Jump to content

USA WC Stadiums


Recommended Posts

Stu, its a fact of life that the USA will be hosting at least 1 of the big 3 sporting events every decade. Its just the way it is because of the money involved in the US when it comes these events.

That may well be the case as far as television rights for the Olympics are concerned, however, football's money has always stemmed from the European market.  Sponsorship by American multinationals (Coca-Cola, McDonalds) have and will continue with or without US involvement as their markets are worldwide.  

I'm not against the US hosting these events, they have the ability to do it well, it's just that it's not as emotionally stimulating as when the host is elsewhere.  I suppose the 1984-2004 period was a bit of a US overload for international sporting events - the thought of another is completely banal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Stu, its a fact of life that the USA will be hosting at least 1 of the big 3 sporting events every decade. Its just the way it is because of the money involved in the US when it comes these events.

That may well be the case as far as television rights for the Olympics are concerned, however, football's money has always stemmed from the European market.  Sponsorship by American multinationals (Coca-Cola, McDonalds) have and will continue with or without US involvement as their markets are worldwide.  

I'm not against the US hosting these events, they have the ability to do it well, it's just that it's not as emotionally stimulating as when the host is elsewhere.  I suppose the 1984-2004 period was a bit of a US overload for international sporting events - the thought of another is completely banal.

Yes, but you get pretty good hotel rooms for a good price too.  That's why every 20 years is fine, so you -- and we -- are ready for the next round after, you say, an "overload" cycle!  :wwww:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with Stu. It's not a problem if US has the qualities for the WC. In two years, they could build enough stadiums for two consecutive WC. The point is "Why the US should host in less than 20 years if other countries that have more experience and more passion are waiting for more than 40 years". I know that the US will host again someday... but I don't think 2018 should be if other countries (as Spain, England and Brazil) must wait other 4 years.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mikel,some of your remarks are completely off the wall and just flat out anti-american, whcih I find surprising, because you seem to accept a possible USA win for the 2016 Olympics....I do agree that soccer is more popular primarily in Latin America and Europe, but without a doubt the USA could easily host such an event on any given day, and would do a great job at that....I think a 2016 Olympic win would only fuel the USA's ambitions to go after the event...I could see it comming in 2018 or 2022 in what I am sure will be top of the line, exciting venues and an excellent and exciting overall plan....
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mikel,some of your remarks are completely off the wall and just flat out anti-american, whcih I find surprising, because you seem to accept a possible USA win for the 2016 Olympics....I do agree that soccer is more popular primarily in Latin America and Europe, but without a doubt the USA could easily host such an event on any given day, and would do a great job at that....I think a 2016 Olympic win would only fuel the USA's ambitions to go after the event...I could see it comming in 2018 or 2022 in what I am sure will be top of the line, exciting venues and an excellent and exciting overall plan....

well, let me reprint what a fellow European of his, QUintana, said about our sweet, dear mikel, in a post above and in case it gets lost in cyberspace...

Quintana wrote:

It just that Mikel's anti-American remarks - in which he constantly shows he knows very little about the subject - annoy me.

And he's working or starting to work for the Spanish Foreign Service.  

Maybe better in the Foreign Legion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course America could host a World Cup. That is not being disputed, or at least it shouldn't be.

What is being disputed is why should America, having hosted so recently, should take priority over nations like Brazil or England who haven't hosted for 40 or 50 years or Australia and China who haven't hosted at all.

A strict continental rotation system of one tournament per continent per cycle is just ridiculous. What we need is a relatively informal system where there is some rotation but each second or third tournament is back in Europe, the game's heartland.

In other words - what we need is an Olympic-style system. Thus, 2018 would be the third tournament since Germany, so back to Europe. Then 2022 goes to either Australia or North America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And you would disagree if America didn't get 2014? You either agree with something or you don't. You can't pick and choose based on what might happen in the future.

well then, no.  We should have the option to go after it too, for 2018.  I mean the Olympics were every 3rd returned to Europe, but then with 2012, that broke the pattern.  So, similarly, why shouldn't the pattern be broken (once in a while) for the WC as well?   :suspect:

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not exactly a strict rotation of every third Olympics to Europe. Historically, it's been nearer to every other Olympics, as it has been for the World Cup.

