World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

[blockski]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Yeah I always assumed Stanford Stadium is being kept around simply to keep the seat warm for what would likely be a new 49ers "international soccer ready" Stadium. Same thing for LA, now with this new facility in City of Industry apparently moving forward.

How many would they actually use in a world cup? They used 20 in 2002, but I seem to think they'd opt for a much smaller number (say 12) this time around.

edit: Having said that, Oakland is sure to get cut. The Coliseum is a hole and they'd never put two venues in the Bay Area anyway.

Yeah, I think they'll certainly put the Bay Area market in the bid, if only to use Stanford as a placeholder. And even without a new NFL stadium in LA, they'll still use LA for sure, but probably not in as prominent of a role as the 1994 Cup.

As for the total number of stadiums, I'd say that 12 is probably the minimum. SA is using 10, but 12-16 would make sense, depending upon stadium quality and how they want to group things.

 

[blockski]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

I felt bad about axing St. Louis, given its strong soccer history, but... would FIFA play World Cup matches inside? I don't think they would.

They already have. Pontiac Silverdome, 1994. Trucked in natural grass grown at Michigan State for the game.

Same goes for Indianapolis, except for the part about feeling bad. Baltimore is too close to DC.

Indy's a retractable facility. Baltimore indeed won't get it over DC.

Jacksonville and Orlando are overkill with Tampa and Miami included in the bid. Oakland is out because the Coliseum is a ****hole. Cleveland is out because it's Cleveland. Nashville is out because it's Nashville.

Nashville did a nice job with the WCQ game, and it might be enough of a tourist draw. No way all of those Florida cities make it, and you've identified the weaker of them.

Phoenix is out because Arizona in the summer is not something I'd want to subject anyone to. Tampa, Charlotte, Detroit and Atlanta are all kinda borderline.

Phoenix, like Indy, is indoors (and already has natural grass), so heat won't be an issue there.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Phoenix, like Indy, is indoors (and already has natural grass), so heat won't be an issue there.

Only for the game itself...not for the fans spending time there...

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Only for the game itself...not for the fans spending time there...

Which is really the only problem with the place.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

The cites are: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York/NJ, Orlando, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa and Washington.

My guess.

Agree that San Francisco will probably get a worthy stadium built before the World Cup to replace Stanford Stadium.

Still think M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore might be a better substitute for FedEx Field as far as the Baltimore/Washington area is concerned, but I doubt FIFA would be happy with a bid that didn't include the national capital and Baltimore is probably too far off to make them happy. Whatevs.

My 100% locks are Meadowlands Stadium, Gillette Stadium, Soldier Field, Cowboys Stadium, and the Rose Bowl. I couldn't imagine a bid that was missing any of these 5 stadiums specifically.

 

[jmh]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

How did I completely miss that the Colts moved into a new stadium two years ago? Regardless, I have to imagine FIFA's preference would be to avoid playing indoors if possible, and I'm not convinced that St. Louis and Indy are big enough markets to beat out the ones I left in, in any case. (Maybe some of the borderline ones.)

 

[Terrierbyassociation]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Well I wouldn't be surprised if the Rose Bowl site is changed to the NFL Stadium being built in the City of Industry.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

They already have. Pontiac Silverdome, 1994. Trucked in natural grass grown at Michigan State for the game.

Have they done it since, though? I have to think the fixed dome locations are at a bit of a disadvantage.

Indy's a retractable facility. Baltimore indeed won't get it over DC.

I like Indy as a location to represent the Midwest along with Chicago. It would be good to have a great variety of locations around the country in a cultural sense - the variety that different sections of the nation have to offer for tourism.

Nashville did a nice job with the WCQ game, and it might be enough of a tourist draw. No way all of those Florida cities make it, and you've identified the weaker of them.

I honestly doubt we see more than one Florida city. Orlando's probably only still on there as deference to their hosting duty in 1994 and their "destination city" designation. The Citrus Bowl is a pretty old facility. Jacksonville as a destination city pales to Tampa and Miami, and I give the nod to Miami. I've got Atlanta in there as a second southern host, but Nashville's not the worst idea I've heard.

Phoenix, like Indy, is indoors (and already has natural grass), so heat won't be an issue there.

