There seems to be alot of talk about various countries holding WC's recently so I thought a thread dicussing which countries could actuially host one by themselves these days. With the increase size from 16 to 24 to 32 teams aswell as the increase in required stadium quality and infrastructure I'm not sure many former hosts could be included anymore. The following springs to mind...

Germany - Hosting in 2006

South Africa - Hosting in 2010

Brazil - FIFA's choice for 2014, will require alot of redevolpment but they obviously have the passion for football and the population.

England - Could likely host it when the next round of new/redevolped open next year and theirs most likely more on the way.

Spain - Talk up upgrading the two legendary stadiums aswell as many other projects.

Morocco - Went for 2010 with a number of big new stadiums planned so you'd think they'd be able to do so again.

Italy - Some of the 1990 stadia are dating but with the popularity of the game you'd think their would be money for redevolpment.

USA - Many NFL and collage stadia that could be used.

France - Hosted in 98 although I think they'd need to inprove their stadia to do so again.

Argentia - The rules limiting you to two stadia per city might have to be changed for Buenos Aires but like Brazil theres obviously a passion for football.

China - Many large stadiusm already and their would likely be lots of funding aviable for more.

Japan - Could probabley have hosted 2002 alone considering the number of stadia not used.

South Korea - was almost able to host 2002 alone and with the growing popularity of football there would probabley be able to do so in the future.

Australia - Finding uses for the 2-3 new stadia needed might be a problem but theres certainly the money there.

Other possible ones I don't have enough details on to know for sure.

Mexico - Not sure if they'd be able to rustle up the stadia but the passion for football is certainly there again.

Colombia - Was going to host in 1986 before political problems moved it to mexico, does already have some big stadiums but would need lots of devolpment.

Russia - Again has the population and the passion but would need alot of redevolpment stadia wise.

Portugal has a good chance at it.

Braga:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/estadio_municipal_de_braga/images/innen_25.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Braga/st-braga_06.jpg

Leiria:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Leiria/leiria_04.jpg

Aveiro:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Aveiro/aveiro_17.jpg

Porto:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b290/lisbona/dragao4.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Dragao/luft_01.jpg

Boavista:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Boavista/bessa_21.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Boavista/bessa_44.jpg

Guimarães:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/d_alfonso_henriques/images/luft_01.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/d_alfonso_henriques/images/innen_09.jpg

Coimbra:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/cidade_de_coimbra/images/aussen_01.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/cidade_de_coimbra/images/innen_01.jpg

Belenenses:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/portugal/estadio_do_restelo/120.jpg

Gil Vicente:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/portugal/complexo_desportivo_municipal/110.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/portugal/complexo_desportivo_municipal/290.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/portugal/complexo_desportivo_municipal/200.jpg

Lisbon:

Benfica

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/estadio_da_luz/images/luft_01.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Benfica/luz_36.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Benfica/luz_02.jpg

Sporting

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Sporting/luft_01.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Sporting/alvalade_010.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Sporting/alvalade_015.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionguides/euro_2004/estadio_alvalade/images/aussen_01.jpg

Algarve:

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Algarve_Faro/Faro_06.jpg

http://www.stadionwelt.de/Stadionwelt-Stadien-Arenen/Stadionlisten/Portugal/Algarve_Faro/Faro_39.jpg

What are the capacities of those stadia?

Ya but Portugal wont get the World Cup anytime soon since they just hosted the Euros. Maybe the earliset they would have a chance to get would be 2022-2026

mexico was the first country to hold the world cup twice n probably the only one, anyways for now it would be too soon but definately there is the infrastructure

mexico was the first country to hold the world cup twice n probably the only one, anyways for now it would be too soon but definately there is the infrastructure

France has hosted it twice now aswell and as I said the second time was filling in for Columbia. Hosting a WC in 1986 and hosting one now is a very different matetr though, not only do you have 32 rather than 24 teams but the standard of stadium expected it much higher. Not that I'm saying Mexico wouldnt be able to host it just that I don't think the previous 2 WC's held their is evidense that they'd be able to hold one now.

As good a job as Portigul did with euro 2004 they were pushing the limate of what would be sustainable as it is with one 66k stadium, two 50k ones and the rest 30k. For a WC they'd need to boost all but 2-3 above 40K and probabley build a new 75-80 k stadium aswell.

Probably couldn't do it now, but I think by the 2020's Turkey could be a viable option. Growing economy and a growing passion for football. Also should be members of the EU by then. Don't really know what their current stadium situation is like.

The countries that I would like to see the World Cup staged.

Australia - we have managed to host every other World Cup/Olympics under the sun fairly well so why not.

Canada - In a similar position to Australia. Would do a great job.

England - Quite simply the home of the game and have the facilities and support in place.

Russia - One day, maybe when they finally figure out how a country is supposed to run and not as a despotic anarchic state.

mexico was the first country to hold the world cup twice n probably the only one

Italy (1934 and 1990), and France (1938 and 1998) allready hosted WC twice. Germany (1974 and 2006) will host it twice soon.

About Portugal: of course, Portugal get stadium. It is necessary but not enough: Portugal needs more accomodations and transportations to bid for WC. I think Portugal is too small to host WC alone: a comon bid with Spain or Morocco should be a better way.

Greece is fully capable as proven by the Olympic games and it already has the infrastructures needed. 1-2 new stadiums could be built and greece has plenty of accomodation due to its high level of tourists anyway.

Greece cannot and should not host a WC, we have neither the stadiums nor the need for the stadiums required. It's like double that of a Euro in every way, it would be a huge waste. I mean we can host it in the sense we can do it, but it would not be smart at all. Smaller countries have no business hosting alone, only joint bids for the WC.

love those crazy looking stadiums in Portugal!

i think that would be a fine venue

love those crazy looking stadiums in Portugal!

i think that would be a fine venue

They're nice looking stadiums but they're too small.

All but three of them have a capacity of 30,000, two have 50,000 and one has 65,000. And there is no need, with regard to long term use (as opposed to the requirements of the World Cup for a period of five weeks), for increased capacity at any of them.

Greece cannot and should not host a WC, we have neither the stadiums nor the need for the stadiums required. It's like double that of a Euro in every way, it would be a huge waste. I mean we can host it in the sense we can do it, but it would not be smart at all. Smaller countries have no business hosting alone, only joint bids for the WC.
I agree. I wouldnt like Greece to host it anytime soon, although with the private stadiums being planned it may be easier. The question is which countries could host it, Greece could, but it wouldnt be very wise. Id love to see Italy-Greece joint bid.

Joint UK Bid

New Anfield - Liverpool (61,000)
http://www.thisisanfield.com/news/NewStadium-01_400.jpg

Wembley - London (90,000)
http://www.stadiumguide.com/wembleynew4.jpg

http://www.stadiumguide.com/wembleynew5.jpg

St James' Park - Newcastle (52,200)
http://www.stadiumguide.com/stjamespark3.jpg

Old Trafford - Manchester (68,000)
http://www.stadiumguide.com/oldtrafford5.jpg

Celtic Park - Glasgow (60,000)
http://www.stadiumguide.com/celticpark4.jpg

Murrayfield - Edinburgh (67,500)
http://www.stadiumguide.com/murrayfield1.jpg

Millennium Stadium - Cardiff (74,500)
http://www.stadiumguide.com/millennium2.jpg

Other options include- Emirates Stadium, Stamford Birdge, City of Manchester Stadium, Ibrox, Villa Park (or a new stadium in Brum)

Australia - we have managed to host every other World Cup/Olympics under the sun fairly well so why not.



Having been to few international football tournments I dont think Australia is ready to host a world cup, and I'm not sure we will be in the near future. FIFA requires 8 stadiums, seating 40,000. FIFA also usually allow only one city to use two stadiums.

I really doubt FIFA would give the world cup to a country using cricket grounds to host many of the games.

At the moment only 3 cities are ready.
Brisbane - Suncorp 52,500
Sydney - SFS - 42,000
Sydney - Homebush 83,500
Melbourne - MCG 100,000 (though a poor stadium for watching football)
Melbourne - Docklands 50,000 (I would hope for the WC, the seats would be moved in)

Thats 5 stadiums. Others could be expanded, but would they?
Canberra - Bruce stadium 25,000
Newcastle - EnergyAustralia 26,000
Adelaide - Hindmarsh 16,500
Perth - MES 17,500
Townsville 24,800

Mexico could host the World Cup for a third time, but it needs to revamp most of the minor stadiums. The beautification of them could be very helpful.

Serbia & Montenegro could do it...maybe with a joint bid with other, ex-Yugoslavian countries?

Having been to few international football tournments I dont think Australia is ready to host a world cup, and I'm not sure we will be in the near future. Why?...do you have any other reasons apart from stadiums?

FIFA requires 8 stadiums, seating 40,000. It's achievable

FIFA also usually allow only one city to use two stadiums. So they'll make an exception this once and allow two cities...btw if thats correct, then Englands bid is in trouble if you go by SSC forumers. They name 60-70% of their WC stadiums just in London(4), Manchester(2) and Liverpool(2).

I really doubt FIFA would give the world cup to a country using cricket grounds to host many of the games. If FIFA don't have a problem with stadia that have running tracks, then they definately won't have a problem with cricket grounds. The fans at cricket grounds are usually closer to the action due to the playing arena being alot smaller than a running track stadium.


I'm sure that I'll see the tournament in Australia one day but the biggest hurdle in Australia hosting a WC is the timing of it and whether they can secure the use these stadiums. In June/July they are in full use by the local football (afl/rugby) leagues.

So they'll make an exception this once and allow two cities...btw if thats correct, then Englands bid is in trouble if you go by SSC forumers. They name 60-70% of their WC stadiums just in London(4), Manchester(2) and Liverpool(2).



No serious GB forumer has listed more than 2 stadiums for London in any list i have seen a general consensus being they would use Wembley (90k) and Emirates(60k). As for the other stadiums well they could be anywhere, England isnt exactly short of dedicated football stadiums.

They're nice looking stadiums but they're too small.

All but three of them have a capacity of 30,000, two have 50,000 and one has 65,000. And there is no need, with regard to long term use (as opposed to the requirements of the World Cup for a period of five weeks), for increased capacity at any of them.

You can easily sit more 8.000 in those 32.000/33.000 seat stadiums. There is space for that. Even the Algarve stadium can quickly receive 40.000, since its side stands are movable!

You can easily sit more 8.000 in those 32.000/33.000 seat stadiums. There is space for that. Even the Algarve stadium can quickly receive 40.000, since its side stands are movable!

I'll take your word for it.

But the point still remains that there is no need for an increased capacity at any Portuguese stadium. Most of them are operating at much less than half capacity already. Whatever the World Cup may be and may become, it should never be an excuse for building white elephants.

Italy (1934 and 1990), and France (1938 and 1998) allready hosted WC twice. Germany (1974 and 2006) will host it twice soon.


1934 Italy
1938 France
1966 England
1974 West Germany
1980 Spain

1990 Italy
1998 France
2006 Engl - hey, what the?! Don't Germans know how to wait their turn?! :)

London could host WC :) London ponly has more stadiums than some countries :)

Wembley
Twickenham (stadium of rugby national team)
Emirates Stadium (Arsenal)
Stampford Bridge (Chelsa)
Wimbeldon F.C. Stadium
Crystal Palace Stadium
future London 2012 Olympic Stadium
future UK Athletc National Team stadium

and I'm sure taht there would be no problem to find some other good stadiums in London Area.

there was some serious talk of a joint chile-argentina bid for the 2014 world cup, but this is now a moot point since the world cup is essentially guaranteed to go to brazil (and deservingly so) for that year.

chile hosted the cup in 1962 but it was a different world and the world cup much smaller. i think a future chile-argentina co-host is possible and FIFA has shown itself to be in favor of these two countries submitting a joint bid in the future. naturally, this would involve building new stadiums and renovating some of the better existing ones (especially in the case of chile, who have some of the worst stadiums in south america).

China is the most prominent country with all the infrastructure already built for 2008 Olympics.....Malaysia mayb Thailand?,Argentina,Russia,Australia,Sweden,Brazil,England,India and Pakistan,Canada,a gulf country like Saudi Arabia or UAE,all do have the potential.....imo

^^it's only a matter of time before china hosts a world cup. surely they'll get the next one hosted in asia, though i could also see australia (joint australia-new zealand?) hosting a cup.

Sweden would be great climate-wise (not too hot in the middle of the day, and nice sunny evenings), but not stadium-wise :)

I'll take your word for it.

But the point still remains that there is no need for an increased capacity at any Portuguese stadium. Most of them are operating at much less than half capacity already. Whatever the World Cup may be and may become, it should never be an excuse for building white elephants.

I agree. But the increase in seating capacity should only be carried out for the world cup - I mean, the profits involved are more than suficient to cover the costs involved in this short term operation that would only last during the competition itself. The normal seating capacity would then be restablished.

i think there should be a world cup in Europe, by the nations that has no chance in hosting the world cup on their own. :)

i think there should be a world cup in Europe, by the nations that has no chance in hosting the world cup on their own. :)


I actually really like that idea. So which countries could you exclude from that list? That would be easier.

I actually really like that idea. So which countries could you exclude from that list? That would be easier.

England, Germany, Italy, France and Spain seems to be quite realistic to exclude then.

The problem I'd guess would be fans having to follow their team over large distances after the group stages(which could be held in each country) although I spose you could say the same about the US hosting a WC. There could be not automatic places in such a WC obviously but sorting it out so all the hosts who did qualify were in their own countries group would be quite tough aswell.

It would have the advanatage that each nation would only need a couple of stadiums so rather than building mutiple 30-40 k stadia that often won't be used to anywhere near capacity after the WC they could put all their money into building a new national stadium that would.

i think there should be a world cup in Europe, by the nations that has no chance in hosting the world cup on their own. :)
Why not: that would be a good idea. So:
- We would have to exclude 5 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Sapin, UK in alphabetic order). As a compensation, they would be automatically qualified with the 12 hosts.
- 40 teams would play the first round in 8 group of 5.
- 12 cities would host matchs: Bruxelles, Amsterdam, Lisboa, Dublin, Warsaw, Copenhagen, Wien, Bern, Stokohlm (or Goteborg), Praha, Budapest, Athens.
- Each host would play at least one match in his own country
- The final match must take place in Bruxelles.
- Semi final would be plaid in Amsterdam and Lisboa.

IMHO, the first thing to do, is to build a real HSR network toward Europe.

The problem I'd guess would be fans having to follow their team over large distances after the group stages(which could be held in each country) although I spose you could say the same about the US hosting a WC. There could be not automatic places in such a WC obviously but sorting it out so all the hosts who did qualify were in their own countries group would be quite tough aswell.

It would have the advanatage that each nation would only need a couple of stadiums so rather than building mutiple 30-40 k stadia that often won't be used to anywhere near capacity after the WC they could put all their money into building a new national stadium that would.

I assume your talking about Australia?

Don't worry. The day Australia wins the Hosting right to the world cup, is the day that AFL Becomes the second sport. Its going to happen sooner or later just look at what the stars of the future prefer.

Ofcourse those 30-40k stadia will be used to capacity once the Australian public realise how glorious the real football is compared to that mickey mouse game they call Australian Rules ;).

Just a thought.

I was talking about a euro WC.

