BRAZIL - FIFA World Cup 2014 [Archive]

Benjuk

September 22nd, 2006, 05:21 AM

USA has more debt than Brazil. There is hardly starvation in Brazil. A large % of the population is actually fat.

Yes, many clubs are unable to pay their lowly paid professional footballers. But Brazil has about 2000 PROFESSIONAL football clubs. The 20 largest clubs in the country DO PAY their professional footballers and pay them well (most players in the first division earn over $30k per month and drive around in bmws and mercedes)

Whats the PROBLEM of investing in new football stadiums?? Brazil built several of them for the 1950 World Cup, including the largest and most modern stadiums in the world back then. And after the 1950 World Cup, several brazilian clubs built BIG modern private stadiums with their own money.

So next time, shut up instead of spewing your bullshit around! :bash: :bash:

Apologies for any offense caused - this was not my intent. The impression I have gained over the years is that there is considerable poverty in Brazil (shanty towns, etc.), and that one of the things which has made Brazilian football so good is the desperation with which people turn toward football in order to escape poverty. I have read various reports of clubs being unable to pay their players, although I admit I've never paid particularly close attention to which league those clubs/players were in - I'm delighted that the players are getting paid.

The difference between building new stadiums in the 50s, and now, is the cost. Stadiums could be relatively simple back then, whereas the demands and requirements now are such that an investment of over $2 billion in a dozen new stadiums would appear to be required... Can the World Cup bring in that kind of money to the Brazilian economy?

I hope they can get it all sorted out, I'm looking forward to the trip.

AcesHigh

September 22nd, 2006, 05:22 AM

just as example, Corinthians spends $6 million PER MONTH in players and coaches salaries.

Benjuk

September 22nd, 2006, 05:25 AM

just as example, Corinthians spends $6 million PER MONTH in players and coaches salaries.

I'm not doubting your word, but the maths seems a little scary... $6m per month equates to 30 players/coaches on $50k/week each.

Is this US$ ?

What kind of attendances do Corinthians get, and what are their attendances? I'm guessing TV rights in Brazil aren't being sold for the prices Euro right are... It's scary to think of a club paying that much on the kind of income they'll be earning.

AcesHigh

September 22nd, 2006, 05:35 AM

Apologies for any offense caused - this was not my intent. The impression I have gained over the years is that there is considerable poverty in Brazil (shanty towns, etc.), and that one of the things which has made Brazilian football so good is the desperation with which people turn toward football in order to escape poverty.

there are actually MANY top brazilian players from middle class and even some of high-class.

I have read various reports of clubs being unable to pay their players, although I admit I've never paid particularly close attention to which league those clubs/players were in - I'm delighted that the players are getting paid.

Sometimes salaries are delayed in some clubs. And everything is paid in the next month. Most of these clubs with financial problems are clubs that hired expensive players and have to pay dozens of thousands of dollars each money for them, and are not getting the results, so the revenues drop and they have difficulty paying the players. Its obvious the financial situation is not as good as in Europe. Still, its not so horrible. Some clubs are very well managed (São Paulo, Inter, Grêmio...) and pay salaries correctly always. (and high salaries).

But remember, they are CLUBS. Administration changes every x year with ELECTIONS from the associates. New presidents can be shitty and do bad managements.

The difference between building new stadiums in the 50s, and now, is the cost. Stadiums could be relatively simple back then, whereas the demands and requirements now are such that an investment of over $2 billion in a dozen new stadiums would appear to be required

Do you have any info on how much a 200 thousand seat stadium cust to be built in the 50s? I am sure that if the value was corrected to nowaday values, it would still be pretty expensive.

There are a few stadiums in Brazil with crowd capacity over 100k. They need reforms, but that can be done. Other stadiums will be built by private companies. Brazil has a GDP PPP of 1,7 trillion dollars. I am sure it can spare at least 1 billion to a World Cup, since its an event that returns money to the country, if not immediately, in the long run.

... Can the World Cup bring in that kind of money to the Brazilian economy?

Maybe not, but it doesnt matter. The world cup is the perfect excuse to do everything that was postponed for a long time, as the modernization of the brazilian stadiums, that would need to be done one time or another, and mainly, building of new infrastructure, specially hotels, roads and SUBWAY.

AcesHigh

September 22nd, 2006, 05:42 AM

I'm not doubting your word, but the maths seems a little scary... $6m per month equates to 30 players/coaches on $50k/week each.

Is this US$ ?

What kind of attendances do Corinthians get, and what are their attendances? I'm guessing TV rights in Brazil aren't being sold for the prices Euro right are... It's scary to think of a club paying that much on the kind of income they'll be earning.

Not US$. Its R$. To get the US$ value, divide by two. But the value of EVERYTHING in Brazil is cheaper exactly because of the devaluated currency. So if a player makes R$ 30k per month, considers that the same as doing about US$20-25k per month in US.

There is also "premium" that clubs pay for specific winnings. Like... Internacional paid R$ 50k for each player for winning the Libertadores Cup (not counting the normal salaries)

Thats the correct math. But Corinthians is the club with the most inflated salaries in the country. It has a partnership with MSI, the sports marketing company, which right now is planning on buying West Ham from England.

Its worth remembering that brazilian clubs do not spend much BUYING players. And they get a lot of profit from SELLING players.

And Brazil is the country that produces more world class players in the world. Every year there are excellent players that the brazilian clubs can sell to Europe for $$$. Santos has over R$ 80 million in cash in their pockets for the selling of Robinho to Real Madrid and Diego to Porto.

Benjuk

September 22nd, 2006, 05:59 AM

Not US$. Its R$. To get the US$ value, divide by two.

No man, all totally cool now that I understand the currency. $25k per week seems very plausible.

I hope Brazil can get the stadiums up and running, and like I said before, I'm looking forward to the Brazil trip in 8 years - as Germany was a blast and Brazil is the true home of football (I'm English, but it's hard to argue with World Cup history!).

It'd also be nice if the organisers could have a game or two played down in Uruguay as well (in terms of history).

Do you have any info on how much a 200 thousand seat stadium cust to be built in the 50s? I am sure that if the value was corrected to nowaday values, it would still be pretty expensive.

No figures, but I'm guessing that building standards in the 50s didn't match standards now - that labour costs were lower (even taking inflation into account) - that the lack of seats and safety requirements, etc., would have reduced costs, and that land-prices would have been lower at the time.

AcesHigh

September 22nd, 2006, 06:41 AM

^we dont need to build stadiums with closed glass roofs that slide or grass pitchs that go outside the stadium, etc.

The money spent on Korea/Japan and Germany was so high because they spent much more than needed, not on good stadiums, but on ultra hi-tech state of art stadiums.

right now, this is the most modern stadium in Brazil, located at Curitiba. It still lacks on of the sides to be finished tough.
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/brazil/parana/curitiba_guimaraes2.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/brazil/parana/curitiba_guimaraes1.jpg
http://www.furacao.com/multimidia/papeldeparede/arena_1024.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif
http://static.flickr.com/37/85716896_531dd2b437_m.jpg
http://www.estadiosvirtuais.hpg.ig.com.br/baixada.jpg

project of reformation of Beira Rio stadium (private stadium belonging to Internacional), for the 2014 World Cup

http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/conteudo/patrimonio_moderno1.jpg

right now:
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/NOVOS_BANCOSRESERVAS.jpg
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/tribunas.jpg
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/vestiariovisitante_2.jpg
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/vestiariovisitante_1.jpg
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/salaantidoping.jpg
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/suites_materia_obra.jpg
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/aquario.jpg
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/corredortematico.jpg
http://www.internacional.com.br/imagens/noticias/portico.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Beira-rio_stadium.jpg

Corinthians already has a project for a very modern FIFA standart stadium for 60 thousand people.

Benjuk

September 22nd, 2006, 08:49 AM

AcesHigh

September 22nd, 2006, 02:19 PM

Brazilian stadiums have places with seats and places with stands (actually, there are STANDS and STANDS... like, England itself had stands where you standed up the entire game and you couldnt seat... then there are stands which have higher steps where you can sit).

Many stadiums are ALREADY being turned on seats only stadiums. Beira Rio and Maracanã are two of these.

But no, thats not enough. There is minium height between the steps where the seats are, minimum distance between seats, etc. Some of these older stadiums have steps that do not conform to the regulation (since there was no regulation when they were built!)

matherto

September 22nd, 2006, 08:28 PM

I assume the 4th side will be completed by 2014... That will look pretty good. Are there planning problems with buildings/businesses next to that part of the stadium? Do compulsary purchase orders exist in Brazil?

Also, second picture - don't appear to be any seats there - I assume the stadiums are standing, which FIFA doesn't like... Maybe the addition of seats to some of the larger stadia in Brazil will be enough to placate FIFA.

Stadionwelt has updated pictures showing seats, and you can see the unfinished side too.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/index.php?template=stadionlisten&stadion=Arena%20Kyocera&foto_ordner=Brasilien/arena_kyocera&id=2321

Its AlL gUUd

September 23rd, 2006, 01:21 AM

If Brazil have to build a dozen new stadiums by 2014 i cant see them hosting it.

Calvin W

September 23rd, 2006, 03:01 AM

If Brazil have to build a dozen new stadiums by 2014 i cant see them hosting it.

And why not?

They won't have to build a dozen by 2014 and I'm sure if they did they would. Do all the stadiums in England/UK/whatever meet FIFA standards?

If Brazil is chosen they will do an awesome job no worse than any other host nation in the past.

delmaule

September 23rd, 2006, 03:28 AM

Sparks

September 23rd, 2006, 07:21 AM

How come Brazil has so many oval stadiums?

As far as I know they don't play any another sports other than football in these stadiums, so why are the stands so far away from the pitch?

Back to the topic in hand, The Kyocera stadium is going to need some modifications before it is approved by FIFA. Firstly it needs new seats with backs to them. Secondly the safety access, if there is an emergency in the stand the fans have to have access to the pitch as somewhere to escape. Currently fans would be stuck as there is a big whole at the bottom of the stand, as seen below.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/brasilien/arena_kyocera/130.jpg

See the Emirates Stadium pitch access.

http://www.londonpictorial.co.uk/emirates8/images/image002.jpg

Thirdly, media facilities need to be huge and that includes a large area around the stadium for the all the trucks that the media companies bring when they cover a game. A reason why Highbury and Stamford Bridge haven't hosted International fixtures.

There doesn't appear to be much room around the stadium.

http://www.stadionwelt.de/stadionwelt_stadien/templates/stadionlisten/brasilien/arena_kyocera/170.jpg

Andy the Gloryhunter

September 23rd, 2006, 07:27 AM

I don't know if these Latin types can be trusted when it comes to building stadiums!! Too many siestas and not enough hard graft! They don't like hard work...you know the types...workshy layabouts, more interested in dancing and listening to music than putting in a hard days work.

Benjuk

September 23rd, 2006, 03:52 PM

It strikes me that the major problem will be that IF Brazil don't start building the new stadiums until they've already 'won' the 2014 finals bid, then they will be left with approx. 6 years to actually build the dozen stadiums required. Baring in mind how long it's taken to get Wembley up, I'd worry about one country (any country to be honest) trying to complete the construction of a dozen stadiums, all with over 40k seats, in that period of time.

Weebie

September 24th, 2006, 03:38 AM

There is now way Brazil or South America will host the FIFA World Cup in 2014. Don't get me wrong i would love to have it there and visit brazil but there is no way that FIFA will have two of its showpiece events in a row hosted by 3rd world countries. Brazil will never build the infrastrucuture to host a World Cup. It will go to europe probably England or Spain.

daloso

September 24th, 2006, 08:53 PM

daloso

September 24th, 2006, 08:55 PM

I guess i would be great to host a world cup in AUSTRALIA.

daloso

September 24th, 2006, 08:57 PM

Sorry it would be great(excuse me for the misspelling)

Benjuk

September 25th, 2006, 01:06 AM

Sorry to get into this FIFA conversation ,but actually as far as i know Brazil has plenty 40k's stadiums so,apologies for my ignorance:Two questions comes to mind
1.Wouldn't be better to remodel instead of build new ones??
2.What are the minimum FIFA requirements(for stadiums)to hold a WORLD CUP?

Basic FIFA requirements for World Cup... 12 stadiums with 40k seats, no more than 2 per city. Brazilian stadia would struggle top be remodelled because of the rake of the stands (needs to be steeper for seats than for standing) and safety access (as per one of the posts above).

Benjuk

September 25th, 2006, 01:09 AM

I guess i would be great to host a world cup in AUSTRALIA.

We haven't got the facilities either. 9 stadia max - 7 of them not ideally suited to football. Can't see anyone over here building 5 or 6 football stadiums with sufficient capacity as even the best supported clubs here only get average crowds of around 18-20k.

schmidt

September 25th, 2006, 01:19 AM

C'mon, I don't see why FIFA would see problems in bringing the WC to Brazil as they've already put South Africa as hosts and Mexico twice. I think they trust us. And cmon, football is a South American and European thing, the last WC in South America was in 1978 in Argentina, I think by 2014 it will be much about time to have it back down here.

daloso

September 25th, 2006, 06:10 AM

Well,i hope Brazil will be ready to host WC2014.

Weebie

September 25th, 2006, 06:50 AM

Harkeb

September 25th, 2006, 07:06 AM

:stupid: keep your stupid ill informed comments to yourself.
Brazil deserves the World Cup, and so does Argentina. South Africa WILL stage the most spectacular world cup in 2010, and no doomsayers will stop it. The white West should stop their idiotic thinking that non-white countries cannot handle big events. Why would events in South Africa affect Brazil's chance of hosting a WC in 2014? Please explain how you came to that stupid conclusion? - your typical white man rationale. We won't need little white Australia or Europe to 'come to the rescue'. Australia has become way to arrogant, since staging the 2000 Olympics. Its a laugh to even suggest that they could hold a WC with such a small population who has no interest in soccer. They'd probably fill the stadiums with Kangaroos..pardon..socceroos. Your help is and will not be needed, thank you.

Iggui

September 25th, 2006, 07:15 AM

The World Cup won't be in South America. Unfornuetly Brazil are going to be a victim of South Africas piss poor preparation and politics which will force FIFA to take it back to europe to improve the tournaments reputation after expected half empty stadiums at 2010 World Cup.

what a crock! how can you even compare south africa to brazil when it comes to football, preparedness, or attendance. brazil with the surrounding south american countries themselves could more than fill the stadiums for a world cup without any europeans attending.

that said, even if brazil should stumble and not be awarded the 2014 world cup (or if fifa sees it fit to take it away from them after the fact) fifa has said in such a case the world cup will be awarded to another south american or north american country (ie, NOT europe). in such a case, the most prepared country would seem to be the USA, or perhaps mexico. the '94 world cup was a huge financial success and fifa would not turn down a chance to have the US host it again.

the idea had been floated earlier that chile and argentina could co-host the world cup (briefly encouraged by blatter, in a bid to keep brazil from being complacent about their candidacy) but this was before argentina's economic meltdown and both countries officially support brazil's candidacy. however, i read recently in an argentine newspaper that, with their improving economy, they are once again studying the possibility of bidding for the world cup (without chile).

Its AlL gUUd

September 26th, 2006, 01:21 AM

I think the Brazil bid should be challenged by other candidates in South America so that they would up their game and not be complacent, i can see that the Brazilian preparations will follow similar doubts to that of South Africas. Although i hope both world cups to be a success.

However im getting the feeling that 2014 may not go to South America after all.

Sparks

September 26th, 2006, 02:19 AM

It would be real a surprise if it did go to South America in 2014. The last two world cups have raised the bar in terms of infrastructure and stadiums, everyone was world class. Brazil or Argentina have to be able to match or at least get very close to the quality of world cups we have recently seen and that is almost an impossible task for either of them to do. If England or Australia were to come in and bid, unless they are ruled out for their location they simply wouldn't lose to any South American country.

Weebie

September 26th, 2006, 02:35 AM

what a crock! how can you even compare south africa to brazil when it comes to football, preparedness, or attendance. brazil with the surrounding south american countries themselves could more than fill the stadiums for a world cup without any europeans attending.

that said, even if brazil should stumble and not be awarded the 2014 world cup (or if fifa sees it fit to take it away from them after the fact) fifa has said in such a case the world cup will be awarded to another south american or north american country (ie, NOT europe). in such a case, the most prepared country would seem to be the USA, or perhaps mexico. the '94 world cup was a huge financial success and fifa would not turn down a chance to have the US host it again.

the idea had been floated earlier that chile and argentina could co-host the world cup (briefly encouraged by blatter, in a bid to keep brazil from being complacent about their candidacy) but this was before argentina's economic meltdown and both countries officially support brazil's candidacy. however, i read recently in an argentine newspaper that, with their improving economy, they are once again studying the possibility of bidding for the world cup (without chile).

FIFA didn't say that.

The South Africans on thsi forum can crap all they want about there world cup but FIFA right now don't share the same feelings as them and are concerned greatly.

Benjuk

September 26th, 2006, 04:52 AM

FIFA didn't say that.

The South Africans on thsi forum can crap all they want about there world cup but FIFA right now don't share the same feelings as them and are concerned greatly.

Who is your contact at FIFA? How come you seem to KNOW things which have not been publically stated?

FACT - FIFA have stated that the world cup should be played in circuits of three - Europe and South America (as the traditional homes of football), then one of the other federations (in 2010 - Africa). Meaning the sequence will be something like...

2010 Africa (South Africa )
2014 South America (Brazil?)
2018 Europe (England or Spain)
2022 Asia/Africa/North America
2026 South America
2030 Europe
Etc.

That said, money obsessed FIFA were talking about going to every two years during the 2002 finals... So who knows what might happen.

Its AlL gUUd

September 26th, 2006, 06:52 PM

South Ameica would not be able to host the world cup as often as Europe, so once again fifa's "circuit of three" is a sham.

matherto

September 26th, 2006, 08:43 PM

Iggui

September 26th, 2006, 09:05 PM

South Ameica would not be able to host the world cup as often as Europe, so once again fifa's "circuit of three" is a sham.
the term "south america" should be understood to mean "the americas", meaning north and south america. historically, the world cup has always alternated between europe and the americas, both north (mexico, usa) and south (uruguay, argentina, brazil, chile, colombia--changed to mexico).

i think you are correct in that south america by itself could not host the cup that often, but the hemisphere itself could easily continue to host the world cup as it had done in the past.

that said, i also agree that fifa's rotating system is a sham.

Iggui

September 26th, 2006, 09:26 PM

FIFA didn't say that.

The South Africans on thsi forum can crap all they want about there world cup but FIFA right now don't share the same feelings as them and are concerned greatly.
Toughguy, this is what Joseph Blatter said on April 13, 2006, in reference to Brazil hosting the 2014 World Cup, in a widely circulated news article. There were threads relating to this article here on SSC:

"I am not a prophet. But if the conditions are not met, the World Cup will probably be moved to North America,".
source: http://english.people.com.cn/200604/14/eng20060414_258379.html

jamesinclair

September 27th, 2006, 05:30 AM

Here are a few pics I took in Arena da baixada

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/jamesinclair/IMG_0908.jpg

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/jamesinclair/IMG_0949.jpg

And heres one of the many other stadi in the city of Curitiba

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/jamesinclair/IMG_4886.jpg

The stadium that hosted the 1950 world cup is still around, and was recently remodeled. It holds 16,000.

AcesHigh

October 4th, 2006, 04:25 PM

Arena da Baixada (Kyocera Arena) now and how it will be for the 2014 World Cup
http://www.estadiosvirtuais.hpg.ig.com.br/baixada.jpg
http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/south_america/brazil/parana/curitiba_guimaraes1.jpg
http://www.furacao.com/multimidia/papeldeparede/arena_1024.jpg
http://www.xikaumphotos.xpg.com.br/kyocera1.JPG
http://www.xikaumphotos.xpg.com.br/kyocera2.JPG
http://www.xikaumphotos.xpg.com.br/kyocera3.JPG
http://www.xikaumphotos.xpg.com.br/kyocera4.JPG

TEBC

October 5th, 2006, 05:31 PM

world class stadium

skaP187

October 5th, 2006, 06:36 PM

Not bad at all, what will the cap be?

Sparks

October 5th, 2006, 08:30 PM

----

Sparks

October 5th, 2006, 08:32 PM

double post.

