Why the World Cup should be permanently held in the USA...

[mfw13]

I'm sure this post is going to stir up plenty of controversy and argument, but I think my argument is fairly rational, so here goes.

1) The primary purpose of the World Cup is to make money for FIFA (anybody who thinks otherwise is naive)

2) The USA has the largest stadia in the world (we still hold the record for largest World Cup attendance from 1994), which will enable the maximum number of people to see a World Cup game live and in person. This is very important in light of how difficult is was to get tickets for many matches in the smaller stadiums at Germany 2006.

3) We are centrally located geographically and easy to get to from both Europe, Asia, South America, and north Africa. About the only major population centers more than a 10-hour flight from the USA are India (not exactly a soccer hotbed) and Australia.

We have sixteen stadia with capacities over 63,000 that have ALREADY HOSTED SOCCER MATCHES (eight of which have capacities over 71,000) and that have either been newly built or renovated in the last ten years:

FedEx Field - Washington DC - 91,704
Giants Stadium - New York - 80,242
Arrowhead Stadiun - Kansas City - 79,451
Invesco Field - Denver - 76,125
Dolphins Stadium - Miami - 74,916
Browns Stadium - Cleveland - 73,200
Reliant Stadium - Houston - 71,500
Qualcomm Stadium - San Diego - 71,294
LP Field - Nashville - 68,798
Gillette Stadium - Boston - 68,756
Lincoln Financial Field - Philadelphia - 68,532
Qwest Field - Seattle - 67,000
Raymond James Stadium - Tampa Bay - 66,321
Heinz Field - Piitsburgh - 64,450
McAfee Stadium - Oakland - 63,026
Soldier Field - Chicago - 61,000

Note that this list does not include the new stadium in Dallas (projected to hold 80,000-100,000), Ford Field in Detroit (indoor, but remember that the Silverdome hosted matches in 1994), the Rose Bowl (hosted the Men's Final in 1994 and the Women's Final in 1999), or the NFL stadiums in Baltimore and Charlotte, both of which could host soccer matches if necessary but have not to date.

Because so many stadia are close together, it would also be relatively easy to organize things to minimize fan travel (something that FIFA has never done before in which will be a major headache at South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014).

Consdier the following:

Group A (Boston & New York)
Group B (Philadelphia & Washington DC)
Group C (Pittsburgh & Cleveland)
Group D (Chicago & Nashville)
Group E (Miami & Tampa Bay)
Group F (Houston & Dallas)
Group G (Denver & Kansas City)
Group H (Seattle & San Diego)

If desired, Detroit could be substituted for Nashville in Group D, and Los Angeles can still be skipped entirely. Note how convenient this also makes the second round matches.

Bottom line is that World Cup 2002 had only four stadia with capacities over 60,000, including only one with a capacity over 70,000 (Yokohama at 70,000 right on the dot).

World Cup 2006 had only three stadia with capacities over 60,000, including only one (Berlin) with a capacity over 70,000.

World Cup 2010 will have four stadia with capacities over 60,000, including two with capacities over 70,000, but all of these stadia still need to be upgraded or built.

In contrast, the USA offers SIXTEEN (potentially twenty) soccer-ready stadia with capacities over 61,000, including EIGHT soccer-ready stadia with capacities over 73,000.

No real soccer fan ignore both the economic and pracitical benefits of having so many large capacity soccer stadia available for a World Cup, especially in light what happened in 2006 (all of England's group matches, two out of Holland's three group matches including the Holland-Argentina match, all of Italy's group matches, and two our of France's three group matches, as well as five of the eight second round matches were held in stadia seating less than 50,000, and three of the four quarterfinals were held in stadia seating less than 60,000).

[tomwilhelm]

If you're going to reply to this post, you had better keep it civil.

Understood?

[Schwalker]

Yeah, and the Superbowl should be held at FedEx Field - Washington DC...Every year! Because they got the biggest stadium.

And Moscow will hold the Olympic games every year as well..a 100.000 seater Olympic stadium will not be trumphed by many.

