2026 WC Bid?

[Moldy9]

31 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

What I don't get is the amount of money to get BC up to par would seem significantly less than what it would take Olympic Stadium up to par. So something seems off here.

Maybe they feel it’s not worth the investment considering at the time 4x Cdn cities to divide 10 games w potential of those 2 or 3 games being a minnow nation was not worth it. 

[mpg_29]

9 minutes ago, Moldy9 said:

Maybe they feel it’s not worth the investment considering at the time 4x Cdn cities to divide 10 games w potential of those 2 or 3 games being a minnow nation was not worth it. 

In my mind Toronto and Vancouver would require the least amount of money to get up to scratch. Were as Montreal and Edmonton would require the most. I mean to be quite blunt I'm not sure the Montreal and Edmonton stadiums would have be qualified to host a WC game 15 years ago...let alone in 2026...

[Ansem]

Details on Morocco bid

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP_Sports/status/975387115109474304

 

Morocco bid: $16bn for 2026 World Cup venues, infrastructure

 

https://apnews.com/4d2f34a910bd45c387b1e3b9beeb5dad/Morocco-bid:-$16bn-for-2026-World-Cup-venues,-infrastructure?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Sports

 

[Moldy9]

2 minutes ago, mpg_29 said:

In my mind Toronto and Vancouver would require the least amount of money to get up to scratch. Were as Montreal and Edmonton would require the most. I mean to be quite blunt I'm not sure the Montreal and Edmonton stadiums would have be qualified to host a WC game 15 years ago...let alone in 2026...

Agreed. 15 years ago there wasn’t a chance considering FIFA Inc pressured for new fancy stadia. Supposedly now that the scandal master has been ejected, plus the spotlight on costs for new stadiums running a debt and ruining communities it appeared FIFA was willing to be lenient on having reno jobs. 

Yes BC Place just had a major reno  so I would imagine cost wouldn’t be so much plus they hosted the bloody women’s final!

Big O needs a lot of work, it’s decrepit, but if the Qc government plans to keep that baby around, which it does, then they are going to have to spend money on it and WC is that platform to justify, plus it will give the mafia (who deal hand in hand w the levels of govt) and their union workers lots of “jobs”.

I tried looking for a link but I do recall Sepp calling the Big O a gem. Haha

[Moldy9]

Given that many federations are upset with Trump, especially when it came to the sh*t hole remark, not to mention having 1 country host vs 3, plus Morocco having applied several times to be denied, and that it’s close to Europe on more or less their time zone, not to mention Morocco would probably be more flexible to corruption and shady deals FIFA Inc love to enjoy, I no longer see the 3 Amigos bid coming up on top. Plus Sepp is lobbying for Morocco (as an FU to FBI/USnA) so he has his minions that will do what he says. 

[mpg_29]

34 minutes ago, Moldy9 said:

Agreed. 15 years ago there wasn’t a chance considering FIFA Inc pressured for new fancy stadia. Supposedly now that the scandal master has been ejected, plus the spotlight on costs for new stadiums running a debt and ruining communities it appeared FIFA was willing to be lenient on having reno jobs. 

Yes BC Place just had a major reno  so I would imagine cost wouldn’t be so much plus they hosted the bloody women’s final!

Big O needs a lot of work, it’s decrepit, but if the Qc government plans to keep that baby around, which it does, then they are going to have to spend money on it and WC is that platform to justify, plus it will give the mafia (who deal hand in hand w the levels of govt) and their union workers lots of “jobs”.

I tried looking for a link but I do recall Sepp calling the Big O a gem. Haha

My opinion is that they should just let Olympic Stadium go...

You could build a nice 40K seat soccer specific stadium that would probably cost the same if we are talking $200-$300M to renovate Olympic Stadium. Also a SSS could actually be utilized (maybe partially paid for) by Montreal Impact. I don't see the Impact moving into Olympic Stadium even if it is renovated. So whats the point of renovating it?

[Watchmen]

4 hours ago, beachesl said:

You are right, there is that possibility as well, a condition made as a result of United's insistence on a fast track bid decision at Moscow. 

• "13 June 2018: the 68th FIFA Congress will decide on whether to select one of the official bids. Should neither be selected, further member associations, including those from AFC and UEFA and excluding the initial bidders, will be invited to bid."

China money is beckoning (tho they seem content on going for 2030).

