World Cup '26 - General

[Natsinpwc]

Yes I think it’s been fun. New Zealand ties Iran. Egypt ties Belgium. And Cape Verde of course. Only Curaçao got blow out. Games have been competitive and that’s all you can ask. Different perspective here cause USA played the second day and looked great.

[Natsinpwc]

The GP underway today. Croatia should be a decent test.

[Ali the Baseball Cat]

Congo 

Granted, a lot of guys playing for top clubs, but still...dayumn.

[Natsinpwc]

I think the Japan and Netherlands match was the best of the opening games. Lots of other fun games. Oh excuse me. Matches.

[Count Walewski]

I'm really enjoying all of the content on Twitter about people from all over the world coming to America and posting about their impressions of the place. Whether it is Scots taking over Boston, various stodgy Germanic peoples discovering Buc-ees, the town of Lawrence, KS all becoming Algerian nationalists, or Japanese people seeing urban squirrels for the first time, there is a lot of heart-warming content out there.

A big storyline on Twitter this week is also foreigners being very impressed with American stadiums. Lots of people from all over the world are impressed by the fact that America did not have to build a single stadium to host this World Cup and only needed to make minor modifications to existing NFL stadiums. Apparently a lot of people didn't realize just how big, modern, and nice our stadiums are. And we have dozens of them. Some are pointing out that America could host 2-3 consecutive World Cups without reusing a single stadium.

I imagine the NFLPA is taking notes on how easy it was to put grass into these stadiums for the next round of bargaining...

[English Natsie]

Even with Messi, still a bit strange to see soccer at Arrowhead...

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Do we know if the new stadium at RFK is being built to be soccer-friendly? Is the field big enough to host a 400 metre track for the Olympics?

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Some are pointing out that America could host 2-3 consecutive World Cups without reusing a single stadium.

They aren't even using the college stadiums like the Big House or Stanford this time.

As for other NFL stadiums, Fed Ex stinks, but M&T would have been a nice site.

A guy  I know moved to Holland after college and designed the first field where the pitch is grown outside the stadium and moved in for matches.  It was actually a small club, maybe a 3rd division club,  that did this because the town wanted a venue for concerts and other indoor gatherings (that is, they wanted to get the pitch out of the way for indoor events).

[1995hoo]

They aren't even using the college stadiums like the Big House or Stanford this time.

....

Stanford Stadium was torn down and rebuilt, at a much smaller capacity, after the 2005 football season. It's effectively a totally new stadium that seats at least 30,000 fewer than the the old one did.

I was speculating the other day on whether it would be possible for the US, or the US and Canada co-hosting, to hold a World Cup entirely at indoor stadiums, assuming for discussion purposes that every stadium owner were willing to participate, that every venue could meet FIFA's field-width requirements, and every city were willing to agree to the hosting agreement. I concluded that for this year it would have been tight (I counted 15 possible stadiums) but that for the 2031 Women's World Cup, which is supposed to have 48 teams, it would be possible. (I've excluded Mexico because I don't believe they have any indoor stadiums.)

Cities with existing indoor stadiums of sufficient capacity: Vancouver, Inglewood (LA), Glendale (Phoenix), Las Vegas, Arlington (Dallas), San Antonio, Houston, New Orleans, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Detroit, Indianapolis, Atlanta, Syracuse, and Montreal. (That's 15.) I don't include Toronto on the list because SkyDome's seats have been permanently locked in baseball configuration, which is one reason why this year's World Cup games are being played at BMO Field instead.

Upcoming indoor stadiums: Nashville (opening this year), Cleveland (targeting 2029), and DC (targeting 2030). The Chiefs' new dome in Kansas is estimated for 2031, so I wouldn't count that one as a possibility for the Women's World Cup.

So that's 18 stadiums, again assuming all of them were eligible and the owners/localities were willing.

[English Natsie]

About time for the greatest soccer anthem of all (you mean you thought you'd got away with it?... ) 

[Natsinpwc]

So much for waiting on to buy tickets cause prices are going down. And the stadiums seem generally full.

https://financialpost.com/news/retail-marketing/world-cup-2026-dynamic-pricing-tickets

I will be in Seattle while there is a round of 32 game there.  Not sure I want to pay over $2000 a ticket to sit in the upper bowl. Sounds like they have a nice fan experience there at Pier 62

[Natsinpwc]

Any big games today? 

[Natsinpwc]

I liked yesterday when the first game started noon eastern time and the last finished at a reasonable hour.  I guess the Korean keeper should have punched that ball instead of trying to catch it.

[English Natsie]

I know the GP want to engage with the locals, but...Tuchel in a Royals jersey.  Nationals next time, TT, Nationals...

[English Natsie]

Just what are they putting in that maple syrup?...  

[blue911]

Just what are they putting in that maple syrup?...  

Cane sugar?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/02/maple-syrup-scam-quebec-canada

[imref]

So apparently World Cup fans are packing their luggage with....ranch dressing?

[English Natsie]

Was I the only one who thought that Prime Minister Carney, in a rather neat fitting Canada shirt, was hilarious? We can imagine...

