Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And frankly , mid tier cities should even bid . They should restrict it to big cities like NY,LA,HOU,DFW. If there is a mexico game in KC or CVG, do you think there are enough people to turn up??
If there is a Mexico game in KC, it will be a sold-out event. Unlike the US "B" vs. Panama"B" last Sunday in AZ with only 6000 fans, Mexico has plenty of supporters showing up for the "B" team friendlies.
If it really ends up being Houston vs. Dallas then Houston wins on the merits. But Dallas may be better connected to FIFA, so we'll just have to see what happens. In my opinion KC is not a lock... not a major airport HUB which could be a disadvantage.
Also interesting that Chicago and Vancouver did not submit hosting bids. They could end up in the mix before it is all said and done. Hard to believe Chicago would not host, and definitely would take the place of KC if that happens. IN MY OPINION... which is all anyone can offer at this point.
Chicago did submit a hosting bid. They got rejected and didn’t make the finalist list because Soldier Field is out of date
It really wasn't my intention to make it so, but I see thin odds that out of 10 US cities, four from the South get the nod, assuming those are Houston, Dallas, Atlanta and either Orlando or Miami. Florida will get one. Probably not two.
-NY/East Rutherford, NJ is a lock.
-DC is a lock with a mammoth capacity stadium. Besides, it's only the nation's capital.
-LA is a lock and then some. FIFA can choose between the Rose Bowl and the new stadium in Inglewood, and the Rose Bowl has a shot for its capacity.
-Bay Area is a lock. Levi's looks like a weird setup for soccer, and its field issues are well-documented. But there's also Stanford Stadium, a WC '94 site.
-Atlanta is a lock.
-Kansas City is a lock for the reasons I've already mentioned. It's probably the best soccer city in the country that isn't LA or in the Pacific Northwest or Florida. FIFA will not deny KC and the entire Midwest in the process. It's only competing in the region with Cincinnati, likely the longest shot in the bunch. Note that Chicago and Detroit, both '94 game sites, aren't in this.
-Seattle is a lock. The PNW is the region that comes closest to generally supporting soccer like it's a proper major league sport in this country. Bet that FIFA is keenly aware of it. The stadium will need grass put in it for the games, but it's been done before there and elsewhere, and will have to be done at several of these other places.
-Florida is a lock to get at least one. Orlando was a '94 site. Hard Rock Stadium now gives the edge to Miami.
-Boston/Foxborough is a lock. Robert Kraft owns the stadium and was the honorary chairman of the joint North American bid to hold the tournament here in the first place. I think we know by now that FIFA isn't exactly a meritocracy.
This leaves two bids between:
-Houston
-Dallas
-Orlando (assuming Miami as the Florida-located lock)
-Philadelphia
-Denver
-Baltimore
-Nashville
-Cincinnati
So, yes, it is kind of a Houston vs. Dallas thing, not to mention a Houston vs. some other places thing. Houston beats most of them hands down, but not Dallas, and Texas is no more likely to get two bids than Florida is. Jerryworld has the highest capacity of any of the potential venues in that latter list.
I know this isn't what people want to hear, but Dallas is the city to beat.
I agree. With Vancouver not bidding due to no cap on costs, that makes Seattle virtually guaranteed. I wouldn't count entirely on KC though. Edmonton will likely get a game or two, and so will Toronto and Montreal. Regardless, good on the Houston committee to get out early and start banging that drum for support. It will probably help.
Kansas City is neither a lock nor is it a probable venue. Being directly in the middle of the country doesn’t give it any advantage especially considering that the USA population is smallest in that direction. For the Midwest argument, Ohio gets a better chance than Kansas City will. Cincinnati is far closer to more destinations without a stadium (Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Memphis. It’s in the middle of all this. Dallas being close to KC doesn’t help either because wether Houston or Dallas or both get a stadium, there’s a stadium in Texas for either scenario. Kansas City is not only not a lock, it’s also unprobable.
The only argument Dallas had to be an advantage over Houston as a stadium is the capacity of ATT Stadium with seating room to host the opener or final. Both of these are unavailable because FIFA stated the priorities will be LA (who also has the capacity and MetLife Stadium in NY. Once FIFA announced the openers in and final will be in Rose Bowl and MetLife Stadium the capAcity was no longer needed.
Houston has advantages over Dallas include more experience at hosting international matches and having a full stadium in the process, the international network at IAH gives it an advantage to sell international tickets. The biggest advantage to Houston however is FIFA has a history of performing well in Houston during past tournaments (Copa America, Gold Cup, etc). Chicago’s poor performance during the Copa America and outdated stadium are the biggest reasons their bid didn’t make it as a finalist.
Houston and Dallas are both in good positions to be selected and it may be both.
