U.S. World Cup bid to cut nine cities

Dallas Stadium

Even with eight years to go, the U.S. World Cup bid committee for 2018/2022 is still hard at work. On Tuesday, the list of possible host cities will be reduced from 27 to 18.

Tuesday's announcement is scheduled to take place at the ESPN Zone in Times Square. Below is the list of 27 cities that are vying for the 18 spots.

Cities: Washington, Tampa Bay, Seattle, St. Louis, San Francisco, Phoenix, San Diego, Philadelphia, Oakland, New York, Orlando, Nashville, Miami, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Houston, Detroit, Dallas, Denver, Cleveland, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Atlanta, Baltimore

The final 18 will be in line to serve as World Cup hosts, with major cities with MLS clubs — such as Washington, Seattle, Los Angeles and Chicago all likely to make the cut. The 18 remaining cities will be submitted as part of the final bid due by May 14, with a decision from FIFA expected in December.

What do you think about the latest list of cities? Which cities do you want to see stay? Which ones go?

Share your thoughts below.

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

160 Responses to U.S. World Cup bid to cut nine cities

  1. Eric Anderson says:

    I have to think Baltimore has a good chance since they’re on the preliminay list twice.

  2. Franky says:

    All I ask is that the southeast (this does no include Florida) get 1 site. Since we don’t get MLS we could at least get a World Cup venue

  3. Katatonia says:

    watching wba v forrest on setanta. 2nd goal is an absolutely amazing volley

  4. Travis Clark says:

    Fixed, thanks for catching that. Think it’s right now.

  5. Pete says:

    I’m saying this right now, Dallas should host the final game. (although 8/12 years from now, there will be other better stadiums)

  6. Brian says:

    My 18 are: Seattle, Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, Tampa Bay, Denver, Atlanta, Phoenix, Miami, Cleveland, Kansas City and SF/Oakland (preferably SF is they get a new stadium)

  7. kriebelec says:

    with atlanta being a base of operations for delta and British airways they will be a city

  8. CCSUltra says:


    Now just get Randy Lerner to get us an MLS team.

  9. Joey says:

    well there’s no way san fran and oakland will both make this cut, so that’s one down, holding out hope that philly survives!

  10. San Diego…..On border with Mexico(is that a good thing?? hahahahha), plus the weather in summer does not get hot nor humid. Perfect climate! But will go to LA and Bay area first! Rose Bowl will host the final, Although Pasadena in the summer is too hot! Seatle, in summer is could be great for final! not too hot! Go San Diego!

  11. Clayton says:

    Dallas is going to have to do something about that video board and artificial turf if they want to host a WC game. Def have the venue to do it though …

  12. Brian says:

    Even as a Californian, I say that California should get no more than 2 venues. I would prefer an LA venue and a Bay Area venue (preferably San Francisco, cuz Oakland is a huge sh*t hole)

    Currently the city of Los Angeles is trying to convince an NFL team to come to LA (Vikings, 49ers, Raiders, Chargers or Jaguars), and has plans to build a new stadium. I believe the 49ers are also trying to build a new stadium somewhere in the San Francisco area.

    Does anyone know if LA and SF get new stadiums can they be added to the bid? They would be much better than the current options (LA Coliseum, Rose Bowl and Stanford Stadium) which are all old as dirt

  13. Bay Area will for sure get a nod! Philly in the summer? Also, massive populace of soccer and many things to see up there!

  14. south says:

    I think that thanks to JerryWorldâ„¢ Dallas has a chance for the World Cup Final 2018/22.

    Thinking behind this is rationalized in an article I read a while back in a Business Journal. Basically, with an altered philosophy towards big spending, a credit crunch, and foreseeable inflation, there will not be a stadium like it built anytime in the near future.

  15. Stanford is great place to watch match! Agreed with Cali call!

  16. SG says:

    Hopefully Boston gets one. Which is probably likely since the game would be at Gillette and Bob Kraft is on the Board to bring the World Cup to the US. Lets just hope we actually get 2018 or 2022

  17. Cheecho says:

    I would have liked to see Salt Lake City on the list. The city did a great job with the 2002 Olympics and has supported the USMNT great in World Cup Qualifiers. Cities that I think should be cut are Kansas City and Denver.

  18. Chris in Belfast says:

    I disagree. Did you see the dimensions of the stadium? There’s no room on the corners at all. I guess they could spend the money to fix that for the world cup, but there are so many other stadiums in the country that require no retrofitting. Why give it to Jerry’s 1 billion dollar behemoth?

  19. Brian says:

    he tried, MLS said he needed to have a SSS. He gave up, then went on to buy Aston Villa.

    It’s funny though cuz the Sounders play in an NFL Stadium, and both the Vancouver Whitecaps and Portland Timbers will be sharing their stadium when they enter the league in 2011.

    Really the only expansion team that will/has come into this league right is the Philadelphia Union (SSS and grass surface).

    Thankfully TFC has decided to put grass down at BMO.


  20. Il Consigliere says:

    The 9 I think will be cut are:

    St. Louis

    I think the smaller cities that are in close proximity to larger ones lose out…along with dome stadiums without a retractable roof…

    Baltimore was a tough choice…if not them, Nashville or KC…but I doubt the Cup would be in Boston, NY, Philly, Baltimore, and DC…and I can see Baltimore losing out to Philly…

  21. Colin says:

    I think they should strike a deal with Jerry Jones saying that he needs to invest heavily in FC Dallas in order to get the WC Final.

