• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

US, Canada and Mexico set to submit joint bid to host 2026 World Cup

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Apzu

Member
TangoAlphaLima said:
Well, where else are you going to put games in Canada? Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal make the most sense. You could make an argument for Calgary. But beyond that? Not in Winnipeg. Or Ottawa. Or Regina. Probably not Edmonton. Canada has a limited selection of suitable sites.

As for Mexico, I'm sure there are other cities that could host besides Mexico City, but Mexico City is best suited for it. Other cities would probably require more infrastructure investment first, though. Brazil spent boatloads on their World Cup, and it seems like a massive waste now. I'm sure Mexico will pony up the money to get it done, but they can't host in too many cities, the cost would be too high.

Brazil hosted 32 teams in 12 different cities. Assuming that ratio holds true for a North America World Cup, we'd be looking at about 18 cities for the presumed 48 teams in the 2026 World Cup. I bet you'd see something like 3 cities in Canada, 3 cities in Mexico, and 12 cities in the U.S. host. Maybe Seattle, San Fran, L.A., Phoenix, Dallas, Kansas City, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Boston, Washington D.C., and Miami? Other strong possibilities would be Philadelphia and Denver. They all have American football stadiums, which would be necessary for the World Cup crowds, and this selection of cities would pretty evenly spread it out across the country.
Click to expand...
I know Canada has a limited selection of cities to host, but my point was basically if something like a 3:3:12 cities distribution like you suggested is really having a joint World Cup. South Korea and Japan had 10 host cities each, and I think Belgium and Netherlands bid for 2018 had something like a 7:5 distribution. This north american bid to host 2026 seems more like a US bid than a real north american one and as other pointed out it adds more cons to the bid. Climate in Mexico and Canada are not that similar, 3 countries hosting means that many people would need 3 visas instead of just one, traveling from one city to another will probably add a lot to the cost of going to the games.
 
G

GiantEnemyGoomba

Member
The games will be further apart but any idea that involves a single country not having to host the World Cup (or Olympics) is probably a good thing.
 
T

TangoAlphaLima

Member
Apzu said:
I know Canada has a limited selection of cities to host, but my point was basically if something like a 3:3:12 cities distribution like you suggested is really having a joint World Cup. South Korea and Japan had 10 host cities each, and I think Belgium and Netherlands bid for 2018 had something like a 7:5 distribution. This north american bid to host 2026 seems more like a US bid than a real north american one and as other pointed out it adds more cons to the bid. Climate in Mexico and Canada are not that similar, 3 countries hosting means that many people would need 3 visas instead of just one, traveling from one city to another will probably add a lot to the cost of going to the games.
Click to expand...

I suspect that including Mexico and Canada is simply a way for the U.S. to increase their chances for hosting. They've been trying for a while now, with no success. Neither Mexico nor Canada could host on their own, so it makes sense for them to join in the U.S. bid, even if it is unequal. But including them probably makes it more appealing to the worldwide audience over a strictly U.S. affair.

And sure, it may not be convenient to host across North America, but when has FIFA cared about that? It's not going to be convenient to have the World Cup in Qatar, but that's happening anyway. I mean, what's worse, international travelers being forced to obtain 3 visas if they want to go to all three countries, or no alcohol at the games?

Alex_Mexico said:
The more I think about it the more I hate it. North America is too big in territory and far too populated to host a WC. Each of these countries by themselves could host one... hell, two of these have done it already (Mexico did it twice!).

Just give it to the US and save us the corruption scandals in Mexico, please. Maybe US-Canada but not Mexico. We don't need this.
Click to expand...

Mexico last hosted in 1986. There's not a snowball's chance in hell FIFA would award them to host another without massive infrastructure spending that Mexico can't, and probably wouldn't want to, afford. It was far too costly for Brazil, and they've got a bigger economy by a good margin. It's just not worth the cost for what it brings.
 
R

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
firehawk12 said:
At some point we should just move to continent-wide hosted events.


Man, why does the southern hemisphere shrink. Canada isn't really that big by comparison. lol
Click to expand...
There's less land area near the poles in comparison to the Northern Hemisphere. Mercator Projection exacerbates that problem. Just move Greenland around!
 
