World Cup in the US in 2010?

[Gary]

I would use the top 10 cities and the cities surrounding them as I know they all have acceptable venues

1. New York City(New Giants Stadium(East Rutherford, NJ/ New York) 80,000)

2. Los Angeles(Rose Bowl(Pasadena) 91,136)

3. Chicago(Soldier Field 63,000)

4. Houston(Reliant Stadium 69,500)

5. Philadelphia(Lincoln Financial Field 68,532)

6. Phoenix(Cardinals Stadium(Glendale) 73,000)

7. San Antonio(Alamo Dome 72,000)

8. San Diego(Qualcomm Stadium 71,294)

9. Dallas(New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000)

10. Detroit(Even though San Jose is the 10th largest city I will go with Detroit)(Ford Field 65,000)

Although there could be some subsitutions like switching San Antonio for Boston, I wouldn't change anything else.

[dfwabel]

The only thing I don't know about Ford Field is that if the turf surface has the proper dimensions for a soccer pitch, does anyone know what FF's dimensions are?

A NFL field is 53 1/3 yards wide. FIFA minimum width is 70 yards. Regardless, it might be close for FF. Now, there is only one FIFA/UEFA 5-star stadium with Field Turf, Moscow's Olympic Stadium. While this is not what FIFA would want to do, can you imagine how contentious the venue selection would be? First off, it would not be held on a college campus since there are so many new NFL venues, but most of these venues have wider fields to accomodate international soccer. So teh next issue would be lodging and airports. Miami would be selected over Tampa since Dolphin Stadium will have one tenant, th "glamour of South Beach" and probably a 10 story press box by then.

[WJMorris3]

I would use the top 10 cities and the cities surrounding them as I know they all have acceptable venues

1. New York City(New Giants Stadium(East Rutherford, NJ/ New York) 80,000)

2. Los Angeles(Rose Bowl(Pasadena) 91,136)

3. Chicago(Soldier Field 63,000)

4. Houston(Reliant Stadium 69,500)

5. Philadelphia(Lincoln Financial Field 68,532)

6. Phoenix(Cardinals Stadium(Glendale) 73,000)

7. San Antonio(Alamo Dome 72,000)

8. San Diego(Qualcomm Stadium 71,294)

9. Dallas(New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000)

10. Detroit(Even though San Jose is the 10th largest city I will go with Detroit)(Ford Field 65,000)

Although there could be some subsitutions like switching San Antonio for Boston, I wouldn't change anything else.

Okay, I could agree with this... but let's also give games to Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA, and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, MO. This way, we have 12 cities just like they did at the 2006 World Cup.

[Camden Crazy]

Well, I know the first sporting event played at Lincoln Financial Field was a soccer match. I believe it was Manchester United against Barcelona.

[maz]

I would use the top 10 cities and the cities surrounding them as I know they all have acceptable venues

1. New York City(New Giants Stadium(East Rutherford, NJ/ New York)  80,000)

2. Los Angeles(Rose Bowl(Pasadena) 91,136)

3. Chicago(Soldier Field 63,000)

4. Houston(Reliant Stadium 69,500)

5. Philadelphia(Lincoln Financial Field 68,532)

6. Phoenix(Cardinals Stadium(Glendale) 73,000)

7. San Antonio(Alamo Dome 72,000)

8. San Diego(Qualcomm Stadium 71,294)

9. Dallas(New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000)

10. Detroit(Even though San Jose is the 10th largest city I will go with Detroit)(Ford Field 65,000)

Although there could be some subsitutions like switching San Antonio for Boston, I wouldn't change anything else.

Okay, I could agree with this... but let's also give games to Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA, and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, MO. This way, we have 12 cities just like they did at the 2006 World Cup.

Why not Pittsburgh? Heinz Field {72,550 including club and luxury seating}

Its a state of the art stadium with a museum that could serve as a way to teach foreigners about American football, especially one of its best franchises. Also, it has a nice view of the city if you sit on the west side. It could definately fit a soccer field {if im correct, high school soccer champinships are held there}.

Then again, if youre going by city size, Pittsburgh wouldnt be a good choice.

[lilgump]

Would fifa want to play on fieldturf though? I see how they have that field in Russia. But as far as I know the blend of rubber/sand in field turf is different for ideal soccer playing vs. ideal football playing. The differences make the ball roll and bounce more "true" as it would on a grass field. I would assume the NFL and College football stadiums with fieldturf would have their blend be set to the ideal settings for football. I would assume changing the infill would be quite a task too.

