Network News

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

U.S. World Cup Cities Cutdown Tuesday

On Tuesday afternoon, the committee overseeing U.S. soccer's bid to stage the 2018 or 2022 World Cup will cut the number of potential host cities from 27 to 18 for formal submission to FIFA. (The number of sites staging actual matches would then be reduced to around a dozen at a later time.)

Within those 27 cities, 32 stadiums are in the running. For now, however, the bid committee is concentrating on cities only. So a location with two stadiums under consideration, such as Washington (RFK Stadium and FedEx Field), will retain multiple venue options for the time being.

The cites are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York/NJ, Orlando, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa and Washington.

Which do you think will be bumped from consideration?

By Steve Goff  |  January 8, 2010; 1:47 PM ET
Categories:  USA World Cup bid  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Emilio Won't Return to D.C. United
Next: Friday Night Lights

Comments

Remove Tampa, Orlando, Nashville, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland, and Charlotte

Posted by: CACuzcatlan | January 8, 2010 1:58 PM | Report abuse

DO cities that are proposing permanent indoor domes (Atlanta, guessing St. Louis, Indy) really stand a chance? Not sure what the World Cup's history is with fixed dome stadiums. Grass isn't necessarily the issue (Atlanta had temporary grass last summer for the matches held in the Georgia Dome).

Posted by: dpmurray | January 8, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Remove San Francisco or Oakland. Then remove Baltimore. FIFA may be OK with both Baltimore and Washington but they are likely to be considered to close to one another. Further, Washington DC as the capital of the country is a mortal lock as one of the hosting cities as the final is traditionally held in the capital city. The only reason DC wasn't the host last time was because of the size of RFK. FedEx is obviously more than big enough this time around.

Posted by: blackandred777 | January 8, 2010 2:10 PM | Report abuse

what are the odds Brazil still can put on the 2014 cup after having $1 billion cut from their preparation budget? FIFA can't be happy about that.

Posted by: joe_hill | January 8, 2010 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Who I think will get cut:
Oakland, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Charlotte, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Tampa, Detroit.

Of those, Detroit is probably most likely to not get cut: good venue, WC history.

I think Nashville makes it - they did a pretty good job with their qualifier this round, from all reports (though I missed that one personally), and are clearly on the USSF's radar screen.

Oakland gets cut in favor of SF, B'more in favor of DC, Tampa in favor of Orlando (All Hail, the Mighty Mouse, whose TV dollars give us this day our daily bread), Charlotte loses out to ATL (not super close, but close enough), Indy loses out to Chicago (and if Detroit stays in, Cleveland loses out to them), KC loses out to STL, and Jacksonville, having demonstrated conclusively that it lacks the infrastructure necessary to handle the Super Bowl, just plain loses out.

Posted by: EdTheRed | January 8, 2010 2:13 PM | Report abuse

I'd say maybe Baltimore, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Oakland, Phoenix (way too hot in summer), Detroit, and Indianapolis seem to be likely candidates to get bumped. Definitely hope San Diego makes the cut - the stadium is half a mile from my house!

Posted by: tigerquoll | January 8, 2010 2:14 PM | Report abuse

@tigerquoll: Phoenix has a retractable dome - heat isn't an issue there.

Posted by: EdTheRed | January 8, 2010 2:16 PM | Report abuse

yeah, id say Phoenix would be a near lock to make it to the final 12 with that fancy stadium

Posted by: VTUnited | January 8, 2010 2:25 PM | Report abuse

On a totally different topic...

It is mindblowing the esteem that Fulham has for Brian McBride. I was browsing by their site to see if they had Hodgson's reaction to the Stoke game, and there was an "exclusive interview" with "Fulham hero" Brian McBride. Woah! They name a bar after him, they invite him over to see games, they continue to feature him on their fan site years after he left. Wow. I guess he was pretty good... :-)

http://www.fulhamfc.com/home.aspx

Reminds me of an English football article from about a year ago, talking about "hard" footballers. McBride was listed, both for his bravery in taking dangerous headers in league games but also for his stoic response to getting elbowed in the Italy game at WC.

Posted by: glfrazier | January 8, 2010 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Another off-topic, terrible and scary news from Angola

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8449319.stm

Togo footballers shot in ambush

Gunmen have opened fire with machine guns on a bus carrying Togo's football team to the Africa Cup of Nations in Angola, wounding several players...

Posted by: Kev29 | January 8, 2010 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Then remove Baltimore. FIFA may be OK with both Baltimore and Washington but they are likely to be considered to close to one another.

Posted by: blackandred777
--------------------------

couldn't disagree more. I think we should look to cluster cities, with two or three appropriate stadia in a limited area and then have each group play all of its games in one cluster. this is better for the teams, which can stay at the training bases, and the fans who then are spared from unnecessary long-distance travel.

