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

[Ale88]

So there was news that the Italian players demanded 300K euros if they could beat Bosnia and qualify --- but in reality the national team still lost.

Is it because of the factor of their demands not being fulfilled by the Federation so that they play not full of enthusiasm? I know every player needs money, but usually for a country's match they often don't think about that and are more devoted.

I don't know if this statement is their failure to qualify, or if it's true that Italy is bad, but I saw this news on X.

I read that news too and if it's true, as Italian, I would be ashamed of being represented by these people. Also let's clarify one very important point which is what somehow makes me think (or hope) this is not a real news: those 300k euros would be the total prize to be split among 28 players, that means each player would receive not even 11k euros. If we calculate an average yearly net salary of 3 mln euros and we divided by 365 days, it gives us a daily salary of little over 8k euros per day. So pretty much that prize would be equal to what they make in a single day. And by making this calculation on 3 millions/year I was extremely conservative because, just to name a few players, Bastoni brings home 5.5 mln/year, Donnarumma 16 mln/year, Retegui 20 mln/year. Clearly if you see these numbers that prize doesn't make any sense, for a professional football player 10k euros are absolutely peanuts.

[Sithara007]

It's awful, even though they're from my continent and not my confederation. I should support them, and without a doubt, every country qualifying for the World Cup is exciting... but I think the World Cup attracts teams that should give that extra bit of football to prove they deserve to be there.

Many elite sports nowadays try to give that opportunity to elite teams. For example, Italy should have a double chance because they're world champions, as should Bolivia, which isn't. In other words, I'd rather watch or wait for these extra qualifying matches than see those mediocre teams in the World Cup.

And the worst is yet to come when there are 64 teams... it's awful. That improvement comes from television rights: more matches, more money for FIFA. It's a real shame how the World Cup has become. Inclusive doesn't mean more quantity, but more quality.

We already saw something similar in the Olympics, where there were competitors who were far below par and achieving extremely poor times. An example of this is weightlifting. It's a different story, but it reflects the idea that quantity is prioritized over quality, even though for them it means financial (television benefits.)

You guys may not be aware of this, but from what I have seen so far FIFA seems to be far more competent when compared to some other sports bodies such as the ICC (International Cricket Council). Also, we need to remember that FIFA needs to balance a lot of things - revenue, diversity and fan interest. I believe a 48-team competition is ideal for these purposes. 32 would be too few, and 64 would be too many. And what I would further propose is to reduce the CONCACAF slots by 2 and give 1 additional slot to CONMEBOL and UEFA. AFC and CAF should have equal number of slots. So we can reduce 1 from CAF as well and make it a playoff between CAF and AFC.

[Rikafip]

So there was news that the Italian players demanded 300K euros if they could beat Bosnia and qualify --- but in reality the national team still lost.

Is it because of the factor of their demands not being fulfilled by the Federation so that they play not full of enthusiasm?

I don't think that  was the reason they didn't qualify because those 300k was supposed to be shared among all the players, meaning they would each get something like 10k euro, which is peanuts for them since each and every player on that team earns millions of euros per year.

Having said that, asking for more money in that kind of situation shows their lack of focus before such an important match, which eventually showed on the field.

[satscraper]

Sweden beat Poland 3:2 to get their world cup ticket, this is the same Swedish team that failed to win a single match during the world cup qualifying rounds. With two draws and six losses they are in the world cup. Twelve goals conceded and four goals scored, bottom of the group but they are in the world cup today. I really don't understand how they qualified for the world play offs with just two points. I'm suspecting it's through the Nations league because that's the only logical explanation as to why they qualified for the play offs.

In my opinion, Sweden's success in qualifying for the 2026 World Cup is inextricably linked to Graham Potter's role as coach.  Sweden previously finished bottom of the World Cup qualifying round and qualified for the play-offs thanks to their performance in the Nations League. However, after replacing Jon Dahl Tomasson as coach, Potter led Sweden to two playoff wins over hosts Ukraine and Poland, leading them to qualification for the 2026 World Cup.

Sweden is in nearly balanced group in which only  Netherlands can be considered the serious obstacle for them. The matches between these two nations are always tense, so predicting the winner in Group F will be the tough call. The Dutch squad is probably more technically prepared, while Sweden’s team is more disciplined, so their h2h match on June 20^th should finally put the points on the board.

[KTChampions]

Hahaha if 64 teams then the match can be 2 months or 1 month full of matches without any breaks, FIFA does not care about the quality of the match as long as there are many then there will be a lot of support.
Well we just enjoy this new format, we can't argue anything because FIFA has the power about it.