Maximus.

Maximus.

Member
The Strokes said:
I don't know how I feel as much as I'd love to have some matches here in my Country. This presents a lot of issues right out of the bat:

1.Travelling distances might be insane by the time knockout stages come through, sure this could be avoided during the group stage by locking certain groups to different Countries.

2.-Concacaf is already one of the weakest football Confederations, if you give a free pass to three of the participants, the quality level of the tourney will be seriously hampered, not to mention by the time this WC comes around, they'll be like 150 teams involved.

3.-Does Canada even care about football? Braces yourselves for possible empty stadiums.

The only positive thing is that with the continuous infrastructure expectations and the money spent by the last hosts, dividing the load is probably how the next World Cups will be done.
Click to expand...

Canadians do care about football/soccer. Stadiums for a World Cup most definitely will not be empty.
 
T

turmoil

Banned
Federations have only one vote in FIFA each. I don't see how this increase USA's chances of winning, specially considering that Canada and Mexico would have voted for them anyways.

Small Oceanic, African and Asiatic federations are the ones that chose hosts nations in the end. Get that bribe money ready.

Maybe it's a marketing spin,"not the same bid that lost 2022, really!" ?
 
E

Eila

Member
turmoil said:
Federations have only one vote in FIFA each. I don't see how this increase USA's chances of winning, specially considering that Canada and Mexico would have voted for them anyways.

Small Oceanic, African and Asiatic federations are the ones that chose hosts nations in the end. Get that bribe money ready.

Maybe it's a marketing spin,"not the same bid that lost 2022, really!" ?
Click to expand...

Each nation was going to attempt individually. Maybe they would have dropped out (I'm 95% sure Mexico would have) but the US didn't call their bluff.
 
T

Temp_User

Member
My first thought is this is a Trojan horse to get Canada into the World Cup. Its been what, 30 years since the last time?

Both the US and Mexico could individually host AND actually compete in the World Cup.
 
C

CMojicaAce

Member
I'd imagine both Mexico and Canada would host in 3 cities each with the US hosting the majority of matches. Something like:

Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey

I'd probably travel along with the Mexican team for as long as they stay in the cup :p
 
A

Alex_Mexico

Member
I'd still rather have the US host with Canada rather than have Mexico getting involved but it looks like it happening anyways.

If anything this North American joint host will help so people stop saying Mexico is in South America. I'm still salty that in Street Fighter V I had to look under motherfucking South America to look for my flag.
 
M

MikeRahl

Member
TangoAlphaLima said:
Well, where else are you going to put games in Canada? Toronto, Vancouver, and Montreal make the most sense. You could make an argument for Calgary. But beyond that? Not in Winnipeg. Or Ottawa. Or Regina. Probably not Edmonton. Canada has a limited selection of suitable sites.

As for Mexico, I'm sure there are other cities that could host besides Mexico City, but Mexico City is best suited for it. Other cities would probably require more infrastructure investment first, though. Brazil spent boatloads on their World Cup, and it seems like a massive waste now. I'm sure Mexico will pony up the money to get it done, but they can't host in too many cities, the cost would be too high.

Brazil hosted 32 teams in 12 different cities. Assuming that ratio holds true for a North America World Cup, we'd be looking at about 18 cities for the presumed 48 teams in the 2026 World Cup. I bet you'd see something like 3 cities in Canada, 3 cities in Mexico, and 12 cities in the U.S. host. Maybe Seattle, San Fran, L.A., Phoenix, Dallas, Kansas City, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Boston, Washington D.C., and Miami? Other strong possibilities would be Philadelphia and Denver. They all have American football stadiums, which would be necessary for the World Cup crowds, and this selection of cities would pretty evenly spread it out across the country.
Click to expand...

Winnipeg hosted games for the Womens World Cup. I could see a group split between Regina (new stadium, Mosiac), Winnipeg (newer Stadium, IGF) and Minneapolis (super expensive new stadium U.S Bank Stadium) with U.S Bank sticking around for the knockout rounds.

Another issue with Canadian stadiums is very few of them that are outfitted for Football and Soccer have real grass.

