Thanks for posting this, probably have some thoughts at some point. Want to point out though that the following paragraph appears twice.

"After the 2016 upgrade, the field received a two-star official rating from FIFA; this means technically Seattle’s field in its current state can be used for a FIFA World Cup Final match. But turf still isn’t grass, and a FIFA World Cup Men’s Final has never included a stadium with a non-grass surface before."
There's one statement I have to take issue with: "Nowhere in the U.S. can claim a better atmosphere for soccer matches than Seattle in a stadium big enough to host World Cup matches."

For anyone who was paying attention to the 2017 MLS season, we got our asses handed to us by Atlanta with the turnout and energy at the new Mercedes-Benz Stadium.

Having gotten that off my chest, in practical terms Atlanta has the same issue Seattle does--artificial turf. Who knows, maybe by the time 2026 rolls around they'll have made the same progress with artificial turf emulating natural grass that veggie burgers have made lately emulating beef.
(at least I think it did and was maybe already edited. It seems to read fine now anyway.)

Yeah, don't know how I feel about it all really. If a big time European or South American star were to suffer an injury resulting from field conditions, it could be devastating to our (already laughable) reputation on the international stage. OTOH, it'd be neat as fuck to attend a match. Can only imagine what the Sao Paulo experience must've been like, you should've done a write up on that too.
If one could ever have accurate summary statistics of the municipal economic aftermath of hosting a large (typically sporting) event, how likely does it seem that it would indicate a positive benefit? To be sure there are some relatively few amplified voices who loudly declare that it hosting such massive events would be a great boon ("jobs!" "tourism!" "infrastructure improvements!" "tax revenue!"). But besides the well worn example of Seoul,Korea for the 1988 Olympics, it's pretty clear that any benefits are confined to a small number of promoters and certainly never for neighborhoods in the shadow of the event itself. ("Lesser Seattle! Nimby! Nimby!! Nimby!!!" ...if by nimby:'backyard' you mean Seattle city limits, then yes, guilty as charged)
I think before Seattle even entertains the idea of hosting a FIFA event, our city council needs to ban the possession and use of vuvuzelas in public spaces.
"would likely put the stadium out of commission for an entire Sounders/Seahawks season"

Who the fuck doesn't want a set of World Cup matches? It's a giant multi-culti party with tons of great energy before and after matches, all over town. The grass issue is tough. I recall Husky coach Don James saying he wouldn't put grass in U.W.'s stadium if World Cup came here.
If by “non-binding resolution,” we mean, “doesn’t contain any bribe money for the FIFA selection committee,” then we really don’t have to worry about turf conditions around here, do we?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.