World Cup 2022: The U.S. Falls Flat

Following the disappointment of the United States’ failed bid for the 2022 World Cup, I received an e-mail from U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati with the subject line “What We Achieved.” Although Sunil and I are tight, I assume a few other U.S. Soccer backers got the same note. With all due respect to the efforts of the U.S. bid committee — they certainly did all they could to bring the World Cup back to America — I have a hard time seeing any positives from the sordid process that awarded the 2018 World Cup to Russia and the 2022 World Cup to Qatar.

I wish I could believe the idealistic viewpoint of Gabriele Marcotti, who says FIFA is spreading the World Cup love around to grow the game throughout the world. That’s a noble thought, but one that’s a tough sell given the process. How does a bid that was judged to put the athlete’s health at serious risk win so handily over the foolproof American candidacy? How does a technically sound English bid garner only one vote besides the one cast by their own FIFA representative? And how can we trust 22 voters when two of their colleagues were eliminated from the process for allegedly taking bribes?

Had FIFA chosen either England or the United States and paired that host with an ambitious bid from Russia or Qatar, I could believe the promoting the global game theory. But surely money-hungry group FIFA must have had other reasons for passing up two jackpot hosts. Grant Wahl claims “that petrodollars talk,” and the pairing of two oil rich nations as hosts back that concept.

So how long must we wait for another World Cup in the U.S.? 2026 is a possibility, but European foes will be in the mix. 2030 is the 100th anniversary of the World Cup, and original hosts Uruguay are striving to put together a joint bid with Argentina in time for the celebration. Just as Atlanta plucked the Centennial Olympics away from Athens, in 1996 the Americans may have the stronger case here. So sit tight. Despite all we have to offer as a World Cup host, it’s going to be awhile.

2018 and 2022 World Cups: Which Bids Win?

Almost six months after playing to a 1-1 draw in South Africa, the U.S. and England will again be in the World Cup spotlight Thursday. This time they’re the favorites to land the 2018 and 2022 tournaments. The 2018 race features four European bids, while the United States and four opponents from the Asian confederation vie for the 2022 rights. The same question applies to both elections: Will FIFA choose the safe bets that offer a big payday or will they choose an emerging soccer nation in order to promote the game’s growth?

FIFA boss Sepp Blatter combined the bidding process for the ’18 and ’22 World Cups to create an attractive combo platter for sponsors and television rights holders. But the grab for mo’ money has created mo’ problems. Votes have allegedly been up for sale, two members of the executive committee have been stripped of their voting rights, and the dual election has taken on a “I’ll vote for you if you vote for me” feel reminiscent of high school student council elections. With that background, the race is even more difficult to handicap

England is matched against Russia and joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium and there’s no doubt an English World Cup would a financial success. But if FIFA is looking to grow the game, Russia is the logical choice. And while a great deal of construction would need to take place between now and 2018, the Russian government is ready to committee the dollars needed.

If FIFA needed a country to step in and host the World Cup next week, America would be ready to go. All those super-sized NFL stadiums and U.S.-based global sponsors represent big bucks for FIFA. And while the U.S. 2022 bid has its drawbacks — the size of the country makes travel difficult and public transportation is limited around many venues — overall America is a risk-free host.

South Korea and Japan shared hosting duties eight years ago, so there’s no reason the World Cup would return as early as 2022. Australia’s bid suffers from limited support from the Aussie Rules Football and Rugby leagues whose seasons conflict with the World Cup. That leaves Qatar as the chief rival to the U.S., and while the Arab nation started as long shots, their bid has gained credibility and momentum. The biggest obstacle for Qatar is the stifling desert heat. But if their committee can convince FIFA voters on their plans to use innovative cooling technology, they could emerge as winners.

My hunch says FIFA will pick one host from the “safe” category and one from the “growth” category. And while backroom dealings could send the votes any number of directions, I can’t see England’s bid falling short. Russia will get a World Cup someday, but the next European hosting cycle is more likely. Does England’s success mean the U.S. gets left out? Not necessarily. But FIFA is giving the 2022 winner 12 years to get ready and Qatar is a nation that would put that time to excellent use. Don’t be surprised if America gets left on the sideline.

China Boosts American Position for 2022 World Cup

More good news is emerging as the United States looks to bring the 2018 or 2022 World Cup home. China's Football Association has expressed interest in bidding for the 2026 World Cup. If the bid moves forward, China would be a strong candidate; FIFA would love to bring the world's biggest sporting event to the world's most populous nation.

