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

[Lucasgabd]

don't you think they'd be at least a bit more open on the visa thing for people going to the event?

I do not think they will bend the regulation for this kind of event.  The visa will be processed normally, with no special consideration because it is the safety of the nation that they prioritized here.  People can still watch the match through PPV.  Beside,  there is still plenty of time to apply and be qualified for visa so if a fan really wants to watch the matches live, then he must prepare his entry as early as possible.

yes, makes sense
now thinking better about the question I see this shouldn't even be considered
curious to see what will happen
do we already have all the details about where and when it will take place?

[rendravolt]

This world cup is going to be very interesting and unique because for the first time were going to have much more national teams in the world cup and on the other hand we are going to have three countries hosting the world cup at the same time.
However, the main host of the world cup is America, and the other two countries, Canada and Mexico are just helping America to host this tournament.

I'm expecting that the event will be more prestige and more entertaining compared to the last World Cup events because this time, America is holding it and we know how competitive they are when it comes to big events like this. Moreover, they have a lot of time to prepare for the upcoming event as I know that even before the Qatar was finished hosting the recent World Cup, North American countries already knew that they are up next.

In the last twenty years I don't know when the last time America hosted the world cup, but I am quite excited to be able to watch the world cup in this great country. Qatar as the host of the previous world cup was also not too bad and the event was held quite lively there, it's just that as a majority Muslim country there, of course there will be so many rules that must be obeyed in terms of visitors. America is a country of freedom and of course everyone would prefer to come here while enjoying holidays in popular places, so I think this will be one of the best world cup hosts in terms of infrastructure to tourist attractions.

[Bobrox]

This world cup is going to be very interesting and unique because for the first time were going to have much more national teams in the world cup and on the other hand we are going to have three countries hosting the world cup at the same time.
However, the main host of the world cup is America, and the other two countries, Canada and Mexico are just helping America to host this tournament.

New rule model with FIFA World Cup 2026 because usually with 32 national teams participants will be 48, still not understand about the rule adopt starting from group stage until final stage exactly how many teams will qualify to each round. But for the host country seems they need rebuilding depend on football is not popular sport there and exactly they need with new stadium. Seems Mexico has bigger enthusiast for football than United State with their people more interested for NBA and football America. I don't think its right decision by choosing country with football is not popular in their country, maybe for the next world cup edition, need criteria with popular or not football in their country.

[swogerino]

This world cup is going to be very interesting and unique because for the first time were going to have much more national teams in the world cup and on the other hand we are going to have three countries hosting the world cup at the same time.
However, the main host of the world cup is America, and the other two countries, Canada and Mexico are just helping America to host this tournament.

New rule model with FIFA World Cup 2026 because usually with 32 national teams participants will be 48, still not understand about the rule adopt starting from group stage until final stage exactly how many teams will qualify to each round. But for the host country seems they need rebuilding depend on football is not popular sport there and exactly they need with new stadium. Seems Mexico has bigger enthusiast for football than United State with their people more interested for NBA and football America. I don't think its right decision by choosing country with football is not popular in their country, maybe for the next world cup edition, need criteria with popular or not football in their country.

USA 94 was a hit and I have no doubts USA 2026 will be a hit too,maybe US citizens prefer more basketball and NFL but I am sure they have the capacity to welcome all the fans of all the teams participating there,not for without reason we are having this World Cup in three different countries,exactly because of the higher number of participating team,USA alone and no other country alone can have 48 teams fighting each other in a single month,for this more than one country is needed and I think it is a right decision from FIFA to hold this event in different countries near each other.

