http://www.ussoccer.com/articles/viewArticle.jsp_13762562.html It's odd to me why this list contains stadiums in which the field is obviously too narrow (and maybe even too short) for soccer games. I go to the University of Florida--our Swamp is far too narrow, and the walls cannot be moved. Ditto for Michigan Stadium, where I went to games as a kid. Maybe the USSF contacted all these stadiums in order to pad the list--make it look REALLY impressive (I mean, my god, 70 stadiums!) so that FIFA can't possibly say no.
Considering how many stadiums and markets are listed, I'm kind of shocked about one ommission: Honolulu, Hawai'i, and the University of Hawai'i's Aloha Stadium. That would be a great place to bring a WORLD CUP game.
Well here in australia we are lucky to even get 12 stadiums and the americans have 70!!! Thats why i put usa favorites for 2022. Interestingly this time around everyone wants to be part of the big show. No one wants to miss out on the gold mine that it. In 1994 i could have imagined many cities saying " The world cup? who needs it" Saying that, many of these stadia are unsuitable for a full FIFA international due to the field dimensions, however they are suitable for practice games and training venues etc. But i wouldnt put it past any stadium not making some adjustments to an existing stadium to fit in a full FIFA field. Looking at the list these are the twelve cities that i think will get games as long as the field dimensions work out ok. 1/ New York - New Meadowland will be able to have a full field 2/ Boston - Gillette 3/ DC - Im sure a new RFK will have been built by the redskins by then 4/ Philadelphia- Needs to increase size of field at Lincoln but is a major city 5/ Chicago - Soldier Field 6/ Miami- Dolphin stadium- Can be used as the Marlins will have their own home. 7/ Dallas - New Cowboys mega stadium - Retractable roof to beat the summer heat 8/ Houston - Reliant Stadium - retractable roof as well. 9/ LA - Will need a new stadium which might happen if a nfl team decides to start up again 10/ Seattle - Qwest field 11/ Bay Area - Stanford stadium- on the "small" side now with only 50,000 seats 12/ Phoenix - Retractable roof also. Other cities include san diego, tampa, nashville,baltimore, Charlotte, indianapolis. How can us aussies compete with that !!
By remembering that FIFA takes diddly squat from ticket revenues. Once the stadia reach the minimum required, thats FIFA's interest taken care of. Australia will HAVE to offer a WC that is very unique and different from the US. No point taking the US on on capacity grounds! Pretty much nobody can! China could, they have enough people to throw at the problem, but it would take a while to get up there! England cant compete on capacity grounds. However, we easily win on the "heartstrings" side. Where would a player rather lift a cup? Some NFL stadium? Or the steps of Wembley? US Soccer has to be careful about this list. Its great. Really. But having big stadia is not the be all and end all. Its just one part of the jigsaw puzzle.
Well the U of Hawai'i needs a football stadium, don't they? What about its replacement? I still think a WC game in Hawai'i would be pretty fantastic, though completely understand why it will probably never happen.
Whilst a WC game in Hawaii would be great (much closer to Japan, so appealing for me!) the problem is that it is SO FAR from the rest of the US. Had a co-worker here for a while from Hawaii, and she said that the rest of the US was a very long way from the Hawaiian conciousness. Almost like those olde time maps, which had the fringes marked "Here be dragons!" But it would probably be the most popular destination amongst fans if their team was playing there. For those who could get there...
Michigan Stadium has been under construction and I'm betting USSF will either A. Get the Universities in question to widen the pitches B. Trick FIFA with such a huge number (FIFA likes big numbers)
They do. But not in terms of stadia. Once the ground matches the minimum criteria, they lose interest. They dont get the ticket money. Now, if you could promise that EVERYONE going to the game would buy hundreds of $'s of FIFA branded stuff every game at the WC, then they will get interested...
Not FIFA's concern. They make the rules. Its up to the organising commitee to deliver. If the organising commitee cant deliver, FIFA has the ultimate sanction of being able to move the thing. Remember how there was a few rumblings over South Africa? And then more recently over Brazil? and their respective abilities to deliver.
It was a big problem from what I heard at the 1994 on how certain stadiums needed to be renamed because they were FIFA's sponsors' rivals
It is not a headache for FIFA. They do not run the WC. Its FIFA branded, but they do not run it. Its organised and run by the national organising committee. They are the ones who follow FIFA rules with regards tournament specific issues. FIFA sign the multi-tournament deals, but its the national committee that sign the tournament deals. FIFA bring the big sponsors, its up to the country to accomodate them, as part of the deal with FIFA for hosting the tournament. Usually, they can. If they cant, well, FIFA has options up its sleeve.
