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

[freedomgo]

~snip~
A world cup ticket for three countries means that other American teams have a much greater chance of qualifying for the world cup than the three countries that have already been allocated. However, since three spots are already reserved, I guess some countries are supposed to get tickets for the world cup since normally they will not be able to compete, which is the negative aspect of this situation.

Well, this is a kinda unique situation, because they used to have only 3 direct slots, and now they changed two things: They added extra 3 direct slots for a total of 6 (because now there are more teams in the world cup), but also at the same time they removed the extra slots for the hosts.

It's a bit of a trick for this time because they literally added 3 extra slots, but it's not really for the hosts, it's in general from now on.

Everything is still blur as of this moment because they will be introducing a new format with more teams and I understand that many of us here, including me, are still having some questions regarding about the upcoming world cup as almost everything will be new to us. I think it's much more great if we will let the mystery unfold right in-front of us during the commencement of the event because I know that somebody from the organization will explain to the crowd and teams about the flow and how does the new format will be played.

I think it is not right to assume what kind of organization the next World Cup will be. However, it seems that no other single country can host the World Cup in such an extraordinary way as in Qatar.

Here we go with the Qatar thing again

I pretty much sure that I didn't read any comments above that is saying that Qatar did a terrible job in hosting the recent world cup and that they did not made the event as fabulous as it can be because we all know that money was not a problem in that country, they even built new stadiums just for the world cup, and so there is no stopping them by making the event extraordinary. But we should be open minded in this topic because every hosts have their own distinctive flavor that can make another world cup unforgettable.

[KTChampions]

Here we go with the Qatar thing again

I pretty much sure that I didn't read any comments above that is saying that Qatar did a terrible job in hosting the recent world cup and that they did not made the event as fabulous as it can be because we all know that money was not a problem in that country, they even built new stadiums just for the world cup, and so there is no stopping them by making the event extraordinary. But we should be open minded in this topic because every hosts have their own distinctive flavor that can make another world cup unforgettable.

Looking back, I can't remember a really bad World Cup (even in a miserable country like Russia it was held at a good level). In fact, it is always a holiday and probably everyone (except those who were very disappointed like Brazil at their home World Cup  ) always remembers such an event in a positive way. The World Cup in such a big and rich country like the USA will certainly be good too.

[LUCKMCFLY]

Okay, you make a good argument; it is about striking a balance between the many interests, right? Furthermore, the players' point of view must be taken into account. But let's be rationally skeptical for a second. The majority of players' pay comes from their clubs, yet there is no greater honor than playing for your country in the FIFA World Cup. No self-respecting athlete would risk that recognition for the sake of a few extra club games. This brings up an intriguing debate. The FIFA Confederations Cup and other regional tournaments may be perceived as watering down the prestige of the World Cup and the European Championship. However, they also help find and develop promising new talent. Spreading out these competitions over a longer period of time might help keep the World Cup's level of interest and enthusiasm high.

Well.. I don't want to change the current setup. Right now, the world cup is being played every 4 years, and most of the regional competitions are being played with shorter intervals. This should continue IMO. I am a big supporter of the expansion of the FIFA World Cup to 48 countries, and I am of the opinion that it will further popularize football. But any attempt to reduce the interval between two events to two years need to be opposed. In this case, I agree with the clubs. Playing world cup every two years may prove counterproductive.

And I think of something, if FIFA is so interested in holding a World Cup every year, it's not the right thing to do, it's too soon, I think it would take away a lot of interest, it's that in a World Cup things practically become even and they start to look impressing, If FIFA wants to reduce the time, I think that 2 years is still a very short time, the most that things could do in the earlier World Cup would be an interval not of 4 but of 3 years, which seems somewhat more rational to me, given It is more opportune that the teams continue to prepare well and that way the public does not get tired of a magnificent event like this, because personally, I would like a World Cup every 2 years, but even so , it is how soon the qualifiers would be something very violent, and they can get even more complicated with tournaments like the Euro, Cop America, among others.

Personally, my Venezuela would like to see it in a World Cup, I would also like to see India in a World Cup, they are teams that play interesting football, but have not yet been in shape to arrive, I hope that this World Cup in the USA, Mexico and Canada can achieve it, but they still have to work very hard, at least in South America the teams are very strong, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia, they are very football-loving countries and they are also very strong with players who mostly play for recognized teams in Europe.

