They would do that anyway. And you're right with your second point. An ideal West Coast cluster (3 stadiums for 2 groups thus at least 4 games for each venue) would be, north to south, Seattle-Bay Area-LA area. There is no available venue in the Bay Area nor will there be one before 2010. Stanford, a fine new stadium, is out; too small and Fifa does not like to use college stadiums. The Rose Bowl is considered outdated, uncomfortable and just lacking. It could be spruced up and used for first round and round of sixteen games, but beyond that, forget it. The good news is that Phoenix or San Diego could fill in for the Bay Area. The cluster isn't as tight, the LA venue leaves a little to be desired but you make do. While many fields will have to be widened (Invesco, Reliant, Soldiers, Arrowhead, Old Giants, FedEx, etc. ) many are good to go (Gillette, Cleveland, New Dallas, Miami, Tampa, most of the indoor venues with the exception of Detroit, Seattle, San Diego, Rose Bowl). Fifa will not waive the width requirement this time around. But we should be able to get things done with little trouble. England would not be into a UK bid. They can go it alone. And even if London is the only city allowed to use two stadiums they'll be fine. It's a matter of whether Fifa wants them to have it now or in 2018. My guess is that Fifa would love to reap all of the nostalgia-tinged hype that it can over a longer period of time and would thus prefer England for 2018. I also think that Fifa wants to move the US closer to the center of things. All of the countries mentioned are fine places but I sense that if push comes to shove Fifa will choose to do it here. But a US WC in 2010 won't be the parade of stadiums that it could have been in 2018.
Err, is there a single stadium in Canada that's a good candidate? Between size (BMO), being indoors (Vancouver), MLB (SkyDome) or just being old (Montreal), I can't come up with many.
Why the hell would the United States want to co-host a World Cup with Canada? A WC is not Norad. Nor is it MLS.
The LA Coliseum hasn't had a track for at least 15 years. It hosts soccer sometimes, but if it's reaching the 70x110 minimum, it's doing so just barely.
There has been all kinds of speculation about the Coliseum. The city of LA want to sell naming rights which has turned off possible NFL owners. The latest talk is of a stadium in City of Industry but, as you know, that's a long way off. And Pasadena voters recently rejected a tax increase to finance a renovation at Rose Bowl.
I don't know. Vancouver and Montreal actually seem like decent options. Or if Toronto really wanted to host in the Rogers Center (SkyDome), I'm guessing the Blue Jays could go on an extended road trip or play some "home" games elsewhere in Canada. Of course there are just "as good" options in the US by itself. But if Canada ends up qualifying and Fifa needs/wants a Plan B in North America, I do think a tournament with a majority of US venues supplemented by some Canadian venues would make for a great tournament.
I always did have a place for the Coliseum. I love that place. Second best in the nation, besides................................. You know something, the more I look at it, Neyland's field looks a little wider that the Coloseum, but just barely
If Fifa offers their view of Plan B as US/Canada co-hosting, I doubt US Soccer would pass it up simply because they wouldn't be the sole host. Perhaps Fifa is thinking that games in Montreal or Vancouver might be played in "cooler" conditions that those that may be played in Dallas or Phoenix. Of course, this is all speculation, and who knows what "Plan B" really is or could be, or if it would actually have to be implemented. I would say that it's much more likely that a single host (someone like Eng, US or Ger) would be called upon to be the "replacement" host for WC2010, as opposed to some co-hosting scenario. But who knows what Fifa is thinking or will think up?
Doesn't FIFA have a rule against bleacher style seating, or seats without backs? This would rule out most of the college football mega stadiums, even if they happen to be wide enough.
Wait, I live in California, and the weather in Germany for '06 was far more humid and scorchingly hot. With global warming, we will have palm trees on the Baltic in no time. Better than California weather? NOT. POSSIBLE. That is why so many useless people come to California -- just for the nicer climes. I pay taxes for their welfare.
I'm sure as you know -- ain't no way Neyland would get games. Besides the difficulty of international travel to Knoxville, TN, you can only imagine the horror that would greet the idea from UT alumni if Neyland had to be substantially re-configured for soccer.
Fifa would never make that a condition. They weren't thrilled with JK 2002. And they know we can handle it. Let's play games in Kansas City and Tampa and Phoenix and Cleveland and let's not worry about Toronto and Montreal and Vancouver.
This is what you'll see if the WC comes here in 2010: Foxboro Old Giants Fed Ex Chicago Kansas City Denver Dallas Houston Tampa or Miami Seattle Rose Bowl San Diego Cleveland and Phoenix may be added as junior / lay-off venues and will host two games each.
What weren't they "thrilled with", specifically? Have they said they'll steer clear of co-hosts for future tournaments? I would think the co-hosting scenario would have some nice benefits for big international footballing events.
Kansas City (Arrowhead) is undergoing renovation and probably won't be ready by summer 2010. New Meadowlands should be complete.
They were pleased with the tournament. The politics and logistics of sharing, as well as the competitive considerations that go along with it, are something that they wish to avoid moving forward. That's why they like countries like the United States. We don't have to share the World Cup.
Then you roll out some grass and a new coat of paint in St. Louis. I've heard August 2010 on New Meadowlands. Could they beat that? They probably could. They might be glad to. But if they can't, you still have the old place which they intend to leave standing.
Some other options: Pittsburgh (Heinz), Detroit (Ford Field), Indy (Lucas Dome), Oakland (McAfee), Nashville, - all contingent on if FIFA allows 70 yard width.
If they were promised the final, they would likely figure out a way to get it done. The increased value in the stadium naming rights alone would more than pay for the higher costs of getting it done by early May. As a point of comparison, CitiField (Mets stadium) and the Barclays Center (Nets arena in Brooklyn) both have naming rights deals of $20M per year for 20 years, or $400M total. The new Giants Stadium will likely match or beat that overall, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an additional $25-30 million on the overall naming rights price for the global exposure that comes with a WC Final.
I would expect to see Atlanta (and not just because I am biased). Georgia Dome is the largest indoor sporting facility in the US so I assume it would be wide enough or could be made wide enough. Import the grass like they did for the Silverdome in '94. We hosted the Olympics so a few WC games would not be a problem. Anyway with 8 groups of 4, I think you are going to need a few more cities/stadiums than that. I would guess they would want at least 16 stadiums so that each group stage game would have its own stadium each round. Group two cities together for group stages so each stadium has at least 3 matches. Boston New York DC Philly Chicago Kansas City or Cleveland Pheonix Denver Dallas Houston Atlanta Charlotte or New Orleans Tampa or Orlando Miami Seattle San Francisco Los Angeles (2 stadiums) or San Diego I know that is 9 clusters not 8 but that is the idea I would think they would employ. Not sure on the dimensions of stadiums so that is why I added extra cities.
Yeah, think of the lengths that they went through for the Olympic soccer events. It was held in Athens (UGA stadium) and they had to pull out the hedges to make it wide enough for soccer. They secretly grew new hedges (from trimmings of the existing ones) for 3 years so they could be replaced right after the Olympics were over. And that is just for some shubbery!!