World Cup 2010

[Rhys]

I wasn't on about that policy. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. I was on about the policies regarding one stadium per city and the 40,000 capacity threshold. The rotation policy would get totally screwed by this anyway.

[jr79]

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

Stadium of Light in Sunderland more than meets FIFA standards and St Mary's Stadium in Southampton is also suitable (UEFA 4 star rated) but doesn't have the capacity for World Cup games (only 32K) though that would be waived I'm sure if England were an emergency host.

I'd also wonder about White Hart Lane as a possibility? Elland Road? Hillsborough? Pride Park (expanding to over 44K seats)? There are more than enough stadia in England that they wouldn't need outside help to host the event.

[Alphabet Man]

I wasn't on about that policy. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. I was on about the policies regarding one stadium per city and the 40,000 capacity threshold. The rotation policy would get totally screwed by this anyway.

Well, they'd have to change that policy for us, because we only have 6 cities, plus they won't play in Hobart so thats 5 cities.

The way the stadiums are, they're not near eachother (Except SFS and SCG), so it shouldn't be a problem.

I mean we can handle two AFL games in Melbourne at the same time.

[NoHoJoe]

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.

Those are pretty nice stadium capacities should Rush decide to tour Australia next year!!!

www.rushinoz.com

[-kj]

I believe that you are allowed to have two venues in one city, but only one city--ie, for England, they could use two stadiums in London, but then could not use both stadiums in Manchester or Liverpool.

[DarkJourney]

Weighing U.S.'s World Cup chances to host the 2018 World Cup

By Martin Rogers, Yahoo! Sports

February 12, 2008

The bidding process for the 2018 World Cup promises to be one of the most fiercely fought in recent memory, and U.S. Soccer plans to throw itself right into the middle of the fray.

Officially, America's soccer governing body has not even confirmed that it will apply to host the tournament, but don't be fooled. U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati started to show his hand last week and early indications are that the federation will throw its full weight behind a campaign aimed at staging soccer's greatest event for the second time.

What are the U.S.'s chances for bidding success? What impact would the tournament have on soccer in the country? And what potential roadblocks and opponents stand in the way? Let's take a look.

THE DYNAMICS

The FIFA rotation policy that took the 2010 World Cup to South Africa and the 2014 World Cup to Brazil was perfect for the U.S. Everything seemed set up for the tournament to fall into the Americans' lap since CONCACAF (the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football) was the next federation in line for 2018.

However, that all changed on October 29, 2007 when FIFA altered the system. Now, only the previous two hosting federations are excluded from applying ? in this case, Africa and South America.

The U.S. can effectively blame the South Americans for the change. From the early days of the 2014 bidding process, CONMEBOL (the South American Football Association) threw its weight behind Brazil, and that led to Argentina and Colombia eventually withdrawing their bids. By the time the final process came around, Brazil was left as the sole candidate.

The commonly held belief at FIFA is that competition breeds excellence, and the way the hosting rights were effectively handed to Brazil on a plate sparked calls for a return to a more open system. For the 2018 World Cup, only Europe, CONCACAF and Asia can submit bids (if you exclude Oceania, which has no appropriate candidates now that Australia has joined Asia). But there are still some heavyweight contenders.

"We are being very quiet about what we are doing," Gulati said. "We are going to make a decision by June 1. The bid specifications will not be out until next year, but we are confident that, whatever those specifications say, we would be in a position very quickly to meet the technical requirements.

"In the end, it comes down to campaigning, and we think the World Cup would be fabulous here again."

THE REASONS WHY

Why? Because everyone wants to host a World Cup, but not everyone can.

Because, along with the Olympics, it is one of the two greatest international events in sports. Because hosting the World Cup, and hosting it well, conveys immense prestige upon the country and pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into its economy. And because it would finally put the United States on the world soccer map once and for all.

Still need convincing? Well, how about the fact that host nations have an excellent record of success (see France in 1998 and South Korea in 2002), so it would provide the U.S. the best chance of making a meaningful run into the later rounds.

Most of all, U.S. Soccer doesn't even have to think about stadiums. Thanks to the NFL, more than enough big venues are already in place. The 1994 World Cup in America still holds the overall attendance record for any World Cup, despite having only 24 teams and fewer games than every World Cup since.

