Who says there has to be a roof?? Which is fvcking ridiculous. I'm sure they're very nice, state-of-the-art stadiums. Most of them just aren't big enough. My guess is that the new Jets stadium in Manhattan will get built eventually, and will be the NYC venue for the next US World Cup. Incidentally, virtually all of the new NFL stadiums built in the last 10 years have been built to accomadate a regulation size soccer field, as friendlies between foreign teams (both international and club) are a huge cash cow during the NFL/European soccer offseason.
The stadia that have terrace sections (most of the WC venues) can convert these into seating stands. I.e. Dortmund's Westfalenstadion has the biggest terrace in Europe (26.000) which can be converted into a 10.500-seater stand within a couple of hours. So the capacity will be 66.000 instead of 81.500.
Oh I get it now. Thanks... but I still don't see what the problem is with terraces. Why dont we all seat down the whole game and clap our hands now and then...
FIFA Agreed. Tell that to FIFA. they are big enough for their clubs, which is what they were built for. $1.64 billion was spent on stadium reconstruction. To add an extra 20000 per venue would probably cost half that again.
The Nurenberg stadium is mostly uncovered, and the 1994 World Cup venues were all completely uncovered aside from DC (partially covered) and Detroit (dome). Incidentally the Cotton Bowl was chosen as the Dallas stadium despite the fact that Texas Stadium has a roof.
Yea, you have to remember that the world cup is secondary in these stadiums. They're going to, and do, host clubs upwards of 45 times a year if they go all the way in cups. In many ways, a 60K stadium would become a burdon on a smaller club.
pretty much all of it look covered to me when I went to Argentina v Australia there in the summer. http://www.stadionwelt.de/wmspecial...nberg&bereich=stadionfotos&tribuene=tribuenen
Looks uncovered in the pics on worldstadiums.com, I guess due to the camera angle...my bad. Still, the point about '94 stands. And there's no reason why stadiums should have to be covered anyway.
In northern and central europe, especially considering the time of year club matches are played, there is a very good reason to have covered stadia.
The real problem is that FIFA sell tickets to the matches long before the draw is made and therefor is unable to assign matches to stadia based on projected ticket demand. If FIFA waited until after the draw to assign matches to stadia, they would be much better off.
Not likely, since the Jets and Giants have made a deal for a jointly built new stadium at the Meadowlands.
the West Side Stadium died weeks before the Olympics. The final bid involved the Olympic Stadium being shared with the Mets at Flushing Meadow.
I believe the Euro championships do some stadium assignments after the draw to get the most attractive fixtures in the biggest stadiums. The problem of letting the seeded club play all their games in one stadium is it is an unfair advantage for them. Also, if a city builds a stadium for the cup, they don't want to risk getting a boring group. As for building bigger stadiums, I think the stadiums should be built for their main use, that is for club games after the world cup has come and gone. My enjoyment of 2002 was quelled somewhat on hearing that the stadiums built in Korea were "white elephants", that is there was not much use for them after the cup. Public spending should be done on more usefull things, schools, infrustructure, environment, and parks for recreation. The stadiums in Germany look great. I'd like to know the numbers denied verse excepted in the FIFA ticket lotteries, but I'm glad these stadiums were built for clubs that can fill them. The US has crap loads of suitable stadiums (almost every team in the NFL has a new stadium, and I believe most fit a soccer field), but I want the World Cup to be in countries that like soccer. Even if that means sometimes I can't be there in person (2002), or I can only go for one week (2006).
I've got a feeling no public money at all was spent on these stadiums. I think I read that somewhere. They were paid for by the clubs and the WC organising company. I wouldn't go as far as to say it doesn't happen anywhere in europe, but generally stadiums tend to get built and paid for by the clubs themselves rather than having owners getting the city to build them a new stadium.
Here are the large US football stadiums that can fit a 70-yard wide soccer field: Seattle Rose Bowl, LA Coliseum, LA Denver-Invesco Chicago-Soldier Foxboro-Gillette Philadelphia Birmingham As far as I know, that's it. Both Arrowhead and Giants would need renovations or an exemption because of their 68-yard wide fields.
My bad, hadn't heard about that somehow. I'm pretty sure that just about all of the NFL stadiums built since the mid-90s fit a regulation soccer field, and were designed for that purpose. Also, Arizona is getting a new stadium next year, and Dallas, SF, Minnesota, and New Orleans are all expected to get new stadiums in the next 5-10 years. Plus there's talk of re-building the LA Coliseum and St. Louis could get a new stadium at some point as well. Did Arrowhead get an exemption for the 2001 WCQ?? Don't think we'd see a WC finals game in Denver due to the altitude. I think FedEx Field (hosted WWC games), Ericsson Stadium (has hosted College Cup and WNT games), Heinz Stadium, and Browns Stadium (both hosted ChampionsWorld games) can fit regulation-sized fields as well.
there's fit in and there's fit in though. There's a huge difference between squeezing in a minimum sized pitch with the advertising hoardings about a yard from the lines, and doing it properly with a standard sized 75 yard field with around 10 yards run-off at all sides, which is certainly what FIFA recommend if not implicitly demand. I wouldn't think Denver's altitude would be a problem. Mexico city is 2000 feet higher, and I can't see the azteca being ruled out of any future Mexican bid.
Yes, Arrowhead got an exemption for the 01 qualifier versus Costa Rica, the Costa Ricans consented so it was simple. Giants Stadium got an exemption for the 94 World Cup. Let me also add Houston-Reliant and Dallas-Cotton Bowl to that list. RichardL sums it up, but I'll add that with football stadia forget about 75 yards, the list above are the ones that can fit a 70 yard field. There are smaller ones that can do this, in Hartford, Salt Lake, etc. Friendlies don't have requirements for the field size.
True, but the huge capacity of the newer NFL stadia makes it a worthwhile sacrifice IMO. Also, FWIW, most of the newer NFL stadia have either full retractable roofs or fixed partial roofs. Completely different situation though. The Azteca is Mexico's premier stadium and Mexico City is the capital, no way to really have a Mexico bid without including the Azteca. Denver on the other hand is just another big US city with a nice stadium, there are 10-20 cities like it that don't have the altitude issue.
I've always loved this whole covered stadium thing. Its the most ridiculous requirement I've ever heard. What's up with that? Are you going to melt in the rain?