You used different numbers...for most stadia you used the Bundesliga capacity (e.g. the Veltins Arena) for others you used the number of WC seats (Gottlieb Daimler Stadion) Here are the official numbers for the WC: Berlin 66.021 Dortmund 60.285 München 59.416 Gelsenkirchen 48.426 Stuttgart 47.757 Hamburg 45.442 Frankfurt 43.324 Kaiserslautern 41.513 Köln 40.590 Hannover 39.297 Leipzig 38.898 Nürnberg 36.898
Those are all very beautiful stadiums. Gotta hand that to the germans. So what does the starter of this thread suggest. Each WC in the Footballstadiums of the States? Or in England? Or should each country just build bigger stadiums, leaving them half empty after the tournament has gone?
He probably wants stadiums like in the US. But those stadiums are usually just used for American Football... I posted the pictures of all stadiums for every group match except for Group A (there is already a thread) and Group H: Group B: Group C Group D Group E Group F Group G
A few weeks back I attended Bayern- Kaiserslautern at Allianz Arena while traveling in Munich. What a great venue. Looks unique from the outside and inside all of the sightlines are tremendous. Sat behind the south goal and I could not believe how close I was to the field. A tremendous atmosphere, clean well run stadium, adequate concessions and bathroom facilities. A stadium worthy of the world cup
Well, in strictest economic terms, the trend toward smaller stadiums should not be worrisome because fans will be turned away due to a limited seat supply. As the demand for World Cup tickets continues to grow, the limited supply will allow FIFA and the individual organizing committees to jack prices to the sky. As the simple law of supply and demand states, the best price point is that which the market will bear. With a limited supply and a nearly unlimited demand (as evidenced by the quick sell-outs) there is still room for price inflation.... Eventually the common supporter will be priced out of the market (look at the Super Bowl for proof) for the best seats. If you want to rail against FIFA for anything, rail against them for that.
I think you dramatically oversetimate how good college stadiums are. Take the Cotton Bowl as an example. It would be lucky, very lucky, to be allowed 40,000 people by FIFA's strict standards. In fact many college stadiums are simply not of sufficient quality to host WC games. Almost none have roofs, many don't have seats, rather benches. There's nothing wrong with that for club games but FIFA are somewhat more fussy when it comes to WC games.
Accenuates the point I made earlier - almost all of the stadiums in US94 have been torn down, renovated or discontinued as a sporting facility. I've been to several of those grounds and most of them are ******** places to watch a sporting event.
Stadium size and seating capacity reduction be FIFA aside, where FIFA clearly made a mistake is when they didn't adjust the games to the stadiums after the draw. Consider the following: IMO the three most interesting games of the first round are Argentina - Netherlands; England - Sweden; and Czech Rep - Italy. None of these games is played in the biggest venue scheduled for a game that day. England - Sweden, Köln 40,590 Paraguay - Trinidad, Kaiserslautern 41,513 Or Ecuador - Germany, Berlin 66,021 (same day, June 20th, but I can understand keeping Germany in Berlin) Netherlands - Argentina, Frankfurt 43,324 Ivory Coast - Serbia, München 59,416 Czech Rep - Italy, Hamburg 45,442 Japan - Brazil, Dortmund 60,285 (same day, June 22nd) or Croatia - Australia, Stuttgart 47,757 The reason for these changes is not to increase ticket sales (all the games are going be sold out), the reason is to give more fans a chance to see the "on paper" attractive games live. As far as US 1994 venues; yes these facilities are not up to current FIFA standard, many/most were poor in 1994. However, there was one huge advantage, you could get tickets at face value or for a small premium (under $20) for almost any game (semi final and final excluded). In a perfect world I want a nice seat in a great stadium for face value (but that rarely happens). Given a choice between seeing a Brazil 1/4 final match on bench seat in a American Football stadium and having to shell out several hundred Euros above face value for a ticket in a super modern stadium with great seats; my choice is to pay near face value for the bench seat.
