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 December 21st, 2009, 11:34 PM   #1761
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Game Is Up View Post
We won't get this one. The same main problem for us exists as the problem Chicago 2016 bid team had, which is that geopolitical momentum is not on our side. Since FIFA is increasingly marketing in Asia, Australia becomes the clear-on favorite. Just a hop, skip and a jump from the lucrative Southeast Asian and Chinese markets.

But if we do get it, should the USSF keep the relationship with ESPN/ABC or go with another media company like Comcast/NBC? Before dismissing it, think about the sports-related gains that would come if a new player emerges. Comcast has Versus, which now airs hockey and not much else, because they don't have contracts with the big leagues. However, despite that, Versus is at 64 million households, while 30 million behind ESPN, is still in a lot of homes when factoring that they have not much to offer. Fox Soccer Channel only reaches barely 30 million households, for comparison sake. With NBC partnering with them, they would get a lot of clearance as NBC puts some real sports programming there. NBC also has Universal Sports, which an ota channel broadcasting individual sports most associated with the Olympic program, like track-and-field and cycling, but also offered on several cable providers. With new corporate muscle, they can be able to bid to not only keep the Olympics but bid on major sporting events such as World Cup soccer.

One advantage I can see from being on NBC is that they're more likely to air all matches featuring the US National team, regardless of whether they stink up the joint or not. Of course, that could end up being a double-edge sword if that happen. But we can all agree that NBC can be US-centric when it comes to coverage of major international sporting events. So when factoring that in I can make a best guess of the way they'd divide the coverage of a World Cup.

Here's how I think it might work:

NBC takes the Opening Match, regardless of teams. The opening match would be a big deal, especially in a US city. So they get first dibs. Then the matches featuring the US National team go to the broadcast side as well. Let's assume at least 3 matches if they crash out in the first round. However, if there's a chance that they move through the latter rounds, NBC would want to air those matches. So they'd want at least one Round 16 match and one match in the Quarters. After that, it gets easier for them, as the Semis and Final would most likely feature the traditional powers (money in the bank if one of those team is from South America or Mexico). So one Semi-final and the Final as well for NBC.

The rest of the matches would be divided by Versus, with Universal Sports getting any matches played simultaneously in the last part of the first round with either Versus or NBC (US team). Therefore, Versus (or its name successor) would get the vast majority of the matches.

My calculation came up with this:

NBC - 8 matches (incl. Opening, US Men, R16, Quarter, Semi, Final)
NBC Sports Cable or Versus - 50 matches (not including the Final)
Universal Sports - 6 matches played in the final matchday of the groups

If US is in the Opening match:

NBC - 7
Sports cable - 50
Universal Sports - 7

How likely would this scenario be? I would say 30-70. I read that ESPN has a VP who is a real soccer fan. So I think the likelihood of them keeping the right to the FIFA World Cup has increased. They also still enjoy a lot of financial muscle and are way ahead of their competition in the number of households having at least ESPN/ESPN2. However, what if the soccer coverage is only being used to lobby the IOC for the Olympics TV rights? That is a factor that worries me. If they do win the Olympics TV rights, with their commitments to NFL, MLB, NBA, NASCAR, college football and possibly March Madness, something will have to give. I think soccer would be one of their sacrificial lambs to get all the big money sports properties. The USSF should have a plan B if ESPN does drop them after 2014.

Now with regards to the Spanish language coverage, things could get much more interesting if Telemundo becomes a true player to get the TV rights to the World Cup. If the new NBC can put real financial backing into Telemundo then they might take it away from Univision. However, Univision has enjoyed such a long relationship with FIFA that it'd be difficult for them to lose the rights. Still, with the rapidly-changing technology, a Telemundo would be able to cut into the advantage Univision has over them sometime in the future. For example, Telemundo would be able to start a secondary service at little cost just to air the matches played simultaneously live in the near future. I think this scenario is more likely than ESPN/ABC losing the English-language rights.