Posted by: troy6 | January 8, 2010 2:54 PM | Report abuse

@dpmurray

I believe Detroit hosted games in the '94 WC with a grass field. Or maybe I am just remembering wrong??

Posted by: rockotodd | January 8, 2010 2:58 PM | Report abuse

University of Phoenix stadium has retractable playing surface, roof and is very well air conditioned. In my mind a better stadium than the Cowboys new digs.

Posted by: DadRyan | January 8, 2010 2:59 PM | Report abuse

I believe Detroit hosted games in the '94 WC with a grass field. Or maybe I am just remembering wrong??

Posted by: rockotodd | January 8, 2010 2:58 PM

Yep - you remembered correctly

Posted by: Kev29 | January 8, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

troy has an excellent point.

Posted by: DadRyan | January 8, 2010 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Phoenix is a strong bet to be in the final 12.

Atlanta, Baltimore, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Oakland and St. Louis are good cuts. Atlanta might sneak in, though, just because it has the hotel rooms -- maybe instead of Charlotte. Despite the huge crowd for the game last summer, Baltimore is too close to DC and the turf is plastic. Houston -- plastic field and we've done that already. The others are too small cities.

Posted by: fischy | January 8, 2010 3:02 PM | Report abuse

also, July is awful hot. if they don't have climate control, southern stadia should be dropped. remember '94? although to be fair, NY and Chicago were blazing hot too....

Posted by: troy6 | January 8, 2010 3:04 PM | Report abuse

The keepers should be: Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/NJ, Oakland, Philadelphia, San Diego, Seattle, St. Louis, and Washington.

Thx,

Jay!

Posted by: jayrockers | January 8, 2010 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Houston -- plastic field and we've done that already.

Posted by: fischy | January 8, 2010 3:02 PM

Reliant Stadium has natural grass. Ask Bill Belichick.

Posted by: Kev29 | January 8, 2010 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Sure to be cut:

Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Nashville, Oakland, Phoenix

Good chance to be cut:

Charlotte, Kansas City, Tampa

Posted by: Atlanta4MLS | January 8, 2010 3:29 PM | Report abuse

In:
New York/NJ-largest market.New Meadowlands.
Los Angeles- several 80k plus venues available. Large fan base and market

Washington- Capital city. large fan base. Proven market (DCU, USMNT, Madrid, etc.)

Chicago-large market. Good fan base
Houston- Top 4 market. Growing population. Beatiful facilites available in Reliant and Minute maid

Dallas-Jerry World get them in.
Boston- Gillette + Kraft Family get them in Charlotte,
Denver,
Indianapolis,
Kansas City,
Miami- South Beach! Rays should have own arena by then too.
Nashville
Philadelphia-edges out B'more
Phoenix- Beautiful Cards stadium
San Diego
San Francisco-Wins the bay area over Oakland. Candlestick doesnt host MLB.
Seattle- Quest field + Sounders=Sure bet

Out:
Orlando
Detroit- Ford Field is nice, but detriot is a city on the brink.
Tampa
Oakland
St. Louis
Atlanta
Baltimore-proximity to DC and Philly rules them out in favor of another Region of the country.
Cleveland
Jacksonville-small market. Even NFL hurting there

Posted by: invncbl | January 8, 2010 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Reliant Stadium has natural grass. Ask Bill Belichick.

Posted by: Kev29 | January 8, 2010 3:19 PM |

----------------------------------------------------

My bad. Then, I'd put Houston in ahead of Dallas -- or maybe both Atlanta/Charlotte.

Posted by: fischy | January 8, 2010 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Anyone who wants to bump KC can go ---- themselves. We need the cup in the Midwest!

Posted by: arswift24 | January 8, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Miami- South Beach! Rays should have own arena by then too.
---------------------------------------------------

I think you mean the Marlins. The Rays are in the Tampa-St. Pete area. I was putting Tampa through, because of the magnificent stadium there -- but I think I've got too many Florida cities in my 18. Orlando and Tampa are too close. I'd drop one -- probably Tampa, because Orlando is so well set to host gobs of people.

Posted by: fischy | January 8, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

In the 18: New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, Phoenix, Atlanta, Denver, Seattle, Philadelphia, Nashville, Dallas, Houston, Orlando, Detroit, Miami, Charlotte, Indianapolis.

Not in the 18: Everyone else (including Freddy Adu.)

Posted by: SportzNut21 | January 8, 2010 3:47 PM | Report abuse

I'm going to defend Indianapolis. I'm a transplant to the city (trying to be objective and not a homer) and I think most people just don't know what it has to offer that would make it a good option for the World Cup.

