Finally Going Head-to-Head

At the 2016 Copa America, Colombia and the United States finished tied atop Group A with 6 points each.  Colombia beat the United States 2-0.  But, since the United States had a better goal differential, they finished first in the group.  Doesn't make much sense, does it?

Meanwhile, at the same year's Euro, it was a similar situation in Group E.  Except it wasn't.  Belgium and Italy both had 6 points.  They also had the same goal differential (+2).  In the next tiebreaker, goals scored, Belgium had a 4-3 advantage.  But Belgium didn't win the group.  Italy did.  Why?  Because Italy won their head-to-head matchup, 2-0.

That's because UEFA has used head-to-head as the first tiebreaker at the Euro since 1996.  UEFA was the only confederation to figure out something that seems like it should be fairly obvious.  If two teams finish tied in the final standings and only played each other once, the team that beat the other head-to-head should be ranked higher.  Yet, that was only obvious to UEFA.  Everybody else, including FIFA, didn't consider head-to-head at all.  Goal differential and goals scored were the primary tiebreakers.  Until this year, that is.

This World Cup is the first where head-to-head victories actually matter.  Goal differential is no longer the No. 1 tiebreaker.  Head-to-head is.  If the tied teams played to a draw in their match against each other, then it reverts to goal differential.  But GD is no longer the be-all, end-all.  Now, if you finish with the same number of points as a team you beat, you're automatically ranked ahead of them.  As it should be.

I first noticed this during the Mexico-South Korea game.  They kept saying that the winner would win Group A, which left me a little confused since I didn't know FIFA had changed the order of the tiebreakers, making head-to-head more important.  It was previously on the list--at No. 4, meaning they almost never got there.  Now, they've moved it up to No. 1.  Finally, FIFA got with the program and realized that a head-to-head win should have more relevance than who blew out the last-place team by more.

It's because of the head-to-head tiebreaker's increased importance that four countries--Mexico, the United States, Germany and Argentina--clinched their group after just two games.  That obviously left them with nothing to play for in their final group game, which is the first thing critics point to, but how is that their fault?  It can also be taken the other way and seen as a reward for taking care of business in those first two games.  Because they already won the group, they can sit players with yellow cards or injury concerns or just try out different lineups.  Which they wouldn't be able to do if the group wasn't already wrapped up. 

On the flip side, going with head-to-head as the first tiebreaker means teams can be eliminated after losing their first two games, also turning their final game into a dead rubber.  Under the old tiebreaker rules, they wouldn't have necessarily been eliminated.  They would've had the chance to potentially move up by improving their goal differential.  But, again, how would it be fair for a team that beat them head-to-head to get jumped in the standings because the other team went chasing goals?  They took care of business on the field when they played each other.  That has to mean something.

Critics are, of course, jumping all over this change, mainly because it's something different.  They don't like the fact that a team can clinch the group (or be eliminated) after two games and the "dead rubbers" that it can create.  There's even those who've argued that FIFA "didn't think this one through."  It's just the opposite, actually.  With the new tiebreaker, FIFA is incentivizing winning.  Not running up the score.  It's designed to make games more competitive.  And if a team can clinch their group after two games, good for them.  They've earned the right to do whatever they want in the third game.

The fact that FIFA made this change the same year they expanded the World Cup to 48 teams and added a Round of 32 isn't a coincidence.  With eight third-place teams advancing, the difference between second and third or third and fourth in your group is significant.  To which I reiterate my previous point.  If you played a team once and beat them head-to-head, why should anything else matter when it comes to tiebreakers?  I'll use Group D as an example.  The Australia-Paraguay winner gets second place, regardless of what happens in the United States-Turkiye game.  The U.S. beat them both.  They should be ahead of either.  Likewise, Turkiye lost to both.  They should be behind either.

In the past, teams had a chance to make up goal differential in their final game to potentially flip the standings.  They no longer can.  I don't understand why so many people consider that a bad thing.  If you take care of business in either of your first two games, you won't be in that position.  So, while I appreciate the argument that it can make the third game meaningless, it also ups the ante on the first two games.  If you don't want to be in that position, there's a very easy way to avoid it.

Since third-place teams can advance, finishing third in your group matters.  Which is why the head-to-head result should make a difference.  Especially if that win determines who's third (and has a chance to advance) and who's fourth (and has no chance).  How fair would it be for somebody to get knocked out of the tournament because of goal differential while a team that they beat head-to-head advanced over them?  How does that make any sense?  Yet, for a long time, that's the way it was.

Sometimes it comes down to luck of the draw.  I'll concede that.  You may have to play the strongest team in your group first.  Or you may get the weakest team in your group first.  That, frankly, is another argument in favor of using head-to-head.  If you get blown out in the first game, so what?  Your goal differential doesn't completely kill you anymore.  Likewise, running up the score against an inferior opponent only matters so much.  You can't bank a huge goal differential and sit on it.  So, while it might make third games less significant, it actually increases the significance of the other two games.

