Now that the fervor around the Olympics has subsided (sort of), it's time to move on to the next bidding process, the US bid for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup. From a technical standpoint, the big difference between the Olympics and the World Cup is where the events would be staged. Olympics would have primarily been in Chicago and other Midwestern cities. The World Cup would be staged at various stadiums throughout the country (think cities with big football stadiums).With that said, it's pretty easy for the US to stage the World Cup since it has numerous stadiums that could easily accommodate the event. Although in our opinion the World Cup wouldn't have the same affect on the city as the Olympics (in terms of infrastructure and constant world attention), it's a lot less risky since we wouldn't need to build new venues.
It's a good thing for Chicago, so hopefully we get this thing. The decision will come in December of 2010...let the new count down begin.
For more information check out the Chicagoist's post on the topic.
9 comments:
This seems like a perfect fit for Chicago.
Do we not have the single largest Latino community in the country?
Please erase this racist comment.
Can someone explain to me how that first (somewhat general) statement/post could be considered racist?
From a factual standpoint, at least 25% of the Chicago population is indeed Hispanic. I believe our city ranks fourth in the nation in relation to that.
Whether or not they're all soccer fans, I couldn't say . . . but I'd lay odds that more than a couple are.
More to the point, is Soldier Field big enough to host these matches?
I agree. David Beckham is a hot Latino (sarcasm). The comment is not racist, it's just kind of dumb. It's like saying we should have the NBA championship in the south loop because our number 3 bus is 95% black people.
Who is the left wing liberal that thought the first comment was racist? It is dumb? People need to relax with the PC stuff.
It is recognizing a positive and measurable cultural bias. If you knew anything, it is obvious that people from Latin American, Mexican, South American, and of spanish decent have incredible passion for soccer; it is like saying they have a passion for spicy food. They have as much or more passion for the game than Americans have for college football, which is saying something.
What the author was saying is, in addition to the great city we have, the various regional venues that could support an event like this, is that Chicago (legal or not) is a hot bed of people of latin and spanish decent that would go crazy to host or come to a Chicago hosted World Cup.
All one has to do is see the various games hosted at Soldier Field with Mexico, Guatemala, and other countries, and see the number of 'locals' coming out of the woodwork to support their country.
Chicago would not "host" the world cup if awarded to the US. All major matches would be in much larger stadiums in much more attractive locations, e.g. NYC (meadowlands) and LA (rose bowl).
Not true at all. The only event in the World Cup that needs to have a bigger stadium than Soldier Field is the WC Final, which needs at least 80,000 seats. Soldier Field would be a great choice for the opening round games, and in fact is much larger than some of the sites of previous World Cup opening and later round matches. I would be SHOCKED if the U.S. got the WC and Chicago didn't host at least a few matches.
Exactly. So if the US was awarded the world cup, Chicago would host "a couple early round games." Not even close to the Olympics. In fact, not even close to a Bears home playoff game. This really isn't something to get all too excited about. In fact, when team USA plays "home" world cup qualifying matches at Soldier Field (akin to an early round game), they don't even come close to selling out or causing any kind of a major stir in the city.
Was the previous post meant as some type of slam cuz' it sounds more like a good thing to me.
I'd support modest, incremental growth opportunities like this one any day.
Post a Comment