveling fan bases including the Raiders and Steelers. Indeed, there was a story yesterday that Chiefs fans are buying large amounts of tickets in anticipation of making it to the AFC Championship game in three weekends. They are very optimistic.
> ......even 49'ers fans came out in droves when their team came to town a couple of weeks ago. There is a rather large population of relocated Californians here in Nashville, however. Still, it's surprising.


Prices for the 10 to 20 thousand (my guess) secondary market seats are reaching up to near $700 a ticket. That makes it very tempting to sell even for long time local season ticket holders. I will not sell mine, however. I'll be there tomorrow.

One other thought, I would suggest if you were able to survey potential fans willing to travel to North America to support their team in the world cup and asked them which of the proposed cities they would like to visit for a match, Nashville would show up fairly high on the list. Nashville is a destination city and fans of visiting teams show up in droves because it's Nashville. With a total of 600,000 people attending the 2019 NFL Draft downtown and 350,000 attending the New Year's Eve celebration, Nashville proves its status as one of America's favorite places to party. Filling up the stadium for a World Cup Match should not be a problem. The Titans have no say over who gets tickets.


----------



## pesto

PHofKS said:


> From Pesto's quote 3 posts above;
> 
> I would suggest there is an economy at work that is unique to Nashville when it comes to filling the NFL stadium with local fans. From my posting on the Proposed Stadiums topic;
> 
> 
> Prices for the 10 to 20 thousand (my guess) secondary market seats are reaching up to near $700 a ticket. That makes it very tempting to sell even for long time local season ticket holders. I will not sell mine, however. I'll be there tomorrow.
> 
> One other thought, I would suggest if you were able to survey potential fans willing to travel to North America to support their team in the world cup and asked them which of the proposed cities they would like to visit for a match, Nashville would show up fairly high on the list. Nashville is a destination city and fans of visiting teams show up in droves because it's Nashville. With a total of 600,000 people attending the 2019 NFL Draft downtown and 350,000 attending the New Year's Eve celebration, Nashville proves its status as one of America's favorite places to party. Filling up the stadium for a World Cup Match should not be a problem. The Titans have no say over who gets tickets.


This all sounds very reasonable. Again, I was mostly just noticing the interesting timing between the announcement and the FIFA selection process.

It sounds like Nashville has some of the attributes of LA: attractive to tourists and offering other entertainment experiences. This creates a demand for the tickets from out-of-towners. Management understands this; raises the price of tickets and sells to local fans who attend a number of games and sell the rest at a big profit to out-of-town fans.

The several hundred thousand visitors in LA any given week buy the tickets. In a few cases (SF and NY teams, Pittsburgh Steelers, Dallas Cowboys) there are many who have moved to LA from these cities and others who follow the team to the sunny weather, beaches, amusement parks, etc. Visitors from Asia are also common.


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> fyi, russia was big favourite back then. yes, they may have pulled some coalition with qatar but they would have won anyway


Yes, people lump Qatar and Russia together as the bidding was done at the same time, but they're incomparable. Russia is one of the most important countries in the world, and their bid was excellent. The success of 2018 vindicates the decision.


----------



## Light Tower

The logo i found on Instagram, this seems like a possible logo design. We should expect the unveiling in 2023 five months after Qatar 2022.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> Yes, people lump Qatar and Russia together as the bidding was done at the same time, but they're incomparable. Russia is one of the most important countries in the world, and their bid was excellent. The *success of 2018 vindicates the decision*.


I hope you don't mean that. 









U.S. Says FIFA Officials Were Bribed to Award World Cups to Russia and Qatar (Published 2020)


For nearly a decade, Russia and Qatar have been suspected of buying votes to win hosting rights for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. On Monday, for the first time, the Department of Justice put things in black and white.




www.nytimes.com




.


----------



## Ramanaramana

pesto said:


> I hope you don't mean that.


It was one of the better World Cups in my lifetime, so of course I mean it, I'd only put 2006 ahead of it. Stadiums, atmospheres, football, refereeing, all top notch.

Whatever you think of the bribery involved, to say 2018 wasn't a success would be downright bizarre.

There is absolutely no question about Russia's ability to put on a major tournament.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> It was one of the better World Cups in my lifetime, so of course I mean it, I'd only put 2006 ahead of it. Stadiums, atmospheres, football, refereeing, all top notch.
> 
> Whatever you think of the bribery involved, to say 2018 wasn't a success would be downright bizarre.
> 
> There is absolutely no question about Russia's ability to put on a major tournament.


If your thinking is that narrow, you are going to be perfect for Hitler's and Mussolini's staff; a moral monster.

There were multiple convicted bribers, multiple people dead under mysterious circumstances, people still on the run in Africa, and in Brazil, who has no extradition to the US..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> If your thinking is that narrow, you are going to be perfect for Hitler's and Mussolini's staff; a moral monster.
> 
> There were multiple convicted bribers, multiple people dead under mysterious circumstances, people still on the run in Africa, and in Brazil, who has no extradition to the US..


This is getting too deep. There is every reason to be concerned about political things you don’t like but this forum is about the 2026 World Cup not past FIFA scandals.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> This is getting too deep. There is every reason to be concerned about political things you don’t like but this forum is about the 2026 World Cup not past FIFA scandals.


Agree. My points relate to WC's generally. The important aspects of any World Cup are to grow soccer by bringing it to people in ways that foster mutual growth and understanding, respect for individual rights, the integrity of individuals and ethnic groups, etc..

But those belong on a more general thread than this.


----------



## pesto

As Baltimore waits for FIFA’s decision on 2026 World Cup bid, potential merger with Washington offers ‘advantages’

Baltimore says it will merge with DC if it has to. I would guess this is in anticipation that they will be given the offer: you and DC together are in; you and DC separate are out.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Agree. My points relate to WC's generally. The important aspects of any World Cup are to grow soccer by bringing it to people in ways that foster mutual growth and understanding, respect for individual rights, the integrity of individuals and ethnic groups, etc..
> 
> But those belong on a more general thread than this.


I am glad you accepted my request. Everyone is entitled to their political opinion but there are always right and wrong places to share it. Personally me, I do not like talking about politics so this website is great for me because it is mostly about buildings.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> As Baltimore waits for FIFA’s decision on 2026 World Cup bid, potential merger with Washington offers ‘advantages’
> 
> Baltimore says it will merge with DC if it has to. I would guess this is in anticipation that they will be given the offer: you and DC together are in; you and DC separate are out.


Sounds like a great idea as the two cities are only like 30 miles apart.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I am glad you accepted my request. Everyone is entitled to their political opinion but there are always right and wrong places to share it. Personally me, I do not like talking about politics so this website is great for me because it is mostly about buildings.


Now I disagree. These threads are about events, not buildings; buildings have their own separate threads.

You hardly ever talk about buildings at all, but speculate on what possible events will occur in the future and the political, social and institutional changes you think they imply. That is zero percent buildings, 100 percent politics (money, building influence, trading favors, hurting the opposition, etc).

What I agree with is that the economics, business, politics, social issues, etc., that relate to, say, the LA Olympics or the 2026 WC, should be discussed on those threads. Discussions that cover issues more generally belong on their own threads.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Now I disagree. These threads are about events, not buildings; buildings have their own separate threads.
> 
> You hardly ever talk about buildings at all, but speculate on what possible events will occur in the future and the political, social and institutional changes you think they imply. That is zero percent buildings, 100 percent politics (money, building influence, trading favors, hurting the opposition, etc).
> 
> What I agree with is that the economics, business, politics, social issues, etc., that relate to, say, the LA Olympics or the 2026 WC, should be discussed on those threads. Discussions that cover issues more generally belong on their own threads.


I might have slipped up a little and forgot this is also about events. What I meant to say was I would like to avoid talking about touchy topics and instead focus on things that are practical.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Sounds like a great idea as the two cities are only like 30 miles apart.


Yes, I had noted in another post that they are one market for some purposes, especially since most of their population is in suburbs in any event.(only 15 percent in DC and Baltimore combined.

Same general idea for SF, Oakland and SJ, which are one continuous metro, but with 3 large cities fighting over local issues.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I might have slipped up a little and forgot this is also about events. What I meant to say was I would like to avoid talking about touchy topics and instead focus on things that are practical.


Yes and no. I think touchy issues are fine if handled truthfully and politely. The problem comes from trolls who invent absurd stories or repeat criticisms and insults repeatedly and without adding anything.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Yes and no. I think touchy issues are fine if handled truthfully and politely. The problem comes from trolls who invent absurd stories or repeat criticisms and insults repeatedly and without adding anything.


Debates about touchy subjects can always be handled well unless someone takes it out of hand but the main focus of this thread is to discuss about the logistics of the 2026 World Cup not to debate about wider political problems.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Debates about touchy subjects can always be handled well unless someone takes it out of hand but the main focus of this thread is to discuss about the logistics of the 2026 World Cup not to debate about wider political problems.


Sounds good in principle, but in fact FIFA (and the other holders of large events) lists a number of social, economic and political factors that will be taken into consideration: passports, tax exemptions, white elephants, public support, protection of civil, gender rights and many more. These are major factors in the decision since politicians, builders, etc., pour in money and political pressure get that money.

Example: WC 2026: FIFA reviewed not only stadiums, but other facilities, social conditions, rule of law, corruption, health and rights standard and other risks in the proposed hosts. And then many countries appeared to vote based on political factors.

I would guess that many of the tournaments you are proposing select locations based largely on political considerations, and simply looking at, say, the stadium size would give you the wrong idea about what the driving mechanism is. So it's hard to stay away from social issues for a variety of reasons.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Sounds good in principle, but in fact FIFA (and the other holders of large events) lists a number of social, economic and political factors that will be taken into consideration: passports, tax exemptions, white elephants, public support, protection of civil, gender rights and many more. These are major factors in the decision since politicians, builders, etc., pour in money and political pressure get that money.
> 
> Example: WC 2026: FIFA reviewed not only stadiums, but other facilities, social conditions, rule of law, corruption, health and rights standard and other risks in the proposed hosts. And then many countries appeared to vote based on political factors.
> 
> I would guess that many of the tournaments you are proposing select locations based largely on political considerations, and simply looking at, say, the stadium size would give you the wrong idea about what the driving mechanism is. So it's hard to stay away from social issues for a variety of reasons.


A host is always obligated by FIFA to bend over to its wishes for the tournament or risks being stripped of it. Qatar is a great example of this as they will be allowing alcohol consumption and displays of homosexuality for people visiting the tournament at FIFA's request. Yes, the Qatari government has a lot of controversy regarding things like their attitude to LGBT people and migrant workers but at the same time they do not want to risk losing the World Cup. Let's not get too distracted as this forum is about the 2026 World Cup.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> A host is always obligated by FIFA to bend over to its wishes for the tournament or risks being stripped of it. Qatar is a great example of this as they will be allowing alcohol consumption and displays of homosexuality for people visiting the tournament at FIFA's request. Yes, the Qatari government has a lot of controversy regarding things like their attitude to LGBT people and migrant workers but at the same time they do not want to risk losing the World Cup. Let's not get too distracted as this forum is about the 2026 World Cup.


WC 2026 was a good example as well, where it was openly understood and discussed that the African and Arab world MUST vote for Morocco. Some politicians suggest embargoes against those who didn't. Large pressure groups suggested expulsion of those who didn't vote from organizations and removal of their government by force.

Two large European countries voted FOR Morocco because they expected billions in contracts from building the stadiums. And these are supposedly "liberal democracies". When asked why he voted for Morocco the Brazilian rep said "because I thought the vote was private". Candid, but tells you more about the voter mindset than you want to know.

If you are interested in the history look through the Arabic language threads from back then..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> WC 2026 was a good example as well, where it was openly understood and discussed that the African and Arab world MUST vote for Morocco. Some politicians suggest embargoes against those who didn't. Large pressure groups suggested expulsion of those who didn't vote from organizations and removal of their government by force.
> 
> Two large European countries voted FOR Morocco because they expected billions in contracts from building the stadiums. And these are supposedly "liberal democracies". When asked why he voted for Morocco the Brazilian rep said "because I thought the vote was private". Candid, but tells you more about the voter mindset than you want to know.
> 
> If you are interested in the history look through the Arabic language threads from back then..


This is great and all but if you want this discussion to continue I suggest you go to the “Future FIFA Competitions” as the bidding for the World Cup this thread is about is already done and dusted. We can talk about how these sorts of things can impact how certain countries will vote in the future and wether or not things like giving Morocco a whole 48 team World Cup is realistic or not.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> This is great and all but if you want this discussion to continue I suggest you go to the “Future FIFA Competitions” as the bidding for the World Cup this thread is about is already done and dusted. We can talk about how these sorts of things can impact how certain countries will vote in the future and wether or not things like giving Morocco a whole 48 team World Cup is realistic or not.


Yes. That's why I stuck to discussing issues only germane to the 2026 game.

I'm not sure about the rest of that comment. It sounds like threads on specific events are the only place you can make a discussion about a particular country at a particular time. General Ideas will come and go repeatedly within years or even months.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Yes. That's why I stuck to discussing issues only germane to the 2026 game.
> 
> I'm not sure about the rest of that comment. It sounds like threads on specific events are the only place you can make a discussion about a particular country at a particular time. General Ideas will come and go repeatedly within years or even months.


The “Future FIFA Competitions” thread was created by me for general ideas regarding tournaments run by FIFA or it’s six confederations.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The “Future FIFA Competitions” thread was created by me for general ideas regarding tournaments run by FIFA or it’s six confederations.


Ok with me, but it might have been more efficient to make different threads for the different tournaments so that people can focus on the ones they are interested in rather than having to pick through various posts to find them.


----------



## pesto

From a post by RMB2007









Suffolk Chosen for Gillette Stadium Renovation Project


Suffolk, one of the largest and most innovative real estate and construction enterprises in the country, has been chosen by the Kraft Group as its con



www.businesswire.com




Renovation-Project

Gillette renovations to be done 3 years before 2026 World Cup. Anyone think Boston is in?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> From a post by RMB2007
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Suffolk Chosen for Gillette Stadium Renovation Project
> 
> 
> Suffolk, one of the largest and most innovative real estate and construction enterprises in the country, has been chosen by the Kraft Group as its con
> 
> 
> 
> www.businesswire.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Renovation-Project
> 
> Gillette renovations to be done 3 years before 2026 World Cup. Anyone think Boston is in?


I probably think so. Not to mention the Patriots/Revolution owner played a big role in this upcoming World Cup.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> View attachment 2668331
> 
> 
> The logo i found on Instagram, this seems like a possible logo design. We should expect the unveiling in 2023 five months after Qatar 2022.


Interesting mock up logo. I like how they took inspiration from the 2023 Women’s World Cup logo. I would prefer if this World Cup was marketed as something like “North America 2026” or “CA US MX 2026” as opposed to the “United 2026” moniker used when bidding. I am personally more looking forward to the stadium selection as you probably could already tell by my predictions I made earlier but I would also like to see the logo revealed as well.


----------



## pesto

Mexico tries to banish homophobic slur from football | SuperSport


SuperSport.com delivers comprehensive coverage of major sporting events, including video highlights, results, fixtures, logs, news, TV schedules and more.




supersport.com





It's 2022, but this may also be relevant for the 2026 stadium selection process.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Mexico tries to banish homophobic slur from football | SuperSport
> 
> 
> SuperSport.com delivers comprehensive coverage of major sporting events, including video highlights, results, fixtures, logs, news, TV schedules and more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> supersport.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's 2022, but this may also be relevant for the 2026 stadium selection process.


It will be relevant as the chant is probably one of the security concerns that FIFA brought up when talking about what Mexico needs. I would love to see what Mexico does in 2026 and I hope they can host a few games in the Gold Cup in the near future as well (probably group stage or early knock out because as much as I would love to see a Gold Cup final at the Azteca, it will never happen because CONCACAF probably wants the most neutral venue for the final and should Mexico make the final held in the Azteca, it would pretty much be a home game for them).


----------



## PHofKS

From the 'Tennessee Tribune', a report prepared by William F. Fox, Director of the Boyd Center for Business & Economic Research at the University of Tennessee – Knoxville. 

*Hosting World Cup Would Generate $695 Million In Total Economic Impact
*


> NASHVILLE – A new economic analysis found that Nashville will benefit from $695 million in total economic impact if the city ends up hosting four matches as part of the 2026 FIFA World Cup, the Nashville Convention & Visitors Corp announced today.
> 
> The report, “Economic Benefits of Hosting the World Cup in Nashville,” also showed the following benefits:
> 
> · $639.3 million in economic impact from visitors
> 
> · $205.6 million in income generated
> 
> · 5,469 annualized jobs
> 
> · $66.1 million in state and local tax revenue




The report goes on to state that the total economic output of $694.6 million includes:

*$639.3 million in visitor spending*, (Most of the economic activity (92%) will come from visitor spending and tourism that takes place outside of the event itself in the leisure, retail and hospitality sectors. An estimated 160,000 out-of-area visitors are expected to attend the World Cup matches in Nashville, staying an average of five nights and spending $300 per night in hotels.
*$18.9 million in operations*, (Nissan Stadium will operate at full capacity as staff is hired to work the games.)
*$36.4 million in stadium construction/renovation*. Relatively minor renovations to Nissan Stadium would be required, and funds will be provided by *private donors*. These temporary adjustments to the stadium could include a vacuum drainage system and widening the corners of the field. 

The City will also invest $300 million in upgrades to the stadium and surrounding properties regardless of cup participation (as much or more compared to what Kraft seems to be investing in making Gillette Stadium upgrades). But the cup games in Nashville would be huge as the article implies.


----------



## Ramanaramana

If the city is already spending 300 million on upgrades, what is the angle of the report? Who is it trying to convince? 

Nashville and Atlanta seems unnecessary. Hard to see Atlanta not getting it.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> If the city is already spending 300 million on upgrades, what is the angle of the report? Who is it trying to convince?
> 
> Nashville and Atlanta seems unnecessary. Hard to see Atlanta not getting it.


I thought the same thing. At first I thought it was to convince the local populace who are sniffing this out as a sure loser except to the connected hotels. 

But I think more likely they are aiming at FIFA, by showing that the local press and establishment are behind it and will take care of the local riff-raff who will try to demonstrate against it..


----------



## Ramanaramana

Yeah that could explain it. Good luck to them, they’ll need it.


----------



## ElvisBC

nashville has stadium with zero viewing obstruction and music city history
atlanta has the worst possible pitch view but it has roof, coca cola and possibly the best airport of them all

who is in?


----------



## Ramanaramana

Atlanta, obviously.


----------



## Joakim3

ElvisBC said:


> nashville has stadium with zero viewing obstruction and music city history
> atlanta has the worst possible pitch view but it has roof, coca cola and possibly the best airport of them all
> 
> who is in?


"Alex, I'll take Atlanta for 2000"


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> If the city is already spending 300 million on upgrades, what is the angle of the report? Who is it trying to convince?
> 
> Nashville and Atlanta seems unnecessary. Hard to see Atlanta not getting it.


Nashville getting it makes sense for logistics reasons. The big challenge for this World Cup is trying to make sure the stadiums are in as manageable of a cluster as possible. Nashville is very close to other potential host cities so that makes them a strong candidate in the “lesser” cities. FIFA even confirmed that the 16 host cities as planned could be changed if it makes less sense logistically. If you read my previous predictions, I took stadium clusters into consideration above all else. Here is what I said on a previous post.


chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> My Best Clusters:
> 
> Texas/Mexico. It would be perfect as Texas has two candidate host cities and Mexico is named as one of the co-hosts. Dallas and Houston have stadiums capable of hosting college bowl games/playoff, Final Four and Super Bowl. Monterrey is a natural halfway point between the Texas cities and the ones in Mexico. I think even numbers would be best per cluster. So probably Dallas, Houston and CDMX of course for maximum exposure and Monterrey for what I stated earlier. I unfortunately would have to cut Guadalajara to keep it at an even number and sadly for them they are probably what FIFA least desires given the mass exposure that will come from Dallas, Houston and CDMX as well as Monterrey's perfect geography.
> Southeast US. Two biggest cities here are Atlanta and Miami. Those two I will say have a 99% chance of getting in. Can easily add Nashville and/or Orlando as well as the midwest city of Cincinnati. Personally me I think adding Cincinnati and Nashville to Atlanta and Miami would make the most sense as it would be more evenly spread out plus Orlando's stadium lacks a permanent tenant thus meaning it is tested less frequently than the others.
> Northeast US. For being arguably the most important city in the world, NYC should obviously be selected. Boston for me is the next easiest to pick if they go with four cities instead of two. The remaining cities would be Baltimore, DC and Philadelphia.
> West US. For me, the easiest city pair would be LA and SF. Seattle could also join this grouping but then it would be an odd number unless LA has two stadiums.
> As for the cities I did not mention:
> 
> Edmonton. Far and away the most remote city in the running. At least some other remote cities like Denver and KC have cities surrounded multiple directions around them, the Alberta capital is far north from everything. Would not be surprised if Canada is left with one city for this reason.
> Toronto. To keep Canada's promise, Toronto has to be selected if Edmonton is eliminated due to geography. At least Toronto is somewhat close to Cincinnati and some of the northeast US cities.
> Denver and KC. Both cities are relatively remote. However with groups in mind, Denver will be kind of in between Texas/Mexico and the west coast so they might be my favorite wild card for hosting.
> With that in mind I can come of with a clearer prediction of what cities make the cut and with that in mind here you go:
> 
> Texas/Mexico: CDMX, Dallas, Houston, Monterrey
> Southeast US: Atlanta, Cincinnati, Miami, Nashville
> Northeast US: Baltimore (has nicer stadium than DC and is like only 30 miles apart anyways), Boston, NYC, Philadelphia
> California: LA (SoFi Stadium), SF
> Other: Denver (between Texas/Mexico and California) and Toronto (between southeast and northeast US)


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> nashville has stadium with zero viewing obstruction and music city history
> atlanta has the worst possible pitch view but it has roof, coca cola and possibly the best airport of them all
> 
> who is in?


Atlanta. Although both Coca Cola and the airport are irrelevant.


----------



## shivtim

Atlanta has a subway connection from the airport to the stadium. That is an absolutely massive plus that Nashville can't overcome.


----------



## pesto

shivtim said:


> Atlanta has a subway connection from the airport to the stadium. That is an absolutely massive plus that Nashville can't overcome.


Airport to stadium subway is that important? There goes NY, LA, SF, Dallas, Boston, etc.

Subway from stadium to city center is useful, but in any event, shuttle transit to sites is provided by the host cities when FIFA thinks it could be an issue. It's part of the review process.


----------



## JYDA

According to the Premier of BC, Vancouver is back in talks with FIFA to host. Premier claims that FIFA's demands have softened since 2018. He claims that FIFA initially only guaranteed 2 games and wanted the venue handed over for 3 months. Now they are in talks for 3 to 5 games. 









Horgan says B.C. still exploring options to host games during 2026 FIFA World Cup


Premier John Horgan has given soccer fans a glimmer of hope that there might be FIFA World Cup games played in British Columbia when the world-class tournament comes to North America in 2026.




www.cheknews.ca


----------



## Ramanaramana

Five matches in Vancouver is crazy. 

And it probably kills Seattle.


----------



## Light Tower

JYDA said:


> According to the Premier of BC, Vancouver is back in talks with FIFA to host. Premier claims that FIFA's demands have softened since 2018. He claims that FIFA initially only guaranteed 2 games and wanted the venue handed over for 3 months. Now they are in talks for 3 to 5 games.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horgan says B.C. still exploring options to host games during 2026 FIFA World Cup
> 
> 
> Premier John Horgan has given soccer fans a glimmer of hope that there might be FIFA World Cup games played in British Columbia when the world-class tournament comes to North America in 2026.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cheknews.ca


I think Vancouver is still possible to host several match of the World Cup in four years' time.


----------



## JYDA

Ramanaramana said:


> Five matches in Vancouver is crazy.
> 
> And it probably kills Seattle.


He claimed FIFA values the "synergies with Seattle".

5 is not happening but 4 is a possibility. Would likely drop Edmonton to 2


----------



## Ramanaramana

JYDA said:


> He claimed FIFA values the "synergies with Seattle".
> 
> 5 is not happening but 4 is a possibility. Would likely drop Edmonton to 2


I suppose it’s up to Canada how it wants to divvy up its 10 matches. I shouldn’t complain. My surprise stems from wanting to see matches in Seattle. Fair compromise on all fronts based on what you wrote there.


----------



## pesto

Looks like the FIFA PR people aren't going to let the NFL dominate the news for months at a time. They have jazzed up the storyline with characters coming back from the dead and changing the landscape for everyone. But there's always some who would rather see them dead....

As with movies (and life) the key is to figure out who is naïve, who is lying and who hasn't got long to live. The easiest is to off Edmonton, and split BC with Toronto. That means one less site to fix-up, maintain, secure, less travel; etc.

A full menu for Seattle would then put too many matches in an area with few people (as opposed to, say, Texas or the Ohio Valley. But it might be OK if the US gets 11 locations and one is Houston or Cincy/Nashville.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> I suppose it’s up to Canada how it wants to divvy up its 10 matches. I shouldn’t complain. My surprise stems from wanting to see matches in Seattle. Fair compromise on all fronts based on what you wrote there.


I would suppose it is NOT up to Canada, when they show-up this late and mess up the existing plans. But it will all come down to what works best for the parties overall.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Well certainly they'd prefer Vancouver over Edmonton. 

But I'm sure that the promise of 60/10/10 will be honoured provided Canadian cities are willing.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> I mean, the Edmonton metro is basically the size of Fresno. I find it hard to imagine FIFA were blown away by the visit.


I glad you mentioned it because I wasn't going to. lol.

Someone on the SoFi thread thinks it's odd that SoFi might be a factor in viewership or ticket prices for the Super Bowl. But FIFA doesn't seem to have any confusion about size, location and world recognition of a city and it seems Vancouver is the choice assuming they are no longer being recalcitrant. 

But would FIFA actually push Canada down to just 2 sites?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Houston aims to form 2026 FIFA World Cup "cluster" with Mexican cities
> 
> 
> Houston 2026 Bid Committee President Chris Canetti believes the American city can form a "geographic cluster" with Mexico to help host the FIFA World...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.insidethegames.biz
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Houston plays the "cluster" card in hopes of joining Dallas and 3 Mexican cities in a convenient grouping for fans and teams.
> 
> There is some merit in this, but not as much as there would be for the Northeast, where Boston, Toronto, NY, Philly, Baltimore and DC really are close together. Dallas to Mexico City is 1000 miles.


Makes sense. I was suggesting clusters all along.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> I glad you mentioned it because I wasn't going to. lol.
> 
> Someone on the SoFi thread thinks it's odd that SoFi might be a factor in viewership or ticket prices for the Super Bowl. But FIFA doesn't seem to have any confusion about size, location and world recognition of a city and it seems Vancouver is the choice assuming they are no longer being recalcitrant.
> 
> But would FIFA actually push Canada down to just 2 sites?


Canada is in a tricky spot not going to lie. Mexico got a big boost from the Texas cities but the neighbors to the north do not have that luxury. Toronto is near enough to several cities but Edmonton will be a challenge and I do not know if Vancouver can re-enter after pulling out before the bid was submitted. The cities that miss out can always hope for a Gold Cup game which I know is little compared to the World Cup but it is still better than nothing. Also speaking of the Gold Cup I am willing to be able to talk on my "Future FIFA Competitions" thread about continent specific tournaments like the Gold Cup, I would also like to talk about other continents as well on that thread.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Canada is in a tricky spot not going to lie. Mexico got a big boost from the Texas cities but the neighbors to the north do not have that luxury. Toronto is near enough to several cities but Edmonton will be a challenge and I do not know if Vancouver can re-enter after pulling out before the bid was submitted. The cities that miss out can always hope for a Gold Cup game which I know is little compared to the World Cup but it is still better than nothing. Also speaking of the Gold Cup I am willing to be able to talk on my "Future FIFA Competitions" thread about continent specific tournaments like the Gold Cup, I would also like to talk about other continents as well on that thread.


The cluster idea is from years back since distances involved are often large. It was also suggested that the movement of the later knock-out rounds (all in the US) might be from west to east, which suggested LA/SF to Dallas/Atlanta to NYC.

On a separate note, Georgia is now looking at repealing sales taxes on FIFA, which may mean they have been told Atlanta is in if they do so. Or for sure out if they don't..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> The cluster idea is from years back since distances involved are often large. It was also suggested that the movement of the later knock-out rounds (all in the US) might be from west to east, which suggested LA/SF to Dallas/Atlanta to NYC.
> 
> On a separate note, Georgia is now looking at repealing sales taxes on FIFA, which may mean they have been told Atlanta is in if they do so. Or for sure out if they don't..


Seems fair enough. The only real challenge to this bid is logistics and it is a big challenge. When you consider the only competition was Morocco, the alternative would have been a nightmare for FIFA when even the winning “safe bet” bid is having difficulty albeit in logistics only.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Seems fair enough. The only real challenge to this bid is logistics and it is a big challenge. When you consider the only competition was Morocco, the alternative would have been a nightmare for FIFA when even the winning “safe bet” bid is having difficulty albeit in logistics only.


FIFA put together the United bid by fiat; none of the countries was interested until told it was the only choice. So distances were apparently not a problem for FIFA as compared to the benefits derived (quality of stadiums and other facilities, world appeal, an example of a large country cooperating with mid-sized neighbors, etc.).

Logistics is a problem but just not that tough. All the cities have busy, modern airports; excellent accommodations and attractive tourist areas of town. Edmonton is the only outlier.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> FIFA put together the United bid by fiat; none of the countries was interested until told it was the only choice. So distances were apparently not a problem for FIFA as compared to the benefits derived (quality of stadiums and other facilities, world appeal, an example of a large country cooperating with mid-sized neighbors, etc.).
> 
> Logistics is a problem but just not that tough. All the cities have busy, modern airports; excellent accommodations and attractive tourist areas of town. Edmonton is the only outlier.


Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. If FIFA wants to host the WC in the United States, then they are inheriting the distance issues they have chosen for themselves. I do think it's curious that if there were so many other potential hosts who thought they could win the 2026 bid, more didn't bid.


----------



## pesto

Councillor appeals to province to support Edmonton's World Cup bid


Coun. Tim Cartmell says the federal government has pledged to support the city’s bid, but its funding is contingent on provincial support that’s yet to be secured. 'We need the provincial support to make this happen, it’s as simple as that,' said Cartmell.




edmonton.ctvnews.ca





Both BC and Alberta have cities with artificial turf fields but apparently aren't quite there about putting in the real stuff. So it's all coming down to this? Who puts in grass first? (I assume that real grass doesn't do well in those climates?)

Or could both Vancouver and Edmonton get in if they step quickly?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

slipperydog said:


> Sometimes you can't have your cake and eat it too. If FIFA wants to host the WC in the United States, then they are inheriting the distance issues they have chosen for themselves. I do think it's curious that if there were so many other potential hosts who thought they could win the 2026 bid, more didn't bid.


They can always split the World Cup into regions to make it more manageable. That is what I think FIFA is pushing on the bid committee.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Councillor appeals to province to support Edmonton's World Cup bid
> 
> 
> Coun. Tim Cartmell says the federal government has pledged to support the city’s bid, but its funding is contingent on provincial support that’s yet to be secured. 'We need the provincial support to make this happen, it’s as simple as that,' said Cartmell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edmonton.ctvnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both BC and Alberta have cities with artificial turf fields but apparently aren't quite there about putting in the real stuff. So it's all coming down to this? Who puts in grass first? (I assume that real grass doesn't do well in those climates?)
> 
> Or could both Vancouver and Edmonton get in if they step quickly?


I do not think Vancouver can get in as they have already pulled out before the bid was submitted. As for the field they can just lay sod over the artificial turf like in this video.


----------



## RoyDGB

Canada should've have never been included in this bid. They only have one modern soccer stadium (that has to be upgraded at that) and even that one is behind many US and Mexican stadiums. I guess since this will be an expanded World Cup, FIFA felt like throwing them a bone.


----------



## pesto

RoyDGB said:


> Canada should've have never been included in this bid. They only have one modern soccer stadium (that has to be upgraded at that) and even that one is behind many US and Mexican stadiums. I guess since this will be an expanded World Cup, FIFA felt like throwing them a bone.


This was in furtherance of FIFA's plan to bring the WC to smaller countries which could host in 2 or 3 stadiums in conjunction with large neighbors. It didn't work for Canada due to Montreal not having a stadium that was worth fixing and Vancouver not showing any interest until recently.

I think the concept is good, but there just wasn't enough steam to get the improvements funded.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> This was in furtherance of FIFA's plan to bring the WC to smaller countries which could host in 2 or 3 stadiums in conjunction with large neighbors. It didn't work for Canada due to Montreal not having a stadium that was worth fixing and Vancouver not showing any interest until recently.
> 
> I think the concept is good, but there just wasn't enough steam to get the improvements funded.


It is going to be tough for Canada. Mexico has the luxury of being close to Texas but only Toronto not Edmonton are near other potential cities. I am going to be interested in seeing how FIFA modifies this bid though.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> It is going to be tough for Canada. Mexico has the luxury of being close to Texas but only Toronto not Edmonton are near other potential cities. I am going to be interested in seeing how FIFA modifies this bid though.