[Daniel91]

Argentina is a very special country where everyone is crazy about football and nothing is recognized as success except winning the world cup. Any other result is a disaster and a failure, and so it is in Brazil. It is very difficult to play under such enormous pressure from the public, and this can be seen in the example of Brazil and Argentina. Brazil has not been able to become the world champion for 20 years, and Argentina managed to become the world champion after a long 36-year wait.
Messi was also constantly compared to Maradona and it was said that he could not be the greatest Argentinian footballer in history if he failed to lead the national team to the world title. That was a huge pressure even for a football player like Messi. I think that winning the South American cup title before the world cup in Qatar helped him a lot and that he played in Qatar with less pressure.
Messi is a charismatic footballer and one of the best footballers in the history of football, but for me personally Maradona was still better. He practically single-handedly led Argentina to the title of world champion in 1986 and no one has ever been able to repeat that, such individual dominance in such a team sport.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I am not aware of a statistic where Maradona was better than Messi. In 1986 Maradona scored 5 out of 14 team goals and Messi scored 7 out of 14 team goals. Maradona did not score in the final, but Messi did against France. They had an equal amount of scorer points due to assists. I know what you are saying about Maradona and how he has pushed the team, but the same applies to Messi. Both were/are exceptional players with abilities that are out of this world. For me Messi is the best ever because he was able to do all these genius shenanigans, like the free kick against Atletico Madrid . Everyone who has a clue about soccer knows that a goal like that is too good to be real. This is not the only goal of this category, he did that all the time. The smartness in his game is unprecedented and will probably not be surpassed by anyone ever. There isn't a single quality he is lacking that is not limited by his physical being, like saying is headers are bad doesn't really count for a guy who is 1.70. There is only so much you can expect in terms of headers from a guy of that size.

But to close our exchange of opinions ( ) I would still hope to see Messi be around for some time. Was always a pleasure to watch him play and I also always liked the good old videos about Maradona.

Ok, let's then talk about Maradona's contribution to Argentina's 1986 world title and Messi's contribution to Argentina's 2022 world title.
As you know, one's contribution in a game depends not only on goals but also on assists, and both factors are important.
Maradona may have scored less goals than Messi, but almost all of his goals were in the knockout stages of the competition, when it matters most, and not in the group stages of the competition.
Maradona scored all four goals for Argentina in the quarter-finals and semi-finals against very tough opponents, England and Belgium.
His goal against Belgium in the semi-finals, when he went past 7 players of the opposing team, is still considered the best goal in the history of the World Cup.
Diego Maradona participated in 10 goals at the 1986 World Cup, 5 goals and 5 assists.
His final assist in the final against Germany brought Argentina the World Cup title.
So, when I say that Maradona practically single-handedly led Argentina to the World Cup title in 1986, it is not my opinion or an exaggeration, but an obvious fact.
However, Messi did not have such a big impact on Argentina's performances at the 2022 World Cup.
I advise you to look at the performances of Argentina in the quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals of the 1986 World Cup, as I did, and then compare the performances of Argentina in the quarter-finals, semi-finals and finals of the 2022 World Cup and then we can further discuss this topic, based on concrete facts and arguments.
I'm sorry that not everyone likes this but Maradona contributed much more to Argentina's 1986 world title than Messi did last year, especially because of what he did in the quarter-finals and semi-finals, when he single-handedly beat opponents.
Yes, Maradona is better than Messi, whether you like it or not.

Sources: https://www.90min.com/posts/diego-maradona-1986-world-cup-heroics-in-numbers
https://www.beinsports.com/en-mena/football/articles/maradona-at-60-the-star-of-mexico-1986-and-1

I would add that Maradona didn't score his goals from penalties but from play and most importantly, Maradona led an average Argentinian national team to the world title in 1986, and Messi still had a much stronger team behind him last year.

[Sithara007]

USA 94 was a hit and I have no doubts USA 2026 will be a hit too,maybe US citizens prefer more basketball and NFL but I am sure they have the capacity to welcome all the fans of all the teams participating there,not for without reason we are having this World Cup in three different countries,exactly because of the higher number of participating team,USA alone and no other country alone can have 48 teams fighting each other in a single month,for this more than one country is needed and I think it is a right decision from FIFA to hold this event in different countries near each other.

NFL, NBA and MLB maybe immensely popular in the United States. But then, it is a country of 330 million people and a large share of the population originates from countries where football is very popular, such as Mexico, Nigeria and Italy. There is no doubt that the 2026 edition will be a larger success when compared to the one in 1994. And I don't agree with the argument that USA can't host all the matches. There are enough number of quality facilities available and they could have easily hosted all the matches. The reason why Canada and Mexico are hosting some of the matches are due to the fact that it was a "combined North American" bid.

