A LESSON, THE HARD WAY : United States Learned From Past World Cup Soccer Bid Failure How to Go Get It

The United States, snubbed by international soccer the last time around, may have won the World Cup this time by altering its approach as well as its presentation.

While everyone connected with the U.S. Soccer Federation’s bid admits the 1994 presentation was more colorful, complete and professional than for 1986, it also was presented with more diplomacy to the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

“The atmosphere surrounding the ’86 bid was hyper-critical of FIFA, (filled with) arrogance, and roots of alleged high-powered people demanding meetings with(FIFA President Joao) Havelange,” said Clive Toye, the last president of the North American Soccer League--which did most of the work on the 1986 World Cup bid.

“There was turmoil and arrogance. The U.S. bid this time was done with dignity and good manners, and superb attention to detail.”

“They seemed very pleased with our attitude and approach,” USSF President Werner Fricker said. “We did it very low-key, very organized, black and white, no frills. They were not expecting that from us.”

Colombia originally was awarded the 1986 World Cup. In 1983, financial difficulties forced it withdraw as host nation for the month-long, 52-game event.

The United States and Mexico both put in bids for the Cup. Three months before FIFA was to announce its decision, Havelange said Mexico--which held the 1970 World Cup--would get the tournament. The statement irked many USSF members.

The feelings were further irritated when FIFA officially dismissed the United States bid by referring to the U.S. presentation as nothing more than a “nice touristic document.”

“This time FIFA wanted to give it to us,” said Chuck Blazer, former USSF executive vice president and current commissioner of the American Soccer League. “We surprised them (last time). When Colombia pulled out, it was going to Mexico. When we entered a bid, we upset them. They weren’t expecting it. They did handle everything with some questionable protocol.”

But the bid for the 1986 Cup was far from perfect. It was put together in 21 days at a cost of about $200,000 and mostly by volunteers in the NASL office.

This time, the USSF created a special wing to produce the bid-- World Cup USA ‘94--which spent about $1.4 million in the last 14 1/2 months presenting the United States’ case.

“The most important thing is this time we had sufficient time to do the job,” Fricker said. “The last time, FIFA had to look around, and make the safer choice of going with someone who had done it before and did it successfully. They (Mexico) had the stadiums, the logistics.”

Fricker said in 1983 every country submitted the minimum requirements, but with only three years to pull together the organization of a World Cup, FIFA didn’t want to take a chance with an unproven--giving Mexico an advantage from the jump.

“This time we started well in advance. We were all equal,” Fricker said.

The extra time also gave the USSF a chance to compare its new offerring with its last one.

“We couldn’t have done it 1983,” Fricker said. “I didn’t say that then, I didn’t realize it then.”

But the bidding and subsequent selection process for the 1986 Cup also changed FIFA’s system for handling future bids.

This year--for the first time--a five-man inspection panel toured all three countries -- Brazil, Morocco and the United States--to check on the facilities. The panel reported back to the FIFA Executive Committee, which rendered the final decision.

“It (the inspection tour) is a consequence or reaction to comments that have been made,” said Paul Stiehl, director of World Cup USA ’94. “It’s going through the process to ensure it doesn’t give the impression that it’s already been decided.”

But the biggest changes were on the part of the USSF, specifically in the areas of governmental guarantees, which some USSF officials believe was a main factor in getting the Cup.

While the bid in 1983 was less than an inch thick, the 1987 bid took up two volumes the thickness of the Manhattan telephone directory.

“It’s like War And Peace, and could put you to sleep faster,” Toye said. “But it showed attention to detail.”

USA World Cup ’94 hired Eddie Mahe Jr. and Associates, a political campaign management and Washington lobbying firm, to coordinate the logistics, theory and policy of the bid, plus coordinate the printing and produce an elaborate video presentation.

The bid included governmental guarantees and pledges of support from President Reagan, a joint resolution from Congress backing the bid, guarantees from the U.S. Commerce, State and Treasury departments, immigration, FBI, customs and secret service.

“We got every branch of the government to commit full support and guarantee that they would do nothing to hinder this particular event,” Stiehl said. “They’re not going to break law, but they’ll work within law.

“One of the basic requirements was that no visa will be denied. The government confirmed to meet and exceed those requirements.”

To sweeten and further prove the governmental support for the bid, the USSF arranged a meeting between Havelange and Reagan this past spring in the White House.

It’s a meeting, irregardless of the bid’s quality, that would have been impossible five years ago.

The NASL, in its last stages, was altering FIFA’s hallowed rules in an attempt to spark a resurgence in its game. The NASL incensed FIFA by using a shootout format to decide tie games instead of the accepted penalty kicks; by instituting a 35-yard offside line (much like ice hockey) instead of the approved offside rule, and by using bonus point system to determine league standings.

“There were constant discussions between the NASL and FIFA, playing under different rules,” said Joe Robbie, owner of the Miami Dolphins and the ASL Fort Lauderdale Strikers. Robbie, who played host to the inspection committee on their tour of Robbie Stadium, is hopeful of getting the World Cup final there.

“The NASL was taking liberties with the standings and format. Outdoor soccer here, in the opinion of FIFA . . . they felt mainly that there was not sufficient interest to assure attendance.

“FIFA had the feeling that the U.S. felt all it had to do was apply.”

This time, the USSF made sure it did not present that image.

“The last time the federation delegated the preparation of the bid to the NASL,” Blazer said. “And although without the NASL there would have been no bid, the NASL did it with more showmanship than content. This bid was more content than showmanship.”