# Do you like the UEFA Elite Stadium ranking system?



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

For location that might be subjective, as one person may think a stadium in the suburbs with car access is better than a stadium in the centre with public transport access?? 

Personally public transport access is better for me, but others may differ...


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Public Transportation is huge. It might need to be subjective because in America we like to drive to our games and tailgate in the parking lot around the stadium.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

tail what..?


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Maybe lets start with a benchmark.

e.g. and just an example! Allianz Arena gets 100 points!
All other stadia based on various factors are either rated above or below that benchmark.

Not suggesting Allianz is the best but one has to start somewhere.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

tailgate! Gather around outside the stadium behind your car or truck. get drunk, cook food and get ready for the game!





































Thats America. Our Arenas are more based around public transportation.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ unbelievably american lol!


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> Maybe lets start with a benchmark.
> 
> e.g. and just an example! Allianz Arena gets 100 points!
> All other stadia based on various factors are either rated above or below that benchmark.
> ...


why does it get 100 points? we need a way for the stadium to accumulate their points.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> Maybe lets start with a benchmark.
> 
> e.g. and just an example! Allianz Arena gets 100 points!
> All other stadia based on various factors are either rated above or below that benchmark.
> ...


That's not a bad idea. Do it as a value added, value taken away from sort of system.

That is it is still marked out of ten, but starts at -5 rather than 0. Every stadium gets an automatic score of 100, then good stadiums are above 100, and bad stadiums are below??

You lose marks for negative aspects and gain marks for positive aspects.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> ^^ unbelievably american lol!


we are starting to do it for Soccer too. Wait till the Next world cup is held over here. It will be a new pre soccer game tradition!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

what day they do in city centre (downtown) stadiums?? tailgate on public transport?


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

??? what?

We tailgate before the games.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

yeah if you go to a game in the city centre you go by public transport no?

or do they have a tailgate in the suburbs then board the train for the centre?


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

Ganis said:


> *Size* (Set Number for size value)
> *Location* (Distance from large Metropolis, parking, road access, Public transportation access)
> *View Lines* (Fan opinion)
> *Usage* (Scheduling future and past)
> ...



Thats a pretty neat. "Movement" can be changed to accessibility. Also, if we rate every one of it from 0-10, we have 110, they are 11, we must make some changes and leave one out


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

atmosphere is irrelevant to how good the stadium is as that depends on the fans...


----------



## larsul (May 26, 2007)

bigbossman said:


> atmosphere is irrelevant to how good the stadium is as that depends on the fans...


The other thing is that for example how people from Asia are going to vote for a stadium like for example Aztec stadium about transportation when they never been in mexico city?
Not a lot of people knows that you can take the subway and then you have to take train to get to the stadium. 
That applies to the same for me for example, how can i vote for Lushniki Stadium in Moscow on transport or location when i have never been to Moscow..

it is just an idea..


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

^^Apparently every stadium should have a presentation. Then we copy paste the list and everyone gives the score. After a set amount of post, the thread starter posts the results (?) But there are so many that its impossible. We should just make a thread for each stadium type (?)


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

These are the catagories I judge stadiums by:

-interior architecture 
-exterior architecture
-Site lines
-fan amenities (scoreboards, ect)
-comfort (# or restrooms, are the concorses wide enough to handle a capacity crowd, ect)
-Bonus points (parking lots for tailgating, public transport access, ect)
-negitive points for roofs or retractable roofs on american football stadiums

Not important: size, location, usage.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> atmosphere is irrelevant to how good the stadium is as that depends on the fans...


not necessarily


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> yeah if you go to a game in the city centre you go by public transport no?
> 
> or do they have a tailgate in the suburbs then board the train for the centre?


Fans often do park in a more remote location and take public transit to the games, but I haven't heard of anybody tailgating before doing so.

If a stadium is located within the urban core, there will be a mix of parking/tailgating and some people riding public transit.

If a stadium is located on the outskirts of the city and/or in an area with little or no public transportation, there will be a LOT more tailgating.