Sparks

October 5th, 2006, 08:36 PM

world class stadium

I wouldn't go that far, excellent by South American standards, but not world class. The stadium itself is the sort of ground that appears everywhere in Europe. The restaurants and bars will be great, but that doesn't actually add to the stadium itself. Brazil are going to need at least another 7 of these though plus three major venues of 60,000 plus, will they be able to do that?

skaP187

October 6th, 2006, 11:28 AM

yes they will!!!

jamesinclair

October 10th, 2006, 06:07 AM

Not bad at all, what will the cap be?

Its currently around 25,000, and when fully built it will hold 40,000, the required amount for a Libertadores final.

Although I doubt that screen will ever be installed. I dont know of any stadium in brasil that has one

Durbsboi

October 10th, 2006, 09:34 AM

FIFA didn't say that.

The South Africans on thsi forum can crap all they want about there world cup but FIFA right now don't share the same feelings as them and are concerned greatly.

DWeebie, you still at it, I want you to be here in 2010, so you can see what a spectacular event we WILL stage. Then I want you to eat your shit! :toilet: Because since we started the SA 2010 thread you only had negative things to say about 2010, & you are right , you are intitled to your opinion, but sometimes you take it too far. The way you speak about FIFA, like his your "homey, pal, best friend". FIFA is a freeken organisation thats made up of many people, some may not like the idea of SA hosting 2010, but majority do like the idea, hence they voted for us to host it. So tough luck, FIFA sent a member from Germany 2006 to help us prepare for 2010, he reported back to FIFA stating that we have done ALOT & WE ARE ON TRACK for 2010.

Regarding Brazil, they have the infastructure, they have the weather & the most deff have the supporter's, all thats needed is abit touching up on the stadiums to get them up to date with all the hi tech stuff.

The Game Is Up

December 7th, 2006, 12:34 AM

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/SPORT/football/12/06/fifa.worldcup.reut/

Brazil 2014 World Cup no formality

POSTED: 1946 GMT (0346 HKT), December 6, 2006

ZURICH, Switzerland (Reuters) -- Brazil's staging of the 2014 World Cup is not a foregone conclusion despite a commitment to rotating future tournaments around the continental confederations, FIFA president Sepp Blatter said on Wednesday.

"We have said that the 2014 World Cup will be staged in South America, but if there is no candidate strong enough then we would go north instead as the logical thing," Blatter told a media conference following a two-day meeting of FIFA's executive committee.

"We took the decision to ask South America's 10 associations if they wanted to organize the World Cup and now nine of them have come out in favor of Brazil. But Brazil would still have to undergo the same scrutiny as previous bids.

"The bar has been set very high after the last World Cup (in Germany) and if the only candidate from South America were not to fulfil the requirements then we would go beyond South America."

The 2010 World Cup will take place in South Africa.

Blatter said he was confident that South Africa would be ready to stage the tournament despite concerns over delays in the building of new stadiums.

"We need to bring a little bit of fire (to the organizers)," Blatter said. "But I am confident that everything will be ready on time."

South Africa 2010 chief executive Danny Jordaan said the local organizing committee planned to have five stadiums ready by December 2008 for use at the 2009 Confederations Cup.

He said the remaining five stadiums would be finished by October 2009.

With the exception of Cape Town's stadium, which is involved in a planning dispute, Jordaan said building work was expected to be under way on all sites by the first quarter of 2007.

The executive committee has now finalized the dates for the World Cup finals which will take place between June 11 and July 11, 2010.

It also confirmed that the allocation of World Cup places to the continental confederations would remain the same as for the 2006 World Cup with 13 qualifying places available for European nations and five available to African countries.

Africa will receive an additional sixth place, however, with South Africa receiving an automatic spot as hosts.

Asia and Oceania will again share five qualifying slots while the two American confederations will receive a total of eight places.

bruin787

December 7th, 2006, 02:14 AM

has argentina said anything?

Benjuk

December 7th, 2006, 04:37 AM

Argentina originally supported the Brazilian bid, but have recently indicated that they may put in a bid of their own.

GRGM

December 7th, 2006, 05:54 AM

Although I doubt that screen will ever be installed. I dont know of any stadium in brasil that has one

I know that Pacaembu (São Paulo) and Vila Belmiro (Santos) have those big screens (obviously they aren't so good as the render's big screen)! But I don't know why they never show the live transmission of the match! :(

AcesHigh

December 7th, 2006, 07:28 AM

Its currently around 25,000, and when fully built it will hold 40,000, the required amount for a Libertadores final.

Although I doubt that screen will ever be installed. I dont know of any stadium in brasil that has one

40 thousand is the required amount for World Cup matches (excluding opening and closing games, as well as semi finals and 3rd place match... these require at least 60 thousand of capacity)

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 8th, 2006, 11:52 PM

USA has more debt than Brazil. There is hardly starvation in Brazil. A large % of the population is actually fat.

Yes, many clubs are unable to pay their lowly paid professional footballers. But Brazil has about 2000 PROFESSIONAL football clubs. The 20 largest clubs in the country DO PAY their professional footballers and pay them well (most players in the first division earn over $30k per month and drive around in bmws and mercedes)

Whats the PROBLEM of investing in new football stadiums?? Brazil built several of them for the 1950 World Cup, including the largest and most modern stadiums in the world back then. And after the 1950 World Cup, several brazilian clubs built BIG modern private stadiums with their own money.

So next time, shut up instead of spewing your bullshit around! :bash: :bash:

Aces high I agree with you Brazil is hardly in a debt situation and hardly starving . I was in recife, salvador and rio last november and Brazil is fine.
Would not the new athletics stadium for the 2007 pan american games qualify. It is supposed to have the crowd totally covered. Then new stadium you showed is fantastic as well. Then you have Maracana and that was renvoated in 2002 I believe. Brazil certainly doesnt look like it will lose the grand prix of brazil unlike some european countries and formula one is an expensive venture to hold on to. Indianapolis almost lost the uS grand prix with bernie eccelstone eying las vegas.

Considering brazil is not importing oil for energy because of its use of homegrowth ethenol brazil is in great sahpe compared to decades ago .
Argentina would be a country I would be concerned about in saouth america in regards to their finances but not poverty.

Brazil I would love to go back to anytime and feel perfectly safe in .

jim jones

TEBC

December 9th, 2006, 01:29 PM

Aces, qta gente ignorante aqui... o melhor é que já são um bando de burros, se assistirem ainda aquele filme Turists aí que eles ficarao mais alienados!

Mo Rush

December 9th, 2006, 09:11 PM

Who is your contact at FIFA? How come you seem to KNOW things which have not been publically stated?

FACT - FIFA have stated that the world cup should be played in circuits of three - Europe and South America (as the traditional homes of football), then one of the other federations (in 2010 - Africa). Meaning the sequence will be something like...

2010 Africa (South Africa )
2014 South America (Brazil?)
2018 Europe (England or Spain)
2022 Asia/Africa/North America
2026 South America
2030 Europe
Etc.

That said, money obsessed FIFA were talking about going to every two years during the 2002 finals... So who knows what might happen.

weebie occassionally blurts out rubbish. its best to ignore him.

Calvin W

December 10th, 2006, 02:48 AM

My source is a little different.

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 England
2022 England
2026 England
2030 England
etc.etc.etc.

NavyBlue

December 10th, 2006, 02:54 AM

My source is a little different.

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 England
2022 England
2026 England
2030 England
etc.etc.etc.
:lol:

It would be a tragedy to ignore the spititual home of football for so long...

Príncipe

December 10th, 2006, 01:27 PM

Aces, qta gente ignorante aqui... o melhor é que já são um bando de burros, se assistirem ainda aquele filme Turists aí que eles ficarao mais alienados!

Translating : Aces, do you see how many people are stupid here?....the good part is that they are already a bunch of dumbs and if they watch that movie called "Turistas" , then they will become more lunatic !

Don't worry Legal, I will not charge the translation. :)

Benjuk

December 10th, 2006, 01:32 PM

My source is a little different.

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 England
2022 England
2026 England
2030 England
etc.etc.etc.

Surely by proportional representation of the peoples on here it should be...

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 England
2022 Australia
2026 England
2030 Australia
etc.

Calvin W

December 12th, 2006, 02:15 AM

Surely by proportional representation of the peoples on here it should be...

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 England
2022 Australia
2026 England
2030 Australia
etc.

You have a different source than I do.:lol:

Mo Rush

December 12th, 2006, 11:33 PM

Surely by proportional representation of the peoples on here it should be...

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 England
2022 Australia
2026 England
2030 Australia
etc.

2010 South Africa
2014 England
2018 Brazil&Argentina
2022 Australia
2026 Egypt&Morrocco

yes yes i know where FIFA stands on binational bids but its just an idea.

hngcm

December 13th, 2006, 03:05 AM

jamesinclair?

from GS?

AJ215

December 13th, 2006, 03:17 AM

The Game Is Up

December 13th, 2006, 04:03 AM

Finally! We will soon know whether they have the ability and will to achieve this and not have to speculate based on flimsy information and hearsay.

The feet are being put to the fire, as the expression goes.

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 14th, 2006, 01:50 PM

Brazil to present bid to host 2014 Cup on Wednesday
Posted 12/12/2006 3:08 PM ET E-mail | Save | Print | Subscribe to stories like this

RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — Brazil will officially declare its candidacy to host the 2014 World Cup on Wednesday, the Brazilian Football Confederation said Tuesday.
Confederation President Ricardo Teixeira will present Brazil's bid to FIFA at 11 a.m. local time in Tokyo, Japan, where the many FIFA officials have gathered for the Club World Cup.

As part of FIFA's continental rotation policy, the 2014 championship is set for South America. The 2010 Cup is scheduled for South Africa.

Brazil, the only five-time winner of the World Cup, may be the only candidate and is widely considered a favorite to host the 2014 tournament. The only World Cup Brazil staged was in 1950, when it was widely favored but lost 2-1 to Uruguay in the final.

However, Brazil must meet a series of requirements from FIFA regarding quality and capacity of stadiums, hotels and transportation. If Brazil fails to meet the requirements, Canada and the United States may be possible candidates.

FIFA's executive committee is to announce the host of the 2014 Cup in November.

Well Canada I cant see at all . THere are just not the stadiums and there never will be for the specs that Fifa would want. I beleive we also have a bid on a lower age class fifa world championship U19 of U17. If they were coming to north america it would be the united states or mexico .

I think Brazil could do it and do it very well . Pan AM games prep looks good and the new athletics stadium in Rio looks like it can be expanded for capacity at the ends. YEs you have to have more then 3 stadia but brazil could justify after games use where as a canada could not .

Martuh

December 14th, 2006, 05:29 PM

Well Canada I cant see at all . THere are just not the stadiums and there never will be for the specs that Fifa would want. I beleive we also have a bid on a lower age class fifa world championship U19 of U17. If they were coming to north america it would be the united states or mexico .

I think Brazil could do it and do it very well . Pan AM games prep looks good and the new athletics stadium in Rio looks like it can be expanded for capacity at the ends. YEs you have to have more then 3 stadia but brazil could justify after games use where as a canada could not .

1) Mexico already hosted it 2 times.
2) US hosted it 12 years ago.
3) So Canada would have the best papers.
4) Or perhaps Argentina, Brazil's greatest rivals, would be willing to meet FIFA standards.

skaP187

December 14th, 2006, 05:55 PM

skaP187

December 14th, 2006, 06:00 PM

Colombia has 4 (old and ugly) stadiums above 40 000 and one new to be build I see on worldstadiums.com

skaP187

December 14th, 2006, 06:06 PM

Venezuela has about 7 stadiums above 40 000 from 2007, a lot with atletic tracks but in 2007 they will have better stadiums then Brazil!

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 15th, 2006, 05:29 PM

1) Mexico already hosted it 2 times.
2) US hosted it 12 years ago.
3) So Canada would have the best papers.
4) Or perhaps Argentina, Brazil's greatest rivals, would be willing to meet FIFA standards.

Well to the canada thing again you are only have purpose built stadia for soccer and those are only about 25,000 in size all the Canadina grid iron football stadiums would have to have large amounts of retrofit to have Fifa. The canadian football league has field turf man made surface for pretty much every stadium of the 10 stadia. 4 stadia are 50,000 seats or more. the rest are from 30,000 to 40,000 seats. with the exception of rogers centre, the olympic stadium and bc place none have roofs over the audiences and most designs for canadian stadia would not be able to be renofited for that requirement.

In canada It really is something that people watch on a speciality sports channels and do not support the local leagues yet.

America you do have a great deal of support and corporate weigh that can be put into a bid for a world cup. America is the golden market for both fifa and formual one to crack for TV rights.

Canada is very minimual commerical value for the FIFA people IMHO

IMPÉRIO-BR

December 15th, 2006, 05:42 PM

2010 South Africa
2014 England
2018 Brazil&Argentina
2022 Australia
2026 Egypt&Morrocco

yes yes i know where FIFA stands on binational bids but its just an idea.

:rofl: :)

Mo Rush

December 15th, 2006, 05:58 PM

:rofl: :)

Funny because??...brazil might not be able to cope, we'll see if it meets FIFA standards. or funny because argentina can't co-host?

HERMOSILLENSE

December 15th, 2006, 06:21 PM

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 China
2022 Canada
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay
2034 Europe

AcesHigh

December 15th, 2006, 07:39 PM

Funny because??...brazil might not be able to cope, we'll see if it meets FIFA standards. or funny because argentina can't co-host?

its funny because its the same as France and England co-hosting it. Or Iran and USA!

There is a long rivalry between Brazil and Argentina. Even large in football!

Calvin W

December 15th, 2006, 10:54 PM

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 China
2022 Canada
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay
2034 Europe

It is so funny that people think Canada should host or even bid for the World Cup.
Thoses of us here can tell you the demand for this is not here. Not now maybe never. Yes thousands of kids are playing it at the junior level, but this doesn't translate to the support needed to host this event. Maybe long term it might be feasible, but that would be 2050 at the earliest.

I have to agree with Jim Jones on this one.

kinggeorge

December 16th, 2006, 12:08 AM

the only way i see canada having a chance in 2014 is if its a joint bid with usa but why would the usa do that and second if the nfl bought out the cfl because theres one mls team and bye 2014 probably 5 or 6 but could they support 50-80 000 seat stadiums nooo but if the nfl came and boughtout all the cfl teams then there would eb the infrastructure, as of now i do not see it as a economically viable option for us in canada to host the worldcup..we have a new stadium in toronto being built its less than 30000 people

IMPÉRIO-BR

December 16th, 2006, 12:36 AM

Funny because??...brazil might not be able to cope, we'll see if it meets FIFA standards. or funny because argentina can't co-host?

:rofl:

kamilo

December 16th, 2006, 03:25 AM

Is Colombia not an option, they would have hosted '86 if it wasn't for some vulcano eruption or something and Venezuela with all their new stadiums for the South America championship, they have got a lot of stadiums which will be ready for sure!
Or did they accept cashmoney on forhand?

here is your answer.

Colombia bids for 2014 World Cup

Could Valderrama see the World Cup back in his home nation of Colombia?
Colombia has surprisingly joined the race to host the World Cup when it returns to South America in 2014.
The South American Federation (Conmebol) had put forward Brazil as the sole applicant, but Colombia intends to challenge their bid.

Colombian president Alvaro Uribe said: "I think Colombia is capable of hosting a football World Cup. I'm sure we will achieve it and will do it very well."

The country was awarded the 1986 event but withdrew with Mexico stepping in.

Uribe made the announcement at the Central and Caribbean Games, which are being held in Colombia, and has now put his vice-president Francisco Santos in charge of the project.

In 2003, Fifa president Sepp Blatter announced the 2014 World Cup would be staged in South America following the 2010 tournament in South Africa.

However, a candidate has not yet been chosen and Blatter has suggested Argentina and Chile could provide some competition to Brazil by submitting a joint bid.

Blatter has already criticised Brazil's stadiums and infrastructure but Colombia has its own political problems associated with rebel factions and drug cartels.

Colombia was not able to stage the World Cup 20 years ago because of financial problems and increased violence

Benjuk

December 18th, 2006, 05:46 AM

2010 South Africa
2014 Brazil
2018 China
2022 Canada
2026 Australia
2030 Uruguay
2034 Europe

28 years between European tournaments? Three Americas tournaments between Euro comps? Having a laugh, aren't we?

From Soccernet...

YOKOHAMA, Dec 17 (Reuters) - FIFA president Sepp Blatter warned Brazil on Sunday that there were several other countries in line to host the 2014 World Cup if their bid was not up to scratch.

Brazil formally submitted a bid to FIFA for the 2014 finals this week, hoping to bring the tournament to the country for the first time since 1950.

The 2014 World Cup is scheduled to take place in South America as part of FIFA's rotation policy and Brazil's bid is expected to be the only one from the region.

But critics say only one Brazilian stadium, the Arena da Baixada in Curitiba, is in good enough condition to host a World Cup finals match.

There are also serious concerns over public safety and transport.

'There are so many countries on the starting blocks to organise a World Cup - both in that region and out of that region,' Blatter told reporters.

'I'm sure Brazil are doing everything possible to get the 2014 World Cup. We have not yet heard from the other countries in South America to see if Brazil's is not the only bid.'

Blatter said last week that if a South American bid fell short of FIFA's requirements the 2014 tournament could be 'moved north.'

But the FIFA chief even floated the idea of taking the competition back to Asia in the event of a botched bid from South America.

'We have not yet decided the rotation of the World Cup after 2014,' Blatter told reporters in Yokohama before Sunday's Club World Cup final.

'Do we say America is one continent? Because CONCACAF are a FIFA confederation too. We could even come back to Asia - though Japan and South korea hosted the 2002 World Cup.'

FIFA will announce the host of the finals next November. The next World Cup will be in South Africa in 2010.

Once again, I suspect that England and the USA's ability to host at short notice will be used to 'incentivise' a Brazilian bid.

mr.x

December 18th, 2006, 06:18 AM

I remember reading articles a few years ago that stated FIFA was giving Canada so many of its smaller competitions because they're testing the waters for a World Cup. And so far, all of the competitions have been successful.

nyrmetros

December 18th, 2006, 07:35 AM

As an American, I love our Candian neighbors...... but will FIFA ignore all those new NFL stadiums and corporate $$ the US has ?

Gerardogt

December 18th, 2006, 07:40 AM

Chile ando Argentina can host the 2014 world cup too, or can be like in 2002; a world cup organized by 2 countries, in this case, can be organized by Argentina and Chile.

28 years between European tournaments? Three Americas tournaments between Euro comps? Having a laugh, aren't we?

From Soccernet...

YOKOHAMA, Dec 17 (Reuters) - FIFA president Sepp Blatter warned Brazil on Sunday that there were several other countries in line to host the 2014 World Cup if their bid was not up to scratch.

Brazil formally submitted a bid to FIFA for the 2014 finals this week, hoping to bring the tournament to the country for the first time since 1950.

The 2014 World Cup is scheduled to take place in South America as part of FIFA's rotation policy and Brazil's bid is expected to be the only one from the region.

But critics say only one Brazilian stadium, the Arena da Baixada in Curitiba, is in good enough condition to host a World Cup finals match.

There are also serious concerns over public safety and transport.

'There are so many countries on the starting blocks to organise a World Cup - both in that region and out of that region,' Blatter told reporters.

'I'm sure Brazil are doing everything possible to get the 2014 World Cup. We have not yet heard from the other countries in South America to see if Brazil's is not the only bid.'

Blatter said last week that if a South American bid fell short of FIFA's requirements the 2014 tournament could be 'moved north.'

But the FIFA chief even floated the idea of taking the competition back to Asia in the event of a botched bid from South America.

'We have not yet decided the rotation of the World Cup after 2014,' Blatter told reporters in Yokohama before Sunday's Club World Cup final.

'Do we say America is one continent? Because CONCACAF are a FIFA confederation too. We could even come back to Asia - though Japan and South korea hosted the 2002 World Cup.'

FIFA will announce the host of the finals next November. The next World Cup will be in South Africa in 2010.

Once again, I suspect that England and the USA's ability to host at short notice will be used to 'incentivise' a Brazilian bid.

hngcm

December 18th, 2006, 09:16 AM

I dont think Chile and Argentina have a better chance than Brazil...

AcesHigh

December 19th, 2006, 01:11 AM

As an American, I love our Candian neighbors...... but will FIFA ignore all those new NFL stadiums and corporate $$ the US has ?

