Where should the 2026 World Cup final be held?

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

When Chicago withdrew its bid, FIFA officials were probably thrown for a loop and were like "Oh shit! Chicago's not gonna play ball? Really?..... Fuck.... Ummm...... Okay..... How about Kansas City then!"

My conspiracy theory is that after the retirement of Tom Brady, the NFL is trying to make Patrick Mahomes the face of the NFL. 2026 is aways off, but there's a good chance that Mahomes will lead the Chiefs to at least one more Super Bowl trophy between now and then.

Soccer wants to portray itself as the equal to the NFL (even though its revenues aren't even 1/10th in the United States) and so placing games at Arrowhead Stadium sez something that putting them at Soldier Field or a random college football stadium does not.

[Steely Dan]

^ and my conspiracy theory is that you must hold a lot of stock in the tin foil hat industry.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Also, seems like Chicago should be hosting games instead of Kansas City.

What if the Big 10 had paid off FIFA to do all of the games at their stadiums?

[DCReid]

Originally Posted by homebucket

How is this relevant for AT&T Stadium being an ideal site though? Can you get to the stadium via light rail or commuter rail? As far as I can tell, the closest TRE station is 7-8 miles away by car. And the closest DART station is at DFW, 13 miles away.

I heard a rumor that it's a choice between Metlife and Dallas. I think it should be Metlife but Dallas is a dark house given its stadium owner and state clout. If Metlife gets the final, I'm sure Dallas will at least get a semifinal or quarterfinal along with LA.

[Acajack]

Here is a twist made just for SSPers.

2026.

Trump is POTUS again.

FIFA hates Trump.

The world hates Trump.

World Cup final goes to Toronto because no one hates Canada.

FTW!

[iheartthed]

Hitler's ashes could reassemble, he could come back from the dead, be elected POTUS in a landslide in 24, and that WC final would still be in a US city in 2026.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Hitler's ashes could reassemble, he could come back from the dead, be elected POTUS in a landslide in 24, and that WC final would still be in a US city in 2026.

Poor Toronto and Canada. Can never get a break.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by DFW

Dallas is my bet, it has everything to offer from AT&T Stadium which can easily accommodate 100K spectators to the Cotton Bowl 80K spectators. Other advantages are that DFW metro area is the largest that is most centralized in the North American Continent Making flights shorter to and from DFW International Airport than any other major metro area in the continent. The airport is now is the second busiest in the world, with construction of a new terminal and improvements costing in the billions of dollars within the next three years. Also not to mention the other major airport Love Field. DFW has the longest light rail system in the country with commuter rail as well. DFW being a major hub of communications is also ideal for the World Cup broadcasting Center as well.

Yes, all of the transportation/geographical/logistical advantages make sense. But no one really wants to go to Dallas.

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I'm confused.

Is there a technical reason why the US would be preferred over Canada and Mexico?

Yes, the technical reason is $$$$

[mhays]

Toronto's games will be at a tiny, cheap stadium.

[ocman]

I read one story that got picked up by everyone that Sofi is too narrow to host it. FIFA wants 80,000 capacity seating. Sofi is 70,000. It can expand to more but not while taking seats out to expand the field, supposedly. But then they awarded Sofi the LA venue over the Rose Bowl (which actually DID host the only World Cup in the US with a seating capacity of 89,000) knowing this, so there’s also belief that FIFA is just being FIFA in trying to con a better deal for itself. But for now, I would put it out of the running.

So with that in mind, Dallas and Metlife are the front runners. I’m betting Dallas because of the retractable roof and accessibility. Metlife always has a chance of rain. Dallas can accomodate 100,000 but not for the World Cup. It’s expected to be around 80,000. Metlife at 82,000.

Ultimately it’ll come down to who can wine and dine FIFA the best.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I'm confused.

Is there a technical reason why the US would be preferred over Canada and Mexico?

I think Canada/Mexico were always secondary hosts

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by mhays

Toronto's games will be at a tiny, cheap stadium.

in fact they will be adding a bunch of temporary seats just to meet the minimum 40,000 for group stage games.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I'm confused.

Is there a technical reason why the US would be preferred over Canada and Mexico?

really? you're confused by that? what about that is confusing to you?
help us to help you. walk us through the confusing part.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ocman

So with that in mind, Dallas and Metlife are the front runners. I’m betting Dallas because of the retractable roof and accessibility. Metlife always has a chance of rain. Dallas can accomodate 100,000 but not for the World Cup. It’s expected to be around 80,000. Metlife at 82,000.

Ultimately it’ll come down to who can wine and dine FIFA the best.

Almost all soccer stadiums are open air, so I don't think that will be an issue.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

really? you're confused by that? what about that is confusing to you?
help us to help you. walk us through the confusing part.

Okay, I deleted the post. :-)

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by ocman

Metlife always has a chance of rain.

Last I checked, soccer, football, futbol, futebol, etc. all can be played in the rain.

Kinda like football's Super Bowl can (and probably should) be played in the cold.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by ocman

I read one story that got picked up by everyone that Sofi is too narrow to host it. FIFA wants 80,000 capacity seating. Sofi is 70,000. It can expand to more but not while taking seats out to expand the field, supposedly. But then they awarded Sofi the LA venue over the Rose Bowl (which actually DID host the only World Cup in the US with a seating capacity of 89,000) knowing this, so there’s also belief that FIFA is just being FIFA in trying to con a better deal for itself. But for now, I would put it out of the running.

So with that in mind, Dallas and Metlife are the front runners. I’m betting Dallas because of the retractable roof and accessibility. Metlife always has a chance of rain. Dallas can accomodate 100,000 but not for the World Cup. It’s expected to be around 80,000. Metlife at 82,000.

Ultimately it’ll come down to who can wine and dine FIFA the best.

Instead of adapting the game to existing stadiums, they keep forcing the width thing to force cities to contribute money to build "soccer-specific" stadiums. It's like how the NFL created revenue sharing *except* for luxury boxes to force team owners to push for new NFL stadiums and throw away about 10 multi-purpose stadiums. All of those stadiums could have still been going (Veteran's, Riverfront, Three Rivers, Bush, etc.) - after all, RFK stadium is one of them and it's still alive.

I played a lot of soccer on many different-sized fields. The width made no difference. I don't recall a single time when the coach brought up the size of a field we were going to play at. It's like baseball - nothing fundamentally changes about the game.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Last I checked, soccer, football, futbol, futebol, etc. all can be played in the rain.

But no one chooses to. And that’s what makes Dallas’ stadium look better.