Reddit poster puts together a WC bid surpassing Brazil's....for the State of Texas

skelly412 said:
I think England is "on deck" for Qatar WC if they aren't 75% finished by 2016. FiFA does not want repeat of Brazil. I'll try to find article.
Click to expand...

This is a possibility, but it's not certain.

What skelly is referring to is the way that FIFA have said before that there are only a couple of countries in the world which they consider to have both the stadiums and the infrastructure to handle being asked to host a WC at only a couple of months' notice, and therefore FIFA consider it likely (but not certain) that England would be asked to host if any country had to pull out. The rules about not giving a WC to the same continent twice in a row would just be ignored in this case because simply put there are not enough countries capable of doing this at no notice, and I'd suggest all of the ones in question are in Europe anyway.
 
Falastur said:
This is a possibility, but it's not certain.

What skelly is referring to is the way that FIFA have said before that there are only a couple of countries in the world which they consider to have both the stadiums and the infrastructure to handle being asked to host a WC at only a couple of months' notice, and therefore FIFA consider it likely (but not certain) that England would be asked to host if any country had to pull out. The rules about not giving a WC to the same continent twice in a row would just be ignored in this case because simply put there are not enough countries capable of doing this at no notice, and I'd suggest all of the ones in question are in Europe anyway.
Click to expand...
?

We're talking 2022. UEFA will have hosted in 2018. Why would they choose a UEFA country over N. America, which hasnt hosted in 32 years by then. You do realize all our football stadiums sit empty until about early September right?
 
NYCFCFan10 said:
?

We're talking 2022. UEFA will have hosted in 2018. Why would they choose a UEFA country over N. America, which hasnt hosted in 32 years by then. You do realize all our football stadiums sit empty until about early September right?
Click to expand...

I was working from memory from a news article that came out seven years ago - this one to be precise. I thought that the article had said that FIFA required a country which had the soccer-specific stadia to handle the games, although finally re-reading the article I now see that I was wrong. Bear in mind that FIFA's contingency plans aren't just for if they decide that the host is unfit two or three years in advance, it's for if they need to rearrange with less than a month to go too. At that short notice I don't think they'd care about the rotation so long as the WC actually went ahead.
 
Falastur said:
I was working from memory from a news article that came out seven years ago - this one to be precise. I thought that the article had said that FIFA required a country which had the soccer-specific stadia to handle the games, although finally re-reading the article I now see that I was wrong. Bear in mind that FIFA's contingency plans aren't just for if they decide that the host is unfit two or three years in advance, it's for if they need to rearrange with less than a month to go too. At that short notice I don't think they'd care about the rotation so long as the WC actually went ahead.
Click to expand...
I have often wondered if FIFA doesn't like our bids because in a small way it is advertising for the NFL in what is Soccer's biggest event.

That said, I then think, where else are they going to find so many 70,000+ seat stadiums that can be filled for pretty much every single match? That's money and they love their money.
 
NYCFCFan10 said:
I have often wondered if FIFA doesn't like our bids because in a small way it is advertising for the NFL in what is Soccer's biggest event.

That said, I then think, where else are they going to find so many 70,000+ seat stadiums that can be filled for pretty much every single match? That's money and they love their money.
Click to expand...

Speak for yourself. You've been waiting 20 years. We've been waiting 48 :)

At the moment, it's more about the glamour and exotic locations for FIFA. I think also there's an element of preferring stadia that were made for the sport, as they are the right dimensions and don't require (sometimes) extensive reworkings of the stands to suit a football match. Give it another decade, when that bald moron has died and his lackeys have been swept away and I suspect you'll start to see more sensible developments taking over again.
 
I have always heard the problem with America hosting again is it is logistically a nightmare. Especially in a short term bind. I never said England was a certainty but if something were to happen it would be easy to pull off. Also by that time Olympic stadium will be retrofitted, spuds should have a new ground, they can almost use just London.
 
skelly412 said:
I have always heard the problem with America hosting again is it is logistically a nightmare. Especially in a short term bind. I never said England was a certainty but if something were to happen it would be easy to pull off. Also by that time Olympic stadium will be retrofitted, spuds should have a new ground, they can almost use just London.
Click to expand...
What logistical nightmares?

