Does anybody see the possibility of any level---local and/or state and/or federal---of government assisting in building actual soccer stadiums for a World Cup bid like you see in Europe(Ukraine/Poland '12&France '16)? I know we don't necessarily need them, but I think FIFA---as corrupt as they may be---like the idea of the game being played in actual soccer stadiums. We shouldn't be at the 1994 point in our soccer history, so we shouldn't have to settle for football stadiums. I see some problems with the question. Why spend the money, especially if it's not there to spend and there already are usable venues? Will the stadium be big enough for the WC, but not too big for the MLS club? What to do with the old stadiums? What will be the percentage share of club investment,public investment,private investment? Could the stadium be centrally located for good access to transportation infrastructure? Just a thought.
Soccer isn't big enough here to justify WC sized soccer venues for MLS teams. For the 2018/2022 bids, I believe, the stadiums were mostly NFL stadiums with a smattering of college football stadiums.
Eh, what's the big difference between true soccer specific stadiums and stadiums built for football? Time and time again we show that soccer in the US can draw crowds.
For pride and aesthetics mostly, plus the benefit to the domestic clubs and soccer federation in the country. The 2022 bid features 18 candidate cities with an average capacity of ~85k and the smallest being 66,500. In 1994, the average capacity was ~69k with the lowest being 53,142. The tournament att./cap. went as such: Silverdome (91.41%); Rose Bowl (99.74%); Stanford (98.76%); Soldier (99.08%); Foxboro (99.66%); Cotton Bowl (91.69%); Meadowlands (98.19%); Citrus (99.65%); RFK (95.71%). Of the original host cities, only the Rose Bowl,Cotton Bowl,New Meadowlands,and Gilette Stadium made the 2022 cut (all four are either new and/or expanded capacity). Soldier Field didn't make the cut, but I think should have. The 2022 bid stadiums would probably be similar for later bids and dwindled down to 9-12 with the multiple stadium cities/region losing one (Dallas,Cali/LA,Seattle,South [Nashville or Atlanta],DC/Baltimore,Florida [Miami or Tampa],NJ/PA,Midwest [KC or Denver]). Now on the future: the US could be anywhere between ~350-375M by 2026-2030 (census 2008 projection). That is almost a 100M more than 1994 (260M). I can't assume travel with be relatively cheaper, but I assume travel will be easier on 14-18 years,so international attendance should be at least the same, if not more. It seems the only possible way it could happen would be either if NYC2 got a new 70-80k stadium somewhere or USSF and FIFA decide to head more towards exclusivity than maximum capacity and revenue potential. Unless MLS reaches NFL popularity by 2026-2030, it looks like only one or two new stadiums that would then be MLS stadiums would be possible. Just a pipe dream.
Many stadiums built for World Cups/Euro end up being white elephants so it would make little sense in building new stadiums in the USA for a World Cup. Most football stadiums in the USA are now being designed to accommodate soccer ( ie the ability to have a wider field) as they see it as an extra chance to make money. Watching the highlights of brazil v Argentina game today and the USA v Brazil game at fed ex and the Brazil v Mexico game at Cowboys stadium, I just kept shaking my head thinking how FIFA bypassed the USA for Qatar.
Have you been paying attention to the political climate of this country, let alone the popularity of soccer in this country?
More importantly, a nice chunk of that money ended up in the pockets of the FIFA officials deciding on where to award the WC.
By 2026-2030, I imagine there could be a municipality or state willing to assist an existing MLS franchise or attempt to gain one (in addition to hosting a WC venue) with a new stadium.
The U.S. just had it 18 years ago. There's never been a World Cup in the Arab world. There's a ton of money in Qatar, so there may never be a better time to give them one than now. What does surprise me is that they allowed Qatar to do it alone. It seems like too small of a country to absorb all the tourists and to realistically continue using the stadiums after the WC. A joint Qatar/UAE bid would have made more sense
Qatar doesn't plan on retaining the stadiums.. At least not in their WC form. Most of them are having part, if not all, shipped off to ther countries after the fact.
