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 July 3rd, 2008, 01:49 AM   #3681
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,733
Likes (Received): 5605

The Netherlands and Belgium are pushing ahead their proposed bid for the WC-2018. And this might help a bit:

In several Dutch newspapers and football magazines it has been reported that UEFA and FIFA were very much impressed with the number of Dutch fans that went to Switzerland. They were also very much impressed with the overall very, very good behavior.

The City of Bern even posted full-page adds in the leading Dutch newspapers thanking the Dutch fans for an unforgettable experience! And they opened up a special website to host many official and fan pictures and blogs about their experiences. Also the city of Basel, which hosted more than 100,000 Dutch fans for the match against Russia, was very pleased with that experience!

All these facts were seen by UEFA, but especially by FIFA representatives, as strong points for a possible Netherlands-Belgium WC-2018 bid. Their chances have certainly been strengthened by it. If it will be enough to win the bid remains doubtfull to me (I think "we" are still outsiders to win) but it has made the competition for England (and probably Spain) a bit tougher!
__________________
.
"Atheism is more than just the knowledge that Gods do not exist, and that religion is either a mistake or a fraud. Atheism is an attitude, a frame of mind that looks at the world objectively, fearlessly, always trying to understand all things as a part of nature" - Carl Sagan
EPA001 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old July 3rd, 2008, 04:39 AM   #3682
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
One city with two stadiums, the rest with only one.
I think this should be regarded as the minimum - I would think that if a country could supply the basic requirement (what is it? 10 stadia in 9 cities?) then it may be allowed to use two stadia in more than one city, over and above the basic retirement, such that, perhaps 12 stadia in 10 cities could be used. Euro 2004 had two stadia in two cities as these other stadia were used on top of the initial basic requirement. I see no reason why FIFA would oppose it for a World Cup, as long as the minimum requirements were met and average capacity increased.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 05:51 AM   #3683
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
I think this should be regarded as the minimum - I would think that if a country could supply the basic requirement (what is it? 10 stadia in 9 cities?) then it may be allowed to use two stadia in more than one city, over and above the basic retirement, such that, perhaps 12 stadia in 10 cities could be used. Euro 2004 had two stadia in two cities as these other stadia were used on top of the initial basic requirement. I see no reason why FIFA would oppose it for a World Cup, as long as the minimum requirements were met and average capacity increased.
As has been said before, FIFA have no reason to lower their standards or change the rules with regard to the requirements. They will get numerous bidders for any finals tournament with the existing requirements - I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed them up a little in years to come.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 06:38 AM   #3684
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

FIFA World Cup 2022 bids

I don't know if there already is one of these (I have seen the USA 2022 thread but this one is not solely focused on the USA). I have gone through the last 5 pages of threads and was unable to find one. If one already exists, apologies, I'm sure someone will inform me in short time.

The 2018 bid has already been discussed. I'm certain it will go to Europe, as there is too much money there for FIFA. 13 of the 32 teams in each world cup are from UEFA, by rights they deserve to host every third cup.

So that excludes UEFA and CONMEBOL bids, leaving Asia, Africa, North America and Oceania.
Oceania and Africa are out, as they don't have the facilities.
So it's between North America (US, Mexico and Canada), and Asia (China, Australia, Japan and Qatar).


I will now outline the requirements to host a world cup, as far as I know:

Minimum 9-12 stadiums with at least 40,000 capacity.
Opening match, semi's and final to be held in stadium with minimum 60,000 capacity.
One stadium per city, with one city allowed to use two stadiums.

Other things FIFA looks for:

Good infrastructure, ie, transport within cities to stadium (particularly rail), transport between cities (particularly rail), airports in host cities.

How often stadiums built for the tournament will be used after the cup (the more the better).

Quality of the domestic football league.

Quality of the national football team.

Support for football in the country.

5 star hotels for officials in host cities.

All other accommodation for fans.

Restaurants and other tourist facilities for fans.

Ability of authorities to plan and organize large scale events (police etc).


Thats all I can think of at the moment, please share if you have other ideas.



