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

Spain/Morocco would be GREAT.

 

It would be interesting to see how a cross confederation bid would work, especially since one of those confederations in this case is ineligible under current rules.

 

Morocco 2026 World Cup bid looks doomed as FIFA regs rule out Euro partners:
http://www.insideworldfootball.com/...id-looks-doomed-fifa-regs-rule-euro-partners/

That's a shame. I like the idea of a Morocco/Spain/Portugal Cup.

 

Morocco + new democratic shining light Tunisia could be a very viable option, if they go for it.

 

Although it should be remembered that Morocco is currently ruthlessly occupying a whole nation - Western Sahara. No different to what Israel is doing to the Palestinians. Both are serial human rights abusers.

 

^^^
Wrong thread.

 

Chechnya, Tibet, Southern Cameroon, North Cyprus. etc.

Could go farther really but there is no end to this.

 

It seems to be the official joint bid : Canada, USA, Mexico

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/apr/06/us-canada-mexico-joint-world-cup-bid-2026

Now I wonder where will be the opening and the final game !! and if the 3 countries are going to have the same number of matches .... Or the same number if host cities : as example : 8 host cities per country......

any thoughts about the distribution of matches between the 3 countries ?

 

With 16 Groups I'd say 3 groups in Canada, 6 groups in Mexico and 7 groups in USA.
Opener in Mexico.

Round of 32 :
2 games in Canada, 6 games in Mexico, 8 games in USA.

Round of 16
2 games in Canada 2 in Mexico 4 in USA

Quarter- Finals
2 games in USA, 2 in Mexico

Semis
USA (The large Stadiums in Texas)

Third Place in New York/Jersey.

Final USA. Most likely Los Angeles.

 

Why host it jointly when at least USA and Mexico can, and have, hosted the tournament by themselves? Even Canada should be able to.

 

Not that FIFA cares, Russia and Qatar do not have great human rights records.

 

But it is a stupid rule, and FIFA often change their rules.

You wonder if Mexican's will not be happy being a junior partner in this, but I suppose the federation and relevant officials will get their money, and thus votes.

This presumes that logic is a factor. My guess is more hosts means more votes! Just like the expanded WC, more participants means more votes.
The other question is is this good for fans? I am reminded of the continental wide Euros coming up in 2020. I miss the concentration of fans in a specific place, and the narrative being partly about the host- like Brazil or South Africa, or Portugal for the Euros. On the other hand, it does increase access for fans, if you live in, say, Istanbul, you don't have to go to France to see a Euro game, you can just go to one of the two or three games that are in your city. The days of young fans backpacking around and going to random games in provincial cities may be gone though, and I miss that, even though I only did it twice.

 

I'm not for it but I can channel FIFA for you answers-

a) A continent wide WC doesn't have to bother with small cities like Manaus, or Rustinberg (was that the one in S.A.?). Just includes big cities like New York and Mexico City. Also (and this I like), less stadium have to be built because the big cities already have the venues.

b) Who cares about an event spread across the full continent? We (FIFA) fly around first class on expense accounts, and now we don't have go to Manaus!

 

I guess we are looking at the winning bid in Canada/USA/Mexico.

Not a big fan of letting Mexico host an unprecedented third time but wouldn't mind seeing the final at the Azteca given its football history.

 

A big issue with West Coast matches is European times.

Matches involving European teams should be played in the East Coast.

 

Potential stadia

Canada

• Montreal: Olympic stadium (Big renovation)
• Vancouver: Commonwealth stadium
• Toronto: 40,000 stadium

Mexico

• Mexico City: Estadio Azteca
• Puebla: Estadio Cuauhtémoc
• Guadalajara: Estadio Omnilife
• Monterrey: Estadio BBVA Bancomer

United States

• Boston
• NewYork
• Miami
• Chicago
• Atlanta
• Houston
• Dallas
• Phoenix
• Seattle
• San Francisco
• Los Angeles

 

The big is so strong given they don't even need to build anything.

 

In '94 the Final was in the Los Angeles area and the Kickoff was aligned with European Prime Time.
The only complaint was that the conditions were too hot in the Rose Bowl.

That won't be an issue in 2026 because there is a new NFL facility that will be built in Southern California and it will be a Dome.
http://theramswire.usatoday.com/201...-inglewood-stadium-renderings-hollywood-park/

 

Politically it may help the USA win the bid instead of the alternative of a solo bid. Strength in numbers.
For Mexico and Canada it cuts on the budget for Stadium renovations and infrastructure.

 

I think they will try to avoid Smog and Altitude for the World's Biggest Stage Finale.
Hollywood makes more sense.

 

Because Los Angeles is known for its pristine clean air.

I know, I know - according to you the World Cup should be getting the "Gold Cup treatment" and be hosted in the USA every single time!

 

If you would have read my previous post you would know that they are building a dome which I assume will have pristine air you speak of.

 

And I would love for it to be in the USA every 4 World Cup cycles. Can't have them all here.