I'll believe that when I see it. I feel that is a big f'n lie like the air conditioned stadiums "promise" was.
From overall perspective of promoting the game, Qatar makes sense, as did Australia. I think Australia gets a host soon, but I'd love to host the WC and show the world how far soccer has come in the US since 1994.Would be sweet.
This is my problem. That and the number of "changes" from the initial proposal that have already happened since they were awarded the WC.
Not really. The Middle East is already a soccer stronghold. There isn't a sport even remotely as popular as it in that region of the world. Australia, the US and Canada are really the last few societies on earth where the game isn't where we all feel it should be. In places like Venezuela, Cuba, or Japan where the game wasn't particularly popular prior to the last few decades, it has taken off. The game has gone places in the US and Australia, but the final step towards broad relevance is restricted by competing football codes - unlike Japan and Venezuela for instance where there was plenty of room for soccer to flourish alongside baseball and no indigenous football code. So soccer basically takes precedence in: - South America (plus with the growing force of Venezuelan football) - Central America (minus Dominican Rep/Nicaragua/Cuba where its also growing) - Africa - Europe - West Asia (including Middle East) - South East Asia - East Asia (slowly catching baseball in Japan) In South Asia (not to be confused with South East Asia), otherwise known as the Indian subcontinent, it trails behind cricket, but even there its the undisputed number 2. Contrary to the stereotype of Indians only caring about cricket, you'd be surprised by how many love soccer. In fact one of its biggest states (a lazy 92 million people) is regarded as a "football state." That goes for the Bangladeshis and Pakistanis too. All of which leaves North America and Oceania (Australia and NZ) where its not only not in the top 2 sports, but it faces of the ignominy of not being the number one football-based sport. It is a mighty challenge taking on football codes, but soccer is the only sport that is showing its up for the fight. It directly targets the base of the indigenous sports, diluting their influence while ensuring that those sports have difficulty popularizing internationally. There is a good reason why the NFL and Aussie Rules are still largely domestically consumed sports. Their inability to expand their sports internationally is their weakness. The NFL has been a tad more successful in creating fans outside of these borders, but there is no tangible progress for either sport. They are creating fans of their leagues, not their sports, and thats a dangerous game to play with a predator like soccer encroaching. This is completely irrelevant to the topic, but I can't resist a soccer vs everyone else argument. To get back slightly on topic, I felt that one of Australia or the US were an absolute certainty because of what I just said. A World Cup certainly speeds up existing processes, and strengthens soccer institutions that have been developing in the US since 1994, and Australia since 2005. Australia would be a new horizon compared to the US, and would have been in line with the fastest growing region of soccer in Asia, but the US could deliver the types of financial remunerations that FIFA love, and that few nations on this earth can provide. The fact that the the US/Australia/England were rejected goes to show that a) corruption is rife, but more importantly b) that FIFA are fairly confident about the future of the sport that they can outright reject such lucrative suitors. In one respect, the corruption is almost insulting to the intelligence of fans, but on the other hand I do back their assessment of the game. Quite frankly, FIFA knows that the game will continue to grow rapidly in the US with or without a World Cup. That's one of the weaknesses our country will have to endure, but its an assessment I'd have to agree with. There is no urgent need to give the game a push, because in some (very nascent) ways the domestic league is taking over the responsibility of popularizing it further - along with the greater access to international leagues and tournaments of course. ---- Now, onto the topic creators dilemma: I'm of the opinion that a football stadium is a soccer stadium. All the dimensions are right for soccer. I would be concerned if the FIFAWC bid included baseball stadiums - and would agree with you in that case - but the football stadiums are virtually soccer stadiums. For me this is a non issue.