Agree in general.

But Mexico City and Guadalajara are not all that close to Dallas. And Vancouver is near Seattle; it's just that 2 venues in an area with such a small population seems excessive. So groups are only a partial solution.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Agree in general.
> 
> But Mexico City and Guadalajara are not all that close to Dallas. And Vancouver is near Seattle; it's just that 2 venues in an area with such a small population seems excessive. So groups are only a partial solution.


I am pretty sure Vancouver has been out for a long time now and I doubt FIFA would let them back in. By the way Monterrey is halfway between the Texas cities and the other two Mexico cities.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I am pretty sure Vancouver has been out for a long time now and I doubt FIFA would let them back in. By the way Monterrey is halfway between the Texas cities and the other two Mexico cities.


Monterrey forms a reasonable group with Texas; Mexico City and Guadalajara do not.

I think rumors of Vancouver's death are exaggerated. I don't know either way but Edmonton looks like someone who is worried about being left out and that only seems likely if Vancouver is in.


----------



## JYDA

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> It is going to be tough for Canada. Mexico has the luxury of being close to Texas but only Toronto not Edmonton are near other potential cities. I am going to be interested in seeing how FIFA modifies this bid though.


Mexico City and Guadalajara are 18 hour drives from Houston, 5 hours further than Edmonton is from Seattle.

Vancouver is not out when the Provincial Premier is going on the record in public to say FIFA has "softened their demands" and they're in "negotiations for 3 to 5 games." If it wasn't possible then the Premier would never open his mouth and declare that. The FIFA VP is from Vancouver and always wanted games there.


----------



## Ramanaramana

^^^This business of clustering only exists in the minds of some contributors here, so I wouldn’t take it too seriously.


----------



## miguelon

Ramanaramana said:


> ^^^This business of clustering only exists in the minds of some contributors here, so I wouldn’t take it too seriously.



Exactly. regardless of how you put it. Most teams, specially if they go into the knockout stages. will have to do at least a 3-4 hr flight. 

Most of it will be chartered. So in practice the flight being 1 more hr or less, doesn't really matter.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

JYDA said:


> Mexico City and Guadalajara are 18 hour drives from Houston, 5 hours further than Edmonton is from Seattle.
> 
> Vancouver is not out when the Provincial Premier is going on the record in public to say FIFA has "softened their demands" and they're in "negotiations for 3 to 5 games." If it wasn't possible then the Premier would never open his mouth and declare that. The FIFA VP is from Vancouver and always wanted games there.


Monterrey is halfway between Houston and the the other two Mexican cities. As for Vancouver we will just have to wait and see.


----------



## Light Tower

pesto said:


> Yes, but only if you believe that this has any meaning. Afaik it was put together by a company trying to attract attention to their real estate services company.
> 
> I would guess that Seattle, Boston and DC/Balt. are in. Others could be close.


We'll see about that next month.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> We'll see about that next month.


Looking forward to the stadium selection. Wonder if they will announce it on time as well.


----------



## Light Tower

Same thing for Russia would could miss out following the invasion of Ukraine.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Rumors are running around that Edmonton's bid might be going poorly enough to only leave Toronto as the only realistic candidate for Canada. Also apart from a few updates from CDMX, I am not really hearing much about Mexico (I do not think Tigres' new stadium counts as FIFA have already inspected and I believe they settled on Rayados' stadium to carry Monterrey's bid prior to the vote). It already was barely a three country tournament when they submitted the bid and now it is looking like a almost all United States tournament. Wonder how FIFA will do automatic qualification then with this awkward host arrangement.


----------



## aquamaroon

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Rumors are running around that Edmonton's bid might be going poorly enough to only leave Toronto as the only realistic candidate for Canada. Also apart from a few updates from CDMX, I am not really hearing much about Mexico (I do not think Tigres' new stadium counts as FIFA have already inspected and I believe they settled on Rayados' stadium to carry Monterrey's bid prior to the vote). It already was barely a three country tournament when they submitted the bid and now it is looking like a almost all United States tournament. Wonder how FIFA will do automatic qualification then with this awkward host arrangement.


Isn't Vancouver back in the running to be one of the hosts from Canada?


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Isn't Vancouver back in the running to be one of the hosts from Canada?


I would guess that Edmonton and Vancouver are still alive. Personally I would take Vancouver and Toronto and be done with it.

All 3 in Mexico strike me as being as solid as you can be in a world of COVID, Putin, earthquakes and Popocatepetl


----------



## Light Tower

pesto said:


> I would guess that Edmonton and Vancouver are still alive. Personally I would take Vancouver and Toronto and be done with it.
> 
> All 3 in Mexico strike me as being as solid as you can be in a world of COVID, Putin, earthquakes and Popocatepetl


We will hear news on the host cities sometime this month.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

aquamaroon said:


> Isn't Vancouver back in the running to be one of the hosts from Canada?


I do not know. There is no word from FIFA that they can get back in.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> We will hear news on the host cities sometime this month.


At least that is what is planned. Could still get delayed though.


----------



## Light Tower

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> At least that is what is planned. Could still get delayed though.


getting delaued again cause of COVID-19.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> getting delaued again cause of COVID-19.


Unlikely. If delayed it would probably be due to international calendar talks and/or planning the qualification process (including automatic berths).


----------



## Light Tower

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Unlikely. If delayed it would probably be due to international calendar talks and/or planning the qualification process (including automatic berths).


Hopefully it won't be delayed.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

I now want to talk about how do you think teams automatically qualify. There are rumors Edmonton is already out so that leaves only Toronto for Canada (some say Vancouver can get in but FIFA has yet to confirm this). It would be unfair to do deny the US an automatic spot given they have the most games. How do you think a playoff match between Canada and Mexico before CONCACAF qualifiers where the winner gets the second automatic bid and the loser gets to go through the normal qualification process. Or all three can be given a automatic berth or if FIFA and CONCACAF are completely savage none of the three get the automatic berth. What do you think of this?


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I now want to talk about how do you think teams automatically qualify. There are rumors Edmonton is already out so that leaves only Toronto for Canada (some say Vancouver can get in but FIFA has yet to confirm this). It would be unfair to do deny the US an automatic spot given they have the most games. How do you think a playoff match between Canada and Mexico before CONCACAF qualifiers where the winner gets the second automatic bid and the loser gets to go through the normal qualification process. Or all three can be given a automatic berth or if FIFA and CONCACAF are completely savage none of the three get the automatic berth. What do you think of this?


All 3 automatic.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> All 3 automatic.


Thanks for responding. I forgot another possibility is to do it like AFCON and have automatic qualification for hosts but still have them take part in qualifiers to play spoiler and just in case last minute hosting modifications need to be made.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Thanks for responding. I forgot another possibility is to do it like AFCON and have automatic qualification for hosts but still have them take part in qualifiers to play spoiler and just in case last minute hosting modifications need to be made.


Each country is hosting and each prepared and worked on bringing facilities and preparing the event. .

If you choose 3 people to come to help prepare your house you don't put 1 at the head of the table and let the other 2 mud-wrestle for who gets to come into the house.


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1500225703794593793


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Each country is hosting and each prepared and worked on bringing facilities and preparing the event. .
> 
> If you choose 3 people to come to help prepare your house you don't put 1 at the head of the table and let the other 2 mud-wrestle for who gets to come into the house.


I brought the AFCON example because it could be the best way for qualification in the future. I am well aware that all three countries are making preparations right now but should anything backfire in the future there is a plan in place to prevent an unnecessary scramble to re-do the automatic qualification should a host not be fit to serve with the AFCON format. The AFCON format could benefit Canada, US and Mexico as it would give them better prep before the tournament and also play spoiler to the non-host CONCACAF nations qualifying campaign.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1500225703794593793


Sounds reasonable but no sources cited. Did he hear it from his cat last night while they were hangin'?


----------



## Light Tower

unsure about that yet.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Yet more developments from Mexico. Homophobic chant #Gritaputo: Mexican fans' campaign to sabotage their national team vs. the US


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Yet more developments from Mexico. Homophobic chant #Gritaputo: Mexican fans' campaign to sabotage their national team vs. the US


I had wondered about situations like that since it is an obvious trick for fans of opponents to chant in Mexico so as to get Mexico penalized. But the motivation here is a bit opaque to me.

Fortunately, playing in an empty stadium eliminates the issue. I wonder if fans could find other public areas to gather around a big screen and chant?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

After everything with the chant and the fight in the stands, do any Mexican Skyscraper City feel there is momentum in Mexico to get the World Cup out of there. How do you think FIFA would respond to that.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> After everything with the chant and the fight in the stands, do any Mexican Skyscraper City feel there is momentum in Mexico to get the World Cup out of there. How do you think FIFA would respond to that.


Seriously? You can't stop with Mexico?

Chicago, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Minneapolis have chosen not to bid. Labor unions around the US have called to shut down the US games unless union workers are used and contracts handed-out to unionized companies. Do you think there is any momentum to getting the US out?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Seriously? You can't stop with Mexico?
> 
> Chicago, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Minneapolis have chosen not to bid. Labor unions around the US have called to shut down the US games unless union workers are used and contracts handed-out to unionized companies. Do you think there is any momentum to getting the US out?


Did not mean to upset you. Just was reading a lot of negative articles about Mexico and wanted to hear from users from that country.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Did not mean to upset you. Just was reading a lot of negative articles about Mexico and wanted to hear from users from that country.


For sure cities in the US, Canada or Mexico can have issues about funding, politics, security, etc.

But it does seem odd that you criticize Mexico on a wide variety of issues; then say you are over that craziness; and then immediately go back to eliciting posts from people who think that Mexico might want to pull out of the 2026 tournament. It sort of encourages haters to post negative posts about Mexico for no good reason.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> For sure cities in the US, Canada or Mexico can have issues about funding, politics, security, etc.
> 
> But it does seem odd that you criticize Mexico on a wide variety of issues; then say you are over that craziness; and then immediately go back to eliciting posts from people who think that Mexico might want to pull out of the 2026 tournament. It sort of encourages haters to post negative posts about Mexico for no good reason.


I absolutely have nothing against Mexico, I just see a lot of negative articles about them and the 2026 World Cup. The thing I want most is an answer from someone from Mexico about this issue so I have a clearer idea. I even posted in a Spanish thread about Mexican stadiums so I can get the best possible feedback from a Mexican.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I absolutely have nothing against Mexico, I just see a lot of negative articles about them and the 2026 World Cup. The thing I want most is an answer from someone from Mexico about this issue so I have a clearer idea. I even posted in a Spanish thread about Mexican stadiums so I can get the best possible feedback from a Mexican.


Good idea. The locals will add some interesting perspective (I hope).


----------



## miguelon

Here I am, 

Tijuana, born and raised, and a soccer/football fan.

Chicagobuildingnerd1833, seems to have the idea, that for every negative news article, FIFA has a score card to remove hosts.
If we go by that, almost every country would be ineligible to host. (picture if there was an argument about it, every time there is a school shooting in the US?). 
As bad as the situation above is, that doesn't mean that everything else needs to freeze.

Thar being said, current mood in Mexico, is that the national team and LigaMX are not in their best moment, and that the Mexican Football Federation, is an incompetent entity, without a plan, and only interesting on its profits (its a private entity).

2026 its seen as a good thing, but also as a distant thing for México, because everyone knows, that we would be only the "sideshow".
But also, given the current economic/political situation, its a good thing that everything is private, the involvent of local and federal governments, would be mainly to provide services, security, some logistics, etc, but not as an investor or organizer. 

Take note, that the vast majority of Mexicans that could potentially pay tickets for a World Cup game in México, are the same ones, that would travel to the event, regardless of where it is. 
For myself, once the draw is done, I would travel to the cities, of where the games i want to see are taking place, regardless if its in Mexico or USA, or Canada.

If anything, 2026 would be the reason, that would finally bring forward the long overdue Azteca Stadium redevelopment. Again with private money, so no harm.


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> Here I am,
> 
> Tijuana, born and raised, and a soccer/football fan.
> 
> Chicagobuildingnerd1833, seems to have the idea, that for every negative news article, FIFA has a score card to remove hosts.
> If we go by that, almost every country would be ineligible to host. (picture if there was an argument about it, every time there is a school shooting in the US?).
> As bad as the situation above is, that doesn't mean that everything else needs to freeze.
> 
> Thar being said, current mood in Mexico, is that the national team and LigaMX are not in their best moment, and that the Mexican Football Federation, is an incompetent entity, without a plan, and only interesting on its profits (its a private entity).
> 
> 2026 its seen as a good thing, but also as a distant thing for México, because everyone knows, that we would be only the "sideshow".
> But also, given the current economic/political situation, its a good thing that everything is private, the involvent of local and federal governments, would be mainly to provide services, security, some logistics, etc, but not as an investor or organizer.
> 
> Take note, that the vast majority of Mexicans that could potentially pay tickets for a World Cup game in México, are the same ones, that would travel to the event, regardless of where it is.
> For myself, once the draw is done, I would travel to the cities, of where the games i want to see are taking place, regardless if its in Mexico or USA, or Canada.
> 
> If anything, 2026 would be the reason, that would finally bring forward the long overdue Azteca Stadium redevelopment. Again with private money, so no harm.


Thanks, sounds very reasonable. Different groups have different priorities, just as in any open government or economy. I would guess that fans in most countries have real questions about the competence of the local federations and their profit motives. 

Mexicans will cross the border in large numbers for El Tri. That makes the chant issue about the same in LA or Dallas as in Mexico. Maybe less in, say, Edmonton, although still an issue.

But FIFA does not want to offend either the Mexican federation or fans unless it has to; and it seems too extreme to bar El Tri altogether for fan offenses, especially in a club match in a different stadium.


----------



## Light Tower

miguelon said:


> Here I am,
> 
> Tijuana, born and raised, and a soccer/football fan.
> 
> Chicagobuildingnerd1833, seems to have the idea, that for every negative news article, FIFA has a score card to remove hosts.
> If we go by that, almost every country would be ineligible to host. (picture if there was an argument about it, every time there is a school shooting in the US?).
> As bad as the situation above is, that doesn't mean that everything else needs to freeze.
> 
> Thar being said, current mood in Mexico, is that the national team and LigaMX are not in their best moment, and that the Mexican Football Federation, is an incompetent entity, without a plan, and only interesting on its profits (its a private entity).
> 
> 2026 its seen as a good thing, but also as a distant thing for México, because everyone knows, that we would be only the "sideshow".
> But also, given the current economic/political situation, its a good thing that everything is private, the involvent of local and federal governments, would be mainly to provide services, security, some logistics, etc, but not as an investor or organizer.
> 
> Take note, that the vast majority of Mexicans that could potentially pay tickets for a World Cup game in México, are the same ones, that would travel to the event, regardless of where it is.
> For myself, once the draw is done, I would travel to the cities, of where the games i want to see are taking place, regardless if its in Mexico or USA, or Canada.
> 
> If anything, 2026 would be the reason, that would finally bring forward the long overdue Azteca Stadium redevelopment. Again with private money, so no harm.


It's going to be a long way for its redevelopment.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

miguelon said:


> Here I am,
> 
> Tijuana, born and raised, and a soccer/football fan.
> 
> Chicagobuildingnerd1833, seems to have the idea, that for every negative news article, FIFA has a score card to remove hosts.
> If we go by that, almost every country would be ineligible to host. (picture if there was an argument about it, every time there is a school shooting in the US?).
> As bad as the situation above is, that doesn't mean that everything else needs to freeze.
> 
> Thar being said, current mood in Mexico, is that the national team and LigaMX are not in their best moment, and that the Mexican Football Federation, is an incompetent entity, without a plan, and only interesting on its profits (its a private entity).
> 
> 2026 its seen as a good thing, but also as a distant thing for México, because everyone knows, that we would be only the "sideshow".
> But also, given the current economic/political situation, its a good thing that everything is private, the involvent of local and federal governments, would be mainly to provide services, security, some logistics, etc, but not as an investor or organizer.
> 
> Take note, that the vast majority of Mexicans that could potentially pay tickets for a World Cup game in México, are the same ones, that would travel to the event, regardless of where it is.
> For myself, once the draw is done, I would travel to the cities, of where the games i want to see are taking place, regardless if its in Mexico or USA, or Canada.
> 
> If anything, 2026 would be the reason, that would finally bring forward the long overdue Azteca Stadium redevelopment. Again with private money, so no harm.


Thanks for sharing. Really appreciate hearing from you.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> It's going to be a long way for its redevelopment.


Sometimes you have to be patient or improvise. The 2026 World Cup stadium selection process is based on those two things.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

So are all three countries getting in to the World Cup, does that mean there will only be one spot for the rest?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Juanpabloangel said:


> So are all three countries getting in to the World Cup, does that mean there will only be one spot for the rest?


Are you talking about qualification, if so it has not been decided yet. Also there is a small possibility one of the countries gets kicked out so better safe than sorry.


----------



## slipperydog

Juanpabloangel said:


> So are all three countries getting in to the World Cup, does that mean there will only be one spot for the rest?


The World Cup will have 48 teams, so there will be more sports for CONCACAF teams besides the hosts.


----------



## pesto

Concacaf president says he wants eight teams at 2026 World Cup | MLSSoccer.com


Eight teams at the 2026 WC? Concacaf boss weighs in




www.mlssoccer.com





This has been talked about for some time, but nothing official afaik. Six would probably be as low as possible..


----------



## ElvisBC

This thread has been taken over for quite a while by totally clueless people, but even they should be able to google.

FIFA council approved the slot allocation few years ago, CONCACAF is getting six spots at the World Cup 2026 plus playoff spot(s) which is IMHO scandalous, but that‘s FIFA world … where no logic exists!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> This thread has been taken over for quite a while by totally clueless people, but even they should be able to google.
> 
> FIFA council approved the slot allocation few years ago, CONCACAF is getting six spots at the World Cup 2026 plus playoff spot(s) which is IMHO scandalous, but that‘s FIFA world … where no logic exists!


LOL. "Only idiots post on this thread" he posts on the thread.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

I think the best bet for qualification is to have all three co-hosts take part in CONCACAF qualifying and qualify automatically as well. AFCON uses this format for qualifying. So all three will go in directly but they will be part of the qualifying process for them to be better prepared and to have implications on the other three spots plus the intercontinental playoff spot.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Mayor likes Edmonton’s chances for 2026 FIFA World Cup, confident feds will help - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca


Edmonton expects FIFA will make a decision on host cities for the 2026 World Cup in April.




globalnews.ca


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Mayor likes Edmonton’s chances for 2026 FIFA World Cup, confident feds will help - Edmonton | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Edmonton expects FIFA will make a decision on host cities for the 2026 World Cup in April.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


So Edmonton has to get 5 of Canada's 10 matches including 2 of the 3 knock-out matches. Well, I guess if you don't ask you're not going to get it. I suppose Vancouver gets the 3rd one (assuming Vancouver doesn't jump back in).


----------



## Light Tower

Eight teams is possible for CONCACAF.


----------



## pesto

pesto said:


> So Edmonton has to get 5 of Canada's 10 matches including 2 of the 3 knock-out matches. Well, I guess if you don't ask you're not going to get it. I suppose Vancouver gets the 3rd one (assuming Vancouver doesn't jump back in).


Ooops! I meant "Toronto" the first time I mentioned "Vancouver", above.


----------



## pesto

Light Tower said:


> Eight teams is possible for CONCACAF.


Yes, I have seen some sites say that this is still open. That's why I said at least six, which is the lowest I have seen mentioned..


----------



## ElvisBC

there are no sites “telling or not telling something“ pesto, FIFA council made their decission and it is already in place: CONCACAF is getting 6 firm spots for 2026 plus two more playoff spots for a tournament of six teams (2xCONCACAF, 1xCAF, CONMEBOL, AFC & OFC each), which means it will highly likely stay at six.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

FIFA Congress was today and they did not mention the 2026 World Cup from what I have heard. They better hurry if they are to settle things like host city selection, security concerns and qualification process (including automatic spots).


----------



## Light Tower

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> FIFA Congress was today and they did not mention the 2026 World Cup from what I have heard. They better hurry if they are to settle things like host city selection, security concerns and qualification process (including automatic spots).


They haven't said it yet. But they will after the host cities are announced.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> there are no sites “telling or not telling something“ pesto, FIFA council made their decission and it is already in place: CONCACAF is getting 6 firm spots for 2026 plus two more playoff spots for a tournament of six teams (2xCONCACAF, 1xCAF, CONMEBOL, AFC & OFC each), which means it will highly likely stay at six.


Agree. Six is a minimum and likely to hold. But still subject to discussion.


----------



## pesto

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-world-cup-host-2026-1.6402704



Interesting to see the word "considering" used to describe Toronto's attitude toward the WC. 

The article claims the date for making public the cities selected is now May. That makes sense since the lock-out delayed MLB season will add to the NCAA tournament press and fan focus during early April.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-world-cup-host-2026-1.6402704
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting to see the word "considering" used to describe Toronto's attitude toward the WC.
> 
> The article claims the date for making public the cities selected is now May. That makes sense since the lock-out delayed MLB season will add to the NCAA tournament press and fan focus during early April.


Good thing automatic qualification is not confirmed yet as Canada is in a very tough place when it comes to co-host duties. At least they are making the World Cup for the first time in 36 years and massive congratulations to them for doing so.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I watched the Final Draw Ceremony for the 2022 FIFA World Cup.
About the 2026 one, I think they could choose Will Smith, Chris Rock or other Hollywood star for the draw and presentation.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

It’s interesting about how my question raised a debate how many slots should be available notwithstanding a google search. There is no need to call people idiots. I assume people on this thread might know how many slots are available but Concacaf should certainly not get 8. However an enlarged series of Intercontinental play offs might be fairer.
I see the stadia being touted is mainly in the US, so the other two hosts appear to be largely junior hosts.


----------



## Light Tower

It's possible


----------



## slipperydog

With FIFA preparing to announce 2026 World Cup venues next month, Washington and Baltimore are in discussions about combining their respective bids and* staging matches exclusively at M&T Bank Stadium*.

Terry Hasseltine, who is heading Baltimore’s efforts, told the Maryland Stadium Authority’s board of directors Tuesday that he is “currently working with the District of Columbia on a partial merger.”

In an interview Wednesday, Greg O’Dell, who is leading the Washington campaign, said he and Hasseltine spoke last week and “we are definitely open to different options” after FIFA gave FedEx Field in Landover low marks last year.

If the joint bid is selected, *games would be played in downtown Baltimore and Washington would only host ancillary events*, such as a massive fan festival on the National Mall, and possibly team training centers.

The sport’s global governing body is *tentatively planning to announce in mid-May 16 venues in the United States, Mexico and Canada* — the first World Cup jointly hosted by three countries. At least 10 stadiums will be in the United States, selected from a list of 17 finalists.

Acknowledgment of a combined bid comes after The Washington Post reported in January that D.C. area’s hopes of staging a portion of the men’s soccer tournament were in jeopardy because of FIFA’s issues with FedEx Field.

O’Dell — the outgoing president and chief executive of Events DC, the city’s convention and sports authority — said Wednesday, “We recognize the stadium has some particular challenges.” However, he added, “feedback from FIFA and U.S. Soccer is very clear they want [Washington] to be part of the experience.”

Historically, the capital of a World Cup host country is a primary venue. However, FIFA officials expressed concern about FedEx Field during their inspection tour in September. The NFL venue — which the Washington Commanders opened in 1997 and plan to leave after the 2027 season — has been plagued with problems for years.

While it did not like FedEx Field, FIFA did give high marks to M&T Bank Stadium, home to the NFL’s Ravens, which is located about 35 miles from downtown Washington. Since opening in 1998, it has staged some international soccer friendlies and two U.S. men’s national team matches as part of the Concacaf Gold Cup.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/04/06/washington-baltimore-joint-world-cup-bid/


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> With FIFA preparing to announce 2026 World Cup venues next month, Washington and Baltimore are in discussions about combining their respective bids and* staging matches exclusively at M&T Bank Stadium*.
> 
> Terry Hasseltine, who is heading Baltimore’s efforts, told the Maryland Stadium Authority’s board of directors Tuesday that he is “currently working with the District of Columbia on a partial merger.”
> 
> In an interview Wednesday, Greg O’Dell, who is leading the Washington campaign, said he and Hasseltine spoke last week and “we are definitely open to different options” after FIFA gave FedEx Field in Landover low marks last year.
> 
> If the joint bid is selected, *games would be played in downtown Baltimore and Washington would only host ancillary events*, such as a massive fan festival on the National Mall, and possibly team training centers.
> 
> The sport’s global governing body is *tentatively planning to announce in mid-May 16 venues in the United States, Mexico and Canada* — the first World Cup jointly hosted by three countries. At least 10 stadiums will be in the United States, selected from a list of 17 finalists.
> 
> Acknowledgment of a combined bid comes after The Washington Post reported in January that D.C. area’s hopes of staging a portion of the men’s soccer tournament were in jeopardy because of FIFA’s issues with FedEx Field.
> 
> O’Dell — the outgoing president and chief executive of Events DC, the city’s convention and sports authority — said Wednesday, “We recognize the stadium has some particular challenges.” However, he added, “feedback from FIFA and U.S. Soccer is very clear they want [Washington] to be part of the experience.”
> 
> Historically, the capital of a World Cup host country is a primary venue. However, FIFA officials expressed concern about FedEx Field during their inspection tour in September. The NFL venue — which the Washington Commanders opened in 1997 and plan to leave after the 2027 season — has been plagued with problems for years.
> 
> While it did not like FedEx Field, FIFA did give high marks to M&T Bank Stadium, home to the NFL’s Ravens, which is located about 35 miles from downtown Washington. Since opening in 1998, it has staged some international soccer friendlies and two U.S. men’s national team matches as part of the Concacaf Gold Cup.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/04/06/washington-baltimore-joint-world-cup-bid/


I think we saw that coming from the beginning, when we said that only 1 of DC and Baltimore would be chosen.

The two cities are in effect one metro area; the best stadium is in Baltimore and the best sites for fans, history, parades and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is on July 4 in DC.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> I think we saw that coming from the beginning, when we said that only 1 of DC and Baltimore would be chosen.
> 
> The two cities are in effect one metro area; the best stadium is in Baltimore and the best sites for fans, history, parades and the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is on July 4 in DC.


Yep, and the trip to downtown Baltimore is only a 35 minute HSR train ride.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

I could not read all of the article because I am not willing to pay money to The Times but reading the first paragraph gives me ideas that FIFA might make a huge announcement about the format used for the 2026 World Cup regarding their original position on 16 groups of 3 given the high risk of collusion with an odd number of teams per group. Better make an announcement soon as the bidding cities need to be ready for adjustments should that happen. Format for 2026 World Cup could be revamped amid ‘collusion’ fears , says Fifa vice-president


----------



## Pinkerton89

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I could not read all of the article because I am not willing to pay money to The Times but reading the first paragraph gives me ideas that FIFA might make a huge announcement about the format used for the 2026 World Cup regarding their original position on 16 groups of 3 given the high risk of collusion with an odd number of teams per group. Better make an announcement soon as the bidding cities need to be ready for adjustments should that happen. Format for 2026 World Cup could be revamped amid ‘collusion’ fears , says Fifa vice-president


Doubt they will reduce the number of teams so are we basically looking at a double Euro/Asian Cup/AFCON format I.e 4 Groups of 12 with best third places?

Increases the tournament to 104 Games if so.

Personally I feel like 40 Teams with 8 Groups of 5 would have been the more sensible increase, but hey.

Could have been
1 auto spot for a host
13 UEFA 
4.5 CONMEBOL
4.5 CONCACAF
8 AFC
8 CAF 
1 OFC


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Pinkerton89 said:


> Doubt they will reduce the number of teams so are we basically looking at a double Euro/Asian Cup/AFCON format I.e 4 Groups of 12 with best third places?
> 
> Increases the tournament to 104 Games if so.
> 
> Personally I feel like 40 Teams with 8 Groups of 5 would have been the more sensible increase, but hey.
> 
> Could have been
> 1 auto spot for a host
> 13 UEFA
> 4.5 CONMEBOL
> 4.5 CONCACAF
> 8 AFC
> 8 CAF
> 1 OFC


On a different forum I suggested that FIFA could do a 48 team tournament with the to 16 seeded teams qualifying directly for a 32 team group stage and then have the remaining 32 teams play in a one off game against each other to determine the other 16 teams in the group stage. I know the NCAA basketball tournament does something similar to this. The formant I mentioned could be particularly well suited for this hosting arrangement as the US can hold the group stage and knockout rounds and have it be like a World Cup we are used to (1 host, 32 teams, 4 knockout rounds) and then have Canada and Mexico split the honors of hosting the play in games (8 in each country).


----------



## Light Tower

slipperydog said:


> With FIFA preparing to announce 2026 World Cup venues next month, Washington and Baltimore are in discussions about combining their respective bids and* staging matches exclusively at M&T Bank Stadium*.
> 
> Terry Hasseltine, who is heading Baltimore’s efforts, told the Maryland Stadium Authority’s board of directors Tuesday that he is “currently working with the District of Columbia on a partial merger.”
> 
> In an interview Wednesday, Greg O’Dell, who is leading the Washington campaign, said he and Hasseltine spoke last week and “we are definitely open to different options” after FIFA gave FedEx Field in Landover low marks last year.
> 
> If the joint bid is selected, *games would be played in downtown Baltimore and Washington would only host ancillary events*, such as a massive fan festival on the National Mall, and possibly team training centers.
> 
> The sport’s global governing body is *tentatively planning to announce in mid-May 16 venues in the United States, Mexico and Canada* — the first World Cup jointly hosted by three countries. At least 10 stadiums will be in the United States, selected from a list of 17 finalists.
> 
> Acknowledgment of a combined bid comes after The Washington Post reported in January that D.C. area’s hopes of staging a portion of the men’s soccer tournament were in jeopardy because of FIFA’s issues with FedEx Field.
> 
> O’Dell — the outgoing president and chief executive of Events DC, the city’s convention and sports authority — said Wednesday, “We recognize the stadium has some particular challenges.” However, he added, “feedback from FIFA and U.S. Soccer is very clear they want [Washington] to be part of the experience.”
> 
> Historically, the capital of a World Cup host country is a primary venue. However, FIFA officials expressed concern about FedEx Field during their inspection tour in September. The NFL venue — which the Washington Commanders opened in 1997 and plan to leave after the 2027 season — has been plagued with problems for years.
> 
> While it did not like FedEx Field, FIFA did give high marks to M&T Bank Stadium, home to the NFL’s Ravens, which is located about 35 miles from downtown Washington. Since opening in 1998, it has staged some international soccer friendlies and two U.S. men’s national team matches as part of the Concacaf Gold Cup.
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/04/06/washington-baltimore-joint-world-cup-bid/


Only one month left for the host cities to be finalized.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> Only one month left for the host cities to be finalized.


It keeps getting delayed. I would be hopeful if it happens in this year at all. Got to finalize a lot of things before they can award host cities.


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512450444567592960

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512450970394894339


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512450444567592960
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512450970394894339


LOL. Too few to too many is 6 seconds flat. 

As I recall, Alberta wants 5 games including 2 knock-out or they don't contribute. And now folks don' think it makes any sense unless they get more than 3 games in any given city. The only solution is 2 cities with 5 each, but that's inconsistent with selecting 3 cities in the first place.


----------



## Pinkerton89

I really don't get how you end up with 10 games in Canada and Mexico in this format. Surely its simple and its 3 Group games and 1 knock out for each Canadian and Mexican venue, unless the format changes? Other wise you have some US venues hosting multiple Round of 32 games, why when you have 16 venues in total?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Pinkerton89 said:


> I really don't get how you end up with 10 games in Canada and Mexico in this format. Surely its simple and its 3 Group games and 1 knock out for each Canadian and Mexican venue, unless the format changes? Other wise you have some US venues hosting multiple Round of 32 games, why when you have 16 venues in total?


There will probably be an extraordinary Congress soon about how to finalize this World Cup as FIFA have made it really hard on themselves when it comes to this World Cup. Now there are rumors that FIFA might revise the tournament format from originally planned to avoid group stage collusion. Any suggestion that the stadium selection will be next month sounds unrealistically optimistic given what I mentioned as well as the fact that co-host elects Canada and Mexico appear to be stagnating in preparations compared to the US where preparations appear to be smoother.


----------



## nyrmetros

New Giants Stadium is unfortunately a terrible stadium.


