# UEFA EURO 2028 bids



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

Οn September we will have the appointment of host of UEFA Euro 2024. So after that we are entering the procedure for bidding for Euro 2028


Italy has expressed early interest


https://www.calcionews24.com/euro-2028-italia-candidatura-stadi/


share your info and views! thanks!


----------



## Yuvallu (Mar 17, 2017)

I hope that spain will host the euro, idk why


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

italy should go for the world cup (even though it’s coming home very soon ) and leave euro to spain


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

ElvisBC said:


> italy should go for the world cup (even though it’s coming home very soon ) and leave euro to spain



Spain also may think the same


----------



## matthias23 (Oct 28, 2017)

i expect the loser of Germany/Turkey to try for 2028 again.

England will focus on WC, but Italy and Spain should give it a try.


----------



## Fabol22 (Sep 13, 2013)

Spain, Italy or England


----------



## petschovschi (Sep 8, 2010)

Imo EURO 2024 will be in Germany. Probably Turkey will try again in 2028. Other potential bids: Spain (+Portugal), Russia (without Ekaterinburg and Saransk, but with Krasnodar and other 2-3 stadiums in Moscow: TSKA, Lokomotiv or new Dinamo)

England (or UK) will be focused on WC 2030. Despite the fact I'm big fan of italian football I must say Italy can't compete with those countries because of lack of stadiums. Italy has only one new stadium, Allianz Arena, rest of them are outdated (maybe Olimpico in Rome it's decent despite of athletic track). I was on many stadiums during years. Stadiums like Wembley, Krestovsky, Stade de France etc can't be compared with San Siro in any terms ...


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

for Russia i guess will be too early after 2018 to go for another big competition in football


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

What about the smaller countries in Eastern Europe? Is there a bid from any of them?


----------



## gazzaa2 (Mar 22, 2014)

Italy need a tournament as it's the only way to sort the stadiums out to jolt them out of their endless bureaucratic process.

Turkey, England and Germany have basically got all their stadiums built.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

George_D said:


> for Russia i guess will be too early after 2018 to go for another big competition in football


Not really, Italy hosted both within 10 years, France within 14. Though I think they've got their eye on the 2032 Olympics as their next big hosting with St Petersburg being lined up.


----------



## Laurence2011 (Mar 4, 2011)

Italy for me


----------



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

Of course Turkey will bid again


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

www.sercan.de said:


> Of course Turkey will bid again


 and loose again 


Euro 2024 for sure will go to Germany. Some say that there was a secret agreement between federations of England and Germany for 2020, 2024 and 2028 Euros but England seems to seek 2030 World Cup bid and they are not interested for Euro 2028.
I havent noticed any reaction from Spain also.


----------



## Snjezan1986 (Jul 1, 2018)

Rokto14 said:


> What about the smaller countries in Eastern Europe? Is there a bid from any of them?


I hope,some bid of Serbia,Croatia,Hungary together maybe.I think,the last candidature from Eastern Europe was Croatia/Hungary for EURO 2012!


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Snjezan1986 said:


> I hope,some bid of Serbia,Croatia,Hungary together maybe.I think,the last candidature from Eastern Europe was Croatia/Hungary for EURO 2012!


because the whole region has zero compatible stadiums (will have one after budapest is finalized) and there is no chance anyone finances that. even world cup second croatia has none, think about that!


----------



## Lord David (May 23, 2009)

Have the old Yugoslav Republics bid, to add further healing in the troubled region and more importantly to give the impression of united Baltic nations in a new Europe.

Bosnia and Herzegovina - 2 stadiums 
Croatia - 2 stadiums 
Macedonia - 1 stadium
Montenegro - 1 stadium 
Serbia - 2 stadiums
Slovenia - 1 stadium


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

Lord David said:


> Have the old Yugoslav Republics bid, to add further healing in the troubled region and more importantly to give the impression of united Baltic nations in a new Europe.
> 
> Bosnia and Herzegovina - 2 stadiums
> Croatia - 2 stadiums
> ...



unrealistic. Most of these countries have bad bilateral relations


----------



## kerouac1848 (Jun 9, 2009)

A Balkan Euros, west or east, would be great, but 2028 is too soon I think. I mean it's only a decade away to have 10 stadiums in place plus all the other infrastructure. Some of the national governing bodies seem to be in a right mess as well.


----------



## Gyorgy (Mar 11, 2009)

George_D said:


> unrealistic. Most of these countries have bad bilateral relations


Yes, Hungary would be more suitable for Croatia and Slovenia.


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo (Mar 8, 2020)

I think that Spain could host an Euro easily.
-Madrid: new Santiago Bernabéu (80.000) and Wanda Metropolitano (67.000).
















-Barcelona: new Camp Nou (105.000) and RCDE Stadium (40.500).
















-Sevilla: new Benito Villamarín (60.000) and Sanchez Pizjuán (45.000). These 2 could host the tournament, but they should have reforms, especially the second one. Benito Villamarin's reforms are planned but they haven't got enough money. Sanchez Pizjuan hasn't got any reform plans, but it could be a 3 stands stadium.
















-Valencia: new Mestalla (55.000)








-Bilbao: San Mamés (53.000)








-San Sebastián: Reale Arena (39.500)


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo (Mar 8, 2020)

Other stadiums from Spain that if they want to host an Euro, they should have a reform in the capacity or/and have good instalations.
-A Coruña: Riazor (33.000)








-Vigo: New Balaidos (29.000)








-Gijón: El Molinón (30.000)








-Oviedo: Carlos Tartiere (31.000)








-Valladolid: José Zorrilla (26.800)








-Zaragoza: La Romareda (33.000)








-Alicante: José Rico Pérez (30.000)








-Elche: Martínez Valero (33.800)








-Murcia: Nueva Condomina (30.800)








-Málaga: La Rosaleda (30.000)


----------



## GunnerJacket (Jan 25, 2008)

I thought the venue for Real Betis had already been undergoing a renovation, one section at a time. Am I mistaken?


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo (Mar 8, 2020)

No, you're not. The new South Stand was built in the season 2016-2017, and the North and East Stand in the season 2000-2001, but the real project isn't finished yet. This is the project:








The same case of Balaidos. It had a renovation from 2015 to 2017, to rebuild the Preferent Stand and improve the Rio Stand, but the real project hasn't finished yet.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

By the time bidding for Euro 2028 starts it will be clear who was awarded 2030WC and then it might get down to Spain vs. Italy showdown. I wouldn’t mind Romania/Greece either but I somehow do not believe in that, at least not in ‘28


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

ElvisBC said:


> By the time bidding for Euro 2028 starts it will be clear who was awarded 2030WC and then it might get down to Spain vs. Italy showdown. I wouldn’t mind Romania/Greece either but I somehow do not believe in that, at least not in ‘28


When will the bidding process start for Euro 2028? And also when will UEFA award the hosting rights for this?


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

there is no timetable yet, it was supposed to start later this year and end sometimes end of 2022 or early 2023


----------



## matthias23 (Oct 28, 2017)

Germany won the right to host Euro 2024 in September 2019.
So if the timetable is the same then Euro 2028 will be awarded September 2023


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

matthias23 said:


> Germany won the right to host Euro 2024 in September 2019.
> So if the timetable is the same then Euro 2028 will be awarded September 2023


no, it was one year earlier. still, it means nothing, they do not keep the same timeframe every time


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo (Mar 8, 2020)

In Germany 2024, there will be 10 stadiums, like in France 2016. 
The stadium criteria to host an Euro are:

1 stadium of 60.000 seats for a semifinal and a final.
2 stadiums of 50.000 seats.
3 stadiums of 40.000 seats.
4 stadiums of 30.000 seats.
Obviusly, if they are stadiums with more capacity, it's better.
Nowadays, the most probable candidates are Spain and Italy.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

ElvisBC said:


> By the time bidding for Euro 2028 starts it will be clear who was awarded 2030WC and then it might get down to Spain vs. Italy showdown. I wouldn’t mind Romania/Greece either but I somehow do not believe in that, at least not in ‘28





Kepa_Jametxo said:


> In Germany 2024, there will be 10 stadiums, like in France 2016.
> The stadium criteria to host an Euro are:
> 
> 1 stadium of 60.000 seats for a semifinal and a final.
> ...


I was wrong in previous post about timeframe for WC2030/Euro2028 bids, I forgot WC2026 was awarded on fast track due to US pressure and their money FIFA is still hungry for. So there will be certain collision in those bids and I honestly expect UEFA to solve it behind the closed doors.

This way or another, Spain will have to decide which path to take. I honestly do not give them significant chances for the World Cup, especially if China is given a go to bid so Euro might be the better choice anyway.

About stadiums, those criteria above change as it suits UEFA best, I wouldn‘t care too much about them and both Italy and Spain could easily fulfill whatever is required. Italy of course needs to build much more and that‘s why I would give it to Italy, no brainer for me. They also organized best World Cup ever in terms of fun, that was true fan ecstasy... so let them do it once again! Having Euro24 in Germany and Euro28 in Italy is a true dream scenario: two countries who gave us best World Cups giving us two consecutive Euros as well! Yes please!!
Spain on the other hand could finally get New Mestalla and Camp Nou reconstruction done easily if awarded the cup, but that may be done without it as well.

Whoever gets it it will be good, no worries at all ...


----------



## matthias23 (Oct 28, 2017)

ElvisBC said:


> no, it was one year earlier. still, it means nothing, they do not keep the same timeframe every time


was it already 2018?
OMG - time flies


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

we need it now to fly


----------



## aquamaroon (Dec 7, 2015)

Spain seems like the obvious choice to me, unless the clubs in Italy pull off all of the planned stadiums they have on the drawing boards in their various cities. Just curious, any chance that Turkey would host a Euro? They seem to have quite a few brand new modern stadiums in their country.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

sure there is, if they decide to bid again. it would probably be great tournament as well, but current political situation there might still be a burden


----------



## Roxven (Jun 29, 2013)

> The stadium criteria to host an Euro are:
> 
> 
> 1 stadium of 60.000 seats for a semifinal and a final.
> ...


Stadiums in Poland

I believe Poland could try to host it but this time as solo host. Even if not 2028 than 2032 or 2036. Especially because it's the only one big country with many stadiums that withdraw from Euro 2020 candidacy. Stadiums are there, infrastructure is there, fans are there. France hosted it already 3 times, Germany (including 2024) and Italy 2 times. Poland will focus probably only on hosting EURO since WC is out of reach with ridiculous demands both for infrastructure and money. I believe it should be between England, Spain, Turkey, Russia and Poland for next 20-30 years.


----------



## Gombos (Feb 6, 2011)

Roxven said:


> I believe it should be between England, Spain, Turkey, Russia and Poland for next 20-30 years.


no, it should not be just between them. this is your opinion. with deference and respect, Romania-Greece will certainly be more prepared than Poland-Ukraine was in 2012. but of course, Poland can bid again. it will be achievable even a solo candidacy in the future, just that you will remain with empty stadiums after. 

and football is not just between Big 4.


----------



## Roxven (Jun 29, 2013)

Gombos said:


> no, it should not be just between them. this is your opinion. with deference and respect, Romania-Greece will certainly be more prepared than Poland-Ukraine was in 2012. but of course, Poland can bid again. it will be achievable even a solo candidacy in the future, just that you will remain with empty stadiums after.
> 
> and football is not just between Big 4.


I'm not saying that those "have to be" the only ones. Ofc Romania can and probably should try to take part in bid proces as solo host and co-host and I wish You all the best. Fortunatelly we won't have a single empty stadium after as all of them all already builded and profitable as You can see in link i attached (we would probably need to simply add few thousends sits to two of those stadiums what is perfectly achiavable). And all what i wrote was simply my own proposition. You have to remember as most don't even know Euro 2012 was mainly Ukrainian tournament although matches were split half. Poland was choosen by Ukraine becuase it was the only way they could host it. Whole Euro bid was mainly Ukrainian idea. And with all due respect but:



> Romania-Greece will certainly be more prepared than Poland-Ukraine was in 2012


I certainly can't agree with it. But it's topic for longer discussion, but I agree with You that football shouldn't be just between big 4, because big 4 already hosted many football events way too often despite theirs sometimes superior infrastructure. I know that money spins the world and football loves money as plants love water on desert. Yet as new Netflix series "The English Game" shows, football should and have to be for everyone not only for the rich and mighty.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

Gombos said:


> football is not just between Big 4.


I wouldn't necessarily agree with this (at least for major international tournaments).

There have been 21 World Cup and 15 European Championship tournaments. Of those:
England has hosted 1 World Cup (1966) and 1 European Championship (1996).
Spain has hosted 1 World Cup (1982) and 1 European Championship (1964).

Neither has either of these countries been awarded any future World Cup or European Championship. Yes, France has hosted a lot of tournaments, Italy a few (but the most recent was 30 years ago), and Germany a few - but England and Spain, two of the world's biggest footballing nations, are probably due a major tournament.


----------



## Icewave (Dec 28, 2012)

I'm not a political or sport expert .. 
I have a point of view that everything will change after the virus especially for whose who really suffered and who we recover faster will effect also who will host the next events.


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Icewave said:


> I'm not a political or sport expert ..
> I have a point of view that everything will change after the virus especially for whose who really suffered and who we recover faster will effect also who will host the next events.


Looking at the current situation, it seems like the number of cases in Italy, Spain, Germany and France is slowing down compared to what it was 1-2 weeks ago. And any country which has been affected badly by COVID-19 will take at least 2-3 years to recover in terms of economy and things going back to normal as what it was.


----------



## Kepa_Jametxo (Mar 8, 2020)

I think that Italy's problem (appart from the problems to reform) is that some plans for the new stadiums have less than 30.000. This were the stadiums for Italy 90 and the plans for the future.
-Luigi Ferraris (Genoa) --> difficult
-Renzo Barbera (Palermo) --> very difficult
-Renato Dall'Ara (Bolonia) --> plans for a reform for 27.000 
-Estadio Friuli (Udine) --> reformed, 25.000
-Saint'Elia (Cagliari) --> plans for 25.000 or 30.000 (it isn't sure)
-Marcantonio Bentegodi (Verona) --> no plans
-Artemio Franchi (Florence) --> plans for a new stadium
-San Nicola (Bari) --> no plans
-Delle Alpi (Turin) --> reformed, Allianz Stadium (41.500)
-San Paolo (Naples) --> no plans
-San Siro (Milan) --> plans for a new stadium
-Stadio Olimpico (Roma) --> no


----------



## kwastell (Dec 2, 2012)

Kepa_Jametxo said:


> I think that Italy's problem (appart from the problems to reform) is that some plans for the new stadiums have less than 30.000. This were the stadiums for Italy 90 and the plans for the future.
> -Luigi Ferraris (Genoa) --> difficult
> -Renzo Barbera (Palermo) --> very difficult
> -Renato Dall'Ara (Bolonia) --> plans for a reform for 27.000
> ...


Roma have plans for a new stadium. Last I read it was 52,000, expandable to 60,000. And it seems that Friedkin is very much planning on going forward with those, and that they are finally on the verge of getting the final sign-off from the city.

San Siro rebuild plans (60,000) also seem to be finally moving forward.

Juve as you said have a 40,000+ stadium.

Fiorentina are still (slowly) moving forward with plans for a 40,000 capacity stadium.

Cagliari and Bologna could probably integrate a temporary 30k capacity into their plans - to be reduced after a major finals

That would leave Italy a 50k+, 40k+ and two 30k+ stadiums short.

Could you build a 50k stadium (convertible to Rugby National stadium - possibly with lowered capacity) in the Veneto region, possibly near Venice - where Rugby is far more popular than in Lazio?

Could a bid support a new 40k stadium in Naples?

Could you modernise the Luigi Ferraris internally, reducing capacity from 36k, to around 30k, with increased sized seating and new hospitality facilities?

Suddenly you’re just talking about finding one more ground that’s temporarily able to be expanded to reach 30k. All very realistic in my opinion.


----------



## Pat Mustard (Oct 19, 2006)

kwastell said:


> Roma have plans for a new stadium. Last I read it was 52,000, expandable to 60,000. And it seems that Friedkin is very much planning on going forward with those, and that they are finally on the verge of getting the final sign-off from the city.
> 
> San Siro rebuild plans (60,000) also seem to be finally moving forward.
> 
> ...


I'm no expert on Italian football, but isn't the fundamental problem the ownership structure when it comes to stadia i.e. that most clubs play in grounds that they don't own? Who is responsible for improving the stadium and who gets the profits that it will generate from better concessions, hospitality, non-matchday income, concerts, other events etc? That is the incentive for clubs to invest in facilities, which just doesn't seem to be the case in Italy.

Looking from the outside it is really noticeable how far Italian grounds have fallen behind the other big leagues in Europe. Even Juventus, which is seemingly the most modern the country has to offer, is light years behind the new stadia that have been developed in England, France, Germany and Spain. It's a real shame for someone who grew up in the 90's and held Italian football as the gold standard in terms of it's teams and it's stadia to look at how far behind it has fallen, but maybe a bid for Euro 2028 is what it needs. It will take billions of Euro investment though, so whether that is feasible currently I just wouldn't know.


