Jump to content

2026 WC Bid?


munseahawk

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
7 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Should have just jumped it to 64 teams and no group stage. Works for March Madness.  The early games are some of the most entertaining, and you'd reduce the chances of a fixed match (since every game matters).

I was going to suggest the same thing ... facetiously :D.  Part of the enjoyment of the World Cup for the fans of the underdogs is to see them tested over 3 matches against better sides.  To me 3 guaranteed matches seems about right.  Seeing this reduced to 2 seems like rushing the lower ranked teams off the stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kibby said:

Didn't we legitimately qualify for the 24 team world cup in 86?

Yes.  @theaub means 2022 will be last chance to qualify under the present "legitimate" system before FIFA's new format is put in place.  Even 2022 is going to feel weird with WC in the northern hemisphere's autumn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ray said:

I was going to suggest the same thing ... facetiously :D.  Part of the enjoyment of the World Cup for the fans of the underdogs is to see them tested over 3 matches against better sides.  To me 3 guaranteed matches seems about right.  Seeing this reduced to 2 seems like rushing the lower ranked teams off the stage.

I dislike two games for a group stage.  It just seems kind of pointless.  But March Madness round one and two are some of the most viewed games on the sporting calendar and there are upsets every year. There's no ties, which makes every game more important. And while 32 teams might only get one game out of a tournament, that's 1 more game than a lot of those countries get right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just a touch too young to have watched Canada at the World Cup in 1986, but to me the legacy of that tournament is bitter sweet, because of the 0 points and 0 goals. Reducing the minimum games from 3 to 2 will give more people that bitter sweet feeling of going 0-2 and going home. But that being said, I guess the argument for expansion would be that you still have 32 teams getting 3 games or more, plus 16 more teams get 2 games.

I still don't like it. I've got 9 years to come to terms with it I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Post-Trump World Cup chatter. Seems like Mexico could leave the bid and US/CONCACAF hosting is no longer a 100% lock

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/sports/trump-refugee-ban.html?_r=0

The United States is expected to bid to host the world’s other major sporting event, the World Cup, in 2026. In June, Sunil Gulati, president of the United States Soccer Federation, told reporters that a Trump presidency could complicate an American bid, especially if it were a joint bid with Mexico, given Mr. Trump’s plans to build a wall across America’s southern border.

“I think a co-hosted World Cup with Mexico would be trickier if Secretary Clinton isn’t in the White House,” Mr. Gulati said at the time, in a reference to Hillary Clinton, who lost the election to Mr. Trump.

After Mr. Trump won the election, Mr. Gulati modified his remarks, saying, “It’s not going to dissuade us or persuade us to bid.” International perceptions of the Trump administration “matter, for sure,” Mr. Gulati said, “but I think those will be developed in the months to come.”

U.S. Soccer said Saturday it would have no immediate comment as it examined Mr. Trump’s order.

 

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2017/01/27/usmnt-bruce-arena-donald-trump-world-cup-2026-mls-alexis-arsenal-liverpool

Does Trump make it more or less likely that the U.S. gets the 2026 World Cup? @jakehirsch77

There’s no way of knowing for sure right now. He definitely doesn’t make it more likely, and while I’d say “slightly less likely,” I still think the U.S. is the favorite. A lot can and will change in U.S. politics between now and 2020 (when the 2026 host is set to be decided). But after the U.S. failed to land the 2016 Olympics and 2022 World Cup with President Obama’s support, I no longer think the U.S. president matters that much in these decisions.

I do think the U.S. is less likely to propose a co-hosted World Cup with Mexico now that Trump is in charge. And I’m curious to see if FIFA changes its tune on demanding concessions from host country governments in return for hosting World Cups. If you haven’t noticed, it’s going to be harder to get visas to visit the U.S. under the new administration if you’re from certain countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how a country that has banned others from entering can host an international event.  There's a real possibility that Iran would qualify.  What then?  Allow the team but no fans?  Tell the rest of the world that this event celebrating soccer over the globe isn't actually about ability and fairness?  I can't see FIFA allowing such a tournament.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could still bid on or own but I almost hope we don't. This country doesn't really need any large stadiums except for Calgary and maaaaaaybeeee Quebec city (maybe). In a joint bid we could spend or money more wisely on training centres. 

Is there any way we can joint bid with Mexico as a big F.U. to the US?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, rkomar said:

I don't see how a country that has banned others from entering can host an international event.  There's a real possibility that Iran would qualify.  What then?  Allow the team but no fans?  Tell the rest of the world that this event celebrating soccer over the globe isn't actually about ability and fairness?  I can't see FIFA allowing such a tournament.

$$$$$$$$$$$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Alex D said:

We could still bid on or own but I almost hope we don't. This country doesn't really need any large stadiums except for Calgary and maaaaaaybeeee Quebec city (maybe). In a joint bid we could spend or money more wisely on training centres. 

Is there any way we can joint bid with Mexico as a big F.U. to the US?

I agree. There's so many better things to spend money on

An investment to update existing stadia and even build a couple new ones where needed? I can get behind that as a taxpayer. The infrastructure to single handedly host an expanded WC? No way 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Complete Homer said:

I agree. There's so many better things to spend money on

An investment to update existing stadia and even build a couple new ones where needed? I can get behind that as a taxpayer. The infrastructure to single handedly host an expanded WC? No way 

Where most major events hosts spend/waste money is in building stadiums and facilities that are not needed outside of the event. Most of the infrastructure improvements are beneficial after the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Grizzly said:

Where most major events hosts spend/waste money is in building stadiums and facilities that are not needed outside of the event. Most of the infrastructure improvements are beneficial after the event.

