World Cup in the US in 2010?

[Ron Mexico]

http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup200...1818166,00.html

Doubt over South Africa 2010

Luke Harding in Berlin

Wednesday July 12, 2006

The Guardian

Fifa executives have voiced "serious" doubts about whether South Africa will be able to host the next World Cup in 2010 and have discussed a radical contingency plan that would see the United States stage the tournament instead, it was reported in Germany yesterday.

According to the German sports news agency SID, Fifa officials have privately raised worries over South Africa's continuing failure to prepare for the tournament and have also discussed the possibility of staging the tournament again in Germany.

Fifa's 24-member executive committee gathered in Berlin over the weekend to watch the World Cup final and, according to the agency, delegates meeting in the luxurious Hotel Adlon just opposite the Brandenburg Gate spent much of the weekend deep in conversation over what to do if South Africa fell further behind with its World Cup preparations. There are long-standing doubts about whether stadiums can be built and modernised in time but there are even more serious concerns about South Africa's transport infrastructure and whether it will be able to cope with the tens of thousands of fans travelling between venues.

Yesterday Fifa insisted that the tournament would go ahead in South Africa as planned. "The World Cup in Germany was wonderful. But the next one will take place in South Africa," its spokesman Markus Siegler insisted.

Fifa officials have indicated that no final decision is likely to be taken until after the president Sepp Blatter stands for re-election next May. Blatter, a big supporter of South Africa's ultimately successful bid, needs the votes from African delegates to ensure his re-election in the ballot next year in Zurich.

Lennart Johansson has announced that he will stand for re-election as president of Uefa when his term expires next year. Johansson, who has been in the role since 1990, was expected to stand down but at a meeting of the European ruling body's executive board yesterday he announced his intention to stand for another four-year term.

[DGivens87]

I heard about this I think on SportsCenter and the ysaid the same IOC threatened the same thing when Greece was falling behind with its Olympic plans for the 04 Summer Games.

I have a feeling its just a ploy...the 2010 World Cup will take place in South Africa. I'd be shocked if it were held elsewhere.

[NJTank]

It is just a ploy they want the WOrld Cup in Africa its almso needed in Africa, good for the sport and continentent.

[Swiss]

If the 2010 World Cup will be shifted to USA, this wouldn't be the first time that this kind of stuff happens.

When the final match of the 1982 World Cup (held in Spain) faded with Italy getting the Cup, the electronic screen said "Bye Spain 1982, Hello Colombia 1986".

Colombia was razed by guerrillas, narcos, etc. so FIFA decided to give the 1986 World Cup organization to Mexico.

[NJTank]

Well the 2003 Women's World Cup was moved from China to the US because of SARS

[BaltimoreFan]

Would they move it too the USA though? It was here recently in '94. I would think they'd want to move it to a new country or one that hasn't had one for a while.

[jkrdevil]

Would they move it too the USA though? It was here recently in '94. I would think they'd want to move it to a new country or one that hasn't had one for a while.

Well at this point if it were to move it would have to move to a country that could hold it on basically a moments notice since they don't have time to build and renovate stadiums. Germany could host it again as they obviously have everything although I doubt FIFA would have in Germany twice in a row. That leaves the US. The US because of the size of the country and the NFL stadiums already have a more than enough World Cup suitable Stadiums. It wouldn't take that much work to set up the World Cup in the US with the short notice a new host would have.

FIFA did a similar thing with the Womens World Cup a few years ago.

[Fred T. Jane]

Would they move it too the USA though? It was here recently in '94. I would think they'd want to move it to a new country or one that hasn't had one for a while.

...but what other nation can throw it together on such a short notice, yet pull it off like it had been planned for the whole time? Not only that, the fields used in 1994 were huge by European standards for a World Cup (RFK in Washington at 57,000 was the smallest in 1994. At this year's World Cup, 9 of the 12 stadia had a capacity less than that.), and the attendance record set in 1994 still stands. Considering the groundswell of support for football despite the showing in 2006, the USA would be an awesome Plan B for FIFA.

[Alphabet Man]

Would they move it too the USA though? It was here recently in '94. I would think they'd want to move it to a new country or one that hasn't had one for a while.

...but what other nation can throw it together on such a short notice, yet pull it off like it had been planned for the whole time? Not only that, the fields used in 1994 were huge by European standards for a World Cup (RFK in Washington at 57,000 was the smallest in 1994. At this year's World Cup, 9 of the 12 stadia had a capacity less than that.), and the attendance record set in 1994 still stands. Considering the groundswell of support for football despite the showing in 2006, the USA would be an awesome Plan B for FIFA.

Australia could easily host it at short notice, using the MCG, Telstra Dome & Stadium, Suncorp, Gabba, SCG, Aussie Stadium, AAMI or Adelaide Ovals, Subiaco etc etc, all are atleast 45K, the largest the MCG is 100K, Telstra Stadium is 80K.