----------



## aquamaroon

From The Kansas City Star, some renders have been revealed from the KC2026 Organizing Group that shows Arrowhead Stadium hosting the 2026 World Cup (these are renders that they sent to FIFA fwiw)



https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/for-petes-sake/article260225110.html

































(_H/T to user PHofKS for finding this_)

First off WAY too many fireworks in the renders fellas lol. Secondly I think it looks nice all things considered, provided that the pitch is the right size and not compromised. Of course there is the elephant in the room regarding the lack of a roof but it is what it is at this point, either it's a dealbreaker or it's not (Arrowhead isn't getting a roof regardless especially with talk of a new stadium for the Chiefs.) Beyond that though, I'm not going to lie, the aesthetics look...odd. Arrowhead is just SUCH an NFL stadium, and a classic one at that, seeing the other football in it just looks "wrong" no better way to put it. Doesn't help there's that big (American) football shaped courtyard on the way in as seen in render 1 lol. While I respect the enthusiasm, seeing these renders makes me appreciate what a "square peg/round hole" situation we may see in a few of these stadiums. All that said, Kansas City is one of the best soccer towns in America and they would be a fantastic and enthusiastic host! Too bad Children's Mercy Park can't fit 60,000 lol.


----------



## Tered

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/for-petes-sake/article260225110.html



If that article was written a week before, I would've thought that it was an April Fools joke. That render 👆 is worse then my hack job on MBS 😂🤣


----------



## ElvisBC

they are clueless, they obviously never saw a single pic of the world cup stadium


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Given the lack of preparations there, Ecuador might not host the next Copa America and give it to the US to help them prepare for the World Cup. The Copa America 2024 in the United States? - World Today News


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Here is a quote about how FIFA will do the schedule for the 2026 World Cup, “They’re going to name the cities and then work on the schedule in 2023, so that’s when your level in the tournament is determined.” So basically they are going to select the stadiums tentatively scheduled for next month and then do the schedule arrangement from there.
Atlanta bids progressing to bring World Cup, Final Four here


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Does anyone feel the progress of preparing for this World Cup is stalling. They said the stadium selection will be next month but I feel this is overly optimistic. Does anyone else think there will be a FIFA extraordinary Congress.


----------



## slipperydog

Not exactly breaking news, but FIFA officially accepts Vancouver as a candidate host city.









Update on FIFA World Cup 2026™ candidate host city process


While the selection process for the cities that will host the FIFA World Cup 2026™ is ongoing, FIFA can today announce two important updates in relation to the competition.




www.fifa.com


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Not exactly breaking news, but FIFA officially accepts Vancouver as a candidate host city.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update on FIFA World Cup 2026™ candidate host city process
> 
> 
> While the selection process for the cities that will host the FIFA World Cup 2026™ is ongoing, FIFA can today announce two important updates in relation to the competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fifa.com


Ha, beat me to it. The logic is pretty strong since FIFA presumably strongly prefers Vancouver to Edmonton based on name recognition, location, etc. And anyone understands that rules and deadlines are intended to make things easier, not to keep you from doing what makes most sense for the organization.


----------



## Pinkerton89

pesto said:


> Ha, beat me to it. The logic is pretty strong since FIFA presumably strongly prefers Vancouver to Edmonton based on name recognition, location, etc. And anyone understands that rules and deadlines are intended to make things easier, not to keep you from doing what makes most sense for the organization.


Is it necessarily Vancouver or Edmonton though, isn’t there a chance they pick both?


----------



## pesto

Pinkerton89 said:


> Is it necessarily Vancouver or Edmonton though, isn’t there a chance they pick both?


I would say entirely possible, but that's just a guess. 

Alberta was saying they wouldn't contribute funds to host unless Edmonton got 5 matches including 2 knock-out round; and Toronto and Vancouver said that it makes no economic sense to host 3 or fewer matches. If you believe that is something more than just posturing, the math doesn't work for 3 cities.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

slipperydog said:


> Not exactly breaking news, but FIFA officially accepts Vancouver as a candidate host city.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Update on FIFA World Cup 2026™ candidate host city process
> 
> 
> While the selection process for the cities that will host the FIFA World Cup 2026™ is ongoing, FIFA can today announce two important updates in relation to the competition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fifa.com


Great to hear progress is back. Now while we wait for the stadium selection, can we get an announcement about the qualification process (including automatic qualification) and if there is any possible tournament revision.


----------



## Light Tower

That's good news that Vancouver is in the 2026 FIFA World Cup bid process replacing Montreal.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

_These are my picks about the US cities

NY
LA
Dallas_
Houston
Miami
Atlanta
San Francisco
_Washington/Baltimore
Seattle/Denver
Boston/Philadelphia_


----------



## JYDA

Ramanaramana said:


> Interesting idea.
> 
> Maybe go a step further and use Swiss system single table.
> 
> That way it doesn't matter how many teama there are. 40, 48, 50, 64, all works.
> 
> Three games each, top 32 or 16 through to knockouts.
> 
> Probably too radical for most, but Swiss system solves issues with the grouping system, and is ideal for weeding out the worst teams.


That's actually the "pots" system, trademarked by a group of Chilean consultants. They copyrighted the idea and presented it to UEFA for Champions League reform. UEFA decided they wanted to use it but to avoid paying anything they're trying to call it a "swiss system" even though it's not. A "swiss system" is very different. In a swiss system, matchups are drawn after each game based on the previous result. Winners of game 1 face other winners of game 1, losers of game 1 face other losers of game 1 etc. Repeat the process for all successive matches so teams move up and down the ranking table. 

UEFA is not doing that for the Champions League. They're drawing all the fixtures from the beginning like the pots system. Unfortunately it's created a lot of confusion just to dodge a lawsuit.

This is a presentation from the Chilean consultants on a 36 team format proposal from 2015


----------



## Ramanaramana

Yeah I knew it's not a true Swiss system, just that's the phrasing that media have gone with so I've used it here too. 

I'm not sure if Fifa would do single tables, as there is a nice simplicity to groups, but if it's a big success in CL it won't seem as outlandish.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1520433018883747843


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1520433018883747843


Kind of fun but hard to sort speculation from reality. 

Philly is a legit contender but you have to talk about who they push out. Assuming 10 spots with Vancouver now back in; and assuming NY, LA, Dallas, SF, Miami, Atlanta, DC/Balt likely, there's just 3 left out of Seattle, Denver, Houston, Orlando, KC, Nashville, Cincinnati, Boston, Philly.

The US commercial HQ was talked about some time back; I would guess that the amount and sophistication of technical, funding and management resources makes a US outpost useful.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> Yeah I knew it's not a true Swiss system, just that's the phrasing that media have gone with so I've used it here too.
> 
> I'm not sure if Fifa would do single tables, as there is a nice simplicity to groups, but if it's a big success in CL it won't seem as outlandish.


A single table works well for the Champions League as there are more games being played by any given team. A team in the World Cup should only play 2-3 games before the knockouts. I understand where you are going but my mind still hasn't changed and think the 40+8 format is best for the World Cup.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1520433018883747843


Very interesting. I am sure some of the bigger cities in the US are in like New York, LA and Atlanta. Given the FIFA president's recent visit and praise of the Azteca, CDMX will get in for sure with some modifications to the stadium of course. Don't know too much about the other Mexican cities. I do not know what to make of Canada though as they have been all over the map with what to do for World Cup preparations.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> They might put in new seats and change the layout a bit to make it more ideal.


Personally me I would make the seats black so they are the same color as Mexico's kits, so it can be neutral between Club America and Cruz Azul's colors and because the ads for seat color pattern looks obnoxious in my opinion. I would also get rid of that stupid awning looking thing behind one of the touchlines and replace it with normal looking seats. Also add more suites as well. My ideal Azteca will probably sit somewhere between 70 and 80 thousand people but going above the 80k threshold will not matter for the 2026 World Cup as Mexico are only minor hosts. The Azteca is one of the most special stadiums in the world and needs to be both preserved and modernized.


----------



## Tered

nyrmetros said:


> Glad Vancouver is back in the game.


It would be nice to see Seattle included along with Vancouver. Especially after last evening in Seattle with them also winning the 2019 MLS Cup just 2 years ago. Showing that it's hard to deny that the Northwest has great supporters & it would be a mistake not to include both cities. JMO


----------



## pesto

Tered said:


> It would be nice to see Seattle included along with Vancouver. Especially after last evening in Seattle with them also winning the 2019 MLS Cup just 2 years ago. Showing that it's hard to deny that the Northwest has great supporters & it would be a mistake not to include both cities. JMO


The problem is the 2 cities combined aren't as big as, say, Houston and there are no cities within 100 miles of any size. The region sounds right for 1 city since residents can drive between them.

Choosing only 1 allows you to add, say, Houston with 7M plus metro or Nashville which will draw from 8 or so states in the mid-west and south, or Philly with with 7M and massive 250th anniversary celebrations of the Declaration of Independence...


----------



## Tered

You still have the soccer supporters from the Portland area that would come up. And they would definitely make the drive up to Seattle if it was the case of choosing between the 2. Seattle would then be the preferred site rather than Vancouver. But that would then unfortunately cause a problem with having 1 less Canadian city.


----------



## pesto

Tered said:


> You still have the soccer supporters from the Portland area that would come up. And they would definitely make the drive up to Seattle if it was the case of choosing between the 2. Seattle would then be the preferred site rather than Vancouver. But that would then unfortunately cause a problem with having 1 less Canadian city.


I won't say you are wrong, but it's 175 miles to Portland and it's a small metro (no MLB, NHL or NFL teams); locals could just fly to Vancouver if they want to attend. This makes sense only if some kind of group theory is applied.

By contrast, near Nashville are Louisville, Cincinnati, Memphis, Indianapolis, St. Louis and several smaller cities. It's the closest site to Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, etc. Well over 40M unless you let KC in, in which case you have to bump someone as well.,


----------



## ElvisBC

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Very interesting. ……


indeed, but only if it’s true



Tered said:


> It would be nice to see Seattle included along with Vancouver. Especially after last evening in Seattle with them also winning the 2019 MLS Cup just 2 years ago. Showing that it's hard to deny that the Northwest has great supporters & it would be a mistake not to include both cities. JMO


fully agree. vancouver back in the game could mean push for seattle as well, and that selection would be great!


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

ElvisBC said:


> indeed, but only if it’s true
> 
> 
> fully agree. vancouver back in the game could mean push for seattle as well, and that selection would be great!


I remember the head of tournament organization for FIFA said that they want the stadiums close together as possible. Both Toronto and Vancouver are reasonably close to the US cities so Edmonton is the only one I see as possibly being problematic. Mexico is tricker as both CDMX and Guadalajara are quite far from the US with only Monterrey being reasonably close to the US. I would not be surprised if they have to make compromises along the way. Hope the next few Gold Cups will be used as a test for this World Cup. Definitely put more Gold Cup games in Canada and Mexico if they are set to co-host the World Cup and maybe include some Caribbean and Central American cities too to test logistics to the extreme.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I remember the head of tournament organization for FIFA said that they want the stadiums close together as possible. Both Toronto and Vancouver are reasonably close to the US cities so Edmonton is the only one I see as possibly being problematic. Mexico is tricker as both CDMX and Guadalajara are quite far from the US with only Monterrey being reasonably close to the US. I would not be surprised if they have to make compromises along the way. Hope the next few Gold Cups will be used as a test for this World Cup. Definitely put more Gold Cup games in Canada and Mexico if they are set to co-host the World Cup and maybe include some Caribbean and Central American cities too to test logistics to the extreme.


Groups make some sense but you can only take that so far or you eliminate LA, Denver, SF and Seattle (if Vancouver isn't in). That's 2 of the largest and most interesting metros in the US. Dallas is in doubt as well unless Houston comes in with it.

In the extreme, you end up along the Eastern seaboard and maybe Dallas/Houston,


----------



## Mojeda101

48 team format is fine. However the execution is ridiculous. 16 groups of 3 teams is insane. It should've been 12 groups of 4. Top 2 of each group advances, and the top 8 3rd place teams advance. Think of it like the doubled up version of the Euro or the 24 team format of the world cup. Goes immediately into a round of 32 knockout round, followed by r16, etc..

Blows my mind that FIFA would throw this format away because of collusion fears.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Mojeda101 said:


> 48 team format is fine. However the execution is ridiculous. 16 groups of 3 teams is insane. It should've been 12 groups of 4. Top 2 of each group advances, and the top 8 3rd place teams advance. Think of it like the doubled up version of the Euro or the 24 team format of the world cup. Goes immediately into a round of 32 knockout round, followed by r16, etc..
> 
> Blows my mind that FIFA would throw this format away because of collusion fears.


They said they could revise it. Format for 2026 World Cup could be revamped amid ‘collusion’ fears , says Fifa vice-president


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Groups make some sense but you can only take that so far or you eliminate LA, Denver, SF and Seattle (if Vancouver isn't in). That's 2 of the largest and most interesting metros in the US. Dallas is in doubt as well unless Houston comes in with it.
> 
> In the extreme, you end up along the Eastern seaboard and maybe Dallas/Houston,


Obviously nothing ever is going to be perfect in terms of groups but they can try to get as close as possible. They should experiment with logistics like they have been doing with the Gold Cup. CONCACAF has two attempts to test out the 2026 World Cup before it happens. I think what is best is to have a city hosting be no more than a thousand miles from another city hosting.


----------



## Light Tower

The host cities will be announced in late May or early June now.


----------



## JYDA

Mojeda101 said:


> 48 team format is fine. However the execution is ridiculous. 16 groups of 3 teams is insane. It should've been 12 groups of 4. Top 2 of each group advances, and the top 8 3rd place teams advance. Think of it like the doubled up version of the Euro or the 24 team format of the world cup. Goes immediately into a round of 32 knockout round, followed by r16, etc..
> 
> Blows my mind that FIFA would throw this format away because of collusion fears.


I actually think that's the format FIFA preferred. There was a major political issue that limited the choice of formats. The issue is adding an eighth game to the tournament. When these discussions were happening, there was endless whining and moral grandstanding from the usual hypocrites in club football about player welfare, burnout and general armageddon that an expanded tournament would supposedly cause. This format was a sop to those parties because it kept the tournament at 32 days and a maximum of 7 games to win it.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

JYDA said:


> I actually think that's the format FIFA preferred. There was a major political issue that limited the choice of formats. The issue is adding an eighth game to the tournament. When these discussions were happening, there was endless whining and moral grandstanding from the usual hypocrites in club football about player welfare, burnout and general armageddon that an expanded tournament would supposedly cause. This format was a sop to those parties because it kept the tournament at 32 days and a maximum of 7 games to win it.


Well they said they were willing to revise it.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

The project to get the Azteca ready for the 2026 World Cup is facing some backlash from locals about water supplies. Article is in Spanish. La polémica remodelación del Conjunto Estadio Azteca: de qué se trata el proyecto rumbo al Mundial 2026


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The project to get the Azteca ready for the 2026 World Cup is facing some backlash from locals about water supplies. Article is in Spanish. La polémica remodelación del Conjunto Estadio Azteca: de qué se trata el proyecto rumbo al Mundial 2026


Great renderings! As in the US and elsewhere, the plan seems to be to maximize the revenues from attracting people to the area and keeping them there for some time.

The lead article is a summary from some time ago. At the bottom are links to later articles setting forth the goals and progress, including Infantino's meetings with the President and other government officials.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Great renderings! As in the US and elsewhere, the plan seems to be to maximize the revenues from attracting people to the area and keeping them there for some time.
> 
> The lead article is a summary from some time ago. At the bottom are links to later articles setting forth the goals and progress, including Infantino's meetings with the President and other government officials.


I just hope that the Azteca is modernized in four years time. I no next to nothing about Monterrey and Guadalajara's preparations for 2026 but I am starting to like a lot of them for CDMX. A downsized version of the Conjunto Estadio Azteca could be possible as a onsite hotel could be necessary to help meet FIFA's security requirements for CDMX. I do not care too much about Monterrey and Guadalajara needing to be in but the Azteca is such a special place that it better be included in my opinion (only the likes of Wembley, Hampden, Maracana and maybe a few others can rival the Azteca in importance).


----------



## rafark

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The project to get the Azteca ready for the 2026 World Cup is facing some backlash from locals about water supplies


It’s not really about water supply. People in this city love to complain every time there’s a brand new big size project in pretty much every part of the city. It’s pretty normal (and annoying, we’ve had 1000+ ft skyscrapers cancelled because of this).


----------



## rafark

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> is modernized in four years time


Three. There’s an nfl match scheduled in late November of this year.


----------



## pesto

rafark said:


> It’s not really about water supply. People in this city love to complain every time there’s a brand new big size project in pretty much every part of the city. It’s pretty normal (and annoying, we’ve had 1000+ ft skyscrapers cancelled because of this).


That's a pretty cavalier attitude toward the residents of barrios bajos, smaller towns and in rural areas. As you say, complaints occur at many new developments in big cities, but in the poor districts they never get fixed.

The protests are an opportunity for locals to get streets repaired, intersections redesigned for safety, lighting improved, trash and rubble removed, etc., as well as getting water pipes replaced or pressure increased. It gives the locals some leverage where they usually have none.


----------



## rafark

pesto said:


> That's a pretty cavalier attitude toward the residents of barrios bajos, smaller towns and in rural areas


It’s not exclusive to low class neighborhoods. The nimbys are everywhere in the city, even in affluent neighborhoods.


----------



## PHofKS

Some of this is not news, such as the potential delay to mid-June for the announcements of the host cities. But the speculation that Denver is unlikely to be a host city is intriguing. 
From the Cincinnati Business Courier by way of the Nashville Business Journal (not behind a paywall at this time)


> Nashville will have to wait a bit longer than expected to find out if it will be hosting FIFA World Cup matches in 2026.
> 
> An announcement of cities in North America that will host matches is now expected in late May or the first few days of June, FC Cincinnati co-CEO Jeff Berding said at a Cincinnati USA Chamber Monthly Member Briefing event May 5, according to sister paper Cincinnati Business Courier.


But in what may be some interesting news, the NBJ also quotes Grant Wahl regarding Denver’s chances to host.


> Grant Wahl, former Sports Illustrated reporter who now writes a soccer newsletter, recently wrote FIFA officials consider Denver's host committee “underwhelming.” He highlighted altitude and distance from other cities as negatives in FIFA’s eyes.


And from the Denver Post (Quoting some of Wahl's writing which is behind a paywall).



> Grant Wahl, a former Sports Illustrated reporter who now writes a soccer newsletter, recently wrote that Denver is unlikely to make the final cut as one of the 10-11 host cities for the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
> ......Skip....
> Wahl wrote that one consistent refrain among his sources was that Denver had an “underwhelming host committee.” In a follow up story, he also indicated that altitude and distance from other host cities may also be an issue for Denver, which plans to use Empower Field as its venue. He later told The Post that in all of his reporting he did not come across one source who thinks Denver is likely to be awarded games.


There is also an interesting list of potential host cities mentioned in Wahl's article which you can take any way you like (from the above linked Denver Post story, also).



> Wahl said his report was based off numerous conversations with sources who have knowledge of the 2026 World Cup city selections. His list is not final by any means, however. Among the other U.S. finalists are Atlanta, Baltimore/Washington D.C., Boston, Cincinnati, Dallas, Houston, Nashville, New York/New Jersey, Los Angeles, the Bay Area, Orlando and Seattle.


I'm not sure what that means, but it leaves out Denver, Kansas City, Miami, and Philadelphia.

P.S. I would think that Mexico City's elevation (+7,000 ft) would be more problematical than Denver's if it is indeed an issue.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

rafark said:


> It’s not exclusive to low class neighborhoods. The nimbys are everywhere in the city, even in affluent neighborhoods.


I wonder how possible protests will affect the World Cup preparations. Hopefully FIFA has some compromise in mind to appease the locals.


----------



## pesto

PHofKS said:


> Some of this is not news, such as the potential delay to mid-June for the announcements of the host cities. But the speculation that Denver is unlikely to be a host city is intriguing.
> From the Cincinnati Business Courier by way of the Nashville Business Journal (not behind a paywall at this time)
> 
> 
> But in what may be some interesting news, the NBJ also quotes Grant Wahl regarding Denver’s chances to host.
> 
> 
> And from the Denver Post (Quoting some of Wahl's writing which is behind a paywall).
> 
> 
> 
> There is also an interesting list of potential host cities mentioned in Wahl's article which you can take any way you like (from the above linked Denver Post story, also).
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what that means, but it leaves out Denver, Kansas City, Miami, and Philadelphia.
> 
> P.S. I would think that Mexico City's elevation (+7,000 ft) would be more problematical than Denver's if it is indeed an issue.


Altitude and isolation work against Denver. But Miami and Philly summarily left off? Maybe he's just making this up as he goes?


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I wonder how possible protests will affect the World Cup preparations. Hopefully FIFA has some compromise in mind to appease the locals.


Not so much FIFA as the government. As I recall, those were already being addressed when this article came out a year or two ago. Local roads, water quality, public safety and such were going to be improved as part of the process. 
The locals are too smart to accept promises and want the real thing; fortunately the government understands that and doesn't want demonstrations and riot police on opening day.


----------



## ElvisBC

PHofKS said:


> I'm not sure what that means, but it leaves out Denver, Kansas City, Miami, and Philadelphia.
> 
> P.S. I would think that Mexico City's elevation (+7,000 ft) would be more problematical than Denver's if it is indeed an issue.


I wouldn‘t take him for serious. in one of his posts philly is a serious semi-final candidate, in the other one it is completely left out. just collecting hits/likes I guess


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

More updates on Mexico City protests regarding the World Cup development. FIFA will have to notice this sooner rather than later. Article in Spanish. “Hundimientos y desabasto de agua”: las amenazas de la polémica remodelación Conjunto Estadio Azteca


----------



## Light Tower

I'm sure they will.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> More updates on Mexico City protests regarding the World Cup development. FIFA will have to notice this sooner rather than later. Article in Spanish. “Hundimientos y desabasto de agua”: las amenazas de la polémica remodelación Conjunto Estadio Azteca


Given that this is the home of both America and Cruz Azul, I would think that few have complaints about the repairs and upgrades to the stadium itself. So I assume the objection is really to "gentrification" caused by the new shopping development, which seems aimed at a more upscale crowd.

So I would guess that the worst that can happen is that the stadium is fixed and the rest of the project delayed.


----------



## Light Tower

I didn't noticed the year on that.


----------



## rafark

pesto said:


> So I assume the objection is really to "gentrification" caused by the new shopping development, which seems aimed at a more upscale crowd.


Not really. The new shopping mall will be sports oriented, so not really an upscale shopping mall. They complain about water, but most if not all new projects are self sustaining by recycling their own water. As I said, people in this city love to protest every time there’s a new large sized development. It’s very common (and annoying).

This is a private project in private property, as long as it meets the regulations by the government, they shouldn’t have a right to cancel it considering the stadium was built way before most homes in the area.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Personally I think that it might be possible the Conjunto Estadio Azteca gets cancelled but the renovations to the stadium goes ahead. I do not know how important the Conjunto Estadio Azteca is to Mexico City's World Cup bid as although a renovated Azteca will be more than adequate, FIFA mentioned security concerns with the CDMX bid and the planned project might help with security. All the media is focusing on the US and Canada's preparations for 2026 but in my opinion Mexico is having the most interesting news developments in terms of preparations.


----------



## pesto

rafark said:


> Not really. The new shopping mall will be sports oriented, so not really an upscale shopping mall. They complain about water, but most if not all new projects are self sustaining by recycling their own water. As I said, people in this city love to protest every time there’s a new large sized development. It’s very common (and annoying).
> 
> This is a private project in private property, as long as it meets the regulations by the government, they shouldn’t have a right to cancel it considering the stadium was built way before most homes in the area.
> View attachment 3192358
> 
> View attachment 3192353
> 
> View attachment 3192357


You may be right, but it's not a matter of rights; it's a matter of opportunity to improve the neighborhood. And it may not be upscale for you, but it is for many of the locals.

The tone of the article is the resistance by the poor and powerless against the forces of gentrification and big government. FIFA and the government will want a solution, not pictures of police clubbing women with children begging for clean water on screens all over the world. 

.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> You may be right, but it's not a matter of rights; it's a matter of opportunity to improve the neighborhood. And it may not be upscale for you, but it is for many of the locals.
> 
> The tone of the article is the resistance by the poor and powerless against the forces of gentrification and big government. FIFA and the government will want a solution, not pictures of police clubbing women with children begging for clean water on screens all over the world.
> 
> .


Yes, after the white elephants of Brazil, Russia giving a false image of being a respectfully run government and the migrant worker deaths in Qatar FIFA is desperate to avoid another World Cup scandal. Luckily the FIFA president appeared to be very pragmatic about addressing Mexico’s problems ahead of 2026.


----------



## ElvisBC

that was one of the best jokes on these boards …ever 😁


----------



## rafark

pesto said:


> not pictures of police clubbing women with children begging for clean water on screens all over the world.


What are you talking about? Is this what you think happens in Mexico City?


----------



## pesto

rafark said:


> What are you talking about? Is this what you think happens in Mexico City?


That is was more a summary of what the protesters will have in mind. Nothing against Mexico; it could happen anywhere. I just meant that you prefer good news on the world's pages to demonstrations or repeated stories about bad water and pictures of sick or handicapped children. 

Scenario: for about a month before the WC, women with children will settle in a tent city blocking the road and parking lots. Photographers and cameramen will be positioned everywhere, with those with handicaps pushed to the front. 

As soon as some official shows up, he will be assaulted by mothers begging for food and medicines for their children and bonfires will be lit. Police and fire will be called and the international media will rush to the scene. A mother will attack a policeman who will defend himself and then 20 women and children will start screaming, crying and covering their children. Ambulances; frantic old ladies shouting about beatings and sexual assaults. You get the idea?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> That is was more a summary of what the protesters will have in mind. Nothing against Mexico; it could happen anywhere. I just meant that you prefer good news on the world's pages to demonstrations or repeated stories about bad water and pictures of sick or handicapped children.
> 
> Scenario: for about a month before the WC, women with children will settle in a tent city blocking the road and parking lots. Photographers and cameramen will be positioned everywhere, with those with handicaps pushed to the front.
> 
> As soon as some official shows up, he will be assaulted by mothers begging for food and medicines for their children and bonfires will be lit. Police and fire will be called and the international media will rush to the scene. A mother will attack a policeman who will defend himself and then 20 women and children will start screaming, crying and covering their children. Ambulances; frantic old ladies shouting about beatings and sexual assaults. You get the idea?


Luckily the FIFA president as acknowledged that there were issues currently with Mexico's preparations. He had a very constructive exchange with the Mexican authorities and will likely come to some sort of agreement before any of these scenarios you mentioned could possibly play out. The problems you brought up could still happen but I still hope for the best.


----------



## Light Tower

Today USA was selected to host the 2031 Rugby World Cup which will take place five years after the FIFA World Cup in Canada, Mexico and USA is played.


----------



## Tered

Light Tower said:


> Today USA was selected to host the 2031 Rugby World Cup which will take place five years after the FIFA World Cup in Canada, Mexico and USA is played.


And exactly where are these games going to be played? 
Size comparison...








That rules out most USA Stadiums as I would think this would be considered unacceptable -


----------



## pesto

Tered said:


> And exactly where are these games going to be played?
> Size comparison...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That rules out most USA Stadiums as I would think this would be considered unacceptable -


Good question. There are active rugby leagues in the Bay Area and LA, but there isn't much seating at those venues.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Tered said:


> And exactly where are these games going to be played?
> Size comparison...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That rules out most USA Stadiums as I would think this would be considered unacceptable -


Football and rugby width is basically the same, the only difference is the end goals. Those can be large or small depending on the stadiums. Rugby has been played in tons of football stadiums around the world, so if the US can host a football world cup, it can host a rugby one too. 

I’m not sure what is wrong with the image you posted. Why is that unacceptable?


----------



## Tered

Okay, so it's the length that's longer than a soccer pitch rather than the width. Also a rugby field may be allowed different dimensions as I understand it?


----------



## pesto

Rugby United New York at Giltinis - Los Angeles Coliseum


The LA Giltinis have anchored their 2022 Championship-defense around day-time, family-friendly kick-offs at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Head coach Stephen Hoiles is delighted that the eight home games locked in for the Coliseum will maximize crowd appeal and cater for the family vibe...




www.lacoliseum.com





I guess this needs its own thread, but the Giltinis have been playing in the Coliseum for some time. This seems to be a national rugby league as opposed to the local or college ones.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Rugby United New York at Giltinis - Los Angeles Coliseum
> 
> 
> The LA Giltinis have anchored their 2022 Championship-defense around day-time, family-friendly kick-offs at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Head coach Stephen Hoiles is delighted that the eight home games locked in for the Coliseum will maximize crowd appeal and cater for the family vibe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.lacoliseum.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess this needs its own thread, but the Giltinis have been playing in the Coliseum for some time. This seems to be a national rugby league as opposed to the local or college ones.


I am sure a new thread will be created for this. Let’s now talk about 2026 World Cup preparations as the thread intended.


----------



## Light Tower

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I am sure a new thread will be created for this. Let’s now talk about 2026 World Cup preparations as the thread intended.


For the Rugby World Cup five years after the FIFA World Cup 2026. 2031 will be the first time that USA has hosted a Rugby World Cup. Same with seven years with also the first time for the Rugby World Cup for Women in 2033.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Tered said:


> Okay, so it's the length that's longer than a soccer pitch rather than the width. Also a rugby field may be allowed different dimensions as I understand it?


Yeah the in goals (try zone) can and are condensed often owing to stadiums length, but is within limits.

The standard football dimension that Fifa goes for is 105x68 metres, which is what most grounds use today in major tournaments, PL and elsewhere. Rugby union width is 68-70m, and length is 106-144 metres. So you can fit a rugby field as long as you can accomodate that extra metre in length, which most stadiums can, but it is at the extreme end of that range.

It means that you can’t manoeuvre as much when you cross the try line. The conversion that takes place after a try (touchdown) is dependent on where you placed the ball. If you scored a try on the wing, the conversion has to be from the same vertical plane, unlike NFL where no matter where you cross over the endzone the kick takes place in the centre of field.

That’s where larger ingoals become useful. It allows teams to get their kicker in a better position to convert the extra 2 points.

The pic you posted was the All Blacks v Ireland in Chicago. That’s an official Test match, so I expect no dramas on the stadium front. The ingoals will be cramped but they’ll have no choice.

The RWC will have to move to summer though, as it’s usually held during same time as NFL season. 

I think they’ll use mixture of NFL and MLS stadiums, but they’d be running at same time as both leagues. Moving to June makes sense as it frees up NFL stadiums and doesn’t compete for coverage.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

More updates on Conjunto Estadio Azteca. FIFA needs to know about this sooner rather than later. Article in Spanish. Piden vecinos de Coyoacán consulta alterna del IECM por Conjunto Estadio Azteca


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> More updates on Conjunto Estadio Azteca. FIFA needs to know about this sooner rather than later. Article in Spanish. Piden vecinos de Coyoacán consulta alterna del IECM por Conjunto Estadio Azteca


To add to this, the locals are trying to contact Televisa (the owners of the Azteca and its neighboring land) to come up with a plan along with the local CDMX government. This is important to bring up as the executive chairman for Televisa was at the meeting featuring the FIFA president and it any problem arises with Televisa and the CDMX residents, the head of the company has direct access to FIFA in order to alert them.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

As we are waiting on stadium selection, what events could you see happening in the buildup to the final selection. I can see a lot happening with the stadiums alone but I can also see things like qualification (including automatic qualification for the hosts) and a possible format revamp happening in the mean time.


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1527686847907913728








FIFA to make major announcement on 16 June related to FIFA World Cup 2026™


On Thursday, 16 June, FIFA will make a major and highly anticipated announcement related to the staging of the FIFA World Cup 2026™ across Canada, Mexico and the United States.




www.fifa.com


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1527686847907913728
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIFA to make major announcement on 16 June related to FIFA World Cup 2026™
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 16 June, FIFA will make a major and highly anticipated announcement related to the staging of the FIFA World Cup 2026™ across Canada, Mexico and the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fifa.com


Ha! Beat me to it!


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

slipperydog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1527686847907913728
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIFA to make major announcement on 16 June related to FIFA World Cup 2026™
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 16 June, FIFA will make a major and highly anticipated announcement related to the staging of the FIFA World Cup 2026™ across Canada, Mexico and the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fifa.com


Here is what I hope they address: 

Qualification process (including automatic qualification for hosts)
Revision to group stage format in order to avoid a repeat of the “Disgrace of Gijon”
How future projects like the Conjunto Estadio Azteca and future Tennessee Titans stadium will affect stadium selection


----------



## slipperydog

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> How future projects like the Conjunto Estadio Azteca and future Tennessee Titans stadium will affect stadium selection


It's more of an issue for a renovation like the Azteca than for Nashville, because Nashville will have a stadium ready to go no matter what.


----------



## pesto

This is the general announcement of what will be FIFA's biggest event in the biggest city of the biggest market. It's aimed at the world and the focus has to be on the event, the cities, the countries and FIFA itself. 

The world audience is not very interested in technical fixes or how the repairs are going in one stadium or another. That will lose audience very quickly. I would handle those in later, lower key announcements aimed at a smaller group.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

slipperydog said:


> It's more of an issue for a renovation like the Azteca than for Nashville, because Nashville will have a stadium ready to go no matter what.


