2026 World Cup - News, Updates and discussions

[Unnamed Trialist]

38 minutes ago, ted said:

So, just out of curiosity, what could they build? They already have an adequate stadium, training facilities and hotels. What else gets built for World Cups?

Olympics build multiple sporting facilities in one city, athlete housing, and often improved transit infrastructure because far more athletes and spectators are concentrated in a smaller area.

You're right, but that is merely a question of how hosting is conceived. If you have to spend money and are then making massive amounts from tourism and other benefits, you either spend and tear down, or spend for legacy. And you either use an event to leverage other needs, as has been the case with  more recent Olympics model and goes much further back with World's Fairs, or you just host, clean up and move on. 

You know, for the Germany World Cup they did strong cultural programming. Apart from brand new stadium infrastructure, much of it in the former East. Then I belive trànsit links improved to many of those stadiums. 

They are political decisions, you don't have to do them if you don't want. 

[Free kick]

World Cup Could Have 40 More Games In 2026 (sportbible.com)

 

Quote:  "Initially the 2026 World Cup was expected to be made up of 16 groups of three teams, with the top two still going through, but this time to a last 32, instead of 16.
However, it came with the issue that the final group game could see teams play out for draws in order to both go through, still possible in groups of four but not as likely.
There had been some suggestions to get round the problem, including a penalty shoot out to decide group games that ended in draws, but now FIFA are looking at a more conventional plan.
According to the Sun, football's governing body are now discussing moving back to four team groups, 12 of them, with the top two going through and then the eight best third placed sides.............................................................................................

The change would make a huge difference in the amount of games at the World Cup, with 64 matches in Qatar going up to 104 across North America.
It would also last 35 days, instead of the current 28, and see teams have to play eight matches to win the entire tournament, instead of the previous seven."

*******

The interesting thing here is that the 16 host cities would now be guaranteed more games.     Hence those Alberta gov't conditions are/would have been redundant.   

One has to wonder now how the split of matches between the US, Mexico and Canada will work if the total number of matches is no longer 80 but rather 104.   Recall, the split was supposed to be US (60 matches), Canada (10 Matches) and Mexico (10 matches).   

Edited July 12, 2022 by Free kick

[EJsens1]

56 minutes ago, Free kick said:

World Cup Could Have 40 More Games In 2026 (sportbible.com)

 

Quote:  "Initially the 2026 World Cup was expected to be made up of 16 groups of three teams, with the top two still going through, but this time to a last 32, instead of 16.
However, it came with the issue that the final group game could see teams play out for draws in order to both go through, still possible in groups of four but not as likely.
There had been some suggestions to get round the problem, including a penalty shoot out to decide group games that ended in draws, but now FIFA are looking at a more conventional plan.
According to the Sun, football's governing body are now discussing moving back to four team groups, 12 of them, with the top two going through and then the eight best third placed sides.............................................................................................

The change would make a huge difference in the amount of games at the World Cup, with 64 matches in Qatar going up to 104 across North America.
It would also last 35 days, instead of the current 28, and see teams have to play eight matches to win the entire tournament, instead of the previous seven."

*******

The interesting thing here is that the 16 host cities would now be guaranteed more games.     Hence those Alberta gov't conditions are/would have been redundant.   

One has to wonder now how the split of matches between the US, Mexico and Canada will work if the total number of matches is no longer 80 but rather 104.   Recall, the split was supposed to be US (60 matches), Canada (10 Matches) and Mexico (10 matches).   

This would be great. More games, more fans attending. Is it a cash grab? Sure. I don’t really care. The comment in the article about club teams likely not being happy about it brings a tear to my eye..

[gigi riva]

the University of Guelph has some decent pitches for teams to use during training plus its only 1 hr drive from Toronto  and there is also decent living quarters right behind the fields too

 

 

[Metro]

19 hours ago, Free kick said:

World Cup Could Have 40 More Games In 2026 (sportbible.com)

 

Quote:  "Initially the 2026 World Cup was expected to be made up of 16 groups of three teams, with the top two still going through, but this time to a last 32, instead of 16.
However, it came with the issue that the final group game could see teams play out for draws in order to both go through, still possible in groups of four but not as likely.
There had been some suggestions to get round the problem, including a penalty shoot out to decide group games that ended in draws, but now FIFA are looking at a more conventional plan.
According to the Sun, football's governing body are now discussing moving back to four team groups, 12 of them, with the top two going through and then the eight best third placed sides.............................................................................................

The change would make a huge difference in the amount of games at the World Cup, with 64 matches in Qatar going up to 104 across North America.
It would also last 35 days, instead of the current 28, and see teams have to play eight matches to win the entire tournament, instead of the previous seven."

