dfwabel

USA-Mexico-Canada Joint Bid for 2026 World Cup

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, the admiral said:

 

Edmonton. Again.

 

I assumed the Los Angeles games would be played at the Kroenketorium. Or would the artificial turf disqualify it? Or could they roll some grass in temporarily?

 

I think they've already said the LA games would be at the Rose Bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, okay, well, glad the expensive new stadium is being showcased on a global stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bid has the Rose Bowl as the L.A. venue with a 2026 capacity of 88,432.

 

Then again the FIFA evaluation book, linked a few pages back, says Gillette Stadium currently having a hybrid turf (artificial fibers woven into natrual grass) yet that's so not true.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/patriots/2017/09/11/patriots-are-replacing-playing-surface-gillette-again/wXkSghSg9MAo8h7KiEbjuL/story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cujo said:

 

Japan and South Korea both got auto bids in 2002, so I'd assume probably, yea -- even though Canada and the US don't deserve to be there.

Late on this, but that is a really stupid comment for a tournament that is 8 years away. There are likely fifth graders that will be on those teams by the time this takes place. Also, it took an absolute perfect storm disaster to keep the US out of this tournament. We should be challenging for the semifinals by 2026.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the autobid should be for only the top two ranked teams, according to the FIFA qualification.

 

If the top two BOTH qualify for the tournament via the qualification tournament, then the 3rd should go

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, JTernup said:

US -- We should be challenging for the semifinals by 2026.

 

Where have I heard this one before?

 

1994.

1998.

2002.

2006.

2010.

2014.

2018.

 

US Soccer. All bluff and no stuff.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, JTernup said:

Late on this, but that is a really stupid comment for a tournament that is 8 years away. There are likely fifth graders that will be on those teams by the time this takes place. Also, it took an absolute perfect storm disaster to keep the US out of this tournament. We should be challenging for the semifinals by 2026.

 

The crew that missed the World Cup this year by losing to friggin' Trinidad and Tobago?  LOL NO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, JTernup said:

We should be challenging for the semifinals by 2026.

 

Of What? The Gold Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cujo said:

 

Where have I heard this one before?

 

1994.

1998.

2002.

2006.

2010.

2014.

2018.

 

US Soccer. All bluff and no stuff.

 

Nope, most people have not said that any of those years. 02, 10, and 14 were all very good performances. A world cup in the US is a huge benefit that could really help propel the team through a few knock out games. 

1 hour ago, rams80 said:

 

The crew that missed the World Cup this year by losing to friggin' Trinidad and Tobago?  LOL NO.

No, not that crew. Pulisic will probably be the only player that figured in 2017 that will make the WC roster. We've already fired our manager, president, etc. I would be shocked if even 10% of US Soccer from 2017 has ANY presence in the 2026 organization.

59 minutes ago, Wings said:

 

Of What? The Gold Cup.

It's so en vogue to ridicule US Soccer right now. How trendy! Most of these comments won't matter because people like Cujo only pay attention long enough to mock their own country and watch a few WC matches. US Soccer will turn it around, we have never had more talent or resources to do it. If they aren't serious contenders by 2026 they certainly will be shortly after. We are the sleeping giant of the world's game. If we ever decide to get our heads out of our asses, make soccer accessible to kids, and provide a better pipeline we will consistently be a WC contender. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Revised my thoughts.

 

Top ranked country or the US(as primary hosts)

 

Bottom two play a home/home. Winner takes a second auto qualifier, loser enters regular qualification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JTernup said:

Nope, most people have not said that any of those years. 02, 10, and 14 were all very good performances. A world cup in the US is a huge benefit that could really help propel the team through a few knock out games. 

No, not that crew. Pulisic will probably be the only player that figured in 2017 that will make the WC roster. We've already fired our manager, president, etc. I would be shocked if even 10% of US Soccer from 2017 has ANY presence in the 2026 organization.

