Jump to content

2026 WC Bid?


munseahawk
 Share

Recommended Posts

I certainly don't doubt they would fill them up. But I do wonder if the Comnebol countries build a little distaste for supporting a US bid after they were likely promised the world for hosting this thing, and right now it's really not doing as well as people hoped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

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?

 

I think it has to be pointed out that Copa America is still projected to be the highest attended ever. Nobody else was trying to fill multiple 90k stadiums 

 

I think the low ticket sales is a knock against the American (or American/Mexican) bid, but not a monumental one. They can recover. I think it will ultimately come down to if the new FIFA puts more weight in a more profitable (likely) bid with two countries than the spread-the-game camp (and anti-american blocs) can match

Edited by Complete Homer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

I bet COMNEBOL regrets not organizing this in Mexico or anywhere else in South America.

copa.0.0.jpg

Given the ticket prices in US$, they'll be more happy with the revenue generated at 15-30k in the US for the lesser matches vs 50k in Mexico. And we are seeing them generate the easy money for the big matches with 50k+ so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also let's be honest, this Copa was a poorly organized, last second tournament that at the end of the day means nothing.

A World Cup? Or even a Copa that is established to be the meaningful tournament of the Americas with Confederation Cup qualification etc?  That will be far better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last night USA vs Costa Rica didn't even sell out.

also...

U.S. Soccer president: Donald Trump could hurt USA's chances for World Cup in 2026

Donald Trump’s bid for the presidency could prevent the United States from hosting the 2026 FIFA World Cup , U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati said on Tuesday.

The USA is expected to campaign to host the tournament for the second time and is seen as a strong contender, but Gulati indicated Trump’s international reputation could affect both his federation’s decision to run – and their chances of success if they do.

“We are going to bid for a World Cup if we think we can be successful,” Gulati told USA TODAY Sports at a media briefing. “Being successful in a World Cup bid or an Olympic bid for Los Angeles (in 2024) is affected by the world’s view of our leaders  – not just leaders of the soccer federation.”

Gulati spearheaded bids to stage the World Cup in 2018 and 2022, but was beaten out by controversial campaigns from Russia and Qatar that have come under scrutiny amid allegations of corruption.

The country has hosted once before, in 1994, a tournament that set attendance and profitability records. However, soccer politics is a tricky, convoluted and intricate business, and is contingent on factors that stretch far beyond the obvious things such as interest in the sport, suitable venues, travel infrastructure and so on.

“I think the world’s perception of the U.S. is affected by who is in the White House,” Gulati added. “So it has some bearing.

“I think having somebody in the White House that gives the country an outward-looking view and a personality that is more easily accepted around the world is positive for (America) and then more specifically for hosting events here – and for our general image from a sports perspective.”

Canada and Mexico are both considered legitimate challengers with the World Cup not having been held in the CONCACAF confederation since 1994. A two-nation event, split between the USA and Mexico, has also been mooted. Every other confederation within the FIFA family, with the exception of Oceania which does not have any suitable host nations, has held the event since then.

Trump’s run for the White House was initially given little chance of success but has picked up speed dramatically, as it has seen him secure the Republican nomination and move into a head-to-head with Hilary Clinton for the presidency.

The business mogul’s comments about immigration and relationship with Mexico have not been well received internationally.

“I think a co-hosted World Cup with Mexico here would be a little tricky if Secretary Clinton was not in the White House,” Gulati said.

 

Just quoting Gulati who points out that soccer politics is about more than just the obvious such as revenue, venues etc... It's complex politics.

From a political point of view, Canada is very strong. FIFA could permanently be a players in this country who's all about hockey and 2026 is an opportunity for them to show the world that FIFA has changed and will be ethical. Canada is a very attractive choice in that regard and I'm sure those are points that Vic will point out as much as he can as a FIFA Vice-President.

Edited by Ansem
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ansem said:

Last night USA vs Costa Rica didn't even sell out.

 

No surprise since US isn't the home team. Copa is in the US for US$ coming from Mexican fans along with Argentina, Brasil, Colombia & Chile. Then it is the US. And attendance for USMNT has been slipping recently. Pre Copa warm ups got CMNT like attendance numbers from 10 years ago. 

Univision also paid US$60 million vs only US$15 million by Fox.

Ticket prices are also high because it is only the Copa revenue generated that goes to USSoccer while they are shouldering all the match day operating expenses. Apparently, USSoccer needs to average 35k for them to break even.

Stadiums were also selected before the draw which is why 60k stadiums are being used for even the lesser match ups. Dynamic pricing is being used but only in one direction: upwards.

Edited by red card
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Attendance for USMT home games peaked in 2011 at over 40k per game...of course that was a Gold Cup Year with the final being at "home" vs. Mexico at the Rose Bowl....it dropped after that but had slowly risen every year after

 

http://www.ussoccer.com/mens-national-team/records/mnt-attendance-by-year

yes the friendlies leading up to the Copa were pretty ugly

 

vs. Iceland 8,803

vs. Canada 9,274

vs. Guatemala (WCQ) 20,624

vs. Ecuador 9,893

vs. Bolivia 8,894

Copa attendance has been OK...I am sure losing to Colombia hurt the Costa Rica crowd and it was a weeknight etc...I bet the crowd vs. Paraguay will be decent since they drilled the Ticos and its a Saturday night...man haven't seen the Ticos look that bad in a LONG time

vs. Colombia 67,439

vs. Costa Rica 39,642

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember someone saying the Copa attendance has been poor compared the last one. Even this year's lowest turn out of 14 000 is still a lot more than some games in 2015 where they got only 5000 in attendance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2017/01/09/fifa-winning-campaign-48-team-world-cup/