[dfwabel]

I would use the top 10 cities and the cities surrounding them as I know they all have acceptable venues

1. New York City(New Giants Stadium(East Rutherford, NJ/ New York)  80,000)

2. Los Angeles(Rose Bowl(Pasadena) 91,136)

3. Chicago(Soldier Field 63,000)

4. Houston(Reliant Stadium 69,500)

5. Philadelphia(Lincoln Financial Field 68,532)

6. Phoenix(Cardinals Stadium(Glendale) 73,000)

7. San Antonio(Alamo Dome 72,000)

8. San Diego(Qualcomm Stadium 71,294)

9. Dallas(New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000)

10. Detroit(Even though San Jose is the 10th largest city I will go with Detroit)(Ford Field 65,000)

Although there could be some subsitutions like switching San Antonio for Boston, I wouldn't change anything else.

Okay, I could agree with this... but let's also give games to Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA, and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, MO. This way, we have 12 cities just like they did at the 2006 World Cup.

Why not Pittsburgh? Heinz Field {72,550 including club and luxury seating}

Its a state of the art stadium with a museum that could serve as a way to teach foreigners about American football, especially one of its best franchises. Also, it has a nice view of the city if you sit on the west side. It could definately fit a soccer field {if im correct, high school soccer champinships are held there}.

Then again, if youre going by city size, Pittsburgh wouldnt be a good choice.

See, it is just a rumor and we already have everyone acting like their convention/visitors bureaus as if one person's suggestions are actually FIFA and US Soccers! I am surprised that you did not mention the ASG and your new, modern airport too.

[BaltimoreFan]

Would they move it too the USA though? It was here recently in '94. I would think they'd want to move it to a new country or one that hasn't had one for a while.

Well at this point if it were to move it would have to move to a country that could hold it on basically a moments notice since they don't have time to build and renovate stadiums.

Ok, I've never left the US so I have no idea what other countries stadiums are like. I would love for it to be held here, because I would finally get to see the Azzurri play, after watching them the past 3 WCs.

[Brian in Boston]

If the 2010 FIFA World Cup were to be awarded to the United States as a result of South Africa not being able to complete preparations in time, facilities in Metro New York (the new Giants/Jets stadium complex), Metro Los Angeles (the Rose Bowl or a renovated Coliseum), Chicago (Soldier Field) and Metro Washington, DC (FedEx Field) would be locks to be selected as venues. There's no way that the tournament would go forward in the United States without the country's top three media markets/business centers/advertising hubs represented. Ditto for having the nation's capital host games.

[fonz]

I think if they did move the World Cup from South Africa, it would go to the U.S. That's where all the money is, even without soccer being the country's top sport.

[IceCap]

Eveyone is saying that IF South Africa loses the 2010 WC (and that's a pretty big "IF" from my point of view) then the only country that could host it would be the US. That's simply not true though. England, Italy (defending champs), Spain, they could all host the WC without any problems. All three have premier soccer leauges. They deffently have the staudiums they would need.

Even Canada could do a decent job, espcially considering by the time 2010 comes along Toronto FC would be playing in a state of the art soccer stadium.

Yeah, the US could do a great job at hosting the WC SHOULD South Africa lose it, but there are deffently other countries that could, and should be ahead of the US if they take it away from South Africa for the sole reason that the US just hosted it less then 20 years ago.

[VitaminD]

I would use the top 10 cities and the cities surrounding them as I know they all have acceptable venues

1. New York City(New Giants Stadium(East Rutherford, NJ/ New York)  80,000)

2. Los Angeles(Rose Bowl(Pasadena) 91,136)

3. Chicago(Soldier Field 63,000)

4. Houston(Reliant Stadium 69,500)

5. Philadelphia(Lincoln Financial Field 68,532)

6. Phoenix(Cardinals Stadium(Glendale) 73,000)

7. San Antonio(Alamo Dome 72,000)

8. San Diego(Qualcomm Stadium 71,294)

9. Dallas(New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000)

10. Detroit(Even though San Jose is the 10th largest city I will go with Detroit)(Ford Field 65,000)

Although there could be some subsitutions like switching San Antonio for Boston, I wouldn't change anything else.

Okay, I could agree with this... but let's also give games to Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA, and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, MO. This way, we have 12 cities just like they did at the 2006 World Cup.

Why not Pittsburgh? Heinz Field...

Why not Pittsburgh? For the same reason that a lot of cities didn't make this hypothetical list everyone is getting all up in arms over.

The World Cup needs a finite number of arenas. The US has far more available acceptable sites than FIFA would need to host 3 World Cups simultaneously. Combine 32 NFL stadiums + dozens more college football stadiums + other stadiums used for special events (Cotton Bowl in Dallas), and you have a glut of potential sites.

