Top Stories

Host for 2026 World Cup to be announced in May 2017

World Cup trophy

 

By FRANCO PANIZO

If the United States is to win the hosting rights for the next available World Cup, it will have to have its bid ready in two years’ time.

FIFA announced on Friday that the 2026 World Cup host will be selected in May 2017 in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. While it is unknown how many nations will bid, CONCACAF believes it should get first dibs considering it hasn’t held the tournament since the U.S. hosted in 1994.

The United States, Mexico and Canada have all previously expressed interest in hosting the 2026 World Cup. There were even talks of a potential joint bid between the U.S. and Mexico.

Given the controversy that occurred during the selections for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosts, the 2026 tournament will be voted on by FIFA’s 209 member associations. Previously, only the governing body’s executive committee had a say.

What do you make of this development? What should the U.S. include this go-around to help make for a more successful bid? Already coming up with some good conspiracy theories in case the U.S. loses out?

Share your thoughts below.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Comments

  1. The only thing we should be talking about is #boycottFIFAQatar and #boycottFIFARussia. I for one hope Gulati sticks to his guns rather than jump back into the cesspool.

    UEFA, CONCACAF, COMNEBOL would be better off announcing a nations cup to compete with what’s becomes farce.

    Reply
  2. Why pretend like it’s a competition?

    North Korea will be hosting and bribing committee members with a goodie bag of slave labor, VHS tapes and monogrammed handheld nuclear-armed missiles

    Reply
  3. If the WC needs to be in concacaf, look to Bermuda or the Cayman Islands. They have the financial base to bribe the most, some with questionable ethical means. Fits the FIFA template perfectly. Whether or not it is suitable for football doesn’t matter, FIFA will figure that one out later.

    Reply
  4. With Russia and Qatar already accounted for, Blatter is running out of politically awkward/authoritarian countries for his “globalize the game” project that are also rich enough to provide a sufficient source of bribes. I’m seeing a joint bid from Brunei and Singapore.

    Reply
  5. Let’s forget about hosting the word cup and figure out how to stop depending on other countries to do our player development for us. We are never going to be taken seriously as a footballing nation until we stop showing up to these tournaments with half our team born, raised and developed by other countries.

    Reply
  6. I’m hearing that Antarctica has the inside track currently to land 2026 WC games. However, Belarus is making a strong push.

    Reply
  7. i really hope that we don’t participate in the bidding process until reforms are instituted. Unfortunately this means that Sepp will be have to vamos.

    Reply
    • True, but there are only three CONCACAF members that could possibly host. The others are all too small. Of those three, Mexico presently has security concerns and Canada is of middling size. California could probably do a better WC than Canada.

      Reply
      • The World Cup will be held in 2026 not this summer, who knows how Mexico will be in 11 years. Also Brazil and South Africa also had the same “security concerns”. They were still held there with no major issues. Scaremongering doesn’t work. I’m not sure what Canada’s size has to do with this. Qatar has 2 million people, Canada has 35 million and in close proximity to two countries with a combined population of almost 450 million people. Canada would be fine.

      • The biggest knock on Mexico is that they already hosted twice. To award the third cup to Mexico, when many members never hosted, might not be well received.

      • Regarding Mexico: No, Brazil and SA didn”t have busloads of people turning up dead in the desert because they took a wrong turn in Narcogang-controlled territory. Those countries weren’t calling in their armies because local police were incompetent/corrupt/cowed. FIFA would be bat-guano crazy to say, “Oh yeah, it will be better in 10 years. That’s totally enough time to fix it!” Giving it to MEX on the hope that it won’t be a mess in a decade is asking for a situation like 1986.

        And your excuse for Canada is that Qatar has fewer people? Yes. And Qatar is an even worse idea then Canada. That doesn’t make 30 MM in Canada a good idea. It just makes it less bad. How many of those 450 million in close proximity have passports? I said it and I’ll stand by it: CA could still do a better eight stadium World Cup than Canada. The only thing Canada has going for its bid is that the weather there is nice in June/July.

      • Zzzzzzzzz, same boring argument. On the news, we get shown bad things that happen in Mexico and then overreact. As someone that frequently goes into Mexico, let me tell you it is not that bad and a World Cup in Mexico would be fine.

