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.
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.
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.
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.
Can anybody tell me what the alleged benefit would be to a) having a joint bid among nations that don't need to share, and b) an event spread across a full continent? Allegedly there's a benefit to somebody that is making this CANUSAMEX bid appealing but for the life of me I can't see it. Seriously.
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!
To this I'd respond there are solutions that don't necessitate co-hosting. Allowing more metros to feature 2+ stadiums, for instance. (A precedent they're establishing with Qatar.) They could also enact fiscal standards for venues and their use that restrict the potential for white elephants like those in Manaus and Brasillia. Brasil had some fine venues (Arena do Gremio, Allianz Parque, Engenhao...) that were not involved in their World Cup for various reasons. Surely a more financially feasible plan could've been devised if not for a) local insistence on spreading the event around and b) FIFA negligence in ensuring and allowing a more efficient plan for hosting. Yes, for smaller nations like the Netherlands or Uruguay some form of co-hosting is necessary and should be allowed. But where some nations can go it alone that should likewise be encouraged, or are we trending toward an event that will eventually be so large we're simply touring the same nations and large cities again and again? I think we're sacrificing one of the things that made the event special if co-hosting is to become the norm, and that's the chance to give the event a decidedly local flavor and helping the game grow in certain parts of the globe.
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
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.