We are the champions!

Recently we’ve shared that various soccer luminaries such as Arsene Wenger and Sir Alex Ferguson has advocated a spring-to-fall schedule change in advance of the 2022 World Cup.  Now we find out that UEFA itself is advancing well past the thinking stage.

The British press is reporting that the English Premier League and Bundesliga are gearing up to fight a UEFA (specifically, Michel Plantini) plan to implement a spring-to-fall schedule permanently for UEFA member leagues and alter the qualification calendar for international events.  The plan, which would hypothetically be put in place by 2015, supposedly echoes a proposal Plantini wrote for Sepp Blatter and FIFA in 1998 to change the calendar then, but was scrapped because of opposition from Italy and Spain.

All European leagues would run their schedule from mid-March to the end of October.  Qualification for the World Cup or European Championship would take place from November to mid-December, with the final tournaments played mid-January through February.  The articles also reveal that FIFA officials have been planning for a winter World Cup in 2022, despite their assertions otherwise.  In fact, it looks like Qatar was always going to be a winter World Cup, with the executive committee moving forward with January 2022 planning since the December 2 vote.

My first thought on reading this is I am glad UEFA is planning to make the move three years before the Russian World Cup, where I am sure a winter World Cup will be….quite pleasant.  But it seems like the movement toward a winter 2022 Cup (and consequently a spring-to-fall schedule) has been in the works for at least the past 45 days, probably more.  So anything FIFA has said so far about the 2018 and 2022 bid process has to be somewhat doubted if they’ve lied about the Qatar scheduling.

My second thought is that the major European leagues would never go for this.  I think some of the smaller European leagues (I’m looking at you Scotland) would fall in-line with UEFA, but this would be a major headache to the EPL, La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, and Ligue Un.  It would be especially bad for Italy and Spain where summer temperatures approach 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

But let’s assume UEFA is 100% in favor of this and forces all their leagues to switch to spring-to-fall.  All of the sudden, little stubborn MLS would be a trend setter in the soccer world.  The same nation whose president was told to his face that they needed to conform to the rest of the world’s schedule would now be the one to whom the world would conform.  Quite a nice vindication for Don Garber and USSF who have remained unmoved by the international pressure.

What are some of the other consequences of a European schedule switch?

• No more Landon Donovan to Everton loans for a few months.  If MLS and UEFA play at the same time, American stars cannot go to Europe for a few months and return for the second half of the MLS season.  While this would alleviate some of the Beckham transfer drama, my fear would be that big name Americans would just go to Europe and not play in MLS at all during their peak years.  This could exacerbate the league’s talent drain.
• Fewer tours of the U.S. by big European clubs.  Manchester United and Barcelona probably wouldn’t want to do a 12-day tour in the winter with the chance of their matches being snowed out.  So either they would tour the South (excellent for Miami and Dallas) or limit themselves to only one or two stops.  And if international qualifiers are occurring, then the biggest clubs would be reduced to their second team even more so than they are now.

I will believe a UEFA spring-to-fall when I see it, but we have definitely learned two things from this story: the fall-to-spring schedule is not sacrosanct and FIFA’s pronouncements cannot be trusted.

Ok, it’s time to revive the dead horse and ride it some more.  Trust me, I don’t want to but I have to.

Since the December 2 vote to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup, I have made peace with the decision.  While I still believe the country was not the best bid put forward (the U.S. and Australia were better venues in my opinion), I understand the logic and benefits and made my peace with it.  I wish them good luck and anticipate an absolutely excellent World Cup.

But it’s FIFA that keeps making my blood boil over this issue.

Today it’s Michael Platini’s interview reported in The Telegraph, where he shares his ideas and hopes for Qatar’s World Cup, among other topics.  His thought is that the 2022 World Cup should be a Gulf World Cup, or in his words: “I hope it will be a World Cup of the Gulf. It could be the World Cup of Qatar but played in the Gulf.”  This is interesting because the idea has been floated in the media by different soccer personalities but was always rebuked, usually by someone from FIFA saying Qatar has never applied for that change.  But now the idea of a World Cup hosted by Qatar but played in other countries seems to be gaining steam.