 

I recall the initial rumour for Morocco was a joint bid with Spain and Portugal.  Makes you wonder if they re-opened the bidding if they'd do something like that.

[Free kick]

2 hours ago, SF said:

Chicago has Soldier Field, which is grass

Thanks.  I stand corrected

[harrycoyster]

The more I read about FIFA members' feelings towards the United bid, the more I feel that the thing that is stopping our bid from being a lock is the American crackdown on FIFA corruption last year. 

[SF]

Agreed about the corruption angle.  FIFA is one of the most crooked organizations in modern times and that it took the US justice system to hold them to account surely does not sit well.  

The more we learn about the bid process the more I think we should run as far away as possible.  Speaking as a taxpayer and law abiding citizen.  

The soccer fan in me is conflicted, but the overall welfare of society (both fiscal and moral) outweighs my passions as a fan.  

[CanadianSoccerFan]

5 hours ago, beachesl said:

Morocco is the safest bet in terms of organizational security.

I'm leaning towards Morocco as the favourite but definitely not for these reasons.  

[gator]

19 minutes ago, SF said:

Agreed about the corruption angle.  FIFA is one of the most crooked organizations in modern times and that it took the US justice system to hold them to account surely does not sit well.  

The more we learn about the bid process the more I think we should run as far away as possible.  Speaking as a taxpayer and law abiding citizen.  

The soccer fan in me is conflicted, but the overall welfare of society (both fiscal and moral) outweighs my passions as a fan.  

When it was first learned that we were bidding for it I was very intrigued, I had visions of matches at Tim Horton's Field here in Hamilton and lots of matches all over this great country, my excitement has diminished and I never dreamed I would be agreeing with your statement which I bolded but the more I read, the more I do!

[Joe MacCarthy]

1 hour ago, SF said:

The more we learn about the bid process the more I think we should run as far away as possible. 

I don't have a problem with that, despite some people sometimes making it out as a once in a lifetime thing.  Another bus will always come by.

[beachesl]

...and apart from deciding neither bid is acceptable and opening it up to all confederations, there is also the possibility, based on the fact that FIFA sees a greater financial return from the United bid, is that the technical commitee makes a decision that only the United bid is technically sufficient (clearly it is because of existing infrastructure, whereas most of Morocco's are castles in the air that could be impossible to build) , which effectively guarantees its election. This will piss Africa off, but that too will pass.

Here is a pretty good summary of what happens between now and the second week of June:

 

"

efore the vote in June, a five-member task force will assess each bidding country, and could potentially disqualify it.

• A five-member task force, dominated by European officials, will make inspection visits, then grade and score the bids.

• Score: The task force will assign a score from 0 to 5, where 0 is "no requirements met/very weak" and 5 is "requirements exceeded/excellent".

• 70 percent of the panel's score goes for infrastructure, while 30 percent is based on projected costs and revenues.

• Bids must score at least 2 for the individual aspects of stadiums, teams and referee facilities, plus accommodation and transport links.

• "The scores have a bearing on whether or not a bid qualifies for the next stage of the bidding process, with bids shortlisted by the FIFA Council," according to FIFA.

• Mimimum: Failure to score 2 ("minimum requirements met/sufficient") from the task force means a bid "has been evaluated as 'high risk' and represents a material failure", a FIFA bid regulations document states, whereupon "FIFA shall terminate this Bidding Registration."

• FIFA's Council must approve the verdict of the task force before the Congress votes."

copied from the article: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/03/morocco-competes-host-fifa-world-cup-2026-180318120432254.html

[jpg75]

6 hours ago, Ansem said:

Details on Morocco bid

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/AP_Sports/status/975387115109474304

 

Morocco bid: $16bn for 2026 World Cup venues, infrastructure

 

https://apnews.com/4d2f34a910bd45c387b1e3b9beeb5dad/Morocco-bid:-$16bn-for-2026-World-Cup-venues,-infrastructure?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP_Sports

 

So only 16% of their nominal GDP to build soccer stadiums, sounds like an intelligent use of funds.

[Ansem]

11 minutes ago, jpg75 said:

So only 16% of their nominal GDP to build soccer stadiums, sounds like an intelligent use of funds.

It's not the full 16B that will build stadiums. Its within 4B and the other 12B to upgrade their infrastructure. 

The money to build accommodation for the world cup would be from the private.

It's a clever sell, to pitch that The world cup will leave a 12B+ investment in Morroco infrastructure and it's people.

