Well if you are talking in terms of international standing Australias biggest sporting event is the Australian F1 Grand Prix held in Melbourne.

I dunno, Melbourne Cup has quite a large number of intenational horses, plus iot's the only sporting event which we get a public holiday (Victoria anyway) then Australian Tennis Open draws a huge crowd to melbourne.


But for the 1 day event, Melbourne Cup followed by AFL Grand final.

Well if you are talking in terms of international standing Australias biggest sporting event is the Australian F1 Grand Prix held in Melbourne.
Yeah i was thinking of that also, but i figured that Melbourne Cup would have more importance to more Australians than the F1 would.

bubomb,
It can be anything, as long as it's a once per year sporting event. It can be some sort if sporting league grand final if that is the biggest etc etc. :)

Yeah i was thinking of that also, but i figured that Melbourne Cup would have more importance to more Australians than the F1 would.

bubomb,
It can be anything, as long as it's a once per year sporting event. It can be some sort if sporting league grand final if that is the biggest etc etc. :)



for the UK,take your pick out of:
Wimbledon(ok,its over 2 weeks)
The Grand National(largest for betting)
The FA CUP FINAL(traditionally the biggest,but not as important as it used to be
Champoinship play-off final(estimated richest prize in sport,worth around £30million to the winner
The Derby

i think the one that grabs the nations attention the most is the Grand National
(deemed important enought o be sabotaged by terrorists)
The Ashes,when they are played,are hard to beat,but not annual
This year,Englands world cup games will dwarf anything else here

For The Netherlands it is the TT Assen, a motorrace (125cc, 250cc, MotoGP) annually held at the last saturday of june.

Too bad the thread title is "Your countries biggest annual sporting event?", Not "Your countries most popular sporting event that is ignored by the rest of the world

Or even "Your country's biggest sporting event"...

In France, choose the placing :

Cycling : Tour de France
http://www.csc.com/features/2004/images/tdf/Tdflogowhite.gif


Tennis : Internationaux de France in Roland Garros (French Open)
http://img.bleskovky.sk/23143.jpg/roland_garros_logo.jpg


Football : Finale de la Coupe de France (French Cup Final)
http://www.fff.fr/www/imgcommunes/chartv2/logocfra2.gif


Rugby : Finale du Championnat de France (French Championship Final)
http://www.lnr.fr/images/lnr_logo.gif

Tournoi des 6 Nations
http://www.ffr.fr/html/competitions/grands_evenements/tournois/VI_nations_2006/images/6nations_accueil.jpg


Car Races : F1 Grand Prix of France in Magny Cours
http://www.fia.com/resources/images/2147373574__f1i.gif

24h du Mans :
http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/262/24hdumans3rs.jpg


horse-riding : Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe
http://www.racingseries.com/images/lucien_barriere_logo.gif

Prix d'Amerique :
http://admin.marionnaud.com/visuels/site/pays/FR/wysiwyg/396/ChocTitans.jpg

I'm not really sure what it would be for the Uk (well, England), but probable contenders are:

Wimbledon
The FA Cup Final
6 Nations Rugby League (not really just a British event though)
Silverstone F1 Grand Prix
The Grand National (horse racing)
Championship play-off

Plus, as the Tour De France is actually the biggest annual sporting event in the world, and it will be starting off in London in 2007, then we could also include that as well :D

:cheers:

I'm not french but God I wish I was (sometimes!)

http://grahamwatson.com/dublin/lemond/images/image22.jpg

http://team.discovery.com/france2005/stagereport/gallery/stage11_h07.jpg

http://team.discovery.com/france2005/stagereport/gallery/stage15_h05.jpg

Or Italian!

http://www.sportingtours.co.uk/giro/images_06/dolomites.jpg

any annual sporting event that involves having to climb this MF is something to be write home about! Ladies n Gentlemen, the Passo de Stelvio in the Giro d'Italia (which, dare I say it, the Giro is topographically far more interesting than the Tour de France)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/Stelvio.jpg/800px-Stelvio.jpg

For Germany I would say one of the following:

DFB-Pokal Finale (german football cup final)
F1 Grand Prix of Europe on Nürburgring
F1 Grand Prix of Germany on Hockenheimring

For fear of contradiction, I'll define my interpretation of the question:

Your countries biggest annual sporting event?

where...
'Country' = the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
'Biggest' = most well-attended by paying customers (sorry, the marathon doesn't 'attract' 500,000 - if it's free, there is no implication of spectator involvement)
'Event' = single, distinct gathering at a specific venue for the duration of the competition (not necessarily a single day but if more than one day, defined as taking place over consecutive days). To me this rules out championships like the SPL/Ashes/6 Nations, but not necessarily the rounds therein.

1st Place: Badminton Horse Trials (4 days) Combined attendance 250,000
2nd Place: Burghley Horse Trials (4 days) Combined attendance 200,000
3rd place: British Grand Prix (3 days) Combined attendance 175,000
4th place: Old Trafford Test match (5 days) Potential combined attendance 150,000
5th place: Lord's Test match (5 days) Potential combined attendance 140,000
6th place: The Open Golf (4 days) Potential combined attendance 120,000

This is really difficult, though and it's no surprise that everyone has their own perception of the question. Candidates that do not make my top 6 are:

The FA Cup Final (90,000 at Wembley/74,000 at Cardiff)
Superbikes or Moto GP at Donington - attendance?
Any 6 nations match at Twickenham (75,000, rising to 82,000)
Any 6 nations match at Murrayfield (68,000)
Any home game involving Manchester United (67,500 rising to 76,400)
The Grand National at Aintree (upto 70,000)
The Epsom Derby (upto 100,000 on Derby Day?)
Cheltenham Gold Cup Day (upto 65,000)

Old Trafford (Cricket Ground)'s official capacity is 30,000; Lords' is 28,000. A maximum attendance at each requires a five-day test, sold out on each day. This is not at all common as it requires a finely balanced game, with a strong England performance and no possibility of rain/bad light delays. i.e. it is more a theoretical attendance figure than an actual one.

The Open takes place at a different venue each year, obviously varying factors such as crowd capacity and accessibility. With golf attendances less well-reported, the figure is more an average level of expectation from one year to the next.

There seems to be a strong horse theme going through this list...

For the U.S. itself, I'd say:

Going off of ratings and buzz
1.) Superbowl - Unchallenged
2.) Final Four - This may be the first year, the football game beats it in ratings in a long time
3.) Daytona 500 - Surpassed the Indy 500 in the 90s
4.) College Football National Championship - See Final Four. It should go back to normal without this year's star power and super showdown.
5.) Indy 500 - Fading quickly. Kentucky Derby is gaining on you with the quickness.

Nationaly, the Indy 500 simply isn't that big of a deal since the split. Yes, the onsite crowd is huge. The place is huge, but didn't the Brickyard 500 attendance actually beat the Indy 500 the last few years? The ratings are easily beaten by the weekly Nascar events.

Its a shame that the World Series has fallen so far from grace. It had horrible ratings the last few years.

Interestingly, locally in DFW, I'd say:

AFL Grand Final, Melbourne Cup, NRL Grand Final, Bathurst 1000, Clipsal 500. Any of them could be seen as Australia's biggest sporting event.

For fear of contradiction, I'll define my interpretation of the question:

Your countries biggest annual sporting event?

where...
'Country' = the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland
'Biggest' = most well-attended by paying customers (sorry, the marathon doesn't 'attract' 500,000 - if it's free, there is no implication of spectator involvement)
'Event' = single, distinct gathering at a specific venue for the duration of the competition (not necessarily a single day but if more than one day, defined as taking place over consecutive days). To me this rules out championships like the SPL/Ashes/6 Nations, but not necessarily the rounds therein.

1st Place: Badminton Horse Trials (4 days) Combined attendance 250,000
2nd Place: Burghley Horse Trials (4 days) Combined attendance 200,000
3rd place: British Grand Prix (3 days) Combined attendance 175,000
4th place: Old Trafford Test match (5 days) Potential combined attendance 150,000
5th place: Lord's Test match (5 days) Potential combined attendance 140,000
6th place: The Open Golf (4 days) Potential combined attendance 120,000

This is really difficult, though and it's no surprise that everyone has their own perception of the question. Candidates that do not make my top 6 are:

The FA Cup Final (90,000 at Wembley/74,000 at Cardiff)
Superbikes or Moto GP at Donington - attendance?
Any 6 nations match at Twickenham (75,000, rising to 82,000)
Any 6 nations match at Murrayfield (68,000)
Any home game involving Manchester United (67,500 rising to 76,400)
The Grand National at Aintree (upto 70,000)
The Epsom Derby (upto 100,000 on Derby Day?)
Cheltenham Gold Cup Day (upto 65,000)

Old Trafford (Cricket Ground)'s official capacity is 30,000; Lords' is 28,000. A maximum attendance at each requires a five-day test, sold out on each day. This is not at all common as it requires a finely balanced game, with a strong England performance and no possibility of rain/bad light delays. i.e. it is more a theoretical attendance figure than an actual one.

The Open takes place at a different venue each year, obviously varying factors such as crowd capacity and accessibility. With golf attendances less well-reported, the figure is more an average level of expectation from one year to the next.

There seems to be a strong horse theme going through this list...


Last years Football League play-offs were over 3 consecutive days 28-30 May 2005. With a combined attendance of 150,000 people.

Interesting to see you have included at least two 'potential' amounts in your list, which I don't think you should include. For example once the play-offs move back to the new Wembley you could have a potential figure of 270,000 (highly unlikely), beating everything you have listed.

Simple question to Bubomb, what is your problem with being continually over-shadowed by the English????

You should be used to it now.

For Australia (in no particular order) take your pick...

* Melbourne Cup Carnival - (horse racing) 400k over 4 days
* Australian F1 GP - Melbourne
* AFL Grand Final - Melbourne Cricket Ground (100k)
* Australian Open Tennis - Melbourne (450k over 2 weeks) worlds second most attended tournament
* Indy 500 - Gold coast
* NRL Grand Final - Telstra Stadium (85k - Sydney)

They all hold their own but the Melbourne Cup held on the first Tuesday in November is generally considered as the race that stops the nation.

Last years Football League play-offs were over 3 consecutive days 28-30 May 2005. With a combined attendance of 150,000 people.

Interesting to see you have included at least two 'potential' amounts in your list, which I don't think you should include. For example once the play-offs move back to the new Wembley you could have a potential figure of 270,000 (highly unlikely), beating everything you have listed.

I would classify the play-offs as not technically the same event, even though they happen on consecutive days because different teams participate on different days. That's why Wimbledon isn't in my list.

Interstingly, there's an Aussie post here since yours. I know it's been debated before but, using my 'Potential' logic, the MCG could attract 500,000. I agree it's not definitive, but equally, it could happen. To some extent, every event has only a potential. We assume but can't guarantee that the next Cup Final at Wembley will attract 90,000.

I think it's the TT Assen for Netherlands. We have some annual major sports events, but not really major. perhaps the Amsterdam or Rotterdam marathon or so.

Since we have a lot of similar threads why don't we post a picture of a well known major stadium that we DON'T like.

Estádio José Alvalade - the colours...urgh...

http://www.bolanaarea.com/est_euro2004-alvalade-3.jpg

http://www.bolanaarea.com/est_euro2004_lisboa%20alvalade.jpg

Estádio José Alvalade - the colours...urgh...

http://www.bolanaarea.com/est_euro2004-alvalade-3.jpg

http://www.bolanaarea.com/est_euro2004_lisboa%20alvalade.jpg

The colours aren't pretty but it is a fantastic stadium especially on match days.

http://www.mtf.pt/galeria/data/media/13/Pict0115.jpg

estadio azteca ... especially hate the team inside ... though i appreciate its history

http://www.luzonet.com/magazine/mag12/beststadiums_clip_image003.jpg


Texas A&M Aggies, Kyle Field
Also hate the team inside, and its an ongoing joke on the texas boards that it looks like a tackle box

http://football.ballparks.com/NCAA/Big12/TexasA&M/aerial.jpg

http://www.richmondauctionservice.ca/html/images/tackle-box.jpg

:puke:

http://www.htwm.de/skath/itasoc/images/Delle-Alpi.jpg

:puke:

http://www.htwm.de/skath/itasoc/images/Delle-Alpi.jpg

Which stadium are you refering to?

^^
The Delle Alpi Stadium in Turin, Italy

Subiaco Oval in Perth. Looks worse than a Fair ground and they play top level sport there.

BC Place, Vancouver-- Please don't judge beautiful Vancouver over their ugly stadium (which will hold the 2010 opening and closing cerimonies.) :bash: But it should be a great party anyway!

http://www.bcplacestadium.com/images/ani1.jpg

http://www.bcplacestadium.com/images/big_greycup99game.jpg

http://www.bcplacestadium.com/images/big_bcplace.jpg

http://img.buzznet.com/assets/users9/yrmom/greycup/large-msg-1133213878-2.jpg

:sleepy:

^^^^^^^^^^^

Is that Canadian gridiron being played in that stadium? Looks quite similar to American gridiron. The goals are up a bit by comparison while the rest looks the same.

I have to agree, the Texas A&M Aggies stadiujm is just one big hunk of crap, layered like a dam tool box!

I also think this is one of the ugliest stadiums in the world, the War Memorial stadium in the USA:

http://www.conigliofamily.com/images/WarMemorialStadium485w.jpg

http://img148.echo.cx/img148/3295/aa019lf.jpg
Well, I wouldn't mind Allianz Arena becoming the replacement of Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego!

Santiago Bernabeu in Madrid. I just think that the city deserves something better than that "structure." Well, at least the worse looking Vicente Calderon is likely to be imploded.

BC Place doesn't look that bad.

Is that Canadian gridiron being played in that stadium? Looks quite similar to American gridiron. The goals are up a bit by comparison while the rest looks the same.

I think other differences include a field that is 10 yards longer and canadian football has only 3 downs.

----
My pick:
The Gabba, Brisbane
http://bama.ua.edu/~cricket/Gabba.jpg
That photo is outdated, the gap is now filled with the big stand going full 360 around the field.

If your going to have a small cricket ground, at least give it some character. Likewise if you are going to have one continuous stand all the way around, at least make it big, intimidating and spectacular. And dont even get me started on the seat colours.
http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5094022,00.jpg
the seats ^^

The gabba fails on all accounts and makes for one rather ugly, heartless, and small stadium.

Well it was a toss up between reliant and allianz, but both have been taken. So I'll take this not-yet-completed beauty.

AZ Carinals Stadium, Arizona.
capacity 63,000
retractable roof
retractable turf

http://www.tlhocking.com/pics/TSA%20Multi-Purpose%20Facility%20-%20Cardinals'%20Stadium%20-%20Glendale.jpg
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/cardsstad901.jpg

I have to agree, the Texas A&M Aggies stadiujm is just one big hunk of crap, layered like a dam tool box!

I also think this is one of the ugliest stadiums in the world, the War Memorial stadium in the USA:

http://www.conigliofamily.com/images/WarMemorialStadium485w.jpg


Hmmm.. i dont think i've ever seen that stadium. Where is that? Is that the old Polo Grounds where the NY Giants (baseball) used to play in Brooklyn? If it is, that's a very historical stadium, but looks awful for baseball. Still, that stadium is VERY historic.

Is it the same park?
http://www.baseball-statistics.com/Ballparks/SF/polo.jpg

http://www.baseball-statistics.com/Ballparks/SF/danbury-polo.jpg

I'm pretty sure it doesnt exist anymore.

^ No, definately not the same. And the Polo Ground was in Manhattan, not Brooklyn

Estádio José Alvalade - the colours...urgh...

http://www.bolanaarea.com/est_euro2004-alvalade-3.jpg

http://www.bolanaarea.com/est_euro2004_lisboa%20alvalade.jpg
yeah i like de structure of da stadia de problem is realy the colours.. such a bad taste.
i would prefer it in white,green and brown, much more simple, clean and beautiful
i saw this way in the first project but probably mr Taveira ( arquitect ) didn´t like it. he is weel known for using lots of colours like in Leiria or Aveiro stadium. such an ashole, actualy he made porn videos that u can downolad anywhere on da web :crazy:

and it´s look like Brazil stadium not sporting..


p.s now u can understand why we (benfica fans) call it the "wc" :hilarious

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_business/images/news/amsterdam_arena_565.jpg

I'm getting sick of this UFO :gaah:

Top idea for a thread!

