Nope. Soldier Field would be smack in the lower third of capacity for this year's World Cup. Dallas Mexico City Houston New York Atlanta KC Seattle LA Philadelphia are larger (all 69,000+) Boston Miami are about the same size (65,000) Vancouver (54,000) Monterrey (53,000) Guadalajara (48,000) Toronto (45,000) are smaller
I had not read the "dome" request previously. Interesting, if true. I question whether this was there, but, if true, that makes a bit of sense as I recall Rahm bitching about a $50-100 million "commitment" at the time. Too bad, a reconfigured Soldier Field with a dome would be terrific. Any new version of Soldier Field should have a dome. I was just reading a Sport Business Journal article from 2024 that discussed many of the very restrictive and harsh clauses in the contracts. There is no mention of a "dome request" there. One would think that such a bizarre request would be highlighted.
Of course, without a doubt. I assumed that went without saying. Are there any domed stadia built today without retractable domes?
I do not believe the Minnesota (US Bank?) nor Detroit (Ford?) stadiums' roofs retract...could be wrong.
Yes, they are the last two fixed roof stadiums built. Ford was built in 2002 so 23 years ago (older than "new" Soldier Field). US Bank in 2016. For US Bank, it was determined that it would be too expensive to make it retractable.
Did ya notice that the Vikings went to 4 Super Bowls (losing them all ) when they played outside, in Minnesota weather, but since moving into a climate controlled environment, starting with the Hubie Dome, have never made it back to the big game? And the Lions....
Great point. Domes are bad and no team should have them. Make the players and the fans suffer! Serves 'em right for living in a cold climate.
Is it just me, or is there zero “hype” for this World Cup? It truly feels like less hype than hosting a Winter Olympics. So many issues with this World Cup. Expanded field of teams watering down the competition, our dear leader barring fans, media, and even referees, insane costs of tickets. The list goes on and on. I remember the excitement of the 94 World Cup, and this World Cup feels ruined.
It absolutely was from a taxpayer perspective. From a fan’s perspective, I have mixed feelings, but as taxpayer, I’m loathe to admit that it was the right thing to do, even knowing that Rahm’s intentions weren’t to protect taxpayers.
I agree with this sentiment. This is assuming that Rahm Emmanuel is telling the truth about the "dome" requirement. As a reminder, Minnesota pulled out, citing the costs, and they HAVE a dome already (even if @Mac97 thinks that is the sole reason Minnesota have not returned to the Super Bowl in 50 years! )
The Cup was awarded to the US in 2018, cities were announced in 2022 and it wasn’t until 2025 after the Club World Cup when FIFA “mandated” day games be played in domes. I don’t know what Rahm said about domes but I know he’s full of shit.
And, both Minnesota and Chicago pulled out in 2018. The way he tells it, the "dome" proposal was in the original contract and would not be removed. Not seeing the original proposals (and I have looked, as I recall looking at one back in the day), that cannot be confirmed or denied. What cannot be denied is that Rahm Emmanual is generally full of shit!
And Giant Stadium and BMO and Azteca and Gillette and NRG and Lincoln in Philadelphia and Hardrock in friggin Miami and Guadalajara and Monterrey, Mexico! In the video (and I cannot believe you are making me defend Rahm f*cking Emmanuel damn you, Bunge! ), he did not say that it had to be in a dome, but he said there was a clause about a dome in the proposal, it could not be removed and he said something to the effect of "We (FIFA) have never invoked it." To which he said in the video "Well, there is always a precedent." So, he is probably full of shit about this, but, again, we all know that he is pretty much always full of shit about everything!
Even if he completely made up the part about the dome, even if he made up the conversation he had with FIFA about the dome, even if he made up domes and actually all stadiums are open air we are just being tricked by really good CGI, the Olympics, World Cup, World Championships, Super Bowls, Final Fours, etc are almost always horrible investments for taxpayers, and it’s moving further and further in the direction of always and away from almost always because of greed. These events are a great way to fleece municipalities out of taxpayer dollars and leave them holding the bag as the costs explode and the return on the investment (assuming one is even realized - which is rare) shrinks. Rahm could be lying, Rahm almost always is lying, and from a taxpayers’ perspective would still have made the right move. As a fan I’d have loved some games, but I was not disappointed when we pulled out.
I think we’re saying the same thing. I could have worded this better: “Rahm did not make this choice because it was the best choice for the city.” “Rahm made this choice because he didn’t see a guaranteed grift.” But also, if FIFA demanded a dome we would have just pulled out after winning the bid. And @xtomx , if what you’re saying is true then this clause should be in lots of other FIFA contracts, not just the Chicago one…
It think we are all saying the same thing. Precisely, but I am not saying it is true. I am saying Rahm Emmanuel said it! And, as we have all agreed, Rahm Emmanuel is full of shit!
This is just bad lawyering. In Europe such a request would be viewed as a "good faith" requirement - so if they asked and it was not feasible, you wouldn't be bound by it. This is a classic case of US lawyers reading an EU contract and not accounting for the legal differences (and not consulting European lawyers). Pete (remembers when the Qataris promised FIFA floating clouds then never bothered to build them)
I will not comment on the lawyering part, since I have not read the actual contract in question. I am not sure it was an "EU Contract." If it was drafted in Switzerland, the home of FIFA, it would not be an EU contract. Rahm Emanuel is also not a lawyer. His use of the term "precedent" was improper. What he meant, of course, is "There is a first time for everything," which is, basically, the opposite of precedent. That said, I agree with you.
Bad assumptions on my part, but the gist is the same. We (USA, UK, most of the British Commonwealth) are very strict with contract language. Continental Europeans are not. Different legal system (Napoleonic code countries), different contract law, the principle of good faith is fundamental. They tend to interpret contracts based not only on the literal wording but also on what reasonable parties would have understood and what would be fair dealing and legitimate expectations. By contrast, common law courts have historically focused pretty exclusively on the text of the contract and what it objectively says. If you're coming from a U.S. legal background, you can totally mess up contract law by not recognizing how it works over there. We don't get world cup games because the mayor didn't run the contract by European counsel. Pete (has to deal with this all the time at work as his company has two European subsidiaries)
A person has to be really fearless to comment on a transaction that never happened and he was not involved in, especially without seeing the paperwork. Not siding with Rahn or FIFA, just saying it is hard to decipher this situation without more facts. Of course, lack of facts rarely stops people from forming opinions.
Well in my case... ...I may have made the same mistake a few times before I learned! Pete (is taking Rahm at his word on what happened back then)
Good information, thanks. Knew there were notable systemic differences. Think Louisiana. Did not know the “strict construction”rules were that different.
More interesting to me (than stadium and opining on unknown contract legalese) is this observation about an increasingly popular tactic (pushing 1FB, holding the other back) that is perceived as a unique twist on it. Japan's use of "False FB" concepts to create space against man-to-man marking - Nice wrinkle to allow 10s & CMs to create width:- Importance of using ball recirculation as a trigger- Complementary players (WBs high/wide) to leave space free- Manipulating CHs tendencies OOP pic.twitter.com/ZgNjqsyDtX— Carlon Carpenter (@CarlonCarpenter) June 8, 2026 Diagonal play is one of their indefensible strategies also. pic.twitter.com/Fnxm6LfVlj— Rafid (@Diomedes101) June 9, 2026 https://medium.com/@tezskii/how-elbows-are-changing-the-narrative-6a94f0a93eb8 It looks a bit like something GGG tried earlier in the season, before wanting to prepare for a 2 striker approach