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 November 18th, 2009, 06:12 AM   #1701
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): 2762

Australia completely sucks in terms of live tv viewing for Europe/Africa and the Americas.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old November 18th, 2009, 07:13 AM   #1702
mvictory
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee View Post
Australia completely sucks in terms of live tv viewing for Europe/Africa and the Americas.
True, but it is good for Asia and Oceania which comprises of two thirds of the worlds population.
It realy only comes down to a few factors between Aus and the US
- Who can get the Votes from europe
- Weather it is to soon to go back the US after 94
- If Australia can get our bid togeather and not use too many oval stadiums
- If FIFA care about the US bid not leaving a lasting legacy for football as all the stadiums would be American Football stadiums
- Weather FIFA want to go to a new frontier
- And last but probably the most important who bribes the most FIFA officials.

It is a hard one to predict, it will be interesting to see if anything changes when the bid books are finalised.
mvictory no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 07:28 AM   #1703
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,242
Likes (Received): 1113

Evening matches in Australia will be fine for morning viewing in Europe and Africa. London is 8 hours behind Perth. Athens, Helsinki and Joburg, Cairo are 6 hours behind. So a 5pm Perth kickoff (or 7pm kick off for Australia's east coast)will be a nice breakfast to early lunch viewing in Europe and Africa, Not to mention the afternoon to primetime viewing to Billions in Asia.

Games involving teams from the Americas could be played at 11am on Australia's East Coast and be viewed in Rio and Buenos Aires at 10pm the previous day. New York, Toronto etc at 8pm, 7pm in Chicago, Mexico City and at 5pm in LA, San Fran.
An 8pm Perth kickoff would be viewed at 9am in Rio and Buenos Aires, 7am in New York and Toronto, 6am in Chicago, Mexico City.

Last edited by Walbanger; November 18th, 2009 at 08:53 AM.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 07:59 AM   #1704
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimbanha View Post
The U.S. should be very thankful that the extra-UEFA competition is so weak this time so that they might actually have a shot. It's a very competitive race for 2018, with four very strong european bids. However, when it comes to 2022, it's pretty much between the U.S. and Australia. Had China actually bid, the U.S. would have no chance.

Look, Spain 2018/2002 would already be considered too soon (after 1982), and that's why they decided to pair with Portugal in order to bid. Then what to say about U.S. 1994? It's just too greedy for a country with no football tradition.
Your little countries are more like states to us, so we have way more fans and participants than almost any country on Earth. Boo hoo. Deal with it.


MERICA!!!!!!!!!
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 12:08 PM   #1705
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Why are we even discussing Australia...
hngcm no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 01:23 PM   #1706
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,242
Likes (Received): 1113

^ Just responding to nomarandlee's claim that Australia "Sucks in terms or Live Viewing into Europe, Africa and the Americas", which I don't fully agree with.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 06:31 PM   #1707
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

Australia does suck for viewing here if they play games at night. I know from trying to catch AFL and NRL.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 08:16 PM   #1708
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
Your little countries are more like states to us, so we have way more fans and participants than almost any country on Earth. Boo hoo. Deal with it.
MERICA!!!!!!!!!
And that's why you should get the WC more times? No, the U.S. has a lot of PEOPLE, not a lot of football fans. If you ask people in America what is an offside in footbal (or soccer, whatever you guys call it), the overwhelming majority won't know what to say. I believe FIFA will not be willing to come back to a country that had a WC in 1994 and most of its citizens weren't even aware of it at the time.

Probably the same thing would happen in Australia, with the difference that they didn't get the World Cup and thus the chance to develop interest in football within the country. U.S. had that chance, 15 years ago. That's really recent.

If already-built venues were such an important factor, England could just be named 2018 WC hosts right away. But that's not the case. FIFA wants to believe they had a role in developing sports in a country and in the history of the country itself. In no country it would have a weaker impact than in the U.S.

Last edited by Chimbanha; November 18th, 2009 at 08:29 PM.
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 08:32 PM   #1709
krudmonk
sucks
 
krudmonk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Sannozay
Posts: 2,265
Likes (Received): 96

I was just talking shit before, but I think the lack of football culture in this country is so overstated by outsiders.

As for legacy, we have a top-tier pro league which did not exist in 1994. It started at ten teams and could be up to 20 by the time Brasil plays host. This is all without tapping largely into Euro poseurs and fans of the Mexican league.
krudmonk no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 08:54 PM   #1710
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
I was just talking shit before, but I think the lack of football culture in this country is so overstated by outsiders.

As for legacy, we have a top-tier pro league which did not exist in 1994. It started at ten teams and could be up to 20 by the time Brasil plays host. This is all without tapping largely into Euro poseurs and fans of the Mexican league.
I'm not saying 1994 WC was a bad World Cup. Not because my country won it , but also because of the attendances (biggest attendance average ever for a WC) and the creation of the MLS. And also the evolution of the American team, as attested by this year's Confederation Cup.

But we can't deny that the interest football generates in the United States can't be compared to even other non-traditional countries that have hosted/will host the WC such as Korea, Japan and South Africa. Football is not the national sport in these countries, but it's within the most important. Would the WC games even be aired in primetime broadcast TV?