And it's not like goal differential suddenly doesn't matter at all.  It's still the second tiebreaker, so it can still very much come into play.  If two teams tied in their head-to-head meeting, it reverts to GD.  If it's a three-way tie and the head-to-head results are even, it reverts to GD.  Most significantly, goal differential is being used to separate the third-place teams if they're level on points.

So, while there are plenty of people around the world who hate it (mainly because it's new), I welcome this change.  Frankly, it never made any sense that goal differential was the first tiebreaker over head-to-head results.  What was even the point of playing head-to-head then?  Will they change it back after this World Cup?  Who knows?  I hope not.  Because the whole point is to win.  Teams should be rewarded for beating their opponents head-to-head.  I'm glad FIFA finally sees that.  And I'm not entirely sure why so many people have an issue with what should be such an obvious point.

Norway vs. Senegal

When MetLife Stadium was officially chosen as one of the stadiums for the World Cup, I just wanted to go to a game.  Any game.  It didn't matter what date.  It didn't matter who was playing.  I just wanted to be there to experience it live.  Getting tickets proved to be a much harder (and more expensive) task than I thought it would be, but I was able to get one for Norway-Senegal (the original plan was to go with my brother-in-law and nephew, but I couldn't get three).  And the price of admission was certainly worth it.

I had actually singled out Norway-Senegal as the game that I wanted to go to.  One of the reasons for that was because it was one where I thought I had a shot that it wouldn't already be sold out.  (With Brazil, France, Germany and England playing the other MetLife games during group play, I figured it might be my only shot.)  As it turns out, it was the only game still available when I finally got into the queue, which was fine with me.  Because I truly didn't care which game I went to.

For all the talk about the exorbitant price of game tickets, there was just as much about the cost of tickets for the train.  And I agree that $100 for the 20-minute trip from Penn Station was excessive.  But I also knew that it would be the easiest, most convenient way of getting there.  That was especially true after all the horror stories of people who decided not to take the train getting stranded at the stadium after the Brazil game.

Taking the train was 100 percent the right call.  It only took about 25 minutes to actually get on a train once I got in line.  And, because the NJ Transit side of Penn Station was closed to non-World Cup commuters, the station was otherwise empty, making things even easier.  In total, it only took about an hour between arriving at Penn Station and arriving at the stadium.

Going back (in a downpour!) was just as easy.  We were given wristbands when we first got on the train, and all we needed to do on the way back was show our wristband.  Even with all 25,000 people who took the train to the stadium leaving at the same time, the wait wasn't that long.  As one train filled up, another empty one pulled in and the other left.  Then, when that one filled up, another empty one was ready.  Rinse and repeat.  It took me slightly longer to get home, but I was still back before the late game was over.

Getting into the stadium itself was also surprisingly easy.  FIFA took over all of the stadium parking lots (another source of frustration for fans), but it really did make sense why they did.  There was the Fan Fest, all kinds of food, the outdoor sets for all the different international broadcasters (Norway's crew was either live or about to be), and the merchandise stands.  As for actually getting in, there were so many lines that it was a breeze.  I was expecting airport security lines, so it was a pleasant surprise to be thru the gates within about 10 minutes.

Another pleasant surprise was that food prices were the same as they usually are.  With the prices for everything else getting jacked up for the World Cup, I was expecting it to be the same for concessions.  So, imagine my relief when I found out that wasn't the case!  Although, my guy also took forever, so, despite the fact that I got in line for food at like 7:25, I only got to my seat as the teams were walking out.  Which was fine.  Since the walkouts and anthems are one of the best parts of any World Cup match.

As a neutral fan, I didn't have a rooting interest one way or the other going in.  I initially thought I'd end up cheering for Senegal since I was expecting their fans to be more fun.  That opinion quickly changed when I saw how fun the Norwegian fans were.  Their Viking Row has gone viral, so you know what a good time it is, and the train was full of red-clad Norwegians.  I'd say the stands were at least 75 percent red, if not more, with their fan section taking up the entire area behind the goal opposite me.  They broke into the Viking Row several times, and each time it was amazing!

There was another reason why I ended up rooting for Norway.  Erling Haaland.  He's incredible!  The Manchester City striker is a rock star!  He scored twice at the goal right in front of me (the second of which was absolutely ridiculous), and that should've been a hat trick.  He had a wide open net in the first half, but hit the post.

After Norway went up 2-0, I thought it was game over.  Boy, was I wrong!  Senegal cut it to 2-1, then, after Haaland's second goal, scored again in stoppage time to pull within 3-2.  That's how it ended, with Norway clinching a spot in the round of 32 with the win.  They went undefeated in qualifying (in a group that included Italy) and looked every bit the part.  I give Senegal credit for coming back, though.  They made it a game at the end.

If you think that was it, though, you'd be sadly mistaken.  They went over to the fans and joined in the Viking Row.  It was so cool to watch!  It was like watching the All Blacks doing the Haka (BTW, I really hope New Zealand plays at MetLife in the 2031 Rugby World Cup...and that getting tickets is easier and less expensive than it was for the FIFA World Cup).  Haaland said afterwards that they were thinking about it after the first game, but decided they would only do it if they won.  Which they did.

