Jump to content

Us To Bid For Wc 2018


Recommended Posts

Well, it looks like the battle for the 2018 WC is shaping up as a battle of the anglo nations _ England and Australia are planning to bid and now it does seeem, officially, that the US will be in the race as well.

U.S. planning bid to stage 2018 World Cup finals

WASHINGTON, Feb. 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Soccer Federation is preparing a bid to host the 2018 World Cup and will offer to serve as backup venue in 2014 if a South American country is unable to stage the event.

U.S. Soccer Federation (USSF) president Sunil Gulati was quoted in Tuesday's Washington Post saying that the federation will form an organising committee at this weekend's annual meeting in Los Angeles and prepare to formally advise world governing body FIFA of its intention to compete for the 2018 tournament.

England, who last staged the World Cup in 1966, has also expressed interest in staging the 2018 World Cup finals.

"We showed in 1994 that the U.S. is capable of hosting a terrific event," Gulati said in a telephone interview with the Post.

"Now, with the way the soccer landscape in this country has evolved, we would be in position to put on a spectacular event.

"We are much more a part of the sport internationally than we were in 1994."

Since the U.S. staged those finals the sport has slowly taken root in North America.

The 1994 World Cup established records for largest average game attendance (68,991) and provided the springboard for Major League Soccer, which grabbed the international spotlight last month when former England captain David Beckham signed a massive five-year $250 million deal to join the Los Angeles Galaxy.

The U.S. national team has become a regular World Cup finalist and many of the world's most popular teams stage off-season tours to U.S. playing to packed stadiums.

South Africa is set to host the 2010 World Cup and under FIFA's rotation system the tournament is scheduled to be held in South America in 2014 with Brazil and Colombia bidding.

FIFA, however, has expressed some concerns over whether any South America nation has the infrastructure and resources needed to host the extravaganza.

If South America were unable to stage the tournament, Gulati said the U.S. would be open to the idea of stepping into the breach.

"Obviously FIFA knows what we're capable of and, if something else changed, we would be open to any other possibilities," Gulati told the Post. "We've got some history and a track record."

And, it also does seem there is now some credence to the Baron's claim that the US is positioning as the 2014 Plan B host!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Brint it on! Should be a good race! Though the USA will be a great bid, I still feel both England and Australia have stronger cases out of the English speaking nations who are likely to bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brint it on! Should be a good race! Though the USA will be a great bid, I still feel both England and Australia have stronger cases out of the English speaking nations who are likely to bid.

It'll be between the US and the UK for 2018. But if Brazil can't get its act together by October this year, then I think the WC might be headed to the Yankee shores in 2014.

So, 2018 will get picked in 2011. Hmmm, I dunno, maybe the UK will have its hands full w/ London 2012. But if Brazil delivers in 2014, then 2018-2022 will go US-UK or UK-US.

(Sorry, Rol and Puppy, but they can't have the WC in 3 Southern Hemisphere settings in a row. I think OZ might have to wait for 2026 vying w/ China.) Ain't gonna happen before 2026 tho for Oz or China.

Link to post
Share on other sites
(Sorry, Rol and Puppy, but they can't have the WC in 3 Southern Hemisphere settings in a row. I think OZ might have to wait for 2026 vying w/ China.) Ain't gonna happen.

I'll be supporting any Oz bid to my fullest, though I possibly do agree that our chances will be stronger in the 2020s. Our biggest task at present is to nurture and continue the incredible momentum the game has built in Australia since last year's finals. A bit more solid success on international pitches, and our case would start to get that much stronger.

Still, let the battle begin!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay okay,the US can be back-up for 2014 if Rio fails to deliver! But if Rio comes good,then tough,the US will have to wait its turn.

They only staged it as recently as 1994 and that should be more than sufficient for a nation that's not even all that interested in football! England have been waiting since 1966.Clear enough?

