https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44464913

Final will be in New York City.

16 locations; 10 in the US, 3 each in Canada and Mexico

60 matches will be hosted in the US, while 10 matches each in Canada and Mexico

Host Cities:

Canada: Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto
Mexico: Monterrey, Guadalajara, Mexico City
US: Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, Nashville, Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Cincinnati, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York

I genuinely feel bad for the players and fans that need to travel from city to city because prices of flights are high in oligopolistic air industry in USA and trains aren't much of alternative.

It definitely helps,

I attended the WC in 2006 and the atmosphere was jut the most beautiful thing I've ever experienced. People breathing football everywhere. And that is the reason tourists ans fans go to each WC. In 2026 we'll have a ton of crazy "fake" US soccer fans making up half of that atmosphere which is not that bad. The US has one of the biggest sports cultures in the world anyways so you'll see them transform.

This all compared to the 2022 WC just makes no sense as Qatar has nothing relevant to make it a somewhat decent candidate for hosting the tournament.

Most Americans and Canadians are snobby and intolerable when it comes to football, so we'll see how much European fans enjoy the World Cup when it comes lmao. Mexico probably has a fantastic culture, but they've got some issues with gang violence right now so I'm not sure how many foreigners will want to go there instead of coming to cities like Toronto, LA, or Houston.

Its really intolerant from you Tuanis, I actually enjoyed South African compain. And the WC 1982 in Spain has put Spain in ideal situation to become the country it is now. It’s a World Cup not rich countries cup. And I highly disagree it’s not golf or Tennis it’s football where 90% of people practicing are poor people.
With the same logic let’s ban poor countries from hosting home games since away team may get decent conditions, let’s ban cold countries or hot ones....
What do you reproche to Qatar in term of infrastructure ? They are building the most expensive stadiums ever and got the best hotels... I was against Qatar but for different reasons one of them is slavery and hard labor leading to death, but you seem to have another approach...

Let’s only choose rich countries where you think you will have fun, I visited India, Tunisia, Morocco, Poland and some other « poor countries « they look happier than us, I enjoyed India completely different way of life, material or comfort is not what matters most. As long as pitches are suitable to play...

The host doesn't always benefit from the World Cup, they did really shameless things in South Africa and Brazil and historically it was the World Cup and Olympics that changed some laws in Mexico and made a lot of problems for Canada.
This time though, it's mostly the US that will be hosting and I think they even if that country isn't currently the ideal place for hosting, in 8 years it will be great.

The only thing I worry about it's the organisation itself, the big centers are very far apart from eachother and that can be problematic, for example if a team needs to travel from Seattle to New York or from Toronto to Mexico City just for a group stage game...Right now in Russia some teams will end up traveling almost 10.000km just to end their group stage games and that is really much time spent in flight and transition, so I imagine that the 3 countries that all together cover almost whole north America need to really think it through when it comes to the teams, groups and teams headquarters.

It is fair to say that hosting the tournament in Brazil was worth it simply because they are Brazil.

However, it is also equally fair to point out that as a nation and an economy, giving them the tournament was pretty disastrous. The level of corruption there really made this a questionable choice, despite their historical pedigree.

Giving it to Russia, amid all the rampant racism in their football league, is an outright insult. Giving it to Qatar even more so.

Therefore: giving it to the North American countries is a step up in terms of ethics, but a step down in term of logistics.

Meanwhile England haven't had it since 1966, and Spain haven't had it since 1982.

Conclusion: the whole thing is a farce.

Meanwhile England haven't had it since 1966, and Spain haven't had it since 1982.

I was just thinking about this. Why not have it at countries with rich football culture, less corruption than the nations selected recently, and an ability to host? Spain in particular has beautiful tourist attractions so it's a two birds one stone kinda thing.

Of course nothing will get in the way of FIFA making bribery money.

I'm waiting for the swaths of Canadians and Americans who will suddenly act like they've been watching "soccer" their entire lives and are experts in debating football-related matters.

You have to know how ironic this statement is.

You do know, right?

@Madrista11:

Of course nothing will get in the way of FIFA making bribery money.

The problem in a nutshell.

I hate everyone in this thread. From stupid comments like this:

I genuinely feel bad for the players and fans that need to travel from city to city because prices of flights are high in oligopolistic air industry in USA and trains aren't much of alternative.

You're from England. Most of the American states are bigger than England. If I were to take a train from Seattle to Miami (two hosting cities I think?) that's over 3000 miles. 49 hours driving, almost 7 hours flying, and if there was a direct rail line, probably around 15-20 hours. Of course they're going to take a train /s.

That being said, hope it will be different than 94, empty NFL stadiums with a pitch marked by NFL signs...

