Photo by ISIphotos.com
U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati has scheduled a conference call for Monday to announce U.S. Soccer's bid intentions for the upcoming FIFA World Cups. Gulati will reveal which World Cup U.S. Soccer will make a bid for (2018 or 2022) and will also introduce Executive Director of the bid committee.
Which World Cup will it be? The USSF is set to bid on both World Cups. The United States had long been considered a strong candidate for 2018, but with the deep field of contenders for that World Cup the United States could eventually wind up shifting its directions toward 2022.
As strange as it is to be talking about an event that is 13 years away, we can still start to think about which tournament would be better for the United States. Might the current state of the American economy make pushing back the target bid more prudent? Should the USSF stay in the 2018 race and try and knock off the likes of England?
What do you think? Here's your chance to vote:
Which World Cup would you like to see the United States bid on? Share your thoughts below.
Let’s start picking who will be in on the team in 2022……
2022 Would be the dopest 40th Birthday Present EVER!
I’ll still go to either World Cup though.
England will get 2018 so it seems a bit of a lost cause to go for that.
However, I can’t see how the state of the economy would affect the US bid more than any other? England’s economy and Europe in general is in far worse shape. By the end of next this year it’s possible that the Pound will be worth less than a dollar which hasn’t happened in god knows how long.
2018 WC belongs to Europe. Let’s not waste any time and go full steam for 2022.
2022. Support England for 2018 and have them return the favor in 2022.
FIFA has never skipped Europe more than once for hosting the world cup. Now that South Africa and Brazil have the next two, there’s NO WAY they’re going to skip Europe three times. 2018 is going to either England or Spain. 2022 is going to North America or Asia and I’m betting on a showdown between the US and China for it. Whichever of the two makes the most sense financially and can develop the game most. Honestly… I think 2022 or 2026 is more realistic.
They don’t have to choose if they don’t want to. FIFA has open the way to combined bidding, so if an association so chooses, they can submit a bid a bid for 2018, 2022, or both. The link below is the FIFA press release confirm the combined bidding process.
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/federation/bodies/media/newsid=983481.html
TimN,
That’s an easy one to answer, because CONCACAF has far less influence and credibility in FIFA when compared to that which is exercised by UEFA.
I just think that we shouldn’t let ourselves fall into the mindset that the US is guaranteed the 2022 WC or that we somehow “deserve” it. There are many obstacles, including the corrupt and unpopular Jack Warner leading CONCACAF, strong bids from other emerging footballing markets (China, Australia, Qatar), and the lingering negative perception of the US globally (though this has started to subside)…
In the last 10 years, Europe has hosted the WC twice, 98′ and 06′. The last CONCACAF host was the U.S. in 94′. Why should CONCACAF have to wait 28 YEARS to host in 2022??? It makes no sense, not to mention that as of others have pointed out, there will be no shortage of funds, the infrastructure is already in place, and we have already hosted a WC that actually made money.
i just don’t want to wait until im 32 to attend a world cup. so i say bid on 2018!
There is simply no way that it does not go to Europe in 2018.
I say make a strong bid for 2018. We are just as credible as any of the European contenders. Even if we don’t win in the end, by making a strong bid in 2018, we can clear the field for 2022, by reaching some sort of agreement with FIFA and/or EUFA, who will be looking out for European interests.
Another issue is if the Cup goes to England in 2018, what is the chances FIFA (never a lover of the Anglo-Saxon tradition) gives CONSECUTIVE WORLD CUPS TO TWO ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES. This has to be a huge issue.
First of all, great posts Rob.
Secondly, going for 2018 is like praying for Jesus to return. It ain’t gonna happen. Europe is almost already assured of getting the WC in 2018. South Africa and Brazil are the first back-to-back WCs outside of Europe, ever. If it doesn’t go back to Europe for 2018, I will be shocked.
Once Europe (probably England) hosts in 2018, that eliminates UEFA from hosting for 2022 and 2026 (unless the rules are changed again). That opens up a wide gap for the US to fill, and I’d bet they slot us in for 2022, and then perhaps Australia for 2026.
2018 won’t happen for the US.
