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.


Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools
Old February 4th, 2009, 06:42 AM   #821
KiwiBrit
There's only one United
 
KiwiBrit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the garden city
Posts: 1,743
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
I agree. I'd put a lot of money on England getting 2018 and USA getting 2022.
I'd drink to that!
KiwiBrit no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old February 4th, 2009, 09:14 AM   #822
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Potential Bid from the USA (IMO)

-Assuming they'll use 12 cities, I'd break them up into 3 regions in order to limit traveling. Teams will stay in their regions for the group stage and possibly the 2nd round.

West:

Seattle- Qwest Field (67,000)


San Francisco/San Diego- New 49ers/Chargers stadium, whichever gets build first (about 70,000)



Los Angeles- Rose Bowl (92,000)


Phoenix- Cardinals Stadium (63,000)


Midwest:

Denver- Invesco Field (76,000)


Houston- Reliant Stadium (71,500)


Dallas- JerryWorld (80,000-100,000)


Chicago- Soldier Field (61,500)
image hosted on flickr


East:

Miami- Dolphin Stadium (75,000)


DC- Fedex Field or New Redskins Stadium (91,000)


New York City- New Giants Stadium (82,500)


Boston- Gillette Stadium (69,000)
image hosted on flickr


Average World Cup 2022 Capacity- 75,000
hngcm no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 01:57 PM   #823
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,771
Likes (Received): 10326

Quote:
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.

.....

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.

......

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.

......

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.]
Firstly, I doubt whether the sponsorship for a US world cup would be that much greater than for a European world cup, if at all. I just don't think that's the case at all given that it's a global event and Europe is football's heratland; the whole continent gets world cup fever during those three weeks every four years to an extent which America does not. England's economy was estimated to have lost out on £2bn because of our failure to qualify for last year's Euros; that gives you some idea of what we're talking about here.

Secondly, although I'm not adverse to seeing another world cup in the US in my lifetime, this is way too soon for me. For a country where soccer is the 4th favourite sport, if that, to host two world cups in 20-odd years doesn't sit right regardless of the ticket revenue they could bring in. I think the US would host a fantastic world cup and if they get it, best of luck to them, but I'd rather see it somewhere else if I'm honest.

Thirdly, this article doesn't talk about what the US could give to FIFA and to the game of football that Australia, or England, or Russia couldn't give aside from money. Is that really your unique selling point?

Last edited by RobH; February 4th, 2009 at 02:07 PM.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 01:58 PM   #824
likasz
Registered User
 
likasz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,380
Likes (Received): 41

hngcm - all stadium should have covered all seats!So Rose Bowl has no chance.

Last edited by likasz; February 4th, 2009 at 02:08 PM.
likasz no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 02:52 PM   #825
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,882
Likes (Received): 296

I still struggle to see how these NFL venues are supposed to accommodate a full width football pitch. This pitch for instance lacks probably 8 m in width. I really can't see how these additional 8 m could be provided without obstructing the view from thousands of seats significantly.

A World Cup in the USA would once again be a compromise. Narrow pitches to gain maximum profits. I wouldn't be surprised to see even more low-score games over there.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 03:40 PM   #826
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,771
Likes (Received): 10326

The Giants Stadium in '94, for example, was ridiculously unsuitable for soccer and had to be given special dispensation by FIFA to host so NYC wasn't left out of the tournament. Players have to back into advertising hoardings to take corners and throws:

image hosted on flickr

Liverpool in the Giants Stadium

As I understand it, however, most of the stadiums built since '94 do have wide enough pitches for soccer. This is good becasue if the US gets another world cup, we shouldn't see scenes like the one above.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 03:42 PM   #827
Loranga
Hoj!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ludvika
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 4

How important are suites for a World Cup? Or are high capacity more important? Could we see stadia like Michigan stadium and Neyland stadium be used for a US World Cup, or just NFL stadia?
Loranga no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 03:44 PM   #828
Loranga
Hoj!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ludvika
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
I still struggle to see how these NFL venues are supposed to accommodate a full width football pitch. This pitch for instance lacks probably 8 m in width. I really can't see how these additional 8 m could be provided without obstructing the view from thousands of seats significantly.

