This week I’ve been thinking about the summer of 1994. That was the summer that I got my first taste of World Cup soccer. And though I fell in love with the event and the game, I realized even then – before I experienced the World Cup in France and Germany – that I was seeing a very strange version of the world’s greatest sporting event.
Because the U.S. isn’t set up to host a World Cup. Sixteen years ago, American cities were flooded with visitors who were befuddled by not only the lack of soccer knowledge from the locals but by the lack of public transportation, of gathering places to watch the game, of easy routes between venues.
This week the USA Bid committee announced the 18 cities that are potential candidates to host the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 (the US is bidding on both games, in the assumption it will be awarded one of those). And they’re kind of a pathetic little group.
San Francisco and the Bay Area were left off. That’s sin No. 1. Yes, I’m protective of my native city. But I also know what international visitors want to see: they want to see San Francisco. It’s still the top tourist destination in the United States. (Yes, I partially blame the Yorks and their inability to get a stadium deal done for this gross snub).
Sin No. 2: No Chicago. Chicago is one of our nation’s great cities – vibrant and alive. It’s also the home of US Soccer. It should have made the cut.
Cities that did make the cut? Phoenix. Nashville. Houston. Indianapolis. Tampa. Atlanta.
Why? Because they have big new football stadiums. Some of them are indoors and indoor soccer is just wrong. But they’re relatively new.
But the World Cup is about much more than stadiums. It’s about showing off your country and your culture. It’s about urban centers and exciting venues. It should be about easy access – though in our country that’s almost impossible.
I’m not alone in my belief that the World Cup belongs in Western Europe, where fans can get around easily by train. In 1998, I could hop a train in Paris and get to Lyon for a Mexico game and be back for a late night glass of wine. In Germany, I was based in Frankfurt and took a high speed train to Hamburg and back for a US press conference in one afternoon.
We just can’t do that. But if we’re going to bid for the world’s best sporting event, we should at least plan to give fans some excitement and ease of use. An East Coast Corridor and a West Coast Corridor would be ideal – especially if you’re going to leave off the best city in the Midwest. Fans could get easily from Seattle to San Francisco to LA and San Diego. And Boston, NY, Washington and Philly are as well connected by trasnportation as many European cities. But Houston? Nashville? Tampa? Phoenix? You’re going to make Spanish fans go to Tampa? Have the Dutch turn Scottsdale Orange? Stick Brazil in Atlanta?
I’ve spent time in all these cities – one of the pleasures, or pains, of being a sportswriter. One of the depressing things I’ve found in my travels is how many American cities look just like each other – same type of stadium, same franchises, same mall designs, same, same, same.
But our country has a few truly unique cities. Chicago is one. San Francisco is another. The world’s fans would have appreciated having those great cities included in the pool.
HERE HERE!!! Great Great article!
The Chicago snub just baffles me. Left out because the stadium “only” holds 61,000 (FIFA requires a WC stadium to hold at least 40,000). It has a huge immigrant population (in other words, a built-in soccer audience), and had great crowds in the 94 cup. SF lacks a good stadium, so that snub was at least understandable (c’mon Yorks!), but leaving out Chicago is ridiculous.
I think that you need to look at the politics of this. Chicago pulled out and San Francisco could not guarantee a stadium would be ready.
I have followed the proceedings of the bid closely and the inclusion of Atlanta is caused by the global brands of Coca-Cola and Delta being heavily involved and the Atlanta Sports Council campaigning heavily. If the US wins a bid, a new stadium will most likely be built to replace the Georgia Dome. Atlanta is also home to the world’s busiest airport and largest carrier. Expect Atlanta to be a major, central hub in the World Cup bid (Over 60 percent of expected foreign World Cup visitors will first land in Atlanta before switching over to their direct city).
Also, Atlanta has hosted 2 recent exhibition games and they were quite successful.
Sorry about being defensive, I just thought that the inclusion of Atlanta in your cities that do not deserve a bid was shocking.
I’m glad somebody’s writing about the lack of the Bay Area in bid. We are moving away from being an area that has hosted the WC, Olympic Soccer, and a Super Bowl and bid on Olympic games and looking like a big-time sports backwater.
The fact that a newly renovated Stanford Stadium, a planned Memorial Stadium renovation and the Oakland Coliseum could not help us make the list should be a warning to regional leaders. Events like Olympics and the World Cup fuel decades of tourism when fans return for follow-up visits.
If Newsom could make the Hunters Point stadium plan viable, I have to believe San Francisco would find it’s way back on the list.
SJMark — you are sadly wrong. The great stadiums built in Athens have rapidly deteriorated into garbage, and the huge stadium built in the People’s Republic of China is set to be transformed into a giant shopping mega mall. How is that in keeping with the spirit of Sport? If we cannot host a game at Stanford Stadium (who remembers 1994?), a renovated Memorial Stadium, or even AT&T Park in ‘Frisco then its just not worth it. Can these franchises and schools build a venue without public funds?