I think it will send a message to the non-European elite countries that multiple hosts will give you a better chance of winning - and spread the costs.
The WC is a massive strain to public funds as we've seen with SA and Brazil, leaving a string of debt and white elephant stadiums.
I approve of the North American bid winning.
Travel, timezone and different climate issues with that joint bid.
Hopefully Morocco don't win. Too much costs to bear, whereas the united bid is all set pretty much. Big tournaments like these should only be given to countries who already have infrastructure there.
The bloody time difference in north America compared to here
comment by (Kash) You're One Ugly Mother Fekir (U1108)
posted 1 minute ago
Travel, timezone and different climate issues with that joint bid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This world cup is in Russia.
The last one was in Brazil.
comment by (Kash) You're One Ugly Mother Fekir (U1108)
posted 30 seconds ago
Travel, timezone and different climate issues with that joint bid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, it'll be grand. Only 3hra difference from east to west coast. Nice and warm too.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic 🐍 (U5291)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) You're One Ugly Mother Fekir (U1108)
posted 1 minute ago
Travel, timezone and different climate issues with that joint bid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This world cup is in Russia.
The last one was in Brazil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah those are just one country though so logisitically it is a lot easier than a joint world cup between two countries like Holland and Belgium, or England and Wales. Imagine trying to get to a game in Cardiff just 4 days after a game in London. Almost impossible.
On the plus UK criminals will be able to take their kids to disneyland now (well for a month in 2026) as they have to provide easy entry for fans, visa free etc.
Be shiyte kick off times for us.
Anyone know if the 48 spots mean more chances for European teams or is the increase going to Asia, Africa and North America?
The US will win anyway as Fifa need to get FBI of there back.
comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 2 minutes ago
Anyone know if the 48 spots mean more chances for European teams or is the increase going to Asia, Africa and North America?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia - 4.5 to 8
Africa - 5 to 9
North America - 3 to 6
South America - 4.5 to 6
Oceania - 0.5 to 1
UEFA - 13 to 16
plus 2 from play-offs.
Outrageous giving South America 6.
Only 4 of them won't qualify
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 2 minutes ago
Anyone know if the 48 spots mean more chances for European teams or is the increase going to Asia, Africa and North America?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia - 4.5 to 8
Africa - 5 to 9
North America - 3 to 6
South America - 4.5 to 6
Oceania - 0.5 to 1
UEFA - 13 to 16
plus 2 from play-offs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oceania team currently stand no chance of making it seeing as they're only allowed to play 5.5 players. This seems more fair now that they're allowed a full team.
The UK are not getting it for a long time, FIFA hate our press becos we highlight how corrupt they are. We also will not allow them there tax free jurisdiction and monopoly of the law for the duration of the tournament.
England, Germany, Spain, France, Italy all have the infrastructure in place already, so cost shouldn't be an issue
it will be 64 teams before long i hope.
Works much better with groups of 4, 2 qualifying.
Wonder if Diana Ross will score this time
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 2 minutes ago
Anyone know if the 48 spots mean more chances for European teams or is the increase going to Asia, Africa and North America?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia - 4.5 to 8
Africa - 5 to 9
North America - 3 to 6
South America - 4.5 to 6
Oceania - 0.5 to 1
UEFA - 13 to 16
plus 2 from play-offs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's gonna be shiite, proper shiite. The 32 team WC format and 16 team Euro format works great. Cuts down on the dead rubbers, and gets to the juicy games quite quickly. This new format is just padding and adds nothing.
This system will have less dead rubbers and will get to the (32 team) knockouts quicker.
Euro's are already up to 24 and worked well?
comment by Christopher - Silverware Schmilverware (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
Wonder if Diana Ross will score this time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She will do well to get on the pitch
comment by Striketeam7 (U18109)
posted 3 minutes ago
The UK are not getting it for a long time, FIFA hate our press becos we highlight how corrupt they are. We also will not allow them there tax free jurisdiction and monopoly of the law for the duration of the tournament.
England, Germany, Spain, France, Italy all have the infrastructure in place already, so cost shouldn't be an issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The paranoia
Pretty sure I've seen the US highlight some corruption in FIFA recently, no?
And if infrastructure is your reasoning then the joint North Anerican bid is the way to go. Some of the biggest, next stadia in the world
A 48 team world cup would be pointless. Who really wants to watch a bunch of no hopers like Ecuador/New Zealand/Iran/Zimbabwe/England make fools of themselves just for an extra few games at the start of the tournament? Get rid of the cannon fodder and cut it down to 16 teams who actually have a chance of winning it.
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic 🐍 (U5291)
posted 6 minutes ago
Euro's are already up to 24 and worked well?
------------------------------------------------------------------
3 teams getting out of a group of 4 is a joke imo.
Much better when half have to exit every round.
Sign in if you want to comment
2026 World Cup Host
Page 1 of 3
posted on 13/6/18
I think it will send a message to the non-European elite countries that multiple hosts will give you a better chance of winning - and spread the costs.
The WC is a massive strain to public funds as we've seen with SA and Brazil, leaving a string of debt and white elephant stadiums.