American new soccer stadiums are low capacity. To host a World Cup match, a stadium needs at least 40 thousand seats.

As for american football stadiums, they usually have wrong pitch dimensions. The USA World Cup got strong criticism from players and federations because of the pitch grass and dimensions... (too long and not wide pitches!)

daloso

December 19th, 2006, 04:54 AM

I think if Brazil could not handle the WC 2014,maybe the USA will host it??

rantanamo

December 19th, 2006, 08:35 AM

American new soccer stadiums are low capacity. To host a World Cup match, a stadium needs at least 40 thousand seats.

As for american football stadiums, they usually have wrong pitch dimensions. The USA World Cup got strong criticism from players and federations because of the pitch grass and dimensions... (too long and not wide pitches!)

FIFA World Cup required dimensions:
105 x 68 m

University of Phoenix Stadium field:
122.8 x 71.3 m

Invesco Field(rapids playing field, doesn't include whole field tray)
106 x 68

Many US stadiums host international Friendlies and have retractable stands at the bottom of the first tier. It should also be pointed out that likely none of the World Cup '94 stadiums would be used in a 2014 World Cup.

The Game Is Up

December 19th, 2006, 10:23 AM

You have to watch what UEFA does. When push comes to shove, they don't want to face the prospect of playing against Brazil or Argentina in the final, for they would be at a big disadvantage. I can't say I agree but this is what I think they may be thinking. They may start to think that Colombia would be a choice they can live it?

Now how would Colombia work? Simple. They get billions in infrastructure funds from the EU, to build hotels, make the grounds look decent, etc.. Also, they save in travel distances, something that is a problem for Brazil. Colombia does have a problem with altitude, though.

After UEFA, the other federation to watch is CONCACAF.

Pule

December 19th, 2006, 10:51 AM

I go for Brazil for 2014, they will host a very succesfull world cup and they need to do is to build proper stadium of which I don't think it will be a problem.

SOUTH AFRICA supports Brazil 2014

nomarandlee

December 19th, 2006, 11:51 AM

I think if Brazil could not handle the WC 2014,maybe the USA will host it??

Even though as an American it would be cool to host the event again I hope Brasil could pull it off. Keeping the event away from such a large soccer passionate country just seems unfortunate. It would be real cool seeing Brasilian fans going nuts and so enthusastic all over Brasils great cities for the cup.

The US and UK will be used as a threat over such bids for awhile to come. Its a big tawdry and ugly to basically use them as a threat for countries but I guess its just the reality of the day. When the UK and US could plan and hold the event in the matter of months it gives FIFA leverage for better or worse.

Mo Rush

December 19th, 2006, 01:30 PM

I go for Brazil for 2014, they will host a very succesfull world cup and they need to do is to build proper stadium of which I don't think it will be a problem.

SOUTH AFRICA supports Brazil 2014

I support a Brazil World Cup, but I would also support England 2014 if Brazil want to host 2018 instead.

Benjuk

December 19th, 2006, 03:06 PM

I'd like Brazil to get 2014 because, if nothing else, it's insane that a nation that keeps winning the title hasn't hosted the tournament for so long.

December 19th, 2006, 03:34 PM

Stadiums Brazil

Mangueirão: Pará (54.600)
http://mavalem.sites.uol.com.br/pa/Mangueirao3.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/6/85872209_d24367e253_o.jpg

Maracanã: 100.000 peoples - the biggest stadium in the world
http://k43.pbase.com/o4/79/532679/1/60558142.Rio99.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/112/302254909_8d19b0c629_o.jpg
http://www.culturabrasil.pro.br/maracana.jpg

Morumbi: São Paulo (75.000)
http://www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif
http://static.flickr.com/36/102855339_009b252eaa_o.jpg

Beira Rio - Porto Alegre (58.000)
http://www.tetrabrazil.com/images/tours/tours_beira_rio.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/21/32437536_9a54dad3c3_o.jpg

Mineirão - Belo Horizonte (81.000)
http://static.flickr.com/52/185901914_27b3941e1b.jpg?v=0
http://www.braziltour.com/site/arquivos/imagens/destinos/belo_horizonte/grande/mineirao_03.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/137/317348501_bc8626f8d5_o.jpg

Fonte Nova - Bahia (68.000)
http://static.flickr.com/23/24431319_7efcfb77c1_o.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Fonte_Nova_A3.jpg

Engenhão: Rio de Janeiro (Stadium Pan-American Games - 2007)
http://www.racional.com/imagens/todas/atualidades/Obras/17_319.jpg

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 19th, 2006, 07:26 PM

well LP with a Estádio Olímpico João Havelange 45,000 seat modern stadium in rio for the pan am games next year with expansion provisions . Salvador is building a modern 32,000 seat Soccer Stadium which I would think would have expansion provisions and two other centres in brazil with similair plans it looks like to me that Brazil is preparing for the bid. The only south american country with so much construction of stadiums as of this year is Venezuela. Could Venezuela pull it off I dont know.

You have to also remember that 2002 Maracana was updated with a renovations that brought the capacity down. Was the primary concern with Host stadiums that there be only crowds in seats and no standing room terraces ????
Maracana by those great pictures has seemed to eliminated standing room .
To have a new stadium named after the Brazilian Native and president of Fifa from 1974 to 1998 João Havelange speaks volumes.

I am sure these stadiums and the one shown here are part of greater plans.

Juanca1379

December 19th, 2006, 07:34 PM

not yet brazil,colombia is candidate as well for 2014 between this two country fifa will choice which will host for the WC.

Patasalada

December 19th, 2006, 07:52 PM

Ive heard that if SouthAmerica doesnt match the requeriments.North America has to take it right? Mexico, US, Canadá..they all have good stadiums..but Mexico has the best fans...

3SPIRES

December 19th, 2006, 09:09 PM

The Maracana is not the biggest stadium in the world there must be about half a dozen bigger. What are the Columbian stadiums like?

Oh and terracing is not allowed in world cups.

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 19th, 2006, 09:13 PM

not yet brazil,colombia is candidate as well for 2014 between this two country fifa will choice which will host for the WC.

Well considering that columbia had to give up it hosting duties to mexico after they were awarded and Brazil actually hosted in 1950 you have some history there. The safe bet would be Brazil. The only economy for stability I can think of in South America better then Brazil would be Chile. The Prospect of hosting a final in a National Stadium which the political opponents of Augusto Pinochet where gathered for torture in 1973 and some disappearing forever is a very interesting venue. Of course Fifa used the Nazi Albert Spear concieved and designed 1936 olympic stadium this year for the FIFA world cup.

Columbia would have to get on a building phase right now to catch up with Brazils contruction of new stadia. The new construction in brazil doesnt mean they will win the bid It just makes it more likely they will win a bid next year iMHO. A Brazilian politician I have read is to have said they need 12 new stadia to host. Considering a couple are under construction and renovated old er stadia have been used recently it is certainly possible they could pull it off.

Columbia's first hosting failure might be a kin to Denver Colorado biding on the winter olympics in 2018. One bitten twice shy may prevail in both cases .
Columbia and Denvers. Denver in case you dont know was awarded the 1976 winter olympics and then threw it back the IOC when the citizens rejected further funding the games.

kamilo

December 19th, 2006, 09:50 PM

It's Colombia not Columbia. Yes even in English!!!!

Colombia would have to build all the stadiums necessary to host the WC if it gets it. im almost sure FIFA is going to give Brasil the 2014 WC.

3SPIRES

December 19th, 2006, 10:06 PM

If you're going to be like that Brasil is spelt Brazil in English!:cheers:

December 19th, 2006, 10:19 PM

Azteca is the biggest stadium (soccer) in the world?
What's capacity?

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 19th, 2006, 10:56 PM

Azteca is the biggest stadium (soccer) in the world?
What's capacity?

actually LP heres a list and it surprized me that azteca is not the world's largest soccer stadium. A stadium in calcutta india actually is the largest.
Maracana has gone down to just 77,743 with the placement of seats. All the
Football(soccer) Stadia are in bold print. With the removal of terracing standing room Maracana I would think fits Fifa Standards it might be questionable in regards to roof over the entire crowd area. The Berlin Olympic Stadium certainly solved that with a fabric roof for this years Fifa WC.What other modifications had to be made to Berlin olympic stadium I am not sure of but that stadium is atleast 14 years older then maracana.

As to columbia they have stadia about the age of most brazillian stadia but nothing much above 40,000.

Indianapolis Speedway 250 000 1909 all-seater
Horse-Racing use Tokyo Tokyo Racecourse 223 000 1933 13 750
Shanghai Shanghai Int'l Circuit 200 000 2004 all-seater
Daytona Beach Daytona Int'l Speedway 168 000 1959 all-seater
Concord Lowe's Motor Speedway 167 000 1959 all-seater
Chiba Nakayama Racecourse 165 676 1990 15 944
Bristol Bristol Motor Speedway 160 000 1961 all-seater
Istanbul Istanbul Park 155 000 2005 35 000
Fort Worth Texas Motor Speedway 154 861 1997 all-seater
Pyöngyang Rungnado May Day Stadium 150 000 1989 all-seater Nürburg Nürburgring 150 000 1927 all-seater
Talladega Talladega Superspeedway 143 000 1969 all-seater
Dover Dover Int'l Speedway 140 000 1969 all-seater
Las Vegas Las Vegas Motor Speedway 140 000 1996 all-seater Hanshin Racecourse 139 877 1991 12 603
Monza Autodromo di Monza 137 000 1922 77 000
Brooklyn Michigan Int'l Speedway 136 373 1968 all-seater
Corby Rockingham Speedway 130 000 2001 all-seater
Melbourne Flemington Racecourse 130 000 1927 -
Silverstone Silverstone Circuit 125 000 1948 60 000
Hampton Atlanta Motor Speedway 124 000 1997 all-seater
Calcutta Saltlake Stadium 120 000 1984 all-seater
Kyoto Kyoto Racecourse 120 000 1999 28 000
Hockenheimring 120 000 1932 all-seater
Klettwitz EuroSpeedway Lausitz 120 000 2000 25 000
Cheste Circuit Ricardo Tormo 120 000 2000 60 000
Louisville Churchill Downs 120 000 1895 48 500
Mexico City Estadio Azteca 114 465 1966 all-seater
Ann Arbor Michigan Stadium 107 501 1927 all-seater
University Park Beaver Stadium 107 282 1960 all-seater
Richmond Int'l Raceway 105 000 1946 all-seater
Knoxville Neyland Stadium 104 079 1921 all-seater
Rio de Janeiro Jornalista Mário Filho 103 045 1950 77 743
Columbus Ohio Stadium 101 568 1922 all-seater
Kuala Lumpur National Stadium Bukit Jalil 100 200 1998 all-seater
New Delhi Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium 100 000 1982 all-seater
Jakarta Bung Karno Stadium 100 000 1962 all-seater
Le Mans Circuit Bugatti 100 000 1965 all-seater
Le Castellet Circuit Paul Ricard 100 000 1970 -
Assen TT Circuit Assen 100 000 1955 60 000
Tehran Azadi Stadium 100 000 1971 all-seater
Montréal Circuit Gilles Villeneuve 100 000 1978 -
Melbourne Cricket Ground 100 000 1853 all-seater
San Isidro Hipódromo de San Isidro

Mo Rush

December 20th, 2006, 01:12 AM

I have a feeling that FIFA will delay awarding brazil the world cup till 2018 and reach some agreement after the bid is presented.

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 20th, 2006, 01:54 AM

I have a feeling that FIFA will delay awarding brazil the world cup till 2018 and reach some agreement after the bid is presented.

Just asking on a friendly basis Mo Rush whats your theory??? Perhaps Fifa would want to go back to the States?? or have Rio Push towards the summer olympics in 2016???

My Theory is that they are and have been working towards both hosting the 2014 Fifa WC and hosting the Olympics in 2016 or perhaps 2020.

The olympic bid may be dropped if the wc 2014 goes to brazil.

When I look at the stadia mix for Germany 2006 there are renovated stadia that were as old as the 1920's along with new construction of course.

No Stadia was above 73,000 and Maracana fits that. The Stadia for Germany
2006 where between 40,000 to 60,000. Brazil at this time have more Stadia in that capacity and actually larger stadia then germany.

It is of course to have these at fifa standards. Brazil is certainly in building mode over 7 years before the event and that could be a big advantage over COLOMBIA . Renovations to Brazil's older stadia with the capacity may surfice.
With Germany 4 of the 12 venues renovated stadia that were originally built per world war two. 7 of the 12 were built in the 2000's and one lone stadium was originally built in the 1970's . With a recently renovated Maracana in 2002. and three stadia under construction over 7 years ahead of 2014 Brazil has a very good shot considering what south africa is encountering right now.

I was actually surprized that football in germany for the most part was not in stadia of 60,000 plus in a big way.

If Brazil was to host both Fifa WC and the Summer Games in 2014 and 2016 respectively it would be one hell of a coming out party. ONe could very easily lead to the other and be very successful .

CharlieP

December 20th, 2006, 02:12 PM

If Brazil was to host both Fifa WC and the Summer Games in 2014 and 2016 respectively it would be one hell of a coming out party.

Brazil is gay??

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 20th, 2006, 02:17 PM

Brazil is gay??

HA HA HA

What I mean is showing to the world it is as good as the rest of the industrialized world.
Considering Brazil is one of the few places to be going oil and gas independ in the next couple of years with such a large population they seem to be a little further thinking then most places. For decades they have been cutting edge for architecture.

AcesHigh

December 21st, 2006, 03:30 AM

If you're going to be like that Brasil is spelt Brazil in English!:cheers:

but Brazil is spelt Brazil in english.

Colombia is spelt COLOMBIA in english. Spelling ColUmbia in english is wrong...

as for Brazil, around April/May we will already have the final project for the stadium Grêmio hired Amsterdan Arena Advisory to project. It should be similar to Amsterdam Arena or maybe to the Porto Stadium or Benfica Stadium.

Construction should start in end of 2007 and be finished around 2010, 4 years before the World Cup.

If Grêmio does that, several other brazilian clubs may follow and build their own brand new private stadiums. Many clubs in fact always dreamt of a private stadium, but they postponed their dreams since they already played in huge municipal or state stadiums.

Considering that Maracanã supposedly will fit FIFA standarts to World Cup... that the João Havelange stadium also fits FIFA standarts... that Arena da Baixada finishes its 4th side (they are building it now, finally bought the terrain from the school next to them), and that Grêmio builds its stadium, its already 4 stadiums. Inter, which recently beat Barcelona, also intends on reforming their stadium to fit World Cup standarts. They already are reforming, slowly but inexorably... they will start this year the construction of a modern cover similar to the one in the Olympic Stadium of Berlin, to protect the entire audience from the weather.

Mo Rush

December 22nd, 2006, 01:06 PM

2014 Cup a distant dream for Brazil, Colombia

By Brian Homewood

Rio de Janeiro - The last train to Sao Paulo trundled out of Rio de Janeiro's Central station several years ago and it could be an even longer wait for the next one.

While tens of thousands of fans who went to this year's World Cup in Germany were whisked around the country by high-speed trains which streaked through a sleek, modern rail network with clockwork reliabilty, Brazil, candidates to host the 2014 finals, abandoned its passenger trains years ago.

The alternatives are bone-crunching bus and car journeys of hundreds of kilometres over pot-holed highways, some of them stalked by gun-toting bandits, or the uncertainties of a chaotic air transport system.

The last few weeks have seen hundreds of delays and cancellations
Brazilian air transport has been in crisis after the country's worst air crash on September 29 in which 154 people died.

The last few weeks have seen hundreds of delays and cancellations after a work-to-rule by air traffic controllers, who are widely reported to be underpaid, overworked and dependent upon unreliable obsolete equipment.

Yet a good transport network is one of the key criteria for successfully staging a World Cup.

The lack of it is one of the many stumbling blocks facing Brazil and, to a lesser extent, rivals Colombia, the only two nations to formally express their interest to Fifa in staging the 2014 World Cup before the December 18 deadline.

The tournament is due to be staged in South America under Fifa's new rotation system which will begin in South Africa in 2010.

'They know they won't win'
Fifa, however, has already said it will look elsewhere if the South American Confederation cannot produce a bid which meets its rigid criteria.

Until this week, the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) believed that it would have a clear shot at the tournament.

Three years ago, the federations of the South American countries voted unanimously to back Brazil as their only candidate.

But the Colombian FA broke ranks this week under pressure from President Alvaro Uribe, who wanted the country to launch its own bid.

The Brazilian media immediately dismissed the Colombian bid.

"They know they won't win, but at the least they will put the country on display," sneered the Rio de Janeiro-based daily newspaper - Globo in an editorial.

In fact, there seems little to choose between the two, apart from Brazil's incomparable tradition on the field and the fact that it has already hosted one World Cup back in 1950.

Both are multi-racial nations of stunning natural beauty whose inhabitants are known to like a good party but where a reputation for violence puts off foreign visitors.

Brazil's security problems are largely urban, highlighted recently when two of the country's top judges were car-jacked by eight armed bandits on the main road from Rio de Janeiro airport to the city centre.

Colombia has seen a sharp drop in urban crime in four years under President Uribe but parts of the countryside are still controlled by guerilla groups, who have fuelled a 42-year civil conflict.

Both countries' previous attempts to host the event ended in embarrasing and early withdrawals.

Colombia were awarded the 1986 World Cup but pulled out two years before it was due to be staged because of economic problems. The tournament was instead held in Mexico.

Brazil were candidates to stage the 2006 World Cup but withdrew three days before the final vote decided in Germany's favour in July 2000.

The campaign never captured the public's imagination and attracted vociferous opposition from Pele, who described it as a waste of money.

Colombia and Brazil would have to invest lavishly in new stadiums. The Metropolitano stadium in Barranquilla is the only Colombian arena which comes near to World Cup level while Curitiba's Arena da Baixada is the only Brazilian stadium which would have any chance of passing the test today.

The world famous Maracana, like many of the gigantic stadiums built around Brazil between 1950 and 1980, is now crumbling and many believe it should be pulled down.

Both countries are confident they can drum up the necessary investments but neither has yet to announce concrete plans about how they intend to bring their infrastructure upto scratch.

So far, the respective discourses have been limited to words of optimism.

"We can do it, we can provide the necessary investments and the country has to start thinking about big projects," Colombia Vice-President Francisco Santos said this week. "Countries need to have dreams, they need great achievements."

Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was similarly upbeat.

"Football is the greatest passion in the country and it deserves to host the World Cup," he said recently.

"I will give all the backing necessary to (CBF president) Ricardo Teixeira so that, 64 years on, we can hold the World Cup in Brazil."

Reuters

Published on the Web by IOL on 2006-12-22 06:55:36
© Independent Online 2005. All rights reserved. IOL publishes this article in good faith but is not liable for any loss or damage caused by reliance on the information it contains.

KiwiBrit

December 22nd, 2006, 09:57 PM

^^ ^^

Any replies/answers from Brazilian or Colombian members? The source is Reuters so you would think it is reliable.

Brazil, candidates to host the 2014 finals, abandoned its passenger trains years ago.

I can't believe a WC can go to a country which doesn't have a rail network in place.

nomarandlee

December 22nd, 2006, 11:19 PM

^^ ^^

Any replies/answers from Brazilian or Colombian members? The source is Reuters so you would think it is reliable.

I can't believe a WC can go to a country which doesn't have a rail network in place.

Even though the U.S. does have a rail network it is slow enough and the distances were great enough that I doubt many people used it. South Africa's network leaves a lot to be desired. As long as there are good enoough bus/air routes I would think that should be good enough especially when talking about large countries such as the U.S., China, or Brasil.

KiwiBrit

December 22nd, 2006, 11:33 PM

But at least the US, China and S. Sfrica do have a rail network to fall back on. From the sounds of it Brazil does not.

The next question is what condition is Brazils road's like? I know Germany 2006 spent a fortune on road improvements prior to the 2006 WC. and I bet they were of a better standard then Brazils roads are (I'm guessing). So will they budget a small fortune on these improvements along with the stadiums?

gutooo

December 23rd, 2006, 12:41 AM

The Game Is Up

December 23rd, 2006, 02:47 AM

gutooo

December 23rd, 2006, 02:54 AM

I think that given the state of the infrastructure in each country that the more influencial members may opt for a situation where the distances between venues are not that great. Anyone with a cursory knowledge of geography would know what that would mean.

