daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > World Forums > Stadiums and Sport Arenas

Stadiums and Sport Arenas » Completed | Under Construction | Proposed | Demolished



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Which bid should host the FIFA World Cup 2018 / 2022?
Australia - 2018 255 12.32%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2018 247 11.94%
England - 2018 538 26.00%
Indonesia - 2018 68 3.29%
Japan - 2018 35 1.69%
Mexico - 2018 105 5.07%
Qatar - 2018 78 3.77%
Russia - 2018 279 13.48%
South Korea - 2018 16 0.77%
Spain / Portugal - 2018 267 12.90%
USA - 2018 116 5.61%
Australia - 2022 378 18.27%
Belgium / Netherlands - 2022 111 5.36%
England - 2022 114 5.51%
Indonesia - 2022 122 5.90%
Japan - 2022 37 1.79%
Mexico - 2022 149 7.20%
Qatar - 2022 153 7.39%
Russia - 2022 148 7.15%
South Korea - 2022 23 1.11%
Spain / Portugal - 2022 184 8.89%
USA - 2022 249 12.03%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 2069. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old November 27th, 2007, 03:43 PM   #2841
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,772
Likes (Received): 10327

Great start
RobH no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 27th, 2007, 05:26 PM   #2842
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavn View Post
What I said was about you claiming you'd be World Champion if it was for you fans...

But please, can we rest these arguments and all. Around me I hear a lot of jokes like "the police over there will be happy England didn't qualify" and similar remarks. Personally, I don't really agree with those. But when I use them as a possible "image problem" I'M getting crucified. It apparently is a fairly sensitive matter for you guys...

So I'm not going to discuss it any more. I'll always be offending someone, and others fail to see that I'm not necessarily speaking my own oppinion.
It's quite clear that, despite all your protestations of innocence, you have been trolling on and on about England and the English 2018 bid for the past five or ten pages. That's not to say that some English posters haven't been equally guilty. But the fact that you continually post crap about English hooligans and about how the English are arrogant etc and then recant, claiming that it was only a joke, means that people have tired of you. Your claims of innocence appear totally insincere. So I think you're right. Best that you don't discuss it any more.
JimB no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 05:36 PM   #2843
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joop20 View Post
Regarding this issue: it has been stated numerous times in this thread that Australia is in the 'wrong' timezone to host a world cup. I don't think this is totaly true. Australia is very convienetly located regarding the timezones of for example China, Japan and South Korea, which are important markets for Fifa.
After Brazil 2014, the next two world cups will go to Europe and Asia. If Asia gets 2018, Europe will get 2022 and vice versa. Australia is now a member of the Asian Football Confederation and shares the same time zones with many big Asian countries, so there's no good reason why they couldn't host the World Cup.
JimB no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 05:43 PM   #2844
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
After Brazil 2014, the next two world cups will go to Europe and Asia. If Asia gets 2018, Europe will get 2022 and vice versa. Australia is now a member of the Asian Football Confederation and shares the same time zones with many big Asian countries, so there's no good reason why they couldn't host the World Cup.
Yep, that's exactly what i was saying, hence the timezone argument against an Australian bid isn't valid.
Joop20 no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 05:55 PM   #2845
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Regarding the relative merits of a Benelux bid and an English bid, I think it would come down to Benelux never having hosted a World Cup before against England having a plethora of iconic footballing venues.

I'm quite certain that Holland and Belgium could have good enough and big enough stadiums by 2018. But England will still be superior in that one vital respect. The Benelux stadiums would probably have an average capacity of no more than 50,000. The English stadiums would, by 2018, probably have an average capacity in excess of 60,000.

Furthermore, because of the worldwide coverage of the Premiership and because of the fame and popularity of clubs such as Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal, English stadiums have an iconic status that the Benelux stadiums will not be able to match. And that's before even considering Wembley.

