Hello again,Thanks so much for coming back for this 2nd post. I'm glad I didn't scare anyone away with the thought of Anti-American rhetoric. That being said, I do want to explain one thing I said at the end of the inaugural post. I said that I would "de-sell" you on the idea of the United States landing the World Cup. We all know that the U.S. would do a wonderful job hosting and most of the infrastructure needed to effectively host a World Cup already exists (I'll explain in a bit).
For me, there are a few ingredients essential to properly hosting a World Cup. And, I mean for all parties (fans, media and players). First off, it should be hosted in a smaller country, in relation to the U.S. but with many large cities. Also, I think the hosting cities should all be accessible from each another, via train. It is also ideal to have the stadiums pretty close to the city centers. Germany 2006 was a great success in this regard. If you were a fan, you did not have to board a plane to follow your country. If you did happen to board a plane, your flight would not have been more than 1-1.5 hours. The stadiums were also walking distance from rail lines. The USA bid cities leave much to be desired. You'll notice that Houston is on the list. And, if you have visited there (sadly I have), you know its equal to the 5th level of hell . Its a sprawling city, impossible to navigate and is spread across a whopping 600 square miles. To top it off, there is only a light rail service to get you to the proposed stadium. Many of the other cities don't have an underground rail network and some of the stadiums are far from the center of town. They include Boston/ Foxborough (stadium is 28 miles from town) and Washington, DC. (stadium is in Landover, Md, 12 miles away in a different state!!). Fed Ex Field has only been around since 1997, and it sucks so bad they already want a new one. I've actually been there for an NFL Throwball game, and it is pretty horrible. My experience here could be a separate post in and of itself. Some cities are places you want to be: New York/ NJ, Miami, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. There are some others you can do without: Baltimore, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Tampa Bay. If you're lucky, you'll make it to one World Cup in your life. Could you imagine if your country played their games in Indianapolis or Kansas City? Not much fun. Phoenix is also on the list, and the US Soccer folks have no problem telling you that the stadium will be serviced by just one bus line. So, I think you get my point. The U.S. is almost too big to host a World Cup AND make it truly enjoyable for the fans. You have bid cities on each coast to complicate things as well.
Since the U.S. hosted World Cup 1994, I took a look back and pretended I was a Brazil fan (winners that year) and attended every game. In 1994, a Brazil fan would have watched the first 2 games in Stanford, CA, flown to Detroit for the final group stage game, flown back to Stanford for the next round, then to Dallas, and back to Pasadena for the final. It was a little better, if you followed the second place team that year, Italy. An Italy supporter would have started in New Jersey, gone to Washington D.C., then to Boston (for 2 games in a row), back to New Jersey, then to Pasadena. This also takes it toll on the players who are doing all this traveling, hopping time zones, and could ultimately affect the quality of the games. The same could happen with the cities chosen for 2018.
A smaller issue is the culture factor. In other countries, football in general, and especially a World Cup is simply ubiquitous. Its just everywhere. Everyone is talking about it, goofy songs are made just for the event, World Cup signs and billboards are literally everywhere. The billboard in that last link is not a fake. In our lifetimes, football may top out and become the fourth most popular sport in the States.
Which brings me to last Saturday, I have World Cup fever just like anyone else that may be reading this. So, I decided to pick up a jersey to wear out to bars for the month. My wife asked a older gentleman, working at an unnamed sporting goods store (I won't even plug them to my 3 followers!) if they had "jerseys for the World Cup nations?" He looks at her quizzically and says, "World Cup?". After some uncomfortable silence, my wife translates it to Yankee talk and says, "soccer jerseys?" The guy points to a section of the store and says, "anything we have is over there." Hey, it was only 6 days away from the biggest sporting event in the world, about 1 billion people will watch the final and the guy works in a sporting goods store. Why should he know what the World Cup is?
Anyway, that is my case against the U.S. I had more I could have written, but I want you all to come back. That being said, the title of this blog post is, "The Case Against the U.S bid, The Case For....". If you're still reading, you're probably wondering who I want to land the next 2 World Cups (both will be awarded at the end of the year). Check back for my next posting for my choices for 2018 and 2022.
Back soon with Part II,
James
No comments:
Post a Comment