FIFA has told President Donald Trump that the United States will host the 2031 FIFA Women’s World Cup, a top Trump administration official said Thursday. Andrew Giuliani, executive director of the White House’s World Cup Task Force, said FIFA has already informed Trump that the United States is in line to stage the tournament. …. FIFA has not yet formally awarded the locale of the 2031 Women’s World Cup. Instead, the governing body is in the middle of its bidding process, with a joint bid from the United States, Mexico, Costa Rica and Jamaica standing as the lone candidate after FIFA’s Council endorsed a single-candidate process last year. FIFA plans to convene what it calls an Extraordinary Congress before the end of 2026, where member associations will vote on the hosts for both the 2031 and 2035 Women’s World Cups. Giuliani said he hopes the 2031 tournament would build on the momentum from the 2026 men’s World Cup while showcasing a different set of American host cities. “I think it’s going to look a little different than this one,” he said. “I think it’s going to be amazing. Probably some different cities involved.”
I assume most likely they will still use New York and Los Angeles as expected and probably Houston, Dallas, the Bay Area, Seattle, and Atlanta. However, some new cities I could see are Washington D.C., Nashville, San Diego, and even the Twin Cities. Main caveat is that we have Mexico, Costa Rica, and Jamaica getting games so likely if there is still 16 venues, we would have 11 cities assuming the 2026 Mexico cities and one of each for Costa Rica and Jamaica. Sorry Boston.
In the future, can you please post the link as well? Thanks. https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/trump-white-house-official-reveals-120523207.html
It will be interesting. There was a letter singed by over 2 dozen cities back a few months ago objecting to the contract FIFA was putting on the cities to host, and they said the cities would withdraw. This was about the same time that the news about how much host cities were spending on the MWC, and what FIFA was not paying for (such as the the Fanzone, which FIFA traditionally did).
New York and Los Angeles should be guaranteed. I'd say Miami and Atlanta, too. San Francisco? Chicago? Denver?
Denver, unlikely because of elevation, as much as I'd enjoy games here and as much support as they will get. Other then that, I'm wondering what they will make as stadium size criteria. I would think the no brainers should be, regardless of stadium size: New York Washington Kansas City Seattle Portland San Fransisco Bay area Los Angeles Of those, only Portland is the one I can see not getting games, even though they should.
They played the men's in Mexico City, so altitude should not exclude Denver. Portland would be great, but they would have to bring grass into Providence Park, I don't know if they would do that. Of course, I would love it in Portland. On the side, @soccernutter , Denver should not play any more day games at Centennial -- no shade, too hot. Night games there would be fantastic!
Besides the fact that it has turf and is a smaller stadium for a WWC (maybe could only host group stage matches), Portland wasn't even a part of the bid book? Portland is not listed under the 20 cities that are part of the formal bid evaluation, but also not under the other "suitable cities." I know nothing is finalized, but even if some of the cities that are part of the group of 20 pull out or are ruled unsuitable, I think it'll still go to ones from the list of "suitable cities." The cities and stadiums that are in the bid book are listed in a previous post, but of those you list MetLife Stadium in NY/NJ, RFK Stadium in DC, Arrowhead Stadium in KC, Lumen Field in Seattle, and SoFi Stadium were all part of the 20. So is Denver's Mile High Stadium. The Bay Area's Levi's Stadium and Oracle Park were a part of the other suitable cities. Portland isn't listed at all.
Main thing is that Portland probably knows it won't go anywhere. This isn't 1999 or 2003 when the tournament just started in its infancy and just needed to play and Seattle didn't have the best soccer stadium in the PNW. The city now knows that Seattle will basically beat them on this front and they can't do anything about it, so best to just cut the losses early. The Thorns have great attendance and build a great amount of development, but none of that matters to FIFA who want the biggest stadiums with more demands added each time.
Yeah, that was bad. During the summer this can be expected, and I'm surprised their is no covering. I hope they figure out a fix for this for next season. Agreed on night games. They have that rather big stadium, too. I doubt this will be played in smaller stadiums, with possible exceptions, like Euro25 was.
Like they did at the men's World Cup, the games would be at Arrowhead Stadium with a capacity of over 76,000 if Kansas City gets games.
I think that is the plan. Even then I could see FIFA really going for a 30-40k minimum here so 20k ain't enough.
The Chiefs' new stadium is schedule to open in 2031, so it may be the choice. It will have a roof to avoid the heat.
Will the Chiefs have a grass field? Or turf? My understanding is that ever since Canada in 2015, the games must be on grass fields. That does leave the option to bring in grass temporarily, as I believe was done for some of the Men's World Cup venues.
A majority of the US venues this year, plus Vancouver, normally have fake turf. FIFA installed full grass systems 2-3 months ahead, not just the ugly temporary sod that gets rolled out a week before for many soccer events. It will inevitably be the same in 2031.
Yeah, they'll bring in grass like they did for all of the men's WC games. FIFA said that all future World Cups would be on grass after 2015. The temporary grass in NFL stadiums during the WC actually created a bit of some pushback from the NFL PA about why they can't have grass for their games to prevent injury with the hashtag "worth the cost" on social media; I do think there's a bit of difference in playing their games in the winter and maintaining grass then (but obviously it's possible by looking at places like Lambeau Field), but still I thought it was interesting: We are #WorthTheCost pic.twitter.com/d11O84yQ16— NFLPA (@NFLPA) July 17, 2026
I mean, they do that in England, so why not have grass year round? Under soil heating helps (like I think they have at Lambeau) and it certainly is possible. I think Tottenham uses special lighting directly over the field to keep the grass healthy for a domed stadium.