However, Holland and Belgium have never hosted the World Cup and many will feel that they deserve a chance. I suspect, also, that the English bid will be scuppered by political manoeuvring. The bumbling English FA has never been good at winning friends in high places. Many within FIFA (and UEFA) would therefore love to deny England the chance to host the World Cup and will side with Holland and Belgium.
JimB no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 06:09 PM   #2846
mavn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 180
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
It's quite clear that, despite all your protestations of innocence, you have been trolling on and on about England and the English 2018 bid for the past five or ten pages. That's not to say that some English posters haven't been equally guilty.
I haven't. The first time, I only used to point out some issues that COULD be a negative thing for the English bid IN COMPARISON to other bids. The 50 pages before that "the English" (unfair generalization, I know. Just to make my point) did exactly the same about the non English bids. Apart from a possible Spanish bid, all others were being flamed. I never intended to start a discussion the way it turned out. I merely pointed out the things that you could work on to make the bid more succesfull (improved public transport and an improved image for the English supporters for the people outside of England)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
But the fact that you continually post crap about English hooligans and about how the English are arrogant etc
People kept misunderstanding me thinking I claimed that all English supporters are a bunch hooligans. I tried to clear that by saying what I meant with the hooligan issue which was again interpreted as if I was flaming them. A lot of people simply didn't read my posts. People kept quoting me thinking I said all English fans are hooligans...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
and then recant, claiming that it was only a joke, means that people have tired of you.
I never said it was a joke. You are mixing up two things here. The quote: "Austrian and Swiss entrepreneurs will be happy though. Insurance fees will probably be halved after tonights result" was used in a teasing post about the English failing to qualify for euro 2008. For me, it was obvious that this was a teasing joke. Perhaps I shouldn't have made it given the earlier discussions. My bad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Your claims of innocence appear totally insincere.
I would like to ask you to read all my posts on this issue and then come back to me on it. From the start onwards I never said the English supporters are Hooligans. Only that there is a negative image in a lot of peoples minds outside of England.

I've read in papers and heard on TV several remarks like "the Austrian/Swiss police will be happy England didn't qualify". I'm not making this up. I'm just stating what I hear.

All I tried to do, was to point out an issue that could harm your bid somewhat in regards to other bids. Not because it is true, but because a lot of people still think it's true. Do with it as you like, but don't accuse of intolerance just because I'm saying the things I see and hear around me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
So I think you're right.Best that you don't discuss it any more.
I've said all I had to say, but people keep quoting me an then state false accusations.

Last edited by mavn; November 27th, 2007 at 07:03 PM.
mavn no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 06:22 PM   #2847
eomer
Bring Constantinople back
 
eomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Val de Marne (Paris)
Posts: 13,824
Likes (Received): 4640

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Europe though could shoot it's self in the foot here by putting in so many bids, and thus losing lots of votes.
That's so thrue...
Maybe should UEFA organize a vote to chose only one European bid before sending it to FIFA ? I think that Spain should host Euro 2016 (assuming that Madrid won't get OG 2016) and England should host WC 2018).
Australia can wait until 2022. Spain allready hosted in 1982, USA in 1994 and Mexico in 1970 and 1986.

If UK got Euro 2016 (Scotland and Walles) after OG 2012 (London), Commonwealth games 2014 (Cardiff) and RWC 2015 (Scotland or England), it will be hard for England to get WC 2018: Benelux would be a good choice for Europe.
__________________
Cordialement, Kind Regards
Eomer
Look to my coming, at first light, on the fifth day. At dawn, look to the East.
A l'aube du cinquième jour, regardez vers l'est

Last edited by eomer; November 27th, 2007 at 06:53 PM.
eomer no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 06:44 PM   #2848
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by eomer View Post
That's so thrue...
Maybe should UEFA organize a vote to chose only one European bid before sending it to FIFA ? I think that Spain should host Euro 2016 (assuming that Madrid won't get OG 2016) and England should host WC 2018).
Australia can wait until 2022, USA allready hosted WC 1994 and Mexico allready hosted WC twice (1970 and 1986)
I think that is what would happen, Uefa will have to back one bid from Europe so that it stands a good chance of bringing the World Cup back to Europe in 2018. Otherwise China, Australia or U.S.A will win. Deciding which country should be that European bid will be tough.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 06:45 PM   #2849
mavn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 180
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Regarding the relative merits of a Benelux bid and an English bid, I think it would come down to Benelux never having hosted a World Cup before against England having a plethora of iconic footballing venues.