  22. Chris in Belfast says:

    He’s saying that it will be either San Francisco OR Oakland, not both.

  23. Brooklyn Dave says:

    With the world watching, do we really want to showcase Detroit, Oakland or Jacksonville? Any of the others I can live with, but please, the last thing we need is to play any games in Detroit.

  24. Brian says:

    It’s not that big. Only 50k seats. One of the smaller stadiums on the bid list. Hopefully the niners can get a new stadium deal worked out and it can be substituted for Stanford Stadium on the bid list.

  25. ms says:

    The neither the video board nor the artificial turf are the biggest problems for Dallas…The video board is fantastic and does not interfere with play in the slightest. Jerry Jones will definitely bring in real grass for the world cup games, just like he did for the Chelsea / Club America game this past summer. The real grass was in great shape, unlike at other venues around the country, where the temporary grass was horrible.

    The biggest problem that I see for Dallas, is that the actual field dimensions may not be big enough for a world cup game. The field dimensions are barely up to FIFA standards, with the concrete walls for the luxury boxes only a couple of feet away from the corner flags.

    With that said, I really hope Dallas gets a game. I saw S. Korea vs. Germany in the Cotton Bowl in 1994, and it was an amazing atmosphere.

  26. wbd2020 says:

    I know it is a dark horse, but Indy should be in the final group. Lucas Oil is an amazing facility and it is right downtown with everything. Major hotels, entertainment, everything is right there. Brand new International Airport.

    Sliding roof. Would have to use a grass tray system probably, but the precedent is there.

  27. Brian says:

    Lol it ain’t Boston. Try 30 miles away from Boston.

  28. Brian says:

    I agree. Feel bad for the peeps in Motor City, but I would feel bad for any World Cup team that has to stay there.

  29. Aaron in StL says:

    Boohoo this is soccer! No such thing as too hot.

    I saw the T&T game in Nashville, stadium adapted great for soccer and a great environment. Plus, I’m guessing cities that have proven as good draws with previous experience will have a leg up.

    I’m in StL, but I don’t see where they would play a game without a brand new stadium. I’d rather drive to KC, Nashville, Chicago, or Indy to see a game than sit in the Ed Jones Dome here. That would be a crappy experience for any fan.

  30. equus says:

    In the months of June or July, New York and Chicago can be just as hot and humid as Nashville or Atlanta.

  31. TonyT says:

    Dallas most definitely has a phenomenal stadium to host the world cup final. As far as the turf goes, they can easily put in real grass like they did for other soccer games they’ve hosted.

  32. Abumax says:

    Why would this even be a consideration?

  33. Jeff says:

    With two recent USMNT games in Nashville they would look to have a good chance despite being a smaller city.

  34. Mark says:

    My 18:

    Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Orlando, Nashville, Miami, St. Louis, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Detroit, Dallas, Denver, Chicago, Atlanta, Seattle, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego

  35. Matt G. says:

    I like Indy as a dark horse city too. If it’s good enough to host the Final Four every four years and the Super Bowl in 2012, I think it’s good enough for the World Cup. It’s centrally located and Lucas Oil Stadium is a thing of beauty. Indy should get some serious consideration, though I think Chicago will carry the Midwest in any bid.

  36. Kenneth C says:

    Atlanta would be great.

  37. Ryan says:

    Second this…The Oil Can is a very nice stadium and I would love to see this event in Naptown!!

  38. Charles says:


    QWest, minus the turf which was not in the original plans, was built for soccer.

  39. nate says:

    My 9 to be cut:





    St. Louis



    Kansas City

    San Diego

  40. Charles says:

    1994 was so much fun. The Columbia game was maybe the greatest sporting event I have ever been to.

    I get the feeling the tickets will be a little harder to come by….which is amazing because virtually every game was sold out.

  41. Agreed! Why is Detroit even on the list!

  42. Mo says:

    Quit hating on the D, it has two possible venues one at the big house (which would be sick) and also ford field. Also if its at the Big House its really in Ann Arbor which is infinitely nicer than Detroit.

  43. Jason says:

    The Deathstar aka Jerry World aka Cowboy Stadium is going to be a shoe-in on the list, especially for the final.

    The only problem will be the turd of a suburb the stadium is in.

  44. babieca says:

    Sadly, I don’t think Baltimore will make the cut, even though the stadium is great and in a good location close to downtown hotels and entertainment as well as highway, light rail, and commuter rail. It’s just too close to DC.

  45. On a side note, read book entitled “Soccernomics” and it addresses issue of these types of tournaments not having significant economic impact on hosting countries. Economists predict for South Africa, at best, it will not be economic loss! Maybe the stadiums will become new shantytowns once vacant after WC is over! Do not buy the hype that it will be economic boom! Happiness and joy yes! Also, suicide rates will most likely drop as well! Cool!

  46. Brian says:

    Wrong to you to. It was pitched to the voters as a new home to the Seahawks and top level soccer venue. Look I’m not hating on Seattle. QWEST Field is a fine a$$ stadium, and I have no problem with the Sounders sharing it with the Seahwaks and I love the amount of support the fans give. I’m just hating on the turf (worst MLS Cup final I have ever watched).

    It just kills me that the Timbers and Whitecaps will have neither a SSS or grass.