My nominee would be the 1996 Olumpic Stadium in Atlanta (pre-Turner Field)

http://www.castonecorp.com/images/portfolio_olympic_2.jpg

There aren't many pictures of it to be found in this guise but it truly was an eyesore during those games. As a baseball stadium, it looks as good as any other of its era, so it shows the danger of taking stadium versatility too far.

http://images.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.photofile.com/Photos/Albums/Stadiums/MLB/Images/Turner_Field.jpg

I also feel that to have what always looked like a baseball-stadium-in-waiting as an Olympic stadium kind of tainted the honour of hosting the games. Every other Olympic City I can think of still proudly uses the 'Olympic' name. In Atlanta, it was a shrine to Mr CNN's ego as soon as the flame went out.

Well the whole Atlanta games were a travesty and one giant scandal.

They never should have been awarded the games, and had the IOC known about record tampering in the US bid, they never would have been. (it very well could of have been my city if Atlanta hadnt lied its ar$e off)

I'm pretty sure that War Memorial Stadium took the wrecking ball sometime around 1990. Ought to look familiar to some people, though...

They put up an absolute gem for the new team, but for some reason, there are virtually no good pictures of the place. :dunno:

http://www.buffalo-news.com/images/random/pages/section/section_living_here/baseball_bg.jpg

In Sweden it must be Vasaloppet, held in the first sunday in March (today that is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasaloppet

Absolutely no question, the super bowl.


http://i.a.cnn.net/si/multimedia/photo_gallery/2006/02/06/gallery.super/fans.jpg

My pathetic hometown stadium, the Metroshithole.........

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/metro850.jpg

I know many people hate MSG.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/12/nyregion/12garden2_lg.jpg

Montreal Olympic stadium, eyesore would be generous........

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/olympi61.jpg

i still dont know where that War Memorial Stadium is/was in the US.

took me about 2 sec. to google it and find out ... :bash:

:jk:

took me about 2 sec. to google it and find out ... :bash:

:jk:

it's in Buffalo.





War Memorial Stadium ~ Home of the American Football League Buffalo Bills

^^ very clever, very very clever. its like that dome stadium they had for Korea/Japan

I would like to transplant the Telstra dome in Melbourne for the Kingmead cricket ground in Durban. because we luv our cricket here, & everytime we hav a major International, IT RAINS!!!!
Kingsmead Cricket ground
http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/8693/durbankingsmead5cd.jpg

Telstra Dome
http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/1345/telstra25ao.png

How about this EddyK??
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5823/reliantanfield2ko.jpg

C'mon u reds! U can do it! Beat sum Benfica ass on wed!!!
show them whos the champions of Europe!

My pathetic hometown stadium, the Metroshithole.........

http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/nfc/metro850.jpg

I've read this view about the Metrodome before and I have to say I'm intrigued. We have some great venues here now in the UK but it wasn't always like that. At 64,121, it's bigger than every Premiership ground except Old Trafford (it's even bigger than Arsenal's new ground) - and it's covered. Even now, only the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is comparable here.

I know it's over 20 years old now and may be showing its age in some ways but really, what's so wrong with it? I used to look at the 'domes' in the NFL (Seattle, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Houston, Atlanta, Pontiac, er, any more?) with real envy. At Minneapolis, there's even a seating orientation for baseball, so it's not as if it's not versatile, is it?

It seems that the age of the 'dome' has passed. Seattle, Houston and Detroit have moved out of theirs, Katrina has damaged the Superdome, possibly beyond repair and the Vikings have been planning to move for a couple of years now. As far as I know, only the Georgia Dome has a secure future. Why though?

Following on from the 'My Top 10 [stadia that you've ben in]' and because I'm a little bored, here's another idea for a thread: What are the top 10 stadia/venues you've been past, but not in (by capacity). Again, I'm using worldstadiums.com (http://www.worldstadiums.com) as my arbiter of capacity.

1. Daytona International Speedway, Daytona Beach, Fl. (capacity: 168,000)
[Holiday to Florida, 1991]

http://www.autoracing1.com/images/2001/nascar/daytona.jpg

2. Hockenheimring, Hockenheim, Germany (capacity: 120,000)
[Business trip to Germany, 2005]

http://www.jochenhertweck.com/pics/germany/various/hockenheimring3.JPG

3. Nou Camp, Barcelona, Spain (capacity: 98,934)
[Stag party to Barcelona, 2002]

http://ecoles.ac-rouen.fr/bernanos/images/wpe71610.jpg

4. New Wembley, London, UK (capacity: 90,000)
[Business trip to London, 2005]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v467/jonchoo/0c13e209.jpg

5. Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion, Moscow, Russia (capacity: 84,745)
[College exchange to Moscow, 1991]

http://foto.spbland.ru/data/media/12/lrg_msk_luzhniki.jpg

6. Croke Park, Dublin, Ireland (capacity: 82,500)
[Business trip to Dublin, 2001]

http://mishami.image.pbase.com/u41/pcronin/upload/34131124.NewHoganandCusackstands.jpg

7. Old Mile High Stadium, Denver, Co. (capacity: 80,270)
[Skiing holiday to Colorado, 1994]

http://www.skylinepictures.com/Denver16.jpg

8. Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (capacity: 69,901)
[Business trip to Germany, 2005]

http://www.smart-travel-germany.com/image-files/allianzarenafacade3_large.jpg

9. Lincoln Financial Field, Philadelphia, Pa. (capacity: 68,532)
[Flight to Las Vegas via Philadelphia, 2002]

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/PhiladelphiaEagles/newaerial.jpg

10. Texas Stadium, Irving, Tx. (capacity: 65,846)
[Flight back to NY from Denver, via DFW, 1994]

http://mall.ballparks.com/images/AV65.jpg

Man, we really are running out of new thread ideas eh? ;)

Why?:

1.) Weather in the US is great 90% of the time during the non-winter seasons. Lots of sunshine, with few rainy or snowy dates.
2.) US people like to be outside.
3.) the era of trying to 'out modern' the next guy was over in the 80s in the U.S. That includes domes. I think many that post here from outside the U.S. simply don't understand that. Any team in the NFL or MLB have the money to put any feature on a stadium they like. So now the emphasis is on TRUE originality, fitting surroundings and creature comforts. Its almost like the whole skyscraper thing. U.S. trophy scrapers are rarely built anymore. If a corporate campus will increase efficiency, productivity and creates a unique experience for possible workers, then that will be built 99% of the time.
4.) Most domes were almost cookie cutters of one another(see the point on originality)

The only reason you see domes or retractables anymore in the U.S. are because of a desire to host conventions, Final Four, Bowl games or the Superbowl because each require a certain climate no matter the time of year.

the delli alpi is horrible

the delli alpi is horrible half the seats must be covered in dust

Aami Stadium.

Aami Stadium.
http://www.subterfuge.com.au/images/AAMI%20Stadium%20Ariel.jpg

Why?:

1.) Weather in the US is great 90% of the time during the non-winter seasons. Lots of sunshine, with few rainy or snowy dates.
2.) US people like to be outside.
3.) the era of trying to 'out modern' the next guy was over in the 80s in the U.S. That includes domes. I think many that post here from outside the U.S. simply don't understand that. Any team in the NFL or MLB have the money to put any feature on a stadium they like. So now the emphasis is on TRUE originality, fitting surroundings and creature comforts. Its almost like the whole skyscraper thing. U.S. trophy scrapers are rarely built anymore. If a corporate campus will increase efficiency, productivity and creates a unique experience for possible workers, then that will be built 99% of the time.
4.) Most domes were almost cookie cutters of one another(see the point on originality)

The only reason you see domes or retractables anymore in the U.S. are because of a desire to host conventions, Final Four, Bowl games or the Superbowl because each require a certain climate no matter the time of year.

Shame about Busch in St Louis, I liked that one (although I never managed to visit it) It had that 50's space age look about it and it was always full in a good baseball city.

1.) Weather in the US is great 90% of the time during the non-winter seasons. Lots of sunshine, with few rainy or snowy dates.


Have you ever visited the heavily populated areas of North-East America? The weather is far from 'great' in places like Chicago!!

BC Place, Vancouver-- Please don't judge beautiful Vancouver over their ugly stadium (which will hold the 2010 opening and closing cerimonies.) :bash: But it should be a great party anyway!

http://www.bcplacestadium.com/images/ani1.jpg
:sleepy:

LOL! I remember one uncharitable media-type in Vancouver refer to BC
Place as a Marshmallow in Bondage!! However, it is covered, and that is
a blessing. Any uncovered stadium in Canada is just begging for problems
in the winter.


Re:title of thread, although 'stadium' comes from Latin (as the French
word does, too) I've never seen it reverted to Latin for plural use! Stadia!

Have you ever visited the heavily populated areas of North-East America? The weather is far from 'great' in places like Chicago!!

I wouldn't really consider Chicago to be part of the northeast...at all.

And 25 degrees with flurries IS great football weather here. There was a game in Chicago last year where the windchill was waaaay below zero. Stadium? Jam-packed.

The weather is just fine in Chicago and the Northeast during most of the football season and pretty much all of the baseball season. Most of the time its just cold. An English style roof can't stop the cold.

The Pontiac Silverdome

There is nothing more depressing than sitting inside a dome, it's a feeling that you can't get if you're not there. It's ugly, boring, and doesn't breed an atmosphere. People here in MN hate it and want to replace it, we're just to cheap (Minnesotans are true tightwads) to pay for 2 more stadiums. The outside atmosphere could be more like Lambeau in Green Bay, which is maybe the best in the NFL, football in 10 degree weather is great.... One other major problem is that it's SO HOT inside a dome, I almost overheat everytime I go to a game there. When I got to play a football game in the stadium I almost overheated in warmups........ Domes are horrible.....

There is nothing more depressing than sitting inside a dome, it's a feeling that you can't get if you're not there. It's ugly, boring, and doesn't breed an atmosphere. People here in MN hate it and want to replace it, we're just to cheap (Minnesotans are true tightwads) to pay for 2 more stadiums. The outside atmosphere could be more like Lambeau in Green Bay, which is maybe the best in the NFL, football in 10 degree weather is great.... One other major problem is that it's SO HOT inside a dome, I almost overheat everytime I go to a game there. When I got to play a football game in the stadium I almost overheated in warmups........ Domes are horrible.....

I disagree.
I love being inside a dome, much better than being outside.

Not depressing at all, i like it better at Telstra dome with the roof closed than with it open.

BTW, in America the stadiums that house both football and baseball are very ugly, you either have the lines on the baseball field or the dirt diamond on a football field, also, the seating capacities are far different for football and baseball, the average baseball stadium seats around 45-50 thousand, the average football stadium seats ATLEAST 65 thousand, and up to around 90 thousand. Baseball stadiums look terrible with too many seats, and an NFL team wouldn't tolerate a 50 thousand seat bandbox $$$$$$$

I disagree.
I love being inside a dome, much better than being outside.

Not depressing at all, i like it better at Telstra dome with the roof closed than with it open.

A fundamental difference from most Americans. The one dome that people seem to really love is Ford Field, and it has huge 'skylights' that make it seem more outdoors than your usual dome.

Stade Olympique
Montreal, QC, Canada

http://www-pub.naz.edu:9000/~jdittma2/images/inside%20stade%20olympique.jpg

Texas Stadium
Irving, TX, USA

http://mall.ballparks.com/images/AV65.jpg

Monster Park
San Francisco, CA, USA

http://www.johnnyroadtrip.com/cities/sanfrancisco/images/DBcandlestickinside.jpg

I wouldn't really consider Chicago to be part of the northeast...at all.

And 25 degrees with flurries IS great football weather here. There was a game in Chicago last year where the windchill was waaaay below zero. Stadium? Jam-packed.

I went to an American football game when I was in Chicago, and it was cold, wet and miserable (it was in the old Soldier Field). The stadium was almost full but I wasn't the only one wishing it had a roof!! Nobody was shouting - "Hey guys, look at me, i'm wet and cold, ain't I a hardass......YEEEE HAAAAHHH"

I actually left early as the game was so slow and seemed to last forever!! It simply wasn't much fun and in fact was totally shit. I found it bizarre that such a great city didn't have any kind of roof on it's main stadium and was so far behind even the older European stadiums when it came to stadium construction!!

Chicago was great though!

Don't care if that was your one time experience. There are 8 home games. The weather might suck for 2 of them at most. Most seasons you get a bunch of cold days. This year they got one snowy game and that was it.

Why didn't you ask some of their real fans why they don't build a dome?

Montreal Olympic stadium, eyesore would be generous........

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/olympi61.jpg

While it looks less than idea in terms of spectator views and was obviously vastly overpriced I certainly wouldnt call it ugly.

http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/glin/Trip_in_Canada/postcards/montreal/Olympic-stadium.jpg

^^ it looks quite nice from the outside, but the inside does look abit dodgy.
& wats that big tower for? does it just hold up the canvas roof? or does it serve another purpose?

Actually I take the side of some of the Americans here, the domes seem sort of stuffy and claustrophobic, as much as can be told from a photograph anyway. That said a small roof above the stands really would be much better, for me stadia seem naked without them, perhaps its a fundamental difference between European and American Stadia Attitudes, but I wouldn't attribute all this to weather, I imagine the weather in Spain and Italy is far better than most of America, yet most of their stadia are roofed.

Don't care if that was your one time experience. There are 8 home games. The weather might suck for 2 of them at most. Most seasons you get a bunch of cold days. This year they got one snowy game and that was it.

Why didn't you ask some of their real fans why they don't build a dome?

I wouldn't want a dome either, just a good stadium with a nice shiny new roof, or even a retractable like the Reliant (which is clearly the best stadium in the USA).

I'd say the perfect solution is the retractable dome. I am perfectly happy with the
Rogers Centre in Toronto- on a fine day they open the roof. On an inclement day
they close it. It takes 20 minutes to open or close it. (photo is not mine):

http://img488.imageshack.us/img488/4760/skydom019ju.jpg

Reliant is not clearly the best stadium in the USA. I'd say a few baseball and a couple of football stadiums are better. If you haven't been to a modern baseball stadium, they are incredible venues.

Europeans on this board seem pretty unaminous that it is, whereas I imagine the debate is less sterile amongst Americans. I suspect that this is due to it more closely resembling an Association Football, rather than American Football Stadium style stadia, so naturally the familiarity of it appeals to most Europeans, than ones which may be better but seem made for a more alien sport.

I wonder if this is recipricated in America, although Association Football is not quite perhaps as alien to Americans as American Football is to Europeans, I'd be interested in what Americans who aren't particularly fans of European Teams or of Soccer 0 which would obviously affect opinions - would class as the 'best' European Stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one which looked more American than others did.

I disagree.
I love being inside a dome, much better than being outside.

Not depressing at all, i like it better at Telstra dome with the roof closed than with it open.

I've just been to the Millennium Stadium (with roof closed) in Cardiff and I have to say that I was mightily impressed with it. Having said that, I can appreciate that this may indeed be due to its novelty value to me (and maybe that of Victory, too - the Telstra Dome isn't that old, either).

Having read the Americans' views, I'm sure the 80's Domes in the US do have their considerable downsides. Certainly, they're not outwardly as aesthetically pleasing as the MS in Cardiff, the TD in Melbourne, Reliant in Houston or Ford Field in Detroit - but then lots of things from the '80's looked a bit rubbish, so it's hardly surprising that some of the architecture did too.

Another distinction to make is that the Domes were just that. More recent covered stadia (see above) all now offer a retractable roof. The proposed replacement Vikings stadium (will it happen?) seems to have one too. Next to the flexibility of a roof that can be either closed or opened, I can see that Domes may look a bit, well, basic.

I wasn't decrying anyone's opinion when I asked the question, it's just that we've never gone through the whole rise-and-fall-of-Domes thing here (and probably never will, now). I suppose that, just as I was in awe of the Domes 10 or 15 years ago because I'd never been to an indoor stadium, it's possible that the reverse is true of a generation of NFL fans in those cities who want to sample an 'outdoor' game or better still, get the best of both worlds.

The closest approximation I can think of is the short-lived plastic pitch fad of QPR, Luton, Preston and Oldham in the 1980's. For a while, they were the shape of things to come, then they just became a source of ridicule.

I suppose the ultimate question is what will happen to them. The last time I saw the Houston Astrodome, it had 10,000 hurricane Katrina survivors in it - ironically, some of whom had been in the Louisiana Superdome! There's a stadium tour you wouldn't want!

