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 February 13th, 2008, 11:45 AM   #2981
Quintana
Registered Abuser
 
Quintana's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: 美好的码头
Posts: 4,316
Likes (Received): 1157

They are trying to overtake Nigeria as world leaders.
Quintana no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 13th, 2008, 12:40 PM   #2982
Vilak
Let's dance in style!
 
Vilak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nimes
Posts: 569
Likes (Received): 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by REDcrazy View Post
England 2018

1) Wembley Stadium, London
2) Emirates Stadium, London
3) Old Trafford, Manchester
4) New Anfield, Liverpool
5) St. James' Park, Newcastle
6) New Pompey Satdium, Portsmouth

to be redeveloped / expanded:
6) Villa Park or St. Andrew's, Birmingham
8) Riverside Stadium, Middlesbrough
9) Stadium of Light, Sunderland
10) Elland Road, Leeds or St. Mary's, Southampton

Why not Twickenham instead of Emirates? I think the rugby union could rent it just for the world cup like The irish gaelics did for Croke park for their rugby team.
Is it really an impossible dream or is that have a realistic feel?
Vilak no está en línea  
Old February 13th, 2008, 01:16 PM   #2983
canarywondergod
Registered User
 
canarywondergod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Camberley/ Norwich/ Birmingham
Posts: 713
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vilak View Post
Why not Twickenham instead of Emirates? I think the rugby union could rent it just for the world cup like The irish gaelics did for Croke park for their rugby team.
Is it really an impossible dream or is that have a realistic feel?
The RFU and FA dont exactly have the best of relationships (at the moment) which stems back many years, i think to do with the redevelopment of twickenham and the FA's reluctance to let games be played at wembley (i believe) so the chances of the FA being allowed to play at Twickenham would be slim, unless their relationship was improved
canarywondergod no está en línea  
Old February 13th, 2008, 01:17 PM   #2984
carlspannoosh
Registered User
 
carlspannoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Islington
Posts: 2,215
Likes (Received): 744

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vilak View Post
Why not Twickenham instead of Emirates? I think the rugby union could rent it just for the world cup like The irish gaelics did for Croke park for their rugby team.
Is it really an impossible dream or is that have a realistic feel?
The only reason Croke Park was permitted to be used was because there was nowhere else to play.That doesn't apply in England. Twickenham doesn't want Association Football , Emirates does. So stuff the extra 20k seats as far as I am concerned, The Emirates is a better choice.
carlspannoosh no está en línea  
Old February 13th, 2008, 03:21 PM   #2985
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by REDcrazy View Post
England 2018

1) Wembley Stadium, London
2) Emirates Stadium, London
3) Old Trafford, Manchester
4) New Anfield, Liverpool
5) St. James' Park, Newcastle
6) New Pompey Satdium, Portsmouth

to be redeveloped / expanded:
6) Villa Park or St. Andrew's, Birmingham
8) Riverside Stadium, Middlesbrough
9) Stadium of Light, Sunderland
10) Elland Road, Leeds or St. Mary's, Southampton
This is my ideal list of English cities and stadiums I would like to be used for a 2018 world cup. The stadiums have a minimum and maximum capacity which have been suggested in the past, and some stadiums I have made up as I feel something new would have to be built in that city. However when the bid goes in I don't think that all the stadiums will have the maximum capacity, although I would like them too. But please bear in mind Sepp Blatter has said he wants the minimum stadium size in 2018 to be 45,000.


Ideal list:
1. London, Wembley Stadium, 90,000.

2. Manchester, Old Trafford, 76,212 - 95,212.

3. Liverpool, New Anfield, 71,000.

4. London, Emirates Stadium, 60,432.

5. Newcastle, St James Park, 60,390.

6. Birmingham, Villa Park, 52,000.

7. Leeds, New Leeds Stadium, 40,00 - 50,000.

8. Nottingham, New Nottingham stadium, 45,000 - 50,000.

9. Sheffield, New Sheffield Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

10. Southampton, St Mary's Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.

11. Bristol, New Bristol Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.

12. Norwich, New Norwich Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.


What do you think about these cities?