  47. OmarVizquel says:

    Some World Cup games in Cleveland would do wonders for the city. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

  48. Sammy Gupta says:

    As a resident of Detroit, I can understand the worries and concerns from a lot of readers about hosting part of the world cup in this city. There is definitely a lot of questions for the city to answer in terms of its vision and future. And there is no question that the city/region is struggling given the shrinking manufacturing base and struggles of the auto companies With that being said, 2018/2022 is a ways away with a lot of opportunity for change and improvement.

    Also, I want to point out that this city has a rich history in sport, both competitively and hosting. Detroit was a host in the 1994 world cup and successfully/safely carried out events in a time which was more dangerous statistically than today. Detroit has hosted the Super Bowl in 2006, the Final Four in 2009, and several major tournaments for golf at Oakland Hills CC.

    The City also has one of the most vibrant ethnic make ups in the country, with the largest middle-eastern/arabic population outside of the middle-east, with an increasingly LARGE german/polish population and other world cup bound nations. The city, including suburban areas still populates over 3.5-4 million and is well versed to host the world cup again.

    I just wanted to take a few minutes and support/back my city in these turbulent and struggling times when many around the nation count us out. We should still be in the top 18 to host the world-cup…maybe not the final 8-10, but I hope to make this cut on Tuesday.

  49. Scarlet says:

    I have my fingers crossed that Charlotte or Atlanta gets to host. I prefer Charlotte because it is a beautiful, modern city, but I’ll take Atlanta which isn’t too bad either. You really can’t lose.

  50. John says:

    Portland will technically have a SSS, but without grass. There will be FCS college football played there, but they’re not the primary tenant, and the park is being renovated specifically for soccer. Plus, there’s nothing wrong with turf (inserts picture of the Houston-Seattle playoff game)

  51. bryan says:

    i think DC will get it before Baltimore and i dont see them choosing both.

  52. Kevin in Denver says:

    I betcha Denver gets cut. How much ya wanna bet? Huh? Wanna? Huh?

  53. John says:

    Detroit and the state of Michigan have their share of problems, but their facility is not one of them – assuming Ford Field can hold a soccer field, which is pretty much par for the course now.

    I’m worried about Phoenix getting cut because of the heat and the disorganized soccer community in the city, even though Cardinals Stadium is one of the nicest in the country and the city knows how to roll out the red carpet for big events.

  54. Big Chil says:

    I’m definitely hopeful for Denver & Chicago, my cities. Invesco Field at Mile High used to be home to the Rapids & holds 100,000 people.

    On another note, Donovan will dress for the Everton-Arsenal clash tmw.

    link to evertonfc.com


  56. Jacob says:

    Invesco Field does not hold 100,000. It holds about 72,000.

    It’s still a strong contender. Denver has the requisite infrastructure to serve as a host and the stadium is great.

  57. kriebelec says:

    Gee I dont know. I guess no one from outside the country will be traveling to the WC. Oh and everyone in the country will be traveling via car. youre right, having a host city where people can travel in and out of with ease isnt important and all during an event such as the world cup.

  58. Mingjai says:

    Good book, at least the half I’ve read so far. I say that as a soccer fan and as an economist.

  59. MikeyG says:

    I agree. I live in L.A. and think we should get passed over. WHY? Because the city knows that the city itself is the draw, and so they refuse to put money forward for a decent stadium.

    Our facilites, minus the HDC, for football, or soccer SUUUUCK.

    And that City of Industry stadium? Ain’t gonna happen.

  60. jtd says:

    the field is too small. jerry didn’t care about soccer when creating the stadium, why should soccer care about making him money?

  61. strider says:

    You ALL seem to be forgetting Indianapolis. Lucas Oil Stadium is a fabulous venue and within driving distance for people from IL, MI, OH, and KY. I’m sure rooting for us to get a slot.

  62. Big Chil says:

    It has held up to 100,000, but that’s probably using seating on the field for the concerts.

    link to en.wikipedia.org

  63. Dudeinho says:

    LA is getting a new stadium to lure the NFL built. once that thing is in place the rosebowl wont be a venue, and we wont host the final this time its definitely gonna be in New York @ the new meadowlands. has good transit and will have a good kickoff time for a european audience.

  64. C2 says:

    well its the only stadium that would be sufficient for a WC match.

  65. Dudeinho says:

    the governer allowed them to bypass an enviromental impact review, the city of Walnut and Diamondbar were paid off. I lamens terms its gonna happen the Enromental review was what was keeping it from being built. Go to Skyscrapercity.com forum and read about it in the stadium section. Its not a matter of if its now a when and what team were gonna get.

  66. tim says:

    Jacksonville, Orlando, Charlotte, Indianapolis, one of Baltimore/Washingon, one of SF/Oakland, Nashville, one of Detroit/Cleveland, and the last one is a bit harder to pick, but I think Tampa get’s knocked out.

  67. tim says:

    Whoops nevermind that last one, I didnt see KC and St. Louis, one of those two will be gone.

  68. tim says:

    And Houston and NY are bases for Continental and Dallas for American Airlines… who cares?

