This thread is for news/ pictures to do with the 2018/2022 World Cups. The official bidding nations for 2018 are Australia, Belgium & The Netherlands, England, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Space & Portugal, USA. Qatar and South Korea intend to only bid for the 2022 tournament.

I have only included stadia from each bidding nation(s) that meet the 40,000+ FIFA regulations. These are only suggested venues - The official bid stadiums will be added when we know of them:


In alphabetical order:



Australia

Existing Venues:

Melbourne Cricket Ground (Melbourne)
Cap. 100,000
http://i439.photobucket.com/albums/qq115/go_hodgey/CB%20Trans%20Tasman%20Tour/MelbourneCricketGround.jpg

ANZ Stadium (Sydney)
Cap. 83,500
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/telstra3.jpg

Etihad Stadium (Melbourne)
Cap. 56,400
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y187/cybermatt_m/Melbourne/IMG_0610.jpg

Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane)
Cap. 52,500
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/suncorp.jpg

Sydney Football Stadium (Sydney)
Cap. 42,000
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/sydney_aussie1.jpg


Potential/future Venues:

Perth stadium (Perth)
Cap: ~60,000
http://www.dsr.wa.gov.au/dsrwr/_assets/main/lib60084/KANGPAW.jpg



Belgium/The Netherlands:


Amsterdam Arena (Amsterdam)
Cap. 55,000
http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k234/viper1955/Amsterdam/ATourn025.jpg

Stadion Feijenoord (Rotterdam)
Cap. 51,000
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e392/Roedman/holland%2005%20sept-dec/DSCN1666.jpg

Koning Boudewijn Stadion (Brussels)
Cap. 50,000
http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s175/Chimaera1977/KB.jpg





England:

(potential venues listed - currently only 2 London stadia are allowed)


Wembley (London)
Cap. 90,000
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k265/Slayer2004/Image1.jpg

Twickenham (London)
Cap. 82,000
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1359/1016819690_9d46d1426a_b.jpg

Old Trafford (Manchester)
Cap. 76,000
http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c224/jmw-2003/ground_manunited.jpg

Emirates Stadium (London)
Cap. 60,000
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee34/Arsenal-France/Emirates%20Stadium/Emiratesvuearienne.jpg

St. James Park (Newcastle)
Cap. 52,000+ (may be expanded for the tournament)
http://i598.photobucket.com/albums/tt67/sexcmatt11/St_James_Park_A.jpg

City of Manchester Stadium (Manchester)
Cap. 48,500 (May be expanded to 60,000)
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/cityofmanchesterstadium.jpg

Stadium of Light (Sunderland)
Cap. 48,000
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t39/che_stel/Football%20ground/DSC01093.jpg



Potential/future Stadia:


New Anfield (Liverpool)
Cap. 60,000~75,000
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/LFC.jpg

New White Hart Lane stadium (London)
Cap. 58,000
http://img403.imageshack.us/img403/6919/stadion.jpg

City of Birmingham Stadium
Cap. ~55,000
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/BrumStadium2018.jpg

New Everton Stadium (Liverpool)
Cap. 50,000+
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/Evertron.jpg





Indonesia

Bung Karno Stadium (Jakarta)
Cap. 100,000
http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp294/lightswarrior/gelorabk.jpg

Palaran Stadium (Samarinda)
Cap. 60,000
http://i408.photobucket.com/albums/pp168/futgeograficoasia/aerea/palaransamarindaplanStadionPalaran.jpg

Jaka Baring Stadium (Palembang)
Cap. 55,000
http://i43.************/125sx8g.jpg

Jalak Harupat Soreang Stadium (Bandung)
Cap. 40,000
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/indonesia/bandung_soreang.jpg



Japan

Yokohoma Stadium (Yokohoma)
Cap. 70,000
http://i302.photobucket.com/albums/nn92/bilingualmc/yokohama_stadium_721.jpg
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc32/selsharawi/pict6.jpg

Saitama Stadium (Saitama)
Cap. 63,700
http://www.c-museum.jacic.or.jp/c-museumn/Topics/images/010723-2.jpg

Tokyo Olympic Stadium (Tokyo)
Cap. 57,000
http://jarba.web.infoseek.co.jp/bogu013-19.jpg

Shizuoka Stadium
Cap. 51,000
http://www.j-league.or.jp/stadium/shizuoka/images/2006stadium_a.jpg

Nagai Stadium (Osaka)
Cap. 50,000
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t6/scoon0224/IMGP0684.jpg

Sapporo Dome (Sapporo)
Cap. 42,000
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m305/UnknownColumn/Japan%20soccer%20images/asappo3.jpg






Mexico

Estadio Azteca (Mexico City
Cap. 105,000
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n120/vhaldemar1/mexico/09_ciudad_de_mexico_estadio_azteca_.jpg

Estadio Olimpico Universitario
Cap. 72,400
http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/6347/cu1vq6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Estadio La Corregidora
Cap. 50,000
http://i534.photobucket.com/albums/ee350/euge67/800px-Estadio_la_Corregidora.jpg

Estadio Jalisco (Guadalajara)
Cap. 63,000
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff126/chikitamack/11-03-08_2129.jpg

Estadio Chivas (Guadalajara)
Cap. 45,000
http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii250/ramxes_2008/Estadio%20Chivas/EstadioChivas-2.jpg

Unviersity Stadium (Monterrey)
Cap. 45,000
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e39/Martin1971/uni.jpg


Potential/future Stadiums:

Arena Indios (Ciudad Juárez)
Cap. ~40,000
http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh185/belen9/Dibujo-1.jpg





Russia

Olimpiyskiy Kompleks Luzhniki Stadion (Moscow)
Cap. 83,000
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff249/aguitasmex2007/Stadium%20Pictures/c628.jpg


Potential/future stadiums:


Zenit Stadium (St. Petersberg)
Cap. 62,000
http://sasakima.iza.ne.jp/images/user/20070422/63590.jpg


Stadion Spartak (Moscow)
Cap. 42,000
http://i43.************/ie49qq.jpg



Spain/Portugal

Camp Nou (Barcelona)
Cap. 108,000
http://*************************/barcelona/jpgs/camp_nou_fosters_oct07_1.jpg

Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid)
Cap. 80,400
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y169/DaDvD/bernabeu.jpg

New Mestella (Valencia)
Cap. 75,000
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8421/infografias10.jpg

Estadio da Luz (Lisbon)
Cap. 65,000
http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l87/Chels93_2006/Luz.jpg

Estadio Vicente Calderón (Madrid)
Cap. 57,000
http://i39.************/df9ikx.jpg

Barcelona Olympic Stadium (Barcelona)
Cap. 56,000
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x34/ukmatt71/OlympicStadium1.jpg

Estadio Alvalade (Lisbon)
Cap. 50,000
http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k109/sportingcp/Estadio_Sporting_foto_aerea.jpg

Estádio do Dragão (Porto)
Cap. 50,000
http://i44.************/ipmic2.jpg


Potential/future stadia:


New Estadio Manuel (Seville)
Cap. 64,000
http://img470.imageshack.us/img470/5299/pict1295zw0.jpg

San Mames (Bilbao)
Cap: 56000
http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d95/borji_taz6/3.jpg






USA (hundreds of potential venues, just a sample)

Giants Stadium (New York)
Cap: 80,000
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e68/blueknight74/3109.jpg

Reliant Stadium (Houston)
Cap: 72,000
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/PHO/AAGO104.jpg

University of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix)
Cap: 63,400
http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/images/Eisenman_stadium.jpg


Qwest Field (Seattle)
Cap: 67,000
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/art/sports/seahawks/stadium/cover04.jpg

Dallas Stadium (Dallas)
Cap: 80,000 (Completed 2009)
http://www.stadiumsofnfl.com/future/cowboys755.jpg


Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia)
Cap: 68,000
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/PhiladelphiaEagles/newaerial.jpg

Soldier Field (Chicago)
Cap: 61,000
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/ChicagoBears/newaerial.jpg

Fedex Field (Washington D.C)
Cap: 91,000
http://football.ballparks.com/NFL/WashingtonRedskins/aerial.jpg

Invesco Field (Denver)
Cap : 76,000
http://www.fussballtempel.net/concacaf/USA/Invesco_Field_A2.gif

L.A Memorial Coliseum (Los Angeles)
Cap: 92,000
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y281/gherkin007/WC2018/los_angeles_memorial1.jpg

Bank of America Stadium (Charlotte)
Cap: 73,000
http://www.uncc.edu/admissions/tour/27.jpg


Pictures from www.worldstadiums.com, www.stadiumguide.com and www.photobucket.com

Feel free to list any additions!

----------------------------------------------------------------------
With the World Cup of Football next to be held in Germany, Europe. Then South Africa in 2010 and South America looks like it will get it in 2014 more than likely Brazil. Australia is going for 2018 "officially" it seems with the local FA and various governments all keen to have a crack at it. (Might be our only way of qualifying)

The problems with Australia hosting the event are not financial or even infrastructure. More problems with rival footballing codes of the AFL and NRL who control the largest and finest stadia in the land when the World Cup usually is held. Ideally FIFA would yield and let us stage the even in October/November and everybody would be happy. Well here is 13 years notice.

As it stands right now if Germany goes bust and cannot host the event next year, then OZ could step up and hold the event without too many issues.

Stadia:

Melbourne: MCG cap. 100,000, Docklands 55,000
Sydney: Homebush 82,000, The SFS 42,000
Newcastle: 30,000 (easily expanded)
Brisbane: 52,000
Adelaide: Football Park: 50,000, Hindmarsh 18,000(easily expanded)
Perth: Subiaco: 44,000

Not many people down our way are intrested in soccer, but it could happen, only bad thing is that the country is so large, and spread out that it would be hard to keep it all together, and overseas fans would be travling form one city to another to follow their team through the events.

The chances of a world cup in october are about as close to zero as possible, maybe in dec/jan if a Europe wide mid season break came about but thats still very unlikely IMHO. The fact is that any bid that has soccer playing second fiddle to another sport just isnt going to interest FIFA.

I'd say the main factors agenst it would be that if Brazil gets 2014 Europe is likely to push hard for 2018 and the fact that your most likely going to be tossed in with the asian countries as far as rotation goes which means competing with China.

They have said if Oz gets this, it could be the death certificate to the AFL

They have said if Oz gets this, it could be the death certificate to the AFL

That'll never happen. They were saying the same thing about the Rugby WC in 2003, lo and behold AFL is stronger than ever. It has too much of a stranglehold on the populace (at least in the 4 stronghold states: VIC, TAS, WA, SA).

It would certainly strengthen Soccer in Australia though which can only be a good thing. However, it is unrealistic that Australia could host it with the majority of current venues. Most of them are configured for oval sports like AFL and cricket... really the only really suitable venues (rectangle pitch and decent capacity) are Suncorp in Brissy, and SFS in Sydney.

So to host it, there would be quite a few new venues required... as good as the MCG, GABBA, Subi, Telstra Stadium and Dome are... they are just not ideal to watch sports played on a rectangle pitch.

Stu

http://www.fussballtempel.net/ofc/AUS/MCG3.jpg

From that pic I wouldnt say the MCG is that much worse than your average ground with a running track (such as the one which is going to be hosting the WC final next year) plus it does have a steep seating incline which helps IMHO. Any possibilty they could temporaly extend the stands on either side onto the pitch a little more?

They would certainly not use subiaco in perth. By 2010, MES will hold 35,000. It could be upgraded to above 40,000 by 2018.

bobdabuilder: brisbane has two potential sites not 1
Suncorp (52,000) and the Gabba (45,000)
And Suncorp i hear is one of the best stadiums in the country
with every seat being very close to the action

That'll never happen. They were saying the same thing about the Rugby WC in 2003, lo and behold AFL is stronger than ever. It has too much of a stranglehold on the populace (at least in the 4 stronghold states: VIC, TAS, WA, SA).

It would certainly strengthen Soccer in Australia though which can only be a good thing. However, it is unrealistic that Australia could host it with the majority of current venues. Most of them are configured for oval sports like AFL and cricket... really the only really suitable venues (rectangle pitch and decent capacity) are Suncorp in Brissy, and SFS in Sydney.

So to host it, there would be quite a few new venues required... as good as the MCG, GABBA, Subi, Telstra Stadium and Dome are... they are just not ideal to watch sports played on a rectangle pitch.

Stu

In many countries they play games in an Olympic Sized stadium with tracks and all. Its awfull atmosphere but im sure they will make temporary seating esp at the mcg were there in melbourne, There are many Europeans that would go to watch easily Filling capacity. the thing is, We live so far from the rest of the world, Many people would go to the World cup regardless of who is playing simply because its a ''once in a lifetime'' opputunity.

On ovals being used as venues. Maybe they should just put a running track in to make it look more like a European stadium. That would make it more acceptable to the soccer people. ;)

In all seriousness I've been to Stadio Olimpico in Roma and seen games it is actually a fair bit farther from the action than you will get at the MCG. The MCG is not too bad for soccer actually when there is more than 70,000 there. The new extensions will make it excellent. You are a similar distance from the pitch to what the old Wembley was like.

The main issue I can see is the dates of potentially staging the event. FIFA wants June/July. But it is AFL/NRL time and they hold the leases and control the stadia. It would have to be between Oct and March for it to ever happen so they can also take maximum press coverage which would be limited if they ran head-to-head against the local games.

As a death certificate for AFL. Won't happen. The game is older than soccer, and AFL just disapearing is about as likely as Catholics converting en-masse to Islam. The only possible way it could happen is if FIFA adopted Aussie Rules as the new laws of their sport. Then it could happen.

All up, if it is to happen the new pro league here has to become a success and get average crowds up towards 20,000 a match as well as the Socceroos performing well and making World Cups not to mention FIFA doing Oz a huge favour in coming out here.

i'd say they should only play Melbourne, Sydney, Newcastle, and Brisbane. That is about the same size of germany, and they would just have to divide the games up that every team plays in every city, if that is possible. I think it would be awesome to have them. If we could pull off something as good as the Sydney Olympics, think about the potentials....

The main issue I can see is the dates of potentially staging the event. FIFA wants June/July. But it is AFL/NRL time and they hold the leases and control the stadia. It would have to be between Oct and March for it to ever happen so they can also take maximum press coverage which would be limited if they ran head-to-head against the local games.

I don't think you'd stand any chance what so ever with a bid that had soccer playing second fiddle to another sport. With all the money a World Cup brings in I'd guess AFL/NRL pride rather than cash would be the main problem.

As far as stadiums go I think you'd be able to use the MCG and maybe the Telstra Dome but elsewhere you'd probabley need a few more extended/new rubgy/soccer style stadiums.

As I said I think the main problems for an aussie 2018 would not be your ability to host it so much as your rivals. With Australia moving into the asian qualifing group I think your going to have a very hard time convincing people you should have a seperate rotation from Asia as hosts with means potentially competing with China. Also if Brazil hosts in 2014 I'd guess it could well be on the condiction that europe hosts in 2018 with England and Spain as obvious candidates.

If a backroom deal gets done for Europe to stage again in 2018, then we go for 2022. No biggee there, whats 4 more years?

Telstra Dome would be ideal for soccer as you can drag the ground floor seats around the pitch to make the field almost rectangular. I have no idea why they have not been using the facility already for rugby and soccer matches. I heard somewhere that they never installed the motors so you can push the seats in. But you can actually see the joins for the sections that move about if you take a look at the ground floor section, so it is technically possible.

I personally cannot see an issue in playing right across the continent, including Perth, afterall they did it for USA 94 and continental America is roughly of similar size to Oz. It turned out to be the most successfully staged and profitable World Cup of all time. Easily the most tickets sold and they did not have to spend any money on building venues as they were already built, like we have down here. With airline ticket prices as they are now, the geographical size is irrelevant, you can just hop on a place and fly around pretty cheaply. Also it is well documented that Perth will be looking to build a new 60,000 seat stadium to house AFL and rectangular sports in the not too distant future. Subiaco is too small for projected growth for demand for sports tickets.

In a decade or so you would assume that Adelaide would be taking the wrecking ball to Footy Park and rebuilding their stadium as it is beginning to look past it even now. Plus the amount of cash the Crows and Power bring in with average gates of 35,000-40,000 a week means that it would not be wasting that much dosh.

Who knows what will be happening in places like Townsville and Gold Coast in the next 20 years also. They might build themselves decent rectangular stadiums as well for RL and possibly A-League.

One day, I am certain of it the World Cup of Football will come to Australia. FIFA wants to do it, and we want to do it. That is already on the record. We just need to get around the political side of it which is the big stumbling block the rest is all in place as of today.

Forgive my ignorance of Aussie sports but isn't the AFL just Rugby?

Only way Oz will qualify.

Id like to see the US Qualify in any other confederation than the one they have been 'given' by FIFA.

Forgive my ignorance of Aussie sports but isn't the AFL just Rugby?


No, very diffrent, rugby is only strong in two states, Queensland and New South Wales, the rest of Aus does not take too much intrest in Rugby, they like AFL more, but everystate (exept Tas and NT and ACT) has an AFL team, with Victoria being the birthplace, having the most.

Id like to see the US Qualify in any other confederation than the one they have been 'given' by FIFA.

I think they'd stand a decent chance elsewhere but the couple of "bonus" spots they have right now just incase they can't get past Costa Rica are rather insulting to any major european/south american team that fails to qualify.

Forgive my ignorance of Aussie sports but isn't the AFL just Rugby?

Yeah, totally different sports. For starters, AFL is played on an oval pitch that has no set dimensions (the ground size varies from stadium to stadium, from the wide MCG to the narrow Kardinia Park), as compared to Rugby and Rugby League (RL) which are played on a rectangular pitch. Futher, there is no 'Touchdown' type zone like in Gridiron, or for Tries in Rugby and RL, but rather you kick the ball between goals.