This is on top of the already brewing movement to move the 2022 World Cup to the winter months.  Last week, Sepp Blatter became the most recent person to suggest the event be played in January, and league schedules be adjusted accordingly.  This of course has been argued on this site and others, so I don’t want to rehash those arguments.  But it seems to me the 2022 World Cup has a general location, but not a set date nor set locations for the matches to take place.

Not to worry, Platini told the press: “When I organised (sic) the World Cup in France we did (things) differently from what we proposed in the bid.”  He conveniently forgot to mention France’s huge soccer structure already in place, as well as summer temperatures below 120 degrees Fahrenheit.  What these debates tell me is FIFA backed themselves into a corner by picking a location but not having a firm idea of any specific details.  Ask any bride-to-be or meeting planner, and they will tell you this is a recipe for disaster.

So should Qatar have its World Cup pulled?  Not necessarily; a winter World Cup hosted by the Gulf States but based in Qatar can still be a massive success.  But there are so many unknowns and unresolved scenarios that even an event 11 years away is looking like a dubious proposition.  So FIFA should take an unprecedented step (again) and do the following: announce after its elections that in December 2014, FIFA will review a new 2022 World Cup bid from Qatar.  Qatar’s bid will address the timing and location issues, as well as progress on stadiums and other logistics.  After the presentation, the executive committee will have a vote to confirm the bid, and require a supermajority to strip Qatar if it feels their bid is not prepared for the event in eight years.  If that occurs, FIFA can have a process to vote on new bids (possibly just have the other finalists resubmit) but it would need its committee to firmly and overwhelmingly reject (say, a 2/3rds vote) the current site.

The positives of this re-vote?  This gives FIFA and Qatar four years to decide the basics of the 2022 World Cup and begin to implement its plan.  If they cannot do this by 2014, FIFA needs to act in the game’s best interest and consider other venues.  This may or may not be the U.S., but that’s not why this is an important issue.  This is an important issue because the soccer community needs to know that the 2022 World Cup will take place and be successful, not a drama filled event like the Olympics were in Greece.  That way, we can finally figure out who won the 2022 bidding: Qatar, or some ambiguous idea.

Just as the outrage of the U.S. losing the World Cup to Qatar seems to be settling down, Sepp Blatter and FIFA decided to open the controversy back up again.  In an interview with journalists in Qatar during a visit to the Club World Cup, the FIFA president said that the organization was considering holding the 2022 World Cup during the winter, in response to concerns about the heat during matches.  “FIFA’s job is to have a World Cup that protects the players so we take note of the recommendations and go through the list of requirements,” he said.

FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke also addressed the issue, pointing out that holding the World Cup in the winter could help FIFA award the event to countries that previously would be unable to host.  Says Valcke: “Why not? It means you open the World Cup to countries where they can never play it in June and July because it’s never the right period of time… it would be a solution to open the organization of the World Cup to a number of countries in this period which is winter in Europe but not winter in the rest of the world.”

So we aren’t going to get the air conditioned stadiums anymore?!?!?

Maybe, but the decision hasn’t been made yet, according to Blatter.  FIFA executive committee member Franz Beckenbauer first raised the idea after the 2022 voting, and the idea was seconded by UEFA President Michel Plantini.  Qatar has not yet requested the change in season but with the 2022 World Cup twelve years away, there is time to do so.

So if the World Cup were to be moved to January 2022, who would be the biggest winner?  MLS

Assuming all major soccer leagues keep their schedules in the next twelve years, Europe and fall-to-spring leagues will have to make major adjustments to their 2021-2023 schedules to accommodate a major international tournament.  You can imagine the angst that will cause the leagues, who will have to shift their schedules for months to accommodate their players’ international obligations.

However, MLS has the type of schedule that is perfect for a winter World Cup.  As the event is ending, training camps are getting into full swing and national team players (for the U.S. and other countries) can easily integrate themselves into their clubs without missing huge chunks of games, like they do now during the World Cup.  There wouldn’t be that awkward period of time where MLS games are overshadowed by televised World Cup games.  And if the U.S. national team makes serious progress, the positive vibe and support for the national team could translate into MLS support (although that was not necessarily the case this year).

So as an MLS fan, I fully support the 2022 Winter World Cup!  Do you?

