Topic: FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread - page 205. (Read 67874 times)

That was actually a good one if you ask me, I mean the last champions should be there, even if they are not as good anymore, it just means that the previous champion is there for other teams to beat at least. Even if they fail to go up in the group stages, that still means there are 3 other teams to beat them in the group stages as well. Long story short I supported it but it's gone so never mind that.

Host is still a big issue, of course host will play because it would be hard not to, but when the hosts are growing in size it's becoming an issue. Look at Canada/USA/Mexico right now, that's three teams automatically there, which prevents another 3 team to participate in it as well. I can't really say that it's going to be different or anything but after all we are talking about a situation where too many hosts would mean terrible for other teams.

Yes and i dont like the new distribution of place , also i dont like the new format of 48 teams, its only to make more money for FIFA and broadcasters, but its worst for the level of the tournament, we are gonna see so many low level teams from CONCACAF, ASIA, Africa.

And for worst they only give one more palce to CONMEBOL.

That's something that is discussed before about the World Cup hosts getting automatic qualification without any condition with other teams.
The fact about this rule is some countries are not even in the situation to play in the world cup but they are playing there just because they are hosting it. But, imagine a country like America is hosting the next world cup but they don't play there, I think their people will lose interest to host this tournament, and maybe that's why they made this rule.

I wouldn't be afraid of attacks to the extent of the September 11, 2001. But that is where the problem begins because even small attacks can have significant effects on the public's real security and the perceived security. If a small attack happens during a World Cup in the US, I can imagine that this would have consequences on the decisions people make to attend for example public viewing events. And these small attacks are so difficult to prevent from happening. That is what makes the resource expenditure on security measures so high. During an event of that magnitude in terms of the number of people and the area that it takes place it is like searching for the needle in the haystack. But as always we can only hope that nothing is going to happen. The Boston Marathon also got under attack once and the consequences were bitter.

OK... Sounds a bit unfair for me. If FIFA can grant automatic qualification to the hosts (that would mean multiple countries using this loophole to gain direct entry to the world cup in 2026), then they could have given this exception to the defending champions as well. And that would mean that an additional qualification slot would be available for the CONMEBOL region, which is also fair given the extreme competition for qualification from that confederation. Either FIFA needs to ask everyone (including hosts) to qualify, or they need to give the direct entry to both hosts and defending champions.

Yeah, since a long time ago the champion of the world cup has to go back to the qualifier stage. Only the host gets automatic qualification.

The winner of France 1998, which was France, was actually the last team to qualify automatically as the champion. So, in Korea-Japan 2002 we saw this happening for the last time, more than 20 years ago.

There is still a long time left for the football world cup to start. The Qatar World Cup frenzy is not with us yet but it is true that as soon as one World Cup tournament ends, the management has to discuss the next World Cup tournament. Most of the football fans are thinking that it is very difficult to get an American visa, so if the World Cup is held in America, it will be very difficult for the spectators to sit in the stadium and enjoy the games. And many security aspects appear to be discussed as well. Since the World Cup is going to be held in the United States, we should not have any doubts about the security, the World Cup in the United States will be held with maximum security. Since the management has got enough time to plan, hopefully we will see a good World Cup in 2026.

It seems like, when they are going to hold a big event then of course, security is the top priority that must be considered. Thus, this big event can be run with extra security which is of course to make every spectator and supporter safer to watch and also be in the location. It would be very wrong if they did not prioritize security, and that way at least it is proven that the World Cup every time it is held looks fine, I guess. But with technology that continues to develop, then it should be their access can also be faster and maybe not complicated to apply.

Argentina still has to qualify despite being the defending champions? Anyway from your list, only Brazil and Argentina looks certain to me. Competition is extremely strong in CONMEBOL qualifiers. Upsets can always happen and last time it was Uruguay and Ecuador who managed to qualify apart from the two top teams. Colombia lost out and later tried their best to get Ecuador disqualified. Chile and Paraguay lost out as well, and they were also not too happy about it. Peru had a golden chance of qualifying, but they lost to Australia in the playoffs.

In fact, it seems football is taking a backseat to discussions on this topic.

But, taking advantage of the fact that you spoke about this subject, I would like to bring you some details about the South American qualifiers, which is certainly one of the regions that most of us are interested in.

Conmebol has already defined the entire calendar of games, in short there will be six rounds in 2023 (in the months of September, October and November), six in 2024 (also in September, October and November) and six more in 2025 (March, June and September).
We have ten teams that will face each other twice (round trip) and each country will play nine matches in their domains and nine matches as a visitor.

In the end, six of these teams will qualify to make up the 48 teams in the competition.

It's still too early to bet, but right now my guess is Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Uruguay, Chile and Ecuador.

