Should Canada Bid for 2026 World Cup? [Archive]

patm

Jun 10, 2012, 11:36 PM

UPDATE: Canada WILL bid for 2026 World Cup
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/opinion/2012/07/canadian-soccer-association-to-bid-for-2026-world-cup.html
---
Well with the Euro on right now and Soccer back in the news, its time to ask the typical question.

Should Canada bid for the 2026 world cup?

Due to Russia and Qatar getting the 2018 and 2022 world cups the 2026 one will have to go to either North or South America (or outside chance of Africa) and with Argentina-Uruguay most likely wanting to go for the Centennial WC in 2030, it's almost a guarantee that 2026 goes to N. America and the US and Mexico have already hosted so Canada's odds would be pretty good.

Obviously if the interest was there (as it's rumored to be) Canada could pull it off, already having far superior infrastructure in place compared to other host nations (highways, airports, hotels etc) but would require some significant investment in Stadiums.

You need around 8-10 cities to host a world cup and 2 stadiums with around 80,000 seats. Obviously the cities would go something like this:

-Vancouver (BC place is pretty close to ready now)

-Calgary (McMahon would need to be seriously renovated or a new stadium built, which will probably happen before 2026 regardless)

-Edmonton (Renovate Commonwealth: Add a roof, improve concourse)

-Regina (New stadium in the works should be able to host)

-Winnipeg (New Stadium might be able to work if expanded)

-Toronto (Rogers Center would be ready to go, maybe just pretty it up and temporarily adjust seating, Only play group matches there and send the Blue Jays on a road trip)

-Ottawa (New CFL stadium)

-Montreal (Renovate the O, Lower the pitch and add seating?)

-Halifax (Potential new CFL stadium)

-2nd "flagship" stadium built in Toronto (Future NFL Tenant?).

All of these should meet the required 44,000 (40 + Media) capacity if expanded and the O or the new Toronto Stadium could meet the 80,000 capacity requirement for the finals.

The CFL would need to start their season later (Can't share during the WC) but might be willing if that means federal funds to improve their stadiums.

Canada has had great success with both the u-20 world cup and the womens world cup and is in Fifa's good books (unlike the US) and believe it or not the Canadian U-20 tourney was the highest attended one in history. Attendance for a World Cup would not be an issue as its the freaking WORLD CUP and it would be one of the biggest things to ever happen to this country.

Canada would need a domestic league as that is one of Fifa's requirements but an exception could be made if we gain another one or two MLS teams as Canada has a different sports dynamic then most of the world and shares most leagues with the US. This could also be done after the World Cup like it was in '94.

What do you guys think?

P.S. The Canadian national team is far better then both S. Africa and Qatar so their lack of success is a non-issue

matt602

Jun 10, 2012, 11:40 PM

patm

Jun 10, 2012, 11:48 PM

Well it's only a few games, much less of a logistical issue for each individual city then the Olympics or the Pan-Am games.

Only need to build a stadium and for the most part, everything else is ready to go.

DrNest

Jun 10, 2012, 11:53 PM

No. FIFA is so corrupt that they would never award it to Canada, so it would just be millions of dollars wasted on the bid team.

patm

Jun 10, 2012, 11:58 PM

Welkin

Jun 11, 2012, 12:09 AM

We have been having this discussion on the Halifax thread under Halifax Stadium. Most people seem to think it will never happen because they don't see Canada spending $5+ BILLION on stadium infrastructure for the World Cup. No stadium in Canada is World Cup ready (BC Place is the closest but they would need to add natural grass). Russia is spending $5 billion on 16 stadiums (13 new, 3 renos) and none of them are less than 44,000 seats and several are 60,000-90,000 seats. To host the cup Canada would have to do the following: BC Place small renovation, Edmonton-major renovation, Calgary-new stadium, Regina-major expansion, Winnipeg-major expansion, Hamilton-major expansion of new stadium, Toronto-brand new 80,000 seat stadium, Ottawa- major expansion of new stadium, Montreal-new stadium or major renovation of Bio O. I don't see Canada dropping $5+ billion on a soccer tournament. The States are much more likely to get a bid since they already have dozens of top-flight, world class stadiums ready to go.

bulliver

Jun 11, 2012, 12:26 AM

Edmonton doesn't want a roof on Commonwealth.

SteelTown

Jun 11, 2012, 12:30 AM

Hamilton will build a FIFA standard soccer stadium for the 2015 Pan Am Games. It'll host all of the soccer tournament.

Nicko999

Jun 11, 2012, 12:50 AM

We don't have enough big stadiums to host this event.

blacktrojan3921

Jun 11, 2012, 1:56 AM

trueviking

Jun 11, 2012, 2:01 AM

i cant see FIFA allowing an entire world cup to be played on temporary grass fields....they simply do not last longer than one or two days and they do not provide the quality surface that is required.....there isnt a single stadium in canada that is world cup appropriate.

we have two natural grass stadiums in our entire country and they both have less than 21000 seats....not even close to being world cup standard.

playing on plastic is a non starter....FIFA accepts it for low quality tournaments like pan am or women's, but they would never accept it for the world cup....

MTLskyline

Jun 11, 2012, 2:22 AM

Thanks, but no thanks.

cranium

Jun 11, 2012, 2:42 AM

Stadiums and infrastructure aside. Imagine hosting a world cup without qualifying a team.

artvandelay

Jun 11, 2012, 2:44 AM

I don't like soccer, but I'm sure it would be fun to attend. In addition, we would have the opportunity to build some top quality stadiums for the CFL, which would be a major plus.

I doubt we would get it though - can't compete with places like Qatar in terms of bribe money for FIFA officials.

trueviking

Jun 11, 2012, 2:51 AM

Stadiums and infrastructure aside. Imagine hosting a world cup without qualifying a team.

the hosts always qualify......south africa would not have qualified had they not been given a spot....korea the same in '02.

we will be in brazil this time anyways....big game tuesday.

trueviking

Jun 11, 2012, 2:53 AM

i could see a combined USA canada bid.

fenwick16

Jun 11, 2012, 3:23 AM

i could see a combined USA canada bid.

Based on what I have read, FIFA statutes no longer allows co-hosting of the World Cup. "the FIFA Executive Committee had once again confirmed that the FIFA Statutes did not provide for a co-hosting arrangement." - (source: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/germany2006/news/newsid=25395.html ). Apparently there were organizational and logistical problems with the 2002 combined Korea/Japan FIFA World Cup.

kool maudit

Jun 11, 2012, 3:47 AM

nah. soccer is so rest-of-the-world.

bkd

Jun 11, 2012, 3:54 AM

The only stadiums Canada has right now that would be capable of hosting World Cup matches would be BC Place, Commonwealth (with renovations), Big O (with renovations) and Rogers (with renovations).

The new stadium in Winnipeg is not big enough and who knows with Regina. Calgary would have to build a new stadium.

The chances are slim and none. Canada just won't have enough cities with capable infrastructure.

patm

Jun 11, 2012, 4:27 AM

It's not like they don't have time to build and renovate stadiums. If there is real interest, I think we'd have no problem. Especially considering that all the other infrastructure is already there.

Also a lot of these stadiums are going to be built anyways. You don't think McMahon will need to be replaced and others won't need to be renovated by 2026?

The_Architect

Jun 11, 2012, 11:34 AM

If it does, I don't want it to be in Toronto given the absolute clusterfuck the Pan-Am games is turning out to be. Ontario has proved itself incapable of hosting world sporting events. If it does happen I'd love to see it in Montreal or Vancouver. If Montreal, I don't want the O to have anything to do with it. Should happen in an entirely new venue. The world cup should not happen in a place like that or the Rogers Centre. It's gotta be open air.

So Toronto is incapable of hosting a world sporting event because of something that hasn't happened yet, but Montreal is perfect for hosting is despite the Olympics disaster? :haha:

Okay buddy.

Welkin

Jun 11, 2012, 1:19 PM

I imagine that this would happen; only if we are successful in hosting the 2015 edition of the Women's World Cup :shrug: But since we have previous experience hosting this sort of event with the the 1987 FIFA U-16 World Championship, 2002 FIFA U-19 Women's World Championship and the 2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup -which set an attendance record for that tournament-, our chances are pretty good.

But there's also the economic risk, but I think we are lucky; according to FIFA guidelines, a mininum of 10 cities and 12 stadiums are required, and a few of the stadiums are already built like Rogers Centre, Commonwealth Stadium, BC Place, Moncton Field, Olympic and Saputo Stadium, etc.

