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

[freedomgo]

There were two nations hosting before and both of them got in, I remember clearly Korea and Japan hosted it together and they had no issues accepting all three. I think in this case USA will be the hardest one to accept, but even they were in the last one, Canada too, and if I am not mistaken, Mexico too?

It looks like this would be a bit of a situation if teams were too bad, but these are the teams that already got in last time, so if given the regular competition they would still be in again, and this is why it's not a shocker that they would end up with getting in right away if they are hosting as well, they totally deserve such a thing.

Yes and that was the first and last time where 2 countries have joined together to host a World Cup, that was in the last 2002 and afterwards, only a single country has successfully won the bid and outscored some countries that attempt to join their bid together. This time, it will happen again but it's not just 2 nations combining, it's three. Therefore, the whole North American continent will host the games namely Canada, USA, and Mexico. And that also means that their national team will have a perks to advance automatically in the qualifiers.

[1714615979]

1714615979

[1714615979]

1714615979

[1714615979]

1714615979

[Zlantann]

Messi stated that if they won the world cup of 2022, a thing they did, then he will do all that he can play in the world cup of 2026, I consider Messi a man of his word so I think he will do what he can to preserve his level of skill and his physical capabilities as much as possible so he can fulfill his promise, now it is true that no matter how well he takes care of himself it will not be the same but he could still be a difference maker even then.

Messi can still play in the next world cup based on his current form. Although his speed has reduced due to age he still has the skills and experience to be featured in the next world cup. But for me, I will suggest he retire from international football by next year when he is still recognized as one of the best. Messi should just retire because if he leads Argentina to another world cup and fails to win the trophy, many people will criticize and blame him for their underperformance. He should focus on his club team than the national team. He has won all that a player can dream of, I think he should consider bowing out now when the ovation is high.

[Cryptock]

Brazil is a very strong team. But luck did not help them in the 2022 World Cup. Still the team's players played the wrong game due to which they did not do well in the World Cup. But the 2026 World Cup Brazil team will prove themselves in a big way how strong they are.

In the last World Cup it was unbelievable to see Brazil not to get to the semi final stage, it was  really disappointing after having good squad but they were removed like a team that doesn't have quality players and much experience in World cup. The last World Cup is one I have seen Brazil under performed.

I hope you all have read it in news that Manachester United will have a new owner and that is a Qatri Ameer.

[alegotardo]

Qatar didn't beat Argentina in the World Cup. They played really badly and it was evident that they don't have the quality to play against top teams of the world. They played four games in the group stage and managed to score only one goal against Senegal.

But I see your point. Playing at home often makes players give an extra effort for the fans and then surprises can happen. But sadly that didn't work out for Qatar.

Qatar is a team that has no tradition in football, so it is not possible to expect that they would do very well, and even less against Argentina, which in the end ended up being champions.

But look at the World Cup that took place in South Africa, it's a country that plays football a lot, and even then they didn't manage to go very far.
Playing at home means nothing when it comes to "higher odds".

The fact is that every World Cup has its surprises, even those that are played in the territories most used to football. In Brazil, for example, who doesn't remember Costa Rica defeating Italy and ranking first in a group that also had the world champions Uruguay and England?

Football is a very unpredictable sport when it comes to the world cup.

[LUCKMCFLY]

I think the list is about right with the balance of powers at issue at the moment. But the Netherlands was the worst of all teams together with Belgium. Belgium has had its golden age and now a new batch will be ready to take over. Brazil has often been number 1 in the ranking together with France for years, but has not won anything for a long time. Croatia actually did very well, a final in 2018 and a semi-final in Qatar. And eventually finished 3rd. For England it is still not possible to win a major prize. Maybe at the upcoming championships.

Well, regarding the Netherlands, I think I would take it out of that bunch you're talking about, because the Netherlands had a very tough match against Argentina, that match was very exciting and we saw Messi really upset, that for me was one of the most exciting matches I've seen from Qatar, they were too good, emotions were on the surface, I think Belgium was disappointing, because they have very good players and I saw very boring football, like Denmark, which I expected a lot but nothing happened, however It's not that they are bad teams, let's remember that these teams left Sweden and Italy out, and Portugal was saved.