Something I've noticed while watching the World Cup games on TV was the lack of a visible clock on the field.  I was shocked by this, so it had me curious whether there was one that you just couldn't see on TV or if there actually wasn't.  It was the latter.  No scoreboard clock at all.  The only place where the game time was visible at all was on the graphic for the live video.  Otherwise, nothing.

The last thing worth noting is the weather.  It had been gorgeous in New York for the entire World Cup.  The first two MetLife matchdays had beautiful weather.  So, of course, that wasn't the case for Norway-Senegal.  A storm was expected, and it rained in the afternoon.  It was clear throughout the game, though.  (Unlike France-Iraq in Philadelphia, which had an hour-long lightning delay.)  The rain came literally as the game ended and got bad pretty much immediately.  They even made a lightning warning announcement as we were exiting the stadium.  But it could've been worse.  We could've been sitting there in the rain for two hours, but weren't.

My first World Cup game was almost everything I was hoping it would be (there were no cards or VAR reviews).  It didn't beat the experience of being there for the World Series, but it was a different kind of experience.  And it was a worthwhile one nonetheless.  More importantly, had I not gone, I would've regretted it.  I couldn't miss out on the opportunity to go to the World Cup.  I'm glad I got it.  It's one of those sporting memories I'll definitely never forget.

How NOT to Save Face

L'affaire Sorsby is over.  After realizing nobody was on their side (shocking, I know!) and facing the very real threat of sanctions from the Big 12 if they did attempt to let him play, Texas Tech and the quarterback gave up.  Sorsby dropped his lawsuit against the NCAA and declared for the NFL Supplemental Draft.  It'll be very interesting to see if any NFL team actually decides to take a chance on him (is it too early to make "he should play for the Raiders" jokes?) or if they all stay away.  Regardless, Sorsby won't be playing college football this season.  Something he had absolutely no business doing.  (And, frankly, he doesn't belong in the NFL either.)

There were no winners in that entire situation.  In fact, all it did was make everyone look pretty bad.  The NCAA.  The University of Cincinnati.  Brendan Sorsby and his supporters.  The judge.  But nobody looked worse in the whole ordeal than Texas Tech.

I don't know if Texas Tech was trying to do damage control or rationalize or get people to "see their side" or what exactly, but whatever it was, it didn't work.  It actually had the opposite effect.  Every time Texas Tech made a statement or released a very ill-advised propaganda video, they only made things worse.  They certainly didn't do Sorsby any favors.  All they did was make him (and themselves) a bigger villain.

Texas Tech, I think, was trying to make themselves out as conquering heroes who were stepping up to help an addict overcome his addiction.  It also seems like they were trying to garner sympathy for Sorsby (not to make light of actual mental health issues, but I can't stand the fact that "it'll have a negative impact on my mental health" has become the default "reason" for why people think they should be able to get away with anything and never face any consequences).  Here's the problem with that, though: They refused to acknowledge that he did anything wrong!  That, and how they tried to gaslight everybody else into thinking they were wrong for "not supporting" him.

Meanwhile, it was pretty easy to see right thru their position.  Texas Tech's support of Brendan Sorsby was for one reason and one reason only.  Because they thought he could help their football team win and they paid him an awful lot of money in an NIL deal.  They weren't concerned about his mental health (at least not as much as they publicly claimed).  They wanted to protect their investment.  So, even though they knew he had no business playing, they couldn't just come out and say that.

Every statement they made regarding Sorsby followed the same general talking points.  And each one was more tone deaf than the last.  I seriously don't know how they think it was helping.  It would've been better had they said nothing, especially since they knew the criticism was coming regardless.  So, just accept the fact that a lot of people don't like it and move on.  You want to make one initial statement, fine.  But, like I already said, the more they dug their heels in on their position, so did everybody else on theirs.

And the outside influence (aka the Texas Attorney General's attempted power flex) really didn't help.  If anything, it totally backfired!  Because it didn't just reinforce where the opposition already stood.  It also led the Big 12 to take the preemptive action that ultimately resulted in Texas Tech and Sorsby finally acknowledging that they were fighting a losing battle.  Which is something that should've been obvious to Texas Tech from the get-go.

That, perhaps, is why people viewed Texas Tech so cynically throughout the whole affair.  They seemingly wanted to have it both ways.  They argued that they "weren't party to the suit," yet also made it obvious that they didn't exactly discourage Sorsby from pursuing the case.  They wanted people to know that they "immediately declared him ineligible" once the NCAA made its initial ruling, yet also thought a two-game suspension was an appropriate punishment.  And, in their attempt to justify that, they claimed that he "wouldn't necessarily" immediately start playing once the two-game suspension was over.

