I'm starting this thread here - maybe it can be merged when the existing thread gets moved from the N & A forum? 5/19/03 AP report: U.S., Sweden only nations to submit complete bid for Women's World Cup Some minor new bits of info: The U.S. Soccer Federation's board of directors met Sunday in Birmingham, Ala., and voted unanimously to approve the American bid, USSF president Bob Contiguglia said. FIFA's eight-man emergency committee, chaired by Blatter, will make the decision on the host. FIFA spokesman Andreas Herren said Monday the bids by the Americans and Swedes were being forwarded to the emergency committee, along with Canada's offer to host one group of the tournament in Edmonton, Alberta, if the event is awarded to the United States. Australia, Brazil and Italy did not submit bids by Sunday's deadline, but the emergency committee also will be given Australia's formal expression of interest, Herren said. The original U.S. bid, FIFA said, proposed using stadiums in Carson, Calif.; Columbus, Ohio; San Jose, Calif.; and Washington, D.C. It also proposed possibly having the final at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., where the Americans won the 1999 championship game before a crowd of 90,125. Contiguglia said that the USSF and FIFA held several conference calls in the past two weeks and were now discussing having the event in four-to-seven stadiums.
Because it would be great fun! Seriously, I think Sweden has two disadvantages; the weather can be let's call it unreliable in late september/early october and Sweden is a small country. I think both weather and attendance will be better in the US. And the money is of course bigger in the US. On the other hand organisation will be flawless, travels between matches comparatively short and it will be great media coverage and public interest.
If they stay away from northern Sweden and try to have as many afternoon games as possible the weather would not be a big factor. It is not that cold in September and October in Stockholm, Gothenberg, Malmo and other southern cities. My feeling is FIFA figures they will lose money on the tournament wherever it is held and there is less exposure in Sweden because transport costs would be lower. I also have a hunch that if FIFA has to subsidize a soccer tournament it would rather give the money to almost any country except the US. Obviously there is some hesitation about the US/Canada bid or the deadlines wouldn't get extended again and again. The three most likely alternatives are (not in any order): Sweden gets it. US/Canada gets it. The SARS situation improves and China gets it back. I can't imagine Brazil or italy hosting it. Australia is a possibility but transport costs would be much higher and someone would have to get out the checkbook to make it happen.
Canada's bid withdrawn (under pressure) First, mods, perhaps you should merge this thread with the "Official: WWC07 in China, WWC03 TBD" one? The Canadian press is reporting that Canada has withdrawn its bid - under pressure - to co-host the WWC with the US: "Canadian Soccer CEO Kevan Pipe said Warner, the president of CONCACAF, phoned and suggested Canada withdraw the offer to hold three double header group games in Edmonton as part of a relocated women's World Cup. "Jack called and gave us advice to withdraw,'' said Pipe. "We don't officially know whether it is going to go to the U.S.A. or Sweden but all indications are it will go to the U.S.A. Jack said they could still vote with Canada's offer on the table but the vote would be 6-1,'' Pipe said of the emergency committee of FIFA [...] "Jack went to the wall for us. We decided to take his advice and show some degree of solidarity with FIFA. We e-mailed FIFA just before game time to give them a clean window for their decision.''" The Canadians are, understandably, not very happy. Full article here: No Canada! After beating England 4-0 in last night's friendly, team learns this country has been shut out in World Cup host bid
Re: Canada's bid withdrawn (under pressure) I can't say I blame them. But I think the article took an unfair shot at Hamm and Chastain. First of all, at over 30, they're still playing fabulous, but they're hardly the entire team. Up and coming players like Wagner, Wambach (when she gets onto the squad) and Slaton are as good as anyone else. Second, the article made it sound like the USA was pursuing sole hosting just to protect the team and give it home-field advantage. Bunk. Hosting is about the glory, ego and publicity. Anyone who thinks that the USSF is lobbying to host WWC in the USA just so that the USA can have home field advantage is smoking an illegal substance.
there's huge merit in the canadian position here usa chances are far better on home turf, as it always is with any home team... why do you think the chinese wanted the tourney so badly... fifa wants to make money, and having it in the usa guarantees they make the most money... right now, norway without riise, I don't believe can win it... so it's down to usa, china and germany... although canada and france could beat any one of those top 3 in the tourney.