A few weeks ago a similar article did the rounds saying Australia was a backup.

IOC policy is if a city is not ready, the games would be transferred to the previous city, and Sydney would have gotten 2004 if Athens was not ready.

Of course they were ready and imo, not a bit of doubt about it.

South Africa will be ready. ITs just crap thats doing the rounds.

[Fred T. Jane]

Australia could easily host it at short notice, using the MCG, Telstra Dome & Stadium, Suncorp, Gabba, SCG, Aussie Stadium, AAMI or Adelaide Ovals, Subiaco etc etc, all are atleast 45K, the largest the MCG is 100K, Telstra Stadium is 80K.

A few weeks ago a similar article did the rounds saying Australia was a backup.

IOC policy is if a city is not ready, the games would be transferred to the previous city, and Sydney would have gotten 2004 if Athens was not ready.

Of course they were ready and imo, not a bit of doubt about it.

South Africa will be ready. ITs just crap thats doing the rounds.

Yes, but I can think of 7 stadiums with seating capacities of over 70,000...and not even get out of the Southeastern Conference. In fact, the US has 32 College stadia with over 70,000 capacity.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipsa/A0105761.html

[leopard88]

Would they move it too the USA though? It was here recently in '94. I would think they'd want to move it to a new country or one that hasn't had one for a while.

Ideally, FIFA would like to go somewhere new, but when Mexico stepped up in 1986, it had been 16 years since it hosted in 1970 . . . the same amount of time that would have passed since USA'94.

I don't know any particulars about the South African situation, but I would not dismiss the possibility of a move, however slight it may be at this point.

[jkrdevil]

If the move the World Cup to the US here is the list of Site I think will be used.

- New Giants Stadium (East Rutherford, NJ/ New York) 80,000

- Lincoln Finiacial Field (Philadelphia) 68,500

- Gillette Stadium (Foxboro/ Boston) 68,000

- Soldier Field (Chicago) 63,000

- Rose Bowl (Pasedena/ Los Angeles) 91,136

- Ford Field (Detroit) 65,000

- New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000

- Fedex Field (Landover, MD/ Washington) 91,665

- Raymond James Stadium (Tampa) 65,657

These are pretty much the same cities used for the 94 World Cup. There are some exceptions though. I moved the Bay Area site to Philly because there is no suitable stadium. Monster Park is too old, AT&T Park is in use at the time, and Stanfors Stadium is being renovated to where the capacity is too small. Also with a new stadium in Philly there will be no conflicts like last time where Philly wasn't a site probably because the Vet was also being used by the Phillies at the time. I also moved Orlando to nearby Tampa because of a new stadium there.

Despite most of the site being the same there would be only 1 stadium that would have hosted a game in 94 and that would be a Rose Bowl. Because of the stadium boom each site has a new stadium that didn't exist in 94 (or in Chicago's case an extremely renovated stadium). 2 Stadiums would be less than a year old at the time of the World Cup (Cowboys Stadium and New Giants Stadium).

That said I doubt this will happen. Like others ahve said it is a ploy to get South Africa moving like with Athens for the olympics.

And another question. If it does go in South Africa when are they going to have it? July down there is dead in the middle of Winter, that doesn't seem like a good time to have a soccer tournament.

[shadesofblack]

If the move the World Cup to the US here is the list of Site I think will be used.

- New Giants Stadium (East Rutherford, NJ/ New York) 80,000

- Lincoln Finiacial Field (Philadelphia) 68,500

- Gillette Stadium (Foxboro/ Boston) 68,000

- Soldier Field (Chicago) 63,000

- Rose Bowl (Pasedena/ Los Angeles) 91,136

- Ford Field (Detroit) 65,000

- New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000

- Fedex Field (Landover, MD/ Washington) 91,665

- Raymond James Stadium (Tampa) 65,657

These are pretty much the same cities used for the 94 World Cup. There are some exceptions though. I moved the Bay Area site to Philly because there is no suitable stadium. Monster Park is too old, AT&T Park is in use at the time, and Stanfors Stadium is being renovated to where the capacity is too small. Also with a new stadium in Philly there will be no conflicts like last time where Philly wasn't a site probably because the Vet was also being used by the Phillies at the time. I also moved Orlando to nearby Tampa because of a new stadium there.

Despite most of the site being the same there would be only 1 stadium that would have hosted a game in 94 and that would be a Rose Bowl. Because of the stadium boom each site has a new stadium that didn't exist in 94 (or in Chicago's case an extremely renovated stadium). 2 Stadiums would be less than a year old at the time of the World Cup (Cowboys Stadium and New Giants Stadium).

That said I doubt this will happen. Like others ahve said it is a ploy to get South Africa moving like with Athens for the olympics.

