2026 FIFA World Cup

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JHikka

The thing that a lot of countries have that Canada doesn't have is a National Stadium. Most countries can easily have this because they have one main metro where everything can be built nicely, but Canada (and, say, the US) lack this one major metro, meaning that a singular National Stadium can either be contentious to build (Canada) or simply not required (the US). Canada could have a National Stadium in, say, Toronto, but i'm sure everyone outside of the city would argue and fight over the relevancy and why it's located there in the first place. A spreadout population prevents that sort of legacy-building from occurring.

Serious question: What does a national stadium deliver that Olympic Stadium, Commonwealth Stadium and BC Place cannot? Apart from the fact that Olympic Stadium is probably functionally out of date and in need of upgrades, any one of those three could be designated as our 'national stadium' for big events and use by our national soccer teams. Olympic Stadium in particular has a scale that is roughly in line with other venues that call themselves national stadiums.

[TheGreatestX]

Originally Posted by rousseau

And we're offering them freakin' Edmonton? Christ!

You've never even been to Edmonton, stfu

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by esquire

Serious question: What does a national stadium deliver that Olympic Stadium, Commonwealth Stadium and BC Place cannot?

At this point? Mostly a home for these teams they can treat as their own without having to juggle things like scheduling, travel, etc. It adds a bit more if you have a place to call 'home' rather than experiencing the latest in a series of temporary stops along the way. Akin to England shuffling around the backwoods of that country instead of permanently playing at Wembley. It mentally helps a lot if you have a place that carries culture, tradition, and a sense of home and history. It's lame, but whatever. I guess the point is that Canada doesn't have that history or culture with football - our greatest victory to date took place in St. John's of all places. We had these sorts of venues for ice hockey (Montreal Forum, Maple Leaf Gardens) but abandoned them for money.

Imagine if Team Canada played important games at a present-day, renovated Montreal Forum or MLG? Wouldn't be able to top it.

In saying that, I think BC Place checks all the boxes necessary for a national stadium at this stage. It's large-scale, in a major metro, and can host matches in all months.

With the upcoming 2022WC qualifying matches this fall i'm assuming the scheduling will act as an olive branch to Vancouver to encourage them to get back on board with 2026. Canada gets seven home matches, a few of which effectively have to be at BC Place because they take place in the dead of winter, with the remainder likely ending up in Toronto.

Originally Posted by esquire

Apart from the fact that Olympic Stadium is probably functionally out of date and in need of upgrades, any one of those three could be designated as our 'national stadium' for big events and use by our national soccer teams. Olympic Stadium in particular has a scale that is roughly in line with other venues that call themselves national stadiums.

Right, it's just that Olympic was probably a good stadium for 1985 but is an atrocious stadium by today's standards. Building one of those in Toronto (say at...hm, Downsview ) would be really nice, but alas the demand simply isn't there. Commonwealth is fine, I guess, it's just in a separated metro that makes it a bit more difficult to reach. The thing about Canada I guess is that no single city really screams 'Canada' because the definition of such is contentious. If you're playing a match at Parc des Princes or Olimpico it's pretty obvious you're playing in France or Italy, but playing at Commonwealth isn't really indicative of playing in Canada, if that makes sense, because it's a status that's mostly impossible to attain.

[Acajack]

The idea of a national stadiums has always appealled to me, but in addition to all the reservations that have been shared and which I agree with, here are a few more.

Even in football-mad countries, many national stadiums are actually borderline white elephants if one looks at how often they're used in a given year.

- Often they are too large for local clubs to call them home. So the number of times they get used in an average year you can often count on one hand.

- You generally build a large national stadium because you expect large crowds to watch your national team(s) play. Ironically the city in Canada where you'd probably get the most consistent large crowds for national team games is probably a place like Edmonton. Whereas you'd obviously want the national stadium in one of the biggest cities (Toronto, Montreal or maybe Vancouver). Somehow I don't see 50,000 or even 40,000 or 30,000 people regularly showing up for early round WC qualifiers against teams like Honduras or St. Vincent and the Grenadines in any of these cities.

- Building a modern, large national stadium in Toronto might be the key to landing an NFL team in that city, but would the government really want to make that kind of gift to the NFL?

