# Stadium capital of the world



## HendrX (Oct 26, 2008)

Which is it??

Tokyo, Paris, New York, London,........,..........,.........?


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

in terms of sheer numbers and capacity, Los Angeles and London would be my guess?


----------



## Quintana (Dec 27, 2005)

LA, London or Melbourne.


----------



## EPA001 (Jan 13, 2008)

I would "vote" for London as well.


----------



## gugasounds (Jun 7, 2007)

Well i guess it should be london, but i mean LA area has a considerable amount of stadiums, but should be london.


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

I'm no soothsayer......but I can see trouble ahead in this thread!


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

London or Buenos Aires

If AFL and NRL teams in Melbourne and Sydney (respectively) weren't sharing giant stadia, they'd be in the running. I know the old grounds still exist, but it's not the same.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

London probably has the most. Think how many league football stadiums there are alone.


----------



## Ivanski (Feb 24, 2008)

London of course.


----------



## Sponsor (Mar 19, 2006)

Pointing at one stadium that would be Camp Nou for me.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

I see a poll coming


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

I know its not the biggest and best but I might as well post Melbourne.

Football (Australian football, Rugby and Football)

- MCG 100,000
- Docklands 55,000
- Melbourne Rectangular stadium 31,500 (will be finished early 2010)
- Princes Park 30,000
- Victoria Park 27,000
- Moorabbin oval 27,000
- Whitten Oval 25,000
- Olympic Park 18,000 (Athletics)
- Bob Jane Stadium 15,000

Tennis

- Rod Laver Arena 15,000 (also used for basketball)
- Hisense Arena 11,000 (Also for track cycling, Basketball)
- Kooyong Centre court 8,500
- Margaret court Arena 6,000

Motor Sport

- Albert Park F1
- Phillip Island Moto GP
- Sandown 50,000
- Calder Park 44,000

Horse racing

- Flemington 150,000
- Caulfield 50,000
- Mooney Valley 40,000

Thats Most of them I think


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

London for sure.
LA has some large venues in the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum,but they are old.


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

How about everybody lists their top 5 or 10 stadium capitals and then we can move on to a poll for 2009.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

London
LA
New York
Sydney
Melbourne
Beijing
Paris
Munich
Tokyo
Athens


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Lets limit this to just stadia, so for now excluding arena/horse racing tracks


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

Mo Rush said:


> Lets limit this to just stadia, so for now excluding arena/horse racing tracks


and to a certain degree...quality...no suburban parks.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

ExSydney said:


> London for sure.
> LA has some large venues in the Rose Bowl and the Coliseum,but they are old.


Not the point.  It's the sheer amount of venues and capacity overall. 

I'd say.....

LA
London
Sydney
New York/New Jersey
Beijing
Tokyo
Athens
Melbourne 
Paris
Munich


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

Kenni said:


> Not the point.  It's the sheer amount of venues and capacity overall.
> 
> I'd say.....
> 
> ...


Well, actually, no one has yet defined what "stadium capital of the world" means.

It could, as you say, just mean the number of stadiums and the overall capacity.

It could mean the quality of the stadiums.

Or it could just mean the iconic nature of the stadiums. How famous they are. How vaunted within their particular sport.

In that respect, I'd guess that London wins out over LA.

LA has the Coliseum. A great stadium, which has hosted the Olympics. But which of its other stadiums are truly iconic on a worldwide scale?

I'm not a basketball fan but I guess that the Lakers being such a great and historic name in the NBA could mean that the Staples Centre is world renowned.

The Rose bowl is a great American stadium but, even though it hosted a World Cup final, it's not really an iconic stadium at a world level. That's not entirely the stadium's fault, of course. Part of the reason is that it is mostly used for American football. And not even NFL football at that. It's used for college football.

Dodger stadium? Yep, it's famous. But is it one of those baseball stadiums that has a sense of history and inspires feelings of awe - like Yankee stadium, Wrigley Field or Fenway Park? Debatable, certainly.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

Yup, the parameters are sketchy.

And yes, Dodgers stadium is considered "a cathedral" of baseball.
Remember, the OG Yankee Stadium is gone, only the memories remain, and a new very expensive replica 

In baseball, talk to any aficionado and three stadiums come to mind; Fenway, Wrigley and Dodger Stadium. Three jewels that are irreplaceable and incomparable.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

anywho, I was originally going to say Los Angeles... but after reading up on London, its extremely hard to compete with that city! They pretty much have world class stadiums in all but a couple sports.


I'd also like to add that some latin american mega cities have a very impressive array of venues, especially Mexico city and Buenos Aires.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> Saying that nobody cares about a sport outside the U.S. isn't bashing? I guess since you're an Australian agreeing with a Brit, it makes you right? I think its funny how you disgregard basketball (North America, some Latin American countries, China, Europe), Baseball (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Latin America, North America), football (the most profitable league in the world, huge in the US, Canada, and growing in many parts of Mexico).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you read my posts you would see I said Basketball is popular internationally. No other American sport is followed through much of the World. Baseball has a few areas where it is played yes but in most areas it is not popular and has nowhere near the following of Football, tennis, Rugby, Olympic sports (e.g. Athlettics) and many others and American football is not followed at all outside the countrys you mentioned. 

And again if you read my post you would see that I said not all Americans are ignorant but there is a large part of your population live inside a bubble where they don't know of anything outside of there borders. I remember on my first day in America a couple of years ago a woman asked me how long it took to drive from Australia. On the other hand you also have some of the brightest minds in the world. I am by no means bashing your country or been ignorant.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis (Oct 7, 2008)

London. No one comes even close.


----------



## dom (Sep 11, 2002)

There's a bit of argy-bargey going on this thread!

It's fair to say that LA, London and Melbourne are the main cities for stadia in the world. 

The question is, which city has the highest number of saleable sports seats for games, total gross attendence per annum and highest theoretical attendence?

Now I'd wager that LA and Melbourne might be suprise wins on absolute capacity as you've got the Rosebowl in LA and MCC in Melbourne which are absolutely massive.

However, the Premiership is a huge draw and its almost impossible to get tickets for the games in London so maybe overall attendence in London is the highest?

In terms of sports stadia honorable regards must go out to the San Siro in Milan, Camp Nou in Barca and the Bernabaeu in Madrid. 

It is one of my life's ambitions to watch a AC Milan-Inter Milan football game at the San Siro!!!! Truly one of the homes of football.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

JimB said:


> Ganis - nice photos of LA (and suburbs) stadiums and sports arenas. Here's London:
> 
> 
> Wembley:
> ...


F Me... London wins.....


----------



## kaqueme (Oct 16, 2009)

Great work .. really informative .. and thanks a lot for sharing ..


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

dom said:


> The question is, which city has the highest number of saleable sports seats for games, total gross attendence per annum and highest theoretical attendence?


(More than) 8'140'776 watched football in London in the 2008/09 season. The figure includes all football game I can think of within Greater London from England internationals to AFC Wimbledon. I left out the lower league sides as they won't have much to add. Neither does the number include friendlies of club sides.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

mvictory said:


> If you read my posts you would see I said Basketball is popular internationally. *No other American sport is followed through much of the World.* Baseball has a few areas where it is played yes but in most areas it is not popular and has nowhere near the following of Football, tennis, Rugby, Olympic sports (e.g. Athlettics) and many others and American football is not followed at all outside the countrys you mentioned.


First of all, do your homework. Those aren't US sports, all of them are *north American sports.* Baseball has spread far beyond north America and is popular on 3 continents. Baseball has widespread appeal. Hockey is mostly north America and Europe. Of the big 4 north American sports, football has made the least impact globally. Canadian football is played only in Canada, and the US version almost exclusively in the US, but even that is changing. The US version (what you call American football) is gaining a significant following in Mexico and many small pockets around the world.


----------



## Basincreek (Mar 10, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> I live in the same state as you and I've heard of near every football ground listed and a couple others, too. This "arrogantly ignorant American" act has to stop around here. You claiming not to know Wembley does not degrade its stature in the world. Acknowledge that we live in a bubble and take that into consideration here. Earth and the United States are not synonymous.


I never said I hadn't heard of Wembley. I said I never hear about it _in the media_. Thanks to this forum I have heard about the major stadia in London.

My statement was as much an indictment of the regionalist nature of sports coverage as anything else. I was pointing out how, in the USA, you can't escape knowing about places like the Rose Bowl while the rest of the world might never hear of it and how, conversely, famous stadiums in London get little to no exposure here.

And I wasn't trying to degrade the stature of anyone. Personally I have no opinion on who is the "stadium capital of the world" I was just pointing out that some of these stadiums (in all the cities mentioned) are not as well known as some people assume.


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Basincreek said:


> Personally I have no opinion on who is the "stadium capital of the world" I was just pointing out that some of these stadiums (in all the cities mentioned) are not as well known as some people assume.


I think you are confused.

This thread is about trying to find out which city is the stadium capital of the world. Whether you, I or anyone else has heard of the stadiums is of no consequence. The only fact that matters is whether or not these stadia exist. The argument for London has been put forward and until someone else can prove otherwise then it seems that London is indeed the daddy. 

Oh and 'opinions' don't really count in this instance.

:cheers:


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

weava said:


> League with largest total season attendence in world: MLB 79,502,524 (and its not even close, the NBA comes in 2nd with just over 21 million)
> League with highest average attendence: NFL: 68,240
> NCAA FBS total season attendence: 37,483,158 (17 teams average over 80,000 per game and 5 teams will average over 100,000 per game this year)
> 
> ...


The MLB plays a massive amount of games so don't try to fool people into believing that.

There are very few NFL and college home games so demand is bound to be higher. The only impressive statistic is that people pay to watch college sports at all. That's something people in this country would find very hard to understand.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^college sport is no different to youth sport over here, people pay to see the youth cup and the world youth cup, egypt got 80,000 in all their games to see u20s. I'd imagine if all premier league players went through BUSA then college sport would be bigger here. Case in point Baseball developed like football over here and the college game is minor.... Pro Basketball and American football developed after the college game and what's more they are mutually beneficial.

Also look at the size of their universities they are huge compared to ours.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

weava said:


> So hosting an olymipic games once or twice makes a stadium more worthy than one that hosts worlds 3 largest sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NCAA)on a daily/weekly basis plus all the championship games on a yearly bases?


Absoutely.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

soup or man said:


> Absoutely.


I think thats very subjective. Not every Olympic stadium is an all time great, and not every American stadium lacks history.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

Luke80 said:


> The MLB plays a massive amount of games so don't try to fool people into believing that.
> 
> There are very few NFL and college home games so demand is bound to be higher. The only impressive statistic is that people pay to watch college sports at all. That's something people in this country would find very hard to understand.


Do you even know the numbers? If you remove 80 percent of the games, it would still have more attendance than whatever it is you're thinking of. Not that I'm defending the sport, baseball is boring as hell...

but some of you Europeans need to get off this "if we don't like it, nobody likes it" mentallity, its really damn annoying sometimes and makes your typical snobby American look open minded.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ It's clear that you don't understand that *European people aren't saying that*, (the fact that I mentioned about watching Florida state Seminoles would tell you I personally like american football). We're just saying you guys are using statistical selectivity to big up your leagues to be bigger than they are. 

In weava's reposnse he bigged up one league for it's total attendance and another for it's average. Clearly using whatever stat supports his argument best to "prove" his point. 

*Population and Games played matter a lot*, in relative terms these aren't that impressive. *The most impressive is probably without a doubt AFL* (australia) even though it is closed it is taking it's supporter base from around half the population of Australia, the support of dutch football is also extremely impressive.


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> but some of you Europeans need to get off this "if we don't like it, nobody likes it" mentallity, its really damn annoying sometimes and makes your typical snobby American look open minded.


Don't worry, I get your irony.

Either that or you're on a WUM.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

^^ no point in that reply other than to bash the U.S. You're a ****.



bigbossman said:


> 1. Total attendance, come on now... you are counting people more than once
> 2. Each of the 30 teams plays 81 home games.


so? Still has 4 times the attendance of any other league... still impressive that they have so many fans willing to pay, right? Wait, its not soccer, so its not.... sorry I forgot. :lol: I hate the MLB, and I KNOW thats impressive. Averaging 32,000 spectators for 2,400 games isn't impressive? Then most leagues in Europe aren't either.



> 1. total attendnace, come on now...
> 2. Each of the 30 teams plays 41 home games


So? They're playing in Arenas with 20 to 25 percent the capacity of a European stadium.




> 32 professional teams in a country of 300+ million. Only one of those teams plays in a metro of less than a million.
> 
> They play 8 home games a season


Theres actually around 120 professional sports teams in the country(not even counting the MLS or college teams), theres more than the NFl, you know.... and its still competing with college sports, which draw more than 3-4 European leagues alone...




> around 6 home games a season. (some less, one or two more)
> State universities have massive alumni and they are the pro teams in many cities/states
> 
> I mean the only reason Nebraska has sold out for 40 odd years is because that's all nebraska has got...


Again... more bashing... what about those pissant little towns in Europe where people have nothing to do but watch soccer? 





> Yes because the most populated FOOTBALL country is only a developing nation and has a population 2/3 yours.
> 
> The next has less than half your population.
> 
> ...



Considering the numbers for EACH LEAGUE... yes, thats very, very impressive. Does Europe have 4 world-class caliber leagues? Besides the champions league nothing comes close.... as you said, its not comparable. Even though the NCAA could compete with any other league in the world (as I do recall, I've shown you in a past thread)



So how about you get off this sports bashing horse you're on and stay on topic... you've done this on about 5 threads I've created alone... and now others? You really need to stop that. You're always trying to "PROVE" that Americans lack sports passion... youre always trying to "PROVE" that we don't support our leagues... just shut up already. Its not hard to understand that its not just Americans that watch basketball or baseball.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis (Oct 7, 2008)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> Considering the numbers for EACH LEAGUE... yes, thats very, very impressive. Does Europe have 4 world-class caliber leagues? Besides the champions league nothing comes close.... as you said, its not comparable.


Oh boy... you have absolutely no idea how football works but you call others ignorant?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Oh boy... you have absolutely no idea how football works but you call others ignorant?