Yet, both are very much doable. It's a question of creativity, will, transparency and a solid commitment to attract new investments.

Yes, I agree!

There are plans of 2 high speed train lines in Brazil.

One linking Rio and São Paulo, and another one linking São Paulo and Campinas (a 1 million ppl city in São Paulo state).

If Brazil hosts the cup, Im sure that more projects will come!

jamesinclair

December 23rd, 2006, 06:43 AM

But at least the US, China and S. Sfrica do have a rail network to fall back on. From the sounds of it Brazil does not.

Ever taken a train in the US?

The Seatle-LA train is always 15-20 hours late. Im not talking once in awhile, Im saying ALWAYS 15-20 hours late. You cant even buy a ticket for part of the journey, since the train is never on time (such as San Fran to LA)

New York to Chicago is a cool 17 hour ride.

People in the US fly, as in Brazil. A rail network is not required

nomarandlee

December 23rd, 2006, 07:01 AM

I think thats a huge issue!

Our roads are not good enough, the best ones are in São Paulo.

What is the main road from Rio to Petrópolis? On my visit to Brasil we drove in a bad rain storm at night with crazy buses and trucks leaving no room to spare. I was worried I was going to fall right off the dark cliffs.:lol:

Benjuk

December 23rd, 2006, 03:22 PM

I know Germany 2006 spent a fortune on road improvements prior to the 2006 WC.

I thought that pretty much everything about Germany was spot on with the exception of the roads... During the finals there was still a hell of a lot of roadworks going on, and many of the freeways were doing to 1 1/2 lanes and a bit of shoulder (scary when the inside lane is filled with trucks and everyone is trying to do 150mph in the remaining few feet!).

Saw some monster tailbacks (luckilly they were usually in the opposite direction to what we were travelling).

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 23rd, 2006, 07:22 PM

To me the debate about transportation infrastructure with regards to the Fifa world cup may be important to Fifa but you are not going to get a train system in any of the americas as good as europe or asia. I dont know what the case is in south africa but the distances and population density in canada would have the world cup in a much worse situation then brazil . winnepeg to toronto is a journey I would not want to take by train as far as the length.

In north america you have two highspeed corridors for rail traffic.
washington to boston and windsor to quebec city. High speed is a relative term compared to europe with the TVG and Eurostar trains.

If Fifa is sincere about football in the americas they have to adapt to the infrastructure that is in brazil , columbia and the rest of the americas. It is not to say bring your standards down so low it is to say your standards may be a little high for the americas to reach.

The thing is they either want to expand out of europe and hold on to interest in south america or they dont . It is as simple as that.

Some I think that south afirca could probably use the rate or construction for stadiums Brazil is on and Brazil could probably use South Africas rail system now in this quest to hos the world cup.

That is no slap to south africa MO rush. Brazil Certainly doesnt have everything in place stadium wise but they are certainly moving forward.

As to Maracana falling apart. I was actually there last november and It is not as bad as one would have a editorialist lead you to believe. in 2002 they completed a renovation there and I am sure they would renovate again for the world cup.
Considering the ammount of pre world war 2 stadia in germany for the world cup in 2006 brazil is not in that type of situation .

It is the will of Fifa to take apples for apple and oranges for oranges. Then they will have to restrict the hosting duties to europe and asia because coming to africa, south america and north america are really a compromise compared to germany, france ,italy , great britian , south korea, japan and in the near future china.

To me how can you call it a world championship for a game played globally when you cant you past your european nose paying lip service along the way.

There has to be compromise on both sides or the game become meaningless in the americas. At least the Fifa Brand of the Game.

KiwiBrit

December 23rd, 2006, 08:55 PM

People in the US fly, as in Brazil. A rail network is not required

So does Brazil have 10 cities with 10 airports which can cater for up to 60,000 people arriving possibly ONE DAY before a big game?

Let's hope so

KiwiBrit

December 23rd, 2006, 09:14 PM

The thing is they either want to expand out of europe and hold on to interest in south america or they dont . It is as simple as that.

Trust me Jonesy if Brazil didn't host the 2014 WC, football would still "hold on to interest" in S. America.

If Fifa is sincere about football in the americas they have to adapt to the infrastructure that is in brazil , columbia and the rest of the americas. It is not to say bring your standards down so low it is to say your standards may be a little high for the americas to reach.

One of FIFA's requirements to host a WC is a rail network. A guy from Brazil has said on this forum that there is NO proper rail system there. How do you propose FIFA alter their requirements.

I don't wish to sound negative, I would love to see Brazil host a WC. but they have to meet certain requirements like any nation would. I just want to see a level playing field for all countries bidding.

Jonestowncultinpicto

December 23rd, 2006, 10:15 PM

Trust me Jonesy if Brazil didn't host the 2014 WC, football would still "hold on to interest" in S. America.

One of FIFA's requirements to host a WC is a rail network. A guy from Brazil has said on this forum that there is NO proper rail system there. How do you propose FIFA alter their requirements.

I don't wish to sound negative, I would love to see Brazil host a WC. but they have to meet certain requirements like any nation would. I just want to see a level playing field for all countries bidding.

and what type of rail system does the united states have ????
or canada for that matter. Even if you have a TVG in north america the distances are so vast. Like I said if Fifa wants to come to the americas they have to make compromises other wise they can keep it in europe or asia. I personally think australia is going to butt in the rotation and that is what the entire thing is all about with the noises coming out of Fifa.

Hey be our guests because I can see where people in the north america will be up at 3am to watch world cup from melbourne. That will certainly make for some interesting TV deals in north america where there will be absolutely no value for advisors or worldwide sponsors like a Visa credit card for the american market which is the one they devote the most attention to. This year had some great sponsorship deals for fifa even in canada with some heavy hitters getting involved. going to asia or australia would kill what progress they made here.

With South America either Colombia or Brazil they are in the general time zones that are useful for both european and america commercial interests

I really love how europeans can get so hung up on telling the rest of the world how to run others continential affairs when for centuries a generation would hardly go by in europe that was not touched by a major continential war. The last century it seemed to me it was north americans and others who had to intervene and rebuild europe. If it wasnt for atomic weapons and the economic might of the united states the nazi or the soviets would have swallowed up europe and the western europe would be that far behind.

The only requirement that the US meets for fifa or the IOC in the Color of their vast amounts of money and the golden goose formula one , Fifa and the IOC are always fixated on American Network TV. Here in north america We dont get the interest in a sport that you usually end up with a tie or no scoring until two thirds of the game is finished LOL. That is the divide between europe and the americas. Formula one I love to watch but hey how many passes do they make on the track after the first lap for the lead ??? not many even in the stretch of five year with Michael Schumaker , Fernando Alonso or Mika Hakkinen winning chammpionships back to back. With auto racing here you can see one of a dozen guys win a race and take home the championship.

the US passanger train system Amtrak believe me is no Eurostar even with the Acela train from washington to boston which I have taken . You dont have dedicated passanger only lines in north america and you never will . It is a car culture here and an interstate freeway system is your major mode of travel in the States. Brazil is much the same . The thing is a world cup is not much of a world championship is it doesnt travel outside the confines of europe, asia or africa and 64 years between hostings for the country that has won it the most Brazil seems a bit much .

I would love to see brazil do it but not with a gun to their heads for a european body that is not sincere in their words or have a hinden agenda to suit their own needs of selling Brazil High Speed Trains LOL. This crap about trains and fifa certainly didnt effect the united states from hosting and wouldnt in the future. You can go east-west and some north south by train in america but you could miss a game or two trying to do that if you had to go from chicago to miami to houston to los angeles and to new york.

The US says they want to host FIFA would dig up their dead grandmothers and steal the jewelry off the dead bodies to get to america and the opporunity of American coverage LOL.
Oh and by the way I am saying the game loses attention in the americas. I have seen that over the years of traveling in the carribbean . It used to be you would see football club shirts and hardly any national baseball association shirts in shops in the carribbean . Now it is the very opposite.
The British Virgin Islands put up a indoor basketball gym in Roadtown within the last couple of years with a soccer pitch in bad repair beside it.

The game is waning in attention in the carribean and baseball is making inroads in northern south america. If I was in soccer I would not take south america for granted at all . Ignoring Brazil especially with the history of João Havelange would really be like saying the World Championships of Ice Hockey could not be held in Canada unless they have TVG system from Vancouver to Toronto. We get the same crap from the world ice hockey association and we know where the world best in ice hockey is north america in the NHL. The Stanley Cup is the world championship for all intense purposes.

People after a while say screw it . It happens in europe we have our own world which is much bigger . To me the world cup could bypass north america but it is a slap in the face to me as the brother of my fellow south,central and north americans when some in the rest of the world take the view of shutting brazil out of hosting. 250 miles from San Paulo to Rio and about the same Rio To Belo Horizonte. There are more people in those three cities then the boston-washington corridor and more of them are soccer fanatics. Everyone from the rest of the world could stay away from the WC brazil in 2014 and the stadia would be packed with people willing to take the lucky ones seats.

KiwiBrit

December 23rd, 2006, 11:26 PM

and what type of rail system does the united states have ????
or canada for that matter. Even if you have a TVG in north america the distances are so vast. Like I said if Fifa wants to come to the americas they have to make compromises other wise they can keep it in europe or asia. I personally think australia is going to butt in the rotation and that is what the entire thing is all about with the noises coming out of Fifa.

Hey be our guests because I can see where people in the north america will be up at 3am to watch world cup from melbourne. That will certainly make for some interesting TV deals in north america where there will be absolutely no value for advisors or worldwide sponsors like a Visa credit card for the american market which is the one they devote the most attention to. This year had some great sponsorship deals for fifa even in canada with some heavy hitters getting involved. going to asia or australia would kill what progress they made here.

With South America either Colombia or Brazil they are in the general time zones that are useful for both european and america commercial interests

I really love how europeans can get so hung up on telling the rest of the world how to run others continential affairs when for centuries a generation would hardly go by in europe that was not touched by a major continential war. The last century it seemed to me it was north americans and others who had to intervene and rebuild europe. If it wasnt for atomic weapons and the economic might of the united states the nazi or the soviets would have swallowed up europe and the western europe would be that far behind.

The only requirement that the US meets for fifa or the IOC in the Color of their vast amounts of money and the golden goose formula one , Fifa and the IOC are always fixated on American Network TV. Here in north america We dont get the interest in a sport that you usually end up with a tie or no scoring until two thirds of the game is finished LOL. That is the divide between europe and the americas. Formula one I love to watch but hey how many passes do they make on the track after the first lap for the lead ??? not many even in the stretch of five year with Michael Schumaker , Fernando Alonso or Mika Hakkinen winning chammpionships back to back. With auto racing here you can see one of a dozen guys win a race and take home the championship.

the US passanger train system Amtrak believe me is no Eurostar even with the Acela train from washington to boston which I have taken . You dont have dedicated passanger only lines in north america and you never will . It is a car culture here and an interstate freeway system is your major mode of travel in the States. Brazil is much the same . The thing is a world cup is not much of a world championship is it doesnt travel outside the confines of europe, asia or africa and 64 years between hostings for the country that has won it the most Brazil seems a bit much .

I would love to see brazil do it but not with a gun to their heads for a european body that is not sincere in their words or have a hinden agenda to suit their own needs of selling Brazil High Speed Trains LOL. This crap about trains and fifa certainly didnt effect the united states from hosting and wouldnt in the future. You can go east-west and some north south by train in america but you could miss a game or two trying to do that if you had to go from chicago to miami to houston to los angeles and to new york.

The US says they want to host FIFA would dig up their dead grandmothers and steal the jewelry off the dead bodies to get to america and the opporunity of American coverage LOL.

Have you finished your rant?

1:Regardless if FIFA want to be up the USA's arse, I couldn't give a toss about American money in football. It was around long before the states showed the slightest interest in 'the beautiful game' and will be long after, even when you lot fail to convert it into some kind of yearly World Series with the good 'ol USA having sole hosting rights (and are one of only two teams allowed to play in it!).

2: Even if the rail system in the states is crap, at least you have one to fall back on. And you have International airports in every major city, plus your road network is okay. Brazil has no rail system, does not have an International airport in every major city and, as stated by a Brazilian on this forum the roads are poor. Maybe with this infrastructure in mind you can advise us how large groups of supporters are going to get around the country in a short time span. Oh I remember your thoughts. Let FIFA lower their standards...great solution.

The thing is a world cup is not much of a world championship is it doesnt travel outside the confines of europe, asia or africa

3: Lets see, since 1994 it has been to N. America, Europe, Asia, is next in Africa and we are now discussing S. America hosting the next one. Maybe you can tell us which continent has been neglected. Oh of course Antarctica!

I really love how europeans can get so hung up on telling the rest of the world how to run others continential affairs

4:You are American right. Kettle calling the pot black kinda springs to mind.

If it wasnt for atomic weapons and the economic might of the united states the nazi or the soviets would have swallowed up europe and the western europe would be that far behind.

5: Thanks for the history lesson oh most powerful one. Although what the hell this has to do with staging a WC I have no idea.

I send my apologies to all posters that this has gone way off topic, and lets hope we can get back to constructive discussions without people turning it into a 'Billy 2 poo's' forum! :ohno:

rantanamo

December 23rd, 2006, 11:54 PM

You can ignore the money all you want, but:

- As an organization, they have to have themselves and their games look the best possible. Otherwise they wouldn't create such incredible requirements.

- They claim they want to spread the game, so they have to spread it, and spread it with a great presentation. They don't have to have American money, but it helps their goals. Otherwise, as the poster said, you have the possibility of losing interest to baseball, rugby and hockey.

- I'm with those who want the WC to be played all over the world. At the same time, if its not reasonable feasible, I don't want to put soccer or any sport above true need. If a South America can't reach some of the over-ridiculous FIFA requirements, then just send it to England. I understand that people around the world don't want it in the US and that's fine. Reward the soccer loving nations of the world.(I'd still like to see it in the US, but that's me personally. I know that most don't want it here)

KiwiBrit

December 24th, 2006, 12:14 AM

Your post makes a lot of sense rantanamo, and I agree the WC should be spread around the globe. To all tense and purposes I think it is now.

Personally, I'd love for Brazil to host 2014. I've seen some of the stadium constructions advancing and they are looking good. But there is more to being a host than simply great stadiums.

The Game Is Up

December 24th, 2006, 10:45 AM

It would be great if the final was held during the day before Ash Wednesday. :D

Mo Rush

December 24th, 2006, 01:58 PM

Have you finished your rant?

1:Regardless if FIFA want to be up the USA's arse, I couldn't give a toss about American money in football. It was around long before the states showed the slightest interest in 'the beautiful game' and will be long after, even when you lot fail to convert it into some kind of yearly World Series with the good 'ol USA having sole hosting rights (and are one of only two teams allowed to play in it!).

2: Even if the rail system in the states is crap, at least you have one to fall back on. And you have International airports in every major city, plus your road network is okay. Brazil has no rail system, does not have an International airport in every major city and, as stated by a Brazilian on this forum the roads are poor. Maybe with this infrastructure in mind you can advise us how large groups of supporters are going to get around the country in a short time span. Oh I remember your thoughts. Let FIFA lower their standards...great solution.

3: Lets see, since 1994 it has been to N. America, Europe, Asia, is next in Africa and we are now discussing S. America hosting the next one. Maybe you can tell us which continent has been neglected. Oh of course Antarctica!

4:You are American right. Kettle calling the pot black kinda springs to mind.

5: Thanks for the history lesson oh most powerful one. Although what the hell this has to do with staging a WC I have no idea.

I send my apologies to all posters that this has gone way off topic, and lets hope we can get back to constructive discussions without people turning it into a 'Billy 2 poo's' forum! :ohno:

well said

AcesHigh

December 26th, 2006, 03:38 PM

2: Even if the rail system in the states is crap, at least you have one to fall back on. And you have International airports in every major city, plus your road network is okay. Brazil has no rail system, does not have an International airport in every major city and, as stated by a Brazilian on this forum the roads are poor. Maybe with this infrastructure in mind you can advise us how large groups of supporters are going to get around the country in a short time span. Oh I remember your thoughts. Let FIFA lower their standards...great solution.

Hmm?? Brazil does not have international airports in its major cities??? Let me see... Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Porto Alegre, Belo Horizonte, Salvador, Recife, Fortaleza and Brasilia all have international airports...

Roads??? Hmmm... some are poor... others are excellent. Just like in USA, nobody will travel from one city to the other in roads! At least not from São Paulo to Salvador! Too distant.

Dont worry, Brazil has a GDP of over 1 trillion dollars. (GDP PPP is over 2 trillion). While it isnt enough to provide wealth to all inhabitants or to fix the entire country, its more than enough to fix everything needed for a FIFA World Cup.

Brazil already hosted a wonderful Cup in 1950, including the largest stadium in the world at the time. We can do it again.

As for rails, the brazilian rail system suffered from the same fate as american rail system... the automotive industry bought and then dismantled rail!

But there is a long time talk of rebuilding Brazilian rail. And no doubt, a World Cup would be an incentive for the government and private companies to invest on it again. At least, completely linking São Paulo-Rio-Belo Horizonte-Curitiba and another compeltely linked system connecting Recife-Fortaleza-Salvador.

AcesHigh

December 26th, 2006, 03:39 PM

It would be great if the final was held during the day before Ash Wednesday. :D

when in South America, the Cup was always realized in the winter (june/july)

AcesHigh

December 26th, 2006, 03:42 PM

What is the main road from Rio to Petrópolis? On my visit to Brasil we drove in a bad rain storm at night with crazy buses and trucks leaving no room to spare. I was worried I was going to fall right off the dark cliffs.:lol:

dont worry, Petropolis wont host a World Cup game. And its a mountain road, so no wonder it is like that.

AcesHigh

December 26th, 2006, 03:46 PM

So will they budget a small fortune on these improvements along with the stadiums?

You dont need to have autobahns to have a good world cup. Decent and safe roads are enough. And yes, we will budget a small fortune on roads. There is money for that. Also, some roads can be privatized and receive tolls stations.

Most stadiums will be privately build also. The government will invest mostly only on infrastructure.

Bahnsteig4

December 26th, 2006, 04:11 PM

tolls stations

Exactly what you don't need when there are thousands of cars on the way to a venue.:)

nomarandlee

December 26th, 2006, 06:16 PM

AcesHigh

December 26th, 2006, 06:37 PM

Exactly what you don't need when there are thousands of cars on the way to a venue.:)

in Brazil, specially in São Paulo and Porto Alegre, people have houses and apartments on the beach cities (POA and Sampa are not beach cities, but are about 100km from the beaches). In the summer, people go to the beaches on weekends... millions of people... and through tolled highways. I know in Vienna that is not common, but in Brazil, tolls are fast and are used to a MUCH LARGER traffic demand than 60 thousand people... how about 1 million people moving from the cities to the beaches at friday and back at sunday??

Anyway, tolls dont need to work during the World Cup. Duh!

Mo Rush

December 26th, 2006, 08:26 PM

Even if Brasil couldn't meet FIFA rigid expectations in terms of stadiums or infrastructure I think they are good enough to host the event. Considering football madness in Brasil and just how much Brasilians and the country have done for the game I think overpassing the country for not having a TGV like train system, world class airports, or having the most modern stadiums would be unfortunate. As long as the logistics make it possiable as opposed to what FIFA would "most like" I think Brasil should get its shot. Mexico and South Africa don't exactley have the best infrastructure imangiable but they are both getting shots in the modern era (if you consider the 80's to be the modern cut era) and neithers soccer history can come close to that of Brasil's.
I understand what you are saying and I agree with most parts. FIFA does not expect perfect infrastructure. South Africa does not have the best infrastructure, but improvements made up until 2010 will be more than adequate and top notch. FIFA is worried that in Brazil's case infrastructure won't be adequate between cities at all. FIFA would love to give Brazil a shot, but the minimum requirements have to be met. Logistics enough won't impress FIFA. I would love a world cup in Brazil but if it has to wait till 2018 to meet FIFA requirements then so be it.

Calvin W

December 27th, 2006, 12:53 AM

So the rest of the civilized world doesn't think Brazil can handle a bunch of soccer games. To be honest who cares what anyone else thinks. When it is time to put the official bid in it will be up to Brazil to do so, then the decision process is out of their hands.

