2026 World Cup Host - BuzzJack Music Forum

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ General Discussion _ Sports and Fitness

Latest Site News

Hozier gets a second week at number one

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

2 Pages

1 2 >

2026 World Cup Host, USA, Canada, Mexico have been announced to host 2026 FIFA World Cup

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

Mack. View member profile	13th June 2018, 12:02 PM Post #1
It's still will be the return of the Mack 4eva Joined: 1 February 2011 Posts: 53,784 User: 12,915	As you will probably hear, USA, Canada, Mexico had been announced as the hosts for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. It will be the first time that a World Cup has been hosted in three countries. It beat Morocco by 134 votes to 65 to host it. QUOTE The 2026 World Cup will be held in the United States, Canada and Mexico after their joint bid beat Morocco's proposal to host it. The 'United 2026' bid was selected by Fifa member nations, winning 134 votes compared to 65 for Morocco. The 2026 tournament will be the biggest World Cup ever held - with 48 teams playing 80 matches over 34 days. "Football is the only victor. We are all united in football," US Soccer president Carlos Cordeiro said. "Thank you so, so much for this incredible honour. Thank you for entrusting us with this privilege." Of the 211 Fifa member nations, 200 cast a vote at the 68th Fifa Congress in Moscow on Wednesday, with the winning bid needing a majority of 104. Canada, Mexico, Morocco and the US were exempt, while Ghana was absent after the country's government said it had disbanded its football association amid allegations of "widespread" corruption. Three US territories - Guam, the US Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico - were among the other member nations to not vote. Both Mexico (1970 and 1986) and the United States (1994) have previously hosted World Cups. Canada staged the Women's World Cup in 2015. The 'United' World Cup will generate $14bn (£10.3bn) in revenue and make an $11bn (£8.1bn) profit for Fifa, says Cordeiro. Of the 16 host cities, 10 will be in the United States while the remainder will be split evenly between Canada and Mexico. Sixty matches will take place in the US, while Canada and Mexico will host 10 games each. The final will be held at the 84,953-capacity MetLife Stadium, which is home to NFL sides the New York Giants and the New York Jets. The distance between the most northern host city (Edmonton) and the most southern (Mexico City) is almost 3,000 miles, which compares to 1,900 miles at this month's tournament in Russia. The tournament will mark the first time a World Cup has been shared by three host nations. The 1994 World Cup, staged by the US, had the highest average attendance in the tournament's history, while Mexico was the first nation to host the event twice What do you think of this?


Mack. View member profile	13th June 2018, 01:55 PM Post #2
It's still will be the return of the Mack 4eva Joined: 1 February 2011 Posts: 53,784 User: 12,915	For the fifth time that Morocco have bid and have been unsuccessful. Regarding the hosts, that will be three in the 2026 World Cup already with USA, Canada and Mexico.


Iz 🌟 View member profile	13th June 2018, 02:04 PM Post #3
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me Joined: 3 February 2011 Posts: 37,420 User: 12,929	Meh. It is a product of their ridiculous 48 team expansion and nothing else. Though it will be fun to see America host it in the internet age at a time when they'll hopefully be a lot more sane in geopolitical terms than they are now. I'm very interested to see how CONCACAF qualifying will work now, or even if there'll be any autoqualifiers at all. Expanded teams means that USA and Mexico would never miss out but Canada would still be a borderline case. The right choice if they must go up to 48 teams (I doubt Morocco could have even hosted 32 smoothly) but even I'm in favour of expansion normally and I'm not feeling so keen here. It's going to really restrict potential hosting places in the future. Argentina/Uruguay or England (lol) seem like potential candidates for 2030 by the way. As the centennial that's going to be a very interesting hosting decision. Certainly Uruguay would be more appropriate than some other recent countries that have gotten it, but considering that Western Europe is inarguably at the centre of the football world, it shouldn't be away from there for too long and as Suede said in the other thread, Mexico will now have hosted three times since England last hosted at all. But, yanno, corruption and money and stuff.


DJHazey View member profile	13th June 2018, 02:24 PM Post #4
BuzzJack Enthusiast Joined: 26 April 2015 Posts: 796 User: 21,783	If Morocco had gotten the bid they would've had to have built a bunch of new stadiums and with what happened in Qatar/Brazil, I'm not into the idea of more 'slave labor' and killing in country's economy so the rich can get richer. The idea of new countries getting a World Cup all the time is cute in theory but not feasible at all. They really should narrow it down to the countries that can host it unless smaller nations group up with neighbouring nations. England, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, maybe a Scandinavian bid, maybe Poland/Ukraine/Czech joint bid, maybe Benelux, maybe Austria-Switzerland, South Africa, maybe a West African one with Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Ghana leading the way, maybe a North African with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia. Qatar alone is a mess when a Saudi-UAE-Qatar could've been more easily established. Japan-South Korea was great, possibly China, definitely Australia, maybe a SE Asia one, but beyond that, no.


