Earlier this week, the U.S. World Cup Bid Committee announced the 18 cities that, should their bid be accepted, will host the World Cup in either 2018 or 2022. The bid process was a little convoluted; you could vote for your city, but whether or not that actually ended up mattering isn’t clear.
What is clear is that the bid committee apparently LOVES Texas. Let’s look at who got picked, who shouldn’t have been picked, and who got screwed after the jump.
First off, the process. Right now, the U.S. is competing with ten other bids (Australia, England, Indonesia, Japan, Qatar, Russia, and South Korea, as well as joint Belgium-Holland and Spain-Portugal bids) for the right to host the World Cup. Because of FIFA’s rotation policy, no nation in CONMEBOL is eligible for either bid (since Brazil is hosting in 2014), while no nation from CAF is eligible for 2018 (since South Africa is hosting this year; your entire confederation needs to take two World Cups off). The World Cup has been away from CONCACAF the longest; the last time someone in CONCACAF hosted was the U.S. in 1994.
That being said, there’s only two countries in CONCACAF that are realistic host nations: Mexico and the U.S. So while it’s not been in our region for awhile, the reality is that we don’t necessarily deserve it just because our rotation is up. You have to assume, for example, that one of these two bids is going to go to a UEFA country, while both Australia and Japan could come up with some pretty interesting bids. This isn’t a shoe-in by any stretch of the imagination.
With that in mind, these are the venues that the World Cup Bid Committee chose:
- University of Phoenix Stadium (Glendale, AZ)
- Rose Bowl (Los Angeles, CA)
- Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum (Los Angeles, CA)
- Qualcomm Stadium (San Diego, CA)
- INVESCO Field at Mile High (Denver, CO)
- Dolphin Stadium (Miami, FL)
- Raymond James Stadium (Tampa Bay, FL)
- Georgia Dome (Atlanta, GA)
- Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis, IN)
- FedExField (Landover, MD)
- M&T Bank Stadium (Baltimore, MD)
- Gillette Stadium (Foxborough, MA)
- Arrowhead Stadium (Kansas City, MO)
- Meadowlands Stadium (East Rutherford, NJ)
- Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia, PA)
- LP Field (Nashville, TN)
- Cowboys Stadium (Dallas, TX)
- Cotton Bowl (Dallas, TX)
- Reliant Stadium (Houston, TX)
- Husky Stadium (Seattle, WA)
- Qwest Field (Seattle, WA)
One of the complaints from the last time the U.S. hosted the World Cup was the travel between various venues; by structuring the bid like this, there are about five different “pockets” of activity that could be relatively easily traveled between. That could cut down on, say, one team playing their first game in Boston, their second in San Diego, and their third in Dallas. That part makes some sense, even if it’s a bit exclusionary.
See, in doing the bid that way the committee left out large chunks of the country. Specifically, they left out the midwest; Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Columbus are all ommitted from the final product. Chicago and Columbus are both pockets of soccer support, too, as the both have fairly well-supported MLS clubs.
They also inexplicably included Denver, which is the only city on the list that would play at altitude; while altitude is a factor in World Cups, it still requires acclimatization. At most, a team would play one random game at altitude, however, which is unnecessarily complicated…especially since Denver’s nowhere near any of these theoretical pockets of venues.
Another issue with some of the venues chosen is their turf. The ones in green are the fields that actually play on natural grass; the other ones use some sort of artificial pitch (mostly Field Turf) for their playing surface. While FIFA claims that they’re fine with artificial surfaces, players by and large hate them. There’s lots of good reasons for this; they can hurt your legs over time, the ball can move (or at least seem to move) differently, and goalkeepers claim you can make better contact with the ball – and therefore take a better shot – on artificial turf. Also, the other bids that have been submitted are, for the most part, entirely on grass (I couldn’t find specific information on Indonesian stadiums, so those might be artificial); if the pitches are considered, the eight venues not using natural grass would doom the bid from the start.
Taking into account the turf and locale, then, I’d probably dump both the University of Phoenix Stadium and INVESCO at Mile High from the bid. Neither one is remotely close to any of the other venues, and both have weather factors that make them less than hospitable (do you really want to play in the desert in July? Me neither). I’d also dump M&T Bank Stadium.
To replace UoP and INVESCO, I’d use Cleveland’s Cleveland Browns Stadium and Pittsburgh’s Heinz Field. Both are good sized venues within travel distance of each other, and both are natural grass surfaces with relatively forgiving June climates. To replace M&T Bank Stadium, I’d add in RFK Stadium; this is the home of DC United, and they play on natural grass.
I can also see the case for dumping Lucas Oil Field in Indianapolis and adding Chicago’s Soldier Field back in.
That being said, it’s entirely possible that I’m complaining just to complain because Cleveland’s not on the list; the venues themselves are about as good as you could do, even if Texas is a bit over-represented.
Let me know your thoughts on the bid venues in the comments; I’m interested in hearing your thoughts on this.
I’m irritated that they left Orlando on the list, largely because I hate Tampa when it comes to all things sport. Our stadium is due to be rebuilt before the WC, and Orlando has, oh, I dunno, the best or second best tourism based infrastructure in America? But no, that’s cool, Baltimore and Kansas City make perfect sense.