A week after the US loss of the 2022 World Cup, much ink and internet type has been spilled on whether the U.S. deserved the bid or was robbed, whether we American soccer fans have a false sense of entitlement or a shady process overwhelmed everything, and even whether U.S. soccer is ok without the Cup or seriously set back.  Now is the perfect time for Sunil Gulati to come forward and address the issue, and lay the groundwork for the future of U.S. soccer.

Why now?  The federation needs to be dragged out of its grief cycle and begin to focus on the future.  Gulati needs to reassert his leadership and, most importantly, show FIFA and the world that U.S. soccer is a mature organization dedicated to working toward the future together with FIFA.  So if I were in the USSF press office, I would have my organization president hold a press conference, and at this press conference have him deliver the following speech:

Thank you everyone for assembling here today.  I would like to discuss in a formal way the 2022 World Cup bidding process and the subsequent awarding of the World Cup to Qatar.  I have spoken to many of you on the record in a variety of formats, but I felt it was important to not only make a formal statement before everyone, but to address the future of U.S. soccer.

First, I would like to congratulate Qatar on winning the World Cup bid.  After viewing their presentation and their grand ideas for the event, I feel that a worthy location has been chosen.  Their progressive and forward-thinking ideas for building state-of-the-art stadiums that can then be donated to less fortunate countries were excellent and the kind of innovation that sometimes we think only America is capable of doing.  The nation, which will host the 2011 AFC Asian Cup, deserves to host the world in 2022.

In a larger sense, I would like to commend FIFA for having the foresight to place the World Cup in the Middle East.  Civilization began on the bank of the Mesopotamia, and the fact that the region has never hosted a World Cup is unfortunate, a wrong that we will right in twelve years.  I do not want to delve into politics, which has little place in soccer, but too often Western contribution to the region has been warfare and weaponry.  This time, we will bring peace and unity, the kind I know the region will welcome.

I’d be remiss if I did not mention the rumors of corruption in the bid process and its impact on the Qatari selection.  Having seen no evidence of collusion or foul play with the selection, I wholeheartedly reject any notion that the selection was compromised.  To assume based on innuendo would be a disservice to our Qatari friends.  FIFA took action on the delegates that were accused of wrong doing, and without concrete evidence of other wrong doing I refuse to give credence to any other rumors.

That said, the FIFA selection process for too long has been cloaked in unnecessary secrecy and confusion, the kind that allows these type of rumors to exist.  I offer USSF and CONCACAF’s assistance to Mr. Blatter and the FIFA Executive Committee in reforming the selection process for two reasons.  First, at the end of the bid process, we all want there to be no doubt that the World Cup was fairly awarded.  Secondly, there is too much money wasted in the bid process.  England spent £15 million on their bid, money the country could have used elsewhere, only to garner two votes.  FIFA should be upfront as to the criteria and selection thought process to allow countries to spend their money wisely and economically in selling their country as a possible site.

Now, as for the future of U.S. soccer, we will place a bid for the 2026 World Cup, assuming FIFA rules make us eligible.  Instead of our past emphasis on being “soccer ready” and how much money an American World Cup will make (and it will make money), our slogan will be “one world, one nation.”  Our bid will emphasize the fact that Americans come from all over the globe and root for many different national teams, and our borders contain a microcosm of the world.  What better way to celebrate the world’s game than by holding it in a place where the world is represented, and can easily visit.  In fact, the U.S. is willing to make the 2026 World Cup more international by holding one match in the group stage in Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean each (3 total matches outside the US), to allow our neighbors to benefit from the World Cup while still leaving the logistics and cost to us.

Finally, I will address the U.S. men’s national team.  There had been discussion that a U.S. World Cup in 2022 would allow the USSF to have an “end date” for the American soccer building project.  This discussion is a valid one, and I am announcing here today that USSF still has 2022 as the end date for a new building project: The American World Cup Project.  Our goal is to have the U.S. be a serious contender for the 2022 World Cup, even though it will not be held in America.  Instead, we plan to make the Qatar World Cup ours in everything but location.  We will build the USSF infrastructure as if we were hosting the event (which means new training grounds for many clubs) and make every decision with 2022 in mind.  This does not mean we will not compete in 2014 and 2018, but we realize the fallacy of the old 2010 project and pledge to put everything into a competitive 2022 team (and beyond).  Will it be easy? No, but the last year has taught us America can be a soccer power if we set our minds to it, and I pledge to do that today.