Now, think realistically. The US is a large, diverse country, and you have people coming from all over the world at great costs to root for their squad. Would it be fair for a fan from Togo to have to go to Seattle for game 1, Dallas for game 2 and Boston for game 3 of pool play? Do you realize how expensive that kind of cross-country travel is when you have time to plan? On short notice, the costs are astronomical. Furthermore, you'd be asking these fans to pack for all kinds of diverse climates, which is a little unfair as well.

Finally, factor in the intuitive influence of tourism. Is a Tunisian going to enjoy their time in Tulsa or Salt Lake City if their team is sent there? Or would they want to see some of the more famous cities in the US and do a little sightseeing along the way? Little Rock, or Plymouth Rock?

And so, the list must be narrowed somewhere. Last time round, many viable candidates - Philadelphia, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Seattle, San Diego, Miami, Kansas City, St. Louis, Denver, among others - were passed over in favor of the 9 chosen sites. It happens, and life went on. There can't be 100 World Cup venues just so the good people in Bakersfield, California or Greensboro, NC can "get in on the World Cup experience". With limits come choices.

The common sense approach would be to hold games in the largest urban areas, which tend to have large immigrant communities that follow soccer more passionately. Give the people coming from faraway lands access to good public transportation and a good snapshot of America, and there you go. It's not an indictment if your city doesn't make it, so don't get all bent out of shape and dash off some Chamber of Commerce spiel about why (insert hometown here) would be a better choice than the other cities. The best choice is the greatest good for the greatest number, and Pittsburgh (or Buffalo or Baltimore or Jacksonville or Birmingham or...) doesn't make the cut when stacked up against larger, more cosmopolitan cities.

[harperdc]

another serious factor IF it returned to the US would be the weather. Somehow I doubt they're going to play games in the afternoon - and they would, because, just like in '94, they need to be played at a somewhat Euro-friendly time - in Texas. Considering these guys have played a full season and then are going into the World Cup, you've got to have some leniency.

though in all honesty South Africa wouldn't be much better.

and I doubt that the world cup would go to two European countries in a row, even as a backup. England and Italy might be right behind the US and Australia in that line, but they wouldn't be first choice. And don't forget the large stadiums available in Glasgow too - because if you're going to include St. James' Park you might as well include Scotland

And even if the stadiums had field turf, they would be updated to full grass for the world cup. Top-level international tournaments are still played on grass; hell, even using turf for places like Scotland or Russia for league play is still contentious.

and I would expect Seattle and Qwest Field would get a berth if the US hosted too. You can't ignore a whole corner of the US, especially if you're not even going up to Nor Cal. Besides, Seattle might just be the coolest place temperature-wise at that time of the year

[maz]

I would use the top 10 cities and the cities surrounding them as I know they all have acceptable venues

1. New York City(New Giants Stadium(East Rutherford, NJ/ New York)  80,000)

2. Los Angeles(Rose Bowl(Pasadena) 91,136)

3. Chicago(Soldier Field 63,000)

4. Houston(Reliant Stadium 69,500)

5. Philadelphia(Lincoln Financial Field 68,532)

6. Phoenix(Cardinals Stadium(Glendale) 73,000)

7. San Antonio(Alamo Dome 72,000)

8. San Diego(Qualcomm Stadium 71,294)

9. Dallas(New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000)

10. Detroit(Even though San Jose is the 10th largest city I will go with Detroit)(Ford Field 65,000)

Although there could be some subsitutions like switching San Antonio for Boston, I wouldn't change anything else.

Okay, I could agree with this... but let's also give games to Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, MA, and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City, MO. This way, we have 12 cities just like they did at the 2006 World Cup.

Why not Pittsburgh? Heinz Field {72,550 including club and luxury seating}

Its a state of the art stadium with a museum that could serve as a way to teach foreigners about American football, especially one of its best franchises. Also, it has a nice view of the city if you sit on the west side. It could definately fit a soccer field {if im correct, high school soccer champinships are held there}.

Then again, if youre going by city size, Pittsburgh wouldnt be a good choice.

See, it is just a rumor and we already have everyone acting like their convention/visitors bureaus as if one person's suggestions are actually FIFA and US Soccers! I am surprised that you did not mention the ASG and your new, modern airport too.

Our airport isnt very new. And the ASG desnt have to do with this. If i wanted to boast about new stuff i shouldve mentioned the new convention center or the future new arena. {long story.} I was just asking why Pittsburgh wouldnt be a good choice. Thanks for clearing that up VitaminC. But, Pittsburgh is stilll a beautiful, historic city.

But that shows how biased i really am.