Problem with North America in general is that the population areas are so spread out. Reason why singular bids in Europe work so well is that all the stadiums are close together and public transportation is actually a thing. If you are a fan that wants to make a base camp in Seattle, you'd better hope that they have games in Vancouver (and maybe Portland) or else you are probably taking a plane somewhere.
 
M

MikeRahl

Member
CMojicaAce said:
I'd imagine both Mexico and Canada would host in 3 cities each with the US hosting the majority of matches. Something like:

Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, New York, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago, Denver, Seattle, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey

I'd probably travel along with the Mexican team for as long as they stay in the cup :p
Click to expand...

I see Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver come up as the Canadian reps but I am interested to see what the stadium plans would be.

Rogers Centre, Olympic Stadium and BC place are the obvious choices, but all are multi use facilities with turf rather than grass. Rogers Centre obviously has the Blue Jays as a main tenant, the Big Owe is empty most of the year and the White Caps actually play out of BC Place. Rogers Centre has a shared tenant with the Argos and Saputo Field sole tenant is the Impact... but both would be smaller than the smallest stadium in Brazil.

The 3 multi-use facilities above were all opened pre 90s, so will be pushing 40 by the time the World Cup rolls around.

I know there are newer fields that have been built in Regina, Moncton, Winnipeg and Hamilton. Those obviously aren't sexy cities, and I'm not sure if there are any other Stadium constructions going on in Canada.

I wonder if FIFA has any requirements, other than real grass, that have to be met by a stadium before it is fit to be used in the World Cup.
 
D

Dr Campino

Member
MikeRahl said:
I see Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver come up as the Canadian reps but I am interested to see what the stadium plans would be.

Rogers Centre, Olympic Stadium and BC place are the obvious choices, but all are multi use facilities with turf rather than grass. Rogers Centre obviously has the Blue Jays as a main tenant, the Big Owe is empty most of the year and the White Caps actually play out of BC Place. Rogers Centre has a shared tenant with the Argos and Saputo Field sole tenant is the Impact... but both would be smaller than the smallest stadium in Brazil.

The 3 multi-use facilities above were all opened pre 90s, so will be pushing 40 by the time the World Cup rolls around.

I know there are newer fields that have been built in Regina, Moncton, Winnipeg and Hamilton. Those obviously aren't sexy cities, and I'm not sure if there are any other Stadium constructions going on in Canada.

I wonder if FIFA has any requirements, other than real grass, that have to be met by a stadium before it is fit to be used in the World Cup.
Click to expand...
The Argos play at BMO Field now, and that has a capacity of 30k, which can (and most definitely will) be upgraded with temporary seating. BMO has grass, not artificial turf.
 
G

GSG Flash

Nobody ruins my family vacation but me...and maybe the boy!
60-10-10?

Why not 40-20-20? It seems like this is a joint bid pretty much in name only, it would primarily be a US world cup.
 
P

Parch

Member
MikeRahl said:
I see Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver come up as the Canadian reps but I am interested to see what the stadium plans would be.

Rogers Centre, Olympic Stadium and BC place are the obvious choices, but all are multi use facilities with turf rather than grass. Rogers Centre obviously has the Blue Jays as a main tenant, the Big Owe is empty most of the year and the White Caps actually play out of BC Place. Rogers Centre has a shared tenant with the Argos and Saputo Field sole tenant is the Impact... but both would be smaller than the smallest stadium in Brazil.

The 3 multi-use facilities above were all opened pre 90s, so will be pushing 40 by the time the World Cup rolls around.

I know there are newer fields that have been built in Regina, Moncton, Winnipeg and Hamilton. Those obviously aren't sexy cities, and I'm not sure if there are any other Stadium constructions going on in Canada.

I wonder if FIFA has any requirements, other than real grass, that have to be met by a stadium before it is fit to be used in the World Cup.
Click to expand...
Commonwealth in Edmonton is the largest stadium in Canada. It's hosted Women's World Cup matches and several friendlies.
 
