Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
World Cup 2026 - USA/Canada/Mexico
Comments
-
He was referring to thisIdleHans said:
The top six apart from Argentina and Brazil, you mean?jimmymelrose said:Callumcafc said:Pots with up to date world rankings
Top six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs.
What a coincidence: the top six are all European.
Five out of the 8 previous World Cup winners are European. Five of the last World Cup’s quarter finalists were European
Europe is seriously underrepresented in a 48 team World Cup with only 16 teams, a third of the places. I think Gattuso was right to speak out about this. It may sound like sour grapes but he’s essentially correct.
Top six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs1 -
Steve McLaren might be wishing he'd stayed on now, even he couldn't mess that one up.fenaddick said:Jamaica get New Caledonia with the winner playing DR Congo for their play off
You'd then expect given their closer proximity to Mexico where the play offs are, that they'll be far better supported in the final v Congo.0 -
Could be some interesting groups with the hosts being in pot 1 and European play-off winners in pot 4.0
-
Noticed that. Much as Prague and Dublin are great cities, I’d have been very happy to spend a week or two in Monterrey & Guadalajara 😎☀️🌅🍹Chris_from_Sidcup said:
Steve McLaren might be wishing he'd stayed on now, even he couldn't mess that one up.fenaddick said:Jamaica get New Caledonia with the winner playing DR Congo for their play off
You'd then expect given their closer proximity to Mexico where the play offs are, that they'll be far better supported in the final v Congo.1 -
Two of my best mates are respectively Serbian and Swedish. Serbia are out. They finished the group stage with 13 points from 8 games. Sweden finished with 2 from 6, yet are in the play- offs. Yes I know, the Nations League. It is still ridiculous, though, isn’t it?3
-
Whole thing is farcical.PragueAddick said:Two of my best mates are respectively Serbian and Swedish. Serbia are out. They finished the group stage with 13 points from 8 games. Sweden finished with 2 from 6, yet are in the play- offs. Yes I know, the Nations League. It is still ridiculous, though, isn’t it?2 -
Not really, people moaned about non competitive friendlies, so they created the nations league. The NL must have some type of reward to keep that competitive and that’s where these playoff spots come into play.Serbia aren’t there cos they were shit in both the NL and WCQ.The rules have been in place long enough now.10
-
Surely the positive of Nations League is that they are competitive fixtures and therefore count more towards points for your ranking and therefore potential seeding/higher pots in qualifiers for Euros & World Cups. @PragueAddick’s example shows what an absolute farce qualifying is now.ValleyGary said:Not really, people moaned about non competitive friendlies, so they created the nations league. The NL must have some type of reward to keep that competitive and that’s where these playoff spots come into play.Serbia aren’t there cos they were shit in both the NL and WCQ.The rules have been in place long enough now.0 -
Seeding yes, mainly for the top-mid teams, but for the mid-lower ranked teams it also offers a chance for their games to be competitive as another route to obtain play off status.TelMc32 said:
Surely the positive of Nations League is that they are competitive fixtures and therefore count more towards points for your ranking and therefore potential seeding/higher pots in qualifiers for Euros & World Cups. @PragueAddick’s example shows what an absolute farce qualifying is now.ValleyGary said:Not really, people moaned about non competitive friendlies, so they created the nations league. The NL must have some type of reward to keep that competitive and that’s where these playoff spots come into play.Serbia aren’t there cos they were shit in both the NL and WCQ.The rules have been in place long enough now.1 -
I agree the Nations League has been a success, especially for smaller countries, but Sweden basically need not have turned up for the WCQ because they know they are not going to win the group and will get a playoff place anyway. Thats bad for the other teams in their group.ValleyGary said:Not really, people moaned about non competitive friendlies, so they created the nations league. The NL must have some type of reward to keep that competitive and that’s where these playoff spots come into play.Serbia aren’t there cos they were shit in both the NL and WCQ.The rules have been in place long enough now.1 -
Sponsored links:
-
If we're honest they didn't really turn up, they were awful.PragueAddick said:
I agree the Nations League has been a success, especially for smaller countries, but Sweden basically need not have turned up for the WCQ because they know they are not going to win the group and will get a playoff place anyway. Thats bad for the other teams in their group.ValleyGary said:Not really, people moaned about non competitive friendlies, so they created the nations league. The NL must have some type of reward to keep that competitive and that’s where these playoff spots come into play.Serbia aren’t there cos they were shit in both the NL and WCQ.The rules have been in place long enough now.
