FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread - page 172.

alegotardo

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 1121

☢️ alegotardo™️

Quote from: Sithara007 on June 22, 2023, 09:53:20 PM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 22, 2023, 07:49:38 PM

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

We cannot deny that the World Cup in Qatar was an unprecedented event, never before had a country spent so much money on this FIFA event. However, I disagree that the logistics were bad, what I have seen the most is that despite the high costs for the fans, the internal logistics were very good to watch the 2022 World Cup games. it won the fourth highest average audience in history, I think the post-covid period and the need for people to leave their homes and go on a trip helped a lot with that.

On the other hand, it did have many complaints, especially for the treatment given to the LGBT+ community, prejudice against women and also much of the deaths of immigrant workers.

Canada, Mexico and the United States have the important mission of making the 2026 World Cup better, showing that it is possible to do more with much less money.
I believe that the distance between the stadiums will be the main problem, I hope that the three countries manage to prepare good internal logistics to facilitate this movement.

Leviathan.007

hero member

Activity: 1694

Merit: 722

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: rdluffy on June 23, 2023, 04:11:14 PM

A news I just read, the United States will also host the 2025 Club World Cup with the new format, similar to the 32-team world cup.

This greatly reinforces the idea that the United States is investing heavily in soccer
Now the schedule will look like this:
2024 Copa America
2025 Club World Cup
2026 World Cup

In my opinion, all this experience that they will acquire with the two championships, has everything to become a World Cup VERY well organized and with as few problems as possible.
The United States should also evolve a lot the level of their soccer in general, both in MLS and the national team itself. It seems that FIFA itself wants it too, because if soccer is more popular over there, they can make a lot of money, it's probably the best place right now to take opportunities.
It will be very interesting to follow

For those who want to know more and confirm the news, you can see it here: https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/united-states-host-expanded-club-world-cup-2025-fifa-2023-06-23/

Interesting. I didn't pay attention to the other tournaments America going to host in the future and it seems like they have a great plan for these years because from 2024 to 2026 they will host one great tournament each year and I think if they rebuild some stadium and sports facilities they will have to spend less money and by the rebuilding the stadiums for once they can get more benefits from it.
This can definitely have a much better financial benefit for America.

wheelz1200

legendary

Activity: 3752

Merit: 1415

Quote from: slapper on June 23, 2023, 04:00:30 PM

Quote from: Sithara007 on June 22, 2023, 09:53:20 PM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 22, 2023, 07:49:38 PM

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

Your reasoning about economic prowess influencing the hosting of major global happenings like the World Cup holds weight. Still, the crux isn't the expenditure, but the deployment of resources.

Yes, the Qatar World Cup, you pointed out, was a festival of spending, but it fell short of expectations. Spending big doesn't guarantee a memorable experience for players and viewers. It was not just a money issue, but also a logistics challenge. Successful execution of such mega-events calls for meticulous planning and wise investments.

Consider experienced hosts like the United States, who excel in resource management. They prioritize quality of facilities, safety, and services over mere grandeur. Hence, strategic resource utilization, not lavish spending, creates a truly unforgettable event.

Besides you get to get hammered as well. Key part of sports whether people like it or not is the booze fest it becomes both before, during and after the event takes place. It's not only a game but a place to come together as a tribe lol. Seriously I think that is what killed the experience over there.

rdluffy

legendary

Activity: 2366

Merit: 1408

A news I just read, the United States will also host the 2025 Club World Cup with the new format, similar to the 32-team world cup.

This greatly reinforces the idea that the United States is investing heavily in soccer
Now the schedule will look like this:
2024 Copa America
2025 Club World Cup
2026 World Cup

In my opinion, all this experience that they will acquire with the two championships, has everything to become a World Cup VERY well organized and with as few problems as possible.
The United States should also evolve a lot the level of their soccer in general, both in MLS and the national team itself. It seems that FIFA itself wants it too, because if soccer is more popular over there, they can make a lot of money, it's probably the best place right now to take opportunities.
It will be very interesting to follow

For those who want to know more and confirm the news, you can see it here: https://www.reuters.com/sports/soccer/united-states-host-expanded-club-world-cup-2025-fifa-2023-06-23/

slapper

legendary

Activity: 1946

Merit: 1100

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Sithara007 on June 22, 2023, 09:53:20 PM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 22, 2023, 07:49:38 PM

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

Your reasoning about economic prowess influencing the hosting of major global happenings like the World Cup holds weight. Still, the crux isn't the expenditure, but the deployment of resources.

