World Cup 2026 - USA/Canada/Mexico

We'd easily be able to host a 16 stadium world cup, especially if we have 12 years to plan it.

Straight off the bat you'd have:
Wembley
White Hart Lane
Principality 
Etihad
Anfield
Celtic Park 
St James' Park
Aviva
Stadium Of Light
New Birmingham Stadium 

That's 10 grounds, ready to go, all above 40k.

Given Qatar had all their stadiums in one city pretty much, and London is fucking huge, they should allow us Emirates, West Ham, maybe even Twickenham.

You'd then probably see one of the Sheffield teams, Leeds, Bristol, Southampton, Coventry, Forest and a couple of others look to get in on the act and upgrade their stadiums for it too, it's easily done. 

Think we should host the whole tournament on hackney marshes 

Karim_myBagheri said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

bobmunro said:

killerandflash said:

fenaddick said:

Karim_myBagheri said:

fenaddick said:

bobmunro said:

The Red Robin said:

Meanwhile England deemed not good enough to host a World Cup. What a farce. 

FIFA despise England - probably more jealousy than anything else. 

We are one of the few countries, maybe the only one, that could host a World Cup at 6 months notice. I firmly believe that, like The Open is played at the home of golf every 5 years or so, the World Cup should be played at the global home of football every 20 years or so. To have only hosted it once in nearly 100 years is a disgrace.

We couldn’t host it within Fifa’s silly requirements. We simply don’t have the grounds big enough because some (like Anfield) don’t fit regulation and you can only have one city that has two stadiums. Four of the stadiums you’d want to use are in London. Outside of that you’re left with Old Trafford, Villa Park and St James Park. That isn’t enough infrastructure for Fifa’s rules 

Is that true about 2 grounds per city? How many cities does Qatar have? 

I assume they found a loophole/bribed their way out. And I believe it isn’t 2 per city, only 1 city can have 2. So you couldn’t use both Manchester grounds AND two London ones 

Just classify them as difference cities. City fans are always saying United aren't in Manchester, as they are in Trafford not Manchester...

Wouldn't need both - and OT is a shithole anyway.

London - Wembley and Spurs

Manchester - Ehtihad 

Newcastle - St James

Leeds - Elland Road

Liverpool - Hill Dickinson

Birmingham - Villa Park

Throw in these for the lesser games:

Nottingham - City Ground

Derby - Pride Park

Southampton - St Marys

This wouldn't work because FIFA's requirements for stadiums are:

All stadiums hosting quarters/semi must be minimum 60k.
Final has to be above 80k capacity.

These are obviously fine but the issue is all stadiums used must be minimum 40k which we don't have. With 48 teams at the WC now, the requirement is 16 stadiums. 

We have 12 stadiums that are 40k+ and 5 are in London. You could add in Cardiff and Glasgow but unless they relax the rules on stadiums per city then it currently won't work.

 can't be many countries who could host a world cup by themselves now. No wonder it seems to be joint bids being the only way to get round this. We could go in with the whole of the UK, Ireland and maybe... erm, Holland? Or just with our pals France. 

I think in Europe only Germany have the required stadiums to solely host it. Brazil can, but they only recently hosted one.

Saudi are solely hosting the 2034 World cup and they currently have just TWO stadiums that fit the criteria. They need to build 10 new ones just for the world cup. FIFA will obviously again be relaxing the stadium rules per city though, because Riyadh will have 8 stadiums.

I seem to be in the minority but I don't get the hype with Bellingham at all.
.
He has a shitty attitude & England always seem to play worse when he's in the team

Just my view, but I think he's massively overrated, both individually & as part of the team.

The Red Robin said:

Gravesend_Addick said:

I seem to be in the minority but I don't get the hype with Bellingham at all.
.
He has a shitty attitude & England always seem to play worse when he's in the team

Just my view, but I think he's massively overrated, both individually & as part of the team.

I have the complete opposite view. I think he’s the best player in the world at his best. 

Having missed a chunk of the season due to injury may actually be a benefit to him, he has had a rest but is back at full fitness at the right time and much fresher than those who have played a full season.

Gravesend_Addick said:

I seem to be in the minority but I don't get the hype with Bellingham at all.
.
He has a shitty attitude & England always seem to play worse when he's in the team

Just my view, but I think he's massively overrated, both individually & as part of the team.

He was awarded the England national teams player of the year for 24-25.

Joined Dortmund at 17 and Real Madrid at 20 and at both clubs settled in immediately like he'd been a pro for 10-15 years. Before this season when he missed a few games through injury he was voted in the Bundesliga team of the season (21-22 & 22-23) and La Liga team of the season (23-24 & 24-25).

He's one of the first names on the team sheet for the biggest club in the world so i'd argue he's not overrated at all, he's rated because he deserves to be.

Karim_myBagheri said:

Chris_from_Sidcup said:

bobmunro said:

killerandflash said:

fenaddick said:

Karim_myBagheri said:

fenaddick said:

bobmunro said:

The Red Robin said:

Meanwhile England deemed not good enough to host a World Cup. What a farce. 