Reserve Stadiums:
1. London, New West Ham Stadium, 55,000 - 60,000.
2. London, New Chelsea Stadium, 55,000 - 65,000.
3. London, White Hart Lane, 55,000.
4. Birmingham, City of Birmingham Stadium, 55,000.
5. Liverpool/ kirkby, New Everton Stadium, 50,000 - 60,000.
6. Sunderland, Stadium of Light, 49,000 - 64,000.
7. Manchester, City of Manchester Stadium, 47,726.
8. Portsmouth, New Portsmouth Stadium, 36,000 - 45,000.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old February 13th, 2008, 11:51 PM   #2986
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
This is my ideal list of English cities and stadiums I would like to be used for a 2018 world cup.

Ideal list:
1. London, Wembley Stadium, 90,000.
2. Manchester, Old Trafford, 76,212 - 95,212.
3. Liverpool, New Anfield, 71,000.
4. London, Emirates Stadium, 60,432.
5. Newcastle, St James Park, 60,390.
I think we're all comfortable with this as the given first allotment. Even if the 'Castle continues to struggle they'd be foolish not to expand the stadium before the event so as to get the renovations they want and maximizing this event as a resource to help pay for it.

Quote:
6. Birmingham, Villa Park, 52,000.
7. Leeds, New Leeds Stadium, 40,00 - 50,000.
Barring a surprising move by the city council to build the dreamt of new stadium for Birmingham City, I concur with this list. Villa may not need an expansion right now, but if the expansion also did a nice job at sprucing up Villa Park they'd be foolish to miss this opportunity to help pay for some enhancements. Ditto for Leeds, and while they're wallowing right now due to poor ownership it's not unreasonable to suspect they could make it back to the PL by this time and thus sustain a crowd of 38-42k per match. Adding a modest expansion around the 3 sides without upper tiers would do the trick. Though in both of these cases I'd refrain from building anything too big. Design for further expansion but build for sustainable quality in the near term.

For me Sunderland is also an automatic. The stadium is nice, meets capacity standards and I'm told they won't be considered in the same city area as Newcastle, per FIFA's fussiness. Assuming that is the case, and given the stretch to find more clubs that could maximize a 45k stadium I'd be hard pressed to see the Stadium of Light left out of the Cup.

Now we get into the more daydream scenarios (and one reason I wish England would contract out the right to use Millennium Stadium)...

Quote:
8. Nottingham, New Nottingham stadium, 45,000 - 50,000.
9. Sheffield, New Sheffield Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.
10. Southampton, St Mary's Stadium, 40,000 - 48,000.
11. Bristol, New Bristol Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.
12. Norwich, New Norwich Stadium, 40,000 - 45,000.
You've done a fair job of dispersing the locations and picking clubs that would use the digs, if not completely fill them up.

- I tend to think Portsmouth gets the nod over Southampton. They could more easily upgrade their proposals from 36k or provide space for temporary seating, and may have a better chance at filling the grounds then do the Saints.

- Technically only one more is needed. Either Sheffield club could do an expansion and offer history to the equation, but we're starting to reach the limit of clubs that could regularly fill 45k. Norwich or Ipswich would be nice for providing something east of London. I tend to think Ipswich might be the one most able to utilize the bigger facility, but Norwich might make the better overall destination.

Anything at this point becomes which club wants it and thinks the larger facility won't be too big for their purposes.
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 02:59 AM   #2987
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2759

THis is how this sports writer handicaps the picks so take it for whats its worth...
Quote:
http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_yl...yhoo&type=lgns

Weighing U.S.'s World Cup chances

By Martin Rogers, Yahoo! Sports
February 12, 2008


The bidding process for the 2018 World Cup promises to be one of the most fiercely fought in recent memory, and U.S. Soccer plans to throw itself right into the middle of the fray.

Officially, America's soccer governing body has not even confirmed that it will apply to host the tournament, but don't be fooled. U.S. Soccer president Sunil Gulati started to show his hand last week and early indications are that the federation will throw its full weight behind a campaign aimed at staging soccer's greatest event for the second time.

What are the U.S.'s chances for bidding success? What impact would the tournament have on soccer in the country? And what potential roadblocks and opponents stand in the way? Let's take a look.

THE DYNAMICS

The FIFA rotation policy that took the 2010 World Cup to South Africa and the 2014 World Cup to Brazil was perfect for the U.S. Everything seemed set up for the tournament to fall into the Americans' lap since CONCACAF (the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football) was the next federation in line for 2018.

However, that all changed on October 29, 2007 when FIFA altered the system. Now, only the previous two hosting federations are excluded from applying – in this case, Africa and South America.