I'm quite certain that Holland and Belgium could have good enough and big enough stadiums by 2018. But England will still be superior in that one vital respect. The Benelux stadiums would probably have an average capacity of no more than 50,000. The English stadiums would, by 2018, probably have an average capacity in excess of 60,000.

Furthermore, because of the worldwide coverage of the Premiership and because of the fame and popularity of clubs such as Man Utd, Liverpool and Arsenal, English stadiums have an iconic status that the Benelux stadiums will not be able to match. And that's before even considering Wembley.

However, Holland and Belgium have never hosted the World Cup and many will feel that they deserve a chance. I suspect, also, that the English bid will be scuppered by political manoeuvring. The bumbling English FA has never been good at winning friends in high places. Many within FIFA (and UEFA) would therefore love to deny England the chance to host the World Cup and will side with Holland and Belgium.
Our stadiums won't be able to compete with yours capacity wise. That will be fact. But our stadiums will probably be of similar size to the ones in Germany last year so we'll be able to give you a good battle.

When it comes to the worldwide acknowledgment of your teams and stadiums I think you're exagerating a bit. New Wembley shares nothing with the "real" Wembley other than the name and ground it's build on. But the name will probably be a big selling point in itself I guess.

And as to clubs, I don't think Arsenal for instance can compete with Ajax on being known worldwide. And let's not start about the prizes they've won. Even Feyenoord and PSV can compete with Manchester United when it comes to European trophies. England as a whole have obviously won more trophies than we have though and you're league has become way bigger. Money rules.

Emirates stadium is a nice new stadium but the Amsterdam Arena isn't some kind of old dump. And as to "the kuip" (feyenoord stadium) it has featured more european finals then any other stadium. Talking about iconic status...

Yes, like I said, you're stadiums will out power ours, but it's not like we are putting some old just big enough dumpsters in the race.

And you're national team isn't as big a selling point anymore. On the contrary, Your stadiums profit from the premier League but you're national team doesn't. You're league is buying so much foreigners that several names that come on the pitch are virtually unknown to the general population in the world. The players we do know from teams like Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester and Chelsea are foreigners. Not much of our players play in Holland but they do play in the big leagues for big teams. They are recognized worldwide.

Blatter has stated on several occasions did he doesn't like the fact that the big leagues just buy all the players they can get and leave the smaller countries empty. If the Premier League keeps doing business as it is now, it could harm you're chances. That's the negative side to having a big league with big stadiums.
mavn no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 08:54 PM   #2850
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4

Gold Coast stadium u/c, nearing completion (capacity - 27,000):







Melbourne Rectangular stadium u/c (capacity - 31,500):



Joop20 no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 09:05 PM   #2851
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavn View Post
Our stadiums won't be able to compete with yours capacity wise. That will be fact. But our stadiums will probably be of similar size to the ones in Germany last year so we'll be able to give you a good battle.

When it comes to the worldwide acknowledgment of your teams and stadiums I think you're exagerating a bit. New Wembley shares nothing with the "real" Wembley other than the name and ground it's build on. But the name will probably be a big selling point in itself I guess.

And as to clubs, I don't think Arsenal for instance can compete with Ajax on being known worldwide. And let's not start about the prizes they've won. Even Feyenoord and PSV can compete with Manchester United when it comes to European trophies. England as a whole have obviously won more trophies than we have though and you're league has become way bigger. Money rules.

Emirates stadium is a nice new stadium but the Amsterdam Arena isn't some kind of old dump. And as to "the kuip" (feyenoord stadium) it has featured more european finals then any other stadium. Talking about iconic status...

Yes, like I said, you're stadiums will out power ours, but it's not like we are putting some old just big enough dumpsters in the race.

