News   Jul 19, 2024
 437     3 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 347     1 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 417     0 

Canadian Soccer Association to bid for 2026 World Cup

Oh please, stop you're "doom and gloom" regarding Canadian/Toronto sports bids

I am generally supportive of bids. I question some of the details of how we are doing the Pan Am games....but was always supportive of the bid. Similarly, I would have no issue with a well thought out bid for the Olympics (I was supportive of the previous bids) in Toronto and I think Quebec City should be fully supported in a bid for the Winter Olympics.

I am, also, a soccer fan. Have been all my life and attend matches here and abroad all the time.

I just happen to believe that a Canadian bid for the World Cup (as much as I would love to attend the matches) has far too many hurdles to get over. For FIFA, we are a good host for the Women's World Cup....but the men's? nah, just don't think it is feasible.
 
If toronto went for a 2024 summer Olympics and a 2026 world cup would that not help offset some of the costs for at least one stadium since the Olympic stadium could be re used for the World Cup. That would give toronto three stadiums. Bmo field, sky dome and the new Olympic stadium. A new NFL team could also help cut the costs to if they partner with the understanding they would get the stadium after the games.
 
If toronto went for a 2024 summer Olympics and a 2026 world cup would that not help offset some of the costs for at least one stadium since the Olympic stadium could be re used for the World Cup. That would give toronto three stadiums. Bmo field, sky dome and the new Olympic stadium. A new NFL team could also help cut the costs to if they partner with the understanding they would get the stadium after the games.

If, again, you could convince FIFA to waive their long standing practice (may actually be a "rule") that each hosting stadium be in a separate city.

Look at the next World Cup (as an example). 12 stadiums in 12 separate cities. A new(ish) stadium constructed in 2007 at a cost of around $200 million that has a permanent capacity of 44,000 and can be increased (as it will be in 2016) to 60,000 is not being used....because it is in Rio and that city is already having games at the home of Brazilian football (Maracana).

If it were easy/possible to convince FIFA that multiple venues (even 2?) in one city was a good idea....do you not think that Brazil would use Estádio Olímpico João Havelange instead of spending money elsewhwere to build/upgrage?

If Toronto was successful in getting the Olympics in 2024 then, yes, I believe the Toronto venue in a 2026 would be the new stadium....but it would not bring Toronto to 3 World Cup venues....it would just mean that SkyDome would not be used and BMO is just no where near the quality of stadium that hosts World Cups (and I love BMO for what it is....but it is not a World Cup venue).
 
Ignoring, of course, that sheer number of stadiums in the host country is, by no means, the only criteria that FIFA has. Others workign against us are 1) limits on number of stadiums in any individual city used (ie. FIFA likes/requires it to be 1 city 1 stadium....so the concept of us having two cities - Montreal and Toronto - that would each use two stadiums is a hurdle) and 2) FIFA requires that, for the duration of the tournament, the keys to the stadia be turned over to them for their exclusive use....so we have the issue of telling 3 MLS teams and 9 (by then) CFL teams to "stop playing or find somewhere else to play".

1) I do not know if that is a rule. Mexico City had several fields.
2) The World Cup runs during June and maybe a week into July. Thus, only the semi-final and final venues would interfere with the CFL - these 3 teams could start on the road. The MLS is a bit bigger of a problem, but I imagine they could schedule a team for 4 or 5 consecutive road games to solve this or play a game or two in a neighbouring city (i.e. Toronoto in Hamilton, Vancouver in Victoria and Montreal in Quebec) if the neighbouring city drops out by the end of the first round.
 
Last edited:
1) I do not know if that is a rule. Mexico City had several fields.
2) The World Cup runs during June and maybe a week into July. Thus, only the semi-final and final venues would interfere with the CFL - these 3 teams could start on the road. The MLS is a bit bigger of a problem, but I imagine they could schedule a team for 4 or 5 consecutive road games to solve this.

I can think of three that the "rule" (like I said, I am not sure if it is enshrined as a rule or is just a much prefered practice) was relaxed in my lifetime. The main purpose of the rule is to make sure groups (and the crowds they bring) are not overlapping and that the people are spread over multiple cities...so I discount Spain in '82 who did have 3 cities with 2 stadia in use but they did that not to "reach the minimum" number of stadiums as they used 17 stadiums in 14 cities.

