Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
On Twitter: SoccerInsider and PostSports  |  Facebook  |  Sports e-mail alerts  |  RSS

USA in '18! Or Maybe '14

So the U.S. Soccer Federation is preparing to mount a serious bid to get the World Cup back in the United States in 2018, although they are also positioning themselves to host the 2014 tournament in case of Brazilian bidding problems (quite possible given their stadium and infrastructure issues).

What do you think? Good idea?
Let's say FIFA chooses the United States and mandates 12 stadiums. Let's include the new Cowboys stadium in Dallas as a candidate. No other hypotheticals allowed (unless you can make a really good argument to include one, such as the barely proposed 95,000-seat Snyder Redskins Castle on the site of RFK!). Where do you play? And who gets the final?

Fire away...

By Steve Goff  |  February 19, 2007; 11:53 PM ET
Categories:  World  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Dyachenko Status
Next: They're Eagles and They're Screamin'

Comments

Course it's a good idea! Soccer's finally starting to turn the corner, and a WC in 2014/2018 would arrive just in time to seal the deal.

Venues? Really shouldn't be a huge problem.
- Seattle
- Glendale, AZ
- Philly
- Houston
- Xanadu/New Meadowlands, NJ (sort of hypothetical, but a done deal)
- perhaps Atlanta (who only bid Bobby Dodd stadium last time. I think the GA Dome could pull it off)
- Detroit
- Rose Bowl (there'll have to be a venue in LA)
- New Cowboys Stadium
- Mile High

This already gives us several options that improve on WC94. If we have to use a venue from '94, it would probably be in Florida (if the dimensions work out, Pro Player in Miami will do, and it's an excellent location).

Posted by: Stan | February 20, 2007 12:24 AM | Report abuse

GREAT idea...
Seeing that the MNT is breaking TV rating records with international friendlies, ESPN is finally realizing MLS is worth putting some resources into, and the soccer generation of the 90s becoming old enough to buy their own tickets to matches, 2018 sounds like the perfect year for a welcoming party to introduce the states as an established soccer nation, not just as a game played by the kids, but a spectator sport that the country respects and has a passion for. I think we would easily one-up Deutschland as the standard for how to host a World Cup, minus the brilliant transportation.

As for the stadium,
I haven't visited enough stadiums to pick a final, but the DC v Madrid game in Seattle was amazing. Definitely add the Seahawks stadium to the list. Fantastic atmosphere, even if it was pro madrid... But considering the stadium nearly sold out, that proves there's a demand to see international players, even in seattle washington...

US 2018! (2014 works too!)

Posted by: Adam | February 20, 2007 12:35 AM | Report abuse

GREAT idea...
Seeing that the MNT is breaking TV rating records with international friendlies, ESPN is finally realizing MLS is worth putting some resources into, and the soccer generation of the 90s becoming old enough to buy their own tickets to matches, 2018 sounds like the perfect year for a welcoming party to introduce the states as an established soccer nation, not just as a game played by the kids, but a spectator sport that the country respects and has a passion for. I think we would easily one-up Deutschland as the standard for how to host a World Cup, minus the brilliant transportation.

As for the stadium,
I haven't visited enough stadiums to pick a final, but the DC v Madrid game in Seattle was amazing. Definitely add the Seahawks stadium to the list. Fantastic atmosphere, even if it was pro madrid... But considering the stadium nearly sold out, that proves there's a demand to see international players, even in seattle washington...

US 2018! (2014 works too!)

Posted by: Adam | February 20, 2007 12:36 AM | Report abuse

stan, as far as southern venues go, the georgia dome probably wouldn't be an ideal stadium (turf, width, etc), but a game could definately be held at sanford stadium in nearby athens. the olympic final was held there in 1996 and set a record for attendance (nigeria and argentina with 86k in the stands).

Posted by: jerad | February 20, 2007 12:40 AM | Report abuse

Good luck USSF... I hope we can get it, but won't England be some pretty stiff competition to get it in '18??

Either way, I like the list posted... one change: Add Chicago, Lose Detroit. You have to have a great city like Chicago involved in such a showcase event if it were to happen.

Soldier field may be a little old, but all of the upside associated with the city itself should more than make up for minor criticism of the venue (not to mention 11 years should be enough time to make some renovations).

Go US Men's soccer, go USSF, go Chicago, rock on -

Posted by: tjh | February 20, 2007 1:05 AM | Report abuse

FIFA may think England geting the 2012 Olympics would make them getting the World Cup just 4 or 8 years later look kinda greedy. I think there is an excellent chance it is back here in the USA. No one else with their hat in the ring has the sheer number of high capacity/modern venues to choose from as well as the broadcast infrastructure.

The main advantage England has over the USA is the short distance of travel between venues but that may be off set by the sheer number of people able to go to different venues in the US.

Posted by: Noi | February 20, 2007 1:24 AM | Report abuse

Most World Cups have followed in the wake of successful Summer Olympics, so that shouldn't be a barrier to future consideration for England. Indeed, an England bid would be a stern test considering they last hosted in '66 and us in '94. That makes a difference (unless your name is Mexico). I feel as though 2022 would be a more realistic bid for the US than '18. For me, it's a first choice back-up in '14 and a shoe-in for '22.

