2026 WC Bid?

[BuzzAndSting]

On 1/28/2016 at 4:45 PM, Unnamed Trialist said:

An odds-on favourite is not a decision of a betting company, it is a decision of betters. Though what Blackdude has to say on this above proves you wrong there as well.

I can cite many examples in football where clear underdogs are favoured simply because their fans bet on them obsessively more than the rival's fans.

In any case, not understanding betting, and not understanding Qatar, means you really haven't a clue about how money works. And if you don't grasp money, you will never grasp why thinking Qatar would lose a WC is total delusion.

The Yanks and Brits who are still squirming about this are simply showing signs of what fading empires tend to feel: uneasy at the economic power of those you despise.

Is this true? That's crazy! Seems like easy money if you know these teams who's delusional, underdog fans bet heavy on them. 

You see lines moving a lot, especially in the NFL, with large public plays or late heavy money in Vegas, on teams like the Pats, Cowboys and Steelers, but never to the point were it moves over. The dozen or so guys in Vegas who set the lines for North American sports normally account for this and open with a perceived adjusted line, hoping that even with late plays, public plays, etc... it ends up where they want it. And if the line gets to crazy they'll take it off the board all together. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

59 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

Is this true? That's crazy! Seems like easy money if you know these teams who's delusional, underdog fans bet heavy on them. 

You see lines moving a lot, especially in the NFL, with large public plays or late heavy money in Vegas, on teams like the Pats, Cowboys and Steelers, but never to the point were it moves over. The dozen or so guys in Vegas who set the lines for North American sports normally account for this and open with a perceived adjusted line, hoping that even with late plays, public plays, etc... it ends up where they want it. And if the line gets to crazy they'll take it off the board all together. 

Maybe they are adjusting for this now, thanks for the observation, I think they should do some adjusting, but thing is, adjusting just adds to risk for betting houses. 

Ten years ago they weren't adjusted. I prefer not to say which teams I know this happened for, because their followers could be identified in function of religion/race/ethnicity/origins and I'll be accused of being racist or whatever. Fact is, some "cultures" bet more than others, so if your team is identified with one of those cultures, it is going to be less lucrative to bet on them in spite of their objective chances of getting a result being lower. 

If you think about what happened when your proverbial great white hope appeared in heavyweight boxing in the 60s-80s, when betting was mostly illegal mind you, you'll understand. If you wanted to make money all you had to do was bet on the better boxer, if you get my drift.

[Guest]

Apparently Canada are the favourites to host the 2026 world cup.

 

 

[toontownman]

2 hours ago, canta15 said:

Apparently Canada are the favourites to host the 2026 world cup.

 

 

Spat my drink out laughing at that. We can dream. 

[oilers000]

4 hours ago, canta15 said:

Apparently Canada are the favourites to host the 2026 world cup.

 

 

 

Maybe one day people, maybe one day. 

[Brethers8]

4 hours ago, toontownman said:

Spat my drink out laughing at that. We can dream. 

I choked on my toast.

We can dream!

[amanfromvancouver]

Let's be honest....

 

FIFA will have 4 World Cups in a row that are either a disgrace, criminal bribery, or a huge social tragedy. (2010 to 2022).

 

They need a safe bet.  Canada would offer that. We can handle it financially, make it profitable, not have workers dying, and have most of the infrastructure already in place, It would not be a punitive expense to get ready for a world cup.

 

We would be an excellent choice for 2026.  The problem is FIFA may feel the USA and England are owed one after the disgrace of the awarding of Russia and Qatar, that we may not be in the running.

There are very few countries that could host it without social tragedy, profitable, and "clean".  Canada, US, England, and Australia would be the top 4 in this regard.

So, if CSA decides to put in a bid for 2026 or 2030, we have a hell of a shot. FIFA needs a good news story after the bullshit of the Blatter regime.  Canada would be it.  A WC in Canada would be a resounding success.

[Yohan]

In the end, money talks. Hosting a WC in US makes helluva more money than a WC in Canada will. 

The only 'negative' right now for US bidding for a WC is the backlash the corruption investigations will have. There are still power brokers in FIFA that may not want US to get a WC for arresting their corrupt buddies.

[Fort York Redcoat1555362293]

I'd love to see Canada host when we have the nation wide league and the proper number and sized stadia required.

Till then I'd just like to see Canada host the entire Gold Cup a couple times.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Fort York Redcoat1555362293 said:

I'd love to see Canada host when we have the nation wide league and the proper number and sized stadia required.

