Is there a point where bigger isn't necessarily better? Where the stadium just becomes too damn big that you can't see the players?
Sure, there's a limit, but it hasn't really been reached yet. Maracana held almost 200,000 for the 1950 World Cup Final. Someone who's actually seen a match there can tell you if that's too big. I understand there's a stadium in Asia that holds that many or more. Both Neyland stadium (UT) in Knoxville and Michigan's hold more than 100,000. Can't say I keep my ear to the ground for complaints about distance from the field, but I haven't heard or read any complaints. My perfect stadium would hold at least 100,000.
Stadiums over 100,000 http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_menu/stadium_list/100000.shtml A big stadium isn't necessarily worse for individual spectators. I went to a Belgian first division match in a stadium that held about 4000. The seats were all so close to the pitch that you had no depth perception and couldn't really see the play develop. The Bernabeu in Madrid is very big, a little more than 76,000, but the seats are sloped very steeply, so you're always going to be relatively close to the action. I was in the fourth tier and could have thrown a soda can all the way onto the field. You're talking about http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/asia/north_korea/may_day.shtml ; the May Day Stadium Rungra Island in North Korea.
czech republic's Strahov stadium used to be the world's largest stadium with 240,000 capacity. i don't think it's operating now.
That wasn't a football stadium though. The national football stadium of the same name is next door, on the left of the picture. It was more of a display ground. I think the 240,000 included spectators standing on part of the field. I've walked past it and the stands looked covered in weeds. Mind you, I've been in Slavia Prague's ground and that is covered in weeds and still in use.
240,000? I have never heard of this venue and have serious doubts about the accuracy of the capacity.
As I said, a whole 1 post above, it wasn't a genuine venue as such. I don't think the Czech team ever played there. If you look at the picture and notice the national stadium next door on the left you will realise that the field in the large Strahov stadium is actually the size of 4 pitches.
yeah, I think the seating capacity is somewhere around 120,000-150,000. currently the city of prague is thinking whether to demolish the stadium.it's been used for multi-purpose but it's just too big for helding any kinds of events.
There's nothing worse than a 100.000 stadium that is sometimes only filled with 30.000 people. So depending on the club I'd say 50.000 is nice. But I've also been in stadiums that could fit 7000 people and they were still fantastic in their own way.
I remember reading something about the optimal maximum viewing distance on the official New Wembley Stadium website(sorry no link). IIRC it was something like 200 yards. The designers of the new stadium made sure that no spectator was that distance away from any part of the pitch.
I found the link: http://www.wembleynationalstadium.co.uk/new/key.htm Research in the United States has shown that fans have problems seeing the moving ball at further than 190 metres. By moving to a rounder stadium, the World Stadium Team has accommodated as many people as possible in the ideal space. For fans in the very furthest back seats only the space around each corner flag is outside this viewing ideal. Placing seats further away from the action would result in the far goalmouth being outside this ideal distance and fans could miss out on much of the important action. The seats would probably have to be classed as restricted views. Because of this it is unlikely that any football ground will be built with a capacity larger than the new Wembley.
population of Prague is approximately 1,300,000 so to fill the stadium the city must draw about 1/5 of entire pop.
middlesbrough has a pop of about 120000 and we get over 30000 ppl for our games, thats 1/4 ...... (boro has best ratio in country btw)
You have to remember that most older European stadia are comprised primarily of sloped terraces for standing spectators. You can cram a lot more folks in when they are standing. Of course, occassionally you crush a few hundred against a chain link fence.
120,000? That's not a lot. How many live within the club's natural Cleveland catchment area though? It's not as if every single fan lives in Middlesbrough.
This who question depends on the level of the team, surrounding population, and popularity. For UT and Michigan, they love the 100k they get every game. I'm sure if Notre Dame and Penn St and 100k seat stadiums, they would sell out as well. For places like Milan and Rome, 70k-80k is fairly good, though I'm sure they would each like a 100k stadium. For ManUre, 70k is about right, and I don't think Arse-nal's proposed 50k (?) seater is too far off as well. But they you've got places like Sunderland and Monaco. Could they really host a 60k seater? I doubt they could draw that well for every game. Personally, I'm a fan of the 30k-40k seat stadiums. Small enough that it can be intimate, but big enought that it can be defening.
During WEC94 I was in the front section of the upper deck right at one of the penalty spots for the Morocco v. Saudi Arabia match and I felt it was too far away from the other end of the pitch. I've studied a lot of different stadiums and plans and I feel that for the spectator 40.000 should be the limit for a soccer venue. Of course it's all about what the market will support.
It's all about how the stadium is built. If you look at the feijenoord stadion and the Amsterdam Arena it's pretty clear that the feijenoord stadion is a better football stadium in every single aspect. Funny though as that stadium was built in the 50's and renovated in the early 90's while the Arena was built in 1996. The excuse is that the Arena is more than a football stadium.... BS it was just built by someone who doesn't know football.
I've only been to one match there and I went in the top tier and the view was great. Maybe that's part of the reason - all the thought has gone into maiking it good for the expensive seats (even though by English standards it was cheap) and very little into making it good in the lower tier. I think rather than having seats right down to the pitch there is an ugly 8ft wall where the seats just stop. The accoustics are dreadful. 35,000 sounded like 5000. It's not just a modern ground v old ground thing though. I also went to NEC Nijmegen which at first glance doesn't look too inspiring, but I really enjoyed my day there.
The accoustics are terrible indeed. I remember being at the north stand 2nd ring at Ajax - Porto. I could see the entire southstand move their hands along to a song but I could hardly make out what was being sung. Really too bad, cos sometimes it can get pretty noisy on the southstand, but it has to be at max volume if anyone's to hear it.
Of course, Foxboro has about 20,000 people, and they draw about 65,000 people for Patriots games and 16,000 for Revs games, so we still got ya beat.