The chosen American cities are Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, Houston, Kansas City, Los Angeles, Miami, New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, San Francisco Bay Area (Santa Clara) and Seattle.
They’ll be joined by Toronto and Vancouver in Canada, and by Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey in Mexico, which will be a World Cup host for a record third time.
It thought the same thing... but read where Chicago and Minneapolis withdrew their bids due to lack of negotiating from FIFA regarding the terms.
You are spot on.
It has been well known for over a year that Chicago, detroit, indy, Minneapolis were not interested in hosting because of the terms that FIFA requires. They were not going to guarantee revenue for one of the most corrupt organizations in the world from the pocket of their residents.
Can you point me to some sources? I'd like to read more about the specifics.
There's a little bit of editorializing, but that's the implied message.
From 2018 when Chicago pulled its bid:
"FIFA could not provide a basic level of certainty on some major unknowns that put our city and taxpayers at risk. The uncertainty for taxpayers, coupled with FIFA's inflexibility and unwillingness to negotiate, were clear indications that further pursuit of the bid wasn't in Chicago's best interests," Matthew McGrath, a spokesman for Mayor Rahm Emanuel, said in a statement to the Associated Press.
“After much discussion and several attempts to work within the parameters prescribed by FIFA, we chose not to continue forward in the bid process,” the Minneapolis Bid Committee said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the inability to negotiate the terms of the various bid agreements did not provide our partners, and our community, with sufficient protections from future liability and unforeseen changes in commitments.”
more...
The Minneapolis Bid Committee said in its statement that concerns about liability were the main problem in negotiations with FIFA.
“Specifically, we were requesting flexibility on the financial liability caps and/or stronger estimates on anticipated costs associated with the events,” the committee said in a statement.
FIFA has been plagued by corruption, particularly when it comes to awarding World Cup bids, but the organization has a new process for selecting where World Cups are played, which will be decided in an open vote by the 211 member nations.
FIFA’s demands on host cities include a series of government guarantees, one of them “assuming liability for safety and security incidents.” A spokeswoman for Meet Minneapolis did not immediately respond to questions about what the disagreement over liability was.
Interestingly, Vancouver pulled its bid in 2018 as well. Only to be talked back into it, and receive a location site yesterday. (not super surprising)
FIFA's only flexible with an appropriately sized bribe
Kudos to Chicago & Minneapolis for saying FU to FIFA.
I mean...maybe?
It's curious that - except for a handful - every other major city from a cross section of politically diverse areas was presented with the exact same terms and conditions and still bid. I suspect there's more to the story than "FIFA is being inflexible," especially in a city like Chicago, which isn't exactly known for it's by-the-book governing practices.
It's unfortunate. Those cities are going to miss an opportunity to showcase themselves on a global stage, reap the benefits and revenues from hundred of thousands of visitors, and create an amazing environment and experience for their local populations.
Chicago doesn't need FIFA to showcase itself to the world.
It's Chicago.
NYC, LA and Chicago stand on their own.
Just like London, Paris, Tokyo, Rome, and every other major metropolitan city in the world.
FIFA is huge, but major cities are huger.
+1
Thank you for doing my homework!
My link would have been the athletic article from a week ago, but you gave much more detail.
It has been known for awhile that the Midwest was out.
For the poster below who questioned politics. This is the rust belt for a reason. Boston, NY, LA, Seattle, Miami, atl. Basically anyone in the US who is hosting beside kc has an established arena, airport, public transportation, etc to host with no problem. The Midwest and dc has not had the tax base to handle the infrastructure for an event of this magnitude for 20 years.
There is a reason beyond politics that cincy was all over hosting and even Columbus said.. nah.. we will pass.
Edit. That was Buddha and he ended up being the post directly above me. Look into why Qatar is hosting this year and keep talking about the "honor of hosting and showcasing your city" you basically gave an argument for sportswashing.
Look below, jmo did my homework for me. Give him a +1..
As a Toronto resident I have to admit I am not looking forward to this.
Let's talk about a house swap for a portion of that time...
It's a little crazy, but when it was in Detroit, it was a really cool experience to go. I'd like to take my kids up for some of the Toronto matches if possible.
Right. FIFA didn't say F you to the midwest, the midwest said F you to FIFA.