And you're national team isn't as big a selling point anymore. On the contrary, Your stadiums profit from the premier League but you're national team doesn't. You're league is buying so much foreigners that several names that come on the pitch are virtually unknown to the general population in the world. The players we do know from teams like Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester and Chelsea are foreigners. Not much of our players play in Holland but they do play in the big leagues for big teams. They are recognized worldwide.

Blatter has stated on several occasions did he doesn't like the fact that the big leagues just buy all the players they can get and leave the smaller countries empty. If the Premier League keeps doing business as it is now, it could harm you're chances. That's the negative side to having a big league with big stadiums.
Sorry, but 90% of what you have just written is irrelevant.

When bids are considered, the domestic league and the quality of the national team is unimportant. Otherwise, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, USA and even Mexico would never have hosted the World Cup.

And I repeat: England's stadiums will be far better known than Holland's and Belgium's. That's not an arrogant boast. It's simply fact. (and, incidentally, I never said that Benelux's stadiums would be poor quality - just that they would be smaller and less iconic). Comparatively few people around the world watch the Eredivisie. By contrast, virtually the whole world (other than South America) watches the Premiership avidly.

But, as I also said, the decision won't be made purely on the basis of stadiums. Benelux has a good chance because they have never hosted the world cup before and because there will be many voters who won't want England to be awarded the tournament. For those reasons, I'd even go so far as to say that Belgium and Holland is more likely to be the next European host than England.
JimB no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 09:40 PM   #2852
mavn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 180
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Sorry, but 90% of what you have just written is irrelevant.

When bids are considered, the domestic league and the quality of the national team is unimportant. Otherwise, South Africa, Japan, South Korea, Sweden, USA and even Mexico would never have hosted the World Cup.

And I repeat: England's stadiums will be far better known than Holland's and Belgium's. That's not an arrogant boast. It's simply fact. (and, incidentally, I never said that Benelux's stadiums would be poor quality - just that they would be smaller and less iconic). Comparatively few people around the world watch the Eredivisie. By contrast, virtually the whole world (other than South America) watches the Premiership avidly.

But, as I also said, the decision won't be made purely on the basis of stadiums. Benelux has a good chance because they have never hosted the world cup before and because there will be many voters who won't want England to be awarded the tournament. For those reasons, I'd even go so far as to say that Belgium and Holland is more likely to be the next European host than England.
Ok, I get your point. Maybe we just mean something different by "iconic". Because I don't think it applies to stadiums like Emirates, the new Liverpool stadium and new Wembley. Their "just" really nice, big, new stadiums like in any other country. Highbury, Anfield and old wembley would have been iconic though.

And with regard to the league, I think it's pretty relevant when people like Blatter and Platini make negative comments on the Premier league. They will eventually be the kind of people that will decide who gets the World Cup. If the Premier League opposes to the plans Blatter has with regards to the amount of foreigners per team and such things, not giving them the world cup could be a easy punishment from their point of view...

But as it is, England is still a small favourite for me. Let's wait till the real bids are made, only then we can say who has the best one and who will be the one to beat.
mavn no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 09:56 PM   #2853
Lars13
Registered User
 
Lars13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Antwerpen4
Posts: 79
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
For those reasons, I'd even go so far as to say that Belgium and Holland is more likely to be the next European host than England.

Let me give you some additional reasons...

First of all, the call to bring the world cup back to Europe will be enormous after twelve years of absence. Bear in mind that it will be the first time in world cup history that the tournament will be held outside Europe for two consecutive times! Therefore we can rule out all non-European candidates.

Secondly, England will host the Olympic games in 2012, so for them to host the world cup four years after that, would be slightly "over the top". But that doesn't mean Enland is a bad candidate, on the contrary! Football would come home (again), and they have the stadiums and know-how to organise this kind of mass-event.

What to do with Spain then? The biggest competitor for Belgium and Holland I guess. Nice stadiums, with plenty of updating (e.g. Cap Nou) and new construction initiatives (e.g. Valencia). But it would be the second time they'll host a world cup...