Fair enough. I just hope they do a Bernabeu like renovation to Nissan Stadium than build a new one as I do not want to see it completely go to waste and it can even be after 2026 to not interfere with the World Cup. Plus if the Azteca does not get renovated I heard that in the north of Mexico City there is going to be a high end shopping/housing development that will feature a 50,000 seat soccer stadium as the centerpiece.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> This is the general announcement of what will be FIFA's biggest event in the biggest city of the biggest market. It's aimed at the world and the focus has to be on the event, the cities, the countries and FIFA itself.
> 
> The world audience is not very interested in technical fixes or how the repairs are going in one stadium or another. That will lose audience very quickly. I would handle those in later, lower key announcements aimed at a smaller group.


They can briefly look into the stadiums that are there/proposed as well as relevant infrastructure without going into too much depth. I personally think what will attract interest is talking about qualification (including automatic spots for hosts) and a possible revision to the group stage to prevent collusion.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> They can briefly look into the stadiums that are there/proposed as well as relevant infrastructure without going into too much depth. I personally think what will attract interest is talking about qualification (including automatic spots for hosts) and a possible revision to the group stage to prevent collusion.


A quote from the announcement:

"While stadiums represent an essential element of the selection process, FIFA is considering the overarching proposals presented by each candidate host city, which are broader in nature and also include ancillary events and venues, and key aspects such as sustainability, human rights, legacy, general infrastructure and financial impact."

They don't mention playoff format, rules of qualifying for the WC or issues about collusion. 

As a side, I have spoken to people I know who are fans of Tottenham, Arsenal, Galaxy, Chivas and LAFC, and none of them had ever heard of the collusion issue you talk about. I know that it exists and it is being addressed, but it seems WAY off theme to bring up on your big announcement day something that most people have never heard of and which is a "downer" as far as the image of FIFA and soccer generally.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> A quote from the announcement:
> 
> "While stadiums represent an essential element of the selection process, FIFA is considering the overarching proposals presented by each candidate host city, which are broader in nature and also include ancillary events and venues, and key aspects such as sustainability, human rights, legacy, general infrastructure and financial impact."
> 
> They don't mention playoff format, rules of qualifying for the WC or issues about collusion.
> 
> As a side, I have spoken to people I know who are fans of Tottenham, Arsenal, Galaxy, Chivas and LAFC, and none of them had ever heard of the collusion issue you talk about. I know that it exists and it is being addressed, but it seems WAY off theme to bring up on your big announcement day something that most people have never heard of and which is a "downer" as far as the image of FIFA and soccer generally.


Well they need to mention qualifying (including automatic spots for hosts) sooner rather than later as this will be the first edition with 48 teams. They did say more details about the announcement will come in due closure so they might bring up things relevant for teams qualifying. As for the collusion, FIFA can always tweak the group stage and make a brief mention of the change without going into depth about the "Disgrace of Gijon."


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Well they need to mention qualifying (including automatic spots for hosts) sooner rather than later as this will be the first edition with 48 teams. They did say more details about the announcement will come in due closure so they might bring up things relevant for teams qualifying. As for the collusion, FIFA can always tweak the group stage and make a brief mention of the change without going into depth about the "Disgrace of Gijon."


I don't see the rush. Handle it in a release in the next year or two...

Doing so now would distract from live scenes of decorations, music and cheering locals in the cities selected; the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, crowds and celebs in NYC, etc. You are trying to attract and impress viewers with the game and spectacle, not confuse them with a lesson on anti-collusion theory which is hard to follow and subject to disagreement on whether it's need at all. 

And the only way I would mention who gets a free pass is if the decision is to allow all 3. Otherwise it's bad PR and just plain rude to do it on a worldwide broadcast.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> As a side, I have spoken to people I know who are fans of Tottenham, Arsenal, Galaxy, Chivas and LAFC, and none of them had ever heard of the collusion issue you talk about.


pesto, then they are as clueless as you are! every single true football fan knows what disgrace of gijon was, for everyone else there is MLS


----------



## RobH

I'm a bit lost with this conversation. Everyone including FIFA is very aware of _that match _(as are most football fans), and will want to avoid that situation ever occurring again. But I don't see what this has to do with stadium announcements.


----------



## ElvisBC

nothing, gijon is not amongst candidates 

windycitynerd has certain hobby, likes to doubt everything that had already been decided, and has to repeat it in every single post … sort of sheldon cooper tripple knock transfered into the forum world


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> I don't see the rush. Handle it in a release in the next year or two...
> 
> Doing so now would distract from live scenes of decorations, music and cheering locals in the cities selected; the Statue of Liberty, Empire State Building, crowds and celebs in NYC, etc. You are trying to attract and impress viewers with the game and spectacle, not confuse them with a lesson on anti-collusion theory which is hard to follow and subject to disagreement on whether it's need at all.
> 
> And the only way I would mention who gets a free pass is if the decision is to allow all 3. Otherwise it's bad PR and just plain rude to do it on a worldwide broadcast.


I do not know if this event will be that big like the draw for the group stage of the upcoming World Cup. Also what if a city gets selected but does not actually prepare for the event. It happened on a grander scale when Colombia was awarded the 1986 World Cup. I have been following the Conjunto Estadio Azteca story very closely and if CDMX gets selected on the day of the announcement, protests will surely erupt in the neighborhood where the project is being planned. My opinion is for FIFA to just get the Cruz Azul planned stadium ready to go before 2026 as the Conjunto is taking too long to settle on an agreement before getting built.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

RobH said:


> I'm a bit lost with this conversation. Everyone including FIFA is very aware of _that match _(as are most football fans), and will want to avoid that situation ever occurring again. But I don't see what this has to do with stadium announcements.


It has nothing to do with stadium announcements. I just brought it up as it needs addressing sooner or later along with the qualification process (including the automatic spots for hosts).


----------



## RobH

As I'm sure it will be


----------



## ElvisBC

RobH said:


> As I'm sure it will be


it’s gonna be pretty much the opposite, infantino failed with biennial idea and all he needs now is an “excuse“ for 64 teams world cup. he might have it rather sooner than later!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> pesto, then they are as clueless as you are! every single true football fan knows what disgrace of gijon was, for everyone else there is MLS


FIFA is not going after the "true" soccer fan; he is a given. Preaching to the choir is a horrible waste of money.

They are going after the marginal fan and the non-fan and even the never-will-be fan, who will tune in for the views of NY, DC or whatever, the celebs, etc.


----------



## ElvisBC

try to focus pesto … that has nothing to do with my reply


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> try to focus pesto … that has nothing to do with my reply


You referred to "the true football fan". I noted that such person (however you may define him) is not the target for the 2026 city announcement event. He is already so interested that he will attend or view matches regardless.

Btw, your fixation with Infantino has made him sound like the bogey man. It is possible that he may actually do something you agree with. The 2026 WC is part of a multi-year program to organize and publicize a series of WC's and other FIFA events which share a long-term common sponsorship and market development strategy. The industry is changing and FIFA has to keep re-making itself.


----------



## CaliforniaJones




----------



## pesto

RobH said:


> I'm a bit lost with this conversation. Everyone including FIFA is very aware of _that match _(as are most football fans), and will want to avoid that situation ever occurring again. But I don't see what this has to do with stadium announcements.


Exactly. It's something that is of little or no interest to the PR people, sponsors or potential viewing audience.

It's a very good issue for the hardcore to discuss and pick among the several alternatives, which requires balancing number of matches played, player exhaustion, timing of events and places and probability of collusion or "tanking". Buzz kill for a broad public announcement..


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


>


Sounds pretty reasonable. Vancouver and Toronto seems very likely; the 3 in Mexico are almost automatic. The Bay Area not making it seems odd given the fame of SF but otherwise his choices are solid.

He seems to believe that having an MLS team helps cities; but he says practically nothing about shade, sight-lines, corners, transit, hotels and airports. I believe that is appropriate since each city has agreed to do whatever is necessary in those areas, assuming the city and stadium owners find it worthwhile.


----------



## Light Tower

slipperydog said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1527686847907913728
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FIFA to make major announcement on 16 June related to FIFA World Cup 2026™
> 
> 
> On Thursday, 16 June, FIFA will make a major and highly anticipated announcement related to the staging of the FIFA World Cup 2026™ across Canada, Mexico and the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.fifa.com


Well, we only have three weeks left live from New York City.


----------



## ElvisBC

the point is that this land was purchased by commanders organisation, not some other snyder ventures 

anything is possible, though


----------



## aquamaroon

A render of what the planned stadium would look like:




https://richmond.com/photos-renderings-of-proposed-new-stadium-for-the-washington-commanders/collection_f644e121-d9e7-56d4-b4ce-871742ac5818.html














Just judging on the aesthetics of the design I think it's a fantastic looking stadium, in terms of the World Cup it has a bit of the original Lusail Iconic Stadium in there! Unfortunately it looks like this will be ready by 2027 so unless there is a huge change in the timeline looks like M&T Bank Stadium is a go.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> the point is that this land was purchased by commanders organisation, not some other snyder ventures
> 
> anything is possible, though


Yes, I just was noting that Snyder may not always own the Commies due to some continuing issues. However, having a stadium plan in place would probably add another chunk to what will already go for 5B. 

On a different point, I think the idea of mimicking a military cap is trash architecture.


----------



## Tered

pesto said:


> ...On a different point, I think the idea of mimicking a military cap is trash architecture.


Sidebar-
The stadium design has been compared to Tampa's original stadium - 'The Sombrero' - more than once already. Not exactly flattering.

Okay back to topic...


----------



## pesto

It strikes me that this proposed stadium is too vague at this point to weigh in FIFA's decisions. They already have a nice deal with a stadium in Baltimore and the festivities mostly around the National Mall. If Snyder can clear his various issues and something great really develops, then think about it.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I wonder how many foreign supporters Canada, Mexico and the United States will attract during this World Cup.
Maybe so many.


----------



## miguelon

CaliforniaJones said:


> I wonder how many foreign supporters Canada, Mexico and the United States will attract during this World Cup.
> Maybe so many.


quite a bit,
with 2019 numbers from the UN World Tourism Organization.
USA and Mexico are in the global top 10 for most visitors:

USA was the 3rd most visited country with 79 million
Mexico was 6th with 45 million
Canada was 18th with 21 million

I think that each of the 3 host nations its own, are countries with global reach and enough appealing.


----------



## pesto

miguelon said:


> quite a bit,
> with 2019 numbers from the UN World Tourism Organization.
> USA and Mexico are in the global top 10 for most visitors:
> 
> USA was the 3rd most visited country with 79 million
> Mexico was 6th with 45 million
> Canada was 18th with 21 million
> 
> I think that each of the 3 host nations its own, are countries with global reach and enough appealing.


I agree, but I assume your number includes visits between the 3 countries as well. I would guess that the great majority of visitors to Canada or Mexico are from the US. Cabo, PV and Cancun are each huge..


----------



## miguelon

pesto said:


> I agree, but I assume your number includes visits between the 3 countries as well. I would guess that the great majority of visitors to Canada or Mexico are from the US. Cabo, PV and Cancun are each huge..


Yes, it works both ways, huge numbers of visitors into the US come from Mexico and Canada. And vice versa.
People loose sight, at the scale of air traffic between the US, Mexico and Canada.

Per US DOT in 2019: (2020 and 2021 Mexico was way above Canada, but not fair comparison because of Covid, lets see in 2022),
Air Traffic between Mexico and USA = 37.2 millions.
Air traffic between Canada and USA = 38.6 millions 

And that is without counting land and cruise visits, that on itself are massive.

Not that different to European countries statistics, where a big amount of its visitors are from other european countries ( British at Spain, Germans at Greece, etc.).

Regardless, the big European and south American countries that travel well with their teams, will have no issues to show up in mass. And the local north american market can fill up every stadium, specially with the amount of migrants.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1529922886730780672


----------



## aquamaroon

I pretty much agree with the above list except for Nashville IF they can somehow convince FIFA they will have a brand new $2 Billion stadium ready in time for the World Cup. Otherwise they have pretty much everything you'd want in a host: city character, ability to handle large events and perhaps most importantly given the lack of Chicago it is situated around a huge swath of the US population. I do agree though that with pitching Nissan Stadium they are a bit of a long shot. I would also be tempted to move Miami into the lock category, but it's no huge crime to call them a "contender." Personally I think they are a lock though, not just for hosting but even for hosting the round of 16 matches and maybe even the quarterfinals


----------



## ElvisBC

aquamaroon said:


> I pretty much agree with the above list except for Nashville IF they can somehow convince FIFA they will have *a brand new $2 Billion stadium ready in time for the World Cup*. Otherwise they have pretty much everything you'd want in a host: city character, ability to handle large events and perhaps most importantly given the lack of Chicago it is situated around a huge swath of the US population. I do agree though that with pitching Nissan Stadium they are a bit of a long shot. I would also be tempted to move Miami into the lock category, but it's no huge crime to call them a "contender." Personally I think they are a lock though, not just for hosting but even for hosting the round of 16 matches and maybe even the quarterfinals


titans? haven't heard about that yet, any link or info?

btw, nissan stadium has nice location, just across the river and zero viewing obstructions as well, would be better choice than most of other candidates, but nashville may be bit off the map. no clue however what FIFA will prefer while making their choice. I guess only money and that's why I do not expect nashville to be selected.


----------



## PHofKS

> ElvisBC said:
> 
> 
> 
> titans? haven't heard about that yet, any link or info?
> 
> btw, nissan stadium has nice location, just across the river and zero viewing obstructions as well, would be better choice than most of other candidates, but nashville may be bit off the map. no clue however what FIFA will prefer while making their choice. I guess only money and that's why I do not expect nashville to be selected.
Click to expand...

It was just revealed a few months ago.
The team owners still seem to think the cup is still in play in spite of the uncertainty around having the stadium completed. As much as a Nashville 'homer' as I am, I am skeptical that FIFA would award games to a city with a stadium that is still far away from breaking ground.








We will know more in a few weeks.


----------



## ElvisBC

just heard rumour FIFA is still undecided on the final site and they might even leave it open on 16th

for gods sake … appropriate stadium won’t pop up thru the wormhole, they have what they have, just choose one!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> just heard rumour FIFA is still undecided on the final site and they might even leave it open on 16th
> 
> for gods sake … appropriate stadium won’t pop up thru the wormhole, they have what they have, just choose one!


SoFi and the Chelsea sale have been huge generators or public interest worldwide so they may just figure this is a way to keep the media interested. Remember these are NOT days of selection; they are days of announcement.


----------



## Aminjumi

Question why NFL franchises don’t take Wembley Staduim as an model
because It’s a really mutipurpose staduim as it can accommodate American Ball easily ?
Or don’t take Tottenham staduim like a model ?


----------



## Ramanaramana

Aminjumi said:


> Question why NFL franchises don’t take Wembley Staduim as an model
> because It’s a really mutipurpose staduim as it can accommodate American Ball easily ?
> Or don’t take Tottenham staduim like a model ?


Probably because football pitch is naturally bigger than NFL, so accomodating NFL is easier than the other way around.


----------



## Aminjumi

Ramanaramana said:


> Probably because football pitch is naturally bigger than NFL, so accomodating NFL is easier than the other way around.


Well, I’m aware of that.
I'm just wonder why NFL franchises takes a Wembley or Tonteham staduim as a modle?


----------



## Ramanaramana

Aminjumi said:


> Well, I’m aware of that.
> I'm just wonder why NFL franchises takes a Wembley or Tonteham staduim as a modle?


What's the Wembley model? It's a standard football pitch that hosts other events on the same surface, and doesn't have a football club based there making it easier to schedule other events.

Tottenham's plans are to host NFL team permanently in the future, so it's not like secondary surfaces are a trend among new stadiums. Real are doing it because they're Real and want to host more concerts. But that's it really, just two football stadiums. 

NFL season is short, and secondary pitches to accomodate concerts and other events aren't as necessary as in football with 10 month seasons.

They also don't host many football matches, making it a pointless expense as football can be played at all NFL stadiums in current conditions.


----------



## Aminjumi

Ramanaramana said:


> What's the Wembley model?


I means it has no view obstructions.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1530997111130660866
*Dallas could host the inaugural match of the 2026 FIFA World Cup*



> *According to reports, the AT&T stadium and the Cotton Bowl in Dallas, Texas are among the venues that could be chosen by FIFA to host the inaugural match of the 2026 World Cup.* The governing body will make the announcement on 16 June.


Link


----------



## pesto

The Stade de France fiasco may cause some N. American cities to re-think their commitment to hosting. lol.

If nothing else, the US will tighten up review of those trying to enter the country for clean criminal histories, having permanent residences, regular employment status and evidence they will leave the US when their visa expires.


----------



## en1044

Aminjumi said:


> I means it has no view obstructions.


When hosting NFL games, Wembley has to tarp off the first few rows of seats because they are obstructed by the players/coaches on the sidelines. American Football isn't a perfect fit either.


----------



## Aminjumi

en1044 said:


> When hosting NFL games, Wembley has to tarp off the first few rows of seats because they are obstructed by the players/coaches on the sidelines. American Football isn't a perfect fit either.


Oh so there’s no a perfect staduim that can accommodate both sport


----------



## GunnerJacket

Aminjumi said:


> Oh so there’s no a perfect staduim that can accommodate both sport


There's no stadium that will be perfect for both sports, not just because of the field shapes but largely because of how American football pushes side stands upward because of all the players standing around on the sideline. That alters the alignment of the lowest tier, which affects the sight lines for soccer. But done right you can minimize the compromise for one or the other, or for both. It won't be perfect, but it will be most manageable.


----------



## miguelon

en1044 said:


> When hosting NFL games, Wembley has to tarp off the first few rows of seats because they are obstructed by the players/coaches on the sidelines. American Football isn't a perfect fit either.


Exactly, this is the type of compromises that organizations accommodate, and seem to be just fine.

The advantages of Wembley and all what implies outweighs whatever accommodations the NFL needs to make.

Same thing in the US, having SOFI or AT&T is a must, even if some modifications or compromises are made.

Even when soccer specific stadiums, host the World Cup or Champions League final, remove some seats or close out some areas, to make room for special/additional equipment, press, sponsors, etc.


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> There's no stadium that will be perfect for both sports, not just because of the field shapes but largely because of how American football pushes side stands upward because of all the players standing around on the sideline. That alters the alignment of the lowest tier, which affects the sight lines for soccer. But done right you can minimize the compromise for one or the other, or for both. It won't be perfect, but it will be most manageable.


100% perfect not, but it is actually easy to make a good one with very little compromise. unfortunately architects are mostly clueless about stadiums and owners care about sky boxes much more than about these things. so, is it doable? yes, but unfortunately not in real world


----------



## GunnerJacket

The architects aren't clueless. They're responding to the parameters outlined by their clients, who, like you said, are typically motivated by specific priorities that force compromises elsewhere.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> 100% perfect not, but it is actually easy to make a good one with very little compromise. unfortunately architects are mostly clueless about stadiums and owners care about sky boxes much more than about these things. so, is it doable? yes, but unfortunately not in real world


OMG. Add this one to the all-time list.


----------



## pesto

GunnerJacket said:


> The architects aren't clueless. They're responding to the parameters outlined by their clients, who, like you said, are typically motivated by specific priorities that force compromises elsewhere.


It's fun to argue these but there is no such thing as the "perfect soccer stadium" any more than there is the "perfect animal" "perfect tree", "perfect car", "perfect painting", etc., 

It is not possible to isolate the relevant criteria or to provide objective measurement, so the best we can do is give individual opinions re style, size, seating, amenities, shade, colors. exteriors, heights, etc. Perfection is not only not achievable, it is not definable.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> 100% perfect not, but it is actually easy to make a good one with very little compromise. unfortunately architects are mostly clueless about stadiums and *owners care about sky boxes* much more than about these things. so, is it doable? yes, but unfortunately not in real world


Btw, how about the stadiums built by cities, local regions or national governments? Why wouldn't they be "perfect" (and identical) at least to the extent of what great architects and government leaders can conceive?


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Sorry for posting this tweet which would be out of subject.
I'm talking about the attendance during the 2026 World Cup.
If you wat to delete my post, I won't oppose. Sorry.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532170342914990082


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Sorry for posting this tweet which would be out of subject.
> I'm talking about the attendance during the 2026 World Cup.
> If you wat to delete my post, I won't oppose. Sorry.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532170342914990082


Excellent choice. Given the smaller population, smaller metro areas and relative lack of enthusiasm for soccer, tickets should be more reasonably priced.


----------



## Nedster

Who says we have a relative lack of enthusiasm for soccer?


----------



## CaliforniaJones

The case for selecting Seattle



















> Basically, every list created by anyone who seriously follows this stuff has included Seattle as a likely host. This is still FIFA, so anything is possible, but it will be considered a pretty big upset if Seattle isn’t selected.





> The big one is our soccer culture. One only needs to look at the Concacaf Champions League final as evidence. Nearly 69,000 people showed up for that game on a Wednesday night, easily setting a tournament record. And it’s not just fans, either. When Seattle hosted the World Cup delegates earlier this year, there were dozens of reporters on hand. Virtually every TV and radio station in the region, to speak nothing of websites like ours, understands the relevancy of the World Cup. If any city can be expected to draw crowds and media attention for Denmark-Tunisia (to pick a random matchup from the next World Cup), it’s Seattle.
> 
> Beyond that, we’ve got a ton going for us from a robust tourist infrastructure (there are nearly 50,000 hotel rooms in the region, with about 15,000 within walking distance of Lumen Field); quickly expanding public transit (you’ll be able to take light rail north to Lynnwood, south to Federal Way and east to Redmond by then); and plentiful training facilities (the Sounders will have just opened their new headquarters at Longacres and there’s already first-rate spots like Virginia Mason Athletic Center, Starfire, the University of Washington and Seattle University).


Link


----------



## pesto

Nedster said:


> Who says we have a relative lack of enthusiasm for soccer?


Sorry!!!! 

No offense, but (same as in the US) soccer is not the leading sport in Canada and the NBA and MLB teams are worth far more than the MLS team..


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> The case for selecting Seattle
> 
> Link


They make a strong case, but as I always say, who do you leave out to make room for them?


----------



## ElvisBC

do not know about the others, but vancouver back in the game was huge push for seattle, if FIFA decides to keep their “regional“ strategy for the group stage. apart from that it is partly covered downtown stadium with hardly any viewing obstructions in the great city, I see no case against them.

very simmilar to houston IMHO. but we have no clue what FIFA is about to do … at least for another eleven days


----------



## WesTexas

pesto said:


> The Stade de France fiasco may cause some N. American cities to re-think their commitment to hosting. lol.
> 
> If nothing else, the US will tighten up review of those trying to enter the country for clean criminal histories, having permanent residences, regular employment status and evidence they will leave the US when their visa expires.


I don't understand what you are getting at? France and Paris screwed up. It is also a stadium that is not used that often. US stadiums host events with that amount of spectators MANY times a year. Most of the stadiums being used have experience hosting the Super Bowl or huge college football games, as well as huge soccer games. This will be light work.


----------



## pesto

WesTexas said:


> I don't understand what you are getting at? France and Paris screwed up. It is also a stadium that is not used that often. US stadiums host events with that amount of spectators MANY times a year. Most of the stadiums being used have experience hosting the Super Bowl or huge college football games, as well as huge soccer games. This will be light work.


That's just bizarre. So you recommend against taking precautions and training your security forces? 

I have been at sports riots at Staples in LA where fires were set, police cars rolled over and burned and dozens of stores looted, and I've seen footage from many other cities. Remember the 2011 Vancouver hockey riots? The clean up took months and the trials continued for years. It can happen anywhere and in smaller venues like arenas as well as large ones.

And these weren't even organized; they were ad hoc. I'm not predicting trouble, but it's just common sense to screen entrants to the country for those with potential issues and to prepare for contingencies.


----------



## slipperydog

DublinHoop said:


> The issue was they were too worried about fake tickets because they're getting so good these days and just didn't know how to guard against them.


Well that sounds like a UEFA problem to me. UEFA were the ones hosting the event in Paris, as far as I know, there wasn't some local organizing committee like there is for the Olympics.

As I mentioned, the Stade de France has never had an issue with large events and examining tickets before, so the responsibility for that disaster mainly lies with UEFA.


----------



## pesto

Why Denver Should Host The 2026 World Cup


Ease of travel, great stadium, and soccer crazy fans are three reasons why Denver should be chosen to host games during the 2026 World Cup.




www.coloradosharp.com





Denver seems to believe that FIFA has not decided on sites yet and is listing their positive attributes (altitude is not mentioned and isolation has been marketed as "central location" convenient to BOTH coasts.


----------



## DublinHoop

slipperydog said:


> Well that sounds like a UEFA problem to me. UEFA were the ones hosting the event in Paris, as far as I know, there wasn't some local organizing committee like there is for the Olympics.
> 
> As I mentioned, the Stade de France has never had an issue with large events and examining tickets before, so the responsibility for that disaster mainly lies with UEFA.


Except your theory falls down when the fact becomes apparent that UEFA don't control any of that stuff. Here is their safety and security booklet. They appoint a match organiser (ie whoever wins the bid to host the final, or the home team) and they have to meet these criteria. That's the sum total of uefas involvement.


----------



## Light Tower

We are close to finding out the host cities.


----------



## slipperydog

DublinHoop said:


> Except your theory falls down when the fact becomes apparent that UEFA don't control any of that stuff. Here is their safety and security booklet. They appoint a match organiser (ie whoever wins the bid to host the final, or the home team) and they have to meet these criteria. That's the sum total of uefas involvement.


Those aren't very detailed guidelines at all. In any case, whoever they appointed was clearly not vetted or up to the task. Which speaks to a larger problem with UEFA. Local French authorities have had no problem managing large events at that stadium before, so this sounds like mostly a UEFA problem.

Sort of like a restaurant manager who hires a cook incapable of frying an egg, and then blames the cook for serving the egg in a cocktail.


----------



## DublinHoop

slipperydog said:


> Those aren't very detailed guidelines at all. In any case, whoever they appointed was clearly not vetted or up to the task. Which speaks to a larger problem with UEFA. Local French authorities have had no problem managing large events at that stadium before, so this sounds like mostly a UEFA problem.
> 
> Sort of like a restaurant manager who hires a cook incapable of frying an egg, and then blames the cook for serving the egg in a cocktail.


The French FA (FFF) won the bid. 
God knows how you're simultaneously using evidence that similar events have been held at the venue before without trouble to defend the French authorities and push the blame onto UEFA while ignoring the fact those events were UEFA events so by your own logic UEFA also can't be at fault. Nevermind the dozens of other champions league finals that ran flawlessly. 

Sort of like a restaurant manager who hires a michelin star chef who leaves the heat on under a pan and burns down the restaurant. 

God knows I have no time for UEFA and will be the first to throw them under the bus when they deserve it but the worst thing they did here was give the FFF and French police too much free reign to do as they wished.


----------



## slipperydog

Light Tower said:


> We are close to finding out the host cities.


Yes indeed. Then we should hear more about whether any of the stadiums selected need infrastructure upgrades.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Those aren't very detailed guidelines at all. In any case, whoever they appointed was clearly not vetted or up to the task. Which speaks to a larger problem with UEFA. Local French authorities have had no problem managing large events at that stadium before, so this sounds like mostly a UEFA problem.
> 
> Sort of like a restaurant manager who hires a cook incapable of frying an egg, and then blames the cook for serving the egg in a cocktail.


Yes. The comment you are responding to is pretty naïve and really not on-point. "It wasn't my fault, I am just in control of soliciting bids, reviewing candidates, checking their qualifications, making sure they understand our standards and priorities, hire competent people, etc. Don't blame me."

Equally peculiar is his claim that it is futile to use modern security methods at airports (which already have them in place and routinely use them for controlling entry) so as to help in the process of checking on candidates with questionable profiles. Any person flying would hope that they do so when they travel, FIFA or not.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Yes indeed. Then we should hear more about whether any of the stadiums selected need infrastructure upgrades.


It seems likely most will need something on stadium, transit, other venues, etc. After all, one of the points of FIFA is to have someone who establishes general standards and makes decisions on what is acceptable variation from that standard.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

CBS soccer analyst says some 2026 World Cup organizers 'really want' games in Kansas City


Sellout crowd on watches USA, Uruguay battle to scoreless draw




www.kshb.com


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

slipperydog said:


> Yes indeed. Then we should hear more about whether any of the stadiums selected need infrastructure upgrades.


Looking forward to the announcement from FIFA.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> CBS soccer analyst says some 2026 World Cup organizers 'really want' games in Kansas City
> 
> 
> Sellout crowd on watches USA, Uruguay battle to scoreless draw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kshb.com


Wahl was born in Kansas City, grew up and went to school there. Just saying.


----------



## Light Tower

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> CBS soccer analyst says some 2026 World Cup organizers 'really want' games in Kansas City
> 
> 
> Sellout crowd on watches USA, Uruguay battle to scoreless draw
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.kshb.com


We're waiting in nearly one week live from New York City.


----------



## slipperydog

pesto said:


> Wahl was born in Kansas City, grew up and went to school there. Just saying.


cant really go wrong with any of the US cities to be honest. Cincinnati seems a little random, but so does Hanover or Sinsheim, Germany.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

CaliforniaJones said:


> Sorry for posting this tweet which would be out of subject.
> I'm talking about the attendance during the 2026 World Cup.
> If you wat to delete my post, I won't oppose. Sorry.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532170342914990082


Meanwhile there is me just walking down the streets wearing a bulletproof vest like a true GigaChad. They don't call my hometown Chiraq for nothing. Jokes aside we need to come up with a plan to get people to stop killing each other.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

slipperydog said:


> cant really go wrong with any of the US cities to be honest. Cincinnati seems a little random, but so does Hanover or Sinsheim, Germany.


Hanover is not that random in my opinion as it is a state capital with a large population and a former Bundesliga club with a large fanbase and history. Sinsheim is random though as they have a small population and their club is only good because of their multi-billionaire backer as well as having a small fanbase. The thing about the US is that there are so many large cities spread around the country that even decent sized cities like Cincinnati seem comparatively random.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Wahl was born in Kansas City, grew up and went to school there. Just saying.


Kansas City is also where Lamar Hunt relocated the Dallas Texans (now Chiefs) too. In case if you did not already know Hunt helped found the MLS and even the US Open Cup is named after him.


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> cant really go wrong with any of the US cities to be honest. Cincinnati seems a little random, but so does Hanover or Sinsheim, Germany.


Cincy has to rely on being in the middle of a populated area that includes Columbus, Louisville, Memphis and St. Louis. It would also be the closest US city to Chicago and Detroit which are very large metros.


----------



## DublinHoop

pesto said:


> Yes. The comment you are responding to is pretty naïve and really not on-point. "It wasn't my fault, I am just in control of soliciting bids, reviewing candidates, checking their qualifications, making sure they understand our standards and priorities, hire competent people, etc. Don't blame me."
> 
> Equally peculiar is his claim that it is futile to use modern security methods at airports (which already have them in place and routinely use them for controlling entry) so as to help in the process of checking on candidates with questionable profiles. Any person flying would hope that they do so when they travel, FIFA or not.


Well pesto despite all odds you've exceeded yourself once again. 
The final was moved with 3 months notice. 
There were very few interested parties with suitable stadiums. 
As has been said by other posters on here, Paris and the Stade has a history of hosting these events without any issues. 
So in summary the bid was awarded to one of Europes main cities, that has a track record of hosting huge sporting events and will be hosting more major events in the near future. A truly flawed bidding process _thats sarcasm btw know you lot struggle with that_

And again pesto, I never said that security checks were futile. I said the suggestion that they are some sort of similar silver bullet is laughable. 
This is due to 3 reasons mainly:
1. Often issues at these events are down to poor management not individuals. 
2. The individuals that do cause trouble quite often have no criminal history so security before they get into the country catches nothing because theres nothing to catch. 
3. The event is taking place in part in the USA. You guys have more than enough trouble makers of your own to worry about. Catching people before they get into the country is like taking a cup of water out of the Atlantic ocean, yeah your cups full, well done, you did your job but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really make any difference.


----------



## pesto

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Kansas City is also where Lamar Hunt relocated the Dallas Texans (now Chiefs) too. In case if you did not already know Hunt helped found the MLS and even the US Open Cup is named after him.


That's true but I'm not sure that's something that FIFA would care much about nowadays. 

There was a story about when Lamar was losing huge amounts and trying to figure how to survive in Dallas. His father, H.L. Hunt, who provided the funds for Lamar's hobbies, was asked how long Lamar could keep losing a million dollars every year; his answer "oh, about 140 years, I guess".


----------



## glksc

*Two Florida cities could host World Cup matches, bring millions to local economies*







> The 2026 FIFA World Cup is set to take place across Canada, the United States, and Mexico, with the bulk of matches occurring on American soil. Of the seventeen venues left in contention to be used in the tournament, Florida is home to two: Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, and Camping World Stadium in Orlando. Early estimations suggest that the use of the cities could stimulate the local economies to the tune of millions of dollars per game when hotel revenue, food service, and outside local attractions are accounted for.
> 
> Florida’s business-recruitment agency in late 2021 allotted $10 million to help Orlando and Miami become host cities, with The Enterprise Florida Board of Directors voting to make $5 million to each city available to support the ongoing bids. If selected as hosts, the funds would support the cities’ logistical needs to host hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of visitors over the month-long competition.
> 
> “Florida has the infrastructure, workforce, and experience in tourism and hosting large-scale events that make it a perfect fit to offer two host cities for the World Cup,” said Holly Borgmann, Vice Chairman of the Enterprise Florida Board of Directors. “Enterprise Florida is proud to be able to support Miami and Orlando’s efforts, which align perfectly with Governor DeSantis’ and our state’s economic development leaders’ efforts to keep Florida’s economy open, and consistently support business and industry and the world’s number one tourism economy.”