Posted by: Brian | February 20, 2007 1:31 AM | Report abuse

Most World Cups have followed in the wake of successful Summer Olympics, so that shouldn't be a barrier to future consideration for England. Indeed, an England bid would be a stern test considering they last hosted in '66 and us in '94. That makes a difference (unless your name is Mexico). I feel as though 2022 would be a more realistic bid for the US than '18. For me, it's a first choice back-up in '14 and a shoe-in for '22.

Posted by: Brian | February 20, 2007 1:32 AM | Report abuse

Most World Cups have followed in the wake of successful Summer Olympics, so that shouldn't be a barrier to future consideration for England. Indeed, an England bid would be a stern test considering they last hosted in '66 and us in '94. That makes a difference (unless your name is Mexico). I feel as though 2022 would be a more realistic bid for the US than '18. For me, it's a first choice back-up in '14 and a shoe-in for '22.

Posted by: Brian | February 20, 2007 1:33 AM | Report abuse

Ok, these are stadiums that would probably be fine with minimal alterations:

Seattle - Qwest Field - 67,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium - 63,000 capacity - opened in 2006

Boston - Gillette Stadium - 68,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Chicago - Soldier Field - 63,000 capacity - rebuilt in 2003

Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field - 67,000 capacity - opened in 2003

Houston - Reliant Stadium - 69,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Tampa - Raymond James Stadium - 65,000 capacity - opened in 1998

Cleveland - Cleveland Stadium - 72,000 capacity - opened in 1999

Now I'm explicitly breaking the rules about hypothetical venues, because many of the cities that would definitely be on the short list to host matches currently have stadiums that probably wouldn't make the grade in 2018, but most of them have vague or concrete plans for new stadiums:

New York - currently Giants Stadium, potentially replaced by New Meadowlands Stadium as soon as 2010 - capacity over 80,000

Dallas - currently Texas Stadium, with the New Cowboys stadium planned to open by 2009 with a capacity of over 80,000 (expandable to 100,000)

Los Angeles - Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum both have grand traditions, including soccer, but probably wouldn't be up to snuff for a World Cup in 2018. LA is a natural host city, but it needs a solid venue- potential NFL franchise could result in a new or renovated stadium, but the NFL needs LA more than the city needs pro football.

DC - FedEx Field has hosted soccer matches before (99 Womens WC, Chelsea friendly in 2005, etc.) but it isn't an ideal soccer venue. DC is another natural host city, but will a venue fall into place by then?

San Francisco - the bay area should have a new 49ers stadium in Santa Clara by 2018

There's no question the US can put on a great tournament, but I think it will probably be a return to Europe for 2018 (perhaps England?) and the US will be in line for 2022 or 2026 (with Australia or China nipping at our heels).

Posted by: Ricky B | February 20, 2007 1:44 AM | Report abuse

1. Meadowland (New York)
2. Miami Dolphins Stadium (Miami)
3. Qwest Field (Seattle)
4. Soldiers Field (Chicago)
5. Dallas Cowboys Stadium
6. Arizona Cardinals Stadium
7. Rose Bowl (LA)
8. NEW San Francisco 49ers Stadium (Santa Clara)
9. Gillette Stadium (Boston) (FINAL)
10. M&T Bank Stadium (Maryland)
11. Arrowhead Stadium (KC) (Opening Match)
12. Cleveland Browns Stadium

I'd give the opener to KC as a nod to Lamar Hunt and his help with soccer in the US and the Final to Bob Kraft in NE as a thanks for his support of MLS.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 20, 2007 1:48 AM | Report abuse

1. The Meadowlands (New Jersey)
2. Dolphin Stadium (Miami)
3. University of Phoenix Stadium (Glendale)
4. The Coliseum (LA)[If the planned renovation happens]
5. Gillette Stadium (Foxboro)
6. Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia)
7. Invesco Field (Denver)
8. Qwest Field (Seattle)
9. Soldier Field (Chicago)
10. New 49ers Stadium (Santa Clara)
11. New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington)
12. Arrowhead (KC) or Lucas Oil (Indianapolis)

The final is an interesting choice. It's expansion possibilities make Cowboy Stadium the best choice, but for foreigners coming to see their teams the cities LA or NY are the best choices.

Posted by: Jay | February 20, 2007 2:44 AM | Report abuse

Keep in mind, as one poster hinted, the need to keep transportation links included in the process. Having teams play in various locales will be tough on the players, but torturous on the fans. Perhaps "clusters" of stadia would work for the group stages; ie, Washington-Baltimore-Philadelphia for group A and RoseBowl-Anaheim-SanDiego for group B, etc. We could then match groups with neighboring clusters. Since group A's winner and runner-up play Group E's winner and runner-up, those two groups' clusters should be close together as well. If group A was in DC-Balt-Phil, then Group E should be in the NY/New England area.

What I'm getting at is that the 12 best individual stadia may not be the 12 best choices. The quarterfinals and beyond, of course, need to be selected in advance. That is where the best individual stadia come into play. Remember how hot it will be in July, though (the 94 tournament conditions were vicious). Perhaps northern locations should get extra points....

