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

[swogerino]

~snip~
I didn't know that and doesn't feel fair at all because the ones who will print with that event will be USA while the 3 of them have to spend a lot of money for the event. I think the matches should be split into the same amount of games for each country because doesn't worth making the infrastructure and the conditions in a country only for 10 games. I feel like Mexico and Canada will lose a lot of money with this.

I'm pretty sure it will all be done in a proportional way, that means that the US will probably get the most out of it, and also will have the largest expenses.

Mexico has already hosted the world cup two times (70, 86), so I'm surprised they only got to share this one.

Canada on the other hand has never hosted it, so it will probably get a lot of attention from this one.

Let's remember that the US has already hosted the world cup in 94 and it was quite alright.

Well, with respect to the expenses that may be incurred in the countries, I don't know, in the case of Qatar they did not mind spending a large number of millions, because they wanted to show the majesty of their country and obviously the technology, culture and that It is a country that is far from everything they talk about, that is something that I think has to do with it, now it is in the government of each country for that moment how they will handle things, I don't know, I think that the countries that have or are More of South American origin will have many problems to enter these countries, at least for Venezuela they ask them to have a Visa to enter Mexico, and not to mention the USA and Canada, which are quite demanding countries.

They truly are the USA and Canada however they have held a World Cup before in USA in 1994 and everything went smoothly.It went like that because the USA is a country which knows when to be flexible to make some exceptions to their normal laws and rules for such special events and as such once they find a way they will not ask a lot of demands for people who will only stay like 1 month or so during the duration of the World Cup there.

Everything will go smoothly as it has always happened in every country that have held the event of the World Cup before.In here there is nothing that Canada and USA wants to show off because they don't need to while Qatar intentionally did spend much more than it was needed to show the world how great of a country they are,sure they didn't show all the dead people there building their stadiums under barbaric conditions.

[1714641023]

1714641023

[1714641023]

1714641023

[rdluffy]

LOL.. your memory is vague because it happened long time ago. Until 1994, only 24 countries were allowed to participate in the FIFA world cup. In the group phase, there were 6 groups of 4 teams each. For the Round of 16, top 2 teams from each group will qualify, in addition to the 4 of the best 3rd placed teams. And back in 1994, it was Argentina, Belgium, United States and Italy who qualified despite getting relegated to 3rd place in their respective groups. All these teams lost crucial matches and were on the verge of getting kicked out. Belgium lost to Saudi Arabia, Italy lost to Ireland, and Argentina went down against Bulgaria (famous match in which Hristo Stoichkov and Nasko Sirakov scored).

From 1998 onwards, the number of participants was increased to 32, and from 2026 we will be having 48 teams participating in the world cup. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. There are a few people who complain about the duration of the tournament, but IMO the merits overshadow any potential demerits.

I remember 1994 because it was the first World Cup I watched
I think the change from 24 to 32 in 1998 was the right decision, but the 48 teams we'll find in a few years, maybe it will be better too, more people enjoying a great party.

About the duration of 2026 WC, I think it will be the same, 1 month:


Source

Not confirmed by FIFA yet, but they can get all the games in 1 month. For us it will be difficult to watch all the games, because it is possible that there will be more simultaneous games.

[freedomgo]

LOL.. your memory is vague because it happened long time ago. Until 1994, only 24 countries were allowed to participate in the FIFA world cup. In the group phase, there were 6 groups of 4 teams each. For the Round of 16, top 2 teams from each group will qualify, in addition to the 4 of the best 3rd placed teams. And back in 1994, it was Argentina, Belgium, United States and Italy who qualified despite getting relegated to 3rd place in their respective groups. All these teams lost crucial matches and were on the verge of getting kicked out. Belgium lost to Saudi Arabia, Italy lost to Ireland, and Argentina went down against Bulgaria (famous match in which Hristo Stoichkov and Nasko Sirakov scored).

From 1998 onwards, the number of participants was increased to 32, and from 2026 we will be having 48 teams participating in the world cup. I believe that it is a step in the right direction. There are a few people who complain about the duration of the tournament, but IMO the merits overshadow any potential demerits.

I remember 1994 because it was the first World Cup I watched
I think the change from 24 to 32 in 1998 was the right decision, but the 48 teams we'll find in a few years, maybe it will be better too, more people enjoying a great party.

About the duration of 2026 WC, I think it will be the same, 1 month:


Source

Not confirmed by FIFA yet, but they can get all the games in 1 month. For us it will be difficult to watch all the games, because it is possible that there will be more simultaneous games.