Thank you, and I will now take questions.

In the wake of Thursday’s loss to Qatar in maybe the only place U.S. soccer can lose to them (the FIFA boardroom), many American soccer fans tried to rally their spirits by immediately turning their focus to the 2026 World Cup process.  An initial glance at the state of play right now for the World Cup suggests 2026 could be an even better opportunity for a United States World Cup than 2022.

CONCACAF would be long overdue to host the event (the last one being 1994) and by FIFA rules Europe and Asia would be ineligible to host.  South American would be unlikely because FIFA would probably want the 2030 World Cup in Uruguay/Argentina to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the tournament.  And out of North America, Oceania, and Africa the U.S. bid would look very promisingly, especially since it would then have been 32 years since the last American World Cup.

But upon further reflection a U.S. 2026 bid is in no way a slam dunk, despite our advantages.  Here are the top five reasons to not get your hopes too high about the 2026 bid:

1.  China – Yes, FIFA rules prohibit a federation from hosting consecutive World Cups, so China could not follow Qatar.  However, FIFA could change them between now and the next bid process if the right situation presents itself.  Chinese interest in a World Cup checks many of the boxes for FIFA: guaranteed profit, an infrastructure perfect for hosting such an event, a growing (or by 2026 grown) soccer market, and government assurances for a successful event.  Imagine the best of the U.S., Australia and Qatar bids, and you have China.  Such a cash cow might be hard to turn down.

2.  Canada – Mexico would be a prime place for a World Cup, but they have already hosted twice.  Canada, however, would be a compelling location for a World Cup and a perfect foil to a U.S. bid.  Again, Canada is a rich nation that has hosted Olympics in the past.  Soccer exists and has support, but a World Cup could really push its growth in the country.  The women’s team is already good.  If the Canadian team makes progress over the next few cycles, then Canada becomes a very attractive first-time bid.

3.  A first-time African nation bid - South Africa plus Qatar equals a dream scenario for FIFA.  Right now it’s hard to find a stable enough African country that’s not South Africa to be a really strong contender for a World Cup.  It is a long time between 2010 and the bid process, however, and there are a bunch of countries that could be viable for the next cycle.

4.  Map changes – There are some odd anomalies in the soccer federations.  Some, like Israel, are for cultural and geopolitical reasons while some (like Australia) are for competitive reasons.  The point is that the federations can be changed for a variety of reasons.  Why is this a factor?  Say FIFA reconsiders and decides Oceania needs to be beefed up as a federation; they put Australia back in Oceania.  Now Australia is eligible for the 2026 World Cup without a rules change.  Or what if India or the Middle Eastern nations show vast improvement prior to the 2018 World Cup, in anticipation of Qatar in 2022?  Would it make sense to add Japan and Australia to Oceania (since they are both Pacific islands)? Or maybe split Asia and merge half of it with Oceania?  All of these are unlikely scenarios, but a map change over the next five to ten years could damage another U.S. bid., especially if FIFA wants to give a World Cup to Australia or Japan.

5.  New Zealand or a CONCACAF island – Laugh all you want, but if a nation as small as Qatar can win why not New Zealand?  This is the same country that almost advanced from group stage in this year’s World Cup, although they did qualify against weaker competition.  Oceania has never had a World Cup and it would be a landmark event, something the Executive Committee obviously likes in a bid.  It has beautiful scenery and is economically advanced.  What about a more-open Cuba?  What a great way to show its reemergence to the international stage with a World Cup, either solo or jointly.  Is this reason so hard to believe?  Yes, both New Zealand and Cuba are odd choices, but they are both larger in land size and population by far than the 2022 host.

I’ve had about eleven hours to think about the results of the 2022 World Cup announcement, read my peers, and come to grips with the failure of the USSF to land the World Cup.  And I think I have a handle on my thoughts and emotions about today.  I watched the announcement via the EPL Talk live blog and Twitter, so I was spared the gut-punch of seeing the card with Qatar on it.  However, the announcement still hurts as I type this.

