2018 USA World Cup Sites

Saw this tidbit today while reading Philly.com

Philly and Cleveland move on; Columbus and Pittsburgh eliminated.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pretzel...d_proposal.html

Ya, i was twittering about that earlier... such bullshit!

I get why Philly is still in, since they are getting the SSS and proximity to NYC, but Cleveland??? what the hell is up with that!

Cleveland is a better soccer city and has a better stadium with more capacity than Heinz. In fact Browns Stadium pwns on Heinze. Just being a realist here.

if philly ends up being one of the sites, ya think we could team up with the sons of ben or whatever supports group the union end up getting? might be cool to make a big keystone state mash-up of a supporters section.

Cleveland is a better soccer city and has a better stadium with more capacity than Heinz. In fact Browns Stadium pwns on Heinze. Just being a realist here.

and the fact that the Rooney's probably cried and moaned about the Stiller's field being torn up didn't help

Agreed.

Any event in Philly would be at Lincoln Financial Field, not the SSS they are going to build, unless said SSS seats 60,000 people

Cleveland is a better soccer city and has a better stadium with more capacity than Heinz. In fact Browns Stadium pwns on Heinze. Just being a realist here.

and the fact that the Rooney's probably cried and moaned about the Stiller's field being torn up didn't help

exactly. just some grumpy old fuck yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.

Bullllll...ship.

Cleveland is a better soccer city?

Frown - don't depress yourselves...England is going to get it.

Wembley, you simply can't compete.

Sorry - it's just the truth.

Cleveland has a much greater youth club system and players than we have here in Pittsburgh. Brad Friedel has an academy there and it is in financial trouble now, but it was a place where kids would live at and go to school and play soccer.

Oh and Jack, the US will probably get it just due to the fact that it is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The WC in the states in 1994 is still the most attended WC and is still the one that made the most amount of money. This is back in 1994 when MLS wasn't even around and people couldn't name more than 2 players in the whole tournament.

Yeah Jack, you're wrong on this one because of the almighty dollar and FIFAA hates your supporters.

Just look at who FIFA looked to first to serve as backup to South Africa, not England but the US. I'll be shocked if it goes to anyone but us.

That's funny - becasue the television audience for the 1994 world cup turned out to be a massive flop. And also do you seriously think that America can beat England to it (with their frankly pathetic plan) of using NFL stadia with undersized pitches? Where are they going to play the final? Is there a single purpoice built stadium that they are building that will be able to host a World Cup final? Don't think so. Look at the past world cups - brand new stadia have been build for the World Cup. Also look at how many domes are on the list - plastic pitches - get to fuck man! - it would be like saying 'let's host the olympics in pittsburgh - oh and we'll use couples stadium...they have a track'

Belive me when I say that America will not get in in 2018 - maybe in 2022 - but they'll have to make vast improvements on their bid. Also It's not going to be easy to deny the home of football - where the game was created. FIFA owes it to England, and if there is one country in the world which can host it England would have to be the one.

BTW - I think Australia should get it in 2022...but only if we win the Ashes this year.

Even still it's the highest grossing World Cup ever Jack; ratings aside. MONEY SON!

That's funny - becasue the television audience for the 1994 world cup turned out to be a massive flop. And also do you seriously think that America can beat England to it (with their frankly pathetic plan) of using NFL stadia with undersized pitches? Where are they going to play the final? Is there a single purpoice built stadium that they are building that will be able to host a World Cup final? Don't think so. Look at the past world cups - brand new stadia have been build for the World Cup. Also look at how many domes are on the list - plastic pitches - get to fuck man! - it would be like saying 'let's host the olympics in pittsburgh - oh and we'll use couples stadium...they have a track'

Belive me when I say that America will not get in in 2018 - maybe in 2022 - but they'll have to make vast improvements on their bid. Also It's not going to be easy to deny the home of football - where the game was created. FIFA owes it to England, and if there is one country in the world which can host it England would have to be the one.

BTW - I think Australia should get it in 2022...but only if we win the Ashes this year.

We all know Sepp Blatter hates England, so yes, I can see the US getting it. Plus we already have the stadia here to run the events and we wouldn't have to build or upgrade any of them in all honesty unlike other nations (South Africa for example) who are bleeding their funds in order to try to complete a bunch of stadiums. Who cares if they are NFL or soccer stadiums? I mean they are stadiums that you can put 80,000+ people in to watch matches without any major upgrades. You would have to take out the crowns of any throwball fields and then extend the fields, but most stadiums are wide and long enough with the sideline areas for throwball. Case in point, Seattle's QWest stadium which has no problem hosting footy matches. Or what about the Champions Tour that just blew through the US. I didn't hear many players complaining about the fields across the US not being wide or long enough.

I think you may have it reversed Jack, stadium capacity alone gives the USA an edge, England has what like 3 stadiums seating over 50k? I agree Australia should probably have one of the two as well.

As much as I hate the city of cleavland with all my Pittsburgh heart it would be pretty bad ass if they made the final cut simply because it would only be about a 2hr. drive.

The world cup isn't decided on the size of the stadia. Just look back at 2006 - biggest - 74,000 (old trafford size) two 60k range, two 50k range, and four 40k range. Throwing numbers at it won't get America the world cup. If Trinadad and Tobago play Togo - do you really want a 100,000 seat stadium to only have 20,000 there? It would be like an MLS match at Giants Stadium - and it looks horrible.

Finally England, biggest football nation in the world and creatiers of the game(don't you forget it) havn't hosted the World Cup since the glorious year of 1966 - America hosted it in the miserable year of 1994 - if you look at the repeat hosts and the timing between hosting the world cup the odds aren't in your favour.

when we took the trip to harrisburg i talked to a few guys and they said they had tickets to the world cup next summer. they have no clue who they are going to see but they are so excited to go. shit, it could be south africa vs. bulgaria for all i care and if i was there i would have the time of my life.

the point im trying to make is that people i think will go no matter what. we saw the passion of the fans at confed and it's going to be the same for the cup and if/when it comes back to the US. it would be the same if/when it goes to england. built it, host it and the people will come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlVxpjC9PQ8

Did you ever see the numbers for the 94 world cup?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_FIFA_World_Cup

Every game sold out, Saudi arabia v Morocco, 76,000!