USA World Cup bid announces final 18 cities

Us soccer

This afternoon the U.S. World Cup bid committee announced the list of 18 cities that would be submitted as a part of the bid to host the 2018/2022 World Cup.

According to U.S. Soccer Federation president Sunil Gulati, the final list of cities average a stadium capacity of around 78,000, with the possibility of 5,000,000 World Cup tickets available for either a 2018 or 2022 tournament. That would be 33 percent bigger than in 1994, when fewer games were played.

Here's the list of cities:

Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa and Washington, D.C.

It's not guaranteed that every city would host a match, as the FIFA requirements stipulated that up to 18 cities could be submitted, but 9-12 stadiums would likely be used. Chicago, Detroit, Orlando and San Francisco were among those that did not make the final cut.

What do you think of the final list? Where should the first/last games be held? Disappointed to see Chicago or Orlando miss out?

Share your thoughts below.

This entry was posted in U.S. Soccer. Bookmark the permalink.

238 Responses to USA World Cup bid announces final 18 cities

  1. Lee says:

    Baltimore!

  2. JWL says:

    No Chicago? WOW

  3. Ian says:

    Charlotte should have made the list!!!! Miami and Tampa both folded MLS teams! Why do they get another look? Atlanta under a teflon dome in the middle of the summer? Good luck to anyone stuck playing games there!

  4. Brian says:

    No Chicago? What in the f**k?

  5. Brian says:

    Dammit no SF/Oakland either

  6. MBBeachbum says:

    Sunil Gulati and Don Garber hate St. Louis.

  7. TomM says:

    Denver!

    Geography helps.

  8. jim says:

    really a WC without Chicago just seems crazy. 3rd largest city in the country as far as population. stupid.

  9. rambo says:

    Pissed that Chicago did not make the cut.

  10. Colin says:

    I can’t believe Chicago didn’t make the list, and SF would have been absolutely awesome and a great environment… however, being from LA, I’m glad to see two venues within driving distance!

    I think this is very telling of the USSF’s thought process. Put the venues in primarily hispanic metropolitan areas, with a few exceptions. Hence the two venues in So Cal, two in Texas, Phoenix, Miami, etc.

  11. Rocco says:

    No Chicago, San Fran? Orland? KC over St. Louis? And what, Baltimore over all of them?

  12. Kevin_Amold says:

    Phoenix!!

  13. SouthsideJoe says:

    why the F**** aren’t they coming to Chicago? I live three blocks from the stadium, this makes me mad

  14. Brian says:

    No, the Edware Jones Dome just sucks

  15. Andy in Atlanta says:

    They do hate St Louis… but if KC wins a bid which it would be expected top this time around…then that is accomodating… Chicago is just flabbergasting… I know Indianapolis is not far but Chicago is the fricking second city?? New Soldier Field can easily host great matches…we are talking about a city that just missed out on the Olympics…

  16. Rocco says:

    Indianapolis but no Chicago? What is wrong with these guys?

  17. kenny says:

    Just insane they would bypass Chicago.

  18. SouthSideJoe says:

    if that’s their thinking, then Chicago’s 1.5 million Hispanic Community would suffice, no?

    …still mad at Chicago’s exclusion

  19. Luis F says:

    To be fair MB, everybody hates St. Louis. On an unrelated note, I am surprised that Chicago didn’t make the cut. Maybe Toyota Park isn’t big enough, but Soldier Field should be… what piece of information are we missing here?

    As a Seattleite, I’m happy to see we made the list. I think Seattle is one of the few places where a World Cup match would truly take over the city. The downtown area within 6 blocks of the stadium would just be total and absolute pandemonium. I hope we get the 2018 bid.

  20. Brian says:

    I wonder if this has to do why Chicago was left off.

    link to theoriginalwinger.com

  21. Mingjai says:

    Indianapolis and Nashville but no Chicago?! The USSF is based in Chicago and it doesn’t make the cut?!

    If I lived in Chicago, I’d be organizing protests at this location:

    U.S. Soccer Federation
    1801 S. Prairie Ave.
    Chicago, IL 60616

  22. johninatl says:

    Chicago missed the cut, wow. Between this and the Olympics, the powers that be do not like Chitown. I voted for Obama so not insinuating that conspiracy theory. . .

  23. Jimmy Bobo says:

    Add me to the list of people pissed off that Chicago is not included. Soldier field is a great place for a game. I was at US v. Honduras this summer, great atmosphere. Also, I saw ManYoo versus FC Bayern there some years ago. A world cup without Chicago? That just ain’t right.

  24. Adam says:

    Thank God they included San Diego too! A much nicer city than LA, and much more fan friendly of an area than that smog-laden LA Basin is! Some of the best youth clubs and tournaments are located in the SD area, so there will be quite a bit of passion and ticket sales for any game, regardless of what teams are playing…

  25. Andy in Atlanta says:

    Atlanta will have a new stadium by then… It will be a retractable like all the others.

  26. Ryan says:

    Watched the press conference…Chicago apparently was more focused on the failed Olympic bid and less focused on coming into FIFA compliance for our bid. I love Chicago, but I love Naptown more!! Great news for Indy!

  27. Mingjai says:

    Even if they switched, they wouldn’t be the only site on the list that doesn’t have a current natural grass venue.

  28. ZacIndy says:

    this is a stunner, and I’m a Hoosier. We have a great facility and latino pop. but nothing that sticks out from other cities that were cut. The retractable roof must have been to good to pass up.

  29. Mike in Baltimore says:

    I’m surprised at Baltimore over Chicago as well, but the new stadium in Baltimore that the Ravens play in is really impressive and big. Plus, they sold it out for the AC Milan vs. Chelsea game this summer, so it’s been show that a high level soccer match will draw well there. And between that and the lacrosse championships (and Ravens games, etc), the stadium management folks there have shown they can effectively pull off these events well. With easy access to major higways and rail systems, as well as a lot of close hotels, etc, I can see Baltimore making the cut. FYI- I live in Baltimore currently but a not from here and have no bias towards the city.

  30. Al17 says:

    Chicago hosted the opening match of the 1994 World Cup Finals. I’m guessing that the USSF is planning on moving soon becuase all Hell is about to rain down on them for it. Sunil and the USSF can seriously kiss my ASS on this one. Inexcusable. So Indy, Nashville, KC and Tampa all make the cut?

    Must be a serious typo or early April Fool’s joke.

  31. Chicago_blue says:

    I’ll add my shock at no Chicago. Actually, I’m past shock and straight up angry.

  32. EDB says:

    Indy as the only town semi close to the greatlakes area is sham. Its one of the population centers in the US. If your not going Chicago, i would think cleveland or detroit would be better then indy to host.

  33. fubar says:

    For a few of you Baltimore haters – They more than sold out the AC Milan Game this past summer. Its a GREAT Soccer town.

    You are all also discounting the fact that you could possibly have DC, Bal., Philly and NYC in close proximity to one another.

    A major negative with 1994 was that the teams had so much traveling to/from venues. This would cut down on that big time.

  34. John says:

    As reported at pitchinvasion, apparently Chicago had a terrible bid…

  35. soccerroo says:

    Shocked by no Chicago but not suprised by all the midwest places. I think they will go with three zones for the group stage that way teams are not flying all over the country. I guess Indy’s new stadium beat out soldier field?

  36. MidwestBandit says:

    I think maybe you should speak with the Mayor first and see what he has to say. I’ve heard Chicago doesn’t WANT a World Cup played here.

  37. Al17 says:

    BullSh..T!!!

    If they actually said that or even implied it in the press conference, it’s a load of crap. I wonder if Jack Warner and Fat ass Blazer were involved in the final cities being chosen. We got screwed, it didn’t have a damn thing to do with the Olympics, hell this event is over 8 years way. I’m guessing the USSF is leaving Chicago soon because there’s no way they’d be staying here and screw us, and they are screwing us.

  38. fischy says:

    Is that a guess? Or, are there plans in the works?

  39. smokeminside says:

    I understand your thinking but it’s the WORLD CUP, not the hispanic cup. Any of those original 27 cities would have sold out, regardless of demographics

  40. ZacIndy says:

    Detroit better than Indy. Bigger? Yes. Better? No.

  41. culeeero says:

    Who in their right mind plays a soccer game in Phoenix in June? That’s awful!

  42. Il Consigliere says:

    IMO, Chicago did not get it b/c of the capacity of Soldier Field. Wikipedia lists it as 61,500. Every other stadium is closer to or above 70,000. All those in the low 60,000 range can be expanded to almost or over 70,000 (for example, University of Phoenix Stadium can be expanded from 63,000+ to 72,000+).

  43. The Gentleman Masher says:

    Ian – hope you’re not implying the GA Dome would be hot in the summer time…it does have air conditioning, you know…and hosted 2 international matches this summer.

