Jump to content

World Cup 2022-Australia?


Recommended Posts

The trouble is, there's no chance of co-hosting with NZ _ we are no longer in the same confederation! The only chance would be if we rejoined Oceania or NZ joined Asia. Otherwise, no go.

Sydney and Melbourne would probably have to host two groups each. For the other eight, I suppose Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Hobart, Wollongong, Newcastle and Geelong. Maybe a North Queensland (Townsville) group could be possible. I don't see many other possibilities, though if South Africa can do it, I'm sure we can.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Financially viable? I'd have thought so! To get ready for a world cup would cost comparitively little especially now we (nearly) have our centrepiece stadium in place. A few upgrades here and there would be needed but nothing on the scale of South Korea/Japan.

I think a world cup world turn over a tidy profit if it were held in England.

Possible stadiums:

LONDON

Wembley 90,000

Ashburton Grove 60,000

Stamford Bridge 43,000

MANCHESTER

Old Trafford 76,000

City of Manchester Stadium 48,000

MERSEYSIDE

Stanley Park (Liverpool's new ground) 60,000

Goodison Park 40,000

NORTH EAST

St James' Park 52,000

Stadium of Light 49,000

MIDLANDS AND YORKSHIRE

Elland Road 40,000

Villa Park 44,000

Hillsborough 40,000

I'm pretty sure FIFA doesn't like more than two stadia in one city, so let's say

London - Wembley and Ashburton Grove

Manchester - Old Trafford and Eastlands

Then

New Anfield

St James Park

Villa Park

Stadium of Light

Elland Road

Hillsborough

I'd just like a ground in the south-west.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Back on track-is it likely, possible, unlikely or impossible for Australia to host in either 2018 or 2022? Which year gives us the best chance?

And does the MCG get the final? ;)

Wouldn't it go to the Olympic Stadium in Sydney?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to allocate groups to cities. It hasn't been used in any world cups I can remember and won't be used in Germany. It lets more of the country see different teams rather than one city seing the same teams over. And it spreads the more popular teams that would fill the larger venues around.

By the time the World Cup comes to Australia (which won't be for a while as the Cup will most likely go back to Europe twice, America and China) we'll have in terms of stadia....

Melbourne -  MCG (100,000)

             - Telstra Dome (55,000)

Sydney    - Telstra Stadium (83,000)

             - Aussie Stadium (41,000)

Brisbane   - Suncorp Stadium (53,000)

             - Gabba (42,000) - could be replaced by larger stadium if Brisbane wants to bid for the Olympics.

Perth       - Stadium WA (65,000)

Adelaide   - AAMI Stadium (50,000)

Gold Coast - Robina Stadium (upgrade 40,000)

Townsville - DF Stadium (upgrade 40,000)

Canberra   - Canberra Stadium (upgrade 40,000)

Newcastle - EA Stadium (upgrade 40,000)

That's more that FIFA requires, and they will have to get over the one city, one stadium philosophy as we don't have enough cities, but the ones we have are quite large. Paris hosted two stadiums in 98.

Arwebb, the MCG has a bigger capacity so I would assume it would get the final and Sydney would get the opening match.

Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah..uh-huh.  The US will try to get 2018 -- after all, that would be 24 years since our last turn.

I think the danger here is that just because the IOC awards the summer olympics to the USA every ~20 years, a lot of people in the US may expect that FIFA will do the same and give the world cup to America every ~20 years. FIFA works differently to the IOC.

I can understand why the USA will bid again so soon after 1994, given that Mexico hosted twice in 16 years (1970/86) so why not the USA?

However, it's not that simple. The US will find it difficult to win the 2018, it will be a very different race to 1994.

The 1994 race didn't really have stong competition for US in the form of Morocco (FIFA wasn't ready back then to go to Africa, it took them another 16 years to finally go to South Africa, and that was only after the heavy criticism they recieved for awarding 2006 to Germany).

England, China, Spain etc will be more difficult to defeat than Morocco in 1994. Not to mention there is danger (for the US bid) that the Europeans will gang up, and England will pick up all of Spain's votes, or vice versa one one bid has dropped out. The USA doesn't have the advantage of being the new frontier bid this time round. That was a major weapon in 1994, but this time China will be playing that card.

