They’ve had hydration breaks for years and they always wait for a stoppage in play. That’s a non-issue. Do any of you actually watch soccer? And given the low temperature/humidity threshold for inserting a break, we likely would’ve seen breaks at all matches except the indoor ones anyway.
I agree they will wait for a stoppage in play. Broadcasters are capable of inserting adverts whenever the break happens, they just want a guaranteed break. Indoor stadia include Houston, Dallas and Atlanta. I won't include LA as that isn't fully enclosed. There are also matches in Vancouver and Boston where the weather likely won't be a problem. Toronto should be ok most of the time and then there are evening matches in San Francisco! Plenty of games would not trigger the temperature criteria. There will be at least 1 match in the 49ers stadium where the crowd are wearing jackets and the players are taking a cooling break.
Yep, persuading the citizens of Canada to go on a stadium building bonanza for a World Cup they won't get most of the revenue from will be super easy, barely an inconvenience. Mexico has 7 that would meet FIFA capacity requirements and one of those has a running track.
I understand. I feel many Mexicans will go on the street to show they're happy with all the spendings made for a FIFA World Cup. I'll never forget the reactions from Brazillian fans in 2013. Canadian fans will also ask some questions about the bonzana. Hosting a FIFA World Cup will always be more expensive, I expect countries to go on co-host organizaion to focus more on some specific stadia and save money. There could be a feeling to choose cuntries whose 90% infrastructure is already in place.
We have a history of building massive infrastructure for big events. We've done so for Olympics time and time over - somehow some Americans who ignores those facts keeps clinging to the belief that a World Cup would be any different is amusing or a way to convince one self that the US will host every World Cup for this region...forever which is delusional
BMO Field was built for the U20 World Cup fyi - we've done that before and there was nothing controversial about its construction. A world Cup with more games than just 10 would be exactly the same here.
What? "according to british press, a player meets the criteria".. Has he been denied a visa? or just some vague "he may be denied". If an actual soccer player actually gets denied a visa for this WC then I'll be the first to apologize. Until then this is all silly noise of made up vague clickbait headlines that you fall for. And not sure what you are going on about some face on jumbotron.. or some random volleyball player 3 years ago.
What? this is obviously not how it will work, why on earth would you think the ref would literally blow the whistle at the 22nd minute regardless of the play. You know better than that.. ...and then using that theory for a "the game will be move to 4 quarters", game is gone BS. Cmon man, you know better than that.
Current asian ranking: top 3: Japan/South Korea/Australia top 5: Iran/Uzbekistan top 7: Jordan/Saudi Arabia top 10: Iraq/Qatar/UAE aside from UAE the rest have qualified (Iraq has not yet but likely will). There are very minor gaps between each tier, barely noticeable. But once you jump 2 tiers it becomes noticeable, but still not much. Qatar could arguably be one tier above but I put them in the bottom one. Also Jordan could be on par with Uzbekistan but then that would mean Iran would have to jump to its own tier behind the top tier. So the confederation has become more balanced, in the past it was top 5 plus floating 6 and a gap between the rest. This is due to Qatar/UAE using naturalized players, and decline of Saudi Arabia. Also, more of what would previously be called "floating 6th"... for example, Iraq/Uzbekistan/Jordan have all risen together, whereas in past it would be just 1 team outside the top 5 at a time that would be the floating 6th best team. Still amazing that China after all these years is not even top 10, though that is still better than using naturalized players. Jordan/Iraq/Uzbekistan have done well to rise without using naturalized players, but can they keep it up consistently? I think Uzbekistan can maintain their consistency. I am not too sure about Iraq and Jordan, especially Jordan. Jordan in the past has been a floating 6th but then they faded. Iraq has been more consistent throughout the times.
If Uzbekistan uses this WC to truly put itself on the map and start sending even more players to Europe, specially to quality leagues like they recently did with Khusanov and Shomurodov, they'll easily be the 4th best team in the region in 2030, speecially with Iran, SA and Qatar on a downward trend.
Yes, I actually watch soccer. I've been doing so for more than 60 years. I'm aware that hydration breaks have been around for a while. But I'm still wondering about the origin of this idea to mandate them for every game. Is this FIFA's idea or the Americans' idea? The Americans are getting blamed for it, at least in some quarters, but I have my doubts about that. I wonder whether it was FIFA's idea.
That's a bit of a stretch... Iran has its ups and downs but if even Japan/South Korea/Australia have not been able to permanently overtake Iran by now then I don't see Uzbekistan doing so. But perhaps they can reach the point where they are consistently among the top 5.
Then again, what has Iran actually achieved in the last 30 years or so beyond dominating in WCQ for a couple of cycles? Even Saudi Arabia arguably has a more impressive record with a R16 appearance in WC 1994 and multiple appearances in the final of the Asian Cup, albeit none since 2007.
And the Uzbeks have been investing heavily in their program in the last few years. I don't find it farfetched seeing them overtake an Iran's program that seems stuck in the mud.
Why would this be "The American's idea", that phrase doesn't even make sense. It would be FIFA in collaboration with the federations, refs, sponsors, tv, etc. I dont even know what "it's America's idea" even means. We really love a straw man don't we. Roger, you've been around as a very well respected soccer historian but cmon now.
If this was still a 32-team World Cup, then I would blame TV commercials on the incessant need to cater to the European TV market on scheduling. Because 3 matches a day can reasonably be scheduled late in the day (or in indoor stadiums) across the US to avoid the hottest temperatures for most of the World Cup, but it would just be past the bed times for our friends in Europe (and Africa and the Middle East). But FIFA expanding everything to 48 teams gets Europe off the hook IMO, because 4 matches a day makes that pretty much impossible, as certain teams are going to have to play in the heat no matter what. So FIFA has its excuse to cash in.
In this context, American idea = FIFA arranging for what America wants. It's not that complicated. You think it's just a coincidence that dynamic pricing for tickets and tv timeouts started with this WC? That said, I don't even think Roger is arguing with you or even disagreeing with you in the slightest. Not sure why you start literally every post with the assumption that everyone is talking nonsense and you need to bring reason to the table.
Henk ten Cate is the new coach of Suriname 🇸🇷.Former assistant to Frank Rijkaard at Barcelona. He was an assistant at Suriname at the start of this cycle (2023).Hasn’t lasted at clubs for very long. Coached in 🇭🇺 🇬🇷 🇳🇱 🇪🇸 🇨🇳 🇶🇦 🏴 among others… https://t.co/fIR9ggUE0y— The International Window (@windowintlpod) December 13, 2025
I absolutely am not advocating the viewpoint that it's the Americans' idea. I believe it's the opposite. I certainly hope it is FIFA's idea. But one Dutch poster that I've seen has no hesitation in blaming it on us, and I suspect that there are other Europeans who agree with him. So I'd like to see an answer here, in order to put this canard to rest.