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534658715596488704

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534650035769593857
I've a feeling they'll announce Kansas City will be selected as host city of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.


----------



## pesto

Edmonton confirms it is all-in with bid to host 2026 World Cup matches - Inside World Football


June 9 – The Canadian men’s team may have pulled out of playing a friendly game last week as the players negotiate over 2022 World Cup bonus payments, but the City of Edmonton has confirmed it is all-in with its bid to host matches at the 2026 World Cup. FIFA will announce the host cities for...




www.insideworldfootball.com





Edmonton agrees to FIFA requested improvements and other expenditures and feels good about being selected. Since only 3 Canadian sites are proposed and the original understanding was for 3 cities in Canada, they seem to be in a solid position.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Edmonton confirms it is all-in with bid to host 2026 World Cup matches - Inside World Football
> 
> 
> June 9 – The Canadian men’s team may have pulled out of playing a friendly game last week as the players negotiate over 2022 World Cup bonus payments, but the City of Edmonton has confirmed it is all-in with its bid to host matches at the 2026 World Cup. FIFA will announce the host cities for...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.insideworldfootball.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edmonton agrees to FIFA requested improvements and other expenditures and feels good about being selected. Since only 3 Canadian sites are proposed and the original understanding was for 3 cities in Canada, they seem to be in a solid position.


they agreed long time ago, canadian and mexican cities are locks …. or you think they might lose hosting rights to chicoutimi?


----------



## Nedster

Edmonton was not a lock. The provincial government put conditions on it's funding that included getting 5 out of the 10 Canadian matches. I take it that the article suggests there was a compromise. Also, soccer reporter Grant Wahl said that his inside sources were saying that there was a chance that Edmonton's bid would be given to Baltimore/Washington. The news above gives me hope that my city has a solid chance.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> they agreed long time ago, canadian and mexican cities are locks …. or you think they might lose hosting rights to chicoutimi?


As Nedster says, there have been 2 years of heated discussions between Alberta (Province) and Calgary over funding. Before funding, Alberta wanted at least 5 matches in Edmonton including 2 in the knock-out stage, which would likely have been unacceptable to Toronto and Vancouver. 

I haven't heard how this was worked out or if it is still in process.


----------



## Nedster

As far as I know, Calgary wasn't complaining too loudly about potential funding given to it's provincial rival Edmonton, although it is usually tit for tat among the two. The provincial government was wanting to see value for it's one third investment (federal government and municipal government also at one third a piece) and to be assured of marquee matches. In my opinion, each bid city should have been assured at least 4 games but the original bid was not set up that way for Canada and Mexico.


----------



## pesto

Nedster said:


> As far as I know, Calgary wasn't complaining too loudly about potential funding given to it's provincial rival Edmonton, although it is usually tit for tat among the two. The provincial government was wanting to see value for it's one third investment (federal government and municipal government also at one third a piece) and to be assured of marquee matches. In my opinion, each bid city should have been assured at least 4 games but the original bid was not set up that way for Canada and Mexico.


Hard to argue 12 games for Canada or Mexico. As is, each got more matches than the sizes of their economies would warrant. This was apparently made up by putting the 4 final rounds entirely in the US. Edmonton should not really expect particularly exciting matches given that it is only in because Montreal dropped out.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534983814501453824


----------



## ElvisBC

reduced number of games in Canada? hard to believe!


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534983814501453824


Interesting. Apparently agreeing to make requested capital improvement is not enough to get Edmonton . And FIFA feels comfortable with changing the hosting agreement given that Montreal was part of the original bid and Edmonton is quite isolated and does not fit within any groups. 

I suppose Vancouver and Toronto will get 5 each with the Canadian opening day match going to Toronto.


----------



## ElvisBC

Virginia General Assembly tables Washington Commanders stadium bill

looks like another delay … possibly waiting for ownership solution


----------



## pesto

There's a Lot of Chatter About Philly's World Cup Bid


Next Thursday, FIFA will announce the host cities for the 2026 World Cup in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The committee who put together Philadelphia’s bid is inviting everybody to a watch party at LOVE Park when the reveal is broadcasted: PHILLY ARE YOU READY? 😬 Join us in...




www.crossingbroad.com





Apparently announcement parties are all the rage now, as Philly jumps in. Or maybe they just like to party in the City of Brotherly Love.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> Virginia General Assembly tables Washington Commanders stadium bill
> 
> looks like another delay … possibly waiting for ownership solution


I'm afraid the Commies belong with Edmonton in the "thanks for asking, but we're kind of busy right now" category.


----------



## aquamaroon

Welp, looks like we have our Canadian Stadiums on lock to join the Mexican ones. Congratulations BC Place and BMO Field!










source









source


----------



## ElvisBC

that would be FIFA at its best … first they include canada in the bid which is ridiculous anyway, then they invite edmonton after everyone else quits but work behind their back to bring vancouver back in the game, and when that happens they simply leve edmonton out …. they do it the FIFA way!

and the worst thing, it is probably very good decission. it may include one more US venue instead of canadian city in the middle of nowhere!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> that would be FIFA at its best … first they include canada in the bid which is ridiculous anyway, then they invite edmonton after everyone else quits but work behind their back to bring vancouver back in the game, and when that happens they simply leve edmonton out …. they do it the FIFA way!


Canada is a country with about the same GDP as France or Italy but with much less interest in soccer. What better place to build your brand, especially when Canada can be developed in conjunction with the much larger US (open border, common language, shared sports traditions). To say nothing of a lower crime rate.

And people normally choose the best option available and change their choice if a better one becomes available. If you find the same SUV with fewer miles and a lower price you lose interest in the first one.


----------



## slipperydog

Confirmation that Nashville's bid includes the current stadium and is not dependent on a theoretical new stadium being completed


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1535337133057130496


----------



## aquamaroon

slipperydog said:


> Confirmation that Nashville's bid includes the current stadium and is not dependent on a theoretical new stadium being completed
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1535337133057130496



Lot of good info there. It's a real shame because I think Nashville would be an excellent host city and put on a fantastic World Cup, but I just don't know if FIFA will be willing to take a bid with such a question mark around the stadium. Again a shame because it's a great city for large events and full of the kind of Americana that tourists can send photos of to their friends back home (Brazilian _Seleção Canarinho_ fans at the Grand Ol' Opry anyone?) but it's hard to see Nashville coming through in such a tough race. That said with 11 cities in the USA now instead of 10 that gives Nashville just that extra chance, but we'll see.


----------



## pesto

aquamaroon said:


> Lot of good info there. It's a real shame because I think Nashville would be an excellent host city and put on a fantastic World Cup, but I just don't know if FIFA will be willing to take a bid with such a question mark around the stadium. Again a shame because it's a great city for large events and full of the kind of Americana that tourists can send photos of to their friends back home (Brazilian _Seleção Canarinho_ fans at the Grand Ol' Opry anyone?) but it's hard to see Nashville coming through in such a tough race. That said with 11 cities in the USA now instead of 10 that gives Nashville just that extra chance, but we'll see.


I agree; it's a chance to see some of the US away from the coasts. 

But I'm not sure they are out. The stadium is important but so are the "visuals" and Nashville is solid in that way due to their Grand Old Opry and saloon schtick. And they are in an area with high population and likely no other host cities.


----------



## Light Tower

We will find out in two days.


----------



## slipperydog

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537159936131604485


----------



## Light Tower

Almost 24 hours left to the 2026 FIFA World Cup host city announcements.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Light Tower said:


> We are getting close to finding out the host cities for this FIFA World Cup.


Hype.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537197855789678593


----------



## slipperydog

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537197855789678593


a bit surprising, but makes sense given its obvious shortcomings


----------



## en1044

The more I think about it, the more I want Miami to host the final.


----------



## GunnerJacket

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537197855789678593


I'm actually shocked anything like this has been leaked.


----------



## flcinusa

Reports of Vancouver getting 6 games, Canada is only supposed to host 10 games so that leaves 4 for Toronto, and Edmonton absolutely out?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537167683740831747


----------



## PHofKS

A few last-minute details about Nashville’s proposal for hosting 2026 World Cup games in 2026 from a radio interview yesterday with Butch Spyridon, head of the Nashville Conventions and Visitors Corp and the lead on the effort to convince FIFA to bring Cup games to Nashville.


The planned construction of a new stadium to replace the current NFL Nissan Stadium did give the FIFA Committee ‘pause’.
The current stadium is the proposed stadium to host any games. The proposed new roofed stadium is not included in the proposal. Apparently, the FIFA Committee wanted assurance that the stadium would be completed by January 2026 and the Nashville team could not guarantee the stadium would be ready.
The current Nissan stadium will be maintained and upgraded. It will still host NFL games.
The Titans management presented detailed, scale drawings showing how all the hospitality venues and tents would be laid out in the stadium vicinity.
At the time of the cup games, the new stadium construction should be largely completed with the area adjacent to Nissan Stadium cleared of construction business, fenced off and some parts covered with large scrims.
If they name Nashville as a host city, it will be the City’s appeal and attractions that sold it.


----------



## Baltimore35

flcinusa said:


> Reports of Vancouver getting 6 games, Canada is only supposed to host 10 games so that leaves 4 for Toronto, and Edmonton absolutely out?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537167683740831747


Edmonton out means at least 11 US cities correct?


----------



## Joakim3

Baltimore35 said:


> Edmonton out means at least 11 US cities correct?


Pretty much.


----------



## ElvisBC

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537197855789678593


what‘s the point in posting tweets from someone with 4 followers as a source?

I hope he is right, boston is by far the worst candidate, but we should stick to reliable sources here


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537367406372433924

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537273591766605825


----------



## Ramanaramana

flcinusa said:


> Reports of Vancouver getting 6 games, Canada is only supposed to host 10 games so that leaves 4 for Toronto, and Edmonton absolutely out?


Would be sensible. BC Place is a bigger and better stadium than Toronto FC's ground. I really liked how it came across during the Women's world cup held in Canada way back.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

The Disgrace of Gijón should guide the groups at the 2026 World Cup


At the 1982 World Cup in Spain, the worst game in history happened. This game was dubbed 'the Disgrace of Gijón', and resulted in the competition rules be...




mlsmultiplex.com


----------



## weava

It's weird that KC is a host city. I always assumed we were out as we aren't even a top 20 metro and arrowhead can't fit a fifa size field so always thought the local MLS fans were crazy when they have been claiming for months that we will get to host.

Being that our right wing state governor will be at the announcement I am assume there is a secret deal in place for state funds to upgrade the stadium or something. I know the city already agreed to waive sales taxes on tickets and we've had world cup posters in City Hall for months, our mayor has been working hard to get the games.


----------



## pesto

weava said:


> It's weird that KC is a host city. I always assumed we were out as we aren't even a top 20 metro and arrowhead can't fit a fifa size field so always thought the local MLS fans were crazy when they have been claiming for months that we will get to host.
> 
> Being that our right wing state governor will be at the announcement I am assume there is a secret deal in place for state funds to upgrade the stadium or something. I know the city already agreed to waive sales taxes on tickets and we've had world cup posters in City Hall for months, our mayor has been working hard to get the games.


KC was certainly not getting in because of size (it is the 31st largest US metro area) and the weather is potentially hot. 

But it does help fill a geographic hole, especially if Nashville and Denver don't get in.


----------



## pesto

flcinusa said:


> Reports of Vancouver getting 6 games, Canada is only supposed to host 10 games so that leaves 4 for Toronto, and Edmonton absolutely out?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1537167683740831747


Without Montreal, with Toronto having a stadium that needs substantial work, and with Edmonton in the middle of nowhere, FIFA apparently jumped at the opportunity to let Vancouver back in in spite of their earlier lack of interest.


----------



## slipperydog

weava said:


> It's weird that KC is a host city. I always assumed we were out as we aren't even a top 20 metro and arrowhead can't fit a fifa size field so always thought the local MLS fans were crazy when they have been claiming for months that we will get to host.
> 
> Being that our right wing state governor will be at the announcement I am assume there is a secret deal in place for state funds to upgrade the stadium or something. I know the city already agreed to waive sales taxes on tickets and we've had world cup posters in City Hall for months, our mayor has been working hard to get the games.


Kansas City is also completely rebuilding their airport, which will be done soon and ready to go


----------



## pesto

slipperydog said:


> Without a doubt. However, FIFA thought it a wise decision to host the WC in Qatar, so it's quite possible that a stadium like New York's, despite its obvious flaws, could be selected for the WC final.


And I couldn't say I would blame them. NY is THE world city (although many love it and hate it at the same time). A great brand for getting people to watch the matches. 

But you have to admit that the weather in July can be hot and prices will be unaffordable for many unless they stay 6 to a room.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

ElvisBC said:


> sao paulo/ekaterinburg 2.0


Don't forget Gillingham as well.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> I couldn't care less which of LA or NY host it. Two sides of the same coin. My main point was that it won't be Dallas because finals are always hosted in one of the two largest cities. In most countries those cities have the largest stadiums also. But it's not just that. The final should be in a city that holds cultural gravitas for the rest of the nation.
> 
> The noon kickoff is much less of a problem with a roof, unlike in 94 when it was open-air. It was 38 degrees for that final, which is borderline criminal. No such concerns for player of fan welfare this time around with a roof.
> 
> Right now, the FIFA guideline states..........
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't bode well for LA, as it would certainly push attendance to the mid-to-late 60,000s. But it does state 'as a general rule', which means exemptions can apply. If FIFA softens stance on standing room, LA can host up to 100,000, which would then tip the capacity scale in its favour over NY.
> 
> Either choice is good. Dallas won't get it because it's Dallas, no other reason.


I still think Dallas would be best for the final as I feel their venue is best suited for the game (largest capacity and climate controlled). Also, Dallas has a major international airport (American Airlines headquarters) and is ranked as the 4th-7th largest metro area in population depending on how you measure it. Dallas is not one of the two largest metros in the US but it is more than suitable for the World Cup final.


----------



## RobH

DublinHoop said:


> You lot are touchy. Pointing out obvious flaws of some aspects of the bid and obvious points of strength of others isn't something to get offend about.
> 
> The Estadio Azteca is an 80,000 seater stadium, with a roof but open air, it is a stadium synonymous with football in one of the most football mad countries in the world, oh and its pitch actually fits a football pitch on it... I don't know how you can even try argue it is not the best football stadium in the bid.
> 
> As for the rest, yes picking stadiums that don't actually fit football pitches on them is a bit of an issue. In so far as it is going to cost a decent chunk of change for the stadiums owners to rectify and has clear legacy issues.
> 
> And yes having stadiums that are so reliant on cars to access them when the vast vast majority of people attending on match days will be from out of town and a lot of whom will want to consume alcoholic beverages is also an issue. To try say otherwise is just mental.
> 
> Also when you guys consistently talk down the other two countries in the bid and say how lucky they are just to be involved obviously I'm going to take the opportunity to get a wee dig in and point out the clear strengths they have over the US.
> 
> If you guys simply acknowledged the clear flaws with the bid and engaged in an actual discussion about them instead of just taking it as a personal attack you'd be a lot less offended.


There is something funny about the fact that the USA, which meets the general stadium criteria so easily and which is exactly the boon FIFA needs after a rocky decade, has some specific flaws with most of the stadiums being considered for the final game such that there isn't a very obvious candidate.

It's a slightly odd situation. Most hosts know exactly where the final will be (Stade de France, Maracana, Luzhniki, Wembley if England hosts etc) and then struggle once they have to find enough stadiums for group games. America seems to have ended up in the inverse position.

Your point that maybe the final could be elsewhere is interesting...but I think realistically - for better or for worse - there are a lot of other factors which will override that.


----------



## DublinHoop

RobH said:


> There is something funny about the fact that the USA, which meets the general stadium criteria so easily and which is exactly the boon FIFA needs after a rocky decade, has some specific flaws with most of the stadiums being considered for the final game such that there isn't a very obvious candidate.
> 
> It's a slightly odd situation. Most hosts know exactly where the final will be (Stade de France, Maracana, Luzhniki, Wembley if England hosts etc) and then struggle once they have to find enough stadiums for group games. America seems to have ended up in the inverse position.
> 
> Your point that maybe the final could be elsewhere is interesting...but I think realistically - for better or for worse - there are a lot of other factors which will override that.


There's something very funny about it. Normally during a world cup if you sit down to watch the games without knowing where the games are even being played n just by seeing the inside of the stadium during the match you can normally pick out the final venue, just because it's noticeably more put together and more grand than the rest. 

I don't doubt that the final will be played somewhere in the US but I stand by the statement that the best venue to hold the final is the Estadio Azteca. The fact that winds up some here is an added bonus but none the less I do believe it is the most suitable venue to host the final in.


----------



## slipperydog

RobH said:


> There is something funny about the fact that the USA, which meets the general stadium criteria so easily and which is exactly the boon FIFA needs after a rocky decade, has some specific flaws with most of the stadiums being considered for the final game such that there isn't a very obvious candidate.
> 
> It's a slightly odd situation. Most hosts know exactly where the final will be (Stade de France, Maracana, Luzhniki, Wembley if England hosts etc) and then struggle once they have to find enough stadiums for group games. America seems to have ended up in the inverse position.
> 
> Your point that maybe the final could be elsewhere is interesting...but I think realistically - for better or for worse - there are a lot of other factors which will override that.


Those are all considered national stadiums to a degree, located in the capital or largest city, whereas the US doesn’t really have any such thing. So it’s certainly not obvious and the reason why it’s worth a discussion. I’m actually not totally sure why LA was chosen over New York and DC in 1994 (same for the womens WC in 99), but would be interesting to find out what the reasoning was.

I tend to lean towards New York this time if I had to guess, with LA getting a semi, but if so people should realize it may be an uncomfortably hot and humid final for players, fans, and dignitaries.


----------



## Burnley Blade

An NFL pitch is quite smaller than a football/soccer pitch, certainly width wise. Will there be any issues here? I recall the corners at the Atlanta stadium being very tight. Could there be a temporary restructure of the bowl around the pitches?


----------



## tinyslam

In my opinion the Estadio Azteca has 3 things that go against it hosting the final. The first is the terrible renovation they did a few years ago which butchered the lower bowl. Hopefully they fix that either way, but its just looks really bad on TV now. The second is the altitude. I'm not sure how much of a factor this is, but it is worth considering. If you are looking for ideal playing conditions, high altitude is not going to be a point in your favor. The third is that Mexico isn't the "primary" host. Having only three cities hosting and then getting the final is kind of a slap in the face for the US. Now that being said I'm not sure that these 3 things are unsurmountable obstacles to hosting the final, but it doesn't make CDMX a clear favorite.


----------



## slipperydog

tinyslam said:


> In my opinion the Estadio Azteca has 3 things that go against it hosting the final. The first is the terrible renovation they did a few years ago which butchered the lower bowl. Hopefully they fix that either way, but its just looks really bad on TV now. The second is the altitude. I'm not sure how much of a factor this is, but it is worth considering. If you are looking for ideal playing conditions, high altitude is not going to be a point in your favor. The third is that Mexico isn't the "primary" host. Having only three cities hosting and then getting the final is kind of a slap in the face for the US. Now that being said I'm not sure that these 3 things are unsurmountable obstacles to hosting the final, but it doesn't make CDMX a clear favorite.


Azteca may be the best pure soccer focused stadium in the bid, but you’re correct, FIFA will likely have other considerations when it comes to hosting the final, not the least of which is that the three federations agreed to host the final in the US. But Azteca has hosted the final before.


----------



## flcinusa

I mean, the proposed provisional bid book schedule had semi in Dallas and Atlanta, final in New York/New Jersey.

I don't expect that to change, SoFi should get the US opening match though


----------



## CaliforniaJones

My picks about the Fan Fests.

Atlanta: Centennial Olympic Parc
Boston: Boston Common
Dallas: Klyde Warren Park
Guadalajara: Plaza de la Liberacion
Houston: Eleanor Tinsley Park
Kansas City: Cultural Center
Los Angeles: Exposition Park
Mexico City: Zocalo Square
Miami: Lummus Park
Monterrey: Explanada de los Heroes
New York/New Jersey: Central Park
Philadelphia: West Fairmount Park
San Francisco Bay Area: Moscone Center
Seattle: The Seattle Center
Toronto: Nathan Philipps Square
Vancouver: City Center

Infos from the Bid book.

I expect the final draw will be held in LA.
Some hollywoodian stars should be invited: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Will Smith, Chris Rock and others.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

CaliforniaJones said:


> My picks about the Fan Fests.
> 
> Atlanta: Centennial Olympic Parc
> Boston: Boston Common
> Dallas: Klyde Warren Park
> Guadalajara: Plaza de la Liberacion
> Houston: Eleanor Tinsley Park
> Kansas City: Cultural Center
> Los Angeles: Exposition Park
> Mexico City: Zocalo Square
> Miami: Lummus Park
> Monterrey: Explanada de los Heroes
> New York/New Jersey: Central Park
> Philadelphia: West Fairmount Park
> San Francisco Bay Area: Moscone Center
> Seattle: The Seattle Center
> Toronto: Nathan Philipps Square
> Vancouver: City Center
> 
> Infos from the Bid book.
> 
> I expect the final draw will be held in LA.
> Some hollywoodian stars should be invited: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, *Will Smith, Chris Rock* and others.


Just hope that Will Smith and Chris Rock don’t get into another altercation.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

RobH said:


> There is something funny about the fact that the USA, which meets the general stadium criteria so easily and which is exactly the boon FIFA needs after a rocky decade, has some specific flaws with most of the stadiums being considered for the final game such that there isn't a very obvious candidate.
> 
> It's a slightly odd situation. Most hosts know exactly where the final will be (Stade de France, Maracana, Luzhniki, Wembley if England hosts etc) and then struggle once they have to find enough stadiums for group games. America seems to have ended up in the inverse position.
> 
> Your point that maybe the final could be elsewhere is interesting...but I think realistically - for better or for worse - there are a lot of other factors which will override that.


I like the Dallas venue for the final as it has the largest capacity and is climate controlled. It is also in a good location too. You can easily have the semi finals in New York and LA and both would be a similar distance flight to Dallas for the final.


----------



## Labtec

pesto said:


> And I couldn't say I would blame them. NY is THE world city (although many love it and hate it at the same time). A great brand for getting people to watch the matches.
> 
> But you have to admit that the weather in July can be hot and prices will be unaffordable for many unless they stay 6 to a room.


The thing is it takes like 30+ minutes to drive from Met Life stadium to the heart of Manhattan. Sofi stadium is close to LAX and the beach but 30 minutes+ away from downtown LA. AT&T stadium also a 30-minute drive to downtown Dallas. Mercedes Benz stadium is the only one of these four to be close to/in downtown and has walkable access to things closeby like Centennial Olympic Park. And by 2026, most of the multi-billion project Centennial Yards right next by the stadium should be complete: Centennial Yards

How the area should look by 2026: State Farm Virtual Tour


----------



## slipperydog

Labtec said:


> The thing is it takes like 30+ minutes to drive from Met Life stadium to the heart of Manhattan. Sofi stadium is close to LAX and the beach but 30 minutes+ away from downtown LA. AT&T stadium also a 30-minute drive to downtown Dallas. Mercedes Benz stadium is the only one of these four to be close to/in downtown and has walkable access to things closeby like Centennial Olympic Park. And by 2026, most of the multi-billion project Centennial Yards right next by the stadium should be complete: Home
> 
> How the area should look by 2026: State Farm Virtual Tour


Well you're comparing two different things: Manhattan isn't where the airport is. Most tourists will probably want to stay in Manhattan, and can take a couple trains to get over to Met Life, which shouldn't be too bad, especially if they are international folks who are accustomed to taking public transit.

Since the Hollywood Park people mover won't be built by 2026, you'd have to get a cab or rent a car to get from LAX to the stadium. And that's assuming the visitor is even staying in an LAX hotel. Most are likely to stay in more touristy areas like Santa Monica or Manhattan Beach. It would be smart for the LA host committee to have some sort of shuttle system from the major tourist sites and the Inglewood metro station, because direct rail access to SoFi won't be done by then.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> My picks about the Fan Fests.
> 
> Atlanta: Centennial Olympic Parc
> Boston: Boston Common
> Dallas: Klyde Warren Park
> Guadalajara: Plaza de la Liberacion
> Houston: Eleanor Tinsley Park
> Kansas City: Cultural Center
> Los Angeles: Exposition Park
> Mexico City: Zocalo Square
> Miami: Lummus Park
> Monterrey: Explanada de los Heroes
> New York/New Jersey: Central Park
> Philadelphia: West Fairmount Park
> San Francisco Bay Area: Moscone Center
> Seattle: The Seattle Center
> Toronto: Nathan Philipps Square
> Vancouver: City Center
> 
> Infos from the Bid book.
> 
> I expect the final draw will be held in LA.
> Some hollywoodian stars should be invited: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Will Smith, Chris Rock and others.


All sound like very good ideas. But the Hollywood stars skew a bit old.


slipperydog said:


> Well you're comparing two different things: Manhattan isn't where the airport is. Most tourists will probably want to stay in Manhattan, and can take a couple trains to get over to Met Life, which shouldn't be too bad, especially if they are international folks who are accustomed to taking public transit.
> 
> Since the Hollywood Park people mover won't be built by 2026, you'd have to get a cab or rent a car to get from LAX to the stadium. And that's assuming the visitor is even staying in an LAX hotel. Most are likely to stay in more touristy areas like Santa Monica or Manhattan Beach. It would be smart for the LA host committee to have some sort of shuttle system from the major tourist sites and the Inglewood metro station, because direct rail access to SoFi won't be done by then.


Sounds right, but I think there is no doubt that there will be shuttle busses from LAX hotels and other clusters such as Manhattan and Redondo Beach, SaMo or DT regardless of which matches SoFi hosts.


----------



## pesto

Labtec said:


> The thing is it takes like *30+ minutes to drive from Met Life stadium to the heart of Manhattan*. Sofi stadium is close to LAX and the beach but 30 minutes+ away from downtown LA. AT&T stadium also a 30-minute drive to downtown Dallas. Mercedes Benz stadium is the only one of these four to be close to/in downtown and has walkable access to things closeby like Centennial Olympic Park. And by 2026, most of the multi-billion project Centennial Yards right next by the stadium should be complete: Centennial Yards
> 
> How the area should look by 2026: State Farm Virtual Tour


Let's get serious: it can take an hour from the Holland Tunnel to midtown. I would leave 2 hrs. for MetLife. I have also taken trains from Newark to midtown and sometimes you have to skip trains because they are full.


----------



## ElvisBC

DublinHoop said:


> If you guys simply acknowledged the clear flaws with the bid and engaged in an actual discussion about them instead of just taking it as a personal attack you'd be a lot less offended.


how dare you? us stadiums are perfect, sofi can acommodate 100k and lambeu field is the best stadium in the world!


----------



## miguelon

I have attended this type of events. 

If transit is available, its a plus, but honestly, fans will get there with what its at hand.

Your average attendee is there for a once in a lifetime or once every several years. So game day its a whole day event. Most wont care if its train, or shuttles or Ubers, they just need to know when and where they need to be, and will make it happen.


----------



## aquamaroon

ElvisBC said:


> how dare you? us stadiums are perfect, sofi can acommodate 100k and lambeu field is the best stadium in the world!


I mean to a lot of people it certainly is, or one of the best? Don't know why that's so triggering to you, it's ok if you don't like it but it doesn't change its significance among the people that do.


----------



## ElvisBC

aquamaroon said:


> I mean to a lot of people it certainly is, or one of the best? Don't know why that's so triggering to you, it's ok if you don't like it but it doesn't change its significance among the people that do.


it is legend and one of most iconic stadiums, no doubt about that, but it sucks big time. surprisingly small with tight seating spots on metal bleachers and no roof or protection whatsoever in a place where temperatures below freezing point are frequent, and all that in 21st century! I’ve been there twice, at least once too much!
if there is anyone out there claiming it is the best that person needs professional help


----------



## aquamaroon

ElvisBC said:


> it is legend and one of most iconic stadiums, no doubt about that, but it sucks big time. surprisingly small with tight seating spots on metal bleachers and no roof or protection whatsoever in a place where temperatures below freezing point are frequent, and all that in 21st century! I’ve been there twice, at least once too much!
> if there is anyone out there claiming it is the best that person needs professional help


That's certainly fair, definitely leaves a lot to be desired in terms of amenities, at least for general seating. The crazy thing is some people actually like that! Takes all kinds to make a world lol


----------



## Aminjumi

RobH said:


> Not that I have any particular opinion on where the final should be, but you're incredibly condescending for someone whose knowledge of football is virtually zero.
> 
> There's a difference between players being able to play and compete (and you certainly don't need to motivate yourself for a world cup final!) and able to play at their absolute best. Given this is the most important match in world football you have to aim for optimal conditions.
> 
> it's sometimes fun seeing players - particularly mid-season - having to grind out results in awful weather, be that heat or snow or whatever, but it's absolutely not what you want for this match if you can help it.
> 
> Likely weather is a factor that should be taken into account. One of many, of course. It's not about having "sympathy" or portraying footballers as ballerinas which as is about as unoriginal and accurate a take as your description of football fans as drunks.


Oh ... Thank you . I was reluctant to reply . Read it Pesto
As I said the 94 final had an awful weather and clearly effected the players in a negative way


----------



## Aminjumi

You have been criticizing a lot of stadiums. Do you have any critics regarding Lucus Oil and Viking stadiums?


----------



## rantanamo

ElvisBC said:


> any pictures of that corner flag at the opposite side?


1st pic is looking opposite the two finals corners and you can see the blocked off seats. If you look closely, closer in the foreground you can see where fewer rows are covered, which corresponds the lost rows for the lower field represented on the second pic. That platform is the height of floor under the first row of seats. Not sure how that one would work without removing some of the actual risers.


----------



## Vinicius B Bossi

I'm Brazilian and I'm using google translator, I think most people here on the forum are not aware of how FIFA works and what it wants, here in Brazil there was a lot of discussion about it at the time of the 2014 World Cup.

The most important game in business, business and politics, with the presence of many foreign leaders, is the opening, the first game, it must be in a city with huge hotel capacity, São Paulo was chosen for that, as far as I know New York would be the favourite, but the open stadium could be a problem and I don't know, maybe Dallas.

The final issue is the show, it needs to be in a remarkable place, something that people never forget, besides the party, the stadium needs to be magnificent, I find it very difficult not to be in Los Angeles, and Sofi, covered, air-conditioned and with natural lighting. FIFA loves modern stadiums and gigantic renovations, Maracana was rebuilt from the original, only the facade was left, the entire stand was redone, roof, lawn and etc.


----------



## pesto

Vinicius B Bossi said:


> I'm Brazilian and I'm using google translator, I think most people here on the forum are not aware of how FIFA works and what it wants, here in Brazil there was a lot of discussion about it at the time of the 2014 World Cup.
> 
> The most important game in business, business and politics, with the presence of many foreign leaders, is the opening, the first game, it must be in a city with huge hotel capacity, São Paulo was chosen for that, as far as I know New York would be the favourite, but the open stadium could be a problem and I don't know, maybe Dallas.
> 
> The final issue is the show, it needs to be in a remarkable place, something that people never forget, besides the party, the stadium needs to be magnificent, I find it very difficult not to be in Los Angeles, and Sofi, covered, air-conditioned and with natural lighting. FIFA loves modern stadiums and gigantic renovations, Maracana was rebuilt from the original, only the facade was left, the entire stand was redone, roof, lawn and etc.


Those comments make a lot of sense. This may help fill-in the issues.






Top Ten U.S. Cities by Hotel Rooms


New York has 106,000 hotel rooms open and currently ranks 5th place among U.S. cities for number of hotel rooms, according to the hotel industry data company Smith Travel Research. Las Vegas is the hotel room leader of the USA with 169,100 hotel rooms and Orlando is the other top destination in...




loyaltytraveler.boardingarea.com





These are the top 10 US hotel cities, it looks like NY, LA and Dallas are the leading candidates (LV, Orlando, Chicago, DC aren't in the running).

SoFi is not air conditioned. It is open on all sides with a canopy over the top. 

FIFA has already suggested that the movement of the final rounds will be from west to east. This seems to imply NY or Atlanta for the finals and Dallas or Atlanta for the semis. Maybe LA or SF for the quarter-finals? Supposedly, Canada and Mexico are not eligible to host the last 3 rounds due to prior agreement among the 3 countries.