The final match must take place in Bruxelles.

Why exactly? what does being the capital of banana measuring burocrats have to do with football?

The thread is getting interesting! Bruxelles as final venue sounds reasonable due to its geographical location. Isn't there also talk about extending de Kuip in Rotterdam, another potential final venue in that case.

The final should be in the geographic center of europe..something like Prague or Vienna...not Brussels.

Why not: that would be a good idea. So:
- We would have to exclude 5 countries (France, Germany, Italy, Sapin, UK in alphabetic order). As a compensation, they would be automatically qualified with the 12 hosts.
- 40 teams would play the first round in 8 group of 5.
- 12 cities would host matchs: Bruxelles, Amsterdam, Lisboa, Dublin, Warsaw, Copenhagen, Wien, Bern, Stokohlm (or Goteborg), Praha, Budapest, Athens.
- Each host would play at least one match in his own country
- The final match must take place in Bruxelles.
- Semi final would be plaid in Amsterdam and Lisboa.

IMHO, the first thing to do, is to build a real HSR network toward Europe.

Sounds interesting. I am though not really sure if hosting also would mean that you are automatically qualifyed, but anyway. The list of cities sounds very reasonable too. Lots of initial work to do, but I believe it could work!

If you want to be that specific then the UK isnt a footballing nation so Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could also co host.

I assume your talking about Australia?

Don't worry. The day Australia wins the Hosting right to the world cup, is the day that AFL Becomes the second sport. Its going to happen sooner or later just look at what the stars of the future prefer.

Ofcourse those 30-40k stadia will be used to capacity once the Australian public realise how glorious the real football is compared to that mickey mouse game they call Australian Rules ;).

Just a thought.

Unfortunately, there's a difference between jumping on the bandwagon and being born into the game. The biggest difference between the sports is that at an AFL match, you'll see children four or five years old all the way to elderly citizens that have been following their club for all their life.

Besides, only people like you think the codes are competing. Ever noticed that the A-League season coincides with the AFL off-season?

The final should be in the geographic center of europe..something like Prague or Vienna...not Brussels.

wtf... why? it would make sense to hold it in Brussels, or in an other large stadium. But why Prague? The largest stadium in Czech Rep. has 20 000 seats, Austria's largest has 49 000 seats. Netherlands have 8 larger stadiums then Czech and two stadiums larger then Austria. Belgium about the same thing.

Let's show some stadiums that could host:

Amsterdam (NED) - Amsterdam Arena, 51 324 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/amsterdam_arena1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/amsterdam_arena2.jpg

Rotterdam (NED) - De Kuip, 51 180 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/rotterdam_de_kuip1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/netherlands/rotterdam_de_kuip2.jpg

Lisboa (PRT) - Estádio da Luz, 65 647 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/lisboa/lisbon_luz1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/lisboa/lisbon_luz2.jpg

Lisboa (PRT) - Estádio José Alvalade, 50 300 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/lisboa/lisbon_alvalade1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/lisboa/lisbon_alvalade2.jpg

Porto (PRT) - Estádio do Dragão, 50 000 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/porto/porto_dragao1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/portugal/porto/porto_dragao2.jpg

Wien (AUT) - Ernst Happel Stadion, 48 844 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/austria/wien_ernst_happel1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/austria/wien_ernst_happel2.jpg

Brussel (BEL) - Koning Boudewijn Stadion, 50 024 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/belgium/brussels_koning_boudewijn1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/belgium/brussels_koning_boudewijn2.jpg

København (DK) - Parken Stadion, 41 781 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/denmark/copenhagen_parken1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/denmark/copenhagen_parken2.jpg

Göteborg (SVE) - Nya Ullevi Stadion, 43 200 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/sweden/vastra_gotaland/goteborg_nye_ullevi1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/sweden/vastra_gotaland/goteborg_nye_ullevi2.jpg

Solna (SVE) - Råsunda Stadion, 50 000 seats (finished in 2010)
http://img.aftonbladet.se/sport/0512/02/national.jpg http://expressen.se/content/1/c6/48/11/25/af35cd20.jpg

Helsinki (FIN) - Olympiastadion, 42 062 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/finland/southern/helsinki_olympiastadion1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/finland/southern/helsinki_olympiastadion2.jpg

Athína (GRE) - Olympic Stadium 'Spyros Louis', 74 443 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/greece/athens_spiros_louis1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/greece/athens_spiros_louis2.jpg

Chorzow (POL) - Stadion Slaski, 43 000 seats
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/poland/slaskie/chorzow_slaski1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/poland/slaskie/chorzow_slaski2.jpg

Basel (CHE) - St. Jakob Park, 31 539 (is being changed to 42 000 seats)
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/switzerland/nordwestschweiz/basel_st_jakob1.jpg http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/europe/switzerland/nordwestschweiz/basel_st_jakob2.jpg

Something like this...

(Small note: Råsunda will probably be demolished and replaced by a new stadium somewhere near Råsunda.)

As I said I don't think existing stadiums are a very good guide to what a country can offer unless they've hosted a major comp quite recently. Generally it doesnt seem to be the really massive stadiums that become white elephants as there normally in the capital and used used by one or more of the biggest teams in the country aswell as for national team games, cup finals and other speical events. What holds most of those countries back from hosting a WC on their own is that most of the rest of the stadiums recreated would only be used by relatively small clubs.

Are there any stadium developments planned in these countries except the new national stadium of Sweden (which probably could host a quarter final, but not a semi final or final)?

Scotland could host a World Cup, or at least a European Championship, if stadia were renovated.

List

Ready:
Glasgow - Celtic Park (60500), Ibrox (50400), Hampden (50600)
Edinburgh - Murrayfield (67500)

Renovations:
Aberdeen - Pittodrie
Dundee - Tannadice & Dens Park
Dunfermline - East End Park
Edinburgh - Meadowbank, Tynecastle & Easter Road
Falkirk - Falkirk Community Stadium
Glasgow - Firhill
Inverness - Caledonian Stadium
Kilmarnock - Rugby Park
Motherwell - Fir Park

However, for the majority of the renovation stadia, 20-30000 seats would need to be added.

Australia and New Zealand could joint host. 6 Stadia in Oz and 2 in NZ. The Aussies have an exemplarily record of staging big events. The smaller Stadiums could be upgraded to the minimum capacity.

Dubai Sports City in the future, perhaps..... 18 stadia currently under construction, the largest will have a capacity of 65K.

http://www.linternaute.com/savoir/diaporama/dubai/images/dubai-sports-city.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/dxbland/sports%20city.jpg

http://www.the123d.com/interviews/schloerby/dubai.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/dxbland/f80106df.jpg

It's not going to help much because you can't have everything in the one city.

Dubai Sports City in the future, perhaps..... 18 stadia currently under construction, the largest will have a capacity of 65K.

http://www.linternaute.com/savoir/diaporama/dubai/images/dubai-sports-city.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/dxbland/sports%20city.jpg

http://www.the123d.com/interviews/schloerby/dubai.jpg

http://www.angelfire.com/ok5/dxbland/f80106df.jpg
Lol
Thats ridiculous thinking that Dubai would host it alone.

Scotland could host a World Cup if stadia were renovated.

List

Ready:
Glasgow - Celtic Park (60500), Ibrox (50400), Hampden (50600)
Edinburgh - Murrayfield (67500)

Renovations:
Aberdeen - Pittodrie
Dundee - Tannadice & Dens Park
Dunfermline - East End Park
Edinburgh - Meadowbank, Tynecastle & Easter Road
Falkirk - Falkirk Community Stadium
Glasgow - Firhill
Inverness - Caledonian Stadium
Kilmarnock - Rugby Park
Motherwell - Fir Park

However, for the majority of the renovation stadia, 20-30000 seats would need to be added.


Scotland could never hold a World Cup. Our 3 big football stdiums are in the same city, and one of them is crap with a terrible main stand (celtic park)


As for the others -

Aberdeen - Pittodrie - New stadium required, all 4 stands would have to be rebuilt.

Dundee - Tannadice & Dens Park - New stadium required, all 4 stands would have to be rebuilt. Average crowds 7-8000.

East End Park - New stadium required, all 4 stands would have to be rebuilt. 12000 capacity, no way on earth could you have a 40000 stadium in Dunfermline, it's a small town.

Edinburgh - Meadowbank, Tynecastle & Easter Road - All 3 stadiums would need to be completely rebuilt. Meadowbank is a wasteland.

Falkirk - Now you are being silly. Capacity is 6500.

Glasgow - Firhill - Firhill? In Maryhill? Thistles average is 3500.

Inverness - Caledonian Stadium - Capacity is 7500 in the middle of nowhere. Local town for local people.

Kilmarnock - Rugby Park - complete rebuild, average crowd 6500

Motherwell - Fir Park - complete rebuild, capacity 14000

The european championships seem like a more realistic goal for Scotland to aim at, UEFA seem less adverse to co hosts(Irish or the Welsh?) than FIFA do aswell.

The european championships seem like a more realistic goal for Scotland to aim at, UEFA seem less adverse to co hosts(Irish or the Welsh?) than FIFA do aswell.

There was a joint bid for Euro2008 with Ireland. Didn't do very well. Thankyou GAA ;-)

Perhaps another shot for 2016 would be realistic with either Ireland or Wales as co-hosts?

There was a joint bid for Euro2008 with Ireland. Didn't do very well. Thankyou GAA ;-)

Perhaps another shot for 2016 would be realistic with either Ireland or Wales as co-hosts?

The GAA did seem a bit more positive about the possibley of other sports using their stadiums last I heard but a Welsh joint bid would probabley be safer. The Millenium stadiums already there and Cardiff city are building a new 30,000 seat one plus isnt the 20 K one in Swansea extendable? That would leave the Scots only needing 5 more grounds in the shape of the 3 Glasgow ones, Murrayfield and maybe that joint Dundee stadium that I seem to remember being discussed awhile ago.

I think they should have the World Cup in England as soon as possible. It's about time they brought football home!!! :)

I think lots of countries can host a World Cup. For example.
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, USA, France, England, Spain, Italy, Holland?, Portugal?, Sweden?, Norway?, Russia?, Poland?, Ireland, Japan, Korea, China, South Africa. This are the countries I consider taht are prepare to host a World Cup.

Scotland could never hold a World Cup. Our 3 big football stdiums are in the same city, and one of them is crap with a terrible main stand (celtic park)

You surely must be a Rangers supporter, because the views from the North stand at Celtic Park are amazing. The South stand is the only weakness, but it is still better than Hampden and Ibrox.

There was talk in the Netherlands that maybe, in the not so distant future (say in like 20 years), they could do a bid to organise a WC. This is because of the WC under 20 they organised. The FIFA brought this to the attention to the KNVB (Dutch FA). Uefa granted the organisation of the EC under 20 in 2007 to the Netherlands also.

But for now, after South Africa it would be best that Brasil organises a next WC.

London could host WC :) London ponly has more stadiums than some countries :)

Wembley
Twickenham (stadium of rugby national team)
Emirates Stadium (Arsenal)
Stampford Bridge (Chelsa)
Wimbeldon F.C. Stadium
Crystal Palace Stadium
future London 2012 Olympic Stadium
future UK Athletc National Team stadium

and I'm sure taht there would be no problem to find some other good stadiums in London Area.

London could easily do it.

Wembley 90
Twickenham 82
Emirates 60
Stamford 42
Upton park 35, but prepared for exp. to 41
White Hart Lane 36, easily go to 50+ once traffic issues solved
The Valley, 26, but with plans to go to 40

That would be the 7 obvious.

possibles
Olympic, post olympic cap of 25, temp. exp to 40 should be easy
Selhurst park, 26, exp. to 40 blocked and now scrapped, I think
New Brentford, 25, would need at least temporary exp.
Loftus, 20, unlikely, cant be exp.
new den 20, unlikely
craven cott, 20, possibly if exp. to 30 in a way that allows temp.seating
Lord´s cricket, 28, unlikely but possible as room for temp.seating.
The Oval, cricket, 22, temp.exp possible, very unlikely because of location.

London could do it, possibly even without spending anything as the needed upgrades are likely to happen anyway, but of course it would be silly. cities dont host world cups, still amazing though.


If England do get the world cup games should be spread around geographically, Plymouth, Bristol, Hull, etc, not just the obvious places.

In fact if England would really do something special, they should play games virtually everywhere. An awful lot of existing or planned stadiums just need small expansions and why chose between , say, derby, leicester or nottingham, when you can have all 3.

The first 63-stadium world cup...

You surely must be a Rangers supporter, because the views from the North stand at Celtic Park are amazing. The South stand is the only weakness, but it is still better than Hampden and Ibrox.

Ibrox is clearly superior, doesn't it have a higher rating?

Ibrox is clearly superior, doesn't it have a higher rating?


Ibrox is a UEFA 5 star stadium. Celtic park has no stars. You are either a 5 star, 4 star, or no star stadium. This list will be updated in May 2006, when a lot of the new German stadiums will receive 5 and 4 star ratings.

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/4and5stars.html

I think lots of countries can host a World Cup. For example.
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, USA, France, England, Spain, Italy, Holland?, Portugal?, Sweden?, Norway?, Russia?, Poland?, Ireland, Japan, Korea, China, South Africa. This are the countries I consider taht are prepare to host a World Cup.

How about whole United Kingdom / Ireland hosting?

ENG - Wembley - 90.000
IRL - Croke Park - 82.500
WAL - Millennium Stadium - 75.000
ENG - Twickenham - 75.000
ENG - Old Trafford - 75.000
SCO - Murrayfield - 67.500
SCO - Celtic Park - 60.000
ENG - Stanley Park - 60.000
ENG - Emirates - 60.000
ENG - St. James - 52.000
SCO - Ibrox - 50.000
ENG - Light Stadium - 50.000

Twelve stadiums, all 50.000 or larger.

FIFA won't do joint bids any more.

England could host it no problems by itself, Scotland could definately do the European Nations. Ireland, is basically like Tasmania hosting a world cup. Nice in theory.

FIFA won't do joint bids any more.

England could host it no problems by itself, Scotland could definately do the European Nations. Ireland, is basically like Tasmania hosting a world cup. Nice in theory.

That's right, but UK's almost one country innit. (and you're right about Ireland though)

If the bidding was similar to 2006 and before then I doubt you'd get a UK bid as any advantage in stadiums would be outweighed by the disadvantage of joint hosts taking up more spaces. If its based purely on political negoiations within FIFA in the other hand I could see England hosting it while some games were played in Wales/Scotland/NI without them getting auto qualification.

List of stadiums in Malaysia..most are athletic stadiums but mostly use for football matches all year round. All stadium are all seater excpet merdeka stadium which si the oldest in the country.