And don't forget the next World Cup will hosted by three separate countries, so expect that there will some games that will be played simultaneously. Although, everything are still in a projected scenario because as you've said the FIFA is yet announced the schedules and while the date is approaching, I think there will be some changes that will happen to maximize the profit and the audience and players won't be getting too tired from travelling all over across three countries.

[noormcs5]

I don't remember India and Pakistan having much success in football. I am also surprised to see that countries such as China and India are not able to produce very successful athletes in football and some other sports, despite their high population.

Yes, this is surprising that china has been participating in all the sports but they do not have a strong football team. You can see that in Olympic china participate in almost every game but why they never give importance to football, is really beyond my understanding. Same goes for India as they have also been lagging in this sports.

These are probably the best examples that show that sports progress not only with talent but also with education.

How can lack of education is the reason for India and China not participating in football events ? This makes no sense in my opinion.

Returning to our topic, India and Pakistan will add color to the tournament, but to be realistic, it is very difficult for them to participate if they are not the host country.

To be honest, there is already a lot of color in football and yes, if India and Pakistan join the party, that will further increase the interest but i don't think that both teams caliber can take them to the fifa world cup in the next decade or so.

[Sithara007]

I remember 1994 because it was the first World Cup I watched
I think the change from 24 to 32 in 1998 was the right decision, but the 48 teams we'll find in a few years, maybe it will be better too, more people enjoying a great party.

About the duration of 2026 WC, I think it will be the same, 1 month:

1998 was the first world cup that I watched and I have only heard about the 1994 edition. I guess back in 1998 also a lot of people would have argued against expanding the tournament to include more teams. But it went rather smoothly. Now they are expanding the tournament again, after a duration of almost three decades. As I mentioned many times before, I am 100% in support of the expansion. 48 seems to be the optimal number, given the requirement to give adequate representation for all the confederations.

There will be approximately 100 matches for the 2026 edition, which is relatively higher than what we had during Qatar 2022 (64 matches in 28 days). But then, some of the leagues around the world have even more matches and no one complains about them. The English Premier League has close to 200 matches per season and no one argues that it is too long. World Cup happens once every 4 years and the fans deserve a tournament that lasts at least 1 month.

[Cantsay]

India and Pakistan should participate in fifa world cup and show the world what they are capable of doing and may be these countries turn out to be really good in football .
This step is extremely important to promote football in these countries and this will be a treat for their fans.

It will actually be so interesting to watch India and Pakistan play in FIFA world cup, that's going to be one hell of an excited match to watch and I'm sure so many football enthusiast are looking forward to India Participating in FIFA.

The world cup only happens every 4 years, and I have no doubt, this is one of the most anticipated events for many people.

Truly an event that brings people together, this is one of the event in football that brings both those who loves football and those who have no interested in football whatsoever. A once in every four years invent is something to really look up to.

[Sithara007]

It will actually be so interesting to watch India and Pakistan play in FIFA world cup, that's going to be one hell of an excited match to watch and I'm sure so many football enthusiast are looking forward to India Participating in FIFA.

LOL.. India is currently ranked 104th as per the latest table from FIFA, while Pakistan is placed at 195. Among the AFC teams, none of these two countries rank among the top-10 (India at 19th position and Pakistan at 43rd position). From 2026 onwards, there will be 7 slots for the FIFA World Cup from Asia. Looking at the current rankings, these 7 countries would be - Japan, Iran, South Korea, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Iraq. And for India, their star player (Sunil Chhetri) is close to retirement and younger players are not coming through the ranks.

[Strongkored]

Yes, this is surprising that china has been participating in all the sports but they do not have a strong football team. You can see that in Olympic china participate in almost every game but why they never give importance to football, is really beyond my understanding. Same goes for India as they have also been lagging in this sports.

Not surprising because before the 1994 World Cup the United States was also not a country that had achievements in football and one of the reasons for this appointment was to make football more known there and prove successful because their national team often played in the World Cup because they were able to pass the qualifying rounds continent.

[EarnOnVictor]

This is the role of media in destroying a country's image just because of any incident that happened in that particular country. Same thing happens with Pakistan all the time , bad media coverage and wrong reporting unfact exaggeration makes any country an insecure country to live in .
All countries have their good and bad points and I am sure mexico is not just about drug cartels or criminals there will be  uch more than that and for fifa fans there will be much more to explore and experience.

