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.
Money, I suppose.
The Final being in the Jerrydome will be pretty sweet, though.
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.
Still clinging to hope, isn't?Another final at the Azteca? Genial para cuando México gane el Mundial. 😎
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
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.
The big reasons why Canada can't host a solo bid and also eliminates a lot of places for the joint bid. The popularity of soccer in Canada has improved significantly but limited facilities hold back hosting possibilities.- Minimum capacity is 40,000 (for pool games)
- grass playing surface
- no temporary bleachers
Canada's probably the best choice out of the three
The format is 16 groups of three with the top two teams advancing to a Round of 32.Round of 32? O sea "Dieciseisavos de final"? We getting groups of 3 instead of 4 now? I'm confused!
48 training facilities and 80 games is a lot to deal with.
We have 30+ stadiums that seat 60K+ and lots and lots of training facilities all over the place. All of this already exists.
Even so this means a lot of cities are gonna be stuck with only one game, whereas before FIFA made sure stadiums got at least three. We understand the US should get most of the payload for logistical reasons, but it's still awfully imbalanced. 40/20/20 would be a lot fairer.Question is how many stadiums does Mexico can that can support it? Also can they secure the cities, transportation, hotels, etc. It all has to be done in a reasonable time frame too. That means clearing out between games.
For example, Mexico has 7 stadiums above 40k
US has 40+ above 40k. Basically a 6 to 1 ratio.
Mexico nor Canada can support a solo bid. US can. FIFA won't vote for the US alone, so this seems like the best option where all three countries are using each other. Mexico and Canada can host without having to build up. America gets their World Cup, while footing most of the bill. This seems like a Win Win for everyone
The format is 16 groups of three with the top two teams advancing to a Round of 32.
Question is how many stadiums does Mexico can that can support it? Also can they secure the cities, transportation, hotels, etc. It all has to be done in a reasonable time frame too. That means clearing out between games.
For example, Mexico has 7 stadiums above 40k
US has 40+ above 40k. Basically a 6 to 1 ratio.
Mexico nor Canada can support a solo bid. US can. FIFA won't vote for the US alone, so this seems like the best option where all three countries are using each other. Mexico and Canada can host without having to build up. America gets their World Cup, while footing most of the bill. This seems like a Win Win for everyone
So you people would rather have zero World Cup matches?
Mexico can definitely host a world cup by itself.
Mexico can definitely host a world cup by itself, pretty sure Canada can too.
I mean, it's not like we haven't done it before... twice!
That's probably a requirement for the bid. Possibly there are plans on the board for Montreal and Vancouver as well because right now it would be only Edmonton capable of meeting those requirements.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.
That the Azteca won't receive at least a semifinal is ridiculous
I'm not buying the three country thing. US should host alone. I guess adding in Canada could work geographically since they huddle up on our border for warmth. But Canada plus Mexico City? Too much. Brazil was kind of a shit-show so superimposing it over North America and saying 'close enough' doesn't sell me on it.
Brazil faced massive civil unrest and turmoil over hosting the World Cup due to large government spending on it, and it has a bigger economy than Mexico.
Canada could, but they'd never want to. It would cost too much for too little value, they're smarter than that.
The World Cup in 1986 was nothing like the World Cups of modern days.
Saying Brazil civil unrest happened because of the World Cup is a little bit simplistic, second saying Brazil has a bigger economy than Mexico is true (although Mexico has a higher per capita) but Mexico receives as 5 times as many tourists than Brazil every year and Liga MX is the 4th soccer league with the biggest attendance (10th of all leagues worldwide), so situations are different.
The US is huge.48 training facilities and 80 games is a lot to deal with.
In exchange for having all the World Cup matches sometime this generation? Probably, yes.So you people would rather have zero World Cup matches?
Flat out bullshit. If Qatar can support a bid, so can two of the fifteen largest countries in the world, one of which is one of the most soccer-crazy countries in the world. If Mexico and Canada can't support a solo bid, what non-Euro/US country could ever hope to?Mexico nor Canada can support a solo bid.
Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal need to be the 3 Canadian host cities. Mexico City, Monterrey and Guadalajara should be the Mexican host cities...Juarez and Tijuana are unfortunately too dangerous.
I'm not saying there weren't other issues in Brazil, but many people objected to the massive spending to host the World Cup when Brazil has plenty of other pressing issues to deal with, like poverty and education.
