A U.S. National Stadium?

[NJTank]

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

Is he on drugs

[Jigga]

Not exactly. It's just that Danny Boy's had his head up his own ass so long that inhaling all that methane has really messed him up.

[The_Admiral]

maybe dey shuld go back to there own country if they cant support our national soccer team

[oddball]

Is there really a public outcry for one? Will a stadium really help that much? The US fans are not really that passionate? Really? Just because the sport of football/soccer isn't number 1 on our list of what to watch does not mean US fans are not passionate. What is passion? Starting riots in the stands? If that's the case, no we are not passionate (Oakland Raider fans excluded). Take a step back and ask yourself about all these other countries that you listed that have a national stadium and ask the simple question, where does soccer rank to them. There is the real answer. It's not the need for a stadium, in which I think we have probably 20 or 30 that would do quite well, it's the sport isn't in the US psyche enough on a high level to even really need one. I mean heck, where does the soccer team train? If soccer was the #1 sport, then we'd have a national stadium, but since it's what like 4th or 5th on the sports board, then no one will even bother to even think about building one, then again where would you put it? I think the better thing for us to worry about, is develop better players who can win a World Cup and challenge for one every four years. When we have teams that can go out and beat the likes of Germany, England, Brazil, etc. on a regular basis, then maybe you can come back and ask this question. To me the players and beating the world's top teams are way more important than a national stadium.

[Saintsfan]

I think the US is just tooo big to have a true national stadium in the sense that you are talking about. I would imagine US Soccer would prefer to spread its international matches around its international quality venues.

I think that Germany, Italy, Spain have a good share of excellent stadiums/stadia, and prefer tp spread things around for political reasons. It also means that for those coutries they can play friendlies and the such at smaller venues and still get sell outs. A problem sometimes with Wembley (both old and new) has always been a lack of atmosphere for relatively meaningless games.

[BrySmalls]

Sam's Army doesn't have one set stadium on where to do its fighting, it just answers the call whenever scheduled to be it in Los Angeles, Houston, Columbus, Nashville, Piscataway, NJ, New Haven, CT, Cleveland, etc.

[jkrdevil]

Well as mentioned the US is too large geographically to really have a true national stadium, particularlly for soccer.

If the US were to have a a "national stadium" it would probably have to be in either DC (the capital) or New York (the most populous city), maybe you could make a case for it being in LA. If you want to consider a stadium already in existence as the national stadium (somewhat ignoring soccer use as National stadiums can be used for more than one sport) the choices probably are

-Giants Stadium (Largest Stadium in biggest City, hosted a couple international Soccer finals plus home to both NY football teams)

-RFK (Largerst Stadium in DC metro area)

-FedEx (Largest stadium in DC proper)

-Rose Bowl (One of the largest stadiums in the Country, hosted World Cup Final)

-Yankee Stadium (Not quite the same as the old one but perhaps the signature stadium in the largest city for what is considered the national sport)

Certainly one could have considered Old Yankee Stadium the US's National Stadium as it was perhaps the countries most famous stadium with the main thing played there what is considered the National Pastime.

[RedRenesis]

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

Is he on drugs

Snyder and DC have been on and off kicking around the idea of getting the Skins back in DC for I'd say about five years.

[Dilbert]

Cowboys Stadium in Dallas is certainly big enough to be one

[NEW.ERA]

When New Meadowlands is built I think it's deserves to be thrown in the discussion but with a National Stadium it isn't just for Soccer it's used for Track and Field events.

Spiro Louis - Athens

Olympiastadion - Berlin

Stade de France - Paris

Personally I think it's pointless to have a National Stadium in the US since there are so many candidates and the National Soccer Team plays at a variety of stadiums and it helps spread the game all around the country.

[jrh31584]

It needs a hell of a renovation, but I would say the closest thing we have to a national stadium is the LA Coliseum.

How many other buildings have hosted Super Bowls, World Series, and 2 sets of Olympics?

[gueman]

Well as mentioned the US is too large geographically to really have a true national stadium, particularlly for soccer.

If the US were to have a a "national stadium" it would probably have to be in either DC (the capital) or New York (the most populous city), maybe you could make a case for it being in LA. If you want to consider a stadium already in existence as the national stadium (somewhat ignoring soccer use as National stadiums can be used for more than one sport) the choices probably are

-Giants Stadium (Largest Stadium in biggest City, hosted a couple international Soccer finals plus home to both NY football teams)

-RFK (Largerst Stadium in DC metro area)

-FedEx (Largest stadium in DC proper)

-Rose Bowl (One of the largest stadiums in the Country, hosted World Cup Final)

-Yankee Stadium (Not quite the same as the old one but perhaps the signature stadium in the largest city for what is considered the national sport)

Certainly one could have considered Old Yankee Stadium the US's National Stadium as it was perhaps the countries most famous stadium with the main thing played there what is considered the National Pastime.