[Hispo]

Qatar didn't beat Argentina in the World Cup. They played really badly and it was evident that they don't have the quality to play against top teams of the world. They played four games in the group stage and managed to score only one goal against Senegal.

But I see your point. Playing at home often makes players give an extra effort for the fans and then surprises can happen. But sadly that didn't work out for Qatar.

Playing at home means nothing when it comes to "higher odds".

If anything, I would dare to say that there is a chance that playing at home could impact negatively on the performance of a team, because the expectations placed over them, which could lead to stress and mistakes during the match.

It comes to mind the famous Germany Vs. Brazil during the 2014 world cup.

If I have time, tomorrow I would do some research and see if I can find some statistics about Playing at home.

[Sithara007]

Well, regarding the Netherlands, I think I would take it out of that bunch you're talking about, because the Netherlands had a very tough match against Argentina, that match was very exciting and we saw Messi really upset, that for me was one of the most exciting matches I've seen from Qatar, they were too good, emotions were on the surface, I think Belgium was disappointing, because they have very good players and I saw very boring football, like Denmark, which I expected a lot but nothing happened, however It's not that they are bad teams, let's remember that these teams left Sweden and Italy out, and Portugal was saved.

Netherlands and Danmark are some of those "dying" teams. They are a shadow of their former self. And regarding Belgium, it is difficult to believe that this team was at the top of the FIFA rankings a few years back. Among the European teams, England, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy have maintained their standards, while others like Netherlands and Belgium have gone down the drain. The advantage with teams like England is that they have some of the best club competitions in the world and that ensures a steady supply of quality young players.

[nullama]

~snip~
If anything, I would dare to say that there is a chance that playing at home could impact negatively on the performance of a team, because the expectations placed over them, which could lead to stress and mistakes during the match.

It comes to mind the famous Germany Vs. Brazil during the 2014 world cup.

If I have time, tomorrow I would do some research and see if I can find some statistics about Playing at home.

Playing at home clearly gives you an advantage. Here are the world cup winners at home:

1930, Uruguay
1934, Italy
1966, England
1974, West Germany
1978, Argentina
1998, France

And you can see that the best performance of each team is usually when they hosted the world cup.

[slackovic]

Netherlands and Danmark are some of those "dying" teams. They are a shadow of their former self. And regarding Belgium, it is difficult to believe that this team was at the top of the FIFA rankings a few years back. Among the European teams, England, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy have maintained their standards, while others like Netherlands and Belgium have gone down the drain. The advantage with teams like England is that they have some of the best club competitions in the world and that ensures a steady supply of quality young players.

It's not just England and their home league. All those nations you have mentioned have a very good domestic league and it shows in their national team performance. Exceptional players from countries like Croatia with lousy domestic league play for foreign clubs where they can boost their performance even more.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

~snip~
If anything, I would dare to say that there is a chance that playing at home could impact negatively on the performance of a team, because the expectations placed over them, which could lead to stress and mistakes during the match.

It comes to mind the famous Germany Vs. Brazil during the 2014 world cup.

If I have time, tomorrow I would do some research and see if I can find some statistics about Playing at home.

Playing at home clearly gives you an advantage. Here are the world cup winners at home:

1930, Uruguay
1934, Italy
1966, England
1974, West Germany
1978, Argentina
1998, France

And you can see that the best performance of each team is usually when they hosted the world cup.

Well, for me, I don't think playing at home gives the team any advantage or disadvantage, if you disagree, then maybe you should mention some of the advantages you think football teams have when they play in their home.
A good team with good players is already a good team, and they would play well no matter where they go, team that lacks good players will still fall behind even if the match is brought to them in their home, example is the previous world cup that just ended last year, hosted by Qatar, Qatar as a team where among the first teams to be disqualified from the world cup tournament, why didn't they play for longer since they were the host?.

[stadus]

Since I watched every single game of Argentina in the last world cup I can say from what I saw and compared to the other teams, they don't have too much chance and the reason is their playing style. Argentina's national team is mostly based on Messi and you saw in the last world cup Messi was the key for them and definitely, without Messi they are going to have problems, while Messi is 35y old right now and in the next world cup he will be 38y old so he won't play like today so he will think about retirement and without him, Argentina won't play good like these days.

