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

[Pierre 2]

I guess that the world cup should be done in countries that are in need of developing. This could help the  countries apply the money in building structures that would benefit the country. This could be used to help developing countries.

I agree with this idea. This type of tournaments should be partially done by developing countries. Actually this one is great example, Mexico is developing country partner to developed countries like USA and Canada. Giving a tournament directly to developing country may create issues. They tend to have worse finances and completing stadiums can be great hassle. I heard that even Mexico may have issues through this 2026 tournament.

[1714625671]

1714625671

[1714625671]

1714625671

[1714625671]

1714625671

[mm2543363580]

Qatar has reportedly spent approx. $229 billion on World Cup infrastructure, although the World Cup Organizing Committee has not yet confirmed that figure. Many analysts and media outlets announced the total CAPEX from $220bn to $300bn for all infrastructure projects.( copied from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ssbm.ch/blog/is-the-fifa-world-cup-2022-in-qatar-profitable/%23:~:text%3DQatar%2520has%2520reportedly%2520spent%2520approx,bn%2520for%2520all%2520infrastructure%2520projects.&ved=2ahUKEwj1x5qc3pn8AhWIRKQEHaxxAyEQFnoECAoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0WiGXrCLmMhAz1W3NcKf99)

So organising World cup requires alot of financial stability and developing countries who are already struggling economically can't afford this burden.  I think FIFA decision is a sensible one as total burden will not go on one country plus all revenues will not go to one.
The Qatar World Cup 2022 has generated approximately $7.5 billion for FIFA through commercial deals, an increase of $1 billion from the previous World Cup in Russia in 2018(https://www.businesstoday.in)

[rdluffy]

I agree with this idea. This type of tournaments should be partially done by developing countries. Actually this one is great example, Mexico is developing country partner to developed countries like USA and Canada. Giving a tournament directly to developing country may create issues. They tend to have worse finances and completing stadiums can be great hassle. I heard that even Mexico may have issues through this 2026 tournament.

Mexico already hosted 2 World Cups, 1970 and 1986.
Mexico is, of course a developing country, way different than USA and Canada in infrastructure, but Mexico already have good football stadiums, people in Mexico loves football and in my opinion they will not have problems to host the World Cup, it's only 10 matches too.
I think it's importat to have the stadiums because it's probably the most expensive thing to build, and a waste of resources in some cases, like Qatar, they built for nothing, and even in Brazil with plenty os stadiums available, they built some stadiums in places where's no matches are being played right now.

Mexico cities that will host the matches: Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City.
Interesting fact, the biggest stadium will probably be Metlife Stadium in New York, supporting 82,500 people, and the second is Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, supporting 81,070 people
But there are some media that says Azteca can host almost 90,000 people, being the biggest one of all

[Naficopa]

I agree with this idea. This type of tournaments should be partially done by developing countries. Actually this one is great example, Mexico is developing country partner to developed countries like USA and Canada. Giving a tournament directly to developing country may create issues. They tend to have worse finances and completing stadiums can be great hassle. I heard that even Mexico may have issues through this 2026 tournament.

Mexico already hosted 2 World Cups, 1970 and 1986.
Mexico is, of course a developing country, way different than USA and Canada in infrastructure, but Mexico already have good football stadiums, people in Mexico loves football and in my opinion they will not have problems to host the World Cup, it's only 10 matches too.
I think it's importat to have the stadiums because it's probably the most expensive thing to build, and a waste of resources in some cases, like Qatar, they built for nothing, and even in Brazil with plenty os stadiums available, they built some stadiums in places where's no matches are being played right now.

Mexico cities that will host the matches: Guadalajara, Monterrey and Mexico City.
Interesting fact, the biggest stadium will probably be Metlife Stadium in New York, supporting 82,500 people, and the second is Azteca Stadium in Mexico City, supporting 81,070 people
But there are some media that says Azteca can host almost 90,000 people, being the biggest one of all

The stadiums Qatar build from recycled shipping containers will be dismantled after World cup.
Lusail Stadium will incorporate “a community space of schools, shops, cafés, sporting facilities and health clinics. Al Bayt will have a five-star hotel, shopping mall and sports medicine clinic. Two of the stadiums will be used by local soccer clubs.
USA ,Canada will also make stadiums like this for later use as sports centers.  And Mexico as you said has already huge football stadiums.

[bitgolden]

I think having more teams in World Cup sounds like good idea. But in my opinion it will drastically decrease quality of matches played in group stage. I heard that FIFA is still not sure with amount of teams to be part of groups. More teams mean lot more unnecessary matches. Imagine you are France, after 3 wins you would use your bench in last match (if groups will be 5 teams). We can't avoid this even in 4-team groups. FIFA should find a way to avoid match fixing. Gambling odds can become crazy at last matches.

