Jump to content

World Cup 2010


DarkJourney

Recommended Posts

Just in case FIFA strips South Africa of the World Cup and gives it to the United States how about these 12 stadiums to host the event:

FedEx Field - Washington, D.C. (WORLD CUP FINAL)

New Meadowlands Stadium - East Rutherford, NJ (Scheduled to open in 2010)

Invesco Field - Denver, CO

Dolphin Stadium - Miami Gardens, FL

Reliant Stadium - Houston, TX

Gillette Stadium - Foxboro, MA

Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia, PA

Qwest Field - Seattle, WA

New Texas Stadium - Arlington, TX (Scheduled to open in 2009)

Raymond James Stadium - Tampa, FL

University of Phoenix Stadium - Glendale, AZ

Soldier Field - Chicago, IL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Just in case FIFA strips South Africa of the World Cup and gives it to the United States how about these 12 stadiums to host the event:

FedEx Field - Washington, D.C. (WORLD CUP FINAL)

New Meadowlands Stadium - East Rutherford, NJ (Scheduled to open in 2010)

Invesco Field - Denver, CO

Dolphin Stadium - Miami Gardens, FL

Reliant Stadium - Houston, TX

Gillette Stadium - Foxboro, MA

Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia, PA

Qwest Field - Seattle, WA

New Texas Stadium - Arlington, TX (Scheduled to open in 2009)

Raymond James Stadium - Tampa, FL

University of Phoenix Stadium - Glendale, AZ

Soldier Field - Chicago, IL

I really like your list, but I would limit sites to one per state, leaning towards keeping Dallas in Texas and Tampa in Florida. Not sure if Dolphin Stadium has proper field dimensions.

Possible other locations to consider:

- Somewhere in California, either the Rose Bowl (Pasadena), Qualcomm Stadium (San Diego), or even Stanford Stadium (Bay Area).

- Arrowhead Stadium (Kansas City)

- Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)

- Browns Stadium (Cleveland)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dolphin Stadium does have the proper field dimensions, but they would have to kick the Marlins out for the duration of the tournament. Also, they would have to completely sod the infield (to equal if not superior quality to when the Dolphins play there), and I think that was a sticking point with FIFA and the Marlins during preparations for the 1994 World Cup. If I remember correctly, a lot of people in soccer circles were bitching about not being able to use the then-Joe Robbie Stadium for the tournament, as it was considered the best American stadium at the time for soccer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just in case FIFA strips South Africa of the World Cup and gives it to the United States how about these 12 stadiums to host the event:

FedEx Field - Washington, D.C. (WORLD CUP FINAL)

New Meadowlands Stadium - East Rutherford, NJ (Scheduled to open in 2010)

Invesco Field - Denver, CO

Dolphin Stadium - Miami Gardens, FL

Reliant Stadium - Houston, TX

Gillette Stadium - Foxboro, MA

Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia, PA

Qwest Field - Seattle, WA

New Texas Stadium - Arlington, TX (Scheduled to open in 2009)

Raymond James Stadium - Tampa, FL

University of Phoenix Stadium - Glendale, AZ

Soldier Field - Chicago, IL

I really like your list, but I would limit sites to one per state, leaning towards keeping Dallas in Texas and Tampa in Florida. Not sure if Dolphin Stadium has proper field dimensions.

Possible other locations to consider:

- Somewhere in California, either the Rose Bowl (Pasadena), Qualcomm Stadium (San Diego), or even Stanford Stadium (Bay Area).

- Arrowhead Stadium (Kansas City)

- Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)

- Browns Stadium (Cleveland)

I agree with you at that California should host matches but the Stadiums here are becoming very inadequate. Stanford Stadium was torn down and rebuilt. So capacity is just around 50,000 instead of 85,000 it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about TCF Bank Stadium, opening in 2009 on the U of M campus in Minneapolis? IIRC that stadium has already been tapped to host 2016 Olympic qualifying rounds if Chicago gets that year's Games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also remember that FIFA rules stipulate that all games must be played on grass, so that's Seattle out, I'm afraid, as well as Houston (I think)

Reliant Stadium in Houston is grass, but Gilette Stadium is artificial, and obviously nothing official for Dallas and NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you at that California should host matches but the Stadiums here are becoming very inadequate. Stanford Stadium was torn down and rebuilt. So capacity is just around 50,000 instead of 85,000 it used to be.

I think FIFA requires at least 40,000 seats, so the new Stanford Stadium is OK with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any recent article that states that South Africa has fallen behind in its preparations again and has FIFA even announced specifically about whom the back-up countries might be?

Good point...there's been so much discussion about South Africa falling behind in their preparation that the urban legend of the World Cup coming here has taken a life if its own.

Let me assure you that FIFA wants this event to happen in Sout Africa, especially after they abandoned the continental rotation format after they announced Brazil would get the 2014 World Cup. There is alot of political pressure to make this thing happen in South Africa.