  69. Patrick says:

    My 18-

    I think your going to see FIFA Group the venues together to make it easier for fans to travel around and find hotels, take South Africa for example. So with that said…

    NY, Boston, Phila, Baltimore, Cleavland

    DC, Chicago, Nashville, Charlotte, Miami

    Dallas, Houston, Denver, Kansas City

    San Fran, LA, Seattle, Phoenix

    Round of 16

    Denver, Miami, Phoenix, San Fran, Houston, Boston, Kansas City, Baltimore

    Quarter Finals

    Dallas, Phila, Chicago, Seattle


    LA, NY


    Now the only reason I have DC in the final, is only because Fifa prefers to have the final in either the biggest city which has the biggest stadium (usually) or the Capital, which for most countries is the biggest city. I feel that the Capital would be a great site for a final with the President and other dignitaries looking on plus Fedex Field seats over 90K with plenty of luxury boxes. Now Fedex is a viable option right now, however Daniel Snyder(Redskins Owner) has been trying to find any reason he can dump the Fedex for a new stadium in DC, mainly because Landover, Maryland is not the most accessible for fans and the architecture isn’t the best. However if they were not to receive a new stadium, then I do feel that NY or LA would receive the final, with DC moving to Quarter Final group and Dal moving up to Semi.

    As for the Southeast it is tough, I think Nashville, Atlanta and Carolina are very viable options however unless Atlanta promises to build a retractable roof I don’t see them getting it. Carolina is the sleeper, great downtown stadium and infrastructure.

    And as for Indy it has a great stadium with a roof and downtown feel, however the market is unproven, Nashville beats it out only on the fact that it had a great showing in the T&T game.

    The San Fran stadium deal is all but done, regardless if they build the one in Santa Clara or elsewhere, the 49ers will build something, they cant survive as an NFL team in Candlestick Park anymore.

    La will use this World Cup site as a push to build a new stadium, they will have it and a NFL team within 10 or less I feel.

    But hey who knows.. All you need is a little money and your city can buy its way in.

  70. There are a lot of stadiums in the greater SF Bay Area, and more to come it seems. SF and Oakland should be consolidated into one bid. AT&T Park and Candlestick Park are only 6 miles from each other. Oakland Coliseum is only 18 road miles to the East, Stanford Stadium less than 30 miles to the South, and then there may be a new, large stadium in San Jose as well (no, not the one for the Earthquakes, that is much too small for a World Cup.

    So lots of stadiums within the SF Bay Area, though I wonder if anywhere in the US we have the large, new, amazing stadiums they had in Germany…

  71. Jags98 says:

    Atlanta- hopefully will get it or that big check the Ga Soccer Assoc wrote will be for not.

  72. Chris in Belfast says:

    Dimensions, dude. Check the above, ms laid it out.

  73. RLW2020 says:

    i agree, Charlotte and/or Atlanta would be a great venue. both have great stadiums and a lot of soccer fans/players. That part of the country is loaded with some of the best athletes too more soccer in the SE the better

  74. rLW2020 says:

    the new NY stadium or maybe a stadium in LA will be the final game for sure. Dallas has a very impressive stadium, but its not the venue for the final

  75. Chris in Belfast says:

    One thing that doesn’t really apply to the US is construction of new facilities, though. Our country is littered with World Cup ready stadiums, so much so that the USSF could (And should, I think, given dimension difficulties) ignore JerryWorld in Dallas.

    No one will have to spend money on getting infrastructure up to snuff in host cities– or at least very little– and instead the US will be able to rake in money. It makes more sense in a country like the US than smaller ones.

  76. Chris in Belfast says:

    Given the stick that would occur about playing at altitude, I can imagine this, yes.

  77. Brian says:

    There’s a whole wrong with turf, and there was a whole lot wrong with that grass in Houston too. Just needed proper care.

  78. Chris in Belfast says:

    Can’t imagine DC getting a nod unless there’s another big stadium in the works that we don’t know about. In 8 years RFK will be nothing but a memory, right? Unless the United stadium is going to be MUCH bigger than we thought, I can’t see DC happening at all.

    Or are we talking FedEx, out in the middle of nowhere?

  79. Brian says:

    All it needs is a NFL team to give it the go ahead. My money is on the Chargers or the Jaguars.

  80. RedStateJim says:

    Cities: Washington, Seattle, St. Louis, San Francisco, Phoenix, Philadelphia, New York, Orlando, Miami, Los Angeles, Indianapolis, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Atlanta,

    Definites are: NY, LA, MIA, DC, CHI
    Most likely are: DAL, ATL, SF, BOS, SEA, HOU,
    Should be: ORL, IND, STL, DEN, PHX
    Not sure: PHL (stadium), CHAR

    Orlando over Tampa and Jax because of Hotels, Airport, number of foreign national residents and will have the newest stadium by that time. (i am biased)

    These cities provide a great geographical spread around the country.

  81. RLW2020 says:

    Foxboro is hell to get to, hours of traffic, expensive parking, etc. but for some reason it is always highly rated by broadcasters, players, the Revs, cup organizers, etc… the boston area is a great soccer area and it is the best stadium in the area so i am quite sure that it will be one of the hosts.

  82. RLW2020 says:

    good point, i would much rather see indy or cleveland than detroit, but the college stadiums would be cool to see a few of and Michigan (and the Rose Bowl) stadium would be the best college stadiums to have.

  83. RLW2020 says:

    denver would make a great host, as would most of all of these cities, but i could see it not making it. plus we all know Sepp’s stance on altitude.

  84. sarnold says:

    give me the cotton bowl over cowboys stadium. That place is too stale. They had real grass for that game? why didn’t they put in real grass for the gold cup game then? they were only a week apart.

  85. RLW2020 says:

    mile high is a parking lot right now, located just to the south of Investco which holds 72,000.

    Denver>Phoenix or Kansas City

  86. ZacIndy says:

    I disagree. In order for any move to take place the move now has to get the approval of 2/3 of the owners after either the Colt or Browns moved, I can’t remember which. The owners use the “I’m moving the team to LA if I don’t get a new stadum” move as leverage everytime a lease is up. It happened in Indy and it worked. Nice stadium but not right for the WC, by the way.

