Support NeoGAF

[chrisPjelly]

Seems like a huge undertaking, but I can see everyone benefiting out of this if it works out.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Well yeah that's sort of my point, everything is so spread out across huge distances. In Brazil pretty much everything took place along the coast.

Technically with the exceptions of Glendale and Chicago everything took place along the coast too

 

[The Strokes]

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.

 

[reckless]

Not a bad idea, we already have enough infrastructure set up.

 

[Brinbe]

Looking forward to the Canadian team getting embarrassed on an international stage.

But anyway, Toronto would be a great host city. Can't even imagine how much more obnoxiously annoying Italians fans would be if they end up with a match here.

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.

LOL NOPE

NOT AT ALL
SERIOUSLY

SMFH

 

[Eila]

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.

The weak CONCACAF argument doesn't really matter because we are getting 6 slots for the WC 2026 anyway. That's already set in stone so even if CONCACAF don't host the cup we're still getting 6 spots. Canada might not make the cut but betting on Mexico and the US taking their spot in the qualifiers has got to be one of the easiest bets of all time.
And I'm pretty sure there's some "soccer" cities in Canada. Montreal Impact put 60k people in their stadium for the CCL final.

 

[The Strokes]

LOL NOPE

NOT AT ALL
SERIOUSLY

SMFH

This is a small bubble of interest, you guys don't even have a professional league, come on now. Don't blame you tho, maybe if the quality of the MLS was somewhere near interesting, Canada might pull the trigger on making its own thing thus making the sport grow.

The weak CONCACAF argument doesn't really matter because we are getting 6 slots for the WC 2026 anyway. That's already set in stone so even if CONCACAF don't host the cup we're still getting 6 spots. Canada might not make the cut but betting on Mexico and the US taking their spot in the qualifiers has got to be one of the easiest bets of all time.
And I'm pretty sure there's some "soccer" cities in Canada. Montreal Impact put 60k people in their stadium for the CCL final.

6 spots for Concacaf with Mexico and USA already in? Shit, that sounds super rough. A World Cup with more than 32 is absolutely ridiculous to begin with.

 

[azyless]

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.

The host countries will actually count as slots from that confederation. So whether USA/Canada/Mexico host or not, there'll be 6 Concacaf teams no matter what.
And I admit I don't follow MLS at all but in 2015 for the Women's World Cup they had an average attendance of around 30 000 so I doubt there'd be any issues filling up stadiums for the men's.

 

[BahamutPT]

I'd like to see the US hold a World Cup actually.

Spoiler

But only IF they call it football

 

[Buba Big Guns]

There's a shit load of soccer fans in Canada. It's a country full of immigrants who love soccer.

 

[Eila]

This is a small bubble of interest, you guys don't even have a professional league, come on now. Don't blame you tho, maybe if the quality of the MLS was somewhere near interesting, Canada might pull the trigger on making its own thing thus making the sport grow.



6 spots for Concacaf with Mexico and USA already in? Shit, that sounds super rough. A World Cup with more than 32 is absolutely ridiculous to begin with.

It's 6 spots total. If we host the Canada-US-Mexico there would be 3 spots for the qualifiers. If we don't host the cup together and say only the US gets it there would be 5 spots for the qualifiers, and if the cup is hosted elsewhere there would be 6 spots up for grabs for the qualifiers. Host countries don't play the qualifiers.

 

[Apzu]

It probably wouldn't be much different than the 2014 World Cup in Brazil. Brazil is a massive country, and I recall the USMNT had to travel some pretty serious distances during that tournament.

Plus, they wouldn't be going far into Canada, probably only Toronto and Vancouver, maybe Montreal, and those are all near the border. And it wouldn't surprise me if Mexico only hosted games in Mexico City. Of course, the distances across the U.S. itself would be big, but that's to be expected.

Is Brazil really big? Jeezus. Darn eurocentric world maps.

Well yes, Brazil is larger than continental US, but this comparison is probably not the best one. Russia is a lot closer to the area of all NAFTA countries, and even Putin didn't think it was a good idea to spread out the host cities that much. And if it's only Vancouver, Toronto and Mexico City, wouldn't it be basically a US world cup?

 

[Sr Kitsune]

Which country would host the Final match.

If we go by historic value? In the Azteca stadium in Mexico City.

 

[Rest]

The US and Mexico must have enough fields to host it on their own, Canada probably would too. I don't see why any of these countries would need a hosting partner. Do they just think they'll be more likely to win the bid as a group?

 

[Eila]

The US and Mexico must have enough fields to host it on their own, Canada probably would too. I don't see why any of these countries would need a hosting partner. Do they just think they'll be more likely to win the bid as a group?

I think it's not wanting to compete with each other. Although I don't think Mexico or Canada could host the 48 team competition without spending a ton of money.

 

[Falchion]

We have the infrastructure already in place, should be a slam dunk.