NATIONAL STADIUM (Bukit Jalil): 100.000
SELANGOR (Shah Alam Stadium): 80.000
KUALA LUMPUR (Merdeka Stadium): 40.000
PAHANG (Darulmakmor Stadium): 40.000
PENANG (Batu Kawan Stadium): 40.000
MALACCA(Hang Jebat Stadium): 40.000
PERAK (Perak Stadium): 40.000
SARAWAK (State Stadium): 40.000
KEDAH (Darulaman Stadium): 40.000
BRUNEI (Hassanal Bolkiah): 35.000
JOHOR (Tan Sri Hassan Yunos): 30.000
PERLIS (Utama Stadium): 30.000
SABAH (Likas Stadium): 30.000
KELANTAN (Sultan Mohamed 4 Stadium): 30.000
NEGERI SEMBILAN (Tengku Abdul Rahman): 30.000
KUALA LUMPUR (KLFA Stadium): 25.000
MALACCA (Kubu Stadium): 20.000
TERENGGANU (Sultan Ismail Nasaridin Shah): 20.000
PENANG (City Stadium): 20.000

Shah Alam Stadium
http://img61.exs.cx/img61/7585/shah.jpg

Kuching Stadium
http://www.hijjaskasturi.com/projects/images/sarawak_stadium2/sarawak_stadium2.jpg

national Stadium
http://www.ksn.com.my/gallery/national/national20.jpg

http://www.anc-d.fukui-u.ac.jp/~ishikawa/Aloss/data/Country/malaysia/C_membrane%20structure/Photo/Stadium%20National-1.jpg

http://www.anc-d.fukui-u.ac.jp/~ishikawa/Aloss/data/Country/malaysia/C_membrane%20structure/Photo/Stadium%20National-2.jpg

Shah Alam
http://www.hijjaskasturi.com/projects/images/shah_alam_stadium/shah_alam_stadium.jpg

^^^^^^

Very impressive. How come you never hear about Malaysian teams? Do they get anyone to actually turn up to matches there?

Ibrox is a UEFA 5 star stadium. Celtic park has no stars. You are either a 5 star, 4 star, or no star stadium. This list will be updated in May 2006, when a lot of the new German stadiums will receive 5 and 4 star ratings.

http://www.fussballtempel.net/uefa/4and5stars.html

But Celtic´s only "problems" are about the size of the referee´s dressing room and such matters. It could be made 5-star without anyone noticing the difference.
Indeed, I thought there were plans to do that but perhaps they didnt feel it was worth it to get this 5-star rating. It cant be used for much as I believe Hampden is a 5-star venue and I cant see a 2nd Glasgow venue gaining anything from that.
Has it brought anything to Ibrox? except for a (pointless) stick to beat celtic with, of course

I understand UEFA´s needs for ranking venues on technical issues but it shouldnt be over interpreted or perhaps there should be another ranking of more relevance to most people´s experience of the place.

I mean imagine an, unlikely, design error made the referee´s dressing room at new Wembley a square foot too small, well that would be wembley off the 5-star list.
While this is obviously not going to happen, it is probably reality in some great stadiums, where for instance dressing rooms could be located in an older part of the structure making it difficult, expensive and uneccessary to fully modernise.

But Celtic´s only "problems" are about the size of the referee´s dressing room and such matters. It could be made 5-star without anyone noticing the difference.
Indeed, I thought there were plans to do that but perhaps they didnt feel it was worth it to get this 5-star rating. It cant be used for much as I believe Hampden is a 5-star venue and I cant see a 2nd Glasgow venue gaining anything from that.
Has it brought anything to Ibrox? except for a (pointless) stick to beat celtic with, of course

I understand UEFA´s needs for ranking venues on technical issues but it shouldnt be over interpreted or perhaps there should be another ranking of more relevance to most people´s experience of the place.

I mean imagine an, unlikely, design error made the referee´s dressing room at new Wembley a square foot too small, well that would be wembley off the 5-star list.
While this is obviously not going to happen, it is probably reality in some great stadiums, where for instance dressing rooms could be located in an older part of the structure making it difficult, expensive and uneccessary to fully modernise.

Just look at the Glasgow stadium thread to see why one is 5 star stadium and one is not. 5 stars gives you a chance of hosting a European final.

Celtic Park's main stand is awful, it looks stupid and is very poor quality. The whole stadium was built on the cheap. £29 million for the whole thing. Rangers spent over £20 million on one area of one stand (the Club Deck).

Just look at the Glasgow stadium thread to see why one is 5 star stadium and one is not. 5 stars gives you a chance of hosting a European final.

Celtic Park's main stand is awful, it looks stupid and is very poor quality. The whole stadium was built on the cheap. £29 million for the whole thing. Rangers spent over £20 million on one area of one stand (the Club Deck).

Do Celtic have any plans, even if only long term to replace the old main stand?

Do Celtic have any plans, even if only long term to replace the old main stand?


No, but they do have plans to replace the other 3. It was built so cheaply than they spend a huge amount of money on repairs each year. The 3 new stands only have a shelf life of 20 years, so in about 15 years time they will need to rebuild them.

Spain could host it but we hosted the world cup in 1982, I'm afraid it is to soon to try to repeat it again. What about a EuroCup?

Camp Nou (Barcelona): 98.000
Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid): 80.000
La Cartuja (Sevilla): 72.000
Ruiz de Lopera (Sevilla): 62.000
Vicente Calderón (Madrid): 57.000
Olimpico (Barcelona): 56.000
Ramón Sanchez Pizjuán (Sevilla): 55.000
Mestalla (Valencia): 53.000
San Mamés (Bilbao): 39.000
Martinez Valero (Elche): 38.000
Riazor (La Coruña): 35.000
La Romareda (Zaragoza): 34.000

I mean imagine an, unlikely, design error made the referee´s dressing room at new Wembley a square foot too small, well that would be wembley off the 5-star list.
While this is obviously not going to happen, it is probably reality in some great stadiums, where for instance dressing rooms could be located in an older part of the structure making it difficult, expensive and uneccessary to fully modernise.

I'd guess a far bit of leway is given when needed, most obviously the Ernst Happel stadium has the 5 star rating it needs to host the 2008 european championship final dispite being over a thousand under the 50k minium for that rating.

Spain could host it but we hosted the world cup in 1982, I'm afraid it is to soon to try to repeat it again. What about a EuroCup?

Camp Nou (Barcelona): 98.000
Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid): 80.000
La Cartuja (Sevilla): 72.000
Ruiz de Lopera (Sevilla): 62.000
Vicente Calderón (Madrid): 57.000
Olimpico (Barcelona): 56.000
Ramón Sanchez Pizjuán (Sevilla): 55.000
Mestalla (Valencia): 53.000
San Mamés (Bilbao): 39.000
Martinez Valero (Elche): 38.000
Riazor (La Coruña): 35.000
La Romareda (Zaragoza): 34.000

I'm very supprized they didnt enter the bidding for the last two european championships, euro 2008 doesnt exactly have a great stadium lineup afterall.

Just look at the Glasgow stadium thread to see why one is 5 star stadium and one is not. 5 stars gives you a chance of hosting a European final.

Celtic Park's main stand is awful, it looks stupid and is very poor quality. The whole stadium was built on the cheap. £29 million for the whole thing. Rangers spent over £20 million on one area of one stand (the Club Deck).

Yes but its rather unlikely Ibrox will ever host a final as I believe any final brought to Glasgow will go to Hampden.

Anyway, why is the spirit of scottish sport so negative and sad these days.

Rangers and celtic fans just live to hate the other club, most other scots hate them both, all scots seem to unite to hope for bad things for England.

No one seems to really support anything in a positive sense. Probably because the league is poor, the national football team even worse, the rugby team a farce.

The administrators seem utterly incompetent. wasting money they dont have on a national stadium they dont need just because thats they way its done in England in completly different circumstances.

Sharing, as other small countries with few events do? forget it. This is scotland.
ideas to improve games and competition. forget it.
Talent development? what, come on this is scotland. No need for skill.

The image of scottish sport is ever more that of a talentless clumsy clueless individual staggerring around a muddy field in poring rain. Fans focusing on others losing as there is nothing worth supporting.

Highlights in 2006 for scotland will be:

Rugby:
6-nations, the usual battle to hope to finish second from bottom rather than dead last.
Summer tour of defeats in all games
this is repeated for the autumn internationals with some opponents only bothering to field reserve sides these days to beat scotland in their own empty Murrayfield echoing with apathy.

Football:
hoping to achieve a few draws in euro qualifiers against other small struggling east- european teams.
the usual festival of bigotry at the great Glasgow derbies before both teams usually go out of europe very early as they enter actual skill based competitions.
And the biggest event of all. Getting ready for the world cup and hope England lose. That will be some party for scotland.

I'm very supprized they didnt enter the bidding for the last two european championships, euro 2008 doesnt exactly have a great stadium lineup afterall.
Actually they were in competition for the euro 2004...

I think lots of countries can host a World Cup. For example.
Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, USA, France, England, Spain, Italy, Holland?, Portugal?, Sweden?, Norway?, Russia?, Poland?, Ireland, Japan, Korea, China, South Africa. This are the countries I consider taht are prepare to host a World Cup.

Argentina: NO, couldn't do it, no money and Stadiums are rubbish already
Brazil: NO, though they'll get 2014 anyway
Colombia: Maybe, plenty of new stadiums in planning
Mexico: Probably Not, Had 2 already
Holland: Modern stadiums already built, too small for a World Cup
Portugal: Same as Holland, just held Euro 2004
Sweden: No, even with Rasunda rebuilt, rest of stadiums are rubbish and teams have no supporters in 50,000 seat stadiums
Norway: Same as Sweden, minus Rasunda
Russia: noticed several stadiums under planning, no support however
Poland: Just no
Ireland: Couldn't use Croke Park, small teams with small support
Japan & Korea: Yes, but held 2002
China: Yes, but they've got Olympics
South Africa: 2010

Spain could host it but we hosted the world cup in 1982, I'm afraid it is to soon to try to repeat it again. What about a EuroCup?

Camp Nou (Barcelona): 98.000
Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid): 80.000
La Cartuja (Sevilla): 72.000
Ruiz de Lopera (Sevilla): 62.000
Vicente Calderón (Madrid): 57.000
Olimpico (Barcelona): 56.000
Ramón Sanchez Pizjuán (Sevilla): 55.000
Mestalla (Valencia): 53.000
San Mamés (Bilbao): 39.000
Martinez Valero (Elche): 38.000
Riazor (La Coruña): 35.000
La Romareda (Zaragoza): 34.000

Martinez Valero possibly replaced by La Rosaleda in Malaga?

Riazor needs a little touch up.

Yes but its rather unlikely Ibrox will ever host a final as I believe any final brought to Glasgow will go to Hampden.

Anyway, why is the spirit of scottish sport so negative and sad these days.

Rangers and celtic fans just live to hate the other club, most other scots hate them both, all scots seem to unite to hope for bad things for England.

No one seems to really support anything in a positive sense. Probably because the league is poor, the national football team even worse, the rugby team a farce.

The administrators seem utterly incompetent. wasting money they dont have on a national stadium they dont need just because thats they way its done in England in completly different circumstances.

Sharing, as other small countries with few events do? forget it. This is scotland.
ideas to improve games and competition. forget it.
Talent development? what, come on this is scotland. No need for skill.

The image of scottish sport is ever more that of a talentless clumsy clueless individual staggerring around a muddy field in poring rain. Fans focusing on others losing as there is nothing worth supporting.

Highlights in 2006 for scotland will be:

Rugby:
6-nations, the usual battle to hope to finish second from bottom rather than dead last.
Summer tour of defeats in all games
this is repeated for the autumn internationals with some opponents only bothering to field reserve sides these days to beat scotland in their own empty Murrayfield echoing with apathy.

Football:
hoping to achieve a few draws in euro qualifiers against other small struggling east- european teams.
the usual festival of bigotry at the great Glasgow derbies before both teams usually go out of europe very early as they enter actual skill based competitions.
And the biggest event of all. Getting ready for the world cup and hope England lose. That will be some party for scotland.


No, we have high hopes for the international team, it might take a few years, but there is young talent coming through. Scotland fans have always hated England, it's just rivalry. Plus the English media and some England fans make it worse, as they are so biased it's unbelievable.

If you knew about the politics of Rangers/Celtic, then you would know why they hate each other.

Per head of population, the Scottish league has the highest average attendances in the world. The 6th Highest in Europe on their own. Not bad for 5 million people. We now have 2 teams getting entry to the champions league, with one of them in the last 16. Poor league? Don't think so.

Rangers and celtic may dominate Scottish football, but this is the same everywhere. In England, only one team has a chance of winning the league - Chelsea, before that Man United won nearly everything for about 10 years. In Italy, Juventus or AC Milan always win the league. In Germany, Bayern Munich nearly always win the league. In Norway it's Rosenberg. In nearly every league in Europe, it's always only one or two teams at the beginning of the season who can win the league.

The national stadium has been a huge success. I don't like it, but it has been a success. Relatively cheap, with one Champions League final and one UEFA Cup final being held in the stadium. We average crowds of 48500 for Scotland games. That's far more than nearly every country in Europe. That's amazing when you consider the size of the country and the poor quality of football Scotland has been playing recently. I think the only country that has a higher per head of population attendance when it comes to football is Wales. It must be very close.

Rangers and Celtic share stadiums? Hearts and Hibs share stadiums? Have you ever visited planet earth?

Don't know about Rugby. Who cares about rugby!

Rangers v Villareal will be a good start to 2006. I've booked my trip to Spain. I can't wait. We might even make the quater finals.

An excellent analysis Kingdomca, couldn't have put it better myself.

No, we have high hopes for the international team, it might take a few years, but there is young talent coming through. Scotland fans have always hated England, it's just rivalry. Plus the English media and some England fans make it worse, as they are so biased it's unbelievable.

If you knew about the politics of Rangers/Celtic, then you would know why they hate each other.

Per head of population, the Scottish league has the highest average attendances in the world. The 6th Highest in Europe on their own. Not bad for 5 million people. We now have 2 teams getting entry to the champions league, with one of them in the last 16. Poor league? Don't think so.

Rangers and celtic may dominate Scottish football, but this is the same everywhere. In England, only one team has a chance of winning the league - Chelsea, before that Man United won nearly everything for about 10 years. In Italy, Juventus or AC Milan always win the league. In Germany, Bayern Munich nearly always win the league. In Norway it's Rosenberg. In nearly every league in Europe, it's always only one or two teams at the beginning of the season who can win the league.

The national stadium has been a huge success. I don't like it, but it has been a success. Relatively cheap, with one Champions League final and one UEFA Cup final being held in the stadium. We average crowds of 48500 for Scotland games. That's far more than nearly every country in Europe. That's amazing when you consider the size of the country and the poor quality of football Scotland has been playing recently. I think the only country that has a higher per head of population attendance when it comes to football is Wales. It must be very close.

Rangers and Celtic share stadiums? Hearts and Hibs share stadiums? Have you ever visited planet earth?

Don't know about Rugby. Who cares about rugby!

Rangers v Villareal will be a good start to 2006. I've booked my trip to Spain. I can't wait. We might even make the quater finals.

So you really think scottish sport is amazing??

I never said clubs should share grounds, I said the national teams football and rugby, should share as they do in Ireland, Wales, France, etc everywhere but England which is so different from scotland.

I dont see Hampden is a success. If Ibrox is so great they could have got the finals if there was no Hampden and Scotland would probably average more if they played in 67,000 Murrayfield rather than Hampden.

But Of course, you dont care about rugby, a comment that epitomises whats wrong with scottish sport. To talk about the state of a nations sport with that attitude is just sad. I guess I left the football-hate-rugby factor out of the scottish hate-fest.
Why are similar sized Wales and Ireland so much more enlightened and at the same time far better on the field.

