Rumor has it that the USA might get the 2010 World Cup is South Africa isn't able to handle it. Would they use the MLS soccer-specific stadiums (such as Bridgview, Columbus, Frisco, and HDC) for World Cup games, or are they too small? The capacities generally are around 25,000.
No. Please don't start a thread when there is a very large comprehensive thread on the subject already.
Far too small. They'd use football stadiums like they did in 1994. More people in a stadium = more $$$. Chicago is vying for the 2016 Summer Olympics and in that case, the organizing committee did check out Toyota Park. But for the World Cup, nope.
If you forget the 2010 stuff and look at his base question (would MLS stadiums host WC games) then it is more valid. If we were to get it in 2014, 2018, etc., etc., the question would be raised.
They are too small. I think FIFA requires at least a minimum size of 40,000 for the stadium. They might be used for pre-Cup warm-up matches.
No, it wouldn't be raised. They are too small and aren't that great compared the high tech football stadiums that have been built in the last 10 years. They are good for the MLS (right now) and concerts but awful for big events. I enjoy Frisco, but the new Cowboys stadium is going to crap all over it and it should. It's only going to cost about 600 million dollars more to build.
But the 2010 thread has the answer to all those questions, anyway. We're now working on at least 3 threads that all answer the same question, and now two right in the same forum.
But who really wants to sort through 500 posts? I sure as hell wouldn't. I know and if you had acknowledged my first post (quoted below), you would have seen that. My second post was merely defending the original poster who did, if you take away the 2010 part, raise a good question. The original poster didn't know, so they asked, as I'm sure many other people would ask if/when the situation arises. So, it makes for a good question. And my original answer:
Under FIFA directives, all stadia must be minimum 40,000 all seated now. That excludes every single SSS in the US, sans exception. If we host the world cup in an emergency it will be in football stadia.
there is no need to use the soccer-specific stadiums in america we have created these stadiums because of revenue losses for renting out empty stadiums, scheduling conflicts, and football lines on the field if the world cup comes those issues are out the door, because those stadiums packed, would not have scheduling conflicts, and theyd have the lines cleared right up... they played in those stadiums in 94 afterall and it was a huge success i wonder though... with all the heat exposure problems... Would USA be smart to use its large amount of domed stadiums to sell the bid over another area? using the silverdome as it had in 94, but adding places like the superdome (once rebuilt), the alamo dome, the metrodome, that stadium the rams play in, etc. many of these are indooors and can be cooled when appropriately ventilated... and they would keep players from being drained in the sun maybe not for all of the contests, but enough of the early-mid round games to keep players rested for the long haul... that way they could still play the midday games to please viewing audiences, and they wouldnt be exposed to the 90+ degree heat
do you know if any of those domes have been used already for soccer? the only ones I know of are the Silverdome for WC 94 and the Alamo dome has hosted Mexican clubs before... unfortunately the only pics I have seen were on the field turf (but Im not sure if they were all on the turf or if some were on grass)
well technically its not a dome its a roofed stadium... but yeah youre right... and that would preclude the use of the Alamo Dome, unless texas was ready to go it alone on a bid... that usa mexico match was even its first ever i believe......
I don't know how Arizona's Chase Field would work out, but it has a retractable roof, may make it a prime stadium for soccer if we get an emergency bid.
