seems most of us (me included) have assumed that FIFA won't select two cities in close proximity. Such as both LA venues or both Florida cities. But we really don't know. I think it's possible.
SF & LA are still pretty far apart and 2 totally different cities. One being a host city shouldn't automatically rule out the other imo. MIA and Orlando OTOH should be one or the other. They are too close/too similar. Anyone who really wants to see mickey mouse can still get there easily even if only MIA hosted games.
It is all about politics though and spreading out the host venues seems the logical way to go. Giving a city two venues just does not make much sense when there's so many better venues around the Nation that crave to host this thing.
SF and LA are very far apart! Especially when considering the proximity of the US cities in the Northeast. It's about the same distance between SF and LA as it is between Foxborough, MA and Washington DC, and in between those latter two cities are NY/NJ, Philly, and Baltimore. I was referring to the two venues in LA county: SoFi and the Rose Bowl.
and while certainly Miami and Orlando are close geographically, for me they are very different in other ways. The difference between downtown Orlando and South Beach feels like two different countries, culturally really different even though they're both in the same state. I'd say the northeast cities are more similar to each other than the two Florida cities. Miami is a really unique experience. for me the opposite is true, I'd really want to have some fun in Miami and I could still get there easily even if only Orlando hosted games. I have zero interest in the Disney scene. It is a 3 and a half hour drive though with no traffic. So it's not like you'd drive down to Miami for dinner and then go straight back to Orlando.
SF and LA wouldn't rule each other out. They're 400 miles apart. That would be like Boston ruling out Washington DC.
I dunno. I went to MIA once and didn't find it unique at all. Just your typical beach party town. And since I went to WC 2014, no place will compare in terms of combining football & the beach. Miami falls way short on both fronts, even though I realize it is relatively pro-soccer by US standards - maybe #1 in the US - and therefore it makes total sense for them to be a host city.
Miami has to host in my mind. I am biased since I was born near there. But even if I weren't it deserves to host some big time matches. '94 they missed out because of the stupid Marlins baseball team. Centenario they missed out due to renovations and construction. Miami's time is 2026.
I mean Miami will definitely get the nod if it comes down to a choice between the two. Part of the reason the Dolphins spent so much building that soccer style roof on their stadium was in the expectation that it would get to host just such an event as a World Cup game or games. Orlando is fine, but Orlando's stadium just doesn't stack up to the renovated Miami stadium. Many of the same reasons people are picking SoFi to get the nod in LA over the Rose Bowl apply here too. Orlando isn't quite as old as the Rose Bowl, particularly the later additions and it has been somewhat renovated. But it's smaller than Hard Rock Stadium, and more importantly has just over a quarter as many suites. There's really no comparison. Now maybe they'll put two stadiums in Florida, but I wouldn't count on it.
BC Premier John Horgan responding to @richardzussman's question about Vancouver potentially being back in the running as a FIFA World Cup host city in 2026. Horgan sounds interested 👀👀👀 pic.twitter.com/Nj7PxX4yxP— Rob Williams (@RobTheHockeyGuy) July 13, 2021
For purely selfish reasons, if Vancouver gets added to Canada's list of cities, I wonder how it would impact Seattle's bid since Vancouver would be as close to a lock in getting games. Obviously the border is a factor, but that would be 2 cities within 200 miles.
wow, this is surprising and really exciting news. Vancouver is one of my favorite cities in the world and I'd love to go there for the World Cup. I'm also hoping they are Canada's host city for their home WCQ vs the US in January. The fact that this is a direct quote from the BC Premier and he states that he has had discussion with FIFA makes it at least a possibility. Thanks for posting!
we had a big group chat about WC26 logistics with a bunch of friends I've attended WCs with since WC14. Especially for those not living in North America, the fact that the host cities are so spread out is a major drawback. I plan to be traveling around during the whole tournament too, and it it wouldn't be a bad thing if some of the host cities were grouped close to each other. We're going to get some along the northeast corridor between Foxboro and DC, but otherwise it looks like they'll be really spread out. Seattle and Vancouver would be really nice choices IMO.
I wouldn't see it having any impact. Two completely different regions within two separate countries. And Seattle's soccer pedigree almost assures it of a game.
But it would be nice for travelers to be able to go to Seattle and Vancouver for matches. Seattle should host a USA match for sure.
Yeah, I'll be a World Cup novice if I get to attend in 2026 so its reassuring to know that some of my concerns as to the distance between host cities are shared by those more battle hardened than I! Once I worked out the number of additional flights required to follow this World Cup from venue to venue, I came to the conclusion that the more sensible thing would be to have a 14 day holiday in one host venue, going by the match schedule in the bid book this should allow the watching of three group stage matches and one R of 16 match in most venues. You do lose out on the continuity, as far as I could tell no team re-visits the same venue during the group stages or subsequent R of 16 but then there is something to be said about seeing as many different sets of teams and supporters as possible. Like many I was working on the assumption that not too many venues would be near one another so if they can somehow pull a rabbit out of the hat for me and pick both Orlando and Miami that would work out pretty well.
East Coast and PNW aren’t particularly comparable. The population density on the East Coast greatly reduces the need to limit the number of cities that host in the area. As an example, the combined population of BC and WA is less than 13m. That’s less than a quarter the population of the NE corridor.
well that's fine for the people who live in the northeast, but the World Cup is attended by hundreds of thousands of international visitors as well as Americans, Canadians and Mexicans who don't live in that area. This isn't a qualifier. I'm not against having several venues in the northeast, it's a good thing. But I'm thinking that having some other closer venues would be nice for us who don't live there. The only ones I can really see though are Orlando-Miami and Seattle-Vancouver and doing both LA county stadiums. BTW, I don't think FIFA really cares about this.
I still believe it is one or the other in Florida. Just like it is one or the other between D.C. (Landover) -Baltimore, and also the stadiums in Southern California.
yeah I agree with you I think it's gonna come out that way, all I was saying is I wish they didn't do it that way. Gonna really run up my credit card buying flights between cities and also wasting a lot of time checking in/out of hotels trying to chase games spaced so far apart.