Mart!n View member profile	13th June 2018, 02:34 PM Post #5
Infamy Infamy they all got it in for me Joined: 5 March 2006 Posts: 129,135 User: 2	I saw this earlier, which means USA, Canada and Mexico don't need to qualify, 2 extra countries get a free pass. I just think its a bit too much they did say they wouldn't do that for any future tournaments, now they seem to have change their minds. Its like in the 2002 World Cup Korea and Japan, but this time 3 countries. 2030 apparently its the 100 centenary year and I believe the 2 finalists are hosting it from the first competition last reported - Uruguay and Argentina.


Mack. View member profile	13th June 2018, 03:15 PM Post #6
It's still will be the return of the Mack 4eva Joined: 1 February 2011 Posts: 53,784 User: 12,915	I thought that FIFA said there wouldn't be any more co-hosting for the World Cup although that was when Blatter was in charge. They should have never expanded the tournament to 48 teams in my view.


DJHazey View member profile	13th June 2018, 03:40 PM Post #7
BuzzJack Enthusiast Joined: 26 April 2015 Posts: 796 User: 21,783	It's not an issue as long as the countries involved are viable, meaning they'd probably qualify anyway. This applies here accept for Canada obviously. Qatar is a joke auto-qualifier. I've made peace with the 48 teams idea, it just makes more of 'World' Cup in a way. I just wish the format was different because the groups of 3 thing is really dumb.


Houdini View member profile	13th June 2018, 04:00 PM Post #8
BuzzJack Platinum Member Joined: 4 April 2015 Posts: 7,829 User: 21,725	I'm not looking forward to having to stay up until about 5 or 6 in the morning if I attempt to watch matches live. I know it's meant to be fair and so that all corners of the World get to host tournaments but I feel like having it in a country with a time zone similar to Germany or France would be more convenient.


Mart!n View member profile	13th June 2018, 04:09 PM Post #9
Infamy Infamy they all got it in for me Joined: 5 March 2006 Posts: 129,135 User: 2	I'm with team Mack, in my view 48 teams is too much, especially if they are televised in 3 different national countries USA, Canada, Mexico, with all the time zone differences, its a one big mess. Its going to be a while for a European or African team to host. have to wait till 2034 And just imagine if you are collecting a Panini Sticker album with 48 teams, will cost you more to fill the sodding album.


Suedehead2 View member profile	13th June 2018, 04:40 PM Post #10
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,675 User: 3,272	QUOTE(Mart!n @ Jun 13 2018, 05:09 PM) I'm with team Mack, in my view 48 teams is too much, especially if they are televised in 3 different national countries USA, Canada, Mexico, with all the time zone differences, its a one big mess. Its going to be a while for a European or African team to host. have to wait till 2034 And just imagine if you are collecting a Panini Sticker album with 48 teams, will cost you more to fill the sodding album. I think you should lodge an official complaint with FIFA on those grounds


Iz 🌟 View member profile	13th June 2018, 05:06 PM Post #11
I'm a paragon so don't perceive me Joined: 3 February 2011 Posts: 37,420 User: 12,929	QUOTE(DJHazey @ Jun 13 2018, 03:24 PM) The idea of new countries getting a World Cup all the time is cute in theory but not feasible at all. They really should narrow it down to the countries that can host it unless smaller nations group up with neighbouring nations. England, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, maybe a Scandinavian bid, maybe Poland/Ukraine/Czech joint bid, maybe Benelux, maybe Austria-Switzerland, South Africa, maybe a West African one with Ivory Coast, Nigeria, and Ghana leading the way, maybe a North African with Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia. Qatar alone is a mess when a Saudi-UAE-Qatar could've been more easily established. Japan-South Korea was great, possibly China, definitely Australia, maybe a SE Asia one, but beyond that, no. I would like to see more joint bids from small clusters of neighbouring nations but only if there aren't autoqualifiers. Take your West African one as an example, spreading the games along that coast from Ivory Coast to Cameroon. Having about six autoqualifiers isn't feasible, but that's how many countries you'd need to have enough infrastructure for that area to host it handily. So Benin or Togo or whoever the smaller partners are, if the whole UK hosted it, Northern Ireland and Scotland, Canada in 2026, may well not qualify but they'd only host a small portion of the games anyway. We're doing that on a much more macro scale with Euro 2020 (I really doubt Azerbaijan will even qualify to see their quarter-final package pay off), so I guess I'm saying the World Cup hosting should move to an area-based hosting rather than always one single nation.


