2026 World Cup - News, Updates and discussions

[Joe MacCarthy]

10 hours ago, RS said:

The CFL teams that play in the most outdated stadia are the two in Alberta.

Five of the other six play in venues that were either newly built over the last decade or massively renovated to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars

There are nine teams in the CFL   And I would put Montreal before Edmonton, while still not counting Edmonton as outdated as it has had several upgrades over the years.  I often wonder why people don't speak of the Rose Bowl or LA Memorial Coliseum or the Olympiastadion in the same way as some do here about Commonwealth.

[TOcanadafan]

4 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

There are nine teams in the CFL   And I would put Montreal before Edmonton, while still not counting Edmonton as outdated as it has had several upgrades over the years.  I often wonder why people don't speak of the Rose Bowl or LA Memorial Coliseum or the Olympiastadion in the same way as some do here about Commonwealth.

Montreal would have been a great host city, but kudos to them for not selling out to FIFA (all the financial demands and restrictions on other city festivals/events).  
I don’t know the current state of those other ‘old’ stadiums but you can’t compare LA and Berlin to Edmonton in terms of travel appeal.  And we are focusing on the Canada bid… plus those old US stadiums were never part of the discussion for this bid - they are using SoFi.

[RS]

11 hours ago, DoyleG said:

 

Commonwealth had renovations done prior to the 2015 WWC. It's had regular upgrades during its existence.

It has, but nothing compared to the likes of BC Place or TD Place (Lansdowne Park) have in the past 10-11 years. 

[TOcanadafan]

17 hours ago, SpursFlu said:

Yah we like tax payer dollars being wasted the old fashioned Canadian way. Going to giant bloated useless public programs that don't even function properly and are mostly used to create a loyal voter blocs in urban areas which ultimately dictate elections. 

Ya, what a democracy we have when 80% of our population might want to have a say in who forms government.

Edited June 18, 2022 by TOcanadafan

[RS]

5 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

There are nine teams in the CFL   And I would put Montreal before Edmonton, while still not counting Edmonton as outdated as it has had several upgrades over the years.  I often wonder why people don't speak of the Rose Bowl or LA Memorial Coliseum or the Olympiastadion in the same way as some do here about Commonwealth.

Yeah, I actually meant to write five of seven but even Montreal’s stadium had major upgrades in the time period I was referring to.

As for those other venues, both the Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum we’re just passed over in favour of SoFi Stadium despite the latter’s built-in limitations regarding FIFA specifications, so that should tell you something. The Rose Bowl is unique enough design-wise to keep it in conversations, but it doesn’t really host major one-off events all that often any longer. The Chargers even chose 27,000-seat Dignity Health Sports Park (home of the Galaxy) as a temporary home base while SoFi was being built over the Rose Bowl because the latter is so out-of-date regarding amenities, luxury boxes, etc.

With Olympiastadion, it’s been surpassed by several venues in Germany, but it’s current state is still far superior to that of Commonwealth. The location and size and still makes it a premier venue despite it’s age, although the pitch is remarkably far from the stands.

[RS]

10 hours ago, PunjabiOil said:

Yup.  I don't buy the stadium argument - there were renovations for the 2001 IAAF World's, then again for the 2007 U19s and again 2015 WWC.

The stadium argument doesn't hold an argument when BMO is 30K capacity and using temporary seating.

Hell, FIFA's own inspection review of Commonwealth Stadium indicated it was one of the highest ranked stadiums (5th best) in North America (not saying that is reality, but reveals the subjective nature of bid process)

You don’t need to buy the stadium argument — it’s just one part of a host city’s bid.

Commonwealth is out of date but could be spruced up, however the rest of the city wasn’t going to compare to Vancouver and Toronto in the eyes of FIFA.

I still think accommodations could’ve been made. It’s bogus that we only get two host cities, especially when a place like Kansas City was seemingly the one to benefit from Edmonton’s exclusion.

[Watchmen]

7 hours ago, PunjabiOil said:

Ultimately, I don't think it would have got to this point if Victor M. didn't personally get involved in the process and used his influence and position of power in the manner he did.

I think Victor used his power and influence to get Vancouver back in, but it's not the reason Edmonton is out. I think he'd prefer Edmonton was in as well.

