FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States: Discussion Thread

[Leviathan.007]

Well it is true that the American weather is good and the site of the place where the world cup would take place will be quite better with no big restrictions like what happened during the last world cup that people where restricted from drinking beer and other beverages because it was against there law.
Making two countries to host the world cup is a bit very rare to me because I don't think this had been happening before. What I know is that it's only one country that normally host the world cup. Now it would involve two countries.

I remember that after the Korea Japan world cup FIFA was very adamant about the world cup never being hosted by more than one nation, but with the increase on the number of teams, games and stadiums needed for the next world cups then FIFA had to reconsider their posture, so I think that from now own multiple hosts will become the norm, after all if the US cannot host the world cup all by itself then who can?

We had the world cup with two hosts before if I'm not wrong but still, we never had three countries in a world cup however America is the primary host and Canada/ Mexico are just helping America but I think the reason of why FIFA made three countries hosting the world cup was increasing the number of teams in the world cup that's why we need more hosts instead of one country hosting the world cup.

[1714685910]

1714685910

[1714685910]

1714685910

[1714685910]

1714685910

[1714685910]

1714685910

[nullama]

~snip~
We had the world cup with two hosts before if I'm not wrong but still, we never had three countries in a world cup however America is the primary host and Canada/ Mexico are just helping America but I think the reason of why FIFA made three countries hosting the world cup was increasing the number of teams in the world cup that's why we need more hosts instead of one country hosting the world cup.

Yeah, that was Korea/Japan 2002, and yes, we've never had three teams hosting it.

By that logic, it would mean that from now on we will always have multiple teams hosting the world cup. Is this going to be the norm?, also, from what I've read it looks like it will be mostly played in the US.

[Sithara007]

Yeah, that was Korea/Japan 2002, and yes, we've never had three teams hosting it.

By that logic, it would mean that from now on we will always have multiple teams hosting the world cup. Is this going to be the norm?, also, from what I've read it looks like it will be mostly played in the US.

80 out of a total of 104 matches are being played in the United States, but FIFA has decided to provide automatic qualification to all the three hosts. This is where I am having an issue. I don't have a problem in case the USA is given automatic entry by the virtue of being the hosts. But what about Canada and Mexico? What is the point in providing them the same benefit, given the fact that they are only hosting a dozen or so matches? It is so unfair to the other teams in the CONCACAF, because the number of slots available for them has been reduced.

[nullama]

~snip~
80 out of a total of 104 matches are being played in the United States, but FIFA has decided to provide automatic qualification to all the three hosts. This is where I am having an issue. I don't have a problem in case the USA is given automatic entry by the virtue of being the hosts. But what about Canada and Mexico? What is the point in providing them the same benefit, given the fact that they are only hosting a dozen or so matches? It is so unfair to the other teams in the CONCACAF, because the number of slots available for them has been reduced.

I believe it has been a tradition since the initial world cup to have the host qualify automatically.

I mean, can you imagine hosting an event in which you're not even participating?, doesn't seem too fair to be honest. The hosts need to put a lot of money and effort to make it happen, at a minimum they should qualify.

[Sithara007]

I believe it has been a tradition since the initial world cup to have the host qualify automatically.

I mean, can you imagine hosting an event in which you're not even participating?, doesn't seem too fair to be honest. The hosts need to put a lot of money and effort to make it happen, at a minimum they should qualify.

Your logic works when one or two countries are hosting the world cup. But it doesn't work when a large group of countries are co-hosting this tournament. And in 2030 it is going to be even worse. There is a combined bid from Uruguay–Argentina–Chile–Paraguay. If they succeed, then there will be 4 co-hosts and each one will qualify for the tournament automatically. And for all the other teams from CONMEBOL (including Brazil), only 2 spots will be made available for the 2030 World Cup. Do you really believe that this is fair?

[nullama]

~snip~
Your logic works when one or two countries are hosting the world cup. But it doesn't work when a large group of countries are co-hosting this tournament. And in 2030 it is going to be even worse. There is a combined bid from Uruguay–Argentina–Chile–Paraguay. If they succeed, then there will be 4 co-hosts and each one will qualify for the tournament automatically. And for all the other teams from CONMEBOL (including Brazil), only 2 spots will be made available for the 2030 World Cup. Do you really believe that this is fair?

Did they change that rule?

Because in the past even if the host qualified, for example Brazil 2014, South America still had their full 4.5 slots, even though Brazil was qualified as host.

In that world cup, on top of Brazil, these teams from South America qualified: Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, and Uruguay went on to play against Jordan and qualified. So, overall, there were 6 teams from South America in the 2014 world cup.