Everyone here keeps harping about all the rules and regulations that have to be followed to host the WC. You can't honestly tell me that they have never bent or broken a rule before and if it happens again so be it.

I would love to see what Brazil can do for the WC and would honestly say they can put on as good a show as anyone else.

Benjuk

December 27th, 2006, 03:33 AM

Hey be our guests because I can see where people in the north america will be up at 3am to watch world cup from melbourne. That will certainly make for some interesting TV deals in north america where there will be absolutely no value for advisors or worldwide sponsors like a Visa credit card for the american market which is the one they devote the most attention to.

Was actually MasterCard not Visa (I'm being pedantic today, sorry).
TV money from the USA is relatively small in football terms. US network tv simply isn't interested in a game which goes 45 minutes without a break for ads.

I really love how europeans can get so hung up on telling the rest of the world how to run others continential affairs when for centuries a generation would hardly go by in europe that was not touched by a major continential war. The last century it seemed to me it was north americans and others who had to intervene and rebuild europe. If it wasnt for atomic weapons and the economic might of the united states the nazi or the soviets would have swallowed up europe and the western europe would be that far behind.

Forgive me for not bowing down before the American who so graciously saved Europe from itself... Fact is - if it wasn't for the stupidity of Japan the Americans wouldn't have joined World War II. Had the Americans sat out another 2 or 3 years (on top of the 2 they delayed for), they would have been dealing with (not fighting with) the Nazi state, and make no mistake, the ultimate decision to join WWII was to the US's economic and long term benefit. If you boys had stayed out, and the Nazi's had won the war - they would have controlled the Middle East and you boys would have had no oil. They would have kept hold of their scientists, and America would have lost the atomic and space races.

The game is waning in attention in the carribean and baseball is making inroads in northern south america.

Baseball and basketball are both making huge inroads into the Carribean's interest in cricket. Football, on the other hand, is still growing in teh Carribean (this would be the main reason that Jamaica, and most recently Trinidad, qualified ahead of that other minor North American nation, Canada)

The Stanley Cup is the world championship for all intense purposes.

Says it all really. You condemn FIFA for the way they, a European based organisation, run their competition. Then go out and say this.

FIFA (love 'em or hate 'em) make things very simple - a set of minimum conditions that they expect each nation to live up to in order that each successive finals tournament is bigger and better than the last. On top of that they make a genuine attempt to spread the finals around the world and to give various confederations the best chance to get as many of their nations into the finals as possible. A quick look at the current (and quite bizarre) FIFA world rankings shows that 19 of the top 32 nations are from Europe, yet only 13 spots for the finals are open to European teams (compare this to Asia, who first enter the table with Iran at 38, yet have 3 1/2 spots at the finals).

rantanamo

December 27th, 2006, 07:46 AM

Was actually MasterCard not Visa (I'm being pedantic today, sorry).
TV money from the USA is relatively small in football terms. US network tv simply isn't interested in a game which goes 45 minutes without a break for ads.

ABC\ESPN, Univision pay record $425 million for men's, women's Cups through 2014.
By Robert Wagman
SoccerTimes

(Wednesday, November 2, 2005) -- Calling it "the biggest TV deal in a single country in FIFA's history," world governing body FIFA announced a $425 million deal for World Cup television rights in the United States from 2007 to 2014.

Under the agreement, the 2010 and 2014 World Cups, the 2007 and 2011 Women's World Cups, and the 2009 and 2013 Confederations Cups will be broadcast in English in the U.S. by the Walt Disney Company-owned ABC and ESPN networks, and in Spanish by Univision.

In a joint bid, ABC\ESPN paid $100 million for the rights package for the broadcast rights in English, while Univision paid $325 million for the Spanish-language rights.

According to the FIFA press release, "the two networks (ABC\ESPN and Univision) have been awarded the TV rights to all FIFA events for the U.S. territory from 2007 to 2014, including the two FIFA World Cup final competitions within this period. This impressive new agreement covers a wide range of media categories, including multimedia broadband internet and mobile telephony."

ABC\ESPN, which already will broadcast all the 64 World Cup matches from the 2006 Germany next summer live -- and in high definition -- has indicated that it will broadcast all games in 2010 and 2014.

Next year's World Cup in Germany will be played from June 9 through July 9. ABC\ESPN will announce its broadcast schedule after the World Cup draw December 9 in Leipzig, Germany.

"During the 2010 and 2014 FIFA World Cups, ABC Sports will air at least 10 matches live, including the Final," an ESPN press release said. "All remaining matches will be aired live on ESPN or ESPN2. Every match will be available in high definition and ESPN will feature a nightly FIFA World Cup highlight show throughout the month-long tournament."

The 2010 men's World Cup will be played in South Africa and the 2014 quadrennial tournament will be hosted by a South American nation, with Brazil the favorite to be the host. The 2007 Women's World Cup will be contested in China.

Only four years ago, there was a real possibility that only Spanish-language broadcasts of the 2002 World Cup would be available in the U.S. Then, Soccer United Marketing, Major League Soccer's marketing arm, owned by a some league and outside investors, paid $40 million for the U.S. English rights to the 2002 World Cup in Japan and South Korea, next year's World Cup in Germany and the 2003 Women's World Cup, originally scheduled for China but moved to the U.S.

In the existing pact, SUM was essentially allowed to air its games for free on ABC\ESPN while covering productions costs. Both sides would provide marketing and sell advertising with revenues split by an unspecified formula.

SUM actually bought the rights from German media giant Kirch, which was near bankruptcy when the deal was struck. SUM then entered into the revenue-sharing agreement with ABC\ESPN to assure the games of those three events would be broadcast in English in the U.S.

The new contract represents a huge increase from the last U.S. broadcasting contract for both English and Spanish-language telecasts. Univision holds the Spanish-language U.S. rights for 2002-06 for which it paid $125 million.

"This deal shows to the American public how valuable this property is finally being recognized as," U.S. Soccer Federation director of communications Jim Moorhouse told SoccerTimes. "The fact that there was a bidding war and an increase in rights fees show how committed ABC\ESPN is to this property."

Among other elements of the new deal, ESPN plans to re-air matches in their entirety or in cut-down versions through ESPN on Demand. ESPN The Magazine will contribute to ESPN's FIFA World Cup coverage with dedicated preview issues, features and other editorial.

"ABC\ESPN and Univision came to us with a comprehensive package that will not only guarantee coverage of the FIFA World Cup in 2010 and 2014 and all other FIFA tournaments in the men's and women's games, but also promote football and the FIFA brand even at those times when no tournaments are taking place," FIFA president Joseph S. Blatter said in his organization's press release. "With these two well-known companies, we have ensured that images of our events will be seen by the widest possible audience across the USA's steadily growing football market. I am extremely happy with this momentous deal. It is a major milestone in our new TV approach."

FIFA's new media approach is to sell rights on a country by country (or regional) basis, rather than world-wide rights which were sold to Kirch for 2002-2006. "We are moving from a global (World Cup) TV offer to a continental offer," Jerome Valcke, FIFA's director of TV and marketing told a recent soccer marketing convention held in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

At the time, Valcke said it was FIFA's hope that World Cup matches would continue to be shown on free (or cable) TV around the world, but said that "free-to-air viewing will be the cornerstone, but we will also be selling packages combining free with pay-TV."

FIFA's bid packages for the 2010 Men's World Cup sought to guarantee that at least 22 of the 64 matches will be on free TV along with a daily free highlights package.

"ESPN and ABC Sports will immerse fans in the drama and pageantry of the FIFA World Cup for another eight years, bringing them closer to the worlds premier sporting event with cutting-edge technology and our collection of leading multimedia assets," ESPN executive vice president for content John Skipper said in his comoany's release. "We will also grow the FIFA Womens World Cup with unprecedented coverage across all of our content outlets."

It appears that SUM did not bid for the new broadcast rights; rather, it assisted and participated in the negotiations in part because MLS is in the process of reaching a new agreement with ABC\ESPN to carry its league matches in the future. MLS is hopeful that, for the first time, the new league contract will carry rights fees.

"In the immediate and long-term future, today's news will prove to be a historical turning point for the sport," MLS commissioner Don Garber said in a statement released by e-mail. "These recent developments further solidify soccer's standing and value as a major television property in the United States with even greater future potential."

ABC\ESPN televised live 58 of the 64 matches of the 2002 World Cup with the title game on ABC, 16 on ESPN and the rest on ESPN2. Because of the 13-hour time difference between the Cup venues and the U.S. East Coast, games were shown during the early a.m. hours.

Every game of the 1998 World Cup in France was broadcast live with ABC televising 14, ESPN 27 and ESPN2 23.

not here to make a pissing match, but the US is not irrelavent in FIFA's interest. Should the world and FIFA bow to the US? No. They should do whatever possible to host the games where they choose. Such money is hard to ignore though. Which is why I said earlier, they need to look within and tone things down before the WC becomes unhostable except for a handful of nations.

For those that don't know Univision, its a Spanish language channel out of LA with affiliates in each market just like any other network in the US. Our Spanish speaking population is growing at an enormous pace along with the popularity of soccer growing among the rest of the population, the deals could be enormous in the future. Especially for a Cup being played in the US. Again, WE should not get the games in 2014. I'm not advocating that.

jimjones

January 1st, 2007, 10:54 PM

well as you have illustrated very well rantanamo the espn/abc contract is bigger then any other territory for coverage and actaully there is room to grow with that as well because theose numbers are nowheres near what NBC pays for the olympics at 500 million american plus for each games. I think Fifa is trying to use an excuse to go back to europe and that is probably to Italy or England.

I did some research into brazilian airports over the holidays and it seems brazil has extra capacity in some of their airports and their standards meet many international standards and in some cases go beyond international standards. Personally being to pretty much every major airport in america, marco polo international in venice italy,the santiago chile and panama's international airport I would say the airport in santiago is one of the better airports I have been in . places like miami, la guardia in new york and some others dont even compare to chile or canada for that matter.Marco Polo I was not the least impressed with. If brazil is like chile for airports then it should be more then fine. Rio with 12 million passengers a year could certainly handle a world cup as San Paulos international airport. And then you have some of brazil's major cities with two airports. One for domestic and one for international flights. Most of these airports in brazil have gone thru extensive renovation and upgrading in the 2000's. Renovation and upgrading projects are continueing. Some with upgrades to take 747-400 series planes with nw pre-stessed concrete runways. There is a flight taking from san paulo to rio every 15 minutes and the same is true from san paulo to Brasilia the capital. Brasilia is also the domestic hub for many Brazilian airlines. A 500 dollar pass is available for travel within Brazil for foriegn visitors.

The road network seems to be good and getting better with private companies taking over highways. You get some good european bus coaches from
San Paulo to Rio and you may have a better service then european rail as the Bus could pull right up to the stadia and go to the next stadia directly.
The new Pan Am Stadium in Rio is on the same commuter rail line as maracana
So an easy transfer to a station can have fans attending the games Held in those stadiums easily. Then you have San Paulo's commuter rail service. Not aware of location of stadiums in relation to subways or commuter trains but if Maracana was built for 1950 and it is beside a commuter railway and they are doing the same for João Havelange stadium for the Pan AM games their planning seems to be well though throught.
On top of that in both those cities you have subway systems.

As to stadiums they seem to be on a stadium construction and renovation curve. Looking at Uefa five star standards as a guidepost if they were to adopt those for renovation and consturction for 5 stadiums they would be 1 stadium better then the hosts in 2006 germany who had only 4 of the 12 stadia listed as UEFA five star stadiums . If it was to go to England and Brazil had 5 five star UEFA stadiums then Brazil would have 5 times the amount enlgand currently has with Old Trafford being the only five star UEFA in england. I am sure the new wembley stadium will get five stars but who knows .

The thing is Brazil will probably be raked over the coals for standards for other motivations beyond presentation or logistics. The rotation is a great gesture but is totally dishonest lip service really. The hub in the wheel is Europe and it would have to come back to europe . The pattern is the same with the olympics except the summer games may beat Fifa to the punch in RIO for 2016 if Fifa passes by Brazil for the promised rotation. Considering that germany has hosted twice since brazils lone hosting 57 years ago it is ashame the Brazilian fans have to put up with this type of crap. 5 time winners, A successful hoster and Brazilian João Havelange who served as Fifa President for 24 years and is honorary president should have a bit more respect paid to his country who are a great part of the game.

Basketball is coming on strong through out the world and Brazil, Argentina and
Africa are fielding players in the NBA. Pass BRazil by for lame excuses in 2014 and basketball gains more following. The reason Fifa went to america in 1994 was the soldout stadiums that the los angeles olympics had for soccer with stadiums up to 100,000 people attending.

I quess Brazil could have the last laff if Fifa was to play the game refuse Brazil hosting rights in favour of England or Italy and RIO hosted the summer olympics in 2016 with larger crowds then fifa 2014 .

Brazil could turn around and say told you so now we are not interested we just did the olympics and didn t have the hassle plus we made a ton of money
LOL.

jim jones

KiwiBrit

January 1st, 2007, 11:23 PM

Mo Rush

January 2nd, 2007, 12:12 AM

nomarandlee

January 2nd, 2007, 12:24 AM

By the way Mo, since your the resident Olympic expert around what are you placing your bet for 2016 the city as of now?

Benjuk

January 2nd, 2007, 01:05 AM

jimjones

January 2nd, 2007, 02:29 AM

You have done some good research Jim, and I would love to see Brazil hosting the 2014 WC. Personally I think they will get the tounament and make a brilliant job of it too!

I still think you are wrong about Brazil's interest in football declining if they were to miss out on hosting rights though. I understand other sports are gaining in popularity, but football is a religion to these people. You are right, they have not hosted a WC for nearly 60 years but the fans still have a passion most other countires can only dream of.

Finally, since Brazil last hosted there have been 4 further WC's in the Americas. Chile, Mexico (x2) and the USA. So the fans have not had to travel the globe constantly.

Well I dont think it is totally in danger yet. The thing is you have a time limit and generational limit to peoples patience and if Fifa was to pull a dirty on brazil I as a canadian would be totally pissed off I couldn t imagine south americans to be honest. I was surprized at the growth of the brazillian basketball game and the presence in the NBA. It is urban street culture from the states that is driving it in the carribean, south america, and even in canada although Steve Nash of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada being awarded NBA MVP two years running has a great deal to do with the popularity in canada. Basketball is having more growth in south america right now then it did with the great Oscar Shdmitt who was the greatest player for average points per game in the history of the summer olympics. It is not that the brazilian players not good players but oscar was the pele of international basketball and it didnt make a dent in brazilian football. Today thought it is the timing of ESPN in south america and hip hop culture and that is invading the youth.

I cant see it overtaking footballs statis in Brazil however what you are looking at is a youth demographic that basketball is attracting and youth are the future of any commerical venture. A teen or 20 something in Brazil is not old enough to know the 1950 world cup held in Brazil and Mexico hosting even in latin america is a seperation from brazil is huge. Portugese culture and spanish culture in the americas huge difference. In Brazil you have a big african influence as well. Germany and Italy have big influence on that part of the world as well. Basketball of course is only played in arena up to 20,000 seats but there is only some much attention, sponsorship and tv dollars in the world. IF You grap the youth culture with a sport in an arena you have an advertizers dream in many cases. Once you have that it feeds itself and grows. In the United States Nascar stock car racing was once the number four sport for viewers just behind ice hockey. Now Nascar is number 4 ahead of ice hockey.

The thing is I would be wary of denying brazil. If they were very unwilling or in a situation argentina was in early in the 2000's maybe. Brazil certainly has something up with their national government and it is very much for the betterment of the country. The infrastructure in improving, the economy is doing well. They are spending 1,3 billion US dollars in umgrading a road from the atlantic to the pacific oceans via peru. That distance is much like the spainish broader with france to st peterburg.

A reason I saw that brazil doesnt have passenger rail is much like canada. The rails are used to transport large volume comodities great distances . It is basically Mine to port to export out of Brazil. We have the same type of thing in Canada.

So like Brazil Airports are for the vast distances in Canada with a nation highway system for distribution of products. In europe the ways that things are moved have been done for centuries and river systems play a big role as well. That is why transportation systems really adapt to the geography and the development of the country in question. Brazil again is like Canada developing along corridors that are narrow and long. Waterways were a source of transport in both countries development.

I think if you had two stadiums for San Paulo and Rio , Stadiums for Brasilia, Belo Horizonte, Port Alegre, Recife and Perhaps the new stadiums in joinville, Curitiba and Salvador then you are in pretty good shape for the worlds cup.

If Uraguay and Argentina where to play their games in Port Alegere, Joinville or Curitiba I am sure no europeans, americans, asians having to worry about getting to see those games as the huge majority of fans would be from Argentina and Uraguay and they could probably come by car or bus LOL. .

The airports it seems to me are there , the roads would need improvement but probably not much because of the available airports inwhich some are wroking at half capacity. IF you schedule it right with the two stadiums in rio and san paulo thing then you could have france play at two stadiums in rio or san paulo reducing the need for travel for the fan of that team. The same could be done with south american teams.

It can be done if Fifa is sincere about rotation and can bend a bit with brazil bringing stadiums up to standard and some other things.
A high speed passanger rail system ? Well perhaps that could be in the cards between rio and san paulo. If it was rio , san paulo, Belo and brasilia it would be perfect but I would not turn the country upside down for a world cup to do it. A summer olympics would be way better for Rio in 2016 and they seem to be building the sports infrastructure for that. I can see brazil taking advantage of electricfied passanger rail as 20 percent of the electric power is generated via hydro electric and reducing air polution is something they seem to want to do. It could also delay passenger use increases at their airports domestically.

jim jones

jimjones

January 2nd, 2007, 02:38 AM

New York. IOC likes to go to the US every few Olympics, NYC only narrowly missed out to London, they'll put in a bigger and better bid for the next one.

That said, if Argentina have a bit of money free, and miss out on the World Cup for 2014, they may feel the need to do something to 'upstage' Brazil (although personally I always put the WC ahead of the Olympics). Hasn't been a South American Olympics for an awfully long time.

A long while is actually how about never . it is just like africa who has never hosted. Jacques Rogge has made it an objective for both south america and africa to host the summer games soon. Argentina is a huge question mark for economic policy and they have to get a decade away from the economic colaspe of 2001 for there to be confidence enough. Thr IOC or Fifa are not going to risk that this soon and 2016 will be awarded in 2009.

Brazil is testing the waters with a huge efford for the pan am games next year. Their staging is on a larger scale then any pan am games ever and looks very much like a practice run for the olympics.

jim jones

Mo Rush

January 2nd, 2007, 03:23 AM

By the way Mo, since your the resident Olympic expert around what are you placing your bet for 2016 the city as of now?

i dont do bets, if USOC go ahead chicago are favourites. If Rio make the shortlist it could add a whole new twist, 2007 application deadline should be interesting. I would not rule out madrid or a strong european candidate, even if 2012 went to london. its really all about the votes of 100+ plus individuals from across the world. its too early to tell who will win, im just glad london did.

jimjones

January 2nd, 2007, 03:34 AM

i dont do bets, if USOC go ahead chicago are favourites. If Rio make the shortlist it could add a whole new twist, 2007 application deadline should be interesting. I would not rule out madrid or a strong european candidate, even if 2012 went to london. its really all about the votes of 100+ plus individuals from across the world. its too early to tell who will win, im just glad london did.

chicago is you favourite to win mo? or you feel it would be the favourite?
The funny thing is mayor daly of chicago I read actually felt Rio would be their biggest threat to lose to.

I can see that as a north american prosepctive I would have in common saying
It hasnt been held in south america yet and Rio is certainly an attractive know city in south america.

chicago has its charm and is a great city I just wonder if they could get past los angeles for the USOC selection if the USOC decides to go ahead.

jim jones

nomarandlee

January 2nd, 2007, 04:32 AM

chicago is you favourite to win mo? or you feel it would be the favourite?
The funny thing is mayor daly of chicago I read actually felt Rio would be their biggest threat to lose to.

