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 December 28th, 2008, 08:41 PM   #4361
seattle92
Registered User
 
seattle92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisboa
Posts: 8,400
Likes (Received): 2852

This thing about join bids...

Korea and Japan was a strange combination. Two contries that don't even get along that well, that are not connected in terms of geography, that formed an big world cup area, separated by sea, that have completly diferent laguages and cultures. It really didn't make any sence, and FIFA reallized that.


That's not the same in a Spain/Portugal bid.

The area is a peninsula that makes sence in terms of geography. It's Iberia. Many people still think Iberia should be just a country and not Spain and Portugal.

In terms of culture and laguage, many foreigners can cross the borders and have the impression that they are still in the same country. No cultural or laguage clashes there.

If you take Madrid as the center. You will loose more or less the same time to get to Barcelona, Lisbon, Seville or Porto. I think is very bad for a fan, to spend their money to get to USA or Australia and then, in the middle of the tournment, still have to get more flights to go from NY to LA, or from Sydney to Perth.

Netherlands and Belgium never hosted a WC, neither did Portugal. FIFA knows the 3 countries couldn't host a WC by there own. Don't think Spain will loose simpaty just because Portugal is also in the bid.

If Spain can get the votes of lots of countries that speak spanish. Portugal can do the same with Brazil and many african countries (Angola, Mozambique, Guine, Cape Verde,...).

The question of years. The last in England was in 66, but the Euro was in 96 and Olympics will be in 2012. We don't know if that's to important for FIFA, but if it's not, then the Euro 2004 in Portugal and the Euro 2000 in Netherlands/Belgium wont be either.

I have few doubts about WC2018 being in Europe.
FIFA likes to go to new places and try to get more fans in USA, Japan, in the future Australia and China. But they also know that they have to get back to Europe because it's here that are the millions of football fans.
A WC in Europe generates more money then any other. It doesn't matter if the stadiums were full in USA or Japan, an WC is more than that. Germany two years ago was breathing football everywere, in the streets, on tv, in the companies, at homes, in publicity. The same happens in every Euro, and will happen in Brazil.
In the USA, millions of american didn't know the WC was happening in their country, and couldn't say anything about it. FIFA knows football has to come home regularly (it doesn't have to mean England ).

WC 2018 will be in England, Spain and Portugal or Netherlands and Belgium
seattle92 no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old December 28th, 2008, 09:38 PM   #4362
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,723
Likes (Received): 5591

A very good post. I totally agree with what you stated. I still think the Belgium-Netherlands bid is the outsider and that England or Spain/Portugal have the better chances. Time will tell if I am right about this or not.
__________________
.
"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  
Old December 28th, 2008, 11:52 PM   #4363
jmlagunebrio
Jesús Manuel
 
jmlagunebrio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Torreón - Chihuahua State
Posts: 4,007
Likes (Received): 148

I consider that FIFA should reconsider the idea to take the venue of each tournament they have, maybe it could be a good idea that Europe could organize the worldcup each 8 years (many countries have enough infraestructure to organize a competition -- Italy, Spain, England, Germany, France, Benelux -- ), America each 12 years ( Mexico, USA, Argentina, Brasil ) .

2014 - Brasil
2018 - England
2022 - Mexico
2026 - Spain
2030 - China
2034 - Benelux
2038 - Argentina

etc
__________________
Torreón La Ciudad de los Grandes Esfuerzos
Pocos años...mucha historia
jmlagunebrio no está en línea  
Old December 29th, 2008, 12:53 AM   #4364
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattle92 View Post
A WC in Europe generates more money then any other.
Isn't the '94 WC the most profitable WC as of yet?
hngcm no está en línea  
Old December 29th, 2008, 01:44 AM   #4365
EPA001
Registered User
 
EPA001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rotterdam metropolitan area
Posts: 28,723
Likes (Received): 5591

That might be but there is a difference in how the WC is lived in the countries who participate. The WC far away from Europe is not the same as the WC close to home, somewhere in Europe.