I know its only a rumor, im just asking why Pittsburgh wouldnt be a good place, and now I know.

I guess the best cities really are the smaller ones.

[VitaminD]

though in all honesty South Africa wouldn't be much better.

How do you figure?

South Africa = Southern Hemisphere. July = middle of winter in South Africa. Texas-grade heat would not be an issue playing the World Cup in South Africa in July.

For comparison's sake:

Cape Town - Tuesday: partly cloudy, high 64 degrees (Fahrenheit).

Johannesburg - Tuesday: mostly sunny, high 70 degrees.

Seattle - Tuesday: mostly sunny, high 74 degrees.

Houston - Tuesday: thunderstorms, high 92 degrees.

Philadelphia - Tuesday: mostly sunny, high 99 degrees.

I'll gladly take South Africs'a "winter chill" over the heat wave I'm living through right now.

[Phenomenal]

ENGLAND! ENGLAND! ENGLAND! ENGLAND WILL GET IT! AND THEN THEY CAN WIN IT! 1966! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! YEAH! GO ENGLAND!!!!!!!!!!

[ProvidenceRI]

I think we have to think like marketing execs to determine who will get the cities.

The World Cup is drawing lots of tourists, so it has to be hosted in cities that foreigners would want to visit. There are a lot of great cities in this country, but foreigners will only want to go to the most obvious and historical.

I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell the World Cup would go to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, or Kansas City.... Arizona would be way too hot.

Cities would probably get rewared in this hierarchy:

New York

LA

Chicago

DC

Boston

San Francisco

Any city in Florida

Seattle

Philly

Houston or Dallas

and finally

New Orleans ... it'd be great for the city... I want to visit that city badly.

[Fred T. Jane]

Cities would probably get rewared in this hierarchy:

...

New Orleans ... it'd be great for the city... I want to visit that city badly.

Why? It sucked before Katrina. Besides, there's nowhere to play, unless you want a Silverdome-redux using the Superdome. Tulane Stadium (Outdoor stadium with 80k+ seating) was torn down around 1980.

I suppose if you want the idea of playing in New Orleans, you could try Tiger Stadium in Baton Rouge (90 miles away), but that won't happen for a few reasons:

(1) The Footy players would melt in the heat/humidity (90-degree ambient air temperature outside the stadium with 65%+ humidity. Add another 20-25 degrees and another 5%-10% humidity for on the field conditions.)

(2) Baton Rouge doesn't have enough hotel space to accomodate that many visitors.

(3) Baton Rouge roads were congested before Katrina, are a complete nightmare now, and I don't want to imagine what it would be like with another 100k more visitors.

(4) Farmer State U. wouldn't allow anyone on their precious field. The Saints still had to jump through some serious hoops set up by the Administration to play some home games at Tiger Stadium, despite the obvious pickle they were in.

[BloodAtFirstBite]

It will stay in South Africa. I think it was metioned before but Sepp Blatter wants to be re-elected as FIFA president so he needs the African votes. But if it is moved to the U.S. for 2010, these stadiums should be used:

New York - New Giants Stadium (East Rutherford, NJ)

Los Angeles - Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)

Chicago - Solider Field

Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial Field

Boston - Gillette Stadium (Foxboro, MA)

Washington - FedEx Field (Landover, MD)

Dallas - New Stadium (Arlington, TX)

Seattle - Qwest Field

Houston - Reliant Stadium

Phoenix - Cardinals Stadium (Glendale, AZ)

[IronChefShark]

Cities would probably get rewared in this hierarchy:

New York

LA

Chicago

DC

Boston

San Francisco

Any city in Florida

Seattle

Philly

Houston or Dallas

and finally

New Orleans ... it'd be great for the city... I want to visit that city badly.

this could be a problem, simply because of the lack of a large enough, modern facility

Monster Park holds 70,000+, but its old and decaying, and may lack many desired modern facilities. I doubt FIFA would want to hold a World Cup match there

MacAfee Coliseum hold 56,000+, but seeing as how the World Cup coincides with baseball season, scheduling conflicts with the A's can be a problem, and the same can be said for AT&T Park, which has hosted international friendlies in the past.

World Cup games in the Bay Area were hosted in Stanford Stadium in Palo Alto, but recent renovations to that venue have cut its capacity down to less than 40,000 I believe. (I could be wrong here).

Memorial Stadium in Berkeley is not all that accessible, and for that reason could not host such a large scale event.

Spartan Stadium in San Jose is just too small as well.

Of course, this is 2010 we are talking about. The only way the SF Bay Area hosts any potential World Cup games that year is if a new 49ers stadium is built by then.