  87. RLW2020 says:

    unfortunately FedEx will take the Baltimore/DC spot. its big and in an important area.

  88. Andy says:

    Only knock against Baltimore is the lack of training facilities for the teams. i.e., other than the stadium the game will be played in (M&T Bank Stadium), there’s no fields suitable for teams to practice in/be based at in the immediate area.

  89. TimN says:

    I would say definites would be:

    Philadelphia (brand new soccer specific stadium)
    LA (again, soccer specific stadium & ginormous soccer fanbase)
    Seattle (Quest Field, no brainer)
    St. Louis (so much history here)
    Charlotte (very modern city, well laid out city with vast infrastructure to support the crowds, Bank of America Stadium a nice venue))
    Tampa Bay

  90. Stu says:


    South Africa is not a good example. They had no World Cup class venues to speak of…ditto hotel and convention facilities. Which meant all of that needed to be constructed…and much of the skilled labor likely imported (soccer stadium architects and engineers don’t grow in a small country on trees).

    My sense is that 1994 was a financial success for the US. If anything, there are better and more venues available to hold the World Cup now than there were in 1994.

    Certainly, the fact that we’ve got 18 cities on the final list says loads about that development.

    And don’t kid yourself. You won’t find tickets on match day, short of being raped out front by a scalper. 1994 was still the highest attended World Cup in history, and that at a time when the US had no professional league, and football wasn’t even a blip on the radar of the average American.

  91. Stu says:

    I wouldn’t be worried about Phoenix. Great venue, that has already hosted a number of games. The weather will be hot, but it’s a dome, so that hardly matters.

    As for the state of the soccer community, I doubt it will matter. It would be a success here. I have no doubt of that.

  92. Nick says:

    I figure that makes us in Atlanta a pretty good candidate for USA-England then, huh?! Good point!

    Although I’d take any game in Atlanta to be honest with you!

  93. Stu says:

    Remember, that most of the “soccer specific stadiums” in this country are really too small in terms of seating to host a World Cup match.

    Look for cities with an NFL or college stadium that have the dimensions and facilities FIFA would for in a stadium.

  94. Shaun Nicholson says:

    St Louis is a soccer city. In 8 years they will have a MLS team. It is a perfect area to have games, Right in teh middle of the country so it is easy to get to. It used to be TWA’s hub so the airport is big enough to handle the fans. If they did get the nod I am sure that they will have the Ed Jones Dome better equiped due to teh fact that if it isnt in teh top 10 best stadiums in NFL they will lose the Rams. So they have to have it in top shape plus it holds 70k.

  95. Erik says:

    Atlanta is a DOME….

  96. Erik says:

    LA or NY would be the final – there would be stadium construction associated with the WC and they would probably expand LA and NY.

  97. Eurosnob says:

    So Washington, the city that has an MSL team and happens to be the nation’s capital, did not make your list. It’s like England hosting the WC and dropping London from the list of host cities.

  98. Eurosnob says:

    If they are smart, they will pick Washington, Baltimore and Philadelphia as host cities. All cities are within 2 hour drive from each other and fans would love geographic proximity, which would enable them to easily hop from one city to another to follow the games.

  99. r.benjamin says:

    At this time, I think SF means the revamped Stanford stadium. 1994 WC games were at Stanford, which worked out well. I’d be surprised if it wasnt picked along with Seattle and LA for the West Coast.

  100. r.benjamin says:

    I see Dallas getting a Semi Final. LA or NY will get the Final. New Jets/Giants stadium(?)considering the Rose Bowl got the final in 1994..

    However considering the Rose Bowl held two BCS bowls this year.. you never know.

  101. JustinG says:

    1. Oakland
    2. Orlando
    3. Detroit
    4. Boston
    5. Atlanta
    6. Jacksonville
    7. San Diego
    8. St. Louis
    9. Tampa Bay

    1. Washington DC (FedEx Field-91,704-Grass)
    2. Seattle (QWest Field-67,00-Field Turf)
    3. Denver (INVESCO Field-76,125-Grass)
    4. Los Angeles (Los Angeles Stadium-75,000-Grass)
    5. Phoenix (U of Phoenix Stadium-72,200-Grass)
    6. New York (New Meadowlands Stadium-82,500-Field Turf)
    7. Nashville (LP Field-68,798-Grass)
    8. Baltimore (M&T Bank STadium-71,008-Field Turf)
    9. Charlotte (Bank of America Stadium-73,504-Grass)
    10. Chicago (Soldier Field-61,500-Grass)
    11. Cleveland (Browns Stadium-73,200-Grass)
    12. Dallas (Cowboys Stadium-80,000-Turf)
    13. Houston (Reliant Stadium-71,054-Grass)
    14. Kansas City (Arrowhead-77,000-Grass)
    15. Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field-67,594-Grass)
    16. Miami (Dolphin Stadium-74,916-Grass)
    17. Indianapolis (Lucas Oil Stadium-63,000-Field Turf)
    18. San Francisco (New 49ers Stadium-68,500-Grass)

    Final at Fed Ex Field. Why? Nations capital. Biggest capacity. On east coast so Europe and Africa are more likely to tune in. Natural Grass.

