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

[FanEagle]

~snip~
Just one question to you.

If a country can't qualify for the FIFA World Cup, why should that country be given the hosting rights? This was very evident during the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Qatar was given automatic entry to the tournament since they were the hosts. And what happened after that? They lost all three of their group stage matches and got crashed out of the tournament. I still believe that if a more deserving country from AFC was given that slot, then they would have performed much better. Anyway, in this case United Arab Emirates was the team that was ranked 6th in the AFC qualifiers. I don't know how they would have performed, had they been given the chance.

Well, I find it fair that the hosting country has the qualification given right away.

There's a lot of preparation, time and money that goes into hosting the world cup, so at a minimum you want your country to be represented there and see how it performs.

The point of doing it in Qatar actually showed that it's not that FIFA just treats Europe and South America preferentially, they simply are the best in the world, and Qatar showed it. It's not because they are not given enough slots, the Asian countries(and North America, and Africa) are just not as good as Europe and South America.

I understand that, but having three teams to host makes it a bit harder. I mean by that logic there are European nations that are incredibly close to each other so why not have 5 hosts next? It made sense when there was just one, and even when it was two we said okay that's enough, but at three? That just makes it so much harder to accept because there aren't all that many clubs that come from that region anyway, with this we are getting to the border of just the winner getting to world cup along with the host.

It makes no sense to get it hosted by this many nations, if you are willing to host it with 3 teams, then there should be a draw about these three teams and at least one of them should play to be there, or not make it three host nations at least.

[1715639157]

1715639157

[1715639157]

1715639157

[Volgastallion]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

[Zlantann]

Money is not really a big deal here if they bribe someone within the organization because the sky rocketing profits in return will not be comparable to what they bribed.

The perception that host nations make a profit from the world cup is not very true. Most nations don't make any profit and they even become indebted after the World Cup. We can argue that other benefits like publicity might be beneficial but direct profits are not realized in some cases. An example is the world cup in Brazil which cost about $13.4 billion but financial analyst reports showed that the country realized $13.4 billion through tourism, hospitality, and infrastructure.

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

Every nation has the right to bid for world cup hosting. Each nation bidding for the world will have to prove that it can host the tournament. They have to also lobby to get the needed support. Such a nation might not be a well-known football nation to host the world cup but it must show its ability to finance and organize a hitch-free tournament. Regarding giving hosting rights to more than one nation, it was the US, Mexico, and Canada that came up with a shared bid. And they were fortunate to win the bid.

[LUCKMCFLY]

~snip~
I don't think Messi will just leave football... The World Cup is three years away, that's not much time... Although it would probably be nice for him to retire from football after his team won the cup last year... If Messi stays in the national team, it's not certain they can win in 2026... And this championship will definitely be his last... I can't assume anything about Ronaldo... He was going to leave a long time ago... But he still plays every time...

Messi currently has a contract with Inter Miami until December 2025... that sounds like he will retire by then, and not play the world cup in 2026.

Basically it looks like he's just getting as much money as he can right now and then ride into the sunset.

Maybe he will just continue doing ads, but I reckon he won't be playing professional football in 2026.

Well the truth is this is very sad, I hope to see Messi and CR7 in another World Cup and hopefully they can play their countries, for me it would be a great option to see these two legends, of course if they can obviously I hope to see an Ibra and a Modric if their countries qualify, but the bad thing or the sad thing is that Messi does not make it to the World Cup, I would like them to convince him as they did in the 2014 World Cup in Brazil where he said he was laughing, the bad thing was that he went to the USA for the MLS and there change the mentality of the players a lot, I would have preferred that he had gone to ARABIA.

Personally, I think that Messi can still give much more, he is wasting a chance for Argentina to win another cup, he can do it. In another order of ideas, Portugal thinks differently, they know that with CR7 they did it wrong since they did not put it in the time it was, and they blamed the technical director for that, also in this case it would be interesting to see if Argentina and Portugal collide with these two Titans, that's why I have hope that Messi will play again, the same case applies to Croatia with Modric and whoever wouldn't want to see Zlatan in Sweden again, it doesn't matter, even if he only plays 15 minutes, but let them have him there.

[Vaskiy]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

Already FIFA is a corrupt organisation. Now thinking about it doesn't gonna make things better. I don't know how it is unfair to choose a non football country. To me it is a great decision to prioritise non football nation, because these huge events will increase the involvement of people into the particular sports. Already football is played around, and something similar will make it better. The power of money is the key rule to get the hosting rights. However without proper infrastructure those countries could've never been chosen.

