Exclusion of Chicago, Detroit and possibly Los Angeles weakens US bid

[Zidane98]

Good article from a neutral source on soccernet:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-...ludes-some-odd-host-cities?cc=3888&ver=global


Good point about Chicago being excluded, being one USA's 3 largest cities. You would have thought that Chicago, a city still smarting from not winning the rights to the 2016 Olympics, would be a shoe in for a World Cup bid. Sure, there are plenty of other cities in the US to fill in but one wonders how Obama's home town isn't included in the World Cup bid. Los Angeles may also miss out (Rose Bowl no longer suitable for World Cup fixtures) with San Diego having a ready made venue - this would mean that 2/3 of America's largest population centres could possibly be excluded from World Cup 2022. That's like an Aussie bid without Melbourne or Sydney. It seems that the Americans just don't want the World Cup as much as us sports mad aussies down under.

 

[Puddy]

Good article from a neutral source on soccernet:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-...ludes-some-odd-host-cities?cc=3888&ver=global


Good point about Chicago being excluded, being one USA's 3 largest cities. You would have thought that Chicago, a city still smarting from not winning the rights to the 2016 Olympics, would be a shoe in for a World Cup bid. Sure, there are plenty of other cities in the US to fill in but one wonders how Obama's home town isn't included in the World Cup bid. Los Angeles may also miss out (Rose Bowl no longer suitable for World Cup fixtures) with San Diego having a ready made venue - this would mean that 2/3 of America's largest population centres could possibly be excluded from World Cup 2022. That's like an Aussie bid without Melbourne or Sydney. It seems that the Americans just don't want the World Cup as much as us sports mad aussies down under.

Funny, sports mad people that i know have no interest whatsoever in getting the world cup after discussing all of the economic disadvantages and the interruptions to the actual football codes

 

[Zidane98]

Funny, sports mad people that i know have no interest whatsoever in getting the world cup after discussing all of the economic disadvantages and the interruptions to the actual football codes

Most of the sports mad people you know are the few remaining Port Adelaide fans which are a dying breed. Thankfully, morons like you aren't what the general population in Australia are like.

 

[Checker Hughes]

Puddy -you must be on your final warning
You basically don't have anything to say and your only position is to be disruptive in a very basic manner

The forum provides everyone many opportunities through a whole range of sub forums to find something that they actually enjoy-I suggest you investigate a little more thoroughly elsewhere as you clearly hate association football but your version of trolling is extremely low grade

Troll further at your own expense

 

[usalion]

Good article from a neutral source on soccernet:

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-...ludes-some-odd-host-cities?cc=3888&ver=global


Good point about Chicago being excluded, being one USA's 3 largest cities. You would have thought that Chicago, a city still smarting from not winning the rights to the 2016 Olympics, would be a shoe in for a World Cup bid. Sure, there are plenty of other cities in the US to fill in but one wonders how Obama's home town isn't included in the World Cup bid. Los Angeles may also miss out (Rose Bowl no longer suitable for World Cup fixtures) with San Diego having a ready made venue - this would mean that 2/3 of America's largest population centres could possibly be excluded from World Cup 2022. That's like an Aussie bid without Melbourne or Sydney. It seems that the Americans just don't want the World Cup as much as us sports mad aussies down under.

OK, but look at the cities that are included- Philly, Boston, Washington, Seattle, Denver....the list goes on. Any of them would be the equal to Melbourne or Sydney with many of the stadia being built in the last decade with all the bells and whistles that FIFA and corporate execs would love.

Chicago and LA have simply not upgraded the stadia they used for WC 1994- but tboth soldier field and the Rose Bowl are iconic in the US. I'd bet on the Rose Bowl being one of the stadia in the final mix, simply because it is LA- and the idea to base Mexico or a Spanish speaking country there, along with Glendale, which is a superb stadium with the capability of being closed.

For the QFs, SF and final, I'd probably look at NY, Washington, Dallas and Glendale, with Cowboys Stadium being the favorite for hosting the Final. Maybe the third placed game in the Rose Bowl....

 

[Zidane98]

OK, but look at the cities that are included- Philly, Boston, Washington, Seattle, Denver....the list goes on. Any of them would be the equal to Melbourne or Sydney with many of the stadia being built in the last decade with all the bells and whistles that FIFA and corporate execs would love.

Chicago and LA have simply not upgraded the stadia they used for WC 1994- but tboth soldier field and the Rose Bowl are iconic in the US. I'd bet on the Rose Bowl being one of the stadia in the final mix, simply because it is LA- and the idea to base Mexico or a Spanish speaking country there, along with Glendale, which is a superb stadium with the capability of being closed.

