SkyscraperCity Forum banner

-

Status
Not open for further replies.

ENGLAND - FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022 bid

292K views 2K replies 236 participants last post by  venki04ss 
#1 ·
England to bid for 2018 World Cup

FA considers 2018 World Cup bid

England last hosted the World Cup in 1966

Football Association chief executive Brian Barwick says that England may bid to host the 2018 World Cup after the success of the 2012 Olympics campaign.
He said: "It's right and proper for the London Olympics bid to take precedence but why wouldn't we go for it?

"I think we would bid further down the line. The next time that it should come to Europe is probably 2018 and we have got enough time to get organised."

The FA, who missed out in the 2006 bid, have yet to make any firm decisions.

Next summer's World Cup will be staged in Germany and is not expected to return to Europe for another 12 years.

England hosted the World Cup in 1966 - when the home nation won the tournament - and also staged Euro 96.

But their efforts to host the 2006 World Cup ended in failure, with the English FA accused of breaking an agreement to support Germany after they backed England's Euro 96 campaign.

I considered London 2012 a blow to those hopes but then remembered Germany and America hosting both within a few years of each other

Barwick, meanwhile, is hopeful that England will win next summer's World Cup.

"I see 2006 as a big year for the Football Association. Hopefully we will qualify for the World Cup and give it a real go," he said.

"If and when we qualify, we would go into the World Cup as one of the teams that can win it. It's in the right climate and the right time-zone.

"We have a very good team and are making impressions on European club football too.

"I think we've made progress as an international footballing nation and can be expected to do well. This country will come to a halt if we do."
 
See less See more
#305 ·
well!! the premiere is the best in the world not to mention for what they receive in tv broadcast $4 billion maybe more but I think in a way it sucks a lot of tv commercials during halftime like many U.S. tv sport broadcast its boring watching a lot of commercials .besides I think if England host another WC it will be a total success I remember the EURO96 without a doubt......
 
#309 ·
Its AlL gUUd said:
are you serious?
Well my posting was meant a little provokative I admit(you know the good old soccer rivalry between Germany and England ;) ), but I do believe the stadia in Uk are at the rather small end for a worldcup in Europe.

The thing is, you have to take the capacity of the stadia as all seaters, without terracing and at the moment you have don't have many stadia that are large enough, but of course that wil change until 2018 to some extend.


JimB said:
I take it that you are German?

So answer me this: at the time that Germany bid for the 2006 World Cup, how many FIFA compliant stadia of over 50,000 were there in Germany?

3? 4? 5?
Well the 2006 worldcup in Gemany had an overall average attendance of the matches of 52.000 visitors.

we had these twelve worldcup stadia with the following Worldcuo capacities (all seaters):

Berlin: 72.000

Munich: 66.000

Dortmund: 65.000

Gelsenkirchen:52.000.

Stuttgart: 52.000

Hamburg: 50.000

Frankfurt am Main: 48.000

Kaiserslautern: 46.000

Cologne: 45.000

Hannover: 43.000

Leipzig: 43.000

Nürnberg: 41.000

So we had exactly 6 Stadia with a capacity of 50.000 and more seats. in the world cup 06 and in a few cases we could theoretically also have chose one or two larger stadia than we did with the ones in Leipzig, Hannover and Nürnberg.
So as you see the average attendance was 52.000 which was slightly more than 50.000

I believe England has plenty of nice stadia. But there are other countries in Europe who have a similar number of very lage stadia also.

Someone mentioned Japan as an example for smaller stadia, but Japan is not realy comparable because it's in asia and the not in Europe, so they had completely other countries to compete with there. England is going to have to win the race against countries like Spain/Portugal, maybe the Benelux countries, maybe Russia and whatever else, like Greece, Turkey... etc. So I believe England has got good, probably even very good chances, but they're surely not going to go win the bid easily if they do. The competitors aren't gonna make it easy for you. If one country hasn't got enough very large stadia, they'll just run with a joint bid like Spain and Portugal or the Benelux.
You guys here mostly sound like it's all been decided allready and you only need to find the best and biggest stadia in the country, but the trurth is, it's not and there are a number of other options in europe who could win the bid also.
 
#310 ·
Well my posting was meant a little provokative I admit(you know the good old soccer rivalry between Germany and England ;) ), but I do believe the stadia in Uk are at the rather small end for a worldcup in Europe.

The thing is, you have to take the capacity of the stadia as all seaters, without terracing and at the moment you have don't have many stadia that are large enough,
We don't have any terracing in England; the capacities listed for our stadiums are the capacties they would be in the world cup - and that's assuming there is no exapansion on top of this, and there is likely to be.

