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

[Alisha-k]

I think it's a good idea to have 2 countries or even more hosting the World Cup because one country maybe don't have all the infrastructure to make the whole World Cup, and it helps football spreading in even more countries.
But my ideal of World Cup would be every 2 years instead of 4 and with 32 countries.

Infrastructure cannot be a problem because prior to announcement of the next host for the 2026 world cup many things has been put in place to make the world cup upto standard. The whole idea of having more than one country host the world cup is to try something new and also create more slot so more countries can participate. This very world cup will be the test net. The main net will be after subsequent World Cups after the 2026's has seen its success.

[1714633281]

1714633281

[1714633281]

1714633281

[1714633281]

1714633281

[1714633281]

1714633281

[1714633281]

1714633281

[drwhobox]

It's not the first time that this was done though, Korea-Japan 2002 comes to mind, and it was quite successful without any major issues.

Now, this one will definitely be a step forward and will cover a vast amount of distance, plus a third country, so we'll see how it goes.

But in any case, almost all the games are going to be played in the USA, so only a minority of matches will be hosted in Canada and Mexico. This means that not everyone will have to travel to three countries.

In 2006 there were two countries compared to 2026 which will host by three countries. One country more, one more border to cross, one more headache to the teams and players and also for fans.
Traveling for teams and players may not be much harder but think about the fans, while in Qatar fans can join any match they want to join. They travel from stadium to stadium without any new visa stamps on their passport.

USA alone can host the FIFA World Cup. I don't see any logic behind adding another two nations into this but they just did this to make the trouble list long for fans and teams.

[Chikito]

..without any new visa stamps on their passport.

I believe the next year before the event, FIFA makes innovations lobby to the president of each country to make free Visas for the tourist. This is the crucial case that makes the event crash or commotion between fans if can't observe their favorite team play in another country. It's very easy to make a decision between Canada, USA and Mexico. Just make a free Visa for 1 month while the event, that makes also a president each country be popular on football lovers.

[Hispo]

..without any new visa stamps on their passport.

I believe the next year before the event, FIFA makes innovations lobby to the president of each country to make free Visas for the tourist. This is the crucial case that makes the event crash or commotion between fans if can't observe their favorite team play in another country. It's very easy to make a decision between Canada, USA and Mexico. Just make a free Visa for 1 month while the event, that makes also a president each country be popular on football lovers.

I am not from the United States, but I am almost sure that would be a very unpopular solution among an important percentage of the population of that country and even in Canada. If there is a republican government in USA at the time of the world cup, It is even more unlikely.

It would be more realistic if the FIFA offered to help people from Latin-America and other countries to manage the papers (with the purchase of the tickets), so they can have all the Visas required, guaranteeing a free transit.

[Daniel91]

I also don't understand and I don't think it was a good idea. In my opinion it totally removes the glamour and protagonism of a country as the registered brand of the World Cup's edition. When we talk about previous World Cups it's nice to attach each of them to a different country, as the culture of the countries which host the event become a symbol of their respective editions. Now with Canada, USA and Mexico hosting a World Cup, all of them at once, it becomes a confusing event with no original and memorable traits at all. Maybe they did this to cut expenses for the hosts, so the costs are splitted between the three parts, but strange anyway.

Wait until you see the application for 2030 hehehe, there's a good chance to have Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay hosting the World Cup, specially because it will be 100 years of World Cup, and the first one in 1930 was in Uruguay.
They even tried to include Colombia as 5th country, but Fifa rejected 

And the other application to host 2030 World Cup is are: Spain, Portugal and Ukraine.
They included Ukraine because of the war situation, this is a strong reason to Fifa consider the application even more.


I think it's a good idea to have 2 countries or even more hosting the World Cup because one country maybe don't have all the infrastructure to make the whole World Cup, and it helps football spreading in even more countries.
But my ideal of World Cup would be every 2 years instead of 4 and with 32 countries.

The fact is that world cups have become very expensive and complicated competitions to organize and it is much easier when more countries organize such a competition.
Recently, FIFA chooses the hosts of world competitions more on the basis of popularity and political agenda than sports motives, which is probably why Spain and Portugal included Ukraine in the candidacy.
Given that the 2026 World Cup will be held in North America, I think that Europe will have a better chance of hosting the 2030 World Cup.
I think it is not a good idea to hold the World Cup in football every 2 years, because then every year they would have a competition that would be physically too difficult for football players, and the exclusivity of those competitions would be lost.

