From the tweeters: "If we've learned anything from this World Cup it's the soccer gods look down on cowardice"
From the interwebs: “maybe if England hadn't Brexited the attacking third of the pitch things would have turned out better” Possession from the England goal to the Martinez winner: 88%/12% in favor of Argentina.
The moment Messi passes to Fernandez on the first Argentina goal: Just look at the space Fernandez has in front of him! Anderson (the guy just in front of Messi) literally just jogged across that space to get to Messi without even glancing at Fernandez. To make matters worse, this play is off a corner kick that came off Fernandez almost scoring from a similar position, under a minute ago, and he's left completely alone at the top of the penalty area for a second attempt. Pete (won't pretend he would have scored THAT goal)
The 3secs before that pic show Messi setting this up...his movements drew the double team and he cut back to make the top of the penalty box cross (while Eng was worried about a top of the goal box cross). His moving of the defensive structure sure appeared 'intentional' to me
Even if he did, and he probably did, there were three England players deep in the middle of the box not covering anyone. Standing around deep in the box is just really bad defense.
Agreed! But when there is clear threat of a cross into the goal box, it is not surprising the D pinched to it...doubly so because this was the just after a corner where they were all lined up on the 6.
No meaningful games until Sunday, booooooo. No, the third place game is not meaningful. In the interim, a couple of interesting pieces from Forbes. First, does not look like hosting the World Cup resulted in a huge increase in foreign visitors to the U.S., at least not in June. I question how large a number of people would have the freedom and the means to visit on short notice in July because their team advanced but it will be interesting to see as it’s obviously > zero. Also interesting to see the areas from where visitors did increase, like Africa, vs where they did not. https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2026/07/14/fifa-world-cup-winner-not-us-economy/ And another, where FIFA is selling off chunks of the pitch that will be used for the Final and New Jersey is like “hey!!! We paid for that! Give us some money, too”. This one will be interesting because I wonder how much of a scenario like this is even covered in the contract (and to be fair - it could be explicit or nonexistent or anywhere in between) and also, there doesn’t seem to be much incentive for FIFA to share at this point. World Cup won’t be here again for at least 12 years, probably longer, and it’s not like they couldn’t just move the final to LA or some other city that isn’t so picky on getting a return on their investment. When it comes to FIFA vs New Jersey I kinda hope they both lose. https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoni...ifas-450-world-cup-grass-patches-report-says/
Travel from Europe to the US was down in 2025 even though it was up overall in the world showing a downward trend in tourism to the US. Europe to the US was down an additional 15% this year already. If it indeed was flat (and I have no reason to think otherwise based on Forbes) in June, that would mean something in June wiped out the negative trend completely and pushed things up .2%. The decrease was reversed. That’s not necessarily tied to the World Cup but it is a bit disengenuous of Forbes to just frame it as YoY without any context. And no matter what, when deciding to bid to host no one could have foreseen the shitshow Trump was going to be putting us in which is clearly hurting the tourism market.
I was surprised at the tone of the articles as Forbes has seemed relatively pro-WC in the articles I’d read previously, and is generally biased toward the interests of investors rather than taxpayers as a core principle. I don’t know if you necessarily trend travel declines in January and February to extend through to June, if anything, theres probably a non-zero number of people who chose to come to U.S. for the World Cup that would have otherwise come in January, or May, or any other month but instead moved it to June for the games. Some things are difficult to measure precisely so I don’t think comparing June of last year to June of this year without additional context is too disingenuous, but I am always in favor of more information if it can be contextualized properly. Will be interested to see if that first quarter decline continues into August and September. One thing I expect to see when more data is available is that some cities faired better than others in pure visitors - which doesn’t necessarily mean anything long term but might help them navigate the discussion and claim a short term win. My guess is places like Boston and Kansas City, and Lawrence, KS got an increase in visitors that cant be attributed to people who would normally visit in January but moved their trip to June for the games - I’d expect those “net new” visitors to look nice in the immediate aftermath before total costs is calculated. Nobody could have predicted the geopolitical climate of today in 2019, or even in 2022 - of course. That type of uncertainty is always a possibility, and part of the risk when hosting these mass scale events or deciding not to. It certainly may make decisions not to host look a little better in hindsight, but isn’t something I’d give any of the cities that declined credit for being able to predict.
