Actually Belgium, Brazil, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands and Turkey voted for Morocco. I believe Morocco WC would have fantastic fans and atmosphere and a soccer mad country - which, for me, is the recipe for a great WC. United bid was the safest bid with good infrastructure, modern stadium and will be a very profitable event for FIFA. So congrats on hosting a second WC (one more than England, such a travesty lol).
Yes, but from your list, only Brazil is in the Western Hemisphere (aka North / South America). It was our region's turn. Morocco 2030 I can get behind. I hope I'll live to see it, since I'll be 73 in 2030...
This is rather difficult. With only 10 cities, the inclusion of Montreal and Toronto should screw the Northeast, and the inclusion of cities in Mexico should hurt the US Southwest. 1. Washington DC (unless a new stadium is built) 2. Baltimore 3. Houston 4. Orlando 5. Nashville 6. Kansas City or Denver 7. "Boston" (unless a new stadium is built) We'll see what onerous event demands are made by FIFA on US cities.
In the mid 90s, the United States welcomed the two biggest international sporting events to its backyard Now at the 2nd half of the next decade, both the World Cup and Olympics return to America
theres also a plan in place for games to move roughly west to east to minimize travel (so la will host group stage, houston r16/quarters, final in new york- meaning, of course, new jersey). theres a chart out there illustrating. so i think the cuts are going to be converse to that. unless it moves fast cities like nashville, orlando, etc seem to be the logical cuts.
Since they claim that they will schedule in ways to minimize travel distances, having proximity to the Canadian or Mexican host cities seems like it should be an advantage. The bid book proposes that LA will be the site for either the tournament opener or the US opener (if they put the tournament opener in Azteca), Atlanta and Dallas for the semifinals, and NY/NJ for the final. So you can safely count those as locks and then it's the other 13 battling for the 6 remaining sites.
Here's my analysis: NYC, LA, ATL, and DAL are guaranteed matches in the bid, which leaves six spots for 13 cities. Out of those six remaining spots, I think four go to DC, Seattle, San Francisco, and Miami because of a combination of their geographic location, large international populations, and high levels of soccer support. That leaves Denver, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Nashville, Houston, Orlando, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston competing for two spots. Orlando loses out because it's too close to Miami, Houston loses out because it's too close to Dallas, and Baltimore loses out because it's too close to DC. That leaves six cities competing for two spots....Denver, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Nashville, Philadelphia, and Boston. One spot will go to Denver or Kansas City since there are no other cities in the Midwest. Kansas City has hosted before and is further east. Denver, however, has the advantage of being a hub for United Airlines, although it's altitude may work against it. I think Cincinnati and Nashville lose out to the desire to have a third location in the NE, which in a surprise goes to Philadelphia over Boston due to the poor public transit access to Foxborough. The part of the country that get's screwed is the upper midwest/great lakes, but then that's partially their own fault given that their two best candidates, Chicago and Minneapolis, both withdrew from consideration.
Whether Mexico and Canada automatically qualify still needs to be voted on (Hell I guess we technically need it too). If all 3 did get in, then that would leave CONCACAF with 3 automatic spots plus two playoff spots. The playoffs will feature 1 team from each confederation, (with the exception of UEFA) and CONCACAF would get 2 teams (for being the host confederation). The playoffs would likely take place in November of 2025 in either The US, Canada, or Mexico (maybe all 3). Though the quality is gonna be meh, we will get an extra mini tournament 7 months before the World Cup. There is also a proposed provisional schedule already out, that seems to show what the organizers are eyeing. (It is tentative and still needs approval). It does seem to think all 3 nations would qualify. The US would be in Group I, with it's opening game at The Rose Bowl and it's second game at Jerry World. On top of that the two teams in our group would play their game against each other in either Guadalajara or Monterrey. There's zero chance that we would play any games in Canada or Mexico. Canada would be in Group A, with it's opening game in Edmonton and second game in either Montreal or Toronto. The two teams in Canada's group would play each other in the US. Canada would get to play at home for their first two knockout round games IF they win their group. If they finish second they would actually head to Mexico for the round of 32, and would continue in the US from there. Mexico would be in Group E, with it's opening game at The Azteca and second game in Guadalajara or Monterrey. The two teams in their group would play each other in the US. Much like Canada, they could get to play their first two knockout round games in Mexico, but only if they win their group. If not they would remain in The US for the rest of the tournament. All 3 teams would play on the opening day. Atlanta and Dallas would host the semifinals, with Metlife hosting the final
Bad idea IMHO if you consider that historically national teams choose one base camp for the entire WC. It would force teams to either have a base camp in the mid west (long travels in the early and later stages) or have multiple camps (follow the games), not ideal condition. I hope group stage will be played in only one region to minimize travel. The world Cup is not about fan experience (having a chance of seeing the most teams) it is about the game, it is about crowing the next champion. I hope FIFA has a say in this. By the way, I was really disappoint when Brazil hosted it. WC is a FIFA party (that you pay for it) we hardly had any say in how and when stuff happened. They even tryed to shutdown Alzirão (which is the original WC fan fest). Hope you manage to get some things your way
One of the only good things about a 48 team field is I might get to see my dream USA vs Bulgaria WC match.
