# USA - FIFA World Cup 2022 bid



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

I thought i would make this being that the 2018 WC thread seems to be expanding...

If the US gets 2022, who should the host cities be??


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

en1044 said:


> I thought i would make this being that the 2018 WC thread seems to be expanding...
> 
> If the US gets 2022, who should the host cities be??


could care less


----------



## TexasBoi (Jan 7, 2004)

I care and I think a good part of this country will too. I would love for the world cup to return to the US.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

TexasBoi said:


> I care and I think a good part of this country will too. I would love for the world cup to return to the US.


Thank you TexasBoi, NOVA represent! :banana:


----------



## NeilF (Apr 22, 2006)

Two out of three world cups held in the Americas seems unlikely. I'd say 2026 or 2030 are more realistic targets for the US. Ultimately, however, I'd say the US is about the only country that could choose stadia and cities that cover its vast geographic advance, given the stadia available.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Here's what I'd like to see - might be a bit far fetched, but it's what I'd like...

The USA is clearly the biggest and most powerful country in terms of hosting ability, so I'd like FIFA to hold out until 2030 and then grant the US the hosting rights for the centenary tournament.

I'd then like to see a one off increase of competing teams from the world's top 32 to the top 64 sides competing at 20 stadiums rather than 10. The tournament would only have to be lengthened by an extra few days to incorporate a 'round of 32' knock out.

This would allow Europe to have 2018, Asia to have 2022, and South America or Africa to have 2026, prior to the Yanks getting the big one. (The only problem I can see is that this would take the finals out of Europe for at least 16 years).

I know Uruguay are very keen to (part)host 2030, in commemoration of them hosting the first finals, but even with Argentina as a partner, I can't see them being able to match what the USA could come up with.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Los Angeles, CA
New LA Coliseum 75,000









Seattle, WA
Qwest Field 68,000









Glendale, AZ
University of Phoenix Stadium 63,000









Dallas, TX
New Cowboys Stadium 80,000









Chicago, IL
Soldier Field 63,000









Nashville, TN
LP FIeld 68,000









Miami, FL
Dolphins Stadium 75,000









Washington, DC
FedEx Field 91,000









Foxboro,MA
Gillette Stadium 68,000









East Rutherford, NJ
New Meadowlands 82,000









FedEx Field would host the final

Other possible sites:
Cleveland
Denver
Minneapolis
Tampa
Kansas City
Houston


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Benjuk said:


> Here's what I'd like to see - might be a bit far fetched, but it's what I'd like...
> 
> The USA is clearly the biggest and most powerful country in terms of hosting ability, so I'd like FIFA to hold out until 2030 and then grant the US the hosting rights for the centenary tournament.
> 
> ...


I can see where your coming from, however, this thread is about where the stadium sites would be if the US hosted, not if they should host it


----------



## Canadian Chocho (May 18, 2006)

Isn't it mandatory to have a roof?


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

You can take the new Cowboys stadium off that list, the field is going to be made at dimensions that wont allow soccer play, same could be said for U of P stadium and new New York Stadium. These new stadium are being built with the crowd closer to the field, making it to narrow for soccer.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Dallasbrink said:


> You can take the new Cowboys stadium off that list, the field is going to be made at dimensions that wont allow soccer play, same could be said for U of P stadium and new New York Stadium. These new stadium are being built with the crowd closer to the field, making it to narrow for soccer.


No, actually all three of those stadiums have been designed to host a soccer game


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Canadian Chocho said:


> Isn't it mandatory to have a roof?


Not that I know of. Remember that the final in 1994 was played at the Rose Bowl, a stadium with only one bowl-style seating tier and no roof, much like Lambeau Field in Green Bay, but bigger. The opening ceremony and match in 1994 was played at (old) Soldier Field in Chicago, which was also a one-seating-tier stadium. Only one of the venues was an indoor stadium, IIRC it was the Silverdome in Pontiac, MI. They had to haul in a temporary grass field for the World Cup matches.

The USA is very rich indeed in venues capable of hosting World Cup matches. From what I remember, Brasil was scheduled to be the 1994 host, but they were in the midst of an economic meltdown that prevented that, so the USA got the tournament as a 'plan B' - with oodles of venues ready to go with only minor modifications.

Chicago and Los Angeles would again be ideal places for the opening and final matches, IMHO.

As for fan interest? USA-1994 had one of the highest total percentages of available seats used of all World Cups - nearly ALL of the matches were sold out.

Mike


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Canadian Chocho said:


> Isn't it mandatory to have a roof?


No its only encouraged


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

en1044 said:


> I can see where your coming from, however, this thread is about where the stadium sites would be if the US hosted, not if they should host it


Yep, I understand, but my suggestion is relevent in that I am putting forward the notion of twice as many venues (something which only the US could handle)... Thus - the selection of host cities is widened allowing a great number of venues to be discussed (showed off).

:yes:



Canadian Chocho said:


> Isn't it mandatory to have a roof?


It's mandatory for the VIP/Media sections to have a roof, the paying supporters can get soaked or sunburnt, FIFA don't care.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Actually, somebody on another board listed these:

Seattle (Northwest)
*San Fransisco (west coast)
*Los Angeles (southwest/west coast)
*Dallas (southwest)
*Miami or Tampa (south)
*Washington (lower Atlantic seaboard)
Philadelphia (middle Atlantic seaboard)
*New York (upper Atlantic seaboard)
*Boston (New England)
*Chicago (midwest)
Columbus (midwest) 

* venues in 1994

Use Seattle, Los Angeles, Columbus, Miami, Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Chicago for the 16s
Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago and New York for the quarters
Boston and Los Angeles for the semis
Chicago - 3rd placer
And New York for the final.

You have to start from the 1994 venues. Those were so well-placed in terms of stadia, geographical spread and local population relevance. But due to new stadia, spin them around a little. 

With such a wealth of choices, I don't see how FIFA can go anywhere after England is picked for 2018. It would only make sense.


----------



## Mr. Fusion (Jul 1, 2006)

FedEx Field will be replaced by 2022, Snyder already wants to move the team right now to a brand new facility where RFK Stadium is. :cheers:


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Mr. Fusion said:


> FedEx Field will be replaced by 2022, Snyder already wants to move the team right now to a brand new facility where RFK Stadium is. :cheers:



Oh wouldnt that just be awesome...i hate FedEx


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

en1044 said:


> No, actually all three of those stadiums have been designed to host a soccer game


Listen to someone who lives in Dallas. The Dallas Cowboys new Stadium in Arlington Texas will not have the dimensions for soccer. trust me, its been discussed, its planned for better things then soccer.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Dallasbrink said:


> Listen to someone who lives in Dallas. The Dallas Cowboys new Stadium in Arlington Texas will not have the dimensions for soccer. trust me, its been discussed, its planned for better things then soccer.


http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121206dnmetnewstadium.37128e0.html

I dont believe for a second that there isnt any interest in Dallas to host a soccer match


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

en1044 said:


> http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/121206dnmetnewstadium.37128e0.html
> 
> I dont believe for a second that there isnt any interest in Dallas to host a soccer match


Designs have changed around the field. Besides, let reliant in Houston host it, They already did a bad enough job when they hosted USA vs Mexico and didn't let in ANY USA fans.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

I doubt that the US would be able to get it in 2022.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

10ROT said:


> I doubt that the US would be able to get it in 2022.


I disagree. I think the US is capable of putting forward the best bid of them all.


----------



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

you just need a roof at the main stand


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> you just need a roof at the main stand


Your kidding right?


----------



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

no
i just looked at the FIFA stadium book
I think there was the question about roof etc before

Mainstand has to be covered.
Rest ist bonus


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> no
> i just looked at the FIFA stadium book
> I think there was the question about roof etc before
> 
> ...


I've never heard where a roof was actually required...how old is that rule?


----------



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

very new
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tou..._recommendations_and_requirements_en_8211.pdf

media, vip etc has to be covered


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> very new
> http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tou..._recommendations_and_requirements_en_8211.pdf
> 
> media, vip etc has to be covered


Well by VIP, do they mean people sitting in boxes?


----------



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

No, business / club seats
sponsors (very important for the FIFA)


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> No, business / club seats
> sponsors (very important for the FIFA)


Well the US may have a problem, because there will never be roofs attached to any current stadiums. The only roofs over here would be in a dome or a retractable roof stadium.


----------



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

isn't a temporary possible?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> isn't a temporary possible?


oh its possible, but tell an american to put a roof on a stadium and we'll just laugh at you


----------



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

you don't have to tell it :d
just make a temporary roof for the summer 2020


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

Easy. Start with the twelve largest metro areas:

New York
Los Angeles
Chicago
Dallas
Philadelphia
Houston
Miami
Washington
Atlanta
Boston
Detroit
San Francisco

However, these are a bit clustered geographically, so let's drop Dallas and Pennsylvania, and add Seattle and Phoenix. Sorted.

I haven't mentioned any stadia by name, as anything over 25 years old seems to get knocked down as obsolete in the USA


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

^^I would also drop Detroit and Atlanta since they are domes. I would replace them with Denver and Dallas.


L.A.
S.F.
Phoenix
Seattle

Denver
Chicago
Dallas
Houston

NYC
Wash DC
Boston
Miami


----------



## ØlandDK (May 29, 2005)

You can already get it 2010 when SA **** their tournament up:|

No seriously. It would be freat if the US could host the WC22.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

If the USD$ stays cheap America would be an even better place to stage the World Cup.

Shame we have to wait until then.

The next 2 World Cups being staged in 3rd world states will be 'different' and not that desirable to go to.


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

CharlieP said:


> Easy. Start with the twelve largest metro areas:
> 
> New York
> Los Angeles
> ...


You mean Philly?


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

en1044 said:


> I disagree. I think the US is capable of putting forward the best bid of them all.


The best bid is not enough. Spain for example will have a lot of top stadia comparable to yours and Spain has very short distances compared to the U.S.
My prediction: 2018-England 2022-Australia 2026-Asia 2030-Spain
2034- North America


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

BobDaBuilder said:


> If the USD$ stays cheap America would be an even better place to stage the World Cup.
> 
> Shame we have to wait until then.
> 
> The next 2 World Cups being staged in 3rd world states will be 'different' and not that desirable to go to.


Shame you have to wait? Consider yourself lucky. We're still waiting for our first WC. As far as '3rd World' goes. That term is considered offensive. Perhaps, you should go visit one of these supposed inferior nations. You don't need to have lots of money to have a lot to offer. You might be very surprised and enamoured with places like South Africa or Brazil.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

@ Carrera -- in case you missed it the first time....




rover3 said:


> Oh yeah, China -- with their human wrongs record, killer earthquakes, major epidemic outbreaks before international sporting events. (have you already forgotten the SARS outbreak before the 2003 Women's *World Cup* awarded to THEM?) If it had to take them 2 tries to carry off the Women's game, do you thnk they could carry off the men's WC in one try? hno:
> 
> And who stepped in 5 years ago to save the tournament China's face and FIFA's butt in that instance? Why, only a small, football-backwoods country called the USA.
> 
> Gee, I hope FIFA does not have another brainfreeze moment in 2011 as the IOC did.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

rover3 said:


> Well, India is #2 -- you don't see them giving the WC to India.
> 
> What is it with this obsession of yours over China? :nuts: They will certainly NOT get a WC any time soon before the USA or the UK.
> 
> DO I have to repost what I said about China earlier? hno:


It's not Chinese obsession. If your country contends with other countries you'll see another obsession of mine because World Cup in USA is the last thing I want to see.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> It's not Chinese obsession. If your country contends with other countries you'll see another obsession of mine because World Cup in USA is the last thing I want to see.


Oh yeah, I guess your subjective view will figure greatly in how FIFA makes their choice(s) -- even more than ABC, Coca-Cola, MasterCard, McDonalds, etc., and the other sponsors. hno:


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> Well, football is a little more physically demanding than baseball or american football :rofl:


Well thats just not true...im not judging the quality of the sports here, just saying that American football is far more physically demaning


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> The population of China alone is more than twice larger than that of USA, Mexico, Canada, the Caribbean


And yet, the US economy is still bigger


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

en1044 said:


> Well thats just not true...im not judging the quality of the sports here, just saying that American football is far more physically demaning


Football is like a distance run. American football is more of a sprint relay. There's a reason marathons are not run on a summer afternoon.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> Football is like a distance run. American football is more of a sprint relay. There's a reason marathons are not run on a summer afternoon.


:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

Iain1974 said:


> Football is like a distance run. American football is more of a sprint relay. There's a reason marathons are not run on a summer afternoon.


yet there are in the olympics! 

Facts are this. When the World Cup comes to THe USA. The prime games will be played for Americas prime time because no matter what FIFA says, they are not going to be able to walk into America again and tell us when to play.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Dallasbrink said:


> yet there are in the olympics!
> 
> Facts are this. When the World Cup comes to THe USA. The prime games will be played for Americas prime time because no matter what FIFA says, they are not going to be able to walk into America again and tell us when to play.


Ummmm.....no they aren't. Look it up.

Any US bid will need to take into account European TV demands which will mean 12/2/4pm kick offs like 1986/94.
US prime time means nothing in football terms.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> Ummmm.....no they aren't. Look it up.
> 
> Any US bid will need to take into account European TV demands which will mean 12/2/4pm kick offs like 1986/94.
> US prime time means nothing in football terms.


Dont worry, the US will have no problem having earlier times


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

Iain1974 said:


> Ummmm.....no they aren't. Look it up.
> 
> Any US bid will need to take into account European TV demands which will mean 12/2/4pm kick offs like 1986/94.
> US prime time means nothing in football terms.


i thought you didn't want us to give you a poor quality since they would be playing during mid day because the soccer players need to be pampered. we dont want another crazy french man running around head butting everyone, and what makes you think the US officials would give 2 flips about the Euro audience, there are more watchers in the the Americas then Europe. you can watching the tapings.


----------



## kamilo (Jan 13, 2005)

Dallasbrink said:


> yet there are in the olympics!
> 
> Facts are this. When the World Cup comes to THe USA. *The prime games will be played for Americas prime time because no matter what FIFA says, they are not going to be able to walk into America again and tell us when to play.*


:rofl:

How much money you wanna bet?


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Dallasbrink said:


> i thought you didn't want us to give you a poor quality since they would be playing during mid day because the soccer players need to be pampered. we dont want another crazy french man running around head butting everyone, and what makes you think the US officials would give 2 flips about the Euro audience, there are more watchers in the the Americas then Europe. you can watching the tapings.


I don't want to see early kickoffs at all but a US world cup will mean exactly that.

US officials will either have to use sensible kickoff times and risk losing high revenue audience or have early kickoffs and lower quality of play but keep the paymasters happy. Outside the US, people have very little tolerance of tapings. It's live or nothing.

The best solution might be to pick host cities heavily biased to northern coastal areas. Seattle/Portland/SF/NYC/Chicago etc. Dallas/Pheonix aren't great choices. Atlanta is best left out entirely.

I've got my doubts as to whether there are more watchers in the America's than Europe. There certainly isn't if we include Africa which is more or less the same time zone.

Or better still, FIFA will give it to England and then everyone will be happy.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> I don't want to see early kickoffs at all but a US world cup will mean exactly that.
> 
> US officials will either have to use sensible kickoff times and risk losing high revenue audience or have early kickoffs and lower quality of play but keep the paymasters happy. Outside the US, people have very little tolerance of tapings. It's live or nothing.
> 
> ...


Explain to me why new york, chicago, or dallas arent good choices?


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

Dallas and Phoenix both have DOMED stadium wanker.

also, Europe will tune in no matter when the games are played.

Indianapolis, DOME
Atlanta, DOME
Phoenix, DOME
Dallas, DOME
Houston, DOME
Washington DC could be getting a dome


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

en1044 said:


> Explain to me why new york, chicago, or dallas arent good choices?


NYC is a good choice. As is Chicago, Dallas is too hot. Simple.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Dallasbrink said:


> Dallas and Phoenix both have DOMED stadium wanker.
> 
> also, Europe will tune in no matter when the games are played.
> 
> ...


Its not likely that FIFA will want to play in Atlanta. And stop calling everyone wanker, you sound like bubomb, and you might get banned.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Iain1974 said:


> NYC is a good choice. As is Chicago, Dallas is too hot. Simple.


And they'll be playing in a domed, air-conditioned stadium.


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

Iain1974 said:


> Dallas is too hot. Simple.


DALLAS STADIUM
closed








open









get it?


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Here's the final verdict on future Worldcups, reflecting the revised rotation policy where a host continent is ineligible for bidding for the next two tournaments. 

2018 -> England
2022 -> China
2026 -> Egypt
2030 -> Turkey
2034 -> Unified Korea
2038 -> Argentine
2042 -> Russia
2046 -> Saudi Arabia
2050 -> Morocco
2054 -> Netherland and Belgium
2058 -> Indonesia
2062 -> Mexico
2066 -> Spain
2070 -> Venezuela
2074 -> Algerie
2078 -> Sweden and Norway
2082 -> Iran
2086 -> Chile
2090 -> Portugal
2094 -> Vietnam
2098 -> Nigeria
2102 -> Finally USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But in 2100 the entire human race vanishes after a huge asteroid with a diameter of 250km hit our planet!


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

How does it stay air conditioned when the roof is open?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> Here's the final verdict on future Worldcups, reflecting the revised rotation policy where a host continent is ineligible for bidding for the next two tournaments.
> 
> 2018 -> England
> 2022 -> China
> ...


no


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> How does it stay air conditioned when the roof is open?


I dont know, but in that case they would play with the roof closed.


----------



## Dallasbrink (Nov 2, 2007)

Iain1974 said:


> How does it stay air conditioned when the roof is open?











see the retractable glass walls? how does any stadium with a hole in the middle of its roof stay cool? it works!

USA will get a World cup long before China or Iran


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

I doubt that Iran will ever get a World Cup. As for China, lets see how the Olympics work out before being rash. I doubt very much that they'll get it before the USA. Next time it's in Asia I'd be surprised to see it going anywhere else.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Some confederations are supposedly wanting to put forth only 1 nation in the bidding. So the Asian group will have for Australia for 2022 as Bladder said. And of course, Australia's not going to win anyway, so maybe for the 2026-2030, round China can replace Oz as the Asian entry.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> Here's the final verdict on future Worldcups, reflecting the revised rotation policy where a host continent is ineligible for bidding for the next two tournaments.
> 
> 2018 -> England
> 2022 -> China
> ...


Woo hoo!! Good job, child. You should present this to FIFA and see what they say. :lol: :lol:


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> How does it stay air conditioned when the roof is open?



Uhmmm, basic law of physics: How does a hot air balloon lift off? Hot air rises; cold air settles. That's how.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

rover3 said:


> Woo hoo!! Good job, child. You should present this to FIFA and see what they say. :lol: :lol:


Send me the round flight ticket from Seoul to Zurich for me to present in front of Blatter. :cheers:


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> Send me the round flight ticket from Seoul to Zurich for me to present in front of Blatter. :cheers:


Why should I? It's your silly list. hno:


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

I never see the case where Americans aren't a trouble maker in football-related thread.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> I never see the case where Americans aren't a trouble maker in football-related thread.


Its because youve been provoking people...and dont forget, this thread is about the US


----------



## 40Acres (Jul 6, 2005)




----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

rover, it's about time to go to bed. What are you doing here still awake past midnight? I'm afraid your mom will blame you badly :lol:


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

I am touched by your concern, Carrera. :lol: U're so funny. :lol: Such a sense of humor. :lol: U should work in Hollywood. Oh, but wait -- you don't have a visa. Awww, too bad.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Sorry I have a USA visa


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> Sorry I have a USA visa


Oops, then I should alert immigration to have it cancelled. Thanks for letting me know. U r so sweet.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

rover3 said:


> I am touched by your concern, Carrera. :lol: U're so funny. :lol: Such a sense of humor. :lol: U should work in Hollywood. Oh, but wait -- you don't have a visa. Awww, too bad.


I'm not Carrera but Carrerra hno: I have one more "r" to avoid being associated wth a pornographic Goddess Asia Carrera. I don't, however, deny that my ID was inspired by her name :banana:


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Carrerra said:


> Americans always emphasize on the attendance record set in 94 tournament but keep in mind that gate receipts account for only 10 percent of the total revenue from World cup these days. What they really care about is broadcasting right and sponsorship. For FIFA, gate receipts are only bonus.


It's not only the attendance record, but the 94 WC was also the most PROFITABLE WC to date. That means it made the most money, despite only having 24 teams.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

hngcm said:


> It's not only the attendance record, but the 94 WC was also the most PROFITABLE WC to date. That means it made the most money, despite only having 24 teams.


The most profitable WC to whom? FIFA? No. It was most profitable to USA because they didn't have to build new stadiums then. It has nothing to do with FIFA! 

Today what most involves FIFA financially is broadcasting and sponsorship. They account for almost 90% of the total revenues from Worldcup but on the contrary ticket sales can not exceed 20% at most. 

That's why the highest attendace Americans always boast of can not be the key to success of World Cup.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Yeah I think its between LA and New York. I personally think it should go to New York for the final, as it is America's biggest city and is in a better time zone for European TV market. In terms of stadium size I prefer it that the largest stadium should host the final. I have some questions how many world cup finals have not been in the largest capacity stadium of that tournament? And how many world cup finals have not been held in the host country's capital city?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Kobo said:


> Yeah I think its between LA and New York. I personally think it should go to New York for the final, as it is America's biggest city and is in a better time zone for European TV market. In terms of stadium size I prefer it that the largest stadium should host the final. I have some questions how many world cup finals have not been in the largest capacity stadium of that tournament? And how many world cup finals have not been held in the host country's capital city?


The 94 cup final was held in the largest stadium of the tournament, (Rose Bowl in LA) but not the capital. I think the next time the US hosts the cup the final would be in Washington.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

FedEx isnt going to be the stadium here anymore (thank God)...its going to be a new retractable roof stadium.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

en1044 said:


> Nice :lol:


A town in southern France?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

by the time 2022 rolls around Washington will have a nice new retractable roof stadium with about the same capacity as it does now. That garbage known as FedEx Field will no longer exist , making DC the clear favorite to host the final IMO. New York is good and all but hey wouldnt have the largest stadium. The Rose Bowl would be too old and after proposed renovations would have a much smaller capacity.


----------



## Mr. Met (Jan 9, 2008)

en1044 said:


> I thought i would make this being that the 2018 WC thread seems to be expanding...
> 
> If the US gets 2022, who should the host cities be??


Not New York (All the games would be in the NJ Meadowlands)
Arlington, Texas (New Cowboys Stadium)
Los Angeles, California (LA Coliseum, new LA NFL Stadium if it is built)
Indianapolis, Indiana (Lucas Oil Stadium)
Miami, Florida (Dolphin Stadium
Seattle, Washington (Qwest Field)
Maybe Toronto, Canada (Rogers Centre) Not likely, not in America
Phoenix, Arizona (University of Phoenix Stadium)
Atlanta, Georgia (Georgia Dome)


----------



## pompeyfan (Mar 23, 2006)

> Isn't it mandatory to have a roof?


According to the guidelines supplied by FIFA for the World Cup in 2010, it is required that the Tribune D'Honneur and working locations for the media be undercover. So basically, many of those stadiums need to be looked at. 

Secondly, i see there being little chance of this happening. One, i think FIFA won't be going back to Americas just so soon, just 8 years after Brazil.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

^^^^

You cant classify two continents as one


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

You dont have Washington on the list, that doesnt make sense, and i doubt that Atlanta will host, as people generally dont like to play in domes


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

> ...as people generally dont like to play in domes


...they play in jerseys... :lol:


----------



## tuaran (Apr 17, 2008)

This is Chi Lang stadium,in Viet Nam.What do you think about this.This is the most bautiful stadium in Viet Nam,anh i have sitting it


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

en1044 said:


> by the time 2022 rolls around Washington will have a nice new retractable roof stadium with about the same capacity as it does now. That garbage known as FedEx Field will no longer exist , making DC the clear favorite to host the final IMO. New York is good and all but hey wouldnt have the largest stadium. The Rose Bowl would be too old and after proposed renovations would have a much smaller capacity.


I can't believe the Redskins are talking about replacing a ELEVEN year old stadium...

Meanwhile the Chargers are still using a 40 year old stadium...


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

hngcm said:


> I can't believe the Redskins are talking about replacing a ELEVEN year old stadium...
> 
> Meanwhile the Chargers are still using a 40 year old stadium...


Ill tell ya, FedEx just plain sucks.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

Whats actually wrong with the FedEx stadium, its capacity is very impressive, and it isn't that old, so please explain why its so bad.


----------



## canarywondergod (Apr 24, 2006)

well i personally dont agree with big fat pillars in it for one, for a new stadium it should have unrestricted views! otherwise than that its a bit generic in my opinion but certainly the capacity is impressive


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Kobo said:


> Whats actually wrong with the FedEx stadium, its capacity is very impressive, and it isn't that old, so please explain why its so bad.


Jack Kent Cooke, the old owner of the Redskins, wanted a new stadium built in Washington, preferably before he died. Time passed and he realized that DC was never going to cut him a deal, so out of spite he build the stadium in the Maryland suburbs which opened in 1997. He built it as fast as he could so he could see it before he died (he never got to see it) and there are a lot of problems with it. Its not east to get around and its just plain uninspiring. It was ranked the 28th worst stadium in the NFL, although it has some of the most luxurious suites in the world it seemed to forget about the casual fan. New owner Daniel Snyder has put a lot of money into the stadium by increasing the capacity and adding extra amenities, but it seems to be to a point where it will never be good. Transportation sucks and its in a horrible location. It should be in the city, making it easier to get to. The Redskins are currently valued at $1.5 Billion, so a new stadium built in DC isnt out of the question. The preferred site is at RFK Stadium in the eastern part of the city. The site has a special place in ******* fans' hearts and is a logical choice to place it. It would likely be another 90,000 seat stadium with a retractable roof, allowing it to host the Superbowl and the NCAA Final Four in basketball. It would be constructed better and be an overall better experience for the fans.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

DC needs a soccer stadium before any thoughts of a NFL stadium.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

nyrmetros said:


> DC needs a soccer stadium before any thoughts of a NFL stadium.


DC could care less about the soccer stadium


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

hngcm said:


> I can't believe the Redskins are talking about replacing a ELEVEN year old stadium...
> 
> Meanwhile the Chargers are still using a 40 year old stadium...


And the Packers are using a 51 year old stadium!

Mike


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

It might have gotten a $300 million renovation a couple years ago.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> South Africa? Brazil? They are managing.
> 
> Of the likely potential bidders I don't think a single one would struggle to invest $10bn for a World Cup.
> 
> ...


South Africa? yeah - right. Have you seen the recent riots where local So. Africans are hacking away at immigrants taking awy their jobs? Right there something tells me that all is not right if locals have to blame hard-working immigrants for their own woes. And they would spend -- I don't know how much RSA has budgeted -- for bricks-and-mortar monuments rather than focusing on their social problems? And all for the glory to say that "RSA becomes the first African Nation to host the WOrld Cup!" Yeah, Hallelujah!! 

Did I say England, Australia CANNOT? hno: 

I know Russia can -- but would their 8 or 9 cities have the supporting luxury hotel rooms that western crowds are used to? You also have to build those hotels and hope that they will be self-sustaining afterwards. You just don't dream and build new stadia and a dozen hotels or so per city just for a gloroious month's use, if you won't be using them with some regularity for years to come!!

Sure, any old fascist gov't, calling North Korea, Cuba and Burma... can raise $10 billion overnight to build 20 stadia, 40 hotels, 9 gleaming airports if that's what you want!! But surely something must give -- and those would be social programs, etc. But hey, if in your priority list, games and stadia are more important then nutrition, proper plumbing and electricity, education, improved medicine and services for the elderly, etc. -- then MORE POWER TO YOU!!


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

rover3 said:


> (...)
> 
> #1 - What do you think the alternation is? By country? Except for 2 occasions (1934-38) and (1954-58) when I believe no other South American countries could take on the challenge (or FIFA just decided to keep the 1938 and 1958 tourneys local?), this tournament has always ALTERNATED between 2 continents.
> 
> ...


No idea what you're trying to proove. As for Latin America I meant that since 1994 no Latin American country was able to host it (it's changed quite significantly since 1930 you know and it seems no other latin country will be able to hosti it again soon...) and it went by continent only not to exclude them further. I'm not saying the alteration is by country solely, but it's both continent and country. And how can you be surprised by the rotation between Europe and Latin America in the past? You know, we all have proffesional fotoball for a centenary, that does make a difference.
By that I'm not saying USa doesn't deserve it, but that other new markets are opening. I wouldn't be surprised if some bid from the ASEAN region would be successive, plus China. I could even imagine India or Canada trying. Because I sincerely belive they won't succeed in 2018, as Europe will host it again.

Plus- as I said. I don't care that USA can spend 10bn cause it doesn't take that much. I know everything you have is big, I know you got great potential, but it's not all about economy. Or I like to believe it isn't. And hosting these expensive behemots is an investment, not expence. So I see many countries willing to do this. The fact that it would cost them more effort than US changes nothing...

A few years ago I thought Poland would never be able to host Euro. Now I see our country will have a Championship a lot bigger than the one that has just started. I would never have believed we could have so many hotels (in case you don't know- private money builds them and operates them) and now Krakow alone will have 3 Hiltons, tens of bids for more high class hotels came to the city for more. The airport that was just modernized already needs a new terminal and will get it within a year. A new bust station that was planned 5 years ago is already too small. That's how fast situation can turn around. I would never believe our infastructure will change so rapidly. 
So keep your ignorance to yourself, cause I bet RSA will produce a great sporting event that will be hard to match for many countries. YES, they have their problems. But since when having problems disqualifies a country?! 
Your stereotypes of the world with fascist govt bids are pathetic. It's as if USA only competed with North Korea and Cuba... or ever competed.

PS: Talking about sissy crowds has a lot stronger connection to USA, where fans sit and eat (compare catering services, consumption, hospitality and comfort level to Europe), so cut the crap. It's about standards, word you don't accept, but prefer to insult people instead. Worldwide accepted standard is building stadiums with a roof [for a variety of reasons] and this standard is also introduced in the US. Which doesn't mean people would melt from rain... you don't like it? Fine, but is calling those who want roofs sissies the smartest thing?



rover3 said:


> Africans are hacking away at immigrants taking awy their jobs?


Funny you should say that. Cause I've heard quite some bitter words of aggression towards Polish immigrants working in USA or recently Great Britian and Ireland for the same reason. So I guess you're [we're all not, it's a recognized social reaction to mass immigration] not so different from Africans in the end.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

rover3 said:


> Sure, any old fascist gov't, calling North Korea, Cuba and Burma... can raise $10 billion overnight to build 20 stadia, 40 hotels, 9 gleaming airports if that's what you want!! But surely something must give -- and those would be social programs, etc. But hey, if in your priority list, games and stadia are more important then nutrition, proper plumbing and electricity, education, improved medicine and services for the elderly, etc. -- then MORE POWER TO YOU!!


Exactly when did North Korea/Cuba/Burma bid to host a World Cup?

Come on, stop acting like a child, you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

michał_;21500192 said:


> Plus- as I said. I don't care that USA can spend 10bn cause it doesn't take that much. I know everything you have is big, I know you got great potential, but it's not all about economy. Or I like to believe it isn't. And hosting these expensive behemots is an investment, not expence. So I see many countries willing to do this. The fact that it would cost them more effort than US changes nothing...


What are you so defensive about? Because my points make sense. I detect a tinge of jealousy in you in only what I am pointing out is the priority of spending -- not that others CANNOT afford it. You are purposely twisting my points. 

As I said, if someone like you were in power, and the order of the day is to secure the World Cup at all cost -- prestige means everything -- which means postponing budgets for new schools or roads or hospitals or improved asylums -- then fine -- *MORE POWER TO YOU*. May you be happy in your priorities.

What I'm saying is that here in the US -- because things like Olympics or World Cups are staged with private money -- we therefore do NOT take away funds that would otherwsie go to better school programs, more research and development in medicine, better, more humane programs for the elderly and dying, etc., etc.. We try to keep our priorities in order -- AND STILL are able to afford *non-essential frivolities *like World Cups or Olympics -- which to most of you here are the BE ALL and END ALL of your lives. 

Now go start planning your next stadium before you miss the next FIFA deadline. Don't let me keep you. hno:


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> Exactly when did North Korea/Cuba/Burma bid to host a World Cup?
> 
> Come on, stop acting like a child, you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.


Oh yeah, for me to advocate that *maybe social programs have more priority *over MORE and MORE STADIA, I am acting like a child?? 

Why don't you look at yourself first, retarded nitwit? hno: hno:


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

rover3 said:


> What are you so defensive about? Because my points make sense. I detect a tinge of jealousy in you in only what I am pointing out is the priority of spending -- not that others CANNOT afford it. You are purposely twisting my points.


First learn to read, then start to discuss.
So what our bid made Polish economy hustle a bit? New working places are opening, we're on the rise. DO YOU UNDERSTAND that making this expense is worth it in the end? It pays off, also to the people. I won't change your view of the world, but at least you have the same power 



rover3 said:


> AND STILL are able to afford non-essential frivolities like World Cups or Olympics -- which to most of you here are the BE ALL and END ALL of your lives.


Oh mighty American with the power to have a frivolity like a World Cup, may I wash yuor feet? sheesh.
So what? We need to try harder to do it. And?...



rover3 said:


> Now start planning your next stadium before you miss the next FIFA deadline. hno:


I bet you're so proud of that response  It's UEFA, do I have to spell it?


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

rover3 said:


> Oh yeah, for me to advocate that *maybe social programs have more priority *over MORE and MORE STADIA, I am acting like a child??
> 
> Why don't you look at yourself first, retarded nitwit? hno: hno:


I'll just repeat myself;

Come on, stop acting like a child, you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> I'll just repeat myself;
> 
> Come on, stop acting like a child, you're making yourself look pretty foolish here.


Then, I'll also just repeat myself. 

Why don't you examine yourself first? You're making yourself more and more like a retarded ntiwit.

Do you want to keep this going? I can last as long as you.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

michał_;21500963 said:


> First learn to read, then start to discuss.
> So what our bid made Polish economy hustle a bit? New working places are opening, we're on the rise. DO YOU UNDERSTAND that making this expense is worth it in the end? It pays off, also to the people. I won't change your view of the world, but at least you have the same power
> 
> 
> ...


Ho-hum. Boring...


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rover3 said:


> Ho-hum. Boring...


Your making yourself look bad dude...im not taking any sides here, but i think you should just stop. Im sure your trying to make a point, but its just not going to work here. And if you do think your right, then quit while your ahead.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Your making yourself look bad dude...im not taking any sides here, but i think you should just stop. Im sure your trying to make a point, but its just not going to work here. And if you do think your right, then quit while your ahead.


So what you're telling me is that the level of intelligence here must be -3 or something like that. Then I vastly overestimated the level.


----------



## brightside. (Jan 10, 2008)

Okay, I think rover3 has a point. For a lot of countries, the case may be that building new stadiums, hotels, airports, train stations, bridges etc for the world cup may take away funds from more important programs that may actually help the country's population in a better fashion.

I mean, if the stadiums are going to be less than half-empty for league games after the world cup is over, it surely isn't worth it. A mega event like a world cup is supposed to be a launching pad for both the sport and the local economy. After USA 94 soccer became relatively popular in the country. MLS attendances are relatively high considering where the sport ranks in terms of popularity here.

A lot of countries may be bidding on the world cup just in the hopes that they will be able to brag about hosting the world cup for the rest of their lives, instead of the world cup actually bringing in any monetary benefit to the country. 

Can anyone link any document which shows the effect a world cup has had on a country's economy or social indicators?


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

brightside. said:


> Okay, I think rover3 has a point. For a lot of countries, the case may be that building new stadiums, hotels, airports, train stations, bridges etc for the world cup may take away funds from more important programs that may actually help the country's population in a better fashion.
> 
> I mean, if the stadiums are going to be less than half-empty for league games after the world cup is over, it surely isn't worth it. A mega event like a world cup is supposed to be a launching pad for both the sport and the local economy. After USA 94 soccer became relatively popular in the country. MLS attendances are relatively high considering where the sport ranks in terms of popularity here.
> 
> A lot of countries may be bidding on the world cup just in the hopes that they will be able to brag about hosting the world cup for the rest of their lives, instead of the world cup actually bringing in any monetary benefit to the country.


Nobody said he had no point. The thing is, it proves nothing. It's not an argument pro-America and against any poorer countries. 
And all in all, it's hilarious to see Americans being so caring for others... 
So once again I will repeat that it's NOT the country that builds hotels. It doeasn't have to be the country to build all highways. It doesn't have to be the country to build airports! Actually Krakow airport will rebuild itself based on own resources and EU support from what I know. So your thesis is pretty weak, and the patronising approach looks a bit fake.

Besides- this is NOT an investment only for a huge event. It's something that has to be done either way. I'm talking about how our country is currently changing. We desperately need these highways that were due to be constructed years ago and finally, because of the Euro pressure we see them coming. Have you got any idea how many promises were made by the authorities about new stadiums, new communication infrastructure? Thanks to having won the Euro, we finally see it coming. And it is built for everybody. So cut the crap about not solving other problems, becuse it looks as if you blamed countries for having problems at all and not being able to solve them at once.

And finally, speaking en1044's language: you have no right to judge countries that bid even though they have other things to do. Because you just don't understand that the support for World Cup in RSA and Euro in Poland is HUUUUGE. And nobody dies in hospitals because of it. On the countrary, this event brings new investments, work, money, brings the infrastructure that is in fact essential for country's economy to rise.

Looking at it from that point of view (and that has to be the point taken by UEFA when giving Poland and Ukraine the Euro)- USA is less probable to win with its bid*. Why? Because it has everything needed. For other countries World Cup might be the catalyst of changes that have to be done.

*- this doesn't have to be the case. It's just theory, may the best bid win.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

brightside. said:


> Can anyone link any document which shows the effect a world cup has had on a country's economy or social indicators?


The 2010 World Cup is expected to boost the South African economy by $21Bn.

SA has already hosted the Rugby World Cup in 1995 and while it's a smaller event, it shows that the country can step up when a big event hits town.

FIFA are hardly likely to award a World Cup to a country that either doesn't have the infrastructure to cope or have an idea of how they are going to pay for the investments.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> The 2010 World Cup is expected to boost the South African economy by $21Bn.
> 
> SA has already hosted the Rugby World Cup in 1995 and while it's a smaller event, it shows that the country can step up when a big event hits town.
> 
> FIFA are hardly likely to award a World Cup to a country that either doesn't have the infrastructure to cope or have an idea of how they are going to pay for the investments.


There I agree with you. Everything seems sensible and in proportion. 

However, let me ask you this: if RSA had the the luxury of choice -- and knowing that a World Cup would be its for the asking -- would RSA have gone for 2010 (which is FIFA's date of choice), or say pick a sooner or later date?


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

michał_;21509081 said:


> Nobody said he had no point. The thing is, it proves nothing. It's not an argument pro-America and against any poorer countries.
> And all in all, it's hilarious to see Americans being so caring for others...
> So once again I will repeat that it's NOT the country that builds hotels. It doeasn't have to be the country to build all highways. It doesn't have to be the country to build airports! Actually Krakow airport will rebuild itself based on own resources and EU support from what I know. So your thesis is pretty weak, and the patronising approach looks a bit fake.
> 
> ...


Michal, I see your points. But what I am saying is why use a once-in-a-lifetime sporting event which yields very uncertain returns as the main excuse to improve a country's standard of living and quality of life? Why not something less risky? Perhaps a World's Fair, marketed properly, would give just as great returns -- without having to pour billions into structures whose after-use yield is really very low. 

Take yourself out of your sports fan mode for a moment, and look at it objectively. I'm NOT saying totally divorce yourself from the idea of hosting a WC but think outside the box. Think that spending for a budget-busting event that lasts 2 weeks or one month ISN'T the only way to go. That there are other less 'emotional' ways to achieve the same result. That you don't have to hock your first-born children or mortgage the next 3 generations ALL for a 1-month tournament. 

There is only one WC (or one Summer Olympics) that comes around every 4 years to a chosen region of the earth. It is set by FIFA or the IOC's (and the networks') calendar -- NOT by the individual country's. Why depend on that, and put so much energy and angst into getting or NOT getting it -- when chances are maybe 1-in-5 or 1-in-6, and pinning the residual returns on that one solitary event? 

* Why not invest to a lesser degree in new technologies, or greener industries, or something that will get your BETTER and easier loans from the IMF, or the World Bank -- rather than just see a whole generation of brick-and-mortar structures that could lie idle for many months. It would be very interesting if we could get a TOTALLY CANDID, no-holds-back assessment of Korea and Japan's expenses/investments for 2002, devoid of any 'loss of face' posturing. 

And you know what, michal? I can surmise all I like about what I believe is sensible, reasonable, etc., etc. This is an open forum after all. I am allowed to state my positions as much as you are. But then these are just my views. If a sovereign country can pay for it-- fine. That is most commendable. If it wants to go ahead and bust their budget, then who am I to stop them? Except that we are all intertwined today. Like the real estate crisis presently bedevilling the US, such excesses *have repercussions in other parts of the world.* Go ahead, michal, I just gave you an opening to thrust....


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

michał_;21509081 said:


> Nobody said he had no point. The thing is, it proves nothing.
> #1 - It's not an argument pro-America and against any poorer countries.
> 
> #2 - And all in all, it's hilarious to see Americans being so caring for others...


I just reread your post.

#1 - No it's* not *an argument pro-America -- so you have a problem with that? hno: And if it's for poor countries, then I should just shut up and say nothing? I am not stupid ya know.

On your point #2 -- uhmm, yeah -- who is the first one to respond in global disasters (even when we have our own disasters)? Who was leading the charge, with our friends in Europe, to demand from those generals in Burma and the like, to allow aid that was ready and waiting to go to the victims of the disastrous of the deadly monsoons and tidal waves over there?

I will write my congressperson and State Department to withhold any disaster relief or aid for Krakow because 'michal' is insulted. Never fear; US aid shouldn't darken your door if they are not wanted there -- after all, it was only the Marshall Plan that helped a war-ravaged Europe get back on its feet after World War 2. Now, michal, I forget what equivalent plan, if any, the Soviets put into effect in your neck of the woods. It was a puppet government, right?


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

rover3 said:


> There I agree with you. Everything seems sensible and in proportion.
> 
> However, let me ask you this: if RSA had the the luxury of choice -- and knowing that a World Cup would be its for the asking -- would RSA have gone for 2010 (which is FIFA's date of choice), or say pick a sooner or later date?


Actually 2006 was FIFA's date of choice. I think RSA wanted to host the World Cup as soon as possible after a mid-size Rugby World Cup (which was very successful btw) to use the momentum in putting their country back on the international map.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

rover3 said:


> Michal, I see your points. But what I am saying is why use a once-in-a-lifetime sporting event which yields very uncertain returns as the main excuse to improve a country's standard of living and quality of life? Why not something less risky? Perhaps a World's Fair, marketed properly, would give just as great returns -- without having to pour billions into structures whose after-use yield is really very low.
> 
> Take yourself out of your sports fan mode for a moment, and look at it objectively. I'm NOT saying totally divorce yourself from the idea of hosting a WC but think outside the box. Think that spending for a budget-busting event that lasts 2 weeks or one month ISN'T the only way to go. That there are other less 'emotional' ways to achieve the same result. That you don't have to hock your first-born children or mortgage the next 3 generations ALL for a 1-month tournament.
> 
> There is only one WC (or one Summer Olympics) that comes around every 4 years to a chosen region of the earth. It is set by FIFA or the IOC's (and the networks') calendar -- NOT by the individual country's. Why depend on that, and put so much energy and angst into getting or NOT getting it -- when chances are maybe 1-in-5 or 1-in-6, and pinning the residual returns on that one solitary event?


heh, it's not about being in the sports fan mode [though today all Poles are deeply in that mode, for obvious reasons], nor stadium enthusiast mode. I had quite the same opinion as you: why the hell would Gdansk or Wroclaw need a 40k+ stadium if their 2nd league teams barely attract 4k? 

But then I've seen reports made by world's best analysts, that say it's actually feasible in the long run, not only for the Euro. So if Polish cities of 500-700k may afford these huge [in our scale] venues without actually deteriorating their citizens condition [although yes- some investments have to wait longer because of this- but then again, it's a once in a lifetime chance], than why doesn't this have to be the option for other countries?

I understand that the multi-generation mortgage is a metaphore, but I don't see where it applies anyway. Whatever is left after the Euro (in our case) or World Cup is the infrastructure serving everybody generations to come... 
Of course we might say- why not spend it on fighting alcoholism in Poland and Ukraine, eh? But I think it's a lot better to create opportunities for the economies to grow and people's status to upgrade- it allows so much more, as I said- it's an investment, not expense. This infrastructure and this tournament just boosted our economy [4 years before happening so don't say about a month duration]. Though I didn't think I would notice it, I already see the changes. You think that without the Euro Poland would be ranked 1st among European countries most often regarded as a location for foreign investors? [Earnst&Young just released this report]. I don't think so, even though our economy was on a high for a few years already, but euro just added so much more to it.



rover3 said:


> I just reread your post.
> 
> #1 - No it's* not *an argument pro-America -- so you have a problem with that? hno: And if it's for poor countries, then I should just shut up and say nothing? I am not stupid ya know.
> 
> ...


Purely pathetic. You really have some kind of America vs the rest of the world...
You know, we have a saying in Poland that if you help just to remind everyone of it later, then don't do this at all. I know it's not what you're country is doing but mixing this kind of international relations here is a huuuge misunderstanding. 
Somehow I think you knew very well what I meant- that a couple of you, from America (which doesn't mean I accuse the whole country and it's policy!) suddenly care of issues that other countries have to solve before starting bidding for anything and you oppose this with USA's situation without major problems. Thinking that way, all major tournaments would be split between some USA, Germany, Britain and a couple of others. Thankfully, it doesn't work that way and countries that have even big problems like Poland and Ukraine get their chance to get better thanks to these sporting events.
Maybe it's because my English isn't good enough to make my stand clear you somehow have a very bad impression of what I'm trying to say.


----------



## HUSKER (Apr 1, 2006)

Dallasbrink said:


> USA hosted World Cup = USA viewers. The USA does not watch a bunch of soccer, but if the World Cup was hosted in the USA, every American and every person on the north and south american continence would watch every second. And soccer is one of those sports where no matter what time the game is played, you will stay up and watch. 3:00 am in Asia, trust me, they will be awake. 4:00 pm in Europe, the cities will call it a holiday and they will be watching. If FIFA can start the UIFA Championship at midnight in Moscow, then im sure game times in America wont be a problem.


Damn, totally true!!!!., Here in Mexico when we played Ecuador, Croatia or Italy in the early am hours everybody was awake, in bars and having the time of our life.


----------



## HUSKER (Apr 1, 2006)

rover3 said:


> No kidding? Show me the records which justify this. How about Germany 2006; or Japan-Korea 2002? They're rather recent.
> 
> And stadia will be reused later? Like how many times a year?
> 
> Uhmmm. Did you know that Montreal 1976 finally paid off its $1.1 billion dollar of debts incurred in 1974-76 three years ago in 2005? *30 years later *- more than a generation later.


That's nothing, we mexicans are still paying for the 68 olympics with a tax called "tenencia" (payed every year equalling 2% of the value of everybody's automobile)., can you believe that???


----------



## ElCrioyo (Apr 16, 2007)

If they do it here in USA 2022 then they should use the Giants Stadium for the Finals in The NY Metro Area
New York is the capital of the world, and certainly one of the best cities in the U.S

So whats the deal...


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

2022 is quite realistic for the US to host.

With the next two venues confirmed as 2010 South Africa and 2014 Brazil it's extremely unlikely that 2018 would not be in Europe. The USA is bidding for 2018 but more than likely it's groundwork for a 2022 bid and not a serious attempt on 2018.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

HUSKER said:


> That's nothing, we mexicans are still paying for the 68 olympics with a tax called "tenencia" (payed every year equalling 2% of the value of everybody's automobile)., can you believe that???


OMG!! *40 years today!!*!! Ay-yay-yay!! :nuts: 

I rest my case. 

Also, I believe Greece had a huge deficit the 2 years after Athens 2004. And I understand that a number of the Athens venues are 'white elephants' today -- falling into disrepair and neglect. They can't find enough uses for them.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rover3 said:


> So what you're telling me is that the level of intelligence here must be -3 or something like that. Then I vastly overestimated the level.


No, im just telling you to stop ruining this thread...if you think your so right then stop trying to argue with everyone, its pointless

this is an international forum, open your eyes a little. it has nothing to do with intelligence, just that you cant seem to accept other points of view.


----------



## HUSKER (Apr 1, 2006)

I also see a 2022 bid for the US., 2018 is going to be a war between Spain and England., 2022 will be a sure lock for the US. I went to 2 games in Dallas in the 94 WC and they were fantastic in every sense., I really think that Europe doesnt realize the soccer hipe thats going on in the US., MLS is growing every year, in soccer and infraestructure level., teams are growing in their fan base and everybody knows that in the ages from 5 to 12 (boys and girls) the US has the largest organized leagues in the world.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

rover3 said:


> Also, I believe Greece had a huge deficit the 2 years after Athens 2004. And I understand that a number of the Athens venues are 'white elephants' today -- falling into disrepair and neglect. They can't find enough uses for them.


Most Olympic sports generate little interest outside of the games themselves.

Please don't tell me you about to compare a diving pool or cycling velodrome to a football stadium.

Please stop acting like a troll. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

^^

Oh, F&ck u!! Who asked you to be monitor, miss prissypants?

Obviously your mind can only recognize football stadia -- not the whole picture. 

Very narrow. 

Pathetic.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Iain1974 said:


> Most Olympic sports generate little interest outside of the games themselves.
> 
> Please don't tell me you about to compare a diving pool or cycling velodrome to a football stadium.
> 
> Please stop acting like a troll. You're embarrassing yourself.


I agree 100%


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Well, I don't. So what do you wanna make of it?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rover3 said:


> Well, I don't. So what do you wanna make of it?


Theres no sense in arguing a point you know you cant win. Just suck it up and admit your not going to win this one.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Uh-huh. No kidding? There's 2 sides to every story. I don't see why one has to be right over the other. And who asked you?


----------



## HUSKER (Apr 1, 2006)

Back to the topic, please!!!., US has everything to organize the best WC ever, but not in 2018., Spain is my frontrunner., '82 (the first WC that I remember) was fantastic, that final between Italy and Germany was simply great.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rover3 said:


> Uh-huh. No kidding? There's 2 sides to every story. I don't see why one has to be right over the other. And who asked you?


Im just trying to keep the thread form falling apart


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Im just trying to keep the thread form falling apart


But why put down others? So it's OK for someone to put me down but not for me to reciprocate? Kindly explain that.

2 can play the condescension game as well as 1.

It's OK for the 'mexican' poster to simply state his views. I just mention something about Athens in a sentence or 2 -- and I get slammed by some perverse pr*ck -- and you second that. 

Is your thinking so limited?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rover3 said:


> But why put down others? So it's OK for someone to put me down but not for me to reciprocate? Kindly explain that.


Your the one who started the name calling and the irrational responses. Obviously your going to disagree with the people on this thread, but you seem to be going about it the wrong way, as if every time someone disagrees with you its like they insulted your mother. Dont be so defensive all the time.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

brightside. said:


> Why? :dunno:
> 
> ok i see you actually answered this.
> 
> ...


When you have to deal with it all the time you would understand. FedEx Field is slowly killing the Redskins fan base.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Your the one who started the name calling and the irrational responses. Obviously your going to disagree with the people on this thread, but you seem to be going about it the wrong way, as if every time someone disagrees with you its like they insulted your mother. Dont be so defensive all the time.


Oh, please. I wasn't born yesterday. It's the tone of condescension. Who the h*ll does he think he is? *And it's NOT the first time this iain pr*ck did it either. * I didn't pull that condescension sh*t on him. 

I really don't have to take it. I can give as good as I get.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rover3 said:


> U know what? I wasn't born yesterday. It's the tone of condescension. Who the h*ll does he think he is? *And it's NOT the first time this iain pr*ck did it either. * I didn't pull that condescension sh*t on him.
> 
> I really don't have to take it. I can give as good as I get.


look, believe it or not i probably agree with what you say on this board more than i agree with anyone else. I just think if you really have a problem then you just have to let it go. Obviously there is a HUGE anti american bias on this board...isnt just ignoring these people the best way to go? arguing with them wont change their ignorant views. and stop being so damn short with me...i dont think im coming across meanly in any way, so dont be so sarcastic to me


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> look, believe it or not i probably agree with what you say on this board more than i agree with anyone else. I just think if you really have a problem then you just have to let it go. Obviously there is a HUGE anti american bias on this board...isnt just ignoring these people the best way to go? arguing with them wont change their ignorant views. and stop being so damn short with me...i dont think im coming across meanly in any way, so dont be so sarcastic to me


Well, it certainly didn't seem that way. I mean you actually seconded iain's post "100%" -- so how else was I to interpret that??

I generally don't let the "anti-American bias" pass. As you may have noticed, I am feisty and will fight. Actually gets my juices flowing. I'll take criticism if I think I am wrong. But not if I am not. And I'll slam it back in their face if they are wrong or unjustified. 

So I have served notice that I am not going to take any old 'guff' -- and if anyone wants to play the 'sarcasm / put down' game -- then they're on.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rover3 said:


> Well, it certainly didn't seem that way. I mean you actually seconded iain's post "100%" -- so how else was I to interpret that??
> 
> I generally don't let the "anti-American bias" pass. As you may have noticed, I am feisty and will fight. Actually gets my juices flowing. I'll take criticism if I think I am wrong. But not if I am not. And I'll slam it back in their face if they are wrong or unjustified.
> 
> So I have served notice that I am not going to take any old 'guff' -- and if anyone wants to play the 'sarcasm / put down' game -- then they're on.


by the "100%", i was only referring to the last part of his statement. i hate the bias just as much as you, im just tired of fighting that fight. to most people on the board im just like you: a dumb ******* lard ass who calls football soccer and likes a stadium without a roof...i think the best way to fight the bias is by straight information, which you give, but as soon as you call names you lose all credibility. just be the bigger person IMO No nonsense arguing seems to be above most people on the board


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> by the "100%", i was only referring to the last part of his statement. i hate the bias just as much as you, im just tired of fighting that fight. to most people on the board im just like you: a dumb ******* lard ass who calls football soccer and likes a stadium without a roof...i think the best way to fight the bias is by straight information, which you give, but as soon as you call names you lose all credibility. just be the bigger person IMO No nonsense arguing seems to be above most people on the board


But they'll slip in a little dig or so. And I just don't put up with that kind of sh*t. I'm a college grad -- as you can probably tell -- speak at least 3 languages, have lived in France and the Philippines, so I'm no neophyte. 

ANd I've actually worked on 2 Olympic Organizing Committees -- and on 2 others that got nowhere. So I know a thing or two about these matters. I wonder how many of these yahoos have anything approaching that? And maybe I just should NOT share insider info that I know of -- and let all these 'wannabees' think they know the world, huh?


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

I didn't want the USA to host the World Cup before and after reading this thread I want it even less. Americans give a damn shit about the game. They just want the WC because its size and the vibrancy that illuminates the host nation.

No-one doubts that a World Cup in the USA would be bigger and more profitable than any tournament before. But I fear it would be as soulless and without a trace of passion as it was in 1994.

I watch football since the mid 1980s and 1994 WC was by far the worst I can remember. Flashy sunlight, quiet crowds and not a single game that stands out. On top of that the vice-president to hand over the trophy. The 1994 WC revealed the USA don't care about football. So shouldn't football care about the USA ever again.


----------



## shadyunltd (May 1, 2006)

flierfy said:


> I didn't want the USA to host the World Cup before and after reading this thread I want it even less. Americans give a damn shit about the game. They just want the WC because its size and the vibrancy that illuminates the host nation.
> 
> No-one doubts that a World Cup in the USA would be bigger and more profitable than any tournament before. But I fear it would be as soulless and without a trace of passion as it was in 1994.
> 
> I watch football since the mid 1980s and 1994 WC was by far the worst I can remember. Flashy sunlight, quiet crowds and not a single game that stands out. On top of that the vice-president to hand over the trophy. The 1994 WC revealed the USA don't care about football. So shouldn't football care about the USA ever again.


ROFL.



> The average attendance for the tournament was 69,000 while the total attendance was 3.6 million. The 1994 World Cup holds the record for the highest attendance in World Cup history. It was also the highest-attended single sport sporting event in United States history.


Seriously, they can be as good as anybody. Plus, the majority of the people that go see the game are fans of the teams, not the citizens of the host country.

So, because the VP handed the trophy, this meant that they didn't care. Football is still a sport, as far as I can remember.

Austria and Switzerland, two countries that have nothing to do with football are hosting Euro 2008. They don't have "the passion" or something and they are still hosting. Damn, every nation wants to host the games because of the


> size and the vibrancy that illuminates the host nation.


What about South Korea and Japan. Football nations? Let me laugh.


----------



## HUSKER (Apr 1, 2006)

flierfy said:


> I didn't want the USA to host the World Cup before and after reading this thread I want it even less. Americans give a damn shit about the game. They just want the WC because its size and the vibrancy that illuminates the host nation.
> 
> No-one doubts that a World Cup in the USA would be bigger and more profitable than any tournament before. But I fear it would be as soulless and without a trace of passion as it was in 1994.
> 
> I watch football since the mid 1980s and 1994 WC was by far the worst I can remember. Flashy sunlight, quiet crowds and not a single game that stands out. On top of that the vice-president to hand over the trophy. The 1994 WC revealed the USA don't care about football. So shouldn't football care about the USA ever again.


what nonsense., the worst wc that i have seen was italy 90., empty (and crappy) stadiums, shitty games. that wc revealed that the italians only cared for their team, after that, nothing.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

flierfy said:


> I didn't want the USA to host the World Cup before and after reading this thread I want it even less. Americans give a damn shit about the game. They just want the WC because its size and the vibrancy that illuminates the host nation.
> 
> No-one doubts that a World Cup in the USA would be bigger and more profitable than any tournament before. But I fear it would be as soulless and without a trace of passion as it was in 1994.
> 
> I watch football since the mid 1980s and 1994 WC was by far the worst I can remember. Flashy sunlight, quiet crowds and not a single game that stands out. On top of that the vice-president to hand over the trophy. The 1994 WC revealed the USA don't care about football. So shouldn't football care about the USA ever again.


:applause: The 1994 USA WC set a attendance record. But that's not because the US has the biggest passion for football but because the US has the biggest number of immigrants. Most of Americans then didn't even know World Cup was being held in their country.


----------



## HUSKER (Apr 1, 2006)

Carrerra said:


> :applause: The 1994 USA WC set a attendance record. But that's not because the US has the biggest passion for football but because the US has the biggest number of immigrants. Most of Americans then didn't even know World Cup was being held in their country.


That's half true (even so, where did you get that info??)., Most of those "immigrants" are, in fact, US citizens.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

shadyunltd said:


> What about South Korea and Japan. Football nations? Let me laugh.


At least in Korea and Japan there is never such a case that most of people don't know FIFA World Cup is being held in their country


----------



## Indiana Jones (May 1, 2005)

delete, nevermind.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> :applause: The 1994 USA WC set a attendance record. But that's not because the US has the biggest passion for football but because the US has the biggest number of immigrants. Most of Americans then didn't even know World Cup was being held in their country.


Dude, now your giving false information...stop with the anti american bias here it got old a long time ago.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> At least in Korea and Japan there is never such a case that most of people don't know FIFA World Cup is being held in their country


You are just like every other person who didnt grow up here. You think that you know eberything about my country because its in the news all the time or people always talk about it...you need to stop it man, no one is going to believe you. the immigrant population had NOTHING to do with the attendance, and this is not arguable


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> :applause: The 1994 USA WC set a attendance record. But that's not because the US has the biggest passion for football but because the US has the biggest number of immigrants. Most of Americans then didn't even know World Cup was being held in their country.


As usual, a stupid, ignorant post. Ho-hum.


----------



## kamilo (Jan 13, 2005)

shadyunltd said:


> What about South Korea and Japan. Football nations? Let me laugh.


This just shows your ignorance, football is the most popular sport in South Korea, and the second most popular in Japan only after baseball.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

kamilo said:


> and the second most popular in Japan only after baseball.


Uhmmm ... Sumo wrestling, volleyball and sex are up there in Japanese sports -- above football.


----------



## kamilo (Jan 13, 2005)

sex is not a sport last time i checked, and football is definitely more popular than Volleyball in Japan, almost as much as baseball.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> stop with the anti american bias here it got old a long time ago.


If you don't want anti-American bias then tell your fellow Americans to stop writing such extremely arrogant comments like that:


Dallasbrink said:


> ya, and once a player is out, he cant come back in, which is a another stupid rule. And why cant they stop the clock when the ball goes out of bounds or there are corner kicks or penalty kicks? it makes no since and confuses you as to how many minutes are actually left, the officials are left to "Guess" on how many minutes were wasted. I could fix soccer for americans in 1 hour


----------



## Indiana Jones (May 1, 2005)

Extremely arrogant haha. Little thin skinned are we? Dallasbrink doesn't know jack about football and doesn't care about football. So he doesn't like a part of the game? So what. I can dig up plenty or "extremely arrogant" comments about American football regarding game stoppage, pads, measuring yards, supporters, etc. Chill out. Some people don't understand or like certain sports.

And this kind American used football instead of soccer in this post.  

Back to watching Euro 08. :cheers:


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> If you don't want anti-American bias then tell your fellow Americans to stop writing such extremely arrogant comments like that:


So when a guy gets angry because the entire world seems to hate his country i guess he should just be quiet and not say anything :nuts:


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

rover3 said:


> Uhmmm ... Sumo wrestling, volleyball and sex are up there in Japanese sports -- above football.


Football is less popular than volleyball in Japan????????? Hey you ignorant, volleyball can't show this kind of thing in Japan, so can't even baseball 









































































If you wonder WTF Japanese are crazy about, find out just a part of Urawa Red Diamonds and its supporters on internet and youtube. That alone will change your thoughts about sports popularity in Japan fundamentally


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Indiana Jones said:


> Extremely arrogant haha. Little thin skinned are we? Dallasbrink doesn't know jack about football and doesn't care about football. So he doesn't like a part of the game? So what. I can dig up plenty or "extremely arrogant" comments about American football regarding game stoppage, pads, measuring yards, supporters, etc. Chill out. Some people don't understand or like certain sports.
> 
> And this kind American used football instead of soccer in this post.
> 
> Back to watching Euro 08. :cheers:


Watching Euro 08, don't wonder why Europeans play football without using hands and wearing protectors


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

matthemod said:


> I agree that the U.S. probably shouldn't host another tournament so soon since hosting the 1994 cup (relatively recently compared to other nations like England) however I don't believe that they shouldn't host it because football isn't as important towards their culture as other nations. The World Cup is about bringing nations together in a joint love for the game, and I for one would not judge the U.S. with some "holier than thou" attitude if they did apply, due to the beneficial effects it would have for the sport.
> 
> But saying that, like i said earlier, i think the 2022 is a bit too soon following the 1994 world cup, and would prefer the tournament to head back to England .


Why shouldn't it? It's not for posters here to decide. FIFA will, and as long as they welcome all 'feasible' bids, the USA has as much a chance of getting 2022 as the next country. 

I concede 2018 will probably go to England, so why shouldn't 2022 go to the US? If anything, the double awarding in 2011 favors USA's chances very much so. 

Qatar? Please, don't make me :lol:!


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

For anyone doubting wether the current Giants stadium is FIFA ready, 78, 000 last night saw an incredible game between the USA and Argentina. The new Giants Stadium is going up pretty fast BTW.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Rover3, I don't think matthemod claimed it was for posters to decide, he was just stating his opinion.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

nyrmetros said:


> For anyone doubting wether the current Giants stadium is FIFA ready, 78, 000 last night saw an incredible game between the USA and Argentina. The new Giants Stadium is going up pretty fast BTW.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbHNVPUd0Dw


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

California has crappy stadiums today, let alone 14 years from now. Where the hell would these games be held? NFL stadiums cannot get built here because those backwards owners like to rape tax-payers and California is too smart for that. MLS venues are far too small. The only worthy venue is the new Stanford Stadium and it's just 50K.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> California has crappy stadiums today, let alone 14 years from now. Where the hell would these games be held? NFL stadiums cannot get built here because those backwards owners like to rape tax-payers and California is too smart for that. MLS venues are far too small. The only worthy venue is the new Stanford Stadium and it's just 50K.


At the renovated LA Coliseum, the New 49ers stadium, possibly the new Chargers stadium


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

en1044 said:


> At the renovated LA Coliseum, the New 49ers stadium, possibly the new Chargers stadium


To what extent would the LA Coliseum be renovated? Because it is very old and far from modern really.


----------



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

and is it possible to add a row at LA Coliseum?
And what about the other one in Pasadena?

You Americans are really crazy about stadiums :lol:


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> and is it possible to add a row at LA Coliseum?
> And what about the other one in Pasadena?
> 
> You Americans are really crazy about stadiums :lol:


LA Coliseum new renovation plans





































And the Rose Bowl










And if San Francisco is chosen...


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

en1044 said:


> LA Coliseum new renovation plans
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't like the other ones, this looks great though. But with this amount of changes to be made, shouldn't this be called a complete rebuilding? It seems like a commpletely different stadium. What capacity would it have then?
And for me this might have been one of the best stadiums in the world... if it had steeper stands and a roof of course (a canopy like these plazas [or something] around might be fantastic). And I'm also not sure about the "times square" flashy block...
But still, far more than I thought could be made out of it and definately has its charm. Any more details about this (re)design?
One more question: if this stadium is to change its looks so much, wouldn't it be more feasible to build a completely new one?


----------



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

damn
i didn't know that the proposed 75k NFL stadium was at Colos site
Isn't the LA Coloseum protected?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

michał_;21568281 said:


> Don't like the other ones, this looks great though. But with this amount of changes to be made, shouldn't this be called a complete rebuilding? It seems like a commpletely different stadium. What capacity would it have then?
> And for me this might have been one of the best stadiums in the world... if it had steeper stands and a roof of course (a canopy like these plazas [or something] around might be fantastic). And I'm also not sure about the "times square" flashy block...
> But still, far more than I thought could be made out of it and definately has its charm. Any more details about this (re)design?
> One more question: if this stadium is to change its looks so much, wouldn't it be more feasible to build a completely new one?


Well they are rebuilding it, its just gonna have the same name, like Wembley or Soldier Field. Because its a "protected site" theyre calling it a renovation-they did the same thing at Soldier Field. The columns in the front of the building are still going to be there, although you may not be able to see it in the picture. They are going to keep the stadium in the same location because its right next to the University of Southern California. Personally i think its too glitzy, but you have to remember that this is LA, where everything has to be top dollar, theres going to be a lot of wealthy people at these games. I think that if they just make the bowl smaller and add seat backs with a bunch of suites on top it would be fine.


----------



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

so the USA will lose a 92k stadium


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> LA Coliseum new renovation plans


Uhmmm, en. That is incorrect. That is a model for a *completely NEW, completely separate *LA area arena in the West Covina area -- if LA gets an NFL team. 

The LA Coliseum (at least the Peristyle portion of it) has landmark status -- and there are no plans to renovate it. As a matter of fact, some state congressman wants to sell the land and have it completely demolished as part of balancing the state budget.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> so the USA will lose a 92k stadium


theres plenty others


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

Would it be unpopular to demolish the old Coliseum? I suppose it wouldn't have much of a purpose with the new construction.

I like the looks of the New Coliseum, and the Rose Bowl very much. Cant say I'm fond of the SF design - it looks like someone designed it out of Lego.


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

rover3 said:


> Uhmmm, en. That is incorrect. That is a model for a *completely NEW, completely separate *LA area arena in the West Covina area -- if LA gets an NFL team.
> 
> The LA Coliseum (at least the Peristyle portion of it) has landmark status -- and there are no plans to renovate it. As a matter of fact, some state congressman wants to sell the land and have it completely demolished as part of balancing the state budget.


Then I'm confused. For a completely new stadium this one wouldn't really look good. If it was a renovation- it would be a stunning outcome.
So which will it be? 
And can a congressman just say we demolish it to ease the budget if it has a landmark status?


----------



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

BTW
why was the 1994 final was held in the rose bowl
although LA coloseum is bigger?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

www.sercan.de said:


> BTW
> why was the 1994 final was held in the rose bowl
> although LA coloseum is bigger?


the rose bowl is actually bigger, although not by much. It was likely selected because of the better sight lines.


this is an actual proposed renovation of the Coliseum, although i dont know if its being considered anymore. Personally i think its much better than the new one


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

2022 will be in australia
2026 might be in the usa


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

en1044 said:


> yes, i know what it means. Whats your point?


This is my point
:cheers1:


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> This is my point
> :cheers1:


no, thats you being an ass


----------



## Indiana Jones (May 1, 2005)

I measured, LP Field is about 81-82 meters by 121-122 meters.

I think FIFA would bend their arbitrary regulations for this stadium, it would be a great fit.


----------



## coexist (Jul 30, 2007)

From Wikipedia's page on LP Field:

"LP Field is occasionally used by the US men's national soccer team and US women's national soccer team. The venue was used for friendly matches by the women in 2004 versus Canada and the men in 2006 versus Morocco. The stadium hosted the CONCACAF men's qualifying tournament finals for the 2008 Summer Olympics with the winners securing tournament berths in Beijing, China.[3]"

So much for it not being able to host soccer matches...


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

coexist said:


> From Wikipedia's page on LP Field:
> 
> "LP Field is occasionally used by the US men's national soccer team and US women's national soccer team. The venue was used for friendly matches by the women in 2004 versus Canada and the men in 2006 versus Morocco. The stadium hosted the CONCACAF men's qualifying tournament finals for the 2008 Summer Olympics with the winners securing tournament berths in Beijing, China.[3]"
> 
> So much for it not being able to host soccer matches...


so carrerra, please stop trying to start arguments.


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

Indiana Jones said:


> I measured, LP Field is about 81-82 meters by 121-122 meters.
> 
> I think FIFA would bend their arbitrary regulations for this stadium, it would be a great fit.


en1044, you are the one who needs to get his eyes checked.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> en1044, you are the one who needs to get his eyes checked.


i have 20/10 vision, so im fine. anyways, read whats been posted. It hosted CONCACAF matches.

remember, dont be a troll


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

coexist said:


> From Wikipedia's page on LP Field:
> 
> "LP Field is occasionally used by the US men's national soccer team and US women's national soccer team. The venue was used for friendly matches by the women in 2004 versus Canada and the men in 2006 versus Morocco. The stadium hosted the CONCACAF men's qualifying tournament finals for the 2008 Summer Olympics with the winners securing tournament berths in Beijing, China.[3]"
> 
> So much for it not being able to host soccer matches...


Hey man, keep in mind that it is *this year * that FIFA confirmed mandatory ground dimensions!


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Carrerra said:


> Hey man, keep in mind that it is *this year * that FIFA confirmed mandatory ground dimensions!


It already hosted CONCACAF matches *this year*


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

Some MLS team should recruit Carrera and give him the job of prepping the US stadia for our 2018/2022 bid. 

FIFA's secret promise to SoccerUSA now revealed here for the first time: they will give the USA 2022 because of what we did for the women's game in 2003, salvaging it from the incapable hands of China. Ha!!


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

^^^do u have something against china?


lp field looks plain it would probably be left out for better venues


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

theespecialone said:


> ^^^do u have something against china?
> 
> 
> lp field looks plain it would probably be left out for better venues


i picked it because of its location and the seating


----------



## Carrerra (Mar 13, 2008)

rover3 said:


> Some MLS team should recruit Carrera and give him the job of prepping the US stadia for our 2018/2022 bid.
> 
> FIFA's secret promise to SoccerUSA now revealed here for the first time: they will give the USA 2022 because of what we did for the women's game in 2003, salvaging it from the incapable hands of China. Ha!!


You need to get your eyes checked too. Look at my ID carefully again. I'm not Carrera! :eat:


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

masterpaul said:


> Also stadiums cant be named after comanies for world cup.
> 
> They have to be named with there original name (with out the investor implimation).
> 
> ...


Same happened in Germany in 2006. Most statium had compnay names but were required to cover it during the cup.


----------



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

as en already mentioned it
most NFL stadiums are able to host a Football match (105m*68m)

The USA just need a roof at the mainstand.
A Temporary is also possible like at Helsinki Olympic stadium 3 years ago
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/22/32213892_e1d74a6ab0_o.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/23/35105108_674fb32aa3_b.jpg


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

that looks ugly...

..i wonder how many views were blocked by those pillars


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

NFL stadiums that we know will have roofs at that point

Lucas Oil Field
Reliant Stadium
Edward Jones Dome
Ford Field
Georgia Dome
Metrodome/Vikings new stadium
Louisiana Superdome
Qwest Field
New Cowboys Stadium
U of Phoenix Stadium

NFL Stadiums that have actual roof plans
Dolphin Stadium
Cleveland Browns Stadium

Stadiums not listed above that have hosted soccer + have the type of owner that would
likely build a roof or whatever is required OR some combination of the above.

Gillette Stadium
Soldier Field
Invesco Field
Lincoln Financial Field
FedEx Field
Bank of America
New Giants/Jets Stadium



Non NFL Venues with roofs that have hosted rectangular field sports
- Chase Field
- Safeco Field
- Alamo Dome
- Pontiac Silverdome

I'd also throw in whatever incarnation a San Diego and Minnesota stadium will end up as.


This thread is making this equation too hard. We're talking about the NFL. If this group of owners felt a World Cup would benefit them in some way, they'd build whatever they had to. The Venue are already there.

Lost here is the actually wording of FIFA regarding roofs. The only requirement is to cover press and dignitaries. Some of these stadiums already have enough suite and covered club sections for the press.

If I had to make a guess a list of stadiums bidding would look like this(strengths listed):

Ford Field
Lucas Oil Field
Reliant Stadium
Louisiana Superdome
Qwest Field
New Cowboys Stadium
U of Phoenix Stadium
Gillette Stadium
Soldier Field
Invesco Field
Lincoln Financial Field
FedEx Field
Bank of America
New Giants/Jets Stadium
Dolphin Stadium
Cleveland Browns Stadium

Plenty to choose from


----------



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

Are those "Domes" allowed?
artificia grass and FIFA!!!??


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

www.sercan.de said:


> Are those "Domes" allowed?
> artificia grass and FIFA!!!??


You can lay real turf inside a dome, it just doesn't have a long 'life'. Lay it early enough to bed in, use it in the group stages, then get off it before it's dead.

In fact, if memory serves me right, it's been done for a world cup before - possibly US 94, or maybe 2002 - can anyone confirm?


----------



## michał_ (Mar 8, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> You can lay real turf inside a dome, it just doesn't have a long 'life'. Lay it early enough to bed in, use it in the group stages, then get off it before it's dead.
> 
> In fact, if memory serves me right, it's been done for a world cup before - possibly US 94, or maybe 2002 - can anyone confirm?


Surely was in 2002 in Sapporo Dome, but the situation was very different, because there the natural pitch slides out of the stadium and normally is left outside.


----------



## Indiana Jones (May 1, 2005)

Indianapolis could handle a few World Cup games. Who cares if there is a Three Tenors Concert? The people are there to watch football, eat, drink and stay somewhere reasonably nice. Indy does that.

FIFA dimensions, the almighty roof, we could lay some grass no problem.










Fly into our new airport.










Supporters with no tickets can watch the game like they do at Euro 08. Monument circle is perfect.










Stay at the 5 star Conrad.










We know international Crowds, hosting a round of the F1 World Championship from 2000-2008 (screw you Bernie and your sanction fee) and now MotoGP in 2009.


















Sure Indy isn't NY or LA, but if people get bored they can go to the Orchestra, Theatre, Zoo, Museums or race track. Indy would do a great job hosting a few games if the US was awarded a WC. Just a shameless plug.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> Yes, that scenic Dallas - LA bus trip will be a surefire hit with the tourists! Seriously, though, this is what I'm getting at. The US lacks the comparable rail infrastructure and some of the auto trips we're talking about would be too egregious. People don't want to spend the money to fly to the US only to spend 4 days in a Sportage driving up and down I-85. Conversely...


Well in the Northeast, of course there's the Acela, is it - linking Boston, NYC, Philly and DC?

California trying to get its own bullet train between San Diego, LA, San Jose, SF/Oakland and Sacramento. That might be up and running by 2022. Hopefully. Of course, by doing so or flying, they would be missing one of the most breathtaking shore drives in the world -- I'd say even more beautiful than the Amalfi Coast drive -- on PCH 101 up Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Big Sur, Carmel.

So, it's really a matter of choice. ANd with the Aussies and the Euros, they have like 6 weeks vacation to start with, so they really ahve all this time in between Games to dilly-dally. I'm sure many of them would even fly to Mexico or Canada or Cuba in-between matches if they need to kill time. Besides their euros are so much stronger than our $$ right now, so I think the domestic travel expense is the least of their worries. Plus, with an Official Airline partner, WC fans who are staying to the end will probably be gettng some sort of great Freq Flyer bonsues/breaks or the like.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Yeah, I am not to worried about the Euros and Aussies--with their months of paid vacations. 

I reckon that by 2022, the U.S. _could_ have a pretty decent high speed rail network. Particularly on the heavy populated East Coast, West Coast, and even the Midwest. With the way gas prices are going and how much its going to affect the airline industry--I have no doubt that the U.S. will be soon experiencing a second Golden Age of cross country rail travel. 

And in regards to Indianapolis, its not that far from Chicago. This is what you could have in the region transportation wise.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

A true high speed rail system in this country is long overdue. It is simply a MUST to have now.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

*xxx*



nyrmetros said:


> A true high speed rail system in this country is long overdue. It is simply a MUST to have now.


It still isn't feasible. They can barely get one in California or Florida, and you expect to have a X-country one? hno: Over the airlines' dead bodies. If you want to see the country by rail, you don't have to bullet-train it. Use the slower Amtrak lines. Think of the headaches securing the rails vs. saboteurs -- even more than securing the Alaska pipeline. Ain't gonna fly.


----------



## Big Texan (Jun 4, 2008)

in 14 years, we could see a X country rail system in the USA if the Airlines compamys put there names on them. American Airlines opens American Rail Lines! .......wow, no laugh......at least im funnier then Carrot Top


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Big Texan said:


> in 14 years, we could see a X country rail system in the USA if the Airlines compamys put there names on them. American Airlines opens American Rail Lines! .......wow, no laugh......at least im funnier then Carrot Top


hey, dont mess with the Carrot Top










i just had to do it


----------



## Big Texan (Jun 4, 2008)

why is he straining over 30 pounds? I do that easily...and ewwwwwwww

back to soccer....







she scares me.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Big Texan said:


> in 14 years, we could see a X country rail system in the USA if the Airlines compamys put there names on them. American Airlines opens American Rail Lines! .......wow, no laugh......at least im funnier then Carrot Top


That's just not feasible...

It would be much cheaper and much faster to fly from LA to NYC than to take a bullet train. Bullet trains are best for intermediate distances along heavily used corridors (like California, the BosWash corridor, Florida).


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

Seriously doesn't the US have a half decent rail system? If I’m being honest i reckon this would be a major hindrance of a US WC bid because fans like to get around by rail less hassle then by going by plane. And when you consider how stringent airport security is in the US I think you would see why fans would want to go by rail.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

berkshire royal said:


> Seriously doesn't the US have a half decent rail system? If I’m being honest i reckon this would be a major hindrance of a US WC bid because fans like to get around by rail less hassle then by going by plane. And when you consider how stringent airport security is in the US I think you would see why fans would want to go by rail.


I don't think they were be getting on by train in Brazil either -- except for the supposed new bullet train service between Rio and Sao Paolo. Well, our country is what it is. If it's good enough for us, then it ought to be good enough for the visitors. They should know that coming in. 

They can always charter buses, etc. and see the countryside. If not, well, c'est la vie. But that's NOT going to be the main consideration. You are going to have this same problem in China or Russia.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

This thread isn't really the place but isn't it the Teamsters Union the most powerful group against railroads in the USA?

Although people talk about the benefits of a 200mph railroad for passengers the true economic benefit must be in moving cargo around at high speed much more efficiently.

If we revisit this argument at $150/bbl and again at $200/bbl we might see some more movement but right now at $4/gallon it's still not enough to convince powerful people that we need trains.


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

Erm, I don't think moving cargo at high speed is that important at all. Otherwise, we would yet see hight-speed cargo trains on European Tracks, but we don't. (Except the TGV Postal in France). for most goods it simply doesn't make a difference when it arrives a few hours/days later.
High-speed trains ARE most important for (you would say) medium-distance passenger transports. Regarding the time you need from city centre to the Airport, wait for checking in, etc., it makes much more sense to enter the train at a central station and leave it directly at your destination, so at least in the more populated regions (BosWash, Chicago - Detroit, California), an American HSL is overdue.


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

Erm, I don't think moving cargo at high speed is that important at all. Otherwise, we would yet see hight-speed cargo trains on European Tracks, but we don't. (Except the TGV Postal in France). for most goods it simply doesn't make a difference when it arrives a few hours/days later.
High-speed trains ARE most important for (you would say) medium-distance passenger transports. Regarding the time you need from city centre to the Airport, wait for checking in, etc., it makes much more sense to enter the train at a central station and leave it directly at your destination, so at least in the more populated regions (BosWash, Chicago - Detroit, California), an American HSL is overdue.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> I'm not debunking your thoughts on the Yorks, but I can't agree that LA is "desperate" for a team. They've gone long enough without that many fans are now accustomed. In fact, TV ratings in LA have often been higher since the region is more inclined to get the best match-up of the day as opposed to just the local team. It's really just the owners who want a team there because of the franchise rights that would come along with it. This is also why they'd prefer an expansion if possible, and why we'll likely have to wait several years till another city or three can join LA in the fold (so as to even the number of teams).
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> ...


A regional bid does make sense, but looking back to 1994, I think the average attendance for matches was above 60,000 people which is damn good. One thing America can boast better than most countries is the diverse and large local populations living here from all over the world. So having everything spread out seemed to work fine back then, no reason that can't work 14 years from now.

Back in 94 they did a goo job and arranging the schedules so each team played 2 games at the same stadium which seemed to work well. One thing that could have been done better is some groups played 2 games in Chicago and then another down in Dallas. It would have made more sense to do 2 in Chicago and 1 in Detroit or vice versa. 

Even with the spread out sites thousands of people will come from all over the globe to cheer for their teams. While I don't have numbers, I attended 8 games back in 1994 and there seemed to be large numbers of fans cheering on each team.


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> A regional bid does make sense, but looking back to 1994, I think the average attendance for matches was above 60,000 people which is damn good. One thing America can boast better than most countries is the diverse and large local populations living here from all over the world. So having everything spread out seemed to work fine back then, no reason that can't work 14 years from now.
> 
> Back in 94 they did a goo job and arranging the schedules so each team played 2 games at the same stadium which seemed to work well. One thing that could have been done better is some groups played 2 games in Chicago and then another down in Dallas. It would have made more sense to do 2 in Chicago and 1 in Detroit or vice versa.
> 
> Even with the spread out sites thousands of people will come from all over the globe to cheer for their teams. While I don't have numbers, I attended 8 games back in 1994 and there seemed to be large numbers of fans cheering on each team.


U r right. 1994 worked out fine for the most part. Maybe a little tweaking, but we will probably have like 8 brand new stadia for another run at 2018/22. A X-country bullet train ain't gonna happen. Hugely expensive and impractical. They hold their breath every time in France in fear of saboteurs to the rails, how can one secure what, say 5,000 mi of high-speed rail tracks. And with one terrorist or sabotage act, the whole system will grind to a halt or just became a regular train system -- so why even bother to invest what? $3.5 TRILLION to build one? It is just not feasible in a country the width, expanse and pace of the US.

Our cities are where they are. If FIFA doesn't like it, well too bad. You can't replicate the European experience every time. Anyway, the fans have 2 Disneylands to choose from in the US in-between games. They only have 1 Disneypark in Europe. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

"If FIFA doesn't like it, well too bad."

And some people think you are arrogant? hno:


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

berkshire royal said:


> Seriously doesn't the US have a half decent rail system? If I’m being honest i reckon this would be a major hindrance of a US WC bid because fans like to get around by rail less hassle then by going by plane. And when you consider how stringent airport security is in the US I think you would see why fans would want to go by rail.


We have AMtrak which is governemnt funded, but the freight lines own almost all the ROW. The AMtrak NE corridor from Boston to DC is the main line with a semi high speed Acela. But we've lost our rail culture in this country for the most part.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

I’m not saying rail travel is a deal crasher but it definitely is a factor I just think that visiting fans would prefer to use rail transport because of the stringent security measures at US airports which makes it a stressful and lengthy process getting through the airport security whereseas rail transport is quick and simple at WC 2002 + WC 2006 the rail transport was top notch and Switzerland and Austria won euro 2008 based upon the quality of their rail transport so don’t think its a non factor. And although Russia and China don’t have these services at the moment I wouldn't bet against both of them building these services to gain the world cup you have to remember these are to massive economies that are willing to invest to gain. You also have to remember a WC isn't just about the best bid its also about what effect having a WC can have on the hosting nation it has to have some sort of catalyst effect on that nation whether it be in terms of the popularity of the sport or being the needed incentive to improve national infrastructure and stadium infrastructure like we are seeing in South Africa for 2010 and in Brazil for 2014.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

berkshire royal said:


> Seriously doesn't the US have a half decent rail system? If I’m being honest i reckon this would be a major hindrance of a US WC bid because fans like to get around by rail less hassle then by going by plane. And when you consider how stringent airport security is in the US I think you would see why fans would want to go by rail.


lots of people complain about how slow Amtrak is. Its much easier and cheaper just jumping on an airplane. 

But the airline industry is being hurt bad by rising fuel prices. The airline headquartered in my city is cutting jobs and wages in half. Same can be said for many other airlines across the nation. 

Rail is the future. Its a no brainer in most regions in the country--especially dense ones like the East Coast, the Great Lakes, Florida, and some places out West.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

MoreOrLess said:


> The big problem LA may have is that they lack a large modern football stadium, things have moved on signifcantly since 94 and I wouldnt be supprized if neither the Rose Bowl or the LA Coliseum are considered suitible by FIFA when this bid happens.


They will have a new one by 2022


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

^^ As long as the Chargers don't play in it I'm ok.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

MoreOrLess said:


> The big problem LA may have is that they lack a large modern football stadium, things have moved on signifcantly since 94 and I wouldnt be supprized if neither the Rose Bowl or the LA Coliseum are considered suitible by FIFA when this bid happens.


There is a renovation plan for the Rose Bowl that would change it over to entirely chairback seats, replace the press box and such. By the looks of it all of the club seats would be covered by a small roof, so assuming the rules don't change much it should be fine by then


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

hngcm said:


> ^^ As long as the Chargers don't play in it I'm ok.


LA doesnt deserve an NFL team, they already blew it twice


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

en1044 said:


> LA doesnt deserve an NFL team, they already blew it twice


Well it wasn't because of lagging attendance, it was about stadium issues.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

hngcm said:


> Well it wasn't because of lagging attendance, it was about stadium issues.


i know, but in the end it just didnt work out...twice. They had their shot IMO


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

Al Davis himself admitted he made a rushed decision in moving back to Oakland when he threw that tantrum. 










I think at this point, it's the NFL who needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles begging for a team.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

The NFL doesn't really need LA and LA doesn't need the NFL.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Kenni said:


> I think at this point, it's the NFL who needs Los Angeles more than Los Angeles begging for a team.


no way does the NFL need L.A.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Doesn't NEED LA, but would still be nice to have a franchise there - especially if they want to expand the number of teams in the comp.


----------



## Solanis_Rep (Oct 18, 2007)

Kenni said:


> :lol: I couldn't do anything but laugh at this personal irrational view. Who in their sanity would choose San Diego over Los Angeles to hold an event of such magnitude?:lol:
> 
> San Diego is,...nice,.. hmmm, beautiful and all. But it's a MUST to include *New York, Los Angeles and Chicago* in any case.
> 
> ...


Well, if I have a bias on this issue, then certainly you do too buddy, being in Los Angeles yourself. You couldn't possibly stand to not monopolize all the glory to yourself of hosting a WC game, let alone the final itself (I'll let you have that one, good luck with the other cities who would want to host it). Accessibility wise, venue wise (hopefully will stay on track), and attraction wise, San Diego is certainly fully capable of hosting a successful game. I'm sorry if you're too blinded by your ego to recognize that.

Sure, I wrote in my first post, that maybe we should just forget about LA altogether. That was just part of the plug I wrote. But both cities could certainly work together to each host games.



> San Diego is,...nice,.. hmmm, beautiful and all.


What are you trying to imply here? Sounds like another "San Diego is nice, but..." statement.



hngcm said:


> Don't think they would rule out SD because of that.





Irish Blood English Heart said:


> Of course it wouldnt, Germany had stadiums in Cologne, Dortmund and Gelsenkirchen, all about 25 miles from each other.


Certainly not, that is, if organizing officials don't buy into the Angelinos' superiority complex.



en1044 said:


> well the point still is that LA will, without a doubt, host a WC game. Because of that, SD cant. The cities are too close.


Why not? Certainly would make things a little more convenient for fans who, for example, may want to attend a game that would be hosted in San Diego. Shorter ride down to San Diego than a cross country flight. And vice versa.



en1044 said:


> i think it does matter, we arent restricted by size. To start grouping cities near each other here would just be dumb.


It's not just about size and being/not being restricted. You have to take into consideration the quality of the venue and ease of access to the venue and other services by fans who'll come. It's not dumb if other cities who would compete for the honors of hosting games can't measure up. For that matter, here in the States there's the idea (in theory at least) that with the right stuff and determination, anything can be achieved. Could apply to cities as well. If SD could offer a better deal than some other western city in the US, why not let them host a game? Why award hosting based solely on entitlement? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Size, in my opinion, is a negative for the US, not a positive.  It's much easier to buy a train ticket and board a train to go to the next venue than have to deal with the hassle of air travel. You're asking visitors to have to deal with an air system that's already taxed enough (in the big cities), and forcing them to compete with other domestic travelers.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Solanis_Rep said:


> Well, if I have a bias on this issue, then certainly you do too buddy, being in Los Angeles yourself. You couldn't possibly stand to not monopolize all the glory to yourself of hosting a WC game, let alone the final itself (I'll let you have that one, good luck with the other cities who would want to host it). Accessibility wise, venue wise (hopefully will stay on track), and attraction wise, San Diego is certainly fully capable of hosting a successful game. I'm sorry if you're too blinded by your ego to recognize that.
> 
> Sure, I wrote in my first post, that maybe we should just forget about LA altogether. That was just part of the plug I wrote. But both cities could certainly work together to each host games.
> 
> ...


:bash:


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

en1044 said:


> i know, but in the end it just didnt work out...twice. They had their shot IMO


Yes, all those fans who are also politicians really blew it, huh?


----------



## rover3 (Feb 4, 2008)

*xx*



Irish Blood English Heart said:


> Of course it wouldnt, Germany had stadiums in Cologne, Dortmund and Gelsenkirchen, all about 25 miles from each other.



Yeah, but Germany is what? Not even the size of Texas? We are talking about a country w/ 3,000,000+ square miles. And the venues would HAVE to be spread out as fairly as possible. With LA and the SF Bay Area sure bets as venues -- as they were in 1994, SD doesn't really stand a chance -- because that would give California THREE venues whereas there are 49 other states that have to BE CONSIDERED for the remaiing 6 or so slots.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

Yeah, Texas is about twice the size of Germany. If San Fran didn't get it together San Diego would be a great spot, the weather and location are great, but LA is so much bigger, and will probably have a larger stadium. If it's still ten host venues, then I can't see any state getting more than two, and with LA and the Bay area being the most likely it's probably a long shot. FIFA cetainly likes to get a good spread across host countries and I think most Americans will agree with the idea. I like the idea of breaking it up regionally. Given likely (though not certain) construction I'd speculate the list might end up

East
Washington DC (probably large new retractable roof stadium +/-90,000-100,000)
New York (80,000 seat stadium, will open in a couple years)
Miami (75,000, may have a retractable roof by then) 

Midwest
Dallas (100,000)
Chicago (61,000)
Minneapolis (new +/- 72,000 retractable roof stadium is likely by 2013 or so)

West 
LA (renovated Rose Bowl 85,000)
Denver (76,000)
Phoenix (72,000)
San Fran (new 49ers stadium +/-72,000)

Semi Finals 
LA
Dallas

Final
Washington DC

I could definately see Seattle, Boston/Foxboro, Philly, San Diego, Houston, especially if the new Vikings or 49ers stadium falls through. Both San Diego and Houston seem almost overqualified to host, but are in close proximity to other venues that seem to have the upper hand, so I think that would likely do both in.


----------



## Tritons (Jul 7, 2008)

Solanis_Rep said:


> Why not? Certainly would make things a little more convenient for fans who, for example, may want to attend a game that would be hosted in San Diego. Shorter ride down to San Diego than a cross country flight. And vice versa.


Yeah, that's a nice incentive, and I agree that San Diego would be able to handily manage the task of hosting, but SD is just overshadowed by LA. It's been a pattern ever since LA got chosen over SD for the Southern Pacific Railway in 1876. That and oil soon afterwards and things just took off from there, leaving SD to sniff LA's dust. All the important things have been happening in LA ever since, save for the Navy. It's sad, but true.

And I would love to see San Diego host too, but that chance is also very much reliant on politicians as well. Knowing SD's political scene, I'm not sure whether there would be enough momentum to get something going, to even be able to put up a fighting chance. We're already mired in pension scandals and lack of money, and there's still a lot of local lobbyists who want to keep San Diego out of the spotlight and keep it small and sleepy, like it used to be.



rover3 said:


> And the venues would HAVE to be spread out as fairly as possible. With LA and the SF Bay Area sure bets as venues -- as they were in 1994, SD doesn't really stand a chance -- because that would give California THREE venues whereas there are 49 other states that have to BE CONSIDERED for the remaiing 6 or so slots.