----------



## kwastell (Dec 2, 2012)

Pat Mustard said:


> I'm no expert on Italian football, but isn't the fundamental problem the ownership structure when it comes to stadia i.e. that most clubs play in grounds that they don't own? Who is responsible for improving the stadium and who gets the profits that it will generate from better concessions, hospitality, non-matchday income, concerts, other events etc? That is the incentive for clubs to invest in facilities, which just doesn't seem to be the case in Italy.
> 
> Looking from the outside it is really noticeable how far Italian grounds have fallen behind the other big leagues in Europe. Even Juventus, which is seemingly the most modern the country has to offer, is light years behind the new stadia that have been developed in England, France, Germany and Spain. It's a real shame for someone who grew up in the 90's and held Italian football as the gold standard in terms of it's teams and it's stadia to look at how far behind it has fallen, but maybe a bid for Euro 2028 is what it needs. It will take billions of Euro investment though, so whether that is feasible currently I just wouldn't know.


Juve had a (highly embarrassing) issue with the roof that meant they had to install cables, but beyond that I certainly wouldn’t say it’s much (if any) worse than The Emirates or Wembley, and in terms of sight lines, distance from the pitch etc considerably better than the Wanda Metropolitano or London Stadium. Haven’t been to the new Spurs ground so can’t comment on that.

Italy has been passing (and continues to pass) laws making it easier for clubs to own their own stadiums. Juve, Sassuolo and Atalanta own their grounds. Udinese pretty much do - they have a long (99 year?) leasing agreement at a knockdown price similar to West Ham and similar to what Bologna have agreed for the Dall’Ara. Inter and Milan have agreed to buy San Siro from the city of Milan. Roma’s new stadium will be theirs, and I am pretty sure Fiorentina’s will be too. So it’s finally all changing quite quickly.


----------



## Xhaka (Mar 10, 2017)

https://www.agonasport.com/agonasport-allnews/stadium-situation-for-uefa-euro-2028-bid


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Xhaka said:


> https://www.agonasport.com/agonasport-allnews/stadium-situation-for-uefa-euro-2028-bid


The article states that no formal bid has been made for the Euro 2028 other than the Balkan bid but didn't Turkey already confirmed that they are also bidding the Euro 2028 edition?


----------



## Xhaka (Mar 10, 2017)

Rokto14 said:


> The article states that no formal bid has been made for the Euro 2028 other than the Balkan bid but didn't Turkey already confirmed that they are also bidding the Euro 2028 edition?


Yes it's confirmed that Turkey is bidding for euro 2028 as România-Greece-Serbia and Bulgaria also Spain, Italy and a group of(Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) are potential to candidate as well


----------



## Xhaka (Mar 10, 2017)

The Criteria for participants is:

3 stadiums with 50,000 seats (and preferably one with at least 60,000 seats)
3 stadiums with 40,000 seats
4 stadiums with 30,000 seats


----------



## vitacit (Feb 8, 2008)

IMHO Poland could be hidden favourite...
50+ Warszawa, Chorzow, potential (temporary ?) expansion of Poznan
40+ Wroclaw. Gdansk, Poznan
30+ Krakow ,Zabrze, Warszawa (Legia stadium)

So basically they need one more (maybe two) stadiums to fulfill the criteria. RIght now Szczeczyn is rebuilding stadium, maybe Bialystok, Rzeszow, Bydgoszcz...


----------



## wojtekbp (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ there are/were plans to build, inter alia, 40k+ stadium for Polonia in Warsaw. So, theoretically, Poland would be ready to organise such an event without any special preparations. Nevertheless, there is no political atmosphere whatsoever as it would be commonly perceived as wasting taxpayers money...


----------



## matthias23 (Oct 28, 2017)

vitacit said:


> IMHO Poland could be hidden favourite...
> 50+ Warszawa, Chorzow, potential (temporary ?) expansion of Poznan
> 40+ Wroclaw. Gdansk, Poznan
> 30+ Krakow ,Zabrze, Warszawa (Legia stadium)
> ...


just 16 years after Co-Hosting with Ukraine?


----------



## ayatollah2030 (Jul 9, 2020)

Poland has not expressed its intention to bid.


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

Italy will bid or not?


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

George_D said:


> Italy will bid or not?


They are considering to bid as of last year. No confirmation till now.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

there are no bids yet because the bidding process hasn’t started yet, just statements about intentions to bid. spain might reconsider it depending on their world cup bid, the others are likely to try.


----------



## Xhaka (Mar 10, 2017)

Turkey bid?


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

Xhaka said:


> Turkey bid?


nobody wants them


----------



## Xhaka (Mar 10, 2017)

George_D said:


> nobody wants them


Remains the only bidding states Romania-Greece-Serbia-Bulgaria


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

Xhaka said:


> Remains the only bidding states Romania-Greece-Serbia-Bulgaria


i think that this bid is also unrealistic


----------



## Vizemeister (May 7, 2012)

Light Tower said:


> Russia is bidding for the UEFA Euro either 2028 or 2032.


Source?


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

__





Socialpost


Top News - Get all the Social Post Top Read today articles, Latest News Headlines in English from Sports, Entertainment, National, Technology, World and ...




www.socialpost.news





It was up for a while but database connection got lost.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Ramanaramana said:


> Not as heartbroken as I might be, as the Champions League is already turning into what I want it to turn as early as 2024. UEFA have already signed off on the single-table, 10 match group stage.
> 
> My desire for the best of the best playing against each other regularly will become reality, and a major step has just been taken. You, on the other hand, are perfectly free to continue enjoy watching Rosenborg play Molde and not participating at major tournaments, no one will deprive you of that you can rest assured.
> 
> ...


welcome to the boards mr. perez


----------



## JYDA (Jul 14, 2008)

If FIFA employee Arsene Wenger is to be believed, it might be Euro 2027. 









Arsene Wenger backs FIFA's plan to stage a World Cup every two years


Former Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger has delivered his verdict on FIFA's plan that would significantly change the landscape to international football as we know it




www.football.london


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

For the UEFA Women's Euro 2025 could be held in Poland. If so, it would be the first time Poland will host the UEFA Women's Euro.









Kolejna wielka piłkarska impreza w Polsce? Boniek zabrał głos


- Futbol kobiet cieszy się wielką popularnością w wielu krajach europejskich - powiedział prezes PZPN Zbigniew Boniek podczas czwartkowej konferencji prasowej reprezentacji Polski, gdy zapytano go o organizację ME kobiet w 2025 roku.




www.polsatsport.pl


----------



## Kjello0 (May 1, 2009)

Ramanaramana said:


> Not as heartbroken as I might be, as the Champions League is already turning into what I want it to turn as early as 2024. UEFA have already signed off on the single-table, 10 match group stage.
> 
> My desire for the best of the best playing against each other regularly will become reality, and a major step has just been taken. You, on the other hand, are perfectly free to continue enjoy watching Rosenborg play Molde and not participating at major tournaments, no one will deprive you of that you can rest assured.


First of all. Having the EUROs and the World Cup every second year, will make both tournaments less special. It will become a part of the regular season, rather than something to celebrate now and then. The wait builds up on the excitement of the tournaments. Sometimes less is more.

Second, to be the best, you have to prove you're the best. It's not given to you as a right by your name or even your historic results. It's about who beat who yesterday, last weekend, last month or at worst last season.

Italy are in the semi finals this Euro. Yet they failed to qualify for the last World Cup. Because they weren't good enough and didn't deserve to qualify.
The Netherlands participated in their first tournament since 2014 this summer. Because ICELAND were better than them in the Euro 2016 qualifiers, and Sweden in the 2018 WC qualifiers.
Finland qualified for their first major tournament this time. Because they were better than the former champions Greece.

You're confusing "the best" with "the most famous". You're wanting the most famous to participate. Not the best.


----------



## Rokto14 (Dec 2, 2013)

Kjello0 said:


> *First of all. Having the EUROs and the World Cup every second year, will make both tournaments less special. It will become a part of the regular season, rather than something to celebrate now and then. The wait builds up on the excitement of the tournaments. Sometimes less is more.*
> 
> Second, to be the best, you have to prove you're the best. It's not given to you as a right by your name or even your historic results. It's about who beat who yesterday, last weekend, last month or at worst last season.
> 
> ...


I also think the same. The WC and the other continental tournaments are held every four years. And I watch almost every single tournament with passion. But if these tournaments become a 2 years affair, then sorry mate, it won't be as interesting as it is for me. Not only for me but the majority of us who watch the sport. It will be a shambolic move if this happens.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

As I commented in one of these threads recently, the 32-team Euros is coming fast.....even though it says they're exploring the idea, it's going to happen 100%. The convoluted 3rd place will be done away with, no extra games for teams, more teams have their day in the sun (quality difference between 24 and 32 is negligible), more happier FAs, more money, and less tedious qualifying. Bonanza, it'll get approved 100%.

Being discussed behind the scenes for a debut in 2028. Should also lend weight to the idea that one of the big nations will host it in 2028, rather than a multi-country bid.

A few highlights.....



> The option of pre-qualifying tournaments to weed out weaker nations has been floated, as is used in Asia and North America for their continental competitions.
> 
> UEFA could build on the early popularity of the new Nations League competition that splits teams into sections based on their rankings, ensuring more tightly-contested games that would be more appealing to broadcasters. Ultimately, it could replace the European Championship qualifying system while configured to ensure leading nations still have a clear route to the finals.











UEFA explores expanding European Championship to 32 teams


LONDON (AP) — Buoyed by the success of this year's European Championship, UEFA is exploring whether to expand the event again to create a 32-team tournament. The review of the format comes as the bidding process is being put in place for Euro 2028 with a decision on the hosting set to come by...




apnews.com


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Mathematically, this makes me happy.


----------



## Ranma Saotome (Nov 3, 2007)

The fate of these international tournaments is to grow until they become almost impossible for the potential hosts. Next steps are World Cup going from 48 to 64 and Nations League from 4 to 8, then to 16.


----------



## Roxven (Jun 29, 2013)

Ramanaramana said:


> As I commented in one of these threads recently, the 32-team Euros is coming fast.....even though it says they're exploring the idea, it's going to happen 100%. The convoluted 3rd place will be done away with, no extra games for teams, more teams have their day in the sun (quality difference between 24 and 32 is negligible), more happier FAs, more money, and less tedious qualifying. Bonanza, it'll get approved 100%.
> 
> Being discussed behind the scenes for a debut in 2028. Should also lend weight to the idea that one of the big nations will host it in 2028, rather than a multi-country bid.
> 
> ...


 If this will really happen than only few countries will be able to host it. Germany, England, Spain, Italy, France and maybe Russia or Turkey. Rest will have to forget about it, because EURO 2020 multi country format was failure and everyone admits it.


----------



## Red85 (Jan 23, 2007)

Ranma Saotome said:


> The fate of these international tournaments is to grow until they become almost impossible for the potential hosts. Next steps are World Cup going from 48 to 64 and Nations League from 4 to 8, then to 16.


And also to make it becomes not so special anymore. 
A Euro's sweet spot is 16 and for the World Cup it is 32. Making it is special, mathematically easy to follow and good to organize.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Red85 said:


> And also to make it becomes not so special anymore.
> A Euro's sweet spot is 16 and for the World Cup it is 32. Making it is special, mathematically easy to follow and good to organize.


absolutely, but both FIFA and UEFA are only interested in their earnings, the more teams the more turnover, that simple! that has nothing to do with fans anymore, it is sad reality football arrived in


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Roxven said:


> If this will really happen than only few countries will be able to host it. Germany, England, Spain, Italy, France and maybe Russia or Turkey. Rest will have to forget about it, because EURO 2020 multi country format was failure and everyone admits it.


The middle ground, of course, is joint hosts. e.g. Germany plus Austria and Switzerland, or England, Wales and Scotland.

There's almost no point doing qualification for a 32 team Euros though. Maybe the bottom ranked teams in Europe could have a mini-tournament for the last few places and everyone else gets in automatically? 😆


----------



## Roxven (Jun 29, 2013)

RobH said:


> The middle ground, of course, is joint hosts. Germany plus Austria and Switzerland, or a England, Wales and Scotland.
> 
> There's almost no point doing qualification for a 32 team Euros though. Maybe the bottom ranked teams in Europe could have a mini-tournament for the last few places and everyone else gets in automatically? 😆


Well... Nations League could be new qualification stage. League A (12 teams) and B (12 teams) with automatic qualifications while teams from lover leagues would compete for 8 remaining spots.
We would have less pointless qualification games like Italy vs San Marino (no offfence) for example.


----------



## Bj16🇳🇬 (Nov 1, 2020)

Ramanaramana said:


> We cant ignore the million new stadiums that have sprung up in Turkey seemingly overnight. They have done so much to improve infrastructure in such a short time not just for domestic league but to be able to host a major tournament.
> 
> To punish them for being proactive while rewarding Italy for standing still doesn't sit well.
> 
> ...


Does this look like basketball to you? Have you ever wondered why football is the most popular sports in the world and Rugby, basketball, Handball and the rest struggle to keep off? Like the pyramid system, everyone on paper has equal chance of participation. During those qualifiers against big teams, Small nations flex their muscle, fans gets more attached to the game and you get to know people you otherwise wouldn't have known. One thing I like telling you Americans and Australians, football goes beyond the figures or profit. Your idea will only make those tournaments less attractive and the money you're looking for won't be made again


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Roxven said:


> If this will really happen than only few countries will be able to host it. Germany, England, Spain, Italy, France and maybe Russia or Turkey. Rest will have to forget about it, because EURO 2020 multi country format was failure and everyone admits it.


There is a big difference between multiple countries who share borders hosting and Euro 2020. Scandinavia, Balkans, central Europe and so on would be vastly different to Euro 2020 which had venues in Seville and Baku. 

But I do agree that it will end up in bigger countries more often than not. I don’t think this is a bad thing personally.



RobH said:


> The middle ground, of course, is joint hosts. e.g. Germany plus Austria and Switzerland, or England, Wales and Scotland.
> 
> There's almost no point doing qualification for a 32 team Euros though. Maybe the bottom ranked teams in Europe could have a mini-tournament for the last few places and everyone else gets in automatically? 😆


You jest but I’m sure it’s being looked at. Automatic qualifiers like in rugby based on prior tournament is a real possibility I reckon, though a more likely solution involves Nations League.



Roxven said:


> Well... Nations League could be new qualification stage. League A (12 teams) and B (12 teams) with automatic qualifications while teams from lover leagues would compete for 8 remaining spots.
> We would have less pointless qualification games like Italy vs San Marino (no offfence) for example.


With you on that. Qualifiers are going to become a small part of international football, so your idea isn’t crazy at all. 



Bj16🇳🇬 said:


> Does this look like basketball to you? Have you ever wondered why football is the most popular sports in the world and Rugby, basketball, Handball and the rest struggle to keep off? Like the pyramid system, everyone on paper has equal chance of participation. During those qualifiers against big teams, Small nations flex their muscle, fans gets more attached to the game and you get to know people you otherwise wouldn't have known. One thing I like telling you Americans and Australians, football goes beyond the figures or profit. Your idea will only make those tournaments less attractive and the money you're looking for won't be made again


Football is most popular because it’s the most played team sport that can be played on any surface, with any number of players, without any equipment other than a ball. And most important it’s incredibly fun and addictive to play, fostering love of the game at an early age which leads to the mass global fandom witnessed today. Has nothing to do with airy fairy ideas like competition format.

None of this is my idea, though I support it. I simply posted a link to EUROPEAN (not Australian or American) officials discussing big changes to qualifying. Maybe you should direct your questions to Europeans who are seeking to make changes instead of pointing fingers at countries that have nothing to do with UEFA.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Ramanaramana said:


> …..None of this is my idea, though I support it.….


you seem to be the target group FIFA and UEFA are envisioning. I might be wrong but I guess you grew up far away from real football?


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

do we have any recent news from italian football federation? will they bid?


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

George_D said:


> do we have any recent news from italian football federation? will they bid?


No, not yet. But they will look to announce the bid as soon as possible.


----------



## Florio (Oct 31, 2014)

George_D said:


> do we have any recent news from italian football federation? will they bid?


Gravina, the president of italian FA insists that Italy will bid for Euro 2028 ow WC 2030. In my opinion the second is basically impossible because easily there aren't enough cities that can have stadiums with more than 40k seats. Italian football have a BIG problem with audience, teams like Cagliari, Bologna, Palermo have 20k sold ticket per game or some thousand more, so stadium with 40k seats are oversized. I can't see other stadiums with this capacity apart Turin (Juve), Milan, Rome (maybe two or three if both Roma and Lazio will build their own stadium, but i'm not so positive about that eventuality), Florence, Naples and maybe Bari. We are talking about 7/8 stadium when they need 12/14/16 stadium.

