World Cup 2010

[officeglenn]

I had the same question about South Africa falling behind on 2010 preparations when I saw this thread, but a quick Google News search shows that there are rumblings of a general strike in South Africa that could set back construction of some stadiums.

S.African strike set to halt 2010 World Cup construction [AFP]

I agree that it's probably too early to worry about where to move the 2010 World Cup, but it just might be something to keep on the back burner.

[Viper]

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.

Is Home Depot Center expandable beyond its base capacity of (IIRC) 27,000? If so, that would make a good venue too, considering that it's generally considered the crown jewel of MLS.

[dfwabel]

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.

Is Home Depot Center expandable beyond its base capacity of (IIRC) 27,000? If so, that would make a good venue too, considering that it's generally considered the crown jewel of MLS.

While it is off the 405 and near the Cal State-LA campus, there is not even close to enough parking there. The question would be will FIFA want all-seat stadiums or not? It could go to San Diego by default. As a reminder, Columbia was the original host nation for the 1986 World Cup, but told FIFA three years out that they could not host it properly.

In turn, FIFA voted for Mexico. A similar vote would have been done during the summer, if they were going to move it. Not withstanding, the US is well prepared to handle it through venues, hotels, and other transportation needs. I would doubt that Denver would be chosen as it is at altitude. The new Cowboys Stadium is scheduled to have an artificial surface.

[The Nation]

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?

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.

Why is FIFA corrupt? and why do they have an anti-American bias. I am a passionate soccer follower, and nothing has caused me to belive that FIFA is a corrupt body. I actually think that FIFA is doing an excellent job to grow the game. They do everything from fight racism, to unifying soccer globally through introducing standards, rotating the world cup, and also their charity work is immaculate.

Off topic, field dimensions don't matter, seeing as how, as long as a field is withing a range set out by FIFA, it is useable. Also, I believe synthetic turf is allowed, not sure if that is FIFA or UEFA that approved of this, but either way, installing grass is a piece of cake these days.

My venues.

New Jersey

Dallas - New Texas Stadium

Tampa Bay - Raymond James

Foxboro - Gillette

Seattle - Qwest

Chicago - Soldier

Southern California - Rose Bowl

Denver - Invesco Field

Baltimore - M&T Bank Stadium

Philadelphia - Linc

St. Louis or Indy - St. Louis is more well known worldwide...Indy has the better stadium.

Arizona - Univ. Phx Stadium

Houston - Reliant

[LMU]

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.

Is Home Depot Center expandable beyond its base capacity of (IIRC) 27,000? If so, that would make a good venue too, considering that it's generally considered the crown jewel of MLS.

While it is off the 405 and near the Cal State-LA campus, there is not even close to enough parking there. The question would be will FIFA want all-seat stadiums or not? It could go to San Diego by default. As a reminder, Columbia was the original host nation for the 1986 World Cup, but told FIFA three years out that they could not host it properly.

In turn, FIFA voted for Mexico. A similar vote would have been done during the summer, if they were going to move it. Not withstanding, the US is well prepared to handle it through venues, hotels, and other transportation needs. I would doubt that Denver would be chosen as it is at altitude. The new Cowboys Stadium is scheduled to have an artificial surface.

It's actually on the campus of Cal State Dominguez Hills, not Cal State LA. The stadium's in the city of Carson. The only place that they could add seating would be the grass hill under the scoreboard, but there's no way that the capacity would be enlarged enough for it to be a viable venue.

[TBGKon]

If the US would have competition, the UK and Australia would be the frontrunners. Since the Aussie stadiums are already posted, here are potential UK sites, since England alone does not have enough in FIFA standards.

UK

Wembley Stadium - London, England

Twickenham Stadium - London, England

Emirates Stadium - London, England

Stamford Bridge - London, England

Villa Park - Birmingham, England

Old Trafford - Manchester, England

City of Manchester Stadium - Manchester, England

Anfield - Liverpool, England

St. James Park - Newcastle, England

Millennium Stadium - Cardiff, Wales

Murrayfield - Edinburgh, Scotland

Celtic Park - Glasgow, Scotland

[maz]

Id, as usual, vouch for my city of Pittsburgh, but I wont, for a few reasons.

Despite the easy-to-get-to locale of the stadium, even from the airport, large capacity of Heinz Field (approx 75k), and nice view of the city...

1. parking: theres barely enough parking for a steeler game. for The World Cup?