Also- I know that European football stadiums such as Wembley, Nou Camp (Barcelona), Old Trafford (Manchester), Bernabeu (Real Madrid), aren't that well-known in the US, but in the football world, these stadiums are icons, the prospect of semi-finals and finals being played in these stadiums will be more attractive to FIFA than the majority of stadiums in the US, the majority of FIFA voting members being non-American.

If the USA wins the 2016 summer games, then there will be people around the world adamant that the USA does not get to host the world cup also, after 2 years (this having already happened in 1994/6). This is the same problem being faced by the people who want to bring the 2014 commonwealth games to Glasgow- 2 years after London 2012? Unlikely...

W-O-W  :shocked:

I couldn't have said it better! :oops:

Of course Wembley and Santiago Bernabeu aren't the same as those thingie American stadiums and the WCs in Europe aren't the same as in the USA so...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia will host the FIFA World Cup.  It's only a matter of time.  The country is coming off the hugely successful Sydney Olympics and the 2003 Rugby World Cup.  I don't buy into the argument that Australia's lack of success in the soccer world would hurt their chances.  If that was the case, then there's no way the U.S. would've hosted in 1994.  For the most part, the necessary stadiums are in place.  A few new venues would probably have to be constructed.  My guess is there would be new stadiums built in Canberra, Perth, and possibly Newcastle.  I remember reading not long ago that there's talk of building a new 50-60,000 seat stadium in Perth.

Sydney - Telstra Stadium, Aussie Stadium

Melbourne - Melbourne Cricket Ground, Telstra Dome

Adelaide - AAMI Stadium

Brisbane - Suncorp Stadium

I think the biggest obstacle to an Aussie bid will be China who I also believe will host the World Cup at some point.  It's just a matter of who FIFA decides to go with first.

Link to post
Share on other sites
After two new frontiers in 2010 and 2014, I can't help but think that Australia's chances are limited as far as 2018 goes. I have a feeling that if a new frontier nation were to win, it'd be China rather than Australia.

As far as 2022 goes, that depends largely on what happens in 2018. If 2018 goes to China or the US, 2022 will certainly be a European World Cup. If 2018 goes to Europe, Australia may be in with a chance for 2022.

So, to summarise my thoughts. Australia 2018 seems unlikely, and Australia 2022 is only likely if a European country wins 2018.

2014 is going to be in a new frontier? Unless Brazil is going to host it, which is most likely, I wouldn't call it a new frontier because it last hosted it in 1950. Talk about a "long time ago."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Australia will host the FIFA World Cup.  It's only a matter of time.  The country is coming off the hugely successful Sydney Olympics and the 2003 Rugby World Cup.  I don't buy into the argument that Australia's lack of success in the soccer world would hurt their chances.  If that was the case, then there's no way the U.S. would've hosted in 1994.  For the most part, the necessary stadiums are in place.  A few new venues would probably have to be constructed.  My guess is there would be new stadiums built in Canberra, Perth, and possibly Newcastle.  I remember reading not long ago that there's talk of building a new 50-60,000 seat stadium in Perth.

Sydney - Telstra Stadium, Aussie Stadium

Melbourne - Melbourne Cricket Ground, Telstra Dome

Adelaide - AAMI Stadium

Brisbane - Suncorp Stadium

I think the biggest obstacle to an Aussie bid will be China who I also believe will host the World Cup at some point.  It's just a matter of who FIFA decides to go with first.

The problem with Australia is that we, the Europeans, won't be able to see the matches...

Link to post
Share on other sites

The final of the Rugby World Cup in 2003 was played at nine in the morning UK time, so we probably would see the matches.

Also, given the different timezones, games in Perth were taking place around lunchtime over here, so I don't really think the timezone issue is important. Otherwise, we wouldn't have had Japan and Korea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Australia's biggest problem for now is that FIFA will never allow them to use multiple venues in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. One city with two venues is no problem, two might also be allowed but three cities with two venues will be out of the question.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that a problem with 3 cities having 2 venues?

The only one I could see would be transportation, but you only really have 3 games on the same day, they wouldn't schedule them in the same city. Accomodation is ample so I don't see the problem.

The majority of Australians live in the 5 big cities. We can't help it, we're not going to build some stadium out in whoop whoop that'll never be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a possibility of two stadia in three cities being part of an England bid, if the City of Birmingham Stadium comes into being.

