Jump to content

Y do prospective WC hosts,


Recommended Posts

especially the ones of 'developing nation' status, present MORE cities than FIFA requires and then fall apart and go crying to the bank when everything becomes over-budget?

In the last 6 WCs,

(1994 - wildly successful; no new venues had to be built specifically)

1998? - don't know that ended up in the books; but it didn't seem to dent French finances much?

2002 - the Korea v. Japan show - My stadia are bigger and newer than yours. Played in like 17 cities(!)

2006 - I think Germany did OK.

2010 - RSA handled it well

2014 - Brazil presented 2 or 3 more cities than FIFA required; thus has fallen behind in preps

2018 - Russia; same fate as Brazil??

2022 - who knows how that will fare?

FIFA seems to be surviving on the fumes of a co-dependent dysfunctional relationship.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

especially the ones of 'developing nation' status, present MORE cities than FIFA requires and then fall apart and go crying to the bank when everything becomes over-budget?

In the last 6 WCs,

(1994 - wildly successful; no new venues had to be built specifically)

1998? - don't know that ended up in the books; but it didn't seem to dent French finances much?

2002 - the Korea v. Japan show - My stadia are bigger and newer than yours. Played in like 17 cities(!)

2006 - I think Germany did OK.

2010 - RSA handled it well

2014 - Brazil presented 2 or 3 more cities than FIFA required; thus has fallen behind in preps

2018 - Russia; same fate as Brazil??

2022 - who knows how that will fare?

FIFA seems to be surviving on the fumes of a co-dependent dysfunctional relationship.

Sounds a bit like the IOC

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not so simple. FIFA does not require a firm list of cities and stadiums in the bidding stage. That is settled after a country is awarded a tournament. Since expansion to 32 teams, France and South Africa have used 10 stadiums in 9 cities, Korea/Japan have used 20 stadiums in 20 cities and Germany and Brazil have used 12 stadiums in 12 cities.

Germany could have easily used as high as 16 without the need for new stadiums. In reality probably choosing Nuremberg and Kaiserslautern was misguided. Much as choosing Brasilia and Manaus was misguided.

The over abundance of stadia is on the host, not FIFA. FIFA only requires 8 stadiums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not so simple. FIFA does not require a firm list of cities and stadiums in the bidding stage. That is settled after a country is awarded a tournament. Since expansion to 32 teams, France and South Africa have used 10 stadiums in 9 cities, Korea/Japan have used 20 stadiums in 20 cities and Germany and Brazil have used 12 stadiums in 12 cities.

Germany could have easily used as high as 16 without the need for new stadiums. In reality probably choosing Nuremberg and Kaiserslautern was misguided. Much as choosing Brasilia and Manaus was misguided.

The over abundance of stadia is on the host, not FIFA. FIFA only requires 8 stadiums.

That's exactly my point. Even with all its sins, FIFA only asks for 8 venues...but some hosts have gone all out with extra venues...thus creating the vicious cycle of who asked for more?--and each cycle costs more than the last. It's a self-perpetuating, death-wish cycle. So, like the IOC (which can whittle down the size of its Games), the federations aren't entirely to blame for the runaway gigantism of their games.

Edited by baron-pierreIV
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly my point. Even with all its sins, FIFA only asks for 8 venues...but some hosts have gone all out with extra venues...thus creating the vicious cycle of who asked for more?--and each cycle costs more than the last. It's a self-perpetuating, death-wish cycle. So, like the IOC (which can whittle down the size of its Games), the federations aren't entirely to blame for the runaway gigantism of their games.

Again not entirely correct. France made use of extensive existing infrastructure, as did Germany. Germany cost less than Korea/Japan and South Africa cost less than Germany. It is not as bombastic as the recent string of Olympic hosts and Russia/Qatar are the only ones that have gonna severely outside of necessity/national needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again not entirely correct. France made use of extensive existing infrastructure, as did Germany. Germany cost less than Korea/Japan and South Africa cost less than Germany. It is not as bombastic as the recent string of Olympic hosts and Russia/Qatar are the only ones that have gonna severely outside of necessity/national needs.