For the QFs, SF and final, I'd probably look at NY, Washington, Dallas and Glendale, with Cowboys Stadium being the favorite for hosting the Final. Maybe the third placed game in the Rose Bowl....

I doubt that the Rose Bowl passes minimum FIFA standards for World Cup venues anymore, if I remember correctly there's very little covered seating. Would be interesting to see what FIFA's current minimum standards are for World Cup venues.

 

[Checker Hughes]

I doubt that the Rose Bowl passes minimum FIFA standards for World Cup venues anymore, if I remember correctly there's very little covered seating. Would be interesting to see what FIFA's current minimum standards are for World Cup venues.

You can be assured that the US bid will comply in that regard although a number will have slight problems in the bottom tier for sight lines where they have to remove seating to make the stadium wide enough for football

 

[usalion]

You can be assured that the US bid will comply in that regard although a number will have slight problems in the bottom tier for sight lines where they have to remove seating to make the stadium wide enough for football

In 1994, that was a problem with a couple of the stadia, but I think you will find with the new stadia that have been built (FED EX, Lincoln Financial, Lucas Oil, Glendale, Reliant etc. the width is not a problem. I saw the USA v Turkey friendly in May at the Linc and had a wonderful view- sitting about the half way line near the top of the stands.

Rose Bowl is entirely open, but because of the climate- very little rain- I suspect it gets past any FIFA objections.

 

[Breeder Reactor]

Funny, sports mad people that i know have no interest whatsoever in getting the world cup after discussing all of the economic disadvantages and the interruptions to the actual football codes

Puddy. Be careful in what you post here. Look at all the "locked threads" below.

They all have merit, but facts seem to clouded by raw emotion and the need to host a 4 week carnival called the WC. The end result to the taxpayer is out of bounds. FIFA will clean up $, and we will have to pay of the party for years to come.

But look at the bright side. If we win the WC bid, we'll get some new stadiums to play our superior game. The massive taxpayer debt to foot the bill ... let's not talk about it.

It's out of bounds.

The chances of Australia hosting the WC look very encouraging. Very encouraging indeed.

 

[Zidane98]

In 1994, that was a problem with a couple of the stadia, but I think you will find with the new stadia that have been built (FED EX, Lincoln Financial, Lucas Oil, Glendale, Reliant etc. the width is not a problem. I saw the USA v Turkey friendly in May at the Linc and had a wonderful view- sitting about the half way line near the top of the stands.

Rose Bowl is entirely open, but because of the climate- very little rain- I suspect it gets past any FIFA objections.

FIFA regulations now state that any World Cup venue must have a certain percentage of seats undercover, regardless of climate. As the article says, the US will most likely need a new venue in LA if fixtures are going to be hosted there.

 

[usalion]

FIFA regulations now state that any World Cup venue must have a certain percentage of seats undercover, regardless of climate. As the article says, the US will most likely need a new venue in LA if fixtures are going to be hosted there.

And we know that FIFA can waive any regulation they want to- remind me again how many stadia your lot are proposing for the Sydney metro area again? FIFA says two stadia max in one city.

A World Cup Final was gheld in one of the most iconic stadia in North America- I don't see FIFA turning their noses up to it if the USA wons the opportunity to host. Might not be a featured stadium for the later rounds, but imagine 100 000 Mexican/Spanish fans filling it for preliminary matches. It aint like it is falling down or has safety issues.

 

[AJ_2000]

And we know that FIFA can waive any regulation they want to- remind me again how many stadia your lot are proposing for the Sydney metro area again? FIFA says two stadia max in one city.

That would be 1 stadium in the metro Sydney area.

 

[Checker Hughes]

FIFA says two stadia max in one city.

Just so we're on the same page-can I have a link for that?

 

[Checker Hughes]

And btw the Rose Bowl has a reno approved as of a few days ago

 

[DB10]

excluding Detroit doesn't weaken the US bid. if anything, it enhances it.

that and Detroit is really just =/= Indianapolis, Baltimore, Kansas City. it's no biggie.

 

[scotto_01]

this means shit all in reality

usa has 30+ NFL stadiums + another 30 odd college football stadiums to choose from so no chicago or detroit is no loss (espeically detroit because imo their field is crap)

ny meadowlands
seattle
miami
boston
philly
denver
dallas
ect

they are fine stadium wise, thats not the issue with their bid, its more does fifa want to grant them another wc after the last one didnt have the impact they hoped it would.

