USA - Stadium and Arena Development News

[40Acres]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

As we know, 2010 will be in Africa, 2014 in Brazil - I'm one of those idiots who can't see beyond Europe for 2018, but 2022... With Europe and South America out, that would leave North/Central America with 'only' Asia and Africa to beat. The only serious competition for the USA in that area is Mexico, and as they've already had the finals twice, and as the US had a greater economy/population in it's favour, and FIFA's continued hope to push the sport in a huge market, I find it hard to imagine anyone getting the vote over the US in 2022 (especially if the Europeans get behind one country for 2018, then 'trade' votes with Jack Warner and Co. for 2022).

So, 2022 - USA. Best venue for the final... By then there could be any number of new venues.

Finally, as I understand it, FIFA regulations only require that the VIP/Media areas be covered, the regular supporters can still be out in the sun/rain.

I could certainly live with that!

[Federicoft]

Originally Posted by Benn

Here are a couple, for a 90,000 seater it really is fairly close in, just shallow pitch of the bowl makes it feel smaller and more open, its got a very elegant curveture though. I kind of like being able to the trees and hills rise up around the Rose Bowl, really gives it a unique feel in this country.

Wow, I thought the sightline was much worse. Not bad at all and a very unique feel indeed.

[Benjuk]

Whilst on the subject of WC Finals in the USA, I think that a lot of memories of US94 are tainted because the standard of football, in terms of negative tactics, a lack of flair, etc., was pretty uninspiring in the early/mid 90s. Not anything to do with the US itself - many of the 'improvements' to the rules of the game that FIFA have brought in, in terms of changes to off-side, tackles from behind, speeding up the game, etc., are as a result of the way the game was being played in the early 90s.

[Quintana]

USA 94 was a great World Cup from an organisational point of view and the Rose Bowl was the logical and deserved host stadium for the final.

[Kobo]

Does anyone know why the Rose Bowl was chosen over the Memorial Coliseum which has pretty much the same capacity?

[Benn]

The LA Coliseum was originally designed to host track and field events like the Olympics. It was originally constructed with a huge field and although the field has been lowered and temporary seating added in the more open end its still to very well proportioned for football, some spots have terrible sightlines.

[EPA001]

Originally Posted by AcesHigh

actually, I think the Azteca stadium in Mexico is EXCELLENT and much better and cooler than Rosebowl!!

(haha, both are MEXICAN stadiums , in some sense)

I think so too although the Estadio Azteca can use a big renovation. Football stadiums are known for an almost closed atmosphere. Look at Old Trafford in Manchester, Anfield Road in Liverpool, Estadio Santiago Bernabeu in Madrid, Camp Nou in Barcelona, San Siro in Milano, Allianz Arena in München, Westfalenstadion in Dortmund, De Kuip in Rotterdam, the list is endless.

The Rose Bowl is an open venue, holding an enormous crowd, but lacking a football atmosphere. There are several comparable stadiums to it in the USA. And they do lack the close feeling which especially in Europe is important for compelling football matches. I am not talking about American Football here, I mean football as the rest of the world knows it.

But there are a lot of newer stadiums in the US recently constructed (i.e. Seattle, Denver, Houston, Dallas-Arlington and many more) who have a much better look and feel as a stadium for a possible WC Football in the USA. I am sure that if the USA was to host another WC, it would again be record breaking event. And this time with the use of more stadiums like the Silverdome, or the Superdome, or the Georgia Dome, or the new one in Phoenix, it will be an awsome event. Maybe even more ever better looking and luxurious venues will be available at that time.

BTW, I always felt it to be strange that the Superdome and the Georgia dome were not used in the 1994 WC. But maybe the very conservative FIFA opposed to using to many closed roof stadiums in the WC of 1994.

When the USA will host a WC again I do not know. But I do know they are going to host it again. My bet is for 2022! Still a long time away, I know. But they have my support for it.

[Benjuk]

With regard to the various new stadia constructions in the last decade - can anyone confirm the size of the playing area in these venues? American Football pitches are narrower than football pitches - I seem to remember that seats were removed from some venues in 94 to allow pitches to be correct width.

[Benjuk]

With regard to the various new stadia constructions in the last decade - can anyone confirm the size of the playing area in these venues? American Football pitches are narrower than football pitches - I seem to remember that seats were removed from some venues in 94 to allow pitches to be correct width.

[GNU]

Originally Posted by Benn

The stadium looks rather small in these pics to be honest.

[Benn]

ITs because of the shallow pitch of the bowl, there are infact 92,000 people at that game.

[bixa louca]

I would love to see Spain host the WC. I think the culture, stadia, and general atmosphere would be out of this world. Frankly, I think it will be another 50 years before the US is considered soccer-cultured enough to host one. OH, and staging the '94 WC in the US was brilliant. It was solely responsible for the MLS to have a chance in this country. I still remember being amazed at the interest and excitement most Americans had for the WC. It's good to see that it took hold, and is growing.

[Scoots71]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

With regard to the various new stadia constructions in the last decade - can anyone confirm the size of the playing area in these venues? American Football pitches are narrower than football pitches - I seem to remember that seats were removed from some venues in 94 to allow pitches to be correct width.