I get your point but they'd obviously still rather have qualified than now have to go through 2 play off games, where 1 missed chance, 1 mistake, 1 VAR decision etc could end your entire World cup hopes.2 -
Are they anything like proper beers?PragueAddick said:
Sorry mate, no connections at all, mind you the Czech team are in disarray and in a verbal war with the fans. The home areas might not sell out (although it's not a big stadium). If I hear anything I'll let you know.TelMc32 said:@PragueAddick know anyone in the Czech FA who can get tickets for the Ireland game? 😉
If you make it over and need any general help beforehand, let me know. I'll be happy to take you for a few propper beers, i.e. not in the Irish pubs
1 -
No, the top six missing countries are all European.IdleHans said:
The top six apart from Argentina and Brazil, you mean?jimmymelrose said:Callumcafc said:Pots with up to date world rankingsTop six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs.
What a coincidence: the top six are all European.
Five out of the 8 previous World Cup winners are European. Five of the last World Cup’s quarter finalists were European
Europe is seriously underrepresented in a 48 team World Cup with only 16 teams, a third of the places. I think Gattuso was right to speak out about this. It may sound like sour grapes but he’s essentially correct.
This debate all comes down to whether one thinks that it should be the best teams who qualify or whether one thinks that each region should have a certain representation.
I used to be of the latter persuasion but now that teams like Jamaica and Caracao are full of English and Dutch players respectively I think this ’representation ’ is no more. Also you allow players from lower leagues, just because their grandparents were born somewhere else, to play ahead of those from the top leagues. It’s just not what an elite competition should be anymore.
1 -
How does selecting better players make it less of an elite competition?jimmymelrose said:
No, the top six missing countries are all European.IdleHans said:
The top six apart from Argentina and Brazil, you mean?jimmymelrose said:Callumcafc said:Pots with up to date world rankingsTop six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs.
What a coincidence: the top six are all European.
Five out of the 8 previous World Cup winners are European. Five of the last World Cup’s quarter finalists were European
Europe is seriously underrepresented in a 48 team World Cup with only 16 teams, a third of the places. I think Gattuso was right to speak out about this. It may sound like sour grapes but he’s essentially correct.
This debate all comes down to whether one thinks that it should be the best teams who qualify or whether one thinks that each region should have a certain representation.
I used to be of the latter persuasion but now that teams like Jamaica and Caracao are full of English and Dutch players respectively I think this ’representation ’ is no more. Also you allow players from lower leagues, just because their grandparents were born somewhere else, to play ahead of those from the top leagues. It’s just not what an elite competition should be anymore.2 -
You go ask Karoy Anderson if he's English or Jamaican and he's clearly saying Jamaican, just as Conor Coventry will say he's Irish and Scott McTominay will say he's Scottish. Nationality is much more complex than where you're bornjimmymelrose said:
No, the top six missing countries are all European.IdleHans said:
The top six apart from Argentina and Brazil, you mean?jimmymelrose said:Callumcafc said:Pots with up to date world rankingsTop six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs.
What a coincidence: the top six are all European.
Five out of the 8 previous World Cup winners are European. Five of the last World Cup’s quarter finalists were European
Europe is seriously underrepresented in a 48 team World Cup with only 16 teams, a third of the places. I think Gattuso was right to speak out about this. It may sound like sour grapes but he’s essentially correct.
This debate all comes down to whether one thinks that it should be the best teams who qualify or whether one thinks that each region should have a certain representation.