In fact, no, adding any number of teams does not lead to a significant increase in the tournament's duration. Even if you don't introduce sneaky algorithms (like those currently used in the Champions League and Europa League) and stick to the old-fashioned approach, adding 1/16 allows you to double the number of teams, but the tournament's duration only increases by 4 days. It seems to me that the logistical challenges are a bigger problem than the number of game days, but given that several countries are currently hosting the tournament at the same time, this can also be resolved.

[cande86]

FIFA tries to give different regions a chance so the World Cup can be truly global, not just dominated by Europe. That’s why teams from Asia and North America also qualify. And to be fair, some of those teams can actually compete. For example, Saudi Arabia beat Argentina in the 2022 World Cup and Morocco went all the way to the semi finals. Also, the usa has given strong teams tough matches in past tournaments.

ye, to be honest, it is also necessary, having teams that are not just European is essential to safeguard this sport, there needs to be generational change and lately in Europe where football has always been the most important sport, young talents are no longer produced and this is a problem.

[Ale88]

You guys may not be aware of this, but from what I have seen so far FIFA seems to be far more competent when compared to some other sports bodies such as the ICC (International Cricket Council).

I'm pretty sure almost nobody knows an International Cricket Council even exists, so I wouldn't use it to make an example.

Also, we need to remember that FIFA needs to balance a lot of things - revenue, diversity and fan interest.

Are we talking about football or a Disney movie? What does diversity have to do with sport? The best wins, that's it. Giving more spots to weak teams just because of "diversity" is plain stupid. If I watch the World Cup, I want to see the best players, not diversity.

I believe a 48-team competition is ideal for these purposes. 32 would be too few, and 64 would be too many. And what I would further propose is to reduce the CONCACAF slots by 2 and give 1 additional slot to CONMEBOL and UEFA. AFC and CAF should have equal number of slots. So we can reduce 1 from CAF as well and make it a playoff between CAF and AFC.

32 teams worked perfectly otherwise too many big teams may have been left out. Probably may of you don't even know (or remember) that the WC expanded to 32 teams in 1998, that is just 28 years ago, before that it was 24 (since 1982). And until 1978 it was just 16 teams. That means in 48 years the World Cup expanded 3 times the number of teams taking part of the competition. It's a huge increase. 32 was the perfect number.

[Lida93]

So there was news that the Italian players demanded 300K euros if they could beat Bosnia and qualify --- but in reality the national team still lost.

Is it because of the factor of their demands not being fulfilled by the Federation so that they play not full of enthusiasm? I know every player needs money, but usually for a country's match they often don't think about that and are more devoted.

I don't know if this statement is their failure to qualify, or if it's true that Italy is bad, but I saw this news on X.

I don't know how true this is but I don't think anyone can forfeit the experience of playing in the World Cup for money, playing in the World Cup is every player's dream, there are some great players who weren't even privileged to play in the tournament and could only wish to have such experience before going into retirement.

Players like Ryan Giggs didn't have any World Cup rld experience, so for the Italian team i doubt if they would rather put the money before national interest, especially haven missed the World Cup twice previously.

[Webetcoins]

Sweden situation is a different situation, not everyone likes that which I can agree, but the playoff was there, they could have lost, they won, they are going, we should be ok with that already.

The part I am still not okay with is the whole Tahiti and curacao and whatever part, just because there are three nations already going, doesn't mean there should be three more, they should not be brining that many people.

If I was the one managing Fıfa, I would limit north America to three, and then Asia to six, that gives six more, and I would give all of that to Europe.

[SatoPrincess]

So there was news that the Italian players demanded 300K euros if they could beat Bosnia and qualify --- but in reality the national team still lost.

Is it because of the factor of their demands not being fulfilled by the Federation so that they play not full of enthusiasm? I know every player needs money, but usually for a country's match they often don't think about that and are more devoted.

I don't know if this statement is their failure to qualify, or if it's true that Italy is bad, but I saw this news on X.

And I thought the Nigerian national team had drama. It’s things like these that fuel the debate that players nowadays are playing for the Mikey not for passion or in this case love for one’s country. I wonder if the money was the reason why Donnarumma was acting crazy in the match.

Congratulations to Bosnia, they deserved the win.

[Sithara007]

Also, we need to remember that FIFA needs to balance a lot of things - revenue, diversity and fan interest.

Are we talking about football or a Disney movie? What does diversity have to do with sport? The best wins, that's it. Giving more spots to weak teams just because of "diversity" is plain stupid. If I watch the World Cup, I want to see the best players, not diversity.

