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 5th, 2009, 06:46 AM   #4561
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

A big for this article.....

U.S. likely to host a World Cup in 2018 or 2022
By Steve Davis, ESPNsoccernet

Feb. 2, 2009, will own a historic place in U.S. soccer history. It's the date U.S. Soccer officials joined the race to host a World Cup tournament and officially announced their intention to pursue either the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.

Reliant Stadium in Houston is one of many modern facilities the U.S. can boast.
And they'll get one of them. Book it.

Want to know why? The answer is in the whir of construction cranes encircling suburban Dallas, where the Cowboys' new behemoth of a stadium is rising. And it's in the shadow of Giants Stadium, where yet another futuristic NFL stadium is going up. And it's in all the other fabulous, mammoth athletic facilities that dot the country.

The stadium outside Dallas will have the ability to accommodate perhaps 100,000 fans for special events. The $1.3 billion project in New Jersey will seat 82,500.

Beautiful, recently opened buildings in Philadelphia, Seattle, Denver, Houston and elsewhere also will brace the bid. These are grand in scale, monuments to the place where architecture, imagination and capitalism collide. No other country is so sophisticated in exploiting sales and sponsorship opportunities inside these modern arenas.

At some point, this bid process is all about the facilities. (Well, really, it's about money. Because finances are inextricably linked to facility size, by extension, these bids are about physical structures.) The United States enjoys a stadium situation unrivaled in the rest of the world, thanks mostly to the country's love of American football and need to stack the racks with money-waving fans.

More seats mean more money for FIFA. It's that simple.

Yes, there are nice (and nicely sized) venues scattered throughout the world. Some countries have a respectable volume of facilities with impressive capacities. England, probably the front-runner for the 2018 World Cup, can get into the conversation, at least. But even England can't come close to matching the glut of structural riches available to FIFA by awarding one of the future World Cups to the United States.

Consider this: A World Cup today could be scattered quite easily around a roster of fabulous stadiums that didn't even exist when the United States hosted World Cup 1994.

Let that sink in. That's how deep the selection of stadiums is here.

And, of course, venerable facilities such as the Rose Bowl, which hosted the 1994 final, remain in play. That one also holds 100,000-plus fans.

The 1994 World Cup smashed previous records for attendance; the 52-game tournament averaged 68,991 fans, a mark that still stands. The next one here will easily surpass that record.

The 2006 World Cup was a wonderfully well-received tournament, generally spilling out without a hitch and to everyone's pleasure. Germany is a modern country with several contemporary arenas. And yet, tournament organizers still needed to employ stadiums in Kaiserslautern, Nuremberg, Leipzig, Hanover and Cologne, all of which hold 46,000 spectators or fewer. There probably won't be a single bid from a stadium in the U.S. with a capacity so small. Everybody loves all those swell U.S. soccer-specific stadiums that have done so much for the game in our country, but you don't send a boy to do a man's job, so to speak.

There's also a matter of sponsorship. Here, too, FIFA has reason to purr over prospects of a second World Cup in the United States.

"From a sponsorship perspective, the two countries that advertisers currently covet most are the United States and China, and this will probably continue to be the case in 2018 and beyond," said John Alper, vice president of Premier Partnerships, a national sales and marketing firm specializing in revenue generation for facilities, events and properties. "Obviously, FIFA considers a variety of factors for this decision. However, from a sponsorship perspective, having the USA as the host nation is definitely a plus."

And by "definitely a plus," he means more cash for the FIFA kitty. Ka-ching!

The 1994 World Cup was a rousing success, at least in terms of attendance and revenue. And soccer's profile has risen substantially in the United States in the 15 years since. That means hosting a World Cup in 2018 or 2022 would be a colossus.

The World Cup in Germany averaged 52,491 spectators per contest. Given the scale of the new facilities available to the U.S.' bid, the average crowd for a World Cup in the United States could climb to 75,000. That's an extra 22,000-plus fans for 64 matches. With an average ticket price of $140 or so (the World Cup in South Africa next year will charge an average of $139, so that is a very conservative estimate), that's an additional $197 million just in ticket revenue.