*******

The interesting thing here is that the 16 host cities would now be guaranteed more games.     Hence those Alberta gov't conditions are/would have been redundant.   

One has to wonder now how the split of matches between the US, Mexico and Canada will work if the total number of matches is no longer 80 but rather 104.   Recall, the split was supposed to be US (60 matches), Canada (10 Matches) and Mexico (10 matches).   

Finally, some level of sanity when it comes to having three team groups.

[TOcanadafan]

5 minutes ago, Metro said:

Finally, some level of sanity when it comes to having three team groups.

Agreed, 4-team groups are better.  But I always hate the “best 3rd place” teams advancing - doubly benefits those who were already lucky enough to draw a very weak team, as majority of the time 1 win (over the pushover) will get you through.

[An Observer]

10 hours ago, TOcanadafan said:

Agreed, 4-team groups are better.  But I always hate the “best 3rd place” teams advancing - doubly benefits those who were already lucky enough to draw a very weak team, as majority of the time 1 win (over the pushover) will get you through.

Yeah. I don’t like that either but I think it’s the best of the two scenarios.  Having groups of 3 means you need to decide ties by penalty kicks, you have greater risk of fixes in the final group match, and teams only get 2 matches guaranteed.   I will take the 4 team groups and 3 matches guaranteed with the best 3rd place going through over that.  Plus, with 32 going through, it means less chances of someone worthy getting knocked out in the group phase by being one of the weaker 3rd place sides. I do wonder what the club sides will say about the expanded length though and I guess it would rule out winter world cups in the future as we have In Qatar this time which probably is desirable for most people. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

On 7/11/2022 at 7:35 PM, gigi riva said:

the University of Guelph has some decent pitches for teams to use during training plus its only 1 hr drive from Toronto  and there is also decent living quarters right behind the fields too

I read that training facilities have to be within 25 km of the match venue, so that would put Guelph out of the picture. 

Woodbine, Downsview, anywhere in North York....

In Vancouver that would rule out Langley. SFU would be just inside the limit.

[narduch]

On 7/11/2022 at 9:32 PM, Free kick said:

World Cup Could Have 40 More Games In 2026 (sportbible.com)

 

Quote:  "Initially the 2026 World Cup was expected to be made up of 16 groups of three teams, with the top two still going through, but this time to a last 32, instead of 16.
However, it came with the issue that the final group game could see teams play out for draws in order to both go through, still possible in groups of four but not as likely.
There had been some suggestions to get round the problem, including a penalty shoot out to decide group games that ended in draws, but now FIFA are looking at a more conventional plan.
According to the Sun, football's governing body are now discussing moving back to four team groups, 12 of them, with the top two going through and then the eight best third placed sides.............................................................................................

The change would make a huge difference in the amount of games at the World Cup, with 64 matches in Qatar going up to 104 across North America.
It would also last 35 days, instead of the current 28, and see teams have to play eight matches to win the entire tournament, instead of the previous seven."

*******

The interesting thing here is that the 16 host cities would now be guaranteed more games.     Hence those Alberta gov't conditions are/would have been redundant.   

One has to wonder now how the split of matches between the US, Mexico and Canada will work if the total number of matches is no longer 80 but rather 104.   Recall, the split was supposed to be US (60 matches), Canada (10 Matches) and Mexico (10 matches).   

I know its probably too late, but if this story is true we should be looking to add 2 more cities for Canada.

[Free kick]

8 minutes ago, narduch said:

I know its probably too late, but if this story is true we should be looking to add 2 more cities for Canada.

They already picked the sixteen. I don't know if, if they have ever changed venue selections (or number of venues) after the fact.  But i can see that if you increase Canada's allocation from 10 games to 13 games,  then two cities might have to handle 6 and 7 games each.  

[TOcanadafan]

I wonder how much they have thought out the ‘hubs’, and if they slotted in games to all the cities in the 3-team format?  You’d think they’d have to do a mock-schedule and then that would determine how many cities (and where) they’d add.  The US could easily add Denver, Nashville and Washington/Baltimore.  Could Edmonton get back into the fold?  How about another Mexican city?  They kinda have to figure this out soon.  

[narduch]

25 minutes ago, Free kick said:

They already picked the sixteen. I don't know if, if they have ever changed venue selections (or number of venues) after the fact.  But i can see that if you increase Canada's allocation from 10 games to 13 games,  then two cities might have to handle 6 and 7 games each.  

If you are going to add 24 matches surely you will need more stadiums.

[Free kick]

17 minutes ago, narduch said:

If you are going to add 24 matches surely you will need more stadiums.

