Massholes we are too complacent about this! It needs to end! So I today saw that Boston was a host city for the 2026 World Cup, and I thought “Oh! They must be constructing a new stadium!” But no. It’s Gillette. I get it’s easier to generalize, but man, are the World Cup fans gonna be let down lol. That area so is depressing! Doesn’t represent Boston at all.
Comments
ObservantOrangutan t1_j1gwzqw wrote
I always thought the 49ers location was particularly egregious. They literally play more than an hour away and in a bigger city than their namesake.
Victor_Korchnoi t1_j1hjljm wrote
It’s literally a different metropolitan statistical area
calguy1955 t1_j1ijreu wrote
I blame then-Mayor Gavin Newsom for not negotiating better for them to stay in the City.
737900ER t1_j1j20zb wrote
I think the way we've done pro sports arenas in Boston is actually pretty good. Fenway and TD Garden are in the city and super convenient. The Red Sox host 81+ home games a year. The Celtics and Bruins host 41+ each too. The Patriots only host 8-9 and the Revs host 17 which isn't really enough to be worth dedicating a lot of land too, but worth having a rail service for on game days. I just wish more big concerts were at Fenway instead of Gillette or at least had a train.
ObservantOrangutan t1_j1j5hii wrote
Boston has lucked out massively with sports venues. Having 3 of the 4 major teams play right in the city is pretty good. Particularly that the Garden was able to be (re)built in almost the same place. I think someday when the time comes to replace Fenway, that’ll be the biggest problem.
Concerts at Fenway are definitely more convenient but as a venue it’s just awful. Terrible sight lines, terrible acoustics, and the setup usually shuts down half the streets around the ballpark for a week or two
Quincyperson t1_j1izqun wrote
Or commend him for not giving into the pressures and smoke screens of corporate welfare
BesponFatigues1230 t1_j1gfqhr wrote
Foxborough was used for last World Cup in the US in ‘94 too …most fans will stay in Boston and make the trip out there just for the game
A bunch of the Stadiums being used are not in the cities listed as hosts cities …San Fran is another for example …hell the NYC games aren’t even in the same state
Are people not aware that the World Cup has already been here in the past?
WinsingtonIII t1_j1hmhky wrote
Yeah, while I hate Gillette’s location myself, not sure why this sub is acting like all the tourists are going to stay in Foxborough. The vast majority of tourists will stay in Boston and will take the commuter rail and/or shuttle buses they will set up out to the games.
Also weird how some are acting like this is unique to Boston when almost every US venue for 2026 is located outside the city in a suburban area. It’s a US issue generally, not a Boston specific one.
milespeeingyourpants t1_j1hw3wk wrote
Welcome to Reddit
WinsingtonIII t1_j1i1ndy wrote
I feel like /r/boston is specifically bad for this, people always act like anything wrong with Boston is only a problem in Boston. There are some problems that are more Boston specific, but certainly not this one or many others that come up on here. But you're right that complaining about stuff without really thinking about it is a reddit thing in general.
milespeeingyourpants t1_j1i6rdo wrote
It was a glorified HS field back then.
BesponFatigues1230 t1_j1iaokm wrote
For sure …Gillette certainly a little nicer than Foxboro Stadium lol
potus1001 t1_j1gcfir wrote
Well I guess that’s going to be the first priority of Maura Healy’s new MBTA GM.
On the plus side for those of us who live in Boston, at least we don’t need to make plans to be out of town during that period.
RoaminRonin13 t1_j1iokm1 wrote
I mean, you probably do need to make plans if you’re not interested in being around for World Cup fever - people are still going to stay in Boston and the metro area, if only because of hotel capacity. But realistic they’ll do it because nobody really wants to be a tourist in Foxborough.
It could be great - generate a lot of tourist dollars for the city without us building (with public subsidies / funds) a new stadium, and with the worst of the traffic a) not being downtown and b) being someplace that regularly has terrible traffic due to sporting events.
evhan55 t1_j1g6fqg wrote
Live in the area, can confirm is depressing
Redskysflame t1_j1gn6w7 wrote
Yup foxboro here can verify
SelfDestructSep2020 t1_j1g3pwv wrote
Gillette is also getting the 2023 Army Navy game and depending on where you see the ads its "at Boston"
Special-Trash-7995 t1_j1g78kb wrote
For real. When it was first announced I thought I’d look into going. Dropped that plan when I saw it’s at Gillette. I moved away from that area for a reason. Definitely not interested in visiting.
VMP85 t1_j1ggnee wrote
It's evident you haven't been to sporting events at some of the other stadiums being chosen. The area surrounding Gillette is a lot better than the area surrounding NRG Stadium, Levis Stadium, Arrowhead, Sofi, and Hard Rock. Thanks the the NFL, no country on Earth exceeds, matches, or comes close to the stadiums we have in the US. 2026 is going to be the most attended World Cup ever. Almost all of the stadiums lack good transit. It won't matter. All of the games will sellout. Overseas fans will come in droves and stay with their relatives or friends. This will be a lot different than a typical World Cup.
