St. Louis among 37 finalists for U.S. World Cup bid

stlcardsblues1989 · PostJun 19, 2009#12009-06-19T21:58+00:00

The bid committee running the U.S. bid to host the World Cup in 2018 or 2022 has narrowed its field of potential sites to 45 stadiums in 37 cities, including St. Louis. Those cities have been sent RFPs, requests for proposals, which ask for information on subjects such as tourism, security, transportation and promotion. The U.S. application for the World Cup has to be in by May.

58 stadiums had initially expressed interest in hosting the World Cup. Columbia, Mo., did not make the cut. Other Midwestern cities on the list are Chicago, Fayetteville, Ark., Kansas City and Nashville.

Here’s the full list:

Proposed stadiums, cities and metropolitan markets for further consideration

Metro Market/ City Stadium Capacity

Atlanta Georgia Dome 71,250

Baltimore M & T Bank Stadium 71,008

Birmingham, Ala. Legion Field 71,000

Boston Gillette Stadium 71,693

Charlotte Bank of America Stadium 73,778

Chicago Soldier Field 61,000

Cincinnati Paul Brown Stadium 65,535

Cleveland Cleveland Browns Stadium 72,000

Columbus, Ohio Ohio Stadium 101,568

Dallas Cotton Bowl 89,000

Dallas Cowboys Stadium 100,000

Denver INVESCO Field 76,125

Detroit Ford Field 67,188

Detroit Michigan Stadium 108,000

Fayetteville, Ark. Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium 72,000

Houston Reliant Stadium 71,500

Indianapolis Lucas Oil Stadium 64,200

Jacksonville, Fla. Jacksonville Municipal Stadium 82,000

Kansas City Arrowhead Stadium 77,000

Knoxville Neyland Stadium 100,011

Las Vegas Sports City USA N/A

Los Angeles Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum 93,607

Los Angeles Rose Bowl 92,000+

Miami Land Shark Stadium 75,540

Minneapolis Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome 64,000

Minneapolis TCF Bank Stadium 50,200

Nashville LP Field 69,143

New Orleans Louisiana Superdome 70,000

New York/N.J. New Meadowlands Stadium 82,000

Orlando Florida Citrus Bowl 65,616

Philadelphia Lincoln Financial 67,594

Phoenix/Glendale Sun Devil Stadium 73,500

Phoenix/Glendale University of Phoenix Stadium 71,000

Pittsburgh Heinz Field 65,000

Salt Lake City Rice-Eccles Stadium 45,603

San Antonio Alamodome 65,000

San Diego Qualcomm Stadium 70,500

San Francisco Stanford Stadium 50,500

San Francisco/Oakland Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum 63,026

Seattle Husky Stadium 72,500

Seattle Qwest Field 67,000

St. Louis Edward Jones Dome 67,268

Tampa Raymond James Stadium 65,856

Washington, D.C. FedExField 91,704

Washington, D.C. RFK Stadium 45,600

The bid needs to have 12 to 18 stadiums, holding at least 40,000 people. For the opening match and final, the stadium needs to hold 80,000.

While there are 45 stadiums, I think the relevant number is 37 cities, since I think it’s unlikely they would use two stadiums in one city.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/free-k ... d-cup-bid/

the central scrutinizer · PostJun 19, 2009#22009-06-19T22:14+00:00

Actual chances of getting a game: .00000000000000000000000001%

stlcardsblues1989 · PostJun 19, 2009#32009-06-19T22:37+00:00

Well, they apparently need between 12-18 venues, and in different cities.

dweebe · PostJun 19, 2009#42009-06-19T22:42+00:00

The Central Scrutinizer wrote:Actual chances of getting a game: .00000000000000000000000001%

That's taking it a bit far.

-12 different stadiums were used in Germany in 2006

-20 different stadiums were used in South Korea/Japan in 2002

-10 different stadiums were used in France in 1998

-9 different stadiums were used in the US in 1994

But I'll bet they'll demand open air or retractable roof stadiums. The Silverdome in 1994 appears to be the only solid roof stadium used for the World Cup. (Then again that's pretty much an North American thing.)

My guess is that Dallas will get the final game as Jerry Jones' new palace to himself will seat close to 100,000.

