2026 FIFA World Cup venues are.....

[KevFu]

And it would be silly to build big stadiuks just for WC. That’s why Canada should never have gotten involved. For their sake.

When you look at the costs for hosting the World Cup, FIFA keeps picking places that will rack up ridiculous budgets building billions of dollars worth of unnecessary stadiums.

The 1994 World Cup in USA sold the most total tickets of any World Cup ever
-- in the last year of 24 teams, when there were like 51 matches, not 63 like every one since.
-- in a country that didn't everyone said didn't give a damn about the sport at the time (I was already a diehard of MLB, NFL, NHL at that point, and the 94 WC was the first time I ever watched soccer).

The USA total WC budget was (adjusted for inflation) $770 million. And over half of it is the tax breaks, kickbacks, perks and amenities to the FIFA executives themselves (These are the reasons that some cities pulled their stadiums from the bidding for a 2026 venue).

The FACILITIES cost of the 1994 bid was like $15 million. $2 million to put temporary grass in the Silverdome, and $13 million to replace the turf at the Cotton Bowl with grass, permanently.

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.

It's both a good thing to take the World Cup places it hasn't been, to grow the sport; but usually the World Cup is a financial disaster for those kinds of countries (South Africa, Brazil). It doesn't make sense for Canada to go build a 60,000 seat soccer stadium when they don't need one; and you can go look at pictures of totally abandoned 2014 stadiums in Brazil as evidence.

The 2022 USA bid was a no brainer. But it lost to Qatar because of corruption and a strong anti-US sentiment around the world (that's probably deserved). But putting a World Cup in the USA is a massive money maker and requires no construction.

Using Mexico and Canada was a way to do both; share the WC with countries that don't have 12 massive stadiums, while not having to actually build anything. And capitalize on goodwill from the friends of Canada and Mexico that the US doesn't have.

 

[KevFu]

FIFA has some really stupid mandates that don't apply to the US; like, using exactly X number of stadiums. We're the only country with MORE MASSIVE STADIUMS THAN THAT. They talk about the problems of "travel" within such a big country, which wouldn't be an issue at all if they didn't LIMIT the US to ONLY use 12 stadiums for their 2022 bid.

The US could have used EIGHT clusters of close stadiums on the coasts for group play (eight groups: Pacific NW, Bay Area, SoCal, Minnesota/Chicago, NE/NY, PHI/DC, FLA, CAR/ATL/NASH). And then for the knockout stages, moved inland systematically: Denver, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Chicago, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Atlanta, Nashville, etc.... all moving toward the semis and finals in Houston and Dallas.

Then fans following one country that didn't advance would have to go like, 3-5 hours max. If they did advance to the finals, they'd have to travel at most, half the country: like, Boston to New York to Cleveland to Nashville to Dallas/Houston

But FIFA mandates that bids meet strict parameters and rejects anything that varies from them. Which is straight up dumb. If FIFA let the US present a plan for a World Cup, they could have seen "Wait, you can sell 5 million tickets and limit fan travel to less than 5 hours for group play? SURE! Use as many stadiums as you like!"

 

[PCSPounder]

FIFA is usually indefensible, and probably deserve all the downfalls, Kev.

And you get demerits for making me even think about having to defend them.

There are security considerations, there are stadium pricing considerations (because those are rightly standardized), and there is a minimum stadium capacity for reasons. And hotel issues.

Though I absolutely will not dismiss the possibility that Infantino’s comments were a bald-faced lie.

 

[KevFu]

FIFA is usually indefensible, and probably deserve all the downfalls, Kev.

And you get demerits for making me even think about having to defend them.

There are security considerations, there are stadium pricing considerations (because those are rightly standardized), and there is a minimum stadium capacity for reasons. And hotel issues.

Though I absolutely will not dismiss the possibility that Infantino’s comments were a bald-faced lie.

I'm not sure you're getting what I was driving at. Especially since you brought up MINIMUM stadium capacity. FIFA has security considerations, but so does the NFL. Hotel issues? These are major league/NFL cities. Base camps? Colleges are empty in the summer, that's easy. Our 2022 bid got ridiculously high marks across the board in all but two categories.