I am from Pakistan and we have been through this situation where we were denied hosting any international cricket match for 10 years because there was a terrorist attack on the Srilanka team in our country.
That is now history but the rival countries always hesitate to visit our country and give excuses of that event. This is not right as the security situation is improved over time.
I hope Mexico does not face the same unjustice situation which we have been facing for the last many years.

This same thing happens in India also that made FIFA to ban India n football federation from participating in football and other similar sports because of what had ensue many years ago. I don't blame anyone for this but this most time could be as a result of insecurity that lead to the rampage causing a serious scene that had lead to sanctions.

Oh, I did not know that Fifa Ban Indian football too. They also banned our country, not for security reasons but because they believe that our offices were controlled by third-party. Later on in 2022, this ban was lifted and we had a sign of relief.
More details:- FIFA lifts suspension of Pakistan Football Federation

By the way, when we see the progress of our neighboring countries like Saudia Arab, Qatar, Japan, Korea, Iran, etc, we see that both Pakistan and India are left behind in this race of become a strong football nation.

It is more than a decade that India has not been participating in football  , I'm just noticing that Pakistan have not been participating too . This ban will do them no good at all, it will take them a long time to get used to football because for sometime they have not been competing with other teams.

India and Pakistan should participate in fifa world cup and show the world what they are capable of doing and may be these countries turn out to be really good in football .
This step is extremely important to promote football in these countries and this will be a treat for their fans.

I don't remember India and Pakistan having much success in football. I am also surprised to see that countries such as China and India are not able to produce very successful athletes in football and some other sports, despite their high population. These are probably the best examples that show that sports progress not only with talent but also with education. I think the leaders of India and China should especially encourage young people for sports. Returning to our topic, India and Pakistan will add color to the tournament, but to be realistic, it is very difficult for them to participate if they are not the host country.

You have to know that football has history, and through that history, one can draw some reasonable conclusions that should not be a surprise. Even if a country is doing well in some other sports and facets of life, that does not mean that it would do well in football. And that reminds me, Pakistan and India are hardly mentioned in the world cup of this century. Pakistan is still better, but India has not qualified for several decades now.

I guess their sport councils should do better because I don't think there are no qualified talents among over a billion people in the countries.

[Sithara007]

Not surprising because before the 1994 World Cup the United States was also not a country that had achievements in football and one of the reasons for this appointment was to make football more known there and prove successful because their national team often played in the World Cup because they were able to pass the qualifying rounds continent.

I couldn't find any long term improvement for the United States, that came from the 1994 World Cup. Huge amounts of funds have been spent in popularizing football in that country, but the Major League Soccer (MLS) lags other sports such as NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB in terms of popularity and participation. Now awarding them the 2026 world cup is another attempt to popularize football within that country. What makes them think that the same strategy, that didn't worked well in 1994 will work this time around?

[slackovic]

I couldn't find any long term improvement for the United States, that came from the 1994 World Cup. Huge amounts of funds have been spent in popularizing football in that country, but the Major League Soccer (MLS) lags other sports such as NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB in terms of popularity and participation. Now awarding them the 2026 world cup is another attempt to popularize football within that country. What makes them think that the same strategy, that didn't worked well in 1994 will work this time around?

/snip

I don't think that popularity of football will be bigger in the USA after the next World Cup. After all, they are the only nation that call this game soccer. People in America look at any sport more as a show than a competition. After all, in the USA football is a game where players hold the ball in their hands most of the time. Am I the only one that find this fact funny?

[Synchronice]

I'm pretty sure it will all be done in a proportional way, that means that the US will probably get the most out of it, and also will have the largest expenses.

Mexico has already hosted the world cup two times (70, 86), so I'm surprised they only got to share this one.

Canada on the other hand has never hosted it, so it will probably get a lot of attention from this one.

Let's remember that the US has already hosted the world cup in 94 and it was quite alright.

Since the last ones were hosted by Russia and Qatar and they managed well. America just has to do it way more better.
And when I say well in case of Russia and Qatar, I mean it was visually well done but inside, Qatar did terrible things.

Not surprising because before the 1994 World Cup the United States was also not a country that had achievements in football and one of the reasons for this appointment was to make football more known there and prove successful because their national team often played in the World Cup because they were able to pass the qualifying rounds continent.