It didn't have to get to that point, either.  There were no adults in the room.  Especially in a situation this straightforward, Texas Tech needed to be the adult.  It's an open and shut case, too.  There's no gray area when it comes to gambling, especially betting on your own team (and, by the way, you need to be 21 to gamble and he was under 21 when he began placing bets, which also made it illegal, not just against the rules).  They needed to the bad guy.  Instead, they wanted to be the good guy towards Sorsby.  They wanted to be the only ones who had his back when everyone else was against him (for good reason).

The blatant hypocrisy was hard to miss, too.  Texas Tech and Red Raider fans were acting like they were so heroic and everyone else was being so unreasonable.  They were treating Sorsby like a victim and talking about how they were "so proud" of him for "overcoming his struggles."  They even tried blaming Cincinnati for not sanctioning Sorsby while arguing the two-game suspension was fair.  However, had this happened anywhere else, you know they would've been just as outraged and among the loudest critics.  Which is why their defense of Sorsby rang so hollow.

After the judge neutered the NCAA, the Big 12 considered all options available to them when it came to sanctioning Texas Tech.  Because the other 15 conference schools were unanimous in their stance that Sorsby didn't belong anywhere near a football field in 2026.  The conference bylaws are clear.  They were well within their rights to suspend Sorsby.  The Texas Attorney General tried bullying the conference and its other schools into submission by threatening with possible legal action.  They called his bluff and filed a federal lawsuit that would reinforce the fact that they can enforce their own rules.

All of that is a moot point now.  Which, frankly, is for the best.  Texas Tech fans were the only ones who had any sympathy for Brendan Sorsby's "situation."  The fact that one friendly judge in Texas said he could play didn't change the fact that nobody else agreed with that decision.  And the controversy was only going to increase every time he took the field.  The opposition would only going to get louder, too.

Ultimately, we ended up with the inevitable conclusion.  It did achieve one thing, though.  It made Texas Tech even more of a villain than it already was.  They'd already established a reputation for using their billionaire boosters and some questionable tactics recruiting transfers (in a number of sports) in the NIL era.  People who already hated Texas Tech now have more of a reason to.  And people who were otherwise different now have a reason to root against Texas Tech, too. 

Maybe that was the point.  Maybe they want to be the villain, since they knew they already were for a lot of people anyway.  If that wasn't their intention, though, they failed spectacularly.  It was an epic PR failure on multiple fronts.  And the worst part is it was such an unforced error.  They could've done the right thing and avoided this whole mess.  Instead, they did the opposite.  And turned everybody against them in the process.

Fans of the World

One week into the World Cup, one thing has been extremely noticeable.  The fans.  Soccer fans are lunatics.  Everybody knows this.  As Americans, we normally only get to see it from afar.  That hasn't been the case at the World Cup.  That passion has been on full display for everyone to see.  And it's been amazing!

Last Saturday was the first game at MetLife Stadium.  It featured Brazil.  Yellow-clad fans didn't just fill the stadium, they took over Manhattan!  The game ended right before Game 5 of the NBA Finals began.  The intermingling of the Brazil fans and the Knick fans created such a crazy, incredible party-like atmosphere.  Times Square was really the place to be!  It must've felt like New Year's Eve!

Brazil isn't the only South American nation whose fans have traveled well.  Every South American team in the tournament has.  Messi's 2026 World Cup debut might as well have been an Argentina home game.  It was played in Kansas City!  The Uruguayan faithful showed up in Miami.  And Azteca was also sea of yellow for Colombia's first game.  I can only imagine what the streets of those cities were like!

It's been so fun, too, to see FOX (or maybe it's the world feed, but it doesn't matter) cutting to the fans who aren't in stadiums cheering on their nation of choice at fan fests or bars across the country.  During the Canada-Bosnia game, they showed a packed house at a bar in St. Louis, which has the largest Bosnian population in the country.  Who knew?!  And I'm sure there were many similar situations going on in those different pockets of heavily ethnic communities all over the country.

That's been the case in the stadiums, too.  Seemingly every team has gotten support not just from their own fans, but from the Americans of that ethnicity who live in (or close to) the host city.  That was the case for Iranian-Americans in LA.  Despite the hostilities between the two nations and the fact that there's a travel ban in effect, Iran still had its fair share of supporters.  As I'm sure we'll see with other countries playing in other cities.

The United States is such a melting pot, though, that it almost doesn't even matter where you are.  You'll find fans wearing jerseys from different countries everywhere!  Case in point, I was wearing my Christian Pulisic jersey for the USA's opening game last Friday.  I'm walking down the street on my way to do some errands and I see a lady sitting in her car wearing...a Paraguay jersey!  That obviously led to some good-natured pointing to our respective national team's crest for a few seconds!

We knew that Mexico's games would have partisan home crowds.  We weren't sure how it would be in the U.S. and Canada.  After all, the U.S. often feels like the road team at friendlies played anywhere in the country, thanks to the people who live in that area supporting the nation of their family's heritage rather than the USMT.  Well, I'm happy to report, that the U.S. actually got to enjoy a home crowd in its opener against Paraguay.  And, at both of Canada's games, the fans have been almost entirely clad in red and rooting for the home team.