FIFA set to approve 48-team World Cup worth more money but worse soccer

  • expand the 2026 World Cup to 48 nations, playing in 16 groups of three teams
  • The prize of 16 extra places, and the biggest increases to Africa and Asia
  • The research document predicted the equivalent of $6.5 billion revenue from a 48-team tournament in the ”16×3” format, which would send two teams from each group to a new Round of 32 knockout bracket
  • All 80 matches would play in an exclusive time slot. Currently, 64 World Cup matches have 56 broadcast slots because the eight four-team groups play their last matches simultaneously
  • FIFA predicts organizing costs for ”16×3” rising from $2 billion to $2.3 billion, giving a potential profit rise of $640 million
  • Though a ”16×3” World Cup would still need a maximum of 12 stadiums, the demand for 16 more top-quality training camps and hotels suggests FIFA would look for 2026 hosts with existing capacity
  • A North American bid from two or three of the United States, Canada and Mexico is currently favored in a contest that could start within weeks
  • Africa and Asia could be the big winners, and FIFA hopes new teams would include another Iceland, Wales and Costa Rica – over-achieving teams and feel-good stories at recent tournaments
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Ansem said:

 

  • Though a ”16×3” World Cup would still need a maximum of 12 stadiums, the demand for 16 more top-quality training camps and hotels suggests FIFA would look for 2026 hosts with existing capacity

This point feels like a typo to me lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 groups of 3 teams. Again FIFA hasn't changed a bit. Just a bunch of greedy men in suits not really caring for what's really good for the game and the reputation of this tournament. The funny thing is they argue that this is what they're doing, making the game more accessible to more countries and thus developing the sport. Cmon! You've got to be kidding me! And who will these extra 16! teams be??? And really you think people will pay your retarded ticket prices just to see minnows? And really 16 groups so I gather the top team from each group progress. So you're basically cutting the potential of your country playing 3 games down to 2.

6 games a day equaling so three groups a day wouldn't make good tv money to cram it all in so possibly 4 games a day meaning 2 groups per day play. 16 days for opening round. Then the final 16 so 4 days of 2 games per day? Then quarters which will be 1 game in 4 days? Semis 1 game for 2 days? Third place and final 2 days. So potentially 28 days without no off days so talking a little over a month. 

Again who will be the extra teams and also the seeding? So if you separate the best from playing each other it will just be a domination and the powerhouses will make it to the final 16. 

The German Federation has a point saying this new system would not help develop the game and would make it less fair then fair for smaller lower seeded teams. But overall it's a bloody money grab and is sickening. What a disaster to the current system. Now you'll have countries just showing up for two matches and potential for weird tying results. Are we going to flip a coin a la Canada 2000???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ansem said:
  • The prize of 16 extra places, and the biggest increases to Africa and Asia
 

hmmmm I wonder why they are giving those 2 the most spots.

Also, I was all for expanding until they said that there would be a round of 32. Way to ruin the group stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.thestar.com/sports/soccer/2017/01/09/canada-could-be-a-winner-in-world-cup-expansion-feschuk.html

“If it does go to six, we should be shouting from the treetops that we’re going to be one of those six. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t be,” said Bob Lenarduzzi, a member of Canada’s 1986 World Cup team who currently serves as president of the Vancouver Whitecaps.

He's right. Despite how shit everything usually goes Canada in its current form is one of 8 or 9 countries in the region that should be viewed as a World Cup contender if there's 6 or 6.5 slots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know folks are crapping on the change, but I do see some positives for us (Jesus I have been optimistic on here lately).  I know they are obvious, but I don't think we should overlook them in assessing the announcement.

- We will be far more likely to make the big show - or at least the preliminary round of the big show - under the new format.  In turn, maybe the CSA can secure more funds to help backroll a few more friendlies and camps that may move us from also-rans all the way up to "holy shit, Canada just got brutalized by Germany at the World Cup", and wouldn't that be something...?

- In the context of the 3784 page thread on CPL, I can't help but think that the need for more infrastructure to accommodate an expanded tournament will help us in a hope of co-hosting the WC - especially since we seem to be pegged as potential co-frontrunners.  Whether or not this results in stadia upgrades for CPL (or we just use the big 3), it will increase the buzz around the sport at a crucial time and help mobilize public support. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dyslexic nam said:

I know folks are crapping on the change, but I do see some positives for us (Jesus I have been optimistic on here lately).  I know they are obvious, but I don't think we should overlook them in assessing the announcement.

- We will be far more likely to make the big show - or at least the preliminary round of the big show - under the new format.  In turn, maybe the CSA can secure more funds to help backroll a few more friendlies and camps that may move us from also-rans all the way up to "holy shit, Canada just got brutalized by Germany at the World Cup", and wouldn't that be something...?

- In the context of the 3784 page thread on CPL, I can't help but think that the need for more infrastructure to accommodate an expanded tournament will help us in a hope of co-hosting the WC - especially since we seem to be pegged as potential co-frontrunners.  Whether or not this results in stadia upgrades for CPL (or we just use the big 3), it will increase the buzz around the sport at a crucial time and help mobilize public support. 

 

truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Africa is under represented would imagine they'd get a nice bump in # of teams....S America already qualifies 1/2 the confederation I do think their 6 and 7 teams could be competitive in most years as well...but Asia, N America and Oceania extra teams could make for some non-competitive matches

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...