Essential The Official Football (Soccer) Thread - We are SO back, the Premier League returns!

concise

Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
38,808
Reputation
3,365
Daps
94,027
Can you care to explain why KC and Seattle got picked over say DC/DMV or Chicago?

Boston I kinda get. On the East coast and is an iconic American city. You want people in cities that leave them with a lasting impression or in a city that has the infrastructure to hold such an event.

I think I get Seattle. I think the Sounders have the best football culture in the US so for the WC they’d have events for the fans. Cool.


uhhh ... Kansas City is probably the biggest consistent soccer city in the midwestern USA that supports soccer, bro. SKC has been one of the best supported teams for so long and they get games there damn near every Gold Cup. The team doesn't win as much as they used to but the support is still there.
 

phcitywarrior

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
13,188
Reputation
4,520
Daps
31,989
Reppin
Naija / DMV
uhhh ... Kansas City is probably the biggest consistent soccer city in the midwestern USA that supports soccer, bro. SKC has been one of the best supported teams for so long and they get games there damn near every Gold Cup. The team doesn't win as much as they used to but the support is still there.

I get the sporting aspect, but there’s also a tourism aspect no? Idk what there is in KC to do. Idk, perhaps Chicago would have been a better choice.

As for DC, they got negative feedback when they toured FedEX. Stadium needed too much work and I just think the DC/Baltimore bid didn't wow people. It's weird to not be in the nations capital and DC has hosted massive games in the past, but Philly and their newer stadium seemed to wow FIFA. Personally feel like Boston is the city that shouldn't be hosting games.

Yeah I heard FedEx and the amount of renovations needed wasn’t ideal. They still could have done Bmore. Just have people take the Amtrak up from DC (40-45 mins).

Serious question: who is available that would make Chelsea appreciably better?

Osimhen. 3 way deal.

Lukaku to Inter. Dzeko to Napoli. Osimhen to Chelsea.
 

concise

Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
38,808
Reputation
3,365
Daps
94,027
I get the sporting aspect, but there’s also a tourism aspect no? Idk what there is in KC to do. Idk, perhaps Chicago would have been a better choice.

If all the extra stuff mattered, there wouldn't ever be a World Cup in Qatar.
Kansas City is no LA or NY but just because it doesn't ring bells internationally doesn't mean it's not still a big city.
It's a big city with a big stadium.

Every city in Russia 2018 wasn't some world class tourist city. That doesn't matter.
 

phcitywarrior

Superstar
Supporter
Joined
Nov 19, 2016
Messages
13,188
Reputation
4,520
Daps
31,989
Reppin
Naija / DMV
If all the extra stuff mattered, there wouldn't ever be a World Cup in Qatar.
Kansas City is no LA or NY but just because it doesn't ring bells internationally doesn't mean it's not still a big city.
It's a big city with a big stadium.

Every city in Russia 2018 wasn't some world class tourist city. That doesn't matter.

We know how Qatar got the WC. So kinda irrelevant.

And that other stuff does matter. They look at the capacity for hospitality within a city/region. I mean a state like Michigan has stadiums for UM, MSU and the Detroit Lions but they got no bids. All that stuff goes into it.

Russia doesn’t have as many eligible stadiums as the US so they’ll go with what they have.

The US has the infrastructure to legit host an entire WC entirely in the Northeast. Maryland alone has M&T, UMD stadium, FedEx etc.
 

concise

Veteran
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
38,808
Reputation
3,365
Daps
94,027
We know how Qatar got the WC. So kinda irrelevant.

And that other stuff does matter. They look at the capacity for hospitality within a city/region. I mean a state like Michigan has stadiums for UM, MSU and the Detroit Lions but they got no bids. All that stuff goes into it.

Russia doesn’t have as many eligible stadiums as the US so they’ll go with what they have.

The US has the infrastructure to legit host an entire WC entirely in the Northeast. Maryland alone has M&T, UMD stadium, FedEx etc.

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.

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