Although I do agree that both LA and SF are highly likely, I wouldn't necessarily call them sure bets. We're talking 2022, a lot can happen in that time. Scandal, economic troubles, and a lack of political will could hamper the creation of new venues and other supporting structures/systems, which could potentially put either out of the running. Only in a situation like that could SD get a shot.

Like Benn said, there might preference for spreading things out, but that can't always be the overriding factor if venues aren't up to snuff. So I wouldn't take SD* completely *out of the running, like some of you have, but I agree its a long shot, for the most part. 

And larger stadium in LA? We can't say for sure yet, neither SD nor LA have a new stadium yet, and I'd say that currently SD (well actually Chula Vista) has a larger incentive to build one. 



> I could definately see Seattle, Boston/Foxboro, Philly, San Diego, Houston, especially if the new Vikings or 49ers stadium falls through. Both San Diego and Houston seem almost overqualified to host, but are in close proximity to other venues that seem to have the upper hand, so I think that would likely do both in.


Oh yeah, definitely, both are very qualified. And yeah, like I mentioned and you mentioned, the proximity to other venues is their problem, and only troubles in those other places could possibly give them a shot at hosting.

You also mentioned Denver. I was born there and lived there for part of my childhood, and have gone back a few times over the past few years to visit, so I love it to death, and would love to see them host. But I don't know. Unlike SD, Denver isn't close to other venues, so it doesn't have to compete with anybody regionally, but don't you think its elevation could be seen negatively? I mean, what would be the affect on the teams' performance?


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

It might, but it's a fairly important city on it's own with a 76,000 seater designed to handle FIFA demensions, so that is definately in it's favor. When Mexico city hosted the final the elevation really seemed to take something out of the players, but then there is also the heat and polution, so I don't really no. If they were worried about elevation Seattle would make a wonderful host city (stadiums smaller, but infrastructure is probably better, and with all the rain England would feel right at home). If FIFA were to really hold that main stand covered rule strictly this might change a little.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

I get the feeling the final would end up in Miami. It's very attractive for all audiences.

Of Japan's WC 2002 stadiums, one, Miyagi, is in the red. Vegalta Sendai, the nearest J. League (2nd division) team, refuse to use Miyagi Stadium unless they have to. It's in the middle of nowhere, it has a nine lane track, and it's cold and lifeless when compared to their cozy purpose-built Sendai Stadium. Korea has some problems though.

I'll sound biased, but Charlotte could end up hosting a match or two. It has experience with large visitor influxes (the semi-annual NASCAR events for instance) and always receives good reviews when it hosts college basketball events. Granted the World Cup is bigger than that, but it also has the advantage of being connected to New York, Washington, Atlanta, and Miami by rail (Amtrak) and air (Charlotte-Douglas International). Charlotte isn't big or flashy, and while it lacks an identity, it doesn't carry around a stigma like a lot of larger cities do. It also has a "look at me!" quality about it where it's government will bend over backwards to host something. It won't host a final, or any knockout match, but a couple group stage matches isn't a bridge too far. What goes against it is being Atlanta's second-city of sorts and the heat.

I'd also go to Phoenix and Houston over a third CA venue or Dallas.

I'd use these cities: LA (G, SF), Miami (G, F), New York (G, SF), Chicago (G, QF), Houston (G, QF), Phoenix (G, QF), Washington (G, QF), San Francisco (G) , Charlotte (G), Seattle (G, Third place), Foxborough (G), Denver (G).


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> I get the feeling the final would end up in Miami. It's very attractive for all audiences.
> 
> Of Japan's WC 2002 stadiums, one, Miyagi, is in the red. Vegalta Sendai, the nearest J. League (2nd division) team, refuse to use Miyagi Stadium unless they have to. It's in the middle of nowhere, it has a nine lane track, and it's cold and lifeless when compared to their cozy purpose-built Sendai Stadium. Korea has some problems though.
> 
> ...


eh, miami is too out of the way...better sticking in LA or DC. I think Miami should host a game, but not the final. And i doubt Charlotte would host a game. Not saying that it wouldnt be able to host, i love the city, but theres just too many "qualified" cities here to do it. Plus, it would be the 5th east coast team. I doubt 5 teams in the east will happen.


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

U.S has many very impressive stadiums. But I don't think FIFA will give a WC to the U.S again , in a short while. Though 2022 won't be in Europe (Europe [UK or Spain]will get 2018)


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Benn said:


> East
> Washington DC (probably large new retractable roof stadium +/-90,000-100,000)
> New York (80,000 seat stadium, will open in a couple years)
> Miami (75,000, may have a retractable roof by then)
> ...


Even with a new stadium I doubt Minneapolis hosts a game. 

I think the bid will contain 12 stadiums (same as Germany) and that Boston, Houston, and Seattle will be hosts.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Kuvvaci said:


> U.S has many very impressive stadiums. But I don't think FIFA will give a WC to the U.S again , in a short while. Though 2022 won't be in Europe (Europe [UK or Spain]will get 2018)


Worst case scenario is australia/china get 2022, and 2026 goes to the USA


----------



## Kuvvaci (Jan 1, 2005)

^^ probably one of them will get 2022. I don't know about 2026, I wonder if U.S wants to get it or just our forumers wish it.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

a.


en1044 said:


> eh, miami is too out of the way...better sticking in LA or DC.


Given the dispersal of games everyone is supposing, stretching from Boston to LA, it seems foolish to suggest Miami is "too out of the way." Especially considering the upgrades being given to Dolphin Stadium, it's safe to say that will be among the premier venues available. Smaller than, say, Dallas and NY, but certainly top class.

b. The more I think about it the more the challenge for the US will be trying to win a WC early enough before Mexico fosters a bid with comparable stadiums. As of today the Mexican Football League does not have the volume of first-rate, large facilities to compete with a US bid. However, if the US misses out on '18 - '26, there's a chance by then Mexico will have a full slate of facilities ready made for the WC. Maybe not as large as many NFL stadia but with a more pure "soccer" configuration and volumes of support. If that happens it would push a potential US date back to something in the 2040s or 2050s.

c. Re: The LA/SD dispute. I don't imagine it will be a one-or-the-other debate for US Soccer or FIFA, and at the least the west coast will need multiple sites so as to provide convenient travel options for fans and teams. 

That being said, if it came down to such a choice then surely the culture that gave us The Hills should be dropped straight away! :lol:

Cheers! :cheers:


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

hngcm said:


> Even with a new stadium I doubt Minneapolis hosts a game.
> 
> I think the bid will contain 12 stadiums (same as Germany) and that Boston, Houston, and Seattle will be hosts.


I don't know for sure, metropolitan Boston is a bit bigger than metropolitan Minneapolis. But if there is a larger retractable roof stadium in downtown Minneapolis (which the new proposal coming in a month or so will be) on two light rail line that connect to the airport and (soon to be) central train station, that will probably be a stronger bid than what Gillette stadium out in Foxboro can offer, not to mention it's fairly close proximity to NYC. I still think Minneapolis probably has a slight edge come 2018 or 2022.

With twelve hosts I would fully expect Seattle and Houston to be in the bid, with Boston, Philly, San Diego, Charlotte and Tampa having an outside chance. Of course this is all quite speculative, it being 14 years away for a tournament that isn't quite certain.

East
Washington DC (new stadium 90,000-100,000)
New York (new Meadowlands, 80,000)
Miami (Dolphins stadium 75,000)

South
Dallas (Jerryworld 100,000)
Houston (Reliant 72,000)
Phoenix (U of Phoenix 72,000)

Midwest
Chicago (61,000)
Minneapolis (new Vikings +/-72,000)
Denver (Invesco 76,000)

West
LA (Rosebowl 85,000)
San Fran (new 49ers +/-72,000)
Seattle (Qwest 72,000)


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Benn said:


> I don't know for sure, metropolitan Boston is a bit bigger than metropolitan Minneapolis. But if there is a larger retractable roof stadium in downtown Minneapolis (which the new proposal coming in a month or so will be) on two light rail line that connect to the airport and (soon to be) central train station, that will probably be a stronger bid than what Gillette stadium out in Foxboro can offer, not to mention it's fairly close proximity to NYC. I still think Minneapolis probably has a slight edge come 2018 or 2022.
> 
> With twelve hosts I would fully expect Seattle and Houston to be in the bid, with Boston, Philly, San Diego, Charlotte and Tampa having an outside chance. Of course this is all quite speculative, it being 14 years away for a tournament that isn't quite certain.
> 
> ...


I would say drop Phoenix, put Miami into the South area, stick Boston into the East. Maybe St Louis or Detroit for Minneapolis?


----------



## Tritons (Jul 7, 2008)

Foxborough is a bit far out from Boston for it to be feasible, and then there would probably be a Boston/NY hosting dispute (like the LA/SD argument we just had?), because they too are fairly close together. NY would probably have better access to the venue though.

I also just checked out the RTD website and was pleasantly surprised to see how much Denver's light rail system has expanded. I didn't realize last time I was there that it had grown so much. Plus it goes right by Invesco Field, so it's a great boon for Denver for a hosting bid. Excellent access by rail is a great plus. 

I also agree with Benn on that we're kinda goin' out on a limb here for some of these places, given how far out the date is. It's fun to discuss all the possibilities here, but we can't know for sure how serious any of this is. We don't even know for sure whether there will be a bid.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

^^ Foxborough is 22 miles south of Boston. Very much in the orbit of what is considered suburbia for most large American cities and almos tthe same distance as the new Cowboys stadium will be from downtown Dallas. I don't know where on earth you get the idea that NYC would be closer to the venue then Boston. Providence Rhode Island perhaps, NYC no way.


----------



## Tritons (Jul 7, 2008)

Benjuk said:


> I would say drop Phoenix, put Miami into the South area, stick Boston into the East. Maybe St Louis or Detroit for Minneapolis?


I'd drop Phoenix too. Even though it may have a dome stadium, it's ridiculously hot in the summer (which would be uncomfortable for the fans whilst staying in the city), and has poor public transportation options compared to other cities.


----------



## Tritons (Jul 7, 2008)

nomarandlee said:


> ^^ Foxborough is 22 miles south of Boston. Very much in the orbit of what is considered suburbia for most large American cities and almos tthe same distance as the new Cowboys stadium will be from downtown Dallas. I don't know where on earth you get the idea that NYC would be closer to the venue then Boston. Providence Rhode Island perhaps, NYC no way.


Whoops, sorry. Looked further out to me. Should have checked the distance. Still, what are we talking about in terms of transit options?

And I'm confused about the rest. Are you talking about Providence being closer to Boston's venue than NY? That's a given, but why would NY use Boston's venue? And what would Providence have to do with it? NY would have their own venue, I would assume, otherwise Boston would take it.


----------



## hoosier (Apr 11, 2007)

Indianapolis should host a match or two. Lucas Oil Stadium is going to be one of the premier football stadiums in the US when it opens next month.


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

How much are domestic air fares between all of these venues? It's all very well to say they need to be dispersed across the country, however, the fans wallets need to be considered too. It's one problem I have with an Australian bid for 2022 - transport between the cities and the costs associated with that. I'm sure that a flight between NY and LA will set someone back a pretty penny.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Svartmetall said:


> How much are domestic air fares between all of these venues? It's all very well to say they need to be dispersed across the country, however, the fans wallets need to be considered too. It's one problem I have with an Australian bid for 2022 - transport between the cities and the costs associated with that. I'm sure that a flight between NY and LA will set someone back a pretty penny.


The fares would be expensive, but thats why the stadiums are being grouped by region


----------



## Solanis_Rep (Oct 18, 2007)

Svartmetall said:


> How much are domestic air fares between all of these venues? It's all very well to say they need to be dispersed across the country, however, the fans wallets need to be considered too. It's one problem I have with an Australian bid for 2022 - transport between the cities and the costs associated with that. I'm sure that a flight between NY and LA will set someone back a pretty penny.


That's exactly what I've pointed out earlier. Everybody's saying "Oh yeah, all the venues should be spread out, that's the only way it would work" or something along those lines. Or better yet, "Oh, America is so much bigger than everyone else, we have the luxury of spreading things out." But at what cost? If you guys haven't noticed, airline fares are getting more expensive. With this whole energy crisis, who knows where things will go in the future. Not to mention all the political turmoil and the effect it has on oil prices. 

So when you spread things out in a country that has very large distances, and the only quick link between cities being air travel, what would be the sense of spreading things out so much? Sure, it's nice to have venues in differing regions to showcase differing climates and geography, but at what cost to fans (both foreign and domestic)? That's why I think the size of the US is a negative, not a positive. 

Clustering venues would be more cost effective and convenient, rather than hopping around the country between games. 

For the TV viewers it may make little difference, but they're not the ones that are gonna be spending the money.

EDIT: The stadiums being grouped by region? Sure, but even the distances between the cities within each region prohibit anything else except air travel. Well, maybe except New England. Foreigners won't have cars, so they can't just hop in the family car and drive over. And even domestically, high gas prices will discourage people from driving city to city.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Tritons said:


> Whoops, sorry. Looked further out to me. Should have checked the distance. Still, what are we talking about in terms of transit options?
> 
> And I'm confused about the rest. Are you talking about Providence being closer to Boston's venue than NY? That's a given, but why would NY use Boston's venue? And what would Providence have to do with it? NY would have their own venue, I would assume, otherwise Boston would take it.


I am guessing Foxborough has a commuter rail station that event buses could service but in terms of PT when I was in town and drove past the stadium a month ago there was no sign of PT that I saw. However that is not differant then many if not most the stadiums that would be canidates.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Tritons said:


> Foxborough is a bit far out from Boston for it to be feasible, and then there would probably be a Boston/NY hosting dispute (like the LA/SD argument we just had?), because they too are fairly close together. NY would probably have better access to the venue though.


It wasn't a problem in 1994 so I doubt it'll be a problem in 2022. 

There's also the fact that it's an "MLS stadium."


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

hoosier said:


> Indianapolis should host a match or two. Lucas Oil Stadium is going to be one of the premier football stadiums in the US when it opens next month.


The minimum will probably be 3 matches (64 matches in 12 cities).

I don't see anybody picking Indianapolis over the other midwest cities, I'm sorry but Indy is just not that attractive (well, compared to the others). I'd choose Indy over Minneapolis though.


----------



## Indiana Jones (May 1, 2005)

hoosier said:


> Indianapolis should host a match or two. Lucas Oil Stadium is going to be one of the premier football stadiums in the US when it opens next month.


True dat! :cheers:


----------



## rockin'.baltimorean (Jul 5, 2008)

^^i can't believe that the field comes *OUT* of the stadium. awesome!! technology is somethin' else!!


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

it's not the first stadium to do that


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

Benn said:


> Short of total economic collapse I would be shocked if the US doesn't host in the next 20 years or so. If you take the assumption that FIFA is just going to keep going to countries that have yet to host, then I don't think you understand FIFA and how money driven it is. Our economy should pick up in the next couple of years (assuming we get out of or scale down the stupid war we are in at the moment, and stop borrowing trillions of dollars to fund it). China will probably host before too long but I think 2026 is more realistic, not to mention just about every major Chinese stadium has an athletics track, which FIFA will try to avoid when possible (though not as much as one would expect).


if china gets the world cup they will spend billions on football specific stadiums

although it would be great to see some of the current ones in use, including the beijing and guangzhou olympic stadiums


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

nothing gets eurotrashed more upset than talk of the us holding a saccer world cup


----------



## Tritons (Jul 7, 2008)

en1044 said:


> I dont think he wants the US to host a WC



Are you kidding me? So are you implying that you agree with this guy? I'm sorry, but if you don't see the wrong in hoping for a complete catastrophe in South Africa, just so you can host a WC sooner rather than later, then your moral compass must be off a bit. It has nothing to do with whether I want the US to host a WC or not (which I do want it to host, btw.) 

How would you feel if you were a South African soccer fan, and somebody told you that they hoped that South Africa didn't make the deadlines and such, just so that their country could host the WC instead? Probably not too happy. 

And you wonder why some people outside the US think that Americans are arrogant and hostile to foreigners.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Tritons said:


> Are you kidding me? So are you implying that you agree with this guy? I'm sorry, but if you don't see the wrong in hoping for a complete catastrophe in South Africa, just so you can host a WC sooner rather than later, then your moral compass must be off a bit. It has nothing to do with whether I want the US to host a WC or not (which I do want it to host, btw.)
> 
> How would you feel if you were a South African soccer fan, and somebody told you that they hoped that South Africa didn't make the deadlines and such, just so that their country could host the WC instead? Probably not too happy.
> 
> And you wonder why some people outside the US think that Americans are arrogant and hostile to foreigners.


dude what the hell is your problem? I suggest you actually go back and READ what i was saying. I never wished ill will towards anyone...try again.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

SIC said:


> Ummm...FIFA requires stadiums to have covered seats (soldier field isn't) and theres 32 games.
> 
> Plenty of games to go around. Plus, it makes sense to group the cities to facilitate fan travel.
> 
> ...


Ummmm I believe that back in 1994, aside from the Silver Dome, no stadium had covered seats.

Those groupings would never happen. 1994 was the highest attended World Cup ever, so distance between venues does not matter as far as attendance goes. 

Minneapolis, Indianapolis and New Orleans would never see a World Cup game, and Phoenix is highly unlikely.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

SIC said:


> Ummm...FIFA requires stadiums to have covered seats (soldier field isn't) and theres 32 games.
> 
> Plenty of games to go around. Plus, it makes sense to group the cities to facilitate fan travel.
> 
> ...


FIFA has also revised their rules and require that only the press be covered now. Also, as the poster above me mentioned, FIFA will make exceptions for the US. They made huuuuge exceptions in 1994 and while we will not receive as much leeway as last time, we won't be required to fulfill also requirements.

Regardless, Indianapolis was never really in the running to host. If I were putting the clusters together my guess is it would be something like that:

West: LA, Seattle, Phoenix (San Diego/San Francisco also possibilities to replace Phoenix if they ever get new stadiums done)

Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas City/Minneapolis/Detroit (If KC gets the renovations they desire it's theirs, if Minneapolis expands TCF Bank Stadium they could or they could lay down grass at Ford FIeld like they did for the Silverdome in '94)

South: Houston, Dallas, Miami

East: New York, Washington DC, Boston (Philadelphia could push Boston if they widen their field and DC will need to either widen the pitch at FedEx or build the new stadium Daniel Snyder wants)


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> FIFA has also revised their rules and require that only the press be covered now. Also, as the poster above me mentioned, FIFA will make exceptions for the US. They made huuuuge exceptions in 1994 and while we will not receive as much leeway as last time, we won't be required to fulfill also requirements.
> 
> Regardless, Indianapolis was never really in the running to host. If I were putting the clusters together my guess is it would be something like that:
> 
> ...


There are not going to be any clusters involved if the U.S. gets awarded the cup. There is no need to do so. The World Cup in 1994 was the highest ever attended and a cup in 2018 or 2022, will only see higher numbers. FIFA will want to host the games in the largest cities, and the cities with the most diverse populations.

Guarantees to Host:

New York
Boston (Foxboro)
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Los Angeles
Dallas
San Francisco

Cities like Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely to see games being hosted.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> There are not going to be any clusters involved if the U.S. gets awarded the cup. There is no need to do so. The World Cup in 1994 was the highest ever attended and a cup in 2018 or 2022, will only see higher numbers. FIFA will want to host the games in the largest cities, and the cities with the most diverse populations.
> 
> Guarantees to Host:
> 
> ...


You can't host a WC is the US without clusters. The country is just too big. You can't expect a team to play in LA then fly to Boston then back to San Francisco for their 3rd group stage match, then head back to the east coast for a Round of 16 match. 

You've listed 7 guaranteed hosts, but what about the other 5? 12 is the ideal number of hosts cities for the WC so if Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely where would the matches be played? On top of that, San Francisco needs a new stadium. The only possible one right now is Stanford Stadium, but it only holds 50,000. If the 49ers get a new stadium, then San Francisco will host instead of Phoenix, but if not then Phoenix will host.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

ryebreadraz said:


> You can't host a WC is the US without clusters. The country is just too big. You can't expect a team to play in LA then fly to Boston then back to San Francisco for their 3rd group stage match, then head back to the east coast for a Round of 16 match.


Pool play cities for '94 world cup:

Pool A+B
Detroit, Pasadena (LA), Palo Alto (Bay Area)

Pool C+D
Chicago, Dallas, Foxborough (Boston)

Pool E+F
Orlando, DC, NY

They didn't make them run all the way across country, but they did have some good jumps up the coasts in there. So a team would never be required to do a SF to DC to LA, but maybe with the new crop of US stadiums, you would see an Indy to Dallas to Chicago, or an LA to Seattle to SF (Not saying those would be the host cities, just saying they might cluster pools as such). 





> You've listed 7 guaranteed hosts, but what about the other 5? 12 is the ideal number of hosts cities for the WC so if Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely where would the matches be played? On top of that, San Francisco needs a new stadium. The only possible one right now is Stanford Stadium, but it only holds 50,000. If the 49ers get a new stadium, then San Francisco will host instead of Phoenix, but if not then Phoenix will host.


Seattle has a nice shiny new stadium (Qwest Field) that was built to hold soccer. It holds 67,000 people. A world cup game there would be friggin sweet. Just a plug, back to Indy


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> You can't host a WC is the US without clusters. The country is just too big. You can't expect a team to play in LA then fly to Boston then back to San Francisco for their 3rd group stage match, then head back to the east coast for a Round of 16 match.
> 
> You've listed 7 guaranteed hosts, but what about the other 5? 12 is the ideal number of hosts cities for the WC so if Phoenix, San Diego, Kansas City, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely where would the matches be played? On top of that, San Francisco needs a new stadium. The only possible one right now is Stanford Stadium, but it only holds 50,000. If the 49ers get a new stadium, then San Francisco will host instead of Phoenix, but if not then Phoenix will host.


You most certainly can have a World Cup no in clusters and it has already been done. As mentioned, the World Cup in 1994, was the highest ever attended. So to say that clusters are needed to assure high attendance is incorrect. The World Cup can run fine without 12 venues. I personally say that there will be 10 venues used for a World Cup in the United States. Of which cities like Kansas City, Phoenix, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely candidates.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

A world cup game will always be a sell out. Even if you built a 100000 stadium in the middle of the Nevada dessert. Ok, maybe Costa Rica-Saudi Arabia wouldn't at that location but still... The event as a whole isn't what it was in 1994. It has grown massively.

I would think there are few certainties when it comes to cities. FIFA will wan't world wide renowed "names" for their event:

Boston
New York
Chicago
LA
Washington DC
Dallas
"Florida"
and San Fransisco perhaps.

Some form of "grouping" will probably take place and will be easier to do with 12 instead of 9 venues. But it's definitely not necessary as an argument for attendance figures .


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> You most certainly can have a World Cup no in clusters and it has already been done. As mentioned, the World Cup in 1994, was the highest ever attended. So to say that clusters are needed to assure high attendance is incorrect. The World Cup can run fine without 12 venues. I personally say that there will be 10 venues used for a World Cup in the United States. Of which cities like Kansas City, Phoenix, Indianapolis and Minneapolis are unlikely candidates.


of course its possible to host it without grouping, but why would you? If its possible to host a WC with big name cities in world class stadiums and still group them then why wouldnt you do it?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

mavn said:


> A world cup game will always be a sell out. Even if you built a 100000 stadium in the middle of the Nevada dessert. Ok, maybe Costa Rica-Saudi Arabia wouldn't at that location but still... The event as a whole isn't what it was in 1994. It has grown massively.
> 
> I would think there are few certainties when it comes to cities. FIFA will wan't world wide renowed "names" for their event:
> 
> ...


The point of clusters isn't as much for the fans as much as it is for the players. The games will sell out regardless, but it will make for poor quality soccer if teams are jetlagged and flying from coast to coast. You've yet to make an argument against clusters? You can use all the cities you'd want in a WC and still have clusters to ease travel. Reread my proposal:

West: LA, Seattle, Phoenix (San Diego/San Francisco also possibilities to replace Phoenix if they ever get new stadiums done)

Midwest: Chicago, Denver, Kansas City/Minneapolis/Detroit (If KC gets the renovations they desire it's theirs, if Minneapolis expands TCF Bank Stadium they could or they could lay down grass at Ford Field like they did for the Silverdome in '94)

South: Houston, Dallas, Miami

East: New York, Washington DC, Boston (Philadelphia could push Boston if they widen their field and DC will need to either widen the pitch at FedEx or build the new stadium Daniel Snyder wants)

12 is the preferred number of cities. FIFA has stated that while they allow more and less, they consider 12 to be the ideal number so there's no reason to think there won't be 12 host cities.

San Francisco would host over Phoenix if they get their new stadium, but until then, Phoenix is a host. Every other city listed is a major city with the exception of KC and they could be replaced by Detroit or Minneapolis.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> The point of clusters isn't as much for the fans as much as it is for the players. The games will sell out regardless, but it will make for poor quality soccer if teams are jetlagged and flying from coast to coast. You've yet to make an argument against clusters? You can use all the cities you'd want in a WC and still have clusters to ease travel. Reread my proposal:
> 
> West: LA, Seattle, Phoenix (San Diego/San Francisco also possibilities to replace Phoenix if they ever get new stadiums done)
> 
> ...


From a players standpoint, your ideas make sense. However, I don't believe Philadelphia would bump Boston and Phoenix would never be in place of the Bay area. Also one thing to mention, having the teams play all over the place allows fans to see their home country team play in their city.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> From a players standpoint, your ideas make sense. However, I don't believe Philadelphia would bump Boston and Phoenix would never be in place of the Bay area. Also one thing to mention, having the teams play all over the place allows fans to see their home country team play in their city.


The Bay Area will host IF they have a stadium, but the way negotiations are going for a new 49ers stadium, that's still a big if. There's no way they'll host at Stanford Stadium and have 50,000 people there (probably less because Stanford Stadium's press box is smaller than most and some seats would have to be given up to accommodate more press) when they can go to Phoenix and have 75,000. In addition, Stanford Stadium has benches in the corners and behind the goals and FIFA requires all seats to be chairbacks. San Francisco is certainly a city that FIFA would love to have host, but only if they have a suitable stadium, something currently lacking.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> The Bay Area will host IF they have a stadium, but the way negotiations are going for a new 49ers stadium, that's still a big if. There's no way they'll host at Stanford Stadium and have 50,000 people there (probably less because Stanford Stadium's press box is smaller than most and some seats would have to be given up to accommodate more press) when they can go to Phoenix and have 75,000. In addition, Stanford Stadium has benches in the corners and behind the goals and FIFA requires all seats to be chairbacks. San Francisco is certainly a city that FIFA would love to have host, but only if they have a suitable stadium, something currently lacking.


im pretty sure that in 2022 Candlestick will be no more


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> im pretty sure that in 2022 Candlestick will be no more


Candlestick will be no more and if the city (or a nearby city) isn't willing to give some public money to a stadium there won't be a San Francisco 49ers either.


----------



## TexasBoi (Jan 7, 2004)

Is there something wrong with Reliant Stadium in Houston being in the group. If not, why is Houston not being mentioned as a city that can host? I agree with Dallas no doubt. But Houston's Reliant Stadium which has hosted many international contests could hold games as well.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

TexasBoi said:


> Is there something wrong with Reliant Stadium in Houston being in the group. If not, why is Houston not being mentioned as a city that can host? I agree with Dallas no doubt. But Houston's Reliant Stadium which has hosted many international contests could hold games as well.


I think some people are a bit gun-shy on there being two venues in one state, not realizing that Reliant and Jerryworld are somewhere around 260 mi (420 km) from each other.

There's also holdover from 1994, when Houston didn't have a FIFA-sanctioned facility.

I've heard several people from all continents mention how they think Reliant is the best soccer-style stadium in the United States. If the US gets the WC in 2022, there's no doubt that Houston will be one of the cities selected to host.


----------



## Arist (Oct 10, 2008)

ADCS said:


> I think some people are a bit gun-shy on there being two venues in one state, not realizing that Reliant and Jerryworld are somewhere around 260 mi (420 km) from each other.
> 
> There's also holdover from 1994, when Houston didn't have a FIFA-sanctioned facility.
> 
> I've heard several people from all continents mention how they think Reliant is the best soccer-style stadium in the United States. If the US gets the WC in 2022, there's no doubt that Houston will be one of the cities selected to host.


No doubt the Cowboys new Stadium in Arlington will be selected as well. No way the largest and most advanced stadium in the world will be passed up.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

TexasBoi said:


> Is there something wrong with Reliant Stadium in Houston being in the group. If not, why is Houston not being mentioned as a city that can host? I agree with Dallas no doubt. But Houston's Reliant Stadium which has hosted many international contests could hold games as well.


Reliant Stadium is an amazing facility. At least in my proposal, Houston would host along with Dallas.


----------



## mavn (Nov 17, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> The point of clusters isn't as much for the fans as much as it is for the players. The games will sell out regardless, but it will make for poor quality soccer if teams are jetlagged and flying from coast to coast. You've yet to make an argument against clusters? You can use all the cities you'd want in a WC and still have clusters to ease travel. Reread my proposal:
> 
> West: LA, Seattle, Phoenix (San Diego/San Francisco also possibilities to replace Phoenix if they ever get new stadiums done)
> 
> ...


I didn't mean it as an argument against clustering. Only to say that "accommodating traveling fans" is a non-argument. The games will sell-out. FIFA couldn't care less about fans being able to travel to all their teams matches. 

The only effect of grouping would be one city being picked over another on location. FIFA won't sent a team to Boston for ther first, Seattle for the second and Miami for the third match. Whether you group or not doesn't matter in that sense.

Another thing is the amount of teams. It's currently 32. I think it's the ideal number for a WC. But EURO 2016 will see an increase from 16 to 24. 16 was perfect. The average level of competing teams was arguably higher than the WC. 24 will make for a messy tournament set-up with a lot of bad teams added. But more revenue for UEFA... I wouldn't be surprised if Fifa would increase the tournament as well in the coming decades... That could increase the amount of stadiums needed...

My personal favorite 12 at the moment would be the exact 12 you picked BTW


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Personally, I like the clustering idea. Here's my suggestion:

Honestly, if this bid is to be a slam dunk, include Toronto and Montreal for a US-Canada dual hosting

I like ryebreadraz's locations, however, I'd replace Denver with Toronto in his example (yes, it sucks, but if we're considering transportation, Denver's far away from everything, and the altitude difference is such a wild card. Toronto is much closer to the Midwest US). At that point, Detroit would be the preferred other Midwestern city

I would also replace Boston with Montreal under this plan. 

Semifinals would be in Toronto and Dallas, both having relatively central locations to where the rest of the matches would be held, with the finals being in Chicago, owing to its central location, location in the US rail network (assuming it's upgraded by then), large airport, relatively large PT system, and soccer-oriented stadium design.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ADCS said:


> Personally, I like the clustering idea. Here's my suggestion:
> 
> Honestly, if this bid is to be a slam dunk, include Toronto and Montreal for a US-Canada dual hosting
> 
> ...


Where would Montreal host the games? I would think Canada would have to have more than 2 cities being the co-hosts with the US. 

Chicago will no doubt be a host city, but it won't host the finals. Soldiers Field, while a very nice stadium, is simply too small when you compare it to the Rose Bowl and the new Giants Stadium. If the Giants/Jets new stadium can handle a soccer pitch, then I would bet it would win out having over 82,000 seats versus Soldier Fields 62,000.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

ADCS said:


> Personally, I like the clustering idea. Here's my suggestion:
> 
> Honestly, if this bid is to be a slam dunk, include Toronto and Montreal for a US-Canada dual hosting
> 
> ...


Soldier Field cannot host the final. The site of the final must hold at least 80,000 and Soldier Field holds just over 60,000. My guess is the final goes to New York while LA and DC get the semifinals. Regarding the co-hosting idea, no way. First of all, FIFA has stated that they will no longer allow co-hosts. Second, why would the USSF share the profits with Canada? Also, neither Montreal nor Toronto has a suitable stadium. Olympic Stadium is a dump and Rogers Centre is mediocre at best for soccer. The co-hosing idea will NEVER happen.


----------



## Iain1974 (Jun 16, 2004)

FIFA are not enthusiastic abut co-hosts. Would Canada automatically qualify as hosts too? Would CONCACAF be willing to give up a qualification place?

Minimum capacity for the final is 60,000 (not including VIP's/media)


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> Honestly, if this bid is to be a slam dunk, include Toronto and Montreal for a US-Canada dual hosting


That'd harm the bid more than help it. It would mean one of the world's worst footballing nations (Canada) getting an automatic qualifying spot. It would be a joint hosting with a token-partner rather than a neat 50/50 split. It'd be weird for the sponsors and weird for the teams playing in Canada while the rest of the tournament is taking place in the USA. It'd be harder to market a bid with two national identities rather than one and FIFA would have to deal with two sets of laws for protecting their logos and copyrights etc. 

FIFA aren't keen on co-hosting after their Japan/Korea experience and the USA is more than capable of going it alone. Having Canada is not necessary.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

ryebreadraz said:


> Reliant Stadium is an amazing facility. At least in my proposal, Houston would host along with Dallas.


I'd agree with, plus Dallas and Houston are plenty large enough to include. The real question is what other city would go in their region? Denver? Miami? Tampa? I would say perhaps Atalanta but I don't think FIFA will want a dome stadium with so many good outdoor or retractable options.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

ryebreadraz said:


> Candlestick will be no more and if the city (or a nearby city) isn't willing to give some public money to a stadium there won't be a San Francisco 49ers either.


Well, if either the Raiders and/or 49ers don't get a new stadium I would almost go all in in saying that one of them will move to L.A. and with a move would come a new stadium in L.A. So either LA or the San Fran metro I think is almost guarented to have a new stadium in the next ten years. I would actually put good odds that both LA and San Fran metro will see at least one new NFL facility in the next ten years.


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

RobH said:


> That'd harm the bid more than help it. It would mean one of the world's worst footballing nations (Canada) getting an automatic qualifying spot. It would be a joint hosting with a token-partner rather than a neat 50/50 split. It'd be weird for the sponsors and weird for the teams playing in Canada while the rest of the tournament is taking place in the USA. It'd be harder to market a bid with two national identities rather than one and FIFA would have to deal with two sets of laws for protecting their logos and copyrights etc.
> 
> FIFA aren't keen on co-hosting after their Japan/Korea experience and the USA is more than capable of going it alone. Having Canada is not necessary.


I thought about that aspect of it, and it's true, it would most likely need a shift in FIFA's perspective about the whole thing. However, it would be a great way to do a whole "210 years of peace" themed WC, which is always a big plus for FIFA (they like to think of themselves as great ambassadors for world peace).

Also, the USSF wouldn't be as worried as many other soccer federations as to the splitting of the cash. For one, it isn't going to go toward renovations and construction of new stadiums like it would in other countries; the US already has a suitable stadium infrastructure, and any other construction would be done under the auspices of the other professional leagues. 

Along with this is the integration and unification of the Canadian and US soccer programs, as represented by the existence of Toronto FC in the MLS. This will also downplay the potential for money tensions. The argument will be that enhancing the Canadian facilities will benefit the MLS as a whole, and thus the role of soccer in North America.

Meanwhile, both the Rogers Centre and Stade Olympique are nearing the end of their useful lives, and will most likely be replaced soon with newer facilities. This is a prime opportunity for FIFA to enhance their position within Canada by flushing the new stadiums with WC cash, with the indication that they be built to FIFA standards (which isn't that difficult, since Canadian football dimensions are very compatible with this). As the US infrastructure is already in place, there won't be too much competition.

Finally, it addresses both the US's reduced world standing ("We're willing to share the spotlight") and partially mitigates the whole "only 28 years ago" argument. In response to the whole "terrible football team" argument, people were most likely griping about the same thing when the US got it in 1994. That investment is starting to pay off.


----------



## Arist (Oct 10, 2008)

nomarandlee said:


> I'd agree with, plus Dallas and Houston are plenty large enough to include. The real question is what other city would go in their region? Denver? Miami? Tampa? I would say perhaps Atalanta but I don't think FIFA will want a dome stadium with so many good outdoor or retractable options.


Denver. Its close enough for the cluster to work better.

Why does New York and LA automatically get considered for the Final game? The New Dallas Stadium will be able to Hold 100,000, as well as the most modern stadium out of all of them.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

LA is a soccer stronghold, that's why. Though it's stadiums aren't up to par at the moment.

Ideally I'd rather the Cotton Bowl host the Dallas games than the Cowboys Stadium. That'll never happen though.

I'd pick these -

Refurbished Coliseum; Los Angeles, CA (Final)
Relient Stadium; Houston, TX (Semi)
Qwest Field; Seattle, WA
U of Phoenix Stadium; Glendale, AZ
Soldier Field; Chicago, IL
Gillette Stadium; Foxborough, MA
New Stadium; Washington, DC
Refurbished Dolphin Stadium; Miami Gardens, FL (Semi)
Lucas Oil Stadium; Indianapolis, IN
New Cowboys Stadium; Arlington, TX
Rentschler Field; Hartford, CT
either LP Field in Nashville, TN or Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, NC

Hartford covers New York.


----------



## jkramb (Jan 28, 2008)

no way will they have it at rentschler field. it's not even 60k and not very nice compared to the stadiums in philly and NYC.




Bobby3 said:


> LA is a soccer stronghold, that's why. Though it's stadiums aren't up to par at the moment.
> 
> Ideally I'd rather the Cotton Bowl host the Dallas games than the Cowboys Stadium. That'll never happen though.
> 
> ...


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

nomarandlee said:


> I'd agree with, plus Dallas and Houston are plenty large enough to include. The real question is what other city would go in their region? Denver? Miami? Tampa? I would say perhaps Atalanta but I don't think FIFA will want a dome stadium with so many good outdoor or retractable options.



If Atlanta were to be considered it would be Sanford Stadium at UGA in Athens...that's where the Olympic finals were played in 1996. Legion Field in Birmingham also hosted some Olympic early round games.


----------



## TexasBoi (Jan 7, 2004)

Bobby3 said:


> LA is a soccer stronghold, that's why. Though it's stadiums aren't up to par at the moment.
> 
> Ideally I'd rather the Cotton Bowl host the Dallas games than the Cowboys Stadium. That'll never happen though.
> 
> .


Why not? It holds over 90,000 now and can easily host a FIFA game.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

TexasBoi said:


> Why not? It holds over 90,000 now and can easily host a FIFA game.


The Cotton Bowl doesn't have a chance to host because it has benches, which is a no no with FIFA. All seats must be individual seats to host in a WC, plus all the suites and club seats at Jerry World will be too much for FIFA to pass up



Iain1974 said:


> FIFA are not enthusiastic abut co-hosts. Would Canada automatically qualify as hosts too? Would CONCACAF be willing to give up a qualification place?
> 
> Minimum capacity for the final is 60,000 (not including VIP's/media)


By rule the minimum capacity is 60,000, but FIFA made it rather clear to S. Africa and Brazil that they expected nothing less than 80,000. While not officially a rule, there's no way nation with as many big stadiums as us would host a final in a stadium with under 80,000. FIFA won't allow it.



Arist said:


> Why does New York and LA automatically get considered for the Final game? The New Dallas Stadium will be able to Hold 100,000, as well as the most modern stadium out of all of them.


Dallas-Fort Worth isn't big enough to host the final. FIFA wants the final at one of the nation's biggest cities that are world renowned (LA or NY) or in the nation's capital. DC isn't big enough to host a final, but because it is a big city and a capital I think it gets a semi-final along with LA and NY gets the final. NY gets the final over LA because LA hosted the final in 1994.



nomarandlee said:


> I'd agree with, plus Dallas and Houston are plenty large enough to include. The real question is what other city would go in their region? Denver? Miami? Tampa? I would say perhaps Atalanta but I don't think FIFA will want a dome stadium with so many good outdoor or retractable options.


I think Miami becomes the 3rd host in the cluster. While Denver is closer, the south needs a host and there isn't room in the northeast cluster for a southern host. By default, the southern host, likely Miami, gets thrown in with the Texas cities.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> I think Miami becomes the 3rd host in the cluster. While Denver is closer, the south needs a host and there isn't room in the northeast cluster for a southern host. By default, the southern host, likely Miami, gets thrown in with the Texas cities.



On the same note...Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, and Charlotte are closer to Miami than the Texas cities.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

WeimieLvr said:


> On the same note...Atlanta, Birmingham, Nashville, and Charlotte are closer to Miami than the Texas cities.


Atlanta is a dome and while grass can be brought in, FIFA doesn't like to do that. Birmingham, Nashville and Charlotte aren't big enough cities. Miami is a large city with a very multi-ethnic composition.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> Atlanta is a dome and while grass can be brought in, FIFA doesn't like to do that. Birmingham, Nashville and Charlotte aren't big enough cities. Miami is a large city with a very multi-ethnic composition.



As I stated a couple of posts back, Atlanta would be Sanford Stadium at UGA...which hosted the 1996 Olympic finals in soccer - not the Georgia Dome. Atlanta is also a large city with a multi-ethnic composition...

In what way are Birmingham, Nashville, and Charlotte not big enough? I know Legion Field in Birmingham has done some World Cup hosting before...Charlotte and Nashville are as large or in the same league with Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and some other cities that have been suggested in this thread.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

WeimieLvr said:


> As I stated a couple of posts back, Atlanta would be Sanford Stadium at UGA...which hosted the 1996 Olympic finals in soccer - not the Georgia Dome. Atlanta is also a large city with a multi-ethnic composition...
> 
> In what way are Birmingham, Nashville, and Charlotte not big enough? I know Legion Field in Birmingham has done some World Cup hosting before...Charlotte and Nashville are as large or in the same league with Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and some other cities that have been suggested in this thread.


First UGA would have to agree to host and that would be tough because to fit a WC field they would have to take out the hedges, something they did in '96 and got heat for. Second, they would have to replace all their benches with seats to accommodate FIFA rules and I doubt UGA would be willing to decrease capacity for that. Then, FIFA would have to agree that a stadium an hour and 20 or 30 minutes away from Atlanta is still considered Atlanta. Neadless to say, with all these things that would have to happen, Atlanta is a long shot.

Legion Field had hosted WCQ's before, but they have since put in turf and the USSF said they won't even receive WCQ's anymore. On top of that, Legion Field has benches. Nashville is not a world renowned city. When people list of major US cities, some people bring up Miami, but few, if any bring up Nashville and the same could be said for Charlotte. Charlotte's Bank of America Stadium also has one of the smallest press boxes in the NFL and would require a very large auxiliary press area that would lower capacity significantly. In addition, neither Charlotte nor Nashville have the multi-ethnic composition of Miami. Miami would be the host in the southeast.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> Well it looks like FIFA will award the WC's of 2018 and 2022 at the same time and bids for both must be submitted by 2009 so USSF won't have the luxury of knowing what MLS will look like. Two additional franchises will be awarded by then (most likely Montreal, Portland, St. Louis or Miami), but we won't know any more than 18 teams so we know nearly everything we're going to know by the time bids must be submitted.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think most people have Philly hosting. NY, DC and Boston are considered the frontrunners for the northeast cluster and Philly is just a backup for one of those 3 cities. The only place southeast cities will fit is in a south cluster. Most assume Dallas and Houston will get 2 of the spots and Miami the thirs so if you're going to add Charlotte or Nashville, who would you take out?


New York, Washintgon and Boston all have venues that currently host an MLS team and have previously hosted the WC, along with several other national matches. Those 2 are almost certainties to host. Nashville will not be hosting a WC event, period. Charlotte has very small chance of hosting the WC as well. Both of those cities are not as well known, don't have the as good of venues as a Dallas or Houston. I still think Orlando will probably get the nod if Florida is to have a host city.

"MLS is trying to grow the game nationally now. They've admitted as much so limiting a WC to MLS cities wouldn't fit with that. MLS wants cities like San Diego to whine "how come we don't have teams?" That means cities want MLS teams and MLS can use it as leverage to get improved stadiums and competition for teams like that will increase franchise values when expansion comes around. The NFL has been able to use LA to get cities to pony of up for stadiums and if there was enough interest from other cities MLS would be able to do the same.

No matter where matches are held you will not see MLS logos plastered over the stadium. FIFA takes control of signage at stadiums and it is always limited to FIFA sponsors, team names, stadium names and cities. How many Bayern Munich or Hannover and Borrussia Dortmund logos did you see in 2006?

You've yet to address the fact that Gulati said growing MLS is not the goal of hosting a WC and that they key for them is to increase exposure throughout the country and make it a major sport in the nation's largest cities."

The MLS will take decades upon decade before it is to achieve the number of teams that the NBA of NFL has. People need to remember that a few MLS teams have folded, the Miami Fusion, the Tampa Bay Mutiny for example.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> Charlotte and Nashville have their own cultures, and people are apparently quite taken by them if you look at migration rates. Both stadiums will be upgraded and/or replaced by 2022.
> 
> The southeast isn't a "weak" soccer area either. It's just ignored by MLS. The Southern USL teams are quite successful, and well respected among their peers. Charleston, Atlanta, and Raleigh (Cary) have special stadiums just for soccer, and Charlotte and Greensboro (Browns Summit) are building them.
> 
> ...


I don't think it's the culture that is attracting people to places like Charlotte and Nashville. I think it might have to do with the cost of living maybe?



Bobby3 said:


> I'd sacrifice Philadelphia to include Charlotte or Nashville. They're less known, but they could handle it better.
> 
> Philly is sandwiched between three cities (Boston, NY, DC) which are basically shoe ins. Charlotte or Nashville would create a bridge between the Northeastern cities and Florida and Texas.
> 
> The USSF's job isn't to promote MLS though. They actually don't see eye to eye on many issues. Judging on the way they act, Don Garber being as hard headed as he is, he'd probably have MLS play during the World Cup. I mean, he does now, that and every other international date.


How are Charlotte and Nashville better equipped to host as a WC city? Both lack a decent mass transit system. Philadelphia has a larger and much more diverse population than both.



WeimieLvr said:


> And Indianapolis is a "world renowned" city in comparison to Charlotte or Nashville? Please! It's smaller than both of these cities...There is no real argument there. Indianapolis has a great stadium, but a great stadium sitting in Gary doesn't make Gary a host...


Lucas Oil Field would probably have to be modified in order to fit a full soccer pitch which would mean smaller capacity. That and Indianapolis has almost a zero chance of hosting anyways.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

> I don't think it's the culture that is attracting people to places like Charlotte and Nashville. I think it might have to do with the cost of living maybe?


But you've obviously never visited either city (obvious from your comments) so you're going by...what? Hearsay?




> How are Charlotte and Nashville better equipped to host as a WC city? Both lack a decent mass transit system. Philadelphia has a larger and much more diverse population than both.


Again...this is what you've heard, not what you know.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

WeimieLvr said:


> But you've obviously never visited either city (obvious from your comments) so you're going by...what? Hearsay?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have visited both cities and am making judgment based on what I have experienced there and simple common sense . You can honestly sit here and say a family in Connecticut is saying to themselves, gee Charlotte sure has a lot of culture, lets move there. Nope. The single reason a lot of the these southern cities are seeing large growth spurts are the low cost of living and jobs moving there. Nothing else. 

You mean to tell me that Nashville and Charlotte both have a better public transportation system than Philadelphia? You mean to tell me that Nashville and Charlotte both have a more diverse population than Philadelphia? Are you high or something?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> We have completely different idea of a football ground. Your argument about club seats makes me wonder where you sit when you watch football.
> Concerning the awareness level of Dortmund I can assure you that this city is well recognised at least in those parts of the world that care about football.


Where I would like to match has nothing to do with this argument. The argument behind all of this is if Dortmund were dropped in the US, would it be an obvious choice to host a WC match and I claimed no, with the stadium being a major reason why. I would love to see a match at Signa-Iduna and would find it superior to a lot of the proposed stadiums in the US; however, that is not what matters when hosting a WC. FIFA and the organizing committee want to make as much money as possible and be able to satisfy all their sponsors. That is why Signal-Iduna would not compete with the US stadiums. The US stadiums have all the luxury suites and club seats needed to satisfy FIFA's sponsors and make the tournament extremely successful monetarily. Matches at any of the US stadiums proposed would bring in far more money than Signal-Iduna. Where I sit and watch matches or where I'd like to see the matches played is irrellevant in this discussion. Where the most money can be made is what's relevant and the answer to that is any US stadium over Signal-Iduna.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

massp88 said:


> I have visited both cities and am making judgment based on what I have experienced there and simple common sense . You can honestly sit here and say a family in Connecticut is saying to themselves, gee Charlotte sure has a lot of culture, lets move there. Nope. The single reason a lot of the these southern cities are seeing large growth spurts are the low cost of living and jobs moving there. Nothing else.
> 
> *You mean to tell me that Nashville and Charlotte both have a better public transportation system than Philadelphia? You mean to tell me that Nashville and Charlotte both have a more diverse population than Philadelphia? Are you high or something?*


Please show me where I said anything of the sort about transportation or diversity. I simply stated that you didn't know this for a fact or by first hand experience. 

I don't comment on Philadelphia very often because I've only had a layover in the airport there and never experienced the city. I know many good things about it, but not enough to say much for sure. On the other hand, I guess the family in Connecticut can comment on the culture in Charlotte without knowing about it, much as you're doing. 

Your lack of knowledge about the reasons for the pouplation growth in Charlotte is apparent and obviously limited to what you hear and read as well. I'm sure you've spent LOTS of time in both Charlotte and Nashville...what reason would have for being in such culture-less cities? What in the world could bring you to spend time in either place?:lol:


----------



## JohanSA (Apr 21, 2008)

Its a atitude like this that makes the world hate americans! South Africa has to comply with exactly the same standerds as Germany did and as you did in 1994 ( its acsually higher now than that in 1994 ) . Just because South Africa is on the African continent doesnt make it a shitty backwater country. South Africas economy might be a small fraction of that of the US but in South Africa it is and has been the most important thing for people and government the last 6 years and up until 2010 . Your not going to get that same commitment from neither your government nor your people! Seems theres one lesson the USA will never learn : a small guy with passion and determination will destroy a uncommited giant ....... Goodluck with your bidding because I have a feeling Australia might just destroy you with their passion for sport...


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

massp88 said:


> Lucas Oil Field would probably have to be modified in order to fit a full soccer pitch which would mean smaller capacity. That and Indianapolis has almost a zero chance of hosting anyways.


Wrong. The seats are retractable.










A Minneapolis-Chicago-Indianapolis would be a great cluster. They're all within driving distance and I can see why Indy would want to host. To improve it's image and as an impetus in new projects (public transport, roads, hotels and etc). I mean, they have hotels, restaurants and etc. Since they do have similar amounts of people travel every year for the the Indy 500.

Heres my list of the best venues/cities. Mainly thinking of stadiums and cities.

Boston/NYC/DC (except fed ex field can't fit a FIFA and I'm not sure about Gillete, but the redskins might get a new stadium)

Minneapolis/Chicago/Indianapolis (Soldier Field and Lucas can fit FIFA reqs, the new Minn. stadium...remains to be seen)

The Midwest and northeast are the easiest to cluster.
The rest of the country, not so much.

It's a grab bag of hosts.
Dallas/Houston/Phoenix/Seattle/LA/Bay Area (49rs should get a new stadium)


Also, whats up with JohanSA? Who pissed in his cheerios?

Although thats the beauty of the United States, we don't need government commitment or the whole populace onboard to pull off a World Cup. We can do most of it through private entities and pre-existing stadiums. The fraction of people who love soccer, well it dwarfs the population of several European countries and no...not San Marino...more like England. But we're spread out, but a world cup match would have most of us make a pilgrimage.
Pretty much every stadium I listed fits FIFA standards with covered seating and field dimensions. Most new stadiums are built with soccer in mind, like in seattle. So it's not as much of an issue.


----------



## JohanSA (Apr 21, 2008)

Statemants earlier that wished South Africa would fail in preparations so the the USA could get 2010 . Statemants that standerds had been lowered for South Africas sake. That pissed me off because its statements born out of arrogance and peopel being uniformed or backward in their views of the world!


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

SIC said:


> A Minneapolis-Chicago-Indianapolis would be a great cluster. They're all within driving distance and I can see why Indy would want to host. To improve it's image and as an impetus in new projects (public transport, roads, hotels and etc). I mean, they have hotels, restaurants and etc. Since they do have similar amounts of people travel every year for the the Indy 500.


I can't see both Minneapolis and Indianapolis hosting in the Midwest. Neither is a huge city and they're co close to eachother I think it will hinder them. People from one city who really want to see a WC match can drive to the other. I think Denver goes into the Midwest cluster. It'd be tough to ignore the entire Mountain time zone so I think Denver hosts with the Midwest. Minneapolis would host if they were willing to expand their stadium (it was built with room to expand to 80,000), if not Indianpolis may get in the mix with a city from Ohio also getting consideration.



SIC said:


> Heres my list of the best venues/cities. Mainly thinking of stadiums and cities.
> 
> Boston/NYC/DC (except fed ex field can't fit a FIFA and I'm not sure about Gillete, but the redskins might get a new stadium)


Gillette Stadium can fit a field so they're in along with NY. FedEx doesn't have the room, but you can be sure that by 2022 Daniel Snyder will have his new stadium and it's been reported he will make it wide enough to host WC matches.



SIC said:


> It's a grab bag of hosts.
> Dallas/Houston/Phoenix/Seattle/LA/Bay Area (49rs should get a new stadium)


After the Midwest and Northeast, we'd still need two more clusters. One will be the West with Seattle and LA definitely getting to host. The last one goes to San Francisco if they get a new stadium. If not then look for San Diego (should they get a new stadium) and Phoenix to battle it out for the final spot in the cluster.

The last cluster would include Dallas and Houston. The last spot in the southern cluster would almost certainly include a spot in the southeast. The Citrus Bowl hosted in 1994, but that stadium would need a MAJOR overhaul to be able to host again. Some here want to see Nashville or Charlotte in the mix, but I can't see it happening. Miami will get the call IMO. Atlanta is the only other city that could compete with Miami in the Southeast, but they don't have the stadium to do it.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

JohanSA said:


> Statemants earlier that wished South Africa would fail in preparations so the the USA could get 2010 . Statemants that standerds had been lowered for South Africas sake. That pissed me off because its statements born out of arrogance and peopel being uniformed or backward in their views of the world!


Standards had been lowered for S. Africa. It's been admitted by FIFA, but that doesn't mean S. Africa won't be a deserving host. The goal of the S. Africa WC is to spread the WC to a continent that has never experienced it and S. Africa will succeed in that goal. As of now, there's no reason to believe they won't do a fine job hosting either, but the standards have been lowered for them. It's not like this hasn't been done before. When the US hosted the 1994 WC standards were lowered, yet it was considered one of the finest WC's at that time. Standards have been lowered for S. Africa, just as they've been lowered before and will be lowered again (the standards for the 2014 WC in Brazil look like they'll be lower than those in SA), but this does not mean it won't make for a fine host. 

The statements weren't even that S. Africa was being held to lower standards, but that the US would be held to a higher standard. That is absolute fact and there is no way you can argue otherwise.

As for people wishing S. Africa would fail and the WC would be moved here, that's just people hoping they can get the WC sooner. Whether the WC were in S. Africa or any other country, people here want to host the WC as soon as possible. It has nothing to do with S. Africa specifically outside of the fact that S. Africa was behind in their preparations. It was not a personal hate for the country.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

SIC said:


> Wrong. The seats are retractable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for showing a picture to support my claim that the seats would have to be modified in order fit a soccer pitch. By retracting the seats to make the pitch fit, it would thus lower the amount of seats available to sell and thus making Indianapolis even less unlikely to host the WC. I guess that's what happens when you build a football stadium with basketball in mind. 



WeimieLvr said:


> Please show me where I said anything of the sort about transportation or diversity. I simply stated that you didn't know this for a fact or by first hand experience.
> 
> I don't comment on Philadelphia very often because I've only had a layover in the airport there and never experienced the city. I know many good things about it, but not enough to say much for sure. On the other hand, I guess the family in Connecticut can comment on the culture in Charlotte without knowing about it, much as you're doing.
> 
> Your lack of knowledge about the reasons for the pouplation growth in Charlotte is apparent and obviously limited to what you hear and read as well. I'm sure you've spent LOTS of time in both Charlotte and Nashville...what reason would have for being in such culture-less cities? What in the world could bring you to spend time in either place?:lol:


Well you seem to be an expert here, so care to explain? If the reasons behind the large population growth in places like Charlotte, Nashville, Atlanta, etc. have nothing to do with the low cost of living and the large amount of job growth, then what is ? 

As for what has brought me to cities such as Charlotte and Nashville, the answer is business. 

You say you won't comment on Philadelphia because you have never been there, but I have been to both Nashville and Charlotte several times and commented, but I am wrong in doing so? I don't see the logic.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

I apologize if posters are making statements like that. No excuses for that.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> I can't see both Minneapolis and Indianapolis hosting in the Midwest. Neither is a huge city and they're co close to eachother I think it will hinder them. People from one city who really want to see a WC match can drive to the other. I think Denver goes into the Midwest cluster. It'd be tough to ignore the entire Mountain time zone so I think Denver hosts with the Midwest. Minneapolis would host if they were willing to expand their stadium (it was built with room to expand to 80,000), if not Indianpolis may get in the mix with a city from Ohio also getting consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Gillette should be a host, as it fits a pitch without losing any seats and the Revolution play there with no problems.

There really will only need to be an addition 3 stadiums added to the mix to handle the current 32 team format for a total of 12 venues. I think you will see Seattle, Houston and perhaps Philadelphia added. This whole notion of clusters really may not happen. I don't think it will and don't think there is a need. 12 cities will be all that are needed if the US is to get the cup.

Boston
New York
Philadelphia
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Dallas
Houston
Seattle
San Francisco
Los Angeles
Miami


All would be good choices in my mind.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

Actually Lucas oil has a whole tier on one of the goal sides that was left to be expanded easily. But come on, even with reduce capacity it would still be above the requirements for a world cup. Way more than Soldier Field and that's always seen as a shoo-in in these sorts of lists. Soldier Field can fit a pitch, but I'm not sure how big it is. It's enough for MLS and friendlies and CONCACAF tourneys but I'm not sure if it's World Cup ready.

My point for the clusters was just to negate the knee-jerk criticisms that are always bandied about. That the United States is too large and the fans can't travel and see their team like in other countries and have a grand old time without flying. Blah blah blah. My point is to show that it needn't be so and it's completely up to organizers.

So I looked into it, I think Gillete can fit a soccer pitch but I'm not sure it's the preferred 120x75. But it's close enough.

As for assuming because an MLS team plays in a stadium, it's automatically fits World Cup standards/Dimensions. LOL.

Meet CommunityAmerican Ballpark.









Home of the Kansas City Wizards.
Terrible, I hate watching games there.

Hell, a lot of fields in the Premiership aren't technically big enough or have enough space between the sidelines and seats.

Maybe Browns stadium in Cleveland could host, but other than that I can't think of stadium that could host it. I'm also assuming that Cleveland must be really bad when people from there diss it for the most part.

Actually, it's funny how Europeans are against the cup being hosted by the US just based on anti-American biases. Because thats all it is, it's not so much based on reality or ability to host. 
Another BS reason I hear/read a lot"we don't appreciate the game"...which is crap when the MLS draws almost as many people as the Argentine and Brazilian leagues on average. A lot has changed since 1994, Americans have better access to more soccer on TV than anyone else. 
Your average hardcore soccer fan is better versed than your average _______ countries fan. Because they charge much more for coverage and they mainly concentrate on their domestic league.
We have access to every major European leage and cup competition as well as CONCACAF and CONMEBOL competitions and a smattering of A and J League games. (Fox Soccer, Gol TV, Fox Sports in español and Setanta and also the games shown by Univision and Telemundo and ESPN).

It's a small number of people percentage wise in the US, but even that small percentage is at least about the size of Portugal when they're added up. Perhaps the Netherlands when your add in Latinos.
The USA vs Mexico game in the Gold Cup got better ratings than your average World Series/Stanley cup game.


----------



## JohanSA (Apr 21, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> Standards had been lowered for S. Africa. It's been admitted by FIFA, but that doesn't mean S. Africa won't be a deserving host. The goal of the S. Africa WC is to spread the WC to a continent that has never experienced it and S. Africa will succeed in that goal. As of now, there's no reason to believe they won't do a fine job hosting either, but the standards have been lowered for them. It's not like this hasn't been done before. When the US hosted the 1994 WC standards were lowered, yet it was considered one of the finest WC's at that time. Standards have been lowered for S. Africa, just as they've been lowered before and will be lowered again (the standards for the 2014 WC in Brazil look like they'll be lower than those in SA), but this does not mean it won't make for a fine host.
> 
> The statements weren't even that S. Africa was being held to lower standards, but that the US would be held to a higher standard. That is absolute fact and there is no way you can argue otherwise.
> 
> As for people wishing S. Africa would fail and the WC would be moved here, that's just people hoping they can get the WC sooner. Whether the WC were in S. Africa or any other country, people here want to host the WC as soon as possible. It has nothing to do with S. Africa specifically outside of the fact that S. Africa was behind in their preparations. It was not a personal hate for the country.


South Africa werent behind in preparations - Fifa changed the rules for the Confed cup because it experienced problems in 2005 when Germany finished fitting the stadium a day before the start of the Confed cup . Thus they moved the deadline to march next year . Nelson Mandela stadium construction started very quickly so they wanted it to host games for the confed cup , however meeting that deadline would always depend on the weather and how the prefabrication in Koeweit and Germany of the roof would progress. The roof contracters in Koeweit and Germany couldnt live with the new faster build time and when this became apparent they removed Nelson Mandela stadium from the Confed cup hostlist . It will still finish on time but has already been dropped because of the new rules . This is very apparent from the fact that seat installation and outfitting of the stadium is almost finished but roof installation has only just begun. Nelson Mandela Stadium is still almost 6 months ahead of schedule for the worldcup deadline of October 2009. Greenpoint stadium in Cape Town fell almost two months behind schedule due to roof delays in Germany but its now 3 weeks ahead of schedule . Moses Mabhida in Durban is now two months ahead of schedule with the suspension cables that will connect the roof to the hundred metre high arch already being pulled into place ( Durban stadium is higher wider and longer than the birds nest in Beijing . It will however have only 70 000 seats for the worldcup and not 80 000 which will be installed if Durban wins the bid to host 2016 or the 2020 olympics ) . The 95 000 seater Soccercity stadium in Johannesburg is also more than a month ahead of schedule with installation of the facade elements ongoing and seats are almost finished . The same is true for the smaller stadia , new airport terminals in all the major cities ( Durbans new airport is on schedule ) , the gautrain highspeed metro bullet train system is on track , commuter rail modernizing on schedule, Construction of the BRT systems are on schedule , TV Digital migration is on schedule , The four new high bandwith undersee SA -> Europe cables for HDTV broadcasting ( and bringing Africa on par with world telecoms ) is on schedule . Safety and security plans have gotten the nod from Fifa and anti Terror cops are being trained by your FBI . All new hotels are on schedule including a "seven" ( Burj al Arab service levels) star super luxury hotel in Cape Town ( Its said that Oprah bought a penthouse in the hotel for R120 million ~ US$ 15 million ) .

Which standerds were dropped to accomodate South Africa ?? The only one that I know off is that Guesthouse accomodation are now allowed because South Africa has more of a Guesthouse than hotel culture and thus they would have excluded more than half the accomodation in the country.


----------



## JohanSA (Apr 21, 2008)

South Africa has 10 host stadia with four dedicated 45 000+ Fifa compliant Soccer stadia not being used .

Capacity from largest to smallest of the stadia being used.
95 000
70 000
67 000
65 000
55 000
50 000
48 000
45 000
45 000
45 000


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> Where I would like to match has nothing to do with this argument. The argument behind all of this is if Dortmund were dropped in the US, would it be an obvious choice to host a WC match and I claimed no, with the stadium being a major reason why. I would love to see a match at Signa-Iduna and would find it superior to a lot of the proposed stadiums in the US; however, that is not what matters when hosting a WC. FIFA and the organizing committee want to make as much money as possible and be able to satisfy all their sponsors. That is why Signal-Iduna would not compete with the US stadiums. The US stadiums have all the luxury suites and club seats needed to satisfy FIFA's sponsors and make the tournament extremely successful monetarily. Matches at any of the US stadiums proposed would bring in far more money than Signal-Iduna. Where I sit and watch matches or where I'd like to see the matches played is irrellevant in this discussion. Where the most money can be made is what's relevant and the answer to that is any US stadium over Signal-Iduna.


I know that a lot of money can be made from corporate boxes and club seats. However, the biggest source of income will be TV rights. And TV companies prefer noisy stadiums filled with enthusiastic supporters. Too many corporates will harm this picture. You shouldn't forget that large parts of the main stand will already be occupied by the media itself. Would be really spooky with a ground full of corporates and TV commentators. Certainly not the right picture sponsors want to be associated with.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

flierfy said:


> I know that a lot of money can be made from corporate boxes and club seats. However, the biggest source of income will be TV rights. And TV companies prefer noisy stadiums filled with enthusiastic supporters. Too many corporates will harm this picture. You shouldn't forget that large parts of the main stand will already be occupied by the media itself. Would be really spooky with a ground full of corporates and TV commentators. Certainly not the right picture sponsors want to be associated with.


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

You forget that the biggest sponsors in the world are in the US.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> I know that a lot of money can be made from corporate boxes and club seats. However, the biggest source of income will be TV rights. And TV companies prefer noisy stadiums filled with enthusiastic supporters. Too many corporates will harm this picture. You shouldn't forget that large parts of the main stand will already be occupied by the media itself. Would be really spooky with a ground full of corporates and TV commentators. Certainly not the right picture sponsors want to be associated with.


World Cup ratings have nothing to do with atmosphere. It's the WC and people will pack them regardless of how many suites and club seats there are. They will be noisy even with the suites and the ratings won't suffer one bit. If the stadium is three decibels quieter, people aren't going to turn off their TVs. Just like people will sell out a stadium for a WC regardless of where that stadium is, people will watch the WC even if the atmosphere is just a wee bit worse. Why does FIFA want the WC to return to the US? Because we have the biggest stadiums, with the most VIP seats and the sponsors want it to be here to capitalize on all the consumers here.

Your argument is not only based on a falsity that sponsors don't want slightly quieter stadiums, but the notion that people won't watch because there are extra VIP seats is blasphemous.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> I never understood why everyone goes so batshit over the World Cup. Its always the same teams in the championship anyway.
> 
> The World Cup has less drama then the NBA playoffs. They should get rid of the "group stage" and make the tournament more like the NCAA basketball tournament. Just my two cents, I reckon people will disagree.


OK this is in every sense completely wrong, I will try my best to explain why. Firstly there is always new teams getting in to the World Cup in 2006 8 teams qualified for the first time, in 2002 there was 4 and in 1998 another 4. That means that in the last 3 tournaments 16 teams qualified for the first time, long story short no the teams are never the same every tournament always has a different collection of teams.

The reason there is a group stage is simple, why have 4 years wait, 2 years of qualification only for it be all over after 1 match that would take away from the whole campaign experience of the World Cup. Every nation gets a proper crack at the tournament even if they fail to perform at the first hurdle. And the one off game makes for more stakes in every individual knock out game making out a tense and much more important affair. 
The reality is the World Cup is completely different to anything else in sport and it is for that reason that it is the greatest sporting competition in the world.

On topic I would be all for a World Cup in the USA in 2022 the only problem for them would be that it could well follow on from a World Cup in England which would be a very huge task because I honestly feel a World Cup in England in 2018 would be the greatest show seen for sports hosting. It would face an even sterner challenge to what London 2012 has in trying to emulate Beijing 2008. Still you can’t go wrong when you have the stadiums that the US has in place.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

Soccer is vastly more popular as a spectator sport in the US than in 1994. Due directly to the World Cup and the founding of MLS (which was a requisite for receiving the games and was funded by the profits of the games).

1994, was an act of charity and a kick in the ass infrastructure wise at the same time (Kinda like South Africa and Brazil). 
But 2022 wouldn't we would have competitive bid...no doubt about it. We could win it outright, too bad FIFA is about politics and bribes.

Theres no reason not to hold it here, other than blatant anti-Americanism and Eurocentric BS. "boo hoo, Europe should have every other World Cup or we're taking our ball home".

I mean, the whole "Americans won't fill up stadiums and will lead to bad atmpsphere" is blatant like. Just watch the Argentina vs USA game on youtube. Besides the atmosphere in most major tourneys is weak, nowhere near as good as club teams. Euro 2008 was a good example (all they sang was seven nation army...weak)and any game in Wembley as well.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

The Argentina vs USA at Giants Stadium friendly was one of the best games I have ever been to. Of the 80, 000 people, at least 20, 000 were there to support the USA. The stadium was electric. The 8 hour tailgate in 100 degree weather was incredible. That meaningless game was just a small taste of what meaningful WC games could offer us here in soccer savy America in 2022. We are light years ahread of where we were in 1994. The '94 WC was about briging the game back from the dead. A 2022 WC would be about revisiting the legacy of 1994, and seeing how far we've come in those years.


----------



## JohanSA (Apr 21, 2008)

WeimieLvr said:


> It's more a hatred for Americ-A than Americ-ANS...I've seen it many times. Not many people in the world are dumb enough to hate individuals that they don't even know and know nothing about. But they do hate and envy (at the same time) the perceived excessive lifestyle in the U.S. - although when they come here and experience it, they invariably want to live here.
> 
> I've had good friends and co-workers from Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Spain, England, etc...many of them had every complaint in the universe about American society and the things that they missed from home, but EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM either tried to live here permanently or at least extended their work contracts if possible for 3 more years. They hated it and loved it at the same time...


To be honest the USA lacks that international feel . The only city that comes close is New York but even that is way too american . Growing up with american culture and TV makes America eventually very boring . Its like the difference between living in a Cape Town suburb and the Cape Town CBD . Suburb = bland boring and "american" . CBD = interresting , international , a feast for the eyes , and very stimulating . I even consider a place like Dubai bland , boring and a place that cages in peoples "soul" .


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

I hope no one misinterpreted my comment as being anti-American as I can tell you that was definitely not my intention. In fact I reckon a World Cup in the US would be great and in fact deserves one as it definitely is one of the best candidates.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

JohanSA said:


> To be honest the USA lacks that international feel . The only city that comes close is New York but even that is way too american . Growing up with american culture and TV makes America eventually very boring . Its like the difference between living in a Cape Town suburb and the Cape Town CBD . Suburb = bland boring and "american" . CBD = interresting , international , a feast for the eyes , and very stimulating . I even consider a place like Dubai bland , boring and a place that cages in peoples "soul" .


ok, being that you dont live here no one can believe you have an ounce of credibility. Come here, live here, then make up your mind. Just because you grow up watching american tv shows doesnt say a thing about the US, unless you really think that everything that happens on TV is real.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

en1044 said:


> ok, being that you dont live here no one can believe you have an ounce of credibility. Come here, live here, then make up your mind. Just because you grow up watching american tv shows doesnt say a thing about the US, unless you really think that everything that happens on TV is real.


I always thought that if Ron Burgundy says it, its the truth. I guess I was wrong.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

I live in America, Bloomington Indiana as part of an exchange student from my university back home and since i've been here I have to admit there isn't as much as what you called an "international feel" but then the U.S. has had a very condensed history and is rather isolated in a geographic sense. Made up of immigrants in a big boiling pot it's had to develop it's own culture, and unfortunately that culture doesn't seem to blend in well with the "international feel" (which is a bit ironic) from what i've experienced so far. 

Saying that however since i've been here i've met a host of younger people all very interested in "soccer" who frequently tell me about the team they've adopted, and after getting to know some of them, the myth of Americans being completely ignorant about the rest of the world seems to be dying, a little. You do come across some idiots but the majority seem pretty accepting.

I think the U.S. hosting the World Cup could be a good thing, to add to what is a growing interest in the world's game (even further than '94), and as a some good international relations between the U.S. and everyone else. That has to be a positive thing surely?


----------



## JohanSA (Apr 21, 2008)

en1044 said:


> ok, being that you dont live here no one can believe you have an ounce of credibility. Come here, live here, then make up your mind. Just because you grow up watching american tv shows doesnt say a thing about the US, unless you really think that everything that happens on TV is real.



TV might not be real but it tells you a lot about the underlying culture of that country. The way documentaries are shot and the angles that they look at . The things they focus on social commentary imbedded in it . Modern movies also strive for a degree of realism ( im not talking about scifi and fantasy ) . The same is true for South African and Brittish movies especially when it comes to documentary movies. Even reality shows tell you a lot about a countries culture . You should sometimes look more than skin deep ......


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

matthemod said:


> I live in America, Bloomington Indiana as part of an exchange student from my university back home and since i've been here I have to admit there isn't as much as what you called an "international feel" but then the U.S. has had a very condensed history and is rather isolated in a geographic sense. Made up of immigrants in a big boiling pot it's had to develop it's own culture, and unfortunately that culture doesn't seem to blend in well with the "international feel" (which is a bit ironic) from what i've experienced so far.
> 
> Saying that however since i've been here i've met a host of younger people all very interested in "soccer" who frequently tell me about the team they've adopted, and after getting to know some of them, the myth of Americans being completely ignorant about the rest of the world seems to be dying, a little. You do come across some idiots but the majority seem pretty accepting.
> 
> I think the U.S. hosting the World Cup could be a good thing, to add to what is a growing interest in the world's game (even further than '94), and as a some good international relations between the U.S. and everyone else. That has to be a positive thing surely?


Have you traveled outside of Bloomington, Indiana? Because if you are basing you opinion of America off of Indiana, then that's a terrible benchmark to use. Travel to cities like Chicago, Boston, San Francisco for example, and you will get a much more diverse and interesting experience than being in small town Indiana.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

massp88 said:


> Have you traveled outside of Bloomington, Indiana? Because if you are basing you opinion of America off of Indiana, then that's a terrible benchmark to use. Travel to cities like Chicago, Boston, San Francisco for example, and you will get a much more diverse and interesting experience than being in small town Indiana.


As a matter of fact I have travelled and was varying my experiences. I've been to quite a few places since i've been here actually, the extreme's ranging from Chicago to Historic Bardstown, Kentucky. So i've had a diverse view so far.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

SIC said:


> Theres no reason not to hold it here, other than blatant anti-Americanism and Eurocentric BS. "boo hoo, Europe should have every other World Cup or we're taking our ball home".


That is just your small-minded america-centric view. The world, however, is much bigger than the USA. There are lots of countries capable of hosting it which are waiting much longer than the USA or would host it for the first time.
Join the queue at the back, wait another 30 years like anyone else and stop moaning. Passing the World Cup around is no anti-Americanism but the only way to please everybody.


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

matthemod said:


> I live in America, Bloomington Indiana as part of an exchange student from my university back home and since i've been here I have to admit there isn't as much as what you called an "international feel" but then the U.S. has had a very condensed history and is rather isolated in a geographic sense. Made up of immigrants in a big boiling pot it's had to develop it's own culture, and unfortunately that culture doesn't seem to blend in well with the "international feel" (which is a bit ironic) from what i've experienced so far.
> 
> Saying that however since i've been here i've met a host of younger people all very interested in "soccer" who frequently tell me about the team they've adopted, and after getting to know some of them, the myth of Americans being completely ignorant about the rest of the world seems to be dying, a little. You do come across some idiots but the majority seem pretty accepting.
> 
> I think the U.S. hosting the World Cup could be a good thing, to add to what is a growing interest in the world's game (even further than '94), and as a some good international relations between the U.S. and everyone else. That has to be a positive thing surely?


Jesus you drew the short straw didnt you, Bloomington, IN - I got to go to Boston on my placement year! I suppose it beats most places in England though!


----------



## ADCS (Oct 30, 2006)

Is it an "international feel" as much as it is remnants of centuries of European domination in other parts of the world?

North America was very different in comparison to the rest of the world in that it got to industrialize mostly on its own terms. Therefore, we did things in a different way than what the rest of the world considers normal.

Vive la difference


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

berkshire royal said:


> OK this is in every sense completely wrong, I will try my best to explain why. Firstly there is always new teams getting in to the World Cup in 2006 8 teams qualified for the first time, in 2002 there was 4 and in 1998 another 4. That means that in the last 3 tournaments 16 teams qualified for the first time, long story short no the teams are never the same every tournament always has a different collection of teams.
> 
> The reason there is a group stage is simple, why have 4 years wait, 2 years of qualification only for it be all over after 1 match that would take away from the whole campaign experience of the World Cup. Every nation gets a proper crack at the tournament even if they fail to perform at the first hurdle. And the one off game makes for more stakes in every individual knock out game making out a tense and much more important affair.
> The reality is the World Cup is completely different to anything else in sport and it is for that reason that it is the greatest sporting competition in the world.


I know there are always different teams in the Cup'---but do they ever compete in the later rounds? Thats my complaint, its always the same "elite" teams like Brazil, Italy, France, Germany, Argentina, etc. 

This is what I want to see. Ignore the NCAA teams on the right and the locations. A tournament structured like this would be the most exciting in my opinion. All of the teams listed is FIFA world ranks 1-32.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> I know there are always different teams in the Cup'---but do they ever compete in the later rounds? Thats my complaint, its always the same "elite" teams like Brazil, Italy, France, Germany, Argentina, etc.
> 
> This is what I want to see. Ignore the NCAA teams on the right and the locations. A tournament structured like this would be the most exciting in my opinion. All of the teams listed is FIFA world ranks 1-32.


While this is an interesting proposition, it would never happen. Teams that quality for the WC do it over a period of a couple of years no 5 months like NCAA basketball teams. What a waste it would be to have a team take so long to quality, fly across the world, play one match, lose, and then have to go home. The NCAA tournament only works for college basketball and would not work well at all for the World Cup.




matthemod said:


> As a matter of fact I have travelled and was varying my experiences. I've been to quite a few places since i've been here actually, the extreme's ranging from Chicago to Historic Bardstown, Kentucky. So i've had a diverse view so far.


Well what do you consider an internation feel? For a large city, Boston may be the most European in the country. Then again, this is America and we have our own way and own landscape much like Vienna is quite different than Lima, or Nagoya is different than Lisbon.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

massp88 said:


> While this is an interesting proposition, it would never happen. Teams that quality for the WC do it over a period of a couple of years no 5 months like NCAA basketball teams. What a waste it would be to have a team take so long to quality, fly across the world, play one match, lose, and then have to go home. The NCAA tournament only works for college basketball and would not work well at all for the World Cup.
> 
> .


I don't think it would be that big of a waste. It would be less of waste though if the tournament wasn't every 4 years. 

Qualification would determine seed rankings. A team like Brazil would have an incentive to win all its games in order to be a 1 seed--playing the lowest seed. An easier track to the finals playing a team like Japan, rather then against a more competitive team like France. Much like how an NCAA team like UCLA tries to win all its games (even though it will almost always make the tournament) in order to play a lower seed--as can be seen on the bracket. 

I think this setup would give _every_ game more of an important feel, unlike the boring group stages---that can a high scoring team can afford to lose one game. This is what makes the NCAA tournament the most exciting event in American sports. Its do or die. Any school on a given day can beat the major programs in NCAA tournament atmosphere. You don't have this in the World Cup because the powerhouse nations seldom have to play pressure games against huge underdogs. With my setup...every World Cup would have major upsets and more exciting games--with more varied, late rounds.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> I know there are always different teams in the Cup'---but do they ever compete in the later rounds? Thats my complaint, its always the same "elite" teams like Brazil, Italy, France, Germany, Argentina, etc.


The tournaments format isn't meant to equal the likeliness of progressing. You wouldn't achieve that by a plain knock-out-format anyway. The outstanding records of some nation just reflect their superiority in size and their attitude towards this game. Each country is different. And so are their chances of lifting the Cup

By the way, those nations you named miss out the later rounds from time to time as well.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

flierfy said:


> The tournaments format isn't meant to equal the likeliness of progressing. You wouldn't achieve that by a plain knock-out-format anyway. The outstanding records of some nation just reflect their superiority in size and their attitude towards this game. Each country is different. And so are their chances of lifting the Cup
> 
> By the way, those nations you named miss out the later rounds from time to time as well.


I think you would achieve that and that the games would be more exciting. With every game being a "knock out" game--the pressure is completely on the superior national teams. That will lead to more intense games and upsets--which is what gives tournament setups their edge. 

The group stage sucks.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> I think you would achieve that and that the games would be more exciting. With every game being a "knock out" game--the pressure is completely on the superior national teams. That will lead to more intense games and upsets--which is what gives tournament setups their edge.
> 
> The group stage sucks.


The World Cup happens every 4 years. If it happened every year, I would say a single elimination tournament would work and be good. But it doesn't happen every year like the NCAA tournament. How would you rank the teams? Using their FIFA ranking? If so, that could be a flawed system.

There are a fair share of upsets and surprises in the WC. Look back to 2002 when Portugal didn't make the round of 16 and the US made it to the quarterfinals. Or in 2006 when you had both the Ukraine and Switzerland maiking the round of 16.


----------



## T3amgeist (Sep 23, 2008)

In my opinion the World Cup is the biggest and most important sport tounament in the whole world, even more important than the olympics.

I dont think, that the USA will get the Wold Cup in 2022, because the had it in 1994. There are many countrys which never hosted a World Cup. Other countrys deserved it more, because in the USA theSport has not the popularity like it hasin other countrys.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

I think the U.S. or China will get it. If I had to put my money down I would bet China will be chosen.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

^^
This may surprise you but China haven't decided whether or not they want to bid and from their recent comments haven't sounded as keen as you might think.

At Judge although you have some good points you have to remember a few factors regarding your ideas. Firstly you have to have teams playing a bare minimum number of games because it would take away from the whole experience if they we're out of there after 1 game so how else could they get teams playing a minimum of 3 games against 3 different opponents?

Although the groups can be done and dusted after 2 games you also get plenty of groups were it goes right down to that very last minute and can be very exciting, but as the pundits and all fans know it's when it gets to the knockout stage that it gets exciting and comes into it's own. I think you make a good point regarding teams not needing to win every game, at the moment there is reward for teams that top their group that they then play a runner-up from another group in the next round, maybe they could come up with a better system but I think it would be pretty difficult.

Regarding the time between the two for me it adds to the excitement that long wait for the Holy Grail championships. For me it would take away from the whole spectacle if they had a World Cup every 1/2 years would you have the Olympics more often? Also it wouldn't be feasible in that the season is already extremely congested the players have to have some off time and they also have to make time for Continental championships like the European Championships, African Cup of Nations, Copa America etc.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

T3amgeist said:


> I dont think, that the USA will get the Wold Cup in 2022, because the had it in 1994. There are many countrys which never hosted a World Cup. Other countrys deserved it more, because in the USA theSport has not the popularity like it hasin other countrys.


Do you know the criteria? Very few countries *can* host the World Cup.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

massp88 said:


> Well what do you consider an internation feel? For a large city, Boston may be the most European in the country. Then again, this is America and we have our own way and own landscape much like Vienna is quite different than Lima, or Nagoya is different than Lisbon.


Well I suppose it's kind of hard to describe what an international feel sort of is. I've not been to Boston yet but the main feature i've noticed when visiting larger American cities is that they do have more of an international vibe to them, but smaller ones and places more in the country aren't as much, sometimes to the extent you could claim they're anti-international. This is just of course a general idea, i'm not saying that all places are like that, just that there seems to be more of a "them and us" kind of philosophy in some places.

I suppose you could say this about most countries, but coming from the U.K. and being a European it's just a new situation i've not experienced before.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

massp88 said:


> The World Cup happens every 4 years. If it happened every year, I would say a single elimination tournament would work and be good. But it doesn't happen every year like the NCAA tournament. How would you rank the teams? Using their FIFA ranking? If so, that could be a flawed system.
> 
> There are a fair share of upsets and surprises in the WC. Look back to 2002 when Portugal didn't make the round of 16 and the US made it to the quarterfinals. Or in 2006 when you had both the Ukraine and Switzerland maiking the round of 16.


Yeah, I am not too sure how the rankings could be worked out. Thats a problem with FIFA, as well as NCAA basketball/football. Its very subjective and there will always be those who will be upset with their seed/rank. What I can't understand is how highly ranked the U.S. national team is from time to time.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

berkshire royal said:


> At Judge although you have some good points you have to remember a few factors regarding your ideas. Firstly you have to have teams playing a bare minimum number of games because it would take away from the whole experience if they we're out of there after 1 game so how else could they get teams playing a minimum of 3 games against 3 different opponents?
> 
> Although the groups can be done and dusted after 2 games you also get plenty of groups were it goes right down to that very last minute and can be very exciting, but as the pundits and all fans know it's when it gets to the knockout stage that it gets exciting and comes into it's own. I think you make a good point regarding teams not needing to win every game, at the moment there is reward for teams that top their group that they then play a runner-up from another group in the next round, maybe they could come up with a better system but I think it would be pretty difficult.
> 
> Regarding the time between the two for me it adds to the excitement that long wait for the Holy Grail championships. For me it would take away from the whole spectacle if they had a World Cup every 1/2 years would you have the Olympics more often? Also it wouldn't be feasible in that the season is already extremely congested the players have to have some off time and they also have to make time for Continental championships like the European Championships, African Cup of Nations, Copa America etc.


Yeah, my idea has alot of flaws--especially the timing with the Olympics/league seasons and the "one and done" style of the tournament. Of course, I don't think it would ever be taken seriously---as literally I am one guy with this opinion and the entire world disagrees with it! 

It might be a bit arrogant of me to assume that NCAA tournament structure would work for everybody. I think you might get a taste of it though to see for yourself this spring at Indiana.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

T3amgeist said:


> In my opinion the World Cup is the biggest and most important sport tounament in the whole world, even more important than the olympics.
> 
> I dont think, that the USA will get the Wold Cup in 2022, because the had it in 1994. There are many countrys which never hosted a World Cup. Other countrys deserved it more, because in the USA theSport has not the popularity like it hasin other countrys.


It's grown a lot in the last 14 years and theres no reason it wont grow in the next 14. We will have probably 20 team league and with everyone playing in their stadiums by then.


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

wtf the World Cup is the biggest event in the world by light years and is perfect the way it is so why would u change it


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

To this date the 1994 FIFA WC was the biggest money making WC ever...... Another one here in the unified colonies would dwarf any other tournament in terms of $$$......


----------



## storms991 (Mar 28, 2006)

krudmonk said:


> Do you know the criteria? Very few countries *can* host the World Cup.


If South Africa can host it, anybody can.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

storms991 said:


> If South Africa can host it, anybody can.


South Africa has quite a few people and major cities compared to most nations.


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

SIC said:


> It's grown a lot in the last 14 years and theres no reason it wont grow in the next 14. We will have probably 20 team league and with everyone playing in their stadiums by then.


it will grow as asia gets richer and takes american fans away from crap sports like gridiron.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

theespecialone said:


> it will grow as asia gets richer and takes american fans away from crap sports like gridiron.


hey, um...lets stay on topic ok? If you expect people to take you seriously then you should use another method. Dont make useless comments, especially ones as unwarranted as what you said. However, i really shouldnt expect anything else from you, being as you have a long history of acting like an immature idiot.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

Judge Phillip Banks said:


> Yeah, my idea has alot of flaws--especially the timing with the Olympics/league seasons and the "one and done" style of the tournament. Of course, I don't think it would ever be taken seriously---as literally I am one guy with this opinion and the entire world disagrees with it!
> 
> It might be a bit arrogant of me to assume that NCAA tournament structure would work for everybody. I think you might get a taste of it though to see for yourself this spring at Indiana.


You do realize that teams qualify over 2 and half years before the tournament right. All the teams in FIFA have a chance to qualify. It's why it's called the "World Cup FINALS".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

en1044 said:


> hey, um...lets stay on topic ok? If you expect people to take you seriously then you should use another method. Dont make useless comments, especially ones as unwarranted as what you said. However, i really shouldnt expect anything else from you, being as you have a long history of acting like an immature idiot.


you know that I'm right


----------



## theespecialone (Jun 3, 2008)

SIC said:


> You do realize that teams qualify over 2 and half years before the tournament right. All the teams in FIFA have a chance to qualify. It's why it's called the "World Cup FINALS".
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification


I don't think he does

anyway, the current 32 team format is perfect and changing it would allow too many mediocre teams


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

theespecialone said:


> you know that I'm right


no, i know that you are an ignorant asshole


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

nyrmetros said:


> To this date the 1994 FIFA WC was the biggest money making WC ever.......


Source??


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

T3amgeist said:


> In my opinion the World Cup is the biggest and most important sport tounament in the whole world, even more important than the olympics.
> 
> I dont think, that the USA will get the Wold Cup in 2022, because the had it in 1994. There are many countrys which never hosted a World Cup. Other countrys deserved it more, because in the USA theSport has not the popularity like it hasin other countrys.


Since the U.S. hosted the World Cup back in 1994, there will have been 6 cups since then. North America is in line to host the cup as South America, Asia, Africa and Europe have all hosted since then. People think the odds on favorite for 2018 will be England so the U.S. is in a good position to get eh nod in 2022. 
Outside of Europe, there are not many countries that can host the WC to the extent that it needs to be. The U.S. has the finest collection of stadiums of any country and is well equipped to host. My money is on England 2018, U.S. 2022 and Australia/China 2026.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

flierfy said:


> He isn't a troll just because he doesn't join in the Let's-all-praise-America singsong. He just reminded you that there is more than just the USA.


Maybe someone should remind _him_ that there is more than just South Africa.

And it didn't help that he called someone a Neanderthal.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> we have absolutely no need for roofs. It may not cost a lot, but it completely changes the design of the stadium. European stadiums have influenced stadiums all over the world, except North and south america. It rains in Europe, so it was standard procedure to put roofs on stadiums, and the trend spread whether roofs were needed or not. The US is across the ocean so european designs never made it here and we wernt influenced by them. No rain here=no roofs. It ISNT necessary because it DOESNT rain here.


Of course it doesn't rain in the USA. Game 5 of this years World Series was suspended due to dry air and the Super Bowl in Miami in 2007 was a very pleasant day out in the sun, right.



en1044 said:


> What it has to do with creativity???? Its the defining difference between European style and american style. The focus in european stadiums is the exterior, and creative ways to put on the roof seems to be popular. Putting a roof on a stadium usually means that the stadium will be symmetrical in design with all the tiers even because its the easiest way to but on a roof. The interior in european stadiums tends to not differ form field to field. Now look at american stadiums. No roof means that there is more freedom to be creative with the interior. you will see that since we dont have roofs we can have one side of the stadium look completely different than the other side. Sure you can put a roof on it, but it would look horrible. So to sum up...Europe-focus on the exterior. America- focus on the interior.


It doesn't take evenly sized stands to cover them. In fact one usually constructs a roof on each stands separately. Apart from Wembley, the Immigrants and the Millennium Stadium there is no football ground in Britain I can think of with a single roof structure that spans over the entire ground.

European grounds are only symmetrical when built at once. But many grounds are rather a patchwork where each part of the ground were added at different times. These grounds tell a story. American venues never tell a story. They are the result of profit-maximising management and the freakish ideas of some architects.



en1044 said:


> they may be secondary but they were still built with soccer in mind. They are all capable of hosting the game.


They're still no genuine football grounds.


----------



## koolio (Jan 5, 2008)

If the stadium in Philadelphia had roof over the stands, the game would still have been delayed as they don't play baseball when the FIELD is wet ... nothing to do with the fans.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Of course it doesn't rain in the USA. Game 5 of this years World Series was suspended due to dry air and the Super Bowl in Miami in 2007 was a very pleasant day out in the sun, right.


It still doesnt rain enough here to warrant building a roof. Football and baseball games arent rained out often. Actually football games are almost never rained out-we play through it, and the fans stay. The only place where it really does rain here is the northwest, in Seattle and Oregon. There are roofs there. Not really anywhere else. Guess why?




> It doesn't take evenly sized stands to cover them. In fact one usually constructs a roof on each stands separately. Apart from Wembley, the Immigrants and the Millennium Stadium there is no football ground in Britain I can think of with a single roof structure that spans over the entire ground.


yes but now you are getting into the design of stadiums based on convenience for the fans. We prefer to watch our game on the sidelines, meaning that we stack the seats on the side. The design of soccer stadiums in Europe tend to have evenly distributed stands on each side of the field. We dont. Imagine putting a roof on this...








it wouldnt work. European stadiums are not designed like this.




> European grounds are only symmetrical when built at once. But many grounds are rather a patchwork where each part of the ground were added at different times. These grounds tell a story. American venues never tell a story. They are the result of profit-maximising management and the freakish ideas of some architects.


wrong. obviously you have never seen the average college football stadium, the absolute definition of patchwork building. 

for example









or read one of the many college football threads on this site.



> They're still no genuine football grounds.


doesnt matter. can people sit in the seats and watch the game? can the press sit in the press box? do the players have a locker room to change in? is the field the right size? is there a scoreboard? does the primary game played at these stadiums have similar field dimensions to soccer? your argument is stupid.


----------



## Arist (Oct 10, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Of course it doesn't rain in the USA. Game 5 of this years World Series was suspended due to dry air and the Super Bowl in Miami in 2007 was a very pleasant day out in the sun, right.


whats wrong with a little rain?



> American venues never tell a story. They are the result of profit-maximising management and the freakish ideas of some architects.


hmmm, ever seen a college stadium? And are you also telling me Lambough, Arrow Head, Texas Stadium and Dolphin Stadium dont tell a story? THE CATCH, THE ICE BOWL, Emmit, Favre, Marino, Aikman and Star. Just because a venue was made all at once with no patch work expansion done in the future does not mean a stadium does not tell a story. In the USA, the stories are made on the field.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

"They're still no genuine football grounds."

What BS.

A full-sized FIFA regulation pitch fits in those stadiums, therefore they're football grounds.


----------



## Arist (Oct 10, 2008)

Id say a US Football stadium would be better to watch soccer in then a Euro Soccer stadium. After watching plenty of football games from high up nose bleed seats in Denver, Dallas and Kansas City, I think soccer would be no problem for any US football stadium, and would most likely do better..


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

hngcm said:


> "They're still no genuine football grounds."
> 
> What BS.
> 
> A full-sized FIFA regulation pitch fits in those stadiums, therefore they're football grounds.


Yes but they weren't designed with priority to host a football game. It's like the New Wembley can be configured to host athletics, or even motorsport, but it was designed with priority for football, so it's a football stadium. 

