World Cup 2026

M&T Bank Stadium? Holds 71k

I would put it in front of DC for sure.

I still think it will be 12 in the USA and 2 each in Canada & Mexico

All things being equal i think these cities are already in :

1. New York
2. Los Angeles
3. Chicago
4. Atlanta
5. Miami
6. Boston ( Although i hate the Krafts getting a benefit)
7. San Francisco
8. Dallas ( although i'd pick Houston)

So you probably have 16 stadiums vying for 4 spots.

Of those 16, I can't see Florida getting two stadiums, so that knocks out orlando & tampa. Salt Lake city is too small, so that goes as well. I dont think Cincy has much of a chance either.

So that leaves 12 cities vying for 4 spots.

Baltimore
Philadelphia
Washington, D.C.
Seattle
Nashville
Charlotte
Phoenix
Las Vegas
Detroit
Minneapolis
Houston
Denver ( Missed it on the original list)
Kansas City

I do think that 1 of those 4 spots goes to either Baltimore/DC/Philly.

DC would get it if they had a new stadium closer to DC proper though.
 

I still dont understand why the tournament needs to be there 4 years from now when we are all aware it was awarded through illegal means. If it was a year away, you might have a case of saying it’s too late to change. And then you double down by saying this illegally begotten tournament might not even be able to be played in the summer!!! Just move the damn thing already and I really don’t care where, but not there. Give it to The UK or Spain where the structure exists. (Germany & France were too recent).
 
I still dont understand why the tournament needs to be there 4 years from now when we are all aware it was awarded through illegal means. If it was a year away, you might have a case of saying it’s too late to change. And then you double down by saying this illegally begotten tournament might not even be able to be played in the summer!!! Just move the damn thing already and I really don’t care where, but not there. Give it to The UK or Spain where the structure exists. (Germany & France were too recent).
Germany wasn't too recent, what do you mean? Biers in Munich on me for WC2022!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
I still dont understand why the tournament needs to be there 4 years from now when we are all aware it was awarded through illegal means. If it was a year away, you might have a case of saying it’s too late to change. And then you double down by saying this illegally begotten tournament might not even be able to be played in the summer!!! Just move the damn thing already and I really don’t care where, but not there. Give it to The UK or Spain where the structure exists. (Germany & France were too recent).

Tongue in cheek, but slightly truthful, answer:

But why would a corrupt organisation strip something they awarded to someone else for illegal reasons away from that organisation when they are completely in bed with them?

Somewhat more accurate answer:

There is an increasingly powerful lobby within FIFA politics - which, I should point out, the USSF is arguably part of - consisting of teams from "less traditional" footballing countries; that is to say ones outside of the traditional football bases in Europe and South America, where World Cups would generally only ever be held - consisting of fairly major nations which feel that their size means that they should get more respect within FIFA, or of groups of smaller countries but representing regions which again feel ignored by the more major footballing powers.

When it comes to voting matters, therefore, this lobby is becoming increasingly powerful at arguing, not entirely without logic I will concede, that just because they come from countries where football did not flourish 100 years ago they should not be thought of as second class citizens. These countries are, consequently, particularly interested in encouraging things like WCs to be awarded from countries within their number, on the basis that the more the power shifts in their direction the shorter the time until they might get to host a WC, etc.

For the last couple of decades Blatter was entire in their camp, not least because he realised very early on that as they outnumbered the traditional football lobby they could secure him consecutive elections even if he deliberately acted in ways he knew would alienate the European countries, who consequently very rarely voted for him. Ever since South Africa 2000 Blatter has been trying heavily to push the WC into the farthest corners of the world, and the simple fact is that while Blatter has now gone, the lobby is by no means weakened and it readily supports itself. Stripping the WC from Qatar would be a massive slap in the face to that lobby, and Infantino can't afford that if he wants to keep control of FIFA.

Trust me, people might be a little more circumspect about how they distribute their bribes and how much they offer in future, but World Cups are going to continue to be awarded to countries who look the best in holiday brochures over the ones with the best teams and infrastructure, because Asia and North America (and eventually Africa will start pulling their weight too) want that to happen...
 