Maybe.  I don't know.  They are having a 64 match world cup in Qatar with just 8 stadiums.   That works out to 8 matches per stadium on average.  2026 will have 16 stadiums for 104 matches (if the proposal go through).   That averages out to 6.5.  If you use Qatar as a bench mark,  16 stadiums should be more than enough

Edited July 16, 2022 by Free kick

[Free kick]

El Salvador is at risk of not participating in the 2026 World Cup qualifiers - AS USA

 

quote: " The El Salvador Soccer Federation (FESFUT) has been under investigation for money laundering since late-last week and FIFA is expected to impose harsh sanctions. The international governing body of association football is closely monitoring the investigation and the FESFUT could receive a two-year sanction.

This means that La Selecta will not be able to participate in next year’s Gold Cup and they could miss out the start of the qualifiers in 2024 in CONCACAF and not be able to fight for a spot at the 2026 FIFA World Cup"

[Kusch to the Corner]

On 7/11/2022 at 8:32 PM, Free kick said:

World Cup Could Have 40 More Games In 2026 (sportbible.com)

 

Quote:  "Initially the 2026 World Cup was expected to be made up of 16 groups of three teams, with the top two still going through, but this time to a last 32, instead of 16.
However, it came with the issue that the final group game could see teams play out for draws in order to both go through, still possible in groups of four but not as likely.
There had been some suggestions to get round the problem, including a penalty shoot out to decide group games that ended in draws, but now FIFA are looking at a more conventional plan.
According to the Sun, football's governing body are now discussing moving back to four team groups, 12 of them, with the top two going through and then the eight best third placed sides.............................................................................................

The change would make a huge difference in the amount of games at the World Cup, with 64 matches in Qatar going up to 104 across North America.
It would also last 35 days, instead of the current 28, and see teams have to play eight matches to win the entire tournament, instead of the previous seven."

*******

The interesting thing here is that the 16 host cities would now be guaranteed more games.     Hence those Alberta gov't conditions are/would have been redundant.   

One has to wonder now how the split of matches between the US, Mexico and Canada will work if the total number of matches is no longer 80 but rather 104.   Recall, the split was supposed to be US (60 matches), Canada (10 Matches) and Mexico (10 matches).   

Don't mind the idea of more games, but the idea that a 3 team group leads to a high likelihood of the final group game seeing both teams go for a tie because it will see them through is flat out wrong. 

The odds of this happening are remote provided goal difference is a tie breaker.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but not the first time I've seen it...

[Free kick]

5 minutes ago, Kusch to the Corner said:

Don't mind the idea of more games, but the idea that a 3 team group leads to a high likelihood of the final group game seeing both teams go for a tie because it will see them through is flat out wrong. 

The odds of this happening are remote provided goal difference is a tie breaker.

I'm not sure where this idea comes from, but not the first time I've seen it...

Who can forget the fact that in a 3 team group at the 2000 Gold cup, Canada and South Korea required a coin toss as a final tiebreaker to determine who would advance.  Can, CRC and Kor all finished with 2 points after all the group games finished in a Draw.

[Kusch to the Corner]

7 hours ago, Free kick said:

Who can forget the fact that in a 3 team group at the 2000 Gold cup, Canada and South Korea required a coin toss as a final tiebreaker to determine who would advance.  Can, CRC and Kor all finished with 2 points after all the group games finished in a Draw.

Sure, but that's not two teams intentionally playing for a draw to advance, and if you don't like a coin toss (which I don't) use goals for and against as the tie breaker and then the last game is meaningful and no manager in their right mind would go for a tie in any possible scenario.

[narduch]

16 hours ago, Kusch to the Corner said:

Sure, but that's not two teams intentionally playing for a draw to advance, and if you don't like a coin toss (which I don't) use goals for and against as the tie breaker and then the last game is meaningful and no manager in their right mind would go for a tie in any possible scenario.

It will definitely be a possibility. Especially with 16 groups. 

Fifa didn't really think this out

Edited July 22, 2022 by narduch

[Treppy2]

1 hour ago, Kusch to the Corner said:

Sure, but that's not two teams intentionally playing for a draw to advance, and if you don't like a coin toss (which I don't) use goals for and against as the tie breaker and then the last game is meaningful and no manager in their right mind would go for a tie in any possible scenario.

If the first two matches in a group both finish 1-1, then both teams in the third match would advance with a 2-2 draw (using the usual tiebreakers of goal difference then goals scored). Surely that would tempt some teams to “arrange” a result.

[Kusch to the Corner]

14 hours ago, narduch said:

It will definitely be a possibility. Especially with 16 teams. 