Whats big in Europe may not always be big everywhere else in the world. Maybe you can prove me wrong? How many leagues can compete with an American one? I'm just talking about the leagues, so don't put any twist. Its funny that out of my whole post, you call me ignorant based on one little thing I said concerning European football. XD 


but hey, I don't like being called ignorant, so enlighten me. I'm not really here to bash Europe or its sports...


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Ignorance is bliss.


----------



## auslankan (Jun 11, 2005)

mvictory said:


> Are we talking about only large stadium sports (such as football) and only top flight competition?
> 
> Out of those three cities the main Professional domestic competitions in each.
> 
> ...


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> Yes, I understand. "ugh". I was talking about the clubs and level of attendance.


What about the clubs? You think they don't draw until the Champions League? They draw more in league play than they do against CL minnows from Norway or Bulgaria. In Germany alone, Dortmund and Schalke did not qualify for European competition and they draw tons. Newcastle is often 50K+ and they were fucking relegated. Your argument sucks.

UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

auslankan said:


> mvictory said:
> 
> 
> > Are we talking about only large stadium sports (such as football) and only top flight competition?
> ...


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

krudmonk said:


> What about the clubs? You think they don't draw until the Champions League? They draw more in league play than they do against CL minnows from Norway or Bulgaria. In Germany alone, Dortmund and Schalke did not qualify for European competition and they draw tons. Newcastle is often 50K+ and they were fucking relegated. Your argument sucks.
> 
> UGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Well I earlier I said that it was my mistake and I acknowledged the league's success... I'm just waiting for the other guys to do the same.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> I said I was done, man. Please remember that I in no way or shape started this. I was just trying to defend the "lolz no one likes american sports outside the US" and "blah blah blah, you guys have 300 million people, you're impressive stats mean nothing!!" comments. Given that this isn't the first time you've done this, I hope its the last if I just concede. Becuase me defending against ignorant comments translates into me bashing European sports to you guys, which was not my intention. If you guys are so defensive, then so be it. I don't know about you, but I actually get tired of these useless and retarded conversations.



You've oversimplified the argument which is why other people got angry. I could sit here and claim other people are simply battling against a typical 'lolz America is No.1' argument.

The 'impressive stats' argument was over the selective use of the statistics. Either use total or average attendance, don't pick and choose which one suits you best. As it happens, average attendance is quite obviously the most fair. If you look at it like that, the most popular domestic leagues are: NFL, Indian Premier League (T20 cricket), Bundesliga, AFL, Premier League, MLB, Canadian Football League, La Liga, NPB, Serie A. 

The four biggest soccer leagues in Europe are all in there. Don't forget this isn't even counting Champions League, FA Cup, Europa League etc.

You have to admit that's impressive (I'm not saying better, I'm just saying you can't dismiss it) due to the size of the population and spread of the teams.

No-one disagreed with your stats, we are just offering explanations as to why they are misleading. If you are an NFL fan living in New York how many options do you have to support a team? How many games can you go to? 
Each time only plays six games a season at home, so that's a maximum of 12 games a year that a population of 19,000,000 can go and see.

In London, there are 13 clubs in the football league (and around 30 other clubs playing non-league). That means there are around 279 home games (not counting FA Cup, Champions League and the fact that it's much easier and therefore much more common for fans to go to away games) for a population of 12,000,000 to go and see. Personally I think it's impressive that we average what we do. Imagine if there were only two teams in London, and they both played at Wembley. If there were only ten home games a season I'm pretty sure they'd all be sell-outs.

My point? No-one is better than anyone else. One set of people aren't more likely to support their team. If Americans and Europeans were the other way round then I'm sure the stats would stay the same. Europeans aren't more into sports because we have more variety. American people aren't more dedicated to their teams because of the stats. 

Bah.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Speaking in entire ignorance for this point:

Do NFL teams have any competition for fans going to watch lower standard professional American Football? For example in major cities?

In London alone there must be 15-20 professional football teams so that's a lot of competition.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

SSE said:


> You've oversimplified the argument which is why other people got angry. I could sit here and claim other people are simply battling against a typical 'lolz America is No.1' argument.
> 
> The 'impressive stats' argument was over the selective use of the statistics. Either use total or average attendance, don't pick and choose which one suits you best. As it happens, average attendance is quite obviously the most fair. If you look at it like that, the most popular domestic leagues are: NFL, Indian Premier League (T20 cricket), Bundesliga, AFL, Premier League, MLB, Canadian Football League, La Liga, NPB, Serie A.
> 
> ...


I never said that Americans support their sports more. Its pretty sad that most people here don't know what a league is.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> I never said that Americans support their sports more. Its pretty sad that most people here don't know what a league is.


I know you didn't, I'm just saying that people are arguing over essentially who is better, and I'm saying that no-one really is.

As for the second part, you've completely lost me? What makes you think I don't know what a league is?


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> ^^ no point in that reply other than to bash the U.S. You're a ****.


:lol: :banana:


:cheers:


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis (Oct 7, 2008)

He is saying that others are bashing US but in 7 pages of this thread i can see only him bashing Europe. What the hell?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> He is saying that others are bashing US but in 7 pages of this thread i can see only him bashing Europe. What the hell?


Quote me. If you actually read a page or two you wouldn't look stupid. There were 3 people on a "lets prove why they don't have powerful leagues" spree. If you think I started this then you're an idiot.



The reason why most people here don't know what a league is because a poster mentioned the US having some of the most powerful leagues in the world, and many people freaked and started coming up with excuses. Pretty much every European got defensive and started bashing the US instead. It doesn't matter why. I never said the US was better at sports or anything. Population has nothing to do with it, its just the league.


I don't know why bigbossman is so offended about the Us having powerful leagues? I don't see Americans getting upset over Europe's. Its pretty retarded if you ask me. Especially since the US was getting bashed... I corrected... now everyone is getting defensive.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Are you for real Phriggin' Ogre? 

Your argument is beyond retarded, i mean nobody has been trying to _"prove why they [USA] don't have powerful leagues" _. Nobody has even mentioned power except you, and nobody even cares that a league is powerful, powerful over what i wonder?

What we have been trying to show is that the ignorant aka you an Weava is that stats are more dangerous that WMDs in the wrong hands, and your use of them in the thread has proven such. 

You can't refute what anyone says without 
a. resorting to name calling
b. making things up
c. changing what you are actually arguing about

The problem here is clear you are so insular and you believe the hype so much that when this so called superior position is challenged you can't take it and go off the rails. Kind of like finding out you were adopted and your real dad is Charles Manson. 

Basically, just accept the fact and move on



Phriggin' Ogre said:


> I'm done with the topic, you're right.


I thought you were done...


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> He is saying that others are bashing US but in 7 pages of this thread i can see only him bashing Europe. What the hell?
> 
> 
> Phriggin' Ogre said:
> ...


OK (apt typo in bold btw, i read a page or two and didn't look stupid, you did however)

Lets refer to post #108 where you admitted your self 

the actual quote



Phriggin' Ogre said:


> My posts probably did make it sound like I was bashing European sports a little...


followed by excuses



Phriggin' Ogre said:


> none of my statements came close to the many in this thread


many what? "bashings" that you've dreamed up in your head... are you on mushrooms... LSD?


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

Luke80 said:


> The MLB plays a massive amount of games so don't try to fool people into believing that.
> 
> There are very few NFL and college home games so demand is bound to be higher. The only impressive statistic is that people pay to watch college sports at all. That's something people in this country would find very hard to understand.





bigbossman said:


> When you take into account population and amount of games, it isn't that impressive.
> 
> Although the Florida state intro is mildly entertaining, although the PA guy playing that "tomahawk chop" song every other play sort of summed it up





bigbossman said:


> I mean the only reason Nebraska has sold out for 40 odd years is because that's all nebraska has got...





> You know what, i'd take the non global audience if it meant there was less money in the game. I can't stand all the rediculous man united/real madrid/chelsea fans who die for the cause in the far east etc... inflating everything and creating a rediculous wealth gap that needs crooked billionaires, unruly banks and fake sheihks to remedy!
> 
> 
> 
> Not one place in the states would, but tbf to them it's all because of their sports business model, it's all about the benjamins...!!!!





AdidasGazelle said:


> Great attendances indeed but the interest outside of the states is very limited.
> 
> Football is the sport of our world and always will be :cheers:





bigbossman said:


> 1. Total attendance, come on now... you are counting people more than once
> 2. Each of the 30 teams plays 81 home games.
> 
> 
> ...





JimB said:


> There's no doubt that American professional sports franchises and college teams are very well supported. I think it would be amazing to sample the atmosphere at a College football game, especially - not to mention the tailgating!
> 
> Thing is, though, Superbowls and World Series aside, there isn't a truly global interest in American sports outside of America.
> 
> ...





bigbossman said:


> many latin american countries?
> 
> I can think of 4 of any real significance- Cuba, Domincan Rep, Panama and Venezuela.





mvictory said:


> Which puts it into the top three leagues in the world? If any American sport is followed internationally it is Basketball not baseball and certainly not American Football and even then there are many football leagues more important and supported than any of them.





mvictory said:


> :lol: 3 Largest sports leagues. Nobody outside of America follows either of those sports let alone leagues. One isn't even professional. I'm sorry but that sort of comment is what has given the US such a bad reputation worldwide. Complete ignorance of anything outside of your country.
> 
> Sorry if I offended any Americans by this. I do know that you also happen to have a lot of very smart people and you are not all this ignorant.





JYDA said:


> Correction: The United States' largest sports leagues. I find it hilarious the ignorance of that statement considering you didn't even list the american sports league with the largest global audience (NBA). Still puny compared to the UEFA Champions League.



All before I posted a single thing...and those aren't all of them. Most of those had false and denigrating statements. And as soon as I pointed these out, you, bossman, just HAD TO PROVE, that American sports suck, right? I mean you only mentioned it in most of the pages. Looking at every figure and saying that it isn't impressive is very arrogant.


btw, I atleast wanted to be somewhat mature about it, but you keep dragging it on. Are you ever going to admit that the U.S.'s leagues being the most profitable, most attended, and highest average attendance? Because irregardless of size, and even though you may not think its impressive, the stat is true. why can't you wrap your head around that? The only thing you've done this thread is have a superiority complex with baseless condenscending remarks. Europe isn't #1 in everything, you know.


so, seriously, just shut up and stay on topic. I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove now, and the only person making excuses was you. I don't know why you turned this into an "us vs they" argument.


----------



## quanghuynhchung (Jan 25, 2009)




----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

So, lets get back on topic and hope certain disruptive individuals stay away.

Is anyone going to challenge London for this crown?



:cheers:


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

AdidasGazelle said:


> So, lets get back on topic and hope certain disruptive individuals stay away.
> 
> Is anyone going to challenge London for this crown?
> 
> ...


I doubt it. London already has a huge repoitor of venues with more on their way! I think Mexico city and Buenos Aires might have a similar number, but many are not as impressive as London's.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> All before I posted a single thing...and those aren't all of them. Most of those had false and denigrating statements. And as soon as I pointed these out, you, bossman, just HAD TO PROVE, that American sports suck, right? I mean you only mentioned it in most of the pages. Looking at every figure and saying that it isn't impressive is very arrogant.
> 
> 
> btw, I atleast wanted to be somewhat mature about it, but you keep dragging it on. Are you ever going to admit that the U.S.'s leagues being the most profitable, most attended, and highest average attendance? Because irregardless of size, and even though you may not think its impressive, the stat is true. why can't you wrap your head around that? The only thing you've done this thread is have a superiority complex with baseless condenscending remarks. Europe isn't #1 in everything, you know.
> ...


Erm nothing you posted in that post was bashing, it was complete fact (unfortunately you don't understand the concept of relativity) and you're the only one who can't see that (even other yanks in this thread can). If you think that means you are right, then good for you and I hope that now means you can rest peacefully.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Beijing has a lot of venues, but it's attendances are poor.

National Stadium - 80,000
Workers Stadium - 64,000
Olympic Sports Centre - 36,000
Beijing National Indoor Stadium - 18,000
Wukesong Indoor Stadium - 18,000
Capital Indoor Stadium - 17,900
Workers Indoor Arena - 13,000
Beijing Science and Technology University Gymnasium - 8,000
Beijing University of Technology Gymnasium - 7,500
Olympic Sports Center Gymnasium - 7,000
Beijing National Aquatics Center - 6,000
China Agricultural University Gymnasium - 6,000
Peking University Gymnasium - 6,000
Beihang University Gymnasium - 5,400
Beijing Institute of Technology Gymnasium - 5,000

That includes arenas though.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Phriggin' Ogre you just get it do you. Nothing I said was bashing the USA. The AFL and NRL over in Australia are extremely popular, there are 9 AFL teams in Melbourne with a population of only 4 million and the average attendance is over 40,000. Those I think are pretty impressive stats but how many people do you see claiming it is the greatest league in the world. none. And you know why? Outside of Australia nobody gives a rats arse about it, and we know it. The only point I have tried to make in thes thread is that American sports do not have much international appeal, so the statement that they are the greatest leagues in the world is very ignorant. Obviously you are to insula and wound up in America is no.1 crap to understand that.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

mvictory said:


> Phriggin' Ogre you just get it do you. Nothing I said was bashing the USA. The AFL and NRL over in Australia are extremely popular, there are 9 AFL teams in Melbourne with a population of only 4 million and the average attendance is over 40,000. Those I think are pretty impressive stats but how many people do you see claiming it is the greatest league in the world. none. And you know why? Outside of Australia nobody gives a rats arse about it, and we know it. The only point I have tried to make in thes thread is that American sports do not have much international appeal, so the statement that they are the greatest leagues in the world is very ignorant. Obviously you are to insula and wound up in America is no.1 crap to understand that.


Holy shit, and you call me ignorant? Learn to read for the love of christ. The NBA (or basketball) has 200 million fans in China, fans in Argentina, Europe, Canada, the US, Australia... thats not international? Baseball is huge in Carribean countries, Mexico, Venezuela, Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, the US, Canada...


Maybe you should learn a thing or two before saying things like that. Maybe you don't get it... its not just soccer thats played across oceans... 


even then, it doesn't matter if its popular around the world or not, they're still powerful leagues. I don't know why you guys are making this into more than it is. If every soccer league in Europe was one, that would be the world's most powerful league, but thats not the case. Name me a league that has as many attendances, averages as high, and rakes in the most profit. Does it make the leagues good? Thats subjective, but you can't deny the numbers.