    As Andy stated, though, Atlanta will probably have a new stadium by then.

    Have to wonder if a few of these cities will/would fall by the wayside due to proximity with others…DC and Baltimore (considering DCs bid probably involves FedEx, which is actually in Maryland as well), LA/San Diego, etc.

  44. Brian says:

    Maybe Chicago was taken off due to the failure of the city as host for the Olympics? Maybe the international community has something against Chicago.

    I just don’t get it. It’s a huge city. The stadium is ACTUALLY IN THE CITY, unlike a lot of the stadiums on this list (Gillete Stadium for example). Plenty of US national team matches have held there before. 61,500 is enough seating for a World Cup match. I just don’t get it.

  45. Lee says:

    Baltimore has a nice stadium, and we sold out the World Football Classic game here quicker than any other city. I really think that put us on the map.

  46. MidwestBandit says:

    I am not shocked by Chicago not being on the list at all. Seeing as they completely FAILED in the Olympic bid, I think the city was embarrassed. I don’t think that the federation is to blame for that one as much as the city.

    If it was a viable city, it would have been included. There has to be an outside reason.

  47. Keith G. says:

    Go New York, cant wait to see a World Cup game in the new Giants stadium. We can almost bet that the Final will be played at Cowboys Stadium, with the Semis being played in New York and Seattle. Where ever though I cant wait for the World Cup to be back here in the USA, and I cant wait to get tickets. GO USA!!

  48. BK says:

    Arthur Blank is already in negotiations with the city. There will be a new stadium by the next USA World Cup.

  49. Brian says:

    the facility is climate controlled

  50. Joe Quake says:

    The stadium is air conditioned and they roll in natural grass. I have no problem with Phoenix… KC is confusing to me, along with the Bay Area and Chicago snubs.

  51. fischy says:

    I am surprised that Indy beat out Chicago, and that KC is in instead of San Francisco. I’m not totally shocked that Tampa beat out Orlando, because of the stadium facility, but overall this suggests a lack of concern regarding the appeal of the cities. Focusing on the stadiums might be a short-sighted, since there are so many that would be world-class.

  52. MrDot says:

    M&T Bank Stadium would make a great World Cup venue. A large, modern stadium close to major air, rail, and highway links and the downtown area has an abundance of hotel rooms thanks to the convention center.

  53. Lucy says:

    Yes, KC over St. Louis. KC has a renovated OPEN stadium and MLS. St. Louis has neither.

  54. Lee says:

    Yep. Also we have shown we will show up for big time events (World Football Challenge was a great thing for the city).

  55. Felix says:

    No Chicago??? We’ve had 3 USMNT games here in the past couple of years, but now it isn’t good enough?????

    As a native Chicagoan, I’m insulted.

  56. Sammy Gupta says:

    Arent the USSF headquarters in chicago…?

    This makes no sense to me…a central hub and third largest city in the USA would not be hosting a world cup match. Folks from around the world would love to visit chicago and what it has to offer as opposed to others like kansas city or indy. Think about it, would a random fan from country XYZ be excited to see his team play in Kansas City or Chicago.

    I hope the USSF releases some kind of explanation with regards to their choices if we win one of the cups.

  57. Aaron in StL says:

    Wonder if they had the same people from the Olympic bid working on that one…ouch.

  58. Father of Francesca says:

    Not only should Chicago be on the list… it should be one of the choices to host the final.

    Very strange… (Balt and DC? Really?)

  59. gryn says:

    What a failure being one of the final five cities in the entire world in an Olympic bid. That certainly justifies not being in the top 18 in the US for a soccer game.

  60. vik says:

    It would be a good experience to see some of the less popular tourist cities in the US like indy and kc, but at the expense of chicago and sf… i dunno. Besides being convenient for me, I would think the bay area and chicago have a better tourist infrastructure to handle more visitors than kc and indy. I’m also a little confused about the point of including baltimore and D.C.

  61. Brian says:

    Citrus Bowl doesn’t even come close to Raymond James Stadium, and in my opinion Tampa is a much cooler city. I mean what else is in Orlando besides Disney World?

  62. Chad says:

    Agreed Luis. St. Louis is a terrible, terrible place.

  63. Jeremy says:

    Logistically this doesn’t make a lot of sense. Travel is the biggest issue with a US World Cup because of the size of the country and making people try to get to places like KC or Indy, no offense to either city, isn’t nearly as easy as Chicago or the Bay Area. The teams and VIPs don’t have to worry, they’ll be on chartered flights, but visiting fans will find these cities more difficult.

  64. BooThisMan says:

    I saw the WC qualifier and Gold Cup semis at Soldier Field last summer. Great venue for soccer, unbelievable that it was excluded.

  65. America, F**K Yeah, we are going to host one of these! San Diego, great call! Weather, proximity to border (right next to it), Olympic Training Center here and of course the beaches and hotties! Lots of 5 star hotels!

  66. Aaron in StL says:

    Well, glad to see Nashville made it. They hosted the T&T qualifier this past April (as well as Olympic and friendly matches in the past few years for the USMNT)and had to have helped their chances. Rowdy crowd and the stadium is well-suited for soccer. That may be the problem with many of the other (especially older, regardless of renovations) stadia – the Nashville stadium is barely 10 years old, and was built with the idea that it would be multi-use whereas many older ones weren’t planned that way.

    Too bad for Chicago. Pretty surprised. You would think one of these spots would be a consolation.

  67. Master of the Obvious says:

    completely failed? Being a finalist is hardly a complete failure? They were one of FOUR FINALISTS in the ENITRE WORLD. If that is complete failure I think you might want to look in the mirror and count how many times you’ve finished out of the top four and then re-evaluate your life because surely you (and everyone else in the world) would – under that criteria – be more of a complete failure than Chicago.

  68. Lee says:

    I’m not sure why people think Baltimore and DC are the same place.

    You might not be thinking that, just thinking its strange because they are somewhat close, but its a pet peeve of most from Baltimore that people equate Baltimore as an almost suburb of DC.

  69. over there says:

    Hell, I’m from RI and I would have picked Chicago over “Boston.” Boston in quotes because Foxborough (far closer to Providence) is in the sticks, no where near the city, or anything for that matter, with no public transportation.

  70. Dudeinho says:

    Please the stench and smog of TJ mixes with San Diego all day. Smog down there is worse.

  71. Aaron in StL says:

    You obviously don’t travel much. I’d much rather have to go to the airports in Indy, Nashville or even KC (the most efficient airport in the country, no joking) before O’Hare. O’Hare is a nightmare nearly every time I’ve been there.

    But that shouldn’t be a reason for Chicago to be left out. Just refuting the “logistical” part of your argument. Chicago should have been an easy lock, and there’s not much you could really say.

  72. FROM GOBIDUSA site…..Sounds like all cities will get a match, but who knows…Some may have to pull out! Official statement:

    Eighteen cities have been selected as the official host cities for the United States’ Bid for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.

    The following cities will form the United States bid to FIFA. Each city could see World Cup matches in their venues if the US is awarded the honor of hosting the world’s largest sporting event.

  73. Dudeinho says:

    lol i thought the same thing but the place does have air conditioning

  74. Doug says:

    First off, every game is going to sell out. Even the equivalent of the Slovenia-Algeria game because the US likes the big event.

    The exclusion of Chicago in favor of Indy and KC is stunning apart from the stadium capacities. Still, having a major presence in the 3d biggest city is dumbfounding. Further, I’m surprised that both Baltimore and DC are getting the nod. It will be interesting who gets the “priviledge” of playing in Phoenix in June. I can’t recall if that stadium has a retractable roof or not.

  75. Aaron in StL says:

    I’m telling the Dome, the Arch, and our high crime rate that you said that, Chad.

  76. Richard says:

    No Chicago and no SF Bay Area is insane. It’s the equivalent of an England world cup without many games played in Liverpool or Leeds or an Italy world cup without any games in Naples or Turin.

  77. Scott A says:

    Tampa instead of Chicago? ha

  78. gryn says:

    I don’t think anyone would argue that O’Hare is a pleasant experience, but the reason Chicago is so easy to get to is that most US cities have DIRECT flights to O’Hare. There are far fewer direct flights into the other midwest cities, as those airports are not as frequently used as hubs by the airlines.

  79. Brent says:

    Who wants to go to Kansas City or Indy??? W-T-F They come before Chicago. What a joke. Every time there is a national team game in the Chicago it’s packed and a great atmosphere. US soccer really screwed up this time.

  80. Aaron in StL says:

    On top of the likelihood that fans would purchase every ticket, they always have corporate sales to fall back on.

    NFL games are almost always “sold out” in some places, but there will be a lot of empty seats still. Tickets have been bought by companies which don’t all get used. Still make their $$$

  81. jig says:

    soldier field isnt big enough, it would have been the smallest venue by about 5,000 seats.