        If you go to a touristy area in Mexico (which a World Cup venue would be) you are likely to have no problems. If you go into drug-cartel territory looking for trouble, then you might have an issue. Same as in Brasil; World Cup venues and touristy areas, no problem. Go into a favela flashing cash and looking out of place, you might have some trouble.

        Somebody could easily type about the United States: “OMG, why would they have a World Cup in a country that is filled with gang violence in the big cities, and where cops are racist and beat people up and shoot them for no reason, and where people go to schools and movie theaters and just shoot everyone there for no reason, and where you could be a victim of a large terrorist attack at any point!? No World Cup in the USA!” You get my point?

      • You could, but you’d be an fool because no one is saying, “Let’s have the opening match in Baltimore, Semis in NOLA, and St Louis, and the Final in Detroit.” That’s the difference between the US and Brazil, for example. Nearly every city that hosted is on JCC’s little murder list. One (or two if you think Balt. would be used) US city that would host is.

        As for the situation south of the border: Mexico currently is in the middle of a drug war between its authorities and well-organized, well-funded cartels. The Mexican government states it. The US government states it. Neutral observers state it. People on the ground state it. If you deny that, you deny reality and there’s no point in you reading any further, or even replying. I grant that the Federal Government could win that war and crush the cartels in the next decade. If they don’t, it won’t be for lack of trying. But for FIFA to come in during the current situation and grant Mexico a World Cup for 2026 would be ironically setting them up for a Columbia ’86-style failure.

        Lawlessness is more than just homicides. Lack of rule of law and public corruption/apathy badly affect quality of life. You say you travel to Mexico? Ask a Mexican what the biggest challenge facing their nation is. Heck, you don’t have to. Numerous Pew Polls have, and have said said that they think it’s crime, corruption, and cartels in some order. That’s just another way of saying crime, crime, crime. Crime doesn’t even break the the top ten in the US unless you count “terrorism”, or “immigration”.

      • No I wouldn’t be a fool, I would be correct. So you are saying that Baltimore, Detroit and NO are the only metro cities with large crime? No they aren’t. There is crime and “ghettos” in almost every large city, including Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Atlanta, the Bay Area, DC, etc. Plus you are missing the larger point I was making, which is you are overreacting.

        Unfortunately, this is typical American logic (and I say this as an American). Many Americans (not all) feel that everywhere else is so dangerous (except Western Europe), and that they should stay away. Thank God I am not one of those people, or else I would have never experienced the wonders of traveling through places like Mexico, Central-America, Thailand, Northern Africa, China, and larger Europe.

        Everywhere in latin-America is considered to be very dangerous, and by some standards it is. But how many World Cups have been played in Mexico and South America already? Were they disasters? No of course not. Were World Cup fans being murdered left and right in South Africa? Of course not. I live in Los Angeles, I could easily be robbed or killed tonight on my way home.

      • Everywhere in latin-America is considered to be very dangerous, and by some standards it is. But how many World Cups have been played in Mexico and South America already? Were they disasters? No of course not. Were World Cup fans being murdered left and right in South Africa? Of course not. I live in Los Angeles, I could easily be robbed or killed tonight on my way home.
        ===
        You could, but you’re more likely to be if you live in Tijuana or Mexico City. That’s the way statistics work.

        The US cities I mentioned were because they were on the list that JCC provided. I would still suggest that you’re safer in South LA than you are in a Brazillian Favela.

        As for Mexico: Mexico’s intentional killing rate per 100,000 is four times what the USA’s is. Random crime happens anywhere but more happens in Mexico than in the USA. That’s not gringo logic or whatever you want to dismiss it as. Dismissing that fact diminishes those who persevere under such duress.

        You want to say Mexico might be able to put on a successful WCF? Go right ahead; make your argument. They might be able to. But don’t try and say that Mexico is as safe a country presently as the US, because you just flat wrong, and the numbers don’t lie.

      • That’s wasn’t my point. You need to keep reading.

        I know that you’re comparing Colombia and Mexico. I acknowledged it and told you that it doesn’t matter because unless FIFA gives the few Mexican billionaires or Multinationals a big cut, they will have nothing to do with FIFA. And I don’t think that FIFA will give them a big cut. That’s not how FIFA does business now, isn’t it?

