If it happened, it would be the greatest boon that WUSA could conceivably hope for. On the other hand, it certainly forces a reckoning: if the WWC gets moved to the US and fails to attract significant attention, that could very well signal the end of WUSA. So it would appear to be a double-edged sword...
Re: Re: Could it be? Yeah, I know, but I have to think that the Mouse and its allies will be ready to run with it. Consider the following for venues: Washington- RFK Stadium Boston-Gillette Stadium Philadelphia- Lincoln Field Columbus- Crew Stadium (expanded to 25,000 capacity) Chicago- Soldier Field Houston- Robertson Stadium (capacity 26,000) Seattle - Seahawks Stadium (we know they can lay grass down there) Los Angeles- Home Depot Stadium (capacity 27,000) / Rose Bowl (for the Final only, because of the history) That is a good group right there. Notice I specifically left out Giants Stadium because we don't know if they can put grass over the current surface. And they will have a LOT of football at that time of year with two NFL teams in the stadium, plus the MetroStars. The weather in Seattle might be a problem but there was a lot of rain at the Four Nations tournament in China last year.
Isn't Soldier Field undergoing renovations? I don't believe it will be ready in time for Oct 2003. Correct me if I'm wrong. Another aspect.. psychological impact of "selling" the WWC again on the USWNT. It's hefty to say the least. I do agree that financially and PR wise having the WWC in the USA again would be fabulous, but.. gosh I hope those legendary figures will take care of themselves and rest..and hide out...
SF will be ready. Expect the Fire to play a few games there at the end of this season in addition to a full slate of Bears games. As for the veterans, I agree with you-- mostly. Anyone who tells me that Mia Hamm and Shannon MacMillan can't play anymore is, in my opinion, wrong.
What's the ticket situation? I assume they've started being sold already, but where, and how?. I am really anxious for a decision to be made. If indeed it is moved to the USA, and specifically RFK as one venue, I'm anxious to go, having missed an easily accessible WWC99 about 80 miles from where I was at the time.
For a second there I thought I was in the Charge forum, ya know with the ambiguous title and all. I hope to God we get it. If so...... I ************ you not I will go to every US game. The difference between now and 99 is my J.O.B. :-D Soldier Field is expected to be ready for the Bears season opener, when we will kick some Packer butt!!!
Calm down, there's time . Qualifiers aren't complete yet, let alone the draw. Can't sell tickets till you know who's playing. Identifying a country would come next, then stadia. If it's in the US, RFK may be difficult to schedule because of football. I think any momentum gained from holding it here would help WUSA. So you schedule at small stadia and have capacity crowds? Get middling media attention? That's still better than the coverage it's likely to get in an Asian time zone.
Ahhhhhh. Didn't know things were done in that order. Makes sense, I suppose. *takes deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep breath* So, who's hosting WWC 3001? Anybody know yet?! Only 998 years left, duuuuude!!!! Let's go; let's git crackin'!!!!!!!
Ah, you are thinking of FedEx field, where the Redskins now play. I specifically mentioned RFK because it is in the District and has NO other conflicts besides soccer. In fact, I don't think FedEx Field can take soccer anymore because there are field-level seats which bring the field width well below FIFA regulations.
Re: Re: Could it be? I was thinking the same thing. Having WUSA exhibitions to turn some of the matches into doubleheaders might be a really good idea.