I couldn't find any long term improvement for the United States, that came from the 1994 World Cup. Huge amounts of funds have been spent in popularizing football in that country, but the Major League Soccer (MLS) lags other sports such as NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB in terms of popularity and participation. Now awarding them the 2026 world cup is another attempt to popularize football within that country. What makes them think that the same strategy, that didn't worked well in 1994 will work this time around?

Wow, to be honest I didn't really thought that American national football league was generating so much money. In Europe, almost no one talks about American football and baseball. You'll more likely hear the word baseball stick used when someone saws a big fat stick but not a single word around the game itself.

Football (I'll never call it soccer ) is the most popular sport in all over the world, including Europe, Central America, Africa, Asia and still it doesn't generate a shit compared to the sports that are popular in America but unpopular in the rest of the world.

[Sithara007]

Wow, to be honest I didn't really thought that American national football league was generating so much money. In Europe, almost no one talks about American football and baseball. You'll more likely hear the word baseball stick used when someone saws a big fat stick but not a single word around the game itself.

Football (I'll never call it soccer ) is the most popular sport in all over the world, including Europe, Central America, Africa, Asia and still it doesn't generate a shit compared to the sports that are popular in America but unpopular in the rest of the world.

Well.. the revenue figures speak of themselves. NFL (American football) generates a revenue of $13 billion per year, while MLS (association football) generates just $461 million. The situation has remained the same, despite the fact that the United States receives close to 1 million migrants per year (mostly from countries such as Mexico where football is immensely popular). Americans are glued to their own versions of sports (baseball, American football.etc), which no one else in the world is interested. In Canada also they have the same situation.

[rdluffy]

And don't forget the next World Cup will hosted by three separate countries, so expect that there will some games that will be played simultaneously.

Yes, it's not hard to do more games simultaneously, USA alone is a huge country, with great infrastructure to travel, Canada and Mexico will host only 10 matches each one, but it will help, so it's not a impossible task.

There will be approximately 100 matches for the 2026 edition, which is relatively higher than what we had during Qatar 2022 (64 matches in 28 days). But then, some of the leagues around the world have even more matches and no one complains about them. The English Premier League has close to 200 matches per season and no one argues that it is too long. World Cup happens once every 4 years and the fans deserve a tournament that lasts at least 1 month.

As I said above, I think it's not hard to do these 100 matches in 3 countries, specially with USA being the main host.
Maybe it could be a problem in the next editions if they choose smaller countries. But as everything indicates, the 2030 cup will also be in at least 3 countries, and the trend is that it will be like this in the future. Probably no more World Cup in just one country.

I couldn't find any long term improvement for the United States, that came from the 1994 World Cup. Huge amounts of funds have been spent in popularizing football in that country, but the Major League Soccer (MLS) lags other sports such as NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB in terms of popularity and participation. Now awarding them the 2026 world cup is another attempt to popularize football within that country. What makes them think that the same strategy, that didn't worked well in 1994 will work this time around?

In my opinion there's a lot of improvement after 1994
1954 to 1986 they did not qualify for World Cup, but after that they only missed 2018 in Russia

I remember in 2002 they got to quarters, and lost to Germany, probably the best USA team I saw.
Unfortunately there was a handball that saved Germany, and in my opinion it was a HUGE mistake against USA, they would get to semi finals
Take a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctBKzj6HUSk

And after 1994 you can see a consistency in the United States, they are always trying to improve, always having a competitive team.
You also have to consider that MLS is always trying to attract good players and having more audience, but it is very hard to compete with Europe.

[slapper]

I remember 1994 because it was the first World Cup I watched
I think the change from 24 to 32 in 1998 was the right decision, but the 48 teams we'll find in a few years, maybe it will be better too, more people enjoying a great party.

About the duration of 2026 WC, I think it will be the same, 1 month:

1998 was the first world cup that I watched and I have only heard about the 1994 edition. I guess back in 1998 also a lot of people would have argued against expanding the tournament to include more teams. But it went rather smoothly. Now they are expanding the tournament again, after a duration of almost three decades. As I mentioned many times before, I am 100% in support of the expansion. 48 seems to be the optimal number, given the requirement to give adequate representation for all the confederations.

There will be approximately 100 matches for the 2026 edition, which is relatively higher than what we had during Qatar 2022 (64 matches in 28 days). But then, some of the leagues around the world have even more matches and no one complains about them. The English Premier League has close to 200 matches per season and no one argues that it is too long. World Cup happens once every 4 years and the fans deserve a tournament that lasts at least 1 month.