I vote for England in 2018 and the U.S. 2022. I just think it would be awesome to experience the World Cup in England. I was in Germany in 2006 and that type of atmosphere can never be duplicated here in the U.S. I think it would still be enjoyable to have it here, but waiting 4 years would be worth it.
“They regionalized the ’94 tournament essentially as you described and it posed large logistical problems. Time zones for one. One time zone means broadcasting around the world games that start at set times. 4 times zones means games start at all sorts or times OR you have games starting at different times which causes problems for stadiums and players routines. Long flights are another. Not just for teams but for journalists as well. Part of why the Olimpics is limited to one city/region.
It all worked out in the end, but I know FIFA in hindsight was not happy. Hence, my suggestion.”
They regionalized it, but to say they did it “essentially as I described” is incorrect. Partially because they could not. Remember, in 94, some 3rd place teams got into the 2nd round. This meant that 2nd round pairings could not be as easily predicted as now, since one match could end up having teams from up to four different groups (of the six groups at the time).
In the second round, Argentina played in Pasadena, after playing their first round in Boston and Dallas. Saudi Arabia and Sweden played in Dallas, after playing their first round games in NY/DC and LA/Detroit respectively. Similar complaints can be made by Mexico, Bulgaria, Belgium, Switzerland and Spain.
Furthermore, the way they regionalized it was less “regional” than you’d expect. Groups A&B played in LA, SF, and Detroit. C&D PLayed in Chicago, Dallas and Boston. E&F played in NY, DC and Orlando.
As you can see, each pairing had one city that really didn’t make sense. If you eliminate that (which is certainly feasable, especially now that more venues would be used), combined with the 3rd place “wildcard” teams, you’ve eliminated a lot of the hassle.
The time zones are not a challenge. Basically, you’ve got three kick-off times. Set it up so that on the west coast, the earliest kick off would be noon. So you’ve got noon, 3 and 6. That makes the east coast 3, 6, and 9. those are the times they used in Germany, and it worked out fine. And, because you’ve regionalized it, it’s not as though you’ll need to worry about lining up simultaneous kickoffs for the last group games–since these will almost always be played within the same time zone.
Furthermore, as has been mentioned, Brazil has already been given approval for the use of 12 host cities, which will probably set a precedent going forward. There’s no one time zone in the US that has 12 world class stadia that are big enough for the World Cup (remembering that FIFA requires more space for these than regular international dates), especially since they would want them to be in major markets (so, basically, you’re looking at NFL stadiums, rather than large college ones in smaller towns).
As for your claim that this is part of why the Olympics are held in a single city, it’s a bit off base. The reason the Olympics are like that is because they used to be much smaller than they are today. The one-city mentality is carried on as a tradition…just like spreading the World Cup out across a country is also a tradition.
2022 The big thing at world cups the movement of people to and from games. Lets say group A is in San Diego, LA And SF. Right now movement between the three cities is either by car or plane. and with the type of security these airports have and delays. It becomes a huge turn-off to visiting Europeans and Asians. A lot of our cities are very car dependent. Cities on the east coast wont have issues with this but due to their built up transit systems. But west coast cities will. By 2022 LA and SF will be connected by highspeed rail. and both cities would have seen major expansions to their public transportation systems. If we win the 2018 bid, then the majority of the tournament should be on the east coast. With one group held out on the west coast.
Please remember, FIFA intentionally cancelled the rotation policy which would have almost guaranteed the US the 2018 Cup. So, the likelihood is this was done so that the Cup could be held in Europe, 2 in a row away from Europe is all they can stand. So, 2018 will be back in Europe. Therefore, we need to bid for 2022. I’d rather have the 2018 WC here, but think there is almost no chance of that.
the us, england, and germany have the best infrastructure (stadiums, transport, etc…) for the world cup. that means, its alot easier for us three to host a world cup, no nervousness about funding like in south africa and brazil.
england 2018
usa 2022
spain/portugal 2026
maybe we can include canada in our bid. i think that would help us out.
I think US should big for 2018. Last time US hosted, it was a great success. Plus we have the infrastructure currently in place without having to worry about adding new stadiums, etc. Plus look at the marketing revenue a world cup can generate in the US, and the boost it will give to MLS.