Decision likely on Monday Presumably the 4-7 US stadiums (see bottom) are the original 4 (Home Depot, Columbus Crew, Spartan and RFK, possible final at Rose Bowl) plus up to 3 others. U.S. vs. Sweden FIFA likely to decide Women's World Cup site Monday "The site of this year's Women's World Cup probably will be announced Monday. The United States and Sweden were the only nations to submit complete bids to host the 16-nation tournament, and soccer's governing body is awaiting the votes of the eight members of its emergency committee. "The folder has been given to the emergency committee," FIFA spokesman Andreas Herren said Friday. Asked when a decision will be made, Herren said, "It is likely to be made Monday." FIFA president Sepp Blatter, chairman of the committee, has called the United States the "front-runner" to take over the quadrennial championship, which had been scheduled in China from Sept. 23 to Oct. 11. The original U.S. bid, according to FIFA, proposed using stadiums in Carson, Calif.; Columbus, Ohio; San Jose, Calif.; and Washington, D.C. It also proposed possibly having the final at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, Calif., where the Americans won the 1999 championship game in front of a crowd of 90,125. Contiguglia says the USSF and FIFA are now discussing having the tournament in four-to-seven stadiums."
if this is not awarded to the united states on monday... it will be a bigger upset than the 1-0 us victory over in england in the 1950 WC. plain and simple; it is coming to the states so get ready for some WWC soccer games!
So, how are tickets being handled? Ticketmaster, I assume, right? When will tickets start being sold exactly, if they havent already?
WELL!!!! <drumming fingers> It's been just about an hour, has FIFA made a decision? US or Sweden or somewhere else. </drumming fingers> <tapping toe> Let's get a move on - time's awasting. If the WWC isn't going to be a complete disaster, the decision needs to be made. </tapping toe> Today's supposed to be the day.......
12:58am, do you know where your WC is? I'm with ya there! But, I think they are having their morning coffee and chocolates about now. As for the stadium and ticket situation - if we don't hear anything from SUM or USSF soon after the announcement, we may get it during the US vs. Wales game. (forget that it would be announced during a men's match and focus on the impact of the stadium and ticket announcement reaching many people at once). My guess would be that USSF gave FIFA a couple of scenarios regarding travel/stadium/schedule logistics. Once FIFA chooses their favorite, USSF calls the stadiums for a "go" and announces them to the public within a few hours. USSF has probably worked out the details with those proposed stadiums under the different scenarios. My hope for tickets is that they would have a US Soccer Fan/Member list ready for a mailing to pre-order tickets like the last WWC. This would maximize the sale of tickets to fans and families first and create a large marketing blitz for the event by the time the public sale happens. If the mailing went out this week and the order form was due by June 15 with a public sale date a week later, that would give plenty of time for the public to order tickets and plan for travel and entertainment money. Or have a unique code and phone # on the mailer so there is no hoarding. I believe FIFA would want some security and anti-hoarding to the "best" tickets and this type of distribution would work in the best interests of FIFA, USSF, and SUM. Ticketmaster could be used for group matches and/or "cheap seats" in group matches. An 11th hour change that sticks in my head and the need to play Devil's Advocate: Sweden could get it based on logistics and safety issues. The US cannot guarantee timely visas for teams (but probably wouldn't have that problem: Sweden could have this problem too), if North Korea gets in would they boycott?, the threat of terrorist acts in the US can be perceived as higher than in Sweden. This is not meant as a political rant/discussion, but as an option for FIFA by taking into account all aspects of the hosts ability - SARS was a safety issue for the doomed Chinese WC. FIFA wants to be guaranteed a tournament without external factors being involved (examples: Brazilian infrastructure, old apartheid issues in South Africa, Colombia's drug war). I will be first to "cheerlead" that sport, especially soccer, transcends politics to bring different peoples together. But, other forces can make a decision passioned.
It's interesting because Sepp Blatter was very impressed with Canada support for soccer after the U-19 Championships.
The Canadians are being gracious as always: U.S. World Cup next best thing for Canada John Korobanik The Edmonton Journal EDMONTON - It's not Edmonton, but having the 2003 Women's World Cup in the United States is the next best thing for Canada. "Obviously we had hoped to have Edmonton involved, but when that's not the case it's just all upside for us to play in North America," coach Even Pellerud said Monday after FIFA, soccer's world governing body, selected the U.S. as the site for the tournament that was moved out of China because of the SARS virus. "We're very happy with that decision," added Pellerud. "We don't need to worry about jet lag, we're playing in mostly familiar stadiums, we have no food concerns, we'll have spectators coming from Canada. "It's just an upside, the whole thing."
Giants Stadium should be one of the sites. Giants Stadium is perhaps the most historic soccer location in the country. Pele played his last game there. Numerous sellouts were played there in the 1994 World Cup, including a semifinal game. And, in 1999, the all-time attendance record for ANY sporting event at Giants Stadium was set at the opening game of the Women's World Cup, 78,942 to see the USA defeat Denmark. A sellout game at Giants Stadium would help make the 2003 Women's World Cup what it deserves to be.
I'm all for Giants Stadium getting a game. I'm also pulling for Gillette to get a game too. I live between the 2 stadiums and will go to both if they gets games! *crosses fingers*
Logos, characters So, does anyone think USSF will be able to come up with a logo and/or mascot for the WWC? And what about sponsor commercials? I would love to see: "I will have, yet another, two fillings" Your thoughts about the logos and mascots? (I hope China replaces their mascot for '07) Does this belong as a new thread or in the business and media section?