If Australia gets the World Cup, then you might as well give it to ESPN because any other US media company - apart from foreign language - would not bother to air all the matches live.
First of all, comparing this World Cup bidding to the Olympics is a bad one to make. There is so much bad blood between the IOC and USOC that it was a huge factor over all else. On top of that, there is tension between the USOC and other olympic commitees, while USSF has a good relationship with just about everyone. They've done a very good job in that respect and while geopolitical momentum is not on the USA's side, FIFA is not nearly as immersed in it as the IOC and FIFA tends to work in its own little bubble, for better or worse.

Moving onto the US World Cup TV coverage, I can't find a single argument that I would agree with. First of all, you bring the Olympics into ths disucssion for reasons I can't quite fathom. With Disney's backing and their own financial capital, the initial outlay for rights fees does not scare off ESPN ever if they think they can make money off of something. On top of that, the Olympics will not put a crunch on programming time when it comes to the World Cup. The Summer Games are held two years earlier/later than World Cup and Winter Games take place in February. If anything, the Olympics on ESPN would be a boon for the World Cup because it gives ESPN the ability to promote the match during the highly viewed Winter Games.

You advocate the move to NBC because of reasons I don't quite follow. You want eight matches on NBC, but ESPN is already contracted to show a minimum of 10 on ABC per World Cup, showed 11 in 2006 and with the massive weight they have put behind this World Cup, are likely to show more in 2010. ESPN also has a background in soccer, making the production value higher and even you mention the huge difference in households ESPN reaches versus the households Versus and Universal Sports. There is also the fact that NBC does not have a single major sports deal from the time the NFL ends in January and the World Cup so what are they promoting it on? Best case scenario, there is the Winter Olympics if they hold onto the rights and that is it. ESPN can promote it during the NBA, college basketball, MLB, the Winter Olympics if they get the rights, plus during all of the other soccer matches they already show.

If any other network is going to make a serious bid that can rival ESPN it will be Fox, but even they have serious issues to iron out. The most prominent time to get the World Cup on is the Saturday and Sunday slots, but if they continue with their MLB deal, they do not have programming time on Saturday afternoon. If they can be managed, they can push ESPN though because they have a major network, an experienced team of soccer producers thanks to Fox Soccer channel, and dozens of sports networks to show the matches on with their FSN channels. I don't think they can match ESPN, but if anyone is to challenge ESPN, it will be them.

Going back to your argument for NBC, exactly why is it a good idea to make the move there? Under your proposal they're showing less matches on NBC than ESPN shows on ABC. NBC's cable matches would be on networks that don't have near the reach or viewership as ESPN does. They have no experience in the sport, while ESPN has a ton and has shown a commitment to the sport. NBC does not have near the same ability to promote the World Cup and most of all, ESPN has a executive vice president who has made soccer a priority, even bringing up the possibility of ESPN launching their own soccer network.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old December 21st, 2009, 11:49 PM   #1762
massp88
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,182
Likes (Received): 215

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
First of all, comparing this World Cup bidding to the Olympics is a bad one to make. There is so much bad blood between the IOC and USOC that it was a huge factor over all else. On top of that, there is tension between the USOC and other olympic commitees, while USSF has a good relationship with just about everyone. They've done a very good job in that respect and while geopolitical momentum is not on the USA's side, FIFA is not nearly as immersed in it as the IOC and FIFA tends to work in its own little bubble, for better or worse.

Moving onto the US World Cup TV coverage, I can't find a single argument that I would agree with. First of all, you bring the Olympics into ths disucssion for reasons I can't quite fathom. With Disney's backing and their own financial capital, the initial outlay for rights fees does not scare off ESPN ever if they think they can make money off of something. On top of that, the Olympics will not put a crunch on programming time when it comes to the World Cup. The Summer Games are held two years earlier/later than World Cup and Winter Games take place in February. If anything, the Olympics on ESPN would be a boon for the World Cup because it gives ESPN the ability to promote the match during the highly viewed Winter Games.