You guys are very ignorant, and arrogant. Its pretty pathetic that no one can distinguish a league from a sport or a country. I've said many times that I don't even care for baseball, but to deny that its popular outside the US is just stupid. I never once mentioned that any American league was the "greatest" I've already defined my version of "powerful". Yet for some reason none of you can understand that.

EVeryone knows that Europe is crazy for futbol and that their leagues have insane support, but does the premiership get as many spectators as the NBA? No... does it profit as much as the NFL? No. Does it average more than baseball? No. Does it bring more money than any of them? No. So why can't I call any of the American leagues more profitable/higher attended?

Now, if all the leagues were counted as one, then I'm pretty sure it would be a big fat YES... but its not. You guys don't know what a league is? Its not the same as a sport.

No matter how much spin you put in it, they still are the most attended, highest profit making leagues in the world. If you don't call that impressive then you've probably got a superiority complex. I'm sure theres hundreds of reasons behind the fact, but its still a fact.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

^^ as I said in nearly every post American leagues are very big and powerful there is no disputing that. All I am arguing is that they a comment saying they are the greatest leagues in the world cannot be justified. I would say the same to a claim that the English Premier League is the greatest in the world. The fact is no League is the greatest in the world NFL, EPL, IPL, MLB, AFL, Super 14 are all great leagues. It is just that *YOU* have made this more than it is by not accepting that America is not the great powerful ruler of the world that you are adament it is.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

mvictory said:


> ^^ as I said in nearly every post American leagues are very big and powerful there is no disputing that. All I am arguing is that they a comment saying they are the greatest leagues in the world cannot be justified. I would say the same to a claim that the English Premier League is the greatest in the world. The fact is no League is the greatest in the world NFL, EPL, IPL, MLB, AFL, Super 14 are all great leagues. It is just that *YOU* have made this more than it is by not accepting that America is not the great powerful ruler of the world that you are adament it is.


What the **** are you smoking? I just told you that I never said any of the leagues were the "greatest" jeesh learn to read, I've only said it about 3 times in this thread. Look, you were proven wrong, so why don't you just shut up? Does it offend you?

You're getting me mixed up with another guy, or you're just stupid. I find it personally offensive that you belittle Latin America's, Southeast Asia's, and North American's taste in sports simply becuase you don't like them. And ending with that last sentence just cements how ignorant you are and obviously trying to make this into something it is not. Don't get "powerful" and "greatest" mixed up. The MLB is one of the most powerful leagues in the world and fucking boring as hell.

Why are you trying to put words in my mouth?


I just checked the whole thread, and the only time I said "great" was in reference to an Olympic stadium.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Well Australia has the highest sporting participation / observation per capita in the world.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Well Australia has the highest sporting participation / observation per capita in the world.


Is that a fact? It wouldn't surprise me, though. Just looking at the large number of sports venues in Melbourne is enough evidence.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Yeah, it's fact. We have a lot of per capita records to do with sporting (i.e. Most sporting success per capita, most golf courses per capita, etc). It's too bad a lot of our sports have really low salary caps, to the point which you can just about make more money being a plumber... It turns people off competing in national leagues. That doesn't appear to be a problem in the States with gargantuan amounts of money offered to athletes (A. Rod, Kobe Bryant, Derek Jeter, Shaquille O'Neal, and Tiger Woods)

On the whole American sporting leagues. Don't forget that in the 1990's Basketball was one of the most watched sports on TV, and amature Basketball is still one of the most played sports in Australia and the world. It's more widespread than what people give it credit for.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Yeah, it's fact. We have a lot of per capita records to do with sporting (i.e. Most sporting success per capita, most golf courses per capita, etc). It's too bad a lot of our sports have really low salary caps, to the point which you can just about make more money being a plumber...
> 
> On the whole American sporting leagues. Don't forget that in the 1990's *Basketball was one of the most watched sports on TV, and bmature Basketball is still one of the most played sports in Australia and the world. It's more widespread than what people give it credit for*.


THANK YOU!!!


/rant over




Anywho, the OZ's have the most sporting success per capita? How is that figured out, out of curiosity. My guess wouldve been Cuba or those Samoan states (the average samoan is almost 250x more likely than anyone else to be an NFL player!).


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> What the **** are you smoking? I just told you that I never said any of the leagues were the "greatest" jeesh learn to read, I've only said it about 3 times in this thread. Look, you were proven wrong, so why don't you just shut up? Does it offend you?
> 
> You're getting me mixed up with another guy, or you're just stupid. I find it personally offensive that you belittle Latin America's, Southeast Asia's, and North American's taste in sports simply becuase you don't like them. And ending with that last sentence just cements how ignorant you are and obviously trying to make this into something it is not. Don't get "powerful" and "greatest" mixed up. The MLB is one of the most powerful leagues in the world and fucking boring as hell.
> 
> ...


Alright mate by the way it wasn't you who said great you just butted in later on. I never criticised anyones taste in sport I merely said they are not the most popular sports in the world. I don't see the point in arguing with you any more, it is obvious you don't have a point and just resort to name calling and twisting peoples words to make it look bad. I have said all I need to say. 
Lets get back on topic


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Yeah, it's fact. We have a lot of per capita records to do with sporting (i.e.* Most sporting success per capita*, most golf courses per capita, etc). It's too bad a lot of our sports have really low salary caps, to the point which you can just about make more money being a plumber... It turns people off competing in national leagues. That doesn't appear to be a problem in the States with gargantuan amounts of money offered to athletes (A. Rod, Kobe Bryant, Derek Jeter, Shaquille O'Neal, and Tiger Woods)
> 
> On the whole American sporting leagues. Don't forget that in the 1990's Basketball was one of the most watched sports on TV, and bmature Basketball is still one of the most played sports in Australia and the world. It's more widespread than what people give it credit for.


I think New Zealand is beating us in that now. I remember we were second to them in the olympics.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

mvictory said:


> Alright mate by the way it wasn't you who said great you just butted in later on. I never criticised anyones taste in sport I merely said they are not the most popular sports in the world. I don't see the point in arguing with you any more, it is obvious you don't have a point and just resort to name calling and twisting peoples words to make it look bad. I have said all I need to say.
> Lets get back on topic


Keep in mind I only "butted in" after I read about 20 posts (from the same handful of people) bashing US sports, and you posted some of them. I quoted you many times, so I don't have to twist words. Why can't you just admit (like your fellow OZ) that its not just European soccer thats popular worldwide?


You mentioned that no one outside Australia gives a crap about the NRL, yet its aired on primetime in one of the U.S.'s most popular channels... I'm pretty sure they're aired in the UK somewhere...

Hell they air NFL games in Australia, and I seriously thought no one liked it outside the U.S.

But Basketball and Baseball ARE very international... all you have to do is look at the players... like half of them are from outside the country!


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis (Oct 7, 2008)

Congrats on ruining what could've been great thread. This isn't thread for "which sport is bigger". 

Seriously dude... what's your problem... you have been arguing with everyone. 

Post stadiums and discuss them or got away. No one cares about "which league is bigger" and which sport is international.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Phriggin' Ogre said:


> THANK YOU!!!
> 
> /rant over
> 
> Anywho, the OZ's have the most sporting success per capita? How is that figured out, out of curiosity. My guess wouldve been Cuba or those Samoan states (the average samoan is almost 250x more likely than anyone else to be an NFL player!).


The sporting per capita figure is generally governed by the position you end up with at the Olympic Games, amongst other games and sports. Here's some figures I managed to find, can provide source if required.

Sporting Success - Olympics :

*1.) Australia - 411,326 (49 medals - 20,155,000)*
2.) Cuba - 417,370 (27 medals - 11,269,000)
3.) Estonia - 443,333 (3 medals - 1,330,000)
4.) Slovenia - 491,750 (4 medals - 1,967,000)
5.) Jamaica - 530,200 (5 medals - 2,651,000)
6.) Latvia - 576,000 (4 medals - 2,307,000)
7.) Hungary - 594,000 (17 medals - 10,098,000)
8.) Greece - 695,000 (11 medals - 11,120,000)
9.) Bulgaria - 643,833 (12 medals - 7,726,000)
10.) Belarus - 650,333 (15 medals - 9,755,000)

*OLYMPIC GAMES*

2008 Beijing.

Rank--Country--Gold--Silver--Bronze--Total

1 - China (CHN)----------51--21--28----100
2 - United States (USA)--36--38--36----110
3 - Russia (RUS)---------23--21--28----72
4 - Great Britain (GBR)---19--13--15-----47
5 - Germany (GER)-------16--10--15----41
*6 - Australia (AUS)-------14--15--17----46*


2004 Athens

1 - United States--36--39--27----102
2 - China----------32--17--14----63
3 - Russia---------27--27--38----92
*4 - Australia-------17--16--16----49*


2000 Sydney

1 - United States--36--24--31----91
2 - Russia---------32--28--28----88
3 - China----------28--16--15----59
*4 - Australia-------16--25--17----58*

*COMMONWEALTH GAMES*

2006 Melbourne

*1 - Australia------84--69--68----221*
2 - England-------36--40--34----110
3 - Canada-------26--29--31	-----86
4 - India---------22--17--11-----50
5 - South Africa--12--13--13-----38


2000 Manchester

*1 - Australia------82--62--63----207*
2 - England-------54--52--60----166
3 - Canada-------31--41--46	----118
4 - India----------30--22--17-----69
5 - New Zealand--11--13--21-----45

Phew. That took longer than expected. Well as you can see, Australia in the past decade has constantly performed better than any country of similar population 

-----

Point is, to be successful in a lot of sports you obviously must have up-to-date facilities and training. Crowds help push athletes that extra mile and that is what makes a city or country a sporting capital . You must be good at sports to enjoy them, at least I think so.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

SpicyMcHaggis said:


> Congrats on ruining what could've been great thread. This isn't thread for "which sport is bigger".
> 
> Seriously dude... what's your problem... you have been arguing with everyone.
> 
> Post stadiums and discuss them or got away. No one cares about "which league is bigger" and which sport is international.


How did I ruin it if there were at least 4 people bashing another country's sports prior to me posting anything? Whenever I tried to get on topic, others would just drag it on. Just becuase you don't care, doesn't mean you're right. Plus, I never mentioned that ANY of America's sports were bigger than soccer, not once. You along with others in this thread need to get some fat, thick glasses. Iether that, or like others, you don't know the difference between a league and a sport.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> The sporting per capita figure is generally governed by the position you end up with at the Olympic Games, amongst other games and sports. Here's some figures I managed to find, can provide source if required.
> 
> Sporting Success - Olympics :
> 
> ...


Is that number the population/metal? Looks like its just above Cuba.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Yeah, It's population per medal.


----------



## AdidasGazelle (Mar 11, 2006)

Someone on this thread needs to see a doctor. Quickly.

Imagine being in his company in a pub :nuts:



:cheers:


I asked if it could stay on topic but I wasn't confident it could. The usual suspect made sure of that.

Carry on.........


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

AdidasGazelle said:


> Someone on this thread needs to see a doctor. Quickly.
> 
> Imagine being in his company in a pub :nuts:
> 
> ...



What was the point of that post? read your pm, you could've said this to other people, too... why just me? You haven't said anything productive in this thread except incite responses like this. Or did you think I forgot that you were bashing US sports, too?


Keep in mind that all this essentially started becuase people were saying that no US city could be the stadium capital becuase no one likes US sports outside the U.S.... and you were one of them.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

> What was the point of that post? read your pm, you could've said this to other people, too... why just me? You haven't said anything productive in this thread except incite responses like this. Or did you think I forgot that you were bashing US sports, too?
> 
> 
> Keep in mind that all this essentially started becuase people were saying that no US city could be the stadium capital becuase no one likes US sports outside the U.S.... and you were one of them.


Actually it started with this post. 



weava said:


> So hosting an olymipic games once or twice makes a stadium more worthy than one that hosts *worlds 3 largest sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NCAA)*on a daily/weekly basis plus all the championship games on a yearly bases?


When it was pointed out that it is difficult to justify these as the worlds 3 largest sports leagues especially NCAA many Americans became defensive.

Several American cities could be considered as a sporting capital due to amount of sport and sports infrastructure in them, especialy LA. How about we make a list of about 10 front runners and turn this into a poll.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

mvictory said:


> Actually it started with this post.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Los Angeles
Mexico city
Buenos Aires
Melbourne


I don't even know if I can come up with 10, since theres a pretty big drop off from the top handful, unless someone can prove me wrong. I can't think of many that can even match Los Angeles, let alone London.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

lol back to this are we.


----------



## Basincreek (Mar 10, 2008)

Maybe someone should just bite the bullet and start an "American Sports Leagues Suck!" thread and move all the animus over to it?

Just a suggestion.



Question: what city has the most indoor arena's that hold more than 10,000?


----------



## herb21 (Aug 12, 2008)

Basincreek said:


> Maybe someone should just bite the bullet and start an "American Sports Leagues Suck!" thread and move all the animus over to it?
> 
> Just a suggestion.
> 
> ...


Id guess it would be one of the cities with a mega convention center complex, but wouldnt know.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Basincreek said:


> Maybe someone should just bite the bullet and start an "American Sports Leagues Suck!" thread and move all the animus over to it?
> 
> Just a suggestion.
> 
> ...


Would have to be in the US with sports such as Basketball and ice hockey been popular. I just did a quick search and found there are 5 in New Youk


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Probably LA.

