2010 World Cup to be moved?

[Galaxy]

I don't know if anyone saw this, but looks like the FIFA has some strong concerns over South Africa's ability to host the 2010 World Cup due to slow progress. A couple of countries (including the US) have stepped up and offer to host it instead. Anyone think this will be moved?

[cartman]

SA already has a bunch of world class rugby stadiums that could be converted to soccer stadiums if the new ones aren't finished in time. I think the bigger issue is getting security and infrastructure in place for the games.

[Groundhog]

There were rumours shortly after this year's world cup about Australia as a potential spot if SA couldn't get their act together.

[SackAttack]

Why are you guys dragging me into this? ;)

[Mr. Wednesday]

SA already has a bunch of world class rugby stadiums that could be converted to soccer stadiums if the new ones aren't finished in time. I think the bigger issue is getting security and infrastructure in place for the games.

The big issue the last time I read about this was actually speculated to be the stadia. I don't think SA has enough rugby stadia, actually -- they need to have a bunch that meet the FIFA minimum for number of seats (40,000) and pitch size (presumably rugby grounds are OK here). At last report, the infrastructure projects were running well behind.

I should say, that's the big issue in terms of potentially terminally submarining them as a host site. What with the security concerns, I'm guessing there are people who would shed few tears if the infrastructure forces an emergency relocation.

The most notable contenders for an emergency bid seem to be:
1. United States -- plusses are that we have more huge buildings than anyone else, provided there's a little relaxation of field size requirements, we already have all the other infrastructure in place to host, we already showed with the WWC that we can pull something off on short notice, and we can put most matches in primetime in Europe. Negatives are politics, the potential need to relax field size requirements for some venues, and climate for the afternoon games in the south.

2. Mexico -- the main plus is that most of the infrastructure is already in place, with no need to relax field size requirements. Negatives are that it would be their third hosting, plus they're potentially a contender to win it all with a home field advantage (especially matches in the Azteca).

3. Australia -- I presume they've got enough stadiums, between rugby, cricket, and Aussie Rules, that they could convert them. The biggest negatives are that they might need to use fields that aren't really ideal for soccer, plus the match times would be terrible for most of the TV markets.

4. England -- Seems like the only credible European alternative, although I've not heard any firm indication that they're actually bidding. Positives are that they're in Europe. Negatives are that they're in Europe (following another European host in Germany) and would need the rules on venues relaxed as they don't have enough venues that are a) big enough in b) enough different cities. (They have enough large venues, but IIRC they're overconcentrated in a few areas.)

[GoldenEagle]

FIFA wants the cup badly in Africa and will stop at nothing to get the Cup there.

[ISiddiqui]

I think this'll be an Athens like situation. They'll find a way to pull it out in the end.

[Buccaneer]

I think this'll be an Athens like situation. They'll find a way to pull it out in the end.

I was just going to say that. When politics or whatever become the driving force, then nothing will stand in the way.

[cthomer5000]

4. England -- Seems like the only credible European alternative, although I've not heard any firm indication that they're actually bidding. Positives are that they're in Europe. Negatives are that they're in Europe (following another European host in Germany) and would need the rules on venues relaxed as they don't have enough venues that are a) big enough in b) enough different cities. (They have enough large venues, but IIRC they're overconcentrated in a few areas.)

I'd be curious as to whether a "United Kingdom" bid would help that situation at all.

I'm sure this is likely someone making talk on a slow news day, but I do hope we can host the World Cup again in the USA at the first possible opportunity. I think we'd be able to do any even better job this time around given that a lot of the huge stadiums have (to my knowledge) been built with the thought of hosting world-class soccer games. New stadiums that could be in the mix (vs. 1994) that spring to mind are Reliant Stadium in Houston, the Seahawks Stadium (name escaping me), and the new Cardinals Stadium. Outside of that we obviously also have an assload of pro football stadiums that could probably do the trick, many of which were used last time.

edit: also, it's such a huge country that they could really give it a very different feel simply by focusing on a few different cities (i believe none of those above that I listed were involved in 94).

[ISiddiqui]

Seahawks' stadium (Qwest Field) is FieldTurf. FIFA Soccer, especially World Cup, has to be on grass.

[cthomer5000]

Seahawks' stadium (Qwest Field) is FieldTurf. FIFA Soccer, especially World Cup, has to be on grass.

Pretty minor detail in the scheme of things. They stuck grass in Giants Stadium and in the Silverdome of all places last time around. That probably knocks it down the list of preferred venues, but I doubt it would rule it out entirely. I can guarantee we'd again see a sod truck rolling up to Giants Stadium if the World Cup comes back to the U.S.