I used to be of the latter persuasion but now that teams like Jamaica and Caracao are full of English and Dutch players respectively I think this ’representation ’ is no more. Also you allow players from lower leagues, just because their grandparents were born somewhere else, to play ahead of those from the top leagues. It’s just not what an elite competition should be anymore.1 -
This is where I think you should only be able to play for the country where you are actually born. I know most will disagree.fenaddick said:
You go ask Karoy Anderson if he's English or Jamaican and he's clearly saying Jamaican, just as Conor Coventry will say he's Irish and Scott McTominay will say he's Scottish. Nationality is much more complex than where you're bornjimmymelrose said:
No, the top six missing countries are all European.IdleHans said:
The top six apart from Argentina and Brazil, you mean?jimmymelrose said:Callumcafc said:Pots with up to date world rankingsTop six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs.
What a coincidence: the top six are all European.
Five out of the 8 previous World Cup winners are European. Five of the last World Cup’s quarter finalists were European
Europe is seriously underrepresented in a 48 team World Cup with only 16 teams, a third of the places. I think Gattuso was right to speak out about this. It may sound like sour grapes but he’s essentially correct.
This debate all comes down to whether one thinks that it should be the best teams who qualify or whether one thinks that each region should have a certain representation.
I used to be of the latter persuasion but now that teams like Jamaica and Caracao are full of English and Dutch players respectively I think this ’representation ’ is no more. Also you allow players from lower leagues, just because their grandparents were born somewhere else, to play ahead of those from the top leagues. It’s just not what an elite competition should be anymore.1 -
I would say place you are born or your parents born.Grandparents shouldn’t count6
-
I'd accept that as a compromise.MrOneLung said:I would say place you are born or your parents born.Grandparents shouldn’t count0 -
I shouldn’t have brought up this issue as it’s detracting from my main point. That being, that the system should be devised so that we try to get the best teams into the competition. If Caracao or Jamaica were in a European qualifying group then they would be finishing below second place. If Italy were in their qualifying group then they’d be winning it with 10 men.
Next year will be the proof of the pudding. Normally I support the underdogs but I’m so pissed off with FIFA that I think it would be funny to see some of these Pot 4 teams getting stuffed 8 or 9-0 in the group stages and show it up for the circus it now sadly really is.1 -
Fast forward to Monterey, June 25th 2026:jimmymelrose said:I shouldn’t have brought up this issue as it’s detracting from my main point. That being, that the system should be devised so that we try to get the best teams into the competition. If Caracao or Jamaica were in a European qualifying group then they would be finishing below second place. If Italy were in their qualifying group then they’d be winning it with 10 men.
Next year will be the proof of the pudding. Normally I support the underdogs but I’m so pissed off with FIFA that I think it would be funny to see some of these Pot 4 teams getting stuffed 8 or 9-0 in the group stages and show it up for the circus it now sadly really is.
England 1 (Kane, 86 (pen)) Curaçao 09 -
Sponsored links:
-
My friend at work is a Scottish as they come but she was born in Singapore as that's where her parents were at the time, and her mum was actually born in the States as again that's where her parents were at the time, but speak to her and she has a very strong Scottish accent, as her parents do tooMrOneLung said:I would say place you are born or your parents born.Grandparents shouldn’t count
Where you're born has no real bearing on where you're from IMO6 -
There's a helpful Wikipedia article which lists all the England players you'd be kicking out of past squads. John Barnes, Owen Hargreaves, Raheem Sterling, Cyrille Regis, John Salako.LargeAddick said:
This is where I think you should only be able to play for the country where you are actually born. I know most will disagree.fenaddick said:
You go ask Karoy Anderson if he's English or Jamaican and he's clearly saying Jamaican, just as Conor Coventry will say he's Irish and Scott McTominay will say he's Scottish. Nationality is much more complex than where you're bornjimmymelrose said:
No, the top six missing countries are all European.IdleHans said:
The top six apart from Argentina and Brazil, you mean?jimmymelrose said:Callumcafc said:Pots with up to date world rankingsTop six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs.
What a coincidence: the top six are all European.