I think Qatar is a deserving host for the World Cup.  I like the idea of the World Cup bringing peace to a troubled region is a great idea.  Civilization began in Mesopotamia, and it’s only fair that after eighty years the region have a chance to host.  Their government and citizens were 100% behind the bid.  Say what you will about the air-conditioned stadiums that are portable, but if anyone can build an impossible building, Qatar can.  They have the money to do it.  Seeing pictures of their celebration and the speech thanking FIFA, even the hardest hearted person has to feel a little happy for the delegation.

As for the United States, we acted as though we had a right to this tournament, when in reality what right do we have to the World Cup?  The lead story on Sportscenter this morning was LeBron returning to Cleveland, not the World Cup announcement.  Even after the United State’s dramatic matches in the World Cup, MLS television viewership fell off in this country.  When we accuse other countries of not being able to truly honor soccer during the World Cup, we should hold our tongue until the ratings and attendance for MLS approach those of foreign leagues.  We (that is, Americans) should never have assumed the 2022 World Cup was ours.

And yet, the way it all went down is what made this whole thing rotten.

If you believe there were no politics in play on this FIFA Executive Committee, I have waterfront property in Arizona I’d like to sell you.  England, the birthplace of the sport and home of the sport’s most well-known player (who presented the bid!), received fewer votes than a joint bid between the Netherlands and Belgium.  Coincidentally, the British press aired their high-profile investigation of FIFA this week.  But that was 2018, not 2022, so maybe the committee put aside their politics and made the selection based completely on the merit of the bids.

Not quite.  Anyone who tells you that Qatar is like the U.S. in 1994 is delusional; Qatar is not only not using the World Cup to build a domestic league but is even exporting their stadiums to other countries!  If FIFA wanted to boost a domestic league, they would have given the event to Australia, whose A-League needs a boost in popularity.  Also, it can’t be coincidence that the two winners were both major oil money countries with very suspect undergrounds.  If FIFA was afraid of its image being dragged through the mud by the BBC, it gave a big fat middle finger to the world media and gave the event to two countries with very suspect human rights records that also are plush with oil money.  Even is this was not why the two were selected (and I don’t think it was entirely), the perception is there and FIFA can’t counter it.

My other concern with the Qatar World Cup is something people have joked about but is a real issue – the restrictive societal laws in the country.  Maybe FIFA can figure out a way around it, but can Budweiser be the official beer of the Qatar World Cup?  Drinking alcohol is a big no-no in Qatar.  Additionally, will FIFA sponsors be hesitant to associate themselves with a Qatar World Cup if their record on women and religious minorities does not improve?  And the Middle East is not exactly known for political stability – there is a real risk some sort of conflict could be going on during the World Cup.  An improving Israel could face a very awkward run to the World Cup.  The fact that they were selected despite all this really throws the legitimacy of the bid into doubt.

One other item to note on today’s selection – FIFA may have been sending the U.S. a message with the selection of Russia for the 2018 World Cup.  Russia announced recently that its top-flight league would begin playing a fall-to-spring schedule beginning in 2012, despite the notorious Russian winters.  There is no doubt in this fan’s mind that FIFA was sending a not so subtle signal to the U.S.

At the end of the day, the United States hosted a World Cup in 1994, and maybe we only deserve to host one every so often.  I wrote about the impact of losing the bid on U.S. soccer, and it will hurt MLS and the other domestic soccer entities, but they will go on.  Soccer will not die out because of what happened today, and we should not consider bending to the will of FIFA in the hope of getting another shot at a World Cup.  But we should all be a little more humble and a little more dedicated to improving our sport here.

By now you have likely heard that the United States lost its bid to host the 2022 World Cup to Qatar, a country with a population smaller than Latvia but who promised FIFA a truly revolutionary and peace-bringing World Cup.

What you may not know is the vote was not even remotely close.  The United States stood at the precipice of losing in every round:

Round 1: Qatar 11, South Korea/Japan/U.S. 3 each, Australia 1

Round 2: Qatar 10, U.S./South Korea 5, Japan 2

Round 3: Qatar 11, U.S. 6, South Korea 5

Round 4: Qatar 14, U.S. 8

So after all the talk of our infrastructure, money, promise, and government support, we were closer to being eliminated every round than to winning the World Cup.  There will be analysis and reaction on MLS Talk I suspect for the next few days, but for now sound off: what do you think of the U.S. losing the 2022 World Cup to Qatar?