Just to hi-jack this thread a little:
I’ve read Beasley (soccertimes) and Dolo (yanks abroad) are nicked up. Not sure how bad for each and if it keeps them out of camp. But, that would shake thing up for our line-up…. Not going to miss Beasley and as I’ve stated previously, I don’t think he was match fit anyways. Dolo will be missed however. Heydude is probably not in shape and Wynne is still a liability.
Then, extended forecast for Columbus on the 11th: Hi 34, Low 13 with periods of snow
F*ck waiting for 2022, screw england, those euro trash have had their world cups, this was supposed to be a CONCACAF cup. The USA hosted the most successful world cup in history, now we have our own league and our better fans and teams. A 2018 cup would be an amazing boon for MLS and the game in this country. If Fifa wasn’t as corrupt as all hell this would be in the USA like it was supposed to be before the ended their rotation policy. This is the WORLD Cup not the Euro’s, they just hosted and need to wait their friggen turn like everyone else, I dont care how many kickbacks or bribe money is thrown their way.
Ives, I’m getting a little ahead here, but it seems like the situation is, the US is a long shot for 2018, but nearly a lock for 2022 if they support someone else’s 2018 bid. If that’s the situation the US must support someone else’s bid in 2018 and lock up the 2022 World Cup for the US. Let’s not get get greedy and take a chance on 2018, when 2022 can be a lock.
OK, on further review, maybe not the US in Dallas. That is if we have fellow Western Hemisphere’ers in our group.
Rob-
They regionalized the ’94 tournament essentially as you described and it posed large logistical problems. Time zones for one. One time zone means broadcasting around the world games that start at set times. 4 times zones means games start at all sorts or times OR you have games starting at different times which causes problems for stadiums and players routines. Long flights are another. Not just for teams but for journalists as well. Part of why the Olimpics is limited to one city/region.
It all worked out in the end, but I know FIFA in hindsight was not happy. Hence, my suggestion.
As long as they play some US matches in the new Cowboys stadium, I’ll be happy.
Folks, this is ALL ABOUT MONEY. Make no mistake about it. It has NOTHING to do with who “deserves” to host it. The WC in 1994 was one of the few that actually made money, and FIFA will consider that, more than some of you think. We should bid for both dates and see what happens. Either is a viable option. As well, this time around we have more soccer specific stadiums that would make the U.S. an even more enticing option.
“SH** you know Im going to be 33 by the time 2022 rolls around!”
Yeah. Tought times, kid. I’ll be 44. I’m assuming I’ll be making more money than I am currently, so acquiring tickets shouldn’t be too much of a problem. =]
FIFA announced this week that Brazil 2014 will have 12 host cities, so the notion of a regionalized US WC is probably a nonstarter. I’d like to see the WC here in 2018, but 2022 should be an absolute lock, with 2026 possibly going to Asia or Austrailia.
go for 2018 first and if it failes, 2022 is a lock.
9 years is a long time. economic concerns don’t matter — it’ll be over in 9 years. And most of the stadiums are already built or will be soon. So there’s almost no infrastructure that needs to be built.
you also want a push for American soccer sooner rather than later. Sure there are strategic reasons to wait for 2022, but I don’t see how waiting four extra years is ever good when it comes to building the sport in America.
We should wait for 2022. 2018 in all likelihood is going to Europe, with credible bids emanating from England (the frontrunner), Spain/Portugal, and Russia and a lesser bid from the Benelux states.
A 2022 bid will still face pretty stiff competition, with the Chinese and Aussies likely presenting strong and credible bids for Asia. Canada and Indonesia will likely bid to, but has no chance with the US, China, and Austraila in the mix.
The one big wrench that could be thrown into things is if the Aussie or Qatari bids are successful, making WC 2022 a lock to go to Europe.
Either year, I hope Chicago’s Olympic bid fails and we push hard to host matches again, as well as the final. If the Chicago Clout Machine ever warmed up to this idea, I wouldn’t be surprised if they can find a way to get it done one way or another.
“SH** you know Im going to be 33 by the time 2022 rolls around!”