The game style is completely different too... with the main gameplay element being kicking from player-to-player and 'marking' (catching) the ball, as opposed to passing the ball as in Rugby and RL. It is very fast and engaging to watch, very confusing if you are uninitiated... whereas Rugby and RL tend to be more stop-start-stop-start.

Well, that is the basic differences any, hope it makes sense ;)

Stu

^ I'd go as far as saying AFL is more stop start than rugby union or rugby league. As soon as a player is tackled in an AFL match and cannot release the ball, the umpire has to run in and bounce the ball!! It can become very messy at times. Not to mention when a player marks the ball and takes his time to decide where he is going to take his next kick.

Anyway, back on topic, it could only be a good thing for soccer in Australia to host the WC, but i really don't know if it will happen. I would tend to think there isn't a big enough market for a game which, in reality isn't all that popular here.

Just my 2 cents.

Food for thought:

#Who would have thought 20 years ago that rugby union games would have sold out in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Launceston for a rugby world cup?

#18,000 turned up for 1/4 final of the first rugger world cup in 1987 in Sydney. The Final of the 2003 world drew a sell out 84,000, the highest tv ratings in Oz TV history for anything.

#highest tv ratings on Oz tv in 2002 were the soccer World Cup.

#Oz has hosted 2 World Youth soccer championships. The last time in 1993.

With money, promotion and the right political will it can happen. Just as it has for rugby union. I get the feeling that soccer has finally got its act together. Who knows the soccer people might even be able to buy out AFL and NRL anyhow and tell 'em to take a siesta on them!

The word is the 2011 Asian Nations is coming down under. Confed Cup and World Club Champs are earmarked as well.

Maybe not in 2018 as I have a feeling China or America might get it. But after that why the heck not?

Where there is a will there is a way.

The Dutch Footbal Comisarry wants to bring the WC in 2018 to the Netherlands.....

The Dutch Footbal Comisarry wants to bring the WC in 2018 to the Netherlands.....
Unless they go back on there being no more co hosted events wouldnt stadiums be a bit of a problem? You've only got two 40k plus stadiums right now afterall.

Australian Stadiums for a possible WC

MCG,Melbourne (100,000)
http://www.studor.net/images/reference/MCG%20aerial.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/auboy/MCG1.jpg

Telstra Dome,Melbourne (55,000)
http://www.moonlighting.com.au/Corp-photos/Docklands.jpg

Telstra Stadium,Sydney (83,500)
http://www.hartill.net/Sydney/Images/IMG_0149.jpg
http://www.embemedia.com/images/RWC%20Telstra%20Stadium.JPG

Sydney Football Stadium,Sydney (43,000)
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/photos/aussie2.jpg
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiumphotos/200405-aussie_pan.jpg

Suncorp Stadium,Brisbane (53,000)
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiumphotos/200301-suncorp_aerial.jpg
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiumphotos/200310-suncorp3.jpg

Canberra Stadium,Canberra (27,000-Upgrade to 40,000)
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/photos/canberra1.jpg
http://www.fotballstedet.com/images/canberra-stadium.jpg

Energy Australia Stadium,Newcastle (30,000-Upgrade to 40,000)
http://www.austadiums.com/stadiums/stadiumphotos/200504-energyaus_eaststand.jpg

Bewdiful.

In the normal world. We should get the World Cup. That is of course if FIFA is supposedly 'good for the game'.

They will build new 50,000 plus stadiums in Adelaide and Perth in the next 10 or so years also.

I think FIFA has rules stipulate that you need 10 40,000 seat stadiums minimum. That rules out most of our potential competition.

Not many people down our way are intrested in soccer...
Not true. Soccer is the Most popular sport for boys, whilst netball for girls. Overall Soccer is the second most popular sport for children after swimming. (source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/57e1c764bfa85942ca256f7200832fbc?OpenDocument )

These children would be old enough by the time the World Cup comes to us (2018), and hopefully they will qualify for it!

australian stadiums are superb..............

Subiaco. (capacity: 42 922)
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/western_australia/perth_subiaco.jpg

Members Equity Stadium (Perth) is a soccer stadium. Its capacity is currently around 18,000 but there are plans to eventually upgrade it to 35,000+.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/western_australia/perth_equity.jpg

Bewdiful.

In the normal world. We should get the World Cup. That is of course if FIFA is supposedly 'good for the game'.

They will build new 50,000 plus stadiums in Adelaide and Perth in the next 10 or so years also.

I think FIFA has rules stipulate that you need 10 40,000 seat stadiums minimum. That rules out most of our potential competition.

Except as I stated England, Brazil, Spain and China. WC's being "for the good of the game" also doesnt mean they should only be used as an excuse to rebuild stadia and promote soccer in countrys where its not a major sport but also to re energize the game where it is already popular. Look at Euro 96 in the England for example which played a big part in the current mega popularity of soccer here.

MoreOrLess, what you say is true and I am sure we all agree 100 percent that those nations should host the tournament from time to time. But surely one day even if it is not 2018, 2022 or 2042... it would be beneficial for the sport of football to come down under.

At least in Australia, unlike a Japan we can actually get the stadiums to make profits every year to pay for them so it won't be just money down the pan with us. And the sport would get a little nudge along too.

Not true. Soccer is the Most popular sport for boys, whilst netball for girls. Overall Soccer is the second most popular sport for children after swimming. (source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/57e1c764bfa85942ca256f7200832fbc?OpenDocument )

These children would be old enough by the time the World Cup comes to us (2018), and hopefully they will qualify for it!

True. i read in paper once the AFL is scraed because more than 50% of young sports players play soccer as opposed to aussie rules.
This is why they have sent out AFL players to schools to get kids intrested in AFL.

I'm not sure how well the MCG would be suited for a soccer match. It seems like the distance between stands and the pitch would be huge. Still, with a few upgrades Australia has the capacity to host a World Cup. Perhaps New Zealand could host a few games?

The MCG is actually excellent for soccer. The ultimate multi-purpose stadium really.

On the ground level it is not as far from the action as a lot of European stadiums with running tracks, or even River Plate stadium in Buenos Aires. To enable the MCG to fit in a running track for next years Commonwealth games, they have had to 'cut out' a section of grandstand to allow for the track.

On the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th tiers it is very steep and quite elevated above the action so you get excellent sightlines.

I have seen 3 internationals(Oz v. Iran: 97, Oz v. Brazil: 99, Oz v. Italy: 2000 Olympics) held there and it was fantastic, right up there with San Siro for atmosphere plus attendances are generally 20,000 greater than anywhere you get in Europe. So the noise generated is deafening especially when Oz have scored.

I'd imagine their would be a rather hot debate over who got the final if Oz did host a World Cup, the MCG or the Telstra stadium? The Telstra is more suited to soccer but they have already had the Oylimpics and the Rugby World Cup final.

I'd imagine their would be a rather hot debate over who got the final if Oz did host a World Cup, the MCG or the Telstra stadium? The Telstra is more suited to soccer but they have already had the Oylimpics and the Rugby World Cup final.

MCG no doubt. Largest Stadium. Melbourne has largest Ethnic population and thus they will probarbly get a better attendence.

Telstra Stadium will get it.Its a far superior viewing venue than the MCG and if its up to capacity,then if the NSW government want it bad enough,then they will reinstall the temporary seating and up capacity back up to 112,000 for the World Cup.

Telstra Stadium will get it.Its a far superior viewing venue than the MCG and if its up to capacity,then if the NSW government want it bad enough,then they will reinstall the temporary seating and up capacity back up to 112,000 for the World Cup.

They wouldnt be very good seats if it was in the same configuration as the oylimpics though plus they wouldnt be covered. Coudlnt the MCG be reworked aswell(either temporary or permanently) by pushing forward the stands in the same way as the Telstra dome to give a rectangular pitch aswell? The stands seem steep enough to do that plus I'd expect it would give around a 110-20k capacity.

They wouldnt be very good seats if it was in the same configuration as the oylimpics though plus they wouldnt be covered. .

I agree..they wont be great seats..Thats why they were always temp seats at the Olympics and were always going to be removed.
The MCG has this problem currently for any rectangular sports event.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1050172639538_2003/04/16/1504event1,0.jpg

As I said,it will come down to who the most desperate state is and whos willing to fork out the most $$$$ for it.

Just for the record, Telstra Stadium got the nod for the big World Cup qualifier in November over Melbourne and Brisbane simply because the MCG did not want the match. The MCG will resemble a quarry at that time due to works for next years Commie Games and preparations for the Boxing day test match. The sightlines of Homebush v. MCG are debatable as to which is better. Generally speaking the vast majority of Melbourne's spectators ie. 2nd deck and up are above the action. While at Homebush they are on the ground floor. Personal preference really. If you like to sit above the field, its Melb, if you like to be relatively level and close to the action, Syd.

If a final was going to be played anywhere it would be the MCG, no argument at all. It holds 20,000 more people and is smack bang in the middle of Melbourne, while Homebush is out in the boondocks of outer Sydney. You need a passport to go that far west. You get a stronger concentration of 'football' fans in Melbourne that can pick up and go to a match easily. In Sydney you need to plan your day out. A lot of this simply comes down to historical planning of the relative cities as well which is not the fault of the Homebush setup at all.

Arguably, they should have demolished the SCG and built that as the Olympic Stadium and it would have been a better situation and been far more useful as a venue to Sydney folk. Melbourne had a 'Homebush scenario' with VFL Park in Mulgrave 25 kms SE of the city in suburbia. Suffice to say, 30 years after it was built, it is now a new subdivision for housing. It didn't really work.

Telstra Stadium will get it.Its a far superior viewing venue than the MCG and if its up to capacity,then if the NSW government want it bad enough,then they will reinstall the temporary seating and up capacity back up to 112,000 for the World Cup.
Highly unlikely unless someone provides approx 50 mil to demolish the roof over the ends of the ground, construct temp seating, and reconstruct the roof.

Just for the record, Telstra Stadium got the nod for the big World Cup qualifier in November over Melbourne and Brisbane simply because the MCG did not want the match. The MCG will resemble a quarry at that time due to works for next years Commie Games and preparations for the Boxing day test match. The sightlines of Homebush v. MCG are debatable as to which is better. Generally speaking the vast majority of Melbourne's spectators ie. 2nd deck and up are above the action. While at Homebush they are on the ground floor. Personal preference really. If you like to sit above the field, its Melb, if you like to be relatively level and close to the action, Syd.

If a final was going to be played anywhere it would be the MCG, no argument at all. It holds 20,000 more people and is smack bang in the middle of Melbourne, while Homebush is out in the boondocks of outer Sydney. You need a passport to go that far west. You get a stronger concentration of 'football' fans in Melbourne that can pick up and go to a match easily. In Sydney you need to plan your day out. A lot of this simply comes down to historical planning of the relative cities as well which is not the fault of the Homebush setup at all.
Arguably, they should have demolished the SCG and built that as the Olympic Stadium and it would have been a better situation and been far more useful as a venue to Sydney folk. Melbourne had a 'Homebush scenario' with VFL Park in Mulgrave 25 kms SE of the city in suburbia. Suffice to say, 30 years after it was built, it is now a new subdivision for housing. It didn't really work.

err.. Homebush is smack bang in the heart of the Sydney Metro.

The SCG has no public transport access besides buses. The location isn't very ideal to the whole Sydney Metro, only to the inner city areas and eastern suburbs. That oppose to the Homebush Olympic Park where a high proportion of the population either live closer or have better access to.


Highly unlikely unless someone provides approx 50 mil to demolish the roof over the ends of the ground, construct temp seating, and reconstruct the roof.

i reckon they will. Looking at how excited Bob Carr is getting. The Govt. would rather invest in these things rather than public transport, and other logical options.

Waverley:Poor public transport..No public transport service
Waverley:Poor design,lack of roof cover,rainbelt region of Melbourne

Thats why Waverley failed...and the Eastern suburbs of Melbourne are robbed of top level AFL.

ncik summed it up perfectly .Homebush is perfectly located for Sydney and smack bang in the centre of the sprawl.

Building an Olympic Stadium at Moore Park wouldve been a transport catastrophe.

^ I'd go as far as saying AFL is more stop start than rugby union or rugby league. As soon as a player is tackled in an AFL match and cannot release the ball, the umpire has to run in and bounce the ball!! It can become very messy at times. Not to mention when a player marks the ball and takes his time to decide where he is going to take his next kick.

Anyway, back on topic, it could only be a good thing for soccer in Australia to host the WC, but i really don't know if it will happen. I would tend to think there isn't a big enough market for a game which, in reality isn't all that popular here.

Just my 2 cents.
lol but its a higher scoring game.

in relation to perth getting a 60,000 venue i dont think it will happen in the next 10 even 20 years because they are expanding members equity stadium to over 30,000 for the new Super 14 rugby team being held here and the soccer aswell, although subi could be a bit bigger for derbies.

With Subiaco, they should take a look at what they did in Geelong at Kardinia Park and build a multi tier grandstand on the outer wing with a comparable amount of space.

They could increase capacity by 5,000. Rebuilding the grandstand on the old members side could also increase the cap. to over 50,000.

For mine, Subiaco is too long and should lose 10 metres at either end.

no they cant build a new grandstand on the members wing, check out how close it is to the road

http://img171.echo.cx/img171/4486/subiaco0ew.jpg

btw they sort of had plans

heres the render of it

http://www.postnewspapers.com.au/20050219/news/images/subi%20oval.jpg

dont know whats happening with it though.

You could bring up Subiaco to some acceptable level but it will always be limited by space.

Presently it is easily the lousiest main ground used in the AFL. Perthlings will put up with it because a lot of them have not been to the stadiums on the east coast. :fiddle:

There is so much land in Perth, I would be inclined in a decade to pull up stumps and build a new ground elsewhere.

Something that you could stage big soccer and rugby clashes as well as AFL. So you would need some kind of retractable seating arrangement ala Homebush.

The demand might very well go up in the next 10 years if the AFL decides to move to a 30 match home and away season. :

yer but you see to us footy followers, subi is the best, but to the people who don't go to subi they don't like it, okay it may be not that well maintained or whatever, but i love it anyway, the walk to the train station after the dockers have won is awesome (when they win) and when they lose its pretty fun two, its right in subiaco which has heeps of bars and clubs and extremely good public transport and close to the city and fremantle, works both ways, i wouldnt wont it anywhere else.

I know alot of footy followers who think it isnt up to scratch, in terms of facilites. Your being sentimental, which goes against development, if everyone was like you nothing would get built.

I think if a new perth stadium is to be built, hopefully it uses the Stadium Australia and Docklands approach, meaning it can be converted to a rectangle. I dont think it will, the Afl has too much influence. Most world cups involve the construction of 50 percent completely new football stadiums, the same would happen in Australia.

thats probably because all your footy follower friends are stuck up c-nts like you are.

Or maybe they are over the age of 14, with a mental age of +10. What does a football world cup in Australia have to do with you, its such a low scoring sport and all.

But a much more exciting one.

Exactly.. I was being sarcastic, thats a common argument from football bashers in Australia.

Are u refering to aussie rules or Soccer?

"Soccer".

"Soccer".

For me it's a great idea. Every other continent had or will have WC, but no Oceania :( Africa in 2010 'n' Sth America in 2014 so why don't organise the next one in Austaralia or Australia-New Zeland. I don't think that any other county will be able to make a serious bid. Imagine for e.g. Fiji-Salomon Isl WC 2012 :). Australia and New Zeland are well developed countries with good stadiums and infrastructure.

BTW Idea of moving Australia from OFC to AFA sucks. If Australia is placed in Oceania why should play as an asian country. There is no other thing like that in whole world except Israel and central Asia countries but Israel hasbeen moved because of !!safety!!, not to makie it easier way to WC. Central asian countries like Kazakhstan etc should be in AFA, but they play in UEFA because of they had been a fart of Soviet Union which has been an european country. I think Australia should stay in OFC.

I say they stick OZ in Asia's rotation, since there aren't many Asian countries that can stage a WC.

From Jan 1. we are in the Asian rotation. It will be between Korea, China, Japan and Oz out of the nations that could potentially host it.

If you are a supporter Oz would be the best location because you could actually have half a shot of getting to see games for a reasonable price.

Gotta be staged in Nov/Dec however.

thats probably because all your footy follower friends are stuck up c-nts like you are.


Your that prick thats been banned numerous times for being a troll....keep it up and you will be gone again.

Doesn't seem like a bad idea. The US hosted the World Cup, and it's not the #1 sport (4th or 5th nationwide, maybe 2nd in some markets with lots of Latinos), and there were games all over the country, which is about the same size as Australia. I don't think Japan or Korea are soccer-mad either, come to think of it.

Why is rugby so popular in Queensland and NSW, while AFL more popular elsewhere?

From Jan 1. we are in the Asian rotation. It will be between Korea, China, Japan and Oz out of the nations that could potentially host it.

If you are a supporter Oz would be the best location because you could actually have half a shot of getting to see games for a reasonable price.

Gotta be staged in Nov/Dec however.

And since J/K already hosted it, it's either China or Oz.

Why november/december?

Football may not be number one in Japan, but it is getting there. it is at least number two to baseball in Japan and is definetley number one in Korea.

For Australia to host the World Cup it would have to be June/July and the AFL and Rugby seasons would have to be put on hold. I dont think that they would just 'roll over' and allow football to take over their stadiums etc in the middle of their seasons.

It wont happen in November/December either, not when the European seasons and the Champions League are in full swing.

Not many people down our way are intrested in soccer, but it could happen, only bad thing is that the country is so large, and spread out that it would be hard to keep it all together, and overseas fans would be travling form one city to another to follow their team through the events.