        Carlos Slim didn’t get rich by giving away his money. Cemex didn’t get big by giving away concrete. What makes you think they’ll put on a WCF if the Mexican Government can’t build/renovate three or four stadia to get five or six above 50K? What’s in it for them?

      • Mason you have no idea what you’re talking about. This year the list of the 50 most dangerous cities in the world for 2014 was released. Brazil had 19 cities on that list including cities that hosted the World Cup that summer like Recife, Belo Horizonte, Curitiba, Cuiaba, Natal, and Salvador. The World Cup was still held there without any issues. Mexico has 9 on that list. Again you’re nothing but a scaremonger.

        You’re Canada argument makes no sense. How many of those people have passports??? The US has sent the most traveling fans for the past two World Cups. You’re saying no one from the US and Mexico would be able to make the trip to Canada, but had no problems heading to Brazil and South Africa? Are you okay?

      • JCC: Yeah. And Brazil was a bad idea because of that reason. Just because you f-ed up once doesn’t mean you should repeat the error.

        And without any issue? Did you miss the riots before hand? Or that crap pitch at Manaus? Or the complete PITA it was getting around because the infrastructural improvements that were promised never actually happened? Yes… The games occurred, but don’t whitewash that a bunch of public money just went *poof*, with nothing to show for it.

      • Now you’re just changing the argument since you have nothing to back up what you’ve said. Brazil was a success for FIFA or did you miss the news today that FIFA made $2 billion off of Brazil 2014. So I’m not sure how it was a bad idea for them. Now you’re trying to bring in a country’s internal politics into the argument. Which has nothing to do with Mexico or Canada I might add. You have no leg to stand on dude. Please stop embarrassing yourself.

      • I didn’t change the argument. I initially mad two arguments. You’re the one that attempted to restrict it to homicides. I included public corruption and incompetence. Note my line about “incompetent/corrupt/cowed” local authorities.

      • And don’t make me compare US and Mexico when it comes to multinational corporations and billionaires. Yes, Mexico has some – more than Colombia- but there are probably more billionaires living in apartments with views of Central Park then there are in all of Mexico.

        Here’s the thing about billionaires: they don’t get rich by spending money stupidly. The only way Carlos Slim spends a dime on a hypothetical Mexican World Cup is if he gets a dollar back. Would FIFA give him that kind of a cut? He’s a businessman, and if you’re not in FIFA’s inner circle, they’ll screw you, so Slim would probably figure it’s not worth the trouble.

      • You haven’t even addressed the other thrust of my argument: that many Mexican local authorities are not competent due to lack of ability, lack of will, or malfeasance. You haven’t even tried.

        Go look at PEW data from Mexico, and see what Mexicans think their nation’s problems are. Then go compare that data to Pew or Gallup data from the US and ask yourself which country should be hosting a multinational sporting tournament.

      • “Mexican local authorities are not competent due to lack of ability, lack of will, or malfeasance.”

        And you don’t think Brazil has the same issues with its local authorities, or Russia for that matter? You have shown me no proof that FIFA has used crime or corruption as a negative factor into choosing a World Cup host. It’s a non-factor to FIFA.

      • I never said FIFA did consider a nations Corruptions Perception index. I will say they should, but we both know that would be bad for the Swiss/Caymans bank accounts of ExComm members.

      • And even when the WC went to Africa, it didn’t go to Nigeria, Ethiopia, or the DRC. Given that they “had” to go to with CAF, they went to SA – which has both the highest GDP and is among the Highest Corruption Perception Index (high is good – indicating less perceived corruption).

      • “That’s three times more that the Dirty War and almost as many in a decade as half of those killed in the five-decade long Colombian conflict. In case you were wondering – that’s the conflict that gave Mexico the WC in 86.”

        What gave Mexico the World Cup in 1986 was Colombia declaring that it couldn’t afford to host the World Cup. FIFA didn’t pull it because of safety concerns even though there were at the time. Again I see no precedent here that FIFA is ultimately concerned with any of this when it decides on the host country.

      • Ultimately Mason you’re arguing over what FIFA should do vs what FIFA will do. You’re disregarding Mexico as a host because of the crime/corruption/etc. I’m saying, FIFA will not disregard Mexico just because it’s dangerous. In fact, I’m almost positive this won’t even be a small factor in their decision.