  82. Chris de NY says:

    We don’t think they’re the same place. We think DC is metastasizing.

  83. Alex says:

    Indy has a new airport, one of the best new stadiums, has hosted NCAA final fours for years, and has a seriously underrated soccer community – reasons for entry. Also, all stadiums, whatever city they are in, will sell out.

    They will also be hosting the super bowl soon which will be a test for the city’s capabilities to host a large-scale event.

    All that being said, Chicago’s exclusion is a joke.

  84. Steve says:

    No CHICAGO????!!!!! Are you SERIOUS?????!!!

  85. inkedAG says:

    Count me in as a person that is surprised Chicago was not included.

  86. Andrew says:

    Being a Bay Area native, I’m a little annoyed that we didn’t make the cut. That said, the Oakland Coliseum sucks ass and would be a terrible World Cup venue. AT&T Park isn’t set up well for soccer. Candlestick sort of worked for the Barca/Chivas friendly last summer, but it really is not a great venue. I haven’t been to the renovated Stanford Stadium, but apart from capacity, Palo Alto does not seem like a particularly logical destination in terms of easy access.

    I don’t know the facts about why Chicago was not selected, but the fact that one of our nation’s biggest and best cities failed to make the cut is a shocker and pretty disappointing.

  87. Scarlet says:

    I disagree on Orlando having better appeal. Tampa is a much nicer city and has tons of things to do. It is close to miles of beach and it is close enough to Orlando for anyone to do the Disney thing.

  88. Polish Wonder says:

    If it is true that Chicago had a poor application, there you go. Chicago’s fault apparently.

  89. Edwin says:

    I too am shocked that Chitown didn’t get it but you have to look at some of the big pictures. Aside from a large populationa and the NFL recently reconstructed Soldier field that has seen NUMEROUS US WC qualifying games as well as Gold Cup games like the final in 07 and the Mexico vs Costa Rica semifinal this past summer that was packed, Chicago had a lot of things going against them.

    The city has been split when it comes to hosting international events of such magnitude as the Olympics and World Cup. A lot of folks, not going to say what kind because I’m not sure if there even is a demographic for it, said they didn’t want to have the Olympics there so it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that those same sentiments are part of what drove the USSF to not include Chicago. Some speculated that we were too arrogant in the Chicago bid but I feel that the IOC did somewhat of a hidden agenda, they gave them the 2016 Olympics when they are hosting the 2014 WC? Come on?

    I thought these were the locks for the USA’s bid for 2018 & 2022 WC:

    Locks: LA, NY, Boston, DC, CHI, Seattle, Dallas, Philly

    Almost Locks: Houston, Phoenix

    Probables: Florida’s Miami/Orlando/Tampa/Jacksonville

    Nashville to represent the South

    6 Cities stand out and 3 really make me scratch my head as far as why them?

    Denver, Baltimore and Indy are my head scratchers

    I’m surprised by San Diego, KC and Atlanta but understand them except for ATL, is there supposed to be a new stadium by then? How real is this possibility? I doubt it the Falcons aren’t exactly the most popular team since Vick left?

    Chicago suffers by Soldier Field being so small, they are banking on the stadiums being huge, think about this 4 very likely venues are 80K+ or bigger!

    LA’s stadiums are both capable of holding 95-100K, Dallas new Cowboys stadium is capable of 80-100K, DC’s FedEx Field holds 91K, New York’s new stadium also holds close to 80K

    Also USSF looks like are going to place all the stadiums near each other.

    Boston, NY, DC, Philly are a must if you as ask me, they are all big stadiums some haven’t even been opened yet, close to each other with great access to mass transit from within the cities where the stadiums are and to other WC hosting cities.

    Dallas & Houston not only have great new venues that will only be 9 & 16 years old or 13 & 20 years old by the time they host it, and they are less than 1 hour away by plane, or 5 hours in a car or bus, there might even be a bullet train, I don’t know if there is an Amtrak train to go there but if there is it probably takes very little to get there too!

    LA is only 3 hours worth a flight away from both of those and a few hours from Seattle as well, about 1 hour from Phoenix which has big new stadium and they have a retractable roof for those of you bitching about the summer heat in AZ in June.

    Chicago has horrible humidity if I’m not mistaken in the summer too so that probably didn’t help when places like Indy, Phoenix, and Hou offered the state of the art roofed stadiums!

  90. Mark S says:

    Chicago’s ethic population would guarentee that even if it was assigned some unheralded teams, there would be enough fans from those countries, living locally, to help sell the games out.

  91. Covert says:

    Can’t believe Chicago didn’t make the cut. It’s a fantastic destination for overseas travels, as there are a number of flights from abroad that land in Chicago, the rail system makes it’s easy to get around, the L’s Green line has a stop like 4 blocks from the stadium. Soldiers field has been excellent venue for soccer in this country, and the USSF is headquartered in Chicago. Not to mention the international flavor of the city itself.

  92. vik says:

    Yea current bay area venues suck, but if the niners are still in town come 2018 or 2022, then they would have a new stadium by then. I hope…

  93. Doug says:

    Illinois and Chicago have officially hit rock bottom. The trade shows are fleeing and the state bond rating is junk. The corruption screwed up the Olympic bid and messed up the Bears stadium project and left us with the eyesore that is the new Soldier Field. One governor is in jail and another should be. They’re stuffing more runways into O’Hare when the road system can’t cope with the traffic there now.

    I need a drink.

  94. Big Chil says:

    I’m shocked that Chicago was dropped. Chicago is a world class city. Few stadiums are as centrally located downtown as is Soldier Field, which was even upgraded in 2001. I was there in ’94, and international visitors were just stunned at the city’s beauty and accessibility. It was great to see the Germans hanging around the rock n’ roll McDonalds, and Bolivians down on Rush Street, and visitors just strolling Chicago’s magnificent lakefront.

    I believe Soldier Field’s capacity of 61,500 was probably considered too small, with all the other new stadiums built in the past few years surpassing it. It is now the smallest capacity stadium in the NFL, believe it or not.

    On the other hand, I’m pleased that Denver got in, as I live within walking distance of Mile High… :)

  95. Big Chil says:

    True that.

  96. Lee from NYC says:

    AMEN!

  97. USA says:

    Edwin, you obviously know nothing about chicago or chicagoans, feel free to keep your opinions on Chicago and Chicago related topics to yourself

  98. ETJ says:

    its not about the city, its about the stadium

  99. Jayboy says:

    Rather than add on to the pile, I thought I’d add something moderately interesting. Here is a Google Map with all 18 cities posted on it.

    Here you go – link to maps.google.com

    103323547291182110545.00047cfe88cbf6b2f2c11

  100. RLW2020 says:

    its all about how many seats in the stadium. then quality of stadium/city

  101. Andrew says:

    But it seats 62,000 which is enough for at least some first round games.

    As it stands, the bid is now missing the nation’s 3rd largest city and one its most culturally attractive tourist destinations. Bad move by USSF.

  102. Ja Ja James says:

    Currently living in Texas, it is good to see they did include both Dallas and Houston. Both have large Hispanic populations that follow Fútbol. Not to mention L.A., San Diego, Denver,and Phoenix. I think they are covered. :)

  103. Andrew says:

    It is inexplicable to me. Soldier Field isn’t suitable for the opener or final, but it’s plenty big enough for at least some 1st-round games.

    This is a huge self-inflicted wound to the bid.

  104. Andrew says:

    It makes NO sense for Chicago to lobby hard for the Olympics, then three months later say they don’t want the WC. No sense.

  105. Edwin says:

    Baltimore seems dumb since DC already has a stadium and DC are pretty much a favorite to host, too close in proximity, not enough infrastructure in my opinion to go around, LA is probably the only city capable of having 2 stadiums with the Rose Bowl & Colesium and even then there need to be improvements or the new proposed NFL stadium?

    DC has FedEx Field with 91K+ capacity, enough said!

  106. jig says:

    dude, the stadiums not big enough, they want to sell tickets. having soldier field doesnt provide the best opportunity to do that.

  107. Andrew says:

    But in 1994 the Pontiac Silverdome wasn’t allowed to use the climate control. (I remember Sweden v. Brazil looked like it was being played in a sauna)

    Will the same rule be applied this time for Phoenix/Atlanta/Dallas/Houston???

  108. Andrew says:

    It might be Chicago’s fault, but who cares? We ALL suffer for it.

    That’s because, without Chicago, the bid is now less likely to be selected by FIFA.

    Say hello to England 2018 & Australia 2022.

  109. Grantiza78 says:

    WOW!

    The new Soldier Field was SOLD to the city and the state as a likely WC venue when it was built a few years ago.