Tailgating is mainly an NFL and college football phenomenon, where, with only 8 home dates during the regular season (and anywhere from 5-8 in college), each game is a big event--for other sports that play a lot more games during the regular season--mainly, MLB (~80 home games), NBA and NHL (~40 home games each), tailgating is much, much less frequent, and due to a majority of arenas and baseball stadiums being located within the urban core, a lot of fans take public transportation.


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

What's "tailgating" :dunno:


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

KingmanIII said:


> Fans often do park in a more remote location and take public transit to the games, but I haven't heard of anybody tailgating before doing so.
> 
> If a stadium is located within the urban core, there will be a mix of parking/tailgating and some people riding public transit.
> 
> ...


you're from KC, right? There are always fans tailgating at royals games, even with 80 of em. About once a week I'm out there BBQing and throwing a football.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

weava said:


> you're from KC, right? There are always fans tailgating at royals games, even with 80 of em. About once a week I'm out there BBQing and throwing a football.


I know, Kauffman is one of the few exceptions--tailgating isn't quite as strong as at the Chiefs games, but walking to the stadium I definitely see my fair share of BBQ grills and beanbag toss games.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

I dont get paid enough to really put this all together. Of my list we can get rid of Icon because that and History is the same thing.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

ReiAyanami said:


> What's "tailgating" :dunno:


Its a a large gathering of people who grill, talk and have fun before a sporting event. Bring your own food, beer and anything else you want to have a good time. Named after the tailgate of a truck, which is how most people bring all this stuff to the parking lot.


----------



## ReiAyanami (May 14, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Its a a large gathering of people who grill, talk and have fun before a sporting event. Bring your own food, beer and anything else you want to have a good time. Named after the tailgate of a truck, which is how most people bring all this stuff to the parking lot.


I don't think this is even legal here.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

only American stadiums are surrounded by the parking lots big enough to do it in.


----------



## Ragarms (Sep 11, 2008)

Ganis said:


> you would need more subjective rating then objective. Atmosphere and View Lines are the objective. Size is Subjective and will have set standards.
> 
> Size:
> 75,000 - 100,00+ = 5
> ...


lol, dude... you know you could've just put 75,000+?
:lol:


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Ragarms said:


> lol, dude... you know you could've just put 75,000+?
> :lol:


The size doesn't even really give much of any info about the quality of a stadium.
The Olympiastadium in Berlin or the zentralstadion in Leipzig for example are way to big for their tennants to have a great atmosphere.
An oversized stadium is one of the biggest burdens a club may have to deal with, because an oversized stadium basically guarantees for a poor antmosphere and high maintenance cost or stadium rent. A good indicator for a rating would much rather be how full a stadium is in the average. 
And then you still need to deal with stadia that are too small for the demand. 
The size of the stadium alone is just a number which is only interesting in a "bigger is better" contest, but not more. 
A good stadium barely meets the full demand of places and still is crowded on average matchdays. That's the optimum, not making a stadium as big as possible. Many clubs do suffer severely from having oversized venues and often even to a dramatic extend. Not rarely even leeding as far as into the clubs and /or the stadium owners bankruptcy.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Ragarms said:


> lol, dude... you know you could've just put 75,000+?
> :lol:


true. I was on a personal high from creating the list.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Anyway lets start with *some* A+ rating venues (runs for cover!)

Allianz Arena
Wembley Stadium
Berlin Olympiastadion
Stade de France
Telstra Stadium 
Estádio da Luz
Emirates Stadium 
Millennium Stadium 
Soldier Field 
Olympiastadion Berlin 
City of Manchester Stadium 
Amsterdam Arena


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> Anyway lets start with *some* A+ rating venues (runs for cover!)
> 
> Allianz Arena
> Wembley Stadium
> ...


I agree with all of those, and I'd add Saitama Stadium, Seoul World Cup Stadium, Qwest Field and Celtic Park.


----------



## Mickeebee (Jan 17, 2007)

No Etihad Stadium or MCG????????


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Mickeebee said:


> No Etihad Stadium or MCG????????


MCG...uh no.