LOL.. If Venezuela was playing in any other confederation, then they would have been a regular participant in the world cup. Unfortunately for them, they play in the toughest confederation (CONMEBOL), and therefore always always miss out on the qualification. This is why I was in favor of selecting a few teams from a second round of qualifier, which would include teams from different confederations (I am not taking about the inter-continental playoffs). Now coming to China and India, I think the only possible way to get them included in the world cup might be through qualification as hosts.

What can I tell you, you're absolutely right, the best way to qualify for the World Cup in this part of the continent is to be for Concacaf where Mexico is the most dominant, of course the USA among others, but I think that Concacaf are the ones with the most options to go to the World Cup, any team from Central America has a good chance of going to the World Cup, on the other hand, I think that Venezuela should earn that spot, because it doesn't make sense to go to a World Cup without going through the tremendous filter of the toughest countries s from South America, then going to a World Cup to lose in the first round and almost making a fool of yourself is not the way, because if you play a team like Germany, England, or France, that would be like completely going through a steamroller.

Now if they don't go to the next World Cup, it's because they really are very bad, and that can't be denied, things must be said as they are, to go to a World Cup you need to be the best of the best, there are teams that come in with a very low performance and leave at once, it's not the idea either, the good thing is that they can play a good role, more than ucnaod is a debut, but I am particularly intrigued how these countries can do it, as I said before India intrigues me, I see that it has Soccer has grown there, and another team that I would like to see is the Philippines.

I think that we, who are great soccer fans, would not like an event like this to take place every year or every 2 years, I think that the longest I would put up with it being brought forward would be every 3 years, it seems good to me, because in 2 years we can do the qualifying rounds, and also now it is becoming more interesting because more slots for the World Cup have opened up and this makes things more interesting, especially for the teams of nations that have never been to a World Cup.

The faster and the major tournament that also involves many participants is held, it is very likely that the quality of the match will decrease because the players are also quite busy with the match schedule at their respective clubs and the possibility for players to get injured during the World Cup match can be detrimental to the club while the players get a salary from the club and what is no less can reduce the quality of the organization, namely the preparation of the host country will be reduced so that it can make the quality of the location used to be according, so there should be no changes regarding the time in organizing the world cup.

Personally, my Venezuela would like to see it in a World Cup, I would also like to see India in a World Cup, they are teams that play interesting football, but have not yet been in shape to arrive, I hope that this World Cup in the USA, Mexico and Canada can achieve it, but they still have to work very hard, at least in South America the teams are very strong, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Colombia, they are very football-loving countries and they are also very strong with players who mostly play for recognized teams in Europe.

Often these teams like India are only strong or show something interesting under certain circumstances but when they have to compete against teams that often appear in the world cup the situation changes and the matches become unbalanced, this happens because the teams that usually play in the World Cup have experience that can be used as capital and also the draw is very profitable for them compared to teams that only occasionally or have just entered the World Cup, but it does not rule out the possibility of these teams making surprises like what teams from Africa usually do, their appearance is often eagerly awaited because they often become a threat to strong teams.

Indeed, when there is a World Cup, the players do not have rest, even if they play in the league they play, they have a great performance, some come very tired and in the case of the last World Cup almost all the players were very tired, and of course that obviously influences a lot, because the games in leagues like the European one are very demanding, but this is what makes a World Cup special, so that they give their all.

Now, it is as you say, countries like these that are sometimes not so well known, well I would like them to be able to qualify, because they have every right to go to a World Cup, it may be that they grow a lot and can do things better, there are teams that when they go to a World Cup they believe it and play with their soul, so it would not be bad, if they do it badly, well, they simply lose, at most with a landslide, but hey, these things have happened even to the most difficult teams. strong in the world.

[nullama]

~snip~
Looking back, I can't remember a really bad World Cup (even in a miserable country like Russia it was held at a good level). In fact, it is always a holiday and probably everyone (except those who were very disappointed like Brazil at their home World Cup  ) always remembers such an event in a positive way. The World Cup in such a big and rich country like the USA will certainly be good too.

The World Cup has been hosted in the USA before, for the 1994 World Cup. It was actually quite entertaining, with a young Marc Overmars, and a great Romario that helped Brazil get their 4th title.