You advocate the move to NBC because of reasons I don't quite follow. You want eight matches on NBC, but ESPN is already contracted to show a minimum of 10 on ABC per World Cup, showed 11 in 2006 and with the massive weight they have put behind this World Cup, are likely to show more in 2010. ESPN also has a background in soccer, making the production value higher and even you mention the huge difference in households ESPN reaches versus the households Versus and Universal Sports. There is also the fact that NBC does not have a single major sports deal from the time the NFL ends in January and the World Cup so what are they promoting it on? Best case scenario, there is the Winter Olympics if they hold onto the rights and that is it. ESPN can promote it during the NBA, college basketball, MLB, the Winter Olympics if they get the rights, plus during all of the other soccer matches they already show.

If any other network is going to make a serious bid that can rival ESPN it will be Fox, but even they have serious issues to iron out. The most prominent time to get the World Cup on is the Saturday and Sunday slots, but if they continue with their MLB deal, they do not have programming time on Saturday afternoon. If they can be managed, they can push ESPN though because they have a major network, an experienced team of soccer producers thanks to Fox Soccer channel, and dozens of sports networks to show the matches on with their FSN channels. I don't think they can match ESPN, but if anyone is to challenge ESPN, it will be them.

Going back to your argument for NBC, exactly why is it a good idea to make the move there? Under your proposal they're showing less matches on NBC than ESPN shows on ABC. NBC's cable matches would be on networks that don't have near the reach or viewership as ESPN does. They have no experience in the sport, while ESPN has a ton and has shown a commitment to the sport. NBC does not have near the same ability to promote the World Cup and most of all, ESPN has a executive vice president who has made soccer a priority, even bringing up the possibility of ESPN launching their own soccer network.
I for one, would love it if ESPN launched a soccer network to compete with FSC.

There is no way that NBC will/would steal the WC away from ABC. I agree with everything you have mentioned rye. ESPN/ABS will promote the heck out of the 2010 cup just like they did in 2006, which featured GREAT ads.

NBC, outside of the Olympics has a very weak sports showing. They still continue to show the joke and continuing to decline Notre Dame football team. Their NFL coverage is terrible (Michaels and Collinsworth are the only saving grace).

ESPN is learning the hard way that their deal to start showing NASCAR has not paid off well as they have seen ratings decline year over year. They will not miss out on the massive boost the WC will provide them.
massp88 no está en línea  
Old December 21st, 2009, 11:52 PM   #1763
El Cholo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 82
Likes (Received): 144

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Game Is Up View Post
.... Since FIFA is increasingly marketing in Asia, Australia becomes the clear-on favorite. Just a hop, skip and a jump from the lucrative Southeast Asian and Chinese markets.

.....
Explain that, why is having it in Australia going to bring benefits to FIFA from China??? Wouldn't they just have China host then?

The US has Jack Warner backing them for now, the most corrupt FIFA official to ever live. He will deliver the World Cup to the US as long as the USSF keeps sending gifts his way.
El Cholo no está en línea  
Old December 21st, 2009, 11:57 PM   #1764
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

