2026 FIFA World Cup

[formulanone]

All three are hosts (and thus qualify automatically* as both Japan and South Korea did in 2002).

I can't say I have an opinion on FIFA (and don't need one, I have enough opinions already), but the notion that the host country (or countries) automatically qualifies seems especially corrupt.

Probably to recoup expenditures via nearly-guaranteed and/or sponsor-awarded ticket prices, build tourism, and possibly increase local interest in the sport. Stadia with low crowd counts apparently don't look good to sponsors.

It's safe to say that interest in soccer started to increase in America since 1994, though it has already quietly moving along since the 1960s.

[Rothman]

I would have thought the automatic qualification was a simple courtesy to the host country.  Seems silly to host the thing when your own team isn't in the running somehow.

[abefroman329]

Seems silly to host the thing when your own team isn't in the running somehow.

Doesn't seem any sillier than hosting a Super Bowl in a city where the home team isn't playing in it.

[Rothman]

It is an entire tournament, not just one match.

[Bruce]

The automatic qualification is probably the least corrupt thing about FIFA.

Previous World Cup hosts (excluding Qatar) have qualified before their host tournament, so it's usually not a big deal. It might be an issue when it comes time for China to host...or if Canada is unable to make it out of the Nations League for 2022.

Plus, neutral site venues really suck when it comes to atmosphere. When the host country plays in a big tournament, it brings out a lot of passion, like so:

[english si]

I can't say I have an opinion on FIFA (and don't need one, I have enough opinions already), but the notion that the host country (or countries) automatically qualifies seems especially corrupt.

Locals are the main source of ticket sales and it seems silly not to include their team in some way, rather than corrupt to do so. It's an international sporting norm that the hosts qualify automatically. In some ways its their fee from the international body that takes most of the profits despite paying little of the costs (which FIFA, IOC, etc all do).

It used to be that the reigning champions also automatically qualified, but that was removed: mostly as World Cup winners wanted to play competitive matches in the built up as practise. At about the same time, UEFA added a formal mechanism for Champions League winners to be able to defend their title as it was seen as an outrageous oversight that was only not dealt with because, until Liverpool, the winning team had always qualified via their domestic league position (at least since the tournament was expanded beyond league winners).

While England and France only won the World Cup as hosts, typically it's not much help. Sure, the group stage seeding does make it easier for the hosts (and I'd suggest that's where the corruption with host teams is, rather than their being in the tournament itself), but the lack of practise that not having to qualify means leads to disasters like Brazil-Germany in 2014: face a decent team and that lack of qualifying practise shows even if you are a quality team like Brazil.

The only countries that probably wouldn't have qualified for a world cup they hosted are - South Africa (2010), Russia (2018 - though they got to the Euros), Qatar (2022) and Canada (2026). Russia and Qatar winning the bids was corrupt, but them automatically qualifying isn't really. The viability of an international tournament usually relies on the country actually caring enough about the sport that would suggest that their team wasn't terrible...

And why would the US need to share hosting duties with Canada and Mexico when we were able to host on our own in 1994?

Because instead of 24 teams playing 52 matches in 9 stadia, it's 48 teams playing 80 matches in 16 stadia. The average number of games per city in '94 was higher than '26 will be (5.7778 vs 5) but the USA didn't use as many stadia as the other 24-team/52 match tournaments: Italia '90 and Mexico '86 both used 12 stadia (4.333 games each on average), and Espana '82 which used 17 grounds in 14 cities. The US is stumping up 10 stadia - 1 more than in '94, with Mexico and Canada chipping three each.

As I said above - I can't see any bid that isn't a joint bid being viable, save maybe Germany and Italy, as no country (splitting the UK up into its constituent parts, as it is for international football) has enough places with long-term viable stadia that meet FIFA's requirements - including their dislike of more than one met area having two stadia (and three stadia in a met area is right out for bids).

[english si]

Seems silly to host the thing when your own team isn't in the running somehow.

Doesn't seem any sillier than hosting a Super Bowl in a city where the home team isn't playing in it.

It is an entire tournament, not just one match.

Indeed - the Super Bowl is effectively a tournament where 32 teams play 16 games each in a group stage, then the best 12 play up-to-3 knock-out games to get to the final. The problem here is that the Super Bowl is the name of the final, not the whole competition. And because the final goes to one of the 32's stadium (usually), it's not necessarily the inherently neutral venue they seek - unlike, say, Wembley Stadium for the FA Cup final*

*OK, this last season Spurs used it as their home stadium while they rebuilt White Hart Lane, and even played there (and lost) in an FA Cup semi-final as a nominally away side at what is meant to be a neutral venue.

[Big John]

All three are hosts (and thus qualify automatically* as both Japan and South Korea did in 2002).

According to this article, it is yet to be determined: https://www.sbnation.com/soccer/2018/6/13/17458034/2026-world-cup-auto-bid-qualification-usa-canada-mexico

[Bruce]

The splitting of the bid was a political move, one designed to save North America from being cannibalized and to make "another" US World Cup more palatable by including our neighbors.

[Alps]

I would have thought the automatic qualification was a simple courtesy to the host country.  Seems silly to host the thing when your own team isn't in the running somehow.

I think it's exceedingly stupid that the host country is seeded #1 in the draw. They should be seeded based on their world ranking.

[Bruce]

I would have thought the automatic qualification was a simple courtesy to the host country.  Seems silly to host the thing when your own team isn't in the running somehow.

I think it's exceedingly stupid that the host country is seeded #1 in the draw. They should be seeded based on their world ranking.

The world rankings that FIFA uses are pretty awful, and would put a host country at a disadvantage because they don't go through the qualification matches (where major points can be earned). Being seeded automatically as A1 makes planning a lot easier, as the host team's group stage venues will be known well in advance.

[Alps]

I would have thought the automatic qualification was a simple courtesy to the host country.  Seems silly to host the thing when your own team isn't in the running somehow.

I think it's exceedingly stupid that the host country is seeded #1 in the draw. They should be seeded based on their world ranking.

The world rankings that FIFA uses are pretty awful, and would put a host country at a disadvantage because they don't go through the qualification matches (where major points can be earned). Being seeded automatically as A1 makes planning a lot easier, as the host team's group stage venues will be known well in advance.

Then seed them before qualification matches start. Make them B1 or C1. A1 just makes less than no sense. May as well just drop the host team straight into the elimination round.

[english si]

May as well just drop the host team straight into the elimination round.

Russia would bite your hand off for that vs their current position (despite winning their opening game 5-0).

[MisterSG1]

With the expansion to 48 teams, I was a bit hesitant on what I like to call more of a "March Madness" format, but I think it's better.

For those who aren't aware, the 2026 World Cup will have 16 groups with 3 teams each in them, this changes from the current format of 8 groups with 4 teams each. With the top two teams going on to a Round of 32....hence why I described it more like March Madness.

This eliminates the problem of the occasional meaningless third group stage match. With the final stage now being a single elimination tournament of 32 teams, that means 32 countries, the same currently in the World Cup, will get to play at least 3 matches.


As for why the US didn't host the tournament on its own, my guess is to make it look more acceptable to FIFA, the US could host the World Cup with ease on its own.....look at how many huge stadiums are across the country. Canada did float the possibility of hosting before, but most would realize that such a bid would be practically impossible. The real loser in this is Mexico.....the most soccer crazy place of the three countries and gets the amount of matches as Canada. I'm surprised they never attempted a bid on their own against a combined Canada/USA bid.

When it comes to Canada hosting FIFA events, they have hosted the FIFA U-20 World Cup in 2007 back when BMO Field was brand new, and the FIFA Women's World Cup in 2015 (which was a disgrace to the sport of soccer) and didn't have any games in Toronto due to a potential conflict with the Pan American Games. Incidentally, the CONCACAF Gold Cup in 2015 had a pair of matches played at BMO Field making Canada a technical co-host of that tournament. I assume these matches were given to Toronto as a sort of compromise of not getting any Women's World Cup games.

[english si]

Make them B1 or C1. A1 just makes less than no sense.

In 2018, Russia are the lowest-ranked team (albeit partially due to the extra weighting of qualifiers that Russia didn't take part in), and in 2022, Qatar will be, by-far, the worst team there and there's no way they are better than pot D.

But in 2014, there was no way that Brazil weren't worthy of being in the top seeds. Ditto Germany in 2006. Hosts in pot A (ie the top seeds) often makes sense, rather than "less than no sense." It depends on the team. Based on current quality, 16 top seeds, and no bonus for hosts: Mexico would be in pot A, USA would be in pot B, Canada would be the pot C team everyone would want in their group!


Euro 2020 is perhaps somewhat of a model of how it could work if there's no automatic host qualification - if a host qualifies then they play their group games at home (note that there's 12 host cities, each in a different nation, and paired on criteria like geography and sporting prowess. eg, if England and Scotland both qualify then they will automatically be put in the same group, with a draw to see whether the game between them is at Wembley or Hampden Park. Germany was paired with Hungary and Netherlands with Romania despite D+NL and H+RO being more logical pairings on geography as it is then one better team and one middling team).

the US could host the World Cup with ease on its own.....look at how many huge stadiums are across the country.

slight non sequitor there - the facilities needed for hosting are not just big stadiums.

FIFA have a big long list of criteria about the stadia and the cities they are in in order for them to hold a World Cup finals game. The US might have 16 stadiums that could be upgraded to meet these rules (or already do), but only just.

[NWI_Irish96]

How I think it will work:
I think all 3 host teams get automatic spots.  2 of the 3 are going to qualify anyway and Canada isn't going to be that much worse than the 6th best CONCACAF team so you aren't losing much.
I think the US gets placed in Group A.  I think Mexico gets placed in Group K, which means they couldn't meet the US until the finals if they both finish 1st or both finish 2nd in their groups, and couldn't meet until the semifinals if one finishes 1st and the other 2nd. (Yes, it's a real stretch to see them getting that far but I think they'll do it that way anyway).  Canada probably gets something like group O.
Mexico gets the Group stage games for Groups I-J, both R32 games involving those two groups, and then the two R16 games involving the winners of those two groups (should they advance).  That pulls two teams who played group games and R32 games in the US down to Mexico for R16.
Canada gets the Group stage games for Groups O-P, both R32 games involving those two groups, and then the two R16 games involving the winners of those two groups (should they advance).  That pulls two teams who played group games and R32 games in the US up to Canada for R16.
US gets all the remaining games.