2026 World Cup
- Thread starter coolerifyoudid
- Start date
That’s not for sure yet, FIFA’s council will meet and decide if three teams get automatic bids. Never have three countries done this
Most of the hosts have, historically, had squads that would have qualified no problem.
That's neither here nor there in terms of my question. Russia wouldn't have qualified no problem this year, would they still have spent billions to host a World Cup they didn't get an automatic qualifier for?
When Korea and Japan co-hosted back in 2002 both auto qualified. Sure it'll be the same, especially with the expanded field.
L
LincolnWay187
Guest
Hard pass on ever going to Baltimore or Philly again. Easily the most ghetto U.S. cities I have been to
I like this plan. May I have you're permission in writing to use it for personal use?
I'll be disappointed, if not pissed if they pass over KC. From Des Moines that would make the nearest probable site Chicago, and then Cincinnati, Denver, and Nashville in that order. I know the plains states aren't a soccer hotbed comparatively, but we deserve more than just Chicago.
Why would they do that? It's pretty much free money, since all of the infrastructure is in place.
The natural turf at Soldier can hardly last 2 games before it looks terrible. I guess they could re turf it after, maybe they didn't want to though.
As the other guy has said, expanding the WC field functionally gives the US an auto-bid. They'll never miss again.
Sounds like they need to outsource their turf grass management to Iowa State or Purdue. If grass is the reason for their withdrawal, that's awful economics. The city could pay for it and still be way in the green after the WC.
I don't like the expanded WC, and I don't like the idea of an even lower standard of qualification for the US. Some are saying that six CONCACAF teams could qualify. That would be every team that's worth anything in N. America, the whole final "hex". Qualification would involve beating tiny, tiny countries like Aruba. I think the lack of competitive matches before the WC will be a detriment to the US, and 48 teams is detriment to the quality of the tournament.
What if they gave the sixteen closest teams who failed to qualify their own tournament, kinda like the Europa League, and gave the winner an autobid for the WC? More nations get meaningful soccer, but the WC isn't watered down.
It's not free money. Chicago and a few other cities dropped out because of Fifa's financial demands.
https://apnews.com/9028e60146e84fe2beeb4e763cad85a8
1. Nothing is more detrimental to the US than missing the WC altogether.
2. I think it does lower the quality of the WC, but honestly it's just one more game. Some of the early games suck already. It ultimately helps the US as the sport continues to grow because the US could play more games. For example, I'm a pretty fringe soccer fan. My kids play, we go to a Sporting KC game every year, and I've literally never watched a Gold Cup game or could tell you anything about it. I tune in every 4 years in a big way and that's basically it. Well, except this year when I've watched zero World Cup because the US isn't even in it.
Also don't forget that the act of qualifying isn't just to get into the WC but to end up with a good situation in a pool. If you do well in qualifying your chances of ending up in a group with a powerhouse side goes way down.
I like the expansion. Increases my chances of actually seeing the U.S. compete there. Not having the U.S. in the World Cup is detrimental to the sport here in the states.
