Ford Field put in a bid and they didn't get accepted. Neither did DC. Kansas City did. Accept it.
I have no dog is whether KC got a bid or not. What I want to understand is the criteria for allocating the city. Either way Ima be in the stadiums.
Yea, the States does have enough stadiums to do a World Cup in just the Northeast, California, the South, the Midwest, etc. but that would defeat the purpose of doing it here when there are stadiums in almost every state that arw eligible. This would be like hosting a World Cup and excluding every team from Asia and/or Africa.
You're actually setting up my point here. Unlike smaller countries where there are only a handful of eligible stadiums, the US has an embarrassment of riches. And these global sporting events are also a lowkey flex for a nation to the world, so they wanna put their best foot forward. So in allocating the WC host city, I imagine they look at a couple of factors,
1. Hospitality capacity within the region - is that city/town known for hosting large events and accommodating a crowd
2. Logistics - How easy is it for people to move around / get to the city
3. Tourism - Outside of the WC, are there other attractions in the area that people would like
4. Culture of the city
5. Actual infrastructure of the stadiums
6. Misc??
If you then look at all of the cities that won a bid, you can make a layman's guess as to why certain places won
1. NYC/NJ - No brainer here. US' tourism capital, the Big apple etc
2. ATL - Hosted the 96 Olympics so it's hosted a big event before. Jackson Airport is the US' busiest airport so it's easy to connect to
3. LA - No brainer here. LA is one of the US' biggest tourist cities and would service the Asian demographic very well
4. SF - Same thing as LA. One of the US' most iconic cities.
5. Miami - A lot of Latin Americans already live here so you have a city that will cater to them. Think Brazil, Ecuador, Uruguay, Costa Rica etc
6. Houston - Big city, lots of space to hold people and a large Latino presence
7. Dallas - Same as Houston
8. Seattle - Arguably the best soccer atmosphere in the US so it makes sense.
9. Philly - On the east coast, good logistics. Iconic US city and a very big sports town
10. Boston - All I can think of is the East Coast logistic preference. That and Boston
11. KC - Only thing I can think is they have a good soccer culture like
@beejus said and that and it's in the midwest. Maybe Chicago didn't put in a bid or it's infrastructure was bad.
You mentioned it, Ford Field put in a bid, but if you're hosting a world event it's not Detroit you want your visitors to have a lasting impression about when they think of the US. So there's some level of aesthetics that goes into the decision-making. Either way, Philly and NYC are 2 and 4 hrs from DC by train so Ima at the games regardless.