P.S.  It could have been worse, we could have suffered England’s fate.

The United States has been the favorite to win the 2022 World Cup bid since it dropped its 2018 bid to clear the way for a European nation.  Going up against a Middle Eastern country, two Asian nations that previously hosted, and an island nation with little soccer culture, the U.S. has the money, media presence, and soccer infrastructure to guarantee a successful World Cup.  But as we approach the December 2 announcement date, the rumors continue to pop up that the U.S. is at best dead even with Qatar and another of its competitors.  So we have to consider what was once the unthinkable – what is the U.S. loses out on the World Cup?

How could America lose out on a bid?  Qatar, while disgustingly hot in the summer, has a lot of money that it can dedicate to the World Cup, and FIFA can justify giving them the World Cup as a way to promote peace in the region.  Australia is an untapped market and they could be viewed as the U.S. in 1994 – a nation where a World Cup will jump start the popularity of their soccer league.  And it would be odd to give Japan or Korea a World Cup so soon after they jointly hosted one, but they could be viewed as safe bets.  Plus we cannot ignore what wheelings and dealings occur behind closed doors.

The first thought that would come to many people’s minds if the U.S. lost out on December 2 is that we can reapply in four years for the 2026 Cup, and would have to be considered almost a lock.  The World Cups have gone Africa (’10), South America (’14), Europe (’18), and Asia (’22), so unless Antarctica were to boom in population, North America would be a logical next step.  This of course FIFA is logical and continues to rotate continents years from now when the 2026 Cup is selected, but let’s just assume.  But to assume the U.S. would definitely be that country could be a mistake.  Between the 2022 and 2026 selection processes, Mexico (who has already hosted World Cups), could stabilize politically and has a large soccer market.  And to the north is another untapped market – Canada could be targeted by FIFA as the new soccer infrastructure building project.  They have the money, government stability, and infrastructure to host a world-wide event.  Plus, as we have seen with Toronto FC and lower division teams, Canadians will support soccer.

What does the loss of a World Cup do to MLS?  Initially nothing, as where the international event will be held does not really impact MLS players.  But what it could impact is MLS governance.  We know FIFA hates some aspects of MLS, especially the schedule, and we assume that it would not deny the U.S. a bid because of simple MLS dislikes.  But what if FIFA wanted the U.S. market to conform with the rest of world enough that they denied the bid?  MLS could do one of two things – it could basically move further from FIFA or, more likely, begin to adopt FIFA guidance completely.  This means fall-to-spring schedules like most of the rest of the world.

And what does this mean for the U.S. national team?  It cannot be understated how important home field advantage is in the World Cup – the U.S. made the round of 16 in 1994, Italy placed third in the 1990 World Cup, Germany made the 2006 semifinals, etc.  The United States would lose a vital goalpost for progress – the USSF can build its entire structure with the goal of playing in front of the home crowd in 2022 and making a run for possibly a title.  But without that goalpost, it’s harder to have an end date for a building project which, frankly, the U.S. could use.  It can be done, but the advantage of a World Cup in your front yard cannot be understated.

So would losing the World Cup be catastrophic for the USSF?  No, but it would hurt.   A lot.

As part of his second state of the union at halftime of the MLS Cup, Don Garber revealed that MLS would be considering shifting the season from spring-to-fall to the FIFA-endorsed fall-to-spring schedule.  While this is not the first time MLS has considered shifting its schedule, Garber said that the rethink was pushed by FIFA and was tied into the U.S. World Cup bid.  It’s no secret that FIFA has long been disappointed that MLS is not in-sync with most of the rest of the soccer world and they have pressured MLS to conform to everyone else.  But if FIFA gives the U.S. an ultimatum to change the schedule or else, the US stand up to FIFA and tell them no.

This scenario is not out of the realm of possibility.  In 1994, FIFA made establishing a permanent outdoor league a contingency for hosting.  While I think the U.S. right now is the leader in the 2022 race, if it is close or becomes close in the next week, the scheduling issue could become a pressure point for the U.S.  FIFA conceivably come to the U.S. and say change the schedule or enjoy the Qatar World Cup.