I find beauty to just be skin deep when it comes to judging stadiums. I never did get what makes it ugly or what makes it best. Afterall, the function is still pretty much the same no matter how it looks. I know a number of stadiums that won't win a beauty contest, but still have very good qualities despite that. BTW, I tend to find building newer sports facilities that are better looking a cause to raising ticket prices from what they were originally.

When I went to the Olympic Stadium in Montreal, there were about 10,00 people there, a huge crowd for Montreal, it was a holiday. The stadium would shake whenever anyone made any noise, the PA system sounded so horrible that you couldn't even understand it. Also, about 2/3 of the stadium was closed and roped off, being the last year of Expos baseball, they had to save whatever money they could. If all of this weren't bad enough, the stadium is horribly ugly.

1.) Weather in the US is great 90% of the time during the non-winter seasons. Lots of sunshine, with few rainy or snowy dates..

Well, I'm sure Seattle, Minneapolis and Detroit have their fair share of rain and snow in the latter half of the NFL season. I always figured that Houston, Atlanta and New Orleans had the opposite problem and were countering humidity, particularly in the early season.

2.) US people like to be outside.

Don't we all? Given the climatic considerations above, I'd agree that you'd really want to be outside, though! Especially, when you consider that you're spending, what, three times as long in your seat as we do for Association Football. Two hours at Old Trafford (with 'conventional' roof) is plenty when the North wind's blowing in Manchester!

3.) the era of trying to 'out modern' the next guy was over in the 80s in the U.S. That includes domes. I think many that post here from outside the U.S. simply don't understand that. Any team in the NFL or MLB have the money to put any feature on a stadium they like. So now the emphasis is on TRUE originality, fitting surroundings and creature comforts. Its almost like the whole skyscraper thing. U.S. trophy scrapers are rarely built anymore. If a corporate campus will increase efficiency, productivity and creates a unique experience for possible workers, then that will be built 99% of the time..

This I can understand, actually. I'd imagine it's also why the newer capacities are large, but not ridiculously so at the expense of amenities, like with many College stadia. You have to ask why Ford Field is designed to look so good but 'only' offer 65,000 seats. It's obviously not worked out like that by accident. So the Lions lose upto 10,000 fans a game but the experience of seeing them is improved and the risk of empty seats is reduced. BTW, are ticket prices higher for Ford Field than the Silverdome? I'd expect so.

4.) Most domes were almost cookie cutters of one another(see the point on originality)

I guess that's true but maybe the bit that's difficult for you to understand is that despite all that, all but maybe the top 10 clubs (although not necessarily all their fans) in Europe would swap their limited gound for a Silverdome tomorrow. Just because a 75,000 dome is passé in the US doesn't make it a worthless enterprise everywhere else. What price originality, compared to function?

Europeans on this board seem pretty unaminous that it is, whereas I imagine the debate is less sterile amongst Americans. I suspect that this is due to it more closely resembling an Association Football, rather than American Football Stadium style stadia, so naturally the familiarity of it appeals to most Europeans, than ones which may be better but seem made for a more alien sport.

I wonder if this is recipricated in America, although Association Football is not quite perhaps as alien to Americans as American Football is to Europeans, I'd be interested in what Americans who aren't particularly fans of European Teams or of Soccer 0 which would obviously affect opinions - would class as the 'best' European Stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one which looked more American than others did.

We can test that out, how many americans like....

http://www001.upp.so-net.ne.jp/takebou/img_0215.jpg

I think that i like it, but I'd to see the whole stadium...........

This I can understand, actually. I'd imagine it's also why the newer capacities are large, but not ridiculously so at the expense of amenities, like with many College stadia. You have to ask why Ford Field is designed to look so good but 'only' offer 65,000 seats. It's obviously not worked out like that by accident. So the Lions lose upto 10,000 fans a game but the experience of seeing them is improved and the risk of empty seats is reduced. BTW, are ticket prices higher for Ford Field than the Silverdome? I'd expect so.

You're right on the nuts with that assessment. Yes, the Lions ticket prices are MUCH higher at Ford Field than at the Silverdome. My uncle who lives in the Detroit suburbs is a Lions fan and a regular at their games and who went to the super bowl in a luxury suite regularily has to pay a couple hundred bucks for decent seats. So financially it's a great move for the Lions to be at Ford Field. It is especially important to be able to sell out games if you're an NFL team because your game is blacked out on TV in the local market if it isn't sold out. Since the Lions are a HORRENDOUS team with a bad owner, it was somewhat of a challenge to avoid blackouts when the team was at the Silverdome.........

Domed stadiums are horrible.

Trust me, I lived only about 25 minutes from the Astrodome in Houston for many years and we went to a lot of games there.

First of all, no stadium can be the best at serving to purposes. For instance, a great football stadium will offer horrible sightlines for baseball and vice versa. This is one reason why domes didn't make sense. Many were made assuming there would be revenue from more than one sport or event. People found that watching a game played on a rectangular field in a dome that is round offered horrible sightlines and put you far away from the field. You had a better view sitting at home. Then, switch it over to baseball, and half the stands are practically useless because of the view.

Doesn't make any sense.

Secondly, for games that are traditionally played outside (football, baseball), domes really hamper the feeling of the game. Unlike a retractable roof (which usually has a large amount of glass to "bring the outside in," domes are usually completely shutoff from outside. It could be raining, snowing, 110 degrees, 0 degress, whatever, and you wouldn't know it. At first, this was viewed as a positive, but people quickly realized that being outdoors was part of what made the sport great.

Third, domes were built with the idea that no games would be cancelled due to inclement weather. While this is true, retractable roofs now solve that same problem, but they still bring the feeling of the outdoors on good weather days when the roof is open. Since the weather is usually good enough to have the roof open, then why build a dome that shuts out good weather most of the time, to save for the bad weather every once in a while?

Most domes were also dingy, very cold or very hot, and were too expensive for their own good. Some domed stadiums went to a fabric-like roof that gave the impression of a sky and could be lit with natural light. This helped, along with the fact that the fabric was usually cheaper than a concrete structure in the same spot.

Not to mention, domes were not very flexible. You could not expand the seating in a domed stadium unless you simply crammed in more seats to the existing areas OR unless you made major, major (and costly) renovations to the roof. Other stadiums, including retractable roof stadiums, that have 4 major load bearing points (like Reliant Stadium in Houston) can be adjusted if needed.

Those are just a couple of reasons I can think of.

Europeans on this board seem pretty unaminous that it is, whereas I imagine the debate is less sterile amongst Americans. I suspect that this is due to it more closely resembling an Association Football, rather than American Football Stadium style stadia, so naturally the familiarity of it appeals to most Europeans, than ones which may be better but seem made for a more alien sport.

I wonder if this is recipricated in America, although Association Football is not quite perhaps as alien to Americans as American Football is to Europeans, I'd be interested in what Americans who aren't particularly fans of European Teams or of Soccer 0 which would obviously affect opinions - would class as the 'best' European Stadium. I wouldn't be surprised if it was one which looked more American than others did.

Excellent post. I like to put stadiums into two categories. Great overall stadiums, and the BEST. The great ones are just great stadiums(technology, innovation, aesthetics) no matter the sport. I'd put Wembley, Telstra Stadium, Reliant, Soldier Field, American Airlines Center and Da Luz type stadiums there. The BEST are great stadiums also, but have that certain 'perfect design' for their respective sport, as well as a great fit for what environment they thrive in. Bernabeu, Allianz, Qwest Field, Paul Brown Stadium, M&T Bank, Safeco Field, SBC Park, PNC Park. Its the whole Conseco Fieldhouse vs American Airlines Center argument. The American Airlines Center remains the most expensive, and pinnacle of arena design in the world. An absolute palace of an arena. But that's just it, I love my hometown venue, but its a hockey/basketball arena, which suffers the lowest tier layout. So its not the greatest, but great for hockey, and not the greatest but great for basketball. Conseco on the other hand, is absolute basketball perfection. It sacrificed hockey functionality(Makes the AAC overal better), but for basketball, Conseco is the ideal, which is why I'd put it a notch above the AAC.

I would say Old Trafford, Bernabeu and Allianz are the best for what they are built for in Europe. You could play American Football at these stadiums, but they ARE what I think of when I think of soccer stadiums for their respective nations. Tight to the pitch stands. Steeper grades. If Dallas was going to build a large soccer stadium from scratch, I would hope Bernabeu was the design inside with the flashy exterior of Allianz. Because of the newness and modern features along with the pure soccer design, I'd say Allianz is the best in Europe. I know there are retractable roofs and retractable fields, and that is great and all, but isn't everything in stadium design if the rest of the stadium isn't perfect for what it's built for. IMHO, Reliant would probably probably be the best in Europe if it were there. Just from reading, it seems Reliant has everything that is wanted by folks here. On the other hand, something about it is missing for an American football stadium. The stadium itself is great, just lacks that something that puts it over the top like I mention in the previous paragraph.

I love Da Luz and Emirates too, but I would rather that the new Cowboys Stadium resemble a combination of the two. The roof of Da Luz and the stadium and exterior of Emirates done in blue. Of course, I'd like no roof, but Jerry wants the Superbowl and Final Four. Guess everyone will be protected during that 1 or 2 games of rain or mist. But this again is what I'm talking about. Excellent, world class stadiums. Just missing those details that an Old Trafford has to the eye of the discriminating soccer stadium junkie. Before people jump on me, read your own threads on Emirates. A lot of what I say is echoed.

It is especially important to be able to sell out games if you're an NFL team because your game is blacked out on TV in the local market if it isn't sold out. Since the Lions are a HORRENDOUS team with a bad owner, it was somewhat of a challenge to avoid blackouts when the team was at the Silverdome.........

Interesting! So, if you don't sell out, you don't get Live TV coverage, presumably:

a) to avoid the NFL's brand being damaged by images of lots of empty seats being beamed in to millions of TV fans' homes

b) to ensure franchise owners can't blame the TV compaies for ticket sales having been affected by TV coverage.

If we had that rule in the Premiership, only Manchester United and Newcastle would be safe. Arsenal would be okay this season but the jury would be out on them next season! Even Chelsea and Liverpool would not be immune to 'blackouts'...

Interesting! So, if you don't sell out, you don't get Live TV coverage, presumably:

a) to avoid the NFL's brand being damaged by images of lots of empty seats being beamed in to millions of TV fans' homes

b) to ensure franchise owners can't blame the TV compaies for ticket sales having been affected by TV coverage.

If we had that rule in the Premiership, only Manchester United and Newcastle would be safe. Arsenal would be okay this season but the jury would be out on them next season! Even Chelsea and Liverpool would not be immune to 'blackouts'...

Kind of. Its blacked out in the local markets. Fans of teams that traveled to a non-sold-out venue shouldnt have to suffer for the ineptness of the team they're playing.

Yes, some teams block-out sections of their stadiums in order to avoid local TV blackouts (The Carolina Panthers or Jacksonville Jaguars do this i think), but the limit is around 65K for the blackout to be avoided. Theory is, that locals are more likely to watch on TV than spend $$$ going to the stadium.

I haven't seen a home Arizona Cardinals game since i've been in Phoenix (6 years), and the radius for a blackout is 60 miles, IIRC.

EADGBE- The thing is, only 3 of the NFL's 32 teams don't sell out all of their games, that number will probably go down next year to 1 or 2. Really, it's a dumb rule for the NFL, because you lose more money and interest with every game not on TV, it serves no purpose..... Besides, no one goes to games because they can't see them on TV........

The 3 biggest classic facades in the UK were Ibrox, Villa Park and Highbury. Now that Villa Park has been destroyed and Highbury about to go, that just leaves Ibrox. Craven Cottage also has a nice facade on their stadium. Let's see some pics of classic facades on stadiums -


Ibrox (Rangers) -

http://img455.imageshack.us/img455/4502/ig9h078fn.jpg


Craven Cottage (Fulham) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/england/craven_cottage/300.jpg


Renato dall'Ara (FC Bologna 1909)

http://siesta.cool.ne.jp/RenatoDallAra/appearance01.jpg

http://www.bet-tip.com/stadiums/bolognia.gif


Olimpiyskiy stadion Luzhniki (Spartak Moskva) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/russland/luzhniki/130.jpg


Olympiastadion (Hertha Berlin) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/hertha_bsc_berlin/images/aussen_11.jpg


Vassil Levski (Bulgarian National Stadium) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/bulgarien/vassil_levski/180.jpg


Atleti Azzurri d´Italia (Atalanta Bergamo)

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/atleti_azzurri_ditalia/140.jpg


Olímpic de Montjuïc (Espanyol) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/spanien/montjuic/270.jpg


Stockholms Stadion (FC Café Opera) -

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/schweden/stockholms_stadion/240.jpg


Arena Civica (Brera FC)

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/arena_civica/160.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/italien/arena_civica/150.jpg

Besiktas Inonu Stadium (before expansion)

http://home.wanadoo.nl/v.r.l.ruzette/turkey/pics/besik.jpg http://home.wanadoo.nl/v.r.l.ruzette/turkey/pics/besiktasniewu.jpg

Het Kasteel (The Castle), stadium of Sparta Rotterdam:

http://www.sparta-rotterdam.nl/images/multimedia/wallpapers/kasteel.jpg

http://www.rotterdammers.nl/kunst/afbeeldingen/Kasteel01.jpg

Bubomb didn't you post something simillar to this some time ago, or are you just wanting to distance yourself from the moderator thread by showing you do post meaningful threads?:)

Bubomb didn't you post something simillar to this some time ago, or are you just wanting to distance yourself from the moderator thread by showing you do post meaningful threads?:)

No, I didn't.

and now you are taking this thread off-topic! I ain't scared of no moderator.....soon I may be one......and then the world :bow:

^^ Meant to be a compliment

^^ Meant to be a compliment

I know....Sorry, I stubbed my toe on a chair and took it out on you. Sorry about that.

Ibrox is a mediocre British stadium. And a decade ago you struggled to get 30,000. Don't bother to develop eh.......not that you can afford it :rofl:

Ibrox is a mediocre British stadium. And a decade ago you struggled to get 30,000. Don't bother to develop eh.......not that you can afford it :rofl:

Oh my God! We have another moron!! Where are these people coming from? A decade ago Rangers were going through their 9 in a row spell, and every game was sold out. 20 years ago Rangers were getting 30000 crowds, not 10 years ago.

http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/archive/avesco.htm

Average British stadium?? Aye right!! It's obviously one of the best British club stadiums, possibly the best British club stadium (I don't think it is the best, but many do). Riverside stadium is an 'average' British stadium. (and Ibrox IS getting developed in the summer!!)

This twat is obviously a trouble maker, and is almost certainly not a 'new' poster ('Mac' perhaps?). He is attacking every one of my posts and is clearly out to provoke an argument. I will ignore him from now on so that he doesn't ruin this thread.


I like this facade -

http://www.sparta-rotterdam.nl/images/multimedia/wallpapers/kasteel.jpg


Are 'Sparta Rotterdam' Rotterdam's 2nd club? and what is the future for this stadium? as it's a lovely little stadium.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/eneco_stadion/100.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/eneco_stadion/130.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/eneco_stadion/190.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/niederlande/eneco_stadion/200.jpg

Buckeye stadium -

http://www.qscara.com/fotos/ohio/buckeyeStadium.jpg

And, of course, they don't get more 'classic' than the Roman Colliseum.

And, of course, they don't get more 'classic' than the Roman Colliseum.

The Roman Coliseum was very overrated. It didn't have a roof and the toilets and facilities were shocking!!

The Roman Coliseum was very overrated. It didn't have a roof and the toilets and facilities were shocking!!

My God, i'm wrong, it actually had a RETRACTABLE ROOF!!!

http://www.coasterville.com/Italia/ItalyPage6.htm

As a kid I was a Lego fanatic, and so I was delighted to find some Lego stadiums. Please post any pics you have of Lego Stadiums.


