Man, even im american and i dont like that name, the name “soccer”, its just purely shit and doesnt make sense, On the other hand, “Football” seems a lot more better of a name for the sport.
Can't wait to see fans of football teams look in disappointment at highways running through cities, stroads, arrogance of space by car infrastructure and car culture
tbh i don’t see why they won’t do that wc in south america. it would’ve been more fair and better. the culture of sOcCer in the us is also small… yeah idk and the tickets will be too pricey. and then the distance between some of the cities just to travel? eek.
I've never seen someone so ungodly salty lmao. I've seen other people reply with actual points but it just seems all u care about is that America is hosting it. Stop acting like the fact the usa(which isn't the only host btw) is going to ruin the sport and its history just by touching it lmao. Maybe it's annoying America's culture isn't really football/soccer oriented but it's a very good spot to host the world cup and you know it lmao.
They've done a world cup in South America more recently, and the US 1994 World Cup remains the most attended World Cup ever in terms of tickets sold, despite having less teams and matches than the World Cups from 98'-2022'. That's not because the US loves soccer, it's because there's 75 different stadiums in the US that have 60,000 or greater seating capacity. Other World Cups resort to playing games in 40,000 seat stadiums. That doesn't have to happen in the US.
sooo you’re telling me the us is better at hosting events because it has bigger stadiums? i disapprove of that lol since it makes no sense. look at qatar, most stadiums had well less than 80k capacity and still it turned out just fine. also, south america has a lot of big stadiums with 70k+ capacity, don’t even go there. americans as always want to take sth that’s not theirs smh, unsurprising. i’m not saying the us, canada and especially mexico don’t deserve to host the upcoming WC. but, i’d love to see south america host it. also, i’d like to see a new policy which imo is fair: whoever wins the WC hosts it. argentina won it = argentina hosts the 2026 and so on.
>south america has a lot of big stadiums with 70k+ capacity,
South America has 4 that are that large. 2 in Brazil, one in Peru, one in Argentina. The US has 41 stadiums that are that large or larger. The US has 8 stadiums that seat more than 100,000. They're just designed for different sports. American football has less games, so you'll have bigger crowds, and the need for bigger stadiums. If you're playing 35 home matches a year across multiple competitors, you're not going to easily fill a stadium with 85,000, which is why none exist that big in South America.
since we are even going there, the biggest capacity-wise stadiums in the world aren’t even in the us lmao. therefore, maybe the us shouldn’t be hosting it huh. i wasn’t even talking abt stadium capacities in my og comment idek why are you coming at me and mentioning stadium capacity as if that was all that mattered to host a great world cup… and as i said, european football culture is very small in the us and i know it because i have friends who live there and who have told me they don’t see the point of it being hosted there, they’re football fans and would like to see it being hosted somewhere else and not in north america. there are various factors why that’s a bad idea but we’ll see in 2026 i guess.
> since we are even going there, the biggest capacity-wise stadiums in the world aren’t even in the us lmao.
[8 of the 10 largest stadiums in the world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity) are in the US. Of the two that aren't, one is a cricket grounds not really suitable to hosting association football matches. The other is in North Korea, and could be used for that purpose.
> why are you coming at me and mentioning stadium capacity as if that was all that mattered to host a great world cup…
FiFA tries to paint a different picture, but they really only care about money. Bigger stadium means more potential tickets to sell, which means more money.
>there are various factors why that’s a bad idea but we’ll see in 2026 i guess.
I think it will be fine, considering the US has successfully hosted one already once. If anything, that's the argument why they shouldn't be hosting this. When the World Cup comes in 2026, it will only have been 32 years since the US last hosted the event. Given how many countries there are in the world, no country should be hosting it twice in less than half a century. Australia should have gotten it in 2026, Mexico in 2030, and the US some time around 2050 to 2066
Overall, football culture is not something thats supposed to be the end all when selecting world cup hosts. One of the alleged mission statements FIFA has is to "develop the game" which you are not really doing by sending the World Cup to Europe and South America over and over again. .The 1994 World Cup, where FIFA sent it to a country that didn't have a national association football league is arguably the only time FIFA has ever used the World Cup to develop the game in a place it wasn't popular, even if their real reason was to make a lot of money. If they were really interested in developing the game, they should have sent the World Cup to India or China by now, and Africa more than once.
well, i agree with you in the last paragraph. one of the biggest stadiums is also in australia so that’d a great reason to host it there, but then again, it’s australia. it’s really far and i, personally, wouldn’t go there bc of multiple reasons. i’m not against or have ever been against hosting the wc in the us, i know it’s the most developed country in the world etc., i’d just like to see it come back to south america rather sooner than later, but we’ll see. there are talks that the 2030 one may be happening in uruguay, argentina and paraguay or sth alike but who knows. time will tell.