Fifa didn't really think this out

Treppy2 hit on the only possible scenario that a tie in game 3 could see both teams advance. That is: 

Game 1 low scoring tie;  say 0-0

Game 2 the EXACT SAME low scoring tie; 0-0

Game 3 must then be a tie of any value higher than the previous 2 ties. In this example 1-1 would work. And would see the teams in the 1-1 game advance on goals for.

For 2 managers to get together and agree in advance to a tie at a WORLD CUP where a specific number of goals are required seems unlikely. 

For 2 managers to agree to such a thing and then actually follow through on it, preposterous.

What manager would see his team score first and then tell his players to let the opponent score? What players would go along with it, when they are in a position to win and advance. 

Conversly, what manager would agree to let the other team score first, taking it on faith that they will then be "allowed" to score?

And, it only gets more unlikely as the number of goals required in the 3rd game grows. Say the first 2 games finish 1-1. Then the 3rd game requires a very carefully coordinated 2-2 tie.

 

 

[TOcanadafan]

Even in 4 team groups it’s possible but way less likely…Italian fans may remember Euro ‘04… Denmark and Sweden needed to tie 2-2 or greater to both go through, and that’s exactly what they did (3 teams finished the group with 5 points, and more goals for scored in the 3 matches between the teams broke the tie).  It seemed that the players more or less arranged it. 

Same thing could have happened to Italy at Euro ‘12 but Spain beat Croatia (instead of playing to a 2-2 or higher tie)

[narduch]

14 hours ago, Kusch to the Corner said:

Treppy2 hit on the only possible scenario that a tie in game 3 could see both teams advance. That is: 

Game 1 low scoring tie;  say 0-0

Game 2 the EXACT SAME low scoring tie; 0-0

Game 3 must then be a tie of any value higher than the previous 2 ties. In this example 1-1 would work. And would see the teams in the 1-1 game advance on goals for.

For 2 managers to get together and agree in advance to a tie at a WORLD CUP where a specific number of goals are required seems unlikely. 

For 2 managers to agree to such a thing and then actually follow through on it, preposterous.

What manager would see his team score first and then tell his players to let the opponent score? What players would go along with it, when they are in a position to win and advance. 

Conversly, what manager would agree to let the other team score first, taking it on faith that they will then be "allowed" to score?

And, it only gets more unlikely as the number of goals required in the 3rd game grows. Say the first 2 games finish 1-1. Then the 3rd game requires a very carefully coordinated 2-2 tie.

 

 

They may not do it deliberately but if during the game the score got to 1-1 I bet both teams would take their foot off the pedal

 

Edited July 22, 2022 by narduch

[Unnamed Trialist]

17 hours ago, narduch said:

They may not do it deliberately but if during the game the score got to 1-1 I bet both teams would take their foot off the pedal

Exactly. 
In any case, there is a big difference between not doing the job in one match and then being exposed already for your second; and not doing the job in two matches and then being exposed playing the third the same time as your rivals.

[Free kick]

AFC announced that they will have eight direct qualifying spots at the 2026 WC
 

Quote: “Australia's mission to qualify for football's World Cup every four years just got a little easier with FIFA announcing extra qualification spots for the Asian Football Confederation.

With World Cup 2026 in the USA, Canada and Mexico to be a 48-team tournament - up from the traditional 32 nations - the AFC is set to be granted eight direct qualification positions for football's showpiece event”

https://english.news.cn/20220801/1a78eb695a9d4717b34f7dffbf42f432/c.html

Asia reworks qualifying format for 48-team World Cup in 2026 - TSN.ca

https://www.sportingnews.com/au/soccer/news/socceroos-given-world-cup-2026-qualification-boost/mg2r1pugmr7le1xq0piwlwdb

 

 

Edited August 2, 2022 by Free kick

[Free kick]

Conmebol to have 2 additional spots and will change its qualifying format.

FIFA Pondering the Change of 2026 FIFA World Cup Format (extratimetalk.com)

quote:" Another anticipated change will be the new format for the CONMEBOL qualifying round. The South Americans are bound to have two extra spots for United 2026. Thus, the current round robin format for the entire 10 members of the confederation might no longer be suitable.

The proposed new format is likely to be quite the same as the one used in Copa America 2021 and World Cup 1994 qualifiers. Ten nations will be divided in two groups of five with a round robin format. The group leader and its runners up can secure the tickets automatically while the teams on the third and fourth places will go to the second round. At this stage, the one finishing third in group 1 and the sitting fourth in group 2 will be squaring off and vice versa. The two winners will qualify whereas the losers are set to fight for the spot in the intercontinental playoff round with the other five teams from all confederations but UEFA.

This reformed qualifier is definitely more competitive than the current one for 6.5 berths. FIFA will have no direct role in this overhaul, except only approving it, which is probably the first of the few."

Edited August 2, 2022 by Free kick