A city with lots of direct connections to Europe will have lots of traffic jams and expensive land prices. A city without traffic jams and lower prices will have less connections to Europe. The solution would be to pay for connecting flights, I guess.
Yeah I was thinking that it's probably much cheaper to build there compared to other metros. The airport thing though is sort of the most important factor other than weather that it really should be a no go. So far I don't have any strong feelings when it comes to Cone and her performance as president, but steering this thing to Cary, North Carolina would definitely be a negative strike against her.
Though if you look at metro areas by living costs, Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, and Raleigh are all classified in the same tier (Chicago is in the more expensive tier by comparison). https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/pdf/MSAsbylivingcosts.pdf
It's less the cost and more the opportunity cost. You're flying in from Europe, and it's already a 10+ hour flight, then you have a four layover to your flight to Raleigh. If you are a recruited dual national, maybe you don't want to deal with this. Or a vet taking time away from their family, you don't want to add hours on. Maybe you have a bad back. Or maybe the time for the connections make it so that you actually miss the first day of practice, one of only six the window. Atlanta has a lot of direct international flights, and tons of direct domestic flights. Even if there is a connection, there's a ton of convenient flights. Raleigh is a pain to get to for anywhere distant. It's not even Charlotte. The training facility they'd be adapting is already pretty old -- and remodels often cost as much as from scratch and are rarely as good. There stadium options there aren't great. Atlanta doesn't have the 20k stadium you'd like, but it does have MBS for a big time game. Why Raleigh? If the Courage are footing like $100M of the bill, I get it. But I suspect it is more than the President of the Federation has ties to the Courage and likes North Carolina.
I've always thought DFW was the place to do it. Cost of living is good. Direct flights to Europe and all over the world. Direct from London to DFW is only 30 minutes longer than Direct flight from London to Atlanta so not a big deal. It's American's main hub so pretty easy to fly all over the world. I've flown to Europe dozens of times and always fly direct. Crime rate is low. Frisco (North Dallas) already has: US Soccer Museum FC Dallas and their Stadium US Youth Soccer HQ PGA Headquaters Dallas Cowboys HQ (but we wouldn't want that trash rubbing off on the US team ) Weather is generally pretty good. Not a long winter at all. Now obviously Florida or California is better weather but for travel California is a long freakng way and it's crazy expensive. Plus not centrally located, not that Florida is either. I no longer live in DFW, I'm in OKC now. But everything considered, also no state income tax (florida too) then I think DFW offers pretty much everything. Pretty good soccer culture too.
It'll be East Coast, I think. The difference in flight times is material. Atlanta is basically all of that except the income tax and a little bit better weather.
I have nothing against Atlanta other than I think it's less central than DFW. Plus I just think DFW makes more sense, especially when US Soccer Youth HQ there. Weather is pretty similar really. Crime rates are better in DFW than Atlanta. But it's not like Atlanta is a murder capital or property crime capital of the country.
I like the idea of a national training center and HQ. I think California would be harder now financially and logistically with so many players in Europe. Pre-1994 only a few guys were in Europe. Harkes was with Derby, Klopas in Athens, Lapper was at Wolfsburg, Ramos at Real Betis, Sommer was in Luton Town, Stewart at Willhem, Wegerle was Coventry City and Wynalda at Saarbrucken. Kooiman was at Cruz Azul so still more local than Europe/Asia.
Wait......I thought there already was a National Training Center in Kansas City, Ks??? https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2018/02/five-things-to-know-about-the-national-development-center
The Athletic article references it and says USSF runs coaching education out of it but isn’t really used by the men’s or women’s team.
Clearly it ended up not being a National Training Center if the USMNT and USWNT hardly ever train there!
That was a coup by SKC's owners who got that facility built with a large chunk of public funds on the premise that the National teams would use it. I'm sure it'll get a lot of use by other nation's teams in 2026.
I remember Sam Brownback was involved... excellent governor who did a lot of big things to make Kansas great again.
As more and more of our players play in Europe, I think you do need to account for what is central. That said, for youth and the women, it's probably a bit more central. But weighted by population, not that much. Atlanta is pretty accessible.
I'd rather have a National Training Facility than not, but realistically speaking, isn't the team going to only use such a facility probably far less than half the time? I'm sure they will still be training in LA, Florida, Texas, Ohio, NY/NJ... depending on where they're playing. Also probably Georgia, MO/KS, North Carolina... What US Soccer *should* be doing is convincing the US government to build a NFL stadium at the RFK site that can double as a national team stadium, with permanent soccer locker rooms... that we can then use maybe 5% of the time.
Living in DC the fate of the RFK site is a mess. The mayor wants to do a stadium there but the city council president is very strongly opposed to doing so (and also opposes a referendum to let voters decide). Meanwhile Congress actually has control of the site so whatever DC does requires an act of Congress and Congress doesn’t want to do anything until the city decides what it wants. There’s members of Congress who I think would oppose a stadium on principle, but I think the fact that they changed the team name and that Dan Snyder is selling the team has reduced a lot of that opposition.
Atlanta get's cold in the winter (cue the Minnesotans/Bostonian "you don't know what cold is!"). Roads can ice over. I'd love if the facilities were in SoCal, but Jacksonville may be the most temperate spot on the East Coast?
I'd go with St. Louis or Chicago. The former has a ton of soccer history and the latter has U.S. Soccer HQ right?
In other words, they can actually build the giant complex they want to build. This would presumably be like England's St. George's training complex. Where did they build that? Downtown London? Not a place for friendlies, etc. One can actually surmise that it would actually be a much more important part of the youth programs and the women's teams than the senior USMNT. We'd probably have domestic January camp there, and then travel to wherever the games are. I don't think a guy like Christian Pulisic would spend much time there at all. Again, I understand people will bitch no matter where we put it. That's because people will bitch about literally anything on these USMNT boards. The USMNT wants to build a 250 million dollar training complex? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah..........................
While the connecting flights are an issue, the positive for Raleigh is the fact that the Courage stadium is less than 15 minutes from RDU. My guess is the ATL complex would be significantly further from the airport. Also I don't hear a ton of issues with the national team getting to Nashville which is a pretty common spot for pre WCQs.
Though you can fly nonstop from London to Nashville, and I don’t believe you can get to Raleigh nonstop from Europe at all.