      • You’re darn right they couldn’t afford it. Ask yourself: why couldn’t Colombia afford it? And when you figure it out, consider that Mexico’s low-level asymmetric war is killing people at three times the per-year rate. That kind of fight takes a lot of money, and do you really think that the Mexican Federal Government is going to divert funds from counternarco-ops to run security for a tournament? When those counternarco-ops are addressing the single biggest concern of the Mexican people? There’s not a circus big enough to cover for that.

      • Ultimately Mason you’re arguing over what FIFA should do vs what FIFA will do. You’re disregarding Mexico as a host because of the crime/corruption/etc. I’m saying, FIFA will not disregard Mexico just because it’s dangerous. In fact, I’m almost positive this won’t even be a small factor in their decision.
        ===
        That’s about the sum of it, but you’re also ignoring that Mexico has a poorer population, has fewer and smaller stadiums than the US, and has that narco-war baggage for foreign fans. On a pure ticket-sales basis, the US wins, as well. I can guarantee that ExComm won’t ignore that.

        Plus there’s the whole third-tournament thing….

      • “That kind of fight takes a lot of money, and do you really think that the Mexican Federal Government is going to divert funds from counternarco-ops to run security for a tournament?”

        Yes I do. But I don’t think they’d have to. Difference between Mexico and Colombia is that Mexico has large television networks, multi-billionaires (hello Carlos Slim), and multinational corporations that I don’t think finding funding will be an issue for them.

      • “That’s about the sum of it, but you’re also ignoring that Mexico has a poorer population, has fewer and smaller stadiums than the US, and has that narco-war baggage for foreign fans. On a pure ticket-sales basis, the US wins, as well. I can guarantee that ExComm won’t ignore that.

        Plus there’s the whole third-tournament thing….”

        The only good argument you’ve made so far has been the third tournament issue. Other than that you’ve been unconvincing. I think you’re way too focused on the drug violence. Mexico has so far seen an 8% increase in tourism this year. All this, despite the decapitations, kidnappings, etc. Stadiums will be renovated or new ones will be built.

      • The only good argument you’ve made so far has been the third tournament issue. Other than that you’ve been unconvincing. I think you’re way too focused on the drug violence. Mexico has so far seen an 8% increase in tourism this year. All this, despite the decapitations, kidnappings, etc. Stadiums will be renovated or new ones will be built.
        ===
        Ah… but now you’re back to renovating stadiums and building new ones. That takes public money that MEXICO DOESN’T HAVE because they’re fighting a low-intensity war against narcotrafickers. Again: is a present or future Mexican government going to redirect funds away from what the Mexican people consider the single largest national challenge? I think not. Not if that government wants to stay in power. No… Any Future Mexican Cup will be played in essentially the current infrastructure, which is not insubstantial.

        Given current infrastructure: A Mexican tournament would not make as much money as a US tournament. Look at available stadiums. The US has more, and bigger. Realize that some tickets would be discounted for locals in Mexico – something that would not happen in the US, because it’s not necessary.

        If you really think a Mexican World Cup would make more money for FIFA than a US World Cup, you’re not in contact with reality. They still haven’t broken the attendance record that ’94 set, and that was a 24 -team tournament. The only way to break that record would be to – once again- hold that tournament in the US.

      • For reference: Mexico has two stadiums of more than 65K, 3 of more than 50k, and 7 of more than 40k. They’re in better shape in that regard than Canada.

      • (Sorry about the double: this belongs here and not above….)

        And don’t make me compare US and Mexico when it comes to multinational corporations and billionaires. Yes, Mexico has some – more than Colombia- but there are probably more billionaires living in apartments with views of Central Park then there are in all of Mexico.

        Here’s the thing about billionaires: they don’t get rich by spending money stupidly. The only way Carlos Slim spends a dime on a hypothetical Mexican World Cup is if he gets a dollar back. Would FIFA give him that kind of a cut? He’s a businessman, and if you’re not in FIFA’s inner circle, they’ll screw you, so Slim would probably figure it’s not worth the trouble.

      • “That takes public money that MEXICO DOESN’T HAVE because they’re fighting a low-intensity war against narcotrafickers.”