Lego Allianz Arena -

http://www.cat-zentrum.de/production/bilder/allianz_arena/lego/allianz_arena__lego__00.jpg

http://www.legoland.bubm.de/events/AA/pu_arenarosa.jpg

http://www.legoland.bubm.de/events/AA/pu_2005-06-09%20223525-nochroter.jpg

http://www.legoland.bubm.de/events/AA/parkplatzhoch.jpg

http://www.legoland.bubm.de/events/Arena/05Innenansicht%20bei%20Nacht.jpg

http://www.legoland.bubm.de/events/AA/Arena%20Innen%20mit%20Rauch.JPG

http://www.legoland.bubm.de/events/AA/Arena%20gesamt%20von%20oben%20quer.JPG

http://www.christophundgabi.de/bilder/coaster/lego05-7.jpg

http://clabedan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/allianz_arena2.jpg


Lego Buckeye Stadium -

http://buckeyefootball.homestead.com/pic00491__2_.jpg

http://buckeyefootball.homestead.com/pic19895.jpg

http://buckeyefootball.homestead.com/pic11942.jpg

http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/osu/graphics/wallpaper2/osu-stadium-640.jpg


Lego Old Wembley -

http://www.adzstock.com/Upload/Stock/Previews/8397.jpg

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/c/c9/275px-Oldwembley.jpg


Lego Parken -

http://www.bergsby.com/taani/legoland/DSCN2373.JPG

http://www.tansei.net/shisetsu/lego2/21-b.jpg

http://www.tansei.net/shisetsu/lego2/23-b.jpg

http://www.tansei.net/shisetsu/lego2/22-b.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/DAN/Parken_A.jpg


Lego Fritz Walter Stadion -

http://static.flickr.com/23/26087677_294ca789ea.jpg

http://ariya.pandu.org/gallery/lego/stadion3.jpg

http://ariya.pandu.org/gallery/lego/stadion1.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/21/26088150_db504605e8.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/21/26087954_344198e26a.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/21/26088040_d85258a0c2.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/23/26088211_0614513055.jpg

http://www.1fck.de/albums/stadionbilder/CIMG0855.jpg

http://www.1fck.de/albums/stadionbilder/CIMG0854.sized.jpg

http://www.1fck.de/albums/album212/IMG_1650.sized.jpg

Fantastic stuff.

They need to create a real-life "Lego" in construction and you could knock up a decent stadium in 6 months.

_O_

The Roman Coliseum was very overrated. It didn't have a roof and the toilets and facilities were shocking!!

:cheers: very good one, mate :cheers:


Btw; Sparta is indeed Rotterdam's second club, the stadium has been renovated and expanded a couple of years ago.

Some more pics:

http://www.itwm.nl/admin/popups/files/tn_sfeeractie%20kasteeltribune.jpg

http://www.groundhopping.de/sparogr1.jpg

Are 'Sparta Rotterdam' Rotterdam's 2nd club? and what is the future for this stadium? as it's a lovely little stadium.


Although Sparta fans consider their club to be "the club of Rotterdam" they are generally considered to be the second club of the city after Feyenoord. Sparta was founded in 1888 which makes them the oldest remaining professional football club in The Netherlands. Feyenoord wasn't founded until 1908. The third professional club in Rotterdam is Excelsior founded in 1902. Sparta fans call it "the whore of Rotterdam". In order to survive Excelsior basically became a "colony" of Feyenoord although it looks like its slowly gaining "independence" again. Excelsior are currently leaders in the Dutch first division so there's a good chance we'll see three teams from Rotterdam in the topflight next year (that is if Sparta can avoid relegation). I hope this doesn't happen though, Excelsior is one of the smallest professional teams in The Netherlands. A few years back they averaged a crowd of about 2000 in the topflight...

The future for Sparta's stadium seems bright. About 10 years ago there were plans for a new shared stadium with Excelsior. This didn't go ahead so both stadiums got renovated. Sparta's stadium only kept its facade while the pitch was rotaded 90% and everything else was built new from scratch. It has a capacity of 11.000 which is perfect for a team like Sparta. Apparently they can't expand it because of the height limit in the area the stadium is located. This area, known as Spangen, is one of Rotterdam poorest and most criminal neighbourhoods. Sparta on the other hand is originally the club of the elite and still one of the most "classy" clubs in the country whereas Feyenoord is the club of the working class.

Although Sparta and Ajax fans consider their club to be "the club of Rotterdam" they are generally considered to be the second club of the city after Feyenoord. Sparta was founded in 1888 which makes them the oldest remaining professional football club in The Netherlands. Feyenoord wasn't founded until 1908. The third professional club in Rotterdam is Excelsior founded in 1902. Sparta fans call it "the whore of Rotterdam". In order to survive Excelsior basically became a "colony" of Feyenoord although it looks like its slowly gaining "independence" again. Excelsior are currently leaders in the Dutch first division so there's a good chance we'll see three teams from Rotterdam in the topflight next year (that is if Sparta can avoid relegation). I hope this doesn't happen though, Excelsior is one of the smallest professional teams in The Netherlands. A few years back they averaged a crowd of about 2000 in the topflight...

The future for Sparta's stadium seems bright. About 10 years ago there were plans for a new shared stadium with Excelsior. This didn't go ahead so both stadiums got renovated. Sparta's stadium only kept its facade while the pitch was rotaded 90% and everything else was built new from scratch. It has a capacity of 11.000 which is perfect for a team like Sparta. Apparently they can't expand it because of the height limit in the area the stadium is located. This area, known as Spangen, is one of Rotterdam poorest and most criminal neighbourhoods. Sparta on the other hand is originally the club of the elite and still one of the most "classy" clubs in the country whereas Feyenoord is the club of the working class.

:)

And Excelsior sucks.

Ah, man! I used to love building Lego stadia. Makes me wanna go out and buy a load of buckets of the stuff. However, I'm 23 and would probably get my head kicked in.

Fantastic stuff.

They need to create a real-life "Lego" in construction and you could knock up a decent stadium in 6 months.

I think that's how they built the ones in Southampton and Leicester.

Lego's are awesome. I used to play with them forever. Those pics are really cool too. I'm gonna see if I can find some too.

How do you get a job there? :O

I think I just came! :D

man lego was my life when i was small, I had an airport set, firestation & a police station! I really wanted the space rocket one, but my dad kept on telling me I was too old to play with that stuff, I was 13 @ the age, maybe I was. these pics make me wanna go play with my lego @ home!

Here's a different sort of "stadium" made out of Lego Brand bricks. It's the Abston Church of Christ (http://www.amyhughes.org/lego/church/index.html) built by Amy Hughes. (click the link (http://www.amyhughes.org/lego/church/index.html) for more pictures and details.

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b221/billybtall/church019.jpg

http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b221/billybtall/church099.jpg

Fantastic stuff.

They need to create a real-life "Lego" in construction and you could knock up a decent stadium in 6 months.

http://www001.upp.so-net.ne.jp/takebou/img_0229.jpg

:laugh:

This will probably only concern 1 club cities/towns, because clubs like Man u and Liverpool or the big London Clubs will all have many more fans outside their local catchment area/demographic visiting the stadium on matchday

Middlesbrough 1:4.8
Population: 135 000
Av attendance 28 000

http://www.icdev.co.uk/expats/desktops/teesside/riversidestadium1280.jpg

Newcastle 1:4.9
Population: 259 000
Av attendance 52 000

http://www.swarland.northumberland.sch.uk/Pictures/St_James_Park_-_Trainer.jpg

Blackburn 1:6.85
Population: 137 000
Av attendance 20 000

http://www.groundhopping.de/blackbg3.jpg

Sunderland 1:8.4
Population: 280 000
Av attendance 33 000

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/sunderl32.jpg

Portsmouth 1:9.7
Population 186 000
Av attendance 19 000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39184000/jpg/_39184189_pompey.jpg

Bolton 1 :10.44
Population 261 000
Av attendance 25 000

http://www.soccerstadiums.homestead.com/files/bolton3.jpg

a cursory glance at the championship suggests that Norwich have a very good ratio also 1:5
hmm...I wonder what the continental ratios are, especially Holland, Germany and Spain??

Blackburn 1:6.85
Population: 137 000
Av attendance 20 000

http://www.goalstorm.com/images/venues/eng/birmingham_city.jpg


Blackburn fans are going to love the picture of Birmingham City's ground :)

OMG!!! Those are amazing!

I was reading the thread on Canadian Arenas (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=125952&page=4) in which the topic had shifted to the relative differences in the density of NFL teams to European football teams in comparison to the populace. I wondered then about starting a thread along this line. Was this inspired by that?

Of course, the premise, while workably sound is still fairly flawed if it is interpreted as simplistically as it is presented. Lots of out-of-towners make up the crowds at these grounds. I have friends in Wigan who are regular Blackburn fans and in South Shields who are Newcastle and Sunderland fans. Don't forget also the proportion of away fans that make up these average attendances.

While I believe the relative positions of these towns/cities are fairly reflected (the more precise point being "Towns with an immediate population of x can sustain a team with an average following of y" - assuming they all have an similar proportion of out-of-town support), the actual numbers are perhaps misleading. It's difficult to assert that almost 20% of the inhabitants of Middlesbrough are inside the Riverside on matchdays.

Of course, I'm not decrying the exercise and I think it's very interesting to see the comparison (arbitrary as it is).

What I'd find interesting is the comparison of say England with several states in the USA - say Texas, Forida and New York State. What is the total sports-watching market as a proportion of the total population? What about the Australian states? Would they win the award for the most sport-mad country??

The problem is, in America baseball, basketball, and even hockey are very popular also in some cities. Where as in England, soccer doesn't have much competition. So of course soccer teams will have higher attendance ratios. Think about it like this, the walmart in smallville, pop. 5,000 has no competition and draws 1,000 customers per day. Where as the Wal-mart in Cityville pop. 20,000 draws 3,000 customers per day, but there is also a a K-mart and target in town. Which is more impressive??? They're the same.......

one thing i was wondering about attendances in US stadia is why do so many people watch college games? i mean 100,000 people surely don,t study say at the university of california do they. so who else bothers to watch them. It puzzles me cos in the UK no one bothers to watch our uni football team, because goin to a professional game is so much better, even a team in the lowest league ( 5 divsons down)is more entertaining, and has better quality football. Do the people that play in the college games actually go to the University? Also if they are so good to entertain that many people, why dont they play professionally?

They do go to the university, but they have higher blood alcohol levels than they do GPAs :) The reason they don't play professionally is because they aren't old enough. To play in the NFL you have to be two years of high school. Teams wouldn't sign underage players anyways, because they aren't big, or good enough, and they don't have a deep enough understanding of the game. Many college players do go on to play professionally after a few years of college.
The reason so many people go to the games is because college sports are at a very high level of play, second only to the pros, and because going to college games is very entertaining and VERY deep in tradition. For example the University of Alabama's football team not only represents the university, but also the entire state/city. Besides, half of the reason we go to games is to have fun, and nothing is more fun than a college atmosphere.
BTW, have you ever heard of March Madness???

Ahh Cheers. Nope never heard of March Madness, Whats it involve, is it anywhere near New York cos im goin there in 2 weeks?

Also back on topic, how do you work out the ratio of population to average attendance? I support Wigan Athletic and this season we are averaging 21,000 compared to 11,000 last season, yet are still getting slagged off for our relatively low attendances for the premiership. Howwever the population of wigan itself is only 93,000, with 300000 in the borough. But, with teams like Man united and Liverpool 20 miles away most of our populatio prefers to supporet them, unfortunately. Still i reckon we have a relatively high ratio now out of just the towns populace.

Ahh Cheers. Nope never heard of March Madness, Whats it involve, is it anywhere near New York cos im goin there in 2 weeks?

There are 6 rounds in the NCAA tournament AKA March Madness. They hold a single elimination tournament with 64 teams. The first two rounds are held in these venues and they will be played this weekend:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=326829

The 3rd and 4th rounds will be played in Oakland Cali., Atlanta Georgia, Washington DC, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. Those games will be in two weeks. The semi finals and finals are known as the "final four" since only 4 out of 64 teams are left, that will be held at the RCA Dome in INdianapolis, Indiana. I dont think anything related to march madness is held in New York at the time you will be there, but there will be plenty of people talking about it.

Out of 330 schools, heres the 64 that qualified:
http://www.ncaasports.com/basketball/mens/brackets/viewable/2006

College athletics are fun, thats basically it. Because of age limits in the NBA and NFL, college basketball and football attract the best athletes that come out of high school, so the quality of play is very high. Also, students know how to have a good time, sometimes the stuffy old farts that can afford good tickets at professional games dont want to get up and cheer. At college, students gets free tickets and theyre usually good seats, and they a little more willing to act like idiots on national TV.

Also, to post on topic, I think some of the big College football stadiums are in some fairly small towns, some of the big ones are Kyle Field in College Station, Texas. Kyle Field holds 82,600 people and the town has a population of 81,699. Bryant Denny Stadium in tuscaloosa Alabama holds 83,818 while the population of Tuscaloosa is 79,294. But the real shocker is Beaver Stadium where Penn State plays, the town of State College, PA only has 38,420 residents but Beaver stadium has a capacity of 107,282!

PS: 1 of the images is 17.2mb !!!!! we with ADSL which capped for 3gigs dont like big pics!

In terms of overall, it's clearly Scotland that have the highest league ratio with an average top division attendance of 16355 for a population of 5 million.

In terms of clubs, two I know that have very high ratios are Lens with an average of 32921 in a town of 35000, and Ross County with an average of 2295 in a town of 5500. Of course most these club comparisons are useless as you have to take into account the catchment area as well as the city/town population. Credit must go to Ross County though, as they have no catchment area, so on matchday literally half the town is at the game!!

Leksand 1.14:1
Population: 5 720
Av attendance 6 500

:)

The problem is, in America baseball, basketball, and even hockey are very popular also in some cities. Where as in England, soccer doesn't have much competition. So of course soccer teams will have higher attendance ratios. Think about it like this, the walmart in smallville, pop. 5,000 has no competition and draws 1,000 customers per day. Where as the Wal-mart in Cityville pop. 20,000 draws 3,000 customers per day, but there is also a a K-mart and target in town. Which is more impressive??? They're the same.......


sorry,i don't agree with you there.This would only be the case of the differant sports were played at the same time.Baseball is a summer sport,while the rest are mainly winter,plus,i'm sure that a new York jets/giants fan,cold also support the Mets/yankees,Rangers,Knicks

The US college system can only be admired.
I think its far better than the european system of lower leagues where lots of teams fight for promotion which they cant sustain anyway.

In the US colleges are the equivalent of lower league teams (with a very narrow top league) and they have their own competitions, where they dont have to compete financially with the pro teams.
They may be amateur but they train much like pro´s, I think, or in fact they train far better than most euro pro´s.

Big colleges get their 80,000 crowds and tv deals but cant pay players. This means there is lots of money to have first class practice facilities to attract players and no doubt lots of good coaches and as the players live at the university there is time for lots of practice.

Compare that to european or perhaps especially british lower league teams. Most money there goes to salaries to keep teams pro, leaving little cash for anything else such as quality training facilities, specialist coaches etc.
In scotland I think even most top league teams struggle to find a decent pitch to train on, yet have full time players.
That would be unthinkable for most colleges, many of which have facilities on par with the very top european pro teams because they dont have to waste money as they cant attract players by offering high salaries.

interesting thread..., I think it depends on several factors.. the popularity of the football club, the largeness of the cities`surrondings and on the administrative circumstances...
to examples in Germany.. both clubs are popular in their regions..
1. Kaiserslautern, pop: 100,000 - average attendances: 36,000 (2005) - ratio: 1:2,8 - huge rural surrondings
http://stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/1_fc_kaiserslautern/images/luft_01.jpg

http://stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/1_fc_kaiserslautern/images/luft_04.jpg

2. Schalke04, City: Gelsenkirchen, pop: 275,000 - average attendances: 61,000 (always) - ratio: 1:4,5 - located in the middle of the Ruhr Valley
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_fans/templates/fanfotos_fussball/deutschland/fc_schalke_04/saison20052006/cl_4/140.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_fans/templates/fanfotos_fussball/deutschland/fc_schalke_04/saison20052006/cl_4/150.jpg
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_fans/templates/fanfotos_fussball/deutschland/fc_schalke_04/saison20052006/cl_4/160.jpg

source of pictures: stadionwelt.de

Blackburn fans are going to love the picture of Birmingham City's ground :)

ooops! well spotted; can't trust anything on google these days!

The problem is, in America baseball, basketball, and even hockey are very popular also in some cities. Where as in England, soccer doesn't have much competition. So of course soccer teams will have higher attendance ratios. Think about it like this, the walmart in smallville, pop. 5,000 has no competition and draws 1,000 customers per day. Where as the Wal-mart in Cityville pop. 20,000 draws 3,000 customers per day, but there is also a a K-mart and target in town. Which is more impressive??? They're the same.......

No, the Wal-mart in Cityville is doing better. Compared to Smallville, Cityville is four times bigger, and so should get 4x1000 customers = 4000 customers. But is also has 2 big rivals and so that 4000 would be split into 3 leaving 1333 customers per store in Cityville. So 1333 would be the expected daily customers in Cityville comared to Smallvile. 3000 customers per day in Cityville means the Cityville Wal-mart is performing 2.25 times better (3000/1333) than the Smallville Wal-mart.


