Topic: FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread - page 160. (Read 57638 times)

Granting hosting rights to Qatar was a big mistake from FIFA that should not be repeated. They won the hosting rights by bribing delegates from poor African and Asian countries and FIFA refused to take action despite clear evidence being presented to them. The excuse being given was that the world cup was never hosted by the middle-east and therefore Qatar deserved a chance. But then, what is the point in allowing Qatar, a country of just 300,000 citizens to host such a large event? They could have been made co-hosts along with United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Already FIFA is a corrupt organisation. Now thinking about it doesn't gonna make things better. I don't know how it is unfair to choose a non football country. To me it is a great decision to prioritise non football nation, because these huge events will increase the involvement of people into the particular sports. Already football is played around, and something similar will make it better. The power of money is the key rule to get the hosting rights. However without proper infrastructure those countries could've never been chosen.

Well the truth is this is very sad, I hope to see Messi and CR7 in another World Cup and hopefully they can play their countries, for me it would be a great option to see these two legends, of course if they can obviously I hope to see an Ibra and a Modric if their countries qualify, but the bad thing or the sad thing is that Messi does not make it to the World Cup, I would like them to convince him as they did in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil where he said he was laughing, the bad thing was that he went to the USA for the MLS and there change the mentality of the players a lot, I would have preferred that he had gone to ARABIA.

Personally, I think that Messi can still give much more, he is wasting a chance for Argentina to win another cup, he can do it. In another order of ideas, Portugal thinks differently, they know that with CR7 they did it wrong since they did not put it in the time it was, and they blamed the technical director for that, also in this case it would be interesting to see if Argentina and Portugal collide with these two Titans, that's why I have hope that Messi will play again, the same case applies to Croatia with Modric and whoever wouldn't want to see Zlatan in Sweden again, it doesn't matter, even if he only plays 15 minutes, but let them have him there.

The perception that host nations make a profit from the world cup is not very true. Most nations don't make any profit and they even become indebted after the World Cup. We can argue that other benefits like publicity might be beneficial but direct profits are not realized in some cases. An example is the world cup in Brazil which cost about $13.4 billion but financial analyst reports showed that the country realized $13.4 billion through tourism, hospitality, and infrastructure.


Every nation has the right to bid for world cup hosting. Each nation bidding for the world will have to prove that it can host the tournament. They have to also lobby to get the needed support. Such a nation might not be a well-known football nation to host the world cup but it must show its ability to finance and organize a hitch-free tournament. Regarding giving hosting rights to more than one nation, it was the US, Mexico, and Canada that came up with a shared bid. And they were fortunate to win the bid.

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

I understand that, but having three teams to host makes it a bit harder. I mean by that logic there are European nations that are incredibly close to each other so why not have 5 hosts next? It made sense when there was just one, and even when it was two we said okay that's enough, but at three? That just makes it so much harder to accept because there aren't all that many clubs that come from that region anyway, with this we are getting to the border of just the winner getting to world cup along with the host.

It makes no sense to get it hosted by this many nations, if you are willing to host it with 3 teams, then there should be a draw about these three teams and at least one of them should play to be there, or not make it three host nations at least.

No need to mention because it's already obvious and even if we don't have any substantial evidence to prove our speculations, it is already safe to assume that there are negotiations happening behind the curtain to increase their chances to host the next World Cup.

Money is not really a big deal here if they bribe someone within the organization because the sky rocketing profits in return will not be comparable to what they bribed.

Obviously they wouldn't say no and even volunteered to host the World Cup. There are many positive impacts for the country appointed as the host, in addition to 1 definite place in the World Cup of course there are other benefits, as well as in introducing their own country, in terms of the economy will also be very impactful.
Even for some countries, they do not hesitate to do everything possible such as bribery, which seems to be familiar to hear that, because Qatar is also reportedly doing the same thing. Actually, I don't want to go into that realm, but once again it shows that the interest in hosting the World Cup for each country is very large.

That is true, even without having an advantage where their own team will get an automatic qualification, it is still a win-win situation for the hosts because talking about business as this is the first and foremost reason why FIFA is making a world tour, it is almost certain that the host country will have a huge boost in that particular month as almost all businesses like hotels, bar, restaurants and even casinos near the stadiums will all be sold out, and that will reflect on the nation's economy.

To be able to host it seems that there is no voting but the full rights of all FIFA members that determine and when a country has been chosen there is an agreement and also an offer whether the country is able to be able to facilitate the World Cup such as providing a decent and comfortable stadium and as well as security for all participating national team members.
But I'm sure no country will refuse to be chosen as the host of the World Cup because it is very profitable and can have a very positive impact in the future.