        ————————————————

        Unless you have the data to back this up, this argument is purely speculative since I doubt you know how much money the federal government is actually spending on the drug war.

        In 2014, guess which country visited Mexico the most? The US, with 7 million tourists. Followed by Canada and then the UK. Mexico is still the number 2 destination for vacationers in the Americas with 23 million visitors a year, right behind the US, and that’s with cartel violence and all. I think a World Cup in Mexico would be wildly successful and would definitely make a run at breaking that attendance record from ’94.It won’t but it would come close.

      • “And don’t make me compare US and Mexico when it comes to multinational corporations and billionaires. Yes, Mexico has some – more than Colombia- but there are probably more billionaires living in apartments with views of Central Park then there are in all of Mexico.

        Here’s the thing about billionaires: they don’t get rich by spending money stupidly. The only way Carlos Slim spends a dime on a hypothetical Mexican World Cup is if he gets a dollar back. Would FIFA give him that kind of a cut? He’s a businessman, and if you’re not in FIFA’s inner circle, they’ll screw you, so Slim would probably figure it’s not worth the trouble.”

        I’m not comparing the US to Mexico, I’m comparing Mexico to Colombia since you were saying a Mexico 2026 would be a Colombia 86. Two different countries with two very different economies. Mexico wouldn’t pull out because it lacked the funds.

      • That’s wasn’t my point. You need to keep reading.

        I know that you’re comparing Colombia and Mexico. I acknowledged it and told you that it doesn’t matter because unless FIFA gives the few Mexican billionaires or Multinationals a big cut, they will have nothing to do with FIFA. And I don’t think that FIFA will give them a big cut. That’s not how FIFA does business now, isn’t it?

        Carlos Slim didn’t get rich by giving away his money. Cemex didn’t get big by giving away concrete. What makes you think they’ll put on a WCF if the Mexican Government can’t build/renovate three or four stadia to get five or six above 50K? What’s in it for them? CEMEX might add a few seats to Tigres stadium, but other than that, who’s going to enlarge stadia?

      • This Forbes article lays it out the financials of the Mexican Drug War well:

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/doliaestevez/2014/06/19/mexicos-astonishing-spending-on-fighting-drug-cartels-has-not-reduced-violence/

        Keep in mind that Mexico’s entire Federal budget is roughly $292 BB dollars. Fighting a war against well armed narcotraffickers is expensive, and there isn’t the public scratch to throw a party while fighting that kind of a war.

        As for travel statistics: Congratulations! You found that Americans tend to travel to their nearest neighbors. Now guess where the US gets most of its foreign oil from. No peaking… It’s Canada and Mexico.

        If you think that a Mexican World Cup would “come close” to breaking ’94’s record, imagine what a US Cup would do. It would probably break it in the round of 16. If it’s money FIFA wants, it will find more in the USA than in mexico. If it’s personal enrichment for ExCom members through graft however, it won’t be found in the USA.

      • That article BTW, makes reference to something called the “Global Peace Index.” The US ranks 101 out of 162 and Mexico is at 138. The three reasons the US is even that high are because of our incarceration rate (yay, drug war!), nuclear weapons (a perfect 5.0), and external conflicts. Mexico’s concerns are all internal problems.

      • Brazil and South Africa are incredibly dangerous places. I don’t know why anyone would deny that. So is Mexico.

      • I’m not arguing that they’re not dangerous. I’m arguing that those concerns are always overblown, especially by Western media, and as has been shown don’t seem to deter FIFA from choosing countries as a World Cup host and despite the crime rates don’t seem to prevent those countries from hosting a successful World Cup.

      • Mexico is a western country. Are you accusing their media of over-blowing their situation? That’s awfully colonial of you.

      • Also: what’s your definition of success? That the games occur on schedule and no one dies? By that metric Qatar is already a failure.

      • You can call it overblown if you want, but estimates are that 106,000+ have been killed in Drug War-related actions since 2006. That’s three times more that the Dirty War and almost as many in a decade as half of those killed in the five-decade long Colombian conflict. In case you were wondering – that’s the conflict that gave Mexico the WC in 86. A further 1.6 MM Mexicans have been displaced. You do them a disservice by minimizing the scope of the conflict, because the root of the conflict – drug abuse- is on this side of the border.