  102. JustinG says:

    Then you could have regions like someone else said above. Something like this:

    Washington DC, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland
    Miami, Charlotte, Houston, Nashville
    Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Phoenix
    Denver, Kansas City, Dallas, Chicago, Indianapolis

  103. matt C in Tampa says:

    Games will be played in the NFL stadiums in the MLS cities even where there’s an SSS field…And they’ll pack the places.

    Eighteen spots open. WC is a long ways away…but I suspect the cities will be chosen on existing or “in the planning” factors. 4 Fla. Cities. I think Jax is out. Then it’s btw Tampa and O-town and I think Tampa wins that battle. So Miami and Tampa from Fla. Then they have to use Atlanta for the SE. Can’t see Nashville (sorry) getting it if Atlanta, Houston, Dallas and two Fla. Cities get hosting duties. Maybe they’ll give big rewards to MLS cities..who knows. Still…a ….long ways….away.

    My predictions. No current MLS cities left out under this scenario.



    2. Seattle,


    4.New York



    7. LA

    8. Atlanta

    9. Houston

    10. Philly

    11. Denver

    WHO KNOWS..probably with reservations.


    13.Tampa (Ray Jay…Glaziers..better stadium than Orlando..unless there’s renovations…and still close to Orlando for tourist)

    14. San Diego

    15. St. Louis


    17. KC

    Prediction for 9 that will be CUT NOW:









    Baltimore (too close to DC)


  104. Patrick says:

    DC is a guarantee, you cant have an international tournament without including the Capital. You have a stadium already with over 90k and luxury boxes. RFK is no longer viable for todays standards.

  105. Patrick says:

    you could have them train at owings mills where the ravens train and even Maryland U facilities.

  106. Tucson.Soccer.Fan says:

    Definitely Glendale, AZ. I saw USA vs Mexico there. Perfect venue. Glendale also held the Super Bowl a couple years ago.

  107. JK says:

    Both AC Milan and Chelsea practiced at UMBC’s Soccer Stadium (Bermuda Grass Surface) when they came in July. Apparently, both sides raved about the field. Towson U also has Bermuda Grass. Both UMBC and Towson aren’t far from M&T Bank Stadium (maybe 30 minutes), so there’s really no training space issue.

  108. Chris in Belfast says:

    Ok, but to just stick a game in the Capitol because it is the Capitol is silly, particularly if the only viable stadium for that game isn’t really near the city to begin with. I obviously have no say in this, but I think the USSF should avoid DC unless Snyder builds a new stadium closer to the city, OR United’s stadium can be expanded temporarily for the World Cup. This is assuming United have a stadium of their own by 18 or 22.

  109. Chris in Belfast says:

    Good point, Stu. Even by 2018/22 support for MLS won’t be big enough for most MLS clubs to have venues large enough to support a World Cup bid. Cities with SSS’s should be considered for games, because that demonstrates a local demand for the game, but in almost every single case those cities ALSO have larger stadiums suitable for the world game.

    I do think that MLS cities should be rewarded for their support of soccer if at all possible, plus adding in some prospective markets for expansion.

  110. Blake says:

    Tampa Bay isn’t a city, you guys.

    Furthermore, I really hope that the actual city (Tampa) makes the cut!

  111. Dc Strange says:

    Being a Hoosier and still living in the southern part of the state I would love to see a game (any game) being played at Lucas. I have never been inside of it but it sure is a site to see. That being said, I dont live that far away from any of the possible Midwest cities. Indy, St. Louis and Nashville are all around four hours and Chicago is six. Either way, I’ll be happy.

  112. Nate says:

    1. Seattle voted for a dual purpose stadium, that is not debatable.

    2. When the World Cup comes to Seattle, they will bring in grass for the games. (they did for Chelsea and Barca) Yes turf sucks and the world would be a better place without it.

  113. JK says:

    AC Milan and Chelsea used UMBC’s Soccer Stadium when they came for the World Football Challenge in July. Both raved about the Bermuda Grass surface. Towson U also has Bermuda grass. With both being very accessable to Baltimore, there are really no issues with training space.

  114. Chris In Oakland says:

    The current stadium in Oakland is a 15 minute train ride away from Downtown San Francisco, where most of the teams and fans will be staying.

    Hopefully a 49ers/Raiders joint stadium is built on the current grounds of the Coliseum.

  115. dth says:

    If it is, then that’s a wonderful place to play soccer: it’s intimate, great sightlines, great acoustics. They’ve played that world soccer classic or whatever that preseason tournament is called three years in a row there now.

  116. Katatonia says:

    lol at oakland being on that list.

  117. sir coble says:

    I hope nashville is seriously considered. Morocco played here against the USMNT before the last world cup, and their players raved about the pitch, and the feel of the stadium. The t&t game went very well, also the olympic qualifications were a huge success at LP field. The field is right next to 3 major interstates, and 2 blocks away from the heart of music city..great atmosphere to host a bunch of soccer nuts.

  118. blah says:

    let’s just hope the us gets to host.

  119. pH says:

    The USA seems to have plenty of stadiums to choose from. In Australia soccer has to borrow space in the summer from stadiums used or controlled by Australian Rules Football or Rugby League or Rugby Union. But the World Cup will be in an Australian winter and those other codes don’t want to be kicked out of their stadiums. So there’s a big bun fight here already. Australia is considered the USA’s main rival for 2022 as Europe is expected to get 2018. Would the NFL move out if the World Cup was held in the middle of their season and MLS and FIFA wanted the stadiums?