It's so en vogue to ridicule US Soccer right now. How trendy! Most of these comments won't matter because people like Cujo only pay attention long enough to mock their own country and watch a few WC matches. US Soccer will turn it around, we have never had more talent or resources to do it. If they aren't serious contenders by 2026 they certainly will be shortly after. We are the sleeping giant of the world's game. If we ever decide to get our heads out of our asses, make soccer accessible to kids, and provide a better pipeline we will consistently be a WC contender. 

 

They were making this same argument a quarter century ago after the 94 World Cup. 

 

 

Thats kinda why I’m cool with Canada get the automatic bid and not the US. Canada could probably use that boost right now, and that could lead to a lot of promising things for soccer in Canada when it comes to development and interest in the game. It certainly helped the US in that regard. But the states have already had that “lets boost the game” moment. And they’ve done a good job in some regards (basically building up the entire infrastructure for the game from scratch in a country that never really even asked for it. That in of itself should get a lot of credit), a not so good job in other regards (stagnant growth in youth game past U14s), and kind of a terrible job in other areas (USMNT still face planting). Now it’s time to put some of the work done in the past 30ish years to good use. A put your money where your mouth is type of situation, essentially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our best male athletes play our own sports. We can be good but never truly great, which is acceptable. The world doesn't need us to beat them at soccer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

October 2016

14 hours ago, Digby said:

It is always a bit stunning to me how little playing time goes to young Americans in MLS. I don't think it's the league's job to fix the USMNT, but it's interesting how MLS stat leaderboards are always mostly foreign players, and the only Americans are aging and/or USMNT washouts.

You realize that Pulisic is an extreme outlier, right?

 

Read this from October 2016.

 

Quote

Out of the 69 U.S. players, 20 of them are playing in the top five leagues of Europe. Well to be exact they are playing in the Premier League and the Bundesliga and there are no US players in the Liga, the Serie A or the Ligue 1. Out of 20 only six (30 percent) of them have been developed by the U.S. youth development systems. Of those six, only Pulisic is playing for a team that competes in the Champions League or Europa League.

 

Sixteen out of 20 played for the USMNT at some level. All the players in those five leagues except five have dual citizenships. Brad Guzan and Geoff Cameron got their work permit based on the number of their caps. Bobby Wood, Emerson Hyndman and Lynden Gooch bypassed the FIFA’s ban of transfers before the age of 18 and joined English or German academies at an early age.

Out of the 41 players we exported to the top tier professional leagues in Europe, only one is playing in a top club and six of them are playing in a club in one of the top five leagues.

 

There is another interesting observation: There are 18 U.S.-developed players out of 41 who moved to Europe before the age of 19, bypassing FIFA’s ban thanks to holding passports from EU nations. They started their pro career in Europe. Four of them are in the top five leagues. This tells a lot about the expectations of U.S.-developed players toward the professional soccer environment in this country.

 

In 2015, U.S. leagues (MLS, NASL, USL and PDL) imported 70 players from UK, France and Spain and a total of 227 from Europe. If you consider that USA has only 61 professional men’s teams then to export 41 players to Europe might be meaningful. If you keep in mind that the first-tier professional league, MLS is only 21 years old and that the number of players the Developmental Academies are producing for the professional teams are increasing, you might be optimistic about the future.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, McCarthy said:

 

We don't deserve to be in this world cup because we didn't qualify. 8 years from now is a different story. We have no idea what will happen, but based on the most recent embarrassment and motivation to avoid a future embarrassment on home soil I can't see the US not overhauling the system to prepare a better team on the field for twenty freaking twenty six. None of the bums in the program now, save for a couple guys like Christian Pulisic will be a part of the program. 

 

I imagine Canada will put more money and work into their program as well. 

Yeah, I mean, it's hard to say what the qualifying setup would be, but it's hard for me to see the United States not qualifying for one of six slots in 2026.

 

If you assume that the final round of CONCACAF qualifying will be split into two groups (I don't think they can really roll with a CONMEBOL-style qualifying setup when CONCACAF still has earlier qualifying rounds they have to play out), and assume that the US is likely to return to one of the two highest-rated teams in CONCACAF when the 2026 qualifying draw occurs, they likely wouldn't have to play Mexico anyway. A group like this would be among the "worst case" of solutions:

 

United States, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti

 

It's just hard to see the US dropping the required points at home in that type of group to not finish top three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Digby said:

 

this actually is a fine idea. I've been wondering which of the potential host cities would use this as an excuse to build a new ginormous stadium at taxpayer expense, but there don't seem to be any clear candidates. Maybe we'll at least get a boondoggle renovation of the Rose Bowl out of it.

