World Cup 2026 in US-Canada-Mexico

[Peter]

Living here in the USA I can only laugh at that statement.

What does the US have? 10 for every 1 in England? 20?

Just no.
They aren't all suitable for football for a start.
The US is about to host the world cup so won't be eligible to host again any time soon anyway.
I think the quickest any nation has hosted again after hosting is something like 32 years.
It's the largest sporting event in the world so hosting is pretty important for any country.

 

[Bighorn66]

Yep.
Football is huge in England and we have much more high end stadiums ready for a world cup than almost any other country.

Qatar had to build every stadium from scratch and even Russia had to build a bunch and they are also have a very established football league.
This isnt a boast it's just the way it is.
Loads of teams in England are upgrading their stadiums right now including the team I support which is Luton Town.


I have no idea where they got the cost estimate as that's way out.
I think it's more like $250m.

How many stadiums is the United States building for the World Cup?

Zero.

And the United States of America has larger and more modern stadiums than England. The country has so many 50,000 plus stadiums that about a dozen didn’t even make the cut.

It’s was a huge success in 1994 with the US stadiums having the highest average attendance of any World Cup before or since at 68,000. England has what, maybe two stadiums that can hold that many. Mexico and Canada are fine

There are two advantages England has over the US for this tournament. First England takes up part of an Island while the US is a proper country that takes up part of a continent. Travel to stadiums in England would be less time consuming. The other reason is a bit of nostalgia. For about a month the World Cup trophy would reside in England. Then all the English could chant, “It’s coming home again” at least until the winner took it with them.

 

[Peter]

How many stadiums is the United States building for the World Cup?

Zero.

And the United States of America has larger and more modern stadiums than England. The country has so many 50,000 plus stadiums that about a dozen didn’t even make the cut.

It’s was a huge success in 1994 with the US stadiums having the highest average attendance of any World Cup before or since at 68,000. England has what, maybe two stadiums that can hold that many. Mexico and Canada are fine

There are two advantages England has over the US for this tournament. First England takes up part of an Island while the US is a proper country that takes up part of a continent. Travel to stadiums in England would be less time consuming. The other reason is a bit of nostalgia. For about a month the World Cup trophy would reside in England. Then all the English could chant, “It’s coming home again” at least until the winner took it with them.

You obviously have never watched Premier League football if you think the UK only has 2 stadiums with 60k capacity stadiums.
The Premier League is the world richest football league by miles and that's before you consider the lower leagues here which also have loads of large stadiums.

Capacity is also only one metric of how suitable a stadium is for a world cup as Germany recently had the world cup in 2006 and had many magnificent stadiums with capacity around the 40k number.

I never said anything negative about the US just that England are ready to hold a World Cup today if needed but FIFA won't because for some unknown reason they hate us and would rather give the competition to a country that doesn't even play the sport or is suitable for it because it's a bloomin desert and they have to play it in winter and mess with every League just so players don't die in the heat as hapened with Qatar.

It would be like asking the UK to host the Baseball world series when we don't play it or have any stadiums for it.
I suppose we could use cricket grounds as they're sort of similar but have a look at a few of them and see if you think they'd be any good for baseball?
Just a stupid decision all round that exposed FIFA as utterly corrupt.

 

[noonereal]

Just no.

JUST NO? What on earth are you talking about? Do you have ANY CLUE how many stadia we have here in the state ?
No, you don't.

They aren't all suitable for football for a start.
The US is about to host the world cup so won't be eligible to host again any time soon anyway.
I think the quickest any nation has hosted again after hosting is something like 32 years.
It's the largest sporting event in the world so hosting is pretty important for any country.

What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?

 

[noonereal]

How many stadiums is the United States building for the World Cup?

Zero.

And the United States of America has larger and more modern stadiums than England. The country has so many 50,000 plus stadiums that about a dozen didn’t even make the cut.

It’s was a huge success in 1994 with the US stadiums having the highest average attendance of any World Cup before or since at 68,000. England has what, maybe two stadiums that can hold that many. Mexico and Canada are fine

There are two advantages England has over the US for this tournament. First England takes up part of an Island while the US is a proper country that takes up part of a continent. Travel to stadiums in England would be less time consuming. The other reason is a bit of nostalgia. For about a month the World Cup trophy would reside in England. Then all the English could chant, “It’s coming home again” at least until the winner took it with them.

Clearly @Peter posts have no idea of America.

 

[Peter]

Clearly @Peter posts have no idea of America.

I have a good idea and the NFL has some great stadiums but they aren't always a good fit for what you call soccer.
The pitch sizes are different and football stadiums are not only built around capacity but atmoshpere.
Some of the best English stadiums are smaller but create an amazing atmosphere where the fans are super close to the pitch.

Football is a completely different experience to the NFL and as such the stadium designs are not similar.
For a start UK stadiums are not surrounded by an ocean of car parking spaces and are mostly built around travel by public transport or walking.

 

[Peter]

JUST NO? What on earth are you talking about? Do you have ANY CLUE how many stadia we have here in the state ?
No, you don't.

What does any of this have to do with anything I have said?

Simply having a stadium doesn't mean it's capable of holding a world cup or that would mean any country with enough stadiums could host and that's simply not the case.

Do the stadiums have the infrastructure needed to host the event?
The hotels for guests?

It's why you need more than just a large stadium to host the Olympics as well.