OT: North American World Cup
The majority of games would be held in the United States. The 2020s would be a big sports decade if we can get the summer olympics too in 2024.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/10/world-cup-2026-host-bi…
Yeah. Pick a random corrupt country and it will be there instead. I'm going with Colombia.
be corrupt and rich enough for bribes. Not sure Colombia fits the criteria. I'll guess China is ahead of them in line.
didn't grow up in Ann Arbor in the 1970s.
Small, poor countries like ours will have to do this from now on. Partner up with other regional lightweights like Mexico and Canada. It's the only way to host a tournament like this against the world powers like Qatar. Good job North America
I like the creative approach - makes all of North America a "winner" - but keeps 3/4ths of the games in the U.S., including semi-finals and finals. Includes and promotes others, and really benefits the U.S.
Interesting, though, as to which of the three countries would get an auto-bid as the "host" country.
if the tournament expands to 48 like it reportedly might, then CONCACAF is expected to get six guaranteed bids. Canada might be justified getting an auto-bid at that number, especially after the absurdity of Qatar being awarded the tournament without ever having qualified for it.
April 10th, 2017 at 11:34 PM ^
US hadn't qualified in 40 years when it was awarded. But yeah, we all know Qatar was bribes up the ass
60 games in the US, 10 each in Canada and Mexico. It's basically our World Cup. I know it's unlikely with Chicago being so close by, but it'd be nice to get a few games in the Big House!
The stadium isn't big enough unless they had a platform.
Also bleacher seating is not allowed according to FIFA regulations for WC stadiums
Not sure that's the case. I remember when the World Cup came through the first time there was a fuss in A2 about the "all-seater" requirement, but the "all-seater" requirement is levied against terrace seating that used to be common in much of the world and is now much-reduced due to action against hooliganism, which thrived in it.
You always seem to have some solid info to contribute to a conversation.
This is bizarre. No country in the world has more quality stadiums capable of holding soccer matches than the United States, and it's not close. Even nations like England, Italy, and France have to upgrade and expand stadiums to meet the 40,000 seat World Cup minimum, but the US has stadia that size coming out of its ears.
So why bother with Canada and Mexico? I mean, I can see the appeal of holding a few games in the Azteca, and I suppose a handful in Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver would be nice, but the US doesn't need this. They could host an entire World cup entirely in the Acela corridor if they really wanted to, or just in Pac 12 states, or wherever. Stadiums have been build with soccer dimensions in mind for decades now, and virtually the entire NFL is now hosted in facilities that would be brilliant for it.
Nothing against Canada and Mexico, and perhaps this is the only way those two ever get to host again, but this seems pointless.
April 10th, 2017 at 11:31 PM ^
That's another shame frankly. So many stadiums here are in domes and it belongs an outdoor sport
Maybe they want to split the administrative costs and make the bid more appealing to FIFA?
I think Thad is right about it being more appealing to FIFA with the inclusion of Canada and Mexico.
The US could host the whole thing, but I guess it doesn't hurt since the format is changing from 32 teams to 48.
More money, the 20 games outside the US will sell out this way.
they all wouldn't sell out in the US though?
Every game in 1994 sold out, I'm pretty sure, and soccer has become a lot more popular since then. So I don't think that is at play here.
Just to clarify: this is a bid to host the World Cup. From the headline I thought we'd gotten it.
This is how we help Canada make the World Cup for the 2nd time. Their previous only time they made it to the World Cup was in 1986.
April 10th, 2017 at 11:04 PM ^
They should host it in a small area, pack the whole thing into California or the Northeast. Or do a collection of college and nfl stadium in the great Lakes region
April 10th, 2017 at 11:25 PM ^
I don't agree with this. US doesn't support the sport enough and that hasn't changed since 1994 except for suburban kids are playing more. Mexico has hosted 2-3x already, Canada has maybe 1 worthy venue (and indoors), and the other places that should get priority haven't hosted in even longer (ex: England) or have never hosted (Colombia, Australia, China, Holland/Belgium). Then there are other practical reasons such as travel difficulty for fans (walls/bans/airports/insurance)
The change to 48 teams will seriously drop the quality plus the format is asinine. So that's entirely about $. And the decision to have it in US would be about $ as well, along with pretending FIFA isn't so corrupt any more
Early on in the last bid process, i was excited to see our stadium listed, but then it was dropped in the final round. Possibly with more teams it would be listed again. Doesn't seem so though. It's really a huge shame to not see any college stadiums on that list. However more games = more stadiums and that will require multiple hosts going forward. I think that's a great hurdle for some like Colombia. Likewise that comment by CONCACAF president that Canada could host 80 games on its own is laughable
April 11th, 2017 at 12:05 PM ^
Colombia, really? Colombia was already selected to host a World Cup, but then they had to back out in favor of Mexico (1986, their second time, they've hosted twice) when it was clear that they were incapable of producing the event. Things are not that jazzed up yet, and South America just hosted a World Cup three years ago. Africa before that, and Asia included with the upcoming event in Qatar.
Honestly not sure what you're even talking about here. The sport has grown tremendously in the US, and I'm not talking about young kid participation. It's not La Liga or the Premiership, but MLS is a tremendous success story with solid franchises and real fanbases scattered all over the country. Have you watched a game at Portland on TV? That's not nothing. Meanwhile, major cable networks continue to bid for Premiership rights and there is a real fanbase for European club leagues that simply didn't exist in 1994.
Canada would need to upgrade its infrastructure (as most nations do for World Cups) to host 80 games, but they're not nearly as far from multiple worthy venues as you think. And I'm genuinely curious which venue you think is their only qualifying stadium--Skydome/Rogers Center? BC Place, which was completely redone for the Olympics and actually hosts a team in MLS? Montreal's Stadium? All three of them might be the mystery stadium you've mentioned because they are all good enough to host World Cup matches if need be.
I hate to sound harsh, but I probably do. I don't agree with what you're saying at all, though.
but you think Australia does?!? Australia's bid for 2022 required 7/12 stadiums to be new or need major upgrades. Also, an independent projection of revenue for the potential host cities by McKinsey put Australia last (and the US first at 100% of "available" revenue).
stephenjrking above detailed perfectly how popular soccer has become in the US - amongst citizen's and the many international ex-pats. Add in the existing infrastructure and the US should absolutely host the World Cup at least every 32 years. Which puts 2026 the latest it should be.
Holland/Belgium have similar capacity issues but at least being on the European continent would mean they'd have no issues with attendence.
China hasn't bid on the World Cup in a while if ever so why give it to a country that doesn't want it? I do think that once the tournament goes to 48, they'd have a good shot if they actually wanted to put together a respectable bid.
I do think England is more overdue than the US to host. Through corruption and an overly eager desire for variety in host countries, FIFA has ignored some of the stalwarts for too long (Spain is probably overdue as well). Needs to be a better mix of new blood and the old standbys. And really it just should not be in Russia or Qatar.
April 10th, 2017 at 11:54 PM ^
Other thing about this - with the new format i was reading expect about 20-40% of the time to see a collusion going on in the last game of groups. So if you want the US to be the place where every other day for a week there's games of both teams parking the bus and passing back and forth and high fiving each other, maybe taking a nap
Then fans throwing $ on the field, the announcers quit talking in protest and the game summary is in the "Crime" section
Yeah this has happened before. Look up "Disgrace of Gijon" Only a functional and less corrupt FIFA at the time switched to simultaneous games. Now in pursuit of $ and partipation trophies, it's going right back, only worse. 3 team groups and 2 of them playing after the other is finished will be a complete nightmare. And then add to it you'll see scores like Germany 10 - Uzbekistan 0