As for who will host the cup:

Mexico - No. Has already had it twice, I don't see it going back there yet. Also facilities aren't up to scratch.

Canada - No. Does not have facilities (no where near adequate), will never use football stadiums again, does not have enough interest in football.

US - Possibly, but i see it more likely they will hold it in 2026. Its too recent since they have had their last world cup. For a country of this size, the MLS is relatively poor. CONCACAF has had already 3 world cups, where as Asia has had only 1.

I think it will go to Asia. FIFA is very keen to grow the sport in the region.

Qatar - No. Facing too stiff opposition. Threat of terrorism may be a real problem. While they MIGHT have the money top build so many large scale stadiums, I can't see them ever being used again, apart from one or two.

Japan - No. Too soon after 2002 world cup.



So it's between China and Australia.

Both countries have positives and negatives so it's not clear cut at all. Chinas domestic league is Dismal, and completely corrupt. Australia's league is three years old and not the major sport league in the country (in fact it's third or fourth). China's national team is dismal.
Both countries could build stadiums, but would they be filled again after the world cup?

What you guys think?

Last edited by www.sercan.de; July 5th, 2008 at 12:51 PM.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 06:47 AM   #3685
Vanguard
Registered User
 
Vanguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,193
Likes (Received): 207

Quote:
Originally Posted by EPA001 View Post
The Netherlands and Belgium are pushing ahead their proposed bid for the WC-2018. And this might help a bit:

In several Dutch newspapers and football magazines it has been reported that UEFA and FIFA were very much impressed with the number of Dutch fans that went to Switzerland. They were also very much impressed with the overall very, very good behavior.

The City of Bern even posted full-page adds in the leading Dutch newspapers thanking the Dutch fans for an unforgettable experience! And they opened up a special website to host many official and fan pictures and blogs about their experiences. Also the city of Basel, which hosted more than 100,000 Dutch fans for the match against Russia, was very pleased with that experience!

All these facts were seen by UEFA, but especially by FIFA representatives, as strong points for a possible Netherlands-Belgium WC-2018 bid. Their chances have certainly been strengthened by it. If it will be enough to win the bid remains doubtfull to me (I think "we" are still outsiders to win) but it has made the competition for England (and probably Spain) a bit tougher!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9E1ZB9Ekwo
Vanguard no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 06:47 AM   #3686
kamilo
MUSE
 
kamilo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bogota - Tallahassee
Posts: 458
Likes (Received): 46

China all the way!!!
__________________
The market is the people
The people are the market
kamilo no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 07:10 AM   #3687
aussiescraperman
Registered User
 
aussiescraperman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne & Brisbane
Posts: 1,034
Likes (Received): 8

i think Australia would be able to manage it...but not sure if we'll get it. i mean i think australia could pull off a half arse performance within 4 years from now...we are talking 14 years intop the future...and if they do annouce which country will get it in 2011...australia will have enormous amounts of time to perfect it's tournament. it would be so nice to have it as it would spur growth in lots of different sectors..yay rail to Melbourne airport!
__________________
i can only imagine
aussiescraperman no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 07:27 AM   #3688
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Quote:
You can't say the same thing for 40k venues in Canberra, Townsville, Newcastle, on the Gold Coast, in Tasmania, even in Adelaide... Thus building them at vast expense for the sake of 4 world cup games each is a total blowout.
I think you are underestimating the positive economic impact of a world cup.

In 2002, with the three million live spectators, ticket sales were an astronomical US 1.2 billion dollars. FIFA alone promised each country 110 million for hosting and all revenue from their ticket sales. Most of these tickets were purchased by international visitors, resulting in a direct foreign funds injection into the economy.

I think something like 2.5 million international visitors made their way to Korea and Japan, each spending several thousand dollars each. Do the math it equals around 10 billion dollars, for the month the cup is on alone. Once again this is a direct foreign finance injection into the economy.

While I doubt Australia's benefits of a world cup would be as great as Germany's, here are some stats.