[shogun47]

I believe it has been a tradition since the initial world cup to have the host qualify automatically.

I mean, can you imagine hosting an event in which you're not even participating?, doesn't seem too fair to be honest. The hosts need to put a lot of money and effort to make it happen, at a minimum they should qualify.

Your logic works when one or two countries are hosting the world cup. But it doesn't work when a large group of countries are co-hosting this tournament. And in 2030 it is going to be even worse. There is a combined bid from Uruguay–Argentina–Chile–Paraguay. If they succeed, then there will be 4 co-hosts and each one will qualify for the tournament automatically. And for all the other teams from CONMEBOL (including Brazil), only 2 spots will be made available for the 2030 World Cup. Do you really believe that this is fair?

I think there are a lot of considerations that had to be made that are not that obvious for us as outsiders to the topics of security, infrastructure, financial abilities and so on and so forth. I don't think that there hasn't been put a lot of thought into this decision. But I do get your point that this auto-qualification is a problem for some people, not for me though.

See, do you think that the host always has an advantage over all other participants? The biggest disadvantage is that the hosts don't have a lot of serious games with their national teams before the tournament actually starts. The qualification is still a good opportunity to find the right team for the right time. I am ok with the three nations already being qualified.

[Leviathan.007]

~snip~
80 out of a total of 104 matches are being played in the United States, but FIFA has decided to provide automatic qualification to all the three hosts. This is where I am having an issue. I don't have a problem in case the USA is given automatic entry by the virtue of being the hosts. But what about Canada and Mexico? What is the point in providing them the same benefit, given the fact that they are only hosting a dozen or so matches? It is so unfair to the other teams in the CONCACAF, because the number of slots available for them has been reduced.

I believe it has been a tradition since the initial world cup to have the host qualify automatically.

I mean, can you imagine hosting an event in which you're not even participating?, doesn't seem too fair to be honest. The hosts need to put a lot of money and effort to make it happen, at a minimum they should qualify.

Actually, the main host of the 2026 world cup is America that's why most of the world cup games are in America instead of Canada or Mexico and that's maybe because of the more potential they have in America, I think the reason why the let Canada and Mexico help America with hosting the world is just because we have more teams in the world cup and more matches.

[nullama]

~snip~
Actually, the main host of the 2026 world cup is America that's why most of the world cup games are in America instead of Canada or Mexico and that's maybe because of the more potential they have in America, I think the reason why the let Canada and Mexico help America with hosting the world is just because we have more teams in the world cup and more matches.

So, because the number of teams will continue to be large, will we now have only multiple countries hosting the future world cups?

I don't think it will be like that, it sounds like an organization hell.

But it might be the plan of FIFA. Maybe this tournament is getting too big, and they need to get many countries on board to get enough money for them.

[snipie]

So, because the number of teams will continue to be large, will we now have only multiple countries hosting the future world cups?

I don't think it will be like that, it sounds like an organization hell.

But it might be the plan of FIFA. Maybe this tournament is getting too big, and they need to get many countries on board to get enough money for them.

Having more countries will cut the costs of building new stadiums or improving the actual ones by only one nation to having multiple nations that will divide this charge while enjoying more profits from having more games.
It is all commercial business.