----------



## Mickeebee (Jan 17, 2007)

Mo Rush said:


> MCG...uh no.


Well the MCG is a damn sight better and BIGGER than most of the stadiums on your list.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

Mo Rush said:


> Maybe lets start with a benchmark.
> 
> e.g. and just an example! Allianz Arena gets 100 points!



hno:Allianz Arena is on the edge of nowhere, you have to walk allmost a mile from the underground station to the entrance, the inside of the stadium is nothing but grey.....


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Mickeebee said:


> Well the MCG is a damn sight better and BIGGER than most of the stadiums on your list.


if you say so.


----------



## www.sercan.de (Aug 10, 2003)

Porto stadium??!


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Mo Rush said:


> Anyway lets start with *some* A+ rating venues (runs for cover!)
> 
> Allianz Arena
> Wembley Stadium
> ...


Add New Orleans Superdome, Land Shark Stadium (Dolphin Stadium) and Lambough (History makes it great)


Are we adding baseball stadiums to this as well?

If so... Dodger Field, Wrigley, Fenway.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

It's pretty pointless to rate stadium when the opinion are so dispersive. We will never agree on subjects like roofs, transportation and size. That, however, would be necessary to compare stadiums in different parts of the world.


----------



## Steel City Suburb (Jun 13, 2007)

I'd take Wembley off.

Its a nice stadium but its a football stadium, and as that it represents everything what is wrong with English football. 

Take it off the list.


----------



## Welshlad (Apr 22, 2003)

Steel City Suburb said:


> I'd take Wembley off.
> 
> Its a nice stadium but its a football stadium, and as that it represents everything what is wrong with English football.
> 
> Take it off the list.


I find that its a bit posh for my liking. Its too much like an American Footy Stadium, big... over sized, spacious and what not. Can't really blame anyone for it but ourselves though, if they had built a good slighlty cramped footbally type stadium everyone would complain that it wasn't the biggest and the best!!

Still an A+ stadium


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Ganis said:


> Add New Orleans Superdome, Land Shark Stadium (Dolphin Stadium) and Lambough (History makes it great)
> 
> 
> Are we adding baseball stadiums to this as well?
> ...


Superdome? No. Dolphin Stadium? No. Lamb*eau*? Maybe.


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

Well if we start talking about history as an aspect.
We should include other stadia than Lambeau.

The Ghazi stadium in Kabul for example Afghanistans national stadium the Taliban used for publix executions.

The Croke Park in Dublin where the bloody sunday happened on November 21st. in 1920. 

And some other stadia with an important history like those.

There are plenty of stadia with a really relevant history, one of far more importance than the sort of rather irrelevant history Lambeau Field has.
Stadia that are true monuments telling the world about some Major historic events.

If history shall be an aspekt in the ranking, then please take "real" history as a measure. Not just rather unimportant stuff like the first stadium with a movable pitch or with a retractable roof, or the first tennis stadium with heated seats.... or that sort of stuff.


----------



## Cracovia (May 29, 2007)

This tailgating thing sounds really fun...though doubt it would ever catch on in Poland, or anywhere in Europe generally


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

en1044 said:


> Superdome? No. Dolphin Stadium? No. Lamb*eau*? Maybe.


why not?

Superdome and Dolphin are the 2 most used stadiums in the country. Both are finishing up major renovations, can hold a large crowd and have a great history and Iconic Look.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Cracovia said:


> This tailgating thing sounds really fun...though doubt it would ever catch on in Poland, or anywhere in Europe generally


there is no place to do it in Europe. your stadiums dont have huge parking lots around them.


----------



## trmather (Feb 7, 2008)

Steel City Suburb said:


> I'd take Wembley off.
> 
> Its a nice stadium but its a football stadium, and as that it represents everything what is wrong with English football.
> 
> Take it off the list.


Nah don't, it's a brilliant stadium.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Ganis said:


> why not?
> 
> Superdome and Dolphin are the 2 most used stadiums in the country. Both are finishing up major renovations, can hold a large crowd and have a great history and Iconic Look.


