More money, more WC berths on the table. Instead of the 6 CONMEBOL will get, as CONCACAF also gets 6 which is stupid, there'd be a combined 12. That likely ends with CONMEBOL getting 8-9 teams to the WC and CONCACAF 3-4. Seems fair. Aside from that, nothing.
I know the U.S. has a bad record against CONMEBOL teams but with 12 seeds. I think they'll be alright.
Getting points away in C-BOL would be hard for us, harder than it is for the Central Americans. We're far too used to playing games at home. I don't see us getting anything at La Paz or Quito, even though Bolivia and Ecuador are among the weakest in that region. On the other hand, I can see Panama & Costa Rica getting points there. They're all teams more used to discomfort. Not to mention the whole of Latin America will go extra-hard against us. There are political reasons there, we supported some of their worst dictators.
I doubt that but if true, then we don't deserve to go! The top 6 in CONMEBOL are superior to us. Mex and CR are superior to us. That leaves four spots. If we can't get one of those four berths amongst Panama, Honduras, Paraguay, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, T&T, Jamaica, etc, then oh well. Going by the current cycle us and T&T would be in the WC and Chile, out. Ridiculous. I hate 6 spots coming to CONCACAF. Could produce even more complacency here. Some CONMEBOL ass whoopings might be in order.
We'd get a lot more experience playing on the road if we were fully (or even partially, via regular Copa America participation or a unified LoN) integrated into a merged confederation. We're all disappointed right now but let's not get too crazy. The best Panamanian team ever just needed a ton of help and a phantom goal to finish 1 point ahead of us after we beat them 4-0 at home. We suck right now, but over the long run we're still a top 2 team in CONCACAF and would be consistently middle of the pack in South America (behind only Brazil and Argentina at our best, ahead of only Bolivia and Venezuela at our worst...right now much closer to the latter). Keep in mind those middle 6 South American countries are pretty up and down themselves, Chile is a legitimate top 10 team in the world right now and just failed to qualify for the WC, teams like them, Colombia, Paraguay, Ecuador are frequently WC quarterfinalists one cycle and legitimately mediocre teams a few years later. Hell the last few years have been the first time since I've been watching the sport that Peru has been any good, and when I first started watching it (mid-90s) Bolivia was the 4th best team on the continent after only Brazil/Argentina/Colombia. CONCACAF, our debacle this cycle and Mexico's last cycle notwithstanding, tends to be a lot more stable performance-wise. (Actually, Mexico's performance last cycle was even worse than ours this cycle--same number of poitns and significantly worse GD--they just lucked out and we didn't.) As for the South Americans, they hate each other a lot more than they hate us. Also, while there is significant anti-American sentiment in Latin America, it's not as universal or as vitriolic particularly in South America as the western left likes to fantasize about--primarily because, more often than not, the brutal dictators we supported had supplanted other, equally brutal or even worse, dictators supported by the Soviets. And finally missing out on the WC would be less disastrous, both financially and in terms of fan enjoyment, if we had regular competitive games against CONMEBOL teams to look forward to. It's also a hell of a lot less likely with a merged confederation getting 12-13 spots than it would be currently.
Better be prepared to see the USA not qualify ever again, given our so-called "talent." A bunch of soft losers who, when punched in the mouth over and over again throughout qualifying, stood there and took it, which is even further compounded by a federation that's more interested in lining its own pockets than developing the game in America.
You really glorify Latin American play and are majorly overreacting to what this result means about the U.S.' caliber for subsequent cycles or even the one now. Get a manager to turn over the roster, unlike Klinsmann and Arena did, plus display some decent tactical acumen; and we're top 2 in CONCACAF + Paraguay-level or better in CONMEBOL. The U.S. did win the previous 3 hexes. The U.S. did just win the u-20 CONCACAF qualifying tourney. Probably should have won u-17 too, and did make the final. We might hurt from missing this Cup well down the line, but that doesn't foretell a collapse in the near future. We'd make it 1 out of every 3 cycles? With effectively 13 bids of 48? If the U.S. were just better than Venezuela and Bolivia and top 5 in CONCACAF, they'd make it. Or better than one and top 4. By our normal standard, it would be disastrous not to make it out of that combined region too. We'd do it a vast majority of the time in reality.
Soft can be answered to but it requires a willingness to answer to it. Need more players in cutthroat club situations. Need more NT matches against intense, skilled competition in rough environments like down in CONMEBOL nations. And need MLS participating in Copa Libertadores. Basically, take a sledge hammer to our comfort zone. This little bubble the USSF has created lends a falls sense of security and accomplishment to coaches, to players, to media.
Consider the format: 41 C-CAF teams + 10 C-BOL teams, total 51. Three groups of eight, three groups of nine. Top two in each group get a ticket. Play-off spot to best third place team, after results vs. weaker team in the groups of nine are removed. Pots right now, using projected FIFA ranking for October*: 1: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, Mexico 2: Uruguay, Costa Rica, USA, Paraguay, Panama, Bolivia 3: Venezuela, Haiti, Jamaica, Ecuador, Honduras, Trinidad 4 - 9: Hic sunt minnows. Say, we get in a group with Colombia as #1 and Ecuador as #3. Are our chances that good of finishing Top 2 or Best Top 3? ----- * http://www.football-rankings.info/2017/10/fifa-ranking-october-2017-final-preview.html
Do some research before posting none sense. Then you'll see why all 3 joined the bid. Anything else you post makes you look unbelievably ignorant. No way the USSF does that. Gulati wouldn't even commit on giving Mexico the opening game, or sharing playoffs, let alone conceding more games.
