WORLD CUP 2026 - General N&A and Discussion

Yeah, I think that's the other dimension to the deliberation process concerning the venues. In addition to geography, stadium quality, accessibility of stadiums, etc., you have to consider who owns the stadium and how connected they are to MLS/USSF. I really doubt that stadiums affiliated with MLS owners get cut.

And I'm not saying that this is part of the alleged grand conspiracy with SUM/MLS/USSF. If we're choosing between having games in Dallas and enriching Jerry Jones and having games at Foxboro and enriching Bob Kraft, I'm OK saying that Kraft wins the tiebreaker because of his greater support of the game in this country.

 

It's not "trash", but it's a hard to get to stadium in the middle of nowhere (i.e. halfway between SF and San Jose) with very little public transit access and a huge "sun in their eyes" problem mid-afternoon for the east side seats.

If the west coast only gets one other city besides LA, CenturyLink Field in Seattle is much better in pretty much every way you can think of, even though SF is the more iconic tourist destination.

 

Plus, he was Honorary Chairman of the Bid Committee.

Game. Set. Match.

 

I suspect the baby mama model half his age is counting on him not being a factor by 2026.

 

RFK is highly unlikely to exist anymore by then. That land is way too valuable for a stadium that is far past its prime and has no tenant.

 

I mostly agree, but it's top of the line in terms of VIP amenities, which goes a long way in these kinds of decisions.

 

With a narrow field.

 

Now that we have the world cup locked up, I'd like to see US soccer operate heavily in the red for the next 8 years. Borrow as much money as the market will bear and spend it on youth development. Make tickets to national team games affordable. Spend money on advertising just for the sake of making soccer more popular. Do whatever it takes to win dual nationals. US soccer should be teetering on bankruptcy by the time this thing starts. The amount of money they will rake in on the World Cup will be disgusting.

 

I don't mind the thinking of building up for something big. How much does the host nation benefit financially? Anyone know the cut or revenue structure?

 

https://www.totalsportek.com/football/fifa-world-cup-2018-prize-money/
Here is the prize money break down for this year. In there it mentions FIFA made a 100 million dollar legacy payment to Brazil. And I remember them saying it generated about a billion in revenue for the country (hotels and such). Looking for how much was solely given to their FA though.

 

Well, to be honest, not much. This is a FIFA event FIFA makes the big bucks

2014 WC
Revenue US$ 4.8 billion
Total prize money US$ 576 million
Fifa profit US$ 2.6 billion

Most of the revenue was from broadcasting and marketing rights

Total revenue 4.8 billion
TV rights 2.4 billion
Marketing rights 1.5 billion
Ticketing 527 million
Hospitality rights 184 million
Licensing rights 107 million
source: https://resources.fifa.com/mm/docum...istration/02/56/80/39/fr2014weben_neutral.pdf (page 37)

The national association does not get a cut in the TV rights or in ticket sales. They can make some money if they are able to get new national team sponsor or renegotiate existing ones

Here is what FIFA says is the benefit for hosting: https://www.fifa.com/governance/competition-organisation/benefits-of-bidding.html

Now Fifa did create a US$ 100 million world cup legacy fund for Brazil, but FIFA controls the money and chooses which projects to invest https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/vg4tkgsofkd5bguiprms.pdf

So, if someone is expecting a windfall for ussoccer it won't happen directly from hosting the world cup. But raising the profile of the game and the national team might help increase the revenue over the years (and you might get a legacy fund also).

 

US soccer got about $50M from the world cup in 1994, or roughly $80-85M in todays dollars. That doesn't count sponsorships. I don't see why it wouldn't be at least triple that, plus sponsorship money will be a lot higher now.

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-19/sports/sp-52028_1_world-cup

 

In 1994 they tried to keep early matches near for some of the teams, especially for those with perceived ethnic following. What’s more, they placed the bigger names in groups tied to those ethnicities. For example, the Italians were placed in NY/NJ and were based in Jersey. Ireland had matches in Boston. Germany in Chicago. I doubt they would do such a thing now, but there was criticism about fan travel across the country for the international fans. Will be even harder across three countries. That said I would imagine they’d try to somehow make it so you didn’t play in Montreal and then Mex City and then Seattle.

 

'94 was good. two games in the same place and travel to the last group game. They seem to divide the country into three region west, mid, east. Brazil never played in the East region, only west and mid (most of the time in west)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_FIFA_World_Cup

Brazil stayed in Los Gatos, California and had a good time: https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/07...downtown-los-gatos-during-the-1994-world-cup/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake...Cup-fever-in-1994-12992047.php#photo-15717537

I imagine Italy had to have more than one base camp, their group was based in NE

 

In the bid book, all 23 proposed stadiums have a listed field size of 68x105 m (approximately 74x115 yards). Despite the variable range of field sizes allowed in the Laws of the Game, FIFA's World Cup regulations require this exact size, and a good number of the proposed venues can't fit that size in their current state. Assuming FIFA doesn't waive the requirement, I'd have to assume the organizers intend to make the necessary modifications to fit the field.

 

I don't get where this 50mm came from, a follow up article

http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-28/sports/sp-55729_1_world-cup

says: "The profit is split, with 30% going to the local organizing committee and 70% to the national soccer federations." So I guess it used to be the case that local committee would get 30% (which is fair) but this did not happen in Brazil at all. I wish CBF had 30% of 2.6 billion (780 million) to spend in developing the game here.

 

I checked FIFA 2014 and 2010 financial reports for money going to local organizing committee.

Basically FIFA does give money to the local committee to cover the costs of organazing a WC (this is not anymore a percentage of the profit). South Africa got USD 526 million and spent USD 516 million, so they had a profit of 10 mil. Brazil got USD 453 million and we spent it all.

Both SA and Brazil did get a legacy fund of USD 100 million (controled by FIFA).

So in the case for US 2026 it is a question of how efficient will you spend the money and the size of the legacy fund

 

I remember Italy and Ireland played in the Meadowlands and the crowd was insane. Very heavy Irish turnout and I think the Irish won that group game. Also odd that Mexico played on the east coast instead of west coast.

If memory serves, turnout for these matches was really high and the weather was fortunately very sunny at most venues but also very hot (matches were midday, I think for European audiences). Will be interesting if they again play at midday or move to cooler evenings at least for the hot outdoor locations.

 

This decision is a bigger win than T&T was a loss. Soccer in this country is North America. We are the dollar signs. Sunil took a shot and had it back-fire, but he was a big part.

For those of us who remember the years before 1994...nobody can say a thing to me for 8 years because the Word Cup will be here.

 

I saw Zlatan schmoozing in Moscow today.

Then I saw LAG have a game tomorrow.

 

Absolutely. It's too bad, though, that we were stuck with the skinny pitch for Copa.

 

Holy random post, Jond-man!

Z must know that Russians far prefer playing hooky to soccer. Welcome to jet LAG!

 

Too bad Schweinsteiger will be long retired by then. I would have liked to see if he can help the Chicago Fire win the World Cup.