Author Topic: USA bidding for 2018 and 2022 World Cups (Read 5733 times)

royalian · « **on:** January 29, 2009, 09:24:53 AM »

Details to be released in a Press Conference on February 2.

CHICAGO (Jan. 29, 2009) – U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati will discuss the Federation’s intentions to submit a simultaneous bid to FIFA for the 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups on Monday, Feb. 2 at 3 p.m. ET. Gulati will also introduce the Executive Director of the USA Bid Committee.

FIFA set Monday, Feb. 2, as the deadline for federations to submit the official paperwork expressing their interest to bid for either or both of the competitions. FIFA emphasized that at this initial stage in the bidding process, the only requirement is for countries to be able to demonstrate their ability to host a sporting event as large as the FIFA World Cup.

acb · « **Reply #1 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:17:36 AM »

Interesting .... because I don't know too many countries right now that can commit to such a huge budget expense in the global recession that will not be drying up soon.

I wonder what are the odds on USA hosting it back-to-back in both 2018 and 2022.

Bitter · « **Reply #2 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:46:55 AM »

I think the idea is more to get one out of the 2.
I also think that there are several countries that can handle a world cup on short notice.

At it's core, it comes down to simple requirements. Stadia, transport, accommodation, security.

Everything else is a bonus.

JDB · « **Reply #3 on:** January 29, 2009, 10:54:56 AM »

Quote from: Bitter on January 29, 2009, 10:46:55 AM

I think the idea is more to get one out of the 2.
I also think that there are several countries that can handle a world cup on short notice.

At it's core, it comes down to simple requirements. Stadia, transport, accommodation, security.

Everything else is a bonus.

Yeah a WC is guaranteed money fo ra developed country and it is easy to finance.

Hope that the US gets one of them as I missed the one in '94.

capodetutticapi · « **Reply #4 on:** January 29, 2009, 11:21:30 AM »

i tink they will definitly nail one.

triniairman · « **Reply #5 on:** January 29, 2009, 12:05:26 PM »

Quote from: capodetutticapi on January 29, 2009, 11:21:30 AM

i tink they will definitly nail one.

I pray they bag up one..

Andre · « **Reply #6 on:** January 29, 2009, 12:17:29 PM »

mexico and canada bidding for 2018 too.

i hope mexico get it as it go be the cheapest trip of the 3...even though i living in the US it go still be cheaper.

of all the countries bidding, US = biggest stadiums = more tickets sold = more money for FIFA.

allyuh know wha dat mean.

At least three countries from Asia’s soccer group— Australia, Qatar and Indonesia—will bid for the 2018 World Cup.

Indonesia announced its candidacy Wednesday, and China and Japan were expected to follow in the coming days. All prospective hosts for both the 2018 and 2022 events must notify FIFA by Feb. 2, with the winners announced in December 2010.

The European bidders—England, Spain/Portugal, Netherlands/Belgium/Luxembourg and Russia—hold an advantage in a time of financial austerity. Existing stadiums would allow them to host a World Cup without much additional investment. The same can be said of the likely North American bidders: the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The 2010 World Cup is in South Africa and the 2014 tournament is in Brazil.

jr sams · « **Reply #7 on:** January 29, 2009, 01:35:04 PM »

Quote from: Andre on January 29, 2009, 12:17:29 PM

mexico and canada bidding for 2018 too.

The European bidders—England, Spain/Portugal, Netherlands/Belgium/Luxembourg and Russia—hold an advantage in a time of financial austerity. Existing stadiums would allow them to host a World Cup without much additional investment. The same can be said of the likely North American bidders: the United States, Canada and Mexico.

The 2010 World Cup is in South Africa and the 2014 tournament is in Brazil.[/i]

Canada probably has 2 stadia at best, in BC and Edmonton, that could be used for World Cup finals.. The others including the one in Toronto which is home based for TFC, nowhere near the capacity of what FIFA would most likely require as minimum. Plus, the Toronto field is artificial turf. Canada will have to build at least two or three more big stadia.

Andre · « **Reply #8 on:** January 29, 2009, 01:49:14 PM »

wha about oz?

wha they have down there apart from the big one in sydney.

nunu · « **Reply #9 on:** January 29, 2009, 01:51:27 PM »

Canada probably has 2 stadia at best, in BC and Edmonton, that could be used for World Cup finals.. The others including the one in Toronto which is home based for TFC, nowhere near the capacity of what FIFA would most likely require as minimum. Plus, the Toronto field is artificial turf. Canada will have to build at least two or three more big stadia.
[/quote]

South Africa was nowhere near canada interms of infrastructure couple years ago .
they took under 5 years to bring there facilities to current standards ....
Canada can do so too , I would like them to be given a chance. USA

acb · « **Reply #10 on:** January 29, 2009, 01:55:25 PM »

Quote from: Andre on January 29, 2009, 01:49:14 PM

wha about oz?

wha they have down there apart from the big one in sydney.

lots of rugby facilities that can be converted to football.

they also have their pro league ... but not sure of capacity and if they're football specific stadia.

