Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jalapeno

2026 World Cup

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Stealthlobo said:

I wonder if they could do massive renovations like Brazil did with the aging but famous Maracanã in Rio. 

In fairness, they have done some renovation at the Rose Bowl. However, it's still has "old bone" and is a pain in the ass to get to and get out of.

IMO, there are definitely better, more modern, alternatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BleedRed702 said:

The new Vegas stadium :thumbsup:

Would love to see Vegas host a World Cup game. Doubt it happens though. Makes too much sense. 

I think in the past people would have said temperature is an issue... but the next world cup is in Qatar.

Vegas definitely makes sense, but I don't see them listed on any proposed site lists

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, renoskier said:

Was I comparing Mackay Stadium to the Rose Bowl? is Reno in the mix for a WC2026 game!

At least Mackay is easy to get to, easy to get into and out of, easy to get a beer, easy to take a leak, etc.

 

I didn't claim you were.

However, isn't Mackay Stadium your figurative home?  If that's true, isn't the "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" reference fitting?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, misplacedcowboy said:

I think in the past people would have said temperature is an issue... but the next world cup is in Qatar.

Vegas definitely makes sense, but I don't see them listed on any proposed site lists

Temperature isn't an issue for an indoor stadium. But I get what you're saying. It's a shame. Brand new stadium. More than enough hotel rooms. Tons to do. Easy to fly in and out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, GoState99755 said:

 

I didn't claim you were.

However, isn't Mackay Stadium your figurative home?  If that's true, isn't the "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" reference fitting?

 

Okay,  I'd rather attend a game at Mackay than at the Rose Bowl. It's a perfectly adequate on campus stadium. No glass house here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, roughrider said:

So if the US could have actually qualified on their own accord this time, would the US have gotten so many votes?   I think we can thank Bruce Arena for embarassing the US so FIFA would swing the votes to make sure the US actually makes the WC in '26.  The US is much needed in the WC for TV and $...    Buy the book, I'm sure he'll explain it was his plan all along. 

US viewership in the WC is peanuts.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, roughrider said:

Especially when we're not in it.  However, butts in the seats in the WC has never exceeded the ave per game #'s from 1994 when the US last hosted. 

BUTTS is a lot less important than global TV viewership.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BleedRed702 said:

The new Vegas stadium :thumbsup:

Would love to see Vegas host a World Cup game. Doubt it happens though. Makes too much sense. 

Vegas has been left out. Ridiculous, with a brand new stadium, and yet Cincinnati is in. and i heard a couple of guys on the radio saying they should put the two least marquis teams in Vegas, because they'd fill the stadium anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The provisional proposed schedule is already out (it's tentative and still needs approval).

The US would open at The Rose Bowl

Play their second game at Jerry World

The Two teams in our group would play each other in Mexico

Atlanta and Dallas would host the Semi Finals

With New York hosting the final.

 

None of that is final, but that does seem to be what the organizers are eyeing 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, misplacedcowboy said:

I think in the past people would have said temperature is an issue... but the next world cup is in Qatar.

 

In november/december of 2022.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

US viewership in the WC is peanuts.

US TV rights for the 2018 World Cup sold for 1 billion dollars, the largest single market for the tournament.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BacksThePack said:

I hope this leads to more hosting coalitions around the world.

 

I don't have a feeling either way, but I'm curious why you feel there is an advantage to coalition hostings?

Have there been any other hosting coalition in addition to Japan/Korea?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RSF said:

US TV rights for the 2018 World Cup sold for 1 billion dollars, the largest single market for the tournament.

According to this Fox paid $400 million for the next 2 world cups. I didn’t look up how much Telemundo paid for the Spanish rights.

“Fox paid more than $400 million for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup rights several years ago...”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/soccer/ct-spt-fox-world-cup-tv-rights-20180611-story,amp.html

 

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, GoState99755 said:

 

I don't have a feeling either way, but I'm curious why you feel there is an advantage to coalition hostings?

Have there been any other hosting coalition in addition to Japan/Korea?

 

Split the financial burden. It's a whole lot easier for say Western Europe to host vs just France or Germany. The US doesn't even need to really improve stadiums for the event, most host countries need to build a dozen or more. I say the more, the merrier. Makes the new stadiums that do get built that much more special for those hosting countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, BacksThePack said:

Split the financial burden. It's a whole lot easier for say Western Europe to host vs just France or Germany. The US doesn't even need to really improve stadiums for the event, most host countries need to build a dozen or more. I say the more, the merrier. Makes the new stadiums that do get built that much more special for those hosting countries.

Definitely think it's a better idea too.I read a lot of Brazil's and nearly all of South Africa's stadiums just sit there unused, a reminder of the waste of money their government spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going to a 48 team event is going to make multi-country hosting almost a necessity for any but a scant few.  England and Germany - both have the existing stadia to do it.   The US certainly could, but didnt for other reasons.  After that the infrastructure requirements get tougher.  The 1st group out of the gate to host in '30 is a Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay effort.  England is gearing up to make a bid, but even there UEFA has suggested adding Wales and Scotland is a possibility.

In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, 4UNLV said:

Vegas has been left out. Ridiculous, with a brand new stadium, and yet Cincinnati is in. and i heard a couple of guys on the radio saying they should put the two least marquis teams in Vegas, because they'd fill the stadium anyway. 

 

From what I heard on local radio, only stadiums that exist now can be considered.  Which is why LA used the Rose Bowl and Coliseum, instead of the venue the Rams and Chargers will share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...