@edgar80lol La bombonera was renovated last year but it’s a bit to crowded for Europeans and North Americans. Instead of la bombonera, they can play games in el monumental (which is the biggest in South America and recently renovated too), estadio Mario Alberto Kempes (2nd biggest in Argentina), and then el estadio único (most modern in Argentina) Then in Uruguay they can play en el Centenario (one from first World Cup) and Campeón del Siglo (all the other Uruguayan stadiums are too small) And in Paraguay, they can play at La Olla (again all the other stadiums would be too small) But of course there’s 7 years till 2030 and there’s been talks of building a second Bombonera with an estimated 80,000 capacity Also you can’t pull the “too poor” card when Morocco is also one of the venues
Just make Argentina's group based in Argentina and Uruguay's group based in Uruguay. The whole group, all games. A tiny amount of creativity in scheduling can ensure that the teams advancing to the next phase won't be too disadvantaged
@@croskoal The Morocco-Spain-Portugal bid would likely refuse, so it would come to votes and the South Americans would very likely lose everything. This is the best deal they could get.
@@jzlnzcurious how they always forget the country that hosted 2 of the most iconic world cups, only the azteca stadium has more history that any field on both the US and Canada
@he96765 An opening match and ceremony in Uruguay would have been good enough, I think. One game in Uruguay, another in Argentina, to celebrate the best 2 teams on the planet at that time would still make sense. A game in Paraguay seems out of place
if it wouldve been just uruguay and argentina it would’ve been fine, but ofc with the fucking joke that is the 2026 world cup they wouldnt just settle for less than 3 teams😑honestly hope less and less people stop watching football in the next couple years
@@franze4u dont need to hope for that,its already a reality.Europeans have massively dropped considered attendance numbers at stadiums and subscriptions for streaming is reducing in increase every year.Just a matter of time before people just pressure to move the game to a more shorter and mechanical form
My theory is that since Saudis just submitted their bid for WC 2034, FIFA decided on this bizarre bid to make Saudi bid more feasible against criticisms
Yeah I mentioned that at the very end of the vid! Perfectly sets up Saudi for 2034…surprise surprise, they officially launched their World Cup bid for 2034 the same day this was announced
Likely, but its dumb anyway. Just come out and say Saudi Arabia will host and be done with it. At this point, no one cares about it, we all know how FIFA operates
While we can't rule out the role of the Saudis, the most likely explanation is that this was the best compromise to have the centenary celebration, while also keep the most likely winner, the Morocco-Spain-Portugal bid, happy.
@@boringchelseafanwhat’s wrong with it going to Saudi? It has big stadiums and they are renovating and building more stadiums for the AFC in 2027 and by 2030 Saudi Arabia is gonna be the destination for people especially since Neom will open
I really hate this decision since if they knew they wanted to host the opening games in Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay then they should have just have that bid win. Since in this format is a jet lag, for some players are going to be incredible because the flight time from South America to Europe and Africa is crazy.
They can't "have it win". If it was decided by vote, the Spith American bid would most likely lose to Morocco-Spain-Portugal bid, given how much backing they have in UEFA, CAF and Asia. So this is the best deal they got.
This was done so south america, europe and africa cannot bid for 2034. This leaves only North America, Oceania, Antartica and Asia. North america is highly unlikely to get 2034 because of 2026, Oceania & Antarctica (for obvious reasons) are never going to host the world cup. That leaves only Asia, which makes the Saudi's bid almost guaranteed to be accepted.
Man I wish Australia got a World Cup, sadly it’s all about money these days, even though I think an Australia World Cup would be like the one in South Africa, also Australia have amazing football/soccer culture just look at the women’s World Cup, the game is at an all time peek in Australia right now and we also have a great team. ❤ love your vids btw
And because of this monstrosity, the 2038 world cup could be more or less hosted by CONCACAF nations So unless insane amounts of upfront investment from some nations, the World Cup 2038 will be hosted in USA again
Just do it in Iberia and Morocco the "favour" done to us is outright disrespectfull. I was ready to cope with the fact we may not have the means to do the WC here but this is pretty infuriating.
@@guillermin1234 si pero como la fifa es una democracia y el voto de samoa vale lo mismo que el de alemania sin marruecos se les va para arabia saudita
@@guillermin1234Portugal and Spain belongs to North Africa. Without North Africa People in Spain and Portugal will be still living in caves like there anchetors.
Honestly doing this wouldn’t make a dent in global emissions and environmental impact because almost every team in the Champions League has to fly to every opponent’s home field, not to mention that the same exact thing happens for Europa and Conference leagues. Plus, those happen every year. On top of that, since the United States is so large, most MLS games require that one team flies over 6 hours to get to the opponent’s field. Professional top-flight football is no where near a friend to the environment, but a couple of trans-Atlantic plane rides for the World Cup would not have that great of an impact.