My vote goes to Belgium and Holland, but they have to come up with some solid plans and propositions to make their bid more tangible.
Lars13 no está en línea  
Old November 27th, 2007, 10:35 PM   #2854
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars13 View Post
First of all, the call to bring the world cup back to Europe will be enormous after twelve years of absence. Bear in mind that it will be the first time in world cup history that the tournament will be held outside Europe for two consecutive times! Therefore we can rule out all non-European candidates.
Can't really agree with you on this point. Remember that the last world cup in Asia was in 2002, while the last world cup in Europe was in 2006. If Europe can't unite behind one bid, and Asia can, I don't see why China or Australia won't have a fair chance for the 2018 world cup.
Joop20 no está en línea  
Old November 28th, 2007, 12:36 AM   #2855
dwbakke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 57
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
Been google-newsing some old articles - I can see an Aussie bid falling apart as Victoria and NSW argue over who hosts the final!

Are any of our American friends able to comment on if there were any such problems in the US pre1994 Finals (New York arguing with LA for example?)
New York almost didn't get to host any games at all, due to complications with the field at the Meadowlands, which in 1994 was artificial turf. A temporary grass field was eventually put in for the World Cup, but the final had been already set for LA. The Rose Bowl is bigger and LA probably would have gotten the final anyway, but these issues ensured it.
dwbakke no está en línea  
Old November 28th, 2007, 01:44 AM   #2856
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joop20 View Post
Regarding this issue: it has been stated numerous times in this thread that Australia is in the 'wrong' timezone to host a world cup. I don't think this is totaly true. Australia is very convienetly located regarding the timezones of for example China, Japan and South Korea, which are important markets for Fifa.
One comment re the time zone issue...

If a game kicks off in Sydney at 3pm, live broadcasts in Europe would be between 6-9am, in East Africa/Middle East 9am - in South America it would be between 1-3am, in North America between 11pm-1am. None of them particularly good for tv ratings/advertising revenue - especially as around 19 of the qualifying sides come from the "Euro" time slot, similarly 8 or 9 are from the Americas.

That's the chief reason FIFA likes to bring things back to Europe - keep the biggest audience happy, keep the cash rolling in. That said, I've no idea how much the tv rights are in far East Asia - but I suspect they don't rival those in Europe.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old November 28th, 2007, 03:03 AM   #2857
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by mavn View Post
Ok, I get your point. Maybe we just mean something different by "iconic". Because I don't think it applies to stadiums like Emirates, the new Liverpool stadium and new Wembley. Their "just" really nice, big, new stadiums like in any other country. Highbury, Anfield and old wembley would have been iconic though.
Not just big and new. The English stadiums will also be known around the world. To give you an example of what I mean:

For my sins, I'm a Spurs fan. We're a big club with a good history. But we haven't been successful over the past twenty years. And we've rarely played in Europe in all that time. And yet, the players and supporters of our UEFA Cup opponents over the past two seasons have been incredibly excited to come to White Hart Lane. They know all about Tottenham and White Hart Lane. I know this because I love to visit the message boards of those European teams that we are about to play.

Without exception, they have all been thrilled to come up against Spurs. Not because they thought it gave them an easy route to the next round (quite the contrary - last season, in particular, we were one of two or three teams most likely to win the cup). The reason all these teams and fans have been thrilled to play Tottenham is because, whether you like to admit it or not, English football and English stadiums are so famous around the world.

One of the teams Spurs faced earlier this season was Getafe. They had beaten Twente Enschede of Holland in the previous round (Enschede would be one of the venues in any Holland / Belgium bid). Playing Twente was a big deal for Getafe fans but only because it was their first ever European game. In all other respects, they knew nothing about Twente or their stadium. By contrast, when Getafe fans discovered that their next game would be at White Hart Lane, they turned cartwheels of delight. That would be their first real taste of big time European football and a chance to play in such a famous stadium. They were chuffed to bits.

Tottenham has done hardly anything noteworthy in over twenty years. Yet to play against Spurs at White Hart Lane is still a dream come true for our opponents.

That is what any Holland / Belgium bid has to compete against.