My point was that FIFA limited the USA bids in 2022 and 2026 to 12 stadiums. Which makes no sense. We didn't have to build anything for the 1994 World Cup, and that was when NO ONE cared about soccer in this country and most NFL stadiums were "cookie cutters" with Astroturf. Most NFL stadiums opened since have been built with "hosting soccer matches" in mind. Not all of them FIFA space requirements, but most.


Since the US hosted in 1994 (including 2022 in Qatar), 88 stadiums have been given World Cup matches. 24 were renovated to meet FIFA requirements. FIFTY-TWO were built brand new.

Exactly THREE existing stadiums with a capacity over 53,000 were given games. (All in Germany 2006).

The United States has AT LEAST 27 stadiums over 53,000 that require no work besides "lay down grass" (which is easy). Our 2022 bid listed 18 stadiums, and we submitted that bid 15 years ago. And FIFA was mad we included so many.

With a minimum of 40,000 capacity, the United States has AT LEAST FORTY stadiums, and probably closer to SIXTY. (I didn't bother looking up places like Minnesota, or if the new Buffalo NFL stadium would be open by then. Or any of the 50 college football stadiums that probably COULD meet FIFA requirements but never had the demand to play a soccer match there).


This joint 2026 World Cup is obviously a good thing, because it gets all three countries World Cup matches. But FIFA is so woefully rigid and ignorant, and only preoccupied with their own executive opulence that they completely ignored a massive opportunity for ticket sales in the USA in 2022 or 2026.

The 1994 World Cup was the most tickets sold (3.587 million), 57 thousand more than second place.... With 12 FEWER matches. The average was 15,400 over the next highest. And back then, the average US sports fan OPENLY HATED SOCCER. Now we don't. We had 51,000 people at Ecuador vs Haiti in the 2016 Copa America.

They could have sold 5 million tickets to a 2022 World Cup in the US. The assessment of the US 2022 bid, FIFA noted only two "concerns" (Medium Risk instead of Low Risk). 1. The politicians promising FIFA whatever they wanted would be out of office by the time the World Cup happened (the pitfalls of democracy, not dictatorship); and 2. Travel distances between all the stadiums could require air travel.... BECAUSE THEY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF STADIUMS WE COULD USE.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'm not sure you're getting what I was driving at. Especially since you brought up MINIMUM stadium capacity. FIFA has security considerations, but so does the NFL. Hotel issues? These are major league/NFL cities. Base camps? Colleges are empty in the summer, that's easy. Our 2022 bid got ridiculously high marks across the board in all but two categories.

My point was that FIFA limited the USA bids in 2022 and 2026 to 12 stadiums. Which makes no sense. We didn't have to build anything for the 1994 World Cup, and that was when NO ONE cared about soccer in this country and most NFL stadiums were "cookie cutters" with Astroturf. Most NFL stadiums opened since have been built with "hosting soccer matches" in mind. Not all of them FIFA space requirements, but most.


Since the US hosted in 1994 (including 2022 in Qatar), 88 stadiums have been given World Cup matches. 24 were renovated to meet FIFA requirements. FIFTY-TWO were built brand new.

Exactly THREE existing stadiums with a capacity over 53,000 were given games. (All in Germany 2006).

The United States has AT LEAST 27 stadiums over 53,000 that require no work besides "lay down grass" (which is easy). Our 2022 bid listed 18 stadiums, and we submitted that bid 15 years ago. And FIFA was mad we included so many.

With a minimum of 40,000 capacity, the United States has AT LEAST FORTY stadiums, and probably closer to SIXTY. (I didn't bother looking up places like Minnesota, or if the new Buffalo NFL stadium would be open by then. Or any of the 50 college football stadiums that probably COULD meet FIFA requirements but never had the demand to play a soccer match there).


This joint 2026 World Cup is obviously a good thing, because it gets all three countries World Cup matches. But FIFA is so woefully rigid and ignorant, and only preoccupied with their own executive opulence that they completely ignored a massive opportunity for ticket sales in the USA in 2022 or 2026.

The 1994 World Cup was the most tickets sold (3.587 million), 57 thousand more than second place.... With 12 FEWER matches. The average was 15,400 over the next highest. And back then, the average US sports fan OPENLY HATED SOCCER. Now we don't. We had 51,000 people at Ecuador vs Haiti in the 2016 Copa America.