[LUCKMCFLY]

~~~
because obviously the European leagues look much more exciting in some clubs and I think that "Magic" will go away.

I don't know about others, but I am finding club football quite boring nowadays. On the other hand, World Cup is where you will find a lot of diversity and representation from all around the world. In simple terms, it is having the same quality as club football (or even better) without the greed for money. And further more, the team bonding and cohesion is much better when compared to league football, as the players are motivated by patriotism and not by money. Even the fans behave well in world cup, when compared to the leagues.

What happens is that in the clubs there is a mixture of many coaches, from European, Asian, South American, all of this influences because when you are in a club, you can even beat a national team from any country, for me a country lose or win according to their players or the quality of the players, for example, if you put Real Madrid to play against a team like Brazil it will be much more difficult for Brazil to win, otherwise you have Real Madrid where there is a presence of German and Spanish players Croatian, Brazilian, French, where they are basically the best in their countries and are concentrated here, the national teams are good, but if there are no good players they should look for those from their local leagues to represent.

[Sithara007]

Having more countries will cut the costs of building new stadiums or improving the actual ones by only one nation to having multiple nations that will divide this charge while enjoying more profits from having more games.
It is all commercial business.

First of all, a major tournament such as World Cup should be only hosted by countries who have the means to do so. I don't have any issues with countries such as USA, France, England or Japan hosting this tournament, because they already have the facilities available. On the other hand, if you allow small countries such as Qatar (total population of just 300,000 citizens) to host the tournament, then a lot of infrastructure needs to be created newly. I would consider this as wasteful spending. Because after the world cup, most of these new facilities will be kept idle.

[nullama]

~snip~
Having more countries will cut the costs of building new stadiums or improving the actual ones by only one nation to having multiple nations that will divide this charge while enjoying more profits from having more games.
It is all commercial business.

But it might also be the case that costs go higher in the case of multiple nations hosting it.

Instead of centralizing everything, and re-utilizing infrastructure, you have to start basically from zero at each country.

Going from zero to one stadium is huge, but going from one to two stadiums is not the same linear increase, it's a bit cheaper, economies of scale.

[Sithara007]

But it might also be the case that costs go higher in the case of multiple nations hosting it.

Costs may go up, but it is mostly for the fans and not for the organizers. Look at the FIFA World Cup of 2026. A total of 3 countries are hosting it - United States, Canada and Mexico. For the hosting nations, this arrangement is somewhat beneficial, because the matches are spread out across different localities and no new facilities need to be created. But for the fans, it is going to be a nightmare. They need to frequently travel from one country to another, if they want to attend all the matches of their team. Visa issues are there, and then there is a need to travel thousands or even tens of thousands of kilometers across different countries.

[keyscore44]

But it might also be the case that costs go higher in the case of multiple nations hosting it.

Costs may go up, but it is mostly for the fans and not for the organizers. Look at the FIFA World Cup of 2026. A total of 3 countries are hosting it - United States, Canada and Mexico. For the hosting nations, this arrangement is somewhat beneficial, because the matches are spread out across different localities and no new facilities need to be created. But for the fans, it is going to be a nightmare. They need to frequently travel from one country to another, if they want to attend all the matches of their team. Visa issues are there, and then there is a need to travel thousands or even tens of thousands of kilometers across different countries.

In fact, do you think that the next World Cup Qatar will be able to overcome the historic World Cup and organize a better one. But I think that since three countries will host the World Cup together, we will be able to enjoy something great from Qatar.

[Leviathan.007]

I believe it has been a tradition since the initial world cup to have the host qualify automatically.

I mean, can you imagine hosting an event in which you're not even participating?, doesn't seem too fair to be honest. The hosts need to put a lot of money and effort to make it happen, at a minimum they should qualify.

Your logic works when one or two countries are hosting the world cup. But it doesn't work when a large group of countries are co-hosting this tournament. And in 2030 it is going to be even worse. There is a combined bid from Uruguay–Argentina–Chile–Paraguay. If they succeed, then there will be 4 co-hosts and each one will qualify for the tournament automatically. And for all the other teams from CONMEBOL (including Brazil), only 2 spots will be made available for the 2030 World Cup. Do you really believe that this is fair?

I think there are a lot of considerations that had to be made that are not that obvious for us as outsiders to the topics of security, infrastructure, financial abilities and so on and so forth. I don't think that there hasn't been put a lot of thought into this decision. But I do get your point that this auto-qualification is a problem for some people, not for me though.

See, do you think that the host always has an advantage over all other participants? The biggest disadvantage is that the hosts don't have a lot of serious games with their national teams before the tournament actually starts. The qualification is still a good opportunity to find the right team for the right time. I am ok with the three nations already being qualified.

The bad thing about the 2026 world cup and even previous world cups is getting auto qualification when they host the world cup. I mean when they host the world cup they get some advantages, for example, they will have more visitors for their country and it helps the country financially while getting an auto qualification is not necessary and they should get qualified like other teams.

[Zlantann]

The bad thing about the 2026 world cup and even previous world cups is getting auto qualification when they host the world cup. I mean when they host the world cup they get some advantages, for example, they will have more visitors for their country and it helps the country financially while getting an auto qualification is not necessary and they should get qualified like other teams.

