If they just want office space, there’s loads of it coming on market for cheap. No matter where they put it, traveling for actual games is still going to be a challenge unless they’re only going to play in the eastern or central time zone
I originally said Dallas or Chicago because of the airport access. However, after seeing all of the comments, I'd have three choices - Dallas, Atlanta, or Orlando. I'm assuming that this facility would have significant indoor training space, so I'm not overly worried about bad weather. Orlando's benefits are well-documented. Dallas offers a huge international airport and relatively central access for all US players, whether playing in Europe or elsewhere. While Chicago has central access and proximity to Soccer House, real estate would be prohibitively expensive even if it's out in the suburbs. Plus, I don't really know where there is land to build what I'm imagining USSF wants to see. Unless you know you can play youth national team games indoor and on FieldTurf, I'd stay away from Minnesota. I know it's accessible, but you would need a LOT more indoor training space. I know we focus a lot on the senior MNT and WNT, but this facility really needs to be built with an eye on having more youth national team activities. I've said for a long time (and I think a lot of others agree with me) that USSF is taking its eye off the ball regarding youth national teams. I don't want to hear "because pandemic" excuses, as this was happening before 2020. The vision of this facility needs to incorporate the youth national teams every bit as much as being the home for the senior team training. I would also strongly support continuing to have senior NT games all over the country, but I would be more than good with the YNTs having a small stadium (I'm thinking about the Kansas City Swope Park facility's stadium as an example) for games.
I'm liking Atlanta most. If we focus on travel times it looks like the frontrunner. It's not too far from Europe. It's not too far from the rest of C'CAF. It's easy to get to from any point in the nation. When you drill down to the other factors. Year round playing. Lots of surrounding land to build a large facility. Strong soccer culture. It's score pretty high in all respects if not the highest. Except one. There is no grass field SSS. Would the USSF want to build their own? There are advantages to that.
I would prefer that this decision be made by someone other than USSF. Hire an outside consultant to think through all the relevant factors and make a selection. I don’t trust USSF with any big decision, but I sure hope this isn’t a way to institutionalize the disparity of opportunity between domestic players and Europe-based candidates for the second XI.
I just don't see where USSF would want to do that. Maybe they would want a 35,000-40,000 seat stadium and then figure out something with Atlanta United where they could use it (but I HIGHLY doubt they would want a surburban stadium), but I don't think a Wembley-style national stadium (in terms of use, certainly not in terms of size) is in the cards for USSF. This is a big, big country. This isn't like England or Germany where virtually the entire population is within a 4-5 hour trip from the main population center. Even in Germany's case, they don't have a specific national stadium. Plus, having national team games in different stadiums is good to help the US with home field advantages and adjusting for various travel issues. If the January window was the March window, then being able to have games in Columbus and St. Paul would have been great. Plus, the allure of having NT games at these various MLS stadiums is a very good side benefit to having a soccer-specific stadium - you can host friendlies, Nations League, and qualifiers in those venues. For example, I think Nashville's new stadium is going to be a fantastic venue for USNT matches.
Why didn’t Atlanta choose natural grass. I would think it would be easy to maintain there. If arid Texas can do it, Atlanta can do it.
From what I can tell, this wouldn't be a complex with a stadium. We wouldn't be playing actual matches there. What you need is fields, residential housing, eating facilities, etc. so that you can host teams for a couple weeks. A place to hold the type of USMNT camp we're having right now in Arizona. Or that USYNTs have with regularity. It would totally be under the USSF's control so all of the logistics would be much easier. Particularly these days of COVID, I'm sure hosting these camps externally is a pain in the butt. Basically you'd want a souped up version of what the US U17s had down in Bradenton at the IMG academy. And yes, there could be a smaller 10k seat type of "stadium" I guess. Down in Bradenton they had that type of field for events like the U17 Nike friendlies.
Honestly my only issue with Orlando is that there aren't a ton of direct flights from Europe. Just Frankfurt and London. Miami is of course super popular with Europeans and has a ton of European flights, though as you've noted will probably end up underwater at some point. Charlotte and Atlanta are both major hubs so you don't have that issue.
I guess the question is what do the countries that have this do and get out of this. France seems to be pumping the most players out now and I know they have one so what exactly is it they do that we could replicate? I also agree that we are much bigger than most other countries so it could be that we need several regional ones instead or don't need any and to just do what is being done now.
We don't need to overthink this. Its just a place where teams can train and be hosted for a couple of weeks at a time. MLS/USL Clubs, MLS Next, MLS Next Pro, etc. is where players are being developed in the US. I actually think it likely that the USWNT and USGNT will spend a hell of a lot more time at this facility than the male versions. When it comes to the USMNT all they need is a place to host a camp like they're having right now in Arizona.
I have to find the article, but pre-pandemic USSF had actually said they had outgrown their HQ in Chicago and were discussing building a new one somewhere, either in Chicago or elsewhere (Miami had also been mentioned as an option, but the discussions were still in early stages).
A National Stadium is a bad idea for the US, but I'm with you, I don't know that I see this amazing need for a national training center. It feels like more convenience for the staff unless they are thinking that they will have a more permanent youth set up again like a Bradenton someday. But even then... It's just a lot of cash to have a familiar spot. I can't imagine the rent on places like Chula Vista or Disney or SKC is that high.
