FIFA: Re-run of 2022 World Cup vote a possibility

The USA could put an acceptable program together on 6 months notice.

There are world class stadiums in Boston, NY-NJ , D.C., Atlanta, Miami, Chicago,Arlington (Dallas), New Orleans, Denver, Seattle, Santa Clara( S.F.), and will be in LA. All would seat at least 70K with some stadiums going near 100K.

The average attendance in Brasil was under 53K a match, which is the largest average Ever outside the USA. Total attendance was 3.4 million for 64 games.

The last time the USA hosted is still the attendance record at over 3 1/2 million (68+K per match) , even though there were only 54 games then. The prospect with those stadiums ( there are some larger ones not considered) with be a total attendance of over 5 MILLION.
If they don't host until 2026 it could top 7 million for a 48 team field.


There are some issues with turf and field width in some of the football venues that would need to be worked out. But even with temporary sod, it can't be worse than some of the Brasil pitches.

With that kind of cash on the line nobody , including FIFA, will care.

 

Chicago and Houston are occasionally "fine;" they'll still require work to accommodate a 75-yard field AND the Fifa signage. Dallas is far from fine.

 

I disagree on the world class thing. Those Big 10 stadiums shoe-horn fans.

As for Jerry World, it needs modification - the field is too narrow.

The Rose Bowl, not owned by UCLA, would need work. But they'll probably go with the new Rams stadium, anyway.

 

I guarantee there will be matches in Dallas with ANY USA bid (probably a semi) The FIFA fat cats will salivate over the amenities there.

 

Oh, I agree. I only meant to point out that the "we could do it tomorrow" talk is a little smug and blind.

 

Never understood why Jones didn't design his new stajum to accommodate soccer by having the width necessary and a grass field on a track like the stadium in Phoenix to be able to move in and out depending on what is needed.

 

They'd be asking for it if they allowed a WC match on such a narrow field.

 

The Rose Bowl will be competing against two shiny new football stadiums by then, one of which can hold up to 100k for big games. Consider this subset for potential WC hosting venues
Seattle, New England, New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Phoenix, LA Rams, LA Chargers or Rose Bowl, Houston, Phoenix, Camping World Stadium, Toronto
Vancouver, Edmonton (maybe Montreal with extensive modifications), Mexico City - Azteca, Guadalajara and Monterrey.

 

Edmonton no. Too remote. Group stages are going to have to be centered in general areas of the country to make travel a bit more easy. If games are going to be played in Chicago a couple more Midwest locations are going to be needed.

 

The last time we hosted most of the pitches were narrow, yet FIFA wants to come back because the made a killing they haven't matched since.

 

Yeah, I think anyone building a football stadium after the 1994 WC would have been foolish not to consider soccer-friendly field dimensions. Especially when you examine the numbers that tournament registered, along with the trajectory of the growth of the sport in this country.

 

We know all that. But we're further down the road and simple expectations should be met. Anyway, I'm only questioning the "ready tomorrow" talk. Indeed, prior to the failed 2022 bid, Gulati admitted that work had to be done and assured the visitors from Fifa that it would be. Jerry Jones even admitted that his field was narrow and promised to widen it.

 

Indeed, many were foolish.

 

We could pull it off in 6 months. Not many places could do that. Smug/blind? I don't think so. Money talks and it WOULD happen.

 

.

Gold Cup regulations state
"Unless otherwise approved by CONCACAF, the pitch shall have the following dimensions: length 105m (approximately 114yd 2.5ft), width 68m (approximately 74yd 1ft). In addition, the total surface area shall have sufficient space for warm-up and pitch-side photographer positions."
​

 

There's a difference between "tomorrow" and "in six months." And unlike us, a few countries could do it tomorrow. We cannot, if we choose to use our best stadiums.

 

Unless you play all of Canada's group's matches in Canada.

 

Yes, they do say that. So does the FIFA bid package.

But the "unless otherwise approved by Concacaf" must have happened, because ATT stadium is, in fact, a Gold Cup site for the KO rounds. I wouldn't be at all surprised for a USA -Mexico Semi or final to be scheduled for there.

https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016...gold-cup-venues-usa-and-mexico-group-schedule

It turns out amenities are as important to CONCACAF fat cats as they will be to FIFA fat cats.

 

And the following stadiums, as configured, either cannot provide or haven't ever provided 74 yards in width: Arlington, Denver, San Antonio, San Diego, and Santa Clara. Philadelphia and Chicago are usually narrow but have managed to squeeze in the 74. Pasadena has been narrow recently.

What Concacaf allows and what FIFA demands...

 

Gotta think the new Raiders stadium in Vegas will be in the mix too.

 

And Tampa, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Foxboro, Seattle,...

 

Fine, we could easily do it next week with stadiums superior in both size and amenities, as well as superior infrastructure to what Brasil and South America had.

 

Grass "pitches"
Cleveland , Washington, Pittsburgh, Denver, Baltimore, Tennessee, Oakland,Tampa Bay, Chicago, Jacksonville, Arizona and LA Colosseum, plus college stadiums of course, 7 stadiums > 40,000 in Mexico and a 36,000 capacity stadium in Canada.

 

Saudi Arabia accusing Qatar of financing terrorism is sort of like us accusing Russia of interfering in other countries' business.

At best it shows an amazing lack of self-awareness. At worst, risible hypocrisy.

 

Absolutely. The British government is accused of sitting on a report about terrorist financing because its focus is on Saudi Arabia.