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 June 3rd, 2008, 10:03 AM   #161
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

Where do you get your facts from?
hngcm no está en línea  

Sponsored Links
Old June 3rd, 2008, 10:13 AM   #162
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrerra View Post
The most profitable WC to whom? FIFA? No. It was most profitable to USA because they didn't have to build new stadiums then. It has nothing to do with FIFA!

Today what most involves FIFA financially is broadcasting and sponsorship. They account for almost 90% of the total revenues from Worldcup but on the contrary ticket sales can not exceed 20% at most.

That's why the highest attendace Americans always boast of can not be the key to success of World Cup.
You seem to be trying to miss the point to fit your own argument. The US had high attendance. You treat it like it doesnt mean anything. So i guess (for the sake of discussion, i know it wont happen) if South Africa only had half the attendance Germany did but made money, you would consider it a success. I sure wouldnt. I wouldnt want to turn on the game and see a half empty stadium. The attendance IS a way to show how successful the US WC was. Also, the US will not have to spend any money on stadiums like many countries do, you point there isnt valid either. In fact, the stadiums here would be so large that they would gernerate a hefty ammount of revenue based of their ticket sales. And for your broadcasting/sponsorship argument, it makes no sense. The US is the media and adversiting capital of the world.

Last edited by en1044; June 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 AM.
en1044 no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 10:22 AM   #163
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
You seem to be trying to miss the point to fit your own argument. The US profited, just like Germany did and South Africa will. The revenues generated ARE a way to show how successful the US WC was. And for your broadcasting/sponsorship argument, it makes no sense. The US is the media and adversiting capital of the world.
You are the one who miss the point. The fact that USA is the media and advertising capital has nothing to do with Worldcup's profitability. It comes from the number of people viewing matches on TV not from the fact that your country is the world's capital in media and advertisement.
Carrerra no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 10:28 AM   #164
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrerra View Post
You are the one who miss the point. The fact that USA is the media and advertising capital has nothing to do with Worldcup's profitability. It comes from the number of people viewing matches on TV not from the fact that your country is the world's capital in media and advertisement.
So your saying that if the WC was held in the US no one would watch it??
en1044 no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 10:36 AM   #165
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by en1044 View Post
The US had high attendance. You treat it like it doesnt mean anything. So i guess (for the sake of discussion, i know it wont happen) if South Africa only had half the attendance Germany did but made money, you would consider it a success. I sure wouldnt. I wouldnt want to turn on the game and see a half empty stadium. The attendance IS a way to show how successful the US WC was.
You need to know the fact that money from ticket sales does not go to FIFA's pocket any more since 2002 Korea/Japan Worldcup. It all goes to host nation's pocket since then. You should study the money flow of World Cup before participating in this discussion.

In conclusion, large revenues from high attendance don't have anything to do with FIFA. They only make the host nation happy!
Carrerra no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 11:08 AM   #166
hngcm
Registered User
 
hngcm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,644
Likes (Received): 20

^Again, you say we need to study the money flow of the WC, and I ask, how do we study that? What are your sources?
hngcm no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 11:18 AM   #167
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by hngcm View Post
^Again, you say we need to study the money flow of the WC, and I ask, how do we study that? What are your sources?
Don't waste time in learing Korean language and try to interpret it. What I said is marked blue and bold

===================================================================================

Sports,마케팅 전쟁이다] (6) 독일월드컵의 마케팅 전략
기사입력 2005-07-31 15:21 |최종수정2005-07-31 15:21



1954년 스위스 베른에서 열린 월드컵 결승전. 약체였던 서독이 국제대회 40전 무패를 자랑하던 세계 최강 헝가리를 꺾고 줄리메컵을 차지했다. ‘베른의 기적’이라는 영화로도 만들어진 이 사건으로 2차대전 후 패배의식에 빠져 있던 서독인들은 희망을 되찾았다. 그리고 라인강의 기적을 일궈냈다. 그로부터 정확히 20년 후,서독은 74년월드컵을 개최하며 전후 부흥을 세계에 알렸다. 2006 독일월드컵 D-312. 통일 독일은 무슨 꿈을 꾸고 있을까?

프랑크푸르트시 남쪽 오토 플레크 슈나이제라는 지역에 있는 독일 월드컵조직위원회 본부에서 볼프강 니어스바흐 부위원장(미디어·홍보·공식행사·법률담당)을 만났다. 그는 “1990년 베를린 장벽이 무너진 이후 독일은 정치, 경제, 사회 등 각 분야에 걸쳐 큰 어려움을 겪고 있다”며 “내년 월드컵 때 독일은 내부 갈등과 문화적 이질감을 극복한 모습을 세계에 보여 줄 것이며,특히 장기 불황에 빠져 있는 경제가 활로를 찾을 수 있을 것으로 확신한다”고 말했다.

