Did this fly under the BS radar? The US and Mexico confederations are testing the tainted FIFA waters about co-hosting the 2026 WC. I'm not in favor of this idea. Aside that the USA would work better on all levels (transportation, logistics, communications, stadiums, accommodations, safety, etc) Mexico has already hosted twice. Also, both countries are rather large and would make Brazil's travel distances seem like a hop, skip, and a jump. If co-hosting comes into the picture, it would be more suited to smaller countries.... Belgium/Netherlands, England/Ireland, Switzerland/Austria. http://www.espnfc.us/fifa-world-cup...lks-for-joint-world-cup-bid-supported-by-fifa
Apart from the probably trivial political bit of Infantino apparently liking the idea of co-host bids, for what reason would we bid as co-hosts with Mexico?
I posted about it in the FIFA and tournament section. Thought someone would do it around here. Glad you did.
I don't see much upside for the USA in this symbiotic relationship. It seems as if Mexico get's most of the benefits. Only thing I can see being a positive for us is that it would be tough for voters to vote against both Mexico and the USA. So politically it would be a ticket almost guaranteed to win as compared to splitting the vote with separate bids.
And here is Gulati throwing cold water all over the idea. http://www.latimes.com/sports/soccer/la-sp-sn-world-cup-us-mexico-gulati-20160518-story.html
What stadium in Mexico would compete with NFL stadia? Azteca? In the summer, breathing is optional in Mexico City. They had to take 25% of the cars off the road three times already this year due to high ozone levels and it's only May. Think about how the ozone levels will be in 2026 there.
I dislike the idea. The distances would be extreme enough in the US alone. I suspect it will be Canada.
Originally Posted by GiffinGunner in the FIFA forum: http://www.espnfc.us/fifa-world-cup...g-as-leading-candidate-to-host-2026-world-cup
Co hosting sucks, especially when both countries are big enough to host on their own. Let Mexico host in 2038 or 2042.
Co- hosting makes more sense with a proposed expanded World Cup though. Sure the USA can still host a 48 team World Cup but not too many other Federations can.
I agree that going forward if they expand the field they should look into co-hosting but the US doesn't need to and the fact that it was brought up is pretty dumb.
If the USA wants to split the cost with another Federation it is not that dumb. Especially if it makes it almost a cinch to host politically. Meaning other Federations would probably have a difficult time saying no to a joint bid that includes both the USA and Mexico. IT is almost a slam dunk really.
The travel concerns can be easily mitigated. If its 48 teams, you split into 2 groups of 24. One group plays all games in US. Other plays all games in Mexico. Winner of each group are WC finalists. Final played in Dallas, Houston, or Pasadena.
April and May are considered the summer time of Mexico City(the highest average temperature, remember Its closer to the equator hence seasons are on a different time line). June-August is the rainy season, hence pollution levels drop. Regardless, both Mexico and US are large enough countries and have the infrastructure to host this tournament on their own. We don't both don't each other as a co-host. Tbh, I wouldn't mind if either host. Houston is only a 6 hr drive from Monterrey.
Mexico would have to do a lot of renovations of Stadiums including expanding the seating capacity for larger attendance standards. I don't think hosting an Expanded World Cup of 40+ teams would be as easy as you portray it to be fiscally. They would love to have the USA split the bill economically.
Ok, first of all I have to make clear that I'm Mexican and I of course don't want this to happen because we are in enough economic problems right now to be bidding for a third WC; but with mexican politicians you never know. However, just thinking of how this could work, I'm thinking in a 48-team world cup, so of course many more games there. After that, I'll think more than 60% of the game will be played on US soil as it's just easier. Not that many renovations if you expect Mexico to have 40% or less of the total matches. We already have (today) 4 WC stadiums in Azteca, Guadalajara, Monterrey and Puebla (1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th biggest cities in the country btw) so we'd only need to renew 1 or 2 stadiums more. (Of course, that's no competition if you want to compare it with Kansas City that has an awesome stadium and is like the 35ths largest city in the U.S., but well if you want to share then that's the price) However, IMO, the most important thing to consider is if Canada could join the partnership to make this a North American WC. If only the US and Mexico get to host this, then we can expect that FIFA won't look at CONCACAF in at least 30 more years, so Canada would be out. And I really think that a more powerfull Canada would do wonders for the region.
Hence, I said they would love to split the bill with the USA. It would be a lot cheaper for Mexico to renovate a couple stadiums in a Co-hosting situation rather than host it on their own and be compelled to renovate 12-14 stadiums or so.
Yeah, but that's not our problem. I have zero interest in co-hosting with Mexico or anyone else. We deserve to host on our own, as do they.