Yes, the Qatar World Cup, you pointed out, was a festival of spending, but it fell short of expectations. Spending big doesn't guarantee a memorable experience for players and viewers. It was not just a money issue, but also a logistics challenge. Successful execution of such mega-events calls for meticulous planning and wise investments.

Consider experienced hosts like the United States, who excel in resource management. They prioritize quality of facilities, safety, and services over mere grandeur. Hence, strategic resource utilization, not lavish spending, creates a truly unforgettable event.

Maslate

hero member

Activity: 2954

Merit: 672

Message @Hhampuz if you are looking for a CM!

Quote from: Silberman on June 23, 2023, 02:02:39 PM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 23, 2023, 06:30:08 AM

And the thing about Qatar is they spend money but they didn't get good results because in the end there are many people they were unhappy there in Qatar because of their Alcohol rules or because workers were killed there.
Just the chart and compare the money they spent and you can see the difference.
However one reason for increasing the hosting cost can be the inflation rate but the difference is still much more than other hosts, I'm sure America will spend less than this.

That is awfully expensive, I knew they had spent a lot of money but I never knew that it was to this extent, the 2026 world cup should be much cheaper as there is no need to build stadiums on any of those countries, the US has its own soccer league and they also have NFL stadiums so they should be good, Mexico is the poorest out of the three but their professional soccer league should have more than enough stadiums which at most just need a renovation, and Canada should be roughly the same, and when we add that there will be more freedoms for the fans then there is no doubt that the upcoming world cup should be many times better than the one that was hosted at Qatar.

True! I know that Qatar have undergone a complete make over so that they can cater the vast amount of people flocking towards their country to see the game and accommodate most of them in one place and build a big stadium that can actually host a World Cup that is happening once every four years. But $220 Billion? That's quite a huge price tag, I know that it's a penny to a country like Qatar but they could've poured those resources to a much worthy project.

Anyway, I'm also inclined and confident that USA, Canada and Mexico will not be spending at least one-fourth of Qatar's spending because they already have a lot of existing stadiums that can cater the audience. Mexico will not have any problems either because other than the fact that they have stadiums too, they will only need to host about 10 games which is the games that are not that big compared to what the USA will be hosting.

Renampun

sr. member

Activity: 2338

Merit: 365

Quote from: ?? on ??

The decision to expand the FIFA World Cup field of competitors and choose three hosts gives the competition a new and captivating dimension. Although America serves as the primary host Canada and Mexico cooperative efforts enhance the special occasion. The format of the competition with 48 teams qualifying for each round is still being worked out. When choosing host nations it's crucial to take other aspects into account such as infrastructure and growth potential. The World Cup offers a chance to promote the game and increase its worldwide influence in nations that aren't typically connected with football. Yes its a step in the right direction towards promoting development and passion in the beautiful game is FIFA goal to broaden football appeal and engage new audiences.

it seems that in the future we will no longer see only 1 country hosting the world cup, personally I quite support the new policy adopted by FIFA, so that the host country is not burdened very much by the cost of hosting the world cup let alone most from stadiums in countries hosting the World Cup will rarely be used fatherly in the future.

Quote

Saudi Arabia withdraws from 2030 World Cup host bid!

2 groups of potential host countries remaining:
Host 1: Argentina 🇦🇷 + Uruguay 🇺🇾 + Paraguay 🇵🇾 + Chile 🇨🇱
Host 2: Spain 🇪🇸 + Portugal 🇵🇹 + Morocco 🇲🇦

the latest news that I see after the 2026 world cup happened, the next host is one of HOST 1 or 2, whichever country is chosen, lucky enough, it will also help market their country to the wider world.