So if it comes down to scheduling, should the US abandon its spring-to-fall schedule for the World Cup?  No, MLS and U.S. Soccer should stand its ground on this one if it needs to.  The arguments for spring-to-fall are well-known and they are incredibly valid.  The MLS should not open its season overshadowed by all four major U.S. sports and crown its champions overshadowed by the beginning of baseball and the NCAA basketball championship.  In addition, the majority of the season would be played in the winter, which would be miserable for most teams north of Kansas City.  Having the MLS mainly in the summer allows American soccer to receive more attention from the media, especially when its only major competition is baseball.

Moving to a FIFA-approved schedule would fundamentally alter the essence of MLS.  Immediately American soccer would be another soccer league competing directly with other international leagues, and if ESPN/FSC numbers are any indication, that’s a losing proposition.  Everyone but the most hardcore MLS fans would ignore the league.  And as anyone who watches Sportscenter knows, which honestly and unfortunately dictates the American sports conversation, September through February is all NFL.  Any hope of standing out and attracting attention from the casual sports fan is lost, and MLS would have to hope to attract European soccer fans.  But with their own leagues running concurrently, that is another losing proposition.

Lost amid other American sports and other leagues, MLS would simply be a niche sport like Major League Lacrosse.  And the ability to attract big-name international stars would decrease.  Think it’s a hard decision for Landon Donovan now to play in the EPL?  Imagine if he had to choose between Everton and the Galaxy and could only pick one.  Same for a Ronaldinho, who would wait until he was absolutely out of options in Europe before moving the U.S.  The big-name designated players would be older and closer to retirement than they are now.

The World Cup is an exciting thing, something that can bring immense international attention and money to the United States, as well as make even casual sports fans pay attention to soccer.  But the cost to MLS if they had to compromise on their schedule would be huge.  MLS has to decide if it wants to become just another league in a sea of soccer leagues around the world, or if it wants to establish its own niche in the world and continue to grow.

When the United States dropped its bid for the 2018 World Cup, it was seen as a move to placate FIFA’s desire to have the World Cup held that year in soccer’s birthplace (literally, if England wins the bid).  By doing so, it also allowed the U.S. to be seen as the prohibitive favorite to win the 2022 bid when the vote is held December 2, in part due to a weak pool that includes Australia, Japan, Qatar, and South Korea.  However, FIFA’s bribery scandal may alter the playing field just enough that it could potentially endanger the U.S.’s front runner status.

To recap, two members of the FIFA executive committee were caught on tape by British journalists asking for outright bribes to support certain countries’ World Cup bids.  As of right now, these are the only two who have been caught, but reports by the The Guardian have FIFA’s executive committee unsure of what this week’s vote on the selection process will look like.  While the British press loves sensational journalism, I think it is safe to say that FIFA is a bit of a mess right now.  There have been no public reports that FIFA will definitely postpone its December 2 vote to select the 2018 and 2022 sites, but the possibility exists if the bribery scandal reaches further than currently known.  The final site vote could be delayed a few weeks, or just one site vote could be delayed while the other proceeds.

What does this mean for the U.S. bid?  As I said, right now the U.S. bid is allegedly far and away the front runner for the World Cup in 2022.  We have the money, infrastructure, and media attention to make another United States World Cup very lucrative for FIFA.  But what if the vote is delayed due to this scandal?  Would an extra few weeks seed doubts in the minds of the executive committee, especially if there are other guilty committee members?  The 2018 World Cup has a good chance of also being a lucrative and guaranteed financial success, especially if it takes place in England or Spain/Portugal.  Maybe this puts into the committee’s mind that the 2022 World Cup doesn’t need to be a slam-dunk site, and the U.S. can wait four more years.  Or maybe there is some other unforeseen situation that could pop up in December that could make the committee pause about awarding the World Cup to the U.S.

I am not saying it is a likely scenario that the U.S. loses the 2022 bid, even if they delay the vote.  But it’s like a soccer match, when the winning manager is constantly eying the clock even when ahead by a good margin.  All managers know crazy things can happen towards the end and it’s is better to quit while ahead.  So let’s hope FIFA votes on December 2 and this country can begin to gear up for the World Cup in 12 years.

Agree?  Disagree?  Share your thoughts below or on Twitter @roberthayjr.