[bbigtart]

Your comment reminded me of Rene Higuita, the goal keeper from Colombia, who was famous for doing acrobatic saves, the most common one called The Scorpion:



I don't think we see much of these crazy things these days.

The Legendary Goalkeeper Rene Higueta (The Scorpion), unfortunately becomes a drug addict and gets into a case. Football players in the past had many good skills and there were attractions, different from modern football.

The best goalkeepers are many but Rene Hiquata is the best and unique, because only he dares to go halfway and save in a unique way. I'm thankful that I watched it during the world cup when I was still in junior high school.
And here are the best Latin American goalkeepers:
1. Chilavert
2. Rogerio Ceni
3. Dida
4. Taffarel
5. René Higuita
6. Jorge Campos
7. Abondazerri
8. Bonanos
9. Mondragon
10. Marcos
11. Julio Caesar

[nlovric]

This world cup is going to be very interesting and unique because for the first time were going to have much more national teams in the world cup and on the other hand we are going to have three countries hosting the world cup at the same time.
However, the main host of the world cup is America, and the other two countries, Canada and Mexico are just helping America to host this tournament.

New rule model with FIFA World Cup 2026 because usually with 32 national teams participants will be 48, still not understand about the rule adopt starting from group stage until final stage exactly how many teams will qualify to each round. But for the host country seems they need rebuilding depend on football is not popular sport there and exactly they need with new stadium. Seems Mexico has bigger enthusiast for football than United State with their people more interested for NBA and football America. I don't think its right decision by choosing country with football is not popular in their country, maybe for the next world cup edition, need criteria with popular or not football in their country.

The tournament structure will change as a result of the decision to increase the FIFA World Cup to 48 participants in 2026 but it is yet unclear exactly how many teams would qualify for each round. The popularity of football in a nation should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding which nation will host the World Cup. Infrastructure amenities and capacity for growth are just a few of the considerations addressed throughout the selection process. While it is true that the host nation may need to make investments in stadium infrastructure and boost interest in the game it also gives a chance to advertise football in areas where it might not be as popular. FIFA wants to broaden the World Cup worldwide influence and reach by holding it in a variety of cities. This will open up new prospects for the growth and engagement of football.

[hahay]

don't you think they'd be at least a bit more open on the visa thing for people going to the event?

I do not think they will bend the regulation for this kind of event.  The visa will be processed normally, with no special consideration because it is the safety of the nation that they prioritized here.  People can still watch the match through PPV.  Beside,  there is still plenty of time to apply and be qualified for visa so if a fan really wants to watch the matches live, then he must prepare his entry as early as possible.

yes, makes sense
now thinking better about the question I see this shouldn't even be considered
curious to see what will happen
do we already have all the details about where and when it will take place?

After all, so far there have not been many problems regarding visas and thus, of course, every supporter will carry out all procedures by complying with every applicable rule. If there is a problem with visas, then of course every international match might be empty of spectators and that might hurt the organizers and the hosts too. So yes, rules like that have been implemented for a long time and there are no problems watching live and or only online, especially in this era there seems to be a lot of access to make it easy.

[Bananington]

This world cup is going to be very interesting and unique because for the first time were going to have much more national teams in the world cup and on the other hand we are going to have three countries hosting the world cup at the same time.
However, the main host of the world cup is America, and the other two countries, Canada and Mexico are just helping America to host this tournament.

New rule model with FIFA World Cup 2026 because usually with 32 national teams participants will be 48, still not understand about the rule adopt starting from group stage until final stage exactly how many teams will qualify to each round. But for the host country seems they need rebuilding depend on football is not popular sport there and exactly they need with new stadium. Seems Mexico has bigger enthusiast for football than United State with their people more interested for NBA and football America. I don't think its right decision by choosing country with football is not popular in their country, maybe for the next world cup edition, need criteria with popular or not football in their country.