Silberman

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1338

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 23, 2023, 06:30:08 AM

And the thing about Qatar is they spend money but they didn't get good results because in the end there are many people they were unhappy there in Qatar because of their Alcohol rules or because workers were killed there.
Just the chart and compare the money they spent and you can see the difference.
However one reason for increasing the hosting cost can be the inflation rate but the difference is still much more than other hosts, I'm sure America will spend less than this.

That is awfully expensive, I knew they had spent a lot of money but I never knew that it was to this extent, the 2026 world cup should be much cheaper as there is no need to build stadiums on any of those countries, the US has its own soccer league and they also have NFL stadiums so they should be good, Mexico is the poorest out of the three but their professional soccer league should have more than enough stadiums which at most just need a renovation, and Canada should be roughly the same, and when we add that there will be more freedoms for the fans then there is no doubt that the upcoming world cup should be many times better than the one that was hosted at Qatar.

SirLancelot

hero member

Activity: 2618

Merit: 582

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Sithara007 on June 22, 2023, 09:53:20 PM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 22, 2023, 07:49:38 PM

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

Agree, nothing positive happen for the game of soccer or for the soccer in Qatar as this was completely waste of money and show of money which have to stop, and same mentality is going to Saudi Arab campaign which are now looking for hosting this event in 2030 even I have been feeling it's not easy for them but as Qatar done things like this can create momentum for them as well because we all know how corrupt is FIFA which is having not good history for things like these.

With now, we are already had increase in teams and three countries are going to host is another good chapter because with these things could be much better and easy to manage for many countries now in the USA we will have better facilities and quality as well which could be good for the soccer fans.

