atypical_boro
Well-known member
How do you grow the sport though?
TBF, the World Cup in 1994 did help grow the sport there and today it is much bigger than it was back then. The 2026 World Cup won't go at all unnoticed in the USA.
2026 World Cup
- Thread starter atypical_boro
- Start date
TBF, the World Cup in 1994 did help grow the sport there and today it is much bigger than it was back then. The 2026 World Cup won't go at all unnoticed in the USA.
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret
Well-known member
Hungary's as bad as Qatar or Russia.
Borobuddah
Well-known member
It was a revelation to me watching the early games of the last World Cup in San Francisco, fans of all nations are there
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Well there is the immigration/tourist factor, but if USA had actually been in it I think you'd have been even more surprised.
jonny_greenings_sock
Well-known member
See for me the World Cup should be more of a celebration of the game than this FIFA missionary ideal of growing the sport in new territories.
Football can grow in the USA and Qatar if they produce teams good enough to compete and do well in the World Cup; that’s on them.
But a World Cup in Brazil or France or Uruguay or England or Italy will always be one million times more special than a World Cup in Canada. And more of an advert for what makes the WC amazing - the fans and the passion for the game.
I know this would make tournaments European and South America-centric but I don’t care, that’s where the most passion and talent is. No-one’s trying to host the Super Bowl in Azerbaijan or Delhi.
Football can grow in the USA and Qatar if they produce teams good enough to compete and do well in the World Cup; that’s on them.
But a World Cup in Brazil or France or Uruguay or England or Italy will always be one million times more special than a World Cup in Canada. And more of an advert for what makes the WC amazing - the fans and the passion for the game.
I know this would make tournaments European and South America-centric but I don’t care, that’s where the most passion and talent is. No-one’s trying to host the Super Bowl in Azerbaijan or Delhi.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
Well I think each case on its merit. The fact they took the World Cup to Africa was one (if the only) thing Sepp Blatter managed to achieve that I think was a good thing for football.
Agree about Canada though. I doubt the sport will ever grow there tbh, so it seems a waste of time.
jonny_greenings_sock
Well-known member
Nah. The atmosphere for their games has been unreal! Puskas, magical Magyars, they’ve got loads of heritage. I know they’re a daft example but my point is, hosting a WC would mean a hell of a lot more to the people of Hungary and neighbouring countries than it would to a country where football is the 4th or 5th sport and the national team wouldn’t have qualified anyway.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
TBH football is big in Russia, I had no problem with it being there when it was announced (even at our expense). They weren't even behaving as much like international sh1thouses as they do now, when it was first announced either, that seemed to ramp up during the 2010s.
Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret
Well-known member
I'm thinking more of not putting it in a third country with dodgy gay rights after Russia and Qatar.
jonny_greenings_sock
Well-known member
Oh South Africa was great. Bold, broke a lot of stereotypes about what a country like that is “capable” of hosting, gave some infrastructure back to a place that loves the game, was beautiful to see.
Africa’s such a footballing hotbed though. I’d love to see a World Cup in Egypt/Morocco/Algeria.
jonny_greenings_sock
Well-known member
Strongly agree!
Yes, tbf I was seething when Russia got it but that was an excellent tournament and they did deserve one, I think it just felt dirty next to Qatar and like the whole dream of the WC had been bought. Then the US getting it, again, really annoyed me because it’s just $$.
I’d love to see one in Eastern Europe, maybe some combination of Czech, Slovakia/venia and the Balkan countries; and one in North Africa. And Brazil is the perfect host, so special. We all know powerhouse of international football China will get one soon though.
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
I think the WC has many purposes, and I have no problem with it being used to spread the game, but it shouldn't be used for that each time.
For me, international football is still in its infancy. The WC has been in existence for barely 90 years, and international football will be played as long as humans exist. So dividing the world into "traditional" and "non-traditional" footballing nations makes no sense to me. I wouldn't expect the founder members of the football league to start demanding preferential treatment because they were there first. Nor would I expect those who embraced the competition in 1930 to consider themselves as having priority over everyone else (USA was there before us, incidentally).
I do think football is growing in the US; MLS attendance has more than tripled in the last 25 years, and there are now professional leagues below that.
Just because it isn't one of their main sports, it doesn't mean there aren't millions into it. I'd still like to see the game spread more in China and India, but they are pretty much the last frontiers now.
The Qatar thing remains a disgrace: incompetent at best, and corrupt at worst. Even accepting the "spreading the game" argument, which I do, Australia was the best choice.
I think the North African WC would have a lot going for it, but following Qatar, I think it would come under pressure to be a Winter world cup. Maybe these will become more regular. My gut reaction is to prefer Summer though.
Last edited:
atypical_boro
Well-known member
I'm not entirely against China having one tbh, as long as they win it on merit. I imagine they have all the right facilities and they do seem to like their football. We shouldn't just have it in Europe and Latin America. The Japan/Korea world cup was a good one. I'm not against the inevitable Australia one either, the Aussies throw everything into these things and I don't think it would be bad for football at all.
Yeah Qatar is silly, but the people responsible have been found out and we are stuck with it now. I mean, it will be a novelty having one in winter though.
asredastheycome
Well-known member
The OP is just another reason why I am getting less and less interested in football. Apart from Boro of course.
Subbuteo_171
Well-known member
Just go to 64 teams from 2030 then the 3 team group issue is resolved.
You know it’ll happen.
You know it’ll happen.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
yeah I said on another thread, barely worth bothering with 48 cos it will go to 64 and then qualifiers will become more or less meaningless for larger European nations. UEFA might try to cash in by making the Euros bigger but play the games over a longer period (like it used to be) and have it every two years or something.
jonny_greenings_sock
Well-known member
Japan/Korea was an awesome one.
A great example of a developmental World Cup. Hosting something like that must have grown the game’s popularity massively in Asia, leading to the tons of money pouring into broadcast deals and investors from Asia. You could say there probably wouldn’t have been billionaire Thai owners at Leicester and City without that World Cup.
Also, Japan had a really good team about a decade after that and South Korea produce some great players. Maybe that’s unrelated and just to do with globalisation of the game and once in a generation talents like Son Heung Min, but that’s one of the things hosting, or doing well, at a World Cup can do - loads of investment in infrastructure and coaching, and most importantly, inspiring loads of kids to play, raising the level for a generation.
It’s probably not far off to say that the Premier League boom of the 90s and the golden generation were the children of Italy 90 and Euro 96. And the great talent we have now grew up with Beckham, Owen, Rooney being superstars. Look at the production line of Portuguese talent since they produced a Ronaldo.
MFP
Well-known member
Problem with this is extending the length of the tournament and teams playing more games to get to the final. I reckon if anything, assuming the 48 team format doesn't work, they'll either try a 40 team format as once proposed, or return to the current 32 one.
