Jump to content

2026 WC Bid?


munseahawk
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...
16 minutes ago, The Ref said:

Uruguay and Chile filing a joint proposal to host the 2030 World Cup.

So that probably eliminates the South American countries from the race. Pretty sure FIFA wants the World Cup back where it started on its 100 year anniversary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2016 at 4:16 PM, nolbertos said:

The CSA better get there shit in gear.  Mexican FA has announced there going to run for hosting rights for 2026.  Mont Pete better get that CPL league running pronto.  Spanish article for those curious

http://elbocon.pe/internacional/mexico-pedira-ser-sede-del-mundial-2026-120804/

I think Canada could beat a competing Mexican bid (assuming there is no more bribing).  FIFA needs a very safe world cup after a series of scandals and poverty stricken countries building stadiums that lay empty.  Mexico has had it twice.  Mexico has a lot of violence right now and huge drug wars.  Consider a police chief or mayor of a world cup city being killed or a bunch of heads found at a world cup site.   Those types of things are happening in Mexico now, it has to be considered it could happen in the future.

Having a premier league that is essentially a youth and 3rd division league is nice; I don't think it would make a difference to a cup bid.

I wouldn't fear mexico on this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, amanfromvancouver said:

I think Canada could beat a competing Mexican bid (assuming there is no more bribing).  FIFA needs a very safe world cup after a series of scandals and poverty stricken countries building stadiums that lay empty.  Mexico has had it twice.  Mexico has a lot of violence right now and huge drug wars.  Consider a police chief or mayor of a world cup city being killed or a bunch of heads found at a world cup site.   Those types of things are happening in Mexico now, it has to be considered it could happen in the future.

Having a premier league that is essentially a youth and 3rd division league is nice; I don't think it would make a difference to a cup bid.

I wouldn't fear mexico on this one.

Not that I disagree with the overall point, but Brazil (and South Africa) are 50x more dangerous than Mexico.

Edited by theaub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, amanfromvancouver said:

I think Canada could beat a competing Mexican bid (assuming there is no more bribing).  FIFA needs a very safe world cup after a series of scandals and poverty stricken countries building stadiums that lay empty.  Mexico has had it twice.  Mexico has a lot of violence right now and huge drug wars.  Consider a police chief or mayor of a world cup city being killed or a bunch of heads found at a world cup site.   Those types of things are happening in Mexico now, it has to be considered it could happen in the future.

Having a premier league that is essentially a youth and 3rd division league is nice; I don't think it would make a difference to a cup bid.

I wouldn't fear mexico on this one.

To make a bid, we need a professional league so it does make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Macksam said:

To make a bid, we need a professional league so it does make a difference.

Why do we need a professional league? Is it in the rules? If not, we need a league to develop players. We don't need a league to host a tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are there actual rules for awarding the WC?? I think most of this is based on the US promising to form MLS as a condition for hosting the 1994 WC.  As we are "sort of" a partner in MLS (3clubs) maybe we wouldn't get that particular condition put on us.  But I think A "sort of" shared first division with US, kind of lends itself to a shared WC bid, sort of like the Gold cup last summer.  Meaning 1or 2 host cities for the group stage would be CDN.  That might be something we should shoot for.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Bison44 said:

Are there actual rules for awarding the WC?? I think most of this is based on the US promising to form MLS as a condition for hosting the 1994 WC.  As we are "sort of" a partner in MLS (3clubs) maybe we wouldn't get that particular condition put on us.  But I think A "sort of" shared first division with US, kind of lends itself to a shared WC bid, sort of like the Gold cup last summer.  Meaning 1or 2 host cities for the group stage would be CDN.  That might be something we should shoot for.  

The US doesn't need us to share a World Cup. If they bid its going to be all for themselves. 

As a Canadian I wouldn't want a shared World Cup either. That would basically mean we won't be awarded another World Cup for at least 50 years because we hosted a couple games with most of the turni being in the states.  

Edited by king1010
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, canta15 said:

Why do we need a professional league? Is it in the rules? If not, we need a league to develop players. We don't need a league to host a tournament.

MLS was a condition of the US getting it in '94, so yes I would say it is a rule.

I mean friggin Qatar has a better league than we do.

Edited by theaub
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, king1010 said:

The US doesn't need us to share a World Cup. If they bid its going to be all for themselves. 

They certainly don't logistically.  But they might politically.  I would guess that both Canada and the US are probably both weighing the pros and cons of sharing or going it alone as we speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, theaub said:

MLS was a condition of the US getting it in '94, so yes I would say it is a rule.

I mean friggin Qatar has a better league than we do.

Ah is see i didn't know that. As for your second point $$$.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

While reflecting on Detroit MLS .... would you rather have potential white elephant stadiums (or white elephant stadium expasions) in Canada, or have games in a couple of US border-ish cities (Detroit, Seattle, Buffalo, etc.)

