2026 World Cup - News, Updates and discussions

[dyslexic nam]

Why would Edmonton be excluded?   They showed in November that they can throw a great event and get the big crowds out.  It would be a slap in the face if BC were allowed back in and Edmonton was kicked to the curb after the former withdrew from consideration and stood on the sidelines for so long.  I have no problem with Vancouver coming back into the tent, but not at the expense of Edmonton’s participation.  

[Ansem]

1 hour ago, dyslexic nam said:

I wonder if Canada’s recent success makes them a bit more inclined to lean in our favour.  In the last few years we have started a new pro league, won the Olympic women’s gold medal, and qualified for the WC for the first time in 36 years (with a globallly recognized superstar).  They may want to promote the game in the US (as a massive global market). It there has never been a better time to help Canada make a quantum leap into a true footy nation.  If throwing a couple of extra games our way at the minor expense of a greedy US “partner” in the bid, I think it could happen.  

Canada is one of the last industrialized countries where soccer is very niche and not mainstream beyond WCQs. On top of that, we're the world's 10th economy - contrarily to popular belief, there's money here.

I'd like to think that FIFA would concluded that more than 10 games would be a better deal if that helps them penetrate the Canadian market significantly. Kids are already playing more soccer than hockey. More games spread around might bring all whole new streams of revenues into the FIFA environment.

I could be wrong an they might stick to the greedy-selfish USSF "imposing" (yes they did) the 60-10-10 formula. However, FIFA has nothing to lose to make it 50-15-15 at the bare minimum (every stadiums get 5 games). While I think the US should get one of the 3 main events (Opening ceremony, 3rd place game, finals) - they shouldn't get all 3 + all the games past the round of 16.

There's no reason to not have 3 cities like Mexico, just give all the hosts 5 games each which comes at zero costs for FIFA. I'd like to think that the Vice-President of FIFA is pushing backstage - Vancouver being able to come back after saying no is a sign that he is.

Edited April 8, 2022 by Ansem

[johnyb]

2 hours ago, dyslexic nam said:

Why would Edmonton be excluded?   They showed in November that they can throw a great event and get the big crowds out.  It would be a slap in the face if BC were allowed back in and Edmonton was kicked to the curb after the former withdrew from consideration and stood on the sidelines for so long.  I have no problem with Vancouver coming back into the tent, but not at the expense of Edmonton’s participation.  

Agree, but with Edmonton's ultimatum about 5 games and a Knockout game minimum for funding, I suspect it's one or the other. If all 3 are in that only leaves 5 games to share between TO and Van.

[Joe MacCarthy]

5 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

As I've stated before. In a country that is in such desperate need of stadiums I have no idea how you can let a world cup come and go and not use it as an opportunity to build at least 1 stadium. It's just mind blowing to me

Where you gonna put it, Calgary?  It's the only place that could really use it, that comes to mind immediately.  Possibly Halifax.

[Obinna]

Calgary desperately needs a new stadium. McMahon is junk. Is that really the best a city of 1.5M people can do? It's pathetic. 

[dyslexic nam]

36 minutes ago, johnyb said:

Agree, but with Edmonton's ultimatum about 5 games and a Knockout game minimum for funding, I suspect it's one or the other. If all 3 are in that only leaves 5 games to share between TO and Van.

Ideally we could up our total share of the game allotment and get enough for everyone.  

[Joe MacCarthy]

1 hour ago, Obinna said:

Calgary desperately needs a new stadium. McMahon is junk. Is that really the best a city of 1.5M people can do? It's pathetic. 

Actually the sightlines are among the best but pertaining to modernities, and modern money making opportunities it needs replacing.  I would love to see Calgary go all out on a new stadium, retractable roof, movable turf surface, the whole bit, only smaller 27-30k seats.

Calgary needs a new fieldhouse, it's on the todo list.  There was talk of combining forces with a stadium and an early graphic was released.  People got all bent out of shape saying how cheap it was and of course not realizing how early in the process it was.  Later there wasn't even a process.  The first Regina stadium render (below) looked nothing like the final product, so people should chill but if there are going to be any new stadiums we have to start with Calgary.

Regina early renders above, actual stadium below

I would love to see some of that Japanese hoodoo voodoo design into combining a fieldhouse and stadium (you would need that to eliminate a track), because I think that will be the only way to get a stadium that isn't on the traditional line like Hamilton. See Saitama Super Arena (not literally, just something along those lines)

[kacbru]

4 hours ago, Ansem said:

Canada is one of the last industrialized countries where soccer is very niche and not mainstream beyond WCQs. On top of that, we're the world's 10th economy - contrarily to popular belief, there's money here.

