32 cities remain in the running to host the World Cup in the US (Mexico and Canada, kinda). Let's have a look at who is left.

Potential host cities for the 2026 World Cup have been cut from 41 to 32. pic.twitter.com/8hb6EhHRzv

— Paul Carr (@PCarrESPN) October 4, 2017

 In 2026, these United States of America will be hosting the FIFA Men's World Cup. Not all the niceties have been sorted yet but it's going to happen. There is only one other bidder and I don't see Morocco having any sniff at hosting this event. So with that now out of the way. We now turn to which cities will be hosting this event. As a breakdown, the World Cup is typically hosted in 12 stadia across the host nation(s). Yet, the 2026 World Cup will be the first in the new expanded 48 team format. How much will that affect the number of host cities for the tournament is yet to be seen but I'd figure the number to be somewhere to be 12 at the absolute minimum and roughly 16 at the upper limit. The mandated guarantees that FIFA expects out of a host and its host cities is a long list which many few cities in the world can accommodate, let alone a group of cities of one country. But here we are. The cities left in contention are in the opening tweet and we have some interesting options.

As already stated by the Bid Committee for the US, Mexico, and Canada, our neighbors to the north and south will be hosting only a handful of matches leading up to the knockout rounds, leaving the business end of the tournament to the US.

When the US first hosted the event in 1994, the host cities looked as such:

The soccer landscape in the country has drastically changed in the past 23 years but there still remain stalwarts that hosted then and will host this go round. Those cities are LA and NY/NJ. I would argue that Dallas is just much of a lock but Metlife and the Rose Bowl will be played in.  Much like the final in 1994, I would bet my life that one of these two will the host of the opening match and/or the final. Next on the list of all most near locks are Dallas and Chicago. If you don't think they are playing in Jerry World then you are outside your mind. 100k people at World Cup ticket prices? Lock city. Next, Chicago is the home of the US Soccer federation so ipsofacto they will get matches. The most interesting of the '94 host cities to potentially be brought over is DC. The nation's capital and surrounding areas are a hotbed for US Soccer and oh yea, it's also the fucking capital. HOWEVER. The stadiums there are THE WORST. RFK was played in during the '94 World Cup. It will not exist in a few years. FedEx field is incredibly difficult to get to, the pitch they use for soccer matches is borderline criminal. DC United's new stadium set to open next year will only hold 20k, well short of the FIFA requirements. It pains me to think that the World Cup will be played in FedEx Field but I don't think there is any other choice. You can't not play in the capital. You just can't. This is how I see it shaking out. Please pardon my local geography as I couldn't care less what part of Georgia Atlanta is in or where Seattle is in Washington.

We've got: LA, SF, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Orlando, Atlanta, DC, NY/NJ, Chicago, and Boston.

All of these places have brand new mega stadias thanks to the NFL or are legacy soccer cities in the country. Would I be surprised if Philly/Baltimore got one? No. Nashville, Minneapolis, Miami? All new or by that time new MLS cities. Sorry but nope. Won't happen. In order to pass FIFA requirements, Host Cities need massive, and hopefully preexisting, infrastrastructure including Hotels, Airports, Training Centers, etc. Those 12 above provide US Soccer and FIFA the easiest path to run this event while seeing various parts of the country. It's a win-win for everybody. Well except for the flyover states. But what's really out there anyways. Both coasts and all of the country's major cities covered. Ticks all the boxes especially when considering our Mexican and Canadian brethren. 

Switching to our latin friends and king of the FIFA fine:

The only real certainty is Mexico City. There will be games at the Azteca. Monster stadium with World Cup history. It's one of the most known grounds around the world. Lock it up for Mexico City. Guadalajara and Monterrey are both homes to massive clubs of  Liga MX but if I had to guess the remaining order of mexican hosts it would be Monterrey followed by Guadalajara based on proximity to the States and the other potential host sites.

Hold onto your butts Canada, the Men's World Cup is heading your way.



Canada presents an interesting challenge to the organizers of the event. The canadian cities on the list excluding Edmonton have well supported MLS clubs. The question there is stadium size to meet the minimum FIFA requirements and proximity to the other host venues. If you have a subsection of host cities on the west coast, you'd have to think Vancouver would have a great chance. If in Montreal, you cover three of the four FIFA languages which I am sure will get a couple people back in Zurich all hot and bothered. Toronto is the OG of the Canadian MLS sides. Does that give them the edge? After hosting a quite successful Women's World Cup in 2015 and having that final in Vancouver, I'd give them the edge now with Toronto being the backup choice.

Well as we head towards the announcement most likely in 2019, I hope everyone starts getting excited to have the eyes of World Football on the Stars and Bars hosting the Men's World Cup. Only 9 years to go.....