That is a psychological phenomenon but it counts in how the WC is felt and lived. And generates (indirectly) more money. Maybe not for FIFA, but overall WC related turn-over and profits are better if the WC is in Europe. Still the most important continent for Football, also financially seen.
__________________
.
"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  
Old December 29th, 2008, 04:23 AM   #4366
city_thing
Put it in your mouth
 
city_thing's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Melbourne.
Posts: 7,131
Likes (Received): 883

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattle92 View Post


If you take Madrid as the center. You will loose more or less the same time to get to Barcelona, Lisbon, Seville or Porto. I think is very bad for a fan, to spend their money to get to USA or Australia and then, in the middle of the tournment, still have to get more flights to go from NY to LA, or from Sydney to Perth.
Exactly!

I think it's silly for the Australian Government to spend AUD$45m on preparing a bid when there's no real chance of Australia hosting. It would be smarter if Australia hosted with New Zealand, as NZ already has many big square stadiums and is cheaper to fly to than Perth (from the East Coast). In that case, you could leave Perth and Adelaide out of the host cities and make it cheaper for tourists. There's also the sore fact that neither Perth nor Adelaide are smart enough to build new stadiums (both cities need new ones - but are NIMBY capitals - though Adelaide seems to be progressing better than Perth at this stage)

The only real positive of an Australian WC I can see is that Australia is sport-obsessed. It would be a great market to develop. Plus it's in the time-zone of Asia, which would make it easier for TV audiences in that part of the world.

I'm going to put my support behind the English bid, not just because I am English, but because I think they'll do a better job of hosting (just get rid of the hooligans first).
__________________
Calling occupants of interplanetary craft...
city_thing no está en línea  
Old December 29th, 2008, 11:08 AM   #4367
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

^Australia has a good chance at hosting the 2022 WC, alongside the USA and China.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old December 29th, 2008, 12:20 PM   #4368
MoreOrLess
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,239
Likes (Received): 228

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
Isn't the '94 WC the most profitable WC as of yet?
I'd guess Japan/Korea made a fair bit aswell, still I do think profitability may be a big plus to the english bid. Here you have a country were the fans are used to paying £30 for a ticket so high WC prices won't have as negative an effect on demand as they may elsewhere.

Alot of british people go to WC's and EC's as neutrals aswell so there used to spending alot on flights, hotels etc, at home they wouldnt have those costs so potentially more to spend on tickets and merchanise which goes directly into FIFA's pockets. Theres a reason why the prem is the richest league in the world.
MoreOrLess no está en línea  
Old December 29th, 2008, 12:21 PM   #4369
Vermeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 124
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by city_thing View Post
Exactly!

I think it's silly for the Australian Government to spend AUD$45m on preparing a bid when there's no real chance of Australia hosting. It would be smarter if Australia hosted with New Zealand, as NZ already has many big square stadiums and is cheaper to fly to than Perth (from the East Coast). In that case, you could leave Perth and Adelaide out of the host cities and make it cheaper for tourists. There's also the sore fact that neither Perth nor Adelaide are smart enough to build new stadiums (both cities need new ones - but are NIMBY capitals - though Adelaide seems to be progressing better than Perth at this stage)

The only real positive of an Australian WC I can see is that Australia is sport-obsessed. It would be a great market to develop. Plus it's in the time-zone of Asia, which would make it easier for TV audiences in that part of the world.

I'm going to put my support behind the English bid, not just because I am English, but because I think they'll do a better job of hosting (just get rid of the hooligans first).
Wouldn't that be like England host WC with some African country. I am talking about distance of course.
Vermeer no está en línea  
Old December 29th, 2008, 01:01 PM   #4370
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vermeer View Post
Wouldn't that be like England host WC with some African country. I am talking about distance of course.
New Zealand is closer to the east coast of Australia than Perth is.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old December 29th, 2008, 06:34 PM   #4371
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by seattle92 View Post
The area is a peninsula that makes sence in terms of geography. It's Iberia. Many people still think Iberia should be just a country and not Spain and Portugal.

