2026 WC Bid?

[harrycoyster]

 

3 hours ago, Ansem said:

Don't know what your play is but until Infantino changed the tournament to a 48 teams WC, the CSA was set to bid solo. Also, when he threatened MLS of de-sanctioning them in Canada if the status of domestic players wasn't improved for Canadians, he showed more balls than any Canadians in authority in recent history since what... 

Chretien calling Bush a moron and refusing to go to Iraq? Martin saying no to the Missile shield thing? Pierre-Elliot Trudeau showing the middle finger to Nixon and starting a bromance with Castro? 

It was quite refreshing to see. 

Going back on topic, Montagliani was wearing the CONCACAF president hat when the united bid came forward. That Infantino change to the World Cup threw a wrench in Canada's plan and although the US need it's neibhours to get the world cup, Canada and Mexico had little leverage. The US knew that both nations couldn't put forward a 48 team bid in such a short time.

Hence, that's why I think a Canadian bid for the next CONCACAF window could challenge a US solo bid easily.

Don't think it's possible until the 2060s come around. The next time NA gets to bid Canada, Mexico, and the US will all bid. I don't see a way in which we wouldn't agree to joint bid again. FIFA's clearly in favour of joint bids, and we don't have the economic power or infrastructure of the US or the storied soccer history of Mexico. FIFA enjoys the trillion dollars it makes off the US too much to not include them in a World Cup every 20 years (now that they can't line their pockets the other way).

[Ansem]

33 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

Don't think it's possible until the 2060s come around.

We were prepared to bid solo for a 32 team for 2026. We have time to meet the requirements for the 2040s

39 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

The next time NA gets to bid Canada, Mexico, and the US will all bid.

Indeed but Mexico or US getting to host for a third time would be a first by then. Not even France, Brazil or England would have achieved that. Of course, it could happen due to the limited amount of nation in the region capable of hosting such a tournament but by then Canada will have also advanced.

45 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

I don't see a way in which we wouldn't agree to joint bid again.

I doubt the 60-10-10 formula for eternity thrills anyone except the US. Trump was the main reason we're co-bidding in the first place. If the future presidents are "normal", you think the US will even bother proposing to "share"? Forget about it. Mexico and Canada will have to bid otherwise accept that they will never get a piece of that pie.

47 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

FIFA's clearly in favour of joint bids, and we don't have the economic power or infrastructure of the US or the storied soccer history of Mexico.

Good thing that every members of FIFA votes on bids, not just the council. As for economic power, we're the 10th economy on the planet, ahead of Russia and other nations which we have little doubts could host. The increase interest of Canada in soccer is a story on itself, from the emergence of the women teams, having hosted almost every World Cups, a new D1 league, participation being sky high and huge viewership and attendance to World Cups from a nation that don't send a team. Let's not cut ourselves short too quickly.

If we can host Olympic games, we can host a world cup in 20+ years from now.

51 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

FIFA enjoys the trillion dollars it makes off the US too much to not include them in a World Cup every 20 years (now that they can't line their pockets the other way).

If that was true, Qatar wouldn't be hosting...

FIFA makes their money regardless of where the World Cup goes. TV and Marketing rights makes for the overwhelming majority of the revenues. Tickets in Brazil accounted for 10% of the overall revenues. Sure a US World Cup would get them more in tickets revenue but TV & Marketing rights would also increase. That might explain why it isn't always the same nations hosting...

 

Going back to infrastructure, FIFA requirements are as follow:

• Opening Match 80,000
• Remaining Group Stage matches 40,000
• Round of 32 40,000
• Round of 16 40,000
• Quarter-finals 40,000
• Semi-finals 60,000
• Third place play-off 40,000
• Final 80,000

So we need

• 80k Stadium (new) for both opening and finanl games
• At least 2 60 stadiums (We have Olympic Stadium at 61k + 1 new)

The rest could be all 40k stadiums but we have 

• Commonwealth 56k
• BC Place 54k
• Rogers 47k
• McMahon or new Stadium 40+
• Investor's Group - expandable to 40k
• Mosaic - expandable to 40k
• BMO Field - Expendable to 40k
• TD Place Stadium - Expendable to 40k
• Tim Horton's Field - Expendable to 40k

So we have 10. Good thing is that CPL will cause new stadiums to be constructed. (Surrey, Halifax, Saskatoon are on their way) and others could be added. Who knows if those stadiums will need to expend or not 20 years from now but there's nothing unrealistic here. It's possible.