 

[Mattlikewhoa]

Seriously you guys are funny with the Canadians and "do they even like soccer" talk. There's a ton of people who soccer here in Canada with all of the multiculturalism.

All of our MLS teams have packed home games on the regular, and last I checked, Toronto FC was in the finals (great match, tough to watch in person).

Anyways, bring it to Canada... and the people will be there with bells on.

 

[boiled goose]

With 48 teams they could all get in and the normal Costa Rica and Panama can get in too.

Panama??
Never qualified.

Honduras is probably 4

 

[tim.mbp]

If we go by historic value? In the Azteca stadium in Mexico City.

Los Angeles Stadium.

 

[uncredited male]

Maybe Guatemala will finally make a Cup.

 

[azyless]

Panama??

There'll be 6 CONCACAF teams by then. You can probably add Honduras and Trinidad and Tobago or Haiti or something too.

 

[boiled goose]

There'll be 6 CONCACAF teams by then. You can probably add Honduras and Trinidad and Tobago too.

My point is Panama is not the typical one. Honduras is probably 4th historically and currently. T&T before Panama too.

 

[boingball]

Well sounds in principle like a no-brainer. But of course the USA will be disqualified for hosting world cups if they don't let football teams from e.g. Iran or North Korea into the US (both have a good chance of qualifying with the expanded size).

 

[Squirrel Killer]

Countries the size of small US states get the World Cup and instead we're pitching a World Cup that will be so diluted spread across three of the fifteen largest countries in the world.

 

[Regulus Tera]

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.

People keep saying this but CONCACAF had a better showing than Africa last World Cup. Asia didn't even win a single game.

Hell Costa Rica had three World Champions in their group and they won it handidly.

 

[Arol]

All three hosting seems odd, by 2026 the political climate could be way different in the United States that no country would potentially be banned from entering with the increased expansion.

The expansion is whatever to me though, might help the sport in those countries that would just barely miss out otherwise.

There's over 200 member associations, 48 coming to the world cup isn't a big deal to me.

 

[bonesmccoy]

There's a shit load of soccer fans in Canada. It's a country full of immigrants who love soccer.

Plus families with kids who play soccer. In terms of participation, it's far and away the most popular sport for Canadian children.

 

[Skellig Gra]

Plus families with kids who play soccer. In terms of participation, it's far and away the most popular sport for Canadian children.

More than hockey??

 

[Perfect Blue]

More than hockey??

Hockey is for more well off kids.

 

[bonesmccoy]

More than hockey??

Yep. I think double?

Soccer is extremely cheap and the accessibility bar is super low. Likewise with basketball.

Baseball is interesting. The decline of the Jays and Expos, and the death of the latter, absolutely cratered child participation in the sport, even though it's cheap and easy to play. It's only started to go back to the rates it saw 20-25 years ago - thanks to the Blue Jays being good again.

 

[Eila]

There's over 200 member associations, 48 coming to the world cup isn't a big deal to me.

Quality wise it is. There's maybe 10 nations capable of winning the competition. Maybe 10 more capable of being dark horses. The other 28 will be filler.

 

[SwolBro]

why would they spread it out like that? this is ridiculous.

 

[PastorOfMuppets]

I think a lot of your are forgetting - especially if there are gonna be games in Toronto and Montreal, that those cities have large immigrant populations that love football. They will definitely come out to support the World Cup.

Games involving:

Greece, Italy, France, Portugal, Brazil will get a lot of Canadian support. Outside chance that South Korea will get a lot of fans out too if they qualify.

I personally don't want the World Cup in Canada though, it seems to me that a lot of these large sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup turn out to be massive financial boondoggles.

 

[shira]

There's a shit load of soccer fans in Canada. It's a country full of immigrants who love soccer.

Compared to hockey. Soccer is a joke.

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

And if it's only Vancouver, Toronto and Mexico City, wouldn't it be basically a US world cup?

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.

 

[Slizeezyc]

I'd be down with this but doubt it works out.

I especially like it because there's just no need to have to build these stadiums that just end up empty the moment the event is over. It also wouldn't be such a nightmare for hosting purposes, just more travel.

 

[Eila]

I think a lot of your are forgetting - especially if there are gonna be games in Toronto and Montreal, that those cities have large immigrant populations that love football. They will definitely come out to support the World Cup.

Games involving:

Greece, Italy, France, Portugal, Brazil will get a lot of Canadian support. Outside chance that South Korea will get a lot of fans out too if they qualify.

I personally don't want the World Cup in Canada though, it seems to me that a lot of these large sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup turn out to be massive financial boondoggles.

Outside of the hosts which choose the schedule to their benefit the other teams can't really choose where they get put.
And South Korea will be in the cup as long as their country still exists. Asia will get 8 goddamn spots.

 

[Regulus Tera]

Nice. That graphic really does put into perspective how massive Brazil is.