Comfortable-Scar4643 t1_j1inc75 wrote
Sort of agree. But the English football stadiums are way bigger.
Quincyperson t1_j1j3xpe wrote
Not really. Wembley is larger than any NFL stadium, but after that, there’s only four other soccer stadiums in the UK that would be comparable to any NFL stadiums
Comfortable-Scar4643 t1_j1psav2 wrote
I don’t know. I took a bus from London to the coast and we passed the Aston Villa stadium. It looked pretty big.
Quincyperson t1_j1qmxje wrote
According to Wikipedia, Villa Park holds 42,000. The smallest capacity in the NFL is Soldiers Field in Chicago at 61,000
powsandwich t1_j1hoop7 wrote
Unrelated but I might like to see the odds that all games sellout. Some Qatar games had visibly empty seats (granted it’s Qatar), but also the 2026 cup is going to be expanded to 48 teams for the first time. There’s going to be a lot of seats to fill
milespeeingyourpants t1_j1ida4n wrote
The games in Foxboro will sell out.
man2010 t1_j1il7pb wrote
I think people around the world would much rather travel to North America than Qatar for the World Cup, never mind the US/Mexico/Canada having 150x the population of Qatar
Comfortable-Scar4643 t1_j1ingzs wrote
Think of all the people coming from Latin America. It will be a zoo. And fun people watching for sure.
WinsingtonIII t1_j1jkd2l wrote
Nah, I expect most games to sell out. The US has a huge population and even though soccer isn’t the most popular sport here over 25 million people in the US watched the 2022 World Cup final. Qatar’s entire population is only 2.8 million people, which was part of the issue, there simply weren’t that many local fans attending. The US will provide more local fans simply by virtue of having 100+ times the population.
Add in the fact that travel from Latin America will be much easier and Latin American fans travel in huge numbers, and the fact European fans won’t be as bothered by the location in terms of controversy, and I suspect attendances will be high.
[deleted] t1_j1jlvec wrote
[deleted]
wandererarkhamknight t1_j1gn4up wrote
Like 1994 WC, probably they will run “soccer trains” and buses. Will it be enough or not and how the buses will deal with traffic is another question. There are very few cities like Indianapolis or Chicago where the stadium is close to downtown or within city. Most places have to arrange makeshift transportation. Kansas City is planning a hub-and-spoke approach to transport fans from multiple points by buses.
popornrm t1_j1h196f wrote
Why are people complaining? So much less traffic. So much less rush.
humanzee70 t1_j1i0bfc wrote
Lol. All the people in here saying Foxborough is a “depressing area” have obviously never been in a “depressing area”. It’s a nice little suburban town, once you get off route 1.
nattarbox t1_j1gcbz2 wrote
Can’t be worse than literally any part of Qatar or Russia.
michael_scarn_21 t1_j1g8udc wrote
I said this when I saw that Foxborough was a venue. Overseas football fans aren't used to stadiums an hour outside the city that have no public transit except for one single train (not one train route just one individual train). It's going to be a shit experience for people to be stuck in parking lots and to not be able to drink because they need to drive back to Boston.
bunker_baby t1_j1gj8bt wrote
If enough people complain for long enough, i bet the single train could turn in to many trains to and from the game(s). Complain to your state senator via email about inadequate transit to and from foxboro now, 4 years in advance. Get the ball rolling.
joshhw t1_j1hgn4t wrote
They will have the trains for the World Cup. They’ve had trains there for a few pilots and nobody takes it
DartboardCapital t1_j1gdb0u wrote
AT&T in Dallas has no direct mass/public transit.
fourier_lemonade t1_j1iadyf wrote
*Arlington lol
WinsingtonIII t1_j1jkuke wrote
Arlington, TX also holds the dubious distinction of being the largest city in the US without any public transit system I believe. Not even a bus system.
fourier_lemonade t1_j1pud4h wrote
I believe it. Public transit in DFW is pretty horrendous. It’s honestly impossible for me to complain about the T at all having spent my latter childhood years in DFW where you’re lucky to have a sidewalk.
Edit: if I would have to guess there may be a bus system for UT-Arlington
Anustart15 t1_j1gcyh7 wrote
>not one train route just one individual train
You'd have to be pretty dense to actually think they aren't going to increase service for the world cup
michael_scarn_21 t1_j1gfa0n wrote
You'd have to be pretty dense to actually think they will make the changes necessary to increase service enough to make a difference (electrification and an extra platform at Foxborough) in time for the world cup given the track record of infrastructure improvement timelines on the MBTA.