 

[usalion]

this means shit all in reality

usa has 30+ NFL stadiums + another 30 odd college football stadiums to choose from so no chicago or detroit is no loss (espeically detroit because imo their field is crap)

ny meadowlands
seattle
miami
boston
philly
denver
dallas
ect

they are fine stadium wise, thats not the issue with their bid, its more does fifa want to grant them another wc after the last one didnt have the impact they hoped it would.[/QUOTE]

Right on the first point- we could pick and choose our stadia- and despite WC 2022 not understanding the point, the heat of the US summer (which doesn't begin to compare with Mexico, BTW) has been greatly reduced by the choice of stadia we use- many of the games will be in 70 degree, climate controlled arenas- holding upwards of 60 000+ spectators. Yup, the east Coast can be hot, but give them the later kickoffs, and you still get Europe in prime time or late night. Only area I see as a problem is Florida- and there is no guarantee they'd put matches there.

Now, as for your other point- well, USA 1994 was the most successful tournament by FIFA standards, and when you remember that in the early 1990s, the USA had no real professional league to speak of, the growth of MLS has been pretty good- nope, certainly not putting the US into first world status as far as spectators of dpmestic comps, but the league has built in such a way to attract very solid crowds to stadia that suit their needs- Red Bull Arena in NY, PPP Park in Philly and the Home Depot Center in California.

 

[scotto_01]

this means shit all in reality

usa has 30+ NFL stadiums + another 30 odd college football stadiums to choose from so no chicago or detroit is no loss (espeically detroit because imo their field is crap)

ny meadowlands
seattle
miami
boston
philly
denver
dallas
ect

they are fine stadium wise, thats not the issue with their bid, its more does fifa want to grant them another wc after the last one didnt have the impact they hoped it would.[/QUOTE]

Right on the first point- we could pick and choose our stadia- and despite WC 2022 not understanding the point, the heat of the US summer (which doesn't begin to compare with Mexico, BTW) has been greatly reduced by the choice of stadia we use- many of the games will be in 70 degree, climate controlled arenas- holding upwards of 60 000+ spectators. Yup, the east Coast can be hot, but give them the later kickoffs, and you still get Europe in prime time or late night. Only area I see as a problem is Florida- and there is no guarantee they'd put matches there.

Now, as for your other point- well, USA 1994 was the most successful tournament by FIFA standards, and when you remember that in the early 1990s, the USA had no real professional league to speak of, the growth of MLS has been pretty good- nope, certainly not putting the US into first world status as far as spectators of dpmestic comps, but the league has built in such a way to attract very solid crowds to stadia that suit their needs- Red Bull Arena in NY, PPP Park in Philly and the Home Depot Center in California.

thats all true, but the game never caught the imagination of the american public like fifa thought/wanted it to.

and we all know fifa love giving the world cup to developing nations/regions its never been before

recent examples
2010
02
94

 

[Zidane98]

I don't think football will ever capture the imagination in the US as it has done in Australia; in Australia we are much closer to the European idiom, with our strong british links (part of the reason why the EPL is so popular in Australia). In contrast, the US of A likes to distance itself as far as possible anything British (football, rugby, cricket) etc etc. You will never see scenes witness in Australia during the 2006 World Cup in America. Football is part of the mainstream sporting culture unlike the US in Australia and there isn't a more deserving country of the World Cup then Australia.

 

[usalion]

I don't think football will ever capture the imagination in the US as it has done in Australia; in Australia we are much closer to the European idiom, with our strong british links (part of the reason why the EPL is so popular in Australia). In contrast, the US of A likes to distance itself as far as possible anything British (football, rugby, cricket) etc etc. You will never see scenes witness in Australia during the 2006 World Cup in America. Football is part of the mainstream sporting culture unlike the US in Australia and there isn't a more deserving country of the World Cup then Australia.

I would wager that soccer has a much larger percentage base in the US than it does in Austrfalia....big problem in the US is that we have major sports that are firmly established on a nationwide basis- and soccer aint gonna go above them- gridiron, baseball and basketball dominate the sports scene here- and then you have college football and basketball...and even stuff like NASCAR.

Cricket is the only sport in Australia that one can really put out as being supported nationwide- and please don't claim support when you have crowds in four figures for most of the A-League teams- take out Sydney and Melbourne, and what do you have? Essentially, a very minor league.

AFL is essentially Victoria, with support in Adelaide and Perth, rugby (league and union) is pretty much centered on NSW and QLD....

I could name a number of countries more deserving than australia of hostin a World Cup- problem is, the number that CAN host has now shrink because of the size of the tournament. 32 teams won't fit into countries like Holland and Belgium (hence, combined bids from them) o eastern European countries where soccer has been established fpor decades. Scotland would be thoroughly deserving of hosting, for the passion the people show for the game, but that wasn't gonna happen, even when you only had 16 teams.

If you want to talk Brit heritage, Canada would eb a logical choice, but they simply don't have the stadia where they could hold the tournament.

 

[Checker Hughes]

isn't a more deserving country of the World Cup then Australia.

For so many reasons your on the mark there.