I think the average capacity per match could easily be over 55k in England 2018, and should be approaching 60k.
 
#312 ·
Well I believe 60k is a bit overly optimistic... but that's just my opinion.
I don't mean an average of 60k per stadium, I mean an average of 60k per match, bearing in mind the bigger stadiums will host more often than the smaller ones.

I did some calculations yesterday based on a very conservative list of possible venues and capacities and the average attendence per match came out at 58-59k.

I don't see why if two or three of the bigger proposals come off, we shouldn't have over 60k. It's slightly optimistic but not at all unrealistic.

Don't forget the premier league and quite a few british clubs aren't doing all too well financially right now...
I don't quite know where you got this idea from. The Premier League only last week signed a £1.8 billion TV deal for the next few seasons which is distributed between clubs. It and its clubs are doing remarakbly well financially given the economic climate. Liverpool's is perhaps the most important new stadium in an England bid and it's true they're not in the best shape they've been, but they are an exception to the overall rule as far as I can tell.
 
#315 ·
Even if it was legal I doubt the organizers and FIFA would go that route. The spirit of the rule is to have the games dispersed around the nation, and efforts like what you're suggesting would lead to a lot of political squabbling among other potential venues. FI, I don't think Stadium of Light and Saint James would both be used despite being in different cities, as they're simply too close. Ditto the possible clustering of venues around Sheffield, Derby, Nottingham, Leicester and Leeds - I don't see more than one making the cut from that pool. Thus, since London will almost assuredly host 2 stadiums there will be no other metro conurbation with more than 1. As with my attempts above, the organizers will identify the sure-things within the major cities of London, Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester and then, as they've publicly stated, look to spread the wealth as best as possible throughout the rest of England.
 
#314 ·
Re: The England/Germany discussion

England's issue is the dispersal of venues and tourist-appealing metro areas. While Germany has (IIRC) nearly 2 dozen independent metro areas with more than 1M people, England really only has 6. Thus, they'll have numerous top-rate venues that will miss the chance to host WC games because of the 1-stadium per city rule. They should still be more than fine, even in near worst-case scenarios. Assuming the clubs and governments can only cobble together the minimum improvements necessary to host the event you'd be left with something like this.

Givens
90k Wembley
76k Old Trafford
60k Emirates
55k 'Pool or Everton (City would ensure at least one of the new venues is built.)
55k Sunderland (Unless St. James gets permission/funding to reach 60k)
51k Villa Park

Assumptions
43k Portsmouth
40k Bristol
40k Middlesbrough/Hull
45k Nottingham/Derby

For the group stages this would mean every venue gets three games, with an avg attendance of 55,500 per match. Knock out rounds would be played in the larger venues, meaning the avg. for the event would only increase from there. Granted Wembley's largess accounts for a lot of this but we get the drift.

Now while some of these options may not come to light surely others will, including some that would only make the event larger (Liverpool's new venue, say). I'd say the Stadium of Light gets the nod over St. James due to realism and costs efficiency, and I don't suspect Birmingham will build a 55k venue for BCFC unless they've the money and need for a domed, multi-purpose venue such as Veltins Arena. Some of those smaller venues might even include conditions that allow the stadium to be easily downsized after the event, so the likes of Portsmouth and Bristol aren't left with half empty stadiums on game days.
 
#317 ·
Re: The England/Germany discussion

England's issue is the dispersal of venues and tourist-appealing metro areas. While Germany has (IIRC) nearly 2 dozen independent metro areas with more than 1M people, England really only has 6. Thus, they'll have numerous top-rate venues that will miss the chance to host WC games because of the 1-stadium per city rule. They should still be more than fine, even in near worst-case scenarios. Assuming the clubs and governments can only cobble together the minimum improvements necessary to host the event you'd be left with something like this.

Givens
90k Wembley
76k Old Trafford
60k Emirates
55k 'Pool or Everton (City would ensure at least one of the new venues is built.)
55k Sunderland (Unless St. James gets permission/funding to reach 60k)
51k Villa Park

Assumptions
43k Portsmouth
40k Bristol
40k Middlesbrough/Hull
45k Nottingham/Derby

For the group stages this would mean every venue gets three games, with an avg attendance of 55,500 per match. Knock out rounds would be played in the larger venues, meaning the avg. for the event would only increase from there. Granted Wembley's largess accounts for a lot of this but we get the drift.