Again, did you not see I wrote 'some'? And if you will read the first post, I did NOT generalize. It's just unthinkable that it's the newly emerging economies that go bust and just want to show off.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Germany could have easily used as high as 16 without the need for new stadiums. In reality probably choosing Nuremberg and Kaiserslautern was misguided. Much as choosing Brasilia and Manaus .

Why were Nuremberg and Kaiserslautern misguided choices? Bith with long-stabding football tradition, even though the local clubs have had their ups and mostly downs (with Nuremberg just relegated and KL failing to get promoted, they'll both be on 2nd level next season again).

Completely different to Manaus where there will be hardly ever a full stadium after the WC again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why were Nuremberg and Kaiserslautern misguided choices? Bith with long-stabding football tradition, even though the local clubs have had their ups and mostly downs (with Nuremberg just relegated and KL failing to get promoted, they'll both be on 2nd level next season again).

Completely different to Manaus where there will be hardly ever a full stadium after the WC again.

Kaiserslautern was too small, it really pushed the limits of how small a WC city could be and there were transportation and accommodation issues. Nuremberg was chosen because it was in Southern Germany, over bigger and more suited Bremen and Dusseldorf.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason is regional politics, I think. Brazil is a huge country, and they wanted games played all over the country. No Manaus stadium means the entire Amazon region would not be involved in the world cup.

After all there were 18 stadiums in the 2022 USA bid. They could have saved a lot of travel by cutting Seattle, Denver, etc. But that would mean whole regions of the country would not be participating at all. Including many of the regions with the best support for the game.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason is regional politics, I think. Brazil is a huge country, and they wanted games played all over the country. No Manaus stadium means the entire Amazon region would not be involved in the world cup.

After all there were 18 stadiums in the 2022 USA bid. They could have saved a lot of travel by cutting Seattle, Denver, etc. But that would mean whole regions of the country would not be participating at all. Including many of the regions with the best support for the game.

Those were proposed cities, if the USA had won it would have been likely that San Diego, Houston, Tampa, and Baltimore would have been cut along with 2 other cities to bring it inline with 12 venues. Probably Nashville and Kansas City.

The issue with so many venues is that they only host 3 or 4 matches. Making the overlay, security and other host cities costs a lot more daunting for the whole process.

Link to post
Share on other sites

After all there were 18 stadiums in the 2022 USA bid. They could have saved a lot of travel by cutting Seattle, Denver, etc. But that would mean whole regions of the country would not be participating at all. Including many of the regions with the best support for the game.

Those were candidate venues, not the final list. Some of those cities would not have made the final cut, probably trimming the official list down to about 12. That's the advantage the United States has with having more stadiums than could possibly host the World Cup. Some very worthy cities won't be involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

FIFA only require 8 stadiums? Where does that comes from? In the invitations to bid for the 2018 and 2022 World Cups FIFA states "Approximately 12 stadiums with the minimum capacities of between 40,000 for group matches and 80,000 for the opening match and final, are required to host the FIFA World Cup".

UEFA demands 9 stadiums to host the 51 match Euros. There's no way a 64 match World Cup could be hosted on only 8 stadiums in a month. France in 98, and South Africa in 2010 is also the only ones to use less than 12 stadium. Using 10 each. Which I'm pretty sure is the bear minimum to at all be able to host 64 matches in 30-32 days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2006 criteria

Capacity:

The minimum requirement is 40,000 seats for group, second round and quarter-final matches; and 60,000 seats for the opening game, semi-finals, third place play-off and Final.

Guess that's the same for 2014.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt 60,000 would be enough for final, probably hasn't been for a long a time. The last time a stadium of that size or smaller hosted the final match was in 1958. I think the minimum used to be 70k and has been raised to 80k.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...