By Scott French, Senior Editor
Everybody except those whose opinions truly matter has decided the fourth Women's World Cup will be played in the United States.
Odds are everybody is right. We'll know for certain sometime next week or the week after that, when FIFA's executive committee decides which country will replace China as host.
There appears to be five candidates, but the only one that makes any sense is the United States. None of the other proposed hosts can offer the sort of media coverage, fan excitement, big crowds and international buzz that a tournament here can provide.
Women's soccer needs all of that, and as much pizzazz as can be mustered. The wildly successful '99 World Cup opened the world's eyes to the game, and another chance to publicize it could ensure continued growth in support and participation around the globe.
That's what FIFA's looking for, and it also wants to support the WUSA, the only fully professional women's league in the world. The WUSA is struggling financially, and the World Cup — with, likely, more than 50 WUSA players competing — could provide the league a significant boost.
The irony in this is that the U.S. bid is being prodded by Major League Soccer, the men's pro league, which has had a rather ambivalent relationship with the WUSA. A U.S. tournament be run by MLS personnel, take place in MLS facilities and be beamed around the world through the auspices of a company owned by MLS's chief benefactor.
Fewer, smaller venues are planned, and the scenario receiving the most play has the games at the Home Depot Center near Los Angeles, Spartan Stadium in San Jose, Columbus (Ohio) Crew Stadium and RFK Stadium in Washington — all home facilities for MLS clubs — with another Rose Bowl final a possibility. The stadiums in L.A. and Columbus are owned by MLS investors.
''Stadiums owned and operated by MLS owners are the priority,'' MLS Commissioner Don Garber said from Houston, where the U.S. men's national team played Mexico on Thursday. ''There's a very small pool being considered.''
Garber was part of the three-man delegation that met with FIFA officials in Zurich. He was representing Soccer United Marketing (SUM), the U.S. television-rights holder to the Women's World Cup and likely Host Broadcaster if the tournament is held in the United States. SUM is the marketing arm of Denver billionaire Philip Anschutz, MLS's primary investor.
Other stadiums interested in staging World Cup matches, or mentioned as possibilities in one or another corner, include Giants Stadium (East Rutherford, N.J.), Gillette Stadium (Foxboro, Mass.), Cotton Bowl (Dallas), Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia), PGE Park (Portland, Ore.), Legion Field (Birmingham, Ala.), Qualcomm Stadium (San Diego), Seattle Seahawks Stadium, Herndon Stadium (Atlanta), Soldier Field (Chicago) and the National Sports Center (Blaine, Minn.).
The Canadian Soccer Association has bid for matches to be played at Edmonton's Commonwealth Stadium, which hosted huge crowds for last summer's FIFA U-19 World Championship, should the tournament be awarded to the United States. FIFA spokesman Nicholas Maingot told the Edmonton Sun that FIFA ''will not accept a co-hosting. The Canadian offer has already been refused.''
Canadian Soccer Association CEO Kevan Pipe told the Sun it had received no correspondence on the matter. No matter: U.S. officials aren't about to consider the proposal.
Recreating '99 isn't possible, not with only four months to prepare, and expectations should be adjusted accordingly. The last Cup was painstakingly prepared over two and a half years, with $29 million spent, and it took place in summer, when school is out and there's less competition for media attention. This one would go up against the baseball playoffs, NFL, college football, the start of the NHL season, U.S. Open tennis, and the climaxes to the auto racing and golf seasons.
The Americans reportedly are ready to spend $15 to $20 million on organizing the event and are prepared to take a $10 million loss, which they're asking FIFA to help shoulder. The 1999 tournament — for all the hoopla, the T-shirt sales, the big crowds (38,833, on average), the 40 million TV viewers for the final — turned a profit of only $2 million.
There are plenty of small obstacles that must be moved aside before U.S. Soccer will agree to take on the task. Among them is a FIFA mandate that venues carry the names of no company other than FIFA and World Cup sponsors.
The other possibilities aren't nearly so attractive. Australia, seemingly the most significant competitor, acknowledged to FIFA last week that the timing of the tournament, mid-September to mid-October, wasn't optimal.
''We would make it very clear to FIFA,'' a Soccer Australia spokesman told Agence France-Presse on Sunday, ''that the current suggested timing of the tournament would clash with the other major football competitions in Australia and the Rugby World Cup [that begins] in October.''
Soccer Australia's board of directors is in turmoil. Chairman Remo Nogarotto and two board members resigned Thursday, citing differences with other board members on how best to repair the game in Australia. Shopping center magnate Frank Lowy, who has the government's support in his bid to become chairman in next month's election, says he will end his association with Australian soccer unless his six board candidates also are elected. Thursday's resignations appear to suggest Lowy will face stiff opposition.
Sweden, the 1995 host, also has bid for the tournament, but subpar attendance in '95 (average was 4,316) and a request for ''guarantees so that we don't risk an economic loss by taking over a championship on such short notice'' won't endear FIFA to its proposal.
Italy seems a most unlikely choice, and does anybody believe Brazil could organize such an event in four months?
The preceding is an excerpt from The Women's Insider, a weekly e-letter available to Soccer America subscribers