Even if FIFA determined that South Africa wouldn't be ready in time, there is a curious anti-American bias within FIFA.

That being said, FIFA is perhaps one of the most corrupt sports-sanctioning bodies in the world. There are deals constantly being made that have nothing to do with soccer, and everything to do with politics. I would be absolutely shocked if South Africa bailed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Africa will be fine.

If worse comes to worse, they've got cricket grounds.

And if they do take it off them.

Give it to us, you've already had it, America.

We've got venues all ready.

VIC: MCG (100K), Telstra Dome (55K), Bubble Stadium (31K)

NSW: SFS (40K), Telstra Stadium (80K) and SCG (45K)

SA: AAMI Stadium (52K), Adelaide Oval (30K)

WA: Subiaco (45K) or the new 60K Stadium but doubt it will be ready by then

QLD: Gabba (40K), Suncorp Stadium (51K)

That's more than enough.

And they'll all sell out.

The smaller matches will go to the Bubble Stadium. I'm sure they could find another 9000 seats or add standing room.

Final at the MCG.

Adelaide Oval has to get a game, even if it is small. Can easily add seats too, to make it 40K if needed.

My case is, America - you've already had it, and it was recent, give it to someone who hasn't held it but can do the job well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there any recent article that states that South Africa has fallen behind in its preparations again and has FIFA even announced specifically about whom the back-up countries might be?

Let me assure you that FIFA wants this event to happen in Sout Africa, especially after they abandoned the continental rotation format after they announced Brazil would get the 2014 World Cup. There is alot of political pressure to make this thing happen in South Africa.

On the flip side, I'm sure that reports of South Africa falling behind are why they are dropped the continental rotation. I mean...if South Africa can't hack this, there's no way any other country in Africa could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My case is, America - you've already had it, and it was recent, give it to someone who hasn't held it but can do the job well.

No one's trying to take it away from South Africa.

The US is one of a very few on a list of non-European candidates that can prepare to host a World Cup on a very short notice, should things in South Africa not appease FIFA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you at that California should host matches but the Stadiums here are becoming very inadequate.

There is absolutely no way that the United States would play host to the World Cup without games being scheduled for a facility in Greater Los Angeles. Organizers aren't going to ignore the second-largest market in the country. Given the state of facilities in the area, the Rose Bowl would be a mortal lock to host World Cup matches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also remember that FIFA rules stipulate that all games must be played on grass, so that's Seattle out, I'm afraid, as well as Houston (I think).

Reliant Stadium in Houston has a grass playing surface. As for the Field Turf surface at Seattle's QWEST Field (as well as at Gillette Stadium), a natural grass pitch could be overlayed on top of it in trays. That was the system used at the Silverdome during the 1994 World Cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also remember that FIFA rules stipulate that all games must be played on grass, so that's Seattle out, I'm afraid, as well as Houston (I think).

Reliant Stadium in Houston has a grass playing surface. As for the Field Turf surface at Seattle's QWEST Field (as well as at Gillette Stadium), a natural grass pitch could be overlayed on top of it in trays. That was the system used at the Silverdome during the 1994 World Cup.

You're right, I'm sorry. DIdn't they do something similar with the Meadowlands, too?

Honestly, I'd rather see Australia get 2014 and then the US get it in 2018. But that'd be too intelligent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US is one of a very few on a list of non-European candidates that can prepare to host a World Cup on a very short notice, should things in South Africa not appease FIFA.

Bingo! The plethora of state-of-the-art sports facilities, modern broadcast infrastructure and major marketing savvy is what positions the United States of America as such an attractive solution to relocating a sporting event of the World Cup's magnitude on such short notice. Any supposed anti-American bias on FIFA's part would evaporate in the face of acknowledging that the US is uniquely qualified to host such an event "on-the-fly".

Australia and England are the other countries that leap to mind as potential emergency host nations should South Africa "spit the bit". That said, South Africa would truly have to botch the run-up to the tournament to the Nth degree in order for FIFA to acknowledge that they may have miscalculated in awarding the nation the tournament in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My case is, America - you've already had it, and it was recent, give it to someone who hasn't held it but can do the job well.

It depends on how you define "recent". Granted, any time-frame is going to qualify as recent when compared to "never". That said, 2010 would mark 16 years since the World Cup was held in the United States. Not exactly "yesterday" by any stretch of the imagination.

Most likely, FIFA would weigh the ability of the United States to host the 2010 World Cup on short notice in outstanding fashion against the fact that the 2014 World Cup has already been awarded to a nation - Brazil - located in the Americas.

In the end, it's going to take an absolute disaster to force FIFA to wrest the 2010 World Cup away from South Africa. The body just won't want to admit that they may have gambled by granting a nation with a still-developing, volatile economy the tournament in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.