I suppose it's about looking past the pedantics of FIFA regulations and looking into what aspects contribute to a "football" stadium. I've been to a couple of American football games since i've been in the U.S. and I, with no disrespect, honestly can't imagine myself watching football from the same stadium. There's just something inherently different i think, like in general it looks and feels a bit unnatural and disjointed. That's my opinion for all it's worth atleast. 

Anyway I feel like we're going around in circles.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

Some bizarre non-arguments on this thread. As an Englishman, living in Australia, enjoying the best stadia that both nations have to offer... I really can't see how anyone can even begin to argue that the US doesn't have the facilities to host a world cup, and host it in style.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> It still doesnt rain enough here to warrant building a roof. Football and baseball games arent rained out often. Actually football games are almost never rained out-we play through it, and the fans stay. The only place where it really does rain here is the northwest, in Seattle and Oregon. There are roofs there. Not really anywhere else. Guess why?


'cause Americans don't care about the game anyway and are more interested in getting drinks and food? I don't know. I just know that football grounds require roofs. To give shelter from the elements and even more importantly to keep the noise within the ground. But since American don't make any noise they aren't bothered to keep it in, I suppose.



en1044 said:


> yes but now you are getting into the design of stadiums based on convenience for the fans. We prefer to watch our game on the sidelines, meaning that we stack the seats on the side. The design of soccer stadiums in Europe tend to have evenly distributed stands on each side of the field. We dont. Imagine putting a roof on this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't know what's so difficult to put a roof on there. It was possible to cover this stand. And so it could be done in Philadelphia as well.



en1044 said:


> wrong. obviously you have never seen the average college football stadium, the absolute definition of patchwork building.
> 
> ....
> 
> or read one of the many college football threads on this site.


Well, I was referring to pro league franchise only. I didn't emphasise this in the first place. So I do it now. I know very well that college sport is completely different if not the total opposite of professional sports in north America. And so are their stadiums.



en1044 said:


> doesnt matter. can people sit in the seats and watch the game? can the press sit in the press box? do the players have a locker room to change in? is the field the right size? is there a scoreboard? does the primary game played at these stadiums have similar field dimensions to soccer? your argument is stupid.


It's only stupid to assume it would matter. Because it does. When you didn't know it before I tell it you know. Football isn't just a entertaining show you can perform in a soulless bowl of ten thousands of fat-arse seats. Football is part of our life. We feel it and we live it.
The only venues worth of hosting football matches are stadiums dedicated to this game. And that's what the stadiums mentioned in this thread are not.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

en1044 said:


> doesnt matter. can people sit in the seats and watch the game? can the press sit in the press box? do the players have a locker room to change in? is the field the right size? is there a scoreboard? does the primary game played at these stadiums have similar field dimensions to soccer? your argument is stupid.


Actually, the key issue here is the VIP guests and the press. FIFA guidelines state that both MUST be in covered areas. A press-box doesn't do any good due to the sheer number of press and the amount of space required for them (in Germany it was most of the upper deck of one entire side of each stadium). So, whether supporters can watch the games in comfort or not is irrelevent, all FIFA cares about is that in the unlikely event of a single drop of rain falling during a world cup match, it shouldn't fall on either a VIP or a journalist's notes/laptop.

I still believe that if the USA was awarded the finals, they'd provide the required stadia without any trouble.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

flierfy said:


> It's only stupid to assume it would matter. Because it does. When you didn't know it before I tell it you know. Football isn't just a entertaining show you can perform in a soulless bowl of ten thousands of fat-arse seats. Football is part of our life. We feel it and we live it.
> The only venues worth of hosting football matches are stadiums dedicated to this game. And that's what the stadiums mentioned in this thread are not.


a) Roofs for stadiums are not a tradition since day one, they're the result of a need to address weather and comfort for fans and a measure of cost. There are plenty of pure football grounds across the globe without roofs, thank you very much, so while it's agreed that they're the European ideal it's tough to affirm that they're a bona fide requirement.

b) There's far more that defines a stadium than a roof, so the absence of a roof doesn't make it a "soulless bowl." If that was the difference, then architects have spent a great deal of time and money on other details and elements that apparently don't matter. And if this were true adding a roof in Berlin makes that a true football ground, which clearly it isn't.

c) Bottom line, you're passionate about having roofs. Good for you. I prefer them as well. Alas, your opinion doesn't dictate FIFA policy or translate into what does and doesn't suffice as a stadium for football. Right now our culture doesn't dictate them as in, say, England. Hooray for valuing differences in taste and opinion. Say you don't like them, but don't use that excuse to imply they're unworthy.



matthemod said:


> I suppose it's about looking past the pedantics of FIFA regulations and looking into what aspects contribute to a "football" stadium. I've been to a couple of American football games since i've been in the U.S. and I, with no disrespect, honestly can't imagine myself watching football from the same stadium. There's just something inherently different i think, like in general it looks and feels a bit unnatural and disjointed. That's my opinion for all it's worth atleast.


NOW we're getting somewhere. Maybe this is what needs to be more clearly defined: The differences in design between common "futbol" stadiums and American football stadiums. (Apart from the obvious lack of roofs :| ) Clearly there's enough similarity that the Beautiful game has and will be played at American stadiums, and I'd like to think many fans find them more suitable than conventional athletics stadiums that can push fans so far away from the pitch. So what differences come to mind?

- Greater presence of premium seating in NFL stadiums, diluting the size and character of the crowd.
- Less seating along end zones/end lines where traditional football clubs often find their hardcore fans.
- Greater array of signs, electronic boards, etc at NFL stadia. Used to fill time during stoppages in play in the US game, these can seem out of place, or a distraction from the run of play in soccer.
- Most historic football stadiums are inwardly focused, and either as a bowl or four separate stands the intention is to close out the outside world. Many American football stadiums (perhaps taking a cue from MLB venues) try to integrate outside views and architectural elements into their design that stimulate views away from the field/pitch. 
- All the elements above foster greater variety of designs among NFL stadiums, whereas most new football grounds in Europe and elsewhere are gravitating towards modest variations of the same box or oval. How many of you tuned into a Germany '06 game and couldn't distinguish which venue it was?! 

Are NFL venues different than conventional football grounds? You bet. Does that mean they're unworthy? Hardly. And I defy any true fan of their national team to suggest he won't support his side, or that they lost the game, because of the venue! :nuts: In the end it's a bunch of seating around the field.

Cheers. :cheers:


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Watching a match in a stadium without a roof is far superior to watching one at a stadium with a track. If a stadium with an athletics track can host a WC match, then a stadium with no roof should not be an issue. The roof has a few positives, none of which have a major impact on watching a match if there's no rain, while the track puts every fan in the stadium farther away from the pitch.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Tell me whatever you want. But a ground without a roof is simply crap. I stood long enough on open terraces to know how unhealthy it is. And even the absence of a running track is no replacement for a roof. If you were in the unfortunate position like me who has to work for his living then you'd think likewise. I can afford high ticket prices. But I can't afford catching a cold every other week.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Tell me whatever you want. But a ground without a roof is simply crap. I stood long enough on open terraces to know how unhealthy it is. And even the absence of a running track is no replacement for a roof. If you were in the unfortunate position like me who has to work for his living then you'd think likewise. I can afford high ticket prices. But I can't afford catching a cold every other week.


you have yet to give a reason. why is a stadium without a roof crap? weve given you all the reasons in the world why a roof isnt necessary. It serves no purpose if it doesnt rain a lot. Simple as that. Maybe you just need to be a little more accepting of other cultures, because thats what this argument is all about- you being ignorant and unaccepting


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> you have yet to give a reason. why is a stadium without a roof crap? weve given you all the reasons in the world why a roof isnt necessary. It serves no purpose if it doesnt rain a lot. Simple as that. Maybe you just need to be a little more accepting of other cultures, because thats what this argument is all about- you being ignorant and unaccepting


The only one who's really ignorant is you. Guess why football grounds in practically every countries bar the USA have roofs? Right, because they do serve purposes, not just one. If you could be bothered reading any arguments I could have told you. But as every word is completely wasted on you I leave it.
You can clear away now to your earth hole in the Atacama desert where you never need a roof, *****.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> The only one who's really ignorant is you. Guess why football grounds in practically every countries bar the USA have roofs? Right, because they do serve purposes, not just one. If you could be bothered reading any arguments I could have told you. But as every word is completely wasted on you I leave it.
> You can clear away now to your earth hole in the Atacama desert where you never need a roof, *****.


no, im not ignorant...actually it doesnt look like you even know what the word means. Since you still havent given me a reason for roofs, ill ask you again...*why are roofs necessary when it doesnt rain?*

remember, i already explained to you why countries around the world have roofs, because it rains in europe so roofs became standard practice whether they were needed or not. Our basic stadium design did not come from europe, it evolved separately, hence no roofs because of no rain. Here i am again explaining this to you.


----------



## TexasBoi (Jan 7, 2004)

Ok, so if you like soccer and you like a roof, than that is you. But people love elements in American Football, period. We love watching the game in the rain or the snow or the wind. Bringing up baseball is not helping your argument whatsoever. Completely different sport than American Football. But elements rarely causes delays or problems for both baseball and football anyway. How many times did it rain in Miami when the superbowl was held there save 2007? you'd be hard press to find any more. How many world series games was affected by the rain in the past few years? I can't think of many.

Besides, what's a little rain. The best game I ever attended was in a rainstorm and we all had fun in it while watching the sport we love. Oh and spare us the talk about Americans not making noise at our stadiums.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

en1044 said:


> you have yet to give a reason. why is a stadium without a roof crap? weve given you all the reasons in the world why a roof isnt necessary. It serves no purpose if it doesnt rain a lot. Simple as that. Maybe you just need to be a little more accepting of other cultures, because thats what this argument is all about- you being ignorant and unaccepting


This is a World Cup thread - regardless of anti/pro-American stadium arguments, the fact is that to host the 2022 World Cup, stadiums will require cover.



en1044 said:


> no, im not ignorant...actually it doesnt look like you even know what the word means. Since you still havent given me a reason for roofs, ill ask you again...*why are roofs necessary when it doesnt rain?*


In the context of this thread - the only reason that is required is that FIFA insists that at least their VIP guests and the media are covered... Ticket allocations for VIPs typically count into 8-10k range, and the media takes up around 3-4k spaces - that means that typically you'll need at least one more or less fully covered stand.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Benjuk said:


> This is a World Cup thread - regardless of anti/pro-American stadium arguments, the fact is that to host the 2022 World Cup, stadiums will require cover.
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of this thread - the only reason that is required is that FIFA insists that at least their VIP guests and the media are covered... Ticket allocations for VIPs typically count into 8-10k range, and the media takes up around 3-4k spaces - that means that typically you'll need at least one more or less fully covered stand.


i understand in the context of a WC what is needed, but my main argument is that flierfy is basically being a troll


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

Oh come off it. Flierfli

The Super Bowl is hosted in January and World Series in october. Of course theres a really high chance of rain in those months.

But the World Cup takes place in SUMMER. The risk is usually sunburn, knowing how pasty most northern europeans are. Also, there is more than plenty of the logical host stadiums are completely indoor stadiums (exceeding FIFA reqirements).

So just....yeah. Your argument makes no sense, none of them do.

I mean...if Emirates and Wemblem are "football grounds" then pretty much every NFL stadium is too. Especially since they were designed by the exact same firms. hno:

Also, you want "story" in your stadium? Heres some history for you.








But no...I guess the stadium was built to preserve the stadium was not for sentimentality...but sheer business sense. Although it would have clearly been cheaper to just knock it down and start over.

Theres plenty of stadiums in Britain that are built in a bowl shape with single span roofs. Enough so that they're not really an anomaly. Heres a partial list there might be more but I stopped looking for them, Man City Stadium, Ricoh Arena, swansea stadium, Madejski Stadium, walkers stadium, plus the ones your mentioned Emirates and Wembley (by immigrants you mean...Dons...right? Just checking). Plus with the new stadiums proposed more might join the list.

American football is played on a rectangular field, it's not like they're made for cricket or anything. The only real difference is that the seats on one side are 6ft high instead of being below ground like in England. But is that really so bad? I rather not sit at midfield and stare at the substitutes all game.

I love how you're clutching at straws, just admit it. Theres no reason for us not to have another shot at a world cup. Theres just not, even the FA had to basically bribe their way to have Jack Warner say otherwise.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

The main problem for using US stadiums (other than roofs) is the size of the playing area. It's been discussed before, but the US football field is narrower than the FA football field - yes, there's space on your sidelines, but is it enough? 

Many of England's finest, and newest, stadiums actually fail the FIFA regulations with regard to run-off area beside and behind the pitch, for media and advertising requirements. Sunderland's Stadium of Light and Aston Villa's Villa Park, for example, would both have to have the front few rows of seats removed completely in order to provide the required run-off.

The total field dimensions are to be no less than 125m long by 80m wide (with the playing area being 105m by 68m).

I'm not sure exactly how many seats would have to go from the sidelines in the US to get field width up to 80m, but I'd imagine (possibly incorrectly) that it would be more than a couple of rows, which with the front seats already raised a couple of yards, could lead to the front row being 10 feet above pitch level. In short, getting the playing field into the stadiums isn't the concern, it's getting all the extra space - 6 meters either side, 10 meters at either end - that is the problem.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Maybe flierfly will have some appreciation for this new stadium under construction in New York.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Benjuk said:


> The main problem for using US stadiums (other than roofs) is the size of the playing area. It's been discussed before, but the US football field is narrower than the FA football field - yes, there's space on your sidelines, but is it enough?
> 
> Many of England's finest, and newest, stadiums actually fail the FIFA regulations with regard to run-off area beside and behind the pitch, for media and advertising requirements. Sunderland's Stadium of Light and Aston Villa's Villa Park, for example, would both have to have the front few rows of seats removed completely in order to provide the required run-off.
> 
> ...


The older stadiums would have issues with this, but the majority of the new stadiums are built with enough room.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

ryebreadraz said:


> The older stadiums would have issues with this, but the majority of the new stadiums are built with enough room.


Exactly.
Thats what we mean by "built with Football in mind", we mean built with "the world cup" in mind. Not MLS or some rinky-dink european friendly tour.


----------



## JohanSA (Apr 21, 2008)

en1044 said:


> we have absolutely no need for roofs. It may not cost a lot, but it completely changes the design of the stadium. European stadiums have influenced stadiums all over the world, except North and south america. It rains in Europe, so it was standard procedure to put roofs on stadiums, and the trend spread whether roofs were needed or not. The US is across the ocean so european designs never made it here and we wernt influenced by them. No rain here=no roofs. It ISNT necessary because it DOESNT rain here.
> 
> What it has to do with creativity???? Its the defining difference between European style and american style. The focus in european stadiums is the exterior, and creative ways to put on the roof seems to be popular. Putting a roof on a stadium usually means that the stadium will be symmetrical in design with all the tiers even because its the easiest way to but on a roof. The interior in european stadiums tends to not differ form field to field. Now look at american stadiums. No roof means that there is more freedom to be creative with the interior. you will see that since we dont have roofs we can have one side of the stadium look completely different than the other side. Sure you can put a roof on it, but it would look horrible. So to sum up...Europe-focus on the exterior. America- focus on the interior.
> 
> they may be secondary but they were still built with soccer in mind. They are all capable of hosting the game.


Roofs are there for far more than just cover from rain and sun.

Modern Roofs enhance the accoustics inside a stadium to that of a music arena which enhances the atmosphere inside and reduces noise that spills to the surrounding neighbourhoods . the inside of the roof of the stadium is also a mounting point for the stadias floodlights and popularly refered to as the ring of fire . These types of lighting have a huge advantage over conventional floodlighting and is integral to good quality HDTV broadcasting .

Secondly whats wrong with a stadium with a iconic exterior? Theres only so much you can do with the interior of a stadium - here what realy matters is the sightlines of the spectators and the atmosphere.

"Skyscrapercity so easy even JohanSA can do it" - I dont have to defend my intellegence and Im not even going to bother to stab back....


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

JohanSA said:


> Roofs are there for far more than just cover from rain and sun.
> 
> Modern Roofs enhance the accoustics inside a stadium to that of a music arena which enhances the atmosphere inside and reduces noise that spills to the surrounding neighbourhoods . the inside of the roof of the stadium is also a mounting point for the stadias floodlights and popularly refered to as the ring of fire . These types of lighting have a huge advantage over conventional floodlighting and is integral to good quality HDTV broadcasting .
> 
> ...


More clutching at straws.

You do realize all the games in the US would be played in the afternoon to accommodate Europe. So don't worry about the lights.
But again....look at the stadiums themselves about half of them actually have a roof! Moveable ones. hno:

So what..does this mean we have a built-in excuse when we aren't "loud enough". "well it's because we don't have a roof to trap the sound in...thats right." 

Seriously, you're going to get a WC in 2010 and the way they did. The US is way closer to SA on every level when it comes to infrastructure.


----------



## x-marien-x (Oct 31, 2008)

*HARRISON - Red Bull Arena (25,1989)*

very beautiful stadium for a american's team


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

JohanSA said:


> Roofs are there for far more than just cover from rain and sun.
> 
> Modern Roofs enhance the accoustics inside a stadium to that of a music arena which enhances the atmosphere inside and reduces noise that spills to the surrounding neighbourhoods . the inside of the roof of the stadium is also a mounting point for the stadias floodlights and popularly refered to as the ring of fire . These types of lighting have a huge advantage over conventional floodlighting and is integral to good quality HDTV broadcasting .
> 
> ...


let me just put it out there that american fans once set the record for loudest noise at a game _without_ a roof


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

The problem with American stadia is not field size, but rather the hideous viewing angles created by NFL teams having 100+ guys on the sideline for their games. The stands do not begin at field level, but atop ugly walls surrounding the field.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> Maybe flierfly will have some appreciation for this new stadium under construction in New York.


I do have. This ground has anything I appreciate. The stands are erected around a football pitch, all seats are covered and the ground is within walking distance from a metro station with services to the central parts of the city.
America can build proper football grounds. This here is the ultimate proof


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

^^
Come on Flierfly you cannot tell me that you would prefer a game in this stadium to say the New Cowboys Stadium or Reliant Stadium or for that matter Michigan Stadium (Which apart from the no roof would be well suited for atmosphere because fans are close together).

I agree that their stadiums are far from perfect for football but you cannot deny that they are impressive structures and more importantly they all have very healthy capacities which means there would be more tickets for fans which is probably the most important thing for a World Cup stadium. I for one don't see why the US couldn't host a very good World Cup (After England of course).


----------



## El Cholo (Jul 19, 2008)

Benjuk said:


> No reason 40 sides would decrease the quality, you could argue that it would actually increase the quality...
> 
> 9 of the top 22 teams in the world, according to the (flawed) FIFA rankings, failed to make it to Germany 06. If they handled the distribution of places for the finals correctly there's no reason the quality would decrease.
> 
> ...


40 teams would be great! Longer tournament, more games to watch. :banana:


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

berkshire royal said:


> Come on Flierfly you cannot tell me that you would prefer a game in this stadium to say the New Cowboys Stadium or Reliant Stadium or for that matter Michigan Stadium (Which apart from the no roof would be well suited for atmosphere because fans are close together).
> 
> I agree that their stadiums are far from perfect for football but you cannot deny that they are impressive structures and more importantly they all have very healthy capacities which means there would be more tickets for fans which is probably the most important thing for a World Cup stadium. I for one don't see why the US couldn't host a very good World Cup (After England of course).


Honestly, no. That stadium in Arlington is huge. Yes. But there is nothing that really impresses me. Large stadia always tend to struggle to create some atmosphere. Especially when most people in the ground are corporate ***** that paid several $100.000.

So I for one would prefer the ground in Harrison, NJ. Rather modest sized but great than huge and quiet.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> The problem with American stadia is not field size, but rather the hideous viewing angles created by NFL teams having 100+ guys on the sideline for their games. The stands do not begin at field level, but atop ugly walls surrounding the field.


well, uh..having watched a soccer game at an NFL stadium sitting next to the so called "ugly walls", i can tell you that me viewing experience was just fine


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Honestly, no. That stadium in Arlington is huge. Yes. But there is nothing that really impresses me. Large stadia always tend to struggle to create some atmosphere. Especially when most people in the ground are corporate ***** that paid several $100.000.
> 
> So I for one would prefer the ground in Harrison, NJ. Rather modest sized but great than huge and quiet.


but of course, if we were talking about a non american stadium that was huge you would probably have another opinion...


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> The problem with American stadia is not field size, but rather the hideous viewing angles created by NFL teams having 100+ guys on the sideline for their games. The stands do not begin at field level, but atop ugly walls surrounding the field.


If you look at Germany for example, all of their new stadiums are being built with these "ugly walls" to improve views. If you've ever sat in the first row at an English stadium you can attest to the fact that the view stinks. In lower league games where the games don't sell out nobody sits in the first few rows for this very reason. For older stadiums like White Hart Lane where the stands are extremely close to the pitch it makes sense for the first row to be at ground level. However, at new grounds where the first row is set well back from the touch line (Emirates for example) the spectator sightline angle becomes shallower when the first row remains at ground level. The walls are simply meant to compensate for this.


----------



## Indiana Jones (May 1, 2005)

en1044 said:


> but of course, if we were talking about a non american stadium that was huge you would probably have another opinion...



This is so true. The Nou Camp is beloved because it's a great stadium. The outside may be a bit ugly, but it's full of character. This is my genuine opinion and the opinion of most in this forum.

Of course if the Nou Camp was in America you would start to get comments about it's ugly exterior and lack of a roof!


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

I have to add this in general response to flierfly. I fully understand where you're coming from but you need to look at this from both sides of the coin. In certain places roofs are an absolute necessity and in other places they are not. In the case of Europe, roofs have always been standard fare in northern leagues such as England but much more of a recent phenomenon in places where they are not a necessity. It is becoming that way as they become an architectual norm for football stadia but climate still is a big indicator as to whether a roof is a necessity or a luxury. In Spain for instance, roofs are a very recent phenomenon because the warm and dry climate has never made them a necessity. Of the 20 teams in La Liga, 11 only have roofs over their VIP stand as is mandated by FIFA while leaving the rest of the stadium exposed. You see the same thing in warm and dry climates across southern Europe. In Italy there are indeed a lot of crap run down stadiums but the new and renovated stadiums built in southern Italy don't bother with roofs. Just look at Messina, Reggina and Palermo to name a few. Greece is much the same. New stadiums with the necessary budget will incorporate them but most stadiums in Greece remain roofless.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> I have to add this in general response to flierfly. I fully understand where you're coming from but you need to look at this from both sides of the coin. In certain places roofs are an absolute necessity and in other places they are not. In the case of Europe, roofs have always been standard fare in northern leagues such as England but much more of a recent phenomenon in places where they are not a necessity. It is becoming that way as they become an architectual norm for football stadia but climate still is a big indicator as to whether a roof is a necessity or a luxury. In Spain for instance, roofs are a very recent phenomenon because the warm and dry climate has never made them a necessity. Of the 20 teams in La Liga, 11 only have roofs over their VIP stand as is mandated by FIFA while leaving the rest of the stadium exposed. You see the same thing in warm and dry climates across southern Europe. In Italy there are indeed a lot of crap run down stadiums but the new and renovated stadiums built in southern Italy don't bother with roofs. Just look at Messina, Reggina and Palermo to name a few. Greece is much the same. New stadiums with the necessary budget will incorporate them but most stadiums in Greece remain roofless.


I wouldn't attribute the lack of roofs solely to the climate. When you look around Europe you find most roofless grounds in southern and eastern Europe which are also the economically less advanced regions.
The construction of a roof often fails due to the lack of money. But as soon as cities and regions get wealthier the football stadiums there sooner or later get covered.
You mentioned Spain where most of the grounds date back to the 1950s. Back then the country was one of the poorest. That has changed. And with this newly gained wealth they cover all seats. Valencia, Espanyol and Barcelona are just the prime examples of a general trend.
Italy is similar. The economic divide between the north and the south makes the difference between stadium in various regions of the country. The dry climate is just a bad excuse to omit the construction of a roof.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

flierfy said:


> To make more money by a few more games? Anyway, just because its popularity is growing doesn't mean the game is actual popular. Football is the fifth, maybe forth, most popular sport in the USA and nowhere near as popular as in other parts of the world.
> So it is still true enough to claim it was unpopular and has nothing to do with trolling.
> 
> 
> The fact that ESPN showed all Euro 2008 games says very little. They got the broadcasting rights almost for free. And with kick-offs at noon Euro-football displaced only irrelevant parts of their program. So, it's no big deal.


But why weren't they shown 10 years ago or even 5 years ago? Because now those broadcast have a decent audience that wasn't there before. the ratings for the World Cup were great, bigger than the ratings for the World Series.

Now....15 more years of growth and including a thriving league. Sure, we will never be the top sport...but we wont have to be. Even if just 20% of the population cares that will be more than enough to make the World Cup a success.

Plus since we all watch the game now, the crowds will actually cheer at the right times. But oh god, what will all you Brits have to say when we prove this country can finally appreciate the sport (at least the blue state part, you know...Fake America). We finally have decent beer too...what ever will your lord over us? :cheers:


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

nyrmetros said:


> The biggest difference obviously betwen american and euro pro sports fans is that American fans usually just make a wall of noise, while the Europs will sing and chant in an organized manner for the full game. Dunno how that relates to having a roof or not though. lol


Because in American football, that wall of noise makes it difficult for the opposing team's offense to hear the quarterback's cadence and audibles. Singing usually doesn't have that effect.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

JYDA said:


> If you look at Germany for example, all of their new stadiums are being built with these "ugly walls" to improve views. If you've ever sat in the first row at an English stadium you can attest to the fact that the view stinks. In lower league games where the games don't sell out nobody sits in the first few rows for this very reason. For older stadiums like White Hart Lane where the stands are extremely close to the pitch it makes sense for the first row to be at ground level. However, at new grounds where the first row is set well back from the touch line (Emirates for example) the spectator sightline angle becomes shallower when the first row remains at ground level. The walls are simply meant to compensate for this.


No, you don't seem to know what I'm talking about. Compare the modest front row at Allianz Arena to the front row that's ten feet up at Reliant Stadium. When the soccer pitch is laid out on NFL fields, the front row is very close but too high. It's not like having to look over a running track.


en1044 said:


> well, uh..having watched a soccer game at an NFL stadium sitting next to the so called "ugly walls", i can tell you that me viewing experience was just fine


Do you have to get offended by everything in this forum? 


Arist said:


> American Football teams require more people for operations then Soccer, and those walls keep the fans away better then the lack of walls in Soccer stadiums.


Like what? Photographers? Cheerleaders? The guys with the dome microphones? Oh yes, this is all necessary.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> Do you have to get offended by everything in this forum?


uh, no. I just hate ignorance. If you are going to talk on this forum then you better know what you are talking about (somewhat)



> Like what? Photographers? Cheerleaders? The guys with the dome microphones? Oh yes, this is all necessary.


having seen the redskins play at RFK stadium (where the seats go all the way to the field) which was designed more for baseball than football, i can tell you that it sucks. We have good reason for having walls. Excuse us for wanting a better view.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> Like what? Photographers? Cheerleaders? The guys with the dome microphones? Oh yes, this is all necessary.


NFL rosters are about 65 players strong, most of them mulling around and standing on the sidelines during the game. And most of those players are 6' or taller. Thus, if you're on the sidelines for an NFL game you need to be a substantial level above the field surface to see properly.

Unless you just like staring at a bunch of butts, in which case if that's your thing who am I to judge.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

KingmanIII said:


> Because in American football, that wall of noise makes it difficult for the opposing team's offense to hear the quarterback's cadence and audibles. Singing usually doesn't have that effect.


Plus the games are longer and theres way more lulls in action. 
Soccer just lends itself to singing and chanting more than just making noise in a way that most American sports don't.

But it's pretty irrelevant you never really hear anything like Besiktas at an international game. Since clubs play every week unlike national teams. Who play all over the world and if you're lucky you'll see them twice a year in person.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> NFL rosters are about 65 players strong, most of them mulling around and standing on the sidelines during the game. And most of those players are 6' or taller. Thus, if you're on the sidelines for an NFL game you need to be a substantial level above the field surface to see properly.
> 
> Unless you just like staring at a bunch of butts, in which case if that's your thing who am I to judge.


NFL have 53 man rosters. And a lot of the guys who don't start on offense or defense, play on special teams. So out of that 53 man roster, only a small amount don't see the field.



flierfy said:


> Honestly, no. That stadium in Arlington is huge. Yes. But there is nothing that really impresses me. Large stadia always tend to struggle to create some atmosphere. Especially when most people in the ground are corporate ***** that paid several $100.000.
> 
> So I for one would prefer the ground in Harrison, NJ. Rather modest sized but great than huge and quiet.



The new Cowboys stadium is going to be a big step down in terms of atmosphere when compared to the current stadium. Compare it to the current Staples Center in LA. They left the Great Western Forum, an awesome venue, for a new modern stadium with a ton of club seats and luxury boxes and the atmosphere went with it. I will bet the same will happen in the new Cowboys stadium. Look at it, there are luxury boxes and club seats everywhere. Sure the thing can handled 80,000 plus, but when you put the amount of boxes and club seats in that they are, it really pushes fans farther back and spaces things was out.

It happens all the time with new stadiums and arenas. The only exception would probably be the Bell Centre in Montreal which has managed to keep a similar feel of the old forum.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> NFL have 53 man rosters. And a lot of the guys who don't start on offense or defense, play on special teams. So out of that 53 man roster, only a small amount don't see the field.


You can have 53 on the roster, but only 48 can be active. Add on 8 practice squad players and the players on IR and you can have 70 players or more on the sidelines.


----------



## WeimieLvr (May 26, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> You can have 53 on the roster, but only 48 can be active. Add on 8 practice squad players and the players on IR and you can have 70 players or more on the sidelines.


And none on the field? :lol:


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

WeimieLvr said:


> And none on the field? :lol:


Timeouts, breaks in play, etc. At times you could have them all on the sidelines. The point is that there are a lot of people on the sidelines during football games and the higher walls around the fields are necessary for spectators to see over all the people. If not for the high walls you would be staring at player's backs.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

en1044 said:


> uh, no. I just hate ignorance. If you are going to talk on this forum then you better know what you are talking about (somewhat)
> 
> having seen the redskins play at RFK stadium (where the seats go all the way to the field) which was designed more for baseball than football, i can tell you that it sucks. We have good reason for having walls. Excuse us for wanting a better view.





GunnerJacket said:


> NFL rosters are about 65 players strong, most of them mulling around and standing on the sidelines during the game. And most of those players are 6' or taller. Thus, if you're on the sidelines for an NFL game you need to be a substantial level above the field surface to see properly.
> 
> Unless you just like staring at a bunch of butts, in which case if that's your thing who am I to judge.


You're both so in love with the status quo that you seem to miss the fact that it can all be solved by having people sit down.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

krudmonk said:


> You're both so in love with the status quo that you seem to miss the fact that it can all be solved by having people sit down.


Even so....higher walls help.

It's not honestly not a dealbreaker and not so different than newer stadiums in Europe built on *gasp* American models. Like Emirates, sure they're a little higher. The effect negligible either way.But honestly unless you're sitting in the front row you wouldn't even think about it. But who would nitpick like that if they're front row at a world cup game, that the experience could be 1% better of the walls were oh so lightly lower. We should all be so lucky.

I'll be lucky if I'm not sitting in the furthest tier of the stadium.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> You're both so in love with the status quo that you seem to miss the fact that it can all be solved by having people sit down.


Actually, it can't. NFL players are entering and leaving the game all the time. Simply coming back and sitting down would contribute to muscle cramps and strains. They need to move around and stay loose. In soccer you've maybe 5 players who'll need to leave their seats and warm up, so they're hardly obstructing the view. Different game for American football and you will quite simply have too many people moving around in front of field level seats to make that view attractive.

I've no problem with field level seats for soccer and am all for measures that allow fans to be as close to the game as possible, but for an American football-centered stadium the sidelines seats need to begin elevated above field level. 

Seriously, though, what's the big deal? Unless that's the only sightline you're used to there's nary a difference between row 20 in an NFL venue and row 20 in a large soccer venue.


----------



## Alx-D (Oct 21, 2008)

I can understand the high walls. My only NFL game so far was at Ralph Wilson stadium. The seats were first row, 50 yard line. Sounds incredible but you can't see shit unless you're at least 5 rows up. Even sitting atop a 5' wall all I saw was a bunch of fat guys standing on the sideline, watching the game I paid to see. Every once and awhile the sideline camera would roll on by so I couldn't even see the fat guys. After watching the first 3 quarters on the jumbotron we just left. 

The big problem is that the players stand right on the sideline so you can't see over them.


----------



## Arist (Oct 10, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> Like what? Photographers? Cheerleaders? The guys with the dome microphones? Oh yes, this is all necessary.


Head Coach, Offensive Coordinator, Defensive Coordinator, Assistant Coaches, 53 man roster, training staff, reporters, camera men, security, Medical Staff, Logistics crew for moving equipment, Practice squad, VIP, so on and so on.

I would not expect a watcher of a simple game like soccer to understand.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

Arist said:


> Head Coach, Offensive Coordinator, Defensive Coordinator, Assistant Coaches, 53 man roster, training staff, reporters, camera men, security, Medical Staff, Logistics crew for moving equipment, Practice squad, VIP, so on and so on.
> 
> I would not expect a watcher of a simple game like soccer to understand.


too much going on the in the sidelines for my taste......


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Arist said:


> Head Coach, Offensive Coordinator, Defensive Coordinator, Assistant Coaches, 53 man roster, training staff, reporters, camera men, security, Medical Staff, Logistics crew for moving equipment, Practice squad, VIP, so on and so on.
> 
> I would not expect a watcher of a simple game like soccer to understand.


God damn, my fellow Americans are quite sensitive an arrogant on this board. I was an NFL fan long before I even knew of soccer, but I still think there's too damn much peripheral shit going on. No need to bash soccer just because I complained about people standing in the way. Relax, Bubba.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Arist said:


> Head Coach, Offensive Coordinator, Defensive Coordinator, Assistant Coaches, 53 man roster, training staff, reporters, camera men, security, Medical Staff, Logistics crew for moving equipment, Practice squad, VIP, so on and so on.


Which gives us an idea why this game can only be played in a country populated by 300 millions...


----------



## melbstud (Mar 26, 2008)

Nothing againt America but I hope Australia gets it!!!.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

^^ Stop with your USA hate you fascist! :bash: :baeh3:


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

melbstud said:


> Nothing againt America but I hope Australia gets it!!!.


All we need are more stadiums, better infrastructure, and a continental shift towards Asia.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

Benjuk said:


> All we need are more stadiums, better infrastructure, and a continental shift towards Asia.


I actually support an Australian bid, basically everything that we've said here about a pro-US bid. It holds true for Australia, the infrastructure is already in place and organization would be top notch and the stands would be full.


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

SIC said:


> I actually support an Australian bid, basically everything that we've said here about a pro-US bid. It holds true for Australia, the infrastructure is already in place and organization would be top notch and the stands would be full.


Difference is that the USA already has all it's stadiums, and a bunch to spare, and numerous cities can justify building new stadiums... Whereas Australia, alas, only has 4 useable stadiums in place, and only 2 other cities which could really support a large enough stadium.

Hopefully the powers that be can put a great bid together and give FIFA something to think about.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Which gives us an idea why this game can only be played in a country populated by 300 millions...


A similar game is also played in Canada, which has 1/10th the population of the USA.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Which gives us an idea why this game can only be played in a country populated by 300 millions...


hno:


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ro-obama111008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

SIC said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ro-obama111008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


yup, read the article. Nice theory, but we shall see.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

SIC said:


> I actually support an Australian bid, basically everything that we've said here about a pro-US bid. It holds true for Australia, the infrastructure is already in place and organization would be top notch and the stands would be full.


The infrastructure is not "already in place" in australia.

The USA could hold the World Cup tomorrow and would have 12 60,00+ stadiums. Australia can't say the same thing.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

^^ When he said infrastructure I don't think he was including stadiums given that was also signaled out apart from infrastructure in the original quote. Australia does likely have the hotels, service and hospitality industries, and quality transit infrastructure to cope.


----------



## Dazzle (May 29, 2006)

Benjuk said:


> Difference is that the USA already has all it's stadiums, and a bunch to spare, and numerous cities can justify building new stadiums... Whereas *Australia, alas, only has 4 useable stadiums in place, and only 2 other cities which could really support a large enough stadium*.
> Hopefully the powers that be can put a great bid together and give FIFA something to think about.


How about a joint bid: OZ with New Zealand.
(consider NZ like a state of Australia :wink2: and Auckland is much closer to Sydney than Perth is!)
Auckland has nearly 1.5 million people and will have a re-vamped 60,000 stadium by 2011 .


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

SIC said:


> http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=ro-obama111008&prov=yhoo&type=lgns


after the second word in the title i stopped reading that


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

The United States plans to submit simultaneous bids to soccer's governing body for the right to host the World Cup in either 2018 or 2022.

The U.S. Soccer Federation said Thursday that USSF president Sunil Gulati will hold a telephone conference call on Monday to announce the group's intentions to bid for the tournament in both years. The U.S. staged the World Cup in 1994, the highest-attended World Cup ever.


----------



## PaulFCB (Apr 21, 2008)

Dazzle said:


> How about a joint bid: OZ with New Zealand.
> (consider NZ like a state of Australia :wink2: and Auckland is much closer to Sydney than Perth is!)
> Auckland has nearly 1.5 million people and will have a re-vamped 60,000 stadium by 2011 .


 So if Australia would have 6 stadiums then New Zealand would need to have 4, Auckland & Wellington might have them for sure but other cities?
But its clearly too late for this i guess.


----------



## 67868 (Jul 31, 2006)

nz could offer three host cities. but australia should bid on its own


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Blatter said today that they will not consider joint bids.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

The U.S. Soccer Federation has named David Downs, a former president of Univision Sports, as executive director of the USA World Cup bid committee. USSF President Sunil Gulati will serve as chair of the Bid Committee, with U.S. Soccer CEO Dan Flynn, MLS commissioner Don Garber and Phil Murphy, the former National Finance chair of the Democratic National Committee serving as the initial members of the committee.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Why the US will host in 2018 or 2022 (likely 2022). $$$$$$$$$. Right or wrong, money usually plays the biggest factor in FIFA's decisions and SoccerNet.com's Steve Davis explains the riches awaiting FIFA in the US.



> At some point, this bid process is all about the facilities. (Well, really, it's about money. Because finances are inextricably linked to facility size, by extension, these bids are about physical structures.) The United States enjoys a stadium situation unrivaled in the rest of the world, thanks mostly to the country's love of American football and need to stack the racks with money-waving fans.
> 
> More seats mean more money for FIFA. It's that simple.
> 
> ...


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

I hope the U.S Gets it in 2018 :banana:


----------



## KiwiBrit (Feb 7, 2006)

The US may well get 2022 (although my feeling is for Australia), but IMO there is no way it will get 2018.

Yes, there may be more money to be made in the States, but you have not taken in to account Europe would have waited 12 years 'between drinks' as you say. And for all the extra revenue which could be raised, fifa will not want to upset the most 'powerful' union uefa.

Pure and simple...


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

KiwiBrit said:


> The US may well get 2022 (although my feeling is for Australia), but IMO there is no way it will get 2018.
> 
> Yes, there may be more money to be made in the States, but you have not taken in to account Europe would have waited 12 years 'between drinks' as you say. And for all the extra revenue which could be raised, fifa will not want to upset the most 'powerful' union uefa.
> 
> Pure and simple...


I agree. I'd put a lot of money on England getting 2018 and USA getting 2022.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

The only thing about that is that's they're not "requirements", more like "suggestions".


----------



## Benjuk (Aug 12, 2006)

KingmanIII said:


> Wow, FIFA can be some real anal-retentive S.O.B.s, can't they? I can't imagine why so many countries haven't gotten tired of trying to cater to their every single whim and told them to piss off. I mean, it's a joke if they would turn down freaking ENGLAND for the pitches at a few stadiums being 3m too narrow to cram another billboard into the corner.
> 
> They want advertising? Why not just run picture-in-picture commercials at certain intervals during the match like they do on ESPN for UEFA coverage? Think they might have issues with the camera angles? SWITCH TO ANOTHER BLOODY ANGLE.
> 
> Sorry, guys, something tells me that FIFA are getting a kick out of making countries jump through various hoops just to be thrown a doggy treat. I, personally, will not be the least bit disappointed if FIFA reject the U.S.' 2018 and 2022 bids, because a month-long event ten years down the road is the least-pressing of our country's concerns at the moment.


It's not a case of making anyone jump through hoops.

If you have a highly desired product/service, you ensure you get the very best deal. Here, for example, we have a very tough set of 'guidelines' and yet we still have 8 or 9 serious bidders. If there were only 1 or 2 bidders, or if no one was putting their hand up, you could be sure that the standards would be lowered.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Benjuk said:


> It's not a case of making anyone jump through hoops.
> 
> If you have a highly desired product/service, you ensure you get the very best deal. Here, for example, we have a very tough set of 'guidelines' and yet we still have 8 or 9 serious bidders. If there were only 1 or 2 bidders, or if no one was putting their hand up, you could be sure that the standards would be lowered.


You're not wrong there. It's simple supply and demand.

_BUT_

FIFA _will_ have to compromise more if they pick a country like England or the US where virtually all proposed stadiums will have existed before these regulations were put into place. That's just a fact. Even if England were willing to do everything short of knocking down some of the older stadiums and rebuilding them, there'd still be many instances where the "perfect" solution isn't reached.

Pick Qatar of course and you can have your set of perfect, homogenous stadiums.

FIFA will know this. But whilst they are unpredictable (moreso than the IOC I reckon), I don't think the FIFA _Committee_ will be as anally-retentive when choosing the host as their organisation's guidelines suggest. They will know they could have a perfect set of inch-perfect stadiums in if they wanted; but they're footballing people and they won't let these regulations affect their judgement too much.

I think the 2012 Olympic race is a good comparison here. Technically, Paris and Madrid were the closest to what the IOC Evaulation Commission were looking for and they scored the highest marks overall. But the _concept_ won it for London.

There will be talk of how a few feet here and there could affect one bid or another; but in the end it won't matter a jot. It just won't.


----------



## nandofutbolero (Aug 7, 2008)

I think many regulations of FIFA sucks they just go for the bussiness that's all


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13762562.html

Full list of the venues contacted by the USSF re: hosting world cup matches. Over 70 were listed.

It's kind of interesting.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13762562.html
> 
> Full list of the venues contacted by the USSF re: hosting world cup matches. Over 70 were listed.
> 
> It's kind of interesting.


Yeah it is. I can see why some of those were picked, but some of those choices...?

Some of them arent even capable of hosting.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

hngcm said:


> The only thing about that is that's they're not "requirements", more like "suggestions".


Thank you. Reading the language, they suggest and prefer a lot of things. As well as a lot "when possible" Including covering all seats, lumens and field dimensions. The problem is that you have some places that can go with most, if not all of their suggestions, while can only complete some of the suggestions. If we were to interpret the "suggestions" to the fullest, all stadiums would be either domes or retractable roof.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

en1044 said:


> Yeah it is. I can see why some of those were picked, but some of those choices...?
> 
> Some of them arent even capable of hosting.


which ones?

I think its wise to contact the most you can and see who is willing to do what. Of course you probably have 15 that could host today and meet most suggestions, but you could have some like the Rose Bowl or Coliseum that may be willing to renovate and become even better venues for the World Cup.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rantanamo said:


> which ones?
> 
> I think its wise to contact the most you can and see who is willing to do what. Of course you probably have 15 that could host today and meet most suggestions, but you could have some like the Rose Bowl or Coliseum that may be willing to renovate and become even better venues for the World Cup.


Beaver Stadium, Michigan Stadium, Lane Stadium.

You can see in pictures that they just arent quite wide enough. And speaking from personal experiences at those three, I dont think it would be possible.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

I know Lane stadium very well and I agree !!
For hosting FIFA world cup you need big cities...

Anyway, here is my choice for a great world cup in USA:

NY: Meadowlands Stadium
Chicago: Soldier Field (I miss the old one which I've known)
Miami: Dolphin Stadium
Dallas: "New Cowboys Stadium"
Seattle: QwestField
Houston: Reliant Stadium
Washington DC: RFK Memorial Stadium or FedExField
LA: Rose Bowl (with a major refurbishment) or Memorial Coliseum (with a major refurbishment)
Phoenix: University of Phoenix Stadium
San Francisco: with a New Stadium ??????
New Orleans: Louisiana Superdome or New Stadium
Boston: Gillette Stadium (but it too far from the city...)


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

parcdesprinces said:


> I know Lane stadium very well and I agree !!
> For hosting FIFA world cup you need big cities...
> 
> Anyway, here is my choice for a great world cup in USA:
> ...


I think the midwest/north would need more representation. I also think that they would use a pod system so my choice of sites would look like this:

_West_
Los Angeles
Seattle
San Francisco (assuming they get a new stadium, if not Phoenix)

_Central/North_
Chicago
Denver
Minneapolis/Kansas City/St. Louis/Detroit/Indianapolis (any of these could host depending on the stadium situation in 13 years. If St. Louis builds a new stadium in that time, I'd love to see them get it as a nod to their soccer history)

_South_
Dallas
Houston
Miami

_Northeast_
New York/New Jersey
Washington DC (assuming FedEx Field is widened or more likely, Dan Snyder gets his new stadium)
Boston (Philadelphia is also a solid choice here)


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Beaver Stadium, Michigan Stadium, Lane Stadium.
> 
> You can see in pictures that they just arent quite wide enough. And speaking from personal experiences at those three, I dont think it would be possible.


The USSF is just identifying each and every stadium that has a slight chance of being a WC host from a facilities standpoint. I don't think they actually think the majority of these cities even has a chance. The USSF sent out information to every city on the list and asked that they be notified by stadium management if they are interested by April 17. If they're interested then you can start a dialogue and see if places whose stadium isn't wide enough, luxurious enough or whatnot has interest in a renovation to make it possible. This is just very preliminary and the USSF is doing the right thing by exploring every single possibility early on.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

I'd use these:

Meadowlands (East Rutherford, NJ)
Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia, PA)
New Stadium (Washington, DC) -- OR Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte, NC) if DC United has to move.

Dolphin Stadium (Miami Gardens, FL)
LP Field (Nashville, TN)
Reliant Stadium (Houston, TX)

Soldier Field (Chicago, IL)
Lucas Oil Stadium (Indianapolis, IN)
Cowboys Stadium (Arlington, TX)

UoP Stadium (Glendale, AZ)
Refurbished Rose Bowl (Pasadena, CA)
Qwest Field (Seattle, WA)

That would be twelve.

Eighthfinals: Glendale, Houston, DC/Charlotte, Indianapolis, Nashville, Chicago, Pasadena, East Rutherford
Quarterfinals: Chicago, Seattle, Philadelphia, Miami Gardens
Semifinals: Arlington, East Rutherford
Final: Pasadena

I picked Charlotte as the "reserve" host because of it's location. I know New England would probably be more popular, but that area would have two venues already. Charlotte is a more capable host than people think, and DC should be punished by soccer bodies if DC United continues to receive unfair treatment.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

If they don't use Washington surely they would use the MT bank stadium in Baltimore, same geographical area, rather than Charlotte. Also I hope they don't use the Rose Bowl again it looks like an awful venue. Would the proposed City of Industry stadium be able to host football (soccer)? As this would surely be a better venue than either the rose bowl or the present Colosseum.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> I'd use these:
> 
> Meadowlands (East Rutherford, NJ)
> Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia, PA)
> ...


DC United hasnt been treated as unfairly as is portrayed. The city shouldn't be punished for something that isnt entirely their fault, thats just silly.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

ArchieTheGreat said:


> If they don't use Washington surely they would use the MT bank stadium in Baltimore, same geographical area, rather than Charlotte. Also I hope they don't use the Rose Bowl again it looks like an awful venue. Would the proposed City of Industry stadium be able to host football (soccer)? As this would surely be a better venue than either the rose bowl or the present Colosseum.


It's still not clear if the proposed City of Industry stadium would be able to host soccer. The stadium's plans aren't the finalized yet so there's no word on soccer. If they get the financing done and a NFL team commits (two things I don't see happening), then they'll finalize stadium plans and we'll know for sure.

The Coliseum is horrible and won't be able to get the necessary renovations to host. The Rose Bowl is a better stadium and there are plans to renovate the stadium, but they don't have the funding. The promise of a World Cup may push them to get the money and complete the renovations they've planned:


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

^^^ It would be cool if they put a 2nd deck on the Rose Bowl. 150,000 seat stadium for the final might wet FIFA's appetite


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> ^^^ It would be cool if they put a 2nd deck on the Rose Bowl. 150,000 seat stadium for the final might wet FIFA's appetite


Yeah but theres no need for the Rose Bowl to be that big, its losing enough money as it is.


----------



## westsidebomber (Feb 5, 2009)

What about Cincinnati possibly being a Midwest host? Paul Brown Stadium has the width (I believe) to host and it is right in the middle of many of the cities who would also be hosting (Chicago, Indianapolis, etc...)


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

westsidebomber said:


> What about Cincinnati possibly being a Midwest host? Paul Brown Stadium has the width (I believe) to host and it is right in the middle of many of the cities who would also be hosting (Chicago, Indianapolis, etc...)


Doubtful. Cincinnati isnt an attractive market.


----------



## ormey (Jul 15, 2007)

why should america as a nation get the world cup again so soon ?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

ormey said:


> why should america as a nation get the world cup again so soon ?


Because it's a burgeoning soccer nation in a very lucrative market. The stadiums offer capacities that no other country in the world can touch and have luxuries unmatched by other nations. Those stadiums are also sustainable and sure to be used thanks to the NFL so there's no need to build a lot of stadiums that will be empty or half-empty in the future. The cities where the matches would be held are some of the bigger cities in the world and a World Cup in the US would provide amazing revenue for FIFA. It also would provide a great atmosphere because not only would many people travel to the US for the World Cup, but the country is such a melting pot of nationalities that many locals would provide an interesting cultural flavor.


----------



## CofRed (Apr 10, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> Because it's a burgeoning soccer nation in a very lucrative market. The stadiums offer capacities that no other country in the world can touch and have luxuries unmatched by other nations. Those stadiums are also sustainable and sure to be used thanks to the NFL so there's no need to build a lot of stadiums that will be empty or half-empty in the future. The cities where the matches would be held are some of the bigger cities in the world and a World Cup in the US would provide amazing revenue for FIFA. It also would provide a great atmosphere because not only would many people travel to the US for the World Cup, but the country is such a melting pot of nationalities that many locals would provide an interesting cultural flavor.



On top of that 94' was a huge success and I'm really getting sick of people saying that North America isn't a soccer crazy market I mean it's nowhere near Europe and South America but 94' helped North America and we proved that we can love Footy just as much as anyone else on this planet.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> I know a lot of people agree that they need to use the pod system like this, but I'd be surprised if this was how they were grouped. New York would be grouped with the two other northeatern sites, Washington DC and Philadelphia/Boston (either is possible). I also think that Miami would be the first choice as a host site in Florida. I don't think there would be four west coast sites if you're grouping the pods in threes so Phoenix is out if San Francisco can't get a new stadium done, which is unfortunate because it's a great facility. If you want four west coast sites then I think they're going to have to go to a three pod system.


well, it was just example, there could be changes, I just showed this because there would be less traveling between matches, just imagine how tough would be for a team to play first match in LA, second in NYC and third in Dallas. each group should get three cities, closest to each other (like LA, SF and Phoenix, or NYC, Philly and Boston):lol:


----------



## mattwinter (Apr 14, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> Because it's a burgeoning soccer nation in a very lucrative market. The stadiums offer capacities that no other country in the world can touch and have luxuries unmatched by other nations. Those stadiums are also sustainable and sure to be used thanks to the NFL so there's no need to build a lot of stadiums that will be empty or half-empty in the future. The cities where the matches would be held are some of the bigger cities in the world and a World Cup in the US would provide amazing revenue for FIFA. It also would provide a great atmosphere because not only would many people travel to the US for the World Cup, but the country is such a melting pot of nationalities that many locals would provide an interesting cultural flavor.


What of the 'legacy for football'? If this bid is going to be successful, FIFA are going to want to see some evidence that it isn't just going to be creating better infrastructure for gridiron.

And ticket sales are only a very small proportion of revenue from World Cups. The 2002 World Cup made more money than any other, because of Asian TV Audiences.

BTW. I don't know why there are so many stadiums in American without roofs, but I think the World Cup would be a good opportunity to fix this.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

mattwinter said:


> What of the 'legacy for football'? If this bid is going to be successful, FIFA are going to want to see some evidence that it isn't just going to be creating better infrastructure for gridiron.
> 
> And ticket sales are only a very small proportion of revenue from World Cups. The 2002 World Cup made more money than any other, because of Asian TV Audiences.
> 
> BTW. I don't know why there are so many stadiums in American without roofs, but I think the World Cup would be a good opportunity to fix this.


Threres no way that the world cup creates a better infrastructure for American football. Unlike other countries, we wont be building any stadiums specifically for the purpose of hosting WC games. Any stadium that will be used will be American football stadiums that are suited for hosting soccer.

However.

A WC does help the soccer infrastructure in the US, just as it did back in '94. As the MLS is already growing rather quickly, by 2022 the US could be much more of a soccer power. Another WC would greatly help this.

Also, you are new here, but you will learn that we dont like roofs. Dont even bring that topic up. 

The World Cup will not fix this. Why? Because it isnt a problem. There is no reason that the rest of the world needs to push the "necessity" of roofs on Americans. So dont talk about it. You come to this site to learn about architecture all around the world, accepting roofless American stadiums is a good place to start.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Threres no way that the world cup creates a better infrastructure for American football. Unlike other countries, we wont be building any stadiums specifically for the purpose of hosting WC games. Any stadium that will be used will be American football stadiums that are suited for hosting soccer.
> 
> However.
> 
> ...


Whether liked or not roofs are a necessity for any World Cup venue. Without a sufficient number of venues with a covered main stand there won't be a World Cup in the USA at all. And by now the number of possible World Cup stadium in the USA that meet even this requirement is rather small.


----------



## Topher51 (Mar 28, 2009)

flierfy said:


> Whether liked or not roofs are a necessity for any World Cup venue. Without a sufficient number of venues with a covered main stand there won't be a World Cup in the USA at all. And by now the number of possible World Cup stadium in the USA that meet even this requirement is rather small.


What difference does it make if the stands are covered? No matter what the weather is (rain, snow, sun, wind), are you saying that soccer fans can't be out in the same elements that the players are for 90+ minutes? I've gone to DC United matches and left as wet as if I had jumped in the Potomac River. It didn't do anything to ruin the experience.

If we get the World Cup, I highly doubt that anyone who goes to these games will be worrying about if they get a sunburn either.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

en1044 said:


> Unlike other countries, we wont be building any stadiums specifically for the purpose of hosting WC games.


That's because you don't play with other nations, only with yourselves, the "world championships" in Baseball or Football are simply US championships. 



> There is no reason that the rest of the world needs to push the "necessity" of roofs on Americans.


Since you are arrogant, OK, so don't bid to host the rest of the world, besides for a sport which is played (in many places, and asked by UEFA & FIFA) in stadiums with roofs!
We are not going to change the rules used in the whole world for a single country !


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

parcdesprinces said:


> That's because you don't play with other nations, only with yourselves, the "world championships" in Baseball or Football are simply US championships.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think you have completely misunderstood whats going on here buddy.

mattwinter said that there is a general lack of roofs in american stadiums. He was talking about all stadiums it seems, not just for the WC. He said that the WC could fix this, meaning that our stadiums would have roofs then. Its not just for the WC.

Try reading next time.



parcdesprinces said:


> That's because you don't play with other nations, only with yourselves, the "world championships" in Baseball or Football are simply US championships.


That is so irrelevant to the topic. It doesnt matter who we play with. Take your anti americanism elsewhere.

Before you try to argue, youre supposed to actually have a *point*.

And another thing. Before you try to lecture me on the importance of roofs, go learn the history of roofed stadiums. Why do some have them and some dont? Why dont american stadiums have them?

The answers are pretty simple, but i doubt you've ever thought of them.

Because you're fairly new here, Ill tell you this. This argument has been done over and over again. You arent saying anything new.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)




----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

en1044 said:


> I think you have completely misunderstood whats going on here buddy.
> 
> mattwinter said that there is a general lack of roofs in american stadiums. He was talking about all stadiums it seems, not just for the WC. He said that the WC could fix this, meaning that our stadiums would have roofs then. Its not just for the WC.


I'd already understood ! I said for WC you need covered stadiums....... 
If you don't cover some stadiums I won't understand why you will host WC !



> That is so irrelevant to the topic. It doesnt matter who we play with. Take your anti americanism elsewhere.


???? 

Nothing against USA I'd travelled there many times, for visiting some friends (who are open-minded), I saw some football, baseball & soccer games in your stadiums and I loved it. 
I already told you in another thread, you are welcome in Europe.... 



> Before you try to lecture me on the importance of roofs


Where ? When ?



> go learn the history of roofed stadiums. Why do some have them and some dont? Why dont american stadiums have them?


I know the history of stadium and roofs (American ones and European ones), since many years. Besides you already told it in many posts !



> But i doubt you've ever thought of them.


This is arrogant !


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

parcdesprinces said:


> I'd already understood ! I said for WC you need covered stadiums.......
> If you don't cover some stadiums I won't understand why you will host WC !


No, you need covered sections for the media and such. Theres a difference.



> ????
> 
> Nothing against USA I'd travelled there many times, for visiting some friends (who are open-minded), I saw some football, baseball & soccer games in your stadiums and I loved it.
> I already told you in another thread, you are welcome in Europe....


the comments about the names we give our champions were completely irrelevant. again, if you have a problem with that, go to another thread.



> Where ? When ?





parcdesprinces said:


> I'd already understood ! I said for WC you need covered stadiums.......
> If you don't cover some stadiums I won't understand why you will host WC !


Also, as I said before, mattwinter was not only talking about stadiums with roofs regarding the WC. He was talking about all stadiums. Clearly he has much to learn.



> This is arrogant !


No, its not. If you had thought of those reasons, you would know what Im talking about.


----------



## maciej_sl (Apr 9, 2009)

I am not expecting US to get the 2018 Cup. Germany had to wait 32 years for their second tournament, France waited 60 years, Italy waited 56, and Brazil 64. Only Mexico had a 16 year break, but soccer was and is much more popular there than in the States. Perhaps the US will get 2022 tournament, but the competition is very strong. In any case, when are they announcing the hosts?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

maciej_sl said:


> I am not expecting US to get the 2018 Cup. Germany had to wait 32 years for their second tournament, France waited 60 years, Italy waited 56, and Brazil 64. Only Mexico had a 16 year break, but soccer was and is much more popular there than in the States. Perhaps the US will get 2022 tournament, but the competition is very strong. In any case, when are they announcing the hosts?


Most don't think the US will host in 2018, but rather are one of the favorites for 2022. The hosts for both will be announced in December 2010.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Topher51 said:


> What difference does it make if the stands are covered? No matter what the weather is (rain, snow, sun, wind), are you saying that soccer fans can't be out in the same elements that the players are for 90+ minutes? I've gone to DC United matches and left as wet as if I had jumped in the Potomac River. It didn't do anything to ruin the experience.
> 
> If we get the World Cup, I highly doubt that anyone who goes to these games will be worrying about if they get a sunburn either.


Hot showers and other comforts are awaiting the players right after the game. Fans, however, walk home without such treatment and wait for minutes in draughty stations. You don't support your team by getting wet and catching a cold. A simply roof can keep thousands of supporters dry and most importantly keep the noise where it belongs.

Anyway, the required roof on main stands of World Cup stadiums isn't meant to cover supporters. This roof is needed to keep the staff and equipment of hundreds of TV stations dry and working.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Hot shower and other comforts are awaiting the players right after the game. Fans, however, walk home without such treatment and wait for minutes in draughty stations. You don't support your team by getting wet and catching a cold. A simply roof can keep thousands of supporters dry and most importantly keep the noise where it belongs.
> 
> Anyway, the required roof on main stands of World Cup stadiums isn't meant to cover supporters. This roof is needed to keep the staff and equipment of hundreds of TV stations dry and working.


If we dont care about getting wet then what does it matter?


----------



## salaverryo (Apr 3, 2008)

Europeans are so obsessed about roofed stadiums! :weird:


----------



## salaverryo (Apr 3, 2008)

ormey said:


> why should america as a nation get the world cup again so soon ?


Why not? Mexico got it twice within a span of 16 years.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

salaverryo said:


> Why not? Mexico got it twice within a span of 16 years.


Mexico in 1986 isn't a good example to use because they were replacement hosts. Columbia was supposed to host, but didn't have the money to build to FIFA's requirements so they had to change it. It wasn't as if Mexico was the first choice.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

berkshire royal said:


> ^^
> I have no doubt that they can handle the crowds the security and infrastructure would be top notch but I think the atmosphere would be rubbish.
> 
> *We all know the US suspects soccer fans of being hooligans* and it's not exactly the best kept secret that soccer isn't big in America the reality is I don't see people from Chicago enjoy having 40,000 English, Argentinian, Mexican, German etc etc fans drinking and singing until the early hours of the morning and I'm thinking as a fan who is planning to go to 2014 and went to the fan parks in 2006 that the experience wouldn't be the same in the US as it would be in England, Australia, Spain etc. The world cup is a whole lot more then the games at the stadiums and housing a few thousand fans, every game is like the super bowl and I'm sorry if you think that is a hugely over stated it is a fact the whole thing is miles bigger then what it was in 1994 and thousands upon thousands of fans from all over the world go to the thing.


Yes we think soccer fans are hooligans. That's exactly it and that's why soccer has grown very quickly lately. There is a portion of Americans who think soccer fans are hooligans, but it doesn't even approach the majority. Not many people believe such a thing.

You're just making it more and more obvious that you are clueless about the American culture and population. This country has hosted Olympics where people inundated a city and stayed up all hours of the night. It's not uncommon for people to stay up all hours of the night following big wins by teams in the NFL, NBA, NHL or MLB. You clearly don't know much about this country. There are concerns about the bid, but you haven't touched on one yet. 

You say the Cup has gotten much bigger than it was in 1994. The Cup is bigger outside of the stadiums with all of the different ways to watch matches and screens and such, but the 1994 World Cup drew more people than the 2006 Cup so handling the people inside the stadium and inundating the cities won't be an issue.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

en1044 said:


> You clearly dont know americans. Dont have that typical "Americans are intolerant of other people" mentality, it just isnt true. We would have no problem with all kinds of people in our cities. We dont have problems with other people.
> 
> Remember, the US is among the most ethnically diverse countries in the world.


It's not meant as a slur to America it is just my point on what I find to be the only negative of this bid other then the fact that the US hosted only a short while ago, would you prefer I come up with the BS about stadiums not having roof as to why the US shouldn’t get a World Cup after all every bid has it’s weakness and I am just picking out the weakness I see. 

What I am saying is based upon what I have seen from the US media and from what a number of Americans have told me about how the sport is represented in the US and also the fact that it is a very different crowd then what you get at an Olympics, Super Bowl and that isn't a slur on any of them all sporting events have different crowds. Although I have no doubt that a large amount of the media and public in general would be psyched about hosting such a huge prestigious event, you would also have that section of people that would not be so enthusiastic. I am certain that there would be parts of the American media spinning how bad the sport was, how all these fans are potential hooligans rather then what they should be seen as, a fan who is their to have a good time and enjoy the party and the sport. When I went to Germany everyone was having a good time everyone was enjoying the games on the screens the fan parks were well run, the locals we’re extremely friendly and welcoming and the security was relaxed. Everyone knows how strict security is in the US and that doesn’t provide for such a welcoming feel.



nomarandlee said:


> Early morning hours? You are right, Chicagoans would be disappointed, in the fact that the imports couldn't keep up and match the enthusiasm. The Chicago Cubs provide the city an atmosphere 81 times per year, trust me the city (along with most major U.S. cities) would not be fazed.


Chicago was a poor example I was just picking it out of the hat in all honesty and wasn’t picking it out for any specific reason other then that. But to be honest it’s hard to compare hosting 81 Cubs games a year to having thousands of tourists coming over the 3 /4 games.



Livno80101 said:


> area you normal? what benelux? it's the worst of bids after qatar's
> 
> they dont have cities big enough to host world cup, there are only four cities suitable for world cup (Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Eindhoven in NED and Bruxelles in Belgium)
> 
> all other cities are like villages for cities like Newcastle or Sheffield or some other city from England or even Russia (like Tomsk, Samara, Kazan). so i'd like England or Russia for '18 and Australia or USA for '22


My reason is that those regions have a huge affinity and tradition within the game, they have some very ambitious stadium proposals on the table, their geographical location and high quality infrastructure makes it an easier location to get too, their security would be better and I think it would be a safer more fun World Cup. Obviously my preference would be for England to get the shout but if not then it should go to Spain or the Benelux. I would also have it as a toss up between the US and Australia for the other slot.


----------



## Kapow32 (Jan 26, 2009)

people here act like all americans are rascist, reactionary, isolationist whackjobs. It drives me nuts. The cities that would host a world cup are all very diverse, cosmopolitan areas, where people are used to seeing foreigners on a daily basis. I think the vast majority of people in these cities would enjoy seeing herds of brazilians, or croatians, or italians singing their songs and waving their flags in the streets. And once again look at world cup 94, Americans did not have a problem with foreign visitors.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> Yes we think soccer fans are hooligans. That's exactly it and that's why soccer has grown very quickly lately. There is a portion of Americans who think soccer fans are hooligans, but it doesn't even approach the majority. Not many people believe such a thing.
> 
> You're just making it more and more obvious that you are clueless about the American culture and population. This country has hosted Olympics where people inundated a city and stayed up all hours of the night. It's not uncommon for people to stay up all hours of the night following big wins by teams in the NFL, NBA, NHL or MLB. You clearly don't know much about this country. There are concerns about the bid, but you haven't touched on one yet.
> 
> You say the Cup has gotten much bigger than it was in 1994. The Cup is bigger outside of the stadiums with all of the different ways to watch matches and screens and such, but the 1994 World Cup drew more people than the 2006 Cup so handling the people inside the stadium and inundating the cities won't be an issue.


I'm not saying that the majority thinks fans are hooligans. I'm putting it in a worst case scenario as such because a minority can sometime be much louder and more forceful then the majority and if that we’re to happen it would not make for a fun event. No one knows how a World Cup would be like until it comes around I’m still not sure what to expect from South Africa next year let alone from a proposed US bid in 10+ years. As I said the crowds you get at a World Cup are very different to an Olympics, Super Bowl, World Series etc. 

Although 1994 got the largest attendances there wasn't much in terms of travelling fans and I can guarantee that more fans traveled to Germany then to the US in 1994. The 2018/2022 would have 10 times as many travelling fans if not more and I am certain that the attendance record would be shattered.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

berkshire royal said:


> I'm not saying that the majority thinks fans are hooligans. I'm putting it in a worst case scenario as such because a minority can sometime be much louder and more forceful then the majority and if that we’re to happen it would not make for a fun event. No one knows how a World Cup would be like until it comes around I’m still not sure what to expect from South Africa next year let alone from a proposed US bid in 10+ years. As I said the crowds you get at a World Cup are very different to an Olympics, Super Bowl, World Series etc.
> 
> Although 1994 got the largest attendances there wasn't much in terms of travelling fans and I can guarantee that more fans traveled to Germany then to the US in 1994. The 2018/2022 would have 10 times as many travelling fans if not more and I am certain that the attendance record would be shattered.


You may want to start choosing your words more carefully then because "we all know the US suspects soccer fans of being hooligans" sure comes off like the majority of US people believe such a thing. 

There likely won't be as large of a traveling contingent for a WC here as there was in Germany. There will likely always be more travelers for a WC in Europe as opposed to anywhere else. The attendance record definitely will be shattered if the US hosts another WC, but like in 1994, you will see a lot of locals there because of the composition of the US population. You underestimate the size of the US and the distance between many cities here. 

Crowds for a WC are different than other events, but it's not as if there are no similarities. I was in Germany for 2006 and I've been in different cities here in the US and I can assure you that this country would have no issue with the fans here. In major cities, the populations are so diverse that it's not an issue welcoming so many people from different countries (not to mention major cities welcome hundreds of thousands of tourists at other times). In the smaller cities, they have hosted major events, some of which result in over 100,000 people visiting the city. Hosting the numbers isn't an issue and accepting the cultures and behavior of the different people would not be an issue at all. Take into account that it would be a summer tournament and it's be fine.

All you're doing is throwing out "issues" that are baseless and show a lack of understanding for this country. As I said earlier, there are concerns about the US bid, but you haven't addressed a single one.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> You may want to start choosing your words more carefully then because "we all know the US suspects soccer fans of being hooligans" sure comes off like the majority of US people believe such a thing.
> 
> There likely won't be as large of a traveling contingent for a WC here as there was in Germany. There will likely always be more travelers for a WC in Europe as opposed to anywhere else. The attendance record definitely will be shattered if the US hosts another WC, but like in 1994, you will see a lot of locals there because of the composition of the US population. You underestimate the size of the US and the distance between many cities here.
> 
> ...


I would be willing to bet that the next World Cup in the U.S. will see sellouts at every game. This is largely assuming the cities chosen are those with large metro areas, a decent to large foreign population and easy access for fans. (airports with non-stop flights to Europe, South America, etc.)

The U.S. is home to massive local populations of Europeans that all came out to the matches (Did anyone happen to attend the Italy-Bulgaria match at Giants Stadium? Place was LOUD). 

I read somewhere that about 18,000 English fans traveled to the Cup in South Korea/Japan which is crazy considering the distance and expense.

If the current currency situation does not change that much in 13 years, then I would expect thousands of Germans, Spaniards, English, Italians, Russians, etc. to come to America to cheer their teams on.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

For our foreign friends here, let me offer up some facts.

Fact - the anti soccer xenophobia that swept the nation years ago is not as big as 3 or 4 jerks in the media make it out to be. ESPN has a vested interest in growing soccer here, and people follow whatever ESPN tells them to do here.

Fact - every stadium would be sold out, and every host city would be more than capable of putting on a good show for the traveling fans.

Fact - there is no denying that WC parties and gatherings would be different in the states as opposed to Europe. But at the same time, that would not be discouraged. It would just be different.

Fact - Our USSF doesn't need to build 1 stadium for the WC. Every NFL team would love to host a WC game at their stadium, and would make any necessary rennovations or upgrades.

Fact - Our airports and hotels would be more than capable of hosting our vistors. Our intra-city rail networks are for the most part very good. Our inter-city rail networks SUCK and we are ASHAMED of how bad it is compared to Europe. 

need anything else?


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

massp88 said:


> So you honestly believe that Detroit will be able to fill 2 stadiums at one time? I highly doubt it, even with Toronto being a short drive away. Look at the Makeup of the Metro Boston and Metro Atlanta areas. The metro Boston area is more diverse and Boston is a better sports supporting city than is Atlanta.
> 
> Chicago will be a host, therefore your idea that people will drive down from there to go to Indianapolis is moot. Indianapolis has a small metro area, a small foreign population and is not a city that supports their sports teams that well when compared to other cities (Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Dallas, etc)
> 
> Flat out, it will be highly unlikely that we will see St. Louis, San Antonio, Indianapolis host. Atlanta has a chance, but I would put it behind many other cities to host.


I have to disagree with all this. I think you are seriously writing off the entire middle of the country as poor sports fans. Obviously, the bigger cities would be more prime locations for games---but lets be honest. New York, Boston, Philly, etc. Not a single one of these cities are proven soccer markets. They might have slightly more international populations, but I don't think that even matters that much anymore. Even if games were held at Lambeau Field or in Lincoln, Nebraska---these games will sell out. People from Brazil, Germany, England, and Argentina will make their ways to these cities.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

berkshire royal said:


> ^^
> I have no doubt that they can handle the crowds the security and infrastructure would be top notch but I think the atmosphere would be rubbish.
> 
> We all know the US suspects soccer fans of being hooligans and it's not exactly the best kept secret that soccer isn't big in America the reality is I don't see people from Chicago enjoy having 40,000 English, Argentinian, Mexican, German etc etc fans drinking and singing until the early hours of the morning and I'm thinking as a fan who is planning to go to 2014 and went to the fan parks in 2006 that the experience wouldn't be the same in the US as it would be in England, Australia, Spain etc. The world cup is a whole lot more then the games at the stadiums and housing a few thousand fans, every game is like the super bowl and I'm sorry if you think that is a hugely over stated it is a fact the whole thing is miles bigger then what it was in 1994 and thousands upon thousands of fans from all over the world go to the thing.


Like mass, I really think you are writing off the U.S. in a big way. First off, American cities would be *delighted* to have 40,000 people from _anywhere_ spending money and giving their city international publicity. Drunken singing is not really a concern--especially in sports-rich, diverse cities like Chicago. I don't know why the U.S. gets these negative perception when it comes to sporting passion.

Not to get too offtopic, but why Australia? I can understand Spain or England---but Australia is probally a lesser soccer nation then the U.S. I can't possibly understand how it would be any better then a U.S. W.C.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

El Mariachi said:


> I have to disagree with all this. I think you are seriously writing off the entire middle of the country as poor sports fans. Obviously, the bigger cities would be more prime locations for games---but lets be honest. New York, Boston, Philly, etc. Not a single one of these cities are proven soccer markets. They might have slightly more international populations, but I don't think that even matters that much anymore. Even if games were held at Lambeau Field or in Lincoln, Nebraska---these games will sell out. People from Brazil, Germany, England, and Argentina will make their ways to these cities.


My point is this, a city like Chicago, aside from the large metro area and diverse population, is easily accessed by people from Europe, Asia and South America via non-stop flights. A city like Green Bay, Wisconsin is not. 

I am sorry, but a city like San Antonio or Indianapolis is going to be very low on the list of cities that get to host the games. As far as Boston, New York and Philadelphia not being proven soccer markets, you are wrong in this regard. Both Boston (Foxboro) and New York are solid market for the MLS with each team averaging solid attendance figures. Both cities also have a long track record for hosting World Cup qualifiers and friendly matches with good attendance. 

Since the field has expanded by 8 teams since 1994, the U.S. would really only need 2 more venues, maybe 3. So besides the cities that hosted last time, I could see Philadelphia and Houston as the 2 most obvious choices. 

What's interesting to point out is that every city that hosted in 1994, will have a new venue by the time 2022 rolls around.


----------



## skaP187 (Jan 10, 2006)

Look let´s be hounest. The only reason why the USA should not be given a WC is that they´ve allready had one in ´94.
For the rest it´s a lot of ....
To me that´s a very important reason though.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Livno80101 said:


> what benelux? it's the worst of bids after qatar's
> 
> they dont have cities big enough to host world cup, there are only four cities suitable for world cup (Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Eindhoven in NED and Bruxelles in Belgium)
> 
> all other cities are like villages for cities like Newcastle or Sheffield or some other city from England or even Russia (like Tomsk, Samara, Kazan). so i'd like England or Russia for '18 and Australia or USA for '22


Remember, France 98 with Lens (35,000 inhabitants) and Germany 2006 with Kaiserslautern (90,000 inhabitants), anyway Bene(lux) cities are bigger than you are saying and they can host with two stadiums in the two biggest cities.

For International fans the most important is downtown and many American cities have a very small downtown as I saw. 



massp88 said:


> My point is this, a city like Chicago, aside from the large metro area and diverse population, is easily accessed by people from Europe, Asia and South America via non-stop flights. A city like Green Bay, Wisconsin is not.


Do you really think there is non-stop flights between Montpellier or Nantes (France 98) and Asia or South America (same for Hannover or Leipzig, Germany 2006) ??


----------



## miguelon (Oct 25, 2006)

the US has no doubt the capacity to put at least 10 cities, that are capable of hosting WC games, they have the cities, hotels, airpots, etc...

my only concern is that the US security forces just dont have criteria, I mean, If police in the US sees a bunch of people in the street, the last thing they think is that they are celebrating a win, more likely the officers will report a riot, and disperse the crowd and arrest a couple of guys.

On the other hand because of inmigration and geografical position, my team Mexico will be the de facto local team. similar situation with many latinamerican countries.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

Livno80101 said:


> area you normal? what benelux? it's the worst of bids after qatar's
> 
> they dont have cities big enough to host world cup, there are only four cities suitable for world cup (Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Eindhoven in NED and Bruxelles in Belgium)
> 
> all other cities are like villages for cities like Newcastle or Sheffield or some other city from England or even Russia (like Tomsk, Samara, Kazan). so i'd like England or Russia for '18 and Australia or USA for '22


What are you talking about? Villages hno:

- Belgium and the Netherlands are among the most densily populated countries in the world. There are plenty of cities with 100,000-500,000 inhabitants, a few with 500,000-1,000,000 and Brussels with over a million. Plus you have the Randstad around Amsterdam. Especially in Flanders and Holland those cities are very well connected by railways and highways. Enough airports to serve the area. The small distances are an extra advantage, so is the common language (out of the 25 million inhabitants in the Benelux, 20 million speak Dutch; plus many speak a second and third language, English or French; in the touristic cities even more).
- Do not compare a smaller city in Belgium or the Netherlands with one in most countries. A lot of our cities are relatively wealthy, attract a lot of tourists, have important seaports, plenty of hotels, an attractive historic city center.
- Football has been around here since the second half of the 19th century. You won't find many countries in the world that are that small but have achieved so well in international tournaments.
- Only four cities big enough? You are probably talking about the current stadiums. But even then I have to disagree, since the Philips Stadium isn't big enough to host WC matches. And the stadium in Brussels isn't suitable in its current state, it would need major renovations (especially more comfort, it doesn't have any skyboxes or business seats). But we can certainly build those stadiums needed.
If you are talking about city size, you forgot Gent, Antwerpen (definitely bigger than Eindhoven!), Liège, Charleroi and many others (Den Haag, Utrecht...). If you are talking about top teams and their potential to draw big crowds, you forgot Brugge, Standard, Genk, Heerenveen and a few more in the Netherlands.

So, really, I don't see your point!


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

skaP187 said:


> Look let´s be hounest. The only reason why the USA should not be given a WC is that they´ve allready had one in ´94.
> For the rest it´s a lot of ....
> To me that´s a very important reason though.


The game should be spread out. As much as I would love for the Cup to come back here as soon as possible, I would like to see 2018 England, 2022 Australia, 2026 USA.



parcdesprinces said:


> Remember, France 98 with Lens (35,000 inhabitants) and Germany 2006 with Kaiserslautern (90,000 inhabitants), anyway Bene(lux) cities are bigger than you are saying and they can host with two stadiums in the two biggest cities.
> 
> For International fans the most important is downtown and many American cities have a very small downtown as I saw.
> 
> ...


Nope, nor did I say there were. To further explain my point, if there are cities that have the air service to major cities on other continents, then those are the better options. The U.S. has over 20 cities with non-stop service to at least 1 city in Europe. No other country can claim that. Of course in 17 years I am sure lower tier U.S. cities, such as San Antonio, St. Louis, Indianapolis, etc. will have non-stop service. 


What's wrong with Belgium and Holland hosting? Did you happen to see the 2000 Euro? It was an awesome tournament.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

nyrmetros said:


> For our foreign friends here, let me offer up some facts.
> 
> Fact - the anti soccer xenophobia that swept the nation years ago is not as big as 3 or 4 jerks in the media make it out to be. ESPN has a vested interest in growing soccer here, and people follow whatever ESPN tells them to do here.
> 
> ...


I'm sure you as a Metrostars fan will have to agree with me on this:

Fire the current Giants Stadium security staff because they DO think all soccer fans are hooligans...even 5'4" female fans.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

Bobby3 said:


> I'm sure you as a Metrostars fan will have to agree with me on this:
> 
> Fire the current Giants Stadium security staff because they DO think all soccer fans are hooligans...even 5'4" female fans.


I would go as far as saying that the Giants Stadium security and NJSEA security in general are fascists.


----------



## hingus2000 (Apr 17, 2009)

A lot has been said about 94 being the best attended, and most profitable WC ever.

But I think a lot of people are missing the point. To those of us passionate about football (soccer), the World Cup isn't about the profitibility for the host nation or FIFA, nor is it that a certain country managed to have the biggest stadiums and hence the biggest attendances.

It is about the overall perception, and experience. And the fact is, of the modern games, USA 94 isn't perceived as a particularly successful competition outside of North America.

Everything that Germany 06 had, I can't see USA 18/22 having. And that is no slight on USA as a nation whatsoever, I love the USA, but when it comes to football, it just isn't the same.


----------



## SutroTower (Jun 25, 2008)

^^some how you're right..
Korea/Japan '02 wasn't a very 'memorable' WC like France 98 or Germany 06..due to the lack of football tradition,distance,local time,(damn,those matches at 3am..one have to go to work!)

but over all,USA is the best bid to host any big sport tournament,thanks to the big infraestructure and media.
things like tradition and 'spirit'(wich the US soccer doesnt have and is the main debate here) are brought to the WC by the real footballer countries national teams and fans..


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ it was only the best attended because they had bigger stadiums, and it was *a novelty to americans!* 

I agree that germany has set the benchmark which all future tournaments must follow


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

hingus2000 said:


> If I am wrong tell me, but there can't be too many team sports in which the US regularly compete internationally? (apart from soccer)
> 
> Australia is constantly playing Rugby Union, Rugby League, Cricket etc against other nations, and has held World Cups in all those events.
> 
> I can't see the US getting a World Cup before they give Australia a chance.


Yes, basketball and soccer. Baseball this year as well. Multiple olympics and tons of international conventions every year.

We're pretty good at this whole "international" thing.


----------



## brummad (Nov 20, 2002)

a purile and immature comment i know but all i can think about when combining the USA and WC is Diana Ross and the exploding goal posts....now before you all accuse me of bashing, I love the US but if i had the vote for 2022 it would be Oz


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

I guess I am just not following. Australia would be better because it hosts _cricket_ and _rugby_ events? Don't see how this all correlates into Oz giving us a better W.C. Not saying that I have anything against Australia hosting this particular event. Its not like we are going to lose sleep, like the French people who wept after not getting the 2012 Olympics!

But personally, I just think people have little biases against the U.S. that go into these things.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

I have decided to leave commenting on this subject after I upset a few people, which wasn't my intention in any way. But I will try and make my point again but put it more subjectively and thought out manner. Let's not get this wrong I personally believe the 2018 World Cup should go to England and 2022 is a toss up between the US and Australia. 

The reason that I believe that Australia deserve to be held in the same breath as a US bid is because it represents a new place for the World Cup to go unlike the US bid. And because they have a terrific record of hosting international tournaments their Olympics was among the best of all time, the Rugby World Cup was very well run and the Commonwealth Games we’re excellent. So for me it is a tough call and like I said it is a toss-up between the US and Australia both have the potential to host an excellent world cup.

There are plenty of plusses to a US world cup and I am sure I do not need to go in to depth about them as I am sure you are aware of them.

I don't have any major concerns of a World Cup in the US only minor ones. My first potential problem is that the US is a huge country and that will involve careful management of where the games will be played because the last thing you want is for a team to be travelling all across the US every few days. This is an obvious problem because it isn't good for the team to be flying around all the time it isn't good for preparation and is crap for conditioning, but more importantly it is terrible for fans it isn't cheap to be flying around a country of the US size and it runis the whole World Cup experience. This can be counteracted easily by making sure that teams don't leave a certain area of the country but at the last world cup they had teams moving all over the country and this was terrible planning simply put this cannot happen again. 

My second one is that the US doesn't have much experience dealing with the interntaional football crowd. Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that the fans will look to destroy the cities and I’m not saying the US police force and people will suspect all of them of being like that. But like has been pointed out a number of times on this forum there are huge differences between US sport fans and soccer fans. It is one thing dealing with a concert crowd where is a similar crowd or the Super Bowl but it's a completely different thing dealing with dozens of different nationalities that have very different cultures and not just dealing with it for a one off weekend but for potentially a month. The fact is soccer fans may come across as being intimidating to people not familiar with that crowd we are talking about people that will be drinking in the centre of your cities, chanting (and not in a quiet friendly manor) swearing and to some that may seem intimidating. Now this is where it goes two ways will the US police force just be casual observers making sure no one goes to far, or will they see this as going to far and kick up a fuss and even arrest people which wouldn't be good for obvious reasons. Also will people in the US cities feel completely comfortable by the invasion of their cities? I hope that explained it a bit better then last time and I am NOT saying people in the US are xenophobic, racist or anything along those lines. I am sure they will be very hands on hosts and the majority will probably really enjoy the whole experience but it’s the minority and that one moment of miss understanding that I am worried about if you know what I mean.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

brummad said:


> a purile and immature comment i know but all i can think about when combining the USA and WC is Diana Ross and the exploding goal posts....now before you all accuse me of bashing, I love the US but if i had the vote for 2022 it would be Oz


That has to be among the most painful things I have ever seen at a World Cup :lol:


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

I can understand that Australia should be included in the argument but i dont see how the US can be criticized so much for its ability to host the cup when its already done it before.


----------



## berkshire royal (Jun 11, 2008)

^^
I'm not criticising the US ability to host the World Cup. I think the US could put on a great show but purely because the Australians haven't hosted a World Cup coupled with the fact they also have great experience of hosting international sporting events makes them an equal to a US bid in my eyes.

If the US hadn't hosted before or had in the 70s or earlier instead of the 90s I would be screaming for the US to get it because like I said my worries are only minor ones and they are far outweighed by plusses but I don't see why the US should get ahead of other nations that haven't hosted a World Cup before especially seeing as they have potentially a very good bid.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

hingus2000 said:


> If I am wrong tell me, but there can't be too many team sports in which the US regularly compete internationally? (apart from soccer)


Soccer, basketball ad hockey (which some of these rubes forgot).


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

The yanks are also 2nd in the world in Volleyball


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

I cant believe there was discussion about USA not selling out games a few pages back!

94 was the highest attended WC EVER! In 28 years the population of USA would grow substantially so I cant see how there would be problems in 2022. The country has 300 million people! So many big cities and so many different nationalities to support teams. 

New York and that tri state area would probably have enough Ghanaans and Jamaicans to sell out stadiums in which those countries played. Toronto (just across the border) has a huge amount of 2nd generation Italians. Chicago - Poland etc etc etc.

South America is also very close for international visitors. 
The only problem I see, is how difficult it is to gain entry into USA, even for a harmless Australian like me. I cant see that changing any time soon, so visitors from certain countries (South Americans would be included) may have problems gaining entry.
Still I think there is enough domestic support to fill stadiums, just being an international visitor would probably be a bitch.


But yeah - 
Enlgand/Benelux 2018 !
Australia 2022 !!!!!
USA 2026 !


----------



## Krzycho (Feb 21, 2004)

Why the most of US stadiums has no roof?


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

lolol

Go back a few pages to find your answer


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Krzycho said:


> Why the most of US stadiums has no roof?


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Im just gonna bite my tongue on this one.

Anyone else wanna take it?


----------



## Krzycho (Feb 21, 2004)

woozoo said:


> lolol
> 
> Go back a few pages to find your answer


I'am to lazy, just answer me please


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)




----------



## Krzycho (Feb 21, 2004)

^^
You are right, something like this


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Krzycho said:


> I'am to lazy, just answer me please


OK, If you truly dont want to look, Ill answer your question. Please just take it for what it is ok. I dont want this to turn into something big.

We dont like roofs because:

A. It does not, has not, nor ever will rain enough in the United States to create the need for a roof. There are roofs in the Northwestern US, thats about it. Because the original intent of roofs was to keep people dry, you can see why we have no roof tradition.

B. We developed our own sports traditions apart from the rest of the world, we dont want to be like everyone else. 

C. It is not a strictly American thing. The majority of stadiums in North and South America tend to be roofless. Not a strong European influence, and again, it doesnt rain.


----------



## Krzycho (Feb 21, 2004)

en1044 said:


> OK, If you truly dont want to look, Ill answer your question. Please just take it for what it is ok. I dont want this to turn into something big.
> 
> We dont like roofs because:
> 
> ...


Thank You for answer, but if ever will rain enough in the United States to create the need for a roof, so why the Seattle's stadium is not tottaly covered?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Krzycho said:


> Thank You for answer, but if ever will rain enough in the United States to create the need for a roof, so why the Seattle's stadium is not tottaly covered?


Because thats about as much roof as we'll put on a stadium. They're lucky they got that much. 

Seattle's roof may also have one of the greatest acoustic designs in the world.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Krzycho said:


> Thank You for answer, but if ever will rain enough in the United States to create the need for a roof, so why the Seattle's stadium is not tottaly covered?


Paul Allen, the Seattle owner, wanted the stadium to be as loud as possible and his studies during the design process found that the roof they have would make it louder on the field than a full roof.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

en1044 said:


> Seattle's roof may also have one of the greatest acoustic designs in the world.


You certainly don't know the acoustic of the Parc des Princes in Paris with its roof slope design which goes down over the stands.......


----------



## Svempa99 (Jun 30, 2004)

parcdesprinces said:


> You certainly don't know the acoustic of the Parc des Princes in Paris with its roof slope design which goes down over the stands.......


This is an interesting question. My guess is that the design on Parc des Princes makes the sound from the crowd reflect back at them, so what they will hear is their own cheers rather than the cheers from the other side of the stadium. The level in decibels will be high but it's not certain that it makes the best athmospere, at least I appreciate the "ambient buzz". 

The Globe Arena in Stockholm is known for the poor athmosphere, there the sound disappears right up into the sphere and it doesn't come down. A lower roof would have been more preferable for acoustic reasons. The optimum inclination, I don't know. But I assume that it's also helpful if there is a vertical wall between the crowd and the roof that will echo the sound back and forth.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

parcdesprinces said:


> You certainly don't know the acoustic of the Parc des Princes in Paris with its roof slope design which goes down over the stands.......


Well first off, i never said that Seattle had the loudest. However, i can probably guarantee you that Qwest Field in Seattle is better engineered to reflect sound than Parc des Princes is.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Svempa99 said:


> This is an interesting question. *My guess is that the design on Parc des Princes makes the sound from the crowd reflect back at them, so what they will hear is their own cheers rather than the cheers from the other side of the stadium.* The level in decibels will be high but it's not certain that it makes the best athmospere, at least I appreciate the "ambient buzz".


In fact the sound is reflected toward the center of the pitch, which makes it more intimidating and the noise stays inside the stadium...




en1044 said:


> Well first off, i never said that Seattle had the loudest. However, i can probably guarantee you that Qwest Field in Seattle is better engineered to reflect sound than Parc des Princes is.


This stadium received international prices for its desing in the 70's (Time magazine said it has to be considerated as to be one of the most important works for its architectural quality). It begins to be old now but it's still used as a model for its acoustic design for new stadiums like the future Lyon Stadium designed by Populous formerly "HOK Sports".

*OL Land:*










*Parc des Princes:*


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

parcdesprinces said:


> In fact the sound is reflected toward the center of the pitch, which makes it more intimidating and the noise stays inside the stadium...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Im sure it was great, but that was the 70s.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Krzycho said:


> Why the most of US stadiums has no roof?


Well, there is enough rain and contrary to the belief of some forum posters Americans do like roofs. It must be the kind of games American like to play and watch that reduces the need of roofs.

The most attended game in the USA is baseball. This game isn't played in rain. So there's very little need for shelter. And if I'm not completely wrong some if not all American motor race series stop or suspend their races during rain as well.

The next best attended games are basketball and icehockey which are play indoor. So their venues are fully covered.

That leaves gridiron to be the only major sport in north America that is played in rain. A gridiron season, however, is rather short. An NFL team plays hardly more than 8 games at home. The season for college teams is similar. That raises the question whether it is economical to erect a roof for such a small number of games.
In the past it wasn't considered to be necessary. Partly because of the costs partly because of the baseball tradition I suppose.
Since the 1970s some NFL franchises started to improve conditions for their customers by constructing covered stadiums. Still, the majority of seats in NFL venues are uncovered. The demand for ticket is high and the games get sold out in any case. That makes roofs dispensable for most franchises.
But once a roof makes a difference in selling tickets the remaining open stands will disappear.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

wrong, owners are covering seats(AND THE FIELD, why is this ignored!!!!) because they want the Superbowl and Final Four. No more, no less.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

rantanamo said:


> wrong, owners are covering seats(AND THE FIELD, why is this ignored!!!!) because they want the Superbowl and Final Four. No more, no less.


Bollocks. Venues in the south host the Super Bowl even without a roof. That one game wouldn't pay for this roof structure anyway.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Bollocks. Venues in the south host the Super Bowl even without a roof. That one game wouldn't pay for this roof structure anyway.


There are weather requirements to host a Super Bowl. The cities in the south fulfill those requirements and have no need for a roof, but stadiums in place such as Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, etc. don't so they need a dome or retractable roof to be able to host a Super Bowl. The reason stadiums are being built with roofs more and more now is to host multiple events that require roofs. Events such as the Final Four, conventions, expos, etc.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

ryebreadraz said:


> There are weather requirements to host a Super Bowl. The cities in the south fulfill those requirements and have no need for a roof, but stadiums in place such as Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, etc. don't so they need a dome or retractable roof to be able to host a Super Bowl. The reason stadiums are being built with roofs more and more now is to host multiple events that require roofs. Events such as the Final Four, conventions, expos, etc.


thank you kindly


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> There are weather requirements to host a Super Bowl. The cities in the south fulfill those requirements and have no need for a roof, but stadiums in place such as Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, etc. don't so they need a dome or retractable roof to be able to host a Super Bowl. The reason stadiums are being built with roofs more and more now is to host multiple events that require roofs. Events such as the Final Four, conventions, expos, etc.


Oh, all of a sudden there weather requirements. And you think you can get away with open stadiums for a World Cup game when even the Super Bowl has obligations.

Beside that where do you draw the line that defines the south of the USA when it doesn't include Dallas and Houston?


----------



## Basel_CH (Jan 7, 2006)

ryebreadraz said:


> There are weather requirements to host a Super Bowl. *The cities in the south fulfill those requirements and have no need for a roof, but stadiums in place such as Detroit, Dallas, Houston, Indianapolis, etc. don't so they need a dome or retractable roof to be able to host a Super Bowl.* The reason stadiums are being built with roofs more and more now is to host multiple events that require roofs. Events such as the Final Four, conventions, expos, etc.