I am sorry, but Moncton Field and Saputo Stadium are no way near World Cup stadiums. At a minimum you are looking at 40,000+ seats for a stadium. The World Cup is a major world event broadcast to every corner of the world. I am guessing FIFA would rather be showing 82,000 screaming fans in New York City, or 105,000 fans in Dallas, or 100,000 fans in Los Angeles than 15,000 fans in Moncton or 22,000 at Saputo. I would love to see the Cup here in Canada, but lets face it, for a world stage Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Calagry, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Moncton cannot compete with New York City, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Washington,........ However, we can still dream.

Acajack

Jun 11, 2012, 2:03 PM

I am sorry, but Moncton Field and Saputo Stadium are no way near World Cup stadiums. At a minimum you are looking at 40,000+ seats for a stadium. The World Cup is a major world event broadcast to every corner of the world. I am guessing FIFA would rather be showing 82,000 screaming fans in New York City, or 105,000 fans in Dallas, or 100,000 fans in Los Angeles than 15,000 fans in Moncton or 22,000 at Saputo. I would love to see the Cup here in Canada, but lets face it, for a world stage Vancouver, Edmonton, Regina, Calagry, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal and Moncton cannot compete with New York City, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Washington,........ However, we can still dream.

What? On a world stage Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver cannot compete with Dallas, Seattle, Boston and Washington? Really?

Among World Cup host cities in 2010: Polokwane, Nelspruit, Rustenberg.

Among World Cup host cities in 2014: Manaus, Natal, Belo Horizonte, Recife

Sexiness or world recognition of our cities is not the issue. The size and suitability of our stadiums is.

manny_santos

Jun 11, 2012, 2:06 PM

I agree FIFA is corrupt but it's almost a guarantee that N. America will host 2026 (there is a rotation) and with Mexico's recent violence, it would literally be between Canada and the US. Not that bad of odds regardless of corruption.

And yet they're hosting it this year in Brazil, which has far more violence than Mexico...you wouldn't know it from the obsessive U.S. news coverage though. Last year's Pan-Am games were in Mexico as well (Guadalajara), and there were no problems I've heard of.

They could easily host it in Mexico City, which has a murder rate lower than many major U.S. cities. And there's no shortage of venues there. They pulled off hosting the 1986 World Cup, barely one year after the 1985 earthquake that killed over 100,000 people.

I would be reluctant to hold it in Vancouver, Toronto, or Montreal, based on the amount of rioting that has taken place in those cities in the past few years. The amount of rioting in those cities is something people are talking about in other countries. I would be a heck of a lot more concerned about thousands of fans rioting next to the venue than about a few drug traffickers being beheaded 1,500 kilometres away from the venue.

patm

Jun 11, 2012, 2:07 PM

Each world cup stadium needs a capacity of 44,000, not that big for even a CFL team and I would be shocked if McMahon's replacement isn't bigger regardless. City size would not be an issue either, Polokwane has a population of 300,000 and hosted matches in 2010, Cuiaba has a little over 500,000 and is hosting a match in 2014?

Plus the smaller Canadian cities still have equal or better infastructure (outside of stadiums) then a lot of the larger host cities that have hosted the games before.

The host will probably have 6 years to prepare... I don't see grass being an issue.

Yeah we currently don't have the stadiums to host, no one is arguing that we do, but if Canada were to bid and win, we'd have incentive to finally build some REAL stadiums, not the shit holes we currently have that would look out of place in a 3rd world country. It would be a big investment but it would also be a big boost to Canada as a whole both economically and culturally.

I think you're right that the US will win because I doubt Canada will actually bid as few people in the public seem to see the value in it. This country has no pride as a whole when it comes to anything but Hockey and to an extenstion, the Winter Olympics. Why aren't we willing to make an investment to host arguably the biggest sporting event in the world? Especially considering that it's something the whole country would get to take part in, and not just one city.

Thankfully I think that SOME intrest has to exist, why else would we be laying the groundwork and hosting the Womens WC, U-20's ... etc.

Acajack

Jun 11, 2012, 2:19 PM

Canada would need a domestic league as that is one of Fifa's requirements but an exception could be made if we gain another one or two MLS teams as Canada has a different sports dynamic then most of the world and shares most leagues with the US. This could also be done after the World Cup like it was in '94.

I think FIFA has already accepted that MLS is Canada's Division 1 national soccer league. Even if we only have 3 teams.

ZeDgE

Jun 11, 2012, 2:22 PM

patm

Jun 11, 2012, 2:25 PM

In case anyone thinks that renovating CFL stadiums into International Soccer Tournament standards is a streach, look at Poznan's stadium for Euro 2012.

http://www.wikistadiums.org/stadion-miejski/195

Scroll to the bottom to see how it used to look like. Trust me when I say this as a Polak, if Poland can do it. We can do it. lol.

ZeDgE

Jun 11, 2012, 2:27 PM

osmo

Jun 11, 2012, 6:49 PM

Canada has had a backdoor plan to try and host the World Cup. FIFA does want Australia or Canada to host soon as they want the similar effect of USA in 1994 to take place.

What Canada would have to do is build temporary structures in Cities such as Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina. And re-format them back to regular CFL capacity.

Toronto does not NEED to host the final but as far as Canada goes it really only makes sense it does. Tokyo did not any games in 2002 so its not set in stone that the largest City host the final (or any games at all). Pasadena hosted the final in 1994 also which is about the same as Mississauga hosting over Toronto.

I don't know what FIFA's rules are now but before you can get by with 7-8 pitches. Domes can also be used.

FIFA is only picky with kockout and final matches which would have to be up to the standard of UEFA 5-Star Stadiums (http://www.worldstadiumdatabase.com/list-of-uefa-5-star-stadiums.htm). 35K-40K (at least) is adequate for the group stages so some Stadiums like Winnipeg can even be used as is with minor tweaks.

MTL: Olympic Stadium would have to be pretty much gutted and renovated. Or have a new one built.

Ottawa: Landsdowne re-confirgured with temporary seating additions.

Toronto: Tweaks to Rogers Center as a group stage facility.

A 2nd facility for the final would need to built and downsized after. York University/Downsview area is the only spot I can think of that would work.

Winnipeg: Temporary upgrade in capacity

Regina: Same thing as Winnipeg

Calgary: A new Stadium will be built the design can incorporate CFL with a 45-50K capcity to be downsized after the tourney.

Edmonton: Commonwealth is fine. It just needs some aesthetic makeovers but as it stands it is the highest ranked FIFA Stadium in Canada*.

Vancouver: *BC Place is probably the highest ranked FIFA Stadium in Canada I would believe. Its fine all it would need is grass put in for the month of the tourney. Does BC place have proper drainage put in place? This might be the only costly upgrade if they can't figure out how to keep grass alive and healthy for the month.

FIFA does not like knock games and finals in domes so the grass issue is the only thing stopping from Vancouver hosting the final outright.

Atlantic Canada: If Alberta only hosts one venue then Halifax could be in the mix for group stages.

Toronto again its shot really comes down to a Olympic bid. The Pan-Am's are a pre-game for that but Toronto is goofing things around with this so I am not sure how the future will hold for a Olympic bid. Toronto's infrastructure will only get upgraded to modern norms with an Olympic Games. The Feds will never give Toronto money unless they are held at gunpoint by the nationalism and corporate influence that only an Olympic games can bring. If this does indeed happen the Canada is a slam dunk for a World Cup.

Canada in general should build a "National Stadium" as most other Countries have. One Stadium that would meet the requirements of Track, Soccer, etc. Currently this is BMO filed which is a joke (formally was Commonwealth but Soccer Canada removed that designation, Commonwealth is still the top Canada IAAF Stadium for track though). Just a modern default somewhere that can host global events.

eternallyme

Jun 11, 2012, 9:00 PM

I would use 11 stadiums, with the priority order as follows:

1) Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton) - 85,000 (temporary expansion)
2) Olympic Stadium (Montreal) - 66,000
3) BC Place Stadium (Vancouver) - 54,500
4) BMO Field (Toronto) - 50,000 (temporary expansion)
5) Lansdowne Park (Ottawa) - 45,000 (officially expandable)
6) McMahon Stadium (Calgary) - 46,200 (officially expandable)
7) Investors Group Field (Winnipeg) - 45,000 (officially expandable)
8) New Halifax Stadium (Halifax) - 40,000 (25,000 permanent) - new field
9) Pan American Stadium (Hamilton) - 40,000 (necessary expansion)
10) PEPS Stadium (Quebec City) - 50,000 (25,000 permanent) - major expansion
11) New Regina Stadium (Regina) - 42,000 (30,000 permanent) - new field

The rounds they would be used in:

Edmonton - Opening game (regardless of groups), knockout round to semifinals, Final

Montreal - Group containing France, knockout round to semifinals, Third Place game

Vancouver - Group A (the Canada group), knockout round to quarterfinals

Toronto - Group B*, knockout round to quarterfinals

Ottawa - Group C*, Round of 16

Calgary - Group D*, Round of 16

Winnipeg - Group E*

Hamilton - Group F*

Halifax - Group G*

Quebec City - Extra games in Groups B, C, F and the France group

Regina - Extra games in Groups A, D and E

*If that group contains France, they will host Group H

Welkin

Jun 11, 2012, 10:32 PM

What? On a world stage Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver cannot compete with Dallas, Seattle, Boston and Washington? Really?

