Amazingly, some smart people are treating the celebration of Chicago’s defeat for the Olympics in 2016 as a sign of childishness, as opposed to the maturity to know a Trojan Horse when you see one. Just because all the other kids are licking light sockets doesn’t mean you should do it too. Since I have some confidence I know more about international sports than Rachel Maddow, and thanks to Ben Casnocha have some readers who are not solely focused on insurance rescission, I’ll go ahead give the constructive advice of what international event we should be trying to host: the 2018 World Cup
In fact, I think the current American proposal is far too timid. Let’s go with something only the US can offer: a 64-team tournament.
Unlike the Olympics, which require building an enormous amount of infrastructure for sports that are of no interest to anyone outside of the Olympics, soccer can be played in existing football stadiums. And when it comes to building football stadiums, we stand alone.
The FIFA minimum size for a World Cup stadium is 40,000 seats. During the 2006 Cup in Germany, the final was held in Berlin’s Olympic Stadium, which seats 74,176. Two other stadiums – Dortmund and Munich – had seating greater than 60,000. The other nine stadiums were below 55,000, six below 50,000. Average attendance for the entire tournament was 52,401.
And that was a rich country with developed infrastructure.
A 64 team tournament would entail 16 groups of four teams playing a round robin. Each team plays each other team, so that’s six games a group, and the top two teams from each group advance to a 32-team single elimination bracket.
Let’s show off our country:
For the group rounds, three games in each stadium
Group A
- Rose Bowl, Pasadena, CA: 92,542
- Qualcomm Stadium, San Diego, CA: 71,294
Group B
- Qwest Field, Seattle, WA: 72,000
- Autzen Stadium, Eugene, OR: 59,000
Group C
- Estadio Azteca, Mexico City: 105,000 (first two group matches)
- Invesco Field, Denver, CO: 76,125 (last four group matches)
Group D
- Sam Boyd Stadium, Las Vegas, NV: 44,615 (would need expansion)
- University of Phoenix Stadium, Glendale, AZ: 72,200
Group E
- Hubert Humphrey Metrodome, Minneapolis, MN: 64,111
- Lambeau Field, Green Bay, WI: 72,928
Group F
- Memorial Stadium, Lincoln, NE: 86,304
- Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, Norman, OK: 85,646
Group G
- Texas Memorial Stadium, Austin, TX: 101,297
- Alamodome, San Antonio, TX: 66,166 (assumes FieldTurf installation)
Group H
- Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, MO: 79,451
- Edward Jones Dome, St. Louis, MO: 66,965
Group I
- Louisiana Superdome, New Orleans, LA: 72,968
- Bryant-Denny Stadium, Tuscaloosa, AL: 92,012
Group J
- Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis, IN: 70,000
- LP Field, Nashville, TN: 68,798
Group K
- Paul Brown Stadium, Cincinnati, OH: 65,790
- Ohio Stadium, Columbus, OH: 102,329
Group L
- Ford Field, Detroit, MI: 65,000
- Cleveland Browns Stadium, Cleveland, OH: 73,200
Group M
- Rogers Centre, Toronto: 54,000
- Ralph Wilson Stadium, Buffalo, NY: 73,967
Group N
- Heinz Field, Pittsburgh, PA: 65,050
- Beaver Stadium, State College, PA: 110,753
Group O
- Bank of America Stadium, Charlotte, NC: 73,778
- Neyland Stadium, Knoxville, TN: 100,011
Group P
- Ben Hill Griffin Stadium, Gainesville, FL: 90,894
- Raymond James Stadium, Tampa, FL: 75,000
Round of 32 – 16 games played at eight venues:
- Georgia Dome, Atlanta, GA: 71,228
- M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore, MD: 71,008
- Cowboys Stadium, Dallas, TX: 80,000
- Gillette Stadium, Foxboro, MA: 68,756
- Reliant Stadium, Houston, TX: 71,500
- Land Shark Stadium, Miami, FL: 76,500
- New 49ers Stadium, somewhere in the Bay Area: 75,000
- Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, PA: 68,532
Round of 16 – same stadiums as the Round of 32, making three games in total for each of the eight stadiums, except M&T Stadium is replaced with FedEx Field (below)
Quarterfinals
- Gillette Stadium
- Soldier Field, Chicago, IL: 61,500
- FedEx Field, Landover, MD: 91,704
- Land Shark Stadium
Semifinals
- Rose Bowl
- Soldier Field
Final
- Meadowlands Stadium, East Rutherford, NJ: 82,500
What better way to showcase the good side of America? Instead of cramming everyone into one city for a couple of weeks, it spreads the event over the US; each city only needs to prepare for three events, and the events happen in the exact same place as football crowds typically are found.
Furthermore, it’s good for the rest of the world. There are 53 European soccer teams, in no small part because subdivisions of countries – yes, I’m looking at you, Scotland…and you, Faroe Islands – insist on competing on their own. Not to mention that Israel gets lumped into Europe since none of its neighbors will play with it. Even qualifying for the European Cup is difficult; with only 14 slots in a 32-team World Cup, several worthy teams are almost always left home.
Meanwhile, the Asian region only gets to send four teams, and that’s for a region that spans from Lebanon to Indonesia. China won’t be going to the World Cup in South Africa; it didn’t qualify.
Expanding the tournament in the US means that not only will more teams qualify, more people will be able to see their favorite team in person. The early rounds are in massive facilities; if Denmark plays Switzerland in Beaver Stadium it will be possible to fit a significant chunk of both nations in Happy Valley.
And what could be better for the tourism industry than to have a couple million fans going back and forth between early round games? The only link that requires a flight is Mexico City-Denver (figure we should give the neighbors a couple of games, and this would be the high altitude pairing); everything else can take place on a leisurely travel schedule. The night games in Vegas should be particularly interesting.
The event would be incredibly cheap for us – only one venue (Sam Boyd) would need any major change. For the rest, the world would be shocked at the luxury we enjoy every Sunday.
England is supposedly the sentimental choice for 2018; it is the birthplace of the game, is convenient to the Europeans who decide these things, and is populated by people who actually like the game. Europe has had two Cups since North America (France 1998/Germany 2006), but that won’t carry much weight compared with reflexive dislike of the US and frustration at the lack of American interest in the sport. So let’s offer something that England just cannot match.
We can host the world; let’s just do it in a way that is smart for us and fun for everyone.
Fantastic sport, good revenue, and great fun: in short, excellent idea!
Taunter –
While I like the idea, you’re off base with your criticism of Krugman. Of all the critics of the Olympics, you’re just about the only person who I’ve seen put out an honest and reasonable argument. (I’ll believe the Republicans really mean that we should share the Olympics with less fortunate countries when they put that policy into play anywhere else).
Perhaps, but Krugman of all people should know what a boondoggle the Olympics are.
As far as the Olympics bid goes, I agree in the sense of letting another country host it, but it should be noted that many, if not the majority, who celebrated the loss of it didn’t do so on the grounds that it would be harmful to Chicago, but on the grounds that it suggested a rejection of Obama by the international community (as stupid as that is, given that Republicans attacked Obama vociferously for being well-liked by the international community).
But yeah, it would be good to host the World Cup in 2018. By then, of course, cyborg athletes will have redefined the sport, finally making it enjoyable for Americans. I kid, but 9 years is a pretty long time.
I cannot think of a single Republican who is more popular globally than Obama, so I suppose I never took the “rejected by the international community” line seriously.