And don't forget that every person who passes through a turnstile is a candidate to buy T-shirts, hats, silly foam fingers and such. The way a typical stadium deal works, the facility keeps parking and most concession revenues. But all the merchandise money goes to the event organizers, which in this case is FIFA. So the extra 22,000 or so per match adds up further considering the multiplier, whatever that is. Let's say the foam-finger factor is $10 per customer. The extra 22,000 customers can potentially generate up to an additional $220,000 per match, or an additional $14 million for the tournament.

As they say: Pretty soon, you're talking about real money.

These are very basic formulas. The actual accounting will be far more complex, of course. But you get the point. Suffice to say, if FIFA can pour more customers into stadiums during the monthlong tournament, the financial payload will expand significantly.

There could be one potential road hump. Each of these grand, new U.S. facilities comes with a lucrative naming-rights deal already in place. And that's not part of FIFA's financial template. Because world soccer's governing body doesn't already have its hand in that pie, it demands a blank slate in terms of venue sponsorship, and that includes naming rights. That's why the AOL Arena in Hamburg became, officially speaking, the World Cup Stadium in Hamburg for 2006.

Will this pose an issue? Not likely, Alper said. First, FIFA is such a global heavyweight that it can demand a blank slate. Most existing stadium contracts have clauses that cover opportunities to host extraordinary events. Plus, Alper says a FedEx or an AT&T or whatever corporate sponsor won't jeopardize important relationships and risk a firestorm of bad publicity by saying no to a chance to host World Cup games.

One more thing: Facilities in other countries, nice as some are, aren't designed with luxury boxes in mind. Not to the extent U.S. stadiums are, at least. Those opportunities for premium sales generate good money, too. Ka-ching, again.

Money talks. FIFA listens. Another World Cup is headed to the United States in your lifetime, and Feb. 2 is the day it all officially started.

Other countries that have expressed interest in bidding for either the 2018 and 2022 World Cup:

Australia: Officials there hope FIFA's desire to grow the game in Asia and the Pacific Rim can enhance the chances. Although Australia has hosted other major events (such as the 2000 Olympics in Sydney), the odds here appear long.

England: The country's effort received a significant boost when FIFA rulers shot down the notion of joint bids. So the Spain-Portugal effort and a bid from the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) went kaput before they even got started. Thus, England is the clear front-runner if FIFA is to return the tournament to Europe.

Indonesia: The world's fourth-most-populated country (237 million) has seen its economy and political scene stabilize significantly since the turbulent 1960s. Although Indonesia might be considered a strong national team in southeast Asia, its relative weakness in the world soccer structure is a detriment.

Japan: Japan has the stadiums, the infrastructure and organizational might to pull it off, but proximity to the 2002 World Cup (which the Japanese co-hosted with Korea) hurts.

Mexico: Several new stadiums are going up in Mexico. But the U.S. neighbor would become the first country to host three World Cups, a factor that probably will work against it.

Qatar: The oil-rich Arab emirate has the world's highest GDP per capita, according to some estimates. Although money isn't an issue, physical size could be. Qatar occupies only about 4,400 square miles, roughly the size of Pennsylvania.

Russia: Talk of a bid from the world's largest nation (by area) sounded much better a year ago, before falling oil prices and ongoing crisis in the Russian financial markets crunched the nation's economy.

Steve Davis is a Dallas-based freelance writer who covers MLS for ESPNsoccernet. He can be reached at [email protected]

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns...oot=us&cc=3436
Wezza no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 5th, 2009, 08:51 AM   #4562
Vermeer
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 124
Likes (Received): 0

I am convinced England will be the host in 2018. 2022 is more open. I doubt the Anglo American world will host two WC in a row, so I rule out Australia and the US.
Vermeer no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 08:55 AM   #4563
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Do you really think that Indonesia/Qatar/Japan/Korea can beat the USA and Australia?

No way.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 08:57 AM   #4564
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by *England* View Post
someone like blatter would maybe, but even he would want it in a country like australia where footie is growing more and more, i dont think the voters will give a stuff how many millions are in oz compared to the usa, if that was so important why didnt china even bother bidding?
australia is probably why china didn't bother!
It's growing in the USA as well, and again there are 300 million here instead of just over 20 million.

