urbanSTL

I remember a similar discussion leading up to the 94 WC regarding KC as a venue. At the time, Chicago and Dallas were the "no brainer" venues for the midwest games. I would be very surprised if there are three midwest venues, but I really wish we hosted some games. Great for the city.



On another note, the new Soldier Field in Chicago is a great place to watch a soccer game. I would assume that Jerry's World in Dallas will be a great place to watch any type of game as well.



Its great we are considered, but unless we build a "state of the art" (read: $750 million or more) open air/retractable football stadium; we will get beat by Chitown and Big D.



Games will not be played on turf (even field turf). Guaranteed.

Fayatteville, Ark. is not in the Midwest.

migueltejada wrote:Busch Stadium is more likely to host than the Dome because of FIFA's desire to have games played on grass, not turf.

They trucked huge trays of grass into the Pontiac Silverdome and The Meadowlands for the 94 WC.



Still, I'm not going to get my hopes up when there are much better facilities available elsewhere.

The dome obviously need a temporary natural grass field. It's really not a big issue.

Not really sure where to post this so I am posting here.

Found it interesting STL is the only city/airport on this map in the US World Cup bid book that never submitted a bid to host.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 19, 2022

Not really sure where to post this so I am posting here.

Found it interesting STL is the only city/airport on this map in the US World Cup bid book that never submitted a bid to host.

Unfortunately we don't really have a good venue to host at, we'd need a 60,000ish+ seats outdoor stadium

_nomad_ wrote: ↑

Jun 19, 2022

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 19, 2022

Not really sure where to post this so I am posting here.

Found it interesting STL is the only city/airport on this map in the US World Cup bid book that never submitted a bid to host.

Unfortunately we don't really have a good venue to host at, we'd need a 60,000ish+ seats outdoor stadium

I mean Qatar won the bid and had to build/upgrade every single stadium in their bid. Russia built a whole city to host the Olympics. Renovating the Dome with a retractable roof would be child's play.

To host you need 8-12 stadiums of 40,000+. With one 60k+ and another of 80k+. Realistically St. Louis wouldn't be able to host alone. Paired with other cities could work:

St. Louis
- Renovated Dome (60k - 80k)
- Busch (48k)

Region
- Faurot Field / Mizzou (60 - 70k)
- Memorial Stadium / Ilini (60 - 70k)

Chicago
- Soldier Field (60 - 70k)
- Ryan Field (50 - 60k)
- Wrigley Field (40-45k)
- Comisky Park (45-50k)
- Huskie Stadium (35 - 40k)

Other Options
- Arrowhead Stadium (80k)
- Kauffman Stadium (40-45k)
- Liberty Bowl (60-70k)
- Nissan Stadium (70-75k)

Saint Louis would be much more suited to host an Olympics than World Cup. Also, with the failure of local leadership losing Saint Louis' place as a Soccer Capital in the US, the argument for hosting an Olympics may even be stronger. Sorry for derailing the thread. 

I would have loved for STL to be a host city if they actually had a stadium that would have worked. So this is not at all downplaying that. It is a great thing for the city.

But. Cities have to guarantee a lot of financials and basically let the FIFA do what they want with things. For those reasons cities like Chicago, Minny, others pulled their bids. And while the cities get some press during the games, I’m curious how much that helps afterwards. I probably couldn’t name more than 5 cities that hosted in each of the past world cups. The mid sized and smaller cities go back to being forgotten fairly quickly.

So why I would have been thrilled if we would have been able to bid, practically I’m not sure long term if there is much benefit to the city.


Also back to my airports post. I just found it curious we were listed on that map when we weren’t in the mix to host. I’m more just curious the reasoning why we were included on it.

^I'm genuinely curious how this will play out. An argument on another thread got me thinking if FIFA should have put much more emphasis on transit access, since so many of the fans will be flying in from Europe. I'm curious to see what the mix of fans is typically of tourist vs. local, and what kinds of draw local soccer teams have in those places year round. I notice the three Mexican venues are all pre-existing soccer stadiums, suggesting they might be able to draw crowds to fill them mostly from locals. (And the Mexico City stadium is a monster with a capacity of nearly 90,000. I sincerely hope that's where the final match will be played, as it's got some real history to it.)

