A U.S. National Stadium?

[Still MIGHTY]

In the MLS thread there was talk about possible future US World Cup stadiums and it reminded me of something I was thinking about something today.

The US doesn't really have a true "national" stadium.

Mexico has Azteca, England has Wembley, and most other countries have a national stadium where their national team plays every major event.

In the US, however, we are so focussed in on our regionalized club and league sports that we lack a true national stadium. All of our WCQs are in several stadiums around the country. While that is great that it gets fans all around the country to see soccer, it lacks the mystique of an imposing "national" stadium.

People talk about the atmosphere and everything else that is Estadio Azteca, but there isn't a true compliment to that in the USA.

With the recent completion of the behemoth Cowboy Stadium, I think that could be a great place to call the US National Stadium for now, but I know there would always be people that are against it.

I want to hear other people's thoughts on it and either suggestions of currently built stadiums or potential sites to build a national stadium and the overall make-up of a future national stadium.

Thoughts?

[WJMorris3]

In the MLS thread there was talk about possible future US World Cup stadiums and it reminded me of something I was thinking about something today.

The US doesn't really have a true "national" stadium.

Mexico has Azteca, England has Wembley, and most other countries have a national stadium where their national team plays every major event.

In the US, however, we are so focussed in on our regionalized club and league sports that we lack a true national stadium. All of our WCQs are in several stadiums around the country. While that is great that it gets fans all around the country to see soccer, it lacks the mystique of an imposing "national" stadium.

People talk about the atmosphere and everything else that is Estadio Azteca, but there isn't a true compliment to that in the USA.

With the recent completion of the behemoth Cowboy Stadium, I think that could be a great place to call the US National Stadium for now, but I know there would always be people that are against it.

I want to hear other people's thoughts on it and either suggestions of currently built stadiums or potential sites to build a national stadium and the overall make-up of a future national stadium.

Thoughts?

It suits Italy and Germany just fine to not have a national stadium of their own, and I don't think Spain does either.

[floydnimrod]

Interesting point. I've never really though about this. I think it's probably due to the fact that we don't "appreciate" soccer the way other countries do. While most countries have other sports, they don't even compare to the country's soccer team. Since the US/Canada has the four major sports, sports fans are attached to teams in those sports, whether it be a regional thing, or a family thing, etc. Until we truly become soccer fans, we'll never have a true national stadium.

[AndrewPF]

Interesting point. I've never really though about this. I think it's probably due to the fact that we don't "appreciate" soccer the way other countries do. While most countries have other sports, they don't even compare to the country's soccer team. Since the US/Canada has the four major sports, sports fans are attached to teams in those sports, whether it be a regional thing, or a family thing, etc. Until we truly become soccer fans, we'll never have a true national stadium.

/Thread

[Firefly]

Reliant Stadium here in Houston has hosted several international games (including Gold Cup) and they have mostly been sell outs.

It's a helluva nice building.

[TFoA]

Columbus Crew Stadium in the winter is as close to a national stadium as the USMNT will have at this point in time. It's an environment that favors the US, and has the least chance of another country from CONCACAF outnumbering the US in fans in the stadium. If they could play in the Horseshoe, that'd be perfect. Idk if OSU will EVER agree to that, but eh.

[crashcarson15]

Columbus Crew Stadium in the winter is as close to a national stadium as the USMNT will have at this point in time. It's an environment that favors the US, and has the least chance of another country from CONCACAF outnumbering the US in fans in the stadium. If they could play in the Horseshoe, that'd be perfect. Idk if OSU will EVER agree to that, but eh.

Win.

[njmeadowlanders]

Interesting point. I've never really though about this. I think it's probably due to the fact that we don't "appreciate" soccer the way other countries do. While most countries have other sports, they don't even compare to the country's soccer team. Since the US/Canada has the four major sports, sports fans are attached to teams in those sports, whether it be a regional thing, or a family thing, etc. Until we truly become soccer fans, we'll never have a true national stadium.

Exactly. We have football and baseball as the two primary outdoor field types with vastly different dimensions and boundaries. We also don't have the passion and fire other countries do.

But even if we did, wouldn't the stadium have be in DC? Even better, if you wanted to build in some sort of advantage, why not get acclimated with Denver and host teams up a mile-high? (OK, so that would be moot against say, Mexico but still a plus vs. other countries)...

I think Albuqueruqe is our highest 750,000 population metro area at something like 6,200 feet, but it's too small to warrant such a stadium obviously...

[LMU]

Here's the thing. For the most part, the countries that have national stadia are the ones where the capital city is for the most part the largest and central city of the nation. In the US, DC is smaller than a lot of cities, plus the US is so vast that there is no central rallying city that can be used as an unofficial home. That's why our hosted matches are all across the country instead of being played at the same spot over and over.