Quote:
And with regard to the league, I think it's pretty relevant when people like Blatter and Platini make negative comments on the Premier league. They will eventually be the kind of people that will decide who gets the World Cup. If the Premier League opposes to the plans Blatter has with regards to the amount of foreigners per team and such things, not giving them the world cup could be a easy punishment from their point of view....
Blatter and Platini only make comments about the Premier League because it is one of the very biggest leagues. It is therefore worthy of comment. It makes for a good soundbite and portrays them as strong. But what they say about any domestic league won't have any impact on which country they believe is best suited and best able to host the world cup.
JimB no está en línea  
Old November 28th, 2007, 03:22 AM   #2858
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,019
Likes (Received): 4801

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lars13 View Post
First of all, the call to bring the world cup back to Europe will be enormous after twelve years of absence. Bear in mind that it will be the first time in world cup history that the tournament will be held outside Europe for two consecutive times! Therefore we can rule out all non-European candidates.
It's a new world. Asia is already a massive football market and it's getting bigger by the day. Come 2018, it will be 16 years since the world cup was last held in Asia. So I'd say that Asia has every chance of winning the vote.

Quote:
Secondly, England will host the Olympic games in 2012, so for them to host the world cup four years after that, would be slightly "over the top".
That won't be a consideration. Mexico had the Olympics in 1968 and the World Cup in 1970. West Germany had the Olympics in 1972 and the World Cup in 1974. USA had the World Cup in 1994 and the Olympics in 1996. A two year time gap in each instance. I hardly think that England would therefore be disqualified by a six year time gap. Besides, FIFA and the IOC are two entirely separate entities - one of which awards host status to a nation while the other awards host status to a city. They do not, and have never, coordinated over the issue of host nations / cities.

Quote:
What to do with Spain then? The biggest competitor for Belgium and Holland I guess. Nice stadiums, with plenty of updating (e.g. Cap Nou) and new construction initiatives (e.g. Valencia). But it would be the second time they'll host a world cup....
Main argument against Spain is that they have hosted the World Cup relatively recently, in 1982. By 2018, there will only have been three world cups held in Europe since Spain last hosted the tournament (Italy 90, France 98 and Germany 06). So however good Spain's bid might be technically, they ought not to get the World Cup again before the likes of Benelux, England or even Russia (should they bid).
JimB no está en línea  
Old November 28th, 2007, 06:26 AM   #2859
nazor
Perth
 
nazor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,656
Likes (Received): 635

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
One comment re the time zone issue...

If a game kicks off in Sydney at 3pm, live broadcasts in Europe would be between 6-9am, in East Africa/Middle East 9am - in South America it would be between 1-3am, in North America between 11pm-1am. None of them particularly good for tv ratings/advertising revenue - especially as around 19 of the qualifying sides come from the "Euro" time slot, similarly 8 or 9 are from the Americas.

That's the chief reason FIFA likes to bring things back to Europe - keep the biggest audience happy, keep the cash rolling in. That said, I've no idea how much the tv rights are in far East Asia - but I suspect they don't rival those in Europe.
its a 2 way street mate ....

we had to get up early to watch the last world cup! so what? people are still going to watch it. i dont think TV ratings should be a deciding factor in who hosts the world cup?
nazor no está en línea  
Old November 28th, 2007, 01:36 PM   #2860
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by nazor View Post
its a 2 way street mate ....

we had to get up early to watch the last world cup! so what? people are still going to watch it. i dont think TV ratings should be a deciding factor in who hosts the world cup?
But this is the real world.

My point was that the vast majority of world cup viewers are inconvenienced by the world cup being staged in the 'Asian' timezone, whereas 'only' the Asian timezone is negatively affected by a European world cup - more specifically that the majority of competing nations are from time-zones more suited to watching world cups from a Euro time-zone.

I don't put forward the time-zone as the singular reason why Australia (or China) won't get the 2018 Finals - it's just another hurdle to be cleared, along with distance to the country, distance between the venues, stadium facilities, infrastructure, population, popularity of the game, etc.
Benjuk no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
australia, united states of america, world cup

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu