2026 WC Bid?

[dyslexic nam]

Apparently Russia is increasing their spending for 2018:

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/russia-increases-2018-world-cup-budget-by-325-million-1.3272559

Another $325M brings the new total to $10.8B - and it is an AP article, so that is  USD.  Roughly $14B CAD.

[MtlMario]

On the half time show of the women"s Can/Mex game the interview with Pres Mont it sounded like a joint bid was more likely to happen than a solo bid as I understood.We'll see.

[Ansem]

7 minutes ago, MtlMario said:

On the half time show of the women"s Can/Mex game the interview with Pres Mont it sounded like a joint bid was more likely to happen than a solo bid as I understood.We'll see.

It's the right thing to say right now, until the US side becomes too toxic to be associated with...

[MtlMario]

I'd love to see a solo (winning) bid.

[Guest]

If we decide to have a joint bid with the USA and their immigration policy is still going on were are just screwing ourselves over. Also if we do a joint bid it better not be a 10/2 split

[Ansem]

12 minutes ago, canta15 said:

If we decide to have a joint bid with the USA and their immigration policy is still going on were are just screwing ourselves over. Also if we do a joint bid it better not be a 10/2 split

There's no sign of Trump letting go of the immigration ban as he's criticizing the judges refusing to uphold it and firing staff over it. He's adamant on finding a way to get his way.

I had read an article where they did highlighted how political organizations like FIFA and the IOC truly were. This is where smaller nations can band together and have more weight than the more powerful western world nations. Americans might be in denial about their world popularity but Chicago getting kicked out of 2016 right of the bat and Russia+Qatar was a big "F-U" to them. All I'm saying is that, politics is a very real factor here and Trump is making it pretty much impossible for LA to win 2024 while seriously complicating a USSF bid. At this point, USSF might be relying on us to facilitate them hosting. We all know they can host on their own, yet, this co-bid scenario came from them. They need us more at this point.

We can't associate ourselves with a country who plans on banning people from a countries based on religion or race. There's no way that the IOC or FIFA would like to deal with a nation with an unstable leader such as Trump who can pull decrees out of thin air. It's unstable and it make those kind of events, very risky. We might be waiting until the last minute to decide if it's joint or solo in case Trump calms down or continues to do worse. It's too soon to decide, might as well wait and see. I'm sure Montagliani, being in that inner circle, is asking constantly what FIFA thinks about American political atmosphere.

Knowing the Americans, no way the matches would be evenly split and no way they would let Canada host the final. There will never be a better opportunity to win a solo bid for Canada than 2026 with Trump facilitating that. If a co-bid gets toxic, we must go solo.

[Diamondium]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-soccer-fifa-infantino-idUSKBN15V180?

Sounds like FIFA is on board with the potential idea of the co-host.

Solo Canada bid would be cool and theoretically possible, but I think our best bet is still the co-host option, despite the uncertainty with Trump's presidency.

Having said that, I wouldn't be complaining too much if Trump's presidency did alienate Mexico to the point that the bid is just USA/Canada. 

[ted]

1 minute ago, Diamondium said:

Solo Canada bid would be cool and theoretically possible, but I think our best bet is still the co-host option, despite the uncertainty with Trump's presidency.

And I still don't see why the US would even consider co-hosting with us nor why having the pariah of the free world as a partner strengthens our bid?

The US has no need for us on a logistical basis and while we are reasonably well-thought-of, our charm does not make up for the nightmare Orangutan in the room politically.

[Diamondium]

31 minutes ago, ted said:

And I still don't see why the US would even consider co-hosting with us nor why having the pariah of the free world as a partner strengthens our bid?

The US has no need for us on a logistical basis and while we are reasonably well-thought-of, our charm does not make up for the nightmare Orangutan in the room politically.

With a co-host, everyone benefits simply from risk mitigation, whether it is us mitigating financial risks, or USA mitigating optics risks. Plus, there is a canibalization effect with all 3 countries splitting any 'North American Friendly' vote which could mean that all 3 could lose with individual bids to a different nation. 