Now what even is that tiki. The '94 World Cup was so successful that it changed how FIFA hosted world cups (in potential markets, rather than established ones). As far as attendance, engagement, and literally any metric you want go, it is one of, if not the most successful world cup ever held. To hold the opinion you hold is just a blatant disrespect to what actually happened.

In 2026 we'll have a ton of crazy "fake" US soccer fans making up half of that atmosphere which is not that bad. The US has one of the biggest sports cultures in the world anyways so you'll see them transform.

Totally agree. Americans love sports. The entire country will follow the world cup, and just because they don't follow soccer normally, this thread would try to convince me that that's a bad thing. How is attracting 350+ million people to a sport a negative development?

Meanwhile England haven't had it since 1966, and Spain haven't had it since 1982.
Conclusion: the whole thing is a farce.

It has been FIFA policy for a long while now to rotate the continents. Europe has had it just as much as the rest of world, moreso in fact. It's just that there are a lot of soccer-crazy European countries. FIFA may be a joke in general, but them picking up that idea from the Olympics is something I highly approve of.

Of course nothing will get in the way of FIFA making bribery money.

Well clearly there's some hope because Morocco didn't get it. Until Qatar gets moved though...

It has been FIFA policy for a long while now to rotate the continents.

Yes. This is not, however, an admirable thing to do. It is merely a token gesture.

Consider that in 1994, the World Cup was played in front of largely empty stadiums. In 2002 the World Cup was made controversial due to (very strongly based) allegations of match-fixing. 2010 was a decent tournament, but did frankly nothing to help the country it was hosted in; the stadiums now stand rusting, empty and disused, after having taken up a huge chunk of the GDP to build.

Double that last effect with Brazil, in 2014.

It's supposed to be a meritocracy, not a freebie.

Europe has had it just as much as the rest of world, moreso in fact.

Yes, because Europe is the home of football. That's absolutely how it should be.

FIFA may be a joke in general, but them picking up that idea from the Olympics is something I highly approve of.

Why? What are the pluses which you can name from giving it to countries which do not benefit from it, and have little-to-no historical pedigree within the sport, especially when the results are increased poverty for the populace?

What is the point other than patting themselves on the back for a futile token gesture?

I am sure somewhere you in that sentence you were trying to make a point..

World Cup in USA , Mexico and Canada nothing but political bull sht. Just to unite these countries as of right now they are having a rocky relationships. How many times did USA and Mexico had World Cups? And How many times did Morocco hosted? None. Morroco could have easily provided neccessary ground for fifa to have the competition and in my opinion greedy FiFa should pitch into development of those facilities instead of feeling their pockets. Shame that World Cup is going to countries that would rather watch baseball series which are over 100 games for each team than watch football. Don’t have much sense about football and rarely play themselves until high school is over. Oh wait they also think that egg ball is the greatest sport on earth.

Pathetic and corrupt FIFA should be more objective and give chance to countries that care about this sport to host it. It means way more to them but for america it just another “ Look my cock bigger than yours moment , Merica hell yea”. No disrespect to American people but they know it better that majority doesn’t give a crap other than a bragging rights.

Do you guys have a superiority complex or something? Americans have proven that they will watch the world cup in their own country, and make it an economic success. Several hundred million people who wouldn't normally be interested in the sport will watch it, and at least some of them will become permanent fans. HOW IS THAT A BAD THING? FIFA makes their money, soccer's profile is enhanced, more Americans embrace soccer, and the world gets to visit the USA instead of Russia or f*cking Qatar.

But no, because Americans value more than a single sport, apparently they don't deserve soccer. Do you even hear yourselves? This is literally just blind hate.

The reputation of the US in the rest of the world is low but in 8 years I think it will be better.
For me it's only the distances from big cities that can be a problem because right now in Russia some teams will travel a lot between games, other than that people should remember that the US hosted the World Cup before and that it was good, even if the times changed back in 1994 the attendance was great and on average games had 3 goals per game.

@SunFlash:

Do you guys have a superiority complex or something?

Not me. I just don't have an insecurity complex which drives me to feel good about offering football's greatest competition to corrupt nations, just so I can tell myself that I'm doing the world some good.

Like I said, it doesn't even help out the nations who get it. It just helps out the rich and the corrupt.

Americans have proven that they will watch the world cup in their own country, and make it an economic success.

When was this proven, exactly?

HOW IS THAT A BAD THING? FIFA makes their money,

Question and Answer.

But for my part my only concern with the World Cup being in North America is the logistical nightmare of trying to get across such an enormous landmass, for one single tournament. There's just no need, and however much you can detail US interest in soccer, you know darn well that it's the minority interest there, and in Canada there's hardly any.