Leviathan.007

hero member

Activity: 1694

Merit: 722

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Sithara007 on June 22, 2023, 09:53:20 PM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 22, 2023, 07:49:38 PM

~~~~

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

And the thing about Qatar is they spend money but they didn't get good results because in the end there are many people they were unhappy there in Qatar because of their Alcohol rules or because workers were killed there.
Just the chart and compare the money they spent and you can see the difference.
However one reason for increasing the hosting cost can be the inflation rate but the difference is still much more than other hosts, I'm sure America will spend less than this.

shogun47

hero member

Activity: 1708

Merit: 553

Play Bitcoin PVP Prediction Game

Quote from: Daniel91 on June 22, 2023, 10:14:57 AM

So, when I say that Maradona practically single-handedly led Argentina to the World Cup title in 1986, it is not my opinion or an exaggeration, but an obvious fact.

Both had 10 scorer points and when I post something and it is my opinion, I will keep calling my posts an opinion because who am I to call my opinion a fact?

But even this is up to everyone's opinion. If you are convinced that your opinions are facts in your world, I accept that. In my world, my opinion is as much an opinion and of value as everyone else's, yours included. I.e., I accept your opinion that your opinions are facts.

Now back to the World Cup 2026! Wink

Sithara007

legendary

Activity: 3332

Merit: 1352

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 22, 2023, 07:49:38 PM

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

Leviathan.007

hero member

Activity: 1694

Merit: 722

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: beerlover on June 22, 2023, 01:22:16 PM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 22, 2023, 04:00:34 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on June 21, 2023, 09:39:05 PM

United States will be hosting about 80% of the matches so this argument of three countries hosting the world cup is not entirely true. And regarding the number of teams, it was long due. With the current format, the UEFA teams are over-represented in the FIFA World Cup. During the 1990s, it was justifiable, because back then the Asian and African teams were unable to compete against the UEFA teams. But now the situation has changed completely. AFC and CAF teams are giving good fight to the UEFA and CONMEBOL teams and this was very evident during the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

True, and the reason for the United States to host most of the games are mainly that the United States but much more facilities and potential to host the world cup than other countries, United States got enough hotels and stadiums to even host the world cup by itself alone.
Regarding AFC and CAF teams I think they have improved themselves a lot in the other hand in the 2022 world cup many European teams had bad performances and they let these teams have the opportunity to show better performance.

They have a lot of money as well, sure Canada is not a poor nation but not as rich as USA, and I am not even going to talk about Mexico, they are very poor. All in all Mexico is dangerous as well, they are known to be cartel land and there are a lot of people who would not want to go there just because of that reason, whereas when we are talking about USA, even though there could be some robbers and such on the street, that would be mainly pick pockets, not a lot of people would be in danger of losing their life.

Unless some mad gunman ends up shooting everyone, those kinds of stuff do happen at USA, that's one risk that you need to just take, but I bet that cops there will prevent anyone like that during that period and not allow such embarrassment.

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

tiCeR

hero member

Activity: 1708

Merit: 749

Defend Bitcoin and its PoW: bitcoincleanup.com

Quote from: Sithara007 on June 20, 2023, 10:12:25 PM

Quote from: tiCeR on June 20, 2023, 04:58:28 PM

✂
For the whole ecosystem I think it is good that not everyone ends up playing in the desert state.

Well.. my opinion differ from yours. For the greater good of football, it is necessary to make sure that not all the good players end up playing in the European leagues. Some of the UEFA clubs have grown bigger than the game itself and are acting like cabals. We all saw their behavior during the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. They were threatening not to release the players, since the tournament was overlapping with the leagues. I am actually glad that leagues such as SPL are offering some competition to the UEFA clubs. It will help to demonopolize football.

You are taking my quote completely out of context and that sucks quite a bit. I was talking about Messi going to the MLS and that it is good that not everyone ends up playing in the SPL. I haven't said that it would be good if everyone stayed in Europe. In fact I implied the opposite. It would be good to have even more leagues or associations that can bring out good players. The MLS is another one. The SPL, the MLS, etc. I know about the problems with the UEFA and the biggest clubs within and how they got into control. I am all for diversity around the globe although we will always have some hot spots. It would just not be good if the SPL builds a monopolistic structure purely based on money. I'd rather see some diversification among different (more than two...) associations. But I think it is known that some associations have more hidden agendas than others.

nlovric

full member

Activity: 336

Merit: 140

Quote from: Bananington on June 22, 2023, 12:46:38 PM

Quote from: nlovric on June 22, 2023, 12:20:02 PM

Quote from: Bobrox on June 22, 2023, 10:08:52 AM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 21, 2023, 06:18:57 PM

Snip.....

New rule model with FIFA World Cup 2026 because usually with 32 national teams participants will be 48, still not understand about the rule adopt starting from group stage until final stage exactly how many teams will qualify to each round. But for the host country seems they need rebuilding depend on football is not popular sport there and exactly they need with new stadium. Seems Mexico has bigger enthusiast for football than United State with their people more interested for NBA and football America. I don't think its right decision by choosing country with football is not popular in their country, maybe for the next world cup edition, need criteria with popular or not football in their country.