Last edited:
Tongue in cheek, but slightly truthful, answer:

But why would a corrupt organisation strip something they awarded to someone else for illegal reasons away from that organisation when they are completely in bed with them?

Somewhat more accurate answer:

There is an increasingly powerful lobby within FIFA politics - which, I should point out, the USSF is arguably part of - consisting of teams from "less traditional" footballing countries; that is to say ones outside of the traditional football bases in Europe and South America, where World Cups would generally only ever be held - consisting of fairly major nations which feel that their size means that they should get more respect within FIFA, or of groups of smaller countries but representing regions which again feel ignored by the more major footballing powers.

When it comes to voting matters, therefore, this lobby is becoming increasingly powerful at arguing, not entirely without logic I will concede, that just because they come from countries where football did not flourish 100 years ago they should not be thought of as second class citizens. These countries are, consequently, particularly interested in encouraging things like WCs to be awarded from countries within their number, on the basis that the more the power shifts in their direction the shorter the time until they might get to host a WC, etc.

For the last couple of decades Blatter was entire in their camp, not least because he realised very early on that as they outnumbered the traditional football lobby they could secure him consecutive elections even if he deliberately acted in ways he knew would alienate the European countries, who consequently very rarely voted for him. Ever since South Africa 2000 Blatter has been trying heavily to push the WC into the farthest corners of the world, and the simple fact is that while Blatter has now gone, the lobby is by no means weakened and it readily supports itself. Stripping the WC from Qatar would be a massive slap in the face to that lobby, and Infantino can't afford that if he wants to keep control of FIFA.

100% agree. The only reason I chose traditional nations is for the infrastructure. Stadiums & transportation. Even if a nation could build them in time, we’ve seen what becomes of these stadiums built just for the WC after it’s over. Even with traditional footballing powers like Brazil. And now we’re seeing what happens beforehand in Qatar with human slavery being used to construct the stadiums. In any case, you’re correct; no one makes the necessary changes to FIFA and survives for a 2nd term.
 
100% agree. The only reason I chose traditional nations is for the infrastructure. Stadiums & transportation. Even if a nation could build them in time, we’ve seen what becomes of these stadiums built just for the WC after it’s over. Even with traditional footballing powers like Brazil. And now we’re seeing what happens beforehand in Qatar with human slavery being used to construct the stadiums. In any case, you’re correct; no one makes the necessary changes to FIFA and survives for a 2nd term.

Oh, without a doubt the only countries which could arrange a WC at short notice are traditional nations. I believe FIFA actually has a list of countries it can turn to at virtually no notice and ask to host a World Cup with confidence that it would be pulled off - mainly due to infrastructure - and I believe IIRC that list has a whole two names on it (England and Germany).

In fairness, I think people also do underestimate how long it takes to handle the logistical side of organising these events, as well as just the infrastructure. For example, the US undoubtedly has the stadia to host a WC, but few would deny that a bid would have to heavily rely on NFL stadia. Even though the NFL season would be out by the time of a WC, a number of those stadia are multi-use (some of course are even in use by MLS teams) and I would bet that even the teams with stadia with no other commitments would lobby strenuously for extremely favourable terms.

If FIFA didn't want to be royally shafted, I could fully believe it would take potentially in excess of a full year just to get over the line with signing up all the stadia to host on acceptable terms, especially since if we are talking about the US stepping in to take over from Qatar, those NFL teams would know that FIFA would be getting increasingly desperate the longer talks went on. That is all before anyone can start then planning how to handle the influx of crowds and team bases and such. Obviously during a normal bidding process, this would be far less of an issue as time would be on the World Cup's side and much of this negotiation stage would be handled in the months and years before a bid was finalised.
 
Oh, without a doubt the only countries which could arrange a WC at short notice are traditional nations. I believe FIFA actually has a list of countries it can turn to at virtually no notice and ask to host a World Cup with confidence that it would be pulled off - mainly due to infrastructure - and I believe IIRC that list has a whole two names on it (England and Germany).

