Skip to content

Chicago wants a Super Bowl at Soldier Field

Roger Goodell AP

Now that the NFL has agreed to play an outdoor Super Bowl at the New Jersey home of the Giants and Jets, America’s next-biggest cold-weather city is asking, “When is our turn?”

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell spoke today at a ceremony recognizing Soldier Field for taking steps like using environmentally friendly cleaning products and installing energy-efficient lighting to become the first NFL stadium to meet the standards of the U.S. Green Building Council. Emanuel confirmed that he also told Goodell that Chicago is “a perfect place to have a Super Bowl.”

If the New York Super Bowl goes off without a hitch, other cold-weather cities with outdoor stadiums will surely begin to make bids to host Super Bowls of their own. Emanuel pointed out that Chicago just had a NATO summit which ran smoothly as evidence that the city could handle the Super Bowl crowds, but the question is whether Soldier Field is the right place for a Super Bowl. Not only is it an outdoor stadium in a cold city, but it’s a stadium with a seating capacity of just 61,500.

Goodell was noncommittal about the possibility of a Chicago Super Bowl.

“We know the great passion football here in Chicago,” Goodell said. “It’s one of the things we’ll look at if there’s interest in here hosting.”

There’s interest from Emanuel, but he won’t have an easy time convincing a majority of the NFL’s owners that Chicago is a perfect place to have a Super Bowl.

Permalink 46 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Chicago Bears, Home, Rumor Mill
46 Responses to “Chicago wants a Super Bowl at Soldier Field”
  1. dlc618 says: May 31, 2012 3:54 PM

    haha..put a roof on that biatch and you might have a chance.

  2. tharoostah says: May 31, 2012 3:59 PM

    They cant even grow grass at Soldier. Chicago is one of the largest markets yet we have one of the smallest stadiums. If they were awarded the Superbowl I’m sure the Chicago park district would schedule some sort of mud wrestling contest on the field the night before.

  3. shackdelrio says: May 31, 2012 4:02 PM

    I wonder why they rebuilt the stadium with such a small seating capacity?

  4. kriswd40 says: May 31, 2012 4:05 PM

    Chicago needs to address their crappy field first. Better grass, field turf, etc.

  5. bum65 says: May 31, 2012 4:07 PM

    Every team should host a Super Bowl on a rotation. The game is for the fans, not millionaires and the media to have a big party in the sun.

  6. craigkleinpeter says: May 31, 2012 4:11 PM

    Emmanuel was really embarrassed when Goodell explained to him in private after the ceremony that Superbowls can’t be played in dirt pits

  7. godofwine330 says: May 31, 2012 4:11 PM

    See what they started? New Yorkers and their arrogance. “We have a new stadium. It’s not a dome but we want our Super Bowl.”

    And just like everyone bows to the Yawkers, the NFL bowed to them and gave them the game. Now, why can’t Chicago have a game? Why not Cleveland? Why not Buffalo?

    The NFL had it to where no northern city without a dome knew better than to even put IN for a Super Bowl. Now, due to New York arrogance teams are going to come out of the woodwork.

    New York, New York, big city of dreams…

  8. granadafan says: May 31, 2012 4:13 PM

    Terrible idea. Then again, maybe the corporate suits, so-called VIPs, camera-loving celebs, and the free ticket moochers might not attend if the temperature isn’t a perfect 72 degrees and leave the Super Bowl to the real fans.

  9. larryboodry says: May 31, 2012 4:14 PM

    With such a small capacity, it’ll never fly…Da Bears will play in a Super Bowl soon, much sooner than Chicago as a city will host one.

  10. jaggedmark says: May 31, 2012 4:14 PM

    This nonsense of Super Bowls in cold winter time cities has to stop.

  11. piemasteruk says: May 31, 2012 4:15 PM

    “And there’s the half and the Patriots lead two to zero, what do you make of that first half Al.”

    “Well neither team has been able to run or pass Cris and I think we can expect more of the same in the second half.”

    “Well we’ll try to come up with something deeper before the second half starts, but first lets listen to The Spice Girls do their thing in the half-time show.”

    “Oh yes, I’ve been looking forward to this Cris”

    “No wait, apparently he Spice Girls are refusing to come out, apparently they are saying ‘the weather isn’t even this s**t in England'”.