For the Euros is another situation. These stadium with Cagliari, Palermo, Genova, Bologna (and maybe i forget one or two stadiums) would be a good group of venues. But as today we have:

Rome: 

Olimpico 72k
potential AS Roma stadium 55k
potential SS Lazio stadium 45k

Milan, San Siro (new or old one is the same) 80k/60k
Turin, Juventus Stadium 40k
Florence, I think that in one or two years they will redevelop it, maybe 40k
Naples, Maradona or renovated Maradona around 50k
Bari, renovated San Nicola around 40k
Palermo, Barbera 36k (needs a renovation)
Genova, Marassi 36k (needs a renovation)
Bologna, 30k (in a year they will start with the rebuilding)
Cagliari 30k (like Bologna, a year for the start of the works)

Assuming that Olimpico, Milan, Turin, Florence, Naples, Cagliari and Bologna will be ready in 2 or 3 years, we would need serious works for at least 3 stadiums (Palermo, Cagliari and Bari), maybe 4 if they will renovate Bari stadium, and we miss Roma and Lazio ones, because it was an hypothesis of mine. And if Roma and Lazio don't want to build an own stadium? We would need another two. Parma, Reggio Emilia (Sassuolo's one), Trieste, Bergamo and Udine are too small. Salerno? Messina? Reggio Calabria. 

It's difficult, i think that Roma will build their stadium, but italian FA needs to make a very very good bid. Not impossible but difficult


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Italy will soon decide for either the UEFA Euro 2028 or 2030 FIFA World Cup bid.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

My guess is 2028, Spain/Portugal and UK are going to be one of the strongest World Cup bids we've seen since 2006. Maybe they're throwing their hat into the 2030 ring so that they'll be looked on more favourably for 2028 when they inevitably fail to gain support for 2030.


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

Ramanaramana said:


> My guess is 2028, Spain/Portugal and UK are going to be one of the strongest World Cup bids we've seen since 2006. Maybe they're throwing their hat into the 2030 ring so that they'll be looked on more favourably for 2028 when they inevitably fail to gain support for 2030.


2028 is EURO not World Cup


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

George_D said:


> 2028 is EURO not World Cup


If you read Light Tower's post, which is based on recent announcement by FIGC, you'll see that Italy are considering bidding for either Euro 2028 or World Cup 2030, and that they will decide soon.

Clearly there is a strong relationship between bidding for Euros or the World Cup around the same time. We know that Spain will certainly bid for 2030, and UK are likely going to as well.

My guess is that they are just bluffing about 2030, and intend to bid for 2028. What is the point of Italy throwing their hat into the ring for 2030 when they are going to lose to either of one of Spain or UK? Everyone and their mother knows they don't stand a chance against either of those two, who I reckon are the best bidders we've had for a major tournament since 2006. 2028 is clearly the best option for Italy.

What I was saying with my previous post is that it's possible that FIGC have mentioned 2030 as a possible bid because it will help them in gaining support for their real target....2028.


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)




----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

best way possible ….. get those stadiums running, host great EURO tournament and bid for World Cup 10 years later


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

ElvisBC said:


> best way possible ….. get those stadiums running, host great EURO tournament and bid for World Cup 10 years later


I have no doubt about its ability to host a Euro. A 24 or 32 Euro which accepts 30,000 seaters is doable for Italy. I do wonder where Italy would find 12-16 40,000-seat-minimum high-quality stadiums.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Don't know yet for Italy bid of UEFA Euro 2028.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Italy is possibly could bid for the UEFA Euro 2028 or the 2030 FIFA World Cup joint bid with Saudi Arabia of (AFC)


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

The bid process of the UEFA Euro 2028 is open. interests will be closed on March 23rd next year and the host will be announced in September 2023 with one year ahead of the Euro 2024 in Germany. 









UEFA announces bidding process for potential UEFA EURO 2028 hosts | Inside UEFA


UEFA.com is the official site of UEFA, the Union of European Football Associations, and the governing body of football in Europe. UEFA works to promote, protect and develop European football across its 55 member associations and organises some of the world’s most famous football competitions...



www.uefa.com


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

^^^
Given the indications provided by UEFA, Italy could bid with the following stadiums:

MY IDEA:
*Olympic Stadium* (70,000)
*New San Siro / FC Inter Milan - AC Milan Stadium* (65,000)
*San Paolo / Diego Armando Maradona Stadium *(55,000)
*New AS Roma Stadium *(50,000?)
*Juventus Stadium *(41,000)
*New Artemio Franchi Stadium* (40,000)
*Luigi Ferraris Stadium *(36,000; it should be expanded to 40,000)
*Cagliari FC Arena *(according to the project, it can be expanded to 30,000 in the occasion of international events)
*New Renato Dall'Ara Stadium* (according to the project, it can be expanded to 30,000 in the occasion of international events)
*Renzo Barbera Stadium* (the capacity can be decreased from 37,000 to 30,000-35,000)

*COMPLETED (SOME WORKS COULD BE CARRIED OUT EVENTUALLY)* | *APPROVED* | *NEARBY APPROVATION* |* PLANNED, DESIGN TO BE UNVEILED IN MARCH 2022* | *PLANNED BY THE NEW OWNERSHIP, DESIGN AND LOCATION TO BE UNVEILED* | *RESTYLING WORK REQUIRED*

Hosting Cities: *Rome*, *Milan*, *Naples*, *Turin*, *Florence*, *Genoa*, *Cagliari*, *Bologna*, *Palermo*.
Cities of mainland Italy connected by High-Speed Rail Network + Palermo and Cagliari (major cities of Italy's two largest islands) via airplane.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

> "Champions League or Europa League finals? We are focusing on a different candidacy, we are interested in the UEFA EURO 2028: Italy has not hosted such an important event for a too long time. I want to close my cycle with this competition" says President of Italian Football Federation, Gabriele Gravina.





https://www.calcioefinanza.it/2021/10/08/italia-candidatura-euro-2028/


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

I think its going to be between


Turkey
Italy
Spain and Portugal
England.

I can see there being some kind of deal being done between the Spain/Portugal as well as the UK/Ireland bids where one candidature steps aside in the World Cup 2030 bidding process and the other in the Euro 2028 bidding process, with the each candidature being supported by them. I think the English FA and the German Football Association did something very similar with the German FA stepping aide from bidding for the Euro 2020 Final, with Wembley getting it, in return the English FA would support Germany's bid for the Euros in 2024.

My bet is on ether Spain/Portugal getting it or England.


----------



## bongo-anders (Oct 26, 2008)

The Danish FA has announced that the Nordic bid is out and has been for a year or so.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Uefa favours Ireland joint bid for Euro 2028 as 2030 World Cup hopes 'over'


European football’s governing body may look to encourage joint Ireland and UK bid to focus on Euro 2028, as it favours Spain-Portugal bid for World Cup




www.irishexaminer.com





Interesting developments here.

I really dont see the point of a UK and Ireland bid for Euro 2028 when England alone could host.

You only need 10 stadiums.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

_“It’s accepted that this isn’t going to happen and the sooner that message is delivered the better,” said a political insider. “I’m not sure it was ever that realistic once Spain and Portugal had declared their intent to host the competition, and for many reasons, not least geography and easy access between the two countries, this one makes more sense._

I really think we should stop wasting time and money with UEFA and FIFA and their predilection for making the rules up as they go along. They change the rules so a compact England bid isn't a goer anymore, so we put effort into putting together a joint bid. And now we're told a UK and Ireland bid isn't compact and travel friendly enough (as if US/Mexico/Canada 2026 is!!). There's zero consistency or logic in any of their bid processes or from what they're asking of countries. Should we really keep playing their silly games?


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

I saw it in dailymail, but I think thats all crap, far too early to tell anything and the situation is changing every now and then anyway!


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

CWells2000 said:


> Uefa favours Ireland joint bid for Euro 2028 as 2030 World Cup hopes 'over'
> 
> 
> European football’s governing body may look to encourage joint Ireland and UK bid to focus on Euro 2028, as it favours Spain-Portugal bid for World Cup
> ...


because this joint bid was formed for World Cup 2030. So UEFA proposes to be transferred to Euro bid 2028


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

George_D said:


> because this joint bid was formed for World Cup 2030. So UEFA proposes to be transferred to Euro bid 2028


I believe a UK and Ireland bid depends on if UEFA opts to expand the Euros to a 32 team format, if it does then I can see it happening, if they opt to stay at 24 teams, then I do think a solo England bid becomes far more likely.

Given UEFA have long had complaints about the current format, it is definitely possible we could see a 32 team Euros by the time 2028 comes around.


----------



## gavstar00 (Apr 26, 2009)

Pat Mustard said:


> It might be controversial as it has a lower capacity, but can see Bramley Moore Dock getting the nod if simply for the fact that the playing area at Anfield is below FIFA/UEFA requirements.
> 
> As for London, it wouldn't surprise me if we end up with the London Stadium despite it palpably being the worst option for watching a football match.


Agreed, it's also the closer option to Liverpool City Centre and, crucially, it could allow Liverpool City Council to gain access to additional government funding to further develop that area with a view to a long term legacy win for the city.

The interesting one for me is the inclusion of Northern Ireland, which is great but there's an obvious problem with Windsor Park being comfortably below the roughly 30,000+ capacity that the even the smallest venues in previous tournaments have been above, and there being limited space around the ground to expand even temporarily. The irony of course is it might finally drive through the redevelopment of Casemount Park


----------



## George_D (Aug 28, 2012)

so logic says 
2028: UK-Ireland
2032: Italy


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

there is no logic in FIFA/UEFA universe


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

gavstar00 said:


> Agreed, it's also the closer option to Liverpool City Centre and, crucially, it could allow Liverpool City Council to gain access to additional government funding to further develop that area with a view to a long term legacy win for the city.
> 
> The interesting one for me is the inclusion of Northern Ireland, which is great but there's an obvious problem with Windsor Park being comfortably below the roughly 30,000+ capacity that the even the smallest venues in previous tournaments have been above, and there being limited space around the ground to expand even temporarily. The irony of course is it might finally drive through the redevelopment of Casemount Park


I dont personally think there will be any venues selected from Northern Ireland, however I do think we will see it host training bases and perhaps host the qualifying draw or something.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

The decision to go for the Euros instead of the World Cup is as disappointing as it is understandable. The most disappointing aspect of this candidature is the inclusion of all Celtic nations. A Euro requires just 10 venues. And assumed that there will be at least one in each of the smaller nations, that will reduce the number of English venues to a maximum of 6. That makes it certain that plenty of big modern stadiums will miss out which would be the first pick in any other country. Probably just one venue south of Birmingham yet again. This is truly disappointing.


----------



## Florio (Oct 31, 2014)

ElvisBC said:


> there is no logic in FIFA/UEFA universe


I would sign with my blood for this


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards (Mar 26, 2015)

flierfy said:


> The decision to go for the Euros instead of the World Cup is as disappointing as it is understandable. The most disappointing aspect of this candidature is the inclusion of all Celtic nations. A Euro requires just 10 venues. And assumed that there will be at least one in each of the smaller nations, that will reduce the number of English venues to a maximum of 6. That makes it certain that plenty of big modern stadiums will miss out which would be the first pick in any other country. Probably just one venue south of Birmingham yet again. This is truly disappointing.


Yes, only Wembley in London when a third of the population of the archipelago live in the South East of England. Although that would be popular in the rest of the UK!

2028 is not very far away. Leeds and Aston Villa need to get a move on with their expansion. I can't see Sheffield having a stadium up to standard.

Wembley
Glasgow (Edinburgh Murrayfield possible alternative)
Cardiff
Dublin
Belfast (although NI could/should sit it out)
Manchester
Liverpool
Newcastle
Birmingham (if Villa have built a new North Stand)
Leeds (Needs a lot of work)

Alternatives. Leicester. 2nd London stadium, probably Spurs. Sheffield - unlikely.

UEFA don't tend to require the vast exclusion zones around stadia that FIFA want.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

gavstar00 said:


> The irony of course is it might finally drive through the redevelopment of Casemount Park


Hell will freeze over before we see 'God Save The Queen' belted out at a GAA statium.

I think it'd be:
Wembley (London)
London Stadium (London)
Hampden Park (Glasgow)
Millennium Stadium (Cardiff)
Lansdowne Road (Dublin)
Windsor Park (Northern Ireland)
Bramley-Moore Dock Stadium* (Liverpool)
Old Trafford (Manchester)
St James Park (Newcastle)
Villa Park (Birmingham)

*Anfield if they rebuild the Kop and alter pitch dimensions.


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

Temporarily Exiled said:


> Hell will freeze over before we see 'God Save The Queen' belted out at a GAA statium.
> 
> I think it'd be:
> Wembley (London)
> ...


I don’t think it is possible to redevelop Windsor Park in a way that it would meet the criteria, which would make it Casement or bust. Conversation between Stormont and the GAA would probably go as follows ‘Hi Mr GAA, You know that Casement Park redevelopment you want? You can have it, on the condition you let the NI football team play three games there….’ Will be interesting to see how that pans out….

I’m currently going

8 England / 1 Scotland / 1 Wales / 1 Northern Ireland / 1 Republic of Ireland

1 London - Wembley Stadium - 90,000
2 Manchester - Old Trafford - 74,000
3 Liverpool - Anfield - 61,000
4 Newcastle - St James Park - 51,000
5 Leeds - Elland Road - 50,000 (assuming redevelopment)
6 Birmingham - Villa Park - 42,000
7 Leicester - King Power Stadium - 42,000 (redevelopment likely)
8 Southampton - St Mary’s Stadium - 32,000
9 Glasgow - Hampden Park - 51,000
10 Cardiff - Principality Stadium - 74,000
11 Belfast - Casement Park - 35,000 (Controversial but the only realistic possibility)
12 Dublin - Aviva Stadium - 51,000

That would meet the criteria (3 under 40k venues allowed).

Each venue would get at least 3 group games and 1 knockout game.

I am also working hard on the assumption that the FA would make a concerted effort to spread games around England with the limited number of venues, 1 stadium per city and some smaller capacity venues chosen over larger venues I.e St Mary’s getting the nod over the Stadium of Light, Etihad, Bramley Moore and a bunch of London venues.

TBH I feel this arrangement is a right fudge as either a joint Scotland / Wales / NI / ROI bid or a solo England bid could probably suffice. Also England / Scotland or England / Scotland / Wales would have worked in a less complicated fashion, but it is what it is.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Here is what I believe will happen.

1. There will be 12 stadiums in the bid ie: 8 in England and 2 in Each of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Northern Ireland wont host matches but would host training bases and host the qualifying draw for example.

2. There would not be any automatic host spots, so all 55 UEFA members go into the normal qualifying process as usual.

3. The Opening Match would be held at another venue outside of Wembley, so potentially Murrayfield, Croke Park or the Principality Stadium would be considered, The Final would be at Wembley.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1490755285153112071


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards (Mar 26, 2015)

CWells2000 said:


> Here is what I believe will happen.
> 
> 1. There will be 12 stadiums in the bid ie: 8 in England and 2 in Each of Scotland, Wales and Ireland. Northern Ireland wont host matches but would host training bases and host the qualifying draw for example.
> 
> ...


8 in England plus 2 in each of Scotland, Wales and Ireland is 14. Wales only has one suitable venue, it is very good though. I'm not knowledgeable on GAA stadiums apart from Croke. I expect Ireland would only have one venue and it would be the Aviva. There is a chance Scotland could have two.

Agree with points 2 and 3 though.


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

I don't understand why England must persist with a joint bid. England can host a tournament perfectly fine by itself without the Celtic nations and the added complications of number of hosts a joint bid brings.


----------



## IThomas (Feb 11, 2011)

Italy looks at 2032 instead of 2028.









UEFA Euro 2032 Bids


Italy looks at 2032 instead of 2028. OFFICIAL - Italy to bid to host Euro 2032: football federation. The Italian National Football Federation (FIGC) said Monday it had written to UEFA manifesting an interest to host the European championships in 2032. Italy hosted the championships in 1968 and...




www.skyscrapercity.com


----------



## miguelon (Oct 25, 2006)

Really disappointed for the 2030 UK withdraw,
I think it has been taken on a "short term view" of cost-benefit, that might make sense during COVID era, but might be seen regrettable by 2030.

That being said, there will be for sure, world class venues left out (that in almost any other country, would have been at the core of the bid).

In almost any scenario of venue selection, it is almost a given that you would leave out the following:
Tottenham Stadium - 62,000
London Stadium - 62-66,000
Emirates - 60,500
Stanford Bridge - 41,000 possible redevelopment by then
Murrayfield - 67,000
Etihad - 54,000 (maybe +60,000 by then
Everton U/C stadium - 54,000
Celtic Park - 60,000
Twickenham - 82,000
Ibox - 51,000
Stadium of Light 49,000

And all of the above, without counting potential development or new construction that would happen by then, specially, given the financial power of the Premier League.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Euros will be 32 teams by 2028 I bet. Surprised it wasn't expanded for Germany 2024.

I wouldn't be basing venue selection on a 24 team tournament.


----------



## miguelon (Oct 25, 2006)

Pinkerton89 said:


> I don’t think it is possible to redevelop Windsor Park in a way that it would meet the criteria, which would make it Casement or bust. Conversation between Stormont and the GAA would probably go as follows ‘Hi Mr GAA, You know that Casement Park redevelopment you want? You can have it, on the condition you let the NI football team play three games there….’ Will be interesting to see how that pans out….
> 
> I’m currently going
> 
> ...