Posted by: Troy | February 20, 2007 6:35 AM | Report abuse

Steve,

I had to wait until this morning to read the news because I didn't check the blog before bed as you instructed.

This is excellent news. If FIFA seriously plans to rotate the WC among the confederations then our turn should come up before England's. And by our, I mean US. The 1994 WC had the highest average attendance (WC was expanded to 32 teams in 98). If the Euro continues to out perform the $, a US venue would be a cheap vacation for thousands of Europeans.

Posted by: I-270, Exit 1 | February 20, 2007 8:19 AM | Report abuse


I'd love to see it happen, but I think 2014 is the best bet. If Brazil do get 2014, I don't see the following world cup being on the same side of the atlantic. Any thoughts?

Posted by: SeanM | February 20, 2007 8:21 AM | Report abuse

I don't understad why England is a potential candidate for 2018. I thought FIFA agreed to rotate the cup among the continents, which would mean that it follows this schedule:

2010 - Africa
2014 - South America
2018 - North America
2022 - Asia
2026 - Europe

??

also - SeanM, the cup is currently on the other side of the Atlantic two times in a row (Germany & South Africa)

Posted by: pat | February 20, 2007 8:39 AM | Report abuse

Anyone remember that Girant's stadium had to get a special waiver due to the fact that a 75 yard wide pitch can't be placed in it?

There would have to be a NY venue, so here's hoping for a new stadium of appropriate dimentions...

I always thought that of all the places to have a WC game (with grass, of course), Detroit was a bad choice... how about the Superdome?... I could see New Orleans as one great venue... hotels, night life... great way to announce its resurection to the world;-)

Posted by: Anonymous | February 20, 2007 8:41 AM | Report abuse

That rocks.
Any large stadium, but no indoor baloney.

Final should be on the East Coast this time, maybe in New England's new stadium - which is a great soccer venue.

Posted by: Dave | February 20, 2007 9:15 AM | Report abuse

FIFA has not really put in place a solid rotation order. If it were a true rotation, Oceania would get serious consideration soon. You've got to figure, one way or another, it will be on this side of the Atlantic in 2014, whether it's Brazil or the U.S. Which means 2018 is likely in Europe after a 12-year absence. Keep in mind, though, the English gov't has come out in support of a bid, but the FA -- which is in charge of soccer -- has yet to step forward.

As for my U.S. venues, Foxboro; NY area; D.C. area; Chicago; Dallas OR Houston; Miami OR Tampa; Phoenix; L.A. area; Seattle; and Denver are in.

That leaves S.F., Philly, K.C., Cleveland, Detroit, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Nashville and Atlanta fighting for the last two spots.

Posted by: Goff | February 20, 2007 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Eh. As great as it would be to have the World Cup here, the U.S. is just too big a country to do a great WC like Germany did. Would love for us to host it all the same.

Posted by: Goose | February 20, 2007 9:23 AM | Report abuse

I agree it's time for an east coast final and an NYC location would be ideal, but failing that, I'd rather see it in Miami than Boston.

Posted by: bbarrie | February 20, 2007 9:38 AM | Report abuse

FIFA basically implemented the rotation temporarily just so Africa would get the Cup- Blatter has admitted as much. 2014 is supposed to go to South America, but after that its pretty much open to anywhere. That's why many think England will be the frontrunner in 2018- because it will probably head back to Europe, and because England haven't hosted since 1966. Australia will probably bid for 2018 as well, but I think both the US and Australia are more likely to get it in 2022 or 2026.

Some of the posts seem to forget that the US has already hosted a successful World Cup in 1994 (plus two Womens World Cups since). The venues were spread all over the country then, so I doubt we should worry about it too much. The host cities in 94 were New York, San Francisco, Detroit, Chicago, Dallas, DC, Los Angeles, Orlando, and Boston. In the group round teams had a game in Detroit one day and then a game in LA a few days later, or Boston then Dallas, etc.

Of course it would be nice to plan convenient travel distances and I'm sure they'll take that into consideration when preparing the bid, but it won't be the overriding factor.

Posted by: Ricky B | February 20, 2007 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Steve,

Maybe the rotation thing only applies to confederations with a full WC qualifying spot, i.e. Oceania gets hosed again. But here's the wonderful geopolitical distortion - Australia will be eligible to host the WC when the Asian confederation gets a turn.

Posted by: FIFA Geography Lesson | February 20, 2007 9:54 AM | Report abuse

Yes, good point. Australia in 2026!

Posted by: Goff | February 20, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I cannot get excited over this since there is no bid yet, far from a gimme that we host it and even if we did it is so far off that I am not sure I will even be alive when it happens.
Sorry.

Posted by: jgildea8 | February 20, 2007 10:10 AM | Report abuse

RFK for World Cup Final 2016!!!!

Posted by: Rocko | February 20, 2007 10:19 AM | Report abuse

I know this is a bit of a stretch, but I cannot see MLS sitting on the sidelines for this. I think at that point in the leagues lifespan (23 years) the owners, fans, and commishoner will want at least one MLS SSS venue in contention for the games as a sign of the the true growth and accomplishment of the league to that point. What could we see? Possibly a new larger capacity stadium built in... New York City, maybe St. Louis, or LA (Chivas). Or maybe we'll see a current or soon to be completed venue expanded? LA and DC are the two most obvious candidates for this direction. DC's proposed park at Poplar Point already has a max capacity rumored to be at 35,000 (according to KP) That size stadia I presume could be adequetly increased to be a smaller but efficent World Cup venue, while the same could be said for the Home Depot Center. Who knows! This is all obviously pure speculation, but I think that this would be a great achievement for MLS on many levels.