[Sithara007]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

Granting hosting rights to Qatar was a big mistake from FIFA that should not be repeated. They won the hosting rights by bribing delegates from poor African and Asian countries and FIFA refused to take action despite clear evidence being presented to them. The excuse being given was that the world cup was never hosted by the middle-east and therefore Qatar deserved a chance. But then, what is the point in allowing Qatar, a country of just 300,000 citizens to host such a large event? They could have been made co-hosts along with United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

[nullama]

~snip~
Granting hosting rights to Qatar was a big mistake from FIFA that should not be repeated. They won the hosting rights by bribing delegates from poor African and Asian countries and FIFA refused to take action despite clear evidence being presented to them. The excuse being given was that the world cup was never hosted by the middle-east and therefore Qatar deserved a chance. But then, what is the point in allowing Qatar, a country of just 300,000 citizens to host such a large event? They could have been made co-hosts along with United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

As you probably already know, it's all about money in the end.

FIFA is a massive organization that is basically just trying to maximize how much money they can get from anyone.

They even started charging for the woman's tournament TV rights now, it used to be included for free with the world cup, now it's a separate transaction. And they are even pushing the price up to match the men's so that it's all "equal", sneaky guys, always trying to make more money based on any excuse

[Silberman]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

With the increase on the number of teams I do not think FIFA has too much of a choice, the amount of money needed to organize the tournament has gone up while the logistic issues have scaled up as well, so it seems to me that the right decision was to let more than one country to host the world cup, what it must never happen again is to allow a country or a group of countries to buy the world cup, which is exactly what Qatar and probably Russia did before.

[Lucasgabd]

To be honest, I can't understand where the sarcasm is, as Infantino already lobbies for a World Cup every two years. Of course, as you correctly noted, this will destroy all records, but I think everyone will understand the value of new records compared to those that were set in the old format.

Well.. what is wrong with having a world cup every two years? If leagues such as English Premier League, Ligue1 and Serie A can be conducted every year, spanning for 4-5 months, then what is wrong in having a FIFA tournament every 2 years which will get completed in around 1 month duration? IMO, clubs are having a disproportionate influence in global football and the importance of international competitions are going down. IMO, this is not a move in the right direction, because the clubs only care about money and not about the overall growth of the game.

Do you believe in good fairy officials who take care of the game? 
Football is a business. Clubs are those who do business and they are responsible for it with their money. Everything else - FIFA, UEFA and other shit is parasites. I always trust a businessman more (because I have a direct influence on him with my money) than degenerate officials who dispose of the fruits of other people's labor. I have a completely different view of things than you: in my opinion, clubs should have more influence (like the NHL), and all other officials and competitions held by them should be in a marginal niche.

Agree with you
but at least we don't see so many scandals in FIFA than in general corrupt governments
or there are lots of scandals and I'm the one who don't know about it? 

[Leviathan.007]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

With the increase on the number of teams I do not think FIFA has too much of a choice, the amount of money needed to organize the tournament has gone up while the logistic issues have scaled up as well, so it seems to me that the right decision was to let more than one country to host the world cup, what it must never happen again is to allow a country or a group of countries to buy the world cup, which is exactly what Qatar and probably Russia did before.

Increasing the number of teams in the world cup means we're going to have more countries and there will be a higher chance for all countries to be in the world cup, this is good because we are going to have a greater community and more people from all over the world can have their teams in this tournament but still, we are going to have the more weak teams we normally could have these teams in the world.

[Jody.Drummer]

No need to mention because it's already obvious and even if we don't have any substantial evidence to prove our speculations, it is already safe to assume that there are negotiations happening behind the curtain to increase their chances to host the next World Cup.

Money is not really a big deal here if they bribe someone within the organization because the sky rocketing profits in return will not be comparable to what they bribed.

Yes, it's probably safe to say they moved behind the scenes to negotiate. And from the word negotiation, anything can be done to make the negotiation go smoothly. Negotiations will always be there, and one of the clean and healthy negotiations when they give a presentation of what the country proposing to host can do, they can sell that to make FIFA believe and entrust it to that country. But the question is when the negotiations are done behind the scenes and no one knows about the process. It is natural that in the end it raises suspicion.v

[Slow death]

well, the names and group that my country is in and the teams in which he will have to play against them have already been announced, my country will have to play against somalia, botswana, uganda, guine - conakry and algeria and we are in the group G. is not a very strong group, although some national teams that were weak in the past managed to improve their performance a lot in recent years, I would say that the problematic ones in this group G in which my country is without a doubt are algeria and guine - concri and as my country has not been a very strong team, then the chances of passing and going to the 2026 world cup will be an almost impossible task

anyway, here you can have a better vision for the groups in africa:



source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_(CAF)

with this higher number of teams and this qualification model it seems to me to be fairer and that many good teams that also had no opportunity to go to the world cup will now be able to go, of course in the case of my country it would need a great miracle to go to the world cup and from what I see, even if they had some miracle to be in the world cup, they wouldn't beat anyone in the world cup.