I approve of the North American bid winning.
posted on 13/6/18
Travel, timezone and different climate issues with that joint bid.
posted on 13/6/18
A UK bid would be nice
posted on 13/6/18
Hopefully Morocco don't win. Too much costs to bear, whereas the united bid is all set pretty much. Big tournaments like these should only be given to countries who already have infrastructure there.
posted on 13/6/18
The bloody time difference in north America compared to here
posted on 13/6/18
comment by (Kash) You're One Ugly Mother Fekir (U1108)
posted 1 minute ago
Travel, timezone and different climate issues with that joint bid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This world cup is in Russia.
The last one was in Brazil.
posted on 13/6/18
comment by (Kash) You're One Ugly Mother Fekir (U1108)
posted 30 seconds ago
Travel, timezone and different climate issues with that joint bid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nah, it'll be grand. Only 3hra difference from east to west coast. Nice and warm too.
posted on 13/6/18
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic 🐍 (U5291)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by (Kash) You're One Ugly Mother Fekir (U1108)
posted 1 minute ago
Travel, timezone and different climate issues with that joint bid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This world cup is in Russia.
The last one was in Brazil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah those are just one country though so logisitically it is a lot easier than a joint world cup between two countries like Holland and Belgium, or England and Wales. Imagine trying to get to a game in Cardiff just 4 days after a game in London. Almost impossible.
posted on 13/6/18
On the plus UK criminals will be able to take their kids to disneyland now (well for a month in 2026) as they have to provide easy entry for fans, visa free etc.
posted on 13/6/18
Be shiyte kick off times for us.
posted on 13/6/18
Anyone know if the 48 spots mean more chances for European teams or is the increase going to Asia, Africa and North America?
posted on 13/6/18
The US will win anyway as Fifa need to get FBI of there back.
posted on 13/6/18
comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 2 minutes ago
Anyone know if the 48 spots mean more chances for European teams or is the increase going to Asia, Africa and North America?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia - 4.5 to 8
Africa - 5 to 9
North America - 3 to 6
South America - 4.5 to 6
Oceania - 0.5 to 1
UEFA - 13 to 16
plus 2 from play-offs.
posted on 13/6/18
Outrageous giving South America 6.
Only 4 of them won't qualify
posted on 13/6/18
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 2 minutes ago
Anyone know if the 48 spots mean more chances for European teams or is the increase going to Asia, Africa and North America?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia - 4.5 to 8
Africa - 5 to 9
North America - 3 to 6
South America - 4.5 to 6
Oceania - 0.5 to 1
UEFA - 13 to 16
plus 2 from play-offs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oceania team currently stand no chance of making it seeing as they're only allowed to play 5.5 players. This seems more fair now that they're allowed a full team.
posted on 13/6/18
The UK are not getting it for a long time, FIFA hate our press becos we highlight how corrupt they are. We also will not allow them there tax free jurisdiction and monopoly of the law for the duration of the tournament.
England, Germany, Spain, France, Italy all have the infrastructure in place already, so cost shouldn't be an issue
posted on 13/6/18
it will be 64 teams before long i hope.
Works much better with groups of 4, 2 qualifying.
posted on 13/6/18
Wonder if Diana Ross will score this time
posted on 13/6/18
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by RonaldVilliers (U21490)
posted 2 minutes ago
Anyone know if the 48 spots mean more chances for European teams or is the increase going to Asia, Africa and North America?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Asia - 4.5 to 8
Africa - 5 to 9
North America - 3 to 6
South America - 4.5 to 6
Oceania - 0.5 to 1
UEFA - 13 to 16
plus 2 from play-offs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's gonna be shiite, proper shiite. The 32 team WC format and 16 team Euro format works great. Cuts down on the dead rubbers, and gets to the juicy games quite quickly. This new format is just padding and adds nothing.
posted on 13/6/18
This system will have less dead rubbers and will get to the (32 team) knockouts quicker.
posted on 13/6/18
Euro's are already up to 24 and worked well?
posted on 13/6/18
comment by Christopher - Silverware Schmilverware (U20930)
posted 4 minutes ago
Wonder if Diana Ross will score this time
----------------------------------------------------------------------
She will do well to get on the pitch
posted on 13/6/18
comment by Striketeam7 (U18109)
posted 3 minutes ago
The UK are not getting it for a long time, FIFA hate our press becos we highlight how corrupt they are. We also will not allow them there tax free jurisdiction and monopoly of the law for the duration of the tournament.
England, Germany, Spain, France, Italy all have the infrastructure in place already, so cost shouldn't be an issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The paranoia
Pretty sure I've seen the US highlight some corruption in FIFA recently, no?
And if infrastructure is your reasoning then the joint North Anerican bid is the way to go. Some of the biggest, next stadia in the world
posted on 13/6/18
A 48 team world cup would be pointless. Who really wants to watch a bunch of no hopers like Ecuador/New Zealand/Iran/Zimbabwe/England make fools of themselves just for an extra few games at the start of the tournament? Get rid of the cannon fodder and cut it down to 16 teams who actually have a chance of winning it.
posted on 13/6/18
comment by IvanGolacIsMagic 🐍 (U5291)
posted 6 minutes ago
Euro's are already up to 24 and worked well?
------------------------------------------------------------------
3 teams getting out of a group of 4 is a joke imo.
Much better when half have to exit every round.
Page 1 of 3