The other two were.

1986 in Mexico. As you noted Mexico City had 2 venues in use (Azteca and Olympic Stadium)...but only 2. I believe it was allowed because Mexico came in as a late substitute for Columbia and the number of stadia required had increased from when they hosted in 1970 (back then they used 5 stadiums total I believe).

It was, again, relaxed in 2010 in South Africa where two stadiums (Soccer City and Ellis Park) located in Jo'burg were used.....I don't recall what the reason was.

In any event.....since 1970 (when I started watching world cups) the pracitce of 1 city one stadium has been relaxed twice (again discounting the Spain experience) to reach the required number/quality of stadiums........so I guess we could use two in Toronto....if FIFA really wanted us to host we could use two in another city too (although I don't know what other city would have two WC calibre stadia - and it assumes Toronto gets an Olympics to boot).....but even if you say Montreal/Toronto account for 4 stadiums we are still a bit short and, as I mentioned earlier, countries that have hosted the tournament and started from a better position (in terms of existing facilities) have still spent more money getting up to FIFA standards than I could see we as a country agreeing to.

As for the dates.....the first CFL game this season was a pre-season tilt on June 13....right around when WCs in the northern hemisphere traditionally start. I guess you could just convince CFL teams to play at places like Foote Field and the like until the WC left town ;)

I would absolutely love the World Cup to be hosted in this country......I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.
 
Last edited:
BMO can't be expanded over 28,000 seats due to structural issues its out.

What I suggest:

1) Vancouver - Bc Place
2) Calgary - New Stadium with temporary seating
3) Regina - New Stadium with temporary seating
4) Edmonton - Commonwealth Stadium
5) Winnipeg - Investors Field with temporary seating
6) Hamilton - New Ivor Wynne with temporary seating
7) Toronto - Rogers Centre and New Stadium (90,000, reduced to 20,000) with temporary seating
9) Ottawa - Frank Clair Stadium - with temporary seating
10) Montreal - Olympic Stadium.

You only need 10 to host.
 
I can think of three that the "rule" (like I said, I am not sure if it is enshrined as a rule or is just a much prefered practice) was relaxed in my lifetime. The main purpose of the rule is to make sure groups (and the crowds they bring) are not overlapping and that the people are spread over multiple cities...so I discount Spain in '82 who did have 3 cities with 2 stadia in use but they did that not to "reach the minimum" number of stadiums as they used 17 stadiums in 14 cities.

The other two were.

1986 in Mexico. As you noted Mexico City had 2 venues in use (Azteca and Olympic Stadium)...but only 2. I believe it was allowed because Mexico came in as a late substitute for Columbia and the number of stadia required had increased from when they hosted in 1970 (back then they used 5 stadiums total I believe).

It was, again, relaxed in 2010 in South Africa where two stadiums (Soccer City and Ellis Park) located in Jo'burg were used.....I don't recall what the reason was.

In any event.....since 1970 (when I started watching world cups) the pracitce of 1 city one stadium has been relaxed twice (again discounting the Spain experience) to reach the required number/quality of stadiums........so I guess we could use two in Toronto....if FIFA really wanted us to host we could use two in another city too (although I don't know what other city would have two WC calibre stadia - and it assumes Toronto gets an Olympics to boot).....but even if you say Montreal/Toronto account for 4 stadiums we are still a bit short and, as I mentioned earlier, countries that have hosted the tournament and started from a better position (in terms of existing facilities) have still spent more money getting up to FIFA standards than I could see we as a country agreeing to.

As for the dates.....the first CFL game this season was a pre-season tilt on June 13....right around when WCs in the northern hemisphere traditionally start. I guess you could just convince CFL teams to play at places like Foote Field and the like until the WC left town ;)

I would absolutely love the World Cup to be hosted in this country......I just don't see it happening in my lifetime.

Qatar is also an exeption to the rule. Not sure if they promised to build new stadia, but after they were awarded, it is probably going to spread out over neighbouring countries. Maybe we could promise to build a 60,000 seat stadium in each Provincial capital and then just change our plans if we are succesful and get the tournament.