독일 경제는 2조달러에 달하는 통일 비용으로 휘청거리고 있다. 경제 성장률은 1998년 이후 연간 1%에 불과하다. 실업률은 12%에 달해 실업자 수가 지난 5월말 현재 500만 명을 넘어섰다. 1인당 실질소득은 유럽연합(EU) 평균을 밑돈다. 이런 상황에서 최근 포스트방크는 최근 2006 월드컵이 독일 경제에 100억유로(약 12조3000억원)의 부가가치를 창출하고,4만여개의 일자리를 만들 것이라는 희망적인 전망을 내놓았다. 100억유로는 독일 국내총생산의 0.5%에 달한다.

독일 정부는 도로 인프라 구축에 38억유로(약 4조6000억원)를 투자했다. 이와 함께 경기장 신축 및 개축에 15억유로(약 1조8000억원)를 쏟아 부었다. 뮌헨,함부르크,프랑크푸르트,라이프치히,겔젠키르헨 5개 도시의 경기장만 신축하고 나머지 7개 도시의 경기장은 개축한다.

독일 월드컵의 수익 구조를 살펴보면,우선 FIFA가 TV중계권료와 한국의 현대자동차 등 공식 스폰서 15개사로부터 받는 후원금 그리고 월드컵휘장 사용권을 갖는다. 반면 입장료 수익과 공식공급업체 후원금은 독일의 몫으로 돌아온다. 그동안 FIFA 기금으로 적립해 왔던 입장료 수입을 한·일월드컵때부터 한·일 양국이 자국경기 수입을 각각 독자적으로 가질 수 있도록 했다. 이로써 월드컵은 ‘황금알을 낳는 사업’으로 변했다.

독일 조직위는 2억유로(약 2460억원)의 입장권 수입을 올릴 것으로 기대하고 있다. FIFA 지원금과 국내 공식공급업체 후원금을 합치면 수입은 4억3000만유로(5289억원)에 달한다. 독일 월드컵 입장권은 총 64경기 337만장이다. 이중 VIP와 취재진 등을 위한 44만장을 제외한 293만장이 35유로(약 4만3000원)부터 600유로(약 73만원)의 가격으로 일반인들에게 판매된다. 전체 입장권 중 320만 장에는 위조와 밀거래 방지를 위해 RFID(Radio Frequency Identification) 칩이 장착될 예정이다.

독일 월드컵은 세계 스포츠 사상 유례없는 ‘IT 월드컵’으로 치러질 전망이다. 대회 기간 중 1만여명의 각국 기자단이 세계 최초로 한국의 DMB 장비와 전용 단말기를 이용해 경기를 취재하게 된다. 또한 TV 역사상 최초로 64경기 전부 HDTV로 생중계된다.

관광 수입도 월드컵에서 중요한 비중을 차지한다. 독일 조직위는 월드컵 관람객을 360여만명으로 잡고 이 중 100여만명이 해외에서 몰려올 것으로 보고 있다. 옌스 그리트너 미디어 담당관은 “해외 관람객 상당수가 경기 입장권 없이 관광 올 것을 대비해 12개 경기장 주변에 대형 멀티비전을 설치할 계획”이라며 “동서 냉전의 상징이었던 베를린의 브란덴부르크 문 근처에서 대규모 시민 축제를 열 것”이라고 말했다. 그는 이 계획이 한국의 길거리 응원을 벤치마킹한 결과라는 사실을 솔직히 털어놓았다. 한·일월드컵 때 세계를 놀라게 한 한국의 길거리 응원이 월드컵 문화로 자리잡은 것이다.

월드컵은 연인원 400억명 이상이 시청하는 인류 최대의 스포츠 제전이다. 월드컵을 성공적으로 치를 경우 나타나는 부대 효과는 엄청나다. 재정경제부가 발간한 ‘2002년 경제백서’에 따르면 한·일 월드컵은 우리나라에 부가가치 유발 4조원,국가브랜드 홍보 7조7000억원,기업 이미지 제고 14조7600억원 등 총 26조4600억원의 경제 효과를 냈다. 독일이 내년 월드컵을 통해 통일 후유증을 극복하고 유럽 단일시장의 중심국으로 떠오를지 전 세계의 관심이 모아지고 있다.

프랑크푸르트=김태현기자 [email protected]
Carrerra no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 03:39 PM   #168
GEwinnen
Rekordvizemeister
 
GEwinnen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Buer in Westfalen
Posts: 2,133
Likes (Received): 2747

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrerra View Post
Here's the final verdict on future Worldcups, reflecting the revised rotation policy where a host continent is ineligible for bidding for the next two tournaments.