.....I need to get out more!

No, the Wal-mart in Cityville is doing better. Compared to Smallville, Cityville is four times bigger, and so should get 4x1000 customers = 4000 customers. But is also has 2 big rivals and so that 4000 would be split into 3 leaving 1333 customers per store in Cityville. So 1333 would be the expected daily customers in Cityville comared to Smallvile. 3000 customers per day in Cityville means the Cityville Wal-mart is performing 2.25 times better (3000/1333) than the Smallville Wal-mart.


.....I need to get out more!

No way, we need you to moderate this forum ;)

I was reading the thread on Canadian Arenas (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=125952&page=4) in which the topic had shifted to the relative differences in the density of NFL teams to European football teams in comparison to the populace. I wondered then about starting a thread along this line. Was this inspired by that?

Of course, the premise, while workably sound is still fairly flawed if it is interpreted as simplistically as it is presented. Lots of out-of-towners make up the crowds at these grounds. I have friends in Wigan who are regular Blackburn fans and in South Shields who are Newcastle and Sunderland fans. Don't forget also the proportion of away fans that make up these average attendances.

While I believe the relative positions of these towns/cities are fairly reflected (the more precise point being "Towns with an immediate population of x can sustain a team with an average following of y" - assuming they all have an similar proportion of out-of-town support), the actual numbers are perhaps misleading. It's difficult to assert that almost 20% of the inhabitants of Middlesbrough are inside the Riverside on matchdays.

Of course, I'm not decrying the exercise and I think it's very interesting to see the comparison (arbitrary as it is).

What I'd find interesting is the comparison of say England with several states in the USA - say Texas, Forida and New York State. What is the total sports-watching market as a proportion of the total population? What about the Australian states? Would they win the award for the most sport-mad country??

I take your point(s). I guess thinking about Newcastle prompted this thread. They always seem to get a full house thats one fifth of their population. I thought about the surrounding areas but these would all be strictly demarcated by other clubs - Sunderland, Middlebrough. Though, as I'm from London I can only generalise (crudely) so am not familiar with South Shields or other areas. Though it must be easier to determine than say the ratio of Arsenal or Spurs fans to the population of North London

^^I don't think anyone can calculate anything with London and then compare it to other cities/towns as London is the only city with so many professional clubs. You certainly can't just use North London as Arsenal and Spurs are a LONDON club and have fans from all over London.

This is obvious, as much as it would be equally impossible for Man u or Liverpool

Out of curiousity I looked at England's Hosting of Euro 1996 in Wikipedia, and was quite surprised under the stadia section to be reminded that these were the capacities (at least three of those stadia were in a very bad condition as well.

Wembley Stadium, London - Capacity: 80,000
Elland Road, Leeds - Capacity: 43,000
Old Trafford, Manchester - Capacity: 43,000
Hillsborough, Sheffield - Capacity: 41,000
Villa Park, Birmingham - Capacity: 40,000
Anfield, Liverpool - Capacity: 40,000
St James' Park, Newcastle - Capacity 32,000
City Ground, Nottingham - Capacity: 30,000

More impressive than Austria and Switzerland's Bid, but a bit embarassing. At the end of the year a similar bid however, would consist of, using the same criteria:

Wembley Stadium, London - Capacity: 90,000
Old Trafford, Manchester - Capacity: 76,000
St James Park, Newcastle - Capacity: 52,000
Stadium of Light, Sunderland - Capacity: 48,000
Anfield, Liverpool - Capacity 45,000
Villa Park, Birmingham - Capacty: 43,000
Elland Road, Leeds - Capacity: 40,000
Hillsborough, Sheffield - Capacity: 40,000

(Second London Stadia, Emirates: 60,000)
(Second Manchester Stadium. City of Manchester Stadium: 48,000)

The last two stadia are not Premier League Ones, and have become very dated, so replacements would probably have needed to be sorted for those. But still its an improvement, the minimum and maximum capacities both up by 10,000. Also 6 of the current stadia are as large, or larger than the second largest of the stadia ten years ago.

I'd be interested to see other countries, especially Portugal, in regard to these changes.

Those Euro 96 capacities are wrong (Wikipedia often is!). They were -

Wembley Stadium, London - Capacity: 76800
Old Trafford, Manchester - Capacity: 56000
Anfield, Liverpool - Capacity: 42500
Elland Road, Leeds - Capacity: 40296
Hillsborough, Sheffield - Capacity: 39814
Villa Park, Birmingham - Capacity: 38500
St James' Park, Newcastle - Capacity 36560
City Ground, Nottingham - Capacity: 30602

I did wonder why Wembley would have been 80,000.

The problem is, in America baseball, basketball, and even hockey are very popular also in some cities. Where as in England, soccer doesn't have much competition. So of course soccer teams will have higher attendance ratios. Think about it like this, the walmart in smallville, pop. 5,000 has no competition and draws 1,000 customers per day. Where as the Wal-mart in Cityville pop. 20,000 draws 3,000 customers per day, but there is also a a K-mart and target in town. Which is more impressive??? They're the same.......

I'm not sure I'd agree that we only have soccer, although admit it dominates. Consider the different densities of both population and choice available in a given area, though. In the US, the concentration densities of both are often much lower. To keep this 'on message' with the thread, try the same ratio analysis on the whole of the North West of England - where other sports do exist - and a similar geographical area in other parts of the world. In a 50m x 50 mile area:
http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/maps/lancs-map.jpg
i.e., the bottom half of this map (south of Blackpool-Burnley), you have the following:

Venue Team Capacity Ave Occ %

Old Trafford (Manchester United FC) 68 174* 67,844 99.5
City of Manchester Stadium (Manchester City FC) 48,000 43,238 90.0
Anfield (Liverpool FC) 45,000 44,307 97.6
Goodison Park (Everton FC) 40,200 36,486 90.6
Ewood Park (Blackburn Rovers FC) 31,367 20,363 64.9
Old Trafford (cricket) (Lancashire CCC) 30,000 6,879 22.9
Reebok Stadium (Bolton Wanderers FC) 28,723 25,489 91.4
JJB Stadium (Wigan Athletic FC) 25,000 21,048 84.1
JJB Stadium (Wigan Warriors RLFC) 25,000 13,892 55.6
Deepdale (Preston North End FC) 23,500 14,276 69.3
Turf Moor (Burnley FC) 22,619 12,715 56.3
Knowsley Road (St. Helens RLFC) 19,100 10,617 55.6
Prenton Park (Tranmere Rovers FC) 16,789 7,141 43.0
Halton Stadium (Widnes Vikings RLFC) 14,500 6,794 46.9
Haliwell Jones Stadium (Warrington Wolves RLFC) 14,000 11,002 78.6
Boundary Park (Oldham Athletic FC) 13,700 5,691 41.9
Gigg Lane (Bury FC) 11,840 2,315 19.8
The Willows (Salford City Reds RLFC) 11,363 4,093 36.0
Bloomfield Road (Blackpool FC) 11,295 5,559 62.4
Edgeley Park (Stockport County FC) 11,000 4,286 37.1
Edgeley Park (Sale Sharks RUFC) 11,000 5,015 45.6
Hilton Park (Leigh Centurions RLFC) 10,000 4,736 47.4
Spotland (Rochdale FC) 9,223 2,920 28.4
The Moss Rose (Macclesfield Town FC) 6,335 2,273 35.8

-There are more I could add but not of a professional status within the area in question.
-Taking my earlier point, none of this precludes out-of-towners from being counted (ask any United regular and they'll tell you that loads of them visit OT) but by widening the parameter from the immediate populace to the region, many more of these travelling fans become more legitimately accounted for.

This gives a total seating capacity of 547,728 with a combined average attendance of 379,259. The combined occupancy figure is therefore 69.24%.

Now add in the census population for the area. As this both splits and combines different census areas, this is not easily done but, I can give you both a figure and a method:

Greater Manchester 2,539,100
Merseyside 1,365,900
Cheshire (5 of 8 Boroughs) 668,400
Lancashire (10 of 14 Boroughs) 1,006,885

Total 5,580,285

This gives a capacity:head of population ratio of 1:10.19. In other words, a 10th of the population of this area would be accomodates within these grounds

This gives an attendance:head of population ratio of 1:14.71. In other words, around 7% of the population of the area make up the average attendance of these grounds.

Remember this is in a 50m x 50m area. I'm not sure a similar 50m2 area in many other places could match these figures. Maybe NYC has the concentration of venues and support but its population would be so high, the ratios would suffer. Sydney has loads of NRL teams but their attendances aren't in the English Premier League bracket. Melbourne has loads of AFL teams at the MCG and Telstra dome but enough of anything else?

Who feels they can post more impressive equivalent figures for their part of the world?

BTW, I recommend these pages as great points of reference:
World Stadiums (North West England) (http://www.worldstadiums.com/europe/countries/united_kingdom/england/north_west.shtml)
Wikipedia Sports Attendances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_league_attendances)

This is quite a hard question to answer because each nations stadia are good in different ways.

Englands are safe but every increasing in capacity with the new wembley and emerites stadium as well as expansions to old trafford with various other planned expansions or new stadia across the country.

New Wembley

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/london_wembley1.jpg

Emerites

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/past_future/pictures/future_stadiums/london_emirates1.jpg

Old Trafford

http://blogs.warwick.ac.uk/images/stuartcoles/2005/05/13/sold_trafford.jpg?maxWidth=600

Spains stadia are impressive with two of aguably the best stadia in the world in the Nou Camp and and Bernabau.

Nou Camp

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/spain/catalonia/barcelona_camp_nou1.jpg

Santiago Bernabau

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/spain/madrid/madrid_santiago_bernabeu1.jpg

Italys policy of renovating old stadia for Italia 90 created wealth of high capacity yet low quality stadia. The San Siro, Della Alpi, Stadio San Paolo and Stadio Olimpico are all amongst the highest capasity stadia in Europe although many teams such as Juve, Milan, Torino, Roma and Lazio are planning to downgrade to smaller more eonomically viable premesis. Some may argue though from an aesthetics standpoint Italian Stadia are the most
impressive.

San Siro

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/italy/lombardia/milano_meazza1.jpg

Stadio San Paulo

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/italy/campania/napoli_san_paolo2.jpg

Many would argue Germanys stadia are the best currently in Europe with them renovated with a legacy in mind. These include The Allianz Arena, Signal Iduna Park and Veltins Arena. Germanys stadiums have large capacitys and are very impressive.

Allianz Arena

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/bayern/munchen_allianz1.jpg

Signal Iduna Park

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/germany/nordrhein_westfalen/dortmund_westfalenstadion1.jpg

Discuss

It's a tough one! I think it's between England and Germany at the moment, with Germany maybe just edging it, but that has a lot to do with the fact that Germany has had a massive stadium boom for the upcoming World Cup, and if England puts in a bid in future years you can bet they'll be aiming to out-do all other countries in Europe! Germany, I think, has a higher quanity of high quality, high capacity stadiums, but if I'm being honest I prefer England's top stadiums, even though they don't have as many of them as Germany at the moment.

But even though England isn't considering a World Cup bid right now, it is still in a stadium boom at the present, with New Wembley, Twickenham stadium expansion, Old Trafford expansion, Arsenal's new stadium, Liverpool's plans for their new stadium, and plans from other clubs like Tottenham, Everton, Birmingham etc to upgrade their stadiums!

I'd say for the moment the top 5 are:

Germany
England
Spain
France
Portugal

just my oppinion though ;)

:cheers:

If were taking about nations then I'd say the UK, if were talking about federations then probabley Germany right now.

Just an updated version of England's stadiums, including some which aren't primarily football stadiums, and a couple that will be built in the future:

About 10 years ago:

Wembley Stadium, London - Capacity: 76,800
Twickenham Stadium, London - Capacity 75,000
Old Trafford, Manchester - Capacity: 56,000
Anfield, Liverpool - Capacity: 42,500
Elland Road, Leeds - Capacity: 40,296
Hillsborough, Sheffield - Capacity: 39,814
Villa Park, Birmingham - Capacity: 38,500
Highbury, London - Capacity: 38,500
St James' Park, Newcastle - Capacity 36,560
City Ground, Nottingham - Capacity: 30,602


Today (including future stadiums):

Wembley Stadium, London - Capacity: 90,000
Twickenham Stadium, London - Capacity: 82,000 (current expansion)
Olympic Stadium, London - Capacity: 80,000 (set for 2012)
Old Trafford, Manchester - Capacity: 76,000 (current expansion)
Ashburton Grove (Emirates), London - Capacity: 60,000
New Anfield (Stanley Park), Liverpool - Capacity: 55-61,000 (planning)
St James Park, Newcastle - Capacity: 52,000
City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester - Capacity: 48,000
Stadium of Light, Sunderland - Capacity: 48,000
Anfield, Liverpool - Capacity 45,000
Villa Park, Birmingham - Capacty: 43,000
Elland Road, Leeds - Capacity: 40,000
Hillsborough, Sheffield - Capacity: 40,000


Other possible expansions include Tottenham's, Everton's, Birmingham's and Newcastle's stadiums.


That's a pretty impressive list, considering the short space of time in which the stadiums have changed or been built. Also, you'd expect a stadium boom with an upcoming World Cup or Euro bid, but these stadiums have been built in a period when England hasn't had either!

Like Lostboy, I'd also like to see Portugal's stadium evolution, as well as Germany's, and any other countries that have had a significant change.

And btw Lostboy, the thread should have been 'How far has your country's stadia improved in 10 years?' :D

:cheers:

Also, you'd expect a stadium boom with an upcoming World Cup or Euro bid, but these stadiums have been built in a period when England hasn't had either!

Very true. I don't think a single stadium was even significantly refurbished for Euro '96.

And btw Lostboy, the thread should have been 'How far has your country's stadia improved in 10 years?'

Bloody Hell, Grammar Fascism has spread a lot recently.

It can only be between Germany and England.
I cant see Germany edging England even if their stadiums are in "terrcaing-mode"
they still have a few athletics venues in the top division and looking at lower leagues they are far behind England.
With Wembley and Emirates completed it has to be England.

Germany have the best football set-up though with affordable tickets and terracing.

I agree with Moreorless.

1-Germany
2-England

or

1-UK
2-Germany


3- Portugal
4- Spain
5- France

1. Portugal
2. Germany
3. England
4. France
5. Spain

Well danish stadiums have changed beyond all recognition.
From the typical 20,000 capacity hole-in-the-ground 95% uncovered terracing open stadiums to fully covered 10-15,000 all-covered venues with either no or limited standing.

Only 2 are noticeable, Parken, 41,000 all-seater, and Brøndby, around 30,000 including terracing, less in all-seater-mode.
A 3rd venue could have been good, but 22,000 capacity Århus were built around an athletics track, thanks to demands from an assisting council with zero knowledge of football.

Still several other venues with 10-15,000 capacities can be quite good when theyre full with lots of terracing and everyone close to the pitch.

There is good growth in danish and scandinavian football with some serious investment happening,(one swedish club agreed a £50 million sponsorship agreement recently and though its for 12 years its a lot for scandinavia)and I think all 3 countries can aim for 20,000 average crowds within not too many years creating some real quality leagues with a better atmosphere than many far bigger leagues as tickets are affordable and terracing will remain.

1. Portugal
2. Germany
3. England
4. France
5. Spain
Portugal has better football stadiums then Germany or England??? :weirdo:

Better then Germany, yes.
Dragao and Jose Alvalade are more impressive then (for example) Allianz Ashtray

1 England
2 Spain
3 Italy
4 France
5 Germany

other countries dont count for me! :)

Not even your Iberian Neighbours and Good Friends;). For all the inter-peninsula rivalry, you must admit, they have got some nice stadia.

Better then Germany, yes.
Dragao and Jose Alvalade are more impressive then (for example) Allianz Ashtray

Surely you cant put Portugal in front of Germany, granted Dragao etc are nice
but across the League in Germany their are equally as nice stadiums but more of them with far more higher capacities.The Olympic Stadium though is somwhat of a Nazi monument even though its quite nice it was Hitlers Design and should of been destroyed. :bash:

I feel its a hard one though I would place them in this order not using the uk

1-Germany
2-England
3-Spain
4-Italy(even though they're crap they're still impressive)
5-Portugal
6-France
7-Holland
8-Scotland

1 England
2 Spain
3 Italy
4 France
5 Germany

other countries dont count for me! :)

Italy and France (France???) ahead of Germany? You gotta be kidding me.