A World Cup in the USA would once again be a compromise. Narrow pitches to gain maximum profits. I wouldn't be surprised to see even more low-score games over there.
lacks 8 m in width?
Loranga no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 03:48 PM   #829
Loranga
Hoj!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ludvika
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 4

How important are suites for a World Cup? Or are high capacity more important? Could we see stadia like Michigan stadium and Neyland stadium be used for a US World Cup, or just NFL stadia?
Loranga no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 05:44 PM   #830
Alx-D
Arch Duke of Canada
 
Alx-D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Niagara Falls
Posts: 209
Likes (Received): 0

There is no way FedEX Field would be able to host a World Cup. The pitch would only be 55 yards wide!
Alx-D no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 05:57 PM   #831
likasz
Registered User
 
likasz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,380
Likes (Received): 41

USA is my favourite bid for World Cup 2018/2022.I hope Poland will play in Chicago or NYC
likasz no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 06:21 PM   #832
Loranga
Hoj!
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Ludvika
Posts: 359
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alx-D View Post
There is no way FedEX Field would be able to host a World Cup. The pitch would only be 55 yards wide!
But soccer has been played there, during ChampionsWorld 2005(?). I think Chelsea played a game there. The lower parts of the bottom tier was removed to accommodate a soccer field, but I am not sure it was 68 meters wide.
Loranga no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 07:26 PM   #833
PaulFCB
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,747
Likes (Received): 262

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
The Giants Stadium in '94, for example, was ridiculously unsuitable for soccer and had to be given special dispensation by FIFA to host so NYC wasn't left out of the tournament. Players have to back into advertising hoardings to take corners and throws:

image hosted on flickr

Liverpool in the Giants Stadium

As I understand it, however, most of the stadiums built since '94 do have wide enough pitches for soccer. This is good becasue if the US gets another world cup, we shouldn't see scenes like the one above.
As much as I know, Giants Stadium will be history till the 2022 World Cup as they are currently building the Meadowlands Stadium scheduled for 2010.

Last edited by PaulFCB; February 4th, 2009 at 07:31 PM.
PaulFCB no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 07:54 PM   #834
metros11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiBrit View Post
The US may well get 2022 (although my feeling is for Australia), but IMO there is no way it will get 2018.

Yes, there may be more money to be made in the States, but you have not taken in to account Europe would have waited 12 years 'between drinks' as you say. And for all the extra revenue which could be raised, fifa will not want to upset the most 'powerful' union uefa.

Pure and simple...
This is a very good point.
metros11 no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 08:17 PM   #835
metros11
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 418
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Secondly, although I'm not adverse to seeing another world cup in the US in my lifetime, this is way too soon for me. For a country where soccer is the 4th favourite sport, if that, to host two world cups in 20-odd years doesn't sit right regardless of the ticket revenue they could bring in.
While I can understand the sentiment that the sport's biggest event should not go to a country where the sport is not even the most favorite, that's not exactly the way FIFA is looking at it. If you think that FIFA is all about promoting the game for the good of the game, then you're seriously delusional. Ask yourself this question, why is it that FIFA is taking bids right now for World Cups that takes place 10 and 14 years from now? This change in procedure has been very recent, but why all of a sudden? Wouldn't it be smarter to rate the bids closer to the actual dates? The answer is quite simple. FIFA is the most corrupt enterprise on the planet. The FIFA congress, who's members include such thieves as Sepp Blatter and Jack Warner, are simply in it to make as much money in the shortest amount of time possible. The 2018 and 2022 World Cups will not go to the best bid, but to the highest bidder. Ironically, for the United States, this doesn't bode that well. While FIFA would make enormous amounts of money from an event in the USA, those checks are not directly written to Sepp Blatter. And of course, in the United States it's a lot harder to hide those kind of contributions. The press would be all over it. Of course, that never stopped Jack Warner. He still holds his post, even though he stole millions from the T&T FA.
metros11 no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 09:05 PM   #836
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
Firstly, I doubt whether the sponsorship for a US world cup would be that much greater than for a European world cup, if at all. I just don't think that's the case at all given that it's a global event and Europe is football's heratland; the whole continent gets world cup fever during those three weeks every four years to an extent which America does not. England's economy was estimated to have lost out on £2bn because of our failure to qualify for last year's Euros; that gives you some idea of what we're talking about here.