So, given that context, 2018 should be back to Europe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not exactly a strict rotation of every third Olympics to Europe. Historically, it's been nearer to every other Olympics, as it has been for the World Cup.

So, given that context, 2018 should be back to Europe.

uhmmm, no -

SOGs: 1960 - Rome (E)

  '64 - Tokyo (Asia)

  '68 - Mexico (the AMericas)

  '72 - Munich (E)

  '76 - Montreal (Americas)

  '80 - Moscow (well, outside of 'free' Europe; behind the Wall)

  '84 - LA (Americas)

  '88 - Seoul (Asia)

  '92 - Barcelona

  '96 - Atlanta (Americas)

....need I go on?  Generally, it was every 3rd.

As for the WC, well, it alternated between Latin American and Europe.  But it's a much bigger world now; or maybe it should've been called the Euro-Latino Cup (just like golf's Ryder Cup which alternates between the US and Europe, and has not been presumptuous enough to call itself the Golf World CUp when it's betwen 2 regions only) -- going by your archaic thinking...rather than the World Cup or Copa Mundial?   Get over it; it's a different world today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Australia would be similar to Canada thinking they can host the WC. Its a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream right now. Neither country has the soccer predigree to pull it off, nor enough principle cities. Australia has two (Sydney and Melbourne, and Canada has three, Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto).

The problem with any Latin American host is that most of those countries are monetarially capable of hosting. There has been multiple indications that Brazil is not ready too, even with its growth. I don't think Brazil would be able to build or revamp 12 to 16 stadia to FIFA standards in 8 years. I would think that almost all countries would have a problem with that. Not to mention with Brazil, there would be a problem in that they would be building 45,000+ stadiums in cities that are between 300,000 and 600,000. It would be hard to think that these stadia could be supported after the WC has gone. Not to mention building 2 to 3 stadia in one city is also not an attractive alternative even for a city as large as Sao Paulo with 27million.

If Brazil can not come up with the quality goods, they should not get the WC. That means that only Europe, Asia and North America would be able to go in 2014, I would think that Asia would be a no-go because of 2002. This would only leave England because Italy and Spain have hosted in the last little while, (1986 and 1990). So that means that 2018 would have to go to the USA or China.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There's not exactly a strict rotation of every third Olympics to Europe. Historically, it's been nearer to every other Olympics, as it has been for the World Cup.

So, given that context, 2018 should be back to Europe.

uhmmm, no -

SOGs: 1960 - Rome (E)

  '64 - Tokyo (Asia)

  '68 - Mexico (the AMericas)

  '72 - Munich (E)

  '76 - Montreal (Americas)

  '80 - Moscow (well, outside of 'free' Europe; behind the Wall)

  '84 - LA (Americas)

  '88 - Seoul (Asia)

  '92 - Barcelona

  '96 - Atlanta (Americas)

....need I go on?  Generally, it was every 3rd.

As for the WC, well, it alternated between Latin American and Europe.  But it's a much bigger world now; or maybe it should've been called the Euro-Latino Cup (just like golf's Ryder Cup which alternates between the US and Europe, and has not been presumptuous enough to call itself the Golf World CUp when it's betwen 2 regions only) -- going by your archaic thinking...rather than the World Cup or Copa Mundial?   Get over it; it's a different world today.

Since World War II, the pattern of European hostings has been, 1948 excluded, every second or third Games, not strictly every third. Even your own laying out of hostings showed that.

1952, 1960, 1972, 1980, 1992, 2004, 2012.

Not generally every third at all!

Different world maybe, but the fact that Europe is still the heartland of football remains and should be recognised as such by a properly balanced rotation system. Every third World Cup in Europe seems fair enough, doesn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A properly balanced rotation would take into account the countries that can host per region.

Asia

China

Japan

Korea

Africa

South Africa

Americas

USA

Europe

England

Spain

Italy

France

Germany

others could host in combination, but those are the only five that can currently host alone.

Because of the cities and stadia involved smaller countries can not host this event, even in the heartland of football as you call it there is a limited # of countries that can host.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've forgotten Russia, but that list is pretty comprehensive.