The tournament structure will change as a result of the decision to increase the FIFA World Cup to 48 participants in 2026 but it is yet unclear exactly how many teams would qualify for each round. The popularity of football in a nation should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding which nation will host the World Cup. Infrastructure amenities and capacity for growth are just a few of the considerations addressed throughout the selection process. While it is true that the host nation may need to make investments in stadium infrastructure and boost interest in the game it also gives a chance to advertise football in areas where it might not be as popular. FIFA wants to broaden the World Cup worldwide influence and reach by holding it in a variety of cities. This will open up new prospects for the growth and engagement of football.

What is first for Canada, is trio for Mexico and first for the United States. Although, USA did host the tournament in '94, it is it's first time co-hosting.
I like the merge to cooperate and work toward a common interest, because the relationship between US and Mexico came close to truncation following the supposed plan to build a fence at the border both countries share.

For Canada, they are not known as a soccer nation, but they have the grit to put on a great performance.
I agree too that Mexico sure loves soccer compared to both co-hosters. Basketball or the NBA as known, football(American) are more popular for the other two.
More than just the tournament may be new innovations in crypto and tech the world may just yet see.
Also, we get to drink beer and have alot more freedom compared to what we witnessed in the UAE.

Canada and Mexico are hosting for the first time but it is important to remember that the United States also hosted the competition in 1994 albeit as a single host. These countries cooperation demonstrates the value of working together for a common goal. Given the tense tensions between the US and Mexico over the proposed border fence it is particularly noteworthy. Despite not being a well known football power Canada is determined to demonstrate its talent and put up a fantastic performance. It's true that football has a special place in Mexico heart although American football and basketball (NBA) are the most popular sports in the other two. It is possible that there will be fascinating advancements in technology and cryptocurrency in addition to the event. Last but not least unlike some of the restrictions seen in prior host countries like the UAE this shared hosting allows for the enjoying of freedoms including the option to savour a refreshing beer.

beerlover

legendary

Activity: 2996

Merit: 1188

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 22, 2023, 04:00:34 AM

Quote from: Sithara007 on June 21, 2023, 09:39:05 PM

United States will be hosting about 80% of the matches so this argument of three countries hosting the world cup is not entirely true. And regarding the number of teams, it was long due. With the current format, the UEFA teams are over-represented in the FIFA World Cup. During the 1990s, it was justifiable, because back then the Asian and African teams were unable to compete against the UEFA teams. But now the situation has changed completely. AFC and CAF teams are giving good fight to the UEFA and CONMEBOL teams and this was very evident during the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

True, and the reason for the United States to host most of the games are mainly that the United States but much more facilities and potential to host the world cup than other countries, United States got enough hotels and stadiums to even host the world cup by itself alone.
Regarding AFC and CAF teams I think they have improved themselves a lot in the other hand in the 2022 world cup many European teams had bad performances and they let these teams have the opportunity to show better performance.

They have a lot of money as well, sure Canada is not a poor nation but not as rich as USA, and I am not even going to talk about Mexico, they are very poor. All in all Mexico is dangerous as well, they are known to be cartel land and there are a lot of people who would not want to go there just because of that reason, whereas when we are talking about USA, even though there could be some robbers and such on the street, that would be mainly pick pockets, not a lot of people would be in danger of losing their life.

Unless some mad gunman ends up shooting everyone, those kinds of stuff do happen at USA, that's one risk that you need to just take, but I bet that cops there will prevent anyone like that during that period and not allow such embarrassment.

Bananington

sr. member

Activity: 1428

Merit: 344

Quote from: nlovric on June 22, 2023, 12:20:02 PM

Quote from: Bobrox on June 22, 2023, 10:08:52 AM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 21, 2023, 06:18:57 PM

This world cup is going to be very interesting and unique because for the first time were going to have much more national teams in the world cup and on the other hand we are going to have three countries hosting the world cup at the same time.
However, the main host of the world cup is America, and the other two countries, Canada and Mexico are just helping America to host this tournament.

New rule model with FIFA World Cup 2026 because usually with 32 national teams participants will be 48, still not understand about the rule adopt starting from group stage until final stage exactly how many teams will qualify to each round. But for the host country seems they need rebuilding depend on football is not popular sport there and exactly they need with new stadium. Seems Mexico has bigger enthusiast for football than United State with their people more interested for NBA and football America. I don't think its right decision by choosing country with football is not popular in their country, maybe for the next world cup edition, need criteria with popular or not football in their country.