It's not about having high quality at the world cup itself and low quality in the beforehand, it's just brining that to world cup itself as well. I think instead of picking a small number of teams for the world cup, I feel like all the members of fifa should be participating, no beforehand, no qualifiers or anything, just pure world cup where 100+ teams or I don't know how many there are all play.

Even if a team is too poor to come, whoever has the tournament should pay it and bring them. All in all it should be like 128 to 64 to 32 to 16 to 8 to 4 to 2 and the champion. That type of thing would be a lot better, and you could still have group stages in that type of situation as well. It would make everyone in the world feel included every time.

[Sithara007]

Qatar has reportedly spent approx. $229 billion on World Cup infrastructure, although the World Cup Organizing Committee has not yet confirmed that figure. Many analysts and media outlets announced the total CAPEX from $220bn to $300bn for all infrastructure projects.

I am really sad. Tens of thousands of workers from Nepal, India and Bangladesh died in Qatar during the construction of the stadiums and the Qataris could have used 0.01% of the above mentioned amount to compensate the families of the dead workers. Despite a lot of outcry from all around the globe, they refused to do that. And was all this spending really necessary? When Russia hosted the tournament in 2018, the total spending was estimated at $14 billion. Even then, they faced a lot of criticism from within the country and outside.

[rdluffy]

I think having more teams in World Cup sounds like good idea. But in my opinion it will drastically decrease quality of matches played in group stage. I heard that FIFA is still not sure with amount of teams to be part of groups. More teams mean lot more unnecessary matches. Imagine you are France, after 3 wins you would use your bench in last match (if groups will be 5 teams). We can't avoid this even in 4-team groups. FIFA should find a way to avoid match fixing. Gambling odds can become crazy at last matches.

Fifa is thinking about 12 groups of 4 teams each one, the group will probably stay the same as now, 4 teams.
After group stage, the difference will be the round of 32 instead of round of 16, so there's one more round after all

And the classification will be 2 best teams of each group + 8 teams with better 3rd place.

I bet Fifa will chose this rules next year, it makes more sense.

Groups of 5 teams is very unlikely because there will be 48 teams

[Silberman]

It's not about having high quality at the world cup itself and low quality in the beforehand, it's just brining that to world cup itself as well. I think instead of picking a small number of teams for the world cup, I feel like all the members of fifa should be participating, no beforehand, no qualifiers or anything, just pure world cup where 100+ teams or I don't know how many there are all play.

Even if a team is too poor to come, whoever has the tournament should pay it and bring them. All in all it should be like 128 to 64 to 32 to 16 to 8 to 4 to 2 and the champion. That type of thing would be a lot better, and you could still have group stages in that type of situation as well. It would make everyone in the world feel included every time.

That would be a nice format but once again when it comes to FIFA we need to always think about the money, such a format will require a long world cup and more matches so it may seem as if it could produce more profits for FIFA, however if they did such a thing the tournaments to qualify to the world cup will have to be eliminated, and the qualifiers last years and there are hundreds of matches, so FIFA will most likely lose money with such a tournament format, which basically guarantees that it is never going to be implemented.

And while a little bit off-topic Pele the one that is regarded by the majority of the fans as the best player ever died today, a very sad day for soccer fans all over the world.

[Sithara007]

Fifa is thinking about 12 groups of 4 teams each one, the group will probably stay the same as now, 4 teams.
After group stage, the difference will be the round of 32 instead of round of 16, so there's one more round after all

And the classification will be 2 best teams of each group + 8 teams with better 3rd place.

I bet Fifa will chose this rules next year, it makes more sense.

Groups of 5 teams is very unlikely because there will be 48 teams

FIFA was earlier thinking about having 48 teams divided in to 16 groups. There will be three teams in each group and the top two will progress to the round of 32. But then, Qatar 2022 worked well with 4-team groups. Most of the matches were fiercely competitive. So they may go with 12 groups of 4 teams each. The top 2 teams from each group will progress to the next stage, and in addition, 8 among the 3rd placed teams will also qualify to the round of 32. In my opinion, I find the modified format (12 groups) much better than what they had earlier.

[BobK71]

The upcoming 2026 World Cup is going to undergo major format changes. 48 teams will be reduced to 32 after the group stage and then the tournament will be knocked out. Since FIFA is thinking about the inclusion of 48 teams, if they arrange the fixtures through 12 groups with 4 teams that can be effective but the changes will be fixed next year. No doubt that next World Cup will be more competitive. That will boost the confidence of the World Cup immensely.

[Naficopa]

Qatar has reportedly spent approx. $229 billion on World Cup infrastructure, although the World Cup Organizing Committee has not yet confirmed that figure. Many analysts and media outlets announced the total CAPEX from $220bn to $300bn for all infrastructure projects.