[Sithara007]

^^^^ One thing that I have noticed with the draw for 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF) is that in Group C two strong teams are place together - Nigeria and South Africa. Nigeria failed to qualify for the 2022 edition and this time also they are going to have a tough time against South Africa. Other teams in Group C are not that strong though - Rwanda, Benin, Zimbabwe and Lesotho. Group I is going to be tough as well, as Mali and Ghana are placed in the same group. Anyway, with 9 teams qualifying to FIFA 2026, there will be a lot more representation from CAF this time.

[swogerino]

^^^^ One thing that I have noticed with the draw for 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF) is that in Group C two strong teams are place together - Nigeria and South Africa. Nigeria failed to qualify for the 2022 edition and this time also they are going to have a tough time against South Africa. Other teams in Group C are not that strong though - Rwanda, Benin, Zimbabwe and Lesotho. Group I is going to be tough as well, as Mali and Ghana are placed in the same group. Anyway, with 9 teams qualifying to FIFA 2026, there will be a lot more representation from CAF this time.

The quality of this World Cup will most probably be lower as it will be the first time one such event will hold a huge number of teams compared to the usual 32 teams we are used to see in other World Cup.This is the belief of many while I personally believe that this can have a complete opposite effect,meaning more times will have an opportunity to show their skills and who knows they may surprise us all as the ball is round and it is just a 90 minute game where anything can happen.

In the group C I think both Nigeria and South Africa will qualify further away from the group stages because the other teams are much lower in quality compared to them.

[nullama]

^^^^ One thing that I have noticed with the draw for 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF) is that in Group C two strong teams are place together - Nigeria and South Africa. Nigeria failed to qualify for the 2022 edition and this time also they are going to have a tough time against South Africa. Other teams in Group C are not that strong though - Rwanda, Benin, Zimbabwe and Lesotho. Group I is going to be tough as well, as Mali and Ghana are placed in the same group. Anyway, with 9 teams qualifying to FIFA 2026, there will be a lot more representation from CAF this time.

Yeah, Nigeria and South Africa are actually quite good teams.

I think I've never seen Mali playing, and probably the others as well, Benin, Rwanda, and Lesotho. So it would be an interesting opportunity to see how they play.

[Sithara007]

✂✂✂✂
In the group C I think both Nigeria and South Africa will qualify further away from the group stages because the other teams are much lower in quality compared to them.

Both of these teams can't qualify. Only the top ranked team from each group will qualify. That's why I said that in all probability one of these two teams will miss the ticket to USA. If either Nigeria and South Africa finish at no.2 in their group, then they will get a chance to play the inter-continent playoffs. But out of 9 second placed teams, only one will get a chance to play that match. It is going to be tough. So for both these teams, it is very crucial to finish at the top of the points table. Anyway, personally I will be disappointed in case Nigeria and South Africa lose out. Because I have always regarded them as some of the strongest teams in Africa.

[Strongkored]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

With the increase on the number of teams I do not think FIFA has too much of a choice, the amount of money needed to organize the tournament has gone up while the logistic issues have scaled up as well, so it seems to me that the right decision was to let more than one country to host the world cup, what it must never happen again is to allow a country or a group of countries to buy the world cup, which is exactly what Qatar and probably Russia did before.

That doesn't matter by increasing the number of countries hosting the World Cup or countries being able to do it together, but there shouldn't be more than two countries because it will affect the number of countries that have the opportunity to qualify, because the host country will get automatic participation in the world cup later. If there are only two organizers, it will be easier to divide the portion of the matches for each country, each will get the same number of matches, one as the opening and the other as the closing, but FIFA always has an excuse because they are the organization with the power to regulate this, but if the 2030 World Cup organizers are won by 4 countries from the Americas how unpleasant that would be because it reduces the chances of other countries in CONMEBOL qualifying for the World Cup.