----------



## ElvisBC

Aminjumi said:


> You have been criticizing a lot of stadiums. Do you have any critics regarding Lucus Oil and Viking stadiums?


we do, but we focus on football issues, it is totally different if you talk american football.
of course, major failures such as foxboro or santa clara always get their share 😁

apart from that (this is very off-topic here), vikings stadium is great, though I am still to be convinced that roof snow protection system (pump it up and let it slide away) works in extreme case of 1-2 meters of heavy wet snow overnight!
lucas oil is older and has some insane viewing obstructions in the middle tier, due to pillars noone can explain. and it has retractable roof they never open
both with great downtown location


----------



## flcinusa

Vinicius B Bossi said:


> I'm Brazilian and I'm using google translator, I think most people here on the forum are not aware of how FIFA works and what it wants, here in Brazil there was a lot of discussion about it at the time of the 2014 World Cup.
> 
> The most important game in business, business and politics, with the presence of many foreign leaders, is the opening, the first game, it must be in a city with huge hotel capacity, São Paulo was chosen for that, as far as I know New York would be the favourite, but the open stadium could be a problem and I don't know, maybe Dallas.
> 
> The final issue is the show, it needs to be in a remarkable place, something that people never forget, besides the party, the stadium needs to be magnificent, I find it very difficult not to be in Los Angeles, and Sofi, covered, air-conditioned and with natural lighting. FIFA loves modern stadiums and gigantic renovations, Maracana was rebuilt from the original, only the facade was left, the entire stand was redone, roof, lawn and etc.


Agreed, opening game will be in each region, Canada in Toronto, Mexico in Mexico City, USA in LA

It just makes the most sense


----------



## Light Tower

ElvisBC said:


> absolutely no way
> 
> if they put it into SoFi they are looking at 65k max and noon kickoff time, FIFA are idiots but they are not stupid. if they don't wanna do it without roof it will be dallas, otherwise NY. that simple!


Dallas still could be good enough since their AT&T Stadium has a retractable roof.


----------



## CWells2000

Light Tower said:


> Dallas still could be good enough since their AT&T Stadium has a retractable roof.


I think NY is a safe bet for the final, if its a 3pm Eastern time kick off, then it would be a 7pm kick off in Europe.


----------



## pesto

CWells2000 said:


> I think NY is a safe bet for the final, if its a 3pm Eastern time kick off, then it would be a 7pm kick off in Europe.


NY is the favorite. But that would be 9pm kick-off time in Europe.


----------



## CWells2000

pesto said:


> NY is the favorite. But that would be 9pm kick-off time in Europe.


I think many in europe are used to a 9pm kick off time anyway, considering many CL games are played at that time.


----------



## Vinicius B Bossi

flcinusa said:


> Agreed, opening game will be in each region, Canada in Toronto, Mexico in Mexico City, USA in LA
> 
> It just makes the most sense


I understand that there will be three opening games, but in addition there is the opening show, a ceremony to declare the opening of the cup, even, and the game that receives the most leaders and representatives from abroad. The final usually features local and national leaders who made it to the final, and maybe some football fans.

But in the game and in the opening ceremony, it has to be in a place that has the capacity for leaders to have private conversations, countries love to use this event to make unofficial agreements.
This opening will be in the USA, but FIFA should make a joke so that the fans in general see some importance in the debuts of Mexico and Canada at home.


----------



## Vinicius B Bossi

pesto said:


> Those comments make a lot of sense. This may help fill-in the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Ten U.S. Cities by Hotel Rooms
> 
> 
> New York has 106,000 hotel rooms open and currently ranks 5th place among U.S. cities for number of hotel rooms, according to the hotel industry data company Smith Travel Research. Las Vegas is the hotel room leader of the USA with 169,100 hotel rooms and Orlando is the other top destination in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loyaltytraveler.boardingarea.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are the top 10 US hotel cities, it looks like NY, LA and Dallas are the leading candidates (LV, Orlando, Chicago, DC aren't in the running).
> 
> SoFi is not air conditioned. It is open on all sides with a canopy over the top.
> 
> FIFA has already suggested that the movement of the final rounds will be from west to east. This seems to imply NY or Atlanta for the finals and Dallas or Atlanta for the semis. Maybe LA or SF for the quarter-finals? Supposedly, Canada and Mexico are not eligible to host the last 3 rounds due to prior agreement among the 3 countries.


I like the stadium in Atlanta, but I don't see FIFA choosing the city for the Final, even Dallas doesn't have all that importance for the Final, these two cities have very good stadiums and places, but the general problem is the city, when the people think of the USA, they remember New York and Los Angeles. But the lack of coverage in NY can be a problem, even though FIFA will never talk about it openly, but they will think about it, they will question this fact.

One thing, I think that Filadelfia will end up hosting some important game during the tournament (Brazil's debut, it's usually a game that draws attention, the eventual champion of the 2022 cup, semi-final), because it's the city where it was signed the declaration of independence in 1826, will serve as some homage to the 200 years.


----------



## ElvisBC

it was fifty years earlier and FIFA doesn’t care a bit about it


----------



## pesto

CWells2000 said:


> I think many in europe are used to a 9pm kick off time anyway, considering many CL games are played at that time.


For sure. I think of it as still being prime time for soccer fans. Just a technical correction.


----------



## pesto

Vinicius B Bossi said:


> I like the stadium in Atlanta, but I don't see FIFA choosing the city for the Final, even Dallas doesn't have all that importance for the Final, these two cities have very good stadiums and places, but the general problem is the city, when the people think of the USA, they remember New York and Los Angeles. But the lack of coverage in NY can be a problem, even though FIFA will never talk about it openly, but they will think about it, they will question this fact.
> 
> One thing, I think that Filadelfia will end up hosting some important game during the tournament (Brazil's debut, it's usually a game that draws attention, the eventual champion of the 2022 cup, semi-final), because it's the city where it was signed the declaration of independence in 1826, will serve as some homage to the 200 years.


Philadelphia has very large 250th anniversary plans and mentioned them as factors in obtaining the right to host. But there are only so many "big" matches so we will have to wait and see.

NY, Boston and DC are also connected to the revolution and will also have large celebrations. Since DC is not hosting any matches, they will presumably get a special event. You just can't pass up all the images in DC, from the Revolutionary War to World Wars I and II, when US troops fought in Europe and Asia and foreign visitors come to pay their respects.


----------



## Vinicius B Bossi

pesto said:


> Philadelphia has very large 250th anniversary plans and mentioned them as factors in obtaining the right to host. But there are only so many "big" matches so we will have to wait and see.
> 
> NY, Boston and DC are also connected to the revolution and will also have large celebrations. Since DC is not hosting any matches, they will presumably get a special event. You just can't pass up all the images in DC, from the Revolutionary War to World Wars I and II, when US troops fought in Europe and Asia and foreign visitors come to pay their respects.


Sorry, I got the year of the declaration of independence wrong, but in general, if DC had committed to a new stadium, they would probably receive either the opening or the final, but from what I read in the projects tab, there is a forecast, but there is nothing definitive yet.
Joking aside, I'm curious about where the England games will be, they may have trauma from certain ex-colonies.
In DC it will be a fan fest, and FIFA will do everything to make it special, probably events with famous players who will not play in the Cup.


----------



## GunnerJacket

pesto said:


> Those comments make a lot of sense. This may help fill-in the issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Ten U.S. Cities by Hotel Rooms
> 
> 
> New York has 106,000 hotel rooms open and currently ranks 5th place among U.S. cities for number of hotel rooms, according to the hotel industry data company Smith Travel Research. Las Vegas is the hotel room leader of the USA with 169,100 hotel rooms and Orlando is the other top destination in...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loyaltytraveler.boardingarea.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are the top 10 US hotel cities, it looks like NY, LA and Dallas are the leading candidates (LV, Orlando, Chicago, DC aren't in the running).


You're giving Dallas a nod due to this metric, despite your very source showing Atlanta having 15k more hotel rooms? Am I missing something?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

pesto said:


> Has anyone seen estimates? Foreign visitors other than from Canada and Mexico are tiny in the context of US tourism. Given the large US population and high prices, WC visitors may be relatively small. The movement would seem to be from Mexico and Canada into the US as the tournament progresses.
> 
> All Mexican host cities are in the west or central regions and Mexico's population is far from the US border so Mexico/US crossings should be by air and go to Atlanta, LA, SF, Houston or Dallas, which are very large cities with very large airports.
> 
> As for forex, I would assume it will be entirely cashless and all tickets and payments will be on cellphones. I haven't used cash for a sports, theater or concert ticket in probably 10 years.


Did not think of credit cards and other cashless payment.


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> Mbappé in the Sofi Stadium


Very cool.

Frank Corral was the punter/kicker on the Rams SB XIV (losing) team. Tony Zendejas also kicked for the Rams and was the best of the prolific Zendejas family, who had about 5 kickers in the NFL over the years. 

As I recall both were born in Mexico, grew up in SoCal and played both football and soccer.


----------



## d.henney

Ramanaramana said:


> A longer WC would face significant barriers. After a 10-month season, the chance of a 6 week World Cup would likely be shutdown automatically by FIFPRO. 'Good opportunity for teambuilding' won't pass the smell test.


You dont understand. The normal club season would be shorter because there are far less interruptions needed for qualification matches with the national team. Also the clubs dont have to fear injuries of their players during those qualification matches. And as I said: less travel time needed.



Ramanaramana said:


> Qualification matches can be a major source of revenue for smaller FAs. Most of us would love to see qualifiers cut down to size, but you would need the support of voters who benefit from a larger number of qualifiers being played.


On the other hand the smaller nations have more matches against teams with similar strenght, wich is better for their development. And with more teams in world cup (and continental cups as well) the chance is higher to participate in those tournaments, wich is far more revenue generating than some boring qualifier games where your team loses 9-1 or so. See Island, Wales or Suomi for example. They managed to participate in european championship only because the tournament was bigger. And with that they earned far more revenue than just playing some qualifier matches.


----------



## Mojeda101

Am i the only one who isn't against the idea of an 8-game world cup? It's only 4 teams that would play that many out of 48.

Top 2 of each group of 4 advance into a round of 32. Seems like a beautiful elegant solution that has always worked.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Mojeda101 said:


> Am i the only one who isn't against the idea of an 8-game world cup? It's only 4 teams that would play that many out of 48.
> 
> Top 2 of each group of 4 advance into a round of 32. Seems like a beautiful elegant solution that has always worked.


I think they want to keep it at seven games max.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

d.henney said:


> You dont understand. The normal club season would be shorter because there are far less interruptions needed for qualification matches with the national team. Also the clubs dont have to fear injuries of their players during those qualification matches. And as I said: less travel time needed.
> 
> On the other hand the smaller nations have more matches against teams with similar strenght, wich is better for their development. And with more teams in world cup (and continental cups as well) the chance is higher to participate in those tournaments, wich is far more revenue generating than some boring qualifier games where your team loses 9-1 or so. See Island, Wales or Suomi for example. They managed to participate in european championship only because the tournament was bigger. And with that they earned far more revenue than just playing some qualifier matches.


Even if the club season is shorter I think everyone wants seven games max for the World Cup. Also expanding the World Cup will only make it boring for the good teams. Teams like Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, USA, Japan and South Korea will see qualifiers reduced to nothing but over glorified friendlies. I do still see both CAF and UEFA being up for grabs in terms of excitement (Italy would have not qualified for this upcoming World Cup had it been 48 teams and with FIFA’s proposed confederation allocation). But for smaller teams the qualifiers will be big. The AFC pretty much has the same five teams qualifying every single time with few exceptions so seeing more slots for them will be great for the other teams. I know CONCACAF had very limited spaces for such a big confederation so seeing them get more will just make more sense. And the OFC will finally get an automatic spot too which will be great. So the only ones I can see qualifiers being less exciting for are for a few big teams in certain confederations.


----------



## Strathclyde

Mojeda101 said:


> Am i the only one who isn't against the idea of an 8-game world cup? It's only 4 teams that would play that many out of 48.
> 
> Top 2 of each group of 4 advance into a round of 32. Seems like a beautiful elegant solution that has always worked.


Presume you mean make it a 64-team tournament? I'd rather that to the 48-team format - which has the same pitfalls as the 24-team Euros where it's typically too easy to get past the group stages. One more game wouldn't be all that big an issue, only concern would be the quality of the tournament gets diluted a bit with more average teams included. But then part of the fun of a World Cup is watching a rubbish 1-1 draw between two teams you'd normally never pay any attention to.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Strathclyde said:


> Presume you mean make it a 64-team tournament? I'd rather that to the 48-team format - which has the same pitfalls as the 24-team Euros where it's typically too easy to get past the group stages. One more game wouldn't be all that big an issue, only concern would be the quality of the tournament gets diluted a bit with more average teams included. But then part of the fun of a World Cup is watching a rubbish 1-1 draw between two teams you'd normally never pay any attention to.


I would prefer a 48 team World Cup with 12 groups of 4 and have the group winners plus the 4 best runners up advance to the round of 16. My preferred format would make getting out of the group harder as only the group winners and a few runners up selected from an aggregate table will advance to the knockouts. Other benefits is all teams in a group can play simultaneously on the final match day for the group stage and it will stay at 7 games max for teams playing in the World Cup.


----------



## Mojeda101

Strathclyde said:


> Presume you mean make it a 64-team tournament? I'd rather that to the 48-team format - which has the same pitfalls as the 24-team Euros where it's typically too easy to get past the group stages. One more game wouldn't be all that big an issue, only concern would be the quality of the tournament gets diluted a bit with more average teams included. But then part of the fun of a World Cup is watching a rubbish 1-1 draw between two teams you'd normally never pay any attention to.


Nah I mean literally make it double of what the euro is right now. Or double of what the 24 team world cup was. Top 2 teams plus the top 8 3rd place teams all advance to the round of 32. Gives each nation a fair chance. Having only 16 teams advance out of 48 is downright ridiculous.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Mojeda101 said:


> Nah I mean literally make it double of what the euro is right now. Or double of what the 24 team world cup was. Top 2 teams plus the top 8 3rd place teams all advance to the round of 32. Gives each nation a fair chance.* Having only 16 teams advance out of 48 is downright ridiculous.*


In 2026, under the format suggested by FIFA and which is the selected format unless stated otherwise, the top 2 teams of each group go through to a round of 32. In other words 32 of the 48 teams will advance from the group stage.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Mojeda101 said:


> Nah I mean literally make it double of what the euro is right now. Or double of what the 24 team world cup was. Top 2 teams plus the top 8 3rd place teams all advance to the round of 32. Gives each nation a fair chance. Having only 16 teams advance out of 48 is downright ridiculous.





Ramanaramana said:


> In 2026, under the format suggested by FIFA and which is the selected format unless stated otherwise, the top 2 teams of each group go through to a round of 32. In other words 32 of the 48 teams will advance from the group stage.


I was suggesting my proposal of 12 groups of 4 and have the group winners plus the 4 best runners up advance to the round of 16 for several reasons. For one FIFA has constantly been promoting this World Cup as the first one with 48 teams. Also my proposal will keep it at 7 games max for teams competing which seems like a good number. Lastly unlike FIFA’s initial proposal for the 48 team tournament, the final day of the group stage can be played simultaneously due to there being a even number of teams.


----------



## Ramanaramana

The best runner up stuff is definitely not for me. I much prefer the three-team groups to picking out best runners up, as it unfairly gives advantages to teams in weaker groups. 

Teams advancing should be decided on what happens within that group, not what's going on outside it. It's one of the reasons I can't wait for Euros to go to 32, as past two editions have created some undesirable situations.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> The best runner up stuff is definitely not for me. I much prefer the three-team groups to picking out best runners up, as it unfairly gives advantages to teams in weaker groups.
> 
> Teams advancing should be decided on what happens within that group, not what's going on outside it. It's one of the reasons I can't wait for Euros to go to 32, as past two editions have created some undesirable situations.


You can have your own opinion but I think many want all teams in a group to play simultaneously on the final day. Yes results for the runners up will be decided outside of the group but collusion will be harder now that there are an even number of teams in a group plus the fact only the group winners are guaranteed a spot in the round of 16 making the four runners up feel more like a random draw than anything decided on the field.


----------



## Ramanaramana

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> You can have your own opinion but I think many want all teams in a group to play simultaneously on the final day. Yes results for the runners up will be decided outside of the group but collusion will be harder now that there are an even number of teams in a group plus the fact only the group winners are guaranteed a spot in the round of 16 making the four runners up feel more like a random draw than anything decided on the field.


Right yeah, which is to say that we're sat here waiting for the inevitable 64-team tournament that will solve the issues raised. 

While I'd like to see 3-team groups once, I'd be on board if Fifa hurried it along and implemented 64 for 2026. 

And if you wanted to keep it at 7 matches for winner instead of 8, only first placed team would go through. That would give group stage much higher stakes.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> Right yeah, which is to say that we're sat here waiting for the inevitable 64-team tournament that will solve the issues raised.
> 
> While I'd like to see 3-team groups once, I'd be on board if Fifa hurried it along and implemented 64 for 2026.
> 
> And if you wanted to keep it at 7 matches for winner instead of 8, only first placed team would go through. That would give group stage much higher stakes.


Apart from the very first edition that had 13 teams, the next 10 have 16 teams (sometimes less due to withdrawn teams) for a 44 year period, then the next 4 have 24 teams for a 12 year period and the next 7 have 32 teams for a 24 year period. Excluding the very first edition the first increase after a set number of teams have been decided saw an increase of 8 teams from 16 to 24 than another 8 were added to make 32 and lastly 16 were added to make 48. The increase form 32 in 2022 to 48 in 2026 is already the biggest one yet so 64 (increase of 32 or exactly double from 2022) might be too much to ask for. Given precedent, FIFA will probably keep it at 48 teams for the next 12 years after 2026.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Things are changing much faster, especially for Fifa which is officially at war with Uefa. Nothing is off the table.

Fifa and Ifab went from being anti-tech to pioneers with GLT, VAR, and now SAOT in less than a decade. I don't think we can accurately predict rate of change going forward, but settling on conservatism seems a longshot.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> Things are changing much faster, especially for Fifa which is officially at war with Uefa. Nothing is off the table.
> 
> Fifa and Ifab went from being anti-tech to pioneers with GLT, VAR, and now SAOT in less than a decade. I don't think we can accurately predict rate of change going forward, but settling on conservatism seems a longshot.


With that in mind I think having all six confederations adopt a global Nations League is more likely than anything else regarding FIFA's push to modernize the game. I think the World Cup will exist for the purists and stay at 48 for at least a while and the global Nations League will exist for the new generation. Before UEFA did their Nations League, European national teams had only the Euros and World Cup (and the qualifying rounds for said tournaments) to look forward too. The international game should have more competitions like the club game does as it gives teams more opportunities for teams to conquer previously unknown paths. Asia and Africa both have sub-confederation tournaments and Africa even has a tournament for domestic based players only. I know this is off track from the 2026 World Cup but I wanted to share how I feel about how FIFA should do things in the future and how it can complement the existing tournaments.


----------



## Ramanaramana

It's going to be difficult for Fifa due to the antagonism between them and Uefa.

There has been talk of Conmebol joining Uefa NL, which would shut out the other confeds and pool together the best nations.

That wouldn't undermine WC, as it has prestige that will be hard to catch up to, but it does suggest that the world isn't on the same page about future of international football.

Fifa has no leverage without Uefa and Conmebol. And I don't see how they get support from them on a Global NL.

The best Fifa can do for now is expand WC and try to get their expanded Club World Cup off the ground.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> It's going to be difficult for Fifa due to the antagonism between them and Uefa.
> 
> There has been talk of Conmebol joining Uefa NL, which would shut out the other confeds and pool together the best nations.
> 
> That wouldn't undermine WC, as it has prestige that will be hard to catch up to, but it does suggest that the world isn't on the same page about future of international football.
> 
> Fifa has no leverage without Uefa and Conmebol. And I don't see how they get support from them on a Global NL.
> 
> The best Fifa can do for now is expand WC and try to get their expanded Club World Cup off the ground.


FIFA can just convince the other confederations to make their own versions of the Nations League. I know CAF and the AFC will fully be on board for a new tournament for them. Also it would probably be better if CONMEBOL joins the CONCACAF Nations League for travel reasons. And likewise the OFC can team up with the AFC for their own Nations League. Compromise is the best strategy as any new tournament must complement existing ones. Also this thread is about the 2026 World Cup so let’s not get too distracted.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1545150914947940353


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549991192217223179

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549955662976794625

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549952576422117376
Can't wait to see some matches in Houston during the 2026 World Cup.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550131312870117379


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549991192217223179
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549955662976794625
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1549952576422117376
> Can't wait to see some matches in Houston during the 2026 World Cup.


Genuinely impressed by the large crowd in Houston for a one off friendly. That stadium I feel is going to have an awesome atmosphere during the 2026 World Cup.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1550131312870117379


I am excited to see what Toronto's plan is. Hope I will be amazed by it when they release the plan.


----------



## Ramanaramana

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Genuinely impressed by the large crowd in Houston for a one off friendly. That stadium I feel is going to have an awesome atmosphere during the 2026 World Cup.


Not even the biggest crowd for a friendly in the past 5 years! That honour goes to United x City 2017, which drew 68,000. Even Bayern Real almost matched it in 2019 with just over 60k.

Houston/Texas obviously has loads of Mexicans, as this is the 18th football match at the stadium with over 60k in attendance.

Of those, only 4 have included teams other than Mexican national team, or in this last case a club from Mexico.....United x MLS All Stars, Utd x City, USA Argentina Copa semi, and Bayern x Real.


----------



## slipperydog

Ok, I’m sold. Houston will be an epic site for a WC game.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> Not even the biggest crowd for a friendly in the past 5 years! That honour goes to United x City 2017, which drew 68,000. Even Bayern Real almost matched it in 2019 with just over 60k.
> 
> Houston/Texas obviously has loads of Mexicans, as this is the 18th football match at the stadium with over 60k in attendance.
> 
> Of those, only 4 have included teams other than Mexican national team, or in this last case a club from Mexico.....United x MLS All Stars, Utd x City, USA Argentina Copa semi, and Bayern x Real.


Yes I know there might be bigger crowds at some games but I saw the video of the crowd and to me it looked very impressive. If this stadium has 18 matches over 60k than I am even more looking forward to this venue in 2026 as it is a proven to be a quality soccer stadium.


----------



## JJG

It just amazes me how people still underestimate Houston as a host city for anything.

Before the announcements, I still remember _many_ saying that it wouldn't make the cut, which makes no sense to me...


----------



## pesto

JJG said:


> It just amazes me how people still underestimate Houston as a host city for anything.
> 
> Before the announcements, I still remember _many_ saying that it wouldn't make the cut, which makes no sense to me...


I agree in part. I was surprised by some thinking Orlando or some others would beat out Houston; and I noted several times that selecting Denver or Nashville implied rejecting Houston or Philadelphia or others.. 

But Houston is a bit in Dallas' shadow and the weather is so bad so often that it's hard to generate positive feelings about it as a location. It wasn't an obvious choice and it wasn't an obvious rejection either. It belonged in the group at the margin.


----------



## ElvisBC

nope, houston was never in doubt


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> nope, houston was never in doubt


I thought they were barely in, but there's no reasonable basis for believing them to have been a *certainty right from the beginning* (when only 10 US cities were being chosen). Just two of the many rankings that put Houston neither as a lock or even likely. One ranks them as 15th choice






2026 World Cup: Ranking the U.S. cities in contention to host matches | FOX Sports


FIFA is currently touring potential U.S. host cities for the 2026 World Cup. Doug McIntyre ranks the list of contenders.




www.foxsports.com













Ranking U.S. cities most deserving to host 2026 World Cup games


There are so many wonderful cities in these here United States, but only 10 of them can have the honor and privilege (and challenge) of playing host to World Cup games when the tournament arrives in June 2026.




www.sportingnews.com


----------



## Ramanaramana

JJG said:


> It just amazes me how people still underestimate Houston as a host city for anything.
> 
> Before the announcements, I still remember _many_ saying that it wouldn't make the cut, which makes no sense to me...


Yes, very bizarre. I think many people outside US associate Dallas with Texas, and assume one venue is enough. Or they don't realise Houston is one of the biggest/most populated cities in the country.

Or maybe they have never seen the Texans play as the AFC South contains a whos who of small market AFC teams, and so rarely see it's one of the best stadiums in the country. 

Don't know what else would explain it. 

The only downside is that Mexico probably won't play here, and that's when it really comes alive.


----------



## JJG

ElvisBC said:


> nope, houston was never in doubt


Oh yes it was. Even IN Texas. 
Not everyone, of course, but still a large enough number to question it.


----------



## ElvisBC

I was not talking about (clueless) americans, I was talking about FIFA choice

houston has absolutely everything FIFA needs including covered stadium with no viewing obstructions and with perfect downtown connection, there was no scenario leaving them out.


----------



## Ramanaramana

ElvisBC said:


> I was not talking about (clueless) americans, I was talking about FIFA choice
> 
> houston has absolutely everything FIFA needs including covered stadium with no viewing obstructions and with perfect downtown connection, there was no scenario leaving them out.


Agree, but after Chicago anyone can be forgiven for thinking anything. I'm still disappointed that s*hole in Boston is hosting.


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> I was not talking about (clueless) americans, I was talking about FIFA choice
> 
> houston has absolutely everything FIFA needs including covered stadium with no viewing obstructions and with perfect downtown connection, there was no scenario leaving them out.


Well, you sure are a master at predicting things after they happen. 

And since you have gone into your song and dance, could you explain FIFA choosing Atlanta, which you believe does have viewing obstructions? And your apparent belief that FIFA doesn't care about obstructions so long as they can make money?

And just for clarity, one of the questions about Houston was the long distance of the stadium from the airport (28 miles) and from downtown, and the very spotty nature of downtown Houston which is a complaint of many locals.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Well, you sure are a master at predicting things after they happen. .


nope pesto, that’s you. 

you can find at least ten posts here where I wrote houston will host, just use forum search


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Ramanaramana said:


> Agree, but after Chicago anyone can be forgiven for thinking anything. I'm still disappointed that s*hole in Boston is hosting.


Chicago was not selected because the government of the city wanted no part with the World Cup. Also what is your problem with Boston, it seems like an all right city with a large population and infrastructure to handle the World Cup.


----------



## Light Tower

Denver wasn't selected as well, Dallas was the right pick.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

I think in my opinion Houston was one of the better host city candidates and it makes perfect sense why FIFA picked them. The NRG Stadium has hosted both the NCAA Final Four and Super Bowl on multiple occasions and the general infrastructure in the city suits events like those pretty well.


----------



## morgenstern12

But I do wonder how many games a day there will have to be


----------



## Ramanaramana

morgenstern12 said:


> But I do wonder how many games a day there will have to be


Probably looking at five a day during the group stage. 

If such a proposal comes to pass, they'd be wise to start removing the exclusivity windows for matches during the first two rounds of the group stage. 

Continue with the four timeslots a day, but have one of those timeslots host two matches at once. If we're being honest, fans are mostly interested in watching their country play, and there's a bunch of fixtures even in a 32-team World Cup that most people care little about. 

If you have Algeria x Japan and Paraguay x South Korea in say Group C and D, there's really no reason why they can't play such fixtures at the same time, especially if they're trying to cater to large audiences in a particular timezone, in this case east Asia.


----------



## morgenstern12

Ramanaramana said:


> Probably looking at five a day during the group stage.
> 
> If such a proposal comes to pass, they'd be wise to start removing the exclusivity windows for matches during the first two rounds of the group stage.
> 
> Continue with the four timeslots a day, but have one of those timeslots host two matches at once. If we're being honest, fans are mostly interested in watching their country play, and there's a bunch of fixtures even in a 32-team World Cup that most people care little about.
> 
> If you have Algeria x Japan and Paraguay x South Korea in say Group C and D, there's really no reason why they can't play such fixtures at the same time, especially if they're trying to cater to large audiences in a particular timezone, in this case east Asia.


Would 16 stadiums be enough for a 104 game world cup?. Probably the prime time slot in North America gets two games at the same time and before that some games early enough to keep the Europeans happy. Hopefully a 104 game world cup will be the alternative to a world cup every two years.


----------



## pesto

morgenstern12 said:


> Would 16 stadiums be enough for a 104 game world cup?. Probably the prime time slot in North America gets two games at the same time and before that some games early enough to keep the Europeans happy. Hopefully a 104 game world cup will be the alternative to a world cup every two years.


Some of the matches could be played in pretty small stadiums. As is, it's hard to fill stadiums for some of the less attractive matches.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

This is how the Sofi Stadium will host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555058241670762497



























Thanks to Aquamaron and Slipperdog.

Imagine the ambiance during the 2026 World Cup.

I hesitate between LA Na d Mexico City for the opening match. Why not two ?


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> This is how the Sofi Stadium will host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555058241670762497
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Aquamaron and Slipperdog.
> 
> Imagine the ambiance during the 2026 World Cup.
> 
> I hesitate between LA Na d Mexico City for the opening match. Why not two ?


Or three. Toronto, CDMX, and LA the first day. Toronto is apparently doing some significant work and it's just insulting not to give them a first day match. 

Dallas, Atlanta and NY are leaders for the final rounds but FIFA (and everyone else) seems to be blown away by the SoFi accomplishment and they may want to give the process more thought.


----------



## Mojeda101

Sofi stadium is going to be incredible for the world cup. Did they even need to retract any of the seats? It fits!


----------



## twk

Soccer pitches vary in size. I think FIFA wants a larger pitch than the one used last night, so the corners are an issue. I believe the same is true at Jerry World.


----------



## ElvisBC

sofi is too small for the final and time zone isn‘t good


----------



## morgenstern12

pesto said:


> Some of the matches could be played in pretty small stadiums. As is, it's hard to fill stadiums for some of the less attractive matches.


Nah the US is a country of immigrants, all the matches would be full mo doubt.


----------



## pesto

morgenstern12 said:


> Nah the US is a country of immigrants, all the matches would be full mo doubt.


They weren't the time I was involved. As part of their sponsorship commitment, each sponsor was given many thousands of tickets to low demand matches to give away to people who were committed to actually showing-up. This was so that the matches could be called "sell-outs" and so there wouldn't be half-filled stadiums.

As head of a financial operating group, I was personally responsible for giving away 80 tickets and enforcing attendance. Most attending were single women on my staff and their friends who had no knowledge or interest in soccer but had nothing else to do that day.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Mojeda101 said:


> Sofi stadium is going to be incredible for the world cup. Did they even need to retract any of the seats? It fits!


Apart from that hideous VR helmet hovering above the pitch, it'll be good for those attending at the very least. Having watched the first half of LAFC x America, the stadium comes across very poorly on TV. The camera doesn't capture enough of the stands in the shot that are hallmarks of good football stadiums.



ElvisBC said:


> sofi is *too small* for the final and time zone isn‘t good


I missed that detail. Completely glossed over the fact that it's 10k below requirement. And it seems the 'expandable to 100,000' promise just means standing room, which probably isn't a road FIFA is going down. I always thought it'd be New York anyway, but that confirms it.



morgenstern12 said:


> Nah the US is a country of immigrants, all the matches would be full mo doubt.


I don't believe there's any real doubt about occupancy rates at the WC in 26. It broke records that stand to this day in 94 when the game was nowhere near as popular as it is today.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> They weren't the time I was involved. As part of their sponsorship commitment, each sponsor was given many thousands of tickets to low demand matches to give away to people who were committed to actually showing-up. This was so that the matches could be called "sell-outs" and so there wouldn't be half-filled stadiums.
> 
> As head of a financial operating group, I was personally responsible for giving away 80 tickets and enforcing attendance. Most attending were single women on my staff and their friends who had no knowledge or interest in soccer but had nothing else to do that day.


80 tickets .... that was great one pesto😁


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> 80 tickets .... that was great one pesto😁


Since you are interested in learning something: I had been brought in to build the acquisitions group in a large tech company, which was a major supplier of an Olympic sponsor. They and other large suppliers were given the task of unloading 10k tickets or so each to various matches which were not close to selling out. 

My group got 80 and it was made clear that the media better not catch any empty seats in that area. We accomplished this and the games were listed as sell-outs or near sell-outs. Some of the people involved went into this as a continuing business and have handled ticket distribution at professional sports in the US and Europe. This led them into demographics analysis and built one of the main drivers of sports and entertainment investing.


----------



## ElvisBC

you are hopeless …. olympics have nothing to do with the world cup. zero!


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> you are hopeless …. olympics have nothing to do with the world cup. zero!


LOL. You finally got me. That was a typo up above; it should have said "World Cup" sponsor instead of "Olympic".


----------



## aquamaroon

CaliforniaJones said:


> This is how the Sofi Stadium will host matches during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1555058241670762497
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks to Aquamaron and Slipperdog.
> 
> Imagine the ambiance during the 2026 World Cup.
> 
> I hesitate between LA Na d Mexico City for the opening match. Why not two ?


Thank you for the shoutout!

Just a friendly reminder though, this is NOT what SoFI will look like for the World Cup because the bowl is too small for a FIFA World Cup pitch. The pitch that was laid for the two soccer matches on Wednesday is quite a bit smaller than one that would be required for the World Cup. In order to handle the World Cup they are going to have to redesign the field and lower bowl; the most likely solution is going to be that they raise the floor all the way up to the seating bowl and incorporate a World Cup sized pitch that way.