2. hotels: prolly not enough 'round here, and if there are, not enough of them might be near Heinz Field

3. entertainment: By 2010 there (should) be a casino here. Thatll probably be the most appealing thing to out of towners, and would be packed considering the proximity to Heinz Field. Other than that, there aint much.

4. the city: Yeah, its beautiful, and its a major city, but as far as city sizes and economical stability it cant compete with metropolises like NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, etc. Despite the huge financial boost of getting to host some World Cup games, the cost of preparing fo rit may be too much for the city to handle (unless mr. Ravenstahl does an epic job with his financial plan).

5. The Field: The surface of Heinz Field is known to be kinda crappy, and very bad in bad weather (like there often is here in the summer) or after repetative use without a regrooming between events.

[HedleyLamarr]

If the US would have competition, the UK and Australia would be the frontrunners. Since the Aussie stadiums are already posted, here are potential UK sites, since England alone does not have enough in FIFA standards.

I can see Australia winning this 3-way battle. England and the US would have a mark against them due to their locations. I don't think FIFA would want to have consecutive World Cups in Europe or the Americas.....

[DEAD!]

If the US would have competition, the UK and Australia would be the frontrunners. Since the Aussie stadiums are already posted, here are potential UK sites, since England alone does not have enough in FIFA standards.

UK

Wembley Stadium - London, England

Twickenham Stadium - London, England

Emirates Stadium - London, England

Stamford Bridge - London, England

Villa Park - Birmingham, England

Old Trafford - Manchester, England

City of Manchester Stadium - Manchester, England

Anfield - Liverpool, England

St. James Park - Newcastle, England

Millennium Stadium - Cardiff, Wales

Murrayfield - Edinburgh, Scotland

Celtic Park - Glasgow, Scotland

I would scratch Twickenham as it's the home of English rugby.

[pcgd]

Also, I believe synthetic turf is allowed, not sure if that is FIFA or UEFA that approved of this, but either way, installing grass is a piece of cake these days.

Grass is required. Remember them adding grass in the Silverdome in Detroit? I think it was one of the first totally enclosed World Cup games.

[dfwabel]

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.

Is Home Depot Center expandable beyond its base capacity of (IIRC) 27,000? If so, that would make a good venue too, considering that it's generally considered the crown jewel of MLS.

While it is off the 405 and near the Cal State-LA campus, there is not even close to enough parking there. The question would be will FIFA want all-seat stadiums or not? It could go to San Diego by default. As a reminder, Columbia was the original host nation for the 1986 World Cup, but told FIFA three years out that they could not host it properly.

In turn, FIFA voted for Mexico. A similar vote would have been done during the summer, if they were going to move it. Not withstanding, the US is well prepared to handle it through venues, hotels, and other transportation needs. I would doubt that Denver would be chosen as it is at altitude. The new Cowboys Stadium is scheduled to have an artificial surface.

It's actually on the campus of Cal State Dominguez Hills, not Cal State LA. The stadium's in the city of Carson. The only place that they could add seating would be the grass hill under the scoreboard, but there's no way that the capacity would be enlarged enough for it to be a viable venue.

I stand corrected.

[Rhys]

If the US would have competition, the UK and Australia would be the frontrunners. Since the Aussie stadiums are already posted, here are potential UK sites, since England alone does not have enough in FIFA standards.

UK

Wembley Stadium - London, England

Twickenham Stadium - London, England

Emirates Stadium - London, England

Stamford Bridge - London, England

Villa Park - Birmingham, England

Old Trafford - Manchester, England

City of Manchester Stadium - Manchester, England

Anfield - Liverpool, England

St. James Park - Newcastle, England

Millennium Stadium - Cardiff, Wales

Murrayfield - Edinburgh, Scotland

Celtic Park - Glasgow, Scotland

As much as I'd like to see my home stadium get a chance at being part of a football/soccer World Cup - due to the fact that Wales is considered a separate country under UEFA and FIFA regulations, it is likely that only England will host the World Cup should it get past here. Although the UK unites for the Olympics, we compete separately at the Commonwealth Games and it's been a big debate over here that if the countries unite for the 2012 Olympics, we're likely to have to unite for every tournament afterwards.

I also understand that FIFA rules stipulate that there can be only one venue from each city included in the bid. That is likely to mean that Wembley will be the London venue and Old Trafford as the Manchester venue (as they are, at the moment, the biggest capacity wise). I also believe that to host a World Cup, a stadium has to have over 40,000 in capacity. I'm sure a lot can be done to existing venues to expand them, but whether they can do it within 2 years if South Africa bails is a different question.