LewisGT View member profile	13th June 2018, 05:12 PM Post #12
BuzzJack Platinum Member Joined: 7 February 2013 Posts: 11,971 User: 18,293	I really wanted Morocco to win. I guess their main issue was with accommodation. Even with more teams why it necessary to have 3 such large countries host it, surely the U.S. could have done it on their own. The 2030 world cup is in either South America or Europe and the only confirmed bid so far is another 3 country bid: Uruguay/Argentina/Paraguay, but there are a rumours of England bidding.


N-S View member profile	13th June 2018, 05:46 PM Post #13
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 23 June 2006 Posts: 4,669 User: 816	This means that 40 years later, Canada will be in their second World Cup (qualifying in 2022 is a rather long shot) and Mexico will be the first country to host three World Cups.


RabbitFurCoat View member profile	13th June 2018, 05:58 PM Post #14
IncredibleSquirrel Joined: 8 March 2006 Posts: 25,842 User: 118	QUOTE(LewisGT @ Jun 13 2018, 06:12 PM) I really wanted Morocco to win. I guess their main issue was with accommodation. They were rated either the same or worse on all of FIFA's 14 categories. I'd have liked it to have been Morocco too, purely selfish reasons being an England away supporter, much closer and likely cheaper, and far less travel, but ultimately I thought this was a foregone conclusion and it would always end up in America.


DJHazey View member profile	13th June 2018, 06:25 PM Post #15
BuzzJack Enthusiast Joined: 26 April 2015 Posts: 796 User: 21,783	The United States has more than 40 venues that are World Cup quality while most other countries in the world are lucky to fill in the 8-10 stadiums. Also: "The 1994 World Cup, staged by the US, had the highest average attendance in the tournament's history" This can't be over-stated as far how much money gets spread among the FIFA member nations which only works (in theory) to help grow football in the world.


Rooney View member profile	13th June 2018, 07:51 PM Post #16
WINTER IS COMING Joined: 7 March 2006 Posts: 45,604 User: 88	QUOTE(Evil Houdini @ Jun 13 2018, 05:00 PM) I'm not looking forward to having to stay up until about 5 or 6 in the morning if I attempt to watch matches live. I know it's meant to be fair and so that all corners of the World get to host tournaments but I feel like having it in a country with a time zone similar to Germany or France would be more convenient. Europe is the biggest TV audience and also the most commercially viable. I would be shocked if the games are not 7pm, 9pm and 11pm in BST time.


Suedehead2 View member profile	13th June 2018, 09:06 PM Post #17
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,675 User: 3,272	QUOTE(DJHazey @ Jun 13 2018, 07:25 PM) The United States has more than 40 venues that are World Cup quality while most other countries in the world are lucky to fill in the 8-10 stadiums. Also: "The 1994 World Cup, staged by the US, had the highest average attendance in the tournament's history" This can't be over-stated as far how much money gets spread among the FIFA member nations which only works (in theory) to help grow football in the world. What were the television audiences like? With the number of seats occupied by various sponsors (regardless of where the tournament is held), television audiences give a better indication of the level of interest. This is also the second time the USA has been awarded the tournament having failed to qualify for the most recent competition. The only difference is that, this time, their failure was a surprise.


Severin View member profile	14th June 2018, 11:47 PM Post #18
Mansonette Joined: 3 November 2009 Posts: 6,931 User: 9,872	QUOTE(Rooney @ Jun 13 2018, 08:51 PM) Europe is the biggest TV audience and also the most commercially viable. I would be shocked if the games are not 7pm, 9pm and 11pm in BST time. I watched both Mexico '86 and USA '94 and don't recall too much trouble watching the matches. Having said that it was school holidays in '86 and not working in '94 but I don't remember any really late nights


Steve201 View member profile	15th June 2018, 12:02 AM Post #19
Shakin Stevens Joined: 29 December 2007 Posts: 46,157 User: 5,138	I remember there was games on at 3am in 1994 Sweden Brazil is called to mind. The games being on at 7-9pm GMT are ones on during he afternoon in the US which is why there were always clips of Irish players downing 10L of water!!


Dobbo View member profile	15th June 2018, 08:56 AM Post #20
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 4 November 2013 Posts: 30,551 User: 20,053	I expect the times will be comparable to the last WC in Brazil, with the odd couple being at more unsociable hours (or indeed more sociable if you're that way inclined).