WCQ Oct Home Game Locations

At this point, it doesn't matter where the USA plays the Latin countries. Their fans are going to be the super majority of the crowd in the stadium no matter where the US "hosts" World Cup qualifiers.

 

*US hosts a qualifier there.*

*Throughout the stadium rings the chant "Mexico! Mexico!" and a sea of green jerseys in the stands.*

I actually feel sorry for US players that suit up for the US Men's National Team. They know their own team is a sad joke but have no choice but to play for it. That's the fate of also-rans, I suppose.

 

Columbus would then only have one potential game to host as there are no summer qualifiers in 2021. It’s gonna be tight for them.

Didn’t Portland’s owner say they might have grass for 2021?

 

The CONCACAF statement says "based on the FIFA Ranking published after the FIFA window of June 2020." The July 16 rankings will be the first published after that window, so that would be that.

The first window is August 31-Sept. 8. It's not likely that they would play on the first day of the window. If they follow the Friday/Tuesday schedule that has been used in recent cycles, they will play on Sept. 4 and 8.

 

I'd do:

Mexico in Minnesota
Costa Rica in Denver
Jamaica in Salt Lake
El Salvador in Philly
Honduras in Nashville

 

All sound pretty good to me in theory except for Nashville. Playing them in an NFL stadium is not a good idea. Especially since many Catracho fans would drive from Virginia/DC/North Carolina.
Their soccer specific stadium is not going to be ready by qualifiers so I would probably swap Jamaica in Nissan and Honduras in Salt Lake.

 

No way there would be no West coast game and only 1 East coast

 

With most of our best players coming from Europe, you could argue all the games should be on the East Coast. Does the slightly easier travel help more than a more pro-American crowd? Maybe.

I can't see the West Coast getting any games. Although, bringing Honduras back to San Jose would be fun. Likewise, you could have Canada or Panama go to Orlando. But, Orlando didn't turn out for the last game and the field was in awful shape.

I'd play in Philly against El Salvador.

 

While I get the desire to spread games around, why not pick a stadium that is relatively friendly for all our games and have that be our base throughout all of qualification? The familiarity is such an advantage that other countries have against us. We are the nomads of the soccer world and it takes a toll, especially on players who are already flying in from other continents.

A city with nonstops from England and Germany is a must. Also a must is a small soccer specific stadium. Then sell tickets to US Soccer's registered supporters. To limit empty stadiums for smaller games, sell series tickets to supporters that include entry to every game. Make it damn near impossible to sell on the secondary market by having the laminate photo ticket setup like has been done at World Cups. I'd rather have an empty stadium because US fans couldn't make it to a game than a stadium full of opposing fans because they bought the tickets on StubHub.

We focus too much on playing in the middle of nowhere so we can get a white, suburban crowd, but our players are less affected by the crowd than they are the travel and the constantly changing environs. Personally, I would prefer we play all our Hex game in a place like Philly. Soccer specific stadium centrally located for many thousands of USMNT supporters. Lots of nonstops to/from all over Europe. Eastern time zone. Shorter flights for most everyone in the pool. A longer flight than most places in the country for teams we will be facing.

 

The flip side to this is that the United States is a very big country and many segments of the fan base from around the country should be able to see their National team play in World Cup qualifiers. Not just one region.

There is a country that you may have heard of that does this. They wear yellow shirts and blue shorts and white socks. They also have won 5 World Cups so I think it has worked for them.

 

They have also been one of the best teams in the world for longer than most people have been alive and they are in a federation where half the teams qualify. Not to mention that every single qualifier they played at home in the last cycle, except one, was in the eastern most time zone, just three hours behind England, and most of the games were clustered in a strip of coastline roughly equiv. to us playing our games from Boston to DC. And let's not pretend that this is some sort of egalitarian experience, where everyone can and should be able to attend games. The tickets, parking and concessions cost as much -- or more -- than airfare on Frontier or Spirit Airlines for many people. I'd rather have to travel to the East Coast to watch a qualifier in person than not be able to watch the team in the WC.

 

FYP

 

There is no point in having a National stadium that you are advocating for in my opinion. Time zones don't mean anything in 2020 and beyond. These are pampered athletes with the best technology for flight and for recovery.
I believe that what we did in the 2014 cycle is the way to go. Use an intelligent strategy and spreading out the games across the country in markets that are not conducive to fanatical fan bases of our CONCACAF opponents. (Mostly staying away from the very big city coastal markets.)

No one is implying or insinuating an egalitarian experience. What I was implying is that the best way to grow the sport is to expose it to many regions around the large country that want to host matches. There are many cities and markets that want to host so why punish them just because people want one National Stadium that may or may not be an advantage? (Sounds high risk, very little reward if it does not work.)

And I did not even get into the schedule conflicts that could occur if we have it at one stadium. Countries that have National Stadiums usually have Federations that are different than ours. And heck, even governments that are different than the USA's which is a different dynamic to consider.

 

Mexico - Columbus
Honduras - Minnesota
Costa Rica - Orlando
Jamaica - San Jose
El Salvador - Denver

Get a nice mix there. 2 in the Midwest, 1 on the East Coast, 1 on The West Coast, and 1 in The Rockies.

 

Hard to argue with this list if it works out this way.
I just think KC and Seattle/Pacific Northwest were two of our best home fields in previous cycles and must be represented. I also think Columbus for Mexico should be no more.
But if it ends up this way I think it would probably be good for us in the stands.

 

Mexico - Minnesota
Costa Rica - Atlanta (I'm dying to see what they can do for a big US game--that's a possible venue for our opener in the 2026 WC IMO)
Jamaica - Denver/SLC
Honduras - Seattle/Portland

Then the 6th team looks like it could be any of:
El Salvador - Columbus/KC
Canada - Columbus/KC
Curacao - Northeast (NJ, Philly, DC, or Foxboro) or Columbus/KC
Haiti - Denver/SLC


For some of these it also makes a difference what time of year we draw that team, if it's the first or second game in the window, and where our other game in that window is.

 

Our population is far more spread out geographically than Brazil's is.

 

And for decades that team played qualifiers in only stadium. Only recently did they start spreading o amor.

 

Recently???


If you want to say the last 5 or 6 World Cup cycles are recently then I don't know what to say about that.