Among World Cup host cities in 2010: Polokwane, Nelspruit, Rustenberg.

Among World Cup host cities in 2014: Manaus, Natal, Belo Horizonte, Recife

Sexiness or world recognition of our cities is not the issue. The size and suitability of our stadiums is.

I see you only picked our big three (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) and yes those three can stand with almost any three cities in the world. However, the World Cup will be played in more than just those three cities. Drawing 100,000+ in Dallas is much more impressive for FIFA than a match in Regina. Drawing 70,000 with the Chicago skyline backdrop is just a little more impressive than a match in Winnipeg. Drawing 75,000 screaming fans in soccer crazy Seattle is just a little more impressive for FIFA than a match in Moncton. This is FIFA's world class event and it is not going to be played in a temporally expanded stadium in one of our prairie towns.

By the way Manaus: population of 1,740,000, Natal: population: 806,000, Belo Horizonte: population 2,475,000 (metro 5,497,000), Recife: population 1,536,000 (metro 4,136,000) are not exactly backwater towns and they all have major stadiums.

Mister F

Jun 11, 2012, 10:53 PM

Well said, this country sometimes.. :rolleyes:

Frigging hockey, hockey, hockey...
Yeah damn Canadians and their insistence on watching sports that are actually entertaining :haha:

Nicko999

Jun 11, 2012, 11:52 PM

Edmonton: Commonwealth is fine. It just needs some aesthetic makeovers but as it stands it is the highest ranked FIFA Stadium in Canada*.

Vancouver: *BC Place is probably the highest ranked FIFA Stadium in Canada I would believe. Its fine all it would need is grass put in for the month of the tourney. Does BC place have proper drainage put in place? This might be the only costly upgrade if they can't figure out how to keep grass alive and healthy for the month.

Really? Where do you get that information? Saputo Stadium and BMO (as well as King George V Park in St John's) are the only soccer specific stadiums in the country so they should be on top.:shrug: BMO and Saputo are also the only stadiums to have natural grass among those you mentioned.

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 12:33 AM

Yeah damn Canadians and their insistence on watching sports that are actually entertaining :haha:

:koko: Billions don't watch the hockey world championship. Most of the world couldn't care less about frigging hockey.

Anyway, its not just soccer, this country is so lame with any sports other than hockey. Hello one trick pony... bleh.

patm

Jun 12, 2012, 1:26 AM

^^^^^
It's the world cup. FIFA doesn't need to impress. There agenda is more based on growing the game so giving Canada a world cup would fit in with that plan. And even if they were, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal give you 5 solid back drops skyline and scenery wise.

Really? Where do you get that information? Saputo Stadium and BMO (as well as King George V Park in St John's) are the only soccer specific stadiums in the country so they should be on top.:shrug: BMO and Saputo are also the only stadiums to have natural grass among those you mentioned.

I dunno about FIFA rankings but UEFA ranks stadiums like so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_stadium_categories

Category 4 is the best.

Commonwealth is a lot bigger then BMO or Saputo and probably has better facilities overall.

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 1:59 AM

Really? Where do you get that information? Saputo Stadium and BMO (as well as King George V Park in St John's) are the only soccer specific stadiums in the country so they should be on top.:shrug: BMO and Saputo are also the only stadiums to have natural grass among those you mentioned.

Soccer-specific or not, grass surface or not, they are still too small for a World Cup.

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 2:02 AM

I see you only picked our big three (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) and yes those three can stand with almost any three cities in the world. However, the World Cup will be played in more than just those three cities. Drawing 100,000+ in Dallas is much more impressive for FIFA than a match in Regina. Drawing 70,000 with the Chicago skyline backdrop is just a little more impressive than a match in Winnipeg. Drawing 75,000 screaming fans in soccer crazy Seattle is just a little more impressive for FIFA than a match in Moncton. This is FIFA's world class event and it is not going to be played in a temporally expanded stadium in one of our prairie towns.

By the way Manaus: population of 1,740,000, Natal: population: 806,000, Belo Horizonte: population 2,475,000 (metro 5,497,000), Recife: population 1,536,000 (metro 4,136,000) are not exactly backwater towns and they all have major stadiums.

They may be big population-wise but in the wider world they are not any more well known than Edmonton, Winnipeg or Calgary. Not one is suggesting hosting World Cup matches in Medicine Hat and Moose Jaw. Probably not Regina either.

And there are probably 10 or even 20 cities the size of Toronto in China that you have never heard of.

artvandelay

Jun 12, 2012, 2:05 AM

:koko: Billions don't watch the hockey world championship. Most of the world couldn't care less about frigging hockey.

Anyway, its not just soccer, this country is so lame with any sports other than hockey. Hello one trick pony... bleh.

It's not just hockey. I find the other North American sports more entertaining than soccer as well. I think it's doubtful that soccer will ever become a major spectator sport here because the big 4 sports are so entrenched. When you grow up watching fast paced, hard hitting sports like hockey, basketball(obviously without the hitting) and football; it's hard to be entertained by soccer.

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 2:37 AM

It's not just hockey. I find the other North American sports more entertaining than soccer as well. I think it's doubtful that soccer will ever become a major spectator sport here because the big 4 sports are so entrenched. When you grow up watching fast paced, hard hitting sports like hockey, basketball(obviously without the hitting) and football; it's hard to be entertained by soccer.

It is already a major spectator sport in North America.

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 2:38 AM

It is already a major spectator sport here.

Exactly.

Welkin

Jun 12, 2012, 2:40 AM

They may be big population-wise but in the wider world they are not any more well known than Edmonton, Winnipeg or Calgary. Not one is suggesting hosting World Cup matches in Medicine Hat and Moose Jaw. Probably not Regina either.

And there are probably 10 or even 20 cities the size of Toronto in China that you have never heard of.

Nothing personal, but speak for yourself. There are some of us that rise above a Canada-centric view of the world and understand that there are major population centers around the world that easily dwarf the Edmonton's, Winnipeg's and Calgary's of the world both in population and importance. While they may be unknown backwaters to you, I have been very familiar with Belo Horizonte, Recife and Manus for years (I will admit that I was only vaguely familiar with Natal). The world is constantly evolving and former third world cities like Sao Paulo, Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok now rival New York or Toronto in their number of skyscrapers. Just because you are unfamiliar with other parts of the world, does not mean you should underestimate them or their importance.

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 2:45 AM

Edmonton - Opening game (regardless of groups), knockout round to semifinals, Final

Nothing against Edmonton, and I actually love the look of Commonwealth, but the final would not be in any other city than Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver (in that order).

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 2:55 AM

Nothing personal, but speak for yourself. There are some of us that rise above a Canada-centric view of the world and understand that there are major population centers around the world that easily dwarf the Edmonton's, Winnipeg's and Calgary's of the world both in population and importance. While they may be unknown backwaters to you, I have been very familiar with Belo Horizonte, Recife and Manus for years (I will admit that I was only vaguely familiar with Natal). The world is constantly evolving and former third world cities like Sao Paulo, Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok now rival New York or Toronto in their number of skyscrapers. Just because you are unfamiliar with other parts of the world, does not mean you should underestimate them or their importance.

Canadian-centric? Moi? Hardly. I am not even that patriotic a Canadian.

I just think it is ridiculous to suggest that Canadian cities are in any way less attractive or interesting for hosting a WC than those in any part of the world. The current Euro is being hosted in places like Lviv, Poznan and Donetsk. No disrespect to them but these are not exactly household names outside of Slavic Europe, and I hardly doubt they are any sexier than Calgary or Winnipeg.

BTW, I will challenge you or anybody to a world geography quiz any day. So please don't make any assumptions about what I know or don't know about the wider world.

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 2:57 AM

No disrespect to them but these are not exactly household names outside of Slavic Europe, and I hardly doubt they are any sexier than Calgary or Winnipeg.

Stealth troll? ;)

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 3:00 AM

Stealth troll? ;)

Me or him?

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 3:05 AM

Me or him?

LOL! you. Just kidding around. :D

rousseau

Jun 12, 2012, 3:05 AM

Football (yeah, "soccer") is like air. It's elemental. It's the best team game there is by virtually any reckoning.

We North Americans mostly don't get it, though it's telling that even with the domination of basketball, baseball, American/Canadian football and hockey on the culture on this continent reflecting billions upon billions of dollars spent, football still has the largest number of participants of any high school sport in Canada or the U.S. Think about it: there are 4 million high school football players in the U.S. compared to 1 million gridiron players and 500 thousand basketball players. There are more kids playing football in Canada than hockey. The numbers are there, and they keep growing.