9ine Runner · PostJun 19, 2009#52009-06-19T22:49+00:00

yeah w/ 32 teams they're going to need a few venues. 2010 has around 10 I believe. It'd be nice to get a game, although I do worry about our chances with astroturf the ball is a lot quicker on there. They're going to announce the venues pretty soon aren't they? Like within a year. That's plenty of time and if the Rams are still here they're going to need a new stadium. I like it. The energy the World Cup brings is great. It'll be nice to see some real men's soccer too I hope we get it.

edit -- yep they're naming the host cities in 2010. It would help if they could expect a new venue. Still I like our chances.

dweebe · PostJun 19, 2009#62009-06-19T23:39+00:00

Let's cross out the domes, dumps and college towns. This would be a good guess at who will really get World Cup games.

Metro Market/ City Stadium Capacity

1. Atlanta Georgia Dome 71,250

2. Baltimore M & T Bank Stadium 71,008

3. Boston Gillette Stadium 71,693

4. Charlotte Bank of America Stadium 73,778

5. Chicago Soldier Field 61,000

6. Cincinnati Paul Brown Stadium 65,535

7. Cleveland Cleveland Browns Stadium 72,000

8. Dallas Cowboys Stadium 100,000

9. Denver INVESCO Field 76,125

10. Houston Reliant Stadium 71,500

11. Indianapolis Lucas Oil Stadium 64,200

12. Jacksonville, Fla. Jacksonville Municipal Stadium 82,000

13. Kansas City Arrowhead Stadium 77,000

14. Los Angeles Rose Bowl 92,000+

15. Miami Land Shark Stadium 75,540

16. Minneapolis TCF Bank Stadium 50,200

17. Nashville LP Field 69,143

18. New York/N.J. New Meadowlands Stadium 82,000

19. Orlando Florida Citrus Bowl 65,616

20. Philadelphia Lincoln Financial 67,594

21. Phoenix/Glendale University of Phoenix Stadium 71,000

22. Salt Lake City Rice-Eccles Stadium 45,603

23. San Diego Qualcomm Stadium 70,500

24. San Francisco Stanford Stadium 50,500

25. Seattle Husky Stadium 72,500

26. Seattle Qwest Field 67,000

27. Tampa Raymond James Stadium 65,856

28. Washington, D.C. FedExField 91,704

29. Washington, D.C. RFK Stadium 45,600

I tossed out Heinz Field because they can grow decent grass there to save their lives.

And Las Vegas in the summer? Yeah, right.

Plus there's already talk of the Redskins moving back to the city of Washington DC at a new stadium built on the current RFK site. (FedEx Field is newer than the Ed Jones Dome)

stlcardsblues1989 · PostJun 19, 2009#72009-06-19T23:42+00:00

I think they can bring in real grass.

And St. Louis may have a new Rams stadium by then anyway.

9ine Runner · PostJun 20, 2009#82009-06-20T01:25+00:00

we could very well have a new stadium by then but a decision is going to be reached by 2010. If it were already confirmed that we'd have a stadium by then I'd like our chances a lot more.

st. louis texan · PostJun 20, 2009#92009-06-20T01:26+00:00

STLCardsBlues1989 wrote:

And St. Louis may have a new Rams stadium by then anyway.

Keep dreamin

juiceinkirkwood · PostJun 20, 2009#102009-06-20T02:43+00:00

2018? Ok, I'll visit this thread again in 2017 1/2.

malone · PostJun 20, 2009#112009-06-20T13:20+00:00

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.

jivecitystl · PostJun 21, 2009#122009-06-21T13:30+00:00

Fayatteville, Ark. is not in the Midwest.

migueltejada · PostJun 22, 2009#132009-06-22T01:43+00:00

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

debaliviere · PostJun 22, 2009#142009-06-22T13:02+00:00

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.

moorlander · PostJun 22, 2009#152009-06-22T16:20+00:00

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

jshank83 · PostJun 19, 2022#162022-06-19T04:27+00:00

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.

_nomad_ · PostJun 19, 2022#172022-06-19T04:42+00:00

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

RuskiSTL · PostJun 19, 2022#182022-06-19T06:25+00:00

_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.

jshank83 · PostJun 19, 2022#192022-06-19T18:10+00:00

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.

symphonicpoet · PostJun 19, 2022#202022-06-19T19:54+00:00

^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.)

jshank83 · PostJun 20, 2022#212022-06-20T03:42+00:00

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.

symphonicpoet · PostJun 20, 2022#222022-06-20T04:25+00:00

^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.

jshank83 · PostJun 20, 2022#232022-06-20T13:10+00:00

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.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostJun 20, 2022#242022-06-20T13:45+00:00

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.