Well, since it looks like it will be moved out of China and most likely into the US we should take a look at this. First of all for myself and the majority of the people on this board it would be good for us, travelwise. However, I do have some reservations about this. First of all, since it will be played in the fall the weather will not be as good throughout the country which could have an effect on attendance. Also since most of the stadia where they will most likely have matches will also be used by teams for that other football, more likely than not they will have too many lines on the field and that would not look good. Also distance in this country means that somebody will be upset if their team is playing their group matches on the East Coast and they live on the West coast. Well, the USFA could easily solve this problem somewhat in having the matches in Blaine, Tulsa, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago or New Orleans and then have the semis or finals in one of the big stadia on the coasts. But that's too much inventive thinking for US Soccer and we and the world will be travelling from coast to coast. But also the US as hosts will also diminish the chance that Canada will host in 2007. Of course, Fifa may continue with the geographical rotation in which case Canada's hopes would be even further diminished. Of course, it's a Catch 22 in showing that you can host a successful World Cup; you have to host another Fifa event or the Olympics in Australia's case. And for Canada the U-19 were just last year. And if Australia does get the World Cup this times around I'm sure they will be thrilled with some people quietly bemoaning the circumstances and the lack of time. Well, my choice for the World Cup this time around is Japan/Korea. Forgetting the rules about hosting too much in too short of a time, it would keep the geographical rotation in order and not upset others because of this. And also Japan/Korea have not expressed any interest in hosting it in the future like Canada, France or Australia. Norway should be the hosts in that they have the stadia and the support from the FA and the public but then again you would have weather problems in late September and October and a lack of time to prepare. So it's really a bum decision and while I thought Fifa was rushing a little bit on the decision at first, I think whoever gets it will feel like they don't have a lot of time to prepare. So if it was to be played in September/October, the best place would Japan/Korea. If played in December/ January then the best place would be Australia. If only Brazil really supported their women's team as much as other countries and didn't have stadia that are falling apart...And if only the rest of Spain(including the FA) supported women's soccer like the people of Bilbao and the rest of the Basque region did...And while the opportunity for it to be a boon for the WUSA the reasons above could also be not beneficial to the future of women's soccer in the US.
Well, if they're thinking of holding the WWC in the US, they'd better start working on getting those visas NOW...
Re: Re: Could it be? Like I said in the KK just minutes ago...if I had to vote on this at this moment I would vote to have the thing NOT held in the US. We hope. But betwixt the tourney and the start of the 2004 preseason...do you think people will even remember? The 2003 WWC would be competing with... NFL College football MLB playoffs The sports media will be concentrating on those full blast. To lesser extents... K-12 sports/extra curricular committments Other fall college sports including soccer Ehhh maybe I'm being a pessimist tonight. I think we all agree what happened in 1999 in terms of the media coverage was phenomenal and will probably never ever be replicated again. Unfortunately I think all of us whether we like to admit it or not will compare this tourney, if it's held here, to what happened four years ago and we are going to be gravely disappointed. ------ So what's everyone exercise regime??? ------ Yeah...get Katy Button and the Freedom staff working on those passports NOW!!!
Re: Re: Re: Could it be? Yes, the tournament will be competing with football, baseball, etc., but if you look at it another way, that means it's going to get next to zero coverage if it's held overseas. I'm kinda torn on this; it's going to hurt big time to see a WWC held in the US draw a disappointing amount of media coverage and have nowhere near the impact that 99 did, but then part of me thinks that it'll still be better than nothing. It might be ok if we just go into it fully accepting that it's not going to be nearly as successful as 99. Not even comparable. At this point I just want women's soccer and the WUSA to survive and this could help. I guess you take what you get.
"A senior U.S. Soccer Federation official confirmed on Saturday that the United States will host the women's World Cup finals later this year. FIFA announced earlier in the day that the quadrennial tournament would be moved from China -- where it was scheduled to be held from Sept. 23-Oct. 11 -- due to the SARS epidemic in the country. The United States and Australia were the two countries listed as frontrunners to host the tournament with Brazil and Sweden also showing an interest. Speaking off the record, the official intimated that the announcement would be made in "a couple of days," that there could be a slight change in the dates of the tournament and that FIFA completely supported the undertaking of the last-minute change of location. The United States are defending world champions, following its victory as hosts in 1999. Due to the time of the year when the finals are staged, many stadiums would be in use by the National Football League and college football programs, but the official said that there were enough venues available to host the event. The source also said that Major League Soccer clubs were expected to make their stadiums available for the tournament." My question is whether or not they could move it to February or March. Less conflict with football. Better weather.
The stadiums that are used by MLS teams are also still in use at that time. Regular season goes through late October.