Because neither of them are spectacular in any way. The Superdome needs more renovations and theres nothing special about Dolphin Stadium


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Alemanniafan said:


> Well if we start talking about history as an aspect.
> We should include other stadia than Lambeau.
> 
> The Ghazi stadium in Kabul for example Afghanistans national stadium the Taliban used for publix executions.
> ...


I think people here are referring to *sports* history...not major historical events that happened to take place at sporting venues.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

(Mods, please DO NOT merge this with another thread.)
In 2006, the Union of European Football Associations replaced the four- and five-star ranking system with the UEFA Elite Stadium. Personally, I had begun to hate the new system because that will mean that stadiums with a capacity less than 40,000 will be selected to host a UEFA Cup Final and stadiums with a capacity less than 60,000 will be selected to host a UEFA Champions League Final. This new system is stupid.

The old criteria are:
Minimum seating capacity of 50,000 (5-star venues) / 30,000 (4-star venues) – individual seats with backrests. (Venues that still have individual seats without proper backrests will still continue to be accepted. In the future, however, closer attention will be paid to this aspect, and which will influence the committee’s decision regarding the addition of venues to these list categories.)
Pitch dimensions of 105 x 68 m. The field of play must be in pristine condition and be prepared accordingly for a final (quality of grass, irrigation, smooth surface, etc.).
Protective fences around the field of play are not acceptable. Venues which have such installations will not be included on the list.
Sufficient room around the field of play for advertising boards and at least 18 TV cameras. In addition, there must be enough room between the goals and the first row of spectator seats behind both goals for a minimum of 150 photographers.
First-rate dressing-rooms for both teams and the referees (equal size and furnishings for both teams, spacious, bright and clean).
Suitable and appropriately equipped drug-testing room.
Floodlighting of a minimum intensity of 1,400 lux (eV) in the direction of the main camera, and of 1,000 Lux (eV) towards the other areas of the stadium, plus an efficient emergency power supply able to provide, without interruption, the same luminous light intensity as the main lighting.
Modern security installations (access monitoring system, adequate PA system, etc.).
A permanent TV surveillance system in colour that is able to monitor the movement of spectators, as well as their behaviour inside and outside the stadium. This installation must also be able to produce still shots of any troublemakers, which can then be distributed immediately to the security officers / stewards in the stadium.
Clear signage that everyone can understand inside and outside the stadium, as well as in its immediate vicinity.
Suitable covered seats for disabled spectators and their accompanying persons (minimum of two sectors with at least 50 places each). The areas for disabled spectators must be adequately equipped with toilet facilities and a refreshment bar.
Acceptable sanitary facilities for spectators (both sexes) in terms of numbers, cleanliness and standards. Toilets without seats will no longer be accepted for spectators of either sex.
Provision of first-rate media facilities in terms of camera positions, working places, TV studios, etc., in accordance with the “UEFA Guidelines for Media Facilities”.
Adequate first-class facilities must be provided for VIPs, including a minimum of 150 places in the Honorary Tribune VIP box.
International airport(s) able to cope with the huge extra demands of a UEFA final (capacity for up to 60 charter flights per day in addition to the normal, scheduled flights)
Adequate hotel accommodation. For UEFA and its partners, at least 1,000 five-star hotel rooms (UEFA Champions League) / 500 rooms (UEFA Cup) are needed. In addition, enough other hotel accommodation in all types of category must be available.

The new Criteria are:
Stadia must be all-seated and have a minimum capacity of 30,000
The playing surface dimensions must be 105 metres in length and 68 metres in width
The playing surface must either be natural turf or FIFA-licensed artificial turf
The substitute benches must seat at least 13 people
The dressing rooms must seat at least 25 people
There should also be a separate 'Delegate's Room', 'Doping Station' and 'First Aid Room'
Stadiums must have CCTV both inside and outside and a 'Security Control Room'
Must provide seating for at least 1500 VIPs and 200 journalists
The floodlights must light the pitch to an illuminance of at least 1400 lux
There must be at least three TV studios within the Stadium.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

No. Decreasing the capacity minimums is pointless because they've said they won't pick any stadium under the old limits to host the finals anyway!