I could actually see the Asia market working against Australia for 2022. Asia is undoubtedly a lucrative market, but a good chunk of it is tied up in China. if Australia hosts in 2022, Asia will not get another World Cup for a bit, meaning China has to wait to host. I think that if FIFA had their way, they would get China to guarantee a bid for 2026 before December, steer 2022 away from Australia so Asia is still an option, then get the 2026 World Cup in China. Obviously, this is speculative, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if something along these lines occured.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old December 22nd, 2009, 12:25 AM   #1765
C.M.
C.M.
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 22
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
I could actually see the Asia market working against Australia for 2022. Asia is undoubtedly a lucrative market, but a good chunk of it is tied up in China. if Australia hosts in 2022, Asia will not get another World Cup for a bit, meaning China has to wait to host. I think that if FIFA had their way, they would get China to guarantee a bid for 2026 before December, steer 2022 away from Australia so Asia is still an option, then get the 2026 World Cup in China. Obviously, this is speculative, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if something along these lines occured.
This is very interesting and it could be more fact than fiction. If Australia wins the rights to host the 2022 WC for Asia then China will have to wait until 2036 for the WC to return to Asia. I doubt that China will want to wait that long to host the biggest sporting event on the planet. If I were Chinese I would make a ‘deal’ with some of the corrupt FIFA executive committee members bring the 2026 WC to China.
C.M. no está en línea  
Old December 22nd, 2009, 09:36 AM   #1766
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
I could actually see the Asia market working against Australia for 2022. Asia is undoubtedly a lucrative market, but a good chunk of it is tied up in China. if Australia hosts in 2022, Asia will not get another World Cup for a bit, meaning China has to wait to host. I think that if FIFA had their way, they would get China to guarantee a bid for 2026 before December, steer 2022 away from Australia so Asia is still an option, then get the 2026 World Cup in China. Obviously, this is speculative, but I would not be surprised in the slightest if something along these lines occured.
I've said this many times.

If 2022 was China vs the USA, China wins easily.

But right now FIFA's choice is really 2022 in OZ or 2026 in China.

The USA will get one of those two WC's.

I think FIFA will go to China...
hngcm no está en línea  
Old December 22nd, 2009, 10:45 AM   #1767
The Game Is Up
Proud Facebook Non-Member
 
The Game Is Up's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The last refuge of freedom, my mind
Posts: 1,133
Likes (Received): 255

Quote:
Originally Posted by ryebreadraz View Post
First of all, comparing this World Cup bidding to the Olympics is a bad one to make. There is so much bad blood between the IOC and USOC that it was a huge factor over all else. On top of that, there is tension between the USOC and other olympic commitees, while USSF has a good relationship with just about everyone. They've done a very good job in that respect and while geopolitical momentum is not on the USA's side, FIFA is not nearly as immersed in it as the IOC and FIFA tends to work in its own little bubble, for better or worse.
Well, FIFA has embarked on "spreading the game" even to the point of dangling the possibility of awarding future tournaments in non-traditional countries. The U.S. had their moment in the sun in 1994. So that argument no longer applies. More than that, though, FIFA and the IOC closely monitor each other. While both may be independent entities, I wouldn't be surprised if they take their cues from each other. As opposed to 1988, FIFA now has options for broadening their marketing reach but, politically, they still have to keep UEFA happy and in the fold. Then there's the AFC and their vast number of member countries and the traditional powers of South America. The International Olympic Committee is also stacked with members from Europe and Asia. FIFA and the IOC are more similar in political culture than we realize.

So while Jack Wagner may help us some he alone won't push the US bid over the hurdle.

Quote:
Moving onto the US World Cup TV coverage, I can't find a single argument that I would agree with. First of all, you bring the Olympics into ths disucssion for reasons I can't quite fathom. With Disney's backing and their own financial capital, the initial outlay for rights fees does not scare off ESPN ever if they think they can make money off of something. On top of that, the Olympics will not put a crunch on programming time when it comes to the World Cup. The Summer Games are held two years earlier/later than World Cup and Winter Games take place in February. If anything, the Olympics on ESPN would be a boon for the World Cup because it gives ESPN the ability to promote the match during the highly viewed Winter Games.

You advocate the move to NBC because of reasons I don't quite follow. You want eight matches on NBC, but ESPN is already contracted to show a minimum of 10 on ABC per World Cup, showed 11 in 2006 and with the massive weight they have put behind this World Cup, are likely to show more in 2010. ESPN also has a background in soccer, making the production value higher and even you mention the huge difference in households ESPN reaches versus the households Versus and Universal Sports. There is also the fact that NBC does not have a single major sports deal from the time the NFL ends in January and the World Cup so what are they promoting it on? Best case scenario, there is the Winter Olympics if they hold onto the rights and that is it. ESPN can promote it during the NBA, college basketball, MLB, the Winter Olympics if they get the rights, plus during all of the other soccer matches they already show.
It wasn't my intention to advocate for NBC. However, I will say that at the very least NBC gives the USSF an option - a sort-of Plan B if you like - in case ESPN decides it is getting out of the soccer business. What happens if the MLS contract is not renewed, as it may happen with the ratings they're getting? Even Disney is not in the business of losing money. Would having NBC as a partner be ideal? Probably not. However, look what the USSF has now to partner with for televising games as opposed to the 1980s, considered the Lost Decade for professional soccer. That's not even taking into account broadband, satellite and other new technologies. The point is that they have options now that weren't available before.