WestCoast · « **Reply #11 on:** January 29, 2009, 01:56:58 PM »

Quote from: acb on January 29, 2009, 01:55:25 PM

Quote from: Andre on January 29, 2009, 01:49:14 PM
wha about oz?

wha they have down there apart from the big one in sydney.

lots of rugby facilities that can be converted to football.

they also have their pro league ... but not sure of capacity and if they're football specific stadia.

also Aussie rules football stadiums
List of grounds

acb · « **Reply #12 on:** January 29, 2009, 02:02:46 PM »

Quote from: WestCoast on January 29, 2009, 01:56:58 PM

Quote from: acb on January 29, 2009, 01:55:25 PM
Quote from: Andre on January 29, 2009, 01:49:14 PM
wha about oz?

wha they have down there apart from the big one in sydney.

lots of rugby facilities that can be converted to football.

they also have their pro league ... but not sure of capacity and if they're football specific stadia.
also Aussie rules football stadiums
some attendance records

Only thing I see with that is that I does watch too much LOST to not be paranoid about a cross-Pacific trip to and from Oz ... but I doh necessarily see it as a bad thing - once it have nuff girls hot like Kate on the flight.

Deeks · « **Reply #13 on:** January 29, 2009, 04:24:32 PM »

We know Canada has better infrastructure than SA, but they will not given the WC alone. They probably can host with the US.

acb · « **Reply #14 on:** January 29, 2009, 04:27:37 PM »

Quote from: Deeks on January 29, 2009, 04:24:32 PM

We know Canada has better infrastructure than SA, but they will not given the WC alone. They probably can host with the US.

wouldn't that mean that Canada and the US would automatically qualify for the WC?
I don't see that happening.

Japan/ Korea could make the WC on their own merit.
Canada, not so quick.

Deeks · « **Reply #15 on:** January 29, 2009, 05:47:15 PM »

Sure US and Canda will be given a free pass. Canada has been to the WC before in Mex2. They earned it.

Tenorsaw · « **Reply #16 on:** January 29, 2009, 06:14:09 PM »

Quote from: acb on January 29, 2009, 10:17:36 AM

Interesting .... because I don't know too many countries right now that can commit to such a huge budget expense in the global recession that will not be drying up soon.

I wonder what are the odds on USA hosting it back-to-back in both 2018 and 2022.

I think the idea is to win one of the bids. Can't see Fifa awarding two consecutive bids to the same country.

nunu · « **Reply #17 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:25:52 AM »

Quote from: Deeks on January 29, 2009, 05:47:15 PM

Sure US and Canda will be given a free pass. Canada has been to the WC before in Mex2. They earned it.

The USA hosted 1994 world cup , England deserve a chance ,
or even Canada. Now have not mention other worldly host like China , Russia , Spain , Italy ,
Mexico , Holland-Belgium , Sweden ,Norway , Portugal and Egypt . Too many potential host countries are
out there .

For Canada and USA to jointly host a world cup The Confederation that is , concacaf allocated places will
depreciate . Example out of 3.5 or 3.25 places we only get 2 and a fraction .

acb · « **Reply #18 on:** January 30, 2009, 10:39:02 AM »

Quote from: CaribMan on January 30, 2009, 10:25:52 AM

For Canada and USA to jointly host a world cup The Confederation that is , concacaf allocated places
depreciate . Example out of 3.5 or 3.25 places we only get 2 and a fraction .

That means whoever come third will have to play two sets of knockout home-away qualifiers?
How did Japan/Korea pull theirs off with regards to the spots from their confederation?

The reason why I said earlier that Canada wouldn't be able to qualify on their own was due to their recent run in qualifying for World Cups.

I don't think that Canada would qualify for the WC out of Concacaf ahead of Mexico, US, Costa Rica, TT, Honduras, El Salvador Jamaica ... maybe even Haiti, Martinique ahead of them.

Recently we've had USA, France, Korea/Japan, Germany ... South Africa & Brasil is coming: Teams that on their own would usually qualify for the World Cup without the aid of a free ride courtesy hosting the WC.

nunu · « **Reply #19 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:00:25 AM »

Quote from: acb on January 30, 2009, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: CaribMan on January 30, 2009, 10:25:52 AM
For Canada and USA to jointly host a world cup The Confederation that is , concacaf allocated places
depreciate . Example out of 3.5 or 3.25 places we only get 2 and a fraction .