U.S. Head Coach Mauricio Pocchetino said that the opening game against Paraguay in Los Angeles was the first time he ever felt the crowd rooting for his team.  They'll have even more of a home field advantage against Australia in Seattle, which is a decidedly pro-American soccer city.  They obviously set it up so that the U.S. would play in cities that were more likely to support them over their opponent, but there's no way to know for sure that will be the case until the tournament actually starts.  Well, the American Outlaws got the memo and showed up to make sure the home team actually had home field advantage.

Teams don't even need to win for their fans to show tremendous displays of emotion.  Curacao lost 7-1.  But they also scored a goal.  Against Germany.  In their World Cup debut.  That moment alone is worth its weight in gold.  So is Cape Verde's performance against Spain, a 0-0 draw that turned their goalkeeper into an overnight sensation.  That may be the only point Cape Verde earns at the World Cup.  So what?  Their fans got to relish their tiny nation going toe-to-toe with Spain.

There's one fan group that is the undisputed winners of World Cup so far, though.  Scotland's Tartan Army.  They absolutely took over Boston.  To the point where the bars ran out of beer!  (Boston + Scottish fans = not a good combination.)  They had "Scotland Night" at Fenway Park, and the sound of bagpipes could be heard as they marched their way to the ballpark.

If you think the Tartan Army has limited itself to New England, you'd be sadly mistaken.  They took up an entire section at Yankee Stadium on Tuesday and Wednesday!  Throughout the game on Wednesday night, they were treating it just like a soccer game, standing and chanting virtually the entire time.  To say they drew the crowd's attention would be an understatement.  Their group grew as the game went on, with fans from other countries and even random other people making their way over and joining in the fun.  After the game, I asked one of them why they were in New York while Scotland's first two games are in Boston.  His response was "Why not?  We'll go back to Boston for the game."  It's Scotland's first World Cup in 28 years.  Their fans are making sure to enjoy the experience.

Scottish fans are far from alone, too.  Fans from all over many be here for the World Cup, but they're taking full advantage of being in the United States.  So, as my Scottish friend said, why not go to a baseball game while you're here?  And it's the Americans who've been the biggest beneficiaries.  It's just a small glimpse, but it's enough to see the incredible passion that's displayed everywhere else in the world.

All of this has me really excited for the Norway-Senegal game, when I'll get to see it for myself.  That's one of the biggest reasons I wanted to go to one of the games.  Any game.  It didn't matter.  The atmosphere will be electric regardless.  I went in thinking I'll end up rooting for Senegal because their fans seem more fun.  Then I saw the Norwegians with their Viking helmets and rowing chant, so maybe not.  It'll probably end up being a gametime decision now.

When the United States was chosen as the primary host for this World Cup, this is what they hoped/expected would happen.  People coming from all over the world plus Americans of every nationality mixing together in one raucous celebration.  So far, that's exactly what's happened.  For all the pre-tournament concerns about people not coming because of the cost or having trouble getting a visa or whatever other reason, plenty of fans have shown up from all over the world.  And they've turned the World Cup into one big party.  A party that American fans in the host cities appear more than happy to join.

The Great Grass Debate

With FIFA mandating that grass fields be used for the World Cup, it meant that grass would be installed at all 11 NFL stadiums hosting games this summer, even if they ordinarily play on turf.  Which, of course, led to the inevitable calls that the NFL should make a similar mandate and those stadiums should switch to grass permanently, as if it was that easy.  I hate to break it to those people, but all seven NFL stadiums that are having grass temporarily installed for the World Cup will go back to having turf fields once the season starts.

If it were up to the players, all NFL fields would be grass.  They've always been clear about their preference.  Although, the common belief that turf leads to more injuries is simply incorrect.  It was true back in the 80s and 90s when turf was merely a carpet placed on top of a cement floor, often with baseball cutouts, there were more injuries on turf than on grass.  But modern artificial turf surfaces are so good and so similar to grass that there's very little difference.  In fact, the number of injuries is pretty much equal.

Here's the thing, too.  Every team has an indoor facility at their complex.  Wanna guess what type of field they use in the indoor facilities?  I'll give you a hint...it isn't grass!  Yet there's no clamoring for the indoor facilities to use grass.  Just the stadiums.  Even though, in most of them, it's simply not practical.

Including the preseason, NFL teams have 10 home games a year.  SoFi Stadium and MetLife Stadium each host 20 games per season since they're both the home of two teams.  There's always at least one week every season where the Rams and Chargers or Giants and Jets are both home.  In August, the Giants and Jets have home preseason games in back-to-back days.  Do you think the grass would hold up in the fourth quarter of that second game?

Beyond that are simply the practical effects of trying to maintain a grass field in the Northeast.  Winter weather isn't exactly easy to deal with.  Now imagine trying to keep a grass field playable in the Winter!  Green Bay has a heated field, as will Buffalo's new stadium.  But the other cold-weather cities that have open-air stadiums with grass fields have some of the worst field conditions in the league.  The Steelers share Acrisure Stadium with Pitt.  They also play high school championship games on that field.  It's notorious around the NFL for how bad and chewed up it gets.