----------



## Mojeda101

Ramanaramana said:


> I missed that detail. Completely glossed over the fact that it's 10k below requirement. And it seems the 'expandable to 100,000' promise just means standing room, which probably isn't a road FIFA is going down. I always thought it'd be New York anyway, but that confirms it.


I wonder if it also included building another tray in the blank endzones. I wonder how many more they could fit doing that.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Mojeda101 said:


> I wonder if it also included building another tray in the blank endzones. I wonder how many more they could fit doing that.


could be something they look at yeah, especially if they’re retrofitting the bowl to fit a standard pitch. Guess it just depends on how badly they want to host the final. I still hope it’s NY, the Copa final there looked and sounded amazing.


----------



## ElvisBC

sofi has capacity of 70k, minus 5k for media section minus another 2-4k for removed seats and lowest rows to acommodate world cup pitch … that leaves roughly 60k. 60k for the world cup final …. come on … you can’t be serious!


----------



## parcdesprinces

ElvisBC said:


> sao paulo is for me the worst world cup stadium ever


Not to mention the several delays and problems they had during its construction. (but well that's off topic)


----------



## GunnerJacket

parcdesprinces said:


> LOL, you're not surprising dear @GunnerJacket (since I was pretty sure you'll going to mention Ekaterinbourg)... and regarding Samara.. well.. not that bad IMHO & as mentioned above by Elvis.
> 
> Anyway.. one stadium & a half is very far from being a "handful" as you wrote, don't you think? (even if that was a -politcal/russophobic figure of speech I guess  )


If I overreached by saying "handful" then that's my bad, but it was a casual error made in the moment. Your insinuation, however, that my comment was politically motivated is not only way off base but a completely unnecessary swipe at my character. Please don't make unwarranted comments about posters. 

As to the Brazilian venue, in the thread for BMO field I note that USA '26 will now mark the 4th World Cup in a row with some form of temporary stand or venue, so it's not that big a deal. I'm not calling this design genius, merely saying it doesn't seem an eyesore. And that's just my opinion.


----------



## parcdesprinces

GunnerJacket said:


> Your insinuation, however, that my comment was politically motivated is not only way off base but a completely unnecessary swipe at my character.


My apologies about that (sincerely!) 



---------------------

^^ For the rest of your post, I agree with you actually, especially since you're "clarified" your point ^^.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Apology accepted. Cheers.


----------



## In The End

ElvisBC said:


> são paulo é para mim o pior estádio da copa do mundo de todos os tempos
> 
> é claro que vários estádios de 2026 vão facilmente superar isso🤓


I agree of this is not the best stadium ever, but, the worst...









Loftus Versfeld, 2010









Ecaterimburg Stadium, 2018









Max-Morlock-Stadion, 2006










Sapporo Dome, 2002



And another many stadiums...


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1561892172005363713


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1561892172005363713


I see that they are different approaches but what is the basic driver? Money, tradition, fairness, too many matches or too much travel?


----------



## Mojeda101

pesto said:


> I see that they are different approaches but what is the basic driver? Money, tradition, fairness, too many matches or too much travel?


It's pretty straight forward

FIFA: We want 2 groups of 5 teams, Top 3 of each group advance to the world cup. This method results in 40 matches.

CONMEBOL: We want the current system of all 10 teams in 1 group. This method results in 90 matches.

However there's some infighting among CONMEBOL as some nations like Argentina & Brazil are rooting for the new format as it would open up space for the UEFA nations league matches. If the current format is kept it could derail the entire nations league invitation debacle.


----------



## pesto

Mojeda101 said:


> It's pretty straight forward
> 
> FIFA: We want 2 groups of 5 teams, Top 3 of each group advance to the world cup. This method results in 40 matches.
> 
> CONMEBOL: We want the current system of all 10 teams in 1 group. This method results in 90 matches.
> 
> However there's some infighting among CONMEBOL as some nations like Argentina & Brazil are rooting for the new format as it would open up space for the UEFA nations league matches. If the current format is kept it could derail the entire nations league invitation debacle.


Thanks. I figured that was the root of the problem but didn't realize what a difference in was in number of matches.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Mojeda101 said:


> It's pretty straight forward
> 
> FIFA: We want 2 groups of 5 teams, Top 3 of each group advance to the world cup. This method results in 40 matches.
> 
> CONMEBOL: We want the current system of all 10 teams in 1 group. This method results in 90 matches.
> 
> However there's some infighting among CONMEBOL as some nations like Argentina & Brazil are rooting for the new format as it would open up space for the UEFA nations league matches. If the current format is kept it could derail the entire nations league invitation debacle.


FIFA doesn't control what format a confederation uses, nor does it present new proposals. It sets the calendar and approves qualification formats once a confederation has decided upon one. The 'new' proposal was raised within Conmebol, not FIFA.

This is not FIFA vs Conmebol. It's Argentina/Brazil vs rest of Conmebol who, as you say, want to shorten Conmebol qualifying so they can participate in Uefa's NL. 

Another reason we know that FIFA would never suggest anything like that is because helping Conmebol countries join up with Uefa's NL goes directly against FIFA's interests.

With creation of NL, Argentina/Brazil can't schedule friendlies against major European opponents. They feel this puts them at a competitive disadvantage in World Cups, hence the drive to join up with the NL as part of the broader Uefa/Conmebol partnership that's blossomed in recent years.


----------



## Mojeda101

Ramanaramana said:


> FIFA doesn't control what format a confederation uses, nor does it present new proposals. It sets the calendar and approves qualification formats once a confederation has decided upon one. The 'new' proposal was raised within Conmebol, not FIFA.
> 
> This is not FIFA vs Conmebol. It's Argentina/Brazil vs rest of Conmebol who, as you say, want to shorten Conmebol qualifying so they can participate in Uefa's NL.
> 
> Another reason we know that FIFA would never suggest anything like that is because helping Conmebol countries join up with Uefa's NL goes directly against FIFA's interests.
> 
> With creation of NL, Argentina/Brazil can't schedule friendlies against major European opponents. They feel this puts them at a competitive disadvantage in World Cups, hence the drive to join up with the NL as part of the broader Uefa/Conmebol partnership that's blossomed in recent years.


That's weird, because this article made it seem like changes were on the way:









CONMEBOL's petition for the 2026 World Cup that could change FIFA's entire plans


The 2026 World Cup is going to be the first one with 48 national teams participating. Despite this change, CONMEBOL wants to keep the competitiveness and has a petition prepared for FIFA that could change their entire plans.




bolavip.com





"FIFA is studying new formats for each Confederation as more matches would be played in the Qualifiers. "


----------



## Ramanaramana

'_As more matches would be played in the qualifiers'_? I'm not sure how the author figures that. It's either the same amount of matches or significantly fewer. It's certainly not _more_. So what new format do they think FIFA is studying that requires more matches to be played in qualification?

FIFA doesn't care about how countries qualify for the World Cup because it doesn't make any difference to them. If anything, in this example being used, a shorter Conmebol qualification would only strengthen ties between UEFA and Conmbeol as they could join the NL, which would be a disaster for FIFA.

The confederations have control over how they run their competitions/qualifiers. What they can't do is abuse the international calendar. Confederations have a responsibility to fit in qualification for FIFA tournaments plus their own regional tournaments during the allotted dates. Asia knocks out its minnows straight away in the first round before the bigger teams join in. Europe allows its minnows to play the same amount of matches as the big teams, and actually pits them against each other in the same group. Both are approved by FIFA because it doesn't affect their interests, but even if it somehow did, I doubt there's much they could do about it.

In Conmebol right now there are forces that want to get closer to Europe and those that feel the status quo is more beneficial for their interests. FIFA approves the format but it is Conmebol which has to present it to them. There is absolutely no doubt in mind that FIFA 100% does not want to see Conmebol qualifiers shortened. But if Conmebol agreed to shorten it, I'm sure FIFA would have to begrudgingly accept it.

Where FIFA could argue back is if a confederation was looking to create extra dates to fit in matches outside the international match calendar. But that's not the case here, and no confederation would seriously entertain such a thing as they'd be shot down by the leagues/clubs, FIFA and FIFPro straight away.


----------



## ElvisBC

confederation gives proposal that must be accepted by FIFA, that’s how it works


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*FIFA inspects Azteca for 2026 World Cup*



> FIFA officials will conduct the first technical tour of the Mexican capital’s Azteca Stadium ahead of the 2026 World Cup, venue administrators said on Thursday.
> 
> The legendary stage Mexico will host the World Cup for the third time in its history after 1970 and 1986.
> 
> Unlike those two World Cups, now Mexicans will share the venue with the United States and Canada.
> 
> “We are sure to achieve great synergies, we are going to be the best venue and we are going to make our third World Cup not only historic but unforgettable,” Felix Aguirre, CEO of Azteca Stadium, said in a statement.
> 
> In addition to Azteca, the Akron Stadium in Guadalajara and the BBVA in Monterrey will also host.
> These two landscapes have been created recently and are the most modern in Mexico, but in order to achieve a third World Cup, the Azteca will have to be renovated and updated.


Source


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I'm thinking about the branding.
I expect the logo will be created and released by the same compagny which created the 2022 World cup one.
It's Unlock Brands.
Other logos about boys and girls World Cups have been created by the same compagny. Instagram
I'm personally impatient about the design they'll adopt for the 2026 World Cup Logo.


----------



## pesto

Coca-Cola launching 'Believing is Magic' campaign for World Cup


Coca-Cola is getting an early jump on its marketing for the 2022 FIFA World Cup with a campaign called "Believing is Magic" that debuts tomorrow.




www.sportsbusinessjournal.com





Speaking of branding: Coke uses "believe in magic" as the theme for 2022, AND ties-in a visit to LA, Dallas, NY and Toronto as the build-up for 2026 continues.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

> Being in three countries, the hosts are assured of their participation in the World Cup, however, FIFA clarified how the qualification process would be in the other CONCACAF countries.
> 
> FIFA President Gianni Infantino visited Guatemala, where he revealed that three quotas would be given by the North, Central and Caribbean regions of the Americas in addition to two for the playoffs.
> https://nationworldnews.com/the-ext...alia-casalbordino-with-padre-pio-in-new-york/
> “In the 2026 World Cup, which will take place in North America, there will be 6 venues in CONCACAF, plus 2 that will be played in the playoffs. There are 8 teams that can qualify”, Infantino told the media.


Link


----------



## morgenstern12

what will the 2023-26 calendar look like for Mexico, US and Canada?. 
My guess is March 2023 nations league, summer 2023 gold cup and nations league finals, then windows in the second half of 2023 used for the nations league for the 2025 gold cup, 2024 will have joint copa america plus nations league finals, 2025 Gold cup, then rest of the windows friendlies?.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567288804758765569


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1567288804758765569


I'm confused. Why is the WC motivation for a streetcar? Aren't there more Chiefs games with full houses every year?


----------



## ElvisBC

WC is just a trigger, FIFA requires something and city will use that to make it real. real reason are all events at arrowhead and kauffman stadiums of course!

they should do it this way or another!!


----------



## Daniel Perea

Some renders have appeared about the Azteca Stadium remodeling, Which will occur in 2023 and 2024.

Here we can see just the exterior, it seems like they are going to wrap the ceiling with 
EFTE material, which can be beautifully illuminated (like the Allianz arena). 

Also, it seems like they will place a huge screen around the columns in the middle of the stadium, covering 360° of it.

In addition, at the entrance of the stadium a new "premium FIFA hospitality section will be built".

These are not official renders, but is a good idea of how they are expecting to look at the exterior part. None interior's render has been released yet, but I really hope they remove all the balconies and boxes built in the last "remodel".


----------



## flashman

Awesome place to watch a football game. If you're a stadium junky, this is a must visit.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569834735198937090


----------



## ElvisBC

that‘s very sad to hear!


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1569834735198937090


Sounds like pretty basic thinking. But you have to help yourself out by staying in the right area to begin with.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572997978977181698


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573467879948812311

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573463522729656349


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1573493025505959936


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574780829959540737

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574811671817773058


----------



## aquamaroon

Hopefully no one kicks the ball too hard and bangs the scoreboard in the Final lol


----------



## BlazerBlaze

Interesting. Dallas having the final would strengthen their bid for the ICC. Atlanta was thought to have the leg up with a superior setup but it's hard to beat the Final happening in the same city.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833

Dallas makes sense for the final as it is the largest stadium in terms for capacity and is about halfway between the east and west coasts as well as near Mexico.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1574868764142829569


----------



## Juanpabloangel

Doesn’t need to be close to the Mexican border, they won’t be there!


----------



## ElvisBC

aquamaroon said:


> Hopefully no one kicks the ball too hard and bangs the scoreboard in the Final lol


that was his first NFL punt and he did it intentionally. he has a huge leg. it is sort of running gag among the punters.


----------



## ElvisBC

BlazerBlaze said:


> Interesting. Dallas having the final would strengthen their bid for the ICC. Atlanta was thought to have the leg up with a superior setup but it's hard to beat the Final happening in the same city.


what's ICC?

final in atlanta is one of the best jokes I ever heard


----------



## Tered

Drinks are still on Gunner if it is Atlanta - don't give up!


----------



## ElvisBC

no worries ..... I never forget these things


----------



## ElvisBC

btw, dallas was listed as backup option for the final in the bid book, so it was always there in case FIFA doesn't accept roofless stadium in NY/NJ.
I do not believe there was ever third option in the play, apart from building somewhere a brand new stadium of course.


----------



## ElvisBC

did you read this article at all? (it is behind the paywall, btw)
it is mainly about the group stage and not about knockout phase or draws


----------



## pesto

pesto said:


> FIFA consider introducing group-stage penalty shootouts
> 
> 
> FIFA is considering introducing penalty shootouts to decide whether teams should get a bonus point if group-stage games are drawn at the expanded World Cup in 2026. The next men’s tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico will include 48 teams rather than 32 and is expected to have 16...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theathletic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some discussion re the format of knock-out matches and what to do with ties at the 2026 games..


Not behind a pay wall for me (and I haven't paid). Other sites have picked up the whole thing.


----------



## morgenstern12

pesto said:


> Not behind a pay wall for me (and I haven't paid). Other sites have picked up the whole thing.


maybe the world cup can start 1 week after the champions league final with 12 groups of 4, where top two and 8 best 3rd place go through to the round of 32.


----------



## pesto

Could be. The focus is on seeing if the proposed format change to 32 teams in the knockout stage in 2026 will be used or if the current 16 will be kept. And there is some concern as to whether the "better" teams are making it through or if too many relatively weaker teams advance to the knockout stage, perhaps based on chance events..


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*World Cup organisers consider ditching three-team group format for 2026*



> World Cup organisers are increasingly open to discarding the new three-team group format for the 2026 tournament in the US, Mexico and Canada. It comes after concerns that too many dead rubbers in the last round of matches could dilute the expanded, 48-team event.
> Although Fifa’s official position remains unaltered, multiple sources say there have been “informal talks” and “corridor chats” in Doha about the benefits of going with 12 groups of four teams rather than 16 groups of three.
> 
> That could lead to a 104-game World Cup if the top two in each group, plus the best eight third-placed sides, go through to a 32-team knockout stage – which is 40 more than will be played at Qatar 2022.


The Guardian


----------



## morgenstern12

Could someone please propose a schedule and dates for a 48 team world cup with 12 groups of 4 and a round of 32?.


----------



## Ramanaramana

CaliforniaJones said:


> *World Cup organisers consider ditching three-team group format for 2026*
> 
> 
> 
> The Guardian


I personally like the three-team-group idea, though I agree with recent rumours that they'd have to get rid of draws to make it work well. If every game had to end in a win, collusion or dead rubbers would go out the window. Be the opposite actually, every game would be ultimate jeopardy, and the difference between going out and staying in.

Just have 120 mins + pens and have head to head as a tiebreaker, then no one can complain about integrity.


----------



## ElvisBC

there is simply no good solution with 48 teams


----------



## andimuhammadrifkialqadri

pesto said:


> FIFA consider introducing group-stage penalty shootouts
> 
> 
> FIFA is considering introducing penalty shootouts to decide whether teams should get a bonus point if group-stage games are drawn at the expanded World Cup in 2026. The next men’s tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico will include 48 teams rather than 32 and is expected to have 16...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theathletic.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some discussion re the format of knock-out matches and what to do with ties at the 2026 games..


lol why this, though? tie/draw is a unique feature of football/soccer, especially for non-knockout group/league stages. don't just tweak the format to please Americans (as, you know, most big-ball sports in America, like basketball and "gridiron", generally don't have ties/draws).


----------



## Ramanaramana

andimuhammadrifkialqadri said:


> lol why this, though? tie/draw is a unique feature of football/soccer, especially for non-knockout group/league stages. don't just tweak the format to please Americans (as, you know, most big-ball sports in America, like basketball and "gridiron", generally don't have ties/draws).


It wouldn’t be done for Americans, it would be done because the organisation that runs the sport decided to expand to an unwieldy number of teams. 

But if they want to stick with groups of four, then perhaps there have to be talks about expanding the length of the tournament and just making it six-weeks long. 

If they go with groups of three, then scrapping draws is a simple solution to worries over integrity.


----------



## andimuhammadrifkialqadri

Ramanaramana said:


> It wouldn’t be done for Americans, it would be done because the organisation that runs the sport decided to expand to an unwieldy number of teams.
> 
> But if they want to stick with groups of four, then perhaps there have to be talks about expanding the length of the tournament and just making it six-weeks long.
> 
> If they go with groups of three, then scrapping draws is a simple solution to worries over integrity.


a 48-team tournament can still be done under the "current" format; making it quite similar to the 2009-2021 UEFA Europa League:
-twelve groups of four teams, each team faces the other team once (as it already is)
-top two teams from each group qualify for the first knockout round (twenty-four teams in total)
-third-placed teams from each group are transferred into a separate standing; the top eight from this particular standing join the top two teams from each group into the first knockout round
-so the first knockout round is the "round of 32" (again, as I say, similar to the 2009-2021 UEFA Europa League)
-and after that it's round of 16, quarterfinals, semifinals and final as usual.
with this format, only a maximum of one week will be added to the tournament, to accommodate the round of 32.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Yeah if there’s no need to fit the WC in a month, that’s a fine solution. Despite my personal disliking of best third-place teams format, as the point of groups is that one shouldn’t affect another, it would be a reasonable compromise.


----------



## morgenstern12

Ramanaramana said:


> Yeah if there’s no need to fit the WC in a month, that’s a fine solution. Despite my personal disliking of best third-place teams format, as the point of groups is that one shouldn’t affect another, it would be a reasonable compromise.


Maybe the 2026 world cup can start 1 week after the champions league final?


----------



## ElvisBC

why not before?😁


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*FIFA could abandon three-team groups for 2026 World Cup*



> On Sunday, Wenger told a news conference for the FIFA technical study group that three options were under consideration. As well as the three-team option, another suggestion is that there would be 12 groups of four teams, with the best third-placed teams advancing with the top two. A third option is to split the World Cup into two separate halves of 24, each featuring six groups of four teams. The winner of each half would meet in the final.
> "This is not decided," Wenger said. "but it will be 16 groups of three, 12 groups of four, or two sides of six groups of four -- like you organise two 24 teams.
> "I will not be able to decide that, it will be decided by the FIFA [council], and I think it will be done in the next year."


ESPN


----------



## Eurostallion1

andimuhammadrifkialqadri said:


> a 48-team tournament can still be done under the "current" format; making it quite similar to the 2009-2021 UEFA Europa League:
> -twelve groups of four teams, each team faces the other team once (as it already is)
> -top two teams from each group qualify for the first knockout round (twenty-four teams in total)
> -third-placed teams from each group are transferred into a separate standing; the top eight from this particular standing join the top two teams from each group into the first knockout round
> -so the first knockout round is the "round of 32" (again, as I say, similar to the 2009-2021 UEFA Europa League)
> -and after that it's round of 16, quarterfinals, semifinals and final as usual.
> with this format, only a maximum of one week will be added to the tournament, to accommodate the round of 32.


I don’t think a round of 32 is necessary. 

12 groups of four with 12 group winners and the four best second place teams going through to the last 16. That would increase jeopardy to the group stage. The only slight problem would be that the groups playing last would know what they need to get a best 2nd place spot but then I think you have a similar problem with any format.


----------



## ElvisBC

what's the difference between options two and three? still need some sort of common table to chose who advances?


----------



## Mojeda101

Option 2 & 3 is pretty much the same thing. I hope that's what it becomes. A larger tournament requires a larger route. Round of 32 necessary.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Mojeda101 said:


> Option 2 & 3 is pretty much the same thing. I hope that's what it becomes. A larger tournament requires a larger route. Round of 32 necessary.


There’s enough poor teams in the 32 team World Cup already. 16 more with 48 teams Why give all those poor teams extra chances to stay in the tournament a bit longer? 48 teams, 12 groups of four, cull 32 teams at the group stage. Call the 12 group winners, ‘conference champions’ and call the four best second place teams ‘wildcards’ and Americans will instantly understand the concept.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Eurostallion1 said:


> There’s enough poor teams in the 32 team World Cup already. 16 more with 48 teams. Why give all those poor teams extra chances to stay in the tournament a bit longer? 48 teams, 12 groups of four, cull 32 teams at the group stage. Call the 12 group winners, ‘conference champions’ and call the four best second place teams ‘wildcards’ and Americans will instantly understand the concept.


My proposed format might work better if they were only expanding to 36 or 40. Even for corrupt FIFA, the decision to expand by a whopping 16 teams seems to have been driven by the need to have a neat format. I guess the ship has sailed on 48 teams now and it can’t be reversed.


----------



## Eurostallion1

It’s the ‘FIFA World Cup finals’. Recently there’s been too much emphasis on ‘FIFA World’ and not enough emphasis on ‘Cup Finals’.


----------



## andimuhammadrifkialqadri

or maybe this format will be better for 48 teams:
-sixteen groups of three, but each team faces the other teams in its own group twice (similar to UEFA Champions League's group stage); so each team/country has four games to play in its own group stage.
-but only the group winners qualify for the knockout rounds.
-after that, it's round of 16, quarterfinals, semifinal and final as usual.


----------



## D.I.P.

morgenstern12 said:


> Could someone please propose a schedule and dates for a 48 team world cup with 12 groups of 4 and a round of 32?.


In order to play a 48 team Tournament with 12 groups of 4 and a "round of 32" there is really no way to fit that into anything less than a full month and a half time span. The maximum number of games that can be played in a single Matchday is probably 4 due to scheduling for TV broadcasts. FIFA wants to maximize viewership per game globally so much like the current World Cup you would likely see 4 games daily with a 3 hour gap between kickoff times. So starting there, this means that the group stage will take a minimum of 18 days to complete assuming that the final Group Stage matches are played simultaneously. Once you are into the Round of 32 you have to start accounting for teams having a minimum of 3 days between matches so at most you would probably only play 2 matches per day at this stage in order to allow close to equal rest between matches for all teams. The round of 32 would take 8 days to complete. then the Round of 16 could be played within a 4 day span etc. Basically a theoretical World Cup like this would run from let's say June 7th 2026 through the Final on July 18th 2026. Its doable, if a World Cup can be moved to winter it can be expanded a couple of weeks just the same... Money talks!


----------



## Mojeda101

Eurostallion1 said:


> There’s enough poor teams in the 32 team World Cup already. 16 more with 48 teams Why give all those poor teams extra chances to stay in the tournament a bit longer? 48 teams, 12 groups of four, cull 32 teams at the group stage. Call the 12 group winners, ‘conference champions’ and call the four best second place teams ‘wildcards’ and Americans will instantly understand the concept.


Because like this current world cup has shown, some of these poor teams have gotten some incredible results against massive nations. Not to mention some quality teams missed out like Colombia, Italy, Chile, Peru, Sweden, Nigeria, Algeria, Norway, Egypt, etc. Let the little nations have a chance against the big boys.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Mojeda101 said:


> Because like this current world cup has shown, some of these poor teams have gotten some incredible results against massive nations. Not to mention some quality teams missed out like Colombia, Italy, Chile, Peru, Sweden, Nigeria, Algeria, Norway, Egypt, etc. Let the little nations have a chance against the big boys.


I agree with your overall sentiment, though you both make fair arguments.

Poor teams aren't poor because they can't get results. Playing deep, compact and hitting on the break is something that any half-competent team can do. Sometimes it works out and they get a win or draw. Often they lose. I'd primarily classify poor teams as those who can't create good chances against deep lines/low blocks and who struggle to keep the opposition from fashioning such chances.

Japan is a good example. Two wins against Germany and Spain, but Germany for one had the bulk of the best chances, and xG says they were good for 3 goals.

The hardest thing in football is to create space, and these David v Goliath matchups do ALL the work for David in creating space to attack, which opens up the possibility of 'crazy' results. It's the nature of the game. But it also doesn't make Japan anything more than average. I found Japan to be very frantic in possession, and like headless chickens once they approached the opposition box. Very little composure or quality in fashioning good chances.

You are right though even in that short list of teams you named, none of them would be any worse than half the teams playing at this WC. There is depth in terms of the baseline performance at a WC that can easily accommodate 48 teams.

But it still means you're adding 16 more functional teams. A very strong team like France versus a functional team often results in a game that is akin to a flip of the coin. It's either going to be good depending on how events play out early on, or it ends up being turgid.

In my not-so-scientific analysis, I find certain trends tend to emerge.......

*Two very good teams playing one another = rubbish, cagey matches*. Since these make up most of the quarters, semis and final, it's why I have always preferred to group stage of tournaments. Top teams, who should provide the best entertainment when matched up against each other, often revert to slugfests with very few chances.

*Very good team against an average or poor team = 50/50 split chance between rubbish and decent*. It all depends on how quickly one of these teams can score, as that affects the mentality and approach adopted by the trailing team. The longer the stalemate, the worse the game.

*Two average/poor teams = highest opportunity for a good match.* It's counterintuitive, but it's true. Even though you see far more misplaced passes, rubbish finishing and so on, when two teams of poorer quality both believe they can get a result, it can be far more entertaining than the previous two types of matches.

In a roundabout way, having more average teams at a World Cup playing against one another, while it may not whet the appetite of the casual, might not be the worst outcome from an entertainment point of view.

The other thing is that whether there are 32 or 48 teams, there are only a handful of very good sides that can be compared to club sides. France, Brazil and to a lesser extent Spain have impressed. The rest are all underwhelming and wouldn't be worth watching outside a World Cup unless you happen to share their nationality.


----------



## pesto

Last Call: Anheuser-Busch Seeks $47.4 Million Deduction in 2026 FIFA World Cup Sponsorship; TTB Updates Social Media Policy; 4th Union Rejects Railroad Labor Deal


Last week’s decision by Qatar officials to ban alcohol sales at stadiums – two days before the first 2022 FIFA World Cup match – could impact the relationship of FIFA and beer sponsor Anheuser-Busch InBev (A-B) through 2026.




www.brewbound.com





Anheuser Busch seeks adjustment of fees it paid to sponsor the 2022 WC, and promotes the idea of giving the beer to the winning country.

Could the United Bid ban beer from stadiums? This seems likely to reduce trouble both between fans and between fans and locals. I imagine some states are more amenable to that idea than others.


----------



## BlazerBlaze

pesto said:


> Last Call: Anheuser-Busch Seeks $47.4 Million Deduction in 2026 FIFA World Cup Sponsorship; TTB Updates Social Media Policy; 4th Union Rejects Railroad Labor Deal
> 
> 
> Last week’s decision by Qatar officials to ban alcohol sales at stadiums – two days before the first 2022 FIFA World Cup match – could impact the relationship of FIFA and beer sponsor Anheuser-Busch InBev (A-B) through 2026.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brewbound.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anheuser Busch seeks adjustment of fees it paid to sponsor the 2022 WC, and promotes the idea of giving the beer to the winning country.
> 
> Could the United Bid ban beer from stadiums? This seems likely to reduce trouble both between fans and between fans and locals. I imagine some states are more amenable to that idea than others.


0% chance that the US would restrict sales.


----------



## pesto

BlazerBlaze said:


> 0% chance that the US would restrict sales.


The US for sure won't try. Some state might talk about it, but it's pretty remote.


----------



## Mojeda101

I know it's unrelated but the 2024 Copa America is being discussed to be hosted in the USA. It could act as a nice warm-up for the world cup!


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600140534416220160

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600122613342388225


----------



## ElvisBC

could be a good test for the world cup. also another opportunity to play in highest level competitive games. could be very useful for learning tactics and stop being naive ...both teams looked like amateurs vs. netherlands and croatia.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Mojeda101 said:


> Because like this current world cup has shown, some of these poor teams have gotten some incredible results against massive nations. Not to mention some quality teams missed out like Colombia, Italy, Chile, Peru, Sweden, Nigeria, Algeria, Norway, Egypt, etc. Let the little nations have a chance against the big boys.


Right, so the small teams have proven they can advance without the format giving them extra chances. As for those teams missing out as I mentioned before, it’s the ‘FIFA World Cup Finals’ and there should be more emphasis on ‘Cup Finals’ and less emphasis on ‘FIFA World’.


----------



## Eurostallion1

pesto said:


> Last Call: Anheuser-Busch Seeks $47.4 Million Deduction in 2026 FIFA World Cup Sponsorship; TTB Updates Social Media Policy; 4th Union Rejects Railroad Labor Deal
> 
> 
> Last week’s decision by Qatar officials to ban alcohol sales at stadiums – two days before the first 2022 FIFA World Cup match – could impact the relationship of FIFA and beer sponsor Anheuser-Busch InBev (A-B) through 2026.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.brewbound.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anheuser Busch seeks adjustment of fees it paid to sponsor the 2022 WC, and promotes the idea of giving the beer to the winning country.
> 
> Could the United Bid ban beer from stadiums? This seems likely to reduce trouble both between fans and between fans and locals. I imagine some states are more amenable to that idea than others.


You can’t get drunk on American stadium beer. The only risk of trouble is fans who are angry about the tasteless beer.


----------



## ElvisBC

you can't anymore ... meanwhile you pay 20$ for tasteless crap


----------



## BlazerBlaze

Eurostallion1 said:


> *You can’t get drunk on American stadium beer.* The only risk of trouble is fans who are angry about the tasteless beer.


Big time falsehood. $9 Terrapin Hopsecutioners at Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Those get you drunk.


----------



## Eurostallion1

BlazerBlaze said:


> Big time falsehood. $9 Terrapin Hopsecutioners at Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Those get you drunk.


At the World Cup you can only get the FIFA sponsor beer. At all the World Cups I’ve been to it’s been Budweiser and one local beer. As 2026 is in the US, maybe it will be only Budweiser or maybe Bud and Labatts at the Canadian venues and Bud and Dos Equis/Sol/Corona in Mexico.


----------



## pesto

Female Football Fans Say World Cup Alcohol Ban Has Reduced Misogyny


Qatar's decision to ban the sale of alcohol at the FIFA Football World Cup has had a positive effect on the games, with female football fans reporting experiencing far less sexism.




thelatch.com.au





Women find the reduced alcohol environment to their liking. That's an opinion that is going to be widely shared in Mass, Ca, NY/NJ and some other states as well as Canada..


----------



## tinyslam

Eurostallion1 said:


> At the World Cup you can only get the FIFA sponsor beer. At all the World Cups I’ve been to it’s been Budweiser and one local beer. As 2026 is in the US, maybe it will be only Budweiser or maybe Bud and Labatts at the Canadian venues and Bud and Dos Equis/Sol/Corona in Mexico.


So it sounds like more of a FIFA issue than an American stadium beer issue.


----------



## BlazerBlaze

tinyslam said:


> So it sounds like more of a FIFA issue than an American stadium beer issue.


Well stated tinyslam.

In an attempt to get off my high horse and not derail the thread into a defense of American Craft Breweries, (you're welcome GunnerJacket) I do think this opens up an interesting topic of stadium related conversation. What will the host venues do with the many sponsored bars and gathering areas that are so common in modern American stadiums. For example, the 8 "neighborhood bars" at Mercedes Benz Stadium. At least 5 of these are from brands which are not under the AB umbrella. Are they just going to close down these bars, pay to rebrand them? What will happen with these and how many other stadiums have similar situations?


----------



## Tered

Agreed about MBS. It's not as easy as flipping the 'Chick-fil-A' sign over on Sundays to 'Fries Up'


----------



## flcinusa

BlazerBlaze said:


> Big time falsehood. $9 Terrapin Hopsecutioners at Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Those get you drunk.


The Terrapin bar is about 20 rows behind my seats, I'm glad I don't have to walk any further than that for 2 hours afterwards


----------



## pesto

BlazerBlaze said:


> Well stated tinyslam.
> 
> In an attempt to get off my high horse and not derail the thread into a defense of American Craft Breweries, (you're welcome GunnerJacket) I do think this opens up an interesting topic of stadium related conversation. What will the host venues do with the many sponsored bars and gathering areas that are so common in modern American stadiums. For example, the 8 "neighborhood bars" at Mercedes Benz Stadium. At least 5 of these are from brands which are not under the AB umbrella. Are they just going to close down these bars, pay to rebrand them? What will happen with these and how many other stadiums have similar situations?