If my country is hosting the World Cup and it failed to qualify for the competition, I will never go to the stadium to watch any game. The majority of people that go to watch these games are from the host country. Apart from the supporters club of most countries, the stadium will be empty without the citizens of the host country. For the competition to be entertaining and profitable, host nations should be given automatic qualification tickets. Don't also forget that these host nations will also spend millions of dollars on football facilities, infrastructures, personnel, and other essential services. We shouldn't assume that it is FIFA that finances all the projects, so they need to be compensated with automatic qualification.

[TopTort777]

The bad thing about the 2026 world cup and even previous world cups is getting auto qualification when they host the world cup. I mean when they host the world cup they get some advantages, for example, they will have more visitors for their country and it helps the country financially while getting an auto qualification is not necessary and they should get qualified like other teams.

If my country is hosting the World Cup and it failed to qualify for the competition, I will never go to the stadium to watch any game. The majority of people that go to watch these games are from the host country. Apart from the supporters club of most countries, the stadium will be empty without the citizens of the host country. For the competition to be entertaining and profitable, host nations should be given automatic qualification tickets. Don't also forget that these host nations will also spend millions of dollars on football facilities, infrastructures, personnel, and other essential services. We shouldn't assume that it is FIFA that finances all the projects, so they need to be compensated with automatic qualification.

If you think that if locals ignore stadium attendance that will change something, then you have never experienced any hosting a world cup Locals dont go to stadium in general. Foreigners are the one who fill stadium most. Country does not earn much from selling tickets. They earn from selling intellectual rights to air event (plus earn huge from advertising contracts). Locals rent their apartments for sky rocketed prices. Country get a huge recognition and popularity. Country earns from tourists not only during world cup. Business receives new and additional investments. But all those facilities, infrastructures, stadiums in the end are waste of money. Spending money on building them never pays off.

[bitgov]

The bad thing about the 2026 world cup and even previous world cups is getting auto qualification when they host the world cup. I mean when they host the world cup they get some advantages, for example, they will have more visitors for their country and it helps the country financially while getting an auto qualification is not necessary and they should get qualified like other teams.

If my country is hosting the World Cup and it failed to qualify for the competition, I will never go to the stadium to watch any game. The majority of people that go to watch these games are from the host country. Apart from the supporters club of most countries, the stadium will be empty without the citizens of the host country. For the competition to be entertaining and profitable, host nations should be given automatic qualification tickets. Don't also forget that these host nations will also spend millions of dollars on football facilities, infrastructures, personnel, and other essential services. We shouldn't assume that it is FIFA that finances all the projects, so they need to be compensated with automatic qualification.

If you think that if locals ignore stadium attendance that will change something, then you have never experienced any hosting a world cup Locals dont go to stadium in general. Foreigners are the one who fill stadium most. Country does not earn much from selling tickets. They earn from selling intellectual rights to air event (plus earn huge from advertising contracts). Locals rent their apartments for sky rocketed prices. Country get a huge recognition and popularity. Country earns from tourists not only during world cup. Business receives new and additional investments. But all those facilities, infrastructures, stadiums in the end are waste of money. Spending money on building them never pays off.

How magnificent the next World Cup will be will depend entirely on the FIFA authorities. However, the host countries will have great responsibilities. But I think countries may not be able to organize like Qatar. Because Qatar spent a lot of money on the World Cup.

[TopTort777]

The bad thing about the 2026 world cup and even previous world cups is getting auto qualification when they host the world cup. I mean when they host the world cup they get some advantages, for example, they will have more visitors for their country and it helps the country financially while getting an auto qualification is not necessary and they should get qualified like other teams.

If my country is hosting the World Cup and it failed to qualify for the competition, I will never go to the stadium to watch any game. The majority of people that go to watch these games are from the host country. Apart from the supporters club of most countries, the stadium will be empty without the citizens of the host country. For the competition to be entertaining and profitable, host nations should be given automatic qualification tickets. Don't also forget that these host nations will also spend millions of dollars on football facilities, infrastructures, personnel, and other essential services. We shouldn't assume that it is FIFA that finances all the projects, so they need to be compensated with automatic qualification.

If you think that if locals ignore stadium attendance that will change something, then you have never experienced any hosting a world cup Locals dont go to stadium in general. Foreigners are the one who fill stadium most. Country does not earn much from selling tickets. They earn from selling intellectual rights to air event (plus earn huge from advertising contracts). Locals rent their apartments for sky rocketed prices. Country get a huge recognition and popularity. Country earns from tourists not only during world cup. Business receives new and additional investments. But all those facilities, infrastructures, stadiums in the end are waste of money. Spending money on building them never pays off.

How magnificent the next World Cup will be will depend entirely on the FIFA authorities. However, the host countries will have great responsibilities. But I think countries may not be able to organize like Qatar. Because Qatar spent a lot of money on the World Cup.

Money does not equals quality. Even though Football isnt most popular sport in Canada, but in States the popularity of football (soccer) grows. Mexicans are also crazy about football. You think Americans would miss a chance to earn on football merchandise ? Trust me, these capitalists will make everything top level and sell it for only 99,99 I bet those three would show not worse World Cup than Qatar as minimum.