How does that impact the United States bid? The U.S. is one of five bids for the 2018 World Cup and those five bidders are joined by four others who are vying for the 2022 World Cup. But realistically, there are two groups. The 2018 World Cup will almost certainly go the one of the four European bidders, and that leaves the U.S. competing against Australia, Japan, Qatar and South Korea. With the U.S. facing four Asian opponents (Australia, while not in Asia, joined the Asian Football Confederation in 2006), a looming Chinese bid is bad news for the Eastern quartet. FIFA hasn't awarded consecutive World Cups to the same continent since the 1950's, so Asia has no chance of hosting two in a row. Any FIFA voter who wanted to see the 2026 World Cup go to China wouldn't vote for an Asian candidate in 2022, and there's no place else to send those votes other than to the American bid.

International sports politics take some odd twists and turns, but the U.S. bid and its supporters have to be pleased with this latest development.

Chicago Gets the World Cup Boot

For the second time in just over three months, the international sports community has delivered a flaming bag of dog poop to the people of Chicago. In October, the Windy City was left at the altar for the 2016 Olympics, as the IOC chose Rio over Chicago. While the first-round exit was stunning, the final result was not a shock. But today's news that Chicago will not be among the 18 potential host cities submitted as part of the United States' 2018/2022 World Cup bid came as a complete sucker punch.

Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Area are the two most glaring omissions from a list of candidates that includes less-heralded soccer cities such as Kansas City, Nashville, Tampa and Baltimore. None of those cities can equal Chicago's experience hosting big soccer matches. None has an international airport that measures up to O'Hare or a vast public transit network to rival the CTA. And none matches the diverse ethnic neighborhoods that Chicago offers. So, to borrow a line from A Mighty Wind, "Wha' happened?"

Chicago's failed Olympic bid sure didn't help. U.S. Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati said "I think there's a little Olympic fatigue. I think the Park District had a tough time wrestling with FIFA requirements in short order after the IOC decision." Gunil's quote implies the Chicago local bid group put forth a half-hearted effort. Did the underdogs pull together compelling bids while Chicago assumed its experience would make it a finalist lock? If so, it's a poor reflection on the city sports leaders.

Soldier Field was another knock against the Chicago bid and another black eye for the Park District, which oversaw renovations to the stadium. Despite an idyllic setting on the edge of downtown, at 61,000 seats the spaceship on Chicago's Lakefront has the NFL's smallest capacity. The average capacity of the 18 finalists is 78,000. And if you've ever been to a Bears game there, you know the layout is a logistical nightmare. I took the picture to the left at the Bears home finale against Minnesota. Those are the crowds heading to the restrooms at halftime. Imagine tossing 65,000 England and Argentina fans into that mosh pit.

Keeping Chicago and its smallish stadium on the sidelines offers a hint as to how the US will position its bid. We've got the biggest, baddest stadiums on the planet, and we'll sell a whole lot of tickets. In the past that American bravado has rubbed the rest of the world the wrong way. We'll find out on December 2 how it plays when the winning bids are announced.

USA World Cup 2018/2022: Who Will Be Hosts?

If there's one undeniable strength of the USA's bid to host the 2018 or 2022 World Cups, it's our stadiums. You want big facilities? We got 'em. Lots of 'em. There are enough venues in this country to host three World Cups at the same time. With the US bid due next May, today the committee narrowed the list of potential venues down to 32 stadiums in 27 markets.

In April the committee contacted 70 venues to gauge interest. While the efforts to include the entire country were noble, it was unrealistic to think World Cup games would be coming to Lincoln, Nebraska or Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In June requests for formal proposals went to 45 stadiums in 37 markets. (Note to US Soccer: Someone please fix the typo in the headline of that article. "Porposals?") Following the RFP process we have the 27 remaining cities announced today.

The final tournament will most likely include a dozen stadiums as hosts, so here's my take on which 12 US venues would make the best choices in 2018 or 2022.

The Locks
Soldier Field (Chicago), Cowboys Stadium (Dallas), New Meadowlands Stadium (New York): Giants Stadium hosted one of the two semifinals in 1994, and the new stadium would be among the favorites to host the Final this time. Jerry Jones new monstrosity in Arlington is getting rave reviews, with a Super Bowl and Final Four already on the way. The seating capacity could be expanded to 100,000 for the World Cup. And while 61,000 seat Soldier Field would be among the smaller venues, there's no way Chicago isn't on the list.

The Near Locks
Georgia Dome (Atlanta), Gillette Stadium (Boston), Reliant Stadium (Houston), Qwest Field (Seattle), FedEx Field (Washington): Atlanta isn't known as a soccer town, but the city's experience with the Summer Olympics and the number of flights to and from South America and Hartsfield Airport make Atlanta a logical pick. Houston also has experience with big events and a huge airport to handle crowds. Seattle's enthusiastic response to MLS shows it's one of America's soccer hotbeds, while the Boston area has long supported the game. The only thing keeping FedEx Field off the list of "locks" is the thought that M&T Bank Stadium in near-by Baltimore might get the nod instead due to its downtown location, but the Beltway region will certainly be included in some way.