Staples Center - 20,000
Honda Center - 17,608
The Forum - 17,505
Memorial Sports Arena - 16,161
Long Beach Arena - 13,609
Pauley Pavilion - 12,900
Galen Center - 10,280


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

*To recap for LONDON

Stadiums over 20,000:


Wembley Football 90,000




























Twickenham Rugby 82,000












Ascot Horseracing, 80,000 



















Olympic Stadium 80,000



















Emirates Football Stadium 60,000






















New Stamford Bridge Football 42,000 (formerly 100,000)












White Hart Lane Football, 36,000 (formerly 75,000)












Boleyn Ground Football 35,000 (maximum 42,000)












Lords Cricket Ground 32,000 due to increase to 42,000
























The Valley Football, 27,000












Selhurst Park Football, 26,500












O2 Centre Mixed Use, 26,000





















Craven Cottage 25,500, due to be increased to 30,000












Brit Oval Cricket Ground 23,000


















The New Den , 20,146



















Earls Court Arena Mixed Use 20,000



















Stadiums under 20,000

Loftus Road 19,148 
Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium	15,500	
Matchroom Stadium 13,842
Wimbledon Tennis Centre Court 15,000 
Griffin Park	12,763	
Stoop Memorial Ground	12,500	
Croydon Gateway Arena 12,500 
Wimbledon Tennis Number 1 Court	11,500	
Kingsmeadow	6,299	
Glyn Hopkin Stadium	6,000	
Old Deer Park	5,850	
Underhill	5,500
C.P. National Sports Centre	3,500 
Wimbledon Tennis No. 2 Court	3000
New River Stadium	2 000	
Alexandra Palace	1 250 *


Under construction:


White Hart Lane Stadium 60,000











Olympic Aquatic Centre 20,000

















Olympic Basketball Arena 12,000



















Olympic Handball Arena 6,000




















Velodrome 6,000












There are also plans for new grounds for West Ham FC in a 50-60,000 stadium, and a Chelsea one to replace Stamford Bridge that will be 60,000.


Consider the list doubled if you were to count those in the London metro.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

^ ^ Why couldn't they just use the O2 for Olympic basketball?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Because that's mostly being used for gymnastics in 2012. The finals will be played at the O2 though.

The Aquatics Centre interior picture above is an old render. Capacity is actually 17.5k Games-time with a massive reduction post-2012. And of course, 2/3rds of the Olympic stadium is temporary, and the basketball arena is entirely temporary.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Isn't the majority of the basketball arena be moved to another city after the games?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Yes. It's an entirely temporary structure which can be moved post-games without too much trouble. The handball arena is permanant, so there won't be the need for the basketball arena in the park post-2012 as well. The plan is to move it to another city, though we don't know which city that'll be yet.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

the spliff fairy said:


> To recap for LONDON
> 
> Stadiums over 20,000:
> elhurst Park Football, 26,500


How dare you! That's the Valley NOT Selhurst Park.

This is Selhurst Park


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

the spliff fairy said:


> *Lords Cricket Ground 32,000 due to increase to 42,000*


More info please...


----------



## Mo Rush (Nov 13, 2004)

Lets please move on.

Instant infraction available for the next off topic post.


----------



## chrisbramley85 (Oct 14, 2010)

i know its late but id like to add the stadium of the mighty clapton fc to the list of london venues


----------



## Greece (Jul 10, 2010)

Athens isn't the stadium capital of the world, but maybe the arena capital of the world:
Olympic Indoor Hall (18,700)
Peace&Friendship Stadium (up to 17,000)
Helliniko Indoor Arena (14,500)
Faliro Sports Pavilion (10,000)
Ano Liossia Arena (9,300)
Peristeri Olympic Boxing Hall (8,200)
Galatsi Arena (8,000)
Goudi Arena (6,000)
Nikea Indoor Hall (5,000)
Helliniko Indoor Arena Hall #2 (5,000)
Peristeri Arena (4,000)
Glyfada Arena (3,500)
Helliniko Indoor Aren Hall #3 (3,000)

And of course there are a lot under 3,000 

Stadiums:
Athens Olympic Stadium (71,030)
Panathenaic Stadium (45,000)
Karaiskaki Stadium (33,334)
Leoforos Stadium (16,620)
Markopoulo Stadium #1 (15,000)
Georgios Kamaras Stadium (14,200)
Markopoulo Stadium #2 (12,500)
Nea Smyrni Stadium (11,700)
Helliniko Stadium (10,000)
Peristeri Stadium (8,939)
Aegealo Stadium (8,217)
Neapoli Stadium (5,000)
Akratitos Stadium (4,944)
Kessariani Municipal Stadium (4,851)
Aharnaikos Stadium (4,450)
Korydallos Stadium (4,361)
Vyronas Stadium (4,340)
Kallithea Stadium (4,250)
Tavros Stadium (4,000)

Other Sports:
Cycling:
Olympic Velodrome (6,000)

Tennis:
Olympic Tennis Centre Main Court (8,000)
Olympic Tennis Centre Court 1 (4,000)
Olympic Tennis Centre Court 2 (2,000)
Athens Lawn Tennis Club Main Court (1,500)
Filothei Tennis Club (1,000)
Athens Lawn Tennis Club Court 1 (500)
Athens Lawn Tennis Club Court 2 (350)
Olympic Tennis Centre Courts 3-16 (200)

Beach Volleyball/Beach Football/Beach Handball:
Olympic Beach Volleyball Centre (10,000)

Aquatics:
Olympic Aquatic Centre-Main Pool (11,000)
Olympic Aquatic Centre-Indoor Pool (7,000)
Olympic Aquatic Centre-Oudoor Pool #2 (5,300)
Vouliagmeni Swim Centre (3,000)
Goudi Swimming Centre (2,000)

Field Hockey:
Olympic Hockey Centre Stadium 1 (8,000)
Olympic Hockey Centre Stadium 2 (2,000)

Softball:
Olympic Softball Stadium (8,000)


----------



## seyer1000 (Aug 21, 2010)

If we where talking about state/province in my opinion it would have to be Texas.

Talking about cities I think Dallas should be thrown in to the mix, maybe it won't win but its worthy of the talk with all the stadiums, arenas it has.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

Greece said:


> Athens isn't the stadium capital of the world, but maybe the arena capital of the world:
> Olympic Indoor Hall (18,700)
> Peace&Friendship Stadium (up to 17,000)
> Helliniko Indoor Arena (14,500)
> ...


Impressive list, however i think LA has Athens beat. there are at least 6 arenas in LA with a seating capacity over 12,000 (Staples, Forum, Sports Arena, Galen, Pauly Pavillion, Ontario) and countless others for high schools, colleges and so forth over 5000.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Why did you include Ontario and not Anaheim?


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

krudmonk said:


> Why did you include Ontario and not Anaheim?



Dont know, my brain was fried already lol. Ya add that arena and were at 7 over 12,000.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Galen only holds 10k and change so you'd have to drop the criteria to 10k and up to include it.


----------



## Turbosnail (Dec 8, 2004)

London is impressive especially since the Olympic stadium is coming which will give London four stadia over 60,000 seats (Twickenham (England rugby home), Wembley(home of England football), Emirates (Arsenal FC) and Olympic)with excellent facilities including the worlds most expensive stadium not to mention others such as Chelsea's Stamford Bridge, Tottenham's White Hart Lane, Wimbledon Centre Court and Court One, The Oval cricket ground (Cricket), Boleyn Ground (West Ham United), Loftus Road (QPR), The New Den (Millwall), Brentford FC, Watford, The Valley (Charlton Athletic), Craven Cottage (Fulham) and Selhurst Park (Crystal Palace) but 'pound for pound' (i.e. taking population into consideration, I'd also mention Melbourne, Australia - sports nuts city which includes stadium alley - Melbourne Cricket Ground, The Etihad Stadium, Rod Laver Arena, The new footie stadium I can't remember the name of and another stadium next to that which I also can't remember.


----------



## seyer1000 (Aug 21, 2010)

Okay after watching some videos of the Cowboys stadium standing room called party pass I have to agree lot of the people there are just able to watch the screens but I guess we should still not count it as an 80 000 stadium because people in the first rows of each level might be able to watch the field which should increase the capacity from 80 000 to 90 000 or something like that.

Sorry for posting 110 the truth is that I went to a game there last year and I loved it and was impressed by the stadium size, it looked really BIG and I never noticed the people in the party pass couldn't see much. I thought the floor there would have some slight inclination.


----------



## seyer1000 (Aug 21, 2010)

Mr Trebus said:


> that jumbotron screen at the dallas stadium is incredible:banana:


Yeah it's awesome and sometimes you can see the replays in 4 different angles at the same time and you can still get a great view.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Yeah, yeah: everything is bigger in Texas...:bow:

BUT...but everything is posh in France







:




parcdesprinces said:


> My vote goes to London of course....
> ...but here are the sports venues in Paris :
> 
> 
> ...





So, Paris wins, doesn't it ???  
:runaway:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

nah, 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=45113291&postcount=286


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

seyer1000 said:


> Okay after watching some videos of the Cowboys stadium standing room called party pass I have to agree lot of the people there are just able to watch the screens but I guess we should still not count it as an 80 000 stadium because people in the first rows of each level might be able to watch the field which should increase the capacity from 80 000 to 90 000 or something like that.


You may be able to get 10000 people on them, but if people can't actually watch the game on 95% of the surface then 95% of the surface isn't really part of the "capacity".



> Sorry for posting 110 the truth is that I went to a game there last year and I loved it and was impressed by the stadium size, it looked really BIG and I never noticed the people in the party pass couldn't see much. I thought the floor there would have some slight inclination.


With an inclined floor it'd be lethal. Even without one, standing areas with poor views and no concept at all of safety like that were swept away 100 years ago in other parts of the world. It's actually quite remarkable it's allowed.

It is a terrific stadium though. If the world cup goes the the USA in 2022 then I'd love to go to a game there.


----------



## chrisbramley85 (Oct 14, 2010)

this is such a hard argument.

a lot of places in america have a lot of stadiums but then compared to England or Australia it has a much vaster population.

in my opinion London would win due to the levels of which sport is competed.

you have the massive stadium such as Wembley and Twickenham, big grounds owned by the clubs who play there such as the Emirates and Stamford Bridge in the premier league , quite a few 20,000+ grounds in the first and second and third tier of association football (such as West Ham's Boleyn Ground, Charltons Valley, Millwall's New Den etc) , and this goes all the way down to the bottom professional league (Dagenham & Redbridge, Barnet) aswell as dozens and dozens of grounds belonging to smei professional teams such as Dulwhich Hamlet, Hendon, Hampton & Richmond, Clapton. And thats just football.

you have Lords and the Oval for cricket (two of the oldest and most iconic grounds in the world), aswell as dozens of cricket grounds around greater london that occasionaly host county cricket (Ilford is the only one that springs to mind now), most of these can easily fit a few thousand people on grass verges and temporary stands. 

As for Rugby, you have The Stoop (home of Harlequins), The Sports Ground (home of Wasps), Madejski Stadium (home of London Irish, whihc admittedly is in Reading but that counts as London Metro).

Tennis, we have Queens club and of course the world renowned wimbledon (the competition EVERY tennis player in the world dreams of winning)

and on top of that there is The o2, Wembley arena and Earls Court Arena, Crystal Palace Athletics.

i think due to the amount of stadiums, most of which are attended on a very regular basis, (many of them have been continually attended for almost 100 years) all of which essentially (apart from a few in the metro area) are in a city thats less than 30miles wide. that, along with the history make London my bid for sports capital of the world.

while i see the argument for some of the american cities such as dallas or LA, i genuinly believe that the above points are something that these cities dont have. i mean many american grounds are very well attended, and have been for many many years, but i think the main one for me (which is something i believe england wins hands down over a lot of countries around the world) is the levels of which these sports are supported.

football being my main example of this. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_league_system

when you consider JUST the top 7 levels of Football in england consists of 270 teams.

London and Greater London football teams

Premier League:
Arsenal 
Chelsea 
Fulham
Tottenham Hotspur
West Ham

Championship:
Crystal Palace
Millwall
Queens Park Rangers

League One:
Brentford
Charlton
Dagenham & Redbridge
Leyton Orient

League Two:
Barnet

Conference National:
Hayes & Yeading
AFC Wimbledon

Conference South:
Bromley
Hampton & Richmond
Welling

Isthmian League:
Carshalton
Cray
Kingstonian
Harrow
AFC Hornchurch
Sutton
Wealdstone
Tooting & Mitcham

Isthmian League Division one North:
Enfield
Hillingdon
Ilford 
Leyton
Molesey
Northwood 
Redbridge
Thamesmead
Waltham Forest
Wingate & Finchley

Isthmian League Division One South:
Corinthian Casuals
Croydon
Dulwich Hamlet
Metropolitan Police

thats 40 football teams within the m25 ring road. all of which have a ground capacity of 3000 minimum. and all of which have their own ground i believe, except Dulwhich Hamlet who share their ground Fisher FC, and Bromley and Cray FC who share the Courage Stadium.

You show me ANY city in the world that has a pedigree as class as that. and thats just for ONE sport!!


----------



## Anubis2051 (Jan 28, 2010)

New York/North Jersey

*Yankee Stadium (New York Yankees, Pinstripe Bowl) 52,325:*
































Football setup:








Boxing setup:









*Citi Field (New York Mets) 41,800*

























*
New Meadowlands Stadium (New York Giants, New York Jets, Big City Classic, Superbowl XLVIII) 82,566*

























*Madison Square Garden (New York Rangers, New York Knicks, New York Liberty, Big East Men's Basketball, St. Johns University) 20,789*









































*Prudential Center (New Jersey Nets, New Jersey Devils, Seaton Hall University, NJIT, New York Liberty) 18,500*

























*Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum (New York Islanders, New York Majesty) 16,250*









*Red Bull Arena (Red Bull New York) 25,189*

















*Izod Center (Vacant) 20,049*









*Rutgers Stadium (Rutgers Scarlet Knights Football) 52,454*

















*
Louis Brown Athletic Center (Rutgers Scarlet Knights Basketball/Wrestling) 8,000*









*Radio City Music Hall (New York Liberty) 6,015*









*Richmond County Bank Ballpark (Staten Island Yankees) 7,171*

























*MCU Park (Brooklyn Cyclones) 7,500*

















*Arthur Ashe Stadium (US Open) 22,547*








Basketball:









*Louis Armstrong Stadium (US Open) 10,200*









*
Robert K. Kraft Field at Lawrence A. Wien Stadium (Colombia University) 17,000
*









*Icahn Stadium (FIFA Qualified) 5,000*









And I'm sure theres a ton more I can't even think of...


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Rutgers is in North Jersey?


----------



## Anubis2051 (Jan 28, 2010)

koolio said:


> Rutgers is in North Jersey?


Yup, main campus is in New Brunswick with a satellite campus in Newark.


