2026 World Cup
- Thread starter atypical_boro
- Start date
changingman
Well-known member
I for one cannot wait for 2026 - do we think it will be relatively easy to get tickets?
Current thinking is at least one game on the East Coast (ideally new york) or New York/Toronto, followed by somewhere central (my wife fancies Texas but I'd go Denver) and end up in California.
Current thinking is at least one game on the East Coast (ideally new york) or New York/Toronto, followed by somewhere central (my wife fancies Texas but I'd go Denver) and end up in California.
Total attendance has indeed increased substantially BUT there are far more teams. Average crowds at most of the older established teams are falling. NY, LA, Chicago all losing fans. The fan profile is different to Europe - more women and many expats. American males are still not into it. Some are interested but it's not like football or baseball.
Soccer is coming to a crossroads in the US - unless something changes clubs will start to disappear and interest will dwindle again.
On field play acting is the biggest turn off. Americans hate it.
atypical_boro
Well-known member
I don’t think it should be compared to NFL or baseball to be honest, it’s never going to compete with national sports. I don’t especially WANT to see USA adopting it wholesale, but I can mention “soccer” to an American in a random bar or whatever and they usually have a basic knowledge of it. I doubt that was the case before 1994.
It certainly won't become a mainstream sport in the US. The issue is whether it survives as a league, or whether soccer fans get their fix by watching games from South America or Europe on tv.
There aren't many Americans who would perform the Abramovitch sugar daddy role. It has to be economically viable.
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
They're still people going to watch football.
And I don't think it matters what sort of people go, surely one sort isn't more important than another?
As I said, there's no need for it to be their national obsession. I'd believe there are more people into football in the US than there are actual people in many European countries.
Doom_On_Horseback
Well-known member
Only just found out that England are bidding for the 2030 WC. They'll have opposition from Morocco who could also tie in with Algeria and Tunisia, possibly even ask to tie in with Spain and Portugal. There's a joint Argentinian and Uruguayan bid and an Iberian bid from Spain and Portugal.
We should be winning that. Spain hosted in '82, Argentina in '78. It will not have been in Europe since 2018. You could argue the case for an African WC, but they've only had one before. There's even talk of a British entry which would see Scotland, Wales (Possibly N.I) take some games as well. It would be brilliant to see the WC here in my lifetime.
We should be winning that. Spain hosted in '82, Argentina in '78. It will not have been in Europe since 2018. You could argue the case for an African WC, but they've only had one before. There's even talk of a British entry which would see Scotland, Wales (Possibly N.I) take some games as well. It would be brilliant to see the WC here in my lifetime.
BoroMart
Well-known member
it was....but the last 5 mins of the France vs Portugal game had that same shameful, one team keeps the ball, the other goes deep and doesn't pressure because both teams knew the other game had finished and they would both go through.
Doom_On_Horseback
Well-known member
It was nice to see the crowd give them stick pretty much straight away which I noticed shamed a few players into a more dynamic approach.
The expat thing is quite important I think. If you like soccer and you go to live in the US for a while, you might be tempted to go to a few matches at your local team.
But after a few years you move back to the UK, or Europe, or Mexico - or wherever - and your fandom is lost.
Soccermoms watching - again, it's fine,but a lot of them get free tickets from schools or colleges and go to meet their friends and have a chat. It's wholly different to the way people watch in Europe.
Any bid from the US is about money and sponsorship and tourism $s and far less about growing the game in the US.
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
That happens in Europe too: we've mocked Sunderland for years for doing that.
Any bid from anywhere is about money: that's the hard truth of it.
Regardless of intent, the WC will grow football in the US. It did last time, and this will give it another huge boost in the right direction.
I do think football offers the USA something which NFL, baseball and basketball can't: genuine international competition. Whatever else, they do love an opportunity to wave flags and chant "U S A". I remember meeting an American and his son (10-11ish) in a bar in Cologne who were dead keen on the game. Dad explained his son got hooked on it because of the previous WC (Swansea vs Boro were on TV in the relegation season. I couldn't convince either to be Boro fans). If attendances at individual clubs have taken a hit in recent years, I'd put it down to the USA's careless elimination to qualify for the last WC.
Zoophonic
Well-known member
The qualifications would drag on forever. In 1966 72 teams entered qualification. Now we have 210 teams. To whittle that down to 16 would be torturous
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
No, we could just use the winners of each confederation tournament: get it down to 6 nations straight away.
Actually having a tournament at all is such a drag...
I thought 32 was just right.
I'd just tweak qualifying so it wasn't so biased in favour of the Europeans, and give other continents the opportunity for more places if they could beat the European qualifying-group runners up over 2 legs.
Sometimes a particular continent will be particularly strong, and it's right they should have extra places in that year.
Zoophonic
Well-known member
Well that’s one way of sorting it out. Just don’t have it.
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
Do you mean during group stages?
I don't think it would: if you think a 0-0 draw is your best result now, you'd think a shootout would be your best chance then. Teams would think they could win by parking the bus, not just drawing.
For me, draws have always been part of football, so should remain. I know they are considered oddities in the American market and, while I'd like to see the game spread in the US, I wouldn't remove something as ingrained in the game as a draw just to pander to their market.
Yes, in the group stages. I agree, it wouldn't necessarily stop teams from parking the bus, but it would stop the third group games where - if it's a draw - both teams go through.
Frozen Horse
Well-known member
I don't really think that happens very often and, as has been pointed out, the one case where everyone agreed collusion took place (West Germany vs Austria in 82) ended in a 1-0 for the Germans.
Basically the Germans needed an win, and Austria just needed not to get beaten heavily. Knowing the Germans could stuff them if they really tried, the Austrians appeared to accept a narrow defeat.
In a 4 team group, forcing a result would probably mean more dead rubbers in the final round of group games. As it stands, a team with one or two points after 2 group games has a decent chance of going through. IF positive results are forced, a lot of teams wills be through, and a lot out, before the final round. That could harm the integrity of the competition more.
Last edited:
Rofesleg
Well-known member
That's just a daft way to write it. Is it a thing?