    Now it doesnt make the cut!

    WOW. This is major Chicago FUBAR!

  110. Andrew says:

    People, Soldier Field may not be the biggest stadium in the world, but 61,500 capacity is NOT SMALL!

    6 out of 10 stadia used in South Africa this year will seat less than Soldier Field, including FIVE UNDER 50,000.

    USSF really shot itself in the foot here.

  111. Andrew says:

    Not exactly. If that were so, we’d be seeing World Cup games in Gainesville, FL, Tuscaloosa, AL, Ann Arbor, MI, and State College, PA. :)

  112. Pissed off in Chi Town says:

    Thanks Daley for providing the crappiest multi-purpose stadium in the country. Thanks USSF for screwing over your home town. Chicago has one of the richest soccer heritages in the country, how can the geniuses who run the USSF pass over it? How many towns chosen over Chicago have a pro team? Miami’s team folded due to lack of interest for Pete’s sake! WTF!

  113. smokeminside says:

    has a roof, good to go.

  114. RAW says:

    I agree that the missing of Chicago is a huge suprise. Even with the fact that they run all of US Soccer out of Chicago, but along with that, there have been so many great matches played in Chicago.

    None the less, it doesnt make as much sense to have cities like LA and Dallas having two stadiums in the bid and other major cities only have one and some of the best soccer cities in the USA not even included i.e. Chicago, St Louis, etc

    Just happy to see NYC/NJ was on the list even if it was the last one announced

  115. smokeminside says:

    Folks, it’s not about demographics, it’s not about teams that folded. I don’t know what it IS about, but I DO know that if you had a 65K stadium in Fairbanks, it would sell out a world cup match. Period.

  116. charlie says:

    YEEEEAAAAH DENVER!!! hopefully the altitude thing doesnt cause them to change their minds and not use it

  117. Cindy says:

    can i assume by New York they mean the new Meadowlands [which should be awesome!]? also i’m kinda really shocked about Chicago.

  118. nate says:

    But it’s also about the hosts showcasing their country to the world, and in that respect, I expect Chicago to be up there with New York. And definitely NOT Kansas City…

  119. Mike says:

    It was easier to eliminate Chicago now than in the final submission package, and they want/need to eliminate Chicago.

    If the US can win a bid, it will be on the strength of $$$$/# of tickets/profitability for FIFA. Period.

    USSF wants to submit a bid that will present such a massive potential windfall that it cannot be overlooked. The stadiums on the list are the newest, most tricked out, largest available. Period.

  120. John says:

    Not only does it have a retractable roof, it has a retractable field, and air conditioning. The sad thing is, if we get the WC, the Phoenix game won’t be at night, when it’s actually not that unpleasant outside.

  121. John says:

    I am shocked to see Chicago missed, but I also think it speaks volumes we can leave out the third-largest city in the country and still have a really good proposal.

  122. Jammer says:

    One reason KC may have made the cut, is the stadium seats 78,000, well above average despite what it says at the top. Anytime I read about the US bid, it always says how many seats and tickets there would be, and how it could break the 1994 record. That seems to be how they are pitching it to FIFA and the public.

    Besides the venue, how can you compare cities? They are all great cities with plenty of infrastructure. I’m not talking about Chicago here but all the rest in the midwest and south.

  123. TopHat says:

    Pretty ignorant fubar…newsflash..we all live in a huge country!! I hope you don’t think that the whole country (or WC interest) revolves around the “close proximity” of just DC, Balt, Philly and NYC. I do like all of those cities but still think its rediculous to have the extremely “close proximity” of DC Balt and Philly and ignoring Chicago as WC sites…and as for the travelling for the teams to/from venues, boohoohoo!!!!

  124. soccerroo says:

    On who host the opener and final. New york Gets the final and I would guessthe opener would bein Washington DC.

  125. Calvert says:

    I’m surprised about Chicago, too. Sounds like maybe venues carried a lot more weight than anyone would care to admit.

  126. Fredy's Cat says:

    2 Stadia in Seattle.

    Awesome!!!

  127. Knuckles says:

    Is New Soldier Field actually that crappy? It looks pretty damn nice to me. I’ve only driven past it, never been inside it, but it looks great.

  128. SombraAla says:

    You’d have to think that part of it has to do with Chicago having tied their bid in with the Olympic bid too much – for instance, Japan was tying their bid with the assumption that a +80k seat stadium would be built for the Olympic bid, but when that didn’t happen they probably took a hit on their WC bid.

    Chicago probably considered the Olympic bid to be more important, worked hard on that and was expecting to ride that ‘win’ (should it happen) in order to get the WC bid.

    In the same respects, realize that the bidding process wasn’t about which city is the best for tourists… if anything, from a tourism perspective, it makes more sense to make the cities the ones with less tourism b/c the event itself is a built-in draw. Chances are good that many of those who go to games in KC or Indy will consider stopping by Chicago while they are in the area.

  129. tim says:

    Lack of Chicago and SF Bay Area is pretty shocking. Their only the 3rd and 6th largest media markets!

    I dont necessarily mind keeping both Baltimore and DC since keeping a good chunk of games along the eastern coast makes transportation easy.

    Nashville or Indy, not both, or neither really. Neither is a big market or a particularly attractive destination nor do they have any sizeable immigrant populations. Sure the stadiums in SF suck but I really dont think Soldier Field could be that much worse than LP field.

  130. Biggy says:

    how there is nothing in the bay area has got to be the biggest joke around. I mean, SF/OAK/SJ all have huge populations, SF is a major center of international business, SFO is a giant airport along with OAK and SJC, and bart could get everyone around easily. FFS who wants to go to Kansas City/Indy/Houston. nothing against you if you live there, but the bay area is a slightly better destination. at least virgin america flies to seattle/la/san diego, so I will be able to get to games easily. still, unreal. I mean, we could build a stadium from scratch by then.

  131. Reid says:

    Is there a reason they can’t just say foxborough. I don’t know about the proximity for the rest of the stadiums but telling a person from sweden or russia (just examples) that their team is playing in Boston and then they realize the game will be played no where near boston

  132. dwbpnm says:

    Here’s the breakdown of cities, stadiums, and capacity
    Atlanta:Georgia Dome 71000 possible new stadium
    San Diego:Qualcomm 71000 possible new stadium
    Phoenix:University of Phoenix 72000
    Dallas:Cowboys Stadium 80000 (111000 w/ standing)
    Seattle:Qwest Field 72000
    Denver:Invesco Field 76000
    Tampa:Raymond James Stadium 75000
    Indianapolis:Lucas Oil Stadium 70000
    Baltimore:M&T 71000
    Nashville:LP Field 69000
    Kansas City:Arrowhead Stadium 77000 (currently being renovated)
    Houston:Reliant Stadium 71500
    Miami:Land Shark 75000 (currently being renovated)
    Philadelphia:Lincoln Financial 68500
    LA:Rose Bowl 92500, LA Coliseum 93500 (possible new/renovated NFL stadium)
    DC:FedEx Field 91500 (possible new stadium)
    Boston: Gillete Stadium 69000
    NY/NJ: New Meadowlands 82500

    For comparison
    Chicago: Soldier Field 61500
    Oakland: Oakland Coliseum 63000
    Australia (our biggest competitor for the non-Europe WC slot): Melbourne Cricket Ground 100,000, ANZ Stadium (Sydney) 83000 then everything else is 56K or less.

    It is the World Cup every game sells out no matter what. So this is all about getting the games in as large of stadiums as possible. I believe the process from here is all these cities will be submitted in the bid and then if we get a world cup the USSF will cut it down to a final 12 cities which will actually host games. In terms of cities getting cut at the next stage if Atlanta doesn’t get a new stadium you’ve got to think its out since it would be one of the oldest stadiums and indoors w/o a retractable roof. San Diego is out unless there is movement for a new stadium or the USSF really wants to push the regional groupings idea(i.e LA, SD and Phoenix). The front runners for the semi’s and final have to be Dallas, NY and DC (assuming Dan Snyder gets a new stadium for the Redskins)

  133. huricano says:

    tampa, indianapolis, nashville, over Chicago? qué, qué? No knock to them, but the rest of the world has not heard of these places.

  134. Chase says:

    Not enough infrastructure? Have you ever been to Baltimore or the wider DC area?

    There are more than enough hotels/international airports/transport options to support both DC and Baltimore hosting games.

    Its going to be a zoo, but there is more than enough in place to support it…

  135. Knuckles says:

    Dude. Oakland Coliseum is a craphole that would never, ever be seriously considered by the USSF unless they were desperate. If you look at the list, every stadium on there was built within the last ten years, with the notable exceptions of the three Southern California stadiums. Actually, if you think about it, all four California stadiums that were considered for the bid are all decades old and in need of either replacement or serious renovation.