Yeah, especially French Stadia, which are far from impressive, and from a country where football vies for the premier team competition with a very strong challenge from rugby.

I'd definately say Germany has the edge right now. Yes, granted, helped along by their hosting of the WC. But still, they're miles ahead as I see it right now. Their nearest competitors, England and Portugal are quite far behind. England is getting maybe three new top notch stadiums to go along with Old Trafford. While Germany now boasts at least double digits in top notch, big stadiums.

I'd actually also say that Portugal boasts better stadiums than England. Fair enough, maybe not down through the ranks but the top stadias are better and more interesting in my opinion.

If we count UK instead of just England, then the UK might just edge ahead of Portugal, thanks to Ibrox in particular.

In my opinion, no other nations get close to these.

So:

Germany

(UK)
Portugal
England

I would say
Germany or England.
Portugal
Spain
Netherlands
Italy
France

England
Germany
Spain
Netherlands
Portugal
Italy
France

I agree with the Dane. Germany has 12 World Class Stadia, no-one else can currently match that.

I'd definately say Germany has the edge right now. Yes, granted, helped along by their hosting of the WC. But still, they're miles ahead as I see it right now. Their nearest competitors, England and Portugal are quite far behind. England is getting maybe three new top notch stadiums to go along with Old Trafford. While Germany now boasts at least double digits in top notch, big stadiums.

I'd actually also say that Portugal boasts better stadiums than England. Fair enough, maybe not down through the ranks but the top stadias are better and more interesting in my opinion.

If we count UK instead of just England, then the UK might just edge ahead of Portugal, thanks to Ibrox in particular.

In my opinion, no other nations get close to these.

So:

Germany

(UK)
Portugal
England

What this guy ^^ said is spot on.

I'm surprised the country with the best stadia in Europe hasn't even got a single mention yet. The European country with the best stadia is, without any doubt whatsoever, Great Britain.

I win.

Thread closed.

my list:

Germany

Portugal
UK
Spain, Italy, France

On terms of money (more for less) and quality.

Portugal (great architecture)
Holland (best small stadia in the world)
England (good construction boom)
Germany (good en simple stadia)
Spain (stadia country of the old era)
Scotland (England in small)
Italy (The worse stadia in Europe, only the San Siro is good)

The answer is simple - Germany (and it always will be unless other countries allow terracing!)

I think that England can throw up 12 world class stadia now

Football only so no Twickers

OLD TRAFFORD
ANFIELD
NEW WEMBLEY
EMIRATES
VILLA PARK
STAMFORD BRIDGE
CITY OF MANCHESTER STADIUM
ST JAMES PARK
STADIUM OF LIGHT
REEBOK STADIUM
ST MARYS STADIUM
RIVERSIDE STADIUM

Surely you cant put Portugal in front of Germany, granted Dragao etc are nice
but across the League in Germany their are equally as nice stadiums but more of them with far more higher capacities.The Olympic Stadium though is somwhat of a Nazi monument even though its quite nice it was Hitlers Design and should of been destroyed. :bash:

I feel its a hard one though I would place them in this order not using the uk

1-Germany
2-England
3-Spain
4-Italy(even though they're crap they're still impressive)
5-Portugal
6-France
7-Holland
8-Scotland

It wasn't Hitler's design, it was Werner March's, along with Albert Speer. Albert Speer was one of the 20th century's greatest architects (arguably the greatest). You should read "Albert Speer : His Battle with Truth", one of the best books ever written.

http://www.dataphone.se/~ms/speer/welcom2.htm
http://www.dataphone.se/~ms/speer/news.htm
http://www.dataphone.se/~ms/speer/story.htm

I think that England can throw up 12 world class stadia now

Football only so no Twickers

OLD TRAFFORD
ANFIELD
NEW WEMBLEY
EMIRATES
VILLA PARK
STAMFORD BRIDGE
CITY OF MANCHESTER STADIUM
ST JAMES PARK
STADIUM OF LIGHT
REEBOK STADIUM
ST MARYS STADIUM
RIVERSIDE STADIUM

You must be having a laugh!!


Signal Iduna Park, Borussia Dortmund, 81.264
Olympiastadion, Hertha BSC Berlin, 76.000
Allianz Arena, FC Bayern München, 69.901
Veltins Arena, FC Schalke 04, 61.524
AOL Arena, Hamburger SV, 55.989
Borussia Park, Borussia Mönchengladbach, 54.019
Commerzbank Arena, Eintracht Frankfurt, 52.300
LTU Arena, Fortuna Düsseldorf, 52.000
Rhein Energie Stadion, FC Köln, 51.000
AWD Arena, Hannover 96, 49.951
Fritz Walter Stadion, FC Kaiserslautern, 48.500
Zentralstadion, FC Sachsen Leipzig, 44.345
MSV Arena, MSV Duisburg, 31.500
Volkswagen Arena, VfL Wolfsburg, 30.122

That's 10 at 50000+ (I've not even included Stuttgart 57000, Nürnberg 47559, Werder Bremen 43087)


and a few smaller ones as a bonus -

Karlsruhe, new 45000 stadium
Ruhrstadion, VfL Bochum, 32645
Dresden, new 32000 stadium
BayArena, Bayer 04 Leverkusen, soon to be 30000
Ostseestadion, FC Hansa Rostock, 30100
Magdeburg, new 27860 stadium

Also, you'd expect a stadium boom with an upcoming World Cup or Euro bid, but these stadiums have been built in a period when England hasn't had either!

Very true. I don't think a single stadium was even significantly refurbished for Euro '96.

And btw Lostboy, the thread should have been 'How far has your country's stadia improved in 10 years?'

Bloody Hell, Grammar Fascism has spread a lot recently.

Old Trafford (new North stand), Anfield (new Kop), Elland Road (new East stand), Hillsborough (new South Stand), Villa Park (new Holte End), St James' Park (3 new stands) & City Ground (2 new stands) were all extensively upgraded in the period between Euro 92 and Euro 96 (most upgrades took place in 1995). One of the main reasons England won the right to hold Euro 96 was this vast amount of stadium upgrades. Most would of been upgraded even if England didn't host Euro 96, but that applies to Germany and most other countries that hold tournaments. One of the reasons countries are awarded tournaments is because there are large scale refurbishments taking place or planned. FIFA/UEFA see this and say to themselves "hmmmm, that would be a good place to hold the tournament".

^^ For once BuBomb, you make a good point! There were a few stadium upgrades as you say, but what Lostboy meant was that there wasn't a great deal of stadium work done for Euro 96- no new stadiums, and most of the expansions were done for the actual club the stadium was for, not in preperation for the Euro bid, but I take your point, there was some work done to appeal to the guys who organise the tournament.

The point I, and I think Lostboy, were trying to make, is that this stadium boom going on in England at the moment and over the last few years is being done in a period of time where there is no Euro or World Cup bid in sight, which is quite unusual. So if they ever do make a bid in future years, they won't actually have a lot of work to do, which most countries have to do, though as you say BuBomb, every World Cup country needs to upgrade their stadium situation to have a chance of winning the bid.

The problem with England is that it has plenty of high quality, pretty high capacity stadiums, but they are not spread around as much as would be preferable, with quite a few of the sadiums in London, and a couple in Manchester. But still, I think there is a deffinate chance of a successful bid if ever they choose to make one, and by the time that happens, more stadiums will have probably been built or expanded! :)

Any other countries wanna show how their stadiums have improved in the last 10 years...? ...Anyone???

:cheers:

Let's see. The U.S. is going through one of the massive construction boom. The amazing thing is, it not just only the professional leagues. It's the semi or minor leagues. And, the most interesting thing, it's happening in collegiate sports! I don't know much of high school throughout the nation, but any leagues collegiate up is in the construction/renovation boom.

^^ For once BuBomb, you make a good point! There were a few stadium upgrades as you say, but what Lostboy meant was that there wasn't a great deal of stadium work done for Euro 96- no new stadiums, and most of the expansions were done for the actual club the stadium was for, not in preperation for the Euro bid, but I take your point, there was some work done to appeal to the guys who organise the tournament.

The point I, and I think Lostboy, were trying to make, is that this stadium boom going on in England at the moment and over the last few years is being done in a period of time where there is no Euro or World Cup bid in sight, which is quite unusual. So if they ever do make a bid in future years, they won't actually have a lot of work to do, which most countries have to do, though as you say BuBomb, every World Cup country needs to upgrade their stadium situation to have a chance of winning the bid.

The problem with England is that it has plenty of high quality, pretty high capacity stadiums, but they are not spread around as much as would be preferable, with quite a few of the sadiums in London, and a couple in Manchester. But still, I think there is a deffinate chance of a successful bid if ever they choose to make one, and by the time that happens, more stadiums will have probably been built or expanded! :)

Any other countries wanna show how their stadiums have improved in the last 10 years...? ...Anyone???

:cheers:

If England bid for the World Cup then I think there will be a massive amount of reconstruction around England, as this is one of the bonuses about holding a World Cup. If you are holding a World cup then it gives you an excuse to rebuild lots of stadiums (even if you don't really need to). Wembley & Emirates would not change, but all the rest would including lots of new stadiums around the country. After all, it will be 12 years away, and by then places like St.James Park & Villa Park will all look a bit old and rubbish.

Well, the USA has built or renovated countless stadia over the past 10 years but we had pretty good ones to begin with before that. The new ones have about the same capacity, but are more luxurious and more architectually pleasing. Pro stadiums in all sports are starting to set themselves more and more apart from college stadiums (except in capacity) with more ammeneties, etc.

All in all we have great new stadiums, but it's not exactly like the old ones were anything to complain about.

Well at the moment SA only have decent rugby & cricket stadiums

Wait for 2010

Weel if u saying UK & not just England then, it will be

1.UK
2.Germany
3.Portugal
4.Italy
5.Spain
6.France
7. Turkey (just because Liverpool won it for the 5th time in Istanbul:))

:eek2: wow

I'm just wondering, how much do the people spend to make all that amazing stuff??

Sweden: Except of the 14500 Borås Arena, NOTHING has happened :)

Hockey arenas has though changed quite a bit.

Poland: almost none.

I actually don't like terracing.
This is probably my architecture side showing through aswell...I think it looks ugly, breaks up a whole stadiums style.
Looks cheap a poor, maybe because I associate it with lower league grounds in England.


For the WC 2006, according to www.worldstadiums.com there will only be 3 stadia in Germany with a capacity over 50,000.
After they have gotten rid of the terracing due to FIFA regulations.

I actually don't like terracing.
This is probably my architecture side showing through aswell...I think it looks ugly, breaks up a whole stadiums style.
Looks cheap a poor, maybe because I associate it with lower league grounds in England.


For the WC 2006, according to www.worldstadiums.com there will only be 3 stadia in Germany with a capacity over 50,000.
After they have gotten rid of the terracing due to FIFA regulations.

but you would love it if you went to games every week. OH how I long for the days of terracing to return! All seaters have killed the atmosphere at all the grounds in the UK. I HATE sitting on my arse for 90 minutes, surrounded by people I don't know who look at you as if you are a weirdo if you try to get a song going!


www.worldstadiums.com is wrong (again). FIFA 2006 capacities will be -

Olympiastadion - 74400
Allianz Arena - 66464
Signal Iduna Park - 65718
Veltins Arena - 54083
Gottlieb Daimler Stadion - 52300
AOL Arena -51000
Fritz Walter Stadion - 48500
Commerzbank Arena - 48132
Rhein Energie Stadion - 46120
AWD Arena - 44652
Zentralstadion - 44345
Franken Stadion - 44308

I just checked www.worldstadiums.com, and they are listing ticket sale numbers available to the public, not the actual capacity of the stadiums.

And btw Lostboy, the thread should have been 'How far has your country's stadia improved in 10 years?' :D

You mean "How far have your country's stadia improved in 10 years?" :tongue2:

Well at the moment SA only have decent rugby & cricket stadiums

Australia has two pretty decent cricket grounds in Sydney and Adelaide.

It also has a very good stadium where cricket is played in Melbourne :)

I actually don't like terracing.
This is probably my architecture side showing through aswell...I think it looks ugly, breaks up a whole stadiums style.
Looks cheap a poor, maybe because I associate it with lower league grounds in England.


For the WC 2006, according to www.worldstadiums.com there will only be 3 stadia in Germany with a capacity over 50,000.
After they have gotten rid of the terracing due to FIFA regulations.

bubomb is right.
That's totally wrong. You're looking for the wrong sources.

"Total Seating Capacity" means the Gross Capacity less the seats unavailable for use due to restricted views and security/contingency reserves for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. This capacity is estimated and may change once these deductions are finally determined. - fifaworldcup.com
= FIFA WC capacity.

You can't consider the Fifa-WC capacities, because they are estimated way too small for the reason above.

e.g. Berlin has ca. 75000 seats(!) but only about 67.000 are sold for the WC.
If you want to know the seating capacities, go after the international capacities (UEFA-setting) = seating only.

Then you've got

Berlin 75.000
München 66.000
Dortmund 65.718
Stuttgart 54.000
Schalke 54.000
Düsseldorf 52.000
Hamburg 51.000
--------------------
= 7 (seven) stadiums with seating capacities bigger than 50.000

You often don't recognise the standing areas in modern stadiums (which is aesthetically good - I agree, but rather bad for supporting-culture) because the seats remain there permanently, even though standing places are sold.

My list would be:

Germany
England
Portugal

Spain
Netherlands

France
Italy

You often don't recognise the standing areas in modern stadiums (which is aesthetically good - I agree, but rather bad for supporting-culture) because the seats remain there permanently, even though standing places are sold

Like this, for example -


http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/hannover_96/images/innen_10.jpg

http://stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/1_fc_kaiserslautern/images/west_05.jpg


As opposed to this, for example -


http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/hamburger_sv/images/nord_06.jpg

i think the thread title was who has the BEST not the biggest capacities, wheras capacity is an aspect one might look at when trying to come to some conclusion, it is not the only or deciding factor. Aesthetics, facilities, Atmosphere, Location are all equally important!

i think the thread title was who has the BEST not the biggest capacities, wheras capacity is an aspect one might look at when trying to come to some conclusion, it is not the only or deciding factor. Aesthetics, facilities, Atmosphere, Location are all equally important!


Capacity, Aesthetics, Facilities, Atmosphere - Germany wins them all!! (nobody even comes close!!)

England obviously comes 2nd, so the question is - who is 3rd? Spain, Italy, Portugal, Holland or France? I would say Portugal just beats Holland for 3rd place.

Germany are not clearly ahead of England. It depends how you look at it.

At the the very top, I think Wembley will be better than any german venue.

If lower leagues are included, well England also have far better venues there.

The case for Germany is if you compare using about 10-15 venues only, not more or less, but even then why are they so much better?

Berlin is for athletics and not really a great football venue, and there are a few other track-stadiums in there as well.

Capacities arent bigger in germany´s stadiums either when they are all-seater, so what exactly is it??

This is no dig at Germany, I am impressed with the way they are developing their stadiums, especially continuing with terraces, but thats politics.

There are a couple of Grounds over 30,000 that have been left off the English list.
Elland Road 40,200
Goodison Park 40,170
Hillsborough 39 814
White Hart Lane 36,236
Upton Park 35,089
Pride Park 33,597
The Walkers Stadium 32,000
Bramall Lane 31,000
City Ground 30,576

Liverpool want to build Stanley Park, a new 60,000 seater Studium.
Birmingham City want to build a new 50,000 or 60,000 seater Stadium.
Charlton Athletic want to expand The Valley to 40,000+
Cardiff City are after building a new 30,000 seater Stadium called St. David's Stadium.
Milton Keynes are building a new 30,000 seater Stadium.

What's the football stadium situation like in Australia?? I don't really associate Australia with being a big footie country really, and no great football stadiums spring to mind...do they have any decent ones or plans to build some new ones???

:cheers:

You mean "How far have your country's stadia improved in 10 years?" :tongue2:
Ah, touché my friend! :)

:cheers:

Germany are not clearly ahead of England. It depends how you look at it.

At the the very top, I think Wembley will be better than any german venue.

If lower leagues are included, well England also have far better venues there.

The case for Germany is if you compare using about 10-15 venues only, not more or less, but even then why are they so much better?

Berlin is for athletics and not really a great football venue, and there are a few other track-stadiums in there as well.

Capacities arent bigger in germany´s stadiums either when they are all-seater, so what exactly is it??