But what stadia would Brisbane use? Surely the only one they're likely to use is the Suncorp.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a possibility of two stadia in three cities being part of an England bid, if the City of Birmingham Stadium comes into being.

But what stadia would Brisbane use? Surely the only one they're likely to use is the Suncorp.

The GABBA?

But realistically, i'd expect a second QLD stadium to be in Townsville or the Gold Coast.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that a problem with 3 cities having 2 venues?

The only one I could see would be transportation, but you only really have 3 games on the same day, they wouldn't schedule them in the same city. Accomodation is ample so I don't see the problem.

The majority of Australians live in the 5 big cities. We can't help it, we're not going to build some stadium out in whoop whoop that'll never be used.

FIFA wants the World Cup to be organised by the whole country, not by a few towns. Venues should be spread out over the country, that's why Germany uses Leipzig and Nürnberg instead of Mönchengladbach and Düsseldorf.

Organising the FIFA world cup means investing a lot of money (except if your the USA, they have more than enough topclass facilities). If your not willing to do that than you shouldn't even consider a bid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is that a problem with 3 cities having 2 venues?

The only one I could see would be transportation, but you only really have 3 games on the same day, they wouldn't schedule them in the same city. Accomodation is ample so I don't see the problem.

The majority of Australians live in the 5 big cities. We can't help it, we're not going to build some stadium out in whoop whoop that'll never be used.

FIFA wants the World Cup to be organised by the whole country, not by a few towns. Venues should be spread out over the country, that's why Germany uses Leipzig and Nürnberg instead of Mönchengladbach and Düsseldorf.

Organising the FIFA world cup means investing a lot of money (except if your the USA, they have more than enough topclass facilities). If your not willing to do that than you shouldn't even consider a bid.

For once, I totally agree with you.

The FIFA will have China, with the money to build a stadium in the Tibet if they won't or Australia, with a bid with only 3 cities... who will you choose? :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gabba hosted Olympic football matches in 2000.

- - - - - - - - - - -

What's the point of building stadiums in the middle of nowhere that will never be used? FIFA doesn't want a bunch of white elephant stadiums.

If Sydney, Melbourne & Brisbane had two stadiums each, it isnt stopping the spread of the tournament throughout the country, because that is the WHOLE country, pretty much. We have 5 big cities - most of the country lives in these, Australia is the 2nd most urbanised country in the world. 90% of us live in the big cities. We don't live outside the main cities. Why build stadiums in regional areas, where if everyone in the town went to a match, they still wouldn't fill the seats? It's illogical and a petty excuse. Australia has enough stadiums as it is to host a World Cup. Tomorrow if need be.

Should Spain build a massive stadium on Majorca?

Should Holland build a massive stadium on Aruba?

Should the USA build a massive stadium in Alaska?

Should the UK build a massive stadium on the Hebrides?

I don't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The smallest city at the World Cup 2006 in Germany is Kaiserslautern. The city has ca. 100.000 inhabitants. It depends on the number of the US-Troops.

The city does not have to be big, but it needs a football tradition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point of building stadiums in the middle of nowhere that will never be used? FIFA doesn't want a bunch of white elephant stadiums.
FIFA doesn't care about white elephants at all. Korea and Japan built 10 new stadia each. Most of which are currently rotting away or way too big for the team that plays there. Korea for instance built a useless 40.000 seater on the island of Jeju.

Both countries could have settled for 5 or 6 six venues each. However, they didn't and FIFA couldn't give a ####. All they care for is a good World Cup that gets the money rolling. After all they're not the ones paying the stadia.

Should Spain build a massive stadium on Majorca?

Not necessarily. What they shouldn't do is use two stadiums in Madrid, two in Barcelona, two in Valencia or Sevilla. Unless there going to use a shitload of stadia like they did in 1982. That way every stadium only gets 1 or 2 games and this shouldn't be a problem. However, Australia doesn't have that many 40.000+ stadia so that scenario seems out of the question.