The German government reported that tourism revenue over the month of the World Cup was up roughly 400 million dollars. They made about 3 billion more dollars in retail such as jerseys and other paraphernalia regarding the Cup. Lastly, a reported 50,000 new jobs were yielded in preparation for the tournament. This impact sends ripples through an economy. Restaurants and bars were full to capacity at all hours of the tournament, and 15 million more spectators arrived in Germany than was expected.


What I'm saying, is that the money made on a world cup outweighs the costs of building new stadiums.

If new stadiums were to be built in Australia, some would have to be downgraded in terms of capacity after the tournament.

Newcastle is already renovating to a 33,000 capacity. By 2018 stadiums in Canberra, Townsville and Woolongong will be getting old and in need of an upgrade. AAMI stadium in Adelaide is old already and there have been talks of a new multipurpose being built.

In every single instance a world cup has been staged, it has pushed the host nation into developing ne or rebuilding old stadiums.


Quote:
As has been said before, FIFA have no reason to lower their standards or change the rules with regard to the requirements. They will get numerous bidders for any finals tournament with the existing requirements - I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed them up a little in years to come.
If FIFA does not lower its standards, there are only a handful of countries eligible to host the cup. While certain aspects such as stadium size and quality, infrastructure and safety shouldn't be ignored, other rules, such as one stadium per city, seem less important.

I doubt countries such as Germany, Italy, England and Brazil will each host the cup three times before FIFA lowers certain aspects of it's rules to allow the cup to be held in different parts of the world.

Belgium/Netherlands have never staged the cup, but their facilities, fans, infrastructure, football support, safety is second to none. Better in many ways than spain, Italy etc. I can't see these two countries not getting the cup in the near future (possibly after England).

FIFA often bends the rules when it feels like it. If it doesn't want to bend them, it just gets rid of them and makes new ones.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 08:16 AM   #3689
docker
A 'Refined Bogan'
 
docker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kalamunda, Perth
Posts: 6,878
Likes (Received): 1616

well lets look at a possible Australian Bid, considering only one city can have two stadiums i have gone with Perth having the two stadiums so it can hold an entire group stage matches by itself, to save the arguement between Melbourne and Sydney, and so the fans don't have to continually fly across the Nallubor to get to games in different cities.

Melbourne Cricket Ground - Melbourne - 98,000


Homebush - Sydney- 82,000


Subiaco Oval - Perth - 60,000 possible 70,000 depending on when the upgrade happens


Lang Park - Brisbane - 52,000


Robina Stadium - Gold Coast -45,000 (REDEVELOPMENT)


Adelaide Rectangular Stadium - Adelaide - 45,000 (NEW)


Perth Rectangular Stadium - Perth - 42,000 (NEW)
*can't find actually picture*


Dairy Farmers Stadium - Townsville - 40,000 (Redevelopment)


Energy Australia Stadium
- Newcastle - 40,000 (REDEVeLOPMENT)


Canberra Stadium - Canberra - 40,000 (REDEVELOPMENT)


other possibilities:
YORK PARK - TASMANIA
TIO STADIUM - DARWIN
SKILLED STADIUM - GEELONG
WIN STADIUM - WOLLONONG
CENTRAL COAST STADIUM - GOSFORD
__________________
I AM ME!

A video of my month long travel in the GMT Zones +8 and +9: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESV_t0Z12EE
docker no está en línea  
Old July 3rd, 2008, 08:45 AM   #3690
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Lots of work to be done for an Aussie world cup - I agree that if we could win the bid we'd put on a hell of a tournament, so it's just the small matter of convincing FIFA that Australia is a better bet than China, USA, etc.

There is the question of how often a 40k rectangular venue would be used in Adelaide, Perth, Canberra, Townsville, etc. I suspect most of them would be 50-75% for all but one or two internationals a season (counting both rugby codes and 'soccer').

I still have a sneaky feeling that the middle eastern venue most likely to end up hosting a world cup is actually the UAE. They are throwing money at turning the place into the tourist capital of the world, a massive investment in stadium infrastructure, coupled with plenty of 'business arrangements' with FIFA, could swing a lot of votes their way. It may sound rediculous, but the fact is that the powers that be over there could very easilly re-zone the cities to create 7 cities capable of hosting games.