Canada could expand and build stadiums to get to barely scraping by to the minimum requirements for a bid at a fairly significant cost that Canada may not be willing to pay. But if USA/Mexico/Whoever bid against us, they surely get priority due to the larger consumer markets and being more established soccer nations. With a joint bid, we don't have to break the bank to get up to standards, still gain significant national interest in the sport, and don't have to worry about other bids as a North America bid is pretty much a sure thing. Pretty much a situation of us not biting off more than we can chew.

USA gains the ability to be almost a sure bet instead of just one of the top contenders. Without co-operation, they're a strong bid, but with limits in political uncertainty and lack of support from the voters due to their bad optics worldwide. With co-operation, they have full support from CONCACAF, don't risk CAN/MEX bids pulling the rug out from under them, and still likely get to be the 'primary' host getting 50%+ of the matches and the final.

Mexico's situation is a bit of both. They're a bit of a wild-card in all of this.

Together, nobody spends much of anything really and everyone still significantly benefits, and FIFA get's some much needed good publicity from having a 'responsible' world cup after the previous disasters. Apart, each country could benefit a bit more but has far higher risks involved.

[Ansem]

Mexico: It will be hard to convince the Mexican to not host an equal amount of matches as the other partners. They have nice SSS has well and the Azteca is the biggest on the continent. Mexican will make the case that the biggest stadium and most soccer related legendary stadium in CONCACAF should hold the finals. With Trump doubling down on his anti-Mexico remarks, does the population even want to do anything with the US? If anything, Canada being part of the coalition could be the only reason they would stomach it.

USA: They can't fight their nature, they will ask at least 50%+ matches and the finals. If Clinton won the election, we wouldn't be talking co-bidding. But with Trump, they actually needs us much more they are letting on. It's going to be their 250th anniversary and they really want the event but are fully aware of the damage Trump is/will continue to inflict on their bid. I think something will have to give. They might split the games evenly but they will fight for hosting the finals.

Canada: In a 1 one 1 bid in conjuncture with the toxicity of the US overall atmosphere, Canada has the edge. We're new, untapped, safe, drama/scandal free and liked all over the world. Canada has a case to be the host of the finals as the US and Mexico already hosted it. This is a unique situation (due to Trump and worldwide US Fatigue aka RIP LA2024) where Canada has way more leverage than it would normally have. Canada showing some balls and going solo would be an enormous blow to the US. We might be the only reason why Mexico would put their names in this coalition. I think we will definitely want equal numbers of match, but the US might pull a fast one and dump on us the less interesting groups and knockoff matches.

I think we are the wild card. Montagliani tenure at the CSA showed a very "Canadian nationalistic approach" that was equally surprising and much welcome. I think a decision will be a very last minute one as it's very likely that Trump will do worse as time goes by. If something horrible/toxic happens in the US (Starting a war "a la Bush" based on lies and ideology instead of facts, more bans & decrees based on discrimination), expect the solo bid. I'd rather co-bid with Mexico alone than the US

[Diamondium]

5 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Mexico: It will be hard to convince the Mexican to not host an equal amount of matches as the other partners. They have nice SSS has well and the Azteca is the biggest on the continent. Mexican will make the case that the biggest stadium and most soccer related legendary stadium in CONCACAF should hold the finals. With Trump doubling down on his anti-Mexico remarks, does the population even want to do anything with the US? If anything, Canada being part of the coalition could be the only reason they would stomach it.

USA: They can't fight their nature, they will ask at least 50%+ matches and the finals. If Clinton won the election, we wouldn't be talking co-bidding. But with Trump, they actually needs us much more they are letting on. It's going to be their 250th anniversary and they really want the event but are fully aware of the damage Trump is/will continue to inflict on their bid. I think something will have to give. They might split the games evenly but they will fight for hosting the finals.

Canada: In a 1 one 1 bid in conjuncture with the toxicity of the US overall atmosphere, Canada has the edge. We're new, untapped, safe, drama/scandal free and liked all over the world. Canada has a case to be the host of the finals as the US and Mexico already hosted it. This is a unique situation (due to Trump and worldwide US Fatigue aka RIP LA2024) where Canada has way more leverage than it would normally have. Canada showing some balls and going solo would be an enormous blow to the US. We might be the only reason why Mexico would put their names in this coalition. I think we will definitely want equal numbers of match, but the US might pull a fast one and dump on us the less interesting groups and knockoff matches.