That are equal conditions for every town to hold a Superbowl, very fair-minded!! :lol::nuts:hno:


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Oh, all of a sudden there weather requirements. And you think you can get away with open stadiums for a World Cup game when even the Super Bowl has obligations.
> 
> Beside that where do you draw the line that defines the south of the USA when it doesn't include Dallas and Houston?


The difference is when the Super Bowl and World Cup are played. End of January or beginning of February is far different than mid summer. The Super Bowl requires that the average temperature in early February be 50 F for a city to host, but really asks that it be 60 F. In mid summer, every city in the running to host a WC match has an average temperature over that threshold. If the WC were held in February, you'd have an argument.

Texas is often considered its own entity or part of the southwest. Most draw the line of the south at Louisiana/Arkansas. 



Basel_CH said:


> That are equal conditions for every town to hold a Superbowl, very fair-minded!! :lol::nuts:hno:


The object of weather requirements or a dome is so weather does not have a significant affect on the outcome of the match. The goal is to have the most even conditions possible so neither team has an advantage.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

name all 53 stadiums that submitted bids to the USSF.


----------



## El Cholo (Jul 19, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> The difference is when the Super Bowl and World Cup are played. End of January or beginning of February is far different than mid summer. The Super Bowl requires that the average temperature in early February be 50 F for a city to host, but really asks that it be 60 F. In mid summer, every city in the running to host a WC match has an average temperature over that threshold. If the WC were held in February, you'd have an argument.
> 
> Texas is often considered its own entity or part of the southwest. Most draw the line of the south at Louisiana/Arkansas.
> 
> ...


Dude, you're too smart & nice to be on skyscrapercity.


----------



## Kapow32 (Jan 26, 2009)

58 venues interested in holding world cup matches in 2018/2022

link: http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_14155776.html

highlights- 
_ * Thirty of the 31 stadiums in the National Football League have confirmed interest. Candlestick Park, home of the San Francisco 49ers, was not listed as a candidate, meaning 100 percent of the NFL stadiums contacted by the USA Bid Committee have confirmed their candidacy.
* More than 20 stadiums have confirmed interest that are either on college campuses or serve as the primary venue for NCAA Division I college football teams.
* Two confirmed stadiums are currently home to Major League Soccer teams in the U.S. – Gillette Stadium (New England Revolution) and Qwest Field (Seattle Sounders).
* All continental United States time zones are represented by stadiums in 28 states and the District of Columbia._

list of stadiums is in the link


----------



## larsul (May 26, 2007)

^^
Here is the list from the webpage:

Metro Market Stadium Location 
YES Atlanta, Ga. Georgia Dome Atlanta, Ga. 
NO Atlanta, Ga. Sanford Stadium Athens, Ga. 
NO Austin, Texas Royal Texas Memorial Stadium Austin, Texas 
YES Baltimore, Md. M&T Bank Stadium Baltimore, Md. 
NO Baton Rouge, La. Tiger Stadium Baton Rouge, La. 
YES Birmingham, Ala. Legion Field Birmingham, Ala. 
NO Birmingham, Ala. Bryant-Denny Stadium Tuscaloosa, Ala. 
YES Boston, Mass. Gillette Stadium Foxborough, Mass. 
YES Buffalo, N.Y. Ralph Wilson Stadium Orchard Park, N.Y. 
YES Cedar Rapids, Iowa Kinnick Stadium Iowa City, Iowa 
YES Champaign, Ill. Memorial Stadium Champaign, Ill. 
YES Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America Stadium Charlotte, N.C. 
YES Chicago, Ill. Soldier Field Chicago, Ill. 
YES Cincinnati, Ohio Paul Brown Stadium Cincinnati, Ohio 
YES Cleveland, Ohio Cleveland Browns Stadium Cleveland, Ohio 
YES Columbia, Mo. Faurot Field Columbia, Mo. 
YES Columbia, S.C. Williams-Brice Stadium Columbia, S.C. 
NO Columbus, Ga. Jordan-Hare Stadium Auburn, Ala. 
YES Columbus, Ohio Ohio Stadium Columbus, Ohio 
YES Dallas, Texas Cotton Bowl Dallas, Texas 
YES Dallas, Texas Dallas Cowboys New Stadium Arlington, Texas 
YES Denver, Colo. Invesco Field Denver, Colo. 
YES Detroit, Mich. University of Michigan Stadium Ann Arbor, Mich. 
YES Detroit, Mich. Ford Field Detroit, Mich. 
NO Detroit, Mich. Spartan Stadium East Lansing, Mich. 
YES Fayetteville, Ark. Reynolds Razorback Stadium Fayetteville, Ark. 
YES Green Bay, Wis. Lambeau Field Green Bay, Wis. 
YES Greenville, S.C. Memorial Stadium Clemson, S.C. 
NO Harrisburg, Pa. Beaver Stadium University Park, Pa. 
YES Houston, Texas Reliant Stadium Houston, Texas 
YES Houston, Texas Rice Stadium Houston, Texas 
NO Houston, Texas Kyle Field College Station, Texas 
YES Indianapolis, Ind. Lucas Oil Stadium Indianapolis, Ind. 
YES Jacksonville, Fla. Jacksonville Municipal Stadium Jacksonville, Fla. 
PENDING Jacksonville, Fla. Ben Hill Griffin Stadium Gainesville, Fla. 
YES Kansas City, Mo. Arrowhead Stadium Kansas City, Mo. 
YES Knoxville, Tenn. Neyland Stadium Knoxville, Tenn. 
YES Lexington, Ky. Commonwealth Stadium Lexington, Ky. 
YES Los Angeles, Calif. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Los Angeles, Calif. 
YES Los Angeles, Calif. Rose Bowl Pasadena, Calif. 
YES Madison, Wis. Camp Randall Stadium Madison, Wis. 
YES Miami, Fla. Dolphin Stadium Miami Gardens, Fla. 
YES Minneapolis, Minn. TCF Bank Stadium Minneapolis, Minn. 
YES Minneapolis, Minn. Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome Minneapolis, Minn. 
YES Nashville, Tenn. LP Field Nashville, Tenn. 
YES New Haven, Conn. Yale Bowl New Haven, Conn. 
YES New Orleans, La. Superdome New Orleans, La. 
YES New York, N.Y. Meadowlands Stadium East Rutherford, N.J. 
PENDING Oklahoma City, Okla. Oklahoma Memorial Stadium Norman, Okla. 
YES Omaha, Neb. Memorial Stadium Lincoln, Neb. 
YES Orlando, Fla. Florida Citrus Bowl Orlando, Fla. 
YES Philadelphia, Pa. Lincoln Financial Field Philadelphia, Pa. 
YES Phoenix, Ariz. University of Phoenix Stadium Glendale, Ariz. 
YES Phoenix, Ariz. Sun Devil Stadium Tempe, Ariz. 
YES Pittsburgh, Pa. Heinz Field Pittsburgh, Pa. 
NO Roanoke, Va. Lane Stadium Blacksburg, Va. 
NO Salt Lake City, Utah LaVell Edwards Stadium Provo, Utah 
YES San Antonio, Texas Alamodome San Antonio, Texas 
YES San Diego, Calif. Qualcomm Stadium San Diego, Calif. 
YES San Fran/Oakland, Calif. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Oakland, Calif. 
YES San Fran/Oakland, Calif. Stanford Stadium Palo Alto, Calif. 
YES San Fran/Oakland, Calif. California Memorial Stadium Berkeley, Calif. 
YES Seattle, Wash. Qwest Field Seattle, Wash. 
YES Seattle, Wash. Husky Stadium Seattle, Wash. 
NO South Bend, Ind. Notre Dame Stadium Notre Dame, Ind. 
YES St. Louis, Mo. Edward Jones Dome St. Louis, Mo. 
YES Tallahassee, Fla. Doak Campbell Stadium Tallahassee, Fla. 
YES Tampa, Fla. Raymond James Stadium Tampa, Fla. 
YES Washington, D.C. RFK Memorial Stadium Washington, D.C. 
YES Washington, D.C. FedEx Field Landover, Md. 
Addition to Original List of Candidates 
YES Las Vegas, Nevada Sports City USA Las Vegas, Nev.

YES Salt Lake City, Utah Rice-Eccles Stadium Salt Lake City


----------



## CofRed (Apr 10, 2009)

I think most of if not all the stadiums mentioned are stadiums that we said.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Are there any pictures of that Vegas stadium? Sounds like one in the works.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> Are there any pictures of that Vegas stadium? Sounds like one in the works.


Nope. They haven't gotten that far yet. They're just discussing the possibility of building one so for the time being, they'd like to be in consideration for a World Cup game in case they go ahead with their maybe stadium.


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

I've been trying to make a list of stadiums in case the USA host another World Cup. Although there is an abundance of big stadiums, the selection is not that easy:
- the pitch dimensions need to be big enough to host FIFA World Cup matches;
- a lot of college stadiums might not do the trick anymore 24-28 years after WC94, unless they get seriously renovated and bleachers are replaced with individual seats;
- do you spread out the tournament across the US? Most modern stadiums are concentrated in the east. During the group stage it would be best to have two or three stadiums relatively close to one another per group. This is not a problem in the north and northeast, but gets harder in the west and central US. On which criteria do you choose host cities? On the basis of the stadium itself, the geographic location, or the qualities of the city?

I had a look at the stadiums posted above and eliminated those with bleachers and the less good looking ones, as well as those with stands that are too shallow and far away from the action (I went for "compact" stadiums, with steeper stands).

A number of stadiums should definitely be in the bid imo:
- New Meadowlands Stadium, NY/NJ















- New Cowboys Stadium, Dallas TX















- Reliant Stadium, Houston TX















- QWest Field, Seattle WA















- Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis IN















- Soldier Field, Chicago IL















- Invesco Field, Denver CO








- M&T Bank Stadium, Baltimore MD









Could also be part of the bid:
- University of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix AZ)















- Gillette Stadium (Boston MA)








- Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte NC)








- FedEx Field (Landover MD) (not a huge fan, but it is still the biggest)








- Ohio: Cleveland Browns Stadium and/or Paul Brown Stadium















- City of Industry Football Stadium (otherwise not a single stadium in the Sunshine State)









If needed:
Municipal Stadium, Jacksonville, Florida (unsteep/far from pitch)








Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia









This way you already have 17 stadiums, quite a lot (although Japan and Soutk-Korea had 20), but you are still left with huge blind spots on the US map, especially on the West Coast and central US.

How could the stadiums listed above be used in the World Cup?
E.g.:
Group 1: plays in Gillette Stadium and Meadowlands
Group 2: FedEx and M&T Bank
Group 3: Soldier Field, Lucas Oil
Group 4: Cowboys, Reliant
...

And based purely on capacity:

Second Round: Seattle, Baltimore, Phoenix, Chicago, Boston, Cleveland/Charlotte...

Quarter Finals: Indianapolis, Denver, Houston, Charlotte/Cleveland/...

Semi Finals: Dallas, NY

Third Place: LA

Final: Washington (FedEx) (a bit sad to have this as the final stadium, even though it is the biggest)


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Keep in mind how far off 2018 or more likely, 2022 is. The Chargers are looking to get a new stadium in San Diego and both the Raiders and 49ers are looking to get one in San Francisco. One of those could get done and I expect LA to get a stadium, just not the one in Industry. That would leave the west with four possible hosts. I think if the US were to host a WC then they'd split the hosts into four groups of three so the west would have to choose three from LA, Seattle, Phoenix, San Francisco/San Diego. 

You're missing Dolphins Stadium in Miami which IMO, would surely host. I also think that Lucas Oil wouldn't host, not because of the stadium, but because Indianapolis is the sexiest of cities (although I've been there and disagree). I think I've mentioned it elsewhere in this thread, but I'll throw my thoughts on how it would be hosted out there again:

*West:*








_Proposed Los Angeles Stadium_- I don't think this will be the stadium, but I believe LA will have one (and if the WC is given to the US, the Rose Bowl may be spurred to go forward with their proposed renovations)








_Qwest Field, Seattle_- The northwest was ignored in 1994, but not this time around with a stadium like Qwest.








_Proposed San Francisco Stadium_- Probably not this design, but I think they get one built by 2022. If not, San Diego may get theirs done and Phoenix is a fine choice as well.

*Central/North*








_Soldier Field, Chicago_- You're not going to leave Chicago out.








_Ford Field, Detroit_- They could lay down grass over the turf like they did at the Silverdome in 1994. Detroit gives the north representation.

The last spot in this pod could to a number of cities. If Kansas City widens Arrowhead they could host. If St. Louis has a new stadium I think they're a lock, but I don't think they get that stadium. The Ohio cities are a possibility, as is Indianapolis. I'd love to include Denver, but I think they're too isolated from this region.

*South*








_Reliant Stadium, Houston_- Great stadium, major city, done deal.








_New Cowboys Stadium, Dallas_- Ridiculous stadium, major city...ridiculous stadium








_Dolphin Stadium, Miami_- Florida needs representation, Miami is a sexy and fun city and it's a solid stadium

*Northeast*








_New Meadowlands Stadium, New York/New Jersey_- A brand new stadium in the country's biggest city








_FedEx Field, Washington DC_- The capital will not be ignored and FedEx holds over 90,000. The field would have to be widened or more likely, Dan Snyder has his new stadium by 2022.








_Gillette Stadium, Boston_- Philadelphia could host instead and frankly, I'd choose Philly, but I think Boston and Foxboro's soccer history wins out, as does Bob Kraft's power within the US soccer community.

Round of 16:
Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston, Miami, Detroit, other Central/North city, Washington DC, Boston

Quarterfinals:
San Francisco, Dallas, Chicago, Boston

Semifinals: 
Los Angeles, Washington DC

Final:
New York


----------



## Chimaera (Mar 14, 2007)

From a city perspective I agree that you replace Charlotte, Cleveland and Cincinnati with San Francisco, Detroit and Miami. I didn't include them because of the stadiums: the Miami Dolphins stadium is a bit boring compared to many others, I'm not too fond of the Ford Field interior and finally didn't find a decent stadium in San Francisco (which, as you mentioned, could still be built). And whether you like the New Cowboys stadium or not, it's pretty unimaginable not to include it. You don't want to offend those Texans who think it is the greatest stadium in the world 

I watched a documentary on Philadelphia yesterday and it somewhat changed my opinion of that city...

By the way, you can only have a World Cup in 2018 or 2022 if we (Belgium+Holland) get the other one


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

I made some modifications on my choices.

Cities
New York
Los Angleles
Chicago
Miami (Orlando, Tampa Bay as alternate)
San Francisco
Philadelphia (St-Louis, Minneapolis, Charlotte as alternate)
Seattle
Phoenix
Boston
Houston
Dallas
Washington DC

Team USA matches: NY, LA, Washington DC

Round of 16: NY, SF, Chicago, Houston, LA, Philadelphia, Miami, Phoenix

Quarter-finals: Dallas, Boston, Seattle, Washington DC

Semi-finals: NY, LA

Third place game: Houston

Final: Washington DC


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

I've posted this a couple of times but I'ma do it again lol




hngcm said:


> Potential Bid from the USA (IMO)
> 
> -Assuming they'll use 12 cities, I'd break them up into 4 regions in order to limit traveling. Teams will stay in their regions for the group stage and possibly the 2nd round.
> 
> ...


West: Groups A and B
Midwest: Groups C and D
South: Groups E and F
East: Groups G and H

The midwest group is probably the most challenging one to get right.


----------



## Horatio Caine (Apr 13, 2009)

Miami naturally has to be there. Sure, it's in the summer, but there's no better event city in the US than Miami.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Inspirating from the 2006 World cup in Germany, I made a projection about the matches in the cities in the first round.

Groups A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H

Boston: C1-C2, D1-D3, A2-A3, G2-G3
Chicago:	A3-A4, G3-G4, F4-F2, C4-C1
Dallas: B1-B2, H1-H2, G4-G2, F2-F3	
Houston: D3-D4, C1-C3, B4-B1, H4-H1
Los Angeles: F1-F2, A1-A3, E4-E2, H2-H3
Miami: C3-C4, B1-B3, H4-H2, D4-D1 
New York: A1-A2, G1-G2, H1-H3, F4-F1	
Philadelphia: E3-E4, D4-D2, C2-C4, G4-G1
Phoenix:	F3-F4, A4-A2, E1-E3, D2-D3 
San Francisco: B3-B4, H3-H4, G1-G3, E2-H3	
Seattle: D1-D2, C4-C2, B2-B3, E4-E1	
Washington DC: E1-E2, B4-B2, F1-F3, A4-A1


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Inspirating from the 2006 World cup in Germany, I made a projection about the matches in the cities in the first round.
> 
> Groups A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H
> 
> ...


That would be awfully rough for some teams. A1 would go from New York to LA to Washington DC. A lot of teams would be criss-crossing the country. This is a good example though of why a US WC would have to be different than other WC's and using a pod system is one of those differences.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Inspirating from the 2006 World cup in Germany, I made a projection about the matches in the cities in the first round.


As it has already been mentioned, travel distances is a main issue for an American bid. It is therefore not a good idea to copy the schedule pattern of the 2006 World Cup.
Forming clusters of cities is a better way. That works for the first two rounds. It more difficult to provide even condition from the quaterfinal on though. And playing the semifinals on different coasts seems pre-deciding to me. I'd prefer Arlington and Chicago with a final on the east coast.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

After reading your opinions, i made modifications for a projected schedule.

two clusters for the two firts games, then alternance in third games.
East cluster: A,C,E,G
Wesr cluster: B,D,F,H

Boston: C3-C4, A1-A3, E1-E3, D4-D1 
Chicago: E3-E4, C4-C2, B4-B1, H4-H1
Dallas: B1-B2, H1-H2, F1-F3, A2-A3 
Houston: D1-D2, B1-B3, H4-H2, E4-E1	
Los Angeles: F1-F2, D4-D2, C2-C3, G2-G3
Miami: A3-A4, G1-G2, E4-E2, D2-D3 
New York: A1-A2, C1-C3, G4-G2, F4-F1	
Philadelphia: C1-C2, G3-G4, A4-A2, F2-F3	
Phoenix: F3-F4, B4-B2, H1-H3, C4-C1 
San Francisco: B3-B4, D1-D3, F4-F2, G4-G1
Seattle: D3-D4, H3-H4, A4-A1, E2-E3	
Washington DC: E1-E2, G1-G3, B2-B3, H2-H3


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

CaliforniaJones said:


> After reading your opinions, i made modifications for a projected schedule.
> 
> two clusters for the two firts games, then alternance in third games.
> East cluster: A,C,E,G
> ...


I'd be surprised if they didn't have more than two clusters. I think it will be four, but three minimum.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

TV reports are saying that the 49ers and the city of Santa Clara are expected to finalize financing on a 68,500 seat, $900+ million stadium for the football team. That would give the Bay Area the necessary stadium for a World Cup that they currently lack.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> TV reports are saying that the 49ers and the city of Santa Clara are expected to finalize financing on a 68,500 seat, $900+ million stadium for the football team. That would give the Bay Area the necessary stadium for a World Cup that they currently lack.


They're finalizing a deal to propose in a vote that will most certainly fail. They want the city to pay $90M from the general fund, $62M to relocate a power station and $330M from the city's stadium authority.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

hah good luck with that..


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

here's the article by the way

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/05/19/MNC917A01A.DTL


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

I'm still amazed the NFL doesn't have a deeper wallet for their own stadium fund. Or, perhaps more correctly, I'm amazed local politicians haven't grown wiser and forced the NFL to deepen their wallet for a league stadium fund. This is probably one area whereby they appreciate the player's union: By keeping wages at a relatively high share of league revenues there's less for the league to put into infrastructure support. 

I'm not against public supported funding but only at appropriate levels. The league gets about $3.6B per year from TV rights alone. Surely they can dedicate $100M per year towards a stadium fund and stop bilking the tax payers, but why turn away easy money. hno:


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Horatio Caine said:


> Miami naturally has to be there. Sure, it's in the summer, but there's no better event city in the US than Miami.


I'm wondering if Miami's involvement is dependent on another Florida city also making the cut. Much like Dallas/Houston, the sheer distance from the bulk of other venues can be compensated for via at least one other stadium at hand, so the fans and teams in that region might only have 1 long trip. To this end they'd be much better served if the Citrus Bowl renovations could be approved (The I'm still concerned about the costs), and I was under the impression Tampa's RJ stadium isn't fitted to accommodate FIFA field regulations. Failing that, it's going to seem a tougher sell adding Miami when the next closest venue would likely be either DC or Houston! Which is a shame because I think with the makeover in progress Dolphins Stadium would be very nice for soccer.

Ya know, provided there's an actual crowd.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

Tampa is FIFA ok. The US played a FIFA game there recently and it worked out well.


----------



## EllasOle (Feb 18, 2004)

Boston and Seattle are locks because they are both MLS venues.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/05/world-cup-2010-update-.html#more



> * The United States leads all countries (outside of the host nation) in ticket sales, thus far, with 93,300.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

SIC said:


> http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/05/world-cup-2010-update-.html#more


that should shut some people up


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

> * The United States leads all countries (outside of the host nation) in ticket sales, thus far, with 93,300.


Good to know that Mexico will be the be well supported next summer...


----------



## Alx-D (Oct 21, 2008)

^ Zing!


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> Good to know that Mexico will be the be well supported next summer...


A quality comment from a Canadian about a team whose fans outnumbered the Italian fans in 2006.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

I'm just joking around man. I know the american fans travel well for the world cup and will be in south africa in good numbers next year. Heck, they travel extremely well even for domestic qualifiers. The game in Columbus in February had sams army members from all corners of the country.


----------



## BeestonLad (Apr 8, 2006)

England will be the best supported team there barring South Africa as they are every tournament


----------



## Jizzy (Sep 28, 2008)

lol @ these americans.

don't worry, you'll never win a world cup.

and don't worry, you won't be hosting either 2018 or 2022.

i think sometimes the arrogance gets the better of them. americans love to overhype themselves don't they.


----------



## Alx-D (Oct 21, 2008)

Jizzy said:


> lol @ these americans.
> 
> don't worry, you'll never win a world cup.
> 
> ...


dude, you seem like them arrogant one here


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

SIC said:


> http://www.soccerbyives.net/soccer_by_ives/2009/05/world-cup-2010-update-.html#more


oh wow that is awesome!


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Jizzy said:


> lol @ these americans.
> 
> don't worry, you'll never win a world cup.
> 
> ...


Never? In 2010, 2014, 2018, sure. We probably won't win any of those, but never is a long time. How can you tell me that the US couldn't win one in 2050 or 2090, etc.? I'm not saying that we will win one then, but it seems as if you're the arrogant one if you're going to say never. The same is true for comments regarding us hosting in 2022, when we're undoubtedly one of the favorites.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> I'm just joking around man. I know the american fans travel well for the world cup and will be in south africa in good numbers next year. Heck, they travel extremely well even for domestic qualifiers. The game in Columbus in February had sams army members from all corners of the country.


Sorry. I'm a little sensitive to comments about US soccer fans because of all the crap we get. Hopefully the CSA can get themselves together and start running the sport right in Canada. It's ridiculous that a country with as much talent does so poorly. Here's to a 2018/2022 World Cup hosted by the US with Canada in it.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Jizzy said:


> lol @ these americans.
> 
> don't worry, you'll never win a world cup.
> 
> ...


America is arrogant. Get used to it.

Never say never my friend, its a horrible word to use.


----------



## Alx-D (Oct 21, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> Sorry. I'm a little sensitive to comments about US soccer fans because of all the crap we get. Hopefully the CSA can get themselves together and start running the sport right in Canada. It's ridiculous that a country with as much talent does so poorly. Here's to a 2018/2022 World Cup hosted by the US with Canada in it.


Cheers to that. You guys will get either 2018 or 2022. There is no way FIFA can ignore the sheer ticket sales possible from a USA World Cup. Far to lucrative for old man Blatter to pass up.

As a Canadian, I'm hoping you guys get it. It's like Canada has a World Cup without having to pay for any stadiums.


----------



## nautica17 (Dec 26, 2008)

Hey everyone, I have a quick question. Why is it that a lot of stadiums in the US have such large capacities and are so well made but they don't have any roofs?? Even several newer stadiums such as Invesco Field. You'd think that they'd put a roof on if there is so much money being poured in. I'm no expert by the way, so I'm just asking.  Thanks in advance!


----------



## westsidebomber (Feb 5, 2009)

nautica17 said:


> Hey everyone, I have a quick question. Why is it that a lot of stadiums in the US have such large capacities and are so well made but they don't have any roofs?? Even several newer stadiums such as Invesco Field. You'd think that they'd put a roof on if there is so much money being poured in. I'm no expert by the way, so I'm just asking.  Thanks in advance!


Not funny...:down:


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

nautica17 said:


> Hey everyone, I have a quick question. Why is it that a lot of stadiums in the US have such large capacities and are so well made but they don't have any roofs?? Even several newer stadiums such as Invesco Field. You'd think that they'd put a roof on if there is so much money being poured in. I'm no expert by the way, so I'm just asking.  Thanks in advance!


Americans dont mind the weather be it bad or good like Europeans do. Also look at the cowboys stadium. They would ALL be massive if they had roofs. Not all teams can afford it or want it.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Ganis said:


> Americans dont mind the weather be it bad or good like Europeans do. Also look at the cowboys stadium. They would ALL be massive if they had roofs. Not all teams can afford it or want it.


I agree - weather conditions are an integral part of the main sport played in those USA stadia - the NFL. Extreme cold, snow, etc makes for VERY INTERESTING and FUN TO WATCH games in that league.

I should know, my family has season tickets at Lambeau Field in Green Bay, WI (NFL Packers) and the cold/snowy late season and playoff games (December and January) are the most fun of all for being in the stands and makes for high national television ratings numbers!

OTOH, summer weather in most of the northern half of the USA and along the west coast and the northern half of the east coast is usually IDEAL for fútbol during the day and it cools off nicely most evenings in the rest.

Mike


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

nautica17 said:


> Hey everyone, I have a quick question. Why is it that a lot of stadiums in the US have such large capacities and are so well made but they don't have any roofs?? Even several newer stadiums such as Invesco Field. You'd think that they'd put a roof on if there is so much money being poured in. I'm no expert by the way, so I'm just asking.  Thanks in advance!


Because a roof has not nor ever will be necessary to construct a good stadium. They are only a recent development in most of the world.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Alx-D said:


> Cheers to that. You guys will get either 2018 or 2022. There is no way *FIFA can ignore the sheer ticket sales* possible from a USA World Cup. Far to lucrative for old man Blatter to pass up.


Ticket sales are not FIFAs business. They get their money solely from broadcasting rights and sponsorships deals. It doesn't make a difference for them whether a ground holds 45'000 seats or 90'000.


en1044 said:


> Because a roof has not nor ever will be necessary to construct a good stadium. They are only a recent development in most of the world.


Wrong. Roofs are an essential part of a football ground. They have a significant impact on attendance figures and noise level. There is simply no good football ground whose stands aren't covered.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> Wrong. Roofs are an essential part of a football ground. They have a significant impact on attendance figures and noise level. There is simply no good football ground whose stands aren't covered.


Sorry, they arent.

If they were that important, they would have been "essential" for the past hundred years in stadiums all around the world. They weren't.

Try telling someone in Green Bay that a roof needs to be added to Lambeau Field in order for it to be a "proper" stadium. They'll laugh at you.

So let me rephrase. Roofs are not necessary in this country.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

its coming for sure. I can feel it!


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

flierfy said:


> Ticket sales are not FIFAs business. They get their money solely from broadcasting rights and sponsorships deals. It doesn't make a difference for them whether a ground holds 45'000 seats or 90'000.


Either way, the US beats any other country just based on potential sponsors. Theres a lot of large companies based in the US. And they can play games at noon to broadcast games at night in Europe. Unlike Australia, do you want to watch games in the middle of the night again? I don't, I barely remember the 2002 world cup because of that.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

SIC said:


> Either way, the US beats any other country just based on potential sponsors. Theres a lot of large companies based in the US. And they can play games at noon to broadcast games at night in Europe. Unlike Australia, do you want to watch games in the middle of the night again? I don't, I barely remember the 2002 world cup because of that.


Potential sponsors?? the sponsors for the world cup are long term partners, they are literally allowed near exclusivity over advertising, all the corporately named german stadiums had to change their name for the 2006 tournament...

While the 2002 world cup was tosh, the 1994 world cup was ruined in many cases by the stupid heat of midday kick offs, especially the final, it's a killer...


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Ganis said:


> its coming for sure. I can feel it!


OK, I'm on my way.....


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> And they can play games at noon to broadcast games at night in Europe. Unlike Australia, do you want to watch games in the middle of the night again? I don't, I barely remember the 2002 world cup because of that.


What about Australia's ability to show a worldcup in the same timezones to over 1.5 billion people and another 1.5 billion (central and south asia) only 2 to 3 hours behind. Prime time evening games beaming back into Europe around luchtime.

So should 900 milion continental Americans have to get up in the early hours or should that be left to 3 billion Asians.

An Australian World Cup would be played in a mild winter, which is great soccer weather.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> Potential sponsors?? the sponsors for the world cup are long term partners, they are literally allowed near exclusivity over advertising, all the corporately named german stadiums had to change their name for the 2006 tournament...
> 
> While the 2002 world cup was tosh, the 1994 world cup was ruined in many cases by the stupid heat of midday kick offs, especially the final, it's a killer...


well if the final isnt in LA, then it shouldnt be a problem. I sense there will be a lot more east coast sites than last time.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

bigbossman said:


> Potential sponsors?? the sponsors for the world cup are long term partners, they are literally allowed near exclusivity over advertising, all the corporately named german stadiums had to change their name for the 2006 tournament...
> 
> While the 2002 world cup was tosh, the 1994 world cup was ruined in many cases by the stupid heat of midday kick offs, especially the final, it's a killer...


Oh yeah, you know for a fact all the sponsors for the 2022 world cup? Your talents are wasted on this thread then. Please, go on and spend your clairvoyant talent on something that will benefit the human race. Shoo! :cheers:


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

SIC said:


> Oh yeah, you know for a fact all the sponsors for the 2022 world cup? Your talents are wasted on this thread then. Please, go on and spend your clairvoyant talent on something that will benefit the human race. Shoo! :cheers:


did you read what i said, the sponsors are long term, they don't choose world cup specific sponsors, for crying out loud!


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

flierfy said:


> No, the organisation committee of the domestic FA sells the tickets (well, the small fraction of tickets that gets sold at all) and covers some expenses with the money.


SA's FA is only going to sell the tickets that are allotted to their federation. Most likely they will get the biggest chunk as they are the hosts, but that does not mean they control all the ticket sales. Majority of the tickets will be distributed to the participating federations (and paid for by federations), and the rest will be sold directly by FIFA's ticketing partner. When I went to Germany in 2006 I had two avenues to do so, purchase tickets through USSF or through FIFA. I lucked out and got tickets through USSF's lottery.


flierfy said:


> FIFA doesn't care about football. But I do and hundreds of millions of football fans do. We all want covered stands.


I like covered stands as much as you, but thank you for proving my point.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> Potential sponsors?? the sponsors for the world cup are long term partners, they are literally allowed near exclusivity over advertising, all the corporately named german stadiums had to change their name for the 2006 tournament...


And this could potentially be a road block for the American bid. A lot of these stadium sponsors have exclusive naming rights to the stadiums, which means World Cup or not the stadium can not be called anything else. We'll see how that plays out.



bigbossman said:


> While the 2002 world cup was tosh, the 1994 world cup was ruined in many cases by the stupid heat of midday kick offs, especially the final, it's a killer...


I agree 100%. Mexico had the same problems in 1986 as well, if not worse.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

metros11 said:


> SA's FA is only going to sell the tickets that are allotted to their federation. Most likely they will get the biggest chunk as they are the hosts, but that does not mean they control all the ticket sales. Majority of the tickets will be distributed to the participating federations (and paid for by federations), and the rest will be sold directly by FIFA's ticketing partner. When I went to Germany in 2006 I had two avenues to do so, purchase tickets through USSF or through FIFA. I lucked out and got tickets through USSF's lottery.


You shouldn't assume that the FIFA sold the tickets just because they are labelled with FIFA badges. Fact is that it was the organisation committee of the German FA that sold the 1.2m 'free' tickets. They organised the whole sale procedure and collected the money to fund their own budget.



metros11 said:


> I like covered stands as much as you, but thank you for proving my point.


I proved you nothing. FIFA is no reference for football grounds.



metros11 said:


> And this could potentially be a road block for the American bid. A lot of these stadium sponsors have exclusive naming rights to the stadiums, which means World Cup or not the stadium can not be called anything else. We'll see how that plays out.


Official FIFA sponsors are cut down to five of which 2 companies are based in the USA. Nothing overwhelming.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> the 1994 world cup was ruined in many cases by the stupid heat of midday kick offs, especially the final, it's a killer...


O, little European got to much sun. its called Water and Sunscreen. We Americans can handle it, i think you can too.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Ganis said:


> O, little European got to much sun. its called Water and Sunscreen. We Americans can handle it, i think you can too.


He's talking about the players on the field. The heat saps their energy and slows the pace of the game.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

who's fault is that? USC plays their games in that heat. Prepare your players better.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Ganis said:


> who's fault is that? USC plays their games in that heat. Prepare your players better.


hno: Football is short bursts with long rests while soccer is more about endurance. You won't see a difference in the speed of a football game regardless of the heat. In soccer it's night and day.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

Heat.........yeah. if only we had a way to enclose the stadium and run a giant AC.


Oh wait.............


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Ganis said:


> who's fault is that? USC plays their games in that heat. Prepare your players better.


Don't compare autumn to summer.


----------



## El Cholo (Jul 19, 2008)

JYDA said:


> He's talking about the players on the field. The heat saps their energy and slows the pace of the game.


I'm sure the Africans won't mind a little heat during the World Cup. :cheers:


----------



## SpicyMcHaggis (Oct 7, 2008)

El Cholo said:


> I'm sure the Africans won't mind a little heat during the World Cup. :cheers:


 Africans play their "Cup of nations" in January because of heat during the summer. So i suppose that they would mind it as well  

Who cares tho, they are all getting paid millions to play in all possible conditions. Weather is not an excuse.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

for the record ganis, I am not an ethnic european but i am also not an ignorant texan either... the purpose of my point is to highlight that the game is played at a much slower pace due to the heat, it also pretty dangerous hence why at the start of the season many leagues (in the past) have a water break hal way through the halfs to prevent dehydration in crazy conditions, and we aren't even talking about 38+, there is a reason why football is a winter sport...


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

^^ Dangerous???? WTF?? The Australian A league is played during the summer months. In Australia - which means temperatures of 30+ being normal, and 35+ not uncommon. 

They are professional footballers, and play in a variety of conditions, from freezing cold in continental Europe and frozen ground in Russia, to 40+ and dry in north Africa and the middle East, or 30+ and almost 100% humidity in South and central America.

Even Europe has extremes. Wasnt it like 41 degrees for the FA cup final? Temperatures in Greece, Spain, Turkey are regularly very high for the entire day. 
When Australia played Japan in 2006 in Kaiserslauten, the temperature was well into the 30s.

Not very game would be played in hot whether. The players should be prepared for those that are.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ I agree, and, if the temperature is too high, the games can be played in the evening ! 

For example, if the final game of 94 world cup was played in the afternoon, it was because of the european TVs which didn't want to broadcast it in the middle of the night !!


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

woozoo said:


> ^^ Dangerous???? WTF?? The Australian A league is played during the summer months. In Australia - which means temperatures of 30+ being normal, and 35+ not uncommon.


of course it's dangerous to play a sport that is endurance based in high temperatures. Especially if that game is played to a high standard with regards to physical commitment and exertion... I doubt the australian league is of a high standard.



> They are professional footballers, and play in a variety of conditions, from freezing cold in continental Europe and frozen ground in Russia, to 40+ and dry in north Africa and the middle East, or 30+ and almost 100% humidity in South and central America.


They don't play on Frozen ground who told you that? If the ground is frozen the game is called off, hence why many teams have undersoil heating...

The african season follows the European calendar, they play the african cup of nations in January because it would be too hot in the summer...

They play in winter in south america... hence why they play through the European summer...



> Even Europe has extremes. Wasnt it like 41 degrees for the FA cup final? Temperatures in Greece, Spain, Turkey are regularly very high for the entire day.


Come on man, there is one thing playing 1-2 games a season in stupid conditions, there is another playing a month of quick fire games in these conditions... in countries like spain the majority of games are evening kick off, and even then Spain isn't this couldron of heat all year round (it snows in spain in winter for FFS), you have a warped view of southern europe...



> When Australia played Japan in 2006 in Kaiserslauten, the temperature was well into the 30s.


The 30s isn't 38+, which it would be for nearly all games in places like LA...



> Not very game would be played in hot whether. The players should be prepared for those that are.


The vast majority of games will do if they have kick off a midday for European television.



> I agree, and, if the temperature is too high, the games can be played in the evening !
> 
> For example, if the final game of 94 world cup was played in the afternoon, it was because of the european TVs which didn't want to broadcast it in the middle of the night !!


They won't do that, they're not gonna put the world cup past midnight for Europe...


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Ganis said:


> who's fault is that? USC plays their games in that heat. Prepare your players better.


Or chose another host nation.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

soccer player complain to much.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Ganis said:


> soccer player complain to much.


Ganis, if youre going to just say stupid stuff like that, dont say anything at all.

Hint: Look at your avatar.


----------



## Conte (Jun 7, 2009)

I hope the US will get the WC, they have the infrastructure, big ,amazing stadiums , maybe not the best fans but definitely the best conditions for hosting The World Cup, btw. I remember the great WC back in '94 when I used to get up late in the night to watch those memorable games of Romania with Hagi and all the others...:cheers:


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Soccer claims to be an all weather sports but they complain when its to hot.

What stadium would be used for the Finals? New Giants? Rose?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

An east coast city...it works best for Europe


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Ganis said:


> Soccer claims to be an all weather sports but they complain when its to hot.


It is. And no-one complains about the heat. It will just force team to adapt rather defensive tactics to survive. Which will make the games pretty drab affairs like in 1994.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

en1044 said:


> An east coast city...it works best for Europe


i think Chicago, for what I saw, has the best weather in summer for a soccer game. Much more than NY or eastcoast cities with their continental climate in summer !

For Example, I remember NYC, Philadephia and also DC, during the summer of 99 ! It was :drool: !! (in any case, for a French guy :lol


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

parcdesprinces said:


> i think Chicago, for what I saw, has the best weather in summer for a soccer game. Much more than NY or eastcoast cities with their continental climate in summer !
> 
> For Example, I remember NYC, Philadephia and also DC, during the summer of 99 ! It was :drool: !! (in any case, for a French guy :lol


In the middle of the summer everywhere here is hot.

The east coast is the central hub for the American media market, it would be best to have it over here.


----------



## Kapow32 (Jan 26, 2009)

yea as much as I would love chicago to have the final, it is just as hot as the nyc, philly, etc. in the summer, and it will probably be the smallest stadium in the whole tournament


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

If Chicago had a 80k-90k state of the art of stadium I think its central location and "heartland" of America cliche' it has the credentials to be on the short list to host a final. Instead it only has a 61k though so that excludes it on those grounds alone.....

The only cities that I think have a reasonable claim to a final are L.A., NYC, and D.C. Considering it went to L.A. last time around I would rather see a final in NYC or D.C. and think it would up in either of those two.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

There have been rumblings that Dan Snyder wants a new stadium in DC. I've also heard he wants it to be the biggest in NFL, like FedEx is, and have a roof. If he gets all that by 2022 and the US is the host, I'd have to think that DC hosts the final. If not, I think New York hosts the final. LA will likely host the opener and a semifinal, along with DC/NY, whichever doesn't get the final.


----------



## Conte (Jun 7, 2009)

the east coast has a -5 h time difference to GMT and -6h to CET so this is also a big advantage in comparison to other locations in the west like California where it's also a lot hotter and like en1044 already said the american media market concentrates on the east coast. I hope they'll play the Final on Pasadena's Rose Bowl :cheers:


----------



## tritown (Aug 25, 2004)

ryebreadraz said:


> There have been rumblings that Dan Snyder wants a new stadium in DC. I've also heard he wants it to be the biggest in NFL, like FedEx is, and have a roof. If he gets all that by 2022 and the US is the host, I'd have to think that DC hosts the final. If not, I think New York hosts the final. LA will likely host the opener and a semifinal, along with DC/NY, whichever doesn't get the final.


Wow, DC would be great, since it is the nation's capital.
What about Dallas (Arlington) for the final? It's huge, and isn't it climate-controlled?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

tritown said:


> Wow, DC would be great, since it is the nation's capital.
> What about Dallas (Arlington) for the final? It's huge, and isn't it climate-controlled?


Again, I think the final has to be on the East coast.

Cowboys Stadium would certainly be capable of hosting it, but i dont think Dallas is a good city for the final.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

en1044 said:


> Again, I think the final has to be on the East coast.
> 
> Cowboys Stadium would certainly be capable of hosting it, but i dont think Dallas is a good city for the final.


I dont think we would host the final..... but why not?


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

NYC would be my dollar bet.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> No one wants it in Dallas. Its out of the way internationally, in a bad time zone, and has no appeal to foreign visitors.


It has the same appeal as Los Angeles or Miami. It is well known. Its time zone is good but still better than the west coast.


----------



## Kapow32 (Jan 26, 2009)

germany had the olympics in 72, world cup in 74...


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ mexico had the olympics in 68 and world cup in 1970


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

SIC said:


> I remember 1994, it didn't seem to slow down Hristo Stoichkov and the rest of the Romanians.


Pretty funny.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

Lord David said:


> Well for starters, if Chicago gets 2016, then it's a no brainer.
> Hosting an Olympics prior to a WC would not necessarily have the US win the WC. Simply put the US's chances after winning the rights to the 2016 Olympics in Chicago and hosting a WC say in 2018 are dramatically hurt, in 2022 perhaps, but still not likely.


Although I don't think US2018 will happen I would certainly like to hear your explanation as to why Chicago 2016 would hurt the WC bid.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

Lord David said:


> Of course it has nothing to do with the WC, but FIFA, critics and others out there will be looking at the short frame between the 2 major sporting events as a decision factor to if the US should host.


I don't think they'll be looking at that at all, at least not FIFA. The only thing the FIFA selection committee will be looking at is the $$$$$$$$$$$$$. 2022 will likely go to either USA, Mexico or Australia, whomever is more willing to buy votes.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> It has the same appeal as Los Angeles or Miami. It is well known. Its time zone is good but still better than the west coast.


lol


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

SIC said:


> Did anyone die in Mexico in 1986 or 1970 from heat stroke?


when did i ever say people die?? I said it is dangerous, and it is and you know it...



> Nope......the heat was stifling but those somehow ended up being two of the best world cups of all time. Plus, you're overlooking that most of the venues will be fully covered during the knockout rounds.


Most of the mexico venues were covered and if you watch the 1970 final as good as it was the pace was pedestrian at times, modern football isn't played like that anymore



> I remember 1994, it didn't seem to slow down Hristo Stoichkov and the rest of the Romanians.


Hristo stoichov is bulgarian... and what do you mean by slow down...



> I mean, not all countries play in what Europeans regard as ideal weather, which is winter.
> Which I think explains why teams in Latin America and Spain play they way they do. They let the ball do the work, stylistic differences. But so what, it gets just as hot in Europe too.


But if you read what i said, games in europe can be played at night!!!!!!!!!!!!!



> Now if you want faster pace games, then you might have to stay up for the games in the middle of the night. Blame England for making Greenwich the center of the world.


1. Look i don't care, i have no problem if they hosted it, playing the games at the middle of the night, but i am not the EBU or the European TV lobby. I don't have a problem with the pace of the games, it just means faster paced teams are hindered 
2.What has greenwich being the "centre" of the world got to do with it. If the centre of the world was new york London would still be 5 hours ahead!!



SIC said:


> I remember 1994, it didn't seem to slow down Hristo Stoichkov and the rest of the Romanians.
> 
> 
> metros11 said:
> ...


what the fact that he thought Stoichkov was romanian??


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

We've already established that the temperatures in the US aren't any hotter than in most of Europe with a few exceptions. Three of those exceptions have retractable roofs so they don't matter. The only city that presents a real issue is Miami.

As for the day versus night debate, there's only a little truth to it. For the group stages when there are three matches a day, one will kick off midday and the second will kick off while the sun is still out. You can't play them all at night unless the last match kicks off at 2 am. A US World Cup would likely have start times with two matches during the hottest parts of the day and one when the sun is out, but it's not nearly as bad. The schedule can be manipulated so most of the two hot matches are played in stadiums with a roof or in San Francisco/Seattle/ etc. where the temperature rarely tops 75 Fahrenheit and is sometimes below 70.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ i'm sorry i don't understand Fahrenheit (nor do i want to, too primitive) so writing 75 means nothing...

2006 world cup the kick offs were 3,6 and 9 and that was for only the first two rounds of the groups. and the simultaneous (final) group games kicked off at 4 and 9. USA no doubt they'll all have to kick off between 12 and 6.


----------



## Samacado (Jun 26, 2007)

I really like daylight matches. They are something special. Matches under daylight look far more classic than night matches.

And if you look WC 2006, some of the best matches were played in heat. Spain-Ukraine 4-0, Australia-Japan 3-1. On the other hands we had boring matches like Ukraine-Switzerland at night.

And i tell you what. To play at noon is sometimes not worse than to play at night after a day full of heat.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

the best match 2 matches of the 2006 world cup were both night matches Italy vs Germany and Australia vs Croatia! I don't know how you can say spain-ukraine was a good game...


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> ^^ i'm sorry i don't understand Fahrenheit (nor do i want to, too primitive) so writing 75 means nothing...
> 
> 2006 world cup the kick offs were 3,6 and 9 and that was for only the first two rounds of the groups. and the simultaneous (final) group games kicked off at 4 and 9. USA no doubt they'll all have to kick off between 12 and 6.


You don't need to know Fahrenheit. What you need to know is that the temperatures in most US cities is comparable to a lot of the European cities that have hosted World Cup matches, like Madrid, Milan, etc. The heat here isn't any worse than it is there with Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and Miami being exceptions. Phoenix, Dallas and Houston have retractable roofs so the heat there doesn't matter, leaving Miami as the only city with an issue. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle actually have cooler July temperatures than most of Europe. The majority of the 12 and 3 matches could be played in those stadiums with roofs or cool temperatures and the hotter cities would host the late match. It can be set up so the weather has little to no impact on the matches.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> You don't need to know Fahrenheit. What you need to know is that the temperatures in most US cities is comparable to a lot of the European cities that have hosted World Cup matches, like Madrid, Milan, etc. The heat here isn't any worse than it is there with Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and Miami being exceptions. Phoenix, Dallas and Houston have retractable roofs so the heat there doesn't matter, leaving Miami as the only city with an issue. Cities like San Francisco and Seattle actually have cooler July temperatures than most of Europe. The majority of the 12 and 3 matches could be played in those stadiums with roofs or cool temperatures and the hotter cities would host the late match. It can be set up so the weather has little to no impact on the matches.


You seem to forget that no-one plays football at noon in Madrid. Playing at this time of the day is simply a disaster.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

ryebreadraz said:


> Dallas could host it, but stadium aside, it would be tough to argue for Dallas to host as opposed to New York, DC or LA. The WC Final is the world's premier sporting match and the perception of it would be far better in the capital, the entertainment capital of the world or the megacity that is NY. New York will have a very nice stadium that is capable of hosting the final and *should Dan Snyder get the stadium he wants in DC, it would be equal to Cowboys Stadium. Whether or not he gets that stadium is a mystery though.* Either way, I think it's DC if they get the stadium or NY if they don't. LA is an attractive option, but there's still stadium uncertainty and they hosted the 1994 final so I expect this one (should the US host) to go east. LA could host the opener though.


Do you have any information on this possible Washington Stadium. Would it be a similar size to the Fed Ex stadium?


----------



## Samacado (Jun 26, 2007)

bigbossman said:


> the best match 2 matches of the 2006 world cup were both night matches Italy vs Germany and Australia vs Croatia! I don't know how you can say spain-ukraine was a good game...


Depends on.

The biggest matches in world cup history were played in daylight.

Brazil-France 86, Brazil-Italy 82, Germany-Italy 70...

There were world cups almost without any floodlight match (1970, 1986, 1994) and none of it was known for antifootball. In fact, the World cups in Argentina 1978 or Italy 1990 are more known for that negative tendencies...despite floodlight.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Samacado said:


> Depends on.
> 
> The biggest matches in world cup history were played in daylight.
> 
> Brazil-France 86, Brazil-Italy 82, Germany-Italy 70...


Come on with Germany-italy in 1970 the game was average and was condisered to be so because of the heat, however it had the greatest extra time probably ever with 5 goals. Franz Beckenbauer playing with his arm in his sling etc etc

Notice you conveniently left off Germany-France 1982 which was a night game and the 1978 world cup final, also a night game. Two epic battles!



> There were world cups almost without any floodlight match (1970, 1986, 1994) and none of it was known for antifootball. In fact, the World cups in Argentina 1978 or Italy 1990 are more known for that negative tendencies...despite floodlight.


who consideres 1994 an attacking world cup?? and 1978 defensive also... the most exciting world cup of modern times is considered spain 1982 with it's floodlit games, don't let anyone tell you different!


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Kobo said:


> Do you have any information on this possible Washington Stadium. Would it be a similar size to the Fed Ex stadium?


There's nothing concrete, just rumors that he wants a new stadium in DC that would have a retractable roof and would be at least as big as FedEx so the Redskins would still have the league's biggest stadium.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> There's nothing concrete, just rumors that he wants a new stadium in DC that would have a retractable roof and would be at least as big as FedEx so the Redskins would still have the league's biggest stadium.


I wonder how much he will have to finance. I have to imagine it would be hard to convince Maryland voters that the Redskins need help financing a new stadium to replace the one they have that's less than 15 years old.

Why a retractable roof?


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

massp88 said:


> I wonder how much he will have to finance. I have to imagine it would be hard to convince Maryland voters that the Redskins need help financing a new stadium to replace the one they have that's less than 15 years old.
> 
> Why a retractable roof?


If he builds it in DC then Maryland has nothing to do with it. He would have to finance ALL OF IT himself. No way District of Columbia is paying a penny for another stadium, especially after the disaster that is the new Nationals stadium. Even DC United are now screwed.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> what the fact that he thought Stoichkov was romanian??


What else?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

metros11 said:


> If he builds it in DC then Maryland has nothing to do with it. He would have to finance ALL OF IT himself. No way District of Columbia is paying a penny for another stadium, especially after the disaster that is the new Nationals stadium. Even DC United are now screwed.


The DC city council is MUCH more willing to help finance a new Redskins stadium than anything else.

Their stance on DC United and Nationals Park is irrelevant in this situation.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Kobo said:


> Do you have any information on this possible Washington Stadium. Would it be a similar size to the Fed Ex stadium?


The capacity of a new stadium would probably be around 95k to 100k, hopefully more around 95k with the ability to expand.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> I wonder how much he will have to finance. I have to imagine it would be hard to convince Maryland voters that the Redskins need help financing a new stadium to replace the one they have that's less than 15 years old.
> 
> Why a retractable roof?


The roof would allow him to host more events there and make more money.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

metros11 said:


> What else?


whoops, my bad.......I was nine when I saw saw the 1994 world cup. The games were at the exact same time. It's probably made all the more embarrassing because I've seen Stoichkov play in person for my local team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkGf4Cm0R1o
:bash:

Anyway, the point stands.......real talent didn't suffer in the heat and they won't suffer in the heat in the US in the future. Even so, It's all pretty unpredictable, tonight the weather was 13c and during the day it was 22c in Chicago. 1 year from the world cup opening in South Africa. In NYC it was 23 as well and in Los Angeles in was 20c.

Hardly dangerous temps. Especially as my have noted, many 1/2 and semi-games will be held in totally temperature controlled stadiums most likely in the US.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

OMG. I cant believe this "its too hot!" argument is still going. 

To say 12pm kick off times would be dangerous is absurd.
Teams play in hot whether all the time. Your argument that the Andes somehow make the tropics of south america cool are ludicrous. Sure the higher altitudes will have some effect, but Medellin and Cali have average temperatures in the 30s all year, and as I have mentioned, the temperature stays high into the night.

The 2007 copa america was held in Venezuela in July. The average temperature for that month in Caracas is 37 degrees. Most host cities had *average* temperatures similarly high.
The 2001 edition of the competition was staged in Colombia also during July, where one of the host cities has an average temp of 41c for that month.

The 2000 African cup was held in Ghana and Nigeria. January is actually those countries hottest month, with average temps in both capitals around 32c. The cup returned to Ghana as host in 2008. If the tournament is held in any of the tropical African nations (Mali. Burkina Faso, Senegal), January average temps are above 30.

Your "too hot coz its dangerous" argument has been totally blown out of the water.

As for entertaining football, your argument still doesnt stand well. We have established that few days in any of the major host cities reach above 35, in fact most of the host cities have average summer temperatures below 30c.
A team isnt likely to play more than one or two games in plus 35c heat, which is comparable to a Spanish or Brazilian World Cup (which will certainly have early afternoon kick offs). A 12 pm kick off isnt even during the hottest part of the day.

Some games will be slower than others, and therefore will be more technical. One of the criticisms of the English league from around the world is its lack of technique, and focus on physicality and fast pace. One of the major pluses of Brazilian football is its high level of technique, due in part to its slower pace.

Also, the Australia Croatia game was so good not because of any beautiful play, but rather for all the on field drama which occurred. It would have been just as exciting whether it was held at night or at day.

This is a non issue.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ woozoo that post is full of so many lies, give me a moment and i'll show you why


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

woozoo said:


> OMG. I cant believe this "its too hot!" argument is still going.


The conversation had ended dummy, however it is you needing to get the last word who has re-opened. Unfortunately for you, you have done so filling your post with lies.



> To say 12pm kick off times would be dangerous is absurd.
> Teams play in hot whether all the time. Your argument that the Andes somehow make the tropics of south america cool are ludicrous. Sure the higher altitudes will have some effect, but Medellin and Cali have average temperatures in the 30s all year, and as I have mentioned, the temperature stays high into the night.


I never said that the Andes makes the tropics of south America cool you have said that in your response without quoting my point because you know I didn’t say that. But with the wonders of skyscrapercity I can find what I said a repost so you can actually see what I said. 



> Have you ever heard of the andes mountains?? and what is known as mountain climate... even areas within the tropics but andian (like peru) don't have a tropical climate


I quite clearly referenced Peru as an example of a country within the tropics and Andes without a tropical climate, Ecuador is another country. Never did I mention bloody Colombia or that all Andean countries within the tropics are not tropical.

However your stats for Cali and Medellin are wrong (this will be a recurring theme of this post)

Cali's average temperature is *24°C (74°F) * with an average low temperature of 19°C (66°F) and a high of 30°C (86°F).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cali#Climate 

For Medellin recorded high averages 32°C but the average high is 28°C, the average low is 16°C

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medillin#Geography_and_climate 



> The 2007 copa america was held in Venezuela in July. The average temperature for that month in Caracas is 37 degrees. Most host cities had *average* temperatures similarly high.
> The 2001 edition of the competition was staged in Colombia also during July, where one of the host cities has an average temp of 41c for that month.


1. Games in both the 2001 and 2007 copa Americas were EVENING KICK OFFS, except the Colombia final (3rd place game)

2. You’ve made up those average temperature figures. The recorded high in July in Caracas is 37°C, the average high temperature in July in Caracas is 26°C, the actual average temperature in July in Caracas is 23°C

http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weatherall.php3?s=61408&refer=&units=metric

3. Are you going to site this Columbia city which apparently has average temperatures in July of 41°C?? Out of the 7 cities that hosted games (Armenia, Barranquilla, Bogotá, Cali, Manizales, Medellín, Pereira) Barranquilla has the highest average high temperature of 36°C, the figure of 41°C is in fact the highest recorded temperature in Barranquilla, it would help if you got your facts right..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barranquilla#Climate



> The 2000 African cup was held in Ghana and Nigeria. January is actually those countries hottest month, with average temps in both capitals around 32c.


WRONG, Lies and more bloody Lies

The average high in Accra (Ghana) is 32°C in January, not the average temperature. This seems to be a recurring theme with you.










and for the record here is Lagos, 










And here is Kano who also hosted games in 2000










As you can see for both countries the hottest month *IS NOT* January.



> The cup returned to Ghana as host in 2008. If the tournament is held in any of the tropical African nations (Mali. Burkina Faso, Senegal), January average temps are above 30.


*LIES, LIES MORE DAMN LIES*

Mali
Bamako doesn’t hold up your claim….










Burkina Faso
The capital of Burkina Faso doesn’t support your claim either 











Senegal










However Africa isn’t just situated around the equator in the central and western part of the continent, it in fact (SHOCK HORROR), spreads north and south. And even more shockingly African cup of nations games have been played in these regions too

Egypt and Tunisia which hosted the 2004 and 2006 editions have climates which will show you why the tournament is nominally played in the winter.

Egypt

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Climate

http://www.weatherbase.com/weather/weatherall.php3?s=66326&refer=&units=metric

Cairo









As you can see the highs that it can reach in Egpyt in july shit on any high that can be reached at the equator.

Tunis










The point is that the heat of North Africa during the summer is greater than the heat of southern Africa during the winter and as central/west Africa has negligible difference between temperatures all year round, January is the clear compromise as it isn’t the hottest month anywhere.




> Your "too hot coz its dangerous" argument has been totally blown out of the water.


By who, because it certainly isn’t you sunny jim!



> As for entertaining football, your argument still doesnt stand well. We have established that few days in any of the major host cities reach above 35, in fact most of the host cities have average summer temperatures below 30c.
> A team isnt likely to play more than one or two games in plus 35c heat, which is comparable to a Spanish or Brazilian World Cup (which will certainly have early afternoon kick offs). A 12 pm kick off isnt even during the hottest part of the day.


hno:

* “Temperature-time graphs will change depending on the time of year, location, latitude and weather conditions”*

That is the hottest part of the day is different depending on where you are and what time of the year it is. In other words the closer you are to the equator the earlier in the day the hottest part of the day is. Midday is the hottest part on the equator…

*”Average Maximum Daytime Temperature gives a good indication of the highest temperatures to expect at the warmest time of the day for each month.

Because the figures show the temperature of the air they are always recorded in the shade. In direct sun it will generally be warmer, sometimes by as much as 15 to 20°C (27 to 36°F). This is because the sun also emits infrared radiation. For tropical and some sub-tropical destinations you should also always check Heat and Humidity, because high temperatures alone do not necessarily indicate how hot it 'feels'.”*

As mentioned games in countries like Spain would be largely evening kick off away from the hottest part of the day…



> Some games will be slower than others, and therefore will be more technical. One of the criticisms of the English league from around the world is its lack of technique, and focus on physicality and fast pace. One of the major pluses of Brazilian football is its high level of technique, due in part to its slower pace.


pfft just because I talk about pace and I’m from England you make the assumption that I want games to be played like in the premier league. Both Spanish and Italian league games are played at an up-tempo pace. The English league is excessively fast. Games played during the heat of the day are played at a slower pace than even regular games. *That is what you don’t and need to understand!!*



> Also, the Australia Croatia game was so good not because of any beautiful play, but rather for all the on field drama which occurred. It would have been just as exciting whether it was held at night or at day.


That’s a stupid assumption. If the game was played in hotter temperatures it would’ve been completely different. IF it was played in rain it would’ve been completely different. You can’t make assumptions like that



> This is a non issue.


Your post is (sorry was) yes!

anyway you dragged it back up and if you want to debate it further i suggest you back up with evidence or you take it out of this thread...


----------



## Kapow32 (Jan 26, 2009)

lol Fifa does not care about the heat, they've already had it in the USA once, and brazil and mexico


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

I amazes me how many people a desperate to use any lame excuse to find fault in a US bid. Too hot, why don't you harden up buttercup. The US will put in a great bid that will be extremely hard to beat (though I hope Australia do).:cheers:


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

look i made a throw away remark about the heat and it got blown out of proportion (partly down to myself continuing it). I have said i have no real problem with the states holding the world cup as they have the best non European bid. I just hope we don't get the absurdness of '94...


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Walbanger said:


> I amazes me how many people a desperate to use any lame excuse to find fault in a US bid. Too hot, why don't you harden up buttercup. The US will put in a great bid that will be extremely hard to beat (though I hope Australia do).:cheers:


I don't know what argument is worse, people complaining about the heat, or those that actually believe Dallas should host the finals.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

*37 official candidate cities.*

*USA Bid Committee Issues Requests For Porposals to 37 Potential FIFA World Cup Host Cities For 2018 or 2022*

Atlanta	Georgia Dome	71,250
Baltimore	M & T Bank Stadium	71,008
Birmingham, Ala Legion Field	71,000
Boston	Gillette Stadium	71,693
Charlotte	Bank of America Stadium	73,778
Chicago	Soldier Field	61,000
Cincinnati	Paul Brown Stadium	65,535
Cleveland	Cleveland Browns Stadium	72,000
Columbus, Ohio	Ohio Stadium	101,568
Dallas	Cotton Bowl	89,000
Dallas	Cowboys Stadium	100,000
Denver	INVESCO Field	76,125
Detroit	Ford Field	67,188
Detroit	Michigan Stadium	108,000
Fayetteville, Ark.	Donald W. Reynolds Razorback Stadium	72,000
Houston	Reliant Stadium	71,500
Indianapolis	Lucas Oil Stadium	64,200
Jacksonville, Fla.	Jacksonville Municipal Stadium	82,000
Kansas City	Arrowhead Stadium	77,000
Knoxville	Neyland Stadium	100,011
Las Vegas	Sports City USA	N/A
Los Angeles	Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum	93,607
Los Angeles	Rose Bowl	92,000+
Miami	Land Shark Stadium	75,540
Minneapolis	Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome	64,000
Minneapolis	TCF Bank Stadium	50,200
Nashville	LP Field	69,143
New Orleans	Louisiana Superdome	70,000
New York / New Jersey	New Meadowlands Stadium	82,000
Orlando	Florida Citrus Bowl	65,616
Philadelphia	Lincoln Financial	67,594
Phoenix / Glendale	Sun Devil Stadium	73,500
Phoenix / Glendale	University of Phoenix Stadium	71,000
Pittsburgh	Heinz Field	65,000
Salt Lake City	Rice-Eccles Stadium	45,603
San Antonio	Alamodome	65,000
San Diego	Qualcomm Stadium	70,500
San Francisco	Stanford Stadium	50,500
San Francisco / Oakland	Oakland-Alameda County Stadium	63,026
Seattle	Husky Stadium	72,500
Seattle	Qwest Field	67,000
St. Louis	Edward Jones Dome	67,268
Tampa	Raymond James Stadium	65,856
Washington, D.C.	FedEx Field	91,704
Washington, D.C. RFK Stadium	45,600

http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_14876672.html


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> look i made a throw away remark about the heat and it got blown out of proportion (partly down to myself continuing it). I have said i have no real problem with the states holding the world cup as they have the best non European bid. I just hope we don't get the absurdness of '94...


Shit I was looking at the top recorded temp (row above on wiki) not the average high for the South American cities :doh: *facepalm*
Either way many of the cities which hosted either African cups or Copa Americas were hot, and hotter than many possible American host cities, I think youll agree. And like you said, it was a throw away comment so no point in further discussion. Apologies for my misinformation.


----------



## Jmarius (May 26, 2009)

Hey Bigbossman, Mexico had Olympics 1968. and Wold Cup 1970 and 1986 !!


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Yeah San Diego is there :banana:


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

massp88 said:


> I don't know what argument is worse, people complaining about the heat, or those that actually believe Dallas should host the finals.


I wouldnt mind if the final is host in Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, San Francisco or the capital. :cheers:


----------



## Scba (Nov 20, 2004)

Las Vegas Sports City USA N/A <- ?


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

Land Shark Stadium now in Miami? hno: 

Whats next, _Mikes Hard Lemonade Arena_?


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

USSOCCER said:


> Passion for World Cup soccer* is extremely strong in the United States*, as evidenced by the demand for tickets for the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ in South Africa. Of the 1.8 million ticket requests that have been received from more than 200 countries, *approximately 93,000 have come from fans that live in the United States*. Only host South Africa has had more ticket requests......


And then 'they' say we're not capable of hosting the WC.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Mexico has played at a number of baseball stadiums.

http://www.groundreport.com/Sports/PETCO-KICKS-OFF-INTERNATIONAL-SOCCER-1-6-05_1


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

^^ I was at that game. Pretty good seats from my side of the field (1st base side). Guessing pretty bad seats from the other side hah.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

soup or man said:


> The final should either be at the LA Coliseum or a (heavely revamped) RFK Stadium in Washington DC. In it's current form, it's far too ugly and old.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I wouldn't expect them to use RFK. I'd expect them to use the WC as an excuse to demolish RFK Stadium and build say, RFK II Stadium in it's place.

D.C United teams would be "forced" to play at FedEx Field for the meantime as a new stadium, with 100,000+ capacity, in an architectural style that fits with both modern Washington D.C and the contemporary Greco-Roman style architecture is built. Which is essentially what they want anyways.

The new stadium would be the home for both D.C United and Washington Redskins.

Problems regarding D.C United capacity could easily be solved by covering upper level seating or using a retractable roofing system etc, leaving say 30,000-50,000 for games.


As for the LA Coliseum, I'd expect it to heavily renovated. Much of the existing structure will be removed, with the exception of the gate, and a modern stadium built in it's place.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

^^^^^^^ There's no way in hell the LA Coliseum is renovated. A renovation would only be made if it was done to also bring a NFL team to LA, which won't happen. Making it for the NFL would require a capacity of 60,000-70,000, something USC will never allow to happen. They won't want a smaller capacity and their lease gives them veto power over any renovations or any other teams coming in. Also, nobody has the money for a renovated Coliseum or will deal with the Coliseum Commission. The Coliseum will not be renovated of host World Cup matches. 

For LA to host in the World Cup, it will be in either the proposed stadium in the City of Industry or at a renovated Rose Bowl.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> ^^^^^^^ There's no way in hell the LA Coliseum is renovated. A renovation would only be made if it was done to also bring a NFL team to LA, which won't happen. Making it for the NFL would require a capacity of 60,000-70,000, something USC will never allow to happen. They won't want a smaller capacity and their lease gives them veto power over any renovations or any other teams coming in. Also, nobody has the money for a renovated Coliseum or will deal with the Coliseum Commission. The Coliseum will not be renovated of host World Cup matches.
> 
> For LA to host in the World Cup, it will be in either the proposed stadium in the City of Industry or at a renovated Rose Bowl.


Well then make it 90,000 then. Who said it had to be lower in capacity? Having it included in the WC bid could tap into some government funding (as well as using the usual public funds).


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

soup or man said:


> The final should either be at the LA Coliseum or a (heavely revamped) RFK Stadium in Washington DC. In it's current form, it's far too ugly and old.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where do you get your stuff from man? Hook me up! :lol:


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

Renovating RFK? I don't think so. Knocking it down and building a new stadium will likely be cheaper.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

RFK is a dump trumped only by Candlestick.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

djwizard84 said:


> I don't remember this game in january... but anyway, thanks for the reply and hope they stop playing on this type of fields. It's not good for the game.


They're playing in a baseball stadium while their stadium is built. The rent is cheaper than playing in a giant NFL size stadium


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

I make my choice about 18 US cities for 2018 and 2022 world cups.
The cities/stadiums which could be selected in the US bid are:

*Northeast*
New York
Boston
Philadelphia

*South*
Washington DC
Miami
Atlanta
Orlando
Dallas
Houston

*Midwest*
Chicago
Cleveland
Minneapolis
Detroit

*West*
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Denver
Phoenix
Seattle

12 cities would be chosen between this selection.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

CaliforniaJones said:


> I make my choice about 18 US cities for 2018 and 2022 world cups.
> The cities/stadiums which could be selected in the US bid are:
> 
> *Northeast*
> ...


I'd rather have St Louis over Detroit or Cleveland. But I don't think they have a stadium that can host it. Too bad. Since Minneapolis, Chicago, and St Louis are relatively close to each other.

Also, I'd group DC with the northeast. It's pretty much down the road from Philly. It would be the only place in the country where fans could follow their teams without flying.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

CaliforniaJones said:


> I make my choice about 18 US cities for 2018 and 2022 world cups.
> The cities/stadiums which could be selected in the US bid are:
> 
> *Northeast*
> ...


Move DC into the North East group and remove Orlando, they will never be chosen and remove Minnieapolis and put in Indianapolis with their NEW stadium (no need to play in a bubble) and No to san francisco.

For Sure...
Dallas
New York
Philly
DC
Miami
LA
Phoenix
Houston
Seattle
Denver

And i would add....
Atlanta and Indianapolis.

But this is only going off what stadiums are built now in 2009. in 9 or 13 years there could be new stadiums in Minneapolis and San Francisco/Oakland and San Diego and maybe in DC and LA.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Ganis said:


> Move DC into the North East group and remove Orlando, they will never be chosen and remove Minnieapolis and put in Indianapolis with their NEW stadium (no need to play in a bubble) and No to san francisco.
> 
> For Sure...
> Dallas
> ...


Interesting you feel that Orlando will not be chosen seeing as how they were hosts back in 1994. You list is not too bad, just take away Denver, Phoenix and probably Miami. I think it is safe to assume Indianapolis will never be chosen and Minneapolis has a slim chance. 

My List would be:

Boston
New York
Washington, D.C.
Chicago
Dallas
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Seattle
Philadelphia
Houston

Cities with a decent shot:

Detroit
Phoenix
Miami
Baltimore
Orlando
San Diego

Cities with no shot:

Cleveland
Pittsburgh
Columbus
St. Louis
Minneapolis
Tampa
San Antonio
Austin
Salt Lake City
Portland
Charlotte
Raleigh/Durham
Indianapolis
Denver
Kansas City


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

:?

Minneapolis/Tampa/St. Louis = No shot?!!!!

Orlando will "never be chosen?"

We still have a lot of time, here, fellas. More importantly I feel quite certain the decisions for each city won't be made independently, but will take into account their compatibility with a larger, complete US bid. The likes of Dallas and Chicago, no matter how appealing their venues may be, would be hampered if they didn't have at least one nearby destination to help with travel and distribution of games and tourists.

Tampa has improved dramatically over the years to where it can stand on its own as a tourist destination. May not be world class compared to, say, Barcelona, but it certainly has merits and would be a great pairing with Miami, Orlando and/or even the Texas cities.

Minneapolis is a beautiful city, and odds are by the time 2022 rolls around the Vikings will have a new stadium or TCF Bank will be all the more viable for expansion and improvement. Similarly St. Louis will certainly do something on behalf of the Rams and the EJ Dome by then and could serve as that events version of the Silverdome. Either or both of these cities would make a great partner with Chicago. (Certainly more appealing cities than Indianapolis, IMO.) 

Orlando has an interesting problem, but suspicions are they'll find a way to renovate the Citrus Bowl by this time or risk losing a lot of their big sporting and entertainment events. If they do what's been proposed they move back to the top tier of the list.

Either way, some great places will be left off and some selections may feel uninspired. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> ^^^^^^^ There's no way in hell the LA Coliseum is renovated. A renovation would only be made if it was done to also bring a NFL team to LA, which won't happen. Making it for the NFL would require a capacity of 60,000-70,000, something USC will never allow to happen. They won't want a smaller capacity and their lease gives them veto power over any renovations or any other teams coming in. Also, nobody has the money for a renovated Coliseum or will deal with the Coliseum Commission. The Coliseum will not be renovated of host World Cup matches.
> 
> For LA to host in the World Cup, it will be in either the proposed stadium in the City of Industry or at a renovated Rose Bowl.


USC is rumored to have been seriously considering buying the Coliseum, especially since it is literally across the street from campus. If USC does renovate it, capacity likely wouldn't drop below 80000, if that.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

KingmanIII said:


> USC is rumored to have been seriously considering buying the Coliseum, especially since it is literally across the street from campus. If USC does renovate it, capacity likely wouldn't drop below 80000, if that.


There are rumors of them buying the Coliseum, but the price that the state believes they could fetch for the stadium is well above what independent evaluators have said it is worth and it's well above what USC would pay. Regardless of whether the lease continues or USC buys it, there's no way the stadium gets the renovations necessary for a NFL and World Cup. The renovations are only worth it if it also is home to a NFL team and USC doesn't want to share the stadium.


----------



## djwizard84 (Nov 21, 2007)

SIC said:


> They're playing in a baseball stadium while their stadium is built. The rent is cheaper than playing in a giant NFL size stadium


this stadium looks cool.

when it would be done?


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

GunnerJacket said:


> :?
> 
> Minneapolis/Tampa/St. Louis = No shot?!!!!
> 
> Orlando will "never be chosen?"


No shot might be harsh but they have little chance of being chosen. 

St. Louis is the only one with a decent shot.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

there are to many good and great stadiums ahead of Orlando now. If it comes down between Tampa Orlando and Miami then Miami would win. I would not be surprised is Boston got snubbed out since they will want to spread the games out more this time then last, which is why i add Denver and Indianapolis to the list.


----------



## ArchieTheGreat (Feb 10, 2009)

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are owned by the same person Malcolm Glazier who owns the largest most famous football team in the world, Man Utd. Don't underestimate Glaziers influence within football which he could use to have games in Tampa.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

St Louis would be more than fine stadium wise










Cleveland, Denver and Charlotte should be on the list. No shot is ridiculous for Cleveland, especially since the USMNT has actually played at Cleveland Browns Stadium


----------



## Horatio Caine (Apr 13, 2009)

The final stages should be divided over the biggest cities. 
Quarterfinals in Miami, LA, NY, Chicago. 
Semifinals in LA and NY 
Final in Washington (being the capital and all)


Man, RFK is really misused. With it's awesome location a new stadium would improve the city so bad! 
Think if they'd built a whole new inner-city neighbourhood around it with blocks of appartiments and commercial spaces in the bottom.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

ArchieTheGreat said:


> The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are owned by the same person Malcolm Glazier who owns the largest most famous football team in the world, Man Utd. Don't underestimate Glaziers influence within football which he could use to have games in Tampa.


Don't forget the pirate ship! A great way to show off the pirate ship! A pirate themed WC I say!


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Horatio Caine said:


> The final stages should be divided over the biggest cities.
> Quarterfinals in Miami, LA, NY, Chicago.
> Semifinals in LA and NY
> Final in Washington (being the capital and all)


They haven't said so officially, but I strongly suspect they'll keep the semi-finals within the same region. In 1994 the Italians complained about having the long flight from one coast going from the semis to the final, and I agree that seems egregious, even with the extra day.

Personally I'd prefer a regionalized tournament as a whole, but I'll trust US Soccer and FIFA to do what they'll abide.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Ganis said:


> I would not be surprised is Boston got snubbed out since they will want to spread the games out more this time then last, which is why i add Denver and Indianapolis to the list.


Spread it out even more? After all the griping about travel conditions in '94 and '02?!! That would be a severe step back, in my opinion. While logistically possible it's highly frustrating and expensive for teams, to say nothing of the costs for fans. 

At the least they'll have sites in regional pairs for group stages to compensate for the vast distance, because I know the folks traveling from DC/NY to Orlando in '94 were highly miffed (Ireland, Norway...).

I think people tend to put this into proper context as a multi-faceted event within a defined time frame. It's not like road tripping for a college football season, especially with modern security hassles at airports these days. (To say nothing of the publicity made by the environmentalists wanting to minimize the carbon-footprint! hno The USA ain't small, folks.

It may be possible to ship teams and fans across the vast expanse of this country without much trouble, but in that event count me among those who'd much, much prefer a more compact scene like what England and the Netherlands would offer.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Ganis said:


> there are to many good and great stadiums ahead of Orlando now. If it comes down between Tampa Orlando and Miami then Miami would win. I would not be surprised is Boston got snubbed out since they will want to spread the games out more this time then last, which is why i add Denver and Indianapolis to the list.


The likelihood that Boston would be snubbed is very very small. To have either Indianapolis or Denver host over Boston simply would not happen (if that's what you are implying). 



Horatio Caine said:


> The final stages should be divided over the biggest cities.
> Quarterfinals in Miami, LA, NY, Chicago.
> Semifinals in LA and NY
> Final in Washington (being the capital and all)
> ...


What I find interesting is why Orlando was chosen over Miami back in 1994. Having the final stages played in the larger cities makes sense, but Miami would not be included as Dallas is larger as a city and a metro area.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> The likelihood that Boston would be snubbed is very very small. To have either Indianapolis or Denver host over Boston simply would not happen (if that's what you are implying).
> 
> 
> 
> What I find interesting is why Orlando was chosen over Miami back in 1994. Having the final stages played in the larger cities makes sense, but Miami would not be included as Dallas is larger as a city and a metro area.


Miami didn't have an available stadium in 1994 because the Marlins play there and not only would they have to kick the Marlins out for 3 weeks for playing WC games there (assuming they don't get a semifinal or final), but they would also have to keep the Marlins out of the stadium for a couple weeks before and after to change and prepare the field.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

rantanamo said:


> St Louis would be more than fine stadium wise
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not sure if it can fit a FIFA WC regulated field, plus the area they mandate around it.


----------



## NMAISTER007 (Oct 29, 2008)

^^ How will they turn that into a football pitch?? (Football as in European football [For the Americans])


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

^^^^ They bring in grass and lay it out over the turf. It's not a bad pitch, but it's not great and while I think a US hosted World Cup will have that in a stadium or two, I don't think we'll see it in St. Louis. Grass rolled over turf will only be used in cities that really should host no matter what like New York or maybe Boston or Washington DC (if they get a new stadium with turf). St. Louis, while a fine city with great soccer heritage, just isn't a must when you list host cities and isn't worth laying down grass.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

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

There's a picture in the article that shows how they can make the field wide enough.

And don't underestimate Charlotte when it comes to bidding for something. Ask Atlanta, Daytona, Michigan, and Kansas City what happened when they did.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Honestly i dont see the appeal of St Louis hosting a game in the EJ Dome. Sure, if they had another stadium by then, but as of now there are so many better candidates.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

en1044 said:


> Honestly i dont see the appeal of St Louis hosting a game in the EJ Dome. Sure, if they had another stadium by then, but as of now there are so many better candidates.


Better candidates like what? FIFA has "recommendations" This stadium and city meets them, has a good hub airport and is in good travelling distance from others. We're looking at cities a lot. If that was the case, the initial list of cities that are being looked at would be much smaller, and much more regional.

We need to be more cognizant of the stadiums themselves as the competition will be much closer to FIFAs recommendations if we just go with the "big" cities. As much as they want to be in New York, the stadium only seats 80,000 and can be sold out elsewhere. Same with LA. Those markets are huge, but this is the age of television, and will be moreso by then, the actual games will be most important. We need more Cowboys Stadiums or Reliant Stadiums in the bid. Places like England, Spain, China and Australia will put up stadiums like that. This isn't 1992.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

As you can see here, the sideline walls are lower and the corners haven't been rounded off like you typically see in stadiums too narrow for soccer/football. If this stadium doesn't pass as wide enough then hardly any other NFL stadiums will


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

It's not a great stadium anyways, I don't know why you guys are getting upset about it...

St. Louis should concentrate on getting an MLS team and supporting it before getting to host a WC game.

There's just too many better options in the midwest.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

rantanamo said:


> Better candidates like what? FIFA has "recommendations" This stadium and city meets them, has a good hub airport and is in good travelling distance from others. We're looking at cities a lot. If that was the case, the initial list of cities that are being looked at would be much smaller, and much more regional.
> 
> We need to be more cognizant of the stadiums themselves as the competition will be much closer to FIFAs recommendations if we just go with the "big" cities. As much as they want to be in New York, the stadium only seats 80,000 and can be sold out elsewhere. Same with LA. Those markets are huge, but this is the age of television, and will be moreso by then, the actual games will be most important. We need more Cowboys Stadiums or Reliant Stadiums in the bid. Places like England, Spain, China and Australia will put up stadiums like that. This isn't 1992.





en1044 said:


> Honestly i dont see the appeal of St Louis hosting a game in the *EJ Dome*. Sure, if they had another stadium by then, but as of now there are so many better candidates.


..


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

CaliforniaJones said:


> I make my choice about 18 US cities for 2018 and 2022 world cups.
> The cities/stadiums which could be selected in the US bid are:
> 
> *Northeast*
> ...


Using this as a basis...

*Northeast*
*NYC - lock
Boston- lock
DC- lock*
Philadelphia- chance only as a backup to DC and if there are no other worthy city in the midwest

*South*
*Miami- somewhat lock
Houston- near lock
Dallas- near lock*
Tampa- doubtful only as a backup to Miami

*Midwest*
*Chicago- lock
Denver- near lock (moved here due to the plentiful options in the west)*
Indianapolis- chance, not as big as the other cities
Minneapolis- needs a new stadium to have a chance
Detroit- chance
St louis- chance, would be a lock with a new stadium
Cleveland- chance

*West*
*Los Angeles- lock
Seattle- lock*
San Francisco- near lock, needs a new stadium
Phoenix- chance if SF doesn't get a stadium
San Diego- chance if they get a new stadium built and SF stumbles

I think 10 out of the 12 cities are claimed. 

1 more from the midwest. Hard to pick from all those cities. Honestly I'd rather give another city to one of the other regions.

1 more from the west in which all SF has to do is get a new stadium built. If not, then probably Phoenix.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

San Francisco and San Diego don't even have plans for a stadium.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

krudmonk said:


> San Francisco and San Diego don't even have plans for a stadium.


San Francisco does though not in the city proper.

And if some of these stadiums want the WC, they will have to do some modifications to their stadiums. For example, Chicago is NOT a lock without modification or a different stadium. LA, Denver, SF, Boston, New York and Philly will have to at least add covering for press and dignitaries. Same with DC and Miami(last owner of the stadium did express interest in a retractable roof). 

On the other hand, Phoenix, Atlanta, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Seattle are ready now.

Without modification, LA and San Diego will be left out. St Louis is FIFA World Cup recommendation ready, while the LA and San Diego venues are not. That's what's so great about it. In case we haven't noticed, the stadium requirements now are vastly different from the World Cup event than just friendlies. We're talking everything from having all seats, covered dignitary and media areas(at the least) and even field size. This is different from international friendlies where such things can be negotiated. In order to win the bid, the stadiums are a huge part of the equation. Especially with the competition that we will have from England, Spain, China and the Aussies. Every country in the running has big cities with good infrastructure. We aren't gonna beat China with the Rose Bowl and Giants Stadium. Especially not with Qualcomm stadium.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

krudmonk said:


> San Francisco and San Diego don't even have plans for a stadium.


Both are discussing stadiums though. 

As far as "covered area for press and dignitaries," club seats.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

rantanamo said:


> San Francisco does though not in the city proper.


The San Francisco 49ers and a "San Francisco" World Cup venue are hardly the same thing.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

The new 49ers stadium will be built with soccer in mind. Just like the new meadowlands stadium and the new cowboys stadium.


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

As far as coverings are concerned, they should be a concern only for those cities that really get hot in the summer, including: Hotlanta, New Heat Island York, Humidelphia, Dog Days of Columbia, Heatcago, Tropi-Miami, Sizzlin-Hotimore, Kansas Hot Air City, Los Angeles Calientes and so on...

But seriously, the heat would be the biggest drawback. Fancy new stadia with moving roofs can help but they can't cancel out Mother Nature. This is where I wish FIFA can be convinced to allow most games to be played at night but that won't go well with them. Perhaps there could be a compromise where matches involving teams from the same continent (ex. Mexico vs Argentina) or a team from the Americas vs a team from Asia (ex. Costa Rica vs Japan) can be played at night. I think that FIFA should be open to allowing more night matches at the World Cup. This is how it could be done, using the standard format of the match schedule:

Europe vs Europe - 1 PM or 12:30 PM, an earlier start preferable, East Coast city
Europe vs Americas - 4 PM, somewhere in the Midwest
Americas vs Africa - 4 PM, Midwest or South
Africa vs Asia - 1 PM if East Coast, 4 PM if Midwest/South, 7 PM if West Coast (on Pacific Time)
Asia vs Americas - 7 PM Pacific Time on West Coast
Africa vs Europe - 1 PM Eastern Time on East Coast
Asia vs Europe - I would favor Asia more (FIFA really likes Asia), West Coast or Midwest, 7 PM start in either location

The area that would get the most flexibility is with Concacaf vs Conmebol, they can be played at any hour of the day because people here are more used to the summer heat. Miami would be a good location, as well as DC and New Jersey. Make it a primetime match-up (7 or 8 PM). So a typical match-day might look something like this:

Netherlands-Romania - 12:30 pm
Japan - Cameroon - 4:00 pm
Costa Rica - Brazil - 7:00 pm

England - Nigeria - 1:00 pm
United States - Switzerland - 4:00 pm
China - Spain - 7:00 pm

Germany - Russia - 12:30 pm
Egypt - Mexico - 4:00 pm
Chile - Korea - 7:00 pm

I don't think anyone from a given confederation cares about matches involving teams NOT in their confederation, so I think they shouldn't protest about 7 o'clock start times on the West Coast. Anyone disagree?

If worse comes to worse, Stanford Stadium would be a good back-up. It was recently renovated. The track is no longer there. It's now a decent stadium. Perhaps the final can go there as well. San Diego also has decent weather. Although the stadium is now old, it isn't that bad looking, from what I've seen of it recently. It would take some renovations to bring the seating closer to the field, take out the baseball dugouts, standardize the seating levels. It sure is wide enough for the "world's game" so I don't see why it shouldn't be considered.

One more thing and I don't know if this has been brought up before: Don't you think that they're using this year's Gold Cup as a sort of test to see how a World Cup with more cities could be handled? Aren't they using, like, 13 cities for this tournament? That's for a competition that includes Central American and Caribbean teams, as well as the big continental teams.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

ryebreadraz said:


> Miami didn't have an available stadium in 1994 because the Marlins play there and not only would they have to kick the Marlins out for 3 weeks for playing WC games there (assuming they don't get a semifinal or final), but they would also have to keep the Marlins out of the stadium for a couple weeks before and after to change and prepare the field.


Yup. Miami was all set to host the WC before the Marlins team was set.


----------



## Horatio Caine (Apr 13, 2009)

massp88 said:


> What I find interesting is why Orlando was chosen over Miami back in 1994. Having the final stages played in the larger cities makes sense, but Miami would not be included as Dallas is larger as a city and a metro area.


Miami has way more appeal. It's a tourist hot spot (even in the summer) and they are way better at dealing with big events (having the Super Bowl two years in a row says a lot).


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

I have a list of cities for a world cup in the US with some backup solutions.

*Northeast*
Boston
New York
Washington DC

*South*
Miami
Houston
Dallas

*Midwest*
Chicago
Indianapolis-St Louis-Philadelphia

*West*
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Denver-Phoenix
Seattle

I consider dynamic cities, great touristic attraction, stadiums and cities whiche are in the sun belt.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> And don't underestimate Charlotte when it comes to bidding for something. Ask Atlanta, Daytona, Michigan, and Kansas City what happened when they did.


I like Charlotte a lot and think the Panthers stadium is top notch, but the guise of your statement is way off. There's a dramatic difference between vying to host a series of World Cup matches versus being chosen as the site for the NASCAR Hall of Fame & Museum, which everyone and their brother knew would end up in Charlotte anyway. That process is hardly an indicator of Charlotte's ability to serve as a global destination over other cities.

Context, people. Context.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

what stadiums are FIFA ready(a lot of the stadiums in the popular cities are simply not) and what cities are willing to pay to get those stadiums ready will be a huge factor. Charlotte's stadium is more FIFA ready than a lot of these places, but FIFA will definitely want some roofs added.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Horatio Caine said:


> Miami has way more appeal. It's a tourist hot spot (even in the summer) and they are way better at dealing with big events (having the Super Bowl two years in a row says a lot).


Yeah. Miami lost out in '94 because the Marlins were playing in the football/soccer stadium, but that won't be a problem next time around. While I'm not a huge fan of roofs and don't campaign on behalf of them around here usually, Miami is a city that's hot enough where a roof may suit them. With 9 or 13 years to go until the possible WC, Dolphin/Landshark Stadium will need another renovation by then so maybe a small roof can be part of it.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

rantanamo said:


> what stadiums are FIFA ready(a lot of the stadiums in the popular cities are simply not) and what cities are willing to pay to get those stadiums ready will be a huge factor. Charlotte's stadium is more FIFA ready than a lot of these places, but FIFA will definitely want some roofs added.


It depends on what you consider FIFA ready. Most of what FIFA asks for is recommended so FIFA ready is tough to gauge. While there's no way field size will be compromised this time around, FIFA could make exceptions on the extra space around the field. While they'd like enough covered seats, they may decrease how many need to be covered for the US, allowing the suites, club seats and press boxes already built in these stadiums to suffice.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

ryebreadraz said:


> It depends on what you consider FIFA ready. Most of what FIFA asks for is recommended so FIFA ready is tough to gauge. While there's no way field size will be compromised this time around, FIFA could make exceptions on the extra space around the field. While they'd like enough covered seats, they may decrease how many need to be covered for the US, allowing the suites, club seats and press boxes already built in these stadiums to suffice.



The FIFA document is pretty clear on the actual World Cup. Field size has a minimum requirement, while space around the field is a recommendation. 

The Rose Bowl would be an example to look at. 

- The field is fine, but the benches would have to go in favors of all seats. That's a safety regulation of theirs to have all seats.
- I have to wonder about the disable requirement(very similar to ADA requirements.) A row or two might have to be take out for this 
- Lighting should be fine as they wisely left this to the television network requirements as they do in the NFL.
- From the wording the "VIP" and media sections have to be covered. A place like Soldier Field might be able to accomodate this by the suites. Can the Rose Bowl, or will they have to build a canopy for both?


----------



## New York City 20?? (Aug 23, 2008)

hngcm said:


> As far as "covered area for press and dignitaries," club seats.


Perhaps, but it is a lot of press. 

Germany 2006:


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

http://www.fifa.com/mm/51/54/02/foo..._recommendations_and_requirements_en_8211.pdf

in case anyone wants to diagnose each stadium's problem


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

UNIVISION CEO JOE UVA JOINS TEAM TO BRING FIFA WORLD CUP TO U.S. IN 2018 OR 2022


_Executive Office of Univision Communications joins Board of Directors for USA Bid Committee _


NEW YORK (July 16, 2009) – Joe Uva, the Chief Executive Officer of Univision Communications, Inc., today accepted an invitation to join the Board of Directors for the USA Bid Committee in its efforts to bring the FIFA World Cup to the United States in 2018 or 2022.

Univision is the leading Spanish-language media company in the U.S. Uva became Univision CEO on April 1, 2007, assuming overall responsibility for the company's suite of market-leading assets that include the Univision Network, which is one of the top five television networks in America regardless of language — and is also the No. 1 Spanish-language broadcast television network; TeleFutura, the second leading Spanish-language network in key day parts; KMEX, the No. 1 television station in the country regardless of language; Galavisión, the No. 1 Spanish-language cable network; Univision Radio, the No. 1 Spanish-language radio group and Univision Interactive Media, which includes the No. 1 U.S. Spanish-language Internet portal.

“In the U.S., Univision is ‘futbol’ for millions of viewers looking to feel the passion and energy that defines the sport,” said Uva. “Because of the growing influence and impact of the Hispanic population in this country, we know we will have a critical voice in helping the United States secure the opportunity to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018 or 2022. I am personally honored to be able to support this bid on their behalf.”

Univision has been the exclusive Spanish-language broadcaster of the FIFA World Cup since 1978. Univision is also a major supporter of soccer in the U.S. through its broadcasts of the Men’s National Team and Major League Soccer, in addition to a wide range of top-tier global events in which the U.S. participates.

“The USA Bid Committee is grateful to have Joe Uva and Univision Communications supporting our bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2018 or 2022,” said David Downs, Executive Director of the USA Bid Committee. “Univision serves a crucial role in introducing millions of Spanish-speaking individuals to our country every year and soccer plays an especially important role in that process. The Hispanic population greatly contributes to the diversity of our country and that diversity is a key strength of our bid.”

“For our bid to be successful, we will need the support of key allies in the media to help us communicate the fundamental mission behind our bid,” said Sunil Gulati, the Chairman of the USA Bid Committee and President of U.S. Soccer. “Univision answers that call with a significant and growing base of viewers that has proven over the years to be passionate about soccer.”

Prior to joining Univision, Uva spent five years as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Omnicom’s OMD Worldwide, building the company into the No. 2-ranked media strategy and buying agency in the world with over 100 offices in over 80 countries. Uva also spent 17 years at Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. In 1996, he was named President of Sales and Marketing for Turner Entertainment Group.

Uva is a member of the board of directors of TiVo, Inc. (NASDAQ: TIVO). He also serves on several non-profit boards including the Ad Council and the International Radio & Television Society Foundation and is a member of the CEO Roundtable on Cancer. 

The United States, Australia, England, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico and Russia have formally declared their desire to host the FIFA World Cup™ in 2018 or 2022. Netherlands-Belgium and Portugal-Spain have each submitted joint bids for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments, while Qatar and South Korea have applied as candidates to play host only to the tournament in 2022.

All candidates must have their bid applications to FIFA by May 14, 2010. FIFA’s 24 member Executive Committee will study the bids, conduct site visits and name the two hosts for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments in December 2010, completing a 21-month bid and review process.

Uva joins the Board of Directors of the USA Bid Committee that recently welcomed New England Revolution and New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, U.S. Soccer Foundation President Ed Foster-Simeon, University of Miami President Donna Shalala, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, U.S. National Team icons Landon Donovan and Mia Hamm, and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger. In the months ahead, the USA Bid Committee will add additional national leaders from the sectors of sports, entertainment, government and business.

The USA Bid Committee’s efforts also recently earned the support of President Barack Obama, who has reached out to FIFA – the world's governing body of soccer – to endorse the efforts to bring the world’s largest sporting event back to the United States. In a letter to FIFA President Joseph “Sepp” Blatter and U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati, President Obama noted the role soccer played in his life as a youth, and its ability to unite people, communities and nations from every continent.