Five out of the 8 previous World Cup winners are European. Five of the last World Cup’s quarter finalists were European
Europe is seriously underrepresented in a 48 team World Cup with only 16 teams, a third of the places. I think Gattuso was right to speak out about this. It may sound like sour grapes but he’s essentially correct.
This debate all comes down to whether one thinks that it should be the best teams who qualify or whether one thinks that each region should have a certain representation.
I used to be of the latter persuasion but now that teams like Jamaica and Caracao are full of English and Dutch players respectively I think this ’representation ’ is no more. Also you allow players from lower leagues, just because their grandparents were born somewhere else, to play ahead of those from the top leagues. It’s just not what an elite competition should be anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_England_international_footballers_born_outside_England
Personally I think the grandparent rule is about right - it stops silliness like Americans identifying as Irish because of someone 5 generations ago but allows for people who genuinely identify with the nationality of their parents or those who were born abroad because a parent was in the armed forces.0 -
But she would qualify as parents are Scottish. Just means also qualified for Singaporesam3110 said:
My friend at work is a Scottish as they come but she was born in Singapore as that's where her parents were at the time, and her mum was actually born in the States as again that's where her parents were at the time, but speak to her and she has a very strong Scottish accent, as her parents do tooMrOneLung said:I would say place you are born or your parents born.Grandparents shouldn’t count
Where you're born has no real bearing on where you're from IMO0 -
Don’t forget Terry Butcher!Swindon_Addick said:
There's a helpful Wikipedia article which lists all the England players you'd be kicking out of past squads. John Barnes, Owen Hargreaves, Raheem Sterling, Cyrille Regis, John Salako.LargeAddick said:
This is where I think you should only be able to play for the country where you are actually born. I know most will disagree.fenaddick said:
You go ask Karoy Anderson if he's English or Jamaican and he's clearly saying Jamaican, just as Conor Coventry will say he's Irish and Scott McTominay will say he's Scottish. Nationality is much more complex than where you're bornjimmymelrose said:
No, the top six missing countries are all European.IdleHans said:
The top six apart from Argentina and Brazil, you mean?jimmymelrose said:Callumcafc said:Pots with up to date world rankingsTop six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs.
What a coincidence: the top six are all European.
Five out of the 8 previous World Cup winners are European. Five of the last World Cup’s quarter finalists were European
Europe is seriously underrepresented in a 48 team World Cup with only 16 teams, a third of the places. I think Gattuso was right to speak out about this. It may sound like sour grapes but he’s essentially correct.
This debate all comes down to whether one thinks that it should be the best teams who qualify or whether one thinks that each region should have a certain representation.
I used to be of the latter persuasion but now that teams like Jamaica and Caracao are full of English and Dutch players respectively I think this ’representation ’ is no more. Also you allow players from lower leagues, just because their grandparents were born somewhere else, to play ahead of those from the top leagues. It’s just not what an elite competition should be anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_England_international_footballers_born_outside_England
Personally I think the grandparent rule is about right - it stops silliness like Americans identifying as Irish because of someone 5 generations ago but allows for people who genuinely identify with the nationality of their parents or those who were born abroad because a parent was in the armed forces.
2 -
You also correctly can qualify through residency/schooling.Swindon_Addick said:
There's a helpful Wikipedia article which lists all the England players you'd be kicking out of past squads. John Barnes, Owen Hargreaves, Raheem Sterling, Cyrille Regis, John Salako.LargeAddick said:
This is where I think you should only be able to play for the country where you are actually born. I know most will disagree.fenaddick said:
You go ask Karoy Anderson if he's English or Jamaican and he's clearly saying Jamaican, just as Conor Coventry will say he's Irish and Scott McTominay will say he's Scottish. Nationality is much more complex than where you're bornjimmymelrose said:
No, the top six missing countries are all European.IdleHans said:
The top six apart from Argentina and Brazil, you mean?jimmymelrose said:Callumcafc said:Pots with up to date world rankingsTop six missing countries (Italy (12), Denmark (21), Turkey (25), Ukraine (28), Poland (31), Wales (32)) will all compete in the UEFA playoffs.