In terms of culture and laguage, many foreigners can cross the borders and have the impression that they are still in the same country. No cultural or laguage clashes there.


Spanish and Portuguese are very different languages. I speak Spanish pretty well. But I can barely understand any Portuguese.

Quote:
If you take Madrid as the center. You will loose more or less the same time to get to Barcelona, Lisbon, Seville or Porto. I think is very bad for a fan, to spend their money to get to USA or Australia and then, in the middle of the tournment, still have to get more flights to go from NY to LA, or from Sydney to Perth.
It is simply a fact that countries like USA, Canada, Brazil, China, Australia and India are massive. FIFA will not hold their size against them.

Quote:
Netherlands and Belgium never hosted a WC, neither did Portugal. FIFA knows the 3 countries couldn't host a WC by there own. Don't think Spain will loose simpaty just because Portugal is also in the bid.
The reason why FIFA, in principle, is reluctant to encourage joint bids is that a joint bid necessarily means one less qualification place. And FIFA do not like to take away qualification places unless it is absolutely necessary. In the case of Spain, it quite clearly isn't necessary. And that might well count against their joint bid with Portugal.

Quote:
If Spain can get the votes of lots of countries that speak spanish. Portugal can do the same with Brazil and many african countries (Angola, Mozambique, Guine, Cape Verde,...).
It doesn't necessarily work like that. All sorts of political machinations are at work behind the scenes. Besides, Spanish and Portuguese speaking countries only represent a small proportion of the total potential vote.
JimB no está en línea  
Old December 29th, 2008, 08:05 PM   #4372
seattle92
Registered User
 
seattle92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisboa
Posts: 8,400
Likes (Received): 2852

try harder

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post


Spanish and Portuguese are very different languages. I speak Spanish pretty well. But I can barely understand any Portuguese.
lol?

Try listening with atention. If you speak spanish, then you'll understand a portuguese if he talks slowly to you.

Of course that portuguese and spanish are diferent laguages, but i was just pointing that these two countries have more to do with one and other, than Korea/Japan.
seattle92 no está en línea  
Old December 30th, 2008, 01:12 AM   #4373
woozoo
Registered User
 
woozoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Likes (Received): 185

Ticket revenue goes to the host, television revenue goes to FIFA. While USA 94 may have been the most profitable for the host as that WC had the most attendance, a WC in a Euro time zone will be most profitable for FIFA. As long as the host turns at least a small profit, the latter is what FIFA is most interested in.

Still, FIFA is also keen to grow the sport in other regions (Asia) and provide other football regions (Latin America) with convenient times to watch a WC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by city_thing View Post
Exactly!

I think it's silly for the Australian Government to spend AUD$45m on preparing a bid when there's no real chance of Australia hosting.
45 million is small change compared to the massive financial gains a host country receives. 4 million visitors to Australia over the course of a month spending several thousand dollars each? Thats a HUGE pay day for a country with 20 million people. This is the sort of money that needs to be spent in order to win hosting rights. A similar amount was spent for the Sydney 2000 bid (which had less of a positive financial impact). As has been said before, Australia has a good chance (possibly 1/3 chance) of winning the bid in 2022 or 2026, along with China and USA.

As for the distances, I think they may count as a negative to some degree, though as long as a country has a well developed efficient transport system, this wouldn't be too much of a problem. If 2018 goes to Europe, 2022 will be pretty much between China, USA and Australia, which all have big distances.


I still think the joint spanish/portugal bid is a major advantage for spain now. Portugal would never be able to host a WC on its own, or with anyone else other than Spain. If they win the bid, then FIFA would give a country opportunity to host which other wise would not be able to host. Equally, I think Spain wouldn't stand a chance against England since it has hosted so much more recently. Im sure if it was the other way around, Spain would be bidding on its own.
woozoo no está en línea  
Old December 30th, 2008, 01:35 PM   #4374
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by woozoo View Post
I still think the joint spanish/portugal bid is a major advantage for spain now. Portugal would never be able to host a WC on its own, or with anyone else other than Spain. If they win the bid, then FIFA would give a country opportunity to host which other wise would not be able to host. Equally, I think Spain wouldn't stand a chance against England since it has hosted so much more recently. Im sure if it was the other way around, Spain would be bidding on its own.
Six of one, half a dozen of another, IMO. And possibly even worse than that.