Of course, it's a matter of negotiations: FIFA can get what they want if they pay for it. 

At SoFi it was mentioned that negotiations were continuing as to the additional costs for FIFA's changes to field, seats, etc. I assume this includes the many vendors in the stadium, in the plazas and in the surrounding venues and entertainment district, but it comes down to negotiating services and prices. 

The flip side is that you make the stadium less interesting if you remove the local attributes (brands, traditions, markings, etc.) And in the case of SoFi there should be discussions on how much they want to spend on digital displays and productions inside and around the stadium or world-linked...


----------



## nyrmetros

So what renovations would Giants Stadium need for FIFA World Cup compliance?


----------



## flcinusa

nyrmetros said:


> So what renovations would Giants Stadium need for FIFA World Cup compliance?


It would need to be rebuilt


----------



## Mojeda101

Looks like USA is getting the 2024 Copa America. Ecuador pulled out early and USA is all in. It looks like it's a done deal and to be hosted in USA and have 6 guest countries including all 3 hosts of 2026. Could be a perfect warmup for 2026. I wonder which world cup stadiums will be utilized? A copa of this size typically requires 10 venues if the 2016 copa is anything to go by. What do you guys think?


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600561564804792320

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600588498419216384

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600589362542317568

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600798667224403968


----------



## pesto

As usual I'll comment first (and add very little). 

I would guess that the candidates for opening and finals would be among the selected. Also some where there are major issues and some doubt about how the solution is progressing. That motivates people to start the work now rather than in a year or two.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Mojeda101 said:


> Looks like USA is getting the 2024 Copa America. Ecuador pulled out early and USA is all in. It looks like it's a done deal and to be hosted in USA and have 6 guest countries including all 3 hosts of 2026. Could be a perfect warmup for 2026. I wonder which world cup stadiums will be utilized? A copa of this size typically requires 10 venues if the 2016 copa is anything to go by. What do you guys think?
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600561564804792320
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600588498419216384
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600589362542317568
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1600798667224403968


That last tweet.....what? 7? 

And they should use Gold Cup 2023 for qualification, not invites. 

Otherwise good news, sensible. Expect same stadiums as 2016 apart from few differences....San Francisco, Phoenix, Houston/Dallas, NY, LA, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Seattle, Atlanta.


----------



## Mojeda101

Ramanaramana said:


> That last tweet.....what? 7?
> 
> And they should use Gold Cup 2023 for qualification, not invites.
> 
> Otherwise good news, sensible. Expect same stadiums as 2016 apart from few differences....San Francisco, Phoenix, Houston/Dallas, NY, LA, Boston, Miami, Chicago, Seattle, Atlanta.


He meant to say 6. It's going to be 16 teams


----------



## ElvisBC

yepp, it may be a good test for the world cup, if they decide to go one level higher than copa centenario and simulate some sort of world cup environment
of course and unfortunately without world cup stadium modifications, and that's the most interesting thing!


----------



## Eurostallion1

nyrmetros said:


> So what renovations would Giants Stadium need for FIFA World Cup compliance?


I think you must be referring to the modern Merlife stadium. 

What’s the possibility to add a roof to that stadium that covers the seats?

Surely, if they want the final it will be a must have. I don’t want to start a tedious discussion about how tough Americans don’t mind open roof stadiums etc compared to soft Europeans etc. 

However, I would have thought for a World Cup, FIFA will almost insist on it. I think South Africa 2010 was the last World Cup to feature any stadiums with large uncovered sections. It might have been ok in 1994 but not good enough in 2026.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Eurostallion1 said:


> I think you must be referring to the modern Merlife stadium.
> 
> What’s the possibility to add a roof to that stadium that covers the seats?
> 
> Surely, if they want the final it will be a must have. I don’t want to start a tedious discussion about how tough Americans don’t mind open roof stadiums etc compared to soft Europeans etc.
> 
> However, I would have thought for a World Cup, FIFA will almost insist on it. I think South Africa 2010 was the last World Cup to feature any stadiums with large uncovered sections. It might have been ok in 1994 but not good enough in 2026.


Dont think it has anything to do with American vs European mindset, especially as many new modern NFL stadiums are roofed or domed.

Money, and whose pocket it comes out of, is the bigger issue. 

At worst, NY will host a semi final, which will be held in the evening, negating the need for cover.


----------



## Tered

It was said it would cost an additional $1Billion to add a roof to Metlife which is why it wasn't added when first built. And nobody today is going to pay for a roof for the World Cup.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Tered said:


> It was said it would cost an additional $1Billion to add a roof to Metlife which is why it wasn't added when first built. And nobody today is going to pay for a roof for the World Cup.


Agree, but it wouldn’t be for the WC. It would be for the NFL team using the WC as an additional bargaining chip in negotiation for public funds. I’m sure that, following the trend of new American stadiums, there’ll come a time when the discussion is had about improving Metlife to keep it on the level of newer builds. I’m just not sure 2026 is a long enough timeline for that to realistically happen in time for the WC.

Regardless NY will host matches at the backend of the tournament without a roof so it’s all a bit academic.


----------



## Eurostallion1

Ramanaramana said:


> Dont think it has anything to do with American vs European mindset, especially as many new modern NFL stadiums are roofed or domed.
> 
> Money, and whose pocket it comes out of, is the bigger issue.
> 
> At worst, NY will host a semi final, which will be held in the evening, negating the need for cover.


Because it never rains at night?


----------



## Eurostallion1

Tered said:


> It was said it would cost an additional $1Billion to add a roof to Metlife which is why it wasn't added when first built. And nobody today is going to pay for a roof for the World Cup.


I think the $1 billion figure was for a fully retractable roof covering the field. A roof covering just the seats or most of the seats wouldn’t cost that much by itself.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Eurostallion1 said:


> Because it never rains at night?


There is, to my knowledge, no specific requirement for a roof, which makes the question of rain completely irrelevant.

NY is a city where Fifa obviously want matches held. The only stadium capable of hosting has no roof. Since there is no specific requirement for a roof, the thought of spending hundreds of millions for a roof on the off chance that it rains on circa June 28, 2026 in the NY area is the epitome of lunacy.

Prior to SoFi, Rose Bowl was going to host matches. Did you expect them to build a roof there too? Do you also expect San Francisco to build a roof? Or Philadelphia?

The lack of roof may play a part in NY not getting the final, but the stadium will still play a major role in 2026.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> There is, to my knowledge, no specific requirement for a roof, which makes the question of rain completely irrelevant.
> 
> NY is a city where Fifa obviously want matches held. The only stadium capable of hosting has no roof. Since there is no specific requirement for a roof, the thought of spending hundreds of millions for a roof on the off chance that it rains on circa June 28, 2026 in the NY area is the epitome of lunacy.
> 
> Prior to SoFi, Rose Bowl was going to host matches. Did you expect them to build a roof there too? Do you also expect San Francisco to build a roof? Or Philadelphia?
> 
> The lack of roof may play a part in NY not getting the final, but the stadium will still play a major role in 2026.


Yep. FIFA can choose whatever stadiums they think will bring them viewers. If they think a covered stadium in Nowhere City is going to bring them more world exposure, then so be it. If they prefer NY without a cover that's OK too.

It really isn't all that different from Latin or African confederations wanting to use NY or LA or LV. If they think they get more viewership that way, why not bring attention to their countries' teams instead of keeping them a secret and letting others dominate the world markets? What business would want to do that?


----------



## Juanpabloangel

The roof is not just for rain but for shade too. It can get quite hot in NY in summer.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Juanpabloangel said:


> The roof is not just for rain but for shade too. It can get quite hot in NY in summer.


There are enough covered stadiums in the bid that NY may not host a match during the day, especially as it's a premier venue that will likely host major fixtures, which usually kick off later in the day. But even if it does have day matches, what is the fascination with singling out NY and not San Francisco or Philadelphia?

As for the heat, were you complaining about the 30 degree heat plus 80% humidity during Brazil 2014? Some of those roofs in Brazil stretched the boundaries of what constitutes cover. A good section of those in attendance during some of those matches would've been roasted.

Every major tournament there are days that are uncomfortable for fans and players, whether the issue is rain or sun/heat. And every single time it happens people deal with it and move on. The USA already hosted a WC with nary a roofed stadium in sight. But all of a sudden it's an issue that NY doesn't have one on the off-chance it _might _drizzle or get hot?

First it's a problem that countries spend billions building stadiums....but when a bid comes along where the stadiums are already in place and ready to go, fans demands that they spend hundreds of millions on unnecessary and unrequired refurbishment so that some people have a slightly more pleasant experience for a few days in 2026.

There is no requirement for building a roof, and the bid was accepted with a roofless NY, Philadelphia and San Francisco. The only issues we've heard about relating to the stadiums are the pitch size, which we are told is being addressed.

Fixating on a roof in NY is no more than indulging in one's fantasies while ignoring all the evidence that matches will be played in NY come rain, hail or shine.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> There are enough covered stadiums in the bid that NY may not host a match during the day, especially as it's a premier venue that will likely host major fixtures, which usually kick off later in the day. But even if it does have day matches, what is the fascination with singling out NY and not San Francisco or Philadelphia?
> 
> As for the heat, were you complaining about the 30 degree heat plus 80% humidity during Brazil 2014? Some of those roofs in Brazil stretched the boundaries of what constitutes cover. A good section of those in attendance during some of those matches would've been roasted.
> 
> Every major tournament there are days that are uncomfortable for fans and players, whether the issue is rain or sun/heat. And every single time it happens people deal with it and move on. The USA already hosted a WC with nary a roofed stadium in sight. But all of a sudden it's an issue that NY doesn't have one on the off-chance it _might _drizzle or get hot?
> 
> First it's a problem that countries spend billions building stadiums....but when a bid comes along where the stadiums are already in place and ready to go, fans demands that they spend hundreds of millions on unnecessary and unrequired refurbishment so that some people have a slightly more pleasant experience for a few days in 2026.
> 
> There is no requirement for building a roof, and the bid was accepted with a roofless NY, Philadelphia and San Francisco. The only issues we've heard about relating to the stadiums are the pitch size, which we are told is being addressed.
> 
> Fixating on a roof in NY is no more than indulging in one's fantasies while ignoring all the evidence that matches will be played in NY come rain, hail or shine.


Yes, you hit the main points accurately and in perspective.

But SF is a bad example. As I have said before, California has has over 20 large stadiums and NONE have had roofs and few have awning or shade at all. Levi's in Santa Clara is very unlikely to have rain or be excessively hot for the WC. Neither will LA or Seattle.

Dallas, Houston, Atlanta are problems but they DO have covered stadiums. Boston, Philly and NY have small exposures; certainly not worth building a roof and enclosing people. Miami and KC will be hot and humid; evenings will be preferable


----------



## ElvisBC

no roof was huge problem for fifa for last 20 years, all hosts were forced to build roofed stadiums. now, with big dollars coming it suddenly became no issue.

the only game where it definitely is the issue is the final, otherwise NY would have been appointed long time ago.


----------



## pesto

Looks sort of like the 2026 WC "golf ball and tee" logo turned sideways.


----------



## nyrmetros

CaliforniaJones said:


>


Background information?


----------



## CaliforniaJones

*With Qatar out of the way, the next men's World Cup begins in North America in 2026*



> *What will the 2026 World Cup’s problems be?*
> The 2022 World Cup was consumed, at least early on, by criticism of Qatar for its treatment of migrant workers and LGBTQ people. The 2026 tournament likely won’t be as controversial, but organizers are wary of a few potential issues:
> 
> *Heat.* Ironically, after all the outcry over Qatar’s climate, some U.S. cities will be hotter in the summer than Doha has been in November and December. Eight of the 16 North American cities regularly experience June temperatures in the 90s, and only three of those eight stadiums have roofs. Infantino indicated earlier this year that climate-proof venues could be candidates for afternoon games, while games at outdoor grounds will kick off in the evening. But heat could still impact the fan experience away from stadiums.
> *Guns.* For all Qatar’s problems, it is a very safe country. The U.S. and Mexico, on the other hand, less so. FIFA can impose strict security at matches and official fan festivals, but it can’t control guns and ensure safety anywhere else if governments don’t.
> *Travel.* Qatar’s size, in many ways, turned out to be a benefit. North America’s will be troublesome — and environmentally costly. It will be very difficult for fans to attend several


Yahoo


----------



## pesto

CaliforniaJones said:


> *With Qatar out of the way, the next men's World Cup begins in North America in 2026*
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo


Pretty accurate. 

Guns/violence will only be an issue if you look for it. Avoid drugs and respect people and you won't have trouble. Get drunk and act like a tough guy in some 'hoods and you will be shot; in others just pounded into the ground.

The problem isn't the visitors; it's the ones who don't leave. At the Olympics everyone on some teams have stayed and arranged "marriages" were rampant. It should be better for the athletes here since they are generally well paid; but fans from many countries will do anything for some time to make money in the US and there are industries built around it.

We've been through the heat. Miami, Monterrey, Guadalajara, KC are problems. The others have roofs or aren't very likely to be that hot.. Vancouver, Seattle, SJ, LA, Boston, NY, Toronto, Philly are low risk or schedule in the evening..


----------



## Juanpabloangel

I wonder what reception the England football team will get when they take the knee, as they probably will still be. Assuming they qualify of course. (They didn’t last time!)


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> I wonder what reception the England football team will get when they take the knee, as they probably will still be. Assuming they qualify of course. (They didn’t last time!)


Hard to say. Depends on what exactly they are protesting.


----------



## Juanpabloangel

pesto said:


> Hard to say. Depends on what exactly they are protesting.


The same as now. Racism, not likely to change before then.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Juanpabloangel said:


> I wonder what reception the England football team will get when they take the knee, as they probably will still be. Assuming they qualify of course. (They didn’t last time!)


They didn’t wear rainbows or whatever the brouhaha was about in Qatar, so they’ll do what everyone else does in 2026, which is whatever Fifa tells them is acceptable.


----------



## ElvisBC

pesto said:


> Pretty accurate.
> 
> Guns/violence will only be an issue if you look for it. Avoid drugs and respect people and you won't have trouble. Get drunk and act like a tough guy in some 'hoods and you will be shot; in others just pounded into the ground.
> 
> *The problem isn't the visitors; it's the ones who don't leave. * At the Olympics everyone on some teams have stayed and arranged "marriages" were rampant. It should be better for the athletes here since they are generally well paid; but fans from many countries will do anything for some time to make money in the US and there are industries built around it.
> 
> We've been through the heat. Miami, Monterrey, Guadalajara, KC are problems. The others have roofs or aren't very likely to be that hot.. Vancouver, Seattle, SJ, LA, Boston, NY, Toronto, Philly are low risk or schedule in the evening..


for god's sake pesto, that has nothing to do with the world cup, that's between them and us autorities!


----------



## Jimmy10

pesto said:


> Pretty accurate.
> 
> Guns/violence will only be an issue if you look for it. Avoid drugs and respect people and you won't have trouble. Get drunk and act like a tough guy in some 'hoods and you will be shot; in others just pounded into the ground.
> 
> The problem isn't the visitors; it's the ones who don't leave. At the Olympics everyone on some teams have stayed and arranged "marriages" were rampant. It should be better for the athletes here since they are generally well paid; but fans from many countries will do anything for some time to make money in the US and there are industries built around it.
> 
> We've been through the heat. Miami, Monterrey, Guadalajara, KC are problems. The others have roofs or aren't very likely to be that hot.. Vancouver, Seattle, SJ, LA, Boston, NY, Toronto, Philly are low risk or schedule in the evening..


Well guns and violence is an issue if some psychopath decides to show up nearby a stadium during the WC and do a mass shooting with the rifle he bought in the shop around the corner.... 
" the ones who don't leave"? In Europe we have mass immigration from East, Middle East, Africa and I have never heard anyone being concerned about football fans not getting out after the WC... it's pretty hilarious I have to say..
Heat is an issue. I have been several times in the US in July/August and New York for example can be crazy hot... I remember +42 C in summer and humidity rate like sweating in the shade.


----------



## BlazerBlaze

They're going to do all that work on the Azteca and they're still going to rely on hanging banners on the exterior like that? This is the perfect opportunity to add to the façade some electronic signage or do something like Cincy did and have the LEDs built into the new paneling. 

Or are these just renderings for the surrounding development and not for the stadium itself?


----------



## ElvisBC

from what I've heard they are still undecided what they're really going to do


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> for god's sake pesto, that has nothing to do with the world cup, that's between them and us autorities!


FIFA holds an event which attracts people from other countries in very large numbers and FIFA wants them to get into the US quickly and easily. The US authorities are trying to keep out criminals, terrorists, weapons, drugs and those unlikely to leave. That's the connection.


----------



## pesto

Jimmy10 said:


> Well guns and violence is an issue if some psychopath decides to show up nearby a stadium during the WC and do a mass shooting with the rifle he bought in the shop around the corner....
> " the ones who don't leave"? In Europe we have mass immigration from East, Middle East, Africa and I have never heard anyone being concerned about football fans not getting out after the WC... it's pretty hilarious I have to say..
> Heat is an issue. I have been several times in the US in July/August and New York for example can be crazy hot... I remember +42 C in summer and humidity rate like sweating in the shade.


So don't attend. There will be 5000 people fighting for your seat. FIFA does not need to cater to those with narrow tolerances of heat or cold; they are looking for mainstream fans. (Btwm a friend told me that at old uncovered Waldstadion in Frankfurt he attended matches where it was below freezing and snowing. Not one person left. He said that if anyone had left he wouldn't have been a real fan anyway

I won't get into immigration but suffice to say that many of those trying to get into the US are Europeans and many, many of those entering Europe are looking to eventually get to the US. Even Europeans are trying to get out of Europe. I wish I could tell a true story about people trying to get from Europe to US via marriage but I'm afraid I would be deleted and/or suspended.


----------



## ElvisBC

please write it … it is our last hope


----------



## Jimmy10

pesto said:


> So don't attend. There will be 5000 people fighting for your seat. FIFA does not need to cater to those with narrow tolerances of heat or cold; they are looking for mainstream fans. (Btwm a friend told me that at old uncovered Waldstadion in Frankfurt he attended matches where it was below freezing and snowing. Not one person left. He said that if anyone had left he wouldn't have been a real fan anyway
> 
> I won't get into immigration but suffice to say that many of those trying to get into the US are Europeans and many, many of those entering Europe are looking to eventually get to the US. Even Europeans are trying to get out of Europe. I wish I could tell a true story about people trying to get from Europe to US via marriage but I'm afraid I would be deleted and/or suspended.


You wouldnt get into immigration then you did.. 
Europeans in 2022 trying to get into the US? Seriously? To do what? Here you have average 40 paid holdays per year... Move from the continent with the best quality of life ( Europe) somewhere else? Thanks to the EU there is a lot of people working everywhere in Europe, I don't see at all anyone going to the US... not denying though the US business dynamics which is still the most competitive. 
Anyway end of OT for me.

Considering heat and cold I mean it will be easily handled in the end. Still I dont understand how a major stadium of a city like New York (where in winter there are really cold temperatures ... now) it can be without a roof while you have those domes like everywhere...


----------



## Light Tower

2023 is going to huge milestomes on the way.


----------



## pesto

Jimmy10 said:


> You wouldnt get into immigration then you did..
> *Europeans in 2022 trying to get into the US? Seriously? To do what? *Here you have average 40 paid holdays per year... Move from the continent with the best quality of life ( Europe) somewhere else? Thanks to the EU there is a lot of people working everywhere in Europe, I don't see at all anyone going to the US... not denying though the US business dynamics which is still the most competitive.
> Anyway end of OT for me.
> 
> Considering heat and cold I mean it will be easily handled in the end. Still I dont understand how a major stadium of a city like New York (where in winter there are really cold temperatures ... now) it can be without a roof while you have those domes like everywhere...


This may help. I was having lunch in Germany with an investor and there was a 16 year old guy flipping pizzas. The investor said, here’s why we invest in the US.

In the US that guy would go to college and get a degree in hospitality management. He would put together his savings and open a small pizza place of his own. He would use specialized start-up financing and manage the business under best practices. After a few tough years it would be a success and over time he would open 5 or 6 other shops around town.

He would sell them to a fund that looks for small businesses with stable cash-flows and rates of return. That fund can give an almost guaranteed return of, say, 12 percent, with cashflow, so he attracts many investors.

The original guy takes the money from the sale and starts advising new graduates on how to open and develop new concepts in the food industry. When he sees a particularly good idea he puts his own money in. By the time he is 50 he is worth 20M, has his son learning to manage the business and is a contributor to local charities and institutions.

Ten years later he is a known person in the city and has been appointed to civic commissions. There’s talk that he might be a good candidate for Mayor.

Meanwhile, the guy in Europe is now 60 and still flipping pizzas.


----------



## ElvisBC

of course, easy …. he can finance his study with flipping pizzas ….. if he keeps on doin it for 260 years


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> of course, easy …. he can finance his study with flipping pizzas ….. if he keeps on doin it for 260 years


US Junior Colleges are essentially free; then 2 years at a state college is very reasonable. 

Of course private schools are quite expensive. The key is to major in something for which there is actual demand (sciences, technology, engineering, management). Hospitality Management is in VERY high demand and many employers will pay your costs if you are serious and competent..


----------



## Juanpabloangel

some people enjoy making pizzas, we shouldn’t need to go to college to do everything. No doubt the guy with the degree will have to charge more for peasant food.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Leagues Cup will be using a format that looks very similar to what is being proposed for 2026 at present. Will be interesting to see it in action, and I suspect Fifa will be keeping an eye on it. 






Leagues Cup 2023


Leagues Cup 2023 is a historic tournament between MLS and LIGA MX in August 2023




www.mlssoccer.com


----------



## pesto

Juanpabloangel said:


> some people enjoy making pizzas, we shouldn’t need to go to college to do everything. No doubt the guy with the degree will have to charge more for peasant food.


The point was that someone had questioned why Europeans might want to stay in the US illegally to work and the answer is that pay is high and if you save you can go back to Europe with extra money for a house or your own small business.


----------



## Tered

Side note -


pesto said:


> US Junior Colleges are essentially free; then 2 years at a state college is very reasonable.


What???
Ain't no junior community colleges essentially free!!!
STATE College Reasonable?

Please let me know where these US colleges are so I can let my nieces know where to enroll. 🤣


----------



## Mojeda101

Ramanaramana said:


> Leagues Cup will be using a format that looks very similar to what is being proposed for 2026 at present. Will be interesting to see it in action, and I suspect Fifa will be keeping an eye on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leagues Cup 2023
> 
> 
> Leagues Cup 2023 is a historic tournament between MLS and LIGA MX in August 2023
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mlssoccer.com


Am i the only one who absolutely hates the idea of 3 team groups?

The 2022 world cup showed that 4 team groups were just fine. I'm praying that fifa reconsiders.


----------



## Ramanaramana

Mojeda101 said:


> Am i the only one who absolutely hates the idea of 3 team groups?
> 
> The 2022 world cup showed that 4 team groups were just fine. I'm praying that fifa reconsiders.


Most seem to hate it, I’d like to see it first before judgement, which is why Im happy to see Leagues Cup use it. 4 team groups is fine with 32 teams, little less so with 48. 3 team groups seems an elegant solution to a number of logistical and competitive challenges.


----------



## pesto

Tered said:


> Side note -
> 
> 
> What???
> Ain't no junior community colleges essentially free!!!
> STATE College Reasonable?
> 
> Please let me know where these US colleges are so I can let my nieces know where to enroll. 🤣


Sorry; you have to be a California resident for some years. I taught at a local JC some years back and it allows you to live at home and pay very little while getting smaller classes and better attention from professors than at the UC system. They will also help find you work that fits in your class schedule.

Btw, at my local JC the econ profs have results showing that their grads have better GPA's at UC than do people who went there for 4 years.


----------



## ElvisBC

well, if you taught there then people should get paid to attend!


----------



## Jimmy10

pesto said:


> This may help. I was having lunch in Germany with an investor and there was a 16 year old guy flipping pizzas. The investor said, here’s why we invest in the US.
> 
> In the US that guy would go to college and get a degree in hospitality management. He would put together his savings and open a small pizza place of his own. He would use specialized start-up financing and manage the business under best practices. After a few tough years it would be a success and over time he would open 5 or 6 other shops around town.
> 
> He would sell them to a fund that looks for small businesses with stable cash-flows and rates of return. That fund can give an almost guaranteed return of, say, 12 percent, with cashflow, so he attracts many investors.
> 
> The original guy takes the money from the sale and starts advising new graduates on how to open and develop new concepts in the food industry. When he sees a particularly good idea he puts his own money in. By the time he is 50 he is worth 20M, has his son learning to manage the business and is a contributor to local charities and institutions.
> 
> Ten years later he is a known person in the city and has been appointed to civic commissions. There’s talk that he might be a good candidate for Mayor.
> 
> Meanwhile, the guy in Europe is now 60 and still flipping pizzas.


Sure  ...
remind me how could the pizza flipping kid afford going to university in US ( considering the fees down there) comparing to free ones in Europe? 
By the way I am all in the aggressive way of consucting business like in the US and the flexibility of entrepreneurs and the support you can get out of investors, only issue of your example is for one that has success thousands don't.... 
I think though it's not related to the thread this topic and happy to discuss it elsewhere but definitely there is no European immigration to the US.... I know a lot of americans though living over here and enjoying the quality of life


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> well, if you taught there then people should get paid to attend!


For sure. Fortunately, I only taught individual class sessions dealing with my areas of knowledge, not the entire class.


----------



## pesto

Jimmy10 said:


> Sure  ...
> remind me how could the pizza flipping kid afford going to university in US ( considering the fees down there) comparing to free ones in Europe?
> By the way I am all in the aggressive way of consucting business like in the US and the flexibility of entrepreneurs and the support you can get out of investors, only issue of your example is for one that has success thousands don't....
> I think though it's not related to the thread this topic and happy to discuss it elsewhere but definitely there is no European immigration to the US.... I know a lot of americans though living over here and enjoying the quality of life


When one business succeeds, everyone benefits. That's Econ 101, chapter 1. 

Otherwise, let's just assume that there is some reason that US Immigration has rules in place and spends billions enforcing them with respect to all countries..


----------



## Tered

12/24/2022
*2026 FIFA World Cup: Exploring the Spectacular Stadiums on 4K ULTRA HD!*




BSPS Sports

Update:
You hurt their feelings with your critical replies and so they yanked their video 🤣


----------



## pesto

Tered said:


> 12/24/2022
> *2026 FIFA World Cup: Exploring the Spectacular Stadiums on 4K ULTRA HD!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BSPS Sports


A lot of interesting info there.


----------



## GunnerJacket

Tered said:


> Side note -
> 
> 
> What???
> Ain't no junior community colleges essentially free!!!
> STATE College Reasonable?
> 
> Please let me know where these US colleges are so I can let my nieces know where to enroll. 🤣


The Technical College System of Georgia has a variety of free programs and/or training done in coordination with employers than can be paid for via State money. Plus, any student who graduates from a Georgia high school with a good enough GPA is eligible for grants that will cover most (Hope) or all (Zell Miller) tuition at any State university.



Mojeda101 said:


> Am i the only one who absolutely hates the idea of 3 team groups?


Not by a long shot, but FIFA was only concerned with increasing the number of participants, not the logistics of actually playing out the event. Count me among those hoping they change, as well.


----------



## ElvisBC

Tered said:


> 12/24/2022
> *2026 FIFA World Cup: Exploring the Spectacular Stadiums on 4K ULTRA HD!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BSPS Sports


nice hi-res pans but full of assumptions and unconfirmed information

met-life extended to 87k and 💰 500mil renovation? sofi with retractable roof etc … it is more than obvious clueless people did that. they probably did fast google search and used whatever they found. actually awful!


----------



## ElvisBC

GunnerJacket said:


> Not by a long shot, but FIFA was only concerned with increasing the number of participants, not the logistics of actually playing out the event. Count me among those hoping they change, as well.


the only reason why FIFA is talking about four team groups and 100+ games is increased revenue. they do not give a damn about possible collusion etc… that‘s just an excuse! I was actually expecting them to let it happen and use it to increase to 64 teams in 2030

as it looks like infantino is going to extend his presidency deep into ‘30s, so everything only may get worse!


----------



## Tered

ElvisBC said:


> nice hi-res pans but full of assumptions and unconfirmed information


Here's another with more accurate information ️️️
12/25/2022
*🇨🇦🇺🇸🇲🇽 World Cup 2026 Stadiums*




StadiumDB.com


----------



## pesto

ElvisBC said:


> nice hi-res pans but full of assumptions and unconfirmed information
> 
> met-life extended to 87k and 💰 500mil renovation? sofi with retractable roof etc … it is more than obvious clueless people did that. they probably did fast google search and used whatever they found. actually awful!


I believe that 5 stadiums were listed as having semi-finals. I suspect a combination of ignorance and poor translation service.


----------



## pesto

Tered said:


> Here's another with more accurate information ️️️
> 12/25/2022
> *🇨🇦🇺🇸🇲🇽 World Cup 2026 Stadiums*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> StadiumDB.com


Thanks for posting. It is definitely better than the first but still needs work on geography, history, pronunciation, etc.


----------



## Ramanaramana

GunnerJacket said:


> Not by a long shot, but FIFA was only concerned with increasing the number of participants, not the logistics of actually playing out the event. Count me among those hoping they change, as well.


There was a time when the Champions League was thought to be a ridiculous idea when compared to the old European Cup format. 

Today the fans are moaning about how Uefa are going to ruin the Champions League in 2024 with the new format. 

What it shows is that fans are generally clueless about what they want, and their insistence on everything always remaining the same for the good of the game unfounded. 

The only surprise about the three-team group idea is that they’re floating the possibility of changing it. 

If they do, the sooner we get to 64 teams the better.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> There was a time when the Champions League was thought to be a ridiculous idea when compared to the old European Cup format.
> 
> Today the fans are moaning about how Uefa are going to ruin the Champions League in 2024 with the new format.
> 
> *What it shows is that fans are generally clueless *about what they want, and their insistence on everything always remaining the same for the good of the game unfounded.
> 
> The only surprise about the three-team group idea is that they’re floating the possibility of changing it.
> 
> If they do, the sooner we get to 64 teams the better.


To be a bit more generous, it shows that fans can't always judge an innovative idea until they try it and see if it meets their demands.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

There should be an opportunity to pay a tribute to Pelé during the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
Opening match: Mexico City
Final: New York/New Jersey.

Also some seats should be covered by his jerseys.
Mexico City and Guadalajara: his Brazil jersey #10
New York City and Los Angeles: his NY Cosmos jersey #10

RIP Pelé.
He'll watch the 2026 FIFA World Cup from heaven with Maradona, Whitney Houston, Muhammad Ali, Grant Wahl and many others.
He's going to begin to train with its former teamates.


----------



## Ramanaramana

I can see the relevance with tributes to Pele in North America, but it is a long time between drinks. Maradona is regarded on the same level and nothing was done in his honour in Qatar, and he died closer to the WC. Again, I appreciate the differences in the two situations, but it would be peculiar to honour Pele in an official capacity…..something unofficial and fan led might be more appropriate.


----------



## pesto

Ramanaramana said:


> I can see the relevance with tributes to Pele in North America, but it is a long time between drinks. Maradona is regarded on the same level and nothing was done in his honour in Qatar, and he died closer to the WC. Again, I appreciate the differences in the two situations, but it would be peculiar to honour Pele in an official capacity…..something unofficial and fan led might be more appropriate.


I don't want to get into this. Maradona carries some baggage re support of Castro, anti-Israel comments and violence toward women (leaving aside alcohol and drugs). I would expect some cities and stadiums to pull out of the tournament if he were to be publicly honored. Sponsors should be consulted as well.. 

I suspect very little opposition to honoring Pele, although no one is perfect.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

Happy New Year guys,

I already registered for tickets of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.


----------



## CaliforniaJones

I found the ball for the MLS season.
I think it should be an inspiration concerning the official ball of the 2026 FIFA World Cup.
I'd add some green and Mexican designs.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1610690063389831169


----------



## d1e

No


----------



## CaliforniaJones

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1612163512523972609


----------



## Light Tower

I'm not so sure about these mascot designs.


----------



## nyrmetros

So what / if any renovations would be needed for Boston, NYC/NJ and Philadelphia stadiums for the WC?


----------



## pesto

ample I posited.


nyrmetros said:


> So what / if any renovations would be needed for Boston, NYC/NJ and Philadelphia stadiums for the WC?


For those stadiums there will be temporary structures outside for credentialing, media, administrative functions, etc.; some work around corners to allow for more field space and media; and additional seating for VIP's and the press. 

I haven't seen comments about need for basic changes (lighting, generators, entrances, security, seating, railings, etc.).


----------



## pesto

pesto said:


> ample I posited.
> 
> For those stadiums there will be temporary structures outside for credentialing, media, administrative functions, etc.; some work around corners to allow for more field space and media; and additional seating for VIP's and the press.
> 
> I haven't seen comments about need for basic changes (lighting, generators, entrances, security, seating, railings, etc.).


I guess I should have noted that other renovation projects are already underway at some stadiums; and that some need to put in grass.


----------