[Daniel91]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

With the increase on the number of teams I do not think FIFA has too much of a choice, the amount of money needed to organize the tournament has gone up while the logistic issues have scaled up as well, so it seems to me that the right decision was to let more than one country to host the world cup, what it must never happen again is to allow a country or a group of countries to buy the world cup, which is exactly what Qatar and probably Russia did before.

That doesn't matter by increasing the number of countries hosting the World Cup or countries being able to do it together, but there shouldn't be more than two countries because it will affect the number of countries that have the opportunity to qualify, because the host country will get automatic participation in the world cup later. If there are only two organizers, it will be easier to divide the portion of the matches for each country, each will get the same number of matches, one as the opening and the other as the closing, but FIFA always has an excuse because they are the organization with the power to regulate this, but if the 2030 World Cup organizers are won by 4 countries from the Americas how unpleasant that would be because it reduces the chances of other countries in CONMEBOL qualifying for the World Cup.

I have to admit that it all makes no sense to me anymore.
Once upon a time, we had world cups with only 16 national teams and only 1 host.
In a few years we will have a world cup with 48 national teams and 3 hosts, and I would not be surprised if in 2030 FIFA organizes a world cup with 64 national teams and 4 hosts.
Obviously, FIFA no longer cares about football but only about making money, so maybe in 20 or 30 years we won't have qualifications for the World Cup at all because all the national teams of the world will have the right to participate 
I'm almost certain we'll have a world cup every 2 years soon.
All together this no longer makes sense.

[Kasabus]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

With the increase on the number of teams I do not think FIFA has too much of a choice, the amount of money needed to organize the tournament has gone up while the logistic issues have scaled up as well, so it seems to me that the right decision was to let more than one country to host the world cup, what it must never happen again is to allow a country or a group of countries to buy the world cup, which is exactly what Qatar and probably Russia did before.

That doesn't matter by increasing the number of countries hosting the World Cup or countries being able to do it together, but there shouldn't be more than two countries because it will affect the number of countries that have the opportunity to qualify, because the host country will get automatic participation in the world cup later. If there are only two organizers, it will be easier to divide the portion of the matches for each country, each will get the same number of matches, one as the opening and the other as the closing, but FIFA always has an excuse because they are the organization with the power to regulate this, but if the 2030 World Cup organizers are won by 4 countries from the Americas how unpleasant that would be because it reduces the chances of other countries in CONMEBOL qualifying for the World Cup.

Four countries as a World Cup host will be too much because that would be very unfair to the other teams who will have to qualify and have a hard time to go through the qualifiers of which 32 teams will be only accepted. I think 3 countries will be the maximum line, although there's no written rule for this, it will be a common sense not to have more than 3 hosts to remain fair.

It's just that Canada-America-Mexico agreed to make a bid together to increase their chances and indeed, they succeeded and they are the first ones who will host the world cup with 3 hosting countries.

[Leviathan.007]

I dont like to see so much countries making one World Cup, but also i dont like when the selected country is a non footb all one, or a non so good country to explore/travel. The last one on Qatar was an clear example, the World CUp was made in a very tiny country with not football tradition , and only backed by the power of money.

With the increase on the number of teams I do not think FIFA has too much of a choice, the amount of money needed to organize the tournament has gone up while the logistic issues have scaled up as well, so it seems to me that the right decision was to let more than one country to host the world cup, what it must never happen again is to allow a country or a group of countries to buy the world cup, which is exactly what Qatar and probably Russia did before.

That doesn't matter by increasing the number of countries hosting the World Cup or countries being able to do it together, but there shouldn't be more than two countries because it will affect the number of countries that have the opportunity to qualify, because the host country will get automatic participation in the world cup later. If there are only two organizers, it will be easier to divide the portion of the matches for each country, each will get the same number of matches, one as the opening and the other as the closing, but FIFA always has an excuse because they are the organization with the power to regulate this, but if the 2030 World Cup organizers are won by 4 countries from the Americas how unpleasant that would be because it reduces the chances of other countries in CONMEBOL qualifying for the World Cup.

Four countries as a World Cup host will be too much because that would be very unfair to the other teams who will have to qualify and have a hard time to go through the qualifiers of which 32 teams will be only accepted. I think 3 countries will be the maximum line, although there's no written rule for this, it will be a common sense not to have more than 3 hosts to remain fair.

It's just that Canada-America-Mexico agreed to make a bid together to increase their chances and indeed, they succeeded and they are the first ones who will host the world cup with 3 hosting countries.

Even having three countries to host the world cup was a lot for 2026 because we know America itself could easily host it without a problem and having three hosts is not something they need because America hosted the world cup before and they were hosting it perfectly without any problem.