[esquire]

Seems to me that BC Place should be designated as the 'national stadium' for a multitude of reasons:

1) It has the necessary size and scale, and it was thoroughly renovated only a decade ago
2) Its tenants don't play overly busy game schedules which means it should be available for most national team matches
3) It is in a showpiece city that we can all agree is a good poster child for Canada, and the logistics of getting there are good
4) It is a city with a respectable soccer tradition and a good-sized soccer fanbase, as well as being close to sizable soccer fanbases in the PNW states

If its near-twin in Warsaw can function as Poland's national stadium, then why shouldn't BC Place get the nod?

[savevp]

Originally Posted by JHikka

We had these sorts of venues for ice hockey (Montreal Forum, Maple Leaf Gardens) but abandoned them for money.

Imagine if Team Canada played important games at a present-day, renovated Montreal Forum or MLG? Wouldn't be able to top it.

To be fair, it’s a lot easier to incrementally expand and update an outdoor stadium as opposed to an arena, which is constrained by its roof. Kitchener’s Aud is probably the best example of doing that, but Maple Leaf Gardens couldn’t expand it’s footprint without tearing down an entire wall and building a new roof.

Compared to, say, Anfield where they can just tear down a stand and build a new one without even pausing the season.

The other thing with a national stadium in Canada is the geographic stratification of the country. Wembley is relatively close to anywhere in England but BC Place would be a flight away for 9/10ths of the country.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by esquire

Seems to me that BC Place should be designated as the 'national stadium' for a multitude of reasons:

1) It has the necessary size and scale, and it was thoroughly renovated only a decade ago
2) Its tenants don't play overly busy game schedules which means it should be available for most national team matches
3) It is in a showpiece city that we can all agree is a good poster child for Canada, and the logistics of getting there are good
4) It is a city with a respectable soccer tradition and a good-sized soccer fanbase, as well as being close to sizable soccer fanbases in the PNW states

If its near-twin in Warsaw can function as Poland's national stadium, then why shouldn't BC Place get the nod?

Amen bro.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by savevp

To be fair, it’s a lot easier to incrementally expand and update an outdoor stadium as opposed to an arena, which is constrained by its roof. Kitchener’s Aud is probably the best example of doing that, but Maple Leaf Gardens couldn’t expand it’s footprint without tearing down an entire wall and building a new roof.

Old Wembley was demolished and replaced by an entirely new structure. The Workers Stadium in Beijing (one of the great structures of Mao's era) was recently demolished to make way for a new stadium. More to the point, the Kraken's arena in Seattle maintained its roof whilst replacing everything beneath. It's possible.

When BMO is incrementally expanded it's never referred to in a similar vain as Anfield or Kitchener's Auditorium.

[thenoflyzone]

Originally Posted by JHikka

What an oddly specific number. Why not 20K? 15K? This criteria means footballing countries like Norway, Slovenia, Albania etc. wouldn't qualify. I'm guessing you chose 35K because it enables some countries like Denmark to qualify despite ignoring things like population, population density and spread, and proportion of country's population.

It has nothing to do with Denmark or other countries in Europe.

FIFA venue requirements to host WC events require a soccer specific stadium, with ideally covered seating, on grass field, with minimum seating capacity of 40,000. If you have a look at the past 4 or 5 World Cups, FIFA has "cheated" a bit and let cities with 35,000ish stadiums host as well. Some with temporary expanded seating, some not.

Hence why my oddly specific number. It's the lowest echelon of what a FIFA caliber soccer specific stadium should look like. It would enable "most" of our metro areas to host WC events, if ever Canada should choose to host in the future.

Originally Posted by JHikka

The US/MLS has been building something like two large-scale soccer specific stadiums each year, which I think is pretty good. Ten new SSS in the past three years alone, including some nice builds in Cincinnati, Columbus, and Minneapolis. Venues like Banc of California in LA or Exploria in Orlando simply didn't exist five years ago, let alone further into the past.


These aren't multipurpose venues being built for multiple tenants and uses - they're venues just for MLS teams. The narrative that the US/MLS relied on large-scale gridiron stadiums is one very much from the 90s and 00s. Take the Gold Cup as one example - it used only gridiron stadiums until 2005 or so, and has slowly begun using more and more SSS as they become accessible and as they're built. They've gone from using one SSS in 2005 to five SSS in 2021 - an even split with gridiron stadiums. The narrative that this creates is an important one, as the sport goes from clearly renting bigger spaces for other sports to creating their own spaces and their own cultures. Football in the 2020s has a place in the US, and it's at grounds in places like Kansas City and Philadelphia that are devoted just to those teams and to that sport. It's a big mental hurdle to get over but an important one for the future of the sport.