The population of China is the main reason they would have been the front-runner for 2022. FIFA would have been DROOLING at the chance to expand the sport in a country of 1.3 billion.
hngcm no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 11:11 AM   #4565
isaidso
the new republic
 
isaidso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: The United Provinces of America
Posts: 29,625
Likes (Received): 10786

Russia in 2018
Indonesia in 2022
__________________
World's 1st Baseball Game: June 4th, 1838, Beachville, Ontario, Canada
North America's Oldest Pro Football Teams: Toronto Argonauts (1873) and Hamilton Tiger Cats (1869)

I started my first photo thread documenting a recent trip to Halifax, Nova Scotia. Have a peek: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=724898
isaidso no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 12:23 PM   #4566
Benjuk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 920
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacrio View Post
ja, england can't win. it has already won the olympic. russia will win.
(1) The two organisations are unrelated - hosting a major competition in one city has nothing to do with hosting a major competition across an entire nation.

(2) Theory also disproved by this - USA World Cup '94, Atlanta Olympics '96; Mexico Olympics '68, Mexico World Cup '70.

As for Russia... I'm very interested to see how they'd cope. I know we're talking about 9 years in the future, but they really struggled to handle two sets of English fans coming over for a one off Champions League match - I don't know how they'd cope with supporters from all over the world arriving in droves and wanting to travel around from host city to host city, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *England* View Post
someone like blatter would maybe, but even he would want it in a country like australia where footie is growing more and more, i dont think the voters will give a stuff how many millions are in oz compared to the usa, if that was so important why didnt china even bother bidding?
australia is probably why china didn't bother!
I suspect that the culture shock of the Olympics - all those foreigners running around, especially the media, expecting (urggh) freedom of speach and movement - probably put the authorities right off the idea of trying for an even bigger event.

They struggled to handle it all even with the draconian advance measures. Now, as I mentioned about the Russians, multiply it over an entire country - imagine the authorities trying to deal with 15000 Dutch fans pouring out of Beijing and travelling over to Wuhan. The authorities would have a nervous breakdown.

Last edited by Benjuk; February 5th, 2009 at 12:30 PM.
Benjuk no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 12:25 PM   #4567
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
It's growing in the USA as well, and again there are 300 million here instead of just over 20 million.
Of which just 20 million care.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 12:58 PM   #4568
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
I suspect that the culture shock of the Olympics - all those foreigners running around, especially the media, expecting (urggh) freedom of speach and movement - probably put the authorities right off the idea of trying for an even bigger event.

They struggled to handle it all even with the draconian advance measures. Now, as I mentioned about the Russians, multiply it over an entire country - imagine the authorities trying to deal with 15000 Dutch fans pouring out of Beijing and travelling over to Wuhan. The authorities would have a nervous breakdown.
China was considering bids for the Winter Olympics in 2018 or 2022 as well as a World Cup bid. They weren't going to bid on both and by the looks of it, they've decided to bid on the Olympics.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 02:16 PM   #4569
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,769
Likes (Received): 10325

Well, considering the Beijing Olympic Stadium is to become a shopping mall, one would have to wonder what several large purpouse build football stadiums would be put to use for after the world cup in China when their top league matches only average around 12,000.

There is the potential for a massive league out there, but the same was true of the states and whilst the MLS has grown steadily since '94, it's still a minority sport. Huge potential doesn't always equal huge success and growing a football league in a country where it isn't the national sport is tricky. The US is very lucky in many ways in that the promise to have a national league (and indeed a world cup) could be fulfilled with fewer problems because one of their national sports happened to use stadiums and pitch sizes similar to soccer.

China, for its population has a terrible attendence record and a very poor national league. They don't have large stadiums from another sport they can borrow for a world cup bid either, unlike the US. On top of that, their national team is already out of the reckoning for qualification for the 2010 world cup and has recently slipped to its lowest over FIFA world ranking of 104!

All in all, China is probably right to focus on a Winter games.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 08:59 PM   #4570
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
Of which just 20 million care.
Don't confuse the general ambivalence towards soccer with the appreciation for the World Cup as an event. Many games from the last World Cup and even 2 of last year's Euro matches scored higher TV ratings than most MLB telecasts, and even pundits who usually pan soccer, like Frank Deford and Colin Cowherd, like the nationalism and social event behind the World Cup. Lastly, say what you want about the US lacking a large fervent fanbase, but it's growing both in size and status. To wit...

