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

Well, I'm saying that culturally and historically, Russia has never entirely been a part of Europe. It's always been set somewhat apart.

I think the old Greeks had, btw, a more servicable geographic definition of Europe. They considered the Don Europe's eastern boundary.

But this is a wide debate. One that fills whole libraries.

 

Like the IOC when it comes to the Olympics. I have my doubts this will curb the trading of favours for votes. Candidates will at the very least have to sponsor all sorts of pet projects. Even if we're not talking personal corruption as such.

I think one should somehow make the scores in the technical bid reports really matter. Right now, those who vote hardly look at them.

 

Sure, they can host it. And they'd do a good job, I'm convinced. But they're gunning for EURO 2020. And have good chances.

The stumbling block for them might be hooliganism and match-fixing scandals. They've got some work to do in those respects.

 

USA. Should have gotten 2022. Could host a WC in a few months notice. Got the stadiums and can fill the seats. Just need time to sell the tickets. Travel is no excuse.

Only WC I plan on going to is Brasil. Russia would be iffy, but don't want to travel there. Would never make the trip to Qatar, ever. Great choices FIFA.

 

Qatar's actually a very safe place, nothing worng with it except for the heat.

USA do need another world cup in my opinion, but with so many nations, it's hard to say why they should come above others, such as England, Spain.

A USA world cup, for me, I'd like to see it incorprate somethng else, a few games in Canada aswell. Might take the glory away from the US, but they've already had it in recen times, so they need to do something different to catch the imagination for me.

 

England should have gotten it over Russia.

No need for USA to share with Canada. We have the big cities and stadiums. Still hold the records for highest ave attendance 68,991 per match and overall 3,570,00. That was all when soccer/football wasn't popular. Still isn't as popular as other sports.

I have no interest going to an area of the world that doesn't like me, even though I would be supporting Italy.

As for imagination. Sitting in a heated dust bowl with the dream of making artificial clouds to cool things is fun? If I want imagination I'll play FIFA on xbox. If I want to see the biggest tournament in football, I want to go to a nice area of the world, with great stadiums, transport, hotels, and where I feel safe.

 

And I stated it should be in the USA for 2026.

 

New Zealand, Canada, Mexico Or US.

 

New Zealand have stated that they will never be able to hold the rugby world cup on their own again and will share with Australia in the future.
They are sharing the 2015 cricket world cup with Australia.

If New Zealand can't host rugby or cricket world cups on it's own then how will it hold the football world cup?
New Zealand has one stadium with over 40,000 people. Eden Park will never be built to host over 80,000 people (as required to hold a final) as it will never be economically justified.
Wellington and Christchurch could possibly justify 40,000+ stadiums (though very unlikely, on rugby union internationals would push crowds of 40,000).
No other city could have a stadium of 40,000 people.

 

I think FIFA hates the US or loves that Arab money to much!!! tahaha

 

Really? Is that why there's only been one world cup (and not even played yet) in the Arab World?

 

I'm quite sure that the World Cup will head back for a more "experienced" European nation. In 2026, the WC has been out of a major football nation for 12 years and I believe FIFA are quite concerned that it's time for the World Cup to get home to Europe again. Especially when the World Cup will celebrate 100 years in 2030. A tournament that I believe will take place in Argentina and Uruguay.

However, even if the current ongoing Euro crises hopefully will be over in 2026, a candidature in these times won't be very popular when the government struggles against debts takes emergency loans. This may open the door for England which isn't affected by the economical problems in the same way as the other great European football nations, like Spain and Italy.

 

This! Now that Qatar gets to host I guess anyone can. It sucks that Qatar got it over the USA, Australia, and South Korea, but in a way I am glad the USA didn't get it. It would be nice, if we didn't host for about 30 years now. I'm 32 and was 14 when the World Cup came to the USA. No nation has ever hosted 3 times yet. In a way it would be kind of cool if our next World Cup is far enough in the future that my generation can take our grandchildren to the games. It kind of sucks for Mexicans that they had two so close together. There are a lot of generations that will never remember seeing the World Cup in their home nation and probably never will see one there.

If Qatar is big enough to host then why not...

China
Canada
Spain
Portugal
England
Scotland
Australia
Saudi Arabia
New Zealand
Netherlands
Egypt
Argentina

There are probably plenty of others that could host it too.

 

The only real threat to a USA 2026 I see would be a China bid, either one would be huge. Hopefully its USA 2026 and South America 2030 - back to back WC's played in afternoon kickoffs here in USofA!

Looking back a few years now, I am glad we didn't win the 2022 WC would be too soon, we are still building our soccer culture here and ten years from now it will still be new, hopefully its deserved by 2026.

Agreed about England, Iberia and Turkey, both would be great hosts - maybe a Euro sometime soon, just too many big nations outside of Western Europe that need a shot..

 

also, end this New Zealand and Canada talk.. thats about as foolish as promoting Cuba or Finland.

 

They definitely shouldn't do cohosts anymore. As the sport grows having 2 countries get automatic spots and easy groups as happened in this Euro is a bad idea.

 

Easy groups in the Euro's? Must have missed that part.

 

Look at the hosts groups especially Poland's group, there is a reason even the 1 seeds from those groups don't look strong and if England losses tomorrow all of those teams will be gone. If Canada or New Zealand cohost a world cup their groups will be even easier then most hosts traditionally are.

 

You mean Qatar wont put up a fight?

 

Funny, in England's group they had France who everyone was talking about, yet they only ot 4 points in the group which must surely say to you that the group wasn't easy??

Ask Russia from group A if they thought it was an easy group? Just because groups b and c seem to have heavyweights in them doesn't go on to say that groups A and D were easy.

 

Obviously when I say easy I mean it in relative terms its not as if they can invite Moldova and put them in Polands group. Groups B and C were loaded so they could arrange the easiest possible groups for the hosts. When France is your example of the hard team that pretty much says it all again speaking in relative terms to the teams in the tournament.

France coming out of that group with 4 point and Russia not coming out at all simply says they aren't at the level that the truly strong teams in this tournament are. That was made even clearer in the knockout rounds were Greece, Czech Republic and France all looked over matched by the teams in the other groups. If the Netherlands had been in either A or D their tournament is drastically different but they were put in the group of death to protect both hosts which is why I don't like the concept of 2 hosts that was my original point.

 

Netherland's weren't put into a group of death, the teams were drawn out of a pot. So to even make it sound like it was fixed as to where they would play is unreasonable.

All hosts are seeded in any tournament going, same with USA in 94. Can I go back and argue that now?

As for the concept of two hosts, do you realise that we have 32 teams in a world cup? How many countries can host them on their own? Same goes for Euro's when they expand once again to 24 teams, who can host on their own?

If you come from such a big vast country then yes, but if a small country like Belgium and Holland with a lot in common then why not. In fact you question having two hosts, but your really getting at the fact about any weak host - doesn't matter if its one or two, we all know what's bugging you.