Honestly, this proposal is the best way for Canada and Mexico to get a piece of the World Cup. They are a part of it, but won't have to devote nearly the money or resources they would have to if they were solely hosting. And economists widely agree that the costs outweigh the benefit for hosting events like these, at least when large infrastructure projects need to be completed in order to host.
There are other bigger cities that could host games you know? Juarez and Tijuana dont even have big enough stadiums. Not even close. Juarez doesnt even have one fit for tier-1 Liga MX games, let alone international official games! But I agree Mexico City, MTY and GDL should be in for sure.
I think nobody would complain if there were more games, and i think Mexico is accepting the bid because they know the chances of getting a bid by ourselves are slim since it would be our third world cup, but i don't think we should blew up our chances our getting a new world cup just to have 10 games.
And also, Whats for the US in this? Is the USSF afraid the political climate may hurt their chances of a self bid?
If I were Mexico's FIFA president, I would try to convince the US to have one of their sites at the Sun Bowl in El Paso. Its just on the other side of the river form Juarez, and its in one of the safest cities in the country. If Mexico makes the quarter finals, that would be a great site to play since Mexico would have a home crowd. Lots of Mexican Expats that escaped the cartels in Juarez live in El Paso
And also, Whats for the US in this? Is the USSF afraid the political climate may hurt their chances of a self bid?
This was probably in the works since before Trump won the election, so I doubt it has anything to do with him.
The U.S. has been trying for years to get a World Cup. They didn't get '18 or '22. I suspect that they felt they would land more votes internationally by including Canada and Mexico, while still keep the vast majority of games for themselves.
Personally, I like it. The U.S. could have won the bid on their own potentially, but it's nice to throw Canada and Mexico a bone and show we can still be a united North America in some respects.
That's probably a requirement for the bid. Possibly there are plans on the board for Montreal and Vancouver as well because right now it would be only Edmonton capable of meeting those requirements.
Commonwealth and what other stadium? I assume there are plans to upgrade other stadiums to Wold Cup standards, but as of right now it's only Edmonton that meet the requirements.why Canada? they only have two stadiums
why Canada? they only have two stadiums
What you think we can't build another one???
Commonwealth and what other stadium? I assume there are plans to upgrade other stadiums to Wold Cup standards, but as of right now it's only Edmonton that meet the requirements.
It is only 10 games scheduled for Canada. I'm sure there are plenty of Canadian cities who would love to host a World Cup game or two, but they're going to have to construct permanent facilities to get some.
Hows the value of the Looney looking post oil collapse?
Edmonton is not World Class City and does not deserve a venueCommonwealth and what other stadium? I assume there are plans to upgrade other stadiums to Wold Cup standards, but as of right now it's only Edmonton that meet the requirements.
It is only 10 games scheduled for Canada. I'm sure there are plenty of Canadian cities who would love to host a World Cup game or two, but they're going to have to construct permanent facilities to get some.
Local politics, Provincially and Municipally have appetitie to toss public money around.What you think we can't build another one???
The obvious ones. Attempts at importing real grass have had mixed results. I'm not sure laying down temporary sod would meet FIFA standards. Perhaps for one game, maybe two.Vancouver (BC Place), Toronto (Rogers Centre) and Montreal (Olympic Stadium) are all multi use facilities that have been used for soccer which have imported Real Grass in the past I believe. They are all older stadiums though (built between 1979-89).
I believe there is a proposal complex in Calgary that includes a FIFA sanctioned soccer stadium that is piggy backing on a Hockey Arena.
60:10:10? This is no joint bid, it's the US bidding for a WC as we have nowadays and giving the extra games to the other "hosts countries". Also, how is it a joint bid if the games in the other countries only happen at the begining of the WC?
As others have said a 40:20:20 would have been a lot better, at least the US would only have half of the games and not 3 quarters of it.
Good enough to host a Commonwealth Games, a World Track and Field Championships, a World Women's Rugby Championships, Women's World Cup soccer matches, as well as several other World sporting events like junior baseball (twice), figure skating, curling, and several grand prix events.Edmonton is not World Class City and does not deserve a venue
US shouldn't be allowed to host while it's so difficult for some fans to attend games.
Unless Trump can manage to change the Constitution to get a third term, we'll probably be fine by 2026.