Kansas City is neither a lock nor is it a probable venue. Being directly in the middle of the country doesn’t give it any advantage especially considering that the USA population is smallest in that direction. For the Midwest argument, Ohio gets a better chance than Kansas City will. Cincinnati is far closer to more destinations without a stadium (Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Memphis. It’s in the middle of all this. Dallas being close to KC doesn’t help either because wether Houston or Dallas or both get a stadium, there’s a stadium in Texas for either scenario. Kansas City is not only not a lock, it’s also unprobable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag
The only argument Dallas had to be an advantage over Houston as a stadium is the capacity of ATT Stadium with seating room to host the opener or final. Both of these are unavailable because FIFA stated the priorities will be LA (who also has the capacity and MetLife Stadium in NY. Once FIFA announced the openers in and final will be in Rose Bowl and MetLife Stadium the capAcity was no longer needed.
Houston has advantages over Dallas include more experience at hosting international matches and having a full stadium in the process, the international network at IAH gives it an advantage to sell international tickets. The biggest advantage to Houston however is FIFA has a history of performing well in Houston during past tournaments (Copa America, Gold Cup, etc). Chicago’s poor performance during the Copa America and outdated stadium are the biggest reasons their bid didn’t make it as a finalist.
Houston and Dallas are both in good positions to be selected and it may be both.
I have to go with jfre81 on this one. One of the goals of a US-based World Cup is to grow the game here. KC is a market that represents what both FIFA and US Soccer are trying to create in medium-sized cities across the country - actual soccer culture outside of recent immigrant groups. KC has a much better overall soccer culture than Houston or Cincinnati (or Dallas for that matter). People actually support their team there. Every single Sporting KC game sold out - they sold 105% of their seats in 2016 and 2017. I went to a game there last year on a business trip and it was a great experience. The Houston Dynamo's support? 79.5% of seats sold over the same two years. KC isn't some flyover burg with no soccer culture or fans - they like it better overall than they do here imo and they will support the World Cup. Cincinnati's team hasn't even started play in MLS yet - I don't see them getting anything whatsoever since the area hasn't developed any local soccer culture to speak of yet.
This is not to say that Houston would not be successful if chosen - we would, probably moreso than most of these cities to be honest. If the right teams play here we would likely sell the matches out, or at least come close. But at the same time I'm a Dynamo fan and go to games and they rarely sell out anymore. On top of that most of the fans there have likely always been soccer fans and are usually Hispanic - there's not a lot of evidence that the Dynamo have significantly grown the number of people here who are soccer fans, at least as far as I can see. Places like KC have done a much better job of attracting new fans for whatever reason. Houston doesn't have a broad-based soccer culture like a lot of other areas - it does well because of its ethnic populations from places that tend to play in these tournaments, but your average person on the street in Houston is not a big enough soccer fan to be checking for this.
For some game with relatively random teams like say, Paraguay vs. Ukraine, I'd expect somewhere like KC to do just as well as Houston in terms of attendance, if not better, if for no other reason than people there just like soccer, there's less things to do, and you have a potential market of several states where KC is the closest place for them to go if they want to see a World Cup game.
Also, international flights have these things called connections that go to places like KC. That won't matter at all - if there is a big game that happens to be there, people will get there. KC airport can handle extra flights and charters just fine. Additionally, KC is not close to Dallas, it's 500+ miles and an 8+ hour drive. Nothing location-wise would hurt it - its location probably helps it in all honesty because there would truly be no reason to put games there if somewhere like Chicago was actually in the running. Houston and Dallas are only 250 miles apart from each other and largely duplicative as far as this goes. From FIFA's perspective, what do you gain from putting two host sites in Texas? I can't imagine them putting every single game in a coastal state and completely ignoring 70 million people in the middle of the country. Stranger things have happened, but I don't see any logical reason for both to get hosting bids. It will almost certainly be one or the other.
"Houston and Dallas are only 250 miles apart from each other and largely duplicative as far as this goes. From FIFA's perspective, what do you gain from putting two host sites in Texas?"
This argument doesn't make sense. Texas is a big state. California will surely have 2 cities hosting, and NY and Boston are not that far apart, not to mention Washington D.C.
Proximity is actually an advantage from a fan perspective... much easier to follow your team between Houston and Dallas or Houston and Monterrey, rather than flying between Los Angeles and New York.
Kansas City is neither a lock nor is it a probable venue. Being directly in the middle of the country doesn’t give it any advantage especially considering that the USA population is smallest in that direction. For the Midwest argument, Ohio gets a better chance than Kansas City will. Cincinnati is far closer to more destinations without a stadium (Chicago, Detroit, St Louis, Pittsburgh, Memphis. It’s in the middle of all this. Dallas being close to KC doesn’t help either because wether Houston or Dallas or both get a stadium, there’s a stadium in Texas for either scenario. Kansas City is not only not a lock, it’s also unprobable.