To many people in countries who live and breath the sport, and who have been waiting their whole lives for this tournament to be on home soil, and who already clearly have the infrastructure to host it with, like, a month's notice, it's not a very compelling argument to them to say that it's going to raise the profile of soccer in Quebec or Oregon, and that's what's important.

It's veritable cultural appropriation, in fact, and I'm only slightly being tongue-in-cheek with that... :p

But no, because Americans value more than a single sport, apparently they don't deserve soccer. Do you even hear yourselves?

Well, that doesn't bear any resemblance to what I've been saying, so...

It's not a superiority complex to point out that some nations care about this sport deeply, and that they're not overly impressed with the greatest competition in world football being used as a self-promotion device for an organization as corrupt as FIFA, all under the pretext that it's going to make the sport just a little more popular in North America.

It's already the most popular sport on Earth, by an absurdly large margin.

Not me. I just don't have an insecurity complex which drives me to feel good about offering football's greatest competition to corrupt nations, just so I can tell myself that I'm doing the world some good.

So somehow the USA is more corrupt than Morocco, the only other option. I won't even bother arguing this because of how stupid it is.

When was this proven, exactly?

The last time it was held here, in '94. We have been over this. Go read a book or something, and come back when you know absolutely anything about this topic.

But for my part my only concern with the World Cup being in North America is the logistical nightmare of trying to get across such an enormous landmass, for one single tournament. There's just no need, and however much you can detail US interest in soccer, you know darn well that it's the minority interest there, and in Canada there's hardly any.

Oh, too bad about Russia. I mean, god forbid look at how messed up all those players are from going thousands of miles to games. I mean, why do we even have a Champions League, a player might have to go nearly a thousand miles to play a game there. Totally unreasonable. Not even to mention MLS, those poor bastards. Yeah, right. It's the 21st century. Distance means almost nothing, especially when you can sleep on your private team jet.

Soccer is of minority interest in general, but not when the World Cup is held. Again, we have been over this.

To many people in countries who live and breath the sport, and who have been waiting their whole lives for this tournament to be on home soil, and who already clearly have the infrastructure to host it with, like, a month's notice, it's not a very compelling argument to them to say that it's going to raise the profile of soccer in Quebec or Oregon, and that's what's important.

Then your issue is not with the USA, but with "lesser" soccer countries. Again, lose the superiority complex. The last few world cup hosts look like this: Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Germany. 3 out of 4 of those are soccer-crazy countries. Go back even further and that ratio is the same or better.

It's veritable cultural appropriation, in fact, and I'm only slightly being tongue-in-cheek with that... :p

If you put one more smiley face in a response to me, you can consider this conversation over. I don't know how to looks to you, but it looks super condescending to me.

Well, that doesn't bear any resemblance to what I've been saying, so...

Uh huh. Read your posts back in this thread with an ounce of objectivity.

It's not a superiority complex to point out that some nations care about this sport deeply, and that they're not overly impressed with the greatest competition in world football being used as a self-promotion device for an organization as corrupt as FIFA, all under the pretext that it's going to make the sport just a little more popular in North America.

And for 95% of world cups, it hasn't been. Mountain meet molehill. Qatar is stupid, we all know that. Russia was overdue to host (and probably would've earlier if not for the whole USSR thing). South Korea and South Africa were the first world cups hosted on their respective continents, are were also overdue as a result.

Basically, if you want to watch the Euros + Argentina and Brazil, then maybe just strip the name "world" right off of world cup.

It's already the most popular sport on Earth, by an absurdly large margin.

That's true. And not relevant to this discussion.

Now, if you want to keep this going, lose the sense of entitlement and repeating things that have already been proved wrong (see: USA '94 was not a failure, and American sports engagement). It's insulting not only to me, but everyone else who reads this, which is probably no one tbh.

I rather the WC be hosted by US/Mex/Can over Qatar any day. I think FIFA needs to rethink the way these countries "bid" to host it. It's clearly who offers the most incentive and like it's been pointed out sometimes it does more harm than good. South Africa wasted way too much money to host just to leave empty stadiums behind falling apart.

Countries who already have more than 60% of the infrastructure required should have a priority that way spending and building from 0 is reduced to the minimum.

Spain/England do deserve to host a WC soon.