That means whoever come third will have to play two sets of knockout home-away qualifiers?
How did Japan/Korea pull theirs off with regards to the spots from their confederation?

2 and a fraction means 2.25 , with third place playing into a series of Intercontinental playoffs . Yes ! u r correct . In 2002 maybe an extra place was given , But !!!! In concacaf that may not be the case .
Other confederations dislike us having more than 3 places . So for USA and Canada to jointly host
a World Cup finals they get 2 places + another 2.25 for Teams to play for , atleast 4.25 places must
be awarded If USA and Canada should jointly host a World Cup .

de_redman · « **Reply #20 on:** January 30, 2009, 11:36:54 AM »

Quote from: acb on January 30, 2009, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: CaribMan on January 30, 2009, 10:25:52 AM
For Canada and USA to jointly host a world cup The Confederation that is , concacaf allocated places
depreciate . Example out of 3.5 or 3.25 places we only get 2 and a fraction .

That means whoever come third will have to play two sets of knockout home-away qualifiers?
How did Japan/Korea pull theirs off with regards to the spots from their confederation?

The reason why I said earlier that Canada wouldn't be able to qualify on their own was due to their recent run in qualifying for World Cups.

I don't think that Canada would qualify for the WC out of Concacaf ahead of Mexico, US, Costa Rica, TT, Honduras, El Salvador Jamaica ... maybe even Haiti, Martinique ahead of them.

Recently we've had USA, France, Korea/Japan, Germany ... South Africa & Brasil is coming: Teams that on their own would usually qualify for the World Cup without the aid of a free ride courtesy hosting the WC.

South Africa isn't any sure bet for any world cup.... it is a good thing they don't have to qualify for this one... they could not score a goal in the african nations cup in 2006 and get some good boo in the airport.

elan · « **Reply #21 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:23:14 PM »

Quote from: acb on January 30, 2009, 10:39:02 AM

Quote from: CaribMan on January 30, 2009, 10:25:52 AM
For Canada and USA to jointly host a world cup The Confederation that is , concacaf allocated places
depreciate . Example out of 3.5 or 3.25 places we only get 2 and a fraction .

That means whoever come third will have to play two sets of knockout home-away qualifiers?
How did Japan/Korea pull theirs off with regards to the spots from their confederation?

The reason why I said earlier that Canada wouldn't be able to qualify on their own was due to their recent run in qualifying for World Cups.

I don't think that Canada would qualify for the WC out of Concacaf ahead of Mexico, US, Costa Rica, TT, Honduras, El Salvador Jamaica ... maybe even Haiti, Martinique ahead of them.

Recently we've had USA, France, Korea/Japan, Germany ... South Africa & Brasil is coming: Teams that on their own would usually qualify for the World Cup without the aid of a free ride courtesy hosting the WC.

You serious about that? In CONCACAF Canada have just as good if not better chance than El Salvador, Honduras, Jamaica, Haiti, Martinique and yes T&T. What if our group was reverse with Canada before the Hex.

Lower St. John · « **Reply #22 on:** January 30, 2009, 01:41:20 PM »

Having experienced Germany 2006, I can say with a reference point that USA 1994 SUCKED. Imagine walking to RFK Stadium to see Mexico versus Italy in the first rounds and folks living within a stone throw of the stadium asking "What is the occasion?" Likewise, there was no atmosphere in New York/New Jersey for the quarterfinals Bulgaria vs Germany. Most folks were not even aware of the game taking place or the reason for the crowds in Port Authority. I know we are talking 20 years later but football or soccer does not capture the country. Experiencing a World Cup in a nation where folks eat and sleep football is the greatest.

One thing for certain FIFA will make money hosting in the US (most major events have - Olympics, WC 94).

Blessings

Deeks · « **Reply #23 on:** January 30, 2009, 04:17:38 PM »

Aye St. John,
I don't know about you, I enjoyed USA 94. Yes, the rythm section was missing, but it was great. If the locals don't understand, what can you say, you can't force the horse to drink water. Bring it back the US. Lets hope TT makes it this time. It go be Bechenelle!!!!!!

E-man · « **Reply #24 on:** January 30, 2009, 04:34:11 PM »

Quote from: Deeks on January 30, 2009, 04:17:38 PM

Aye St. John,
I don't know about you, I enjoyed USA 94. Yes, the rythm section was missing, but it was great. If the locals don't understand, what can you say, you can't force the horse to drink water. Bring it back the US. Lets hope TT makes it this time. It go be Bechenelle!!!!!!