I'd very much like to see Australia host its first World Cup but would respectfully ask you to wait until England gets the chance to host only its second one in 52 years! B)

I promise I will be fully backing an Australian bid for 2022!! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Okay okay,the US can be back-up for 2014 if Rio fails to deliver! But if Rio comes good,then tough,the US will have to wait its turn.

2. They only staged it as recently as 1994 and that should be more than sufficient for a nation that's not even all that interested in football!

1. Rio alone can't deliver. SO, I think 2014 might be heading north sooner than anyone thinks.

2. Excuse me, where is your one-time star, a certain bloke named Beckham, heading? :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that all three should host. England in 2018, the US in 2014 (if Brazil falls through) or 2022, Australia in 2022 (if Brazil 2014 fall through) or 2026.

People marveled at our stadia in 1994, and most of them have either been renovated, replaced, or are scheduled to be replaced. Also, the city selection for 1994 was smaller because many stadiums were shared with baseball teams, a situation that doesn't exist as frequently now.

My stadium selections would be:

Qwest Field (Seattle)

Rose Bowl (Pasadena)

49ers new stadium (Bay Area)

University of Phoenix Stadium

Cowboys new stadium (Dallas)

Soldier Field (Chicago)

Dolphins Stadium (Miami), the Marlins have to be out by 2010.

FedEx Field (Washington)

Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia)

new Meadowlands Stadium (NY/NJ)

Gillette Stadium (Foxborough/Boston)

Reliant Stadium (Houston)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that all three should host. England in 2018, the US in 2014 (if Brazil falls through) or 2022, Australia in 2022 (if Brazil 2014 fall through) or 2026.

People marveled at our stadia in 1994, and most of them have either been renovated, replaced, or are scheduled to be replaced. Also, the city selection for 1994 was smaller because many stadiums were shared with baseball teams, a situation that doesn't exist as frequently now.

My stadium selections would be:

Qwest Field (Seattle)

Rose Bowl (Pasadena)

49ers new stadium (Bay Area)

University of Phoenix Stadium

Cowboys new stadium (Dallas)

Soldier Field (Chicago)

Dolphins Stadium (Miami), the Marlins have to be out by 2010.

FedEx Field (Washington)

Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia)

new Meadowlands Stadium (NY/NJ)

Gillette Stadium (Foxborough/Boston)

Reliant Stadium (Houston)

Rose Bowl can't be used because its bench setting, not allowed by FIFA anymore.

Truthfully I think the fact that both the England and the USA would have recently hosted Olympics by 2018 could seriously hurt their chances and give it to China or Australia.

Most of the stadiums would need refurbishing by 2018 anyways.

Qwest Field - Seattle - 67,000 - 2002

New Stadium - Los Angeles - 80,000 - 2016ish

Mile High Stadium - Denver - 76,125 - 2001

University of Phoenix Stadium - Phoenix - 63,400 - 2006

Olympic Stadium - Chicago - 80 ot 90,000 - 2014ish

Reliant Stadium - Houston - 71,054 - 2002

New Stadium - Miami - 80,000 - 2016ish

Saints Stadium - New Orleans - 70,000 - 2008

Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia - 68,532 - 2003

FedEx Field - Landover - 91,704 - 1997

New Stadium - New York City - 90,000 - 2016ish

Gillette Stadium - Foxborough - 68,756 - 2002

This is probably the list that FIFA would accept. 12 stadiums used in 12 different states. Also the stadiums are relatively spread out. Also I think Houston would be chosen over Dallas because its bigger, more worldly appeal and is a nicer more cosmopolitan city.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rose Bowl can't be used because its bench setting, not allowed by FIFA anymore.

Truthfully I think the fact that both the England and the USA would have recently hosted Olympics by 2018 could seriously hurt their chances and give it to China or Australia.

Most of the stadiums would need refurbishing by 2018 anyways.