Sounds about right, my only doubts will be, if they ditch Southhampton, for a 2nd London venue. And/or, if with Villa Park, they consider the "midlands" covered, and go for the 2nd London venue (or Manchester)

Past bid requirements on the number of stadiums, was more towards the minimum number of stadiums, but obviously, the UK + Ireland bid, its on the odd situation, were it has an excess of potential venues. 

I know its because of political issues, but, I think that being only Euros, a single UK bid would have been the sweet spot (no Ireland). 

That way, the UK government, gets its unifying event, and UEFA, gives games to historical football countries that cannot host on its own (N. Ireland + Wales + Scotland).


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

OnwardsAndUpwards said:


> 8 in England plus 2 in each of Scotland, Wales and Ireland is 14. Wales only has one suitable venue, it is very good though. I'm not knowledgeable on GAA stadiums apart from Croke. I expect Ireland would only have one venue and it would be the Aviva. There is a chance Scotland could have two.
> 
> Agree with points 2 and 3 though.


Sorry, I meant six stadiums in England, not eight.

For Scotland, Hampden and Murrayfield would be the choices in my opinion.

For Wales, I agree the Principality would be the obvious choice however you could have the Liberty Stadium in Swansea as a potential second venue, and that is expandable to 30,000 seats as well.

For Ireland, you could realistically have the Aviva as well as the Pairc Ui Chaoimh in Cork. Im pretty sure if you converted the end stands into seating you would still get under 30,000 capacity, which would aid any possible bid as well. 

Overall Personally I sense there will be 12 stadiums instead of 10, which would make sense if UEFA were going to expand it to 32 teams.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Its also been reported that Italy are focusing on a bid for Euro 2032 instead of 2028.

This would probably make the UK and Ireland bid as the clear frontrunner for 2028.


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

CWells2000 said:


> Its also been reported that Italy are focusing on a bid for Euro 2032 instead of 2028.
> 
> This would probably make the UK and Ireland bid as the clear frontrunner for 2028.


I think it is probably becoming apparent as to why they have switched.

They will be the favourite for this bid.

There would have been a very small chance of success for the WC bid sadly.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

MikkelAndersen said:


> Time for Italy to step up.
> New stadiums:
> Milan/Inter 60.000
> Roma 45.000
> ...


Italy are focusing on 2032 so they have more time to get infrastructure in place., They are not in the running for 2028.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Euro 2028: GAA 'happy to explore' making stadia available for UK and Ireland's bid to host European Championships


The GAA is




www.skysports.com





Looks like there have been discussions already between the FAI and the GAA about making Croke Park and Casement Park available for the Euros bid.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Ramanaramana said:


> Good thing you're not entrusted with deciding on where anything goes.


Only good for the cynics and despots of this world.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Ramanaramana said:


> Good thing you're not entrusted with deciding on where anything goes.


well, in this case it is rather the opposite


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

CWells2000 said:


> Euro 2028: GAA 'happy to explore' making stadia available for UK and Ireland's bid to host European Championships
> 
> 
> The GAA is
> ...


Wow…stunned if Dublin gets more than one venue.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Ramanaramana said:


> Wow…stunned if Dublin gets more than one venue.


It did say in the article though that the use of Croke Park would depend on whether its a 32 team Euros or a 24 team Euros.


----------



## Gardocki (Mar 26, 2017)

Pat Mustard said:


> Old Trafford will almost certainly get the nod due to it's much bigger size, the infrastructure around the ground and it has already hosted a CL final (and that is before any improvements that might be done before 2028). I don't think Anfield is as clear cut however - the pitch is smaller than the specification for tournaments, and it's in a much more hemmed in location. As Bramley Moore will be over 50k capacity the differential to Anfield is less significant, and the facilities, central location etc. I suspect will swing the decision in its favour.


How much shorter/narrower is the pitch at Anfield than the specifications? Is it something that can be easily remedied? I take it this specification has introduced since 1996, when Anfield was used for the Euros.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Apparently it's 4 metres shorter than what's become the standard for the game, certainly in England, European and international level....and that's 105x68. Anfield is 101x68. 

What's not clear is why Anfield is listed as a UEFA Cat 4 stadium when one of the requirements for this accreditation is a 105x68 pitch. Maybe it gets special dispensation as it's a much older stadium that otherwise meets most other specifications? Or maybe the length is not held to the same stringent standard as the width as width uniformity is more important than length uniformity for keeping things fair. 

That Anfield was selected as one of the stadiums for the 2018 bid suggests that Anfield's unique dimensions wouldn't be an issue.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Ramanaramana said:


> Apparently it's 4 metres shorter than what's become the standard for the game, certainly in England, European and international level....and that's 105x68. Anfield is 101x68.
> 
> What's not clear is why Anfield is listed as a UEFA Cat 4 stadium when one of the requirements for this accreditation is a 105x68 pitch. Maybe it gets special dispensation as it's a much older stadium that otherwise meets most other specifications? Or maybe the length is not held to the same stringent standard as the width as width uniformity is more important than length uniformity for keeping things fair.
> 
> That Anfield was selected as one of the stadiums for the 2018 bid suggests that Anfield's unique dimensions wouldn't be an issue.


I still think Bramley Moor will get favoured over Anfield, especially considering the fact that it is closer to the City Centre than Anfield and it has better transport connections as well.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

UK/Ireland and Turkey are possible favorites to host.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

I do wonder whether Murrayfield would be part of the bid alongside Hampden.


----------



## Gardocki (Mar 26, 2017)

I'm not a fan of Murrayfield. The stands are very far back from the pitch. I'm not sure why they designed it that way, as it's a purpose-built rugby stadium. 

That said, the other options in Edinburgh are too small.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

CWells2000 said:


> I do wonder whether Murrayfield would be part of the bid alongside Hampden.


The Dublin related news makes me think Edinburgh will get to host.

Aviva is guaranteed, so news surrounding Croke/GAA talks suggest that the two biggest cohosts outside England...Scotland and Ireland....will get two each. 

Dublin has to get both as there are no othee major cities with adequate venues. Glasgow can't get both as Edinburgh has large venue.

I find Murrayfield looks much better on TV than Hampden.


----------



## odlum833 (Sep 4, 2007)

If Croke Park was completed (the Hill 16 end) as part of the deal you are talking a capacity of close to or exceeding 100,000. I wonder could that be a convenient reason to build the remaining stand to the standard of the other stands? UEFA certainly wouldn't mind, nor would the GAA.

There are a row of houses behind which would be in the way but word is the GAA have quietly been buying them.


----------



## Gardocki (Mar 26, 2017)

The hill 16 end can’t be expanded as it’s hemmed in by a rail line. It’s a stadium that sells out twice a year. The GAA have no interest in developing the hill as it’s a very important historic part of the ground that adds to its character.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

odlum833 said:


> If Croke Park was completed (the Hill 16 end) as part of the deal you are talking a capacity of close to or exceeding 100,000. I wonder could that be a convenient reason to build the remaining stand to the standard of the other stands? UEFA certainly wouldn't mind, nor would the GAA.
> 
> There are a row of houses behind which would be in the way but word is the GAA have quietly been buying them.


You cant expand the Hill end as there is a major railway line behind it.

You could potentially put a roof over it, but apart from that you cant really do much.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

For Turkey's bid my guess for the nine venues in the country across nine cities:

Istanbul - Atatürk Olympic Stadium (Capacity: 75,145) [To host opening and final)
Ankara - New Ankara Stadium (Capacity: 50,500) [To host third place match]
Izmir - İzmir Atatürk Stadium (Capacity: 51,295)
Bursa - Timsah Park (Capacity:43,761)
Konya - Konya Metropolitan Municipality Stadium (Capacity: 42,276)
Trabzon - Şenol Güneş Stadium (Capacity: 40,782)
Samsun - Sansun Stadium (Capacity: 39,919)
Gaziantep - Kaylon Stadium (Capacity: 35,574)
Antalya - Antalya Stadium (Capacity: 32,537)

Most of the cities that were in the Euro 2024 will be eight expect Samsun.

I made a possible logo of the event if Turkey is awarded the UEFA Euro 2028.


----------



## Gardocki (Mar 26, 2017)

Light Tower said:


> For Turkey's bid my guess for the nine venues in the country across nine cities:
> 
> Istanbul - Atatürk Olympic Stadium (Capacity: 75,145) [To host opening and final)
> Ankara - New Ankara Stadium (Capacity: 50,500) [To host third place match]
> ...


I'd be surprised if Istanbul didn't have at least 2 venues. The Galatasaray, Besiktas and Fenerbahce stadiums all look fantastic and it's a big city. Moscow had two venues in 2018.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

that was world cup, but france had two stadiums in paris in 2016


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

ElvisBC said:


> that was world cup, but france had two stadiums in paris in 2016


I don't know how you count. But there are more than two stadiums in Paris, only one of those was a venue for the 2016 Euro.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

it Will be interesting to see what the bid for the Uk/Ireland will look like, with presumably national stadia for each unless NI doesn’t get an upgraded stadium. After which I guess they would use Celtic Park, and mainly stadia from England.


----------



## Ioannes_ (Jun 12, 2016)

I bet 100 euros that Russia finally ends up being the organizer of the EURO 28/32: England and Russia. they lose the candidacies of Italy and some strange trio or quartet of countries. you will see


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

Ioannes_ said:


> I bet 100 euros that Russia finally ends up being the organizer of the EURO 28/32: England and Russia. they lose the candidacies of Italy and some strange trio or quartet of countries. you will see


I'll take that bet. Would you prefer to pay me by PayPal or Bizum?


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

I do fear Casement Park may never happen, which risks NI not hosting games.

A Windsor Park expansion from its current 18.5k to the 30k required for hosting the Euros, would be quite a challenge. The only way you could possibly expand it is by demolishing the North Stand and mirroring it to the South Stand, but that would probably only get you to 25k or around that amount, which means your 5k seats short, plus housing would have to be demolished, plus you have planning issues as well.

The other only real option is for NI to build a temporary stadium for 35k, specifically for the Euros, with all parts of the ground after the Euros being donated to other clubs within Northern Ireland.

But apart from these options, NI is extremely limited.


----------



## Ioannes_ (Jun 12, 2016)

Temporarily Exiled said:


> I'll take that bet. Would you prefer to pay me by PayPal or Bizum?


Paraphrasing the famous phrase:
"It's the economy stupid!
in this case it is:
"it's UEFA/FIFA stupid!"

or more politically correct, to paraphrase Nike, with UEFA/FIFA:

"impossible is nothing"..


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Boris Johnson suggests Ukraine should host Euro 2028 despite UK and Ireland bid


Boris Johnson has suggested Ukraine should be awarded the right to host UEFA Euro 2028 — the day after the UK and Ireland applied to host the tournament.UEFA...




theathletic.com


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

RobH said:


> UK/Ireland you'd think are still massive favourites. It's clear some kind of deal was done to clear the way for Spain/Portugal 2030 and I would assume that will hold. But Turkey _could _be a spoiler. *And I wouldn't put it past the FA or Boris to mess this up, let's put it that way.* 😂


eeeeeeshhh


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507095979497033731


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

RobH said:


> eeeeeeshhh
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1507095979497033731


Guess that confirms Boris is an England fan. He was a big fan of them during the last Euros.


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

Juanpabloangel said:


> it Will be interesting to see what the bid for the Uk/Ireland will look like, with presumably national stadia for each unless NI doesn’t get an upgraded stadium. After which I guess they would use Celtic Park, and mainly stadia from England.


Initially felt it would be England, plus the National Stadium of the other hosts (i.e. Hampden, Millenium, Aviva and whatever NI can cobble together in time). 

But I think Scotland will roll with Hampden and Murrayfield if there is a second stadium, mainly because it will be better to involve two cities than give one two venues, and it avoids annoying Old Firm fans by picking one over the other. 

I did wonder if the proposed WC bid would have had a better chance if it had just been England/Scotland, as it could have been 12 England / 4 Scotland with Hampden, Celtic Park, Ibrox and Murrayfield involved.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

This is what I personally think the UK-Ireland bid will go with

Wembley, London (90,000)
Croke Park, Dublin (76,000)
Old Trafford, Manchester (74,140)
Principality Stadium, Cardiff (73,791)
Murrayfield, Edinburgh (67,144)
Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, London (62,303)
Bramley Moor Dock Stadium, Liverpool (52,500)
St James Park, Newcastle (52,404)
Hampden Park, Glasgow (51,889)
Aviva Stadium, Dublin (51,700)
Villa Park, Birmingham (42,785)
AMEX Stadium, Brighton (32,000)

I hope there is scope within UEFA to add up to 16 venues if UEFA allows it, so places like Leeds, Sheffield, Sunderland, Leicester, Nottingham and Possibly Swansea could be added as part of any bid.


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

CWells2000 said:


> This is what I personally think the UK-Ireland bid will go with
> 
> Wembley, London (90,000)
> Croke Park, Dublin (76,000)
> ...


I think it may well be 16 as this would allow for each venue to have at least 3 games and gives the tournament a good spread.

Most of the suggestions are good, but I dont believe there is any chance the new Everton Ground will topple Anfield as a host venue with its smaller capacity.

Current thinking for me is 16 venues with the following

England - 11 Venues / 10 Locations
1 London - Wembley Stadium - 90,000
2 London - Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - 62,000
3 Manchester - Old Trafford - 74,000
4 Liverpool - Anfield - 61,000
5 Newcastle - St James Park - 52,000
6 Sunderland - Stadium of Light - 49,000
7 Birmingham - Villa Park - 42,000
8 Leicester - King Power Stadium - 42,000
9 Leeds - Elland Road - 38,000 (Needs some mega renovations!)
10 Southampton - St Marys Stadium - 32,000
11 Brighton - AMEX Stadium - 32,000

Scotland - 2 Venues / 2 Locations
12 Edinburgh - Murrayfield - 67,000
13 Glasgow - Hampden Park - 51,000

Wales - 1 Venue
14 Cardiff - Millennium Stadium - 74,000

Northern Ireland - 1 Venue
15 Absolutely no idea how they will pull this off but it would either be a redeveloped Windsor Park or Casement Park.

Republic of Ireland - 1 Venue
16 Dublin - Aviva Stadium - 51,000


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

You can't give Scotland a second venue, not if you want to spread the tournament fairly equally. The British Isles are populated by 71.5 million people, a mere 5.4 million of which live in Scotland. Regardless of whether 10 or 12 venues will be used, a second Scottish venue is simply unjustifiable. The same is applicable for Ireland.
1 venue each for Wales, Ireland and Scotland and 7 for England. Belfast gets the drawing events, assumed they have a decent conference centre there. This is the most balanced allocation I can think of.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

flierfy said:


> You can't give Scotland a second venue, not if you want to spread the tournament fairly equally. The British Isles are populated by 71.5 million people, a mere 5.4 million of which live in Scotland. Regardless of whether 10 or 12 venues will be used, a second Scottish venue is simply unjustifiable. The same is applicable for Ireland.
> 1 venue each for Wales, Ireland and Scotland and 7 for England. Belfast gets the drawing events, assumed they have a decent conference centre there. This is the most balanced allocation I can think of.


That's rather simplistic. Just for example, if you have multiple quality stadiums in an attractive region, why go to some burnt out industrial town or isolated region which is of no interest to visitors? You make some effort at hitting the major population centers and various regions, but getting excessively formal is the sign of laziness in maximizing attendance and viewership.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Hopefully they do spread the games into all areas. Football is the fans game and shouldn’t just be in London and other areas that have been in receipt of inequitable spending by government. However the owners of the stadia are mostly the clubs themselves so the quality of their proposal is important.

Wembley
Hampden
Millenium
Landsdowne road, as I don’t expect the Irish will useCroke park
old trafford
sj james park
anfield
villa park, which is to be refurbished to at least 50k or may be 55k by then
white hart lane
The above should be certain.
other areas will need to do some work to get the stadium up to spec, or may not yet be big enough or indeed to close to others like Celtic,Everton, Arsenal or Man city, under no circumstances should west ham be used.

in the running?
leeds, Brighton, Southampon, sunderland, Leicester, Murrayfield.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

pesto said:


> That's rather simplistic. Just for example, if you have multiple quality stadiums in an attractive region, why go to some burnt out industrial town or isolated region which is of no interest to visitors? You make some effort at hitting the major population centers and various regions, but getting excessively formal is the sign of laziness in maximizing attendance and viewership.


Aren’t they doing that in the US for the World Cup.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Juanpabloangel said:


> Aren’t they doing that in the US for the World Cup.


How so? The US is more complicated because it is so large But presumably there will be a focus on cities which are of interest for visitors. It is assumed that the truly major cities (NY, LA, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, SF Bay; DC/Balt) will be chosen. Others presumably require some thought to balance the distance and visitor desirability.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

I can see the Olympic Stadium getting the nod over White Hart Lane on the bases of 1) the government wanting to desperately prove that it didn't botch Olympic legacy stuff, and 2) saving money (state-owned stadium rather than privately owned).