  136. Jimoh8002 says:

    Dc Baltimoe and philly is a brilliant marketing strategy ….spend less to move the players around and sell out easily because of the easy commute for the fans &&&&& no chicago? WTF

  137. AlliedP says:

    You know who loves this list? Anyone who’s bidding against the US…and no one more so than England and Australia

    To not include Chicago and the SF Bay Area is about as crippling to the USA cause as could be fathomed.

    61K (Soldier Field) is plenty big enough for WC soccer and if the promise of new stadiums in cities like San Diego and Atlanta are good enough for the Bid Committee, then why is anyone wringing thier hands over the fact that the 49ers new stadium is not yet in place?

    I don’t have a particular problem with any city on the list, but I would never have dreamed that the powers that be would be so reckless to exclude ChiTown or SF. Asinine.

  138. Excited that KC made the list. The renovations at Arrowhead and KC ballot stuffing certainly helped.

    WTF on Chicago exclusion. I’d much rather road trip to Soldier Field and the Windy City then some dome in Indy.

  139. Neuwerld says:

    Looks like capacity may have been a huge factor. Oakland = 63k
    San Francisco = 51k
    Chicago = 61k
    Orlando = 66k
    St. Louis = 67k

    all get left out, meanwhile

    Kansas City = 75k
    Baltimore = 71k
    San Diego = 68k
    Nashville = 75k
    Indianapolis = 67k

    all make it in. Still does seem weird to have no Bay Area venue and no Chicago, especially given some of the lower-profile choices and other choices very near each other.

  140. Yinka Double Dare says:

    Uh, in order to get to that point they had to beat out several other United States cities.

    And they don’t have to do a damn thing in this city to be ready for a World Cup. Bajillions of hotel rooms, stadium already built (and with loads of luxury boxes for the corporate types). New Soldier Field is a better place to watch a match than the old building that hosted in ’94.

    This is simply unfathomable. Third largest city, huge soccer fanbase, successful MLS franchise. It’s like an England bid leaving Manchester or Liverpool out. Unbelievable. There is no excuse. There is no way they can say that Chicago is not viable.

  141. Biggy says:

    Bay Area and Chicago 2018/2022
    “The Game is Elsewhere”

  142. nate says:

    Very well said…my thoughts exactly.

  143. Yinka Double Dare says:

    It’s a fantastic venue for soccer spectators (ask anyone who was there for US/Honduras back in June, for example). Second loudest non-dome stadium in the league too (after Qwest in Seattle) because they built it straight up since they were trying to fit it inside the old stadium structure. It’s loud as hell for Bears games in there.

    It “only” holds about 62,000 people. If that’s the reason we’re not hosting at least a couple of games, then eff the USSF. Screwing us over for an extra 10,000 tickets sold is just ridiculous.

  144. smokeminside says:

    why is San Diego out? Is Qualcomm not a good fit for soccer? As far as cities go, it’s one of the best on the list….

  145. chicagosoccerguy says:

    Total BS no Chicago! Could this be US Soccer getting back at Daley for not giving land for “Toyota Park”

  146. DC Josh says:

    Surprised Chicago wasn’t selected as a site. After losing out on the Olympics, then this, they must be down in the dumps. It’s a great city, although traffic was horrendous when I visited for the Honduras game.

    If Nashville has a game, I’ll gladly travel there. I had the best time in downtown for the T&T game, running into Brad Guzan on the street, and the proximity of everything makes it a great city.

  147. smokeminside says:

    I agree with you….

  148. Knuckles says:

    Traffic in Chicago is pretty much horrendous all the time.

  149. Phil says:

    Chicago missed out because they put in a bad bid. Nothing to do with stadium capacity.

    The FIFA Host city agreement that cities must adhere to in order to host World Cup games is a very detailed and complex document. Obviously Chicago was busy with the Olympic bid.

    link to nytimes.com

  150. Edwin says:

    Chase I have not had the pleasure of going to Baltimore or DC area, but you really think they have enough hotels, car rentals and freeways to accomodate 2 WC stadiums so close by?

    Not saying DC/Baltimore area is outright wrong for this, just saying it makes one wonder when Chicago, Orlando and San Francisco are not on the list?

    To me with 4 cities in the northeast DC, NY, Boston, Philly that should be enough.

    You got the 2 TX teams, LA, PHX and Seattle within 3 hours worth a plane ride of each other and then you have the sort of isolated cities like Miami&Tampa, KC, the Southen spots in Atlanta&Nashville, Denver which is very odd not sure why put them there, I know Soldier Field is hot and small but Denver? Not too big a city and their soccer fan base is very questionable, plus heat and Mile High altitude not cool!

    Indy is a bit of a head scratcher too, small stadium but domed I guess and good option from Chicago?

  151. Joe says:

    Well its brand new and still one of the smallest, if not the smallest, in the NFL. This is terrible news…

  152. Tim K says:

    Are you serious!!!! NO CHICAGO!!!?????

  153. Average stadium capacity of around 78,000?

    OK, so they are, once again, talking about proposing the use of American Football stadiums. I’ll be amazed if FIFA doesn’t laugh us off at this point, but we’ll see, we’ll see.

    Personally I don’t like it. It’s like hosting the Hockey World Championship in a country that only has curling rings large enough to handle all the fans.

  154. DS says:

    Ridiculous to leave the SanFran/SanJose/Oakland/Sacramento area out – we have **two** teams in each of the top-3 major leagues (NFL, NBA, MLB), not to mention the Earthquakes, historically strong college soccer teams (Stanford, Cal, Santa Clara), at least FOUR US Soccer Development Academies, a large Hispanic population, a vibrant international community, millions of kids enrolled in youth soccer, GREAT tourist spots in the 100-mile radius, FOUR international airports, hotel space, partying locations, you name it…

  155. viva nashvegas says:

    So happy Nashville made the list but it is amazing that both chitown or the bay area, especially sf, missed out. Easily two of the best cities in the country

  156. Big Chil says:

    Well said. I shouldn’t have moved to Denver.

  157. Big Chil says:

    I doubt that. Daley has been big on promoting his city, including the 1994 World Cup.

  158. Big Chil says:

    It ain’t.

  159. Big Chil says:

    One would think Sunil would want an easy commute from his home, and office, to at least one game.

  160. Big Chil says:

    I agree. I was hoping that this time the groups would stay regional. I.e. NE — Boston, NY, Philly, Midwest, Chicago, Indy, Ohio, etc. Makes it much easier for team & fan travel and still showcases our country.

    South Africa’s groups are somewhat disparate, but we’re only dealing with a country the size of Texas, so… ;)

  161. Dave in San Jose says:

    As a Bay Area guy, the SF/Oakland snub pisses me off. Huge soccer hotbed, 3 large stadiums in Palo Alto (Stanford University), San Francisco and Oakland (although only Palo Alto and Oakland were in running), 3M plus people, a history of World Cup success (we hosted in ’94), large ethnic (Hispanic/Asian) population.

    At the Chicago snub feels wrong as well. Grant Wahl speculated that this could impact Obama’s excitement to support the World Cup in the USA, since we just excluded his home town.

    IVES – I’d love to hear you speculate on the politics of this short list. Why did some make it and some not? Come on – speculate! :-)

  162. Il Consigliere says:

    People…you have no idea why Chicago was left off of the list…each city had to sign forms between the stadium and governments of the city and states…maybe someone in one of these areas decided not to sign…I doubt USSF said F-Chicago…and remember this…the World Cup Committee would have decided on this list, so it is more than just USSF saying “these are the 18 cities”…you have people from MLS, Government officials, and business people who decided Chicago was not to be included in the 18…

  163. Big Chil says:

    Ok, twice the size of Texas, via Wikipedia.

  164. Brian says:

    Someone correct me if I’m wrong but if we do in fact end up hosting the World Cup in 2018 or 2022, that of these 18 cities (and 21 stadiums) NOT ALL OF THEM will be hosting games. I think the only thing FINAL about this list is that it will be the final list submitted to FIFA on May 14, 2010. I expect that if we do end up hosting the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 FIFA will whittle the stadium list down to 12 or so (maybe 14).

    By comparison, Germany used 12 stadiums, South Africa is using 10, and Brazil will be using 12.

  165. Big Chil says:

    Yep.

  166. Il Consigliere says:

    Dude…what does Milton Keynes, Bristol, and Plymouth have over any of the cities on our list? It’s not asinine…if it comes out that Chicago officials decided not to sign the FIFA paperwork, is that the fault of our World Cup Committee?

  167. Big Chil says:

    Me too.

  168. Big Chil says:

    Yeah, the 45 min hassle in lines is a lot less than a layover + connecting flight.

  169. Big Chil says:

    Excluding Chicago could actually hurt our bid. Foreign travelers to Indy and KC?