“Hosting another successful World Cup is important for the continued growth of the sport in the United States. And it is important to me personally,” President Obama wrote in his letter. “As a child, I played soccer on a dirt road in Jakarta, and the game brought the children of my neighborhood together. As a father, I saw that same spirit of unity alive on the fields and sidelines of my own daughters’ soccer games in Chicago.”

“Soccer is truly the world’s sport, and the World Cup promotes camaraderie and friendly competition across the globe,” President Obama added. “That is why this bid is about much more than a game. It is about the United States of America inviting the world to gather all across our great country in celebration of our common hopes and dreams.”

http://www.univision.com/content/content.jhtml?cid=2017830


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

ya, More backing!


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Highlights of the Mexico-Haiti game at the brand new Cowboys stadium. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3HfzORAz7U


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Dallas is ready

From This weekend in Arlington Texas


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ Even in Concacaf, France is competing !! 
AHHH worldwide France :banana:

So can we have 2 or 3 France in the world cup ???? :lol:


----------



## dacrio (Jan 30, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> ^^ Even in Concacaf, France is competing !!
> AHHH worldwide France :banana:
> 
> So can we have 2 or 3 France in the world cup ???? :lol:


:lol:

senegal, malì, cote d'ivoire...more than 2 or 3 ...hno:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

^^ No, these are independant countries, but Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana & Saint-Martin NO : They are part of France, they are French Departments with their own teams in Concacaf :banana:!!

Look at the flag :



Ganis said:


> Dallas is ready


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

I am going to replace Philly by 
Denver: INVESCO Field (76,125 places)

I am impatient to know the 20 stadiums which will be selected on august.
Denver could be a good choice because of touristic attractions, beautiful landscape, soccer culture (hispanics and MLS team) and airpoirt.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

I'm sorry but I really think it is shocking that the USA is even allowed to bid so soon after hosting it. If they get 2018, then its the equivalent of France getting 2022 and S. Korea / Japan getting 2026.

I'm sure many will disagree with me and by all means try to convince me because perhaps I don't know the full story etc.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Luke80 said:


> I'm sorry but I really think it is shocking that the USA is even allowed to bid so soon after hosting it. If they get 2018, then its the equivalent of France getting 2022 and S. Korea / Japan getting 2026.
> 
> I'm sure many will disagree with me and by all means try to convince me because perhaps I don't know the full story etc.


Oh no! That would be like Mexico getting 1970 and 1986! I know that was due to backup contingency, but still. Is it really a huge crime? The 1994 tournament was before we even had a top domestic competition. It's ancient history.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Luke80 said:


> I'm sorry but I really think it is shocking that the USA is even allowed to bid so soon after hosting it. If they get 2018, then its the equivalent of France getting 2022 and S. Korea / Japan getting 2026.
> 
> I'm sure many will disagree with me and by all means try to convince me because perhaps I don't know the full story etc.


Perhaps not shocking, but I agree. England should get 2018, and the USA and Oz '22 or '26.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> Oh no! That would be like Mexico getting 1970 and 1986! I know that was due to backup contingency, but still. Is it really a huge crime? The 1994 tournament was before we even had a top domestic competition. It's ancient history.


Well, it wouldn't be had the birthplace of modern football not hosted for what will have been a half-century.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Oh no! That would be like Mexico getting 1970 and 1986! I know that was due to backup contingency, but still. Is it really a huge crime?


Yes. I don't think that was a good idea either. 

England 2018 then Oz 2022. 2026 to USA or someone else. I'd say once every 30 years as a very minimum and no more than twice in 60/70 years (unless literally no-one else can or wants to do it).


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Luke80 said:


> Yes. I don't think that was a good idea either.
> 
> England 2018 then *Oz 2022*. 2026 to USA or someone else. I'd say once every 30 years as a very minimum and no more than twice in 60/70 years (unless literally no-one else can or wants to do it).


Australia doesn't even have enough cities to host, let alone stadia.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Australia doesn't even have enough cities to host, let alone stadia.


Well if they want to host it in 2022 then FIFA will tell them to get on with implementing plans.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Luke80 said:


> Well if they want to host it in 2022 then FIFA will tell them to get on with implementing plans.


Oz's big problem is that they have many first-class stadiums, but about half of them are ovals, because in certain states football codes played on rectangular pitches are not nearly as popular as Aussie Rules.


----------



## Billpa (Feb 26, 2006)

Luke80 said:


> I'm sorry but I really think it is shocking that the USA is even allowed to bid so soon after hosting it. If they get 2018, then its the equivalent of France getting 2022 and S. Korea / Japan getting 2026.
> 
> I'm sure many will disagree with me and by all means try to convince me because perhaps I don't know the full story etc.


I actually agree with you but we both know that FIFA makes decisions based on things other than what's right for the game.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Semi-finals: NY, LA
3rd match game: Dallas
Final: Washington DC

Bid stadiums.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Luke80 said:


> I'm sorry but I really think it is shocking that the USA is even allowed to bid so soon after hosting it. If they get 2018, then its the equivalent of France getting 2022 and S. Korea / Japan getting 2026.
> 
> I'm sure many will disagree with me and by all means try to convince me because perhaps I don't know the full story etc.


Japan and Korea are also bidding


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Australia doesn't even have enough cities to host, let alone stadia.


You Obviously dont know much about Australia.
We have plenty of citys and stadium.

Stadium which already exist: MCG (100,000), ANZ stadium (83,000), Etihad stadium (56,000), Suncorp stadium (52,500), AAMI Stadium (51,000), SFS (45,500), SCG (44,000), Gabba (42,000), Newcastle stadium (45,000 by WC)

Stadiums Being Built planned: Melbourne Rectangular stadium (Upgraded to 50,000), New Canberra Stadium (45,000), new Adelaide stadium (45,000), Upgraded townsville stadium, New Tasmania Stadium and new Darwin stadium.

the world cup is still a long time away so we have a lot of time to plan.

to be honest I would be very dissapointed if the USA win any of the world cups you have only recently had one which was a failure. football still does not have a big following there. I would like to see one in europe (Probably England) and one somewhere else (Preferably Australia)


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

JYDA said:


> Japan and Korea are also bidding


hno: There has only been 1 world cup since when they hosted it! :nuts:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Australia doesn't even have enough cities to host, let alone stadia.


10 stadiums are enough for hosting (and two cities are allowed to host in two stadiums), so :

Melbourne, Melbourne Cricket Ground : 100,000
Sydney, ANZ Stadium : 83,500
Melbourne, Etihad Dome : 56,347
Brisbane, Suncorp Stadium : 53,223
Adelaide, AAMI Stadium : 51,515
Perth, Subiaco Oval : 42,922
Sydney, Aussie Stadium : 41,159
Canberra, Canberra Stadium : 25,011 (needs to be expanded to at least 30K)
Newcaslte, Energy Australia Stadium : 26,126 (needs to be expanded to at least 30K)

Voilà !

Only one is missing in my list but it can be built in Townsville, Hobart or Gold Coast, before 2018 or 2022.....


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Sorry, but you have ovals in there. They are terrible for rectangular configurations. FIFA would not be impressed. Also, those capacities are not all that impressive, especially when you have to dip into regional centers like Newcastle. No knock on the Aussies or their soccer, but current requirements preclude them. I personally think they should ease up on the rule about having only one city with multiple stadia.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Maybe, but about the capacities, remember France 98.
Only USA can host in twelve 70K or 80K...Should you host it permanently ??

About the oval, of course it's not the best configuration, but it's not worst than athletics stadiums (remember WC 1990, 2002 & 2006), or stadiums like Rose Bowl, IMO.

I don't know Australia very well, but I'm sure they can host brilliantly a WC.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

I hope you dont mind parc, I took the liberty of changing the post to fit what is the more likely bid proposal.



parcdesprinces said:


> 10 stadiums are enough for hosting (and two cities are allowed to host in two stadiums), so :
> 
> *1)* Melbourne, Melbourne Cricket Ground : 100,000 *OVAL*
> *2)* Sydney, ANZ Stadium : 83,500 *ATHLETICS WITH MOVABLE LOWER TIER*
> ...


At worst, thats two oval stadiums, and two stadium with movable tiers (similar to stade de France). A better ration than for Korea Japan.
At best thats 9 rectangular stadiums, one oval and one athletics with movable lower tier. Better ration than Germany.

The FFA is talking about a 12 stadium bid. I dont know where that other stadium would come from TBH. Really it could be either rectangular or oval, though Im guessing it would be one of the rectangular stadiums which have been proposed, some of which would have temporary seating.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

parcdesprinces said:


> Maybe, but about the capacities, remember France 98.
> Only USA can host in twelve 70K or 80K...Should you host it permanently ??
> 
> About the oval, of course it's not the best configuration, but it's not worst than athletics stadiums (remember WC 1990, 2002 & 2006), or stadiums like Rose Bowl, IMO.
> ...


What are the distances from the stands to the field in a oval stadiums as opposed to an athletics stadium? Does anyone know?

What's wrong with the Rose Bowl? Why are you putting that in with athletics stadiums and oval stadiums?


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> What are the distances from the stands to the field in a oval stadiums as opposed to an athletics stadium? Does anyone know?


Not specific, but for reference, here's Subi oval in rectangular setup for the Force:


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

berkshire royal said:


> Although you wrote this a bit forecefully I can see your point and it is one of my SMALL reservations of a US World Cup. One of the things I like about the modern World Cup is that it leaves behind a host of new stadiums and an improved infrastructure for that nation, we saw it in Korea/Japan, Germany, Brazil and you would probably see it in all the other nations it they get a World Cup but it wouldn't really make any difference on that front in the US. But it definately isn't a strong enough reason to not give them a World Cup.


Its great to have that new infrastructure, but it wasn't free.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

And a lot of that "legacy" in Japan/Korea are just some big white elephants. 

And the main competitor to the USA for 2022, Australia, is not going to leave much legacy for soccer either.


----------



## Mr.Bennish (Mar 22, 2007)

It is really interesting the position of Obama regarding the world cup. By that is almost sure that mexico will not be hosting its third world cup.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

hngcm said:


> And a lot of that "legacy" in Japan/Korea are just some big white elephants.
> 
> And the main competitor to the USA for 2022, Australia, is not going to leave much legacy for soccer either.


Not going to have much legacy? What about a chance to promote Soccer in the areas of Australia where it's least popular? The chance to have the indigenous population involved? The upgraded stadiums used for both NRL and A-League sides? The general infrastructure that will be in place? There's plenty of legacy to choose from.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

what I meant was the 94 World cup did verry little for America in comparison to what it has done for other host nations. there was no infrustructure gained and although MLS resulted from the World Cup it is a very small league for a country of 300,000,000. and shows the lack of interest for the sport across the US. 

Admittadely a world cup would also do little to improve the state of the game in England due to its already massive following/league. yet this large following, the lack of a world cup for 60 years and england being the birthplace of football is more than enough to justify bringing back the cup. 
If England can get it only once every 60 years i see little reason why the USA should recieve it once every 25.

Also in tearms of building the game north America has proved it will never be a major sport in the region whereas there is much room for growth in Asia/Oceania. of which the main bids for the two world cups is in Australia, where it would be of major benefit to the game and to the country. 

Out of the many countries bidding for 2018/2022 i would be greatly dissapointed if it was granted to america as i believe it will gain the least from holding the event.


----------



## socialnetworker (Jul 29, 2009)

Nice post! It's really nice to be here..

taux emprunt
immobilier - Taux emprunt immobilier.
Comparez les offres d’emprunt immobilier, simulation emprunt
immobilier, taux emprunt immobilier


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

mvictory said:


> what I meant was the 94 World cup did verry little for America in comparison to what it has done for other host nations. there was no infrustructure gained and although MLS resulted from the World Cup it is a very small league for a country of 300,000,000. and shows the lack of interest for the sport across the US.
> 
> Admittadely a world cup would also do little to improve the state of the game in England due to its already massive following/league. yet this large following, the lack of a world cup for 60 years and england being the birthplace of football is more than enough to justify bringing back the cup.
> If England can get it only once every 60 years i see little reason why the USA should recieve it once every 25.
> ...


Same thoughts that are dividing Formula 1 right now. Potential money vs money in the bank. I'm not smart enough to decide which is best. If no one wants the US to have the Cup then so be it. But to sit there and pretend 1994 had no effect is simply incorrect. 

As for England. Did they bid every 4 years? 60 years is irrelavent if they only bid a couple of times in that span.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

mvictory said:


> what I meant was the 94 World cup did verry little for America in comparison to what it has done for other host nations. there was no infrustructure gained and although MLS resulted from the World Cup it is a very small league for a country of 300,000,000. and shows the lack of interest for the sport across the US.
> 
> Admittadely a world cup would also do little to improve the state of the game in England due to its already massive following/league. yet this large following, the lack of a world cup for 60 years and england being the birthplace of football is more than enough to justify bringing back the cup.
> If England can get it only once every 60 years i see little reason why the USA should recieve it once every 25.
> ...


So because MLS isn't one of the world's best, it wasn't a major impact. It was only a month ago that many were praising the US team for their Confederations Cup play. Look how many of the players on that team played in MLS early in their careers. The US went to the quarterfinals in the 2002 World Cup. Tha doesn't happen without MLS, which produced a lot of the talent on that roster. Also, MLS has the 12th best attendance of any soccer league in the world, ahead of Scotland and Portugal, so it's not an insignificant league. It's actually pretty darn good for a league that began in 1996 when you compare it to 60, 80 or 100 year old leagues.

That World Cup also funded our youth development programs, which are thriving and seeing many players offered academy options from the world's top clubs. It also led to SUM, which is becoming a huge part of soccer here, as it arranges sponsorships, TV deals and matches, including the friendlies here with European clubs that have drawn 50,000, 60,000, 70,000, 80,000 and 90,000. Countries that don't care about soccer don't put 90,000 people in the seats.


----------



## Paul D (Jul 3, 2004)

mvictory said:


> what I meant was the 94 World cup did verry little for America in comparison to what it has done for other host nations. there was no infrustructure gained and although MLS resulted from the World Cup it is a very small league for a country of 300,000,000. and shows the lack of interest for the sport across the US.
> 
> Admittadely a world cup would also do little to improve the state of the game in England due to its already massive following/league. yet this large following, the lack of a world cup for 60 years and england being the birthplace of football is more than enough to justify bringing back the cup.
> If England can get it only once every 60 years i see little reason why the USA should recieve it once every 25.
> ...



Exactly that's a great post.A lot of the stadiums in England need updating so winning the World Cup in 2018 will see stadiums improving up and down the country,so football will benefit here from this.Personally I think it's in the bag.


----------



## Paul D (Jul 3, 2004)

> MLS has the 12th best attendance of any soccer league in the world, ahead of Scotland and Portugal


Scottish football is awful,some teams barely have a ground and are in really remote places were the population is really tiny.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> So because MLS isn't one of the world's best, it wasn't a major impact. It was only a month ago that many were praising the US team for their Confederations Cup play. Look how many of the players on that team played in MLS early in their careers. The US went to the quarterfinals in the 2002 World Cup. Tha doesn't happen without MLS, which produced a lot of the talent on that roster. Also, *MLS* has the 12th best attendance of any soccer league in the world, *ahead of Scotland* and Portugal, so it's not an insignificant league. It's actually pretty darn good for a league that began in 1996 when you compare it to 60, 80 or 100 year old leagues.


Well, well. MLS franchises each purposely placed in a conurbation of several million people draw bigger crowds than Kilmarnock and Aberdeen. This is truly impressive. Powerhouses like the USA really should host a World Cup every other decade.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

> And the main competitor to the USA for 2022, Australia, is not going to leave much legacy for soccer either.


Way, way wrong. 
Newcastle stadium would be upgraded from 33,000 to 40,000+
Melbourne rectangular stadium would be upgraded from 31,500 to 50,000+
Canberra 45,000 rectangular stadium would be built
Either a Carrara stadium of Robina stadium upgrade to over 40,000 at the Gold Coast

Those are 4 already announced, guaranteed upgrades to go ahead _only_ if Australia wins the bid.

Along with that there would be almost certainly
Townsville stadium upgrade to modern 45,000 stadium, with possible temporary stands reverting to 25,000 
Perth rectangular stadium or multi purpose stadium would be built helping Rugby union, rugby league, obviously soccer and possibly cricket and AFL as well
Adelaide is in the same situation as Perth

Thats another 3 proposals which are either only going to go ahead if Australia wins the bid, or are likely to produce far better stadia for soccer as opposed to other proposed upgrades.

So thats seven *major* stadium infrastructure upgrades.

Along with that there would be serious investment in other areas of infrastructure, which due to Australia's smaller size, would have a higher relative impact.



All that, however, probably counts for very little when Blatter comes out in support of the USA bid:
http://player.sbs.com.au/twg#/twg_08/GlobalGame/GlobalGame/playlist/Blatter-backs-US-Cup-bid/

Our prime minister has to travel to Zurich to get a meeting with sep. 
Your president it seems, has sep come over to _his_ house, and gets a personal invite to South Africa next year.

Funny how he talks about the _new_ rotation policy, which AFAIK does not exist... or does he mean the old one which has been discontinued??? ohh FIFA and their policies...

Race not over yet. He really had no choice but talk positively about your chances when he is in your country. Still, the most positive thing he had to say about Australia while in Sydney last year, was "Australia isnt that far away after all". lol


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

> Also, MLS has the 12th best attendance of any soccer league in the world, ahead of Scotland and Portugal, so it's not an insignificant league.


The MLS average attendance is about the same as the A league attendance. Difference is USA pop = 300 mil. Aus pop = 21 mil

I guess some people mean when they say that the 94 world cup was a failure in promoting the game in USA, is that they expected more. Its still a relatively small league (despite being in the richest country in the world), and lags far behind other sports in terms of interest. It took more than a decade before the league stopped _paying_ tv networks to air games! 

It has come along though recently, and as someone said, is probably comparable to something like the Greek league in terms of quality (maybe a little weaker)? It produces talent and is actually sustainable financially. You could ask for a lot more but its getting there slowly which is good.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

woozoo said:


> Way, way wrong.
> Newcastle stadium would be upgraded from 33,000 to 40,000+
> Melbourne rectangular stadium would be upgraded from 31,500 to 50,000+
> Canberra 45,000 rectangular stadium would be built
> Either a Carrara stadium of Robina stadium upgrade to over 40,000 at the Gold Coast


And those wouldn't be white elephants? Who the hell is going to fill those regularly? Canberra doesn't even have an A-League team and they're the goddamn capital. The Newcastle Knights are way more popular than the Jets but still struggle to stay afloat because they play in what's effectively a regional town but world standards. Only AFL averages that high and they certainly won't be playing on rectangular pitches anytime soon (except against Ireland).

This is just more in the long line of inexplicable animosity from Aussies toward American soccer. You're no better off just because you make a concerted effort to call it "football" now.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

Yer, my two posts are FULL of animosity towards US soccer...

Melbourne wouldn't be a white elephant. Crowds average 24,000 after only 4 years, and at the hated, oval etihad stadium. Big games pull crowds around 35k and finals sell out 55. Watch how many games sell out at the rectangular ground with 31 capacity in two seasons time.

Newcastle knights average around 20k at their current outdated stadium. In a new ground in 13 years time after steady population growth, a 40k stadium would be adequate.

Titans already sell out robina quite often. Forecasts show the population should grow from 500 to 800k by 2020, so an upgrade would be useful.

Canberra needs a new stadium capable of hosting bigger socceroos games, state of origin and wallabies games. The proposed plan would inlude a new athletics stadium, a rectangular ground, and reverting Bruce stadium to oval for footy, all in the one major sports precinct. It's a ripper plan for the capital. Canberra could easily have an a league team by 2022.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

woozoo said:


> *The MLS average attendance is about the same as the A league attendance. Difference is USA pop = 300 mil. Aus pop = 21 mil
> *


By almost the same you mean, 20-25% higher? Total attendance is almost 3 times larger and with 3 teams averaging about 20K fans entering the league in the next two years, it's only going to be higher. 

For god sakes, your national team coach won't even callup players in the A-League because he doesn't respect it. There was an article in the guardian about it and no one disagreed in the comments. It was just various permutations of "Yes, I agree. The A-league is rubbish". I'll go dig it out, if you don't believe me. 

Let's at least agree to use facts and not blatant half-truths. I'm not against an Australian bid, but people don't have to minimize the impact of the sport in the United States. Who knows where the league will be in 2022.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> So because MLS isn't one of the world's best, it wasn't a major impact. It was only a month ago that many were praising the US team for their Confederations Cup play. Look how many of the players on that team played in MLS early in their careers. The US went to the quarterfinals in the 2002 World Cup. Tha doesn't happen without MLS, which produced a lot of the talent on that roster. Also, MLS has the 12th best attendance of any soccer league in the world, ahead of Scotland and Portugal, so it's not an insignificant league. It's actually pretty darn good for a league that began in 1996 when you compare it to 60, 80 or 100 year old leagues.
> 
> That World Cup also funded our youth development programs, which are thriving and seeing many players offered academy options from the world's top clubs. It also led to SUM, which is becoming a huge part of soccer here, as it arranges sponsorships, TV deals and matches, including the friendlies here with European clubs that have drawn 50,000, 60,000, 70,000, 80,000 and 90,000. Countries that don't care about soccer don't put 90,000 people in the seats.



12th in the world? I make it 11th of the list I've seen. Still, that's really nothing to shout about.

Rank Country Average Attendance Population
1 Germany 41,914 82,000,000
2 England 36,076 51,000,000
3 Spain 29,214 47,000,000
4 Italy 23,180 60,000,000
5 France 21,050 65,000,000
6 Argentina 20,886 40,000,000
7 Holland 19,827 16,000,000
8 Japan 19,278 127,000,000
9 England (2nd League) 17,022 51,000,000
10 Brazil 16,992 191,000,000
11 USA 16,460 307,000,000
12 Germany (2nd League) 15,550 82,000,000
13 Scotland 14,915 5,000,000
14 Turkey 14,058 73,000,000
15 China 13, 534 1,400,000,000


Apart from China the US is by the biggest population there and is quite low down on the list. It's even worse if you think of the difference in the size of the cities.

To put into perspective, Norwich City have sold more than the MLS average in season tickets alone, and they are in the third tier this season.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

SSE said:


> 12th in the world? I make it 11th of the list I've seen. Still, that's really nothing to shout about.
> 
> Rank Country Average Attendance Population
> 1 Germany 41,914 82,000,000
> ...


Yeah but in the US soccer is _maybe_ the 5th most popular sport. I'd say those numbers are pretty good for what its come from since 1996 and having to compete with other sports.

16K a match isnt low at all.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

5th most popular sport in US isn't really comparable here because after football, Rugby Union, Cricket and Rugby League we don't really have a sport with a regular professional season or any stadium infrastructure. Tennis? Golf? F1?


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> And those wouldn't be white elephants? Who the hell is going to fill those regularly? Canberra doesn't even have an A-League team and they're the goddamn capital. The Newcastle Knights are way more popular than the Jets but still struggle to stay afloat because they play in what's effectively a regional town but world standards. Only AFL averages that high and they certainly won't be playing on rectangular pitches anytime soon (except against Ireland).
> 
> This is just more in the long line of inexplicable animosity from Aussies toward American soccer. You're no better off just because you make a concerted effort to call it "football" now.


All of those stadiums would be used year round with football in summer and nrl/super 14 in the winter. after the cup most of them are planned to be reduced to 25 000 which is perfect for those sports with the exception of the melbourne stadium which would remain at 50 000 because there main tennant averages 25 000 to regular season games with matches against rival teams regularly pulling 40-55000. none of these developments would be white elophants.

America has 300,000,000 people. therefore having similar attendance figures to scotland (5,000,000) and australia (20,000,000) is not something to boast about.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

en1044 said:


> Yeah but in the US soccer is _maybe_ the 5th most popular sport. I'd say those numbers are pretty good for what its come from since 1996 and having to compete with other sports.
> 
> 16K a match isnt low at all.


Whilst the figures are low given the size of the country and cities, I am not disputing that for a relatively 'new' sport they aren't bad. I'm just saying that they are also nothing to boast about.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

en1044 said:


> Yeah but in the US soccer is _maybe_ the 5th most popular sport. I'd say those numbers are pretty good for what its come from since 1996 and having to compete with other sports.
> 
> 16K a match isnt low at all.



5th is being way to generous, all these sports are more popular and are on TV all the time: football, basketball, baseball, hockey, tennis, golf, motorsports, ultimate fighting.

I don't think I have ever seen soccer on broadcast TV besides maby the olymics.


----------



## tritown (Aug 25, 2004)

mvictory said:


> All of those stadiums would be used year round with football in summer and nrl/super 14 in the winter. after the cup most of them are planned to be reduced to 25 000 which is perfect for those sports with the exception of the melbourne stadium which would remain at 50 000 because there main tennant averages 25 000 to regular season games with matches against rival teams regularly pulling 40-55000. none of these developments would be white elophants.
> 
> America has 300,000,000 people. therefore having similar attendance figures to scotland (5,000,000) and australia (20,000,000) is not something to boast about.


Saying that US isn't doing well by comparing it to Australia doesn't really make sense. Australia is also doing well for a new league, so it doesn't diminish the growth of the US game by saying that it's similar to the situation in Australia.

And even though Scotland only has 5 mil, there is still a lot more history with clubs that have a lot more history and tradition, especially with Celtic and Rangers. The same goes for Portugal, with Sporting CP, Porto, Benefica, etc.

The US has proven a viable market for an additional world cup in other areas too, including: large stadiums in place (and much better than in 1994), a proven pool to draw fans from for WC from 1994 with the record crowds. But there is also a lot more footballing going on at every level of the pyramid compared to 1994. There are about a dozen clubs in each of the 2nd and 3rd tiers, which draw about the same amount of fans as many of the lower level SPL clubs, and there are also about 100 clubs in the fourth tier in different leagues.

Also worth mentioning is the growth of MLS itself, as in number of teams, and total number of fans, if not an increase in the average, the relative success of our national team (save the Gold Cup Finals ), and increasing media coverage. It wasn't that long ago that MLS paid the networks to cover them, but now the situation is reversed.

In conclusion, I think that Australia would be a solid host, as well, but let's not diminish the value of having USA as host.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

mvictory said:


> All of those stadiums would be used year round with football in summer and nrl/super 14 in the winter. after the cup most of them are planned to be reduced to 25 000 which is perfect for those sports with the exception of the melbourne stadium which would remain at 50 000 because there main tennant averages 25 000 to regular season games with matches against rival teams regularly pulling 40-55000. none of these developments would be white elophants.
> 
> America has 300,000,000 people. therefore having similar attendance figures to scotland (5,000,000) and australia (20,000,000) is not something to boast about.


No one is boasting about it, or saying that its fantastic.

You really just have to take into account that people are going to be preoccupied by other sports.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

weava said:


> 5th is being way to generous, all these sports are more popular and are on TV all the time: football, basketball, baseball, hockey, tennis, golf, motorsports, ultimate fighting.
> 
> I don't think I have ever seen soccer on broadcast TV besides maby the olymics.


Then you really dont pay attention at all.

Soccer is on ALL the time, especially on ESPN.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

woozoo said:


> Yer, my two posts are FULL of animosity towards US soccer...
> 
> Melbourne wouldn't be a white elephant. Crowds average 24,000 after only 4 years, and at the hated, oval etihad stadium. Big games pull crowds around 35k and finals sell out 55. Watch how many games sell out at the rectangular ground with 31 capacity in two seasons time.
> 
> ...


What about Perth? If they built a suitable rectangular stadium it would really help Australia land a WC.

Would a joint bid with NZ also be possible? I could see them having a few suitable stadiums after expansion.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Does Australia get Fox Soccer Channel or GolTV? They're those American channels devoted exclusively to soccer. Maybe you've heard of them.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

weava said:


> 5th is being way to generous, all these sports are more popular and are on TV all the time: football, basketball, baseball, hockey, tennis, golf, motorsports, ultimate fighting.
> 
> I don't think I have ever seen soccer on broadcast TV besides maby the olymics.


I recorded 5 matches this past weekend. You're lying.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

More soccer matches are broadcast in America every week than any other sport. Fact. Hell, two channels show nothing but soccer.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

weava said:


> I don't think I have ever seen soccer on broadcast TV besides maby the olymics.


then you dont get ESPN


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

or Fox Soccer Channel, GolTV, Univision, Galavision, Telefutura, or Telemundo.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

Fox Sport even shows it from time to time


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

There are more soccer games shown on tv than any other sport.

Some weekends I can get games from MLS (USA), MFL (Mexico), EPL (England), Seria A (Italy), Bundesliga (Germany), La Liga (Spain), Argentina, Brazil.... and that's without even trying.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Ganis said:


> then you dont get ESPN


I said on broadcast TV not cable, you know those channels like NBC and Fox that are over the air. I grew up watching TV on rabbit ears and I had never seen a soccer game on TV untill I was in my 20s which is when I got cable.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

You won't be able to see any BCS bowl games without cable, there's talk of the NBA Finals going to cable too. Being on broadcast TV isn't a major deal anymore.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Ok, well baseball is hardly shown on broadcast TV, except for the random game on FOX.


----------



## golffan (Jul 15, 2009)

*If You Were Captain Of The USA Solheim Cup Team*

who would you pick for your captain's picks? Remember, you're trying to make picks that would help you WIN the Solheim, and you're not at all interested in how many viewers the tv people have, or anything like that.

If the top 10 were as they are, and you had to make your picks now, here are the gals from 11 through 20.... 

I looked over the list and came away discouraged... Let's see what you think...


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Oz and USA don't compare favourably imho, Australia is a near totally urban country and that urban population is centralised in a small collection of pretty large cities all of which seem to have representation in the A league. The USA on the other hand is urban also but of course it can't have teams in every city, i'd wager that if you added up the population of the metro/urban areas in the USA with a football team it probably wouldn't add up to a third of their population.

Like i have said repeatedly when people try and compare support in Europe having a larger population doesn't come into it. If Real, Getafe and Atletico all got relegated from la liga madrid would have no representation, but that doesn't mean that everyone in madrid would suddenly support other sides, it means that you can't take in full national population when equating relative attendances in countries. People in Leeds, Newcastle, Naples, Milan, London, Dusseldorf, Amsterdam, Moscow, Chicago, Istanbul, Athens, Melbourne wherever generally support the teams of their cities. 

As you can see it is far from being anywhere near black and white. Therefore in comparing leagues etc you shpould compare metro/urban areas of competiting cities first. Not to mention things like lower leagues, amount of teams etc etc

the 7 largest aussie cities have a team, and those cities represent nearly 75% of the australian population.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

On the USA getting the world cup in the UK we get a channel called ESPN america and they show PTI and Aroudn the horn and jim rome is burning every night, and i saw an interview if Jozy Altidore by that Wilbon guy and his bald mate and his attitude was refreshing and it made me see Americans and the sport of football in that country in a whole different light. I think for the americans who still support and love football in an environment where they are constantly ridiculed and mocked they do maybe deserve an olive branch from the rest of the footballing world and maybe the 2022 world cup is that.. i dunno...


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

*Houston wants to take part in U.S. World Cup City submits bid to host games in 2018 or '22*
30 July 2009
Houston Chronicle

Don't even think about belting out a loud gooool! yet, but if only at the dawning of a long and challenging process, the Bayou City is a step closer to scoring World Cup action. Houston and Reliant Stadium are officially in the running to host World Cup matches should the United States be awarded the 2018 or 2022 edition of soccer's marquee event and the biggest and most-viewed sporting event in the world after a formal proposal was submitted to the USA Bid Committee by Wednesday's deadline.

"The World Cup is not just the pre-eminent sporting event in the world, it is an international celebration of culture that is capable of uniting people in a way that nothing else can," said Jamey Rootes, president of the Texans and the Houston Bid Committee, which submitted the proposal. "Soccer is the world's game, and we are committed to bringing it to Houston and showcasing the diversity, hospitality and international flair of our community to the rest of the world."

The goal of the proposal, also prepared by the Houston Bid Committee - a nonprofit group made up of members representing public and private interests, including the city of Houston; Harris County; the Convention and Visitors Bureau; Reliant Park manager SMG; and Lone Star Sports and Entertainment, the soccer and entertainment arm of the Texans, among others - is to lock the Bayou City as one of the 18 cities/venues chosen by the USA Bid Committee - an arm of the U.S. Soccer Federation - for its final World Cup bid to FIFA, the sport's governing body.

In addition to Reliant Stadium and Houston's soccer community, highlights of the proposal included the city's more than 54,000 hotel and motel rooms, the sixth-largest airport system in the world, the world's largest medical center, and the headquarters of 25 Fortune 500 companies, said LSSE general manager Chris Keeney.

Prior to submitting the proposal, Houston was one of 37 U.S. markets that expressed interest in hosting World Cup matches should FIFA award the United States the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.

South Africa is set to host the 2010 World Cup; Brazil will follow in 2014.

The United States, Australia, England, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico and Russia have declared their desire to host the monthlong World Cup in 2018 or 2022.

Netherlands-Belgium and Portugal-Spain have submitted joint bids for the 2018 and 2022 editions; Qatar and South Korea have applied as candidates to host the 2022 edition.

Candidates must have their bid applications to FIFA by May 14, 2010. FIFA's 24-member executive committee will announce the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 editions in December 2010.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Houston, like Chicago, LA and NY is all but a lock to host matches if we get it.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> Houston, like Chicago, LA and NY is all but a lock to host matches if we get it.


Agreed. Texas is so huge that it will almost assuredly have 2 hosts, Houston and Dallas.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> On the USA getting the world cup in the UK we get a channel called ESPN america and they show PTI and Aroudn the horn and jim rome is burning every night, and i saw an interview if Jozy Altidore by that Wilbon guy and his bald mate and his attitude was refreshing and it made me see Americans and the sport of football in that country in a whole different light. I think for the americans who still support and love football in an environment where they are constantly ridiculed and mocked they do maybe deserve an olive branch from the rest of the footballing world and maybe the 2022 world cup is that.. i dunno...


Yeah, there are a few sports talk show hosts such as Jim Rome and Colin Cowherd who pander to the lowest common denominator of the American sports fanbase when it comes to futbol, but some of us have learned to simply tune them out when they go on one of their regular diatribes.

I must confess, I take pleasure in an occasional pisstake regarding what many perceive as negative aspects of the game (diving primadonnas, hooliganism, overly stringent offside rule, etc.), but I respect the game nonetheless.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

KingmanIII said:


> Yeah, there are a few sports talk show hosts such as Jim Rome and *Colin Cowherd* who pander to the lowest common denominator of the American sports fanbase when it comes to futbol, but some of us have learned to simply tune them out when they go on one of their regular diatribes.



Cowherd is now an admitted convert thanks to the Confederations Cup. He's even excited for the US qualifier in Mexico on the 12th. The Confed Cup run did so much to change opinions about the sport in the United States. 

The rants against soccer that have been so common in the states (and here in Canada) are not so much about the sport itself but more about it being perceived as "foreign". It's just one battle in a much bigger culture war. Those who rant against it are always die-hard nativists that see soccer as a foreign aspect of globalization infringing on a sovereign sporting culture. The rants are more about pushing back against what they see as a threat. You'll notice the rants are always framed in a context of "us and them" as in "they have their sports and we have ours and that's the way it should be". Thats why Beckham didn't work. The mainstream subconsciously viewed him as a foreigner coming over to supposedly convert people to a "foreign" sport. Conversely, the success of the US team worked in changing opinions and mindsets because it stripped away people's cultural insecurity. The ranters see a team of Americans representing the country and beating the #1 team in the world and realize they now have a dog in the fight and they can't help but feel pride. Then all of a sudden everyone was glued to the tv for the game against Brazil.

The way for soccer to become more mainstream in the states is the national team. It appeals to american pride and collectivism and gives the mainstream american a rooting interest where the focus is purely on winning in the sport as opposed to winning in the culture war.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

^^

I'll admit, I haven't listened to Cowherd in quite some time, so I never knew that he had a change of heart.

The rest I could not have said half as well myself.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

KingmanIII said:


> Yeah, there are a few sports talk show hosts such as Jim Rome and Colin Cowherd who pander to the lowest common denominator of the American sports fanbase when it comes to futbol, but some of us have learned to simply tune them out when they go on one of their regular diatribes.


Yeah but I think the put your head in the sand and pretend it ain't happening stance is wrong. Isn't it better to take on the "ignorant" and expose them for what they are, rather than allow them to breed a whole legion of followers??

afterall it's not just them, it's near enough the whole lot.



> I must confess, I take pleasure in an occasional pisstake regarding what many perceive as negative aspects of the game (diving primadonnas, hooliganism, overly stringent offside rule, etc.), but I respect the game nonetheless.


But why? we don't pisstake american sports, in fact it wouldn't even come up in conversation for 99% of people, even from our media, people just don't care 

I just think the problem is that people don't know the difference between a diver and an exaggerator. Most of what we call diving is actually just exaggerating, although you get players like dani alves who do both. Sometimes if you don't exaggerate you don't get the free kick and you lose possession catch 22.

hooliganism lol they still think we have a "problem" here in England. Although it's a bit pot and kettle, wilbon and his mate were going at the danish fan trying to attack the ref (youtube), but if you scour around the net that sort of shit happens in the states just as often.

on the offside rule, it doesn't prevent fast breaks it enables them without it football would become hoof ball as this ain't basketball players can't run up and down the pitch because it's too big.



JYDA said:


> Cowherd is now an admitted convert thanks to the Confederations Cup. He's even excited for the US qualifier in Mexico on the 12th. The Confed Cup run did so much to change opinions about the sport in the United States.


Here is an mp3 of cowherd saying he thinks the world cup will replace the olympics as the big 4 year event, and saying European "soccer" is the future.

scroll down to The B.S. Report: 7/8 and forward to about 50 mins http://sports.espn.go.com/espnradio/podcast/archive?id=2864045 



> The rants against soccer that have been so common in the states (and here in Canada) are not so much about the sport itself but more about it being perceived as "foreign". It's just one battle in a much bigger culture war. Those who rant against it are always die-hard nativists that see soccer as a foreign aspect of globalization infringing on a sovereign sporting culture. The rants are more about pushing back against what they see as a threat. You'll notice the rants are always framed in a context of "us and them" as in "they have their sports and we have ours and that's the way it should be". Thats why Beckham didn't work. The mainstream subconsciously viewed him as a foreigner coming over to supposedly convert people to a "foreign" sport. Conversely, the success of the US team worked in changing opinions and mindsets because it stripped away people's cultural insecurity. The ranters see a team of Americans representing the country and beating the #1 team in the world and realize they now have a dog in the fight and they can't help but feel pride. Then all of a sudden everyone was glued to the tv for the game against Brazil.
> 
> The way for soccer to become more mainstream in the states is the national team. It appeals to american pride and collectivism and gives the mainstream american a rooting interest where the focus is purely on winning in the sport as opposed to winning in the culture war.


Most of the world consider football more than a sport so in many ways it is a culture war, if you let football into your heart you let a whole lot of baggage in with you (generally speaking of course).

The problem i have with the yanks ever winning the world cup is it might reinforce the american inward arrogance. As you get, we'd dominate "soccer" if our best athletes had played, it goes imagine KG in goal (too tall), LeBron up front (too tall, too slow), Reggie on the wing (a sprinter in boots) etc etc. 

I've always thought if america gets dumped in a group at the next world cup with North Korea, Russia and France and either escapes it or gets dumped out extremely controversially you might see an excelleration. I mean there's nothing like revenge and wanting to win to improve the focus and attention on something.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

I was surprised how many people were really angry when we got thumped by Mexico, they usually wouldn't care.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

bigbossman said:


> I've always thought if america gets dumped in a group at the next world cup with North Korea, Russia and *France* and either escapes it or gets dumped out extremely controversially you might see an excelleration. I mean there's nothing like revenge and wanting to win to improve the focus and attention on something.


Great set of nations but Why France ????? We don't have any problem with USA.. 
And we are not really like North Korea (except the nuclear weapons :devil

It's Maybe because you didn't forget 2 famous Zidane's goals at Da Luz during Euro '04........ Your national team should try to take its revenge itself, instead of asking another country or another sport (rugby ) to do it ! :tongue: 

If it's about Scotland during Euro '08 qualification, It was a Franco-Italian Conspiracy against Scotland , but the answer is the same : The team must take its revange itself  !


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

United Statesians have a problem with France which stems from opposition to the war in Iraq (see: Freedom Fries) and is propagated by muppets like Bill O'Reilly. It's embarrassing to the sane people here. Sorry.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Did Iraq qualify? :devil:


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

parcdesprinces said:


> Great set of nations but Why France ????? We don't have any problem with USA..
> And we are not really like North Korea (except the nuclear weapons :devil
> 
> It's Maybe because you didn't forget 2 famous Zidane's goals at Da Luz during Euro '04........ Your national team should try to take its revenge itself, instead of asking another country or another sport (rugby ) to do it ! :tongue:
> ...


calm down, you make as if you've never read my posts on here, i am no fan of the England national football team and its annoyingly hysterical media bandwagon.

I chucked france in because the "USAians" don't like you guys



krudmonk said:


> United Statesians have a problem with France which stems from opposition to the war in Iraq (see: Freedom Fries) and is propagated by muppets like Bill O'Reilly. It's embarrassing to the sane people here. Sorry.


Exactly, that was what i was getting at

Man bill o'reilly didn't he get ludacris the sack from pepsi...?


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> Man bill o'reilly didn't he get ludacris the sack from pepsi...?


Somehow he pulled it off. hno:

Man, he is one guy I'd like to punch in the face.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

krudmonk said:


> United Statesians have a problem with France which stems from opposition to the war in Iraq (see: Freedom Fries) and is propagated by muppets like Bill O'Reilly. It's embarrassing to the sane people here. Sorry.





bigbossman said:


> I chucked france in because the "USAians" don't like you guys


Whaaaat? That freedom fries thing amounted to nothing. Bill O'Reilly only reaches a few million people.

That whole "America hates the French" is probally the most overblown thing I have ever seen.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> United Statesians have a problem with France which stems from opposition to the war in Iraq (see: Freedom Fries) and is propagated by muppets like Bill O'Reilly. It's embarrassing to the sane people here. Sorry.


Yes I know about all this stuff (I remember the customs at the Atlanta airport last time I've been in USA, it was quite different than before the war in Iraq)..but times have changed (again) now...

Americans that I know (In Paris or in USA) never had any problem with France or French people.

I think, today, all the Francofobes know we were right about this war and they should learn about history of the old Franco-American friendship (from your independance war, the Francophile tradition in the American elites, WW I, the battle of Normandy, till the expression of our solidarity with your nation after the 9/11 attacks).

Cadets of West Point (2002 Bastille Day, Champs-Elysées, Paris) :grouphug:









About fries, it's a bit childish to change the name (Maybe whose who changed the name should also remove the Statue of Liberty, rename the University of Notre-Dame and all the French names in USA hno, and it's not "french fries" but "belgian fries" :lol:....

If some people don't want to eat french food, wear french clothes, use french cosmetics, drink French wines and Champagne etc... It's their problem, but I think they will miss many things.....

Some people in USA react just like a kid when you (France) say no to him (USA) :lol:.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

El Mariachi said:


> Whaaaat? That freedom fries thing amounted to nothing. Bill O'Reilly only reaches a few million people.
> 
> That whole "America hates the French" is probally the most overblown thing I have ever seen.












I know 1 Texan who LOVES France...


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

> The way for soccer to become more mainstream in the states is the national team. It appeals to american pride and collectivism and gives the mainstream american a rooting interest where the focus is purely on winning in the sport as opposed to winning in the culture war.


USA needs to develop a good looking, white, top class soccer player in the MLS, who is good enough to the be sold to Manchester United or Liverpool or Real Madrid or something for some mega bucks. He needs to play an important role at the club, but maintain strong ties with the US, and possibly retain some ties to his old MLS club. 
That, coupled with more success in the world cup against the national teams mentioned, would do a world of good for the game in the states.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

hno:

(@ Ganis)


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

woozoo said:


> USA needs to develop a good looking, white, top class soccer player in the MLS, who is good enough to the be sold to Manchester United or Liverpool or Real Madrid or something for some mega bucks. He needs to play an important role at the club, but maintain strong ties with the US, and possibly retain some ties to his old MLS club.
> That, coupled with more success in the world cup against the national teams mentioned, would do a world of good for the game in the states.


Well, Tim Howard would almost meet your qualifications, but hes black.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Ganis said:


> I know 1 Texan who LOVES France...


I know, personally, at least 2 more  (from you city and they live in Paris :cheers...

About the size you forgot French Overseas Departments and Territories. :banana:

OK, end of off topic for me.


----------



## Scba (Nov 20, 2004)

Meanwhile, on topic...

Baltimore's planning an athletic complex anchored by a 5k-7k soccer stadium. Obviously wouldn't be used in a match, but part of the reason of construction sounds like a pitch to bolster their status as a soccer town and grab a game for M&T Bank.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Scba said:


> Meanwhile, on topic...
> 
> Baltimore's planning an athletic complex anchored by a 5k-7k soccer stadium. Obviously wouldn't be used in a match, but part of the reason of construction sounds like a pitch to bolster their status as a soccer town and grab a game for M&T Bank.


Do you know if they will try to get a USL team to be a tenant at that stadium?


----------



## Scba (Nov 20, 2004)

ryebreadraz said:


> Do you know if they will try to get a USL team to be a tenant at that stadium?


Crystal Palace Baltimore would play there, so maybe they'd move up from USL-2 to USL.


----------



## woozoo (Jun 16, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Well, Tim Howard would almost meet your qualifications, but hes black.


Not famous enough. Goal keepers are rarely as famous or glamorous as strikers or attacking midfielders or something like that. Also he plays for Everton, which most of the American public would have never really heard of if it werent for Howard playing there (im assuming). In Australia we had Harry Kewell who signed for Liverpool. Everytime he scored a goal or did anything really, it would be put in the 6 oclock news sport highlights. He became the face of Australian soccer and for the first time a soccer player could be considered a superstar. When the face of soccer has their face on the cover of mainstream magazines, newspapers etc the sport atracts a much wider fan base.

I dont think the US has had a player like that yet.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Scba said:


> Crystal Palace Baltimore would play there, so maybe they'd move up from USL-2 to USL.


Before anyone says anything, yes this Crystal Palace is an offshoot of the real one.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Scba said:


> Crystal Palace Baltimore would play there, so maybe they'd move up from USL-2 to USL.


That's cool then. I'm excited to see cities, even if they can't get a MLS team, support soccer. Unfortunately, I don't see MLS ever getting enough teams to merit putting another team in the northeast, unless its another NY team. For the northeast to get another non-NY team, I think MLS would have to get top 30 teams, which is unlikely any time soon so it's important that cities still support soccer like Baltimore is with this place.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

They're stopping at 20, apparently.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> They're stopping at 20, apparently.


I highly doubt that. I think their goal right now is 20, at which point they will reevaluate their expansion and business plan, but I'll be shocked if 20 is their number to completely stop.


----------



## Benn (Jan 10, 2007)

I would expect 24 shorter term with around 30 as an eventuality, like the other major leagues in this country. Montreal, St Louis and a second New York team seem like locks in the next few years. Seeing cities that have had on and off plans like Milwaukee, Minneapolis/St Paul, Ottowa, San Diego or another try at a Florida team wouldn't suprise me in the least.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

woozoo said:


> USA needs to develop a good looking, white, top class soccer player in the MLS, who is good enough to the be sold to Manchester United or Liverpool or Real Madrid or something for some mega bucks. He needs to play an important role at the club, but maintain strong ties with the US, and possibly retain some ties to his old MLS club.
> That, coupled with more success in the world cup against the national teams mentioned, would do a world of good for the game in the states.


I'm not sure race is that big of a requirement. 

I know a lot of fingers were crossed that Freddy Adu would be that guy and be the yanks' first world class player. He's 20 which is still young but the chances of him being the superstar everyone thought he would be are growing slimmer all the time. Altidore has the potential to do big things but still has a lot of work to do. His touch and work ethic aren't where they need to be.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Americans get benched in Europe. It will never happen.


----------



## DennisRodman97 (Jul 12, 2007)

woozoo said:


> USA needs to develop a good looking, white, top class soccer player in the MLS, who is good enough to the be sold to Manchester United or Liverpool or Real Madrid or something for some mega bucks. He needs to play an important role at the club, but maintain strong ties with the US, and possibly retain some ties to his old MLS club.
> That, coupled with more success in the world cup against the national teams mentioned, would do a world of good for the game in the states.


why does this have to be about race....america needs talent even he is green looking...look at brazil they produce talent no matter of what race...but since america is so obsessed with race u have to bring this bullshyt out...cmon dude its 2009.....its ur talent that speaks not color of ur skin.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

woozoo said:


> Not famous enough. Goal keepers are rarely as famous or glamorous as strikers or attacking midfielders or something like that. Also he plays for Everton, which most of the American public would have never really heard of if it werent for Howard playing there (im assuming). In Australia we had Harry Kewell who signed for Liverpool. Everytime he scored a goal or did anything really, it would be put in the 6 oclock news sport highlights. He became the face of Australian soccer and for the first time a soccer player could be considered a superstar. When the face of soccer has their face on the cover of mainstream magazines, newspapers etc the sport atracts a much wider fan base.
> 
> I dont think the US has had a player like that yet.


Most of the actual football fans here know about Everton and the Merseyside derby (at least I do).

I was so angry when Setanta or whoever were broadcasting the match inexplicably switched to commercial near the end of it, only for them to switch back RIGHT AFTER Gosling scored the go-ahead goal!!!!! @$%(^[email protected]$#^!!!!!

Demarcus Beasley was somewhat popular over here -- now he plays for Rangers whom we seldom see over here except maybe in the UEFA Cup or something of that sort.


----------



## Paul D (Jul 3, 2004)

KingmanIII said:


> Most of the actual football fans here know about Everton and the Merseyside derby (at least I do).
> 
> I was so angry when Setanta or whoever were broadcasting the match inexplicably switched to commercial near the end of it, only for them to switch back RIGHT AFTER Gosling scored the go-ahead goal!!!!! @$%(^[email protected]$#^!!!!!
> 
> Demarcus Beasley was somewhat popular over here -- now he plays for Rangers whom we seldom see over here except maybe in the UEFA Cup or something of that sort.


Lol that pissed a lot of people off,great result though.:cheers:

The Merseyside derby is the most contested derby in English football,every single one of them were have taken place in the top flight of English football,nobody else can make that claim.There've been five at Wembley too.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

KingmanIII said:


> Most of the actual football fans here know about Everton and the Merseyside derby (at least I do).
> 
> I was so angry when Setanta or whoever were broadcasting the match inexplicably switched to commercial near the end of it, only for them to switch back RIGHT AFTER Gosling scored the go-ahead goal!!!!! @$%(^[email protected]$#^!!!!!
> 
> Demarcus Beasley was somewhat popular over here -- now he plays for Rangers whom we seldom see over here except maybe in the UEFA Cup or something of that sort.


that was nothing to do with setanta, it was ITV, it happened in the UK too, so I assume they were just using the ITV feed...


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Paul D said:


> Lol that pissed a lot of people off,great result though.:cheers:
> 
> The Merseyside derby is the most contested derby in English football,every single one of them were have taken place in the top flight of English football,nobody else can make that claim.There've been five at Wembley too.


What about the Northwest Derby? Were Man Utd and Liverpool ever not both in top-flight?

Is Arsenal and Chelsea considered a derby?


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> that was nothing to do with setanta, it was ITV, it happened in the UK too, so I assume they were just using the ITV feed...


Yeah, my bad, it was ITV...didn't they also fudge a big F-1 race some time ago?


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

oh yeah, almost forgot:


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ har har


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

KingmanIII said:


> What about the Northwest Derby? Were Man Utd and Liverpool ever not both in top-flight?
> 
> Is Arsenal and Chelsea considered a derby?


Man Utd got relegated in the 70's.

Arsenal - Chelsea is a officially a derby, but it's neither team's main derby. That'd be Tottenham, for both.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

Bobby3 said:


> Man Utd got relegated in the 70's.


Also

Liverpool weren't in the top flight for most of the 50s and into the early 60s

Man united missed a large chunk of the thirties



> Arsenal - Chelsea is a officially a derby, but it's neither team's main derby. That'd be Tottenham, for both.


Don't believe the hype Arsenal-Chelsea has always been massive *especially* up to and including the 1970s. The chelsea-tottenham thing is massively exaggerated.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

On topic, does anyone reckon the world cup record average will be broken if it goes back to the states again??


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

bigbossman said:


> Also
> 
> Liverpool weren't in the top flight for most of the 50s and into the early 60s
> 
> ...


I'm Arsenal, myself, and Chelsea friends of mine have always been really, really hostile toward Spurs but not as much Arsenal. So I'm only speaking from personal experience.

And the question about attendance, yes, I think it'd easily be broken.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ "Younger" chelsea fans maybe, but older Arsenal and Chelsea have a lot more animosity. just like Arsenal and west ham from the 80s have crazy hate for each other. It all depends who you talk to. 

So you reckon they'd break 69,000?? what's the smallest stadium proposed to be used?


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

45,600 - Salt Lake City
45,200 - Washington, DC

Neither would be used as SLC is too narrow and RFK (Washington) is going to be gone by then.

After them is TCF Bank Stadium in Minnesota, it's 50,300.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

bigbossman said:


> On topic, does anyone reckon the world cup record average will be broken if it goes back to the states again??


Undoubtedly. The average for another World Cup here will be in the 70,000's.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

As a real American(I get compared to Hank Hill a lot), I hope we don't get the world cup, its more important to other countries and I don't want the sport to become anymore popular than it already is. 
I was 10 years old in 94 and I didn't even know we had hosted the world cup until I started reading this forum.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Here's what I wrote earlier



> The rants against soccer that have been so common in the states (and here in Canada) are not so much about the sport itself but more about it being perceived as "foreign". It's just one battle in a much bigger culture war. Those who rant against it are always die-hard nativists that see soccer as a foreign aspect of globalization infringing on a sovereign sporting culture. The rants are more about pushing back against what they see as a threat. You'll notice the rants are always framed in a context of "us and them" as in "they have their sports and we have ours and that's the way it should be". Thats why Beckham didn't work. The mainstream subconsciously viewed him as a foreigner coming over to supposedly convert people to a "foreign" sport.



and here is test subject #1



weava said:


> As a real American(I get compared to Hank Hill a lot), I hope we don't get the world cup, its more important to other countries and I don't want the sport to become anymore popular than it already is.
> I was 10 years old in 94 and I didn't even know we had hosted the world cup until I started reading this forum.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

weava said:


> As a real American(I get compared to Hank Hill a lot), I hope we don't get the world cup, its more important to other countries and I don't want the sport to become anymore popular than it already is.
> I was 10 years old in 94 and I didn't even know we had hosted the world cup until I started reading this forum.


I consider myself a real American, and i want the cup, so what you feel as a "real" american means absolutely nothing.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

weava said:


> As a real American(I get compared to Hank Hill a lot), I hope we don't get the world cup, its more important to other countries and I don't want the sport to become anymore popular than it already is.
> I was 10 years old in 94 and I didn't even know we had hosted the world cup until I started reading this forum.


dont worry, Football will always be king in America.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

weava said:


> As a real American(I get compared to Hank Hill a lot), I hope we don't get the world cup, its more important to other countries and I don't want the sport to become anymore popular than it already is.
> I was 10 years old in 94 and I didn't even know we had hosted the world cup until I started reading this forum.


You can't be a real American because you obviously still need to get real.


----------



## Ganis (Jan 3, 2009)

I like soccer, does that mean im not a real American anymore? Im telling Obama on you!


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Dang, I'm not a real american.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

I guess the people who want the extra tourist money it'd bring to the country hate America. Darn terr'ists.


----------



## Paul D (Jul 3, 2004)

KingmanIII said:


> What about the Northwest Derby? Were Man Utd and Liverpool ever not both in top-flight?
> 
> Is Arsenal and Chelsea considered a derby?



We only tend to think of your closest team as your real derby here.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

^^ speak for yourself, Ipswich's closest team is Colchester united, their derby is *considered* to be with Norwich. West brom and Aston villa grounds are the closest, but wolves and Birmingham city are *considered* their main rivals etc etc


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> Undoubtedly. The average for another World Cup here will be in the 70,000's.


fair enough, although the smallest stadium in 1994 held 57,000...



Bobby3 said:


> 45,600 - Salt Lake City
> 45,200 - Washington, DC
> 
> Neither would be used as SLC is too narrow and RFK (Washington) is going to be gone by then.
> ...


----------



## Hansadyret (Jun 22, 2008)

To me as an outsider who remember the 1994 world cup it looks as if the interest in hosting from USA and US cities is MUCH bigger now than it was back in the early 90's. Same with the general interest in football. I'm sure when it comes to 2018/22 the general american public knows what's coming.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

weava said:


> As a real American(I get compared to Hank Hill a lot), I hope we don't get the world cup, its more important to other countries and I don't want the sport to become anymore popular than it already is.
> I was 10 years old in 94 and I didn't even know we had hosted the world cup until I started reading this forum.


Judging by your reply you're more like Hank Hill from Bevis and Butthead.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

it would be great to have some of our high speed corridors ready by then. imagine if the California High Speed Rail line is built, connecting LA and SF which will host games, Bo-NY Was, which will have games, the Chicago Hub System and the Texas HSR. it would make it very easy on tourists and fans to experience multiple cities with just one or two flights.


----------



## El Mariachi (Nov 1, 2007)

en1044 said:


> I consider myself a real American, and i want the cup, so what you feel as a "real" american means absolutely nothing.


whatever you say Hulkster.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

SVN2007 said:


> In case FIFA Choose USA as host nation for WC 2018, how about the roof in the US Stadiums ? The most of US Stadium don't have roof today and maybe one of the requirement FIFA would be the building of the roof for all stadiums that will be venue for WC 2018.


Look back through the thread. This has been discussed many a time.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> Gillette Stadium
> New Giants/Jets Stadium
> Lincoln Financial Field
> FedEx Field
> ...


I can't imagine there being 10 hosts. I think it has to be 12 and a pod system needs to be used.


----------



## Flyboy41 (Jul 30, 2006)

IMO host sites should be.

FedEx Field/New Washington Stadium (DC)
New Meadowlands (NY/NJ)
Cowboys Stadium (Dallas Texas)
Soldier Field (Chicago)
University of Phoenix Stadium (Arizona)
Reliant Stadium (Houston Texas)
Qwest Field (Seattle)
New 49ers Stadium (San Francisco)
Rose Bowl/New LA stadium (LA)
Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia)
Cleveland Brows Stadium or Paul Brown Stadium (Ohio)
Invesco Field at Mile High (Denver)


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> I can't imagine there being 10 hosts. I think it has to be 12 and a pod system needs to be used.


Alright, throw on KC and SJ markets, but Arrowhead is kinda old* and Stanford is small in capacity and field width. Plus, getting there is a pain.

*Obviously the Rose Bowl is older but it's a huge stadium in a major market.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Alright, throw on KC and SJ markets, but Arrowhead is kinda old* and Stanford is small in capacity and field width. Plus, getting there is a pain.
> 
> *Obviously the Rose Bowl is older but it's a huge stadium in a major market.


Arrowhead is being refurbished.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

metros11 said:


> Arrowhead is being refurbished.


It would have to be widened a bit, but with that exception, the current renovations should make it World Cup worthy.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

metros11 said:


> Arrowhead is being refurbished.


they are spending like $350 million on the upgrade.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

CaliforniaJones said:


> I made two lists of cities because I considered the abilities of Denver and Phoenix.
> 
> First list
> *Atlanta (71 250 places)*: E3-E4, C1-C3, G4-G2, D2-D3
> ...


I prefer the second list, as by having Denver it spreads it more out within the mid-west. Which cities would host the opening, semi finals, 3rd/ 4th match and the final match from your lists?


----------



## Anak-tij (Dec 1, 2007)

Hey And the Qualcom Stadium of San Diego?


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

It is being considered for the WC too ^^


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

@Kobo

Opening Match: New York
Semi-finals: New York, Los Angeles
3rd place match: Dallas
Final: Washington DC

Groups A, C, E, G : east, east, west
Groups B, D, F, H: west, west, east


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

-Corey- said:


> It is being considered for the WC too ^^


Qualcomm isn't really being considered. The stadium would barely even be World Cup worthy in its current state. A decade from now it certainly won't be an option. Qualcomm is really just the stadium they're putting in there for now, but are really holding the place for San Diego in case they get a new stadium by the time a World Cup rolls around.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Flyboy41 said:


> IMO host sites should be.
> 
> FedEx Field/New Washington Stadium (DC)
> New Meadowlands (NY/NJ)
> ...


Not trying to be mean, but I don't understand why some people honestly feel Ohio is going to host a game. Both Cleveland and Cincinnati have poor air service to international cities, small populations and small international populations.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Here are my picks for host cities:

New York, NY (New Meadowlands)
Boston, MA (Gillete Stadium)
Washington, D.C. (Fed Ex Field)
Seattle, WA (Qest Field)
Los Angeles, CA (Rose Bowl)
San Francisco, CA (Stanford Stadium)
Dallas, TX (Cowboys Stadium)
Houston, TX (Reliant Stadium)
Chicago, IL (Soldiers Field)
Detroit, MI (Ford Field)

If USA elects to go with 12 cities then:
Miami, FL (Land Shark Stadium)
Philadelphia, PA (Lincoln Financial Field)

The above 12 cities are easily the most prominent cities our country has to offer. They all have a good mix of a large population base, a large foreign population base and good transportation options. I also don't buy into the need for a pod system. Any more than 12 cities would water down and diminish the importance of being chosen to host games. The US can easily put on the Cup with the use of 10 locations. People will travel to see their teams (over 19,000 English fans attended every game during 2002). The pod system of having 3 or 4 cities in each region of US need not apply to the USA bid. 

Bare in mind, in cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. where new stadiums have been proposed, those would be used.

Out if the refined list I feel the following cities really don't have a shot to get picked:

Charlotte
Cleveland
Indianapolis
Jacksonville
Kansas City
Nashville
Oakland
St. Louis
Tampa


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

massp88 said:


> Here are my picks for host cities:
> 
> New York, NY (New Meadowlands)
> Boston, MA (Gillete Stadium)
> ...


No I disagree here. America has to have a pod system in its regions, so to cut down on the travel distance for both the fans and players. I recall reading that during the USA 1994 World Cup, the distance fans had to travel was way too much. Example: Romainia's fixtures in the group stage the fans had to travel from LA to Detroit and then back to LA. The United States is huge they need to keep at least the group stages and 1st round knock out stage within regions.


----------



## nandofutbolero (Aug 7, 2008)

hello Im new in this thread so yeah at least for the first rounds group stages close to referred as distance and for the quartefinals and well that's another story but my question is which stadium will be best to hold the final match?? since the US has many great capacity venues the rose bowl seem old it's a nice stadium but I don't know what other to put for the final match?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

nandofutbolero said:


> hello Im new in this thread so yeah at least for the first rounds group stages close to referred as distance and for the quartefinals and well that's another story but my question is which stadium will be best to hold the final match?? since the US has many great capacity venues the rose bowl seem old it's a nice stadium but I don't know what other to put for the final match?


The New Meadowlands Stadium would be my choice for the final. LA has hosted one already and the New Meadowlands Stadium, at 80,000+ seats representing the country's biggest city would be wonderful IMO. If Dan Snyder gets a new retractable roof stadium with 100,000+ seats as rumored then DC would be an option too.


----------



## nandofutbolero (Aug 7, 2008)

hmm new medowlands sounds fair to me ...!!!! thanks for the info


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Flyboy41 said:


> IMO host sites should be.
> 
> FedEx Field/New Washington Stadium (DC)
> New Meadowlands (NY/NJ)
> ...


Cleveland over Miami?


----------



## FerrariEnzo (Dec 19, 2003)

massp88 said:


> Not trying to be mean, but I don't understand why some people honestly feel Ohio is going to host a game. Both Cleveland and Cincinnati have poor air service to international cities, small populations and small international populations.


This is why:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hAf04GntIiIkl5LwxXs5V8nyvDMAD9A6NF8O0


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

The legacy of the 1994 World Cup is three fully professional divisions. Hard to argue with.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

The US bid will have a least six modern or new generation stadiums (Chicago, NY, LA, Dallas, Phoenix,Houston, Seattle). I found this article a bout Los Angeles stadium. They may have cleared a step before beginning to build this stadium.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten21-2009oct21,0,649786.column

I consider LA, NY, Washington DC to host the opening match and/or the final.
Seattle seems to be an important city for the US bid.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/othersports/2010102816_regr21.html

In case of 2022 world awarded to the US, It would have only three stadiums to be built for the event: LA, SF, Washington DC.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

JYDA said:


> This is part of the reason I think Russia has a good shot in 2018. Of the European bids they would benefit the most from a stadium infrastructure legacy.


True, but on the flip side the cost efficiency of that investment doesn't seem to make sense. 

It's an interesting debate at every bid process - How much is the event a celebration of existing passion and facilities versus intended to create so many new venues and new legacies?! 

Viva la difference, I guess.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

CaliforniaJones said:


> The US bid will have a least six modern or new generation stadiums (Chicago, NY, LA, Dallas, Phoenix,Houston, Seattle). I found this article a bout Los Angeles stadium. They may have cleared a step before beginning to build this stadium.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-rutten21-2009oct21,0,649786.column
> 
> ...


The LA stadium has essentially gotten the go-ahead, but is waiting on a team to commit. Once a team has announced its intention to move here, they will break ground. There has been no mention as to the width of the playing surface at the stadium though so if it could host a World Cup match, we're not sure. I attempted to contact them and ask, but they provide no email address so I sent out a letter the other day. Hopefully I get a response.

I don't think both Seattle and Phoenix host unless San Francisco doesn't get a new stadium. With 2022 looking far more likely, that's 13 years so I think SF gets their stadium and Seattle and Phoenix have to fight it out to be able to host.

I also believe Washington DC has a new stadium by 2022 and knowing Daniel Snyder, it will rival what Jerry Jones has built so it will be 90,000-100,000 seats with a roof, making it my choice to host the final. I would have New York and LA hosting the semifinals, with those two also battling it out to host the opening match. Las Vegas gets the draw.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Please do not let them put the semi-finals on opposite ends of the country. The more confined the geography and limited the travel, the better. This isn't the middle of the NFL season, so I hope they treat the fans and teams better than that.

Given the community's soccer pedigree and how beautiful Qwest Field has proven, if Seattle is passed over for another city that would rank as a travesty. SF is a nice city and Univ of Phoenix stadium is pretty good, but Seattle has earned this as much as any other city in the US.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> Please do not let them put the semi-finals on opposite ends of the country. The more confined the geography and limited the travel, the better. This isn't the middle of the NFL season, so I hope they treat the fans and teams better than that.
> 
> Given the community's soccer pedigree and how beautiful Qwest Field has proven, if Seattle is passed over for another city that would rank as a travesty. SF is a nice city and Univ of Phoenix stadium is pretty good, but Seattle has earned this as much as any other city in the US.


If San Francisco has a stadium, they will host. They're a world-renowned city that is far more enticing to foreign visitors. That leaves it to Seattle and Phoenix. Qwest Field is beautiful, but so is Univ. of Phoenix Stadium and while Seattle has shown amazing support for soccer, Phoenix has almost three time as many people. I don't think it's a given and grass at University of Phoenix versus turf at Qwest could be a determining factor.


----------



## TugaMtl (May 2, 2009)

I'm against having the world cup in USA because the country is too big. Going from the West Coast to the East Coast takes like 4-5 hours by plane. At least in a small countries you can go to all of the cities that are playing the games and get a piece of the atmosphere whether you watch the game in the stadium or not. You could theoretically do this in the States too but doing so would rape your wallet.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

**** visitors. It's the World Cup. People will come no matter what. Seattle has a team that it supports well. San Francisco has neither a stadium nor a team.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> **** visitors. It's the World Cup. People will come no matter what. Seattle has a team that it supports well. San Francisco has neither a stadium nor a team.


**** visitors? It's the World Cup...a time to welcome visitors and the rest of the world. The size of the country presents a hurdle, but I don't think it's a big enough problem to do much damage to the bid when there is so much good about it.

As for MLS support, that shouldn't be a major determining factor as to who hosts. Then you're penalizing cities without teams that may not have a team because of something completely out of the soccer fans hands in that city. Look at St. Louis. It's one of the best soccer cities in America, but it doesn't have a team. Should they be ignored because of that? Seattle has proven to be a fantastic soccer city, but had the World Cup been here in 2006, would you have said they can't host because they don't have a team? Yes, soccer support is something that should be taken into account, but it's not the biggest of factors and support for the sport goes well beyond MLS.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

I don't think SF would be favored over Seattle anymore. Seattle supported the USL Sounders pretty well, too. The Victory had like 6 fans.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

On the Go USA Bid site, San Francisco's proposed stadium is down at Stanford, across two county lines and at least half an hour away with no traffic. The San Jose Earthquakes, about twice as far, are the team noted as being local. SF is beloved and praised for being a walkable city, but even access to Candlestick would be tough for most visitors, let alone Palo Alto or Santa Clara (proposed 49ers stadium). It's hardly even a San Francisco bid. 

Seattle's facility is quite close to the city core and has at least some soccer heritage. The team itself dates back to 1974 and that should be emphasized to foreigners who may not realize the legacy of the game in the United States. The only hangup I have right now is the artificial turf, but I assume they'd take care of that long in advance, not like the sod they rolled out for Chelsea and Barcelona. Oh, and the prized visitors will be fine with a city in the same vein.

I'm lobbying against games being played closer to me and for a fanbase that honestly annoys me, but that's not of paramount importance. I'd rather a World Cup showcase American soccer over American cities. Plus, that god damn high-speed rail should be built by 2022 so I can just hop a train to Los Angeles and likely catch more important matches than we'd see anyway.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> I'm lobbying against games being played closer to me and for a fanbase that honestly annoys me


care to elaborate?


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

JYDA said:


> care to elaborate?


Eh, just the self-aggrandizing talk, as if there was no quality MLS support before the Sounders...


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Some of the stadiums they have currently listed as potential sites are basically holding sites. Candlestick or Stanford Stadium won't host a match, but they need something to list for San Francisco. It's why the Rose Bowl and Coliseum are listed for LA, RFK on there for DC, etc.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> ryebreadraz Quote:
> 
> _Originally Posted by krudmonk
> **** visitors. It's the World Cup. People will come no matter what. Seattle has a team that it supports well. San Francisco has neither a stadium nor a team. _
> ...


A little harsh but I know what Krudmonk means. Fans will still fly anywhere, it may be a logistical struggle to fly 20 000 fans from one side of the country to the other within a couple of days but in any case, the Stadiums will still be filled by enthusiastic locals. Some actual teams may be a little to precious, they should learn something from domestic leagues of the US, Australia and Russia who would travel cross country every fortnight.

Anyway, long distance travel its going to happen because one WC is going to Europe and the other will either be the US (lower 48) or Australia which are roughly the same size.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> Some of the stadiums they have currently listed as potential sites are basically holding sites. Candlestick or Stanford Stadium won't host a match, but they need something to list for San Francisco. It's why the Rose Bowl and Coliseum are listed for LA, RFK on there for DC, etc.


A placeholder for what, though? The only stadium which is even a dream right now woul be (won't be) in Santa Clara. That's not even close to San Francisco. Places like Liverpool and Manchester or Glasgow and Edinburgh are nearer each other. Sprawl is the only reason we see it as being the same area.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

A placeholder for a possible future stadium. If they only considered stadiums that currently stand, San Francisco and Los Angeles would not be viable candidates. If they didn't consider stadiums that need renovations to be able to host, Washington DC is out. The stadium being proposed means very little right now. It's the city that matters and Santa Clara is plenty fine if the stadium meets the requirements.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Seattle will host no matter what. 

Phoenix will replace SF if they don't get a stadium.


----------



## emergencyroom (Oct 24, 2009)

..


----------



## emergencyroom (Oct 24, 2009)

San Francisco is an iconic and beautiful city with people from all over the world.
It is popular with tourists and has good infrastructure. People from outside the US would choose it over Phoenix any day even if the actual stadium is in Santa Clara or Stanford.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

Of course Detroit should stage group games. Ford Field is a nice stadium, idealy located in down town (as all stadiums should be) and it's a region desperate for money and attention.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

I want to support Detroit hosting some of the games but I just can't help thinking that it is better to host games in open air stadiums. I don't think it should be a deal breaker but if their are cities/stadiums which also are very suitable I prefer those. Unfortunately this leaves worthy cities like Atlanta, St. Louis, and Detroit left out.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

nomarandlee said:


> I want to support Detroit hosting some of the games but I just can't help thinking that it is better to host games in open air stadiums. I don't think it should be a deal breaker but if their are cities/stadiums which also are very suitable I prefer those. Unfortunately this leaves worthy cities like Atlanta, St. Louis, and Detroit left out.


Good point though. 
Still, it would be lousy not to try to help them. 

Then again, they might be back on their feet by then.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

I don't think FIFA is the most charitable organization.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> I don't think FIFA is the most charitable organization.


Then why did they give it to South Africa; a country clearly not ready for it? 

Then again it dosen't matter. It's the US bid that desides which cities whould hold it, not FIFA.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

1772 said:


> Then why did they give it to South Africa; a country clearly not ready for it?
> 
> Then again it dosen't matter. It's the US bid that desides which cities whould hold it, not FIFA.


South Africa will be ready and the World Cup needs to be spread around to every continent, that is why FIFA chose them. South Africa is easily one of the most developed countries in the continent. 

Actually, FIFA would have a very large say in which US cities were to host and which were not.


----------



## bigbossman (Jun 25, 2007)

1772 said:


> Then why did they give it to South Africa; a country clearly not ready for it?


To keep the masses happy... you need to pander to africa and asia to win votes to be FIFA president. Blatter made it his business to take the world cup to Africa and that block vote helps him stay in power



> Then again it dosen't matter. It's the US bid that desides which cities whould hold it, not FIFA.


as massp88 said it's FIFA who decides


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

In my recent list, I considered cities which has a MLS team and those which have big soccer experience and success, strong public and solid soccer ambiance.
Cities like Kansas city, Denver or Seattle deserve to host WC games.

Look at this for Seattle
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2010203684_soundersnumbers05.html

Miami is the only city which has no MLS team in my list. San Jose could be considered as included in San Francisco area.
I don't want to exclude Detroit. I did my selection.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

massp88 said:


> South Africa will be ready and the World Cup needs to be spread around to every continent, that is why FIFA chose them. South Africa is easily one of the most developed countries in the continent.
> 
> Actually, FIFA would have a very large say in which US cities were to host and which were not.


Well, we'll see about that. 
I dont see why it "needs" to do anything? We've had the WC around since 1930 and we've been doing just fine without an african host? 


Perhaps they do. But if they alow it in such hell-holes as Johannesburg, Detroit shouldn't have a problem (especially since it's near Canada, and opens up for even moore football tourists).



bigbossman said:


> To keep the masses happy... you need to pander to africa and asia to win votes to be FIFA president. Blatter made it his business to take the world cup to Africa and that block vote helps him stay in power
> 
> as massp88 said it's FIFA who decides


I suppose your right. Sad really.


----------



## herb21 (Aug 12, 2008)

1772 said:


> Well, we'll see about that.
> I dont see why it "needs" to do anything? We've had the WC around since 1930 and we've been doing just fine without an african host?
> 
> Perhaps they do. But if they alow it in such hell-holes as Johannesburg, Detroit shouldn't have a problem (especially since it's near Canada, and opens up for even moore football tourists).
> ...


Ever been to Joburg?


----------



## lpioe (May 6, 2006)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Look at this for Seattle
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sounders/2010203684_soundersnumbers05.html


"35,807 Attendance for first leg of playoff series against Houston"

Did they open the upper tier? Or just the hawks nest?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

lpioe said:


> "35,807 Attendance for first leg of playoff series against Houston"
> 
> Did they open the upper tier? Or just the hawks nest?


The first few rows of the upper tier, only below the walkway. I believe they call it the loge level. They can't open the hawk's nest or further upper deck because there is XBOX advertising on the tarps that cover them and they are contractually obligated to have that advertising there for league matches. That advertising deal does not extend to the MLS Cup though so if they choose to, they can open up the entire stadium for that.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

1772 said:


> Perhaps they do. But if they alow it in such hell-holes as Johannesburg, Detroit shouldn't have a problem (especially since it's near Canada, and opens up for even moore football tourists).


Joburg has twice as many people and is sunny. That is, the field is open to the sun.


----------



## lpioe (May 6, 2006)

ryebreadraz said:


> The first few rows of the upper tier, only below the walkway. I believe they call it the loge level. They can't open the hawk's nest or further upper deck because there is XBOX advertising on the tarps that cover them and they are contractually obligated to have that advertising there for league matches. That advertising deal does not extend to the MLS Cup though so if they choose to, they can open up the entire stadium for that.


Thanks for the anwser.
I hope the Sounders can reach the final then (what is the score in the semis so far?). Do you think a sellout with the entire stadium open would be realistic then?


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

lpioe said:


> Thanks for the anwser.
> I hope the Sounders can reach the final then (what is the score in the semis so far?). Do you think a sellout with the entire stadium open would be realistic then?


Even the Revs got 61K for their home final in 2002. It's definitely possible.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

1772 said:


> Well, we'll see about that.
> I dont see why it "needs" to do anything? We've had the WC around since 1930 and we've been doing just fine without an african host?
> 
> 
> ...


Soccer is the worlds most popular sport and FIFA considers it a global game. Staging the biggest event on every continent makes sense, and is of high priority for FIFA. That same mindset is why I would like to see Autralia awarded the cup in 2026.

Look at the Olympics, South America has never hosted a games and now they are thanks to Rio, more deserving than Chicago, Tokyo and Madrid in my mind, who will host in 2016. 


I have never been to Joburg, but I have been to Detroit many times. With all due respect, the city is not that exciting and can be pretty depressing, much like most of Michigan.


----------



## herb21 (Aug 12, 2008)

massp88 said:


> I have never been to Joburg, but I have been to Detroit many times. With all due respect, the city is not that exciting and can be pretty depressing, much like most of Michigan.


One thing joburg isnt really is depressing (ok us cape townians might rip it in that regard) but it is really a very vibrant place and a melting pot of cultures. It also happens to be the economic powehouse of africa


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

lpioe said:


> Thanks for the anwser.
> I hope the Sounders can reach the final then (what is the score in the semis so far?). Do you think a sellout with the entire stadium open would be realistic then?


They have already said that if the Sounders make the final, they will open up the whole place. 

Right now, they're in the Western Conference semifinals and tied the first leg at home. There is no away goals rule so they will have to win this weekend in Houston or get a draw and win in extra time/penalties. If they do that, they'll have the Western Conference Final next week for a spot in the MLS Cup.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

massp88 said:


> S
> South America has never hosted a games and now they are thanks to Rio


Yes, but Latin America already did, unlike AFRICA !!!
Anyway, according the Olympic Rings there are 5 continent..and one and only one of them has never hosted the Games !!!!!!!! 
Although I'm really, really happy for the Cariocas because such a wonderfull city (which I love) really deserves to host the world sport's family :grouphug:!

sorry of the off-topic.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

herb21 said:


> One thing joburg isnt really is depressing (ok us cape townians might rip it in that regard) but it is really a very vibrant place and a melting pot of cultures. It also happens to be the economic powehouse of africa


 I've been to both and think they are pretty similar. Both are OK during the day but both have rather limited areas that as a tourist one would want to wander at night.

I have friends from JoBurg who rightly or wrongly never venture into Joburg at night which is a similar case for some Detroiters.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Australia completely sucks in terms of live tv viewing for Europe/Africa and the Americas.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

nomarandlee said:


> Australia completely sucks in terms of live tv viewing for Europe/Africa and the Americas.


True, but it is good for Asia and Oceania which comprises of two thirds of the worlds population. 
It realy only comes down to a few factors between Aus and the US
- Who can get the Votes from europe
- Weather it is to soon to go back the US after 94
- If Australia can get our bid togeather and not use too many oval stadiums
- If FIFA care about the US bid not leaving a lasting legacy for football as all the stadiums would be American Football stadiums
- Weather FIFA want to go to a new frontier
- And last but probably the most important who bribes the most FIFA officials. 

It is a hard one to predict, it will be interesting to see if anything changes when the bid books are finalised.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Evening matches in Australia will be fine for morning viewing in Europe and Africa. London is 8 hours behind Perth. Athens, Helsinki and Joburg, Cairo are 6 hours behind. So a 5pm Perth kickoff (or 7pm kick off for Australia's east coast)will be a nice breakfast to early lunch viewing in Europe and Africa, Not to mention the afternoon to primetime viewing to Billions in Asia.

Games involving teams from the Americas could be played at 11am on Australia's East Coast and be viewed in Rio and Buenos Aires at 10pm the previous day. New York, Toronto etc at 8pm, 7pm in Chicago, Mexico City and at 5pm in LA, San Fran.
An 8pm Perth kickoff would be viewed at 9am in Rio and Buenos Aires, 7am in New York and Toronto, 6am in Chicago, Mexico City.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Chimbanha said:


> The U.S. should be very thankful that the extra-UEFA competition is so weak this time so that they might actually have a shot. It's a very competitive race for 2018, with four very strong european bids. However, when it comes to 2022, it's pretty much between the U.S. and Australia. Had China actually bid, the U.S. would have no chance.
> 
> Look, Spain 2018/2002 would already be considered too soon (after 1982), and that's why they decided to pair with Portugal in order to bid. Then what to say about U.S. 1994? It's just too greedy for a country with no football tradition.


Your little countries are more like states to us, so we have way more fans and participants than almost any country on Earth. Boo hoo. Deal with it.


MERICA!!!!!!!!!


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Why are we even discussing Australia...


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^ Just responding to nomarandlee's claim that Australia "Sucks in terms or Live Viewing into Europe, Africa and the Americas", which I don't fully agree with.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Australia does suck for viewing here if they play games at night. I know from trying to catch AFL and NRL.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Your little countries are more like states to us, so we have way more fans and participants than almost any country on Earth. Boo hoo. Deal with it.
> MERICA!!!!!!!!!


And that's why you should get the WC more times? No, the U.S. has a lot of PEOPLE, not a lot of football fans. If you ask people in America what is an offside in footbal (or soccer, whatever you guys call it), the overwhelming majority won't know what to say. I believe FIFA will not be willing to come back to a country that had a WC in 1994 and most of its citizens weren't even aware of it at the time.

Probably the same thing would happen in Australia, with the difference that they didn't get the World Cup and thus the chance to develop interest in football within the country. U.S. had that chance, 15 years ago. That's really recent.

If already-built venues were such an important factor, England could just be named 2018 WC hosts right away. But that's not the case. FIFA wants to believe they had a role in developing sports in a country and in the history of the country itself. In no country it would have a weaker impact than in the U.S.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

I was just talking shit before, but I think the lack of football culture in this country is so overstated by outsiders.

As for legacy, we have a top-tier pro league which did not exist in 1994. It started at ten teams and could be up to 20 by the time Brasil plays host. This is all without tapping largely into Euro poseurs and fans of the Mexican league.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> I was just talking shit before, but I think the lack of football culture in this country is so overstated by outsiders.
> 
> As for legacy, we have a top-tier pro league which did not exist in 1994. It started at ten teams and could be up to 20 by the time Brasil plays host. This is all without tapping largely into Euro poseurs and fans of the Mexican league.


I'm not saying 1994 WC was a bad World Cup. Not because my country won it :banana:, but also because of the attendances (biggest attendance average ever for a WC) and the creation of the MLS. And also the evolution of the American team, as attested by this year's Confederation Cup.

But we can't deny that the interest football generates in the United States can't be compared to even other non-traditional countries that have hosted/will host the WC such as Korea, Japan and South Africa. Football is not the national sport in these countries, but it's within the most important. Would the WC games even be aired in primetime broadcast TV? 

It's definetely acceptable to give a WC to a country like the U.S. But doing it twice within 30 years is a right not even reserved for big countries in the football world like Brazil. This might change within the next years if FIFA continues being intransigent regarding joint bids and the WC keeps getting bigger: there will be not more than 10 countries able to host the WC (U.S. is obviously one of them), so repetitions within a short period of time will be more likely.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Where can i sign to Support San DIego?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Chimbanha said:


> I'm not saying 1994 WC was a bad World Cup. Not because my country won it :banana:, but also because of the attendances (biggest attendance average ever for a WC) and the creation of the MLS. And also the evolution of the American team, as attested by this year's Confederation Cup.
> 
> But we can't deny that the interest football generates in the United States can't be compared to even other non-traditional countries that have hosted/will host the WC such as Korea, Japan and South Africa. Football is not the national sport in these countries, but it's within the most important. Would the WC games even be aired in primetime broadcast TV?
> 
> It's definetely acceptable to give a WC to a country like the U.S. But doing it twice within 30 years is a right not even reserved for big countries in the football world like Brazil. This might change within the next years if FIFA continues being intransigent regarding joint bids and the WC keeps getting bigger: there will be not more than 10 countries able to host the WC (U.S. is obviously one of them), so repetitions within a short period of time will be more likely.


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The US provides huge moneymaking opportunities. While we'd like to think that World Cups are awarded for virtuous reasons, money plays a huuuuuge factor and the US offers it. Beyond the size of the stadia, FIFA's official sponsors are surely pushing for the US and FIFA knows how much they could get from future sponsors.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

And the US is close to Latin America, so as the article posted about San Diego, the US could get as much fans from Latin America as Brazil could get from South America.


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The US provides huge moneymaking opportunities. While we'd like to think that World Cups are awarded for virtuous reasons, money plays a huuuuuge factor and the US offers it. Beyond the size of the stadia, FIFA's official sponsors are surely pushing for the US and FIFA knows how much they could get from future sponsors.


To be honest I don't think money makes a difference in deciding a world cup. I would think most of that would come from TV rights because and that would be the same no matter where it's played.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The US provides huge moneymaking opportunities. While we'd like to think that World Cups are awarded for virtuous reasons, money plays a huuuuuge factor and the US offers it. Beyond the size of the stadia, FIFA's official sponsors are surely pushing for the US and FIFA knows how much they could get from future sponsors.


If that played such a huge role, the 2010 and 2014 World Cups wouldn't happen in South Africa and Brazil. That is exactly the same argument some guys in this forum said the IOC just couldn't reject Chicago for the 2016 games.

If the IOC rejected Chicago when the U.S. pays the highest tv rights in the world and has most corporate sponsors, FIFA would have absolutely no trouble to reject them with a much more considerable European sponsorship and much lower TV rights paid by the U.S. TV.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

So the question here is, is the US paying more money for the TV rights? I know that Univision has the right to broadcast the 2010 World Cup (in the US of course), but it is Univision paying more money than any European nation? i heard that Univision paid more than 2 billion or so, im not sure.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

-Corey- said:


> So the question here is, is the US paying more money for the TV rights? I know that Univision has the right to broadcast the 2010 World Cup (in the US of course), but it is Univision paying more money than any European nation? i heard that Univision paid more than 2 billion or so, im not sure.


Univision paid US$325 million for both the 2010 and the 2014 World Cups.

http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=5108


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Oh sorry, i was wrong, so it has the exclusive Only in Spanish? Or that includes English too? Anyway, how much are paying the European broadcasters?


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

-Corey- said:


> Oh sorry, i was wrong, so it has the exclusive Only in Spanish? Or that includes English too? Anyway, how much are paying the European broadcasters?



I'm trying to find such information. All I can say is that in Brazil, apparently, Rede Globo paid US$100M to broadcast it exclusively. Rede Record allegedly offered US$180M but still got rejected.

I also find that text ambiguous regarding Univision's exclusivity. Is it only exclusive among Spanish broadcasters in the U.S.?

EDIT: according to Wikipedia, Univision has the Spanish-language rights and ABC (ESPN) has the English-language rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup_broadcasting_rights#cite_note-0


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Im not sure, i think it includes English too, I remember back in 2006, the matches were on Univision only, and it was in Spanish with English subts, i dont remember if any ENglish station broadcasted any match, im not sure.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

I was looking in youtube at different "goal" calls, hmmm, it's better with passion.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Maybe when you're not a football-fan since your early youth !!!

But, my (French) "football-culture" never been very "exuberant"  !


----------



## 40oztofreedom (Nov 17, 2009)

definetly los angeles


----------



## ua_bodya (Jun 30, 2007)

LOL. Qatar among the candidates....


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

ua_bodya said:


> LOL. Qatar among the candidates....


Yeah, whats up with that? 
As if I want to watch football in 120 degrees.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

The CONCACAF Executive Committee has pledged full support for the US bid in 2018/2022.



> The board also voiced unanimous support for the United States' bid to host the World Cup in either 2018 or 2022. Executive Committee member and U.S. Soccer Federation President Sunil Gulati outlined the major aspects of the bid in a video and slide-show presentation to the panel.
> 
> CONCACAF President Jack Warner congratulated the United States on its bid.
> 
> "The United States can count on the full support of CONCACAF, including Chuck Blazer, Rafael Salgueiro and myself," Warner said. The 24-member FIFA Executive Committee will decide the venues for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup in December 2010.


This is a major deal because three members of the committee, who pledged unanimous support, are three members of the FIFA Executive Committee that will vote on the hosts.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Haha, Diamond Jack. What a clown he is.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Warner has a bit of clout, though.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Sadly, he does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0puFaKUg56I


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

He has quite a bit, which normally is awful because he's as corrupt as they come, but in this case, it's fantastic for the bid.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Yeah, I feel dirty with him on our side.


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

whatever get us the cup...


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

Chimbanha said:


> http://www.soccertimes.com/worldcup/2005/nov02.htm
> 
> Isn't it weird that the rights to the Spanish transmission were much more expensive than those to the English transmission? Is football popular there only within the Hispanics?


because theres another all spanish network in the USA. Theres Telemundo and Univison, so basically theres an actual bidding war. I don't think anyone but ESPN/ABC bid for the english rights. 
But yes, Hispanics are the biggest consumers of soccer in the states. For example, the Mexican league gets more viewers every week than the champions league+european leagues combined. Every single game of the mexican league is over free tv and when it's a big game. It outdraws the other networks in the 18-34 bracket in cities like Chicago, LA, Houston and etc.

Which is why I think it's funny that people say that MLS should be more like Europe, because that's wrong.....it should be more like the Mexican league if it wants to draw bigger crowds.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

*SIC*
But that is in no way carved in stone. Remember that football (hrrm, soccer) is the fastest growing sport in the US.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

1772 said:


> *SIC*
> But that is in no way carved in stone. Remember that football (hrrm, soccer) is the fastest growing sport in the US.


Yeah, but hispanics are the largest growing segment of the population as well. They will be 1/4 of the American population in 2050. So they'll keep pace with the growth and still the be the main consumer of soccer by sheer numbers, unless something drastic happens.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

SIC said:


> Yeah, but hispanics are the largest growing segment of the population as well. They will be 1/4 of the American population in 2050. So they'll keep pace with the growth and still the be the main consumer of soccer by sheer numbers, unless something drastic happens.


I wasn't thinking about hispanics. 
Regular americans are increasingly starting to embrace the game. It is the biggest sport among kids.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

1772 said:


> I wasn't thinking about hispanics.
> Regular americans are increasingly starting to embrace the game. It is the biggest sport among kids.


Yeah, and my reply was......unless the whole country starts to follow the sport (doubtful). Hispanics will by far, be the largest group of soccer fans in the country. Even if the rate of white, black, asian fans in the US triples-quadruples the current numbers.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Bobby3 said:


> Haha, Diamond Jack. What a clown he is.


Here's exactly what Roy Keane thinks of him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/7612358.stm

The clip is a year out of date now, but nevertheless comedy gold as usual from Keano! :lol:


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

There would have some criterion for choosing the 18 bid cities foe the WC:


Popularity among public
Quality of venues (stadiums, accomodation, transportation, communication)
City appeal and reputation

Cities which should be choose are in bold.

World Cup votes as of Friday, Dec. 18:
1. *Seattle*; Husky Stadium & Qwest Field 19,056
2. *Atlanta*; the Georgia Dome 14,665
3. *Houston*; Reliant Stadium 12,904
4. *Indianapolis*; Lucas Oil Stadium 10,598
5. *Philadelphia*; Lincoln Financial Field 10,544
6. *Miami*; Land Shark Stadium 9,993
7. *Kansas City*, Mo.; Arrowhead Stadium 9,742
8. Tampa Bay, Fla.; Raymond James Stadium 7,723
9. *Dallas*; the Cotton Bowl & Cowboys Stadium 7,631
10. Cleveland, Ohio; Cleveland Browns Stadium 7,519
11. San Diego; Qualcomm Stadium 5,513
12. Jacksonville, Fla.; Jacksonville Municipal Stadium 5,473
13. Charlotte, N.C.; Bank of America Stadium 5,246
14. *Orlando*; Florida Citrus Bowl 5,030
15. *Chicago*; Soldier Field 4,813
16. *New York-New Jersey*; New Meadowlands Stadium 4,671
17. *Boston*; Gillette Stadium 4,610
18. *Nashville*; LP Field 4,351
19. *Washington, D. C*.; FedEx Field 4,078 votes
20. Oakland, Calif.; Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum 4,072
21. Baltimore; M&T Bank Stadium 3,750
22. *Denver*; Invesco Field 3,668
23. St. Louis, Mo.; Edward Jones Dome 3,656
24.* Los Angeles*; Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum & the Rose Bowl 3,094
25. Detroit; Ford Field & Michigan Stadium 1,965
26. *San Francisco*; Stanford Stadium 1,250
27. *Phoenix-Glendale*; University of Phoenix 1,163

The final choice will be made by FIFA.


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

We won't get this one. The same main problem for us exists as the problem Chicago 2016 bid team had, which is that geopolitical momentum is not on our side. Since FIFA is increasingly marketing in Asia, Australia becomes the clear-on favorite. Just a hop, skip and a jump from the lucrative Southeast Asian and Chinese markets.