Why? Because it's such a great fucking game. It's the only game that really matters. But it's not to some people's taste. Fine. But please spare us the bizarre notion that North American sports are superior.

You want "fast-paced"? How about any pace, for crissake! I mean, you can't watch any North American sport for more than a minute or two before play stops and there's a commercial break. How are you supposed to really get into a game when they stop playing all the time? Not only that, but the players themselves can stop the game with a timeout. "Whaaa....whaaaa....I can't pass the ball to my teammate....stop the clock"!

What are we: children? I've been a hardcore NBA fan for most of my life, but I just can't watch it anymore. The last two minutes of the game actually take fifteen minutes to play because of the timeouts. Timeouts are idiotic. And don't get me started on TV timeouts. They're absolutely moronic, there's no other word for it. I'll never forget the look of wonder on the face of an English guy when I told him sports in North America have TV timeouts. "You mean, they actually stop the game in the stadium...so people at home can see adverts on the telly?"

The artificiality of our sports makes them mostly unwatchable to anyone else. You've got music over the loudspeakers indicating how you're supposed to respond during a given moment in the game ("oh, is there supposed to be suspense now that our team is on defense and the game is close? Thanks for letting me know, I couldn't have figured that out for myself!") and cheerleaders prancing around in case, you know, you fall asleep because the game is so freakin' boring because it's the 700th regular season match-up between these two teams and it doesn't mean anything in the final standings...or to anybody, really.

And don't get me started on hockey, which I played as a goaltender from age 3 to 15. You know why people say they can't get into it because you can't see the puck? Because you can't. All you see is grown men on skates hacking away at each other with one-sided pickaxes. Hack, hack, hack...there's so little control, so little beauty, just a lot of slashing and chopping and whacking away like lumberjacks...on skates. Canadians love the game, but the idea that the rest of the world is benighted for being mad about football when hockey is so much more "exciting" is, well...

Rant over. We don't deserve the World Cup, and we don't have the stadiums anyway. Did you see the Polish stadiums for Euro 2012? They're awesome. Ours suck. We do one thing well: hockey. It is what it is.

bulliver

Jun 12, 2012, 3:23 AM

^ The high levels of high-school participation in soccer can probably be largely attributed to the fact that the equipment cost is practically zero. Shoes and a ball are really all you need. Many parents cannot afford football or hockey equipment.

Your points about television adverts being neauseating are valid, but they are tertiary complaints, and don't really speak to one's like or dislike of the actual gameplay.

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 3:36 AM

^ The high levels of high-school participation in soccer can probably be largely attributed to the fact that the equipment cost is practically zero. Shoes and a ball are really all you need. Many parents cannot afford football or hockey equipment.

There is a little more to it than that but I somewhat agree, its not just High School, its all levels of soccer, youth and adult, leagues, house, etc. And $300 Adidas F zero mi coach shoes and $100 shin pads say otherwise.. on top of $600 registration fees and $400 tech training fees. :D

The thing is soccer is a game you can play almost anywhere with next to nothing but a ball. Having a kid growing up playing soccer I see it today, its all kids want to do. Any free time its off to the field to kick the ball around.. 20 kids? No problem. Hockey is nothing like this, I can't even remember the last time I saw kids out playing street hockey. When I was young (long time ago) this is all you saw, I never knew anyone who played soccer. If not hockey it was softball or baseball. Anecdotal maybe.. But its so different now, and its not going to fade out, its only continues to grow.

trueviking

Jun 12, 2012, 3:47 AM

It is already a major spectator sport in North America.

how do you figure that?!

because people watch the world cup for a few weeks every 4 years?

what are people watching to justify your statement?.....MLS?.....nope....EPL?....two games a week on saturday morning with rating similar to poker?....that's considered major?

i dont see any other leagues on non specialty channels in either country.

soccer is still a spectator fringe sport.

trueviking

Jun 12, 2012, 3:51 AM

^ The high levels of high-school participation in soccer can probably be largely attributed to the fact that the equipment cost is practically zero. Shoes and a ball are really all you need. Many parents cannot afford football or hockey equipment.
.

the high levels of participation are based on the fact that it is treated as a babysitting service for swaths of suburbanites....participation drops off radically once it becomes competitive....here in manitoba they don't even keep score until kids are 12 years old!....try and teach the fundamentals of the sport and parents lose it....the mid game picnic is more important than the game.

it isn't treated as a sport, it is a pastime....

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 3:54 AM

how do you figure that?!

because people watch the world cup for a few weeks every 4 years?

You realize people watch soccer other than world cup right? All the leagues in Europe, South America, MLS here. Three MLS teams in Canada now which draw 20,000 plus a game. Some big games 50,000 plus. C'mon..

it isn't treated as a sport, it is a pastime....

LOL.. speaking from experience here and seeing parents rage at refs, get in fights with other parents.. NO.

The bigger issue with competitive level play is there is bottleneck and no where for players to go and take their game further. Unless they go down to a college in the US or over to Europe. Mainly because of the apathy in this country to anything other than hockey.. Thankfully with three MLS teams we now have somewhere for home grown players to make their way up the ranks, its a good start.

trueviking

Jun 12, 2012, 3:59 AM

You realize people watch soccer other than world cup right? All the leagues in Europe, South America, MLS here. Three MLS teams in Canada now which draw 20,000 plus a game. Some big games 50,000 plus. C'mon..

3 professional teams in an entire country (4 if you include edmonton) of 33 million people is considered a 'major spectator sport'?....really?

where are people watching all these other leagues?...what channel is that on?

trueviking

Jun 12, 2012, 4:01 AM

LOL.. speaking from experience here and seeing parents rage at refs, get in fights with other parents.. NO.

well, its different in manitoba....i dont see parents raging at refs when you dont keep score until you are 12....imagine if they didnt keep score in hockey until that age?

trueviking

Jun 12, 2012, 4:04 AM

canadian dwayne derosario won the MLS MVP last year....how many canadians can tell you that?......000001%....maybe.

how many canadians can name the three canadian MLS teams?

how many canadians know that canada has a huge world cup qualifier in toronto tomorrow?

how many canadians even know that canada has a national soccer team?...or can name a single player?

soccer is a fringe spectator sport.

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 4:09 AM

3 professional teams in an entire country (4 if you include edmonton) of 33 million people is considered a 'major spectator sport'?....really?

where are people watching all these other leagues?...what channel is that on?

Sportsnet, TSN, GOLTV. There is a alot more coverage of soccer on TV these days. Its not hard to see it. All the Euro games are being broadcast right now. As are the olympic and world cup qualifying games, along with the MLS teams. You obviously do not watch any soccer or pay any attention to it if you do not know this. Someone must be watching for them to be broadcasting so much.

canadian dwayne derosario won the MLS MVP last year....how many canadians can tell you that?......000001%....maybe.

how many canadians can name the three canadian MLS teams?

how many canadians know that canada has a huge world cup qualifier in toronto tomorrow?

how many canadians even know that canada has a national soccer team?...or can name a single player?

soccer is a fringe spectator sport.

Anyone who knows anything about soccer. Did we not set attendance records for the U20 world cup? If Canada were to make it to the world cup again this country would explode in support for our national team.

Fringe spectator sport my ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_FIFA_U-20_World_Cup

On 28 June 2007, two days before the inaugural match, it was reported that 950,000 tickets had been sold,[2] making it the largest single-sport event ever taking place in the country,and on 3 July, the tournament organisers sold the one millionth ticket.[3]

Nicko999

Jun 12, 2012, 4:22 AM

Soccer-specific or not, grass surface or not, they are still too small for a World Cup.

Absolutely, just like any other stadium. Canada really sucks when it comes to stadiums...

The big O is the biggest in the country with capacity of 66k.

2010 World Cup final attendance: 84k
2006 World Cup final attendance: 69k
2002 World Cup final attendance: 69k
1998 World Cup final attendance: 75k
1994 World Cup final attendance: 94k

Sorry but I don't see the World Cup in Canada anytime soon, our stadiums are way too crappy and small.

artvandelay

Jun 12, 2012, 5:08 AM

We North Americans mostly don't get it, though it's telling that even with the domination of basketball, baseball, American/Canadian football and hockey on the culture on this continent reflecting billions upon billions of dollars spent, football still has the largest number of participants of any high school sport in Canada or the U.S. Think about it: there are 4 million high school football players in the U.S. compared to 1 million gridiron players and 500 thousand basketball players. There are more kids playing football in Canada than hockey. The numbers are there, and they keep growing.

