Soccer in Canada | Canada Hosting the 2026 World Cup

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by Nicko999

Absolutely... it's an embarrassment for Canadian soccer and disrespectful for the players, the fans and for the game of soccer. The team definitely lost my respect and will not follow their journey anymore.

Making teams play in the heat or in the altitude is one thing. Making the team play in -10C weather when the ball is completely frozen is not only potentially dangerous for players but decreases the level of play which is disrespectful to the fan that payed good money to watch this gong show. If Canada wants to qualify for the World Cup that way, that's extremely cheap.

It's disrespectful for the game itself. It's one thing to make opponents play in certain conditions, it's a completely different thing to put the safety of players (extreme cold increases the likelihood of injuries as well) at risk just for the sake of qualifying. If I was a soccer fan, I would want to watch the best teams at the World Cup not teams that have qualified because of unplayable conditions (because yes, soccer games in those conditions normally get delayed or postponed).

Also what kind of image do we want project to the world (thank god it was mostly Mexicans who watched) when they see such scenes in November (not even in December, January or February)? Bye bye winter tourism.
I am sick and tired of having Canada associated with snow and cold. Our country is much more than that. I know quite a lot of people who refuse to visit Canada during the colder months exactly because of that. Play the game anywhere outside of the Prairies and you would have been fine.

Think about it, will the Russian team ever think of playing in Siberia? All their home games are played in Moscow (or the areas surrounding it), St-Petersburg or Sochi (and surrounding places).
It's just the Canadian federation that knows better and has to do things differently. Complete idiots.

Moscow and St. Petersburg are further north than Edmonton...

[Coldrsx]

'Explore Edmonton estimates the World Cup qualifying games brought $30-40 million in economic benefits to the region with 30% of attendees from outside the city, Global News reports. The success of the games has raised hopes for Edmonton’s 2026 World Cup bid. FIFA has spoken positively about the city’s chances but indicated the artificial turf at Commonwealth Stadium would have to go.'

[AuxTown]

This whole location thing is a moot point. If it weren't for the pandemic we would never be playing WCQ matches in the Winter. In a normal year, snow would be very unlikely and we could grade possible host cities based on stadium/turf/grass quality, accessibility for as many Canadians as possible, stadium size, and when they last hosted. I would like to see the games spread around a bit like they have been doing.

Edit: I stand corrected. It looks like in 2014 and 2018 qualifying we played one game each in February and November respectively. The rest of the games, though, were in the warmer months. IMO that one game should be played at our warmest stadium in terms of comfort for fans, reducing injuries for players, and maintaining the quality of play.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by Hawrylyshyn

Moscow and St. Petersburg are further north than Edmonton...

Well, the stadium in Moscow does have a self-supported cover, but it is still open air. I'm pretty sure it would be warmer inside than outside during January, but it would be cold. This week in Moscow looks to be in the 2C to -4C daytime high range.

They just played a game in Helsinki and one of the days last week was -5C for a high and -6C for the low. In an open-air stadium.

Europe has an advantage of being a lot less distributed North and South than CONCACAF. We are at 8.9N in Panama City to 43.6 in Toronto. EUFA might be 36.1N for Gibraltar and 59.9N for Oslo. Still a big range, but not quite as crazy. But they are done their qualifying. Done. We still have matches stretched out over many more months which is what is actually ridiculous. Just fix the CONCACAF qualifying to occur over a shorter time span. Do it over a couple of months, say September/October and most of this weather talk disappears.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

But they are done their qualifying. Done. We still have matches stretched out over many more months which is what is actually ridiculous. Just fix the CONCACAF qualifying to occur over a shorter time span. Do it over a couple of months, say September/October and most of this weather talk disappears.

There's actually been some talk about people wanting UEFA to take on something similar to CONCACAF's WC qualifying format in order to phase out smaller countries from their main group phase. I guess England beating San Marino by 10 isn't exciting?

It's pretty crazy to remember that CMNT have basically been playing qualifiers for the WC since March 2021 and that we'll be going a full year just qualifying for the WC and may have more games yet to go if we end up in a FIFA confederation playoff. CONCACAF qualifying usually takes forever though, especially if a country has to go through earlier qualifiers like CMNT had to this round and in previous rounds. Our recent results should prevent that from happening in the future, though.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by JHikka

There's actually been some talk about people wanting UEFA to take on something similar to CONCACAF's WC qualifying format in order to phase out smaller countries from their main group phase. I guess England beating San Marino by 10 isn't exciting?

