2026 World Cup - News, Updates and discussions

[Free kick]

11 hours ago, narduch said:

I seriously think they will take games away from us if we can't provide 3 cities

I seriously think that they wont

 

Edit.:  The terms of the bid and the terms of the agreement (between Mex, Can and the US) state that there will be 10 games in each of Mexico and US.   You gotta have a damn good compelling reason to change that.    Like, for example,  if one country has been proven to be unsafe.   Remember,  at the General assembly whereby the voted, the country FA's voted on joint bid and based on the terms of 60-10-10.   You cant pull the rug out from under their feet and change the the terms,  even Fifa is not that stupid or crooked.

Edited March 15, 2022 by Free kick

[narduch]

Just now, Free kick said:

I seriously think that they wont

As I've layed out before, having more games in a city means giving us later knock out round matches. Which they don't want to do.

4 is the max games they will give 1 Canadian city.

[Free kick]

45 minutes ago, narduch said:

As I've layed out before, having more games in a city means giving us later knock out round matches. Which they don't want to do.

4 is the max games they will give 1 Canadian city.

I recently learned in my reading that:  The reason why we are not getting later games in the tournament knockout is not because we are a Canadian city but because there are stadium seating requirements for each round.   At 45K capacity,  BMO cannot host a semi final game or even a quarter final game. no stadium in Canada, right now meets the seating requirements to host a quarter final game and semi final game.  So this makes perfect sense to explain why we only got one R16 match   

Edited March 14, 2022 by Free kick

[Free kick]

5 minutes ago, narduch said:

4 is the max games they will give 1 Canadian city.

I get this logic,  But Montagliani says (and was quoted) that they can do 5 and 5 between each Canadian city.

[Watchmen]

11 hours ago, Free kick said:

I seriously think that they wont

 

Edit.:  The terms of the bid and the terms of the agreement (between Mex, Can and the US) state that there will be 10 games in each of Mexico and US.   You gotta have a damn good compelling reason to change that.    Like, for example,  if one country has been proven to be unsafe.   Remember,  at the General assembly whereby the voted, the country FA's voted on joint bid and based on the terms of 80-10-10.   You cant pull the rug out from under their feet and change the the terms,  even Fifa is not that stupid or crooked.

Actually, I think FIFA only voted to approve the joint bid and the bids proposal was 80-10-10. However, I don't think FIFA is actually bound to that - they can adjust the number of games up or down as they see fit. I'm not saying it's likely, just possible. Similar to how every bid includes the host being granted a berth, but that's technically a separate vote and the berth being granted isn't actually automatic. It's why Canada/US/Mexico haven't been given automatic spots for 2026 yet, even if we all assume it's coming.

[Watchmen]

On 3/13/2022 at 4:10 PM, Free kick said:

Seattle is the third one that I left out reluctantly but that i am fairly certain it will be there.   The downside is that the surface is not natural. Plus its too close to Vancouver and with each passing day, I am starting to believe that It will be Vancouver instead of Edmonton as the other Canadian city.  

I actually think Seattle gets it *because* Vancouver might get it too. There's too few major cities on the west coast that are easy for travel, and Vancouver-Seattle is one of the pairings that works.

[Free kick]

5 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

I actually think Seattle gets it *because* Vancouver might get it too. There's too few major cities on the west coast that are easy for travel, and Vancouver-Seattle is one of the pairings that works.

My thinking was that yes they want to cluster cities in groups of three or four so that to minimize travel.   But in the case Seattle and Vancouver, they are so close that it might be akin to being all one geographic urban area.

[SthMelbRed]

42 minutes ago, Free kick said:

My thinking was that yes they want to cluster cities in groups of three or four so that to minimize travel.   But in the case Seattle and Vancouver, they are so close that it might be akin to being all one geographic urban area.

They are close in a North American context. It's still nearly a 3-hour drive, once you deal with the border crossing, from Vancouver to Seattle.

[Watchmen]

3 hours ago, Free kick said:

My thinking was that yes they want to cluster cities in groups of three or four so that to minimize travel.   But in the case Seattle and Vancouver, they are so close that it might be akin to being all one geographic urban area.

 

2 hours ago, SthMelbRed said:

They are close in a North American context. It's still nearly a 3-hour drive, once you deal with the border crossing, from Vancouver to Seattle.

And they're in two different countries. So the US would only be using one of their host cities, while Canada uses another.

[An Observer]

6 hours ago, Watchmen said:

Actually, I think FIFA only voted to approve the joint bid and the bids proposal was 80-10-10. However, I don't think FIFA is actually bound to that - they can adjust the number of games up or down as they see fit. I'm not saying it's likely, just possible. Similar to how every bid includes the host being granted a berth, but that's technically a separate vote and the berth being granted isn't actually automatic. It's why Canada/US/Mexico haven't been given automatic spots for 2026 yet, even if we all assume it's coming.

