Topic: FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread - page 236. (Read 67816 times)

~snip~
that is correct - the only option for a poor person like me is to watch the broadcasted matches
because a person like me can surely not afford a visit to the expensive country like America and Canada.

I think it is important to remember that three nations mean a lot more things nations could offer while hosting, that is why it's being done right now. Saudi Arabia is promising a lot of stuff as a single nation for 2030 for example, but it would be like Qatar where one nation will spend so much money and time and workforce to make it happen, all these Ronaldo transfers and maybe potentially Mourinho and Messi, all those to attract people to Saudi league and make them accept 2030 as a potential.

However, would you rather have a single nation that is not ready and will get ready, or would you rather have 3 nations that is ready today? That seems like a better idea which is why I am not against it too much, this one has too much distance however, that's an issue, like two nations bordering easily could be fine, but a game at New York and a game at Mexico has so much distance.

The advantage is that of the three countries that will host the World Cup in 2026, two of them already have experience in how to host a major event such as the World Cup, and the United States will be the host for the second time as well as Mexico, even for the U.S. they have the experience in terms of hosting another event that is not less big because it is followed by many countries that are the Olympics. The experience that these two countries have will make the organization well organized so that it is comfortable not only for the spectators who will be present in their country to watch the match but especially for the players who will attend and play because they need it to be able to focus and maximize in every performance.

Of the three countries that will be the organizers, I think only the national team of Mexico and the United States will be able to gain a lot at this big event later, so it is very likely for both of them to get to the quarter-finals, while Canada will be a little different fate and if they want to a good thing they must make their national team grow from now on so that they can compete more later, but I am pretty sure they as the host will get a little ease in the draw and the support of the public will give the opportunity to these three countries to compete with the other countries in favor.

Why do you have to visit 3 countries?, I think if you intend to watch the world cup matches live because your country's national team will play, just look at the group phase where your country will be based camp, after that if they can advance to the next round then the United States is the choice because this country has a larger portion of organizing matches than the other two countries, but if you don't have the funds for that then it's actually not a problem because matches will always be broadcast live and that's enough in my opinion because I will like that too.

I agree about letting one country host the world cup instead of three countries but in fact, since we have more counties playing in the 2026 world cup maybe that's why FIFA let three countries host the world cup however, there won't be three hosts for the world cup, the country hosting the world cup in America and two other countries are just helping America.

Qatar hosted the Football World Cup beautifully and the stadiums made for a beautiful sight to behold. However, many football fans could not enjoy this event properly due to some strict rules in Qatar. But hopefully in the next World Cup they will be very relaxed and football fans will be able to enjoy the World Cup very much.

I think the main issue with Qatar was that they don't have a football team that actually has the required level to play at a world cup.

They only had the money, which is why the tournament was hosted there, but in the games that Qatar played it was so clear that they don't have enough skill. They lowered the quality of the tournament.

But overall, yeah, it was a great tournament.

I think the main issue with Qatar was that they don't have a football team that actually has the required level to play at a world cup.

They only had the money, which is why the tournament was hosted there, but in the games that Qatar played it was so clear that they don't have enough skill. They lowered the quality of the tournament.

But overall, yeah, it was a great tournament.

Fifa tournament is not just about football, it is also an event people travel to come have fun.  Qatar was good when it comes good arrangement and management but it was too strick for many visitors.  This is only the challenge that made the tournament not to be enjoyable the way it is suppose to be.

The only reason some people so sat Qatar was a good host for the world cup was because of the money they spent for the world cup and nothing else, it doesn't matter if you build great stadiums and spend money for it if you take the freedom from people, you can't be a good host for the world cup and Qatar rules and cultures were the problems.

Seems funny when many people downgrade with Qatar as the host for FIFA World Cup 2022 from infrastructure, LGBT, drink alcohol until racism issues. I don't know why many people judge with Qatar because they have been the best host in FIFA World Cup than last several edition time with good infrastructure and nothing bad or controversial on all World Cup 2022 matches.

Depend on last FIFA World Cup edition, I think Qatar have more upgrade and beautiful infrastructure when another countries become host for FIFA World Cup, but its controversial because many people disagree with LGBT, alcoholic and not marriage can't sleep together. We have respect with other countries culture and can't change norms in force in that country.