I'm against this move for the environmental standpoint and financial.. It's been proven that countries do a lot worse after financial after a world than the profit they bring in look at Brazil and South Africa.... and environmental impact will be horrible as well... It's all about the bottom line, 💰 🤑 💸
@@divyanshsingh9369 Why aren't you mad about it being impossible to completely boycott an industrial sector without taking a huge cut in your personal life? Why aren't you mad that our wealth is entirely build upon environmental damage and that we've got no choice but to go along with it? Why aren't you mad about the illusion of free choice in a market that is characteristically designed for profit by greenwashing?
@@tin-cul We wouldn't have been able to do so alone sadly, so Argentina would have been needed, they were also the second finalist of the first WC so it would had made sense. If it was made 20 years ago we would had been able to host it, but with the new format and FIFA regulations it is too much, from now only only first world countries will be able to host the WCs pretty much.
@@rockstepguy3524Also World Cup was like 13 teams back then, that's possibly why it was possible for Uruguay and with 48 teams, that would be too much for Uruguay to handle. Not all stadiums there passed the World Cup standard.
@@NanobanaKinako Yeah, but hey, things could still change, and maybe Uruguay does what they did in 1980 to celebrate 50 years of WCs: make a "mundialito", a small and "friendly" WC (only in name) on wich only the WC winners and some special guests like the Netherlands would play, and since that would be less than 13 teams, it could in theory be possible (even more so if we get Argentina to put some stadiums, but they could not be needed). It may not be a WC in title, but for a long time that tournament was considered to be one of the most "intense", since every team was extremely strong. It is all up to FIFA to say so, but there is still some time, we will see.
Also means that the 2038 World Cup can only be held in North America or Oceania, so unless New Zealand pairs up with many of the Islands, it is more than like USA or Mexico will be hosting again 12 years after their previous event
It's not hosted in 6 countries, there will be only 3 matches in south america to celebrate 100 years of world cup and there will be 10 days gap between these celebrations and the official opening of the world cup.
Even with 32 countries was really hard to achieve the minimum requirements to host a world cup, so the 48 format will absolutely kill the opportunity of any developing or small country to host the world cup forever, it's just not feasible. At this point the only nations capable of taking this event alone will be Brazil, Usa, Spain, England, Italy, Germany, France, maybe Portugal and countries with oil.
The world Cup should be coming to Africa in 2030. They are simply trying to avoid that by grouping Morocco with all those 6 hosts. Watch the rest of the continents host before any other African country hosts.
bro every football fan thats like "tHeY jUsT wAnT mOrE mOnEy" is acting like an 8 year old who just realized that corporations try to make money. like thats their whole fucking job. if they didn't try to make more money every year, they'd go bankrupt and there'd be no more football
In Wikipedia it said that Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina will be “token Match host” whatever that is but still Spain, Portugal and Morocco is the main host
This effects the players, as well as the fans. The players will be exhausted by travelling every week to different countries for the match. Most Fans cannot afford travelling in airplane to and fro in 6 different countries, that would cost a lot.
I agree.Why do these nations have to automatically qualify.Not only that but it makes no sense why Asia or America aren't hosting as they should be the next continent to host.
The first match of the world cup in uruguay marking 100 years is going to be one of the best moments in the sport. It begs the question why not just have the whole tournement in south america that year
it would've been far better if spain and portugal hosted the 2030 wc and Uruguay ,paraguay & argentina hosted the 2034 but it clearly seems fifa wants to give the host to saudi to 2034😢
While I disagree with FIFA's decisions in this instance, I don't think it warrants the amount of outrage I'm seeing, this over dramatisation of literally anything FIFA does is ridiculous
“Over dramatisation” how??? It’s ridiculous for the players and the fans, just to satisfy a few FIFA officials. Environmentally it’s not great and sets an awful precedent for future editions of the tournament. I think the decision 100% warrants that reaction!
@@DMac__ like it's a stupid decision, and the first few matches would be a bit of a mess, but honestly everything else about it is fine, not to mention for Argentine, Paraguayan, Uruguayan fans, that aren't attending the world cup, they'll be able to attend a home game. The auto qualification is a non issue in this case since 5/6 of those countries are just about guaranteed to qualify. In summary: is it a stupid decision? Yes. Is it as massive as everyone is making out to be? Not in my opinion
If to celebrate 100 aniversary of 🚾 then host only in South America with 3-4 maximum hosts nations or they can also do like 1+3 host, opening ceremony and Group - A matches in 🇺🇾 then all remaining in 🇵🇹🇲🇦🇪🇸 by this there will be maximum 4 host and still 44 teams to qualify
They should've just made it a South American world cup if they wanted a 100 year anniversary. Imagine travelling across the Atlantic especially as a football fan. Oh god the expenses...
