When the United States Soccer Federation put out its list of possible World Cup venues to be included in the 2018/2022 bids, seventy different stadiums made the cut.
Immediately thereafter, my soccer-specific newsreader became flooded with stories from around the country about each specific venue and their inclusion. I ignored those items for the most part, as each represented local interests and local pride and really added nothing to the overall story. Despite the thrill of being originally included, only a fraction of those seventy stadiums would actually have a chance to host World Cup matches. The list was really just an effort on the part of the USSF to illustrate to FIFA how truly staggering the options are in this country; no other nation in the world can boast so many 70,000+ venues to showcase the beautiful game.
Today, the news is that fifty-eight of those seventy venues responded to USSF expressing their interest in hosting World Cup matches.
Perhaps it's the day I'm having, or a general restlessness brought on by other news floating around the interweb (MLS Board of Governors meetings, attendance issues, etc.), but I'm feeling a little cynical about the "impressive response" that the USSF is so pleased about.
Those fifty-eight positive responses represent forty-nine metropolitan markets, so says the USSF, and three markets not even included in the original list (because they don't currently possess adequate stadia) have also come forward.
Think about that fact for just a moment. Forty-nine metropolitan areas. Forty-nine cities, represented by stadium facility managers, Chamber of Commerce presidents, city managers or whoever else might be responsible for responding positively, all anxious to bring the world's game to their hometowns. And why might that be, exactly? Should we believe that each of those forty-nine cities and their powers-that-be are jumping on board the soccer bandwagon because they recognize the worth of the game?
Of course not.
And that, in a nutshell is why I'm just a tad bitter about the news.
Each of those original seventy venues received correspondence from Chicago asking if they would like to be considered to host World Cup competition. While twelve politely declined (which is fairly staggering when you think about it; twelve stadiums decided the world's biggest sporting event just wasn't their cup of tea), fifty-eight reacted with something that probably went just a little bit like this:
"The World Cup, huh? I don't know a damn thing about soccer, but that sounds like a money-maker right there!"
Hence, my frustration. Forty-nine cities (okay, I'm admittedly generalizing) where soccer can't get a sniff otherwise have jumped up, shouting "ME! ME! ME!" with their hands brazenly out, because the World Cup means gobs of cash for their coffers.
That should make any soccer fan just a little testy.
Talk me off the ledge people. Tell me how I'm wrong, how this is a good thing, and how it illustrates that some kind of progress is being made. Tell me that each of those forty-nine cities believes that soccer has a future in the United States, and are not just trying to suckle at the teat of the beautiful game.