Argentina has always been dependent on their talisman Messi and this World Cup proved that theory. When Messi had a brief retirement, Argentina had win games so the team revolved around him and also Dimaria. But if we look at the current squad we could see young and exciting players. The likes of Lisandro Martinez, De Paul, Enzo Fernandez, Alvarez and Mac Allister will be at their prime then. Players like Garnacho and Angel Correa will also be ready to compete. The only thing Argentina needs now is to build on a style of play without Messi. If they could get this team to play as a unit then could go on a long way.

Argentina at the 2022 world cup is not a special squad, even new names have sprung up since then. like Enzo, Alvarez, Mac Alisster, who are in the spotlight compared to other players, except for their talisman, namely Messi. but yes, Messi's influence in the 2022 world cup is enormous. however, it cannot be denied, that the Argentinian squad really does play as a team. they rely on teamwork, especially when Argentina is building an attack, the transitions between players they do are so quick, and so good.

Speaking of the 2026 world cup later, I'm not sure Messi will still be involved, especially since Messi has previously announced his retirement from the national team. so, Scaloni must prepare the potential of younger players.  and as you said, Argentina has a lot of potential players, and some of the names you have mentioned. after all, the 2026 world cup is still very long, maybe there will be new names who will become the golden generation after Messi.

Messi stated that if they won the world cup of 2022, a thing they did, then he will do all what he can to play the world cup of 2026, I consider Messi a man of his word so I really think he will do what he can to preserve his level of skill and his physical capabilities as much as possible so he can fulfill his promise, now it is true that no matter how well he takes care of himself it will not be the same but he could still be a difference maker even then.

And that's what I'm holding to, he is indeed a man of his words and surely he won't do any unnecessary move that will disappoint his mother land after the statement he did. Besides, it will be much more entertaining if he will still play in WC '26 despite the age factor that he is experiencing as it's almost too impossible to tell that there won't be no changes at all in the following years from now and they are the defending champs, the team still needed him even if he won't be playing that long quality minutes anymore.

[Naficopa]

Since I watched every single game of Argentina in the last world cup I can say from what I saw and compared to the other teams, they don't have too much chance and the reason is their playing style. Argentina's national team is mostly based on Messi and you saw in the last world cup Messi was the key for them and definitely, without Messi they are going to have problems, while Messi is 35y old right now and in the next world cup he will be 38y old so he won't play like today so he will think about retirement and without him, Argentina won't play good like these days.

Argentina has always been dependent on their talisman Messi and this World Cup proved that theory. When Messi had a brief retirement, Argentina had win games so the team revolved around him and also Dimaria. But if we look at the current squad we could see young and exciting players. The likes of Lisandro Martinez, De Paul, Enzo Fernandez, Alvarez and Mac Allister will be at their prime then. Players like Garnacho and Angel Correa will also be ready to compete. The only thing Argentina needs now is to build on a style of play without Messi. If they could get this team to play as a unit then could go on a long way.

Argentina at the 2022 world cup is not a special squad, even new names have sprung up since then. like Enzo, Alvarez, Mac Alisster, who are in the spotlight compared to other players, except for their talisman, namely Messi. but yes, Messi's influence in the 2022 world cup is enormous. however, it cannot be denied, that the Argentinian squad really does play as a team. they rely on teamwork, especially when Argentina is building an attack, the transitions between players they do are so quick, and so good.

Speaking of the 2026 world cup later, I'm not sure Messi will still be involved, especially since Messi has previously announced his retirement from the national team. so, Scaloni must prepare the potential of younger players.  and as you said, Argentina has a lot of potential players, and some of the names you have mentioned. after all, the 2026 world cup is still very long, maybe there will be new names who will become the golden generation after Messi.

Messi stated that if they won the world cup of 2022, a thing they did, then he will do all what he can to play the world cup of 2026, I consider Messi a man of his word so I really think he will do what he can to preserve his level of skill and his physical capabilities as much as possible so he can fulfill his promise, now it is true that no matter how well he takes care of himself it will not be the same but he could still be a difference maker even then.

