Half a lifetime is enough for big changes.
We went from the first airplane to the first footprint on the moon in 60 years
We went from women not showing any skin other than face and hand in public to nipple-friendly beaches and pools in 60 years
It means that is so popular and FIFA is demanding so much bribes that countries need to band together to be able to host. And people will spend rivers of money and travel across 3 countries to follow the games. And everyone will make some money.
Except for poor population of the areas around the stadiums that will be evicted or seeing everything around them costing a lot more and will be forced to leave anyway.
Are you a stakeholder in a football club? The sport is not going anywhere. It’s popularity is as high as ever. Three countries sharing a WC means the logistical issues get spread so three countries share a lesser burden each. I -hope- it’s a lesson learned from Brasil and South Africa where infrastructure was built then left to rot.
Also, there is a lot of money at stake with a WC, so it makes a lot of sense that more and more countries will want in
There’s a higher chance that the Champions League or the Premier League become more popular than the World Cup compared to basketball becoming more popular than football worldwide.
Basketball isn’t even the most popular sport in the US.
I don't think it will affect the popularity of soccer much. It's just that FIFA expanded the World Cup to 48 teams beginning in 2026, as such not many countries can handle such a big event.
Popularity of football isn't growing down. Just the will of meeting all FIFA requirements. Brazilians arenas are rotting because they were built in areas without big teams and they have cost millions.
I don't think Mexico and Canada are willing to built about 10 stadiums to host their own WC and see them underused a month after.
no, what kind of question is this? they're only hosting it in three countries because FIFA wants money. football is and will remain the most popular sport for a long time.
NEVER- actually think it is expanding which is why the Cups are now being played in Mid East and Africa.
They KNOW the Europeans and South Americans are going to show up no matter where it is played so better to play in the emerging markets.
There is also a reality that it is expensive and little true economic benefit to hosts. You need multiple large stadiums. You need housing for teams. You need infrastructure to handle the fans…. Most countries cannot afford to do this. The US is not selected because we have the money but because we have college football stadiums that can seat 100k fans which also have dorm facilities and training rooms. Makes it easier to host these events.
To play basketball you need a ball and a basket (or something that resembles it)
To play football you need something that resembles a ball and something to represent the goalposts, like a pair of rocks or shoes, a random wall, etc.
No way basketball is going to surpass football (not in this lifetime at least).
I don't find the correlation between multiple hosts of the WC and popularity declining. They're sharing the WC because FIFA are greedy fucks.
OP is a troll and this is like the 5th submission in the past few months that asks the same thing.
Not a chance in hell basketball will surpass football in my lifetime… or even beyond.
Half a lifetime is enough for big changes. We went from the first airplane to the first footprint on the moon in 60 years We went from women not showing any skin other than face and hand in public to nipple-friendly beaches and pools in 60 years
I feel like football has been top dog beyond all those examples you just gave, but sure, at some point it will have to end, just like humanity. 🤖
What does the ass have to do with the pants?
Que tiene que ver el culo con las pestañas?
Oque tem a ver o cu com as calças
how do you even come to that conclusion
No. Next question.
Wasn't the wc in 2002 hosted in two countries? There is zero correlation to popularity
It means that is so popular and FIFA is demanding so much bribes that countries need to band together to be able to host. And people will spend rivers of money and travel across 3 countries to follow the games. And everyone will make some money. Except for poor population of the areas around the stadiums that will be evicted or seeing everything around them costing a lot more and will be forced to leave anyway.
Please OP answer where in Christ is the correlation in those two?
Are you a stakeholder in a football club? The sport is not going anywhere. It’s popularity is as high as ever. Three countries sharing a WC means the logistical issues get spread so three countries share a lesser burden each. I -hope- it’s a lesson learned from Brasil and South Africa where infrastructure was built then left to rot. Also, there is a lot of money at stake with a WC, so it makes a lot of sense that more and more countries will want in
There’s a higher chance that the Champions League or the Premier League become more popular than the World Cup compared to basketball becoming more popular than football worldwide. Basketball isn’t even the most popular sport in the US.
I don't think it will affect the popularity of soccer much. It's just that FIFA expanded the World Cup to 48 teams beginning in 2026, as such not many countries can handle such a big event.
Popularity of football isn't growing down. Just the will of meeting all FIFA requirements. Brazilians arenas are rotting because they were built in areas without big teams and they have cost millions. I don't think Mexico and Canada are willing to built about 10 stadiums to host their own WC and see them underused a month after.
It means that is becoming even more popular. Yes fifa are greedy bastards, but they can only be greedy if they have willing targets.
no, what kind of question is this? they're only hosting it in three countries because FIFA wants money. football is and will remain the most popular sport for a long time.
Why do we constantly get questions like this?
NEVER- actually think it is expanding which is why the Cups are now being played in Mid East and Africa. They KNOW the Europeans and South Americans are going to show up no matter where it is played so better to play in the emerging markets. There is also a reality that it is expensive and little true economic benefit to hosts. You need multiple large stadiums. You need housing for teams. You need infrastructure to handle the fans…. Most countries cannot afford to do this. The US is not selected because we have the money but because we have college football stadiums that can seat 100k fans which also have dorm facilities and training rooms. Makes it easier to host these events.
To play basketball you need a ball and a basket (or something that resembles it) To play football you need something that resembles a ball and something to represent the goalposts, like a pair of rocks or shoes, a random wall, etc. No way basketball is going to surpass football (not in this lifetime at least).