Gee, cameron, I’m weeping for you! 🙂
I have read in articles that you can bid for both…so there is no need to choose one or the other. England is no lock b/c the Euro vote might get split with four bids looking specifically at 2018. I think it will be difficult for us to get one of the two. I figure Europe will get one, and China or Australia will get the other…
“Also, it would be wise to limit the stadium sites in the bid to either east or west coasts. Not spread out all over like ’94. That was one of the big complaints. Forces US fans to travel, but makes for better soccer all around. If the Olympics can be limited to one city, surely the WC can be limited to one coast. IMO”
Disagree. It needs to be a nationwide tournament. For one thing, our biggest cities, and the cities most people want to come to, are spread out. For another, trying to make it a west coast or east coast tournament limits the number of venues you can use (and there are incredible stadiums newly built or being built in many different parts of the country).
The solution, IMO, is to “regionalize” the tournament early on. Split the country into four regions (northeast, south, central, west for example). Each region has three venues. Groups A&B play all of their first round games in one region, C&D in the next region, etc. Then those same two groups match up for the second round games. This drastically cuts travel for fans and players early on (imagine if your first four games are all played in Boston, New York, and Philly). Eventually, more travel will need to take place, but this still puts in on a national level, while reducing a lot of travel.
This is basically the same model as was used for Euro 2008, where two groups played in Austria, and the other two in Switzerland. This is just doubling it based on the size of the country and the number of teams.
2022 All the way.
We are getting better as a National Team every cycle, be patient and give it THREE more cycles, and put the WC on home soil… I’m liking our chances. (Dude, Freddy Adu will be 32!)
MILKSHAKE has a good idea: if all USA matches were in one city, or say southern California (LA and San Diego) or the Northeast (Philly, DC, NYC) all US fans could converge for huge USA crowds at each match.
If you can, bid for both.
However I’d like to see 2018 in England.
The advantage for the 2022 World Cup is, that at least 1 strong candidate will already be eliminated (the lucky 2018 hoster)
“Might the current state of the American economy make pushing back the target bid more prudent?”
Every other country’s economy is in the crapper too. But that really should not have too much of an impact with respect to countries like the US and England, where massive infrastructure doesn’t have to be built from scratch.
Be selfish, we take 2018! Think of what it could do for soccer here in the states. We are on the verge of an explosion and need the world cup to set it off. It could only help the economy, if you build it, they will come!
Its not about whose turn it is, it’s all about money…and the fact of the matter is that no one has the stadiums of the capacity like the US.
Does anyone know when Sepp’s term is over, i’m guess he wants to line up the next 2 world cups because his and his boys terms are up and this is two more that he can get kick backs from.
I think while he is at it why not pick 2026 so Jack can retire and not have to worry about money ever again.
The fact that countries like Mexico (and absolutely no offence intended on this) has had the World Cup twice and England hasn’t is a bad joke. For the US to get it ahead of them would add insult to injury. England invented the sport and is a past winner, yet we’ve not really been in the running at all in half a century. 2018 NEEDS to be England’s turn.
I’m all for 2022 for the US.
You know the Europeans will be having severe withdrawals symptoms by 2018, what with South Africa and Brazil next up. England hasn’t hosted since 1966 so you can be sure that they will be lobbying hard for it.
It just makes the most sense to go for 2022 even though none of us have a crystal ball as to how we might fare in such a tourney. Heck, 3/4 of the players from the pool will be gone by then. Kids like Gyau and Renken will be considered old vets.
I think FIFA is just getting way too ahead of themselves…
Bid for both. It will be hard to get 2018 because of England but I still think financially we are the best bet out there.
Why not bib on both? Also, it would be wise to limit the stadium sites in the bid to either east or west coasts. Not spread out all over like ’94. That was one of the big complaints. Forces US fans to travel, but makes for better soccer all around. If the Olympics can be limited to one city, surely the WC can be limited to one coast. IMO
Either is fine as long as it returns to the United States in my lifetime.
SH** you know Im going to be 33 by the time 2022 rolls around!
American Soccer News is reporting that we are bidding on both.
http://american-soccer-news.com/?p=1533
2022. That way I can take my future child(ren) to the game.
I thought that if you bid for one, you bid for the second?
Let the others fight over 2018, make a solid bid for 2022.