Other logistical planning (such as security) will be helped by Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics.

"I have said a couple of times to the guys at FIFA that we could have hosted the World Cup in 1998 and not used any stadium that even existed in 1994," Gulati said. "We could have done the exact same thing in 2002 and 2006, and every one of those would have had a higher attendance than every World Cup previously."

But what about the game itself?

Certainly, America has put down far stronger soccer roots since 1994, and, by 2018, Major League Soccer will have nearly doubled in age. Continuing increases in the Mexican, South American and Caribbean communities will only help the growing popularity of the sport.

THE REASONS WHY NOT

In part, the bidding process is a popularity contest. Right now, the worldwide opinion of the U.S. is pretty low due to the war in Iraq.

Then there's the appeal of another European World Cup. The 2014 tournament will represent the first time that two consecutive World Cups will be held outside of Europe. And if the U.S., China or Australia were successful in 2018, that would make it three.

Would the voting members be happy with a situation that saw at least 16 years elapse between Germany 2006 and the next World Cup in that soccer-mad continent?

Russia may have the most developed bid at this premature stage, but the Russians could be hurt by the decision to go east for the 2012 European Championships in Poland and Ukraine. England could well pose the biggest threat.

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT

We can only imagine. Who knows how big MLS will be by 2018, but if it continues at its current rate, then it is fair to assume that in 10 years a position as a solid second-tier league just behind the likes of England, Spain and Italy is a realistic goal.

MLS chiefs are loathe to talk about laying down challenges to other North American sports, but it is fair to say they have hockey in their sights, with basketball a future target.

If soccer has reached its current level in the U.S. from a standing start prior to 1994, just think what momentum could be generated by staging a World Cup from a reasonably established position? The growth in terms of player numbers, domestic attendances and general public awareness could be off the charts. Time will tell.

THE CONTENDERS

Here is the competition for 2018 and their chances for hosting. Right now, the pole position in this race doesn't belong to the U.S.

England ? It can put together a bidding committee packed with heavyweight soccer and political figures. Chelsea's Peter Kenyon, Manchester United's David Gill and athlete-turned-politician Lord Coe, who secured the 2012 Olympics for London, would all likely be involved. The prospect of a tournament in the birthplace of the game and a World Cup final at Wembley Stadium would be enticing. Chances: 33 percent.

United States ? Chances: 28 percent.

Russia ? This would be one of the wealthiest bids, with big businessmen such as Roman Abramovich likely to lend their support. Their biggest negative: sorry to say this, but the country itself. Moscow is scandalously expensive and Russia is hardly most people's idea of a dream World Cup destination. Chances: 16 percent.

Australia ? Being a southern hemisphere nation, the Aussie winter may provide the perfect climate for a tournament to be held in June. Impressive stadiums are already in place, including the 2000 Olympic Stadium in Sydney and the massive Melbourne Cricket Ground. Chances: 12 percent.

China ? The bids of China and Australia are both worthy but there is no feeling that the Asian continent is "overdue" after Japan and South Korea staged the 2002 World Cup. China is definitely a future destination for the tournament, but probably not just yet. Chances: 7 percent.

Benelux ? Belgium and Holland did a decent job with the 2000 European Championships, but the World Cup might be a step too far. They would have a huge amount of work to do in terms of infrastructure because there simply aren't enough big stadiums. Chances: 3 percent.

Martin Rogers is a soccer writer for Yahoo! Sports. Send Martin a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.

[mantleisthebest7]

Real Salt Lake's new stadium should be done by then. How about a Salt Lake world cup? Heck, we held the winter olympics. Why not us?

[rams80]

Real Salt Lake's new stadium should be done by then. How about a Salt Lake world cup? Heck, we held the winter olympics. Why not us?

How about not, because the new RSL stadium only has a capacity of 22,000.

Rice-Eccles might be a host with its 45,000 capacity, but I doubt it.

[mantleisthebest7]

Real Salt Lake's new stadium should be done by then. How about a Salt Lake world cup? Heck, we held the winter olympics. Why not us?

How about not, because the new RSL stadium only has a capacity of 22,000.

Rice-Eccles might be a host with its 45,000 capacity, but I doubt it.

