Presumably, US/CAN/MEX won't participate in qualifying since we'd have auto-bids. But with the recent announcement about a Nations League designed to foster more intra-federation matches, our "competitive" matches would be against the Jamaicas of CONCACAF, and even those nations would probably send B-squads to inconsequential friendlies. I really hate the regionalization of friendlies.
even with 48 teams.
The Hex could continue as normal with the top three teams getting the other automatic bids and 4th and 5th getting spots in the 6-team play-off with the other confederations sans Europe.
I assume that Mexico, Canada and the US would not participate in qualifying. Somehow they need to get competitive friendlies in the build-up.
I assume one semi-final will be played in Azteca and the other semi-final played in Toronto. The US will get to host the final at...the guess I heard was a new stadium in Los Angeles. To get a 10 PM start in Europe the game would have to kick off at 1PM Pacific / 4 AM in China.
As to the footprint of the World Cup, the United States is so big it is already the same thing as hosting the tournament throughout Europe. I don't see how adding Canada and Mexico makes travel and scheduling anymore difficult. No more hopping from game-to-game on the same day in a helicopter for Platini.
Including all games from the quarters on.
be played at the same stadium for each group. Reduce travel issues, and keep playing conditions as similar as possible within the group.
So you'd have 16 group sites that would get three games total. I'd say give Mexico 4 of those, Canada 3, and the US 9. That wouldn't work out exactly to 60/20, but it'd be pretty damn close.
that I thought made some sense:
"For the 8 groups you set them up as follows:
Group 1: Pacific Northwest (Seattle, Vancouver, San Fran)
Group 2 : Canadian Northeast (Toronto, Ottowa, Montreal)
Group 3: American Northeast (New York, Philly, Boston)
Group 4: American Midatlantic (DC, Charlotte, Atlanta)
Group 5: Florida Group: (Tampa, Miami, New Orleans)
Group 6: Did someone say texas? (Dallas, Houston, Austin)
Group 7: Southwest (Phoenix, L.A., Mexico City)
Group 8: Midwest (Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland)
Then you just consolidate the regions for the Round of 16, and Quarters. You can do this in North America, because unlike Brazil, all these cities already have state of the art billion dollar stadiums that only need a FIFA logo painted on them to be World Cup ready. So you can literally have a 24 venue world cup.
Edit: Just as an example, you can consolidate the Round of 16 and Quarter groups like this -
R16 - P. Northwest v. Southwest, Midwest v. Canada Northeast, NE v. Midatlantic, Florida v. Texas
In this case 1st in the P. Northwest group plays 2nd in the Southwest group and vice versa in the main venue of each regional block.
Quarters - Block 1 (P. Northwest, Southwest, Florida, Texas) and Block 2 (NE, Midatlantic, Midwest, Northeast)
In this case, for example, the winner of the P. Northwest v. Southwest matchup would play the winner of Florida v. Texas matchup.
Semis- One in the south, one in the north both located centrally (say Houston and Chicago)
Final - Major city (NYC or LA)"
I would tinker with it: substitute one or both of Guadalajara and/or Monterrey for Austin, replace Phoenix with Denver, replace Cleveland with Minneapolis, but there are some good initial thoughts in there.
1: a stadium in the flipping desert.
2: a stadium in the flipping desert.
3: a stadium in the flipping desert.
4: a stadium in the flipping desert.
5: a stadium in the flipping desert.
6: a stadium in the flipping desert.
7: a stadium in the flipping desert.
1: a stadium in the flipping desert.
They will do only one of Seattle and Portland and, at very most, two of three of Seattle, Vancouver, and Portland.
Not to mention that Portland would have triple the size of their stadium to even be in the conversation.
And not the 48 teams with 16 groups of 3 that I thought was the actual setup.
I do like the idea of the setup if it was a 32 team tournament, and completely agree with most of your substitutions (Austin would be a terrible place for a World Cup game, and Guadalajara is awesome, so...).
That suggests to me two sites in each country.
I think that probably means Vancouver and Toronto in Canada; and Mexico City and either Guadalajara as you suggest, or Guadalupe.
but Gulati's stance once was that the US didn't need the Canadian and Mexican federations to cohost. So selfishly, I just wish he had stuck to his original position and told the others to get in line for a bid.
"This is a milestone day for U.S. Soccer and for CONCACAF," Gulati said. "We gave careful consideration to the prospect of bidding for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, and ultimately feel strongly this is the right thing for our region and for our sport.
"Along with our partners from the Canadian Soccer Association and the Federación Mexicana de Fútbol, we are confident that we will submit an exemplary bid worthy of bringing the FIFA World Cup back to North America. The United States, Mexico and Canada have individually demonstrated their exceptional abilities to host world-class events.
"When our nations come together as one, as we will for 2026, there is no question the United States, Mexico and Canada will deliver an experience that will celebrate the game and serve players, supporters and partners alike."
The US is the single best positioned nation in the world to host the world cup. Yet FIFA is forcing us to do a joint bid.
With the expansion of the number of teams in the tournament and stadium requirements, it seems that a very limited number of countries can now host the tournament - even more limited than before. I'd guess that some of the "minnow" nations see hope to be part of a multi-nation bid in the future. The positive to the three-nation bid, as pointed out in the Loretta Lynch post, is that some FIFA old hands may still be angry with the corruption probe and might want to punish the US for leading it - so a multi-nation bid is more palatable (guess).
I keed, I keed. Could have used the investigation for leverage in the bid.
I am devious, I should run FIFA.
and they love to benefit lesser (economic) powers. In light of the post-Trump world, it only makes sense that FIFA forces USA to work with Mexico. They get want they want (a World Cup in the time zone that most benefits their desire to make money) and they don't have to throw their lot in solely with the USA to do it.
Imagine the cash they could get from countries to guarantee their team plays in the U.S.
than they love to social engineer!