Yes, it is good. For MLS, for the advancement of the sport in the US and in North America.

However, that being said, at the 2026 WC, a grand total of zero of those stadiums you mentioned will be used. Gridiron stadiums will be used. What does that tell you?

It tells me those newly built MLS stadiums don't make the cut. 40,000 seats/minimum. The requirement is even higher for QF/SF games and the Final. FIFA regulations. Also, the US knows they can easily fill those 60-80,000 stadiums. So why not use the biggest stadiums you have.

Originally Posted by esquire

When was the last time the world really noticed a world's fair in a major way?

Exactly my point. A tennis ATP masters 1000 event gets more TV time/worldwide coverage than an expo. An expo is akin to a temporary museum exhibition in my book.

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure about this match, but RDS have been covering Copa America quite a bit.

Every time I've tuned in to RDS they seem to have a match on.

Aside from the big tennis tournaments and F1, Copa America is probably saving their lives this spring and summer.

(TVA Sports has both the Habs and the Euro.)

Yes, TSN and RDS have covered the Copa America for the most part. However, the semi-final games were at 9pm EST. Prime time. MLB, NBA and UFC clearly have more pull at those hours.

The group stage games were all at 5pm EST. (right after the last Euro group stage matches) That's dead time as far as sports TV is concerned, hence why there was not issues broadcasting the Copa group games.

In fact, I think this was done on purpose. This is the first year the Copa and the Euro are held on the same year. CONMEBOL wanted it that way. From now on, they will be held on the same year. Probably gives South America more worldwide TV exposure, especially if they time the games right after the Euro.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

FIFA venue requirements to host WC events require a soccer specific stadium, with ideally covered seating, on grass field, with minimum seating capacity of 40,000. If you have a look at the past 4 or 5 World Cups, FIFA has "cheated" a bit and let cities with 35,000ish stadiums host as well. Some with temporary expanded seating, some not.

How does this work for the US bid using NFL stadiums? Or for the Australian bids that use rugby and Australian football stadiums?

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

Yes, it is good. For MLS, for the advancement of the sport in the US and in North America.

However, that being said, at the 2026 WC, a grand total of zero of those stadiums you mentioned will be used. Gridiron stadiums will be used. What does that tell you?

BMO is still on deck, which was an SSS prior to the Argos moving in.

It tells me that the stadiums are right-sized for MLS and not for the World Cup. Don't think that's really an issue or controversial.

Originally Posted by thenoflyzone

It tells me those newly built MLS stadiums don't make the cut. 40,000 seats/minimum. The requirement is even higher for QF/SF games and the Final. FIFA regulations. Also, the US knows they can easily fill those 60-80,000 stadiums. So why not use the biggest stadiums you have.

I don't know if anyone reasonably expects MLS SSS to be 40K+ at present, and the MLS teams that do draw that reliably (Seattle and Atlanta) share stadiums with NFL teams anyway. MLS teams gain nothing by building stadiums in 2020 that are twice the size of reasonable demand. It would be like expecting Bournemouth to build a 50K stadium simply because they play in the EPL despite all other indicators pointing out that it wouldn't make any logical sense.

The point of the US hosting the WC is to further support the development of the sport in that country, as hosting a WC should do for any country that hosts. If they have to develop the sport using larger stadiums that they can reliably fill then they'll do that (consider how the World U20s are routinely hosted in Canada in non-CHL rinks). When the US inevitably hosts their next World Cup in the 2040s/2050s they'll presumably have an SSS or two to choose from, similar to how that option is afforded to them today for the Gold Cup.

It's also no coincidence that MLS' TV contracts end in 2022 with the new contract picking up on the hype and build that WC2026 will create. On that note, i'll add that TSN/TVA's contract with MLS ends this year.

[HomerSPC]

Originally Posted by JHikka

It's also no coincidence that MLS' TV contracts end in 2022 with the new contract picking up on the hype and build that WC2026 will create. On that note, i'll add that TSN/TVA's contract with MLS ends this year.