I'm just happy Lucas Oil Stadium is on there. Maybe it will be used for something. They made the field expandable for soccer but there isn't a friendly or anything scheduled for it. Hopefully a WC would get some momentum going.
I seriously doubt that they would put 2 sites here in Texas. Reliant Stadium is the better of the 2 stadiums, and Houston has a vastly superior soccer climate/community. It wouldn't surprise me if Dallas got chosen over us ... they did last time, they did when the MLS got started ... but it is utter BS. Houston is vastly superior when it comes to soccer support and community.
Germany's stadiums were renamed for the World Cup, e.g. "Munchen World Cup Stadium" instead of Allianz Arena.
I dont think so to be honest, when i checked on wikipedia for the populations of both cities, Dallas comes fourth in the US and Houston sixth based on the city and surrounding areas. Why wouldn't one want to exploit that? Both cities will have superb stadiums and with retractable roofing the weather wont be a problem. I think both stadiums can fit a full sized FIFA field also. This years Gold Cup will also be using reliant stadium and the New Cowboys stadium. Plus it could help fans as they might not have to travel so far as its only about 4 hours between cities. I do agree with you though if only one city in texas could host it it should be houston as they seem to get better support in the mls. As always i guess it will come down to who is willing to negotiate the best terms.
In '93 our USSF came to Houston and wanted to install natural grass inside the AstroDome to have the very first World Cup match indoors. Our old pig of an NFL owner told them to "get that damn communist game outta my city!"...and that was that. The Pontiac Dome up in Detriot got the grass laid indoors and they had the honor of having the first ever indoor World Cup match. USA-1 vs. Switzerland-1 so I guess it worked out but us in Houston were really upset when the truth came out post Mundial on why no matches were held here in the 'Dome. Dallas and the Cotton Bowl had some solid matches. Argentina vs. Bulgaria was one of them. Nigeria played well up there. Regarding the new Cowgirls stadium, it will be a hatchback like Reliant but JJ is staying with the synthetic Field Turf and not going with God's stuff. So the USSF would need to drop some coin on installing and maintaining a natural field there for the months leading up to the Group Stage in '22. Reliant Stadium as a climate control venue at 70K should be in line, considering our footy market and support at the club and international levels over the years which will only get even more massive by 2022, for the Opener or the bad boy that is the Grand Final.
What Stadia for USA 94 had to be renamed? None of the venues had corporate names. CHICAGO- Soldier Field NEW YORK/New Jersey- Giants Stadium/ Meadowlands Complex BOSTON/ New England- Foxboro [Sulivan] Stadium WASHINGTON- Robert F Kennedy Memorial Stadium ORLANDO- Citrus Bowl DALLAS- Cotton Bowl DETROIT- Pontiac Silverdome SAN FRANCISCO Bay Area- Stanford Stadium LOS ANGELES- Passadena Rose Bowl It hasn't poven to be a problem in the current era.
I`d guess that stadia with naming rights could be an issue, as could stadia with long term sponsorship deals. Not the name, but the boards inside. Depends on the deals they have with the stadium itself I suppose...
what about KYOCERA ARENA from curitiba, brasil. that stadium is sponsored by a korean company and will be hosting the 2014 WC
If Kyocera is not an official FIFA sponsor, then in all likelihood, FIFA will want their name "purged" from the stadium for the duration of the competition.
i understnad now like Seoul World Cup Stadium? so if you held a WC does that mean that a stadium has to keep a "WC" name attached for life?
Kyocera is Japanese, from Kyoto, but that aside, they'd have the name removed, just as several stadiums in Germany did. In 2006 FIFA actually demanded something daft like a 200 metre exclusion zone around that stadium where there can be no advertising by anyone except official sponsors. No, just for the duration of the tournament.
Seoul World Cup Stadium kept the name because that's what the stadium is called, it's proper name is "Seoul World Cup Stadium". An example would be Coca-Cola Park in Jo'berg, which is to host matches in 2010. For the duration of the cup it will either be called "Johannesburg World Cup Stadium" or reverted back to "Ellis Park Stadium" (it's original name). Though I think Coca-Cola is a FIFA approved sponsor so it will probably keep it's name.