And that's what I'm holding to, he is indeed a man of his words and surely he won't do any unnecessary move that will disappoint his mother land after the statement he did. Besides, it will be much more entertaining if he will still play in WC '26 despite the age factor that he is experiencing as it's almost too impossible to tell that there won't be no changes at all in the following years from now and they are the defending champs, the team still needed him even if he won't be playing that long quality minutes anymore.

Can you believe that living legends Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo will probably not play in the next World Cup. I think the World Cup will have no meaning if a player like Lionel Messi does not play at least.

[Daniel91]

~snip~
If anything, I would dare to say that there is a chance that playing at home could impact negatively on the performance of a team, because the expectations placed over them, which could lead to stress and mistakes during the match.

It comes to mind the famous Germany Vs. Brazil during the 2014 world cup.

If I have time, tomorrow I would do some research and see if I can find some statistics about Playing at home.

Playing at home clearly gives you an advantage. Here are the world cup winners at home:

1930, Uruguay
1934, Italy
1966, England
1974, West Germany
1978, Argentina
1998, France

And you can see that the best performance of each team is usually when they hosted the world cup.

Well, for me, I don't think playing at home gives the team any advantage or disadvantage, if you disagree, then maybe you should mention some of the advantages you think football teams have when they play in their home.
A good team with good players is already a good team, and they would play well no matter where they go, team that lacks good players will still fall behind even if the match is brought to them in their home, example is the previous world cup that just ended last year, hosted by Qatar, Qatar as a team where among the first teams to be disqualified from the world cup tournament, why didn't they play for longer since they were the host?.

There are many examples when a country hosted the world cup, but it did not help them become the world champion in football.
Brazil even hosted the World Cup twice, in 1950 and 2014, but that didn't help them become world champions.
Neither Germany managed to become world champion in 2006 at the world cup in Germany, nor Italy in 1990 at the world cup in Italy. We have many other examples like Spain in the 1982 World Cup in Spain.
The team that is the best will show it, regardless of where it plays, at home or away 
Of course, some national teams became world champions at the world cups organized in their countries, but not only because of that, but also because they deserved it with their team quality.

[keyscore44]

~snip~
If anything, I would dare to say that there is a chance that playing at home could impact negatively on the performance of a team, because the expectations placed over them, which could lead to stress and mistakes during the match.

It comes to mind the famous Germany Vs. Brazil during the 2014 world cup.

If I have time, tomorrow I would do some research and see if I can find some statistics about Playing at home.

Playing at home clearly gives you an advantage. Here are the world cup winners at home:

1930, Uruguay
1934, Italy
1966, England
1974, West Germany
1978, Argentina
1998, France

And you can see that the best performance of each team is usually when they hosted the world cup.

Well, for me, I don't think playing at home gives the team any advantage or disadvantage, if you disagree, then maybe you should mention some of the advantages you think football teams have when they play in their home.
A good team with good players is already a good team, and they would play well no matter where they go, team that lacks good players will still fall behind even if the match is brought to them in their home, example is the previous world cup that just ended last year, hosted by Qatar, Qatar as a team where among the first teams to be disqualified from the world cup tournament, why didn't they play for longer since they were the host?.

There are many examples when a country hosted the world cup, but it did not help them become the world champion in football.
Brazil even hosted the World Cup twice, in 1950 and 2014, but that didn't help them become world champions.
Neither Germany managed to become world champion in 2006 at the world cup in Germany, nor Italy in 1990 at the world cup in Italy. We have many other examples like Spain in the 1982 World Cup in Spain.
The team that is the best will show it, regardless of where it plays, at home or away 
Of course, some national teams became world champions at the world cups organized in their countries, but not only because of that, but also because they deserved it with their team quality.

However, the 2022 World Cup host Qatar national team was not able to do well. As the host team, Qatar needed to secure at least some match wins. However, the Qatar national team has not been able to take itself to that level yet.

[mm2543363580]

~snip~
If anything, I would dare to say that there is a chance that playing at home could impact negatively on the performance of a team, because the expectations placed over them, which could lead to stress and mistakes during the match.

It comes to mind the famous Germany Vs. Brazil during the 2014 world cup.