[scooter]

the Seahawks Stadium (name escaping me)

Quest Field.

One thing to factor in: a lot of these new stadiums that are being built are putting in field turf, and I'm pretty sure that FIFA would require real grass for WC matches. I know I've gone to see a Team USA match and a preseason game between Manchester United and Celtic at Quest Field where they had to lay grass over the field turf. Players were sliding around and it looked like a less-than-ideal scenario for soccer.

On another note, I had heard Germany mentioned a while back as a potential emergency location for the 2010 WC. It's got the stadiums, infastructure in place, and they've proven they can throw a party. The big negative of course is that they just hosted it and have done so on numerous occasions (it won't be their turn again for quite a while).

[ISiddiqui]

Pretty minor detail in the scheme of things. They stuck grass in Giants Stadium and in the Silverdome of all places last time around. That probably knocks it down the list of preferred venues, but I doubt it would rule it out entirely. I can guarantee we'd again see a sod truck rolling up to Giants Stadium if the World Cup comes back to the U.S.

But, as scooter pointed out, most fields being Fieldturf, and needing to put sod over it would be less than ideal, making a US emergency bid less attractive than, say, an England one.

[cthomer5000]

But, as scooter pointed out, most fields being Fieldturf, and needing to put sod over it would be less than ideal, making a US emergency bid less attractive than, say, an England one.

I would imagine they'd approach a 2 month installation quite differently than a one-shot deal like for prior matches. And I guess my sentiments got kind of mixed up there, I was listing a number of new venues for consideration in any future hosting... obviously if we're talking "emergency" there are a great number of other stadiums that are already sporting natural grass, so it's not like it's an issue.

I mean more along the lines of, lets say I was planning world cup 2018 in the United States, I might want to consider some of the new venues to help move things around a bit and give it a different flavor than 94.

[saldana]

But, as scooter pointed out, most fields being Fieldturf, and needing to put sod over it would be less than ideal, making a US emergency bid less attractive than, say, an England one.


my question about our feasablity to host another FIFA event is, why dont we use any of our major college football stadiums? they are just as nice as some of the pro stadiums, have more seating, provide a much greater selection for location, and also have the infrastructure in place to support the tournament.

just seems to me that if the rose bowl can be a site, why cant beaver stadium or the big house?

[ISiddiqui]

my question about our feasablity to host another FIFA event is, why dont we use any of our major college football stadiums? they are just as nice as some of the pro stadiums, have more seating, provide a much greater selection for location, and also have the infrastructure in place to support the tournament.

just seems to me that if the rose bowl can be a site, why cant beaver stadium or the big house?

We used Georgia's stadium last time. Though a lot of college football fans complained because they had to take out the hedges.

[scooter]

just seems to me that if the rose bowl can be a site, why cant beaver stadium or the big house?

Hospitality suites. I'm not sure how many college stadiums have them (I know most of the big programs do). I'm pretty sure that if FIFA had it's way, they would want stadiums without seats for normal people and just suites for the big corporate sponsers. The World Cup is not a showcase for the world's best football, it's a way for FIFA to make big bucks!

[bhlloy]

I agree 100% with GE on this one. FIFA has invested way too much and made too many promises about a WC in Africa to bail now. And with the amazing talent that FIFA has for making mind-boggling decisions that fly in the face of logic, no matter how bad things get it's not going to get moved.

[Chief Rum]

I'd be curious as to whether a "United Kingdom" bid would help that situation at all.

I'm sure this is likely someone making talk on a slow news day, but I do hope we can host the World Cup again in the USA at the first possible opportunity. I think we'd be able to do any even better job this time around given that a lot of the huge stadiums have (to my knowledge) been built with the thought of hosting world-class soccer games. New stadiums that could be in the mix (vs. 1994) that spring to mind are Reliant Stadium in Houston, the Seahawks Stadium (name escaping me), and the new Cardinals Stadium. Outside of that we obviously also have an assload of pro football stadiums that could probably do the trick, many of which were used last time.

edit: also, it's such a huge country that they could really give it a very different feel simply by focusing on a few different cities (i believe none of those above that I listed were involved in 94).

We didn't have the big stadium in Carson last time either, and the new Chicago stadium as well. There are a ton of new soccer stadia that weren't around in 1994, thanks to the MLS. It seems like you need 9-10 fields (with maybe 4-5 backups, just in case), and we more than beat that number.

[ISiddiqui]

We didn't have the big stadium in Carson last time either, and the new Chicago stadium as well. There are a ton of new soccer stadia that weren't around in 1994, thanks to the MLS. It seems like you need 9-10 fields (with maybe 4-5 backups, just in case), and we more than beat that number.