Sorry to use my first post to rip apart your list buddy

[Breakwood]

Also, I believe synthetic turf is allowed, not sure if that is FIFA or UEFA that approved of this, but either way, installing grass is a piece of cake these days.

Grass is required. Remember them adding grass in the Silverdome in Detroit? I think it was one of the first totally enclosed World Cup games.

But that was in 1994. FIFA now had a list of 2-star approved artificial turf surfaces. The U-20 World Cup final this year was held on fake turf in Toronto, along with other games in the tournament in Montreal and Ottawa.

[Luigi74]

Id, as usual, vouch for my city of Pittsburgh, but I wont, for a few reasons.

Despite the easy-to-get-to locale of the stadium, even from the airport, large capacity of Heinz Field (approx 75k), and nice view of the city...

1. parking: theres barely enough parking for a steeler game. for The World Cup?

2. hotels: prolly not enough 'round here, and if there are, not enough of them might be near Heinz Field

3. entertainment: By 2010 there (should) be a casino here. Thatll probably be the most appealing thing to out of towners, and would be packed considering the proximity to Heinz Field. Other than that, there aint much.

4. the city: Yeah, its beautiful, and its a major city, but as far as city sizes and economical stability it cant compete with metropolises like NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, etc. Despite the huge financial boost of getting to host some World Cup games, the cost of preparing fo rit may be too much for the city to handle (unless mr. Ravenstahl does an epic job with his financial plan).

5. The Field: The surface of Heinz Field is known to be kinda crappy, and very bad in bad weather (like there often is here in the summer) or after repetative use without a regrooming between events.

Heinz only holds around 68,000 if you count people in suites and the people who get in via the "secret ticket" and stand in the open endzone or towers.

The World Cup would have less people parking at the stadium since most of the fans would be from out of town and staying in hotels downtown or at Station Square and would either take a bus, boat or walk to the stadium.

Pittsburgh has more than enough bars to keep drunked soccer fans happy.

The grass at Heinz really doesnt get bad until early November and it not like they would have 4 high schools games on friday, a Pitt game on saturday and Steeler game on Sunday in the days leading up to the World Cup.

[Alphabet Man]

Also, I believe synthetic turf is allowed, not sure if that is FIFA or UEFA that approved of this, but either way, installing grass is a piece of cake these days.

Grass is required. Remember them adding grass in the Silverdome in Detroit? I think it was one of the first totally enclosed World Cup games.

But that was in 1994. FIFA now had a list of 2-star approved artificial turf surfaces. The U-20 World Cup final this year was held on fake turf in Toronto, along with other games in the tournament in Montreal and Ottawa.

The Olyroos played North Korea in North Korea on fake turf. It's allowed but maybe not for big tournaments like the World Cup.

And one stadium a city? We don't have that many cities. I'm sure FIFA will bend the rules, say is ones on one end of town and the other on the other end.....

[maz]

Id, as usual, vouch for my city of Pittsburgh, but I wont, for a few reasons.

Despite the easy-to-get-to locale of the stadium, even from the airport, large capacity of Heinz Field (approx 75k), and nice view of the city...

1. parking: theres barely enough parking for a steeler game. for The World Cup?

2. hotels: prolly not enough 'round here, and if there are, not enough of them might be near Heinz Field

3. entertainment: By 2010 there (should) be a casino here. Thatll probably be the most appealing thing to out of towners, and would be packed considering the proximity to Heinz Field. Other than that, there aint much.

4. the city: Yeah, its beautiful, and its a major city, but as far as city sizes and economical stability it cant compete with metropolises like NY, Boston, Chicago, LA, etc. Despite the huge financial boost of getting to host some World Cup games, the cost of preparing fo rit may be too much for the city to handle (unless mr. Ravenstahl does an epic job with his financial plan).

5. The Field: The surface of Heinz Field is known to be kinda crappy, and very bad in bad weather (like there often is here in the summer) or after repetative use without a regrooming between events.

Heinz only holds around 68,000 if you count people in suites and the people who get in via the "secret ticket" and stand in the open endzone or towers.

The World Cup would have less people parking at the stadium since most of the fans would be from out of town and staying in hotels downtown or at Station Square and would either take a bus, boat or walk to the stadium.

Pittsburgh has more than enough bars to keep drunked soccer fans happy.