As long as we doesn't have a global qualifier tournament, this discussion will go on endlessly. Else, reducing slots for one confederation and adding them to another doesn't work. From what I can see, CONCACAF has sent the maximum number of weak teams to this tournament. That said, a few of the weaker teams have managed to qualify from the other confederations as well. What I would suggest is that only 24 teams should qualify from the regional qualifying tournaments. Remaining 24 should be from a global qualifying tournament, and it will make sure that only the best teams qualify for the FIFA World Cup.

[Ale88]

And I thought the Nigerian national team had drama. It’s things like these that fuel the debate that players nowadays are playing for the Mikey not for passion or in this case love for one’s country. I wonder if the money was the reason why Donnarumma was acting crazy in the match.

Donnarumma earns approximately 44.000 euros per day, are you actually thinking he was crazy because he wasn't going to get 10.000 euros? I mean, seriously, think about the numbers and what you just wrote, does it really make sense for you? He makes 10.000 euros in less than 6 hours, and I guess he sleeps 7 or 8 hours per day, so he makes more money while asleep.

[Oluwa-btc]

Sweden beat Poland 3:2 to get their world cup ticket, this is the same Swedish team that failed to win a single match during the world cup qualifying rounds. With two draws and six losses they are in the world cup. Twelve goals conceded and four goals scored, bottom of the group but they are in the world cup today. I really don't understand how they qualified for the world play offs with just two points. I'm suspecting it's through the Nations league because that's the only logical explanation as to why they qualified for the play offs.

Shouldn't we tag it the genius of Graham Potter?! They could get back smiles on their faces immediately he was brought in as manager ahead of thr world cup.
One thing is possible, if he happens to get a great time in the world cup with Swedish national team, big clubs will be looking to have him manage them. Congratulations to them again. And the absent Italian national team?! They need to do an open heart surgery which I think they have. Such a huge footballing side missing back-to back-to-back FIFA World Cup Competition, their fans are gutted.

[shinratensei_]

So there was news that the Italian players demanded 300K euros if they could beat Bosnia and qualify --- but in reality the national team still lost.

Is it because of the factor of their demands not being fulfilled by the Federation so that they play not full of enthusiasm? I know every player needs money, but usually for a country's match they often don't think about that and are more devoted.

I don't know if this statement is their failure to qualify, or if it's true that Italy is bad, but I saw this news on X.

Majority of italian players get 5 - 6 figures from playing on the club. It makes no sense to accuse them doing shady by let Bosnia to took the win caused by Italian federation rejected the demand for the Bonus. I also remind you 300k was for a whole team. So each player would get 10k averagely. It's small money compared how big exposure they would get if they were able qualify for the WC, but sadly they're not. I believe this is not true.

[SquallLeonhart]

Hahaha if 64 teams then the match can be 2 months or 1 month full of matches without any breaks, FIFA does not care about the quality of the match as long as there are many then there will be a lot of support.
Well we just enjoy this new format, we can't argue anything because FIFA has the power about it.

In fact, no, adding any number of teams does not lead to a significant increase in the tournament's duration. Even if you don't introduce sneaky algorithms (like those currently used in the Champions League and Europa League) and stick to the old-fashioned approach, adding 1/16 allows you to double the number of teams, but the tournament's duration only increases by 4 days. It seems to me that the logistical challenges are a bigger problem than the number of game days, but given that several countries are currently hosting the tournament at the same time, this can also be resolved.

Proven by the fact that the world cup has gone to 48 teams and there is like one more extra game or something if I am not wrong? Either it was 1 or maybe 2 if I am wrong. So you could increase it to 64, and you would have maybe like 4 more games than it used to, and 2 more than now, and you would still solve it. This is mostly knock out stages, meaning you half the number every time you play one game.

So at 64 teams, you bring out 32 teams to knock out stages, that means every team plays 3 teams at group, then last 32, then last 16, than last 8, then last 4, then final, so the team that plays the most games still plays only 8 games only that's it, even with 3 games between each other, that's less than a full month.

[BlackBaron]

In fact, no, adding any number of teams does not lead to a significant increase in the tournament's duration. Even if you don't introduce sneaky algorithms (like those currently used in the Champions League and Europa League) and stick to the old-fashioned approach, adding 1/16 allows you to double the number of teams, but the tournament's duration only increases by 4 days. It seems to me that the logistical challenges are a bigger problem than the number of game days, but given that several countries are currently hosting the tournament at the same time, this can also be resolved.