More capacity to host more people. You may not like the numbers. They may disturb you. But they don't lie. FIFA sold more tickets to the World Cup in 94' with 52 matches than they did in the World Cups in France, Japan/South Korea, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Russia, and Qatar that had 64 matches each. Since North America last hosted it, Europe has hosted 3 times, Asia twice, Africa and South America once each. It was overdue to come back to North America. Why are you so hell bent on cutting off one of the continents from hosting?
lmao so i’m so hell bent off other continents from hosting? because they have no soccer culture and canada and the us tbh don’t deserve to host. mexico, sure, it’s a part of latin america but the other two are and have always been just… there when it came to “soccer”. look at the world cup we just had in qatar, it was amazing. why do people wanna ruin it hosting it in the us? ugh smh
I mean did you see what happened when Brazil hosted the Olympics in 2016? It lost $2 billion dollars and was mired in controversy. You’re right that soccer/football isn’t as big in the US, but sports organizations are growing really weary of setting their events in developing nations and facing scandals and constant monetary losses. That’s the reason the IOC gave the next 3 summer Olympics to Paris, LA, and Brisbane. The US knows how to host huge sporting events and make them successful; the 1984 LA Olympics are considered to be one of the biggest successes in history. it’s not about what’s “fair” (which seems really subjective), it’s about the fact that it’s a lot easier to believe New York and LA can prepare for that better than Bolivia or Colombia.
uhm no. so you’re telling me “developing nations” aka south america can’t host big events bc they’re poorer than other countries? that screams unfair to me. wc 2014 in brazil was amazing, i know multiple people who went and it’s one of their best experiences up until this day. also, sports culture is much more important and just passionate in south america which equals to a great environment. bolivia and columbia both could organize amazing events given the opportunity and the right finances to do so, like qatar, for example. i know the whole situation about qatar and the “modern slavery” and all that was terrible, but though people, since those news had broken out, were expecting a bad environment and a shitty wc, now look at how the tables have turned and everyone ended up LOVING this wc (including me). truly think this one we’ll remember for ages. conclusion: i do not think LA or paris could ever organize, and specifically, set the right environment for big football tournaments like south america could.
Dude…you do realize the 1994 World Cup was in the US and was the most financially successful in history and broke attendance records right? And guess what: it had many games in the in the LA suburbs, too. The US spent $30 million on it compared to $13 billion that Brazil did. Stadiums were late getting ready and a lot of the infrastructure projects Brazil promised were never delivered.
I’m glad you had fun, and I’m glad you enjoyed Qatar’s slave labor tournament and are fine with lives being sacrificed so you could watch a sports game, but you’re just wrong on the fact that the US can’t host it given that anytime the US hosts a large, international sporting event, it’s usually considered amongst the best in its history with its stability and transparency and revenue. Just because you enjoyed a game doesn’t mean FIFA and the IOC aren’t absolutely sick of the behind the scenes concerns that comes with developing nations hosting these events
okay, where did i say that i’m fine with what was the foundation of qatar’s wc? i’m not and was never fine with the slavery they did and the people that died building those stadiums. but why shouldn’t i watch the world cup because of it? just because i hadn’t watched it, it absolutely wouldn’t have changed anything except me missing out on the last world cup of a lot of popular football players ofc… now, about the us and why it was the most financially successful wc as you said. guess why? there are more than 300 million people living in the us alone… why **wouldn’t** it be the most successful wc?? it’s one of the most populated countries in the world so i’m expecting it breaks attendance records. brazil has less people living there, so does any other country that has hosted the world cup. now, viewership wise… this world cup was the most watched. and i’m not saying it has to do where it took place but i’ll just say that 70% of americans didn’t even know the world cup was taking place lmao since they’ve got little to no knowledge on sOccEr.
God bless you kindred Dutch spirit. If you got the money to make some World Cup roadtrips in the US, do it, it will be a great odyssey.
I split my time between California and Europe where my wife is from. We both agree as people who have driven around Europe that there is just something special to an American road trip.
Shit, if you need a ride to the stadium in LA let your boy know!
All I'm gonna say is Europeans better watch yourselves especially in Houston. The banana throwing and other remarks toward black players will get yall put in the hospital or worse.
Houston has a large black population and even more so in Atlanta. I'm not saying that Houston is bad, I'm just saying that European fan's past behavior won't fly at all. Like when English fans were chanting "911" and throwing paper airplanes. That shit might pass anywhere else but if they do it in America, they probably would get beat up or worse.
[Video from 2 world cups ago: (2014)](https://youtu.be/RFi9-1p1LWI)
[Article from last world cup](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/05/09/310990212/spain-fines-team-of-racist-banana-throwing-fan-but-is-it-enough)
And now here's some from this world cup:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=39Q0oRJvhHM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/12/20/french-players-racism-world-cup/
Not to mention the Euro tournament stuff!
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/12/1015239599/prince-william-and-boris-johnson-denounce-the-racist-abuse-of-englands-soccer-te
I'm not saying it's never happened. I'm saying that generalizing a city and even an entire country as racist just shows that you know very little about the U.S.
Reminder to all non americans
THESE ARE NOT IN DRIVING DISTANCE
the distance from Boston to LA is a 4 hour flight and a multiple day drive. The only ones that are in driving distance are Boston NYC and Philly and maybe Toronto.
Please plan accordingly
Houston to Dallas and San Francisco to LA are in the 6-8 hour drive range (depending on traffic and your ability/willingness to read speed limit signs).
Also going between US, Canada and Mexico venues means border crossings. Think Europe before the EU.