Returning to the initial post - I don't see why the entire continent of Africa is ruled out for lack-of-facilities... Morocco bid for the 2006 finals, I wouldn't be surprised to see Libya and Egypt both putting up their hands at some point. The stadiums and support facilities can be built in any of those countries just as they can be built in Australia, or are being built in South Africa.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 4th, 2008, 10:09 PM   #3691
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
As has been said before, FIFA have no reason to lower their standards or change the rules with regard to the requirements. They will get numerous bidders for any finals tournament with the existing requirements - I wouldn't be surprised if they pushed them up a little in years to come.
The point I'm making is that FIFA wouldn't be lowering their standards because the minimum requirement would already be met and any extra stadia (3 in 1 city, 2 in 2 cities etc.) would be something that goes over and above the current FIFA standard.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 01:38 AM   #3692
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

The 40,000 minimum refers to spectators and so does not include media who take up a lot of spaces. There are rumors that it may well rise to a minimum of 45,000 anyway. Realistically I think we need to assume 50,000 minimum and 65,000 for SF/Final.
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 02:19 AM   #3693
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilF View Post
The point I'm making is that FIFA wouldn't be lowering their standards because the minimum requirement would already be met and any extra stadia (3 in 1 city, 2 in 2 cities etc.) would be something that goes over and above the current FIFA standard.
The standard is 8 over 7 cities. If a nation can meet this why would they need to add extras outside the bid guidelines?
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 02:21 AM   #3694
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
If FIFA does not lower its standards, there are only a handful of countries eligible to host the cup. While certain aspects such as stadium size and quality, infrastructure and safety shouldn't be ignored, other rules, such as one stadium per city, seem less important.

I doubt countries such as Germany, Italy, England and Brazil will each host the cup three times before FIFA lowers certain aspects of it's rules to allow the cup to be held in different parts of the world.
I would rather have the world cup hosted in the same half dozen countries over and over in the largest and best facilities, than moved to a country with smaller stadiums and lesser facilities for the sake of it.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 03:49 AM   #3695
theespecialone
Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 309
Likes (Received): 0

use temporary stands incorporated into the design

like the london and sydney olympic stadiums
theespecialone no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 03:56 AM   #3696
NeilF
Reasons To Be Cheerful
 
NeilF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Edinburgh / Belfast
Posts: 552
Likes (Received): 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
The standard is 8 over 7 cities. If a nation can meet this why would they need to add extras outside the bid guidelines?
Why did Portugal feel the need to do so for their Euro's bid? They had two stadia in both Porto and Lisbon. The two stadia in Lisbon were larger than the average capacity of stadia in the bid, so this makes sense. It makes less sense to have the smaller one in Porto used if capacity was the only interest. I can only conclude that, in some way, the use of extra stadia enhanced Portugal's Euro's bid.

I'm not saying that any bidding nation should and I'm not speculating on why they would do so. What I am saying is that, theoretically, it could be possible to have more than two stadia in one city or two stadia in more than one city, as per the question asked.
__________________
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
NeilF no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 05:40 AM   #3697
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

2022 is going to the US...

2026 will go to Asia
hngcm no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 11:00 AM   #3698
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
The standard is 8 over 7 cities. If a nation can meet this why would they need to add extras outside the bid guidelines?
2006 WC had 12 host cities with 12 stadiums. That guideline is just a recommendation, not a regulation IMO.
Carrerra no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 11:04 AM   #3699
Iain1974
Registered User
 
Iain1974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Longvieew
Posts: 950
Likes (Received): 0

Does anyone know for sure the criteria regarding # of cities / stadiums?
Iain1974 no está en línea  
Old July 5th, 2008, 11:10 AM   #3700
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

The criteria is that the number of stadiums is a minimum of 8, a maximum of 10 with only one city having two host stadiums possible. But none of them was met in 2006 WC.
Carrerra 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 07:41 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