Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

World Cup 2026

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    If they do stick with 48 teams or, ffs, go to 64, then it's pretty much going to always have to be a multicountry/continent-spanning event. As ridiculous as that is, it might provide a way to reduce the incentive for graft. They could just rotate it through each confederation and then have whichever confederation look at bids to host games from individual venues - and bypass the federations.


    I'm not sure about this one-country/one-vote thing. It doesn't make a lot of sense for tiny island nations to have the same number of votes as Brazil, etc. But if it were weighted by population, India, China, and the USA would have way too much power for countries where football isn't even all that popular, per capita. Of course, if it were somehow based on the number of registered players or members or whatever, there'd be endless cheating on those numbers. Perhaps there's some more complex system of tiered voting or regional blocks or something.

    I suppose that's all pointless anyway. Fairness and sensible economics isn't a consideration with these people.

    Perhaps the most honest way to do it would be to just let whoever wins the TV rights to decide where they want to have it. At least then fans would see what's really going on and it would increase the value of those rights.

    I suspect Britain-Ireland have a good shot at 2030 (or maybe a combined Britain-Ireland-France?) , but there's probably a push to get the World Cup in China and/or India. Those are really the last frontiers, aren't they?


    Originally posted by Bordeaux Education View Post
    Bloody hell, missed the news that FIFA have carried on with their "Human Rights Abusers" World Cup tour with US/Mexico. Some boycotters will miss an entire generation of World Cups. MAybe they thought having Canada's nice demeanour would dilute the other two. Must be China for 2030, Israel for 2036 and Coruscant for 2040.
    Canada has it's own history of human rights abuses. Nobody is clean.

    Perhaps its just because I live here that I see the difference between a World Cup in the US and a "US World Cup." But I think there's a big difference. I still don't really want it here and doubt I'll go (A lot changes in eight years, but I'm sure tickets will be outrageously priced and getting in and out of the venues will be a logistical nightmare and I very well may not care at all about sports by then) but it's not the same level of outrage as Russia or Qatar hosting. Not only because we already have the venues to host it, etc, but because the US government isn't really involved in the bids, contrary to what Trump might have you believe. Sure, Obama made a call or two and Trump signed some letters, but his claim that he "worked very hard on this" is just as much of a lie as everything else he said. I suspect Obama probably thought of it more in terms of being a nice get for Chicago - which has decided not to bother anyway - than for the US. No politician beyond the local level (unless you count the people who run the USSF as politicians), and certainly nobody running for president, is going to really get anything out of the US hosting the World Cup and losing the 2022 bid didn't cost any of them anything.*

    I suppose it's the same in the UK. Cameron got involved in England's bid for 2022, or so I read. It certainly would have been a nice PR event for him for a news cycle or two, but I doubt it was a big priority for him and I doubt a single voter in the whole country gave it much thought or ever would, when voting for parliament.

    That's different from how it is in Russia or Qatar or Morocco, where these things are very much tied to regime. Putin cared a lot about this and the Olympics and would have seen it as a major embarrassment to fail, so it's a failure of humanity that we were unable to deliver that embarrassment to one of the 21st Century's prize cunts.


    *The US as a whole doesn't really have much of a tourism and image effort, as far as I'm aware. States, regions, and cities do, of course, but I don't know if there's really a Visit the USA thing going any more. I recall when GWBush was in some ads encouraging tourists to the USA (I saw them in airports) it was surprising not just because of the stupidity of using Bush as a spokesman, but the very idea that a place so big could be boiled down into an effective 30 second sales pitch that anyone would listen to.

    Comment


      Comment


        Originally posted by Flynnie View Post
        You noticed the other bidder, by any chance?
        To be honest, mate, I hadn't noticed either so the tour would have continued whatever.

        Comment


          Why would UEFA get more qualifiers in an expanded world cup?

          Comment


            Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post

            Canada has it's own history of human rights abuses. Nobody is clean.

            Perhaps its just because I live here that I see the difference between a World Cup in the US and a "US World Cup." But I think there's a big difference. I still don't really want it here and doubt I'll go (A lot changes in eight years, but I'm sure tickets will be outrageously priced and getting in and out of the venues will be a logistical nightmare and I very well may not care at all about sports by then) but it's not the same level of outrage as Russia or Qatar hosting. Not only because we already have the venues to host it, etc, but because the US government isn't really involved in the bids, contrary to what Trump might have you believe. Sure, Obama made a call or two and Trump signed some letters, but his claim that he "worked very hard on this" is just as much of a lie as everything else he said. I suspect Obama probably thought of it more in terms of being a nice get for Chicago - which has decided not to bother anyway - than for the US. No politician beyond the local level (unless you count the people who run the USSF as politicians), and certainly nobody running for president, is going to really get anything out of the US hosting the World Cup and losing the 2022 bid didn't cost any of them anything.*

            I suppose it's the same in the UK. Cameron got involved in England's bid for 2022, or so I read. It certainly would have been a nice PR event for him for a news cycle or two, but I doubt it was a big priority for him and I doubt a single voter in the whole country gave it much thought or ever would, when voting for parliament.

