The press release: http://www.examiner.com/x-413-Seatt...-Seattle-supporting-US-bid-for-FIFA-World-Cup The website / petition link: http://gousabid.com/
Drew Carey was on the late late show tonight promoting the 2018/2022 bid....and he mentioned the US Open Cup win "its like the daytime emmys of soccer"
Seattle is America's most popular choice to host World Cup matches Emerald City approaches 20,000 petition 'signatures.'
And the answer to your question is, no. We will be included: http://www.gousabid.com/city/local/seattle-wa/ The page still has Husky and Qwest listed. I wonder if they are including both venues in the bid, or just saying pick one? I find it interesting that Chicago got the shaft and KC was left in. Crazy.
sweet. but yea, some of those cities are puzzleing. nashville? last time i was there, you couldn't find a soccer ball or pitch to save your life.
I think theyll only end up using one. If Husky Stadium gets renavated then chances are good for it to be the stadium. should it not, id say qwest will be the feild.
I think they can include both stadiums in the official bid and then, if we are chosen, decide then which stadium to use. True - that was surprising regarding Chicago. San Francisco was also another big city left out, although I can see why. Even though it's a great city, there are just no stadiums there that are really World Cup quality (Stanford Stadium is now too small, and I couldn't really see Candlestick or the Coliseum being chosen). I was happy to see San Diego on the list, but I don't see it making the final cut with L.A. so close. They drew relatively well for the U.S. qualifier there last year, but yeah soccer did not seem to be very big in that state (I lived in Knoxville for two years). For what it's worth, the stadium is really nice and it would be cool to get the World Cup to the South (Birmingham seems to draw well for U.S. games, as well)
Qwest Field for Group A matches, a quarterfinal match, semifinal #1, and the final. Husky Stadium for Group B matches, a round-of-16 match, semifinal #2, and the third place match.
Qwest cant be used for the final, the stadium picked for that has to have over so many (80,000 i think), to be used. but a renevated Husky stadium will be able to hold that and then some .
The Chicago question was specifically asked during the announcement. The answer given was because Chicago had dedicated so much to its recent failed Olympics bid they did not have time to create and submit a serious bid. And if Soldier Field were to have been picked it would be amongst the smallest venues. As for KC that has to be in part because of the Lamar Hunt legacy. I posted this on the Sounders site but as of today here is how I see the city list breaking down should we end up winning the rights. Los Angeles - In Washington DC - In, hosts Opening Match? New York - In, hosts Final? Dallas - In, hosts 3rd Place Match? Phoenix - In Miami - In Seattle/San Diego - Pick One Boston/Philadelphia - Pick One Indianapolis/Nashville - Pick One Atlanta/Tampa Bay - Pick One Denver/Kansas City/Houston - Pick Two Baltimore - Out I think that the first four are solid guaranteed hosts. I think Miami gets in because it missed out in 94 when US Soccer really wanted to host there, but could not because of the Marlins. Phoenix I think gets in because of UofP Stadium. As for the pick one/two selections I think the edge goes to the following cities for the following reasons. Seattle over San Diego, Sunil was gushing about the Sounders launch, and LA and Phoenix wrap-up the Pacific/Desert southwest. Philadelphia over Boston (at least as of today) great launch for the Union, and Sunil pointed out that Boston is a 3 time WC host (94 mens, 99 and 03 womens) Nashville over Indianapolis, Sunil pointed out that Nashville has been a National Team venue for friendlies, and kind of indicated that Indianapolis was just there. Atlanta over Tampa Bay, Miami gets Florida's spot and it would be hard to imagine the WC in two former MLS cities. KC and Denver over Houston. No state gets two host cities, MLS launch cities are rewarded. Thoughts?
That's dumb. First off, California got two in 1994 and could get two after all if the 49ers actually build the new stadium that they've been wanting. Second, like California, Texas happens to be a state that's home to two Top 10 metropolitan areas. Third, go blame someone else for the fact that both D/FW and Houston both have stadiums that kick much ass.
Did I ever mention that either Reliant or Cowboys stadium were subpar? Did I ever complain or act envious of either stadium? Did I give any other state 2 host cities? 94 was a different animal, less support in the US. Fewer stadia that met the criteria. Fewer cities that were interested. Less recognition by the general US populace. So before you get your knickers in a twist consider this. Sunil emphatically stated they want this to be a nation wide event, how does having two host cities in Texas accomplish this? And as for San Francisco they are not part of the bid book, and will not become part of the bid book, as the 18 cities have been announced and will not change. And if this were based on population center alone, then Chicago would be in the bid book and Nashville at 38th in CSA would be an afterthought. It is not however based simply on population centers. Houston would be a fine choice, and I would not be at all surprised to see it as a host city. However that being said as of today, after watching the announcement, plus the QA, given the breakdown of cities, I believe no state gets two sites, and that Dallas will be the Texas site.
https://keprtv.com/sports/officials...hL0QI8xP_Gs5KB6Tfrn3ew-GI1UROPKoJKLqTVVyt8JzY The Seattle World Cup Committee was expected to present its proposal to host the event to visiting league officials. As part of the effort to woo league officials, the Space Needle is set to hoist a SEA 2026 flag. Officials are set to hold a news conference at 11:30 a.m. to answer questions about the league's biggest sporting event, a signature event known the world over.