2026 World Cup

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,245
61,922
113
Ames
I can't imagine a country going through all the hassle to host or co-host and not getting an automatic bid. Why would a country choose to do that?
 

Sigmapolis

Minister of Economy
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Aug 10, 2011
26,931
41,639
113
Waukee
I can't imagine a country going through all the hassle to host or co-host and not getting an automatic bid. Why would a country choose to do that?

Most of the hosts have, historically, had squads that would have qualified no problem.
 

3TrueFans

Just a Happily Married Man
Sep 10, 2009
63,245
61,922
113
Ames
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?
 
L

LincolnWay187

Guest
United States
Atlanta
Baltimore
Boston
Cincinnati
Dallas
Denver
Houston
Kansas City
Los Angeles
Miami
Nashville
New York/New Jersey
Orlando
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Seattle
Washington, D.C.

Mexico
Guadalajara
Mexico City
Monterrey


Canada
Edmonton
Montreal
Toronto
Hard pass on ever going to Baltimore or Philly again. Easily the most ghetto U.S. cities I have been to
 

OnlyCyclones

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2017
1,290
1,608
113
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.
 

JD720

Well-Known Member
Jan 3, 2009
958
285
63
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.
Chicago isn't in the running. They withdrew their bid.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: harimad

JP4CY

Lord, beer me strength.
Staff member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Dec 19, 2008
74,589
95,596
113
Testifying
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.
 

pulse

Well-Known Member
Mar 24, 2006
9,421
2,650
113
Seriously guys we are getting an auto bid, it’s not even a question. This is FIFA. Why do you think we got it in the first place. $$$$$$$.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VeloClone

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
26,463
19,635
113
Seriously guys we are getting an auto bid, it’s not even a question. This is FIFA. Why do you think we got it in the first place. $$$$$$$.

As the other guy has said, expanding the WC field functionally gives the US an auto-bid. They'll never miss again.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: OnlyCyclones

OnlyCyclones

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2017
1,290
1,608
113
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.
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.
 

OnlyCyclones

Well-Known Member
Feb 27, 2017
1,290
1,608
113
As the other guy has said, expanding the WC field functionally gives the US an auto-bid. They'll never miss again.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeloClone

BryceC

Well-Known Member
SuperFanatic
SuperFanatic T2
Mar 23, 2006
26,463
19,635
113
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.

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.
 

VeloClone

Well-Known Member
Jan 19, 2010
48,460
39,265
113
Brooklyn Park, MN
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.
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.
 

Triggermv

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2010
7,954
4,364
113
40
Marion, IA
As much as I hate with a passion the US missed out this year, I hate even more expanding to 48.

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.
 

Help Support Us

Become a patron