(04-10-2017 09:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I went to a game in Dallas at the 1994 World Cup between Spain and South Korea (2-2 tie). The game itself was fun - the Cotton Bowl atmosphere was pretty neat although I doubt a venue like that would be in the running to host a game in 2026. But the most memorable part of the trip to Dallas was eating at a restaurant prior to the game and watching the TV following a white bronco on the freeway in Los Angeles. None of us could figure out what was going on until we saw the caption that it was O.J. Simpson being chased by the police.

That was very annoying. A boring car "chase" at 55 mph on the freeway, or game 6 of the Rockets-Knicks NBA championship?

True I remember the Rockets game too. But those titles still seem tainted because Michael Jordan was off playing baseball. Now if the Rockets can somehow win a title this year, it won't be tainted. But I digress....

(04-11-2017 07:11 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I went to a game in Dallas at the 1994 World Cup between Spain and South Korea (2-2 tie). The game itself was fun - the Cotton Bowl atmosphere was pretty neat although I doubt a venue like that would be in the running to host a game in 2026. But the most memorable part of the trip to Dallas was eating at a restaurant prior to the game and watching the TV following a white bronco on the freeway in Los Angeles. None of us could figure out what was going on until we saw the caption that it was O.J. Simpson being chased by the police.

That was very annoying. A boring car "chase" at 55 mph on the freeway, or game 6 of the Rockets-Knicks NBA championship?

I don't think it was game 6. I was at game 6 (which was epic), but I remember seeing this event on tv. It must have been game 4 or 5 in NY.

Giving politics, this is the only way the US would have a legitimate chance of hosting. It's not as good as being the only host, but it works for me given the majority of matches are in the US. The WC will probably be expanded by then, but that's a whole other issue.

OJ chase was during Game 5 of the NBA finals. It was also the day of Arnold Palmer's last US Open Round, the opening game of the World Cup and the New York Rangers Championship Parade.

(04-10-2017 07:53 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Already it's creating some controversy as Mexico is unhappy with the proposed number of games (USA to host 60 of 80 games and all matches from the quarterfinals on; Canada and Mexico to host 10 games each). But if the proposal doesn't crumble internally, I bet you it's chosen as the winning bid and North America United will be hosting the World Cup in 9 years.

Of course this is FIFA we're talking about so perhaps they award the 2026 World Cup to Syria.

I get the feeling the FIFA group has learned their lessons from Brazil and Qatar. Basically if the infrastructure's not in place... it's not happening there again, no matter what the bribes.

Quote:We do not have the appreciation for it - even though our team is actually decent

I'll disagree on this in part.. there are some areas that absolutely are devoted to it, even in the states. I know KC and St. Louis would be thrilled for instance if they got to host a game or two.

That being said, how does a tri-host work. Does that mean all three countries are automatically in? The host country always gets admitted, I thought.

(04-11-2017 08:00 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 07:53 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Already it's creating some controversy as Mexico is unhappy with the proposed number of games (USA to host 60 of 80 games and all matches from the quarterfinals on; Canada and Mexico to host 10 games each). But if the proposal doesn't crumble internally, I bet you it's chosen as the winning bid and North America United will be hosting the World Cup in 9 years.

Of course this is FIFA we're talking about so perhaps they award the 2026 World Cup to Syria.

I get the feeling the FIFA group has learned their lessons from Brazil and Qatar. Basically if the infrastructure's not in place... it's not happening there again, no matter what the bribes.

Quote:We do not have the appreciation for it - even though our team is actually decent

I'll disagree on this in part.. there are some areas that absolutely are devoted to it, even in the states. I know KC and St. Louis would be thrilled for instance if they got to host a game or two.

That being said, how does a tri-host work. Does that mean all three countries are automatically in? The host country always gets admitted, I thought.

If the WC is expanded to 48 teams by then lots and lots of nations will be in. Expect a lot of 9-1 matches, etc.

I guess you could let all three hosts in and then only give CONCACAF one bid instead of their 3.5

(04-10-2017 10:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:16 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:02 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  no thanks.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Why wouldn't you want this? For a country like the US that already has plenty of facilities and infrastructure the World Cup, Olympics etc. are tremendous economic boons for the host cities.

For one, I don't give a rat's behind about soccer. Secondly, it costs a lot to host. Thirdly, FIFA pockets most of the profit.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

First point is irrelevant. Second is not all that accurate; by far the biggest cost for most countries is building stadiums and infrastructure which is already taken care of here.