Secondly, although I'm not adverse to seeing another world cup in the US in my lifetime, this is way too soon for me. For a country where soccer is the 4th favourite sport, if that, to host two world cups in 20-odd years doesn't sit right regardless of the ticket revenue they could bring in. I think the US would host a fantastic world cup and if they get it, best of luck to them, but I'd rather see it somewhere else if I'm honest.

Thirdly, this article doesn't talk about what the US could give to FIFA and to the game of football that Australia, or England, or Russia couldn't give aside from money. Is that really your unique selling point?

It's already a given that 2018 is going back to Europe so comparing the merits of the U.S. to England etc. is a non-starter. The U.S. just has to worry about 2022 when Europe is out of contention and the U.S. will have to compete against a weaker field of bids. With China out, I think it's down to Australia and the United States. As for popularity, the game has the same fringe popularity in Australia as it does in the United States so I don't see how that's an issue.
JYDA no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 09:06 PM   #837
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:
RobH;31775510]Firstly, I doubt whether the sponsorship for a US world cup would be that much greater than for a European world cup, if at all.
The European sponsors will likely be there regardless. Compounding large American ones on top of that is gravy.


Quote:
Secondly, although I'm not adverse to seeing another world cup in the US in my lifetime, this is way too soon for me. For a country where soccer is the 4th favorite sport, if that, to host two world cups in 20-odd years doesn't sit right
It would be 28 years by then. The vast majority of the world by then will have no recollection of that world cup. I would have thought China in 2022 made the most sense but I given everything I really don't see any of the other non European choices as good of a choice, my subjective opinion of course. I mean people talk about Australia, even if it is more popular then in the U.S. (arguable) I wouldn't exactly call it a football hotbed either. Also they would have to do a lot of building and even then I don't know if their stadium infrastructure would approach that of the U.S.

.......hngcm, I like your choices. I would perhaps drop the Phoenix stadium though even as nice as it is. No game is going to be played there in summer with that roof open.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”

Last edited by nomarandlee; February 4th, 2009 at 09:20 PM.
nomarandlee no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 09:23 PM   #838
RobH
Registered User
 
RobH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London-ish
Posts: 12,771
Likes (Received): 10326

Quote:
Originally Posted by JYDA View Post
It's already a given that 2018 is going back to Europe so comparing the merits of the U.S. to England etc. is a non-starter. The U.S. just has to worry about 2022 when Europe is out of contention and the U.S. will have to compete against a weaker field of bids. With China out, I think it's down to Australia and the United States. As for popularity, the game has the same fringe popularity in Australia as it does in the United States so I don't see how that's an issue.
It's an issue because the US has had a relatively recent world cup whereas Australia hasn't. If it was Australia '94 I'd be wholeheartedly supporting the US for 2022 after (hopefully) England 2018. It's nothing personal - I'm supporting Chicago's Olympic bid. I'm not one of these people who is against your bid simply because some people think it's cool to be anti-US-anything.
RobH no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 09:31 PM   #839
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

I'm not arguing that the US will host the best World Cup or that it will be perfect. My argument is pretty simple. FIFA likes money and the US offers them the opportunity to make the most money, which is why the US will be picked. I don't think Australia or Russia have a detailed enough bid yet to know how they would do as hosts so I don't know who would do the best job.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old February 4th, 2009, 09:43 PM   #840
JYDA
Registered User
 
JYDA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,172
Likes (Received): 94

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobH View Post
It's an issue because the US has had a relatively recent world cup whereas Australia hasn't. If it was Australia '94 I'd be wholeheartedly supporting the US for 2022 after (hopefully) England 2018. It's nothing personal - I'm supporting Chicago's Olympic bid. I'm not one of these people who is against your bid simply because some people think it's cool to be anti-US-anything.

Fair enough. Australia certainly has that advantage in never having hosted before.
JYDA no está en línea  


Closed Thread

Tags
los angeles, 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 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