      • “Also: what’s your definition of success? That the games occur on schedule and no one dies? By that metric Qatar is already a failure.”

        Doesn’t really matter what I think is a successful World Cup. FIFA made $2 billion from this last World Cup. If you think FIFA officials don’t think that’s a successful World Cup, then you’re more delusional than I thought. You really think FIFA cares how Brazil managed their money for the tournament? In the end FIFA made money so FIFA is happy.

      • Look: If you want to argue FIFA’s perspective, go right ahead. It’s a really easy job though, because it’s all about the Benjamins. What I’m saying is that that’s vaca-caca.

      • Also: The World Cup makes that kind of money for FIFA because FIFA doesn’t pay for the outlays of stadiums upgrades and infrastructure. Hosts do. Brazil spent $11.63 BB. If FIFA had to pay for stadium and infrastructure upgrades, they wouldn’t screw around with having it in countries requiring major upgrades. As is, FIFA only covers operating costs, and their television contracts cover that and more. Tickets to the matches are pure profit to FIFA.

        Long story short: The television money is baked into the pie no matter where the tournament is held. FIFA increases its profits by reducing its operating costs and/or increasing its ticket revenue. They can do the former by operating where labor is cheap and they can do the latter by operating where stadiums are bigger and they can charge more for tickets.

      • It’s so strange to see people trying to deny that, or say that the US is as dangerous as Brazil, Mexico, or SA because of Baltimore, Detroit, or New Orleans. It’s just not. The numbers don’t bear it out. There aren’t as many murders per capita in the US. There aren’t as many robberies per capita in the US. There isn’t as much violent crime PERIOD in the US as there is in those countries. These are statistics.

        You can say that they’re not important, or that they shouldn’t be important in the process of picking a WCF host, but you cannot say that these stats aren’t so. They are. That’s the way numbers work. Denying that is just weird, not to mention slightly offensive and condescending to those who live in those countries. It’s like you’re saying, “Oh… I know how it is to live in a country with so much violent crime because I once drove through South LA or Anacostia.”

      • I don’t think anyone is trying to say the US is as dangerous as those countries. At least I haven’t seen anyone make that case. I’m not even saying those numbers aren’t important, they’re just not important to FIFA and I don’t think they ever will be because it’s been shown that people still attend the World Cup no matter where it’s hosted. That’s just the reality of it. Anyway, you’ve been a good sparring partner. Good debate. Possibly the best internet debate I’ve had in awhile. Cheers Mason!

      • I don’t think anyone is trying to say the US is as dangerous as those countries. At least I haven’t seen anyone make that case.
        ===
        You kinda did with your list of dangerous cities. Or was your point simply that FIFA DGAS about the incidence of violent crime where they stage the WCF? Because on that, you might be right.

        That said, I feel that FIFA does engage in risk minimization* when picking a WCF host. Due to rotation, FIFA “had” to go to Africa (RSA) and South America (BRA). RSA was clearly an attempt to minimize risk given “having” to stage a WCF in Africa. BRA or ARG carried about the same risk as one another in SA, but BRA had the potential to make more money. All other SA nations were riskier propositions.

        FIFA might look at MEX’s situation currently, and decide that it is just too risky. The violent crime rate is bad, but the fact that MEX’s violence suppression is so expensive (10% of GDP) and ineffective might indicate an unstable, ineffective government that lacks the ability to make the necessary outlays for a party the size of the WCF. For Brazil, that was about $11.63 BB, and the Brazilians weren’t happy about it. Mexico’s economy is half the size of Brazil’s.

        And cheers to you!

        (*The risk I’m referring to here is all-encompassing. Violent Crime, Graft, Institutional incompetence or corruption, potential for violent revolution…)

  8. Why haven’t the American, English, and Germany federations, for example, teamed up to boycot the 2022 WC. If some of the major federations spearhead a boycott the Cup, it will effect what FIFA cares about most, money.

    Reply
    • Never gonna happen. The US would have more to lose in terms of soccer progress in the country. Americans that root for other countries i.e. Mexico, Italy, Brazil, etc, would still go to the World Cup so FIFA would still get their money from the US one way or another.. Germany really doesn’t care. England would probably call for one, but no one ever listens to England, main example being how they’re calling for a boycott of the 2016 World Cup and no one is paying attention.