All of the new soccer specific stadiums are UNDER the 40,000 minimum FIFA is asking for its World Cup matches.

[Butter]

I know when Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati was built, they made the field large enough to accommodate a full size soccer field as well, in case the Olympics or World Cup ever made it back. The venues aren't the problem.

[cthomer5000]

All of the new soccer specific stadiums are UNDER the 40,000 minimum FIFA is asking for its World Cup matches.

Yeah, I was going to point this out, but all the new soccer-specific stadiums (including the ones coming on line by 2010) are way too small. The MLS should have 14 teams playing in soccer stadiums by 2010 and none of them could be used in world cup hosting.

[cthomer5000]

I know when Paul Brown Stadium in Cincinnati was built, they made the field large enough to accommodate a full size soccer field as well, in case the Olympics or World Cup ever made it back. The venues aren't the problem.

Agreed 100%. There must be at least 50 viable venues here.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, I was going to point this out, but all the new soccer-specific stadiums (including the ones coming on line by 2010) are way too small. The MLS should have 14 teams playing in soccer stadiums by 2010 and none of them could be used in world cup hosting.

Which, really, isn't a problem, because, as pointed out, we have plenty of American football stadium venues that easily could be used. 30,000 - 20,000 is a good size for MLS, which doesn't have a large fanbase yet, but you can't use them for World Cup sites.

[Mr. Wednesday]

Seahawks' stadium (Qwest Field) is FieldTurf. FIFA Soccer, especially World Cup, has to be on grass.
World Cup, yes. FIFA, no. Qualifiers for 2006 at Saprissa in Costa Rica were played on one of the new varieties of artificial turf.

[Mr. Wednesday]

my question about our feasablity to host another FIFA event is, why dont we use any of our major college football stadiums? they are just as nice as some of the pro stadiums, have more seating, provide a much greater selection for location, and also have the infrastructure in place to support the tournament.

just seems to me that if the rose bowl can be a site, why cant beaver stadium or the big house?
Field size is a potential issue, and I'd guess that most college venues do not have good enough infrastructure to support a World Cup crowd (ready access to transportation being the big problem).

[Mr. Wednesday]

I'm sure this is likely someone making talk on a slow news day, but I do hope we can host the World Cup again in the USA at the first possible opportunity. I think we'd be able to do any even better job this time around given that a lot of the huge stadiums have (to my knowledge) been built with the thought of hosting world-class soccer games. New stadiums that could be in the mix (vs. 1994) that spring to mind are Reliant Stadium in Houston, the Seahawks Stadium (name escaping me), and the new Cardinals Stadium. Outside of that we obviously also have an assload of pro football stadiums that could probably do the trick, many of which were used last time.
Something that came up in discussing the issue on BigSoccer was this: many of the new stadiums have been built to accomodate the minimum field size for qualifiers (70 yds width), but appear to have problems fitting in the minimum size for the World Cup (75 yds width).

[Desnudo]

But, as scooter pointed out, most fields being Fieldturf, and needing to put sod over it would be less than ideal, making a US emergency bid less attractive than, say, an England one.

I believe England would need to seriously upgrade several stadia to make the minimum requirements. The best candidate for an emergency WC bid in Europe is, suprise, Germany.

I'm sure the US stadiums could get sod planted in time for the WC, which is obviously a lot more of a priority than a one-of friendly match.

Hopefully South Africa makes it happen in any case.

[Mac Howard]

Forget it guys. If it doesn't happen in South Africa it's coming here (Oz) ;)

But there's so much political capital tied up in a South African World Cup, particularly for Blatter, that it will take an Indian Ocean tsunami to take it away.

[Young Drachma]

The South Africa World Cup will happen. All of the fucking people who seem intent on trying to destroy more through false PR campaign, bullshit and flat out lies..should just get a grip or get a new hobby. After stealing the last world cup and handing to Germany, now people are hellbent on trying to screw Africa more, as if stealing from the place for hundreds of years wasn't enough.

[Galaxy]

How far along is South Africa economically?

[bulletsponge]

The South Africa World Cup will happen. All of the fucking people who seem intent on trying to destroy more through false PR campaign, bullshit and flat out lies..should just get a grip or get a new hobby. After stealing the last world cup and handing to Germany, now people are hellbent on trying to screw Africa more, as if stealing from the place for hundreds of years wasn't enough.

i wasnt paying attention. how was the WC stolen and given to Germany? who was it supposed to go to instead?

[ISiddiqui]

He's just venting for no reason ;). Some people were thinking that Africa would get the 2006 WC, but no venues were really as attractive as Germany.