When they talk about seats which haven't got proper backrests, what are they talking about? The crappy single-mould seats which for some reason are still being installed across the world! or the ones with just a ridge for support?


----------



## Alemanniafan (Dec 15, 2008)

I don't like the old system and I don't really like the new one either.
But I find it slightly better. One of the reasons is, that I see no point to make large size such a hard criteria to distinguish between 4 and 5 stars. 
A brand new, modern 45k stadium with exquisite features and lots of comfort for the spectators wasn't able to get into the hightest ranking category, but an old reworked 52k stadium with partially poor sightlines, barely meeting all those requirements was. That never really made all that much sense to me.

But even in the new ranking, the criteria are far too much based on the needs of the press, TV broadcasting, the sportsmen, the officials, the VIPs and hardly on the wants and needs of the spectators, the guests at all.
A stadium can basically have large distances between the stands and the pitch, poor sightlines and uncomfortable seats all over the place and still get the maximum rating, as long as the referees have a spa and a minibar in their quarters.


----------



## Troopchina (Oct 7, 2005)

I don't like at all. IMHO any stadium with the running track around the field is not a proper football stadium and isn't elite by all means.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Alemanniafan said:


> But even in the new ranking, the criteria are far too much based on the needs of the press, TV broadcasting, the sportsmen, the officials, the VIPs and hardly on the wants and needs of the spectators, the guests at all.
> A stadium can basically have large distances between the stands and the pitch, poor sightlines and uncomfortable seats all over the place and still get the maximum rating, as long as the referees have a spa and a minibar in their quarters.


Totally agree with what you've said here - and UEFA wonder why no-one likes or respects them. They look after the media and themselves far too much.



Troopchina said:


> I don't like at all. IMHO any stadium with the running track around the field is not a proper football stadium and isn't elite by all means.


:lol: Bang on mate! :cheers:


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Troopchina said:


> I don't like at all. IMHO any stadium with the running track around the field is not a proper football stadium and isn't elite by all means.


Sadly, the idiots at UEFA _love_ tracks.


----------



## VegaM (Jul 16, 2008)

Why Emirates Stadium (London) is not a 5* Elite stadium ? ^^


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

VegaM said:


> Why Emirates Stadium (London) is not a 5* Elite stadium ? ^^


They must've visited Wembley on the same day. :lol:


----------



## Richo83 (Nov 19, 2008)

Troopchina said:


> I don't like at all. IMHO any stadium with the running track around the field is not a proper football stadium and isn't elite by all means.


Exactly, Rome isn't a proper football stadium, Emirates on the other hand is. Stupid UEFA.


----------



## VelesHomais (Sep 1, 2004)

It's alright.


----------



## jandeczentar (Aug 14, 2009)

I think 50,000 is too small a capacity for the Champions League Final. Judging by the choice of venues recently UEFA seem to agree. Since 2004:

2005 - Ataturk Stadium, Istanbul (Capacity: 76,000)
2006 - Stade de France, Paris (80,000)
2007 - Olympic Stadium, Athens (71,000)
2008 - Luzhniki Stadium, Moscow (79,000)
2009 - Olympic Stadium, Rome (72,000)
2010 - Bernebeu Stadium, Madrid (80,000)
2011 - Wembley Stadium, London (90,000)
2012 - Allianz Arena, Munich (66,000)

Capacity is less of an issue in the UEFA Cup/Europa League Final because the teams that contest it tend to be less well supported. Espanyol played Sevilla in the final at Hampden Park a couple of years ago and it was barely two-thirds full.

UEFA like running tracks because it makes it more difficult to throw objects on to, or invade, the pitch (in their opinion).

The Emirates Stadium is probably not on the elite list because Arsenal have not asked for it to be. Just because a stadium meets all the criteria doesn't necessarily mean that it is automatically put on. Plus, there is a chance that Arsenal might get to the final and UEFA like the final to be on neutral territory (although there are examples of teams playing major finals "at home" so they don't always get it how they want).


----------