I figure it would be:

  • Toronto
  • Toronto 2
  • Montreal
  • Vancouver
  • Edmonton

then probably

  • Winnipeg
  • Calgary
  • Regina

Then would you really want to double the size of certain of other stadia (Ottawa, Hamilton, etc)? Or would it be better to use Qwest, Ford Field, Michigan Stadium, Orchard Park, etc.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any Canadian bid would revolve around BMO Field in Toronto, BC Place in Vancouver, the Olympic Stadium in Montreal and the CFL stadia in Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Hamilton and Ottawa. It would probably be used as the excuse to build CFL-compatable stadia in Quebec City and/or Halifax, so there would be at least ten available with no danger of white elephants being the legacy. South Africa managed a 32 team competition with 10 venues in 2010, so that would be a viable bid. I think the biggest problem for the CSA (beyond the domestic pro league argument) is that there have been indications that the number of teams might be expanded to 40 from 2026 onwards, and if that happens 10 venues might be seen as too few given 12 is the norm when 32 teams are involved, so at that point I think a Canadian bid would probably be out of the running as a standalone host.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, One American said:

While reflecting on Detroit MLS .... would you rather have potential white elephant stadiums (or white elephant stadium expasions) in Canada, or have games in a couple of US border-ish cities (Detroit, Seattle, Buffalo, etc.)

I figure it would be:

  • Toronto
  • Toronto 2
  • Montreal
  • Vancouver
  • Edmonton

then probably

  • Winnipeg
  • Calgary
  • Regina

Then would you really want to double the size of certain of other stadia (Ottawa, Hamilton, etc)? Or would it be better to use Qwest, Ford Field, Michigan Stadium, Orchard Park, etc.

 

Ottawa, Hamilton and any other CFL stadium can be temporarily increased to 40000 seats so this white elephant debate doesn't hold any water. No white elephant stadiums would emerge in Canada as s result of this World Cup so no, I prefer a solo bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The plot thickens:

United States, Mexico consider joint bid to host 2026 World Cup

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2016/05/14/united-state-mexico-joint-world-cup-bid-fifa/84366632/

I'm intrigued on why the US are even entertaining this scenario as they could easily go in alone...My thoughts:

1-Fear that most of FIFA Council will resent a US bid after what they've done to FIFA...Sure, they "cleaned" (sort of) FIFA, but they didn't catch everyone. Some of those who profited from the old system will resent the US for the party being over. This was most likely a reaction on losing the World Cup to Qatar. I had read an article on the relationship between smaller nations and rich countries like the US. Everybody's vote is 1 vote...and smaller countries have the number advantage...hence CONCACAF being dominated by Caribbean countries for so long. The US knows it won't be a guaranteed win against Mexico, even less Canada.

2-They are more worried about a Canadian bid then a Mexican Bid: Despite all those ignorant articles and Americans claiming Canada can't hold a World Cup due to infrastructure are dead wrong...and the USSF knows that too.

a)Grass? I see that comment because all our past World cup were on turf. The Women World Cup, we pretty much rescued because nobody wanted them while nobody are fighting the other World Cup. It's pure idiotic to assume Canada wouldn't put natural grass in all it's stadium for a World Cup.

b)Infrastructure? We have a Liberal government eager to massively invest in Infrastructure projects. A World Cup bid, the biggest sport event in the world, would justify those investments. A rich country like Canada can accomplish just as much as any G7 country with funding. We can and will retrofit/upgrade existing stadiums and build new ones. If our stadiums are just as good as American stadiums, that makes our bid that much stronger.

c)Security? This is what hurts Mexico the most, while Canada is safer than even the US.

Bottom Line is that Canada can put a bid just as strong in term of quality then the US, and the USSF are fully aware of that.

3-A Canadian being CONCACAF President, FIFA Council member & FIFA Vice-president: Rightfully so their biggest worry. Who knows what else was said by Vic during his CONCACAF presidency campaign. Securing the majority of the CONCACAF votes is surely link with their support to Canada for a World Cup bid. VIc did make clear that money would be invested in CONCACAF nations...which would be a first in decades. This makes a US standalone bid more difficult as some of those nations aren't fans of Americans...However, a co bid with Mexico could be an better sell.

Also, Vic will constantly have access to FIFA council members and head of FIFA...far more often than the USSF.

4-FIFA's mandate to grow the game in new areas of the planet: This is not to be underestimated. Mexico had it twice while the US had it once, growing the game in the US. Canada never held it. With the CPL breaking ground soon, a World Cup would solidify that league for good...hopefully to the point of attracting Toronto FC, Montreal Impact and Vancouver Whitecaps in CPL if it's successful. USSF are very aware of that.

