Chicago sidelined – Chicago is looking at the World Cup from the stands this time around—after a 2018 decision not to bid for hosting duties. With match cities drawing in thousands of international fans and a growing buzz, the conversation in Chicago has turned to what the Bears’
Chicago still remembers what it felt like to be at the center of the World Cup.
In 1994, when the U.S. last hosted the tournament, Soldier Field was front and center—staging the opening ceremony, the first match, and four more. This time, the Windy City didn’t just sit out. It walked away from the chance to host any games.
That decision dates back to 2018. when the choice was made not to bid on bringing the World Cup back to the Bears’ home—an absence Chicago is only now being forced to fully measure in real time. A recent editorial in the Chicago Tribune framed the moment as a missed opportunity. pointing directly to what it means to have the games elsewhere when the infrastructure and attention already existed.
The pushback—and the lingering justification—runs through the concerns raised by Ben Volin of the Boston Globe. who weighed the costs and headaches that come with hosting. The list was practical and unglamorous: ensuring acceptable grass. adjusting sponsor-related arrangements by ditching the names of sponsors for the duration of FIFA’s takeover (which the reporting noted wouldn’t have been an issue in Chicago). and giving up the ability to host other events during the FIFA takeover period.
For the teams that didn’t pursue the bid, the calculus sounded almost blunt. An unnamed NFL official told Volin, “I know more than a few teams weren’t disappointed to lose the bid.”
But while Chicago debates what it avoided. the host cities are experiencing the part that can’t be audited on a spreadsheet. Thousands of international fans have flooded into the places where the games are being played. The images have been striking, the buzz unmistakable—even with the “scattered asterisks” applied to Chicago’s welcome mat.
The Chicago Tribune also asked the question that’s now hard to avoid: “Why was the World Cup prize so rich?” In its view, the answer is visible on the ground as the tournament spreads and expands into a broader, “expanded soccer fest.”
What no one can confirm yet is the exact financial bottom line. It’s still not known how much money the various stadiums are making—or losing—through hosting World Cup matches. Still. the reporting makes the trade feel clearer: the cities taking the bid are gaining something that money alone can’t buy. And the cities that didn’t enter the fray are looking. quite literally. green—nearly as green as the “high-quality grass” installed to satisfy FIFA’s demands.
Chicago World Cup 1994 Soldier Field 2018 decision not to bid Chicago Tribune editorial Ben Volin Boston Globe FIFA takeover costs grass requirements NFL official quote host cities benefit
So basically Chicago just didn’t want to mess up their grass? Lol.
I read “sidelined” and figured Chicago got robbed. Like how are they gonna act shocked when the Bears can’t even win a season, you know?
Wait, I thought the World Cup was FIFA paying the stadiums? If Chicago wasn’t bidding, doesn’t that mean they still could’ve hosted later anyway? The sponsor thing sounds made up too—if they’re renaming stuff for a month, who cares.
This is why Chicago always has excuses. Like “acceptable grass” and “can’t host other events” — that’s just a fancy way to say they didn’t want the hassle. Meanwhile other cities are getting thousands of fans in their streets and probably selling out hotels. And I don’t even think we’ll know the money part, but somehow it’s still obvious Chicago missed out, even if they keep saying it was the right call.