Proven by the fact that the world cup has gone to 48 teams and there is like one more extra game or something if I am not wrong? Either it was 1 or maybe 2 if I am wrong. So you could increase it to 64, and you would have maybe like 4 more games than it used to, and 2 more than now, and you would still solve it. This is mostly knock out stages, meaning you half the number every time you play one game.

So at 64 teams, you bring out 32 teams to knock out stages, that means every team plays 3 teams at group, then last 32, then last 16, than last 8, then last 4, then final, so the team that plays the most games still plays only 8 games only that's it, even with 3 games between each other, that's less than a full month.

However, I agree that if there are too many teams in the world cup then it can cause the level of competition to decrease, because teams that initially don't have a big chance of being in the world cup will have a big chance even though in terms of quality they are not really ready. One of the things that makes the World Cup so interesting is because we go through a lot of very strict processes and it really filters out the teams that really deserve to be in the World Cup.

Meanwhile, if the quota increases, I think there will be a lot of unbalanced matches, even though at the moment we don't really have participants who really deserve the quality of the team.

[KTChampions]

Sweden situation is a different situation, not everyone likes that which I can agree, but the playoff was there, they could have lost, they won, they are going, we should be ok with that already.

The part I am still not okay with is the whole Tahiti and curacao and whatever part, just because there are three nations already going, doesn't mean there should be three more, they should not be brining that many people.

If I was the one managing Fıfa, I would limit north America to three, and then Asia to six, that gives six more, and I would give all of that to Europe.

The World Cup selection system needs to be changed so that either the best of the best make it to the finals, or everyone makes it to the finals. I already mentioned in the thread that it’s not technically difficult to even organize a tournament for 100 teams. But I would prefer something that was interesting even at the group stage, for example groups of 10 teams but which are made up of different regions (3 teams from Africa, 3 from Europe, 3 from America, etc.) and not like now. This would allow weak teams to be weeded out at an earlier stage of the tournament.

[TastyChillySauce00]

It is 100% politics and nothing more, in fact it is so much so that we are talking about a very shitty situation. I understand it became news because of Italy not being qualified, if they won, and Bosnia did not, then we would not be hearing about this, but it has always been political.

The reason why Italy was getting viral caused by they were unable qualifying for World Cup three times in a row. It makes no sense if you linked Italy's fail to the political reason. It's three times, not one or two. Public knew Italy as one of football house with its serie a. So it's shocking to public when Italy got a dramatic lost to the Bosnia then unable to qualify. If it's their first time not to qualify, i don't think it's gonna be a crowded like this time.

If you were watched their game since Euro. They have been so shite, and never improve. So they deserve not to qualify for the WC this time. They're not taking WC seriously since 12 years ago. It's too long to call they're being the victim of political reason.

[AmoreJaz]

It is 100% politics and nothing more, in fact it is so much so that we are talking about a very shitty situation. I understand it became news because of Italy not being qualified, if they won, and Bosnia did not, then we would not be hearing about this, but it has always been political.

The reason why Italy was getting viral caused by they were unable qualifying for World Cup three times in a row. It makes no sense if you linked Italy's fail to the political reason. It's three times, not one or two. Public knew Italy as one of football house with its serie a. So it's shocking to public when Italy got a dramatic lost to the Bosnia then unable to qualify. If it's their first time not to qualify, i don't think it's gonna be a crowded like this time.

If you were watched their game since Euro. They have been so shite, and never improve. So they deserve not to qualify for the WC this time. They're not taking WC seriously since 12 years ago. It's too long to call they're being the victim of political reason.

I also don't think it is for political reasons why they didn't qualify. Because just look at the fact that it is them inside the arena playing. If they are showing good performance, I don't think political aspect will come into play. Because no matter what, this is sports and the capability will always prevail as you can't cheat what you can show to the audience.

[Fiatless]

So there was news that the Italian players demanded 300K euros if they could beat Bosnia and qualify --- but in reality the national team still lost.

Is it because of the factor of their demands not being fulfilled by the Federation so that they play not full of enthusiasm? I know every player needs money, but usually for a country's match they often don't think about that and are more devoted.

I don't know if this statement is their failure to qualify, or if it's true that Italy is bad, but I saw this news on X.

If this news is true, then Italian footballers didn't do well. For a four-time World Cup champion to miss the competition two times should be a motivation for them to give their best to qualify. I also don't think that they gave their best because their demands were not met. It was obvious that Alessandro Bastoni's red card affected the game. I believe Italy would have won that game if not for that red card. The team had to struggle till the end of the game.