The California Question Marks
Rose Bowl (Los Angeles), Stanford Stadium (San Francisco): LA and the Bay Area will definitely be hosts, but the question is which stadiums will do the hosting. Issues regarding proposed NFL venues have dogged both regions for over a decade. Recent talk centers around a new 49ers home in Santa Clara, and a stadium in City of Industry designed to lure the NFL back to SoCal. Neither of those are on the current list. Will these projects come to completion? Who knows. For now I'll pencil in the Rose Bowl and Stanford Stadium.

The Last Two In
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis), Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia): One of the disadvantages to a US World Cup bid is that the size of the country makes it more difficult for fans and players to travel from city to city. To overcome the issue, clustering host cities close together works well. With that in mind, Indy and Philly are my last two selections. Indianapolis is a dark horse, but the city has earned strong marks as a frequent Final Four host and in 2012 gets the Super Bowl. Plus it's just a three-hour drive from Chicago. Situated between New York and Washington, Philadelphia could be part of a "Soccer Express" train taking fans from Boston, New York, Philly and Washington.

Who's Left Out?
The heat of Orlando and Dallas' Cotton Bowl aren't fondly remembered by anyone who played in or attended the 1994 World Cup, so outdoor venues in the Sunshine State are off the list. Games in 108,000 seat Michigan Stadium sound like a cool idea, but anyone who's ever been to Ann Arbor knows that would be a logistical nightmare. Charlotte is a great soccer town and could be a nice pick over Indy, but doesn't have the reputation for hosting big time events.

Finally, I was surprised to see New Orleans not make the cut today. The Big Easy has long been a popular Super Bowl and Final Four venue because of the compact downtown area, including hotels, tourist attractions and the Superdome. On the other hand, setting a group of international soccer fans loose on Bourbon Street might not be the smartest idea, so this could be for the best.

USA World Cup Bid Gets Social

As the bid process for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups continues, the US efforts have been unveiled on a sharp yet simple Web site that highlights the movement to return the World Cup to the States for the first time since 1994.

As you'll see on the site, the folks behind the bid are rolling out all the top social media tools like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Flickr to bring the campaign to life. Such contemporary thinking on behalf of the US bid team is very encouraging. And if you support the bid, there's a free bumper sticker in it for you!

USA World Cup Bid Gets Some Muscle

The United States is pulling out the big guns in an effort to land the 2018 or 2022 World Cup, with California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger joining the American bid team. Here's Arnold's plea to the world, finished off by a groan-inducing Terminator reference. Your move, England.

The Road to 2018 and 2022

World Soccer and SI.com have the latest take on the contenders for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup hosts. They share my opinion that England remains the heavy favorite for 2018. Suprisingly the article lists Mexico, not Australia, as the biggest obstacle to the United States bringing home the 2022 event.

World Cup 2018: England's to Lose

The English media love to trumpet the success of the national side at the slightest hint of good fortune. A solid start in World Cup qualifying? All of the sudden the Three Lions are a contender for the 2010 World Cup title. Never mind the fact that their only appearance in a major final was 43 years ago and they failed to qualify for Euro 08. England are in it to win it!

I figured England's bid for the 2018 World Cup would be met with similar overconfidence. By process of elimination, I see no way England can lose. The '18 World Cup is almost certainly headed to Europe. Until 2010 and 2014, at least one of every two World Cups was held in Europe, so the likelihood that Europe would be left out of hosting three straight tournaments is slim. England's continental competition includes Russia, and joint bids from Spain/Portugal and Holland/Belgium. Given that FIFA is less enthusiastic about joint bids, that leaves England and Russia. I'd say England is a lock.

So why isn't The Times of London counting down the days until kick-off? Apparently Barack Obama has them scared. Perhaps the English media are trying to remain humble, but I doubt even Obama's support can help wrestle this tournament away from England.

I do think the 2022 World Cup, scheduled to be awarded along with the 2018 event next December, is headed to the States. Australia is the only legitimate competition, and given the financial success of the '94 World Cup, FIFA would love to return. The U.S. has already produced a somewhat absurd list of 70 potential venues. ("Live from Fayetteville, Arkansas, it's Angola versus South Korea!") But what the list does show is that the U.S. venues are ready to go. They'll need to wait their turn, however. 2018 is England bound.