Is there any chance that the World Cup would increase to 40 teams by then - the extra revenue from 16 more games may be appealling?
 
A new NFL team could also help cut the costs to if they partner with the understanding they would get the stadium after the games.
There is virtually no chance the federal government will ever spend a dime on an NFL stadium. The politics just don't work on a national level.

A potential investor in an NFL team (which by NFL rules cannot be a corporation) would first need to obtain a franchise before committing up to a billion dollars (or possibly more) to build a stadium, which would almost certainly be built totally specific to NFL football. That's not to say World Cup games couldn't be played in such a stadium, but our imaginary NFL owner, who already would be on the hook for at least $2 billion, certainly wouldn't go out of his way to make that easier.

BMO can't be expanded over 28,000 seats due to structural issues its out.
It can with enough funding, but that would open up the possibility of BMO no longer being a soccer-specific stadium, and I don't see MLSE ever sanctioning that.
 
Qatar is also an exeption to the rule. Not sure if they promised to build new stadia, but after they were awarded, it is probably going to spread out over neighbouring countries. Maybe we could promise to build a 60,000 seat stadium in each Provincial capital and then just change our plans if we are succesful and get the tournament.

Is there any chance that the World Cup would increase to 40 teams by then - the extra revenue from 16 more games may be appealling?

Qatar is an exception to all the rules ;) Their stadium plan is 9 brand new and 3 significantly upgraded.
 
Good luck - just prey you dont get lumped with a country that's got a lot of cash to bribe.

Sounds like sour grapes, but with the AU 2018/2022 bids - I could cope with losing the bid to the USA because it was going to be so geographically diverse across many of the non-big 3 cities and half the fun about a world cup is that you get to travel around - the states (and Canada if you get are in the same boat) would have been good and very accessible to travel there even if you dont go to any of the games. By QATAR?!? anyhow - I'm sort of over it now ;)

In the AU 2018/2022 Bids there was going to be 3 stadiums to be used in Sydney - Stadium Aus (Olympic Stadium), Sydney Football Stadium (inner city), and a new one in the Western burbs in Blacktown. There was also the idea to use the Newcastle International stadium - so that was 4 venues in one state.

NSW - 4
QLD - 3 (
VIC - 2
SA - 1
WA - 1
ACT - 1
nothing in NT or TAS.

The opening/closing stadiums werent a problem cos it was going to be either the MCG (100,000) or Stadium AUS (80,000).

details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bid#Potential_venues
 
There is virtually no chance the federal government will ever spend a dime on an NFL stadium. The politics just don't work on a national level.

A potential investor in an NFL team (which by NFL rules cannot be a corporation) would first need to obtain a franchise before committing up to a billion dollars (or possibly more) to build a stadium, which would almost certainly be built totally specific to NFL football. That's not to say World Cup games couldn't be played in such a stadium, but our imaginary NFL owner, who already would be on the hook for at least $2 billion, certainly wouldn't go out of his way to make that easier.

It can with enough funding, but that would open up the possibility of BMO no longer being a soccer-specific stadium, and I don't see MLSE ever sanctioning that.

The likely relationship between an Olympic bid/stadium is that a stadium is built for Olympics out of the games budget and then sold to an NFL team for post games use (or a long term operating lease) which recovers a significant amount of the cost.
 
Why even mention Rogers Centre and Montreal Olympic stadium. Both use artificial turf and I believe that FIFA requires real grass. Real grass has been done at Rogers Centre on a temporary basis but never over a long term 5 week time frame. Furthermore they would have a hell of a time scheduling games at Rogers Centre around Blue Jays games. Toronto either expands BMO field or builds a new stadium.
 
Could the Blue Jays game be moved to another stadium or would the MLB not allow that? The world cup is obviously much, MUCH bigger than a few baseball games. Either way I still think BMO expansion is the best way to go.
 
BMO can't be expanded over 28,000 seats due to structural issues its out.
It can't easily be expanded, using the current elements. Nothing stopping you bulldozing the entire north, eest, and south stands, and building new ones. This is how football stadiums have expanded slowly for years.

Not about to happen soon. But by 2026, this would be a 20-year old stadium. It's not really hard to imagine that it may be close to done by then.
 
Last edited:
Surely you mean the east stand - not the west
 

Back
Top