            That's different from how it is in Russia or Qatar or Morocco, where these things are very much tied to regime. Putin cared a lot about this and the Olympics and would have seen it as a major embarrassment to fail, so it's a failure of humanity that we were unable to deliver that embarrassment to one of the 21st Century's prize cunts.


            *The US as a whole doesn't really have much of a tourism and image effort, as far as I'm aware. States, regions, and cities do, of course, but I don't know if there's really a Visit the USA thing going any more. I recall when GWBush was in some ads encouraging tourists to the USA (I saw them in airports) it was surprising not just because of the stupidity of using Bush as a spokesman, but the very idea that a place so big could be boiled down into an effective 30 second sales pitch that anyone would listen to.
            It's not so much from the point of view of the holding of the World Cup itself. I assume that most boycotters are doing so with Russia and Qatr is the their wider human rights abuses. Aside from Guantanamo, illegal wars, renditions and racist shootings by police, the US is one of the most enthusiastic executors of its own citizens with the death penalty being the ultimate human rights abuse. Indeed, it is, by far, the leading executor amongst 'first world' countries. Of course, Mexico has a consistently bad record with death squads etc as well. I haven't read much about Canada but there hasn't been anything much in recent times, has there? Certainly not on a governmental or nationwide scale, has there?

            Comment


              Canada would be in severe danger of being the first hosts to only play two games before going out (although I'm sure FIFA will try to get them in a group with the 2nd worst team in the tournament, and only one of the three goes out).

              Comment


                Originally posted by Duncan Gardner View Post
                How would UEFA Nations League affect these?

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Bordeaux Education View Post
                  I haven't read much about Canada but there hasn't been anything much in recent times, has there? Certainly not on a governmental or nationwide scale, has there?
                  Japanese internment during WW2 was probably the last national abuse that certainly qualifies. Some would argue the imposition of the War Measures Act in Québec during the FLQ crisis counts, as would the abuse of indigenous children in residential schools, which went on into the 70s.

                  Comment


                    Purely on football grounds, who would win a Qatar v Canada "weakest ever hosts" play-off if it were played this year (given they'll both spend some money on "player development" before they host)?

                    Comment


                      Given that Canada has actually partipated in a previous set of finals, whereas Qatar has never come particularly close to qualifying, I give the maple leaf boys he edge.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Bordeaux Education View Post
                        It's not so much from the point of view of the holding of the World Cup itself. I assume that most boycotters are doing so with Russia and Qatr is the their wider human rights abuses. Aside from Guantanamo, illegal wars, renditions and racist shootings by police, the US is one of the most enthusiastic executors of its own citizens with the death penalty being the ultimate human rights abuse. Indeed, it is, by far, the leading executor amongst 'first world' countries. Of course, Mexico has a consistently bad record with death squads etc as well. I haven't read much about Canada but there hasn't been anything much in recent times, has there? Certainly not on a governmental or nationwide scale, has there?
                        True, but Russia and Qatar have the distinction of becoming hosts through brazan corruption and only because of brazan corruption.


                        Only some states have the death penalty.

                        Comment


                          16 groups of 3, top 2 in each advancing. The '1' team in each group appears to have an 8 day rest for their group games.

                          At least one path to the finals in the knockout stages would have a team and their fans going New York-Dallas-LA-Dallas-New York.

                          I'm not liking one thing about this.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
                            Canada would be in severe danger of being the first hosts to only play two games before going out (although I'm sure FIFA will try to get them in a group with the 2nd worst team in the tournament, and only one of the three goes out).
                            In 1938, when the World Cup was a straight knock out, hosts France only played two games. They beat Belgium in the first round before losing to Italy in the quarter finals.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Levin View Post
                              Why would UEFA get more qualifiers in an expanded world cup?
                              Because

                              a) historically they and a couple of South American teams have dominated it*, and

                              b) the number of European teams not just the overall quality is consistently higher than the other strong continent, South America

                              I was discussing this briefly with sometime OTF regular 'Bignutz'. He claimed (I think unironically) that the 32 team set-up is perfect not least because all areas of the Globe are represented. I reminded him that only Japan of the 8 most populous Asian countries (plus China when Japan host) ever qualify, so that's 2 bn notional fans excluded immediately. Does Central America, the Bay or Benin, Scandinavia or whoever have any greater right to that access than the much larger bloc?

                              As JB said, you have to distinguish arbitrarily between continents/ countries/ other forms of organisation. That's fine- we differ mainly in that my main criterion is you have to be good at football. Hence 16 teams.

                              To include Indonesia or Pakistan in my example above, you could expand to 64, or give bigger/ richer countries as well as better teams byes, or just invite everyone to make it like the Olympics where the only qualifying requirement is that you exist. All three alternatives are absurd, so maybe I'll just go for a beer watching Tibet and Kibris again.