It's pretty crazy to remember that CMNT have basically been playing qualifiers for the WC since March 2021 and that we'll be going a full year just qualifying for the WC and may have more games yet to go if we end up in a FIFA confederation playoff. CONCACAF qualifying usually takes forever though, especially if a country has to go through earlier qualifiers like CMNT had to this round and in previous rounds. Our recent results should prevent that from happening in the future, though.

I was more just talking about each individual round. I like CONCACAF for having a couple of rounds of preliminary, but the last segment has games scheduled from the beginning of September to the end of March. 14 games?Why do we need seven months to play 14 games?

I will agree that 10-1 games aren't exciting. Have a play in for some of the teams for sure.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I was more just talking about each individual round. I like CONCACAF for having a couple of rounds of preliminary, but the last segment has games scheduled from the beginning of September to the end of March. 14 games?Why do we need seven months to play 14 games?

I will agree that 10-1 games aren't exciting. Have a play in for some of the teams for sure.

Under normal circumstances CONMEBOL takes two years to play 18 qualifying matches for World Cups - 2018's qualifying was from October 2015 to October 2017. 14 in 7 months seems pretty good by comparison.

In the AFC a good team (say Australia) under normal circumstances plays eight matches over nine months in the Second Round and then another ten matches over 12 months.

So yeah, qualifying takes a while. Things could probably be shortened like how they have been during COVID but it's tough to find enough time during international breaks to squeeze matches in. Players like Davies are playing for CMNT on a Friday and Tuesday and then flying back to EU to potentially play on Saturday. Hasn't been easy.

Canada presumably won't be having this issue for the next cycle since we're presumably auto-qualifying for 2026...but we'll see. CONCACAF qualifying for 2026 will be an absolute shitshow if CAN/US/MEX are all auto-qualifying.

[HomeInMyShoes]

^I hadn't looked to much at the other conferences. Rankings are a continuum, but the quality of any squad from a period of two years is pretty striking. You'd think FIFA would want the best teams playing at their best in the World Cup as opposed to say a team that peaked many months ago, had great results to start and then flattened off and made it based on how good they were half a year ago. Shrinking the time frame could also decrease pressure on the leagues.

I believe CONCACAF is getting 6 spots in a 48 team tournament for 2026, so even if they give the three automatics it will be three spots for the rest which is way better odds for any of them then currently facing US, Mexico and seemingly now Canada for three spots plus one inter-conference playoff for qualifying.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^I hadn't looked to much at the other conferences. Rankings are a continuum, but the quality of any squad from a period of two years is pretty striking. You'd think FIFA would want the best teams playing at their best in the World Cup as opposed to say a team that peaked many months ago, had great results to start and then flattened off and made it based on how good they were half a year ago. Shrinking the time frame could also decrease pressure on the leagues.

Agreed to an extent, but I don't think many teams can play well for a few months and then coast and still qualify. All of the confederations are pretty competitive for qualifying to an extent that all teams have to play well over a sustained period of time in order to qualify. It's looking like one of Japan or Australia might have to go through the AFC's playoff before getting to the Continental playoffs, and both of those teams are pretty good considering...I wouldn't want Canada to have to play either in a playoff.

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

I believe CONCACAF is getting 6 spots in a 48 team tournament for 2026, so even if they give the three automatics it will be three spots for the rest which is way better odds for any of them then currently facing US, Mexico and seemingly now Canada for three spots plus one inter-conference playoff for qualifying.

That's kind of how Canada managed to qualify in 1986 - Mexico were hosts and so took up one of CONCACAF's two places, with Canada having to beat Central American teams to qualify. The US had stumbled against Costa Rica and didn't even make the final round of qualifying.

I really don't like a 48-team World Cup, though, and think it dilutes the quality of the tournament quite a bit.