I think we are the wild card. Montagliani tenure at the CSA showed a very "Canadian nationalistic approach" that was equally surprising and much welcome. I think a decision will be a very last minute one as it's very likely that Trump will do worse as time goes by. If something horrible/toxic happens in the US (Starting a war "a la Bush" based on lies and ideology instead of facts, more bans & decrees based on discrimination), expect the solo bid. I'd rather co-bid with Mexico alone than the US

You've got some strong points here, and the Montagliani factor is definitely one I wasn't factoring, and could indeed be a big swing in Canada's favor.

I'll agree that it will likely very much depend on how USA plays the next year or so politically, and I myself would absolutely welcome a Canada solo bid provided Canada is committed to the idea and it's feasable. Canada/Mexico would be interesting for sure, but FIFA seems be favoring geographical proximity for the nations if a co-host situation is involved, and that might be a bit much for them to stomach.

[ted]

42 minutes ago, Diamondium said:

With a co-host, everyone benefits simply from risk mitigation, whether it is us mitigating financial risks, or USA mitigating optics risks. Plus, there is a canibalization effect with all 3 countries splitting any 'North American Friendly' vote which could mean that all 3 could lose with individual bids to a different nation.

Now you are dreaming.

Canada provides an insignificant amount to "risk mitigation" to the behemoth that is the United States of America. Our economy, our population are both dwarfed by the US. They could hold two or three simultaneous World-Cup-Scale events. They have no need for the two or three stadiums we would likely provide to a joint bid.

As for vote-splitting, I think you are seriously over-estimating the popularity of the US. Here is how the vote goes in a head to head: greedy bastards with $$$ in their eyes vote for the US, romantics vote for Canada, revolutionary latin nations vote for Mexico.

Realistically the only way we win the bid is if the US doesn't try or the day the vote is held Trump's Empire invades somebody.

[Diamondium]

2 hours ago, ted said:

Now you are dreaming.

Canada provides an insignificant amount to "risk mitigation" to the behemoth that is the United States of America. Our economy, our population are both dwarfed by the US. They could hold two or three simultaneous World-Cup-Scale events. They have no need for the two or three stadiums we would likely provide to a joint bid.

As for vote-splitting, I think you are seriously over-estimating the popularity of the US. Here is how the vote goes in a head to head: greedy bastards with $$$ in their eyes vote for the US, romantics vote for Canada, revolutionary latin nations vote for Mexico.

Realistically the only way we win the bid is if the US doesn't try or the day the vote is held Trump's Empire invades somebody.

I agreed with you that USA doesn't benefit from the logistics, so I'm not sure why you mentioned all that part. The logistical benefit comes to us, and you just mentioned that USA is not very popular, so that is where they stand to gain with the co-bid. USA obviously doesn't benefit from our financial or stadium contributions, they benefit from using our positive reputation to mask the fact that people simply don't like USA very much, especially right now.

Regarding the vote splitting, I think it is a bigger factor than you are suggesting there. If those 3 are the demographics, then yeah, the greedy bastards are likely 80%+ of the North America-friendly vote (arbitrary numbers, but just bear with me) and will all go to USA. But if, for example, a strong competitor like a UK co-bid were made, USA might feel the need to improve it's optics and get that last 20% of the NA-friendly vote by going the co-bid route. The optics effect is not 'insignificant' given the unique political situations for both the USA and FIFA right now. 

[Ansem]

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/trudeau-says-eu-is-essential-for-world/ar-AAn091C?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp

• Trump's ambassador designate to the EU, Ted Malloch, told the Associated Press earlier this week that the EU's "blatant anti-Americanism" is "problematic."

Even European votes are no guarantee for the USA, for those thinking politics has nothing to do with FIFA, think again!

[ted]

2 hours ago, Diamondium said:

I agreed with you that USA doesn't benefit from the logistics, so I'm not sure why you mentioned all that part.

