Essential The Official Football (Soccer) Thread - RIP Diogo Jota

[phcitywarrior]

Ford Field put in a bid and they didn't get accepted. Neither did DC. Kansas City did. Accept it.

I have no dog is whether KC got a bid or not. What I want to understand is the criteria for allocating the city. Either way Ima be in the stadiums.

Yea, the States does have enough stadiums to do a World Cup in just the Northeast, California, the South, the Midwest, etc. but that would defeat the purpose of doing it here when there are stadiums in almost every state that arw eligible. This would be like hosting a World Cup and excluding every team from Asia and/or Africa.

You're actually setting up my point here. Unlike smaller countries where there are only a handful of eligible stadiums, the US has an embarrassment of riches. And these global sporting events are also a lowkey flex for a nation to the world, so they wanna put their best foot forward. So in allocating the WC host city, I imagine they look at a couple of factors,

1. Hospitality capacity within the region - is that city/town known for hosting large events and accommodating a crowd
2. Logistics - How easy is it for people to move around / get to the city
3. Tourism - Outside of the WC, are there other attractions in the area that people would like
4. Culture of the city
5. Actual infrastructure of the stadiums
6. Misc??

If you then look at all of the cities that won a bid, you can make a layman's guess as to why certain places won

1. NYC/NJ - No brainer here. US' tourism capital, the Big apple etc
2. ATL - Hosted the 96 Olympics so it's hosted a big event before. Jackson Airport is the US' busiest airport so it's easy to connect to
3. LA - No brainer here. LA is one of the US' biggest tourist cities and would service the Asian demographic very well
4. SF - Same thing as LA. One of the US' most iconic cities.
5. Miami - A lot of Latin Americans already live here so you have a city that will cater to them. Think Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica etc
6. Houston - Big city, lots of space to hold people and a large Latino presence
7. Dallas - Same as Houston
8. Seattle - Arguably the best soccer atmosphere in the US so it makes sense.
9. Philly - On the east coast, good logistics. Iconic US city and a very big sports town
10. Boston - All I can think of is the East Coast logistic preference. That and Boston
11. KC - Only thing I can think is they have a good soccer culture like @beejus said and that and it's in the midwest. Maybe Chicago didn't put in a bid or it's infrastructure was bad.

You mentioned it, Ford Field put in a bid, but if you're hosting a world event it's not Detroit you want your visitors to have a lasting impression about when they think of the US. So there's some level of aesthetics that goes into the decision-making. Either way, Philly and NYC are 2 and 4 hrs from DC by train so Ima at the games regardless.

 

[nyknick]

Do it Erik! He'll fit right in.

 

[SmoothOperator88]

I have no dog is whether KC got a bid or not. What I want to understand is the criteria for allocating the city. Either way Ima be in the stadiums.



You're actually setting up my point here. Unlike smaller countries where there are only a handful of eligible stadiums, the US has an embarrassment of riches. And these global sporting events are also a lowkey flex for a nation to the world, so they wanna put their best foot forward. So in allocating the WC host city, I imagine they look at a couple of factors,

1. Hospitality capacity within the region - is that city/town known for hosting large events and accommodating a crowd
2. Logistics - How easy is it for people to move around / get to the city
3. Tourism - Outside of the WC, are there other attractions in the area that people would like
4. Culture of the city
5. Actual infrastructure of the stadiums
6. Misc??

If you then look at all of the cities that won a bid, you can make a layman's guess as to why certain places won

1. NYC/NJ - No brainer here. US' tourism capital, the Big apple etc
2. ATL - Hosted the 96 Olympics so it's hosted a big event before. Jackson Airport is the US' busiest airport so it's easy to connect to
3. LA - No brainer here. LA is one of the US' biggest tourist cities and would service the Asian demographic very well
4. SF - Same thing as LA. One of the US' most iconic cities.
5. Miami - A lot of Latin Americans already live here so you have a city that will cater to them. Think Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica etc
6. Houston - Big city, lots of space to hold people and a large Latino presence
7. Dallas - Same as Houston
8. Seattle - Arguably the best soccer atmosphere in the US so it makes sense.
9. Philly - On the east coast, good logistics. Iconic US city and a very big sports town
10. Boston - All I can think of is the East Coast logistic preference. That and Boston
11. KC - Only thing I can think is they have a good soccer culture like @beejus said and that and it's in the midwest. Maybe Chicago didn't put in a bid or it's infrastructure was bad.

You mentioned it, Ford Field put in a bid, but if you're hosting a world event it's not Detroit you want your visitors to have a lasting impression about when they think of the US. So there's some level of aesthetics that goes into the decision-making. Either way, Philly and NYC are 2 and 4 hrs from DC by train so Ima at the games regardless.

Chicago didn't put in a bid. If they did they're a no brainer to be selected.

 

[TobiOT]

Sadio Mane about to help Bayern get 11 Bundesliga titles in a row.

 

[Ukbrotha]

So Mane gone to Bayern which I guess means Lewandowski is gone to Barca. Auba going to ride that bench.

 

[br82186]

I have no dog is whether KC got a bid or not. What I want to understand is the criteria for allocating the city. Either way Ima be in the stadiums.