  120. CCSUltra says:

    It was a different group back in the day. It was the Wolstein’s that wanted to get a MLS team and then elder Wolstein died and the MLS dream died as well. The team we were supposed to get ended up in Salt Lake City and the rest is history.

    If Lerner seriously got interested in an MLS team, I don’t know how the league would turn him down. The man has billions of dollars at his disposal.

  121. art says:

    Hoping “MSL” was a typo, if not, what’s your problem, man. Having said that FedEx Field will definitely be a venue I should think.

  122. art says:

    The Dallas stadium should be the Cotton Bowl IMO, it’s a fantastic soccer venue when hosting big games. Granted, it’s falling apart…

  123. art says:

    SSS’s are too small, FIFA requires (IIRC) at least 40,000 seats, if not more, for WC venues. There’s far too many big NFL stadiums that can also host soccer for the SSS’s to even be considered.

  124. art says:

    No domes. That’s all I want.

  125. art says:

    Unless the World Cup is held in the Fall for some reason its not an issue. The US has by far the best stadiums and infastructure in the world, no one else even really comes close.

  126. einar says:

    the rose bowl will be used for the final. FIFA listed the stadium as one of the most historic stadiums in FIFA history. just check the website

  127. jimoh8002 says:

    I disagree with Baltimore being cut because most of the Dc united fans or any solid fan base that Washington believes to have is from Baltimore plus rfk stadium is a dump, FedEx field’s (which is in Maryland not DC)dimensions are to small. if anything the smart thing to do would be to include Baltimore and Washington and drop Kansas city they proven time without number that there not capable of doing anything good for soccer in the US.

  128. jimoh8002 says:

    Dude F**K detroit yes they hosted in 1994 but out of all the host cities i can tell you they did the work just go to worldstatiums. com and look at how empty the silverdome was do you really think the ussf would risk a world cup in a city thats single handedly cause a recession for the whole nation? H*ll TO THE F*CK NO I would even advise any country to base or practice there

  129. Daddy Dick says:

    seriously? is there really a difference? i don’t hear about tennis players griping about clay or grass or basketball players lamenting over asphault or hardwood? it’s a game. play it as it is. you think xavi or ronaldo or anyone is going to be any less of a player because of turf? i’m all for grass because of tradition, but i don’t see why it would hinder the performance of any true athlete.

    players play.

  130. Daddy Dick says:

    a championship from lebron would do wonders too, but i’m not going to hold my breath.

  131. jimoh8002 says:

    THe Dimensions in FEDEX are too small plus Fedex Field is in Maryland Not Washington Dc and if any game should be played in maryland baltimore is surely a better choice than landover because landover lives off of college student because of the colleges around the area and it also lives off of baltimore and Dc theres nothing solid in landover.

  132. jimoh8002 says:

    What do you mean??? Chelsea train at University of Maryland baltimore county over the summer when they where here and the ravens training facility is always available plus the are lost of recreational fields all over town with light and security….. Baltimore is a solid bet.

  133. OmarVizquel says:

    Why? Cavs are good…

  134. Eazy says:

    lol wut?

  135. SG says:

    no kidding dude. Boston would be the “Host” city though. Thats why they dont say Foxboro because Boston is technically the Host city. I know the distance to Gillete from Boston but thanks anyway Magellan.

  136. K1p says:

    I can see it now, the world cup final, on polystyrene. I saw a couple of soccer matches there and didn’t like them. The Ginormadome seems to suck energy from the air.

  137. ms says:

    because chelsea wouldn’t come unless they promised to install the real stuff. They had to or they wouldn’t have done it.

  138. ShaggyReAL says:

    What no Salt Lake?? Damn! I say Tampa,Nashville,Cleveland,Jacksonville,St Louis, Baltimore and SanFran/Oak.

    No Need to have all the games in Florida and Cali.

  139. Greg says:

    The 18 will be…

    Boston: Gilette

    New York: Meadowlands

    Philly: Lincoln Field

    DC: RFK or Fed Ex

    Tampa: Raymond James

    Miami: Land Shark (or whatever they name it by then)

    Chicago: Soldier Field

    Houston: Reliant Stadium

    Dallas: Id prefer the Cotton Bowl because it has more soccer tradition and would go right up Jerry Jones a$$ but it will probably be the new monstrosity.

    Phoenix: Sun Devil Stadium or Univ of Phoenix

    LA: Rose Bowl

    San Fran: New 49ers Stadium by then

    Seattle: Qwest Field

    Denver: Invesco

    Detroit: Ford Field

    KC: Arrowhead

    Charlotte: Bank of America

    Nashville: LP Field

    So we lose:

    St Louis, Oakland, San Diego, Cleveland, Jacksonville, Orlando, Philly, Atlanta and Indy

  140. .Steve (Chicago, but native Hoosier) says:

    Indianapolis deserves it and would be a great host:

    1. Proven as a great host for NCAA Basketball

    2. International appeal due to Indy 500

    3. Close to Chicago…fans can stay in Indy or Chi and see games in both places

    4. Believe or not, our YMNT is loaded with Hoosiers and the WC would be a huge boost to the local game

    5. Indiana University soccer is a staple

    6. Lucas Oil is brand new and getting a Super Bowl too

    It is time to recognize Indy as a soccer city!! I hope they get picked.

  141. ShaggyReAL says:

    add KC and Atlanta.

  142. Chris in Belfast says:

    That’s what I said.

    SSS’s are too small, but cities that have been supportive enough of soccer to build dedicated stadiums for the game should be rewarded. All of those towns have bigger stadiums, and they should be used if possible.

