Jump to content

Coupe du monde 2026 - Candidature retenue - Canada, Mexique et États-Unis


Recommended Posts

D'accord avec toi sur ce point si on peut avoir un bid conjoint je suis all inn A part Vancouver , Toronto et Montreal je ne vois pas de reel possibilite de tenir des match de foot ailleurs au Canada. En plus ca nous donnerai une bonne raison de faire quelque chose avec notre stade olympique.

Voilà pourquoi les bids conjoints font du sens. C'est intenable de devoir produire 10+ stades de classe mondiale pour un tournoi sportif, et de trouver une façon de les rentabiliser par la suite. Mais, si tu sépares ce fardeau sur plusieurs pays, ça fait plus de sens.*
Edited by andre md
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Jack Todd: Montreal must get out of World Cup bid before it's too late

The cost of hosting the 2026 FIFA tournament would be catastrophic, with the host city on the hook for a massive bill.

Jack Todd, Special to Montreal GazetteJACK TODD, SPECIAL TO MONTREAL GAZETTE
Published on: March 18, 2018 | Last Updated: March 18, 2018 9:07 PM EDT

love the World Cup. Next to the Summer Olympics, it’s my favourite sports event. The luckiest assignment I ever drew as a sports columnist was covering the 1998 World Cup in France.

But I draw the line at seeing the city of Montreal ripped off by FIFA, the most corrupt sports entity on the planet. The North American bid for the 2026 World Cup, with Montreal as one of three potential Canadian host cities along with Toronto and Edmonton, is structured in unique FIFA fashion:

FIFA gets everything. We get nothing — and the potential cost at the end of the day could be catastrophic. It could not be simpler.

Vancouver, Minneapolis and Chicago (the latter city home to the U.S. Soccer Federation) have already seen the light and withdrawn from the bid. Montreal must follow suit, immediately if not sooner. (Toronto and Edmonton also remain in the bid process, which received the backing of the federal Liberals last week after the Trudeau government clearly failed in its obligation to scrutinize carefully anything of this size.)

Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante showed courage and decisiveness in withdrawing from Coderre’s disastrous E-car race almost as soon as she took office — but it would take 100 E-car races to even begin to match the potential cost to this city of a “winning” World Cup bid. Now Plante has to show similar courage and foresight and get out of this ridiculous World Cup mess before it’s too late.

You can make a pretty solid argument for some level of government involvement in a stadium for a reborn Expos team that would play 81 games a year in this city, hopefully for decades. There’s no argument whatsoever for spending hundreds of millions of dollars, at a minimum, to host a one-time event that means three or four World Cup matches.

This is how FIFA operates. Every four years, armed with contracts and briefcases, the organization stages a heist that would embarrass the Mob. FIFA gets the money; the hosts get the security, transport and stadium headaches; and at the end of the World Cup, the host nation is left to foot the massive bills. Worse still, FIFA now refuses to pay a dime of taxes in the host country.

As B.C. Premier John Horgan said after his NDP government pulled the plug on Vancouver’s bid, FIFA wants nothing less than a blank cheque In truth, the extent of FIFA’s demands is mind-boggling: how the federal Liberals could have signed off on the bid last week is beyond understanding.

Some of the key reporting on the World Cup heist was done by Bob Mackin for thebreaker.news website. After talks broke off and the NDP government in British Columbia pulled out of the dubious deal, Mackin obtained a copy of the list of demands made on the host countries by FIFA and made it public.

The list of FIFA’s non-negotiable demands begins with a massive tax break: From June 13, 2018, until 2028, FIFA demands an absolute tax holiday. FIFA would pay zero tax in the city of Montreal, the province of Quebec or the nation of Canada on any of the massive profits it will generate.

How extensive are those profits? According to no less a source than FIFA’s own financial report on the 2014 World Cup in poverty-stricken Brazil, the World Cup generated $4.8 billion in revenue for FIFA, compared with $2.2 billion in expenses, leaving FIFA with a $2.6 billion profit.

Brazil’s cut, in return for billions in expenses, bulldozed neighbourhoods, security headaches and all the other difficulties of hosting a World Cup? FIFA contributed $453 million to local organizing committees and a $100 million “legacy” payment. A total of $553 million, to offset billions in expenses.

FIFA did not contribute to the costs of staging the tournament: stadiums, infrastructure, security. The tournament cost Brazil an estimated $15 billion.

One of the first costs Montreal would incur would be to install a temporary grass field at the Olympic Stadium for the men’s World Cup — this after the Canadian Soccer Association insisted before the Women’s World Cup in 2015 that grass fields could not be installed here because of the Canadian climate. Obviously, the obstacle (as female players charged at the time) was the gender of the athletes, not the climate.