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
There is the potential for a massive league out there, but the same was true of the states and whilst the MLS has grown steadily since '94, it's still a minority sport. Huge potential doesn't always equal huge success and growing a football league in a country where it isn't the national sport is tricky.
MLS will likely never be on par with the MLB, NBA and NFL, nor will it be considered among the highest echelon of soccer leagues in the world. It can be very good and profitable, however, and is light years ahead of its US predecessors. The investment into a league and development infrastructure, complete with club-owned/managed stadia is HUGE, and the fact that lay people even know there is a stable league is a step forward. Those that debunk the sport at least begrudgingly accept that it's here to stay, and now young American's can dream of playing at home at the professional level. Give it another generation or two to ingrain this league in our culture and US soccer won't be the punch line it was two decades ago. The MLS, meanwhile, will also achieve a decent level of profitability and I truly expect the league will have an international presence and appeal. (might be a small one, but it will be there! )
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 09:09 PM   #4571
dacrio
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 529
Likes (Received): 0

Evaluation phase for euro 2016
The third phase will involve evaluation, with the European body making official visits to the various bidders from March 2010. The UEFA administration and experts appointed by UEFA will then examine the bid dossiers and prepare a written report on each one, before passing these to UEFA's National Team Competitions Committee, with a final decision expected by the UEFA Executive Committee at the end of May 2010

so if, for example, euro 2016 goes to scotland , england can't win the bid process for the world cup 2018

it's more probable that euro 2016 will not awarded to scotland, because england is candidated for the world cup
dacrio no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 09:13 PM   #4572
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,769
Likes (Received): 10325

I don't necessarily disagree with that, I was just using it as an example showing how countries like the US and China can't, without a lot of work, become instant cash-cows or footballing big-guns in the sport off of the back of one world cup. The US may get there eventually, but it's a bottom-up rather than a top-down process.

People speak of China getting a world cup (and always point out they have a population of 1.2bn) as if the biggest league in the world will suddenly spring up out of the ether. The reality is, like the Olympics, things will be back to the way they were afterwards, China would have had another moment in the spotlight, but Chinese football will still probably be a rather small deal.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 09:39 PM   #4573
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by dacrio View Post
Evaluation phase for euro 2016
The third phase will involve evaluation, with the European body making official visits to the various bidders from March 2010. The UEFA administration and experts appointed by UEFA will then examine the bid dossiers and prepare a written report on each one, before passing these to UEFA's National Team Competitions Committee, with a final decision expected by the UEFA Executive Committee at the end of May 2010

so if, for example, euro 2016 goes to scotland , england can't win the bid process for the world cup 2018

it's more probable that euro 2016 will not awarded to scotland, because england is candidated for the world cup
WTF?? Even if this is true as you're presenting it it doesn't make sense. Why would a confederation want to hamstring themselves this way? Why would FIFA let regional events dictate WC locations? Something doesn't sound right, here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
People speak of China getting a world cup (and always point out they have a population of 1.2bn) as if the biggest league in the world will suddenly spring up out of the ether. The reality is, like the Olympics, things will be back to the way they were afterwards, China would have had another moment in the spotlight, but Chinese football will still probably be a rather small deal.
Oh, I know and I agree, but both markets remain ripe for increased merchandising from existing product lines. Sponsors will sell more WC merchandise in the host nation than elsewhere, hence the appeal of hosting in populous nations with lots of money. A WC may not yield improvements league-wise, but they could increase general appeal for soccer programming, youth participation, selling of global merchandise, etc. To be sure, the US and Asia are hotbeds for creating thousands of bandwagon pose-, er fans, for the likes of Chelsea, Meeeeelan, Real...
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 10:17 PM   #4574
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): 2761

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
I suspect that the culture shock of the Olympics - all those foreigners running around, especially the media, expecting (urggh) freedom of speach and movement - probably put the authorities right off the idea of trying for an even bigger event.

They struggled to handle it all even with the draconian advance measures. Now, as I mentioned about the Russians, multiply it over an entire country - imagine the authorities trying to deal with 15000 Dutch fans pouring out of Beijing and travelling over to Wuhan. The authorities would have a nervous breakdown.
That is the only reason I can think of as well. Though I am sure the idea was attractive for the CCP to show their people they can deliver another stage prize I think the Olympics made them a bit more guarded about jumping at the bit for another one. A world cup means a lot more people (foreigners especially) moving all over the country, more spotlighting of domestic policies etc. Having an Olympics in one city in a sense makes things more manageable and contained to to speak and those are aspects the CCP puts high priority on.