It also has a marginally higher capacity than White Hart Lane, which plays in its favour. I can see every ticket being sold for every single match when a major tournament comes to the UK and Ireland, regardless of who's playing, so maximising capacity may be a priority.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Temporarily Exiled said:


> I can see the Olympic Stadium getting the nod over White Hart Lane on the bases of 1) the government wanting to desperately prove that it didn't botch Olympic legacy stuff, and 2) saving money (state-owned stadium rather than privately owned).
> 
> It also has a marginally higher capacity than White Hart Lane, which plays in its favour. I can see every ticket being sold for every single match when a major tournament comes to the UK and Ireland, regardless of who's playing, so maximising capacity may be a priority.


You've got to remember that during June-July, the London Stadium is usually used for Athletics.

Thats why I think the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium will get used over the London Stadium.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

I really want to see Hampden Park to be redeveloped into a 70,000 seat modern stadium before 2028. It would be fitting for the home of the Scottish Cup and Scotland national football team to have the largest stadium in Scotland (not the third) and to also have better sight-lines than the oval running track shaped configuration they currently have. If Wales national football team does as good as they are now in the future, I want them to play at Principality, not CCFC Stadium for big matches. I understand why Republic of Ireland national rugby and soccer teams have their own stadium as the GAA wants to protect Croke Park at all costs. Hope 2028 Euros look like Hampden, Principality, Aviva, a few in northern England, at least one in the Midlands, Wembley with at least another in London and a south coast one. Do not see how Northern Ireland can get in with a stadium unless they build a white elephant.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I really want to see Hampden Park to be redeveloped into a 70,000 seat modern stadium before 2028. It would be fitting for the home of the Scottish Cup and Scotland national football team to have the largest stadium in Scotland (not the third) and to also have better sight-lines than the oval running track shaped configuration they currently have. If Wales national football team does as good as they are now in the future, I want them to play at Principality, not CCFC Stadium for big matches. I understand why Republic of Ireland national rugby and soccer teams have their own stadium as the GAA wants to protect Croke Park at all costs. Hope 2028 Euros look like Hampden, Principality, Aviva, a few in northern England, at least one in the Midlands, Wembley with at least another in London and a south coast one. Do not see how Northern Ireland can get in with a stadium unless they build a white elephant.


1. Scotland having a 70,000 seater stadium at Hampden would be nice, but the question is would they fill it? I would rather they developed a venue for 40k on the current site, they would fill that capacity far more often than a 70,000 capacity ground.

2. Wales are happy at the CCS, It suits them well and its more than adequate for them, Why go to the Principality which is unpopular amongst many Wales fans? 

3. Personally I do think Windsor Park being expanded is more likely to be favoured over Casement Park as the NI venue, they could expand it to 30k, with something like 10k temporary seats. After the Euros they could remove these seats, with the venue going to 20k.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

CWells2000 said:


> 1. Scotland having a 70,000 seater stadium at Hampden would be nice, but the question is would they fill it? I would rather they developed a venue for 40k on the current site, they would fill that capacity far more often than a 70,000 capacity ground.
> 
> 2. Wales are happy at the CCS, It suits them well and its more than adequate for them, Why go to the Principality which is unpopular amongst many Wales fans?
> 
> 3. Personally I do think Windsor Park being expanded is more likely to be favoured over Casement Park as the NI venue, they could expand it to 30k, with something like 10k temporary seats. After the Euros they could remove these seats, with the venue going to 20k.


1.  A 70,000 seat stadium could sell out for a Celtic vs Rangers cup final as well as a very big Scotland game. They could always use tarps for games that do not need the capacity.
2. I only suggested Wales move important games to the Principality if the demand for attendance is greater than CCFC Stadium’s capacity. You are right about right now the CCFC Stadium is good but that could change in the future.
3. I no doubt think a temporary solution in Northern Ireland could work but I do not think the land around Windsor Park can accommodate such a capacity and I do not know how the GAA will feel about a redeveloped Casement Park used for the Euros or even if it can accommodate the big event.


----------



## PAO13 (Sep 23, 2009)

So are we stuck with 3 bids?


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

PAO13 said:


> So are we stuck with 3 bids?


I think so. Same with 2032.


----------



## PAO13 (Sep 23, 2009)

Light Tower said:


> I think so. Same with 2032.


Such a pity. Especially since only one of the bids are realistic.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

PAO13 said:


> Such a pity. Especially since only one of the bids are realistic.


The British Isles one is probably the most realistic given the vast stadium selection (could possibly be England only as more than enough are located there). I would not count out Turkey as they have a decent selection of stadiums there. Russia would be good had it not been for their reckless invasion of Ukraine. I would love to see Italy get in as they have a decent stadium selection although most would need some renovations.


----------



## PAO13 (Sep 23, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> The British Isles one is probably the most realistic given the vast stadium selection (could possibly be England only as more than enough are located there). I would not count out Turkey as they have a decent selection of stadiums there. Russia would be good had it not been for their reckless invasion of Ukraine. I would love to see Italy get in as they have a decent stadium selection although most would need some renovations.


I'm my opinion nor Russia or Turkey is realistic, thus leaving us only with the British Isles. With that said, the British Isles would obviously be a host.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

PAO13 said:


> I'm my opinion nor Russia or Turkey is realistic, thus leaving us only with the British Isles. With that said, the British Isles would obviously be a host.


British Isles is my pick for the favorite to host as well. However I would not completely rule out Turkey as they have everything there to host it. At best, Russia could be in a position to be a contender to host for 2036 as the war in Ukraine is getting less intense and Russia probably would have moved on by the time 2036 bidding started. Italy or Turkey will probably host in 2032.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

Let's have Britain and Ireland, but with Team GB instead of the four home nations 😅


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

alexandru.mircea said:


> Let's have Britain and Ireland, but with Team GB instead of the four home nations 😅


I think it would be more likely that England hosts it alone as they have all the stadiums there to host it. I think national football team fans would all over the world would be upset if a Team GB side plays given the tradition and rivalry associated with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own sides. Co-hosting worked nicely for Belgium/Netherlands, Austria/Switzerland and Poland/Ukraine given how each country got about half the games and only two teams automatically qualified but the scenario with the UK/Ireland bid committee probably have in mind is all five co-hosts qualify and England host the majority of the games with one stadium each in Scotland, Wales and Republic of Ireland (Northern Ireland probably gets none) creating an awkward format where England (hosting the majority of the games) and Northern Ireland (hosting none of the games) both get a pass through qualifiers as hosts. Hopefully they will clarify how the bid will look in the coming days.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I think it would be more likely that England hosts it alone as they have all the stadiums there to host it. I think national football team fans would all over the world would be upset if a Team GB side plays given the tradition and rivalry associated with England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having their own sides. Co-hosting worked nicely for Belgium/Netherlands, Austria/Switzerland and Poland/Ukraine given how each country got about half the games and only two teams automatically qualified but the scenario with the UK/Ireland bid committee probably have in mind is all five co-hosts qualify and England host the majority of the games with one stadium each in Scotland, Wales and Republic of Ireland (Northern Ireland probably gets none) creating an awkward format where England (hosting the majority of the games) and Northern Ireland (hosting none of the games) both get a pass through qualifiers as hosts. Hopefully they will clarify how the bid will look in the coming days.


The problem is that all the countries you mention are real, independent countries. EXCEPT for England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland which are all part of one country. It's as if each of Texas, California, Hawaii, etc., got its own team since they were once independent countries.

Not that I care; just pointing it out.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> The problem is that all the countries you mention are real, independent countries. EXCEPT for England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland which are all part of one country. It's as if each of Texas, California, Hawaii, etc., got its own team since they were once independent countries.
> 
> Not that I care; just pointing it out.


I suggested what I said because FIFA and UEFA consider England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separate countries even though politically they are the same country. I brought it up because of the automatic qualifying of the national teams and what would be the most fair solution.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I suggested what I said because FIFA and UEFA consider England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland separate countries even though politically they are the same country. I brought it up because of the automatic qualifying of the national teams and what would be the most fair solution.


I understand. I am just noting that it makes as much sense as letting the Republic of Texas and the Republic of California or the Kingdom of Hawaii have their own sides. How about Quebec getting its own in Canada? It goes on and on. Germany, Italy or Spain could have a dozen easily.


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

I don't understand why England are continuing the co-bid. It was a nice idea for a world cup to spread the games out but in essence England is fully capable of hosting the tournament by themselves. It would certainly solve a lot of the complications over the host nations playing automatically and building a new stadium in Northern Ireland that would only ever be full for three games.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> I understand. I am just noting that it makes as much sense as letting the Republic of Texas and the Republic of California or the Kingdom of Hawaii have their own sides. How about Quebec getting its own in Canada? It goes on and on. Germany, Italy or Spain could have a dozen easily.


Well the thing you brought up about regions within a sovereign country having their own national teams like you brought up exists. It is called CONIFA, look it up.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

cyril sneer said:


> I don't understand why England are continuing the co-bid. It was a nice idea for a world cup to spread the games out but in essence England is fully capable of hosting the tournament by themselves. It would certainly solve a lot of the complications over the host nations playing automatically and building a new stadium in Northern Ireland that would only ever be full for three games.


This has been repeated over and over. It's about FIFA's interest in getting smaller nations involved. Holland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Scandinavia, all over Asia and Africa.

As for the areas within the UK, it doesn't really matter if they host a match or some other event. Those aren't really countries. We shouldn't try to invent problems by creating formalities without purposes.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Well the thing you brought up about regions within a sovereign country having their own national teams like you brought up exists. It is called CONIFA, look it up.


That's what is called "bureaucratic formalism". If you choose to deal with it because you are into that kind of thing, fine. But don't think of it as something that prevails against common sense, simplifying operations or the real world. 
One country, one pass unless some powerful reason over-throws that.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

pesto said:


> *This has been repeated over and over.* *It's about FIFA's interest* in getting smaller nations involved. Holland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Scandinavia, all over Asia and Africa.


Oh dear, you might want to read the post before writing a response like that.  FIFA have nothing to do with this competition, it's UEFA's.

FIFA's interest in unwieldy tournaments really came along when Infantino became President. Before that even joint bids were regarded as something to be avoided (after their experiences with the TWO organising committees of Japan/Korea 2002).

Whether UEFA shares this newfound interest of FIFA's is questionable. 2020 was an anomoly which was dreamt up under Platini's regime. Since then they've awarded the 2024 tournament to Germany alone, it looks like 2032 will be Italy's. So why not England alone for 2028? It is a valid question. We're the only multi-nation bid in this, and unlike the World Cup where such bids are the flavour of the month, it might not be necessary for landing 2028 and could even complicate things.

I suspect existing bid momentum and (UK) politics are the answers to Cyril's question.

If the FA were starting this bid from scratch, without the withdrawn World Cup bid behind it, it would just be an England 2028 bid.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

cyril sneer said:


> I don't understand why England are continuing the co-bid. It was a nice idea for a world cup to spread the games out but in essence England is fully capable of hosting the tournament by themselves. It would certainly solve a lot of the complications over the host nations playing automatically and building a new stadium in Northern Ireland that would only ever be full for three games.


I would also prefer England alone as it would be much easier for automatic qualification to be sorted out. One of the big problems with the 2026 World Cup is how automatic qualification will work as it features three countries with uneven spread of games between them. FIFA is rumored to rethink the format of the 2026 World Cup as to avoid collusion in the group stage. With that in mind, the US could host all the regular games as it will make the situation for automatic qualification much easier to solve. For compensation, Canada and Mexico would get some preliminary games.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

RobH said:


> Oh dear, you might want to read the post before writing a response like that.  FIFA have nothing to do with this competition, it's UEFA's.
> 
> FIFA's interest in unwieldy tournaments really came along when Infantino became President. Before that even joint bids were regarded as something to be avoided (after their experiences with the TWO organising committees of Japan/Korea 2002).
> 
> ...


FIFA are likely going to have a extraordinary congress over the 2026 World Cup when it comes to things like host cities, format and qualification as a whole. I know New Zealand withdrew co-host status of the 2003 Rugby World Cup and Australia handled what New Zealand left behind so something similar could happen in the 2026 World Cup or 2028 Euros if UK/Ireland wins. The bid has not been released fully yet so will probably know more information about it in the coming months.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> This has been repeated over and over. It's about FIFA's interest in getting smaller nations involved. Holland, Austria, Belgium, Poland, Scandinavia, all over Asia and Africa.
> 
> As for the areas within the UK, it doesn't really matter if they host a match or some other event. Those aren't really countries. We shouldn't try to invent problems by creating formalities without purposes.


They are considered separate countries by FIFA and UEFA for the sake of organization and automatic bids. The UK is one country politically but four separate ones in FIFA and UEFA competitions.


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

pesto said:


> Yes, that's the problem. They shouldn't be. It makes for absurdities if you track exemptions from hosting on this basis. As noted, N. Ireland doesn't have an appropriate stadium. Wales hasn't been independent of England for almost 1000 years.
> 
> And the problem can be eliminated by simply following the reality that they are part of the UK.


Strong suspicions of bait, but there are other examples like the Faroe Islands, which is technically part of Denmark but has its own National Team.

Can’t remember the exact reason, but I think England, Scotland, Wales and NI are allowed to field separate teams as this is how they were set up pre FIFA (well in NIs case the IFA existed) and there is also some historical significance behind allowing the original set of national teams to participate.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

What do we think the likelihood of going up to 32 teams is?


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

RobH said:


> What do we think the likelihood of going up to 32 teams is?











UEFA explores expanding European Championship to 32 teams


LONDON (AP) — Buoyed by the success of this year's European Championship, UEFA is exploring whether to expand the event again to create a 32-team tournament. The review of the format comes as the bidding process is being put in place for Euro 2028 with a decision on the hosting set to come by...




apnews.com





It is being considered at least.

I think it is reasonably likely as people are not fond of the ‘best third place’ part of the group stage and it is a relatively small leap to 32 teams / 63 Games.

It isn’t likely to dilute the quality of the tournament by much either as the mid ranking sides in Europe are all at pretty similar level and you will need to finish in the top two of the groups to make the knock outs, so theoretically it would be more competitive.

The only thing is qualifying should change, I have said before I think that fora 32 Team Euros they should just do it via the Nations League in a similar way to how domestic teams qualify for the Champions League etc via their Leagues. It would also ensure hosts get competitive football in the build up to the tournament.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Pinkerton89 said:


> People are getting quite pent up about the concept of 5 nations being given automatic qualification and while initially it feels a bit much to give someone full host status for 4-5 games, if the tournament turns out to be 32 Teams, that would still leave 27 qualification spots for the remaining 50 UEFA Nations, so in that instance I don’t really see what the issue is.
> 
> Having games in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland without them at the tournament would feel a bit hollow and pointless.


Well the thing about the 2028 Euro bid from GB/Ireland is that it has uneven spread between host nations. @RobH noted earlier in this thread that they are the only multi nation bid for the Euros. I wonder if UEFA will step in and say only one country can host unless the divide between countries is even like in 2000, 2008 and 2012. 2020 Euros were such a hot mess to organize so UEFA will probably want one host nation or have it split evenly between two host nations. FIFA are having a hard time organizing the 2026 World Cup as the winning bid featured three different countries with different needs and also uneven spread between the three countries.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Looks Like Ukraine will not be in the running to host the UEFA Euro 2028 despite the idea from Boris Johnson UK's Prime Minister and have already hosted the UEFA Euro 2012 with Poland.


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

It's also fairly easy to say each of those five teams would make a 32-team Euros on merit anyway. The lowest-ranked team, Northern Ireland, qualified for the most recent Euros and is 27th among UEFA teams, and is currently above Greece / Finland / Iceland / Bulgaria.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Pinkerton89 said:


> UEFA explores expanding European Championship to 32 teams
> 
> 
> LONDON (AP) — Buoyed by the success of this year's European Championship, UEFA is exploring whether to expand the event again to create a 32-team tournament. The review of the format comes as the bidding process is being put in place for Euro 2028 with a decision on the hosting set to come by...
> ...


Agree with everything. The qualification lark has to stop. The Nations League does the job. 32 teams is guaranteed, just hope they vote it through in time for England 2028.


----------



## PAO13 (Sep 23, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> British Isles is my pick for the favorite to host as well. However I would not completely rule out Turkey as they have everything there to host it. At best, Russia could be in a position to be a contender to host for 2036 as the war in Ukraine is getting less intense and Russia probably would have moved on by the time 2036 bidding started. Italy or Turkey will probably host in 2032.


UEFA has suspended Russia for invading Ukraine, yet Turkey is currently invading TWO other sovereign countries. Should UEFA award it to Turkey, it'll give the Russian regime every opportunity to accuse UEFA of being biased. And I'm not even going to mention Turkeys problems with basic human rights, and their economic crisis.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

PAO13 said:


> UEFA has suspended Russia for invading Ukraine, yet Turkey is currently invading TWO other sovereign countries. Should UEFA award it to Turkey, it'll give the Russian regime every opportunity to accuse UEFA of being biased. And I'm not even going to mention Turkeys problems with basic human rights, and their economic crisis.


