It is strange how much England are ignored for world Cup hosting bids. The likes of France, Germany etc are a lot more likely to be a host nation, even though they've already done it often enough.
Perhaps we are the Millwall of the globe. No one really likes us.
We do already have a great economy in comparison to other nations, our island is over populated, its usually cold, and we gave birth to hooliganism, and our food is dreadful
But we are a multicultural nation! Just eat your fish n chips, witness a punch up, let us host a world Cup and f*ck off!
It's a World Cup things, as within UEFA Euro 96 The biggest matches in Euro 2020 were played at Wembley A great chance of being the main host of Euro 2028
The history of England "running" world football for a long time counts against us
My Dad is putting £50 on the US for the '26 WC, probably each way and outright, based on home advantage, and having another 4 years worth of experience in their youthful side, and the money they're throwing at football ("soccer") right now.
I can certainly see the US winning the WC within the next 20/30 years, not sure about the next one
I disagree, to be honest - the Euros were better as a 16 team tournament rather than 24 - more chance of decent teams playing each other, more riding on the games with only 2 going through per group.
The 2022 World Cup last group games were brilliant, whereas in 2026 I think they'll be a lot of teams already through and resting players etc.
I do agree on the 4 team groups over 3 though, the 3 team groups was a terrible idea.
Could of had 64 teams in it, so 16 groups of 4 teams top 2 in each group goes through to a round of 32 teams, at least it would stop that 3rd place nonsense. Personally prefer the old format with 32 teams but if FIFA want to extend it then I'd rather they go the full hog and have 64 teams in it then 48.
Could of had 64 teams in it, so 16 groups of 4 teams top 2 in each group goes through to a round of 32 teams, at least it would stop that 3rd place nonsense. Personally prefer the old format with 32 teams but if FIFA want to extend it then I'd rather they go the full hog and have 64 teams in it then 48.
That would be 128 games though, and mean some really poor standard teams qualifying.
Could of had 64 teams in it, so 16 groups of 4 teams top 2 in each group goes through to a round of 32 teams, at least it would stop that 3rd place nonsense. Personally prefer the old format with 32 teams but if FIFA want to extend it then I'd rather they go the full hog and have 64 teams in it then 48.
That would be 128 games though, and mean some really poor standard teams qualifying.
Scotland, for example.
I think you will get that with 48 teams anyway, should have kept it to 32 teams. I think having 8 3rd place teams getting through is slightly ridiculous.
Could of had 64 teams in it, so 16 groups of 4 teams top 2 in each group goes through to a round of 32 teams, at least it would stop that 3rd place nonsense. Personally prefer the old format with 32 teams but if FIFA want to extend it then I'd rather they go the full hog and have 64 teams in it then 48.
That would be 128 games though, and mean some really poor standard teams qualifying.
Scotland, for example.
San Marino maybe. But Scotland is stretching it a bit.
Doing 12 groups of four and having 24 through, 24 knocked out with an extra knockout round for the 12 runners up and 4 worst group winners (plus 8 byes into the round of 16 for the best group winners) would’ve been better than this IMO.
It would’ve encouraged teams to play their best sides in every group game rather than rotate like we saw Brazil, France etc. do in Qatar.
But I won’t grumble too much because it’s much better than 16 groups of three.
Doing 12 groups of four and having 24 through, 24 knocked out with an extra knockout round for the 12 runners up and 4 worst group winners (plus 8 byes into the round of 16 for the best group winners) would’ve been better than this IMO.
It would’ve encouraged teams to play their best sides in every group game rather than rotate like we saw Brazil, France etc. do in Qatar.
But I won’t grumble too much because it’s much better than 16 groups of three.
I disagree, to be honest - the Euros were better as a 16 team tournament rather than 24 - more chance of decent teams playing each other, more riding on the games with only 2 going through per group.
The 2022 World Cup last group games were brilliant, whereas in 2026 I think they'll be a lot of teams already through and resting players etc.
I do agree on the 4 team groups over 3 though, the 3 team groups was a terrible idea.
Everyone says this but the last couple of Euros have been great, admittedly last one wasn't as good as a single host but the football was good and plenty of drama, as was the last world cup. Plenty of smaller nations have done well at these last few tournaments that normally wouldn't have got there. This isn't to say more teams = better tournament but equally it doesn't mean less teams = better tournament, I just think it's a bit of a lazy comment that gets brought out every time a tournament changes. Personally as a fan I don't mind having more games to watch.
FIFA want to expand the tournament so more countries can participate and there's more global interest. It might sound daft but let's not pretend we wouldn't all enjoy a 128 team, straight knockout tournament. Turn it into an Olympics of football. Two legged qualifiers simply weed out the real minnows and then everyone else gets their shot at glory. An FA Cup like tournament for nations.
The winning team would only have to play 7 games as per now. It would also free up time in the calendar for FIFA to cut qualifiers and instead have their world club cup or whatever they want to do. No one really enjoys the slog of qualification.
