Topic: FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread - page 195. (Read 62822 times)

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. 

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/

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.

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.

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

NFL, NBA and MLB maybe immensely popular in the United States. But then, it is a country of 330 million people and a large share of the population originates from countries where football is very popular, such as Mexico, Nigeria and Italy. There is no doubt that the 2026 edition will be a larger success when compared to the one in 1994. And I don't agree with the argument that USA can't host all the matches. There are enough number of quality facilities available and they could have easily hosted all the matches. The reason why Canada and Mexico are hosting some of the matches are due to the fact that it was a "combined North American" bid.

Ok, let's then talk about Maradona's contribution to Argentina's 1986 world title and Messi's contribution to Argentina's 2022 world title.
As you know, one's contribution in a game depends not only on goals but also on assists, and both factors are important.
Maradona may have scored less goals than Messi, but almost all of his goals were in the knockout stages of the competition, when it matters most, and not in the group stages of the competition.
Maradona scored all four goals for Argentina in the quarter-finals and semi-finals against very tough opponents, England and Belgium.
His goal against Belgium in the semi-finals, when he went past 7 players of the opposing team, is still considered the best goal in the history of the World Cup.
Diego Maradona participated in 10 goals at the 1986 World Cup, 5 goals and 5 assists.
His final assist in the final against Germany brought Argentina the World Cup title.
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.
However, Messi did not have such a big impact on Argentina's performances at the 2022 World Cup.
I advise you to look at the performances of Argentina in the quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals of the 1986 World Cup, as I did, and then compare the performances of Argentina in the quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals of the 2022 World Cup and then we can further discuss this topic, based on concrete facts and arguments.
I'm sorry that not everyone likes this but Maradona contributed much more to Argentina's 1986 world title than Messi did last year, especially because of what he did in the quarter-finals and semi-finals, when he single-handedly beat opponents.
Yes, Maradona is better than Messi, whether you like it or not.

Sources: https://www.90min.com/posts/diego-maradona-1986-world-cup-heroics-in-numbers
https://www.beinsports.com/en-mena/football/articles/maradona-at-60-the-star-of-mexico-1986-and-1

I would add that Maradona didn't score his goals from penalties but from play and most importantly, Maradona led an average Argentinian national team to the world title in 1986, and Messi still had a much stronger team behind him last year.