I won't disagree, but then again how about China, almost every country in Africa, about half of Latin America and Asia? The reason Russia stands out is that its actions are extraordinary and unprovoked as opposed to being the lingering political and social norm that affects the great majority of the world's population century after century.

Btw, the invasion of the Ukraine is also a an obvious warning and threat against many other members of UEFA, so I doubt that UEFA is concerned about potential Russian criticism.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> I won't disagree, but then again how about China, almost every country in Africa, about half of Latin America and Asia? The reason Russia stands out is that its actions are extraordinary and unprovoked as opposed to being the lingering political and social norm that affects the great majority of the world's population century after century.
> 
> Btw, the invasion of the Ukraine is also a an obvious warning and threat against many other members of UEFA, so I doubt that UEFA is concerned about potential Russian criticism.


I fully respect your viewpoint and agree with you on pretty much everything you said.  However, I feel terrible for the Russian people who oppose the war and just want to live a normal life. With that said Russia should definitely be banned from hosting any major sporting event however I feel terrible for all the Russia national football team players opposed to the war as I feel they should have some sort of opportunity to play in a big event. Although not explicitly related to hosting a event, I hope FIFA and/or UEFA can create a team for Russians opposed to the war (probably all will be playing the club game abroad given the Russian government's hard stance against dissent) run separately from the Russian Football Union (they are run by the people who support the war so keep them banned) and have them compete in national team tournaments like the Euros and World Cup.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I fully respect your viewpoint and agree with you on pretty much everything you said. However, I feel terrible for the Russian people who oppose the war and just want to live a normal life. With that said Russia should definitely be banned from hosting any major sporting event however I feel terrible for all the Russia national football team players opposed to the war as I feel they should have some sort of opportunity to play in a big event. Although not explicitly related to hosting a event, I hope FIFA and/or UEFA can create a team for Russians opposed to the war (probably all will be playing the club game abroad given the Russian government's hard stance against dissent) run separately from the Russian Football Union (they are run by the people who support the war so keep them banned) and have them compete in national team tournaments like the Euros and World Cup.


It is certainly unfortunate for them. But they are in general very well paid and no doubt have money squirreled away in hard currency accounts So they are pretty far down on the list of people impacted by the war, given those killed and wounded, homes destroyed, financially impacted, loved-ones killed, etc.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

pesto said:


> It is certainly unfortunate for them. But they are in general very well paid and no doubt have money squirreled away in hard currency accounts So they are pretty far down on the list of people impacted by the war, given those killed and wounded, homes destroyed, financially impacted, loved-ones killed, etc.


I no doubt feel the worst for the Ukrainians who had everything taken from them due to this reckless decision by the Russian government. However, I think that the Russians opposed to the war that are impacted by the sanctions for the despicable actions of their government deserve some love too. I think FIFA and/or UEFA can do a great thing by making a shadow Russia national team run separately from the Russian authorities to give Russian players a chance while also sending a clear message opposing the war. We should start to focus on tournament organization on this thread as that is what it is about but I wanted to clarify about what I said on the post you responded to.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

It’s been mentioned somewhere else, can’t remember where, but there’s a good chance Russia becomes part of the AFC when the dust in Ukraine settles. It’s certainly plausible, and there is precedent for it with Israel moving to UEFA.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> It’s been mentioned somewhere else, can’t remember where, but there’s a good chance Russia becomes part of the AFC when the dust in Ukraine settles. It’s certainly plausible, and there is precedent for it with Israel moving to UEFA.


I personally hope Russia stays in UEFA and I also think when the dust settles in Ukraine, the European countries will all be more than willing to play Russia. The main motive behind the decision to boycott any fixture with Russia in my opinion is they want to avoid a response from their government and to avoid mass protests like the ones that happened back when apartheid South Africa played in other countries. All FIFA associations are concerned about making money and if they can play a game against Russia with little opposition, they will be more than willing to as it means more money.


----------



## BhamJim (Jul 8, 2009)

I don't see the point in the British Isles as a collective hosting the 2028 tournament, it just creates problems with 5 hosts getting automatic qualification, whilst none of the stadiums in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland would be required. Only the Aviva Stadium would be adequate capacity wise, but by using this as a host stadium it would mean larger stadiums in Great Britain would not be utilised, which makes no sense.
Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) could host collectively and it would make much more sense economically and administratively. If need be, to save argument, these three countries could all still be included in the qualifying stages of a 32 team tournament. To include 2 additional countries as hosts, for the sake of one additional stadium to be used for a couple group stage fixtures make no sense.

Group A - Wembley, London Stadium
Group B - White Hart Lane, Emirates Stadium
Group C - Villa Park (post planned development), King Power Stadium (post planned development)
Group D - Principality Stadium, MK dons stadium (post planned upgrade)
Group E - Etihad Stadium, Old Trafford (post planned development)
Group F - Anfield (post planned development), Bramley Moore Dock (post planned development)
Group G - Celtic Park, Ibrox Park
Group H - St James Park, Stadium of Light


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

BhamJim said:


> I don't see the point in the British Isles as a collective hosting the 2028 tournament, it just creates problems with 5 hosts getting automatic qualification, whilst none of the stadiums in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland would be required. Only the Aviva Stadium would be adequate capacity wise, but by using this as a host stadium it would mean larger stadiums in Great Britain would not be utilised, which makes no sense.
> Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) could host collectively and it would make much more sense economically and administratively. If need be, to save argument, these three countries could all still be included in the qualifying stages of a 32 team tournament. To include 2 additional countries as hosts, for the sake of one additional stadium to be used for a couple group stage fixtures make no sense.
> 
> Group A - Wembley, London Stadium
> ...


What about for the knockout stage? Maybe London or Dublin for the final.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Light Tower said:


> What about for the knockout stage? Maybe London or Dublin for the final.


The Final would obviously be at Wembley.


----------



## BhamJim (Jul 8, 2009)

Light Tower said:


> What about for the knockout stage? Maybe London or Dublin for the final.


They'd never use Dublin for the final, or even a semi final: it's far too small.

I would suggest Cardiff and Old Trafford for the semi finals and Wembley for the final.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

both semis and the final in wembley, they did it last year, why not again?


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

Casement remains on agenda for Euro 2028

Minister for Sport Jack Chambers has said the possibility of the Irish government financially supporting the redevelopment of Casement Park for its possible use at Euro 2028 has not yet arisen, with the Antrim venue a key factor in the bid for the tournament. The UK and Ireland are considered the likely host for the tournament and there is a desire to ensure the Irish element has a cross-border reach.
(...)
"At the moment with the lack of executive in the north it has been challenging. We've been engaging with the British government as part of the bid process. There hasn't been a decision yet on whether it will be Casement Park or Windsor Park. I think it's possible for a north-south perspective that we would have an all-island perspective to having Euro 2028 in Ireland if we're successful."


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

as training ground? that would be great!


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

BhamJim said:


> They'd never use Dublin for the final, or even a semi final: it's far too small.
> 
> I would suggest Cardiff and Old Trafford for the semi finals and Wembley for the final.


Dublin is probably more likely to be used for the opening game if they look to share out the 'prestige' games.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Pinkerton89 said:


> Dublin is probably more likely to be used for the opening game if they look to share out the 'prestige' games.


If they agree to let all the host nations in automatically, then it stands to reason that Dublin will get the opening match that Ireland play. That said, the official opener is still likely to be England at Wembley.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Ramanaramana said:


> If they agree to let all the host nations in automatically, then it stands to reason that Dublin will get the opening match that Ireland play. That said, the official opener is still likely to be England at Wembley.


I think Wembley could more likely to be used for the final.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

_*UEFA has banned Russia from bidding for the men’s Euros 2028/32. England in the running for Euro 2028 against Turkey which is also bidding against Italy for Euro 2032 *_

LINK


----------



## RMB2007 (Apr 1, 2007)

Just announce all three in one go. 2028 UK & Ireland. 2032 Italy. 2036 Turkey.


----------



## Little Spoon (Apr 1, 2020)

Turkey appears to bid for every single Euro tournament going back to 2008.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

They used to bid for every single Olympics as well. Their total losing record must be 'better' than any other nation's.


----------



## Little Spoon (Apr 1, 2020)

Sod’s law it’ll be the year the UK bids that Turkey wins!


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Banning Russia when they had no chance of hosting due to 2018 is definitely a bold choice by Uefa.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Ramanaramana said:


> Banning Russia when they had no chance of hosting due to 2018 is definitely a bold choice by Uefa.


That's right. Not happening for Russia 10 years after hosting the FIFA World Cup.


----------



## MikkelAndersen (Mar 26, 2014)

New stadiums:
Milan/Inter 60.000
Roma 60.000
Lazio 50.000
Napoli 50.000
Fiorentina 40.000
(Juventus 41.500)
Palermo 35.000
Bologna 30.000
2028, 30 or whatever should be possible for Italy.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

Little Spoon said:


> Turkey appears to bid for every single Euro tournament going back to 2008.





RobH said:


> They used to bid for every single Olympics as well. Their total losing record must be 'better' than any other nation's.


they should join forces with morocco, they might get mediteranean games


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Casement Park: West Belfast residents group lose stadium appeal


A 34,500-capacity stadium is planned at the site, which has not been in use since 2013.



www.bbc.co.uk





This is a very significant development.

Looks like NI could well have a stadium for the Euros if it can all be constructed in time for 2028.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

CWells2000 said:


> Casement Park: West Belfast residents group lose stadium appeal
> 
> 
> A 34,500-capacity stadium is planned at the site, which has not been in use since 2013.
> ...


I think most GAA grounds are with standing terraces so Casement Park's capacity could be under 30,000 if all seated. If over that it would be great for Northern Ireland and the Euros.


----------



## Gardocki (Mar 26, 2017)

The RTE news said last night it's 34,000 seats.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Just had a quick google to see how football in a Gaelic football stadium looks. Surprisingly hard to find, but I did find this...


















Congress to be asked to ease restriction on the use of GAA grounds


New rule would give Central Council the power to sanction use of grounds for non-GAA purposes




www.irishtimes.com


----------



## Limericklad (Sep 20, 2016)

They're hard to find because other than the Liam Miller match and Rep of Ireland games in Croke Park while the Aviva was being built, there have never been any.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Thanks. So another photo that gives an even better idea, this one from Croke Park's website...


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Would love to see a Euro match at a GAA ground. Will be very interesting to see if it happens.


----------



## alexandru.mircea (May 18, 2011)

RobH said:


> Just had a quick google to see how football in a Gaelic football stadium looks. Surprisingly hard to find, but I did find this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Better than many football stadiums...


----------



## Limericklad (Sep 20, 2016)

The issue with the GAA stadiums is the distances between the stands and the pitch. A GAA pitch is much larger than a football pitch. 130-145m length and 80-90m width against 105m x 68m for the standard international football pitch.

Croke Park is 145m x 88m and Pairc Ui Caoimh is 144m x 88m. So it's like playing in a tracked stadium except the corners are even further away.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Limericklad said:


> The issue with the GAA stadiums is the distances between the stands and the pitch. A GAA pitch is much larger than a football pitch. 130-145m length and 80-90m width against 105m x 68m for the standard international football pitch.
> 
> Croke Park is 145m x 88m and Pairc Ui Caoimh is 144m x 88m. So it's like playing in a tracked stadium except the corners are even further away.


20m from the touch lines to the seats is not horrible. I have seen some athletics stadiums where the distance from the touch lines and seats is 30m.


----------



## RobH (Mar 9, 2007)

Should've thought of looking on Twitter before, plenty of pics on there to give an idea


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044705994784280576

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044587487719378945

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1309586825732919296


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

RMB2007 said:


> Just announce all three in one go. 2028 UK & Ireland. 2032 Italy. 2036 Turkey.


Agree. Saves a lot of headaches and all countries can get right to business.


----------



## quanman247 (Mar 22, 2015)

Let's call it: 2028 Britian & Ireland, 2032 Italy, 2036 Turkey, 2040 Russia


----------



## Temporarily Exiled (Sep 12, 2018)

quanman247 said:


> Let's call it: 2028 Britian & Ireland, 2032 Italy, 2036 Turkey, 2040 Russia


I don't see why Russia would automatically be awarded hosting rights, given they failed to submit an eligible bid to host either Euro 2028 or Euro 2032.

_The UEFA Executive Committee declared the bid submitted by the Football Union of Russia (FUR) to host the UEFA EURO 2028 or the UEFA EURO 2032 as not eligible, in accordance with Article 16.02 of the Bid Regulations UEFA Finals and Final Phases which states that “each bidder shall ensure that it does not act in a manner that could bring UEFA, the UEFA final or UEFA final phase, any other bidder (or any employee, officer or representative of any of the foregoing), the bidding procedure or European football into disrepute.”_​Source: UEFA


----------



## quanman247 (Mar 22, 2015)

Temporarily Exiled said:


> I don't see why Russia would automatically be awarded hosting rights, given they failed to submit an eligible bid to host either Euro 2028 or Euro 2032.
> 
> _The UEFA Executive Committee declared the bid submitted by the Football Union of Russia (FUR) to host the UEFA EURO 2028 or the UEFA EURO 2032 as not eligible, in accordance with Article 16.02 of the Bid Regulations UEFA Finals and Final Phases which states that “each bidder shall ensure that it does not act in a manner that could bring UEFA, the UEFA final or UEFA final phase, any other bidder (or any employee, officer or representative of any of the foregoing), the bidding procedure or European football into disrepute.”_​Source: UEFA


Either Russia or Spain-Portugal should they fail to get the 2030 World Cup.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

if, for whatever unforseen reason, spain and portugal miss 2030 then 2034 is theirs to lose, so they won‘t bid for euro in between

russias current politics is driving them back into eighties so it is hard to expect them getting another big tournament any time soon

but thats 2030 and behind, in this insane world anything is possible ….


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

We have almost one year to find out.


----------



## vitacit (Feb 8, 2008)

No RuSSia please. They have degradated themselves. Lost nation, lost country surfing on the on the orthodox fatalism and aggresivity. Coming from the country on the wrong side of the Iron Courtain, from the country where russian army had an active army, I know what I do speak about. Please, never ever Russia !!!


----------



## Urmstoniain (Mar 23, 2015)

RobH said:


> Thanks. So another photo that gives an even better idea, this one from Croke Park's website...


That's really funny, because I only posted the other day, on the USA/Mexico/Canada World Cup thread, posing a question about the cost/practicality/payback of NFL franchises building American football-specific venues, rather than multi-purpose ones - albeit those would require a larger field of play (in the context of stadiums selected for the World Cup having to raise the playing surface and lose seats, to accommodate a soccer pitch).

I'm guessing that playing NFL in a stadium with a playing surface big enough for soccer would look something like the photo above - I wonder what NFL at a GAA stadium would be like... 🤨

Clearly, the answer is for every stadium to be like the Strahov Stadium in Prague - no space issues there 😀


----------



## Limericklad (Sep 20, 2016)

Urmstoniain said:


> That's really funny, because I only posted the other day, on the USA/Mexico/Canada World Cup thread, posing a question about the cost/practicality/payback of NFL franchises building American football-specific venues, rather than multi-purpose ones - albeit those would require a larger field of play (in the context of stadiums selected for the World Cup having to raise the playing surface and lose seats, to accommodate a soccer pitch).
> 
> I'm guessing that playing NFL in a stadium with a playing surface big enough for soccer would look something like the photo above - I wonder what NFL at a GAA stadium would be like... 🤨
> 
> Clearly, the answer is for every stadium to be like the Strahov Stadium in Prague - no space issues there 😀


NFL field dimensions are tiny, but a football pitch will just about fit into an NFL stadium. As seen regularly in MLS.











American football in a GAA stadium looks like this.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

I wonder what the UK list will look like with all new capacities? Now I realise why Villa are pushing ahead to increase capacity to between 50-60,000 although where they will end up will depend on planning permissions. Which should keep the club with the highest capacity in the English Midlands. The biggest stadiums should be used entirely and at Croke park there is no chance of flares hitting the pitch it seems!


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

vitacit said:


> No RuSSia please. They have degradated themselves. Lost nation, lost country surfing on the on the orthodox fatalism and aggresivity. Coming from the country on the wrong side of the Iron Courtain, from the country where russian army had an active army, I know what I do speak about. Please, never ever Russia !!!


It looks like your wish is granted for now at least. Sanctions against Russia would make it impossible for them to host the Euro. Should the Russian government improve its relations to the rest of the world (which is unlikely right now) they will no doubt be in with a shout to host a Euro.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

My guess now should be: UK and Ireland 2028 and Turkey 2032.


----------



## chibimatty (Oct 6, 2010)

From the looks of this footage, is the playing field at Páirc Uí Chaoimh much much smaller than the one at Croke Park? The sidelines of the soccer pitch don't look too far away from the stands, or did they use an extra large pitch for this game? When I see pictures of Croke Park for rugby and soccer, it looks much further away at the sidelines than the ones here at Cork. If the Irish ever consider an in-bound 3-match test series for rugby, this ground looks like an ideal venue alternative to Dublin. From the looks of this footage, the sidelines are not too far and they could have beautiful deep in-goal areas like at Murrayfield in Edinburgh.