Any guesses on the chances of landing it? The US hasn’t pissed FIFA off too much lately, have we?
UEFA is pretty likely getting one of them, so really that means Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Qatar, and South Korea are up against the US bid. I really only see Japan, the US, and Australia as true contenders for it. Though I really think the US and Australia are the two biggest contenders for the bid.
Australia has some issues with grounds sharing (the Aussie rules folks don’t like their stadiums being pulled away for a grand total of eight weeks in the middle of their season) that will need to be worked out; they probably CAN work it out, but it’s not as clear-cut as with the U.S.). Japan might be in a better position, too, because their country is physically smaller and the travel issues aren’t as severe.
1) The list is 18 possible cities. In 1994, only 9 venues were used. I would assume if the US wins, I’d expect the number of venues to be used to be between those two numbers.
2) UoP stadium is climate controlled.
My guess as to why Denver is on there is because of the massive amount of hotels that were built for the DNC, and they’re all probably 1-2 miles from Invesco. Corey’s right though, they’ll probably whittle this down to about 12 venues.
Orlando is tougher to get to, Chicago and Detroit had their go last time, Columbus is far to small to be a host city & Cincy also has a faux-turf stadium, RFK is a $#!*-hole. Kansas City (my h/t) is completely revamping Arrowhead (due to complete later this year) and has a longstanding reputation in the NFL as one of the best surfaces. Combine that with a re-vitalized downtown, our legendary tailgaiting, BBQ, jazz, and hospitality and I think we’ll be a bada$$ host city. Plus virtually no part of the country is further than a 4 hour flight away. Final thought, I wouldn’t put it past some of the faux-turf sites to install grass for the WC (I’m talking about you, Jerry Jones). Ultimately, the fat I expect to get trimmed off if we win the bid are: Atlanta, Indy, Baltimore, Tampa, Cotton Bowl, and Husky.
A few thoughts:
1. I can’t see Japan getting the 2018 bid, and would only have them 50/50 in 2022. They co-hosted with South Korea in 2002 and while I can see FIFA going back to Asia for one of these bids, I don’t think they’ll go back to one of the same countries. If it weren’t for the security concerns (and certainly a lot could change in 8-12 years) I’d say Indonesia was a lock for one of these. FIFA has made good on their promises to try to strengthen the game in areas/Confederations that have been neglected by choosing South Africa this year, and it would seem that giving non-Japanese/Korean Asia a push would be next on their list.
2. I think the U.S.A.’s real competition (assuming one of these bids goes to a UEFA) is with Australia. If problems with the AFL are the only sticking point I’m sure those can be solved. The country has hosted the Olympics, is sports-crazy, has the infrastructure, and most of all, they moved out of the OFC in 2006 an are now in the AFC, so they tick many of the same boxes as Indonesia would where FIFA is concerned. Also, is that enough acronyms in one paragraph?
3. Columbus is bigger than you think. The metro area is bigger than Nashville’s or Indianapolis’, and not much smaller than KC’s. That being said, none of the three should be on the final list, especially ahead of places that were left off all together- Chicago, S.F./Oakland, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and St. Louis.
I think Indonesia’s bid really rests on how smooth this years Cup goes, if theres all sorts of crap going wrong, crime, etc. I see them holding back on going to another country with security issues, especially with Brazil in 2014.
I have three issues with Indonesia.
1) They’re ranked 120th in the world, and would get an automatic bid.
2) Practically all of their stadiums would need to be either built or expanded; their largest ones are about 25k right now, which is less than half the size that FIFA probably wants to see.
3) A lot’s been made about the poverty in South Africa; South Africa’s GDP per capita is more than twice that of Indonesia’s.
From what I’ve heard, the issue with the Aussies and the AFL isn’t so much the use of their grounds, but that FIFA has made noise about banning all alternate codes of football while the World Cup is in town (Aussie Rules, rugby, etc.). Meaning AFL would be forced to shut down for the entirety of the World Cup. That could just be FIFA blather, it’s interesting though.
I really wouldn’t be shocked to see Indonesia get it. Indonesia is attractive because, as you said, it’s a pretty untapped market, and plus, they have pledged to hold an entirely “green” cup. That will certainly enable the swollen heads of FIFA to pretend they are doing something for the world.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again…don’t sleep on Indianapolis making the final cut. The Indianapolis Sports Corp knows how to sell the city to organizations giving out bids.
See:
Super Bowl XLVI (2012)
NCAA Final Four (every 5 years)
FIBA World Championship (2002)
FINA World Championships (2004, Junior 2010)
Indianapolis 500 (every year)
Brickyard 500 (every year)
US Grand Prix (2000-2007)
Thats a pretty impressive list for a smaller market. The city has the volunteer force to put on events like this pretty damn often which is no small feat. Additionally EVERYTHING is downtown and within walkind distance (venue, hotels, bars, restaurants, etc.
Indianapolis could very well be cut. But don’t be surprised if it somehow makes it.