It won't be an issue for the game itself, but as Shirtless Guy said, you have to be concerned about the outlook for the thousands of fans from all over the world who are going to have to go out into 110 degree weather before and after the game. You're just asking for issues. I don't think that necessarily kills Phoenix's chances but it's a serious problem that other venues really don't have.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Looking at the list of venues that would probably make it through, the only repeat customers from 1994 would be the Rose Bowl and Soldier Field. The former could easily be replaced by the new pro stadium to lure the Jaguars out and Soldier Field is the same venue in name only. That alone would make 2022 light years ahead of the 1994.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

The Citrus Bowl is a pretty old facility.

And a hell-hole to boot. I was just there for the Champs Sports Bowl. It's got a nice, simple design to it, but it's truly a decrepid piece of garbage.

 

[jmh]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Looking at the list of venues that would probably make it through, the only repeat customers from 1994 would be the Rose Bowl and Soldier Field. The former could easily be replaced by the new pro stadium to lure the Jaguars out and Soldier Field is the same venue in name only. That alone would make 2022 light years ahead of the 1994.

Which it should be, given that it's 28 years later.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Which it should be, given that it's 28 years later.

Well yes. The main argument I've heard against the bid is that it will be just be a repetition of 1994 because its too soon.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Well yes. The main argument I've heard against the bid is that it will be just be a repetition of 1994 because its too soon.

Looking at the bid situation, I'm not terribly worried. I don't worry about 2018 because FIFA is pretty obviously going back to Europe for that one. It's why they decided to break the "rotation" that they started with South Africa, and 2014 will be the first time in WC history that the tournament either wasn't in Europe or wasn't following one in Europe. So Europe gets 2018. I think it should be England, but I'm sure FIFA will find a way to ***** out on that. But any European bid unsuccessful for 2018 wouldn't be eligible for 2022.

That leaves the USA, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and Qatar. If you think the USA is too recent, Japan and South Korea are both even more recent. So that puts them out. Indonesia? Their national team is god awful with no improvement in sight. Pass. Qatar? Their team is slightly better and Allah knows they try pretty hard in Qatar to put on a good face for the world, but the tournament's in July and that's not going to change, and Qatar is a furnace in July. That problem we've been discussing with Phoenix applies to the whole bid there.

To me, that means 2022 comes down to the United States against Australia. It's not a cinch, but the US has a lot of advantages - being a cash cow, and Asia (which Australia now belongs to in FIFA) has hosted since North America. I like our odds.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

To me, that means 2022 comes down to the United States against Australia. It's not a cinch, but the US has a lot of advantages - being a cash cow, and Asia (which Australia now belongs to in FIFA) has hosted since North America. I like our odds.

You hit it exactly on the head.

The other factors to worry about with the US bid are a) Field size. Most of the fields are gonna be narrow and squeeze into some tight spaces. Some people didn't like that in 94. b) Heat. It's hot here in the US in the summer and if the Euros have their way all the games will be played in the late afternoon/early evening, the hottest part of the day. It was another complaint that comes up from 94.

 

[BoomGoestheDynamite]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

Looking at the bid situation, I'm not terribly worried. I don't worry about 2018 because FIFA is pretty obviously going back to Europe for that one. It's why they decided to break the "rotation" that they started with South Africa, and 2014 will be the first time in WC history that the tournament either wasn't in Europe or wasn't following one in Europe. So Europe gets 2018. I think it should be England, but I'm sure FIFA will find a way to ***** out on that. But any European bid unsuccessful for 2018 wouldn't be eligible for 2022.

That leaves the USA, Australia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, and Qatar. If you think the USA is too recent, Japan and South Korea are both even more recent. So that puts them out. Indonesia? Their national team is god awful with no improvement in sight. Pass. Qatar? Their team is slightly better and Allah knows they try pretty hard in Qatar to put on a good face for the world, but the tournament's in July and that's not going to change, and Qatar is a furnace in July. That problem we've been discussing with Phoenix applies to the whole bid there.

To me, that means 2022 comes down to the United States against Australia. It's not a cinch, but the US has a lot of advantages - being a cash cow, and Asia (which Australia now belongs to in FIFA) has hosted since North America. I like our odds.

Yeah we should be the co-favorite for 2022 and Australia is really the only other option unless Qatar's 1 million people can hold the entire World Cup in one city. Dubai going belly up probably doesn't help global confidence in the region's ability to spend like madmen forever.