And another question. If it does go in South Africa when are they going to have it? July down there is dead in the middle of Winter, that doesn't seem like a good time to have a soccer tournament.

What about Cleveland Browns Stadium. Thats a really nice stadium and is/was built in mind to host some soccer games to length/width wise it is right. It is also one of the bigger stadiums and in the recent USA vs Venezula warm up game (which i was at) around 30000 ppl showed up, so selling tickets shouldnt be a problem.

(Just a plug to get a world cup game close to my home town of Cleveland so i can go see it )

[The Nation]

USA, would be the easiest choice, because they have so many stadiums already capable.

Germany would be the next choice.

But countries like England, can also easily host it, only problem is that many stadiums would be in London.

Old Trafford

Wembley

Emirates Stadium

St. James

Stanley Park

Millenium Stadium (Wales)

Elland Road

Villa Park

City of Manchester Stadium

[Grandmaster C]

If the move the World Cup to the US here is the list of Site I think will be used.

- New Giants Stadium (East Rutherford, NJ/ New York) 80,000

- Lincoln Finiacial Field (Philadelphia) 68,500

- Gillette Stadium (Foxboro/ Boston) 68,000

- Soldier Field (Chicago) 63,000

- Rose Bowl (Pasedena/ Los Angeles) 91,136

- Ford Field (Detroit) 65,000

- New Cowboys Stadium (Arlington/ Dallas) 75,000

- Fedex Field (Landover, MD/ Washington) 91,665

- Raymond James Stadium (Tampa) 65,657

These are pretty much the same cities used for the 94 World Cup. There are some exceptions though. I moved the Bay Area site to Philly because there is no suitable stadium. Monster Park is too old, AT&T Park is in use at the time, and Stanfors Stadium is being renovated to where the capacity is too small. Also with a new stadium in Philly there will be no conflicts like last time where Philly wasn't a site probably because the Vet was also being used by the Phillies at the time. I also moved Orlando to nearby Tampa because of a new stadium there.

Despite most of the site being the same there would be only 1 stadium that would have hosted a game in 94 and that would be a Rose Bowl. Because of the stadium boom each site has a new stadium that didn't exist in 94 (or in Chicago's case an extremely renovated stadium). 2 Stadiums would be less than a year old at the time of the World Cup (Cowboys Stadium and New Giants Stadium).

That said I doubt this will happen. Like others ahve said it is a ploy to get South Africa moving like with Athens for the olympics.

And another question. If it does go in South Africa when are they going to have it? July down there is dead in the middle of Winter, that doesn't seem like a good time to have a soccer tournament.

What about Cleveland Browns Stadium. Thats a really nice stadium and is/was built in mind to host some soccer games to length/width wise it is right. It is also one of the bigger stadiums and in the recent USA vs Venezula warm up game (which i was at) around 30000 ppl showed up, so selling tickets shouldnt be a problem.

(Just a plug to get a world cup game close to my home town of Cleveland so i can go see it )

Don't forget Qwest Field in Seattle.

Same reason as you.

[TFoA]

Would they move it too the USA though? It was here recently in '94. I would think they'd want to move it to a new country or one that hasn't had one for a while.

I know Mexico had 2 World Cups (70 and 86) kinda recently between each other, so us having 2 World Cups this close together really isn't unheard of.

And anybody else think they'd have a game in a dome if the unreasonable happens and it actually did happen? I think they'd probably have it in the RCA Dome or Ford Field, maybe.

With that being said, I want South Africa to host it. Although like the last post said, the timing maybe kinda funky with summer here being winter there, I would love to see what Africa as a continent would bring to the game, and we'd actually see what the African teams could do with a home-field advantage.

[logodawg]

Granted, FIFA will probably stick with South Africa, but if worst comes to worst, isn't the United States the only county that really has the existing infrastructure to pull off the World Cup with short notice?

[Sport]

And anybody else think they'd have a game in a dome if the unreasonable happens and it actually did happen? I think they'd probably have it in the RCA Dome or Ford Field, maybe.

didn't they put grass in The Silverdome for the 94 world cup?

[jkrdevil]

Yes the 94 World Cup had games in the Silver dome so I doubt playing at Ford Field would be a problem especially now that field turf is used and not Astroturf.

As for the Stadiums I picked. They are the same metro city areas as used in 94. The only difference is Stanford because the Bay Area doesn't have a suitable stadium that would be available. Philly was chosen because of the new stadium and that it is the 4th largest Metro Area in Country. It seems the World Cup tends to be held in the host countries largest cities. I moved Orlando to Tampa because it is nearby less than 2 hours away, and because of its comparatively new stadium.

[TBGKon]

The only thing I don't know about Ford Field is that if the turf surface has the proper dimensions for a soccer pitch, does anyone know what FF's dimensions are?