Well, as far I remember, Australia incorporated the exact same practice for the Rugby World Cup and it seemed to work pretty well. As for Australia hosting it in 2018. Why not? I'd be cheering for the bid. It could only make Soccer in Australia more popular. But then again, don't nations have to prove that they have a history of soccer when hosting the World Cup? (And don't the countries that host the World Cup have a national team in the competition also?) Those two traits I'd think Australia would have considerable trouble in achieving. Oh well, theres always Cricket. :)

^ South Africa isn't exactly what you would call a soccer benchmark...... Though they are ranked higher than Australia & have made the WC more often. That might have something to do with their qualifcation process though. I dunno......

Supposedly FIFA is 'good for the game'. So if they want to be good for the game, maybe once in their 100 odd years of history actually do something for Oz soccer. They have deliberately ignored it up to this point. We have the stadiums, infrastructure, people you name it.

The catch is it has gotta be in Oct/Nov. The Euro leagues can take a month off, the players will be fresher too not having to slog through 7/8 months of a season by then plus the Oz climate at that time of year is perfect for soccer.

AFL/NRL would never allow their stadiums to be hijacked by soccer in June/July. Oct/Nov is not a problem and everyone is happy.

Once in history won't hurt the Euro leagues a bit.

Football may not be number one in Japan, but it is getting there. it is at least number two to baseball in Japan and is definetley number one in Korea.

For Australia to host the World Cup it would have to be June/July and the AFL and Rugby seasons would have to be put on hold. I dont think that they would just 'roll over' and allow football to take over their stadiums etc in the middle of their seasons.

It wont happen in November/December either, not when the European seasons and the Champions League are in full swing.

It can only happen in June/July,and the only real problem would be Melbourne.AFL venues such as the SCG,GABBA,AAMI and Subiaco would not be considered for a World Cup.In Sydney,most NRL games are played on Suburban venues and the SCG can be used for Aussie Stadium tenants.Telstra Stadium usage would affect the Bulldogs,but they would use their other venue,such as Showground.

Melbourne AFL would just have to give up their venues or the rest of the country will host without them.

Under the new MCG agreement (with changes to AFL Prelimanary Finals) I believe that the MCG is free to secure other events during the AFL season.

Its a good question though.What would Melbourne do if the MCG and Telstra Dome were unavailable for probably 6 weeks in June/July??
hmmmm....Maybe Optus Oval for 2-3 games per week.Maybe we will see a few teams back their roots....Moorabbin,Punt Rd?....Might be a chance to upgrade these venues if Aus got a Football WC...Melbourne may not have a choice.

MCG makes a horrible soccer stadium....

And there's no way the European Leagues are going to go on hold for a month.

I have been to the MCG and saw some first class football.

vs Iran, vs France, vs Uruguay

It is perfect for football.

going on past events hosted by australia a soccer world cup in australia will be well embraced, well attended at excellent venues and will add a new dimension to the soccer world cup....their national team is the same standard if not better than our south african team who are failing to qualify for 2006 which does not reflect well on it as the host nation in 2010...would i vote yes for a soccer world cup in australia?? Yes.... by 2018 they would be excellent hosts....

FA considers 2018 World Cup bid (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/4155856.stm)

england have more 40,000+ stadiums that are purpose-buillt (with stands close to the pitch), and more modern than australia's.

england is the home of football, with a rich history of footballing tradition. some of the most famous footballing stadiums in the world will be used - a huge draw.

england can gaurentee greater enthusiasm for the game, with guarenteed full-houses.

and england haven't hosted the competition since 1966 (so it'll be 52yrs since). throw in the fact that the world cup probably won't have been in europe for 12yrs by then and that adds to the draw even more.

also england can remind fifa of the success of euro 96, when england hosted the european championship.

i really wouldn't think australia would have much of a chance to be honest.

Supposedly FIFA is 'good for the game'. So if they want to be good for the game, maybe once in their 100 odd years of history actually do something for Oz soccer. They have deliberately ignored it up to this point. We have the stadiums, infrastructure, people you name it.

The catch is it has gotta be in Oct/Nov. The Euro leagues can take a month off, the players will be fresher too not having to slog through 7/8 months of a season by then plus the Oz climate at that time of year is perfect for soccer.

AFL/NRL would never allow their stadiums to be hijacked by soccer in June/July. Oct/Nov is not a problem and everyone is happy.

Once in history won't hurt the Euro leagues a bit.

I can tell you now that the chances of FIFA accepting any bid that puts another sport before football/soccer are zero.

^ South Africa isn't exactly what you would call a soccer benchmark...... Though they are ranked higher than Australia & have made the WC more often. That might have something to do with their qualifcation process though. I dunno......

It is a nation where soccer is the favouried sport of the majority of the population though unlike Australia. I spose you could point to the US and Japanese world cups but in those cases I think the size/wealth of the potential markets for the game overcame that, I'm not sure it would with Australia(GDP $611 billion) espeically when they have China(GDP $7,600 billion and likely to grow alot faster by 2018) as an alternative.

I have been to the MCG and saw some first class football.

vs Iran, vs France, vs Uruguay

It is perfect for football.

Stands are too far back....

And England would make an awesome WC:)

Personally I would be against England/Europe holding the World Cup 'AGAIN' in 2018.

FIFA has that market well and truely sewn up, nothing more to do there. They need to broaden the reach of the sport.

They need to look at India, China or Australia for 2018.

As for England, great country, stadiums etc.. but has anyone tried getting a ticket for a sporting event there? Nigh on impossible for the face value price to any decent event. We would be doing the English a favour by staging the event so even they would stand a chance of getting in for a reasonable price.

:cheers:

and england haven't hosted the competition since 1966 (so it'll be 52yrs since). throw in the fact that the world cup probably won't have been in europe for 12yrs by then and that adds to the draw even more.

also england can remind fifa of the success of euro 96, when england hosted the european championship.

i really wouldn't think australia would have much of a chance to be honest.

52 years since its been in England? 12 years since it would have been in Europe? How about 0 years of being in Australia? I think the fact that Australia's never hosted the event is reason enough to be an attractive bidder. As for the Euro 96, Australia can boast about the 2000 successful Olympics, and the Rugby World Cup. But that being said, you're probably right about the last part. I can't really see Australia having much of a chance to host it in 2018, but 2024? Heh, maybe.

Bottom line is if Oz hosted the World Cup, it would be 'for the people'. You stage it in the UK it will only be for the money-bag types just like you get now with big international matches. If you are just the average football fan in England with little money you'll be only watching it down the pub on the tele anyhow. If you stage it down in Oz, you'll get to see a bunch of matches at the stadium because we have a less people, less density and the distance from Europe will keep the non-hardcore types away. It would be the 'purists' world cup, just like it used to be. You'll be able to go to a bunch of games, the whole country would be absorbed by it and it would be a massive party. In England, it would just disapear under the radar once England bombs out in the 1st or 2nd round like they always do.

what the hell? The people of England Love Football. There For, it will be for them.
Id say the Government in UK is smart to make money out of it. after all, id like for Oz to make money too.

Bottom line is if Oz hosted the World Cup, it would be 'for the people'. You stage it in the UK it will only be for the money-bag types just like you get now with big international matches. If you are just the average football fan in England with little money you'll be only watching it down the pub on the tele anyhow. If you stage it down in Oz, you'll get to see a bunch of matches at the stadium because we have a less people, less density and the distance from Europe will keep the non-hardcore types away. It would be the 'purists' world cup, just like it used to be. You'll be able to go to a bunch of games, the whole country would be absorbed by it and it would be a massive party. In England, it would just disapear under the radar once England bombs out in the 1st or 2nd round like they always do.

MMMmmmm, £30-40 for a ticket in the UK or £500+ for an airfair to Oz, I know which I'd preffer.

I'd say people in the UK are some of the biggest fans of football in general aswell not just their own national teams. The euro 2004 games I went to for example were all packed with Brits there as neutrals or supporting another team, strangely I'd say we actually outnumbered the Italian support at both of the group games that I saw.

Wouldnt it be great to see a world cup eventually in Australia. Although i think we would have to co host it with New Zealand like Japan/South Korea.
Here would be some possible venues. We would have to update and build new stadiums though.
Sydney:
Telstra Stadium (Probably the stadium for the Final)
http://www.extraflach.de/de3/archiv/06_juni/050625_afl/telstra_stadium_02a.jpg
Aussie Stadium:
http://www.rugby.cz/issphp/upload/article_1071271/87/94/4a40690d229e7d8f57339bf682de83661122298794/aussie-stadium-cropped-web.jpg
Melbourne
MCG:
http://www.sport.vic.gov.au/web9/srvimages.nsf/Images/mcgnight/$File/mcgnight.jpg
Telstra Dome:(Pretty sure the seats can be changed to more of a rectangular formation)
http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/rwc2003/graphics/telstradome.jpg
Brisbane:
Suncorp Stadium
http://www.isoqld.com.au/images/Projects/Suncorp%20Completed%2017.jpg
Gold Coast:
Robina Stadium:
http://www.titans.com.au/images/pictures/large/GC-Stadium-Aerial2.jpg
Townsville: (Would definetely need upgrading)
http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/rwc2003/graphics/dairyfarmersstadium.jpg
Adelaide:
Hindmarsh Stadium: http://www.tecsa.com.au/images/hindmarsh/grandstand.jpg
Perth: Members Equity Stadium:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/australia/western_australia/perth_equity.jpg
Canberra:
Canberra Stadium:
http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/australien/canberra_stadium/130.jpg
Newcastle:
Energy Australia Stadium:
http://www.hunterisc.com/images/artistsimpression_lg.jpg
Wellington:
Westpac Stadium:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/new_zealand/wellington_westpac2.jpg
Auckland:
Ericsson Stadium:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/oceania/new_zealand/auckland_ericsson.jpg
Christchurch:
Jade Stadium:
http://www.southernaircraft.co.nz/gallery/99.jpg

Which ones would you use? Personally Telstra, Suncorp are the only ones up to scratch

Would be good, but I cant see England losing the 2018 world cup.

Why would Australia have to co-host any bid? The attendances at the recent Rugby World Cup were phenomenol. I am pretty sure that with ex pat communities for several competing nations of the finals, would swell many venues.

Yeah, Australia doesn't need NZ for a world cup bid.

I think a 2018 World Cup would be awesome, Australian football is on the up. The A-league has had a successful opening season and Australia making Germany 06 is just the start of the boom.

Infrastructure and stadia wise the country is almost ready as is. Ofcourse there will be 2 or 3 stadiums built and a couple of others upgraded... all of which is no problem for Australia.

Potential Venues
Telstra Stadium 85,000 (Sydney)
Aussie Stadium 42,000 (Sydney) - easily upgraded to 55,000 if need be
MCG 100,000 (Melbourne)
Telstra Dome 55,000 (Melbourne)
Suncorp Stadium 53,000 (Brisbane)
Robina Stadium 40,000 (Gold Coast - upgraded)
Canberra Stadium 35,000 (Canberra - upgraded)
EA Stadium 35,000 (Newcastle - upgrade already in progress)
Perth Stadium 50,000 (Perth - new stadium)
Adelaide Stadium 45,000 (Adelaide - new stadium)

That's 10 venues, with only 2 new stadiums needed to be built for the World Cup. In fact, if Members Equity in Perth and Hindmarsh Stadium in Adelaide can be upgraded to over 40,000 each, then those new stadiums needn't be built.

No it wouldn't be good for 2018, that's too early. Australia had had it's fair share of major sporting events over the years - Olympics, Rugby world cup, Commonwealth games etc and football is not their major sport so wouldn't generate as much passion. A lot of the stadia there at the moment are not true football stadiums so that would need improvement. I think it is about time England hosted the world cup, considering we created the sport and have only hosted the event once. Our stadia would be ideal for the world cup un 2018 especially with the new wembley, emirates etc. I think Australia might have a chance in something like 2026, when they might have had more success in the tournament and entused their nation about the game. Plus it is awful for Europe when the time zone is so far ahead of GMT.

http://ali.apple.com/features/images/sydney_stadium_inside.jpg

I would support this bid for 2018, and plus FIFA wants new countries to host, I think Australia/New Zealand would be favorites.

In the World Cup every stadium has to have a capacity of at least 30,000 byt I'm sure that both would be able to cover that. The thing England on its own has nearly 20 stadiums that have a capacity of over 30,000 with fantastic facilities so I don't see England losing there.

In the World Cup every stadium has to have a capacity of at least 30,000 byt I'm sure that both would be able to cover that. The thing England on its own has nearly 20 stadiums that have a capacity of over 30,000 with fantastic facilities so I don't see England losing there.

Are you sure about that? I thought World Cup stadia now had to have a minimum capacity of 40,000. If I recall correctly, it is only the European Championships which require a minimum capacity of 30,000.

On the subject of 2018, I doubt that Australia (with or without New Zealand) would be favourites. Given that the big TV revenues for the World Cup (and almost half the competing teams) come from Europe, it is unlikely that FIFA would keep the World Cup away from Europe for sixteen years.

I think the favourites will be England, followed by Spain, with Australia or an Asian country as third favourites.

Come on who would think South Africa would host a world cup so soon, I would've thought like in 15 or more years.........

Come on who would think South Africa would host a world cup so soon, I would've thought like in 15 or more years.........

I'm pleased that SA did get the 2010 World Cup. They'll do a great job, I'm sure. But the decision was an inevitable consequence of Sepp Blatter's promise to bring the World Cup to Africa. His election as FIFA president in 1998 depended, in no small part, on the votes of African members of FIFA, so he had to deliver on his promise (especially after the shock victory of Germany in the 2006 vote).

Blatter has no similar obligation to Australian football.

So while there is a chance that Australia could be chosen as the hosts of the 2018 World Cup, I don't think that they will be favourites (for reasons already mentioned).

That would be prettty cool to have a world cup down under, but I think that England will get it in 2018, Brazil 2014 and in 2022 idn then maybe Australia.

No need for New Zealand to be involved.

That would be prettty cool to have a world cup down under, but I think that England will get it in 2018, Brazil 2014 and in 2022 idn then maybe Australia.
I agree:
- 2014 is in south america and Brazil is the one only bid...so, let's go to Brazil.
- 2018 should be in Europe. England will be the front runner but can't host Olympics 2012 and both Rugby World Cup 2015 and World Cup 2018.
- 2022 could be a good date for Australia.

One question:
How many countries in the world are able to host alone a world cup with 32 (or even 40) teams ? I think it's less than 20 for the moment.

Europe: 5 (Spain, Italy, France, Germany, England or UK)
South America: 2 (Brazil and Argentina)
North America: 3 (USA, Canada, Mexico)
Asia: 4 (Japan, Corea, India, China)
Africa: 1 (South Africa)
Oceania: 1 (Australia)

Maybe in the futur, some countries like Poland, Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, New Zealand, Morocco, Nigeria, Egypt... would be able to host World Cup too.

^^^^^

FIFA has said recently that an AFC nation(Oz) cannot host the World Cup with an Oceania nation(NZ) and they were not having duel bids again.

Why the hell would you want to share the World Cup with them anyhow? To take advantage of their ramshackle stadia? Oz should have a crack at hosting the World Cup for 2018.

England will no doubt have Europe backing it, so we need to lobby like buggery the South and North Americans, I'm sure Asia will back us and try and get Africa on side.

It will take lots of behind the scene deals and plenty of false promises and the odd bribe but we should be able to get it.

- 2014 is in south america and Brazil is the one only bid...so, let's go to Brazil.
- 2018 should be in Europe. England will be the front runner but can't host Olympics 2012 and both Rugby World Cup 2015 and World Cup 2018.


well with all the infrastructure at the moment and redevelopments happening around England I don't see why, like Australia, they can't host numerous large sporting events within a span of 2-3 years.

in reply to the main topic of the thread, bugger New Zealand they already got the Rugby World Cup in 2011 anyways. If Australia can handle the Olympics and the RWC then why not the World Cup. Sydney plus Wollongong and Newcastle alone has a couple of 20,000 stadiums. Brisbane has arguably the best football stadium in the country. FFA will definately aim high after World Cup qualification, transfer to the Asian region in football etc.

^^^^^

FIFA has said recently that an AFC nation(Oz) cannot host the World Cup with an Oceania nation(NZ) and they were not having duel bids again.

Why the hell would you want to share the World Cup with them anyhow? To take advantage of their ramshackle stadia? Oz should have a crack at hosting the World Cup for 2018.

England will no doubt have Europe backing it, so we need to lobby like buggery the South and North Americans, I'm sure Asia will back us and try and get Africa on side.

It will take lots of behind the scene deals and plenty of false promises and the odd bribe but we should be able to get it.

Anything's possible, of course, as the surprising decision to award London the 2012 Olympics proved. But I think England will still be favourites. FIFA will be unwilling to take the tournament away from Europe (FIFA's big paymasters) for 16 years. And of the big European countries, it is England's turn.

2018 should be in Europe. England will be the front runner but can't host Olympics 2012 and both Rugby World Cup 2015 and World Cup 2018.

I don't see why not. There is no overlap between the IOC, FIFA and the IRB. What one organisation does is not necessarily relevant to what another does. The fact that the IOC has chosen London for 2012 will not preclude FIFA and / or the IRB from choosing England for their showpiece tournaments. Their decisions will be entirely independent of each other.

Rotation is being scrapped post 2014, and even so, Australia will have the backing of the asian confed. I expect it to go down the wire between England and Australia. Bids shouldnt start being confirmed till 2012-ish, So its wierd that both federations are talking about it already.

how many stadia are needed for a World Cup? i'm guessing 8?

ps. i think Australia should go it alone too. Having 2 countries from the Oceania region automatically qualify (i know Australia will be in the Asian zone but my point is it...) just wouldnt cut it politically with FIFA and its members.