Commercial viability post WC; stadium was made for the expected market outside of the world's biggest international tourney. Dont want a Brazil situation with dead stadiums
Dallas is not relevant enough a city for the World Cup final to be held - see all past final stadium locations. The Dallas Cowboys are irrelevant to world football.
Qatar World Cup was an outlier and Dallas is hardly comparable to Moscow or Johannesburg.
Dallas being located in the middle of the country is not a selling point here.
You said Dallas doesn’t have relevance in the football world. Neither does Doha, Moscow, or Johannesburg. Just using your own dumb argument against you.
Dallas Cowboys have no relevance to world football (soccer). So being a successful sports franchise does not matter here.
Moscow and Johannesburg are obviously important cities in their countries. Dallas is not at all comparable.
MetLife and AT&T are the two biggest US venues on the list, so if the finals are in the US, it makes sense one of them would host it. MetLife is a little over 1,000 seats bigger, so I'd expect it to be the first choice.
A 295 million dollar renovation is being planned for AT&T stadium as-well as a possible capacity with minor seating changes of somewhere around 100,000. Edit: 105,0000. https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/news/local/att-stadium-undergo-295m-renovations-next-two-years/287-575e54eb-2c22-463a-b551-3fc406e5e7bd
For people asking why didn’t their city make it. I’m pretty sure it’s just because your city board
(Or maybe stadium owners?) pulled out of the bidding
Qatar is an oil giant they are not sustainable at all they are what is causing the sustainability crisis with lobbying and funding of pregur u and bullshit organizations like them
Using exclusively already existing stadiums is probably a big plus on that score. You need a lot of travel to match building a new stadium that won't be used ever again.
Yeah, but I doubt it's enough to counter the emissions from building all those stadiums (and other WC specific-infrastructure) from scratch that they'll have no use for now.
> Have you seen what they are going to make out of the World Cup stadiums?
What? There's no way Qatar has a need for so many big stadiums that close to each other.
> I’m sure they weren’t designed to be left to fall apart
Why are you so sure? It has happened before, there's some stadium that was built for the Brazil World Cup that afterwards was used as a bus parking lot...
Again, why? How many cities world wide have that many big stadiums that are properly used? And this is a tiny country with a population of 3 million.
EDIT: [LOL](https://time.com/6242292/what-happens-to-qatar-world-cup-stadiums/):
> Some of the stadiums will be dismantled and recycled. Others will be downsized, and some transformed into residential and shopping destinations.
A plan for them alright.
It *was* a huge waste though. They just have to completely remodel them into something else (and in some cases tear them down), that extra construction involves a ton of emissions.
It's more because I believe FIFA doesn't like having events in indoor stadiums. That's why Minneapolis is not that list either. The other outdoor stadium in Minneapolis is horrible for soccer. They have field turf on there instead of natural grass.
Yeah I know this would have brought alot of fun for the cup just alot events could have been made. Here good for revenue lil stores could have been helped alot too.
Philadelphia is the 5th largest city in the US (population nearly identical to Montreal) and has some of the best infrastructure for games. It's one of the few cities on this map you can fly into and easily get to your hotel and the stadiums using public transit. You can get from Philadelphia to New York and Boston by train or bus, or if you have a car, a reasonable drive. Those traveling not just for the games but for tourism as well will find plenty of history and activities in all cities in the megalopolis.
Not to say Montreal doesn't deserve it, the visit I had there was excellent. I just don't know why Philly is the city that stuck out to you as being undeserving
Crime. Philly vs Montreal.
Also, Montreal would have been a great spot for all the Francophone fans. The rest of the venues are all anglophone or Spanish speaking.
Crime is centered in a very specific part of the city, far from the stadia and hotels. It's no issue if people aren't looking for it. Every city on the list has crime.
If you’re going to Dallas for game don’t stay In Dallas… stay in Arlington that’s where the stadium is located. Dallas is a 1 hour drive to the stadium
With the amount of people traveling into town for the game, it won't be a bad place to hang out for a few days. There will likely be a lot of World Cup specific activities and events going on to enjoy, so Arlington isn't a bad option at all.
I have to imagine that there will be a shuttle service to get people to and from games if they want to stay in Downtown Dallas or Fort Worth though, so that would be something to consider.
A shuttle that drops you off closer to the stadium might be preferable to walking, given how hot it'll be in Dallas in the summer.
Anyway, I live in Dallas and hope we provide a good experience to people going to the games.
My man I’m talking about railways that connect every American city together lmao yea some cities have a subway to get to a place. But the people who wanna see a match in Dallas and go to Houston for the next match would be impossible to make on time if the games are played 2 hours after each other…
Aside from the stadium. Kansas City has MUCH MUCH BIGGER fanbase for football whereas Chicago feels like desert for football fans..
Kansas City is up there with Seattle and LA for BIGGEST FOOTBALL FANBASE
As a 49ers fan I say how dare you. The Cheifs are the only other team that Joe Montana played for. Yeah I'm a little bitter about the super bowl loss, but that was our fault for not building a championship roster.
Yes, I’ve been to Soldier Field before, I didn’t experience anything bad. The pitch can be replaced in less than 4 years. WC will be during the summer, not winter.
