Still not worthy of a thread

[Ketsbaia]

Damn

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

Viva shit kick off times.

[sbnufc]

Final in LA then? 3pm kick off there will still be 11pm in the UK Midnight/1am for the rest of europe

[Guest firetotheworks]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful set of time zones, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Nice one to visit

[Deuce]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful time zone, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

The first two I’ll grant you, the time zone whine is precious, and the last is nonsense. By all accounts the ‘94 tournament was wildly successful and the game’s only grown since then. This will easily be the most attended and lucrative tournament yet. And you’re discounting Canada as a first-time host and Mexico, a country with an unquestionable footballing culture.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Seeing a game in Mexico would be immense.

[Guest neesy111]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful set of time zones, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

Lets just have it in Qatar every 4 years since all the stadiums are close to each other.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

Has it been revealed where the host cities will be? Equal split between all three countries?

[Deuce]

Has it been revealed where the host cities will be? Equal split between all three countries?

 

It’ll be U.S.-heavy, of course. Canada doesn’t have the stadium infrastructure and Mexico’s a little dicey in parts.

[WarrenBartonCentrePartin]

Has it been revealed where the host cities will be? Equal split between all three countries?

 

It’ll be U.S.-heavy, of course. Canada doesn’t have the stadium infrastructure and Mexico’s a little dicey in parts.

 

Be a bit shit given the love of football in Mexico and the fact they’ve held the WC twice before.

[Disco]

Has it been revealed where the host cities will be? Equal split between all three countries?

 

3 in Canada (Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal)

3 in Mexico (Mexico, Monterrey and Guadalajara)

Loads in America (all over)

 

Don't really get why US invited the other two, seems a bit pointless.

[Fenham Mag]

Has it been revealed where the host cities will be? Equal split between all three countries?

 

It’ll be U.S.-heavy, of course. Canada doesn’t have the stadium infrastructure and Mexico’s a little dicey in parts.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_Canada Doesn't look too bad.

[Deuce]

Has it been revealed where the host cities will be? Equal split between all three countries?

 

It’ll be U.S.-heavy, of course. Canada doesn’t have the stadium infrastructure and Mexico’s a little dicey in parts.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_in_Canada Doesn't look too bad.

 

They have a good few smaller stadiums that are nice. Seems they’re planning to host at BMO in Toronto, which is much nicer than Rogers Centre, and the one in Edmonton seems decent enough. Olympic Stadium in Montreal is a dump.

[Deuce]

Has it been revealed where the host cities will be? Equal split between all three countries?

 

3 in Canada (Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal)

3 in Mexico (Mexico, Monterrey and Guadalajara)

Loads in America (all over)

 

Don't really get why US invited the other two, seems a bit pointless.

 

They might not have won it flying solo. At least it would’ve been easier to vote against.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful time zone, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

The first two I’ll grant you, the time zone whine is precious, and the last is nonsense. By all accounts the ‘94 tournament was wildly successful and the game’s only grown since then. This will easily be the most attended and lucrative tournament yet. And you’re discounting Canada as a first-time host and Mexico, a country with an unquestionable footballing culture.

 

All of it's a whine but it doesn't really make it any less relevant as a post on the football section of a Newcastle forum like.

 

You can say what you want about how successful '94 was etc, but the context of that popularity is still that there are far more fitting countries, with vastly more prominent football cultures and infrastructures than the U.S and Mexico, especially considering they've had it in '86 and '94. It's pretty ridiculous that England hasn't had it since 1966 considering it invented the sport, like. The likes of Spain and Italy have got just as much to complain about too considering their own history, culture, infrastructures, and the last time they hosted the World Cup. It's a joke yet again tbh, South Africa, Russia, Qatar, and the U.S/Mexico/Canada make up 4 of the last 5 hosts and out of those Russia is probably the least undeserving.

[Guest firetotheworks]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful set of time zones, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

Lets just have it in Qatar every 4 years since all the stadiums are close to each other.