      Reply
    • No way Troll. Who does the USMNT make most of its money from? The television broadcasters. In this case, FOX executives would immediately get Sunil on the phone and say something like, “You try and f*&% us we will f*&% you right back!” Plus you are forgetting that players dream of playing in a World Cup. They would be angry at being forced to sit out over politics.

      Reply
  9. I wouldnt be surprised if its in Africa now. Since its all 209 members voting and not the committee that means every nation gets a vote. You know what continents have the most countries? Africa and Asia. If all of Africa and Asia get behind an African country bid then it’ll be almost impossible to stop them from winning. The two continents combine for exactly 100 members. Throw in OFC who acts on AFC’s behalf and your over 110. It doesn’t look good for US’s chances now.

    Reply
  10. Blatter is just trying to award as many World Cups as possible before he dies. I doubt he lives to even see the Qatar Confederation Cup.

    FIFA is so greedy right now I wouldn’t put it past them to have the World Cup every two years.

    Reply
    • There won’t be a Confederation Cup in Qatar as “they won’t be ready”. I think its to prevent the world from knowing that Qatar really never was a suitable host before the cup’s start date in 2022.

      Reply
      • Well, to host the Confed Cup, they would have to do it in the summer, because there’s no way they could pull players from leagues in the middle of the season. Playing it in the summer would just reiterate how ridiculous their initial proposal was.

    • That would be two Asian world cups in a row although I don’t know why I think FIFA will abide by its own rules in awarding it.

      Reply
      • FIFA can easily say that Australia is in Asia now, but used to be in Oceania, and therefore they still consider them to be in Oceania. Wouldn’t surprise me.

      • They awarded a World Cup that can’t be played in the summer, pretty sure that was breaking their own rules. They do what they want.

    • Ahhhh….the thruthiness of that statement makes my heart ache. How does that public not realize the advanced schedule for deciding WC hosts is because Sepp realized he was going to die eventually and wanted to get as many kickbacks as possible before he croaks.

      Reply
      • thruthiness (sic) truthiness maybe?? I love it, what a great word. The truthiness is that’s my word of the day…

  11. Let’s get this thing. No joint bids, let’s keep it all here. There’s no serious competition since Europe and Asia (in theory) can’t be awarded 2026. This can help place soccer firmly in the US mainstream and once that happens, there’s no stopping us.

    Or FIFA can award the WC to some ridiculous place once again because they’re better at bribing.

    Reply
    • I would call Mexico and Canada serious competition. Mexico has already said they’re going for it and Canada is exactly where we were 20 plus years ago when we got it.
      As far as placing soccer firmly in the US mainstream, that’s what 94 was about.

      Reply
    • Thanks, HoboMike, that’s exactly what I was going to say. Even if Canada became a huge soccer hotbed (doubtful), there’s still only 30m people there. When I say putting soccer in the mainstream, I’m talking about getting it up there with the big three sports. That should be our goal and hosting the world cup can only help.

      Maybe Mexico is serious competition but with the security problems there, I can’t imagine who would rather pick Mexico. I acknowledge logic and world cup decisions don’t go hand in hand but still. The US could host a world cup tomorrow, there’s no need to build stadia or airports or entire cities from scratch (like Qatar).

      Reply
      • I guess if we stay with that very specific set of parameters you came up with in your head then it’s true, there’s no competition. Unfortunately, this the the World Cup. Emphasis in “WORLD” with all the different opinions and priorities that word implies. Picking the two or threes elements that only we can meet is just laughable.

      • I guess if we stay with that very specific set of parameters you came up with in your head then it’s true, there’s no competition.
        ===
        You mean the set of parameters like “Stadium Size and number” (bye, Canada) and “Likelihood of a being kidnapped by narcogangs” (bye Mexico)? Those parameters?

      • Exactly. Infrastructure, security and stadia aren’t random parameters, they’re essential. What criteria can Mexico meet that we can’t?

      • They’re a true football country.
        The last world cup they held is still known as the best ever.
        They don’t have enemies all over the world.
        People are not trying to sneak into their country to blow things up.
        Its a matter of perspective.

