Could the U.S. Support the World Cup?

Next year tomorrow, FIFA will announce its selections for the host of both the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. Currently, there are 10 bids still standing, many of them seemingly in prime locations.

Australia, one of the larger markets making a bid, proved to the world that they could host a major sporting event with the Olympics in Sydney in 2000.

The national team also impressed by making it to the 2006 World Cup in Germany, where they advanced out of the group stage before losing to the eventual champions in a close 1-0 game in the Round of 16.

Another at-large bid is England's. Arguably the center of the soccer universe, England has a huge fanbase and has usually put forth a strong squad. Their stereotype as a soccer nation also supports them, and they have the stadiums to host it.

Spain and Portugal have combined for what will be another strong bid. Spain has turned themselves into one of the top three national teams in the world, while Portugal should be another contender in South Africa.

Spain boasts a strong domestic league (seen by the likes of Barcelona and Real Madrid), while Portugal's has improved over the years. An area where soccer dominates, this large market should be a real consideration by FIFA.

Not only does it draw to soccer fans, but also its sheer beauty may bring in more people who just want to see the nations and be part of an international festival.

Japan may put forth a good bid, but, because they just hosted it, they will be at a severe disadvantage. Same goes for South Korea. The smaller bids such as Indonesia and Qatar will likely be at a disadvantage following the previous two being in South Africa and Brazil, as the Western nations will be calling for their shot again, and FIFA will likely oblige.

Russia should have been a good candidate, but since they are hosting the 2014 Winter Olympics, they may just be trying too much at once. FIFA may think that they just won't have the full funds or support that a nation not hosting another major sporting event may be able to offer, playing into the advantage of the others.

The only mid-major bid is that of Belgium and the Netherlands, and while they both put forth good ideas and would be an interesting joint host for the World Cup, I think that the competition is just too strong for their bid to taken seriously. With this many strong nations, it will be tough for these smaller nations to break in.

So, that just leaves the U.S.? How serious is the idea of the World Cup returning to North America? Of course, the nation has hosted the tournament in the past, leading to a successful event in 1994, which still stands as the biggest single sporting event in American history.

Personally, with a bid for two different years, I think the U.S. has a good chance of claiming one. The U.S. is getting onto the international scene in the sport, boasting a decent national team over the past few years in World and Gold cups.

Players like Donovan, Dempsey, and Bocanegra are all proving that the U.S. can breed good players, and they will argue that the World Cup will help to improve this development of young players.

In addition, the U.S. finally has a solid domestic league since the MLS has taken off. The league was formed to help with the last World Cup, and the U.S. can now prove that it worked.

Also, with the success of the league (what with international players joining and friendly matches with top clubs from around the world), there is proving to be a definite fan base in America.

The size of the market—not to mention the possibility for more minor sponsors and television deals—is also a huge advantage for the U.S. over the smaller bids.

As noted earlier, the unexpected success of the first World Cup in the States should also prove to FIFA that this second expedition would be just as—if not more—successful and draw in more fans.

The multicultural aspect of the U.S. also makes the market suitable for such an event. While in some nations such as England, a (completely hypothetical) match between someone like Poland and China would not be a huge draw to the locals, only the traveling fans.

This is simply not true in the States. With so many cultures represented, most nations would already have a fanbase entrenched in the host nation.

The other big factor is that with this huge market, the U.S. already has the ability to handle it without having to spend lots of money like other nations might have to.

The bidding committee has already selected 32 stadiums that could host games throughout 27 different cities. With so many large cities, as well, not much work would have to be done to accommodate the tourists and fans who come with the event.

Since most already house multiple professional sports franchises, they are accustomed to housing big sporting festivities.

The smallest of these 32 stadiums still boasts a capacity of over 45,000, similar to both the 2010 and 2014 World Cups. Of the 32 stadiums, one does have to expect that with all the drama that has unfolded of high-class players complaining about playing on turf, the natural grass facilities will be looked at more carefully.

Even still, the States boast a strong list of stadiums from coast to coast that could suit these needs.

For all of these reasons, as well as many others, smaller ones that I decided not to get into, I feel that the U.S. will be granted the World Cup in at least one of these two years.

As for the other bid, I think that it will be Spain and Portugal's time (sorry, again, England).