    So Soldier Field is the smallest. 61,500. What other country has this problem that a 60,000 capacity stadium is the smallest in contention?

    It’d just be a better ticket to get.

  170. GoUSAworldCup says:

    I’m from the Bay. You have to admit, the Bay has no decent stadiums that are accessible to a large contingent. Candlestick Park? That stadium is s@#$ The Oakland Coliseum? Even worse. Memorial Stadium at UC Berkeley? Gorgeous but accessible only to student (in the middle of a residential area). The only viable option would have been Stanford Stadium.

  171. Ice says:

    Aaron will you also tell Imo’s about Chad’s remark as well? St. Louis would have been a bid city if not for Imo’s crappy pizza.

  172. Jimoh8002 says:

    yeah kansas got lucky but st. louis was just a worm hole

  173. Big Chil says:

    Yeah.

  174. Edwin says:

    Aaron, I’m with you that Chicago being the connecting hub it is despite O’Hare’s horrible set up, and with so much Culture, diversity and sight seeing possibilites that I thought Chicago would be a lock for the World Cup, specially since they opened it last time 16 years ago.

    But there are some factors as to why they didn’t get it, the Olympics Bid failure probably plays a bigger part than we’re willing to accept, a lot of Chicago residents said they didn’t want to spend all this money on International events when there are so many problems within the city.

    Soldier Field while great, modern and historic is very small, and the fact that the humidity and heat of the summer are always very high in the midwest and stuff makes it also another point against them.

    Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Indy and even KC are offering State of the Art facilities with not only media and fan accomdations of the best luxury and regular levels but also controled climates, with Retractable or sliding roofs those places have amazing advantages in terms of venue and of the one big complain they had in 94, the other was the distance teams had to travel in order to play games as they moved along the tournament.

    This probably hurts Chicago with Boston, DC, NY, Philly all being near each other, then you got the 2-Step in Texas which Tampa& Miami as well as not too far from KC and the south spots in Atlanta and Nashville, it makes it harder for Chicago being in it’s lonesome.

    LA has Phoenix less than hour away by plane if I’m not mistaken, Seattle about 3 hours away and Starbucks town being the most obvious Soccer loving town in all of the US right now, can you say US national stadium?

    San Diego also hurts Chicago with their weather, bigger stadium and proximity to LA&Phoenix, hell there’s a 2 or 3 hour train to SD from LA and there’s suppsed to be a bullet train that would get you there in about 2 hours or less? Could get to Seattle pretty quick with that train too! Not sure if it goes all the way to Washington thru Oregon but sure makes it easier don’t you think?

  175. Big Chil says:

    Well, they’re gonna have to, flightwise, lol.

    How do you screw up this bid? “We have a world class cosmopolitan city with direct flights to just about everywhere and a 61,500 seat stadium.”

  176. GoUSAworldCup says:

    If it was about the stadium then Beaver Stadium would have been picked. 110,000 people can fit in that b@#$

  177. Byron says:

    BURN.

  178. papa bear says:

    Baltimore, Indianapolis, Nashville and Tampa but no Chicago?!?!

    I would be very interested to hear the reasoning behind this. I would also like to know how the USSF thinks this will look in anyway ‘good’ to the committee that will ultimately decide this as Chicago is the home of the USSF. It’d be like England not playing any games in Manchester. I can only think it is the horrid Mistake by the Lake that has done them in. ‘New’ Soldiers Field sucks and really should have been razed and totally rebuilt to something larger than the tiny box it is now.

    One final note, the few comments about wanting large Hispanic populations: Chicago has a very large Hispanic population however, as someone else pointed out, this is the World Cup. People I know who have no interest in soccer 3.5 years get completely wrapped up in soccer for the World Cup it markets itself.

  179. Big Chil says:

    Yep.

  180. Edwin says:

    Big Chil, you being honest or sarcastic? LOL

    Well something tells me airlines would be glad to adjus their flight schedules for a month if it meant crazy profits for them?

    What do you guys think?

    I guarantee you Southwest is salibating at the prospect of flights between their headquarters of Dallas to Houston, LA, Phoenix, Seattle, Miami, Tampa, all of the northeast cities and Nashville, hell if United gives up some power they can fly into ATL by then. Plus Southwest goes to Alabama I think only a few hours away from Atl.

    Chicago should be there but it has some serious faults with the smallest stadium, no roof to counter the summer weather and no immedeate Big city close to them?

    Yeah we lost Chi town and this could of done wonders for the Fire who need to pull their attendance numbers since such a big market has to bring in more fans but maybe they’ll embrace the game and learn from it?

    We still have the #1, 2, 4 and 5 biggest cities in the US involved in NY, LA, HOU & Dallas.

  181. Big Chil says:

    “Bad bid?” That article cited “olympic fatigue,” whatever that means.

    Third largest U.S. city, a lakefront crown jewel, represents the right time zone.

    Their bid only had to be one sentence.

  182. Big Chil says:

    I doubt politics will come into it. The President will support the bid even with the exclusion of (our) hometown Chicago.

    Since the bid is for 2018 or 2022, I would imagine that it’s more of a representation, and that cities with a new stadium in the next 10 years could get back on the list.

  183. Big Chil says:

    Barack, of course, will only be President through 2016 ;) I’m sure he’ll support it all the way.

  184. Big Chil says:

    Does anyone besides me think this is the result of FIFA’s decision to do World Cup bids on an 8 year schedule?

    Maybe certain countries…nudge nudge (Australia)…will need time to get up to date, but the U.S.? We could host it tomorrow.

    And, as far as picking the cities 8 years out…we build new stadiums every year.

    I have to think that we can be picked to host and not tied to KC if a better suitor pops up in the next 8 years.

  185. timothy says:

    I hope Denver gets selected if US wins a bid. I’d maybe buy tickets to every game at Invesco

  186. Kevin says:

    No Chicago, but Indianapolis? WTF!

  187. chicagobid says:

    Chicago = no under the table envelope for Sunil and the gang due to ethical bid group.

  188. Hoosier in Hong Kong says:

    I am from Indy (although haven’t lived there in a long while) and was surprised a lot as well…

    However, reflecting on its inclusion, there are a lot of positives that from a FIFA/WC-hosting perspective, make sense:

    - one of the US’s newest sports staduium w/ “FIFA-compliant” seating capacity, what is viewed by many in the NFL as some of the premier team dressing/locker rooms, significant suite availability (2 levels of), custom-made and ample media space, state-of-the-art retractable roof, high tech screens, wide hallways (lined with concessions) with huge ceilings, etc.

    - strong travel infrastructure: has one of the US’s most modern and passenger-friendly airports (opened within the past year) and the city is at the crossroads of the US’s main East-West highway (US 70) and a major North-South highway (US 65). Thus, as is the case during the WC, fans will typically be based in one city (or close to that city) where “their team” is playing its group games, but then travel by air or car/bus to other cities. Indy is networked across the country’s airport network and is an easy drive (or commute) to/from Chicago, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Columbus, etc.

    - significant hotel capacity in the downtown area: Indy (believe it or not) is a major city for hosting exhibitions and convestions (Comic-Con, etc.). Yes, Chicago has a reputation as a “convention”-hub, but Indianapolis has a similar amount of hotel/dining/food & beverage logistics/infrastructure.

    - experience hosting major sporting events: the Indy 500 (~500,000 people attending in 1 day) and the Brickyard 400 (supposedly Nascar’s highest attended event) are obvious, but the US version of F-1 was hosted in Indianapolis (until F-1 teams scored an own goal), the NCCA basketball finals were hosted something like 3 or 4 times in the 1990s in Indianapolis, the SuperBowl will be hosted there in 2012, Colts, Pacers (& the 2000 NBA finals), the Pan American games, etc.

    - compact downtown with a number of parks, shopping, restaurants all located within the city (vs. spread out in suburbia).

    - Major corporations (Lilly, Wellpoint, Simon REIT, etc) that tend to throw $$$-funding behind the city’s civic and sports activities.

    - and (this is a guess) a well-oiled organizing committee that has used sports to increase the city’s profile over the last decade or so. For example, a number of US Olympic federations were targeted and moved their HQs to Indy (such as swimming/diving, track & field, rowing, cycling, etc.), the NCAA is HQ’d in Indy, etc. On this note, from what I have read, the Chicago group was focused on its (unfortunately failed) Olympic bid and may not have put forward an attractive or complete enough effort when it came down to pitching the city as a WC2018/2022 host city to the USSF…

    Anyway, forgive just a few thoughts… Please forgive the verbose musings…

  189. Jim says:

    I’m guessing that Indy was selected because it has a strong track record of hosting big sporting events — multiple Final Fours, the Indy 500, and the U.S. Grand Prix to name the most prominent. The city also has a state-of-the-art stadium that will host the Super Bowl in 2012. It has a walkable, vibrant downtown area with tons of hotel space that is tailor-made for Indy’s convention business. That being said, I am surprised that Chicago wasn’t selected as well.