The U.S. can effectively blame the South Americans for the change. From the early days of the 2014 bidding process, CONMEBOL (the South American Football Association) threw its weight behind Brazil, and that led to Argentina and Colombia eventually withdrawing their bids. By the time the final process came around, Brazil was left as the sole candidate.

The commonly held belief at FIFA is that competition breeds excellence, and the way the hosting rights were effectively handed to Brazil on a plate sparked calls for a return to a more open system. For the 2018 World Cup, only Europe, CONCACAF and Asia can submit bids (if you exclude Oceania, which has no appropriate candidates now that Australia has joined Asia). But there are still some heavyweight contenders.

"We are being very quiet about what we are doing," Gulati said. "We are going to make a decision by June 1. The bid specifications will not be out until next year, but we are confident that, whatever those specifications say, we would be in a position very quickly to meet the technical requirements.

"In the end, it comes down to campaigning, and we think the World Cup would be fabulous here again."

THE REASONS WHY

Why? Because everyone wants to host a World Cup, but not everyone can.

Because, along with the Olympics, it is one of the two greatest international events in sports. Because hosting the World Cup, and hosting it well, conveys immense prestige upon the country and pumps hundreds of millions of dollars into its economy. And because it would finally put the United States on the world soccer map once and for all.

Still need convincing? Well, how about the fact that host nations have an excellent record of success (see France in 1998 and South Korea in 2002), so it would provide the U.S. the best chance of making a meaningful run into the later rounds.

Most of all, U.S. Soccer doesn't even have to think about stadiums. Thanks to the NFL, more than enough big venues are already in place. The 1994 World Cup in America still holds the overall attendance record for any World Cup, despite having only 24 teams and fewer games than every World Cup since.

Other logistical planning (such as security) will be helped by Chicago's bid to host the 2016 Olympics.

"I have said a couple of times to the guys at FIFA that we could have hosted the World Cup in 1998 and not used any stadium that even existed in 1994," Gulati said. "We could have done the exact same thing in 2002 and 2006, and every one of those would have had a higher attendance than every World Cup previously."

But what about the game itself?

Certainly, America has put down far stronger soccer roots since 1994, and, by 2018, Major League Soccer will have nearly doubled in age. Continuing increases in the Mexican, South American and Caribbean communities will only help the growing popularity of the sport.

THE REASONS WHY NOT

In part, the bidding process is a popularity contest. Right now, the worldwide opinion of the U.S. is pretty low due to the war in Iraq.

Then there's the appeal of another European World Cup. The 2014 tournament will represent the first time that two consecutive World Cups will be held outside of Europe. And if the U.S., China or Australia were successful in 2018, that would make it three.

Would the voting members be happy with a situation that saw at least 16 years elapse between Germany 2006 and the next World Cup in that soccer-mad continent?

Russia may have the most developed bid at this premature stage, but the Russians could be hurt by the decision to go east for the 2012 European Championships in Poland and Ukraine. England could well pose the biggest threat.

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT

We can only imagine. Who knows how big MLS will be by 2018, but if it continues at its current rate, then it is fair to assume that in 10 years a position as a solid second-tier league just behind the likes of England, Spain and Italy is a realistic goal.

MLS chiefs are loathe to talk about laying down challenges to other North American sports, but it is fair to say they have hockey in their sights, with basketball a future target.

If soccer has reached its current level in the U.S. from a standing start prior to 1994, just think what momentum could be generated by staging a World Cup from a reasonably established position? The growth in terms of player numbers, domestic attendances and general public awareness could be off the charts. Time will tell.




Martin Rogers is a soccer writer for Yahoo! Sports. Send Martin a question or comment for potential use in a future column or webcast.


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

THE CONTENDERS
Here is the competition for 2018 and their chances for hosting. Right now, the pole position in this race doesn't belong to the U.S.

England – It can put together a bidding committee packed with heavyweight soccer and political figures. Chelsea's Peter Kenyon, Manchester United's David Gill and athlete-turned-politician Lord Coe, who secured the 2012 Olympics for London, would all likely be involved. The prospect of a tournament in the birthplace of the game and a World Cup final at Wembley Stadium would be enticing. Chances: 33 percent.

United States – Chances: 28 percent.

Russia – This would be one of the wealthiest bids, with big businessmen such as Roman Abramovich likely to lend their support. Their biggest negative: sorry to say this, but the country itself. Moscow is scandalously expensive and Russia is hardly most people's idea of a dream World Cup destination. Chances: 16 percent.

