SkyscraperCity banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 3035 Posts

·
Reasons To Be Cheerful
Joined
·
552 Posts
Two out of three world cups held in the Americas seems unlikely. I'd say 2026 or 2030 are more realistic targets for the US. Ultimately, however, I'd say the US is about the only country that could choose stadia and cities that cover its vast geographic advance, given the stadia available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
920 Posts
Here's what I'd like to see - might be a bit far fetched, but it's what I'd like...

The USA is clearly the biggest and most powerful country in terms of hosting ability, so I'd like FIFA to hold out until 2030 and then grant the US the hosting rights for the centenary tournament.

I'd then like to see a one off increase of competing teams from the world's top 32 to the top 64 sides competing at 20 stadiums rather than 10. The tournament would only have to be lengthened by an extra few days to incorporate a 'round of 32' knock out.

This would allow Europe to have 2018, Asia to have 2022, and South America or Africa to have 2026, prior to the Yanks getting the big one. (The only problem I can see is that this would take the finals out of Europe for at least 16 years).

I know Uruguay are very keen to (part)host 2030, in commemoration of them hosting the first finals, but even with Argentina as a partner, I can't see them being able to match what the USA could come up with.
 

·
Unregistered User
Joined
·
2,539 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Los Angeles, CA
New LA Coliseum 75,000


Seattle, WA
Qwest Field 68,000


Glendale, AZ
University of Phoenix Stadium 63,000


Dallas, TX
New Cowboys Stadium 80,000


Chicago, IL
Soldier Field 63,000


Nashville, TN
LP FIeld 68,000


Miami, FL
Dolphins Stadium 75,000


Washington, DC
FedEx Field 91,000


Foxboro,MA
Gillette Stadium 68,000


East Rutherford, NJ
New Meadowlands 82,000


FedEx Field would host the final

Other possible sites:
Cleveland
Denver
Minneapolis
Tampa
Kansas City
Houston
 

·
Unregistered User
Joined
·
2,539 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Here's what I'd like to see - might be a bit far fetched, but it's what I'd like...

The USA is clearly the biggest and most powerful country in terms of hosting ability, so I'd like FIFA to hold out until 2030 and then grant the US the hosting rights for the centenary tournament.

I'd then like to see a one off increase of competing teams from the world's top 32 to the top 64 sides competing at 20 stadiums rather than 10. The tournament would only have to be lengthened by an extra few days to incorporate a 'round of 32' knock out.

This would allow Europe to have 2018, Asia to have 2022, and South America or Africa to have 2026, prior to the Yanks getting the big one. (The only problem I can see is that this would take the finals out of Europe for at least 16 years).

I know Uruguay are very keen to (part)host 2030, in commemoration of them hosting the first finals, but even with Argentina as a partner, I can't see them being able to match what the USA could come up with.
I can see where your coming from, however, this thread is about where the stadium sites would be if the US hosted, not if they should host it
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
You can take the new Cowboys stadium off that list, the field is going to be made at dimensions that wont allow soccer play, same could be said for U of P stadium and new New York Stadium. These new stadium are being built with the crowd closer to the field, making it to narrow for soccer.
 

·
Unregistered User
Joined
·
2,539 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
You can take the new Cowboys stadium off that list, the field is going to be made at dimensions that wont allow soccer play, same could be said for U of P stadium and new New York Stadium. These new stadium are being built with the crowd closer to the field, making it to narrow for soccer.
No, actually all three of those stadiums have been designed to host a soccer game
 

·
Nonhyphenated-American
Joined
·
2,925 Posts
Isn't it mandatory to have a roof?
Not that I know of. Remember that the final in 1994 was played at the Rose Bowl, a stadium with only one bowl-style seating tier and no roof, much like Lambeau Field in Green Bay, but bigger. The opening ceremony and match in 1994 was played at (old) Soldier Field in Chicago, which was also a one-seating-tier stadium. Only one of the venues was an indoor stadium, IIRC it was the Silverdome in Pontiac, MI. They had to haul in a temporary grass field for the World Cup matches.

The USA is very rich indeed in venues capable of hosting World Cup matches. From what I remember, Brasil was scheduled to be the 1994 host, but they were in the midst of an economic meltdown that prevented that, so the USA got the tournament as a 'plan B' - with oodles of venues ready to go with only minor modifications.

Chicago and Los Angeles would again be ideal places for the opening and final matches, IMHO.

As for fan interest? USA-1994 had one of the highest total percentages of available seats used of all World Cups - nearly ALL of the matches were sold out.

Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
920 Posts
I can see where your coming from, however, this thread is about where the stadium sites would be if the US hosted, not if they should host it
Yep, I understand, but my suggestion is relevent in that I am putting forward the notion of twice as many venues (something which only the US could handle)... Thus - the selection of host cities is widened allowing a great number of venues to be discussed (showed off).

:yes:

Isn't it mandatory to have a roof?
It's mandatory for the VIP/Media sections to have a roof, the paying supporters can get soaked or sunburnt, FIFA don't care.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
562 Posts
Actually, somebody on another board listed these:

Seattle (Northwest)
*San Fransisco (west coast)
*Los Angeles (southwest/west coast)
*Dallas (southwest)
*Miami or Tampa (south)
*Washington (lower Atlantic seaboard)
Philadelphia (middle Atlantic seaboard)
*New York (upper Atlantic seaboard)
*Boston (New England)
*Chicago (midwest)
Columbus (midwest)

* venues in 1994

Use Seattle, Los Angeles, Columbus, Miami, Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Chicago for the 16s
Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago and New York for the quarters
Boston and Los Angeles for the semis
Chicago - 3rd placer
And New York for the final.

You have to start from the 1994 venues. Those were so well-placed in terms of stadia, geographical spread and local population relevance. But due to new stadia, spin them around a little.

With such a wealth of choices, I don't see how FIFA can go anywhere after England is picked for 2018. It would only make sense.
 

·
Just A Pilot... :-)
Joined
·
526 Posts
FedEx Field will be replaced by 2022, Snyder already wants to move the team right now to a brand new facility where RFK Stadium is. :cheers:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
No, actually all three of those stadiums have been designed to host a soccer game
Listen to someone who lives in Dallas. The Dallas Cowboys new Stadium in Arlington Texas will not have the dimensions for soccer. trust me, its been discussed, its planned for better things then soccer.
 

·
Unregistered User
Joined
·
2,539 Posts
Discussion Starter #19

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,105 Posts
1 - 20 of 3035 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top