Yes.
NY, LA and DC are locks. So is Atlanta (see the United's attendance). Sounds like Boston may be because of politics. Rest are open, but at LEAST one will be in Texas.
I have to go with jfre81 on this one. One of the goals of a US-based World Cup is to grow the game here. KC is a market that represents what both FIFA and US Soccer are trying to create in medium-sized cities across the country - actual soccer culture outside of recent immigrant groups. KC has a much better overall soccer culture than Houston or Cincinnati (or Dallas for that matter). People actually support their team there. Every single Sporting KC game sold out - they sold 105% of their seats in 2016 and 2017. I went to a game there last year on a business trip and it was a great experience. The Houston Dynamo's support? 79.5% of seats sold over the same two years. KC isn't some flyover burg with no soccer culture or fans - they like it better overall than they do here imo and they will support the World Cup. Cincinnati's team hasn't even started play in MLS yet - I don't see them getting anything whatsoever since the area hasn't developed any local soccer culture to speak of yet.
This is not to say that Houston would not be successful if chosen - we would, probably moreso than most of these cities to be honest. If the right teams play here we would likely sell the matches out, or at least come close. But at the same time I'm a Dynamo fan and go to games and they rarely sell out anymore. On top of that most of the fans there have likely always been soccer fans and are usually Hispanic - there's not a lot of evidence that the Dynamo have significantly grown the number of people here who are soccer fans, at least as far as I can see. Places like KC have done a much better job of attracting new fans for whatever reason. Houston doesn't have a broad-based soccer culture like a lot of other areas - it does well because of its ethnic populations from places that tend to play in these tournaments, but your average person on the street in Houston is not a big enough soccer fan to be checking for this.
For some game with relatively random teams like say, Paraguay vs. Ukraine, I'd expect somewhere like KC to do just as well as Houston in terms of attendance, if not better, if for no other reason than people there just like soccer, there's less things to do, and you have a potential market of several states where KC is the closest place for them to go if they want to see a World Cup game.
Also, international flights have these things called connections that go to places like KC. That won't matter at all - if there is a big game that happens to be there, people will get there. KC airport can handle extra flights and charters just fine. Additionally, KC is not close to Dallas, it's 500+ miles and an 8+ hour drive. Nothing location-wise would hurt it - its location probably helps it in all honesty because there would truly be no reason to put games there if somewhere like Chicago was actually in the running. Houston and Dallas are only 250 miles apart from each other and largely duplicative as far as this goes. From FIFA's perspective, what do you gain from putting two host sites in Texas? I can't imagine them putting every single game in a coastal state and completely ignoring 70 million people in the middle of the country. Stranger things have happened, but I don't see any logical reason for both to get hosting bids. It will almost certainly be one or the other.
I’m here to tell you right now, MLS support has little to nothing to do with international soccer competitions. Especially the World Cup. MLS fans and national team fans are parallel to eachother. Houston has one of the biggest soccer fan bases in terms of national teams. Kansas City doesn’t. FIFA prefers larger markets when it comes to hosting international soccer competitions. The only particular large market that has failed FIFA is Chicago. Which is half the reason the Soldier Field bid had an early rejection (the other half being that the stadium is outdated. This doesn’t only go for Houston. Philly, Miami, Orlando and Boston all have much more international fan bases than Kansas City and they’re ahead of KC in the bid as well. Even if these cities didn’t have MLS teams, they’d still be ahead of KC. Kansas City is close to last in chances of hosting the World Cup.
And while we are pulling up numbers, you do realize Copa America Centenario was a soft test of how international teams perform in USA stadiums. Houston and MetLife Stadium were the best performers. Seattle is the biggest MLS crowd so by your logic they should’ve beat Houston since the Dynamo struggle with attendance right? Well that was far from the case. In games where Mexico (the largest national team fan base in Houston) didn’t play, NRG nearly sold out consistently. Seattle and Phoenix were two of the worst performers there.
The MLS has NOTHING to do with international soccer. International soccer fans for the most part dislike the MLS and if there’s a correlation between MLS cities and Int-Soccer venues filling up stadiums, it would be negative if anything. Now looking more into, Philadelphia is close to last along with KC.
The MLS has NOTHING to do with international soccer. International soccer fans for the most part dislike the MLS and if there’s a correlation between MLS cities and Int-Soccer venues filling up stadiums, it would be negative if anything. Now looking more into, Philadelphia is close to last along with KC.
This last paragraph makes a lot of sense to me World Cup Soccer is very nationalistic and local MLS teams in various American cities are probably irrelevant to most World Cup fans..
Do people is Spain or Germany really care about MLS or even know that it exist ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
