OT: The World Cup could be headed back to the United States
Reporte OFICIAL de la @ussoccer en relacion a la informacion que brindamos esta tarde. pic.twitter.com/Jk9ij9dvpt
— Jorge Ramos & Banda (@ESPN_JorgeRamos) June 13, 2014
Sunil Gulati, flatly denied FIFA has approached them re: '22 WC. "They haven't asked us and I cannot imagine it happening anytime soon."
— Sam Borden (@SamBorden) June 12, 2014They did have a contongency plan in 2010.
I'm sure Sep will move the World Cup wherever you want for the right price.
"Mosul, Iraq? Are you mad?! You've seen that terrorists have overtaken th-....I'm sorry how much did you say?"
If it comes here will we be allowed to supply honest, competent referees?
Would be great if it happened, but as others have mentioned it seems doubtful. I'm amazed by the level of controversy surrounding the Qatar bid and yet there have been no consequences for FIFA... ridiculous.
Also, Buzzfeed is to real news as Bleacher Report is to sports news.
Please, no.
this wasn't dreamt up by buzzfeed. it came from Jorge Ramos. now the question is was Jorge just talking out of his culo, or not.
if it comes to america at least we wouldn't have to evict millions of people from their homes, and raise taxes sky high to pay for building new stadiums/infrastructure since we are not a third world country.
we just might
Actually the benefit of moving it to America is that we've already done that, so there's no need to do it again.
but I think there's compelling reason for only placing the world cup in countries who have most of their facilities in line - especially when the alternative is a developing nation. This is a humongous waste of money for Brazil and every other developing nation that hosts the World Cup or either Olympic Games.
Put it in the US. We can do it cheap. We have huge stadiums near major cities with ample hotel space.
Agreed. It sucks because it is the world's game and it would be awesome if more countries could host it, but it's just not feasible. If Brazil is to host a WC, it should be as co-hosts. Put 2 groups playing their games in Northern Brazil. Put 2 groups in Southern Brazil. Put 2 groups in Argentina. Put 2 groups in Chile. Knockout stage split b/w those countries. I'm not sure how many CONMEBOL qualifying spots you have, but this makes more sense than having one country hosting the entire thing and building multiple new stadiums at outrageous cost of money and human dignity.
1994: The U.S. spent $30 million on new infrastructure for the World Cup
2010: South Africa spent $3 billion, recovered around $400 million
2014: Brazil spent $14 billion, including $270 million for a new 40,000 seat stadium in Manaus, a jungle town accessible only by plane or riverboat, where the local team draws an average of 4,000 fans per game
And Qatar?!
Ask the Ecuadorians if they really want to play there after their star striker dropped dead there after a match last July.
Part of the problem is that FIFA's demands for stadium quality are over the top. Brazil had plenty of big soccer stadiums before now - they just didn't have all the VIP seating and whatnot that FIFA demands. If you're going to bring the WC to a developing country, you shouldn't demand first-world luxury.
Too Soon???
Having a backup plan, no matter where the original location may be, seems like a prudent thing to do. I bet there is some truth to the original story.
And making the US the backup plan makes even more since when you figure that we have (american) football stadiums all over our country.
Typical soccer stadiums aren't as big as World Cup Stadiums so they have to build them all. So if you go to a European Country, you can play in a bunch of soccer stadiums, but many are too small.
We obviously have soccer stadiums now too with the MLS.
But unless FIFA has a rule against putting grass over turf, it would be pretty easy for the U.S. to host on short notice.
There are 12 World Cup Stadiums in Brazil.
Right now I can probably think of 12...
- Rose Bowl
- Soldier Field
- MetLife Stadium
- University of Phoenix Stadium
- EverBank Field (Jacksonville)
- Citrus Bowl
- CentryLink Field (Seattle)
- FedExField (D.C.)
- Michigan Stadium
- LP Field (Nashville)
- Lincoln Financial Field (Philly)
- Cotton Bowl (Dallas)
I left off the Georgia Dome and AT&T Stadium because I assume it has to be open air. Same with Indy, N.O. and St. Louis.
I also almost forgot about Tampa Bay...and then you have all the large college stadiums like Beaver, Ohio, Neyland, Bryant-Denny and the Coliseum.
Needless to say, we could be prepared VERY easily. We've got a number of stadiums that could host a World Cup. Even if FIFA does have a rule where you can't put grass over FieldTurf we could still do it.
had a retractable roof stadium as did the Euro's in Ukraine/Poland
Fifa's only requirement is that its a grass surface
Here were the ones the U.S. ultimately went with in their bid:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_2022_FIFA_World_Cup_bid#Candidate_venues
Unfortunately, Michigan Stadium was cut on the final bid. :(
8 minutes I'll never get back.
It's for this reason I don't actually want the World Cup. If there aren't gonna be games in Detroit (or AA) then forget it. Unfortunately Detroit doesn't seem to get much respect from the US soccer world in general. MLS wants to expand everywhere but Detroit, it seems.
I've read Australia would be under consideration as a backup 2022 venue. That'd be a fantastic location.
I can't blame them for not wanting to expand to Detroit. It's not the market it once was and is continually losing population. I love Detroit City FC matches, but there are barely any African Americans at those games. Most of the people are from Corktown and the suburbs.
We should clarify: the city is losing population, but the metro area and state are not. (They were for a few years last decade, but their populations are now rebounding.)
Also, I don't get the sense that African Americans attend soccer games in large numbers in general - it's not just something that's true in Detroit.
Was a venue in 1994, and had a US Game to boot.
So I wouldn't see why your so sour on the idea.
Sure, jus tkeep it away from DC. DC traffic is bad enough as is ; get off at 2 or 3 PM and bumper to bumper already. Damn it.
Seriously though in an era where teams spend millions building stadiums that they won't use in the future (see Manaus and other Brazilian cities) America already has pre-built stadiums that are capable of hosting games. You won't see the craziness of Qatar or the Brazilian bids.
If we get it again, that's cool, but I think Australia would be better. They've never had it and it would be during their winter, when temperatures are mild. When we hosted the WC in 1994, there were a lot of games played in sweltering heat.