Now that the United States, Canada and Mexico have announced their joint bid, it's time to speculate on which cities end up with matches.
The 2026 tournament will be the first to have 48 teams, with 16 groups of 3 teams each. The top 2 teams will advance to a 32-team knockout stage. The United States will host all matches from the Quarterfinals onwards to the Final. Canada and Mexico will both only host 10 matches each.
Group stages tend to be done with geographic groupings (trying to stay within the same time zone as well), so I'll seed the stadiums as followed (4 matches per group), though I can't quite get everyone into proper groups:
Group A (USA): Los Angeles (Rose Bowl and Inglewood NFL) and San Francisco
Group B (Canada): Toronto and Montreal
Group C (Mexico): Mexico City (Azteca) and Guadalajara
Group D: Phoenix and Denver
Group E: Seattle and Vancouver
Group F: Washington DC and Philadelphia
Group H: Chicago and Indianapolis
Group I: Dallas and Houston
Group J: Atlanta and Nashville
Group K: Tampa and Miami
Group L: Minneapolis and Kansas City
Group M: Boston and New York City (Meadowlands)
Group N: Cleveland and Detroit
Group O: Edmonton and Calgary
Group P: Monterrey and Guadalupe
Round of 32 (16): Mexico City, Guadalupe, Vancouver, Montreal, Seattle, Los Angeles (Inglewood), San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, New York City (Meadowlands), Philadelphia, Nashville, Denver, Boston, and Washington DC
Round of 16 (8): Mexico City, Toronto, Los Angeles (Rose Bowl), Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, New York City (Meadowlands), and Chicago
Quarterfinals (4): New York City (Meadowlands), Atlanta, Los Angeles (Inglewood) and Chicago
Semifinals (2): Atlanta and Los Angeles (Rose Bowl)
Final (1): New York City (Meadowlands)
There's no way Jerry Jones's stadium doesn't get at least a semifinal.
By 2026 soccer will be the sport of the next generation. Four generations and counting.
Hopefully this exercise can be held in Russia or Iran or on a platform in the Caspian Sea.
The 2018 World Cup is already going to be held in Russia. Most of the stadiums are complete (and bribes have been paid), so I don't think it will be as bad as Brazil in 2014.
Iran could be a contender to host in 2034 or later, when Asia is eligible again. They'd have to fend off China, most likely.
FIFA can go jump in a river (to put it politely) based on the disgusting corruption especially for the 2022 event. I'm surprised the US Soccer Federation even wants to entertain FIFA in potentially hosting.
Just from seeing how past World Cups are organized, I would make these changes to the original plan:
Both Mexico groups will be adjacent (e.g. I & J) as will both Canadian groups because consecutive groups play each other in the first knockout round so the teams advancing from those groups could stay where they are. Definitely won't be a single group that plays in multiple countries.
I also doubt the US needs 24 venues. 16 is probably plenty. I don't see places like Cleveland, Indy, Nashville or Minneapolis getting games. Also, while minimizing travel makes sense for the teams, the organizers are going to want to expose all the teams to different parts of the country so the US would probably not play both their group stage games in California and other states that potentially have multiple venues like Florida and Texas will not have the same group played in both.
Atlanta may be iffy since the new stadium will have FieldTurf installed. They could bring in grass but I'm not sure how well it would do during a lengthy tournament in a mostly-closed stadium not really designed for it (unlike U of Phoenix, for example). Several other big stadiums like Toronto and Indianapolis may present turf or dimensions issues; FIFA grudgingly accepted the dimension problems (mostly narrow width) in 1994 and turf issues for the women in 2015 in Canada, but I doubt they'll be so flexible in 2026 for the men.
Most of the pods suggested make sense but I'd expect another southeastern pod involving two of Charlotte, Jacksonville (which USMNT has used quite a bit lately), and Orlando, probably in lieu of Cleveland and Detroit which lack any real soccer presence (USMNT often plays in Columbus, but that stadium is way too small for a World Cup match). Indy is also a bit weak... if the NFL was still in St. Louis I'd say it would be a no-brainer instead.
And I expect the US would play its group games somewhere like Chicago and Minneapolis, not in California which is very much El Tri country.