We hold large coast-to-coast tournaments every year with large groups of traveling fans like the NCAA basketball tournament or the NCAA Football Bowl games.
 
Last edited:
The team allocations for tickets to those events are a small percentage of the overall capacity. FIFA does not like to be reliant solely on air travel for fans and teams to get from venue to venue. Unless they kept each pool at one venue. The World Cup generally has every team play in at least three different venues. Our coast to coast tournaments like the NCAA a team plays two games in every venue as they advance. For a team to play in Boston and three days later LA is unfair compared to a team that may play on DC and then Chicago. So on and so forth. Our distance is a detriment to the style tournament FIFA likes.
 
skelly412 said:
The team allocations for tickets to those events are a small percentage of the overall capacity. FIFA does not like to be reliant solely on air travel for fans and teams to get from venue to venue. Unless they kept each pool at one venue. The World Cup generally has every team play in at least three different venues. Our coast to coast tournaments like the NCAA a team plays two games in every venue as they advance. For a team to play in Boston and three days later LA is unfair compared to a team that may play on DC and then Chicago. So on and so forth. Our distance is a detriment to the style tournament FIFA likes.
Click to expand...
The best thing FIFA could do is just let us use a 3 stadium cluster for each group if they were really concerned about flying, which in the summer, I'm not sure why you would be.

Group A plays in New York, Boston, Washington DC.
Group B plays in Chicago, Minneapolis, Indianapolis
Group C plays in Dallas, Houston, Kansas City
Group D plays in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Phoenix
Group E plays in Miami, Tampa, Atlanta
Group F plays in Baltimore, Charlotte and Nashville
Group G plays in Seattle, Denver and San Francisco
Goup H could play in Detroit, Cleveland and Philadelphia

You'd never be more than a day and a half drive from any of your games. I'm sure the stadium owners would love this because more stadiums see action.
 
that is a good idea for how to set up the tournament in the US. I wonder if indoor venues would be used, Indy, Detroit, Atlanta. Also the south and heat during summer could be an issue
Id go with
A:New Jersey, Boston, Philly
B:San Fran, LA, Seattle(longest haul)
C: Den, KC, Arizona?
D: Charlotte, DC, Baltimore
E: Houston, Dallas, UT Austin
F: Chicago, min, Green Bay
G: Pitt, Clev, Cinci
 
The final three I don't know. Maybe college stadiums in middle of country. Or if indoor then New Orleans, Atlanta, nashville
 
skelly412 said:
that is a good idea for how to set up the tournament in the US. I wonder if indoor venues would be used, Indy, Detroit, Atlanta. Also the south and heat during summer could be an issue
Id go with
A:New Jersey, Boston, Philly
B:San Fran, LA, Seattle(longest haul)
C: Den, KC, Arizona?
D: Charlotte, DC, Baltimore
E: Houston, Dallas, UT Austin
F: Chicago, min, Green Bay
G: Pitt, Clev, Cinci
Click to expand...
Green Bay isn't large enough to handle the World Cup. Its a tiny town.

This is downtown Green Bay:

1200px-Downtown_Green_Bay.JPG


I had a thought that maybe to make the bid more attractive, they could ask Portland to build a 40,000+ seat Soccer-specific stadium which I'm pretty sure the Timbers could sell out. Then you could have Seattle, Denver and Portland. Which would greatly minimize that section's travel.
 
Milwaukee to Green Bay is 115 miles. Its definitely pushing it.

BTW

Atlanta is building a sort of outdoor stadium soon (that's a 360 degree video screen around the top):

design-concepts-102513-03.jpg
 
Well that is a pretty nice stadium, I don't think that a 40000 seat stadium on Portland would be big enough but what about the ducks stadium or the beavers? 115 miles by shuttle busses would not be that bad of a ride for those who make the trip. I just couldn't think of a better venue added to Chicago and min outdoor
 
skelly412 said:
Well that is a pretty nice stadium, I don't think that a 40000 seat stadium on Portland would be big enough but what about the ducks stadium or the beavers? 115 miles by shuttle busses would not be that bad of a ride for those who make the trip. I just couldn't think of a better venue added to Chicago and min outdoor
Click to expand...
The Oil Drum in Indianapolis has a huge window and the roof is retractable:

LucasOilStadium.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back