[Free kick]

In that city announcements show they talked very little about substantive selection criteria relative to host selection.  Except for one;  limiting the amount of travel.   Even Infantino brought it up during his chatter.  In the past, the biggest complaint from abroad about FIFA event held in this continent was travel.  Therefore it makes sense to address this issue or show that you addressing this issue.   And in the bid, they talked at length about clustering and the need cluster teams in regions right up until the semi finals of the tournament

Which suggests that before even looking at stadiums, surfaces, funding for stadiums,  funding conditions for stadiums, etc etc Edmonton and Denver (from the picture below) were at a disadvantage.  Note:  Denver, whose stadium scored the highest grade in this same document, was also not chosen. 

ir3g14juxglqbbteevvf-pdf.pdf (fifa.com)

This is on Page 132 of the Bid evaluation book

Edited June 18, 2022 by Free kick

[Free kick]

2 hours ago, RS said:

You don’t need to buy the stadium argument — it’s just one part of a host city’s bid.

Commonwealth is out of date but could be spruced up, however the rest of the city wasn’t going to compare to Vancouver and Toronto in the eyes of FIFA.

I still think accommodations could’ve been made. It’s bogus that we only get two host cities, especially when a place like Kansas City was seemingly the one to benefit from Edmonton’s exclusion.

Yes,  there is a lot factors that go into decisions like this.  I am sure most are legitimate based on Technical evaluations and other subsequent assessments derived after this initiation report.  But you can be sure that there will some room for the backroom patronage stuff.  How else does one explain the fact that Baltimore/ Washington was left off and Boston was included.   I think KC was a legacy pick due to the backing of the Hunt family and their support for soccer in the US, the fact that KC has always been a good market for MLS.

 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Free kick

[Unnamed Trialist]

On 6/17/2022 at 2:35 PM, narduch said:

It will be grass.

Edible? 

[Obinna]

13 hours ago, footballfreak said:

Given that he went out of his way to mention drug addiction harm reduction, no he doesn’t have a point. Leaving aside any moral imperative to help drug addicted people, those programs end up saving the taxpayer money. They are the antithesis of what he claims to be railing against if he actually cared about government bloat. It’s the same nonsense as those who complain about public spending on space exploration or pure sciences when the ROI is ridiculously high. 

By contrast, stadiums are proven money sinks in the majority of cases. They’re not a benign expenditure, and the public is generally aware of this. That’s why the “pro stadium” vote is not really a thing outside of places like this board. Stadiums cost political capital for a good reason. The reality is, with a handful of potential exceptions, we have the stadiums we collectively willing to pay for in this country. As discretionary spending continues to fall, the utility of big stadiums moving forward is likely to wane further rather than wax.

One final point. The complaints are particularly dumb right now given how many major cities have spent on stadium/arena infrastructure in the last decade or so: Vancouver (BC Place), Edmonton (hockey, Commonwealth renovations), Calgary (hockey tbd), Regina (CFL), Winnipeg (CFL), Hamilton (CFL), Toronto (BMO upgrades). It’s been a veritable boom in stadium construction funded with a great deal of public money. The money just isn’t going to 50k seat stadiums, because we have very little desire/use for such stadiums.

 

To play devil's advocate, may I ask why stadiums are money sinks yet similar countries all over the world build them bigger and better than us? What gives there?

My take away from your response is that in Canada we have lackluster stadiums because we get what we are willing to pay for. If that's what it is, then so be it. If the trade off is more to spend on beneficial social programs, then so be it. However, I personally don't see a markable improvement with the issues those programs claim to address. I think people excuse, look past, or ignore the lack of results simply because they just feel good supporting those programs. You said yourself the drug addition programs save tax payer money, but the goal is to improve peoples lives and get people off drugs, not save tax payer money. The drug problem now is worse than ever, so I wouldn't call it a success and neither would you, apparently.

It reminds of the common retort you hear from people who support a carbon tax that doesn't put a dent in global warming. They just say "well it's better than doing nothing". I don't blame people for that, but at least be honest with yourselves about it. 

Anyways, that's my rant for the day. I will move on accepting that we are going to have to wait and be patient on the stadium front in this country

Even in MLS there is still a team playing in a baseball stadium, so I shouldn't be too critical, eh?

