The US can't have a national stadium because it plays against Mexico too much, and the fans of Mexico would overrun the stadium. That's why the US likes to play Mexico in Columbus Ohio, not LA. The Gold Cup final in Chicago was sooo pro-Mexican; in the semis I couldn't believe the way the Mexican fans were rooting for Canada against the US. The US could have a national stadium, but it would have to be on wheels so it could travel to Vermont or North Dakota when playing Mexico.
Bad news to you and yours, Johnny. The US is now enjoying an infant mortality rate lower than Brunei, Slovenia, Cyprus, Cuba and about 30 other nations.
No the point is you're wanting DC to have a stadium built for them. And you're just trying to mask it as wanting a national soccer stadium. [insert tongue in cheek]I say screw that and put it in KC and let the Wizards play there. It's an ideal location because KC is a central location. [/remove tongue from cheek]
Angola's national stadium makes the old Downing Stadium on Randall's Island look like the New Wembley. The construction site behind my apartment building, where a new mixed-use complex is being built, looks better than that place.
I call BS on that picture of the Angolan National Stadium. The real Estadio de Cidadela http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/africa/angola/luanda_cidadela.jpg And it is being replaced by the sparkling new 40,000 seat Welwichia Stadium in time for the 2010 African Cup of Nations. That picture is of the Benguela municipal stadium. But, even that is being replaced for the 2010 African Cup of Nations.
moronic that's a concept developed by countries with one large capital and desolation around it (British nations, France, Mexico) USA's situation is exactly opposite
have you ever been to england or france? there is hardly desolation anywhere. i think you have no idea what you are talking about. i do agree that the national stadium idea is pretty dumb however.
I don't think desolation was the right word, but he was probably trying to point out that, in addition to being much smaller than the US: National Stadiums Mexico = 106.5m people; Greater Mexico City = 22.4m (21% of the population) France = 61.5m people (excluding overseas France); Greater Paris = 10m (16% of the population) England = 50.7m people; Greater London = 12m (24% of the population) -versus- No National Stadium USA = 303m people Greater New York City = 21.9m (only 7% of the population) Greater Los Angeles = 18m (6% of the population, and aprox. 2500 air miles from NY) Chicagoland = 9.8m (and aprox. 700 air miles from NY; and aprox. 1700 air miles from LA - more than London to Moscow!) Germany = 82.3m people Ruhr Valley = 5.7m (only 7% of the population) Greater Berlin = 4.3m (5% of the population and on the opposite side of the country from the Ruhr Valley) It makes no sense at all for countries without a concentrated population center and/or a small geographical size to have a single national stadium. Besides, according to the most recent US Census, the current "population center" of the United States is actually closest to... St. Louis! If anything, this should be a thread about building a glorious National Soccer Stadium in the shadow of the Gateway Arch.
^ see jokeefe? demographics for dummies. btw, "desolation" is actually the word I heard some Londoners use for the rest of Britain. Parisiennes probably reason in the same terms about the rest of France
How is England or France, more desolate outside of London or Paris, than the USA? Even with sub-urban sprawl, there is much more "desolation" in the US than there is in either of those two countries.
I'm not arguing for a national stadium at all. I was talking about the perceived notion of "desolation" of those countries. I happen to agree with him and you that a National stadium in this country is a waste of time because of the vastness and the population sprawl.
Whoever thinks the fact that Angola has a national stadium puts it ahead of us in soccer should try telling that to such world soccer minnows as Brazil and Germany.