All-Purpose, Never-Ending Soccer Thread

I was more thinking out loud than anything else. My reasoning is only to satisfy that need to "seem fair." Even if it was only for a couple games, it might make it more palatable. And I don't think the borders would be that overwhelmed by a bunch of soccer fans. Some would drive, some would fly. There'd be a number of additional folks, but I wouldn't think a known situation would cause that much problem. Add a few more guards, open some more lines and there you are.

Or, you could just route them through your favorite smuggler's tunnel.[/loudobbs]

 

Ah, yes, the profits.... the same reason why there's now only about 10-12 countries around the world that can host the tournament. With a minimum of 10 40k-seat stadiums, there's not many that can afford that.

A friend of mine was in South Africa over Christmas and New Years, and reported they have yet to begin work on half of the proposed new stadiums. It'd be a huge embarrasment for Blatter if they have to move it, making me positive they won't under any circumstances barring a major political upheaval or the like.

 

FIFA could always say, "Uh, yeah, South Africa did we say 2010? We meant 2014," and then give the 2010 to the USA. I know it's awful to wish South Africa has problems with its bid, but I would love to go to a World Cup, and I don't think Southwest has a flight to Johannesburg from my little crappy town.

 

When I was in Germany for the World Cup, there was a ton of talk that South Africa wouldn't be ready. It's not just the stadiums -- but also the transportation between cities that is a major issue.

 

I agree that it is a bit unfair, but the realities are that their is demand to watch the games live. If you have stadiums that only sit 20K, you are not even meeting half of the demand.

Sure, the price of tickets will just sky rocket up, but is that what you really want? Or, are you looking for atmosphere?

The problem with hosting a WC in these poorer countries also deals with security. Can S.Africa afford, not just to build the stadiums, but to protect them? The same goes for the S.American countries as well.

I am going to the next World Cup. I do not want to touchdown in a location that I do not feel safe.

 

I'm surprised they're not using some of the rugby stadiums in South Africa. They did a perfectly good job for the 1995 (IIRC) Rugby World Cup, and have huge capacities.

 

They are repurposing one of them, and there are eight others being built.

Rugby, you realize, uses a narrower pitch than soccer.

 

We definitely won't have the World Cup at Crew Stadium, Toyota Park, The Big Pizza, Poplar Point, and Harrison, N.J.

By the time 2018 rolls around, you could have the necessary big retractable-roof parks in Southern or moderate climates.

Prediction:

Reliant Stadium, Houston
Lucas Oil Stadium, Indianapolis (TBC 2008)
Safeco Field, Seattle
Gillette Stadium, Foxboro
Ford Field, Detroit
Miller Park, Milwaukee
Texas Stadium II, Dallas (TBC 2009)
Bank One Ballpark, Phoenix
University of Phoenix, Glendale

I know, I know. Phoenix AND Glendale? Well, Johannesburg will have two venues in 2010: Soccer City and Ellis Park.

 

I'm not disagreeing with you - I'd give my right leg to be able to afford to go to the next World Cup - but I know that unless I quickly discover a major financial windfall, it's not going to happen.

Assuming the US gets the World Cup again within the next 20 years, I harbor no illusions that the Home Depot Center, Crew Stadium, Toyota Park, Pizza Hut Park, or any other SSS would be a host site. I'd expect them to put games in the Rose Bowl, Gillette, Arrowhead, etc. - my only (selfish) wish is that they not go with the removable trays of grass on top of artificial turf - if you don't have the real thing on the ground, then no game.

I'm just saying that there's smaller countries, with wonderful soccer heritages (Holland, Belgium, Denmark - hell, Japan and Korea couldn't pull it off without the joint bid) that simply don't have the number of cities to build enough stadiums of the required size.

Personally, I recall Holland/Belgium doing a great job with the Euro Championships a few years back, and think that would be a good setting for a World Cup, but it'll never happen.

 

I'd say you're not right on most of those - no NYC, no LA, no Chicago? Not a chance.... Besides, you don't need retractable roof stadiums or domes - soccer can be (and is) played unless it's a thunderstorm.

I'd think the shoo-ins are:

Rose Bowl (or whatever takes its place in LA)
New Jets Stadium
Soldier Field
Arrowhead Stadium
Gillette Stadium
New Cowboys Stadium OR Relient Stadium

Then, take your pick of Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Philadelphia, Charlotte, and any of another half dozen cities.

 

Philadelphia isn't getting it. The floor is too narrow and they ban displays of the American flag at the Army/Navy game.

 

The final should again be at the Rose Bowl unless there's another 100,000-seat stadium going up in a major metropolitan area wi8th dependable weather sometime soon.

Nations that can host a World Cup at the drop of a hat: The United States, Italy, England, Germany, France, Spain, Japan and South Korea just because they just did a lot of building for 2002. Now the maybes: Holland, Mexico, . . . um . . . . help?

Yet, South Africa will lose it over Blatter's dead body. The guy wants to be part of history, he wants to be The Guy Who Brought the World Cup to Africa. FIFA has a LOT of money, and that will go to helping South Africa get the stadia ready. Also, on e thing that has been forgotten in a lot of the discussion is the history for the nation of South Africa. 20 years after Apartheid was still a stain on the country, South Africa hosts the world's biggest sporting event. What a story that will be, about how they can at least present themselves as having come full circle.

The infrastructure . . . well, the US has solid travel. But following the World Cup as a foreign fan or journalist here would be a nightmare. In 1994, Italy started in New York, played in Foxboro and RFK before ending in the Rose Bowl. Brazil started in Detroit, went to Palo Alto, CA, then to the Cotton Bowl and finally to the Rose Bowl. Domestic fans (and likely journalists, considering the massive changes in the business since 1994) would not have an easy time either.

But you bet I'm gonna try to secure a gig covering it the next time it's here.