If Canada pass the minimum requirements, we become a serious contender.

[matty]

@Ansem the stadium criteria is likely to change in the next 20 years. Stadiums that would work today very easily could be out of date in 2040 or you could need a half dozen 60k seaters. Now you could be right but try to be less aggressive on these points. I personally think we're highly unlikely to see a Canada solo bid in future for the 48 team tournament (countries like Australia and Argentina are looking at joint bids for 2030) but yea it could happen.

[Ansem]

16 minutes ago, matty said:

@Ansem the stadium criteria is likely to change in the next 20 years. Stadiums that would work today very easily could be out of date in 2040 or you could need a half dozen 60k seaters. Now you could be right but try to be less aggressive on these points. I personally think we're highly unlikely to see a Canada solo bid in future for the 48 team tournament (countries like Australia and Argentina are looking at joint bids for 2030) but yea it could happen.

Why should I be less aggressive? Soccer is on the rise here and I'd like to remind you that we have the 10th economy in the world. It comes down to political will, not lack of resources or incapacity at organizing world events

[matty]

17 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Why should I be less aggressive? Soccer is on the rise here and I'd like to remind you that we have the 10th economy in the world. It comes down to political will, not lack of resources or incapacity at organizing world events

Less aggressive on a point that you know is very much likely to change in the next 20 years makes sense and makes your point easier to digest.

Soccer is on the rise here and yes we are #10 but it's also on the rise in Australia and Australia is #12 (depending who you ask), they mostly have the stadiums already and are exploring a joint bid. There are clearly advantages (economical and political) to these joint bids and honestly it seems to be the way of the future for the World Cup and other large scale sporting events. Again, yes we may go jung-ho about a solo bid but it seems unlikely to happen (and maybe unlikely to win it too. I mean would a Canada solo bid be the clear front-runner against a unified North African bid or a Scandinavian bid or a Southeast Asian bid?).

[MtlMario]

I think hosting the Gold Cup would be a good start.

[Ansem]

58 minutes ago, matty said:

Less aggressive on a point that you know is very much likely to change in the next 20 years makes sense and makes your point easier to digest.

Soccer is on the rise here and yes we are #10 but it's also on the rise in Australia and Australia is #12 (depending who you ask), they mostly have the stadiums already and are exploring a joint bid. There are clearly advantages (economical and political) to these joint bids and honestly it seems to be the way of the future for the World Cup and other large scale sporting events. Again, yes we may go jung-ho about a solo bid but it seems unlikely to happen (and maybe unlikely to win it too. I mean would a Canada solo bid be the clear front-runner against a unified North African bid or a Scandinavian bid or a Southeast Asian bid?).

Again, you're still ignoring that simple fact. The US doesn't need Canada or Mexico for future bids. Expect them to bid every other times on their own.

So what's your solution?

Beg them to give us games? Because we'd be lucky to get 2 or 3 next time, if any.

Or accept that after 2026, that's it?

It's wrong of you to assume that the US will just keep co bid on future CONCACAF. It's naive as we all know why were on this bid this time 

[Ansem]

29 minutes ago, MtlMario said:

I think hosting the Gold Cup would be a good start.

I think that will happen once we get more stadiums via CPL

[matty]

29 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Again, you're still ignoring that simple fact. The US doesn't need Canada or Mexico for future bids. Expect them to bid every other times on their own.

So what's your solution?

Beg them to give us games? Because we'd be lucky to get 2 or 3 next time, if any.

Or accept that after 2026, that's it?

It's wrong of you to assume that the US will just keep co bid on future CONCACAF. It's naive as we all know why were on this bid this time 

No i said the us likely will explore solo bids (don't act like i didn't) and I've said earlier today we might see variants including with the us (who will likely be open to exploring the idea), more concacaf and maybe uk or commonwealth stuff. I don't think canada will never bid again but i don't see it solo as the mostly likely thing to happen (i don't think most would disagree with that view).