I can see that as a north american prosepctive I would have in common saying
It hasnt been held in south america yet and Rio is certainly an attractive know city in south america.

chicago has its charm and is a great city I just wonder if they could get past los angeles for the USOC selection if the USOC decides to go ahead.

jim jones

I didn't know Mayor Daley said that. I think Rio would be the best competition. Some issues such as street crime and transit infrastructure could pose as deterants but I think they would be the best challenger to Chicago. You couldn't get a more idealic nature enviroment, festive big city, and it knows how to hold big parties and has the tourist infrastructure for it. Plus the Brasilian market is big and very close to the American prime time viewing zones.
LA will not get it just after 32 years and there are other capable American cities.
Tokyo may seem best suited in a number of ways but I think the IOC wants to go back to Asia soon after 2016 and likely would want to pick a city who hasn't hosted it before. Even though they did with London I am not sure if they want to start giving out 2nd and 3rd games to cities that often right now.
If Buenos Aires puts in a good bid they may be able to surprise as well since they IOC wants it in South America and BA would be one of the more picturesque and important places in SA to hold it.
If my own Chicago doesn't win I hope Rio does. I think it will come down to those two but BA, Tokyo, and Bangkok will put up compelling alternatives.

nomarandlee

January 2nd, 2007, 04:32 AM

Iggui

January 2nd, 2007, 09:43 AM

Finally, since Brazil last hosted there have been 4 further WC's in the Americas. Chile, Mexico (x2) and the USA. So the fans have not had to travel the globe constantly.

actually there have been 5 world cups in the americas since brazil last played host.
1962 chile
1970 mexico
1978 argentina
1986 mexico (from colombia)
1994 united states

jimjones

January 2nd, 2007, 05:05 PM

actually there have been 5 world cups in the americas since brazil last played host.
1962 chile
1970 mexico
1978 argentina
1986 mexico (from colombia)
1994 united states

But remember with that list the united states are north america. Mexico is basically north america as well. so really south america was to host the games in 1986 but columbia had to give up their bid to mexico. south america not hosting the cup in what will be close to 40 years between hosting. I dont make any excuses for columbia they blew it . Yes it is the americas but that is kind of like lumbing africa with europe because of its position on the earth.

I know africa is totally different then europe but south america is totally different then north america including mexico.
A hosting every 8 to 10 to 20 years seems a bit long for two continents especially when you have the united states involved and brazil.

jim jones

jimjones

January 2nd, 2007, 05:20 PM

I didn't know Mayor Daley said that. I think Rio would be the best competition. Some issues such as street crime and transit infrastructure could pose as deterants but I think they would be the best challenger to Chicago. You couldn't get a more idealic nature enviroment, festive big city, and it knows how to hold big parties and has the tourist infrastructure for it. Plus the Brasilian market is big and very close to the American prime time viewing zones.
LA will not get it just after 32 years and there are other capable American cities.
Tokyo may seem best suited in a number of ways but I think the IOC wants to go back to Asia soon after 2016 and likely would want to pick a city who hasn't hosted it before. Even though they did with London I am not sure if they want to start giving out 2nd and 3rd games to cities that often right now.
If Buenos Aires puts in a good bid they may be able to surprise as well since they IOC wants it in South America and BA would be one of the more picturesque and important places in SA to hold it.
If my own Chicago doesn't win I hope Rio does. I think it will come down to those two but BA, Tokyo, and Bangkok will put up compelling alternatives.
Both Asia and Europe would be too soon .
Rio you have it going to a continent it has never been to and either chicago or los angeles you have bigger tv contracts and more sponsorship expansion coming with hosting a games in america. The advantage of Rio's location in relationship to american tv is not lost on the IOC. THey could look for better tv rights packages from their biggest customer with rio only two hours ahead of the eastern time zone. If montreal was not such a disaster first time around , montreal would have good shot with a big tv rights deal in the sweetzone for TV .

Because of RIOs position, the exotic local , the rep as a world city that is very known is why daly has said it is a city of concern to bid against.
Jacques rogge has stated his wish for africa and south america to host.

jim jones

AcesHigh

January 2nd, 2007, 07:25 PM

I just wish to point out that before basktball overshadows soccer in Brazil, volleyball would do so. Its extremelly popular in the country (whch is btw, has now the most succesfull team EVER in the history of the game).

But hardly even volley would overshadow soccer.

Iggui

January 2nd, 2007, 08:40 PM

But remember with that list the united states are north america. Mexico is basically north america as well. so really south america was to host the games in 1986 but columbia had to give up their bid to mexico. south america not hosting the cup in what will be close to 40 years between hosting. I dont make any excuses for columbia they blew it . Yes it is the americas but that is kind of like lumbing africa with europe because of its position on the earth.

I know africa is totally different then europe but south america is totally different then north america including mexico.
A hosting every 8 to 10 to 20 years seems a bit long for two continents especially when you have the united states involved and brazil.

jim jones

yes, north america is not the same as south america. yes, there are two different fútbol federations. very good! however, the comment was in response to the number of world cups in the americas (note, it's plural, referring to both north, south, central, and caribbean).

and no, lumping north america with south america is nothing like lumping europe and africa. for most of the 20th century, FIFA alternated the world cups between europe and america (both north and south) and for deciding the world cup rotations FIFA viewed the americas as one continent. mexico is not "basically north america as well", it IS in north america (basic geography), but it is also a latin american country (basic cultural geography), so no, it is NOT "totally different" from south america.

eomer

January 2nd, 2007, 09:35 PM

actually there have been 5 world cups in the americas since brazil last played host.
1962 chile
1970 mexico
1978 argentina
1986 mexico (from colombia)
1994 united states
USA and Mexico are in CONCACAF, not in COMEBOL.
Some people say that Brasil would not be able to host WC 2014: maybe it's right. But if Brasil can't host it, how could Columbia, Peru, Paraguay or even Argentina host a WC with 32 teams ?

So, I think that Brasil will host WC 2012.

Iggui

January 2nd, 2007, 10:50 PM

USA and Mexico are in CONCACAF, not in COMEBOL.

¿who here has said otherwise?

jimjones

January 3rd, 2007, 12:09 AM

Iggui

January 3rd, 2007, 01:36 AM

well hte speculation here of brazil not pulling throught is just that. the fifa president said they may look north and that might be colombia??? With Venezuela preparing for a Copa 2007 I beleive you might see a joint hosting.

There are many possibilities to what the president of FIFA was talking about and it could be a threat for the powers to be in brazil to have their best game on ..

Jim jones

in better times perhaps venezuela and colombia could have co-hosted, but these are politically strained times. hugo chavez is a troublesome lefty populist and colombia's president is one of the few right wing governments in the region and is very pro-USA. no way they'd ever agree to a co-host. i think colombia is just wasting its time by throwing its sombrero into the ring. i have a strong feeling the US would get the world cup if brazil can't do it. it would have been 20yrs since USA 94, and mexico got the '86 world cup only 16yrs after it hosted it in '70.

The Game Is Up

January 3rd, 2007, 05:52 AM

1. Los Angeles is not getting a third Olympic Games. I don't see how.

2. Colombia may not be wasting their time. In fact, they might sneak through, assuming that the Cup won't go back to Europe and the USA/Mexico are out of the question. Advice to everyone: look to UEFA for who they would vote for.

3. Think caipirinhas and garotas on the beaches. That way, I wouldn't mind a Cup with portable toilets. :D

Weebie

January 3rd, 2007, 08:25 AM

Weebie

January 3rd, 2007, 08:29 AM

jimjones

January 3rd, 2007, 06:09 PM

Brazil are overwhelming favourites but util recently i believe didn't understand the criteria and infrastructure that is required to host a world cup these days. FIFA has now explained to them and warned them early into the bidding process.

Personally i believe that Brazils bid will come down to South Africas progress. If SA are behind then a poorly organised world cup might be on the cards and if thats the case then i could see it back in europe.

FIFA is committed to the Rotation but needs to keep its interests at heart.

I dont think you can make the link from south africa to brazil or south america matter in regards to how the countries are run. Brazil is on a renovation and construction curve with their stadiums and actually many of their existing stadiums are nowheres as old as some of the stadia used for fifa 2006.

No offence to south africa MO Rush your country is pretty slow off the mark having to construct new stadia. Starting in 2007 for 2010 is a bit late in the game.
With Curitiba, Joinville, Port Algere, Rio , Salvador having stadiums contructed in the 2000's or being contructed presently it is far from the situation in south africa was in 2003. Then you have renovations of Maracana in 2002 which is not as old as four of the stadia used in 2006 for the world cup. Belim as of 2002 also has a newly renovated stadium . So you have 7 stadia in six cities that are relatively new with stadia in Brasilia , Belo Horizonte and San Paulo that could be updated in the space of 9 years. I would say Belo Horizonte and San Paulo would be canidates for renovation of one stadium in
Belo and two in San Paulo. The rules are you can use a maximum of two stadia for a world cup in hosting city. With Rio and San Paulo it would be logical.With two airports for each rio and san paulo and two of those having a capacity of 12 million passangers a year the transportation links are pretty good. Recife could also be a canidate for a hosting thou their 45,000 capacity stadium needs seats. The Recife airport situation is very good with Infraero
(the national airport authority) making major improvements inwhich Recifes airport is considering the best in northeast Brazil.
Brasilia I would consider two new stadia as it is the hub for domestic air travel in Brazil.

The airport situation is probably further ahead of stadiums as the national airport authority Intraero has been on a building expansion and renovation course for a while. Pre-stressed concrete runways and tarmacs increases the capacity which in some cities the airports are only being used at 50 percent capacity of millions of passengers per year. One airport I have read actually has constructed tunnels for jet fuel trucks so they dont cross tarmacs and runway thus increasing safety. A world cup might be a huge deal for two weeks but Brazil certainly has handled Grand Prixs in San Paulo and Carnival and New Years in Rio annually with not much problem for many years. As a tourism country they have a greater vision then the world cup. Good air transportation is key to good tourism numbers via customer satisfaction.

jim jones

Iggui

January 3rd, 2007, 06:39 PM

Narrowlly???? you muppet!!!!
(sorry to go off topic, but what do british people mean when they call someone a muppet? i've heard this term tossed around and never understood it. explanation please?)

Bahnsteig4

January 3rd, 2007, 11:26 PM

^^ I don't thinks he means he loves you.

Excuse me if I'm being ignorant but has there any list of Stadiums for 2014 that's been proposed been posted?

rantanamo

January 4th, 2007, 12:14 AM

He thinks you're a felt animal that talks via a hand up the buttox

Benjuk

January 4th, 2007, 12:55 AM

(sorry to go off topic, but what do british people mean when they call someone a muppet? i've heard this term tossed around and never understood it. explanation please?)

He means I got it totally and utterly wrong... My mistake - I don't pay much attention to the Olympics, only the surface stuff that appears on the tv news (it was reported down here as if the 2012 games was a straight run between London and New York).

Muppets, for the record, look like this...

http://www.chemistry.msu.edu/facilities/nmr/kermit.jpg

And this...

http://www.wellige.com/ulli/images%2Fmuppets_piggy3.gif

And this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/graphics/2002/12/30/sfgnew301202.jpg

Iggui

January 4th, 2007, 01:57 AM

i see. as Homer Simpson once said "It's not quite a mop, and it's not quite a puppet, but man...[laughs]...So to answer your question, I don't know."

wikipedia has taught me that "In Great Britain and in Ireland the word muppet has come to be used as a mild term of abuse, meaning a stupid, incompetent, or moronic person, or the obvious interpretation of someone who is inanimated or somehow not there. It can also be applied (in the United Kingdom but not in Ireland) to an aesthetically displeasing individual."

anyway, back to world cup 2014.....

KiwiBrit

January 4th, 2007, 02:19 AM

And this...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/graphics/2002/12/30/sfgnew301202.jpg

Ha, ha, nice one. You must be from Sunderland :lol:

The Game Is Up

January 4th, 2007, 02:33 AM

Excuse me if I'm being ignorant but has there any list of Stadiums for 2014 that's been proposed been posted?

So far, no official list that we know of. It's all speculation for the time being. Maybe by the end of this year we'll know better. :dunno:

matherto

January 4th, 2007, 02:38 AM

Ha, ha, nice one. You must be from Sunderland :lol:

nah, Earls Court

Benjuk

January 5th, 2007, 01:00 AM

Ha, ha, nice one. You must be from Sunderland :lol:

Indeed. Born in Durham (1970), raised in Sunderland (1970-1999), discovered airports and moved to Melbourne 1999.

Latin l0cO

January 5th, 2007, 04:27 AM

I don't see why brazil cant host the 2014 cup. People are acting as if Brazil was a really poor country. If South Africa could host the cup why cant Brazil? And if brazil was able to host in back in the day, then why cant it now? In 1986 Mexico hosted the cup and its not far off different economically different then Brazil.

eduardocxm

January 5th, 2007, 05:00 AM

Olá a todos,
Pessoal, o Brasil tem plenas condições de sediar uma copa do mundo. Pelo que tenho visto nos posts acimas, a visão sobre o Brasil, está se aproximando da atual realidade. Não somos um país pobre, como muitos ainda pensam. Ao contrário, somos um país com muitas riquesas ! Apesar de algumas crises no passado, o país tem uma forte economia, um PIB que inveja ao mundo, temos amplo espaço, o que nos favorece para se tornamos uma grande potencia num futuro muito proximo. Para aqueles que nao tem conhecimento amplo sobre o Brasil, pesquisem mais, que concerteza, voce verá que só não somos primeiro mundo no papel. O Brasil tem cidades, com infra-estrutura e qualidade, compáraveis a cidades da europa e norte americanas.
É isso ai galera, pesquisem mais sobre o Brasil, que em breve, estará entre as primeiras potências econônomicas do mundo.
abraços a todos

eduardocxm

January 5th, 2007, 05:01 AM

Tradution English my post acima:

Olá to all, Personal, Brazil has full conditions to host a pantry of the world. For that I have seen in posts acimas, the vision on Brazil, is if approaching to the current reality. We are not a poor country, as many still think. In contrast, we are a country with many riquesas! Although some crises in the past, the country has one strong economy, the GIP that envies to the world, we have ample space, what in it favors them if we become a great one harnesses in a future proximo very. For that nao has ample knowledge on Brazil, they search more, that concerteza, voce will see that only we are not first world in the paper. Brazil has cities, with infrastructure and quality, compáraveis the cities of the American Europe and north. Ai is this galera, searches more on Brazil, that in briefing, will be enters the first abraços econônomicas powers of the world to all

Aka

January 5th, 2007, 05:59 PM

"a pantry"? :lol:

eduardocxm

January 5th, 2007, 06:24 PM

ta tirando onda com minha cara aka ?
alguem que fala portugues, pode falar pra mim o que significa "pantry".

skaP187

January 5th, 2007, 08:19 PM

Aka

January 5th, 2007, 10:12 PM

ta tirando onda com minha cara aka ?
alguem que fala portugues, pode falar pra mim o que significa "pantry".

Eu falo português. A palavra que procuras não é pantry mas sim cup. Aposto que se tivesses colocado taça em vez de copa o resultado teria sido melhor. O problema é que nem tens noção do péssimo trabalho que o tradutor fez... Poucas coisas ficaram com lógica.

The Game Is Up

January 5th, 2007, 10:33 PM

ta tirando onda com minha cara aka ?
alguem que fala portugues, pode falar pra mim o que significa "pantry".

Boas. O programa da tradução de Altavista, quando muito bom, não compreende completamente a maneira que a maioria de povos escrevem. Produz muitos dos erros durante a composição dos parágrafos. De sua resposta precedente como un exemplo, o programa não reconhece a frase "plenas condições de sediar uma copa do mundo". Não se preocupe. É justo um programa de computador. :lol: Uma solução é separar as frases em fragmentos de modo que você tenha uma tradução mais correta.

Agora, a palabra "pantry"...mmm...para mim pode significar "aparador" ou "despensa" em cultura portuguesa. Eu não sei se isso é compreendido em Brasil.

Boa noite.

But back to the subject at hand, he was saying that do not regard Brazil as a poor country because while the country has had economic crises in the past that that doesn't necessarily mean to discount them in the present. He says that Brazil has the conditions necessary to host the World Cup. The infrastructure is of good quality, comparable to Europe and North America. He also thinks people should research Brazil more to get a better understanding of how the country really is.

eduardocxm

January 6th, 2007, 02:13 AM

How is it in Rio??? did the army invade it allready because of all the gangs there? But on topic. :ohno: Hope you guys work it out now, and start building/planning some good stadions for football., because it should be held in Brazil in 2014. The strongest footballnation in the world.
O rio de janeiro está melhor. O que estava acontecendo la, ja foi solucionado. Éra problema entre traficantes e milícias. Mas, a policia foi rapida, e agio corretamente. Não vejo o motivo de preucupação, por causa desses motivos ocorridos no Rio de janeiro. São Paulo tambem ja teve esse problema, e foi rapidamente solucionado. Um abraço !

eduardocxm

January 6th, 2007, 02:16 AM

Aka e The Game Is Up, realmente eu usei um tradutor para passar o portugues para o Ingles, hehehe !
Mas, agora nem vou usar, eles que traduzam meu texto, do jeito que quiserem.
abraços !

The Game Is Up

January 6th, 2007, 03:05 AM

O rio de janeiro está melhor. O que estava acontecendo la, ja foi solucionado. Éra problema entre traficantes e milícias. Mas, a policia foi rapida, e agio corretamente. Não vejo o motivo de preucupação, por causa desses motivos ocorridos no Rio de janeiro. São Paulo tambem ja teve esse problema, e foi rapidamente solucionado. Um abraço !

Translation:

"Rio de Janeiro is much better. What you have alluded to is being taken care of. It was a problem mainly from traffickers and gangs. Additionally, the police reacted very quickly and acted responsively. I don't see a reason to be worried because of the incidents occurring in Rio. Sao Paulo also had this problem and they also solved it quickly.

Greetings!"

It's an English-language board. :D

Now to my response:

I don't necessarily agree but then I think it's better to identify the worst areas in the big cities and go around them. Most likely, there'd be a plan in place for security for the tourists (and for the locals from some unsavory characters from abroad - like during Carnaval ). In any case, my plan would be very simple: come, enjoy the sights, watch some futebol, go to the beach, admire the garotas, play some fut-volei, watch more futebol, back to the beach and admire the ladies. Then repeat the cycle. No muss no fuss. ;)

eduardocxm

January 6th, 2007, 03:55 AM

The Game Is Up, vejo que você entende bem de Brasil. Pelo jeito, ja andou visitando-nos heheh ! Tenho um amigo português, jogamos FIFA 07 on line. Ele mora em Lisboa e é torcedor do Benfica. Será que voce poderia me adicionar no MSN ? Me mande seu hotmail pela PM, ou eu te mando o meu, para nos adicionarmos. Seria um prazer telo voce como amigo. Um abraço

Bom, voltando ao post, como o meu amigo portuga disse, é só isolar os pontos "más" da cidade e pronto. Acabou o problema. Enfim, deixem conosco, que nós realizaremos essa copa, muito bem obrigado ! Não vamos fazer feio, isso eu garanto.

gutooo

January 6th, 2007, 03:58 AM

Eduardo, aqui só se pode falar inglês, já que é um fórum internacional!

Existe o Fórum Brasileiro, onde se fala portugues!

AcesHigh

January 6th, 2007, 04:24 AM

ta tirando onda com minha cara aka ?
alguem que fala portugues, pode falar pra mim o que significa "pantry".

cara, melhor ficar fora do forum internacional se tu não fala inglês. Tá praticamente IMPOSSIVEL de entender a tradução feita pelo tradutor eletronico. Na verdade, pra um gringo, tá completamente impossivel.

translation: dude, its best for you to keep out of the international forum if you dont speak english. Its basically impossible to understand the translation from your electronic translator. In fact, for a foreigner (in brazil, gringo is ANY foreigner), its completely impossible.

eduardocxm

January 6th, 2007, 05:11 AM

hauhauha ! to indo para area nacional ! falou meus amigos gringos !
eu sempre estarei presente, traduzindo seus posts, para ver o que voce irão estar falando da copa aqui no brasil, heheh !
abraços !

