California 2018 World Cup Hosts (A Tounge in Cheek Argument for my Dream World Cup)

[jinif]

Ok here is my tongue in cheek case for making California the 2018 World Cup host.
First some economic comparison with other WC hosts and potential hosts

California:
Population: 36 million (10 million more than Netherlands + Belgium)
GDP: $1.8 Trillion (Equal to Brazil, 800m more than Neth+Belg, 400m more than Spain)

Next let's look at some potential venues:
California has 8 40k + Stadiums currently which could host games

Pasadena Rose Bowl Stadium 92 542
Los Angeles L.A. Memorial Coliseum 92 000
Berkeley Memorial Stadium 73 347
San Diego Qualcomm Stadium 71 294
San Francisco Monster Park 69 734
Oakland McAfee Coliseum 63 026
Stanford Stanford Stadium 50 000
Anaheim Angel Stadium 45 050
San Francisco AT&T Park 41 663


Compared to Spain, which has 7 40k+ stadiums, and Netherlands + Belgium, which has 2 40k+ Stadiums (and only 3 30k+)

The San Francisco Bay Area (where 5 of the stadiums are) is serviced by decent mass transit in the form of BART and Caltrain. Socal has... lots of freeways :D

Northern and Southern California will then be connected by the High speed rail (http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/) service to ease traveling.

A California WC is at least as qualified as Spain, and more prepared than Netherlands+Belgium ;)

So who is with me?

[b1gs341]

Hell hell hell no.

A USA bid gets split up period. This is the first event ever with a possibility <0% of this happening.

(Besides an all Texas bid between Austin, San Antonio, Houston, and Dallas would crush this anyway).

[jinif]

Hell hell hell no.

Hence the tounge in cheek.

But you are right that there are probably more suitable stadiums in Texas.

As far as the first <0% chance, the Israel Palestine bid proposal did beat me to it ;)

[M]

So who is with me?

I would be if more than two of those stadia were actually suitable for watching a soccer game in :D Most are either too narrow or are baseball-shaped.

[RichardL]

I would be if more than two of those stadia were actually suitable for watching a soccer game in :D Most are either too narrow or are baseball-shaped.technically a baseball stadium would be OK. Adequate space available at the sides and the stands wouldn't be too far from the pitch. Do the FIFA regs say there's anything wrong with having all the seats on two sides? - I bet not.

[M]

technically a baseball stadium would be OK. Adequate space available at the sides and the stands wouldn't be too far from the pitch. Do the FIFA regs say there's anything wrong with having all the seats on two sides? - I bet not.

I doubt FIFA rules would preclude the use of a baseball stadium. The issue is simply that the site lines are very poor for most spectators given the typical layout of seats around a baseball diamond. And another more practical reason is that as the WC is held during baseball season, it's not very practical to use a baseball stadium anyway.

[krudmonk]

The only worthy stadium on that list is Stanford.

[jinif]

Well in terms of the stadium they are a little sketchy, but I am pretty sure that most could/have hosted games.

Rose Bowl had the 1994 WC final

the LA Coliseum has hosted big name exhibitions, Chivas vs. Barca had 92k

The Oakland Coliseum had 50k for Mexico vs Ecuador game

Standford I think had a Chivas vs Chelsea game sell out.

Pac Bell Park is probably the most sketchy, but the US did play Japan there with 37k people showing up.

Angel Stadium used to be home to the Rams when they were in LA, so it could probably still be modified for soccer.

The others are all primarily football stadiums, but I believe they could fit a soccer field on them with a little modifications (Except Memorial Coliseum, I don't think it could be widened enough so that might not work)


So to all of those who are skeptical I say :p

[CACuzcatlan]

If you wanna talk about 2018 you gotta stop talking about 2008 stadiums. With the exception of Stanford Stadium, which was recently renovated, the stadiums you listed are either old, outdated, or baseball stadiums.

X - Pasadena Rose Bowl Stadium 92 542
X - Los Angeles L.A. Memorial Coliseum 92 000
X - Anaheim Angel Stadium 45 050

Stadium capacity isn't everything. A good fan experience and a stadium built with the intent of hosting soccer matches is better, even if the stadium holds less. In 2018, LA may have a 70k+ seat, state of the art, NFL stadium. This would certainly be used instead of the stadiums mentioned above. Here's a pic of what it will look like:

http://static.losangelesfootballstadium.com/photo-1.jpg


Berkeley Memorial Stadium 73 347

Berkeley is currently looking into remodeling their stadium. I assume the situation will be similar to Standford where the stadium will be scaled down for a better configuration.