You're actually setting up my point here. Unlike smaller countries where there are only a handful of eligible stadiums, the US has an embarrassment of riches. And these global sporting events are also a lowkey flex for a nation to the world, so they wanna put their best foot forward. So in allocating the WC host city, I imagine they look at a couple of factors,

1. Hospitality capacity within the region - is that city/town known for hosting large events and accommodating a crowd
2. Logistics - How easy is it for people to move around / get to the city
3. Tourism - Outside of the WC, are there other attractions in the area that people would like
4. Culture of the city
5. Actual infrastructure of the stadiums
6. Misc??

If you then look at all of the cities that won a bid, you can make a layman's guess as to why certain places won

1. NYC/NJ - No brainer here. US' tourism capital, the Big apple etc
2. ATL - Hosted the 96 Olympics so it's hosted a big event before. Jackson Airport is the US' busiest airport so it's easy to connect to
3. LA - No brainer here. LA is one of the US' biggest tourist cities and would service the Asian demographic very well
4. SF - Same thing as LA. One of the US' most iconic cities.
5. Miami - A lot of Latin Americans already live here so you have a city that will cater to them. Think Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica etc
6. Houston - Big city, lots of space to hold people and a large Latino presence
7. Dallas - Same as Houston
8. Seattle - Arguably the best soccer atmosphere in the US so it makes sense.
9. Philly - On the east coast, good logistics. Iconic US city and a very big sports town
10. Boston - All I can think of is the East Coast logistic preference. That and Boston
11. KC - Only thing I can think is they have a good soccer culture like @beejus said and that and it's in the midwest. Maybe Chicago didn't put in a bid or it's infrastructure was bad.

You mentioned it, Ford Field put in a bid, but if you're hosting a world event it's not Detroit you want your visitors to have a lasting impression about when they think of the US. So there's some level of aesthetics that goes into the decision-making. Either way, Philly and NYC are 2 and 4 hrs from DC by train so Ima at the games regardless.

Saw in a video that Soldier Field need alot of work, not FedEx Field like work, but enough to pass on making a bid

 

[LuuqMaan]

. Forever legend, although footy twitter don’t respect him.

Pogba doc is out now.

I’m here for Pogba airing his shyt out

 

[null]

Sadio Mane about to help Bayern get 11 Bundesliga titles in a row.

he's gonna find out

 

[concise]

Chicago didn't put in a bid. If they did they're a no brainer to be selected.

Saw in a video that Soldier Field need alot of work, not FedEx Field like work, but enough to pass on making a bid

Chicago did put in a bid, Rahm Emmanuel pulled out because he didn't trust FIFA.

World Cup to Return to North America, But Chicago Won't Host

The World Cup is coming to North America–including Mexico and Canada–but Chicago will not be hosting the internationally popular sporting event.

www.nbcchicago.com

1. Hospitality capacity within the region - is that city/town known for hosting large events and accommodating a crowd
2. Logistics - How easy is it for people to move around / get to the city
3. Tourism - Outside of the WC, are there other attractions in the area that people would like
4. Culture of the city
5. Actual infrastructure of the stadiums
6. Misc??

You're forgetting infrastructure of the tournament and that this is a 3 nation tournament ... 3 nations who could all do this by themselves. KC is almost center of it all, plus it helps show more of the American soccer culture ... if they didn't pick KC, they'd have picked Cincinnati for this reason. The committee was seriously considering Green Bay for a site but the field was too narrow for WC matches. I think that definitely would have been a site if the field was right.

 

[The ADD]

I'm guessing each host city gets a group since the format is going to be 16 groups of 3.

Any word on the hosts of the Knockout stages or is that down the line?

Could be as much as a year away from announcement from what I’ve heard. But also it’s FIFA so who knows.

 

[The ADD]

Still wild how far soccer has come in Atlanta

 

[phcitywarrior]

You're forgetting infrastructure of the tournament and that this is a 3 nation tournament ... 3 nations who could all do this by themselves. KC is almost center of it all, plus it helps show more of the American soccer culture ... if they didn't pick KC, they'd have picked Cincinnati for this reason. The committee was seriously considering Green Bay for a site but the field was too narrow for WC matches. I think that definitely would have been a site if the field was right.

Ok this makes more sense. I have no qualms with KC, I just wanted to understand the reasoning. Cincinnati would also make sense. They already host the Cincinnati Open in tennis and have the infrastructure for it.

I heard the FIFA officials didn't like FedEx field and the money it would take to get it ready for the WC just wasn't worth it, makes sense. And although Baltimore has the stadium to host a WC, the surrounding areas leave a lot to be desired.

Makes more sense now. It's a balancing act of tourism, soccer culture, infrastructure and logistics when selecting the host cities.

 

[TobiOT]

 

[Trajan]

End of an era

I need Mane to stat pad and win titles/CL with Bayern. More gold medals befitting a man of his stature

 

[nyknick]

Mourinho

I don't think Pogba is doing himself any favors with this documentary. Maybe the full documentary will make him look better but these excerpts are awful for him, I understand him being out of touch but people around him should know better.