Its real fun to see we talking more about securitie, policies, and some other regulations things of related to the world cup more than the football and world cup itself. 

Yes i know qualifiers hasnt started yet and we dont have so much to talk, but i think its one of the first world cups talking so much about VISAS and security things. For me like i said before i want to wait a little bit more to know how they are gonna managed this.

Security is a very important aspect of the World Cup. Security took a large chunk of Qatar's $ 200 billion expenditure in the last world cup. A county like the US that has powerful enemies makes security even more important. The last terrorist attack in the US on September 11, 2001, has made the country invest more in security.

American borders are always difficult to protect from illegal immigrants but the country will beef up its internal security to ensure that there is no terrorist attack because the US is a major target of some of these extremist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. I am also optimistic that the Russia-Ukraine war would have ended before the world cup. This is because the support of Ukraine by the US and Canada can also pose a security threat.

Without a doubt this is very problematic, as I see on this world cup the raise of a new trend, which is world cups being hosted by many countries as a way to reduce the costs they have pay and to take the world cup to more countries at the same time, so from now on the challenges when it comes to maintaining the security of the world cup will only increase, as without a doubt as the most important sport event around the world it is bound to be targeted by all kind of criminals.

The saddest part about all the preparations for these World Cup events and also other big events is that so many resources have to be invested into preventing terrorism attacks. The resources going into security research and implementation are a significant share of the total investment. Regrettable that the world can't just live and be in peace, but that is sadly an integral part of our lives. I think this is a huge challenge for a multi-nation World Cup when all the boarders have to be protected and the inner security isn't limited to a small area like in Qatar, but across a whole continent or even two like North and South America.

It takes longer than 4 years, we have known that this world cup will be held at this place before the last one was even played, why? Because we would love to see nations get a lot more ready for something like this. I feel like this is going to be pretty amazing, we are going to get so much more entertainment here without a doubt.

I do not know how long it takes to rebuild stadiums, because we are not going to really just tore down a whole stadium to build a new one or even need that (which can still be done) or build a whole new one, but I am pretty sure that 4 years is enough of a time, now 3 years left of course. There is a new stadium in Las Vegas that took 2 billion dollars to build, I wonder if there will be any games at all there, would love to see the final there.

@Leviathan.007 I too oppose the World Cup being played every two years because it’ll ruin it’s vibe and take away it’s charm which comes after the long wait. Furthermore if the duration is short many athletes may suffer burnout due to so many games being played in such a short duration and I won’t be surprised if some of them decide to skip it all together because the World Cup would have clearly lost it’s charm.

Changing the rules something will not work, for example, if you have the world cup every two or three years it will definitely decrease the quality of the world cup and we all know it, also it will change the FIFA calendar and makes everything hard even for the leagues, but having more teams in the world cup is another story however I this even this will decrease the quality of the world cup because of having more weak countries in the world cup they should not in this tournament normally.

Well.. I don't want to change the current setup. Right now, the world cup is being played every 4 years, and most of the regional competitions are being played with shorter intervals. This should continue IMO. I am a big supporter of the expansion of the FIFA World Cup to 48 countries, and I am of the opinion that it will further popularize football. But any attempt to reduce the interval between two events to two years need to be opposed. In this case, I agree with the clubs. Playing world cup every two years may prove counterproductive.

I was already wondering if with the current model of 4 years we will ever see many countries organizing the world cup, because in 40 years there are only 10 world cups, the ideal would be for fifa to reduce it to 3 years, something that it would allow to maintain the quality of the organization and prestige of the world cup and it would also be more rotating, that is more countries could organize the world cup, in 15 years we would already have 5 world cups which means that in 15 years many countries would have organized the cup in the world, that would be a good thing because many countries would make an effort to be able to organize it, but what has been happening today and that has an interval of many years, has few national teams

and the countries that have a great budget and that win to organize the world cup and on the days of the games the transmissions of the games on tv are restricted which becomes a great absurdity, fifa has become a greedy organization and without prestige, we can see uefa, there's the euro and there's the champions league that happens every year and even so it hasn't lost prestige, so this clearly shows that it's possible to have a world cup every 3 years and have prestige as long as people from fifa change your criteria for choosing countries, don't keep thinking about the country that proposes to spend more money only

I am all for a respectful approach to other religions or beliefs in general, but it should not be forgotten that it is not only the tourists from the Western World who either intentionally or even unintentionally violate some laws or customs, it is also people with Muslim beliefs who are free to practice their religion in Western countries often times even when some of the stuff is not entirely legal. I think to shut one eye is not asking too much as this benefits everyone. Of course, if there are violations of the most important laws in a country, that is problematic, but those laws should still be in agreement with human rights conventions and that is where it gets problematic. But as far as I have heard at least the tourists felt mostly safe and comfortable for the time the World Cup took place.