[Mr. Wednesday]

It goes quite a bit beyond that. Oceania's representative contravened his federation's instructions in abstaining from voting, instead of voting for South Africa, handing the cup to Germany.

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_hosts#2006_FIFA_World_Cup):
The controversy over the decision to award the 2006 FIFA World Cup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup) to Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany) led to a further change in practice. The final tally was 12 votes to 11 in favour of Germany over the contenders South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa), who had been favourites to win. New Zealand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand) FIFA member Charles Dempsey, who was instructed to vote for South Africa by the Oceania Football Confederation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania_Football_Confederation), abstained from voting at the last minute. If he had voted for the South African bid, the tally would have been 12-12, giving the decision to FIFA President Sepp Blatter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sepp_Blatter), who was widely believed then to have voted for South Africa. Dempsey was among eight members of the executive committee to receive a fax by editors of the German satirical magazine Titanic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_%28magazine%29) on Wednesday, the night before the vote, promising a cuckoo clock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckoo_clock) and Black Forest ham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Forest_ham) in exchange for voting for Germany. He argued that the pressure from all sides including "an attempt to bribe" him had become too much for him.

Consequently, FIFA has decided to rotate the hosting of the final tournaments between its constituent confederations.

[bob]

promising a cuckoo clock and Black Forest ham in exchange for voting for Germany

No wonder he didn't vote - they should have talked to the Atlanta Olympic committee to find some better bribes.

[BishopMVP]

Yeah, I was going to point this out, but all the new soccer-specific stadiums (including the ones coming on line by 2010) are way too small. The MLS should have 14 teams playing in soccer stadiums by 2010 and none of them could be used in world cup hosting.I could be wrong here, but I didn't think the Revolution were building any new soccer-specific stadium. If not, I'd have to think Gillette (or whatever the new stadium in Foxboro is called now) would qualify as big/good enough for a WC. Especially considering how Foxboro worked well as a venue for the '94 WC.

[SirFozzie]

The Revs are looking to build a SSS, it's in the early early stages

[cthomer5000]

yeah, SirFozz got to it, but they're in the planning/looking for land stages right now. I think by 2010 you'll probably see a SSS for new england. Doesn't mean Gillette can't be used though, especially since Foxboro was used last time.

[cartman]

How far along is South Africa economically?

South Africa has a solid economy, so that is not a hindrance. Their main issue, to me, seems to be security. When I was there last November, it had the feeling of a police state. There were numerous police roadblocks, and all the buildings, offices, houses, etc. were surrounded by tall fences topped with razor wire or electric fences. There were even official signs on the sides of the roads warning of carjacking hotspots. I wasn't allowed to go anywhere by myself, I always had either a driver or security liason with me at all times.

But I'm sure that with the World Cup, security will be stepped up even more, plus the whole "safety in numbers" thing. But for those that will want to go to South Africa to experience more than just the World Cup, it might be a little more scary than they might expect.

[BishopMVP]

yeah, SirFozz got to it, but they're in the planning/looking for land stages right now. I think by 2010 you'll probably see a SSS for new england.Didn't know that. If they're still planning, I doubt it's ready for the 2010 season, but if anyone can get it done it's the Kraft family. Thanks for the info.South Africa has a solid economy, so that is not a hindrance. Their main issue, to me, seems to be security. When I was there last November, it had the feeling of a police state. There were numerous police roadblocks, and all the buildings, offices, houses, etc. were surrounded by tall fences topped with razor wire or electric fences. There were even official signs on the sides of the roads warning of carjacking hotspots. I wasn't allowed to go anywhere by myself, I always had either a driver or security liason with me at all times.

But I'm sure that with the World Cup, security will be stepped up even more, plus the whole "safety in numbers" thing. But for those that will want to go to South Africa to experience more than just the World Cup, it might be a little more scary than they might expect.For all the attention paid to Iraq, I think Colombia and South Africa, especially Bogota and Johannesburg, are still 1-2 in murder rates. South Africa is still really messed up because of the lingering effects of apartheid and the class issues.

[cthomer5000]

Didn't know that. If they're still planning, I doubt it's ready for the 2010 season, but if anyone can get it done it's the Kraft family.

Breaking ground in late 2008 would get them in there by 2010. Seems totally doable to me, especially since it would probably be a privately owned stadium.

[BishopMVP]

Breaking ground in late 2008 would get them in there by 2010. Seems totally doable to me, especially since it would probably be a privately owned stadium.Privately owned, privately funded and with no new infrastructure needs maybe, but anything involving the state, particularly the legislature, and the construction will be delayed numerous times.