The ready to go stadiums are:
Suncorp Stadium (Brisbane)
Telstra Stadium (Sydney)
Aussie Stadium (Sydney)
Telstra Dome (Melbourne)

I'm not so sure about the MCG, not really the right shape for this type of football at this level.

I know there's talk of construction of a multipurpose stadium in Perth. We'll see whether this happens or not, but i would be surprised if Perth doesnt have a new major stadium by 2018.

I would suggest another 3 new stadiums in addition should be built for this purpose of this event. Perhaps on the Goldcoast and Melbourne (unless the MCG could somehow be modified, like digging a deeper rectangular shaped hole and putting seating on the banks!) would be the the most likely.
Adelaide is the other possible venue although i'm not sure how they would finance such a venture for a new 40000+ stadium.

Rotation is being scrapped post 2014, and even so, Australia will have the backing of the asian confed. I expect it to go down the wire between England and Australia. Bids shouldnt start being confirmed till 2012-ish, So its wierd that both federations are talking about it already.

I think bids will be confirmed in 2009. The vote will be in 2012.

how many stadia are needed for a World Cup? i'm guessing 8?

I think 10 is the minimum requirement. Erm...or is it 12?

Definitely not 8, though!

I think 10 is the minimum requirement. Erm...or is it 12?

Definitely not 8, though!
10 is the minimum
But it's better to have 2 more stadium on a "hidden list".

And of course, you need lot of training stadiums.

. The fact that the IOC has chosen London for 2012 will not preclude FIFA and / or the IRB from choosing England for their showpiece tournaments. Their decisions will be entirely independent of each other.
Yes, of course, but...
Maybe England should let RWC 2015 to Ireland or to Scotland.

I don't see why not. There is no overlap between the IOC, FIFA and the IRB. What one organisation does is not necessarily relevant to what another does. The fact that the IOC has chosen London for 2012 will not preclude FIFA and / or the IRB from choosing England for their showpiece tournaments. Their decisions will be entirely independent of each other.

As has been prooven by the same country staging the Olympics 2 years before/after the WC 3 times in the last 40 years. There would be even less overlap in England as the same stadia would most likely not be used for all three of those events and the WC itself would need very little in the way of new infrastructure.

If Australia are grouped in with the Asian nations then the big contest for the next WC in that area is going to be between them and China. I'd say China's advanatges would be its potently much larger market for football and the fact its likely to have the votes of most of east Asia bar Japan. Australia's strong points would IMHO be your sporting legacy and as an alternative to China for the likes of UEFA members. If the latter was the case then I'd say you might actually be better off waiting until 2022 and supporting a european bid for 2018 in exchange for our future support.

Yes, of course, but...
Maybe England should let RWC 2015 to Ireland or to Scotland.

I think it's quite possible that that will happen.

It might be rather like 1999 when, although the final was held in Cardiff, Wales didn't have enough big stadia to be able to hold the event exclusively and so some games were played in England, France, Scotland and Ireland.

I'm not sure that Scotland or Ireland could stage the entire tournament either, so the IRB may come to a similar arrangement.

10 is the minimum
But it's better to have 2 more stadium on a "hidden list".

And of course, you need lot of training stadiums.

hmmm i think Australia may struggle to support 10 stadia of 40000+ capacity for Soccer. Remember it is only a nation of 20 million which may be ~25 million by then.

at a pinch maybe 2 for Brisbane/Goldcoast, 3 for Sydney, 3 for Melbourne, 1 for Perth, 1 for Adelaide.
Training stadiums shouldnt be an issue, there are plenty of ~15000 seat stadiums used for rugby league and A-league soccer around the country.

About the whole New Zealand thing I dont really care if Australia hosts it on its own, i just thought we would have a better chance with New Zealand as it would promote football in Oceania, the region where it needs promoting the best. And i dont think New Zealand could ever hosts it on its own with a population of only 4 million people.
On the whole Australia doesnt have passion for football thing, where were you last week.
I also dont think it matters if australia is sucessful at world cups or not, look at South Africa, they didnt qualify for this world cup, but their hosting the next one. Australians will go to any sporting event, no matter what, every game would be sold out, and it would be 12 years since we last hosted a major sports event, unless we get something in between, which I highly doubt.
Unless the Ice Age comes again and our desert turns into snowfields, then I would back a bid for the winter olympics in alice springs.

i seriously think a joint bid with NZ would jeopardize rather than improve Australias chances of hosting the WC, due to reasons i mentioned earlier. (ie Aus and NZ auto qualifying, meaning one less spot for a team with more cred)

furthermore, FIFA is not interested in promoting the sport in Aus and NZ. It never has been and it never will be. But thats not to say staging the event in Aus is completely out of the question as it will be in the Asian zone and would probably stage a decent well run event. But the advantage is probably more with the common time zone and proximity with much of Asia.

Sorry, but it will take place in Portugal, if we don't hold it in 2014.

Sorry, but it will take place in Portugal, if we don't hold it in 2014.

Portugal definitely won't get 2014.

Brazil are virtually nailed on certainties as hosts for that World Cup.

And I very much doubt that Portugal would win the vote for 2018 either. If it goes to a European country (and I think it will), it will most likely be England, with Spain second favourites.

Portugal has great stadia for a European Championship but not enough really big stadia for a World Cup. At least, not enough ever to have as good a technical bid as England or Spain.

Portugal definitely won't get 2014.

Brazil are virtually nailed on certainties as hosts for that World Cup.

And I very much doubt that Portugal would win the vote for 2018 either. If it goes to a European country (and I think it will), it will most likely be England, with Spain second favourites.

Portugal has great stadia for a European Championship but not enough really big stadia for a World Cup. At least, not enough ever to have as good a technical bid as England or Spain.

You'll be surprised at what Portugal may and will achieve. Don't underestimate us.

You'll be surprised at what Portugal may and will achieve. Don't underestimate us.

I'm not underestimating Portugal at all.

But the simple truth is that its stadia - other than those of Benfica, Sporting and Porto - are not big enough to stage a World Cup.

Now you can say, of course, that they will build bigger stadia. But what would be the point of that? Here's an analysis of this season's and last season's average attendances for the best supported clubs in Portugal's top league (figures rounded down to the nearest 1000):

Benfica - capacity 65,000; average attendance 2004-5: 35,000; average attendance 2005-6: 30,000.

Porto - capacity 50,000 plus; 2004-5: 36,000; 2005-6: 41,000.

Sporting - capacity 50,000 plus; 2004-5: 29,000; 2005-06: 33,000.

So, at best, Portugal's top three clubs are operating at only 80% of capacity. At worst, they are operating at less than 50% of capacity.

And the picture is even bleaker for the smaller clubs.

Next best supported club over the past two years has been Guimares. I don't know what their capacity is (30,000?) but they have averaged 15,000 and 14,000 last season and this. Then Braga - 11,000 and 10,000; Coimbra - 9,000 and 10,000; and Boavista - 9,000 and 5,000.

No other club in Portugal has managed to maintain an average attendance over the past two years of over 5,000. So I ask you (without any antipathy to Portugal at all - it's a great country!), why on earth would Portugal want a minimum of ten stadia with a capacity of more than 40,000? There simply isn't the requirement. Even the three biggest clubs can rarely average more than 40,000 and the rest are nowhere near EVER needing that sort of capacity.

The World Cup is a great and prestigious event. But it should never become a reason for countries (and cities and football clubs) to build costly white elephants that will never be used once the World Cup month has been and gone.

Is 40,000 the offical minium size Jim? If it is then it must be a relatively new rule as I remember a number of stadiums for France 98 being smaller than that.

Portugals only chance of getting the WC is I'd guess as part of a joint bid with Spain which itself seems rather unlikely considering how many stadia they have or are planning.

Is 40,000 the offical minium size Jim? If it is then it must be a relatively new rule as I remember a number of stadiums for France 98 being smaller than that.

Portugals only chance of getting the WC is I'd guess as part of a joint bid with Spain which itself seems rather unlikely considering how many stadia they have or are planning.

I'm not 100% sure. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that FIFA had changed their requirements, meaning that 40,000 was now the minimum capacity - but I can't guarantee that what I read was accurate or official. Suffice to say that, of the 2002 World Cup stadia, Sapporo Dome, at 40,000, had the smallest capacity of any of the stadia. And the stadia for Germany 2006 will be even bigger.

To be honest, I think that 40,000 should be the absolute minimum capacity, especially for a World Cup in Europe, where fans travel in larger numbers. England alone will have more than 100,000 fans in Germany next summer, meaning that there is not a single World Cup stadium that could accomodate them all, even if no locals, no neutrals and no opposition fans attended.

Specifically regarding a potential bid from Portugal, even if the minimum capacity was 30,000, FIFA would still not award the World Cup to a country where all but three of the stadia have a capacity of just 30,000. It's simply not going to happen. Especially not when the competition will come from Spain and England (which will, by 2018, probably have at least 10 stadia with a capacity of 50,000 or more, including one and maybe two with a capacity of 90,000).

Now you can all just piss off.....2018 belongs to England, so none of you should get any funny ideas about it being anywhere else..:)

Wembley, with a bit of luck, should be finished by 2017..:) and UEFA will not be able to resist having the greatest Football Final in the Greatest Football Stadium in this corner of the galaxy.

I'm not 100% sure. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that FIFA had changed their requirements, meaning that 40,000 was now the minimum capacity - but I can't guarantee that what I read was accurate or official. Suffice to say that, of the 2002 World Cup stadia, Sapporo Dome, at 40,000, had the smallest capacity of any of the stadia. And the stadia for Germany 2006 will be even bigger.

To be honest, I think that 40,000 should be the absolute minimum capacity, especially for a World Cup in Europe, where fans travel in larger numbers. England alone will have more than 100,000 fans in Germany next summer, meaning that there is not a single World Cup stadium that could accomodate them all, even if no locals, no neutrals and no opposition fans attended.

Specifically regarding a potential bid from Portugal, even if the minimum capacity was 30,000, FIFA would still not award the World Cup to a country where all but three of the stadia have a capacity of just 30,000. It's simply not going to happen. Especially not when the competition will come from Spain and England (which will, by 2018, probably have at least 10 stadia with a capacity of 50,000 or more, including one and maybe two with a capacity of 90,000).

These rules do seem to have a habit of changing over time to suit the situation but I agree that only 3 stadiums with a capacity over 30,000 is never going to be enough to get a WC. If a joint bid with Spain did happen on the other hand they could probabley get away with using one or two of them although on that scale I'd guess boosting the capacity of one or two wouldnt be out of the question(extending the stands behind the goals at the Estádio Algarve seems the most obvious).

No it wouldn't be good for 2018, that's too early. Australia had had it's fair share of major sporting events over the years - Olympics, Rugby world cup, Commonwealth games etc and football is not their major sport so wouldn't generate as much passion. A lot of the stadia there at the moment are not true football stadiums so that would need improvement. I think it is about time England hosted the world cup, considering we created the sport and have only hosted the event once. Our stadia would be ideal for the world cup un 2018 especially with the new wembley, emirates etc. I think Australia might have a chance in something like 2026, when they might have had more success in the tournament and entused their nation about the game. Plus it is awful for Europe when the time zone is so far ahead of GMT.
Yes maybe 2022 would be better. However 2018 would still be good because Australia wouldn't have had any major events for a while and by that time Football should have a very solid base. I think a World Cup in Australia would generate enormous passion even if held as early as 2010 hypothetically speaking. Australians know how big football is and they will come out to support it, especially with the WC being such a big event. Theres many nationalities also so it will provide a great atmosphere.

In regards to the stadia not being true football grounds... out of the ones I have listed in my previous post, only the MCG is a circular stadium. The rest are or can be configured to be rectangular grounds. So thats 8 stadiums ready to go with upgrades on a couple of them with 2 new rectangular stadiums built. Stadium wise Australia has no problem.

In the World Cup every stadium has to have a capacity of at least 30,000 byt I'm sure that both would be able to cover that. The thing England on its own has nearly 20 stadiums that have a capacity of over 30,000 with fantastic facilities so I don't see England losing there.
Australia can get 10 high quality stadiums over 40,000 without much hassle. Theres already 6 quality stadiums over 40,000.

I do think that England will get the cup in 2018, but Australia will be a definate for 2022, with Brazil in 2014.

These rules do seem to have a habit of changing over time to suit the situation but I agree that only 3 stadiums with a capacity over 30,000 is never going to be enough to get a WC. If a joint bid with Spain did happen on the other hand they could probabley get away with using one or two of them although on that scale I'd guess boosting the capacity of one or two wouldnt be out of the question(extending the stands behind the goals at the Estádio Algarve seems the most obvious).

I can't see either FIFA or the Spanish being keen on a joint bid with Portugal. FIFA would rather not have any joint hosts, if at all possible. And Spain are quite capable of hosting a World Cup (as they already have, in 1982) without the help of any other country.

And as regards increasing capacity at any of Portugal's 30,000 seat stadia, as I said before, there would really be no point. The extra capacity would only be required for the five weeks of a World Cup, with perhaps as few as three games at some stadia. Furthermore, even if Portugal did upgrade each of its 30,000 seat stadia to 40,000, they would still not be remotely able to compete in terms of stadium capacity with England and Spain.

Anything's possible, of course, but I simply can't imagine that a Portuguese bid for the World Cup in 2018 would be successful.

These rules do seem to have a habit of changing over time to suit the situation but I agree that only 3 stadiums with a capacity over 30,000 is never going to be enough to get a WC.

You can have 3 stadium with less than 30 000 but you need at least:
- 80 000 for opening match and final
- 60 000 for each semi-finals
- 50 000 for each 1/4 final

So, I don't think Portugal will be able to host WC 2018.
Spain allready hosted WC in 1982, Italy en 1990, France in 1998, Germany en 2006 (and 1974) but England did not hosted WC since 1966: this is the turn of England...

A other reason to say that WC 2018 will be in Europe and not in Australia is that WC 2010 and 2014 will took place in southern hemisphere.
So, the best thing for everybody, IMHO:
- 2006: Germany
- 2010: South Africa
- 2014: Brazil
- 2018: England (or UK)
- 2022: Australia
- 2026: North America
- 2030: Europe
- 2034: China

You can have 3 stadium with less than 30 000 but you need at least:
- 80 000 for opening match and final
- 60 000 for each semi-finals
- 50 000 for each 1/4 final

Thanks for the clarification, eomer. Is this info from the FIFA website?

Thanks for the clarification, eomer. Is this info from the FIFA website?
No: from a book about France 98.

No: from a book about France 98.

Presumably a book about France 98 which says that further increases in capacity would be required at two or three stadia if a future French bid was to meet the new guidelines? ;)

I can't see either FIFA or the Spanish being keen on a joint bid with Portugal. FIFA would rather not have any joint hosts, if at all possible. And Spain are quite capable of hosting a World Cup (as they already have, in 1982) without the help of any other country.

And as regards increasing capacity at any of Portugal's 30,000 seat stadia, as I said before, there would really be no point. The extra capacity would only be required for the five weeks of a World Cup, with perhaps as few as three games at some stadia. Furthermore, even if Portugal did upgrade each of its 30,000 seat stadia to 40,000, they would still not be remotely able to compete in terms of stadium capacity with England and Spain.

Anything's possible, of course, but I simply can't imagine that a Portuguese bid for the World Cup in 2018 would be successful.

Indeed it is hard to see Spain needing Portugal's stadiums so badly(although obviously the number and standard needed has increased since 1982) they'd risk the disadvantage of a joint bid and its harder still to see either bid beating England if we go for 2018. Spain are IMHO much more likely to get the european championships before they see the world cup again and such a bid would obviously not inclue Portugal.

There would I agree be no long term reason to increase the capacity of the 30 k stadia but if only one or two needed to be increased rather than half a dozen in order to secure a joint bid it wouldnt be an unreasonable cost. As I said something like the Algarve could easily have telstra style temp seats added.

You can have 3 stadium with less than 30 000 but you need at least:
- 80 000 for opening match and final
- 60 000 for each semi-finals
- 50 000 for each 1/4 final

They havent stuck to those guidelines very well then as neither Korea/Japan nore Germany have an 80 k stadium for the opening match/final.

I'm not underestimating Portugal at all.

But the simple truth is that its stadia - other than those of Benfica, Sporting and Porto - are not big enough to stage a World Cup.

Now you can say, of course, that they will build bigger stadia. But what would be the point of that? Here's an analysis of this season's and last season's average attendances for the best supported clubs in Portugal's top league (figures rounded down to the nearest 1000):

Benfica - capacity 65,000; average attendance 2004-5: 35,000; average attendance 2005-6: 30,000.

Porto - capacity 50,000 plus; 2004-5: 36,000; 2005-6: 41,000.

Sporting - capacity 50,000 plus; 2004-5: 29,000; 2005-06: 33,000.

So, at best, Portugal's top three clubs are operating at only 80% of capacity. At worst, they are operating at less than 50% of capacity.

And the picture is even bleaker for the smaller clubs.

Next best supported club over the past two years has been Guimares. I don't know what their capacity is (30,000?) but they have averaged 15,000 and 14,000 last season and this. Then Braga - 11,000 and 10,000; Coimbra - 9,000 and 10,000; and Boavista - 9,000 and 5,000.

No other club in Portugal has managed to maintain an average attendance over the past two years of over 5,000. So I ask you (without any antipathy to Portugal at all - it's a great country!), why on earth would Portugal want a minimum of ten stadia with a capacity of more than 40,000? There simply isn't the requirement. Even the three biggest clubs can rarely average more than 40,000 and the rest are nowhere near EVER needing that sort of capacity.

The World Cup is a great and prestigious event. But it should never become a reason for countries (and cities and football clubs) to build costly white elephants that will never be used once the World Cup month has been and gone.