To me, that's F up, to FIFA, an opportunity to brag about the upside of a world cup

I don't agree with it, but very smart of Morocco 

[jpg75]

5 minutes ago, Ansem said:

It's not the full 16B that will build stadiums. Its within 4B and the other 12B to upgrade their infrastructure. 

The money to build accommodation for the world cup would be from the private.

It's a clever sell, to pitch that The world cup will leave a 12B+ investment in Morroco infrastructure and it's people.

To me, that's F up, to FIFA, an opportunity to brag about the upside of a world cup

I don't agree with it, but very smart of Morocco 

Yeah they'll probably play it up that way and building road, airports, etc. is a better use of money than soccer stadiums. BUT, for a country with $3K GDP/capita and a 62.5% of GDP public debt level adding an extra 12% of GDP to your debt should be done cautiously. Their gov't deficit was $4Bn last year or 3% of GDP. Their growth has trimmed down to 4.2% in the past decade from over 7%.

[mpg_29]

6 minutes ago, Ansem said:

It's not the full 16B that will build stadiums. Its within 4B and the other 12B to upgrade their infrastructure. 

The money to build accommodation for the world cup would be from the private.

It's a clever sell, to pitch that The world cup will leave a 12B+ investment in Morroco infrastructure and it's people.

To me, that's F up, to FIFA, an opportunity to brag about the upside of a world cup

I don't agree with it, but very smart of Morocco 

That's the recent clever marketing trick governments have been saying when it comes to these big sports events...I'm not sure I buy any of it. How much of the money is actually going towards basic infrastructure? Why the hell would you need to wait for a sporting event to spend what you should be doing anyway?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, jpg75 said:

So only 16% of their nominal GDP to build soccer stadiums, sounds like an intelligent use of funds.

Well they already have too many hospitals, world class medical care, and all their citizens drive Jags and Rollers so what else could they possibly spend the money on? I mean, it's not as though they have any poverty.

[Joe MacCarthy]

No soccer for you! Inside the government's fight with FIFA
Mike Smyth The Province March 17, 2018

Columnist Mike Smyth writes about the B.C. government's challenge to FIFA that caused Vancouver to be dropped as a potential World Cup host city.

The opportunity to host World Cup soccer games was a dream scenario for Vancouver fans who hoped “the beautiful game” would visit our beautiful city in 2026.

But when B.C. Place officials sat down to analyze the contract terms demanded by FIFA — the corruption-plagued world governing body for soccer — the dream turned into a financial nightmare.

Now I can tell you some inside details of the proposed deal, which unraveled last week after the B.C. government demanded clarity on costs and renegotiation of key points.

B.C. Place is owned by the provincial government and managed by the B.C. Pavilion Corp., a Crown agency known as Pavco.

A “risk analysis” document prepared by Pavco officials outlined an astonishing series of non-negotiable contract terms from FIFA that would have burned taxpayers to a crisp.

They included a requirement that B.C. Place install not just one temporary natural-grass playing surface on top of the stadium’s existing artificial turf (installed just three years ago at a cost of $1.3 million).

The contract demanded a second “contingency pitch” just in case something went wrong with the first grass field and a new one had to be installed on short notice.

FIFA not only demanded two grass fields for B.C. Place, they also demanded two electricity supplies to the stadium in case of a power failure.

A “second separate source of power supply for the stadium” would be “entirely and wholly the responsibility of the stadium and host city,” the risk assessment said.

“Pavco flagged that for us right at the beginning — they have a single power source,” Tourism Minister Lisa Beare told me.

The cost of a backup power supply — be it gas-powered generators or a separate B.C. Hydro line — was listed as “unknown” in the assessment.

Then there were the security costs, notorious for going over-budget. A prime example: Security for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver was originally budgeted at $175 million and ended up costing over $1 billion.

“That was a huge concern for us,” Beare said. “We couldn’t get any firm requirements or cost estimates.”

Stoking the fears of the government was the 2014 World Cup experience of Brazil, which spent over $900 million on security, including a massive video-surveillance system and training on potential chemical and radiological terror attacks.

Keep in mind Vancouver was only in line to get two or three soccer games as part of a unified bid to host the World Cup by Canada, the United States and Mexico.

But, even though the number of games was small, FIFA still demanded “exclusive use” of B.C. Place for up to two months, requiring all other events to be cancelled or postponed.