M

MikeRahl

Member
Dr Campino said:
The Argos play at BMO Field now, and that has a capacity of 30k, which can (and most definitely will) be upgraded with temporary seating. BMO has grass, not artificial turf.
Click to expand...

Oops I doubled up on Rogers centre. RC has Jays, BMO has Argos. BMO Field can be expanded to 40k. Montreal has Saputo which is natural grass as well with 20k max. Percival is a football stadium that can hold 25k
 
M

MikeRahl

Member
Parch said:
Commonwealth in Edmonton is the largest stadium in Canada. It's hosted Women's World Cup matches and several friendlies.
Click to expand...

Yes, they have a history of natural surface as well.

I was just going through the common perception of Vancouver/Montreal/Toronto.

Calgary could be an option as well depending on how their arena situation goes. I believe that CalgaryNEXT project (that appears to be on life support) planned on including a FIFA sanctioned soccer field.
 
B

bigred50

Member
MikeRahl said:
I see Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver come up as the Canadian reps but I am interested to see what the stadium plans would be.

Rogers Centre, Olympic Stadium and BC place are the obvious choices, but all are multi use facilities with turf rather than grass. Rogers Centre obviously has the Blue Jays as a main tenant, the Big Owe is empty most of the year and the White Caps actually play out of BC Place. Rogers Centre has a shared tenant with the Argos and Saputo Field sole tenant is the Impact... but both would be smaller than the smallest stadium in Brazil.

The 3 multi-use facilities above were all opened pre 90s, so will be pushing 40 by the time the World Cup rolls around.

I know there are newer fields that have been built in Regina, Moncton, Winnipeg and Hamilton. Those obviously aren't sexy cities, and I'm not sure if there are any other Stadium constructions going on in Canada.

I wonder if FIFA has any requirements, other than real grass, that have to be met by a stadium before it is fit to be used in the World Cup.
Click to expand...


- Minimum capacity is 40,000 (for pool games)
- grass playing surface
- no temporary bleachers
 
S

SilentRacoon

Member
Pretty shitty deal when Mexico brings the most asses to those seats.

I also can't see players being too comfortable if this were to win, having to deal with temperatures and altitude changes on a weekly basis must be very physically demanding.
 
D

DecoReturns

Member
So Azteca isn't even going to be past Group Stage?
Hell, Mexico has a ton of great stadiums and only 10 games?

Might as well go all USA
 
G

GK86

Homeland Security Fail
2uxOtwv.jpg


For Canada/Mexico.
 
A

ahoyhoy

Unconfirmed Member
SilentRacoon said:
Pretty shitty deal when Mexico brings the most asses to those seats.

I also can't see players being too comfortable if this were to win, having to deal with temperatures and altitude changes on a weekly basis must be very physically demanding.
Click to expand...

They'll get to experience the realities of professional handegg players.
 
R

Regulus Tera

Romanes Eunt Domus
jett said:
Honestly I don't see the upside for Murica to sharing the WC.



So you people would rather have zero World Cup matches?
Click to expand...

Group stage is gonna be two games only, plus round of 32 and 16. That means that Mexico fans in Mexico only get to see their team four times* at most, and I'm sure we are gonna get screwed with games like New Caledonia vs Qatar or something. (not to hate on New Caledonia or Qatar)

*In b4 what's the difference
 
M

MikeRahl

Member
bigred50 said:
- Minimum capacity is 40,000 (for pool games)
- grass playing surface
- no temporary bleachers
Click to expand...

Oof. That doesn't bode well for Toronto. Although 8 years would probably be long enough to get BMO upgraded to 40k permanent seats rather than inclusive of temporary.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
US, Canada, and Mexico to submit a joint bid to host the 2026 World Cup
0
695
XiaNaphryz replied
World Cup 2022: Qatar bid team accused of secret campaign to sabotage rivals
8
812
HarryKS replied
  • Locked
Donald Trump could wreck the US' chances of hosting the 2026 World Cup
2 3
114
8K
turmoil replied
Russia’s entire 2014 World Cup squad face Fifa doping investigation
26
5K
lightskintwin replied
North Korea could co-host 2018 Winter Olympics, Seoul suggests
2
72
10K
striferser replied
Top Bottom