What a coincidence: the top six are all European.
Five out of the 8 previous World Cup winners are European. Five of the last World Cup’s quarter finalists were European
Europe is seriously underrepresented in a 48 team World Cup with only 16 teams, a third of the places. I think Gattuso was right to speak out about this. It may sound like sour grapes but he’s essentially correct.
This debate all comes down to whether one thinks that it should be the best teams who qualify or whether one thinks that each region should have a certain representation.
I used to be of the latter persuasion but now that teams like Jamaica and Caracao are full of English and Dutch players respectively I think this ’representation ’ is no more. Also you allow players from lower leagues, just because their grandparents were born somewhere else, to play ahead of those from the top leagues. It’s just not what an elite competition should be anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_England_international_footballers_born_outside_England
Personally I think the grandparent rule is about right - it stops silliness like Americans identifying as Irish because of someone 5 generations ago but allows for people who genuinely identify with the nationality of their parents or those who were born abroad because a parent was in the armed forces.
If I was born in England, but my parents moved to France when I was 2, and I grew up there, it would be weird to not be allowed to play for France, even if none of my family were born in France.
The likes of Sterling, Regis and Salako all grew up here, so would correctly qualify through residency.
I don't agree with the grandparent rule though, as it feels tenuous that you can play for a country you've never lived in, just because of ONE grandparent.0 -
Representation of all confederations at a World Cup has been in place since 1982. Its not as if what is happening next year is any different than what we've had the past 43 years, with the exception now being that there are more teams involved.jimmymelrose said:I shouldn’t have brought up this issue as it’s detracting from my main point. That being, that the system should be devised so that we try to get the best teams into the competition. If Caracao or Jamaica were in a European qualifying group then they would be finishing below second place. If Italy were in their qualifying group then they’d be winning it with 10 men.
Next year will be the proof of the pudding. Normally I support the underdogs but I’m so pissed off with FIFA that I think it would be funny to see some of these Pot 4 teams getting stuffed 8 or 9-0 in the group stages and show it up for the circus it now sadly really is.
And another consideration to be aware of is that the reason we're getting Curacao and Haiti in contention is because the regulars from their confederation (USA, Mexico, Canada) are automatically qualified. Its highly unlikely we'll see either of them at a World Cup again any time soon after this.2 -
Sorry if being pedantic, but has surely only been the case in 2010 and 2026 since 1982, as that's when OFC have had a representative at the World Cup? - Its the one thing I like about the increase in teams, as whilst the talent hasn't been there for New Zealand etc. to qualify, I've always felt that it was a bit of a piss take that its a "World Cup", but that OFC teams have never had at least one automatic place.cafctom said:
Representation of all confederations at a World Cup has been in place since 1982. Its not as if what is happening next year is any different than what we've had the past 43 years, with the exception now being that there are more teams involved.jimmymelrose said:I shouldn’t have brought up this issue as it’s detracting from my main point. That being, that the system should be devised so that we try to get the best teams into the competition. If Caracao or Jamaica were in a European qualifying group then they would be finishing below second place. If Italy were in their qualifying group then they’d be winning it with 10 men.
Next year will be the proof of the pudding. Normally I support the underdogs but I’m so pissed off with FIFA that I think it would be funny to see some of these Pot 4 teams getting stuffed 8 or 9-0 in the group stages and show it up for the circus it now sadly really is.
And another consideration to be aware of is that the reason we're getting Curacao and Haiti in contention is because the regulars from their confederation (USA, Mexico, Canada) are automatically qualified. Its highly unlikely we'll see either of them at a World Cup again any time soon after this.