Now while some of these options may not come to light surely others will, including some that would only make the event larger (Liverpool's new venue, say). I'd say the Stadium of Light gets the nod over St. James due to realism and costs efficiency, and I don't suspect Birmingham will build a 55k venue for BCFC unless they've the money and need for a domed, multi-purpose venue such as Veltins Arena. Some of those smaller venues might even include conditions that allow the stadium to be easily downsized after the event, so the likes of Portsmouth and Bristol aren't left with half empty stadiums on game days.
Don't disagree with a lot of that and your point about England having relativley few cities of 1m people is important.

However, I strongly disagree that the Stadium of Light will be chosen over St James' Park. It might be slightly smaller than a realstic expansion of the SoL, but it's in a superior location (city centre in a city with lots to do) and is overall a much more interesting stadium to present.
 
#320 ·
Can somebdy make a EXTREME list? For example

Wembley 90,000-100,000 (lowering pitch and adding 3-5 rows)
Old Trafford: 90-92,000
Liverpool: 73,000
Newcastle: 60,000 or even 80,000?

etc

So what would be the max. possible capacity
 
#328 ·
England 2018



Here you go:)

The Ultimate Bid


London

Wembley Stadium = 90,000 > 115,000 capacity from lowering the pitch and adding 5 rows to the 1st tier and adding 5-7 rows to the back of the 3rd tier.

Emirates Stadium = 60,000 > 80,000 capacity by filling in the corners and adding a few rows to the 1st tier.


Manchester

Old Trafford = 76,000 > 96,000 capacity by rebuilding the south stand to mimic the north stand.


Liverpool

Stanley Park = 60,000 - 73,000+ capacity.


Birmingham

Villa Park = 42,000 > 60,000+ from redevelopment of the north stand and filling in the corners on either side of the north stand. This is possible.


Newcastle

Saint James' Park = 52,000 > 80,000+ by expanding the remaining small stands and corners to mirror the two larger stands. This may however prove difficult or even impossible due to listed buildings behind one of the stands.


Leeds

Elland Road / New stadium = 50,000 - 55,000 capacity stadium by either major redevelopment of the current stadium or a move to another location.


Sheffield

Hillsborough / New stadium = 50,000+ capacity stadium by either major redevelopment of the current stadium or a move to another location.


Nottingham

New Forest Stadium = 50-55,000 capacity stadium.


Bristol

New Stadium = 45,000 capacity stadium that could be renovated after the WC.


Ipswich / Norwich

New stadium = 45,000+ capacity to be used by either Ipswich or Norwich after the WC.


Southampton

Saint Mary's = 32,000 >>> 45,000 capacity through redevelopment.



Others to consider


London

New Chelsea Stadium = 65,000 >>> 80,000+ capacity.

New White Heart Lane = 60,000+ capacity

Twickenham Stadium = 82,000+ capacity


Manchester

City of Manchester Stadium = 48,000 >>> 60,000+ capacity by adding a 3rd tier to the stands behind each goal end.


Liverpool

New Goodison = 50,000 - 60,000 capacity.


Birmingham

City of Birmingham Stadium = 55,000 capacity.


Sunderland

Stadium of Light = 48,000 >>> 64,000 through expansion to a 2 tier bowl.


Coventry

Ricoh Arena = 32,600 >>> 45,000+ through partial redevelopment.


Leicester

Walkers Stadium = 32,500 >>> 45,000+ through partial redevelopment.
 
#321 ·
I think sometimes people forget we're talking about 9 years in the future and the english league. This means that it is almost certain that a number of clubs will have expanded their stadiums or moved by then. Here is my list (based upon solid rumours at the bare minimum)

Wembley/London - 90,000-100,000
Old Trafford/Manchester - 76,000-90,000
New Anfield/Liverpool - 73,000
New WHL or Emirates/London - 60,000
St James' Park/Newcastle - 52,000-60,000
Villa Park/Birmingham - 42,000-51,000
New Leeds/Leeds - 50,000
New Forest/Nottingham - 40-50,000
Brammel Lane/ Sheffield - 40,000
New Portsmouth/Portsmouth - 40,000

Other
City of Birmingham/Birmingham - 50,000
City of Manchester/Manchester - 48-60,000
New Everton - 50,000
Walkers/Leicester - 40,000
Ricoh/Coventry - 40,000
St Marys/Southampton - 40,000
Stadium of Light/Sunderland - 48,000
Pride Park/Derby - 40,000
Riverside/Middlesborough - 42,000
New Bristol City/Bristol - 40,000
Hilsborough/Sheffield Wednesday - 40,000

The FA and government will offer money for stadium renovations and being a potential WC host could spur a number of clubs to further expand their stadiums.
 