    “Okay, let’s go to Michele Tafoya on the ground”

  12. effjohntaylornorelation says: May 31, 2012 4:16 PM

    Why would anyone think the field conditions would be reasonably safe even deeper into the winter?!!!

  13. NoHomeTeam says: May 31, 2012 4:20 PM

    shackdelrio says: “I wonder why they rebuilt the stadium with such a small seating capacity?”

    Well, the Chicago Stadium Authority didn’t actually build it. All they did was demolish significant portions of Soldier Field to clear a landing zone for the UFO that’s sitting there now, wedged (sort of ) inside the old walls.

    I’d be very wary of staging a Super Bowl there, on the off chance that the craft’s original owners come looking for it.

  14. kane337 says: May 31, 2012 4:31 PM

    Everyone remember those past January playoff games at Soldier field? Snow, fog, strong winds, and cold as hell. Yea great place to host a Super Bowl. lol

  15. raqaiw says: May 31, 2012 4:33 PM

    If Chicago gets a SB FedEx Field is next up. MARVADC can handle the influx of people and it still seats upwards of 60K I think,even with all the “resizing” they’ve had to do.

  16. gdive says: May 31, 2012 4:36 PM

    Bears can blame whoever made the incredibly short sighted decision not to put a roof on the UFO. They could have had a SB, Olympics, a Final Four and who knows what else which could have paid for the roof and probably the entire project including much needed field turf.

  17. cmeyer49er says: May 31, 2012 4:41 PM

    Not enough seats. Plain and simple. Chicago should never host the Super Bowl.

    That’s the excuse the NFL has given to San Diego the past ten years.

    No Super Bowl in California, no Super Bowl in Illinois.

  18. beerbaron says: May 31, 2012 4:42 PM

    Three reasons Chicago absolutely should host a Super Bowl:

    1. Chicago’s awesome. Great football town, tons of hotels, tons of entertainment, and everything’s easy to get to by public transportation.

    2. Football is meant to be played in the elements. I’m sick of people acting like the Super Bowl needs to be played in a dome like that’s the standard or something. If your team can only execute on turf in a cozy little domed stadium, tough noogies. Brady throws for 350+ yards in a blizzard like it’s not even happening.

    3. Fans are cold? Drink more. The best winter coat you can buy is eight beers.

  19. nineroutsider says: May 31, 2012 4:45 PM

    That field is an embarrassment to the league, to the team, to the city, to the state, and to this country. It looks like a football field found in any 3rd world slum and plays like it too.

    Fix it and Chicago would perhaps be deserving although I would prefer to see one at Lambeau first if we are now playing cold weather bowls…

    SB50 will be in SF!

  20. Mr. Wright 212 says: May 31, 2012 4:47 PM

    You want a Super Bowl, and the financial windfall therein, but you refuse to pay your players.

  21. sportsinhd says: May 31, 2012 4:47 PM

    Goodell opened the flood gates with his New York bias, and now pretty much has to give every team with a new stadium a Super Bowl, regardless of domes or weather.

    If you treat one kid as special, you have to treat them all that way.

  22. jrock3x8 says: May 31, 2012 4:54 PM

    that is the worst playing surface in the NFL – no way is the NFL going to put their #1 sports showcase on a field that looks like that.

    the roof / no roof is an easy fix – Chicago can muster the resources to build a temporary roof for Soldier Field no problem.

    that field tho…diff issue.

  23. gobills716 says: May 31, 2012 4:56 PM

    I know it will never happen but every NFL city should get a chance to host the Super Bowl, not just a handful of warm weather cities rotating every year. Imagine the economic impact the super bowl would bring to the Buffalo’s or Cleveland’s of the world.

  24. sosuhme says: May 31, 2012 4:57 PM

    I am a Detroit native who has lived in Chicago for 20 years now. I am a Lions fan first and a Bears fan second (if that is possible). When they re-did Soldier Field I remember all the talk about how playing in a dome “is not Bears’ football” and a bunch of other macho man crap and thinking – “you guys are nuts.” I will not go to a game after Thanksgiving unless I’m in the Cadillac club. A couple of years ago around Christmas time a friend says to me “Hey you want to go to the Bears game tomorrow.” I instinctively said yes, and then immediately thought “what did I just say yes to – it’s suppose to be ZERO out tomorrow.” I put on every bit of clothing I owned and still froze my a** off. It was a miserable experience. Not putting at least a retractable dome on the place was a HUGE error.