But if we do get it, should the USSF keep the relationship with ESPN/ABC or go with another media company like Comcast/NBC? Before dismissing it, think about the sports-related gains that would come if a new player emerges. Comcast has Versus, which now airs hockey and not much else, because they don't have contracts with the big leagues. However, despite that, Versus is at 64 million households, while 30 million behind ESPN, is still in a lot of homes when factoring that they have not much to offer. Fox Soccer Channel only reaches barely 30 million households, for comparison sake. With NBC partnering with them, they would get a lot of clearance as NBC puts some real sports programming there. NBC also has Universal Sports, which an ota channel broadcasting individual sports most associated with the Olympic program, like track-and-field and cycling, but also offered on several cable providers. With new corporate muscle, they can be able to bid to not only keep the Olympics but bid on major sporting events such as World Cup soccer. 

One advantage I can see from being on NBC is that they're more likely to air all matches featuring the US National team, regardless of whether they stink up the joint or not. Of course, that could end up being a double-edge sword if that happen. But we can all agree that NBC can be US-centric when it comes to coverage of major international sporting events. So when factoring that in I can make a best guess of the way they'd divide the coverage of a World Cup.

Here's how I think it might work:

NBC takes the Opening Match, regardless of teams. The opening match would be a big deal, especially in a US city. So they get first dibs. Then the matches featuring the US National team go to the broadcast side as well. Let's assume at least 3 matches if they crash out in the first round. However, if there's a chance that they move through the latter rounds, NBC would want to air those matches. So they'd want at least one Round 16 match and one match in the Quarters. After that, it gets easier for them, as the Semis and Final would most likely feature the traditional powers (money in the bank if one of those team is from South America or Mexico). So one Semi-final and the Final as well for NBC.

The rest of the matches would be divided by Versus, with Universal Sports getting any matches played simultaneously in the last part of the first round with either Versus or NBC (US team). Therefore, Versus (or its name successor) would get the vast majority of the matches. 

My calculation came up with this:

NBC - 8 matches (incl. Opening, US Men, R16, Quarter, Semi, Final)
NBC Sports Cable or Versus - 50 matches (not including the Final)
Universal Sports - 6 matches played in the final matchday of the groups

If US is in the Opening match:

NBC - 7
Sports cable - 50
Universal Sports - 7

How likely would this scenario be? I would say 30-70. I read that ESPN has a VP who is a real soccer fan. So I think the likelihood of them keeping the right to the FIFA World Cup has increased. They also still enjoy a lot of financial muscle and are way ahead of their competition in the number of households having at least ESPN/ESPN2. However, what if the soccer coverage is only being used to lobby the IOC for the Olympics TV rights? That is a factor that worries me. If they do win the Olympics TV rights, with their commitments to NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, college football and possibly March Madness, something will have to give. I think soccer would be one of their sacrificial lambs to get all the big money sports properties. The USSF should have a plan B if ESPN does drop them after 2014. 

Now with regards to the Spanish language coverage, things could get much more interesting if Telemundo becomes a true player to get the TV rights to the World Cup. If the new NBC can put real financial backing into Telemundo then they might take it away from Univision. However, Univision has enjoyed such a long relationship with FIFA that it'd be difficult for them to lose the rights. Still, with the rapidly-changing technology, a Telemundo would be able to cut into the advantage Univision has over them sometime in the future. For example, Telemundo would be able to start a secondary service at little cost just to air the matches played simultaneously live in the near future. I think this scenario is more likely than ESPN/ABC losing the English-language rights.

If Australia gets the World Cup, then you might as well give it to ESPN because any other US media company - apart from foreign language - would not bother to air all the matches live.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

The Game Is Up said:


> We won't get this one. The same main problem for us exists as the problem Chicago 2016 bid team had, which is that geopolitical momentum is not on our side. Since FIFA is increasingly marketing in Asia, Australia becomes the clear-on favorite. Just a hop, skip and a jump from the lucrative Southeast Asian and Chinese markets.
> 
> But if we do get it, should the USSF keep the relationship with ESPN/ABC or go with another media company like Comcast/NBC? Before dismissing it, think about the sports-related gains that would come if a new player emerges. Comcast has Versus, which now airs hockey and not much else, because they don't have contracts with the big leagues. However, despite that, Versus is at 64 million households, while 30 million behind ESPN, is still in a lot of homes when factoring that they have not much to offer. Fox Soccer Channel only reaches barely 30 million households, for comparison sake. With NBC partnering with them, they would get a lot of clearance as NBC puts some real sports programming there. NBC also has Universal Sports, which an ota channel broadcasting individual sports most associated with the Olympic program, like track-and-field and cycling, but also offered on several cable providers. With new corporate muscle, they can be able to bid to not only keep the Olympics but bid on major sporting events such as World Cup soccer.
> 
> ...


First of all, comparing this World Cup bidding to the Olympics is a bad one to make. There is so much bad blood between the IOC and USOC that it was a huge factor over all else. On top of that, there is tension between the USOC and other olympic commitees, while USSF has a good relationship with just about everyone. They've done a very good job in that respect and while geopolitical momentum is not on the USA's side, FIFA is not nearly as immersed in it as the IOC and FIFA tends to work in its own little bubble, for better or worse.

Moving onto the US World Cup TV coverage, I can't find a single argument that I would agree with. First of all, you bring the Olympics into ths disucssion for reasons I can't quite fathom. With Disney's backing and their own financial capital, the initial outlay for rights fees does not scare off ESPN ever if they think they can make money off of something. On top of that, the Olympics will not put a crunch on programming time when it comes to the World Cup. The Summer Games are held two years earlier/later than World Cup and Winter Games take place in February. If anything, the Olympics on ESPN would be a boon for the World Cup because it gives ESPN the ability to promote the match during the highly viewed Winter Games.

You advocate the move to NBC because of reasons I don't quite follow. You want eight matches on NBC, but ESPN is already contracted to show a minimum of 10 on ABC per World Cup, showed 11 in 2006 and with the massive weight they have put behind this World Cup, are likely to show more in 2010. ESPN also has a background in soccer, making the production value higher and even you mention the huge difference in households ESPN reaches versus the households Versus and Universal Sports. There is also the fact that NBC does not have a single major sports deal from the time the NFL ends in January and the World Cup so what are they promoting it on? Best case scenario, there is the Winter Olympics if they hold onto the rights and that is it. ESPN can promote it during the NBA, college basketball, MLB, the Winter Olympics if they get the rights, plus during all of the other soccer matches they already show.

If any other network is going to make a serious bid that can rival ESPN it will be Fox, but even they have serious issues to iron out. The most prominent time to get the World Cup on is the Saturday and Sunday slots, but if they continue with their MLB deal, they do not have programming time on Saturday afternoon. If they can be managed, they can push ESPN though because they have a major network, an experienced team of soccer producers thanks to Fox Soccer channel, and dozens of sports networks to show the matches on with their FSN channels. I don't think they can match ESPN, but if anyone is to challenge ESPN, it will be them.

Going back to your argument for NBC, exactly why is it a good idea to make the move there? Under your proposal they're showing less matches on NBC than ESPN shows on ABC. NBC's cable matches would be on networks that don't have near the reach or viewership as ESPN does. They have no experience in the sport, while ESPN has a ton and has shown a commitment to the sport. NBC does not have near the same ability to promote the World Cup and most of all, ESPN has a executive vice president who has made soccer a priority, even bringing up the possibility of ESPN launching their own soccer network.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> First of all, comparing this World Cup bidding to the Olympics is a bad one to make. There is so much bad blood between the IOC and USOC that it was a huge factor over all else. On top of that, there is tension between the USOC and other olympic commitees, while USSF has a good relationship with just about everyone. They've done a very good job in that respect and while geopolitical momentum is not on the USA's side, FIFA is not nearly as immersed in it as the IOC and FIFA tends to work in its own little bubble, for better or worse.
> 
> Moving onto the US World Cup TV coverage, I can't find a single argument that I would agree with. First of all, you bring the Olympics into ths disucssion for reasons I can't quite fathom. With Disney's backing and their own financial capital, the initial outlay for rights fees does not scare off ESPN ever if they think they can make money off of something. On top of that, the Olympics will not put a crunch on programming time when it comes to the World Cup. The Summer Games are held two years earlier/later than World Cup and Winter Games take place in February. If anything, the Olympics on ESPN would be a boon for the World Cup because it gives ESPN the ability to promote the match during the highly viewed Winter Games.
> 
> ...


I for one, would love it if ESPN launched a soccer network to compete with FSC.

There is no way that NBC will/would steal the WC away from ABC. I agree with everything you have mentioned rye. ESPN/ABS will promote the heck out of the 2010 cup just like they did in 2006, which featured GREAT ads. 

NBC, outside of the Olympics has a very weak sports showing. They still continue to show the joke and continuing to decline Notre Dame football team. Their NFL coverage is terrible (Michaels and Collinsworth are the only saving grace).

ESPN is learning the hard way that their deal to start showing NASCAR has not paid off well as they have seen ratings decline year over year. They will not miss out on the massive boost the WC will provide them.


----------



## El Cholo (Jul 19, 2008)

The Game Is Up said:


> .... Since FIFA is increasingly marketing in Asia, Australia becomes the clear-on favorite. Just a hop, skip and a jump from the lucrative Southeast Asian and Chinese markets.
> 
> .....


Explain that, why is having it in Australia going to bring benefits to FIFA from China??? :nuts: Wouldn't they just have China host then? 

The US has Jack Warner backing them for now, the most corrupt FIFA official to ever live. He will deliver the World Cup to the US as long as the USSF keeps sending gifts his way. :banana:


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

I could actually see the Asia market working against Australia for 2022. Asia is undoubtedly a lucrative market, but a good chunk of it is tied up in China. if Australia hosts in 2022, Asia will not get another World Cup for a bit, meaning China has to wait to host. I think that if FIFA had their way, they would get China to guarantee a bid for 2026 before December, steer 2022 away from Australia so Asia is still an option, then get the 2026 World Cup in China. Obviously, this is speculative, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if something along these lines occured.


----------



## C.M. (Jun 13, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> I could actually see the Asia market working against Australia for 2022. Asia is undoubtedly a lucrative market, but a good chunk of it is tied up in China. if Australia hosts in 2022, Asia will not get another World Cup for a bit, meaning China has to wait to host. I think that if FIFA had their way, they would get China to guarantee a bid for 2026 before December, steer 2022 away from Australia so Asia is still an option, then get the 2026 World Cup in China. Obviously, this is speculative, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if something along these lines occured.


This is very interesting and it could be more fact than fiction. If Australia wins the rights to host the 2022 WC for Asia then China will have to wait until 2036 for the WC to return to Asia. I doubt that China will want to wait that long to host the biggest sporting event on the planet. If I were Chinese I would make a ‘deal’ with some of the corrupt FIFA executive committee members bring the 2026 WC to China.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

ryebreadraz said:


> I could actually see the Asia market working against Australia for 2022. Asia is undoubtedly a lucrative market, but a good chunk of it is tied up in China. if Australia hosts in 2022, Asia will not get another World Cup for a bit, meaning China has to wait to host. I think that if FIFA had their way, they would get China to guarantee a bid for 2026 before December, steer 2022 away from Australia so Asia is still an option, then get the 2026 World Cup in China. Obviously, this is speculative, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if something along these lines occured.


I've said this many times. 

If 2022 was China vs the USA, China wins easily. 

But right now FIFA's choice is really 2022 in OZ or 2026 in China.

The USA will get one of those two WC's. 

I think FIFA will go to China...


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

ryebreadraz said:


> First of all, comparing this World Cup bidding to the Olympics is a bad one to make. There is so much bad blood between the IOC and USOC that it was a huge factor over all else. On top of that, there is tension between the USOC and other olympic commitees, while USSF has a good relationship with just about everyone. They've done a very good job in that respect and while geopolitical momentum is not on the USA's side, FIFA is not nearly as immersed in it as the IOC and FIFA tends to work in its own little bubble, for better or worse.


Well, FIFA has embarked on "spreading the game" even to the point of dangling the possibility of awarding future tournaments in non-traditional countries. The U.S. had their moment in the sun in 1994. So that argument no longer applies. More than that, though, FIFA and the IOC closely monitor each other. While both may be independent entities, I wouldn't be surprised if they take their cues from each other. As opposed to 1988, FIFA now has options for broadening their marketing reach but, politically, they still have to keep UEFA happy and in the fold. Then there's the AFC and their vast number of member countries and the traditional powers of South America. The International Olympic Committee is also stacked with members from Europe and Asia. FIFA and the IOC are more similar in political culture than we realize.

So while Jack Wagner may help us some he alone won't push the US bid over the hurdle.



> Moving onto the US World Cup TV coverage, I can't find a single argument that I would agree with. First of all, you bring the Olympics into ths disucssion for reasons I can't quite fathom. With Disney's backing and their own financial capital, the initial outlay for rights fees does not scare off ESPN ever if they think they can make money off of something. On top of that, the Olympics will not put a crunch on programming time when it comes to the World Cup. The Summer Games are held two years earlier/later than World Cup and Winter Games take place in February. If anything, the Olympics on ESPN would be a boon for the World Cup because it gives ESPN the ability to promote the match during the highly viewed Winter Games.
> 
> You advocate the move to NBC because of reasons I don't quite follow. You want eight matches on NBC, but ESPN is already contracted to show a minimum of 10 on ABC per World Cup, showed 11 in 2006 and with the massive weight they have put behind this World Cup, are likely to show more in 2010. ESPN also has a background in soccer, making the production value higher and even you mention the huge difference in households ESPN reaches versus the households Versus and Universal Sports. There is also the fact that NBC does not have a single major sports deal from the time the NFL ends in January and the World Cup so what are they promoting it on? Best case scenario, there is the Winter Olympics if they hold onto the rights and that is it. ESPN can promote it during the NBA, college basketball, MLB, the Winter Olympics if they get the rights, plus during all of the other soccer matches they already show.


It wasn't my intention to advocate for NBC. However, I will say that at the very least NBC gives the USSF an option - a sort-of Plan B if you like - in case ESPN decides it is getting out of the soccer business. What happens if the MLS contract is not renewed, as it may happen with the ratings they're getting? Even Disney is not in the business of losing money. Would having NBC as a partner be ideal? Probably not. However, look what the USSF has now to partner with for televising games as opposed to the 1980s, considered the Lost Decade for professional soccer. That's not even taking into account broadband, satellite and other new technologies. The point is that they have options now that weren't available before. 

So if, for example, ESPN thinks it can make a better deal bidding for Thursday Night NFL games than the FIFA World Cup then time for the USSF to get a good deal elsewhere. In this game, it's about how to best promote your product. OK, I'll give you the point about any potential synergies in promotion between the Olympics and the World Cup, as both are big-time world events followed by a worldwide audience. However, I can't give you the point with respect to the NBA, MLB or NFL. How much does a diehard fan of college football care about soccer and vice-versa? I see little in common between baseball fans, football fans and futbol fans as well. The local major leagues should be treated more as stand-alone events than a promotion platform for the World Cup. Or maybe you think there's much in common between soccer and NASCAR fans.



> If any other network is going to make a serious bid that can rival ESPN it will be Fox, but even they have serious issues to iron out. The most prominent time to get the World Cup on is the Saturday and Sunday slots, but if they continue with their MLB deal, they do not have programming time on Saturday afternoon. If they can be managed, they can push ESPN though because they have a major network, an experienced team of soccer producers thanks to Fox Soccer channel, and dozens of sports networks to show the matches on with their FSN channels. I don't think they can match ESPN, but if anyone is to challenge ESPN, it will be them.


I wouldn't mind FOX having them. Remember that FOX also owns MyNetworkTV. MyNetworkTV, as well as FOX, already is set up for HD programming. Also along with FOX, MyNet is already on cable and satellite providers due to the retrans agreement. Right now they mostly show B-movies, reruns of second-rate shows, talk shows and infomercials. That's already a second platform of over-the-air stations that they can use to show World Cup games. For example, in my area, Channel 9 is the MyNetworkTV station. Channel 9 was for a long time known for showing New York Mets games. However, along the way, the Mets moved over to Channel 11 (now a CW affiliate) and replaced by the Yankees. Yankee games usually are on Saturday nights in the summertime. MyNetworkTV covers over 90% of the country. See: http://www.rabbitears.info/search.php?request=network_search&network=MyN

However, their real problem is with Fox Soccer Channel/Fox Sports Espanol. They're only at 30 million homes. Both would have to be at least 2.5 times that number to be a serious contender. They can use FX to fill in the gap if they can do that. I don't how logical it is to use the FSNs. People would have to be told what channels they're on depending on where they live.

Right now they could combine FOX and MyNet with FX (preferably FSC). Perhaps FSC/FSE would "lease" the MyNet stations to telecast the matches, like they did when FSE used Channel 9 to air the Yankee playoff games _en espanol_.



> Going back to your argument for NBC, exactly why is it a good idea to make the move there? Under your proposal they're showing less matches on NBC than ESPN shows on ABC. NBC's cable matches would be on networks that don't have near the reach or viewership as ESPN does. They have no experience in the sport, while ESPN has a ton and has shown a commitment to the sport. NBC does not have near the same ability to promote the World Cup and most of all, ESPN has a executive vice president who has made soccer a priority, even bringing up the possibility of ESPN launching their own soccer network.


They could air more games if they want to. I wasn't arguing for an arbitrary number but assuming that the network would be interested only in broadcasting the games that would garner the better ratings, such as games involving the US and major soccer powers. Also, since Versus/NBC have almost nothing in terms of major sports programming in the summer apart from the Olympics that they would be better inclined to treat soccer (besides the World Cup) the way it deserves to be treated. It's a personal thing with me. However, I do recognize that ESPN is giving more focus on soccer for next year, although I am skeptical on their motivations for doing so.





C.M. said:


> This is very interesting and it could be more fact than fiction. If Australia wins the rights to host the 2022 WC for Asia then China will have to wait until 2036 for the WC to return to Asia. I doubt that China will want to wait that long to host the biggest sporting event on the planet. If I were Chinese I would make a ‘deal’ with some of the corrupt FIFA executive committee members bring the 2026 WC to China.


China already had their "coming out" party in 2008. Having the World Cup so soon after would be just gravy but not as vital as the Olympics were to them. Remember also that their team is not exactly that good. They could use the time to improve the team's performance.

Oh, and they could have it in 2030 if they want to.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

FIFA doesn't care if China had the Olympics in 2008, they want a WC there to spread the game. And they can spread the game a lot more in China (1 billion +) than in Australia (20 million).


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

If they had stayed in the running then I agree that they would have a better chance. However, barring that, FIFA would happily settle for eyeballs looking at the video screens, which Asia has plenty of. TV rights is going to be the next huge level in terms of marketing in Asia. The Aussies could even organize tours for Asian tourists coming to watch the World Cup (if they can somehow get over their paranoia about Asian foreigners).

All you have to do is search for live soccer games on the internet. Check how many feeds are coming from Chinese or Korean stations. If they're willing to do through those lengths to pirate live league soccer matches on the internet then FIFA would make a killing on live legal telecasts. FIFA knows a thing or two about controlling content when it comes to the World Cup. They won't catch all the pirates but by 2022 I think they'd make it very hard for World Cup games to be pirated. I expect that FIFA itself is going to go bigtime into TV production, complete with its own "FIFA Channel" (or "Canal du FIFA" to use the French spelling), play-by-play commentary, sideline reports, etc.. They could even give away TVs to Asians and still make a killing in advertising and marketing fees, as new companies from Asia increasingly buy into the World Cup market.

This is where Australia shows its biggest advantage: It's in a region that is convenient to Asian viewers, timewise. Matches in Sydney are more manageable for Asia than in Chicago or Philly. Stadium revenue under those circumstances becomes less and less important, even though still important. TV, satellite, broadband, 3D, outdoor parks, mobile web. That's where the real money is at.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

Of course the US would play the opening game. 

And I wouldn't count on the US to stink. 
Thinking of how well they preformed at the confederations cup I see the US team as a future top team.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

The USSF/ Sunil Gulati and Chuck Warner are total FIFA insiders and they have Jack Blazer in the inner circle. They've been running things for the last 35-40 years now and they're buddy buddy with everyone. Chuck Blazer was one of the guys handing out medals to Barcelona at the CWC last weekend. They know how to play game and they don't think they've above it.
Unlike the USOC, who thinks they're above the IOC, which is the real source of conflict. The USSF knows it's place, but it exploits it very well.

I don't know about Australia, but they were recently in Oceania, which is the weakest confederation in influence. But have now moved to the AFC, but I don't know how the internal politics work there. But the idea of China backstabbing Australia's bid, isn't implausible.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

On Tuesday, the list of 27 cities will be cut down to 18. Those 18 cities are the ones that will be presented to FIFA in the bid. Cities with two candidate stadiums (for example, DC with RFK and FedEx or LA with The Rose Bowl and Coliseum) will just count as one so it will be 18 cities, not stadiums. Also, cities that are candidates can end up hosting in a stadium not currently listed if they build a new one, which is likely to be the case with LA and possibly San Diego or San Francisco.


----------



## Frnjchuga031 (Jan 26, 2009)

USA is mine favorite...  You have best stadiums that any country can have... Not only by quality and capacity but also cause of quantity of stadiums...
Only minus is that most of your stadiums don't have roofs... But nice summer weather fixes that up...


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

> The Aussies could even organize tours for Asian tourists coming to watch the World Cup (*if they can somehow get over their paranoia about Asian foreigners*).


What a rude and ill informed thing to say. 6.7 % of the population is racially East Asian. A large percentage of tourists to Australia are Asian. The vast majority of Australians have no problems with this.


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

Frnjchuga031 said:


> USA is mine favorite...  You have best stadiums that any country can have... Not only by quality and capacity but also cause of quantity of stadiums...
> Only minus is that most of your stadiums don't have roofs... But nice summer weather fixes that up...


Well, some recent stadia have retractable roofs. Some are domes. Seattle has partial coverings and Miami plans to put up a metal cover on theirs as well. However, the roof issue isn't even the biggest problem. The biggest problems are the following:

- The stadia are build primarily for _that other_ football. In cases such as Philadelphia, Arlington and the Meadowlands, that means the width of the field would be a tight fit, at best, inadequate otherwise.

- Start times. Let's face it. For the vast majority of matches it would be just like in 1994, when the sun is at its highest point in the sky or close about. Europe can get away with starting some matches at 7:30 PM local time. We won't have that luxury, no matter how much money is waved at Warner and Blatter, although we should have that flexibility. It's crazy to start matches at 12:30 PM if in Orlando, for example. Then there's the irritation that happens when folks are arriving under heavy traffic, in the middle of high heat and humidity. Bring plenty of fluids (and I don't mean the alcoholic kind) and arrive early to beat the traffic. That's the best advice one can give under those circumstances.

- TV and new media marketing in Asia would make it too attractive for FIFA to forgo a candidate for one of the World Cups from the AFC. Since Australia is the better of the AFC candidates up to now, they'd want to go there.

- Geopolitics is very unfavorable at this moment. Furthermore, I don't see a scenario where that changes quickly. We're in this at least for the next 10-20 years. FIFA has to satisfy the different confederations. Concacaf doesn't have enough clout to pull this off, even if Mexico would like again to play their matches just across the border.

So, yeah, appreciate your support for us but we ain't getting it!


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

I think that matches schedule wouldn't be set as in 1994. Football has been growing in USA since then a lot, and it is more popular now. So, matches could be in US prime time... if we could watch Olympics in early morning, I think we in Europe could watch football in late hours, especially in summer, when is so hot and we cant sleep... and also, last few years many players died during/after playing on high temperatures, so FIFA wouldn't make such a decision as playing in noon, or groups on East coast would be played earlier, and those on West would be played later.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

The Game Is Up said:


> - The stadia are build primarily for _that other_ football. In cases such as Philadelphia, Arlington and the Meadowlands, that means the width of the field would be a tight fit, at best, inadequate otherwise.
> *Philly and the OLD meadowlands won't host, and a tight fit is better than playing in an olympic or cricket stadium as in OZ*
> - Start times. Let's face it. For the vast majority of matches it would be just like in 1994, when the sun is at its highest point in the sky or close about. Europe can get away with starting some matches at 7:30 PM local time. We won't have that luxury, no matter how much money is waved at Warner and Blatter, although we should have that flexibility. It's crazy to start matches at 12:30 PM if in Orlando, for example. Then there's the irritation that happens when folks are arriving under heavy traffic, in the middle of high heat and humidity. Bring plenty of fluids (and I don't mean the alcoholic kind) and arrive early to beat the traffic. That's the best advice one can give under those circumstances.
> *Start times can always be changed, Europe can stay up a bit later. Not to mention that about half the stadiums are domes or at least have a partial roof.*
> ...


..


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

hngcm said:


> CONCACAF doesn't have enough clout but somehow the weak AFC does?


Try the billions of people throughout Asia. :|

P.S. If the AFC is weak, then CONCACAF is level with it at best.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

The US bid board will choose the 18 bid cities on tuesday. That means nin cities will be eliminated. This is my list of eliminated cities.

Jacksonville
Tampa bay
Baltimore
Oakland
Cleveland
St-Louis
San Diego
Detroit
Nashville

Whatever cities, the US bid plan will have all stadiums already built and largely above the minimum capacity required by FIFA. If the US win the 2022 WC race, FIFA will choose 12 stadiums for competition. During 12 years some stadiums of the list could change, new to be built in DC, SF or LA for example.
We will know all the details on 14th may 2010.
Preliminaries draw could be in Chicago and final draw in LA Live or Las Vegas.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

hngcm said:


> I've said this many times.
> 
> If 2022 was China vs the USA, China wins easily.
> 
> ...


Don't forget many chinese could easily travel in South Korea rather in Japan because of travel costs for 2002 WC. If a WC go to China, it could be less expensive for the majority going to another chinese cities than going to Australia.
Furthermore, China has more stadiums (>= 40000 places) and more cities than Australia.


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

When trying to figure which is the best way to convince FIFA to do another WC in the States, there are times when ordinary folks like myself and those mucky-mucks who make up the various bid committees appear as if we are on different planets. Now, I don't have an urban planning degree, a Ph.D in economics nor an engineering background. What I believe I have is general common sense. For a long time, we've been coasting it in that we treat big sporting events like the Olympics and World Cup like "show events" complete with "show sponsors", pageantry, orchestras, emcees and dancing musicians and stars. That worked when first employed. However, with each successive big event, the strategy slowly became a mockery of itself. 

Signs of warning were evident. First there was the Opening Ceremony in 1994, with Diana Ross missing the "penalty" that had to caused laughter in many quarters. Then there were the problems that plagued Atlanta '96 (I won't pin the Olympic Park bombing on them, though. That was a lone nut and can happen to anyone), from confusion about travel to even the Olympic torch. After that was the controversy surrounding the Salt Lake City '02 games, the scandal created by the allegations of bribery. On top of that, Utah isn't exactly the epitome of culture, even though it is a relatively safe, conservative state. With that still fresh memory of the controversy, it became apparent that the States have lost its luster as a destination for big-name sporting events. The failures of the NYC '12 and the Chicago '16 bids brought this point home.

If anyone thinks that the problems with the USOC and the potential loss of the WC 2022 bid are unrelated, then I can't help you. They have everything to do with perception, reputation, competence and forward vision. For the U.S. bid to overcome the negative momentum, they need to do two things right away: 1. Raise funds to cover expenses necessary for the guarantee of security, preparation of venues and spectator access to the matches; and 2. Put forward a simplified list of cities that are most likely to attract spectators who are truly interested in the game, including immigrants and sophisticated fans. From the list presented by the bid committee, it seems that they are attempting to use 2022 WC to promote tourism rather being a host of the World's Game! hno: For example, what does Nashville and KC have that Chicago doesn't have? Can you tell me? OK, I can think of the Grand 'Ol Opry and Dolly Parton but any country-western music fan would go there regardless of whether there's a _sahhh-kkerrr_ match going on or not. Second point: OK, I can go with dropping Detroit and Oakland but Tampa??? All they care about over there is _that other football_ and college football and high school football, yeah, even pee-wee football. There is already a place where there are people generally interested in _*futbol*_ and that's Miami. Go there. Put a roof on that stadium if necessary. 

Speaking of which, the third point, *why hasn't the bid committee not even gone to the folks in charge of the stadium there and say "Hey, we'll help you put up a cover roof over the spectators in exchange for a cut in ticket sales/suite revenues for xxx years?"* There's nothing in the bid that says anything about raising funds to cover things like paying to expand the playing field, adding temporary seats, fixing up the concourses, etc.. They're all banking on *someone else, meaning us* paying for all that and then swooping in to take over the venues for a few days. Cheapskates! Why not go to the Philly, Chicago and one more city and say "We'd like to find a solution and we'll pay for much of it, in exchange for a cut in ticket sales"? Commit to paying to widen the field in the Philly stadium and then put those aisles back in after the Cup. That's how it should be done! You want to put on a big event, you gotta put up the money. 

The list of cities should be pretty simple. They should include the following:
NY, Philly, Foxboro, Chicago, Miami, LA, SF, Houston, Washington D.C.. That's already the minimum and include such fancy things as culture, history, tradition, as well as proximity to fans. If you need more venues, I can go with Seattle and maybe San Diego, Minneapolis, Arlington or Baltimore. Go with cities that are teeming with fans. Spend $$$ to upgrade or expand venues when necessary. That's how it should be done.

The bid committee f'ed it up, big time! Australia will win 2022!


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

Well, I guess those guys who wanted a roof to avoid sunburn/rain will now get to enjoy beautiful and exciting Indianapolis and avoid this hellish view from Soldier Field. YOU WIN! Enjoy your connection flight in O'hare. :lol:










**** it, if I have to travel to see a WC game, I might as well follow my team. I'll see you guys in LA/Miami. :cheers:


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

> *http://sports.yahoo.com/soccer/news?slug=ap-wcup-usbid&prov=ap&type=lgns*
> 
> *Chicago, San Francisco get World Cup boot*
> By RONALD BLUM, AP Sports Writer
> ...


...


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

> *Gulati also cited the 61,000 capacity of renovated Solider Field for World Cup soccer.
> 
> “It would have been by about 10 percent the smallest stadium,” Gulati said*.


OK. It may be a bit on the "small" side for that metropolitan area but that's still a $8▲t reason to drop it from consideration. Even Stanford stadium is OK by my book. The "bigger is always better" mentality shown by the bid committee is baffling. Who cares about hitting the 5 million mark? Put the matches closest to where the *futbol* fans are!



> *Also left off was San Francisco, but organizers said the Bay Area could return to contention if the 49ers get a new stadium in Santa Clara*.


SD as a placeholder for SF? That is my take from this. I don't know. The Murph may be a little old but with a little fixing up it'd be fine for the World Cup.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

The Chargers should get their new stadium by then. 

Still SF should bump them regardless if the 49ers get their stadium done.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

San Francisco doesn't have a suitable venue. How hard is that to understand? Only Chicago got jobbed; San Francisco just doesn't measure up. San Diego is plenty big and plenty attractive.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

^^ I think that SF can have suitable venue built till 2018/2022... if South Africa could built 8 new stadiums in 5 years, and Angola 4 new stadiums in 2.5 years, also USA can build at least one...

USA will get World Cup :banana:

p.s. but I, personally, prefer SD more then SF


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

I can't believe Chicago has not been picked, its the 3rd biggest city in America, surely they could expand Soldier Field. Also a 60,000 seat stadium is not small, especially if you compare it's size with other stadiums since 1998 W.C. I hope they come to their senses and let it back in the bid along with San Fransisco.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Kobo said:


> I can't believe Chicago has not been picked, its the 3rd biggest city in America, surely they could expand Soldier Field. Also a 60,000 seat stadium is not small, especially if you compare it's size with other stadiums since 1998 W.C. I hope they come to their senses and let it back in the bid along with San Fransisco.


I dont possibly see how they could expand Soldier Field.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

Chicago is out, what a shock. Esp. if you consider that they hosted 1994 WC's opening match. 61,000 is enough to hold a semifinal according to the current FIFA guidelines, but, apparently, the U.S. will bring the huge attendances from 1994 as their big argument to convince FIFA executives. That might be pretty effective.

PS: the Rose Bowl will need some serious refurbishment if the U.S. gets the hosting rights. There is apparently not enough (if any) VIP seating, and I'm pretty sure FIFA will require a roof in the stadium of the final game.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Chimbanha said:


> Chicago is out, what a shock. Esp. if you consider that they hosted 1994 WC's opening match. 61,000 is enough to hold a semifinal according to the current FIFA guidelines, but, apparently, the U.S. will bring the huge attendances from 1994 as their big argument to convince FIFA executives. That might be pretty effective.
> 
> *PS: the Rose Bowl will need some serious refurbishment if the U.S. gets the hosting rights. There is apparently not enough (if any) VIP seating, and I'm pretty sure FIFA will require a roof in the stadium of the final game.*


If the US is chosen for 2022 WC, it would have only few works to do to meet FIFA's requirements for the US. LA, Washington DC could be only concerned by works.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> I think he means Glendale/Phoenix. All the same market. I guess we just have to agree to disagree because I think they would fill 70,000+.


My mistake, I always forget that the new building is in Glendale.



Bobby3 said:


> All of the matches will be sell outs. I think people forget just how massive Phoenix is, it's the fifth biggest city in the country.


Like Rye said above, we will just have to agree to disagree. I cannot see Phoenix seeing over 72,000 for the matches they host (if selected) unless the U.S. or Mexico were playing there.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Chimbanha said:


> Chicago is out, what a shock. Esp. if you consider that they hosted 1994 WC's opening match. 61,000 is enough to hold a semifinal according to the current FIFA guidelines, but, apparently, the U.S. will bring the huge attendances from 1994 as their big argument to convince FIFA executives. That might be pretty effective.
> 
> PS: the Rose Bowl will need some serious refurbishment if the U.S. gets the hosting rights. There is apparently not enough (if any) VIP seating, and I'm pretty sure FIFA will require a roof in the stadium of the final game.


Is the Rose Bowl the final chosen venue for LA? If not, I am sure the new football stadium that will be built will have enough VIP seating. As far as roofs go, at the current moment, NYC, LA and Washington, D.C. (I think the most likely final choices) don't have roofed stadiums. 



en1044 said:


> I dont possibly see how they could expand Soldier Field.


Nor do I. It's sad though that Chicago won't get to host. It's an amazing city and has a diverse population, as well as a ton of name recognition the world over.


----------



## tykho (Oct 18, 2004)

massp88 said:


> My mistake, I always forget that the new building is in Glendale.
> 
> 
> 
> Like Rye said above, we will just have to agree to disagree.* I cannot see Phoenix seeing over 72,000 for the matches they host (if selected) unless the U.S. or Mexico were playing there.*


Depends, classics like Germany-Italy, Brazil-Argentina or England-France etc, etc..can easily be sold out, the WC draws people from all over the world.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

massp88 said:


> Like Rye said above, we will just have to agree to disagree. I cannot see Phoenix seeing over 72,000 for the matches they host (if selected) unless the U.S. or Mexico were playing there.


You underestimate the amount of fans who attend from outside the immediate area. It's the FIFA World Cup, guy.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> All of the matches will be sell outs. I think people forget just how massive Phoenix is, it's the fifth biggest city in the country.


Top 12 metro area population estimates (for July 1, 2008) from the Census Bureau - 

NYC - 19.0M
LA - 12.8M
CHI - 9.6M
DFW - 6.3M
PHI - 5.8M
HOU - 5.7M
MIA - 5.4M
ATL - 5.4M
DC - 5.4M
BOS - 4.5
DET - 4.4
*PHX - 4.3*


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

Before everyone here freaks out over cities, venues and events, please read the following blog post:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/blog.php?b=7421

I think this guys makes some good points some of you should listen to.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> You underestimate the amount of fans who attend from outside the immediate area. It's the FIFA World Cup, guy.


I understand it's the World Cup. I have been to 3 World Cups, guy.

You are not going to see 30,000 Croatians, both from the U.S. and abroad flock to Indianapolis to watch Croatia play.


Answer this then, why, in 1994, did every game in the US not sellout? Don't bother making the, oh that was almost 16 years ago argument. Look at the attendance figures.....stadiums were not sold out.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

GunnerJacket said:


> Top 12 metro area population estimates (for July 1, 2008) from the Census Bureau -
> 
> NYC - 19.0M
> LA - 12.8M
> ...


1. New York City, New York - 8,363,710
2. Los Angeles, California - 3,833,995
3. Chicago, Illinois - 2,853,114
4. Houston, Texas - 2,242,193
5. Phoenix, Arizona - 1,567,924

I said city.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> I said city.


Fair enough, I should've done better than assume where you were coming from. But it does stand to reason that when considering market size for an event of this scale, metro populations play a far greater factor than simply municipal populations. Otherwise you're reasoning implies PHX has notably greater value than places like Philly, DC or DFW, when I'd argue is quite the opposite. But I'll leave the semantics at that.

- - - -

Re: CHI being dropped
While I'm sure the venue size had something to do with it, I can't imagine that being the full logic behind the decision. Soldier field has an abundance of suites and Chi-town is a tourist attraction, meaning they'd likely easily sell it out for big $ (far more than, say, Indy or Nashville) and have the city available for promotions. Even if they just use it for group stage matches.

I'm thinking the talk about compartmentalizing the event is taking hold and ultimately they felt Chicago did not have any equally appealing partner cities since Cleveland, Detroit and St. Louis were also cut. Looking at what's left it simply feels like the upper midwest might be sacrificed so as to economize fan travel (pending the final selections, of course). 

Still, you have to wonder if this has given the folks behind Soldier Field another reason to ponder why they didn't build bigger.* 

Other thoughts:

- Folks with Orlando's Citrus Sports Authority must be disappointed. The WC berth was one item being touted to garner support for a major renovation to the Citrus Bowl Stadium. While that remains a possibility, this is one less potential asset to include in sales pitches. Yet, ironically...

- ...San Diego, with their similar stadium situation, remains eligible?!! Clearly they're in the running as both a tourist draw and possible travel partner with LA, and obviously Qualcomm meets the min. standards, but since they'd obviously prefer to see this venue upgraded why is the potential here any greater than Orlando?

- I touted Nashville as an underdog early and they're still in the running! Granted, I'm sure a lot of it has to do with being a partner to another solid option like ATL, but I think there is real appeal in selling Nashville as decidedly American in flavor, something tourists should appreciate. LP Field is nice too.

- Indianapolis? But not Cleveland or Chicago?!!! Really?

- * Soldier Field can be expanded at either end, but at comparably high cost and would require either the relocation or sacrifice of some suites and/or the video boards. Granted, this might also distort the architecture of the revised structure and the cost may not be worth it since the new seats would also be the cheapest ones offered, given their location.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

Bobby3 said:


> 1. New York City, New York - 8,363,710
> 2. Los Angeles, California - 3,833,995
> 3. Chicago, Illinois - 2,853,114
> 4. Houston, Texas - 2,242,193
> ...


City population means nothing. Metro area population has more weight.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

massp88 said:


> Answer this then, why, in 1994, did every game in the US not sellout? Don't bother making the, oh that was almost 16 years ago argument. Look at the attendance figures.....stadiums were not sold out.


Most of the games were and the games set a very nice attendance record, thank you very much. So while some matches featuring smaller/weaker nations may not draw well, clearly a majority of the games will reach capacity.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

metros11 said:


> Before everyone here freaks out over cities, venues and events, please read the following blog post:
> 
> http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/blog.php?b=7421
> 
> I think this guys makes some good points some of you should listen to.


Yes, he makes some good points and many of our thoughts are typical message board overreaction. Still, given the weights of the decision it seems awfully curious to see this particular process yield these results. Especially since while it is likely that the Bay Area will see at least one new, WC worthy venue, it is highly unlikely Soldier Field will be expanded and remains a highly attractive stadium regardless. Thus, why is the bid committee leaving off the USA's "Second City?" I'm not panicking, but I am baffled.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Here's a Soccernet article bemoaning the absence of Chi Town from the list.

_"That's right. The very city that the U.S. Soccer Federation calls home, the third-largest media market in the country, and the town that hosted the opening game of the 1994 FIFA World Cup will not be among the list of cities included in the bid."_


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> Most of the games were and the games set a very nice attendance record, thank you very much. So while some matches featuring smaller/weaker nations may not draw well, clearly a majority of the games will reach capacity.


I never said that the 1994 WC was not well attended; it was the most attended ever. You are supporting my claim that say a Croatia vs. Australia match in Glendale will not sell 72,000 tickets. 

I realize that most matches will sellout or be at near capacity. But there will be matches that take place between smaller countries in population, or soccer history that will not sellout. 

I expect the next WC held in the US will see even higher attendance.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

^^^ In which case the semantics over whether or not certain games sell out is an immaterial given that applies to pretty much every WC, unless all the venues are at minimum capacity. It's not like we'll ever see a WC venue half full.

Bottom line is a US hosted event would likely establish a new attendance record, agreed?


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

Livno80101 said:


> ^^ I think that SF can have suitable venue built till 2018/2022... if South Africa could built 8 new stadiums in 5 years, and Angola 4 new stadiums in 2.5 years, also USA can build at least one...
> 
> USA will get World Cup :banana:
> 
> p.s. but I, personally, prefer SD more then SF


Yup, and Mexico is right next door, that's why I think San Diego was chosen over San Francisco.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

-Corey- said:


> Yup, and Mexico is right next door, that's why I think San Diego was chosen over San Francisco.


Thank heavens! Clearly it would be difficult for Mexicans or footie fans from elsewhere in Latin America to reach the other host cities. 



:|


----------



## atlas400 (Jan 28, 2009)

Yessss Denver made the cut


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

GunnerJacket said:


> - ...San Diego, with their similar stadium situation, remains eligible?!! Clearly they're in the running as both a tourist draw and possible travel partner with LA, and obviously Qualcomm meets the min. standards, but since they'd obviously prefer to see this venue upgraded why is the potential here any greater than Orlando?


The San Diego bid is banking on a brand new stadium for the Chargers that SHOULD be built by 2022. 

Plus San Diego is a better city than Disney World.


----------



## Kobo (Dec 12, 2006)

massp88 said:


> I realize that most matches will sellout or be at near capacity. But there will be matches that take place between smaller countries in population, or soccer history that will not sellout.


Well actually during the 1994 USA World Cup the smaller matches did sell out pretty much to full capacity. Take the possibly weakest match in the tournament: Saudi Arabia vs Morocco played at Giants 77,000 capacity stadium in New Jersey. 76,322 people showed up to see this game. Or Greece vs Bulgaria played at Chicago's 67,000 Soldier field 63,160 showed up to support. The thing about Americans is that if their is a big show in town they will go and watch it.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

Kobo said:


> Well actually during the 1994 USA World Cup the smaller matches did sell out pretty much to full capacity. Take the possibly weakest match in the tournament: Saudi Arabia vs Morocco played at Giants 77,000 capacity stadium in New Jersey. 76,322 people showed up to see this game. Or Greece vs Bulgaria played at Chicago's 67,000 Soldier field 63,160 showed up to support. The thing about Americans is that if their is a big show in town they will go and watch it.


Yes, just big show is needed and Americans will show... there is really one important thing in American culture - going to big sports events - unlike some other parts of the world... so selling stadium out wont be any problem + there is many people from all over the world in USA...


----------



## PaulFCB (Apr 21, 2008)

Yeah, the attendance was quite great in 1994, I guess the Americans somehow even though they don't love football they came in big numbers, Romania played 3 out of 5 games on the Rose Bowl then and the stadium was as full as it was during the final and it was great since they were all 3 great victories.

Columbia-Romania 93.586
USA-Romania 93.869
Romania-Argentina 90.469


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

I sure hope they'll tear down RFK, build a massive +100K stadium and replace FedEx Field with it. 

Imagine the WC finale in the middle of DC!


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Guys, I think the US is playing its cards on bidding over massive stadia, with (far) greater seat capacity than ever other country would ever bid. All selected cities have good lodging and transportation links, and all of them can host the matches.

The US is so big, and so diversified, that a massive sport event can be hold bypassing some major cities without comprising its quality. If Casper, WY, were selected, I'd start being concerned (lovely place, but no capacity).

Anyhow, offering the use of NFL stadia is a huge selling on the American bid. They are huge, they have tons of facilities (club seats, parking lots etc.) and they draw no long-term economic feasibilty concern that would otherwise exist if US were proposing to build soccer-only stadium construction.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

hngcm said:


> The San Diego bid is banking on a brand new stadium for the Chargers that SHOULD be built by 2022.
> 
> Plus San Diego is a better city than Disney World.


I like SD, I was simply implying that the reasoning SD was seemingly included (the promise for something better) didn't seem to also apply to SF or Orlando. It seems a double standard was at play, in my eyes.



1772 said:


> I sure hope they'll tear down RFK, build a massive +100K stadium and replace FedEx Field with it.


As long as the Redskins owners pay for most of it and DC United isn't shuffled off to some suburban wasteland. I'd love to see such a venue, and the WC final, played in DC or NYC, but taxpayers have already been fleeced with the Nationals ballpark and DC United have been treated like garbage by the District.



Suburbanist said:


> Guys, I think the US is playing its cards on bidding over massive stadia, with (far) greater seat capacity than ever other country would ever bid. All selected cities have good lodging and transportation links, and all of them can host the matches.


Ya think?!! 

Seriously, this is all well and good but FIFA and US Soccer must also recall that the totality of the experience stretches far and long beyond the game. Many tourists would be in the States for 2+ weeks, and probably taking in an average of 4-5 games. The logistics and costs for travel and lodging, among other factors, must be considered. I'd be very leery of an event that uses huge stadia but finds the fans and teams scattered hither and yon to points less attractive for tourists and forces people to spend ungodly amounts of time spent traveling as opposed to actually experiencing US culture.




Then again, long commuting is a decidedly US trait... :bash:


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

They should use a pod system and regionalize the early part of the tournament. Just don't make it like the Gold Cup where every team takes a 4 hour flight between every game


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

1772 said:


> I sure hope they'll tear down RFK, build a massive +100K stadium and replace FedEx Field with it.
> 
> Imagine the WC finale in the middle of DC!


You will not see an 100,000 plus seat stadium for an NFL team. I don't even think you will see an NFL stadium that has more than 80-85,000 seats. 

The current Fed Ex Field won't be replicated if Snyder and Co. want to build a World Class venue.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> You will not see an 100,000 plus seat stadium for an NFL team. I don't even think you will see an NFL stadium that has more than 80-85,000 seats.
> 
> The current Fed Ex Field won't be replicated if Snyder and Co. want to build a World Class venue.


It's an ego thing with Snyder and a bunch of other owners. Snyder will make sure that his stadium holds more than Jerry World. Maybe not with the 100,000+ capacity that they used once, but definitely bigger than 85,000 or so that they regularly have. My guess is any new stadium Snyder builds will be in the 95,000 range.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

PaulFCB said:


> Yeah, the attendance was quite great in 1994, I guess the Americans somehow even though they don't love football they came in big numbers, Romania played 3 out of 5 games on the Rose Bowl then and the stadium was as full as it was during the final and it was great since they were all 3 great victories.
> 
> Columbia-Romania 93.586
> USA-Romania 93.869
> Romania-Argentina 90.469



i have to point one thing out. lots of Americans love futbol. We love top notch futbol. In fact, i would say Futbol is easily the favorite sport in the Los Angeles area, followed by basketball then football then baseball (all with huge followings). there are millions of immigrants from Iran, Mexico, Europe, so there are plenty of fans. Same goes for NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. 

I think the world cup in the USA would easily sell out every game, and would shatter attendance records as it did in 94.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> You will not see an 100,000 plus seat stadium for an NFL team. I don't even think you will see an NFL stadium that has more than 80-85,000 seats.
> 
> The current Fed Ex Field won't be replicated if Snyder and Co. want to build a World Class venue.


Im sure that whatever stadium Snyder builds will have a similar capacity to FedEx Field. 92K works.

Whatever stadium replaces FedEx will look nothing like it. Not even Jack Kent Cooke really liked the place Ive heard. It was built hastily to spite the DC city council.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> i have to point one thing out. lots of Americans love futbol. We love top notch futbol. In fact, i would say Futbol is easily the favorite sport in the Los Angeles area, followed by basketball then football then baseball (all with huge followings). there are millions of immigrants from Iran, Mexico, Europe, so there are plenty of fans. Same goes for NYC, Chicago, SF, etc.
> 
> I think the world cup in the USA would easily sell out every game, and would shatter attendance records as it did in 94.


Furthermore, it would not be a surprised if New York would host the opening game and LA the final if the US was selected as WC host for 2022. One LA venue needs at leat to be modernized .
Washington DC with FedEx field doesn't seem to be appropriate to host a final. it deserves one semi final


----------



## Snorky33 (Oct 23, 2009)

It's not if but when:yes: the U.S. do play host, which city do you think will host the final? I'm picking Dallaskay: not only because it has one of the best stadiums not only in the U.S. but in the world, the other reason giving Texas a chance this time of staging a major world sporting event, sorry but the state of California has had it's fair share of these kind of events over the past decades...this time give it to Dallaskay: Texas...thank you FIFA.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Furthermore, it would not be a surprised if New York would host the opening game and LA the final if the US was selected as WC host for 2022. One LA venue needs at leat to be modernized .
> Washington DC with FedEx field doesn't seem to be appropriate to host a final. it deserves one semi final


Well FedEx Field wont really exist in 2022, so its irrelevant.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Snorky33 said:


> It's not if but when:yes: the U.S. do play host, which city do you think will host the final? I'm picking Dallaskay: not only because it has one of the best stadiums not only in the U.S. but in the world, the other reason giving Texas a chance this time of staging a major world sporting event, sorry but the state of California has had it's fair share of these kind of events over the past decades...this time give it to Dallaskay: Texas...thank you FIFA.


Im not thinking Dallas really has the appeal to host the final.


----------



## jean1991 (Apr 26, 2007)

I'll say New York will host the final, biggest stage in the world. Lot of european and latin futbol fans.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

I think Los Angeles and New York will be singled out as the two major cities in play and one will host the final, while the other gets the opener and international broadcast center.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Was it really ever explained why the Rose Bowl was chosen for the final last time? Not that I disagree with the choice at all but I do wonder how much consideration was given to NYC for the final. I don't think RFK stadium would have even been a consideration.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> i have to point one thing out. lots of Americans love futbol. We love top notch futbol. In fact, i would say Futbol is easily the favorite sport in the Los Angeles area, followed by basketball then football then baseball (all with huge followings). there are millions of immigrants from Iran, Mexico, Europe, so there are plenty of fans. Same goes for NYC, Chicago, SF, etc.
> 
> I think the world cup in the USA would easily sell out every game, and would shatter attendance records as it did in 94.


Why do you say "futbol"? Speak english buddy.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

nomarandlee said:


> Was it really ever explained why the Rose Bowl was chosen for the final last time? Not that I disagree with the choice at all but I do wonder how much consideration was given to NYC for the final. I don't think RFK stadium would have even been a consideration.


Naturally I'm not talking about the present RFK but a whole new stadium. 

I can see the heli-cams over the stadium with the Capitolium in the background... 
MAGIC!


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

1772 said:


> Why do you say "futbol"? Speak english buddy.


This debate is fucking stupid both ways, so just drop it.


----------



## Snorky33 (Oct 23, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> I think Los Angeles and New York will be singled out as the two major cities in play and one will host the final, while the other gets the opener and international broadcast center.


Yes you're probably right:yes: New York being an international city would be the best place to host the final...but is it's main football stadium on a par with what Dallas has got? but at the very least Dallas should get one semi-final and Denver the other and NYC the final:yes: yeah that's sounds like a good compromise.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Snorky33 said:


> Yes you're probably right:yes: New York being an international city would be the best place to host the final...but is it's main football stadium on a par with what Dallas has got? but at the very least Dallas should get one semi-final and Denver the other and NYC the final:yes: yeah that's like a good compromise.


Why in the world would Denver be hosting a semi final?

And BTW, i dont think Cowboys Stadium is really that much better than New Meadowlands. I think that its been way overhyped in that sense.

EDIT: Look, I know you Dallas folk will probably bash me for this, but I just dont see how Dallas can match up to New York when it comes to hosting the final match of the largest sporting event in the world. Not saying Dallas cant, just that NYC can do it better.


----------



## MS20 (Apr 12, 2009)

New Meadowlands is way better than Cowboys stadium. I much prefer the classical style of NM; in saying that I think Im the only person who hates the giant screen at Cowboys stadium. The entire place just looks like a warehouse.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

MS20 said:


> New Meadowlands is way better than Cowboys stadium. I much prefer the classical style of NM; in saying that I think Im the only person who hates the giant screen at Cowboys stadium. The entire place just looks like a warehouse.


I wouldn't say a warehouse but otherwise I agree with you. The new Meadowlands appears a much more graceful interior and arguably has better sightlines given the compact form. The Cowboys venue is truly nice but so many nuances to the interior form I tire of the disjointed seating arrangements. As for the huge screens, while they do permit more seating they also seem a distraction and an architectural afterthought. I'm sure the venue works very well and will surely bring Mr. Jones plenty of money, but as an architectural piece I prefer the general form of the new Meadowlands. 

I'll reserve final judgment until visit both venues, though, obviously.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

massp88 said:


> You will not see an 100,000 plus seat stadium for an NFL team. I don't even think you will see an NFL stadium that has more than 80-85,000 seats.
> 
> The current Fed Ex Field won't be replicated if Snyder and Co. want to build a World Class venue.


You mean just in DC or anywhere? Cause obviously the Redskins and Cowboys are averaging above 84k this season, while the new Meadowlands will seat 82k. 

True, 65-78k seems to be the common range, as seats any further away than what such venues would offer tend to be much worse than what the average fan could find on his couch. But it seems the market is definitely there for some teams to pass the 80k mark, pending costs and appeal of the seats. I bet Denver and Green bay could pull it off, but there venues aren't as conducive to expansion.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

STILL can't understand how CHICAGO was left off in favor of NASHVILLE.

Seriously, freaking NASHVILLE!


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Im not thinking Dallas really has the appeal to host the final.


There is no way that Dallas, Texas will be hosting the World Cup final. Period.

It will either be in 3 cities: New York, Washington, D.C., or Los Angeles.


----------



## Bobby3 (Jun 26, 2007)

Snorky33 said:


> It's not if but when:yes: the U.S. do play host, which city do you think will host the final? I'm picking Dallaskay: not only because it has one of the best stadiums not only in the U.S. but in the world, the other reason giving Texas a chance this time of staging a major world sporting event, sorry but the state of California has had it's fair share of these kind of events over the past decades...this time give it to Dallaskay: Texas...thank you FIFA.


Dallas won't host it. Remember the final isn't taking place tomorrow, that stadium has already lost some gloss, by 2022 it'll be average at best.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

KingmanIII said:


> STILL can't understand how CHICAGO was left off in favor of NASHVILLE.
> 
> Seriously, freaking NASHVILLE!


Well, let's explore this.

Clearly they USSF was looking for some original locations, either to pacify the severity of the geography spread and/or to introduce new destinations into the international vocabulary. Yes, they could do the same-ol, same-ol with the usual cast of characters, but in some instances the venues may not be up to speed and frankly some of them may not be inspired: Supposedly many people avoid Orlando because of overt tourism already flooding the Disney metropolis. Plus there's the idea of incentive - Some cities may be looking to attract new eyes and visitors and are bending over backwards in their cooperation with USSF (Atlanta) while other, supposedly obvious choices are floundering in the political support of their bid (Chicago).

Nashville has a fine venue in LP Field, located near downtown and waterfront areas with a stable of tourist attractions and plenty of nightlife. It's also a fairly safe and clean city and, most importantly, as the hub of country music is decidedly American. This is something the USSF may wish to show off and tourists may want to see. Case in point: When the Olympics came to Atlanta the most popular tourist attractions were the things related to the Civil War, Gone with the Wind, etc. 










Arguably Nashville is among the weaker bid cities remaining (I rate Indy and KC lower, personally) and I don't expect them to be chosen, but I can at least understand why they've been considered through this point. 

And yes, the US men's side has played a game there before. I believe two. I just didn't find an aerial/high view photo of those games.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

^^^^









There ya go.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

KingmanIII said:


> STILL can't understand how CHICAGO was left off in favor of NASHVILLE.
> 
> Seriously, freaking NASHVILLE!


As a Chicagoan it is hard to stomach. It makes it a bit harder to get excited about the bid to be honest. 

The worst part of it may be that we supposedly asked not to be a part of it hno:



> *http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/15/sports/soccer/15cncpulse.html*
> 
> *Chicago News Cooperative | The PulseChicago Withdraws From World Cup Bid *
> 
> ...


..


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

Unlike Soldier Field, LP Field in Nashville can fit the full 68 metres in width required for the World Cup.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

JYDA said:


> Unlike Soldier Field, LP Field in Nashville can fit the full 68 metres in width required for the World Cup.


That's not a factor at this stage. See FedEx and Jerry World.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

1772 said:


> Why do you say "futbol"? Speak english buddy.


ok soccer. happy? :lol:


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

metros11 said:


> That's not a factor at this stage. See FedEx and Jerry World.


Yeah but FedEx and Jerry World have massive capacities that can't be passed up. The bid needs these stadiums, and challenges like field width are worth trying to overcome. They don't need little Soldier Field.


----------



## 504souldja (Oct 26, 2009)

It's very difficult to see why Chicago would be left out, it is a massive media market. Though their stadium is a little below capacity, you would think that the sheer size of the city would make up for that.


----------



## SSE (Jul 28, 2009)

PaulFCB said:


> Yeah, the attendance was quite great in 1994, I guess the Americans somehow even though they don't love football they came in big numbers, Romania played 3 out of 5 games on the Rose Bowl then and the stadium was as full as it was during the final and it was great since they were all 3 great victories.
> 
> Columbia-Romania 93.586
> USA-Romania 93.869
> Romania-Argentina 90.469



Whilst I am not rubbishing the fantastic attendances at USA 94, I think it's safe to say that you're a bit off the mark with that post. The fans were there to see the host nation and the two South American teams, not Romania.

Romania vs Switzerland had a crowd of 61,000 in an 80,000 capacity stadium.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

504souldja said:


> It's very difficult to see why Chicago would be left out, it is a massive media market. Though their stadium is a little below capacity, you would think that the sheer size of the city would make up for that.


The city didn't want to put up a 10 million gaurantee, even though they were willing to put up hundreds of millions on the olympics. Who decides that? Daley.


----------



## jl1718 (Oct 23, 2007)

GunnerJacket said:


> Well, let's explore this.
> 
> Clearly they USSF was looking for some original locations, either to pacify the severity of the geography spread and/or to introduce new destinations into the international vocabulary. Yes, they could do the same-ol, same-ol with the usual cast of characters, but in some instances the venues may not be up to speed and frankly some of them may not be inspired: Supposedly many people avoid Orlando because of overt tourism already flooding the Disney metropolis. Plus there's the idea of incentive - Some cities may be looking to attract new eyes and visitors and are bending over backwards in their cooperation with USSF (Atlanta) while other, supposedly obvious choices are floundering in the political support of their bid (Chicago).
> 
> ...


Listening to the city leaders talk the seem to have gotten assurances that they will be in the final bid. They said they were told they would be in after there presentation, they where the first city to give a presentation.

They will also bringing be filling the south end of the stadium with seating. The USSF appears to really like Nashville. 

One cool part of the city's presentation was jumbo tron's floating up and down the river next to the stadium. I would like to see the city's proposal, sounded very cool.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

So Nashville is in the final bid, but will be more interesting is whether or not FIFA is interested in the city. If the US does get to host, FIFA makes the decision as to where matches are hosted so we'll see how that goes.


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

hngcm said:


> At least replace Tampa with Chicago...


And I can replace my toilet paper with Chicago....


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

How about this hngcm, tell me why Chicago is better than Tampa when it comes to a host city for the 2018/2022 World Cup.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

TampaMike said:


> How about this hngcm, tell me why Chicago is better than Tampa when it comes to a host city for the 2018/2022 World Cup.


I'll answer it for him. Chicago is the nation's third largest city and a massive television market. It has a downtown stadium adjacent to a large park that sits on the lake, making it perfect for a fan fest. It is also the largest city in an underrepresented region and home to the USSF headquarters. Tampa is a decent sized city, but not as big as Chicago. It doesn't have the international recognition of Chicago, it doesn't have the soccer history of Chicago and it is not the largest city in its own state, let alone region. 

There are two things that held Chicago back. They didn't want to guarantee $10 million and Soldier Field is only 61,000. As a city comparison though, Chicago is superior to Tampa in terms of WC hosting. That said, I have no issue whatsoever with Tampa. I like the city, but it doesn't measure up to Chicago for this.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

In 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil, cities are scattered as well. One of the hosts cities (and for that competiton decision has been made and venues are under renovation/construction/final design already), Manaus, is at least 2h50 flight-time apart from any other host city, and there is no plan to "regionalize" comepetition.

I know USA and Brazil are very different countries, in regard of both infrastructure and soccer public recognition and interest, still some debates happened there when FIFA picked up some cities with no competitive team on their national league.

Travel abroad to watch FIFA World Cup games are an already expensive and complex enterprise. Usually you travel with an organized tour to follow your team, especially if you want to follow it through the playoffs: cities where your national team might play are completely different pending on whether it scores a 1st or 2nd place in its group stage. So only organized tours which have agreements to "exchange" accomodation make it viable to follow your team without spending a fortune on last minute reservations.

Regardless of that, US have a huge air transportation network and no home (living in US) fan would have problems to find appropriate flights to follow their national team.


----------



## geoone (Nov 12, 2009)

Wow, absolutely amazing. I can't believe that someone would ask such a doltish & foolhardy question. :|

But I'm glad that someone was humble enough to supply the extremely obvious & common sense answer.


----------



## 3521usa (Dec 23, 2007)

TampaMike said:


> And I can replace my toilet paper with Chicago....


I think Chicago would be too rough for you buddy.:lol:


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

We're talking about the United States. Most large cities have the infrastructure to host, so it comes down to stadiums. All the games should sell out unless you're talking about ridiculous prices. Most people can and will watch on TV. Chicago having a larger TV audience is irrelavent.

As for field dimensions, I don't know how many times this must be stated. The regulation field size is NOT 2x the size of an NFL field. It is much easier to take a few rows out of the bottom of a stadium or cover up some field suites than it is to build multiple entire stadiums or making complete renovations like other countries are having to do. No stadium will be left out because of field dimensions because that is a simple fix.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

*Field dimensions*:

NFL - 109.7m X 48.8m

FIFA - 105m X 68m


----------



## rus (Nov 20, 2009)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> ok soccer. happy? :lol:


Not ebuchiy soccer this is FOOTBALL


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

These are two lists of stadiums for a WC

List A

Atlanta (70 868 places): QF
Boston (74 000): QF
Dallas (91 600): R16, 3rd place Game
Denver (75 165): QF
Houston (76 000): QF
Kansas City (75 364): R16
Los Angeles (94 542): 3rd US Game, R16, Final
Miami (80 240): R16
New York	(84 000): Opening Game, R16, SF
Phoenix (71 362): R16
Seattle (68 000): R16
Washington DC (90 000): 2nd US Game, SF

Mean: 79 262 places => 5 072 752 spectators

List B

Boston (73 393): QF
Dallas (91 600): R16, 3rd place Game
Denver (75 165): QF
Houston (76 000): QF
Indianapolis (66 500): R16
Los Angeles (94 542): 3rd US Game, R16, Final
Miami (80 240): R16
Nashville (75 000): QF
New York	(84 000): Opening Game, R16, SF
Phoenix (71 362): R16
Seattle (68 000): R16
Washington DC (90 000): 2nd US Game, SF

Mean: 78 964 places => 5 053 696 spectators


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

ryebreadraz said:


> I'll answer it for him. Chicago is the nation's third largest city and a massive television market. It has a downtown stadium adjacent to a large park that sits on the lake, making it perfect for a fan fest. It is also the largest city in an underrepresented region and home to the USSF headquarters. Tampa is a decent sized city, but not as big as Chicago. It doesn't have the international recognition of Chicago, it doesn't have the soccer history of Chicago and it is not the largest city in its own state, let alone region.
> 
> There are two things that held Chicago back. They didn't want to guarantee $10 million and Soldier Field is only 61,000. As a city comparison though, Chicago is superior to Tampa in terms of WC hosting. That said, I have no issue whatsoever with Tampa. I like the city, but it doesn't measure up to Chicago for this.


I knew I would had expected "Chicago is a bigger city BS". Doesn't matter! If Raymond James Stadium can fill up more people than Soldier Field, which means more tickets and more $$$, they're going to pick the larger stadium. Tampa has done a amazing job at hosting 4 Super Bowls, 2 in the past decade. I even have heard rumors of the city hosting the event in 2015 or 2015 again due to the great work the city puts in to the Super Bowl and all the Fan Fests, late night parties, and family festivities. If we can host a Super Bowl, I doubt a World Cup would be much of a challenge.

If the Summer Olympics has the same mindset as you, kiss good bye any chance of Chicago hosting. Because it's obvious New York City is the largest city, has more international recognition, and blah blah blah.

Tampa has every right to host a World Cup event, if it is the finals or not. Making the case that Chicago's population density>Tampa's population density proves nothing.


----------



## geoone (Nov 12, 2009)

Comparing the FIFA World Cup soccer to the Superbowl is apples & oranges.

In a nation, like the United States, where soccer is mainly an afterthought, FIFA is gonna want enough generated interest to make the tournament here a success. Which is mainly the big selling point of a U.S. bid anyway: Too further promote soccer in a country where soccer is not even the nation's number 2 or even number 3 sport. 

Why do you think there's so many U.S. Northeast locations. Because those are huge markets in this country & FIFA would like to reach as many people as possible, so the huge markets are not "irrelevant". Chicago would be IN if the city wanted to be part of the U.S. bid, but apparently they don't. Besides, it's not like Solider Field is sub-par or something. The stadium totally meets FIFA guidelines. 

If there are further cuts, which it looks like there will be (since 18 is way too many for a FIFA WC), Tampa, Houston, Kansas City, Nashville & Baltimore are probably going to be nixed next, since there's already much better representation & more soccer fans in other cites in those same regions, like Miami, Dallas, NYC, Boston & DC than of the other cities listed.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

TampaMike said:


> If the Summer Olympics has the same mindset as you, kiss good bye any chance of Chicago hosting. Because it's obvious New York City is the largest city, has more international recognition, and blah blah blah..


 Yes, if Chicago had gone up against NYC it likely would have lost out do to NYC being a more prime and larger destination with greater potential reward. 

To say that size doesn't matter means to say that as long as Tulsa had a quality stadium that it sure get it every bit as Tampa. Of course such a suggestion is ridiculous. Anyway, its a moot point as Chicago has taken itself out of the running anyway.



> Tampa has every right to host a World Cup event, if it is the finals or not. Making the case that Chicago's population density>Tampa's population density proves nothing


 I am all for Tampa being in the last twelve but to have Tampa host the final or even semi's would be a pretty major drop of the ball by organizers IMO. As nice as Tampa is it doesn't' have the stature, RJS isn't one of the best US stadiums (OK, not the best), and it is way to muggy with inclement weather in Florida in the summer to risk holding a finals.


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

geoone said:


> Comparing the FIFA World Cup soccer to the Superbowl is apples & oranges.
> 
> In a nation, like the United States, where soccer is mainly an afterthought, FIFA is gonna want enough generated interest to make the tournament here a success. Which is mainly the big selling point of a U.S. bid anyway: Too further promote soccer in a country where soccer is not even the nation's number 2 or even number 3 sport.
> 
> Why do you think there's so many U.S. Northeast locations. Because those are huge markets in this country & FIFA would like to reach as many people as possible, so the huge markets are not "irrelevant". Chicago would be IN if the city wanted to be part of the U.S. bid, but apparently they don't. Besides, it's not like Solider Field is sub-par or something. The stadium totally meets FIFA guidelines.


Florida also has a large Hispanic population, which many are interested in soccer above football and baseball. I believe if Tampa gets to host a game, you'll see a large interest from Hispanics and from other markets.

One thing that I have overlooked is the great location Tampa is with Orlando out. Tampa will be in 80 degree weather, the gulf will be at 80 degrees, and the time of the World Cup is our quiet time when it comes to tropical systems. I would expect that many of the visitors would head to Orlando for one or two days, but most of the time they'll stay in the Tampa Bay area. And by the time the World Cup comes, we'll have light rail in the city.

The fact that Tampa wants this more than Chicago is big enough. Maybe you guys should be complaining to the ones that caused this and not bashing a city that will likely host a World Cup game and not you.


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

nomarandlee said:


> Yes, if Chicago had gone up against NYC it likely would have lost out do to NYC being a more prime and larger destination with greater potential reward.


But that would mean that everytime the USA has a chance for the Olympics, NYC should be the obvious location due to NYC being bigger and better than Chicago. No city in the USA should get the Olympics except for NYC due to its greater population and television market. Would Chicago be happy with that? Dallas? L.A.? I think not.



> To say that size doesn't matter means to say that as long as Tulsa had a quality stadium that it sure get it every bit as Tampa. Of course such a suggestion is ridiculous. Anyway, its a moot point as Chicago has taken itself out of the running anyway.


But Tulsa doesn't have a better quality stadium to Tampa. If it did, then I wouldn't mind Tulsa being picked over Tampa. Yeah it would suck, but it would mean Tampa should do more the next time to attract the attention not only to FIFA, but for other similar size events.





> I am all for Tampa being in the last twelve but to have Tampa host the final or even semi's would be a pretty major drop of the ball by organizers IMO. As nice as Tampa is it doesn't' have the stature, RJS isn't one of the best US stadiums (OK, not the best), and it is way to muggy with inclement weather in Florida in the summer to risk holding a finals.


Oh of course Raymond James Stadium isn't the best designed stadium and isn't the largest. And would Tampa be given the final game? Never. But semifinal I could see happening, but they'll pick the larger stadiums because it means more cash revenue. And Tampa's weather is actually pretty nice around June and July. It's not that muggy comapred to August and September and you don't see much "pop-up" thuderstorms until August.


----------



## geoone (Nov 12, 2009)

For starters, I (nor anyone else for that matter) wasn't "bashing" any city. You're the one who came in here out of nowhere saying that you would "replace your 'toilet paper' with Chicago". So if there's any city bashing going on here, it's clearly coming from you. 

And why are you assuming that I'm from Chicago, since actually I'm not. It's just common sense with all of this. At least with anyone who has any inclination of what's going on & what's being talked about here. 

And yes, Florida does have a large Hispanic population which are very much into soccer. But with Miami (South Florida) in the mix this time around, which has the biggest Hispanic population in the state, they'll, I'm sure get the nod over Tampa, when it comes down to making further cuts, since 2 Florida locations is too much representation on a smaller, population wise, regional basis.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

TampaMike said:


> But that would mean that every time the USA has a chance for the Olympics, NYC should be the obvious location due to NYC being bigger and better than Chicago. No city in the USA should get the Olympics except for NYC due to its greater population and television market. Would Chicago be happy with that? Dallas? L.A.? I think not..


 Unless there is a real compelling reason that Chicago puts forth or to not award NYC then if NYC wants it then all things being equal it would make sense to let NYC try to win the international bid.



> But Tulsa doesn't have a better quality stadium to Tampa. If it did, then I wouldn't mind Tulsa being picked over Tampa. Yeah it would suck, but it would mean Tampa should do more the next time to attract the attention not only to FIFA, but for other similar size events.


 Well, I think visitors, sponsors, and organizers would feel different about having Tulsa be just as likely a host of a game as Tampa. There is simply a better atmosphere and more money (more on the corporate side) to be had in Tampa compared to Tulsa. 


> Oh of course Raymond James Stadium isn't the best designed stadium and isn't the largest. And would Tampa be given the final game? Never. But semifinal I could see happening, but they'll pick the larger stadiums because it means more cash revenue. And Tampa's weather is actually pretty nice around June and July. It's not that muggy compared to August and September and you don't see much "pop-up" thunderstorms until August


 Compared to most of the US (Northeast, Midwest, West) the weather in Tampa anytime in the summer has the potential to royally suck. The average high in June and July is 90 and low is 78 with 7inches or rain. I don't think those numbers should disqualify it from hosting a game but I do think they work against the metro in terms of hosting prime games.


----------



## rolo1984 (Jan 26, 2010)

I'm from England and of course I want us to host 2018 but USA is my choice to stage 2022....but what a blow to not use Chicago's Soldier Field! Not only is it the sexiest stadium I have ever seen, it is steaped in history! I like the plans for Miami's Landshark stadium, & i think Los Angeles needs to sort out a stadium - The Rose Bowl looks past it to be honest, but apart from that the stadiums in America are like 'WOW!' 

How popular is football in th US now btw? because in 1994 a lot of players said that the majority of the american didnt even know the WC was on, which is insane!


----------



## MicroX (Sep 8, 2007)

geoone said:


> And yes, Florida does have a large Hispanic population which are very much into soccer. But with Miami (South Florida) in the mix this time around, which has the biggest Hispanic population in the state, they'll, I'm sure get the nod over Tampa, when it comes down to making further cuts, since 2 Florida locations is too much representation on a smaller, population wise, regional basis.


But a large part of them despise soccer, unfortunately, and just prefer to go along with the traditional American sports. However, I think that part of the Hispanic population that loves soccer will get Miami to host some games for the WC.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

The City of Pasadena is exploring a renovation to the Rose Bowl at the moment. They have preliminary plans and have begun conducting surveys to judge what to include in the renovation and what to exclude. They've yet to decide on exactly what the renovation will include, but it appears that it will be fairly major. Currently, the plan is to do it over three springs/summers so UCLA can still play there each fall and it can host the Rose Bowl with a 2014 completion date, in time for the 100th Rose Bowl.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> The City of Pasadena is exploring a renovation to the Rose Bowl at the moment. They have preliminary plans and have begun conducting surveys to judge what to include in the renovation and what to exclude. They've yet to decide on exactly what the renovation will include, but it appears that it will be fairly major. Currently, the plan is to do it over three springs/summers so UCLA can still play there each fall and it can host the Rose Bowl with a 2014 completion date, in time for the 100th Rose Bowl.


how about a 2nd deck to make a 140,000 seat mega stadium. that would be a good world cup carrot


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> how about a 2nd deck to make a 140,000 seat mega stadium. that would be a good world cup carrot


Haha, I think UCLA would frown upon that. I think right now they're looking at making it an all-seater, but the focus of the renovation is to improve the exterior some and most importantly, massively upgrade the luxury seats. The luxury suites would be overhauled, club seats would be put in, premium seats would go in and there would be a host of clubs/lounges for these preferred guests. If what I'm hearing is correct, they will lose about 4,000 seats by going to an all-seater, but would get about 5,000 in the massive luxury seating increase. Suites would go from 8-12 people to 16-20 people. Club and premium seats would increase capacity, plus there would be an additional seating area. Capacity would be about 95,000, but everything is very tentative right now and is certain to change a lot.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

It's a shame that UCLA don't have their own on-campus stadium


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> It's a shame that UCLA don't have their own on-campus stadium


Three times we were so close to getting it done. Time #1, the funding was approved, but LA was awarded the 1932 Olympics and the Coliseum was built so the state pulled funding for UCLA's, saying there was already going to be a stadium for them. Time #2, there was mass support following UCLA's national title in 1954, but a member of the Board of Regents put a halt to the talk of building it thanks to a host of political issues that had nothing to do with the subject. Drake Stadium was built where the football stadium would have gone, just steps from Pauley Pavilion. Time #3, the students said no to a $.50 fee increase that would have paid for it because it was the 60's and any government expansions were opposed. The vote failed by less than 20 votes.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> how about a 2nd deck to make a 140,000 seat mega stadium. that would be a good world cup carrot


IMO the Rose Bowl should stay as is. Its just too historic. After all the Rose Bowls that Ive been to, I couldnt imagine it looking any different.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

^^ UCLA should move to the new NFL stadium.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

KingmanIII said:


> ^^ UCLA should move to the new NFL stadium.


Move to a stadium even farther away from campus where they would be the secondary tenant and have almost no say in what goes on instead of the historic Rose Bowl where they have veto powers, a 25 year lease and guarantees from the city to have upgrades made the way they want them, plus a large chunk of stadium revenue?


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

ryebreadraz said:


> Move to a stadium even farther away from campus where they would be the secondary tenant and have almost no say in what goes on instead of the historic Rose Bowl where they have veto powers, a 25 year lease and guarantees from the city to have upgrades made the way they want them, plus a large chunk of stadium revenue?


Roski's new joint will have a much smaller capacity, which would make it much easier for UCLA to sell out, plus more VIP boxes. UCLA's problem, at the moment, is that they're drawing 50-60k in a 95k stadium.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

But they rely on students and alumni from a campus way across town. Even Pasadena is not that convenient.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't really see Tampa as a alternative since Miami is so close.


----------



## nyrmetros (Aug 15, 2006)

Which Stadium would be better for holding a soccer game? Tampa or Miami? Just the stadium itself, not the city.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

nyrmetros said:


> Which Stadium would be better for holding a soccer game? Tampa or Miami? Just the stadium itself, not the city.


Wider pitch in Miami and if they go ahead with the roof construction it will be a far better stadium.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

JYDA said:


> Wider pitch in Miami and if they go ahead with the roof construction it will be a far better stadium.


Tampa's is in a better location though within the city. Miami's is well out of the city. From a stadium perspective (assuming the Miami renovations go through), I call it a draw, but Miami would likely get the nod because it's more glamorous/recognizable than Tampa.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Right now Miami. It was just renovated a couple of years ago. Both have FIFA sized pitch already.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

I don't know why we're debating Miami and Tampa....easy choice...


----------



## Palatinus (Jul 26, 2009)

USA Bid best choice for FIFA WC 2022. 2018 England. 

Angloamerican do it better (stadiums & arenas )


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

ryebreadraz said:


> Tampa's is in a better location though within the city. Miami's is well out of the city. From a stadium perspective (assuming the Miami renovations go through), I call it a draw, but Miami would likely get the nod because it's more glamorous/recognizable than Tampa.



Just FYI Allianz in Munich is waayyy out of the way of the main city. That worked out okay. I don't think it's necessarily the worst thing for the stadium to be out of the way, as long as there is reliable transportation from the hub of the city....which possibly could be a problem in Miami. But I would go with Miami all the way, especially if that roof goes through.


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> ^^ UCLA should move to the new NFL stadium.


and leave the most hallowed stadium in all of college football where they are the primary tenant??


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

mattec said:


> and leave *the most hallowed stadium in all of college football* where they are the primary tenant??


Does the general populace care? Lambeau is in the middle of [relative] nowhere and still registers in more minds.

Other than that, I agree that they shouldn't move.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

krudmonk said:


> Does the general populace care? Lambeau is in the middle of [relative] nowhere and still registers in more minds.
> 
> Other than that, I agree that they shouldn't move.



Lambeau is nowhere near the stature of the Rose Bowl in American sports lore.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

rantanamo said:


> Lambeau is nowhere near the stature of the Rose Bowl in American sports lore.


Huh? 
We're talking Lambeau as in the Packers. 
12-time super bowl champions...


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

rantanamo said:


> Lambeau is nowhere near the stature of the Rose Bowl in American sports lore.


One man's opinion but what people know about the Rose Bowl is affiliated with the event. They know the stadium is big and in a great location, but otherwise couldn't really tell you much about it as a venue. Doesn't help that it's kind of shallow in the rake, and I know several Michigan fans who liken it to the Big House in that they do wish it could be steeper to improve the view. That and the concourses could be improved, like all older stadia.

But most true football fans I know can recall images of Lambeau just as readily. They know the green and yellow color of the trim, can easily picture a Lambeau Leap, games in the snow, the long-time streak of post-season victories, the reputation among fans and tail-gaters, etc. 

The Rose Bowl is indeed a special place, but if it didn't host the Grand Daddy of Them All it might be little more than a classic but outdated and rarely filled venue.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

rantanamo said:


> Lambeau is nowhere near the stature of the Rose Bowl in American sports lore.


Yes, it is. It hosts an NFL team, not some kids.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> Yes, it is. It hosts an NFL team, not some kids.


And not just any NFL team. Green Bay is known as Title Town, USA for a fair reason, even if other teams have actually won more championships.


----------



## Riker (Sep 21, 2009)

What would be the minimum capacity for a world cup match? And how big is Columbus Crew's stadium? (They wouldn't play at the shoe would they?)


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Riker said:


> What would be the minimum capacity for a world cup match?


45,000, essentially. I believe 40k all seater + whatever is required for the media section is how it's spelled out in FIFA specs. Someone else can verify.


> And how big is Columbus Crew's stadium?


Approximately 22k, much of which is bench seating. And before you ask, No, they won't be expanding it for WC play because it'd be too costly a measure for just that event, since the Crew couldn't fill it for MLS play.


> They wouldn't play at the shoe would they?


Highly unlikely. Bench seating, minimal press capacity, some obstructed views... It's a great venue for OSU football but not the best choice for something looking for more high ticket appeal among neutral fans. Plus, Columbus isn't among the upper echelon of destinations for international tourists.

And I say this as a casual Crew fan from afar (Ga).


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> One man's opinion but what people know about the Rose Bowl is affiliated with the event. They know the stadium is big and in a great location, but otherwise couldn't really tell you much about it as a venue. Doesn't help that it's kind of shallow in the rake, and I know several Michigan fans who liken it to the Big House in that they do wish it could be steeper to improve the view. That and the concourses could be improved, like all older stadia.
> 
> But most true football fans I know can recall images of Lambeau just as readily. They know the green and yellow color of the trim, can easily picture a Lambeau Leap, games in the snow, the long-time streak of post-season victories, the reputation among fans and tail-gaters, etc.
> 
> The Rose Bowl is indeed a special place, but if it didn't host the Grand Daddy of Them All it might be little more than a classic but outdated and rarely filled venue.


And what would Lambeau be if the Packers didnt play there?

A random stadium in the middle of nowhere in northern Wisconsin.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

en1044 said:


> And what would Lambeau be if the Packers didnt play there?
> 
> A random stadium in the middle of nowhere in northern Wisconsin.


C'mon, you can do better. 

I'm differentiating the roles of the Rose Bowl _stadium_ as the home venue for UCLA football and site of the annual Rose Bowl _game_. Take away the latter event and the venue is hardly part of national lore, at least not to the degree rantanamo is suggesting. Thus, I'm contending that if the Rose Bowl was just a home stadium like Lambeau Field is for the Packers then odds are it's the pro stadium that's more storied. The only thing that takes the Rose Bowl over the top is its role in the historic bowl game, which would probably carry just as much luster in the LA Coliseum. So while Lambeau Field may not be venerable enough in architectural form alone to be considered the greatest venue, neither is the Rose Bowl, IMO. Both benefit greatly from their respective roles and histories. That's what I'm saying. :cheers:


----------



## MicroX (Sep 8, 2007)

en1044 said:


> IMO the Rose Bowl should stay as is. Its just too historic. After all the Rose Bowls that Ive been to, I couldnt imagine it looking any different.


They said the same thing about Yankee Stadium. hno:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

The Rose Bowl and Coliseum both need substantial work, but consistent with their historic look.

I don't think Lambeau is much different from the rest of the mostly Brand Name Stadiums in the NFL these days. The Green Bay story is nice (small town with a pro team) but I don't think that translates to the stadium. Ask your wife or non-American friends if they have hear of the Rose Bowl, Yankee Stadium and Lambeau; you will get yes on 2 out of 3.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

krudmonk said:


> Yes, it is. It hosts an NFL team, not some kids.


Lambeau has hosted the Green Bay Packers. The Rose Bowl has hosted college football's best, Super Bowls, World Cups, etc for a long time. Please stop this nonsense.


----------



## marionthebarberian (Nov 3, 2009)

1772 said:


> Huh?
> We're talking Lambeau as in the Packers.
> 12-time super bowl champions...


lmfao at you calling the packers 12 time super bowl champions..child please.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

marionthebarberian said:


> lmfao at you calling the packers 12 time super bowl champions..child please.


12 time NFL champions. My bad. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Packers 

Child?! 
Grow up... hno:


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

rantanamo said:


> Lambeau has hosted the Green Bay Packers. The Rose Bowl has hosted college football's best, Super Bowls, World Cups, etc for a long time. Please stop this nonsense.


People think of "the Rose Bowl" more as a game than a stadium. Also, Super Bowls and World Cup matches there are not on the regular.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

pesto said:


> *The Rose Bowl and Coliseum both need substantial work, but consistent with their historic look*.
> 
> I don't think Lambeau is much different from the rest of the mostly Brand Name Stadiums in the NFL these days. The Green Bay story is nice (small town with a pro team) but I don't think that translates to the stadium. Ask your wife or non-American friends if they have hear of the Rose Bowl, Yankee Stadium and Lambeau; you will get yes on 2 out of 3.


The two stadiums could have a more mordern look, such as roofs, new VIP rooms and others.
They could have inspirations from the Olympic stadium of Berlin, which has kept his historic face and has a roof and a modern look.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Hopefully they'd learn from Solider Field, too. That is, it's clear what not to do.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

CaliforniaJones said:


> The two stadiums could have a more mordern look, such as roofs, new VIP rooms and others.
> They could have inspirations from the Olympic stadium of Berlin, which has kept his historic face and has a roof and a modern look.


A roof over a COLLEGE stadium in an area with great weather......:bash:


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

How much could these renovations cost ?
These costs could be considered in the bid book.



weava said:


> A roof over a COLLEGE stadium in an area with great weather......:bash:


What is the problem ?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

CaliforniaJones said:


> The two stadiums could have a more mordern look, such as roofs, new VIP rooms and others.
> They could have inspirations from the Olympic stadium of Berlin, which has kept his historic face and has a roof and a modern look.


The Rose Bowl could get some renovations. The City of Pasadena is exploring a renovation now and while VIP seating would be greatly enhanced, it would not be a world class stadium from an amenities standpoint even after.

The Coliseum will not get any significant renovations whatsoever. USC isn't going to contribute a substantial sum of money because they don't own it and the Coliseum Commission is A) incompetent and B) short on money. Any significant renovation to the Coliseum that would make it NFL worthy and first class would cost well over $1 billion.


----------



## jlch1987 (Feb 7, 2010)

weava said:


> A roof over a COLLEGE stadium in an area with great weather......:bash:


You know, players like Maradona and Romario spoke very bad of the World Cup 94, mailny because the stadiums had no roof and the weather was _so good_ that when they played at noon they suffered sofocation at extreme hot weather...

Finally, it's the Commite's choice if they put roofs in the stadiums, but it's FIFA's choice if they choose a country in 2018/22 with no roof in major stadiums...


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

jlch1987 said:


> You know, players like Maradona and Romario spoke very bad of the World Cup 94, mailny because the stadiums had no roof and the weather was _so good_ that when they played at noon they suffered sofocation at extreme hot weather...


There was some rather extreme heat at world cup 2006.... even with the roofs.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

jlch1987 said:


> You know, players like Maradona and Romario spoke very bad of the World Cup 94, mailny because the stadiums had no roof and the weather was _so good_ that when they played at noon they suffered sofocation at extreme hot weather...
> 
> Finally, it's the Commite's choice if they put roofs in the stadiums, but it's FIFA's choice if they choose a country in 2018/22 with no roof in major stadiums...


They were suffocated? That don't seem like "good weather" to me. :lol:


----------



## jlch1987 (Feb 7, 2010)

1772 said:


> They were suffocated? That don't seem like "good weather" to me. :lol:


I was being ironic, but in USA, sunny weather seems considered to be good weather, even if it's burning hot.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

jlch1987 said:


> You know, players like Maradona and Romario spoke very bad of the World Cup 94, mailny because the stadiums had no roof and the weather was _so good_ that when they played at noon they suffered sofocation at extreme hot weather...
> 
> Finally, it's the Commite's choice if they put roofs in the stadiums, but it's FIFA's choice if they choose a country in 2018/22 with no roof in major stadiums...


So becuase some forigner who I've never heard of spoke badly of our world cup I'm suppose to care. Soccer players are complete pussies if they can't play an outdoor sport in the outdoors. :lol:


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

weava said:


> So becuase some forigner who I've never heard of spoke badly of our world cup I'm suppose to care. Soccer players are complete pussies if they can't play an outdoor sport in the outdoors. :lol:


Firstly, learn to spell. Secondly, it's a little tougher running for 90 minutes in the heat without breaks. An NFL game has an average of 11 minutes and 43 seconds of game play while a baseball game has even less.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Hot weather makes it tough and definitely has an adverse effect on the quality of play. The thing that I think most people overlook is that a roof sometimes makes the heat worse, not better, because it restricts airflow.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

weava said:


> So becuase some forigner *who I've never heard of *spoke badly of our world cup I'm suppose to care. Soccer players are complete pussies if they can't play an outdoor sport in the outdoors. :lol:


YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF ROMARIO AND MARADONA? :? :? :? :? :?


----------



## dl3000 (Aug 7, 2004)

JYDA said:


> Firstly, learn to spell. Secondly, it's a little tougher running for 90 minutes in the heat without breaks. An NFL game has an average of 11 minutes and 43 seconds of game play while a baseball game has even less.


While I agree soccer and roofs should be taken seriously, I question your 11 minute number. The clock runs for 60 minutes. Yes theres 25 seconds between plays but 11 minutes is way too short. If you say some of that is from walking, well we both know that at any given time there are individuals on the field in soccer who are walking or standing.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

Soccer players must handle hot weather. 2014 in Brazil will not be a piece of cake for them either. There will be scorching temperatures in Manaus, Fortaleza, Cuiabá, Recife, Natal and Salvador (30ºC+). The other cities will be in a more pronounced winter. 

Roofs are made to protect expectators anyway, not players. None of the above mentioned cities will have retractible roofs that will cover the field. FIFA will probably require a roof for the stadiums that will host the opening game, semifinals and finals, but to protect the spectators, not the players. I think FIFA expects at least a portion of each stadium to have a roof so they can accomodate some of the most expensive tickets' buyers, just look at Polokwane's and Rustenburg's stadiums.

The only crazy thing are the games played at noon. That can't happen. Soccer should always be played after 4 p.m.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

MattXG said:


> Must be a hell of a standing area because they had 108,000+ for the NBA All-Star game and the Cowboys were averaging 89,000+ for their home games this year....


Well I use the term "standing area" generously. A good number of those people during the home opener were almost outside watching the game on TV screens.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

en1044 said:


> Cowboys Stadium has 80k seats, and then a huge "standing area" for the rest.


The seats are actually removable; this allows them to install narrower seats and increase capacity.


----------



## Towersville (May 26, 2007)

My host cities:

Chicago
Boston
Miami
Los Angeles
Kansas City
Seattle
Dallas
Washington D.C.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Towersville said:


> My host cities:
> 
> Chicago
> Boston
> ...


A US World Cup would have 12 host cities so add in another four.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

MattXG said:


> You guys do know that the Dolphins stadium is being renovated when the Flordia Marlins move into their own baseball stadium.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's not being renovated. It's a proposed renovation that they have not put a price tag on yet or acquired funding. Very different, but I hope it goes through because it's a great plan IMO.


----------



## MattXG (May 26, 2010)

Chicago
Boston
Miami
Los Angeles
Kansas City
Seattle
Dallas
Washington D.C.
Atlanta
Houston
Denver
Philadelphia

Fixed +



ryebreadraz said:


> It's not being renovated. It's a proposed renovation that they have not put a price tag on yet or acquired funding. Very different, but I hope it goes through because it's a great plan IMO.


It'll get funding.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

here is a pic I took about a week ago of the arrowhead stadium construction progress, the new suite level looks about complete










I'm guessing the capacity will be over 80,000 since it was 79,500 before construction started and they are adding a lot of suites above the stadium. I believe the 77k capacity listed on wiki is the reduced during construction cap


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

MattXG said:


> USA is a FARRRRRRRRRRRR better place to have the World Cup than Australia is frankly.


That comment is very debateable. Who will win the bid. Likely the USA. Who deserves it more? Fact is that Australia has not hosted it before and the USA has and a lot would likely disagree that the US is a better place to host the event. So the point is subjective.

Australia's bid is strong and so is the US' bid. Both really have limited Football legacy in them as large stadiums for the sport are not viable on their own. The real benifits of improved stadiums will be other sports. Overall there is more planned though in the Australian bid for new stadiums, which may not be as big in size than the existing stadiums the US has put forward, but atleast have a legacy element for the game and the growth of the sport in this country. So it all will come down to FIFA politics.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

MattXG said:


> You guys do know that the Dolphins stadium is being renovated when the Flordia Marlins move into their own baseball stadium.
> 
> <img removed>
> 
> USA is a FARRRRRRRRRRRR better place to have the World Cup than Australia is frankly.


The only criteria I can see this on is stadium count. And you only need enough stadiums after all. Doesn't matter if you have 1 unused or 100.

Given that per capita Australia has almost 5 times more people going to the World Cup this year than the States you could argue that Australia would provide a better overall atmosphere for a world cup given the higher level of support. Or maybe that's just your crappy 2 week holiday thing... 

Plus our pitches would be the proper size


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

Australia should definetly host a WC, they "deserve" it and it would do alot of good to the game. 
That being said, a US World Cup would be outstanding.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

1772 said:


> Australia should definetly host a WC, they "deserve" it and it would do alot of good to the game.
> That being said, a US World Cup would be outstanding.


I personally would like to see:

2018: England
2022: Australia
2026: United States
2030: Russia


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

As for me
2018: England
2022: United States
2026: Asia
2030: Europe


----------



## El Cholo (Jul 19, 2008)

fish.01 said:


> ....
> 
> Given that *per capita* Australia has almost 5 times more people going to the World Cup this year...


Puny population...:lol:


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

CaliforniaJones said:


> As for me
> 2018: England
> 2022: United States
> 2026: Asia
> 2030: Europe


I don't think Asia will get it before Oceania. They host in 2002. The only 2 countries in Asia with well established teams are South Korea and Japan. China is a long shot.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

1772 said:


> Australia should definetly host a WC, they "deserve" it and it would do alot of good to the game.
> That being said, a US World Cup would be outstanding.


well, they maybe deserve, and also Croatia and Hungary deserved to get 2012 Euro (because of great Hungary team in the middle of 20 century, 5 years with no defeat, and currently great Croatian team, TOP 10), but first ever bid from Ukraine and Poland (Croatia and Hungary combined had 5 bids, UKR/POL 0 all together) won.... and Land Down Under will hardly get it... USA is top favorite (way bigger market, and there is necessity to spread and popularize soccer here in US) and USA will get it... and yes, 2022 in USA will be outstanding


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

El Cholo said:


> Puny population...:lol:


Yes, not some overcrowded hell hole :lol:


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

Livno80101 said:


> ... and Land Down Under will hardly get it... USA is top favorite (way bigger market, and there is necessity to spread and popularize soccer here in US) and USA will get it... and yes, 2022 in USA will be outstanding



Way bigger market and need to popularize football....why not just have it there every time then as those things are perpetually true. The Olympics has shown that the largest markets don't always provide the best result.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

MattXG said:


> Dallas Cowboys Stadium held 105,000 for the first Cowboys game of the season...so I'm not sure what that 80,000 is about...


They sold tickets to go inside the fences but didn't actually permit you to watch the game live. Anyway lets not go there all over again!


----------



## mattwinter (Apr 14, 2009)

fish.01 said:


> Way bigger market and need to popularize football....why not just have it there every time then as those things are perpetually true. The Olympics has shown that the largest markets don't always provide the best result.


And we know that there have been plenty of efforts to popularize football in the US, with very limited success. Australia competing in the 2006 World Cup did more for the game in Australia than hosting the 1994 World Cup did for the US.

Despite the fact that the US is a bigger market, there's no doubt that a World Cup in Australia would make a bigger impact in the Australian market.

I think you could also argue that a World Cup in Australia would be good for Asian markets (which, like the US, are massive). Even better would be having a World Cup in China - which is probably going to happen in 2026 if the USA win 2022.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Has Chicago been added back onto the list of cities or is that just being anticipated? Last time I remember Chicago wasn't being included on the bid. I think it had to do with not being able to fit a World Cup sized field while leaving enough seats in.

I've got a good feeling about Indianapolis' chances.


----------



## Stadium Lover (Jun 1, 2010)

hngcm said:


> As for population, it matters a lot to FIFA.
> 
> You can grow the sport in a country of 20 million or in a country of 1.3 billion.
> 
> Which one is going to bring in more money?



China isn't bidding.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Stadium Lover said:


> China isn't bidding.


But giving Australia 2022 means they can't bid until 2034, which is a long time for FIFA to stay away from all that money.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

hngcm said:


> Wrong.
> 
> 130,000 tickets sold to American fans, easily #1.
> 
> http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37406230/ns/sports-soccer/


He missed the "per capita". Per capita almost 5 times as many Australians are making the trip to South Africa compared to people from the states....this just illustrates that football is quite popular in Australia and this would help us put on a good show outside the stadiums as well. The country wide enthusiasm would be very high. Not that I'm suggesting this is any guarantee we will get it....just that it would be a good world cup.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

Honestly I'm all for Australia getting the bid, just another country for me to possibly visit. But some of your points are totally untrue.



Sportsfan said:


> The Australian bid has several key edges over the US bid:
> 
> 1. Time Zone - Night Games in Australia are in Prime Time for huge Asian television markets (China, Japan, Korea) and will take place during European day time while Night Games in the US will take place in the early hours of the morning in Europe.
> 2. Security - Australia is a safer option than the US. It's a fact.
> ...


1. Agreed.
2. Disagree. Show me proof that Australia is safer than the US.
3. Completely untrue. US leads foreign WC ticket sales in SA.
4. True to a point, although that's changing drastically with Obama.
5. If Atlanta was such a dud, why did IOC hand the 2002 Winter games to Salt Lake?
6. Agreed.


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

metros11 said:


> 2. Disagree. Show me proof that Australia is safer than the US.


Global Peace Index
Aus rank 19
USA rank 83
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

homicide rate
USA 5.4
Aus 1.2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

fish.01 said:


> He missed the "per capita". Per capita almost 5 times as many Australians are making the trip to South Africa compared to people from the states....this just illustrates that football is quite popular in Australia and this would help us put on a good show outside the stadiums as well. The country wide enthusiasm would be very high. Not that I'm suggesting this is any guarantee we will get it....just that it would be a good world cup.


If Americans went in five time the numbers those additional Americans would be shut out of American games. How many Australians are going to any games that Australia aren't playing in?


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

metros11 said:


> .
> 5. If Atlanta was such a dud, why did IOC hand the 2002 Winter games to Salt Lake?


Bribery. Don't you remember? 

http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/olym-j13.shtml


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

hngcm said:


> And China is the reason why Australia won't get it.
> 
> The USA will get either 2022 or 2026 no doubt about it.
> 
> ...



Population is a useless fact here.

Oceania has never hosted the cup. Asia hosted in 2002.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

JYDA said:


> Bribery. Don't you remember?
> 
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/jan1999/olym-j13.shtml


That and poor venues, poor transportation and large corporate support. Atlanta hosted a poor games. Hopefully the next U.S. city will do better.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

massp88 said:


> That and poor venues, poor transportation and large corporate support. Atlanta hosted a poor games. Hopefully the next U.S. city will do better.


Atlanta might've been one of the smallest cities to host the Summer Olympics in recent memory. They couldn't afford to build the opulent palaces like Beijing did, nor is the infrastructure as extensive as a world-class city like NYC or London (though, for a U.S. city its size, it isn't bad).

The next U.S. city WILL do better, because it likely won't be as small as ATL.


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

massp88 said:


> That and poor venues, poor transportation and large corporate support. Atlanta hosted a poor games. Hopefully the next U.S. city will do better.


WTF? None of that is true. Public transportation (light rail and buses) was more than adequate (the expansive US interstate system made even the "far-flung" soccer games easily and quickly accessible). The venues were world-class (I'm sorry Atlanta didn't make a useless athletics-only stadium to rot as an Olympic Legacy) and, save two (tennis and shooting range), all get regular usage to this day. Finally, what's wrong with corporate support? Why put your city in a WORSE position post-Olympics than pre-Olympics? L.A. did the same corporate sponsorship for their 2nd Olympics and no one is complaining about that.

And, most of all, what does ATLANTA's Olympics 14 years ago have to do with the NATION's WC bid 12 years from now?


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

^^
I agree with just about everything you said.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

massp88 said:


> Population is a useless fact here.
> 
> Oceania has never hosted the cup. Asia hosted in 2002.


In FIFA's eyes Australia is part of Asia now. 

Population matters of course, expand the game in a country of 1.3 billion will make a lot of money for FIFA's coffers.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Again with the Atlanta bashing. hno: 

I get it: Detractors cite that Atlanta lacks the urban core and, more importantly,volume of established tourist attractions to be recalled as visually appealing and memorable. That means they simply were looking for the wrong thing, or are wholly uneducated. We're sorry we don't have an ocean view, or majestic peaks, or 3,000 year old cultural monuments to hawk, but try viewing it through the lens of a modest metropolitan area making the best of itself.

Atlanta's Olympic games may have lacked the opulence of Beijing or Barcelona, but that's because they were not a national games but rather 99% funded via State (Georgia) and local (Atalanta + others) government funding and corporate sponsorship. So while Athens and Beijing spent (approx) $7.5B and $15B or more, Atlanta mustered a mere $1.8B for their event. This meant it was the second games to turn an actual immediate profit, yet still produced the urban renovations desired from such heady investment and as others have said nary any of the venues remains unused. We're truly better off for hosting the games, even for where the event revealed metro Atlanta's shortcomings as those are now focal points of new investment. (Witness the emphasis on cultural destinations and tourist amenities like the Georgia Aquarium.) So while the games didn't yield the signature architecture of, say, Sydney, the games were a success from an administrative standpoint and by most accounts from the actual events themselves. 

No one locally is going to go off and say Atlanta's games were the best ever, nor do we expect anyone to confuse our fair area with such exotic places as Athens or Beijing, but just as with the athletes themselves Atlanta aspired for something better and gave it her best effort. Perhaps reality fell short of the dream, but at least they took the chance. 

Most important of all, don't confuse the lack of architectural monuments as meaning they were a poor games, as the two are but marginally related. I'd rather have the disjointed Atlanta Olympic venue remade into a great baseball stadium that's poised for heavy use for years to come than have the over-the-top Bird's Nest that needs more use and is already facing repair. And don't even get me started on Greek budgeting. 

Atlanta's games were not sexy, but they sure as hell weren't "poor." 

Rant over.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

crazyalex said:


> Global Peace Index
> Aus rank 19
> USA rank 83
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index
> ...


Fair enough.


----------



## fish.01 (Jul 7, 2009)

nomarandlee said:


> If Americans went in five time the numbers those additional Americans would be shut out of American games. How many Australians are going to any games that Australia aren't playing in?


All the people I know who are going are going to other matches. You'd be crazy to go all the way to the world cup just to see Australia or USA play 

Fair point though that not getting a ticket to any USA match might stop someone going. Are all USA matches sold out? I don't believe that that is the main reason for the massive difference in attendance though....Australians are just mad travelers and a lot of them like football and world events so the combination of all these things draws aussies like flies


----------



## Sportsfan (Jul 26, 2009)

Australia's immigrant population follow their homeland teams like you wouldn't believe. 

When Greece won Euro 2004, the streets of Sydney and Melbourne were gridlocked by Greek Australians celebrating.

When Italy won World Cup 2006, the streets of Sydney and Melbourne were gridlocked by Italian Australians celebrating. 

When Spain won Euro 2008, the streets of Sydney and Melbourne were gridlocked by Spanish Australians celebrating.

You just would never see that on the streets of New York, Chicago or Los Angeles (all cities with massive First, Second, and third generational immigrant populations).

So, yes, Australians will be going to other games.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Sportsfan said:


> You just would never see that on the streets of New York, Chicago or Los Angeles (all cities with massive First, Second, and third generational immigrant populations).


Don't be so sure.


----------



## Chimbanha (Aug 21, 2009)

> 1. Time Zone - Night Games in Australia are in Prime Time for huge Asian television markets (China, Japan, Korea) and will take place during European day time while Night Games in the US will take place in the early hours of the morning in Europe.


Timezone is not an issue for the U.S. They would probably schedule day-time games like in 1986 and 1994, and like will probably happen in 2014, so that the games would be broadcast in European primetime.

I just hope they don't schedule games in Miami at noon again.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

^ Midday games in Australia will be broadcast around 8pm prime time the previous day in the Americas.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

soup or man said:


> Qatar is the size of Connecticut. Doha has about the same amount of people as Long Beach, California (a SUBURB of Los Angeles). It would amaze me if a country that small DIDN'T have any sort of public transportation.
> 
> The 2018 World Cup will go to Australia and 2022 will go to the US. Period.


Wrong. Australia aren't bidding for 2018 any longer, which is almost certain to go to Europe.

2022 is, I believe, between the US and Australia although Qatar, Japan, and Korea are also bidding.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Who from Europe is bidding for 2018?


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

England and Russia are the two main candidates. IMO Russia is the favored bid, as the English didn't do anything to help themselves after Treisman's slick move.


----------



## sauronbcn (Jun 16, 2008)

No more football passionless countries to host the world cup, Australia , USA ect :nuts:


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

soup or man said:


> Who from Europe is bidding for 2018?


England; Spain-Portugal; Belgium-Holland; USSR Russia  !!


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

sauronbcn said:


> No more football passionless countries to host the world cup, Australia , USA ect :nuts:


Go die.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

sauronbcn said:


> No more football passionless countries to host the world cup, Australia , USA ect :nuts:


I really hope this is sarcasm.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

Doesn't seem like many people in the states know about/use Amtrak, but I have a feeling that if we get the World Cup, it will be a terrific option for getting from city to city without flying, and possibly less costly especially if the host cities are split into regional pods. Not really conducive to most Americans' travel needs (usually we only have one destination, so we fly), but for those who are just going to be city-hopping and either are used to traveling by train or just don't like the hassle of flying, Amtrak is perfect. And we have actually have a pretty extensive network if you've ever tried it.

But honestly, renting a car in this country is so easy and inexpensive, it's a really good option that offers more flexibility.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

slipperydog said:


> Doesn't seem like many people in the states know about/use Amtrak, but I have a feeling that if we get the World Cup, it will be a terrific option for getting from city to city without flying, and possibly less costly especially if the host cities are split into regional pods. Not really conducive to most Americans' travel needs (usually we only have one destination, so we fly), but for those who are just going to be city-hopping and either are used to traveling by train or just don't like the hassle of flying, Amtrak is perfect. And we have actually have a pretty extensive network if you've ever tried it.
> 
> But honestly, renting a car in this country is so easy and inexpensive, it's a really good option that offers more flexibility.


The only route I know people have taken is from KC to STL and it can take 5-6 hours on amtrak but only 3 hours to drive and its cheaper to drive.


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

Archbishop said:


> If this was Facebook I would "like" this. If this was Twitter I would retweet it. If it was real life, I would say, "That sounds about right." Since it's the interwebs, I'll just say "this."


Well we do have :wtf:

No, wait, wrong sign. I got it here somewhere, oh...:stupid: there it is


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

eMKay said:


> Well we do have :wtf:
> 
> No, wait, wrong sign. I got it here somewhere, oh...:stupid: there it is


Convenient!


----------



## Melb_aviator (Aug 28, 2007)

Wyoming and South Dakota always seem to get left out 

The US bid is a strong one, with the existing stadiums and large, well known cities hosting games. Still shocks me that Chicago is not part of the bid though and many smaller cities are proposed as possible hosts. I would have thought leaving out a city of over 6 million people would have been seen as a big negative in the eyes of FIFA, with so much potential market, both commercially and fan based support.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

the US bid is one as an Australian I am truly worried about.

the combination of pre-existing stadium, excellent accommodation and logistics, and prospect of fantastic finances makes it a bloody strong bid


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

T74 said:


> the US bid is one as an Australian I am truly worried about.
> 
> the combination of pre-existing stadium, excellent accommodation and logistics, and prospect of fantastic finances makes it a bloody strong bid


The fact that Australia has never hosted may even that out I think.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

eMKay said:


> The fact that Australia has never hosted may even that out I think.


I thinks it's the only thing going for us against the USA.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

T74 said:


> the US bid is one as an Australian I am truly worried about.
> 
> the combination of pre-existing stadium, excellent accommodation and logistics, and prospect of fantastic finances makes it a bloody strong bid


Either way, I think that they are both strong bids. To the point where if one doesn't win in 2018, they'll get it in 2022.


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

"16 years ago" will turn into "28 years ago" by kickoff.

It makes that argument seem a lot less powerful. IMO


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Let's face it: we have the capacity and the ability to host the World Cup, the Olympics, the Super Bowl, World Series, and anything else _simultaneously_. Politics is the only reason we would be denied. It _always_ boils down to politics.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

desertpunk said:


> Let's face it: we have the capacity and the ability to host the World Cup, the Olympics, the Super Bowl, World Series, and anything else _simultaneously_. Politics is the only reason we would be denied. It _always_ boils down to politics.


That's an pretty arrogant and US-centric point of view to be honest.

The US obviously has the technical capability to host a bigger tournament than most. That doesn't mean they should be automatic favourites every time they decide they fancy the tournament, especially if there are other very good bids competing against them.

There are plenty of other explanations other than "politics" as to why FIFA might choose a bid other than the United States'.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

But what is said is true, give me just an example in why the US should not get it, beside that the USA gosted the WC in 94..


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

flierfy said:


> I have yet to see a pitch in standard width of 68 m in one of those stadia . Let alone FIFA's requirement of 'auxiliary room'. Neither do NFL stadia have central player tunnels as the FIFA demands.
> 
> 
> Just 13m Americans could be arsed to watch their team playing in South Africa. Hardly a figure that indicates a nationwide passion for the game.


BTW that was 13 million JUST ON ESPN not including on ABC, Univision or univision.com.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Also 13 million viewers counts per household while almost everyone (including me) watched at a bar or viewing party. I would be it was closer to 35 million than 15 million.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

I just read an article that it is expected that about 70 million will watch the WC on Univision.. I couldnt find an article in English, but in 2006 more than 50 million watched the WC just on Univision.. And that's a big difference vs ESPN. So if we count those viewers from ABC and ESPN, probably that number is over 100 million this year.. 

http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2010/06/11/739571/univision-comienza-su-maraton.html


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

No matter how popular our national team is, a 2022 US World Cup would shatter the attendance records. That's what FIFA cares about.

No Mali refs in it though.


----------



## marionthebarberian (Nov 3, 2009)

flierfy said:


> . No proper football pitch fits in there without restricted views from the stand. Stand which aren't covered and look atrocious by the way.


lol


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

I love those stadiums. Am I the only one who likes the snug fit Soccer pitches have in American Football stadiums, it looks as if the fans are about to spill out of the stands.
You Yanks are going to be hard to beat.

Oh, lat nights usa vs slovenia ref seriously had a vendetta against you guys, a load of crap. Hopefully the right thing happens and you move to the group of 16.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

flierfy said:


> There is and there will be no football ground in the USA with more than 30'000 seats. All you have are gridiron arenas of which only you think they were suitable. No proper football pitch fits in there without restricted views from the stand. Stand which aren't covered and look atrocious by the way.
> 
> Venues are too far apart. The USA spreads over unfavourable time zones which would lead to kick-offs at noon in June. Not the right time to play football. And there is only one mode of transport to chose from. Not to mention the lack of passion for the game.
> 
> Hosting the World Cup in the USA any time soon just doesn't feels right.


We have over *100* stadiums that seat over 50,000 and the vast majority of them could easily be retrofitted to FIFA specs. So what if they don't look like "Old Trafford"? Is that even a prerequisite for holding the WC in Europe? You're a jealous fool.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

marionthebarberian said:


>


That's exactly what I mean. The pitch might still be missing 1 or 2 metres in width but you already can't see the corner flag. It simply not design to watch football in there.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Walbanger said:


> I love those stadiums. Am I the only one who likes the snug fit Soccer pitches have in American Football stadiums, it looks as if the fans are about to spill out of the stands.


Yes, they do look great, I agree.

Some of the stadiums used in '94 were too snug, however. I remember seeing corner takers right up against the advertising hoardings. That is ridiculous! The 'fashion' in the US at the moment seems to be building new stadiums which can comfortably host both football and...er...football, so this shouldn't be a problem in 2022...it's not the issue it once was.

Roofs don't matter either. As long as the press and media are covered FIFA are happy and the press boxes seem more than good enough for this.

Technically the US bid has little wrong with it. Distances might be a bit of an issue, though that hasn't changed since 1994 and the US' main rival has the same issue. If the US were competing against compact European bids it may be a negative but it's not. And the timezone isn't that friendly for Europe, the Game's powerbase. But these are both much, much smaller "problems" than the US' rivals Australia and Qatar face.

I agree with flierfy about the game's popularity in the US though. Whilst I'd have no problem if the US won, I would rather see another country which either hasn't hosted before, or has a much greater love for the sport host again before the US gets another tournament. That's just personal preference though, and I wouldn't blame FIFA if the security a US bid gives them means the US is victorious in 2022.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

desertpunk said:


> We have over *100* stadiums that seat over 50,000 and the vast majority of them could easily be retrofitted to FIFA specs. So what if they don't look like "Old Trafford"? Is that even a prerequisite for holding the WC in Europe? You're a jealous fool.


Jealous of what? Your multi function domes with plastic atmosphere? Have you actually ever been to a real football ground?


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

flierfy said:


> Jealous of what? Your multi function domes with plastic atmosphere? Have you actually ever been to a real football ground?


So by your logic, the World Cup should never be held outside of Europe or even England. That will help the sport. And what stadium could be shittier and less "classic" than Maracana? A huge. round, deteriorating concrete nightmare? Seems like the fans there do quite well with soccer.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

-Corey- said:


> I just read an article that it is expected that about 70 million will watch the WC on Univision.. I couldnt find an article in English, but in 2006 more than 50 million watched the WC just on Univision.. And that's a big difference vs ESPN. So if we count those viewers from ABC and ESPN, probably that number is over 100 million this year..
> 
> http://www.elnuevoherald.com/2010/06/11/739571/univision-comienza-su-maraton.html


100m worldwide maybe but certainly not in the US. 13m watched England-USA on ABC and 5.4m South Africa-Mexico on Univision. That adds up to an football audience nowhere near 100m.

Source


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

100 million in the US will see some of the world cup. That doesn't mean 100m will be watching at any one time flierfy or that you can take individual games and prove this prediction to be wrong.

Still, 13m for the game vs England does sound low for a country the size of the US. I suppose a lot of people would still have been at work when it was on, but it's obvious the game's popularity is a lot smaller in the US than in many other parts of the world.

flierfy, you'll need to provide statistics for Australia and Qatar if we're to really compare, keep this thread on topic, and not just have a slanging match. Everyone knows the US doesn't have the same love of the game as Europe and South America - that's such an obious fact it doesn't even need pointing out. But it's not competing against either of these continents for 2022.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

flierfy said:


> That's exactly what I mean. The pitch might still be missing 1 or 2 metres in width but you already can't see the corner flag. It simply not design to watch football in there.


Maybe not that stadium, but about every stadium built now is made for soccer! Qwest, Gillette, Cowboys, Lucas Oil, U of Phoenix, all of those are perfect to fit soccer!


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Archbishop said:


> Maybe not that stadium, but about every stadium built now is made for soccer! Qwest, Gillette, Cowboys, Lucas Oil, U of Phoenix, all of those are perfect to fit soccer!


How hard is it to crank up a jackhammer and remove a row or two of seats? If the damn thing is worth hosting, it's worth doing a bit of "creative remodelling".


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

desertpunk said:


> How hard is it to crank up a jackhammer and remove a row or two of seats? If the damn thing is worth hosting, it's worth doing a bit of "creative remodelling".


It's not hard, I mean, they laid a grass field in the Silverdome in '94! It was raised on top of a temporary structure. Most of the stadiums will not require any modification, a few will. No biggie.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Yeah I doubt they will care if they have to take out 5 rows of Lincoln Financial Field. We all talk about how cool those stadiums in some countries will look if they get built, but we've got those state-of-the-art stadiums right here. Cowboys Stadium, U of Phoenix Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium, Meadowlands Stadium, all are magnificent stadiums. A United States World Cup would be incredible. This time they would use real stadiums, not the crappy ones at 1994 (Stanford Stadium, Citrus Bowl? C'mon now...)


----------



## HUSKER (Apr 1, 2006)

US BID!!!., it's got my vote.- Half of Mexico would go to see the games, and not only Mexico's one's., that happened in 1994.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

flierfy said:


> That's exactly what I mean. The pitch might still be missing 1 or 2 metres in width but you already can't see the corner flag. It simply not design to watch football in there.


It beats the hell out of this crap. Look at all the wasted space.


























flierfy said:


> Jealous of what? Your multi function domes with plastic atmosphere? Have you actually ever been to a real football ground?


Like Old Trafford?








Or Wembley?


----------



## just4ivaylo (Apr 6, 2008)

Hm..do we have the infrastructure right now for that bid? Inner-city transportation is shit in many metros, including Houston.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> It beats the hell out of this crap. Look at all the wasted space.


No it doesn't. There might be a running track. But non of the seats provide a restricted view.



krudmonk said:


> Like Old Trafford?
> Or Wembley?


Not the best examples. But still way way better than anything you got over there.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

flierfy said:


> Not the best examples. But still way way better than anything you got over there.


Then place your bid and see which way the wind blows. You're full of talk but I don't see that bid, cupcake.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

You obviously don't want America to get the bid, that much as clear. But America's bid is looking pretty good right now, so you're just going to have to get over yourself and deal with it. If you don't like it, don't come.

BTW, atmosphere is created by the people in the seats, not the physical ground itself. If atmosphere to you is singing, being seated in an American football stadium doesn't preclude one from singing. And for your information, the reason we don't sing in American sports is that we have timeouts. Our sports don't have 45 minutes of uninterrupted play. It's just a different sporting culture here, not good or bad, just different.

And explain to me what a 'restricted' view is. How exactly do our NFL stadiums provide restricted views?


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

just4ivaylo said:


> Hm..do we have the infrastructure right now for that bid? Inner-city transportation is shit in many metros, including Houston.


Yes.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

flierfy said:


> No it doesn't. There might be a running track. But non of the seats provide a restricted view.


Nor will the seats in a 2022 USA bid.


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

The current world cup has no shortage of tarped off seats due to obstructed views.


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

desertpunk said:


> How hard is it to crank up a jackhammer and remove a row or two of seats? If the damn thing is worth hosting, it's worth doing a bit of "creative remodelling".


I don't think there will be a major problem with adapting a stadium to FIFA world cup field requirements. As you said, it is worth hosting. Dallas and NY may prove to be challenge due to their field boxes, maybe?

The one thing that stood out for me while observing the impressive list of venues a few pages back was the current FIFA requirement that every stadium needs to be partially roofed for VIP's. How will that go down in places like Denver, NY, Miami etc?

Then again, you may not have to worry too much as FIFA change their 'requirements' to suit.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

NavyBlue said:


> The one thing that stood out for me while observing the impressive list of venues a few pages back was the current FIFA requirement that every stadium needs to be partially roofed for VIP's. How will that go down in places like Denver, NY, Miami etc?


Massive press boxes.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

Interior shots of potential WC host stadiums, see exterior shots in next post


----------



## NavyBlue (Apr 23, 2005)

Now that's hard to beat ^^

Any idea on which stadium would host a potential WC final?


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

NavyBlue said:


> Now that's hard to beat ^^
> 
> Any idea on which stadium would host a potential WC final?


I would bet that New York would get it.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)




----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

desertpunk said:


> We have over *100* stadiums that seat over 50,000 and the vast majority of them could easily be retrofitted to FIFA specs. So what if they don't look like "Old Trafford"? Is that even a *prerequisite for holding the WC in Europe*? You're a jealous fool.


100% roof coverage of the stands was a FIFA prerequisite for the WC 2006 in Germany! 
We had no problems to fullfill this..........(nor will any other country in Europe bidding for a future WC!)

I'm sure FIFA will accept all this gridiron stadiums in the name of a big profit!
For the europeans a world cup is a kind of "stadium developement fair", the most impressive Stadiums of the 2010 WC are designed by european architects. 

I would like t see a WC in the US, but are you sure the US won't disapoint Fifa again like 1994? 
The stadiums were packed, but a lack of atmosphere and no progress in the US Soccer (I hate this word for the game......)League!


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

GEwinnen said:


> *100% roof coverage of the stands was a FIFA prerequisite for the WC 2006 in Germany!*
> We had no problems to fullfill this..........(nor will any other country in Europe bidding for a future WC!)
> 
> I'm sure FIFA will accept all this gridiron stadiums in the name of a big profit!
> ...


Well it doesn't seem to matter with South Africa. Can you honestly say that the current South African and American stadiums are lacking in any way because not all of them a 100% roofed?

What is with the roof obsession some Europeans have, America has been building bigger and better stadiums longer than anyone, its a bit much telling them how to do it.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Isn't the Rose Bowl still a possible site? I would think there would be a stadium in Los Angeles whether it's the Rose Bowl or the new Los Angeles Stadium.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Could they use the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum?


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

I don't get why LA need the Rose Bowl & Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum.

Are either used?


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Yes. USC plays at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and UCLA plays at the Rose Bowl, and the Rose Bowl game of course.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

But why are they so big? Surely they could just use one?


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> Well it doesn't seem to matter with South Africa. Can you honestly say that the current South African and American stadiums are lacking in any way because not all of them a 100% roofed?
> 
> What is with the roof obsession some Europeans have, American has been building bigger and better stadium longer than anyone, its a bit much telling them how to do it.


Except for sunny Spain and Italy, the weather is always crappy in moldy ol' Europe so the FIFA "Fifis" are simply mirroring, projecting their own issues onto others as if the rest of the world has to exist by their blueprint. I mean seriously, 100% roofed stadiums? Haha! The 2014 Super Bowl will be in New Jersey, in an unroofed stadium, in February! I hope it's -20F: good football!


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

desertpunk said:


> Except for sunny Spain and Italy, the weather is always crappy in moldy ol' Europe so the FIFA "Fifis" are simply mirroring, projecting their own issues onto others as if the rest of the world has to exist by their blueprint. I mean seriously, 100% roofed stadiums? Haha! The 2014 Super Bowl will be in New Jersey, in an unroofed stadium, in February! I hope it's -20F: good football!


have to agree, one of my best (aussie rules) footy memories was cheering my boys from the boundary line in pouring freezing cold rain

sure, I got the flu, but we got the win so I could give a damn


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Solopop said:


> But why are they so big? Surely they could just use one?


Well the Rose Bowl was built a way long time ago for the Festival of Roses or whatever it's called, and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum was built for the 1932 Olympics. And then of course the Raiders played at the LA Coliseum for a while when they were in L.A. The Rose Bowl will stand forever because of the historical nature of the stadium.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

LA is also a seriously large city in population and area. The Coliseum and the Rose bowl aren't that close. Many cities have numerious large stadiums for the same or similar purpose. London has Wembley, Emirates and Twickenham, Melbourne has the MCG and Etihad on either side of the CBD. Back around 1980 the MCG capacity was well over 100 000 and Melbourne still had Waverley Park whcih held 75 000. LA is far larger than Melbourne. They can justify them both easily.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

I just don't see why you wouldn't include both in the bid...


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

Solopop said:


> But why are they so big? Surely they could just use one?


It's difficult for a college team to share a stadium with another. NFL can with their balanced scheduling but college teams don't have balanced schedules. Both these universities will have more home football games than away games. Basically, there is a demand for at least two massive L.A. stadiums on Fall Saturdays.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

desertpunk said:


> Except for sunny Spain and Italy, the weather is always crappy in moldy ol' Europe so the FIFA "Fifis" are simply mirroring, projecting their own issues onto others as if the rest of the world has to exist by their blueprint.


That's not totally true, many non-football stadiums around the world have roofs:

Beijing Olympic
Montréal Olympique
Buffalo (war memorial)
Sydney ANZ
Brisbane Suncorp
Rio Olympic
Djakarta 
Kuala lumpur
Hong Kong
Tunis
Abu Dhabi
Pyongyang
Seoul Olympic
Manila 

etc

etc (tennis courts, rugby stadiums, ovals, ballparks, velodromes, Formula 1 stands, hippodromes.......)


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

Archbishop said:


> Well the Rose Bowl was built a way long time ago for the Festival of Roses or whatever it's called, and the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum was built for the 1932 Olympics.


Not true. They were both built around 1921 and USC was an initial tenant at LA Memorial Coliseum.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Melbourne Etihad ^


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

Solopop said:


> Melbourne Etihad ^


My list is obviously far from exhaustive  !


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

Solopop said:


> I just don't see why you wouldn't include both in the bid...


Judging by the USA Bid website, they're both being considered.

http://www.gousabid.com/city/local/los-angeles-ca/

And, one reason both might not be included is because of the massive amount of cities and stadiums that are fit (and maybe even better suited than these two) to host a WC game. It seems The Rose Bowl has more recent FIFA and soccer experience.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Solopop said:


> But why are they so big? Surely they could just use one?


The Rose Bowl was built in 1922 to accommodate fans who wanted to watch the football game after they watched the Rose Parade. The stadium they played in before held only 40,000 people. So you see why the Rose Bowl is so big. The Rose Bowl is one of the largest stadiums in the United States that hosts soccer games from time to time. The United States national soccer team plays games in the Rose Bowl occasionally. The LA Galaxy occasionally still plays games there, against marquee opponents such as FC Barcelona. The Mexican national soccer team, which has a large following in Los Angeles, has hosted several friendly matches at the Rose Bowl. On March 3, 2010, Mexico hosted New Zealand in a tune-up match for the 2010 FIFA World Cup and had a crowd of 90,500. The Rose Bowl is one of 21 stadiums that could host the 2018 or 2022 World Cup if it is awarded to the United States. The Rose Bowl is the spiritual home for American Soccer.

The LA Coliseum really doesn't need much of an introduction as it is one of the most important and historic stadiums not only in the US but in the world. Both the Rose Bowl and the LA Coliseum would be very well suited to host the WC Final as by 2022, they would be vastly upgraded.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

desertpunk said:


> Then place your bid and see which way the wind blows. You're full of talk but I don't see that bid, cupcake.


You want to see real football grounds? Here they are:



The Den



White Hart Lane


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Who do you want to win 2022 flierfy, just out of interest, seeing as you're adding very little to this thread?


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Walbanger said:


> What is with the roof obsession some Europeans have,


That's not an obsession but common sense. A roof keeps the sun and the rain out and the the atmosphere in.


Walbanger said:


> America has been building bigger and better stadiums longer than anyone, its a bit much telling them how to do it.


I very much doubt this. American stadiums are neither bigger nor have they been built earlier. And that they're not better has already been mentioned.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

flierfy said:


> You want to see real football grounds? Here they are:


So the reason you say "ground" instead of "stadium" is because you're discussing four grandstands that happen to face the same patch of grass? Wow, that's so awesome.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

RobH said:


> Who do you want to win 2022 flierfy, just out of interest,


From those who are bidding Australia. Would be another winter World Cup with 64 floodlight games probably.


RobH said:


> seeing as you're adding very little to this thread?


I add as much as anyone else.


----------



## Anubis2051 (Jan 28, 2010)

weava said:


> The only route I know people have taken is from KC to STL and it can take 5-6 hours on amtrak but only 3 hours to drive and its cheaper to drive.





nyrmetros said:


> Big beleiver in Amtrak, however the booking rates here in the northeast corridor are pretty expensive. It's amazing that the SuperPwer USA has no REAL high speed inter-city rail system...... Acella is nothing more than a business class flight on rails....


I live in Jersey, but was visiting friends in Boston. I looked into the train, but it would have taken over 8 hours, and cost more than $200 each way. I wound up flying, which took under an hour, and cost $115 round trip. Flying is so easy and cheep here in the US that I don't think the lack of a rail system would be a problem. 



Archbishop said:


> Massive press boxes.


Not to mention Luxury/Sky Boxes



Archbishop said:


> I would bet that New York would get it.


Makes sense, considering LA had it last time, not to mention New York's host stadium would only be 8-12 years old.



Archbishop said:


> Yeah I doubt they will care if they have to take out 5 rows of Lincoln Financial Field. We all talk about how cool those stadiums in some countries will look if they get built, but we've got those state-of-the-art stadiums right here. Cowboys Stadium, U of Phoenix Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium, Meadowlands Stadium, all are magnificent stadiums. A United States World Cup would be incredible. This time they would use real stadiums, not the crappy ones at 1994 (Stanford Stadium, Citrus Bowl? C'mon now...)


One big thing that I think is being overlooked is that since 1994, there has been a big move away from the mulipurpose cookie cutters for football and baseball that were popular from the 1960s to 1990s. With the opening of Camden Yards in 1992, there has been a trend to build separate stadiums for each sport. This means that there are a number of cities that were unable to host in 1994 because their stadium was being used for the MLB season that will now have a vacant NFL stadium in the summer that can be used for the WC.

Here's a list of those cities:
Atlanta
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Denver
Houston
Minneapolis
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
St. Louis
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Miami (as of 2012 MLB Season)

Houston and Seattle are known Soccer hotbeds, and would be great hosts. But this also means that there is still a bit of an "unexplored territory" to the US, in that a good many large US cities have yet to host a WC match.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Oh yeah. I completely forgot about the cookie cutters. I sure am glad that era's over. It will be nice to get Seattle and Houston as hosts this time around.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

flierfy said:


> You want to see real football grounds? Here they are:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Seriously? :lol:

Getting back to *state of the art facilities*, most soccer-only stadiums were designed to be fully expandable so they could grow with the sport. Additionally, I would expect 4 or 5 major soccer pitches to be either built or on the boards by 2020. If we win the WC bid, that would factor into plans to go forward with the fully built jobs instead of the phased variety. On top of the billion dollar football stadiums already available and on the way, of course.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

Why would someone from Britain be worried about keeping the sun out? :lol:

You're either a narrow-minded Brit or a narrow-minded Anglophile. Either way, we feel quite content with our bid, with or without your approval. FIFA are all about money and organization, and the problem with SA 2010 is low attendance and the problem with Brazil 2014 is organization/infrastructure. By giving it to the USA, they guarantee great attendance, modern stadiums, and stellar organization.

BTW, this is not the thread to discuss the European/mostly British "roof complex", but I will say Spanish and Italian fans seem to manage quite fine without roofs. It's called "thinking outside the box", my friend. You happen to be stuck in it right now.

And for your information, yes American stadiums are bigger. The average capacity of our bid is about 77,000.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

I have no doubts that it works in the context of of American football. College stadiums have amazing atmospheres. Its just the "roofs are for pussies" line doesn't really work when talking about the other type of football.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

carlspannoosh said:


> As cool as the New Den is (only Millwall fans can tell you how good it is or isn't) it hasn't got the 60000 seats that FIFA and travelling fans demand or a big fat party area for big fat FIFA sponsors to advertise their crap in so it doesn't really belong in a World Cup candidate thread.


I didn't propose The Den for World Cup matches. It was just a response to a request for genuine football grounds.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

It may be a genuine football ground but it doesn't really give us any insight into why you think US stadiums are unsuitable for the World Cup.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

flierfy said:


> Of course, I did. The Den is precisely how a football ground should be. Four straight and covered stands around a well-kept pitch. No jeer can spoil this marvellous ground for me.


Have you been there? It's really unimpressive. Boring layout and pretty poor catering (at least they will be relative to Championship grounds next season).

From the back of the stands the view is good and the Millwall fans put on a great 'show' (blend of passion and complete psycho madness) come playoff time but it's hardly a top 'real football ground'.

Why not post pics of grounds which have been develpoved over the years but have kept a certain character? E.g Charlton:










or future Hillsborough development:


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

carlspannoosh said:


> It may be a genuine football ground but it doesn't really give us any insight into why you think US stadiums are unsuitable for the World Cup.


I already stated these reasons in previous posts.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Luke80 said:


> Have you been there? It's really unimpressive. Boring layout and pretty poor catering (at least they will be relative to Championship grounds next season).


I didn't pay any attention to the catering inside. There are, however, the usual burger stalls outside the ground and pubs nearby.



Luke80 said:


> From the back of the stands the view is good and the Millwall fans put on a great 'show' (blend of passion and complete psycho madness) come playoff time but it's hardly a top 'real football ground'.
> 
> Why not post pics of grounds which have been develpoved over the years but have kept a certain character? E.g Charlton:


I don't post pictures of grounds I haven't been to. That's why no Charlton or Wednesday.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Outside of England and Germany most stadiums that even have roofs don't cover most fans. Most of the spectators at this World Cup are exposed. Even at Soccer City most fans are exposed. There is no requirement except for media and dignitaries. Funny thing is, the way the FIFA document is worded, it reads like anything short of a fully retractable roof with climate control while its closed is short of their ideal. In that sense, only the US could pull off their ideal because of the multitude of retractable roofs and domes.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Luke80 said:


> Have you been there? It's really unimpressive. Boring layout and pretty poor catering (at least they will be relative to Championship grounds next season).
> 
> From the back of the stands the view is good and the Millwall fans put on a great 'show' (blend of passion and complete psycho madness) come playoff time but it's hardly a top 'real football ground'.
> 
> ...


or Villa Park










or Stamford Bridge (a personal fave of mine)


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

rantanamo said:


> Outside of England and Germany most stadiums that even have roofs don't cover most fans. Most of the spectators at this World Cup are exposed. Even at Soccer City most fans are exposed. There is no requirement except for media and dignitaries. Funny thing is, the way the FIFA document is worded, it reads like anything short of a fully retractable roof with climate control while its closed is short of their ideal. In that sense, only the US could pull off their ideal because of the multitude of retractable roofs and domes.


I'm pretty sure if they really wanted to we could play an entire indoor World Cup. Indianapolis, Detroit, Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston, Dallas, New Orleans, Phoenix, Minneapolis, and San Antonio. It wouldn't be a good one, but then people couldn't whine about being exposed to the elements.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

rantanamo said:


> Outside of England and Germany most stadiums that even have roofs don't cover most fans.



No!

































































France will have 8 or 10 stadiums with 100% roof cover for the 2016 EURO.
Opposite to the US, In Europe no new stadium will be built without 100% roof coverage. The EURO 2012 staiums in Poland and Ukrain will have 100% roof coverage.


----------



## antriksh_sfo (Jan 10, 2009)

GEwinnen said:


> No!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dude, 
You have posted stadia pix from across Europe (Rome Olympic, Barnebue, Saint Dennis, San Siro) to match up with the USA list.
Secondly, the Ernst Happel - hardly 55K makes to this list.:lol:

No one denies Europe having good stadia.
For the football following Europe has, these are required.
But US on the other hand with Soccer not being among top 5 sports in USA, still courtesy NFL/MLS, has gr8 stadia which live up to all the specs of FIFA.

Moreover, in Europe the Football season is post summer running through the rainy winters.
I have spent winters in UK damp/rainy, short daylight and hence the necessity of a covered floodlit stadia for the fans as it is over 2.5 Hrs of magical football under poruing rain. This is the main reason UK stadia have roofs.
Considering USA, most of the stadia are even fully indoor.

UK for 2018 is OK with USA hosting 2022 as it deserves.
U know what?
I was on the Oil field while US scored the goal and even the one's who were attached to US Open on ESPN3 online last week, were standing with bated breath.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

Of course if FIFA would like attendances of more than 100,000:


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

Does the result helps or hurts the cause? I say it helps because it showed how the team was resilient under hostile conditions and didn't give up until the bitter end. If they maintain that progress through the next eight years then they may even have a real shot at the championship.

However, that's today. There is still a ways to go before we know for sure. But this result is nothing but a help.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Those college fields are generally too narrow, having been constructed in the times before soccer was on anyone's mind.


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Those college fields are generally too narrow, having been constructed in the times before soccer was on anyone's mind.


Yeah, they would need some constructive demolition to acquire soccer dimensions but a few of them like Darrell Royal Stadium in Austin would be great hosts for the WC. Too bad college soccer is still in its larval stage...


----------



## antriksh_sfo (Jan 10, 2009)

The Game Is Up said:


> Does the result helps or hurts the cause? I say it helps because it showed how the team was resilient under hostile conditions and didn't give up until the bitter end. If they maintain that progress through the next eight years then they may even have a real shot at the championship.
> 
> However, that's today. There is still a ways to go before we know for sure. But this result is nothing but a help.


+ 1.
Hopefully, USA is not deprived again they were as in Korea - Japan 2002.
Remember Korea/Brazil & Turkey had already qualified to Semis.
Germany just scraped through. A goal line handball by germans which should have been a penalty was ruled out.
This was just done to have One European Team (turkey still is not popular among Europeans) in semis.
Otherwise US would have made semis in 2002 who knows what would have been in store?
Germany was just a walking ghost of its earlier fame in 2002.

Had US entered the semis in 2002, the European slots for 2006 would have gone down.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

antriksh_sfo said:


> > UK for 2018 is OK with USA hosting 2022 as it deserves.
> > U know what?
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## antriksh_sfo (Jan 10, 2009)

GEwinnen said:


> antriksh_sfo said:
> 
> 
> > I know, ENGLAND is ..... . would like a european style:cheers: stadium.
> ...


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Those college stadiums are huge, but let's see you fill them for Slovakia vs New Zealand...

How the USA deserves another world cup so soon after 1994 is beyond me but I guess that's another debate altogether.


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

28 years is soon?


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

Personally I'd say a 30 year minimum gap.

To add to the roofs vs no roofs argument, the atmosphere is completely different. The intensity of singing is totally lost without a roof. Following on with the Millwall theme:


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

eMKay said:


> 28 years is soon?


Remember the UK have been waiting 44 years and counting (52 if they get 2018)


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

GEwinnen said:


> I guess people in *Green Bay* for e.g. would like a European style:cheers: stadium.


NO!
We Packers fans are the ones who take there shirts off at games when it goes below freezing and cheer when it snows. Lambeau Field has been 100% sold out for every game since the late 1960's. Also there is a 100+ year long waiting list for season tickets, which is very famous. 
The stadium, renovated from top to bottom in 2003, is considered among the best gameday experiences on continent. :cheers1:









































































*Go! Pack! Go!*


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

delete this............


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

No more pics/comparison of English stadiums please. We don't care and it's not the forum.


----------



## Livno80101 (Mar 15, 2009)

USA can make major result here, even to the finals, as road to semis is opened

so good result here can be decisive... I hope that will happen, and in December Blatter will announce us as WC hosts


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Livno80101 said:


> USA can make major result here, even to the finals, as road to semis is opened
> 
> so good result here can be decisive... I hope that will happen, and in December Blatter will announce us as WC hosts


Saratoga + Sounders avatar? :no:


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

MS20 said:


> NFL stadia are interesting. While they're very impressive, I'm surprised (judging by the pictures supplied above), by how little overhead cover there is. For a winter sport, it seems strange that a lot of the stadiums don't have roofs that at least cover the public.
> 
> Is that an issue with fans? Or something that just historically/culturally has no importance to fans?


football is played during the fall so you don't have the summer sun or the spring rain to deal with usually. Very few football games are affected by weather and when its colder out the sun actually feels good. Plus teams that play in domes are for pussies.
The only stadiums that the average US sports fan doesn't mind having a full roof is phoenix(due to being in the dessert), and Seattle/Miami for baseball(due to baseball not playing in the rain), and thats it. Outdoor sports are meant to be played outdoors.


----------



## antriksh_sfo (Jan 10, 2009)

T74 said:


> Remember the UK have been waiting 44 years and counting (52 if they get 2018)


That was because Europe hosted 5 times since '66.
NA has not hosted once since '94.
Europe had hosted in 2006 and vieing for 2018 - 12 yrs.
Going by this, 28 yrs for NA is much longer.


----------



## antriksh_sfo (Jan 10, 2009)

slipperydog said:


> No more pics/comparison of English stadiums please. We don't care and it's not the forum.


+1 Pls may post in england bid forum


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Luke80 said:


> Those college stadiums are huge, but let's see you fill them for Slovakia vs New Zealand...
> 
> How the USA deserves another world cup so soon after 1994 is beyond me but I guess that's another debate altogether.


Hey, Mexico got two within 16 years ...


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

antriksh_sfo said:


> That was because Europe hosted 5 times since '66.
> NA has not hosted once since '94.
> Europe had hosted in 2006 and vieing for 2018 - 12 yrs.
> Going by this, 28 yrs for NA is much longer.


The one issue I have with your post is just North America is made up of relatively few countries who could realistically host the World Cup. Mexico and the U.S. are the only options really, maybe Canada at a pinch.

Compare that to Europe where you have England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, all of which could host the World Cup. Not to mention smaller countries in combined bids like the Belgium/Holland bid, or even Portugal. 

To say North America has had to wait much longer is just lumping in the European nations into one collective pot, and by your logic implies that the U.S./Mexico seems entitled to the World Cup more regularly than European nations.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

KingmanIII said:


> Hey, Mexico got two within 16 years ...


I thought there were mitigating circumstances behind that though (forget the reason, think issues with another city)


----------



## geoone (Nov 12, 2009)

Colombia was suppose to host the 1986 World Cup, but then they realized that they couldn't afford to stage it, so the Colombians gave it up. So Mexico stepped in as back-up.

I personally don't care too much about the World Cup, but I don't think that it's too much for the U.S. to go after it again 28 years since their last time (especially when the sport has grown a bit in the U.S. since then). Germany got it again only 32 years after their first hosting.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

T74 said:


> Remember the UK have been waiting 44 years and counting (52 if they get 2018)


They should have better bids/build better stadiums then. In 2022 I bet a lot of the players who are stars on the USMNT won't have been alive in 1994.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Archbishop said:


> They should have better bids/build better stadiums then. In 2022 I bet a lot of the players who are stars on the USMNT won't have been alive in 1994.


Personally I don't think 28 years is a deal breaker, but it is on the tighter end of the scale (esp when competing against Qatar and Australia who are yet to host).

As said previously, the fantastic facilities, logistics, and accommodation (and of course revenues) more than compensate for this.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

matthemod said:


> The one issue I have with your post is just North America is made up of relatively few countries who could realistically host the World Cup. Mexico and the U.S. are the only options really, maybe Canada at a pinch.
> 
> Compare that to Europe where you have England, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, all of which could host the World Cup. Not to mention smaller countries in combined bids like the Belgium/Holland bid, or even Portugal.
> 
> To say North America has had to wait much longer is just lumping in the European nations into one collective pot, and by your logic implies that the U.S./Mexico seems entitled to the World Cup more regularly than European nations.


It's not so much about the honor of hosting as it is the chance to see live matches easily. Even in a region with 7.3 million people (and a founding MLS city), I'm still about 6 hours from the nearest proposed venue in Los Angeles. By comparison, London is a similar distance from cities that hosted in 1998 and 2006.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Luke80 said:


> Personally I'd say a 30 year minimum gap.
> 
> To add to the roofs vs no roofs argument, the atmosphere is completely different. The intensity of singing is totally lost without a roof. Following on with the Millwall theme:


Not saying that they don't amplify crowd noise, but I don't think they're a total necessity:


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Real fans don't need a roof to amplify sound.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Livno80101 said:


> USA can make major result here, even to the finals, as road to semis is opened
> 
> so good result here can be decisive... I hope that will happen, and in December Blatter will announce us as WC hosts


I don't think it should matter much. As long as a team can show it belongs in the field of 32 and can play competive games that is all that is needed. Something I think both US and Australia showed and only a few nations in the tourney haven't. 

If the US team gets far in the field should be made a seperate issues. It is hard to predict where a program will be twelve years off anyway.


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

Kansas City






Columbus






Lincoln, Neb.






Just a small sample of celebrations in streets and sports bars across the country.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

hngcm said:


> Real fans don't need a roof to amplify sound.


No, they can create a wall of white noise by screaming and shouting but thats not the football atmosphere people complained about missing when the white noise din of the Vuvuzela was dampening out real fans.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

KingmanIII said:


> Hey, Mexico got two within 16 years ...


 Colombia withdrew after being selected to host the World Cup due to financial problems on November 5, 1982, less than four years before the event was to start. A call for bids was sent out again, and FIFA received intent from three nations:

Mexico, USA, Canada

At this time, the US and Canada were not really interested in football. Mexico was the only acceptable applicant for FIFA and got 100% of the votes.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

eMKay said:


> 28 years is soon?


It is very soon! ^^ Mexico 1986 was a special case.

List of the countries hosted the WC twice:

Italy 1934-1990 56 years
France 1938-1998 60 years
Germany 1974-2006 32 years
Brazil 1950- 2014 64 years
England 1966- _2018_ 52 years


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Subtract any you are saying before WW2 because we lost 3 World Cups in there. It's misleading.


----------



## GEwinnen (Mar 3, 2006)

brewerfan386 said:


> NO!
> We Packers fans are the ones who take there shirts off at games when it goes below freezing and cheer when it snows. Lambeau Field has been 100% sold out for every game since the late 1960's. Also there is a 100+ year long




You americans must be tough 

A football match in Germany would have been cancelled in conditions like this^^
What about a pitch heating at Lambeau field?


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

GEwinnen said:


> You americans must be tougher
> 
> A football match in Germany would have been cancelled in conditions like this^^
> What about a pitch heating at Lambeau field?


I think that they've had it since the 70s but it didn't really work too well until renovations like 15 years ago. A Packers fan would know better...


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

GEwinnen said:


> You americans must be tough
> 
> A football match in Germany would have been cancelled in conditions like this^^
> What about a pitch heating at Lambeau field?


snow is nothing, we have had AFL games go on after the scoreboard went up in flames!! :lol:


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

Archbishop said:


> I think that they've had it since the 70s but it didn't really work too well until renovations like 15 years ago. A Packers fan would know better...


Actually, the heating system has worked reliably since at least 1995'ish. The team also installed DD Grassmaster few years ago which has been really popular with the grounds crew and fans.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

antriksh_sfo said:


> That was because Europe hosted 5 times since '66.
> NA has not hosted once since '94.
> Europe had hosted in 2006 and vieing for 2018 - 12 yrs.
> Going by this, 28 yrs for NA is much longer.


Talk about skewing numbers mate! NA has hosted 3 since '66. Think how many countries there are in Europe and how many of them are powerhouses in world football. Of course they should get the WC more often for the same reason they get more WC qualification spaces.



KingmanIII said:


> Hey, Mexico got two within 16 years ...


Yeah that was way too short as well. But that was only because someone else pulled out remember.



KingmanIII said:


> Not saying that they don't amplify crowd noise, but I don't think they're a total necessity:


Seen that clip before. Incredible noise but that's all it is. Millwall probably took about 1,000 away to Leicester whereas there must be over 80,000 there.



hngcm said:


> Real fans don't need a roof to amplify sound.


Cut the shit! What do you define as a real fan because I bet your definition is different from mine!



carlspannoosh said:


> No, they can create a wall of white noise by screaming and shouting but thats not the football atmosphere people complained about missing when the white noise din of the Vuvuzela was dampening out real fans.


True although that said I think it's slightly unfair to compare that to those damned vuvuzelas. I know different sports, different situations, different cultures...


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Luke80 said:


> I think it's slightly unfair to compare that to those damned vuvuzelas. I know different sports, different situations, different cultures...


 I agree. A College stadium going loopy is of course a much more agreeable spectacle than the Vuvuzelas but my comments were in response to hngcm's post. Anyhow.


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

It's a shame there won't ever be a world cup game here in Buffalo  We don't have a roof, and the field is not heated. In football season a roof is unnecessary as the temps are low, the sun is welcome, and it rarely rains or snows in the fall. In winter we get a lot of snow so the late season games can be iffy but a roof would make conditions for the fans worse. And this is just plain fun...




























http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2maf4u_7rk


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

You like a roof, we don't. No reason to discuss it further, and definitely not the thread to talk about UK stadiums.

We grow up with our horseshoes, ovals, sun shining on us, screaming at the other team's offense, tailgating and putting our arms on our armrests, so that's what we like.

You grow up with your four straight sides with nothing in the corners, singing to pass the time while sitting in the shade, and that's what you like.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

Its not about what you or I like its about what FIFA likes and about the USA putting up the best possible bid for a World Cup simple as that.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

GEwinnen said:


> You americans must be tough
> 
> A football match in Germany would have been cancelled in conditions like this^^
> What about a pitch heating at Lambeau field?


The actual ball in the NFL spends little time on the ground, so it is not nearly as impacted by the snow.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> The actual ball in the NFL spends little time on the ground, so it is not nearly as impacted by the snow.


How can you count the yards and see the goal line with such a bad weather ???


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

GEwinnen said:


> You americans must be tough
> 
> A football match in Germany would have been cancelled in conditions like this^^
> What about a pitch heating at Lambeau field?


This is exactly why they call Lambeau Field 'The Frozen Tundra.'


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

parcdesprinces said:


> How can you count the yards and see the goal line with such a bad weather ???


They are shoveled off. every now and then.


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

carlspannoosh said:


> Its not about what you or I like its about what FIFA likes and about the USA putting up the best possible bid for a World Cup simple as that.


And USA has a shedload of stadiums the FIFA likes.


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

parcdesprinces said:


> How can you count the yards and see the goal line with such a bad weather ???


shovels.............








(courtesy of "Angelus359". link)









(courtesy of "IAAFOTS". link)

:cheers1:


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

JYDA said:


> average lows in January
> 
> New York 26 F
> Boston 22 F
> ...


The baseball season (the start of this argument) doesn't go into January. Read things in context.

avg temp/avg low temp

October:
Minneapolis: 50/40
Detroit: 52/41
Chicago: 53/42
NYC: 55/48
Boston: 55/47

April:
Minneapolis: 46/36
Detroit: 48/37
Chicago: 49/39
NYC: 50/42
Boston: 49/40

They play baseball outdoors in all these cities. Its not considerably colder in Minneapolis.

source: http://www.weatherbase.com/


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

brewerfan386 said:


> ^^
> Isn't the World Cup held in the summer (like now)??


Yes, I made a one-off comment about baseball outside in Minneapolis and how its not any colder there than other northern cities and no one believed me. They decided to run off-topic even more by piling on me after I told them they were wrong. I'm guessing it stops now that I've proven they were wrong.

I don't just shoot from the hip on here, fellas. If I'm talking out of my ass, I'll let you know in the post with an "IMO" or "I think/guess/etc.".


----------



## crazyalex (May 21, 2010)

USA 1-2 Ghana

USA lose to Ghana hno:


----------



## dean93 (Jun 27, 2010)

I love usa u better than uk lol


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

Just to close this saga, I'll leave you with one more fan reaction from the US participation in this World Cup. It's a funny one. *Caution* Foul language is used here...


----------



## brewerfan386 (Apr 24, 2009)

*Happy Birthday USA!*




from the 2006 WC


----------



## bd popeye (May 29, 2010)

> Man...That photo I found of Invesco Field reminded me how awesome it is! I think it's my second favorite NFL stadium next to U of P in Phoenix.
> _____________


I was passing through Donkey-town(Denver) a few years ago I took time out to go see Invesco Field..awesome.. I live in Iowa but lived in San Diego prior to that and my team still plays in this dump known as Qualcomm Stadium.. Hopefully if the US gets a 2018 or '22 bid for the WC San Diego will have a new stadium.

As an added note..Roofs are not permitted on stadiums built in California because of earthquake building standards.





> Qualcomm Stadium San Diego CA capacity 71,000. Photo by Ken Rockwell 2005


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

Speaking of earthquakes, I hear one just happened, 5.4.


----------



## dl3000 (Aug 7, 2004)

Yeah it shook us up pretty nicely. Closer than the big Easter one in Mexicali, much more north.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

bd popeye said:


> As an added note..Roofs are not permitted on stadiums built in California because of earthquake building standards.


Nope:








(Home Depot Center, Carson, CA)

I imagine earthquake standards might make some roofs impractical in some large stadiums because of the strength requirements coupled with earthquake standards. But they are by no means not allowed.


----------



## bd popeye (May 29, 2010)

BoulderGrad said:


> Nope:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I believe the regulation has to do with the material the roof is constructed of. I'm not 100% for sure..If I find any more info I shall post it.


----------



## antriksh_sfo (Jan 10, 2009)

bd popeye said:


> I was passing through Donkey-town(Denver) a few years ago I took time out to go see Invesco Field..awesome.. I live in Iowa but lived in San Diego prior to that and my team still plays in this dump known as Qualcomm Stadium.. Hopefully if the US gets a 2018 or '22 bid for the WC San Diego will have a new stadium.
> 
> As an added note..Roofs are not permitted on stadiums built in California because of earthquake building standards.


Well, SA 2010 has used a similar look and feel stadium, Ellis Park, Johannesburg for the WC and the SAns are proud of it.
This would be good enough for the FIFA 2018 WC too.


----------



## Matthew Lowry (Dec 23, 2009)

i belive that you can win but when you do keep Los Angeles sadia alone becouse it historic


----------



## bd popeye (May 29, 2010)

As far as roof in California are concerned I have found out that BoulderGrad is correct in that it is what the construction materials that are considered in the earthquake standards.

A roof is being considered for the _proposed_ new Charger stadium!

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/Chargers-Plan-Raising-a-Stadium-Roof-91652329.html



> Well, SA 2010 has used a similar look and feel stadium, Ellis Park, Johannesburg for the WC and the SAns are proud of it.
> This would be good enough for the FIFA 2018 WC too.


Humm..nice stadium. But the only similarities I see are the silo shaped ramps..I betcha that stadium ain't got none of these..





> SAN DIEGO, CA - NOVEMBER 1: The Charger Girls perform in Halloween costumes during the game against the Oakland Raiders on November 1, 2009 at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, California.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Do some research. South Africa actually does have cheearleaders.


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

bd popeye said:


> As an added note..Roofs are not permitted on stadiums built in California because of earthquake building standards.


Tell this to the Italians, French (Côte d'Azur + Monaco), Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks, Turks etc !

As far I know, none stadium roof fell apart here despite the violent earthquakes in the Med. sea & the area !!

PS: The same in Japan....


----------



## parcdesprinces (Feb 15, 2009)

GEwinnen said:


>


I'm jealous !!! I want those heaters at the Parc des Princes !!!! :rant:


----------



## bd popeye (May 29, 2010)

Question..are cheerleaders normal at soccer matches in SA? I mean are they their there every game/match? I know they are in some South American countries.



> Tell this to the Italians, French (Côte d'Azur + Monaco), Spanish, Portuguese, Greeks, Turks etc !


I shall! 



> As far I know, none stadium roof fell apart here despite the violent earthquakes in the Med. sea & the area !!
> 
> PS: The same in Japan....


Well as I found out roofs can accompany a stadium in California but they must meet certain earthquake standards. I know the in San Diego they are studying the feasibility of having the proposed new Chargers stadium have a dome built similar to dome/roof in Asia and Europe.



> http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/Chargers-Plan-Raising-a-Stadium-Roof-91652329.html
> 
> The Chargers' plans for a new stadium now seem to be looking skyward -- at a soft, retractable roof that, whenever needed, would shelter a wide variety of events that could be staged in the facility.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

bd popeye said:


> Question..are cheerleaders normal at soccer matches in SA? I mean are they their there every game/match? I know they are in some South American countries.


From what I can understand, no. Then again, the pictures were from rugby matches. But I don't think that it's the same for soccer, as the clientele that goes to soccer matches is different.

Anyway, now that the current World Cup is ending, I think it's time we should focus attention on the so-called Summer of Soccer, Part 2. Particularly, the tour of Man United and the named Barclays NY Challenge, or whatever is called. What do you think would be the turnout for those types of matches this time? Would the public be a bit "soccer-ed out" after watching the World Cup for a while?


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

The Game Is Up said:


> From what I can understand, no. Then again, the pictures were from rugby matches. But I don't think that it's the same for soccer, as the clientele that goes to soccer matches is different.
> 
> Anyway, now that the current World Cup is ending, I think it's time we should focus attention on the so-called Summer of Soccer, Part 2. Particularly, the tour of Man United and the named Barclays NY Challenge, or whatever is called. What do you think would be the turnout for those types of matches this time? Would the public be a bit "soccer-ed out" after watching the World Cup for a while?


Who cares about a bunch of half-assed exhibitions? We have an actual league going.

And those pictures are from both rugby and cricket.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Lord David said:


> ^^ Technically it's not if it's not going to host either the opener or final.
> But yes, it's an example of a stadium that can host Soccer and look fine.
> 
> Will there be public transport near the stadium in time for a WC? Surely you don't expect foreign fans to drive there and pay 40 odd bucks for parking!


The plan in all cities is to have buses taking fans from certain busy parts of a city to the stadium in addition to the public transportation already there...or not there.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

^^ Ah, so free buses is the solution.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Lord David said:


> ^^ Ah, so free buses is the solution.


Pretty much. They haven't said if they will be free, but if they do charge, I can't imagine it costing any more than any regular bus line in the city, which is usually $1.50-$2.50 each way. If you can get to a city center, you can get to a stadium. The only cities that won't have the buses are some of the cities that already have rail lines going to the stadium, in which case they will increase the number of trains going to the stadium and establish express lines from the city center directly to the stadium on match days. Getting to the stadium will not be a problem.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Buju Banton said:


> all these grounds just don't feel like soccer grounds.


when watching the World Cup this year, I sort of felt the same, with Soccer City being the exception. But then I looked around these boards. There are very few stadiums that "feel" like soccer grounds. Lots of layouts around the world.


----------



## Buju Banton (Mar 18, 2010)

rantanamo said:


> when watching the World Cup this year, I sort of felt the same, with Soccer City being the exception. But then I looked around these boards. There are very few stadiums that "feel" like soccer grounds. Lots of layouts around the world.


You must be crazy. The 2010 world cup stadium were the best stadium ever used at a world cup. They were unique had culture, beauty and creativity. From a calabash, a baobab, a animal, to an arch and a beautiful setting the 2010 world cup stadiums had them all. They all meant something other then a stadium. Unlike the american stadiums, which are giant clunks and have no meaning. hno:


----------



## Buffalo (Oct 15, 2009)

Buju Banton said:


> You must be crazy. The 2010 world cup stadium were the best stadium ever used at a world cup. They were unique had culture, beauty and creativity. From a calabash, a baobab, a animal, to an arch and a beautiful setting the 2010 world cup stadiums had them all. They all meant something other then a stadium. Unlike the american stadiums, which are giant clunks and have no meaning. hno:


No meaning to you, most have plenty of meaning and character that you obviously don't see or understand.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

Buju Banton said:


> You must be crazy. The 2010 world cup stadium were the best stadium ever used at a world cup. They were unique had culture, beauty and creativity. From a calabash, a baobab, a animal, to an arch and a beautiful setting the 2010 world cup stadiums had them all. They all meant something other then a stadium. Unlike the american stadiums, which are giant clunks and have no meaning. hno:


It's obvious you're trying to start another shitfight.

Can it, troll.


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

ryebreadraz said:


> Pretty much. They haven't said if they will be free, but if they do charge, I can't imagine it costing any more than any regular bus line in the city, which is usually $1.50-$2.50 each way. If you can get to a city center, you can get to a stadium. *The only cities that won't have the buses are some of the cities that already have rail lines going to the stadium, in which case they will increase the number of trains going to the stadium and establish express lines from the city center directly to the stadium on match days.* Getting to the stadium will not be a problem.


Do we even know what cities would be hosting venues if US got the bid? I was thinking it would be on the west coast, possibly in California and the furthest being northwest area. The high-speed rail network should be completed come 2022, or near completion come 2018 if that is when we get it. 
It would be a great idea to have the venues in California. The huge amount of foreign visitors would be a huge boost for the rail networks, and unlike the '94 world cup the venues wouldn't be cross-country from one another.


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

èđđeůx;60900905 said:


> Do we even know what cities would be hosting venues if US got the bid? I was thinking it would be on the west coast, possibly in California and the furthest being northwest area. The high-speed rail network should be completed come 2022, or near completion come 2018 if that is when we get it.
> It would be a great idea to have the venues in California. The huge amount of foreign visitors would be a huge boost for the rail networks, and unlike the '94 world cup the venues wouldn't be cross-country from one another.


http://www.gousabid.com/city

Cities in all four corners of the US and everywhere in-between. This is the USA bid, not the west-coast bid.

Airfare is cheap, Amtrak is an option (often not as cheap as flying, though), companies would organize buses catering to specific countries and their fans, travel agencies would be able to get package deals including lodging, travel, etc. all together for the group stages. Who knows how FIFA will split the group stages, maybe they'd keep an entire group within a certain section of the country.

Basically, it won't be an issue.


----------



## KingmanIII (Aug 25, 2008)

èđđeůx;60900905 said:


> Do we even know what cities would be hosting venues if US got the bid? I was thinking it would be on the west coast, possibly in California and the furthest being northwest area. The high-speed rail network should be completed come 2022, or near completion come 2018 if that is when we get it.
> It would be a great idea to have the venues in California. The huge amount of foreign visitors would be a huge boost for the rail networks, and unlike the '94 world cup the venues wouldn't be cross-country from one another.



















if you really thought they'd restrict the WC to West Coast cities and leave NYC/Miami/Dallas/etc. out of the bid


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> if you really thought they'd restrict the WC to West Coast cities and leave NYC/Miami/Dallas/etc. out of the bid


That picture only makes me feel better about Indianapolis' chance of hosting. Only city in the Great Lakes region.


----------



## Buffalo (Oct 15, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> if you really thought they'd restrict the WC to West Coast cities and leave NYC/Miami/Dallas/etc. out of the bid


I'm surprised that Chicago or Minneapolis isn't represented. Is there a reason they are not included. I would take out Baltimore and Tampa Bay, mostly to give each region of the nation some representation.


----------



## Luke80 (Jul 1, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> ^^ got my tickets yesterday (just barely) for the Wizards/Utd game -- nothing but isolated singles left


My favourite US stadium (well maybe after the Big House). Looks epic after the renovations. Could you get pics please?


----------



## Anubis2051 (Jan 28, 2010)

Why is soldier field being left off the bid list?

And is there any chance that college stadiums host any of the games? They have some of the largest capacities, and I think they could make for some very interesting venues:




























Luke80 said:


> My favourite US stadium (well maybe after the Big House). Looks epic after the renovations. Could you get pics please?


It's one of my favorite NFL stadiums as well (I much prefer MLB stadiums due to the uniqueness of each), and it has a lot of character that a lot of NFL stadiums seam to lack. The whole complex in KC looks incredible with the renovations. Glad Kaufman got the All-Star game in 2012, they deserve it.


----------



## endrity (Jun 20, 2009)

Anubis2051 said:


> Why is soldier field being left off the bid list?
> 
> And is there any chance that college stadiums host any of the games? They have some of the largest capacities, and I think they could make for some very interesting venues:
> 
> ...


No chance!

One of the main reasons those college stadiums have those large attendances is because they are not all-seaters. In fact, very few have seats. And Fifa and Uefa regulations now require all seaters in all international competitions, unlike in 1994 and the Rose Bowl. 

So once you reduce the attendance numbers, there is little to no advantage these college stadiums have. They are not as modern, no box seats and such, usually are located in smaller towns, away from the much larger centers of population. There is really no reason to go for college stadiums once you take that in consideration.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Buffalo said:


> I'm surprised that Chicago or Minneapolis isn't represented. Is there a reason they are not included. I would take out Baltimore and Tampa Bay, mostly to give each region of the nation some representation.


Minneapolis has to do with the stadium. I believe Chicago didn't want to bid or pay some fee to bid for some reason.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Yeah, Chicago wasn't willing to pay the $50,000 that every bidding city has to pay for a small guarantee. Chicago politics at their finest. Hopefully we can win the bid and Chicago gets their heads together and hosts. The one thing that keeps them from being a "must" host though is the small capacity of Soldier Field at just 61,500. That said, I still hope they can host matches, if the US does get to host.

As for the high speed rail, it's a failed plan and one that will serve no purpose whatsoever. The whole thing still doesn't have a business plan. It's claiming that it will reach speeds reached on only one rail line in China and with questionable safety. It has no price, but all experts have said that to come close to breaking even, the prices will be above that of a plane ticket. So, why would anyone take the rail line when they can go on a plane for less money and for 35% of the travel time?

I understand why rail is so popular in Europe and other parts of the world. I've used it when visiting and loved it, but the air travel in the US makes it unnecessary in most parts of the country. Only subway-like rail makes sense, IMO.

I would be shocked if the country wasn't split up into pods. Likely, it will be four pods of three cities each so two groups would be assigned to each pod. This would keep anyone from traveling cross-country during group play. For example, the West pod would be made up of Seattle, Los Angeles, San Diego (Phoenix also an option). A Northeast pod could be New York, Washington DC and Boston. If you're in those pods, you're not playing outside those three cities in the group stage, which minimizes travel, and they could reward group winners by keeping them in their pods for the Round of 16 as well.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Buju Banton said:


> You must be crazy. The 2010 world cup stadium were the best stadium ever used at a world cup. They were unique had culture, beauty and creativity. From a calabash, a baobab, a animal, to an arch and a beautiful setting the 2010 world cup stadiums had them all. They all meant something other then a stadium. Unlike the american stadiums, which are giant clunks and have no meaning. hno:


I know you're a troll, but what the hell. I'll bite.

Please explain your statement about how American stadiums are "giant clunks and have no meaning."




Hint: You wont win this argument.


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

Buffalo said:


> I'm surprised that Chicago or Minneapolis isn't represented. Is there a reason they are not included. I would take out Baltimore and Tampa Bay, mostly to give each region of the nation some representation.


Tampa will have High Speed Rail to connect to Orlando and light rail to connect Downtown Tampa to Tampa International Airport by the 2022 World Cup. FIFA doesn't care about an even amount of cities in a region hosting a match, they want to have cities that would make the best sense hosting a World Cup match.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

ryebreadraz said:


> Yeah, Chicago wasn't willing to pay the $50,000 that every bidding city has to pay for a small guarantee. Chicago politics at their finest. Hopefully we can win the bid and Chicago gets their heads together and hosts. The one thing that keeps them from being a "must" host though is the small capacity of Soldier Field at just 61,500. That said, I still hope they can host matches, if the US does get to host.
> .


I would have to look back but I think it was a ten million dollar commitment IF the U.S. was selected for each city. I think after the whole 2016 experience that was hesitation to throwing money at international events even though the big payment only would come if the US was selected (and hence be worth the payment).

I do hope that Chicago gets a chance to revisit the issue and San Fran gets a new stadium because it would be a shame to not have either of those two major metros host from a fan perspective and the U.S. as a whole.


----------



## The Game Is Up (Jan 2, 2004)

Luke80 said:


> My favourite US stadium (well maybe after the Big House). Looks epic after the renovations. Could you get pics please?


You can look at these while you wait for his response: http://kansascity.sbnation.com/2010...ictures-kansas-city-wizards-arrowhead-stadium

P.S. I have no connection to that site


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

Buju Banton said:


> You must be crazy. The 2010 world cup stadium were the best stadium ever used at a world cup. They were unique had culture, beauty and creativity. From a calabash, a baobab, a animal, to an arch and a beautiful setting the 2010 world cup stadiums had them all. They all meant something other then a stadium. Unlike the american stadiums, which are giant clunks and have no meaning. hno:


Hahahaha! 
You better stop hitting that weed, my friend, and come back to reality! 

looking forward to US 22!!!


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

ryebreadraz said:


> Hopefully we can win the bid and Chicago gets their heads together and hosts. ... That said, I still hope they can host matches, if the US does get to host.





nomarandlee said:


> I do hope that Chicago gets a chance to revisit the issue and San Fran gets a new stadium because it would be a shame to not have either of those two major metros host from a fan perspective and the U.S. as a whole.


From the official USA Bid website, http://www.gousabid.com/city :


> Official cities of the US World Cup Bid
> 
> Eighteen cities were selected for inclusion in the USA Bid for the 2018/2022 FIFA World Cups™.


It then lists those that are on the map posted a few back. By that wording, it sounds pretty final.

I understand a city could possibly be added, but I definitely don't anticipate US Soccer taking any games away from these cities listed (so, Indy will get games for sure). A friend even told me that she read an article saying Nashville would host X# of group-stage games. I couldn't find the article to verify the wording.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

RaiderATO said:


> From the official USA Bid website, http://www.gousabid.com/city :
> It then lists those that are on the map posted a few back. By that wording, it sounds pretty final.
> 
> I understand a city could possibly be added, but I definitely don't anticipate US Soccer taking any games away from these cities listed (so, Indy will get games for sure). A friend even told me that she read an article saying Nashville would host X# of group-stage games. I couldn't find the article to verify the wording.


Nothing is decided yet. At this stage your list is a list of options for fifa should the usa win; same as every other bids' lists. Only when a bid wins is the final list, in consultation with fifa, drawn up.


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

RaiderATO said:


> From the official USA Bid website, http://www.gousabid.com/city :
> It then lists those that are on the map posted a few back. By that wording, it sounds pretty final.
> 
> I understand a city could possibly be added, but I definitely don't anticipate US Soccer taking any games away from these cities listed (so, Indy will get games for sure). A friend even told me that she read an article saying Nashville would host X# of group-stage games. I couldn't find the article to verify the wording.


How do you figure? It is obvious a handful of cities from the 18 locations on the list aren't going to end up hosting any games unless. It would completely unprecedented to have 18 host and I don't even know if FIFA would sign off on the idea so it looks like _any_ city on the list could be disappointed and be left off. No city has a guaranteed to host even if US 2022 is selected so other then some hurt feelings what would be the big difference between denying two more cities out of handful that will be denied anyway?


----------



## eddeux (Jun 16, 2010)

KingmanIII said:


> if you really thought they'd restrict the WC to West Coast cities and leave NYC/Miami/Dallas/etc. out of the bid


Even if we get the '18 or '22 bid that doesn't mean NYC/Miami/Dallas will be host cities. I'm sure that one of those cities will be cut out IF Fifa picks the US.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

èđđeůx;60955155 said:


> Even if we get the '18 or '22 bid that doesn't mean NYC/Miami/Dallas will be host cities. I'm sure that one of those cities will be cut out IF Fifa picks the US.


Im pretty sure that New York, Miami and Dallas will all still be there.


----------



## marionthebarberian (Nov 3, 2009)

èđđeůx;60955155 said:


> Even if we get the '18 or '22 bid that doesn't mean NYC/Miami/Dallas will be host cities. I'm sure that one of those cities will be cut out IF Fifa picks the US.



NYC and Dallas WILL get to hosts.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

marionthebarberian said:


> NYC and Dallas WILL get to hosts.


I'd say they are the biggest locks out of any city.


----------



## The Dead End Kid (Jun 23, 2010)

Archbishop said:


> I'd say they are the biggest locks out of any city.


Don't forget about Los Angeles and Miami.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

The Dead End Kid said:


> Don't forget about* Los Angeles* and Miami.


If we don't get our stadium situation sorted out (I am very confident that we will), then we won't host. It doesn't matter how big of a city you are if you don't have the stadium and neither the Coliseum nor the Rose Bowl can do it.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

California could come up really short in this thing.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

The Dead End Kid said:


> Don't forget about Los Angeles and Miami.


Stadium for Los Angeles, and Miami as well but I feel better about the stadiums in Dallas and New York. If Miami does the renovations they've proposed then definitely them.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

If FIFA decides to skip Phoenix because of the immigration law, San Diego could replace Phoenix as venue. Two venues in California and two venues in Texas.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

Archbishop said:


> I'd say they are the biggest locks out of any city.


Agreed, with a second given being that at least 2 others will come from the northeast among DC, Baltimore, Philly and Boston. 

I'd say Seattle is right there as well if the city weren't so isolated. Costs for flying have grown ridiculous of late.


----------



## zdaddy233 (Oct 31, 2007)

CaliforniaJones said:


> If FIFA decides to skip Phoenix because of the immigration law, San Diego could replace Phoenix as venue. Two venues in California and two venues in Texas.


If FIFA skips over Phoenix because of that, it can officially be said that FIFA lacks anything that resembles a backbone.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

The Dead End Kid said:


> Don't forget about Los Angeles and Miami.


If you are going to call Miami a lock, then you certainly have to call both Boston and Washington, D.C. as locks.

I would say Chicago is a lock, but they are not on the list.

If people believe in the pod system, then the best bet for a pod would be Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. as a pod. There is easy rail (Amtrak) access between all 4 cities as well as a ton of buses and flights.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Hopefully by 2022 Snyder will have built the Enormo-Dome on the RFK site. I'm not a fan of FedEx Field at all.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

massp88 said:


> If you are going to call Miami a lock, then you certainly have to call both Boston and Washington, D.C. as locks.
> 
> I would say Chicago is a lock, but they are not on the list.
> 
> If people believe in the pod system, then the best bet for a pod would be Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C. as a pod. There is easy rail (Amtrak) access between all 4 cities as well as a ton of buses and flights.


I just cant see Boston having a chance in this thing. Gillette is too far away from Boston. Yeah you could set up transportation, but the whole situation looks like its set up to fail when there are going to be so many people staying in hotels that are 40 minutes away. Could it work? Sure. But its far from ideal.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

en1044 said:


> I just cant see Boston having a chance in this thing. Gillette is too far away from Boston. Yeah you could set up transportation, but the whole situation looks like its set up to fail when there are going to be so many people staying in hotels that are 40 minutes away. Could it work? Sure. But its far from ideal.


From a logistical and tournament planning point of view, I'm right with you, but you cannot discount the influence that Robert Kraft has in the USSF and the world of US soccer. I don't think they should host over New York, DC or Philly, but I think they will because of Kraft, if we get to host.


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

If nothing new happens in the capital when it's time to make the final decision then it stands to reason the higher calibre of venues in Philly and Boston become more appealing options. At the least Gillette and these others need to be considered and, let's face it, the faults with Boston are hardly unique or too daunting to overcome. The distance from downtown will simply be spun as having plenty of tailgate access for World Cup fans!


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

GunnerJacket said:


> If nothing new happens in the capital when it's time to make the final decision then it stands to reason the higher calibre of venues in Philly and Boston become more appealing options. At the least Gillette and these others need to be considered and, let's face it, the faults with Boston are hardly unique or too daunting to overcome. The distance from downtown will simply be spun as having plenty of tailgate access for World Cup fans!


DC is pretty close to a lock in my book, not matter what Boston and Philly offer. With it being the capital and 90,000+ seats, either at FedEx or a new stadium, I don't see any chance that DC ends up not hosting.


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

CaliforniaJones said:


> If FIFA decides to skip Phoenix because of the immigration law, San Diego could replace Phoenix as venue. Two venues in California and two venues in Texas.


you can then count out most of the country as most states will adopt similar laws if Obama doesn't get the law overturned. I expect Texas, Missouri, and Florida to be world cup states that adopt similar laws.


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

weava said:


> you can then count out most of the country as most states will adopt similar laws if Obama doesn't get the law overturned. I expect Texas, Missouri, and Florida to be world cup states that adopt similar laws.


I can see texas doing something like the AZ law sooner rather than later. but this is getting OT


----------



## Hia-leah JDM (May 7, 2007)

Does this list of cities on the official website really mean anything? What are the rankings for?

http://www.gousabid.com/blog/entry/the-leaderboard-july-13-2010/


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Hia-leah JDM said:


> Does this list of cities on the official website really mean anything? What are the rankings for?
> 
> http://www.gousabid.com/blog/entry/the-leaderboard-july-13-2010/


Number of signatures for the GoUSABid thing from each city. It is just for fun, but I do not see the bottom 4 cities getting it anyways.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

I'm very surprised that DC is as far down the list as they are. People love soccer around here.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Phoenix is not going to be skipped.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

rantanamo said:


> Phoenix is not going to be skipped.


I think it might, but not because of the immigration law. If San Francisco gets their stadium situation sorted out, I think that they would hop in and host on the West Coast along with LA and Seattle.


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

ryebreadraz said:


> I think it might, but not because of the immigration law. If San Francisco gets their stadium situation sorted out, I think that they would hop in and host on the West Coast along with LA and Seattle.


Even though it may be a little older at that point, I think they'd be foolish to leave a top flight facility like U of Phoenix stadium in a large metropolitan market like Phoenix off of the stadium list.


----------



## derzberb (Aug 13, 2009)

KingmanIII said:


> if you really thought they'd restrict the WC to West Coast cities and leave NYC/Miami/Dallas/etc. out of the bid


Why isn't Chicago one of the host cities? How could this be?


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

derzberb said:


> Why isn't Chicago one of the host cities? How could this be?


They didn't cough up the dough


----------



## The Dead End Kid (Jun 23, 2010)

derzberb said:


> Why isn't Chicago one of the host cities? How could this be?


Because we're cheap. That's why.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

en1044 said:


> I just cant see Boston having a chance in this thing. Gillette is too far away from Boston. Yeah you could set up transportation, but the whole situation looks like its set up to fail when there are going to be so many people staying in hotels that are 40 minutes away. Could it work? Sure. But its far from ideal.


Foxboro hosted in 1994 and every match had at least 53,000 people at it. I would bet that every match at Gillette would either be sold out, or have at least 62-64,000 at every match. The region is home to large populations of people either from other countries or are first generation. As mentioned Bob Kraft is very influential, Boston is a major city and one of the finest in the U.S. and I would be willing to bet special accommodations would be made by the MBTA in time for 2022 to make transport to the stadium a breeze. 



The Dead End Kid said:


> Because we're cheap. That's why.


I think it would be a joke if a city like Indianapolis were chosen and a city like Chicago, easily one of the best in all of America, did not get to host.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

It would suck if Chicago doesn't host since you're right that it's the best city in the country, but Indianapolis will do a great job with it. If there's any city that can host a big sporting event, it's Indy.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

derzberb said:


> Why isn't Chicago one of the host cities? How could this be?


Either revenge for Chicago being bowed out first during the 2016 Olympics vote, or the fact that Soldier Field isn't up to scratch. Could be both.

At any rate, the city could host one of the draws, but Las Vegas is just too good to pass for such events.


----------



## derzberb (Aug 13, 2009)

Indianapolis has no soccer team in first Division, i think. Nashville also.

Chicago is one of the most known Cities in the world from the US. You think of US-cities you start with New York, LA and then Chicago. Can't imagine such an event there without Chicago. As if the world cup were in Italy, but Milano or Torino or Naples wouldn't host or in Germany without Munich or Hamburg and so on ...


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

Soldier Field not up to scratch? New Soldier has hosted many international soccer games before. 

Where do you get Las Vegas from? They are not going to be playing games in Las Vegas in the middle of the summer unless it is under a roof. Right now there is no enclsed stadium for them to play in Las Vegas.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

derzberb said:


> Indianapolis has no soccer team in first Division, i think. Nashville also.
> 
> Chicago is one of the most known Cities in the US. Can't imagine such an event there without Chicago. As if the world cup were in Italy, but Milano or Torino or Naples wouldn't host or in Germany without Munich or Hamburg and so on ...


It sucks that there is no Chicago. I love it, but having an MLS team isn't a pre-requisite since so much of that is based off of an ownership group in the city. This is just an event, and Indianapolis is perfect for hosting big sporting events. Between now and 2015, Indianapolis will have hosted a Super Bowl, 2 Men's Final Fours, 2 Women's Final Fours, 5 Big Ten basketball championships for both men and women, the 2nd biggest NASCAR race every year and the biggest American open wheel race 5 times with potential for a Big Ten Football championship game. Indianapolis will do a great job, but an unbiased me would prefer it in Chicago. Beautiful city.


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

I dont like the cities on there either. My pick would be
1) The 5Million+ metros first:
Atlanta
Boston
Chicago
Dallas
Detroit
Houston
Los Angeles
Miami
New York
Philadelphia
San Francisco
and Washington

2)then some more regional cities
Denver
Minneapolis
New Orleans
Phoenix
Seattle
and presto 17 cities!!!
To show a little kitschy Americana to the foreign visitors, Las Vegas might be fun to add.

As for the Arizona law, i have high certainty that one one will even be thinking about that in 2022. Political jargon before the midterms is what it is.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

It looks like the 49ers Stadium in Santa Clara should be upand running by 2014. In soccer configuration, that one can supposedly seat 67,500. So Chicago and the Bay Area should definitely be included in the final mix...hopefully.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

I don't think Atlanta should even be building a new white elephant stadium in the US is chosen to host the FIFA World Cup. That proposal has been moot for, like, several months. :bash:


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Gondolier said:


> It looks like the 49ers Stadium in Santa Clara should be upand running by 2014. In soccer configuration, that one can supposedly seat 67,500. So Chicago and the Bay Area should definitely be included in the final mix...hopefully.


I heard it will hold 69,000 for soccer, but whether you or I are right, it will definitely be in the mix to host if it gets built. If they get a stadium done, San Diego does and LA does, then it becomes a real West Coast crunch. I highly doubt more than three West Coast sites host so which three do you pick of LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle and Phoenix, all with modern and very nice stadia? It would be interesting.



Jim856796 said:


> I don't think Atlanta should even be building a new white elephant stadium in the US is chosen to host the FIFA World Cup. That proposal has been moot for, like, several months. :bash:


The talk about Atlanta building a new stadium is not for the World Cup. It would be a candidate to host matches if the US hosts, but if it's built, it will be for the Falcons so it definitely won't be a white elephant.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

From those: Seattle, LA and Phoenix.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> From those: Seattle, LA and Phoenix.


Assuming all five have modern stadiums, LA is the only one that I think has to be in there. The other four would all do a fantastic job as well and it would be hard to pick two of the four, but I would probably go Seattle and San Francisco. I wouldn't have a problem with any two of the four though.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

There are no plans to build anywhere near San Francisco, though. The 49ers duped Santa Clarans into building a bare-bones piece of shit that's not really going to impress anybody enough to squeeze it onto the list. Qwest and UofPhoenix would still win out 12 years from now.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> There are no plans to build anywhere near San Francisco, though. The 49ers duped Santa Clarans into building a bare-bones piece of shit that's not really going to impress anybody enough to squeeze it onto the list. Qwest and UofPhoenix would still win out 12 years from now.


It's down in Santa Clara, but it will do. It's a relatively easy ride on the Cal Train down to Santa Clara from San Francisco and I just think that San Francisco is too accessible from Asia for them or Santa Clara not to host if they have a stadium. With all the flights going into SFO, it makes too much sense to host some matches there. That said, I'd be plenty happy with Qwest and UofPhoenix too. I haven't been to Qwest yet, but it looks great and Seattle loves their soccer, while my trip to UofPhoenix for soccer was fantastic so I like them both.


----------



## pathfinder_2010 (Nov 20, 2009)

the USA have too many venues and too many world class stadiums. They dont have to do much work in terms of building a world cup infrastructure
Many countries would love to be in USA's position.......


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> It's down in Santa Clara, but it will do. It's a relatively easy ride on the Cal Train down to Santa Clara from San Francisco and I just think that San Francisco is too accessible from Asia for them or Santa Clara not to host if they have a stadium. With all the flights going into SFO, it makes too much sense to host some matches there. That said, I'd be plenty happy with Qwest and UofPhoenix too. I haven't been to Qwest yet, but it looks great and Seattle loves their soccer, while my trip to UofPhoenix for soccer was fantastic so I like them both.


Have you ever ridden Caltrain? It's slow and faces frequent delays (breakdowns, collisions, suicides, etc). I met a couple friends at the Santa Clara station for a Quakes game last month and their trip took over an hour. Hell, it took 20 minutes just from the Mountain View station.

Also, it terminates at 4th and King in San Francisco, which is not really at or near prime tourist area. There'd be a couple miles of walking just from Market Street, let alone places north of that. At the other end, the tracks go nowhere near the proposed Santa Clara Stadium. In all, it could be a Muni ride plus an hour of Caltrain plus a VTA ride just to get there.

I wasn't old enough in '94 to study the dynamics/logistics of holding the event at Stanford (billed "San Francisco" for visitors) but I can't see this being better at all.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

I've taken the Cal Train several times for Quakes matches and it's been no more than an hour and rather easy for me. I haven't had a single problem.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Where did you stay in San Francisco? The Santa Clara station is across the street from Buck Shaw, so that cuts off time from that end.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

krudmonk said:


> Where did you stay in San Francisco? The Santa Clara station is across the street from Buck Shaw, so that cuts off time from that end.


I'm going to school at USF so I've made the trip a few times since starting school up here. I don't know where in Santa Clara the 49ers proposed stadium is so that would effect the time on that end, but for Buck Shaw, it's been pretty easy for me.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

ryebreadraz said:


> Atlanta building a new stadium is not for the World Cup. It would be a candidate to host matches if the US hosts, but if it's built, it will be for the Falcons so it definitely won't be a white elephant.


Um, yes, it will. I don't care if its a candidate for WC matches, why should the Falcons get a new stadium if the Georgia Dome is already good enough, haven't we gotten off this issue already? For a WC in the USA, either use the Georgia Dome, or no matches for the Atlanta area.


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

Jim856796 said:


> Um, yes, it will. I don't care if its a candidate for WC matches, why should the Falcons get a new stadium if the Georgia Dome is already good enough, haven't we gotten off this issue already? For a WC in the USA, either use the Georgia Dome, or no matches for the Atlanta area.


if the falcons want a new stadium, and the atlanta area tax payers are willing to pay for it, then why not build a new stadium. 10-12 years is a long time anyway, so anything could happen.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

Jim856796 said:


> the Georgia Dome is already good enough


Arthur Blank does not agree


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

slipperydog said:


> Arthur Blank does not agree


The taxpayers do, and they are the ones that make the decision. Georgia Dome is perfectly fine, one of my favorites.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

ryebreadraz said:


> I'm going to school at USF so I've made the trip a few times since starting school up here. I don't know where in Santa Clara the 49ers proposed stadium is so that would effect the time on that end, but for Buck Shaw, it's been pretty easy for me.


The 49ers stadium site is in the parking lot of GreatAmerica. It was chosen because it was at a confluence of 2 or 3 freeways, the ample land PLUS they will be building at least one major hotel beside it to lodge visiting teams and VIPs. 

Further, not only is SFO a major gateway from Asia, San Jose Int'l is gearing up as the 2nd major Bay Area airport since San Jose is actually the 3rd largest city in California now after LA and San Diego. I really don't see how they can bypass the Bay Area (including Silicon Valley) because as of today, that is an 8.5 million market.

Also, apparently San Jose-Silicon Valley is seeking to host a World's Fair for 2020. So, how that can happen and then not have a venue for, say, 2022, really defies all common sense and logic.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

mattec said:


> if the falcons want a new stadium, and the atlanta area tax payers are willing to pay for it, then why not build a new stadium. 10-12 years is a long time anyway, so anything could happen.


A new stadium is built in that area, it will mean death for the Georgia Dome and the latter cannot happen.


----------



## RaiderATO (Jan 6, 2010)

Jim856796 said:


> A new stadium is built in that area, it will mean death for the Georgia Dome and the latter cannot happen.


The Georgia Dome is run by the Georgia World Congress Center and hosts 100+ events a year. While the Falcons are their most famous tenant, and are one of the biggest draws, they would actually survive without the 8 Falcons games.


----------



## Kenni (Jul 26, 2007)

ryebreadraz said:


> I heard it will hold 69,000 for soccer, but whether you or I are right, it will definitely be in the mix to host if it gets built. If they get a stadium done, San Diego does and LA does, then it becomes a real West Coast crunch. I highly doubt more than three West Coast sites host so which three do you pick of LA, San Francisco, San Diego, Seattle and Phoenix, all with modern and very nice stadia? It would be interesting.
> 
> 
> 
> The talk about Atlanta building a new stadium is not for the World Cup. It would be a candidate to host matches if the US hosts, but if it's built, it will be for the Falcons so it definitely won't be a white elephant.


*LA* is an almost "must" when it comes to a WC. It would be unheard of if the City is omitted. Partly because of its excellent history in holding world events very successfully (2 Summer Olympics, First and many more Super Bowls, 94 World Cup final etc.)

AEG, developer of the Staples Center, LA Live, the Ritz Carlton and JW Marriot, and owner or part owner of the LA Galaxy among other things; is VERY interested in the World Cup. That means scratching the "other" plan for a stad in City of Industry and building a "masterpiece" in Downtown.......we'll see what happens.


----------



## massp88 (Jun 20, 2008)

LA GRAN TURKA said:


> why is it always New York? why cant the WC Finals be in miami? dolphins stadium is too old.. time for a new stadium in miami.. were gonna build a better one then dallas..


Because NYC is the most prominent city in the United States. 