US is a great place to have the WC as well. The Copa de America (south American equivalent to Euros) did fairly well over there. Plus it's a country that is increasing it's interest in the sport which can only be a good thing. Also, tourism is already something big and they have most of the infrastructure already on place.

and in Canada only the immigrants from South Asia, the Middle East, and Europe have a football culture

lol this is one of the stupidest things youve ever said, i know alot of people that do not fit your criteria that are deeply routed in football culture, eveyone here in canada came from immigration at one point anyway,

,

@dynastian Do you get to decide who enjoys football and who doesnts? who cares if people get hyped up and bandwagon about the world cup and then go back to watching hockey , i think that is part of the beauty of the game

@SunFlash:

So somehow the USA is more corrupt than Morocco, the only other option. I won't even bother arguing this because of how stupid it is.

I don't need to defend it either, since I never said it to begin with. It is absolutely clear that I was referring to the World Cups in Russia and Qatar, plus the previous recent tournaments. Please don't be obtuse.

The last time it was held here, in '94. We have been over this. Go read a book or something, and come back when you know absolutely anything about this topic.

Well, I mean, the low viewing figures don't really back up your point, so, I was asking why it is that you think this has been proven. If you don't want to answer the question, then tell yourself whatever you like.

Oh, too bad about Russia. I mean, god forbid look at how messed up all those players are from going thousands of miles to games.

No team has played more than one game yet, so this isn't really the clever point you might be thinking it is, but also you might be unaware of how close the venues in Russia are to one another. Generally they are all in the western regions, which isn't that much larger than, say, Germany.

But you seem to not much give a shit about all the fans who have to take these trips too, with, y'know, an awful lot less money than the national teams. Flying from Cabo to Toronto is not exactly a puddle-jump, now is it?

Not even to mention MLS, those poor bastards.

Yeah, must be nice to come from the US though, instead of, say, Colombia, or Iran, or any of the other lands in which a regular MLS trip would be prohibitively expensive.

Distance means almost nothing, especially when you can sleep on your private team jet.

Must be nice.

Then your issue is not with the USA, but with "lesser" soccer countries.

That's correct. I didn't single the US out in any way other than to respond to your point that raising the profile of the sport in the US and Canada is of little interest or importance to me, because I come from the country which invented the sport, and where a sizable chunk of the population treat it as a religion (much like all across Europe and South America).

As far as I'm concerned, the existing fan-base should take precedence, not some attempt to find a 'new audience'.

Again, lose the superiority complex.

How about you have some effing respect for a footballing culture which is not your own, and for people who take this sport a great deal more seriously than you do. Maybe then I'll drop my 'complex'.

We have been 'over this' before.

Russia, Brazil, South Africa, Germany. 3 out of 4 of those are soccer-crazy countries.

Who is complaining about Germany getting the World Cup? And did you miss the part where people dislike the Brazilian choice because of the disastrous economic effect it had upon the population, and the Russian choice because of the racism in Russian footballing culture, not because they were insufficiently 'crazy' about football?

How about addressing that for a change, instead of misrepresenting my argument?

If you put one more smiley face in a response to me, you can consider this conversation over. I don't know how to looks to you, but it looks super condescending to me.

If you use this as some excuse to distract away from the fact that my argument is clearly not what you've represented it to be, and that you have little answer to what I have actually said, then you can consider my patience ended. I don't know how it looks to you, but it looks like cheap equivocation and distraction from the point, to me.

I was attempting to be familiar, to lighten the tone. You decided to give me some weird ultimatum. Walk away any time you like.

Uh huh. Read your posts back in this thread with an ounce of objectivity.

Uh-huh. How about highlight a single thing I've said which resembles your description, hmm?

What's that? You're going to shush now, and pretend that I chased you away with my scary smileys?

Okay then.

And for 95% of world cups, it hasn't been.

For the current one, the next two, and the 2 of the previous 3, it has been. That's 83% of them.

are were also overdue as a result.

No they weren't. There is nothing 'overdue' about this. The footballing world doesn't owe the non-footballing world a celebration of their (relatively) non-existent footballing history.

Basically, if you want to watch the Euros + Argentina and Brazil, then maybe just strip the name "world" right off of world cup.

See above. You have to earn things, in sports. Europe and South America are where football is treated as Serious Business. If you want to host their tournament, it's pathetic to tell them that they owe it to you. Jaysus. Get over YOUR superiority complex.

That's true. And not relevant to this discussion.

It's relevant when you want to use spreading football to a wider audience as the motivation for giving the World Cup to nations who don't much care about it normally.

Now, if you want to keep this going, lose the sense of entitlement

If YOU want this to continue, stop misrepresenting what is being said, stop acting as though you are entitled to be treated as some sort of authority on this sport just because you want to be, and stop pretending as though me employing things like smileys are somehow problematic just because you say so.

Grow a pair of balls, or at the very least stop busting mine just because I'm not impressed by your Olympic dreams...

:p