I mentioned it because that is all I have been talking about: US lack of interest in a joint bid. 

[Diamondium]

6 minutes ago, ted said:

I mentioned it because that is all I have been talking about: US lack of interest in a joint bid. 

Yes, but the point I'm getting at is that they would in fact have interest apart from the pure financial logistics of the hosting itself. USA has interest because they have the need for a reputation/optics boost to win it in the first place. Sure, they have the power to handle it and host it no problem, but if they can't get the votes from the committee, none of that matters.

That is why a bid with Canada is realistic from their perspective, not because of the financials.

[Ansem]

16 minutes ago, Diamondium said:

Yes, but the point I'm getting at is that they would in fact have interest apart from the pure financial logistics of the hosting itself. USA has interest because they have the need for a reputation/optics boost to win it in the first place. Sure, they have the power to handle it and host it no problem, but if they can't get the votes from the committee, none of that matters.

That is why a bid with Canada is realistic from their perspective, not because of the financials.

So they need us more than we need them? Let's dump them

[matty]

My bet

either

Mexico gets the Opener and a semi
Canada gets a semi and the 3rd place match
USA gets final
Games will be split pretty evenly

or

US/Canada split
Canada get's opener and third place game
US gets final

Also Mexico doesn't have the largest stadium and that will be a factor in the US getting the final.

Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Edmonton each get games and if it's a two nation bid add Winnipeg and Regina. Toronto gets a new stadium and Edmonton and Montreal get massive upgrades

[theaub]

Mexico won't host, but even if they did there's no way they 'demand' the final.  I mean they are historically the biggest soccer country in the region and they give pretty much zero shits that they don't ever host the continental tournament.  They understand where the money is.

Assuming there's 16 groups, I see a 12/4 split between US/Canada, with Canada also getting 4x R32/2x R16/1x QF, with it being in the three MLS cities and Edmonton.

I also agree with ted and don't really see why the US benefits from aligning with us in the first place, but it does seem like there's already been some legwork done in that regard so I'll believe it.  

[matty]

For everyone questioning why the US would want us to be with them. From what I've been told by a few MLS writers, a US lacks a great deal of support from AFC, UEFA and the Caribbean nations, that Canada apparently has, and possible bid from Morocco could easily gain from separate North American bids.

[Rheo]

And here we go http://wapo.st/2kWnmsh

[red card]

Best comment about the WaPo article

It's the only way Canada is likely to get in, those sneaky devils

[Ansem]

U.S. travel ban would hurt 2026 World Cup bid - UEFA chief

http://www.espnfc.com/blog/uefa/258/post/3070217/us-travel-ban-would-hurt-2026-world-cup-bid-uefa-chief
 

Ceferin told The New York Times that immigration restrictions would be among the areas considered during the evaluation of a United States bid.

Trump imposed a temporary U.S. travel ban last month for citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, although it has since been blocked from being carried out by a federal court ruling.

"It will be part of the evaluation, and I am sure it will not help the United States to get the World Cup," Ceferin said. "If players cannot come because of political decisions, or populist decisions, then the World Cup cannot be played there. It is true for the United States, but also for all the other countries that would like to organise a World Cup.

"It is the same for the fans, and the journalists, of course. It is the World Cup. They should be able to attend the event, whatever their nationality is. But let's hope that it does not happen."

FIFA's target is May 2020 to choose the 2026 host, though that could change during meetings being held in Bahrain in May.

[Ansem]

I know Trump is looking to reintroduce the a reviewed version of the "travel ban". If there's any sign that the United States won't let go of that policy, the CSA needs to bid alone. The head of UEFA saying that it will hurt a USA bid if they insist on that ban is huge and we don't have to be associated with that.

I like our chances to go at it solo

[Macksam]

On ‎2017‎-‎02‎-‎16 at 9:37 PM, matty said:

For everyone questioning why the US would want us to be with them. From what I've been told by a few MLS writers, a US lacks a great deal of support from AFC, UEFA and the Caribbean nations, that Canada apparently has, and possible bid from Morocco could easily gain from separate North American bids.

Which is why we should do it on our own.