My point is that Europe does offer more options to FIFA than any other region. I personally don't mind joint bids so why not an Iberian bid from Spain and Portugal? Or Greece and Turkey, perhaps.

Even if FIFA doesn't want to go down the joint bid road again, the five European nations you mentioned would only host one tournament every 60 years, assuming one tournament in three in Europe.

And I'm sorry, but I really don't understand where this idea of an Australian bid being based in the realm of fantasy comes from. When, for example, the USA won the 1994 bid, they had not qualified for a World Cup finals since 1950. Canada had qualified for 1986, so you might say there was greater football tradition in Canada ar that time than there was in the USA.

Australia is in a much stronger position in terms of its football pedigree now than the USA was when they won the 1994 bid. They have qualified for their first World Cup in 32 years and arguably should have been at the previous two. They have showed over and over again that they can compete with teams regarded as being among the best. And many of their top players play in Europe. Even today, how many top American players play in European leagues?

If one adds the Australian track record of staging the big sporting events, then I would suggest they've got a very strong case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would go under the assuption that England, China and the USA will be the hosts of 2018 through 2026. After that it would probably go back to Spain or Italy, then to an African or South American country, followed then by Australia.

BTW - I didn't included Russia for the same reasons that Sochi won't win 2014, too expensive, too risky and too many problems. Not to mention the shear size of Russia would be hard to overcome.

The WC is probably the most ligistically difficult sporting event to pull off. Between 10 and 20 stadiums of 45,000+ capacity is not something many countries could pull off. Not too mention the security, hooliganism, millions of visitors. The WC is massive and national, not something many nations can pull off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You've forgotten Russia, but that list is pretty comprehensive.

My point is that Europe does offer more options to FIFA than any other region. I personally don't mind joint bids so why not an Iberian bid from Spain and Portugal? Or Greece and Turkey, perhaps.

Even if FIFA doesn't want to go down the joint bid road again, the five European nations you mentioned would only host one tournament every 60 years, assuming one tournament in three in Europe.

And I'm sorry, but I really don't understand where this idea of an Australian bid being based in the realm of fantasy comes from. When, for example, the USA won the 1994 bid, they had not qualified for a World Cup finals since 1950. Canada had qualified for 1986, so you might say there was greater football tradition in Canada ar that time than there was in the USA.

Australia is in a much stronger position in terms of its football pedigree now than the USA was when they won the 1994 bid. They have qualified for their first World Cup in 32 years and arguably should have been at the previous two. They have showed over and over again that they can compete with teams regarded as being among the best. And many of their top players play in Europe. Even today, how many top American players play in European leagues?

If one adds the Australian track record of staging the big sporting events, then I would suggest they've got a very strong case.

well, the thing is, if you throw in Australia (w/ a population far smaller than Canada's), then r u saying that should be 3 WCs in the Southern Hemisphere in a row?  Uh-uh.  Ain't gonna happen, anti-Yank!  

How many Yanks are playing in European leagues?  I believe around 8.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Playing in Europe is not an attractive option for American born players. Even with everything it offers, Americans would rather live in the US for the most part.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I would go under the assuption that England, China and the USA will be the hosts of 2018 through 2026. After that it would probably go back to Spain or Italy, then to an African or South American country, followed then by Australia.

BTW - I didn't included Russia for the same reasons that Sochi won't win 2014, too expensive, too risky and too many problems. Not to mention the shear size of Russia would be hard to overcome.

The WC is probably the most ligistically difficult sporting event to pull off. Between 10 and 20 stadiums of 45,000+ capacity is not something many countries could pull off. Not too mention the security, hooliganism, millions of visitors. The WC is massive and national, not something many nations can pull off.

Are u saying South America won't host until 2030? :laughlong: One of the regions with best players... 2014 will be for them and sometime between 2026-2034, too.

2018- England

2022- China/Australia

2026- Spain

2030- USA?

2034- South America

:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

another totally stupid, pointless post from the retard.  I'm talking 2 u, mikelito/a.  

#1 - didn't u even read the other thread?  Blatter himself is saying that Brazil MAY not be ready to host 2014?  And u go prattling on about history and how much sporting history is better in this country or that... total idiot.  How much soccer history does South Africa have?  