 

Lets just say something I didn't say.

[NG32]

We didn't invent football, we just gave it rules. 

[Disco]

Should just have it in Germany every time tbh.

[SEMTEX]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful time zone, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

The first two I’ll grant you, the time zone whine is precious, and the last is nonsense. By all accounts the ‘94 tournament was wildly successful and the game’s only grown since then. This will easily be the most attended and lucrative tournament yet. And you’re discounting Canada as a first-time host and Mexico, a country with an unquestionable footballing culture.

 

Whether it's grown or not, people don't give a fuck about the game over here. Even those who do care, tend to be very intermittent watchers. It's boring. Sure they'll all jump on the bandwagon and fill the stadiums in 2026, but it's not part of your culture and it never will be. I'm generally fine with the WC going to countries that aren't rabid football fans, but twice in 32 years is excessive.

 

Happy for all of the games to be in Mexico tbh.

 

/

 

At least I get to go to some games?

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful time zone, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

The first two I’ll grant you, the time zone whine is precious, and the last is nonsense. By all accounts the ‘94 tournament was wildly successful and the game’s only grown since then. This will easily be the most attended and lucrative tournament yet. And you’re discounting Canada as a first-time host and Mexico, a country with an unquestionable footballing culture.

 

All of it's a whine but it doesn't really make it any less relevant as a post on the football section of a Newcastle forum like.

 

You can say what you want about how successful '94 was etc, but the context of that popularity is still that there are far more fitting countries, with vastly more prominent football cultures and infrastructures than the U.S and Mexico, especially considering they've had it in '86 and '94. It's pretty ridiculous that England hasn't had it since 1966 considering it invented the sport, like. The likes of Spain and Italy have got just as much to complain about too considering their own history, culture, infrastructures, and the last time they hosted the World Cup. It's a joke yet again tbh, South Africa, Russia, Qatar, and the U.S/Mexico/Canada make up 4 of the last 5 hosts and out of those Russia is probably the least undeserving.

North America having the tournament 3 times in 40 years seems fine to me. Europe has had the tournament three times in the past 20, including two bordering countries hosting within an 8 year period. You will really have to explain to me what makes the Western European high-income countries that already have world class football every week more deserving than any other part of the world. With the exception of Qatar (which is nonsensical on many levels) and Canada, all the countries you listed have large football loving populations and the infrastructure/the willingness to build the infrastructure necessary for a World Cup, which is what should matter. I am confident in saying that Mexico and the USA both have more total football fans than any European country.

 

Regional parity is paramount now that we are in an era where six continents can feasibly host the competition, imo.

[SEMTEX]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful time zone, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

The first two I’ll grant you, the time zone whine is precious, and the last is nonsense. By all accounts the ‘94 tournament was wildly successful and the game’s only grown since then. This will easily be the most attended and lucrative tournament yet. And you’re discounting Canada as a first-time host and Mexico, a country with an unquestionable footballing culture.

 

All of it's a whine but it doesn't really make it any less relevant as a post on the football section of a Newcastle forum like.

 

You can say what you want about how successful '94 was etc, but the context of that popularity is still that there are far more fitting countries, with vastly more prominent football cultures and infrastructures than the U.S and Mexico, especially considering they've had it in '86 and '94. It's pretty ridiculous that England hasn't had it since 1966 considering it invented the sport, like. The likes of Spain and Italy have got just as much to complain about too considering their own history, culture, infrastructures, and the last time they hosted the World Cup. It's a joke yet again tbh, South Africa, Russia, Qatar, and the U.S/Mexico/Canada make up 4 of the last 5 hosts and out of those Russia is probably the least undeserving.

North America having the tournament 3 times in 40 years seems fine to me. Europe has had the tournament three times in the past 20, including two bordering countries hosting within an 8 year period. You will really have to explain to me what makes the Western European high-income countries that already have world class football every week more deserving than any other part of the world. With the exception of Qatar (which is nonsensical on many levels) and Canada, all the countries you listed have large football loving populations and the infrastructure/the willingness to build the infrastructure necessary for a World Cup, which is what should matter. I am confident in saying that Mexico and the USA both have more total football fans than any European country.