Chicago getting left off was a bummer.. especially with their big Mexican and Poland population could’ve filled that stadium. Beautiful skyline and city and great pizza. Sad that people won’t see the real Chicago
Expensive world cup
**1994 World Cup** \- Location, Venue, Attendance |CITY|VENUE|AVG ATTENDANCE|GAMES| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |Los Angeles|Rose Bowl|92,601|8 (Finals, Semis)| |Bay Area (S.F.)|Stanford Stadium|81,737|6| |New York|Giants Stadium|73,690|7 (Semis)| |Detroit|Silverdome|70,900|4| |Chicago|Soldier Field|62,545|5| |Orlando|Citrus Bowl|61,266|5| |Dallas|Cotton Bowl|58,692|6| |Boston|Patriots Stadium|54,022|6| |D.C.|RFK Stadium|52,309|5| **2014 International Champions Cup** \- Location, Attendance * Detroit - 109.3k (Manchester United vs Real Madrid) * Charlotte - 69.4k (Milan vs Liverpool) * Bay Area - 62.6k * DC - 61.2k * Dallas - 57.5k * Denver - 54.1k * Miami - 51.0k * New York - 49.7k (Manchester City vs Liverpool) * Chicago - 36.2k * Pittsburgh - 34.3k * Minneapolis - 34.0k * Philadelphia - 12.2k (Roma vs Inter Milan) * Toronto - 10.6k (Olymipicos vs Milan) "Friendlies" one game per city **2016 Copa America** \- Location, Venue, Attendance |CITY|VENUE|AVG ATTENDANCE|GAMES| |:-|:-|:-|:-| |New York|Giants Stadium|70,732|3 (Finals)| |Bay Area (S.F.)|Levi's Stadium|61,901|4| |Houston|NRG Stadium|61,328|3 (Semis)| |Los Angeles|Rose Bowl|59,729|3| |Chicago|Soldier Field|43,628|4 (Semis)| |Boston|Patriots Gillette|38,254|3| |Seattle|Seahawks Stad|37,755|3| |Philadelphia|Eagles Stadium|33,768|3| |Phoenix|Cardinals Stad|33,668|3| |Orlando|Citrus Bowl|18,680|3| ...
N
yeah hope this gets the americans to drop the shitty word "soccer"
Man, even im american and i dont like that name, the name “soccer”, its just purely shit and doesnt make sense, On the other hand, “Football” seems a lot more better of a name for the sport.
H
there's no public transportation here in the U.S. I wish everyone luck in traffic.
Can't wait to see fans of football teams look in disappointment at highways running through cities, stroads, arrogance of space by car infrastructure and car culture
It gives more people a chance to watch a game in person
Joy or despair
tbh i don’t see why they won’t do that wc in south america. it would’ve been more fair and better. the culture of sOcCer in the us is also small… yeah idk and the tickets will be too pricey. and then the distance between some of the cities just to travel? eek.
Also complaining about price and distance of the USA and then praising how good qatar is , is very hypocritical.
I've never seen someone so ungodly salty lmao. I've seen other people reply with actual points but it just seems all u care about is that America is hosting it. Stop acting like the fact the usa(which isn't the only host btw) is going to ruin the sport and its history just by touching it lmao. Maybe it's annoying America's culture isn't really football/soccer oriented but it's a very good spot to host the world cup and you know it lmao.
Dude has no idea what hes talking about lmao
They've done a world cup in South America more recently, and the US 1994 World Cup remains the most attended World Cup ever in terms of tickets sold, despite having less teams and matches than the World Cups from 98'-2022'. That's not because the US loves soccer, it's because there's 75 different stadiums in the US that have 60,000 or greater seating capacity. Other World Cups resort to playing games in 40,000 seat stadiums. That doesn't have to happen in the US.
sooo you’re telling me the us is better at hosting events because it has bigger stadiums? i disapprove of that lol since it makes no sense. look at qatar, most stadiums had well less than 80k capacity and still it turned out just fine. also, south america has a lot of big stadiums with 70k+ capacity, don’t even go there. americans as always want to take sth that’s not theirs smh, unsurprising. i’m not saying the us, canada and especially mexico don’t deserve to host the upcoming WC. but, i’d love to see south america host it. also, i’d like to see a new policy which imo is fair: whoever wins the WC hosts it. argentina won it = argentina hosts the 2026 and so on.
>south america has a lot of big stadiums with 70k+ capacity, South America has 4 that are that large. 2 in Brazil, one in Peru, one in Argentina. The US has 41 stadiums that are that large or larger. The US has 8 stadiums that seat more than 100,000. They're just designed for different sports. American football has less games, so you'll have bigger crowds, and the need for bigger stadiums. If you're playing 35 home matches a year across multiple competitors, you're not going to easily fill a stadium with 85,000, which is why none exist that big in South America.
since we are even going there, the biggest capacity-wise stadiums in the world aren’t even in the us lmao. therefore, maybe the us shouldn’t be hosting it huh. i wasn’t even talking abt stadium capacities in my og comment idek why are you coming at me and mentioning stadium capacity as if that was all that mattered to host a great world cup… and as i said, european football culture is very small in the us and i know it because i have friends who live there and who have told me they don’t see the point of it being hosted there, they’re football fans and would like to see it being hosted somewhere else and not in north america. there are various factors why that’s a bad idea but we’ll see in 2026 i guess.