                              @Satch- the plan is for Europe to have 16 finalists in 2026- you still need a quali competition to whittle them down from 55. If I follow it correctly the Nations League will be used to a) identify play-off teams, if used, before the main qualifiers, and b) to seed them for the latter. So not to replace the longer qualifying series altogether.

                              * Quarter finalists since the expansion to 32 in 1998

                              Europe 23
                              Americas 14
                              Africa 2
                              Asia 1

                              And the eighth finalists/ R 16

                              Europe 41 (West 35, East 6)
                              Americas 28 (South 19, North 9)
                              Africa 6
                              Asia/Oceania 5
                              Last edited by Duncan Gardner; 18-06-2018, 09:10.

                              Comment


                                Hang on though, 2 or 3 European teams and the same number of South American teams have dominated the world cup. You can't extrapolate out of that that those two confederations are stronger, especially not when given historic numbers of qualifiers, they've had more bites of the cherry.

                                Also, the greater number of European qualifiers in the past means that you're more likely to get one off runs like Turkey or Bulgaria.

                                I do understand that UEFA and Conmebol 'needed' to be given extra slots for the proposal to win support but it still reinforces historical inequalities.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Levin View Post
                                  Hang on though, 2 or 3 European teams and the same number of South American teams have dominated the world cup. You can't extrapolate out of that that those two confederations are stronger, especially not when given historic numbers of qualifiers, they've had more bites of the cherry
                                  It's more than 2 or 3 European teams- on average eight of them make the last 16, only one each of the African and Asians. I think I can conclude from that- over 20 years Europe overall is still much stronger

                                  Also, the greater number of European qualifiers in the past means that you're more likely to get one off runs like Turkey or Bulgaria
                                  OK, but I'm considering a period both a) the relatively recent past, so most relevant and b) long enough to see clear trends

                                  I do understand that UEFA and Conmebol 'needed' to be given extra slots for the proposal to win support but it still reinforces historical inequalities
                                  I'd say it reflects reflect football strength as well the politicking. The outcome is that with arguably half of the 'achievement' UEFA gets only a third of the places. You can see why many fans of smaller European sides are annoyed. Not that I have much sympathy for them as an advicate of 16 team finals, obviously

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by ursus arctos View Post
                                    Given that Canada has actually partipated in a previous set of finals, whereas Qatar has never come particularly close to qualifying, I give the maple leaf boys he edge.
                                    Canada also has the annoying factor of actually producing some decent players, just none of them choose to represent Canada. Hargreaves, de Guzman, Begovic...

                                    Comment


                                      I just read that Jonathan de Guzman moved to the Feyenoord academy aged 12. That's madness. Did his parents follow him over or was he packed off to Dutch boarding school?

                                      Comment


                                        I suspect Britain-Ireland have a good shot at 2030 (or maybe a combined Britain-Ireland-France?) , but there's probably a push to get the World Cup in China and/or India. Those are really the last frontiers, aren't they?

                                        There's a lot wrong with the first clause of this first sentence.

                                        Comment


                                          What seems to be certain is that the boycott world cup threads every world cup from this years will be the longest threads in the world cup forum every time.

                                          Comment


                                            Originally posted by The Awesome Berbaslug!!! View Post
                                            I suspect Britain-Ireland have a good shot at 2030

                                            There's a lot wrong with the first clause of this first sentence
                                            Aye your boys haven't managed sustained shots on target since 1998...

                                            I imagine the English papers and their FA will revive the GB side and be roundly told to fcuk off

                                            Comment


                                              Six automatic qualifiers would mean the qualifying becomes 10 groups with only the winner advancing. Can't see the other UEFA nations wanting that.

                                              Or you go like the Euros where a country stages games but has no guarantee its own team will be there.

                                              Comment


                                                Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
                                                Purely on football grounds, who would win a Qatar v Canada "weakest ever hosts" play-off if it were played this year (given they'll both spend some money on "player development" before they host)?
                                                There's a sliver of a chance that Canada may have a team that's less than embarrassing by 2026. Alphonso Davies will be in his mid-20s, Cyle Larin 31, a couple of other well-coached decent players reaching maturity and they might even approach mediocrity. But probably not, the CSA will find a way to fuck it up.

                                                Comment


                                                  Originally posted by Hot Pepsi View Post
                                                  True, but Russia and Qatar have the distinction of becoming hosts through brazan corruption and only because of brazan corruption.
                                                  True.


                                                  Only some states have the death penalty.
                                                  That never works as a defence.

                                                  Comment


                                                    Originally posted by Satchmo Distel View Post
                                                    Purely on football grounds, who would win a Qatar v Canada "weakest ever hosts" play-off if it were played this year (given they'll both spend some money on "player development" before they host)?
                                                    Seeing as Russia were purported to be "weakest ever hosts" this year, I remain unconvinced.

                                                    Comment

                                                    Working...
                                                    X