[Hawrylyshyn]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Agreed to an extent, but I don't think many teams can play well for a few months and then coast and still qualify. All of the confederations are pretty competitive for qualifying to an extent that all teams have to play well over a sustained period of time in order to qualify. It's looking like one of Japan or Australia might have to go through the AFC's playoff before getting to the Continental playoffs, and both of those teams are pretty good considering...I wouldn't want Canada to have to play either in a playoff.


That's kind of how Canada managed to qualify in 1986 - Mexico were hosts and so took up one of CONCACAF's two places, with Canada having to beat Central American teams to qualify. The US had stumbled against Costa Rica and didn't even make the final round of qualifying.

I really don't like a 48-team World Cup, though, and think it dilutes the quality of the tournament quite a bit.

+1. While it's nice to offer more countries a chance to participate, the first stage is going to have some really poor games and groups. Looking at CONCACAF alone, the 6th best team (right now it's Jamaica) really shouldn't be getting in... It's also increasing the cost for countries to host an already expensive tournament.

[HomeInMyShoes]

Originally Posted by JHikka

Agreed to an extent, but I don't think many teams can play well for a few months and then coast and still qualify. All of the confederations are pretty competitive for qualifying to an extent that all teams have to play well over a sustained period of time in order to qualify. It's looking like one of Japan or Australia might have to go through the AFC's playoff before getting to the Continental playoffs, and both of those teams are pretty good considering...I wouldn't want Canada to have to play either in a playoff.

That's kind of how Canada managed to qualify in 1986 - Mexico were hosts and so took up one of CONCACAF's two places, with Canada having to beat Central American teams to qualify. The US had stumbled against Costa Rica and didn't even make the final round of qualifying.

I really don't like a 48-team World Cup, though, and think it dilutes the quality of the tournament quite a bit.

1986 was incredibly lucky that the USA was so bad. CONCACAF has always been tough because 3.5 meant you needed to finish third or play someone quite decent in the playoff. At least with how Canada is playing now I feel like we are in the same ballpark as the other team instead of like being the aliens in Space Jam before they took over Barkley, Ewing et al. Right now I believe the intercontinental teams are UAE/Australia, Peru, OFC selection, and CONCACAF 4th place.

I don't like the 48 teams much either.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by MattBerryOfficial

Are you suggesting a mathematical equation exists to quantify stadium atmosphere? Lol.

I will spell it out for you. A large part of the atmosphere comes from the noise a crowd generates. Guess what is an important factor in how much noise a crowd can make?



Explain how this was luck exactly?

I will repeat. Mexican keeper made an error with a big rebound on the first goal. Likely from cold fingers. One team was made of players much more acclimatized to cold conditions than the other. Obvious advantage.

If you are going to continue to claim you don't understand this I can't help you.

What team would have an advantage playing in +35C humid conditions, team Finland or team Brazil?

What you are saying that the Mexican keeper making a poor play from cold fingers amounts to luck over talent. It's also one play. Both teams were sloppy possibly from cold temperatures. it was not up to World Cup Final standards from what I saw. Playing in hot and humid weather is expected in Soccer. Not playing in winter temperatures in which the risk of injury is still higher. I'm not petty to sink to the level of keeping opposing players up all night for an advantage. I don't care about creating advantages/disadvantages off the field.

I care mostly about respect over probable implications the victory is because of the Mexican team not acclimatized to cold weather. It matters when you're not in that elite clique

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

Right now I believe the intercontinental teams are UAE/Australia, Peru, OFC selection, and CONCACAF 4th place.

On current form I think we could beat all of those teams, but the possibility of Peru or Australia is still scary. I think at this stage even on an average day we should be able to beat New Zealand (or whoever else comes out of Oceania).

If we do qualify for Qatar it'll be really fun to see what our group would shape up to be given our current form. If we can beat Mexico and the US then theoretically we can beat a few other teams that might pop up at the World Cup...

[WhipperSnapper]

This team is more than capable of getting under the skin of the elite teams and causing them to make mistakes. It could be a fun tournament. Of course, it's a long way to go to qualify.

[elly63]

• Video Link

[itom 987]

I don't know about other cities in Canada but in Edmonton soccer is BIG. Elementary kids play soccer more than any other sport, including hockey. Almost every kid plays community league soccer at one point in their lives. That helped Alphonso Davies become the phenomenal player he is today. My backyard backs off onto a soccer field, during summer people are practicing and playing Soccer at least three times a week the Baseball diamond is used about 4 times while Football is never played. There are a lot of highly talented soccer players in Edmonton that take the game seriously.