It's surprising that the Midwest seemed to be unique in having an issues with hosting though. The Midwest barely gets many opportunities for fun sporting events (no bowls, rarely chosen for Super Bowls / neutral site stuff) so you'd think they'd jump at the opportunity to host a summer event. But maybe the infrequent hosting made them less comfortable.
I should say that I don't think guaranteed revenue was the sticking point based on comments from those cities. Sounds more like an issue with FIFA desiring to be indemnified of liability and probably some spending demands.
Lucas Oil held a pair of fun NCAA College football events this past winter. They were pretty fun. Probably can't count the B1G Championship game because it's ... you know ... a midwestern conference but I'm including it because Michigan beat Iowa 42-3 at it. A hard to believe score but yep, it's accurate. 42-3.
Indianapolis is also a regular for NCAA finals and has held a Super Bowl.
Columbus is in the midwest. FIFA thought that place was beneath a World Cup game. Not even sure it was considered even though they have a MLS team. Certainly isn't a ding on the midwest, simply one of the few smart thoughts that crossed a FIFA mind.
The Columbus Crew's stadium is much too small (20,000) to host World Cup games. Columbus's only alternative would be Ohio Stadium, which is too big, if anything, and doesn't have a natural grass field.
Open-air NFL stadiums with grass fields are going to be the host venues.
Chicago was worried about another entity being corrupt????
Don't buy it. I do buy Chicago feeling like it doesn't need the microscope of the "what about Chicago?!" crowd. They also probably feel the headaches of logistics outweigh the positives.
Chicago probably did the right thing about sitting this out. Unless it's going to bring a considerable amount of money to the city, no one is going to remember which cities hosted the world cup, especially if it isn't a final.
Its 2026 and not sure I agree with your title. Its not a F you to the midwest. Its where can the continent have the best venues for a world cup without expectations of 100s of millions being spent to secure a location.
This world cup might be a *game changer* for the USA/North America with this format and being it is the biggest stage for soccer/futbol; I feel the choices are very fitting and are also not just about the venue. They are areas that can support the masses that will come from all over the world to watch.
I feel any choice could be argued, but this is somewhat sound. What don't you agree with in their choices other that wishing there would also be a midwest city involved? Its just not really practical IMO.
I dont know all the logistics of choosing sites, but I'd certainly thing Chicago, Detroit, or MSP have the infrastructure and air access to easily allow them to host some games. Not sure what the requirements for a stadium are though
Chicago could definitely handle the number of people but they don’t have an NFL stadium worthy of hosting. Ford Field and US bank are indoors without retractable roofs. Soccer in the biggest domestic leagues & tournaments is almost never played indoors and I’m sure FIFA doesn’t want to do that with their crown jewel. Soccer indoors just isn’t right.
We are excited about Atlanta being selected!
Mercedes-Benz Stadium should make for a great venue. The roof only opens in a “circle” in the middle, unlike the much larger rectangular retractable roofs. But the place can get noisy!
Atlanta local here as well. Really looking forward to it coming to Mercedes Benz. Strongly considering buying some tickets to group matches when they become available. An absolutely once in a lifetime experience to have a World Cup match happening right in your backyard.
Excited for you! Wish I could share in that excitement.
Twice in a lifetime for me :)
I went to the US/Switzerland game in 94 at the Silverdome when I was 11, and now live in Atlanta. Can't wait to take my son, who will be 5, to the match(es) in 2026!
My son will just be turning six during the World Cup! I will definitely be getting tickets for he and I.
Looks like we'll see you there!
Congrats on the new baby!
My kids will be 10 and 8. Perfect ages. Hopefully prices at SoFi aren't too outrageous (narrator: they will be).
Football indoors isn't right either.
I am told there is a big house not too far from Detroit that is outdoors that could most likely hold a world class soccer game or 2.
I know they've hosted exhibitions before, but I think a WC game would have required the field to be widened, and I'm not sure how easy that would be.
It would be impossible. The brick wall does not provide enough space to widen the playing field to WC standards, so they'd have to put the whole thing on a shelf extending into the first few rows of seats. I don't see that as feasible...
I'm imagining people sitting below the field of play, somewhat like the MN basketball court.