Is Brazil really big? Jeezus. Darn eurocentric world maps.

http://thetruesize.com/

Have fun!

 

[TangoAlphaLima]

http://thetruesize.com/

Have fun!

Cool website. There was a Vox video on YouTube that went into great detail about the difficulties of making maps of the world, given that it's essentially impossible to render a 3D sphere with perfect accuracy on a 2D surface. Compromises have to be made, which warps our perception.

 

[Regulus Tera]

There's over 200 member associations, 48 coming to the world cup isn't a big deal to me.

The format will be 16 groups of 3 teams each with the top 2 advancing to a round of 32. Even if you ignore the quality question, that's a hell of a stupid way to format the group stage. There are teams that will travel all across the globe to play only two games, not to mention that there's a very real possibility that all 3 games in a group stage end up being scoreless draws. The amount of shenanigans that would entail are ridiculous.

 

[azyless]

The format will be 16 groups of 3 teams each with the top 2 advancing to a round of 32. Even if you ignore the quality question, that's a hell of a stupid way to format the group stage. There are teams that will travel all across the globe to play only two games, not to mention that there's a very real possibility that all 3 games in a group stage end up being scoreless draws. The amount of shenanigans that would entail are ridiculous.

There's also the issue of match fixing since there won't be 2 games played at the same time anymore. I think Infantino said he just wants to "ban" draws during the World Cup and have penalties even during the group stage.

 

[Hyperactivity]

To put your words into perspective

Potentially bigger issue:

The bigger issue is timezones and change in climate. You have to avoid more elevated cities, and try to account for not making teams travel across timezones too often between matches, at least without some sort of break in between. And it's not so much any climate so much as that climate being consistent for teams.

Then again, 1994 had a similar issue:

The games were played in nine cities across the country. ... Because of the massive land size of the main 48 states of the United States, the match locations were often far apart; making traveling long and gruelling for teams and their traveling fans. Some teams in Groups A and B had to travel from Los Angeles or San Francisco all the way to Detroit and back again, covering 2,300 mi (3,680 km) and 3 time zones one way. The teams in Groups C and D only played in Foxborough (Boston), Chicago and Dallas – a trip from Boston to Dallas is 2,000 miles (3,200 km), but only covers one time zone; Chicago is in the same time zone as Dallas but is still 1,000 miles away from both Dallas and Boston. The teams in Groups E and F's travel was a bit easier – they played exclusively in East Rutherford, New Jersey (New York City), Washington and Orlando. A few teams such as Cameroon and Italy did not have to travel great distances to cities to play matches.

The variety of climate in different cities all over the United States made playing conditions very difficult;

I personally don't want the World Cup in Canada though, it seems to me that a lot of these large sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup turn out to be massive financial boondoggles.

Most countries and cities that decide to host shouldn't be trying to host. You need to already have a large enough stadium, have the public infrastructure to handle such an event, etc. A major pro for at least the US part of this, is that football stadiums are perfectly large enough and maintained at a high level of quality for the world cup to be held. Not sure if Canada has pre-existing stadiums that are large enough, but Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto probably beat out most US cities on public infrastructure and transportation.

 

[firehawk12]

At some point we should just move to continent-wide hosted events.

http://thetruesize.com/

Have fun!

Man, why does the southern hemisphere shrink. Canada isn't really that big by comparison. lol

 

[MetatronM]

Potentially bigger issue:






The bigger issue is timezones and change in climate. You have to avoid more elevated cities, and try to account for not making teams travel across timezones too often between matches, at least without some sort of break in between. And it's not so much any climate so much as that climate being consistent for teams.

Then again, 1994 had a similar issue:




Most countries and cities that decide to host shouldn't be trying to host. You need to already have a large enough stadium, have the public infrastructure to handle such an event, etc. A major pro for at least the US part of this, is that football stadiums are perfectly large enough and maintained at a high level of quality for the world cup to be held. Not sure if Canada has pre-existing stadiums that are large enough, but Montreal, Vancouver, and Toronto probably beat out most US cities on public infrastructure and transportation.

The World Cup next year is being played across four different time zones.

It's clearly not a deal breaker.

 

[ReplacementPelican]

Would love this but who gets the final?

 

[Hari Seldon]

US and Canada already share NBA, MLB, NHL, and MLS leagues. Would be cool to get Mexico in there for a big NA party.

 

[Tawney Bomb]

Sounds like a cool idea. Hopefully foreign teams are able to enter the US by then if this does happen.

 

[Apathy]

To put your words into perspective

It perfectly covers the areas of Canada that are habitable and have reasonable amounts of people too.

I actually think this is a good idea and good way to host big events like these. Less risks and less debt all around.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

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.

 

[mavo]

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.

The biggest problem Mexico face is security, but if South Africa and Brazil came up clean i don't see why Mexico can't.