I had a good time with it, but I was working with a company full of Europeans at the time, so everyone was tuned into it. But if it comes back, they could really implement the fan zone idea as in Germany - Times Square, and other city plazas and it could be much better.

dervaig · « **Reply #25 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:20:04 PM »

FIFA is all about money, period, the end!

Mr. Warner will throw his backing behind the US
for either '18 and/or '22.

The most financially successful World Cup to date was in
'94.
FIFA did not have to spend a dime on developing
stadia, there was not need for additional housing
in any of the host cities, and mass transit was
available en masse.

I went to the games in Orlando. The Dutch, the Irish,
the Mexicans were there in droves.
I went to the semi-final and final in the Rose Bowl,
the organization and show was okay, but I can guarantee
you, when (not if) it comes to the US again, it WILL
be a show, and like in '94, a huge success.

JDB · « **Reply #26 on:** January 30, 2009, 05:50:08 PM »

Quote from: E-man on January 30, 2009, 04:34:11 PM

Quote from: Deeks on January 30, 2009, 04:17:38 PM
Aye St. John,
I don't know about you, I enjoyed USA 94. Yes, the rythm section was missing, but it was great. If the locals don't understand, what can you say, you can't force the horse to drink water. Bring it back the US. Lets hope TT makes it this time. It go be Bechenelle!!!!!!

I had a good time with it, but I was working with a company full of Europeans at the time, so everyone was tuned into it. But if it comes back, they could really implement the fan zone idea as in Germany - Times Square, and other city plazas and it could be much better.

With or without the atmosphere it would be much more accessible for the majority of people, not based in Europe.

Bakes · « **Reply #27 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:03:17 PM »

Quote from: Lower St. John on January 30, 2009, 01:41:20 PM

Having experienced Germany 2006, I can say with a reference point that USA 1994 SUCKED. Imagine walking to RFK Stadium to see Mexico versus Italy in the first rounds and folks living within a stone throw of the stadium asking "What is the occasion?" Likewise, there was no atmosphere in New York/New Jersey for the quarterfinals Bulgaria vs Germany. Most folks were not even aware of the game taking place or the reason for the crowds in Port Authority. I know we are talking 20 years later but football or soccer does not capture the country. Experiencing a World Cup in a nation where folks eat and sleep football is the greatest.

One thing for certain FIFA will make money hosting in the US (most major events have - Olympics, WC 94).

Blessings

You coulda just post this and hush yuh ass on the rest... for real. Soccer did not even have a profile in this country when the US hosted the WC back in 1994, and RFK is located in the middle of a black working class neighborhood. If it ent the Washington Redskins dem people wouldn't know what was happening inside dat stadium so yuh can't use that solitary experience as a gauge.

Since then not only has there been the establishment of a successful professional soccer league in the US, but one of it's more successful franchises is DC United... all you have to do is visit RFK on game day to see the level of excitement outside of and inside the stadium. Support is still hard to come by in the neighborhood, but the team draws crowds from suburban MD and VA and for years has been near the top of the league in attendance. DC United aside... US Soccer has built many soccer-specific stadia around the country, including Toyota Park (Chicago), Robertson Stadium (Houston), Columbus Crew Stadium etc.

The soccer landscape is nowhere as desolate as it was 15 yrs ago and with continued exposure on mainstream media here in the US the sport is poised to explode in popularity over the course of the next couple yrs... especially if ESPN gets the US broadcast rights to the EPL. I understand that people would like to see a national level of excitement more on par with a Germany, Spain or Mexico, but that is not a prerequisite for a successful World Cup games, and it's the fans inside and outside of the stadium who make the games exciting... not whether the rest of the country shuts down and get caught up as well.

Mango Chow! · « **Reply #28 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:34:22 PM »

Quote from: Bake n Shark on January 30, 2009, 06:03:17 PM

Quote from: Lower St. John on January 30, 2009, 01:41:20 PM
Having experienced Germany 2006, I can say with a reference point that USA 1994 SUCKED. Imagine walking to RFK Stadium to see Mexico versus Italy in the first rounds and folks living within a stone throw of the stadium asking "What is the occasion?" Likewise, there was no atmosphere in New York/New Jersey for the quarterfinals Bulgaria vs Germany. Most folks were not even aware of the game taking place or the reason for the crowds in Port Authority. I know we are talking 20 years later but football or soccer does not capture the country. Experiencing a World Cup in a nation where folks eat and sleep football is the greatest.