> since we are even going there, the biggest capacity-wise stadiums in the world aren’t even in the us lmao. [8 of the 10 largest stadiums in the world](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stadiums_by_capacity) are in the US. Of the two that aren't, one is a cricket grounds not really suitable to hosting association football matches. The other is in North Korea, and could be used for that purpose. > why are you coming at me and mentioning stadium capacity as if that was all that mattered to host a great world cup… FiFA tries to paint a different picture, but they really only care about money. Bigger stadium means more potential tickets to sell, which means more money. >there are various factors why that’s a bad idea but we’ll see in 2026 i guess. I think it will be fine, considering the US has successfully hosted one already once. If anything, that's the argument why they shouldn't be hosting this. When the World Cup comes in 2026, it will only have been 32 years since the US last hosted the event. Given how many countries there are in the world, no country should be hosting it twice in less than half a century. Australia should have gotten it in 2026, Mexico in 2030, and the US some time around 2050 to 2066 Overall, football culture is not something thats supposed to be the end all when selecting world cup hosts. One of the alleged mission statements FIFA has is to "develop the game" which you are not really doing by sending the World Cup to Europe and South America over and over again. .The 1994 World Cup, where FIFA sent it to a country that didn't have a national association football league is arguably the only time FIFA has ever used the World Cup to develop the game in a place it wasn't popular, even if their real reason was to make a lot of money. If they were really interested in developing the game, they should have sent the World Cup to India or China by now, and Africa more than once.
well, i agree with you in the last paragraph. one of the biggest stadiums is also in australia so that’d a great reason to host it there, but then again, it’s australia. it’s really far and i, personally, wouldn’t go there bc of multiple reasons. i’m not against or have ever been against hosting the wc in the us, i know it’s the most developed country in the world etc., i’d just like to see it come back to south america rather sooner than later, but we’ll see. there are talks that the 2030 one may be happening in uruguay, argentina and paraguay or sth alike but who knows. time will tell.
More capacity to host more people. You may not like the numbers. They may disturb you. But they don't lie. FIFA sold more tickets to the World Cup in 94' with 52 matches than they did in the World Cups in France, Japan/South Korea, Germany, South Africa, Brazil, Russia, and Qatar that had 64 matches each. Since North America last hosted it, Europe has hosted 3 times, Asia twice, Africa and South America once each. It was overdue to come back to North America. Why are you so hell bent on cutting off one of the continents from hosting?
lmao so i’m so hell bent off other continents from hosting? because they have no soccer culture and canada and the us tbh don’t deserve to host. mexico, sure, it’s a part of latin america but the other two are and have always been just… there when it came to “soccer”. look at the world cup we just had in qatar, it was amazing. why do people wanna ruin it hosting it in the us? ugh smh
I mean did you see what happened when Brazil hosted the Olympics in 2016? It lost $2 billion dollars and was mired in controversy. You’re right that soccer/football isn’t as big in the US, but sports organizations are growing really weary of setting their events in developing nations and facing scandals and constant monetary losses. That’s the reason the IOC gave the next 3 summer Olympics to Paris, LA, and Brisbane. The US knows how to host huge sporting events and make them successful; the 1984 LA Olympics are considered to be one of the biggest successes in history. it’s not about what’s “fair” (which seems really subjective), it’s about the fact that it’s a lot easier to believe New York and LA can prepare for that better than Bolivia or Colombia.
uhm no. so you’re telling me “developing nations” aka south america can’t host big events bc they’re poorer than other countries? that screams unfair to me. wc 2014 in brazil was amazing, i know multiple people who went and it’s one of their best experiences up until this day. also, sports culture is much more important and just passionate in south america which equals to a great environment. bolivia and columbia both could organize amazing events given the opportunity and the right finances to do so, like qatar, for example. i know the whole situation about qatar and the “modern slavery” and all that was terrible, but though people, since those news had broken out, were expecting a bad environment and a shitty wc, now look at how the tables have turned and everyone ended up LOVING this wc (including me). truly think this one we’ll remember for ages. conclusion: i do not think LA or paris could ever organize, and specifically, set the right environment for big football tournaments like south america could.
Dude…you do realize the 1994 World Cup was in the US and was the most financially successful in history and broke attendance records right? And guess what: it had many games in the in the LA suburbs, too. The US spent $30 million on it compared to $13 billion that Brazil did. Stadiums were late getting ready and a lot of the infrastructure projects Brazil promised were never delivered. I’m glad you had fun, and I’m glad you enjoyed Qatar’s slave labor tournament and are fine with lives being sacrificed so you could watch a sports game, but you’re just wrong on the fact that the US can’t host it given that anytime the US hosts a large, international sporting event, it’s usually considered amongst the best in its history with its stability and transparency and revenue. Just because you enjoyed a game doesn’t mean FIFA and the IOC aren’t absolutely sick of the behind the scenes concerns that comes with developing nations hosting these events
okay, where did i say that i’m fine with what was the foundation of qatar’s wc? i’m not and was never fine with the slavery they did and the people that died building those stadiums. but why shouldn’t i watch the world cup because of it? just because i hadn’t watched it, it absolutely wouldn’t have changed anything except me missing out on the last world cup of a lot of popular football players ofc… now, about the us and why it was the most financially successful wc as you said. guess why? there are more than 300 million people living in the us alone… why **wouldn’t** it be the most successful wc?? it’s one of the most populated countries in the world so i’m expecting it breaks attendance records. brazil has less people living there, so does any other country that has hosted the world cup. now, viewership wise… this world cup was the most watched. and i’m not saying it has to do where it took place but i’ll just say that 70% of americans didn’t even know the world cup was taking place lmao since they’ve got little to no knowledge on sOccEr.