They could have sold 5 million tickets to a 2022 World Cup in the US. The assessment of the US 2022 bid, FIFA noted only two "concerns" (Medium Risk instead of Low Risk). 1. The politicians promising FIFA whatever they wanted would be out of office by the time the World Cup happened (the pitfalls of democracy, not dictatorship); and 2. Travel distances between all the stadiums could require air travel.... BECAUSE THEY LIMITED THE NUMBER OF STADIUMS WE COULD USE.

To your point, there are 89 NFL and NCAA football stadiums over 53k in capacity with no modifications

List of U.S. stadiums by capacity - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[PCSPounder]

When you discussed a Northwest “pod” (one available stadium), it was a slight reach, Kev. Perhaps I overreacted to that.

FIFA’s hubris is legend and their concern likely is about five-star hotels at their disposal (the prime reason why, in another sport, Portland has never hosted an NBA ASG). It’s one way of saying that there’s a price of membership, so to speak. FIFA does have to staff each location for a time, and no amount of complaining about how many more people they could afford if they didn’t do institutional bribes will change that. It’s like complaining about the weather.

 

[KevFu]

When you discussed a Northwest “pod” (one available stadium), it was a slight reach, Kev. Perhaps I overreacted to that.

FIFA’s hubris is legend and their concern likely is about five-star hotels at their disposal (the prime reason why, in another sport, Portland has never hosted an NBA ASG). It’s one way of saying that there’s a price of membership, so to speak. FIFA does have to staff each location for a time, and no amount of complaining about how many more people they could afford if they didn’t do institutional bribes will change that. It’s like complaining about the weather.

Yeah, the actual cost of hosting a soccer tournament on the scale of the World Cup is not very big, the budget balloons because of the demands FIFA execs want for their own opulence. They basically wanted to be treated like kings with diplomatic immunity, staying in palaces and having gifts bestowed on them while virgins feed them peeled grapes and fan them with palm fronds.

Back 10 years ago, when the corruption was being unearthed, I was highly in favor of (and advocating for) getting CONCACAF, CONMEBOL and UEFA together and vote to leave FIFA and create their own new governing body. With those three confederations doing it, the others would have followed suit and the rest of the soccer world would fall in line.

 

[LadyStanley]

Different

 

[Voight]

Different

Going forward I think split bids will be the norm. The group stage is a lot of games to jam in and a lot of countries just won't have the infrastructure in place.

 

[varsaku]

Different

Hate the idea of shootout for group stage games. Very unnecessary for a team sport that will skew the group stage result especially with so few games played per team.

Going forward I think split bids will be the norm. The group stage is a lot of games to jam in and a lot of countries just won't have the infrastructure in place.

Not sure why there haven't been more bids like that before. Seems way more economical. Maybe they are running out of governments willing to give FIFA the blank check they need.

 

[sh724]

Different

I read an article a few days back that FIFA may move the group stage back to groups of 4 as it means more total games to be played.

This would be to help appease AB for not being able to sell beer at the games in Qatar, as more games means more beer sales. The thought is if they can increase the revenues for AB in 2026 then AB is going to want less of a refund for 2022

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Hate the idea of shootout for group stage games. Very unnecessary for a team sport that will skew the group stage result especially with so few games played per team.

It's actually very necessary. With only 2 group stage games, the chances of 3 teams tying are very possible. You could have all 3 games end 1-1, tie on pts, GD, and GS...who goes home in that case? The shootout just acts as a tiebreaker.

 

[Voight]

Hate the idea of shootout for group stage games. Very unnecessary for a team sport that will skew the group stage result especially with so few games played per team.


Not sure why there haven't been more bids like that before. Seems way more economical. Maybe they are running out of governments willing to give FIFA the blank check they need.

Going back 28 years you have the US (lots of stadiums already as discussed), France (lots of stadiums due to being a major soccer country), SK/Japan (had stadiums; joint bid to split the cost), Germany (same as France), South Africa (FIFA wanted one in Africa and they were the most logical choice), Brazil (big soccer country but had to build/renovate a lot), Russia (had to build/renovate a lot but easier for them to carry the cost vs Brazil) and now Qatar which had money to burn/was an illegitimate pick anyways.

Most countries from above have good economies so the cost isn't as prohibitive. Heck, all of them except Qatar are in the top 13 via GDP.

