Dallas is a pain in the arse compared to the other two, although it does have a retractable roof and air conditioning. Philadelphia would have been better distance wise, which is where Scotland will play, who also have Atlanta and Miami, so it seems arse about face to me. Actually correct that, Brazil have Philadelphia, Scotland have Boston x2 and Miami.
I’m just surprised that each group isn’t in a location with grounds within a few hours of each other. Logistics when in places like this is just bonkers.
I don't get sending us all the way over to Dallas when we are on the Eastern board, same as Scotland, although that's still a long hop for them down to Miami.
just don’t understand why it was 1996 since we last hosted a men’s WC. But Miami and Dallas sound a little more cosmopolitan compared to Newcaslte and Hull
You're thinking Euros mate. and we wouldn't hold a WC in Newcastle and Hull, that'll be like playing it in Alabama you just wouldn't do it.
Newcastle was one of the hosts of Euro 96 but there's been so many well facilitated stadiums built since then I very much doubt we'd make the grade now. Hull I assume Peej put in just to attempt to draw a cheap correlation between the two. Or he's a buffoon.
FIFA hate us innit. They’ve conveniently ticked off Europe, South America and Africa with the next one so it can go to Saudi quickly then probably China if they can be arsed with it.