WinsingtonIII t1_j1jle4t wrote
They will run trains and shuttle buses as they did in 1994. I feel like people are ignoring the fact they already hosted the World Cup in Foxborough and did stuff like that to handle the crowds last time.
This is also hardly a specific issue to Boston. Pretty much all of the US venues for 2026 are outside of the city with poor or no public transit options to access them.
powsandwich t1_j1gdjq0 wrote
It took the Pats sucking for people to finally start talking out loud about how gillette is a glorified strip mall no one likes getting to. It really is a shame Kraft just doubled down and is spending $250m on upgrades and continues to hold the Revs prisoner
VMP85 t1_j1ghhii wrote
Where is Kraft going to build a 65-70k seat stadium that is close to Boston? There were talks 25 years ago or so to build in South Boston and that got shot down. Besides, do we really want a football stadium taking up precious land in Boston, which will need plenty of parking? Kraft isn't holding anyone hostage.
powsandwich t1_j1giga2 wrote
He would never move the Pats at this point, it was just poor planning back in the day when he held out for the best deal and threatened to move the team to CT. Revs stadium would only be 20k capacity and there are plenty of potential sites for that
Cameron_james t1_j1gkbyh wrote
Suffolk Downs would have been a very good site as the MBTA was already there as was parking.
powsandwich t1_j1hnqsn wrote
Still rumblings about Everett. The site behind Night Shift will get redeveloped at some point. And the Mystic power plant redev is going to be huge. Still some opportunities left. Fingers crossed
737900ER t1_j1j2boe wrote
Instead they're building housing there which is an even bigger problem.
WinsingtonIII t1_j1hlpbo wrote
They definitely need to build a stadium for the Revs closer into the city, they only need a 20k-25k seat stadium and that could certainly be done much closer to the city.
That said, that would change nothing for the World Cup, the minimum venue size for the World Cup is generally around 40,000.
milespeeingyourpants t1_j1idj9c wrote
Poor planning?
kangaroospyder t1_j1h617z wrote
Suffolk Downs?
milespeeingyourpants t1_j1idfhu wrote
With his own cash. No public funding
__plankton__ t1_j1gkjx7 wrote
Hosting the World Cup at foxborough is a great way to let the world know we are not, in fact, a world class city
Edit—ITS NOT EVEN INSIDE 128!!
WinsingtonIII t1_j1hlf7x wrote
You act like this is not typical for US stadiums. Sadly it is very normal for US stadiums to not be actually located in the city itself.
AT&T stadium outside of Dallas, which is also hosting, literally does not have any public transit connection to the city. At least they can run the commuter rail to Gillette for the World Cup, and they will also have shuttle buses like they did in 1994. Most tourists will stay in Boston and just go out to the games using the train or buses.
These sort of issues will reflect generally poorly on the state of US public transit in 2026, but acting like it will specifically single out Boston as a “bad city” or whatever is ridiculous. The majority of the US venues are not in urban areas, they are in suburbs outside the stadium. Levi’s stadium is even further from San Francisco than Gillette is from Boston in terms of mileage and is in a different metro area than San Francisco. MetLife is in suburban New Jersey, not NYC.
737900ER t1_j1j2zwd wrote
I actually don't think it's a problem. Fenway and TD Garden each host 81-82 regular season games and are incredibly easy to get to. It's much more important to have those venues centrally located. Gillette hosts 8 or 9 (excluding the Revs) and does have a rail link to Boston and Providence on Patriots gamedays.
FluxCapacitorMechan t1_j1hyqg9 wrote
Boston/Foxboro did it before in 94 for one of the World Cup games. And no one cared.
AnalystAntique t1_j1gjnf8 wrote
I love massholes! From a Rhode Islander 🤣🤣
SHSFilmClub t1_j1gskew wrote
I live right up from the train station near Sharon it’s gonna be hell
drtywater t1_j1jg80r wrote
Oh fuck off with this complaint. Its Metro Boston its good enough. It is a T community its good enough. Boston is an unusually small major city so counting more of the surrounding towns/cities as Boston is fine.
[deleted] t1_j1g517p wrote
[removed]
spyda24 t1_j1hsdeb wrote
Everyone from Massachusetts is from Boston, everything is in Boston, keeps from having to answer the question “where is that?”
bostonvikinguc t1_j1hxoy3 wrote
Boston is the center of the universe and the world tree connects to the common.
Comfortable-Scar4643 t1_j1in2b4 wrote
Parking sucks. But I sort of am getting better at finding the good lots. And yeah, I’ll be going to the soccer. It will be so great.
santaclausbos t1_j1izmjw wrote
So should we build a massive stadium right in the middle of Boston? You gonna pay for it?