The grass at Heinz really doesnt get bad until early November and it not like they would have 4 high schools games on friday, a Pitt game on saturday and Steeler game on Sunday in the days leading up to the World Cup.

I stand corrected on some things...but the capacity is then an issue. 104,000 > 68,000. And theres still the issue of the city itself - a nice example of how looks can be decieving

[TBGKon]

If the US would have competition, the UK and Australia would be the frontrunners. Since the Aussie stadiums are already posted, here are potential UK sites, since England alone does not have enough in FIFA standards.

I can see Australia winning this 3-way battle. England and the US would have a mark against them due to their locations. I don't think FIFA would want to have consecutive World Cups in Europe or the Americas.....

Problem with Australia is that on short notice, are there 12 stadiums of over 40,000 seats available? I looked it up on www.worldstadiums.com and could only come up with:

- Subiaco Oval - Perth (42,922)

- AAMI Stadium - Adelaide (51,515)

- Melbourne Cricket Ground - Melbourne (100,000)

- Telstra Dome - Melbourne (56,347)

- Telstra Stadium - Sydney (83,500)

- Sydney Football Stadium - Sydney (45,500)

- Sydney Cricket Ground - Sydney (44,000)

- Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane (52,579)

- The Gabba - Brisbane (42,000)

That right there is 9 stadiums. Obviously 1 city has 3 venues and 2 cities have 2, so not sure if FIFA would be keen on this. Also, how would seating be dealt with in places where the field is an oval and when a soccer pitch is placed there, wouldn't it be far from the field?

If the US would have competition, the UK and Australia would be the frontrunners. Since the Aussie stadiums are already posted, here are potential UK sites, since England alone does not have enough in FIFA standards.

UK

Wembley Stadium - London, England

Twickenham Stadium - London, England

Emirates Stadium - London, England

Stamford Bridge - London, England

Villa Park - Birmingham, England

Old Trafford - Manchester, England

City of Manchester Stadium - Manchester, England

Anfield - Liverpool, England

St. James Park - Newcastle, England

Millennium Stadium - Cardiff, Wales

Murrayfield - Edinburgh, Scotland

Celtic Park - Glasgow, Scotland

As much as I'd like to see my home stadium get a chance at being part of a football/soccer World Cup - due to the fact that Wales is considered a separate country under UEFA and FIFA regulations, it is likely that only England will host the World Cup should it get past here. Although the UK unites for the Olympics, we compete separately at the Commonwealth Games and it's been a big debate over here that if the countries unite for the 2012 Olympics, we're likely to have to unite for every tournament afterwards.

I also understand that FIFA rules stipulate that there can be only one venue from each city included in the bid. That is likely to mean that Wembley will be the London venue and Old Trafford as the Manchester venue (as they are, at the moment, the biggest capacity wise). I also believe that to host a World Cup, a stadium has to have over 40,000 in capacity. I'm sure a lot can be done to existing venues to expand them, but whether they can do it within 2 years if South Africa bails is a different question.

Sorry to use my first post to rip apart your list buddy

All good bro, no hard feelings. You make some good suggestions.

- I understand the whole "1 venue per city" deal, but in the case of a backup, FIFA would have to do what they think is best.

- About the UK vs. England thing, why couldn't the UK band together and pull a dual host setup like Japan-Korea 2002.

- If FIFA is interested in keeping traditions alive, they will go to the US for 2010 as a backup. If they want 1 venue per city, the UK and Aussies have to have plans to build some new venues to make it so. I am in no way against not using anything but the US as a backup, it's just that FIFA would have to lax their rules to allow.

- Out of curiosity, why couldn't Twickenham hold soccer? Are the field dimensions not large enough?

[Alphabet Man]

If the US would have competition, the UK and Australia would be the frontrunners. Since the Aussie stadiums are already posted, here are potential UK sites, since England alone does not have enough in FIFA standards.

I can see Australia winning this 3-way battle. England and the US would have a mark against them due to their locations. I don't think FIFA would want to have consecutive World Cups in Europe or the Americas.....

