"NEW YORK (AP) -- Twenty-seven stadiums have been dropped from consideration for the U.S. bid to host soccer's World Cup in 2018 and 2022, while Las Vegas and Salt Lake City have been added." from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/soccer/06/17/us.world.cup.bids.ap/....
While http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/31396470 reveals that Michigan is still in the running.
Woohooooo
Interesting Capacity Requirements
"Since then, the World Cup has expanded from 24 to 32 teams and FIFA asks bidders to submit 12-18 stadiums with capacities of 40,000 or more. Only venues of 80,000 or more can host the opener and the final."
For some reason, I just thought that they had to have mostly larger venues. I was in South Africa this spring, and I guess I only saw two of the larger venues in Johannesburg and Cape Town. Makes me interested in how big the other stadiums that they are building are.
I suppose it would be embarrassing to have too many empty seats, which seems like it could hurt Michigan Stadium unless used for Opener / Closer (seems extremely unlikely to me) - because if it gets the Paraguay - Iran matchup, there might be a lot of bleachers visible...
(Edit - no offense meant to any particular country / fan base, lest this thread turn into a flame war.)
Iran is out:
people will go
just because its the World Cup. plus the US is a HUGE tourism draw. Much more so than South Africa. I can't imagine what fans are going to do on the days they don't have tickets to games in 2010.
Get mugged. Maybe shot.
Get mugged. Maybe shot.
South Africa actually isn't a
South Africa actually isn't a bad tourist destination. It has some really beautiful scenery, lots of beaches, and a lot of wildlife preserves. The crime rate is a real problem, though.
Also, South Africa has Landi
Also, South Africa has Landi Swanepoel. I'll go if they arrange drinks in a bar with her.
Constructing/renovating all
Constructing/renovating all these stadiums for the World Cup is going to end up costing South Africa in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion. They'll spend hundreds of millions more building up their infrastructure to meet the tourist demand. This in a country of 40 million people, most of whom still live in Third World conditions. Money well spent?
You underestimate the power
of soccer to foreign countries... It would sell out... They always sell out no matter whose playing or how big the stadium is.
I'll be interested to see how
I'll be interested to see how many sites they actually end up using. The following I think are guaranteed sites:
FedEx Field (DC)
Jerryworld (Dallas)
Rose Bowl
Univ of Phoenix Stadium (Phoenix/Glendale)
Soldier Field (Chicago)
New Giants Stadium (NYC)
Qwest Field (Seattle)
Gilette Stadium (Boston)
Miami or Tampa, but not both
There will probably be 12 sites, maybe more.
Lest we forget
The Big House would be trashed unlike you've ever seen it before... those damn ferners are crazed like a bunch of baboons tripping in a termite mound
Trust me, I know what I'm doing
Gotta think the fieldturf
Gotta think the fieldturf hurts us. Soccer is much better on natural grass. Probably won't be too many places left with the real stuff by 2014 though.
2014 is already set
for South America (Brazil??). The 2018 and 2022 Cups are whats up for grabs in this bid. But you're right, FIFA is not big on field turf. They've experimented with it in youth world cup competition (U-20s in Canada '06) but that didn't seem to create a groundswell of support.
I've always wondered if some day field turf will be an outdated joke like AstroTurf. And how long it will take.
If it produces an injury rate
If it produces an injury rate as high as AstroTurf's, it will. But thus far, that doesn't appear to be the case. I don't think it's likely that the stadiums that have gone to FieldTurf will go back to grass (as many AstroTurf stadiums did, including ours, for a time). More likely, it will probably eventually be replaced with another next-generation artificial surface.
If Michigan Stadium were to
If Michigan Stadium were to land a WC game, it probably wouldn't be played on field turf. I don't believe the playing surface area at Michigan Stadium is wide enough to support a regulation FIFA field. In order to host a WC game, a platform covering some of the seats would likely have to be constructed. The platform would then probably be covered with pods of grass -- similar to what they did with the Silverdome back in '94. That's my guess anyway.
"[T]here were a lot of people predicting glorious heights for Rich; mostly the same people who are predicting doom and gloom [for Hoke]. Excuse me if I doubt their prognostication skills." -- M-Wolverine
It's not. My understanding is
It's not. My understanding is that the first 10 or so rows would have to be covered with a platform that could have grass pods just like the silverdome.
let's fuck.shit.up.
"If they ever catch me, they can have 'em."