Here's my guesstimate (changes only in the group stage). I added Jax/Orlando, Las Vegas (as a better pairing for Phoenix), Charlotte, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh, and dropped Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Detroit. Vegas, since it's likely to be about the newest venue, is the most likely to get elimination games but I didn't plan out any of those or try to align them to groups. I did try to put the groups in the Mexico half of the bracket in El Tri country.
Incidentally Bruce only had 15 groups (he skipped group G), hence why I was able to add 5 venues but only drop 3.
I do think they want to avoid too much fan and team travel, since that was a big complaint about Brazil and likely will be a complaint in Russia too (even though all the games are in European Russia).
Quote
Group A (USA): Chicago and Minneapolis
Group B: Denver and Kansas City
Group C: Pittsburgh and Philadelphia
Group D: Boston and New York City (Meadowlands)
Group E: Atlanta and Orlando (or Jacksonville)
Group F: Tampa and Miami
Group G: Nashville and Charlotte
Group H: Washington DC (FedEx Field) and Baltimore
Group I (Mexico): Mexico City (Azteca) and Guadalajara
Group J: Monterrey and Guadalupe
Group K: Dallas and Houston
Group L: Phoenix and Las Vegas
Group M: Los Angeles (Inglewood) and SF (San Jose)
Group N: Seattle and Vancouver
Group O (Canada): Toronto and Montreal
Group P: Edmonton and Calgary
Quote from: lordsutch on April 11, 2017, 04:42:21 PM
Atlanta may be iffy since the new stadium will have FieldTurf installed. They could bring in grass but I'm not sure how well it would do during a lengthy tournament in a mostly-closed stadium not really designed for it (unlike U of Phoenix, for example). Several other big stadiums like Toronto and Indianapolis may present turf or dimensions issues; FIFA grudgingly accepted the dimension problems (mostly narrow width) in 1994 and turf issues for the women in 2015 in Canada, but I doubt they'll be so flexible in 2026 for the men.
Most of the pods suggested make sense but I'd expect another southeastern pod involving two of Charlotte, Jacksonville (which USMNT has used quite a bit lately), and Orlando, probably in lieu of Cleveland and Detroit which lack any real soccer presence (USMNT often plays in Columbus, but that stadium is way too small for a World Cup match). Indy is also a bit weak... if the NFL was still in St. Louis I'd say it would be a no-brainer instead.
And I expect the US would play its group games somewhere like Chicago and Minneapolis, not in California which is very much El Tri country.
Here's my guesstimate (changes only in the group stage). I added Jax/Orlando, Las Vegas (as a better pairing for Phoenix), Charlotte, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh, and dropped Cleveland, Indianapolis, and Detroit. Vegas, since it's likely to be about the newest venue, is the most likely to get elimination games but I didn't plan out any of those or try to align them to groups. I did try to put the groups in the Mexico half of the bracket in El Tri country.
Incidentally Bruce only had 15 groups (he skipped group G), hence why I was able to add 5 venues but only drop 3.
I do think they want to avoid too much fan and team travel, since that was a big complaint about Brazil and likely will be a complaint in Russia too (even though all the games are in European Russia).
Quote
Group A (USA): Chicago and Minneapolis
Group B: Denver and Kansas City
Group C: Pittsburgh and Philadelphia
Group D: Boston and New York City (Meadowlands)
Group E: Atlanta and Orlando (or Jacksonville)
Group F: Tampa and Miami
Group G: Nashville and Charlotte
Group H: Washington DC (FedEx Field) and Baltimore
Group I (Mexico): Mexico City (Azteca) and Guadalajara
Group J: Monterrey and Guadalupe
Group K: Dallas and Houston
Group L: Phoenix and Las Vegas
Group M: Los Angeles (Inglewood) and SF (San Jose)
Group N: Seattle and Vancouver
Group O (Canada): Toronto and Montreal
Group P: Edmonton and Calgary
Oops, so I did skip over one. Thanks for the suggestions.
The only other thing I thought of is that since each group only will have 3 games, they may want to have each group have either 1 or 3 venues to balance things out (rather than one team having to play at 2 venues while the other two play at one or vice versa). If so they might pair up groups so e.g. groups A and B share 3 venues and each place gets one game for each group. That'd also potentially reduce the venue count, although Gold Cup tends to use different playoff venues than group venues so you could spread the wealth.