Till then I'd just like to see Canada host the entire Gold Cup a couple times.

But the question is would you like to see Canada play in a World Cup?

[Fort York Redcoat1555362293]

1 hour ago, canta15 said:

But the question is would you like to see Canada play in a World Cup?

Almost as much as if we earned the appearance. 

[shorty]

Infantino is on record as supporting not only expanding the WC to 40, but cohosting as well:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0UX1QH

It would require rewriting existing FIFA statutes, because they expressly banned cohosting after 2002, but as Minister Fudge says, "laws can be changed"

I think we have a shot on our own, but it also wouldn't surprise me to see Canada/USA 2026, either submitted that way, or brokered between two separate bids to beat out a third, the way it was in 2002.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, shorty said:

Infantino is on record as supporting not only expanding the WC to 40, but cohosting as well:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0UX1QH

It would require rewriting existing FIFA statutes, because they expressly banned cohosting after 2002, but as Minister Fudge says, "laws can be changed"

I think we have a shot on our own, but it also wouldn't surprise me to see Canada/USA 2026, either submitted that way, or brokered between two separate bids to beat out a third, the way it was in 2002.

There would be no point for the USA to have a joint bid with Canada because they don't need us. Also If cohosting was banned, how come there were a couple of joint bids for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup?

[shorty]

Maybe it's already been changed back. I was just reading up on the circumstances surrounding 2002. My mistake if so. 

Youre right that at this stage there's no incentive for the US to approach us, except if the investigation is as much or more of an albatross within FIFA than people expect. Once the bidding starts though, as with anything political, the winds can shift in any direction. If it was looking like it was between Canada and another country with the US running third, the interests to join forces might align. Half a tournament is better than none at that point. 

[theaub]

I still don't see how a WC in the US makes more than a WC in Canada outside of gate revenues (which are a minimal part of revenues)

Companies sponsor the event, not the host.

[Fort York Redcoat1555362293]

6 hours ago, theaub said:

I still don't see how a WC in the US makes more than a WC in Canada outside of gate revenues (which are a minimal part of revenues)

Companies sponsor the event, not the host.

I don't actually know but I reckon a sponsor on the bubble would look at how many eyeballs would be watching? While most of the World will watch wherever it is, the US is a big place with a competitive sports landscape. I could see many choosing to watch just because their own nation is hosting. 

Again, just speculating...

[amanfromvancouver]

7 hours ago, theaub said:

I still don't see how a WC in the US makes more than a WC in Canada outside of gate revenues (which are a minimal part of revenues)

Companies sponsor the event, not the host.

US Companies would be willing to spend more on advertising and TV money if it were located in the USA.  They will perceive that more Americans will watch if it is on home soil; which I believe to be true.  Even non soccer fans will watch it because it is in their home country.

 

Although, the margin is not as great if say the Cup is in Russia, because we are in the same time zone.......  which is a big deal for the US audience.

[BuzzAndSting]

I don't see a big difference in revenue for FIFA between a Canada WC and a US WC. I don't think US broadcasters will pay significantly more for a WC hosted domestically. Here's the breakdown of event revenue from 2011-2014.

93.9% of FIFA's event-related revenue during the period 2011-2014 came from the FIFA 2014 World Cup ($4.826 billion), of which 50.3% is from sale of TV rights, 32.7% from marketing rights, and a mere 10.9% from ticketing sales.

Read more: How Does FIFA Make Money? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/070915/how-does-fifa-make-money.asp#ixzz41bGRfmCe 
 

[lazlo_80]

27 minutes ago, BuzzAndSting said:

I don't see a big difference in revenue for FIFA between a Canada WC and a US WC. I don't think US broadcasters will pay significantly more for a WC hosted domestically. Here's the breakdown of event revenue from 2011-2014.

93.9% of FIFA's event-related revenue during the period 2011-2014 came from the FIFA 2014 World Cup ($4.826 billion), of which 50.3% is from sale of TV rights, 32.7% from marketing rights, and a mere 10.9% from ticketing sales.

Read more: How Does FIFA Make Money? | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/070915/how-does-fifa-make-money.asp#ixzz41bGRfmCe 
 

10.9 in the context of your numbers is over half a billion dollars. I don't think you could say that's mere. Just doing some back of the napkin math

half a billion dollars in US tickets on currency conversion alone would be 676 in Canadian dollars. So if they were to get the same amount of money from tickets as 2014 (which i guarantee you they will far exceed) they would be making 176 million dollars just to stay status quo.