Mo Rush

January 6th, 2007, 01:37 PM

hauhauhau sounds funny

The Game Is Up

January 7th, 2007, 05:20 AM

^ It's does read like a hyena laugh, I say. ;)

Never mind that, though, and back to topic. I wonder with the FIFA rule on minimising the number of venues per city which of the big Brasilian cities gets to use more than one stadium. Off the top of my head: Sao Paulo, Rio, Porto Alegre...maybe Salvador and Curitiba. Since Brasilia must figure in the final list somehow, it's possible there would be only one city with two, if at all. The way I look at it, the bigger cities have at least one venue with a capacity of greater than 80,000 (Rio, SP, BH). Brasilia and Goiania might double-team to save on travel distances by concentrating their venues over a smaller geographical area. In addition, Rio may decide to go only with an expanded Joao Havelange to save on costs. So it might come down to SP vs PoA. Assuming that Belem is part of the mix, we could have a situation where almost nothing needs to be spent on stadiums in the next six years, with maybe one super venue in Brasilia that would be needed, possibly mixing in private construction in PoA and Curitiba and/or SP.

This is just speculation on my part but...

First Round
Belem
SP
Rio (Joao Havelange)
Curitiba
Goiania (one match)/ Brasilia
PoA (Inter)
BH
Salvador
Florianopolis or Campinas (not sure which)
Fortaleza

Round of 16
Brasilia
SP
PoA (Gremio)
BH
Salvador
Rio (Joao Havelange)
Curitiba
Belem

Quarters
SP
Rio (Maracana)
PoA (Inter)
Brasilia

Semis
PoA (Gremio)
SP

3rd Place
Rio (Maracana - maybe as a swan song for that stadium)

Final
Brasilia (nothing to do with avoiding the "Maracanazo" but as a way of acknowleding the moving of the capital since 1950; showing off the modern side of Brazil) - a new ground seating 90,000

eomer

January 7th, 2007, 12:24 PM

Final
Brasilia (nothing to do with avoiding the "Maracanazo" but as a way of acknowleding the moving of the capital since 1950; showing off the modern side of Brazil) - a new ground seating 90,000
Interesting to play the final in (or at least in the suburban area) the capital city (it's more traditional even if LA host WC 1994 final) but why do you want to build a 90 000 seated stadium to play only a 1/4 and the final ?

This new stadium should be used for:
- first round (5 or 6 matchs and maybe oppening match)
- 1 round of 8
- 1 quater
- 1 semi

Mo Rush

January 7th, 2007, 12:33 PM

Q-TIP

January 7th, 2007, 02:33 PM

[QUOTE
I don't think FIFA will make a change to allow two cities two venues each, but it cant be ruled out.

[/QUOTE]

Actually, I wouldnt be surprised if FIFA do allow that change of the rule. SP and Rio each have more people than most European countries, so as long as the stadiums are right, I dont see why both venues in each city can play host. Not sure if FIFA will take a light-hearted approach or not if given the decision.

eomer

January 7th, 2007, 02:42 PM

I don't think FIFA will make a change to allow two cities two venues each, but it cant be ruled out.

Actually, I wouldnt be surprised if FIFA do allow that change of the rule. SP and Rio each have more people than most European countries,
I agree: having 2 venues in 2 cities is quite normal in South America.
In the past, FIFA allowed France to do allmost the same thing. Paris got 2 venues (Paris and St Denis), Lyon got one and St Etienne got one too. There are only 60 km between theses 2 cities and many people who live in St Etienne work in Lyon.

This would be exactly the same for Australian (Sydney and Melbourne), China (Beijing and Shangaï), Turkey (Ankara and Istambul), Russia (Moscow, St Petersburg). An English bid could even have 3 venues for London, 2 for Manchester and 2 for Liverpool.

The Game Is Up

January 8th, 2007, 11:51 AM

Interesting to play the final in (or at least in the suburban area) the capital city (it's more traditional even if LA host WC 1994 final) but why do you want to build a 90 000 seated stadium to play only a 1/4 and the final ?

This new stadium should be used for:
- first round (5 or 6 matchs and maybe oppening match)
- 1 round of 8
- 1 quater
- 1 semi

I did pencil in Brasilia for the first round AND the round of 8 (round of 16 teams, however you want to call it), in which my idea was to shift one match to Goiania, which is a city near the capital, for the first round. I have Brasilia for: first round, 1/8 final, 1/4 final and the final match. You can check my list again. Also, please read my response to the next quote...

Since FIFA has issues with some aspects of the bid.

Stick to 8 venues, althought it might be better to present 10 venues in the bid book,however make sure that quality venues are presented, if not use 4 existing venues with upgrades and plan 4 new venues.I don't think FIFA will make a change to allow two cities two venues each, but it cant be ruled out.

images of possible venues?

The thing is regional balance is my most important criterion. With 32 teams there are more than enough to spread them around the country. Let me direct you to the map for a second:

http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/BRAZIL-W1.gif

Brazil historically developed in the following areas: Nordeste (Northeast) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Region%2C_Brazil); Southeast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Region%2C_Brazil); South (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Region%2C_Brazil) (near the border with Uruguay and Argentina). Only in the last 100 years have areas in Amazon, Mato Grosso (closer to Bolivia) and the area around the capital have opened up.

Let's start off with the city right at the end of the Amazon, Belem, and move south and east around the tip until, let's say, Salvador. That's a huge area to cover. Ideally, I can divide the number of participants in half for the first round, then move the whole competition south for the latter rounds. One could say that Brazil doesn't need the Cup to promote tourism but this would be a huge incentive for them to show off historical areas the rest of the world aren't aware of: Salvador, Fortaleza, Recife, Olinda, Belem, Sao Luis. The problem is that much of the population and economic activity is to the south, including areas like Rio Grande do Sul, Curitiba, and even Sao Paulo. Should I concentrate on just the southern areas and ignore the Northeast or do I list a lot of Northeast cities and drop off some southern cities? Then what do you do with an important development in Brazilian history, which is the capital city moving from Rio to what's now the Federal District? The solution I come up with seeks to have a sensical balance between the three historical regions of Brazil. I have Belem to represent the Amazonian Brazil (Manaus is way too isolated to be seriously considered). In my original list, I had Florianopolis or Campinas but I can drop these and install Recife in their place, to have four Northeast cities.

So four Northern and Northeaster cities: Belem, Fortaleza, Recife, Salvador
Four Southeastern + the capital: Sao Paulo, Rio, Belo Horizonte, Brasilia (with or w/o Goiania)
Two southern cities: Curitiba, Porto Alegre

In other words, Four Cities in the North and Six or Seven Cities in the South = better geographical balance of all possible

Now to pictures:

Fortaleza (looks nice)

http://www.babooforum.com.br/idealbb/files/12261-castelao.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Castelao_Fortaleza4.jpeg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Castelao_Fortaleza_A.jpg

Recife (most likely needs replacement)

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Arruda_A3.jpg

Belem

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Mangueirao.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Mangueirao4.JPG

Salvador (most likely needs replacement)

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Fonte_Nova.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Fonte_Nova_A3.jpg

(A new one from Vitoria EC is also a possibility, called Arena Multiuso)

Curitiba

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Baixada_A2.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Baixada3.jpg

Porto Alegre (two good choices)

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Beira-Rio_A3.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Olimpico_Monumental_A.jpg

Belo Horizonte (impressive)

http://www.braziltour.com/site/arquivos/imagens/destinos/belo_horizonte/grande/mineirao_03.jpg
http://www.mandatoeletronico.com.br/gabinete/imgs/carlao13001/atu5detalhe881mineirao13.jpg

Brasilia (needs a new and much bigger one)

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Mane_Garrincha_A2.jpg

Goiania (optional)

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Serra_Dourada_A.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Serra_Dourada_A2.jpg

Rio de Janeiro

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Maracana4.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Maracana2.jpg
The new Estadio Joao Havelange
http://racional.agenciaweb.com.br/imagens/todas/atualidades/video_estadio02.jpg

Sao Paulo

http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Morumbi_A.jpg
http://www.fussballtempel.net/conmebol/BRA/Morumbi5.jpg

New ones needed in Brasilia, Salvador and Recife. Renovations for Belo Horizonte, SP, Rio, Porto Alegre and Goiania. Expansion for Curitiba.

That's my list, more or less. Comments?

Mo Rush

January 8th, 2007, 03:13 PM

most of those stadia need to be completely replaced

AcesHigh

January 8th, 2007, 07:39 PM

most of those stadia need to be completely replaced

thats already known.

In Porto Alegre, Grêmio plans to demolish its old stadium and build a new one, for 50 thousand people, following ALL FIFA regulations for a World Cup. Amsterdam Arena Advisory was hired by Grêmio to do the project and chose the best location. The stadium should begin construction in 2007/2008 and finish in 2010.

Internacional are completely modernizing their old stadium. It will be all seats. The grass will go down and the stands will get closer to the pitch and more inclined. They are spending this year $50 million to cover the entire stadium with a modern semi-transparent roof, very similar to the one in Berlin Olympic Stadium.

Porto Alegre will SURELY have two stadiums fuly capable of hosting World Cup matches, even before 2014. In fact, they should both be ready by 2010.

skaP187

January 8th, 2007, 08:45 PM

Recife must be in, that's where holland should play!!! it was the former capital of Dutch Brazil (mauritsstad from 1630 tot 1654.)
We're gonna party like 1635!!!!

jimjones

January 9th, 2007, 06:29 PM

Mo Rush

January 9th, 2007, 08:16 PM

[QUOTE=Mo Rush;11202045]most of those stadia need to be completely replaced[/QUOTe

Well considering the age of the Stadia in Brazil Don't come near the four of the
Stadia used in the world cup 2006 they are not out of the picture. It is whether the stadia pictured can be upgraded to met the Fifa Specs.
The Berlin Olympic Stadium rebuilt for the world cup. Maracana is not as old by 14 years atleast and has been made an all seater in 2002. One of Germanys stadiums that hosted fifa 2006 was opened in 1923. Of course it probably has had renovation .
Salvador is getting a new stadium, Rio is getting the new stadium for the pan am games. Joinville has a new dedicated stadium for football. Curitiba as well.
There are 4 stadiums that are very new and others on the drawing broad either with renovation or new construction. Considering that it is about 7 years to 2014 and Brazil is commissioning and opening stadiums with a number already in place it is a far cry from what is going on in South Africa with 3 years to the world cup. Not a slap Mo just that way I see it. With the construction going on in Brazil I believe the path is set. The places I would assume would be good for completely new stadiums in Brazil would be San Paulo, Belo Horizonto and Brasilia. San Paulo, Belo Horizonto still have the possiblity of renovating old stadiums just like germany did for last years world cup.
If it is a soccer only stadium that Fifa Reguires which was not the case with the Berlin Olympic Stadium then brazil would have to built more stadiums.

jim jones

I dont take offence regarding criticizms.
South Africa specifically decided to have a mix between new venues and existing venues. Four non world cup venues of a high quality area available. Construction of the 5 new venues is the challenge.
Worst worst worst case scenario, reduce stadia to 8, and use three existing 40,000 venues.
newlands
kings park
upgrade athlone by 10,000

The 2010 bid book was based on the use of these existing venues and were given a thumbs up by FIFA as high quality venues.

the problem is certainly not a lack of stadia, but a lack of progress on construction of new venues. other challenges of course are transport and crime.

as for germany, you cant compare stadia by their age. existingbrazilian venues perhaps even built after some of the german stadia certainly cant compare to the quality of german stadia, both the new stadia and existing stadia, including non world cup venues.

I dont see Brazil having problem with stadia, a mix of 4 existing venues and 4 new venues would be a good start.

jimjones

January 9th, 2007, 09:52 PM

[QUOTE=jimjones;11220168]

I dont take offence regarding criticizms.
South Africa specifically decided to have a mix between new venues and existing venues. Four non world cup venues of a high quality area available. Construction of the 5 new venues is the challenge.
Worst worst worst case scenario, reduce stadia to 8, and use three existing 40,000 venues.
newlands
kings park
upgrade athlone by 10,000

The 2010 bid book was based on the use of these existing venues and were given a thumbs up by FIFA as high quality venues.

the problem is certainly not a lack of stadia, but a lack of progress on construction of new venues. other challenges of course are transport and crime.

as for germany, you cant compare stadia by their age. existingbrazilian venues perhaps even built after some of the german stadia certainly cant compare to the quality of german stadia, both the new stadia and existing stadia, including non world cup venues.

I dont see Brazil having problem with stadia, a mix of 4 existing venues and 4 new venues would be a good start.

Well I certainly don't want to offend you in anyway we know the problem is really progress in South Africa with places like Durban and Capetown getting started late in the game or construction. I don respect your opinion very much

The thing I see in regards to Brazil is whether these new and renovated stadia
meet the grade. Curitiba it seems has gotten high marks from Fifa. If
Port Alegre 's stadium is rebuilt that should be another. Joinville is 30,000 and
a dedicated soccer field with room for expansion. Salvador has a 35,000 seat stadium under construction and it looks to be able to be expanded.
Then you have Belim and Rio's stadiums that have been renovated in the 2000's . João Havelange Olympic Stadium in Rio is going to open this year.

So what we have right now in Brazil is 4 new stadiums with the oldest being 1999 , Maracana having being renovated in 2002, Belim's stadium renovated in 2002 and Port Algere's stadium about to be rebuilt.

Belo Horizonte , San Paulo and Recife all with stadiums from the 1960's thru 1970's vintage that could be renovated. Then Brasilia could become a logical place to have two new stadiums for the world cup as they are the hub for domestic air travel in Brazil . The problem I see is maybe the hotels and transportation links . Brazil seems to be very good with air travel but is it enough?

In regards to German vs. Brazilian stadiums they all have to handle large crowds safely and effectively with good site lines for all. Brazil would have to get rid of the terraced standing room stands and how much does that decrease capacity and it that bellow what is required ??? That is where you decide to renovate or build new. San Paulo, Recife , Belo and Brasilia would have to be studied to what was the best move. Brasilia I would build new for sure. San Paulo and Recife I would want to have the situation examined.

jim jones

Mo Rush

January 9th, 2007, 11:42 PM

[QUOTE=Mo Rush;11221849]

Well I certainly don't want to offend you in anyway we know the problem is really progress in South Africa with places like Durban and Capetown getting started late in the game or construction. I don respect your opinion very much

The thing I see in regards to Brazil is whether these new and renovated stadia
meet the grade. Curitiba it seems has gotten high marks from Fifa. If
Port Alegre 's stadium is rebuilt that should be another. Joinville is 30,000 and
a dedicated soccer field with room for expansion. Salvador has a 35,000 seat stadium under construction and it looks to be able to be expanded.
Then you have Belim and Rio's stadiums that have been renovated in the 2000's . João Havelange Olympic Stadium in Rio is going to open this year.

So what we have right now in Brazil is 4 new stadiums with the oldest being 1999 , Maracana having being renovated in 2002, Belim's stadium renovated in 2002 and Port Algere's stadium about to be rebuilt.

Belo Horizonte , San Paulo and Recife all with stadiums from the 1960's thru 1970's vintage that could be renovated. Then Brasilia could become a logical place to have two new stadiums for the world cup as they are the hub for domestic air travel in Brazil . The problem I see is maybe the hotels and transportation links . Brazil seems to be very good with air travel but is it enough?

In regards to German vs. Brazilian stadiums they all have to handle large crowds safely and effectively with good site lines for all. Brazil would have to get rid of the terraced standing room stands and how much does that decrease capacity and it that bellow what is required ??? That is where you decide to renovate or build new. San Paulo, Recife , Belo and Brasilia would have to be studied to what was the best move. Brasilia I would build new for sure. San Paulo and Recife I would want to have the situation examined.

jim jones
Sounds like a good plan, each of these cities also need the capacity to deal with a world cup, im not sure how 2/3 south african cities will cope,

jimjones

January 9th, 2007, 11:54 PM

well mo I thought I would bring this over
Pieter Cronje, the city's project manager for 2010, confirmed later that the top tier of the 68 000-seat stadium at Green Point would be removed after the event to leave a 55 000- seater venue.

"Two options are being investigated - temporary, scaffold-type seating which can be removed, or more permanent seats which can be removed and used elsewhere after 2010."

With Joinville having a new 30,000 seat stadium that looks like it could have additional temporary seating and Salvador Having the same going on with a new 35,000 seat stadium Brazil could have two very easy and economical stadia with increased capacity for the world cup in 2014.

I think the noise from joseph blatter might have another intent like sending the games to another suitor by using excuses. It would be hard to convince
brazilian soccer fans the reasons are justified with what is going on in brazil for stadium construction . Architecturally Brazil has always been in the forefront. European architects and companies get involved and an american
company is invloved with the new stadium in rio.

jim jones

Rodrigo_BSB

January 10th, 2007, 12:39 AM

I wouldn't go that far, excellent by South American standards, but not world class. The stadium itself is the sort of ground that appears everywhere in Europe.
Yeah, I have the same feeling. It's very nice to our standards, but does not have anything that exciting. It's just the way the stadiums shoud be here in Brazil. Well, I hope my friends from Brazil don't get angry about this opinion, but this is what I feel.

The Game Is Up

January 10th, 2007, 08:47 AM

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-6333569,00.html

Brazil names Mineirao stadium as possible 2014 venue
By Brian Homewood

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jan 9 (Reuters) - Belo Horizonte's Mineirao stadium was put forward on Tuesday as one of the possible venues if the 2014 World Cup is awarded to Brazil.

"The Mineirao is one of the few stadiums in the country where it is possible to carry out the ample reforms required by FIFA," said Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) president Ricardo Teixeira.

"It has the advantage of a lot of space which can be adapted for parking," he said after meeting Aecio Neves, governor of Minas Gerais state of which Belo Horizonte is the capital.

"Minas is ready to be one of the World Cup venues," said Neves. "We hope that Brazil play here or that the opening game takes place here or maybe even the last game."

Brazil hosted the World Cup in 1950 when Belo Horizonte was among the venues, staging the historic match in which the United States beat England 1-0.

Brazil and Colombia are the only candidates to host the 2014 World Cup, which FIFA has allocated to South America.

Brazil are favourites as they have the backing off all the other South American federations, minus their opponents.

FIFA, due to choose the organisers in November, have said that the World Cup could go elsewhere if neither candidate's bid is up to scratch.
Brazil has so far put forward few concrete proposals about how it would stage the event.

The country would have to make huge improvements to its stadiums, transport and hotel infrastructure to meet FIFA requirements while public safety is another major worry.

jimjones

January 10th, 2007, 06:20 PM

http://football.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-6333569,00.html

interesting to say the least.
The march seems to be on for stadium renovation in Brazil. It bodes well for them in advance of a bid. Whether it is enough of Mr. Blatter time will tell. San Paulo I can see building perhaps two new stadiums and if brasilia was to build a new stadium it seems the numbers would be there for stadiums renovated and newly built. With the Amsterdam Arena people involved in Port Alegre for a stadium there I think you are seeing different civil units making the moves internally in Brazil to be chosen a host city. Transportation infrastructure and hotels may be the weaker parts of a bid if Brazil quickly has stadiums up to fifa standards. That may not be as much of a problem with a huge amount of tickets for a world cup being sold Brazilians and fellow peoples for south america.

jim jones

AcesHigh

January 10th, 2007, 10:26 PM

[QUOTE=Mo Rush;11221849] If
Port Alegre 's stadium is rebuilt that should be another.

Porto Alegre has TWO private stadiums, one from Grêmio (for 50 thousand people) and one from Inter (for 65 thousand people).

Inter is completely renovating its stadium to conform to FIFA standarts. Grêmio is going to build a new stadium, from Amsterdam Arena Advisory, outside the city, in a highway/airport/railway hub area.

Joinville is 30,000 and
a dedicated soccer field with room for expansion. Salvador has a 35,000 seat stadium under construction and it looks to be able to be expanded.

Salvador´s stadium is already under construction?

Then Brasilia could become a logical place to have two new stadiums for the world cup as they are the hub for domestic air travel in Brazil .

Brasilia is not a hub for domestic air travel in Brasil. São Paulo is the hub. Plus, Brasilia has onlu one soccer club, and its a small 2nd (or 3rd??) division club, with few followers. Keep in mind Brasilia was founded in 1959, so most inhabitants are outsiders who root for teams from other places. So no, Brasilia CAN NOT have two stadiums. But Porto Alegre can.

fiatbao

January 11th, 2007, 09:58 PM

[QUOTE=jimjones;11223277]

Salvador´s stadium is already under construction?

Brasilia is not a hub for domestic air travel in Brasil. São Paulo is the hub. Plus, Brasilia has onlu one soccer club, and its a small 2nd (or 3rd??) division club, with few followers. Keep in mind Brasilia was founded in 1959, so most inhabitants are outsiders who root for teams from other places. So no, Brasilia CAN NOT have two stadiums. But Porto Alegre can.