[dfwabel]

While true, remember that in terms of territory, we are much larger with teh exception of Russia, Canada and China. The "Bird's Nest"' which was seen as awesome is now vacant. Russia actually has teams p[lay in their largest stadiums. It is fairly simple for someone from Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, or even Scotland to see a game in Wembely, in Wales, or even at Stade France, it is more difficult for someone from say Oklahoma City to see a soccer match that day. A national stadium does not need to be in the capital, so Fed Ex Field could be the default if the Dream Seats were removed.

What city is not going to fund a "national" soccer stadium in this economic climate? Also, we can not host an outdoor IAAF championship as even our new football stadiums are incapable of having a 400m track. Heck, the USOC has a training center in Colorado Springs, so why not just use Denver as the facility and training grounds for USMST in terms of getting an elevation advantage. I think due to the Latino population, the Rose Bowl, or Coliseum, is the defacto national soccer stadium.

[cappital92]

Maybe it's because it's the only U.S. stadium available in FIFA, but I thought that the Home Depot Center was the official home stadium of the U.S. National Team.

If you're going to have a national stadium, I think it should be in the capital (Washington) or another high-profile city (New York, Chicago, L.A.). Now I wouldn't mind the USMNT going to D.C. after a new stadium gets built (With El Salvador playing some home matches at RFK recently, that'd make the city home to two national teams), I think that Los Angeles is the best place for the USMNT.

[dfwabel]

Maybe it's because it's the only U.S. stadium available in FIFA, but I thought that the Home Depot Center was the official home stadium of the U.S. National Team.

If you're going to have a national stadium, I think it should be in the capital (Washington) or another high-profile city (New York, Chicago, L.A.). Now I wouldn't mind the USMNT going to D.C. after a new stadium gets built (With El Salvador playing some home matches at RFK recently, that'd make the city home to two national teams), I think that Los Angeles is the best place for the USMNT.

I made an edit to mention LA before you posted. In reality, we don't need one. The team will sell well within any major city and that facility would sit vacant too much of the time if it sat over 25K for the MLS.

[njmeadowlanders]

Maybe it's because it's the only U.S. stadium available in FIFA, but I thought that the Home Depot Center was the official home stadium of the U.S. National Team.

If you're going to have a national stadium, I think it should be in the capital (Washington) or another high-profile city (New York, Chicago, L.A.). Now I wouldn't mind the USMNT going to D.C. after a new stadium gets built (With El Salvador playing some home matches at RFK recently, that'd make the city home to two national teams), I think that Los Angeles is the best place for the USMNT.

I made an edit to mention LA before you posted. In reality, we don't need one. The team will sell well within any major city and that facility would sit vacant too much of the time if it sat over 25K for the MLS.

New NFL/US National Stadium in LA perhaps?

[Don]

If you think out of the terms of soccer and in a multi sport arena (not really a stadium) that hosts sports that people around the world do play in such as hockey and basketball, I think the de facto national arena would be Madison Square Garden. The biggest city, the most storied arena thats hosted multitudes of big matches (including soviet vs usa hockey games). As far as soccer goes, I think TFoA had it right, Crew stadium hosts our biggest home field advantage with the relative lack of a latino population that often makes matches on American turf look like home matches for teams around CONCACAF.

[dfwabel]

Maybe it's because it's the only U.S. stadium available in FIFA, but I thought that the Home Depot Center was the official home stadium of the U.S. National Team.

If you're going to have a national stadium, I think it should be in the capital (Washington) or another high-profile city (New York, Chicago, L.A.). Now I wouldn't mind the USMNT going to D.C. after a new stadium gets built (With El Salvador playing some home matches at RFK recently, that'd make the city home to two national teams), I think that Los Angeles is the best place for the USMNT.

I made an edit to mention LA before you posted. In reality, we don't need one. The team will sell well within any major city and that facility would sit vacant too much of the time if it sat over 25K for the MLS.

New NFL/US National Stadium in LA perhaps?

I did post this news in the 2009 NFL thread:

Jaguars expect a season of blackouts

I will try to get opinions from some which I know deep in the soccer nation about this, including a US born former FIFA referees assistant.

[TBGKon]

Well with Daniel Snyder wanting a new stadium in DC proper, maybe FedExField (at only 13 years old) can become an official National Stadium.

[dfwabel]

If you think out of the terms of soccer and in a multi sport arena (not really a stadium) that hosts sports that people around the world do play in such as hockey and basketball, I think the de facto national arena would be Madison Square Garden. The biggest city, the most storied arena thats hosted multitudes of big matches (including soviet vs usa hockey games). As far as soccer goes, I think TFoA had it right, Crew stadium hosts our biggest home field advantage with the relative lack of a latino population that often makes matches on American turf look like home matches for teams around CONCACAF.