I would think it be easier to get coaches at another location if they're still wedded to having to all be at one place. if nothing else pick a place where housing is cheaper as a lot of these U coaches can't be making a lot. If they want a training center near where Soccer House and the coaches are then Florida or SoCal make the most sense because cold weather never infringes on practices. Atlanta and Dallas do get cold at times. Maybe add Austin and Houston as they very rarely get cold.
It is because it's not exclusively for the US National Teams, but I call BS. It is where Camp Cupcake and many other trainings have taken place. It is good enough. Waste of money to build something else.
I think its as simple as during these COVID times, setting up these training camps like the current one in Arizona...................is a pain in the butt. If you have your own training camp facility, and can control everything, the process would presumably be a lot simpler for all involved. And I really believe that the USWNT and USYNTs would spend a lot more time at the facility than the USMNT. Does the USSF have the type of money to do this? I doubt it. For now its just talk as a USSF presidential election ramps up. We'll hear Cindy Cone's opinions on things again.
There's no doubt that complete control makes things easier. I can see why they would want something that is solely used by USSF. However, think of the cost. And I hope this is the last year of COVID-19. Yes, there will probably be another pandemic in the future.
I guess the cost of this could be a donation by a big corporation who gets to put there name everywhere. Like Nike US National Team Center .....etc
Anywhere below Virginia should be fine for practice year round on the East Coast. Also, anywhere on the West Coast also works. An unusual cold spell that drops some snow won't usually stop practice or at least no more than a hurricane, for instance. The reason I say this is because there seems to be an unusual fixation on Florida in the last few posts. As a resident, I think Florida is a decent candidate but I don't think that we are necessarily the best ones.
for somewhere matches dont actually happen? and we arent just talking the cost of building the facilities. even if the mens, womens and all youth teams use it- a lot- could it remotely justify the staff that would be needed? are grounds crews and hotel/dormitory staff going to get call ups like players? what about the other 7 or so months of the year? i dont have the first clue what im talking about but i also dont think im oversimplifying any more than the idea that this is important somehow. im sure it would be nice for gregg to roll out of bed and walk over to his office and cindy parlow to have hers overlooking a practice pitch but seriously- how is this a viable plan?
Florida is on the east coast so easy for Euro players to get to. It's also far south so easy to get to games in the rest of CONCACAF excepting Canada which it isn't that far from unless it's the western part. Add in year round weather and it hits all of the buttons. There are others and one it isn't tops on is easiest access from all of the US.
Some news on this front New notebook from me + @PaulTenorio:✔️MLS still tracking towards best-of-3 format to begin playoffs, considering 9 teams per conf.✔️USSF looking to build training center; Atlanta, Cary, N.C. in consideration✔️USMNT aiming for friendlies vs. ARG, BRA https://t.co/M5df5aMQiS— Sam Stejskal (@samstejskal) February 6, 2023 Cary, North Carolina wouldn't be a great location. The only thing I don't like about Atlanta is the lack of a grass field as we'd presumably try and play friendlies in the same location as the center. Notably USSF is apparently trying to raise $300 million to build the thing and it would also house the full USSF staff (so the Chicago requirement could become an Atlanta or Cary requirement if it exists under a different sporting director). Cary also doesn't look great in light of Cindy Parlow Cone's ties there. I’m sure the powers that be in North Carolina would throw everything they can at getting the training center no matter who’s in charge of U.S. Soccer. But it’s a bad look for Cary to be in the race when Cindy Cone comes from the Courage/NCFC entity that’s based in Cary. https://t.co/LfAPGXf7Sr— Jonathan Tannenwald (@thegoalkeeper) February 6, 2023 Especially with it not being a very good selection in terms of location.
Let's face it. No matter where they place it, people on this board will bitch. Cary, North Carolina would be fine. Atlanta would be fine. This training center would be very different than the Chicago situation. Chicago was just offices. There are practical reasons to have it on the East Coast. If youth and senior players/staff are coming back and forth from Europe with increasing frequency, this would cut down on travel time.
The training center seems like a waste to me. The money that will go to it is likely largely fundraised dollars that would not have been able to go to other things -- talk to anyone in advancement and you quickly understand how much people want to donate to concrete things their name can be on. But that said, $250M is just a really big number for something that seems closer to a vanity project or a convenience project than a true enabler. I suppose there's a world where the costs of camps is so high currently when they rent the space that this one time charge -- fundraised -- brings a significant amount of annualized savings and enables more youth camps. And I suppose there's a place where the housing and amenities are so plush it helps with dual naitonal recruiting? BTW, Atlanta 1000x over Cary. Every flight into Raleigh is going to be a connection, less convenient, and likely more cost. It's not just Christian Pulisic coming in from London (or wherever), it's Jalen Neal coming in from LA or some kid coming in for a U15 camp. But I highly suspect this entire decision is being made for the wrong reasons, and where the decision makers want to live may actual play a part.
I think there are very practical reasons why Cary would be a much worse choice than the others. And that's because it's a much harder city get to (especially from Europe) compared to Atlanta or a host of other options. You want a city on the East Coast, with an airport that has lots of flights from Europe, and with weather good enough to use it year round. I also think it'd be good to have it in a place with easy access to other CONCACAF countries so you can use it as a staging ground for future qualifiers (Atlanta is not terrible in this regard though Orlando or Miami are better), and there to be a stadium available if you want to play friendlies there (this is my main issue with Atlanta since no grass field means no games there).