Yes exactly and that's why I said there is no reason to let the country get auto qualification when they host the world cup because betting qualification is something related to the quality of their national team which is not related to hosting the world cup by that country.
I think the country which hosts the world cup can get enough benefits and this can help their economy also it will help the, to introduce their traditions to the world and there are many other benefits for them.

Indeed mate. Having the host countries a privilege to have their team qualified directly does come with a reason for a purpose of getting the home crowd riled up because they have their own team who will face the other national teams and for which will make the home crowd watch the games as it will be entertaining for them in that way.

This rule wasn't made just because of a reason that they are the hosts, it is made to maximize the profits in-order to make the event more successful because foreign crowds plus home crowds will be a good combination that will result them into a much wanted revenues. Let's not forget that all of this is also a business behind the curtains.

Yes, it is truly an honor if your country will be given the chance to host a World Cup event because not all the countries around the world has the power and resources to host an event like this. In fact, it's not an easy road for the hosts because before they were given a right, they will undergo to a tough process like bidding and ballot voting before they will know if their campaign to host will be successful. Take note, countries all over the world are starting to merge so that they can gather their resources to a bidding, so that their chances will increase. Just like what happen now.

Maybe this is a fair question if we are talking about the old format, but due to the expansion of the number of participants in the World Cup, this issue is already less relevant.
As for the format for selecting African countries, I already wrote that it is monstrously unfair and I hope it will be changed (by the way, maybe there is already some news about this?).

It is a fortune and an honor for every country to be chosen as the host of the World Cup.
Qatar had a very positive impact from being chosen as the host of the World Cup yesterday because Qatar now has a truly magnificent football stadium infrastructure apart from that there is the advantage of the Qatar national team having free tickets to compete in the World Cup plus several financial benefits as you have said.
I think FIFA should really choose a country that alternates every 4 years so that all countries in the world feel the positive impact and benefits after hosting the World Cup.

I think that in FIFA sit not stupid guys who can decide which country will host the next World Cup. Qatar showed us a lot of negative things and in general it is a good experience for future World Cups. But I think that any country can be a host and get the opportunity to play, so this football is for the whole world. Yes, it is impossible for all countries to play, so something may seem unfair.

The rule that the host has the right to automatic participation in the World Cup has existed since the very beginning, when the first World Cup was held in Uruguay in 1930.
I think it turned out to be a good rule because there would certainly be fewer fans at the matches and less interest in the matches if the home team did not play.
After all, the same rules exist in other team sports such as basketball, handball, waterpolo etc.
When the USA hosted the FIFA World Cup in 1994, it helped to increase interest in soccer in the USA, their league and national team got better and they have played an increasingly prominent role in the World Cups ever since.
The USA has become a very important market for soccer, and it all started with the organization of the World Cup in 1994. That is why it is always important that even weaker hosts can perform and play at the World Cup and help the promotion and development of football in their countries.
After all, from the next world cup, the number of participants will increase so that even weaker national teams from other continents will get the opportunity to play at the world cup.

There is nothing we can do about that topic because this rule has been established already by the FIFA that the ones who will host the event will be given a special treatment to qualify automatically without having to go through the regular process and we have grown accustomed by that rule, and so I don't see any new about this because performance is certainly not a basis for a country(s) to host the FIFA World Cup, it's on the business side, national teams are not included in the negotiations in the first place.

Have been tradition for all countries hosting FIFA World Cup qualify automatically without participants in qualifying round, not only with World Cup but also all tournament give special thing for countries hosting from Asian Cup, Euro, Copa America and African Cup. But next time FIFA World Cup 2026 have three countries hosting and take two slot participants in World Cup. Actually realistic with FIFA World Cup 2026 need three hosting countries because participants added from 32 countries become 48 countries.
Need many stadium for FIFA World Cup 2026 and three hosting countries seems can help how to manage well all World Cup matches.

It seems to me that this was the case in the past, but I am not sure that it still applies.
The organizers of the world cup in Qatar last year had almost no infrastructure necessary to organize such a large competition and had to build all the stadiums before the start of the world cup.
It is a huge cost in billions of dollars and I am sure that the organizers in Qatar have not earned that much from fans or from TV and marketing rights.
However, the organizers of the World Cup in Qatar clearly did not plan to make money from the World Cup in football, but it was more important for them to get the big international promotion that comes with such big events and to change the public image of Qatar as a non-democratic state.