This doesn't neccesarily translate into fans of pro soccer though. I played soccer for 6 years growing up. My parents just put me in it at first, but I really enjoyed playing and still do in an adult summer rec league. I just find it incredibly boring to watch. Out of the competitive players on my teams growing up, I'd say that only 20-30% of them followed professional soccer (EPL, Champions league), and most of these kids came from families who immigrated from the UK or Europe. I just can't see soccer becoming one of the major draws commerically in this part of the world.

It is already a major spectator sport in North America.

Is it? Perhaps if you're considering Mexico - I should have said the U.S. and Canada.

The only soccer that gets decent ratings here is the World Cup Finals. MLS games are regularly trounced by the NHL, CFL, NFL, PGA, mid week Blue Jays games, and even curling. I believe that ratings in the States are even more bleak.

trueviking

Jun 12, 2012, 5:22 AM

Sportsnet, TSN, GOLTV. There is a alot more coverage of soccer on TV these days. Its not hard to see it. All the Euro games are being broadcast right now. As are the olympic and world cup qualifying games, along with the MLS teams. You obviously do not watch any soccer or pay any attention to it if you do not know this. Someone must be watching for them to be broadcasting so much.

Anyone who knows anything about soccer. Did we not set attendance records for the U20 world cup? If Canada were to make it to the world cup again this country would explode in support for our national team.

Fringe spectator sport my ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_FIFA_U-20_World_Cup

i can assure you that i watch more soccer than 99% of the people in canada.....maybe we just have different definitions of 'major spectator sport'

TSN airs maybe 10 soccer games a year....sportsnet has two EPL games a week with low ratings.....GOLTV, sportsnet world and other specialty channels have minuscule viewership.

i guess when we are the only country in the world outside of vatican city that doesnt have a pro soccer league i find it difficult to consider the sport 'major' in any way.....three teams is laughable.....how can anyone say 3 teams is evidence that a sport is 'major'

yes we watch world cup and euro's...and when a major tournament is held once in a lifetime people will go watch....but that does not make it major...it doesnt even make it mainstream.

do you realize what the ratings are for soccer on tv?....80-130k viewers on average for mls (similar for EPL)...thats 1/10th nhl, 1/4 figure skating, 1/5th golf, 1/4 nascar, 1/2 basketball, 1/8 CFL and NFL, 1/4 MLB, 1/4 curling...i could go on and on.

i would like to know what you are comparing it to to be considered major?....compared to its popularity in every single other country in the world?......compared to the popularity of dozens of other sports in canada?

a random weekend ratings snippet:

1. CFL, Blue Bombers at Tiger-Cats, Saturday, TSN: 858,000

2. CFL, Roughriders at Alouettes, Friday, TSN: 853,000

3. CFL, Stampeders at Lions, Saturday, TSN: 795,000

4. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Sunday, Sportsnets: 760,000

5. CFL, Argonauts at Eskimos, Friday, TSN: 649,000

6. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Saturday, Sportsnet: 493,000

7. Auto racing, NASCAR Sprint Cup, Sunday, TSN: 448,000

8. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Friday, Sportsnet: 446,000*

9. PGA, Bridgestone Invitational final round, Sunday, Global/CBS: 339,000

10. NFL, Bengals vs. Cowboys, Sunday, TSN: 305,000**

11. PGA, Bridgestone Invitational third round, Saturday, Global/CBS: 255,000

12. Auto racing, NASCAR Nationwide, Satuday, TSN: 182,000

13. MLB, Red Sox at Yankees, Sundady, TSN2: 164,000

14. MLS, Chivas at Toronto FC, Saturday, CBC: 134,000

Denscity

Jun 12, 2012, 5:25 AM

We don't have enough big stadiums to host this event.

Does Qatar?

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 5:39 AM

The Gibbroni

Jun 12, 2012, 6:48 AM

i guess when we are the only country in the world outside of vatican city that doesnt have a pro soccer league i find it difficult to consider the sport 'major' in any way.....three teams is laughable.....how can anyone say 3 teams is evidence that a sport is 'major'

We have only 1 national league: CFL, 8 teams. We have 7 NHL teams, 3 MLS teams, 1 MLB team and 1 NBA team. Note that we have no pro hockey, baseball or basketball leagues- the supposedly 'major' sports.

Does that put it in a different perspective?

a random weekend ratings snippet:

1. CFL, Blue Bombers at Tiger-Cats, Saturday, TSN: 858,000

2. CFL, Roughriders at Alouettes, Friday, TSN: 853,000

3. CFL, Stampeders at Lions, Saturday, TSN: 795,000

4. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Sunday, Sportsnets: 760,000

5. CFL, Argonauts at Eskimos, Friday, TSN: 649,000

6. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Saturday, Sportsnet: 493,000

7. Auto racing, NASCAR Sprint Cup, Sunday, TSN: 448,000

8. MLB, Rays at Blue Jays, Friday, Sportsnet: 446,000*

9. PGA, Bridgestone Invitational final round, Sunday, Global/CBS: 339,000

10. NFL, Bengals vs. Cowboys, Sunday, TSN: 305,000**

11. PGA, Bridgestone Invitational third round, Saturday, Global/CBS: 255,000

12. Auto racing, NASCAR Nationwide, Satuday, TSN: 182,000

13. MLB, Red Sox at Yankees, Sundady, TSN2: 164,000

14. MLS, Chivas at Toronto FC, Saturday, CBC: 134,000

A some what less-than-random snippet- with LINKS!

UEFA EURO 2012 is here and Canada is watching. Through the opening weekend (six games), UEFA EURO 2012 is attracting an average of 707,000 viewers on TSN and TSN2 according to overnight data from BBM Canada. This is more than double the average audience for the first six games of EURO 2008 (265,000 on TSN and Sportsnet)*.

Overall more than 7.1 million Canadians have tuned in to watch some or all of UEFA EURO 2012 coverage on TSN and TSN2 this weekend.

The most-watched match this past weekend was Spain–Italy attracting an average audience off 1.1 million viewers.

A breakout of audiences for UEFA EURO 2012 on TSN is below:

Spain vs. Italy - 1.1 million
Germany vs. Portugal - 1.027 Million
Republic of Ireland vs. Croatia - 799,000
Netherlands vs. Denmark (on TSN2) - 529,000
Russia vs. Czech Republic - 435,000
Poland vs. Greece - 354,000
http://www.channelcanada.com/canadian-channels/specialty-channels/tsn/uefa-euro-2012-kicks-off-with-big-audiences-on-tsn

Toronto, ON (March 12, 2012) – Saturday's highly-anticipated Major League Soccer (MLS) debut of Montreal Impact against Vancouver Whitecaps FC was the most-watched MLS game ever in Canada. Overnight data from BBM Canada confirms that an average audience of 541,000 viewers watched the all-Canadian match-up on TSN (288,000) and RDS (253,000).

Almost 2.5 million Canadians tuned in to catch some or all of the live MLS action on TSN and RDS.
http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/mls/story/?id=390161

There's no doubt that pro soccer is still in the embryonic stage in Canada but audiences are growing exponentially while most other sports are experiencing slow or stagnant growth.

As for hosting the World Cup, we don't have the stadiums and I don't think there is either the will or the money to build them, not with the global economy the way it is. What would we do with our 80,000 seat stadiums after the World Cup?

The_Architect

Jun 12, 2012, 9:37 AM

I tried watching Euro 2012, but it made me realise how fascinating watching paint dry is.

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 12:42 PM

Does Qatar?

No, but we can assume that they will be building them and that they are committed to that.

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 12:47 PM

A some what less-than-random snippet- with LINKS!

UEFA EURO 2012 is here and Canada is watching. Through the opening weekend (six games), UEFA EURO 2012 is attracting an average of 707,000 viewers on TSN and TSN2 according to overnight data from BBM Canada. This is more than double the average audience for the first six games of EURO 2008 (265,000 on TSN and Sportsnet)*.

Overall more than 7.1 million Canadians have tuned in to watch some or all of UEFA EURO 2012 coverage on TSN and TSN2 this weekend.

The most-watched match this past weekend was Spain–Italy attracting an average audience off 1.1 million viewers.

A breakout of audiences for UEFA EURO 2012 on TSN is below:

Spain vs. Italy - 1.1 million
Germany vs. Portugal - 1.027 Million
Republic of Ireland vs. Croatia - 799,000
Netherlands vs. Denmark (on TSN2) - 529,000
Russia vs. Czech Republic - 435,000
Poland vs. Greece - 354,000
http://www.channelcanada.com/canadian-channels/specialty-channels/tsn/uefa-euro-2012-kicks-off-with-big-audiences-on-tsn

Toronto, ON (March 12, 2012) – Saturday's highly-anticipated Major League Soccer (MLS) debut of Montreal Impact against Vancouver Whitecaps FC was the most-watched MLS game ever in Canada. Overnight data from BBM Canada confirms that an average audience of 541,000 viewers watched the all-Canadian match-up on TSN (288,000) and RDS (253,000).