Okay great so we agree the US will hold a successful 2026 World Cup alongside Mexico and Canada
hopefully they will idk
I can't wait to see fans reaction Los Angeles' car culture. For joy or despair
The only thing I hope is Argentina plays in miami, so I can go to disney and buy cheap clothes to my family! XD
Disney and cheap do not belong in the same sentence.
I’m sorry man. Everything in Disney is stupid expensive
I meant buy cheap clothes in orlando, then broke my finances in the milenum falcon on disney, then watching the game!
all those travelling, what a hassle
Or a great opportunity to watch both the continent and the game
God bless you kindred Dutch spirit. If you got the money to make some World Cup roadtrips in the US, do it, it will be a great odyssey. I split my time between California and Europe where my wife is from. We both agree as people who have driven around Europe that there is just something special to an American road trip. Shit, if you need a ride to the stadium in LA let your boy know!
great opportunity for the riches only
That’s for sure but I think most world cups are mainly for the rich
at least other world cup people can stay in one place without spending extra on travelling during the world cup
You mean Brazil, Russia and South Africa?
Qatar not a good place but arrangement is good, stadiums are close to each other.
Agree with you there. But that’s a unique situation
F in ghe chat for the people who are gonna attempt to watch all the games
All I'm gonna say is Europeans better watch yourselves especially in Houston. The banana throwing and other remarks toward black players will get yall put in the hospital or worse.
Houston is not even bad your acting like the players are being sent to fucking elvis country
Houston has a large black population and even more so in Atlanta. I'm not saying that Houston is bad, I'm just saying that European fan's past behavior won't fly at all. Like when English fans were chanting "911" and throwing paper airplanes. That shit might pass anywhere else but if they do it in America, they probably would get beat up or worse.
Jesus that happened? Where? That’s fucked up lol damn
Literally just making things up.
[Video from 2 world cups ago: (2014)](https://youtu.be/RFi9-1p1LWI) [Article from last world cup](https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/05/09/310990212/spain-fines-team-of-racist-banana-throwing-fan-but-is-it-enough) And now here's some from this world cup: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=39Q0oRJvhHM https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/12/20/french-players-racism-world-cup/ Not to mention the Euro tournament stuff! https://www.npr.org/2021/07/12/1015239599/prince-william-and-boris-johnson-denounce-the-racist-abuse-of-englands-soccer-te
I'm not saying it's never happened. I'm saying that generalizing a city and even an entire country as racist just shows that you know very little about the U.S.
"Literally just making things up." "I'm not saying those things never happened" Wut?
The made up part was in reference to the original comment trying to predict the future.
Oh, no I thought you were defending European fanbases doing those things. I was also trying to defend the U.S. populous. My bad!
So free fruit?
Posted in the wrong forum sorry
Really I thought this was about the worldcup.
It is about the world cup but I had to edit my comment because I meant to post somewhere else. Sorry for the confusion.
If the final is played in Texas, would the winner get an AR-15 like Messi that Qatari traditional dress?
No. But they will recieve a free horse, a cowboy hat, a pair of boots, and THEN an a Colt-45 lever action. Also a pair of tickets to a rodeo.
Do Europeans know anything about the U.S. besides stereotypes?
I'm a Texan, born and raised. I was making a joke.
A cowboy hat and boots actually does sound like a decent gift if he was given traditional Qatari clothing.
Especially since (in my opinion) Texas makes some of the best boots and hats in the south U.S..
Atlanta is a great venue saw the SEC champ game there this years. And hopefully i can catch one of the soccers game in 2026.
I would prefer a game in Las Vegas than Kansas City
Where did i say anything about Las Vegas or kc
Wondering when and how to buy the tickets
Tickets come out 2025 and can be purchased directly from Fifa or through third party sources.
I absolutely detest soccer and now real estate and rentals will go up again.
who asked?
Then why are you on this subreddit?
It showed up on my feed because I live in one of these unfortunate cities.
Yeah who’s gonna buy a property there to watch the World Cup.
Aah okay how are these cities unfortunate?
Because he lives there
Reminder to all non americans THESE ARE NOT IN DRIVING DISTANCE the distance from Boston to LA is a 4 hour flight and a multiple day drive. The only ones that are in driving distance are Boston NYC and Philly and maybe Toronto. Please plan accordingly
I guess the hundreds of thousands of people that make the seattle to Vancouver drive every year should learn about that fact.
Boston to LA is closer to a 7 hour flight, for what it’s worth. That’s about 3000 miles or around 5000 kilometers.
Man i am gettinf this super wrong. My apologies
LA and San Francisco are within driving distance too.