5-FIFA's new era: After the plague of scandals that FIFA had to go through over the years (Bribery, Russia and Qatar), 2026 World Cup will truly be the beginning of FIFA new era. If Vic manages to clean CONCACAF (the most corrupted zone) by 2020, this won't go unnoticed by FIFA who will use that to advertised that they have indeed clean up their act. For a new era, you want the safest, most ethical World Cup possible...enters Canada.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

With the United States trying to secure the 2026 World Cup, the 2016 Copa America Centenario is their chance to show FIFA and the world that a world cup on American soil is a no brainer. Yet, besides Mexico and US matches, stadiums are either half empty or embarrassingly empty.

Without presuming that American interest in soccer is overestimated, it does raise a question:

Slow ticket sales for Copa America could hurt USA’s World Cup 2026 chances

http://worldsoccertalk.com/2016/06/04/slow-ticket-sales-copa-america-hurt-usas-world-cup-2026-chances/

Usually when major soccer tournaments come to new regions, one of the barometers of success is in the form of ticket sales. One of the pillars of a future US World Cup would be that major ticket sales would fill up gigantic stadiums across the country. This Copa America Centenario tournament, with 16 teams including several elite national teams and effectively two host nations, should be an indicator of the appetite for a future World Cup. Unfortunately, despite ticket sales expected to beat Copa America records, the early signs aren’t necessarily promising.

As US Men’s National Team fans have seen recently with the precipitous drop in attendance for the national team, ticket sales to major soccer games in this country sans Mexico games is not necessarily a given anymore. Part of the US’ new struggle may have to do with general apathy towards the team, though a large part has to do with exorbitantly high ticket prices that drive out most of the casual fans as well as hardcore fans that can’t afford the cheapest prices in the stadium starting at $50. With this Copa America, not only do the ticket prices come into play, but travel, weeknight games and generally unappealing teams alongside the ones that will draw coming as well, ticket sales for this tournament might not be what anyone would initially expect.

The Copa America Centenario won’t have issues generating enormous ticket sales for games such as USA vs. Colombia, Argentina-Chile or matches featuring Mexico or Brazil. However, there will be challenges facing CONCACAF/CONMEBOL selling tickets to plenty of weeknight games involving lesser known South American and CONCACAF teams in cities such as Philadelphia, Orlando and Seattle. In these instances, attendance could really suffer. Initially forcing customers to buy venue packages of tickets instead of individual games might end up inflating the numbers somewhat, but the number of empty seats viewable on television won’t be what many in the world will expect.

The problems stem from the initial exorbitant ticket prices, a fact not helped by the relative strength of the US dollar at the moment. The real test of the tournament’s strength in terms of ticket sales will not come during the big games, but games such as Ecuador vs. Peru in Glendale on a Wednesday night, or Chile vs. Bolivia in Foxborough on a Friday night. Perhaps the novelty of the tournament will boost ticket sales, but recent signs for games in the US not featuring Mexico have not been promising.

Should the US and Mexico go deeper into this tournament as expected, ticket sales may not become the issue that they could be during the group stage. But the expected swaths of empty seats viewable on TV will not be a good look for the US Soccer Federation, CONCACAF and CONMEBOL.

For all of the talk of the injuries, travel and quality of play that the world will see on the pitch starting, they might also see some empty seats. As a possible dry run for a future World Cup, empty seats are not something anyone wants to see, particularly organizers who believe that a 2026 FIFA World Cup is still a potential cash cow.

After this tournament, maybe the cow will be a bit thinner than previously expected.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/soccer/ct-copa-america-venezuela-beats-jamaica-spt-0606-20160605-story.html

Pre-Copa America

http://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2016/5/29/11807602/us-soccer-ticket-prices-low-attendance

 

Granted the tickets are expensive, but so are Superbowl tickets and any major American (including NHL) league playoff tickets. World Cup tickets aren't cheap either, with matches sometime involving countries that aren't in the A list (Greece vs Costa Rica). Will FIFA takes the 2016 Copa America under consideration when evaluating the USA bid? Absolutely!

This is my question and proposed debate topic:

  • With Canada having a track record of breaking attendance numbers for U-17/U-23 (men and women World Cup & doing the same for the Women World Cup
  • Canada upgrading existing stadiums to FIFA standards and building new bigger stadiums

1-Would a Copa America in Canada, with the same level of pricing, have better attendance numbers than the US?

2-Should Canada be tested with a Gold Cup exclusively on Canadian soil?

3-If Canada makes the Gold Cup more successful attendance-wise than it was in the US (Stadiums mostly empty outside of US-Mex matches), will this give Canada's bid an edge for 2026?

4-Without a Canadian Gold Cup, will a Canadian bid be consider on par as a US bid (arguably deflated by low attendance) if the stadium criteria and logistics are met on both bids?

5-Do you believe that Canada being the only country to never have a World Cup gives it an edge?

6-More comments?

 

Edited by Ansem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...