----------



## Welshlad (Apr 22, 2003)

Rev Stickleback said:


> As I said earlier, the stadium _does not_ have standing room for 30,000. I doubt it has designated standing room for more than a few hundred at most.
> 
> Until you can show where the 30,000 fit _inside_ the stadium, they can't be, by any rational logic, included in the capacity of the stadium.
> 
> ...


Couldn't agree more, by Dallas logic, when Wales play England in the 6 Nations we could put a gate at each end of St Mary Street and Westgate Stree surrounding the Millennium Stadium, call it a party zone and have probably 200000-250000 people in attendance.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

London, Los Angeles, and Melbourne. No one else comes close.


----------



## Anubis2051 (Jan 28, 2010)

soup or man said:


> London, Los Angeles, and Melbourne. No one else comes close.


What does LA have that New York Doesn't? With the exception of the Staples Center, all of LA's Stadiums are more than 45 Years old, where as in New York, within the next 5 years every major stadium and arena with the exception of the IZOD center will either been built or refurbished within the last decade. Everything in NYC is state of the art, and there's more of them than in LA.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

soup or man said:


> London, Los Angeles, and Melbourne. No one else comes close.


LA is FAR from being the stadium capital of even the US


----------



## lizayuen (Oct 14, 2010)

In terms of sheer numbers and capacity, Los Angeles would be my guess? Because LA has a large venue.

-------------
William Shakespeare 15641616 GrandScale Sculptural Bust


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Please don't take anything I wright the wrong way.
I am only going to talk about the 3 cities that have been discussed most (London, LA and Melbourne) and am not trying to make any judgement as to what is the 'stadium capitol'.
I think to justify the name 'stadium capitol of the WORLD' you need to look at more than the amount and size of the stadiums but at there significance to world sport. in this case (sorry americans) but I would have to say that most American cities fall down in this respect as most significant stadiums in america are built for American Football, Baseball and basketball which are all good sports and popular in America but quite frankly no one outside of the US gives a toss about them. due to this I wont include anything about those sports just as I wont discuss anything to do with Australian football.
LA is probably an exception to this rule as it has hosted 2 Olympics and a world cup therefor many of its sporting grounds hold significance.
I will just look at melbourne for a start, the only stadiums wich hold any sort of significance are listed below. there are obviously many other stadiums for domestic sport (AFL, A League, NRL, Cricket, VFL, etc...) but does anyone outside of Australia really care about Docklands, AAMI park, etc...? nope
Melbourne has MCG (100,000) Which has hosted the Olympics, Commonwealth games, first cricket test match. Rod laver arena/melbourne park, Australian Open. Kooyong ex Aussie open. Flemington racecourse, Melbourne cup. Albert park, F1 grand prix.
Same could be done for london, Wembley, Lords, Wimbledon, etc.. are the recogniseable stadiums. The league stadiums really mean nothing.
So I think when trying to look at what makes a city a sporting capitol of the WORLD and not just of the country you have to look at the icons rather than the sheer amount.

By the way I looked at melbourne just because I know it not because I think it is the capitol.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Yeah, Melbourne is certainly not "Stadium" capital of the world though it would be one of the top "Sports" Capitals with many claiming from in and outside Australia that it is the top sports city.

For a City of 3.9 million Melbourne has an incredible amount of quality Sporting infrastructure, still it can be argued that the like's of Sydney which isn't much larger and other comparable sized former Olympic cities have a similar amount of broad venues. Sydney probably pips Melbourne in the quantity of quality as the suburban venues have continued to be used thus maintained at 15 000 plus capacities while the former VFL grounds have been left to become rundown and overgrown or to be transformed by developers.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

weava said:


> LA is FAR from being the stadium capital of even the US


I dont think any city in America can beat LA. I think the NY region might be close.

Just off the top of my head, major arenas and fields, nevermind the numerous places under 10,000 seats. ...

Staples Center - 19,000
Forum - 17,500
Sports Arena - 17,000
Pauly Pavillion - Is being renovated - 13,000
Galen Center - Brand new - 11,500
Ontario Center - Brand new - 11,000
Anaheim Pond - 17,000
Dodger Stadium - partly renovated, more to come - 56,000
Angel Stadium - renovated - 45,000
Hollywood Park 
Santa Anita Park 
Rose Bowl - renovations start in Jan - 92,000
Colosseum - 92,000
UCLA Tennis Center - 6000
Home Depot Center Soccer Stadium - new - 27,000
Home Depot Center Tennis Stadium - 13,000
Home Depot Center Track and Field Stadium - 20,000 permanent seats
Irwindale Speedway - 
California Speedway - 100,000
Coming soon a new 80,000 seat event center.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis (Oct 7, 2008)

mvictory said:


> ...The league stadiums really mean nothing.


Stadiums of some of the worlds biggest and most popular teams in the sport which is by far the biggest and most popular on this planet certainly mean nothing. 

Please..


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> I dont think any city in America can beat LA. I think the NY region might be close.
> 
> Just off the top of my head, major arenas and fields, nevermind the numerous places under 10,000 seats. ...
> 
> ...


You forgot Titan Stadium (10,000) and Weingart Stadium (22,335)


----------



## footballff (Nov 4, 2010)

Just look at http://www.stadiumzone.weebly.com and you'll see Buenos Aires is the stadium capital of the world. Almost all big stadiums in that country are in Buenos Aires metro area. La Bombonera is the most beautiful of all, what a masterpiece! Very impressive and amazing fanatical fans.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

ryebreadraz said:


> You forgot Titan Stadium (10,000) and Weingart Stadium (22,335)



Thanks i knew i was missing some.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

footballff said:


> Just look at http://www.stadiumzone.weebly.com and you'll see Buenos Aires is the stadium capital of the world. Almost all big stadiums in that country are in Buenos Aires metro area. La Bombonera is the most beautiful of all, what a masterpiece! Very impressive and amazing fanatical fans.


Simon Inglis wrote a book, part of which involved going around all the football grounds in Buenos Aires. I think the claim was there were 21 football grounds in the area. Unfortunately it turned out a fair number were barely developed at all, or incredibly basic, so it wasn't quite the impressive number it first seems.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> I dont think any city in America can beat LA. I think the NY region might be close.
> 
> Just off the top of my head, major arenas and fields, nevermind the numerous places under 10,000 seats. ...
> 
> ...


I already did this a few pages back for dallashttp://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=979844&page=13
LA can not currently host a final four, a superbowl, nor does it have a NFL caliber stadium. Build the new downtown stadium and we can talk.

Dallas (from my list):766,665.
LA (using your list):557,000 (637,000 with new stadium)


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Dallas can't say that it has hosted 2 Olympics (in the same stadium no less). 

And LA can still host the Super Bowl. Hell it hosted the first one. Both the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl are old and in need of upgrading but they are far from crumbling.

Dallas might have more seats in it's stadiums but there is not a single city in the US that has had a greater impact on sports than Los Angeles.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

del


----------



## stresss (Jan 11, 2010)

would have to be london
many iconic stadiums and many smaller ones that have brilliant atmosphere all the same
some are a stone's throw from each other symbolising great rivalries, however theres a distinct london feel and style through out each stadium 
it might not have in numbers what la has, but its deeply enriched with history and tradition which not many other cities can boast over so many stadiums


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

soup or man said:


> Dallas can't say that it has hosted 2 Olympics (in the same stadium no less).
> 
> And LA can still host the Super Bowl. Hell it hosted the first one. Both the Coliseum and the Rose Bowl are old and in need of upgrading but they are far from crumbling.
> 
> Dallas might have more seats in it's stadiums but there is not a single city in the US that has had a greater impact on sports than Los Angeles.


Hosting superbowls and final fours are much more presitgous to american sport fans than the Olympics. Atlanta and St. Louis have also hosted the olympics but that doesn't make them anymore a sporting capital of the US than say Miami or Indianapolis. 

If LA could still host superbowls then why have you been removed from the rotation, oh yeah, because your stadiums are old, don't have the modern luxuries required by the super bowl crowds, don't have chairbacks, etc....


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

weava said:


> Hosting superbowls and final fours are much more presitgous to american sport fans than the Olympics. Atlanta and St. Louis have also hosted the olympics but that doesn't make them anymore a sporting capital of the US than say Miami or Indianapolis.
> 
> If LA could still host superbowls then why have you been removed from the rotation, oh yeah, because your stadiums are old, don't have the modern luxuries required by the super bowl crowds, don't have chairbacks, etc....


How do you figure that Americans are more into the Superbowl than the Olympics? If the Olympics were not higher up on the scale, then the US PRESIDENT would not travel halfway around the world to try and land the Olympics. The Superbowl and the Final Four happen every year and more often than not, the Superbowl will be in either New Orleans or Miami. Hosting the Final Four also does not raise the importance of a stadium all that much because in recent Final Four's, the Finals have been in a football stadium. Not normally suited for basketball.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

soup or man said:


> How do you figure that Americans are more into the Superbowl than the Olympics? If the Olympics were not higher up on the scale, then the US PRESIDENT would not travel halfway around the world to try and land the Olympics. The Superbowl and the Final Four happen every year and more often than not, the Superbowl will be in either New Orleans or Miami. Hosting the Final Four also does not raise the importance of a stadium all that much because in recent Final Four's, the Finals have been in a football stadium. Not normally suited for basketball.


How do I figure... umm, by using common sense. How does being able to host an event not raise a stadiums importance. Cowboys stadium being able to host 100,000 for a NBA allstar games and final fours is significant because most cities are not capable of doing that. 
PS. Kansas City will host a superbowl before LA, write that down.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

LA has hosted 7 Superbowls and will probably get the 2015 Superbowl. you dont bet against AEG. they have already had meetings with the NFL and LA will likely get 3 superbowls in the first ten years after a team relocates here.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

This is the Stadium Capital of the World, no one outside of the US cares about the SuperBowl!


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

weava said:


> How do I figure... umm, by using common sense. How does being able to host an event not raise a stadiums importance. Cowboys stadium being able to host 100,000 for a NBA allstar games and final fours is significant because most cities are not capable of doing that.
> PS. Kansas City will host a superbowl before LA, write that down.


People will never think of Dallas for a sporting mecca. At least not along the lines of Melborne, Los Angeles, and London.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

Solopop said:


> This is the Stadium Capital of the World, no one outside of the US cares about the SuperBowl!


i agree, just making a point about a previous post.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Do China and India care about the World Cup? Could be said that most of the world's population actually doesn't care about the World Cup.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis (Oct 7, 2008)

rantanamo said:


> Do China and India care about the World Cup? Could be said that most of the world's population actually doesn't care about the World Cup.


Edit your post before someone sees it because people might laugh at you.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

rantanamo said:


> Do China and India care about the World Cup? Could be said that most of the world's population actually doesn't care about the World Cup.


I was in the Old Town of Lijiang for the opening game of the World Cup.

Every bar, club, and restaurant had TV's showing the game - it was actually funny looking at all the LCD's being brought into the town for the bars that normally don't have TV's

One thing you can take for granted, China is obsessed with the WC when it is on (and this is even with China not qualifying for it)


----------



## bd popeye (May 29, 2010)

rantanamo said:


> Do China and India care about the World Cup? Could be said that most of the world's population actually doesn't care about the World Cup.


I don't know about India but I know China does. The WC had millions of followers in China. However their top tier league is under a lot of scrutiny because of some gambling corruption allegations.

China's top tier league is called Chinese Football Association Super League


----------



## HUSKER (Apr 1, 2006)

Solopop said:


> This is the Stadium Capital of the World, no one outside of the US cares about the SuperBowl!


Mexico and Canada care about the SB.-..... And LA is the stadium capital of the world.


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis (Oct 7, 2008)

HUSKER said:


> Mexico and Canada care about the SB.-..... And LA is the stadium capital of the world.


Mexico and Canada.. yea.. they really represent the entire planet.


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

Mr Spliff,
I did the maths, and still can't get near 950k. Maybe I missed some. 

As I suspected you also included Ascot which isn't in London its almost 30 miles away. The Olympic stadium will eventually have a smaller capacity and will replace either Upton Park or WHL and maybe one other. The rest is purely speculative.....


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

I keep giving you figures with and without Ascot, please reread my posts. At the end of the day by 2012 London will have over 900,000 (the Olympic venues will be finished by 2011)- and with White Hart Lane scheduled for that date (just been approved after public enquiry) it will be near 970,000.


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

the spliff fairy said:


> I keep giving you figures with and without Ascot, please reread my posts. At the end of the day by 2012 London will have over 900,000 (the Olympic venues will be finished by 2011)- and with White Hart Lane scheduled for that date (just been approved after public enquiry) it will be near 970,000.


It appears you are having WHL 1&2 and the Olympic stadium at the same time. You might not have heard, but WHL2 might not go ahead, and Spurs may move into the olympic stadium (minus 20,000 seats), and then of course minus WHL1 (minus 36,000 seats).... or minus Upton Park and Orient..... in otherwords all these stadia cannot exist at the same time. In anycase, I'm also not sure if the public Inquiry and the planning permission process is complete yet...... however, regardless, the total barely breaks 800k.

At the same time, BA's is more like 1,200k+, and that's with some major capacity reductions lately. They've yet to have any major stadium expansion or redevelopment programme, with many stadia due it. Not bad for a city without a dedicated National or Olympic stadium.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Tom, 2012 - >900,000, with or without WHL2.

At the end of the day London without WHL1 or 2 (and btw if you want to rule out WHL1 youll have to rule in the Olympic Stadium), or even racecourses, circuits etc will still have bigger capacity than anywhere else (and Im not talking metro).



.


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

the spliff fairy said:


> Tom, 2012 - >900,000, with or without WHL2.
> 
> At the end of the day London without WHL1 or 2 (and btw if you want to rule out WHL1 youll have to rule in the Olympic Stadium), or even Ascot still has bigger capacity than anywhere else.


Mr Spliff,
I believe I initially responded to your original figure......you said it HAS 950k including the Olympic stadium..... it hasn't. 

I added all your numbers and it comes to just over 815k (I think) including the not yet built olympic stadium and arenas etc. Meaning, London only actually has just over 700k seats now. Ultimately, the olympic stadium will eventually lose 20k seats (I believe), and will replace either WHL1 or Upton Park (and maybe another), meaning the total will fall again with or without the addition of WHL2.