 

Regional parity is paramount now that we are in an era where six continents can feasibly host the competition, imo.

 

/ Sure. All of North America probably does have more fans than a single European country. Completely irrelevant, but accurate? Aye, probably.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful time zone, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

The first two I’ll grant you, the time zone whine is precious, and the last is nonsense. By all accounts the ‘94 tournament was wildly successful and the game’s only grown since then. This will easily be the most attended and lucrative tournament yet. And you’re discounting Canada as a first-time host and Mexico, a country with an unquestionable footballing culture.

 

All of it's a whine but it doesn't really make it any less relevant as a post on the football section of a Newcastle forum like.

 

You can say what you want about how successful '94 was etc, but the context of that popularity is still that there are far more fitting countries, with vastly more prominent football cultures and infrastructures than the U.S and Mexico, especially considering they've had it in '86 and '94. It's pretty ridiculous that England hasn't had it since 1966 considering it invented the sport, like. The likes of Spain and Italy have got just as much to complain about too considering their own history, culture, infrastructures, and the last time they hosted the World Cup. It's a joke yet again tbh, South Africa, Russia, Qatar, and the U.S/Mexico/Canada make up 4 of the last 5 hosts and out of those Russia is probably the least undeserving.

North America having the tournament 3 times in 40 years seems fine to me. Europe has had the tournament three times in the past 20, including two bordering countries hosting within an 8 year period. You will really have to explain to me what makes the Western European high-income countries that already have world class football every week more deserving than any other part of the world. With the exception of Qatar (which is nonsensical on many levels) and Canada, all the countries you listed have large football loving populations and the infrastructure/the willingness to build the infrastructure necessary for a World Cup, which is what should matter. I am confident in saying that Mexico and the USA both have more total football fans than any European country.

 

Regional parity is paramount now that we are in an era where six continents can feasibly host the competition, imo.

 

/ Sure. All of North America probably does have more fans than a single European country. Completely irrelevant, but accurate? Aye, probably.

I meant each country as a single entity (which is a fair comparison, imo, as the tournament is hosted by countries, not continents). My point is that there are plenty of fans to support the tournament and facilitate a good atmosphere around the country, which is what will happen. Baltimore is a relatively small US city, maybe the 20th biggest or so, and I was there in 2010 or 2011 for one of European club friendlies which could have sold out M & T Bank stadium twice over despite oppressive heat. The fans are there and the matches will sell out faster than any World Cup with the money in the US.

[sbnufc]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful time zone, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

The first two I’ll grant you, the time zone whine is precious, and the last is nonsense. By all accounts the ‘94 tournament was wildly successful and the game’s only grown since then. This will easily be the most attended and lucrative tournament yet. And you’re discounting Canada as a first-time host and Mexico, a country with an unquestionable footballing culture.

 

All of it's a whine but it doesn't really make it any less relevant as a post on the football section of a Newcastle forum like.

 

You can say what you want about how successful '94 was etc, but the context of that popularity is still that there are far more fitting countries, with vastly more prominent football cultures and infrastructures than the U.S and Mexico, especially considering they've had it in '86 and '94. It's pretty ridiculous that England hasn't had it since 1966 considering it invented the sport, like. The likes of Spain and Italy have got just as much to complain about too considering their own history, culture, infrastructures, and the last time they hosted the World Cup. It's a joke yet again tbh, South Africa, Russia, Qatar, and the U.S/Mexico/Canada make up 4 of the last 5 hosts and out of those Russia is probably the least undeserving.