Qwest Field - Seattle - 67,000 - 2002

New Stadium - Los Angeles - 80,000 - 2016ish

Mile High Stadium - Denver - 76,125 - 2001

University of Phoenix Stadium - Phoenix - 63,400 - 2006

Olympic Stadium - Chicago - 80 ot 90,000 - 2014ish

Reliant Stadium - Houston - 71,054 - 2002

New Stadium - Miami - 80,000 - 2016ish

Saints Stadium - New Orleans - 70,000 - 2008

Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia - 68,532 - 2003

FedEx Field - Landover - 91,704 - 1997

New Stadium - New York City - 90,000 - 2016ish

Gillette Stadium - Foxborough - 68,756 - 2002

This is probably the list that FIFA would accept. 12 stadiums used in 12 different states. Also the stadiums are relatively spread out. Also I think Houston would be chosen over Dallas because its bigger, more worldly appeal and is a nicer more cosmopolitan city.

No, I would think they would keep most of the 1994 scenario intact. It worked very well in like, stationing the Italian team in NY/NJ; the Irish team in Boston; Poland/Ukraine in CHicago; Mexico probably in LA; the US in Columbus (where it has always done well). I'd say...

Opening match - Rose Bowl (maybe they'll change the bleachers to seats by then..)

Finals in the new Giants stadium in New York or Olympic Stadium in Chicago if they keep it for an extra 2 years.

Otehr venues:

- Gilette Stadium - Foxborough

- there has to be one in DC (for the Baltimore-Phila-DC megalogpolis)

- Bay Area (could be MacAfee Field - I think 65,000)

- OK, Houston -- but the weather will be wretched...

- 2 or 3 venues in LA (Rose Bowl and LA Memorial)

- Miami

- Columbus, Ohio

- Seattle (Qwest Field)

- 2 in Chicago (Solder Field and/or Olympic Stadium).

That's more than enough, and geographically spread out pretty well -- 3 Northeast, 2 South, 2 Midwest, and 3 West Coast, hitting all the major minroity cities. Denver will be nixed because of its high altitude.

Chicago should definitely get in the World CUp plan now so they can hold on to Olympic Stadium for another 2 years -- and thereby gain extra legacy points in their Olympic bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Excuse me, where is your one-time star, a certain bloke named Beckham, heading?

Well, I think you left yourself open to rebuttle there. Beckham is nowhere near the player he once was. He won't shine in the Premiership anymore, but will in the MLS which is equivilent to Championship football.

Truthfully I think the fact that both the England and the USA would have recently hosted Olympics by 2018 could seriously hurt their chances and give it to China or Australia.

Really, or are just hoping this will be the case? Germany and Mexico, and indeed the US all prove that countries can host World Cups and Olympics in quick succession. By 2018, I'm guessing (and yes, hoping) the overall feeling in FIFA will be to head back to Europe after two world cups in other parts of the world. And, I'm not being biased but I think England most definately has the strongest case of the Anglo bids for 2018:

USA: I can understand the USA offering to be back up for 2014, because I think they probably know that if 2014 is in S. America (as looks more than likely as far as I can see), it's unlikely 2018 will be in N. America!

Australia: Will FIFA really be inclined to have three "new frontier" World Cups in a row, and as Baron points out, three in the S. Hemishpere? Though I'm sure the Ozzies (not so sure about the Chinese) will create a great atmosphere, football is still a minority sport and this will harm Australia more than a recent Olympics will harm England. It depends a lot on how the national team do in the next few years as well.

England: General feeling in FIFA will be to give Europe a World Cup by this point, especially if preparations in Brazil and the experience of the 2010 Cup is anything less than satisfactory. England, as the only one of the "big 5" not to have hosted recently will be in a strong position if they bid and would more than likely be much stronger than any other European bid (unless Spain bids, which is a possibility I guess).

Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I would think they would keep most of the 1994 scenario intact. It worked very well in like, stationing the Italian team in NY/NJ; the Irish team in Boston; Poland/Ukraine in CHicago; Mexico probably in LA; the US in Columbus (where it has always done well). I'd say...

Opening match - Rose Bowl (maybe they'll change the bleachers to seats by then..)

Finals in the new Giants stadium in New York or Olympic Stadium in Chicago if they keep it for an extra 2 years.