Here are the hosting counties over the years:

[Strongkored]

I really want to see what can make Ancelotti with the super Brazilian team, i dont remember when was the last time BRazil has a non brazilian as a coach.

I think he can bring some new ideas, but most of the players knows him and also they know european tactis because all of them plays in europe.

I don't think if Brazil ever had a non-Brazilian coach in their history because they mostly tried to use Brazilian for their football team mostly the reason for using Brazilian coaches is they think Brazil is the strongest team in the world and they believe Brazilian coaches are better the other coaches in the world.

You are right that Brazil has never been coached by a non-Brazilian coach, so Carlo Ancelotti will be the first non-Brazilian coach who will coach the country's national team and actually his appointment is not very encouraging to many parties, including several former Brazilian national team players who feel that Brazil has a coach who is just as good, but it seems that the failure at several world cups has made the Brazilian football organization try to change its strategy by making foreign coaches who are experienced and have good achievements become coaches later.
Of course it will be hard work for Carlo Ancelotti there from starting to selecting his squad later because we know that Brazil is filled with many talented players so he must be observant in his selection later, moreover, the time he has to prepare his team is not long because he has just officially coached Brazil next year so there is only 2 years before the 2026 world cup, but the Brazilian public will really expect that there will be achievements that their national team can achieve later especially this world cup will be played on the American continent the favorite place for CONMEBOL countries.

[Jody.Drummer]

Here we go with the Qatar thing again

I pretty much sure that I didn't read any comments above that is saying that Qatar did a terrible job in hosting the recent world cup and that they did not made the event as fabulous as it can be because we all know that money was not a problem in that country, they even built new stadiums just for the world cup, and so there is no stopping them by making the event extraordinary. But we should be open minded in this topic because every hosts have their own distinctive flavor that can make another world cup unforgettable.

Looking back, I can't remember a really bad World Cup (even in a miserable country like Russia it was held at a good level). In fact, it is always a holiday and probably everyone (except those who were very disappointed like Brazil at their home World Cup  ) always remembers such an event in a positive way. The World Cup in such a big and rich country like the USA will certainly be good too.

If we look at things from a positive perspective, then we will see something positive, conversely, if we look at things from a negative perspective, then all we will see is the negative. It's the same with the World Cup, I would say there is no perfect World Cup without any problems or anything like that. So it's just a matter of how we look at it.
I agree with you that each country has its own characteristics, we can't compare the World Cup held in country A with the World Cup held in country B, because those are 2 different countries. It might make more sense to compare World Cups held in the same country in different editions.

[Leviathan.007]

~snip~
Looking back, I can't remember a really bad World Cup (even in a miserable country like Russia it was held at a good level). In fact, it is always a holiday and probably everyone (except those who were very disappointed like Brazil at their home World Cup  ) always remembers such an event in a positive way. The World Cup in such a big and rich country like the USA will certainly be good too.

The World Cup has been hosted in the USA before, for the 1994 World Cup. It was actually quite entertaining, with a young Marc Overmars, and a great Romario that helped Brazil get their 4th title.

Here are the hosting counties over the years:

Brazil is currently the most honorable team in the world and they are the only team with their 4th title in the world cup while they are not in their good form anymore and we can't expect to see the same Brazil were 20 years ago because they don't have the superstar they had before. Also in this world cup, again I think the European team got still better chance of winning the title than Brazil or other teams.

[Litzki1990]

I really want to see what can make Ancelotti with the super Brazilian team, i dont remember when was the last time BRazil has a non brazilian as a coach.

I think he can bring some new ideas, but most of the players knows him and also they know european tactis because all of them plays in europe.

I don't think if Brazil ever had a non-Brazilian coach in their history because they mostly tried to use Brazilian for their football team mostly the reason for using Brazilian coaches is they think Brazil is the strongest team in the world and they believe Brazilian coaches are better the other coaches in the world.

Brazil has never appointed anyone from a foreign country as a coach of their team, that is, the main condition of Brazil before appointing the last coach was that he must first be a citizen of Brazil to take charge of Brazil because most of the footballers do not understand English outside of their national language and Brazil never wanted their football secrets to be shared with the people of other countries. But due to worse performance than expected in Qatar World Cup 2022, they are finally forced to appoint a coach from Europe as their national team coach. I think Brazil finally made a good decision. Because to properly use the type of players that the Brazil team has, a coach like Carlo Ancelotti was definitely needed.