Australia – Being a southern hemisphere nation, the Aussie winter may provide the perfect climate for a tournament to be held in June. Impressive stadiums are already in place, including the 2000 Olympic Stadium in Sydney and the massive Melbourne Cricket Ground. Chances: 12 percent.

China – The bids of China and Australia are both worthy but there is no feeling that the Asian continent is "overdue" after Japan and South Korea staged the 2002 World Cup. China is definitely a future destination for the tournament, but probably not just yet. Chances: 7 percent.

Benelux – Belgium and Holland did a decent job with the 2000 European Championships, but the World Cup might be a step too far. They would have a huge amount of work to do in terms of infrastructure because there simply aren't enough big stadiums. Chances: 3 percent.
..
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 10:59 AM   #2988
Anberlin
Registered User
 
Anberlin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,926
Likes (Received): 31

LOLOL
Anberlin no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 11:30 AM   #2989
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

USA 28% chance? Not likely. I really can't see anyone else but England getting 2018. 2022 for Oz!

P.S. The AFC are trying to make it so only one nation from the confederation will be nominating. So you would have to combine Australia & Chinas %.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 02:44 PM   #2990
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post
USA 28% chance? Not likely. I really can't see anyone else but England getting 2018. 2022 for Oz!

P.S. The AFC are trying to make it so only one nation from the confederation will be nominating. So you would have to combine Australia & Chinas %.
England has lost a lot of popularity around the football world because of the hair-brained "international round" crap coming from the Premier League. If they persist with the idea, they'll get Asia offside, and it won't do anything to convince Jack Warner and all his votes that they aren't as arrogant as he claims they are... Similarly, as the whole point of the 'international' round is make the EPL the dominent brand in the world of football, I can't imagine the rest of UEFA liking the idea too much either. The English killing the English bid... Who else could pull that off?
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 02:51 PM   #2991
Vilak
Let's dance in style!
 
Vilak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Nimes
Posts: 569
Likes (Received): 6

Don't think USA have that much chances.
England is the heavy favorite without a doubt.
Let's know what Spain car bring to make us change mind (except from all the expansion/new stadiums allready anounced).
Vilak no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 08:30 PM   #2992
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,149
Likes (Received): 2208

2006-> Europe
2010-> Africa
2014-> south america
2018-> it is the turn of Asia!

i don't understand why europe or usa can postulate this time around ???
__________________
W.A.O blog
Axelferis no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 08:39 PM   #2993
ottooo
Kijk omhoog!
 
ottooo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 210
Likes (Received): 1

The rotation system was cancelled by the FIFA.

Now a continent can host a WC if it hasn't hosted it the previous two times. So for 2018 Africa (South Africa 2010) and South America (Brazil 2014) can't host.
ottooo no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 09:15 PM   #2994
Axelferis
Registered User
 
Axelferis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A space between two worlds
Posts: 11,149
Likes (Received): 2208

??? i don't understand sorry. Could you be more clear please?
__________________
W.A.O blog
Axelferis no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 09:27 PM   #2995
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
??? i don't understand sorry. Could you be more clear please?
No
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 10:22 PM   #2996
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
I think we're all comfortable with this as the given first allotment. Even if the 'Castle continues to struggle they'd be foolish not to expand the stadium before the event so as to get the renovations they want and maximizing this event as a resource to help pay for it.
Newcastle announced in April last year that they are going to expand St James Park to 60,000+ in order to compete with Arsenal & Man U. I expect it will be the smaller stand behind the goal that will be enlarged, as the other smaller stand has a listed building behind it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Barring a surprising move by the city council to build the dreamt of new stadium for Birmingham City, I concur with this list. Villa may not need an expansion right now, but if the expansion also did a nice job at sprucing up Villa Park they'd be foolish to miss this opportunity to help pay for some enhancements. Ditto for Leeds, and while they're wallowing right now due to poor ownership it's not unreasonable to suspect they could make it back to the PL by this time and thus sustain a crowd of 38-42k per match. Adding a modest expansion around the 3 sides without upper tiers would do the trick. Though in both of these cases I'd refrain from building anything too big. Design for further expansion but build for sustainable quality in the near term.
Aston Villa shall be expanding Villa park for the 2012 Olympic games as it will be a host stadium for its football tournament, the capacity has been said to be pushed up to either 51,000 or 52,000.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
For me Sunderland is also an automatic. The stadium is nice, meets capacity standards and I'm told they won't be considered in the same city area as Newcastle, per FIFA's fussiness. Assuming that is the case, and given the stretch to find more clubs that could maximize a 45k stadium I'd be hard pressed to see the Stadium of Light left out of the Cup.
Yeah I expect Sunderland's would be used, thats interesting that they won't be considered in the same city area, if so that will really work in their favour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Now we get into the more daydream scenarios (and one reason I wish England would contract out the right to use Millennium Stadium)...
Yes it is such a shame that it can't be used and also that it can't be a GB bid as there are great stadiums in Scotland too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
You've done a fair job of dispersing the locations and picking clubs that would use the digs, if not completely fill them up.

