Potential 2026 WC Hosts (Update: Morocco Sole Challenger to CONCACAF Bid)

That ship left long ago. Chile in '62, Mexico in '70, USA in '94, South Africa in '10. Those were all teams that had no guarantee of making it out of the group stage. In the end they were all decent teams.

 

Going into the 2002 tournament there were many people who thought Korea and Japan would struggle to win a group match. Of course they played well but no one could predict that.

 

Why so ?

with the exception of South Africa, all of those teams did have at least 2 former WC participations, and had achieved some important victories and draws before, when FIFA granted the WC at their soil. At the time they(we) weren't exactly powerhouses, but pretty decent teams, as you correctly said.
USA even had a third place finnish on their behalf.

 

Basically, I'm saying that Canada is no worse then quite a few other teams were when they hosted. We could also add Qatar, Japan and Korea. Canada will do just fine in 2026. Especially now that soccer is becoming more and more popular there and their pro teams are investing serious money in their academies. It's easy to forget that Canada's current woes is also due to losing way too many international players to other countries. The talent is there to have a good team.

 

You think Canada now not being able to qualify with the lights of Panama, Costa Rica and Honduras are at the same level as Japan or South Korea ?

 

No.

But in 2026? Who knows?

 

Canada today are no worse than Japan and SK in 1990. You need to remember that they have produced players of the level of Hargreaves and the De Guzman brothers. They've only had serious money put into professional player development in the last decade. They now have three professional clubs in each of their major cities and I fully expect that they will soon be challenging for classification. The big question, though, is the seriousness of their federation. Jonathan de Guzman famously choose a speculative chance in the Holland NT over Canada. Given that his older brother plays for Canada this speaks volumes of the mismanagement many have noticed in the NT setup. The WC bid noise is the first indication that Canada now wants to be a serious contender.

 

Canada doesn't even have a league and is piggy backing on the MLS. You might have the 13 cities but what about stadiums. Fifa wants 13 cities and 40-50k+ stadiums.

Canada can get it if they do it with the US but doubt they will get it by themselves.

Conmenbol and Concacaf should merge. Honduras, Costa Rica going to the WC serves no purpose other than to get pounded by other teams.

 

You are the first supporter of a CONMEBOL team I have ever seen say that.

 

They merge and Colombia will never ever ever ever ever miss another World Cup. Uruguay will somehow manage to get the last spot so they can play the knockout round against the crap team they make them play against. I think they just throw games to be able to play against a random Oceania or Asian team.

Concacaf is made so Mexico and USA qualify. USA would have no trouble qualifying in South America if Fifa gave us 8 spots. Mexico shouldn't either because they do very very well against SA teams. Fine the travel would be brutal but Concacaf serves no purpose. I am also tired of Mexico trying to force Comenbol to do things and let them join all our stuff but not join our confederation. Its the only way either team will get better.

7.5/8 Spots
1. Brazil
2. Arg
3. Uruguay (could potentially get much weak since they aren't very populated)
4. Colombia
5. Chile
6. US (will only get better with time especially when you take Population into account)
7. /7.5/8 Mexico, Paraguay(last qualifiers was a fluke they will be a top team again) Ecuador, Venezuela, Honduras, Peru(if they can fix their defensive issues they have amazing strikers), Costa Rica

Carlos Vela when he was a shit player had like 20 goals for Mexico because they play a bunch of random ass islands and beat them 10-0.

It would also strengthen both federations and make it more like europe. The Sudamericana would become more like the Europa League. Have way more concacaf teams in it. Actually have a firm way of qualifying some of the teams in this tourney are really really good and have no business in a 2nd tier tourney.

The Copa Lib would also get stronger. Argentina and Brazil having 7-8 teams in these tourneys and the rest of SA only getting 2 max 3 teams would even out

 

There are no more dual country bids. FIFA doesn't like having to get laws through two different countries.
Canada is short on stadiums but it certainly has enough cities. If they want to spend money on building them then that's fine. Besides, they're no Qatar.
Costa Rica's world cup record is actually quite comparable to Colombia's. Certainly nothing to be ashamed about. Honduras hasn't done much but they certainly never go to just get pounded. They have never lost by much and have gotten a few draws. They're still waiting for their victory though.

 

Yeah, that's what Blatter said prior to the 2018 and 2022 bidding. And what bid finished 2nd behind Russia? Spain and Portugal. So while Blatter indicated FIFA doesn't like co-host bids, it really doesn't matter if the people actually making the decision don't care.

 

This.


Is nonsense.


FIFA are perfectly fine with co-hosts, as long as they have to deal with one organising committee. FIFA practically invited Ned/Bel to enter a bid.
FIFA will have to allow co-hosting otherwise inevitably a lot of their members will start to complain, or even leave FIFA eventually.

The world is a lot bigger than just Brasil, the US, Russia, Germany, Argentina, France or England, as much as the peoples of some of those countries would like to believe that it is not.

 

Gor Mahia? Really?

My Father-in-law played for their predecessor in the early 1950s.

 

Webb says USA/Canada is possible...

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/05/14/concacaf-pushing-ahead-2026-world-cup-bid

 

Well that proves it. I was wrong. Dual hosting is not disallowed. However, I still get the impression that it's very much frowned upon by a lot of members.

 

Webb's priority is for CONCACAF to get the 2026 World Cup, he doesn't care which nation(s) it goes to. He is suggesting dual hosting because it would prevent CONCACAF nations from splitting the vote. However, the decision is not up to him, and I doubt the USSF will have any interest in co-hosting with either Canada or Mexico.

 

US/Mexico would be better

 

Why?

 

Colombia / Venezuela would be even better.