It's definetely acceptable to give a WC to a country like the U.S. But doing it twice within 30 years is a right not even reserved for big countries in the football world like Brazil. This might change within the next years if FIFA continues being intransigent regarding joint bids and the WC keeps getting bigger: there will be not more than 10 countries able to host the WC (U.S. is obviously one of them), so repetitions within a short period of time will be more likely.
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 09:11 PM   #1711
-Corey-
Je suis tout ŕ vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,222
Likes (Received): 5224

Where can i sign to Support San DIego?
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 09:17 PM   #1712
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimbanha View Post
I'm not saying 1994 WC was a bad World Cup. Not because my country won it , but also because of the attendances (biggest attendance average ever for a WC) and the creation of the MLS. And also the evolution of the American team, as attested by this year's Confederation Cup.

But we can't deny that the interest football generates in the United States can't be compared to even other non-traditional countries that have hosted/will host the WC such as Korea, Japan and South Africa. Football is not the national sport in these countries, but it's within the most important. Would the WC games even be aired in primetime broadcast TV?

It's definetely acceptable to give a WC to a country like the U.S. But doing it twice within 30 years is a right not even reserved for big countries in the football world like Brazil. This might change within the next years if FIFA continues being intransigent regarding joint bids and the WC keeps getting bigger: there will be not more than 10 countries able to host the WC (U.S. is obviously one of them), so repetitions within a short period of time will be more likely.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The US provides huge moneymaking opportunities. While we'd like to think that World Cups are awarded for virtuous reasons, money plays a huuuuuge factor and the US offers it. Beyond the size of the stadia, FIFA's official sponsors are surely pushing for the US and FIFA knows how much they could get from future sponsors.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 09:25 PM   #1713
-Corey-
Je suis tout ŕ vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,222
Likes (Received): 5224

And the US is close to Latin America, so as the article posted about San Diego, the US could get as much fans from Latin America as Brazil could get from South America.
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 09:27 PM   #1714
mvictory
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 334
Likes (Received): 26

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The US provides huge moneymaking opportunities. While we'd like to think that World Cups are awarded for virtuous reasons, money plays a huuuuuge factor and the US offers it. Beyond the size of the stadia, FIFA's official sponsors are surely pushing for the US and FIFA knows how much they could get from future sponsors.
To be honest I don't think money makes a difference in deciding a world cup. I would think most of that would come from TV rights because and that would be the same no matter where it's played.
mvictory no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 09:49 PM   #1715
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. The US provides huge moneymaking opportunities. While we'd like to think that World Cups are awarded for virtuous reasons, money plays a huuuuuge factor and the US offers it. Beyond the size of the stadia, FIFA's official sponsors are surely pushing for the US and FIFA knows how much they could get from future sponsors.
If that played such a huge role, the 2010 and 2014 World Cups wouldn't happen in South Africa and Brazil. That is exactly the same argument some guys in this forum said the IOC just couldn't reject Chicago for the 2016 games.

If the IOC rejected Chicago when the U.S. pays the highest tv rights in the world and has most corporate sponsors, FIFA would have absolutely no trouble to reject them with a much more considerable European sponsorship and much lower TV rights paid by the U.S. TV.
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 09:49 PM   #1716
-Corey-
Je suis tout ŕ vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,222
Likes (Received): 5224

So the question here is, is the US paying more money for the TV rights? I know that Univision has the right to broadcast the 2010 World Cup (in the US of course), but it is Univision paying more money than any European nation? i heard that Univision paid more than 2 billion or so, im not sure.
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 09:55 PM   #1717
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Corey- View Post
So the question here is, is the US paying more money for the TV rights? I know that Univision has the right to broadcast the 2010 World Cup (in the US of course), but it is Univision paying more money than any European nation? i heard that Univision paid more than 2 billion or so, im not sure.
Univision paid US$325 million for both the 2010 and the 2014 World Cups.

http://www.hispanicprwire.com/news.php?l=in&id=5108
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 09:57 PM   #1718
-Corey-
Je suis tout ŕ vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,222
Likes (Received): 5224

Oh sorry, i was wrong, so it has the exclusive Only in Spanish? Or that includes English too? Anyway, how much are paying the European broadcasters?
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 10:04 PM   #1719
Chimbanha
Registered User
 
Chimbanha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Brasília
Posts: 1,667
Likes (Received): 1965

Quote:
Originally Posted by -Corey- View Post
Oh sorry, i was wrong, so it has the exclusive Only in Spanish? Or that includes English too? Anyway, how much are paying the European broadcasters?

I'm trying to find such information. All I can say is that in Brazil, apparently, Rede Globo paid US$100M to broadcast it exclusively. Rede Record allegedly offered US$180M but still got rejected.

I also find that text ambiguous regarding Univision's exclusivity. Is it only exclusive among Spanish broadcasters in the U.S.?

EDIT: according to Wikipedia, Univision has the Spanish-language rights and ABC (ESPN) has the English-language rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FI...ts#cite_note-0
Chimbanha no está en línea  
Old November 18th, 2009, 10:10 PM   #1720
-Corey-
Je suis tout ŕ vous
 
-Corey-'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 16,222
Likes (Received): 5224

Im not sure, i think it includes English too, I remember back in 2006, the matches were on Univision only, and it was in Spanish with English subts, i dont remember if any ENglish station broadcasted any match, im not sure.
__________________

๏̯͡๏๏̯͡๏
-Corey- 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 09:48 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