I will say I am surprised China hasn't tried to get one. The CCP loves sport washing and certainly has the money to build new stadiums.

Worth noting SK/Jap didn't go in as co-hosts, FIFA just told them it was either them two together or neither of them would get the tournament. A marriage of compromise.

 

[PCSPounder]

It's actually very necessary. With only 2 group stage games, the chances of 3 teams tying are very possible. You could have all 3 games end 1-1, tie on pts, GD, and GS...who goes home in that case? The shootout just acts as a tiebreaker.

It shouldn’t be necessary.

I would hope that FIFA learned from yesterday and today. Yesterday, by about the 82nd minute when I tuned in, Poland and Mexico were even on GD, goals, head-to-head, and Poland drew a yellow card and was one yellow card away from drawing of lots. Argentina had two near misses that could have put Poland down, Mexico had their half chances, but the Saudis (who themselves needed to win) got a late counterattack goal and then kept Mexico out to get Poland through. Today, when Costa Rica went ahead of Mexico for those few minutes while Japan had gone ahead of Spain, that could have been classic. Those instances are really why three-team groups are extraordinarily dumb.

 

[DaveG]

Different

Should go back to groups of 4 to prevent any major possibilities of match fixing when it's known what's needed for which teams to advance. And lest someone say that would never happen in the modern game, look up "the nonaggression pact of Gijon" from the 82 World Cup. Groups of 3 make that all the more likely, not less. Just go to groups of 4 with a knockout round of 32.

Also PKs to decide group stage draws is f***ing stupid. The 3-1-0 point system does it's job as designed.

 

[GKJ]

3-team groups are so stupid

 

[mouser]

Hate the idea of shootout for group stage games. Very unnecessary for a team sport that will skew the group stage result especially with so few games played per team.


Not sure why there haven't been more bids like that before. Seems way more economical. Maybe they are running out of governments willing to give FIFA the blank check they need.

It's actually very necessary. With only 2 group stage games, the chances of 3 teams tying are very possible. You could have all 3 games end 1-1, tie on pts, GD, and GS...who goes home in that case? The shootout just acts as a tiebreaker.

I hate the idea of shootouts for group stage as well, but think it would be mandatory for a slightly different reason if they did three team pods.

Historically there was a lot of implicit collusion between teams in the final game of their group when both teams knew they could advance with a draw. To address that problem they changed the group schedule so now all teams in the group play their final game at the same time.

It’s Impossible for a group of three teams to all play their final game at the same time. So introducing a shootout in the group stage makes sense to avoid returning to the collusion problem where both teams are incentivized to play to a draw in that final game.

Personally I think the better solutIon is keeping four team groups and rearranging whatever else is needed for a 48 team World Cup.

 

[Kirk Van Houten]

Different

Shootout after regular 90 minutes already happend in my country Argentina back in the 88 - 89 season and it lasted just that year because of how bad it was as an idea.

 

[Jets4Life]

The 2022 USA bid was a no brainer. But it lost to Qatar because of corruption and a strong anti-US sentiment around the world (that's probably deserved). But putting a World Cup in the USA is a massive money maker and requires no construction.

That had everything to do with Sepp Blattar and FIFA corruption, and nothing at all to do with anti-American sentiment. Money talks, and people have the tendency to look the other way, regardless of how they view the USA. It's been that way since the beginning of time. If countries had a moral problem with America hosting the World Cup, they never would have been granted it in 1994. Russia certainly would have never hosted they tourney in 2018, let alone Qatar.

South Korea also had a terrible history of cheating, yet they were granted the World Cup in 2002. We all saw how that turned out (Korea advancing to the semi finals, due to some very questionable refereeing). All one would have to do, is to look back to the 88 Olympics, and the Boxing event. Roy Jones Jr was robbed of a Gold, in one of the most lopsided fights in history, due to corruption by Korea.

 

[Djp]

I hate the idea of shootouts for group stage as well, but think it would be mandatory for a slightly different reason if they did three team pods.

Historically there was a lot of implicit collusion between teams in the final game of their group when both teams knew they could advance with a draw. To address that problem they changed the group schedule so now all teams in the group play their final game at the same time.

It’s Impossible for a group of three teams to all play their final game at the same time. So introducing a shootout in the group stage makes sense to avoid returning to the collusion problem where both teams are incentivized to play to a draw in that final game.