If I have time, tomorrow I would do some research and see if I can find some statistics about Playing at home.

Playing at home clearly gives you an advantage. Here are the world cup winners at home:

1930, Uruguay
1934, Italy
1966, England
1974, West Germany
1978, Argentina
1998, France

And you can see that the best performance of each team is usually when they hosted the world cup.

Well, for me, I don't think playing at home gives the team any advantage or disadvantage, if you disagree, then maybe you should mention some of the advantages you think football teams have when they play in their home.
A good team with good players is already a good team, and they would play well no matter where they go, team that lacks good players will still fall behind even if the match is brought to them in their home, example is the previous world cup that just ended last year, hosted by Qatar, Qatar as a team where among the first teams to be disqualified from the world cup tournament, why didn't they play for longer since they were the host?.

In football you cannot go with this theory of home ground and home teams has an advantage than outsiders like in cricket . In football you have a ball and whoever plays good and aggressively wins the game .
Last world cup Qatar was I guess the first team to be out of fifa as they have no football history and their team is new as compared to European teams.

[bitgov]

~snip~
If anything, I would dare to say that there is a chance that playing at home could impact negatively on the performance of a team, because the expectations placed over them, which could lead to stress and mistakes during the match.

It comes to mind the famous Germany Vs. Brazil during the 2014 world cup.

If I have time, tomorrow I would do some research and see if I can find some statistics about Playing at home.

Playing at home clearly gives you an advantage. Here are the world cup winners at home:

1930, Uruguay
1934, Italy
1966, England
1974, West Germany
1978, Argentina
1998, France

And you can see that the best performance of each team is usually when they hosted the world cup.

Well, for me, I don't think playing at home gives the team any advantage or disadvantage, if you disagree, then maybe you should mention some of the advantages you think football teams have when they play in their home.
A good team with good players is already a good team, and they would play well no matter where they go, team that lacks good players will still fall behind even if the match is brought to them in their home, example is the previous world cup that just ended last year, hosted by Qatar, Qatar as a team where among the first teams to be disqualified from the world cup tournament, why didn't they play for longer since they were the host?.

In football you cannot go with this theory of home ground and home teams has an advantage than outsiders like in cricket . In football you have a ball and whoever plays good and aggressively wins the game .
Last world cup Qatar was I guess the first team to be out of fifa as they have no football history and their team is new as compared to European teams.

Actually playing at home ground does not guarantee victory even if any team plays badly. But it is true that playing at home gives support to the fans and instills confidence in themselves.

[Slow death]

/snip

But I find it funny how host countries are sometimes able to somehow beat favorite teams. Russia played so well that they were eliminated in quarter-finals while almost beat Croatia, that went into finals and Qatar beat Argentina, a team that defeat all the other teams and won Fifa World Cup.
Russian players were definitely on steroids because they were running like horses but idk about Qatar.

Qatar didn't beat Argentina in the World Cup. They played really badly and it was evident that they don't have the quality to play against top teams of the world. They played four games in the group stage and managed to score only one goal against Senegal.

But I see your point. Playing at home often makes players give an extra effort for the fans and then surprises can happen. But sadly that didn't work out for Qatar.

Not that kind of advantage really that will boost the team's morale, I strongly think that it is the other way around where most of them are already feeling the pressure because they are the host and the people, and their federation are expecting that they can at least defeat some teams along the way so that the host team, for example Qatar, will still be relevant and won't get embarrassed in the early phase.

The thing about the house and the advantage is somewhat ambiguous, if it is necessary to consider that a host team has a little more advantage, but you must have a little more tact when it comes to giving a red or yellow card, because it is the advantage of the host, then it cannot be dealt with radically and harshly either, the hosts are the ones who usually win the first game, but in the case of Qatar things were very different, they even said that Ecuador had offered a lot of money to the players to let themselves win, I don't know if it was speculation or truth, but somehow that causes a lot of curiosity.

in the past, countries that had strong teams struggled to organize the world cup because they had expectations that they could win the world cup, and they had a strong team, they had luxury hotels, so everything was heading towards high profits and prestige when they won the world cup they were organizing, but now the situation has become different

many countries are wanting to organize the world cup just for the profits they can get and the publicity that the hotels, beaches and many places of entertainment that these countries will have with the organization of the world cup, and I do not blame them because soccer today nowadays it has become a business, everyone wants to make money in this market, even fifa benefits a lot from it