The tournament structure will change as a result of the decision to increase the FIFA World Cup to 48 participants in 2026 but it is yet unclear exactly how many teams would qualify for each round. The popularity of football in a nation should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding which nation will host the World Cup. Infrastructure amenities and capacity for growth are just a few of the considerations addressed throughout the selection process. While it is true that the host nation may need to make investments in stadium infrastructure and boost interest in the game it also gives a chance to advertise football in areas where it might not be as popular. FIFA wants to broaden the World Cup worldwide influence and reach by holding it in a variety of cities. This will open up new prospects for the growth and engagement of football.

What is first for Canada, is trio for Mexico and first for the United States. Although, USA did host the tournament in '94, it is it's first time co-hosting.
I like the merge to cooperate and work toward a common interest, because the relationship between US and Mexico came close to truncation following the supposed plan to build a fence at the border both countries share.

For Canada, they are not known as a soccer nation, but they have the grit to put on a great performance.
I agree too that Mexico sure loves soccer compared to both co-hosters. Basketball or the NBA as known, football(American) are more popular for the other two.
More than just the tournament may be new innovations in crypto and tech the world may just yet see.
Also, we get to drink beer and have alot more freedom compared to what we witnessed in the UAE.

hahay

legendary

Activity: 3486

Merit: 1055

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

Quote from: Lucasgabd on June 22, 2023, 09:57:31 AM

Quote from: lionheart78 on June 08, 2023, 08:38:43 AM

Quote from: Lucasgabd on June 08, 2023, 08:30:07 AM

don't you think they'd be at least a bit more open on the visa thing for people going to the event?

I do not think they will bend the regulation for this kind of event. The visa will be processed normally, with no special consideration because it is the safety of the nation that they prioritized here. People can still watch the match through PPV. Beside, there is still plenty of time to apply and be qualified for visa so if a fan really wants to watch the matches live, then he must prepare his entry as early as possible.

yes, makes sense
now thinking better about the question I see this shouldn't even be considered
curious to see what will happen
do we already have all the details about where and when it will take place?

After all, so far there have not been many problems regarding visas and thus, of course, every supporter will carry out all procedures by complying with every applicable rule. If there is a problem with visas, then of course every international match might be empty of spectators and that might hurt the organizers and the hosts too. So yes, rules like that have been implemented for a long time and there are no problems watching live and or only online, especially in this era there seems to be a lot of access to make it easy.

nlovric

full member

Activity: 336

Merit: 140

Quote from: Bobrox on June 22, 2023, 10:08:52 AM

Quote from: Leviathan.007 on June 21, 2023, 06:18:57 PM

This world cup is going to be very interesting and unique because for the first time were going to have much more national teams in the world cup and on the other hand we are going to have three countries hosting the world cup at the same time.
However, the main host of the world cup is America, and the other two countries, Canada and Mexico are just helping America to host this tournament.

New rule model with FIFA World Cup 2026 because usually with 32 national teams participants will be 48, still not understand about the rule adopt starting from group stage until final stage exactly how many teams will qualify to each round. But for the host country seems they need rebuilding depend on football is not popular sport there and exactly they need with new stadium. Seems Mexico has bigger enthusiast for football than United State with their people more interested for NBA and football America. I don't think its right decision by choosing country with football is not popular in their country, maybe for the next world cup edition, need criteria with popular or not football in their country.

The tournament structure will change as a result of the decision to increase the FIFA World Cup to 48 participants in 2026 but it is yet unclear exactly how many teams would qualify for each round. The popularity of football in a nation should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding which nation will host the World Cup. Infrastructure amenities and capacity for growth are just a few of the considerations addressed throughout the selection process. While it is true that the host nation may need to make investments in stadium infrastructure and boost interest in the game it also gives a chance to advertise football in areas where it might not be as popular. FIFA wants to broaden the World Cup worldwide influence and reach by holding it in a variety of cities. This will open up new prospects for the growth and engagement of football.

bbigtart

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 272

Quote from: nullama on June 19, 2023, 11:24:18 PM

Your comment reminded me of Rene Higuita, the goal keeper from Colombia, who was famous for doing acrobatic saves, the most common one called The Scorpion:

I don't think we see much of these crazy things these days.

The Legendary Goalkeeper Rene Higueta (The Scorpion), unfortunately becomes a drug addict and gets into a case. Football players in the past had many good skills and there were attractions, different from modern football.

The best goalkeepers are many but Rene Hiquata is the best and unique, because only he dares to go halfway and save in a unique way. I'm thankful that I watched it during the world cup when I was still in junior high school.
And here are the best Latin American goalkeepers:
1. Chilavert
2. Rogerio Ceni
3. Dida
4. Taffarel
5. René Higuita
6. Jorge Campos
7. Abondazerri
8. Bonanos
9. Mondragon
10. Marcos
11. Julio Caesar

Topic: FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread - page 172. (Read 57640 times)