Edited June 18, 2022 by Obinna

[Unnamed Trialist]

12 hours ago, Joe MacCarthy said:

There are nine teams in the CFL   And I would put Montreal before Edmonton, while still not counting Edmonton as outdated as it has had several upgrades over the years.  I often wonder why people don't speak of the Rose Bowl or LA Memorial Coliseum or the Olympiastadion in the same way as some do here about Commonwealth.

Really?

[Joe MacCarthy]

28 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Really?

<sarcasm mode on>Who pays attention to upgrades, I don't care about no stinkin' upgrades.  It's 86 years old, that's all that matters.<sarcasm mode off>

[mrstepp817]

I get that using taxpayer dollars to fund stadiums is always a hot button issue....but there is economic benefit to stadiums if they are done right. Key being (if done right and not a White Elephant)

Jerry Jones, the owner of the Cowboys did sink a lot of his own money into the construction of AT&T Stadium (and the NFL kicked in 150 million), but they got the stadium passed because most of the cost didnt go to the taxpayers in Arlington, there was a modest sales tax increase but the rest of stadium was funded by a car rental and hotel occupancy tax which visitors pay for.....

This article references below some of the benefits to the city of Arlington that the building of AT&T Stadium made (article is a little dated but the numbers are telling)

 

• In large part because of both AT&T Stadium and HKS-designed Globe Life Park, the home of MLB’s Texas Rangers, Arlington has seen its hotel-motel tax revenue increase by nearly 72 percent, going from about $5.39 million in – the year before AT&T Stadium opened – to more than $9.25 million in fiscal year 2018.
• During that same period, sales tax revenues in the city grew by more than 36 percent, increasing from $46 million in 2008 to nearly $63 million in 2018.
• Jerry Jones pays Arlington $2 million a year in rent, plus $500,000 a year from his AT&T naming rights deal. That money now goes directly into the city’s general fund. City officials had expected to have the stadium paid off 13 years early, by 2021. But in 2017, the city refinanced AT&T Stadium to help issue new debt for Globe Life Field, which opens in 2020 and is another HKS project. The refinancing will save Arlington taxpayers about $7.4 million. AT&T Stadium is now slated to be paid off in 2034 as originally planned.
• Williams said that in 2019, AT&T Stadium would welcome more than 300 events, in addition to the Cowboys games. Whether it’s the Monster Jam truck competition, an international soccer match, a concert or a high school graduation, high school football games, AT&T Stadium is a willing host. And that doesn’t count major, high-profile events such as the Super Bowl, the NFL Draft, an NBA All-Star Game, WrestleMania 32 and the annual Cotton Bowl Classic

https://www.hksinc.com/our-news/articles/ten-years-later-att-stadium-remains-golden-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/

[Unnamed Trialist]

Regarding some predicting the Langley site will be used for World Cup training facilities: read today that they have to be within 25km of the stadium site. So that takes Langley out of the picture.

Same article said that there could be need for 2-3 such facilities. The prediction was that one would be a Parks Board facility--but as is there are none that are fully blocked off and secure. So that would have to be done with multiple grass fields, locker rooms, blocked off area, secure accesses. 

UBC is another site that is ready (Whitecaps facility plus adjoining).

Where the Caps used to have the academy kids (still?) out near Burnaby Lake could also work. 

What does TFC have? The Downsview site?

Will the Woodbine Entertainment facility be ready? Was that the site the CSA was going to go in on, or is there another?

[narduch]

Just now, Unnamed Trialist said:

Regarding some predicting the Langley site will be used for World Cup training facilities: read today that they have to be within 25km of the stadium site. So that takes Langley out of the picture.

Same article said that there could be need for 2-3 such facilities. The prediction was that one would be a Parks Board facility--but as is there are none that are fully blocked off and secure. So that would have to be done with multiple grass fields, locker rooms, blocked off area, secure accesses. 

UBC is another site that is ready (Whitecaps facility plus adjoining).

Where the Caps used to have the academy kids (still?) out near Burnaby Lake could also work. 

What does TFC have? The Downsview site?

Will the Woodbine Entertainment facility be ready? Was that the site the CSA was going to go in on, or is there another?

Isn't Langley CPL stadium going to be artificial turf? That would probably also be a factor in counting it out.

Downsview would be a good location in Toronto. Its within 25 km of BMO Field.

Woodbine is over 25 km from BMO Field. That stadium didn't have CSA involvement. It was being pushed by York United. I think they are still looking for funding.