Posted by: Chris | February 20, 2007 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Wonder if FIFA would rather give Australia a bid before returning to the US for a second time. Despite the obvious infrastructural advantages we have over the Aussies, their national team has performed well and has many star-caliber players in the top Euro leagues - Kewell, Cahill, Emerton, Neill, Viduka, Bresciano, Grella, etc. Plus, they have a fledgling first division league just completing its second season. While they compete for WC bids via Asia...they're not really part of Asia so the 2002 WC shouldn't count against 'em.

I think it would make sense if the scheduling unfolded like this:

Asia (Japan/South Korea) in 2002
Europe (Germany) in 2006
Africa (South Africa) in 2010
South America (Brasil) in 2014
Australia in 2018
North America (USA) in 2022
Europe (England) in 2026

Posted by: DE | February 20, 2007 10:45 AM | Report abuse

Which stadiums? lol If we are talking 2018 then probably only one or two existing stadiums will be used. If we get 2022 then probably none. Take a look at this list here that Ricky B wrote above:

Seattle - Qwest Field - 67,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium - 63,000 capacity - opened in 2006

Boston - Gillette Stadium - 68,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Chicago - Soldier Field - 63,000 capacity - rebuilt in 2003

Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field - 67,000 capacity - opened in 2003

Houston - Reliant Stadium - 69,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Tampa - Raymond James Stadium - 65,000 capacity - opened in 1998

Cleveland - Cleveland Stadium - 72,000 capacity - opened in 1999


What do these stadiums have in common? They were all less than 9 years old. Every years brings another new stadium. Why would this trend stop? So by 2018 there should be a whole new bunch of stadiums, some of which are not in any of the cities people are liting while some of the cities listed will have only these older, no longer state of the art buildings that they are looking to replace.

Particularly since FIFA will demand the games to be played at noon again so that Europe can see them in prime time, the winning stadiums in 2018 or 2022 almost all will have retractable roofs with air conditioning. Obviously they will be all-seaters too. No benches like last time.

Posted by: Ursula | February 20, 2007 10:58 AM | Report abuse

Which stadiums? lol If we are talking 2018 then probably only one or two existing stadiums will be used. If we get 2022 then probably none. Take a look at this list here that Ricky B wrote above:

Seattle - Qwest Field - 67,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium - 63,000 capacity - opened in 2006

Boston - Gillette Stadium - 68,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Chicago - Soldier Field - 63,000 capacity - rebuilt in 2003

Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field - 67,000 capacity - opened in 2003

Houston - Reliant Stadium - 69,000 capacity - opened in 2002

Tampa - Raymond James Stadium - 65,000 capacity - opened in 1998

Cleveland - Cleveland Stadium - 72,000 capacity - opened in 1999


What do these stadiums have in common? They were all less than 9 years old. Every years brings another new stadium. Why would this trend stop? So by 2018 there should be a whole new bunch of stadiums, some of which are not in any of the cities people are liting while some of the cities listed will have only these older, no longer state of the art buildings that they are looking to replace.

Particularly since FIFA will demand the games to be played at noon again so that Europe can see them in prime time, the winning stadiums in 2018 or 2022 almost all will have retractable roofs with air conditioning. Obviously they will be all-seaters too. No benches like last time.

Posted by: Ursula | February 20, 2007 11:05 AM | Report abuse

Brian, Mexico received their 2nd World Cup in 1986 after Columbia had already been selected, but then ran into financial problems. In a revote that only had North American countries (others were US and Canada), Mexico won unanimously.

Posted by: RK | February 20, 2007 11:18 AM | Report abuse

TJH, what are you talking about Soldier Field being old? They just remodeled it in 2003. The place is brand spanking new.

Posted by: Blackaces | February 20, 2007 12:13 PM | Report abuse

Besides our main advantage - i.e., having piles and piles of money being a huge, mostly untapped soccer market - our other advantage is an abundance of large, new, soccer-capable stadiums.
The ideal world cup stadium is: 1) Huge, 2) In a large city that is also a good tourist destination, 3) In a city that has shown some enthusiasm for soccer (bonus points to Seattle and St. Louis), 4) Well-equipped for soccer (no narrow fields or turf), 5) In a city with good soccer weather (no 100 degree heat and 95% humidity, negative points to the midwest because of frequent thunder storms), and 7) In a location that can be "clustered" with two other cities in order to minimize travel for fans following one team (great idea, Troy). Also, ideally it'd be good to have at least one venue in each region of the country.