[flipme]

I think it's a good idea to have 2 countries or even more hosting the World Cup because one country maybe don't have all the infrastructure to make the whole World Cup, and it helps football spreading in even more countries.
But my ideal of World Cup would be every 2 years instead of 4 and with 32 countries.

It is a good method for the development of infrastructures and increasing interest in football, but the same may not be true for footballers whose travel times will increase. If the distance between stadiums increases, group matches and final matches can have a tiring tempo. I think FIFA should pay attention to this.

On the other hand, it is a very good idea to organize the World Cup every two years. In this way, we will be able to watch some football players more. For example, the probability of Messi playing in the next World Cup is very low. However, if the World Cup organization was held every two years, we could definitely watch Messi once again.

[LUCKMCFLY]

~snip~
I also don't understand and I don't think it was a good idea. In my opinion it totally removes the glamour and protagonism of a country as the registered brand of the World Cup's edition. When we talk about previous World Cups it's nice to attach each of them to a different country, as the culture of the countries which host the event become a symbol of their respective editions. Now with Canada, USA and Mexico hosting a World Cup, all of them at once, it becomes a confusing event with no original and memorable traits at all. Maybe they did this to cut expenses for the hosts, so the costs are splitted between the three parts, but strange anyway.

It's not the first time that this was done though, Korea-Japan 2002 comes to mind, and it was quite successful without any major issues.

Now, this one will definitely be a step forward and will cover a vast amount of distance, plus a third country, so we'll see how it goes.

But in any case, almost all the games are going to be played in the USA, so only a minority of matches will be hosted in Canada and Mexico. This means that not everyone will have to travel to three countries.

This is a good thing, however I really like the mix of these countries, what comes to mind is that the USA should approve many visas at least for people who are from South America, because European citizens have no problem, Now if we want to see the majority of fans accompanying their teams wherever, I also like that it can be in Mexico to avoid these problems, and I think that may be the reason why it is in Mexico, since they do not require a Visa I imagine that most of the matches in South America will be there, the problem is that if Argentina arrives, Brazil will be that problem in the final, although it occurs to me that they may approve provincial visas only for the World Cup.

[sovie]

~snip~
I also don't understand and I don't think it was a good idea. In my opinion it totally removes the glamour and protagonism of a country as the registered brand of the World Cup's edition. When we talk about previous World Cups it's nice to attach each of them to a different country, as the culture of the countries which host the event become a symbol of their respective editions. Now with Canada, USA and Mexico hosting a World Cup, all of them at once, it becomes a confusing event with no original and memorable traits at all. Maybe they did this to cut expenses for the hosts, so the costs are splitted between the three parts, but strange anyway.

It's not the first time that this was done though, Korea-Japan 2002 comes to mind, and it was quite successful without any major issues.

Now, this one will definitely be a step forward and will cover a vast amount of distance, plus a third country, so we'll see how it goes.

But in any case, almost all the games are going to be played in the USA, so only a minority of matches will be hosted in Canada and Mexico. This means that not everyone will have to travel to three countries.

This is a good thing, however I really like the mix of these countries, what comes to mind is that the USA should approve many visas at least for people who are from South America, because European citizens have no problem, Now if we want to see the majority of fans accompanying their teams wherever, I also like that it can be in Mexico to avoid these problems, and I think that may be the reason why it is in Mexico, since they do not require a Visa I imagine that most of the matches in South America will be there, the problem is that if Argentina arrives, Brazil will be that problem in the final, although it occurs to me that they may approve provincial visas only for the World Cup.

Qatar has shown their ability in a great way. Their hosting of this year's World Cup will be remembered in football history. All football fans have become familiar with their culture through this World Cup. Hopefully we will see more innovation in the next World Cup.

[n0ne]

Some people will use this as an opportunity to enter America or Canada and stay as if entering the country illegally. Considering different such issues, surely America and Canada will take necessary steps with Visa processing and on other travel requirements. The tournament will be organized good, but there'll be difficulties for the common public who prefer to watch the world cup matches.

[YinShuiSiYuan]

Some people will use this as an opportunity to enter America or Canada and stay as if entering the country illegally. Considering different such issues, surely America and Canada will take necessary steps with Visa processing and on other travel requirements. The tournament will be organized good, but there'll be difficulties for the common public who prefer to watch the world cup matches.

America and Canada will not give free entry to all people that's for sure as most of them will stay there after World cup . Lets wait and see how they'll provide thier services for football fans all over the world.
Qatar has organised the best world cup interms of grounds and settling millions of fans in their country that's a big achievement o  part of Qatar 🇶🇦.