That already wrapped up two years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, crashcarson15 said:

Yeah, I mean, it's hard to say what the qualifying setup would be, but it's hard for me to see the United States not qualifying for one of six slots in 2026.

 

If you assume that the final round of CONCACAF qualifying will be split into two groups (I don't think they can really roll with a CONMEBOL-style qualifying setup when CONCACAF still has earlier qualifying rounds they have to play out), and assume that the US is likely to return to one of the two highest-rated teams in CONCACAF when the 2026 qualifying draw occurs, they likely wouldn't have to play Mexico anyway. A group like this would be among the "worst case" of solutions:

 

United States, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti

 

It's just hard to see the US dropping the required points at home in that type of group to not finish top three.

I can't see Concacaf NOT allowing all 3 through even if they all had to qualify. (nudge, nudge, wink, wink)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crashcarson15 said:

Yeah, I mean, it's hard to say what the qualifying setup would be, but it's hard for me to see the United States not qualifying for one of six slots in 2026.

 

If you assume that the final round of CONCACAF qualifying will be split into two groups (I don't think they can really roll with a CONMEBOL-style qualifying setup when CONCACAF still has earlier qualifying rounds they have to play out), and assume that the US is likely to return to one of the two highest-rated teams in CONCACAF when the 2026 qualifying draw occurs, they likely wouldn't have to play Mexico anyway. A group like this would be among the "worst case" of solutions:

 

United States, Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, Cuba, Haiti

 

It's just hard to see the US dropping the required points at home in that type of group to not finish top three.

 

That's right. I completely forgot that 48 teams will be in the 2026 so they'll definitely deserve to be there in 2026.

 

It's kind of impressive that they didn't qualify this time. Even if they change nothing about the awful way the program operates now they could still probably back into one of the spots just due to the rest of our competition. A lot had to go wrong all at once to not qualify. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

59 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

 

That's right. I completely forgot that 48 teams will be in the 2026 so they'll definitely deserve to be there in 2026.

 

It's kind of impressive that they didn't qualify this time. Even if they change nothing about the awful way the program operates now they could still probably back into one of the spots just due to the rest of our competition. A lot had to go wrong all at once to not qualify. 

 

Right; there's plenty to criticize in US Soccer, but also the reality is the USMNT qualified for seven in a row before this one. It doesn't make sense to suggest that the US qualifying to a LARGER field in a World Cup is no better than 50/50.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it purely the fault of the Bears and Soldier Field being "iconic" that Chicago can't get a nice stadium, or is it Boston-level impossible to get public funding for sports stadiums there?

I'd think that Chicago, along with New York, LA, Miami, San Francisco, and I suppose Boston (though Foxboro hardly counts as Boston) are the major "destination cities" that cannot be skipped over for a major global event like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Kaz said:

Is it purely the fault of the Bears and Soldier Field being "iconic" that Chicago can't get a nice stadium, or is it Boston-level impossible to get public funding for sports stadiums there?

 

I wish! Chicago built a new arena for DePaul, despite it being well off campus, a private university, and a basketball program that has forever conceded being even remotely competitive as long as the conference revenue comes in. But a 10,000-seat arena is relatively small potatoes; I cannot see Soldier Field being replaced in my lifetime. As much as everyone hates it, it does what it was designed to do: prevent blackouts by being one of the smallest stadiums in the NFL, keep the riff-raff out, and have lots and lots of luxury seating. 

 

Seattle (maybe the most MLS-mad city in the country) and DC (capital) should probably be on your list as well. St. Louis has a long soccer tradition that goes under the radar because of baseball and you'd want to get them in the mix but there's nowhere to play: Busch Stadium is a no-go and the Dome is already booked for like the World Series of Vacuum Demonstrations or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now