North America having the tournament 3 times in 40 years seems fine to me. Europe has had the tournament three times in the past 20, including two bordering countries hosting within an 8 year period. You will really have to explain to me what makes the Western European high-income countries that already have world class football every week more deserving than any other part of the world. With the exception of Qatar (which is nonsensical on many levels) and Canada, all the countries you listed have large football loving populations and the infrastructure/the willingness to build the infrastructure necessary for a World Cup, which is what should matter. I am confident in saying that Mexico and the USA both have more total football fans than any European country.

 

Regional parity is paramount now that we are in an era where six continents can feasibly host the competition, imo.

 

/ Sure. All of North America probably does have more fans than a single European country. Completely irrelevant, but accurate? Aye, probably.

I meant each country as a single entity (which is a fair comparison, imo, as the tournament is hosted by countries, not continents). My point is that there are plenty of fans to support the tournament and facilitate a good atmosphere around the country, which is what will happen. Baltimore is a relatively small US city, maybe the 20th biggest or so, and I was there in 2010 or 2011 for one of European club friendlies which could have sold out M & T Bank stadium twice over despite oppressive heat. The fans are there and the matches will sell out faster than any World Cup with the money in the US.

let's go, bra-zil clapclapclapclapclap

[Guest firetotheworks]

Terrible news all round. Aye, let's just give it to the country that had it 24 years ago, requires shit loads of travel, is in an awful time zone, and isn't that arsed about football.

 

 

The first two I’ll grant you, the time zone whine is precious, and the last is nonsense. By all accounts the ‘94 tournament was wildly successful and the game’s only grown since then. This will easily be the most attended and lucrative tournament yet. And you’re discounting Canada as a first-time host and Mexico, a country with an unquestionable footballing culture.

 

All of it's a whine but it doesn't really make it any less relevant as a post on the football section of a Newcastle forum like.

 

You can say what you want about how successful '94 was etc, but the context of that popularity is still that there are far more fitting countries, with vastly more prominent football cultures and infrastructures than the U.S and Mexico, especially considering they've had it in '86 and '94. It's pretty ridiculous that England hasn't had it since 1966 considering it invented the sport, like. The likes of Spain and Italy have got just as much to complain about too considering their own history, culture, infrastructures, and the last time they hosted the World Cup. It's a joke yet again tbh, South Africa, Russia, Qatar, and the U.S/Mexico/Canada make up 4 of the last 5 hosts and out of those Russia is probably the least undeserving.

North America having the tournament 3 times in 40 years seems fine to me. Europe has had the tournament three times in the past 20, including two bordering countries hosting within an 8 year period. You will really have to explain to me what makes the Western European high-income countries that already have world class football every week more deserving than any other part of the world. With the exception of Qatar (which is nonsensical on many levels) and Canada, all the countries you listed have large football loving populations and the infrastructure/the willingness to build the infrastructure necessary for a World Cup, which is what should matter. I am confident in saying that Mexico and the USA both have more total football fans than any European country.

 

Regional parity is paramount now that we are in an era where six continents can feasibly host the competition, imo.

 

It would be fine if those countries in North America weren’t the exact same two countries that have each had the World Cup within the last 32 years, particularly if you’re making the point of treating North America as a fully represented continent and not just America, Mexico, and Canada. It’s like saying it’s fine that Europe has had the World Cup 3 times in 40 years, but ignoring the bit where it was only ever in Germany and Spain in that time, for example.

 

Western Europe high income countries aren’t more deserving, but at the same time you can’t really make that point on one hand, while other countries with far smaller football cultures are re-hosting the World Cup within the space of 32 years and 24 years. It’s been 52 years since England hosted, 36 since Spain did, and 28 years since Italy did. That’s the context, really. It’s not about saying other countries don’t deserve it, it’s about asking why countries with much richer football heritages, that haven’t had it in a much longer period of time aren’t getting it before countries with far poorer football heritages when they’ve already had it fairly recently.

 

And yeah, of course they have more total football fans, because they have a far higher total population. In terms of percentage of the population though it's absolutely no contest whatsoever. It would be laughable to suggest otherwise really, you get around the same average attendances in The Championship as you do in the MLS, for example.