I don't think Salvador's stadium started construction yet I'm not 100% ...

I don't see any reason why any Brazilian city should have more than one stadium... There are so many large cities that could host as well ...

The Game Is Up

January 14th, 2007, 09:14 AM

jimjones

January 19th, 2007, 12:55 AM

^True true.

Ideally, there are more than enough cities, but as some grounds needs a lot of work, add to that the likely need to concentrate teams and people to within certain regions at least in the first round, there won't be nine, ten or eleven cities in the final list. Much of this is from FIFA rules.

Maybe it's something I don't understand but I have never for the life of me figured out why Fla, Flu and Fogão never got together and buy out the Maracanã from the city. I'm aware that all those clubs have had corrupt administrations in the past but still it remains that neither have had a true "home ground" except for like a small 8,000 ground in the case of Flu. I think it would have been better if there was a consortium of those three (maybe add Vasco if they no longer want the São Januario) got together and took over the Maracanã, then add executive boxes on one side, put in a modern video board and modern roof. Better yet, build a modern, badder Maracanã on the same site.

well I believe Maracana was renovated in 2002 for the concrete on the standsand seats installed.
about 52 year of supporters standing on the terraces urinating in place during the games will tend to destroy concrete when they will not even go to the public washrooms for fear of missing the action. I was told this by a taxi driver ,a big Flamingos supporter, when I visited the city in november of 2005 LOlL. They actually have seats now.

It would seem to me the the new athletics stadium for the Pan AM Games may be the new home for one of Rio's teams . Maracana may not have a "modern" roof but it still is very impressive even viewed from corcavado .

Jim jones

jimjones

January 19th, 2007, 01:07 AM

[QUOTE=AcesHigh;11242488]

I don't think Salvador's stadium started construction yet I'm not 100% ...

I don't see any reason why any Brazilian city should have more than one stadium... There are so many large cities that could host as well ...

Two teams in your city of Salvador and you have an older vintage stadium.
with the oldest and largest being built in 1951 and the newest being built in
1986 or 21 years ago. EC vitoria is apparently scheduled to have a stadium completed this year which looks very modern and would probably bring them up to Fifa standards thus enabling them to host matchs for that contest.
Ec vitoria occupies the new of the two stadiums with pro clubs in salvador.

You are also looking at the modern new comforts that make for more revenues of the team.

I liked visited your city in 2005 some crazy women there to say the least LOL.

jim jones

IMPÉRIO-BR

January 20th, 2007, 01:43 AM

Project-WC-Brazil 2014

Arena Recife
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n302/artcleroleao/arena2.jpg

Arena Salvador
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7386/arenamultiuso1pe8.jpg

jimjones

January 20th, 2007, 03:50 AM

Project-WC-Brazil 2014

Arena Recife
http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n302/artcleroleao/arena2.jpg

Arena Salvador
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7386/arenamultiuso1pe8.jpg

So Does Recife have a stadium proposed as well now???

Man if these stadiums in brazil are starting to be built in the next two or three years to FIFA specs then the country will certainly be prepared for the World cup in 2014. It seems to me to be a competition between the different brazillian cities to be lucky hosts of the world as much as a nation policy.
Transportation might be the only thing brazil works on from 2010 to 2014 for a world cup and from what I have researched transportation is not bad in brazil espeically with the airport system and the current capacity.

jim jones

PS. loved recife too but only saw it from the ship as i was on duty that day.

The Game Is Up

January 27th, 2007, 01:29 AM

http://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport.html?fSKU=2007-01-26T211405Z_01_L26880828_RTRIDST_0_OUKSP-UK-SOCCER-LATAM-MARACANA.XML

Maracana back in the running for 2014 World Cup
26/01/07

The world famous Maracana stadium, initially ruled out as a venue for the 2014 World Cup that Brazil is bidding to host, is back in the running again.

Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF) president Ricardo Teixeira, who once suggested the historic but troubled stadium should be imploded, said on Friday he had changed his mind.

His about-turn on using the stadium if Brazil are chosen to host the tournament followed a meeting with Sergio Cabral, governor of Rio de Janeiro state which owns the stadium.

"We had tried several times before now to get some sort of confirmation from the state government that the necessary modifications would be made but that did not happen," Teixeira told reporters after a lunch with Cabral.

"But for the first time, we've spoken to the government and the government is willing to implant .... a German model," he added, referring to the reconstruction of Berlin's historic Olympiastadion, used for the 2006 World Cup final.

Brazil and Colombia are the only countries to have put forward bids to host the 2014 World Cup, which is due to take place in South America under FIFA's rotation system.

The hosts will be named in November, although FIFA has said the tournament could go elsewhere if neither bid is up to scratch.

Cabral, who took over as Rio governor at the start of the year, pledged to bring the stadium up to FIFA standards.

"The state government has the responsibility to meet FIFA's demands and I don't see that being a problem," he said.

FENCE COLLAPSE

Teixeira added that the stadium, which last hosted a full international in 2000 when Bolivia arrived for a World Cup qualifier, would be used for Brazil's first home game in the 2010 World Cup qualifiers, starting in September or October.

The Maracana, which opened for the 1950 World Cup, is a monstrous bowl-shaped arena that for many years was the world's largest football stadium.

A crowd estimated at over 200,000 watched the decisive match in 1950, when Uruguay pulled off one of the great upsets in World Cup history by beating Brazil 2-1 to win the trophy.

More recently, the stadium has fallen into decline despite a number of reforms.

In 1992 three people were killed and dozens more were injured after a railing collapsed on the upper tier and at least 50 people plunged on to the seats below.

Crowd riots and crushes have become common while spectators occupying seats in the lower tier have complained about being pelted with various liquids thrown from above.

The Maracana's capacity was reduced to 103,000 when it was converted to an all-seater stadium for the 2000 Club World championship which Brazil hosted.

The stadium was closed for almost the whole of 2005 when the pitch was lowered by two metres and again at the end of 2006 for more refurbishment in time for this year's Pan American Games which Rio will host from July 13-29.

The current capacity is 54,000 but this will rise to 96,000 when work is complete.

Mo Rush

January 27th, 2007, 01:33 AM

jimjones

January 27th, 2007, 06:30 PM

So mo rush you are saying that what we are seeing there for recife is a model of a renovated peter mokaba stadium in south africa???

Interesting to say the least.

The news about marcana is interesting as well and probably makes sense as far as economics. Whether the distances from the field of play are with FIFA specs is something I would question. An Athletics field is one thing but on some Brazillian fields you seem to have almost a cricket pitch oval with a soccer field in the centre.

Using the same site would make sense from the standpoint of not having to go thru land use battles which the pan am games people seem to be going thru and you see that type of battle in south africa with WC 2010. Strange really that those issues were not taken care way sooner in both Rio 2007s case and capetown with greenspoint.

jim jones

skaP187

January 29th, 2007, 03:44 PM

arena recife and peter mokaba...

http://i129.photobucket.com/albums/p210/rfataar/PeterMokaba.jpg

well then the arena is from the arena (amsterdam, specialy the roof construction, nice stadium by the way, the brazil one I mean!)

Loranga

January 29th, 2007, 05:47 PM

I bet there are people systematically complaining at US college stadia and at the same time wants to use Maracanã for the WC2014..:shocked:

AcesHigh

January 31st, 2007, 05:32 AM

[QUOTE=fiatbao;11259525]

Two teams in your city of Salvador and you have an older vintage stadium.
with the oldest and largest being built in 1951 and the newest being built in
1986 or 21 years ago. EC vitoria is apparently scheduled to have a stadium completed this year which looks very modern and would probably bring them up to Fifa standards thus enabling them to host matchs for that contest.
Ec vitoria occupies the new of the two stadiums with pro clubs in salvador.

You are also looking at the modern new comforts that make for more revenues of the team.

I liked visited your city in 2005 some crazy women there to say the least LOL.

jim jones

I am not from Salvador. I am from Novo Hamburgo, a 250k city 40km north of Porto Alegre, in southern Brazil.
http://img245.echo.cx/img245/8747/12828453nr.jpg

gutooo

March 6th, 2007, 09:22 PM

And the stadia fever is on in Brazil!

Almost all big teams are announcing new projects :banana:

Most of them are thinking about the world cup, but cities like Rio, São Paulo or Porto Alegre are going to build (or re-build) more than 1 stadium :banana:

Here 2 projects for Porto Alegre:

The first one is Grêmio Arena. This is not the final project, this project was done by a portuguese group. Another project is being done be Amsterdam Arena Advisory.

45-50K all seater
http://www.gremio.net/upload/media/news/g_0_p1070299.jpg
http://www.gremio.net/upload/media/news/g_0_p1070301.jpg
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/745/image3fw1.jpg
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/9967/image2je1.jpg
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/96/image5vh5.jpg

And this is the new Beira Rio Stadium, a 50-60k all seater!

http://i15.tinypic.com/2nlwj21.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/47t90ll.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/43cp3sg.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/3zizxa9.jpg
http://i17.tinypic.com/47cy0ys.jpg

bucki

March 7th, 2007, 02:33 AM

:banana: :banana: :banana:

Now, Brazil have many good projects for WC 2014!!

EADGBE

April 13th, 2007, 11:58 PM

Just read this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/6553285.stm

Basically, Colombia have pulled out of the running to host the 2014 World Cup, which FIFA have decreed to be South America's 'turn' in the continental rotation policy they now have.

This leaves Brazil unopposed as the sole bidding country. There's a thread on here somewhere about their preparation for the 2008(?) Panamerican Games.

Incidentally, Colombia have form where this is concerned. I'm sure they were initially nominated to host the 1986 World Cup, which they eventually were not able to fulfil. As we all know, Mexico were the eventual hosts, having stepped in with I think only two years' notice.

mrk

April 14th, 2007, 12:46 AM

this new fifa system of awarding world cups is a total farce

Sparks

April 14th, 2007, 03:14 AM

Expect America to be the back up.

Jim Jones WINS!!!!!!

April 14th, 2007, 06:32 AM

Brazil is on a stadium building effort right now and their airport situation is very good. Ground transport in urban areas might be the key place for improvement but they are actually in a better state of readiness today with Stadiums then South Africa is with 2010. Some smaller urban centers like Curitiba have great urban transport systems.

Rio De Janeiro could with a reworked Maracana and their new João Havelange Olympic Stadium on an urban railway with stations beside them would certainly help the Brazil bid. With A bid for the 2016 summer olympics the great transportation infrastructure can be tied together in a joint project.

You might think now could brazil host both the olympics and world within two years? It have been done with two countries before Mexico 1968 for the olympics and 1970 for the world cup and Munich Germany for the 1972 olympics and the 1974 world cup.

JIM JOnES wins !!!!!!!!!

MasonsInquiries

April 14th, 2007, 07:36 AM

samsonyuen

April 14th, 2007, 09:55 PM

No one else wants it in South America?

Canadian Chocho

April 15th, 2007, 12:18 AM

I think it's that no one else has the balls to take the risk.

Jim Jones WINS!!!!!!

April 15th, 2007, 01:05 AM

yes I think you are right but also a chile and argentina might think it is Brazil's turn and chile with a strong economy but few urban centres with stadiums would probably pass simply because the wordl cup is very huge for everything compared to their only hosting in the 1960's . Argentina has problems with creditability for their economy and whether that country will not slip back into the problems they had a few years back .

Colombia or Venusula are the only two creditable coutnries in south america that could challenge a Brazil 2014 bid. It is a wonder why hugo chavezz doesn t have a bid with the ammount of modern soccer stadiums they are building there.

Jim Jones Wins!!!!!!!

spud

April 15th, 2007, 04:03 AM

beat me to it.....i was going to say i'm suprised hugo chavez did'nt throw a bid in.

TEBC

April 15th, 2007, 04:20 AM

Kngkyle

April 15th, 2007, 06:04 AM

I hope Brazil wins. :D
Then chances are the 2016 Olympics will go to Chicago. But who knows, too soon to tell.

Jim Jones WINS!!!!!!

April 15th, 2007, 06:57 PM

I hope Brazil wins. :D
Then chances are the 2016 Olympics will go to Chicago. But who knows, too soon to tell.

I think the chances are the anyone but the United States will be the mantra for the IOC with many members being in europe asia and the developing world that don't look good with iraq and other issues like the Kyoto Accord on climate change.

Tokyo is a good possibility but that means a hit for NBC and American television which is the big money generator for the games.
Rio if it can get it infrastructure together is a good compromise because time zone wise you can watch events in Rio live in New York in prime time without having to run athlete events at bad hours for the athletes like case is with Beijing 2008.

Rio puts the games in the sweet spot for advertisement times for American broadcasters and the spin off effect is better worldwide sponsorship deals with the IOC. Chicago's bid depends on what happens with elections next year and what direction the new president take the country with foreign policy.

Jim Jones Wins!!!!!!!

Canadian Chocho

April 16th, 2007, 02:02 AM

Jim Jones WINS!!!!!!

April 16th, 2007, 01:51 PM

:lol: Chile and Argentina sharing a World Cup!!

Argentina is the crazy uncle in the attic as far as the personality. Chile is one of the members of the family that actually owns the house and knows the personality warts too well LOL.
Chile I cant see ever trusting Argentina to hold up their end of the deal because of Argentina's Economy Imploding on December 20 th 2001. I have been to Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil and Chile and believe me BA is a great city but after I talked to the former head of Sony South America, who lost everything because of Argentina's mishandling of their economy, I don't think any one with money would trust the Argentinians with their money in a long term project. I am sure Chileans were probably victims in Argentinas economic problems in recent history. Chile would be better served to do a joint bid with Peru and that is even iffy with the broader dispute those two countries had.

IT is wonder that Hugo Chavez does not bid because they are putting up modern stadiums to host the next Copa cup. Venezuela also has the resources financially to host but does not seem to have the will at this time.
Who knows it could be a possible clash with America TV that FIFA fears as American TV recently signed a huge Deal with FIFA. Considering the relations between Chavez and Bush Sepp Blatter might not want to unset a new set of commerical deals in North America which Fifa wants to grow like the IOC has.

Brazil really is the only viable country in South America right now to mount a bid. The economy is growing very well, the economics are sound reducing their balance of trade with the rest of the world. You have some friction with the united states but that pales in comparision to Hugo Chavez LOL.

Jim Jones Wins !!!!!!!

Gherkin

April 16th, 2007, 11:49 PM

USA should interfere with FIFA and convinve them that 2014 should go to any country from the Americas. USA vs Brazil would be an entertaining bidding war.

AcesHigh

April 17th, 2007, 03:18 AM

^thank god FIFA, unlike fucking IOC, awards its events to poor countries.

Benjuk

April 17th, 2007, 05:41 AM

USA should interfere with FIFA and convinve them that 2014 should go to any country from the Americas. USA vs Brazil would be an entertaining bidding war.

I'm pretty sure that the 'rotation' DOES say The Americas, rather than South America. It's just that the USA had it last time it was in the Americas (and Mexico have had it twice), so it's not their turn, and no one else in the North/Central could handle a finals at the moment.

AndreÇB

April 17th, 2007, 09:33 PM

Brazil will benefit a lot with the construction of more MODERN GROUNDS...

In the last years, some great projects were developed, mostly after the construction of Kyocera Arena in Curitiba.

FIFA is aware of the importance of this rotation for the development of class A football fields...

Kngkyle

April 17th, 2007, 10:25 PM

I think the chances are the anyone but the United States will be the mantra for the IOC with many members being in europe asia and the developing world that don't look good with iraq and other issues like the Kyoto Accord on climate change.

To my knowledge, we are bidding for the 2016 games, not the 2007 games. The current issues going on in the world certainly will not be the same issues in 2016, nor issues in 2009 when the bid city is chosen. For one, the US will have a new president. There is a good chance that new President will be Barack Obama, who is a Chicagoan and has already offered his support to the Chicago bid. Europe will have had 3 out of the past 4 Olympic games. So I really doubt they would give it to Madrid or Rome. Tokyo has a shot but their public support for the bid is low, and Beijing is hosting 2008. Rio is the biggest competition, but if they win the 2014 World Cup, Chicago looks to be the front runner. Also, remember that many IOC members said that the USOC should submit a city for 2016. I doubt they would say that if there was no chance for the US.

Sorry for taking this off topic.

samsonyuen

April 17th, 2007, 11:37 PM

Someday Canada could...

MoreOrLess

April 18th, 2007, 12:17 PM

To my knowledge, we are bidding for the 2016 games, not the 2007 games. The current issues going on in the world certainly will not be the same issues in 2016, nor issues in 2009 when the bid city is chosen. For one, the US will have a new president. There is a good chance that new President will be Barack Obama, who is a Chicagoan and has already offered his support to the Chicago bid. Europe will have had 3 out of the past 4 Olympic games. So I really doubt they would give it to Madrid or Rome. Tokyo has a shot but their public support for the bid is low, and Beijing is hosting 2008. Rio is the biggest competition, but if they win the 2014 World Cup, Chicago looks to be the front runner. Also, remember that many IOC members said that the USOC should submit a city for 2016. I doubt they would say that if there was no chance for the US.

Sorry for taking this off topic.

Europe will have had 2 of the last 4 games by 2016...

Sydney 2000
Athens 2004
Beijing 2008
London 2012

I'd see Brazil hosting the 2014 WC as a positive for a Rio olympic bid not a negative since infrastrcuture and expereince from one event can be used for the other.

AcesHigh

April 18th, 2007, 05:52 PM

a Olympic event is a CITY event. Rio will get olympic infrastructure and experience from the Pan American games, not the World Cup.

Kngkyle

April 18th, 2007, 06:06 PM

Europe will have had 2 of the last 4 games by 2016...

Sydney 2000
Athens 2004
Beijing 2008
London 2012

I'd see Brazil hosting the 2014 WC as a positive for a Rio olympic bid not a negative since infrastrcuture and expereince from one event can be used for the other.

I mean if Madrid or Rome was to win the 2016 bid. It would be 3 out of 4 past Olympics in Europe.

Jim Jones WINS!!!!!!

April 18th, 2007, 06:50 PM

a Olympic event is a CITY event. Rio will get olympic infrastructure and experience from the Pan American games, not the World Cup.

and how do you figure that both events don't have many of the same elements? With an olympics you have to have stadiums of Fifa standards for host the soccer and as with the United States Hostings of the Olympics Soccer is not confined to the main metro area that is the host city. Standford University in Palo Alto, California, Harvard University on the east coast and Annapolis Maryland also on the east coast were soccoer venues for prelim rounds for the 1984 olympics and nothing has really changed as the 2008 Olympics in Beijing have venues for soccer in other cities in china.

The transportation infrastructure is on a larger scale with more destinations for a world cup to cover but an olympics in many cases is not confined to the city limits of a host city either. Maracana would likely be the soccer venue for the finals and other rounds as the Rose Bowl was for the 1984 games and the home depot center would be for the failed 2016 bid by LA.

I would figure San Paulo, Belo Horizonte and Curitiba would be playing a role for soccer venues for the 2016 Olympics if awarded. All Stadiums for Olympic competition come under the authorization of Fifa.

No hosting a world cup two years prior to an olympics actually enhances prep work for the olympics as you basically have to have the same capacity for both events for transportation and accoms.

Airport capacity seems to have to be increased for both . Good transportation inter urban is the main difference that Fifa needs. LAX had to add on a terminal building for the 1984 games and LRT as did Atlanta for the 1996 games . You are talking about two of the larger airports for capacity in the world and I have not doubt that Ohara for Chicago would be the same case.
The great advantage TV wise for a Rio hosting is that a camera crew could be zooming into and out of the different outside shots of venues including sailing from Corcovado Mountain and the Christ the redeemer statue. .
I could see NBC setting up a broadcast host temporary studio on that hillside with the statue as a backdrop lit at night.

Fifa world cup is a bit more of nation involvement for the spread of soccer venues but it seems the Olympics needs 4 soccer stadiums to fifa ten or twelve. Killing two birds with one stone is probably Brazil's best course and with Brazil in stadium building mode to have modern soccer stadiums anyways the advantages are great for Brazil hosting both which two years. Being awarded the world cup for 2014 will enhance the bid for 2016 there is no doubt because the world cup will have to have much of what the summer games needs two years in advance of the 2016 summer games.

Jim Jones Wins!!!!!!!