[Hallroom]

I think it's a good idea to have 2 countries or even more hosting the World Cup because one country maybe don't have all the infrastructure to make the whole World Cup, and it helps football spreading in even more countries.
But my ideal of World Cup would be every 2 years instead of 4 and with 32 countries.

It is a good method for the development of infrastructures and increasing interest in football, but the same may not be true for footballers whose travel times will increase. If the distance between stadiums increases, group matches and final matches can have a tiring tempo. I think FIFA should pay attention to this.

On the other hand, it is a very good idea to organize the World Cup every two years. In this way, we will be able to watch some football players more. For example, the probability of Messi playing in the next World Cup is very low. However, if the World Cup organization was held every two years, we could definitely watch Messi once again.

The chances of Lionel Messi playing in a future World Cup are really slim.  Due to his age, he may not participate in the 2026 World Cup.  In 2026, he will be almost 39 years old, at which time he will no longer be this young.  At the age of 39, he can't run with enough speed and kick the ball into the opposition goal post as well.  His age is the biggest obstacle not to participate in the World Cup due to special problems.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I think it's a good idea to have 2 countries or even more hosting the World Cup because one country maybe don't have all the infrastructure to make the whole World Cup, and it helps football spreading in even more countries.
But my ideal of World Cup would be every 2 years instead of 4 and with 32 countries.

It is a good method for the development of infrastructures and increasing interest in football, but the same may not be true for footballers whose travel times will increase. If the distance between stadiums increases, group matches and final matches can have a tiring tempo. I think FIFA should pay attention to this.

On the other hand, it is a very good idea to organize the World Cup every two years. In this way, we will be able to watch some football players more. For example, the probability of Messi playing in the next World Cup is very low. However, if the World Cup organization was held every two years, we could definitely watch Messi once again.

The chances of Lionel Messi playing in a future World Cup are really slim.  Due to his age, he may not participate in the 2026 World Cup.  In 2026, he will be almost 39 years old, at which time he will no longer be this young.  At the age of 39, he can't run with enough speed and kick the ball into the opposition goal post as well.  His age is the biggest obstacle not to participate in the World Cup due to special problems.

From what i know, the 2022 world cup was the last for Lionel Messi, so it was also for Ronaldo, this i believe was the reason why Ronaldo cried the day Portugal was eliminated from the 2022 world cup, this two players have come to the end as long as world cup is concerned, Messi knew he wasn't going to be playing in the world cup again and this was why winning and taking the 2022 world cup home was really really important for him, it was the best gift he could give to his country before he finally retires.

So seeing Messi in the coming 2026 world cup i tell you is a mirage that would never happen or may likely not happen, so we should not put our minds to that, would even be interesting to see how Argentina would perform without their star player.

[gagux123]

I didn't know much about this topic, but I thought it was very relevant to discuss this great event that will occur in 2026!

Guys, i have a question... do you believe that in the next World Cup we will have several other unforeseen events!!?

[uneng]

I didn't know much about this topic, but I thought it was very relevant to discuss this great event that will occur in 2026!

Guys, i have a question... do you believe that in the next World Cup we will have several other unforeseen events!!?

I think so. The tendency is that each new World Cup results become more and more unpredictable, as national teams improve and seek for foreigner help from the top strategists and coaches of the world. Even Brazil which is a traditional favorite team is looking for an european coach to replace Tite, so they can have access to the best techniques the soccer industry has to offer right now.

The whole soccer industry is being guided and ruled by european soccer playstyle and techniques. That is the price countries of every corners of the world have to pay to stay competitive. But it has been working anyway.

[Ludmilla_rose1995]

***

***

This is a good thing, however I really like the mix of these countries, what comes to mind is that the USA should approve many visas at least for people who are from South America, because European citizens have no problem, Now if we want to see the majority of fans accompanying their teams wherever, I also like that it can be in Mexico to avoid these problems, and I think that may be the reason why it is in Mexico, since they do not require a Visa I imagine that most of the matches in South America will be there, the problem is that if Argentina arrives, Brazil will be that problem in the final, although it occurs to me that they may approve provincial visas only for the World Cup.

Qatar has shown their ability in a great way. Their hosting of this year's World Cup will be remembered in football history. All football fans have become familiar with their culture through this World Cup. Hopefully we will see more innovation in the next World Cup.