Dyldossier t1_j1j8d57 wrote
Patriot Place is kinda cool
5teerPike t1_j1jywwm wrote
When that golf tournament came to Brookline it really gunked up the traffic so tbh I'm fine with huge sporting events like that not being in direct vicinity to or right within the city
misterflappypants t1_j1k5e0m wrote
OP is hanging by a thread in their social circles lmao
Itchy-Marionberry-62 t1_j1k7s64 wrote
Did you expect us to build a new stadium for a bunch of lager louts for just a few games? World Cup is as boring as Soccer.
TheTr7nity t1_j1hu7q3 wrote
They really should build a new stadium closer to Boston and maybe a retractable one too
Cameron_james t1_j1g9ar6 wrote
London's Wembly Stadium is like 40 minutes outside of London. Hopefully, the MBTA will get those trains running those nights.
michael_scarn_21 t1_j1gam7s wrote
Wembley Stadium is in London. It is served directly by 3 different tube lines (Jubilee, Metropolitan and Bakerloo) as well as 4 different commuter rail lines and it's on about 15 bus routes. You can get out of there very fast after a match even with a 90,000 capacity crowd and comparing it to Foxborough is honestly laughable.
Cameron_james t1_j1gd407 wrote
I know Wembley is in London. I lived in London. And, London is also massive. It's 7 times the square footage of Boston (650+ to under 90). Wembley's not in Downtown London from a tourist perspective.
Fenway is "in Boston." You can walk to Fenway from basically any tourist neighborhood of Boston. You aren't walking to Wembley from Picadilly, South Bank, Hyde Park, Kensington, Chelsea, etc...
My place was near Southwark. It was about an hour to get to Wembley on a game/concert night. It's a longer line getting out of there and onto a train (Wembley Park is about a half mile) than Foxboro.
Back Bay to Foxboro is around 50 minutes on the train. Covent Garden to Wembely is not much faster.
All this said...rather see game/concert in London than in Foxboro...and I'd trust a London train over the T. And London trains compared to driving to Foxboro. It's not even close - London trains X 50 over a four lane road.
michael_scarn_21 t1_j1gewrb wrote
Yes Wembley isn't in central London but it's about 20-25 minutes from major central London rail termini (for example Paddington) and downtown London so not really comparable to The Foxboro time. The Foxboro train might only take 50 minutes but you're not adding in the wait for a train with MBTA headways, even if they do increase service.
Cameron_james t1_j1gjwlo wrote
I just checked on Citymapper - the ultimate transportation app - for a Tuesday 5 PM, say for a 7 pm game, right. It's over 30 minutes from Paddington to Wembley for every option whether rail, tube, bus or some combo.
The best benefit of London's options over Bostons option (there's really only one) is that there's a rail/tube/bus option from all directions and times. And, they run regularly, while the MBTA will probably do 1 or 2 trips down and 1-2 trips back. So, while you're not waiting for the Foxboro train to arrive (because it'll be a special ticket time, not a commuter rail schedule), you have no options for winging it to get there extra early or stay extra late, as you would in London.
My overall point is that most football stadiums aren't in the "city." You're probably taking a train to the stadium from your hotel. MetLife near NYC isn't closer to NYC than Foxboro is to Boston. That's an hour+ trip by train out to a marshland if you stay in Midtown. (And if you stay outside, then you're taking the 30 minute train into NYC.) I think SoFi Stadium in LA is closer to the city, but public transport I don't know well.
However, if I was recommending a city to see WC 2026 and your team didn't matter - I'd choose Toronto. You can legit stay in Toronto and walk to the games and just about anyplace else a tourist wants in the city.
Anustart15 t1_j1gdjcd wrote
Both are about an hour from downtown by public transit, so it still stands to reason that a lot of Europeans won't be as blown away by the idea as everyone is suggesting.
VMP85 t1_j1gix5f wrote
I mean, poor mass transit hasn't stopped hundreds of thousands of Europeans from coming to the US to live. I think they'll manage getting to a soccer game (if they can even get tickets) via car. Also, Mexicans, Brazilians, Argentinians and even Australians tend to travel better than a lot of European countries to World Cups.
michael_scarn_21 t1_j1gfksg wrote
Tell me you've never been to Wembley without telling me. It used to take me 20-30 minutes to get to central London from Wembley. In fact even now at 3:30 am it would only take 45 minutes on a night bus.
Anustart15 t1_j1ghhe6 wrote
I just picked a random spot right in the middle of London and looked at Publix transport times to Wembley and it was 50 minutes. Rounded it to about an hour. I'd imagine that time can swing a good 15+ minutes in either direction depending on where exactly in the center of town you are, but it doesn't feel too outrageous of a generalization
calguy1955 t1_j1gc15g wrote
Many US stadiums use the name of the bigger well known city they were originally located in. The SF 49ers play 40 miles away in Santa Clara next to San Jose. The Dallas Cowboys play a half hour away in Arlington. The NY Giants and Jets both play in New Jersey!