Those matches were just friendlies so it didn’t matter at the time but the field was much narrower than a normal regulation soccer field. And even then the players were against the walls when taking corner kicks and they had the players & coaching staff sitting in the first row of the stands since there was no room for benches on the field. The Big House is great but just isn’t built to host competitive soccer matches.
What's wrong with Soldier Field's ability to host?
Not being snarky, I legitimately don't know. It can't be a capacity issue since Hard Rock in Miami can more or less hold the same amount of fans. Lincoln Financial is Philly only holds maybe another 4,000-5,000 people. Mass transportation isn't an issue with CTA. Was it just an issue of the stadium being too outdated? I know Soldier Field was renovated within the last 20 years or so, but 20 years is ancient history for stadiums these days.
I think they just didn't want to meet Fifa requirements reading through other comments? It hosted the gold cup final a few years ago (2019), so it definitely could host a large soccer match.
That's what I was thinking. I went to a match there about 10 years ago between Chicago Fire and Man U so its not like they can't host a big match. Guess they just have their reasons.
Chicago as a city pulled its bid in 2018.
Soldier Field is perfectly capable of hosting. Pretty sure that was just a personal opinion from a person that doesn't like Soldier Field.
Had Chicago put in a bid (they withdrew), they certainly would have been chosen. Third largest city in the US, geographically central, excellent infrastructure. Absolute no brainer. But they didn't want to host.
Soldier Field is a great venue and has hosted more international sporting events than any of the venues chosen. Chicago withdrew from the process years ago (as did Detroit) but it has nothing to do with the stadium
Ehhh, Soldier Field is fine.
My opinion, Solider Field sucks. Could easily host, and due to its relative isolation, would be in an ideal location for something like this (while being somewhat of a pain in the ass for Chicago residents to see a Bears game or a concert).
As a former Chicago resident, I always thought that in a perfect world Soldier would be where the United Center is located. The United Center would be somewhere in the loop, like Painter's Row or something. The Fire and Red Stars would share an MLS sized stadium in the new Lincoln Yards (or where Solider Field is, but with views of Lake Michigan), and I wouldn't dare touch the MLB ballparks.
Yes, definitely Chicago and MSP and Detroit have both hosted the Super Bowl relatively recently. They would be fine for WC. As the above thread mentioned, it was those Midwest cities that declined to host (still surprising to me - I would think it's still a huge benefit despite some uncertainties).
Longtime listener, first time caller. Here in Nashville, everyone is pissed. I keep telling them "If only you guys had approved the light-rail system a few years ago, you may have had a chance to host." We don't have public transport and our roads/highways are not equipped for the mass of humanity that would result from being a host.
I think the argument about ability to handle the influx of visitors is a bit irrelevant once you get to a certain size of city. Boston's metro area is approximately the same size as Detroit's (4.95M to 4.4M) and the mass transit system here can barely handle the daily strain, to say nothing of the influx from visitors, and the less said about traffic the better. Detroit has host Super Bowls, World Series, All-Star games, national conventions, and even the 1994 World Cup. I have a hard time believing that it would be demonstrably harder-pressed to host a round of soccer games than Boston.
By comparison, Kansas City is half the size of those two metro areas, is just as lacking in centralized mass transit as Detroit (if not more so), and Detroit has thousands of more hotel rooms (at least 42k compared to KC's 36k) not including those just across the river in Windsor.
Now I'm sure there are other factors in play and cities like Chicago and Minny pulling out likely didn't help the Midwest's representation, but considering we're talking about FIFA here I really think believing any factor other than money was the sole deciding factor here is a bit of a fool's errand.
I guess I'm just curious how a broad and politically diverse cross-section of cities from three countries were presented with the same exact T's and C's and agreed to them.
My guess is given the - shall we say - "unique" political operations of at least Chicago and Detroit, there may be some other things that were left unspoken as to why they withdrew their bid.
There's no question Chicago and Detroit need to be more conscious of spending than these other cities, given the bad shape their finances are in.
I'm not saying that I disagree with any of their choices. It would be nice to not have to cross an international border or drive 13 hours to be able to go see a game hosted by my own country.
I feel like if the Pontiac Silverdome can manage to host World Cup games and "support the masses", somewhere in the midwest could have worked for this round (yes, I know things have changed in the interval, FIFA has become more corrupt, more money is involved, etc... but it's not like attendance or fan travel has quadrupled in that time frame).