  25. goredskins11 says: May 31, 2012 4:59 PM

    Football is meant to be played outside in the elements. Cold, snow, rain. It all makes the game more enjoyable. If you don’t want to get out in the elements, you shouldn’t be going to a game. Why has the Super Bowl taken such a stance against the spirit of the game? It’s all about money. In my opinion, the city that wins the Super Bowl should get to host it the next year.

  26. Buttsnake says: May 31, 2012 5:01 PM

    HAHAHAHAHAHA….never going to happen. No Super Bowl for the worst fans in the NFL

  27. goredskins11 says: May 31, 2012 5:03 PM

    Why not have it at Washington’s FedEx field? It holds 79,000 people.

  28. Mr. Wright 212 says: May 31, 2012 5:05 PM

    granadafan says: May 31, 2012 4:13 PM

    Terrible idea. Then again, maybe the corporate suits, so-called VIPs, camera-loving celebs, and the free ticket moochers might not attend if the temperature isn’t a perfect 72 degrees and leave the Super Bowl to the real fans.
    ——

    That’s why I will be on the 50 at Giants Stadium in two years when the Giants play the Ravens and exact revenge.

  29. trollhammer20 says: May 31, 2012 5:08 PM

    I seem to recall that the minimum seating number for Super Bowls is 72,000. When Seahawk Stadium was being built, it was said the seating capacity was 68,000, but that up to 5,000 seats could be added if they ever wished to host a Super Bowl.

    The same is true of the new Santa Clara 49ers stadium. Seating capacity will be around 68,500, with the ability to add more seats for a Super Bowl.

    Now, I could see Seattle or SF adding enough seats to get to 70K, especially since the stadiums were designed with adding extra seats in mind. The idea the Bears could add ten thousand seats to Soldier Field is an enormous stretch.

  30. dohpey28 says: May 31, 2012 5:09 PM

    a New York winter is not as harsh as a Chicago weather. Not a good idea.

  31. haleyistheman00 says: May 31, 2012 5:09 PM

    A roof on soldier field is just wrong! SB will Never happen with only 61k seating and horrible grass.

  32. hatesycophants says: May 31, 2012 5:13 PM

    It’s a ridiculous idea.

  33. tangledupinblue12 says: May 31, 2012 5:16 PM

    It’s a shame that our turf at Soldier Field is such garbage, because Chicago would be an absolute blast as a host. We’re probably the second most international city in the country, and the food, music and theatre scenes are top notch. But have you ever tried to get down Lake Shore Drive on a Sunday morning when the Bears are playing? (And playing, say, the Browns, in a meaningless game?). It’s impossible. I can’t even imagine what Super Bowl crowds would be like. NATO went smoothly, but those meetings weren’t held at a stadium accessed by a single road.

    Still, looking out on the Lake during the Super Bowl would be fantastic. And we’re one of the best football cities in the country. So, you know. Right culture. Right fans. Logistics? I’m not so convinced.

  34. acanniv says: May 31, 2012 5:43 PM

    If any of the so-called “cold weather” cities should get a Super Bowl, it’s definitely Denver. Avg Feb high temp of 46 degrees, tons of sunshine, plenty of winter fun all around, beautiful stadium, great football/sports city, sufficient hotel rooms.

    Denver rules.

  35. robf2010 says: May 31, 2012 5:43 PM

    Even if you can get past the horrific weather and the low seating capacity, it’s still the worst field in the NFL. Terrible idea for a Super Bowl.

  36. bearsrulepackdrool says: May 31, 2012 5:57 PM

    Hey Mayor Emmanuel. While you’re lobbying to bring a Super Bowl to our lovely city, 25 people were shot on Saturday night. Saturday Night. Not over the weekend. Not 24 hours. One Night.

    You put all these billions of dollars into renovating the eyesore Wrigley Field, beautifying downtown, and bringing a Super Bowl here. People are dying on these streets.