This is no dig at Germany, I am impressed with the way they are developing their stadiums, especially continuing with terraces, but thats politics.

Frist of all, Germany's stadiums are still bigger in all-seater mode. 2nd of all, the all-seater capacity is irrelevant as these stadiums were built for Bundesliga matches, so 99% of games played at these stadiums will feature standing. One of the main reasons German grounds are so much better is because of the standing. Nearly every fan I know in the UK would love terracing back. If you look at my German atmosphere post, you will see how much better the atmosphere is in German stadiums. Part of the reason for this is standing sections.

German stadiums are bigger, more modern, look better and have terracing. There is no comparison. Even the new 30000 stadiums in Germany look far better than the crappy Ikea flat-pack 30000 stadiums that make up about 80% of new stadiums in England (Bolton excluded).


Let's do a top league comparison (the league that counts) -

Signal Iduna Park 81264 v Old Trafford 76000 - Winner Signal Iduna Park
Olympiastadion 76000 v Emirates 60000 - Winner Olympiastadion (debatable, Olympiastadion is a far better stadium, but it's not a better football stadium)
Allianz Arena 69901 v St. James Park 53094 - Winner Allianz Arena
Veltins Arena 61524 v Stadium of Light 48353 - Winner Veltins Arena
Gottlieb Daimler 57000 v City Of Manchester 48000 - Winner Manchester
AOL Arena 55989 v Anfield 45362 - Winner AOL Arena
Borussia Park 54019 v Villa Park 42799 - Winner Borussia Park
Commerzbank 52300 v Stamford Bridge 42522 - Winner Commerzbank
Rhein Energie Stadion 51000 v Goodison Park 40260 - Winner Rhein Energie
AWD Arena 49951 v White Hart Lane 36214 - Winner AWD Arena
Fritz Walter Stadion 48500 v BT Cellnet 35100 - Winner Fritz Walter
EasyCredit Stadion 47500 v Upton Park 35000 - Winner Upton Park
Weserstadion 43087 v Ewood Park 31367 - Winner Weserstadion
MSV Arena 31500 v St. Andrew's 30200 - Winner MSV arena
Volkswagen Arena 30122 v The Hawthorns 28777 - Winner Volkswagen
SCHÜCO Arena 26601 v Reebok Stadium 27879 - Winner Reebok stadium
BayArena 22500 v The Valley 26500 - Winner BayArena
Stadion am Bruchweg 20300 v JJB Stadium 25000 - Winner JJB Stadium


I make that 14-4 to Germany. A complete ass poundin!!

Germany:
Westfalenstadion - 81.000 - by far the best stadium in Northwestern Europe
Berlin - 76.000
Munich - 70.000
Schalke - 62.000
Stuttgart - 57.0000
Hamburg - 56.000
Borssia MGB - 54.000
Frankfurt - 52.000
Düsseldorf - 52.000
Köln - 51.000
Hannover - 49.000
Kaiserslautern - 49.000
Nürnberg - 48.000
Leipzig - 44.000
Bremen - 43.000

These 15 are all WC-able stadiums. England only can compete when Wembley, Emirates and New Anfield are built.

When all English projects are finished (without the old Anfield):

Wembley - 90.000
Old Trafford - 75.000
Emirates - 60.000
New Anfield - 60.000
St. James Park - 53.000
Sunderland - 48.000
City of Manchester - 48.000
Villa Park - 43.000
Stamford Bridge - 42.000
Goodison Park - 40.000
Elland Park - 40.000

I think you can get the point.

Well, Germany couldn't compete either, then they won the bid....then they built the stadiums.

Thats how it's worked for them, Portugal, Japan and South Korea; and everyone else before them.


I do not think that all the stadium advances in germany would of happened if they hadn't won the right to host the 2006 World Cup.
Some would of happened of course, but not at the scale it has.

Quit a lot of small new stadiums have been built in The Netherlands in the last 10 year. A few others have been extensively renovated and/or expanded.

Well, Germany couldn't compete either, then they won the bid....then they built the stadiums.

Thats how it's worked for them, Portugal, Japan and South Korea; and everyone else before them.


I do not think that all the stadium advances in germany would of happened if they hadn't won the right to host the 2006 World Cup.
Some would of happened of course, but not at the scale it has.

Actually, most would of been built. Germany was going through a stadium boom before the bid took place. German clubs badly needed new stadiums regardless of the World Cup. That's why there are lots of new German stadiums that won't be featuring in the World Cup. The only one that might not of been built is Leipzig. Stuttgart and Kaiserslautern might not have been upgraded.

Considering Englands recent boom isnt for a perticular National evant like Germanys is, the stadia is is very good. I feel give it 10 years and Englands stadia will be the best in Europe with Tottenhams recent plans as well as Birminghams and Villas there will be over7 top draw over 50'000 seater sdadiums.

Frist of all, Germany's stadiums are still bigger in all-seater mode. 2nd of all, the all-seater capacity is irrelevant as these stadiums were built for Bundesliga matches, so 99% of games played at these stadiums will feature standing. One of the main reasons German grounds are so much better is because of the standing. Nearly every fan I know in the UK would love terracing back. If you look at my German atmosphere post, you will see how much better the atmosphere is in German stadiums. Part of the reason for this is standing sections.

German stadiums are bigger, more modern, look better and have terracing. There is no comparison. Even the new 30000 stadiums in Germany look far better than the crappy Ikea flat-pack 30000 stadiums that make up about 90% of new stadiums in England (Bolton excluded).


Lets to a top league comparison (the league that counts) -

Signal Iduna Park 81264 v Old Trafford 76000 - Winner Signal Iduna Park
Olympiastadion 76000 v Emirates 60000 - Winner Olympiastadion (debatable)
Allianz Arena 69901 v St. James Park 53094 - Winner Allianz Arena
Veltins Arena 61524 v Stadium of Light 48353 - Winner Veltins Arena
Gottlieb Daimler 57000 v City Of Manchester 48000 - Winner Manchester
AOL Arena 55989 v Anfield 45362 - Winner AOL Arena
Borussia Park 54019 v Villa Park 42799 - Winner Borussia Park
Commerzbank 52300 v Stamford Bridge 42522 - Winner Commerzbank
Rhein Energie Stadion 51000 v Goodison Park 40260 - Winner Rhein Energie
AWD Arena 49951 v White Hart Lane 36214 - Winner AWD Arena
Fritz Walter Stadion 48500 v BT Cellnet 36214 - Winner Fritz Walter
EasyCredit Stadion 47500 v Upton Park 35000 - Winner Upton Park
Weserstadion 43000 v Ewood Park 31367 - Winner Weserstadion
MSV Arena 31500 v St. Andrew's 30200 - Winner MSV arena
Volkswagen Arena 30122 v The Hawthorns 28777 - Winner Volkswagen
SCHÜCO Arena 26601 v Reebok Stadium 27879 - Winner Reebok stadium
BayArena 22500 v The Valley 26500 - Winner BayArena
Stadion am Bruchweg 20300 v JJB Stadium 25000 - Winner JJB Stadium


I make that 14-4 to Germany. A complete ass poundin!!

Well I think that "ass poundin" lack some credibility when you for instance leave out Wembley... which influences every single comparison. You should be a politician the way you go about numbers. My mistake to think that Wembley counted as a football stadium...

Wembley beats Berlin and beyond that there is little in it regarding both size and quality, though the many athletics tracks lets Germany down. 3 athletics grounds in the world cup alone I think

For international comparison I also think international standards should be used and that means all-seater. The standard for international competition.
I agree that terracing is great but as that is not on in all other countries what is the point of comparing.

you are also wrong that that german stadiums are bigger than the english in all-seater mode, how do you figure that?

You must measure by using exactly that number of venues where Germany possibly edges England.

Well I think that "ass poundin" lack some credibility when you for instance leave out Wembley... which influences every single comparison. You should be a politician the way you go about numbers. My mistake to think that Wembley counted as a football stadium...

Wembley beats Berlin and beyond that there is little in it regarding both size and quality, though the many athletics tracks lets Germany down. 3 athletics grounds in the world cup alone I think

For international comparison I also think international standards should be used and that means all-seater. The standard for international competition.
I agree that terracing is great but as that is not on in all other countries what is the point of comparing.

you are also wrong that that german stadiums are bigger than the english in all-seater mode, how do you figure that?

You must measure by using exactly that number of venues where Germany possibly edges England.

Why would you quote all-seater capacities when German stadiums are built and designed for standing?? 99.9% of the time, these stadiums use standing, so that is their capacity. According to your logic, we shouldn't include Wembley's VIP capacity, as other stadiums don't have vast VIP sections!! Dortmund's stadium capacity is 81624, as that is how many people it can hold to watch football every week.

Only 3 major German stadiums have athletics tracks, and Stuttgart's will go after the World Cup. For me, Olympiastadion is far better than Wembley, as Olympiastadion is a timeless classic monument that will be here in a 100 years time, not some big 90000 supermarket that will be replaced in 30 years time. Wembley is the better 'football stadium' though.

Too bad my country (the Netherlands) is so small. From all the teams in the top league only two have old stadiums. The other 16 have stadiums that are newly built or at least heavily modernised in the last 15 years. The only problem is that most of them are kinda small compared to concrete monsters like Nou camp or San Siro. Cause that's what makes those stadiums great, their size, not their design or modern architecture.

For me, Olympiastadion is far better than Wembley, as Olympiastadiom is a timeless classic monument, not some big 90000 retail park. Wembley is the better 'football stadium' though.
Yer, Wembley is the far better football stadium, if only the thread was called 'Which Euro Nation Has Best Football Stadia?' then that would have a lot more relevance......oh wait.... ;)

Wembley, whether you like it or not, whether you're willing to admitt it or not, is the benchmark for all other football stadiums in the world now, bar none!

:cheers:

Too bad my country (the Netherlands) is so small. From all the teams in the top league only two have old stadiums. The other 16 have stadiums that are newly built or at least heavily modernised in the last 15 years. The only problem is that most of them are kinda small compared to concrete monsters like Nou camp or San Siro. Cause that's what makes those stadiums great, their size, not their design or modern architecture.


The Netherlands (Holland) have got some great stadiums. They not be big, but they are all new and look great.

Can you answer me this, my tulip picking, clog wearing friend - Why does Holland have 2 names? (The Netherlands & Holland, and what do you prefer?)

Old Trafford (new North stand), Anfield (new Kop), Elland Road (new East stand), Hillsborough (new South Stand), Villa Park (new Holte End), St James' Park (3 new stands) & City Ground (2 new stands) were all extensively upgraded in the period between Euro 92 and Euro 96 (most upgrades took place in 1995). One of the main reasons England won the right to hold Euro 96 was this vast amount of stadium upgrades. Most would of been upgraded even if England didn't host Euro 96, but that applies to Germany and most other countries that hold tournaments. One of the reasons countries are awarded tournaments is because there are large scale refurbishments taking place or planned. FIFA/UEFA see this and say to themselves "hmmmm, that would be a good place to hold the tournament".

The Taylor Report was as important as Euro '96, in respect to most of these developments, definately in the case of Liverpool and Sheffield Wedenesday these redevelopments would have had to have happened. A lot of the others would have happened as you say anyway. And whilst it may be the case that for some countries such as Germany they would have happened anyway, I doubt very much a nation like Portugal would have the superb set of stadia they do, if it hadn't been for Euro 2004

Yer, Wembley is the far better football stadium, if only the thread was called 'Which Euro Nation Has Best Football Stadia?' then that would have a lot more relevance......oh wait.... ;)

Wembley, whether you like it or not, whether you're willing to admitt it or not, is the benchmark for all other football stadiums in the world now, bar none!

:cheers:

In your opinion. Many are disappointed in Wembley (terrible exterior, stands far away from pitch, too much VIP stuff, massive gaps between rows of seats). It will certainly be a good stadium, but it is far from the world beater that a lot of people hoped for. The Nou Camp will soon be 120000, Azteca if it gets an refurbishment (presently 105000) will be amazing, and who knows what else is on the horizon!!


It looks like Wembley is already behind this stadium for football -

http://www.sau53.org/net9/First/assets/graphics/photos/2003/nationals/03.jpg

http://www.concacaf.com/competitions/goldcup/2005/downloads/RELIANT_STADIUM/Reliant.png

http://www.johnnyroadtrip.com/cities/houston/images/reliantrightendzone.jpg

http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/HoustonTexans/interior.jpg

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/TRAVEL/DESTINATIONS/01/28/houston.image.ap/vert.houston.ap.jpg


This stadium opens up a can of WHOOP ASS all over Wembley!!

The Netherlands (Holland) have got some great stadiums. They not be big, but they are all new and look great.

Can you answer me this, my tulip picking, clog wearing friend - Why does Holland have 2 names? (The Netherlands & Holland, and what do you prefer?)

I think your basically making the same mistake that scots are always furious with people making about the UK.
Holland is, ( I think) part of the netherlands like England is part of Britain and as with England the term is often used wrongly.

Old Trafford (new North stand), Anfield (new Kop), Elland Road (new East stand), Hillsborough (new South Stand), Villa Park (new Holte End), St James' Park (3 new stands) & City Ground (2 new stands) were all extensively upgraded in the period between Euro 92 and Euro 96 (most upgrades took place in 1995). One of the main reasons England won the right to hold Euro 96 was this vast amount of stadium upgrades. Most would of been upgraded even if England didn't host Euro 96, but that applies to Germany and most other countries that hold tournaments. One of the reasons countries are awarded tournaments is because there are large scale refurbishments taking place or planned. FIFA/UEFA see this and say to themselves "hmmmm, that would be a good place to hold the tournament".

The Taylor Report was as important as Euro '96, in respect to most of these developments, definately in the case of Liverpool and Sheffield Wedenesday these redevelopments would have had to have happened. A lot of the others would have happened as you say anyway. And whilst it may be the case that for some countries such as Germany they would have happened anyway, I doubt very much a nation like Portugal would have the superb set of stadia they do, if it hadn't been for Euro 2004

The new main stand at Hillsborough was built for Euro 96. The actual disaster happened at the Leppings Lane End, and this has hardly changed from the day of the disaster!! They basically just put seats on the terrace.

http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/park/yfh45/wednes22.jpg

I agree that Portugal's stadiums were mainly built solely with 2004 in mind. (although the big 3 would have built new stadiums soon enough even without 2004, and Boavistas ground was started and almost finished well before 2004)

Why would you quote all-seater capacities when German stadiums are built and designed for standing?? 99.9% of the time, these stadiums use standing, so that is their capacity. According to your logic, we shouldn't include Wembley's VIP capacity, as other stadiums don't have vast VIP sections!! Dortmund's stadium capacity is 81624, as that is how many people it can hold to watch football every week.

Only 3 major German stadiums have athletics tracks, and Stuttgart's will go after the World Cup. For me, Olympiastadion is far better than Wembley, as Olympiastadion is a timeless classic monument that will be here in a 100 years time, not some big 90000 supermarket that will be replaced in 30 years time. Wembley is the better 'football stadium' though.

Well you must have a narrow definition of what is a "major" stadium in Germany if there are only 3 but then again Germany dont have that many decent stadiums. Even some of those that are no longer athletics stadiums, like Bremen, are still negatively affected by their very obvious past as athletics stadiums.

Taking a closer look at their venues, I was actually quite disappointed, overall they are poorer than I thought, particularly at their second 2.bundesliga. Some very basic facilities there, to say the least,way behind England.
I must say I am also not impressed with all that fencing and netting.

Comparing with anything other than all-seater mode is ridiculous. Otherwise the best stadium is probably some african all terraced death trap that would never be allowed in europe.
all seater is what is used for international competition. UEFA or FIFA standards are the obvious standards for comparing facilities.

It could be an interesting comparison but you are just so eager to put England down that its irrelevant.
Twickenham doesnt count, Wembley doesnt count, but the Dusseldorf arena counts though its main team is an american-football team.

@ bubomb

Holland is actually only two provinces of the total 12. But it has about half the population of the country and it's where the three biggest cities are located; Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Den Haag(The Hague).

I prefer 'the Netherlands', eventhough I'm a Hollander, but somehow foreigners seem to know the name Holland better. Holland was recently ranked as the 10th most valuable brandname (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=13&story_id=27927&name=Holland+'brand'+10th+in+ranking+of+financial+value) if countries were brands. Funny, considering it's not the official countryname.

