Essential The Official Football (Soccer) Thread - The Scriptures Prophesied the Messiah Plays 3-4-3

phcitywarrior

phcitywarrior

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
13,261
Reputation
4,550
Daps
32,153
Reppin
Naija / DMV
concise said:
Ford Field put in a bid and they didn't get accepted. Neither did DC. Kansas City did. Accept it.
Click to expand...

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.

concise said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

nyknick

refuel w/ chocolate milk
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
18,714
Reputation
6,060
Daps
90,732
Do it Erik! He'll fit right in.



am9-anthony-martial.gif
 
SmoothOperator88

SmoothOperator88

Your friendly neighborhood coli poster
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
2,957
Reputation
2,094
Daps
5,408
Reppin
NJ/BK
phcitywarrior said:
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.
Click to expand...
Chicago didn't put in a bid. If they did they're a no brainer to be selected.
 
br82186

br82186

Superstar
Joined
Jul 3, 2018
Messages
12,284
Reputation
1,072
Daps
37,597
phcitywarrior said:
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.
Click to expand...
Saw in a video that Soldier Field need alot of work, not FedEx Field like work, but enough to pass on making a bid
 
concise

concise

Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
39,178
Reputation
3,419
Daps
95,450
SmoothOperator88 said:
Chicago didn't put in a bid. If they did they're a no brainer to be selected.
Click to expand...

br82186 said:
Saw in a video that Soldier Field need alot of work, not FedEx Field like work, but enough to pass on making a bid
Click to expand...


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

www.nbcchicago.com

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 www.nbcchicago.com
phcitywarrior said:
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??
Click to expand...


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.
 
phcitywarrior

phcitywarrior

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
13,261
Reputation
4,550
Daps
32,153
Reppin
Naija / DMV
concise said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

utc5u5nkz1691.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top