      • Points one and two are good, but point three has a simple counter argument. People are trying to sneak out of their country to go work in the next door neighbor’s restaurant and construction industry. Do not ignore the drivers of that migration.

      • Are you saying that the U.S is safer?
        Fact: The U.S has murder rate in any one of it’s major cities than the entire country of Mexico. Turn on your t.v

      • Comparing localities to nations is an abuse of statistics. The murder rate in Mexico is four times the murder rate in the US. I’m quite certain I could find a locality in Mexico that would allow me to say, “The murder rate in Mexican City X is 10 times the rate in the US.” I’d be factually correct, but my statement would be just as pointless as yours.

      • agree… no joint bids… If US cant have it, let Canada host it 100%… not just in Concacaf but other confederations will too oppose mexico from hosting the WC three times.

        btw, FIFA will likely award the Centennial WC 2030 to Uruguay, where the whole thing started in 1930, the problem, Uruguay only has 2 major cities the size of Austin, Texas and only one 65K stadium in the entire country. The government probably would not be interested in spending billions of dollars.

      • Supposed to be a joint Argentina-Uruguay bid which would be a great world cup to attend. Those are some fun countries.

      • That would be an entertaining tournament. Calling it a joint bid would be generous though. It would really be an Argentine bid with Centenario thrown in as a bonus.

      • Qatar had 1.6 million population according to their latest census so Canada will be fine with their 30 million. Mexico has a very tough argument to make as they already hosted the WC twice. I think Canada should get it and host it in December. 😉

      • Qatar had 1.6 million population according to their latest census so Canada will be fine with their 30 million.
        ===
        Ignoring the bribes that Canada wouldn’t pay, Qatar’s small size and pop is reason #17a that 2022 is going to be a CF.

  12. I know the US fans are eager to get a “make up” tournament thrown their way but departing from normal process and handing out tournaments to the powerful and the wealthy without doing a good job of vetting bids and then a transparent bid selection process is the whole problem. This should be done in the normal time frame with a more thorough process. Beating your kid and then taking him out for ice cream doesn’t make you a better dad.

    Reply
  13. They should look at Iceland, its a little cooler in summer than Qatar, plus homosexuality is legal and as an Island they are not very likely to invade a neighbor like Russia has.

    I think it could work…

    Reply
    • Except that Iceland competes in UEFA … and most of its people are of Scandinavian descent.

      Seriously though, the US ought to win. Personally, I think a joint US / Mexico bid would be the most ideal scenario for association football in this part of the world. And, as for handing both an automatic bid … both have qualified for the last several WC’s anyway and usually made it to the knockout round.

      Reply
      • With all countries voting (first I’ve heard that), joint bids will likely be much more common. All countries adjoining both countries would be more likely to vote within region this way.

      • concacaf should be able to win that vote what with all the little island nations… but they can’t split the vote by having two bids

  14. Since Suinil decoded not to participate until the process is clean (good luck with that) it’ll be Canada or Mexico. Here’s hoping it’s Canada. They can use the push to start their own league.

    Reply
    • Good on Sunil for at least saying something like that, if he has the guts to follow through we’ll see. I hope the US doesn’t host it. I think the US is too good of a host for FIFA and FIFA doesn’t deserve the commercial and financial success of a US hosted WC. Let Honduras host if they’re serious about forging new frontiers in football.

      Reply
      • FIFA doesn’t need to US to host a financially successful world cup. They make their money up front, and yes, a lot of it it’s from American companies such as Fox.

      • But since the 1994 World Cup is still the most profitable one they ever had you can bet they would make even more this time.

        But Mexico could be a fantastic host as well.

        Canada is hit or miss. Do you like having to play on temporarily installed grass?

      • Enough of this Canad nonsense. Canada has four stadiums that hold more than 40,000, and only one of more than 60,000 – which a stadium must be to hold QF or later matches. Unless they’re planning on building a bunch of white elephants or new CFL stadiums, they’re in no position to bid alone. Frankly: the US has no reason to joint bid with them.

    • Remember the lawsuit from the USWNT players and others regarding the turf conditions in Canada? Do we think Canada has good enough facilities that wont be controversial?

      Reply

Leave a Comment