One thing for certain FIFA will make money hosting in the US (most major events have - Olympics, WC 94).

Blessings

You coulda just post this and hush yuh ass on the rest... for real. Soccer did not even have a profile in this country when the US hosted the WC back in 1994, and RFK is located in the middle of a black working class neighborhood. If it ent the Washington Redskins dem people wouldn't know what was happening inside dat stadium so yuh can't use that solitary experience as a gauge.

Since then not only has there been the establishment of a successful professional soccer league in the US, but one of it's more successful franchises is DC United... all you have to do is visit RFK on game day to see the level of excitement outside of and inside the stadium. Support is still hard to come by in the neighborhood, but the team draws crowds from suburban MD and VA and for years has been near the top of the league in attendance. DC United aside... US Soccer has built many soccer-specific stadia around the country, including Toyota Park (Chicago), Robertson Stadium (Houston), Columbus Crew Stadium etc.

The soccer landscape is nowhere as desolate as it was 15 yrs ago and with continued exposure on mainstream media here in the US the sport is poised to explode in popularity over the course of the next couple yrs... especially if ESPN gets the US broadcast rights to the EPL. I understand that people would like to see a national level of excitement more on par with a Germany, Spain or Mexico, but that is not a prerequisite for a successful World Cup games, and it's the fans inside and outside of the stadium who make the games exciting... not whether the rest of the country shuts down and get caught up as well.

Yuh ain't have to bouff de man so....he's right. A world Cup in the USA will never ever be the same experience as a World Cup in any other of the countries that are traditional football-oriented countries. America is to structure-oriented and their society is just too out of touch with the culture of football to make it an overall festive and partying atmosphere, no matter how much progress they've made in developing the sport.. Labor Day, Miami Carnival, Boston Carnival, etc, etc, all of them are prime examples: The festivities before and after each event will be restricted as to where and how much partying you can do and law enforcement are going to invest heavily in their ability to clear the streets after games. None ah dat impromptu revelry in the streets and the population at large are NOT going to be festive participants in the overall goodwill and good cheer that all these invading "foreigners" are going to be attempting to have.

JDB · « **Reply #29 on:** January 30, 2009, 06:51:58 PM »

Quote from: Bake n Shark on January 30, 2009, 06:03:17 PM

Quote from: Lower St. John on January 30, 2009, 01:41:20 PM
Having experienced Germany 2006, I can say with a reference point that USA 1994 SUCKED. Imagine walking to RFK Stadium to see Mexico versus Italy in the first rounds and folks living within a stone throw of the stadium asking "What is the occasion?" Likewise, there was no atmosphere in New York/New Jersey for the quarterfinals Bulgaria vs Germany. Most folks were not even aware of the game taking place or the reason for the crowds in Port Authority. I know we are talking 20 years later but football or soccer does not capture the country. Experiencing a World Cup in a nation where folks eat and sleep football is the greatest.

One thing for certain FIFA will make money hosting in the US (most major events have - Olympics, WC 94).

Blessings

You coulda just post this and hush yuh ass on the rest... for real. Soccer did not even have a profile in this country when the US hosted the WC back in 1994, and RFK is located in the middle of a black working class neighborhood. If it ent the Washington Redskins dem people wouldn't know what was happening inside dat stadium so yuh can't use that solitary experience as a gauge.

Since then not only has there been the establishment of a successful professional soccer league in the US, but one of it's more successful franchises is DC United... all you have to do is visit RFK on game day to see the level of excitement outside of and inside the stadium. Support is still hard to come by in the neighborhood, but the team draws crowds from suburban MD and VA and for years has been near the top of the league in attendance. DC United aside... US Soccer has built many soccer-specific stadia around the country, including Toyota Park (Chicago), Robertson Stadium (Houston), Columbus Crew Stadium etc.

The soccer landscape is nowhere as desolate as it was 15 yrs ago and with continued exposure on mainstream media here in the US the sport is poised to explode in popularity over the course of the next couple yrs... especially if ESPN gets the US broadcast rights to the EPL. I understand that people would like to see a national level of excitement more on par with a Germany, Spain or Mexico, but that is not a prerequisite for a successful World Cup games, and it's the fans inside and outside of the stadium who make the games exciting... not whether the rest of the country shuts down and get caught up as well.

Nothing the man say was out of order. He give an accurate description of what he saw in 1994 and made an accurate comparison to Germany. He also acknowlegde that things were different 15 years ago and will probably be even better in 10 years time.

He also did not say that the world cup would not be successful. He just made a good observation that the part of the event experience where the entire country gets interested, which is significant, was lost on the US in 1994.