So if, for example, ESPN thinks it can make a better deal bidding for Thursday Night NFL games than the FIFA World Cup then time for the USSF to get a good deal elsewhere. In this game, it's about how to best promote your product. OK, I'll give you the point about any potential synergies in promotion between the Olympics and the World Cup, as both are big-time world events followed by a worldwide audience. However, I can't give you the point with respect to the NBA, MLB or NFL. How much does a diehard fan of college football care about soccer and vice-versa? I see little in common between baseball fans, football fans and futbol fans as well. The local major leagues should be treated more as stand-alone events than a promotion platform for the World Cup. Or maybe you think there's much in common between soccer and NASCAR fans.

Quote:
If any other network is going to make a serious bid that can rival ESPN it will be Fox, but even they have serious issues to iron out. The most prominent time to get the World Cup on is the Saturday and Sunday slots, but if they continue with their MLB deal, they do not have programming time on Saturday afternoon. If they can be managed, they can push ESPN though because they have a major network, an experienced team of soccer producers thanks to Fox Soccer channel, and dozens of sports networks to show the matches on with their FSN channels. I don't think they can match ESPN, but if anyone is to challenge ESPN, it will be them.
I wouldn't mind FOX having them. Remember that FOX also owns MyNetworkTV. MyNetworkTV, as well as FOX, already is set up for HD programming. Also along with FOX, MyNet is already on cable and satellite providers due to the retrans agreement. Right now they mostly show B-movies, reruns of second-rate shows, talk shows and infomercials. That's already a second platform of over-the-air stations that they can use to show World Cup games. For example, in my area, Channel 9 is the MyNetworkTV station. Channel 9 was for a long time known for showing New York Mets games. However, along the way, the Mets moved over to Channel 11 (now a CW affiliate) and replaced by the Yankees. Yankee games usually are on Saturday nights in the summertime. MyNetworkTV covers over 90% of the country. See: http://www.rabbitears.info/search.ph...ch&network=MyN

However, their real problem is with Fox Soccer Channel/Fox Sports Espanol. They're only at 30 million homes. Both would have to be at least 2.5 times that number to be a serious contender. They can use FX to fill in the gap if they can do that. I don't how logical it is to use the FSNs. People would have to be told what channels they're on depending on where they live.

Right now they could combine FOX and MyNet with FX (preferably FSC). Perhaps FSC/FSE would "lease" the MyNet stations to telecast the matches, like they did when FSE used Channel 9 to air the Yankee playoff games en espanol.

Quote:
Going back to your argument for NBC, exactly why is it a good idea to make the move there? Under your proposal they're showing less matches on NBC than ESPN shows on ABC. NBC's cable matches would be on networks that don't have near the reach or viewership as ESPN does. They have no experience in the sport, while ESPN has a ton and has shown a commitment to the sport. NBC does not have near the same ability to promote the World Cup and most of all, ESPN has a executive vice president who has made soccer a priority, even bringing up the possibility of ESPN launching their own soccer network.
They could air more games if they want to. I wasn't arguing for an arbitrary number but assuming that the network would be interested only in broadcasting the games that would garner the better ratings, such as games involving the US and major soccer powers. Also, since Versus/NBC have almost nothing in terms of major sports programming in the summer apart from the Olympics that they would be better inclined to treat soccer (besides the World Cup) the way it deserves to be treated. It's a personal thing with me. However, I do recognize that ESPN is giving more focus on soccer for next year, although I am skeptical on their motivations for doing so.