My thinking is that with Canada topping the qualifying group with a very young side of stars who won't be at their peak until 2026, I think it helps a lot with us and the two traditional powers getting automatic qualification.  I think it helps to remove the concern that a "weak" nation is being allowed in without qualification as the highly likelihood is all 3 would qualify anyway especially as the tournament has been expanded to 48 teams including (i think) 6 from Concacaf

[Club Linesman]

Any doubt at FIFA that they were going to give Canada an automatic birth has been destroyed during this qualifying window.  The team is legit in the world now so automatic qualification is a non issue. 

[Free kick]

We Need to Talk About Commonwealth Stadium | Edify. (edifyedmonton.com)

 

The above article is the best that i have seen so far from a Canadian source on this topic.   Here is a good quote about the challenges we have with facilties in North America for the world cup.

Note;  The article is from Feb 23, 2022,   so this would explain why there has been no word on the status of the bid since then.

quote;"

"Cui is now on the local committee for the bid. And he stressed his support for Edmonton to host the World Cup. So, the football-vs.-soccer rhetoric that pitted FC Edmonton against minor football clubs when it came to the use of Clarke Stadium, well, don’t look for it here.“We have to make sure we align the big pieces, first,” Cui said of what could be coming for Commonwealth. “For something of this magnitude, first you have to have the provinces and the federal government to align their interests.”As someone who has global sporting experience, who watched from China as that country prepared to host the Olympics, who ran a mixed-martial arts empire based out of Singapore, Cui definitely shows that he sees the bigger picture. But he did warn that North America is a different sporting animal, simply because soccer doesn’t run our sporting culture like it does in the rest of the world."

 

Edited March 15, 2022 by Free kick

[Watchmen]

Vancouver stepping up financially now:

 

[ShaneC06]

Edmonton is sooooo getting kicked out of the bidding process. Understandable, unfair, but knowing FIFA if Vancouver wants in they'll make it happen. 

[Free kick]

Well, nobody is getting kicked out of the bidding process as far as i can see.   

1) You bid

2) There is an inspection to see if your facilities meets the standards

3) The inspection reveals that you have to do this, this and that.

4) then you say yes we'll do it

5) There is a deadline to show that there is the commitment to do it (ie.: the funding commitments)

But then you cant come up with the funding to do it.  What's there to say?  What's unfair?   to me the answer is "Nothing" to both questions.  Nobody put a gun to anyone's head to bid on this and if you know that you didn't have facilities to meet the standards then why did you bid in the first place. There is stills couple of weeks, so who knows, a lot can happen. 

******

 

We Need to Talk About Commonwealth Stadium | Edify. (edifyedmonton.com) 

quote: " In November, FIFA delegates visited Edmonton for a site inspection, and they were also able to see that more than 90,000 fans....................But, FIFA wasn’t there to celebrate our civic pride. We were subject to a critical assessment of the stadium. And, while there was a feel-good press conference in the end, there are some very, ahem, interesting accounts of what went on behind closed doors. Talk to one person, and everything is under control. Talk to another, and what we have to do is basically rebuild the stadium. But the overriding feeling is that there is still room for movement in terms of what FIFA expects and what it will get. What is the “need to have” and what is the “nice to have?”

Quote: "  it’s hard to define the ask of the provincial government, when the City itself is still “reviewing” the capital plan.

Basically, we don’t know what the price tag will be."

Edited March 16, 2022 by Free kick

[Watchmen]

1 hour ago, ShaneC06 said:

Edmonton is sooooo getting kicked out of the bidding process. Understandable, unfair, but knowing FIFA if Vancouver wants in they'll make it happen. 

It's not an "either/or" situation.  Montagliani might have said two locations could host 5 games each but it's far from ideal and you can bet the CSA would rather have 3 locations. If Montreal was still running, yes this might have been a problem for Edmonton. But right now it seems more like both Vancouver and Edmonton would host assuming they both hit the financial commitments required.

Edited March 16, 2022 by Watchmen

[Free kick]

30 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

But right now it seems more like both Vancouver and Edmonton would host assuming they both hit the financial commitments required.

It seems to me that the financial commitments are now there for Vancouver if we go by the public pronouncement from the BC premier over the past month.   

[SpursFlu]

I wouldn't be surprised if Fifa tells Vancouver to stuff it

[Free kick]

13 minutes ago, SpursFlu said:

I wouldn't be surprised if Fifa tells Vancouver to stuff it

I believe that if something happens in the next couple of weeks to ensure the Alberta funding to make the upgrades necessary,  then yes i agree.   I think that they would love to say, we laid out a process from the start,  you backed out,  hence we couldn't do our visit (like we did everywhere else) so tough luck, you are out.    Montagliani's pronoucements when he said we can do 5 and 5 really underline this and he also said back in Nov i think that "we are working with who is at the table" (Edm and Tor at the time) also  underscore this view.

But it obvious that things changed with Edmonton,  So that's why Van are back in.   Otherwise there could only be one Canadian city and thats problematic for ensuring that Canada gets 10 games. 