In fairness, I think people also do underestimate how long it takes to handle the logistical side of organising these events, as well as just the infrastructure. For example, the US undoubtedly has the stadia to host a WC, but few would deny that a bid would have to heavily rely on NFL stadia. Even though the NFL season would be out by the time of a WC, a number of those stadia are multi-use (some of course are even in use by MLS teams) and I would bet that even the teams with stadia with no other commitments would lobby strenuously for extremely favourable terms.

If FIFA didn't want to be royally shafted, I could fully believe it would take potentially in excess of a full year just to get over the line with signing up all the stadia to host on acceptable terms, especially since if we are talking about the US stepping in to take over from Qatar, those NFL teams would know that FIFA would be getting increasingly desperate the longer talks went on. That is all before anyone can start then planning how to handle the influx of crowds and team bases and such. Obviously during a normal bidding process, this would be far less of an issue as time would be on the World Cup's side and much of this negotiation stage would be handled in the months and years before a bid was finalised.
Don’t disagree with anything, beyond the need to rely on NFL stadia.

The US could host a World Cup this summer, as in only a few months, using only college stadia, and it would still smash every attendance record and quality of venue.

ETA: also important, the US can accommodate a swarm of travellers, even to a relatively obscure (globally) college town, as it regularly proves by it occurring at about 50 different places concurrently every fall.

Seriously, you could likely host a WCF with 80 teams just using the states of the SEC. and again, facilities would be the best ever utilized by the tournament.
 
Last edited:
Better make sure there is no "meddling" with THIS vote.....

Sadly it sounds like they could ‘legitimately’ deny the US again, just because haters gonna hate.
 
To be honest, after US Soccer went for another money man as president, it wouldn't disappoint me anymore if they missed out.
 
Meanwhile, in CCL, an MLS opponent can’t get half its team into the country due to visa issues.

England losing to Russia and the U.S. losing to Qatar were due to bribes, but if we lose to Morocco it will be due in part to shit like that.
 
Meanwhile, in CCL, an MLS opponent can’t get half its team into the country due to visa issues.

England losing to Russia and the U.S. losing to Qatar were due to bribes, but if we lose to Morocco it will be due in part to shit like that.
If the US loses to Morocco, don’t kid yourself, money will have again changed hands.
 
He did say “in part”. The fact the world hates us just makes it easier to screw us, especially for profit.
I’m all for sharing the glory of hosting the WC so long as the country selected has the means to do so without creating white elephants. I’d take it one further and propose that no country should be able to bid on a WC if all of the facilities aren’t already in place - meaning that there has to be infrastructure already built and paid for so that countries aren’t promising a fairy tale (Qatar’s climate controlled open stadiums) that will bankrupt them and produce one-off venues, but rather the investment has already been completed, hopefully with a full lifecycle of use, so that winning the WC is more of an addition to the slate of events scheduled rather than THE event leading to the project. This way, if a country loses the bid process, they really aren’t out anything other than the fees sunk for the actual bid/vetting process.

Circling back, this isn’t to say that facilities can’t be built/upgraded between the time of bid/award and the kickoff of the Cup, because over a 5-10 year period new stadiums can be built that are better than the vetted/approved stadia in the bids (like if Atlanta/Minnesota wasn’t on the original bid, but they’re completed Post selection and deemed better than two stadia that met *all* of the needed standards to host). And those two stadia aren’t being built as one-offs, but have permanent tenants that negate any reservations about white elephant sunk costs.

I have no idea if Morocco has the means to host a 48 team tournament (stadia) with 48 different fan bases (plus non-attached fans) traveling between cities (hotels & mass transit). Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. But if the past/future few WCs (and Olympics) are any indication, they are going to be dropping a ton of Capital improvement money into their venues and infrastructure.
 
I believe Fox Sports owes FIFA an approximately $200 million bonus haven't for a 2026 Works Cup in the USA. Combine that with multiple 75k attendance games (vs none? in Morocco) and you can be pretty certain this is all bluster and posturing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adam
I believe Fox Sports owes FIFA an approximately $200 million bonus haven't for a 2026 Works Cup in the USA. Combine that with multiple 75k attendance games (vs none? in Morocco) and you can be pretty certain this is all bluster and posturing.
Your Auto-correct forget its morning coffee?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schwallacus