Ascot is not in London.... It is not a London Stadium, but even if it was ........


----------



## bifdy (Nov 24, 2010)

Tom Hughes said:


> Is this a..... "maybe it's because I'm a Londoner" moment?
> 
> FYI: I've been to Wembley quite a few times actually, old and new. The old one was iconic (if you think external features count for anything), and had a wonderfull atmosphere, but the viewing distances were atrocious. For the new one, apart from the over-engineered arch, what is so iconic? The stadium is a totally c-value led exercise in fitting in the corporates, at the expense of all other good footy stadium design. It really is nothing remarkable or unusual in world stadium terms. As a consequence the atmosphere is nowhere near as good as the old stadium which even had a track to contend with. This is due to poor proportioning of the tiers, fragmentation of the crowd and the poorly located video screens. There are several much smaller stadia in the league with vastly superior atmospheres. Incidentally, I have also never seen Q's like those for toilets at it too (anywhere). It's easy to see where all the surplus facilities went. Tbh, IMO The Millenium wipes the floor with it on most things, atmosphere, viewing quality and viewing distances and certainly value for money, although smaller. The sliding roof meaning it is more flexible and superior technically too. At almost £1bn you dont expect to still get wet on the front sections.
> 
> ...


firstly im not a Londoner and im a Wolves fan so i know all about clubs that used to be big *cough* - Everton. and just because the likes of fulham, west ham & spurs haven't won a load of trophies doesn't make them any less well known. fulham are now in their tenth consecutive premier league season and played in a major European final last term. whether you choose to acknowledge it or not doesn't matter, what matters is they have had players from every corner of the World which has drawn attention to FFC. they are a household name even in football backwaters like the US since McBride, Bocanegra & Dempsey have played for them.

as for Wembley not having an atmosphere. nonsense. i have been in all levels of the ground and whilst i'd agree the upper tier is vacuous and the middle tier ......... corporate, the lower tier for Englands games vs. Russia and Croatia (twice) vs. worthy opposition in crunch games, was rocking. a friend of mine came to the conclusion that the atmosphere was crap when watching England vs. Estonia from the upper tier, he changed his mind after attending a cup final in the lower tier! i also follow the NFL closely and was fortunate to have my team visit a couple of seasons back, my family & friends who came from the states for the game were suitably impressed with our stadium! they were all dragged to vicarage road the day before so they saw what an English stadium could look like! 

as for the millennium stadium, i've been there 4 times, its a great stadium in a fantastic area and yes it was built for a fraction of the price, but its not better than Wembley - thats just what northerners who are upset that the new national stadium wasn't built nearer them say! our national stadium was built in the only city in England that connects directly to every other major city. 

again i'd have to agree that as iconic as the old Wembley was it had to go. it was falling down around us and the facilities were from the dark ages. much like the stadiums you are lauding up in Buenos Aries. as amazing as the atmosphere undoubtedly is, its only made possible by the terracing that accounts for most of the 57,000 capacity! if Argentina get the World Cup the capacity will be greatly reduced. one only hopes they can implement German style "safe standing" to retain its atmosphere. but as far as impressive structures go the crumbling Agentine concrete bowls are a long way off the impressive super modern stadia that stands proud in London!


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

> bifdy said:
> 
> 
> > firstly im not a Londoner and im a Wolves fan so i know all about clubs that used to be big *cough* - Everton. and just because the likes of fulham, west ham & spurs haven't won a load of trophies doesn't make them any less well known. fulham are now in their tenth consecutive premier league season and played in a major European final last term. whether you choose to acknowledge it or not doesn't matter, what matters is they have had players from every corner of the World which has drawn attention to FFC. they are a household name even in football backwaters like the US since McBride, Bocanegra & Dempsey have played for them.
> ...


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

a fuller list from before:

Wembley Football 90,000
Twickenham Rugby 82,000
Olympic Stadium 80,000
Emirates Football Stadium 60,000
New Stamford Bridge Football 42,000
White Hart Lane Football, 36,000
Boleyn Ground Football 42,000
Lords Cricket Ground 42,000
The Valley Football, 27,000
Selhurst Park Football, 26,500
O2 Centre Mixed Use, 26,000
Craven Cottage 30,000
Brit Oval Cricket Ground 23,000
Kempton Park 23,000
The New Den , 20,146
Earls Court Arena Mixed Use 20,000 
Vicarage Road 20,000
Loftus Road 19,148 
Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium	15,500
Twickenham, Stoop 14,826	
Matchroom Stadium 13,842
Wimbledon Tennis Centre Court 15,000 
Griffin Park	12,763	
Stoop Memorial Ground	12,500	
Croydon Gateway Arena 12,500 
Wimbledon Tennis Number 1 Court	11,500
Epsom Downs Racecourse 11,000
Brisbane Rd 9,271	
Sandown Park 8200
Kingsmeadow	6,299	
Wimbledon Greyhound 6000
Glyn Hopkin Stadium	6,000	
Old Deer Park	5,850	
Underhill	5,500
Romford Track 4300
C.P. National Sports Centre	3,500 
Wimbledon Tennis No. 2 Court	3000
New River Stadium	2 000	
Metrogas Sportsground 2000
Alexandra Palace	1 250 
Crayford 1200
Ladywell Arena 1000
Pheonix Sports ground 1000
Greencourt sports club 1000
Tudo Sports Footscray 1000
Wickham Park 1000
Sevenacre Sportsground 1000

Olympic Aquatic Centre 20,000
Olympic Basketball Arena 12,000
Olympic Handball Arena 6,000
Velodrome 6,000

Total (i think) around 943,000.

This is without Ascot (80,000) or White Hart Lane 2 (60,000)


----------



## bifdy (Nov 24, 2010)

"Few of London's are famous outside of er... London..... and in general terms these are monsters compared to most on offer in London. I have been in ALL of London's main stadiums, I have also been in a few of BA's. There is no comparison." 

- a quote from Tom Hughes.

maybe if we were still playing football in the dark ages we too would have "monsters" of stadiums like we used to!

White City Stadium 100,000
Highbury 73,000
WHL 75,000
Griffin Park 40,000
Stamford Bridge 100,000 
Selhurst Park 52,000
The Valley 75,000
The Den 45,000
Brisbane Road - unofficially 63,000 but officially 39,000

how many of the Argentine stadiums have had major renovations?

London, had they not developed or demolished a load of shitty stadium would put the shitty stadiums of BA to shame!


----------



## T3amgeist (Sep 23, 2008)

London, no doubt about that!


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

There are also probably somewhere between 30-40 non-league grounds holding 3000-5000 or so. I counted 26 down to Rymans League level.

There are probably a few dozen more below that, but there's not that much point counting places smaller than that.


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

Sorry for being the pedant but........



> Wembley Football 90,000
> Twickenham Rugby 82,000
> Olympic Stadium 80,000
> Emirates Football Stadium 60,000
> ...


West ham is approx 35k



> Lords Cricket Ground 42,000


Lords is 28k, one day maybe.



> The Valley Football, 27,000
> Selhurst Park Football, 26,500
> 
> O2 Centre Mixed Use, 26,000
> ...


O2 is 20-23k
Craven Cottage 25,500

Brit Oval Cricket Ground 23,000
Kempton Park 23,000.....
The New Den , 20,146
Earls Court Arena Mixed Use 20,000 
Vicarage Road 20,000
Loftus Road 19,148 
Crystal Palace Athletics Stadium	15,500
Twickenham, Stoop 14,826	
Matchroom Stadium 13,842
Wimbledon Tennis Centre Court 15,000 
Griffin Park	12,763



> Stoop Memorial Ground	12,500


How many stoops are there? Aren't these one in the same?

Croydon Gateway Arena 12,500 
Wimbledon Tennis Number 1 Court	11,500



> Epsom Downs Racecourse 11,000


Is surely in Surrey?



> Brisbane Rd 9,271


Is the matchroom stadium.... again, you can't have it twice.



> Sandown Park 8200


Surrey?



> Kingsmeadow	6,299
> Wimbledon Greyhound 6000
> Glyn Hopkin Stadium	6,000
> Old Deer Park	5,850
> ...





> Total (i think) around 943,000.



Maybe it's my calculator but I still make it approx 860k, including all the olympic ones which don't exist yet, meaning there is still only approx 740k at present.



> This is without Ascot (80,000) or White Hart Lane 2 (60,000)


[/QUOTE]

WHL2 is 56k, (a nett gain of just 20k), unless they take the olympic stadium option which loses 20k for conversion to give a total drop of 56k (if you include the loss of WHL1)...... with an even greater nett loss if Orient and West ham relocate to strtford.

I think your race courses are contentious, although I have included Kempton to show I'm not greedy.


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

bifdy said:


> "Few of London's are famous outside of er... London..... and in general terms these are monsters compared to most on offer in London. I have been in ALL of London's main stadiums, I have also been in a few of BA's. There is no comparison."
> 
> - a quote from Tom Hughes.
> 
> ...


I visited all of these old stadia in their former terraced guise, and if you think any of them came close in quality terms to the larger stadia in BA you are deluded. These were first generation, almost victorian efforts mostly. By the end of their terraced days most of the London stadium capacities were tiny. They were nearly all very basic, often with hardly any seats. BTW the capacity for Stamford bridge was a well known over-estimate that it never achieved by quite a margin. Originally Leitch promoted Old Trafford as a 120k stadium to help promote it.... it too never got close to that figure.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Tom, use a calculator. 

AS for the ones in Surrey - check it out on Google Earth - they are absolutely contiguous with the city, only divided by the political city proper boundary (just like the ones you counted on the Melbourne outskirts, and not to mention Melbourne's race courses). The one that isn't contiguous is Ascot, which I left out.

This is the furthest one out, Epsom:

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...HMO_en-GBGB342GB342&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Sandown, (less than 2 miles from Hampton Court palace btw)

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en...HMO_en-GBGB342GB342&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl


----------



## Tom Hughes (May 14, 2007)

the spliff fairy said:


> Tom, use a calculator.
> 
> AS for the ones in Surrey - check it out on Google Earth - they are absolutely contiguous with the city, only divided by the political city proper boundary (just like the ones you counted on the Melbourne outskirts, and not to mention Melbourne's race courses). The one that isn't contiguous is Ascot, which I left out.
> 
> ...


I think you maybe still counting some stadia twice, and/or using the wrong capacities. BTW I've never mentioned Melbourne (but I believe someone was saying their tracks are close to town and not in the sticks).... But even with your race courses (I'm not sure how many are inside the conurbation, but Ascot certainly isn't) I still only just get 900k... and that includes 122k of Olympic facilities that don't exist yet... meaning, all in, there is less than 780k, and not 950k at present.... nor ever, since the outcome of the Olympic stadium's future will only reduce that total further as shown previously. 

You could always throw in the theatres, and the Odeans....  ? 

There will also be a few semi-pro facilities etc, but to be honest every major city in the footy world has these, and they barely register as stadia, and it would be impossible to compare.


----------



## chibetogdl (Apr 10, 2006)

london or buenos aires although most of the stadiums in buenos aires are old and ugly


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

Dallas/Fort-Worth is the stadium capital.


----------



## bifdy (Nov 24, 2010)

Tom Hughes said:


> I visited all of these old stadia in their former terraced guise, and if you think any of them came close in quality terms to the larger stadia in BA you are deluded. These were first generation, almost victorian efforts mostly. By the end of their terraced days most of the London stadium capacities were tiny. They were nearly all very basic, often with hardly any seats. BTW the capacity for Stamford bridge was a well known over-estimate that it never achieved by quite a margin. Originally Leitch promoted Old Trafford as a 120k stadium to help promote it.... it too never got close to that figure.


i never said i thought the old London stadiums were the same quality as those built in Argentina. that you think i meant that, shows that you think the stadiums of BA are at least on a par in terms of quality with todays London stadiums! now who's delusional?

you also state Londons old grounds hardly had any seats (i knew that). you are aware that only 1 or 2 BA stadiums are all seater? the others are very basic with a low percentage of seats!

now if the OP posed the question, which city has the most football specific stadiums then BA would probably win. but that wasn't the question!

London has a good mix of decent venue's, big and small hosting many different sporting events. Wembley, Twickenham, Lords & Wimbledon are Universally seen as church's to the fans and players of the sports that are played there. no other city boasts a list of stadiums of such stature. 

La Bombonera is the only truly iconic and World famous stadium (its more famous for the Boca fans) in BA and Argentina, i couldn't tell you what its proper name is without a google search. it is home to traditionally the second biggest club in the city and currently has the second highest capacity. its the second best stadium in BA, let alone Argentina. (it is still the stadium i would most like to go to in South America, behind the Maracana - its even my second favourite).

if there were more iconic World famous stadiums then BA might have a podium finish but London, Melbourne and LA are streets ahead for me!


----------



## bifdy (Nov 24, 2010)

nvm


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Tom Hughes said:


> I think you maybe still counting some stadia twice, and/or using the wrong capacities. BTW I've never mentioned Melbourne (but I believe someone was saying their tracks are close to town and not in the sticks).... But even with your race courses (I'm not sure how many are inside the conurbation, but Ascot certainly isn't) I still only just get 900k... and that includes 122k of Olympic facilities that don't exist yet... meaning, all in, there is less than 780k, and not 950k at present.... nor ever, since the outcome of the Olympic stadium's future will only reduce that total further as shown previously.
> 
> You could always throw in the theatres, and the Odeans....  ?
> 
> There will also be a few semi-pro facilities etc, but to be honest every major city in the footy world has these, and they barely register as stadia, and it would be impossible to compare.



GOD its like hitting your head on a wall. I keep REPEATEDLY leaving out ASCOT, you keep repeatedly thinking Im counting it. Ive not said 950k at present - but by 2012 (actually by 2011 when the work on them are completed).

So far youve had issue with:

1. not counting ASCOT (yes, yes, YES we've heard)
2. not counting national stadiums (????)
3. not counting stadia outside the official city boundaries (but still obviously part of the contiguous city, while previously including such in other cities)
4. not counting racecourses (when you previously counted them for other cities)
5. the Olympic stadia due to be finished next year
6. and now 'semi-pro' stadia.

Obfuscation if you ask me.

At the end of the day feel free to cut those out of whatever criteria youve now decided on, but at least apply these same ommisions to other cities. All I ask.