Also keep in mind the '94 WC occured RIGHT before a major period of stadium building throughout the US. If the 2006 WC was being held here, all but a couple of the venues would be 10 years old or newer. By the time the WC comes back in 2014 or 2018 it will likely be held entirely in stadiums that did not exist in 1994 (only possible holdover is the Rose Bowl, and if LA gets a new stadium for an NFL team that'll probably be used instead). As for the Nigeria-Bulgaria game, I could be wrong but I've heard on several occasions that every single game in '94 sold out. Maybe not every seat was filled, but all the tickets were sold which is not the case with any other World Cup in history. Besides, even if it didn't sell out, is there ANY other country in the world aside from Nigeria or Bulgaria where a game between those 2 countries could draw 45,000?? And for the question of whether countries should have to build giant stadiums, yes they should. Want to host the world's biggest sporting event?? Then build stadiums that are suitable for it.
China and India should host it alternately, as I'm sure they could get some 100 000+ people into the stadiums on a regular basis and therefor it would be financially feasible to build such stadiums. It would be enjoyable for everyone, except for those uncirtain about not getting tickets and, as a result, bitch about stadium capacity.
Building a 200-350 Mio Euro stadium for just 4-6 matches? I don't think so. It makes much more sense to build stadia that can be regularly filled after the WC. And as not every Bundesliga club draws 60.000 on a constant base, the actual capacities are fine with me. Though stadia like Stuttgart and Nuremberg are not cream of the crop, we will have fine venues.
According to the FIFA stadium guidelines they are suitable for it. Now deal with it. Axis Alex must love the summer Olympics where half of the facilities don't get used afterwards...
So build 40,000-seat venues that have room to temporarily expand to 60,000 or so. With the sheer amount of cash that hosting a World Cup brings into a country's tourist economy, they can afford it. Besides, building a 60,000-seat stadium doesn't cost that much more relatively than building a 40,000-seater (compared with the difference between building a 20,000 seater and not building anything).
Rogge's aim is to work against this trend. Not as big as possible but more buildings that can be used properly afterwards. Whether he has any chance to succeed is a different story.
In fact (at least with German standards) it is much more expensive per seat. And of course every seat you can't fill in Bundesliga matches is LOST money anyways....no matter how cheap its building was.
It's a lot easier to do that in the US, where stadiums tend to be open to the elements. A lot harder to do when you are putting a roof on the thing. I think temporary seating is banned by UEFA anyway for anything other than very small stands, after a disaster at Bastia when a temporary stand collapsed.
The stadium capacity will actually be reduced for the world cup, as FIFA doesn’t allow standing areas that are used in league matches. You could sell 200 000 tickets for most games, it doesn’t matter much if the stadium takes 40 or 60 thousand , you’d still have a lot of people who would miss out.
How many of those 79 Stadiums have Roofs covering the Stands? Not many i'll bet, not even the new ones. I've been to the new Soldier Field and Invesco Field and while they are wonderful Stadiums (on the inside at least as far as SF is conserned) they wouldn't pass FIFA rules for World Cup Stadiums.
There's no FIFA rule that WC stadiums must have roofs; there is of course the rule that the field must be at least 70 yards wide which rules out about 80-90% of US football stadia, unless renovations are made. I'm a bit in disbelief at Americans who think German stadia are not up to par. These are among the best club stadia in the world. State of the art and almost all built specifically to host soccer. If you're mad about not getting tickets, well I am too, only two words you can say: BUM RUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sure there were in 1990, and I'm pretty sure there were for 1998 and 2002 too. Can't remember exactly, but it was something like 30% of seats had to be covered, and the final had to be fully covered. Quite why they insisted on those rulings is less clear, but they were there. The Italians weren't too pleased that they spent fortunes covering their stadiums when the USA got off scot-free 4 years later. The USA just got a free ride in 1994 and used stadiums that would not have been allowed for any other country. Saying that though, apparently many of the newer stadiums that have been built in the US have been built with soccer pitch sizes in mind, and a good number are covered.
I suprisingly can't find a damn thing in the FIFA regulations one way or the other. They do say something about individual numbered seats with 30cm backs, which would still rule out most of the College Stadiums. No Texas World Cups just yet;o)
Yes some of the newer NFL stadiums are "soccer friendly" is the term I think; they can fit a 70 yard wide field. Seattle, Philadelphia and Foxboro have that. However in the US we are not big on giant roofs, unless it will be an entire dome. Hopefully the "new" Giants Stadium will be soccer friendly, however it will still be located in a parking lot surrounded by highways, which in my mind makes it unsuitable for a World Cup final.