Especially as the last time that New Zealand were at the World Cup, they finished in 22nd, finished above Italy and only just missed out on reaching the RO16 by a solitary point.0 -
Australia were at the 74 WC.ForeverAddickted said:
Sorry if being pedantic, but has surely only been the case in 2010 and 2026 since 1982, as that's when OFC have had a representative at the World Cup? - Its the one thing I like about the increase in teams, as whilst the talent hasn't been there for New Zealand etc. to qualify, I've always felt that it was a bit of a piss take that its a "World Cup", but that OFC teams have never had at least one automatic place.cafctom said:
Representation of all confederations at a World Cup has been in place since 1982. Its not as if what is happening next year is any different than what we've had the past 43 years, with the exception now being that there are more teams involved.jimmymelrose said:I shouldn’t have brought up this issue as it’s detracting from my main point. That being, that the system should be devised so that we try to get the best teams into the competition. If Caracao or Jamaica were in a European qualifying group then they would be finishing below second place. If Italy were in their qualifying group then they’d be winning it with 10 men.
Next year will be the proof of the pudding. Normally I support the underdogs but I’m so pissed off with FIFA that I think it would be funny to see some of these Pot 4 teams getting stuffed 8 or 9-0 in the group stages and show it up for the circus it now sadly really is.
And another consideration to be aware of is that the reason we're getting Curacao and Haiti in contention is because the regulars from their confederation (USA, Mexico, Canada) are automatically qualified. Its highly unlikely we'll see either of them at a World Cup again any time soon after this.
Especially as the last time that New Zealand were at the World Cup, they finished in 22nd, finished above Italy and only just missed out on reaching the RO16 by a solitary point.0 -
NZ was the only undefeated team at the 2010 World Cup (1-1 vs Slovakia, 1-1 vs Italy, 0-0 vs Paraguay). The champions Spain lost a game (1-0 in their opener to Switzerland).ForeverAddickted said:
Sorry if being pedantic, but has surely only been the case in 2010 and 2026 since 1982, as that's when OFC have had a representative at the World Cup? - Its the one thing I like about the increase in teams, as whilst the talent hasn't been there for New Zealand etc. to qualify, I've always felt that it was a bit of a piss take that its a "World Cup", but that OFC teams have never had at least one automatic place.cafctom said:
Representation of all confederations at a World Cup has been in place since 1982. Its not as if what is happening next year is any different than what we've had the past 43 years, with the exception now being that there are more teams involved.jimmymelrose said:I shouldn’t have brought up this issue as it’s detracting from my main point. That being, that the system should be devised so that we try to get the best teams into the competition. If Caracao or Jamaica were in a European qualifying group then they would be finishing below second place. If Italy were in their qualifying group then they’d be winning it with 10 men.
Next year will be the proof of the pudding. Normally I support the underdogs but I’m so pissed off with FIFA that I think it would be funny to see some of these Pot 4 teams getting stuffed 8 or 9-0 in the group stages and show it up for the circus it now sadly really is.
And another consideration to be aware of is that the reason we're getting Curacao and Haiti in contention is because the regulars from their confederation (USA, Mexico, Canada) are automatically qualified. Its highly unlikely we'll see either of them at a World Cup again any time soon after this.
Especially as the last time that New Zealand were at the World Cup, they finished in 22nd, finished above Italy and only just missed out on reaching the RO16 by a solitary point.3 -
I'm assuming FIFA will keep expanding the number of teams - 48 is a ludicrous number buf will it stop there?cafctom said:
Representation of all confederations at a World Cup has been in place since 1982. Its not as if what is happening next year is any different than what we've had the past 43 years, with the exception now being that there are more teams involved.jimmymelrose said:I shouldn’t have brought up this issue as it’s detracting from my main point. That being, that the system should be devised so that we try to get the best teams into the competition. If Caracao or Jamaica were in a European qualifying group then they would be finishing below second place. If Italy were in their qualifying group then they’d be winning it with 10 men.
Next year will be the proof of the pudding. Normally I support the underdogs but I’m so pissed off with FIFA that I think it would be funny to see some of these Pot 4 teams getting stuffed 8 or 9-0 in the group stages and show it up for the circus it now sadly really is.
And another consideration to be aware of is that the reason we're getting Curacao and Haiti in contention is because the regulars from their confederation (USA, Mexico, Canada) are automatically qualified. Its highly unlikely we'll see either of them at a World Cup again any time soon after this.0