----------



## bifdy (Nov 24, 2010)

bigbossman said:


> ^^ highbury was reduced from 60,000 prior to 1987, I've got Football Grounds of Great Britain (1987) and it says Arsenal reduced the capacity voluntarily to 57,000 no year. I'd assume in the early 80s because our highest crowd in that decade was around 57,000 against villa in 1981.


in what way did arsenal reduce voluntarily? did they close a section of terracing or just allow fewer people on to it, so highbury didnt physically change?


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Buenos Aires has the highest concentration of any professional association football team of any city in the world, which means that Buenos Aires could possibly be a literal "Stadium Capital of the World".


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Jim856796 said:


> Buenos Aires has the highest concentration of any professional association football team of any city in the world, which means that Buenos Aires could possibly be a literal "Stadium Capital of the World".


More sports than just football use stadiums, which is why London has the edge over so many others


----------



## bifdy (Nov 24, 2010)

Jim856796 said:


> Buenos Aires has the highest concentration of any professional association football team of any city in the world, which means that Buenos Aires could possibly be a literal "Stadium Capital of the World".


i love football, i have a season ticket and have travelled the world watching my national team play. it is my favourite sport by a country mile. if BA was described as the association football capital of the world, given the facts, it would be hard to argue.

im aware that rugby union is played in BA and Argentina are actually very good, they like there horse racing too and enjoy a game of tennis. these four sports stand out a mile when looking at Argentine sports along with polo too! 

in London there are sports that stand out from the others also. two codes of rugby, cricket, tennis, horse racing and of course football (the freemasons arms pub where the first rules for the modern game were drawn up is in London), other sports which are played and watched frequently include pool, snooker and darts which all stage world class events in London's arenas. London also hosts big american sports such as the NFL and NBA. i dont know if the NHL have come to town yet but London used to have its own ice hockey team too!

not only does London have some amazing stadia but it hosts World class events in them all of the time. London has to be the stadium capital not just for the many sizeable stadiums but the veritable "smorgasbord" of sports that are played there!

BA just cant compete!


----------



## 645577 (Jun 22, 2010)

*Hi all ! im from buenos aires  (first of all, sorry for my english xD)

All of this stadiums, except 2 (Parque roca & autodromo galvez) were built by the clubs without the support of private investment. In argentina is very difficult to build stadiums

Buenos aires and some of metropolitan area

Official name - Capacity - Year Opened

Hipódromo de San Isidro	100 000	1935
Antonio Vespucio Liberti 66 449 1938 
Alberto J. Armando	57 446	1940
Presidente Perón	51 389	1950
Hipódromo Argentino	50 000	1908
Estadio José Amalfitani	49 747	1940
Tomás Adolfo Ducó	48 314	1947
Estadio Lanús	46 519	1929
Libertadores de América	44 000	2009
Estadio Pedro Bidegaín	42 000	1994
Don León Kolbovski	34 000
Estadio Eduardo Gallardón	33 542
Estadio Florencio Solá	33 351
José Luis Meiszner	33 000
Estadio Nueva España	32 500
Ciudad de Vicente López	31 000
Estadio Monumental	30 000
Estadio Nueva Chicago	28 500
Diego Armando Maradona	25 000
Arq. Ricardo Etcheverry	24 858
Estadio Chacarita Juniors	24 300
Estadio 20 de Octubre	20 000
Estadio El Gallinero	19 000
Estadio 3 de Febrero	19 000
Estadio G.E.B.A. 18.000
Alfredo M. Berangert	18 000
Estadio Islas Malvinas	17 000
Estadio Ciudad de Caseros	16 500
Campo Argentino de Polo	15 000
Parque Roca	14 510
Argentino de Quilmes	12 000
Defensor de Belgrano	8 500
Deportivo Armenio	8 100
Norberto Tito Tomaghello 8000
Estadio Luna Park 8000
Lawn Tennis Club	8 000
Coliseo del Bajo Belgrano	6 500
Estadio Nacional de Hockey	6 000
Estadio Norman Lee	5000
José Manuel Moreno	5000
Estadio de los Inmigrantes	5000
Avenida del Golf	5 000
Estadio Obras Sanitarias 4700
Estadio Alfredo Ramos 3.500

if im not wrong this gives us a total of 1.042.725 btw, where not talking about other inferior football divisions in buenos aires (about 60 other teams, with stadiums of 6000 capacity in average, Do the maths :nuts 

Anyway, except for 10 stadiums, the rest can't even compared with beautiful stadiums in london 

peace *


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

bifdy said:


> in what way did arsenal reduce voluntarily? did they close a section of terracing or just allow fewer people on to it, so highbury didnt physically change?


The book says they put toilets and a refreshment bar into the north bank, and that makes sense because if you look at pictures in the 1970s and 1980s the north bank definately doesn't go as far at the back. 

The basically reduced the stadium progressively from a maximum of around 70,000 in the mid 60s, to 63,000 when they put the seats in on the west stand 1970, and 57,000 at the time they put the refreshments bar etc in. The stadium didn't require any work for the safety in sports grounds act.

I'll scan some pictures up later...


----------



## JimB (Apr 7, 2005)

645577 said:


> *Hi all ! im from buenos aires  (first of all, sorry for my english xD)
> 
> All of this stadiums, except 2 (Parque roca & autodromo galvez) were built by the clubs without the support of private investment. In argentina is very difficult to build stadiums
> 
> ...


There certainly are an incredible number of football stadiums (and teams!) in BA.


----------



## redbaron_012 (Sep 19, 2004)

Stadium capacity and number of stadiums mean a variety of things in different countries. If you include motor racing try and imagine those huge Nascar tracks in the USA...makes any stadium seem small. But if you take a city like Melbourne. 4 million people, the central city area a few square kilometers includes the MCG, Etihad Stadium, AAMI Stadium and Melbourne Park Tennis centre not counting a few other sporting fields within the central city area.......The attendance record week after week speaks for itself.....OK I live here but I have never seen a more sporting city anywhere.


----------



## Habsman (Apr 21, 2011)

london


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

In the US: these are the only cities that have a MLB Stadium, NFL Stadium, NBA/NHL quality arena, MLS stadium, and a Nascar racetrack.

1) Dallas
2) Chicago
3) Kansas City
Dallas is the only city in the US that hosts all 5 major leagues in sport specific stadiums, has Nascar, and can host a final four and a super bowl. I think that makes it hands down the USA winner if history is not a factor. 

*LA will join the list with Farmers field

I don't think their is a single city in the world that can host every single sporting event so there is no clear cut winner, but London and Melbourne are definitively the front runners. (Dallas can't host cricket, Melbourne doesn't have an NBA/NHL quality arena, London doesn't have a baseball stadium, etc)


----------



## WesTexas (Aug 20, 2011)

Also in the Dallas area there is The Cotton Bowl Stadium, SMU, TCU and UNT's stadiums and arenas. 

College Football Stadiums
SMU is NEW...ish
TCU is getting a remodel
UNT has a brand spanking new football stadium.

ALSO there are tons of high school stadiums and arenas in the Metroplex owned by huge school districts for all their high schools to use that are better than what some Division 2 Colleges have.


----------



## West12Rangers (Feb 3, 2011)

i live in London,but have visited Melbourne,and both are great cities.Its true that all Melbourne's major sporting venues are sited in the city centre,while Londons are spread out.The problem with Melbourne is that cricket and AFL are concentrated in just one stadium..quite a few of the AFL teams now play at the G,
London has two historic cricket grounds,used solely for that sport,and a historic Rugby ground,used soley for that sport...i think Melbourne is best described as the more practical sporting city


----------



## Dean (Sep 11, 2002)

West12Rangers said:


> The problem with Melbourne is that cricket and AFL are concentrated in just one stadium.


No. Etihad Stadium with 56600 capacity is the other AFL/Cricket/Football venue which also has a retractable roof.


----------



## West12Rangers (Feb 3, 2011)

Dean said:


> No. Etihad Stadium with 56600 capacity is the other AFL/Cricket/Football venue which also has a retractable roof.


OK,so you have two stadiums for those sports...London has 2 for cricket,1 for Rugby,one for the Olympics,and two 60k plus football stadiums... THE MCG has,as its tennants,the Victorian Bushrangers
Melbourne Stars
Collingwood Football Club
Hawthorn Football Club
Melbourne Football Club
Richmond Football Club


----------



## West12Rangers (Feb 3, 2011)

645577 said:


> *Hi all ! im from buenos aires  (first of all, sorry for my english xD)
> 
> All of this stadiums, except 2 (Parque roca & autodromo galvez) were built by the clubs without the support of private investment. In argentina is very difficult to build stadiums
> 
> ...


how many of those are actually in the city of BA,and how many are in the province of BA?


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> The book says they put toilets and a refreshment bar into the north bank, and that makes sense because if you look at pictures in the 1970s and 1980s the north bank definately doesn't go as far at the back.
> 
> The basically reduced the stadium progressively from a maximum of around 70,000 in the mid 60s, to 63,000 when they put the seats in on the west stand 1970, and 57,000 at the time they put the refreshments bar etc in. The stadium didn't require any work for the safety in sports grounds act.
> 
> I'll scan some pictures up later...


When did the boxes over the clock go up? That would probably have reduced the capacity.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

weava said:


> In the US: these are the only cities that have a MLB Stadium, NFL Stadium, NBA/NHL quality arena, MLS stadium, and a Nascar racetrack.
> 
> 1) Dallas
> 2) Chicago
> ...


you can include the Bay Area if the the 'Quakes somehow get a new stadium

and IMO Cincy has an argument -- Kentucky Speedway is only a 45-minute drive fr...oh wait...


----------



## Marckymarc (Jan 24, 2008)

weava said:


> In the US: these are the only cities that have a MLB Stadium, NFL Stadium, NBA/NHL quality arena, MLS stadium, and a Nascar racetrack.
> 
> 1) Dallas
> 2) Chicago
> ...


Well there are many ways to qualify this thread. I still think the greater L.A. area wins hands down over Dallas.

LA has:

_Seven_ 10,000+ seat arenas
2 MLB stadiums
5 minor league baseball teams, each with their own stadium
Two 90,000+ seat football stadiums, including one Olympic Stadium
Two NASCAR sanctioned racetracks
One MLS Stadium
Two World Class Thoroughbred racetracks
The Long Beach Pyramid (one of the most unique sports arenas in the world)
Plus the dozens upon dozens of smaller college baseball, football and basketball stadiums and arenas.


----------



## adeaide (Sep 16, 2008)

*SEOUL (KOREA)*

Jamsil Olympic Stadium (69,950)












Sangam World Cup Stadium (68,476)












Mokdong stadium (20,236)












Hyochang stadium (15,276)












Dongdaemun stadium (22,655 now demolished)


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Marckymarc said:


> Well there are many ways to qualify this thread. I still think the greater L.A. area wins hands down over Dallas.
> 
> LA has:
> 
> ...


If Farmers field gets built then LA becomes the clear leader, but at the moment LA can't host a final four or superbowl and Dallas can so Dallas gets the edge IMO. I also have no connection to either city so I feel my opinion is unbiased.


----------



## Marckymarc (Jan 24, 2008)

weava said:


> If Farmers field gets built then LA becomes the clear leader, but at the moment LA can't host a final four or superbowl and Dallas can so Dallas gets the edge IMO. I also have no connection to either city so I feel my opinion is unbiased.


The Final Four I'll give you, but L.A. can host a Super Bowl. Just because the NFL is busy rewarding Super Bowls to recently built new stadiums doesn't mean L.A. "can't" host. The Rose Bowl is a fine Super Bowl venue--especially now with it being renovated with new suites, clubs and HD scoreboards.

IMO Dallas not being able to host the Olympics is "worse" than L.A. not being able to host the Final Four.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Marckymarc said:


> The Final Four I'll give you, but L.A. can host a Super Bowl. Just because the NFL is busy rewarding Super Bowls to recently built new stadiums doesn't mean L.A. "can't" host. The Rose Bowl is a fine Super Bowl venue--especially now with it being renovated with new suites, clubs and HD scoreboards.
> 
> IMO Dallas not being able to host the Olympics is "worse" than L.A. not being able to host the Final Four.


The LA Colosseum can't fit a track anymore.


----------



## Marckymarc (Jan 24, 2008)

weava said:


> The LA Colosseum can't fit a track anymore.


It would be a relativity easy fix to build a temporary raised field back up to the old elevation. If L.A. were awarded another games that's exactly what would be done. Anyway a moot point. Who knows how many years before L.A. would host again even if they were interested.


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

London is likely the stadium capital, but BA certainly looks very close behind.

The main reason I see London ahead is it's broader mix of sporting venues. If there was a football stadium capital, it would likely be BA though

Melbourne, for as much as I love this city, is not in the same league when it comes to a stadium capital. The sporting capital possibly yes, but as it uses 2 venues (MCG and Etihad) extensively, the variety of facilities is limited.

Some major venues in Melbourne now include:

MCG
Etihad Stadium
Melbourne Park (Rod Laver Arena and Hisense)
MRS (AAMI Park)
Royal Park (State Netball and Hockey Centre)
Albert Park (MSAC and State Athletics Centre)

Over the years, the Australian Rules Football venues throughout the suburbs have been all but abandoned, leaving them as training venues or have been left completely.

As someone said earlier, Melbourne is good at maximizing usage of a few venues


----------



## West12Rangers (Feb 3, 2011)

Melb_aviator said:


> London is likely the stadium capital, but BA certainly looks very close behind.
> 
> The main reason I see London ahead is it's broader mix of sporting venues. If there was a football stadium capital, it would likely be BA though
> 
> ...



like i said,Melbourne is up the more practical sports capital,all modern,all within spitting distance of each other,all near the city centre
London's are all spread all over the place


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

London


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> When did the boxes over the clock go up? That would probably have reduced the capacity.


I think they went up in 1988, as you can see in this video they are up for the norwich game in towards the end of 1988/89 (skip to 1m25s)






Our highest crowd of that season was 45,129 against Spurs, whereas in 87/88 we got the highest crowd in the whole league 54,703 vs Liverpool. I can't imagine how the boxes knocked off 10,000 places though (especially considering it was before hillsborough).


