When you create that, explain why Columbus has hosted the home Mexico qualifier 5 straight WCQs, 4 of those shutout wins. New markets have emerged yet Columbus - an original MLS market - has remained a go-to destination for the USMNT. I can't wait to hear you rationalize that. This basically destroys your overly simplistic "emerging markets" argument and demonstrates the point Crooked made - Foxboro is no longer a "go to" home venue like it was in the 90s and early to mid 2000s. The bottom line is the USSF chooses venues it thinks give the US the strongest home advantage. It used to count Foxboro among them but doesn't anymore, hence why @Crooked is right in pointing out it's no longer on the A list.
I think Columbus will be a very good location to keep our eyes on going forward. Much like the old Foxboro stadium, there is nothing sexy about the venue in Columbus. However, as many have said and is generally accepted, the USMNT used to be a regular in Foxboro much as Columbus has all but been guaranteed a WCQ against Mexico since 2001 (a year Foxboro hosted two WCQs). It will be interesting to see if Columbus continues to get the Mexico game going forward now that the winning streak has been broken. Will Columbus one day be having the same discussion? I do not think Boston will ever be completely off of the radar, but I can imagine Columbus will be one day. I have not lived in Boston since 2012, but I was surprised at how many games still end up getting played in Boston given this discussion. I think discussions that look back at why Foxboro does not get the love it used to should include the rise (and fall?) of East Hartford and turf. For those not familiar with the site, this used to be a great place for USMNT results/history. Here is a direct link to the USMNT year by year results with location/event/scorers/etc from 1990-2013. It also has a link to results from 1885-1989. The main page (first link) has links to wiki pages since 2011. Changing gears, it looks like there are 14 different venues for the 2017 Gold Cup. Nine for the group stage and five for the knockout rounds. As long as there are Gold Cups every two years and some eight WCQ home games over the last two years of the cycle there will always be a lot of competition for games. That sets up a three year period where 36 venues will be needed to host games not including any Copa America/Copa Combined/earlier round WCQ/international friendlies that do not include the USMNT. That is a lot of games. Completely changing gears and off into crazy talk land, I have long thought that college soccer is the future of making soccer king in the US and I might post about why I think that one day, but for now humor me please. I know college soccer has a lot of problems now, but there are colleges in every town/city/state... everywhere. If the USSF/NCAA could make college soccer be to MLS what college basketball is to the NBA and college football is to the NFL soccer's problems will be solved, lots of people will make a lot of money, and soccer will be king (and pretty much a job/profession for its players) in towns that could never dream of getting a pro team. If that ever happens, getting USMNT games that matter will be exponentially more competitive.
I think you already stated the generally accepted reason why Columbus has hosted the WCQ versus Mexico - it provides the US with the strongest home advantage. VTSoccerFan also makes a good point regarding the rise of East Hartford, which hosted a USMNT group stage match in 2013, and a USMNT friendly in 2014 - which if my memory is correct, was the post-WC Donovan sendoff match. Another issue is perhaps Gillette Stadium in previous years was already booked with other events on the dates of some of these matches and therefore was unavailable to host.
I dont really agree about the cash cow part. I remember big crowds for big games going back. Full house for Mexico in a qualifier, full for Spain event though the timing was terrible for us. I remember other qualifiers that were very full as well. New England had the rep at that time of being a good place to come and that we didnt lose here What's not a cash cow is a meaningless friendly with over priced tickets like Brazil. I didnt go because I got so burned at the Spain game, I was not willing to pay an arm and a leg again only to be let down if a B team was fielded. I suspect that feeling was the same for others. However if it were a qualifier, and not against Haiti, I would be there in full costume again I still wonder though if its the Krafts or the USSOCCER thats lost interest in those big events. With the crappy turf, its a hassle to move grass in and out and expensive
I would rather go to Fenway Park to see Liverpool play than go to Gillette. 1. Turf sucks 2. Any US Soccer game at Gillette is in effect a rental by US Soccer. I don't know but I assume USS has to pay to bring in grass and I believe that costs over $100,000. 3. Because it's a rental, guess who charges for parking at full Patriots like pricing? 4. At Fenway they made the Liverpool game an event--all concessions had "Football at Fenway" related merchandise. I don't think at the Spain vs USA game you could get much of either team -- but there were plenty of Brady jerseys at the Pro Shop! Where it's a rental and I guess US Soccer doesn't get any part of the concessions or parking they had to make it up in ticket prices...and sorry I am not paying $400 a seat for a friendly or a competition between the "c" teams of Brazil and Germany, or what have you. At least with Liverpool I saw Gerrard for like 8 minutes .... I enjoy futbol and football but there is no doubt in my mind Soccer is not enjoying the visibility it once had up here. Maybe we should all start tweeting like Trump. Kraft signs guy on practice squad for more than entire Revs payroll #sad Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That's for an entirely different reason - for the Mexico matchup, the USSF wants to minimize the visitor attendance, so they pick a small stadium that's not in a big Mexican immigrant center (and also a relatively cold location).