The site the CSA was involved in is in Vaughan. That site is over 50 km from BMO if you use the major highways to get there. Believe that one is also looking for funding.

 

 

[Watchmen]

9 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Regarding some predicting the Langley site will be used for World Cup training facilities: read today that they have to be within 25km of the stadium site. So that takes Langley out of the picture.

Is there a difference between the "training facility" and where a team establishes its "home base"? I'm not saying any team would establish themselves in Langley, just that this might be a different way for facilities to be upgraded some place with a short term purpose/longer term community gain.

[Soro17]

43 minutes ago, Watchmen said:

Is there a difference between the "training facility" and where a team establishes its "home base"? I'm not saying any team would establish themselves in Langley, just that this might be a different way for facilities to be upgraded some place with a short term purpose/longer term community gain.

Inter-River Park in NV has about 8 nice grass fields and a new turf pitch, some of which could easily be closed off for a training facility. It being Vancouver, they aren't really used in July and August. 

[SthMelbRed]

I suppose if the price was right, the City of Burnaby could put up temporary fencing to close off the Central Valley side of the Burnaby Lake Sports Complex. There are 3 full-size, grass football pitches, a couple of rugby fields, and the grass area that used to be for field hockey, but is not used for cricket, in the summer, I think. The football and rugby fields aren't used in the summer months and usually in good condition, bar the abundance of goose poo from the Canada geese that live on the lake. The pavilion is pretty old, though, but this could be the excuse for a nice upgrade.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by SthMelbRed

[SF]

On 6/19/2022 at 9:54 AM, mrstepp817 said:

I get that using taxpayer dollars to fund stadiums is always a hot button issue....but there is economic benefit to stadiums if they are done right. Key being (if done right and not a White Elephant)

Jerry Jones, the owner of the Cowboys did sink a lot of his own money into the construction of AT&T Stadium (and the NFL kicked in 150 million), but they got the stadium passed because most of the cost didnt go to the taxpayers in Arlington, there was a modest sales tax increase but the rest of stadium was funded by a car rental and hotel occupancy tax which visitors pay for.....

This article references below some of the benefits to the city of Arlington that the building of AT&T Stadium made (article is a little dated but the numbers are telling)

 

• In large part because of both AT&T Stadium and HKS-designed Globe Life Park, the home of MLB’s Texas Rangers, Arlington has seen its hotel-motel tax revenue increase by nearly 72 percent, going from about $5.39 million in – the year before AT&T Stadium opened – to more than $9.25 million in fiscal year 2018.
• During that same period, sales tax revenues in the city grew by more than 36 percent, increasing from $46 million in 2008 to nearly $63 million in 2018.
• Jerry Jones pays Arlington $2 million a year in rent, plus $500,000 a year from his AT&T naming rights deal. That money now goes directly into the city’s general fund. City officials had expected to have the stadium paid off 13 years early, by 2021. But in 2017, the city refinanced AT&T Stadium to help issue new debt for Globe Life Field, which opens in 2020 and is another HKS project. The refinancing will save Arlington taxpayers about $7.4 million. AT&T Stadium is now slated to be paid off in 2034 as originally planned.
• Williams said that in 2019, AT&T Stadium would welcome more than 300 events, in addition to the Cowboys games. Whether it’s the Monster Jam truck competition, an international soccer match, a concert or a high school graduation, high school football games, AT&T Stadium is a willing host. And that doesn’t count major, high-profile events such as the Super Bowl, the NFL Draft, an NBA All-Star Game, WrestleMania 32 and the annual Cotton Bowl Classic

https://www.hksinc.com/our-news/articles/ten-years-later-att-stadium-remains-golden-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/

All of that may well be true, but the question is whether this economic activity is additive to the overall economy.  Yes, hotel owners in Arlington are probably pleased, but does it come at the expense of "fill in the blank" owners in Arlington?

The use of tax money is down to the preference of the local electorate, but I would prefer my tax money be used for projects that amplify economic growth or serve some larger social good (I will add that I am a fan of sport, but it doesn't feed the homeless.  Also, I would still be a fan if the players and owners made less money...suspect most other sports fans would also remain loyal their teams if the primary constituents were slightly less remunerated).