As someone who lives and works in sports in the Northeast, I can tell you firsthand how having a turf field is actually vital logistically.  Now, college sports and their multipurpose fields are different, I get that.  But the principle remains the same.  Field maintenance is easier, significantly so, on turf.  Especially in areas where weather might be a concern, at least the condition of the field won't be.

Two Northeast stadiums hosting the World Cup are normally turf--MetLife Stadium and Gillette Stadium.  Both of their predecessors--Giants Stadium and Foxboro Stadium--had natural grass instead of turf for a few years in the early 2000s.  At Giants Stadium, the experiment only lasted three seasons before they reverted back to turf.  And MetLife has been turf since it opened.  There are practical reasons for this.  Reasons that make sense when you think about the stadium's many uses beyond just football.

NFL games are far from the only events that take place in these stadiums.  That's a very important (and relevant) point.  In fact, NFL games make up only a tiny portion of the stadium's schedule in a given year.  All those concerts and college football games and everything else are vital to the stadium's bottom line.  And they all require either using or covering up the field.  Just imagine what that would do to the grass, which would then need to be replaced each time!

One of the reasons FIFA was able to install grass at these NFL stadiums and have it remain pristine for the duration of the World Cup is because they were given exclusive use for that entire timeframe.  Every World Cup stadium was taken offline a month before the tournament, which gave FIFA time to install the grass and get it to the exact right specifications.  More importantly, since the games are the only things taking place in the stadium during that span, the grass has time to rest.  That's an aspect of grass maintenance that's just as important as any other.  It's why Wimbledon didn't play on the middle Sunday until a few years ago.  It's why golf courses (or at least certain areas of them) close at certain times of the year.

It's also not as easy as resodding the field and calling it a day.  The grass needs to set before it's usable.  Which means the stadium needs to be taken offline every time you were to do it.  It's expensive, too.  So, it really would defeat the purpose since, in order to cover that cost, you'd have to schedule more non-NFL events, which would require more resodding the field. 

Houston and Dallas, meanwhile, have retractable roofs, while SoFi Stadium is an indoor facility.  That creates its own challenges to maintaining a natural grass field.  Simply put, an indoor setting isn't ideal for growing grass.  Especially to the standard necessary for an NFL-quality playing field. 

When the Astrodome was first built in the mid-60s, they tried having a grass field and it quickly died.  As a result, Astroturf was created.  Artificial playing surfaces have come a long way since then.  To the point where you can barely tell the difference. 

And grass technology has come a long way, too.  That's why they're able to temporarily install grass in the indoor stadiums that are hosting the World Cup while maintaining its quality.  We aren't to that point yet, though.  Maybe in the next few years, we will.  But right now, it's still more practical and logistically feasible to have a turf field.  Especially since these stadiums serve so many other purposes besides just NFL games.

But, of course, the players don't know or care about this (or both).  All they know is that they see grass fields being put on top of the turf, which to them means it can (and should) be done.  They see it as a "slap in the face," even though if they were to get their wish and get grass fields, they might not even be as good as the turf fields currently being used in those stadiums.  It would be totally impractical to even try playing on grass full-time, and it would cause more problems than it would solve. 

Yes, there are a few NFL stadiums hosting the World Cup that have grass full-time.  Miami even manages to have it at Hard Rock Stadium despite both the Hurricanes and Dolphins playing there.  Miami's in Florida, where the weather's much more conducive.  They also frequently replace the grass, which they're able to do because they grow their own.  That's obviously not something every team can do.

The players don't see it that way, though.  They see grass being installed for the World Cup as proof of concept and don't understand why there can't be natural grass in all 30 stadiums, especially since that's their stated preference.  Don't count on that happening anytime soon, however.  Because, as much as the players might want to play on grass, it really doesn't make sense as a full-time option at every stadium.  Whether they like it or not.

Is 64 Inevitable?

We're only a few days into the first 48-team World Cup.  A majority of the teams haven't even played their first game yet.  Yet, there's already talk of further tournament expansion as "inevitable."  Alexi Lalas has suggested that this is simply a "first step" on the way to 64, which he thinks will probably happen sooner rather than later.  In fact, if CONMEBOL had gotten their way, the Centennial World Cup in 2030 would've been a 64-team tournament.

FIFA was quick to shoot that down for 2030.  But, now that it's out there, you know it's something that'll stay in the back of everyone's minds.  And, knowing how much FIFA loves money, they'll see 64 teams as more games, which means more revenue.  So, yes, I do think we'll eventually see a 64-team World Cup.  Which isn't necessarily a good thing.  At least not right now.

When FIFA expanded the World Cup field from 24 to 32 in 1998, it was universally accepted practically immediately.  The 24-team tournament was simply too small.  It was almost too hard to qualify, and too many good teams were being left out.  Plus, 32 teams was much more straightforward.  The top two in each group advanced, and the bracket for the knockout stage was pretty much set.  No third-place teams advancing.  No five potential knockout stage opponents based on which third-place finishers qualified.