I didnt even know it was only going to hold that many people. That sucks!

I've been to Rice-Eccles for Utes football games and I'm telling you, that stadium is bigger than it looks. It's freaking monsterous. don't forget, tha's also where the olympic ceremonies were held. I think a World Cup would do good there.

[rams80]

Real Salt Lake's new stadium should be done by then. How about a Salt Lake world cup? Heck, we held the winter olympics. Why not us?

How about not, because the new RSL stadium only has a capacity of 22,000.

Rice-Eccles might be a host with its 45,000 capacity, but I doubt it.

I didnt even know it was only going to hold that many people. That sucks!

I've been to Rice-Eccles for Utes football games and I'm telling you, that stadium is bigger than it looks. It's freaking monsterous. don't forget, tha's also where the olympic ceremonies were held. I think a World Cup would do good there.

It's all about capacity. Or being a huge market. Or both. I doubt they'd hold a game in a stadium with a capacity of less than 60,000.

[rmackman]

United States World Cup could be great in these venues:

Dallas - the new Cowboys stadium

Houston - Reliant is great

Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium is great even though the name is weird

Miami - Dolphins stadium would be a good soccer site or if the Miami Fusion come back (which is now a strong possibility)

Tampa - US soccer plays there often

Los Angeles - Home Depot Center

New York - plenty of people would go

Detroit - it's the summer so weather would be fine and I think Ford Field would be a good site

Seattle

Philadelphia

Chicago

Denver

Salt Lake City

Also what if it was North America? US and Canada team up to host a World Cup?

[DarkJourney]

United States World Cup could be great in these venues:

Dallas - the new Cowboys stadium

Houston - Reliant is great

Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium is great even though the name is weird

Miami - Dolphins stadium would be a good soccer site or if the Miami Fusion come back (which is now a strong possibility)

Tampa - US soccer plays there often

Los Angeles - Home Depot Center

New York - plenty of people would go

Detroit - it's the summer so weather would be fine and I think Ford Field would be a good site

Seattle

Philadelphia

Chicago

Denver

Salt Lake City

Also what if it was North America? US and Canada team up to host a World Cup?

Good choices but I would have to say no on the Home Depot Center & Salt Lake City because of capacity issues. Lets say England does get the 2018 WC I would think that the United States would be shoe in for 2022. You could pick 12 out of this group:

FedEx Field - Landover, MD

New Giants/Jets Stadium - East Rutherford, NJ

Arrowhead Stadium - Kansas City

Invesco Field - Denver

Dolphin Stadium - Miami Gardens, FL

Bank Of America Stadium - Charlotte

Browns Stadium - Cleveland

Possible New Chargers Stadium - San Diego

Possible New 49ers Stadium - San Francisco/Santa Clara

M&T Bank - Baltimore

Reliant Stadium - Houston

Gillete Stadium - Foxborough, MA

Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia

Qwest Field - Seattle

New Cowboys Stadium - Arlington, TX

Raymond James Stadium - Tampa

Paul Brown Stadium - Cincinnati

Heinz Field - Pittsburgh

Ford Field - Detroit

Possible New Vikings Stadium - Minneapolis

University of Phoenix Stadium - Glendale, AZ

Lucas Oil Stadium - Indianapolis

Soldier Field - Chicago

Possible New NFL Stadium - Los Angeles

[mantleisthebest7]

United States World Cup could be great in these venues:

Dallas - the new Cowboys stadium

Houston - Reliant is great

Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium is great even though the name is weird

Miami - Dolphins stadium would be a good soccer site or if the Miami Fusion come back (which is now a strong possibility)

Tampa - US soccer plays there often

Los Angeles - Home Depot Center

New York - plenty of people would go

Detroit - it's the summer so weather would be fine and I think Ford Field would be a good site

Seattle

Philadelphia

Chicago

Denver

Salt Lake City

Also what if it was North America? US and Canada team up to host a World Cup?

Good choices but I would have to say no on the Home Depot Center & Salt Lake City because of capacity issues.

I'm tellin ya, Rice-Eccles is alot bigger than y'all think it is.........