Also regarding why co-host now, yes trump and 48 teams were factors but this option was likely floating around well before any of that was known.

59 minutes ago, MtlMario said:

I think hosting the Gold Cup would be a good start.

Fully agree

28 minutes ago, Ansem said:

I think that will happen once we get more stadiums via CPL

I think we could do it now and think the cpl will lead to us hosting soon. CONCACAF wants the CPL to succeed and they'd likely have it in Canada to help boost it. It's also a tournament I could see with a lot of joint hosts in the future as I think they know people find the US always hosting stale, plus I think the US now feels pressure to play more outside of the US (it's all a matter of if someone not called the US wants to foot the bill for it).

[Ansem]

23 minutes ago, matty said:

I've said earlier today we might see variants including with the us (who will likely be open to exploring the idea), more concacaf and maybe uk or commonwealth stuff. I don't think canada will never bid again but i don't see it solo as the mostly likely thing to happen (i don't think most would disagree with that view).

The US will always bid solo after 2026. They can host solo anytime unless you can think of a reason why they would want to share again when they clearly don't need to.

CONCACAF bids outside US/Mex/Can are unlikely to happen

Commonwealth bid? UK could bid but commonwealth would be a logistic nightmare.

 

 

[matty]

2 minutes ago, Ansem said:

The US will always bid solo after 2026. They can host solo anytime unless you can think of a reason why they would want to share again when they clearly don't need to.

CONCACAF bids outside US/Mex/Can are unlikely to happen

Commonwealth bid? UK could bid but commonwealth would be a logistic nightmare.

 

 

I think the US would explore it if say China or a unified African bid were against them . There's real reasons they'd explore it again.

CONCACAF would be more things like Canada, the US or Mexico receiving support from some of the smaller nations that while of note worthy are unlikely to receive a World Cup without a lead host. I could see Canada working say a 3 or 4 Caribbean nations on a bid.

I agree a Commonwealth bid would be a nightmare but I wouldn't deny that sort of crap happening for stupid political reasons. Like an England-Canada-Australia-New Zealand-Pakistan-Ghana thing to show a unified world effort to win a Noble Peace Prize (something FIFA reportedly want). I do think a smaller scale England-Canada thing is more likely to happen.

[Admin]

Gold Cup trial here did not go that well. 

Tickets were overpriced and I don't think they gave a shit about it.  

It could work for sure. 

[Ansem]

35 minutes ago, admin said:

Gold Cup trial here did not go that well. 

Tickets were overpriced and I don't think they gave a shit about it.  

It could work for sure. 

We'd need the full tournament, not just being thrown 1 or 2 games.

[Admin]

3 minutes ago, Ansem said:

We'd need the full tournament, not just being thrown 1 or 2 games.

I think the full meal deal would be a huge success.

 

 

[matty]

48 minutes ago, admin said:

Gold Cup trial here did not go that well. 

Tickets were overpriced and I don't think they gave a shit about it.  

It could work for sure. 

It seemed like a poorly promoted game and kind of rushed. Way overshadowed by the wwc and pan-am

[matty]

14 minutes ago, Ansem said:

We'd need the full tournament, not just being thrown 1 or 2 games.

I think we should do the full shabang (same with mexico) and then if no one else is up to it either rotate it between the trio or have all 3 share it. It really depends if Canada wants to pay for it.

[harrycoyster]

I can't imagine the Gold Cup doing well in Canada. The US has like 50 times the immigrant population of every CONCACAF country to sell the smaller games. How many people attend T&T vs. Curacao in Vancouver? Maybe a few hundred.

Copa America would do much better.

[Ansem]

14 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

I can't imagine the Gold Cup doing well in Canada. The US has like 50 times the immigrant population of every CONCACAF country to sell the smaller games. How many people attend T&T vs. Curacao in Vancouver? Maybe a few hundred.

Copa America would do much better.

Thailand vs. Ivory Coast during the Women's World Cup drew 19k in Ottawa so safe to say that they would draw more than a few hundred for a Continental tournament who's better advertised in Vancouver

The USSF are making damn sure or (trying to) to always host Copa America. Hence my huge skepticism regarding the US ever sharing a World Cup post 2026 with anyone

 

[Rheo]

As I've maintained, unless the mind of the taxpayers of the country change dramatically and begin to support the idea of funding the number of stadiums needed or the CPL is able to grow large enough to organically come up with the stadiums needed we're not going to be bidding on a solo WC anytime soon.  Enjoy what we may be getting because it's going to be amazing.