I know why Rangers and Celtic hate eachother, but is that an explanation why they are so sorrily incapable of moving the rivalry out of the gutter of bigotry. Its hugely embarrassing for Scotland but I guess many scots dont even see it.

to comment about national team attendances per population is ridiculous as bigger countries would need to get half a million crowds to beat scotland. As thats impossible it makes the statistic hopeless and pointless, but no doubt a well rehearsed scottish argument to keep from facing reality.
But anyway if crowds are so good, why are scotland so poor?

As for 6th highest league crowds etc.. well its all about rangers and celtic but even so I agree, good support so?? thats actually my point. If the crowds are so good. If celtic and Rangers are so rich, why is nothing achieved? why did Rangers for nearly a decade constantly lose out to minnows whose entire team cost less than Rangers latest signing.

Why is all scottish sport so poor?

Is any scottish athlete good at anything?

Scotland doesnt really have much of a rivalry with England anymore. There is little contest. The gap is too big these days. Scottish fans just obsess about England losing whereas English fans simply ignore scotland. Its no longer a real rivalry.

So you really think scottish sport is amazing??

I never said clubs should share grounds, I said the national teams football and rugby, should share as they do in Ireland, Wales, France, etc everywhere but England which is so different from scotland.

I dont see Hampden is a success. If Ibrox is so great they could have got the finals if there was no Hampden and Scotland would probably average more if they played in 67,000 Murrayfield rather than Hampden.

But Of course, you dont care about rugby, a comment that epitomises whats wrong with scottish sport. To talk about the state of a nations sport with that attitude is just sad. I guess I left the football-hate-rugby factor out of the scottish hate-fest.
Why are similar sized Wales and Ireland so much more enlightened and at the same time far better on the field.

I know why Rangers and Celtic hate eachother, but is that an explanation why they are so sorrily incapable of moving the rivalry out of the gutter of bigotry. Its hugely embarrassing for Scotland but I guess many scots dont even see it.

to comment about national team attendances per population is ridiculous as bigger countries would need to get half a million crowds to beat scotland. As thats impossible it makes the statistic hopeless and pointless, but no doubt a well rehearsed scottish argument to keep from facing reality.
But anyway if crowds are so good, why are scotland so poor?

As for 6th highest league crowds etc.. well its all about rangers and celtic but even so I agree, good support so?? thats actually my point. If the crowds are so good. If celtic and Rangers are so rich, why is nothing achieved? why did Rangers for nearly a decade constantly lose out to minnows whose entire team cost less than Rangers latest signing.

Why is all scottish sport so poor?

Is any scottish athlete good at anything?

Scotland doesnt really have much of a rivalry with England anymore. There is little contest. The gap is too big these days. Scottish fans just obsess about England losing whereas English fans simply ignore scotland. Its no longer a real rivalry.

Ibrox doesn't get finals because the SFA never put forward Ibrox as a host. They never will either as they have their own interests in Hampden. You are commenting on things you know nothing about. You claim Celtic and Rangers are rich?? Both are heavily in debt as there is no TV money as Scotland is such a small country. Rangers must have the smallest wage bill/squad value of the last 16 teams in the Champions League, so they have done superb to get there. In the past 10 years Rangers should of done better, but they nearly always got into the Champions League group stages. There are no minnows in the Champions League group stages, every game is a tough game, as Man United will tell you. If Rangers and Celtic played in England
(which will never happen), both would easily get average crowds of 100000+ if they had large enough stadiums. Rangers sold over 600000 strips in Scotland alone last year. Celtic sell loads as well. Both are massive massive clubs, that are hugely limited because they play in a tiny country. No other country in the world has 2 clubs with such massive supports for such a small country.

Hate Rugby? What are you talking about? I don't hate it, i'm just not interested in it. I'm not interested in cricket either, so does that mean I hate it? According to your logic, any sport you are not interested in means you hate it!! This is nonsense.

Murrayfield is the home of Scottish rugby, Hampden the home of Scottish football, they would never share due to the history associated with the stadiums. Both stadiums have been successes. What's the problem? You obviously know nothing about the history of Hampden. You don't just abandon 100+ years of history. Why do you think England rebuilt Wembley instead of sharing Twickenham? I don't even think the SFA could legally use Murrayfield, as it is owned by a completely different organisation. What about Scottish cup finals and CIS cup finals? You can't have them in Edinburgh, as nearly every final has a Glasgow team in it.

You have simply ignored the fact that Scottish football has huge support in Scotland. Absolutely massive for the size of the country. Both clubs and country have massive support, so we are enjoying our football every week.

"Is any scottish athlete good at anything?"

I don't know, I only watch football. Is any Norwegian athlete good at anything? Any Finnish athlete good at anything? any Lithuanian athlete good at anything? Do you know that Scotland only has 5 million people? That is less than half the population of London!!! For 5 million people, we have a superb record in sports.

Yes, the rivalry with England has fairly died due to the yearly game being abandoned in the mid 80's, and a large gap in ability appearing between the teams. So what do you want Scottish fans to do? Kill themselves because of this? Stop watching football? England are much better than Scotland at football, so what?

It seems you simply don't like Scotland. Fair enough. I can only say one thing - Yer maw doesn't moan about my big Scottish boaby, she loves it.

No other country in the world has 2 clubs with such massive supports for such a small country.

What about Portugal? And perhaps even the Netherlands, although there are much more people in the Netherlands.

That is less than half the population of London!!! For 5 million people, we have a superb record in sports.

Plenty of other smaller nations do better. Wales with half your population, is far superior on almost any field, except perhaps curling.

If Rangers and Celtic played in England (which will never happen), both would easily get average crowds of 100000+ if they had large enough stadiums. Rangers sold over 600000 strips in Scotland alone last year.

I dunno. Playing in the the second or third tier of the English League can't be much more exciting than playing in the Scottish Premiership.

No, we have high hopes for the international team, it might take a few years, but there is young talent coming through.

like who exactly......

That is less than half the population of London!!! For 5 million people, we have a superb record in sports.

Plenty of other smaller nations do better. Wales with half your population, is far superior on almost any field, except perhaps curling.

If Rangers and Celtic played in England (which will never happen), both would easily get average crowds of 100000+ if they had large enough stadiums. Rangers sold over 600000 strips in Scotland alone last year.

I dunno. Playing in the the second or third tier of the English League can't be much more exciting than playing in the Scottish Premiership.


Wales record in football isn't even close to Scotland's, not even close. They may be have been better for a couple of years, but that's it. Out of 100+ years, Scotland have been better for about 95% of those years, far better. You cannot be better than a country every single year, but overall, Scotland thrashes Wales. We will soon be back to being much better than Wales. In fact, I think we are now better than Wales.

Wales have had 3 good years out of 100. It was just a one off for Wales, and they still failed to qualify. Scotland has had 7 word cup finals, Wales have had 1. Scotland has been in 2 Euro Championship finals, Wales have had 0. We finished 3rd top in our 2006 group. Wales finished 2nd bottom in their group.

Please explain to me how Wales have a better record in international football?


Average attendances in Portugal are - 9.698
Average attendances in Scotland are - 16222

Portugal has 10.4 million people, Scotland has 5 million people. Portugal has more than double the population of Scotland.

In terms of support, the 3 big Portuguese teams are tiny compared to the 2 big Scottish teams. The Dutch league also has smaller attendances. Rangers sold 600000 strips in Scotland, only Man United sold more in the UK.

As for the future, we have Darren Fletcher, James McFadden, Paul Hartley, Kris Boyd, Chris Burke, Shaun Maloney, Craig Gordon (amazing goalkeeper), Garry O'Connor, Scott Brown, Derek Riordan, Ian Murray etc.

Not world beaters by any stretch of the imagination (except Craig Gordon, amazing keeper), but enough to give us a fighting chance of qualifying for tournaments. We also now have a decent manager which is very important. Bertie Vogts was useless and didn't have a clue how to get the best out of Scottish players. Now that he has gone, you will see a huge improvement. In fact, we already have seen a huge improvement in the the few months Walter Smith had been in charge.

As for other sports? I don't know, I only watch football. But I would be surprised if Wales have produced better athletes, snooker players, motorsport or golf players over the history of these sports. I think Wales have a good history in Rugby (I think it is their national sport), but I don't know of any other sports where Wales have a better record than Scotland. Darts maybe?

Here are some great Scottish sports men and women -

Louise Aitken-Walker - Rally Driving
Alister Alan - Shooting
Captain Robert Barclay Allardice - Walking
Tommy Armour - Golf
Leslie M Balfour-Melville - All Rounder
Jim Baxter - Association Football
Ian Black - Swimming
Sir Chay Blyth - Sailing
James Braid - Golf
Billy Bremner - Association Football
Ken Buchanan - Boxing
Sir Matt Busby - Association Football
Finlay Calder - Rugby Union
Dr Willie Carson - Horse Racing
Dr John Cattanach - Shinty
Jim Clark - Motor Racing
Kenny Dalglish - Association Football
Michael Denness - Cricket
Donald Dinnie - Athletics
W I Douglas Elliot - Rugby Union
Launceston Elliot - Weightlifting/Wrestling
Elenor Gordon - Swimming
John Greig - Association Football
Jimmie Guthrie - Motorcycle racing
Helen Elliot Hamilton - Table Tennis
Gavin Hastings - Rugby Union
Dougal Haston - Mountaineering
Wyndham Halswelle - Athletics
Sir Peter Heatly - Diving
Stephen Hendry - Snooker
Andy Irvine - Rugby Union
Jimmy Johnstone - Association Football
George Kerr - Judo
Ellen King - Swimming
Denis Law - Association Football
Eric Liddell - Athletics
Sandy Lyle - Golf
Benny Lynch - Boxing
Liz McColgan - Athletics
Walter McGowan - Boxing
Bob McGregor - Swimming
Jimmy McGrory - Association Football
Dr Hamish McInnes - Mountaineering
Bob McIntyre - Motor Cycle Racing
Billy McNeill - Association Football
George McNeill - Athletics
John McNiven - Weightlifting
GPS Macpherson - Rugby Union
Colin McRae - Rallying
Richard McTaggart - Boxing
Robert Millar - Cycling
"Old" Tom Morris - Golf
"Young" Tom Morris - Golf
Mark Coxon Morrison - Rugby Union
Jackie Paterson - Boxing
Rodney Pattisson - Sailing
Nancy Riach - Swimming
Arthur James Robertson - Athletics
Belle Robertson - Golf
Bill Shankly - Association Football
Robert Wilson Shaw - Rugby Union
Gordon Smith - Association Football
Jock Stein - Association Football
Ian Stewart - Athletics
Sir Jackie Stewart - Motor Racing
Bobby Thomson - Baseball
Jessie Valentine - Golf
Jim Watt - Boxing
Allan Wells - Athletics
David Wilkie - Swimming
Winifred Mason Wooldridge - Tennis
Jack Wardrop - Swimming

As for the Scottish league being boring? We have 2 teams competing at the top each year (this year it's Hearts and Celtic, which makes a nice change). In England only Chelsea can win the league, and only Chelsea will be able to win it for the next 10 years, if not more. Yes, that's very exciting.

No thanks, but I would rather watch a league where more than one team has a chance of winning it. The English league is decided before a ball is kicked. Now that's boring.

Unfortunately we would have zero chance of holding a Word Cup.

No thanks, but I would rather watch a league where more than one team has a chance of winning it. The English league is decided before a ball is kicked. Now that's boring.

This is such a load of bullshit, any country in the world looks with envy in their eyes at
the English competition. Even countries as Spain and Italy. If the premiership is so easily decided then why did Liverpool win the champions league?

And if you like small competitions so much, why don't you follow the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian leagues?

This is such a load of bullshit, any country in the world looks with envy in their eyes at
the English competition. Even countries as Spain and Italy. If the premiership is so easily decided then why did Liverpool win the champions league?

And if you like small competitions so much, why don't you follow the Danish, Swedish and Norwegian leagues?

I do follow the smaller leagues. They are normally very exciting.

Do you watch football? Chelsea won the league before a ball was kicked, and they will win it next year, and the next and the next. Liverpool won the Champions League because it is mainly a cup format tournament. That's why we have cups, so smaller/inferior teams have a chance of winning something or a chance at getting to a final.

Liverpool finished 37 points behind Chelsea last year. 37 points!!!! The gap between the clubs is massive. If you think the premiership is the envy of Italians and the Spaniards, then you have clearly never met an Italian or a Spanish football fan.

It's Chelsea all the way for the next 10 years i'm afraid. Nobody can touch them.

Some brazilian´s clubs getting started some projects for 2014 WC.

Kyocera Arena

Today:
http://www.furacao.com/images/baixada/aerea02.jpg
Project:
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y8/edsonlmdias/arena_maquete.jpg



Orlando Scarpelli

Today:
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/brazil/santa_catarina/florianopolis_scarpelli.jpg
Project:
http://www.figueirense.com.br/images/scarpeli_novo.jpg



Other plans:

Beira-Rio
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y8/edsonlmdias/inter2.jpg

João Havelange
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y8/edsonlmdias/joaohavelange.jpg

Canada has no chance of ever getting realisticly but could probably host it.

Olympic Stadium (Montreal): 66,000+
Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton): 60,000+
BC Place Stadium (Vancouver): 60,000+
Rogers Centre (Toronto): 53,000+
Ivor Wynne Stadium (Hamilton): 30,000+
Canad Inns Stadium (Winnipeg): 30,000+
Frank Clair Stadium (Ottawa): 29,000+
+New soccer stadiuim under construction in TO (waterfront)
+New soccer stadium under construction in Vancouver (waterfront)

Really though, I wish they did it like the last World Cup of Hockey, where they had games all over North American and Europe. I find that puts the WORLD into world cup more than just having it all in one location.

It's Chelsea all the way for the next 10 years i'm afraid. Nobody can touch them.

yes, any half-wit knows chelsea are entering a period of dominance (note: relative dominance, not total dominance), but that's football. it was liverpool in the eighties, united in the nineties, and now chelsea in the "naughties". who cares? it just gives the other big clubs another level to aspire to, another big-boy to topple. their reign will come to an end and someone else will replace them, but unlike in scotland (the land of poor, predictable football) it won't necessarily be one of two mediocre teams.

double-post. :)

Really though, I wish they did it like the last World Cup of Hockey, where they had games all over North American and Europe. I find that puts the WORLD into world cup more than just having it all in one location.

I totally disagree - having a World Cup in one country makes it much more of an event, with a much greater sense of occasion.

Plus the English media and some England fans make it worse, as they are so biased it's unbelievable.

Fancy English Fans being biased in favour of the England Teams - shocking!

Canada has no chance of ever getting realisticly but could probably host it.

Olympic Stadium (Montreal): 66,000+
Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton): 60,000+
BC Place Stadium (Vancouver): 60,000+
Rogers Centre (Toronto): 53,000+
Ivor Wynne Stadium (Hamilton): 30,000+
Canad Inns Stadium (Winnipeg): 30,000+
Frank Clair Stadium (Ottawa): 29,000+

Exclude the Last Three Stadia from your list - capacity needs to be at least 40,000. Additionally exclude Montreal - by the time a theoretical opportunity for Canada holding the world cup comes Quebec will have left.

I would suggest an co-operation between the netherlands , belgium and Luxemburg to host a WC because the Netherlands and Belgium have proven that they are able to host a Euro 2000 so I think they should be able to host a bigger event like for example a WC

of course, if this ever would happen many new stadiums should be built because the present infrastructure isn't realy reliable... but The benelux has the capital and economy so this wouldn't be a big problem to find money


ps: I also would like to see turkey to host a WC

Plus the English media and some England fans make it worse, as they are so biased it's unbelievable.

Fancy English Fans being biased in favour of the England Teams - shocking!

There's a big difference between being biased and being a biased fanny. Commentators etc are supposed to be professional and objective, but John Motson is a an embarrassment. A total clown who commentates as if he is an idiotic fan. As for Ian Wright, a complete moron who made a fool of himself by taking a tantrum on live tv because England got beat. I was on the floor laughing at him, I couldn't believe I was watching a grown man acting in that manner. The English media/fans have no humility at all, no other country acts the way they do. That's is one of the main reason why everbody hates England and wants them to get beat. It's a shame, because they bring down all the decent English fans with them.

I reckon out of the 32 teams, England will have the most amount of football fans wanting them to get beat. If Turkey had qualified, Turkey would have been a close 2nd to England for the most hated country at the World Cup. Nobody likes you.

I think World Cups should be in one country of smallish physical size so that fans can travel quickly. Transport should be superb and the country should be well developed with many hotels etc. Germany, for me, is the perfect country to host the World cup. A wealthy country with superb transport and infrastructure. It's also a great country and I holiday in Bavaria each year, so everybody will have a great time in a beautiful country (stay clear of England fans though). I'm going to follow the Czech Republic as they are a good bunch and the women are amazing. I'm going to start in Hamburg. I was hoping for a trip to Nuremberg, but England are playing there so they will ruin the fun for fans in that city. It's a shame, as Nuremberg is a superb city. Go to Munich if you can, one of the best cities in the world and there shouldn't be many England fans there.

I think South Africa will also be superb if they can ensure the safety of the fans. By this I don't mean England fans beating people up (although that might be a problem), I mean sorting out the huge crime problem in South Africa, or at least ensuring it doesn't effect the fans.

There's a big difference between being biased and being a biased fanny. Commentators etc are supposed to be professional and objective, but John Motson is a an embarrassment. A total clown who commentates as if he is an idiotic fan. As for Ian Wright, a complete moron who made a fool of himself by taking a tantrum on live tv because England got beat. I was on the floor laughing at him, I couldn't believe I was watching a grown man acting in that manner. The English media/fans have no humility at all, no other country acts the way they do. That's is one of the main reason why everbody hates England and wants them to get beat. It's a shame, because they bring down all the decent English fans with them.

I reckon out of the 32 teams, England will have the most amount of football fans wanting them to get beat. If Turkey had qualified, Turkey would have been a close 2nd to England for the most hated country at the World Cup. Nobody likes you.

Yawn.

You're such a boring twat - trying to poison every thread with your anti English obsession.

Just for once, try to get a life and discuss something else. There's a good, wee laddie.

Yawn.

You're such a boring twat - trying to poison every thread with your anti English obsession.

Just for once, try to get a life and discuss something else. There's a good, wee laddie.

If you don't like it, don't read my posts. You are obsessed with me. Whenever I post, you appear from behind a corner. I am quite good looking though, but i'm not a crafty butcher, so i'm afraid you will have to try elsewhere.

There's a big difference between being biased and being a biased fanny. Commentators etc are supposed to be professional and objective, but John Motson is a an embarrassment. A total clown who commentates as if he is an idiotic fan. As for Ian Wright, a complete moron who made a fool of himself by taking a tantrum on live tv because England got beat. I was on the floor laughing at him, I couldn't believe I was watching a grown man acting in that manner. The English media/fans have no humility at all, no other country acts the way they do. That's is one of the main reason why everbody hates England and wants them to get beat. It's a shame, because they bring down all the decent English fans with them.

I reckon out of the 32 teams, England will have the most amount of football fans wanting them to get beat. If Turkey had qualified, Turkey would have been a close 2nd to England for the most hated country at the World Cup. [B]Nobody likes you.

:laugh:

i think you'll find, braveheart, that the people who don't like us, the ones who really want us to fail (outside of our historic enemies, who everyone has a fair share of), aren't in it because john motson is a shit commentator (although i agree he is an absolute embarassment), they're in it because nearly all of them are from areas formerly under the control or influence of the british empire, areas subject to english supremacy, or places in which there's english ancestory. put simply: they have an inferiority complex, and sport may be one of only a few areas in which they can get one over on us. i'm thinking: australia, scotland, wales, ireland... apart from that we're not really that hated. i've travelled throughout africa, india, southeast asia, and the americas - all regions in which i've come across locals proudly wearing english replica kits, enthusiastically talking about beckham, gerrard, lampard, and the lot.

if countries were going to be hated purely on the basis of their sporting attitudes then surely the aussies would be universally despised! i've never met a more ungracious bunch when it comes to sport! but do i preoccupy myself with their sporting failures? no. why? well why would i? it's only sport. who cares.

:laugh:

i think you'll find, braveheart, that the people who don't like us, the ones who really want us to fail (outside of our historic enemies, who everyone has a fair share of), aren't in it because john motson is a shit commentator (although i agree he is an absolute embarassment), they're in it because nearly all of them are from areas formerly under the control or influence of the british empire, areas subject to english supremacy, or places in which there's english ancestory. put simply: they have an inferiority complex, and sport may be one of only a few areas in which they can get one over on us. i'm thinking: australia, scotland, wales, ireland... apart from that we're not really that hated. i've travelled throughout africa, india, southeast asia, and the americas - all regions in which i've come across locals proudly wearing english replica kits, enthusiastically talking about beckham, gerrard, lampard, and the lot.

if countries were going to be hated purely on the basis of their sporting attitudes then surely the aussies would be universally despised! i've never met a more ungracious bunch when it comes to sport! but do i preoccupy myself with their sporting failures? no. why? well why would i? it's only sport. who cares.

It's impossible to have an inferiority complex over the England football team. To have an inferiority complex, the opposition have to be highly successful. England and Spain are the two biggest flops in international football, so it certainly isn't an 'inferiority complex'.

As for the empire - Scotland, N.Ireland and Wales were part of the empire, Glasgow was the 2nd city of the empire, so we were not under English rule. We enjoyed the benefits of the empire just like England.

I'm afraid Britain got left behind a long time ago. It is now a poor place to live in and bring up children. Australia, Germany, Sweden, Norway, Holland, USA, Canada etc are all far better countries to live in. I'm the last of my family left in the UK. I'm emigrating to Toronto in 6 months time. All my friends left the UK for better places. If you are intelligent and what to better yourself, then you leave the UK. The UK has nothing going for it. Poor transport, high crime, terrible health service, a generation of underclass scumbags (chavs/neds), high cost of living, shite weather etc. The UK is now just a big dumping ground for the worlds rubbish.

I'm afraid the UK stopped being the envy of the world on May 1945. if you travel a lot you will see how far the UK has fallen.

Perhaps your, ahem, less than sunny disposition will lead you to moan about Canada too?

Perhaps your, ahem, less than sunny disposition will lead you to moan about Canada too?


No, Canada's great. Amazing country. I'll be in Mountain Biking heaven. Toronto to start with, then make my way over to the west coast. You should visit Canada, best country I have been to. No scumbags at all. Just hard working decent folk.

No, Canada's great. Amazing country. I'll be in Mountain Biking heaven. Toronto to start with, then make my way over to the west coast. You should visit Canada, best country I have been to. No scumbags at all. Just hard working decent folk.


I've been to Canada before. Nice place. I think your bigotry may well get you into trouble but who knows? Maybe you'll find some friends.

I've been to Canada before. Nice place. I think your bigotry may well get you into trouble but who knows? Maybe you'll find some friends.

I already have friends and family there. I can't wait. I will miss Rangers, but thankfully Canada has a massive amount of Rangers fans over there, and Toronto has loads of huge Rangers supporters clubs.

http://www.narsa.ca/

Canada has no chance of ever getting realisticly but could probably host it.

Olympic Stadium (Montreal): 66,000+
Commonwealth Stadium (Edmonton): 60,000+
BC Place Stadium (Vancouver): 60,000+
Rogers Centre (Toronto): 53,000+
Ivor Wynne Stadium (Hamilton): 30,000+
Canad Inns Stadium (Winnipeg): 30,000+
Frank Clair Stadium (Ottawa): 29,000+

Exclude the Last Three Stadia from your list - capacity needs to be at least 40,000. Additionally exclude Montreal - by the time a theoretical opportunity for Canada holding the world cup comes Quebec will have left.

The last three have all seen additional seating been brought in. I know Hamilton had about 5,000 additional seats brought in on one side to support seating for a (long ago) Grey Cup Game. The other side didn't, but could support it if the need was there. Ottawa has done the same, but to a lesser degree as they don't host as major events but could. No Clue about Winnipeg, but from the pics they could probably.

Actually, Montreal will pretty much be with Canada for the long haul. The last time was close, but still over 50% wanted to stick with it, higher in urban areas, so I think Quebec will still with us. We've made it this far, and the future only seems better.

I totally disagree - having a World Cup in one country makes it much more of an event, with a much greater sense of occasion

I think it would be better if they spread it all over. Even if all the games were all in Europe I still think it would make the event more of a "world". If every team has at least one game in their home country, I think it would make the fans more into what's happening instead of just focusing the excitement in one country.

Btw, welcome to TO.

I think it would be better if they spread it all over. Even if all the games were all in Europe I still think it would make the event more of a "world". If every team has at least one game in their home country, I think it would make the fans more into what's happening instead of just focusing the excitement in one country.

Absolutely not, a world cup can be hosted by two nations but not by 30 nations. It would look too much like a qualification round for the end tournament.
Canada could host it though, and it's the only probable way for Canada to ever qualify for a World Cup.

I saw them play at the WC under 20 in the Netherlands and I was not impressed.

I agree with bubomb (for once) in that a country with a small size should host the WC. If you look at USA '94, most of the stadia were in the east or central parts of the country.

It would be nice to see my homeland (Scotland) get the WC, but I have realised that is all but a fantasy.

Even though Brazil are the dominant force in Central and South America, it would be good to see Argentina, Uruguay or Chile host the WC.

And as for an African WC, South Africa is the only real option, but if Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria put in a joint bid, then all that would be needed is one more stadium to be renovated in one of the countries. I know this view contradicts what I have already said about small countries, but I don't actually give a s**t now.

I agree with bubomb (for once) in that a country with a small size should host the WC. If you look at USA '94, most of the stadia were in the east or central parts of the country.

It would be nice to see my homeland (Scotland) get the WC, but I have realised that is all but a fantasy.

Even though Brazil are the dominant force in Central and South America, it would be good to see Argentina, Uruguay or Chile host the WC.

And as for an African WC, South Africa is the only real option, but if Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria put in a joint bid, then all that would be needed is one more stadium to be renovated in one of the countries. I know this view contradicts what I have already said about small countries, but I don't actually give a s**t now.

It invalidates your argument wheather you give a **** about it or not. ;)

Argentina and Chile have both hosted the WC more resently than brazil aswell.

Canada could host it though, and it's the only probable way for Canada to ever qualify for a World Cup.

I saw them play at the WC under 20 in the Netherlands and I was not impressed.

Ya, Canada never has prided itself as a soccer nation. Hockey and Lacrosse for sure. I doubt it will ever bid for the World Cup b/c there wouldn't be enough national support, everyone would rather go for the Commonwealth Games or the Olympics, you know something bigger and that would have a bigger impact on the nation. We always have a bunch of European teams come over during the off-season that do tours and I think that will be enough for the country.

The men's soccer teams had a run during the mids 90s when they were getting good, but then funding pretty much got cut and ever since they've fell completly in the rankings..

The women's teams have done really well compared to their male counterparts. Ranked 13 in the world, and when you consider how their funding pretty much is non-existant they've done pretty good for themselves. Even finished second in the U20 2002, which I saw a few games of while in Vancouver.

which should they be?..Yes, we are talking all the way into 2060......If this thread should go somewhere else just move it I guess.......


1. Chicago
2. Bunos Ares
3. Cape Town
4. Bangkok
5. Paris
6. Toronto
7. Rio
8. Instabul
9. New York
10. Singapore/Hong Kong/
11. Warsaw (or other major east European city)
12. San Fran

I'll probably be dead, so I wouldn't care ;)

I would love to see the Olympics in Rio but I also think that an African city should host the Olympics - which one ? God only knows.

How about Dubai :D

Anyway, I doubt that HK will host the Olympics! There's no more place to construct stadiums and stuff.

Chicago/ NYC
Cape Town
Buenos Aires/Rio

How about Dubai :D

Anyway, I doubt that HK will host the Olympics! There's no more place to construct stadiums and stuff.

If Hong Kong was to bid for the Olympics, the only space they might be able to find might be underwater. :) Although that'd be really cool.

At the end of the day the olympics are good the world cup is great! :wink2:

How about Dubai :D

Anyway, I doubt that HK will host the Olympics! There's no more place to construct stadiums and stuff.

They can always build some island :)

1. Dubai
2. Hong-Kong
3. New York City
4. Rio De J / Brasilia
5. Capetown
6. Honolulu
7. Kuala Lumpur
8. Warsaw
9. Las Vegas/Miami
10. Tel-Aviv
11. Wien
12. Istanbul

They can always build some island :)

It ain't cheap and it's not that important if HK gets it or not!

i hope
2028 its Istanbul

just my wishes

2016 New York
2020 Madrid
2024 Buenos Aires
2028 Instanbul
2032 A Japanese city
2036 Paris (at last!! lol)
2040 Melbourne or Auckland
2044 Moscow or Helsinki
2048 Chicago or Toronto
2052 Amsterdam
2056 Some African or Middle-East City
2060 Italian City

just my wishes

2016 New York
2020 Madrid
2024 Buenos Aires
2028 Instanbul
2032 A Japanese city
2036 Paris (at last!! lol)
2040 Melbourne or Auckland
2044 Moscow or Helsinki
2048 Chicago or Toronto
2052 Amsterdam
2056 Some African or Middle-East City
2060 Italian City

2016 New York
2020 Cape Town
2024 Rio De Janeiro

yeah
2020 cape town would be better

Nacho_82
BTW
dou you call Istanbul Instanbul?

2016 New York/ San Francisco
2020 Cape Town
2024 Berlin
2028 Tokyo

by that time i'll be middle aged and wont give a damn...

2016 Rio de Janeiro
2020 Cape Town
2024 Paris (100 Year from Paris 1924)
2028 Bangkok
2032 New York
2036 Moscow
2040 New Delhi

2016 Rio de Janeiro
2020 Cape Town
2024 Paris
2028 Bangkok
2032 New York
2036 Moscow
2040 New Delhi


why has nobody said Milton Keynes?

2016 Rio de Janeiro
2020 Cape Town
...
2040 New Delhi
I like these! South America, Africa and India in general need a chance! :)

... How about: 2060 - Pyongyang/Seoul Joint Olympics? :grouphug:

Lisbon will surely be one of them. Count on it!!