To zxcv: a Middle Eastern nation has never hosted a World Cup. That is what I meant by promoting the game. It gives the nation/region a chance to show its colors and pride. I still think the three countries who need it the most are:Australia,US,and China (in that order). On the stadium point, football stadiums may be designed for soccer on the field, but I don't think (and Mr.Warmth might be able to help me here) every football stadium is designed for the viewing of soccer, sight lines and such. I still think its a matter of pride to show that the US soccer is to the point that when the biggest soccer competition in the world comes, it's played in soccer stadiums. Just my opinion.
Given that MLS teams are nowhere near the point where they can fill NFL-size stadiums, I don't see how spending the money on such large facilities would be a good move for the league. Building white elephants is not a good business approach.
The question remains though, would the US have won the 2022 bid if they provided a list of Soccer Specific stadiums instead of football ones ? Most likely no. TBH I dont think the stadiums were the issue. If US Soccer presented two scenarios to FIFA, one which has 10 40k soccer stadiums and 2 80k ones against 12-14 60-90 k football ones, id say FIFA would choose the bigger capacity anyway to generate more revenue. In South Africa, Johannesburg built a new 40,000 seater stadium( currently used by Orlando Pirates) yet it didn't see a game as they used Soccer City and Ellis Park instead which is a Rugby stadium because it had a bigger capacity. The problem with FIFA though is they make host countries build stadia for a 4 week tournament that afterwards become excessive for a countries need. Look at Sth Africa, all those high capacity stadiums and the Premier Soccer League averages only 7,500 a game. Brazil too will learn a valuable lesson with stadia far exceeding any future requirements . With regards to Australia, we will more than likely not host a World Cup for a very long time. TBH im glad Australia missed out, our bid was really a mess and didn't deserve to win. It would have cost Australian taxpayers a lot of money just so FIFA can walk in, make tonnes of money, then leave. FIFA now like going to countries that will bow over and do everything that they ask, no questions asked. Its why Russia and Qatar won and England and the USA missed out. FIFA don't like being told no.
What you see as a weakness, many see as a strength in this country. Australians like to see the highest quality of sport available and the AFL provides this. Its why the A-league struggles as people dont see much value in watching it. The better players all move overseas and its why A-league clubs go broke. This isnt a problem for Aussie rules football. They also don't need to follow the whims of a bunch of old guys in a country far away who wouldn't know how to modernize a game if their life depended on it. The AFL in Australia has become a giant amongst sports here and they arent finished yet. In the city of Melbourne Aussie rules footy is a bohemoth. You need to remember Aussie Rules football isnt the most popular version of football in the largest by population( New South Wales) and 3rd largest (Queensland) states in Australia, Rugby League football rules the roost in those states , but the AFL is making inroads in making these two states Aussie Rules footy ones. They can do this because they recently signed a 250 million dollar per year, 5 year tv deal which to put in perspective is I think more than what the NHL gets for its national TV package. Soccer is getting bigger here but its not growing at a rate thats proving a threat to the existing sports landscape. Sometimes being part of something bigger isn't always an advantage.
So we can have even more teams like the Revs playing in a half tarped-off stadium? Or so it can look as bad as it did when The Wizards used to play in Arrowhead? Even Seattle tarped off part of the stadium the first season IIRC. It just doesn't look good to have so many empty seats. Trust me, The Crew has a capacity of 20k and we have a crapton of empty seats most of the time. It's not fun to have something exciting happening and be left wondering why so many people want to miss out on it.
Funny, as someone sitting in Qatar right now (and working outside from 11am until 1am 6 days a week), it makes no sense. This country has the population of Columbus, Ohio (and of that only about 350000 are Qatari while the rest are third county nationals brought in for menial labour); the land mass of Connecticut, and the thermostat of Hell this time of year (and it's not as bad as it's going to get yet). This week alone, we have had temps above 115F (46C) every day and blowing dust and sand at over 25mph for 3 of the last 5 days. This is no place to watch soccer, much less play it. A joint bid between Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE? I would have absolutely no problem with that. Qatar alone? It stinks to high heaven.