No, you've got it all wrong. We're not going to build any more stadiums - we've had enough of them already. The idea is to upgrade them by 2014/2018. They can easily accomodate 40.000.
All new stadiums have a capacity of more than 35.000 and I'm not sure about that rule regarding capacity requirements.

Besides that, FIFA authorities have always refered that Portugal can easily hold a world cup, especially taking into account two main demands (since stadiums are not a problem): security (which Portugal offers) and organization merit, which we gained with Euro2004. Our method of organising this event was studied and will be introduced in Euro2008 mainly due to its outstanding results and obviously the big profits it made.

No, you've got it all wrong. We're not going to build any more stadiums - we've had enough of them already. The idea is to upgrade them by 2014/2018. They can easily accomodate 40.000.
All new stadiums have a capacity of more than 35.000 and I'm not sure about that rule regarding capacity requirements.

According to the following two websites, only the big three stadia have a capacity of more than 30,000. The other seven are, to the nearest thousand, just above or just below 30,000.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/tournaments/euro2004.shtml

http://www.stadiumguide.com/euro2004.htm

Besides that, FIFA authorities have always refered that Portugal can easily hold a world cup, especially taking into account two main demands (since stadiums are not a problem): security (which Portugal offers) and organization merit, which we gained with Euro2004. Our method of organising this event was studied and will be introduced in Euro2008 mainly due to its outstanding results and obviously the big profits it made.

That may well be true - and Portugal did a great job for Euro 2004 - but the problem will be that Portugal simply cannot begin to compete with England and Spain for the size of their stadia and, therefore, the potential profit for FIFA. By 2018, England will have:

1. Wembley, London (90,000)

2. Old Trafford, Manchester (at least 75,000 but maybe as much as 90,000+ by 2018)

3. The Emirates stadium, London (60,000)

4. Liverpool's new stadium (60,000)

5. St James' Park, Newcastle (now 52,000 but sure to be increased to over 60,000 by 2018)

6. City of Manchester stadium (48,000)

7. Stadium of Light, Sunderland (48,000 but, again, might well have increased by 2018)

8. Villa Park, Birmingham (currently 43,000 but there are plans to increase to 50,000)

9. Stamford Bridge, London (42,000 but Chelsea will either increase capacity to 50,000+ or build a new 50,000+ stadium long before 2018)

10. Elland Road, Leeds (currently 40,000 but, with Ken Bates as Leeds chairman, sure to redevelop and increase capacity once they return to the Premiership and sound financial footing)

In addition, it is probable that Tottenham and Everton will finally have done something with their stadia by 2018, with a 50,000+ capacity likely for both.

And Birmingham City are currently working on a new proposal for a new 50,000 seat stadium. And the likes of Southampton, Middlesbrough, Derby and Leicester could all redevelop their stadia to over 40,000 with relative ease. Sheffield Wednesday also have a 40,000 seat stadium, though it would require significant upgrading.

Finally, it is also possible (though unlikely), that rugby's Twickenham stadium (capacity 82,000) could be used for the World Cup.

It's hard to see how Portugal could beat that lot. But stranger things have happened, I suppose.

Finally, it is also possible (though unlikely), that rugby's Twickenham stadium (capacity 82,000) could be used for the World Cup.

Oh Shoking !!!

In regards to the stadia not being true football grounds... out of the ones I have listed in my previous post, only the MCG is a circular stadium. The rest are or can be configured to be rectangular grounds. So thats 8 stadiums ready to go with upgrades on a couple of them with 2 new rectangular stadiums built. Stadium wise Australia has no problem.

Australia can get 10 high quality stadiums over 40,000 without much hassle. Theres already 6 quality stadiums over 40,000.


i dont see it. we dont have 8 ready to go now over 40000. converting a 15000 seat stadium to 40000 is not an upgrade, its a rebuild.
this also assumes Perth and Adelaide will build complete new stadiums by this time. a 40000 seat stadium these days costs around $400 million. Who'll pay for these?

This stadium cost £59 million. Capacity is 53466 for German league games and 45600 for internationals.


http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/borussia_moenchengladbach/images/ost_03.jpg

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/GER/Borussia-Park3.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/borussia_moenchengladbach/images/sued_04.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/borussia_moenchengladbach/images/eroeffnung_02.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/borussia_moenchengladbach/images/kompakt_05.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/borussia_moenchengladbach/images/business_05.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/deutschland/borussia_moenchengladbach/images/business_27.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt-fanfotos.de/stadionwelt_fans_neu/templates/fanfotos_fussball/deutschland/borussia_moenchengladbach/saison20052006/liga_10/160.jpg

You never know by 2018 there could be a 'smoky' going for the hosting of the World Cup.

Russia, Ukraine, Poland or even places like Turkey could have a crack. It is a long way off.

Not sure if England is a great choice though. Sure its stadiums are wonderful but there is more to hosting a World Cup than that. It is a very costly place, very poor hotel accomadation(also costly and most make Fawlty Towers appear like a luxurious 5 star hotel) not to mention the xenophobia factor from British citizens with potential attacks on foreigners. Their hooligans would only need a Tube ticket.

Not sure if England is a great choice though. Sure its stadiums are wonderful but there is more to hosting a World Cup than that. It is a very costly place, very poor hotel accomadation(also costly and most make Fawlty Towers appear like a luxurious 5 star hotel) not to mention the xenophobia factor from British citizens with potential attacks on foreigners. Their hooligans would only need a Tube ticket.

I think you're worrying needlessly. The IOC seemed satisfied with London for the Olympics.

Since Sepp Blatter siad it would be great for England to bid for 2018 I think it'd be fair to say it'll come to Europe and since our facilites are so far ahead of the competition I personally think we're pretty much home and hosed.

i believe sepp blatter actually invited england to create a bid... basically his way of saying "we'd like to host the world cup in your nice stadiums in 2018 please". given the massive gulf in quality between english stadiums and other countries hosting the world cup wouldnt be a problem, infact london could host it by itself.

Thats right gothic.

One of the things FIFA will like the most are the English ticket prices. parhaps 3million tickets at £100 a pop!

Not sure if England is a great choice though. Sure its stadiums are wonderful but there is more to hosting a World Cup than that. It is a very costly place, very poor hotel accomadation(also costly and most make Fawlty Towers appear like a luxurious 5 star hotel) not to mention the xenophobia factor from British citizens with potential attacks on foreigners. Their hooligans would only need a Tube ticket.

Whoah! Steady on with the stereotypes, there, you cork hat wearing convict. ;)

But seriously, British hotels are not what they once were, when Fawlty Towers was made. I'm not saying that they're all great but they're no worse than most other places you'll go to in the western world. As to expense, well Japan is hardly a bargain basement country. If Japan isn't too expensive for FIFA, then neither is England.

And, without becoming complacent, English hooliganism is much more under control now than it was even five years ago. England travelled in far higher numbers than other countries to both Japan in 2002 (where we had over 20,000) and Portugal (where we had up to 100,000) and there was hardly any trouble at all. Besides, English hooliganism was always more of a problem when England travelled abroad. It never happened on anything like the same scale in England.

And, just for the record, the English are no more xenophobic than any other nation.

Whoah! Steady on with the stereotypes, there, you cork hat wearing convict. ;)

But seriously, British hotels are not what they once were, when Fawlty Towers was made. I'm not saying that they're all great but they're no worse than most other places you'll go to in the western world. As to expense, well Japan is hardly a bargain basement country. If Japan isn't too expensive for FIFA, then neither is England.

And, without becoming complacent, English hooliganism is much more under control now than it was even five years ago. England travelled in far higher numbers than other countries to both Japan in 2002 (where we had over 20,000) and Portugal (where we had up to 100,000) and there was hardly any trouble at all. Besides, English hooliganism was always more of a problem when England travelled abroad. It never happened on anything like the same scale in England.

And, just for the record, the English are no more xenophobic than any other nation.

I would go so far as saying we are one of the least xenophobic nations in Europe, even though there are still problems. Britain is a far more tolerant country when it comes to the treatment of asylum seekers than Australia has ever been. The only surprise to me is that it's been so long since we last hosted the world cup. However, i do think in 2018 we will be far more ready and prepared than we would have been in 2006 so maybe it could be a blessing.

However, i do think in 2018 we will be far more ready and prepared than we would have been in 2006 so maybe it could be a blessing.

Rooney could still be playing in 2018

http://www.bluekipper.com/assets/images/wallpaper/wayne_rooney/rooney_9eng800.jpg

i dont see it. we dont have 8 ready to go now over 40000. converting a 15000 seat stadium to 40000 is not an upgrade, its a rebuild.
this also assumes Perth and Adelaide will build complete new stadiums by this time. a 40000 seat stadium these days costs around $400 million. Who'll pay for these?
Well, we don't have 8 ready to go with over 40,000.. but we do have 5. Telstra 85k, MCG 100k, Dome 55k, Suncorp 55k, Aussie 43k. That's half the stadiums needed right there. Should Australia win the World Cup bid, you can bet your ass that Aussie will be increased to 55k, as there were plans a couple of years ago to increase the capacity to attract bigger events but for some reason they were put on hold. So they are all the big stadiums which will be used for the finals too so thats a bonus.

Throw in the new Gold Coast stadium which is going to be a 25,000 stadium, however plans allow it to add a second tier and be increased to 40,000 should the need arise.

Canberra Stadium holds 26,000, and Newcastle's newly renovated stadium will hold 30,000. Both these can be upgraded to 40,000. So they're not small 15,000 stadiums which need to be rebuilt.

Thats 8 stadiums.

Now it's been often mentioned that Perth want to build a new multipurpse rectangular stadium. With Perth Glory, the new Force rugby team and in the next 10 years probably a new Perth rugby league team, you can see why they would want to build a big one which can also be used for other events.
50,000 would be the ideal capacity of such a stadium.

Only Adelaide will have a bit of a problem regarding a stadium. If Hindmarsh (18,000) can be upgraded to 35,000, then that would be fine.

Also a stadium neednt cost that much to build. $200 million would be enough to build a high quality 50,000 stadium. Melbourne and Gold Coast are building 25,000 stadiums for less than $100 million that are going to be state of the art.

So really, I don't think stadia would be holding back Australias bid at all. 5 stadiums ready, with 4 upgrades (10,000-15,000 additional seats per stadium) and 1 new stadium in Perth (which is already on the cards regardless of a world cup bid).

Training stadia are a non issue as there are plenty of good 20,000 seat stadiums with good facilities across the country, particularly in Sydney which has about 7.

This has been discussed on a number of forums that I visit. One excellent point was made, 2018 is 13 years away. Go back 13 years (1992) and look at the stadia that was around in Australia then:

MCG - Was just being redeveloped to add the Southern Stand
Telstra Stadium - Was not even thought of
Telstra Dome - Not even thought of
Suncorp - Was still the old Lang Park
Hindmarsh Stadium - Was a small stadium in Adelaide
MES - Was Perth Oval hosting WAFL matches
Gold Coast Stadium - Not even thought of

If you look at that, who knows what stadia may be developed in 13 years time. The ones we know of are the Gold Coast Stadium, a new Olympic Park Stadium in Melbourne, which by 2018 will probably be around 35-40k stadium giving Melbourne 3 stadiums if need be.

Perth will have a new stadium that will seat around 50-60,000, Aussie Stadium will be upgraded.

I certainly dont think the stadia is an issue. Canberra Stadium can easily be upgraded as well, so there is no shortage of stadiums! Enter FIFA politics...

This is my dream of the World cup in Australia to finally finish off the inferior Aussie Rules. I disagree with Adelaide getting a new stadium. It would be a total white elephant at 45k. An upgrade of a second tier at hindmarsh would be plausable.

Worst case scenario for adelaide is that there always is AAMI stadium
which at the moment seats 50,000
http://www.mawsonlakeshotel.com.au/images/superbox/footballpark.jpg
If they can somehow temporarily make it more rectangular it would be good.
No doubt Perth will have a stadium built by 2018.

^^^^

They are looking at building a 60,000 multi-purpose stadium in Perth replacing the WACA and Subiaco as we speak....

You already have today:

MCG 100,000
Homebush 84,000
Docklands 55,000 (with retractable seating)
Lang Park 55,000
The SFS 44,000
Newcastle 30,000 (2 10,000 seat grandstands at either end could up the capacity)
Canberra 30,000 (as above)
Gosford 25,000 (as above)
Gold Coast @Robina 30,000 ???? may be too small
Adelaide has Footy Park 55,000. In 10 years they will upgrade that to hold 65,000 you would think. Too much money to be made.
Perth 65,000 to be built for AFL, S14 and international soccer.

You could easily add Wollongong, Northern Queensland, and Geelong if push came to shove.

Plus we have accomodation for tourists that is of world class standards, and flights to Oz are not too bad nowadays and getting cheaper. Not to mention flights within Oz are almost cheaper than driving.

England won't be Oz's biggest threat for the 2018 World Cup finals, it will be China. FIFA wants it there, that is where the super big money will be in 10-15 years time.

Only time will tell.

First we gotta host the Asian Nations, probably 2011 by the sounds of the words coming out of John O'Neills office.

Another thing, why is it that stadiums that are rectangular have preference to host? Look at many stadiums in Asia and South America etc, who have running tracks around the pitch etc. Hell, the game played in Uruguay even had enough room for a track between the pitch and the stands.

Now that the MCG has its athletics track, we can consider it rectangular too by that logic. :) Even if it's going to be removed after next year.

The new stadium planned for Melbourne could potentially host a lot too. Telstra Dome probably won't have its seats moved (since it's just so costly and it's only ever been done once to a massive failure, with equipment apparently now in disrepair). I say dig a hole in Telstra Dome and put seats on the banking there - it's not like the grass grows under the roof anyway.

And finish off Aussie Rules? Dream on. Let's see, the current competition... 108 years old. Oldest club in said competition - established around 1860. Aussie Rule's biggest threat was probably the influx of immigrants post WWII.

Now that the MCG has its athletics track, we can consider it rectangular too by that logic. :) Even if it's going to be removed after next year.

The new stadium planned for Melbourne could potentially host a lot too. Telstra Dome probably won't have its seats moved (since it's just so costly and it's only ever been done once to a massive failure, with equipment apparently now in disrepair). I say dig a hole in Telstra Dome and put seats on the banking there - it's not like the grass grows under the roof anyway.

And finish off Aussie Rules? Dream on. Let's see, the current competition... 108 years old. Oldest club in said competition - established around 1860. Aussie Rule's biggest threat was probably the influx of immigrants post WWII.

I wouldnt dig too deep into Telstra Dome, you may dig up a car or a few.

1. australia wont have any issues with stadia or media or hotels or most other aspects....
2.it would host a great world cup...


i think the only real issues is the support it would get...whether it deserves it and whether its time for fifa to move into the oceania region just yet...

Indeed I doubt stadia would be a problem for Australia, compaired to most hosts you'd actually need to construct relavively few new venues. Cricket/Aussie rules pitchs are afterall pretty much the same size as athletics tracks so you'd been allowed to use 3 of them.

England won't be Oz's biggest threat for the 2018 World Cup finals, it will be China. FIFA wants it there, that is where the super big money will be in 10-15 years time.

Certainly China will be Australia's biggest rival as and when it is Asia's turn to host the World Cup.

But I'm not sure that that will be in 2018. As already pointed out, FIFA's big paymasters (and likely to remain so for quite a few decades more, despite China's relentless economic progress) are in Europe. And I doubt very much that FIFA would want to keep the World Cup away from Europe for 16 years.

Of the major European nations, it is England's turn to be hosts and Sepp Blatter has already indicated that he would be very keen on a World Cup in England in 2018. And FIFA can't wait to get their hands on Wembley!

England will almost certainly be favourites when bidding commences. I think China or Australia will be more likely in 2022.

Its Englands in 2018. Theres just know seeing past that. I really want Australia to get it but it wont be till 2022 at the earliest.

One more point:

Since the fiasco of England's bid for the 2006 World Cup, the English FA have finally realised that they have to play FIFA politics. Consequently, they have been on a charm offensive, building friendships and alliances with many other FIFA representatives from all over the world. I suspect that, in this regard, they are far in advance of China and Australia and, for better or worse, FIFA politics is important at decision time.

England were asked to pull out of the race for the 2006 World Cup after the violence in Belgium and Holland, but refused and that alone lost them the vote, if English fans behaved themself we would be seeing next years world cup final being played at Wembley but its not the case and come 2018 I can only see one country getting the tournment, and its in the northern hemisphere.

Certainly China will be Australia's biggest rival as and when it is Asia's turn to host the World Cup.

But I'm not sure that that will be in 2018. As already pointed out, FIFA's big paymasters (and likely to remain so for quite a few decades more, despite China's relentless economic progress) are in Europe. And I doubt very much that FIFA would want to keep the World Cup away from Europe for 16 years.

Of the major European nations, it is England's turn to be hosts and Sepp Blatter has already indicated that he would be very keen on a World Cup in England in 2018. And FIFA can't wait to get their hands on Wembley!

England will almost certainly be favourites when bidding commences. I think China or Australia will be more likely in 2022.

If the current trend of club football gaining importance at the expense of international football carries on then I could see it effecting the choice aswell. Under those circumstances I'd say FIFA would be less interested in trying encourage growth in new territories like the US, Australia, Japan, China etc and more interesting in hyping the WC's importance in established footballing nations. South Africa of course has the advanatge that while distant from europe its only 1 hour ahead of most of it so people will be able to watch matchs without staying up until 2am or taking the day off work.

England 2018!

Its Englands in 2018. Theres just know seeing past that.

Thats the sort of attitude a Parisian might have had about the 2012 Olympics.

I agree we have a great chance, but no counting chickens.

