Brian in Boston Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Eveyone is saying that IF South Africa loses the 2010 WC (and that's a pretty big "IF" from my point of view) then the only country that could host it would be the US. That's simply not true though. England, Italy (defending champs), Spain, they could all host the WC without any problems. All three have premier soccer leauges. They deffently have the staudiums they would need. However, it is highly unlikely that FIFA would award the World Cup to Europe for two consecutive cycles of the modern era. If FIFA had to shift the 2010 World Cup from South Africa, a move to either the United States or Australia would represent the tournament's first trip to the Americas in 16 years or the first trip to Oceania ever. Contrast that with having held the World Cup in Europe just four years before.If FIFA decides to shift the World Cup out of South Africa in 2010, my gut instinct is that it is going to the United States... with Australia a dark-horse candidate. The United States has everything that FIFA would be looking for on short notice: state-of-the-art venues, major population centers, the world's leading telecommunication/broadcasting/entertainment centers (New York and Los Angeles), a native population with a propensity for attending/supporting "spectacle" sports events, and the financial wherewithal to finance the tournament on short notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninersdd Posted July 17, 2006 Share Posted July 17, 2006 Sadly Candlestick is the best option right now in the Bay Area BEAR DOWN ARIZONA!2013/14 Tanks Picks Champion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfwabel Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 I think we have to think like marketing execs to determine who will get the cities.The World Cup is drawing lots of tourists, so it has to be hosted in cities that foreigners would want to visit. There are a lot of great cities in this country, but foreigners will only want to go to the most obvious and historical.I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell the World Cup would go to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, or Kansas City.... Arizona would be way too hot.Cities would probably get rewared in this hierarchy:New YorkLAChicagoDCBostonSan FranciscoAny city in FloridaSeattlePhillyHouston or Dallasand finallyNew Orleans ... it'd be great for the city... I want to visit that city badly. We need not to think like marketing execs, since every city who would like to host will tout their benefits through convention/tourism commissions. One thing I just thought about was air transportation, not necessarily internationally, but domestically. What would occur if two or three airlines consolidate or even go away? Delta is still in financial trouble, so is Northwest. The international carries are a different story and probably more unstable than our domestic carriers.Now the GA Dome does not have the width, but they could easliy remove seats to make it possible. Jackson-Hartsfield is the busiest airport in the US, even though a Delta hub. cleveland is a hub for Continental, along with Houston and Newark (NJ). All in all, I guess Southwest would benefit for travel within the US for international visitors.Regardless, let's wait to see what occurrs, then let US Soccer make the correct decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slickster Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Wouldn't MLS use its influence to get games played in the home cities of its teams? I can't see MLS sitting idly by as this massive marketing opportunity approaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yh Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 Wouldn't MLS use its influence to get games played in the home cities of its teams? I can't see MLS sitting idly by as this massive marketing opportunity approaches. MLS is pushing most markets to build soccer specific stadia which generally seat somewhere in the neigborhood of 20,000. I don't believe facilities of that size are going to pass muster with FIFA, even for the round-robin phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CZzyzx41 Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 No but there are still plenty of large stadiums that could host the required number of people for World Cup Games. There are plenty of new NFL stadiums that could be used as well as older ones with history like Soldier Field and Giants Stadium. Plus there are teams currently looking for new venues and I'm sure there would be use for them.So my guesses?Stadium in LA if they build one (Memorial Colesium is just too old)Giants StadiumSoldier Field IIFedEx FieldHeinz FieldGillette StadiumPaul Brown StadiumNew Chargers Stadium (hopefully San Diego)Lincoln Financial FieldQwest Fieldperhaps Reliant StadiumI do not want to see World Cup football played in a dome. You might as well build an indoor soccer field if that's going to be the case. -DanielCheck Out My Podcast! Latest Episode 273: The Color BlinkyLatest Photo Upload: January 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphabet Man Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 The 2010 World Cup will be in South Africa. Anything you hear about it being moved IS bull .They will sort everything out and the 2010 World Cup will be the best ever. twitter.com/thebrainofMatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pflava Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 another serious factor IF it returned to the US would be the weather. Somehow I doubt they're going to play games in the afternoon - and they would, because, just like in '94, they need to be played at a somewhat Euro-friendly time - in Texas.This is a moot point, because Houston and Dallas (will) have retractable roof stadiums. I'm in the camp that thinks FIFA is talking tough to get SA to speed it up, and that the 2010 World Cup will be played there as scheduled. But, just for fun, my picks for venues if the US were to get it instead:New York - New MeadowlandsWashington - Fed Ex FieldChicago - SoldierLos Angeles - probably the Rose Bowlas Brian said, those are mortal locks. But the others:Seattle - Qwest Field (just because of great cool weather, a top notch stadium - and that part of the country needs to be represented).Dallas - Cowboys stadium in Arlington. Probably also a mortal lock.Foxboro - Gilette Stadium. Lock.Detroit - Ford Field (they'll find a way to fit a soccer pitch in there)Phoenix - Cardinals stadium (the retractable roof NFL buildings really are perfect for this kind of event).Tampa - Raymond James (it will be the hottest venue, but Florida probably has to be represented)Houston - Reliant Stadium (I know Dallas would get a venue, but Reliant is such a great stadium that they really almost have to be chosen)Philadelphia - Lincoln Financial (seems logical)The ones that almost made the cut, to me, were Cleveland, Kansas City, Denver, Charlotte, Miami, and Atlanta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrBear Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 It's a sad thing that many of the great places are in smaller cities and couldn't deal with the crowds because of lack of hotels and the like ... could you imagine a final at the Big House in Ann Arbor ... or Neyland Stadium in Knoxville? The world getting a glimpse of small-town America in Lambeau Field? England playing at the home of the Fighting Irish in South Bend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maz Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 It's a sad thing that many of the great places are in smaller cities and couldn't deal with the crowds because of lack of hotels and the like ... Hence why it wouldnt be in Pittsburgh.I still love my little city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyandlux Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Too much like 86. When will FIFA learn? Viable economies are needed to host or at least some sort of infrastructure!!!!! Africa was a good idea, it would have been nice, but what a pipe dream it was from the outset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slickster Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 To be fair, South Africa was (and still is) the most viable option on the continent in terms of a secure economic/political infrastructure. An African World Cup is a largely symbolic gesture at the moment, but it's also an investment in the future of African football and a major affirmation of the popularity of the game among African fans and players. It's just a shame the money for this project and its construction are impeding progress. That said, as in Athens 2004 I am confident that things will be done on time, though work will probably continue even up to the 11th hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphabet Man Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 Too much like 86. When will FIFA learn? Viable economies are needed to host or at least some sort of infrastructure!!!!! Africa was a good idea, it would have been nice, but what a pipe dream it was from the outset. and its still will be nice come June/July 2010 when we are glued on TV screens watching the South African World Cup twitter.com/thebrainofMatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HedleyLamarr Posted July 22, 2006 Share Posted July 22, 2006 The 2010 World Cup will be in South Africa. Anything you hear about it being moved IS bull .They will sort everything out and the 2010 World Cup will be the best ever. Juan Antonio Samaranch, is that you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphabet Man Posted July 23, 2006 Share Posted July 23, 2006 The 2010 World Cup will be in South Africa. Anything you hear about it being moved IS bull .They will sort everything out and the 2010 World Cup will be the best ever. Juan Antonio Samaranch, is that you? no, im the Aussie version - John Anthony Samaranch twitter.com/thebrainofMatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.