2018 -> England
2022 -> China
2026 -> Egypt
2030 -> Turkey
2034 -> Unified Korea
2038 -> Argentine
2042 -> Russia
2046 -> Saudi Arabia
2050 -> Morocco
2054 -> Netherland and Belgium
2058 -> Indonesia
2062 -> Mexico
2066 -> Spain
2070 -> Venezuela
2074 -> Algerie
2078 -> Sweden and Norway
2082 -> Iran
2086 -> Chile
2090 -> Portugal
2094 -> Vietnam
2098 -> Nigeria
2102 -> Finally USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But in 2100 the entire human race vanishes after a huge asteroid with a diameter of 250km hit our planet!
2102 is Europe's turn (Iceland and Greenland)
2106 USA
GEwinnen no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 05:06 PM   #169
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrerra View Post
You need to know the fact that money from ticket sales does not go to FIFA's pocket any more since 2002 Korea/Japan Worldcup. It all goes to host nation's pocket since then. You should study the money flow of World Cup before participating in this discussion.

In conclusion, large revenues from high attendance don't have anything to do with FIFA. They only make the host nation happy!
Of course it should. Duh! Who else spends for the party? Not FIFA. FIFA finds the suckers to host their bash. So maybe it seems only right that some revenues go back to the host. Don't you think so?

If you are a Korean citizen, don't you think your parents ended up paying for Seoul 1988, and for World Cup 2002? Don't you think maybe they would be a little happy thinking "...oh, we get to keep the gate receipts? OK!!! We get a little of our investment back, and maybe we can feed a few more people...or maybe help some elderly or indigent people..." (instead of building another steel and concrete super-stadium). Don't you think it's a good thing to get something back from those mega-prestige projects?

Last edited by rover3; June 3rd, 2008 at 06:26 PM.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 05:15 PM   #170
rover3
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 562
Likes (Received): 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrerra View Post

Today what most involves FIFA financially is broadcasting and sponsorship. They account for almost 90% of the total revenues from Worldcup but on the contrary ticket sales can not exceed 20% at most.
So what? The IOC's revenues go up with every Olympics REGARDLESS of where it is being held. Why should the World Cup be any different? So the World Cup doesn't attract a global audience? So people in different parts of the world cannot adjust to different schedules?

Psssst. I have 2 bits of news for you:

- ever heard of 24-hour trading?

- ever heard of the Internet with live feeds?

Pls desist from such feeble arguments, Carrera. They are quite insulting. I'm sure you wouldn't want me in a retaliatory mood.
rover3 no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 06:05 PM   #171
Dallasbrink
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dallas/Amarillo TEXAS
Posts: 1,105
Likes (Received): 38

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrerra View Post
The most profitable WC to whom? FIFA? No. It was most profitable to USA because they didn't have to build new stadiums then. It has nothing to do with FIFA!

Today what most involves FIFA financially is broadcasting and sponsorship. They account for almost 90% of the total revenues from Worldcup but on the contrary ticket sales can not exceed 20% at most.

That's why the highest attendace Americans always boast of can not be the key to success of World Cup.
You just wont admit that the 94WC was the most profitable and best WC to date. Denial is not just a river in egypt.
Dallasbrink no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 07:36 PM   #172
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallasbrink View Post
You just wont admit that the 94WC was the most profitable and best WC to date. Denial is not just a river in egypt.
You need to know the fact that money from ticket sales does not go to FIFA's pocket any more since 2002 Korea/Japan Worldcup. It all goes to host nation's pocket since then. You should study the money flow of World Cup before participating in this discussion.

In conclusion, large revenues from high attendance don't have anything to do with FIFA. They only make the host nation happy!

You make me over drink today
Carrerra no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 07:39 PM   #173
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

WTF invalid post, invalid post, invalid post, invalid post, invalid post, invalid post, invalid post, invalid post

That's really annoying

Last edited by Carrerra; June 3rd, 2008 at 08:08 PM.
Carrerra no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 07:43 PM   #174
Carrerra
Registered User
 
Carrerra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pohang
Posts: 1,452
Likes (Received): 22

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallasbrink View Post
You just wont admit that the 94WC was the most profitable and best WC to date. Denial is not just a river in egypt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrerra View Post
You need to know the fact that money from ticket sales does not go to FIFA's pocket any more since 2002 Korea/Japan Worldcup. It all goes to host nation's pocket since then. You should study the money flow of World Cup before participating in this discussion.

In conclusion, large revenues from high attendance don't have anything to do with FIFA. They only make the host nation happy!