2016 New York
2020 Cape Town
2024 Rio De Janeiro

no olympics in europe from 2012 to 2028? I can't see that coming ;)

@sercan: I always get confused with the Istanbul spelling

Let's just hope I don't get on the next American-hosted Summer Olympics committe. I got some radical ideas to shock anybody outside the red, white and blue!
:)

i think chicago or new york should get the 2014

i hope vietnam gets an olympics soon, its not a bad idea considering saigon is developing really fast... and beacause im vietnamese lol

2016 New York or Chicago
2020 Madrid or Roma
2024 Tokyo or Brisbane - I know the latter is being planned;)
2028 Sao Paulo or Salvadore de Bahia
2032 Paris or Amsterdam
2036 Vancouver or Toronto
2040 Singapore or Kuala Lumpur
2044 Berlin or Warsaw
2048 Mexico City or Houston
2052 Auckland or Osaka
2056 Durban or Dubai
2060 Miami or Boston

Boston? How about Ottawa (I'm an American, though)?

Boston? How about Ottawa (I'm an American, though)?
True - I'd like to see some smaller cities get it.

For North America perhaps:
Vancouver
Ottawa
Calgary
Seattle
Phoenix
San Diego
Denver
Kansas City
Minneapollis/St Paul
Charlotte
or
Baltimore.

Though by 2050 even Raleligh/Durham might be big enough.

Wasn't there talk of Brisbane Australia bidding for the games in 2020?? I know I'm biased but that'd be really cool.

It would be an olimpic game in three brazilians cities: Rio, São Paulo and Salvador Bahia !

Another Olympics in Lagos or Luanda in Africa also will be good :)

2016 New York
2020 Buenos Aires
2024 Madrid
2028 Osaka
2032 Melbourne
2036 Paris
2040 Cape Town
2044 San Francisco
2048 Moscow
2052 Dubai
2056 Auckland
2060 Chicago

2016: Rio or Buenos Aires
2020: Dubai
2024: Chicago
2028: Paris
2032: Brisbane
2036: Cancelled due to WWIII
2040: Cancelled due to WWIII
2044: Shanghai
2048: Vancouver
2052: Cape Town
2056: New Delhi
2060: Antarctica(In the unclaimed part, i.e. part which hasn't been claimed by Aust, NZ, UK, France, Chile or Argentina)

i am in favour of "smaller" cities organizing the olympics that could help boost their economies as it happened with barcelona and athens.
therefore i would like to see the following cities organizing the olympics:
lisbon
copenhagen-malmo
alexandria(egypt)
lagos
brasilia
santiago
ottawa
new delhi
yekaterinburg
brisbane

I dunno. Why the next twelve?
Cape Town, SF, Rio, Paris, HK, Toronto, Buenos Aires, Madrid, Mumbai, Chicago, Brisbane, Dubai. Who knows?

exactly who knows...and frankly...who should care

Athens or another Greek city will get one I think within the next 12 olympiads. They wont wait 108 years again.

I think 'Grimsby' or 'Cumbernauld' will get it in the next 40 years.

http://www.reurba.org/reports4/Cumbernauld/Cumbernauld.jpg

2008: Beijing
2012: London
:
2016: Rio de Janeiro
2020: Cape Town
2024: San Francisco
2028: Paris
2032: Singapore
2036: Dubai
2040: Moscow
2044: Buenos Aires
2048: Shanghai
2052: Madrid
2056: New York
2060: Melbourne

True - I'd like to see some smaller cities get it.

For North America perhaps:
Vancouver
Ottawa
Calgary
Seattle
Phoenix
San Diego
Denver
Kansas City
Minneapollis/St Paul
Charlotte
or
Baltimore.

Though by 2050 even Raleligh/Durham might be big enough.

The problem with Phoenix is it gets way to warm for it to be in the summer. It gets over 100 degrees F. I hate to see even out althletes sweat it out.

ONLY A WISHLIST!!!

2016: Cape Town
2020: Vienna (dreaming...)
2024: San Francisco
2028: Auckland
2032: Tehran
2036: Berlin (just to have unpolitical games there 100 years after the Nazi spectacle)
2040: Tel Aviv/Beirut joint bid
2044: Buenos Aires
2048: Cairo
2052: Singapore
2056: Copenhagen
2060: New York

^^Great...though ill be dead by then...

You could always have in it September if it was held in Phoenix.

']Athens or another Greek city will get one I think within the next 12 olympiads. They wont wait 108 years again.

lol

You could always have in it September if it was held in Phoenix.

Okay, I agree September would be an ideal time to host the Olympics in the Valley of the Sun (the nickname of Phoenix). My problem, as of right now, is facility locations. Those facilities could take over an hour on a freeway to get to! (We're having a light-rail system being installed, but, unlike other major cities, it won't connect the major facilities.) You'll have to build a new stadium for the track and field (Both Sun Devil and Cardinals Stadium won't hold the track, and the current facility at Arizona State University won't cut it.) Plus, what would happened to the track and field venue? There's some major hurdles to a Phoenix Olympics. (pun not intended)

My prediction:
2016-New York, USA
2020-Paris, France
2024-Buenos Aires, Argentina
2028-Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2032-Istanbul, Turkey
2036-Dubai, UAE
2040-Manila, The Philippines (Who knows?)
2044-Shanghai, China
2052-Mumbai, India
2056-Cairo, Egypt
2060-P'yongyang, North Korea (Hey, who says it isn't possible?)

It wolud be awesome to brazil to get the olympic games, and i think well get it one time!

Im not sure where, maybe rio, cause is the most famous, or sao paulo, the biggest!

Wouldn't the climate be too extreme in Dubai to host an Olympics? I don't know, can anyone enlighten me?

I agree Africa needs it... maybe Alexandria, Cape Town, Marrakesh, Dakar or Johannesburg? Of those, I'd say Alexandria would be best, although give it three or four decades.

I've tried to choose not so well known cities and cities from nowadays not so well developed countries as often as possible

2016 - Santiago de Chile, Chile -> South America
2020 - Hamburg, Germany -> Europe
2024 - Cape Town, South Africa -> Southern Africa
2028 - Detroit, USA -> North America
2032 - Phnom Penh, Cambodia -> South East Asia
2036 - Casablanca, Morocco -> Northern Africa
2040 - Prague, Czechia -> Europe
2044 - Amman, Jordan -> Middle East
2048 - Salvador da Bahia, Brazil -> South America
2052 - Bangalore, India -> South Asia
2056 - Wellington, New Zealand -> Oceania
2060 - Nizhny Novgorod, Russia -> Europe

True - I'd like to see some smaller cities get it.

For North America perhaps:
Vancouver
Ottawa
Calgary
Seattle
Phoenix
San Diego
Denver
Kansas City
Minneapollis/St Paul
Charlotte
or
Baltimore.

Though by 2050 even Raleligh/Durham might be big enough.

Philadelphia is also in the race to host the 2016 Olympics from North America.

Philadelphia named Olympic 'partner' (http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/13828126.htm)

From India, I think the best city to host the Olympics in the near future is definitely New Delhi, the capital. In fact, its hosting the Commonwealth Games 2010. I am sure half the forumers here probably heard of it!

If Sochi will not get 2014 - possibility for Moscow for 2016 will be high (but Dubai higher), if not 2016, then posibility of Saint Petersburg for 2020 will be very high. It going to be Dubai in 2016 for sure, but 2020 will be hard challenge between American and Eastern European cities. Posibilities of Russia growing with every bid.

I think Manchester UK should get the Olympic games one day. As the city is the fore founder of the Paralympic World Cup which started last year and is running every year in Manchester up to 2008 beijing. I know London as the games for 2012, but may be 20 years later or so.

Anyway check out the website: Paralympic World Cup (http://www.paralympicworldcup.com)

2016-Cape Town
2020-Warsaw
2024-Rio de Janeiro
2028-Delhi
2032-Moscow
2036-New York
2040-Dubai
2044-Prague
2048-Buenos Aires
2052-Hong Kong

If Sochi will not get 2014 - possibility for Moscow for 2016 will be high (but Dubai higher), if not 2016, then posibility of Saint Petersburg for 2020 will be very high. It going to be Dubai in 2016 for sure, but 2020 will be hard challenge between American and Eastern European cities. Posibilities of Russia growing with every bid.

omw what planet u living on?..dubai dont want the olympics..females dont compete..they send 5 athletes to the olympica games..their sports culture isnt too great...the temperatures are ridiculous and they have little to no relationship with the IOC...welcome back to earth...

I agree with Mo Rush, Dubai could'nt hold the olympics.

what on earth you living as well thiking cape town has chances. everything could change tommorow or in few years, for dubai, with such amount of money is not problem to make something special in venues. like conditioning roads for sprinters, fully closed huge stadiums...

Are you guys talking about Summer Olympics or Winter? Because there are criterias that need to be meet for the Winter Games.

Like having a mountain with snow near you ;)

coth,
It's supposed to be a "summer olympics" not indoor airconditioned olympics? I really can't see Dubai holding the games because of the extreme temperatures experienced there. I remember they were worried Sydney would be too hot, thats why they moved the games to a cooler part of the year. Don't get me wrong, in a few years time Dubai would be capable of hosting an olympics (infrastructure wise) it's just the climate which would hold it back.

For the Summer Games follow this Dating System:

From 2000-2012 Already Set:
XXVII. 2000 Sydney
XXVIII. 2004 Athens
XXIX. 2008 Beijing
XXX. 2012 London

2016-???? Your Prediction:

Winter Games:

From 2002-2010 Already Set:
XIX. 2002 Salt Lake City
XX. 2006 Turin
XXI. 2010 Vancouver

XXII. 2014 Contenders:
Almaty (KAZ)
Borjomi (GEO)
Jaca (ESP)
Pyeongchang (KOR)
Salzburg (AUT)
Sochi (RUS)
Sofia (BUL)

In my view the 2014 Winter Games are Korean

2018-???? Your Prediction

:cheers:

coth,
It's supposed to be a "summer olympics" not indoor airconditioned olympics? I really can't see Dubai holding the games because of the extreme temperatures experienced there. I remember they were worried Sydney would be too hot, thats why they moved the games to a cooler part of the year. Don't get me wrong, in a few years time Dubai would be capable of hosting an olympics (infrastructure wise) it's just the climate which would hold it back.
supposed or should be? geopolitical center is changing, as well as influence in international organisations.

but how about winter olympic games? it's really very hard for people from tropics visit them. middle east deserve own games. and sometimes it will happen.

2020-Warsaw

Taknks, but I think that it would be Hong-Kong 2020 and Wasaw 2052 instead of Warsaw 2020 and Hong-Kong 2052 :) Maybe Wasaw 2028, 2032

what on earth you living as well thiking cape town has chances. everything could change tommorow or in few years, for dubai, with such amount of money is not problem to make something special in venues. like conditioning roads for sprinters, fully closed huge stadiums...

my comment was not meant to attack ur opinion that dubai shud host the games..but dubai certainly wont be hosting the summer games unless it grows its sporting culture..and apart from that..gets some recognition with the IOC which takes years...the question is not whether financially dubai can host the games...will the IOC award the games to dubai 2040? yeah maybe in 30 years..but not in the near future...

cape town actually has a chance...the IOC is making a move to bring the games to africa and south america..this is a strategic move...a south african IOC member a part of the london 2012 evaluation commission has also recently been added to the IOC executive board..and cape town placing third for the 2004 games has helped it gain tremendous credibility within the IOC...

can dubai host the games in terms of finances, infrastructure lets say 2032? yes im sure they could pay for it all..will women and men compete in different venues?? will women compete for the UAE? temperature? legacy? attendance?

will the IOC actually awards the games to dubai?...thats an entirely different question and IMO the answer is NO...olympic culture, legacy, and a decent sized olympic team (i.e. more than a handful of athletes)...these are all things that count before the IOC even looks at other aspects...again this is my opinion...and dubai although they have shown no interest to do so., may bid if they like, nobody is stopping them...

You missing - we talking about 2016. Not about 2006. Promises, visible heap of greens and astonishing view from hotel room over city is only IOC need now;) London proved it;)

I hope poland is going to host summer olimpics in 20's or in 30's.

Australia will definately host the games again within the next 50 years, since we are one of the most signfiicant Olympic nations (based on team size, number of medals, public support and excellent record hosting two of the best Olympic Games). The next Olypmic Games in Australia will be held in Melbourne because Sydney had them last time :-)

^^
Or Brisbane, because Melbourne has hosted them already...........:D

2016 New York
2020 Paris
2024 Kuala Lumpur
2028 Rio
2032 Istanbul
2036 Wellington
2040 Toronto
2044 Berlin
2048 Dubai
2052 Cape Town
2056 San Francisco
2060 Vienna
:wave:

^^
Or Brisbane, because Melbourne has hosted them already...........:D

I agree

I have never been a fan of the games in a large city.....like NYC or London or Moscow....I think NYC especially will just be too congested unless they built out near Flushing

that being said, I am going to contradict myself here:

Sydney
Aspen
are two cities that quickly come to mind

2016- Los Angeles
2020- Bangkok
2024- Paris
2028- Dubai
2032- Wellington
2036- Cape Town

2016-New York, USA
2020-Paris, France
2024-Istanbul,Turkey
2028-Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
2032-Dubai,UAE
2036-Los angeles

Bucharest could certainly use them. I think Sofia, Belgrade or Bucharest should be next.

"2016 New York
2020 Paris
2024 Kuala Lumpur
2028 Rio
2032 Istanbul
2036 Wellington
2040 Toronto
2044 Berlin
2048 Dubai
2052 Cape Town
2056 San Francisco
2060 Vienna"


When Vienna gets them I'll be 91 if I'm still alive (doubtful though).

It is likely to become only the domain of the rich countries who can afford to host it. So you can forget about any African city with possible exception of Johanesburg South Africa. Also the host city needs massive, and reliable public transport infrastructure. That probably rules out most South American cities. Australia won't seriously consider a bid for at least another 30 years before it starts submitting cities to bid again. Even then the two main contenders for an Aussie bid would be either Brisbane (A rapidly growing sub-tropical metropolis) or Melbourne (Australia's traditional sporting capital, and host city of the 1956 Olympics).

A bid from Australia has to be backed by both State and Federal goverments (who will likely underwrite much of the costs) as well as get the blessing of the Australian Olympic Council.

Philadelphia 2016 :)

http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin/news/viewnews.cgi?category=1&id=1121358729

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=2016+olympics+in+philadelphia

http://www.phillymag.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/content.page/nodeID/57207326-CD5F-4AC0-908D-1F8831B3A0AF

Brisbane
Perth
Auckand
Cape Town
Nairobi
Buenos Aires
Rio
Santiago
Miami
San Fransisco
Toronto
Osaka
Kuala Lumpur
Budapest
St Petersburg
Lisbon
Prague
Sofia
Warsaw
Stockholm
Oslo
Copenhagen
any Swiss city
Vienna

No offense but what has Cape Town to be Olympic city??
Madrid will be in 2020 or 2024, there is an important development to get the Olympics, i'm not jocking ;)

Why not Cape Town? (ok, there are some reasons, crime and Aids crises). I can't think of a more capeable African city though. South Africa has a long and proud sporting culture. It is a beauty of a location and a nice city. SA will have learned much from the world cup on how to handle such huge events.

And SA is a great example of much racial and political strife over the last 50 years and has been a great example on how society (though imperfect) should go about moving on and improving with each other in relative peace and democracy. Can't beat that.

