K.D.D.D.D.Soc
Ian Walker
Does it matter with 48 teams in the finals?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
World Cup 2026: Mexico, USA and Canada
- Thread starter Jordinho
- Start date
Does it matter with 48 teams in the finals?
Baleforce
Les Bennett
If I remember correctly, England were the favourites but the big-mouth English media spoiled it for them by bad mouthing the FIFA members. In any case. it was right to let Russia, being the world's largest nation and Qatar, being in the Middle East, host the WC. I think for neutrals it is always enjoyable bringing the World Cup to regions which have never hosted it before. I think for neutrals, especially Americans, it is a chance of a lifetime to visit the world's largest nation like Russia which you would normally won't even think about due to politics. No wonder the Americans have bought the most WC tickets despite their team not playing in the WC.
wasn't it just that the BBC aired a documentary showing, with indisputable facts, how corrupt the entire process was?
Seedy Ron
Jimmy Neighbour
Exactly. Big mouths bad mouthing the poor old Fifa trough feeders who were just going about their usual business. It's bound to be more tiresome to line your pockets if someone keeps on at you for doing it.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
It was nothing of the sort. It was pure corruption.
I'm no England fan and I certainly wouldn't want my day to day life disrupted by our country hosting a circus like that - the Olympics were bad enough.England should stop being bitter about losing the WC to Russia and Qatar. After all, times have changed since England won the WC in 1966. Being WC hosts is not really an advantage nowadays. Only 6 hosts have won the WC : Uruguay 1930, Italy 1934, England 1966, W.Germany 1974, Argentina 1978 and France 1998. That means only 1 hosts have won the WC in the last 40 years ! So, England should stop day dreaming about winning the WC if they host it.
My concern is with having World Cups hosted in countries with such terrible human rights records. I don't want the World Cup hosted in any country where fans/teams/families should be afraid to be black or gay.
I also take issue with any country buying the hosting rights.
Russia being the world's largest nation is a bit of a silly claim when it comes to World Cups. The last thing you want is thousands of miles of uninhabitable wilderness between grounds.If I remember correctly, England were the favourites but the big-mouth English media spoiled it for them by bad mouthing the FIFA members
What fans need is a lot of stadia, all within reasonably easy travelling distance, safety and not being some backward brickhole where it's still considered wrong to be gay.
Bit harsh to penalise a country just because it's large. Qatar covers all but the gay part, it's around the size of Hong Kong - going to be fans everywhere.
Not penalising, just suggesting that "largest country" is a silly, pointless and irrelevant boast.
Rorschach
Ricky Villa
If you have to build stadiums you shouldn't get it. You should have the infrastructure in place, more or less, rather than having to build a heap of stadiums that won't ever be used again. Also the voting who gets it should not belong to the suits, but to the people.
Same for the Olympics. Or even better, it should just go back to Greece permanently and let them host it every four years. They need a boost to their economy anyway.
Same for the Olympics. Or even better, it should just go back to Greece permanently and let them host it every four years. They need a boost to their economy anyway.
Glenda's Legs
Paul Walsh
If I remember correctly, England were the favourites but the big-mouth English media spoiled it for them by bad mouthing the FIFA members
Would those neutrals by any chance include the migrant workers literally enslaved - and sometimes dying - to build the infrastructure that will enable Qatar to fulfil its hosting obligations?
But it can act as a catalyst for regeneration, not all countries have 15+ stadiums with 35K capacity and top notch facilities. Many countries will have say 10 and then re-develop or build new ones along with transport upgrades which I think makes sense. Basically you're saying any developing country can't host the world cup including Brazil who had to re-develop many stadiums for 2014.
greatwhitenorf
Edgar Davids
I'm pretty pleased to see the World Cup come to Norfa Merica. Speaking as a Canadian, the game has always had a strong following here in the big, ethnically diverse cities. Now, it's huge everywhere. Streets in parts of Toronto will close down when certain national teams play (though maybe less than before with Italy out). MLS games draw very well, quality of play improves every year and good atmosphere in most venues.
Great stadiums are already in place in all three nations. Mexico actually has some cracking grounds with their LigaMX being very strong. Would love to get back to see a game at the Azteca (I worked at the '86 World Cup) and it is simply jaw-dropping with the atmosphere created there. Guadalajara is triffic as well, with Chivas' smart new stadium looking good.
Been all over the States and, despite their dingbat president, gotta say it's a great place full of - mostly - nice, decent people. And they absolutely love sports. This World Cup will be thoroughly embraced by people in all three countries.
The notion that Canada and Mexico will only host 10 games is not set in concrete. That will be a minimum. There's already talk that more games will be given to those countries. Maybe not a lot more, but there's some flex in the plans. Yes, they're big countries, but we're all accustomed to flying about and the airports are generally good as are major highway systems.
Great stadiums are already in place in all three nations. Mexico actually has some cracking grounds with their LigaMX being very strong. Would love to get back to see a game at the Azteca (I worked at the '86 World Cup) and it is simply jaw-dropping with the atmosphere created there. Guadalajara is triffic as well, with Chivas' smart new stadium looking good.
Been all over the States and, despite their dingbat president, gotta say it's a great place full of - mostly - nice, decent people. And they absolutely love sports. This World Cup will be thoroughly embraced by people in all three countries.
The notion that Canada and Mexico will only host 10 games is not set in concrete. That will be a minimum. There's already talk that more games will be given to those countries. Maybe not a lot more, but there's some flex in the plans. Yes, they're big countries, but we're all accustomed to flying about and the airports are generally good as are major highway systems.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Why are they doing a joint one anyway? Id have thought each could host alone.
StephenH
David Ginola
Cheaper?
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I wouldnt imagine the cost is an issue.
When Holland and Belgium/Japan and South Korea joined up it made sense, but Canada - USA - Mexico? I wonder what the justification is?
When Holland and Belgium/Japan and South Korea joined up it made sense, but Canada - USA - Mexico? I wonder what the justification is?
milo
Jack L. Jones
I agree. If all fans aren't welcome, you shouldn't be able to host it. Building stadia with slave labour should also be a bar.
ricky2tricky4city
Steffen Freund
The second one has a quite spectacular view:
Pah.....that's no Tottenham High Road
Pah.....that's no Tottenham High Road
StephenH
David Ginola
To windup up Don?
milo
Jack L. Jones
That's not going to happen. He'll be happy to claim any credit, if there is any to claim and he won't be around when the tournament happens.