I'd like to think that FIFA would concluded that more than 10 games would be a better deal if that helps them penetrate the Canadian market significantly. Kids are already playing more soccer than hockey. More games spread around might bring all whole new streams of revenues into the FIFA environment.

I could be wrong an they might stick to the greedy-selfish USSF "imposing" (yes they did) the 60-10-10 formula. However, FIFA has nothing to lose to make it 50-15-15 at the bare minimum (every stadiums get 5 games). While I think the US should get one of the 3 main events (Opening ceremony, 3rd place game, finals) - they shouldn't get all 3 + all the games past the round of 16.

There's no reason to not have 3 cities like Mexico, just give all the hosts 5 games each which comes at zero costs for FIFA. I'd like to think that the Vice-President of FIFA is pushing backstage - Vancouver being able to come back after saying no is a sign that he is.

While I agree with you, I don't see it happening. And it is not just the greedy USSF, but also FIFA. Our 10 games are nothing more than the minimum sacrifice to get the US bid over the line. We are the loss-leader, the discount bin of nearly rotten fruit at the entrance to the supermarket. There is no need for another bin. 

[SpursFlu]

1 hour ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Where you gonna put it, Calgary?  It's the only place that could really use it, that comes to mind immediately.  Possibly Halifax.

I would have thought an obvious choice would have been Alberta (Edmonton or Calgary) or something in Montreal. I would think a Big O reno. Fifa standards are 40k at least expandable to 40k. I guess with the CFL expansion in the maritimes that's a maybe but Quebec Alberta come to mind first

[Free kick]

There is a lot delusion I see here about canada and its relationship with the US.  For the record, i am neither anti american nor pro american.  I see our relationship with the US for what it is.  And what it is is that 75% (give or take) of our exports go to the US.  That means oil and gas,  natural resources,  manufacturing,  electricity, agriculture etc etc.   That means that private incomes from individuals and companies are largely derived from that relationship with the US, which is a market 10 times our size.  Those same incomes from private sector and individuals are what contributes to the tax base that allow us the public services (like public funded medicare) that we enjoy.   That relationship extends not only to trade but also for jobs in canada that are dependant on US subsidiaries operating in Canada (More on this later and what is mean for professional and non professional sports in canada). The market capitalization of the TSX is incredibly small for for a country that calls itself a first world nation.   Are we a top 10 industrialized country if that relation with the US was totally ruptured?  Clearly not.
 

No one can denying those basic fact unless you want to quibble about specificity of the numbers.  Speaking of subsidiaries in canada and what this means for the world cup, soccer and other sports canada is that conditions we operate under are identical to those conditions i mentioned in the first paragraph.  Why could they possibly be different?  They just aren’t.  For sports, an integration of canadian clubs or franchises with their US conterparts under a league unbrella is what allows these canadian clubs to generate the revenues (partly derived from shared sources) to operate at a level that pays for the salaries and the club’s infrastructure and operations to attain that level that  is the best in the world or allows us a chance to compete with the best in the world.  In the NHL(our national passion), for example, four or the seven clubs in Canada are not huge revenue teams, they depend on the three other canadian teams and US based clubs for shared revenues.  Or they probably wouldnt exist.  Same for soccer, this means the revenues from the larger markets in canada within MLS cannot ever be matched not any where close) by the clubs within the next 4-8 canadian urban centres.  And that means fewer revenues for expditures (player salaries) and Capital projects to make the operations at level that allows our clubs to pay competive wage and attract the talent to be truly competive and by extension nurture the talent that allow us to compete internationally.   And, by extention, develop the infrastructure (to play inetrnational matches) that would not be embarrassing.  Which brings us to WC2026.

Our stadiums for 2026, if you compare to what the US and mexico has, would rank 1-2-3 from the bottom.  And what we have from two of the three canadian candidate hosts, are only candidates because of there are MLS clubs.  As for the state and condition of the other,  i will just refer and defer to the Steven Sandor (who actually lives there) article a few pages a back about Commonwealth stadium.    None of these three facilities have each of: 1) the capacity (ie.: You need 65k capacity to host a WC quarter finals match) 2) the surface, only one has the surface, the second has a decent but non conforming surface, and the third one’s surface is an embarrasment. 3) Contemporary or up to date to the level of our US conterpart to which is required for an event like the WC.  BMO field is really a club facility not a true international stadium, the others are old, out of date and no where near what the US has. On merit, we wouldnt even beat Morroco for hosting rights on our own.