Can i just say.....YES!!!!!! So happy for what this brings for a whole new generation of fans in the US to fall in love with the game. Sappy personal note: my 12 year old son hugged me when I told him the news this morning. He will be the same age I was in '94. And I haven't missed a world cup since.
Actually, neither one of you is right. You were thinking of the Western world, and he was thinking of the Americas. Neither is synonymous with the Western hemisphere, although both make sense enough in discussing which groups of countries supported which bid. It makes little sense to talk about which Western hemisphere nations voted for Morroco, but it would be a much longer list than Brazil, including several African countries located west of the prime meridian.
I generally agree with this. My take: Locks (major destinations/huge cities, good to great stadium, major airport hub): -NYC -LA (new stadium) -San Francisco -Miami -Dallas -Atlanta Strong contenders: -DC: Is a lock if it gets a new stadium. Good chance of getting games anyway. -Seattle: Very likely selection, but not quite as big a lock as the above. -Denver: I think it makes the cut because it's the only one in the Mountain time zone and likeliest selection between the coasts other Texas. -Boston: The bid appears to want games there (listed it as a semifinal candidate), but the combination of a crowded region, older stadium, and awful stadium location should eliminate it. -Philadelphia: Very good candidate without any major flaws, but it the crowded region probably keeps it out unless DC is dropped. -Houston: Even stronger candidate than Philadelphia, but geography could hurt it, too. California only gets two because LA and San Francisco are iconic cities. I'd pick DC, Seattle, Denver, and last Houston narrowly over Philadelphia. Underdogs: -Baltimore: Way too close to DC and maybe Philly. Older stadium. City not big or attractive enough to tourists. -Cincinnati: Passionate fans and good geography, but the airport, stadium, city size, and tourist reputation aren't good enough to make a hard cut. -KC: See above. -Nashville: See above, except that it gets credit as a strong tourist destination. -Orlando: Orlando is where all the foreign fans will take a break before, between, or after the matches. It'll be a madhouse even without games. Wildcards: -Las Vegas: Like the new LA stadium, Vegas wasn't included in the bid largely because unfinished stadiums were a deduction in the evaluation. Given that it's stadium would put it on par with Dallas, Atlanta, and LA for the best, I could see it squirming back into the conversation and bumping another candidate, maybe Denver. -Minneapolis: Great airport and stadium. Would likely have been chosen if it didn't pull out. -Chicago: Stadium is a little small and dated, but I can't see Chicago eliminated by anything except itself. -Vancouver: Included because there's already been talk of revisiting this possibility by the Canadians, and it might impact Seattle's chances in addition to bumping Edmonton.
Good points regarding, Minny, Chicago, and Vancouver. Indeed, Giants Stadium was a later inclusion for 94.
This is why it just needs to go to 64. And one of the reasons that is where we will end up eventually. All the numbers work better, and if we want a true "WORLD" Cup, that gives it to you. And of course it won't matter a lick cause the same usual suspects, with one or 2 exceptions per tournament will be around at the end, no matter how many teams get in.
a lot of good arguments here, but this is fifa- if it come down to a state of the art 45k seat soccer specific stadium and a 60 year old 90k football stadium...well, buy new grass so no lines are showing for a week, cause theyre going to go for the cash. ill believe games are in the new dc stadium rather than rfk when i see it. regardless of what the bid or fancy videos say.