Anyway, I have this sneaking suspicion that quite a few of the US stadiums, Arrowhead included, are going to be striking disappointments as the local draw will be poor and out of towners are going to hate them. I can't imagine many locals will go in the US unless the US team is in the game or the ticket is very cheap, which seems patently unlikely. We just don't have the football culture the rest of the world does and it's pretty obvious to anyone and everyone. (Not even here. And you're not convincing me Kansas City is the soccer capital. That's just advertising talk.)

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jun 19, 2022

^I'm genuinely curious how this will play out. An argument on another thread got me thinking if FIFA should have put much more emphasis on transit access, since so many of the fans will be flying in from Europe. I'm curious to see what the mix of fans is typically of tourist vs. local, and what kinds of draw local soccer teams have in those places year round. I notice the three Mexican venues are all pre-existing soccer stadiums, suggesting they might be able to draw crowds to fill them mostly from locals. (And the Mexico City stadium is a monster with a capacity of nearly 90,000. I sincerely hope that's where the final match will be played, as it's got some real history to it.)

I feel like any transit issue can be solved with busses for the short time the games will be going on. Not a long term fix but you can make it work for what is going on.

I’d be shocked if the final wasn’t in the US. Dallas, NYC, or LA. I think they bid book listed who would be options for the final but I don’t remember off hand.

^I'd think Mexico city would be a better market. First, it's just that much bigger and older a city than any of the US alternatives. Second, it has a bigger and better suited stadium. Third, you won't run into the risk of low attendance or lack of football related activities nearby. And unlike the other venues . . . the world cup has been there before. They had a nice full house in the great game between Pele's Brazil and Italy. That's some real history. Nobody in the US can even compete with that.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2022

^I'd think Mexico city would be a better market. First, it's just that much bigger and older a city than any of the US alternatives. Second, it has a bigger and better suited stadium. Third, you won't run into the risk of low attendance or lack of football related activities nearby. And unlike the other venues . . . the world cup has been there before. They had a nice full house in the great game between Pele's Brazil and Italy. That's some real history. Nobody in the US can even compete with that.

I think what may be “better” is going to be overruled by this is a US bid with Canada and Mexico tacked on IMO more than a real joint bid and the US isn’t going to let the final be in Canada or Mexico. Dallas and LA also list capacity over 100k which puts them about 15k higher than Mexico City.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2022

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2022

^I'd think Mexico city would be a better market. First, it's just that much bigger and older a city than any of the US alternatives. Second, it has a bigger and better suited stadium. Third, you won't run into the risk of low attendance or lack of football related activities nearby. And unlike the other venues . . . the world cup has been there before. They had a nice full house in the great game between Pele's Brazil and Italy. That's some real history. Nobody in the US can even compete with that.

I think what may be “better” is going to be overruled by this is a US bid with Canada and Mexico tacked on IMO more than a real joint bid and the US isn’t going to let the final be in Canada or Mexico. Dallas and LA also list capacity over 100k which puts them about 15k higher than Mexico City.

And LA/DFW/NCY aren't 7,300 feet above sea level.  Not especially fair for the participants in what might be the biggest game they've ever played.  And, very recently, there were fan behavior issues in the Mexican soccer stands - probably not a great look from FIFA's perspective.  And Mexico City has already hosted a final twice.  And $$.


Also, between this thread and the other thread, there has been talk of travel in between cities for games.  This WC will be the first to have 48 teams - 16 groups of 3 (2 games per team in the group stage).  The thinking is, each group will be assigned a pair of cities (Seattle/Vancouver, SF/LA, Guadalajara/Mexico City, Monterrey/Houston, DFW/KC, ATL/MIA, NYC/Philly, Boston/Toronto) and each team will play in each city.  Keeps travel reasonable for both teams and their fans.  So, in this scenario (KC/DFW pairing), seems like spectators would be more inclined to plan their travel around those two cities and focus on getting from one to the other.