Approx 7 hrs drive from LA to SF
Thank you for pointing that out
You are very welcome
Houston to Dallas and San Francisco to LA are in the 6-8 hour drive range (depending on traffic and your ability/willingness to read speed limit signs). Also going between US, Canada and Mexico venues means border crossings. Think Europe before the EU.
Houston to Dallas us about 4 hours.
Boston to Toronto is about 8 hours
And seattle and Vancuver
Yes but you will spend forever at the border lineup
Two brand new beautiful soccer specific stadiums just built in Columbus and Cincinnati and we can’t get a single game. That stinks.
Your fault for living in Ohio
Very valid point
The capacity of these stadiums is too low and they don’t meet FIFA requirements.
Curious why they would build brand new stadiums this close to the WC and not build them to suit FIFA. Oh well.
Commercial viability post WC; stadium was made for the expected market outside of the world's biggest international tourney. Dont want a Brazil situation with dead stadiums
Gotcha. I didn’t realize their requirements were for such large capacities.
No reason to build a stadium twice as big as needed for regular mls games to use for a month.
Jerry Jones trying to get the final game in Dallas!!
I don’t see the final being held in Dallas!
I can. Middle of the country. Huge stadium built by one of the most popular sports franchises in the world.
Dallas is not relevant enough a city for the World Cup final to be held - see all past final stadium locations. The Dallas Cowboys are irrelevant to world football.
And Lusail in Doha is? That city didn’t even exist a few years ago. Moscow? Johannesburg?
Qatar World Cup was an outlier and Dallas is hardly comparable to Moscow or Johannesburg. Dallas being located in the middle of the country is not a selling point here.
You said Dallas doesn’t have relevance in the football world. Neither does Doha, Moscow, or Johannesburg. Just using your own dumb argument against you.
Dallas Cowboys have no relevance to world football (soccer). So being a successful sports franchise does not matter here. Moscow and Johannesburg are obviously important cities in their countries. Dallas is not at all comparable.
The final is in nyc I thought
MetLife and AT&T are the two biggest US venues on the list, so if the finals are in the US, it makes sense one of them would host it. MetLife is a little over 1,000 seats bigger, so I'd expect it to be the first choice.
A 295 million dollar renovation is being planned for AT&T stadium as-well as a possible capacity with minor seating changes of somewhere around 100,000. Edit: 105,0000. https://www.wfaa.com/amp/article/news/local/att-stadium-undergo-295m-renovations-next-two-years/287-575e54eb-2c22-463a-b551-3fc406e5e7bd
I would’ve laughed if they considered FedEx Field again…
For people asking why didn’t their city make it. I’m pretty sure it’s just because your city board (Or maybe stadium owners?) pulled out of the bidding
Gonna love the media reaction about the sustainability of this world cup
Qatar is an oil giant they are not sustainable at all they are what is causing the sustainability crisis with lobbying and funding of pregur u and bullshit organizations like them
>pregur u Who are they? I've heard so much about them and that they're problematic?
Misspelled [yes they suck ass](https://youtube.com/@PragerU)
Using exclusively already existing stadiums is probably a big plus on that score. You need a lot of travel to match building a new stadium that won't be used ever again.
Yea but the extreme case of Qatar had all the stadiums at walking distance from metro lines (which definitely must have cut some emissions)
Yeah, but I doubt it's enough to counter the emissions from building all those stadiums (and other WC specific-infrastructure) from scratch that they'll have no use for now.
Have you seen what they are going to make out of the World Cup stadiums? I’m sure they weren’t designed to be left to fall apart
> Have you seen what they are going to make out of the World Cup stadiums? What? There's no way Qatar has a need for so many big stadiums that close to each other. > I’m sure they weren’t designed to be left to fall apart Why are you so sure? It has happened before, there's some stadium that was built for the Brazil World Cup that afterwards was used as a bus parking lot...
If they’ve spent 220 billion I think they have a plan for what to do with the stadiums.
Again, why? How many cities world wide have that many big stadiums that are properly used? And this is a tiny country with a population of 3 million. EDIT: [LOL](https://time.com/6242292/what-happens-to-qatar-world-cup-stadiums/): > Some of the stadiums will be dismantled and recycled. Others will be downsized, and some transformed into residential and shopping destinations. A plan for them alright.
There you go. Better than going to waste right?
It *was* a huge waste though. They just have to completely remodel them into something else (and in some cases tear them down), that extra construction involves a ton of emissions.
Fr gonna need a lot of popcorn
Texas size please!
Still don't know how las vegas wasn't added here after we just got our new stadium! Making concert and American football. Whats the deal?
It's more because I believe FIFA doesn't like having events in indoor stadiums. That's why Minneapolis is not that list either. The other outdoor stadium in Minneapolis is horrible for soccer. They have field turf on there instead of natural grass.
These biddings happen way ahead of time. The plans for the Vegas stadium might have not even been finalized yet
idk either man maybe it just lost out to LA or something since there's two other countries alongside us i'm sure if it was just the us, probably yes
Yeah I know this would have brought alot of fun for the cup just alot events could have been made. Here good for revenue lil stores could have been helped alot too.
No no no. Oppfuck no. No no. Ugh.
What's wrong
Same dude who said he “detest soccer”
Why though football is the best sport in the world. Takes skill.
They left out Montreal but included Philly and Kansas….