Telstra Dome:(Pretty sure the seats can be changed to more of a rectangular formation)
http://rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/rwc2003/graphics/telstradome.jpg


If that was true, they surely would have been for the Rugby World Cup.

As I understand it, that was the original plan, but it was abandoned due to cost.

Cricket/Aussie rules pitchs are afterall pretty much the same size as athletics tracks so you'd been allowed to use 3 of them.

I don't know about that - take a look at the athletics track being installed at the MCG for the Commonwealth Games in March. I've never seen seating that far back from the track at an athletics stadium...

http://www.mcg.org.au/webcam/cam1_webcam.jpg

If that was true, they surely would have been for the Rugby World Cup. It is true...TD does have a retractable lower tier that can be moved in on all four sides.

As I understand it, that was the original plan, but it was abandoned due to cost The retractable lower tier has been used on about two occasions for a soccer match and a rugby league game but the costs associated with the whole operation, and the loss of about 3,000 paying seats are a big deterant for most teams.

I don't know about that - take a look at the athletics track being installed at the MCG for the Commonwealth Games in March. I've never seen seating that far back from the track at an athletics stadium... The MCG is a little wider than most stadiums with athletic tracks but it's also alot shorter than them. About eight rows of seating had to be removed at one end to allow the running track to fit.

i don't think the australians are quite able to grasp the importance of this. this isn't just some international sporting event, like the rugby world cup, or the cricket world cup, this is THE world cup.

now we're talking about the home of football here, the home of the FA, a place that's consistently produced some of the best footballers in the world, and some of the best football clubs on the planet, already in possession of all the 40,000+ capacity, modern, purpose-built, world-renowned football stadiums the world cup needs, in which full-houses are guarenteed, that's only hosted the world cup once, a near half-century ago, in a footballing-mad continent which, by the time of 2018, won't have hosted the thing for 12yrs. can you imagine australia not hosting a make-believe aussie rules international event for so long!? we're talking about football as an integral part of the national culture here.

now it's all very well to argue how nice it'd be to bump the profile of the game up a little bit over there, and how sitting miles from the action would be tolerable if only those silly football lovers would modify their views, but it's a little bit more important than that.

I don't know about that - take a look at the athletics track being installed at the MCG for the Commonwealth Games in March. I've never seen seating that far back from the track at an athletics stadium...

http://www.mcg.org.au/webcam/cam1_webcam.jpg

Hard to tell from that picture but it looks like the gap on the near side is larger than on the far side. The pic below(before the most recent renovation) offers a better view...

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1050172639538_2003/04/16/1504event1,0.jpg

Compair that to the Ataturk for example and the difference doesnt look much to me.

http://www.turkeytraveladvisor.com/blogs/wp-content/images/ataturk-stadium.jpg

now for england's likely venues...

wembley
capacity: 90,000
primary use: home to the england national football team, and the home of football
status: currently under total redevelopment, due for completion by march 2006

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/2551/1wembley8ka.jpg


old trafford
capacity: 76,000
primary use: home to manchester united fc
status: north east and north west corners currently under redevelopment, due for completion by august 2006
possible future expansion: the main (south stand) could be redeveloped, taking the capacity to 91,000, but this is at the moment only speculative

http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5314/3oldtrafford1cc.jpg


new anfield (has planning permission, the club are currently securing funding)
capacity: 60,000-61,000
primary use: home to liverpool footbal club

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/1549/newanfield5jc.jpg


emirates stadium
capacity: 60,000
primary use: home to arsenal fc
status: currently under construction, due for completion by august 2006

http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/1614/4emiratesstadium6hc.jpg


new city of birmingham stadium
capacity: 55,000
primary use: multipurpose

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/docs/icBirmingham/00048957-5CBA-135F-A6F10C01AC1BF814.jpg


st james' park
capacity: 52,316
primary use: home to newcastle united fc
possible future expansion: expansion of the gallowgate end is a possibility, though no firm plans exist

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3082/5stjamespark5er.jpg


stadium of light
capacity: 48,300
primary use: home to sunderland afc
possible future expansion: a second tier could be added to the metro fm (south) stand, taking the capacity to 55,000, and then the mcewans stand, taking the capacity to 64,000. this would only be likely to happen should sunderland magically start competing for trohpies or, more likely, england secure the 2018 world cup

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/4217/6stadiumoflight7iv.jpg


city of manchester stadium
capacity: 48,000
primary use: home to manchester city fc

http://img247.imageshack.us/img247/8273/7cityofmanchesterstadium7zj.jpg


villa park
capacity: 42,573
primary use: home to aston villa fc
possible future expansion there are rumours of 51,000, but nothing concrete

http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/5784/9villapark9bb.jpg


10. stamford bridge
capacity: 42,449
primary use: home to chelsea fc
possible future expansion: possible redevelopment to somewhere in the region of 50,000, though relocation also remains a possibility.

http://img348.imageshack.us/img348/7219/10stamfordbridge6ji.jpg




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




other possible venues:

- london olympic stadium (80,000): has planning permission.
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/9900/olympicstadium8wn.jpg

new everton stadium / redeveloped goodison park (50,000+?): only speculation right now, could simply redevelop goodison park

new spurs stadium / redeveloped white hart lane (?): only speculation right now, could simply redevelop white hart lane

... plus twickenham, the millenium stadium, and other scottish stadiums...

... plus a load of 30,000 seaters that are designed to, and could quite easily, be redeveloped into 40,000+ seater venues.

Hard to tell from that picture but it looks like the gap on the near side is larger than on the far side. The pic below(before the most recent renovation) offers a better view...

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1050172639538_2003/04/16/1504event1,0.jpg

Compair that to the Ataturk for example and the difference doesnt look much to me.

http://www.turkeytraveladvisor.com/blogs/wp-content/images/ataturk-stadium.jpg

The MCG is a diffrent shape to traditional Athletic Stadia. Thats why it will have a diffrent affect. Regardless, the MCG will be a magnificent Centrepiece to the games, and if the preperations of the Comonwealth games is anything to go by, Melbourne would host superb Olympic games if they ever got the chance again. What are your thoughts on Football in the MCG?

Oz should do a deal with England at the very least. We let you guys have 2018 as long as you guys let us have 2022.

:cheers:

Oz should do a deal with England at the very least. We let you guys have 2018 as long as you guys let us have 2022.

:cheers:

Deal.......

Oz should do a deal with England at the very least. We let you guys have 2018 as long as you guys let us have 2022.

:cheers:

deal! :okay:

Now we only have to convince the other 200 FIFA members....

NZ would be up for it, so there is one at least.

Hmmm, I had to stay up all night long to watch the games in 2002, so it be the same for a WC in Oz.......

Hmmm, I had to stay up all night long to watch the games in 2002, so it be the same for a WC in Oz.......


poor you. we in OZ have to do that for nearly every major sporting event.

on another topic, ie back to my point earlier, i seriously think Oz will have an issue with stadia. New stadiums will not be built if they cannot be sustained after the WC. Its just not economic. Telstra stadium (beautiful as it is and probably the best in the country) is already a white elephant. 10 WC quality stadia is a big ask for OZ when you compare to the numerous great purpose built stadia in a place like England. Im not convinced the MCG and AAMI will be suitable venues either.

I still think we'll be about 2 to 4 short of what is required.

Australia 'will host' World Cup
November 28, 2005

LIVERPOOL legend Craig Johnston opened his heart today to end a quarter century of despair and predict a soccer World Cup future for Australia.

In accepting his induction into the Australian Football Federation Hall Of Fame, the 45-year-old said Australia would host the World Cup and possibly also be a winner.

"I've been forgotten, ignored, snubbed and not had any proper recognition until now. I thought it was time to make amends and get involved," Johnston said.

"The world body FIFA loves Australians and its administrators. I told FIFA when Australia was bidding for the 2000 Olympics that we would put on the best Olympics ever.

Politically, it will be very hard but FIFA knows from the past experience of the Olympics and two World Youth finals that if Australia stages the Cup here it will be the best World Cup ever."

"The way we handle sports here is better than anywhere else and I am very confident."

Johnston, who flew to Sydney from the United States to watch the return match against Uruguay, said the skill level of the Australian team was 30 per cent higher than the side he had seen last year.

"It could be the effect of new coach Guus Hiddink who is rated by many as a football genius. But whatever we're doing now is not enough, although the move into Asia will make us better."

"Playing nations like Tonga, The Cook Islands and West Samoa was a drawback but Japan, China and Korea is a step forward."

"Australia had suffered from geographic isolation and rugby league, union and the AFL had captured the minds of the kids. But now with the Socceroos and the A-League we have given them something."

"In previous years there was always a smirk and a giggle when Australian soccer was mentioned but when Terry Venables took over, people don't smirk anymore because they see Australia as a big threat," he said.

Johnston, who described his time at Liverpool as "the worst player in the world's best team" won 13 trophies during his seven years with the English Premier Club.

He also made the shock revelation that he had been approached to manage the Australian team but told the national officials that he preferred a business or advisory role.

"I said no to the offer but also said that I would get them a manager and Terry Venables was the result. That was a big contribution to Australian football."

"My desire is not to manage grown-ups but to mould kids into a better community and better footballers. I'm a passionate and proud Australian living overseas and I've always had this strong wish to give something back to Australia and soccer."

Johnston revealed his Supaskills program now operating in the United States and England had been endorsed by FIFA and leading English authorities.

He said the introduction of the program in England in big cities like London, Birmingham and Glasgow had taken youngsters off the street, reduced crime and obesity and improved discipline.

"My dream is to have more Australian kids playing soccer," he said.

"It's my mission and the future looks very promising but we must work hard. The Socceroos, if they want to win the World Cup, have to remember there's a poorer nation who wants it more."

A great venue for a World Cup!

Sydney's Telstra Stadium packed with 84,000 people during last weeks Australia vs Uruguay.

http://www.ggarmy.com/files/KW7B3T3YJO%5CGGAWallpaper010.jpg

^^Great place for the opening ceremony...lol^^

The final at the G :cheers:

arghh..The Final!..Sydney or Melbourne
now that will be a contest in itself!

lol. i love all the british sooks complaining that a WC wont be any good here coz we are so far ahead of GMT.

the simple fact is that if you want a major event done right, on time and budget, perfectly run, in safe and ultra modern cities then you'd pick Australia everyday of the week and twice on sundays.

any WC staged in Australia will be an improvement on anything ever held previously. and you can take that to the bank.

^^^^^

Have to agree 100%.

In England, it is ridiculously over-priced, and over-crowded.

The stadiums are small and cramped. Don't even try and drive a car to a football match in England there are no car-parks as they have plonked their stadia into their suburban jungles.

Security would be a nightmare, travelling fans would be constantly on guard against the hostile English supporters.

FIFA would have to take everything into consideration and England just cannot compete with what Oz has to offer.

The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.

lol. i love all the british sooks complaining that a WC wont be any good here coz we are so far ahead of GMT.

the simple fact is that if you want a major event done right, on time and budget, perfectly run, in safe and ultra modern cities then you'd pick Australia everyday of the week and twice on sundays.

any WC staged in Australia will be an improvement on anything ever held previously. and you can take that to the bank.

Duh!

There has only been one person who brought up the issue of the time zone and that person is in San Diego.

Who are all these mythical "British sooks" to whom you refer, ya daft twat?

And I don't think that anyone doubts that the aussies would put on a good show. The only problem, as even many aussies concede, is the lack of suitable stadiums.

^^^^^

Have to agree 100%.

In England, it is ridiculously over-priced, and over-crowded.

The stadiums are small and cramped. Don't even try and drive a car to a football match in England there are no car-parks as they have plonked their stadia into their suburban jungles.

Security would be a nightmare, travelling fans would be constantly on guard against the hostile English supporters.

FIFA would have to take everything into consideration and England just cannot compete with what Oz has to offer.

The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.

Almost 100% wrong!

1. While England is a relatively small country with a relatively large population, we are not unfamiliar with tourism. We count our tourists in the many tens of millions. I think we can probably find room to squeeze in a couple of hundred thousand football fans. And while England may be expensive, it is no more expensive than Japan and, if Japan is considered suitable for the World Cup, then England must be also.

2. The stadiums are bigger and more suited to football than anything that Australia could offer. In fact, of all the countries in the world, probably only Germany, the US and Spain can compete for dedicated football stadia.

3. You may rather have your stadia in some suburban wasteland surrounded by acres of concreted car parks. I prefer stadia that are surrounded by pubs and restaurants and city life. 90% of visiting fans won't have cars with them anyway and those that don't can travel by public transport. After all, we English manage to get to our football matches (in greater numbers than any other country on earth, as it happens) every week for nine months of the year, without our stadia being "blessed" by huge car parks.

4. For all England's previous problems with hooliganism abroad, there have been no such problems within England over the past twenty years. English stadia are far ahead of those of almost every other country because of well organised ticketing policies meaning proper segregation, extensive CCTV at every ground, well trained stewards, and a police force that knows better than any other how to operate at football matches. Besides, you may have missed the World Cup of 2002 when, other than Japanese and South Koreans, there were far more English present than fans from any other nation. We had over 20,000 there. Most other countries took only a couple of thousand. And there was no trouble. Same story in Portugal for Euro 2004. Far more English than any other visiting fans. We had over 70,000 there and again, no trouble, even on the night that we outnumbered the Portuguese in their own stadium (rather like the final of the rugby world cup in Sydney!). If hooliganism is your concern, then Brazil or Argentina or Italy would never get a World Cup these days. And Brazil will get the World Cup in 2014.

Australia would make a fine host of the World Cup. In one or two ways, it could be better than England. In others, though, it is lacking by comparison to England. The main reason, however, why I suspect that England will be favourites for 2018 is that FIFA will be reluctant to take the World Cup away from Europe for sixteen years or more. Europe is its biggest paymaster and has by far the most competing teams. And of the European nations that could hold the tournament, it is England's turn.

^^^^^

Have to agree 100%.

In England, it is ridiculously over-priced, and over-crowded.

The stadiums are small and cramped. Don't even try and drive a car to a football match in England there are no car-parks as they have plonked their stadia into their suburban jungles.

Security would be a nightmare, travelling fans would be constantly on guard against the hostile English supporters.

FIFA would have to take everything into consideration and England just cannot compete with what Oz has to offer.

The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.

Gimme ten stadiums that could host WC games in Oz. And I don't mean the Aussie Rules or cricket stadiums where you're ten miles away from the action needing goggles to look. England has at least fifteen WC-able stadiums, in Oz you'd need to build new and improve old stadiums.

Wembley
Old Trafford
Stanley Park
Emirates
Twickenham
St. James Park
Stadium of Light
Stamford Bridge
Villa Park
City of Manchester
Anfield Road
Goodison Park
Elland Road
Hillsborough
Highbury
White Hart Lane
etc

Duh!

There has only been one person who brought up the issue of the time zone and that person is in San Diego.

Who are all these mythical "British sooks" to whom you refer, ya daft twat?

And I don't think that anyone doubts that the aussies would put on a good show. The only problem, as even many aussies concede, is the lack of suitable stadiums.

just what i was going to say.

not enough stadiums of an adequate size or purpose-built design.

and seen as the aussie rules seasons runs from march - september (??), there remains real question marks as to whether some of the stadiums will actually be available for a june - july world cup.

it also remains to be seen whether there'd actually be enough public enthusiasm to fill the grounds.

The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.

How would the costs in Oz be lower? as has been stated you would need to build a number of new stadiums in order to host a WC were as by 2014-18 England will most likely not have to build any espeically for the WC. Unless there are massive changes by 2018 then the biggest TV market for football will remain europe aswell.

^^^^^

Have to agree 100%.

In England, it is ridiculously over-priced, and over-crowded.

The stadiums are small and cramped. Don't even try and drive a car to a football match in England there are no car-parks as they have plonked their stadia into their suburban jungles.

Security would be a nightmare, travelling fans would be constantly on guard against the hostile English supporters.

FIFA would have to take everything into consideration and England just cannot compete with what Oz has to offer.

The profits for the World Cup in Australia would be larger for FIFA, not only because all costs would be considerably lower but you could sell the event better into the biggest TV markets on the planet as they are in similar time zones.

1) Have you been to many British top-tier stadiums? They are as modern as any in Europe and probably Australia as well

2) We use public transport in Britain to go to major events, acres of carparks filled for a few days a year is hardly sustainable and ecologically quite reckless

3) Our fans are no worse than many other countries, in fact in recent tournaments we have turned out to be some of the best for the size of the travelling fans. Media attention made sure we had top sort that problem out. Besides if you were right wouldnt it be better to have it in England we have very little problems of hooliganism in our leagues (unlike other major countries)

4) We are perfectly situated for the main football markets, tv rights would be far easier to sell from Britain than Australia to the major broadcasters.

The one in Brisbane is the most suitable. The main problem with all these stadia is that they are all mainly used for other sports rugby and cricket etc. Not that FIFA has a problem with that but they generally like to award the world cup to a country that can develop their football infrastructure like in Japan/Korea as opposed to this bid which would be very similar to USA '94.

2) We use public transport in Britain to go to major events, acres of carparks filled for a few days a year is hardly sustainable and ecologically quite reckless

Most places here do have a rail line running next to them and there isn't much car parking now that Waverley Park (the mother of all carparks) has been torn down. The MCG's carpark (keep in mind the MCG existed long before cars were conceived and the first railways had just been built) is just a huge chunk of parkland - although half of Melbourne's suburban network travels past the MCG so there's not much of an excuse to drive. The Telstra Dome is right across the road from Spencer St station which is the main terminus for regional trains, as well as all suburban services travelling that way.

In the case of the Commonwealth Games coming to Melbourne in a few months, a ticket entitles you to free public transport so surely they'd do it for the World Cup too.