I appreciate that you have cited a source, but there have been many analytical studies in this area and almost all that I know of conclude that these are simply subsidies for those that don't actually need them - one example  

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

 

[mrstepp817]

32 minutes ago, SF said:

All of that may well be true, but the question is whether this economic activity is additive to the overall economy.  Yes, hotel owners in Arlington are probably pleased, but does it come at the expense of "fill in the blank" owners in Arlington?

The use of tax money is down to the preference of the local electorate, but I would prefer my tax money be used for projects that amplify economic growth or serve some larger social good (I will add that I am a fan of sport, but it doesn't feed the homeless.  Also, I would still be a fan if the players and owners made less money...suspect most other sports fans would also remain loyal their teams if the primary constituents were slightly less remunerated).

I appreciate that you have cited a source, but there have been many analytical studies in this area and almost all that I know of conclude that these are simply subsidies for those that don't actually need them - one example  

https://econreview.berkeley.edu/the-economics-of-sports-stadiums-does-public-financing-of-sports-stadiums-create-local-economic-growth-or-just-help-billionaires-improve-their-profit-margin/

 

Every situation is unique and every local jurisdiction has their own set of challenges so all cases aren't going to be cookie-cutter, as someone who owns a home in the DFW area, I've personally seen the economic growth explode around the AT&T Stadium area.  The city of Arlington has benefitted and I guess the citizens of Arlington get some benefit because of the new restaurants, things to do near their home. Texas Live is a real destination right there by AT&T Stadium and it wouldn't be there if not for the stadium. But your average every day citizen maybe doesn't see too much benefit unless all that extra money in the cities general fund ends up being put to good use (always dicey there)

My personal view is if I was a voter in Arlington and the stadium was going to be subsidized by a tax increase on me I'd be against it.....but if that tax was passed on through hotel occupancy and car rental taxes then I'm probably going to be much more open to it because selfishly I'm not paying the tax and I'm going to get the fringe benefit of getting to be entertained in a nice new venue. 

[SF]

12 hours ago, mrstepp817 said:

Every situation is unique and every local jurisdiction has their own set of challenges so all cases aren't going to be cookie-cutter, as someone who owns a home in the DFW area, I've personally seen the economic growth explode around the AT&T Stadium area.  The city of Arlington has benefitted and I guess the citizens of Arlington get some benefit because of the new restaurants, things to do near their home. Texas Live is a real destination right there by AT&T Stadium and it wouldn't be there if not for the stadium. But your average every day citizen maybe doesn't see too much benefit unless all that extra money in the cities general fund ends up being put to good use (always dicey there)

My personal view is if I was a voter in Arlington and the stadium was going to be subsidized by a tax increase on me I'd be against it.....but if that tax was passed on through hotel occupancy and car rental taxes then I'm probably going to be much more open to it because selfishly I'm not paying the tax and I'm going to get the fringe benefit of getting to be entertained in a nice new venue. 

That's fair enough, but if the government is able to raise tax revenue (from any source) then that money should be evaluated vs. the opportunity cost of not spending it on a subsidy to a business that simply doesn't need it.  And in the context of a society that has no shortage of needs.

Plain and simple - government money spent on stadiums for professional sports or large scale events (WC, Olympics) are subsidies for billionaires (and their millionaire employees) that exist only because the heads of these governments succumb to the pressures applied by those seeking the subsidies. 

Again, huge sports fan here, but the societal arguments are, in my view, appalling.

And - mark my words - whatever the governments of Ontario, BC and Canada have budgeted for 2026 will still not be enough. FIFA will ask for more and aforementioned governments will buckle.

[Unnamed Trialist]

15 hours ago, Soro17 said:

Inter-River Park in NV has about 8 nice grass fields and a new turf pitch, some of which could easily be closed off for a training facility. It being Vancouver, they aren't really used in July and August. 

I'll have to take a look. I went to Cap College for a few courses and lived in Lynn Valley for a spell, but don't know those facilities.

I also thought you could set up at Ambleside, but again there's no secure barriers, and then they might prefer to avoid bridge traffic from the North Shore. 

In Vancouver i think they may adapt Connaught Park. 

[Obinna]

The name of this thread is kind of funny now that we've had our Canadian cities announced and locked in. Should we change the name or naw?

[ted]

5 minutes ago, Obinna said:

The name of this thread is kind of funny now that we've had our Canadian cities announced and locked in. Should we change the name or naw?

Good idea, but it needs a new topic. Saves scrolling through everything else.

2026 World Cup Host Cities Preparation