Oh yeah, to make things even more confusing, we are called the Dutch! :)

Well you must have a narrow definition of what is a "major" stadium in Germany if there are only 3 but then again Germany dont have that many decent stadiums. Even some of those that are no longer athletics stadiums, like Bremen, are still negatively affected by their very obvious past as athletics stadiums.

Taking a closer look at their venues, I was actually quite disappointed, overall they are poorer than I thought, particularly at their second 2.bundesliga. Some very basic facilities there, to say the least,way behind England.
I must say I am also not impressed with all that fencing and netting.

Comparing with anything other than all-seater mode is ridiculous. Otherwise the best stadium is probably some african all terraced death trap that would never be allowed in europe.
all seater is what is used for international competition. UEFA or FIFA standards are the obvious standards for comparing facilities.

It could be an interesting comparison but you are just so eager to put England down that its irrelevant.
Twickenham doesnt count, Wembley doesnt count, but the Dusseldorf arena counts though its main team is an american-football team.

Your English spunk fetish is getting beyond a joke!! How the hell am I putting England down!! I said they have the 2nd best stadiums in the whole of Europe!! This just proves you have a huge English spunk fetish, as only a man with a huge English spunk fetish could class 2nd best in the whole of Europe as 'putting a country down'!!

You've lost the plot with your 'African death-trap' comparison. This wouldn't be the best stadium, as it would be a shit stadium that is a death trap!! German stadiums have superb safe terracing. It is is ridiculous to use German all-seater capacities, as these are not the capacities of the stadiums. You go to a Dortmund game and you will be in a crowd of 81000 people in a superb stadium. This is the capacity. It's quite simple.

If a shit African stadium is 72000 standing, then it's capacity is 72000. This doesn't change the fact that it's a shit stadium.


"Germany dont have that many decent stadiums"

Sorry, but you've completely lost the plot!! I think you must be the only one on the stadium section who thinks Germany doesn't have many decent stadiums.

I must say i'm disappointed kingdomca, I knew you would argue England has the best stadiums in the Universe, but your English spunk fetish has completely taken over your rational thought process, and you are now talking complete bollocks!!

Whatever your feelings on standing room I don't think its espeically relivant to the question because as has been shown by the pics of german stadia its not so much an architectural consideration as a political one. Thats to say that most stadiums outside germany could if they were allowed to add standing room without much building work(new seat/stands, maybe some different crowd contro,l etc).

As for Wembley I wouldnt really say its a benchmark for new stadiums beyond the roof simpley because not many totally new 90,000 capacity stadiums are needed.

In your opinion. Many are disappointed in Wembley (terrible exterior, stands far away from pitch, too much VIP stuff, massive gaps between rows of seats). It will certainly be a good stadium, but it is far from the world beater that a lot of people hoped for. The Nou Camp will soon be 120000, Azteca if it gets an refurbishment (presently 105000) will be amazing, and who knows what else is on the horizon!!

As ever your standards change by the post to give the desired outcome. I can remember you singing the praises of Hampden (plus its new luxury facilties) and the Stade De France dispite much larger gaps between stand and pitch not so long ago plus isnt the Reliant's exterior more than a little similar to wembleys?

Surely this beauty will take some beating when it's finished:

http://www.stadiumguide.com/warsaw.htm

They've also got these two in the pipeline as well:

http://www.stadiumguide.com/slaskinew.htm

http://www.stadiumguide.com/balticarena.htm

The world of stadia is not all about England, Spain, Germany and the USA you know.

Your English spunk fetish is getting beyond a joke!! How the hell am I putting England down!! I said they have the 2nd best stadiums in the whole of Europe!! This just proves you have a huge English spunk fetish, as only a man with a huge English spunk fetish could class 2nd best in the whole of Europe as 'putting a country down'!!

You've lost the plot with your 'African death-trap' comparison. This wouldn't be the best stadium, as it would be a shit stadium that is a death trap!! German stadiums have superb safe terracing. It is is ridiculous to use German all-seater capacities, as these are not the capacities of the stadiums. You go to a Dortmund game and you will be in a crowd of 81000 people in a superb stadium. This is the capacity. It's quite simple.

If a shit African stadium is 72000 standing, then it's capacity is 72000. This doesn't change the fact that it's a shit stadium.


"Germany dont have that many decent stadiums"

Sorry, but you've completely lost the plot!! I think you must be the only one on the stadium section who thinks Germany doesn't have many decent stadiums.

I must say i'm disappointed kingdomca, I knew you would argue England has the best stadiums in the Universe, but your English spunk fetish has completely taken over your rational thought process, and you are now talking complete bollocks!!

your biased against England when you dont think Wembley counts but a german american-football stadium counts. That is so biased that its ridiculous.
do you consider actually consider"Wembley not counting as a football stadium" as a sane comment...

You are just ridiculous. I didnt actually argue for England at first, as I originally considered Germany and England about equal. It was only after having taken a closer look at the german venues that I changed it to England having the better venues.
Several german venues simply arent that good. Berlin, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Bremen are among the bigger poor stadiums and outside the top division, the quality is shocking for such a large western country.

Germany have little more than 10 top venues, which are excellent, and then the quality absolutely nosedives. I was surprised just how bad it was.

Anyway forget it,cant be bothered with al the childish name calling.

My personal favorites are actually neither german or english stadiums or rather, not their football stadiums.
I think Denmark has some great places as I am a big fan of small town 10-15,000 stadiums with good central locations and a mix of (modernised) covered seating and terracing (in front.)
There a few of those in Denmark as there are in english rugby in places like Northampton, Gloucester, Leicester.

@ "dutch"
Holland certainly has a great infrastructure. I disagree, Stadiums dont need to be huge. If more dutch clubs are getting venues comparable to the 30,000 sizes of PSV´s great stadium then that is excellent for a country that size. no need to be concerned with them not being huge.
That most clubs are so close together is also great for significant travelling support which boosts atmosphere. Holland just needs to keep hooliganism down.

Since when was part of the European Union the 3rd World?

Portugal has better football stadiums then Germany or England???

Obviously!!!

1 England
2 Spain
3 Italy
4 France
5 Germany

other countries dont count for me! :)

Here we have one of those spanish opinions I would say shouldn't count!

Don't agree with Poland being '3rd World' That is ridiculous, but those stadiums aren't! The second one looks very impressive hope they all get built.. etc

The Romans invented the Stadium; the Portuguese reinvented the Stadium. The Braga is a totally new idea in design. But i liked the Aveiro. It is the best Stadium!!

Thtat's one way of putting it! :)

ibrox


:cheers:

ibrox


:cheers:

true, Ibrox would have to win this one.

Beyond that I would go for Eden gardens, Calcutta, India.
A cricket ground with 110,000 seats unless they have burned more of them in the too frequent riots.
Its not a place with lots of good views I dont think.

Though India is 3rd world it will no doubt soon have by far the richest sports team in the world.

ibrox

Beat me to it, you swine :D

Sorry, I usually steer clear of controversy, and try to stay away from confrontation.

But you bubomb, having a dig at Wembley because it looks like a shopping mall, but then saying the Reliant Stadium 'opens up a can of whoop ass on Wembley'.
When the reliant stadium looks more like a shopping mall than any other stadium on the planet.

Wembley isn't even finished yet...but it does have a larger capacity than the Reliant stadium...which is a huge plus apparently.

East German Stadiums are not bad !!! :cheers:

I think in Argentina the best stadiums are:

River Plate Stadium:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/5903/encabezado12ur.th.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/my.php?image=encabezado12ur.jpg)

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1986/2g14lw.th.jpg (http://img89.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2g14lw.jpg)

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/4568/6g15me.th.jpg (http://img153.imageshack.us/my.php?image=6g15me.jpg)

http://img489.imageshack.us/img489/4760/1g11oz.th.jpg (http://img489.imageshack.us/my.php?image=1g11oz.jpg)

Boca Juniors:

http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/9117/bn36473918bn.th.jpg (http://img521.imageshack.us/my.php?image=bn36473918bn.jpg)

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8964/18bocajuniorsa12nc.th.jpg (http://img115.imageshack.us/my.php?image=18bocajuniorsa12nc.jpg)

Racing Club:

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/5603/17racingcluba18sh.th.jpg (http://img139.imageshack.us/my.php?image=17racingcluba18sh.jpg)

And Unico de La Plata , but i dont have photos.

Portugal for me! when we see a stadium like this one, and then we see that Portugal have 10 stadiums with this quality along the whole territory.. i think there is no doubts about it. countries like UK or Germany have great stadiums though. about the rest of europe... the whole continent have STRONG traditions in football.. so obviously EVERY E.U. country have GREAT football stadiums, ofcourse!

http://invictadesign.com/dragao4.jpg

Argentina? :lol:

all I can say is that France stadiums are just terrible (except stade de france of course )

marseille 's velodrome is just plain horrible and stupidly conceived ( no roof in the most windy part of the country )

Lens ,St etienne, Rennes are just four stands akwardly linked together .

Lille , a metropolis of 1 million + people ,still don't have a stadium .

the most appaling thing is that it's only 8 years since the world cup and the stadiums already looks like something from the 70's.

Argentina? :lol:

yeah why not, the stadiums are certainly bad enough, and they had a financial crisis didn't they....

i think this thread could be extremely offensive for the chosen ones.... they will think:

"yeah, my country have good stadiums :) but is a 3rd world country :cry:"

double post - delele

Germany have little more than 10 top venues, which are excellent, and then the quality absolutely nosedives. I was surprised just how bad it was.

I think the 12 wc venues are pretty decent. Add to that places like Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Wolfsburg, Mönchengladbach and you've almost got an entire league of decent to great venues. Feel free to point out all those superb English venues that are far better than their German counterparts.

Sorry, I usually steer clear of controversy, and try to stay away from confrontation.

But you bubomb, having a dig at Wembley because it looks like a shopping mall, but then saying the Reliant Stadium 'opens up a can of whoop ass on Wembley'.
When the reliant stadium looks more like a shopping mall than any other stadium on the planet.

Wembley isn't even finished yet...but it does have a larger capacity than the Reliant stadium...which is a huge plus apparently.

Ignore this bubum character mate because his anti-English stance on EVERYTHING is boorish.

:cheers:

I knew this thread was doomed from the start,


I knew that people wouldn't be able to make their choices, and leave it at that.

I knew people would question other peoples choices...which I knew would start arguments.

yeah why not, the stadiums are certainly bad enough, and they had a financial crisis didn't they....

It's not a third world country!

It might have had a financial crisis, but so did Britain in the late 1970s, taking a loan of 2,300 million from the IMF in 1977. Was Britian a 3rd world country at the time?

Here we have one of those spanish opinions I would say shouldn't count!

so your vote don't count either. :D

here is my list in terms of design, beauty,atmosphere and seats:

1.England (good staiums and good projects)
2.Germany.very good stadiums. they are in tie with england
3.Spain
4.Portugal (some nice stadiums except aveiro's one :D.it needs something bigger to improve the position)
5. Netherlands (the same as portugal.nice stadiums btw)
6.France
7.Italy

Germany
UK
Portugal
Span
Italy

:eek2:

I understood which was the best stadium of the 3rd world country, I mean, the non-developed ones..but this is not the topic.. As I don't understand much english, I'd rather not going on ... go on with your bussiness and don't laugh about the stadiums and another things of the 3rd world country...thank you and a great greeting from Argentina!...

I understood which was the best stadium of the 3rd world country, I mean, the non-developed ones..but this is not the topic.. go on with your bussiness and don't laugh about the stadiums and another things of the 3rd world country...thank you and a great greeting from Argentina!...


Have you been on the glue?

With apologies to all citizens of India

Salt Lake Stadium Kolkatta, East Bengal v Mohun Bagan

http://www.eastbengalfootballclub.com/photogallery/photo/44.jpg

Whatever your feelings on standing room I don't think its espeically relivant to the question because as has been shown by the pics of german stadia its not so much an architectural consideration as a political one. Thats to say that most stadiums outside germany could if they were allowed to add standing room without much building work(new seat/stands, maybe some different crowd contro,l etc).

As for Wembley I wouldnt really say its a benchmark for new stadiums beyond the roof simpley because not many totally new 90,000 capacity stadiums are needed.



As ever your standards change by the post to give the desired outcome. I can remember you singing the praises of Hampden (plus its new luxury facilties) and the Stade De France dispite much larger gaps between stand and pitch not so long ago plus isnt the Reliant's exterior more than a little similar to wembleys?

I never claimed Hampden or Stade De France were better than Wembley or the benchmarks in stadiums!!

Try harder please!!

I think the 12 wc venues are pretty decent. Add to that places like Duisburg, Düsseldorf, Wolfsburg, Mönchengladbach and you've almost got an entire league of decent to great venues. Feel free to point out all those superb English venues that are far better than their German counterparts.

They can't.

your biased against England when you dont think Wembley counts but a german american-football stadium counts. That is so biased that its ridiculous.
do you consider actually consider"Wembley not counting as a football stadium" as a sane comment...

You are just ridiculous. I didnt actually argue for England at first, as I originally considered Germany and England about equal. It was only after having taken a closer look at the german venues that I changed it to England having the better venues.
Several german venues simply arent that good. Berlin, Nuremberg, Stuttgart, Bremen are among the bigger poor stadiums and outside the top division, the quality is shocking for such a large western country.

Germany have little more than 10 top venues, which are excellent, and then the quality absolutely nosedives. I was surprised just how bad it was.

Anyway forget it,cant be bothered with al the childish name calling.

My personal favorites are actually neither german or english stadiums or rather, not their football stadiums.
I think Denmark has some great places as I am a big fan of small town 10-15,000 stadiums with good central locations and a mix of (modernised) covered seating and terracing (in front.)
There a few of those in Denmark as there are in english rugby in places like Northampton, Gloucester, Leicester.

@ "dutch"
Holland certainly has a great infrastructure. I disagree, Stadiums dont need to be huge. If more dutch clubs are getting venues comparable to the 30,000 sizes of PSV´s great stadium then that is excellent for a country that size. no need to be concerned with them not being huge.
That most clubs are so close together is also great for significant travelling support which boosts atmosphere. Holland just needs to keep hooliganism down.

Germany has about 20 superb stadiums with more on they way. Just look at my top division comparison, Germany is WAY ahead!!

I see you are reduced to making things up again! If you can show me a post where I say "Wembley not counting as a football stadium" or even implying it, then I will pay you a £1000 by paypal!

true, Ibrox would have to win this one.

Beyond that I would go for Eden gardens, Calcutta, India.
A cricket ground with 110,000 seats unless they have burned more of them in the too frequent riots.
Its not a place with lots of good views I dont think.

Though India is 3rd world it will no doubt soon have by far the richest sports team in the world.

What a moron, and he wonders why people hate the English!!

Just leave it now bubomb.

You would think you were german yourself.

You have taken the side of German stadiums just to attack english ones.


I myself also picked German stadiums over English ones, but left it at that, you on the other hand are making it your duty to prove everyone who picks england as Number 1 wrong.
It is all quite sad.

This comment by you in reply to what kampflamm said proves my point... 'They can't.'

'They' being the English, the people who you seem to be against.

@ bubomb

Holland is actually only two provinces of the total 12. But it has about half the population of the country and it's where the three biggest cities are located; Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Den Haag(The Hague).

I prefer 'the Netherlands', eventhough I'm a Hollander, but somehow foreigners seem to know the name Holland better. Holland was recently ranked as the 10th most valuable brandname (http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=13&story_id=27927&name=Holland+'brand'+10th+in+ranking+of+financial+value) if countries were brands. Funny, considering it's not the official countryname.

Oh yeah, to make things even more confusing, we are called the Dutch! :)

Thanks for that. Very interesting. I will use 'The Netherlands' from now on.

This is a really interesting idea for a thread, with one slight drawback. It's not immediately apparent what constitutes the 'Third World'. A simple check on Wikipedia confirms that there is no universally-accepted definition - but then goes to show a map of which countries were in which 'World' at the end of the Cold War.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/World_map_worlds_first_second_third.GIF/800px-World_map_worlds_first_second_third.GIF
Blue = 1st World
Red = 2nd World
Green = 3rd World.

I'd always wondered about the term and what the other two worlds were, so I guess I've learnt something by reading this thread.

Anyway, keeping the above map as my guide, I guess I'd have to say my favourite Third World stadium is the Bukit Jalil stadium in Kuala Lumpur.

http://www.fussballtempel.net/afc/MYS/Bukit_Jalil2.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/afc/MYS/Bukit_Jalil.jpg

Acoording to worldstadiums.com, it has a capacity of 100,200.