I can't say that much for other cities, but many of the stadiums were built well before the advent of car travel, so they do have a decent public transport service.


Generally speaking - New South Wales and Queensland have decent rectangular stadiums since rugby is the dominant code of football there (although Brisbane and Sydney have won a 4 AFL premierships between them in the past five years so there's plenty of people jumping on the bandwagon). The rest of the country have stadiums that are anything from perfectly round (MCG) to an elongated oval - due to the lack of a standard size for an Aussie Rules field. Soccer is emerging in these states and in many cases are ahead of rugby, hence Melbourne's proposal which the government seems to be eager to ensure a speedy approval for.

But soccer is breaking new ground in Australia. The whole national body was dismantled and we've got our inaugural season of the new A-League with new clubs and we've seen that places like Melbourne's Olympic Park are simply insufficient.

It's 3am, pardon my incoherence

No trouble filling the stadiums in Australia for the WC. There would be huge enthusiasm as Soccer is a big sport here.

At the Rugby WC stadiums were filled to capacity in Perth and Adelaide, and they're not even Rugby states. (Perth will be, but there's no tradition there).

The problem still remains the stadia themselves. There arent 10 suitable now, and i challenge anyone to tell me where the shortfall will be made up.

Australia have currently 9 stadia that technically would be up to FIFA standard(modern all seater 40,000++)

Telstra Stadium-83,500
Aussie Stadium-42,000
Sydney Cricket Ground-44,000
Melbourne Cricket Ground-100,000
Telstra Dome-55,000
Suncorp Stadium-53,000
GABBA-42,000
AAMI Stadium-50,000
Subiaco Oval-42,000

BUT in all truth,I think only 5 would probably be considered as certainties...

Telstra Stadium
Aussie Stadium
Melbourne Cricket Ground
Telstra Dome
Suncorp

The other venue would come from
Canberra-Canberra Stadium is currently 30,000.It has plenty of expansion room for an extra 10,000 Temporary seating even

Newcastle Stadium-Again 30,000 currently.Newcastle could permanantly sustain 40,000.

Townsville-In one of the fastest growing areas of Australia,the current venue seats around 25,000.Massive redevelopment would be required

Gold Coast-Similar to Townsville..A new stadium of around 25,000 is to be built,with possibilities of a second tier in the design.40,000 quite possible although long term economics of 40,000 may be difficult.

Perth-There is talk of a 60,000 Stadium for Perth to replace Subiaco.If a World Cup was awarded to Australia,there would be no doubt this would be built.

Adelaide-Unlike Perth,no real demand for a Stadium to replace AAMI.I dont think AAMI is suitable.Maybe upgrade Hindmarsh and use temporary seating to increase to the 40,000.I cant though see Adelaide missing out if we got the nod.

Most countries that are awarded World Cup do go on massive stadium spending sprees to upgrade and build new venues.Australia would be no different.
Also,how many countries around the World have 2 ultra-modern all seater 80,000 + venues??

USA
Australia
Spain(is the Neu Camp considered modern?)
Italy
UK in the near future
??? who else?

Also,how many countries around the World have 2 ultra-modern all seater 80,000 + venues??

There's no doubt that the MCG is modern and huge.

But it's an awful stadium for watching football.

Really only suitable for cricket and Aussie Rules.

Also,how many countries around the World have 2 ultra-modern all seater 80,000 + venues??

not only england, but london itself. in fact the city of london itself could almost host an entire world cup!

1) wembley (u/c - 90,000)
2) twickenham (u/c - 82,000)
3) emirates stadium (u/c - 60,000)
4) stamford bridge (42,449 - w/ rumours existing of a redevelopment to 50,000)
5) upton park (35,647 - planned redevelopment will take the capacity to 40,500)
6) white hart lane (36,214 - rumours of redevelopment or relocation make another 40,000+ stadium likely)
7) the valley (27,116 - planned redevelopment will take the capacity to 40,600)
8) madejski stadium (24,084 - the stadium is designed so that additional tiers can be added to the north, east and south stands, taking the capacity to 40,000)

not only england, but london itself. in fact the city of london itself could almost host an entire world cup!

1) wembley (u/c - 90,000)
2) twickenham (u/c - 82,000)
3) emirates stadium (u/c - 60,000)
4) stamford bridge (42,449 - w/ rumours existing of a redevelopment to 50,000)
5) upton park (35,647 - planned redevelopment will take the capacity to 40,500)
6) the valley (27,116 - planned redevelopment will take the capacity to 40,600)
7) madejski stadium (24,084 - the stadium is designed so that additional tiers can be added to the north, east and south stands, taking the capacity to 40,000)

Ahem! You must be a gooner!

You've missed White Hart Lane from that list. 36,200 now but, by 2018, will be 50,000+ or Spurs will have moved to a new stadium.

Selhurst Park is another stadium that is much in need of redevelopment and which could eventually increase to 40,000 or so.

There has also been talk of Fulham eventually increasing to over 30,000.

There will also be the Olympic stadium, with its reduced capacity after the games.

Ahem! You must be a gooner!

You've missed White Hart Lane from that list. 36,200 now but, by 2018, will be 50,000+ or Spurs will have moved to a new stadium.

Selhurst Park is another stadium that is much in need of redevelopment and which could eventually increase to 40,000 or so.

There has also been talk of Fulham eventually increasing to over 30,000.

There will also be the Olympic stadium, with its reduced capacity after the games.

:lol: nah, i'm a liverpool red.

fair enough, a redeveloped white hart lane or new spurs stadium should be on the list.

as for selhurst park, the council've blocked plans to redevelop one of the stands so the club are looking at relocating, although i'm guessing this wouldn't be to a 40,000+ stadium, and the same goes for fulham in the event of relocation. and the olympic stadium will be way below the required 40,000 once the games are finished.

all-in-all the list for london could be eight 40,000+ purpose-built football stadiums. pretty impressive stuff! two more and the city can bid to host the world cup all on its own!

Blatter Cup warning to Brazil
From correspondents in Rio de Janeiro
April 14, 2006

ARGENTINA and Chile could co-host the 2014 World Cup if Brazil is incapable of staging the event, FIFA President Sepp Blatter said today (AEST).

Blatter told Brazilian newspaper O Estadio de Sao Paulo that a joint bid between Argentina and Chile might be a possibility if Brazil is unable to build suitable stadia and infrastructure in time.

Under FIFA's policy of rotating the World Cup between continents, South America is guaranteed the right to host the 2014 finals, and Brazil has long been regarded as the front-runner.

But in remarks that could be viewed as a warning shot to Brazil, Blatter said FIFA may consider other options if the country struggled to put together a credible bid – and floated the idea of a joint bid.

"Why not present a joint bid between Argentina and Chile?" Blatter asked the paper. "At the moment I don't believe that Brazil has the stadia capable of staging the World Cup," he said.

FIFA said after the 2002 finals, staged by South Korea and Japan, that the Cup is unlikely to be split between two countries ever again.

Blatter said that if no South American country is able to bid for the tournament, FIFA would look to switch the location to North America or Australia, almost certainly meaning the finals would be staged in the United States, Mexico or Australia.

The vote to determine the 2014 host will be made at the FIFA Congress in 2008.

Agence France-Presse

What? Not Mexico again!!! Jeez.........

Where'd u get that from??

i believe that if they hold a joint World Cup again they should directly border each other

Have there not been a few threads of late showing the new stadiums of Brazil being built?

If it is taken from Brazil, my money would be on Mexico, then the USA.

i can say one thing, if that happens, that would be the first world cup without Brazil playing and honestly, a world cup would be more interesting to wacth if they played without the ball than without Brazil.

blatter can blablabla, it has more chance of kikcking him out of Fifa than that of happening

i can say one thing, if that happens, that would be the first world cup without Brazil playing

Why wouldnt Brazil play in it?

Anyway, Mexico has had it a bunch of times, the US has had it, Australia has never had it.

Unfortunately, i still can't see them giving it to us.

possibly australia!?

show me 10-12 40,000+ capacity purpose-built football stadiums australia has at hand to host the world cup in 8yrs time.

Why wouldnt Brazil play in it?


to take an event of that size from the only country that had ben in every world cup since the first one, where it is a really important event. what do you think it wouldbe the reaction in Brazil if Fifa took the world cup from Brazil in the year the team makes 100 years.

possibly australia!? show me 10-12 40,000+ capacity (preferably) purpose-built football stadiums australia has at hand to host the world cup in 8yrs time.

Don't you need at least 8, 40,000+ stadiums, a max of 2 per city?

Don't you need at least 8, 40,000+ stadiums, a max of 2 per city?

the max is one city with two, the rest have to be geographically spread out around the rest of the country.

and a limit of only eight 40,000+ stadiums would be pushing it.

We don't even have cities (or civilisation for that matter) spread out across the country, let alone stadiums. :P

I hope Mexico don't get it

It would be annoying, how many times are they gonna have it?

Yes, Australia could do it.

More than 40000

Telstra Stadium
Aussie Stadium
Telstra Dome
MCG
AAMI Stadium
Suncorp Stadium
Gabba (when seats are added)
Subiaco
New Stadium to be built in Tasmania (40000 or more)

the max is one city with two, the rest have to be geographically spread out around the rest of the country.

and a limit of only eight 40,000+ stadiums would be pushing it.

Yeah, that's what i meant.

Problem with Australia is, alot of our big stadiums are bloody ovals.

the hole thing is so nonsense, since when argentina and chile has more condition to host a world cup than Brazil? 80% of argentina population lives in buenos Aires, and Chile is a country with 15 milhon people who doesn´t care about football. i mean it would be a one city world cup?

there is eight already in existence

Yeah, that's what i meant.

Problem with Australia is, alot of our big stadiums are bloody ovals.

That means nothing

Blatter is an idiot, hes trying to take the 2014 World Cup out of Brazil or even South America.

If South Africa for example can do it, why we cant? Brazil is bigger, has more cities, football is way more popular and the country is richer aswell. Argentina, Chile and Mexico are pratically on the same level of Brazil and those countries populations are smaller and they dont have as many cities as Brazil has to host the matchs.

What Blatter wants? Maybe he wants us to start building everything before we know if we are really gonna host it...

We don't even have cities (or civilisation for that matter) spread out across the country, let alone stadiums. :P

correct. there are very few countries who haven't had it recently who could host it at such short notice: england (last had it in 66), italia (90), espana (82)... even those countries would have to rush the odd expansion here and there.

That means nothing

it means nothing that the vast majority of australia's stadiums are oval!?

watching football with an athletics track around it is bad enough - watching a world cup game in a cricket ground would like watching table tennis at wimbledon!

the odd athletics stadium as a world cup venue is tolerated, the majority of venues being cricket grounds would be intolerable.

it means nothing that the vast majority of australia's stadiums are oval!?

watching football with an athletics track around it is bad enough - watching a world cup game in a cricket ground would like watching table tennis at wimbledon!

the odd athletics stadium as a world cup venue is tolerated, the majority of venues being cricket grounds would be intolerable.

Don't worry. He doesnt know what he's talking about.

Don't worry. He doesnt know what he's talking about.

;)

it means nothing that the vast majority of australia's stadiums are oval!?

watching football with an athletics track around it is bad enough - watching a world cup game in a cricket ground would like watching table tennis at wimbledon!

the odd athletics stadium as a world cup venue is tolerated, the majority of venues being cricket grounds would be intolerable.

You have never seen football played at these stadiums, have you? It is no further away from the sideline than the average soccer ground.

You have never seen football played at these stadiums, have you? It is no further away from the sideline than the average soccer ground.

are you seriously trying to tell me that watching a football match at the MCG would be like watching a football match at, say, st james' park?

http://www.realfooty.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1050172639538_2003/04/16/1504event1,0.jpg

http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/6431/newsjpl71b4vy.jpg

having been to a soccer match between Australia and Uruguay at TS I was not very disappointed with the view from the back row.

The MCG is twice the size of Newcastle. Don't bother comparing them. You can compare Newcastle to Sydney's SFS or Docklands in Melbourne. The Southern Stand at the "G" is the same size of St. James to put it into perspective.

The MCG is MUCH larger even that Rome's Olympic Stadium or San Siro.

When Australia is playing there, the atmosphere is incredible.

The only stadium I have come across similar in the world was in Rome for the derby between Lazio/Roma or in Milan.

The English crowds are pretty quiet by comparison. You guys need to get passionate!

The MCG is twice the size of Newcastle. Don't bother comparing them. You can compare Newcastle to Sydney's SFS or Docklands in Melbourne.

The MCG is MUCH larger even that Rome's Olympic Stadium or San Siro.

When Australia is playing there, the atmosphere is incredible.

The only stadium I have come across similar in the world was in Rome for the derby between Lazio/Roma or in Milan.

The English crowds are pretty quiet by comparison. You guys need to get passionate!

number one: the comparison was about the stands' proximity to the pitch rather than their capacity.

number two: english crowds are pretty quiet compared to aussie crowds!?

:hahaha:

it means nothing that the vast majority of australia's stadiums are oval!?

watching football with an athletics track around it is bad enough - watching a world cup game in a cricket ground would like watching table tennis at wimbledon!

the odd athletics stadium as a world cup venue is tolerated, the majority of venues being cricket grounds would be intolerable.


Actually the only Cricket venue would be the MCG (final venue). The other oval venues would be Aussie Football.


MCG - Melbourne - 100,000 - Oval
Telstra Stadium - Sydney - 83,000 - Rectangle (but oval-like ends)
Telstra Dome - Melbourne - 56,000 - Can be configured to rectangle
Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane - 52,500 - Rectangle
AAMI Stadium - Adelaide - 51,500 - Oval
Subiaco Oval - Perth - 42,900 - Oval

Unless the rules change then Sydney's Aussie Stadium - 42,000 - rectangle, couldn't be used as Melbourne has two stadiums in use.

There is talk of a possible 70,000 seat stadium being built in Perth that would be oval, but like TD could be configured to rectangle with a moveable first tier.

Some of the following would need to be upgraded for a higher capacity:
Canberra Stadium - Canberra - 25,000 - rectangle
Energy Australia Stadium - Newcastle - 25,000 - rectangle
Central Coast Stadium - Gosford - 20,000 - rectangle
Dairy Farmers Stadium - Townsville - 22,000 - rectangle
WIN Stadium - Woolongong - 20,000 - rectangle
Skilled Stadium - Geelong - 27,000 - oval
Aurora Stadium - Launceston - 23,000 - oval


There is not enough there currently to host it. We would probably only have 3 oval stadiums in the WC, which is fewer than how many hosts have athletic tracks (and there is no difference between the two IMHO).

With the A-League growing i think it is entirely viable for the smaler rectangle stadiums to be upgraded to 40,000 in the future, but maybe not in time for 2014.

If Peth ends up getting a new 70,000 seater it would help our cause.

I think we will be capable of hosting one in the forseeable future, but not in time for 2014. The oval-sield situation is not as bad as some would claim.

A joint bid with NZ could be workable as they have a few stadiums that could get us over the line, but they have advertising trouble (rugby WC 03 anyone?) and there rugby fields are basically cricket ovals anyway.

^^^^^^^^^^^

You couldn't afford to sit near the pitch anyway! ;)

The MCG is twice the size of Newcastle. Don't bother comparing them. You can compare Newcastle to Sydney's SFS or Docklands in Melbourne.

The MCG is MUCH larger even that Rome's Olympic Stadium or San Siro.

When Australia is playing there, the atmosphere is incredible.

The only stadium I have come across similar in the world was in Rome for the derby between Lazio/Roma or in Milan.

The English crowds are pretty quiet by comparison. You guys need to get passionate!

English crowds are passionate, but not as much as AFL crowds

Actually the only Cricket venue would be the MCG (final venue). The other oval venues would be Aussie Football.


MCG - Melbourne - 100,000 - Oval
Telstra Stadium - Sydney - 83,000 - Rectangle (but oval-like ends)
Telstra Dome - Melbourne - 56,000 - Can be configured to rectangle
Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane - 52,500 - Rectangle
AAMI Stadium - Adelaide - 51,500 - Oval
Subiaco Oval - Perth - 42,900 - Oval

Unless the rules change then Sydney's Aussie Stadium - 42,000 - rectangle, couldn't be used as Melbourne has two stadiums in use.

There is talk of a possible 70,000 seat stadium being built in Perth that would be oval, but like TD could be configured to rectangle with a moveable first tier.

Some of the following would need to be upgraded for a higher capacity:
Canberra Stadium - Canberra - 25,000 - rectangle
Energy Australia Stadium - Newcastle - 25,000 - rectangle
Central Coast Stadium - Gosford - 20,000 - rectangle
Dairy Farmers Stadium - Townsville - 22,000 - rectangle
WIN Stadium - Woolongong - 20,000 - rectangle
Skilled Stadium - Geelong - 27,000 - oval
Aurora Stadium - Launceston - 23,000 - oval


There is not enough there currently to host it. We would probably only have 3 oval stadiums in the WC, which is fewer than how many hosts have athletic tracks (and there is no difference between the two IMHO).

With the A-League growing i think it is entirely viable for the smaler rectangle stadiums to be upgraded to 40,000 in the future, but maybe not in time for 2014.

If Peth ends up getting a new 70,000 seater it would help our cause.

I think we will be capable of hosting one in the forseeable future, but not in time for 2014. The oval-sield situation is not as bad as some would claim.

A joint bid with NZ could be workable as they have a few stadiums that could get us over the line, but they have advertising trouble (rugby WC 03 anyone?) and there rugby fields are basically cricket ovals anyway.

Then there is the two new stadiums to be built which could expand

Actually the only Cricket venue would be the MCG (final venue). The other oval venues would be Aussie Football.