~snip~
Seems funny when many people downgrade with Qatar as the host for FIFA World Cup 2022 from infrastructure, LGBT, drink alcohol until racism issues. I don't know why many people judge with Qatar because they have been the best host in FIFA World Cup than last several edition time with good infrastructure and nothing bad or controversial on all World Cup 2022 matches.

Depend on last FIFA World Cup edition, I think Qatar have more upgrade and beautiful infrastructure when another countries become host for FIFA World Cup, but its controversial because many people disagree with LGBT, alcoholic and not marriage can't sleep together. We have respect with other countries culture and can't change norms in force in that country.

We can't easily downgrade them. Qatar doesn't had good number of infrastructure and for that reason it spend a lot as well as started its work long years back. With the upcoming FIFA World Cup host nations, they already have got good infrastructure. All that needs to be done is just making things better as people from all around the world will be visiting the country.

As said the logo doesn't had much of creativity. Just the 26 is added to showcase it to be the 2026 World Cup. Apart it is just the World Cup that is made as the logo. We don't know what relies behind, maybe it too have got wrapped meaning within it.

In fact, America got more resources than a country like Qatar and they got much more potential for the world cup than Qatar because in Qatar they didn't have enough sports facilities and they had to spend too much money for it while in America there is enough stadiums and all they to do is to repair all they got, this way America will not spend money like Qatar.

The 2026 world cup will be a unique and interesting one - 3 countries hosting it and looking forward to what it would look like. Will they be able to top what Qatar did? In terms of the quality of the stadium, security and all. With regards to the logo which was unveiled somedays back, my opinion on this is that it's the worst logo in World Cup history. It would have been suitable for the 2030 or another distant year edition, but for this World Cup, I don't see it as very original and creative. Besides, it's evident that they didn't even make an effort to create that logo.

He thinks that even if the United States, Canada and Mexico make similar efforts, it will not be like Qatar. But they are trying. These issues came to light on May 17.  2026 Football World Cup logo was officially unveiled there. For those who haven't seen the World Cup 2026 football log yet, I've attached it.

LOL.. looks as if they wanted to compensate for the anti-LGBT themes at the Qatar edition, and therefore created a rainbow themed logo. 2026 edition of the FIFA World Cup will be held in North America and it is expected that FIFA will receive around $6 billion in revenues from this event. They could have spent a few hundred USD to create a good logo. Any of the freelancers would have created a better design. Anyway, I still believe that these logos are very preliminary and FIFA will finalize on some good designs as the tournament approaches.

In fact, America got more resources than a country like Qatar and they got much more potential for the world cup than Qatar because in Qatar they didn't have enough sports facilities and they had to spend too much money for it while in America there is enough stadiums and all they to do is to repair all they got, this way America will not spend money like Qatar.

Especially when it comes to World Cups a decision has to be made between inclusion in terms of size of the World Cup and the capacities of the hosting countries, and still a sense of exclusivity to keep the tournament exciting.

Due to the idea to include more countries also as participants, many potential host countries are not able to pull that off anymore. The USA could do it and countries with unlimited resources like Qatar could do it, but now that more and more nations are added to the final round of the tournament, lots of infrastructural limits in many countries are exceeded. That is why I expect that several host nations will be the norm for the World Cup going forward.

At least to me FIFA is giving a signal to other countries, they are basically saying we are not letting one of the most powerful countries around the world to hold the world cup on their own and they need to have partners to even have a chance to do it, and if any country wants to host the world cup on the future then they need to find partners as well in order to do so, so I think that from now on multiple hosts will become the norm and we will not see a single country hosting the world cup for a very long time.

I think it would certainly help smaller countries or countries with no economical resources to host the whole event to still be part of it. They would not need to invest so much in infrastructure, security or places to keep tourists happy, since all the event would eventually move to a neighbor country.

For example, Nepal and Mongolia are counties that by their own could not host a World Cup but they could if decided to co-host with China.

Of course, all of it would not be that easy, there are neighbor countries which have political and ideological disagreements among them, which would not allow them to coordinate such big event as orderly and quickly as it is supposed to. Whether we like it or not, when talk about more than one country, we need to think of geopolitics.