#325 ·
The FA and government will offer money for stadium renovations and being a potential WC host could spur a number of clubs to further expand their stadiums.
I very much hope that that does not happen. It would be quite wrong.

Such a system of subsidy works fine in countries like Italy or Germany, where the stadiums are generally owned and managed by local government. But it cannot work in England, where stadiums are owned and managed by the individual clubs.

Just imagine the outcry if, for instance, Portsmouth, Bristol City and Nottingham Forest were given £20 million of public or FA money to increase their stadium capacity by 10,000. There would be riots in Southampton, Derby and Leicester - not to mention an awful lot of unhappy Notts County and Bristol Rovers fans!

Nope, if stadiums are to be renovated and expanded, it absolutely must be at the expense of the clubs involved. If they genuinely desire the honour of becoming a World Cup host then they must be prepared to make all necessary financial committments.
 
#322 ·
i know wembley can go to 100,000 without lowering the pitch. In its athletics mode the extra capacity comes from installing seats where the current disabled fans sit. They would be allocated elsewhere in the stadium and an additional 10,000 seats or so can be put in place.

St James Park can get to 60,000 but no more, not unless the listed buildings behind one of the stands are moved brick by brick and i seriously doubt that would happen.
 
#333 ·
There seems to be the consensus that only one stadium in the North East will be used. I can't understand that. I believe that both st james's and the stadium of light will be used. OK they are close together but they are two distinct separate cities. It would be better using both these than holding out for a stadium on the south coast that isn't going to be big enough and is likely to be white elephant. Or the ones in sheffield.

Also a bit of history in 1966 they were going to use both, but NUFC wouldn't improve the ground so Middlesbrough was used instead.
 
#335 · (Edited)
You have some strange ideas about this bid. :)

In the other thread you seem to be convinced London won't have two stadiums and in this thread you're advocating having two stadiums in the N.E. instead of a south coast stadium!

Your idea for the bid would be incredibly lopsided towards the north! Two London stadiums and a stadium on the coast (Portsmouth being the most likely option and it would no way be a white elephant) seems to give the best spread to me. Then have a few in the midlands, and your big northern stadiums (Liverpool, Man U, Newcastle).
 
#337 · (Edited)
LONDON
Wembley
Emirates or New WHL

SOUTH
New Portsmouth

BIRMINGHAM
Villa Park

MANCESHTER
Old Trafford

LIVERPOOL
Stanley Park

NEWCASTLE
St James' Park

YORKSHIRE
Elland Road

EAST MIDS
Derby expansion or New Forest Stadium

-----------

^^ These nine would be definites for me. Then, depending on how many stadiums you wanted I'd also line up a Bristol new build, the Stadium of Light, and a Sheffield Stadium. But the core of the bid, and the cities and stadiums I would definitely include, I've listed above.
 
#338 ·
Ok seems a good geographical spread. My main concern is the new Portsmouth is going to be 36000. Even with temporary expansion it will only scrape in at the bottom end. Thats if they ever build it, the club are haemorrhaging money, selling players left right and centre, is up for sale and likely to be relegated. The other south coast stadium is a non starter as Southampton fc might not exist in a couple of weeks and definitely going into administration and the 3rd division. So they wont have the money to expand. Its good idea for a south coast stadium but practically I can't see it happening.

I also don't think the new forest stadium will be as big as they say 40K at the most. I have also concerns over the 3 possible venues in Yorkshire. Bramall lane will always be too small. When FIFA say 40K thats in world cup mode so you are really meaning 43K+. Wednesday and Leeds their redevelopments depend on getting finance, as both would need large amounts of money. The only outsider that will definitely be built is Bristol City, they're a well run club and that ground will be built.

My point is Sunderland is there it can be expanded easily and is used by 40k+ every other week. Thats why I would always include it, its a low risk option.

This highlights the problem in England the best supported clubs are the 2 in North London, 2 in Liverpool, 2 in Manchester and the 2 in the North East.
 
#345 ·
Addressing a few points about the North East...

It would be hard to have both St James' AND Stadium of Light in a bid as, despite being two distinct cities, they are served by just the one airport, and whilst there are numerous hotels in the area, I'm not sure if there are enough to satisfy FIFA's criteria for BOTH cities simultaneously.

The Riverside in Middlesboro would never be used ahead of either of the above mentioned existing stadia. They are both bigger and whilst neither really needs to be extended, The Riverside DEFINATELY doesn't need any more seats.

With regard to Portsmouth - I strongly suspect that the recently stated 36k capacity is a deliberate ploy by the club's owners to get others (government/FA) to chip in the extra funds to bump capacity up to 40/45k as part of a world cup bid. Clever tactic on their part.
 