RobH said:


> Should've thought of looking on Twitter before, plenty of pics on there to give an idea
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1044705994784280576
> ...


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

The idea of the Republic getting more than one venue is a proper wind up. Two in Scotland makes sense. One in Wales yes. And I guess they have to throw Norn Irn a bone too.

But the Republic getting two while Manchester, Liverpool, Tyne-Wear and Birmingham settle for one, and while even London only gets two.....

Sheer lunacy. Not to mention a Southampton, Nottingham, Leeds, Leicester, Boro, Wolverhampton, Sheffield all likely to miss out so some tinpot stadium in Ireland owned by an organisation hostile to British sport can have its day.

The current stadium guide for 24 teams is 9 venues. Assuming it goes up to 32, bump that up to 12 venues.

London 1, London 2, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Belfast, Dublin......that's 11.

And for the 12th we're going to pass up Elland Road, Bramall/Hillsborough, City Ground, Molineux, Riverside, St Marys, King Power and the like. It's already bad enough one of Emirates/NWHL will miss out in London, as well as one of the cathedrals of football in each of the other major cities, Glasgow included.

Germany of course isn't sharing any matches with Austria. Italy won't be giving anything to the Balkans. But UK will give Ireland equal weighting to London. Absolute f* shambles.


----------



## Marcus 258 (Jul 22, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> The idea of the Republic getting more than one venue is a proper wind up. Two in Scotland makes sense. One in Wales yes. And I guess they have to throw Norn Irn a bone too.
> 
> But the Republic getting two while Manchester, Liverpool, Tyne-Wear and Birmingham settle for one, and while even London only gets two.....
> 
> ...


Hillsborough is not fit for the championship, let alone an international tournament.. nightmare to get to, restricted views and limited hospitality. 30 years out of date and no definite plan to rebuild. It's playing no part in this gig


----------



## Limericklad (Sep 20, 2016)

Ramanaramana said:


> The idea of the Republic getting more than one venue is a proper wind up. Two in Scotland makes sense. One in Wales yes. And I guess they have to throw Norn Irn a bone too.
> 
> But the Republic getting two while Manchester, Liverpool, Tyne-Wear and Birmingham settle for one, and while even London only gets two.....
> 
> ...


The Republic of Ireland is getting the same weight as N Ireland, Wales and Scotland actually. The UK doesn't exist when it comes to football. They are 4 different distinct countries when it comes to football. This isnt the UK sharing with the Republic, it's England sharing with the other 4.

Also the Republic has a larger population than NI and Wales combined and a similar population to Scotland. If anything it should be asked why Wales and NI (who don't currently have a large enough stadium and won't get one without the GAA) are included.

And then there is the actual reason for your baseless rant. Where has it been decided that the Republic will be getting two stadiums? The UK and Ireland haven't even been awarded the competition. And if they do host it UEFA will decide on the final list of venues. Maybe wait until then before going off on one?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Hopefully we find out what the bid books look like soon from the bids.


----------



## Colm Flynn (Mar 8, 2012)

RobH said:


> _"The ten [English] stadiums still in contention are: Wembley, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, the London Stadium, Villa Park, Stadium MK, Old Trafford, the Etihad, Everton’s planned Bramley Moore Dock ground, Sunderland’s Stadium of Light and Newcastle United’s St James’ Park. Others, such as Southampton’s St Mary’s, could still qualify for the list if hospitality facilities are upgraded."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reading that artical it says Northern Ireland will get a stadium if UK and Ireland are successful? are the they going to expand Windsor Park or build a new stadium since the current capacity (just over 18,000) isn't big enough (needs to be 30,000) i think?


----------



## Colm Flynn (Mar 8, 2012)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Forgetting Anfield is a very big FAULT. Period.


Pitch not big enough and the new Everton stadium is in a better location compared to anfield.


----------



## Florio (Oct 31, 2014)

I suppose Final in Wembley, semis in Wembley and OT?


----------



## Gardocki (Mar 26, 2017)

CaliforniaJones said:


> Forgetting Anfield is a very big FAULT. Period.


They didn't forget. It doesn't meet the UEFA requirements. LFC fans are largely saying they didn't want it anyway, so its worked out well for everyone.

A spruced up Old Trafford (assuming that will happen) and Everton's new ground, will be two great venues in the NE. Lots of great grounds will be excluded either based on technicalities or because of geography.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

….then all the other nations band together to vote for Turkey!

in a British Isles bid, Wembley gets the final, and I guess one semi final with Dublin getting the other semi final and then old Trafford, Hampden, Tottenham and Cardiff maybe getting QF, with Villa Park, Everton, Dublin, Hampden, Cardiff, Tottenham, Leeds and North east (sunderland or Newcastle) getting second rounds, which is ten stadia for the groups plus Northern Ireland getting a group stadium and Perhaps the second north east for the twelfth.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards (Mar 26, 2015)

RobH said:


> _"The ten [English] stadiums still in contention are: Wembley, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, the London Stadium, Villa Park, Stadium MK, Old Trafford, the Etihad, Everton’s planned Bramley Moore Dock ground, Sunderland’s Stadium of Light and Newcastle United’s St James’ Park. Others, such as Southampton’s St Mary’s, could still qualify for the list if hospitality facilities are upgraded."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What is the FA's obsession with MK? By far the smallest on the list and it doesn't fill a geographic gap very well. Yorkshire is the glaring omission along with the East Midlands and South Coast. Little short term hope for Yorkshire but there is for the East Midlands with either Leicester City or Nottingham Forest likely to be up to standards by then. If geography matters then the latter would be marginally better. The London Stadium is large, well connected to the tube network and some might consider it iconic due to the floodlights but it will surely be dropped in favour of Spurs. Is there any prospect of Southampton expanding/refurbishing St Mary's? There doesn't appear to be the demand for a much larger stadium there.

Does the article state how many English stadiums would be used? "In contention" suggests fewer than the 10 listed. With eight, excluding MK and West Ham, it is a good list. Although even that includes two in Manchester, which seems unnecessary. Shame Leeds are unlikely to get a complete rebuild of Elland Road done by then.

Edit: just noticed that it says "as few as six English stadiums...". If it is six then it would surely be Wembley, Spurs, Villa, Everton, OT or Etihad, and Newcastle. Great venues.


----------



## flierfy (Mar 4, 2008)

Just 6 venues in England will mean that several great and big grounds will miss out while venues on the fringes of the archipelago will be built new or enlarged at great cost. This proposal is extremely disappointing.


----------



## OnwardsAndUpwards (Mar 26, 2015)

flierfy said:


> Just 6 venues in England will mean that several great and big grounds will miss out while venues on the fringes of the archipelago will be built new or enlarged at great cost. This proposal is extremely disappointing.


The Times appears to be the source of this. Other articles I can find quote them. They're likely correct but it isn't official.

The whole concept of a UK and Ireland bid was dreamed up in response to misleading advice from FIFA for a World Cup. I would have scraped the concept when we were told it wasn't happening. If you select Wembley, Spurs, Villa, Old Trafford, Everton, Newcastle, Murrayfield, Hampden, Cardiff and Dublin you have an excellent and charismatic list of venues. Plus something in Northern Ireland. Massive and profitable Wembley. Impressive and modern at Spurs and Everton. Historic, iconic Old Trafford, Hampden and Murrayfield. Atmospheric and centrally located amongst a hundred bars each Cardiff and Newcastle. Villa probably fits in with the historic and iconic group. No two stadiums that feel the same. No white elephants. Nowhere you would be particularly disappointed to visit if your team got there. Although that is clearly subjective. Potential for an average attendance approaching 60,000. In my view it is actually a brilliant bid and there might be one more stadium on top of that lot to make it 12.

However, I'm not that interested in hosting the Euros again anyway. Although the matches during 2020 (2021) did not really feel like properly hosting a tournament due to the reduced capacities and low number of matches hosted. I'm only really interested in the World Cup but that is clearly not going to happen. Or at least won't happen until I'll be too old to care. Having attended the Brazil World Cup I can see that English stadiums do not have the outside space that FIFA wants anyway.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

flierfy said:


> Just 6 venues in England will mean that several great and big grounds will miss out while venues on the fringes of the archipelago will be built new or enlarged at great cost. This proposal is extremely disappointing.


it is never optimal, but yes, it leaves a lot of questions behind. including dons place is a joke and reducing england to six venues as well, but I guess that was the price of this tournament which will undoubtedly be awarded to the UK bid

the worst thing is that noone, and I mean absolutely noone needs another euro in the UK but these idiots are obviously not capable of getting the world cup so they repeatedly focus onto the booby prize


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

Surely they can't justify two stadiums in London if there are only six English stadiums to host.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

I am pretty sure there will be two in london


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

They will have to justify it as some heavily populated parts of the country such as the East Midlands and Yorkshire will in turn have zero representation.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

No way they won’t use Spurs and Wembley, Everton is quite small for a brand new stadium but may get in, Villa park is going to be a similar capacity after its upgrade but being historic and refurbished whilst it’s central, which is helpful. I thought Leeds were also extending and should be considered above MK.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Everton’s stadium will be bigger than any stadium at Euro 2000, all but one in 2004, all but one in 2008 which had a couple of hundred seats more, all but two at 2012, and all but three in 2016.

England’s selection, and the general UK/Ireland bid, is very strong on the capacity front when compared to previous Euros. It will probably have 32 teams, and there’s always the possibility of someone having to host Finland vs Albania. The game is different to 96, but there were plenty of empty seats for even higher demand matches back then, and the tournament only had 16 teams.

I’m really interested to see how high occupancy rates will be. We assume it’ll all be sold out easily because we are exposed to the PL. But despite 96 averaging a solid 42k, there really were far more empty seats than you’d expect.

Stadium MK is an Elite Cat UEFA stadium, but a disappointing nominee nonetheless. Sadly, it has a strong chance of selection, because London will get two, Manchester one, Liverpool one, Birmingham one, and the northeast one. If six is max, it would have to upset an obvious favourite, which seems unlikely. If it’s 7 or 8, it’s guaranteed.

Being an Elite Cat UEFA stadium probably factors in a great deal. I don’t know how many of the 30-50k stadiums in England are.


----------



## slipperydog (Jul 19, 2009)

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1572940859330686976


----------



## Florio (Oct 31, 2014)

But why? Imo was a good format

EDIT

I was sure, for basically no reason, that the last editions were playeb by 32 teams and not 24


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

I heard a quick report on the Euro Bid on the news update on Talksport on my way home and although, I wasn't concentrating on the news fully so might have heard incorrectly, but I swear they said Dublin would have two venues whereas Scotland would only have one venue. I thought the consensus was Scotland would get two venues rather than one?


----------



## Tazvaz (Jan 31, 2017)

You probably heard correctly because I read that Croke Park and the Aviva Stadium have been short-listed, however the pending decision to keep it at 24 teams means 12 fewer games than with 32 teams which might have implications for how many venues are eventually used.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

RobH said:


> _"The ten [English] stadiums still in contention are: Wembley, the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium, the London Stadium, Villa Park, Stadium MK, Old Trafford, the Etihad, Everton’s planned Bramley Moore Dock ground, Sunderland’s Stadium of Light and Newcastle United’s St James’ Park. Others, such as Southampton’s St Mary’s, could still qualify for the list if hospitality facilities are upgraded."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


These two stadiums in Anifiels and Elland Road are ineligible due to lower capacity.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

SFA own Hampden. They don't own Ibrox, CP or Murrayfield.

There was never a scenario where Hampden wasn't put forward as its choice.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I agree Hampden is the third best stadium in Glasgow but choosing either Ibrox Stadium or Celtic Park would have caused massive backlash from the fans of the Old Firm club whose stadium was not selected. Hampden is always the safe neutral pick for the national team, cup finals and European tournaments. I would love to see Hampden renovated into a larger capacity more rectangular stadium before 2028.


No it's because SFA own Hampden. Has nothing to do with Old Firm...zilch.


----------



## quanman247 (Mar 22, 2015)

nicholaseds2 said:


> If Euro 2028 held in Turkey, maybe the final kick off time is 6/7 pm Turkey Time, so Asian will get earlier final kick off time.


If that case, the final kick off time will be at 9pm local time at least.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

Any idea when the bid books will be published?


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

cyril sneer said:


> Na I don't buy that excuse. You don't hear Arsenal fans crying that the Emirates didn't make the cut but Spurs stadium did. Even the Liverpool fans are not making such a big deal over their exclusion. Oh well, I suppose it's up to Scotland if they want to represent their nation with the Hampden....


I just know that there is a sectarian prejudice involved with the Celtic and Rangers rivalry. Arsenal fans for example probably might be a little upset the NFL has a deal with Tottenham but the north London derby is almost exclusively about sports and has little to do with deeper divisions like in the Old Firm. The only reason Northern Ireland play there home games at the stadium at the “Protestant” Linfield stadium of Windsor Park is that is like the only stadium in the country suitable for international football/soccer (and their FA owns part of it with Linfield).


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> No it's because SFA own Hampden. Has nothing to do with Old Firm...zilch.


Yes the FA in Scotland owns the stadium but one reason they are pretty much obligated to have the cup finals, national team or European competitions there is due the sectarian nature of the rivalry between “catholic” Celtic and “Protestant” Rangers. I do not condone any religious discrimination but the elements of religion play a huge role in the obligation for having a third neutral big stadium in Glasgow. Both Old Firm clubs wisely chose to sit out for the Euro bid because they knew the bias that would come if one stadium gets selected over the other. It is a little bit different than say City vs United, Arsenal vs Spurs or Everton vs Liverpool as those rivalries have no sectarian undertones and are pretty much only about the part of city they represent and sporting merit.


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

They will polish up Hampden on the cheap on the premise of it being an old skool stadium....

I've never really appreciated how much of a nightmare Casement Park will be to develop until I checked it out on Google Earth. It's completely hemmed in by houses around it and the wrong side of a motorway. It's not ideal. I wouldn't be surprised if it dropped from the bid.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Celtic park would be a much better option, as it’s bigger and doesn’t need a refurb. Casement Park is very unlikely to get the required funding.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> Yes the FA in Scotland owns the stadium but one reason they are pretty much obligated to have the cup finals, national team or European competitions there is due the sectarian nature of the rivalry between “catholic” Celtic and “Protestant” Rangers. I do not condone any religious discrimination but the elements of religion play a huge role in the obligation for having a third neutral big stadium in Glasgow. Both Old Firm clubs wisely chose to sit out for the Euro bid because they knew the bias that would come if one stadium gets selected over the other. It is a little bit different than say City vs United, Arsenal vs Spurs or Everton vs Liverpool as those rivalries have no sectarian undertones and are pretty much only about the part of city they represent and sporting merit.


It has nothing to do with any of that. Not sure why you keep repeating it. It became used so heavily for cup finals and internationals because it was the largest stadium in Scotland, and one of the largest in the world for a very long time. Think it still holds some record attendance in the 130,000 range. It made sense to host cup finals at the most important and largest stadium in Scotland.

The idea that Ibrox and CP don't get used because of sectarian troubles isn't correct. Both Ibrox and CP have been used for cup finals when Hampden was being redeveloped. Outside of redevelopment, you'd have to go back to the 1920s for the last time a non-Hampden stadium hosted a cup final, which means Hampden has been the home of cup finals for way longer than sectarian violence has been an issue at the football. Rangers played a cup final at Celtic Park as recently as 1998, and the world didn't burn down. They've also been used for internationals as recently as last decade, as have other smaller Scottish stadiums in Edinburgh and the like.

The Old Firm didn't choose to sit out for the Euro bid because the SFA decides which stadiums to propose. Of course they were going to pick the stadium that is most beneficial to them financially. Being the long-time spiritual home of the national team makes that an even easier decision.

They may hate what each other represents, they may fight, bottle each other, sing songs about one another, but most Glaswegians have to live and work together day to day and they support their national team as one. There would be no increase in drama if Ibrox or CP hosted cup finals or internationals. It all has to do with the SFA, Hampden's heritage as the long-time biggest and most important stadium in the country, as well as its history of hosting cup finals and the national team which long predates the Old Firm's sectarian issues.


----------



## nicholaseds2 (Nov 21, 2017)

quanman247 said:


> If that case, the final kick off time will be at 9pm local time at least.


I think maybe minimum 7 pm Turkey time, since 6 pm is prime time for West and Central European(excluding UK, Ireland, and Portugal)


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> It has nothing to do with any of that. Not sure why you keep repeating it. It became used so heavily for cup finals and internationals because it was the largest stadium in Scotland, and one of the largest in the world for a very long time. Think it still holds some record attendance in the 130,000 range. It made sense to host cup finals at the most important and largest stadium in Scotland.
> 
> The idea that Ibrox and CP don't get used because of sectarian troubles isn't correct. Both Ibrox and CP have been used for cup finals when Hampden was being redeveloped. Outside of redevelopment, you'd have to go back to the 1920s for the last time a non-Hampden stadium hosted a cup final, which means Hampden has been the home of cup finals for way longer than sectarian violence has been an issue at the football. Rangers played a cup final at Celtic Park as recently as 1998, and the world didn't burn down. They've also been used for internationals as recently as last decade, as have other smaller Scottish stadiums in Edinburgh and the like.
> 
> ...


Well with your arguments in mind I would definitely say renovate Hampden Park into a more rectangular stadium in the 60,000-70,000 range before 2028 to truly make it the biggest and best stadium in Scotland once again. Also if I was the boss of the Scottish FA I would still do everything to not possibly be accused of being biased of one of the Old Firm clubs and would probably have major events like cup finals or national team at Murrayfield before one of the Old Firm stadiums because in my opinion with such an intense rivalry I would definitely not want to pick favorites between the two. That is just my opinion though and you can disagree if you want to.


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

What a crap selection of venues for the bid. 

Can see this going to Turkey.


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

Na the only stadium likely to make the bid letting the side down would be Hampden (& maybe Old Trafford depending on your opinion of the postbox view from the upper tier). Who knows what will become of Casement Park though granted...


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Ticket prices in UK will be at a premium compared to Turkey. Capacities are also bigger than in Turkey. 

Other than personal preference...and I dislike selection too... the UK would have to descend into civil war to lose to a bid from Turkey.


----------



## Pinkerton89 (Aug 2, 2020)

Maybe I am putting my own dislike of the bid ahead of the likelihood of winning, but from an England perspective it’s a woeful lack of effort to bring the tournament to the country as a whole.

No venues in Southern England bar London where there will be massive competition for tickets.

Only one venue in the Midlands.

London and Manchester likely to get multiple venues.

Honestly the concept of 5 Hosts for a Euros is ridiculous anyway, I would rather either England had gone it alone or Scotland / Wales / NI / ROI had bid without England, which I genuinely think could have been possible (Could have made 10 Venues with some relatively minor work).

England/Scotland as a joint bid would also have been better.

This is just a mess imo.


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Ramanaramana said:


> It has nothing to do with any of that. Not sure why you keep repeating it. It became used so heavily for cup finals and internationals because it was the largest stadium in Scotland, and one of the largest in the world for a very long time. Think it still holds some record attendance in the 130,000 range. It made sense to host cup finals at the most important and largest stadium in Scotland.
> 
> The idea that Ibrox and CP don't get used because of sectarian troubles isn't correct.


With all due respect, you're wrong about this. Yes, Celtic Park and Ibrox have both held internationals in the past, but choosing one above the other in this context would be deeply unpopular with half of the population, despite the fact both are better stadium than Hampden. This is why in 2014 when Hampden was unavailable, both Ibrox and Celtic Park held Scotland internationals, to avoid showing favouritism. The fact the SFA own the stadium helps, but if Hampden was unavailable, they would nominate either both CP & Ibrox, or neither, in this context. 




Pinkerton89 said:


> Maybe I am putting my own dislike of the bid ahead of the likelihood of winning, but from an England perspective it’s a woeful lack of effort to bring the tournament to the country as a whole.
> 
> No venues in Southern England bar London where there will be massive competition for tickets.
> 
> ...


Completely agree with this. Will all 5 hosts qualify? I would have preferred a Celtic bid without England, or an England & Scotland / England & Wales / GB bid which could have used proper football stadiums rather than Gaelic stadiums where fans will be miles from the pitch. 

or how about revisiting the idea of holding the Euros in London? Qatar have proved it's possible to hold a tournament in one city, why not the most diverse city in Europe?
Wembley (90,000)
Olympic Stadium (66,000)
Spurs Stadium (62,000)
Emirates Stadium (60,000)
Stamford Bridge (42,000 / redeveloped to 50,000+)
Selhurst park (redeveloped to 34,000)
The Valley (redeveloped to 35,000)
The Den (redeveloped to 30,000)
Vicarage Road (redeveloped to 30,000)
Craven Cottage (30,000)
+ Some a short distance from London:
St Marys Southampton (33,000)
AMEX Stadium (31,800)
Stadium MK (30,500 / redeveloped to 50,000+)
Portman Road (30,000)


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

Leedsrule said:


> With all due respect, you're wrong about this. Yes, Celtic Park and Ibrox have both held internationals in the past, but choosing one above the other in this context would be deeply unpopular with half of the population, despite the fact both are better stadium than Hampden. This is why in 2014 when Hampden was unavailable, both Ibrox and Celtic Park held Scotland internationals, to avoid showing favouritism. The fact the SFA own the stadium helps, but if Hampden was unavailable, they would nominate either both CP & Ibrox, or neither, in this context.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When Hampden was redeveloped early 90s, Ibrox hosted 4 intls on a row in a six month span, with CP getting none.

How does this align with your point of view?


----------



## Leedsrule (Apr 6, 2010)

Ramanaramana said:


> When Hampden was redeveloped early 90s, Ibrox hosted 4 intls on a row in a six month span, with CP getting none.
> 
> How does this align with your point of view?


Is that how far you need to go back to try and prove a point? Have you seen the state of Celtic Park in 1992 vs Ibrox? Parkhead at the time had old school terraces and had never hosted international football, whilst Ibrox was a modern all-seated stadium. I imagine UEFA guidelines at the time required all seater stadiums, though I can't find in what year these regulations came in. Since Parkhead was redeveloped in the mid-nineties, it has held the same number of Scotland matches as Ibrox, despite being larger.

Again, with all due respect, it is probably difficult to understand as an outsider, but the Old Firm is like no other rivalry in the UK. It is still deeply sectarian (although thankfully relatively civil).


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Leedsrule said:


> With all due respect, you're wrong about this. Yes, Celtic Park and Ibrox have both held internationals in the past, but choosing one above the other in this context would be deeply unpopular with half of the population, despite the fact both are better stadium than Hampden. This is why in 2014 when Hampden was unavailable, both Ibrox and Celtic Park held Scotland internationals, to avoid showing favouritism. The fact the SFA own the stadium helps, but if Hampden was unavailable, they would nominate either both CP & Ibrox, or neither, in this context.


I said the same thing in an earlier post in this thread.


chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I agree Hampden is the third best stadium in Glasgow but choosing either Ibrox Stadium or Celtic Park would have caused massive backlash from the fans of the Old Firm club whose stadium was not selected. Hampden is always the safe neutral pick for the national team, cup finals and European tournaments. I would love to see Hampden renovated into a larger capacity more rectangular stadium before 2028.


----------



## BhamJim (Jul 8, 2009)

Its obvious that the smaller nations in the British Isles are being included in the bid to gain favour with UEFA and improve the chances of hosting.

It would be much easier, both logistically and administratively for England to host it alone. 

London - Wembley, White Hart Lane
West Midlands - Villa Park and Molineux
East Midlands - City Ground and King Power Stadium
Greater Manchester - Old Trafford and Etihad
North East - St James' Park and Stadium of Light
North West - Bramley Moore Dock and another (Bolton, Burnley, Blackpool, PNE, Blackburn)
South West - Ashton Gate and MK Stadium
South East - Falmers Stadium, St Marys


----------



## eurocup2016 (Aug 30, 2015)

pesto said:


> Everything is politics in a worldwide organization, but multi-country bids are economic at the base.
> 
> FIFA (and others) was having trouble with hosts who were building herds of white elephants, incurring large public debt and using corrupt methods of funding and accounting for monies spent. This was leading to investigations by law enforcement and concern from sponsors.
> 
> Multi-national bids help by making it less likely that a single country will incur very large debts or end up with unneeded facilities. It normally also means that some of the least desirable cities in one bid (typically decaying post-industrial cities or remote locations) could be replaced by cities who had a better world name recognition.


Multi country bids are just a cash grab for FIFA. Most countries that bid for and host a World Cup already have the infrastructure in place and will use those same stadiums after the end of the it. The stadiums only become white elephants when they the tournament is awarded to a country that doesn't have world class facilities in place or a league capable of filling them like Qatar. Portugal/Spain doesn't need the Ukraine to join it. The U.S. could host a World Cup on their own as they have before They don't need Canada and Mexico to join them.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

eurocup2016 said:


> Multi country bids are just a cash grab for FIFA. Most countries that bid for and host a World Cup already have the infrastructure in place and will use those same stadiums after the end of the it. The stadiums only become white elephants when they the tournament is awarded to a country that doesn't have world class facilities in place or a league capable of filling them like Qatar. Portugal/Spain doesn't need the Ukraine to join it. The U.S. could host a World Cup on their own as they have before They don't need Canada and Mexico to join them.


Mostly true. But the problem is that some bidders do not have the stadiums, facilities, airports, train connections, medical facilities, etc., ready so you have to rely on them to build them before the tournament without diverting funds from real needs.

In the spirit of cooperation with the spread of soccer worldwide the US agreed to host jointly with Canada and Mexico. The idea was that Canada had too few stadiums to host and Mexico had better uses for money than to update stadiums and build new ones for which there was no profitable use. The press and right groups attacked FIFA (and others) for supporting projects which diverted money into stadium construction in countries where most water was unsanitary, women's literacy was very low and there is little access to medical care in most of the country.

Multinational bids help achieve that while allowing smaller countries to experience the excitement of hosting.

Assuming that corruption is now largely contained, FIFA does what every for-profit or not-for-profit organization does: it maximizes funds so as to spend them on carrying out its goal of achieving the goals outlined in their charter. In doing this it retains media, economists and sponsors who spend billions analyzing world markets. Naturally hey look to expand to where the market is not already saturated. Same as cricket, rugby, baseball, basketball, tennis, etc.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

eurocup2016 said:


> Multi country bids are just a cash grab for FIFA. Most countries that bid for and host a World Cup already have the infrastructure in place and will use those same stadiums after the end of the it. The stadiums only become white elephants when they the tournament is awarded to a country that doesn't have world class facilities in place or a league capable of filling them like Qatar. Portugal/Spain doesn't need the Ukraine to join it. The U.S. could host a World Cup on their own as they have before They don't need Canada and Mexico to join them.


Always exceptions to the rule. Brazil is football mad, its league and clubs are wildly popular, but the WC is a political event when it comes to choosing venues. They have to be seen to,be egalitarian in spreading the love throughout the country. So you have a situation where amazing stadiums like Gremio or Palmeiras don’t take part while white elephants that don’t have clubs that need large stadiums in Manaus or Brasilia get built with no real legacy in place. 

Brazil could have had an unbelievably good legacy, but that means they would’ve had to have most venues in Sao Paulo, Rio, Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte. Yet politicking gets in the way and you end up with undesirable situations. 

That’s why I’d have bidders only submit venues that already exist, as you know they’d all be tailored to clubs first.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Ramanaramana said:


> Always exceptions to the rule. Brazil is football mad, its league and clubs are wildly popular, but the WC is a political event when it comes to choosing venues. They have to be seen to,be egalitarian in spreading the love throughout the country. So you have a situation where amazing stadiums like Gremio or Palmeiras don’t take part while white elephants that don’t have clubs that need large stadiums in Manaus or Brasilia get built with no real legacy in place.
> 
> Brazil could have had an unbelievably good legacy, but that means they would’ve had to have most venues in Sao Paulo, Rio, Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte. Yet politicking gets in the way and you end up with undesirable situations.
> 
> That’s why I’d have bidders only submit venues that already exist, as you know they’d all be tailored to clubs first.


Yes. This is where the politics comes in, when some remote industrial town with marginal appeal and facilities tries to push its way in politically in spite of having little media or tourist appeal. It can happen in any country.

Multinational bids alleviate this by providing, say, 2 or 3 sites in another country that are better choices overall based on facilities, location, name recognition, etc. In 2026 you gain Mexico City and Toronto and lose a relatively less interesting US city.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Ramanaramana said:


> Always exceptions to the rule. Brazil is football mad, its league and clubs are wildly popular, but the WC is a political event when it comes to choosing venues. They have to be seen to,be egalitarian in spreading the love throughout the country. So you have a situation where amazing stadiums like Gremio or Palmeiras don’t take part while white elephants that don’t have clubs that need large stadiums in Manaus or Brasilia get built with no real legacy in place.
> 
> Brazil could have had an unbelievably good legacy, but that means they would’ve had to have most venues in Sao Paulo, Rio, Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte. Yet politicking gets in the way and you end up with undesirable situations.
> 
> That’s why I’d have bidders only submit venues that already exist, as you know they’d all be tailored to clubs first.


Or worse the stadium in the Pantanal, where they sent Australia!


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

Which is why I’d like South American group sharing their bid with the south of Brazil for the World Cup but I digress.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

UK and Ireland 'frustrating UEFA over delay with Euro 2028 guarantees'


The UK and Ireland have come together to form a joint bid for the future tournament, with Turkey their closest competitors ahead of UEFA's vote in September.




www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

I’ve read the article and still don’t understand the issue over Spurs stadium. Surely Tott and whoever the negotiate with already know that their brand won’t be used at a tournament, seeing as it’s standard practice. It’s possible I’ve completely missed the point too.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

Well, this could be an opportunity for Turkey to host.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

If Turkey wins the bids since their infrastructure might be good enough over UK/Ireland.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

That warning on infrastructure is a big blow for UK and Ireland.


----------



## Light Tower (Nov 29, 2020)

I think that means Turkey might get the Euro 2028 while Italy could be awarded for 2032.


----------



## Juanpabloangel (Jun 7, 2015)

If the UK bid did fall over, I can see a late bid for the World Cup being brought back.


----------



## cyril sneer (Mar 10, 2015)

The reasons given in that report re Spurs stadium name is quite ridiculous really. The Belfast stadium?? is the biggest unknown dragging down the UK bid I reckon.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

cyril sneer said:


> The reasons given in that report re Spurs stadium name is quite ridiculous really. The Belfast stadium?? is the biggest unknown dragging down the UK bid I reckon.


If only the UK had other large stadia........

Fwiw I don't think any of this matters. Just generating drama for clicks. We survived 10 years of fear-mongering over Qatar. There won't be any issue. 

UK stepped aside for 2030 voluntarily. They wouldn't have done so if this wasn't guaranteed to them.


----------



## CWells2000 (May 6, 2018)

The UK-IRE bid stepped aside from the World Cup bid on the proviso that we would go for Euro 2028 instead as there was a higher likelihood of winning that bid.

I wouldn't take notice of this story too much. The chances are if Tottenham cannot agree on the naming rights, then London Stadium most likely will get the nod or the Emirates even.

I still think UEFA will go for the UK-IRE bid, purely for the same reasons they went for Germany for Euro 2024. 

Ultimately it comes down to one word and thats money and the high likelihood is that the UK-IRE would offer a bigger return financially for UEFA than Turkey.


----------



## ElvisBC (Feb 21, 2011)

it is a done deal, everything else is just another smokescreen


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

cyril sneer said:


> The reasons given in that report re Spurs stadium name is quite ridiculous really. The Belfast stadium?? is the biggest unknown dragging down the UK bid I reckon.


I agree with you. The name of the Spurs stadium can easily be resolved for this tournament. As for the Belfast stadium it has been planned for quite some time but nothing as far as construction has been concerned has happened. I fear they will select Casement Park (even if construction has not started by then) as one of the final 10 just because it is in Northern Ireland. The involvement of Northern Ireland is not dependant on a stadium as they can still host fan festivals and team base camps.


----------



## Ramanaramana (Mar 24, 2021)

chicagobuildingnerd1833 said:


> I agree with you. *The name of the Spurs stadium can easily be resolved for this tournament. * As for the Belfast stadium it has been planned for quite some time but nothing as far as construction has been concerned has happened. I fear they will select Casement Park (even if construction has not started by then) as one of the final 10 just because it is in Northern Ireland. The involvement of Northern Ireland is not dependant on a stadium as they can still host fan festivals and team base camps.


Let's say it's not easily resolved as a hypothetical. There's another 60,000-seat modern stadium a stone's throw away, yet our resident AI bot Light Tower believes it's a hammer blow to the bid and puts Turkey in the front-seat. Maybe the machine knows more than it's letting on.

Belfast is ostensibly the UK's Manaus. No one wants it there, but Union Jack and all that lark.


----------



## chicagobuildingnerd1833 (Sep 23, 2021)

Ramanaramana said:


> Let's say it's not easily resolved as a hypothetical. There's another 60,000-seat modern stadium a stone's throw away, yet our resident AI bot Light Tower believes it's a hammer blow to the bid and puts Turkey in the front-seat. Maybe the machine knows more than it's letting on.
> 
> Belfast is ostensibly the UK's Manaus. No one wants it there, but Union Jack and all that lark.


London Stadium is a good venue but its shape makes it less desirable than the Spurs venue. I prefer West Ham's venue to any multipurpose stadium without retractable seats but nothing beats a perfectly rectangular stadium for football/soccer. The name of the Spurs stadium can be resolved in a similar manner to the Etihad and Aviva Stadiums. I agree Belfast is the ugly stain to this otherwise perfect bid as that stadium has been planned for years but nothing has happened yet. NI should just accept the fact that they are lucky enough to get fan festivals and team base camps if the bid is successful.


----------