I am really sad. Tens of thousands of workers from Nepal, India and Bangladesh died in Qatar during the construction of the stadiums and the Qataris could have used 0.01% of the above mentioned amount to compensate the families of the dead workers. Despite a lot of outcry from all around the globe, they refused to do that. And was all this spending really necessary? When Russia hosted the tournament in 2018, the total spending was estimated at $14 billion. Even then, they faced a lot of criticism from within the country and outside.

This is a thing with Qataris and other Arab countries they spend millions billions on infrastructure construction and than they dismantle them and make them new , seems that they have excessive amount of money and they don't value human lives this is a sad reality in many countries.

[davis196]

1.Why are you making a forum thread about an event, that is about to happen after 4 years? Isn't it too early to discuss the World Cup 2026?
Why don't we discuss Euro 2024?
2.I like the idea of the next World Cup tournaments being hosted by several countries, instead of one county. This will cut the costs and there won't be any unnecessary investments in new stadiums, which won't be used that much after the World Cup ends.
However, the distances in the USA, Canada and Mexico are quite big and the teams will have to travel a lot.

[Naficopa]

1.Why are you making a forum thread about an event, that is about to happen after 4 years? Isn't it too early to discuss the World Cup 2026?
Why don't we discuss Euro 2024?
2.I like the idea of the next World Cup tournaments being hosted by several countries, instead of one county. This will cut the costs and there won't be any unnecessary investments in new stadiums, which won't be used that much after the World Cup ends.
However, the distances in the USA, Canada and Mexico are quite big and the teams will have to travel a lot.

Not sure about the planning and management but group stages will be held in different countries and super sixteen but after that quarter finals and semi finals will be in one country . This will definitely control alot of cost and burden on one country and different countries will get the credit of hosting world cup . A very good initiative by fifa.

[Strongkored]

Qatar has reportedly spent approx. $229 billion on World Cup infrastructure, although the World Cup Organizing Committee has not yet confirmed that figure. Many analysts and media outlets announced the total CAPEX from $220bn to $300bn for all infrastructure projects.( copied from https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ssbm.ch/blog/is-the-fifa-world-cup-2022-in-qatar-profitable/%23:~:text%3DQatar%2520has%2520reportedly%2520spent%2520approx,bn%2520for%2520all%2520infrastructure%2520projects.&ved=2ahUKEwj1x5qc3pn8AhWIRKQEHaxxAyEQFnoECAoQBQ&usg=AOvVaw0WiGXrCLmMhAz1W3NcKf99)

So organising World cup requires alot of financial stability and developing countries who are already struggling economically can't afford this burden.  I think FIFA decision is a sensible one as total burden will not go on one country plus all revenues will not go to one.

With the wealth that Qatar has, it's not a number that will be problematic for their economy.
And in my opinion, one of the reasons why the next World Cup will be held by 3 countries is because considering that there will be more teams that will play than the previous World Cup, which was only 32 and increased by 16 to 48, this addition is a significant number for one country to organize it will be very crowded, plus the number of spectators will increase because there are 16 additional countries that will also try to watch the match live

[Sithara007]

1.Why are you making a forum thread about an event, that is about to happen after 4 years? Isn't it too early to discuss the World Cup 2026?
Why don't we discuss Euro 2024?
2.I like the idea of the next World Cup tournaments being hosted by several countries, instead of one county. This will cut the costs and there won't be any unnecessary investments in new stadiums, which won't be used that much after the World Cup ends.
However, the distances in the USA, Canada and Mexico are quite big and the teams will have to travel a lot.

Well... it is true that still we have 3.5 years to go for the next edition (next world cup will be held during mid-2026). But the qualifier matches will be starting sometime soon, and especially with confederations such as CAF and AFC, there are multiple layers of qualifying tournaments. Therefore I don't find anything wrong with this thread being created at this point. Also, the tournament format is not finalized yet. We can discuss about the qualifiers and format until the tournament starts. Also, construction hasn't been completed for all the venues.

[rdluffy]

FIFA was earlier thinking about having 48 teams divided in to 16 groups. There will be three teams in each group and the top two will progress to the round of 32. But then, Qatar 2022 worked well with 4-team groups. Most of the matches were fiercely competitive. So they may go with 12 groups of 4 teams each. The top 2 teams from each group will progress to the next stage, and in addition, 8 among the 3rd placed teams will also qualify to the round of 32. In my opinion, I find the modified format (12 groups) much better than what they had earlier.

I also think that this format os 12 groups of 4 is the best, more simple and works well.
Another formats of 16 groups, or even 2 groups is too confusing in my opinion.

