USA’s bid to host World Cup 2018
Another rival of England to host the World Cup of 2018 is the United States. This country already has a large number of stadiums with a capacity over 70000. These are normally used for American football which is the most popular sports in the States and they are spread across a vast area. However, as happened in the 1994 World Cup, organised by United States, these were converted to host ‘soccer’ matches. Giving the right to host the World Cup to the US would mean a large amount of revenue through advertising and TV rights. It may also be a bid to make soccer more popular in this country, where although David Beckham went there as the messiah of football (or rather soccer for the Americans), football is still very unpopular.
FIFA may consider that since the World Cup was already organised in this continent in the past decade, it may prefer the bid coming from England that has not hosted the World Cup since 1966, or the attractive China bid which has never hosted a World Cup. Football is the most popular sports in Europe, therefore it is logical to give this prestigious tournament’s hosting rights to a European country so that the Europeans can enjoy it easily. Not to sound too biased, even the China bid is better than the United States bid. At least, interest in football in this country is growing at a drastically larger rate than the US.
World Cup in USA 1994
The US was successful in organising the 1994 event and the US authorities are saying that they can even do a better job this time, 24 years after organising the event. Bigger and better stadiums have been built and only a few of the stadiums used in 1994 will be chosen again. But is it too soon for the World Cup to return to the States? It is interesting to analyse whether soccer interest had risen so much that this country deserves to host the big event. It is difficult, sometimes impossible, to change the mentality of a person, not to mention changing the mentality of a country with 300 million population! If soccer is not the main sports in this country, it wouldn’t be fair on the other countries that invested so much in football over the years and have supporters that would die to live the World Cup experience. The USA is a financially attractive bid, but England remains the sporting favourite to host the 2018 World Cup.
Bid Information
February 26, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
prakash said:
the united states should consider to host womens world cup or even the youth world cup. are the americans really in to football? if the world cup comes to europe better still england, can the americans keep the whole country alive like what the germans did in 2006? football really must come home to england
February 26, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
prakash said:
1994 the organisers did a great job, but i really feel the italians deserved to win the cup. the italians played their semi final fixture in new york. the brazilians played in los anges,
the time zone comes into factor. the italians flew from ny to la to play in the finals in pacific time zone.
thats how the italians lost the final.
not to a baggios penalty miss.
the american organisers screwed things up for the italians job:)
March 12, 2008 @ 6:13 pm
Juice said:
Most profitable WC ever… and that was before they let in 32 teams. It will have been 20+ years by the time 2018 rolls around and if FIFA is in the buisness of making money and progressing the sport as far as they can, they should choose the US.
March 24, 2008 @ 4:05 am
Cathal said:
USA deserves the Word Cup. Ireland should bid but we do not have the right amount of large capacity stadiums. England disappoints World Cup after World Cup, the USA tries, support is growing, they have a strong squad, and they have everything going for them. England does not deserve it.
March 30, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
Kasbah said:
england disappoints world cup after world cup, but the USA tries, has a strong squad (stronger than englands?) and growing support, and so they deserve the world cup? last time i checked we still out-performed the USA in the last 3 world cups!
July 6, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Brian said:
Full disclosure, I’m an American…here we go:
USA ‘94 is the most successful World Cup in history in terms of attendance and revenue. The popularity of the game here is growing exponentially, and we are one of the most diverse nations in the world. We also have many new/recently renovated stadiums that would serve as excellent grounds for football matches. In fact, many of our professional teams play in American football stadiums (even though they can’t fill them…unless Becks is in town) and they work seamlessly.
England would be a very good host for 2018, but if there’s anyone who’s bid would be just as good, it’s the States.
July 6, 2008 @ 10:15 pm
Brian said:
One more point:
The article says that football (yes, our soccer…) is very unpopular, which is just ignorant. In fact, ESPN (our Sky Sports) purchased the television rights to Euro 2008 and the ratings were off the chart - showing that football is, in fact, popular in the States.
Popularity has grown exponentially in the 12 years since MLS was formed in 1996, and is really quite amazing when you consider that when we hosted in 94, no one…NO ONE…cared about football in this country. So it is rather unfair to write off the USA bid due to perceived unpopularity.
That said…if we don’t get it, I hope England does.