According to USSF president Cindy Parlow Cone the target is to have a national training facility by 2026: Kevin Baxter @kbaxter11 asks Berhalter if countries like Mexico have an advantage with one national training center or facility, or if he prefers moving around the country. Berhalter says unequivocally he thinks having one national training center and home is an advantage #USMNT— Megan Swanick (@Meg_Swanick) January 10, 2022 Cindy Parlow Cone tells media now USSF moved the concept of one national facility from being 'a nice to have', to figuring out a way to make it happen. Cone says by 2026 is a target (Question from @cboehm) #USMNT #USWNT https://t.co/1A7jYgPBkR— Megan Swanick (@Meg_Swanick) January 11, 2022 Facility only, not a national stadium: No one in a position of prominence is advocating for a national stadium as far as I know— Charles Boehm (@cboehm) January 11, 2022 You would have to think that the top considerations besides land coast/availability would be travel (whether proximity to Europe, central location within the US, or travel time to Concacaf away games) and year-round weather conditions... Map of the current MLS teams (soon to include St Louis): Map of the 50 largest metropolitan areas:
Ummmm....isn't there already a National Training Facility in Kansas City? https://www.sportingkc.com/news/nat...-series-us-soccers-senior-youth-and-b-courses
I chose Miami or Atlanta. As long as it's warm-ish year round and has easy access for Euro flights. Those two fit the bill for me.
Atlanta has a massive international airport, reasonably good weather year round (though not great), on the East Coast to accommodate travel to both Europe and Central America. Weather wise, you'd want Southern California so you could play ALL the time. But the travel from Europe is bad, and the real estate costs are the worst out there. But weather may be the real restriction -- I mean, do you want a training facility you can't use a large percentage of the year?
My criteria: Stay away from expensive metro areas to get more bang for the buck Reasonable weather for most of the year Strong community, grassroots soccer support St. Louis, Atlanta, Austin and maybe outside DC would be on my list.
There is one at Dignity Health Sports Park in Carson, CA. It used to be called the Home Depot Center.
Clearly neither are national training facility ENOUGH, based on the statements from Berhalter and Cone... Maybe because they're not dedicated facilities for USSF only (SKC and LAG)? Maybe because they're not big enough to handle everything they want to do? Maybe they don't like the locations? The reality is we know that not all or the majority or even a large plurality of camps are currently held in Kansas City Kansas or Carson California, so the facts on the ground are that those are in fact NOT considered "the national training facility" by US Soccer. Edit: Do SKC even consider it the National Training Center? They call it "the new, state-of-the-art National Training Center in Kansas City, Kansas" in that article but it's from 2018 and if you actually follow the link... https://www.sportingkc.com/ntcdc ... it doesn't go anywhere! Edit 2: Apparently it's the "Compass Minerals National Performance Center"... Maybe they want their own facility not one where SKC is selling the naming rights to Hank from Breaking Bad? https://www.compassmineralsnpc.com/ https://goo.gl/maps/y37yWGqNMwEeJA9Y6
yeah, this is a little confusing since weve supposedly had sites before (bradenton, kc, la, etc). and im not sure what the argument is if it doesnt include a national stadium- which i dont think anyone is in favor of. but that would exclude about 80% of the options given (and begs the question why no ohio site as an option), because you super cant have a national stadium that wouldnt have home crowds. designate a "base camp" for whatever window if you must and call it a day. what exactly is the "advantage" for anyone outside of execs and staff? kc is the most central location for domestic players while players abroad only benefit from an east coast location (which erases any benefit for west coast mls players). i just dont see a huge benefit here. everything about our size, geography and player distribution is an implicit argument against this.
Orlando >> Miami Both equally warm-ish year round and easy access for Euro flights, but if you want the facility to still be usable beyond 2050-2100... https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami
There was an interview with Tab Ramos where he discussed pitching doing this to us soccer and building it in Miami. But it was in Spanish so I couldn’t really understand it. We spoke with Tab Ramos. It was amazing.📌 Triumphs & Frustrations during his time at USSF.📌 His proposal to USSF to build a facility in Miami.📌 Houston Dynamo.📌 Arrival at MetroStars & his car getting stolen.📌 Donadoni sucked at 🏀. https://t.co/YWujMsdhZw— Michele Giannone (@MicheleG3) December 8, 2021
I feel like you want somewhere that’s easy travel from Europe, has decent enough weather that you can train there year round, and is an easy trip to go on the road to CONCACAF. Miami seems like it checks alot of those boxes, but I guess you don’t to put it somewhere that long term is going to be underwater. I like the Atlanta idea and I also like Charlotte for similar reasons. DC wouldn’t bad either but I don’t know if it quite hits the playable all year long point.
If you like anything about Miami... Orlando is right there. - enough elevation (plus central FL) that being underwater isn't a problem for at least a century - lots of flights (thank Disneyworld) - proximity to both Europe and Latin America - east coast - already has enough soccer facilities that the MLS Is Back tournament of 2020 was at the ESPN complex - land isn't all that expensive (central FL) - two stadiums for soccer games (Orlando City and the Citrus Bowl) depending on attendance - would be a useful facility even for games in nearby Miami or Atlanta... maybe even Nashville or Charlotte I think having so many facilities nearby would potentially be useful (say for tournaments, gathering multiple teams / age groups, facilities opponents can use, etc.)... In the area you already have: -Exploria Stadium (25,500 capacity) -Camping World Stadium (60,000 capacity) -ESPN Wide World of Sports Complex -Orlando City's training ground at Osceola Heritage Park -Orlando Pride's training ground at Sylvan Lake Park -even IMG Academy (Bradenton) is less than two hours away In terms of weather Orlando is probably only behind LA in terms of year-round usability (places with zero snow, whereas it does snow in places like Atlanta and Texas)... and the former is much better for flights to/from Europe than LA.
We have enough military sites in Europe. Let's just tack on a training facility to one of them. It really would be the most American choice.
Of course no details on the WHY they think a national training center would be a good idea, or what is lacking in the Carson and KC versions. Would have been too much to ask those difficult questions I suppose for the media. Seems like the full national teams would have minimal opportunity to use this.
Also would this only be used by the full national teams and maybe the under 20s or would it try to turn into a training center for some youth players even if it was just a weekend camp with ussf coaches? Because if it's the later than something near Atlanta might be the best bet due to the connectivity of the airport there.
Nice. Now you have me wondering, if our northern strategy proves effective this window, perhaps we could put the new facility at Ice Station Zebra.
Wonder if that's why rich people who warn us about global warming keep buying ocean front property in Hawaii, Martha's Vineyard etc?
This seems incredibly unnecessary; the arguments in favor of it would be mitigated with even basic planning by USSF during international windows. This country is too big to have a NTC be practical; so long as we’re going to play games throughout the country and forego a national stadium (which I tend to agree with), then what is the actual point of this that the other sites that exist do not currently provide?
This may have as much to do with the USWNT and other squads as it does the USMNT. As others have pointed out, a facility that can house events and camps year round probably has the upper hand. People have mentioned Southern California and Florida. I can also easily see this being built in Frisco, Texas as Dan Hunt has been wanting it to be the "home of American soccer" for a while. The Hall of Fame went there for a reason. Frisco, Texas basically markets itself as "Sports City USA" at this point. Its something people mock until they actually go there or research it. The FC Dallas stadium complex is just one of many facilities there. The Cowboys built an enormous 91 acre complex in Frisco. It has a hotel and everything.
Clearly the best option is Minnesota nice midwesterners Cheap land Short flights to both coasts Great climate that works for summer matches or hosting a WCQ in the dead of winter.