Jump to content

World Cup 48 team expansion allocation


red23

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Doesn't seem to make sense, especially when relations with Mexico are the worst they've been for a century!

 

I do like co-hosting in principle. It always adds something to tournaments seeing how hosts get on, I tend to feel a bit sad when they get knocked out (though I doubt I'll shed many tears for Russia).

 

I just can't see why America don't go it alone. Maybe they think the other CONCACAF nations would vote against them if they tried, so it's better to have the near-guarantee of hosting 75% of the competition rather than take a risk on missing out altogether trying to earn the rights to host all of it.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39448474
What do you make of this? teams like USA & Iran, guaranteed to be in it every year.
  • 9 African teams?
  • 6 North/Central America teams??
  • 8 Asian teams?!?!
  • One from Oceania
  • Only 3 extra places for European teams?
  • 6 out of 10 teams from South America qualifying???
What a dire World Cup that will be.


It's going the way of the Champions League. Too many teams, probably overhyped and underwhelming.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do Mexico need the US? Of the Canadian cities mentioned as potential hosts, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. Only Toronto currently has a grass pitch and it's not that big (at the moment) Edmonton and Vancouver have large recently renovated stadiums, Winnipeg is less than five years old but they all have astroturf. Hamilton is tiny by world cup standards, plus it's an awful city. Plus all of these stadiums host CFL teams which runs through the summer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Bully Wee Villa said:

Seems as good a thread as any to put it....

The USA, Canada and Mexico have announced a joint bid for the 2026 World Cup.

Of the eighty games, America would host sixty games, the other two nations ten each.

Seems a bit too US-centric to me. I'd like to think Mexico and Canada would be able to host at least a quarter of the matches each. If America is hosting 75% of games, they may as well just launch a solo bid.

We don't have enough stadiums big enough and nice enough to accommodate more than that, we only have 4 that hold over 50,000 and of those 4, 1 is primarily a Baseball stadium (Rogers Centre in Toronto) and generally a poor venue for non-baseball games, 1 is a crumbling shitehole (Olympic Stadium in Montreal), and the other 2 (Commonwelth Stadium in Edmonton and BC Place in Vancouver) so without spending massive amounts of cash then we could only really host 10 games.

Fair play to the CSA for their cunning plan to try to piggyback on a US led bid.  It's the only way we could ever qualify for a World Cup, even with the expansion to 48 teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Torpar said:

Why do Mexico need the US? Of the Canadian cities mentioned as potential hosts, Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver. Only Toronto currently has a grass pitch and it's not that big (at the moment) Edmonton and Vancouver have large recently renovated stadiums, Winnipeg is less than five years old but they all have astroturf. Hamilton is tiny by world cup standards, plus it's an awful city. Plus all of these stadiums host CFL teams which runs through the summer

Putting down a grass pitch for a World Cup is not really that difficult a concept, especially with so much planning time but realistically there would need to be expansions done to Stadiums that are not Commonwealth or BC Place for a World Cup.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand the Canadians wanting to pair-up with the Americans. It'd be similar to NZ piggy-backing with Australia.

I fail to see why the Americans & Canadians would want to pair up with the Mexicans for the sake of 10 out of 80 games.

Unless they think Mexico would bid against them and either prove a threat or potentially split votes and let someone else in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/04/2017 at 18:21, HibeeJibee said:

I can understand the Canadians wanting to pair-up with the Americans. It'd be similar to NZ piggy-backing with Australia.

I fail to see why the Americans & Canadians would want to pair up with the Mexicans for the sake of 10 out of 80 games.

Unless they think Mexico would bid against them and either prove a threat or potentially split votes and let someone else in.

I honestly think its great, it's going to be fantastic people, really great, no one does world cups like i do them, believe me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Probably should be in another thread but it's not. Did you know that 87 years ago today the first World Cup games were played in Montevideo with France 4 Mexico 1 and USA 3 Belgium 0. Only 13 countries took part and there were no qualifying games. According to Wiki the 4 European participants, Belgium, France, Romania & Yugoslavia all travelled to Uruguay on the same ship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conte Verde:

300px-SSConteVerde.jpg


Yugoslavia travelled on a different ship - Florida:

Florida01.jpg


I also love how this was covered in the British press, the Home Nations not participating of course (or even being part of FIFA, IIRC) - calling it the World's Championship in " " marks, labelling it a 'so-called', and obviously expressing a degree of surprise at the level of interest :lol:. Here's the sum total coverage the Scotsman devoted to the inaugural World Cup final:

1930073001.jpg


1930073002.jpg


Four years later there were effectively 17 finalists... Mexico v USA continental playoff was in Rome only 3 days before the finals - which were knockout - began.

Four years after that there were only 15 finalists... Austria had been annexed by Germany after qualifying, England declined an invite, and so Sweden got a R1 bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Elementary Penguin said:

The 48 team thing is a fucking bad joke. What i thought more relevant, going back a few years, would be a 36 team event with 6 groups of 6. Ok, it adds a week on top of the current format, but simply by giving Europe (up to 14), North/South America (combined up to 9), Asia/OFC and Africa (both 6) each an additional spot, still maintaining a degree of competency. 

I think you're overstating the importance of competitive. meaningful games here - don't forget that the World Cup is a festival of corruption, bribery, freeloading, marketeering, franchising, merchandising opportunities and money-making with some football thrown in for good measure; that said, i do think there's some serious thought that has to be given to the revenue streams which can be realised from a longer (six group) competition compared to a shorter splurge with 48 competing nations; I can't believe that the rake-off from broadcasting rights in Burkina Faso, Bhutan, Timor-Leste and the other additional qualifiers is going to outweigh what can be made from an extra week of exposure in more mainstream TV markets - some grown-up thinking required from the FIFA mandarins required in order to avoid some unseemly nose cutting and face-spiting behaviour...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Just read that Morroco have Bid to host the 2026  world cup, alongside a Joint USA/Canada bid, i cannot see anyone else bidding as UEFA and AFA are both not allowed to following 2018 and 2022. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, mizfit said:

Just read that Morroco have Bid to host the 2026  world cup, alongside a Joint USA/Canada bid, i cannot see anyone else bidding as UEFA and AFA are both not allowed to following 2018 and 2022. 

Hopefully the Morocco bid fails as being co-host is the only way we would ever be able to actually make the world cup!  Even with 48 teams there isn't a snowball's chance in hell Canada would qualify by actually playing football.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...