Stadium is only 2 years old, fabulous facility with retractable roof. Could put a grass field in place for the WC. It's located right downtown, which is a very walkable/safe place for visitors. More hotels than you expect with everything from 5 stars to budget chains. The huge convention center has helped to ensure a thriving hotel industry downtown, and the upcoming Super Bowl has led to even more construction. This also leads to plenty of eateries and nightlife in the downtown region. Brand new airport, city is linked via Amtrak as well. Close enough to Chicago to make it a nice pairing for games, but far enough that its certainly a distinct market (~3 hours drive from Lucas Oil to Soldier Field).

I'm not saying Indy has the pulling power of some of the other cities on the list, but don't be shocked if Indy stays on the list either.

Posted by: kaiserkraut | January 8, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I think the Fed's bid is going to be very attractive for the amount of cha-ching it can provide, but I think it's going to be very unattractive compared to recent world cups, in the incredibly poor public transportation available to visiting fans. The new Meadowlands, Fedex, the Deathstar in Dallas, and Foxboro are only reliably accessible by car. I know the old Meadowlands and Foxboro were in the 94 bid, but the Cotton Bowl was at least downtown Dallas and RFK was at least on a subway line. There was not as big of a green movement back then. The four stadiums I mentioned adversely affect the carbon footprint of a U.S. World Cup bid.

One of FIFA's major complaints about South Africa is their ability to get their train system going to move people/media to games. The 2006 World Cup was the model of fan accessibility to stadiums.

That's why I think Baltimore may be attractive because of the light rail, subway and downtown location of the stadium near many hotels.

Posted by: IamAM | January 8, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

"FIFA may be OK with both Baltimore and Washington but they are likely to be considered to close to one another.""

Joburg has two Cup stadiums. Pretoria and Joburg are 50-60 minutes from each other. Rustenburg is within 2 hours of Joburg.

Can you really have a Cup without the Capital City being involved?

Posted by: delantero | January 8, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

My bad. Then, I'd put Houston in ahead of Dallas -- or maybe both Atlanta/Charlotte.

Posted by: fischy | January 8, 2010 3:42 PM

I'm not sure surface - or even specific venue - matters at this point (as those things can change). Probably more the capabilities and logistics of the host city. Though I think that Reliant, Cowboys and U Pheonix will still be top notch stadia in 2018, and even 2022. If we were hosting this Summer, those three would be certainties, imo.

My other 15 for the cut list...

Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, Detroit, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/NJ, Orlando, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis and Washington.

Posted by: Kev29 | January 8, 2010 4:31 PM | Report abuse

Not in the 18: Everyone else (including Freddy Adu.)

Posted by: SportzNut21 | January 8, 2010 3:47 PM

Well played {golf clap}

Posted by: Kev29 | January 8, 2010 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Cities with MLS sides have to get priority, period.

Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/NJ, Philadelphia, San Fran/Jose Seattle, and Washington.

After that, where does the game need to grow in the U.S.? Professionally, speaking

The South . . which means Atlanta/Miami/Orlando/Nashville.

And maybe a bone to the Mid West or South West . .

Posted by: delantero | January 8, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

@IamAM -- The Meadowlands stadium is now accessible by train -- I think with one transfer from NYC, but I suppose that depends where in NYC you are. The real headache there is putting down a top-quality field over the plastic base. FedEx is still only a mile away from the Morgan Blvd. stop. Everyone drives there because they're suburban car owners, but the Metro does the trick. Metro could help out, with special shuttles. Besides, there might be a huge new stadium at RFK by the time the games start. I agree that Foxboro is a pain, but you can't omit New England.

At Kev - I don't see much chance of Detroit, Indianapolis and St. Louis being selected, so I'd cut them now.

Posted by: fischy | January 8, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Five Premier League weekend fixtures have already fallen victim to the adverse weather conditions enveloping England, with Chelsea's match at Hull City the latest to be called off.

Posted by: delantero | January 8, 2010 5:08 PM | Report abuse

At Kev - I don't see much chance of Detroit, Indianapolis and St. Louis being selected, so I'd cut them now.

Posted by: fischy | January 8, 2010 4:52 PM | Report abuse

fischy, don't rule Indianapolis out so fast. They have a LOT of experience in hosting big sporting events -- including the Super Bowl, NCAA Final Fours, and the Pan Am Games. Lucas Oil Stadium would be a great venue for World Cup games.

Only downer is that public transport from outlying edges of the city, including the airport, into downtown is spotty -- IndyGo (the transit service) really blows.

I lived in Indy for 10 years, though, and truly thought it was a great city.

Posted by: SportzNut21 | January 8, 2010 5:25 PM | Report abuse

couldn't disagree more. I think we should look to cluster cities, with two or three appropriate stadia in a limited area and then have each group play all of its games in one cluster. this is better for the teams, which can stay at the training bases, and the fans who then are spared from unnecessary long-distance travel.
____________________________________________

I agree with this post. Even if the USSF decides not to go with a "cluster cities" concept, I wouldn't rank Washington/Prince George's County over Baltimore. MT&T Bank Stadium is a far superior venue as compared to Fed Ex Field and RFK Stadium. RFK? Come on guys, it would be a total embarrassment to host a World Cup match at RFK. I think that if it comes down to Baltimore versus Prince George's County (let's face it, RFK isn't going to be a factor), Baltimore wins hands down.