An American football field is about 55 yards wide and 120 yards long (with a little room for press, maybe a little over 5 yards past the endline), but many of the stadiums have a playing surface wide enough for soccer because of how American football bench areas are (usually at least 10 yards each). I know New York, Seattle, New England, Kansas City, and Houston are wide enough because they either host MLS teams or have hosted a world friendly without changing the stands. Most newer stadiums are big enough, but some of the older stadiums (pre '90) might not be.

[rover3]

Originally Posted by bixa louca

I would love to see Spain host the WC. I think the culture, stadia, and general atmosphere would be out of this world. Frankly, I think it will be another 50 years before the US is considered soccer-cultured enough to host one. OH, and staging the '94 WC in the US was brilliant. It was solely responsible for the MLS to have a chance in this country. I still remember being amazed at the interest and excitement most Americans had for the WC. It's good to see that it took hold, and is growing.

I disagree. I think 2018 will go to the UK; and then 2022 to the US. They owe us another one. Remember, 1994 was the best attended World Cup yet. Look at those figures:

=============================================================
WORLD CUP USA '94 ATTENDANCES
(Sorted by Average)

SITE - TOTAL -#MATCHES - AVERAGE - CAPACITY - %FILLED

Pasadena - 721,880 - 8 - 90,235 - 91,794 -98.3%
Stanford - 489,037 - 6 - 81,506 - 80,906 - 100.7%
E. Rutherford - 517,756 - 7 - 73,965 - 75,338 - 98.2%
Pontiac - 278,598 - 4 - 69,649 - 77,557 - 89.8%
Chicago - 312,725 - 5 - 62,545 - 63,117 - 99.1%
Orlando - 305,161 - 5 - 61,032 - 61,219 - 99.7%
Dallas - 352,650 - 6 - 58,775 - 63,998 - 91.8%
Foxboro - 326,526 - 6 - 54,421 - 53,644 - 101.4%
Washington - 264,196 - 5 - 52,839 - 53,142 - 99.4%

All - 3,568,529 - 52 - 68,626 - 68,968 - 99.5%

Not even the combined 17 sites of Korea-Japan 2002 matched those 1994 attendance figures!!

source: http://www.rsssf.com/wk94/attendance.html

[fortcali]

I don't like that UK host the world cup, they have all the money,but don't look interesting, is nice country, but I think es much better in spain, they have bigest cities and nice atmosphere.

[NeilF]

Originally Posted by rover3

I disagree. I think 2018 will go to the UK; and then 2022 to the US. They owe us another one. Remember, 1994 was the best attended World Cup yet.

I highlighted the problems with attendance figures earlier in this thread; they don't really provide a means of comparison between the quality of the tournament, the world wide viewing figures for the tournament or even the ability of that particular tournament to fill stadia. It is indicative, only, of USA's ability to provide more large capacity stadia than anywhere else in the world. That, in itself, is proof enough that the USA should be given a chance to host another tournament but there is nothing in these figures to say that USA did something with the tournament that no other potential host could and for that reason, I don't think any special consideration should be given to any future USA bid - 2022 would give a 28 year gap between USA hosting tournaments and given the various aims FIFA have, that would be considered far too soon for any other nation. USA should not be given special treatment in that respect. There are many other qualitative factors that should determine future world cup hosts; taking those measures into account, there are several nations ahead of USA that FIFA 'owes' a tournament to.

To me, 2026 is the absolute EARLIEST that the USA should be considered for another world cup but even then would make me uncomfortable. That is only a 32 year gap between USA hosting the tourament. If England are successful in a bid for the 2018 tournament, 52 years will have passed between the two tournaments hosted there. For other nations that have hosted the tournament twice, Italy waited 56 years, France 60 years, 68 years for Brazil and while only 32 years passed between tournaments in Germany, the unified Germany had never hosted a tournament. I've not included Mexico because of the particular circumstances surrounding that decision.

I'd say 2026 or 2030 is a more realistic and, dare I say, 'fair' time for USA to host its second tournament. I think that 2018 will be in Europe, probably England or Spain. I'd say a nation like Australia should be given the chance in 2022; the sport, at least at international level, seems to be growing quite rapidly in Australia and it is only fair that it should be given a chance to host the tournament. After that, it becomes an argument about what FIFA wants to do; another Asian tournament could be on the cards, as could another European bid as this is where a vast majority of TV viewers will be drawn or even Canada, should it wish to bid should be considered.