MSG was not even used for the 2004 World Cup of Hockey. I think that NYC gets its love due to that it our largest city. I would rather see a game at the San Siro in Milano or old/new delle Alpi in Torino, than at the bowl in Roma. The national stadium in Turkey is bigger but the homes of Galatasaray or Fenerbahçe are better. After an hour's thought, it need to be L.A.

1-Large metropolitian population.

2-Ability to have a real club level and suites for revenue.

3-The Latino population.

4-A population which overall accepts soccer.

[dfwabel]

Well with Daniel Snyder wanting a new stadium in DC proper, maybe FedExField (at only 13 years old) can become an official National Stadium.

1-I forgot to say that I was the one who posted the list on the MLS thread. Now, I guess my bad.

2-Fed Ex Field would be great to see an event in if Dan did not replace seats to narrow them. I have been there three time since opening and the winter game in 2002 was the worst in terms of room. He still has not gotten an HD screen and newer ribbon boards on the levels too. Six Flags and Red Zebra are losing too much cash apparently. Parking still sucks there and always will be.

[Billy B]

If you think out of the terms of soccer and in a multi sport arena (not really a stadium) that hosts sports that people around the world do play in such as hockey and basketball, I think the de facto national arena would be Madison Square Garden. The biggest city, the most storied arena thats hosted multitudes of big matches (including soviet vs usa hockey games). As far as soccer goes, I think TFoA had it right, Crew stadium hosts our biggest home field advantage with the relative lack of a latino population that often makes matches on American turf look like home matches for teams around CONCACAF.

MSG was not even used for the 2004 World Cup of Hockey. I think that NYC gets its love due to that it our largest city. I would rather see a game at the San Siro in Milano or old/new delle Alpi in Torino, than at the bowl in Roma. The national stadium in Turkey is bigger but the homes of Galatasaray or Fenerbahçe are better. After an hour's thought, it need to be L.A.

1-Large metropolitian population.

2-Ability to have a real club level and suites for revenue.

3-The Latino population.

4-A population which overall accepts soccer.

I think this is a negative point if you were looking for a city to have a national stadium in (which I don't think is necessary to have.) While Latinos in general are bigger supporters of soccer, the majority of Latinos will support the national team of their heritage ocer the USMNT. If the US were to play Mexico in Chicago, LA, or another city with a large Latino population, the crowd would heavily favor the visiting team which is the opposite affect we would look for in having a national stadium.

I'm perfectly fine with having the World Cup Qualifiers and other events at different cities across the country. Like it was stated earlier, travel would be very difficult for many people if all major matches were held in a single city. Comparing the US to England isn't very fair because England is around the same size of just one state (a quick search says that Louisiana is closest in size, but that's not a very reliable source.) So fans from the entire country going to Wembley is much easier than people from all over the US going to one select city.

[LMU]

If you think out of the terms of soccer and in a multi sport arena (not really a stadium) that hosts sports that people around the world do play in such as hockey and basketball, I think the de facto national arena would be Madison Square Garden. The biggest city, the most storied arena thats hosted multitudes of big matches (including soviet vs usa hockey games). As far as soccer goes, I think TFoA had it right, Crew stadium hosts our biggest home field advantage with the relative lack of a latino population that often makes matches on American turf look like home matches for teams around CONCACAF.

MSG was not even used for the 2004 World Cup of Hockey. I think that NYC gets its love due to that it our largest city. I would rather see a game at the San Siro in Milano or old/new delle Alpi in Torino, than at the bowl in Roma. The national stadium in Turkey is bigger but the homes of Galatasaray or Fenerbahçe are better. After an hour's thought, it need to be L.A.

1-Large metropolitian population.

2-Ability to have a real club level and suites for revenue.

3-The Latino population.

4-A population which overall accepts soccer.

I think this is a negative point if you were looking for a city to have a national stadium in (which I don't think is necessary to have.) While Latinos in general are bigger supporters of soccer, the majority of Latinos will support the national team of their heritage ocer the USMNT. If the US were to play Mexico in Chicago, LA, or another city with a large Latino population, the crowd would heavily favor the visiting team which is the opposite affect we would look for in having a national stadium.

I'm perfectly fine with having the World Cup Qualifiers and other events at different cities across the country. Like it was stated earlier, travel would be very difficult for many people if all major matches were held in a single city. Comparing the US to England isn't very fair because England is around the same size of just one state (a quick search says that Louisiana is closest in size, but that's not a very reliable source.) So fans from the entire country going to Wembley is much easier than people from all over the US going to one select city.

I can vouch for that. After the USMNT lost at Azteca, the entire area was nothing but Mexican car flags.