Re: Should a stadium with 20,00 people be able to host a u-20 world cup. nor should one with field turf
Absolutely. Historically the U-20 WC has been a great box office tournament. Many years a lot of games have attendences of less than 10,000. Also, there is nothing wrong with Field Turf. Considering the state of many teams' pitches midway through the season, playing on a highly durable Field Turf system is something more teams ought to consider. Niether rain nor snow significantly effects the playing surface due to designed drainage considerations.
I'd like to think that in another 10-20 years, the idea that advocating use of "artificial surfaces" is tantamount to soccer blasphemy will be a quaint footnote in history.
how many of the 6 venues for this tourney have Field Turf vs. grass, I've only seen one that had grass so far but would like to know for sure. I know the Argies complained about it , I wonder how the rest of the players really feel.
The 3 out west have grass and the 3 down east have either Field Turf (Montreal and Toronto) or Blademaster (Ottawa) The general feeling seems to be that the Field Turf is better than what the argies complained about in Ottawa. As for the original question, you only have to look at years past and see all the sub 10K crowds to answer your question. The fact that we've been averaging about 23K per match is not normal for the U20 WC. Many previous tournaments have had their numbers skewed by having 90K watch the home side (eg: Portugal) almost no one else watch the other games.
canada is a ridiculous host. artificial turf? not only did they do that, but some stadiums have real grass, making it hard for the players to adjust and giving others untold advantages.
Living in Victoria, with the small 10k stadium I have to take offence to the comment about Canada being a bad host. First, Canada will likely surpass the record for attendance at a U20 Tourney. FYI, Netherlands only had 500k people go the games there 2 years ago, and we have over 1 million going. This could be the highest grossing U20 tourney from an economic stand point as well. Ya there are 3 artificial turfs but FIFA approved them all. They wouldn't have let it happen if it didn't meet their high standards. Plus, the weather in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa makes it very difficult to maintain a grass field over the course of the year. Artificial turf is more suitable to these sub zero climates. It is below 0 degreees for 6 months a year. Try growing grass in those condidions. Plus you have to consider that our team isn't even in the knock out stages and we are still showing up for all the teams.
No, it's just that field turf is cheaper to maintain. You have no problem growing grass in Canada, it's NOT below 0 degrees (Farenheit or Centigrade) for 6 months out of the year. that's a lie. Living in NE Wisconsin I'm actually farther north than Toronto, that weather is no more cold or snowy than some parts of the US. Minneapolis is more brutally cold than Toronto. Your statements are completely false regarding the weather in eastern Canada.
They intend to use the turf in Toronto year-round, with it being under a dome/bubble during the coldest months. Grass wouldn't last under a dome for 5 months (DEC-APR).
I don't think there is anything wrong with a 10,000 seat stadium hosting some games. What is wrong, however, is using crappy metal bench temporary seating to boast the stadium's capacity to reach 10,000. Seriously, I thought FIFA banned temporary seating in the early 1990's?