[KTChampions]

Looking back, I can't remember a really bad World Cup (even in a miserable country like Russia it was held at a good level). In fact, it is always a holiday and probably everyone (except those who were very disappointed like Brazil at their home World Cup  ) always remembers such an event in a positive way. The World Cup in such a big and rich country like the USA will certainly be good too.

If we look at things from a positive perspective, then we will see something positive, conversely, if we look at things from a negative perspective, then all we will see is the negative. It's the same with the World Cup, I would say there is no perfect World Cup without any problems or anything like that. So it's just a matter of how we look at it.
I agree with you that each country has its own characteristics, we can't compare the World Cup held in country A with the World Cup held in country B, because those are 2 different countries. It might make more sense to compare World Cups held in the same country in different editions.

I do not remember that in one country the World Cup was held 2 times in a row, although even in this case a break of 4 years + the experience gained will greatly change the picture. The USA in 2026 will host the World Cup 22 years after the previous time, I hope I am not mistaken if I assume that simply due to progress it will be a higher level than then. By the way, in technical terms, this will be 100% true - do you remember how poorly TVs showed 20 years ago? For example, in hockey I didn’t even see the puck, but now on replays I can see how the stubble moves on the faces of the players.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

I really want to see what can make Ancelotti with the super Brazilian team, i dont remember when was the last time BRazil has a non brazilian as a coach.

I think he can bring some new ideas, but most of the players knows him and also they know european tactis because all of them plays in europe.

I don't think if Brazil ever had a non-Brazilian coach in their history because they mostly tried to use Brazilian for their football team mostly the reason for using Brazilian coaches is they think Brazil is the strongest team in the world and they believe Brazilian coaches are better the other coaches in the world.

I think I've heard someone say this similar thing some where out this forum, just around my locality here.
what I can say is that, if it really be true that brazil had never used a non-Brazilian coach before and even until now, it is very understandable based on the reason you already shared, a nation that believe that they are the very best worldwide when it comes to football, them seeking a coach outside their country will simply means they are mocking themselves, and if any other nation mocks them for doing so, it is understandable to be honest, wont blame such a nation.

[fzkto]

I really want to see what can make Ancelotti with the super Brazilian team, i dont remember when was the last time BRazil has a non brazilian as a coach.

I think he can bring some new ideas, but most of the players knows him and also they know european tactis because all of them plays in europe.

I don't think if Brazil ever had a non-Brazilian coach in their history because they mostly tried to use Brazilian for their football team mostly the reason for using Brazilian coaches is they think Brazil is the strongest team in the world and they believe Brazilian coaches are better the other coaches in the world.

I think I've heard someone say this similar thing some where out this forum, just around my locality here.
what I can say is that, if it really be true that brazil had never used a non-Brazilian coach before and even until now, it is very understandable based on the reason you already shared, a nation that believe that they are the very best worldwide when it comes to football, them seeking a coach outside their country will simply means they are mocking themselves, and if any other nation mocks them for doing so, it is understandable to be honest, wont blame such a nation.

I guess it's not about the nation, it's about a really good coach. If he can coach the team better than any other national coach, it is better for the country first of all. The belief that only a national coach should coach a team is wrong in my opinion and can have a bad effect on the team's play and as a result on the performance at world championships.

[Leviathan.007]

I really want to see what can make Ancelotti with the super Brazilian team, i dont remember when was the last time BRazil has a non brazilian as a coach.

I think he can bring some new ideas, but most of the players knows him and also they know european tactis because all of them plays in europe.

I don't think if Brazil ever had a non-Brazilian coach in their history because they mostly tried to use Brazilian for their football team mostly the reason for using Brazilian coaches is they think Brazil is the strongest team in the world and they believe Brazilian coaches are better the other coaches in the world.

Brazil has never appointed anyone from a foreign country as a coach of their team, that is, the main condition of Brazil before appointing the last coach was that he must first be a citizen of Brazil to take charge of Brazil because most of the footballers do not understand English outside of their national language and Brazil never wanted their football secrets to be shared with the people of other countries. But due to worse performance than expected in Qatar World Cup 2022, they are finally forced to appoint a coach from Europe as their national team coach. I think Brazil finally made a good decision. Because to properly use the type of players that the Brazil team has, a coach like Carlo Ancelotti was definitely needed.