During the “exclusive use period,” FIFA insisted on a “clean stadium clause” banning all non-authorized advertising and commercial activity — and not just within the confines of B.C. Place itself.

The ban included “prohibition of any promotional, public-relations, religious, political or commercial advertising of any kind in, on, above, around or about the stadium without prior written approval by FIFA,” the assessment said.

“When they were using words like ‘around’ and ‘about’ the stadium, we sought clarity on that and the bid committee could not provide it,” Beare said.

“It would have made us responsible for activities that happened outside the stadium,” she added, saying the government was concerned about policing the activities of businesses near B.C. Place.

If you’re wondering whether all these costs would have been offset by a share of World Cup ticket sales or TV rights — forget it.

“An exceptionally broad and almost universal ownership of commercial rights with respect to the competition” would remain exclusively with FIFA, the assessment said, including “media rights, marketing rights and ticketing.”

As B.C. taxpayers absorbed all the costs — and FIFA scooped all the World Cup profits — FIFA also demanded special treatment under B.C. taxation and labour laws.

“The FIFA World Cup represents an event of national importance and public interest, which justifies the granting of a tax exemption,” said a FIFA document entitled “Overview of Government Guarantees.”

The tax exemption would also apply to FIFA service providers, contractors “and certain designated individuals.” The same document also required the government to grant FIFA “exemption from labour law” and allow “unrestricted import and export of all foreign currencies.”

As if that’s not enough, FIFA also wanted the right to change the terms of the agreement after it was signed, with any cost increases borne by taxpayers.

In response to all these contract demands and uncosted liabilities, the B.C. government sent a letter to the three-country Unified Bid Committee.

The letter said B.C. would support the bid on three conditions: Production of a detailed business plan showing all projected costs, federal-government responsibility for security and an indemnity to protect B.C. taxpayers from any cost overruns.

The conditions were not met, and Vancouver was dropped as a potential host city.

“We would have loved to have hosted these World Cup games and we tried hard to make it happen,” Beare said. “But we were unable to get the security we needed for taxpayers.”

The opposition Liberals slammed the governing NDP for failing to deliver.

“The government pulled the rug out from under soccer fans and the tourism industry,” said Liberal MLA Jas Johal.

But others applauded the B.C. government — and the cities of Chicago, Phoenix and Minneapolis, which also rejected the contract demands — for standing up to FIFA.

“It’s a wise decision,” said Andrew Jennings, the British reporter credited with exposing FIFA corruption that led to U.S. charges of wire fraud, racketeering and money laundering in 2015. “More and more governments are saying ‘Thanks, but no thanks’ to FIFA. The era of the shakedown is over.”

[gator]

If these are the demands for all venues it might be a tough sell everywhere in Canada unless large soccer specific stadiums are built which seems like a big undertaking for 10 scattered matches! I am familar with temporary power supplies and that really shouldn't be a big deal to sort out, I can see why FIFA demands it and am somewhat surprised the stadium isn't already equipped with a system! 

[mpg_29]

The ideal scenario imo would have been 3 new 35K-45K seat soccer specific stadiums for Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver. Three new small-to-med stadiums compared to the usual 10-12 for a world cup is not that bad. Especially if they are built in mind with being used afterwords.

People keep forgetting that this is 8 years away... with the growth of MLS I would not be shocked if most if not all of the 3 Canadian MLS teams were considering new stadiums by then or soon after. Stade Saputo is capped at about 20K. BMO isn't bad but is a pretty basic modular design that can't really maximize capacity. BC Place isn't bad but a slightly smaller soccer specific stadium with grass would be ideal.

[SF]

Makes me ask, as a Ontario/Toronto taxpayer, why my governments are OK with these conditions.  Some are fine (pitch quality, advertising control), some are utterly offensive (exemption from tax/labour laws).

[Rheo]

Sandor recap of the United bid press conference

https://the11.ca/united-bid-co-chairs-on-60-10-10-game-allocation-fifa-could-change-it-but-theyre-confident-it-will-stay-where-it-is/

[Kent]

Just read that Sandor article, which talks about the fact that FIFA gets to take the list of cities and choose 16 from them. Wouldn't it be a tragically hilarious gut punch if the bid wins and then FIFA ends up choosing exclusively cities from the USA. I don't think that would happen, but I feel like it would just perfectly sum up both FIFA corruption and Canadian soccer's ability to play the role of Charlie Brown trying to kick a football just when you start to get your hopes up.