svbahn wrote: Excellent point. That's a feature that got props from the salt of the earth fans without tickets through the entire spectrum to the fat-cat brass of FIFA alike. Jab mentioned Pasadena's Colorado Blvd. Are there there are any other places that could create the same scenario? tguy24 wrote: . Fair point mate. I hope that SA can rise to the occasion, but I would prefer the next WC to be in the USA or Europe, because I think that's what's best for the game, and my personal preference to boot. Also, citing the numbers for the regular tourist trade is not necessarily proof that a nation would work for the World Cup finals. The reason being, the majority of the 8m "normal" tourists tend to be part of package holidays, with a host travel company insuring that they are herded into their prescribed hotels, transfers, and bus tours, all of which insulates them from the harsher reality of local street life just beyond their experience. Most World Cup visitors will not be insulated in such a convenient bubble, especially if they wish to travel from venue to venue across country, or partake of the streel level fan experience. I wouldn't be surprised if FIFA is quaking in its boots at the thought of multiple fan miles, without death or severe beatings and kidnaps, in SA. There is pressure for Sepp to kiss ass to the African FIFA reps because he needs them to survive. That is probably the most important reason why FIFA hasn't already baled from SA. I hope you are right. Any back up, other than SA govmt propaganda, for that rosy depiction? Just that the last I heard was that SA is basically up shit creek and that the plight of the average citizen is dire. A relatively wealthy footie fan from abroad makes an awfully easy target. BTW, I will be going to support England and USA wherever it is, so I am definitely interested in finding out more if it's in SA, unreal pro and anti propaganda aside. Frog Army on tour
..simply because you weren't asked to bid to the rigorous guidelines required by FIFA these days (or in 1994 as it happens). They ask a lot, too much in reality. For a "rescue" bid I doubt too many things would be a problem, but I think FIFA may well up loosening requirements for South Africa as they are so keen on having the world cup there, just as they were for the US in 1994. The US probably wouldn't have any problem unless another country out there proposed a proper bid in competition. It think it'd take some serious failures for FIFA to take the cup away from South Africa though.
Old Town Pasadena was quite a happening place during 1994 (I went to the BRA/SWE semifinal and was in a bar in Old Town for the final)... My suspicions is that FanFests will matter less since the stadiums are bigger (and therefore many of the attendees will be inside giving their money to FIFA, instead of outside costing the organizers money)...
Here's a link to a study of South African crime. It's a few years old but looks comprehensive. This should be a real concern for any fans thinking about making the trip in 2010. http://www.iss.co.za/Pubs/Papers/49/Paper49.html
Germany did have a policy of encouraging fans to come over, even if they didn't have tickets. A lot less fans would be prepared to travel across the atlantic just to savour the atmosphere, in the slim hoping of getting a ticket. You certainly wouldn't get the 75,000 or so who popped over from England to Germany making the journey to the US. You also, sadly, probably wouldn't attracts the tens of thousands of locals who went along to the screenings either. I'm sure the fan fests raked in a large amount of money, although that, like ticket money, would go to the organising commitee rather than FIFA.
I'm tired of the U.S. always being the "emergency World Cup". For so many reasons, I think it just diminishes the hype, preparations, and beauty that can only be accomplished by a normal planned World Cup for the U.S. Sure, USA 1994 was pretty good, and just hosting the World Cup itself is great, but without a doubt, an early-planned World Cup in the U.S. would have been much more spectacular. Not to mention much better for American media purposes. I think the U.S. deserves this in proper due time. That's my take. Just a simple different perspective.
Just to clarify, World Cup USA 1994 was a planned world cup, not an emergency. It was awarded to the USA (on the condition of a new 1st division soccer league), July 4th, 1988. The US had 6 years to plan it, and it showed, as it was amongst the most successful ever, certainly the best put on to that time. I remember watching games in 1982 and 1986, and seeing only 10,000 fans in the stands for some of them. Since USA '94, the bar for ticket sales was raised, and the last 3 have followed with much bigger crowds.
Oops, sorry about that. Thanks for clarifying. I remember traveling to Orlando for a World Cup match to see Netherlands play, this whole time I was under the impression that 1994 was suppose to go to Colombia..? Still though, I think an emergency World Cup would take away some "build-up" either for the U.S. or any other country.
Perhaps it's been said before, but I'd rather they hold the WC in South Africa or, say, Germany again before bringing it to the US. I've been to Chicago, DC, etc. enough times already.
I wonder, why isn't England an choice for "backup hosts"? They have enough modern 40,000+ soccer stadiums and the country is small and compact for travel.
That was 1986, and it went to Mexico. No worries. Do you know that you can travel even between World Cups? It's the latest rage!
I noticed on the pics from various stadiums from the US that most do not have any roofs. Why is that? You guys don't have much rain/snow over there or what? But the most depressing about not having any roof is that almost all the atmosphere disappears! I know that there are some sss being built in the states... i would hope they have roof! Or do they? Perhaps there are some discussions about these sss going on here on the BS board? Could someone please point me to the right direction if so, thanks.
most of those stadiums are open air because they are NFL/American Football stadiums, and most fans enjoy the open air stadium atmosphere more. American Football is played mostly in the fall(Sep-Dec(playoffs)) and for a large portion of that time, across most of the country, the outdoor weather is beautiful. As a football fan, I'd much rather see a game played in an outdoor stadium than an indoor one, indoor stadiums take something away from the game in my opinion. I can't wait for another WC to come to the US, I only got to see two matches, and a lead up friendly at the old Foxboro Stadium, which was torn down and rebuilt into the razor which hosts the NE Patriots(Football) and NE Revolution(Soccer).
