Smallest doesn’t make it the worst. BMO is definitely a better stadium than Commonwealth but Commonwealth is just bigger.
I don’t think Canada should be part of this. They just don’t have the stadiums.
No, that is incorrect. BMO Field is a Frankenstadium with over half of it being built on the extreme cheap. I still remember in the early days of the facility when maintenance crews had to tighten nuts and bolts on the stadium structure after TFC matches because the vibrations from the crowd movement caused them to loosen.
Commonwealth is an older stadium that is well maintained, seats 56,000 and looks fantastic on TV. It would only need a few minor improvements to be ready for the World Cup...and it is far better than pretty well all the lesser stadiums form the past World Cups.
And yes, Canada should be a part of this. That was the condition for hosting an expanded World Cup and to grow the game - to have it in places which either haven't hosted (Canada) or places that have not hosted in a long time. And again, the facilities for some of the proposed sites are better than all the lesser stadiums of past World Cups.
It's a shame that the United States used Canada and Mexico in such a way that they will only host 10 games each and nothing past the initial 2 rounds. Particularly Mexico, who is a proven World Cup host, has the most iconic soccer stadium in North America in Azteca (as well as some impressive recent stadium builds) and is a passionate soccer nation.
Edmonton Eskimos Commonwealth stadium before play against the Calgary Stampeders at Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
www.gettyimages.ca