A Yankee World Cup?

The Guardian revealed today that the US may be considering a bid for the 2018 World Cup. This stirs up some major shit--the English are pretty sure this one is theirs. It's fair: they haven't hosted one since 1966 and, among European nations, they're certainly due. But, it has been 14 years since CONCACAF last hosted a World Cup--2018 would be 24 years. The US is clearly a formidable candidate and hosting another World Cup with a more established domestic league (MLS will be more than 20 years old at that point) could be a big coup for US Soccer. No other CONCACAF nation can field a reasonable bid either; Mexico probably does not have the infrastructure (and FIFA would be unlikely to award it to them after giving World Cups to developing South Africa and Brazil) and Canada doesn't have the stadiums.

Look, I'd love to see the World Cup in America. I'd love to attend a game (though there aren't many venues in the southeast that would likely host matches). I've been to a MNT game (albeit a friendly) and seen the passion American soccer fans have. They deserve it. But, I can't seem to convince myself it should happen. The soccer-specific stadium debate is one side of the issue; games in Giant Stadium are simply never going to be as good as games at Old Trafford.

(Sidebar: One part of the soccer-specific stadium debate that will probably get lost is the variability of size. I really enjoyed the games in Germany because each place took on its own identity and, I have to say, the games in the smaller arenas (6 of 12 had capacities less than 50,000) had a really different feel from the games in bigger ones. I don't see US Soccer utilizing smaller facilities for a change of pace--most will be NFL sized stadiums that all feel, sound and play the same. Unfortunate. Probably not great for the MLS either--I'm sure it isn't great that none of our domestic league's soccer-specific stadiums will be used because they're simply too small.)

But, the bigger issue, I think, is the ways in which the vastness of America works against having a successful World Cup. Maybe I'm making too much of this--I wasn't really interested enough in 1994 to see how things worked back then. But I can't get over the feeling that having a closer geographic spread is a real boon to a World Cup. It allows fans to bounce more easily from stadium to stadium and see games more easily. It also ratchets up the intensity, I think--maybe that's just me. Anyway, that becomes a huge issue when you're getting ready to stage a World Cup in the US. For example, US Soccer will certainly want to showcase Qwest Field in Seattle which is quickly becoming the premier large soccer stadium in the US. They'll also, inevitably, choose somewhere like Giants Stadium to capitalize on the New York market. The World Cup will then stretch across 3000 miles--it will have no center and, I'm afraid, no real identity. Maybe I'm overstating the importance but I think there's something to be said for compact planning in such a large event. Germany had the great fortune that it's furthest venues were only 480 miles apart. England can offer a similar compact nature along with top class venues. So I'm throwing my support behind them.

Besides, it's the only way they'll qualify for the tournament.