That's one of the big pros for going to 64 teams, which Lalas correctly pointed out.  In a 64-team tournament, you'd go back to not having third-place teams advancing and hundreds of possible combinations for the knockout stage bracket.  It would be like the 1998-2022 format, with the exception of it being 16 groups instead of eight and the top two in each group advancing to the Round of 32 instead of the Round of 16.  That's certainly much cleaner.  I don't think you'll find anyone who doesn't agree with that.

And, as I already mentioned, FIFA will look at the potential of expanding the World Cup and only see dollar signs.  They haven't just added 16 teams to the field.  They've added 40 games.  There were 64 games in Qatar.  There will be a total of 104 this year.  When/if they go to 64, that's four additional groups with six games in each.  So, it's not just 16 additional teams.  It's 24 additional games.  Just think about how much money FIFA can make off a 128-game tournament (double what they had in 2022).  You know they are!

After all, this year's World Cup initially wasn't originally supposed to be 104 games.  When the expansion was first announced, the plan was to have 16 groups of three and a total of 80 games.  That only became 12 groups of four playing 104 total games after the 2022 tournament.  The increased revenue that comes with playing 24 additional games wasn't the only reason that change was made, but you know it's something FIFA wasn't exactly mad about, either.

Among the reasons for the expansion to 48 teams was to give more countries an opportunity to qualify, especially in Africa and Asia.  Oceania was given a direct entry for the first time, allowing New Zealand to qualify without having to play in a playoff.  And, without the tournament expansion, we probably wouldn't see teams like World Cup debutants Curacao and Cape Verde in the field.  It's great that those teams finally have the opportunity, but we still don't know how their presence impacts the quality of the field.

Every time you expand a tournament, that's the risk you run (as the NCAA will find out come March).  There may be a handful of good teams that had previously been left out and are now being included.  But are there enough of those teams to fill the number of additional spots?  And it was absolutely phenomenal to see Curacao playing Germany.  Being on the same field as the Germans was enough.  Scoring a goal in that game instantly became the greatest moment in the country's sporting history.  But, as great as that experience was for Curacao, they still lost 7-1.

In the 32-team World Cup, the number of overmatched, low-ranked teams was limited.  Sure, there were still blowouts occasionally.  But, for the most part, the games were always competitive.  We aren't even through the first group games in the first 48-team tournament yet, so we have no idea how many of these additional teams can actually compete.  We'll need a bigger sample size than just this tournament before we can make any conclusions about that anyway.  So, let's wait for the tournament to play out first.  It's way too early to even start thinking about going to 64.

There are those who'll remain vigorously opposed to 64 no matter what, and only partially because of how it may dilute the product.  Qualifying for the World Cup is supposed to be difficult, and the tournament itself is designed to be exclusive.  Only those countries that make it through the rigors of qualifying get the honor of playing in it.  A 48-team field is still fairly exclusive.  If they go to 64, though, nearly 30 percent of all FIFA members will make the final tournament.  Would that take away some of the luster?

How would an expansion to 64 teams even work?  As it stands, 60 percent of CONMEBOL already makes the World Cup.  There are only 10 teams in the confederation and six have direct entry (plus one spot in the final qualifying tournament).  Even adding one spot for CONMEBOL would mean that 70 percent of South American teams get into every World Cup, which they would love, but I'm sure UEFA and the other confederations might have some different thoughts about.

UEFA currently gets 16 spots.  Part of the reason for that is because they didn't want European teams to have to play each other in group play, so when the expansion was first announced, the idea was that they'd have only one European team in each of the 16 groups.  That obviously isn't what ended up happening.  Four groups have two European teams.  So, you could conceivably give UEFA eight of the 16 additional spots to get to 24 (eight groups with two teams, eight groups with one).  Which is the same number of teams that's played in the Euro since 2016.  Would they then have to consider expanding the Euro to 32 teams, just to keep it so that it's easier to make the continental tournament?

Which leaves CONCACAF, Africa, Asia and Oceania for the remaining additional berths.  Those are the four weakest confederations, which would only add to the quality vs. quantity discussions.  Yes, the increased opportunity and exposure for nations in those confederations would have a positive effect in that it would lead to increased funding, etc.  But, you'd also be adding mainly smaller, lower-ranked countries to the World Cup field.  Which could lead to more overmatched teams getting blown out.  How exactly does that enhance the tournament experience for anybody?

So, moral of the story, let's not jump the gun.  Will the World Cup eventually expand to 64 teams?  Probably.  Anytime soon?  It's way too early to tell.  Let's let the first 48-team tournament (which only just started) finish.  Then we'll go from there.

Different Times, Different Expectations

At the 1990 World Cup, the United States entered as tourists.  They're the first ones to admit it.  They were a bunch of college kids who were happy to be there.  And why wouldn't they be?  It was the first time the U.S. had qualified in 40 years.  That alone was an achievement worth celebrating.  And they got to play Italy in front of 80,000 fans in Rome.  Nobody expected them to be any good, and they weren't.