The tournament structure will change as a result of the decision to increase the FIFA World Cup to 48 participants in 2026 but it is yet unclear exactly how many teams would qualify for each round. The popularity of football in a nation should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding which nation will host the World Cup. Infrastructure amenities and capacity for growth are just a few of the considerations addressed throughout the selection process. While it is true that the host nation may need to make investments in stadium infrastructure and boost interest in the game it also gives a chance to advertise football in areas where it might not be as popular. FIFA wants to broaden the World Cup worldwide influence and reach by holding it in a variety of cities. This will open up new prospects for the growth and engagement of football.

What is first for Canada, is trio for Mexico and first for the United States. Although, USA did host the tournament in '94, it is it's first time co-hosting.
I like the merge to cooperate and work toward a common interest, because the relationship between US and Mexico came close to truncation following the supposed plan to build a fence at the border both countries share.

For Canada, they are not known as a soccer nation, but they have the grit to put on a great performance.
I agree too that Mexico sure loves soccer compared to both co-hosters. Basketball or the NBA as known, football(American)  are more popular for the other two.
More than just the tournament may be new innovations in crypto and tech the world may just yet see.
Also, we get to drink beer and have alot more freedom compared to what we witnessed in the UAE.

[beerlover]

United States will be hosting about 80% of the matches so this argument of three countries hosting the world cup is not entirely true. And regarding the number of teams, it was long due. With the current format, the UEFA teams are over-represented in the FIFA World Cup. During the 1990s, it was justifiable, because back then the Asian and African teams were unable to compete against the UEFA teams. But now the situation has changed completely. AFC and CAF teams are giving good fight to the UEFA and CONMEBOL teams and this was very evident during the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

True, and the reason for the United States to host most of the games are mainly that the United States but much more facilities and potential to host the world cup than other countries, United States got enough hotels and stadiums to even host the world cup by itself alone.
Regarding AFC and CAF teams I think they have improved themselves a lot in the other hand in the 2022 world cup many European teams had bad performances and they let these teams have the opportunity to show better performance.

They have a lot of money as well, sure Canada is not a poor nation but not as rich as USA, and I am not even going to talk about Mexico, they are very poor. All in all Mexico is dangerous as well, they are known to be cartel land and there are a lot of people who would not want to go there just because of that reason, whereas when we are talking about USA, even though there could be some robbers and such on the street, that would be mainly pick pockets, not a lot of people would be in danger of losing their life.

Unless some mad gunman ends up shooting everyone, those kinds of stuff do happen at USA, that's one risk that you need to just take, but I bet that cops there will prevent anyone like that during that period and not allow such embarrassment.

[nlovric]

Snip.....

New rule model with FIFA World Cup 2026 because usually with 32 national teams participants will be 48, still not understand about the rule adopt starting from group stage until final stage exactly how many teams will qualify to each round. But for the host country seems they need rebuilding depend on football is not popular sport there and exactly they need with new stadium. Seems Mexico has bigger enthusiast for football than United State with their people more interested for NBA and football America. I don't think its right decision by choosing country with football is not popular in their country, maybe for the next world cup edition, need criteria with popular or not football in their country.

The tournament structure will change as a result of the decision to increase the FIFA World Cup to 48 participants in 2026 but it is yet unclear exactly how many teams would qualify for each round. The popularity of football in a nation should not be the only factor taken into account when deciding which nation will host the World Cup. Infrastructure amenities and capacity for growth are just a few of the considerations addressed throughout the selection process. While it is true that the host nation may need to make investments in stadium infrastructure and boost interest in the game it also gives a chance to advertise football in areas where it might not be as popular. FIFA wants to broaden the World Cup worldwide influence and reach by holding it in a variety of cities. This will open up new prospects for the growth and engagement of football.

What is first for Canada, is trio for Mexico and first for the United States. Although, USA did host the tournament in '94, it is it's first time co-hosting.
I like the merge to cooperate and work toward a common interest, because the relationship between US and Mexico came close to truncation following the supposed plan to build a fence at the border both countries share.