My dream list..

2016-New York
2020-Istambul
2024-Rio
2028-Capetown
2032-Los Angeles
2036-Paris
2040-Tokyo
2044-Dubai
2048-Miami
2052-Belfast
2056-Santiago
2060-Rome

2016 Cape Town
2020 Rio
2024 Amsterdam ( 100 years after the 1924 olympics in Amsterdam :) )
2028 New York
2032 Caïro
2036 Frankfurt / Munich
2040 Hong Kong / Shanghai
2044 Chicago
2048 Rotterdam
2052 Dubai
2056 Bagdad ( I think they'll be ready at then )
2060 Oslo / Stockholm / Copenhagen

Brisbanes gotta get somewhere in between 2020 to 2040. This city is on the move! And i'd also like to see the olympics in hong kong or shanghai.

Baghdad? Thats like saying people will be on pluto by 2010!!

My dream list..

2016-New York
2020-Istanbul
2024-Rio
2028-Capetown
2032-Los Angeles
2036-Paris
2040-Tokyo
2044-Dubai
2048-Miami
2052-Belfast
2056-Santiago
2060-Rome

what a cool list ;)

which should they be?..Yes, we are talking all the way into 2060......If this thread should go somewhere else just move it I guess.......


1. Chicago
2. Bunos Ares
3. Cape Town
4. Bangkok
5. Paris
6. Toronto
7. Rio
8. Instabul
9. New York
10. Singapore/Hong Kong/
11. Warsaw (or other major east European city)
12. San Fran
Chicago, Paris, New York, Istanbul - of course will be. The only question when?
Rio, Toronto, Buenos Aires - posible.
Cape Town, San Francisko, HongKong - maybe but not now.
Singapore, Warsaw - imposible.

You forgoten Moscow, Berlin & Madrid.

the 1924 Games were held in Paris not Amsterdam. They were in 1928.

Chicago, Paris, New York, Istanbul - of course will be. The only question when?
Rio, Toronto, Buenos Aires - posible.
Cape Town, San Francisko, HongKong - maybe but not now.
Singapore, Warsaw - imposible.

You forgoten Moscow, Berlin & Madrid.

Also Kaunaz :) , They had forgotten MIAMI :) , Florida, U.S.A. Summer Olympics in the YEAR 2048 :) , I believe it will be true !!! :cheers:

Are you guys talking about Summer Olympics or Winter? Because there are criterias that need to be meet for the Winter Games.

Like having a mountain with snow near you ;)

I would like to see Australia or New Zealand get the Winter Olympics. We get plenty of snow down here.

Right now, there is a joint bid being formed between Bogota-Caras-Lima for the 2016 or 2020 Summer Olympics, but I seriously think that Bogota should host the 2016 or the 2020 Summer Olympics because of the following:
1- It has a great mass transit system. the transmilenium is a pioneer and role model for many cities in latin america (specially central america), toronto, and a few other south american cities and all of the big colombian cities. it is used by 9 million people a day. it is the 1st or 2nd longest (i can't remember which) and it's bike path is the longest in the world.
2- it is a wealthy city with about 1/3 of colombia's gdp (1/3 of ~400 billion usd=~134 billion usd) and its standard of living is similar to that of many western european cities like london and paris.
3- It is a very environmentall conscious city.
4- It is a big city with a metro pop of ~9 million and will pass the 10 million mark by 2010.
5- It has hosted countless international forums (right now there are 2 or 3 forums going on and one is about prevetion of the h5n1 virus in the americas) and international sporting events of the western hemisphere.
6- it is one of the safest cities in the western hemisphere (even safer than Buenos Aires).

It seems that Cape Town and Rio are two of the favorites here that many would most like to see. They would be great first cities for their continents. Hopefully they can get overcome any crime issues either might have and could come up with the dough to put on a great games (which both are fully capeable).

Honestly, do you actually believe there will be twelve more olympics ?

2008: Beijing
2012: London
:
2016: Rio de Janeiro
2020: Cape Town
2024: San Francisco
2028: Paris
2032: Singapore
2036: Dubai
2040: Moscow
2044: Buenos Aires
2048: Shanghai
2052: Madrid
2056: New York
2060: Melbourne


tu flipas mucho diciend oq madrid sera en 2052 jaja

2020 madrid

Honestly, do you actually believe there will be twelve more olympics ?

yes of course...have u seen the IOC's financial statements lately??...

Why not Cape Town? (ok, there are some reasons, crime and Aids crises). I can't think of a more capeable African city though. South Africa has a long and proud sporting culture. It is a beauty of a location and a nice city. SA will have learned much from the world cup on how to handle such huge events.

And SA is a great example of much racial and political strife over the last 50 years and has been a great example on how society (though imperfect) should go about moving on and improving with each other in relative peace and democracy. Can't beat that.
Why Cape Town and not Johannesburg?

Isn't Johannesburg a bigger and more global city anyways?

Almost all of you seems to forget Copenhagen. It will properly bid for the 2024 summer games, and since its such a long time since there has been Olympic games to Scandinavia, I think we'll have a pretty fair chance of getting it.

2008: Beijing
2012: London
:
2016: Rio de Janeiro or Bogota-Caracas-Lima.
2020: Cape Town or Bogota-Caracas-Lima.
2024: Miami.
2028: Paris
2032: New York.
2036: Berlin.
2040: Moscow or St. Petersburg.
2044: Buenos Aires.
2048: Tokyo or Osaka.
2052: Havana or Lisbon.
2056: Athens-near Olympia, near Olympia, or Athens again.
2060: Mexico City.

2016 - New York, Los Angeles, Chicago; USA for sure
2020 - Berlin, Munchen, Warsaw, Prague, Moscow; central or eastern Europe

south and latin America, Africa, Asia (include Istambul) will wait till 2024.

Why Cape Town and not Johannesburg?

Isn't Johannesburg a bigger and more global city anyways?

Joburg is bigger and more finacially important then Cape Town (from what I know)

I am not South African but I think from an outside perspective Cape Town is more internaionally alluring and has a nicer scenic backdrop and tourist infrastructure for such games.

Also Cape Towns crime problems are not a little bit less pronounced then Jo-Burg aren't they? Not to say Jo-Burg isn't a fine nice city (underrated and overly critized I could tell from my trip there).

It ain't cheap and it's not that important if HK gets it or not!

Hong Kong will host the Equestrian events for 2008 Olympics.
But it is a possibility HK/Guangzhou/Shenzhen will be able to co-host.

I would like to see Australia or New Zealand get the Winter Olympics. We get plenty of snow down here.
I doubt Australia will ever get winter olympics!! In fact getting them in the southern hemisphere might be a bit of a challenge.

Funny how so many people don't seem to think Oceania will see the Olympics in the next 60 years.

I would love to see Australasia host a Winter Olympics.

Christchurch would be a Fab host city with the entire South Island sharing the different sporting events. The spin off for the rest of New Zealand and Australia would be fantastic, just as it was when the summer games were in Sydney and the Commonweath games will be in Melbourne - :)

CHRISTCHURCH AND THE SOUTH ISLAND FOR A FANTASTIC AUSTRALSIAN WINTER OLYMPICS :cheer:

So much USA in plans?

I don't see any more games in USA and Canada in next 20 years. 6 games from 1980 to 2010 is enough. Time for South America - Rio, BA, Mexico etc etc etc.

tu flipas mucho diciend oq madrid sera en 2052 jaja

2020 madrid
Déjalos roadtomadrid si es que estos tios no saben y luego pasa lo que pasa que se ponen a decir ciudades que no las conoce ni su padre ;)

Also Kaunaz :) , They had forgotten MIAMI :) , Florida, U.S.A. Summer Olympics in the YEAR 2048 :) , I believe it will be true !!! :cheers:
So in that way you must reject San Francisko to offer Miami. :) From USA cities to hold olympics I preffer NYC and Chicago. Miami it's good because is very nice and hot ocean beach resort, but I think it is a litlle bit too small to be an olympic city and hasn't got venues for many kinds of sport.

Bogota imposibble, no way for many years to go. It has a lot of problems with criminals and drugs, lots of people are kidnaping every day there.

yes of course...have u seen the IOC's financial statements lately??...

Well, you need onsite and TV spectators too :)

There's so many years to go, who knows...

Right now, there is a joint bid being formed between Bogota-Caras-Lima for the 2016 or 2020 Summer Olympics, but I seriously think that Bogota should host the 2016 or the 2020 Summer Olympics because of the following:
1- It has a great mass transit system. the transmilenium is a pioneer and role model for many cities in latin america (specially central america), toronto, and a few other south american cities and all of the big colombian cities. it is used by 9 million people a day. it is the 1st or 2nd longest (i can't remember which) and it's bike path is the longest in the world.
2- it is a wealthy city with about 1/3 of colombia's gdp (1/3 of ~400 billion usd=~134 billion usd) and its standard of living is similar to that of many western european cities like london and paris.
3- It is a very environmentall conscious city.
4- It is a big city with a metro pop of ~9 million and will pass the 10 million mark by 2010.
5- It has hosted countless international forums (right now there are 2 or 3 forums going on and one is about prevetion of the h5n1 virus in the americas) and international sporting events of the western hemisphere.
6- it is one of the safest cities in the western hemisphere (even safer than Buenos Aires).

I think that Rio, Santiago and Buenos Aires have a better chance than Caracas, Bogota or Lima.

MADRID 2016 :D

A bit of news...

Denmark sets sights on Olympic Games?

07.03.2006 - The Copenhagen Post

Ironing out the details for Copenhagen's bid as Olympic host is the next step after a thorough report finds that winning the 2020 or 2024 Summer Games is possible

Where there's a will there's a way. Copenhagen has taken a step closer to climbing the podium of cities selected to host a summer Olympics.

Hosting the 2020 Summer Games would cost DKK 24.5bn, according to consultancy company Rambøll's report, 'The Olympics to Denmark - possibilities and barriers'.

Costs could be kept low by building temporary structures that could be disassembled after the games, thus avoiding costs for permanent materials and land.

Copenhagen's existing infrastructure made the city a strong candidate, according to the report. The city's train and Metro system could, for example, easily shuttle athletes, delegates, and visitors to the nearby Copenhagen Airport.

A successful Olympic event would bring in approximately DKK 500m, according to the report.

'It's an exciting and interesting report,' said the minister of culture and sport, Brian Mikkelsen. 'The government will continue to work with ideas and analyse the figures, but we will wait with definite announcements.'

Mikkelsen, who has made no secret that bringing the games to Copenhagen was an important goal for him, admitted that some of the figures seemed a bit low.

'I'm a bit surprised by the low figures for infrastructure costs. That appears a bit optimistic, but at any rate, there are few cities that have done such comprehensive preliminary work as we have,' he said.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3558/stadiawithhotel10ge.jpg
http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/5396/87gz.jpg
http://img102.imageshack.us/img102/1144/20kg.jpg

So are there still some debating over what city in South Africa is the best to host, or what? And how big is Durban? I know almost nothing about it...

Are they building or renovating any of the world cup stadiums in South Africa so that once the World Cup is done they have a stadium that could be turned into an Olympic stadium? If South Africa is serious about bidding for the games in the next 20 years then they should build a 80,000 seater that could double as an olympic stadium.

That is one of the big mistakes that Chicago made when they rebuilt the football stadium just a few years ago I am afraid.

^^ SA is building 5 new state of the art mordern stadiums for the 2010 world cup, & renovating 5 of current stadiums. The Stadium in Durban will be the most sophisticated from them all, not sure yet if it will have a retractable roof or not, but it will have temporart seating & permenant seating. It will hold a capacity crowd of 70 000 -80 000 for the world cup, & after that they will remove the temporary seating which will bring the stadiums capacity down to 45 000, but if need be they can always add on more temporary seating which could hold up to 100 000 people, sounds abit confusing I know. But the stadium will be catering for olympic sports, & a second smaller indoor arena will cater for most of the other olympic codes, & we already have a world class Aquatic center & the area of the new stadium is in the sporting precinct of our city so all the venues are right next to each other, plans are also under way to construct a hotel near the area for athletes & spectators

So are there still some debating over what city in South Africa is the best to host, or what? And how big is Durban? I know almost nothing about it...
go to our Forum then have alook, u will get to know SA pretty well there!SA Forum (http://skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=378)

Greece HAS TOO host the winters.
I say Thessaloniki 2018!

go to our Forum then have alook, u will get to know SA pretty well there!SA Forum (http://skyscrapercity.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=378)
cool, ill check it out....

Green Point stadium to develop entire Common as public park

March 9, 2006

By John Yeld

One of the two semi-final matches in the 2010 Soccer World Cup tournament will be played in a new, 68 000-seater African Renaissance Stadium that will rise on the Green Point Common over the next four years.

But the massive R1.2 billion project will demand incredibly tight deadlines. This is clear from the call for proposals just issued by the City of Cape Town.

Although the tournament will be held in June and July, the stadium must be ready by December 2008 to meet the requirements of Fifa.
The projectis a joint initiative between the national government, the Western Cape provincial administration and the City.

The proposal calls for a multi-disciplinary team to design and develop the stadium and plan its sustainable management for the medium-to-long term.

A local team is preferred, and it must be able to demonstrate "appropriate skills, past experience and capacity as a team, to deliver the scope of work within tight time-frames".

The team will include a project manager, architects, quantity surveyors, structural, mechanical, electrical , electronic and sound engineers, an occupational health and safety expert, landscape architects, an artist, traffic and civil engineers, transport planners, town planners, heritage consultants, a land surveyor, economic development consultants, financial and business planning experts, an access control expert, traffic signage consultants and environmental consultants.

The deadline for submissions is Monday March 27, and a decision on the winner will be reached within 10 days.

The generation of an initial business plan for, and design of, the stadium must start in April to be completed by June 30.

Detailed stadium and a detailed business plan must be ready by October 31.

Construction will be expected to start in January 2007 and must be completed by December 31 2008.

Among the criteria to judge the bidders is "evidence of creativity, innovation and sustainability".

Another criterion will be the level of broad-based black economic and women empowerment, with a minimum 30% BEE stake.

Full details will have to be provided of all directors and members of close corporations, and details of the holding company in the case of wholly-owned subsidiaries.

The proposal document says the anticipated cost of R1.2 billion will need to be confirmed during phase 1 of the project.

Operators of the stadium will be sourced through a separate proposal call that will be put out shortly. The City has identified the Metropolitan Golf Course as its preferred site for the new stadium.

However, the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process requires that alternative sites be investigated, and one such site is the existing stadium.

Town planning and architecture are important components in establishing the impact that development of the new stadium will have and that must be assessed.

By the time the winning team is appointed, detailed studies will be underway on geotechnical aspects of the site, archaeology, the visual impact, the urban design framework, title deed restrictions, regional transport, town planning and the environment.

Information gathered will be used in the public participation phase of EIA.
Click Here to visit South Africa's no.1 Online Casino!


"It will be necessary for the EIA and the associated specialist studies to have been completed and a Record of Decision to have been obtained by early July 2006."

The rezoning will have to be completed for approval by mid-September 2006.

Cape Town is set to become the "dramatic backdrop" to the 2010 World Cup.