So having said all this, where is logic or where do we get off saying we deserve more games in 2026?.  We cant even find 1 stadium whereas the american have 17 of which some could host games now.  Or where do we get off saying that the organizing committee is screwing Canada by only awarding 10 games to us?   Or that the americans are greedy? The Americans could do this thing on their own,  they dont need us. 
 

 

Edited April 9, 2022 by Free kick

[reggietfc]

i love BMO...jus for the reason of when i look at the north end i can see the big FOOD sign,or else i would starve to death

Edited April 9, 2022 by reggietfc

[lamptern]

My dream vision:

1. 2026 matches goes to 50-15-15

2. Grass for BC Place

3. BMO Field upgrade to 40k seats (and close the four corners for god sake!)

4. CPL Fraser Valley stadium designed by someone knows what a soccer specific stadium should looks like. I am OK starting with 6k seats. Preferably expendable to 20k.

Edited April 9, 2022 by lamptern

[Joe MacCarthy]

2 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

I would have thought an obvious choice would have been Alberta (Edmonton or Calgary) or something in Montreal. I would think a Big O reno. Fifa standards are 40k at least expandable to 40k. I guess with the CFL expansion in the maritimes that's a maybe but Quebec Alberta come to mind first

We're certainly not going to see any 20k plus stadiums being built in Edmonton or Montreal.  Montreal currently has three large stadiums as it is.

Both those cities are in a tough spot where they can't justify a large new stadium until the present ones get past their best before dates and both are still very serviceable. 

Montreal is in a worse position where the Big O requires a remodel along the lines of likely well over 500 million, similar to BC Place. 

There are two ways to look at that:

One is it's not worth it and you could build a great new right sized facility for that kind of money.  But you still have to maintain the Big O because of all the activity (business) that has located in the tower. 

Two, the Big O is seen as a civic icon and maybe should be looked at along the lines of the Olympiastadion and throw the money at it and finish it correctly once and for all (like BC Place).

[Joe MacCarthy]

6 hours ago, Free kick said:

Our stadiums for 2026, if you compare to what the US and mexico has, would rank 1-2-3 from the bottom.  And what we have from two of the three canadian candidate hosts, are only candidates because of there are MLS clubs.  As for the state and condition of the other,  i will just refer and defer to the Steven Sandor (who actually lives there) article a few pages a back about Commonwealth stadium.    None of these three facilities have each of: 1) the capacity (ie.: You need 65k capacity to host a WC quarter finals match) 2) the surface, only one has the surface, the second has a decent but non conforming surface, and the third one’s surface is an embarrasment. 3) Contemporary or up to date to the level of our US conterpart to which is required for an event like the WC.  BMO field is really a club facility not a true international stadium, the others are old, out of date and no where near what the US has. On merit, we wouldnt even beat Morroco for hosting rights on our own.

I agree with most of what you said except for what I have quoted.  As for ol "Soccer" Steve if he is the same guy that has the Youtube channel, I find it hard to believe anything he would have to offer.  The "article" on Commonwealth Stadium seemed to infer things but never specified anything in detail.  The stadium has been often renovated and well maintained.  I don't know why I have this feeling of a conspiracy misrepresenting against Edmonton by some here and I have no idea why I get the same vibe from ol "Soccer" Steve.

To have a 65k permanent seat stadium in present day Canada is ridiculous, we need to downsize what we have and have temp seating for big events.  To say the stadiums are old is disingenuous: Maracana, Olympiastadion, Rose Bowl, Stanford, USC are still used for big events today.  To say BC Place is past it's prime and old defies credulity.

Who cares about the surfaces? That is a fixable issue. Even though I would think there would be issues growing turf inside (as I stated previously), to install the surface is not a difficult upgrade as opposed to major stadium renovations (ie BC Place roof replacement).  It's not as easy as digging a hole and planting grass but it ain't rocket surgery either and I've been reading and following this turf stuff for ages, see New Canadian Stadiums thread

It seems like you are lamenting the stadiums lack the "Wow" factor but when it really comes down to it, nobody gives a poop.  No matter what FIFA might want as their best case scenario, there will be no new stadiums in Canada and two (or three) of them will be the Canadian stadiums, flashy or not.

Edited April 9, 2022 by Joe MacCarthy

[Joe MacCarthy]

For those wondering about stadium timelines, generally in Canada, IMO it takes about eight years from initial serious consideration until full completion.  Regina was completed in a little sooner time.

[TGAA_Star]

14 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Actually the sightlines are among the best but pertaining to modernities, and modern money making opportunities it needs replacing.  I would love to see Calgary go all out on a new stadium, retractable roof, movable turf surface, the whole bit, only smaller 27-30k seats.

