Is MetLife Stadium a worthy World Cup final venue?

MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, five miles west of Manhattan, has a long-standing poor reputation among locals. New Jersey sports columnist Steve Politi described it as "blah," while readers compared it to a giant prison toilet or an air conditioner. Opened in 2010 at a cost of $1.6 billion, the stadium features a modern metallic exterior with programmable lighting, 82,500 seats, and 200 luxury suites. It is home to two NFL teams and has hosted events like the Super Bowl, Wrestlemania, and concerts by Paul McCartney and Beyonce.

Fans attending World Cup matches faced traffic congestion and high prices. Train tickets from New York cost $98, and beers inside the stadium were expensive. One fan from Manchester, Jason Bentham, preferred Atlanta's Mercedes-Benz Stadium, which is air-conditioned and has cheaper concessions. However, FIFA selected MetLife for its location in the world's media, entertainment, and economic capital. Alex Lasry, CEO of the FIFA World Cup 26 NYNJ Host Committee, highlighted that the stadium is part of a larger celebration, with thousands watching from iconic spots like Rockefeller Center and Central Park. He noted that 97% of fans are scanned in before kickoff and that the venue is cleared within 2.5 hours after matches.

While the choice makes business sense, concerns remain about the pitch. Natural grass replaced artificial turf, and players complained it was dry and hard. Brazil's Vinicius Jr and France's coach Didier Deschamps criticized the surface, but FIFA insists all pitches are healthy. With rain and storms forecast, the open-air stadium risks delays. Some fans, like Iain Bagwell from Twickenham, prefer Atlanta for its roof, central location, good transport, and cheap food. Nonetheless, Politi believes MetLife can be a worthy final venue when full and lively, creating a rocking atmosphere.