For Canada, they are not known as a soccer nation, but they have the grit to put on a great performance.
I agree too that Mexico sure loves soccer compared to both co-hosters. Basketball or the NBA as known, football(American)  are more popular for the other two.
More than just the tournament may be new innovations in crypto and tech the world may just yet see.
Also, we get to drink beer and have alot more freedom compared to what we witnessed in the UAE.

Canada and Mexico are hosting for the first time but it is important to remember that the United States also hosted the competition in 1994 albeit as a single host. These countries cooperation demonstrates the value of working together for a common goal. Given the tense tensions between the US and Mexico over the proposed border fence it is particularly noteworthy. Despite not being a well known football power Canada is determined to demonstrate its talent and put up a fantastic performance. It's true that football has a special place in Mexico heart although American football and basketball (NBA) are the most popular sports in the other two. It is possible that there will be fascinating advancements in technology and cryptocurrency in addition to the event. Last but not least unlike some of the restrictions seen in prior host countries like the UAE this shared hosting allows for the enjoying of freedoms including the option to savour a refreshing beer.

[tiCeR]

✂
For the whole ecosystem I think it is good that not everyone ends up playing in the desert state.

Well.. my opinion differ from yours. For the greater good of football, it is necessary to make sure that not all the good players end up playing in the European leagues. Some of the UEFA clubs have grown bigger than the game itself and are acting like cabals. We all saw their behavior during the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Qatar. They were threatening not to release the players, since the tournament was overlapping with the leagues. I am actually glad that leagues such as SPL are offering some competition to the UEFA clubs. It will help to demonopolize football.

You are taking my quote completely out of context and that sucks quite a bit. I was talking about Messi going to the MLS and that it is good that not everyone ends up playing in the SPL. I haven't said that it would be good if everyone stayed in Europe. In fact I implied the opposite. It would be good to have even more leagues or associations that can bring out good players. The MLS is another one. The SPL, the MLS, etc. I know about the problems with the UEFA and the biggest clubs within and how they got into control. I am all for diversity around the globe although we will always have some hot spots. It would just not be good if the SPL builds a monopolistic structure purely based on money. I'd rather see some diversification among different (more than two...) associations. But I think it is known that some associations have more hidden agendas than others.

[Leviathan.007]

United States will be hosting about 80% of the matches so this argument of three countries hosting the world cup is not entirely true. And regarding the number of teams, it was long due. With the current format, the UEFA teams are over-represented in the FIFA World Cup. During the 1990s, it was justifiable, because back then the Asian and African teams were unable to compete against the UEFA teams. But now the situation has changed completely. AFC and CAF teams are giving good fight to the UEFA and CONMEBOL teams and this was very evident during the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

True, and the reason for the United States to host most of the games are mainly that the United States but much more facilities and potential to host the world cup than other countries, United States got enough hotels and stadiums to even host the world cup by itself alone.
Regarding AFC and CAF teams I think they have improved themselves a lot in the other hand in the 2022 world cup many European teams had bad performances and they let these teams have the opportunity to show better performance.

They have a lot of money as well, sure Canada is not a poor nation but not as rich as USA, and I am not even going to talk about Mexico, they are very poor. All in all Mexico is dangerous as well, they are known to be cartel land and there are a lot of people who would not want to go there just because of that reason, whereas when we are talking about USA, even though there could be some robbers and such on the street, that would be mainly pick pockets, not a lot of people would be in danger of losing their life.

Unless some mad gunman ends up shooting everyone, those kinds of stuff do happen at USA, that's one risk that you need to just take, but I bet that cops there will prevent anyone like that during that period and not allow such embarrassment.

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

[Sithara007]

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

[shogun47]

So, when I say that Maradona practically single-handedly led Argentina to the World Cup title in 1986, it is not my opinion or an exaggeration, but an obvious fact.

Both had 10 scorer points and when I post something and it is my opinion, I will keep calling my posts an opinion because who am I to call my opinion a fact?

But even this is up to everyone's opinion. If you are convinced that your opinions are facts in your world, I accept that. In my world, my opinion is as much an opinion and of value as everyone else's, yours included. I.e., I accept your opinion that your opinions are facts.