  143. mcjones says:

    Donovan starting…

  144. Dan says:

    Totally different. I’ll take it then that you haven’t played on turf before. The biggest factor is the speed of the ball when being passed. The other thing comes into play with the firmness of the ground and the beating it has on players’ legs. Turf can be nice, but you will not meet one professional that would rather play on it.

    Also, in those other games you mention, the ball is not constantly rolling on the surface. So the change in surface does not affect play as much.

  145. njrepin says:

    cut nashville

  146. A. Roach says:

    Please don’t cut Charlotte!! Bank of America stadium and the city would be great hosts… and not just because I live here but because it’s the truth… trust me USSF/ World Cup bid committee.

  147. Eurosnob says:

    It’s a typo. Thanks for catching it.

  148. Brian says:

    Thank you. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

  149. Metrohooligan101 says:

    Don’t think Orlando would be cut, they have the biggest attractions in the country with Disney and Universal, There are tons of tourists that come to Orlando each year, it’s what the city depends on. World Cup games in Orlando should be a no brainer….guaranteed success.

    As for the rest i agree.

  150. Metrohooligan101 says:

    Orlando is one of the biggest tourist attractions in the states, if Orlando is chosen it is a guranteed success. Everyone in orlando walk around wearing EPL shirts and Brazilian shirts at the malls, its crazy…. They do need to upgrade the citrus bowl though and with the sunrail coming in 2012 it would be ready for the world cup audience….

  151. pH says:

    If 2018 goes to Europe (e.g England or the Spain/Portugal or Belgium/Holland bids) then the main competition will be between the USA and us Aussies. Here in Australia there is a lot of conflict between the soccer body (FFA) and the Australian Rules (AFL) and Rugby codes (NRL, ARU) because the bid requires using stadiums right in middle of AFL, NRL and ARU seasons. I’m curious – what would be the reaction of the NFL in the USA if the FIFA World Cup had to be held in February right in middle of an NFL season and NFL stadiums had to be used? You guys have benefit of the WC beinig out of NFL season, but just hypothetically…

  152. gstommylee says:

    Seattle will definitely be on the list of 18. They have 2 Sports Stadiums that will work for the world cup: Qwest Field and Husky Stadium.

  153. gstommylee says:

    well the WC would be in middle of the MLS season which won’t be the problem since there will probably like they are doing this year a break in the season for the World Cup.

  154. phil from australia says:

    My guess for Eighteen Final Cities
    2/San Francisco
    12/New York

  155. Detroit? Really?

    For the 1994 World Cup, FIFA bent over backwards to allow the USA to host. Many of the stadiums that were used were not really designed for futbol/soccer, and even then Detroit’s entry, the Pontiac Silverdome, had to have specially installed natural grass installed before it was considered a viable venue.

    This time around I doubt that FIFA will look at things the same way. Stadiums will have to have natural grass, the fields will have to be the correct dimensions, be able to hold sizable number of fans, etc. At present Detroit does not have such a stadium.

    Silverdome? Abandoned by the Lions, and would face the same problem that they had in 1994. Even with what they did in ’94, the pitch/field was too small, really.

    Ford Field? Crowd capacity, check, field dimensions, maybe, natural grass, ummm, well…

    As a Metro Detroiter I’d love to see the World Cup come back to the USA, and Detroit to be one of the cities involved.

    As a futbol fan, all I can say is no, not gonna happen. Even if all the other considerations come into place, there isn’t a futbol specific stadium in the entire nation large enough to host the Final.

    In 1994 the Rose Bowl was used, but, once again, that field isn’t really designed for futbol.

    No, if the USA really wants the World Cup held with in it’s borders ever again the sport needs to be taken to by the American fans to the point where building a 75000+ futbol specific stadium wouldn’t just leave the facility an under used hulk once the champion is crowned.

  156. Nova says:

    hahha think of how much money USSF will make from telling people the only way to apply for tix is to join their $50/year membership for the ability to just apply for tix!

    BTW the list will be cut down further right? 18 cities sounds way too many. ’02 did have 20 but most others varies from 10-12.

    I think in the end six will be locks dc, ny, boston, orlando, dallas, la. I would then add one for north cali, one in mid west (kc or stL), one amongst det, chicago, indy, and maybe seattle.

    Finals will be in the Rose Bowl @ 230 EST for our friends in Europe. Looking at a list of past finals, its usually a city with a lot of prestige, Dallas is no LA and NY-NJ just doesn’t sound as good as LA neither mainly cuz of Jerzey =P.

  157. MR says:

    San Diego (Qualcom Stadium) has good public transit access, easy freeway access from multiple angles, plenty of parking….
    All of those are big upgrades of the LA options.
    Probably just wishful thinking on my part but it San Diego would be a great WC option.

  158. Lee says:

    I just hope that the US gets to play in NY, if the US gets picked to host. Watching the US play in a WC in NY? oh man….

    as for the final… I wouldn’t be surprised if NY got the nod, but for some reason I have a feeling a surprise city (not LA or NY or DC) will get that game.

    My 2 cents.

  159. Lee says:

    I doubt FIFA cares whether the stadium is a SSS as long as the field is to size, there is natural grass, the lines are painted the right way, and there is room for lots of fans.

    Also, the US is the only candidate that can have almost every game in a 75k+ stadium without rebuilding or constructing something new. That means HUGE profits and more money on marketing and advertising and less on infrastructure.