  190. jake says:

    yeah, no Chicago is bizarre. I mean Tampa, but not Chicago?

  191. BlueWhiteLion says:

    i find it hard to believe Chicago didn’t make the cut. Really unbelievable! Major city, MLS city, Soldier field. What is the deal?

  192. Richard says:

    WTF??!!??!!??!! NO CHICAGO?????
    The F’ING THIRD BIGGEST CITY IN THE COUNTRY???
    An insult to the country, not only to Chicagoans… I have a feeling this will be changed…

    Get Baltimore out and switch it with Chicago… As a New Jerseyan, having 5 stadiums nearby is cool and all, but it’s a half hour drive from my house to the Meadowlands and a half hour drive from M&T to FedEx … Is that saying that if there was a stadium in my small suburb, my town would be considered??? obviously not, but you know what i mean…

    Geographically I would’ve chosen the bay area over san diego, but that’s a distant second on my list of concerns…

    C’mon Chicagoans, fight for your city

  193. Wondolowski says:

    Houston BABY! cant wait go back to my old stompin grounds. sorry Chi-town.

  194. RedStateJim says:

    Stadium capacity and FAN ZONES near the stadium are the primary concerns of FIFA. $$$$$’s are what drives the selection process. Sunil stated that each stadium could have a capacity upwards of 78,000

    Philadelphia has its entire sports complex in 1 spot accessible from highways and mass transit. Boston will be cut because Foxboro is in the middle of nowhere and has no place for fans to congregate.

    Tampa has large swaths of land around its stadium. Orlando is a better city than Tampa and will have a new stadium but it has capacity issues and no Fan Zone opportunities. Unless Miami is going to upgrade its stadium, it will be cut. That place is worn out and dated.

    Stop thinking with such ignorance. The driving issues are:
    Money – capacity
    Money – fan zones
    Money – luxury suites
    and more MONEY

    The stadiums will fill up no matter where they are, but where do they make the most money?

  195. RedStateJim says:

    Indy fits all the criteria to host. It does not matter if they have never kicked a ball around that city, it will be in the final 12.

  196. dwbpnm says:

    Some people are upset the the Bay Area was left out. In my opinion the Oakland Coliseum would’ve been the most likely place in the Bay area to host games (largest and “nicest” stadium). So I was just showing that from a pure capacity standpoint the Bay area had no chance and as you say its a craphole which certainly isn’t going to help. The other California cities also have old stadiums but at least those options have decent to large capacities which is why LA and San Diego survived while SF did not.

  197. Torporindy says:

    And I feel the same about your city of fountains or whatever it is. Indianapolis/Chicago would have made a better pair than the selection of Kansas City. Who would want to go there?

    I am scratching my head over the Chicago selection as well. I was at the Soldier Field Honduras game this summer and it was a wonderful atmosphere.

  198. dwbpnm says:

    I agree that San Diego as a city is fairly high on the list, but Qualcomm will be pretty old by the time the world cup rolls around. In addition to being old it will also be on the small side so as a stadium its below average. If the Chargers get a new stadium between now and when the Stadium sites are finalized (a couple years away) I think SD rockets towards the top of the list.

  199. mike says:

    Indianapolis over Chicago!!!? is this for real?

  200. mike says:

    you want to minimize excessive travel. But I whole completely agree about Chicago. UNREAL! I mean, Indianapolis! OVER CHICAGO!!?!??! INDIANAPOLIS!!!!!!!!!!!! wow

  201. Tim M. says:

    I think chicago just has a bad vibe about with the whole olympic saga that went down recently.

  202. SCR says:

    The irony is that Da Mayor sold the public on the reconstruction of Soldier Field with public money by touting the use of the stadium for soccer events.

  203. smokeminside says:

    Just curious, but are all WC games during the day? I know the two I saw in Germany were, but I can’t remember if they all were….

  204. stephanie says:

    the US has no shot at hosting either the 2018 or 2022, these cups are heading to England, who has not hosted a cup since 1966 and Australia, who has never hosted the world cup.

  205. fischy says:

    Well, I do think putting a bunch of games within a high-speed rail corridor will be appealing to FIFA. The East Coast focus makes some sense for now. I suppose if the LA-SF rail gets built, and a good stadium gets built in SF, there might be reason to reconsider excluding SF. I think leaving out Chicago, in favor of KC and/or Indy is a mistake, but that’s totally separate from the East Coast venues.

  206. smokeminside says:

    actually now I do remember and many of them were in the evening, so why would night games not work for Phoenix or any other US city for that matter? Time zone issues vis a vis Europe?

  207. smokeminside says:

    Frankfurt, on several hot days last WC, had climate control in its covered stadium.

  208. mike says:

    the US will host a world cup before Australia does. Though I think Australia would be great

  209. EZdwin says:

    Okay can you please explain why there were surveys done that indicated that a lot of people in Chicago and more important people in local governments included were not thrilled about it?

    I never claimed to be an expert on Chicago or their politics but leading up to the vote for 2016, several articles posted touched on the fact the people in Chicago were split.

    I will however post what ever I seem fit since that’s what forums are for!

    Please feel free to enlighten me and others on why Chicago should have a venue despite the already mentioned likely reasons USSF chose not to go with it?

  210. southernsoccer says:

    No Charlotte? North Carolina has three of the ten best collegiate programs in the country- Wake Forest, UNC, and Duke- and some of the best youth programs.

    Not counting Texas and Florida, which aren’t truly Southern states, the South has only two cities represented, Atlanta and Nashville.

  211. Il Consigliere says:

    Here is a quote from Sunil in regards to Chicago Parks District, the group that runs Soldier Field:

    “had a tough time wrestling with FIFA requirements in short order after the IOC decision.”

    In essence, Chicago Parks Dist. did not have their stuff in order in time…so they were passed over…so you have to ask…did they even want the event?

  212. mattC tampa says:

    Lots of factors go into these decisions. Tampa over Orlando makes sense. Citrus bowl sucks. RAy jay is far better. Tampa is near the coast and beaches and it’s still near Orlando (1 hour) and it’s attractions. Tampa would’ve gotten 94 games except back then, the old stadium’s field was too narrow.

    The Chicago decision does seem odd to me.

  213. Tom says:

    Since the games will be played in the middle of the day, Tampa, Miami, Atlanta, Dallas, Nashville and Wash/Baltimore will make for some ugly soccer.

    These venues will make the most second most exciting football tournament in the world look like a Sunday afternoon MLS match from Pizza Hut park.

    I think the summer heat will be a major stumbling block to our bid.

    I would have included as many moderate summer climates as possible.

  214. Andy says:

    Yes, there are more than enough hotels, car rentals, freeways, and public transportation (light rail, metro, buses) to handle 2 world cup venues in the Baltimore-DC area.

    Orlando – actually would have hotel issues as summer is prime time for Disney and the other Orlando attractions.

  215. Cabrito says:

    No SF? We were a great host in 94. The San Francisco Bay Area would have the best weather for those noon WC kickoffs. How the organizing committee would not want to showcase one of the world’s most beautiful cities, is shocking. And Miami and Atlanta are still on the list??? Pheonix? Looks like the orgainizing committee is only concerned with breaking attendance records.

    SF and LA are closing in on new NFL stadiums. Not sure if they can be added later on.

  216. TimN says:

    I was disappointed to see Charlotte and St. Louis left off the list. St. Louis holds so much U.S. soccer history, and I’m baffled as to why they continue to get the snub from both MLS and the USSF.

    Charlotte would have been a great choice, as it is a very clean, modern city with excellent transport and lodging infrastructure. They also have a top notch natural turf stadium in Bank of America Stadium where the Carolina Panthers play. Charlotte, and N.C. as well, also has a large, soccer knowledgeable fan base that would have shown up in droves to watch matches.

    Why Baltimore AND DC, two cities within 40 minutes of each other??

    Otherwise, most of these choices look pretty sound.

  217. chicagojoe says:

    If someone in Illinois/Chicago wasn’t willing to sign the paperwork, they could have just leaked it to the press beforehand…this would give time for fans to put pressure on the city! There are plenty of peoplein Chicago who recall the 1994 World Cup and would have called/e-mailed/sent letters to whomeever was holding things up… you don’t just exclude your 3rd largest city out of the bid

  218. Aaron in StL says:

    St. Louis style pizza is a disgrace. Luckily I only live/work here and wasn’t born into this shame.