Personally I think the better solutIon is keeping four team groups and rearranging whatever else is needed for a 48 team World Cup.

the issue is around the schedule with 48 teams….

if they do 12 4 team groups
thrn you probably have either a round of 32 or top 8 bye thrn a play in round.

each of these add 4 days of playoffs. If you limit group play to 4 games a day thrn you extend group play extending it for another week. Thry coukd do 3 groups playing each day for 6 games a day.

doing this 3 team pods implies a 33 team playoff. What likeky happens is the high rank vs mid then, high vs low, thrn mid vs low. 32 advance.

a modified version I thought about…

you have pseudo 4 team pods.A, B, C, D. A is higher ranking, D lowest ranking.
A/B vs C/D games
They play OT and shootouts. 3-0, 2-0, 2-1 scoring
after 2 games the top two advance
the bottom 2 go into elimination game. It could be within the game group or cross groups To avoid B-C rematch
8 survive those elimination
32 team playoff

 

[ES]

If all three countries get highlight game how would be them distributed. Something like that?
Opener: Azteca
Final: MetLife
Third Place: BC Place

 

[Voight]

That had everything to do with Sepp Blattar and FIFA corruption, and nothing at all to do with anti-American sentiment. Money talks, and people have the tendency to look the other way, regardless of how they view the USA. It's been that way since the beginning of time. If countries had a moral problem with America hosting the World Cup, they never would have been granted it in 1994. Russia certainly would have never hosted they tourney in 2018, let alone Qatar.

South Korea also had a terrible history of cheating, yet they were granted the World Cup in 2002. We all saw how that turned out (Korea advancing to the semi finals, due to some very questionable refereeing). All one would have to do, is to look back to the 88 Olympics, and the Boxing event. Roy Jones Jr was robbed of a Gold, in one of the most lopsided fights in history, due to corruption by Korea.

Correct. Chuck Blazer was flabbergasted when the rest of CONCACAF voted for Qatar as they had all promised him they would vote for the USMCA bid. Obviously he didn't now at the time they were bribed.

Also FWIW another example of morals being irrelevant - Argentina kept the 78 World Cup even tho they had a military coup a year or two before.

If all three countries get highlight game how would be them distributed. Something like that?
Opener: Azteca
Final: MetLife
Third Place: BC Place

Even with Canada being a co-host I'm not convinced they'll get the third place game. If they did, it would be in Toronto. But BC Place/BMO Field pale in comparison to the US stadiums when it comes to capacity. FIFA is going to want that kind of game somewhere where they can sell the most tickets.

Also, I imagine the opener will be in LA or NYC. Possibly Miami.

 

[Roadrage]

I believe all knockout games and later will be held in the U.S. only so I highly doubt Canada or Mexico would get 3rd place game. I think the only stadiums FIFA truly is considering for the Finals are SoFi, AT&T, and MetLife. All 3 are quite modern (even by 2026) and can be expanded to squeeze more $$ out.

 

[PCSPounder]

Correct. Chuck Blazer was flabbergasted when the rest of CONCACAF voted for Qatar as they had all promised him they would vote for the USMCA bid. Obviously he didn't now at the time they were bribed.

Also FWIW another example of morals being irrelevant - Argentina kept the 78 World Cup even tho they had a military coup a year or two before.



Even with Canada being a co-host I'm not convinced they'll get the third place game. If they did, it would be in Toronto. But BC Place/BMO Field pale in comparison to the US stadiums when it comes to capacity. FIFA is going to want that kind of game somewhere where they can sell the most tickets.

Also, I imagine the opener will be in LA or NYC. Possibly Miami.

Have you seen a World Cup third place game?

The most irrelevant game in all of sports, except maybe bowl games. It should be played on a Palm Springs golf course surrounded by a series of pop-up tiki bars.

 

[LadyStanley]

LA-FIFA standoff at center of 2026 World Cup’s first battle: Who’s paying for it?

A standoff between FIFA and officials in Los Angeles, including Rams owner Stan Kroenke, could jeopardize LA's involvement in the 2026 World Cup, which will be played across North America.

sports.yahoo.com

Los Angeles in standoff vs FIFA over who is paying for event and "profit" from hosting event.

Will FIFA blink? Or will SOFI arena not host?