What's new

WC 2026

wirE

I'm a well-known member
Sep 27, 2005
4,676
5,582
Looking at this on a positive note, the wc in 94 had most audience ever in a wc. I bet that this record will be broken now
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Out of interest, what was the need to make it a joint bid with all 3 countries? Surely both the USA and Mexico could've easily hosted it on their own? Canada maybe not because there aren't as many big cities, but the other two certainly could've done, and indeed have done in the past

Also given that the host automatically qualifies, does that mean all 3 countries won't have to qualify?
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,448
7,930
Also given that the host automatically qualifies, does that mean all 3 countries won't have to qualify?

It hasn't been decided yet. CONCACAF gets six spots so it's up to them to decide if they will automatically give three of them to the hosts.
 

Donki

Has a "Massive Member" Member
May 14, 2007
14,451
18,966
So its just a 6 hour flight from Canada to Mexico, I don't like these joint bids at all and have a feeling they only happen as they have a much better chance of getting voted for. The atmosphere is bound to be diluted over such a large area.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
So its just a 6 hour flight from Canada to Mexico, I don't like these joint bids at all and have a feeling they only happen as they have a much better chance of getting voted for. The atmosphere is bound to be diluted over such a large area.

I'm with you in terms of joint bids, I don't like them, but I'm not sure what you mean about the atmosphere being diluted. OK so NYC and LA are a long way apart, but I don't see how that "dilutes" it. The Germany 2006 World Cup is widely praised as having been one of the best fan experiences (I was there and can thoroughly back this up) but if you were in Hamburg it's not like you really are experiencing what's happening in Munich, for example, so I'm not sure why it matters. Even if you're in two cities next to each other you're not experiencing both cities at once so whether they're 20 miles apart or 200 miles apart is largely irrelevant in terms of atmosphere IMO. Obviously it presents issues in terms of fans wanting to travel to multiple games, but that's a separate issue and has nothing to do with the atmosphere.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
Out of interest, what was the need to make it a joint bid with all 3 countries? Surely both the USA and Mexico could've easily hosted it on their own? Canada maybe not because there aren't as many big cities, but the other two certainly could've done, and indeed have done in the past

Also given that the host automatically qualifies, does that mean all 3 countries won't have to qualify?

the powers that be seem to like that crap these days - its more "inclusive".
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
well we were up against Morocco so it was a foregone conclusion. nothing against Morocco but they dont have the money Qatar has to just build a bunch of new stadiums.

not a fan of the 48 team format, btw. basically 25% of FIFA will get in. I assume it will be 12 groups of 4 with eight 3rd place teams advancing to give 32 at the start of the knockout phase.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
well we were up against Morocco so it was a foregone conclusion. nothing against Morocco but they dont have the money Qatar has to just build a bunch of new stadiums.

not a fan of the 48 team format, btw. basically 25% of FIFA will get in. I assume it will be 12 groups of 4 with eight 3rd place teams advancing to give 32 at the start of the knockout phase.
Its worse than you can imagine: the proposal is 16 groups of 3 - top-2 advance to knockouts.

And it gets worse from there - there would be no draws in the group stage. Each game to be decided by Penalties if necessary.

In short, its going to be awful. And expensive. But, mostly awful.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
Its worse than you can imagine: the proposal is 16 groups of 3 - top-2 advance to knockouts.

And it gets worse from there - there would be no draws in the group stage. Each game to be decided by Penalties if necessary.

In short, its going to be awful. And expensive. But, mostly awful.


that is worse. that will take all the intrigue out of the group stage.
 

LexingtonSpurs

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2013
13,456
39,042
that is worse. that will take all the intrigue out of the group stage.
And its a weird schedule because each group has a team not playing in a given round - so the days between matches will be all over the place.

Its nothing but a money grab, and very poorly conceived.

I hope there is enough time to figure out a better schedule - but one of the limiting factors is keeping the groups small enough so that the group stage does not last too long.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
And its a weird schedule because each group has a team not playing in a given round - so the days between matches will be all over the place.

Its nothing but a money grab, and very poorly conceived.

I hope there is enough time to figure out a better schedule - but one of the limiting factors is keeping the groups small enough so that the group stage does not last too long.

the difference between my scenario and the proposed one is 8 group stage games. at 4 games a day you could play the group stage in 18 days. This years group stage is 15 days long.

I guess you'd have teams only getting 2 days rest instead of 3 so maybe expand the roster a little.
 

'O Zio

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2014
7,405
13,785
Its worse than you can imagine: the proposal is 16 groups of 3 - top-2 advance to knockouts.

And it gets worse from there - there would be no draws in the group stage. Each game to be decided by Penalties if necessary.

In short, its going to be awful. And expensive. But, mostly awful.

So basically it won't be worth tuning into until the knockouts start. Thanks FIFA, as always.
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,448
7,930
The PKs haven't been decided yet, but there is a logical reason behind them. With groups of 3, you don't have every team playing at the same time so it opens up the possibility of collusion between the two teams in the final group game. Since that would usually mean both teams are happy for a point, eliminating draws would be one way to address that.

One solution may be to use the penalty kicks to award an extra point. If you lose on PKs in the group stage you get 1 point. If you win then you get 2 points. We probably won't know how it will work for a couple of years.
 

fortworthspur

Well-Known Member
Nov 12, 2007
11,244
17,536
Top