Should FIFA change its rules and find a permanent home for the World Cup?

[AviatorTom]

The 2026 FIFA Men's World Cup was an overwhelming success, with more fans in attendance than the previous two World Cups combined, and billions of dollars earned by FIFA, more than any other World Cup in history. And 2026 brought billions of dollars to the three host countries: Canada, Mexico, United States (CANMEXUS)

The FIFA World Cup is held every 4 years, and moves from place to place, as cities make bids to hold it.

With 2026 being so successful, hosted by Canada, Mexico and the United States (CANMEXUS), should FIFA consider changing its rules and pick a permanent site for the World Cup? CANMEXUS would probably like that.

What do you think?

Please vote in the poll.

YES - pick a permanent site - CANMEXUS

YES - pick a permanent site - other than CANMEXUS

NO - leave things as they are, move it around

Something ELSE - describe your creative idea

[AI Opinion]

FIFA shouldn’t make a permanent home for the World Cup, even after a huge success like 2026. 🌍
Rotating hosts spreads football’s economic boost, inspires new generations globally, and pushes countries to improve infrastructure. A fixed location, even CANMEXUS, would eventually feel unfair and political, and damage the “world” in World Cup. The magic is that it belongs to everyone. ⚽🏆

[lilBigPotato]

Sorry but this is the most American thing you can write...

The majority of your country doesn't even care about the sport, then you're part of hosting it for once and instantly want to claim/change it permanently because... Money.

The world cup isn't about making the most money. Not everything is about capitalism. Maybe for corrupt FIFA it is, but for people actually interested in the sport it isn't. Also, you made billions hosting it, but it also cost billions to put on, so let's look at both sides.

Was it better than Qatar? Probably yes but is that the bar to clear? Being better than the last scandalous choice? Also let's not forget that this world cup brought us beautiful things like unaffordable tickets, ad breaks disguised as drinking breaks and people unable to go support their team because of very strict immigration laws. The world cup was good but definitely not as perfect as some people make it out to be. Some of these points are easy to miss if you're not affected by them because you live in the hosting country. Switching countries gives most people the possibility to go watch one live one day.

There are countries where football is everything, where people live for it. Taking the possibility away from them to host it one day is unfair. Doesn't matter which country you choose. Football is a lot about tradition and the world cup switching countries is one of them.

Football is a global sport with fans all over the world and because of that it's only fair if the most important tournament changes places every time 🤷‍♀️

[AviatorTom]

@lilBigPotato You might want to have a chat with Gianni Infantino. FIFA holds a World Cup every four years to make money. That's why they almost always select the highest overall bider for the host location.

[OneViewpoint]

Hosting the FIFA World Cup is nowhere near as bad as hosting the Olympics. All you need is a stadium. And nearly every major city in every country has an adequate stadium. And the stadiums are not purpose built for the Word Cup. They exist before and they will be used afterwards.

The Olympics on the other hand require a bunch of specific infrastructure for the summer and winter games. A lot of the stuff will never be used again after the games end. It is hugely expensive and wasteful. I'd support building permanent summer and winter sites for the Olympics.

[purplepoppy]

Not canmexus although I do like the name. Most people thought the silly water breaks (to please American adverts) and having long half times spoilt things. Although the share scale of America does mean it can host more fans.

But the fact is football is a minority sport in the USA and travel there is expensive for fans. FIFA made a lot of money but was it really good for local economies or just a hassle for people.

Why does it need to be in one place? Canmexus showed it could be done over vast distances and proper Europe is a fraction of the size of the USA so why not spread it out

[DryGermanGuy]

No thanks, and please discard any changes that came up during this World Cup. Drinking breaks, what for? Professional sportsmen know to drink enough. The new VAR fanaticism to find "fouls" with a magnifying glass screwed three teams out of a potential victory. And "halftime shows"? Fuck that American nonsense! I say, kick Infantino out of office, at the very least for allowing Trump to pressure him to cancel that red card.

[AviatorTom]

@DryGermanGuy The red card fiasco shouldn't have happened. Messi was guilty of the exact same boot to ankle foul a few days earlier, and got nothing. The referee only called Balogun for a foul. It was VAR that went well beyond its scope and required the referee to issue a red card. VAR needs to have it's roles, responsibilities and power redefined, and reigned in.

[Just_Ken]

The US is the only country with the stadiums. Cost the us nothing to stage it, other countries break their backs trying to build stadiums suitable, while the US has huge sports areas everywhere

For instance there are 10 college stadiums in the US bigger than Wembley stadium England. Thats just for college amateur sports.

Biggest stadium in Europe is Spotify Camp Nou (Barcelona, Spain) – 99,354

No 8 biggest college stadium Bryant-Denny Stadium StadiumTuscaloosa, AL, United States- 100,077 seats.

[choco-latte]

Heck no, it would defeat the tournament’s spirit and also become boring. I like seeing a different country, atmosphere, and culture every 4 years. It’s called the World Cup for a reason, not just because of the winning team becoming world champions (main reason, sure) but also because it reflects football culture across the world.

[Calyptomaniac]

No, it's a big advantage to be at home. It shouldn't always favor the same country. And Europe has the most teams in it and it should be in Europe regularly since it is easier for fans to travel to rather than having to come to the US for 5-6 weeks every fourth year.

Attendance can be explained by more games and bigger stadiums as well.

[Iron_Man]

Boo it’s about making money more exposure USA USA

[DeeDeeDeVour]

Although I enjoyed hopping around North America to watch a soccer match and joyfully celebrate with other soccer enthusiasts, I'd much rather leave things alone with regards to switching to different host nations.

[KostasKouvalis]

My parents and some reporters were joking about that last night, but nah. The Gold Cup already does that and it only leads to match manipulation because everything in the US is about money. Also, it's the WORLD CUP. Nah, terrible idea

[molonski2]

It cannot be in one location , it needs to move around hence " the world game " , it not purely on attendance.

[NathanDavis]

if they pay enough... they will change anything

[Ill_made_Knight]

It is a truly global event and should change venues every time.

[Iron_Man]

Yes, uncle Tom it should be in America every time the World Cup has played it is so successful

[browsingthroughthe]

Everyone loves the way it moves like the Olympics ⚽ soccer

Soccer ⚽

[Cidknee]

No, leave it. It's the fairest way.

[kinks1951]

Defending champs should host