You make me overdrink today
Carrerra no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 08:07 PM   #175
Joop20
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 610
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrerra View Post
Here's the final verdict on future Worldcups, reflecting the revised rotation policy where a host continent is ineligible for bidding for the next two tournaments.

2018 -> England
2022 -> China
2026 -> Egypt
2030 -> Turkey
2034 -> Unified Korea
2038 -> Argentine
2042 -> Russia
2046 -> Saudi Arabia
2050 -> Morocco
2054 -> Netherland and Belgium
2058 -> Indonesia
2062 -> Mexico
2066 -> Spain
2070 -> Venezuela
2074 -> Algerie
2078 -> Sweden and Norway
2082 -> Iran
2086 -> Chile
2090 -> Portugal
2094 -> Vietnam
2098 -> Nigeria
2102 -> Finally USA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But in 2100 the entire human race vanishes after a huge asteroid with a diameter of 250km hit our planet!
How old are you, child? Can't you just make an objective post on a 2022 US world cup bid, instead of trolling this thread with your anti-American sentiments?
Joop20 no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 09:44 PM   #176
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dallasbrink View Post
Denial is not just a river in egypt.
Nice
en1044 no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 10:27 PM   #177
coexist
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 75
Likes (Received): 0

If the US were to get the 2022 World Cup, or even the 2018 WC, what stadium would host the final? Would it be the Rose Bowl again, the new Cowboys' stadium, the new Meadowlands, FedEx Field, or elsewhere?

When considering both capacity and modernity, the new Cowboys' Stadium will probably be by far the best stadium (in its 100,000 capacity form, that is), but Dallas isn't nearly as prominent as NYC, LA, Chicago, or Washington (no offense to anyone from Dallas - I don't mean that as anything wrong about your city). The Rose Bowl could definitely host the final game again, although one has to wonder if FIFA would want a more modern stadium hosting it. New Meadowlands is smaller than the Rose Bowl and the Cowboys' new home by 10,000-15,000 of course, but given the fact that it'll still be relatively new by 2022 and its in the largest market in the US, it certainly has to be a contender. And of course, a 91,000 seat stadium next to the nation's capital has to be considered as well.

Whatever it is, the choice certainly isn't as clear cut as most nations' decisions on where to host the final. Wembley, Maracana, Azteca, etc., are all natural choices for the final for their respective nations. The US doesn't have one clear-cut choice though.

(This does tie into my wish that New Meadowlands would seat at least 90,000, if not have the capability to expand to 100,000 for major events. While an 85,000 seat stadium is certainly nothing to scoff at and is quite large, the largest market in the nation should have one of the largest stadiums in the nation, IMO.)
coexist no está en línea  
Old June 3rd, 2008, 10:39 PM   #178
marrio415
Registered User
 
marrio415's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mansfield and Oxford UK
Posts: 835
Likes (Received): 22

Instead of using NFL stadiums for your bid why not bid with the MLS Stadiums they reflect the real popularity of Football(soccer)in the states am i right.But the autorities know that they aren't good enouigh for a world cup.Plus as i said in a previous thread like 94 you had eighty thousand or so in a stadium and only a quarter would know who's playing and what the rules were.Times may change but football(soccer)still is a minority sport in the states.2018 will come back to the home of footbal.But i don't mind you having 2022.Even if you can't win using MLS stadia
marrio415 no está en línea  
Old June 4th, 2008, 12:21 AM   #179
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

For me it would be either between Wash DC (FedEx), NYC (New Meadowlands), or L.A. (redone Rose Bowl/or L.A.Col.). I would give Chicago consideration partley because of its centrality but Soldier Field while nice is not big enough to host a final.

I would pick NYC since L.A. hosted the last one, its NYC baby, and FedEx while big and adequate isn't much to look at.
__________________
Stephane Charbonnier, “I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees.”
nomarandlee no está en línea  
Old June 4th, 2008, 12:39 AM   #180
en1044
Unregistered User
 
en1044's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,405
Likes (Received): 113

Quote:
Originally Posted by marrio415 View Post
Instead of using NFL stadiums for your bid why not bid with the MLS Stadiums they reflect the real popularity of Football(soccer)in the states am i right.But the autorities know that they aren't good enouigh for a world cup.Plus as i said in a previous thread like 94 you had eighty thousand or so in a stadium and only a quarter would know who's playing and what the rules were.Times may change but football(soccer)still is a minority sport in the states.2018 will come back to the home of footbal.But i don't mind you having 2022.Even if you can't win using MLS stadia
Theres nothing wrong with using NFL stadiums in the WC, i really dont understand what the big deal is
en1044 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 11:24 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