So, the obvious winners are:
1. New York (the new Jets/Giants stadium)
2. L.A. (the Rose Bowl, Coliseum, or some yet-to-be-built home of an NFL team)
3. Chicago (tjh, Soldier Field was remodled in 2003 and is pretty state-of-the-art on the inside)

...and I would also add:
4. Phoenix (nice stadium built with soccer in mind)
5. Seattle (nice stadium, beautiful city, lots of soccer fans, perfect summer weather, got shafted in '94)
6. Dallas (ridiculously huge, air-conditioned stadium)

...which leaves 6 remaining spots to divide between San Fancisco/Oakland, San Diego, Denver, Kansas City, St. Louis, Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, Philly, and DC/Baltimore. The south gets the shaft because it's just too hot for soccer and only domed stadium (Atlanta) isn't all that great. I'd give the last seven to:

7. San Francisco (the new stadium in Santa Clara)
8. San Diego (beautiful city, great Super Bowl venue)
9. St. Louis (great soccer city, domed stadium so thunderstorms won't be a problem)
10. Detroit (clusters well with Chicago, has a dome)
11. Philly (instead of Boston, who hosted in '94)
12. DC (Fedex or the Dan Snyder Collosus Thunderdome)

Detroit and St. Louis will have to bring in grass, as Detroit did in '94. New York gets the final because LA got it last time.

I really hope that our stadiums and untapped potential beat out England's proximity and long, long dry spell. Unfortunately, I think it'll go to England, because it's hard for me to believe that FIFA would let Europe go sixteen years without hosting a World Cup. That, plus FIFA might have some sympathy for the fact that England are obviously never going to win one on somebody else's soil.

Posted by: Jeff | February 20, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

wait, If Chi-town gets the Olympics, then they could keep open for two more years the Olympic stadium, but Soldier Field is fine, plus that is the USSF Head Quarters. The Final should be played in New York and as a Chicagoan it hurts to say that, but that stadium would be perfect.

Posted by: rpks08 | February 20, 2007 12:51 PM | Report abuse

I think regional pods would be necessary to help the fans travel during the group stage. This was an issue in '94. I would put two groups in each region with a total of four regions, broken down like:

1. A)Miami
B)Orlando
C)Tampa
D)Atlanta

2) A)DC
B)NY
C)NE
D)Philly

3) A)Houston
B)Dallas
C)San Antonio
D)Arlington

4) A)LA
B)San Diego
C)San Francisco
D)Glendale

The last team in each group could be dropped depending on how many cities the committee would want to use for group play. After group play, I would put the Round of 16 and Quarterfinal games in:

Glendale (2), Denver (2), Chicago (2), Seattle (2), Detroit (2), and DC (2).

Semis: NY and LA

Final: NY (in the new Jets stadium)

Posted by: Nick | February 20, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

Where should the final be held? In The Danny's ThunderDome on the banks of the Anacostia of course. Do you imagine this town getting a Super Bowl AND a WC Final?

I'm going to open a Sports Bar :-)

Posted by: Chico | February 20, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

For Chris:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by: PoplarPoint | February 20, 2007 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I think you should trademark "the Dan Snyder Collosus Thunderdome" quickly. :-)

Posted by: Glenn | February 20, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse

what's this about a Snyder-Redksins-castle on the site of RFK? It'd be great to see the Redskins return to the district. I always thought that RFK would make a good location for a centralized campus for the Department of Homeland Security. There's not much open land in DC so close to a Metro stop. You've got to think that in the next few years the RFK area will be looked at for a huge new development of some type. Do you know who owns the land there?

Posted by: Marc | February 20, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

It seems to me that part of what made Germany '06 so successful (and US '94 less successful) is that one could easily drive or train from one host city to the next. This also helped keep the vibe going and gave a greater sense of cameraderie. Why not have that here? That being said, one could try NE/NE Midwest:
1) Boston/Foxboro
2) NY/New Meadowlands
3) DC/Fedex
4) Philly/Lincoln Financial
5) Baltimore/M&T
6) Carolina/Bank of America
7) Pittsburgh/Heinz
8) Cleveland/Browns
9) Columbus/Buckeye
10) Cincinnati/Paul Brown
11) Buffalo/Ralph Wilson
12) Detroit/Ford
Alternates: Happy Valley/Penn State; Charlottesville/UVA; Chapel Hill/UNC; Chicago/Soldier's
All within a day's drive of one another and each capable of holding a game. Note that this could be specialized for fully midwest and west coast events.

Posted by: JNaffy | February 20, 2007 5:42 PM | Report abuse

ahhhh, you east coasters are always good for a laugh. JNaffy, why on earth would the USSF cut out 2/3 of the country to host the WC? Talk about killing fan interest. Besides, if you think LA wouldn't be in there somewhere you are incredibly high as it is very much a soccer town. Also leaving out a city the size of Chicago as well with it's massive immigrant population is simply daft.

I'm guessing most of you are too young to remember, but the US had THE MOST SUCCESSFUL WC IN HISTORY in '94 and they had venues all over the country.

Posted by: papa bear | February 20, 2007 9:17 PM | Report abuse

In 1994, FIFA gave the US a pass on some of its requirements for World Cup stadiums to be able to take advantage of the larger NFL stadiums. The main thing being the width of the field (FIFA requires a 68m wide pitch for World Cup games - NFL stadiums are designed for something less than 50m). Since 1994, FIFA has required that all stadiums have roofs to cover most fans. These are all surmountable issues given the current stadiums, but with competition from England, Australia and China, the US won't be given the pass it was given in 1994.