Posted by: Stevenho | January 8, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Off topic:

Found this while scouring Google for long-shot rumors:

http://www.times.co.sz/index.php?news=13444

This article from Swaziland says that Darren Christie, who went to Delaware and may or may not have played for the Swazi national team (the article doesn't say for certain), is going to sign with DC.

I'm going to guess that, more likely, he's just been invited to try out with a couple of other under-the-radar area college players.

Posted by: Chest_Rockwell | January 8, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Agree with Stevenho (any relation to Don?)

Chelsea/ACMilan at M&T was superb. And if they build the stadium for Crystal Palace, there will be a training ground next door.

RFK won't even exist in 8 or 12 years.

Posted by: OWNTF | January 8, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

If Washington is a lock then there goes Baltimore and maybe Charlotte: choose two to go from Miami, Tampa and Jacksonville; either San Fran or Oakland; three go from Detroit, Cleveland, Indy and Nashville

Posted by: jacksav | January 8, 2010 7:02 PM | Report abuse

@Chest -- that was posted here last night. I commented on it then, after following the leads. I'd expect the Swazis to get it wrong, but I think it's the Blue Hen paper that has fudged things. The Swazi reporting actually more or less repeats what the Univ. of Delaware press was reporting. It seems he had a tryout with DCU in November/December. Based on the reporting, I think we can say it went well -- or at least that's what Christie and his coach are saying. I realize the MLS rules are impenetrable to us on the outside, but I don't see how he could have signed or even been promised a deal before the draft. More likely, they are saying they're not going to draft him, but they'd like him back in camp.

As for Christie himself: The kid did pretty well for a guy on a losing team. I did find one site where the guy purports to scout and report on hundreds of players he sees during the year. He saw one UD game against Monmouth, and thought Christie had loads of talent but always held the ball too long, killing off any attack.

Posted by: fischy | January 8, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

My guess at the cut down list...

St. Louis
Oakland
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Tampa
Orlando
Atlanta
Nashville
Detroit

Posted by: Eric_in_Baltimore | January 8, 2010 10:38 PM | Report abuse

I agree with this post. Even if the USSF decides not to go with a "cluster cities" concept, I wouldn't rank Washington/Prince George's County over Baltimore. MT&T Bank Stadium is a far superior venue as compared to Fed Ex Field and RFK Stadium. RFK? Come on guys, it would be a total embarrassment to host a World Cup match at RFK. I think that if it comes down to Baltimore versus Prince George's County (let's face it, RFK isn't going to be a factor), Baltimore wins hands down.

Posted by: Stevenho | January 8, 2010 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Please get serious. The posts above that state DC is a mortal lock are spot on. The nations capital will be included whether you like FedEx or not. Baltimore only gets a nod as a complement to DC. Baltimore doesn't have a prayer in h_ll of getting the nod instead of DC. Take it to the bank.

Posted by: croftonpost | January 9, 2010 12:54 AM | Report abuse

Baltimore (M&T) and DC (FedEx) will ultimately participate and host matches. Baltimore filled every seat last summer when the Champions Tour came to town and the Maryland Stadium Authority is aggressively working their network to capture matches in Baltimore plus they will install grass. FedEx would likely be a knock out round location.
Cleveland, Orlando, JAX, Nashville (seriously nashville??) KC, Detroit, Denver, PHX, Oakland & Indy are out. Cluster it all up and down the East Coast and make easy for Fans to travel from game to game plus you include all the great cities: Boston, NY, Phila., Balt-Wash etc.,

Posted by: Zipfutbol | January 10, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Eliminated:

Charlotte
Jacksonville
Cleveland
Nashville
Detroit
Orlando
Tampa
Oakland
Phoenix

I also think Baltimore, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Houston, Kansas City, and St. Louis have no prayer of hosting a game.

Locks are DC, LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston. Gotta figure Seattle, Philly and Denver have the best shot at rounding out the last 8, although Jerry Jones money keeps Dallas in contention.

Posted by: daandre3 | January 10, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

Eliminated:

Charlotte
Jacksonville
Cleveland
Nashville
Detroit
Orlando
Tampa
Oakland
Phoenix

I also think Baltimore, Atlanta, Indianapolis, Houston, Kansas City, and St. Louis have no prayer of hosting a game.

Locks are DC, LA, NYC, Chicago, Boston. Gotta figure Seattle, Philly and Denver have the best shot at rounding out the last 8, although Jerry Jones money keeps Dallas in contention.

Posted by: daandre3 | January 10, 2010 1:41 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company