I'd be SHOCKED if DAZN doesn't pick it up. The fact TSN hasn't renewed yet is such a strong indication it's not staying with the network.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by esquire

Seems to me that BC Place should be designated as the 'national stadium' for a multitude of reasons:

1) It has the necessary size and scale, and it was thoroughly renovated only a decade ago
2) Its tenants don't play overly busy game schedules which means it should be available for most national team matches
3) It is in a showpiece city that we can all agree is a good poster child for Canada, and the logistics of getting there are good
4) It is a city with a respectable soccer tradition and a good-sized soccer fanbase, as well as being close to sizable soccer fanbases in the PNW states

If its near-twin in Warsaw can function as Poland's national stadium, then why shouldn't BC Place get the nod?

Because it's not in Toronto.

[Denscity]

BC Place should also be the national soccer stadium because the national women's team already calls it home and that stadium was packed for the women's world cup final.

[esquire]

Now that I think about it, wasn't Commonwealth officially designated as Canada's national soccer stadium at one point? I could have sworn there was once a sign to that effect on 112 Av.

[urbanroo]

A lot of nastiness from Canadian soccer fans on this board about one of Canada's major cities, Edmonton, hosting the world cup. Edmonton is no Paris or London, obviously (and neither, emphatically, is Toronto), but it has experience holding major international festivals (like the Fringe) and sporting events (it has grown and matured immensely as a city since the 1978 Commonwealth and 2001 World Athletic Games); it has a large stadium ready to go, and has a lot of grass roots support for the game. Edmonton was indeed the home base of the Canadian national team for many years and has hosted big matches before (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckz6hzutukA, largest home crowd ever to watch the Canadian team). Yes, of course Edmonton isn't a world leading city, but it will put on a good show. The streets come alive in the summer, the sun is up until well past 10, and these events will excite locals in a way they might not in an alpha+ metropolis. It's going to be quite a party! If Rustenburg or Volgograd or Kansas City or Cuiaba can host world cup games, Edmonton definitely can too. The world cup has always been hosted by a country or countries rather than by a single showcase city. It's a real shame that Montreal has pulled out, but it would be insane to pull out of hosting entirely just because Edmonton lacks Montreal's charm or Vancouver's beauty (or Toronto's traffic and sprawl )

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by HomerSPC

I'd be SHOCKED if DAZN doesn't pick it up. The fact TSN hasn't renewed yet is such a strong indication it's not staying with the network.

Name a more iconic duo than TSN and letting go of valuable products.

I guess what's worth mentioning with the MLS deal though is that they're packaging all of the local team deals in the US and the national deals and forcing them all to expire at the same time. Presumably that means they'll all end up in some sort of widespread streaming package along with a national carrier of some kind, perhaps similar to what the NHL swung with ESPN/ESPN+. Who knows at this stage, though, but it wouldn't be surprising if something similar were to occur with the Canadian MLS rights. I doubt they end up at SN, they definitely won't be back with CBC, which means the only non-TSN options are streaming.

CTV/TSN/RDS have the rights for the 2026 World Cup, fwiw.

[stefanYEG]

Yep!

Originally Posted by esquire

Now that I think about it, wasn't Commonwealth officially designated as Canada's national soccer stadium at one point? I could have sworn there was once a sign to that effect on 112 Av.

[Al Ski]

People who don't comprehend the importance of Expo 67
The most successful World Fair ever?

It was Canada's coming out party, a signal to the world that "We're cool!"
If you don't even understand contemporary Canadian history..

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by Dalreg

Barcelona, Berlin, Melbourne, and LA(+Long Beach) have done the trifecta as well.

Long Beach GP died 40 years ago and Berlin (my favourite city in the world) had one, in 1959. Melbs (another favourite) had a Word Fair in the 19th century..

Barcelona is probably the only one that fits the criteria although the location of the event would be equivalent to Montreal hosting the 'Laval' or 'South Shore' Grand prix.

[Al Ski]

Originally Posted by shappy

The World Cup is a massive event. Not sure how these things could be measured but I would not at all be surprised if it’s bigger worldwide than the Olympics. And the hosting countries/cities are a big aspect of it. It’s huge people.

The Word Cup is a huge event indeed.

Hosting a few opening-round games is not, whichever way you try to spin it.