OK, but that's one 3 seed out of 6 that would be favored against us (and it would be very slight favorites, and in the long run we can certainly hang with Mexico and Peru from the 1 seeds as well). Again, as horrific as this cycle was, if you look at the long term and our body of work over the last 3-4 cycles as well as those of other teams we're easily #2 in CONCACAF (and I would've said #1 until about 2-3 years ago) and would be top 6-8 or so in a combined confederation. 12 bids from CONCACAF/CONMEBOL combined I think we qualify for at least 4 out of every 5 WCs, and the benefits would more than outweigh missing one WC every 20 years.
If true, this would require an effort that's almost unimaginable these days ... a change to the thread title.
]"Do some research before posting none sense. Then you'll see why all 3 joined the bid. Anything else you post makes you look unbelievably ignorant." This smacks of elementary school "well, if you don't know, I won't tell you." If you have some credible information that indicates that Canada was included in the bid for any reason other than charity, then share it. If you don't you look unbelievably dishonest and ignorant. "No way the USSF does that. Gulati wouldn't even commit on giving Mexico the opening game, or sharing playoffs, let alone conceding more games." I didn't say the USSF would. But, why don't Mex and Can just drop the U.S. from the bid? Or, Canada can just bid for the tournament by themselves?
30 Second mark: Political climate Also: U.S. travel ban could affect chances of hosting 2026 World Cup - FIFA chief http://www.espnfc.us/blog/fifa/243/...-chances-of-hosting-2026-world-cup-fifa-chief U.S. travel ban would hurt 2026 World Cup bid - UEFA chief http://www.espnfc.com/blog/uefa/258...-ban-would-hurt-2026-world-cup-bid-uefa-chief Another point to consider FIFA has 209 member-nations, and each one’s soccer association is equally powerful in the sport’s governing body. In 2011, FIFA changed its voting rules. In future host selections, each member-association will get one vote. The biggest voting bloc is Africa + Asia. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marco...eo-politics-of-the-global-game_b_7902102.html This dichotomy was on display during FIFA’s presidential election in May 2015 pitting the incumbent Blatter against Prince Ali of Jordan. For the 133 FIFA members that voted for Blatter, the bottom line is that Blatter delivered. His support came primarily from Asia and Africa, FIFA’s largest voting bloc. Now I hope you understand why the USSF did what they did, many nations in the Africa+Asia block are very hostile to the US. When the UEFA president came out and said a US bid would be hurt due to politics, the writing was on the wall, and the co-bid was the best course of action under the current circumstances. Including both partners was crucial to get votes across all the confederations. 1-Geography 2-Canada & Mexico BOTH wanted to bid solo. 3 bids from CONCACAF would have split the vote and increase the odds of another confederation to get the majority of the votes and get the tournament. The turning points were Sepp Blatter being ousted from FIFA and Infantino expanding the World Cup to 48 teams. Sepp Blatter: He barely hid his interest for a Canadian World Cup. FIFA boss Sepp Blatter hypes possible Canadian bid for 2026 World Cup https://www.thestar.com/sports/socc...possible_canadian_bid_for_2026_world_cup.html Blatter called the tournaments a necessary step to a successful bid by the Canadian Soccer Association for the men’s tournament. “It’s time. It’s a project and if you’re going to have a project like the FIFA World Cup, it takes some time,” he said. “You have had the courage and it was necessary to (CSA president Victor Montagliani) to have the courage to ask, to organize FIFA’s Women’s World Cup with 24 teams. It will be the first time.” 48 teams: Made a solo bid unsustainable for Mexico who already hosted twice and Canada who had plan for 32 team tournament. Conclusion: All 3 needed one another for 2026 due to multiple circumstances, not charity
Because like most countries, Mexico couldn't afford to upgrade their stadiums to FIFA required WC standards, Canada wouldn't either because they are fiscal responsible and guess what, almost every NFL stadium in the USA already exceeds them.
dude what? youre honestly saying that a combined 12 bid ccaf cnbml would only have 2 of brazil arg colombia peru mex chile???? what? your groupings make no sense...!!!
So, do you think Mexico would be unable to solo host the World Cup? "48 teams: Made a solo bid unsustainable for Mexico"
Long term? Yes Short term (putting up a bid by 2020?) No A bid isn't just about stadiums. It's about accommodations for players, staff, journalists and FIFA. The biggest sporting event on earth requires hotels, training grounds etc...for 48 teams. That's massive. As for Canada, it was a different issue: Stadiums. Upgrading to 48 teams would require building more and governments here have a low appetite for that. The CSA knew 32 team world cup was doable, 48 teams, not so much.
Italy, France, Mexico & Brazil have each hosted two World Cup Finals already. An individual bid by any of these four countries would meet a lot of resistance by the FIFA, a federation trying hard to rotate hosts.