Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

FSOTFitzgerald t1_j173w0g wrote

What about Chicago?

3

9throwawayDERP t1_j18rcn6 wrote

soldier field is too small?

2

stache_twista t1_j18t98x wrote

And will be 102 years old in 2026

3

9throwawayDERP t1_j18tvak wrote

but was rebuilt 20 years ago. not a fan of the remodel, but it is still in way better shape than fedex

1

stache_twista t1_j18uccx wrote

I'm from Chicago. Soldier Field is decent but even with the remodel (which was botched and now 20 years old) it's not a venue fit for the World Cup. There are probably 25 nicer stadiums in the NFL

1

9throwawayDERP t1_j18v225 wrote

so i guess i'm a bit older than you, but i remember the old soldier field hosting the word cup 30 years ago. it was great.

1

stache_twista t1_j18vddj wrote

It's an iconic venue for sure but they ruined it with the remodel. Now it looks like there's a spaceship parked on top and the Bears are likely going to be playing in a new stadium in the suburbs by 2030.

1

greenthanks75 t1_j19ff0e wrote

First thing I thought looking at this was the huge swath of inland North America that was getting excluded from this World Cup other than Kansas City. Throw a bone to Denver or Chicago or Minneapolis or something.

1

pizzajona t1_j1cbyzw wrote

part of the reason is that it’s much easier for international fans if the game is on one of the coasts. That being said, they couldn’t leave all of middle America out so they chose Kansas City which is close to the geographically center of the contiguous US

1

greenthanks75 t1_j1d1eau wrote

The other US sites have significant international flight activity. On that note, Chicago, Denver, or Minneapolis would’ve made much more sense than Kansas City. Nearly every traveler will have to fly to somewhere else in the US first before getting to KC.

1