Quote:
Originally Posted by C.M. View Post
This is very interesting and it could be more fact than fiction. If Australia wins the rights to host the 2022 WC for Asia then China will have to wait until 2036 for the WC to return to Asia. I doubt that China will want to wait that long to host the biggest sporting event on the planet. If I were Chinese I would make a ‘deal’ with some of the corrupt FIFA executive committee members bring the 2026 WC to China.
China already had their "coming out" party in 2008. Having the World Cup so soon after would be just gravy but not as vital as the Olympics were to them. Remember also that their team is not exactly that good. They could use the time to improve the team's performance.

Oh, and they could have it in 2030 if they want to.
__________________
Promotion and Relegation for American sports!
The Game Is Up no está en línea  
Old December 23rd, 2009, 06:29 AM   #1768
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

FIFA doesn't care if China had the Olympics in 2008, they want a WC there to spread the game. And they can spread the game a lot more in China (1 billion +) than in Australia (20 million).
hngcm no está en línea  
Old December 23rd, 2009, 09:35 AM   #1769
The Game Is Up
Proud Facebook Non-Member
 
The Game Is Up's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The last refuge of freedom, my mind
Posts: 1,133
Likes (Received): 255

If they had stayed in the running then I agree that they would have a better chance. However, barring that, FIFA would happily settle for eyeballs looking at the video screens, which Asia has plenty of. TV rights is going to be the next huge level in terms of marketing in Asia. The Aussies could even organize tours for Asian tourists coming to watch the World Cup (if they can somehow get over their paranoia about Asian foreigners).

All you have to do is search for live soccer games on the internet. Check how many feeds are coming from Chinese or Korean stations. If they're willing to do through those lengths to pirate live league soccer matches on the internet then FIFA would make a killing on live legal telecasts. FIFA knows a thing or two about controlling content when it comes to the World Cup. They won't catch all the pirates but by 2022 I think they'd make it very hard for World Cup games to be pirated. I expect that FIFA itself is going to go bigtime into TV production, complete with its own "FIFA Channel" (or "Canal du FIFA" to use the French spelling), play-by-play commentary, sideline reports, etc.. They could even give away TVs to Asians and still make a killing in advertising and marketing fees, as new companies from Asia increasingly buy into the World Cup market.

This is where Australia shows its biggest advantage: It's in a region that is convenient to Asian viewers, timewise. Matches in Sydney are more manageable for Asia than in Chicago or Philly. Stadium revenue under those circumstances becomes less and less important, even though still important. TV, satellite, broadband, 3D, outdoor parks, mobile web. That's where the real money is at.
__________________
Promotion and Relegation for American sports!
The Game Is Up no está en línea  
Old December 23rd, 2009, 01:18 PM   #1770
1772
Registered User
 
1772's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 2,573
Likes (Received): 1439

Of course the US would play the opening game.

And I wouldn't count on the US to stink.
Thinking of how well they preformed at the confederations cup I see the US team as a future top team.
1772 no está en línea  
Old December 23rd, 2009, 02:33 PM   #1771
SIC
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 290
Likes (Received): 0

The USSF/ Sunil Gulati and Chuck Warner are total FIFA insiders and they have Jack Blazer in the inner circle. They've been running things for the last 35-40 years now and they're buddy buddy with everyone. Chuck Blazer was one of the guys handing out medals to Barcelona at the CWC last weekend. They know how to play game and they don't think they've above it.
Unlike the USOC, who thinks they're above the IOC, which is the real source of conflict. The USSF knows it's place, but it exploits it very well.