MCG - Melbourne - 100,000 - Oval
Telstra Stadium - Sydney - 83,000 - Rectangle (but oval-like ends)
Telstra Dome - Melbourne - 56,000 - Can be configured to rectangle
Suncorp Stadium - Brisbane - 52,500 - Rectangle
AAMI Stadium - Adelaide - 51,500 - Oval
Subiaco Oval - Perth - 42,900 - Oval

Unless the rules change then Sydney's Aussie Stadium - 42,000 - rectangle, couldn't be used as Melbourne has two stadiums in use.

There is talk of a possible 70,000 seat stadium being built in Perth that would be oval, but like TD could be configured to rectangle with a moveable first tier.

Some of the following would need to be upgraded for a higher capacity:
Canberra Stadium - Canberra - 25,000 - rectangle
Energy Australia Stadium - Newcastle - 25,000 - rectangle
Central Coast Stadium - Gosford - 20,000 - rectangle
Dairy Farmers Stadium - Townsville - 22,000 - rectangle
WIN Stadium - Woolongong - 20,000 - rectangle
Skilled Stadium - Geelong - 27,000 - oval
Aurora Stadium - Launceston - 23,000 - oval


There is not enough there currently to host it. We would probably only have 3 oval stadiums in the WC, which is fewer than how many hosts have athletic tracks (and there is no difference between the two IMHO).

With the A-League growing i think it is entirely viable for the smaler rectangle stadiums to be upgraded to 40,000 in the future, but maybe not in time for 2014.

If Peth ends up getting a new 70,000 seater it would help our cause.

I think we will be capable of hosting one in the forseeable future, but not in time for 2014. The oval-sield situation is not as bad as some would claim.

A joint bid with NZ could be workable as they have a few stadiums that could get us over the line, but they have advertising trouble (rugby WC 03 anyone?) and there rugby fields are basically cricket ovals anyway.

thanks for your intelligent and informative post, victory. :) interesting reading. goes to show that australia could potentially host a world cup one day, and a very good world it'd be i'm sure.

are there any problems regarding AFL stadiums and the fact that the world cup would be held during european summer months? would this conflict with the AFL season in oz?

English crowds are passionate, but not as much as AFL crowds

You kidding me. AFL crowds suck.

If you want a real atmosphere catch the Melbourne Victory next A-League season.

After just 1 season (and a very bad one on the pitch) the Victory fans are more loud, passionate, and involved than most AFL fans after over 100 years of competition.

Soccer crowds are much more passionate than AFL corwds (in the stadium anyway).

A-League and the FA EPL crowds would fall asleep sitting amongst the fans of a geelong v st kilda football match.

If Australia were to put in a bid it would probably be....

Sydney

Sydney Football Stadium - 42,000 (soon to be 46,000)
Telstra Stadium - 83,000

Melbourne

MCG (Oval) - 110,000
New Rectangular Stadium - 25,000 (could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

Brisbane

Suncorp Stadium - 52,000

Adelaide

AAMI Stadium (Oval) - 51,000

Perth

Subiaco Oval - 42,000

They also have a rectangular ground that's around 20,000. Don't know if it could be upgraded or not.

Newcastle

Energy Australia Stadium - 26,000 (could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

Canberra

Canberra Stadium - 24,000 (could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

Townsville

Dairy Farmers Stadium - 21,000 (could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

Gold Coast

Getting a new rectangular stadium of around 25,000. I'd hope they'd build it with the option of upgrading it.

Central Coast

Central Coast Stadium - 20,000 (Could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

Wollongong

WIN Stadium - 20,000 (Could possibly be upgraded by 2014)

So it's not impossible.

You kidding me. AFL crowds suck.

If you want a real atmosphere catch the Melbourne Victory next A-League season.

After just 1 season (and a very bad one on the pitch) the Victory fans are more loud, passionate, and involved than most AFL fans after over 100 years of competition.

Soccer crowds are much more passionate than AFL corwds (in the stadium anyway).

A-League and the FA EPL crowds would fall asleep sitting amongst the fans of a geelong v st kilda football match.
You put Essendon and Carlton together

or the Lions and anyone

Hang on..Even Germany 2006 are using 3 stadia with athletics tracks around them!!

Australia would have no problem staging a 2014 World Cup

This is what you would see

MCG,Melbourne-100,000
Telstra Stadium,Sydney-85,000
StadiumWA,Perth-70,000
Telstra Dome,Melbourne-56,000
AAMI Stadium,Adelaide-56,000
Suncorp Stadium,Brisbane-53,000
Sydney Football Stadium,Sydney-46,000
Energy Australia Stadium,Newcastle-40,000
Townsville Stadium,Townsville-40,000
Canberra Stadium,Canberra-40,000

10 Stadiums listed
9 already built
5 will be true rectangular stadiums + 3 will be rectangular with use of retractable seating.
Only 2 will be oval grounds(MCG and AAMI).
Newcastle,Townsville and Canberra will need to be redeveloped
StadiumWA is currently proposed for Perth.

Rexfan2, just shut the fuck up.

You have no idea what you're talking about and you're embarressing.

You put Essendon and Carlton together

Essendon, Carlton and Collingwood would be the only fans that could compare in terms of crowd energy.

Anzac day at the MCG is the most chilling sporting atmosphere I've ever been in, 95,000 (100k this year) silent for the 1 minute rememberance then the last post and the national anthem to honour the fallen, then it ends with thunderous cheer that doesnt stop fior 2 hours.

But sadly crowds such as that are a rare treat in the AFL.

Rexfan2, just shut the fuck up.

You have no idea what you're talking about and you're embarressing.

:lol:

for the record i have your lot getting to the quarter-finals of the world cup. decent squad, great strikers and a manager with the golden touch (unlike our manager who looks like mr burns).

if you beat japan - game on.

when the Lions and the MIGHTY BOMBERS played in Brissie last year there was a deafening roar when Brisbane scored the winning goal. That is what you should hear in a stadium

FIFA Said after the Japan/Korea cup that will no longer organize a cup with 2 countries hosting it. Its too expensive.

If is too expensive to Japan and Korea, imagine Argentina and Chile... tsc tsc

FIFA Said after the Japan/Korea cup that will no longer organize a cup with 2 countries hosting it. Its too expensive.

If is too expensive to Japan and Korea, imagine Argentina and Chile... tsc tsc

good point

:lol:

for the record i have your lot getting to the quarter-finals of the world cup. decent squad, great strikers and a manager with the golden touch (unlike our manager who looks like mr burns).

if you beat japan - game on.

I'm just happy we made it. As long as the boys play their hearts out and do us proud, i'm happy. I wouldnt be surprised if we didnt make the 16.

I am quietly optimistic though.

Viduka is scoring pretty much every second game for Boro. Kewell is playing his best football since signing for Liverpool, got MOTM the other night.

Moore is back from injury, played shit his first game back but is getting better. Cahill is playing well.

Aloisi and Bresciano and scoring goals for Alaves and Parma. Chipperfield scored 4 goals in 2 games for Thun.

So the boys are firing, perfect timing too.

FIFA Said after the Japan/Korea cup that will no longer organize a cup with 2 countries hosting it. Its too expensive.

If is too expensive to Japan and Korea, imagine Argentina and Chile... tsc tsc

Argentina and Chile would not be feasible

Ummm...sounds more like politics to me than anything else. I would not react either way. Bladder likes to read himself quoted in the newspapers often.

Brasil for 2014 is still the plan.

Well, i saw that have a possibility to the cup of 2014 be hosted in Mexico. If that happends i will never see football again, for sure !

it would be a disappointment if Brazil was not ready. just remember the Athens Olympics

the only thing that could threaten Australia's chances of hosting the World Cup would be the quality and ranking of the squad - FIFA is not going to give the World Cup to a team ranked 50th.

Rexfan2, just shut the fuck up.

You have no idea what you're talking about and you're embarressing.

we don't need language like that, sydney_lad

we don't need language like that, sydney_lad

Get fucked.

Get fucked.


You're not a very pleasent lad are you.

I agree with sydney lad. Lions vs anyone? You have no idea. If your a Queenslander, at least mention State of Origin for atmosphere. As for interstate AFL sides, well Subi holds the atmosphere in better than AAMI (too open) so West Coast is probably the loudest.

As for a World Cup in Australia as early as 2014 (still 8 years away, plenty of building time)
MCG 101000 - Semi and Final
Telstra Stadium 83000 - Opening, Semi and 3rd place.
StadiumWA 65000 (capacity falls in rectangle mode) - Quarters
Suncorp Stadium 60000 (upper corners filled in) - Quarters
Adelaide ? AAMI wouldn't be acceptable
SFS or Telstra Dome (flip a coin to see Sydney or Melbourne having the second venue)
Gold Coast Stadium 40000 (expanded)
Energy Australia Statium 40000 (expanded)
Bruce Stadium 40000 (expanded)
Townsville new stadium 40000 (Dairy farmers is a cheap hole that wouldn't get past Fifa)
Possible Tassie stadium?

All this being said, Australia won't host 2014, Bazil will. If shit hits the fan the USA will before Argentina and Chile.

I agree with sydney lad. Lions vs anyone? You have no idea. If your a Queenslander, at least mention State of Origin for atmosphere. As for interstate AFL sides, well Subi holds the atmosphere in better than AAMI (too open) so West Coast is probably the loudest.

As for a World Cup in Australia as early as 2014 (still 8 years away, plenty of building time)
MCG 101000 - Semi and Final
Telstra Stadium 83000 - Opening, Semi and 3rd place.
StadiumWA 65000 (capacity falls in rectangle mode) - Quarters
Suncorp Stadium 60000 (upper corners filled in) - Quarters
Adelaide ? AAMI wouldn't be acceptable
SFS or Telstra Dome (flip a coin to see Sydney or Melbourne having the second venue)
Gold Coast Stadium 40000 (expanded)
Energy Australia Statium 40000 (expanded)
Bruce Stadium 40000 (expanded)
Townsville new stadium 40000 (Dairy farmers is a cheap hole that wouldn't get past Fifa)
Possible Tassie stadium?

All this being said, Australia won't host 2014, Bazil will. If shit hits the fan the USA will before Argentina and Chile.

Are you sure its possible to fill in Suncorp's corners? I didnt think it was structually (seeing how one one side they built old lang park's grandstand into it) And i doubt it would take capacity up to 60k.

I think AAMI would be acceptable, perhaps with a minor upgrade in some sections. If not then Hindmarsh is a good new rectangle venue with plenty of room for a large expansion (with just that considered in the design). So Adeladie would be alright one way or the other.

Telstra Dome would get in over Aussie, larger capacity than AS and with Newcastle and maybe even Central Coast and Woolongong hosting matches NSW would be covered. I wonder whether FIFA would allow the only 1 city=2stads rule, after all it would be a shame to cut out either AS or TD. And the RWC proved that it is feasable.

I think the problem with the gold coast is the roof. I doubt it would be possible to expand upon it. And the stadium is't even built yet so i doubt any amount of modding or replacement would go ahead.

A complete rebuild of Dairy Farmers would be needed, thats what i meant. Cowboys fans have been calling for it anyway though, so hopefully it will happen.

USA again? they tried it once and it didn't work.

Victory.

I've heard that Hindmarsh can't be expanded. Will need to check up on that though.

Also, if it was between SFS and Telstra Dome, i have a feeling SFS would get it.

Solely because SFS is a rectangular ground and Telstra Dome is an oval.

We'll see what football is like at the Telstra Dome this year, when we come down the games will be held there. Can't wait :D

Just on the Aussie World Cup bid. Ron Walker, the boss of the Grand Prix in Melbourne and on countless boards in Oz and the UK(including the Oz FFA) said yesterday we WILL be going all out for a World Cup as they would like to stage a Cup down under before himself and Frank Lowy are sitting in wheelchairs.

Now that guy is the "Mr Fix It". If anyone has seen the film of the "Inside Man". Think that Jodie Foster character and that is Ron Walker.

Ummm...sounds more like politics to me than anything else. I would not react either way. Bladder likes to read himself quoted in the newspapers often.

Brasil for 2014 is still the plan.


I agree- I think hes just trying to get Brazil to maybe get a move on with their stadiums as some I have been to are very decrepid & need massive rebuilding or renovating

Blatter is an idiot, hes trying to take the 2014 World Cup out of Brazil or even South America.

If South Africa for example can do it, why we cant? Brazil is bigger, has more cities, football is way more popular and the country is richer aswell. Argentina, Chile and Mexico are pratically on the same level of Brazil and those countries populations are smaller and they dont have as many cities as Brazil has to host the matchs.

What Blatter wants? Maybe he wants us to start building everything before we know if we are really gonna host it...

Its most likely just putting pressure on Brazil, however its often been rumoured that the only reason the rotation system was brought in was to garentee Africa a WC since Blatter was depending on their votes to remain FIFA president. I'm sure Blatter would love to have another world cup in the USA in the hope of building a rich footballing market to rival UEFA(notice no european nations were mentioned as alternative hosts) but I doubt he could get away with it politically. As an England fan I'd be very pissed off if any of those nations other than Australia got a second/third WC post 66 espeically since theres can be no excuse that we couldnt easly host one.

As to the Australian bid I wouldnt be supprized if they were allowed a little leway when it comes to only having two stadiums in one city, Portugal got away with two in Porto and Lisbon afterall(UEFA not FIFA I know).

Where are these "rules" for how many stadiums you need to stage World Cups? I doubt they even exist. It is more than likely just conventions on how it was done in the past.

A place like England can say that Manchester and Liverpool are separate cities when they are practically one large urban sprawl. By that definition Sydney is roughly the size of half of England so they could have half the stadiums by itself.

Forget that crap about 6, 8 or 10 or more stadiums. It means nothing. There are no such rules from FIFA and if there were they can be easily altered.

I remember the 98 world cup and for some bizarre reason they had games at Parc des Princes rather than St. Denis. They lost 40,000 potential customers just for the sake of have "another" stadium.

I believe the "rules" are....

10+ 40,000 capacity
Two stadiums in only 1 city
70,000+ capacity for final
Either 50,000+ or 60,000+ for semi's

I agree the number of stadiums per city rule would likely be abandoned as it suited FIFA. Generally the rules come less important if the host is desided within FIFA rather than though bidding aswell.

1) I think Blatter is on drugs - he has his choleric moments where he just spits out abuses without thinking. He did the same during the preparation for this year's World Cup in Germany. Anyhow, for that reason, I don't believe he would really dare to take it away from Brazil. There is still plenty of time for Brazil to get their act together

2) I don't mind the Mexicans getting it again. I think 1986 was a great World Cup. There is a lot more passion for the game there than in the United States. So there is no way that the US would get it so early again after 1994.

3) As much as I'd like the World Cup to be staged here in Australia - I don't believe it will ever happen. How hard is it for all the teams and worldwide fans to come to Australia and criss-cross the continent? I mean, it would be a boon for the Aussie tourism industry, as thousands of fans would descend on the continent to watch their teams (and dare I say that they would spent more money than the average 'Olympic fan' in 2000 - football fans are die-hards that'd do anything to watch their team).

In terms of marketability Australia has 2 really strong disadvantages:

1) only 20m population (remember: the USA got the 1994 WC mainly because of it's huge market). What would be the financial or promotional benefit for FIFA staging it Down Under?

2) Football (or soccer as they still call it here) is not even in the top 2 footy codes in Australia - AFL (Aussie Rules) and NRL (Rugby) being on top. Football must be ingrained as the passionate number 1 (or close 2nd) sport in Australia before FIFA would seriously consider giving it to Australia.

So, in a nutshell: I think Blatter uses scare-tactics. Brazil will get it for 2014, and Australia can dream of staging a World Cup in 2016 at the earliest.

Cheers.

- only 20m population (remember: the USA got the 1994 WC mainly because of it's huge market). What would be the financial or promotional gain for FIFA staging it Down Under?
One advantage would be te TV time slot into Asia. FIFA is looking to increase its support in Asia, and so having another World Cup in an asian convientiant time zone (and another AFC nation) would add to K/J-02 to build upon soccer-football's popularity.


- Football (or soccer as they still call it here) is not even in the top 2 footy codes in Australia - AFL (Aussie Rules) and NRL (Rugby) being on top.
Yes. But the A-League had a terrifically successful inaugural season, and support is set to increase over the coming years.

And soccer is the #1 grassroots sport in the nation, most participation, once that is converted into commercial support things will develop even faster. And when all the kids who play today are older, they will be big spending fans.

In an ideal world, the AFL would die, and the A-League and NRL would walk over the ashes, but that is not going to happen unless they get support nation wide.

I agree with sydney lad. Lions vs anyone? You have no idea. If your a Queenslander, at least mention State of Origin for atmosphere. As for interstate AFL sides, well Subi holds the atmosphere in better than AAMI (too open) so West Coast is probably the loudest.

The State of Origin is quiet compared to a match like Brisbane v Essendon where 40k people scream their heads off when the Lions win.

As for State of Origin, in Queensland you're lucky to get 5000 screaming because the rest are QLD Fans. for those who don't know, QLD hasn't won a series in years.

^^^^^^^^

Why did the IOC stage the Summer Games in OZ, why does the FIA hold Grand Prixs in Oz?

The simple reason is OZ is a wealthy nation. You could go and stage a World Cup in China but 90 per cent or more and VERY, VERY poor. They could not afford $100 a ticket. Not on your nelly.

Brazil is also a VERY, VERY poor nation by comparison to Australia.

If FIFA holds a Cup down here they will make a lot of money from sold out stadiums, paying top dollar for a ticket. Not heavily marked down prices you would have to have in places like South Africa, Brazil, China etc.. just so the locals can afford a ticket.

You gotta remember Oz is one of the few very fortunate nations in the World where people are relatively well off. There is only about 30 nations in the world like that.

Australia also has the infastructure to host it