- I tend to think Portsmouth gets the nod over Southampton. They could more easily upgrade their proposals from 36k or provide space for temporary seating, and may have a better chance at filling the grounds then do the Saints.
I read on Portsmouths website that they have chosen 36,000 as the new capacity as they want the stadium to be full for every game, and like the compact feel Fratton Park gives at the moment and want replicate that. They felt that 36,000 would be the right amount, as any bigger they feared for some matches they wouldn't get a full house, and that does not look good on TV.

However there 1st preposal which was by the railway station and spinnaker tower got rejected. They are now moving it a bit further out but still on the coast, and shall stick to a similar design and use the same archtects, Herzog and De Meuron. With Pompey's continuing success on the pitch I hope they revise the capacity to 40,000 or more.

I agree with you that they are doing better than Southampton, and their new stadium is miles & miles better than St Mary's. But St Mary's has been built so that it can have a full expansion to 48,000 (But would be bloody expensive). Where as Pompey just have the 36k proposed and want to stick with it for the moment, and for that reason I put St Mary's in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
- Technically only one more is needed. Either Sheffield club could do an expansion and offer history to the equation, but we're starting to reach the limit of clubs that could regularly fill 45k.
Yes there could be a battle between both Sheffield Clubs, United have plans to expand to 40,000, where as Wednesday are already at that but need a revamp/ new ground. We will have to wait and see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerJacket View Post
Norwich or Ipswich would be nice for providing something east of London. I tend to think Ipswich might be the one most able to utilize the bigger facility, but Norwich might make the better overall destination.

Anything at this point becomes which club wants it and thinks the larger facility won't be too big for their purposes.
Either Ipswich or Norwich, I think Ipswich has been the more successful club but I believe Norwich to be the better tourist destination, but it would be good to have a host city in East Anglia.

I hope that tourist destinations will play a part in the bid so places like Bristol to be included.
Kobo no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 10:32 PM   #2997
eomer
Bring Constantinople back
 
eomer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Val de Marne (Paris)
Posts: 13,816
Likes (Received): 4634

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vilak View Post
Why not Twickenham instead of Emirates?
AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHH
Some football players at Twickenham !
Why not Wimbledon ?
__________________
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
eomer no está en línea  
Old February 14th, 2008, 11:37 PM   #2998
Samacado
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 53
Likes (Received): 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
??? i don't understand sorry. Could you be more clear please?
In the 90es FIFA decided to have a rotation system for the continents to host a world cup, starting with Asia 2002. Europe 2006, Africa 2010, South America 2014.

Next would have been North America, but the FIFA stopped the rule.
Samacado no está en línea  
Old February 15th, 2008, 12:36 AM   #2999
ottooo
Kijk omhoog!
 
ottooo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Utrecht
Posts: 210
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
??? i don't understand sorry. Could you be more clear please?
Is this clear enough?
ottooo no está en línea  
Old February 15th, 2008, 10:37 AM   #3000
soy chiva y que.....
Registered User
 
soy chiva y que.....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: mexico df
Posts: 128
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axelferis View Post
2006-> Europe
2010-> Africa
2014-> south america
2018-> it is the turn of Asia!

i don't understand why europe or usa can postulate this time around ???

maybe because :

2006-germany (sorry)
2010-south africa
2014-brazil
2018-CONCACAF (MEXICO,USA,CANADA)
2022-EUROPA (ENGLAND,BELGIUM AND HOLLAND,SPAIN AND PORTUGAL)
__________________
WwW.EsTaDiOChIvAs.cOm.mX
Me la pones de a kilo, Nena...

Last edited by soy chiva y que.....; February 15th, 2008 at 11:17 PM.
soy chiva y que..... 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 04:58 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