I don't get the preference for a roof either...from my experience that seems to take away from the atmosphere at a game, not add to it. I wondered why all the stadiums in Germany seemed to have roofs.
If you're talking about roofing over just the seats and not the pitch, it's because teams just don't find the extra cost worth it. Seriously, when I took friends to the Home Depot Center, I actually had to point out the roofs after the game after I heard their opinions about the stadium and they didn't mention the roofs (which are a rarity in modern American stadiums). Plus, America is still quite a baseball country, and baseball fans want stadiums to be as open as possible. You wanna see the skies, you wanna see the backdrop, you want everything in full view. When critics look at the newest baseball stadiums, the first thing they critique is how open the stadium is. They'd be absolutely horrified at the covered stadiums in Europe. And this mentality seems to spill over to the other sports.
Roofs over the stands add significantly to the atmosphere as they encapsulate the sound. Guess US fans don't sing that much though... Plus, football is a winter sport in most of Europe and having cover is rather preferable to getting soaked every weekend. Having attended the '94 WC in the US, I would have liked to be under cover as well - to get in the shade and out of the direct heat of the sun.
I believe it's because Europeans melt when they come in contact with water, particularly the French. Plus, the English are very protective of their transluscence, a minute or two of direct sunlight and suddenly you wouldn't be able to see completely through them like tracing paper.
yes, that's what I meant, over the seats. I guess since there really is no singing in those stadiums there are no need for any roof to heighten the atmosphere. But seriously though, do the soccer specific stadiums being built in the US have roofs (over the seats) or not? Because if they don't any atmosphere you try to create will be that much more difficult.
LA Galaxy does Chicago has a partial roof the remainder-no... As a general rule-stadiums in the Pacifc NW region (similar weather to England) have roofs, the rest of the country, no However-most of our larger stadiums are built in sections, with a number of seats being underneath the seating above them...so some are covered, some are not. It's also a long-standing tradition to put on your rain gear and watch your team (especially American football), rain or shine. As for baseball-if it rains, the game gets called off...
It seems like all the future MLS SSS (except for Torontos) have at least roofing on two sides planned. Though if there are budget cuts, guess which feature is gonna be cut first.
It's a strange thing, but whereas football fans would regularly stand on uncovered terraces in the rain here with total acceptance, uncovered seats in any weather are almost unsellable here, unless there is absolutely no alternative. Also, because of the reason for the existence of such areas (very cheap terracing to seat conversions) they are seen as cheap & shoddy. There are even echoes towards to awful soulless concrete Soviet bowl stadiums that used to seem de rigueur behind the iron curtain, where grim Bulgarians in one of their choice of four outfits would sit miserably watching their team lose 3-0 to Liverpool in the drizzle.
while I think most of the anti-s.africa posts I've seen are on the hysterical side, I do think it makes good sense for FIFA to always have a back-up plan in place given the current state of world affairs. Is the U.S. the only possible back-up FIFA could look to in an emergency situation? Of course not. Is the U.S. a tremendous emergency back-up option? Abolutely. No other country could pull off hosting the World Cup with less lead time and more modern premium stadium options than the U.S. England - well, if you said Great Britian, then yes, they have enough stadiums but you can't discount all the preperations that will be taking place for the London Olympics. If you were part of the English government and the F.A., would you rather have the World Cup before or after the Olympics. I think the overwhelming majority answer is after - it will be infinitely easier, hosting a post-Olympic World Cup than pre-Olympic World Cup. Besides, England is already on the short term radar to host a World Cup in the 2010 decade. Given the current state of where the WC has been hosted and will most likely be hosted in the next two rounds - your talking 20 or more years before the U.S. is in play again. U.S. as emergency back-up will probably be the state of affairs for 2010 and the Brazil WC - whether it is in 2014 or 2018. Maybe for every World Cup from here on out except when immediately following a U.S. hosted World Cup. I'm not saying that out of hubris - it's just a simple matter of logistics, stadiums, broadcast infrastructure, short term ability to insure high attendence, and hotel/motel capacity. No offense intended toward our European brethren but setting up a World Cup on four years warning would take some doing just on hotel capacity alone. The U.S. could step in almost up until the last nine to six months and be ready to go - and most of that time will be working on stadium configurations to bring the fields into as close to FIFA mandates as possible. Yes, the fields aren't necessarily perfectly preportioned but remember - we are talking about emergency hosting. No doubt that entry into the country would be a pain in the ass - but you only have to go through customs once. There's no good cross country rail system but there is a plethora of rent cars and airlines. Security might be scary to some but which European country is immune from that problem - England and Spain have has sizable terrorist attacks in recent years, Germany seems to be a breeding ground for disenchanted young male Males to get pulled into terror organizations, and France has had it's fair share of ethnic rioting. Italy is in the midst of a major soccer scandal which calls into question the integrity of the game in that country. On top of that, and as humble as i can say this, there isn't one of those countries that are ready for a mass influx of fans on short notice of 1 or 2 years. Once again, I seriously doubt S.Africa doesn't happen but I don't doubt for a second that the U.S. makes a perfect emergency option if, by some bad luck, it doesn't happen.