However, the distances in the USA, Canada and Mexico are quite big and the teams will have to travel a lot.

There will be 10 matches in Canada and 10 in Mexico, I believe the logistics will be optimized.
The United States is a country of continental dimensions, but the infrastructure is very good, and the games can be divided up by region, making it closer for the countries to travel.
Remembering also that there will be 48 countries in total, so a large country can be advantageous.

I don't believe that Fifa will put, for example, first round matches in cities far away from each other in the United States.

[keyscore44]

FIFA was earlier thinking about having 48 teams divided in to 16 groups. There will be three teams in each group and the top two will progress to the round of 32. But then, Qatar 2022 worked well with 4-team groups. Most of the matches were fiercely competitive. So they may go with 12 groups of 4 teams each. The top 2 teams from each group will progress to the next stage, and in addition, 8 among the 3rd placed teams will also qualify to the round of 32. In my opinion, I find the modified format (12 groups) much better than what they had earlier.

I also think that this format os 12 groups of 4 is the best, more simple and works well.
Another formats of 16 groups, or even 2 groups is too confusing in my opinion.

However, the distances in the USA, Canada and Mexico are quite big and the teams will have to travel a lot.

There will be 10 matches in Canada and 10 in Mexico, I believe the logistics will be optimized.
The United States is a country of continental dimensions, but the infrastructure is very good, and the games can be divided up by region, making it closer for the countries to travel.
Remembering also that there will be 48 countries in total, so a large country can be advantageous.

I don't believe that Fifa will put, for example, first round matches in cities far away from each other in the United States.

The thinking for the 2026 World Cup has already begun. The World Cup will be really great as it will probably be held in 3 countries. Those countries will want to organize better than Qatar.

[LordShanken]

1.Why are you making a forum thread about an event, that is about to happen after 4 years? Isn't it too early to discuss the World Cup 2026?
Why don't we discuss Euro 2024?
2.I like the idea of the next World Cup tournaments being hosted by several countries, instead of one county. This will cut the costs and there won't be any unnecessary investments in new stadiums, which won't be used that much after the World Cup ends.
However, the distances in the USA, Canada and Mexico are quite big and the teams will have to travel a lot.

Well... it is true that still we have 3.5 years to go for the next edition (next world cup will be held during mid-2026). But the qualifier matches will be starting sometime soon, and especially with confederations such as CAF and AFC, there are multiple layers of qualifying tournaments. Therefore I don't find anything wrong with this thread being created at this point. Also, the tournament format is not finalized yet. We can discuss about the qualifiers and format until the tournament starts. Also, construction hasn't been completed for all the venues.

Even before the 2022 World Cup is over, the 2026 World Cup is being discussed, which suggests that the 2026 Football World Cup will be organized in a grand manner.

[Vaskiy]

1.Why are you making a forum thread about an event, that is about to happen after 4 years? Isn't it too early to discuss the World Cup 2026?
Why don't we discuss Euro 2024?
2.I like the idea of the next World Cup tournaments being hosted by several countries, instead of one county. This will cut the costs and there won't be any unnecessary investments in new stadiums, which won't be used that much after the World Cup ends.
However, the distances in the USA, Canada and Mexico are quite big and the teams will have to travel a lot.

Well... it is true that still we have 3.5 years to go for the next edition (next world cup will be held during mid-2026). But the qualifier matches will be starting sometime soon, and especially with confederations such as CAF and AFC, there are multiple layers of qualifying tournaments. Therefore I don't find anything wrong with this thread being created at this point. Also, the tournament format is not finalized yet. We can discuss about the qualifiers and format until the tournament starts. Also, construction hasn't been completed for all the venues.

Even before the 2022 World Cup is over, the 2026 World Cup is being discussed, which suggests that the 2026 Football World Cup will be organized in a grand manner.

The involvement of three countries to host the 2026 FIFA World Cup might make it a grand one. However, what Qatar had made in this world cup push them to do better. Qatar have done the best of its ability that none thought about. The oil money and the proper planning help them achieve it and the government worked on it for years.

[alegotardo]

We shall discuss everything from qualification, preparation, and then the commencement of the actual Fifa world cup in 2026. 

Honestly, I thought this increase from 32 to 48 teams was very good, but making groups with only three participants, and ranking two in order to take two thirds of all teams to a direct elimination duel is insane, in my opinion.

Obviously this is not defined yet, but I would prefer to see 12 groups with four teams each, so that fewer teams qualify for the second phase.
And you, do you agree?

I also have another question.... how do you imagine that Argentina, current champions, will perform in the next World Cup without Lionel Messi and Ángel di María?
I think Argentina need to be concerned early on about how they are going to deal with this deficit in their attacking team.