dibo said:
Obviously I haven't seen the bid docs either - they're not even going to be finalised until later this year - in my opinion the only things that could hold the US back from being ahead of us are:
1. They held the World Cup in 1994 - a dour and uninspiring tournament with matches played in ridiculous heat (Noon kickoffs? In June? In uncovered stadiums in Orlando, Palo Alto and Dallas?).
2. We've got Frank Lowy. They've got Chuck Blazer, but we'll see who can do the best work with brown paper bags.
3. We've got Asian media timeslots more easily covered - most of an American World Cup would be played in the middle of the night (Chinese time).
That's about it.
Their national league is bigger and in world terms is more important, and expanding faster than ours.
For the sheer number of cities with massive nearly new stadiums that are football suitable, have heaps of corporate facilities and good infrastructure, they're miles ahead. They're adding to this list year by year, such that by 2022 places like Soldier Field (itself refurbished extensively and expensively - cost of $600m and capacity of 61,500) for the Chicago Bears in will either need work or will be seen as too small and primitive.
Their media market is enormous, it's becoming more football savvy, and it's in a pretty reasonable timeslot for Europe and the Americas.
They've got Obamamania on their side - and with it a USA that's turning its eyes to the world for the first time since... well, since slick Willy was in the White House.
To go back to 1994, Aaron:
*Palo Alto is the home ground of Stanford. Holds 103,000 people. Hosted a Superbowl in the 1990's.
*Orlando - a swamp, hot as Darwin in the wet
*Dallas - like playing in Dubbo or Wagga in the middle of January. New Cowboys Stadium is quite simply magnificent, though (FieldTurf surface)
*Soldier Field may not get a look in, although Chicago's agreeable summer climate may help.
Assuming that ALL fields will have Natural Grass, and I may have to get Dibo or Paolo to verify if these grounds are FIFA-acceptable, you would think that the following grounds would be in the mix should the USA bid soon:
1. Reliant Stadium, Houston, Texas - natural grass, retractable roof, Darwin climate in summer
2. QWest Field, Seattle, Washington - FieldTurf, home of the Sounders, mild climate
3. The as-yet finished New Meadowlands, East Rutherford, New Jersey
4. Ford Field in Detroit, Michigan (indoors)
5. LucasOil Stadium, Indianapolis, Indiana (retractable roof)
6. The Rose Bowl in Los Angeles, California
7. The HUGE Fedex Field, Landover, Maryland
8. The University of Phoenix Stadium (retractable roof)
9. Invesco Field at Mile High, Denver, Colorado
10. I'd throw in the majestic and historic Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Wisconsin
There's ten to start with. The Louisiana Superdome AND the Georgia Dome would be outdated by then.
Then there are the College Stadiums in places like Penn St, Michigan (ask Eggy about Ann Arbor) and Ohio State, with 315,000 capacity between the three of them.
They have so many options it is scary.
Then we have, right now:
MCG, Docklands, Stadium Australia, Lang Park (with a decent groundsman, pls), Canberra Stadium, Football Park, then it gets ugly.
Rectangular stadia would have to be built in Perth, Adelaide, hell, EVERYWHERE. The SFS would be knocked down as it is due for decommissioning in 2018. You can see what we are up against. One SMALL advantage is that climate would NOT be an issue, except for French West Africans who like 36 degrees and 175% humidity. Canberra in June, at night, yessssssss.