They don't have to have any foreign coaches from other countries mostly because Brzeil thinks they are in a situation where they have many famous and skilled coaches in their county and that's why even Ancelotti is not needed.
A few days ago their president, said he is unhappy about choosing Ancelotti.


https://www.sportskeeda.com/football/news-brazilian-president-unhappy-current-real-madrid-boss-carlo-ancelotti-s-appointment-national-team-manager

[jaberwock]

this is a kinda unique situation, because they used to have only 3 direct slots, and now they changed two things: They added extra 3 direct slots for a total of 6 (because now there are more teams in the world cup), but also at the same time they removed the extra slots for the hosts.

It's a bit of a trick for this time because they literally added 3 extra slots, but it's not really for the hosts, it's in general from now on.

What do you mean, you are telling us that USA/Canada/Mexico will not automatically go to world cup because of this? I mean normally when you are a host of the world cup then you go to world cup, that is how it works and has always been working that way.

If there is a new rule that says that there are 3 more slots but there is no guarantee for the host nations then I am pretty sure that at least one of these nations may end up missing the cup chance as well. That would be a new thing that I have never heard of before but if what you are saying is true that means there would be more fair situation, teams will actually have to fight to get what they are owed and should be very important to make a difference in the end as well.

[freedomgo]

Here we go with the Qatar thing again

I pretty much sure that I didn't read any comments above that is saying that Qatar did a terrible job in hosting the recent world cup and that they did not made the event as fabulous as it can be because we all know that money was not a problem in that country, they even built new stadiums just for the world cup, and so there is no stopping them by making the event extraordinary. But we should be open minded in this topic because every hosts have their own distinctive flavor that can make another world cup unforgettable.

Looking back, I can't remember a really bad World Cup (even in a miserable country like Russia it was held at a good level). In fact, it is always a holiday and probably everyone (except those who were very disappointed like Brazil at their home World Cup  ) always remembers such an event in a positive way. The World Cup in such a big and rich country like the USA will certainly be good too.

Certainly mate and there won't be such thing as the worst world cup ever because the hosts will surely make everything possible to make the world cup unforgettable while they are the host. Besides, there should be no problems at all and it will happen just like how they imagine it (except for the little things of course because they cannot guarantee everything) because they are given a lot of time to prepare. In fact, North American countries already know that they will host the 2026 world cup as early as 6 years prior to the event.

[Leviathan.007]

this is a kinda unique situation, because they used to have only 3 direct slots, and now they changed two things: They added extra 3 direct slots for a total of 6 (because now there are more teams in the world cup), but also at the same time they removed the extra slots for the hosts.

It's a bit of a trick for this time because they literally added 3 extra slots, but it's not really for the hosts, it's in general from now on.

What do you mean, you are telling us that USA/Canada/Mexico will not automatically go to world cup because of this? I mean normally when you are a host of the world cup then you go to world cup, that is how it works and has always been working that way.

If there is a new rule that says that there are 3 more slots but there is no guarantee for the host nations then I am pretty sure that at least one of these nations may end up missing the cup chance as well. That would be a new thing that I have never heard of before but if what you are saying is true that means there would be more fair situation, teams will actually have to fight to get what they are owed and should be very important to make a difference in the end as well.

We are not saying these three teams should not be in the 2026 world cup but the only thing I say about these three countries is mostly about taking three spots that other countries and other teams can use.
In the 2026 world cup, it is possible that another team with a higher quality will not be able to participate just because these two have taken up a spot.

[Sithara007]

We are not saying these three teams should not be in the 2026 world cup but the only thing I say about these three countries is mostly about taking three spots that other countries and other teams can use.
In the 2026 world cup, it is possible that another team with a higher quality will not be able to participate just because these two have taken up a spot.

Well.. that is the point. For the next world cup in 2026, the defending champions need to go through the qualification route, while the three hosts would be given automatic qualification. I can understand if the United States is being given direct entry, because they are hosting more than 80% of the matches. But then what is the point in giving automatic entry for teams like Canada, who are going to host just 10 out of the total 104 matches? And it is so unfair to the other teams in CONCACAF, such as Costa Rica, Panama and Jamaica.