[Denscity]

Soccer is massive in Vancouver and is played outside year round.
Plus the 40 year history of professional soccer.

[itom 987]

One more thing... if -7c is too cold to play soccer, why are the players wearing shorts and t-shirts?

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by urbanroo

From the Mexican media I watched, I saw a lot of complaints about their goalkeeper and players, but they thought the cold went with the territory and was part of the home festivities.

I sure don't think a title "They froze like snowmen" is positive towards Canada. It was a subtle and indirect shot at Canada.

Good thing there was no coverage in European newspapers or else there would have fireworks.

Originally Posted by urbanroo

I don't know man, people from warm countries tend to like the cold. Certainly works for winter tourism in Banff and Quebec City. You get enough cold in Montreal so I understand why you don't want to see even more of it in Edmonton. For people from the tropics, though, the cold and snow are novelties, something they want to experience. I personally think Montreal, always an attractive city, looks its most charming after a big dump of snow.

Yea, I would never play a soccer game at Saputo Stadium in January unless I have no choice. Same goes for the Prairies at this time of the year.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

If it bothers you that much, then you were never much of a soccer fan in the first place.

True... I like the game but hate the time wasting, the theatrics and all this BS. Canada has a chance to quality so I would have been down to watch. But the decision to play the game in Edmonton at this time of the year (literally the coldest possible choice) left a sour taste in my mouth. So this team is not worthy of my time. Simple.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

How is this any different than having the World Cup in Qatar, which besides the complete corruption of the bid, is extremely arid, and temperatures can average 40 C. Your point about "fans who paid good money" made me laugh. Tickets ranged from $22.50-$60.00. That's a fraction of what NHL or NBA games cost.

Soccer is a warm weather sport. Heat is fine, drink a lot of water, play at night. Solutions are available. Freezing temperature means the ball is frozen. Completely different.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Give me a break. I think it's obvious that you are incredibly thin skinned, or a troll. It's Canada. Just like other countries like Russia and Scandinavia, they play International games in sub-zero weather occasionally. They have football games every year in November outdoors. They have played NHL hockey games outdoors in January. Additionally, if you had your way the sports of skiing, bobsled, snowboarding, and outdoor ice hockey would not exist.

Clearly, you missed the point. Canada chose the coldest place possible for the game to be played. Russia plays some games during the colder months in Sochi to minimize the impact of the cold on its players. Last home game they played (earlier this November) was in St. Petersburg where the stadium has a roof.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

PS....last time I checked, Iceland played in arguably colder conditions, and were the darlings of Euro 2016. Incidentally, tourism has spiked dramatically in the last decade.

Ever heard of Wow Air. That's why the numbers spiked. And no, Iceland is not colder than Edmonton LOL.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

The ratings just came in. 1.15 million Canadians watched the game, which is double than what Sportsnet NHL in Canada usually does. I've seen people all over the World complimenting us for our play and atmosphere, and the large crowds who attended the games.

1.15 million is not that much for arguably the most important game in recent history for the national team.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Your second point is one of the most convoluted and ridiculous thins I have ever read on this forum. "Bye Bye, Tourism?" Everyone in the World knows what Canada is like in Winter. That is precisely why some people come to Canada in the winter- to ski, snowboard, go to Banff, and see the Columbia Icefields. Canada is what it is. If Canada makes you embarrassed, than move to a warmer country,

Winter is more than just ski and snowboard. Even then, Canada lags behind some European countries in the aspect. That's a fact.

Originally Posted by BlackDog204

Most of Russia has similar weather as Canada. Playing in Siberia would be the equivalent of playing in Northern Manitoba or Yellowknife.

Northern Manitoba or Yellowknife are not an option since they have no stadium. Siberia has some decent stadiums.

[Nicko999]

Originally Posted by elly63

Untrue, decision was made by the coach and the team's veteran's committee. They knew what they were getting into, thought it was worth the risk and it paid off. Does the fact that they may do it again in Hamilton or BMO in January bother you?

Not too much because it's the second best option at that time of the year. BC Place would be option #1.