X - San Francisco Monster Park 69 734
X - San Francisco AT&T Park 41 663

The baseball stadium could work, but its far from ideal. Monster Park will probably not be around in 2018. The 49ers are looking to get a new stadium, either in Santa Clara (right next to San Jose) or in San Francisco. This stadium would probably be in the 70-80k range and built with big international soccer games in mind.

X - San Diego Qualcomm Stadium 71 294
The Chargers are looking to get a new stadium in San Diego county. I figure that would hold between 70-75k.

X - Oakland McAfee Coliseum 63 026
Even today this stadium is old and outdated for the teams that play in it. The A's are moving to a new 35k seat stadium in Fremont and the Raiders will eventually need a new stadium. If the Raiders get a new stadium, that would be a good venue for soccer. Given their attendance issues, I would assume a new stadium would hold around 60k.

Stanford Stanford Stadium 50 000
Good to go as is.


One plus side, these new NFL stadiums may have the option of temporarily expanding to a larger capacity for big events like the World Cup and the Super Bowl.

[Akumastarr]

Why talk about this? We all know 2018 will be in Australia :D

[Gorando]

California should be an independent country.

[Andy TAUS]

Why talk about this? We all know 2018 will be in Australia :DThis is all tounge (sic) in cheek, dontcha know? ;)

[GriffinGunner]

California should be an independent country.Some people (both inside and out) act like it already is. ;)

- - - -

As a devout East-coaster I think this idea would be acceptable, provided the following conditions are applied:

- The games at McAfee (sp?) Coliseum in Oakland must have a section devoted to Raider fans dressed in full regalia. What better way to tout California to the world than with images of these guys?
http://www.sportsfanmagazine.com/sfm/graphics/stories/JestersQuart/raider_fans.jpg

- Teams with players named Ronaldo should be kept from San Francisco. You know, for their own, um, well being.

- Turnabout should be fair play, no? Since Budweiser and McDonalds were allowed to cater the event in Germany, I say major international food services and brewers should be allowed to sponsor the California games. That way all the surfer dudes and Hollywood crowd would trip over pronunciations and gag at the menu that lacks sushi or anything deep fried.

- Brangelina and the cast of Hills will not be allowed anywhere near the games. 'Cept maybe that guy with the blond "beard," I think every game should begin with a ceremonial blow to the nads of that guy.

- Broadcasts should be done in California's native tongue - Dude-influenced Spanish! :p

[winster]

I think having a World Cup bid centralized in California could work. California certainly has the infrastructure to support a World Cup (and its stadiums will only improve). Some of the biggest problems people have with holding the World Cup in the US is that the games would be too spread out and that the US lacks the intimate and conveniant settings provided by either downtown stadiums or stadiums with good mass transportation. California offers an improvement with all of this, compared to the US as a whole.

[amavel]

CA 2018!

Bumper stickers now! Paid blog ads now!

I think this has potential. And not just because I'm from CA and not afraid to ride Amtrak throughout the state.

(If we're lucky, CA High-Speed Rail (http://cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/) should be planned or even under construction by then.)

[damnecuadorian]

The San Francisco Bay Area (where 5 of the stadiums are) is serviced by decent mass transit in the form of BART and Caltrain.

If by "decent" you mean "completely inadequate", then yes.

[hard_to_beat]

As a World Cup idea, it's completely bonkers :D Imagine the hotel space for fans of 32 teams + the holiday makers! Why don't you just invite literally EVERYONE?!

However, California as a host for Copa America is very much not bonkers. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if CONMEBOL would be open to such a suggestion.

[CACuzcatlan]

If by "decent" you mean "completely inadequate", then yes.

It can get you to the Oakland Coliseum. It can get you to SF to get on Muni and get to AT&T Park and hopefully the new 49ers stadium will be in SF near a Muni stop. You can also take BART to SF or Milbrae and then take Caltrain to Stanford. That's 4 stadiums accessible by public transit.

[M]

It can get you to the Oakland Coliseum. It can get you to SF to get on Muni and get to AT&T Park and hopefully the new 49ers stadium will be in SF near a Muni stop. You can also take BART to SF or Milbrae and then take Caltrain to Stanford. That's 4 stadiums accessible by public transit.

That depends on where you are trying to get from. BART ain't exactly a lot of use if you live in the North Bay, for example, or if you happen to live south of Alameda County in the East Bay. For an area the size of the Bay Area, rail transit really is pretty crappy in general, despite BART.

[krudmonk]

BART is an obsolete money pit as is.