Almost 2.5 million Canadians tuned in to catch some or all of the live MLS action on TSN and RDS.
http://www.tsn.ca/soccer/mls/story/?id=390161

There's no doubt that pro soccer is still in the embryonic stage in Canada but audiences are growing exponentially while most other sports are experiencing slow or stagnant growth.

Plus, only a few of your numbers include RDS, whose viewers are Canadians too and would boost soccer's ratings even higher.

Seriously, when I said soccer was a major spectator sport I didn't mean it was above all the others or even close to the top ones, but it is definitely on the radar now. It can't be called fringe anymore. It is up and coming and rising fast.

There has been way more talk about the Euro around my office in the past week than about the Stanley Cup final. Not saying that soccer has eclipsed hockey (if a Canadian team, especially Montreal or Ottawa, were in the final everyone would be abuzz about that it is true) but certainly it is on the radar and moving towards the mainstream.

And BTW, if one looks at TV ratings alone (which is the barometer that has been used here), is the NHL really a mainstream national spectator sport in the United States?

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 12:54 PM

As for hosting the World Cup, we don't have the stadiums and I don't think there is either the will or the money to build them, not with the global economy the way it is. What would we do with our 80,000 seat stadiums after the World Cup?

Consider that the federal government won't invest a dime in NHL-sized arenas that would be busy maybe half the days of the year for 20 years with either our national sport or other entertainment or community events.

So you are right that they are unlikely to spend any money on stadiums for an up and coming sport that will only be used once for a few weeks during the World Cup, and then once in a blue moon for the odd mega event.

Perhaps, as has been said, it could be tied in to a plan to refurbish CFL stadiums and even expand the CFL, but even this is not very likely. The feds are not really interested in funding CFL venues either.

If you look at World Cup and Euro host countries, generally they either have almost all of the stadiums already, or there is a huge commitment on the part
of national governments to go on a stadium renovation/building binge prior to the event.

hockey rules!

Jun 12, 2012, 1:00 PM

how do you figure that?!

because people watch the world cup for a few weeks every 4 years?

what are people watching to justify your statement?.....MLS?.....nope....EPL?....two games a week on saturday morning with rating similar to poker?....that's considered major?

i dont see any other leagues on non specialty channels in either country.

soccer is still a spectator fringe sport.

The MLS is averaging 18 000+ in attendance this year. TV numbers are not that far from the NHL on NBC.

MLS is growing pretty fast. New stadiums almost every year and more and more money is invested in the league.

Welkin

Jun 12, 2012, 1:54 PM

Canadian-centric? Moi? Hardly. I am not even that patriotic a Canadian.

I just think it is ridiculous to suggest that Canadian cities are in any way less attractive or interesting for hosting a WC than those in any part of the world. The current Euro is being hosted in places like Lviv, Poznan and Donetsk. No disrespect to them but these are not exactly household names outside of Slavic Europe, and I hardly doubt they are any sexier than Calgary or Winnipeg.

BTW, I will challenge you or anybody to a world geography quiz any day. So please don't make any assumptions about what I know or don't know about the wider world.

You are right and I would never make that assumption. Also, based upon some of your other comments you seem like a rather stand-up fellow. It is just that when I travel throughout North America, many people I meet seem to think that the rest of non-western world still lives in grass huts down muddy roads. Most people have no idea how the world has changed and that the skyline of for example Manila is just as impressive as any city in Canada. One thing the World Cup does do is expose some impressive cities in far off parts of the globe, instead of just the usual foreign cities of London, Paris, Rome, Berlin....... P.S.: If you like a geography challenge, play the daily "Guess the City" on www.skyscrapercity.com.

ZeDgE

Jun 12, 2012, 2:23 PM

It is just that when I travel throughout North America, many people I meet seem to think that the rest of non-western world still lives in grass huts down muddy roads. Most people have no idea how the world has changed and that the skyline of for example Manila is just as impressive as any city in Canada.

You could replace this with western Canada and how easterners view it and I would believe you also. :haha:

bkd

Jun 12, 2012, 4:41 PM

how do you figure that?!

because people watch the world cup for a few weeks every 4 years?

what are people watching to justify your statement?.....MLS?.....nope....EPL?....two games a week on saturday morning with rating similar to poker?....that's considered major?

i dont see any other leagues on non specialty channels in either country.

soccer is still a spectator fringe sport.

Maybe in Winnipeg.

In Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Edmonton, at least places where I've attended games, soccer is definitely more than just a fringe spectator sport.

Welkin

Jun 12, 2012, 4:43 PM

Does Qatar?

Qatar plans to spend 138 billion pounds ($220.6 BILLION CAD) on the World Cup including $30 billion pounds ($47.9 BILLION CAD) on 12 new world class stadiums. I don't think we could get the Canadian government to spend $5 billion on new world class stadiums (like Russia), much less almost $48 billion like Qatar. Let's face it, this is not an event we will be hosting anytime in near future.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/world-football/2011/09/09/qatar-to-spend-an-eye-watering-138bn-hosting-2022-world-cup-86908-23407158/

bkd

Jun 12, 2012, 4:49 PM

I tried watching Euro 2012, but it made me realise how fascinating watching paint dry is.

:rolleyes: - Such an ignorant comment.

osmo

Jun 12, 2012, 5:44 PM

Compare the numbers of EPL and Champoins league tho, the only thing with that is that the best European soccer tends to be on at awkward times of the day. Many people watch online now at work or wherever else.

Acajack

Jun 12, 2012, 5:45 PM

Qatar plans to spend 138 billion pounds ($220.6 BILLION CAD) on the World Cup including $30 billion pounds ($47.9 BILLION CAD) on 12 new world class stadiums. I don't think we could get the Canadian government to spend $5 billion on new world class stadiums (like Russia), much less almost $48 billion like Qatar. Let's face it, this is not an event we will be hosting anytime in near future.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/football/world-football/2011/09/09/qatar-to-spend-an-eye-watering-138bn-hosting-2022-world-cup-86908-23407158/

That is completely nuts.

The_Architect

Jun 12, 2012, 6:41 PM

:rolleyes: - Such an ignorant comment.

Finding soccer boring is ignorant?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/19777304.jpg

Mister F

Jun 12, 2012, 6:58 PM

:koko: Billions don't watch the hockey world championship. Most of the world couldn't care less about frigging hockey.

Anyway, its not just soccer, this country is so lame with any sports other than hockey. Hello one trick pony... bleh.
If billions jumped off a bridge....

Seriously, who cares what billions do? Certain fans of fringe sports like soccer (yeah, went there) have this hilarious chip on their shoulder when it comes to hockey. I think you'll be happier if you just accept that most people don't share your love of soccer, and that most people don't care what sport billions watch. Hey, I wish rugby were more popular in North America, but I don't lash out at more popular sports because of it.

All that said, I like watching soccer live, and I'm actually paying attention to how Canada is doing in the World Cup qualifying. But I'm still more of a fan of other sports, including hockey. By the way, if you want to see lame, Youtube "soccer dives". Hilarious.

It's not just hockey. I find the other North American sports more entertaining than soccer as well. I think it's doubtful that soccer will ever become a major spectator sport here because the big 4 sports are so entrenched. When you grow up watching fast paced, hard hitting sports like hockey, basketball(obviously without the hitting) and football; it's hard to be entertained by soccer.
Football? Fast paced? lol....gridiron has to be the slowest form of football there is! Even with the roughness, it's a very slow and methodical game.

bkd

Jun 12, 2012, 7:13 PM

Finding soccer boring is ignorant?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/19777304.jpg

I know exactly what ignorant means, thanks for the pretty picture though.

Yes, it is ignorance. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Educate yourself and then form an opinion that is devoid of unnecessary hyperbole. But yeah, go watch some more paint dry.

hockey rules!

Jun 12, 2012, 7:46 PM

Qatar will get the World Cup. All stadiums will be within a 30km range. Population : 1.8 million. Homosexuality is illegal there. FIFA promoting respect and equality for everyone?

Bullshit. Smells like bribery all over the place.

Welkin

Jun 12, 2012, 8:41 PM

If billions jumped off a bridge....

Seriously, who cares what billions do? Certain fans of fringe sports like soccer (yeah, went there) have this hilarious chip on their shoulder when it comes to hockey. I think you'll be happier if you just accept that most people don't share your love of soccer, and that most people don't care what sport billions watch. Hey, I wish rugby were more popular in North America, but I don't lash out at more popular sports because of it.

All that said, I like watching soccer live, and I'm actually paying attention to how Canada is doing in the World Cup qualifying. But I'm still more of a fan of other sports, including hockey. By the way, if you want to see lame, Youtube "soccer dives". Hilarious.