Anyone who thinks hosting a World Cup match in their city will cause major changes in it’s future is delusional. Anyone who thinks that FIFA is trying to do anything other than make money for itself is delusional. Anyone who thinks these “studies” on the impact of the World Cup are valid and accurate is both stupid and delusional.
That's CRAZY! All 11 guys inside the 18 years box...in fact 9 inside the 12. England also butt hurt and wants to be a sore loser. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...lands-banner-england-world-cup-clash-minister
Argentina should fly that banner and be willing pay the fine whenever (which is rare) Argentina plays England. I'd be willing to bet that there'll be at least a few pubs in the north of Ireland that have such a banner up by closing time today.
England absolutely is being a baby about this, BUT FIFA has said that political statements are prohibited so I’m interested to see if they do anything about it. I doubt they will, but at least England will force their hand a bit by being sore losers.
The Melvina's are proof that Britain are sore losers, despite the outcome of the '82 war, about their losing their empire.
The BBC's review of the financial situation: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgrkek8lrzvo Host cities - losers The 16 host cities across the US, Canada and Mexico have been welcoming an influx of fans and tourists boosting hospitality, hotels and local businesses. But while the Scots drank Boston dry and have won the heart of the city and its people, experts say the long-term economic benefits are minimal. Fifa estimated some $41bn would be added to the global economy, of which $17bn would boost the US economy alone, with 185,000 jobs created, mostly in hospitality and accommodation. But Alexander Budzier, a fellow in management practice at Oxford University and chief executive of project management company Oxford Global Projects, says the long-term economic benefits of hosting such a big sporting event just do not materialise. Host cities actually typically see a big drop in visitors, he says, as many seek to avoid the tournament chaos. And while there may be a spike in hiring, he argues it is typically only for lower-paid jobs in hospitality. "It creates jobs, but it does not create wealth," he says. Official figures show that hiring in US pubs, bars and restaurants ramped up ahead of the tournament in May, but the boom was short-lived. The only "worthwhile" economic benefit, Budzier argues, is the regeneration projects that can be done, such as the redevelopment and housing built in Stratford in London following the 2012 Olympic Games. But due to much of this World Cup using existing stadia, hotels, training complexes and travel infrastructure, "there won't be any economic benefits from development". Hotels - losers The expected demand for hotel rooms did not materialise, with industry bodies reporting lower bookings in host cities this year than last. The British Columbia Hotel Association says that while final booking figures are yet to be confirmed, June and July were "pacing well behind previous years", despite Vancouver hosting seven of the games in Canada. It says tournaments "do not create 40 straight days of sold-out hotels", but rather lead to high-demand around specific dates. For American hoteliers, the pre-tournament buzz also did not deliver. The American Hotel and Lodging Association (AHLA) accused Fifa of block-booking too many rooms for its own use and creating false demand. Fifa has said it does not recognise the accusation. Laboure of Deutsche Bank Research says the same thing happened in France in 1998 when demand did not meet expectations. "By April, 80% of US hotel operators said bookings were tracking below their initial forecasts - two-thirds of New York hoteliers reported softer-than-expected bookings, and in Seattle nearly 80% did, with many calling the tournament a 'non-event'," she adds.
I can tell you for the England vs Croatia group stage match in Dallas my buddy (huge Croatia fan) got tickets and we booked hotel very early on. Got a 'deal' around 300$ a night...the very next day the hotel cancelled our booking to raise the price to 800$! To be fair they refunded and gave us a 'bonus' but I am not surprised at hotel hijinks.
Would anyone recommend US Soccer bid to host a tournament in the future? I'm really torn, but I think I fall on the side of saying no. Pros: -Competitive advantage with stadiums supporting the US more than is typical and getting a seeded pot -More money for FIFA/USSF to squander and/or invest -Broad awareness and focus on soccer to grow the sport -Game times that are more favorable to US television audiences (suck it Europe) Cons -Price gouging by FIFA makes attending games exorbitantly expensive -Very spread out game sties makes travel costs an additional expense -Political interference
1) Agree and NOBODY ever has thought that. 2) Agree and EVERYBODY has always known that. 3) Partial agree. I would take them with a grain of salt, but I think there can be validity to some economic studies.
I think this is a good example of how hosting the World Cup can help a smaller city and not necessarily how it could help Chicago but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t help Chicago, too:
Also, the EPL sucks because an MLS player basically single handedly defeated England in a World Cup semi-final.
3rd place match between France and England Does have Mbappe and Olise...but not starting Kane, Pickford, Bellinghamn or Dembele.