Chicago is feeling a little left out.
When the U.S. last hosted the World Cup in 1994, Soldier Field was front and center — hosting the opening ceremony, the first match, and four more. This time around, the Windy City blew off the chance to stage World Cup games.
A recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune bemoaned the decision not to bring the World Cup back to the place where the Bears play. It dates back to 2018, when the decision was made not to bid on the privilege of bringing the tournament back to town.
Recently, Ben Volin of the Boston Globe looked at the costs and the headaches associated with hosting World Cup games. From putting in acceptable grass to ditching the names of any sponsors (this wouldn't have been an issue in Chicago) to giving up the ability to host other events for the duration of the FIFA takeover, it was fair to ask whether it was worth it.
As an unnamed NFL official told Volin, “I know more than a few teams weren't disappointed to lose the bid.â€
The cities hosting the matches are now reaping the rewards. Thousands of international fans, despite the scattered asterisks applied to our welcome mat, have flooded the cities where the games are being played. The images are impressive, and the buzz is unmistakable.
“Why was the World Cup prize so rich?†the Tribune wrote. “You can see it playing out right now in this expanded soccer fest.â€
It's still not known how much money the various stadiums are making, or losing, through the decision to stage World Cup matches. But the cities hosting the matches are gaining something money can't buy.
And the cities that decided not to enter the fray are turning nearly as green as the high-quality grass that was installed to satisfy FIFA's demands.
