Topic: FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread - page 185. (Read 67816 times)

Well.. the last line summarizes it. It's a good thing, right? In Europe and Latin America, too much importance is being given to one sport and everything else suffers as a result. But in the United States, no one sport is having a monopoly and there is enough attention being given to most of the Olympic disciplines. One disadvantage with the United States is that despite being the no.1 economy in the world, they don't have a good football league. The Major League Soccer is nowhere in comparison to European leagues such as Serie A or EPL.

Yeah, fair enough, but what I'm saying is that in South America and Europe you have fans talking about footaball 365 days a year, every year.

It's like religion. Everyone loves it and lives it.

Whereas in America is just popular when there's something big going on.

That is the part of the reason why they choose these three countries to host the next world cup, I mean that their move is understandable because they wanted a much bigger arena with guaranteed audience when they present their new format this coming 2026 with more games and teams added. As we all know, having the games in North America means that almost every fellow in this world can watch it and that's their goal.

Other than that, the most obvious reason why FIFA chose America-Canada-Mexico to host the 2026 World Cup is that these three countries bid and won the bid together. It's a business after all and in every business, there's always a motive behind the reason. Just like how the Qatar was rumored to won the bid because they have bought some of the people in the FIFA council to guarantee a spot to host a world cup event.

I don't think it's either a good or a bad thing... it just is.

The passion about football only exists in Europe and South America. Is that a good or a bad thing?, I don't think it matters, it just is.

And also I don't think you can create that by putting more money into the competition. South America is an example of poor countries with a love of football whereas in the European competitions there's a lot of money involved. So, it's independent of money.

~snip~
Well.. the last line summarizes it. It's a good thing, right? In Europe and Latin America, too much importance is being given to one sport and everything else suffers as a result. But in the United States, no one sport is having a monopoly and there is enough attention being given to most of the Olympic disciplines. One disadvantage with the United States is that despite being the no.1 economy in the world, they don't have a good football league. The Major League Soccer is nowhere in comparison to European leagues such as Serie A or EPL.

Well, with respect to Qatar, things can be very ambiguous, some say yes, it was a mistake, but why was it Qatar and not another country? Was there a lot of money there for them not to take away the world headquarters from this country? Why did FIFA become a blind eye, of course many say that human rights are biased in these countries, but there are countries that also violate human rights and continue walking without saying anything, the Qatari workers are unfortunate, It is something that should not have happened, but who are we to get into the rules, laws of that country and tell them what is right and what is wrong? I don't think we will have that right, as I have said before, if a country chooses to be the headquarters of the world, that country has its customs, it has its rules, and it is the one that hosts an event, the people and the fans, and players have to stick to the rules of that country, there is nothing to do there, if things are like that, you simply have to respect, there are many things that you like and others that you do not like, but after all, that country is sovereign, It has its own laws and FIFA knew that.

Now the new world cup with these 3 countries , it would be Excellent if they could include some good games from Europe from European countries, because I do not consider that Mexico will have few people, it is a common country and like all, of course there are some customs that are Different , and that are usually seen with the naked eye, but it is a different country, nothing else in its language and everything, but it must be taken into Consideration that Mexico is a very Beautiful country, that it has a lot to know and that it has a lot to do with the things that exist, it has a lot of history, compared to the USA, the USA is a developed country, it is quite obvious that the people there will cause more emotion, it has a lot to entertain themselves, and apart from the Disney parks and all those things, they are quite Striking, obviously you also have to do and grow to know Something,  your security is superior, in Mexico things have to be Better, with more Security.

~snip~
Well.. the last line summarizes it. It's a good thing, right? In Europe and Latin America, too much importance is being given to one sport and everything else suffers as a result. But in the United States, no one sport is having a monopoly and there is enough attention being given to most of the Olympic disciplines. One disadvantage with the United States is that despite being the no.1 economy in the world, they don't have a good football league. The Major League Soccer is nowhere in comparison to European leagues such as Serie A or EPL.

Without a doubt the local soccer league on the US is weak, but I think FIFA by giving the world cup to the US as the main host is trying to strengthen soccer as one of the main sports there, if this can be done and the infrastructure on colleges can be used to train players, and those which are psychically gifted begin to select soccer as their sport of preference over baseball, basketball and football then we could begin to see a major improvement on the quality of the soccer played at the US.

I would guess that Mexico ones will not get all that much visitors, not as many as USA ones to be fair. I think it's obvious that we are going to end up seeing USA to get the most visitors out of all three nations and they are going to do fine. This is of course not guaranteed, but I bet that it's not going to be a big deal and we should be seeing trouble on the long run.

This is of course a trouble when you consider that it's going to end up with a cultural resemblance as well, there are tons of western nations going to world cup, and most of the time it's either Latin American or European teams that wins it, and that means cultures are quite close enough, for clothing, drinking, acting, everything will be pretty similar.

That is quite a short version of Michael Jordan's story. There is even a movie now and everyone is aware that he was a pioneer in signing merchandise contracts that grant him a share of the revenue, in his case Nike. Until 2020, he has made an estimated $1.3 billion from his Nike deal. He earned $256 million from Nike in 2022 alone. So where his money comes from is a share in marketing revenue.

The big difference is that the money he gets is cash on a yearly basis. He can only sell the Hornets once and he has to give up the feeling and status of being an owner as well. The real value is his Nike deal.

I also think that it is not that easy. Can the Chelsea owner be sure to go home with a profit? I don't know and times can change as well, business can shift from one place to a different place. Though it has been very cheap a while ago to buy clubs.

World Cups and such can be catalysts to pricing and such, but I doubt that someone buys a club in order to sell it in 4 or 8 years from now. Events like the World Cup make construction companies rich who are well connected with FIFA officials. That's how the world works over there.