Now back to the World Cup 2026!

[Leviathan.007]

~~~~

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

And the thing about Qatar is they spend money but they didn't get good results because in the end there are many people they were unhappy there in Qatar because of their Alcohol rules or because workers were killed there.
Just the chart and compare the money they spent and you can see the difference.
However one reason for increasing the hosting cost can be the inflation rate but the difference is still much more than other hosts, I'm sure America will spend less than this.

[SirLancelot]

Yes, they have lots of money like many other countries but having lots of money can't love lots of problems for the world cup, you just saw in the Qatar world cup they spend lots of money and in the end, many people were unhappy about their hosting services, I think America got enough money to spend even more than Qatar but the thing about America is the country they know how to host a great event even without spending money like Qatar.

"Spending money" doesn't alone guarantee good results. According to reports, Qataris spent somewhere between $250 billion and $300 billion for hosting the FIFA World Cup in 2022. This is almost 10 times when compared to the amount spent by Russia to host the 2018 edition. And I am sure that the cost of costing the 2026 World Cup would also be much smaller when compared to that for Qatar. But then, most of the money spent was used to showoff the wealth rather than to create facilities for the players and fans. In the end, the fans were unhappy about overpriced facilities with low quality.

Agree, nothing positive happen for the game of soccer or for the soccer in Qatar as this was completely waste of money and show of money which have to stop, and same mentality is going to Saudi Arab campaign which are now looking for hosting this event in 2030 even I have been feeling it's not easy for them but as Qatar done things like this can create momentum for them as well because we all know how corrupt is FIFA which is having not good history for things like these.

With now, we are already had increase in teams and three countries are going to host is another good chapter because with these things could be much better and easy to manage for many countries now in the USA we will have better facilities and quality as well which could be good for the soccer fans.

[Silberman]

And the thing about Qatar is they spend money but they didn't get good results because in the end there are many people they were unhappy there in Qatar because of their Alcohol rules or because workers were killed there.
Just the chart and compare the money they spent and you can see the difference.
However one reason for increasing the hosting cost can be the inflation rate but the difference is still much more than other hosts, I'm sure America will spend less than this.

That is awfully expensive, I knew they had spent a lot of money but I never knew that it was to this extent, the 2026 world cup should be much cheaper as there is no need to build stadiums on any of those countries, the US has its own soccer league and they also have NFL stadiums so they should be good, Mexico is the poorest out of the three but their professional soccer league should have more than enough stadiums which at most just need a renovation, and Canada should be roughly the same, and when we add that there will be more freedoms for the fans then there is no doubt that the upcoming world cup should be many times better than the one that was hosted at Qatar.

[Renampun]

The decision to expand the FIFA World Cup field of competitors and choose three hosts gives the competition a new and captivating dimension. Although America serves as the primary host Canada and Mexico cooperative efforts enhance the special occasion. The format of the competition with 48 teams qualifying for each round is still being worked out. When choosing host nations it's crucial to take other aspects into account such as infrastructure and growth potential. The World Cup offers a chance to promote the game and increase its worldwide influence in nations that aren't typically connected with football. Yes its a step in the right direction towards promoting development and passion in the beautiful game is FIFA goal to broaden football appeal and engage new audiences.

it seems that in the future we will no longer see only 1 country hosting the world cup, personally I quite support the new policy adopted by FIFA, so that the host country is not burdened very much by the cost of hosting the world cup let alone most from stadiums in countries hosting the World Cup will rarely be used fatherly in the future.

Saudi Arabia withdraws from 2030 World Cup host bid!

2 groups of potential host countries remaining:
Host 1: Argentina 🇦🇷 + Uruguay 🇺🇾 + Paraguay 🇵🇾 + Chile 🇨🇱
Host 2: Spain 🇪🇸 + Portugal 🇵🇹 + Morocco 🇲🇦

the latest news that I see after the 2026 world cup happened, the next host is one of HOST 1 or 2, whichever country is chosen, lucky enough, it will also help market their country to the wider world.