Now in the american market, suppose you want to start a bidding war between Ticketmaster and Stubhub to be the official re-seller of Fifa tickets? Right away you could sign a licensing agreement for a bunch more millions. Just to pull a number out of my ass, let's say 50. again, that 50 million in american would be 17.6 million more you would get in canadian dollars as of today, just on currency exchange.

Now, lets be honest, the US world cup would likely be played in venues with higher seating capacities. Suppose the seating capacity was 10% higher than that of a Canadian world cup. that would be another 10% of half a billion = 50 million dollars USD or 67.6 CAD.

Now of course the big ass cherry to all this would be the luxury boxes. Considering Cowboys stadium probably has more luxury boxes than half the Canadian stadiums combined...oh and the U.S. has a lot more rich people willing to pay more for those luxury boxes...so lets say you get another 50 milion out of that. 

These numbers are admittedly completely out of my butt, but you could easily see how a US World Cup could make more than 200 million dollars more in tickets alone than a Canadian world cup, and frankly I think that number could be on the conservative side.

I don't think Canada wins the bid by saying "we will make almost as much money as the other one" as in a straight business discussion that argument holds no water. Your approach has to be the fact of how much it could do for development of the game in the country, how good of patrons we've been to the game (hosting WWC, U20 etc.), how it could help with soccer infrastructure, our squeeky clean reputation and how good that will be for FIFA coming out of 2 world cups fraught with controversy, and probably leveraging a bit of the disdain alot of other countries in this world have for the U.S.

It's going to be interesting to see how this all goes down. I think we have a decent shot.

 

[theaub]

A couple points

1) FOX already has the broadcast rights for 2026, so there would be no TV bidding war based on where it is hosted

2) I don't see there being any correlation between location and viewers outside of time zones.  The average American isn't going to tune into Croatia/South Korea because its being played in New York compared to Ottawa.  US games will get monster TV ratings as always, and that's about it.

3) FIFA runs their own ticket re-sale site,  Nonetheless, any company that isn't run by total morons (looking at you NHL) signs massive deals like that in USD anyways.  Its not like Ticketmaster or Stubhub all of the sudden operate in CAD up here.  

The only major advantage the US has is ticketing revenue, but that is not the biggest driver of revenues for FIFA by any stretch as shown above.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, theaub said:

A couple points

1) FOX already has the broadcast rights for 2026, so there would be no TV bidding war based on where it is hosted

2) I don't see there being any correlation between location and viewers outside of time zones.  The average American isn't going to tune into Croatia/South Korea because its being played in New York compared to Ottawa.  US games will get monster TV ratings as always, and that's about it.

3) FIFA runs their own ticket re-sale site,  Nonetheless, any company that isn't run by total morons (looking at you NHL) signs massive deals like that in USD anyways.  Its not like Ticketmaster or Stubhub all of the sudden operate in CAD up here.  

The only major advantage the US has is ticketing revenue, but that is not the biggest driver of revenues for FIFA by any stretch as shown above.

I like your points but for #2 i do see some  Americans watching the World Cup just because it is in the USA. I watched the NBA all star game this year even tho i hardly watch basketball.

[BuzzAndSting]

13 minutes ago, canta15 said:

I like your points but for #2 i do see some  Americans watching the World Cup just because it is in the USA. I watched the NBA all star game this year even tho i hardly watch basketball.

It may be true but it's marginal at best.

[lazlo_80]

There would be other financial advantages to having these events in a bigger market like the US. Merchandising comes to mind as Americans love buying stuff even if they don't go to it. You'd have to figure a wal-mart in Dallas could sell a lot more WC merch than one in Winnipeg. 

[BuzzAndSting]

2 hours ago, lazlo_80 said:

There would be other financial advantages to having these events in a bigger market like the US. Merchandising comes to mind as Americans love buying stuff even if they don't go to it. You'd have to figure a wal-mart in Dallas could sell a lot more WC merch than one in Winnipeg. 

Are you talking about team jerseys and jackets or WC branded merch? In terms of the former I don't think a US hosted WC would have any noticeable difference compared to any other WC. And I don't think FIFA actually shares in any of those revenues directly or if at all so I'm not sure it's a factor. As for the latter I highly doubt they sell enough to make it a factor in choosing a host. 

[lazlo_80]

I have no clue how they choose a host. basically of all the blather i wrote all I was saying was that a US WC would likely be more profitable than a Canadian one...but there's a ton of other factors that work to our advantage.