Spain might gain some votes by having Portugal alongside them - by virtue of the fact that the latter has never hosted the World Cup.

But equally, they might lose some votes because the alliance with Portugal will be seen as a cynical ploy to circumvent the fact that this isn't Spain's turn - especially since Spain has no need to team up with any nation.

And they might lose even more votes because FIFA (and especially UEFA member associations, who will have most to lose) will not like the idea of forfeiting a qualifying place to a second host nation.
JimB no está en línea  
Old December 30th, 2008, 02:00 PM   #4375
seattle92
Registered User
 
seattle92's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Lisboa
Posts: 8,400
Likes (Received): 2852

I know this can make litle sence, but i think a Portugal/Morroco bid would be really great.

Imagine that, it would be like a symbol, an european and an african country together hosting a major event.

But i know... it's impossible
seattle92 no está en línea  
Old December 30th, 2008, 07:53 PM   #4376
Kobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 420
Likes (Received): 16

Hi everyone, I saw this article today on Qatar wanting to bid on 2018 world cup: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...atar-world-cup
Kobo no está en línea  
Old December 30th, 2008, 08:02 PM   #4377
JimB
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 11,016
Likes (Received): 4786

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Hi everyone, I saw this article today on Qatar wanting to bid on 2018 world cup: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...atar-world-cup
Qatar's chances of hosting the World Cup are somewhere between Slim and None.

And Slim just left town.

Last edited by JimB; December 30th, 2008 at 08:09 PM.
JimB no está en línea  
Old December 30th, 2008, 09:05 PM   #4378
lpioe
Registered User
 
lpioe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,141
Likes (Received): 18

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobo View Post
Hi everyone, I saw this article today on Qatar wanting to bid on 2018 world cup: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...atar-world-cup
Unbelievable... What a waste of money
The country has 1.5m inhabitants with 0.6m living in the Doha metro...
__________________




3ds Max Script to create stadium stands for given c-values


my stadium designs (all WIP / unfinished...)

1 - 2 - 3 - 4

lpioe no está en línea  
Old December 31st, 2008, 01:14 AM   #4379
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by city_thing View Post
Exactly!

I think it's silly for the Australian Government to spend AUD$45m on preparing a bid when there's no real chance of Australia hosting. It would be smarter if Australia hosted with New Zealand, as NZ already has many big square stadiums and is cheaper to fly to than Perth (from the East Coast). In that case, you could leave Perth and Adelaide out of the host cities and make it cheaper for tourists. There's also the sore fact that neither Perth nor Adelaide are smart enough to build new stadiums (both cities need new ones - but are NIMBY capitals - though Adelaide seems to be progressing better than Perth at this stage)

The only real positive of an Australian WC I can see is that Australia is sport-obsessed. It would be a great market to develop. Plus it's in the time-zone of Asia, which would make it easier for TV audiences in that part of the world.

I'm going to put my support behind the English bid, not just because I am English, but because I think they'll do a better job of hosting (just get rid of the hooligans first).
No it doesn't.

New Zealand hasn't got a single World Cup suitable venue - the only stadium in the entire country that is big enough is a cricket stadium that uses temp seating to up it's capacity and change it's shape for rugby. If they build the new Stadium New Zealand for the 2011 rugby world cup, then they'll have ONE suitable venue.

No co-hosting with New Zealand thank you.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old December 31st, 2008, 11:50 PM   #4380
Bobby3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,267
Likes (Received): 52

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimB View Post
Qatar's chances of hosting the World Cup are somewhere between Slim and None.

And Slim just left town.
I don't fancy their chances either, but if there's only thing to be said about Qatar, never bet against them.
Bobby3 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 09:34 PM.


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