Why I prefer to co-host. We can have our cake and eat it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as the footy fan in me would love a Canada-hosted WC bid, I just don't think a solo bid makes any kind of financial sense.  We don't need that scale of stadia post-WC, and I don't think there is enough federal money floating around to write the cheque anyway.

I think Trump's latest bleats damage their chance to host, even if the money would still flow.  I know that FIFA can be bafflingly hypocritical, but it seems even beyond FIFA's capacity for delusion to award the WC to the US under Trump given its global footprint and explicit campaign to end racism.  It would be the final nail in the coffin for credibility, in those small pockets of people who actually still think it has some shred of it left.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

As much as the footy fan in me would love a Canada-hosted WC bid, I just don't think a solo bid makes any kind of financial sense.  We don't need that scale of stadia post-WC, and I don't think there is enough federal money floating around to write the cheque anyway.

I think Trump's latest bleats damage their chance to host, even if the money would still flow.  I know that FIFA can be bafflingly hypocritical, but it seems even beyond FIFA's capacity for delusion to award the WC to the US under Trump given its global footprint and explicit campaign to end racism.  It would be the final nail in the coffin for credibility, in those small pockets of people who actually still think it has some shred of it left.   

The CSA did say we had enough infrastructure to control the costs. As for funding, it would most likely come from all level of governments as this is the biggest event on the planet and that's usually what happens for Olympic games. As for money being available, there's $186B being spent on infrastructure in the next 10 years, so if an event like the world cup justifies the investment, they get on board. For 1 month, the world only talks about Canada. Also, with all those fans coming here and spending here, governments gets most of their money back in taxes of every forms.

FIFA said that even with the extended WC, 12 stadiums is enough. So we need to retrofit, reconfigure, expand most of the stadiums and put natural grass. Minimum seating is 40k and for semi-finals I think you need 60k. Grand finale would be 80k. That leaves us with this:

Today

  1. Olympic Stadium, 61k seats but in the 1976 Summer games it seated over 70k for a soccer game. Could be done again through reconfiguration. They would need to get rid of the roof, modernize it and put natural grass. Could potentially be the stadium being used for the final game if no 80k seat stadiums gets built elsewhere...Otherwise it's a semi-final venue
  2. Commonwealth Stadium, 56k but easily upgradable to more seats by closing the gaps. Fitting for semi-finals
  3. BC Place, 54K seats, needs natural grass. Quarter finals I'd say
  4. Rogers Centre. Close to 50k for soccer. Needs natural grass. Quarter Final Venue
  5. McMahon Stadium, Expandable to 46k, needs natural grass and modernization
  6. Investors Group Field, Expandable to 40k, needs natural grass
  7. Mosaic Stadium, Expandable to 40k, needs natural grass
  8. BMO Field, Expandable to 40k
  9. TD Stadium, Expandable to 40k, needs natural grass
  10. Tim Hortons Field, Expandable to 40k, needs natural grass

So you already have 10 Stadiums out of 12 meeting FIFA Requirements. You're missing 2 more and ideally a 80k stadiums

Planned

  1. Calgary new Stadium
  2. Whitecaps might pursue their Waterfront stadium project

If the 2 above happens, you get 12 stadiums right there.

Potential Venues

  1. Halifax (If a permanent venue is pursued, could be build to 40k seats with downgrading it afterwards being in the plans. Was done in Brazil)
  2. Quebec City (If they get a CPL team, a SSS could be in the cards)
  3. Toronto 80k Stadium (If Olympic Stadium can't work, this would be needed. Could be part of a 2028 Toronto bid as it's not looking good for LA2024 or NFL perhaps...)

It's in our best interest for Olympic Stadium being allowed as the final venue and be reconfigured to the 70k+ seats like 1976. As you can see, it's totally doable for Canada.

I would add that logistic wise, we make more sense too. An eastern cloister (Quebec-Hamilton Corridor)+Halifax and Western Cloister (Vancouver-Calgary-Edmonton) with the prairies getting group stage matches is better than the US being all over the map.

Start believing in it. At this rate, Trump is already poisoning the LA2024 bid and WC2026 will be affected too. If they keep being this toxic, the CSA might go solo as you can forget about Mexico doing a co-bid now. Canada solo could very well beat the US

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TD Place and Tim Horton's Field were designed to be expanded to 40,000 seats by adding end zone seats at both ends of the stadium.

From an infrastructure perspective it's about finding the right place for an 80,000 seater and deciding which lucky cities gets the 40,000 seat stadium.

I think the best option is to build some kind of 80,000 seat stadium in Calgary that can be disassembled down to 40,000 seats after the World Cup is over. At least it would provide a good permanent tenant.  McMahon Stadium is too old to host a major event now.

Then there would be 2 40,000 seat stadiums required (since Calgary would get a stadium and McMahon is out).  I would suggest that 2 of Quebec City, Halifax or London would get those stadiums.  They can be Tim Horton's Field style stadiums that have permanent 20,000-25,000 seats with end zone seating to get to 40,000 seats for the World Cup.  The new stadiums could then be used by CPL teams and CFL teams potentially.

So my list of 12 stadiums would be:

1.  Final - New Stadium- Calgary

2.  Semi Final - Olympic Stadium - Montreal

3.  Semi Final - Commonwealth Stadium- Edmonton

4.  Rogers Center - Toronto

5.  BC Place - Vancouver

6.  TD Place - Ottawa

7.  Investor Group Field - Winnipeg

8.  Tim Horton's Field - Hamilton

9.  Mosaic Stadium - Regina

10. BMO Field - Toronto

11.  New Stadium - Halifax

12.  New Stadium - Quebec City/ London

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...