I don't know about Australia, but they were recently in Oceania, which is the weakest confederation in influence. But have now moved to the AFC, but I don't know how the internal politics work there. But the idea of China backstabbing Australia's bid, isn't implausible.
SIC no está en línea  
Old January 9th, 2010, 01:33 AM   #1772
ryebreadraz
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,597
Likes (Received): 17

On Tuesday, the list of 27 cities will be cut down to 18. Those 18 cities are the ones that will be presented to FIFA in the bid. Cities with two candidate stadiums (for example, DC with RFK and FedEx or LA with The Rose Bowl and Coliseum) will just count as one so it will be 18 cities, not stadiums. Also, cities that are candidates can end up hosting in a stadium not currently listed if they build a new one, which is likely to be the case with LA and possibly San Diego or San Francisco.
ryebreadraz no está en línea  
Old January 9th, 2010, 05:13 AM   #1773
Frnjchuga031
Lega
 
Frnjchuga031's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Osijek
Posts: 2,372
Likes (Received): 449

USA is mine favorite... You have best stadiums that any country can have... Not only by quality and capacity but also cause of quantity of stadiums...
Only minus is that most of your stadiums don't have roofs... But nice summer weather fixes that up...
__________________

JA SAM JEDAN OD ONIH NA KOJE SU NAS RODITELJI UPOZORAVALI !
Frnjchuga031 no está en línea  
Old January 9th, 2010, 06:35 AM   #1774
Walbanger
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Perth
Posts: 1,239
Likes (Received): 1103

Quote:
The Aussies could even organize tours for Asian tourists coming to watch the World Cup (if they can somehow get over their paranoia about Asian foreigners).
What a rude and ill informed thing to say. 6.7 % of the population is racially East Asian. A large percentage of tourists to Australia are Asian. The vast majority of Australians have no problems with this.
Walbanger no está en línea  
Old January 9th, 2010, 12:31 PM   #1775
The Game Is Up
Proud Facebook Non-Member
 
The Game Is Up's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The last refuge of freedom, my mind
Posts: 1,133
Likes (Received): 255

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frnjchuga031 View Post
USA is mine favorite... You have best stadiums that any country can have... Not only by quality and capacity but also cause of quantity of stadiums...
Only minus is that most of your stadiums don't have roofs... But nice summer weather fixes that up...
Well, some recent stadia have retractable roofs. Some are domes. Seattle has partial coverings and Miami plans to put up a metal cover on theirs as well. However, the roof issue isn't even the biggest problem. The biggest problems are the following:

- The stadia are build primarily for that other football. In cases such as Philadelphia, Arlington and the Meadowlands, that means the width of the field would be a tight fit, at best, inadequate otherwise.

- Start times. Let's face it. For the vast majority of matches it would be just like in 1994, when the sun is at its highest point in the sky or close about. Europe can get away with starting some matches at 7:30 PM local time. We won't have that luxury, no matter how much money is waved at Warner and Blatter, although we should have that flexibility. It's crazy to start matches at 12:30 PM if in Orlando, for example. Then there's the irritation that happens when folks are arriving under heavy traffic, in the middle of high heat and humidity. Bring plenty of fluids (and I don't mean the alcoholic kind) and arrive early to beat the traffic. That's the best advice one can give under those circumstances.

- TV and new media marketing in Asia would make it too attractive for FIFA to forgo a candidate for one of the World Cups from the AFC. Since Australia is the better of the AFC candidates up to now, they'd want to go there.

- Geopolitics is very unfavorable at this moment. Furthermore, I don't see a scenario where that changes quickly. We're in this at least for the next 10-20 years. FIFA has to satisfy the different confederations. Concacaf doesn't have enough clout to pull this off, even if Mexico would like again to play their matches just across the border.