The riskiest clause in all the FIFA demands, however, is the one that leaves host cities responsible not only for all security costs for the venues, hotels, media, airports and everything else connected to the World Cup, but also for any liability arising from security mishaps. If, heaven forbid, there is a security debacle in the form of a terrorist attack, the liability could be catastrophic — and it would rest entirely with the host, while FIFA hustles its profits out of the country, unencumbered by taxes or inconvenient security regulations.

The 2026 World Cup bid is for fools. If Toronto and Edmonton want to go down that road, that’s their problem. Montreal still has its memories of the 1976 Olympics: we’ve been there and we have the T-shirt.

Men cannot have babies, but mammoth global sporting extravaganzas most certainly can run a deficit. Especially when FIFA is calling the shots.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pas beaucoup de contexte ici. La tenue d'une coupe du monde au Brésil vs en Amérique du Nord n'est pas du tout comparable.

Les 15 milliards que le Brésil a payé se divise comme suit :

  • 7 nouveaux stades et 5 stades rénovés pour 3,6 milliards. (donc plusieurs éléphants blancs)
  • Le reste, environs ONZE MILLIARDS DE DOLLARS, a été investi dans des projets d'infrastructures.

En Amérique du Nord : La plupart des stades qui seraient utilisés existent déjà. Le Stade Olympique aurait par contre besoin de bonnes rénos. Mais c'est rien à comparer de ce qui c'est fait au Brésil. Et surtout, on a nullement besoin de dépenser autant en infrastructure pour accueillir entre 3 et 5 matchs de Coupe du Monde.

Il est donc inconcevable que la coupe du Monde en Amérique du Nord coûte autant. Il serait mieux de la comparer avec la Coupe du Monde de 2006 en Allemagne. En effet, cette coupe du monde a même généré des profits pour le pays hôte.

Finalement, même si cette coupe du monde couterait 15 milliards aux pays hôtes en 2026. On parle de de 75% de ce montant chargé aux USA, et 12,5% au Mexique et 12,5% au Canada. Donc, c'est 1,875 milliards de Canada pour le Canada pour un pays avec un GDP de 1,530 billions de dollars. Par comparaison, au Brésil c'était 15 milliards pour un GDP de 1,700 billions de dollars. On décuple le fardeau financier sur la nation. 

Sérieux, quand on est rendu à chiâler sur l'installation d'un terrain en gazon temporaire pour ne pas acceillir la plus grosse compétition sportive surla planète... ça fait NIMBY en cr...

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Personnellement je préfère que les canadien appuis la candidature pour les jeux de 2026 a Calgary que du maudit soccer … et le cout pour des jeux hivers a Calgary serais très bas contrairement a Pyeongchang presque tous les installation de 1988 son encore dans les critère des Fédération Sportif.. Il a juste la piste de bobsleigh / de luge et le tremplin du saut a ski qui on hors norme de la FIS et ISBF/FIL .. Et la Piste et le tremplin de whistler peux etre utiliser …     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On saura le résultat du processus de sélection le 13 juin. Il n'y a pas de "préférences" à avoir, les gouvernement fédéraux et provinciaux concernés ont déjà manifesté leur appui au projet. On parle de 10 matchs au Canada, dans 3 villes. C'est pas ça qui va nous ruiner.

Quand même drôle que tu t'inscrives sur un forum d'urbanisme pour "bumper" trois sujets et les détourner vers le sujet des sports d'hivers. :P 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, seb851 said:

Personnellement je préfère que les canadien appuis la candidature pour les jeux de 2026 a Calgary que du maudit soccer … et le cout pour des jeux hivers a Calgary serais très bas contrairement a Pyeongchang presque tous les installation de 1988 son encore dans les critère des Fédération Sportif.. Il a juste la piste de bobsleigh / de luge et le tremplin du saut a ski qui on hors norme de la FIS et ISBF/FIL .. Et la Piste et le tremplin de whistler peux etre utiliser …     

And what about the stadium? Calgary does not have an Olympic-style facility to host. McMahon was a piece of shit in 1988. It's time for Canada to host the (men's) World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, je t'invite a lire sur le sujet pour des jeux hivers de Calgary, Calgary est une de ville favorite pour 2026 parce c'est le cadidat parfait pour démontrer le plan 2020 du CIO … c'est a dire de jeux qui coute par chere et qui est un ville hiver contrairement a Beijing, Sotchi et Pyeongchang

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...