Best Venues:
Glendale
new LA/SD Stadium
Houston
Dallas
Foxboro
East Rutheford
Seattle
Santa Clara
Baltimore
Philadelphia

possible additions: Chicago and Indianapolis

Posted by: Andrew | February 20, 2007 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Stadia that will not host the WC:

Lamar Hunt Stadium; Columbus, OH
Home Depot Center; LA 'burbs, CA
Pizza Hut Park; Frisco, TX
Toyota Park, Chicago, IL
The Cow Pasture; Harrison, NJ (I'm copyrighting that)
Poplar Point Field of Dreams; Our Imagination, DC
Germantown Soccerplex

Posted by: Anonymous | February 21, 2007 10:09 AM | Report abuse

We have so many adequate stadiums in this country it would be a shame to keep the World Cup to one region or just a few cities.

I'd like to see the cup get spread all around -- 24 host cities with each getting two first round games and then 16 getting games in the knock out rounds. With just two or three games, every game would be a huge deal in the host city. Also, splitting up the hosts into regions w/ two groups/region would keep travel down. A downside to this plan would be that each host city would see less of an overall revenue boost from hosting the World Cup, but at least they'd get a piece of the pie.

West region (groups A & C)
Univ. of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix), R. of 16
Qwest Field (Seattle), R. of 16
Autzen Stadium (Eugene)
Rose Bowl (LA), Quarterfinal
Invesco Field (Denver), Quarterfinal
Monster Park (San Francisco)

South region (groups B & D)
Reliant Stadium (Houston)
Dolphin Stadium (Miami)
Alamodome (San Antonio)
Louisiana Superdome (New Orleans)
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium (Jacksonville)
Dallas Cowboys New Stadium (Dallas)

Northeast region (groups E & G)
FedExField (Washington)
Gillette Stadium (Boston)
Lincoln Financial Field (Philly)
Ralph Wilson Stadium (Buffalo)
New Meadowlands Stadium (New York)
Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)

Midwest region (groups F & H)
Heinz Field (Pittsburgh)
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis)
Soldier Field (Chicago)
Cleveland Browns Stadium (Cleveland)
Ford Field (Detroit)
Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati)

Second round hosts:
Gillette Stadium
Soldier Field
Heinz Field
Lucas Oil Stadium
Reliant Stadium
Louisiana Superdome
University of Phoenix Stadium
Qwest Field

Quarterfinal hosts:
Lincoln Financial Field
Ford Field
Rose Bowl
Invesco Field at Mile High

Seminfinal hosts:
FedExField
Dallas Cowboys New Stadium

3rd Place game host:
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium

Final host:
New Meadowlands Stadium


Notes:
I included Autzen Stadium in Eugene OR because I figured if Phil Knight got involved in the process at all, he'd like some love thrown to his fave school. Plus, it gives a little more geographic distribution and is a more modern stadium than the next best option out west - Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego)

I included Monster Park because it is the best current option in the Bay Area. Stanford Stadium has been reduced in size, and Memorial Coliseum in Oakland is just as awful as Monster Park. I did not include the mythical new 49ers Stadium because the local politics of the stadium are pretty crazy... they've been trying to build since the mid 90's. If they couldn't get it done in the last decade who says that they can get it done in the upcoming one?

I am not sure if all of the stadiums have the ability to fit the minimum FIFA approved field sizes. I left off stadiums I was certain would not work such as Ohio Stadium in Columbus and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City.

I included three indoor stadiums: Ford Field, the Superdome, and the Alamodome and several others with permanent artificial surfaces. With the improvements in grass tray technology since the mid 90's, I don't imagine that would be a problem. The problems that Giants Stadium had with the grass trays stemmed from overuse, not a problem in this scenario.

I spaced the groups so that those teams doing the most travel (West region and South region) would have the most rest days built into the schedule.

Posted by: More stadiums is the answer | February 21, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

We have so many adequate stadiums in this country it would be a shame to keep the World Cup to one region or just a few cities.

I'd like to see the cup get spread all around -- 24 host cities with each getting two first round games and then 16 getting games in the knock out rounds. With just two or three games, every game would be a huge deal in the host city. Also, splitting up the hosts into regions w/ two groups/region would keep travel down. A downside to this plan would be that each host city would see less of an overall revenue boost from hosting the World Cup, but at least they'd get a piece of the pie.

West region (groups A & C)
Univ. of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix), R. of 16
Qwest Field (Seattle), R. of 16
Autzen Stadium (Eugene)
Rose Bowl (LA), Quarterfinal
Invesco Field (Denver), Quarterfinal
Monster Park (San Francisco)

South region (groups B & D)
Reliant Stadium (Houston)
Dolphin Stadium (Miami)
Alamodome (San Antonio)
Louisiana Superdome (New Orleans)
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium (Jacksonville)
Dallas Cowboys New Stadium (Dallas)

Northeast region (groups E & G)
FedExField (Washington)
Gillette Stadium (Boston)
Lincoln Financial Field (Philly)
Ralph Wilson Stadium (Buffalo)
New Meadowlands Stadium (New York)
Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)