[Silberman]

We are not saying these three teams should not be in the 2026 world cup but the only thing I say about these three countries is mostly about taking three spots that other countries and other teams can use.
In the 2026 world cup, it is possible that another team with a higher quality will not be able to participate just because these two have taken up a spot.

It seems to me there is some confusion about how the spots to the world cup are given, CONCACAF has 6 direct spots to the world cup plus 2 spots for the inter-confederation playoffs, while the USA, Canada and Mexico were given 3 direct spots as the hosts, the spots given to CONCACAF did not increase, so 3 direct spots are still available, and while some may think this is unfair, those three teams made it to the previous world cup and would have qualified anyway as they are the three strongest teams on that zone, and if anything this helps the rest of the countries on their confederation as now they do not have to face them and instead there is a more level playing field for them.

[ancafe]

Well.. that is the point. For the next world cup in 2026, the defending champions need to go through the qualification route, while the three hosts would be given automatic qualification. I can understand if the United States is being given direct entry, because they are hosting more than 80% of the matches. But then what is the point in giving automatic entry for teams like Canada, who are going to host just 10 out of the total 104 matches? And it is so unfair to the other teams in CONCACAF, such as Costa Rica, Panama and Jamaica.

Only the hosts benefit because they qualify automatically, but what's the point if the hosts are not able to qualify for the next round via grub, like the previous world cup in Qatar and they only played until the grub preliminary round because they were unable to collect points to qualify for the next round. Argentina has no problem in terms of qualifying, because they have great players and have always been able to get through the qualifying preliminary phase.

The organizers have the rules in place and although in our opinion there is no point in giving Canada the opportunity to qualify automatically, they do have an assessment that is adjusted to the rules of holding the next world cup match. So like it or not, that's the rule that will probably apply.

[beerlover]

If we look at things from a positive perspective, then we will see something positive, conversely, if we look at things from a negative perspective, then all we will see is the negative. It's the same with the World Cup, I would say there is no perfect World Cup without any problems or anything like that. So it's just a matter of how we look at it.
I agree with you that each country has its own characteristics, we can't compare the World Cup held in country A with the World Cup held in country B, because those are 2 different countries. It might make more sense to compare World Cups held in the same country in different editions.

I would say world cup without any problems is one thing, but world cup with a ton of problems is another. Qatar one never felt like a true world cup to me, not because of any religious stuff but because not that many fans went there, that's the biggest issue. I mean normally what I understand from world cup is that when Brazil is playing, there will be tens of thousands of brazil fans cheering on the stadium, and when France does then French ones.

When you look at Qatar world cup, you will see that it was like made for the Qatari people and it was mostly them that was watching it and that's an issue if you ask me. It is not made for a nation, it's made for every nation, and if there aren't tens of thousands of fans of that nation there, then it makes no sense.

[Leviathan.007]

If we look at things from a positive perspective, then we will see something positive, conversely, if we look at things from a negative perspective, then all we will see is the negative. It's the same with the World Cup, I would say there is no perfect World Cup without any problems or anything like that. So it's just a matter of how we look at it.
I agree with you that each country has its own characteristics, we can't compare the World Cup held in country A with the World Cup held in country B, because those are 2 different countries. It might make more sense to compare World Cups held in the same country in different editions.

I would say world cup without any problems is one thing, but world cup with a ton of problems is another. Qatar one never felt like a true world cup to me, not because of any religious stuff but because not that many fans went there, that's the biggest issue. I mean normally what I understand from world cup is that when Brazil is playing, there will be tens of thousands of brazil fans cheering on the stadium, and when France does then French ones.

When you look at Qatar world cup, you will see that it was like made for the Qatari people and it was mostly them that was watching it and that's an issue if you ask me. It is not made for a nation, it's made for every nation, and if there aren't tens of thousands of fans of that nation there, then it makes no sense.

The biggest problem we had in Qatar was the lack of freedom and we all knew Qatar couldn't be a good host mostly because of the rules they have. We know Qatar as a Muslim country where you are not allowed to during in some places and in the other hand this country is very rich-friendly, which means if you have the money you can do anything you want, otherwise you should respect all the rules and you won't have freedom there.