[DarkJourney]

United States World Cup could be great in these venues:

Dallas - the new Cowboys stadium

Houston - Reliant is great

Phoenix - University of Phoenix Stadium is great even though the name is weird

Miami - Dolphins stadium would be a good soccer site or if the Miami Fusion come back (which is now a strong possibility)

Tampa - US soccer plays there often

Los Angeles - Home Depot Center

New York - plenty of people would go

Detroit - it's the summer so weather would be fine and I think Ford Field would be a good site

Seattle

Philadelphia

Chicago

Denver

Salt Lake City

Also what if it was North America? US and Canada team up to host a World Cup?

Good choices but I would have to say no on the Home Depot Center & Salt Lake City because of capacity issues.

I'm tellin ya, Rice-Eccles is alot bigger than y'all think it is.........

We know! It seats 46,000 or so. The World Cup will be played in NFL stadiums if it comes back to the U.S.

[dfwabel]

Real Salt Lake's new stadium should be done by then. How about a Salt Lake world cup? Heck, we held the winter olympics. Why not us?

How about not, because the new RSL stadium only has a capacity of 22,000.

Rice-Eccles might be a host with its 45,000 capacity, but I doubt it.

I didnt even know it was only going to hold that many people. That sucks!

I've been to Rice-Eccles for Utes football games and I'm telling you, that stadium is bigger than it looks. It's freaking monsterous. don't forget, tha's also where the olympic ceremonies were held. I think a World Cup would do good there.

I am sorry that I had to enter at this thread. Especially it went from the 2010 event to speculation on 2018, but with all due respect, Delta (the main carrier for SLC) is rumored to be in talks with NWA aka Northwest on a merger this month. If not Northwest now, it will be with another carrier very soon, LC (Legacy Carrier aka American/United/USAirways) or LCC (aka Low Cost Carrier, Frontier/JetBlue/Southwest). That being said, the loss of a major carrier, low still low hotel room occupancy as compared to Denver or Las Vegas, makes SLC the Mountain Time Zone NOT to visit.

The US need the World Cup soon as we can pull it of right despite the size of the nation, we have the infrastructure now (or by that time, outside of high speed rail), hotels in major cities, and facilities which will give FIFA the largest ticket revenue since 1994. While I am not a soccer fan, but a follower, I was at the three games in 1994, in Detroit, Orlando, and Dallas, and it was awesome. The bidding between cities will be very competitive, and will be dependent on the direct flights from Europe and Asia.

[OMMF]

No, guys you still aren't getting it. It's bigger than you think it is. So next time, before you type, take what you are thinking about and make it bigger.

[DEAD!]

No, guys you still aren't getting it. It's bigger than you think it is. So next time, before you type, take what you are thinking about and make it bigger.

.... I tried.... and it's not working.....

[Island_Style]

2018? I will be almost 40 by 2018! Kind of depressing.

[njmeadowlanders]

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.

I know this is old, but while I can't remember if they did something similar w/ the Meadowlands (I do know they had grass though), I know the Jets and Giants had the astroturf stripped after the 1999 NFL season and put in a multi-million dollar "tray" system where bad pieces of turf could easily be pulled out and be replaced with a new tray, and it'd be seamless, you'd never know, etc.

In fact, it was such a success, they switched to fieldturf for the 2003 season!

...and the stadium being built adjacent to the current stadium would most likely be a field-turf field, so you'd need a new system...

[DarkJourney]

Blatter: FIFA exploring alternate-site strategies for 2010 World Cup

LONDON (AP) -- FIFA president Sepp Blatter has spoken to three countries about hosting the 2010 World Cup if a natural catastrophe forces it away from South Africa.

It forms the Plan B drawn up by FIFA with less than two years until football's showpiece tournament heads to Africa for the first time.

Concerns are mounting about South Africa fulfilling its hosting obligations after Tuesday's announcement that the Port Elizabeth stadium is unlikely to be completed in time for next June's Confederations Cup tuneup event.

The World Cup preparations have been plagued by stadium construction delays, security fears, transport problems and the possibility of power outages.

"I have spoken to three possible, not only possible, but three associations and countries that would be able to stage the World Cup in one year's time," Blatter said in an interview broadcast on Thursday by Sky News. "They need one year (to prepare)."

Blatter would not name the countries when asked if 1966 host England was one of his options.