Midwest region (groups F & H)
Heinz Field (Pittsburgh)
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis)
Soldier Field (Chicago)
Cleveland Browns Stadium (Cleveland)
Ford Field (Detroit)
Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati)

Second round hosts:
Gillette Stadium
Soldier Field
Heinz Field
Lucas Oil Stadium
Reliant Stadium
Louisiana Superdome
University of Phoenix Stadium
Qwest Field

Quarterfinal hosts:
Lincoln Financial Field
Ford Field
Rose Bowl
Invesco Field at Mile High

Seminfinal hosts:
FedExField
Dallas Cowboys New Stadium

3rd Place game host:
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium

Final host:
New Meadowlands Stadium


Notes:
I included Autzen Stadium in Eugene OR because I figured if Phil Knight got involved in the process at all, he'd like some love thrown to his fave school. Plus, it gives a little more geographic distribution and is a more modern stadium than the next best option out west - Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego)

I included Monster Park because it is the best current option in the Bay Area. Stanford Stadium has been reduced in size, and Memorial Coliseum in Oakland is just as awful as Monster Park. I did not include the mythical new 49ers Stadium because the local politics of the stadium are pretty crazy... they've been trying to build since the mid 90's. If they couldn't get it done in the last decade who says that they can get it done in the upcoming one?

I am not sure if all of the stadiums have the ability to fit the minimum FIFA approved field sizes. I left off stadiums I was certain would not work such as Ohio Stadium in Columbus and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City.

I included three indoor stadiums: Ford Field, the Superdome, and the Alamodome and several others with permanent artificial surfaces. With the improvements in grass tray technology since the mid 90's, I don't imagine that would be a problem. The problems that Giants Stadium had with the grass trays stemmed from overuse, not a problem in this scenario.

I spaced the groups so that those teams doing the most travel (West region and South region) would have the most rest days built into the schedule.

Posted by: Mores stadium = Better Cup | February 21, 2007 11:51 AM | Report abuse

We have so many adequate stadiums in this country it would be a shame to keep the World Cup to one region or just a few cities.

I'd like to see the cup get spread all around -- 24 host cities with each getting two first round games and then 16 getting games in the knock out rounds. With just two or three games, every game would be a huge deal in the host city. Also, splitting up the hosts into regions w/ two groups/region would keep travel down. A downside to this plan would be that each host city would see less of an overall revenue boost from hosting the World Cup, but at least they'd get a piece of the pie.

West region (groups A & C)
Univ. of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix), R. of 16
Qwest Field (Seattle), R. of 16
Autzen Stadium (Eugene)
Rose Bowl (LA), Quarterfinal
Invesco Field (Denver), Quarterfinal
Monster Park (San Francisco)

South region (groups B & D)
Reliant Stadium (Houston)
Dolphin Stadium (Miami)
Alamodome (San Antonio)
Louisiana Superdome (New Orleans)
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium (Jacksonville)
Dallas Cowboys New Stadium (Dallas)

Northeast region (groups E & G)
FedExField (Washington)
Gillette Stadium (Boston)
Lincoln Financial Field (Philly)
Ralph Wilson Stadium (Buffalo)
New Meadowlands Stadium (New York)
Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)

Midwest region (groups F & H)
Heinz Field (Pittsburgh)
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis)
Soldier Field (Chicago)
Cleveland Browns Stadium (Cleveland)
Ford Field (Detroit)
Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati)

Second round hosts:
Gillette Stadium
Soldier Field
Heinz Field
Lucas Oil Stadium
Reliant Stadium
Louisiana Superdome
University of Phoenix Stadium
Qwest Field

Quarterfinal hosts:
Lincoln Financial Field
Ford Field
Rose Bowl
Invesco Field at Mile High

Seminfinal hosts:
FedExField
Dallas Cowboys New Stadium

3rd Place game host:
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium

Final host:
New Meadowlands Stadium


Notes:
I included Autzen Stadium in Eugene OR because I figured if Phil Knight got involved in the process at all, he'd like some love thrown to his fave school. Plus, it gives a little more geographic distribution and is a more modern stadium than the next best option out west - Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego)

I included Monster Park because it is the best current option in the Bay Area. Stanford Stadium has been reduced in size, and Memorial Coliseum in Oakland is just as awful as Monster Park. I did not include the mythical new 49ers Stadium because the local politics of the stadium are pretty crazy... they've been trying to build since the mid 90's. If they couldn't get it done in the last decade who says that they can get it done in the upcoming one?

I am not sure if all of the stadiums have the ability to fit the minimum FIFA approved field sizes. I left off stadiums I was certain would not work such as Ohio Stadium in Columbus and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City.

I included three indoor stadiums: Ford Field, the Superdome, and the Alamodome and several others with permanent artificial surfaces. With the improvements in grass tray technology since the mid 90's, I don't imagine that would be a problem. The problems that Giants Stadium had with the grass trays stemmed from overuse, not a problem in this scenario.

I spaced the groups so that those teams doing the most travel (West region and South region) would have the most rest days built into the schedule.

Posted by: Mores stadium = Better Cup | February 21, 2007 11:55 AM | Report abuse

We have so many adequate stadiums in this country it would be a shame to keep the World Cup to one region or just a few cities.

