Now that I've discussed some of the reasons the USA might host the
World Cup finals, it's time to give some reasons why they might not get
a bid.
One significant reason is the sheer logistical nightmare of
scheduling matches in order to satisfy the demands of the European
audiences. I felt the 1994 World Cup could have been one of the best tournaments ever if a majority of the matches had been played at night. The heat and humidity at many of the matches, some of which were played at 12 noon, had a debilitating effect on the play. (I had the misfortune a couple of years ago of attending an outdoor wedding in Orlando at high noon in mid-June. I can only imagine how football players could run at normal speed in that environment for 90 minutes.) Now, when the European audience is the largest and wealthiest soccer audience in the world, one has to dance to their tune, so to speak. If rescheduling the matches to a nighttime kickoff is a non-starter, then FIFA may insist on the matches taking place in stadiums with an overhead roof. However, a minority of stadiums in the USA have overhead roofs, so if FIFA sticks to that point it could negate an advantage of the American bid -- the abundance of stadiums that seat 60,000 or more.
The other factor that works against an American bid is the sporting
culture of the USA. In my opinion,
this factor could be significant enough to not give the USA a bid. The
argument goes roughly like this: an American World Cup final tournament
would be hugely profitable at the gate and the merchandising booth, but
no one really cares about "soccer" in the USA -- the country is so
darned big that the finals won't be noticed in most of the country, and
the passion that you see for the game in other parts of the world is
nonexistent in the USA, in short, the tournament would be missing its je ne sais quoi
that one could find anywhere else. I can recall two statements that
illustrate that point. The first was a video interview that
Argentina's La Nación conducted in 2002 with Víctor Hugo
Morales, who is perhaps the most famous radio football commentator in
Argentina over the past quarter-century. He was giving his opinion of
the various World Cups he had witnessed, and he felt that USA '94 were
the worst he had ever seen. Not really for the quality of play, but
more because the atmospherics were too sterile to be a true World Cup.
Another comment that I remember after the World Cup came from Michel
Platini, who said that he wanted France '98 to be a cultural event -- something he felt was lacking in USA '94.
"It was only a World Cup in the stadiums."
I think that statement goes to the heart of American sporting
culture. The foreign media got a lot of enjoyment from the factoid
that only 30% of the US public knew that the World Cup finals were
going on in their country. The man-on-the-street interviews that
probed knowledge on the game or the major stars were painful to watch.
(My personal favorite was the woman who, when asked if she had heard of
Diego Maradona, replied, "I don't let my kids listen to that kind of
music.") While all of these anecdotes are amusing, frustrating, or
infuriating (depending on your point of view), the fact is that it is
very difficult for any sporting event -- outside of the Super Bowl and
a US-hosted Summer Olympics -- to achieve complete penetration in the
sporting public. It is very easy to attend a major sporting event,
walk up to 10 blocks from the sporting arena, and have no idea that
said event is going on.
I don't think it is good enough, to foreign eyes, to have the World
Cup be felt in the stadiums and the immediate surrounding area.
Rather, it must be felt to envelop the entire country, to dominate the
national landscape and culture for 30-odd days. If anything, American
culture is large enough and complex enough to envelop any event, even
something as big as the soccer World Cup. It is impossible for any
event to achieve 100% awareness, attention, or involvement from the
American public. But it's possible to attract a sizable percentage of
the population and still be wildly successful, even if one never
reaches 100%. Forty percent of 300 million people is still a very
large number, bigger than any European or South American country except
Russia and Brazil. Perhaps the best way to involve as much of the population as possible is to borrow the idea of the "Fan Mile" that worked so well in Germany 2006, and replicate them across the country. It would also be good to involve MLS and host viewing parties in their stadiums before a league match -- since they probably won't suspend the league during the World Cup, even though they should.
The USSF is going to start the process of putting together a bid for the 2018 World Cup this year. They have enough resources and experience to put together a very strong bid, such as the abundance of large stadiums, an excellent transportation and hotel infrastructure, a large audience of soccer supporters and observers, and the expertise of putting on big events. However, they have to be aware of the potential pitfalls, such as the scheduling logistics that might force redevelopment of the stadiums, and the sheer size and complexity of the country that can swallow up any international event. If the Federation put together a package that plays to their strengths yet recognizes their weaknesses and presents ideas to mitigate them, they will have a strong bid indeed. Given the competition that they will face for WC 2018, they'll have a challenging task ahead.
