Why did you earlier say that field turf is a detraction? Aren't some of those cities named turf stadiums? 7 out of 18 are currently field turf stadia. They wouldnt have left off New York and Washington no matter what, and ditto for JerryWorld, which will compete with NY and DC for the final. JW also has a "3 Field kit" which means it can easily be converted from the current field turf to grass in 48 hours. Seattle fully and completely deserves to be on that list based on the market and the way the Sounders were embraced by the city, and Qwest is going to likely be converted to grass anyway prior to 2018/2022. Boston is on because of the Kraft influence on Gulati and USSF, but quite honestly doesn't deserve to be on the list, as I think Gilette is a terrible facility. Atlanta as a transportation hub, I guess, and it is a good soccer market, plus Blank has plans to build an open air stadium. Baltimore and Indy I don't get. What they did in 1994 was to plant grass over astroturf at the Silverdome and the Meadowlands. Given Soldier Field's inability to grow grass as a primary playing surface, perhaps the USSF decided to forgo the risk that trying to grow it over field turf could present. Playing on that surface as it stands could potentially be embarrassing on the world's stage. We all knew that when they rammed the renovation down our collective throats that doing the stadium essentially for a single purpose could harm any future event bidding, like the Olympics and the World Cup. However, the Bears wanted luxury seat money, and they got it and the price of a more versatile and smaller venue. Between that potential concern and the very real dimension issues I can see the argument behind leaving Chicago off the list. However, KC and DC as well as the Linc have the same dimensional concerns as Soldier Field, although if Dan Snyder's Enormodome gets built it wont matter, and again, the Hunt family would have to be all dead and gone before KC got the shaft. That said, as Wolf pointed out Chicago is the 3rd biggest city and market in the country and by rights should be a venue city based on infrastructure alone. Once the FIFA selection process is done we can put the matches in any city we want. If our goal is to ensure we are awarded the tourney in the first place, leaving off a stadium that currently doesn't fit the FIFA regs for bidding purposes makes sense. Finally, only 12 cities will actually host games. There are going to be snubs regardless of what they do. For what it's worth, I'd guess that if we do get the bid for 2022, Chicago will be a host city as will San Francisco, also not on the list but due to get a new stadia in Santa Clara County by then.