Where's the one place 1,000s of fans would travel to for an international game and the MLS Cup final? Vegas baby!!! Cheap flights, great value hotel deals, and all the other attractions of a Sin City. 60,000+ seat multi-sports stadium with retractable roof. Capacity could be reduced using metal curtains to guarantee a good atmosphere (like Minnesota's new stadium). Retractable seats to accommodate football games and maybe even track and field. Desso pitch for soccer and rugby which could be overlaid for other sports, religious events, exhibitions, Sanders/Trump rallies and concerts. 7pm kick-offs to avoid the daytime heat and prime-time coverage on the East Coast. I'm a genius!
Don't need one. We are a massive country and even if we had a national stadium it would only make sense to move the matches around anyways. If US soccer wants to help develop a soccer specific stadium somewhere by either investing directly or by promising a certain number of US matches I would be all for that. But in that case might I recommend going southwest about 5 hours on Interstate 15 .
Like the 1B dollar Minnesota stadium? Who pays for that...USSF? So you can play a dozen games a year in it. Would 60k fans travel there or do you think Vegas is going to pull that kinds of numbers. Let me ask this question. If by some miracle the USSF could obtain the capital to build a NFL type of stadium and spend around 1B, would you prefer them to use that cash on a stadium...OR would you rather have us just keep using the 50+ stadiums already built that size in the US, and invest 1B into youth development, coaching, training, scouting...etc. Is having a National stadium THAT important? Yea sure, if you didn't have 50 stadiums you could already use maybe it would be important, but for us...where we currently sitting in global soccer is this where USSF should invest?
Almost country that has a national stadium hosting the majority of its national team matches also has a single metropolitan area accounting for a large percentage of its population. According to the Wikipedia list of national football stadiums, only two countries with national stadiums have less than 15% of their national population living within the capital's metropolitan area: Indonesia and the Philippines "only" have about 12% of their populations in Jakarta and Manila respectively. (I'm only counting national stadiums where the national teams actually play the majority of their home games. Japan and China have official national stadiums, but the Japanese national team has only played at the National Olympic Stadium three times since 2010, and the Chinese national team has only played at the Beijing National Stadium once since 2004.) Our largest metropolitan area, even by its broadest definition (Combined Statistical Area), is only about 7% of the US population.
This is an interesting idea but Vegas isn't exactly a "soccer city". They would do much better where soccer has an establishment already like Seattle or Portland. I still favor the current system where they "tour" the United States so the whole population has a chance eventually to see the national team instead of only the natives of Las Vegas and the ones rich enough to travel to it
I wouldn't say the "whole population" gets to see USMNT qualifiers and friendlies (Gold Cup games are different because the cities are chosen by CONCACAF). Los Angeles last got a WCQ vs. Barbados in 2008. The northeast (north of D.C. and east of Columbus) hasn't gotten a WCQ since 2005. The far southeast got an overmatched Antigua & Barbuda team in 2012 in Tampa and before that Guatemala in Birmingham in 2005. By "far southeast," I'm excluding Nashville for being too far north. Texas hasn't gotten WCQs. I'm suggesting playing in Los Angeles or Texas would be good for the USMNT, but I'm saying that many people haven't had a WCQ nearby in over 10 years. I acknowledge that WCQs reach a lot more people than one national stadium would.
I was referring to all USMNT or USWNT fixtures in general including gold cup, friendlies, WCQ or any other competition. Give it a year or two and a US team will be within very reasonable traveling distance (or in your city) for just about anybody living in the US
Again, if we ever have a national stadium, it will likely be in name only, much like other large, populous nations such as China (who have played in theirs exactly once in their last 84 home matches!) and Japan (who have played in theirs in just 3 of their last 42 home matches).
Completely agree. Seems like US soccer is starting to slip into the trend of using the same places and stadiums, which leaves out the most populated areas of the country. I am not saying they should give up the home field advantage, but they could still insure that California and the NorthEast get at least one qualifier per cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite...l_soccer_team_results#Results_by_Home_Stadium ^ looking at that, we've got plenty to choose from. I can see a pretty strong 5-6 field "national stadium circuit" that is very good for the team as well as pretty regionally diverse.
That's an old trend, unfortunately. Between 1957 and 1989, more than 60 percent of our qualifiers were played in either Los Angeles or St. Louis.
That's an interesting point, and boy have things changed. Took a look at the qualifiers since 94, US soccer has had a total of 42 home qualifiers and has used 16 different cities. So have to give US soccer credit for moving their matches around since 1990. 2 mild critisims. The first is every year they double up on multiple venues. I understand there is a comfort level, but this is a massive country and with the sport still on the upswing I would like to see them be in 8 different spots over the qualifiers. Doesn't need to be 8 new spots, but I think creating as many chances for people to see the match in their region only helps. And then there is my other gripe. Which is self serving. The most populated state in the country, with a long soccer tradition has hosted a total of 3 qualifiers since 1989, and 1 in the Hex back in 1997. California getting a qualifier most cycles I don't think is unreasonable. considering the population. I think Texas has a viable complaint in this department as well having never hosted a qualifier (at least since 1990). Sorry New Yawkers you don't. I realize there hasn't been one in the NY/NJ area but there have been a total of 14 between RFK, and Foxboro, which is close enough.
Shouldn't it be 43 home qualifiers? Qualifying for 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, and 2014: 3 Semifinal and 5 Hexagonal (8 total) games * 5 cycles = 40 games Earlier round home game vs. Grenada in qualifying for 2006 Earlier round home game vs. Barbados in qualifying for 2010 Home game vs. St. Vincent and the Grenadines last year
Yeap either 42 matches in 16 cities or 43 in 17 either way I think US soccer has done a pretty good job of moving the qualifiers around. And they have generally averaged 2-3 new markets a cycle, with a great deal of success. Which eliminates any need for a National Stadium (IMHO). My only mild criticism would be to try and play in 8 different markets over the qualifiers rather than doubling up. If they want to continue to go in to new markets, while serving the populated areas in the Northeast and California, and still getting to places that have been successful in past cycles, you need all the dates you can get.
How'd you get down to 50? The US has 100 stadiums larger than all but four of the fantastic German 2006 WCup. There were 78 of those seen as acceptable for round two of the US 2022 bid, IIRC.
Cool, call it the Mega World Cup.. A special iteration of the tournament and rake in the cash.... Or do a club version of it
The US could host a 256 team tourney. The US has a crazy number of large stadiums. though, thinking about it, are there that many FIFA nations? Well, we'll just have to create some new nations...