Football? Fast paced? lol....gridiron has to be the slowest form of football there is! Even with the roughness, it's a very slow and methodical game.

The point of this tread is not to debate whether or not Canadians love soccer, it is to consider whether or not Canada should bid on hosting the biggest soccer event in the world. The World Cup is by far the biggest event/party in the world for the billions of soccer fans around the globe. They could care less if we Canadians like hockey better than soccer. Their only concern is are we up to hosting their once-every-four-years extravaganza. These passionate fans only care if we are willing to spend billions of dollars in order to make sure their sport's biggest event is a world class event. If we aren't willing to do that, if we are not willing to spend what it takes to make sure we have world class stadiums, venues, hotels, etc., they will just take their party to some other country who will (see Qatar). They really could care less about the whole Canadian soccer vs. hockey debate.

The World Cup is an amazing party and Brazil will be rocking with everyone drinking, toasting and celebrating their national teams. The country will draw hundreds of thousands of soccer fans from around the world. The World Cup in Qatar will probably suck because everything we love about partying (drinking, sex, dancing in the streets, etc.) they tend to frown upon. The world's billions of soccer fans could probably care less whether Canada is involved or not.

The_Architect

Jun 12, 2012, 10:28 PM

I know exactly what ignorant means, thanks for the pretty picture though.

Yes, it is ignorance. You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Educate yourself and then form an opinion that is devoid of unnecessary hyperbole. But yeah, go watch some more paint dry.

Apparently you don't know what it means because it is not ignorance to think something is completely boring...

Metro-One

Jun 12, 2012, 10:39 PM

Plus, only a few of your numbers include RDS, whose viewers are Canadians too and would boost soccer's ratings even higher.

Seriously, when I said soccer was a major spectator sport I didn't mean it was above all the others or even close to the top ones, but it is definitely on the radar now. It can't be called fringe anymore. It is up and coming and rising fast.

There has been way more talk about the Euro around my office in the past week than about the Stanley Cup final. Not saying that soccer has eclipsed hockey (if a Canadian team, especially Montreal or Ottawa, were in the final everyone would be abuzz about that it is true) but certainly it is on the radar and moving towards the mainstream.

And BTW, if one looks at TV ratings alone (which is the barometer that has been used here), is the NHL really a mainstream national spectator sport in the United States?

It has been the exact same here in Metro-Vancouver. There has been tons of talk about the Euro cup, but barely anything regarding the Stanley Cup. In fact, I honestly did not know that yesterday was game 6, or that the Kings won until this afternoon when I saw it on MSN (and i had already gone to several meetings in the morning, no talk of the Stanley Cup, but talk about soccer).

Copes

Jun 13, 2012, 12:00 AM

The point of this tread is not to debate whether or not Canadians love soccer, it is to consider whether or not Canada should bid on hosting the biggest soccer event in the world. The World Cup is by far the biggest event/party in the world for the billions of soccer fans around the globe. They could care less if we Canadians like hockey better than soccer. Their only concern is are we up to hosting their once-every-four-years extravaganza. These passionate fans only care if we are willing to spend billions of dollars in order to make sure their sport's biggest event is a world class event. If we aren't willing to do that, if we are not willing to spend what it takes to make sure we have world class stadiums, venues, hotels, etc., they will just take their party to some other country who will (see Qatar). They really could care less about the whole Canadian soccer vs. hockey debate.

The World Cup is an amazing party and Brazil will be rocking with everyone drinking, toasting and celebrating their national teams. The country will draw hundreds of thousands of soccer fans from around the world. The World Cup in Qatar will probably suck because everything we love about partying (drinking, sex, dancing in the streets, etc.) they tend to frown upon. The world's billions of soccer fans could probably care less whether Canada is involved or not.

This.

While I'm not going to jump into the "hockey is better than soccer" debate, I hope that any fan of sports can recognize that its embarrassing and negative that a developed and successful country like Canada is considered a non-factor at a global level, and can't take part in an international event such as the world cup. During the 2010 World Cup, I was really hoping for Ghana, and had a blast watching them play. How many sports does one get to root for Ghana?!? Soccer really is a global sport, and it would be nice if Canada could take part and compete a global stage. I consider it a major negative for our national athletics programs.

As for whether or not we should bid, we obviously don't have the stadiums. Further, the government wouldn't pay for it, as is the case in Qatar. None the less, I really do thing that hosting a World Cup would be the boost Canadian soccer needs to really bring in a large number of fans. I am a recently converted fan, and while I don't watch MLS as I do the NHL, I do follow it. Further, I enjoy watching our national team (we're currently looking great against Honduras). IF we did get to host a World Cup, I think you would see soccer grow here. I think Canadians are becoming more interested in the sport, and we've seen some stats in this thread to support it, as well as testimonies. I can further say that I have friends watching the Canada qualifiers that didn't even watch much of the World Cup in 2010. I have friends getting really into the Euro Cup now that its on as well. I do believe that Canadians are starting to enjoy soccer more. Unfortunately, the World Cup is a dream, but I'd love if it came true.

On a different note, King George V Park in St. John's is one of Canada's few soccer specific Stadiums. Obviously with only 10,000 seats it would need significant upgrades, but I would hope it would be strongly considered as a venue. Not only is St. John's an underestimated, gorgeous Canadian city, but hell, we've had a dedicated soccer stadium since 1925. Show us some love. ;)

bkd

Jun 13, 2012, 12:42 AM

Apparently you don't know what it means because it is not ignorance to think something is completely boring...

It is if you don't know what you're talking about. :D :cheers:

ZeDgE

Jun 13, 2012, 1:26 AM

trebor204

Jun 13, 2012, 1:55 AM

If Canada does host the World Cup, it will have to compete with the CFL. The World Cup normally runs from mid-June to mid-July. During that time these stadiums won't be able accommodate any CFL games.
The CFL pre-season starts in mid-June, and the regular season starts early July.
You will need at least 4 stadiums to accomodate CFL football. (4 games / week)

However once the World Cup Knockout Stage starts (late June) some of the smaller venues can be converted back to CFL football.

You still have use to some of the other venues. (Empire Field in Vancouver, McGill Stadium can still be used)

Using the 2010 World Cup Calendar as a guide
June 11 - Start of World Cup (10 Different Stadiums)
June 25 - End of Group Stage
June 26-29 - Round of 16 (8 of 10 Stadiums still in use)
July 2, 3 - Quarter Finals (5 of 10 stadium still in use)
July 6,7 - Semi Finals (4 of 10 stadium still in use)
July 10,11 - 3rd Place and Final (final 2 stadium in use)

trueviking

Jun 13, 2012, 3:25 AM

The MLS is averaging 18 000+ in attendance this year. TV numbers are not that far from the NHL on NBC.
.

since NBC numbers are similar to infomercials my point is made.

i will of course admit that soccer is a rising spectator sport in north america and canada, but world cup and euro every couple of years does not make it a major sport....beyond those events the sport has tv ratings similar to tennis, figure skating and track and field....canada has 4 pro soccer teams and no league....world leagues have almost no presence in our media on a day to day basis.

awareness is growing for sure....huge steps have been made in the last 10 years.....perhaps because the americans have become good at the sport.....but the reality is that soccer on a professional level is not in the consciousness of the every day sports fan in canada...

when canada makes the world cup in brasil....all of this will change.

0-0 tie tonight against honduras if anyone cares.

trueviking

Jun 13, 2012, 3:28 AM

...and canada should absolutely host the world cup....it would cost a lot of money but it would pay for itself.

ZeDgE

Jun 13, 2012, 4:19 AM

when canada makes the world cup in brasil....all of this will change.

Now this I can agree with. Its a time bomb waiting to go off. :tup:

Didnt get to watch the game. This could hurt later.

Mister F

Jun 13, 2012, 5:31 AM

It has been the exact same here in Metro-Vancouver. There has been tons of talk about the Euro cup, but barely anything regarding the Stanley Cup. In fact, I honestly did not know that yesterday was game 6, or that the Kings won until this afternoon when I saw it on MSN (and i had already gone to several meetings in the morning, no talk of the Stanley Cup, but talk about soccer).
The Stanley Cup is an annual league championship with cities competing and where most of the Canadian teams currently suck. Euro happens every 4 years and has national teams. A better comparison for hockey would be a major international tournament like the Olympics (the World Championships don't count).

This.

While I'm not going to jump into the "hockey is better than soccer" debate, I hope that any fan of sports can recognize that its embarrassing and negative that a developed and successful country like Canada is considered a non-factor at a global level, and can't take part in an international event such as the world cup.
I'm not sure why that's embarrassing. We just have different tastes than most of the world, I'd like to think we're not so insecure that we're embarrassed by that. There are plenty of rich countries where soccer isn't the most popular sport, by the way.