The Aussies are obviously pushing the "no repetition button" hard, the potential Asian TV ratings as well as trying to group "The Americas" in as one bidding region and Brazil's WC counting against us since they can't really compete with us in terms of Stadiums or cities beyond their top 4 or 5.

 

[blockski]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

And a hell-hole to boot. I was just there for the Champs Sports Bowl. It's got a nice, simple design to it, but it's truly a decrepid piece of garbage.

Yeah, it's a dump. Granted, 12 years is a long time to make some repairs, but let's also remember that the only reason Orlando got to host in 1994 was because Tampa still had the Big Sombrero and Miami's stadium was busy hosting the Marlins at the time. Neither of those will be the case in 2022, and I'd give the edge to Miami as a more international city.

Have they done it since, though? I have to think the fixed dome locations are at a bit of a disadvantage.

For a fixed dome? I don't think so. Then again, there aren't nearly as many fixed domes around the world as there are here.

I like Indy as a location to represent the Midwest along with Chicago. It would be good to have a great variety of locations around the country in a cultural sense - the variety that different sections of the nation have to offer for tourism.

Yeah, I can see them as a Midwest pair. I'd given Indy the edge over Detroit since the roof opens.

It won't be an issue for the game itself, but as Shirtless Guy said, you have to be concerned about the outlook for the thousands of fans from all over the world who are going to have to go out into 110 degree weather before and after the game. You're just asking for issues. I don't think that necessarily kills Phoenix's chances but it's a serious problem that other venues really don't have.

True, but it will almost definitely make this cut.

My guess.

Agree that San Francisco will probably get a worthy stadium built before the World Cup to replace Stanford Stadium.

Still think M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore might be a better substitute for FedEx Field as far as the Baltimore/Washington area is concerned, but I doubt FIFA would be happy with a bid that didn't include the national capital and Baltimore is probably too far off to make them happy. Whatevs.

My 100% locks are Meadowlands Stadium, Gillette Stadium, Soldier Field, Cowboys Stadium, and the Rose Bowl. I couldn't imagine a bid that was missing any of these 5 stadiums specifically.

Regarding DC, the thing about FedEx is that it seats 20,000 more people than M&T. The other thing is that, again, 12 years is a long time, and Danny Snyder is crazy like a fox - he didn't build FedEx and has never liked it, and has made no secret about his desire to build a new stadium on the site of RFK in DC and try to out-do JerryWorld. So, that's a long shot, but it's not completely crazy.

 

[Rolevio]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

My guess.

My 100% locks are Meadowlands Stadium, Gillette Stadium, Soldier Field, Cowboys Stadium, and the Rose Bowl. I couldn't imagine a bid that was missing any of these 5 stadiums specifically.

I agree with your picks except maybe Nashville over Indy (though I wouldn't expect FIFA to pick either if the US gets a cup). I'm also guessing that Seattle would be pretty close to assured.

 

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

My picks:

Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Miami, Nashville, New York/NJ, Orlando, Oakland, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, St. Louis, Tampa and Washington.

Mortal Locks: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York/NJ, Washington
Shocked if they don't get it: Nashville, Philadelphia, Seattle, Tampa, Houston, Miami, San Francisco
More likely than not: Charlotte, Denver, Detroit, Phoenix, Indianapolis
Last ones out: San Diego, Kansas City, Cleveland
Maybe: Baltimore, Jacksonville
No Chance Without A New Stadium: Oakland, St. Louis, Atlanta, Orlando

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Zak Whitbread?

Re: Zak Whitbread?

On an unrelated note, Norwich signed defender Zak Whitbread from Millwall today. He's American-born but grew up in England. I think he's been in consideration for the US men's team. Do any of you who follow these issues more closely than i do know much about him? He came up through the Liverpool system, but he never really got a shot there.

Left-footed central defender type. Played competently with our age-group teams. I have no idea how close he is to being ready to play at the full international level.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: World Soccer XI: To South Africa, and Beyond!

I think FIFA is likely to favor the indoor/retractable roof venues because a) it amounts to seats under roofs (something that is encouraged in the stadium regulations for World Cup venues) and b) the aforementioned concern about summer weather here, and it provides for climate control.