[rahmad2nd]

I think the list is about right with the balance of powers at issue at the moment. But the Netherlands was the worst of all teams together with Belgium. Belgium has had its golden age and now a new batch will be ready to take over. Brazil has often been number 1 in the ranking together with France for years, but has not won anything for a long time. Croatia actually did very well, a final in 2018 and a semi-final in Qatar. And eventually finished 3rd. For England it is still not possible to win a major prize. Maybe at the upcoming championships.

Well, regarding the Netherlands, I think I would take it out of that bunch you're talking about, because the Netherlands had a very tough match against Argentina, that match was very exciting and we saw Messi really upset, that for me was one of the most exciting matches I've seen from Qatar, they were too good, emotions were on the surface, I think Belgium was disappointing, because they have very good players and I saw very boring football, like Denmark, which I expected a lot but nothing happened, however It's not that they are bad teams, let's remember that these teams left Sweden and Italy out, and Portugal was saved.

@Zackgeno96, did I not hear wrong, that the Netherlands is a bad team even compared to Belgium who are experiencing internal problems in their squad during the 2022 world cup Qatar. I'm pretty sure, that you didn't watch much how the Netherlands played in the Qatar world cup ago. in fact, the dutch progressed smoothly in the group phase A. they were only held to a draw, during the match against Ecuador. even then, Van Gal misapplied his strategy. but overall, the Dutch game is very good. unfortunately, the Netherlands must meet Argentina. in fact, the game continued until the party penalty shootout. to be honest, if the Netherlands had not met Argentina maybe they could have advanced to the next round of the world cup yesterday.

So, I agree with what @LUCKMCFLY said. that the Netherlands had a tough game against Argentina. but the fact is that the Netherlands need not be ashamed, that in fact Argentina was unable to overthrow the Netherlands for 2x45 minutes.
For the Belgian national team, it's only natural that they don't show their best performance and play. in fact, they had internal problems that their coaches at the time couldn't solve.

[fullhdpixel]

Netherlands and Danmark are some of those "dying" teams. They are a shadow of their former self. And regarding Belgium, it is difficult to believe that this team was at the top of the FIFA rankings a few years back. Among the European teams, England, France, Spain, Portugal and Italy have maintained their standards, while others like Netherlands and Belgium have gone down the drain. The advantage with teams like England is that they have some of the best club competitions in the world and that ensures a steady supply of quality young players.

I believe the reason Belgium was at the top for just a while was the fact that not only they played well, but on paper they built a team that was filled with stars, but obviously those stars didn't play that well together, just because you have them doesn't mean that you can make them work together. There are some other teams like that Brazil has amazing stars, but rarely play each other and that is why I always liked France, because they have so many players in the same league and playing so well together as well.

About Netherlands and Denmark, Denmark is definitely worse than they used to be, but they weren't winning anything before neither, so it's not really a big change, whereas Netherlands used to be pretty good, nowadays they do not have any stars that could make them play better in the end.

[Bobrox]

Messi can still play in the next world cup based on his current form. Although his speed has reduced due to age he still has the skills and experience to be featured in the next world cup. But for me, I will suggest he retire from international football by next year when he is still recognized as one of the best. Messi should just retire because if he leads Argentina to another world cup and fails to win the trophy, many people will criticize and blame him for their underperformance. He should focus on his club team than the national team. He has won all that a player can dream of, I think he should consider bowing out now when the ovation is high.

Lionel Messi have been 35 years old right now and  FIFA World Cup 2026 :Canada/Mexico/United States left three years and seems has potential for Lionel Messi get last opportunity in FIFA World Cup with his age 38 years old. All possibility with Lionel Messi can participant next World Cup depending his performance with his current team.

Honestly Lionel Messi is the most influential player for Argentina and he has excited entertainment from all media and seems disappointed if next time World Cup 2026 Lionel Messi have been absent, lets see his contribution and performance with club but if still consistent I sure he will get position in next world Cup edition.