80 Games, 16 Cities, 3 Countries

There weren't many surprises in FIFA's long-awaited announcement of the 2026 World Cup host cities.  I was a little confused as to why Miami over DC at first, but then I found out Washington and Baltimore combined their bids, which made it DOA.  Kansas City was also a little unexpected, but not entirely, since there was some speculation that Edmonton wouldn't make the cut and get replaced by KC, which is exactly what ended up happening.

The original plan was to have three cities host the 10 games in Canada, though, so I wonder how that changes the planning.  I'd imagine it means Toronto and Vancouver will just get five games each now (which apparently was part of the problem with Edmonton...they reportedly wanted a guarantee of five games).  It would be easy to do, too.  Three group stage, a round of 32 and a round of 16.  And do they have Canada play one game in each city?

All three Mexican cities that were submitted were obviously going to be chosen, and you'd have to think that, if they divide Mexico's 10 games 4-3-3, Azteca will get the extra game.  There's some speculation that Azteca will host the opening game, which would be a pretty cool reward for the stadium that will be the first to hold games in three separate World Cups.

Speaking of that, SoFi was picked as the LA stadium instead of the Rose Bowl.  I was expecting it to be the Rose Bowl since it seats 100,000 people and it hosted the 1994 final, but SoFi is the shiny, new toy that just hosted the Super Bowl, so I get it.  No Rose Bowl, however, means that none of the nine venues from 1994 will be used again in 2026.

In fact, only five of the nine cities used in 1994 will get World Cup games again--New York, LA, San Francisco, Dallas and Boston.  Seeing as those are five of the biggest cities in the country, that's not exactly a surprise.  Chicago, Detroit, Orlando and Washington hosted then and won't in 2026, while Atlanta, Houston, Miami, Philadelphia, Kansas City and Seattle will host for the first time.

Of those six new cities, Atlanta, Houston and Seattle seemed like virtual locks.  The Sounders and Atlanta United both play in the NFL stadiums that will be hosting the World Cup games, and they have two of the highest average attendances in MLS.  Houston, meanwhile, is America's fourth-largest city and has played host to several Mexican National Team games, so that one makes sense, too.

As for Philadelphia, I think there's one big reason why it was picked over DC.  July 4, 2026 is a Saturday.  Likely quarterfinal Saturday.  And a World Cup quarterfinal in Philadelphia, America's first capital, on the country's 250th birthday was simply too good to pass up!

That hasn't been officially announced yet, but I'd be shocked if Philly wasn't hosting a quarterfinal (on July 4).  Likewise, the selections of Atlanta and Dallas were no surprise since they were listed as potential semifinal hosts in the bid book.  And the World Cup Final will be at MetLife Stadium.  Gianni Infantino was non-committal about that during the show, but there's no reason to believe that won't be the case, as has been speculated for a while.

While it made sense to have the 1994 Final at the 100,000-seat Rose Bowl, having the 2026 Final at MetLife makes sense, too.  For starters, New York is the largest city in the country and already has pockets of supporters from every country.  More importantly, though, is the time difference.  I'm assuming they'll have the game in the mid-afternoon for European TV.  A 3:00 kickoff in New York would work (even though it'll be crazy hot in the middle of the afternoon in mid-July!).  A noon kickoff in LA, while doable, would not.

I also really like that they divided the venues by region and will keep travel down by keeping teams within the same region.  That was one of the few problems with the 1994 World Cup, when they had teams flying all over the country (and this country is pretty big!).  In 2026, however, they'll be crossing at most one time zone (from Central to Eastern), which makes it easier on everybody.

Other than Atlanta somehow being "Central" instead of "East," the regions all make sense.  Although, looking at the map of the 16 cities exposes the one big miss of the venue selections.  There's a bunch on the West Coast, a bunch in the Northeast and a bunch in the Texas/Mexico area, with Atlanta and Miami covering the South.  With the exception of Kansas City, though, the entire middle of the country is missing!  (Even Edmonton is close enough to Vancouver that it could've been considered "West" had it been chosen.)

Us fans along the I-95 corridor will be a little spoiled, too.  It's only a five-hour drive from Boston to Philadelphia and a 90-minute flight from New York to Toronto.  So, if so inclined and the schedule is set up in a way that makes it work, you could conceivably go to World Cup games in four different cities without once having to stay overnight.

Of course, that's still an incredibly far distance compared to this year's World Cup, where every stadium is located within about a half hour of each other in and around Doha.  They'll be going from one of the most compact World Cups ever to one of the most spread out (it's 3400 miles from Vancouver to Miami!).  It'll also be the biggest with 48 teams, double what it was the last time the World Cup was in the U.S.

Overall, though, I think they did a good job with their World Cup host city selections.  Yes, some of them were obvious.  And, yes, the lack of games in the Midwest is glaring.  But they covered the major cities and rewarded the strong soccer markets that deserved the opportunity to host (Seattle, Atlanta, Kansas City).

It's also worth noting that the inclusion of Canada and Mexico in the bid limited the number of American cities that could host.  If the U.S. were going it alone, five additional cities could've been chosen.  There would've been plenty of options, too.  Chicago and Washington would be obvious, but who would be the other three?  Denver, Phoenix and Nashville?  Or take one of them out for Las Vegas?

But let's not take anything away from the 16 cities that will host by speculating who "should" instead of them!  Now we know where the games will be.  We just don't know when.  The schedule's the next piece.  It's crazy to think that the 2026 World Cup, which will go back to its traditional June-July timeframe, is less than four years away, though.