Also, I doubt Miami will be building a new stadium for the Dolphins, let alone one that beats Cowboys Stadium (that would take well over $1 Billion USD). We just forked over a TON of tax payer dollars for the Marlins new ballpark. Besides, Sun Life was built in the late 1980s and is hardly old. They will carry out the simple improvements and the stadium will be around for another 20-25 years.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

LA GRAN TURKA said:


> why is it always New York? .


Because of the population numbers; because the media have global facilities already in the major cities and capitals like New York.


----------



## eMKay (Feb 2, 2007)

LA GRAN TURKA said:


> why is it always New York? why cant the WC Finals be in miami? dolphins stadium is too old.. time for a new stadium in miami.. were gonna build a better one then dallas..


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

You're not getting a new stadium, especially not one better than Dallas. You're getting a revamped stadium with an open roof.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Gondolier said:


> He just speaks the truth. What is wrong with that? Has being PC killed all honesty? hno:


Probably because he's not speaking the truth. 

First of all, if you go to a US soccer match in the US, the racial breakdown is not nearly as Hispanic as many would like you to believe. Whites still make up the majority there, at least among the US supporters. 

Second, Georgia has a Hispanic population that makes up nearly 10% of the population and it's rapidly growing. 

Third, they've reasonably drawn well when they have gotten soccer matches. 

Fourth, the notion that a city needs a MLS franchise as evidence of soccer support was debunked forever this summer when Miami, San Diego, Norfolk, West Palm Beach, Las Vegas and Baltimore all ranked in the top 10 in TV ratings for World Cup broadcasts, none of which have a MLS team. That was just for English. In Spanish, Miami, Las Vegas, San Antonio, Sacramento and Austin all ranked in the top 10, again all without MLS franchises. Oh yeah, Miami led in both languages.


----------



## crazydude (Aug 4, 2009)

Wouldn't New York be best to get the final? Biggest city, quite a new stadium, lovely backdrop. Also the game could be played in the late afternoon or early evening, and still be at a good time in Europe.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

crazydude said:


> Wouldn't New York be best to get the final? Biggest city, quite a new stadium, lovely backdrop. Also the game could be played in the late afternoon or early evening, and still be at a good time in Europe.


Maybe, but Washington is also in the same time zones. I hate it when the final isn't played in the capital city. It just irks me.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Gondolier said:


> He just speaks the truth. What is wrong with that? Has being PC killed all honesty? hno:


All you have to do is look at US national players over the years to see that the comment was fucking stupid, not just politically incorrect.


----------



## crazydude (Aug 4, 2009)

en1044 said:


> Maybe, but Washington is also in the same time zones. I hate it when the final isn't played in the capital city. It just irks me.


Well I think that NY is the premier city in the US. Plus their isn't really a 'rule' to say that the final needs to be in the capital. SA hosted it in Joburg, not 1 of our 3 capital cities. 2002 was in Yokahama, not the capital, and 98 was technically in Saint Dennis, not Paris. Even the last US World Cup had the final in LA.


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

crazydude said:


> Wouldn't New York be best to get the final? Biggest city, quite a new stadium, lovely backdrop. Also the game could be played in the late afternoon or early evening, and still be at a good time in Europe.


'New York's' stadium is in the Meadowlands in New Jersey. 

Its Not:
- A pretty place
- Nor does it have a lovely backdrop. Prey it doesn't rain or is really hot that day.

A revamped Rose Bowl would be much more picturesque and offer more to see and do. California is one of the most scenic places on the entire planet, and the LA Basin has incredible weather. Besides, the U.S. is trying to impress who?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

FIFA


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

rantanamo said:


> 'New York's' stadium is in the Meadowlands in New Jersey.
> 
> Its Not:
> - A pretty place
> ...


Those Australian Eucalypts really do the job.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

rantanamo said:


> 'New York's' stadium is in the Meadowlands in New Jersey.
> 
> Its Not:
> - A pretty place
> ...


Unfortunately a revamped Rose Bowl is out of the question. The stadium will undergo some renovations in the next few years, but they will serve to expand luxury seating and some ingress/egress issues. That will be about it. It will not address the rest of the stadium's issues and the City of Pasadena had to really stretch itself to get the money for what they are doing. The rest of the renovations necessary to meet FIFA guidelines will not be done.

If LA is to host, it will be either at the new stadium in Industry or in AEG's proposed downtown stadium, whichever is built. If it is Industry, I highly doubt that LA hosts the final. In fact, I would cross it off the list of possibilities. 

If it's AEG's downtown stadium, it would be the favorite to host the final, in my opinion, and would do a fantastic job with it. It would be right in the middle of downtown so overhead shots would look great with the California sun, the skyscrapers, Staples Center, etc. A fan fest can even be held at the new park under construction downtown that would allow some fantastic overhead shots of the stadium, downtown and a fan fest all in one. A lot of the hotels for FIFA and everyone in LA would be within walking distance of the stadium, plus Staples Center and the Convention Center would be right next door for any other events to be put on around the final. Oh yeah, the stadium would seat 80,000 with a retractable roof. Not bad.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

RobH said:


> FIFA


rofl


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

crazydude said:


> Well I think that NY is the premier city in the US. Plus their isn't really a 'rule' to say that the final needs to be in the capital. SA hosted it in Joburg, not 1 of our 3 capital cities. 2002 was in Yokahama, not the capital, and 98 was technically in Saint Dennis, not Paris. Even the last US World Cup had the final in LA.


New York may be the premier city in the United States, but the IS isn't like a lot of small countries where they only have one real big city. You could pick a whole bunch of cities in the US to host the final.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

There are many possibilities for final hosts if the USA will be awarded a WC.

*Opening game & final in one city*

(more appealing and worldwide city)

1 NY
2 LA
3 Washington DC
4 Miami
5 Dallas

*Opening game & final in two cities*

NY & LA
Dallas & Miami
Washington DC & LA
Dallas & NY
NY & Washington DC


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

I doubt anybody else will agree with this but I think a good idea for opening game is Kansas City. It is in the heartland and is the type of city that represents what the USA is all about. The geographical center of the US is in Kansas, the population center is in Missouri, so the city on the border of those two states is about the most middle of america you can get.
-just my thoughts. (and yes I'm a biased Missourian)

They did do a pretty good job with the opening celebrations at this weeks game.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

weava said:


> I doubt anybody else will agree with this but I think a good idea for opening game is Kansas City. It is in the heartland and is the type of city that represents what the USA is all about. The geographical center of the US is in Kansas, the population center is in Missouri, so the city on the border of those two states is about the most middle of america you can get.
> -just my thoughts. (and yes I'm a biased Missourian)
> 
> They did do a pretty good job with the opening celebrations at this weeks game.


I disagree. I am going for Tulsa for Openers and the Closing in Tijuana. :lol:


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Kansas City needs to worry about getting to host any matches, let alone the opener. They're far from a sure thing to host any matches, assuming the US wins the bid.


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

soup or man said:


> Not nice. Not nice at all.


Lol typical americans having a period when it comes to talking about race. The South sould be looking like Brazil or the Dominican Republic by now. It is indeed a shame. hno:


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

Kansas City might not even get a game, let alone the opener


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

soup or man said:


> Right because Brazil and the Dominican Republic are such utopias.


:lol: 

Owned!


----------



## nomarandlee (Sep 24, 2005)

ADCS said:


> I find it funny that people have a problem with both Dallas and Houston hosting matches, but much fewer would have an issue with say, New York and Washington hosting matches concurrently, even though the pairs of cities are roughly the same distance from one another.


Who has an issue with Houston and Dallas hosting matches concurrently or otherwise?


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

One thing I just realized, and I don't know why it took me so long to realize this, is that the average ticket sales would likely be larger than the 78,000 stadium average. Because some venues host more matches than others, odds are the larger stadiums will host more matches than smaller ones, pushing the capacity even higher. Kind of crazy to think about.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)




----------



## pathfinder_2010 (Nov 20, 2009)

BACK THE BID
BACK THE BID
BACK THE BID

BACK THE USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:cheers:


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

slipperydog said:


>


Morgan Freeman should be enough to get us the WC....


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Being British but having spent a year of study in the United States I would like to mention some things.

i) From personal experience, the U.S. has some of the most devoted and dedicated Soccer/Football fans in the entire world. I have seen with my own eyes Americans, particularly of the younger generations, glued to the television whenever their particular team is playing.

ii) There is a generation of younger soccer/football fans who are in direct contrast to the establishment, and it is growing. Soccer/football fans in the U.S. are in many ways targeted for supporting their sport. American sports networks pay huge amounts of attention towards American Football, Basketball and Baseball with Soccer/Football barely getting a mention. Despite this, I know personally of many people who are outright annoyed at this fact, and in many circumstances hate the prevailing dominance of these aforementioned sports.

iii) Most Americans of a certain age are aware of the world cup, and are playing the sport. Yes people like Glenn Beck *spit* are catering to an audience who apparently disapprove of the U.S. adopting any sort of global attitude, and there is a large audience who outright reject Soccer/Football as a legitimate sport in the United States, however the numbers of people, particularly of student age who have continually played since their childhood is growing in the U.S.

Basically what i'm trying to say is, by 2022, I fully expect the U.S.A. and it's population, who by this time have perhaps grown up with an appreciation of the sport, to fully adopt the honour of the World Cup and become a respected Soccer/Football power within the world.

But alas, that is my two cents.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

....I just wish they'd drop the "Soccer" tag and call it Association Football, but that's just me :naughty:


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

matthemod said:


> ....I just wish they'd drop the "Soccer" tag and call it Association Football, but that's just me :naughty:


You Brits came up with the word. You have no one to blame but yourselves! :lol:


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

matthemod said:


> ....I just wish they'd drop the "Soccer" tag and call it Association Football, but that's just me :naughty:


That's too cumbersome. If it were up to me, all footballs would have nifty and specific names like "soccer." It's just one word, two syllables and no ambiguity. 

"Hockey" could be the same way if you people didn't play that hunchback version on outdoor carpet with the Nerf goalies...


----------



## BoulderGrad (Jun 29, 2005)

slipperydog said:


>


Good video, but I could actually see the pain in the British guy's face when he said "bring the game to the United States." (see for yourself, 1:47)


----------



## Alan21LP (Aug 20, 2009)

I totally support the USA for 2022, 2018 World Cup should be for England or Australia, that's my opinion.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Alan21LP said:


> I totally support the USA for 2022, 2018 World Cup should be for England or Australia, that's my opinion.


Clearly you haven't kept up with any nations outside of the US, Australia is no longer bidding for the 2018 Football World Cup.


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

slipperydog said:


>


That just made me puke! 

If the US wants the bid, then there should be americans in the video (which race I couldn't care less), not a bunch of other people in their home countries jerseys. 

The US isn't some sort of international airport where people can come and go. It's a country with it's people, language and culture. 

So... 
I want a video with americans, in american jerseys speaking english in american. 
Not mexicans in mexico flags, polish in polish flags, brazilians in brazil flags and so on... 

This isn't some lame racism thing, it really isn't. It's about americans being AMERICAN.


----------



## matthemod (Apr 8, 2008)

Does that mean you're going to get some Cherokee guys in Cherokee nations shirts speaking?


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

1772 said:


> The US isn't some sort of international airport where people can come and go.


To some extent, it is.


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

1772 said:


> That just made me puke!
> 
> If the US wants the bid, then there should be americans in the video (which race I couldn't care less), not a bunch of other people in their home countries jerseys.
> 
> ...



What ever it takes to win


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

1772 said:


> That just made me puke!
> 
> If the US wants the bid, then there should be americans in the video (which race I couldn't care less), not a bunch of other people in their home countries jerseys.
> 
> ...


I don't usually let the comments of others dictate my mood, but I'm actually slightly embarrassed. For the record, they've already done a video with Americans with 'American' accents but this is a stupid, ignorant post. That's what makes this country the best in the world, and if you don't like it you can GTFO. So no one that's immigrated here is allowed to wear the jersey of their home nation? Absolutely laughable.

A Pole living in America, a Brit living in America, a whatever living in America has just as much a right to a USA World Cup as you or I. And that video is actually a perfect representation of the 'people, language and culture' of this country, as you say. Like it or not (I don't know why you wouldn't), this country is one-of-a-kind in the world today in that it is a true melting pot. The USA makes the UK actually look homogenous. It's sad, but it's the few people like you who are setting the country back.

EDIT: In other news, ESPN just hired Ian Darke to be the lead voice on practically every soccer match they broadcast, including USA men and women games, and even some MLS! We got Darke! We got Darke!


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

Is that Mia Hamm at 1:55? 

If so, she got old


----------



## 1772 (Aug 18, 2009)

matthemod said:


> Does that mean you're going to get some Cherokee guys in Cherokee nations shirts speaking?


Yes! Giv'em to me! 
White people, black people and cherokees! That sounds great. :cheers:



krudmonk said:


> To some extent, it is.


No. 
It might have been once, but not today. The USA is more and more becoming a true nation-state, with it's own distinct culture. 
The airport days are over.



slipperydog said:


> I don't usually let the comments of others dictate my mood, but I'm actually slightly embarrassed. For the record, they've already done a video with Americans with 'American' accents but this is a stupid, ignorant post. That's what makes this country the best in the world, and if you don't like it you can GTFO. So no one that's immigrated here is allowed to wear the jersey of their home nation? Absolutely laughable.
> 
> A Pole living in America, a Brit living in America, a whatever living in America has just as much a right to a USA World Cup as you or I. And that video is actually a perfect representation of the 'people, language and culture' of this country, as you say. Like it or not (I don't know why you wouldn't), this country is one-of-a-kind in the world today in that it is a true melting pot. The USA makes the UK actually look homogenous. It's sad, but it's the few people like you who are setting the country back.
> 
> EDIT: In other news, ESPN just hired Ian Darke to be the lead voice on practically every soccer match they broadcast, including USA men and women games, and even some MLS! We got Darke! We got Darke!


Could you please read what I'm writing, and not what your liberal mind is telling you? 

A pole, brazilian, argentinian, whatever has his full right to wear the jersey of his home country. 
But I don't see why the US bid should emphazise them? 

If the other bids emphazises people of that bid country, then why dosen't the US do the same? 

Do you think that Japan would do a clip like this? H*ll NO!


----------



## rockin'.baltimorean (Jul 5, 2008)

^^yeah, right....


----------



## boyerling3 (Jun 1, 2009)

I really wish that a soccer specific stadium was included in the bid. Obviously there really isn't one in the US (yet) that could hold the expected capacity. It really would be amazing to show people that soccer in the US doesn't just need to be big with big international teams and big stadiums when the world cup is going on, but the bigness of soccer can go beyond the WC. Basically I'd just love to see large SSS that reach capacity with some regularity. That may be a while though.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

boyerling3 said:


> I really wish that a soccer specific stadium was included in the bid. Obviously there really isn't one in the US (yet) that could hold the expected capacity. It really would be amazing to show people that soccer in the US doesn't just need to be big with big international teams and big stadiums when the world cup is going on, but the bigness of soccer can go beyond the WC. Basically I'd just love to see large SSS that reach capacity with some regularity. That may be a while though.


A large SSS doesn't really make sense though. 

Mostly because football and soccer pitches are so similar in size that it doesn't really make sense to make one without allowing football to be played there. 

I believe the Sounders could build a 40k stadium and fill it up every week but it doesn't make sense to move out of Qwest.


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

Since some uncontrolled posters got the 2018/2022 thread closed, I guess all the discussion of both our bid and comments about other bids can go in here.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

So, AEG is going forward with their proposed stadium in downtown LA. The stadium would hold 75,000, expandable to over 80,000 and would have a retractable roof. This has to be another feather in the cap for the US bid considering that neither the Rose Bowl nor the Coliseum is likely to be able to host World Cup matches. I would also make the AEG stadium the front-runner to host the Final if the US hosts and it gets built.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

It will be a nice stadium no doubt, but I think there will be too much political pressure within USSF and FIFA for an eastern site this time around, especially with the tournaments happening in such close proximity. I think Snyder's new stadium should get it...that would be fabulous, especially if it's at RFK.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

For example, Munich is a sleeker stadium than Berlin, but the final went to the capital for a host of reasons.


----------



## Trelawny (Jan 9, 2010)

If USA gets the bid it will be the biggest LOL of the year. USA would be wise and drop out to focus on 2026.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

slipperydog said:


> For example, Munich is a sleeker stadium than Berlin, but the final went to the capital for a host of reasons.


It went to the capital for capacity reasons. Munich Olympic Stadium, though theoretically similar in capacity (assuming upgrades) was never chosen as a WC venue for 2006. The fact that Berlin is now one again is also an important factor.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Trelawny said:


> If USA gets the bid it will be the biggest LOL of the year. USA would be wise and drop out to focus on 2026.


What do you mean? It's just FIFA saying that Australia isn't ready, but of course that would be doom for our WC hopes as China is surely to make a very competitive bid for 2026.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Lord David said:


> What do you mean? It's just FIFA saying that Australia isn't ready, but of course that would be doom for our WC hopes as China is surely to make a very competitive bid for 2026.


not sure about that - I think Australia is ready to host, but if the US is chosen its because their bid is simply superior (an on paper its hard to argue with this)

Still not sold on China for 2026 though, the FA and Bin Hammam have been the only ones to talk it up so far, with Beijing strangely silent. Until the govt is on board, its not happening (but they will have the better part of 8 years most likely to change their mind).


----------



## jacoboy7 (Feb 8, 2009)

Trelawny said:


> If USA gets the bid it will be the biggest LOL of the year. USA would be wise and drop out to focus on 2026.


Wtf, why are you saying this about every bid, you said that is England win 2018 australia won't win 2022..
Are you mentally disabled or something, GTFO of the threads and leave your opinion elsewhere.

P.S
Good luck USA


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

slipperydog said:


> For example, Munich is a sleeker stadium than Berlin, but the final went to the capital for a host of reasons.


Munich's stadium isn't large enough to meet FIFA requirements for the Final. Honestly, with all of the pull AEG has in US Soccer, I just can't imagine their crown jewel stadium with a retractable roof in the heart of downtown LA, near public transportation, LA Live, Staples Center and hotels being passed over. It would be a gem of a stadium in the heart of the country's second largest city, a soccer hotbed, and then AEG exerts some of their influence.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

AEG does have a lot of influence. That's the only way I could see them getting the final, but I think they would settle for a semifinal if they had to. But I would argue that the Mid-Atlantic is actually more of a soccer hotbed than Southern California. Depends on your criteria.

Washington's urban plan is actually more European than LA, especially in terms of public transit. While LA does have a stop near the stadium, unless you are planning on staying downtown and doing all your tourism stuff down there the entire time, it's not the ideal location for foreigners because it's not as well connected to surrounding infrastructure such as hotels, restaurants outside of downtown. It's definitely getting better, and I alluded to this in another thread about connecting to Pasadena and Hollywood, but it's still not as well-developed as DC. The DC transit system allows people to be more dispersed around tourist attractions and suburban areas, then easily take the train on gameday. Depending on where the new stadium is built, I think DC would put on the best the best single-day event of all the cities. Not to mention a massive fan fest on the National Mall would cap off an incredible day.


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

T74 said:


> not sure about that - I think Australia is ready to host, but if the US is chosen its because their bid is simply superior (an on paper its hard to argue with this)
> 
> Still not sold on China for 2026 though, the FA and Bin Hammam have been the only ones to talk it up so far, with Beijing strangely silent. Until the govt is on board, its not happening (but they will have the better part of 8 years most likely to change their mind).


China has plenty of major cities with 60,000+ stadiums already available.
Most of these cities have reasonable infrastructure already.
They got the hosting experience with recent major events like the 2008 Olympics.

The only downside would be that most of them are athletic track based. I'm sure that some could be retrofitted with some infield seating to make it seem more of a rectangular bowl and add additional seating. 

In essence, they're pretty much close to ready, just improvements in infrastructure and hotel construction here and there, perhaps proposing a stadium or two to wow FIFA, but really, they don't need to do so.

So if Australia fails in 2022, China could really present a very tough bid to beat.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

Lord David said:


> China has plenty of major cities with 60,000+ stadiums already available.
> Most of these cities have reasonable infrastructure already.
> They got the hosting experience with recent major events like the 2008 Olympics.
> 
> ...


China is not about infrastructure, that is a no brainer

Its about an incredibly corrupt local football situation, and an extremely uncompetitive national team - both of which are a national embarrassment right now

Govt is trying to clean up the local scene, but it is a work in progress. as for the national team, they are throwing a fair bit of money at the problem, but it takes time.

Beijing is doing the right moves, but the clean out they are doing will take time. Until they are done, I cannot see them bidding - but as mentioned they will have up to 8 years to get their house in order.


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

I thought China dropped out of the 2026 bid?.......


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

TampaMike said:


> I thought China dropped out of the 2026 bid?.......


the head of their FA came out and said it would be a great idea, if the USA won for China to get 2026. The rest of the confed was not overly impressed with this though, and he later said he was taken out of context and supported an Asian bid for 2022.

Personally I think he wants to put his hand up, but quietly got told by the powers that be to pull his head in

since then, Bin Hammam has also been praising a China bid for 2026


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

T74 said:


> not sure about that - I think Australia is ready to host, but if the US is chosen its because their bid is simply superior (an on paper its hard to argue with this)
> 
> Still not sold on China for 2026 though, the FA and Bin Hammam have been the only ones to talk it up so far, with Beijing strangely silent. Until the govt is on board, its not happening (but they will have the better part of 8 years most likely to change their mind).


I have my doubts that any bid is going to take place before the chinese national team shows some sign of being competitive.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

What hasn't been discussed is the damage that Qatars collusion with Spain will have on the USA-

ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE

Doesn't particularly worry me because Australia only lose Thailand

If Qatar actually gets to the vote then FIFA have not done their job(4 different committees)


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

_X_ said:


> Its so obvious:bash:
> 
> Qatar/Spain collusion
> Qatar
> ...


Oh I hadn't heard of the other ones. 

I don't think we need them to win either way. 

Europe gots our back. 8)


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

But they hinted they had our back


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> But they hinted they had our back


In Der Kaiser we trust


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

Hi People,
I am new to this forum. While I think the US could host a decent world cup. I think the world cup needs to be shared around the world. The USA, South Korea and Japan need to give other countries a chance to host the world cup. That is why I think it should go to Australia. (I don't think Qatar could host a good world cup)


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Can't just share for the sake of sharing with all the demands FIFA has. The U.S. will have to spend pennies compared to the billions that SA had to spend just to show they could do it. I hate that kind of contest. No winners.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

rantanamo said:


> Can't just share for the sake of sharing with all the demands FIFA has. The U.S. will have to spend pennies compared to the billions that SA had to spend just to show they could do it. I hate that kind of contest. No winners.


I think the USA would host a pretty good cup,you're just fortunate to have a brilliant back up of 2026 where you will be the undisputed CONCACAF bid.
Certainly my No.2 pick behind my own countries bid


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

The two main arguments in favor of an OZ WC. 

1) But but but... you guys already had your chance! 

2) You guys can wait for 2026 but we can't!


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

hngcm said:


> The two main arguments in favor of an OZ WC.
> 
> 1) But but but... you guys already had your chance!
> 
> 2) You guys can wait for 2026 but we can't!


or (3) we actually do major events better - lets compare how Sydney 2000 went compared to Atlanta 1996, Sydney is rated one of the best Olympics of all time, whereas most people couldn't leave Atlanta behind quickly enough


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Haha, metro Atlanta is barely 1% of our whole country. What a sorry comparison. Nobody wants to see soccer on ovals anyway.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> Haha, metro Atlanta is barely 1% of our whole country. What a sorry comparison. Nobody wants to see soccer on ovals anyway.


yes, but it showcased your nations ability to host an Olympics, and it was one of the more average efforts in recent times

do the USA have the might, power, money, and infrastructure to host major sporting events? absolutely and without a doubt.

do they do a good job of it though? for some, definitely (the Superbowl is now the benchmark IMO for any decent grand final for an annual comp). for others though, there can be something lacking

not saying Australia has a 100% success rate either, but being a smaller country we have to succeed at that stuff more than you guys do. We don't have a permanent seat on the security council, multiple carrier groups, Hollywood, or the office of "the most powerful man on earth". If you guys host an average WC, you will shrug your shoulders and move on to the next big thing. Here we will obsess about how failure will tarnish our global image for years because sporting events is one of the few things we actually do half well.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

T74 said:


> yes, but it showcased your nations ability to host an Olympics, and it was one of the more average efforts in recent times
> 
> do the USA have the might, power, money, and infrastructure to host major sporting events? absolutely and without a doubt.
> 
> ...


The Olympics are only alive as we know it and Sydney only got a chance to host a modern Olympics because Los Angeles 1984 kept the entire thing from collapsing. We wrote the blueprint for the modern Olympics.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Odd how you cite Atlanta's Olympics in a World Cup thread but not the World Cup our whole nation hosted two years before that.

And I post on AFL and NRL forums. I am aware of the apathy and even antipathy toward soccer in your country from the masses that were raised on traditional sports. The divide is even greater than here.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

krudmonk said:


> Odd how you cite Atlanta's Olympics in a World Cup thread but not the World Cup our whole nation hosted two years before that.
> 
> And I post on AFL and NRL forums. I am aware of the apathy and even antipathy toward soccer in your country from the masses that were raised on traditional sports. The divide is even greater than here.


Only because the WC is played in the NFL/College Football offseasons.
Imagine the Stadium issues in the US if the WC was played in January.
Its quite amazing that Australia has actually sorted it out,even though many AFL/NRL fans will see the seasons greatly interrupted.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

ryebreadraz said:


> The Olympics are only alive as we know it and Sydney only got a chance to host a modern Olympics because Los Angeles 1984 kept the entire thing from collapsing. We wrote the blueprint for the modern Olympics.


As I said, you do some well, some not so

LA was a good games, Atlanta a shocker

as I mentioned, it doesn't mean much in the US though because the US is so big it has that many fingers in that many pies there is always something new to focus on

if Sydney had been a failed games, the consequences would bring down a govt IMO (because of the humiliation it would bring us)


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Odd how you cite Atlanta's Olympics in a World Cup thread but not the World Cup our whole nation hosted two years before that.
> 
> And I post on AFL and NRL forums. I am aware of the apathy and even antipathy toward soccer in your country from the masses that were raised on traditional sports. The divide is even greater than here.



With the free to air and subscription tv all time records both being held by the Australian National Football team that argument just doesn't hold.We have the highest number of participants of any code by a big margin
The other sports can smell the fear.Its obvious that a 12 year build up has the other codes worried.
As for traditional-Australia was the second nation to formally adopt Association rules,and it was a football match in 1905 between Sydney metropolitan and New Zealand which saw numbers on shirts for the first time in any sport,including the goalkeepers No.1 which remains today.
Football actually has links for thousands of years in Australia via the oldest indigenous game here.

Mainstream maybe,traditional definitely not


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

_X_ said:


> The other sports can smell the fear.Its obvious that a 12 year build up has the other codes worried.


This little bit proves my point about the petty contentiousness.


MysteryMike said:


> http://www.usdebtclock.org/


This argument is more pertinent to Australia, as much of the US infrastructure is already built or would be adequate for the NFL outside of the World Cup. No white elephants over here.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> This little bit proves my point about the petty contentiousness.
> 
> This argument is more pertinent to Australia, as much of the US infrastructure is already built or would be adequate for the NFL outside of the World Cup. No white elephants over here.


Agree, some of the stuff being posted is just getting odd, be grateful you ain't getting some of the stupid stuff bagging the UK/Russia/Qatar here

On AU, the white elephant issue isn't one either. All the major stadium upgrades (Adelaide, Perth, Gold Coast) need to happen regardless just for the other sporting codes, and the regional ones will be needed as well (although they will have some temp seating).

To get back to the USA though, as I've posted elsewhere weeks ago, I expect you guys to ace the tech review, stadiums and infrastructure was never going to be your issue


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

hngcm said:


> The two main arguments in favor of an OZ WC.
> 
> 1) But but but... you guys already had your chance!
> 
> 2) You guys can wait for 2026 but we can't!


I think the Aussies have one or two more arguments than that, but if you want to underestimate your opponenents go right ahead. :lol:


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

hngcm said:


> The two main arguments in favor of an OZ WC.
> 
> 1) But but but... you guys already had your chance!
> 
> 2) You guys can wait for 2026 but we can't!





RobH said:


> I think the Aussies have one or two more arguments than that, but if you want to underestimate your opponenents go right ahead. :lol:


Agree. I still think the yanks are the favourites, but I will be laughing so hard at this hngcm guy if we get it. :cheers:


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> Haha, metro Atlanta is barely 1% of our whole country. What a sorry comparison. Nobody wants to see soccer on ovals anyway.


The final of 2006 was on an oval here in Berlin. Everyone thought that was ok.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Ovals are fine, but not _ideal_. I think that's a pretty fair summary.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

Love how people keep attributing the attitudes of a few bold Americans who think they're awesome at everything to the actual USA bid team as if it will somehow have a karmic effect on the vote. This whole thing is a bunch of people BS'ing on the internet.

Americans will always believe they are the sh!t at everything. So don't throw a hissy fit when you guys come to a message board and see that attitude propagated. Oh and feel free to laugh at anyone you want after the vote. I guess hosting the World Cup is a bigger deal in other countries, but nothing about it is life or death here. Let's put things in perspective, much more concerned with the midterm elections later today, things that actually matter.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

> Love how people keep attributing the attitudes of a few bold Americans who think they're awesome at everything to the actual USA bid team


Who?


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Sunil Gulati is an imbecile, no doubt about it. He thinks he's funny he's NOT. I've read a lot of quotes by that guy and he's extremely fortunate he's got an idiotic American media to work with, unlike the English bid or the Australian bid otherwise his bid would have been the first to be torn to shreds. His numbers are total garbage and he's been conning the American public throughout and the up his own date behaviours have been a total disgrace to not just the football world but humanity in general. The guy is an A grade TOOL, no wonder Bradley's the best USSF could do and football is the garbage sport in the US, no matter what the various proponents on here claim. The sport in all the other bidding nations, has far more of a worthy profile and respect than that it has within the US and no matter whether the US hosts now, next year, in twenty years time or whenever, nothing is ever going to change. 


*But to date, the NCAA have treated soccer as the bastard stepbrother of the big three American sports, football, baseball, and basketball, overlooking cultural differences and imposing regulations that restrict players from fully maturing. The failure of this regime is evidenced in the 1998 World Cup, when the US finished in last place, in 2002 only advanced to the quarter finals, and in 2006 were eliminated from the group rounds after losing to Ghana. *

Read more: http://soccerlens.com/us-college-soccer-at-the-crossroads/18632/#ixzz1484bKPdh


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

AndreasBerlin said:


> The final of 2006 was on an oval here in Berlin. Everyone thought that was ok.


Sir, an AFL oval is much bigger than a standard pitch with running track around it. Sorry that was lost in translation. 

But many soccer fans I know hate running tracks, too.


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

No it isn't they tend to be wider but shorter than Athletics tracks.
Subiaco Oval in Perth is the only AFL ground that can fit a proper track in without having to take any seating out. It happens to be the second narrowest ground in the league and is a comparable shape to the new london olympic stadium only sightly smaller, Still Subi won't be used in a successful Australian bid. The Perth proposal will have a pivotable ground tier which will make a rectangle the same size as Twickenham in London (thats if the oval dimensions are built to replicate Subi, which they may go smaller). Sorry for going off on a tangent.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*The fields at all potential sites can be widened to meet international standards if the U.S. is awarded either the 2018 or 2022 tournament, FIFA’s World Cup inspectors were assured this week. The fields at NFL stadiums are generally smaller than the 75 yards FIFA prefers, and several games were played on slightly narrower fields during the 1994 World Cup.

“We’ve assured them that we will get to FIFA international dimensions—and in a cost-effective way,” U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said Friday. “And, if for any reason that was an issue, we have alternatives.”*

^^ one of the Sunil Gulati bs information, oh yeah we'll widen fields but don't worry people it's happening for free, no problems :lol: What a joke, meanwhile....


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Mike stop trolling, you're getting as bad as some of the Russians.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

RobH said:


> Mike stop trolling, you're getting as bad as some of the Russians.


It's all football related and more specifically world cup bid related, so I fail to see your point.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> Sir, an AFL oval is much bigger than a standard pitch with running track around it. Sorry that was lost in translation.
> 
> But many soccer fans I know hate running tracks, too.


Perhaps you should also have a look at past world cup host stadiums. 


































Thanks to Thomas Duchnicki for the images, legend


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

MysteryMike said:


> *The fields at all potential sites can be widened to meet international standards if the U.S. is awarded either the 2018 or 2022 tournament, FIFA’s World Cup inspectors were assured this week. The fields at NFL stadiums are generally smaller than the 75 yards FIFA prefers, and several games were played on slightly narrower fields during the 1994 World Cup.
> 
> “We’ve assured them that we will get to FIFA international dimensions—and in a cost-effective way,” U.S. Soccer President Sunil Gulati said Friday. “And, if for any reason that was an issue, we have alternatives.”*
> 
> ^^ one of the Sunil Gulati bs information, oh yeah we'll widen fields but don't worry people it's happening for free, no problems :lol: What a joke, meanwhile....


Where does he say it's free unless where you're from cost-effective means free. The cost of widening the field a few yards is minimal.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

MysteryMike said:


> Perhaps you should also have a look at past world cup host stadiums.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what? Those are anything but ideal. Pretend all you want, running tracks are AWFUL.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> Sunil Gulati is an imbecile, no doubt about it. He thinks he's funny he's NOT. I've read a lot of quotes by that guy and he's extremely fortunate he's got an idiotic American media to work with, unlike the English bid or the Australian bid otherwise his bid would have been the first to be torn to shreds. His numbers are total garbage and he's been conning the American public throughout and the up his own date behaviours have been a total disgrace to not just the football world but humanity in general. The guy is an A grade TOOL, no wonder Bradley's the best USSF could do and football is the garbage sport in the US, no matter what the various proponents on here claim. The sport in all the other bidding nations, has far more of a worthy profile and respect than that it has within the US and no matter whether the US hosts now, next year, in twenty years time or whenever, nothing is ever going to change.
> 
> 
> *But to date, the NCAA have treated soccer as the bastard stepbrother of the big three American sports, football, baseball, and basketball, overlooking cultural differences and imposing regulations that restrict players from fully maturing. The failure of this regime is evidenced in the 1998 World Cup, when the US finished in last place, in 2002 only advanced to the quarter finals, and in 2006 were eliminated from the group rounds after losing to Ghana. *
> ...


I don't think anyone on here will defend Gulati. But you are clearly ignorant if you think soccer in the States is more dysfunctional right now than in Australia. There's a good relationship between USSF, MLS, and even more recently the NCAA (poor research job on your part, that's an outdated article). Plus, hate on America all you want, but they just put a beatdown on your country using a no-name scrub from MLS. But the main point is, you're just a transparent troll who comes on here and bashes an entire country's soccer structure just because your country is competing to host a soccer tournament. Lame.


----------



## Archbishop (Aug 18, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> The final of 2006 was on an oval here in Berlin. Everyone thought that was ok.


To be fair, I'd say that I and probably a lot of others think that's the best running track stadium in the world right now.


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

MysteryMike said:


> It's all football related and more specifically world cup bid related, so I fail to see your point.


No its not troll. If that's anything related to the World Cup, news about the Tampa Bay Bucs being 5-2 in the NFL will be related in here because the Bucs play in Raymond James Stadium and the stadium is one of the stadiums that will be used when the United States of American wins the 2022 World Cup!


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> Perhaps you should also have a look at past world cup host stadiums.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why have you used that as an example of an oval?









http://football-futbol-soccer.com/images/kashima_stadium.jpg


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

RobH said:


> I think the Aussies have one or two more arguments than that, but if you want to underestimate your opponenents go right ahead. :lol:


I just get tired of hearing about how we hosted it recently and how we can host in 2026 instead. 

I'd rather hear the positives about your bid instead of this.

You gotta admit that if they were in even terms (ie: USA hadn't hosted before or if OZ had already hosted it once), the USA bid would destroy the OZ bid.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

MysteryMike said:


> Perhaps you should also have a look at past world cup host stadiums.


So because past WCs have had running tracks it's OK to keep having WC games in running track stadiums? 

Ovals/running tracks are awful for soccer. 

Yeah you can put temporary stands close to the pitch but that doesn't make the other 95% of the seats closer to the pitch. If you're the upper stands it doesn't matter if there's temporary stands or not, the view is still awful.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

Archbishop said:


> To be fair, I'd say that I and probably a lot of others think that's the best running track stadium in the world right now.


I prefer Luzhniki Stadium to Berlin's, but Berlin's is about as good as a stadium with a track can be. 



TampaMike said:


> No its not troll. If that's anything related to the World Cup, news about the Tampa Bay Bucs being 5-2 in the NFL will be related in here because the Bucs play in Raymond James Stadium and the stadium is one of the stadiums that will be used when the United States of American wins the 2022 World Cup!


Honestly, I'd be very, very surprised if Raymond James hosts matches should the US win the bid. Only one Florida city will host and I'd be shocked if they passed on Miami. After all, Miami is more renowned and is currently slated to host the draw if we win the right to host.


----------



## ExSydney (Sep 12, 2002)

hngcm said:


> I'm sure more people in the world know who Clinton is than whoever the head of state of OZ .


thats so funny..yet so sad.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Walbanger said:


> Heard of Queen Elizabeth II and Emperor Akihito?


:lol:

Oh hngcm


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> Heard of Queen Elizabeth II and Emperor Akihito?


oh hngcm:lol:


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

ryebreadraz said:


> They aren't going to invest in transport anyways. Both stadiums will have fans transported there via shuttles that will depart and return to major city center areas. The buses will be operated by the local MTA's and the buses will be MTA buses, but the bid will pay for the operation of them.


So you are saying that the US bid doesn't fully meet all of FIFA requirements??

Do you remember what happened at the Atlanta Olmypics with their busses?


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

hngcm said:


> I'm sure more people in the world know who Clinton is than whoever the head of state of OZ or Qatar or Japan or Korea etc;
> 
> Heck probably more people recognize Morgan Freeman lol.
> 
> The United States is the most powerful and influential country in the world. People forget that.


The problem is that all the bids are competing to demonstrate to FIFA that their Government is fully behind the bid. All the other bids will have the leader of their Government present in Zurich, the US wont. Putting the US bid at a distinct disadvantage


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

slipperydog said:


> Yes, but what is your point? The other 2022 bids have to invest in public transport AND stadiums. The US only has to invest in public transport for two cities. None of this has anything to do with Obama though.


My point is, where is the money going to come to develop this infrastructure? Who is going to pay and how much have they pledged to it at the moment? The US bid claims that it could host the world cup tomorrow, but in reality there is still some work to do.

Yes, all the other bids have more infrastructure to build, but they are all fully supported by their Governments who are going to pay. This is the key difference between the bids.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> So you are saying that the US bid doesn't fully meet all of FIFA requirements??


Rail transport at every stadium is not a FIFA requirement. 



> Do you remember what happened at the Atlanta Olmypics with their busses?


What does one city have to do with other cities in the US bid?



> All the other bids will have the leader of their Government present in Zurich, the US wont. Putting the US bid at a distinct disadvantage


I doubt you are correct, but we will see.



> My point is, where is the money going to come to develop this infrastructure? Who is going to pay and how much have they pledged to it at the moment? The US bid claims that it could host the world cup tomorrow, but in reality there is still some work to do.


There is work for everyone to do, including the US. But it's obvious they have a lot less work to do than other countries.



> Yes, all the other bids have more infrastructure to build, but they are all fully supported by their Governments who are going to pay. This is the key difference between the bids.


Like I said, funding for infrastructure will come from local governments. Keep in mind, South Africa and Brazil's governments also "guaranteed" to back all infrastructure before the bid was awarded, but we see how that turned out. Any country can 'guarantee' something, but you still need the political will and the capital to make it happen.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

hngcm said:


> This actually HELPS our bid if anything.
> 
> All the bidding countries will face this "lost economic impact."
> 
> ...


Your making the assumption that if these losses are correct they'll be reflected for all hosts.


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

slipperydog said:


> Rail transport at every stadium is not a FIFA requirement.



Let me just remind you of the FIFA requirements, and I quote, "FIFA would like to emphasise that the infrastructure and facilities of the host country must be of the highest quality in order to fulfil the requirements of the world's most popular sporting event" 

Are you really arguing that Mrs Crabapple driving the school bus is of the highest quality?



> What does one city have to do with other cities in the US bid?


It was a major international sporting event hosted by the US and its transport in particular was a shambles. That is what it has to do with the US bid. And if you don't remember, here is a newspaper article from the time to refresh your memory. 

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/OLYMP...age+as+the+British+women‘s+eight…-a0111427931




> I doubt you are correct, but we will see.


I am correct. And yes we will se.





> There is work for everyone to do, including the US. But it's obvious they have a lot less work to do than other countries.


I am not arguing the amount of work, I am asking where the money is going to come from. I think we can both agree that Qatar's bid is a bit of a joke. But even though they essentially have to build all their infrastructure from scratch, they at least have the money for it.




> Like I said, funding for infrastructure will come from local governments. Keep in mind, South Africa and Brazil's governments also "guaranteed" to back all infrastructure before the bid was awarded, but we see how that turned out. Any country can 'guarantee' something, but you still need the political will and the capital to make it happen.


The country that can 'guarantee' something is in a much better position than the country that can't! So, how much have the local governments committed to upgrading transport infrastructure??


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> Let me just remind you of the FIFA requirements, and I quote, "FIFA would like to emphasise that the infrastructure and facilities of the host country must be of the highest quality in order to fulfil the requirements of the world's most popular sporting event"


I will repeat, rail transport to every stadium is not a requirement. See South Africa 2010, Brazil 2014.




> It was a major international sporting event hosted by *Atlanta *and its transport in particular was a shambles. That is what it has to do with the *Atlanta *bid. And if you don't remember, here is a newspaper article from the time to refresh your memory.


Fixed your post. 





> I am correct. And yes we will se.


You are correct that every head of state will be there except Obama? Please provide link.




> I am not arguing the amount of work, I am asking where the money is going to come from.


I told you, the money will come from local governments.




> The country that can 'guarantee' something is in a much better position than the country that can't!


So you would rather the USA government make grand guarantees like the Brazil government did about a fancy new high-speed rail link between Rio and Sao Paulo, and then back out because they don't have the money...maybe foreign governments work this way, but the US typically likes to know they can deliver on something before they guarantee it



> So, how much have the local governments committed to upgrading transport infrastructure??


They have committed to whatever upgrades are needed for the stadiums. At this point, there is no plan to build rail to those two stadiums. They will use a shuttle system for better or worse.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

hngcm said:


> I'm sure more people in the world know who Clinton is than whoever the head of state of OZ or Qatar or Japan or Korea etc;
> 
> Heck probably more people recognize Morgan Freeman lol.
> 
> The United States is the most powerful and influential country in the world. People forget that.


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

Andreas, are you saying that local governments in the US wouldn't have enough money to build an effective transportation system? It seems like that is what you're trying to say.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

xxx


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> How are the US going to compete in Zurich when the other bids' leaders who write the cheques are the ones doing the lobbying?


Why is it so hard for you and others to understand, our leaders are not the ones writing the checks. The private sector is the one that will pay for needed improvements. And those improvements will be relatively minor when compared to any other bid. Our infrastructure is already in place.


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

Walbanger said:


> Emperor Akihito?


Who?


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> So you are saying that the US bid doesn't
> Do you remember what happened at the Atlanta Olmypics with their busses?


Have you ever considered that we can improve on that? Or do you automatically assume that all private transportation is unreliable? Additionally, do you know what happened with the buses and trains in Kaiseslautern in 2006?


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Why is Atlanta continually held up as the archetypal American city?


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Why is Atlanta continually held up as the archetypal American city?


because, many who post here only "assume;" they never "know." This is to say, they only look at one event or one thing and juxtapose it to the US as a whole.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Walbanger said:


> Heard of Queen Elizabeth II and Emperor Akihito?


Elizabeth II yes (and I keep forgetting that OZ has another country's head of state as their head of state). 

Emperor Akihito? Ummm no.

In my opinion it's sad to see "queens" and "emperors" in this day of age.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

AndreasBerlin said:


> The problem is that all the bids are competing to demonstrate to FIFA that their Government is fully behind the bid. All the other bids will have the leader of their Government present in Zurich, the US wont. Putting the US bid at a distinct disadvantage


The thing is that the US _almost_ literally does not need the government's support for the bid.

Stadiums and roads and public transportation is all handled by the local governments as well as any new hotel construction. 

Other countries are much smaller than the US so its easier for the national government to handle cities and their constructions. 

It's nice to have government support (and the US does have Obama's endorsement) but it's not needed. 

And honestly Obama should have something more important to do than attending that function (like you know...fixing the economy).


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

MoreOrLess said:


> Your making the assumption that if these losses are correct they'll be reflected for all hosts.


For the 2nd time I was SARCASTICALLY answering Mystery's Mike post. 

Next time I'll finish my post with [/sarcasm]


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

hngcm said:


> Elizabeth II yes (and I keep forgetting that OZ has another country's head of state as their head of state).


Yes and 16 other nations. She isn't just the Queen of the United Kingdom, ethnically she's not even that English. Her full title is paragraphs in length. In Australia her official title is "Queen of Australia", in Canada she is "Queen of Canada" etc.



hngcm said:


> Emperor Akihito? Ummm no.


Well that either says something of his gobal profile or maybe something about you.



hngcm said:


> In my opinion it's sad to see "queens" and "emperors" in this day of age.


Well there isn't just one size fits all system and the US doesn't necessarily have the best system. Many a nation's head of state has a more ceremonial role where political power lies with the parliament rather than one more active in administration. Many of the remaining Monarchs are highly respected and popular with their people as they have been strickly raise for the burden of duty rather than under some republican systems where you get some rich egotistic yahoo stirring populist dribble to get elected by an impressionable populous. Some of the most stable, wealthy and free nations in the world have a monarch under a constitutional monarchy.

I am personally indifferent to Australia remaining a constitutional monarchy or a republic.


----------



## MoreOrLess (Feb 17, 2005)

hngcm said:


> Elizabeth II yes (and I keep forgetting that OZ has another country's head of state as their head of state).
> 
> Emperor Akihito? Ummm no.
> 
> In my opinion it's sad to see "queens" and "emperors" in this day of age.


Still neither of them ordered an medical factory bombed to cover up their sexual indisgressions.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

hngcm said:


> The thing is that the US _almost_ literally does not need the government's support for the bid.
> 
> Stadiums and roads and public transportation is all handled by the local governments as well as any new hotel construction.
> 
> ...


I think what they are trying to say (and I know the point hasn't been well made) is by not having the Fed's step in on this stuff and relying on local govt to do the right thing, anything can happen.

This is common all over the world with the twits who take local govt roles unfortunately. You have the Bristol situation thats being discussed on the England thread, in Melbourne we have had issues for years with local govt stopping/delaying everything from parking to lighting at stadiums.

I still don't think this will be an issue. I'd imagine some fed co-ordinator will make sure the local govt morons do the right thing if the USA win the bid

and yes, I'm not a big fan of local govt doing much outside collecting the rubbish - in Melbourne they rarely do much other than delay development and grandstand


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

Who brought up the queen and emperor? They have nothing to do with this. If we are supposedly debating whether or not President Obama's absence really matters, you all need to discuss the presence or absence at the FIFA presentation for each of the bidding nations' prime ministers. Not comparing whether more people have heard of Morgan Freeman or the emperor of Belgium.

Besides, in order to be included in the USA bid, local governments had to give guarantees about providing for necessary adjustments. These guarantees had to be generalized, because it's difficult to really foreshadow what FIFA will demand.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

slipperydog said:


> Who brought up the queen and emperor? They have nothing to do with this. If we are supposedly debating whether or not President Obama's absence really matters, you all need to discuss the presence or absence at the FIFA presentation for each of the bidding nations' prime ministers. Not comparing whether more people have heard of Morgan Freeman or the emperor of Belgium.


I think its just a sign everyone is over the whole bidding process

The only reason the poli's go is to get their head on TV back home. As a previous poster said, Obama has a few bigger issues to worry about right now than this, and Clinton is a more than capable and appropriate substitute.

Worrying about it is ridiculous. Do we seriously think an exco delegate will change his vote because he got to shake Clinton's hand instead of Obama's?

This issue is nearly as dumb as the one saying infrastructure is a weakness of the US bid :nuts:


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

krudmonk said:


> Why is Salt Lake City continually held up as the archetypal American city?


Who knows?


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

Was there something wrong with SLC's transportation in 2002? If not, you're trolling.


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

slipperydog said:


> Was there something wrong with SLC's transportation in 2002? If not, you're trolling.


Hey Slippery,just wondering
Do you think that ExCo would take into account that since the World Cup in '94 you've had 2 extremely controversial Olympics ,which have probably had a bearing on the bids for New York and Chicago?
Would they be considered relevant as recent major events in the USA or would FIFA ignore such stuff??


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

_X_ said:


> Hey Slippery,just wondering
> Do you think that ExCo would take into account that since the World Cup in '94 you've had 2 extremely controversial Olympics ,which have probably had a bearing on the bids for New York and Chicago?
> Would they be considered relevant as recent major events in the USA or would FIFA ignore such stuff??


Sure, there's a chance for political bias on any issue to sway voters, but what is your point...Are you just trying to predict who is going to win 2022, or are you trying to debate the technical pros and cons of this particular bid?


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

hngcm said:


> Elizabeth II yes (and I keep forgetting that OZ has another country's head of state as their head of state).
> 
> Emperor Akihito? Ummm no.
> 
> In my opinion it's sad to see "queens" and "emperors" in this day of age.


That's okay little fella, you live in a bubble....


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

slipperydog said:


> Sure, there's a chance for political bias on any issue to sway voters, but what is your point...Are you just trying to predict who is going to win 2022, or are you trying to debate the technical pros and cons of this particular bid?


Yes,I'm actually trying to ascertain just how long is long enough.2022 would be a full twenty years since the corruption scandal of Salt Lake City and 26 years since the disaster of Atlanta so you'd think it would be long enough-its just that we're voting 12 years in advance and these things are still pretty current
I'm sure they both had an impact on the bids of NY and Chicago,but that was the Olympics and not FIFA so I suppose we'll see


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Wezza said:


> That's okay little fella, you live in a bubble....


I'm originally from Mexico so that kind of explains why I would know more about the US than Japan. 

Most Mexican school children would know about the queen. (btw what's her ethnicity?)

But Emperor Aikitho or whatever? 

Naw.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

LOL yeah the average person anywhere does not know the name of the emperor of japan, most citizens in any country don't even know how their own government structure works. People know cultural icons, and the queen, Morgan Freeman, Bill Clinton, Oprah, Lady Gaga are all cultural icons. No one gives a toss about japan


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Walbanger said:


> Well there isn't just one size fits all system and the US doesn't necessarily have the best system. Many a nation's head of state has a more ceremonial role where political power lies with the parliament rather than one more active in administration. Many of the remaining Monarchs are highly respected and popular with their people as they have been strickly raise for the burden of duty rather than under some republican systems where you get some rich egotistic yahoo stirring populist dribble to get elected by an impressionable populous. Some of the most stable, wealthy and free nations in the world have a monarch under a constitutional monarchy.
> 
> I am personally indifferent to Australia remaining a constitutional monarchy or a republic.


I know our system isn't perfect but the one thing I like about it is that if a politician is doing a bad job...you can kick him out with a vote. And if you don't then well you can't really complain. This applies perfectly to George Bush...

I guess I don't see the point of the ceremonial role of a monarch. I could understand if the monarch is involved in administration. 

One thing I love about the United States is that you can quite literally do almost anything you set your mind to. You get what you work for. If you are a citizen then there's really nothing stopping you from being President.

Big difference from Mexico...

And sorry about arguing...we just need more info on the bids lol


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

That's ok mate, god knows I dribbled on a bit to much.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

hngcm said:


> One thing I love about the United States is that you can quite literally do almost anything you set your mind to. You get what you work for. If you are a citizen then there's really nothing stopping you from being President.


The same is true of any western democracy. You also don't need to be born in the country to become president/prime minister etc in all of them either.

Kings and queens are pretty stupid overall, but people seem to like them. If they didn't hey'd be gone in a shot (albeit perhaps lot literally, these days)


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

hngcm said:


> I know our system isn't perfect but the one thing I like about it is that if a politician is doing a bad job...you can kick him out with a vote. And if you don't then well you can't really complain. This applies perfectly to George Bush...
> 
> I guess I don't see the point of the ceremonial role of a monarch. I could understand if the monarch is involved in administration.
> 
> ...


This is massively off topic, but I'll give you a quick run-down on the pro's before getting back to the football.

Like the USA, we have three arms of Govt, the executive, the legislative, and the judiciary. Unlike the USA however, our executive is formed from the party with control of parliament (the government).

The parliament answers to the monarch, and the monarch has a series of reserve powers. A few conventions however now kick in.

1) because of geography, the monarch cannot rule directly in Australia on a day to day basis, so they appoint a Governor General to act in their steed. Convention is now that the government of the day now nominates the candidate, and the Queen approves it as a formality.

2) the powers are reserve powers, and to only be excercised by the GG (on behalf of the monarch) when the shit hits the fan. This convention has been honoured, with the GG only acting against the will of the govt on one occasion (and this was to effectively toss the govt of the day and call an election because the govt no longer had control of parliament).

this is where the balancing act comes in. While the Queen is our head of state, reality is it is now the GG. Those in favour of the arrangement say it works because if the GG goes nuts they can be sacked by the monarch.

The monarch has a vested interest in maintaining the goodwill of the people because they don't have the physical means to project power in Australia. If they abuse their power Australia will become a republic almost immediately.

The parliament also cannot go nuts, because the GG is always hanging over them. While they are a govt appointment, similar to Supreme Court justices in the USA, GG's take their role VERY seriously, and once in it they tend to not take lightly to govt telling them what to do.

we have had a vote to go republic, but it failed because even amongst those who support a republic, there is a major split between those supporting a direct election president and a parliament appointed one. Surprisingly however most did NOT want the President to have active executive powers like the USA, and for them to retain only reserve powers.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

_X_ said:


> Yes,I'm actually trying to ascertain just how long is long enough.2022 would be a full twenty years since the corruption scandal of Salt Lake City and 26 years since the disaster of Atlanta so you'd think it would be long enough-its just that we're voting 12 years in advance and these things are still pretty current


Oh, piss off X. As for Atlanta, blown TOTALLY out of proportion -- just by people like you who have nothing better to do on a rainy day than scratch your crotch. And if anything, those spoiled Brit athletes probably deserved the rerouting! :baeh3:

As for Salt Lake, then WHY ELSE would the IOC award them the Games even after the scandal had BROKEN? Besides (1) Welch & Johnson were only doing what was accepted m.o. in those days; (2) a 'transaction' only happens if there are receivers on the other end (which there were and they got caught); and (3) the U.S. Justice Dept cleared Welch-Johnson of any 'wrong-doing'!! Further, Salt Lake made $56 million!! Can you say the same for Torino and Vancouver ever since? So there goes your whiny complaints!! :baeh3: 

Get off your crap throne and smell the coffee, nimrod!!


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

It's actually probably better for the US bid that Clinton be there instead of Obama. Besides being beloved, Clinto has been a part of the bid for nine months or so now and was in South Africa this summer helping play the political game necessary to get votes. He has relationships with some executive committee members so besides having the cache as a former president that most loved and still do love, Clinton has real relationships with all these FIFA members. He's not going to be some head of state who shows up on the voting day to smile and say we really want the World Cup, he has been involved from the beginning.


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

If the US would be chosen for the 2022 FIFA WC, Only LA and Washington DC would build modern stadiums for this WC. They would be financed by private donations.

2021 Confederation cup: United States
2021 U-17 FIFA World cup: Canada
2021 Gold cup: Mexico
2023 Gold cup: Mexico or Canada

Bill Clinton will highlight hearts and minds of the bid. There would be a video from Obama.


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

en1044 said:


> Andreas, are you saying that local governments in the US wouldn't have enough money to build an effective transportation system? It seems like that is what you're trying to say.


I am not asking that, I am asking how much have they said they will contribute or pledge? Do you know? I don't think anyone here can tell me!


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

metros11 said:


> Why is it so hard for you and others to understand, our leaders are not the ones writing the checks. The private sector is the one that will pay for needed improvements. And those improvements will be relatively minor when compared to any other bid. Our infrastructure is already in place.


The issue is that a private company's goal is to make a profit. A goverment's goal is to provide a service. There is a big difference in terms of the end product. A private company isn't going to invest in something where they wont make a profit, such as building a public transport network.

But the reason why this is important to FIFA is that a private company can easily go belly up, leaving FIFA holding the bag and costing them more money than they would have ever wanted. Goverments are much less likely to go belly up. That is why it is attractive to FIFA that a government supports the bid. And why the role (or lack of) of the US Government is an important issue for the US bid!


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> Why is Atlanta continually held up as the archetypal American city?





mattec said:


> because, many who post here only "assume;" they never "know." This is to say, they only look at one event or one thing and juxtapose it to the US as a whole.


I know you people are playing dumb, because you know how hosting one major sporting event can influence hosting another major sporting events. Hell, that is why the Australians never shut up about the Sydney Olympics. They keep using the track record argument! (and it is a good one)


But this is all academic now, Qatar are going to be cleared of colluding and they are going to host the world cup. Its a pity because I think they have a terrible bid.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> I am not asking that, I am asking how much have they said they will contribute or pledge? Do you know? I don't think anyone here can tell me!


So far, local governments have committed to widening the fields for a few stadiums. A few are in the process of developing increased public transport infrastructure. But it is too early to tell what other adjustments need to be made and how much they will cost without the FIFA inspection report. The fact is, local governments had to give generalized guarantees to the bid committee before they were allowed to be included in the US bid. These generalized guarantees essentially stated that they would pay for reasonable further adjustments as requested by FIFA.



AndreasBerlin said:


> And why the role (or lack of) of the US Government is an important issue for the US bid!


Again, you need to realize that the US is a massive country and has a well-developed local government system, and rarely are local improvements ever handled by the federal government. In essence, each city's government acts as its own 'country' whereby they are competing to deliver the best experience for the World Cup. So all necessary improvements will have NOTHING to do with the US government.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

AndreasBerlin said:


> I know you people are playing dumb, because you know how hosting one major sporting event can influence hosting another major sporting events. Hell, that is why the Australians never shut up about the Sydney Olympics. They keep using the track record argument! (and it is a good one)


No, they are not related, otherwise Brasil/Rio would not be getting the World Cup/Olympics without one committee at least waiting to see how the other event fared. The Australians have to hype up their bid with the Sydney Olympics, Asian timezone and this "legacy" stuff because otherwise we see that they have only six cities, a few white elephants and a bunch of ovals.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> No, they are not related, otherwise Brasil/Rio would not be getting the World Cup/Olympics without one committee at least waiting to see how the other event fared. The Australians have to hype up their bid with the Sydney Olympics, Asian timezone and this "legacy" stuff because otherwise we see that they have only six cities, a few white elephants and a bunch of ovals.


Only issue I have with any of that is the white elephant claim

MCG - refurb only
ANZ - temporary extension, still is the major stadium of Sydney today
Aussie - second rectangular stadium of Sydney, used constantly
Subiaco - New stadium being built for AFL/cricket needs regardless
Adelaide - New stadium already being built for cricket/AFL
Suncorp - Main rectangular stadium of Brisbane today
Gold Coast - Stadium already being built for AFL and CWG bid
Skilled Stadium - Stadium already being developed for AFL needs
Canberra - New rectangular stadium needed for rugby and NRL needs
Newcastle - existing A-League/NRL facility that will need an upgrade for local comp needs
Townsville - existing A-League/NRL facility that will need an upgrade for local needs
Blacktown - brand new stadium, likely to be home for the new A-League team and an NRL team

of all of these, all but one are existing facilities catering for local needs, and nearly all need upgrades for local needs regardless.

where are the "few white elephants"??


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> No, they are not related, otherwise Brasil/Rio would not be getting the World Cup/Olympics without one committee at least waiting to see how the other event fared. The Australians have to hype up their bid with the Sydney Olympics, Asian timezone and this "legacy" stuff because otherwise we see that they have only six cities, a few white elephants and a bunch of ovals.


Your missing my point. If I want to buy a cake, do I buy it off the cake shop where I got a good cake previously or a bad cake previously??? 

If a country did a good job hosting a major international sporting event in the past, then it is relevant. If a country had some issues hosting a major sporting event in the past, then that is also relevant.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> If a country did a good job hosting a major international sporting event in the past, then it is relevant. If a country had some issues hosting a major sporting event in the past, then that is also relevant.


IOC corruption and transportation in Atlanta won't be relevant to the bid in 2022. Under your scenario, Germany should not have been given the World Cup. But Germany hosted a fine World Cup even though they had major issues both times they hosted the Olympics. Past history isn't always relevant, and that's the case here as well.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Will737 said:


> DONT DISS MORGAN FREEMAN FFS. His voice has the capacity to paralyze me!


Yes, I'm sure he had the same effect on his grand daughter hno:


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

slipperydog said:


> IOC corruption and transportation in Atlanta won't be relevant to the bid in 2022. Under your scenario, Germany should not have been given the World Cup. But Germany hosted a fine World Cup even though they had major issues both times they hosted the Olympics. Past history isn't always relevant, and that's the case here as well.


Godwin's law. You lose :bash: 

You know exactly what I mean. You are just trying to spin it so that it doesn't make the US bid look bad.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> Godwin's law. You lose :bash:


What does Godwin's Law have to do with Munich? That was the worst f*cking disaster I've ever seen, and the Munich organizers should be ashamed of their performance. But again, that had no bearing on the awarding of the 2006 WC. 



> You know exactly what I mean. You are just trying to spin it so that it doesn't make the US bid look bad.


I'm not spinning anything about the US bid. Maybe the IOC corruption scandal affects the perception of the US bid for brainless twits like you, but it likely won't have much affect on the vote for 2022.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

T74 said:


> Only issue I have with any of that is the white elephant claim
> 
> Gold Coast - Stadium already being built for AFL and CWG bid
> Skilled Stadium - Stadium already being developed for AFL needs
> ...


Perhaps "white elephant" is a term too specific, indicating that these would sit dormant entirely. However, there is still a lot of construction to be done only for the World Cup and the fact that a few will be downsized after the tournament confirms this. I listed the World Cup and post-tournament seating capacities in parentheses. 

Gold Coast (40,000 down to 27,000): Maybe this could get by because a lot of the "waste" in my mind would be on that plastic AFL franchise. I don't see them packing the house for that, though.

Geelong (44,000 down to 37,000): They could fill it easily, but the Cats take big games to Melbourne anyway. Play all home fixtures there and get your money's worth.

Canberra (40,000 down to 27,000): Neither the Raiders nor Brumbies need that much space, but I guess an upgrade is in order.

Newcastle (42,000 down to 34,000): Knights certainly have the potential to pack more than 14,792 per game, but they don't. The Jets are always teetering on the brink of extinction.

Townsville (40,000 down to 30,000): Seems a bit like Newcastle but with smaller population base and even weaker soccer club. Maybe the Cowboys will be good again and draw more than 13,143 per game.

Blacktown (41,000 down to 26,000): This is the ultimate. It would be in the middle of similar-sized venues in Penrith and Parramatta. It's targeted for a second Sydney A-League team that looks like a mess getting off the ground. People say the Bulldogs could play there, but they're working on rebuilding Belmore and Blacktown is not all that close to their traditional base.

I look forward to Adelaide Oval and Subiaco getting spruced up, though.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> Perhaps "white elephant" is a term too specific, indicating that these would sit dormant entirely. However, there is still a lot of construction to be done only for the World Cup and the fact that a few will be downsized after the tournament confirms this. I listed the World Cup and post-tournament seating capacities in parentheses.
> 
> Gold Coast (40,000 down to 27,000): Maybe this could get by because a lot of the "waste" in my mind would be on that plastic AFL franchise. I don't see them packing the house for that, though.
> 
> ...


I fail to see how a stadium that is being used becomes a white elephant :s


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Krud-Geelong and Gold Coast won't make the cut


----------



## TampaMike (Sep 11, 2005)

AndreasBerlin said:


> I know you don't have to build any stadia, but how much public transport is there to each stadium? This was something the inspectors had a problem with a few months ago


I don't know about the other cities, but Tampa might be a problem. The county that Tampa sits in just voted down a referendum to increase the sales tax to improve the transportation systems we already have and build out a light rail system. The good thing is, if the county does try again at 2012, pushing back the completition date 2 years will bring us to 2020. But if they fail to do so, then thousands of visitors will be welcomed to an auto-centric city who has a very unreliable bus system because there isn't enough money to make the routes faster.


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

_X_ said:


> Krud-Geelong and Gold Coast won't make the cut


Oz *won't* make the cut!!


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Gondolier said:


> Oz *won't* make the cut!!


The USA has at this stage got Blazer,maybe Warner,perhaps Thompson

Finito

You can thank Qatar and the Iberian bid for that.Two months ago the USA almost had enough primary votes to win in the first round


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

_X_ said:


> The USA has at this stage got Blazer,maybe Warner,perhaps Thompson
> 
> Finito
> 
> You can thank Qatar and the Iberian bid for that.Two months ago the USA almost had enough primary votes to win in the first round


:nuts:


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

MysteryMike said:


> I fail to see how a stadium that is being used becomes a white elephant :s


Anyone that isn't a halfheaded bogan can see that I corrected my usage of the term and elaborated on what I originally meant.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> Anyone that isn't a halfheaded bogan can see that I corrected my usage of the term and elaborated on what I originally meant.


:lol: nicely put

On the downgrades, only ones I'd argue with are Newcastle (will grow as people flee Sydney and commute to work) and Geelong (Cats make a bundle playing at home - already are demanding more games in Geelong).

Also for GC, this upgrade (40k) will be needed if they win the bid for the CWG, which seems very likely at this stage.


Back to USA though


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> Anyone that isn't a halfheaded bogan can see that I corrected my usage of the term and elaborated on what I originally meant.


bogan? I ain't even white, so that ends your little racist depiction doesn't it? :lol:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


>


Please Mister Mike, stop making supid threads about the US bid. Your videos will note influence the FIFA ex-co members and are uninteressant and too biased.
I would love to see your face if the US wins the attribution for the 2022 WC.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

MysteryMike said:


> bogan? I ain't even white, so that ends your little racist depiction doesn't it? :lol:


I'm the racist? You just said that only white people can be considered bogans.


T74 said:


> :lol: nicely put
> 
> On the downgrades, only ones I'd argue with are Newcastle (will grow as people flee Sydney and commute to work) and Geelong (Cats make a bundle playing at home - already are demanding more games in Geelong).
> 
> ...


If they are put to good use, then's great by me. As a fan of both NRL and AFL, I'd like to see those venues packed. Right now, though, visions are a bit grandiose.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> I'm the racist? You just said that only white people can be considered bogans.


I'm pretty sure someone can explain it but that's the definition, only someone using it in that manner is a racist like yourself.

BTW impressive knowledge on Australian grounds, why don't you publish the American ones instead?? After all aren't you claiming to be American??


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

AndreasBerlin said:


> The issue is that a private company's goal is to make a profit. A goverment's goal is to provide a service. There is a big difference in terms of the end product. A private company isn't going to invest in something where they wont make a profit, such as building a public transport network.
> 
> But the reason why this is important to FIFA is that a private company can easily go belly up, leaving FIFA holding the bag and costing them more money than they would have ever wanted. Goverments are much less likely to go belly up. That is why it is attractive to FIFA that a government supports the bid. And why the role (or lack of) of the US Government is an important issue for the US bid!


1-President Obama hosted Sepp Blatter in his oval office in 2009.
2-Bill Clinton, some bid commitee members and team USA were hosted by President Obama and Vice-President Biden before the 2010 WC. It was a first time.
3-Vice-president Biden went to South Africa for the opening game and met Sepp Blatter.
4-Bill Clinton brought his weight for supporting the US bid, was watching some matches with some ex-co members and had breakfast with seven ex-co members.
5-The FIFA inspection team had a breakfast in the White House, met Shaun Donovan, US Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
and a senior counsellor, watched a video from former president George Herbert Walker Bush and met severall city mayors.

So there is a government involvement to the bid. Governments are not obliged to spend big money for a WC. 
THe FIFA inspection team had a break


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

I generally like your posts Krudmonk but in this case you are just plain wrong. Winning the bid for 2022 is the catalyst to setting up our sporting infrastructure for then next 40 years and it's already evident that almost all of these developements were to / are being built over the next 10 years anyway. I fail to see how boosting a stadiums capacity by a mere 7000 using temporary means for a one off event is a waste. I think you know this too.

The only venues I imagine won't see any development if Australia doesn't win is the Canberra Stadium and Blacktown. I'd imagine Townsville's Stadium would get a far more modest redevopment and the Sydney's ANZ and SFS would probably remain as they are.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Gondolier said:


> Oz *won't* make the cut!!


You don't make the cut. :nuts:


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

Wezza said:


> You don't make the cut. :nuts:


For sure, *you're uncut!*! :baeh3:


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

you may want to buy a paper instead of trawling youtube Mike

there are already plans to increase taxes and reduce spending to bring the deficit down to 2% of GDP in 4 years


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> I'm pretty sure someone can explain it but that's the definition, only someone using it in that manner is a racist like yourself.
> 
> BTW impressive knowledge on Australian grounds, why don't you publish the American ones instead?? After all aren't you claiming to be American??


He lives in bogan central,but pretends to be American:lol:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

_X_ said:


> He lives in bogan central,but pretends to be American:lol:


It's just makes me laugh, I still have no idea what a bogan is exactly but obviously low intelligence is a key part of the deal.:lol:


----------



## Will737 (Jun 12, 2010)

Gondolier said:


> For sure, *you're uncut!*! :baeh3:


No. Wezza is just losing his marbles.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

T74 said:


> you may want to buy a paper instead of trawling youtube Mike
> 
> there are already plans to increase taxes and reduce spending to bring the deficit down to 2% of GDP in 4 years


Sure sure keep dreaming T74, I don't think even the Qatar bid team have made a more embarrassing statement and they've made some real bad ones.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Will737 said:


> No. Wezza is just losing his marbles.


Marbles are shit anyway.


----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

MysteryMike said:


> Sure sure keep dreaming T74, I don't think even the Qatar bid team have made a more embarrassing statement and they've made some real bad ones.


as I said, try buying a paper and stop relying on Today Tonight for your news:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...spending-cuts-tax-reforms-20101111-17oih.html

A high-profile panel set up by President Barack Obama has recommended deep spending cuts and sweeping tax reforms in a bid to slash US budget deficits by four trillion US dollars over the next decade.

Firing the starting gun for a bruising political debate, the bipartisan panel's co-chairs proposed "painful" cuts to defense and domestic spending as well as an overhaul of the fiendishly complex US tax code.

Warning "America cannot be great if we go broke," Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles outlined rapid reductions to bring the deficit under control and reforms to reduce long-term debt, which currently stands at over 14 trillion US dollars.

Offering both Republicans and Democrats something to chew on, the chairs said the "country will not be able to compete without a plan to get this crushing debt burden off our back."

The measures include a 200 billion dollar cut in discretionary spending in 2015, split equally between defense and domestic outlays, to bring the annual deficit down to 2.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

Hahaha! Bill Clinton just asked you all for money for the bid! So, how much are you all going to contribute....? 

http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33881


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

MysteryMike said:


> It's just makes me laugh, I still have no idea what a bogan is exactly but obviously low intelligence is a key part of the deal.:lol:


People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

MysteryMike said:


> I'm pretty sure someone can explain it but *that's the definition*, only someone using it in that manner is a racist like yourself.





MysteryMike said:


> It's just makes me laugh, *I still have no idea what a bogan is* exactly but obviously *low intelligence is a key* part of the deal.:lol:


Yep, you said it...


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

I think it was X who asked..."aside from Blazer, Warner and Thompson, who else can the US bid count on?" 

Our offices just got off the phones. Here's your answer: In addition to the 3 above, Salguero, Hayatou, Leoz, Teixeira, Anouma, Valcke, Beckenbauer, Lefkaratis and Llona will compose the (first-round) U.S. bloc.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Please Mister Mike, stop making supid threads about the US bid. Your videos will note influence the FIFA ex-co members and are uninteressant and too biased. I would love to see your face if the US wins the attribution for the 2022 WC.


I'm sorry but I thought the English of the Russians and Qataris were bad, those guys have an excuse, yours is an absolute travesty, born a bit mentally challenged were we? btw are you calling the entire US thread stupid? I agree 100% with you :lol: supid?? uninteressant?? attribution?? I think you mean edition with the 3rd word but then again I'm not surprised that anybody from the US is a bit clueless, not like anybody gives a toss :lol: btw I didn't realise you were special either, face it your economy is a bunch of garbage and pretty much owned by China, those are the FACTS. China will be beautifully ready to host the 2034 edition, best of luck to the US really and your fat exec garbo and pedophile/cheating/lying scum entourage :lol: No wonder even your own confederation with no countries bidding from it, even has their doubts btw I love your invitation of seeing my face but I don't swing that way. Cheers.


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

Are you the same psychotic that's trolling BigFooty, too?


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Mike, seriously


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

krudmonk said:


> Are you the same psychotic that's trolling BigFooty, too?


What's bigfooty?


----------



## metros11 (Jan 21, 2009)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-10/fifa-world-cup-voter-salguero-says-he-s-undecided-on-supporting-u-s-bid.html

Personally I'd prefer that Russia and Australia won the tournaments, simply because I would rather see them held in countries where it hasn't been held before. Well that and I'd like to visit Australia. Realistically they're going to go to the highest bidder, no matter who investigates corruption or who gets suspended by FIFA.


----------



## Wezza (Jan 22, 2004)

Gondolier said:


> I think it was X who asked..."aside from Blazer, Warner and Thompson, who else can the US bid count on?"
> 
> Our offices just got off the phones. Here's your answer: In addition to the 3 above, Salguero, Hayatou, Leoz, Teixeira, Anouma, Valcke, Beckenbauer, Lefkaratis and Llona will compose the (first-round) U.S. bloc.


Riiiiiiight. :lol:


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

Gondolier said:


> I think it was X who asked..."aside from Blazer, Warner and Thompson, who else can the US bid count on?"
> 
> Our offices just got off the phones. Here's your answer: In addition to the 3 above, Salguero, Hayatou, Leoz, Teixeira, Anouma, Valcke, Beckenbauer, Lefkaratis and Llona will compose the (first-round) U.S. bloc.


Very happy for you mate,thats very good research.
Well done.Seems you have 12 votes afterall:banana:


----------



## CaliforniaJones (Apr 9, 2009)

Gondolier said:


> I think it was X who asked..."aside from Blazer, Warner and Thompson, who else can the US bid count on?"
> 
> Our offices just got off the phones. Here's your answer: In addition to the 3 above, Salguero, Hayatou, Leoz, Teixeira, Anouma, Valcke, Beckenbauer, Lefkaratis and Llona will compose the (first-round) U.S. bloc.


Valcke will not vote, Adamu and Temarii neither.
In this case one vote will be suffisant for the US bid to win. Blatter, Platini or others could have the key.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Gondolier said:


> I think it was X who asked..."aside from Blazer, Warner and Thompson, who else can the US bid count on?"
> 
> Our offices just got off the phones. Here's your answer: In addition to the 3 above, Salguero, Hayatou, Leoz, Teixeira, Anouma, Valcke, Beckenbauer, Lefkaratis and Llona will compose the (first-round) U.S. bloc.


I think it's dumb to speculate who's going to vote for who at any point before the actual vote. 

Kinda like how Qatarson is convinced that Qatar has enough votes to win in the first round. 

And how OZ has enough votes to win in the first round. 

And the US has enough votes to win in the first round.

Point is, it's pretty easy to say "yeah sure I'll vote for you!"


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

MysteryMike said:


> I'm sorry but I thought the English of the Russians and Qataris were bad, those guys have an excuse, yours is an absolute travesty, born a bit mentally challenged were we? btw are you calling the entire US thread stupid? I agree 100% with you :lol: supid?? uninteressant?? attribution?? I think you mean edition with the 3rd word but then again I'm not surprised that anybody from the US is a bit clueless, not like anybody gives a toss :lol: btw I didn't realise you were special either, face it your economy is a bunch of garbage and pretty much owned by China, those are the FACTS. China will be beautifully ready to host the 2034 edition, best of luck to the US really and your fat exec garbo and pedophile/cheating/lying scum entourage :lol: No wonder even your own confederation with no countries bidding from it, even has their doubts btw I love your invitation of seeing my face but I don't swing that way. Cheers.


Oh yeah, China's bid will be great with all the white elephants they'll have. :nuts:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

en1044 said:


> Oh yeah, China's bid will be great with all the white elephants they'll have. :nuts:


I think you meant Qatar


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

AndreasBerlin said:


> Hahaha! Bill Clinton just asked you all for money for the bid! So, how much are you all going to contribute....?
> 
> http://www.worldfootballinsider.com/Story.aspx?id=33881


So I guess the lack of response means no one is going to contribute. It's lucky you have the Government to support you.... oh wait :lol:


----------



## krudmonk (Jun 14, 2007)

AndreasBerlin said:


> So I guess the lack of response means no one is going to contribute. It's lucky you have the Government to support you.... oh wait :lol:


From the article that *you* posted:


> Some rival bids may raise eyebrows at the timing of such a request so close to the Dec. 2 vote.
> 
> The USA has one of the most lean bid operations and it has been suggested that Clinton’s email reflects an empty bank account close to bid D-day.
> 
> INSIDER understands that such a notion is wide of the mark. One source with knowledge of the US Soccer federation said that Clinton’s request merely reflects a political culture where campaign donations are a way of life. Given this view, tapping into this support as the USA bid approaches the final straight of campaigning can only be seen as a wise move and may even have been factored into its bid budgeting.


Nice reading, Derp Führer.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Trelawny said:


> Shut up man you're american all you do is look at racial aspect of everything. That's why it effects you so much. Just move on. It's been 400 years since slavery and the South still looks like half just came fresh off the boat from Zimbabwe and the other half from Russia. The South should be looking like Brazil or the Dominican Republic by now. All mixed up.


:lol:


----------



## Walbanger (Jan 10, 2006)

Gondolier said:


> I think it was X who asked..."aside from Blazer, Warner and Thompson, who else can the US bid count on?"
> 
> Our offices just got off the phones. Here's your answer: In addition to the 3 above, Salguero, Hayatou, Leoz, Teixeira, Anouma, Valcke, Beckenbauer, Lefkaratis and *Llona* will compose the (first-round) U.S. bloc.


That would suggest a break up of the Qatar Iberian bloc which is great for everyone. Pretty sure Aus, South Korea and Japan can handle losing to the USA.



krudmonk said:


> Are you the same psychotic that's trolling BigFooty, too?


Too numerous to tell, thats where trolls are bred, there and League Unlimited.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Walbanger said:


> That would suggest a break up of the Qatar Iberian bloc which is great for everyone. Pretty sure Aus, South Korea and Japan can handle losing to the USA.


Which will lead to a grand ENGLAND & AUSTRALIAN victory  You have to wonder how you could possibly call anybody a troll when you are pretending to be an Australian going for the US. I mean that has got to be right up there with the ultimate in trolling , talk about being seriously brain dead :nuts:


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Walbanger said:


> Isn't it funny how real men play the "other" football codes rather than Association Football.:lol::lol:


:lol: next account troll


----------



## en1044 (May 4, 2008)

MysteryMike said:


> I think you meant Qatar


Ok, Qatar too.


----------



## Qatar Son 333 (May 10, 2006)

Gondolier said:


> I think it was X who asked..."aside from Blazer, Warner and Thompson, who else can the US bid count on?"
> 
> Our offices just got off the phones. Here's your answer: In addition to the 3 above, Salguero, Hayatou, Leoz, Teixeira, Anouma, Valcke, Beckenbauer, Lefkaratis and Llona will compose the (first-round) U.S. bloc.


It seems i am not the only delusional forumer around this block... :lol:


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

We're going to channel the Force into a US WC 2022


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

Why are DysenteryMike, Andreas and X sooooo obsessively targeted on the US bid?

BECAUSE #1 - they have no lives outside of this board and soccer; and #2 - they ARE AFRAID and know USA 2022 is the ONLY thing in Australia's way...and will be there to send 2026 to OZ or CHINA!! 

That's why!! Oz got our support for 2026. By then. maybe you'll have 28 million people to fill those seats!! :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## hangman (Oct 21, 2009)

Australia has no problem filling seats, thank you.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Gondolier said:


> Why are DysenteryMike, Andreas and X sooooo obsessively targeted on the US bid?
> 
> BECAUSE #1 - they have no lives outside of this board and soccer; and #2 - they ARE AFRAID and know USA 2022 is the ONLY thing in Australia's way...and will be there to send 2026 to OZ or CHINA!!
> 
> That's why!! Oz got our support for 2026. By then. maybe you'll have 28 million people to fill those seats!! :rofl: :rofl:


By then maybe Beijing will be your capital :lol: Forget 2026, better get ready for 2034.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)




----------



## T74 (Jun 17, 2010)

what the heck do china/us relations have to do with the us 2022 bid?

could you try to keep your trolling at least slightly relevant?


----------



## _X_ (Oct 24, 2009)

mattec said:


> We're going to channel the Force into a US WC 2022


Must be a bit of a character this bloke-there is some amazing photos in the worldwidewebz:lol:


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

*Ho....ho...ho....

DysenteryDike...sooooooooooo un-funny!!*


----------



## mike7743 (Oct 23, 2007)

lol @ the hate for the US.

I'm amazed by the hostility shown here towards the US. I understand people love to hate the US but is it something people get off of to when they take shots at the US? I honestly didn't know the US is bidding to host the world cup until I saw this thread (neither does 99% of our population) because an overwhelming majority of us don't even care for it. I suggest you guys relax and don't hurt yourselves over this and most importantly don't lose sleep fuming over the internet. regardless of the outcome chances are most of us wouldn't care either way. so relax guys. relax!


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

mike7743 said:


> lol @ the hate for the US.
> 
> I'm amazed by the hostility shown here towards the US. I understand people love to hate the US but is it something people get off of to when they take shots at the US? I honestly didn't know the US is bidding to host the world cup until I saw this thread (neither does 99% of our population) because an overwhelming majority of us don't even care for it. I suggest you guys relax and don't hurt yourselves over this and most importantly don't lose sleep fuming over the internet. regardless of the outcome chances are most of us wouldn't care either way. so relax guys. relax!


*Well, the schizo-nuts here like DysenteryDike and X (notice how clever their noms de plumes are) are just wetting themselves over a strong US bid. I mean how can a 25 million country take on a 310-million plus nation?? :nuts:*


----------



## AndreasBerlin (Oct 15, 2010)

Is there any chance we can actually discuss the topic here...?

And is it also possible not to make homophobic statements?


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Gondolier said:


> *Well, the schizo-nuts here like DysenteryDike and X (notice how clever their noms de plumes are) are just wetting themselves over a strong US bid. I mean how can a 25 million country take on a 310-million plus nation?? :nuts:*


Strong? Try bankrupt ex host who doesn't have a hope in hell, who's currently turning to banana republic strategies of printing money, while nations such as Australia have the best performing developed economy on the planet and Qatar is the richest nation on the planet per capita. I say best of luck to you selling that :lol:


----------



## Gondolier (Apr 30, 2010)

MysteryMike said:


> Strong? Try bankrupt ex host who doesn't have a hope in hell, who's currently turning to banana republic strategies of printing money, while nations such as Australia have the best performing developed economy on the planet and Qatar is the richest nation on the planet per capita. I say best of luck to you selling that :lol:


*:lol: :lol: Stay on the losing Oz bid team with NO HOPE in HELL!! *


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

Gondolier said:


> *:lol: :lol: Stay on the losing Oz bid team with NO HOPE in HELL!! *


Isn't it time you went to school? Typing in bigger font only makes you more of an idiot. Best of luck whenever your country can actually host anything.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Word on the street is that the US is trying to host this little soccer thingy in 2022....


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

mike7743 said:


> lol @ the hate for the US.
> 
> I'm amazed by the hostility shown here towards the US. I understand people love to hate the US but is it something people get off of to when they take shots at the US? I honestly didn't know the US is bidding to host the world cup until I saw this thread (*neither does 99% of our population*) *because an overwhelming majority of us don't even care for it*. I suggest you guys relax and don't hurt yourselves over this and most importantly don't lose sleep fuming over the internet. regardless of the outcome chances are *most of us wouldn't care either way*. so relax guys. relax!


Wow, that's good to know, thanks. The US bid is great and MysteryMike's silly YouTube videos do nothing to change that, but 1994 plus statements like these quoted above only strengthen my belief that it's too soon for the US to host again.


----------



## mike7743 (Oct 23, 2007)

RobH said:


> Wow, that's good to know, thanks. The US bid is great and MysteryMike's silly YouTube videos do nothing to change that, but 1994 plus statements like these quoted above only strengthen my belief that it's too soon for the US to host again.



I completely agree with you. we don't deserve to host the world cup. like I said, no one know we are even bidding to host it. mainly because most Americans have no interest (even worse no respect) for the game itself. Soccer is something people look at funny. it's considered a women sport. so chances are most would not take it seriously. back in 1994, when we hosted the world cup, over 3/4th of the American public did not know a game was going on and the US was hosting the world cup in it's soil. just think about that. the country is too big to pay attention to soccer. so much has changed since then but not to a point where you can say soccer is a sport America watches let alone loves. I'm a soccer fan but we still have a long way to go and others who love and respect the game should get a shot at hosting it, not us.


with that said, did I read a post about an Australian comparing the US economy to Australia's? is this a joke?

lol, even the state I live in (on it's own, without being included with the country) has a bigger economy than Australia's. and I love Australia. this is what happens when people speak on a subject they do not understand. enough with these pathetic arguments.

some people really need to get a life.


----------



## mike7743 (Oct 23, 2007)

soup or man said:


> Word on the street is that the US is trying to host this little soccer thingy in 2022....


:lol:

don't you find it funny how we look at things vs how the rest of the world does?

I mean, people are actually spending time on the internet opposing this supposedly "bid" that I read today that in fact most of us don't even know about. how about that for a perspective.

-sigh-


----------



## Bolsilludo (Aug 27, 2010)

Gondolier said:


> Why are DysenteryMike, Andreas and X sooooo obsessively targeted on the US bid?
> 
> BECAUSE #1 - they have no lives outside of this board and soccer; and #2 - they ARE AFRAID and know USA 2022 is the ONLY thing in Australia's way...and will be there to send 2026 to OZ or CHINA!!
> 
> That's why!! Oz got our support for 2026. By then. maybe you'll have 28 million people to fill those seats!! :rofl: :rofl:


*Bingo!* :lol:


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

AndreasBerlin said:


> Is there any chance we can actually discuss the topic here...?


Throwing icecubes at pinguins; children on a defaming mission. 

It seems as if Mike7743 is putting things into another realistic perspective though.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

There are 2 solid arguments for why the USA shouldn't host the 2022 World Cup and those are the fact that it has already hosted a World Cup as recently as 1994 and also indeed the relative disinterest there is in America for the tournament anyway. Quality of stadiums, attendance, organisation or economics are not an issue.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Those are not solid arguments. In 2022, it would have been 28 years since the US hosted the World Cup. And considering the fact that the US has lots of different nationalities in it (not just Americans who's enthusiasm about the sport is growing), there will be no lack of atmosphere.


----------



## OnceBittenTwiceShy (Mar 14, 2010)

carlspannoosh said:


> Solid argument
> 
> ....
> 
> ...


Please visit the Qatar thread to aircondition your view.


----------



## PaulFCB (Apr 21, 2008)

soup or man said:


> Those are not solid arguments. In 2022, it would have been 28 years since the US hosted the World Cup. And considering the fact that the US has lots of different nationalities in it (not just Americans who's enthusiasm about the sport is growing), there will be no lack of atmosphere.


 Yeah, but Australia never did...Japan and Korea would be extremely lame after just 2 decades + using the same 10 stadium, only this time more games on each stadium.
USA would be nice if they would have new stadiums like New Meadowlands and Cowboy Stadium and eventually something new in L.A. not the 100 year old by then, Rose Bowl or Coliseum. I've heard of a new stadium in L.A. but it looks so old for the 21st Century IMO>
Also, USA is so big, in 1994 LA and SF were so isolated far away from other hosting cities, only Dallas was a bit closer up, trips like LA to Detroit as an example were very exhausting.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

PaulFCB said:


> Yeah, but Australia never did...Japan and Korea would be extremely lame after just 2 decades + using the same 10 stadium, only this time more games on each stadium.
> USA would be nice if they would have new stadiums like New Meadowlands and Cowboy Stadium and eventually something new in L.A. not the 100 year old by then, Rose Bowl or Coliseum. I've heard of a new stadium in L.A. but it looks so old for the 21st Century IMO>
> Also, USA is so big, in 1994 LA and SF were so isolated far away from other hosting cities, only Dallas was a bit closer up, trips like LA to Detroit as an example were very exhausting.


You act as though 2022 is tomorrow. Things change. And so what if the LA Coliseum will be old? It was built in 1923 and is the US's most important and historic stadium. If it were to hold a World Cup game, that would put in rare air.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

1994 is still pretty recent given the relative lack of interest that there is for football in America. Loads of countries have loads of nationalities. That is neither here nor there.
I would concede that the other main candidate Australia historically also has a similar lack of interest in the sport but also like the US it does have a reputation for hosting well organised, well attended tournaments. Unlike the US though it has never hosted a World Cup before. That is a distinct advantage for the Australian bid.
As for Qatar I don't consider it a serious bid.


----------



## SIC (May 31, 2006)

carlspannoosh said:


> 1994 is still pretty recent given the relative lack of interest that there is for football in America. Loads of countries have loads of nationalities. That is neither here nor there.
> I would concede that the other main candidate Australia historically also has a similar lack of interest in the sport but also like the US it does have a reputation for hosting well organised, well attended tournaments. Unlike the US though it has never hosted a World Cup before. That is a distinct advantage for the Australian bid.
> As for Qatar I don't consider it a serious bid.


I disagree on the "relative lack of interest" remark, especially when you analyze the growth in overall attendance in MLS, US NT team games and in the last WC ratings. It's on a upswing and another WC would propel the game to new heights in the states. But as an American, it's more of a question of "if, not when" we get another world cup. Whether it's 2022 or '26 or '30. It's just a matter of time. Theres Canada is the only other realistic host for a CONCACAF bid and their FA is a mess and FIFA would surely give the US a 2nd WC before giving Mexico a 3rd.


----------



## MysteryMike (Sep 16, 2010)

*"Has Australia pulled out of the bid completely?" the president of the US Soccer Federation Sunil Gulati cheekily asked at the end of this session of the Leaders in Football Conference in London.*

http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8100831

How the mighty have fallen. Sunil Gulati a month or so ago was laughing at opponents and putting them down, without realising what was really happening behind the scenes. Currently he is on a desperate global pitch to salvage any support what so ever for the US bid, including members of his own confederation. Australia's FA chairman Frank Lowy (owner of Westfield) and Qatar's Sheikh Hamad bin Kahlifa Al-Thani (the royal highness) have both out thought and out maneuvered him, much to his dismay :lol: Tough break Sunil, very tough break.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

MysteryMike said:


> Lets just say nobody really likes the US, except the US, much like the legacy, the support is non existent.
> South Korea's FIFA executive has even recently gone to say the US bid deserves a red card for being utter pricks and Japan too feels the same way. Australia works with South Korea and Japan and both nations know how much Australia has contributed to the Asian Confederation and even their own football development. Their votes are going nowhere but Australia after the initial round.


When North Korea invades South Korea the US will just turn a blind eye then.


----------



## foxmulder (Dec 1, 2007)

I support USA 2022 bid 100%. I hope it goes to USA.


----------



## mattec (Aug 2, 2009)

PaulFCB said:


> Yeah, but Australia never did...Japan and Korea would be extremely lame after just 2 decades + using the same 10 stadium, only this time more games on each stadium.
> USA would be nice if they would have new stadiums like New Meadowlands and Cowboy Stadium and eventually something new in L.A. not the 100 year old by then, Rose Bowl or Coliseum. I've heard of a new stadium in L.A. but it looks so old for the 21st Century IMO


Who cares if the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum are old, The Rose Bowl is undergoing a major renovation and the Coliseum will likely have a renovation between now and 2022... Besides, the Rose Bowl and Coliseum look better than 99% of that new futuristic looking crap being built in Europe and Asia.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

I actually went to the Coliseum today (because I was bored) and rode my bike up to the peristyle (you can get VERY close to the stadium unlike many other stadiums). The Coliseum needs to be renovated but at the same time, if the World Cup were to be held today, the Coliseum would still be up to par with today's stadiums. And I'm not just saying that just because I live in Los Angeles. The Coliseum has history unlike many other American or even global stadiums. It's going to be around forever.

One other thing that I didn't even know was there: On either side of the main arch are 2 huge stones. One is from the Olympic stadium in Athens (the old one) and the other is from the Roman Coliseum.


----------



## ryebreadraz (Sep 4, 2008)

The Coliseum has great history, but it's hundreds of millions of dollars of renovation away from being close to a viable World Cup venue.


----------



## hngcm (Sep 17, 2002)

Yeah the final will probably be held in the new Meadowlands Stadium or a new DC stadium.


----------



## carlspannoosh (Apr 12, 2004)

SIC said:


> I disagree on the "relative lack of interest" remark, especially when you analyze the growth in overall attendance in MLS, US NT team games and in the last WC ratings. It's on a upswing and another WC would propel the game to new heights in the states. But as an American, it's more of a question of "if, not when" we get another world cup. Whether it's 2022 or '26 or '30. It's just a matter of time. Theres Canada is the only other realistic host for a CONCACAF bid and their FA is a mess and FIFA would surely give the US a 2nd WC before giving Mexico a 3rd.


 Simply, what I am saying is that I think there are 2 serious bids for 2022, Australia and USA. When comparing the 2 bids the main advantage Australia has over the US is that it has never held a World Cup before. That advantage could be countered by a bid from a country that had a greater historical involvment in game than Australia but that wouldn't really apply in the US case. 
Given that stadiums, attendance, organisation etc would not be an issue with either bid the argument is tipped slightly towards Australia in my opinion.


----------