By most people you mean Canadians right? A whopping 33 million... like hockey outside of this cournty who cares about Canada? As I said Billions watch Soccer. So "most" people do enjoy it. I don't have a chip on my shoulder either, I love hockey too. But i wish this country would take it head out of its ass, we are a joke on a global scale when it comes to sports..we are not even that good at hockey any more for petes sake.
When did sports become a popularity contest? If we're not passionate about the same sport as everybody else that means we have our heads up our asses? I don't see the logic. The only reason we might be considered a joke in the world of sports is because we don't have our own leagues.

I'm not sure where you get the idea that we're not that good at hockey anymore. We've won 3 of the last 4 major tournaments (3 Olympics and a World Cup). But formerly marginal countries getting more competitive is a good thing. It means the game is growing. Just like England doesn't dominate soccer anymore, we shouldn't expect to always dominate hockey.

Dr.Zoidburg

Jun 13, 2012, 5:56 AM

The point of this tread is not to debate whether or not Canadians love soccer, it is to consider whether or not Canada should bid on hosting the biggest soccer event in the world. The World Cup is by far the biggest event/party in the world for the billions of soccer fans around the globe. They could care less if we Canadians like hockey better than soccer. Their only concern is are we up to hosting their once-every-four-years extravaganza. These passionate fans only care if we are willing to spend billions of dollars in order to make sure their sport's biggest event is a world class event. If we aren't willing to do that, if we are not willing to spend what it takes to make sure we have world class stadiums, venues, hotels, etc., they will just take their party to some other country who will (see Qatar). They really could care less about the whole Canadian soccer vs. hockey debate.

The World Cup is an amazing party and Brazil will be rocking with everyone drinking, toasting and celebrating their national teams. The country will draw hundreds of thousands of soccer fans from around the world. The World Cup in Qatar will probably suck because everything we love about partying (drinking, sex, dancing in the streets, etc.) they tend to frown upon. The world's billions of soccer fans could probably care less whether Canada is involved or not.

Welkin here is just about the only one who has made any sense, everyone else seems to be missing the point.
Think of the World Cup more along the level of the summer olympics. Countries bid on both for mostly the economic benefit and to showcase themselves on a global stage. How do Olympic sports such as say fencing, track and field events, cycling, or even winter olympic sports like luge or whatever else compare on national north american tv for viewership? Yet Canada has hosted 3 Olympics. From what I understand the World Cup has more global viewership than the summer games, probably more attendance than the summer games, and pulls in more income than the summer games for both fifa and the host country. Also it is held in stadiums (which are fitted with a lot of temporary seating in most stadiums of host countries) vs olympic legacy venues which are much harder to find significant value in post games.

Canada, it seems, is going through a fairly substantial stadium rebuild phase right now and with new or almost completely rebuilt stadiums in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Hamilton, Ottawa, Regina, Probably Calgary in the future, and the big O in Montreal to go through renovations and a new roof. With existing facilities like Commonwealth in Edmonton and Skydome in Toronto, we would need a few more Stadiums in cities like Halifax and Quebec City by 2026. Add temporary seating to the venues that need it to meet fifa standards. I was at a few World Cup games at Green Point Stadium in Cape Town and all the new and renovated stadiums in Canada at least be as comparable. Green Point, a very beautiful venue, was actually pretty bare bones with a lot of temp seating.

Canada has successfully hosted 3 fifa events in the past and will host the Womens World Cup in 3 years. We already have adequate existing airports and infrastructure to host this event. We have a good economy and pretty much every major event we host we are successful at. Canada and Canadians have a pretty good reputation around the world and will have no problem attracting enough tourists to fill all the venues and party with us for a month solid. If you don't think fifa is taking a serious look at us then you're not paying attention.

Look, I'm not saying that we're a shoe in to host the World Cup, there's still a lot that has to fall into place for us. All I'm saying is that we are better positioned to host this than most of you think. Canada does have an appetite to host these large global events, it may be whether or not the government has enough will to seize the opportunity (grease some palms) when it comes. It's all just big business anyway.

Besides who wouldn't want to party down with loads of happy fans and bikini clad Brazilian hotties for a month. Believe me it is the biggest party you've ever seen, even paint drying fans can have fun.:)

cornholio

Jun 13, 2012, 6:22 AM

What would be the feasibility of hosting one game in Iqaluit?

Yes I know sounds crazy but to ship in temporary grandstands, equipment and grass for one game would take one chartered ship and a few weeks of construction. Large portion of the media would be flown in which is achievable and all fans would come in, and stay for the game on cruise ships. Say 10 or so of them I suppose, and its not likely you cant find 40,000 people to pay a premium for a once in a life time football experience.

This would be all about the TV market and the publicity it would stir up.

I see this as a crazy but realistic idea, and actually a really good idea as it would be something incredibly unique and shine the spot light on one of the most remote places in the world. The world would pay for this undertaking plus some with their curiosity, then you would have people buying the cruise/game tickets paying a premium. "A once in a lifetime world cup match in one of the most remote places on earth in norther Canada on the shores of the Arctic sea." A unique Arctic cruise to the match from what ever European/east coast city, and after the match and a 3 day stay a cruise back with all games played live on board on big screen TV's etc. The key to this is the cruise ships as they are the hotels and the transportation. Everything else is just planing.

Oh and every man woman and child in Iqaluit would get a free game ticket. :)

Copes

Jun 13, 2012, 9:41 AM

I'm not sure why that's embarrassing. We just have different tastes than most of the world, I'd like to think we're not so insecure that we're embarrassed by that. There are plenty of rich countries where soccer isn't the most popular sport, by the way.

I'm not asking for soccer to be "the most popular sport" as you suggest. But really, Canada should be quite capable of fielding a team that is at least somewhat competitive. We have the resources, and we have the kids playing soccer at a young age, but we haven't developed a program that has made us an internationally competitive team. Further, the World Cup is arguably the largest international sporting event in the world, and brings countries together in a way rivaled only by the Olympics, yet Canadians largely have no desire to take part in this international event.

Both our lack of success in developing a program, and our lack of desire to take part in such an international event are embarrassing.

Nouvellecosse

Jun 13, 2012, 9:46 AM

Should Canada bid for the 2026 world cup?

Yes, I think we probably should just as long as we're careful not to bid too high in case we end up actually winning.

Welkin

Jun 13, 2012, 12:37 PM

I'm not asking for soccer to be "the most popular sport" as you suggest. But really, Canada should be quite capable of fielding a team that is at least somewhat competitive. We have the resources, and we have the kids playing soccer at a young age, but we haven't developed a program that has made us an internationally competitive team. Further, the World Cup is arguably the largest international sporting event in the world, and brings countries together in a way rivaled only by the Olympics, yet Canadians largely have no desire to take part in this international event.

Both our lack of success in developing a program, and our lack of desire to take part in such an international event are embarrassing.

Canada is currently ranked 77th out of 206 in the world FIFA rankings. We recently tied the 28th ranked United States in a match. While I am certain that we do not put fear into the hearts of Spain or Germany, we are not exactly an embarrassment on the pitch either. At the rate soccer is progressing in Canada, by 2026 we should be able to field a decent team that is competitive.

Acajack

Jun 13, 2012, 12:49 PM

0-0 tie tonight against honduras if anyone cares.

16,000 in attendance in Toronto last night at BMO Field for the qualifier.

Acajack

Jun 13, 2012, 12:52 PM

If Canada does host the World Cup, it will have to compete with the CFL. The World Cup normally runs from mid-June to mid-July. During that time these stadiums won't be able accommodate any CFL games.
The CFL pre-season starts in mid-June, and the regular season starts early July.
You will need at least 4 stadiums to accomodate CFL football. (4 games / week)

However once the World Cup Knockout Stage starts (late June) some of the smaller venues can be converted back to CFL football.

You still have use to some of the other venues. (Empire Field in Vancouver, McGill Stadium can still be used)

I was wondering about this. Is there any way the World Cup and the odd CFL game (perhaps one during the tournament) could coexist in the same stadium during the same time period?

Acajack

Jun 13, 2012, 1:05 PM

I think Canada has everything required to host the World Cup except for the stadiums - which unfortunately happens to be one of the most important things.

FIFA would probably love it if Canada could get its act together on stadiums and put together a bid. It is true that the US and Mexico hosted a while ago but FIFA tends to spread the cup around wider than that when it comes to frequency of hosting. Giving it to those countries this *soon* (in FIFA terms) after the last ones might not fly that well in other parts of the world.

So Canada would be great for FIFA since it would give them a chance to have a pseudo-"American" World Cup (proximity to the U.S. and its fans, media and sponsors, favourable time zones), without actually having it in the U.S.

These are basically the same reasons the IOC really likes having the Olympics in Canada when it can.