Calgary needs a new fieldhouse, it's on the todo list.  There was talk of combining forces with a stadium and an early graphic was released.  People got all bent out of shape saying how cheap it was and of course not realizing how early in the process it was.  Later there wasn't even a process.  The first Regina stadium render (below) looked nothing like the final product, so people should chill but if there are going to be any new stadiums we have to start with Calgary.

Regina early renders above, actual stadium below

I would love to see some of that Japanese hoodoo voodoo design into combining a fieldhouse and stadium (you would need that to eliminate a track), because I think that will be the only way to get a stadium that isn't on the traditional line like Hamilton. See Saitama Super Arena (not literally, just something along those lines)

Yeah I love the overall look but FIFA hasn't even once considered them

[TGAA_Star]

11 hours ago, lamptern said:

My dream vision:

1. 2026 matches goes to 50-15-15

2. Grass for BC Place

3. BMO Field upgrade to 40k seats (and close the four corners for god sake!)

4. CPL Fraser Valley stadium designed by someone knows what a soccer specific stadium should looks like. I am OK starting with 6k seats. Preferably expendable to 20k.

Too bad that is not going to happen because USA of course are going to get the majority of games but I understand you wanting Canada to have more games but it just isn't realistic and then what about Mexico? They too are also a host and if we get more games, then they too also have to get more games. Either scenario is not happening.

BMO is definitely going to get upgraded

But BC Place getting grass, even if they do, will FIFA make sure they get games? If they do, it would have happened by now

[RS]

11 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

I don't know why I have this feeling of a conspiracy misrepresenting against Edmonton by some here and I have no idea why I get the same vibe from ol "Soccer" Steve.

Paranoia?

(Who the heck is ol "Soccer" Steve?)

[Joe MacCarthy]

4 minutes ago, RS said:

Paranoia?

Mods shouldn't be insulting people.

[Joe MacCarthy]

4 hours ago, RS said:

Paranoia?

(Who the heck is ol "Soccer" Steve?)

Funny, I just got a PM from somebody who seems to be in the know basically confirming what I said.  So have a go at me if you will but something is fishy in Denmark. 

[RS]

5 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Mods shouldn't be insulting people.

Two things here:

1. I never insulted anyone. 
2. I never asked to be a mod.

1 hour ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

Funny, I just got a PM from somebody who seems to be in the know basically confirming what I said.  So have a go at me if you will but something is fishy in Denmark. 

If you’re gonna “have a go” at someone then surely you can handle a simple question (that you’ve yet to answer, by the way).

[Joe MacCarthy]

20 minutes ago, RS said:

Two things here:

1. I never insulted anyone. 
2. I never asked to be a mod.

If you’re gonna “have a go” at someone then surely you can handle a simple question (that you’ve yet to answer, by the way).

You want me to answer an insult?  You never asked to be a mod?  Be like Nancy Reagan, just say no, it ain't difficult.

[RS]

52 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

You want me to answer an insult?  You never asked to be a mod?  Be like Nancy Reagan, just say no, it ain't difficult.

There was no insult. 

I asked who the heck “Soccer” Steve was, because you seem to be under the impression that the existence of this random YouTuber invalidates @Free kick’s point. 

[Joe MacCarthy]

3 minutes ago, RS said:

There was no insult. 

I asked who the heck “Soccer” Steve was, because you seem to be under the impression that the existence of this random YouTuber invalidates @Free kick’s point. 

I was saying that there is a Canadian Youtuber called Steve (who didn't impress me) and I'm not sure if he is the same guy as Soccer Steve from Edmonton who hasn't been impressing me with his vague accusations concerning the Edmonton bid. I also am happy that someone else validated my point in a PM with much further information.  I'm not sure why that person doesn't want to post so I said I would not betray their confidence.  I'm not from Edmonton, I have no reason to defend them other than what I see doesn't seem right.

[RS]

29 minutes ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

I was saying that there is a Canadian Youtuber called Steve (who didn't impress me) and I'm not sure if he is the same guy as Soccer Steve from Edmonton who hasn't been impressing me with his vague accusations concerning the Edmonton bid. I also am happy that someone else validated my point in a PM with much further information.  I'm not sure why that person doesn't want to post so I said I would not betray their confidence.  I'm not from Edmonton, I have no reason to defend them other than what I see doesn't seem right.

Steven Sandor isn’t a YouTuber, and he doesn’t go by “Soccer Steve” as far as I know.

I have no idea why someone would only want to “validate” your point privately when Sandor’s a pretty well-known Edmonton soccer voice (and a fairly level-headed one, at that).