The third point is mostly true, but the value lies less in keeping the actual profit from the events and more in the boost for local businesses from a huge tourism surge during the WC.

(04-10-2017 07:58 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Pretty great deal for Canada assuming the joint hosting gives them an autobid.

As I recall, the US, Mexico and Canada would all get auto-bids. It's supposed to be the expanded World Cup, which is the reason for the joint bid.

(04-10-2017 07:53 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  Already it's creating some controversy as Mexico is unhappy with the proposed number of games (USA to host 60 of 80 games and all matches from the quarterfinals on; Canada and Mexico to host 10 games each). But if the proposal doesn't crumble internally, I bet you it's chosen as the winning bid and North America United will be hosting the World Cup in 9 years.

Of course this is FIFA we're talking about so perhaps they award the 2026 World Cup to Syria.

This was pure politics. The US will never win a solo bid because FIFA and the IOC, as corrupt and easily bought out as they can be, are anti-American. That's why Canada and Mexico were added.

(04-10-2017 10:05 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:16 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 09:02 PM)Hood-rich Wrote:  no thanks.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Why wouldn't you want this? For a country like the US that already has plenty of facilities and infrastructure the World Cup, Olympics etc. are tremendous economic boons for the host cities.

For one, I don't give a rat's behind about soccer. Secondly, it costs a lot to host. Thirdly, FIFA pockets most of the profit.

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

It costs a lot to host if you don't already have the infrastructure in place. The US is the most ideal place for the World Cup and Olympics. Both are ignorant for not hosting events here more often for the sake of being anti-American.

(04-10-2017 11:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I'd rather it happen in a soccer-first nation, not one that's a soccer-third nation. It just means so much more when it happens in a Brazil or Italy...

We do not have the appreciation for it - even though our team is actually decent.

Soccer ranks about 10th here. I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

Uruguay should host.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(04-13-2017 05:12 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Uruguay should host.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

They are bidding with Argentina

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

(04-13-2017 12:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I'd rather it happen in a soccer-first nation, not one that's a soccer-third nation. It just means so much more when it happens in a Brazil or Italy...

We do not have the appreciation for it - even though our team is actually decent.

Soccer ranks about 10th here. I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

Yeah, I'd go top 5 and closing in on hockey fast.

(04-13-2017 06:11 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 05:12 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  Uruguay should host.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

They are bidding with Argentina

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using CSNbbs mobile app

They want the 2030 World Cup, because it will be the 100th anniversary of the very first World Cup, which was held in Uruguay. They won't bid on the 2026 World Cup.

(04-13-2017 06:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(04-13-2017 12:49 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(04-10-2017 11:02 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I'd rather it happen in a soccer-first nation, not one that's a soccer-third nation. It just means so much more when it happens in a Brazil or Italy...

We do not have the appreciation for it - even though our team is actually decent.

Soccer ranks about 10th here. I'm exaggerating, but not by much.

Yeah, I'd go top 5 and closing in on hockey fast.

Really depends on the area. It is pretty popular around here. Hockey is not, nor is baseball. It probably goes:

Football
Basketball
Soccer
Baseball
Lacrosse
Hockey

I will note though that this area is probably about 40% African-American and any interest in baseball or hockey is limited to wealthier white pockets. Basketball is almost all African-American outside of church leagues. My son has been in leagues where he has been the only white kid. Usually they average one white kid per team. Football does get some white kids, but African Americans definitely make up a good 70%. Soccer is definitely the most diverse in its makeup. The rec teams are pretty representative of the population. The travel teams, probably due to the expense, are more white. I think that is the gap that needs to be closed for the sport to really take off. There is clearly interest, but the resources are lacking for it to reach its true potential. Soccer is dirt cheap to play, but good training is expensive. You get good athletes wanting to play, but once you get beyond the point where they can simply kick the ball and outrun the competition (dump and chase), athletics alone becomes useless. My son has a couple of better athletes on his team and if you watched practice, you'd think he might be the 3rd best player, but in the games, he scores about 80% of our goals.

yea the pay to play makes it an upper middle class sport.

(04-13-2017 08:35 AM)fsquid Wrote:  yea the pay to play makes it an upper middle class sport.

I agree and it is more than likely holding US soccer back by eliminating some potentially great players from ever playing the sport