 

brilliant, and let the carribean zone have their own little federation....with a .5 berth to face this monster federation... just to avoid wasting time pounding in those small island teams in earlier group stages..

 

If FIFA is fine just letting Qatar rewrite their bid to only have 8 stadiums there is no reason Canada can't bid that. Canada might be able to do 8 or 9, 12 or 13 is a stretch too far. I actually think a large number of countries could do 8 or 9 stadiums. 9 stadiums could theoretically put African countries like Morocco and Ghana into play.

 

Qatar is such an unconventional choice that I'm not sure it should be used in any sort of argument for another country going forward. I'm kind of expecting the worst but hoping for the best from them. Apart from size, the only reason 8 or 9 venues in Qatar works is the dry climate. Anyplace where it rains in the summer runs the risk of have the field torn up pretty badly during one rainy match. A rainy week to start the tournament would devastate the field conditions for the entire month if fields aren't given adequate time to recover. Regardless, from a fiscal standpoint, 8 or 9 venues is even stretching things too far for Canada. A shiny, high tech stadium of 40K plus really only works in 6 Canadian cities: Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal. Other markets like Winnepeg, Hamilton, and Quebec City are too small to justify the expense. Cities of those size can reasonably justify the venue expenditures in other countries because they can actually host 25 events a year via soccer matches in relatively mature leagues. CFL is a fun league, but cities can't reasonably expect to foot the bill for the type of venues required for the WC when those things will only end up getting used 9 times a year by CFL clubs without much in the way of advertising power.

As far a future WC hosts go, personally, I'm getting sick of the rotation system, even if it has loosened up a bit. The WC is one of the two biggest sporting events in the world. Regardless of what people may think, it does not provide economic benefits to the host country. People can argue that transportation systems and venues get built that can be re-used down the road. Fine. If that's the case, then these countries should build these venues and transportation systems with no expectation of hosting and then apply after they have been built. If they're economically necessary, things will get done with or without the WC. If FIFA had any sort of conscience (and let's face it, they don't), then not permitting hosts to accrue enormous amounts of debt for what amounts to a month-long party and marketing campaign would be a key criterion in the selection process. I'm not singling out Canada on this point because frankly they can handle the fiscal burden better than 95% of the countries in the world.

Personally, I'd like to see a rotation system where the last 7 winners get to host every other time or two out of every three (ESP, ITA, BRA, FRA, GER, ARG, ENG). All but Argentina could do it with what they have (or in Brazil's case, will have). Let every other or every third WC get hosted by someone outside of this group, provided they can demonstrate that the vast majority of what is needed to host is already in place. Joint bids are fine provided at least one of the two hosts has some history of getting through groups and the host confederation is willing to lose one at large qualification spot for the extra host.

In a joint bid effort, I'd love to see a more compact and travel-friendly USA-Canada bid, provided CONCACAF is will to accept an adjusted allocation of 2.5 spots. Pick 10-12 of the following: Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa. Every US city already has an open air or retractable roof facility in place. Fans could get around reasonably well if the geography of the tournament was more restricted. That was one of my biggest gripes about USA 94.

 

Why on earth should hosting be based on who has won the World Cup?

 

That's not the sole criterion, but if you're honest about the argument, the reasons those countries won the WC as the game hit a certain threshold of global prominence (in the last 50 years or so) are the same factors that go into presenting a feasible hosting bid. All 7 have decent standards of living relative to global standards of living. They're all fairly large, so there is some justification for being able to use 10-12 venues of WC caliber after the event. Economically, they all have enough money to at least invest in infrastructure. Culturally, they also obviously love the game, so it's politically expedient for these countries to host.

If you want to whittle a list down my argument would be:
1) Countries should have a certain level of development before entertaining the idea of diverting public funds for a party. There are 101 countries in the world at China's level of human development or better (from the UN).
2) Countries hosting alone should be big enough to make use of the venues (more populous than the Netherlands, who have only recently bid as a co-host with Belgium).
3) Countries shouldn't break the bank to host. If more than 2% of your GDP would be consumed by prep and construction costs(assuming costs between SA and Brazil), that's too much to responsibly ask for.

The leaves on 19 countries. Those 7 most recent winners + USA, China, Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia, Mexico, Korea, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Poland. SA and Iran probably aren't politically feasible, and frankly I'm not sure that some of these countries on the list could responsibly re-use 10-12 venues. There are some dual hosting opportunities as well: Canada/USA, Australia/NZ, 2 CONMEBOLS from a list of maybe 5 non-ARG or Brazil, Poland-Ukraine (if UKR gets sorted out), Belgium-Netherlands, etc. As other countries meet basic standards (and 20 to 30 years out is clearly a long time), then they would be added to eligible hosts.

The 7 former winner thing is more of a coincidence, but yeah, I'd like to see the event hosted every other time in a place that can logistically pull it off and bring a bit of history to the event. I don't think it's crazy to think that each of those countries should host no sooner than every 40 years apart and no further apart than every 60 years.

I'm just tired of the crazy town rotation approach. SA has bigger issues to deal with than spending $5 billion on a party and I'm not going to get into Qatar. You could even throw in a stipulation that a bidding country needs to have some minimal level of success over the prior 4 WC cycles: a R16, a EURO Quarter, a CONMEBOL semi, or title in another confed. This would eliminate China, Canada, Iran, and Poland as sole-host eligibles (not dual hosting opps though). I realize this would have prevented USA and Korea from hosting at one point, but the WC is inclusive enough now to permit the ROW to make some waves. Until 82, there were no more than 3 ROW teams per WC. Until 98, there were no more than 7. Since, there have been no fewer than 12. That's plenty of opportunity for a nation to prove itself.