Problem with Australia is that on short notice, are there 12 stadiums of over 40,000 seats available? I looked it up on www.worldstadiums.com and could only come up with:

- Subiaco Oval - Perth (42,922)

- AAMI Stadium - Adelaide (51,515)

- Melbourne Cricket Ground - Melbourne (100,000)

- Telstra Dome - Melbourne (56,347)

- Telstra Stadium - Sydney (83,500)

- Sydney Football Stadium - Sydney (45,500)

- Sydney Cricket Ground - Sydney (44,000)

- Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane (52,579)

- The Gabba - Brisbane (42,000)

That right there is 9 stadiums. Obviously 1 city has 3 venues and 2 cities have 2, so not sure if FIFA would be keen on this. Also, how would seating be dealt with in places where the field is an oval and when a soccer pitch is placed there, wouldn't it be far from the field?

- If FIFA is interested in keeping traditions alive, they will go to the US for 2010 as a backup. If they want 1 venue per city, the UK and Aussies have to have plans to build some new venues to make it so. I am in no way against not using anything but the US as a backup, it's just that FIFA would have to lax their rules to allow.

- Out of curiosity, why couldn't Twickenham hold soccer? Are the field dimensions not large enough?

Well by 2010, the Bubble Stadium at Olympic Park, Melbourne will be ready. That will hold 31K. Surely for some of the less popular matches they could play there. It's impossible to build new cities as well, so the one venue per city thing is thrown right out. In Melbourne, Telstra Dome is on the west side of the city, and MCG is on the east closer to Richmond. In Sydney Tesltra Stadium is at Homebush which is a fair way out of the city and SFS/SCG (both next door to eachother) are in Moore Park which i think from memory is more in the inner suburbs south of Sydney. In Brisbane you have Suncorp on the west of the city, north of the river while the Gabba is on the east, south of the river.

You could also use Adelaide Oval as that is one great venue, it seats about 30, but is mostly a hill on the outer side which you can add seats. I think they'd be silly not use a great ground like that. And AAMI Stadium in Adelaide is at West Lakes, a while out of the city.

The way it is, I don't think we need 12 venues. The AFL will sometimes play three games over three days at Telstra Dome on many weekends, the same as the MCG, but they don't get many Friday night games. So pitch conditions don't change much. I think Telstra Dome and Stadium have fixed their grass problems, so our venues can back up and play 3 or 4 games a week without any problems.

Most venues are on the eastern seaboard so its only one or two hours flight between most cities. Perth is 4hrs i think, so a group can play all their games there.

A footy oval or cricket oval, whichever you like to call it, is bit like an athletics track around a soccer pitch in many countries. It's just a bit wider on the wing and a bit shorter at the ends. Well, why else did the aths have to cut into the MCG stand.

And Twickenham, is the home of English Rugby, I don't think soccer is played there much, if at all.

Let's play at the WACA!

[Rhys]

There's nothing really stopping a possible UK/England tournament using Twickenham besides the 1 stadium per-city criterion I mentioned earlier. Twickenham has always been the traditional home of English rugby and with minor exceptions, has always hosted rugby, usually Union, although it plays hosts to concerts and the occasional rugby league game. It's difficult to explain to perhaps a US audience, because a lot of your stadiums have had much of their lives as dual-use/"cookie-cutter" stadiums, where as in the UK, this used to be less common. Nowadays though, because the Heineken Cup (European rugby's major competition) has got very competitive, sometimes games are held in larger football stadia. It's tradition more than anything else holding it back. It's not like the situation with Croke Park where the Gaelic Football Association had to change rules to let rugby and football play there whilst Lansdowne Road is being re-developed.

If the UK were to band together as one to hold a tournament, there would be plenty of stadiums able to host the competition. Throw in my beloved Millennium Stadium, Hampden and either Celtic Park/Ibrox, and some other stadiums which would be extended, and this would not be an issue. The English FA have set forward to bid for the 2016 WC instead, so I'd rather England be given the time to build up to a World Cup and get it on short notice. The reason stopping this one, as I said, the fact that if the "UK" hosts a tournament together, UEFA would then say that we would have to be a UK team, which would erase hundreds of years of history, amongst other things. There are more political reasons to do with this I believe, but I'm unsure of them.

Which leaves possibly two countries: the US and Australia. Both have made major changes to their domestic football/soccer leagues in the last decade, and have been definitely for the good. Sydney was a fantastic Olympics host, and the 2003 RWC was a fantastic event. But, if FIFA is going to stick with it's policies, then I'm afraid Australia are out. Soccer in the US has a better profile now than it did in 1994, and has got a stadium big enough in most parts of the country to cope with the demand of people flooding in. And with this being America, you could move oceans in two years to get the World Cup.

[Alphabet Man]

What FIFA policy. They got rid of the rotation policy. It wasn't even a policy.