1 world cup event in 3 countries, I think this has proven that the next world cup is an innovation but the thing that stands out is the freedom of the fans themselves because visas really affect fans who want to travel freely to support their favorite team. Apart from that, security issues in a country must also be paid attention to because we ourselves know that Mexico has a high crime rate and it is a drug cartel.

[Gosgosking]

I think it's a good idea to have 2 countries or even more hosting the World Cup because one country maybe don't have all the infrastructure to make the whole World Cup, and it helps football spreading in even more countries.
But my ideal of World Cup would be every 2 years instead of 4 and with 32 countries.

Infrastructure cannot be a problem because prior to announcement of the next host for the 2026 world cup many things has been put in place to make the world cup upto standard. The whole idea of having more than one country host the world cup is to try something new and also create more slot so more countries can participate. This very world cup will be the test net. The main net will be after subsequent World Cups after the 2026's has seen its success.

Infrastructure as never been a problem in any of the world cup. One of the qualifications of a country hosting world is having everything that is up to world cup standard.  If Infrastructure was the reason why the next world cup will be hosted by two countries,   then I don't think  they will have the opportunity to host the world cup.

[bitgov]

***

***

This is a good thing, however I really like the mix of these countries, what comes to mind is that the USA should approve many visas at least for people who are from South America, because European citizens have no problem, Now if we want to see the majority of fans accompanying their teams wherever, I also like that it can be in Mexico to avoid these problems, and I think that may be the reason why it is in Mexico, since they do not require a Visa I imagine that most of the matches in South America will be there, the problem is that if Argentina arrives, Brazil will be that problem in the final, although it occurs to me that they may approve provincial visas only for the World Cup.

Qatar has shown their ability in a great way. Their hosting of this year's World Cup will be remembered in football history. All football fans have become familiar with their culture through this World Cup. Hopefully we will see more innovation in the next World Cup.

1 world cup event in 3 countries, I think this has proven that the next world cup is an innovation but the thing that stands out is the freedom of the fans themselves because visas really affect fans who want to travel freely to support their favorite team. Apart from that, security issues in a country must also be paid attention to because we ourselves know that Mexico has a high crime rate and it is a drug cartel.

We have just experienced the best world cup ever. Now the Arab has been recognized too.
You have mentioned a valid point of how fans will travel and how they will be able to support their counties if they will not be able to travel freely

[Theones]

Any reason why they decided to host the 2026 FIFA world cup in three different countries?

With this move, i personally think the experience wouldn't be as fun as the currently ended Qatar 2022 world cup, most especially for those that would want to travel to watch the match being played live, travelling back and forth between this countries for the sole purpose of watching a football match wouldn't just be stressful and would also consume a lot of money.

Anyways, we are looking forward to the game once again, ,may God keep each and every one of us alive till then so we could all share in the fun.

Though I don't know their actual criterias used in selecting a hosting country but i believe the kind of sweet experience with Qatar is ehat they could seek better more with any country they finally concluded on but it won't make much of fun using 3 countries for the world cup because at the end, it should be attributed to a particular country for hosting the finals, with this i think after the middle east should come the western region.

As the FIFA World Cup progresses, every four years it continues to improve. The way Qatar hosted this year's FIFA World Cup is truly commendable. Perhaps there is considerable doubt that a single country can host a FIFA World Cup like this any more.

that is so right - people ranked it the best world cup ever hosted in the history so many things to learn from them for sure!
People do plan for asylum and refugee when there is no real way to do it. But now there is a big reason behind it and there is no stopping.

[og kush420]

-snip-

-snip-

People who move to the United States illegally as refugees do it because they are seeking for a better life, keeping that in mind, I agree with you.
Most of the Mexican and South Americans that will go the USA because the World Cup will be people with money without need to move out desperation, most of them will go back to their respective countries after the football party.

The border is crossed irregularly everyday and most people won't wait for World Cup to do so.

I  am sure people have started planning - and that is for sure many people will escape during this event.
Because they have to give visas no matter what. But they can't trace people down where they have gone after entering States and Canada.

[Hispo]

-snip-

-snip-

-snip-

I  am sure people have started planning - and that is for sure many people will escape during this event.
Because they have to give visas no matter what. But they can't trace people down where they have gone after entering States and Canada.

Some probably will, but in the end that is not responsibility of the FIFA, but rather of the United States government.
Since traveling to another country counts as tourism, USA immigration would be more careful when comes to granting Visas to those seeking to watch the matches, making sure they have no reason to move illegally and return to their home after the event.

They won't give visas to those who can't provide proof of job, income and family in their native motherland.