Should Holland build a massive stadium on Aruba?
Obviously not. Aruba and The Netherlands are two different entities within The Kingdom of The Netherlands (like England and Scotland within Brittain), two seperate FIFA members and most importantly members of different continental federations (UEFA and CONCACAF). The Netherlands using Aruba as a venue would be a joined World Cup by members of different federations, something that FIFA doesn't allow (an Australia / New Zealand bid is therefore out of the question either now that Australia has joined the AFC). Apart from that, the distance makes this whole idea ridiculous.
Should the USA build a massive stadium in Alaska?

I wouldn't suggest it given its isolated location but it is possible. What the US shouldn't do is only using venues in California or the North-East.

Should the UK build a massive stadium on the Hebrides?

No, a UK bid is never going to happen. England can do it on its own and the other ones are to small. A joint Scottish / Irish Euro bid failed miserably because it proposed three (!!) stadia in Glasgow, two in Edinburgh and two in Dublin though.

If Australia uses two venues in Sydney and Melbourne each and one venue in Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Newcastle, Goldcoast and some other place (Hobart, Wollongong, Canberra??) they have 10 venues and should be fine. I'm not suggesting Australia should build something in the middle of nowhere (Alice Springs), the Northern Territory or the Western Australian desert. However, it should be an Australian World Cup not an Australia's Big 5 World Cup.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Gabba hosted Olympic football matches in 2000.

- - - - - - - - - - -

What's the point of building stadiums in the middle of nowhere that will never be used? FIFA doesn't want a bunch of white elephant stadiums.

If Sydney, Melbourne & Brisbane had two stadiums each, it isnt stopping the spread of the tournament throughout the country, because that is the WHOLE country, pretty much. We have 5 big cities - most of the country lives in these, Australia is the 2nd most urbanised country in the world. 90% of us live in the big cities. We don't live outside the main cities. Why build stadiums in regional areas, where if everyone in the town went to a match, they still wouldn't fill the seats? It's illogical and a petty excuse. Australia has enough stadiums as it is to host a World Cup. Tomorrow if need be.

Should Spain build a massive stadium on Majorca?

Should Holland build a massive stadium on Aruba?

Should the USA build a massive stadium in Alaska?

Should the UK build a massive stadium on the Hebrides?

I don't think so.

You have to choose stadiums in different cities!!! And if you don't have them, YOU WILL HAVE TO BUILT THEM BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT FIFA WANTS: SPEND MONEY!

In our 1982 WC, we chose stadiums in all the country: Gijón, Seville, Zaragoza, Barcelona, Madrid, Valencia, Elche....

Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the host cities/stadiums for South Africa 2010 (and their populations)? I'm hard-pressed to think of more than half a dozen or so South African metropoli.

Going by the experience of Rugby WC 2003 in Australia, one of the great successes was the crowds that the tournament managed to draw in such smaller regional centres as Gosford etc. Given the higher profile of the FIFA event, I'd imagine it wouldn't be too hard to repeat such successes at a football WC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure wether all capacities and pictures are right but here goes:

Soccer City (FNB stadium), Johannesburg - 94.700

wc2010johannesburgb.jpg

Ellis Park, Johannesburg - 60.000

wc2010johannesburga.jpg

Loftus Versfeld, Pretoria - 45.000

wc2010pretoriaa.jpg

Vodacom Park, Bloemfontein - 40.000

wc2010bloemfontein.jpg

Royal Bafokeng Stadium, Rustenburg - 40.000

wc2010rustenburg.jpg

Peter Mokaba Stadium, Polokwane - 40.000

wc2010polokwane.jpg

New stadium, Port Elizabeth - 49.500

wc2010portelizabeth.jpg

New stadium, Durban - 70.000 (??)

No pictures available

Green Point Stadium (New), Cape Town - 65.000 (??)

No pictures available

Mbombela Stadium, Nelspruit - 40.000

wc2010nelspruit.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure football would really work at the Gabba.

I think that's a good point.

How would FIFA feel about football matches being played at Cricket grounds? I think the Australian soccer federation needs to ask FIFA this question.

If Cricket stadiums are to be used, then no doubt extra seats would have to be installed into each cricket ground to bring the spectators closer to the action. Otherwise they'll be the game going on in the middle of the field, and lots of green grass separating the spectators, who would be quite far away.

Of course, this would not be a problem for stadiums such as Telstra Stadium in Sydney, Telstra Dome in Mel or Brisbane's Suncorp stadium, which could host football matches tomorrow, no problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...