The Battle for Control of US Soccer

[prk166]

i would really like to have world cup 2010 here. why? many a reasons but most importantly i think that would push along soccer specific stadiums and expansion.

Soccer specific stadiums? No way. Those are going to be in the 20,000 seat range. We won't win any bids relying on those bad boys. IF the Wolrd Cup comes back here soon, it'll be played in those big, big stadiums like the Rose Bowl, the new Gillette near Boston, et al.

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by ne plus ultra

We'd do well to add Canada to any bid we submit. Hell, what about a Nafta cup, with games in Mexico City, Guadalajara, Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, DC, NY, and LA? The flights wouldn't be any longer to Mexico than to LA. Why the heck would we want to do that when we have demonstrated the ability to do well on our own and keep all the money?

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by pugetsoundmls
So I guess there's not a 3rd option beyond the Bob or Al Shows? Please don't say Chuck Blazer. What wonderful leadership we have...:( Nick S.

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by todda74

With Brazil and Argentina, 2010 is 8 years away and their economies will have recovered by then.Or they could totally collapse.

[zcgf02]

In regards to the SSS: weren't most of the stadiums in Japan and Korea relatively small - like 20 - 30,000 seats? I imagine if the US hosted the WC some of the first round matches would be held in smaller venues like that, with the final being held some place like the Rose Bowl or Reliant Stadium (OK, OK, I confess - I live in Houston and that's mucho wishful thinking).

[kenntomasch]

Originally posted by zcgf02
I imagine if the US hosted the WC some of the first round matches would be held in smaller venues like that, with the final being held some place like the Rose Bowl or Reliant Stadium (OK, OK, I confess - I live in Houston and that's mucho wishful thinking).

Oh, no they wouldn't. Because we've proven we can put 68,000 on average into a stadium for the World Cup. You'd be leaving millions on the table by playing first-round games in Columbus or Carson.

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by kenntomasch


Oh, no they wouldn't. Because we've proven we can put 68,000 on average into a stadium for the World Cup. You'd be leaving millions on the table by playing first-round games in Columbus or Carson. hammer, meet nail-head

[Maczebus]

Originally posted by zcgf02
In regards to the SSS: weren't most of the stadiums in Japan and Korea relatively small - like 20 - 30,000 seats?

Apart from the fact that as another poster has noted, much would be lost in the forcibly reduced attendance - these are the sizes of stadia in Japorea.

Korea:
Daegu - 68,014
Seoul - 64,677
Busan - 55,982
Incheon - 52,179
Suwon - 44,047
Ulsan - 43,550
Gwangju - 42,880
Jeonju - 42,477
Seogwipo - 42,256
Daejeon - 42,176

Japan:
Yokohama - 70,564
Saitama - 63,700
Shizuoka - 51,349
Osaka - 50,000
Sendai - 49,133
Oita - 43,000
Niigata - 42,700
Sapporo - 42,122
Kobe - 42,000
Ibaraki - 41,800


Not in the 20-30,000 bracket.

[Andy_B]

It is hard to imagine empty seats at a World Cup in Europe today

Plenty of empty seats in France 98.

Hell, even France themselves did not sell out all their games.

Andy