Football (Soccer) Thread

[Tamas]

Tamas, how conflicted do you feel about tonight's game? 

 

Very.

Can't help feeling happy for Hungary, but also humiliating for England, and it's making racist scum among the Hungarian fans happy not to mention Orban, so those are big negatives. Then again it makes scum among the English fans unhappy so that's a plus.

BTW after repeated booing during the kneeling of the England team, apparently England fans yelled "racist scum" or something to that effect during the Hungarian anthem. England and Hungary fans - what a nice pot and kettle situation.

I dunno. Dishonoring people for being racists does give England fans +5pts in my book.

So considering how big assholes England fans are usually are around the world, would you be ok with other people booing the British anthem in reaction to that?

[Josquius]

Tamas, how conflicted do you feel about tonight's game? 

 

Very.

Can't help feeling happy for Hungary, but also humiliating for England, and it's making racist scum among the Hungarian fans happy not to mention Orban, so those are big negatives. Then again it makes scum among the English fans unhappy so that's a plus.

BTW after repeated booing during the kneeling of the England team, apparently England fans yelled "racist scum" or something to that effect during the Hungarian anthem. England and Hungary fans - what a nice pot and kettle situation.

I dunno. Dishonoring people for being racists does give England fans +5pts in my book.

So considering how big assholes England fans are usually are around the world, would you be ok with other people booing the British anthem in reaction to that?

In general? Kind of cunty.
After they've only just recently done something racist? Sound.

[The Larch]

With the exception of Montreal don't know if other cities could host. Maybe cfl stadiums, but I don't know about capacity.

I'm checking the wiki entry for the selection of venues for the 2026 WC (quite comprehensive, btw), and apparently the following Canadian cities submitted bids: Montreal (then withdrew voluntarely), Edmonton (excluded in the final round), Ottawa (excluded in the 1st round) and Regina (excluded in the 1st round). On top of that, other cities were contacted but didn't submit a bid, like Calgary, Montreal (different stadium than the one that withdrew voluntarely) and Toronto (again, different stadium).

Apparently the minimum capacity for a WC game is 40k. The Toronto stadium that was selected (BMO Field) will get its capacity increased for the WC.

[The Larch]

Montreal declined to host mainly because of FIFA's insane rules about other events.

I'm reading it was because of money. Vancouver also withdrew initially because of financial concerns and had to be brought back for the final bid because otherwise Canada would only have 1 venue.

[Sheilbh]

That map is great and should be very fun to go to - and it just makes me more annoyed/angry at this year's nonsense.

[The Larch]

That map is great and should be very fun to go to - and it just makes me more annoyed/angry at this year's nonsense.

I can't help but feel that it seriously cheapens the status of host (and automatic qualification that goes attached to it) if the US is going to host the vast majority of matches and venues with Mexico and Canada as total sideshows.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe. But I also think it's a better way for some countries to get a chance to host. Canada is unlikely to host on its own ever, now it gets a few games in a few cities.

Similarly I think Mexico was very unlikely to get to host on its own again for a few years.

I agree there's a problem with automatic qualification with these joint bids, but I think it opens a route for smaller countries (in a football sense) who'd never get it which I think is probably a good thing.

[The Larch]

Canada is unlikely to host on its own ever, now it gets a few games in a few cities.

And there's a reason for that, given that they've struggled to feature just two venues.

Similarly I think Mexico was very unlikely to get to host on its own again for a few years.

Why? They hosted it in '70 and '86, have a strong footballing tradition and tons of already existing venues. I don't think they couldn't have won a bid on their own.



I think that as soon as joint bids started getting popular some ground rules should have been established guaranteeing an even split of games between all bidding nations. Originally it was easy as it was only between two countries that split games and venues evenly, but this particular three way one is so completely one sided it's kind of laughable, it's as if Mexico and Canada are only there for the token diversity points (and automatic qualification spot).

I'd have liked at least a 50-50 split, or 50-25-25 if you will, with half the games/venues at most in the US and the other half split between Mexico and Canada. Instead it seems that the vast majority of games will be played in the US, with barely 10 games to be played each in Canada and Mexico (7 in the group stage, 2 in the round of 32 and 1 in the round of 16). Everything from the QF onwards is to be played in the US as well.

[Sheilbh]

Why? They hosted it in '70 and '86, have a strong footballing tradition and tons of already existing venues. I don't think they couldn't have won a bid on their own.

Agreed. Canada because it is (in a footballing sense) a smaller country wouldn't get to host and Mexico because it's already hosted twice in relatively recent years wouldn't get a chance again for some time.

I think that as soon as joint bids started getting popular some ground rules should have been established guaranteeing an even split of games between all bidding nations. Originally it was easy as it was only between two countries that split games and venues evenly, but this particular three way one is so completely one sided it's kind of laughable, it's as if Mexico and Canada are only there for the token diversity points (and automatic qualification spot).