If you go with three venues per pair, it'd look like:
Groups A (USA) & B: Chicago, Minneapolis, and Kansas City
Groups C & D: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, and Washington DC
Groups E & F: New York (Meadowlands), Boston, and Baltimore
Groups G & H: Tampa, Miami, and Atlanta
Groups I (Mexico) & J: Mexico City, Guadalajara, and Guadalupe
Groups K & L: Monterrey, Dallas, and Houston
Groups M & N: Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Vancouver
Groups O (Canada) & P: Montreal (Olympic), Toronto, and Hamilton
Had to put something in eastern Canada to make groups O&P manageable; Hamilton can be expanded to 40k while Ottawa apparently can't.
Here's the rest of the tournament, under the assumption that CONCACAF will rig things to be as favorable to the host teams as possible (e.g. putting likely Mexico games in El Tri country when they're in the US after the round of 16) and avoid a potential US-Mexico matchup except in the final or third place game. This keeps in all the venues I'd suggested at some point, except Nashville and Orlando/Jacksonville.
Round of 32: e.g. A1 vs B2 & B1 vs A2
A/B playoffs: New York and Baltimore
C/D playoffs: Washington DC and Atlanta
E/F playoffs: Chicago and Philadelphia
G/H playoffs: Charlotte and Boston
I/J playoffs: Monterrey and Guadalajara
K/L playoffs: Dallas and Phoenix
M/N playoffs: San Jose and Las Vegas
O/P playoffs: Edmonton and Calgary
Round of 16:
A (USA) vs B: Boston
C vs D: Phildaelphia
E vs F: Washington DC
G vs H: Miami
I (Mexico) vs J: Mexico City
K vs L: Houston
M vs N: Seattle
O (Canada) vs P: Vancouver
Quarterfinals:
AB (US) vs CD: New York
EF vs GH: Atlanta
IJ (Mexico) vs KL: Dallas
MN vs OP (Canada): Boston
Semifinals:
ABCD (US) vs EFGH: Dallas
IJMN (Mexico) vs MNOP (Canada): Los Angeles
3rd Place: Atlanta
Final: New York
If you look back at past World Cups, venues aren't tied to specific groups. In the group stage, most if not all venues host games from more than one group. That's why I don't think they need 32 venues. Probably 3-4 each for Mexico and Canada and you can probably do the US' 12 groups with 16-18 venues. Definitely don't need 24.
I'd also be willing to bet that the US' two group stage games will be in two of these four spots: LA, NY (NJ), Chicago and Dallas (Arlington). The biggest markets are going to get those games. LA being pro-Mexico won't matter in the group stage since Mexico won't be an opponent, though you can be certain that whatever potential knockout round game that could pit the US vs Mexico will not be held in California or Texas.
There are 16 groups, each group has 4 teams-total 64 (an expanded format) and the top 2 winning group teams meet a following group (i.e. group A meets B, C meets D, E meets F, etc.).
Group A (USA): Los Angeles (Rose Bowl and Inglewood NFL-third place match held there).
Group B (Canada): Toronto and Montreal.
Group C (Mexico): Mexico City (Azteca) and Guadalajara.
Group D: Phoenix and Denver.
Group E: Seattle and Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Group F: Washington DC and Philadelphia.
Group G: Chicago and Indianapolis.
Group H: Dallas and Houston.
Group I: San Francisco: Stanford and Santa Clara.
Group J: Atlanta and Nashville.
Group K: Tampa and Miami.
Group L: Minneapolis and Kansas City.
Group M: Boston and New York City (Meadowlands-the final is held there).
Group N: Cleveland and Detroit.
Group O: Edmonton and Calgary.
Group P: Monterrey and Puebla (my edition).
Round of 32 (16): A/B: Mexico City, C/D: Puebla, E/F: Vancouver, G/H: Montreal, I/J: Seattle, K/L: Los Angeles (Inglewood), M/N: San Francisco (Stanford), O/P: San Francisco (Santa Clara), A/B: Chicago, C/D: Miami, E/F: Atlanta, G/H: New York City (Meadowlands), I/J: Philadelphia, K/L: Denver, M/N: Boston, and O/P: Washington DC.
Round of 16 (8): Mexico City, Toronto, Los Angeles (Rose Bowl), Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, New York City (Meadowlands), and Washington DC.
Quarterfinals (4): New York City (Meadowlands), Houston, Los Angeles (Inglewood) and Chicago.
Semifinals (2): Chicago and Los Angeles (Rose Bowl).
Final (1): New York City (Meadowlands). Third Place: Los Angeles (Inglewood).
And who are the group teams (my fantasy world cup), here it is the 64:
A: USA, England, India and Russia. B: Canada, Germany, Ghana and Saudi Arabia. C: Mexico, Italy, Japan and Nigeria. D: Brazil, France, South Africa and Turkey. E: China, Colombia, Ivory Coast and Netherlands. F: Argentina, Senegal, South Korea and Spain. G: Australia, Belgium, Iraq and Uruguay. H: Chile, Greece, United Arab Emirates and Vietnam. I: Croatia, North Korea, Paraguay and Sweden. J: Costa Rica, Pakistan, Romania and Scotland. K: Guatemala, Ireland, Morocco and Ukraine. L: El Salvador, Iran, New Zealand and Poland. M: Angola, Czech Republic, Peru and Portugal. N: Algeria, Bangladesh, Norway and Serbia. O: Denmark, Honduras, Northern Ireland and Qatar. P: Ecuador, Switzerland, Thailand and Wales.
Top group teams- A: USA and England, B: Canada and Germany, C: Mexico and Italy, D: Brazil and France, E: Colombia and Netherlands, F: Argentina and Spain, G: Belgium and Uruguay. H: Chile and Greece. I: Croatia and Paraguay. J: Pakistan and Scotland. K: Guatemala and Morocco. L: Iran and Poland. M: Czech Republic and Portugal. N: Algeria and Serbia. O: Denmark and Qatar. P: Ecuador and Wales.
Round of 16: Germany over England, Brazil over Italy, Netherlands over Argentina, Uruguay over Chile, Croatia over Scotland, Morocco over Iran, Portugal over Serbia, and Wales over Denmark.
Round of 8: Germany over Brazil, Netherlands over Uruguay, Morocco over Croatia, and Portugal over Wales.
Round of 4: Germany over Netherlands, and Portugal over Morocco. Note Germany and Portugal in finals, Netherlands in third place match, I envision Germany wins the final, with Morocco the third place match.
The list of 41 preliminary venues is now out.
https://twitter.com/united2026/status/905914852555796480
2026-what a year: The US' 250th anniversary, Canada may get the winter olympics (is it Calgary or Edmonton? they're competing vs Chile, Norway, Austria and Switzerland to get 2026...or 2030) and Mexico will have its share of the 2026 FIFA world cup (if approved).
The potential cities have Major League Soccer teams (not all), but a certain number would have them for sure. Phoenix is so far the largest US city without a MLS team. There's a minor league soccer team known as the Phoenix Rising.
Phoenix Rising are in the running for the next round of MLS expansion. They have the backing of Didier Drogba, who came out of retirement to play for the team while also promoting them to MLS boosters.
The current contenders are Sacramento, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Nashville, San Antonio, Raleigh, Cincinnati, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Phoenix, San Diego, and Detroit.
Of them, Sacramento and Cincinnati have strong bids thanks to their lower league teams.
Miami is also guaranteed for when David Beckham finally gets the stadium built.
And then there were 32. Final list may be 16 to 20.
https://twitter.com/PCarrESPN/status/915646722499600391
Canada (4): Edmonton, Alberta; Montréal, Québec; Toronto, Ontario; Vancouver, British Columbia
Mexico (3): Guadalajara, Jalisco; Mexico City, Mexico; Monterrey, Nuevo León
United States (25): Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Charlotte, North Carolina; Cincinnati, Ohio; Chicago, Illinois; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; Houston, Texas; Kansas City, Missouri; Las Vegas, Nevada; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Nashville, Tennessee; New York/New Jersey; Orlando, Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix, Arizona; Salt Lake City, Utah; San Francisco Bay Area; Seattle, Washington; Tampa, Florida; Washington, DC
The following cities were not selected as Host City candidates to be included as part of the United Bid: Birmingham, Alabama; Cleveland, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; Jacksonville, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; Ottawa, Ontario; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Regina, Saskatchewan; and San Antonio, Texas.
Wouldn't mind watching a world cup match at Soldier Field
That Mexico shortlist looks done, and the Canada one probably is too (might lose one).
Given the summer nature of the competition, I'd imagine a bias in the US venues towards cooler parts of the country.
Quote from: ET21 on October 05, 2017, 08:28:47 AM
Wouldn't mind watching a world cup match at Soldier Field
During the 2014 World Cup, the stadium was rented out for a viewing party. A few people watched.
Soldier Field also hosted some matches in the 1994 World Cup and 1999 Women's World Cup. Including this Germany-Belgium Round of 16 match:
And this USA-Nigeria rout in 1999:
It's also hosted two Gold Cup finals, in 2007 and 2013:
USA/Canada/Mexico has officially been awarded the 2026 World Cup today.
Quote from: Big John on June 13, 2018, 08:36:44 PM
USA/Canada/Mexico has officially been awarded the 2026 World Cup today.
Who gets the host bid?
All three are hosts (and thus qualify automatically* as both Japan and South Korea did in 2002).
Morocco would have been good for a 32-team tournament (instead of Qatar in 2022, say), but 48 teams is beyond them. It's probably beyond any sustainable single-country bid: 16 stadia and FIFA don't like two in a single city much (I'd doubt if England would be able to submit a bid with 2 London, 2 Birmingham, 2 Liverpool and 2 Manchester in it - only one or two of those cities with two stadia), and don't allow at all more than that. Brazil, with its large number of cities and all that had to build a boondoggle in Manaus for a 32-team tournament. Maybe Germany or Italy, but England (even with Cardiff not needing a joint bid with Wales) is probably two or three short given it can only really have London (and maybe another) metropolitan area with two stadia - ie Newcastle and Sunderland would be mutually exclusive options and so Glasgow, Dublin, Belfast and Edinburgh might as well be offered the ability to come on board.
*feel sorry for the other CONCACAF countries - good job its 48 teams, else they'd all be fighting for one place (and one of the other Confederations loses a play-off route). Now it will be 3 places as CONCAF get 6. 16 UEFA teams isn't too bad - you lose a lot of the play-off round that causes upsets like Italy - though the Dutch and Welsh and Czechs didn't make it that far (9 group winners + 5 best second places + 2 play-offs between lower ranking second places, rather than 9 group winners + 4 play-offs between 8-best second places), but 6-out-of-10 CONMEBOL seems a little easy for the better nations.
Quote from: english si on June 14, 2018, 04:05:43 AM
All three are hosts (and thus qualify automatically* as both Japan and South Korea did in 2002).
*feel sorry for the other CONCACAF countries - good job its 48 teams, else they'd all be fighting for one place (and one of the other Confederations loses a play-off route).
Ah, no chance of a Caribbean-hosted World Cup, because that would be a logistical mess and would over-represent the Cup. Might need a 56 or 64-team draw, and I'm not sure how well that would go down. :D
Not to mention holding all the events during the start of the Atlantic hurricane season...
Quote from: english si on June 14, 2018, 04:05:43 AM
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.
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?
If I recall, in the Olympics the host country gets to qualify for all available events automatically. This is why the host country usually does so well during the Olympics, they get as many opportunities to get a medal as possible. So there's some precedent there for host countries qualifying to participate in an event.
Quote from: tdindy88 on June 14, 2018, 09:31:41 AM
This is why the host country usually does so well during the Olympics
Are you sure that's not just home field advantage? Other countries have to deal with different weather/climate, elevation, and more, but the host country is used to it.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 09:01:21 AM
Quote from: english si on June 14, 2018, 04:05:43 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2018, 11:52:55 AM
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.
The automatic qualification is probably the least corrupt thing about FIFA.
Previous World Cup hosts (excluding Qatar (https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/qatar-fail-qualify-2018-world-cup-bringing-light-eye-opening-fact)) 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:
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 09:01:21 AMI 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...
QuoteAnd 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).
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 14, 2018, 11:55:39 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2018, 11:52:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2018, 11:57:34 AMIt 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.
Quote from: english si on June 14, 2018, 04:05:43 AM
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
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.
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2018, 11:52:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Alps on June 15, 2018, 12:27:15 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2018, 11:52:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Bruce on June 15, 2018, 01:01:08 AM
Quote from: Alps on June 15, 2018, 12:27:15 AM
Quote from: Rothman on June 14, 2018, 11:52:55 AM
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.
Quote from: Alps on June 15, 2018, 08:29:15 AMMay 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).
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.
Quote from: Alps on June 15, 2018, 08:29:15 AMMake 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).
Quote from: MisterSG1 on June 19, 2018, 01:28:15 AMthe 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.
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.