Is much as I hate the Yankees I have to agree that Yankee Stadium is the National stadium. No stadium in America has the history that Old Yankee Stadium had. It hosted the most historic team in the nation, and the home to the most historic games in our history, from baseball world titles, to the 1958 NFL Championship the game that put the NFL in the National spotlight. It was the site of the Notre Dame v Army series from '25 to '47 and included the famous "Win one for the Gipper game" along with perhaps the greatest collage game of the era the '46 Army Notre Dame game. From 6 Joe Louis fights, to the first International soccer game Celtic v New York Yankees even Pele's Santos played AC Milan. From Popes to Billy Joel Yankee Stadium hosted them all. IF America needs a national stadium it is the only choice.

[njmeadowlanders]

It needs a hell of a renovation, but I would say the closest thing we have to a national stadium is the LA Coliseum.

How many other buildings have hosted Super Bowls, World Series, and 2 sets of Olympics?

I didn't even think of that, but if people are mentioning the Rose Bowl, how can the LA Coliseum not be in the mix?

[leopard88]

-RFK (Largerst Stadium in DC metro area)

-FedEx (Largest stadium in DC proper)

Reverse that.

My $.02 . . . no national stadium is necessary and the vast size of the country makes it geographically and politically impractical.

[Mingjai]

While I don't think the USMNT needs a national stadium, but if the powers that be were considering establishing one, I would use the following criteria:

(1) Nice, relatively modern venue -- doesn't have to be brand new, but it must be in good condition, with great sightlines.

(2) Easily accessible by plane, especially planes from Europe -- makes it more convenient for our European-based players to get to and from games

(3) Located in a "hotbed" of soccer to ensure sell outs -- higher likelihood of rabid fans who can sell out the matches

(4) Located in an area lower Latin populations -- most of the opponents will be from CONCACAF, so the US need to do anything to prevent a US home match from becoming a quasi home match for the visitors

(5) Preferably in a continental/microthermal climate -- CONCACAF opponents (except Canada) struggle in cool weather.

As it stands right now, I don't see any venue fitting these criteria. Cities like Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, LA, Chicago, and even New York and DC turn into home matches for the opposing side. Seattle would be a decent choice if it weren't so far from Europe. St. Louis or Kansas City might make my short list. Minnesota wouldn't be bad if people here actually cared about soccer (and if they had a decent venue). I think Boston might be pretty good too.

That said, I think Columbus has demonstrated its ability to support the USMNT, and that's why it is the default home of the US-Mexico qualifier. If they could fill up the Horseshoe with 100,000 screaming US fans, then I'd love to see the matches moved there--otherwise, it's fine where it is.

[njmeadowlanders]

That said, I think Columbus has demonstrated its ability to support the USMNT, and that's why it is the default home of the US-Mexico qualifier. If they could fill up the Horseshoe with 100,000 screaming US fans, then I'd love to see the matches moved there--otherwise, it's fine where it is.

The biggest problem there is that they use field-turf now. For the World Cup, you could go a few weeks with grass and then revert to the turf for football season (a la The Meadowlands in '94 was grass over the astroturf) but it wouldn't work if there were soccer games all the time...

[illwauk]

A national stadium only makes sense in countries where it can be located within a few hours drive of everyone who lives in the country. If the US were ever to break up and make de-facto nations out of the states, then national stadiums would make sense. But right now the US is way too big to make one feasible.

Besides, doesn't having the USMNT play in multiple stadiums make for better preparation in international competitions like the World Cup or the Olympics?

[raysox]

Why not have one in LA for the USMNT, and possibly a NFL team?

[gosioux76]

I think the issue here is more about having a culture that has never really embraced the notion of a "national team."

International cultures, Mexico included, have built pride around their national soccer teams as they vied for success in major, global international tournaments like the soccer World Cup -- a competition the U.S. has largely been a bit player in until the early 90s. The same is true for sports like cricket and rugby, both of which hold regular high-profile global competitions in which the U.S. doesn't rate.

The only real, recurring opportunities for for U.S. fans to rally around a national team has come through the Olympics, which started out -- and, in my opinion, remains -- a competition centered more around individuals rather than teams.

While we have successful national teams for soccer, basketball, hockey, etc., is there really a supportive fan base that could justify classifying a single home as a national stadium?

I argue that the only reason such stadiums exist elsewhere is because those countries have been far more active participants in global tournaments than the U.S.

[DelayedPenalty]

How about Michigan Stadium here in Ann Arbor? Has plenty of history, is in the process of getting state of the art new press boxes and suites (completion scheduled for 2010 CFB season), holds 115,000+, is far enough north to give a climate advantage over a large handful of other countries. A few years ago it would have been unthinkable, with the problems they had with the grass during football season, but with the new turf system it would be easy to transform the stadium for any sport they wanted.

Not a likely choice, but I thought I'd put in my 2¢ on the matter!