If that's the case then the USSF's Gold Cup final strategy makes no sense. In 2015, the USSF chose Lincoln Financial Field in Philly (69k) for the Championship game - a NFL stadium which by definition limits your home field advantage. In 2013 the Championship was held at Chicago's Soldier Field, (61,500) - Chicago being among the top 5 metro areas with the highest Latin population in the US. In 2011 the final was held at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, CA, home to the highest Latin population in the country (11% in the entire US love in the LA metro area). In 2009 the final was in East Rutherford, NJ home of the second greatest Latin population. My point is, if you're trying to provide a competitive advantage to the US, why have the final of a CONCACAF tournament in NFL sized stadiums in heavily Latin communities? Why not have the final in a MLS SSS like Columbus or Kansas City? Or here in New England, far from Mexico / large Latin communities? I would think they'd be consistent in their approach.
I believe that there are two different event sponsors with two different agendas at play here. For WCQ, the sponsor (who chooses the location of the games) is the USSF and in most cases the primary driver is money as the home field advantage is seen as unnecessary. For a few games the number one driver is home field advantage as it might be a difference maker (Mexico. Costa Rica games). For the Gold Cup, the sponsor (who chooses the locations of the games) is CONCACAF. Their number one driver (really the only driver IMHO) is money and that is at least part of the reason why the tournament is held every two years and is very often held in the US. Cities with large CONCACAF ex-pat communities are seen as locations that can produce the biggest financial returns. From the CONCACAF financial POV, the ideal final sees Mexico playing the US in a city with a large Mexican population. In the past, other teams have felt that Mexico and the US have received some officiating benefit as it is in CONCACAF's best financial interest to see those two teams advance to the final. In 2015, opponents complained that Mexico was given a lot of support from the officials as CONCACAF wold set up a huge pay day if Mexico were to win the Gold Cup which would set up a one game playoff versus the US for a spot in the Confederations Cup.
I agree money is a motivating factor but the one game playoff between the US and Mexico is another good example. Did CONCACAF decide that location? If it was for competitive instead of purely financial reasons, I doubt the game would have been played at the 90k seat Rose Bowl.
I do believe that CONCACAF chose that location for purely financial reasons. They even changed the date of the game to a Saturday to allow an all day fan festival around the game. Here is a wiki page on the game. Check out the "Format" and "Ticketing" sections for some details on ticket distribution and date change.
I feel like most of those markets though both have a soccer / MLS-specific stadium AND an NFL stadium. Which gives them two venues to choose from (a smaller one for low demand games and a bigger one for high demand games) which makes those markets more likely to get chosen. So USSF / CONCACAF have 2 venues to choose from in places like NY/NJ, Philly, Dallas, Houston, LA, etc. Definitely somewhere where not having a soccer-specific stadium hurts our cause. I feel like those places above get chosen more often than markets with only one venue (e.g. Seattle, Portland, Boston/New England). And it also helps that those cities have heavy Latin / Central American populations compared to others in the country which makes them more attractive to CONCACAF. Places like NY/NJ and Philly are also probably going to get more USMNT games because they are centrally located amongst the other big Northeast markets (e.g. NY/NJ is a manageable trip for people in New England, Philly, and DC). The best market to compare us to would probably be the other one with an MLS team that plays in an NFL stadium - Seattle. We have had 3 USMNT games at Gillette since 2011 - Spain (friendly), Haiti (Gold Cup), and Brazil (friendly). Seattle, the darling MLS market, has only had 2 - a 2013 WCQ vs. Panama, and last year's Copa America QF against Ecuador. And like Boston, they have also been shut out of this year's Gold Cup.
Worth noting the USMNT have played at Rentschler Field in 2013 and 2014, and the USWNT in 2012, 2014 and 2016.
Yeah and they didn't go back there this year for GC or WCQs, grass and all, which shows Hartford isn't on their radar either.
I was there for Donovan's send off game a couple years ago against Ecuador and honestly, was not really impressed with the atmosphere or stadium. Yeah it was loud and sold out but it didn't feel intimate and had a very collegiate/amateur feel vs professional. Maybe that works for some.
opinions differ for sure. I have been there for every USMNT game and one of the USWNT games. One of the games I watched from the field. Met Bruce "Douche bag" Arena. Shook hands with Keller, talked to Dempsey and a few others. I had a great time and enjoyed my experience
All this talk about the Nats and where they play over the years is about the evolution of the sport in the US. Us old-timers remember in the pre-MLS days where we'd get maybe a couple of soccer games per year in Foxboro, and because that was our only chance to see a live game, pretty much every soccer fan in the area showed up, no matter who the teams were. Foxboro always drew well and had as good of an atmosphere as you could expect anywhere in the US. In the early MLS years it made sense for the USSF to continue to use MLS cities, and a lot of the time tickets were included in the ST packages. That's where the most reliable fanbase was at the time. Over time, the USSF started to spread things around, gradually introducing games into non MLS markets. Some of these were trial baloons for expansion, and many of those places did become MLS cities. That continues to this day. In the long run, it's a good thing to spread the games around, even to places like Nashville or Birmingham or wherever, for the same reason Boston got games in the early 90s--every fan in the area will go, unlike many of us who will pass on a Brazil B-team friendly on a weeknight with traffic nightmares, $100 tickets and $40 parking, because we can go to maybe 20 other games during the year. So I don't mind that we aren't getting the Nats like we used to. Maybe Bob Kraft minds because it's less revenue, but that isn't my problem. Let Nashville enjoy their party!
.@NERevolution , @GilletteStadium falling out of favor as soccer world moves on: https://t.co/vQe2QFkr2n— Frank Dell'Apa (@frankdellapa) January 10, 2017