#2 - Always questioning and belittling MLS.  Idiot.  If the US got 1994 even before MLS was formed -- what more now?  Is there a South African football league?  Is it any better than MLS?  You are such a predictable fool.  

Again, let me reprint the earlier comment from Quintana...

Quintana wrote:

It just that Mikel's anti-American remarks - in which he constantly shows he knows very little about the subject - annoy me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
another totally stupid, pointless post from the retard.  I'm talking 2 u, mikelito/a.  

#1 - didn't u even read the other thread?  Blatter himself is saying that Brazil MAY not be ready to host 2014?  And u go prattling on about history and how much sporting history is better in this country or that... total idiot.  How much soccer history does South Africa have?  

#2 - Always questioning and belittling MLS.  Idiot.  If the US got 1994 even before MLS was formed -- what more now?  Is there a South African football league?  Is it any better than MLS?  You are such a predictable fool.  

Again, let me reprint the earlier comment from Quintana...

Quintana wrote:

It just that Mikel's anti-American remarks - in which he constantly shows he knows very little about the subject - annoy me.

Ejem, baronaza-cabronaza, yo también se poner insultos compuestos... :rolleyes: (Podría poner también hijaputaza pero me parece un poco fuerte).

You're the retard. It seems that your age is against you, you've mental problems. Do u have alzheimer or something like that? Do u have esquizofrenia?

???

South Africa got the WC because Africa HAD to get the WC. It was a compulsory WC for Africa. Did South Africa win Germany in 2006? Mmm, NO!

Brazil isn't prepared now, but IN 2014 IT WILL! SO, SHUT UP, LITTLE GILIPOLLAS Y HAZ ALGO DE PROVECHO, MAMONAZO. :devil:

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the US got 1994 even before MLS was formed

One of the conditions of the U.S. getting the World Cup in '94 was that a top level national league be formed.

Exactly, and US Soccer followed thru.  It's kept its word.  

Go to hell, miguelipollas!   :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
well, the thing is, if you throw in Australia (w/ a population far smaller than Canada's), then r u saying that should be 3 WCs in the Southern Hemisphere in a row?  Uh-uh.  Ain't gonna happen, anti-Yank!  

How many Yanks are playing in European leagues?  I believe around 8.

Where did I say anything about three successive World Cups in the southern hemisphere? My point was that, if Australia wants to bid for a World Cup, they've got a very solid base from which to do it and it is not the fantasy that has been made out.

The other thing I want you to answer is how my previous comments could possibly be anti-American? Explain it to me, because I don't understand what goes on in your head.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The World Cup will return to the U.S. in due time.  Here's my choices for stadiums.

Los Angeles - Memorial Coliseum

New York - New Giants/Jets Stadium (80,000 capacity, to be built by end of decade)

Washington - FedEx Field

Boston - Gillette Stadium

Dallas - New Cowboys Stadium (retractable roof stadium to be opened in nearby Arlington in 2008)

Houston - Reliant Stadium

Miami - Dolphins Stadium

Seattle - Qwest Field

Chicago - Soldier Field

Cincinnati - Paul Brown Stadium

San Francisco - New 49ers Stadium (what's the status?) Stanford Stadium is set to be scaled down to 40,000

Phildaelphia - Lincoln Financial Field

The finals would be held at either the Coliseum or the New Giants/Jets Stadium.  I suspect the U.S. would try to stay away from any domed stadiums.  I'd count out the MLS stadiums since all of them are too small.

Russia has been mentioned.  I believe that if the old USSR had not broken apart that the USSR would've hosted a World Cup by now.  Here's how I would've seen a Soviet tournament.

Moscow - Luzhniki Stadion & Dinamo Stadion

St. Petersburg - Kirov Stadion

Kiev - Stadion NSK Olimpiyskyi

Minsk - Dinamo Stadion

Tashkent - Pakhtakor Markaziy Stadium

Tbilisi - Boris Paichadze Stadium

Yerevan - Hrazdan Stadium

Donetsk - Stadion Shakhtar

Samara - Metallurg Stadion

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...