I'd like to see the cup get spread all around -- 24 host cities with each getting two first round games and then 16 getting games in the knock out rounds. With just two or three games, every game would be a huge deal in the host city. Also, splitting up the hosts into regions w/ two groups/region would keep travel down. A downside to this plan would be that each host city would see less of an overall revenue boost from hosting the World Cup, but at least they'd get a piece of the pie.

West region (groups A & C)
Univ. of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix), R. of 16
Qwest Field (Seattle), R. of 16
Autzen Stadium (Eugene)
Rose Bowl (LA), Quarterfinal
Invesco Field (Denver), Quarterfinal
Monster Park (San Francisco)

South region (groups B & D)
Reliant Stadium (Houston)
Dolphin Stadium (Miami)
Alamodome (San Antonio)
Louisiana Superdome (New Orleans)
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium (Jacksonville)
Dallas Cowboys New Stadium (Dallas)

Northeast region (groups E & G)
FedExField (Washington)
Gillette Stadium (Boston)
Lincoln Financial Field (Philly)
Ralph Wilson Stadium (Buffalo)
New Meadowlands Stadium (New York)
Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)

Midwest region (groups F & H)
Heinz Field (Pittsburgh)
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis)
Soldier Field (Chicago)
Cleveland Browns Stadium (Cleveland)
Ford Field (Detroit)
Paul Brown Stadium (Cincinnati)

Second round hosts:
Gillette Stadium
Soldier Field
Heinz Field
Lucas Oil Stadium
Reliant Stadium
Louisiana Superdome
University of Phoenix Stadium
Qwest Field

Quarterfinal hosts:
Lincoln Financial Field
Ford Field
Rose Bowl
Invesco Field at Mile High

Seminfinal hosts:
FedExField
Dallas Cowboys New Stadium

3rd Place game host:
Jacksonville Municipal Stadium

Final host:
New Meadowlands Stadium


Notes:
I included Autzen Stadium in Eugene OR because I figured if Phil Knight got involved in the process at all, he'd like some love thrown to his fave school. Plus, it gives a little more geographic distribution and is a more modern stadium than the next best option out west - Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego)

I included Monster Park because it is the best current option in the Bay Area. Stanford Stadium has been reduced in size, and Memorial Coliseum in Oakland is just as awful as Monster Park. I did not include the mythical new 49ers Stadium because the local politics of the stadium are pretty crazy... they've been trying to build since the mid 90's. If they couldn't get it done in the last decade who says that they can get it done in the upcoming one?

I am not sure if all of the stadiums have the ability to fit the minimum FIFA approved field sizes. I left off stadiums I was certain would not work such as Ohio Stadium in Columbus and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City.

I included three indoor stadiums: Ford Field, the Superdome, and the Alamodome and several others with permanent artificial surfaces. With the improvements in grass tray technology since the mid 90's, I don't imagine that would be a problem. The problems that Giants Stadium had with the grass trays stemmed from overuse, not a problem in this scenario.

I spaced the groups so that those teams doing the most travel (West region and South region) would have the most rest days built into the schedule.

Posted by: Mores stadium = Better Cup | February 21, 2007 12:10 PM | Report abuse

The sticking point is that I believe FIFA mandates that games be played on grass, so some of the better stadia in the States are out as a result (Georgia Dome, I'm looking at you.)

Here's my 12:

Dallas
Rose Bowl
Meadowlands
Philadelphia
Glendale
Chicago
Denver
Miami
Seattle
Detroit (if Ford Field has grass)
Stanford
Gilette

If Detroit doesn't qualify, then I'd put Charlotte or Baltimore in its place. As much as I'd love FedEx or RFK, the traffic problems posed by the former, and the size and age of the latter force me to move the game up I-95. Since LA hosted the final in 94, I think it's only right that NYC host the final in '18. (I'm holding out hope for a Brazilian hosted cup in '14 - sorry guys.)

Posted by: Charles | February 21, 2007 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Great stuff, y'all!

Posted by: Goff | February 21, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the multiple replies. This is my first time replying to a post and IE kept coming up with an error message. I hit refresh a couple times and that apparently reposts. My apologies for taking up so much space.

Posted by: More stadiums | February 21, 2007 12:53 PM | Report abuse

If there are any issues with safety or logistics in SA 2010, I think you'll see FIFA scramble back to safer sites for 2014 and 2018, which to me screams England and the US. There's no question that they're the two best countries for stadiums and sporting event logistics (Austrailia not far behind).

I'm all for going to World Cups in cool, different places, but they should go to countries best equipped for the most fans to see matches. Germany was great, but the grounds were too small. English (or a shared British) and American World Cup sites would be no smaller than 60k.

Posted by: Kev | February 21, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Oh and DC would have World Cup matches - no question. Two reasons, because it's such a vital international capital and The Danny will/would have his new retractable roof in-city colossus built.

World Cup would be further impetus for stadium improvements in LA, DC and NY. My 9 other cities...

Dallas
Chicago
Seattle
Cleveland
Foxboro
Phoenix (what about the heat in AZ, TX and FL?)
Houston
Tampa
San Francisco/Santa Cruz

Posted by: Kev | February 21, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company