[harrycoyster]

8 minutes ago, Ansem said:

Thailand vs. Ivory Coast during the Women's World Cup drew 19k so safe to say that they would draw more than a few hundred for a Continental tournament who's better advertised.

There is no way, shape or form a Gold Cup will ever be better advertised than a Woman's World Cup. FIFA pays for advertising the WWC, CONCACAF relegated that job for both the Gold Cup and the Copa America to the USSF. If the CSA was in charge of advertising for a Gold Cup, I might not hear about it.

Also have to take into account that the women's games has always gotten bigger numbers in Canada, and that Gold Cup tickets will be around twice as expensive.

 

[Ansem]

11 minutes ago, Rheo said:

As I've maintained, unless the mind of the taxpayers of the country change dramatically and begin to support the idea of funding the number of stadiums needed or the CPL is able to grow large enough to organically come up with the stadiums needed we're not going to be bidding on a solo WC anytime soon.  Enjoy what we may be getting because it's going to be amazing.

That's why I'm talking 3 decades from now.

[Admin]

24 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

There is no way, shape or form a Gold Cup will ever be better advertised than a Woman's World Cup. FIFA pays for advertising the WWC, CONCACAF relegated that job for both the Gold Cup and the Copa America to the USSF. If the CSA was in charge of advertising for a Gold Cup, I might not hear about it.

Also have to take into account that the women's games has always gotten bigger numbers in Canada, and that Gold Cup tickets will be around twice as expensive.

 

I think he is saying a better advertised Gold Cup, as compared to the one game that was poorly done.   Not better than the WWC.

[Kent]

2 hours ago, harrycoyster said:

I can't imagine the Gold Cup doing well in Canada. The US has like 50 times the immigrant population of every CONCACAF country to sell the smaller games. How many people attend T&T vs. Curacao in Vancouver? Maybe a few hundred.

Copa America would do much better.

I'm sorry but this argument/justification for the status quo went out the window already. Look at the amazing attendance USA provides in the Gold Cup. Watch the first half highlights of this game and talk to me again about big crowds in USA.

It's a chance to grow the game in our country, and in the region. Canada can host the Gold Cup. Mexico can host the Gold Cup. A two or three country joint bid in Central America could host the Gold Cup. This would be a good thing for CONCACAF and for every country not named USA.

[harrycoyster]

53 minutes ago, Kent said:

I'm sorry but this argument/justification for the status quo went out the window already. Look at the amazing attendance USA provides in the Gold Cup. Watch the first half highlights of this game and talk to me again about big crowds in USA.

It's a chance to grow the game in our country, and in the region. Canada can host the Gold Cup. Mexico can host the Gold Cup. A two or three country joint bid in Central America could host the Gold Cup. This would be a good thing for CONCACAF and for every country not named USA.

They sold out that game and tickets were going for $200 at game time. Remember, Gold Cup group stage games are sold as two game packages. It's just that most fans only cared about the Costa Rica v. Honduras leg.

 

The thing to remember here is that the Gold Cup host is voted on, it isn't just awarded to the US. The US wins every time because it generates crazy money and Mexico backs them. Hell, Mexico plays more friendlies in the US than they do in Mexico nowadays. Why would Mexico or Central America ever vote in favour of Canada hosting when they'd make less money and have less fan support?

[Gian-Luca]

46 minutes ago, harrycoyster said:

They sold out that game and tickets were going for $200 at game time. Remember, Gold Cup group stage games are sold as two game packages. It's just that most fans only cared about the Costa Rica v. Honduras leg.

While this is true, it does make your "T&T vs. Curacao in Vancouver" drawing flies hypothetical somewhat suspect since it is a single-match example.  -What if the other half of the double header was US, Canada or Mexico vs whoever? Presumably in a Gold Cup Canada hosts, you'd put Canada in one group, Mexico & US in the other two and get a big draw that way

I agree with you about not holding one's breath for Canada to host an entire Gold Cup anytime soon, but if properly marketed and organized it could do well here.