So, yeah, appreciate your support for us but we ain't getting it!
__________________
Promotion and Relegation for American sports!
The Game Is Up no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2010, 12:19 AM   #1776
Livno80101
studying
 
Livno80101's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saratoga, CA 95070
Posts: 603
Likes (Received): 3

I think that matches schedule wouldn't be set as in 1994. Football has been growing in USA since then a lot, and it is more popular now. So, matches could be in US prime time... if we could watch Olympics in early morning, I think we in Europe could watch football in late hours, especially in summer, when is so hot and we cant sleep... and also, last few years many players died during/after playing on high temperatures, so FIFA wouldn't make such a decision as playing in noon, or groups on East coast would be played earlier, and those on West would be played later.
Livno80101 no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2010, 01:45 AM   #1777
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Game Is Up View Post

- The stadia are build primarily for that other football. In cases such as Philadelphia, Arlington and the Meadowlands, that means the width of the field would be a tight fit, at best, inadequate otherwise.
Philly and the OLD meadowlands won't host, and a tight fit is better than playing in an olympic or cricket stadium as in OZ
- Start times. Let's face it. For the vast majority of matches it would be just like in 1994, when the sun is at its highest point in the sky or close about. Europe can get away with starting some matches at 7:30 PM local time. We won't have that luxury, no matter how much money is waved at Warner and Blatter, although we should have that flexibility. It's crazy to start matches at 12:30 PM if in Orlando, for example. Then there's the irritation that happens when folks are arriving under heavy traffic, in the middle of high heat and humidity. Bring plenty of fluids (and I don't mean the alcoholic kind) and arrive early to beat the traffic. That's the best advice one can give under those circumstances.
Start times can always be changed, Europe can stay up a bit later. Not to mention that about half the stadiums are domes or at least have a partial roof.

- TV and new media marketing in Asia would make it too attractive for FIFA to forgo a candidate for one of the World Cups from the AFC. Since Australia is the better of the AFC candidates up to now, they'd want to go there.
Although this is true, it would be FAR better to wait and give China the 2026 WC which will get better results than OZ in 2022. Not to mention that the USA is a 300 million country and also boosting the largest GDP out there. The sport is growing here and the WC can give it the kick it needs.

- Geopolitics is very unfavorable at this moment. Furthermore, I don't see a scenario where that changes quickly. We're in this at least for the next 10-20 years. FIFA has to satisfy the different confederations. Concacaf doesn't have enough clout to pull this off, even if Mexico would like again to play their matches just across the border.
CONCACAF doesn't have enough clout but somehow the weak AFC does?
..
hngcm no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2010, 06:53 AM   #1778
Wezza
©
 
Wezza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Townsville
Posts: 8,861
Likes (Received): 968

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm
CONCACAF doesn't have enough clout but somehow the weak AFC does?
Try the billions of people throughout Asia.

P.S. If the AFC is weak, then CONCACAF is level with it at best.
Wezza no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2010, 03:29 PM   #1779
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 369
Likes (Received): 255

The US bid board will choose the 18 bid cities on tuesday. That means nin cities will be eliminated. This is my list of eliminated cities.
  • Jacksonville
  • Tampa bay
  • Baltimore
  • Oakland
  • Cleveland
  • St-Louis
  • San Diego
  • Detroit
  • Nashville

Whatever cities, the US bid plan will have all stadiums already built and largely above the minimum capacity required by FIFA. If the US win the 2022 WC race, FIFA will choose 12 stadiums for competition. During 12 years some stadiums of the list could change, new to be built in DC, SF or LA for example.
We will know all the details on 14th may 2010.
Preliminaries draw could be in Chicago and final draw in LA Live or Las Vegas.
__________________
My Globe-Trotter network
http://gttravel.ning.com
CaliforniaJones no está en línea  
Old January 10th, 2010, 03:58 PM   #1780
CaliforniaJones
Registered User
 
CaliforniaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Orange County
Posts: 369
Likes (Received): 255

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
I've said this many times.

If 2022 was China vs the USA, China wins easily.

But right now FIFA's choice is really 2022 in OZ or 2026 in China.

The USA will get one of those two WC's.

I think FIFA will go to China...
Don't forget many chinese could easily travel in South Korea rather in Japan because of travel costs for 2002 WC. If a WC go to China, it could be less expensive for the majority going to another chinese cities than going to Australia.
Furthermore, China has more stadiums (>= 40000 places) and more cities than Australia.
__________________
My Globe-Trotter network
http://gttravel.ning.com
CaliforniaJones 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 01:34 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