 

Edited March 16, 2022 by Free kick

[Cblake]

Such an election promise, Mayor Stewart is in a fight for his political career. Looking for a feel good headline. Can not see FIFA playing ball unfortunately. 

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/local-news/mayor-wants-city-to-promise-millions-to-vancouver-fifa-world-cup-bid-5163449?fbclid=IwAR2zsZTFsWxGOFNvu05jP7PI0kOnjwBTAx-Vprpi900eQKBxwKcWCFqmYzk

[Cblake]

Looks like the province is pushing it too for Vancouver in 2026.

 

[Free kick]

2 hours ago, Cblake said:

Looks like the province is pushing it too for Vancouver in 2026.

 

End of March or early April is the dates whereby the final host cities will be announced.  Those are the timelines we keep hearing.  

[Obinna]

How would Edmonton, Vancouver and Toronto split 10 games? 2-2-6?

Most of the population is in Eastern Canada, but giving one city triple the games seems weird. Giving a host city just 2 games seems weird too. A host city having 6 games is probably too generous. 

What about 3-3-4? That is more even in terms of cities and games, with the biggest city getting an extra game, but you are giving the eastern, most populous part of the country less games. Furthermore, isn't 3 games an awkward number, or is that just me?

Maybe the second break down is more likely, with Eastern Canadians having to travel to nearby American cities like New York, Boston, etc. Similarly, having games in Vancouver AND Edmonton maybe knocks out Seattle, because having all 3 to service the Cascadia/Canadian Rockies region is maybe 1 too many. I am not sure how many American cities they're going to go with, but I understand there are 17 in contention (most are in the east). 

[Free kick]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

How would Edmonton, Vancouver and Toronto split 10 games? 2-2-6?

Most of the population is in Eastern Canada, but giving one city triple the games seems weird. Giving a host city just 2 games seems weird too. A host city having 6 games is probably too generous. 

What about 3-3-4? That is more even in terms of cities and games, with the biggest city getting an extra game, but you are giving the eastern, most populous part of the country less games. Furthermore, isn't 3 games an awkward number, or is that just me?

Maybe the second break down is more likely, with Eastern Canadians having to travel to nearby American cities like New York, Boston, etc. Similarly, having games in Vancouver AND Edmonton maybe knocks out Seattle, because having all 3 to service the Cascadia/Canadian Rockies region is maybe 1 too many. I am not sure how many American cities they're going to go with, but I understand there are 17 in contention (most are in the east). 

3-3-4 is what is always mentioned and what was in the documents I read. Cant recall if it was the bid books or technical evaluation.   When there were two cities still standing (Tor and Edm), Montagliani said that they could do 5-5 and if you look at the proposed schedule (cant find it now but someone posted it here), 5-5 seems doable.    I really cannot see 2-2-6 because that would mean 6 games for one city.  That cant be Toronto because its (the stadium) not big enough (capacitywise) to host a 1/4 final game according the FIFA requirements.  and neither are the two other Canadian cities.  

There will be the city councilor from Edmonton on Matt Iwanyk's show tmrw.  I am curious to hear what he as to say.  He is the guy championing the bid.  I am curious because there are been no news about the funding commitments and the final decisions are only 2-3 weeks away.

As for the last point,  clustering is problem becasue you are starting to have too many cities in The Pacific and mountain time zones.  and very little in the north east.

 

Ps.:  I wouldn’t say most of the bid cities are in the east.  It looks like a well distributed split.  And most of the bad candidate cities appear to be in the east. 

Edited March 17, 2022 by Free kick

[Obinna]

21 minutes ago, Free kick said:

3-3-4 is what is always mentioned and what was in the documents I read. Cant recall if it was the bid books or technical evaluation.   When there were two cities still standing (Tor and Edm), Montagliani said that they could do 5-5 and if you look at the proposed schedule (cant find it now but someone posted it here), 5-5 seems doable.    I really cannot see 2-2-6 because that would mean 6 games for one city.  That cant be Toronto because its not big enough (capacitywise) to host a 1/4 final game according the FIFA requirements.  and neither are the two other Canadian cities.  

There will be the city councilor from Edmonton on Matt Iwanyk's show tmrw.  I am curious to hear what he as to say.  He is the guy championing the bid.  I am curious because there are been now news about the funding commitments and the final decisions are only 2-3 weeks away.

As for the last point,  clustering is problem becasue you are starting to have too many cities in The Pacific and mountain time zones.  and very little in the north east.   

Thanks for sharing all of that, I appreciate it.

As for the Pacific and Mountain time zones, by my count we have Vancouver*, Edmonton, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Denver in play. I agree that may be too many. In the north east however there is Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington and Baltimore. This is not considering Toronto and Cincinnati which are not really north east, but they are in the eastern time zone. Atlanta, Orlando and Miami are EST as well. So while I agree the Pacific and Mountain time zones will probably have to be trimmed down, there seems to be more than enough host cities remaining in the east (specifically in the north east), no?