"With its spectacular natural setting, its long history and diverse cultures, Cape Town will play host to the family of nations celebrating the best of football in the first World Cup to be played in Africa.

"Not only the profile of Cape Town and our friendly people, but the capabilities of our country and continent will be beamed across the world to billions of fans, future visitors, investors and friends.

"2010 offers a major opportunity to showcase the best we have to offer."

The current stadium at Green Point and the Common are under-utilised public open spaces and therefore the prime site for this development, the document states.

"Through this development, the city and province intend to catapult citywide growth, attracting visitors and tourists, investment, leisure and entertainment events on a scale not yet seen in our city."

In keeping with Fifa requirements, the current stadium will be transformed into a "completely new, 68 000-seater all-weather, multi-purpose, environmentally sustainable, modern,
technologically advanced world-class facility, giving expression to the 'African Renaissance Stadium' at the juncture between Table Mountain and the Atlantic Ocean at the southern tip of Africa".

The document explains that the city's vision is to transform the 80ha Green Point Common into a world-class "People's Park" modelled along the lines of London's Hyde Park and New York's Central Park, that could cater for various events, sports, heritage, leisure and relaxation in a landscaped space with indigenous trees, water features and gardens.

As there is a strong likelihood of human remains being encountered during the Common's transformation, attention must be paid to heritage aspects and a memorial park for the reburial of human remains may have to be developed.

The Fort Wynyard site, on the north-eastern boundary of the Metropolitan Golf Club, appears to be a suitable site for such a memorial park, the document states.

While the team which wins the bid to plan and build the new stadium will not be required to re-plan the development of the Common, "cognisance has to be given to optimise the potential of this asset as part of an active and passive recreational public space while promoting its integration with economic opportunities and ecological integrity".

The proposal document states that the winning design team "will be required to deal sensitively with the context and to assemble elements of the stadium precinct, unpack economic opportunities, and integrate all the aspects required to inform the building of the stadium and the creation of a vibrant urban environment as a contribution to Cape Town's future for the benefit of all its citizens".

Next olympic cities hmmm
2016 Istanbul
2020 New York
2024 Madrid
2028 Johanisburg
2032 Tokyo
2036 Helsinki
2040 Zagreb(I am from zagreb I think by that time they might get the maximer stadium complete)
2044 Toronto
2048 Rio De Jenero(I cant spell sorry if I spelt it wrong)
2052 Havana(I think by that time the comunist would be out and America would have been moderized enough
2054 Dubi(one of the coolest cities ever)
2060 Rome
2064 Baghdad(This what I really want to see hopfully the US can get out and create a stable government so the olympics could come back to the cradle of civilization)
2068 Moscow(Until the get a better government they wont get the olympics)

Next olympic cities hmmm
2016 Istanbul
2020 New York
2024 Madrid
2028 Johanisburg
2032 Tokyo
2036 Helsinki
2040 Zagreb(I am from zagreb I think by that time they might get the maximer stadium complete)
2044 Toronto
2048 Rio De Jenero(I cant spell sorry if I spelt it wrong)
2052 Havana(I think by that time the comunist would be out and America would have been moderized enough
2054 Dubi(one of the coolest cities ever)
2060 Rome
2064 Baghdad(This what I really want to see hopfully the US can get out and create a stable government so the olympics could come back to the cradle of civilization)
2068 Moscow(Until the get a better government they wont get the olympics)


johanisburg lol hahaha

johanisburg lol hahaha
Must you always post dicky comments?

Grow up.

2016 - Cape Town
2020 - Madrid
2024 - New York
2028 - Paris
2032 - Buenos Aires
2036 - Berlin
2040 - Mexico
2044 - Melbourne
2048 - Lisbon

TEL AVIV 2024

We r gonna get them no doubt!

An Australian city probably won't bid for at least another several games as the costs are very high. Melbourne is probably still the best equipped city in Australia to host an Olympic Games but there'd still be enormous liabilities with security and the provision of housing 10-12,000 athletes. The Sydney Olympics cost NSW taxpayers $2.2 billion. The Athens Games set Greece back $5 billion. The recent Commonwealth Games in Melbourne accommodated 16 different sporting disciplines and 4,500 athletes and were held in built venues, with the resultant cost of "Not much change from $1.1 billion AUD" (about $750 million USD).

Just the opening and closing ceremonies alone will set a city bacck between $50 - $100 million when you factor in transport costs, security, fireworks and public liability insurance etc. Further there is an incredible expectation not only by people whom live in a host city, but also from vistors which you have to accommodate otherwise your city can potentially be overwhelmed and suffer international ridicule and embarrassment such as te city of Atlanta unfortunately did in 1996.

Some pictures from the recent 2006 Commonwealth Games in Melbourne give you an indicator of the scale of a medium sized sporting event by today's standards - keeping in mind that the Commonwealth Games are about half the scale of an Olympics. Some food for thought everyone about the costs and the scale:
http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/9636/ocrivermcgfireworks3hb.gif http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8739/octram14tr.jpg http://www.m2006.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/F1E06CD4-84F9-431E-A04E-10FB1070BF4B/0/20060316_YarraFish_PG.jpg http://www.m2006.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/50E3FFDF-D586-4836-8E62-8F7CC17D1736/0/20060316_skylinelitup_PG.jpg http://www.m2006.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/194E5F49-FF88-4C00-BD1E-9CF405379CA1/0/20060317B_TheQueen250.jpg http://www.m2006.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/39FF1F1F-1E8C-4835-A3A0-288906C55A2C/4548/Fireworks2PG.jpg

http://www.melbournephotos.net/images/2006-03-23%20Melbourne%20-%20MCG%20Commonwealth%20Games/MCG.jpg

I like these! South America, Africa and India in general need a chance! :)

... How about: 2060 - Pyongyang/Seoul Joint Olympics? :grouphug:

Are you high on something???

I aggree, let's not dignify, accommodate or Kow Tow to supporting a dictatorial regime such as North Korea. As long as the "Dear Leader" enjoys his lavish lifestyle whilst his 22,000,000 North Koreans remain denied basic human rights, food and other services, and the North Korean Regime continue to direct their money toward nuclear arms development and waste precious few resources on ridiculous public pageants and massed military displays then they should remain pariahs internationally.

2016 Buenos Aires
2020 Tokyo/Osaka
2024 St Petersburg/Moscow
2028 Delhi/Mumbai
2032 Toronto
2036 Melbourne
2040 Paris
2044 Rio de Janeiro/Sao Paulo
2048 Kuala Lumpur/Singapore/Jakarta
2052 Johannesburg/Cape Town
2056 Bangkok
2060 Chicago

My list is based not on continents but on time zones ie. Americas, Europe-Africa, Asia-Oceania. I would liked to maybe have one more city in Africa. I also don't believe any country should host two games within a 32 year period.

An Australian city probably won't bid for at least another several games as the costs are very high. Melbourne is probably still the best equipped city in Australia to host an Olympic Games

hmmm....A bit rich when Sydney just hosted a succesful Olympics just 2 Olympiads ago..

For an Olympics,Melbourne would need
-a Rowing venue
-a whitewater venue
-Baseball/Softball venue or whatever replaces it
-another Indoor arena(You cant fit Basketball,Volleyball,Gymnastics,Tennis and Cycling into 2 venues).Sydney had 5 different venues to cater for these sports.
-Equestrian venue
-A larger swimming venue(10,000 just dont cut it for an Olympics)

Yes..Sydney would probably build a new Olympic Village and cut a few seats of Telstra Stadium,but saying that,Sydney has more Olympic standard venues in place currently than Melbourne.(obviously!)

hmmm....A bit rich when Sydney just hosted a succesful Olympics just 2 Olympiads ago..

For an Olympics,Melbourne would need
-a Rowing venue
-a whitewater venue
-Baseball/Softball venue or whatever replaces it
-another Indoor arena(You cant fit Basketball,Volleyball,Gymnastics,Tennis and Cycling into 2 venues).Sydney had 5 different venues to cater for these sports.
-Equestrian venue
-A larger swimming venue(10,000 just dont cut it for an Olympics)

Yes..Sydney would probably build a new Olympic Village and cut a few seats of Telstra Stadium,but saying that,Sydney has more Olympic standard venues in place currently than Melbourne.(obviously!)

You obviously don't know Melbourne. We have rowing, baseball, softball, equestrian venues. If all that is needed to build is another indoor arena and white water venue than thats far better then what Sydney had to build. I remember being more sceptical at Sydney when it won the bid in 1993 (it had virtually nothing), but it gave us an impressive games (I was a volunteer). Sydney does has more Olympic standard venues... mostly white elephants. Melbourne does not have that problem, we love our sport and would use these venues, though saying all this I would still not advocate Australia hosting a games until 2036.

Thanx durbsboi for putting the design in here. It is very true that Durban is an unknown entity in global terms in comparison to Cape Town, but we do have a lot to offer, the only factor inhibiting us is our lack of global exposure. The city is following a focussed sporting development plan that aims to fully equip the city to host either a commonwealth or olympic games before 2030.

The Kings Park sporting precinct is at the heart this campaign. It is situated right next to the indian ocean, CBD and beachfront hotels and much additional work is being carried out on the precinct for the 2010 soccer world cup.

The precinct already comprises:

The Kings Park Aquatics centre (7000), which hosts an annual event on the FINA world swimming tour. At present plans are advanced for a second pool, to compliment the indoor olympic pool and diving centre. This in preparation to bid for the World Swimming Champs.

The ABSA Stadium (52 000), which is the home to the Natal Sharks rugby team and was the proposed durban venue for the soccer world cup.

The Kings Park Soccer Stadium. This is the present home of soccer in durban and is due for demolition shortly, to be replaced by a new 75 000 capacity stadium for the Soccer World cup. It will have permanent seating for 45 000, but in its design it has the capacity to house 100 000 people for a major event in temporary capacity. It will also include an adjacent indoor arena capable of hosting smaller events up to 10 000 people in stadium mode.

Other venues in the precinct include: The Kings Park Athletics stadium, The Durban Country Club, Windsor Park Golf Course, The Cecil Velodrome, Archery centre, Equestrian facilities, KZN Badminton and Table Tennis Centre.

A new transmodel transport hub is to be built for the 2010 world cup, between the new soccer stadium and the existing rugby stadium. It will provide commuter rail, buses, taxi's and connections to the new inner city monorail link.

All in all the precinct is compact, and within a 5 min walk to the beach, casino and city hotels. The city has budgetted for $750m to be spent on upgrades to the precinct in the next 5 years, and thereafter other upgrades, should the city be succesful in an Olympic or Commonwealth bid.

You obviously don't know Melbourne.

LOL ... He obviously has been reading the Ray Martin guide to Melbourne. What Ray Martin offered by way of commentary during the Commonwealth games you could print on a postage stamp.

I stand by what I said, that Melbourne is and always has been the best city in Australia to hold major sporting events. Most things are close to the city and adjacent to major public transport infrastructure. There are numerous multi-purpose venues in the city that were not used during the Commonwealth Games which would be utilised in the event of staging a larger carnival.

There are three established Olympic specification rowing courses available - Patterson Lakes (20 km south of the city), Lake Nagambie (120 km north of the city) and the recently upgraded Lake Wendouree (In Ballarat (Australia's other Olympic City which hosted 1956 rowing and canoeing)). :cheers2:

']Must you always post dicky comments?

Grow up.
thats rich coming from u? id rather not get started with u. enjoy ur day.

You obviously don't know Melbourne. We have rowing, baseball, softball, equestrian venues. If all that is needed to build is another indoor arena and white water venue than thats far better then what Sydney had to build. I remember being more sceptical at Sydney when it won the bid in 1993 (it had virtually nothing), but it gave us an impressive games (I was a volunteer). Sydney does has more Olympic standard venues... mostly white elephants. Melbourne does not have that problem, we love our sport and would use these venues, though saying all this I would still not advocate Australia hosting a games until 2036.

in terms of sporting capital.melbourne is that...its 1996 bid was nothing else but poorly timed, especially with the business like manner of the atlanta bid, combined with athens trying to make a comeback. a melbourne bid for 2000 would have had the same result as the sydney bid..i.e. success in 2000, in terms of venues...one of the last cities who should be worried about sustainable sporting venues is melbourne, one certainly doesnt need to live there to know this ...that said sydney built many venues, melbourne would build even fewer permanent venues

2016- Baghdad, but the us will bomb them during the games so...
2020- Tokyo, u should watch battle Royale, thats wats gonna happen there
2024- Dumascus, thats in Syria by the way, u dumas....cus
2028- Tel Aviv, hopefully the arabs are taken care of by then,
2032- Toronto, now owned by the US
2036- Paris, now also owned by the US
2040- No Games, World War III Us goes crazy and everyone dies xcept Us, Canada, and Isreal, yes Croatia dies too
2044- Chicago, first games where a black guy wins gymnastics ( hello were in Chicago, white man diedd before he ever got to the place)
2048- Montreal, French Rebellion stopped, gave them olympics to shut them up.
2052- Sydney, australia, They go WTF MATE! and make a small recovery as kangaroos after the war
2056- Freetown, Sierra Leone, kanye west frees all the black people from white diamonds
2060- Weird City, Mars, the world moves to mars cuz of WWIIII, ppl get pissed off at the states and finally leave. US says fine, and all die in a civil war.

this was writen by my friend max be nice to him

hmmm....A bit rich when Sydney just hosted a succesful Olympics just 2 Olympiads ago..

For an Olympics,Melbourne would need
-a Rowing venue
-a whitewater venue
-Baseball/Softball venue or whatever replaces it
-another Indoor arena(You cant fit Basketball,Volleyball,Gymnastics,Tennis and Cycling into 2 venues).Sydney had 5 different venues to cater for these sports.
-Equestrian venue
-A larger swimming venue(10,000 just dont cut it for an Olympics)

Yes..Sydney would probably build a new Olympic Village and cut a few seats of Telstra Stadium,but saying that,Sydney has more Olympic standard venues in place currently than Melbourne.(obviously!)

what a moron.

sydney's olympic park is a fricken white elephant - except for the superdome of course - telstra stadium is a bleeder and hasnt made a dollar for any of its investors as its hardly used, and as for the rest of the palce, well the government havent got a clue what to do with it. there's been all sorts of proposals since the olympics in 2000 but it's still a ghost town.

what do expect when you build it in the middle of nowhere.

To those who are serious about having your city host an Olympic games, check out the report from IOC that evaluated the 9 cities that submitted bids for the 2012 Olympics.

http://www.gamesbids.com/english/archives/arch2012.shtml

Click on IOC 2012 Acceptance Group Report for report on 9 bids.

Then click on IOC 2012 Evaluation Commission Report for report on final 5 bids.

2016 Bangkok!!!!................

I think that from now on, only cities that deeply need the economic benefits of the Olympics should get the Olympics as a global humanitarian measure.

I mean, c'mon, does Paris, New York, etc. really NEED the Olympics?

no no no ! Only WARSAW in 2020 year ! :rofl:

I think that from now on, only cities that deeply need the economic benefits of the Olympics should get the Olympics as a global humanitarian measure.

I mean, c'mon, does Paris, New York, etc. really NEED the Olympics?

Good idea but the cost of hosting an Olympics negates many cities from hosting the games. Economic benefits may not be realised for years later. Montreal for instance may still be paying for the costs of the 1976 games.