Let's set this straight; USA put on a great world cup in 1994 and nothing can be taken away from the stadium and transport infrastructures that were provided for that tournament but we can't get carried away here - there are many other potential hosts who haven't hosted the tournament before and who are at least as 'deserving' of it as USA.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by Kobo

Interesting thread. I didn't realise their was such angst against the Rose Bowl being chosen as the w.c final stadium. However why was it chosen as the LA stadium instead of the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum? Both are similar IMO. From your photo comparisons I feel that Madrids Bernebeu and Paris's Stade de France can rival how close the spectators are to the pitch. I think your Stade de France photo doesn't do it justice the fans are closer then that, but not as close as the Rose Bowl. Heres another stade de france photo:


(Alright behind the goal their not as close as I thought, but their closer then the old wembley, the Stade de France is a great stadium)

Its worth also mentioning that the Rose Bowl is one of only two stadiums to host both a mens and womens world cup final! So it must be considered a good stadium by Fifa. I suppose another question you should ask is, "Where else should the final have been played in the states?" I think the obvious answer would have been New York, however if Washington D.C or Chicago have had larger stadiums at the time maybe they would have been considered. Yes their are larger stadiums than the Rose Bowl in the U.S e.g Beaver Stadium in the State of Pennsylvania & Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, Michigan. But come on these places can't hold a World Cup Final it has to be held in an internationally known city and Los Angeles is that. I feel that it was the correct stadium to be used for the final, the city has the resources and experience to host such an event, and it was the largest stadium used in the tournament. It just had to host the final!

The Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum would have been the site of the final match for the '94 USA World Cup, but you forget that six months earlier we had the aweful Northridge earthquake in January of that same year.

The Coliseum was damaged (so were freeways etc), the freeways were fixed in record time just in time for the World Cup event in Southen California.

[rover3]

Originally Posted by NeilF

I highlighted the problems with attendance figures earlier in this thread; they don't really provide a means of comparison between the quality of the tournament, the world wide viewing figures for the tournament or even the ability of that particular tournament to fill stadia. It is indicative, only, of USA's ability to provide more large capacity stadia than anywhere else in the world. That, in itself, is proof enough that the USA should be given a chance to host another tournament but there is nothing in these figures to say that USA did something with the tournament that no other potential host could and for that reason, I don't think any special consideration should be given to any future USA bid - 2022 would give a 28 year gap between USA hosting tournaments and given the various aims FIFA have, that would be considered far too soon for any other nation. USA should not be given special treatment in that respect. There are many other qualitative factors that should determine future world cup hosts; taking those measures into account, there are several nations ahead of USA that FIFA 'owes' a tournament to.

To me, 2026 is the absolute EARLIEST that the USA should be considered for another world cup but even then would make me uncomfortable. That is only a 32 year gap between USA hosting the tourament. If England are successful in a bid for the 2018 tournament, 52 years will have passed between the two tournaments hosted there. For other nations that have hosted the tournament twice, Italy waited 56 years, France 60 years, 68 years for Brazil and while only 32 years passed between tournaments in Germany, the unified Germany had never hosted a tournament. I've not included Mexico because of the particular circumstances surrounding that decision.

I'd say 2026 or 2030 is a more realistic and, dare I say, 'fair' time for USA to host its second tournament. I think that 2018 will be in Europe, probably England or Spain. I'd say a nation like Australia should be given the chance in 2022; the sport, at least at international level, seems to be growing quite rapidly in Australia and it is only fair that it should be given a chance to host the tournament. After that, it becomes an argument about what FIFA wants to do; another Asian tournament could be on the cards, as could another European bid as this is where a vast majority of TV viewers will be drawn or even Canada, should it wish to bid should be considered.

Let's set this straight; USA put on a great world cup in 1994 and nothing can be taken away from the stadium and transport infrastructures that were provided for that tournament but we can't get carried away here - there are many other potential hosts who haven't hosted the tournament before and who are at least as 'deserving' of it as USA.

Yeah, maybe. But Australia is too small a country. There were already 2 southern hemispehre WCs in 2010 and 2014. Maybe it's time to give that a rest.

The US has maybe 6 better soccer stadia since 1994. The major outcome of 1994, the growth of soccer in the US, in both the men's and women's games is exceptional. From 0 pro men's teams, to 14 teams today. So that alone, there is the growth of one new team a year!!

Nope, were Blatter not off his rocker and took out the rotation system, 2018 would've been th USA's. 2022 is the right time for a return, bar none.

[Canadian Chocho]

Originally Posted by Benjuk

As we know, 2010 will be in Africa, 2014 in Brazil - I'm one of those idiots who can't see beyond Europe for 2018, but 2022... With Europe and South America out, that would leave North/Central America with 'only' Asia and Africa to beat. The only serious competition for the USA in that area is Mexico, and as they've already had the finals twice, and as the US had a greater economy/population in it's favour, and FIFA's continued hope to push the sport in a huge market, I find it hard to imagine anyone getting the vote over the US in 2022 (especially if the Europeans get behind one country for 2018, then 'trade' votes with Jack Warner and Co. for 2022).

So, 2022 - USA. Best venue for the final... By then there could be any number of new venues.

Finally, as I understand it, FIFA regulations only require that the VIP/Media areas be covered, the regular supporters can still be out in the sun/rain.

Hey! Don't rule out Canada just yet!

[irving1903]

Honestly I was too young to remember the 94 World Cup, all I remember was going to the Cotton Bowl with a bunch of people and thats all.

So I would love for the US to host another WC that I can actually remember and be a part of.

Hopefully we'll get it in 2018 and Dallas will be a venue :]