The 1990 World Cup was important for what was to come four years later, however.  Hosting the World Cup in 1994 was huge for soccer in the United States.  Not much was expected from the team then, either, but the experience of being there in 1990 (overmatched or not) cannot be overstated.  There was no pressure on them, but they still wanted to put forth a good showing for the home fans.  And they did, upsetting Colombia in group play and holding their own in a Round of 16 loss to eventual champion Brazil.

Of course, there was a concerted effort to make sure the USMNT put on a good showing in their home World Cup.  That investment was just the start.  Then came the World Cup itself, which was the most financially successful tournament in history.  That funding helped launch MLS and grassroots programs across the country, not to mention turning the women's team into a powerhouse.  The effects of the 1994 World Cup are still being felt.

Fast forward 32 years as the United States hosts the World Cup for a second time.  Look no further than the expectations on this team to see how far soccer has come in this country.  In 1994, it was hoping they'd get out of the group.  In 2026, some would consider it a disappointment if they didn't win the group.  The talk is more about how far they'll advance in the knockout stage.  There's even been some chatter about the United States winning the whole thing!

While expecting the U.S. to win the World Cup (even on home soil) is a bit of a stretch, the fact that it's even thrown out there as a possibility shows how far this team has come.  The U.S. has shown it can compete on the world stage.  Everyone knows they're good.  American players are starters on some of the top club teams in Europe.  Those players understand the opportunity in front of them and those expectations...and they embrace it!

Thinking it's even possible for the United States men to win the World Cup used to be a ludicrous idea.  It no longer is.  Will they win the 2026 World Cup?  Probably not.  But that's not the point.  The fact that people think they can is.  And it speaks volumes.  Just as the fact that there's potential for people to be disappointed speaks volumes.

In 1994, no American soccer players were household names.  Sure, players like Alexi Lalas and Tony Meola and Cobi Jones became household names later on, mostly because of the tournament, but, for the most part, they were anonymous.  In 2026, that's far from the case.  Christian Pulisic isn't just a household name for American fans, he's recognized as one of the best players in the world.  Most of the squad, Pulisic included, is European-based, and American players are regulars in the Champions League.

It was a slow and gradual process to get here, of course.  At the 1998 World Cup, the United States finished last.  Then they made the quarterfinals in 2002 before failing to get out of the group in 2006.  Then they beat Spain to make the final of the Confederations Cup in 2009 and won their group at the 2010 World Cup.  That all led to rock bottom in 2017, when the U.S. was eliminated in World Cup qualifying and didn't even go to Russia!

That might be the biggest indication of how the United States' place in the global soccer hierarchy has changed.  Certainly within CONCACAF at the very least.  When the U.S. qualified for its first World Cup in four decades in 1989, it was a big moment.  When they didn't qualify in 2017, it was equally big.  For a totally different reason.  Qualifying for the World Cup had become the bare minimum expectation.  (So is performing well in regional tournaments.  A terrible Copa America performance at home in 2024 is what got Gregg Berhalter fired.)  That wouldn't have happened without the investment that's been put into soccer (in many different ways) since the 1994 World Cup.

FIFA knew they were taking a risk by awarding the 1994 World Cup to the U.S.  There was no professional league and soccer was more of a curiosity than anything else.  Then a record number of fans filled the stadiums.  It led to a soccer boom.  It led to the 2026 World Cup being a completely different experience for everyone involved.

Soccer's not a curiosity anymore.  Every week, people are watching the Premier League on Saturday mornings and the Champions League during the week.  Everybody has "their" team in one of the European leagues.  Domestically, MLS, which was founded as one of the conditions to host in 1994, just celebrated its 30th anniversary and is thriving.  There are 30 teams, many of which have their own soccer-specific stadiums.

None of this would've been possible if not for the 1994 World Cup.  It's what turned the United States into a soccer country.  It'll never get to the point of popularity as it is in the rest of the world.  It'll never be on the same level as baseball, basketball, hockey and "the other" football.  But that's OK.  That doesn't mean the American soccer fan doesn't exist.  And those American soccer fans will help make the 2026 World Cup a spectacle.  A spectacle where they expect to see their team perform well.

While I'm too young to remember what the level of hype was heading into the 1994 World Cup, I can't imagine it being anywhere close to the degree of anticipation that surrounded this year's tournament.  The World Cup being back in the United States is a big deal.  With the excitement to match.  Sure, the ticket prices are exorbitant, but people wouldn't be complaining about the ticket prices if they didn't want to go.  And it isn't just because of the hype.

Hosting the World Cup is like hosting the Olympics.  It's only gonna happen once in your career if you're lucky.  For the USMNT in 1994, it was about the experience.  For the USMNT in 2026, it's about so much more than that.  The fact that there's a possibility of fans being disappointed in their performance says all you need to know about the difference 32 years can make.