You know it makes sense..:D

[VTunited]

The US definately has the best infrastructure, but the WC is not only about FIFA making money, but the host country too and also the oppurtunity and excuse to travel. I'm happy with the rotation.

[gold.field]

I believe your 3rd point fits your overall standpoint quite nicely. Centrally located geographicly indeed...:rolleyes:

[Schwalker]

The US definately has the best infrastructure, but the WC is not only about FIFA making money, but the host country too and also the oppurtunity and excuse to travel. I'm happy with the rotation.

The crucial money FIFA gets is from TV-deals, and no way that the European channels will pay big money for permanent nightgames...Or the Asian ones for early morning slots.

What do you mean by best infrastructure btw, are these stadiums even reachable without a car?

[VTunited]

The crucial money FIFA gets is from TV-deals, and no way that the European channels will pay big money for permanent nightgames...Or the Asian ones for early morning slots.

What do you mean by best infrastructure btw, are these stadiums even reachable without a car?

I like the world cup to rotate for the reasons you just described. Each possible location has different pros and cons, and I don't think any ONE location deserves to get the WC every time.

By infrastructure I mean experience with sporting events being staged rapidly and repeatedly. RFK where DC plays rotates once a week between a baseball and a soccer stadium, also since we routinely host the CONCACAF cup, we aren;t inept at organizing soccer tournaments. RFK is accessible by train(METRO) for at most around USD$6.00(round trip), and I live about 14 miles from it, but the station is in walking distance. Many others are in downtown areas across america, and accessible by bus or light rail. Most of what the OP listed are pro stadiums too. There are at least 10+ college stadiums that seat over 100,000 and i think after azteca, we have the next 4 largest(notsure)
anyways that said the US is horrible for tv as you said, and should only host it once every 4 at the most like it currently is.

[Midorit]

If you're going to reply to this post, you had better keep it civil.

Understood?

Fine by me as long as you promise to send the thread to WR after a while:D

[aldo]

The World Cup will NEVER be help in ANY country permanently..It's a world sport not an american sport..Also, yes, there are many friendlies that have been held in stadiums in the U.S. but that doesn't mean that they meet the requirement for World Cup field size.

[mfw13]

My logic is simply that I want as many people as possible to be able to see a World Cup match live and in person, and that means holding it in the place with the largest stadium capacity.

At both France 98 and Germany 06, there were thousands of frustrated fans who could not get tickets to the matches they wanted to see (including me). South Africa 2010 and potentially Brazil 2014 have very poor transportation infrastructure (making it difficult for supporters to get from one match to the next) and are basically building/rebuilding all of the necessary stadia from scratch.

The only other real solution would be to have the World Cup reginally hosted by Western European nations, which are easy to get around because of the terrific rail infrastructure and cheap airlines.

For example, how about a World Cup with the following stadia:

Paris - Stade de France (79,959)
Munich - Allianz Arena (66,000)
Lisbon - Estadio de Luz (65,647)
Naples - San Paolo (78,210)
Berlin - Olympiastadion (76,065)
Cardiff - Millenium Stadium (74,500)
Sevilla - La Cartuja (72,000)
Milan - San Siro (85,700)
Rome - Stadio Olympico (82,307)
Madrid - Bernabeu (80,354)
Barcelona - Nou Camp (98,934)
London - Wembley (90,000)
Manchester - Old Trafford (76,000)

Thirteen Western European stadia with capacities over 65,000. That's really the only alternative right now to stadium capacity in the US, although China could certainly build a bunch of big new stadia quite quickly.

Bottom line is that if you want to maximize attendance at the World Cup, holding it in the USA is really your only good option right now.

[Schwalker]

I like the world cup to rotate for the reasons you just described. Each possible location has different pros and cons, and I don't think any ONE location deserves to get the WC every time.