'Now, PM - it would be great if, rather than being known as a central bank head and economics academic, you could show the 'common touch' by wearing a soccer shirt'

'OK - go and find one'

(later) 'Sorry, PM, this is the only size they had left...'

[varoadking]

Cane sugar?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/02/maple-syrup-scam-quebec-canada

This is an outrage!

[1995hoo]

I don’t understand something about the group stage tiebreakers.

The italicized text below is mostly copied from an ESPN story except I’ve annotated the steps with letters to make it easier to refer to the pieces, and I’ve used the word "games" instead of their "matches."

What I don’t understand is: Under step one, how can "B" and "C" ever be relevant? That is, because the group stage is a single round-robin, you play your three group opponents once each. That means if two teams are tied on points and one team has a greater number of points against the other, it means the team with the greater number of points won the game (so you exit the analysis at "A"). If the two teams have the same number of points against each other, it has to mean their game was a tie and they got one point each. But in that scenario, how can "B" and "C" be relevant? Neither team can have a superior head-to-head goal difference against each other (the difference is zero), and neither team can have scored more goals than the other in games between the two of them (because a tie means they scored the same number).

So what’s the point of having "B" and "C" in the tiebreakers at all? It seems to me that if neither team wins tiebreaker "A," then the analysis inherently has to jump directly to "D." What am I missing here?

According to FIFA, the tiebreakers if two or more teams in the same group are equal on points after the group stage are as follows:

Step one
A—Greatest number of points obtained in the group games between the teams concerned (head-to-head)
B—Superior goal difference resulting from the group games between the teams concerned (head-to-head)
C—Greatest number of goals scored in all group games between the teams concerned (head-to-head)

Step two (if still equal)
D—Superior goal difference in all group games
E—Greatest number of goals scored in all group games
F—Highest team conduct score (players and team officials) relating to the number of yellow and red cards obtained

Step three (if still equal)
G—Ranked according to the most recent published edition of the FIFA/Coca‑Cola Men's World Ranking

[JCA-CrystalCity]

I don’t understand something about the group stage tiebreakers.

The italicized text below is mostly copied from an ESPN story except I’ve annotated the steps with letters to make it easier to refer to the pieces, and I’ve used the word "games" instead of their "matches."

What I don’t understand is: Under step one, how can "B" and "C" ever be relevant? That is, because the group stage is a single round-robin, you play your three group opponents once each. That means if two teams are tied on points and one team has a greater number of points against the other, it means the team with the greater number of points won the game (so you exit the analysis at "A"). If the two teams have the same number of points against each other, it has to mean their game was a tie and they got one point each. But in that scenario, how can "B" and "C" be relevant? Neither team can have a superior head-to-head goal difference against each other (the difference is zero), and neither team can have scored more goals than the other in games between the two of them (because a tie means they scored the same number).

So what’s the point of having "B" and "C" in the tiebreakers at all? It seems to me that if neither team wins tiebreaker "A," then the analysis inherently has to jump directly to "D." What am I missing here?

According to FIFA, the tiebreakers if two or more teams in the same group are equal on points after the group stage are as follows:

Step one
A—Greatest number of points obtained in the group games between the teams concerned (head-to-head)
B—Superior goal difference resulting from the group games between the teams concerned (head-to-head)
C—Greatest number of goals scored in all group games between the teams concerned (head-to-head)

Step two (if still equal)
D—Superior goal difference in all group games
E—Greatest number of goals scored in all group games
F—Highest team conduct score (players and team officials) relating to the number of yellow and red cards obtained

Step three (if still equal)
G—Ranked according to the most recent published edition of the FIFA/Coca‑Cola Men's World Ranking

gonna guess it  could be relevant in 3 way tie breakers. Suppose 3 teams split their head to heads so are tied on tiebreaker A. Team A might have blown out team C but lost narrowly to Team B, and Team C beats Team B by the same margin. It would have a positive goal difference, Team B would have a zero difference, and team C would have a negative difference. A would win the Step B tie-breaker. Then you  would go to a head to head tiebreaker between B and C, and because C beat B, C is 2nd in the group.  I'd have to think about how C comes into play. 

[1995hoo]

Ahhh, duh. (Smacks head) I was thinking entirely of two-way tiebreakers. It does, of course, refer to two or more teams and somehow I completely read that out of the matrix. Thank you.

[welch]

Was I the only one who thought that Prime Minister Carney, in a rather neat fitting Canada shirt, was hilarious? We can imagine...

'Now, PM - it would be great if, rather than being known as a central bank head and economics academic, you could show the 'common touch' by wearing a soccer shirt'

'OK - go and find one'

(later) 'Sorry, PM, this is the only size they had left...'

PM Carney usually wears a hockey jersey, also called a "sweater" for old time sake.

http://www.instagram.com/reels/DHhIQJtSVen/

[imref]

Norway's takeover of Times Square was something.

https://nypost.com/2026/06/22/sports/rowing-norwegian-world-cup-fans-take-over-nyc-subways-times-square/

[Natsinpwc]

USA will meet the Bosniaks next week.  Sarajevo is a beautiful place btw.