Comments on: US World Cup 2018/2022 Bid Moves Forward

By: m65

m65 — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:30:53 +0000

hope they do well in this years world cup

By: nike outlet

nike outlet — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 01:16:23 +0000

Seems like a lot of the stadiums on that list use Field Turf.
Am I right?

By: ugg boots sale

ugg boots sale — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 07:53:58 +0000

do some conscious thinking, not obvious knowing.

By: Arun

Arun — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 02:17:14 +0000

You guys are anti Canadian, you should be anti american, atleast we don’t start wars and cause problems.

By: eplnfl

eplnfl — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 12:33:25 +0000

Hey, ESPN Soccernet podcast now with a regular American Soccer show featuring, MLS, Yanks abroad, and USMNT. Wow! Big step. Who says ESPN not committed to soccer.

By: Gazza

Gazza — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:53:46 +0000

JH: Canada doesn’t have enough good MLS cities for their own league. Plus why would we want to take TFC revenues out of MLS?

By: Lars

Lars — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:51:15 +0000

I agree Joey. There shouldn’t be any Canadian cities in World Cup bids for the US.

The only stadiums that could hold the required amount and be suitable for soccer are in Vancouver, and Montreal. The Skydome sits less than 60,000. But the US World Cup is the US World Cup…

By: Joey Clams

Joey Clams — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:03:13 +0000

That the organizing commmitte -an arm of the Federation – should be shacked up with MLS is a joke, yes. And if Toronto or Edmonton is added to the list, I’ll scramble some fighter jets.

I’ve always felt that a US WC should be based on geographic clusters. But here’s the kicker: several stadiums do require modification. Owners who pony up for them will demand more than three games. Ironic, no? That a stadium that wasn’t built with soccer in mind could get more games than a stadium that was built with soccer in mind just because the owner had to come out of pocket.

Anyway, despite what they say, the committee will favor areas with MLS teams with the exception of say Florida and, perhaps, New Orleans. They insist otherwise just so they can come heavy with their first list and impress everyone.

The two groups / three stadiums formula will be retained. That would require twelve stadiums. But I wouldn’t be surprised if two cities were added; they could be situated roughly between two of the geographic clusters and they’d be willing to accept as few as two games, games “laid off” from stadiums that might host more than four.

For instance, if you had a NE cluster of Foxboro, Giants and Fed Ex and a Southern cluster of Houston, Dallas and Miami, you might want to lay two games off to Nashville. Western and Midwestern groups could lay games off to Denver, etc. Maybe the Southern group gets paired up with the Western cluster and games get laid off to Phoenix. The Midwest and Northeast could lay off to Cleveland.

It won’t look much different than…

Foxboro, Giants, Fed Ex
Miami, Houston, Dallas
Cleveland, Chicago, Kansas City
Seattle, Bay Area, LA area.

Lay off towns could be Philly, Cleveland, Nashville, Phoenix, etc.

You can mix and match, of course, depending on circumstances.

DC could become Southern to make way for Philly in a cluster. Dallas could step up as a Midwestern city, etc.

But, please, no Vancouver, no Ottawa, no Montreal.

Is that too much to ask?

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 13:25:05 +0000

Does FIFA still have rules in place regarding natural grass surfaces? Seems like a lot of the stadiums on that list use Field Turf.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 05:06:51 +0000

New Orleans better try and get the Superdome on the short list.