By infrastructure I mean experience with sporting events being staged rapidly and repeatedly. RFK where DC plays rotates once a week between a baseball and a soccer stadium, also since we routinely host the CONCACAF cup, we aren;t inept at organizing soccer tournaments. RFK is accessible by train(METRO) for at most around USD$6.00(round trip), and I live about 14 miles from it, but the station is in walking distance. Many others are in downtown areas across america, and accessible by bus or light rail. Most of what the OP listed are pro stadiums too. There are at least 10+ college stadiums that seat over 100,000 and i think after azteca, we have the next 4 largest(notsure)
anyways that said the US is horrible for tv as you said, and should only host it once every 4 at the most like it currently is.


The distances comes to mind as well...:cool:

The last WC was held in Germany that roughly got the size and population of California.
Where I live in the Rührvalley I got two WC stadiums that I can reach by bicycle within an hour.
So in a way it might be more fair to compare USA with the whole of Europe..Which gives us another stadium balance of course.

[la fresa]

the world cup isn't only about attendance.....

[SCBozeman]

My logic is simply that I want as many people as possible to be able to see a World Cup match live and in person, and that means holding it in the place with the largest stadium capacity.

Then Brazil and North Korea should be #1 and #2, right?

[mfw13]

Collective stadium capacity for the whole country....not individual stadium capacity...and even then i'm pretty sure that neither the stadium in Pyongyang nor the Maracana are up to FIFA standards...

[M]

The crucial money FIFA gets is from TV-deals, and no way that the European channels will pay big money for permanent nightgames...Or the Asian ones for early morning slots.

What do you mean by best infrastructure btw, are these stadiums even reachable without a car?

He means the stadia themselves, which is almost certainly true. However, he ignores a few factors that make the US a less than desirable host:

- the time and expense of travelling around the country as compared to a more compact country like Germany.
- the climate (hogh heat combined with high humidity) in some area
- the unsutiable time zone in relation to FIFA's biggest paymaster - European TV.

And of course the idea of hosting in one country on a permanent basis is bogus anyway, in that it permanently deprives most fans from almost all countries the opportunity to see a WC first hand. Funnily enough, most fans don't have the money to fly to the US and travel around a continent-sized country to follow their team. Fortunately FIFA isn't as short-sighted as CONCACAF, so there is no chance of this happening anyway.

[M]

Fine by me as long as you promise to send the thread to WR after a while:D

I have a feeling it might make its way there anyway :p

[BocaFan]

So lets see... Reasons not to have the World Cup permanently in the USA

1) Weather
2) Lack of football stadiums (narrow gridiron stadiums are not ideal)
3) Lack of interest in the sport in the USA
4) Location (only Mexico, Canada and Costa Rica would have a short trip among the nations likely to qualify)
5) The size of the country (causes financial strain on fans and jet lag for players)
6) TimeZone (many of the matches will be played in the middle of the night in Europe, Africa and Asia)
7) The high drinking-age of 21.
8) Poor public transportation
9) Its not fair for one nation to get it everytime.
10) Hurts the growth of the game

[Midorit]

11)Horrible food
12)Stadia will be filled with people who don't understand what's going on on the pitches
13)Stadia will be filled with people who can't wait for TV timeouts
14)Stadia will be filled with morbidly obese people that will be bad for TV ratings
15)Stadia will be filled with people who,after watching football for the first time for ten minutes,suddenly come up with a dozen ideas on how to improve the game

[LOS_DE_ABAJO]

:p Why the WORLD Cup should be permanently held in the US...this is why the US should be permanently kicked out of the World Cup, their imperialistic mind is a danger to Football and the society that revolves around it.;)

[Midorit]

3) We are centrally located geographically and easy to get to from both Europe, Asia, South America, and north Africa. About the only major population centers more than a 10-hour flight from the USA are India (not exactly a soccer hotbed) and Australia.

Wrong.It takes ten hours to fly from Tokyo to the west coast of US.And Japan is closer to US than most other Asian countries.

US may be closer to South America than,say,Asia is but there's no need to pick a middle ground as many South American countries are well capable of hosting the competition.Same goes for Europe.