There will be too many matches. I've always watched every match - if recording some and fast forwarding through some bits counts as watching every match .
With over 100 matches, I will be giving many matches a miss completely to the extent that I will probably watch less than usual overall.
I think that FIFA are shooting The World Cup in the foot.
There will be too many matches. I've always watched every match - if recording some and fast forwarding through some bits counts as watching every match .
With over 100 matches, I will be giving many matches a miss completely to the extent that I will probably watch less than usual overall.
I think that FIFA are shooting The World Cup in the foot.
There's also the time difference to consider as depending on the venues, they will be anywhere from 4-7 hours behind, so some games won't be starting until past midnight in England.
There will be too many matches. I've always watched every match - if recording some and fast forwarding through some bits counts as watching every match .
With over 100 matches, I will be giving many matches a miss completely to the extent that I will probably watch less than usual overall.
I think that FIFA are shooting The World Cup in the foot.
There's also the time difference to consider as depending on the venues, they will be anywhere from 4-7 hours behind, so some games won't be starting until past midnight in England.
It will depend on how many games per day need to be squeezed in but 2014 in Brazil had games kicking off at 5pm, 8pm and 11pm UK time so I’d expect very similar - with probably another game kicking off at 2am as well, so 11 hours of non-stop football from 5pm to 4am.
Bob... "Erm... Dave we've got FIFA coming in five minutes, have you done that logo we agreed to do...?" Dave... "Hot damn I clean forgot... I'll throw something together in MS Paint now"
Five minutes later
FIFA... "We love it... How much do we owe you..." Bob... "That'll be $500,000 please" FIFA... "DONE... What an absolute deal we've got"
There will be too many matches. I've always watched every match - if recording some and fast forwarding through some bits counts as watching every match .
With over 100 matches, I will be giving many matches a miss completely to the extent that I will probably watch less than usual overall.
I think that FIFA are shooting The World Cup in the foot.
There's also the time difference to consider as depending on the venues, they will be anywhere from 4-7 hours behind, so some games won't be starting until past midnight in England.
It will depend on how many games per day need to be squeezed in but 2014 in Brazil had games kicking off at 5pm, 8pm and 11pm UK time so I’d expect very similar - with probably another game kicking off at 2am as well, so 11 hours of non-stop football from 5pm to 4am.
The 1994 World Cup in the USA had kick off times that generally catered for European viewers, with the latest games starting at 4.30pm Pacific Time (12.30 in the UK).
But the problem is that now they have to fit in A LOT more matches. 1994 had 52 matches, now it's double.
I read somewhere that they were discussing possibly having up to 6 matches on some days, with games starting at 1pm Eastern Time (6pm UK time) and continuing every two hours throughout the day. If that's the case there will be some long nights ahead for European viewers as it would mean games going on until 6-7am UK time.
Comments
A sign of how things have moved forward with stadiums in the US, that NONE of the stadiums used in 1994 will be used in 2026.
Euro 96
The biggest matches in Euro 2020 were played at Wembley
A great chance of being the main host of Euro 2028
The history of England "running" world football for a long time counts against us
104 matches now compared to 64 last year (and 80 if they'd gone with the 3 team groups).
Means 8 games to win it rather than 7.
It's better than the 3 team groups, but 72 games just to get to the same amount of teams we had this time is a lot!
The 2022 World Cup last group games were brilliant, whereas in 2026 I think they'll be a lot of teams already through and resting players etc.
I do agree on the 4 team groups over 3 though, the 3 team groups was a terrible idea.
But thinking back to groups like the France, Germany, Portugal, Hungary one for the Euros, that was great drama towards the end there.
Scotland, for example.
But Scotland is stretching it a bit.
It would’ve encouraged teams to play their best sides in every group game rather than rotate like we saw Brazil, France etc. do in Qatar.
But I won’t grumble too much because it’s much better than 16 groups of three.
The winning team would only have to play 7 games as per now. It would also free up time in the calendar for FIFA to cut qualifiers and instead have their world club cup or whatever they want to do. No one really enjoys the slog of qualification.
With over 100 matches, I will be giving many matches a miss completely to the extent that I will probably watch less than usual overall.
I think that FIFA are shooting The World Cup in the foot.
Dave... "Hot damn I clean forgot... I'll throw something together in MS Paint now"
Five minutes later
FIFA... "We love it... How much do we owe you..."
Bob... "That'll be $500,000 please"
FIFA... "DONE... What an absolute deal we've got"
The 1994 World Cup in the USA had kick off times that generally catered for European viewers, with the latest games starting at 4.30pm Pacific Time (12.30 in the UK).
But the problem is that now they have to fit in A LOT more matches. 1994 had 52 matches, now it's double.
I read somewhere that they were discussing possibly having up to 6 matches on some days, with games starting at 1pm Eastern Time (6pm UK time) and continuing every two hours throughout the day. If that's the case there will be some long nights ahead for European viewers as it would mean games going on until 6-7am UK time.