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

How times change. Crazy seeing Leeds and Chelsea in the same division as Walsall and (!) Shrewsbury. I'm sure the latter slipped out of the FL not that long ago and i don't even remember when they were above the basement.

Always liked how the Clock End had the boxes stacked on two decks, looks better than a single tier of boxes strung around the ground IMO.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> I think they went up in 1988, as you can see in this video they are up for the norwich game in towards the end of 1988/89 (skip to 1m25s)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Crowds were much lower back then, and rather more volatile. You could pay on the day at virtually any league game, so not getting another 54000 in 88/89 doesn't indicate a 10,000 drop, but the pillars and loss of space at the back of the terrace _might_ account for a 3000 loss.

There was also a review of safety after the Bradford fire, which looked at safety exits as well as fire hazards.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Rev Stickleback said:


> Crowds were much lower back then, and rather more volatile. You could pay on the day at virtually any league game, so not getting another 54000 in 88/89 doesn't indicate a 10,000 drop, but the pillars and loss of space at the back of the terrace _might_ account for a 3000 loss.
> 
> There was also a review of safety after the Bradford fire, which looked at safety exits as well as fire hazards.


As far as I know the poppelwell report (the review you talk about) didn't affect Arsenal any reductions in capacity made by the club were voluntary. Having said that the capacity wasn't reduced, I missed our cup crowds of that season and we got 54,103 in the league cup 3rd round against Liverpool. 

My point came across wrong I was just confused that we couldn't break 46,000 for a league game in 1988/89 (the season when we won the league) considering we pulled two 50,000+ crowds the season before when we came far lower. Highbury held a maximum of 57,000 at the time of Hillsborough, the reductions happened after when the corners of the clock end were chopped off.


----------



## jwmann2 (Nov 13, 2011)

New york is you count the surrounding New Jersey area as well as long island. They have like eight franchises.


----------



## blurros2 (Oct 27, 2011)

According to http://www.stadiumzone.weebly.com you can say London is the stadium capital of the world. English are totally football mad


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

blurros2 said:


> According to http://www.stadiumzone.weebly.com you can say London is the stadium capital of the world. English are totally football mad


Not just football (whether rugby or soccer) - there's a high interest in cricket and tennis in the summer as well, and of course we have the Olympics next year as well.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

jwmann2 said:


> New york is you count the surrounding New Jersey area as well as long island. They have like eight franchises.


Some of these share facilities though.

If you count the whole New York metropolitan area, there's:

*MetLife Stadium, East Rutherford (82,566)*
- New York Giants (NFL)
- New York Jets (NFL)

*Yankee Stadium, The Bronx (50,291)*
- New York Yankees (MLB)

*Citi Field, Queens (41,800)*
- New York Mets (MLB)

*Red Bull Arena, Harrison (25,189)*
- New York Red Bulls (MLS)

*Madison Square Garden, Manhattan (19,763)*
- New York Knicks (NBA)
- New York Rangers (NHL)

*Prudential Center, Newark (18,711)*
- New Jersey Devils (NHL)
- New Jersey Nets (NBA)

*Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, Long Island (16,250)*
- New York Islanders (NHL)

That's nothing compared to the stadia in London.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

CharlieP said:


> Some of these share facilities though.
> 
> If you count the whole New York metropolitan area, there's:
> 
> ...


you're leaving out a bunch of venues:

- Barclays Center
- Rutgers High Point Solutions Stadium
- USTA National Tennis Center

Don't forget all the minor league parks such as Keyspan, St. George, FirstEnergy, Riverfront, TD Bank, etc..


----------



## PadArch (Apr 1, 2010)

I hate myself for reading this thread...leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. cynics would say, what can we expect from sports fans! What is it about these things that makes people so jingoistic.. One thing that puts me off watching football (soccer) in pubs for instance is the idiots I have to share my space with to do so. This thread simply reminded me of that - the worst aspects of sport, and struggles to make a case instead for the best aspects.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big sports fan.. But I hate the way people have this jingoistic attitude. I find some of the comments from Europeans/Australians about American sports unbelievable.. and that is coming from someone with very little interest in American Sports - at least I respect them and see their merit and the quality of the support they get in the States..


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

KingmanIII said:


> you're leaving out a bunch of venues:
> 
> - Barclays Center
> - Rutgers High Point Solutions Stadium
> ...


True, but I was really just countering the "there's like eight franchises" comment.


----------



## WorldCupWatcher (Jan 10, 2012)

Stadium capital gotta be New York City. They have 4 of the most expensive stadiums in the world.


----------



## OldKool (Dec 20, 2010)

I don't know about others but Delhi is big at stadiums in South Asia with sevral wo0rld class stadiums of all disciplines and many new on their way...plus many small veues in almost every college and university and hordes of Golf Courses and Go karting venues.

Existing Stads

*
Buddh International Circuit- 120,000*
*
GN International Cricket Stadium-100,000 (u/c)*

*
Jawaharlal Nehru Sports Complex-60,000+2,000+2,500*

*FSK CRicket Stadium- 50,000*

*Thyagaraj Sports Complex-5,000*

*IndiraGandhi Indoor Sports Complex**-15,000 + 7,000 + 4,000*
*
SPM Swimming Complex-6,000*

*Talkatora Indoor Boxing Stadium-3,500*

*National Hockey Stadium-22,000*

*Siri Fort Sports COmplex-7,500+4,500

Doctor Karni Shooting Complex-4,000

RKK Tennis Complex-5,000

Yamuna Sports Complex- 6,000

Delhi Univ. Rugby Stadium- 10,000*

*Shivaji Stadium- 7,500*

*GN Cricket Stadium- 12,000*


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

WorldCupWatcher said:


> Stadium capital gotta be New York City. They have 4 of the most expensive stadiums in the world.


yes cause thats the only criteria.....

New York is probably top 5 in this category but definitely not above London, LA and Melbourne


----------



## FAAN (Jun 24, 2011)

New York, Tokyo or Rio.

Rio has many stages and three large: Maracana> 85,000
Engenhão> 65,000
São Januário> 37,000


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Guys, NYC just isnt in the same league as London

(results just for the contiguous city, not even the metro):




the spliff fairy said:


> *To recap for LONDON
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## WorldCupWatcher (Jan 10, 2012)

Great pictures! a great argument for London being the stadium capital of the world. Lord's and the Oval still my favourites


----------



## MrChavcore (Mar 27, 2010)

it surely has to be london?


----------



## guy4versa (Nov 19, 2011)

china is the real capital of the world in stadium...


----------



## sgroutage (Feb 25, 2011)

Have a go at the following:

http://www.sporcle.com/games/jonesjeffum/stadiumcity


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

sgroutage said:


> Have a go at the following:
> 
> http://www.sporcle.com/games/jonesjeffum/stadiumcity


I got 45


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

*East Rutherford Stadium : 102,000 Actual Seating Capacity*

*New York, New York* - Stadium Capital of the World

*World's Most Expensive Stadium* at $1.6 Billion[/B]

no cost was spared 

20,000 seats were compromised to install ultra expensive HIGH DEFINITION Massive LED WIDESCREENS (5000 seats for 1 HD LED TV SCREEN x 4)

*East Rutherford Stadium *- 82,000+ seating capacity














































Comparing this marvel to new webley is a huge insult & a joke.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I don't think it was ever a competition of most expensive stadia, though. That said, the sheer number of stadiums in London, together, probably cost more than New York anyway.


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Hindustani said:


> Comparing this marvel to new webley is a huge insult & a joke.


Yeah, webley is rubbish! But Wembley is great!  Oh, and you should really sort out that issue you have with London stadiums. :lol:


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

*Non-Professional Amateur NCAA Big East Football Stadium - Rutgers Scarlet Knights*

*New York, New York: Sports, Stadium capital of the world
*


Dimethyltryptamine said:


> I don't think it was ever a competition of most expensive stadia, though. That said, the sheer number of stadiums in London, together, probably cost more than New York anyway.


# of stadia aint gotta do nothing with London. Its the lack of LED HD Widescreens to watch replays & entertain the crowd.* New Meadowlands stadium got 4 massive gigantic HD LED widescreens. *

Its not just Quantity alone. Its gotta be Quantity + Quality. London is an epic fail at that.

I start adding NYC metropolitan area pro stadium, collage b'ball, college football & high school basketball, baseball stadiums.

NYC will destroy London easily.

NYC is a sports fanatic town. Baseball stadiums alone will beat London easily. 

BTW, here is another NYC metropolitan Rutgers Scarlet Knights stadium, Piscataway, NJ.


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> I don't think it was ever a competition of most expensive stadia, though. That said, the sheer number of stadiums in London, together, probably cost more than New York anyway.


sweetheart

did you even bother seeing 4 images images I posted of the New Rutherford giants/jets stadium.

dont you notice the quality difference between this state-of-the-art rutherford stadium & that overrated new Wembley tembly zambly whatever it is called.

4 x massive gigantic full HD screens for audience enjoyment.

NYC not just gives you massive size, it also gives you unbeatable Quality of enjoyment at watching sports.

LONDON dont.

Hence NYC the stadium capital of the world.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Might as well watch it at home on TV, eh?

Quick, come up with another argument! 

What's next, padded seats for the big fat American bottoms? Is it that which makes New York the stadium capital of the world? Please...


----------



## Xup (Jan 13, 2012)

Stadium capital of the world? LONDON for me, without a doubt. Thanks for the great comprehensive post of "the spliff fairy" in p.27 of this thread.


----------



## Ecological (Mar 19, 2009)

*New York State V English Midlands*

New York State Population - 19,378,102
English Midlands Population - 8,462,293

*Major City*

Major City - New York
Major City - Birmingham

*Population*

Population - 8,960,120
Population - 1,010,400

*Biggest Stadium*

Biggest Stadium - Belmont Park, 90,000
Biggest Stadium - Silverstone, 90,000

*Stadiums over 20k in Region.*

New York State = 9
English Midlands = 15

*Total Capacity of Stadiums in Region over 10k*

New York State = 717,749
English Midlands = 757,631

*Major Clubs*

New York 

New York Knicks, New York Giants, New York Mets, New York Red Bull, New York Yankees, New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, New Jersey Nets, New York Jets, New York Rangers. 

English Midlands

Aston Villa FC, Wolverhampton Wanderers, Birmingham City, West Bromwich Albion, Nottingham Forest, Coventry City, Leicester City, Derby City, Leicester Tigers, Notts County, Worcester Warriors, Worcestershire Royals, Nottinghamshire Outlaws, Derbyshire Scorpions, Scunthorpe United, Grimbsy Town, Peterborough United, Northampton Saints, Leciestershire Foxes, Lincoln City, Mansfield Town, Northampton Town, Stoke City, Port Vale, Warwickshire Bears, Worcester Wolves, Walsall.

*Major Stadiums Per State/County
*

New York State

Ralph Wilson Stadium 73,967
Yankee Stadium 52,325
Carrier Dome 49,550
Citi Field 41,880
Michie Stadium 39,929
UB Stadium 32,000
Schoellkopf Field 25,597
Arthur Ashe Stadium 22,547

English Midlands

Villa Park 43,275
Pride Park 33,597
Walkers Stadium 32,500
Ricoh Arena 32,000
Molineux 31,700 (U/C - 38,000/50,000)
City Ground 30,602
St Andrews 30,016
Britannia 28,000
Hawthorns 27,200
Edgbaston 25,000
Welford Road 24,000
Vale Park 22,546

-

If England had as few sporting teams and franchises as the US teams would be receiving 150,000 fans per game.


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

Pyongyang  (just thought it was worth mentioning, but in reality it is LONDON, without a doubt)

Rungrado May Day Stadium, *biggest stadium in the world*, *capacity: 150.000*









Kim Il-Sung Stadium, *capacity: 70.000*










Yanggakdo Stadium, *capacity: 30.000*









Seosan Stadium, *capacity: 25.000*









Pyöngyang indoor Arena, *capacity: 12.309*


----------



## joezierer (Jan 16, 2011)

How can you claim New York City is the capital when the biggest football stadium in the City is Wien up at Columbia U? The only stadiums I can think of in NYC are:
Yankee (Bronx) [52,325] Baseball; also hosts some Football.
Shea/"Citi" (Queens) [41,800] Baseball
Arthur Ashe (Queens) [22,547] Tennis
Madison Sq. Garden (Manhattan) [19,763] Basketball, Hockey, indoor events.
Wien (Manhattan) [17,000] Football, Athletics
Armstrong (Queens) [10,000] Tennis (part of the same complex as Arthur Ashe)

That's not really a "Capital" of stadiums to me. I'm sure there are cities in the US that have better stadiums, such as Chicago, or even Atlanta.


----------



## Hindustani (Jul 9, 2004)

*New York, New York*: Sports / Stadium capital of the world

Arthur Ashe Stadium

-home of US open, most important grand slam of tennis
-worlds largest tennis stadium


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

Hindustani said:


> 3 hrs duration of*extremely competitive* american sports is a thing of beauty
> 
> Football is played in the heavy rain
> 
> ...


By football you mean American football i guess...
Anyway...there are many sports, which are played in rain, snow, etc., but i was talking about the comfort of the spectators.... Actually *you* were talking about how state-of-the-art the rutherford stadium is, and about the quality it offers for it's spectators. :lol: It may be a tough sport, but i don't think spectators appreciate going home wet as dogs (and even paying money for it). 
But let's be honest...The rutherford stadium *was originally planned with a roof*, but the proposals to include that roof failed due to a dispute over funding. So basically we are talking about an unfinished stadium, kind of like a compromise the constructors made in order not to abandon the project. So knowing these facts, how can we call this stadium a state-of-the-art venue? State-of-the-art is the Cowboys Stadium for example, but definitely NOT this one. Roofless stadiums were built in the 20's, not in the 21st Century. Especially not in a place, where it rains more than in London! And this makes that price-tag look even more ridiculous. :lol::nuts: You don't have to spend 1,2 billions to get 80.000 people wet. You can do it for free in a park or something...:lol:


----------



## Evil78 (Mar 16, 2009)

Hindustani said:


>


^^ Outdated! 
2011 US OPEN... Countless matches canceled due to rain. :bash:
It would never happen in Melbourne, thanks to the state-of-the-art arenas, with retractable roofs. Even Wembley has a roof now. :cheers:


----------