I'd have liked at least a 50-50 split, or 50-25-25 if you will, with half the games/venues at most in the US and the other half split between Mexico and Canada. Instead it seems that the vast majority of games will be played in the US, with barely 10 games to be played each in Canada and Mexico (7 in the group stage, 2 in the round of 32 and 1 in the round of 16). Everything from the QF onwards is to be played in the US as well.

Yeah there maybe needs to be a split agreed as part of the bid - and I agree on automatic qualification. Personally I think there's probably an argument that all bidding countries get games up to the QFs at least (which also effectively puts a cap on how many hosts you have). And I think the key is the number of games.

But I'd like World Cups to go down more of a regional route (in part to avoid too much travel by fans). So have a route from group to QF in one region - for example, say Mexico and Texas, the West Coast, the North-East etc. Which I think would provide for more games for all hosts in a joint scenario. My understanding is that while they do that for the groups I think it should be almost a bit like teams are put into a "region" and then there's play-offs in that region up to QF.

I think it'd be helpful in the Euros too but it was when the (covid-ruined) plans for a pan-European Euros were announced that I thought it might be a good idea. Because if you've got a lot of venues across a large space it was mad and not great from an environmental perspective.

Although I love a regional play-off structure and I think that UEFA should go down that model (I don't know how to divide it) for their club tournaments too. Maybe dividing Europe into southern/northern play-offs

[Josquius]

Don't they usually do this in world cups? At least I'm sure I remember they did in those where I was really enthused over a decade ago.
Win the group and you get to play second place teams in your "home" stadium, come second in the group and you must travel to face tougher opposition.
The trouble of course being if your home is a lesser stadium so if course it drops out as you approach the final.

[Grey Fox]

Canada is unlikely to host on its own ever, now it gets a few games in a few cities.

And there's a reason for that, given that they've struggled to feature just two venues.

Similarly I think Mexico was very unlikely to get to host on its own again for a few years.

Why? They hosted it in '70 and '86, have a strong footballing tradition and tons of already existing venues. I don't think they couldn't have won a bid on their own.



I think that as soon as joint bids started getting popular some ground rules should have been established guaranteeing an even split of games between all bidding nations. Originally it was easy as it was only between two countries that split games and venues evenly, but this particular three way one is so completely one sided it's kind of laughable, it's as if Mexico and Canada are only there for the token diversity points (and automatic qualification spot).

I'd have liked at least a 50-50 split, or 50-25-25 if you will, with half the games/venues at most in the US and the other half split between Mexico and Canada. Instead it seems that the vast majority of games will be played in the US, with barely 10 games to be played each in Canada and Mexico (7 in the group stage, 2 in the round of 32 and 1 in the round of 16). Everything from the QF onwards is to be played in the US as well.

It was a good away to avoid another ugly political CONCACAF fight to pick between Mexico & USA to host. When the bid was announced it was only getting out of yet another one.


Edmonton is the big venue getting snubbed here. Lots of great Canadian football moment have happened in Edmonton.

Not sad about not having any games in Montreal. FIFA can go fuck themselves trying to take away our events in June. (NHL playoffs, CFL, a music festival, a comedy festival & a F1 grand prix)

[Barrister]

Some consternation around Edmonton about not being selected.

We have an older, but very nice 60k seat stadium that has had plenty of international soccer played within it, including Women's World Cup and the CONCACAF Mexico-Canada game this past winter.

Apparently FIFA was insisting on $100 mil plus in upgrades to stadium and other areas.  Obviously some jurisdictions just pulled out entirely (like Montreal).  Our provincial government hummed and hawed, and ultimately agreed to fund it - but only if we got 5 games, including one elimination game.

The thing is Canada is only getting 10 games period, so this was probably a poison pill.

But you can kind of see the government's point, too.  Why are we spending $100 mil (and I think it was more than that) for 1-2 soccer games?  And probably not the high prestige games at that.

[Josquius]

What were the improvements?
I have no doubt there was a lot of superfluous keep the corrupt partners happy nonsense. But surely some was stuff that would have been useful in the longer term like improved transport?

[Barrister]

What were the improvements?
I have no doubt there was a lot of superfluous keep the corrupt partners happy nonsense. But surely some was stuff that would have been useful in the longer term like improved transport?

I'm not sure.  I found the total cost ($110 mil), and I know a small part of it is installing natural turf at Commonwealth Stadium, but not beyond that.

[Jacob]

Agreed - would've been nice to have games in Edmonton, and more games in Canada.

No blame on Montreal for pulling out, given the "nothing else is allowed to happen." I wonder what - if anything - is getting cancelled or moved in Vancouver?