Plus perhaps it didn't feel like its national team would b very good by then (unlike the Olympics) and don't want to put up a dud for the home fans. Also I wonder how much Chinese fans would have interest in other teams other then their own.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea  
Old February 5th, 2009, 10:44 PM   #4575
GunnerJacket
Oh look - a doughnut!
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicken City, GA
Posts: 8,126
Likes (Received): 3197

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjuk View Post
imagine the authorities trying to deal with 15000 Dutch fans pouring out of Beijing and travelling over to Wuhan. The authorities would have a nervous breakdown.
Especially when you consider it might be closer to 40k from the Dutch alone, to say nothing of Argentines, Brazilians, Germans... Scots!

Hey, I can dream!
__________________
"How can anybody be enlightened? Truth is after all so poorly lit."
GunnerJacket no está en línea  
Old February 6th, 2009, 03:31 AM   #4576
fajarmuhasan
******
 
fajarmuhasan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 9,816
Likes (Received): 500

One city allowed to use two stadiums only, this is may be only suggestion in order to the games separate to anothers city.
fajarmuhasan no está en línea  
Old February 6th, 2009, 04:41 AM   #4577
Wuppeltje
Registered User
 
Wuppeltje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 5,839
Likes (Received): 965

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wezza View Post
England: The country's effort received a significant boost when FIFA rulers shot down the notion of joint bids. So the Spain-Portugal effort and a bid from the Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) went kaput before they even got started. Thus, England is the clear front-runner if FIFA is to return the tournament to Europe.
A spokesman told Reuters Monday that FIFA would consider joint bids from countries who were not capable of hosting a World Cup on their own.

"Countries capable of staging the event alone should do so," added the spokesman in a clarification that will increase pressure on Spain to ditch its planned partnership with Portugal.


Don't rule out the Benelux, both the Netherlands and Belgium can't host the event on their own. And it will have 1 organisation, pretty simulair as the Euro 2000 (which was in every aspect very successful) only bigger. During the bidding for Euro 2000 it was also said that the Benelux wasn't allowed to host by members of the UEFA.
__________________
Volg de Noord/Zuidlijn op Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, Instagram en Flickr
Wuppeltje no está en línea  
Old February 6th, 2009, 04:58 AM   #4578
co_cool
Registered User
 
co_cool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 465
Likes (Received): 9

My vote is

2018 England
2022 between Australia and Indonesia
It is a little bit strange for Indonesia, they never held a such big event but i think they still have a chance,....because they have really fanatic fans, and they just build some big stadium ( of course not such a big as in Europe or US but still more than 50.000 spec )

Just like World Cup 2010 South Africa, all people not sure about that,...but it happen...
__________________
Deutschland ist ein wunderbares Land...
Solo ist eine wunderbare Stadt...
co_cool no está en línea  
Old February 6th, 2009, 05:20 AM   #4579
superkambing
Registered User
 
superkambing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: JKT, LA, Columbus
Posts: 37
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by co_cool View Post
My vote is

2018 England
2022 between Australia and Indonesia
It is a little bit strange for Indonesia, they never held a such big event but i think they still have a chance,....because they have really fanatic fans, and they just build some big stadium ( of course not such a big as in Europe or US but still more than 50.000 spec )

Just like World Cup 2010 South Africa, all people not sure about that,...but it happen...
Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta can hold up to 88,000 people, it was used during the 2008 AFC Asian Cup. Indonesia also has another big stadiums, Palaran stadium and Jakabaring stadium can hold up to 60,000 and 40,000 people respectively. Indonesia is also building several other modern stadiums accross the country. I think they'll be ready to host it in 2022, not in 2018.
superkambing no está en línea  
Old February 6th, 2009, 05:20 AM   #4580
=NaNdA=
Liverpool holic
 
=NaNdA='s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Anfield Stadium
Posts: 9,628
Likes (Received): 642

vote Indonesia for 2022....
=NaNdA= 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 07:37 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