FIFA despise England - probably more jealousy than anything else. 

We are one of the few countries, maybe the only one, that could host a World Cup at 6 months notice. I firmly believe that, like The Open is played at the home of golf every 5 years or so, the World Cup should be played at the global home of football every 20 years or so. To have only hosted it once in nearly 100 years is a disgrace.

We couldn’t host it within Fifa’s silly requirements. We simply don’t have the grounds big enough because some (like Anfield) don’t fit regulation and you can only have one city that has two stadiums. Four of the stadiums you’d want to use are in London. Outside of that you’re left with Old Trafford, Villa Park and St James Park. That isn’t enough infrastructure for Fifa’s rules 

Is that true about 2 grounds per city? How many cities does Qatar have? 

I assume they found a loophole/bribed their way out. And I believe it isn’t 2 per city, only 1 city can have 2. So you couldn’t use both Manchester grounds AND two London ones 

Just classify them as difference cities. City fans are always saying United aren't in Manchester, as they are in Trafford not Manchester...

Wouldn't need both - and OT is a shithole anyway.

London - Wembley and Spurs

Manchester - Ehtihad 

Newcastle - St James

Leeds - Elland Road

Liverpool - Hill Dickinson

Birmingham - Villa Park

Throw in these for the lesser games:

Nottingham - City Ground

Derby - Pride Park

Southampton - St Marys

This wouldn't work because FIFA's requirements for stadiums are:

All stadiums hosting quarters/semi must be minimum 60k.
Final has to be above 80k capacity.

These are obviously fine but the issue is all stadiums used must be minimum 40k which we don't have. With 48 teams at the WC now, the requirement is 16 stadiums. 

We have 12 stadiums that are 40k+ and 5 are in London. You could add in Cardiff and Glasgow but unless they relax the rules on stadiums per city then it currently won't work.

 can't be many countries who could host a world cup by themselves now. No wonder it seems to be joint bids being the only way to get round this. We could go in with the whole of the UK, Ireland and maybe... erm, Holland? Or just with our pals France. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f92CzN9F270

fenaddick said:

bobmunro said:

The Red Robin said:

Meanwhile England deemed not good enough to host a World Cup. What a farce. 

FIFA despise England - probably more jealousy than anything else. 

We are one of the few countries, maybe the only one, that could host a World Cup at 6 months notice. I firmly believe that, like The Open is played at the home of golf every 5 years or so, the World Cup should be played at the global home of football every 20 years or so. To have only hosted it once in nearly 100 years is a disgrace.

We couldn’t host it within Fifa’s silly requirements. We simply don’t have the grounds big enough because some (like Anfield) don’t fit regulation and you can only have one city that has two stadiums. Four of the stadiums you’d want to use are in London. Outside of that you’re left with Old Trafford, Villa Park and St James Park. That isn’t enough infrastructure for Fifa’s rules 

FIFA's silly requirements seem to become infinitely more flexible when it suits them...

I appear to be the only person in the world who thought the foul on Gordon should have been a penalty, unless the rules have been changed and it's only awarded when the clash is between legs?

He was off balance, and in the process of righting himself when he was clearly pushed in the back which sent him to the floor and prevented him recovering the ball. It wasn't a huge shove, but it was sufficient to send him tumbling - he didn't dive or he would have been booked. How is that not a penalty? 

On another note, I thought I heard the commentator say that from corners or free kicks shoving in the box before the ball was kicked will be reviewed, but action will only be taken if it's decided the attacking team are at fault? Did I hear right?   

It's a game for 16 players per team now and has been for some time so I'm not sure why we still have this endless debate on CL and every TV and social media outlet about the starters or game changers in a match. Especially in midfield and in forward positions where a 65/35 (with added time) will occur in most matches in these conditions let alone for tactical reasons.

Tuchel has let Bellingham know and the media know that past reputations means nothing it's your form now and Jude is responding and after a disappointing season with injuries and a slight fall off this vastly talented player could be just reaching top form and if he stays fit could have a brilliant tournament. 

We were spoilt for choice in midfield and that's why Palmer Foden and Gibbs-White didn't even make the squad.

You would think the midfield players that started last night would start but Rodgers is a gifted attacking midfielder and Bellingham is versatile enough to adapt if we suddenly don't need wide players on both sides.

We have more decent options than normal.
Bizarrely I will get it in early and it's Pickford who may struggle in this WC; not sure why I'm getting this bad vibe ?

Tuchel gig and be interesting to see how he uses the 16 players during the 100 minutes or so of most games.

Quite like eze as well! What a player 

2121 said:

Although dont think we talk about not having walker anymore enough. He shut down a lot of class wingers 

The game has changed though. Reece James has the pace needed for that and playing CB’s like Konsa or Quansah there adds a defensive solidity 

I am going to repeat my question, as I think my ranting on about the "penalty" probably sent a few people to sleep before I got to it... 

On another note, I thought I heard the commentator say that from corners or free kicks shoving in the box before the ball was kicked will be reviewed, but action will only be taken if it's decided the attacking team are at fault? Did I hear right?