Otehr venues:

- Gilette Stadium - Foxborough

- there has to be one in DC (for the Baltimore-Phila-DC megalogpolis)

- Bay Area (could be MacAfee Field - I think 65,000)

- OK, Houston -- but the weather will be wretched...

- 2 or 3 venues in LA (Rose Bowl and LA Memorial)

- Miami

- Columbus, Ohio

- Seattle (Qwest Field)

- 2 in Chicago (Solder Field and/or Olympic Stadium).

That's more than enough, and geographically spread out pretty well -- 3 Northeast, 2 South, 2 Midwest, and 3 West Coast, hitting all the major minroity cities. Denver will be nixed because of its high altitude.

Chicago should definitely get in the World CUp plan now so they can hold on to Olympic Stadium for another 2 years -- and thereby gain extra legacy points in their Olympic bid.

I think my list is more likely since its more spread out and in major cities. There won't be more then one stadium in any city for the US because of the number of 500,000+ cities is much greater then countries that would have to use their capital more then once.

With the capacity of the Landover stadium (Its in Washington suburb) it would be the site of the final.

It would be cheaper to build a new stadium in LA then to refurbish both the LAC and Rose Bowl

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two years ago the British here were being told by people here on Gamesbids that they stood no chance of being awarded hallmark events because it had been so long since they had hosted - now we're being told we can't have them because we're hosting too many! :blink:

The IOC and Fifa are separate entities - there's no reason why England can't be considered for the 2018 World Cup Finals. After breaking new ground in Africa in 2010 and visiting the most successful football nation in 2014, I think football deserves a trip home in 2018.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Two years ago the British here were being told by people here on Gamesbids that they stood no chance of being awarded hallmark events because it had been so long since they had hosted - now we're being told we can't have them because we're hosting too many! :blink:

The IOC and Fifa are separate entities - there's no reason why England can't be considered for the 2018 World Cup Finals. After breaking new ground in Africa in 2010 and visiting the most successful football nation in 2014, I think football deserves a trip home in 2018.

But there's no empty land around Wembley for the sponsor's party booths and souvenir stands. That's why. Unless you raze the neighborhoods around Wembley will the UK only have a realistic chance!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think my list is more likely since its more spread out and in major cities. There won't be more then one stadium in any city for the US because of the number of 500,000+ cities is much greater then countries that would have to use their capital more then once.

With the capacity of the Landover stadium (Its in Washington suburb) it would be the site of the final.

It would be cheaper to build a new stadium in LA then to refurbish both the LAC and Rose Bowl

Nope, Faster. Disagree.

1994 Opening match - Chicago; finals - LA.

Next time around: I think Opening in LA (west Coast); semi-finals in Chicago (Midwest) and Miami (the South). Finals in NYC (East Coast).

Oh, and the Bay Area would have 2 possible new venues too, aside from the Macfee Stadium in Oakland (hopefully by 2014-22) either the new 49er stadium in Santa Clara (min - 68,000) -- which would be closer to San Jose than SF; or a rebuilt Memorial Stadium at the UC-Berkeley campus. Of course, Stanford and perhaps the new Earthquakes stadium in Fremont could be ramped up to 60,000 capacities if the Org Committee so chooses.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But there's no empty land around Wembley for the sponsor's party booths and souvenir stands. That's why. Unless you raze the neighborhoods around Wembley will the UK only have a realistic chance!!

Can't this topic be discussed in a sensible manner and not have a load of piffle that has no basis in reality please? I mean, have you been to Wembley, or any other English stadium recently?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try answering the point will you, for once? You're talking about something which has little or no basis in reality, which you would know had you actually either researched the issue or visited any of the grounds concerned recently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But there's no empty land around Wembley for the sponsor's party booths and souvenir stands. That's why. Unless you raze the neighborhoods around Wembley will the UK only have a realistic chance!!

At the risk of taking your ridiculous reasoning seriously, I want to show you this:

Proposals for site surrounding Wembley

PiazzaView.jpg

aerial-dusk.jpg

Happy?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...