The World Cup should include more teams. Fans who want to see their teams play can look forward to more matches. There may be drawbacks. Attendees may struggle to pay. To watch all 100 games, fans may need to take time off work and budget for travel and lodging. Some may find it hard to attend. Player injury is another problem. More tournament games mean more injuries. Concerned about player safety, clubs may hesitate to release players for international duty. Expanding the World Cup has pros and cons. Protecting players while producing a spectator-friendly sport is tricky.

[klidex]

Yes, this is surprising that china has been participating in all the sports but they do not have a strong football team. You can see that in Olympic china participate in almost every game but why they never give importance to football, is really beyond my understanding. Same goes for India as they have also been lagging in this sports.

Yes, China is indeed a country that already has athletes in almost all sports but is very behind in football and what you said is true because China and India do not have national football teams that are strong enough to be able to participate in World Cup competitions.
This can be because football is a team game consisting of 11 main players and several reserve players plus team administrators such as coaches or managers and many more so that it requires very large funds to be able to build and have a really strong and national team. worthy of competing in the World Cup.
The contract price for every player who has good skills and a pretty good football career is also very expensive so it may be difficult for a country to have good players in its national team.

[freedomgo]

And don't forget the next World Cup will hosted by three separate countries, so expect that there will some games that will be played simultaneously.

Yes, it's not hard to do more games simultaneously, USA alone is a huge country, with great infrastructure to travel, Canada and Mexico will host only 10 matches each one, but it will help, so it's not a impossible task.

Yes, I just found out that the USA will host most of the games especially the qualifiers onwards, 40 games to be exact and it's quite reasonable because they got bigger stadiums that can cater hundreds of thousands of people at once. The FIFA won't let the players get exhausted for travelling in and out towards other countries especially when the games are getting more intense.

[Sithara007]

~~~
And after 1994 you can see a consistency in the United States, they are always trying to improve, always having a competitive team.
You also have to consider that MLS is always trying to attract good players and having more audience, but it is very hard to compete with Europe.

Well... MLS doesn't need to compete with the European leagues. Even leagues such as EPL and Serie A are not that popular within the States. MLS need to compete with other sports leagues within US-Canada, such as NFL, NBA and MLB. And as of now, they are in a pathetic condition. Check my previous posts. MLS revenues are around 3% of those from the NFL. Despite the infusion of several star players (remember David Beckham signing a $50 million per year contract with the Los Angeles Galaxy?), MLS has failed to attract any interest within the United States. Players got rich, but that didn't had any impact on the ground situation.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

And don't forget the next World Cup will hosted by three separate countries, so expect that there will some games that will be played simultaneously.

Yes, it's not hard to do more games simultaneously, USA alone is a huge country, with great infrastructure to travel, Canada and Mexico will host only 10 matches each one, but it will help, so it's not a impossible task.

Yes, I just found out that the USA will host most of the games especially the qualifiers onwards, 40 games to be exact and it's quite reasonable because they got bigger stadiums that can cater hundreds of thousands of people at once. The FIFA won't let the players get exhausted for travelling in and out towards other countries especially when the games are getting more intense.

I also think the reason why USA will be hosting most of the games in the 2026 world-cup tournament is because they are the main host, Mexico and casino are just an assist if am permitted to put it that way.
If for example, FIFA went with their previous style of one country hosting the entire world cup for the season, I believe it is the turn of the USA, so this is why FIFA has to focus more on USA and make sure most of the games are played there, like I said before, Mexico and Canada are just like an assist, they are just assisting.

[Strongkored]

I couldn't find any long term improvement for the United States, that came from the 1994 World Cup. Huge amounts of funds have been spent in popularizing football in that country, but the Major League Soccer (MLS) lags other sports such as NBA, NHL, NFL and MLB in terms of popularity and participation. Now awarding them the 2026 world cup is another attempt to popularize football within that country. What makes them think that the same strategy, that didn't worked well in 1994 will work this time around?

In my opinion there's a lot of improvement after 1994
1954 to 1986 they did not qualify for World Cup, but after that they only missed 2018 in Russia

Agree with you when I said about improvement, I look more closely at the improvement of the United States national team in its participation in the World Cup and re-appointing the United States as the host of the World Cup will probably allow them to appear even further when in 2026 it is not impossible to achieve that better than 2022.

But regarding this revenue comparison is really beyond my thoughts because the NFL is very dominant compared to the EPL or other leagues that I think are watched more throughout the world than American football.