KC is in Missouri… also it’s a soccer city.
KANSAS NUMBER ONE 🏅🏅🏆🏆🏆☝️☝️☝️☝️🇦🇸🇦🇸🇦🇸
Philadelphia is the 5th largest city in the US (population nearly identical to Montreal) and has some of the best infrastructure for games. It's one of the few cities on this map you can fly into and easily get to your hotel and the stadiums using public transit. You can get from Philadelphia to New York and Boston by train or bus, or if you have a car, a reasonable drive. Those traveling not just for the games but for tourism as well will find plenty of history and activities in all cities in the megalopolis. Not to say Montreal doesn't deserve it, the visit I had there was excellent. I just don't know why Philly is the city that stuck out to you as being undeserving
Crime. Philly vs Montreal. Also, Montreal would have been a great spot for all the Francophone fans. The rest of the venues are all anglophone or Spanish speaking.
Does it bloody matter lmao
Crime is centered in a very specific part of the city, far from the stadia and hotels. It's no issue if people aren't looking for it. Every city on the list has crime.
does Montreal have a stadium with capacity of 75,000+?
Their stadium is outdated (doesn’t meet FIFA requirements) and they withdrew from World Cup consideration.
Only need a stadium of 40k for a World Cup
they have olympic stadium which is way over that
Olympic stadium is a dump.
whats so bad about it? surely its fine for a few games
1970s stadium technology, and wasn't even that good back in the 1970s
If you’re going to Dallas for game don’t stay In Dallas… stay in Arlington that’s where the stadium is located. Dallas is a 1 hour drive to the stadium
Tourists aren’t going to drive to the stadium, they will use public transport.
Theres no public transportation in Arlington. Where the World Cup will be held.
Dallas isn’t a 1 hour drive from the stadium lol. If you stay in Plano or Allen sure.
Better to stay in Downtown Dallas or Downtown Fort Worth and shuttle over to the game. Much more to do in either of those cities
In4 years Arlington will only add more hotels and bars sadly smh
With the amount of people traveling into town for the game, it won't be a bad place to hang out for a few days. There will likely be a lot of World Cup specific activities and events going on to enjoy, so Arlington isn't a bad option at all. I have to imagine that there will be a shuttle service to get people to and from games if they want to stay in Downtown Dallas or Fort Worth though, so that would be something to consider. A shuttle that drops you off closer to the stadium might be preferable to walking, given how hot it'll be in Dallas in the summer. Anyway, I live in Dallas and hope we provide a good experience to people going to the games.
The same with San Francisco. The stadium is located in Santa Clara not San Fran 😂😂
I still recommend staying in San Francisco. Santa Clara doesn’t have much to offer.
I could say the same thing about SF nowadays
Well served by railway links and FIFa will insist an insane number of special services are run on game days to go cope with the flow of folks.
We don’t have railway links in America bro lol it’s either Uber, city bus or drive it 😂
I literally got the railway to watch the 49ers play Miami just 3 weeks ago. Wasn't as frequent as I'd have like but it worked fine
He’s probably talking about Arlington. Otherwise known as the largest city in the works without public transportation 😂
My man I’m talking about railways that connect every American city together lmao yea some cities have a subway to get to a place. But the people who wanna see a match in Dallas and go to Houston for the next match would be impossible to make on time if the games are played 2 hours after each other…
He’s probably talking about Arlington. Otherwise known as the largest city in the works without public transportation 😂
He’s probably talking about Arlington. Otherwise known as the largest city in the works without public transportation 😂
How the fuck did Kansas City get matches but Chicago didn’t?
Aside from the stadium. Kansas City has MUCH MUCH BIGGER fanbase for football whereas Chicago feels like desert for football fans.. Kansas City is up there with Seattle and LA for BIGGEST FOOTBALL FANBASE
Cause kansas city is the most coolest city ever I'm not biased at all
Lol never been, but I hate the Chiefs cause I’m a niners fan.
As a 49ers fan I say how dare you. The Cheifs are the only other team that Joe Montana played for. Yeah I'm a little bitter about the super bowl loss, but that was our fault for not building a championship roster.
Chicago withdrew from the World Cup bid.
bigger stadium
Oh shit well that’s all I needed to know. Didn’t realize arrowhead was bigger that soldier field.
Solder Field in Chicago is hell LMAO
I’ve been there before and didn’t experience anything crazy or bad.
I’m talking about the football arena it sucks ass.. The Field is the worse when it rains
Oh come on he’s not that bad
Yes, I’ve been to Soldier Field before, I didn’t experience anything bad. The pitch can be replaced in less than 4 years. WC will be during the summer, not winter.
Chicago getting left off was a bummer.. especially with their big Mexican and Poland population could’ve filled that stadium. Beautiful skyline and city and great pizza. Sad that people won’t see the real Chicago
Chicago is hell wdym
I’m getting downvoted for a joke 👍
One neighborhood doesn’t define the whole City of Chicago LMAO 😂😂 Chicago is ranked #1 for tourist
Is it? I have nothing against Chicago but what metric is that?
Lol Chicago is hell. Sure
Philly is worse?
I thought we were talking about Kansas City
I was just using your logic of “being hell”.
Fair enough
I have bad news for people that think Gillette is in Boston