FIFA has 3 alternate sites for 2010 World Cup

Back to the states a Possibility?

pvt.joker wrote: »

no , would hate to see it back there.

Oz is the best choice imo.

Perfect time of year, as it's winter over there around the time it would be on.

Oh not saying I want it in the States, but I think it could be a possible candidate.

gimmick wrote: »

Oz would be a disaster from a TV point of view in this part of the world. Would not surprise me if England is one of them.

Sure Japan and Korea are ahead of parts of Australia in terms of time zones.

Personally I'm not sure Australia would work. Logistically it would be a nightmare for fans. Perth is about 4000kms from Sydney, and 2000kms from anywhere else of note! They've only about eight good stadia, two in Melbourne, two in Sydney, two in Brisbane and one each in Geelong, Perth and Adelaide. Quite a few of these probably wouldn't meet FIFA criteria either.

I'd say if the Australian FA thought they'd have a chance to get a WC they'd have put themselves forward for one by now, particularly seeing as they usually struggle to qualify and most of all they'd love the chance to progress as far as possible and then dress it up as if they were one of the best teams in the world :rolleyes:

Benedict XVI wrote: »

Why would you prefer OZ over the US ?

• The US would be cheaper a quicker to get to
• The US time zone difference is not as bad as Oz.
• The population of soccer knowledgeable people in the US would guarntee filled stadiums for each game.

Personally I'd prefer Germany or England so logistical reasons.

I would take any of U.S., England and Germany, as I would then get to go to a World Cup!!!

Why don't they just call it over for South Africa and get over with it.

Jivin Turkey wrote: »

Sure Japan and Korea are ahead of parts of Australia in terms of time zones.

Personally I'm not sure Australia would work. Logistically it would be a nightmare for fans. Perth is about 4000kms from Sydney, and 2000kms from anywhere else of note! They've only about eight good stadia, two in Melbourne, two in Sydney, two in Brisbane and one each in Geelong, Perth and Adelaide. Quite a few of these probably wouldn't meet FIFA criteria either.

I'd say if the Australian FA thought they'd have a chance to get a WC they'd have put themselves forward for one by now, particularly seeing as they usually struggle to qualify and most of all they'd love the chance to progress as far as possible and then dress it up as if they were one of the best teams in the world :rolleyes:

No problems for Australia when hosting the egg chasing World Cup so should be no different for the soccer. Stadiums are all all-seater and off good capacity. No reason why it couldn't be here.

I'd vote for the U.S. to get it. I went to the '94 World Cup and I have to say their facilities are excellent. They could host it in the morning if they needed to... plus the soccer knowledge and its popularity is a lot more evident now than it was in 1994.

8 Stadiums that I reckon would be great:

Giants Stadium (New York/New Jersey, 80,000 cap.) - New stadium being built at the moment and should be ready by August 2010. A bit of speed and they could have it ready well in time for June/July 2010.



Gillette Stadium (Boston, 69,000 cap.) - Another great stadium in a great city.



Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia, 69,000 cap.) - Excellent stadium. A city that is often overlooked in terms of tourism. Would be a great 'world cup venue' city.



Soldier Field (Chicago, 62,000 cap.) - another recent refurbishment on this great stadium. Great venue



Qwest Field (Seattle, 67,000 cap.) - one of my favourite stadiums in the US, which regularly hosts soccer matches and also a good city.



Rose Bowl (LA, 93,000 cap.) - not necessarily the nicest city in the world, but it has a stadium with a huge capacity and it has hosted a world cup final before, so an obvious candidate.



Candlestick Park (San Francisco, 70,000 cap.) - an older stadium, which is expected to still be in use in 2010. SF 49ers plan to build a new one by 2012, which will be too late for 2010 world cup. Again, great city and venue.



New Dallas Stadium (Dallas, 80,000 cap. (100,000 possibly) - Dallas Cowboy's new stadium is currently under construction and it looks like it will be one of the best stadiums in the world when completed.

Third_Echelon wrote: »

I'd vote for the U.S. to get it. I went to the '94 World Cup and I have to say their facilities are excellent. They could host it in the morning if they needed to... plus the soccer knowledge and its popularity is a lot more evident now than it was in 1994.

8 Stadiums that I reckon would be great:

Giants Stadium (New York/New Jersey, 80,000 cap.) - New stadium being built at the moment and should be ready by August 2010. A bit of speed and they could have it ready well in time for June/July 2010.



Gillette Stadium (Boston, 69,000 cap.) - Another great stadium in a great city.



Lincoln Financial Field (Philadelphia, 69,000 cap.) - Excellent stadium. A city that is often overlooked in terms of tourism. Would be a great 'world cup venue' city.



Soldier Field (Chicago, 62,000 cap.) - another recent refurbishment on this great stadium. Great venue



Qwest Field (Seattle, 67,000 cap.) - one of my favourite stadiums in the US, which regularly hosts soccer matches and also a good city.



Rose Bowl (LA, 93,000 cap.) - not necessarily the nicest city in the world, but it has a stadium with a huge capacity and it has hosted a world cup final before, so an obvious candidate.



Candlestick Park (San Francisco, 70,000 cap.) - an older stadium, which is expected to still be in use in 2010. SF 49ers plan to build a new one by 2012, which will be too late for 2010 world cup. Again, great city and venue.



New Dallas Stadium (Dallas, 80,000 cap. (100,000 possibly) - Dallas Cowboy's new stadium is currently under construction and it looks like it will be one of the best stadiums in the world when completed.

I totally agree, plus all those cities have big ethnic\immigrant communities (NY/ Boston - Italian/Irish, Dallas/calf. - Hispanic) thus generating a lot of local interest.

Benedict XVI wrote: »

What stadiums are in what cities and what size are they ?

Perth - Subiaco Oval - 43,000

Melbourne - Telsta Dome - 56,000 but can go up to 74,000

Melbourne - Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) - 100,000

Sydney - ANZ Stadium - 84,000

Sydney - Sydney Football Stadium - 46,000

Sydney - Sydney Cricket Ground (SCG) - 44,000

Adelaide - AAMI Stadium - 52,000

Canberra - Canberra Stadium - 25,000

Brisbane - GABBA - 42,000

On closer inspection Hobart would be too small but there's 9 suitable stadia.

Well then just leave one of the three Sydney one's out.

8 stadia spread over 6 cities. Not bad at all.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Well then just leave one of the three Sydney one's out.

8 stadia spread over 6 cities. Not bad at all.

At 25K Canberra is a bit small

Royale with Cheese wrote: »

I couldn't care less if Germany had it last, would love to see it back there. England would also be great.

I was so impressed with Germany as a country when I was there for the Ireland game in '06 I would love to back and have a better look.

feck it , it should be in Europe every 4 years anyway

it should be england defo much better suited than Australia

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Aren't all those Aussie stadia municipal/council grounds which are played on by multiple other sports?
I think there would be an issue with them being able to free up the grounds enough to comply with the FIFA rules regarding no other sports being played on the pitches a) during the competition, and b)in the months leading up to the competition.

I'd be 95% sure it'll go ahead in SA anyway.

That's a good point. Most of the stadia would be hosting AFL games every weekend during the WC time.

It adds another reason as to why they never put themselves forward for it.

i'd say england is the obvious candidate (given the unusual circumstances they could even throw a few games to the other "home" nations)

but I'd be surprised if it doesn't go ahead in SA.