  37. jayniner says: May 31, 2012 5:58 PM

    Everyone wants a Super Bowl at [insert your team's field name here]….

  38. baddorange says: May 31, 2012 6:06 PM

    What a dump. G.D. unions lock that place down.

  39. dcbassguy says: May 31, 2012 6:06 PM

    Forget the roof, fix the turf!!!!! That has to be the worst playing surface in the NFL.

  40. gcsuk says: May 31, 2012 6:08 PM

    godofwine330 says: May 31, 2012 4:11 PM

    See what they started? New Yorkers and their arrogance. “We have a new stadium. It’s not a dome but we want our Super Bowl.”

    And just like everyone bows to the Yawkers, the NFL bowed to them and gave them the game. Now, why can’t Chicago have a game? Why not Cleveland? Why not Buffalo?

    The NFL had it to where no northern city without a dome knew better than to even put IN for a Super Bowl. Now, due to New York arrogance teams are going to come out of the woodwork.

    New York, New York, big city of dreams…
    ——————————————————————-
    I’m gonna bet that your seat in front of your TV for the Super Bowl is going to be the same as it was last year. You don’t need to worry about the cold.

  41. lks311 says: May 31, 2012 7:42 PM

    Arguably, the coldest (inhabited) city in the U.S. in February, so the game has a high “suck” factor. But, the city would put on one great party.

  42. dd393 says: May 31, 2012 7:57 PM

    Sure. As soon the NFL allows green painted dirt as the official playing surface of the Super Bowl.

  43. Corey W. says: May 31, 2012 7:57 PM

    Nothing against the Bears fans or their stadium structure or anything like that, but that field is absolute garbage! The actual field itself. It’s like they found a batch of dirt and asked Bosley to transplant dead grass into it.

    They let every high school and college team in the region play on it and by the time Sunday roles around and the Bears have to play on it, it’s already torn to pieces. Maybe they should make sure the field is primed for the team it is intended for.

    As an Eagles fan I dread every time the Eagles are forced to play on that garbage field. It makes their speed count for nothing.

    It is sickening, the field is only slightly better than that Monday night game in Miami, where the field was actually swallowed up by the Earth resulting in a 3-0 game. Fix your field for good or don’t talk about getting a Superbowl.

  44. bjo109 says: May 31, 2012 9:23 PM

    You want a Super Bowl, and the financial windfall therein, but you refuse to pay your players.

    —————————–

    What players have the Bears not paid? Let me guess- Forte?

    They paid Vasher, Tillman, Urlacher, Briggs, Bennett, Cutler, Hester, Jennings, Garza, and so on.

    So, let me guess: they’re cheap because they won’t pay Forte? Forte has had 3 major knee injuries since his junior year at Tulane. He’s also going on his 5th full season as an NFL player. At this point in his career, Ladainian Tomlinson started his decline, and not just any decline, but a sharp one, as in 1-1.5 ypc annually.

    Forte has been a GREAT back for the Bears and has been the focal point of the offense for 4 years. Essentially, he’s been THE offense for 4 years, which is exactly why the Bears shouldn’t give him an extension. They should tag him this year and in 2013, and after that, let him walk. They would give him about $17M in the next 2 years. If you can’t live on that, get a better accountant.

  45. rabbdogg says: Jun 1, 2012 8:06 AM

    boo to u idiots that want a snow filled rainy sloppy superbowl….the championship game should be played in as perfect conditions as possible…so u know the two football teams decide who the champion is and a snow flake doesnt decide the champ…better conditions leaves no b.s. advantage for either team regardless of if they play in new york or san fran…lets the best team win….not the team thats used to playing in the snow so they have a built in advantage in a snowy championship game….that would truely suck….and no idiots the game wasnt “meant” to be played in the elements…it was meant to be played in ” all elements” including near perfect with sunshine and warmth..

  46. bearsfan4life says: Jun 1, 2012 8:50 AM

    If I brought my family, would we all have to be molested by the TSA to gain entry?

    And has Goodell ever been to Chicago? Imagine a fan getting lost on the south side after the game… would the media report it like a nato summit or not mention it like a meeting in Virginia?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!