#346 ·
If there are no clubs on the south coast or west country that can sustain a stadium with a capacity of at least 40,000 then I dont think they should stage games there.
The best stadiums are a bit clustered around certain areas but if logistically possible, I think every effort should be made to use those, even if the distribution isnt as geographically fair as it might be.
In the North West you have Liverpool and Everton who probably will have brand new stadiums by 2018 plus Manchester has COM and Old Trafford. The North East has Stadium Of Light and St James's, in the Midlands there is Villa Park. In London there will likely be at least 5 stadiums suitable. The main problem area is Yorkshire with three big clubs that could sustain 40k plus stadia but all currently needing very expensive improvements to make any fit for a World Cup.
 
#347 ·
Right I will clear a few things up.

London not having two stadiums was based on what I had heard in an interview. I was only relaying this information, as everybody thinks its a certainty that it will have two. It wasn't some great anti south conspiracy. My idea was to use it as a backup venue if one of the others falls through which will happen.

South coast stadium.
When pompey's was first announced I thought that would make a good world cup venue and add to the spread. My main point was the inclusion of Sunderland as its already built and some of the proposed venues might not happen. I picked on the south coast to highlight this, again not an anti southern thing. I was highlighting that with the financial situation of both clubs. Pompey might not be able to afford the new ground and if they do build one it might only be one of the drab bowls of about 32K and not expandable. Southampton is just a none starter.

This backs me up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/p/portsmouth/7879229.stm

Before you say its in 9 years time. How long have Leeds and Sheffield Wednesday been out of the premier league. Both are still struggling financially.

I also highlighted the problems in the Yorkshire region where projects might not get off the ground. I mean Bates is too interested in his motels to build stands!

Also for people saying use government money that is a none starter. The public finances are in a mess and will take 20 years to put right. Also the public will not like government money being spent on football grounds. Why should they pick up the bill for an industry that is perceived to be awash with money. Plus the cost overruns of the Olympics will put people off spending government money.

What I'm trying to say is make use of as many of the stadiums that are there and that are likely to see a high level of use afterwards.
 
#349 ·
This is a negative for the bid imho, if we don't have stadiums geographical spread out around our country that are fit to host world cup games then surely our bid is a non starter...

The world cup is going to have a much bigger effect on our economy than the olympics, especially in regard to future tourism to our smaller cities not just for the world cup, but afterwards as well... surely the government can justify spending on stadiums dor this reason
 
#353 ·
At the time that Germany won the bid for the 2006 World Cup, in July 2000, their stadium infrastructure was inferior to what England could currently offer. They had far more work to do. And it turned out to be a great World Cup.

South Africa had (and have) a scary amount of work to do. But I am equally sure that it too will be a great World Cup with great stadiums.

So the amount of work required of England, should they win the 2018 bid, needn't be a problem.
 
#357 ·
Old Trafford wouldn't "need" any expansion - though it is likely to happen simply because the demand is there.

The new Liverpool stadium is inevitable because of the demand. I also think it highly likely that Villa Park and at least one of St James Park or the Stadium of Light will be expanded over the next five years or so, regardless of the World Cup.

The only new builds or expansions that could be problematic, financially, are an expansion or new stadium for Nottingham Forest and an expansion to St Mary's or a new stadium for Pompey.
 
#359 ·
Yes, demand is important but you would still need to build 2 or 3 or 4 venues from scratch.
Thats gonna cost quite a bit, apart from the upgrades to Villa Park or Elland Road.

With regards to Old Trafford, minor upgrades here and there are necessary but its basically ready.
 
#361 ·
Yes, demand is important but you would still need to build 2 or 3 or 4 venues from scratch.
Thats gonna cost quite a bit, apart from the upgrades to Villa Park or Elland Road.

With regards to Old Trafford, minor upgrades here and there are necessary but its basically ready.
New Pompey Stadium
New Anfield

I don't think any other new ones are really needed to be honest. The rest could be done with expansions of existing venues quite easily. For example, if building a new Forest stadium is problematic, an expansion to Derby's Pride Park would be very do-able and is something the club have been wanting to do for a while.

If a new Bristol stadium isn't forthcoming - something which may help with the geographical spread, I'd include either another upgrade in the midlands/north (include Sheffield for example), or the Stadium of Light (a stadium I wouldn't neceassrily consider a first choice otherwise).

Two new builds in 8 years isn't unrealistic or a huge task, even if the recession is as deep as it looks like it will be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top