  219. Xander Crews says:

    As a native Midwesterner now living in New York, I think it’s a tremendous slight to the entire region of the Midwest to only have Indianapolis representing the area. Of the current US teams in MLS, four have been eliminated from having any possibility of games played – two of those (Columbus and San Jose) having been founding members of the league. While San Jose has had its issues with losing their team temporarily, Columbus was the first city to build a soccer-specific facility, so the commitment to soccer is there, and there were three venues that submitted bids in the state (Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati) – two new NFL stadiums and one of the largest in college football, all within two hours of Columbus. Not to mention the vast number of people in the Ohio three, plus Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, Minneapolis who all will have to fight for tickets to Indianapolis (though that won’t happen).

    So here’s what you’re going to have: four groups of three cities, based in four distinct regions of the country to keep fans pooled closer together.
    - Northeast: Boston, NY, Philly, DC, Baltimore
    - Southeast: Miami, Tampa, Atlanta, Nashville
    - “Midwest” (yes, I’m using that term sarcastically): Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, KC
    - West: LA, San Diego, Denver, Phoenix, Seattle

    Under that premise, out west, San Diego & Denver are probably toast. “Midwest” will probably see Indianapolis get cut. Southeast, my guess would be Tampa, while the Northeast is a dogfight – can’t really see them cutting Boston, but then only one of Philly/DC/Baltimore gets in.

    And yes, USSF will totally abandon the interior part of the country. Given what they’ve outlined, a rather large part of me hopes that we get turned down entirely for both 2018 and 2022. To completely ignore that much of the country, including areas that have long been great cities for supporting the game in this country is unforgivable.

  220. Strider79 says:

    I am from Louisville, KY and I cannot fathom why the two closest MLS cities:Chicago and Columbus are not being represented for WC. I am a Crew fan, but Chicago is a wonderful city with a huge insane fan base and a stadium that is in downtown with easy walk from lodging to stadium to pub. This is unforgivable.

  221. GJJ says:

    Within the borders of the city, excluding the suburbs, Chicago has the highest percentage of immigrants of any city in the US. Within the city limits; out of 2.8 million people if you just take Mexican and Polish immigrants alone, you have 500,000 born in Mexico and 350,000 born in Poland. Throw in the Irish, Nigerians, Italians, Slovenians, Chileans, English, Koreans, etc, etc, etc and it’s just insane that Chicago was left off because of 4500 seats in it’s stadium. Include the suburbs and the number of immigrants in a metropolitan area of 8.5 million people is massive. I guarantee you the City would have figured out someway to put as many quality temporary seats in as USSF wanted. Support would have been huge.

    With respect to the WC being a party, if you are so inclined, you can booze it up all day and then either walk a few blocks to the stadium from downtown or take an el from your watering hole to Soldier Field. If you get a DUI in the city, you’re as idiot as there is a bar every hundred yards and no need to drive to or from the bar or any match. The fan village atmosphere would have been amazing like in Germany in 2006. There are even beaches a few blocks from the stadium that they could use for fan villages. It’s nuts.

  222. Marco says:

    Seriously, Chicago sucks. You can’t get around by car and there’s no major cities that have train connections to Chicago. You have to fly into the worst airport situation in the country and deal with the worst traffic.

    Oh, and Soldier field is known as the “mistake by the lake.” Plus, 61,000 is just not enough for the crowd.

  223. Rory says:

    St Louis beats Chicago by a mile though.

    But the Dome would be 12 years older by then and in much worse shape.

  224. Rory says:

    This list reads like a “Who’s Who Of High Crime Rates In America.”

    Out of cities of populations over half a million, you have the 2nd most dangerous (DC), 3rd (Baltimore), 5th (Dallas), 6th (Philly), 8th (Nashville), 9th (Houstan), and 10th (Phoenix).

    Atlanta is the most dangerous city of cities 100,000 to 499,999 (remember, these totals don’t count the ‘burbs, just the city proper) and in fact is more dangerous then any other city on the list.

    link to morganquitno.com

    It’s not that I feel these cities shouldn’t host a World Cup, but if I had a dime for every complaint about South Africa and Brazil’s crime rate, well, I’d be funding our government right now.

  225. papi39 says:

    you are an idiot……or at the very least are doing your best to impersonate one. Nobody in Chicago refers to SF as the “mistake by the lake” that’s actually what people in Cleveland used to call the Indians. Leaving out Chicago is a HORRIBLE decision. Chicago has one of the biggest soccer fan bases in the US, one of the BEST downtown setups in terms of hotels, restaurants, night life, and I could name at least five cities on this list that have at least as bad a traffic problem if not worse…NY,ATL,Big D, Houston, La. the fact that KC, and Tampa are on the list but Chicago is not is a MAJOR problem.

  226. smokeminside says:

    Why will all the games be played mid-day? they weren’t in Germany….

  227. Cavan says:

    um, FedEx is inside the Washington beltway. It’s a mile from a Washington Metro station. Yes, it’s in Maryland, but that’s not the Baltimore area in the least bit. Locally, we have pretty well-defined lines about what’s in the Baltimore region and what’s in the Washington region. FedEx is well inside that line. No confusion there.

    Also, proximity among the east coast cities is good. If the infrastructure is there, why not use it? I think it’s attractive to have one group play in different venues that its fans could take the Acela or the wide array of low-cost northeast corridor bus services that we have. There is no reason to make fans from other countries pay the high prices to climb on airplanes just to follow their team in the first round.

  228. fhwc61 says:

    what…no wyoming?

  229. maxi says:

    i echo smokeminside’s comment. it’s the world cup, people. doesn’t matter where the games are, they’ll all sell out. to nate, i don’t think the world cup should just be about cities that people would likely visit anyways should they visit the u.s. i’ll follow this up with my thoughts on chicago’s exclusion, and the bid cities at large.

  230. maxi says:

    ***i commented on chicago on another post here.***

    i’m not yet impressed. this not even considering whether or not i think the u.s. should be hosting the wc again in 2018 or 2022 (for the record, i’m leaning towards “too early” – i’d rather see it back in ’26 or later.)

    what bothers me most right now:

    1. two open-air stadiums in florida in the summer (HELLO?! CALLING JOHN ALDRIDGE!!! see: link to youtube.com)

    2. phoenix. yeah, fine, it’ll at least be fine inside the stadium, but the idea of a fan mile in phoenix is shot.

    3. the closest venue outside seattle is over 900 miles away in l.a., the next closest is over 1000 away in denver, and the bay area gets shafted, but there are five stadiums in what’s essentially a straight shot less than half that long on the east coast. hell, i’m even from massachusetts, and it pisses me off anyways. while i’m on the subject, i’m not actually all that convinced by gillette.

    **i’m not gonna go hardcore on this, but i don’t think both l.a. and san diego should have been selected.

    4. nothing in ohio, and nothing in detroit. i’d have liked to see the world cup be used as a sort of revitalization deal here.

    with a few exceptions *which i’m happy with! =)* – nashville and seattle chief among them – it feels like a sterotypically american bid. gargantuan stadiums which seem to be most readily accessed by driving a car a ways away from a city… really?

  231. maxi says:

    i’d hold off on calling both of those this early. spain/portugal seems to be giving england a run for its money, and australia is having issues guaranteeing that the stadiums will be used for only soccer just before and during the world cup (their major spectator sports of rugby league and aussie rules both run during the summer.)

  232. maxi says:

    who said fan miles have to be right next to the stadium? as i recall, the fan mile in berlin in 06 was next to the brandenburg gate, which is nowhere near the olympic stadium.

    fan mile in boston… on the common?

  233. Mike says:

    I wonder if D.C. gets snubbed in favor of Baltimore. The Chicago thing, USSF will regret it. Chicago’s one of the best cities in the country and tons of ethnic neighborhoods. To be left out is cruel. link to bit.ly

  234. Cavan says:

    Again, why all the Baltimore hate? It’s hardly the backwoods or anything. Baltimore will be fantastic hosts. It’s very soccer-friendly, has a beautiful compact waterfront downtown with lots of amenities, the stadium is downtown and is located on a light rail line that connects to both the airport and the train station.

    It is very historic, as in it goes back to the 17th and 18th centuries, has plenty of hotel space in walking distance of the stadium, has lots of experience hosting big events. I’m a little biased since I live in Washington but it is a great idea to have all the east coast cities be hosts. It is far, far easier and cheaper to move in and between them than any other city group in the country. Fans won’t have to pay to rent cars or fly airplanes to get to the cities and stadiums. They could just hop on the Acela or one of the plethora of cheap NE corridor buses. Only Foxboro isn’t accessible from downtown via some form of transit. It is far more like the easy travel experience that fans in Germany or Japan had than anywhere else in the U.S. One of the few complaints about 1994 was how difficult it was to follow a team around our geographically vast country.

  235. Jon from Chicago says:

    To all Chicagoans take a look at our group on Facebook…

    link to facebook.com