Saturday, November 03, 2007

World Cup 2018: Who's got the stadia?

To continue this week's main theme, i.e. The 2018 World Cup and who may end up hosting it, I decided to look into the stadia that might be used in each of the countries showing an interest.

Now that England have officially thrown their hat into the ring, it's tempting to suggest that if FIFA asked the FA to host the competition, the least significant problem would be finding a dozen superior stadia. Such is the development of the Premier League that venues are of an excellent standard these days, but would they all be capable of accommodating a sufficient number of people?

In Germany last year, the lowest stadium capacity of the twelve used was that belonging to FC Nürnberg which could house just under 42,000. The average capacity of all twelve was just under 53,000. So let's apply that to the Premier League. Which stadia would get the nod?

The answer: those belonging to Manchester United, Arsenal, Newcastle United, Sunderland, Manchester City, Liverpool, Aston Villa and Chelsea. Add the new Wembley Stadium onto that and you have nine, which leaves us three short.

It's been suggested that Leeds United, Sheffield Wednesday and Nottingham Forest could put forward their grounds for use, but even they fall short of the 42,000 target mentioned earlier, albeit only just. Perhaps the proposed new homes for Everton and West Ham could be used instead (if they're built by then)?

It's almost certain that England will be there or thereabouts when it comes to having the required number of good-sized stadia. They're also relatively well spread apart, geographically speaking, although a few of them are bunched together in the same cities. Ho hum... So what about the other contenders?

If you take Russia's best 12 stadia that are capable of hosting football matches, ten of them are currently in use by football teams at the moment and of the other two, one is Moscow's Olympic Stadium (left) and the other is a multi-use stadium in St.Petersburg. The trouble is, five of them are in Moscow, and only three are above that 42,000 capacity total. Some of them have capacities below 29,000.

Looks like the Russians have got some work to do if they're to give us some decent places to watch our football in.

The Australians have got a strong case. They're riding on the crest of a wave following their progress to Round 2 of last year's World Cup and they've never hosted the competition before. They did host the Olympic Games back in 2000 and made a fine job of it... but what about their stadia?

In Australia, if you bump into a sporting venue it's likely to be purpose built for either soccer, rugby, Australian Rules football or cricket, and therein lies a slight problem. Although most of the usable stadia 'down under' are well above the required size, many of them would require a little modification. Places like The Gabba, the SCG and the MCG have hosted soccer matches before and have the potential to hold considerable crowds, but the oval or round pitches mean that without some changes here and there someone's going to have a rather distant view of the game.

As for the stadia used by teams in the A-League, some would be suitable such as the Telstra Stadium in Melbourne and the Sydney Football Stadium, but most of the others are of a far smaller size. It should at least be interesting to see how Australia deals with this scenario and the building of a few new venues may well be required by the looks of things.

The United States hosted the World Cup not so long ago in 1994 and back then nine stadia were used, all of which had a capacity of 57,000 or more. They could all be used again in 2018 if necessary, yet the staggering thing is the USA could actually put into use twelve venues with a capacity of 70,000 or more if they wanted to.

Huge stadia are not hard to come by in the States as many are used for American Football, either at college or professional level. Some, as seen in 1994, can be used for soccer too - think Giants Stadium and the Soldier Field. If they all could be converted to host soccer matches (which at the moment I see no reason why not), you'd potentially end up with the highest aggregate crowd figures for any World Cup in history.

If, however, you look at their top-flight club stadia, as in Australia, the figures aren't quite so impressive. Most are in the 20-30,000 capacity range and wouldn't be suitable for a competition the size of the World Cup.

Still, plenty for the Americans to be optimistic about there, thanks to the groundwork laid down in the world of Gridiron, and they're all nicely spaced out across a vast area. Can the same be said of China?

The answer is yes. In fact from what I can make out China looks like being the one country that can tick all its boxes when it comes to stadia. Of all the venues that are available for football there, most need no modifications as they're being used for football already, the rest are generally multi-use stadia (so no great problems there), they'd all be well over 40,000 in capacity and they're all well located in different cities (with the exception of a couple that are located in Beijing).

More good news for the Chinese is that the new stadium has been built in the capital for next year's Olympic Games which will hold 80,000 people after the event, and the Guangdong Stadium that will host the 2010 Asian Games has the capacity to welcome 82,000 people into its stylised and cavernous structure.

All of which leaves the joint bid by Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (if they so choose to get together). FIFA are still a little dubious as to the benefits of having two co-hosts after the Japan & South Korea venture had a slightly diluted geographical impact, so to have three countries co-hosting may prove a bridge too far.

Anyway, the Netherlands and Belgium have done all this once before in 2000 when they co-hosted the European Championships. Seven years ago, they both stumped up four stadia each but while three of them had a 50,000+ capacity, the other five were able to house more like 30,000.

Since 2000, nothing's changed - no new stadia have been built therefore you're left thinking that with only three good-sized stadia to use, the Benelux bid will be somewhat weak and in need of much building work to be done across both countries.

And did we mention Mexico? Probably not, but then that's because (a) they've already hosted the competition twice, and (b) out of the five large-capacity stadia they have, three are in Mexico City. Don't even think about it, Mexico...

And that, my friends, is that. If I were a betting man, I'd say the 2018 World Cup hosting competition was a straight three-horse race between China, the USA and England. My brain says it'll be China, my sixth sense suggests it'll be America, but my heart... well, you can probably guess the rest.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Super post, but don't forget current FIFA rules say you can only have one city with two stadiums -- so you couldn't have Wembley, the Emirates, Stamford Bridge as well as Old Trafford and the City of Manchester Stadium, for example. But stadia should not be a big concern for England.

As for the U.S., you're quite right that the gridiron stadia could easily be used for soccer: Soldier Field, for example, was used in the last World Cup, also used to host the Chicago Fire in MLS, and the Gold Cup Final was there this year.

Though one concern would be that some of the other stadiums feature artificial turf, which would have to be temporarily replaced.

Anonymous said...

We (the english) shouldn't have any problem at all with stadia, don't forget the Brian Clough Stadium in Nottingham is to be built soon and with over a 57,000, also don't forget geographically the new stadia for Everton would be outside of Liverpool so no problem there.

China has too many pollution problems and the Olympics could still be a disaster, don't forget.

U.S.A cannot hold the football (or soccer) world cup they've had it before but it's mainly because in a straight fight between England and U.S.A over who's given the most to football hmmmmm... ENGLAND.

England has given the world football and has the best, and most competitive, football league in the world, with the best players (foreign or not) in the world. We deserve something back.

One last thing: Couldn't Scotland be used for stadia as well if they agree to it (FIFA) then we could use Murrayfield, Celtic Park and others.

200percent said...

It's important to remember that the concessions granted to the USA regarding the size of pitches (FIFA reduced the minimum pitch width for World Cup pitches was reduced from, I think, 80 yards to 75 because the Gridiron stadia weren't big enough for World Cup football). My belief would be that, if they were looking at things solely from a footballing point of view, FIFA would have been expecting more "soccer specific" stadia with a capacity of over 40,000 to have been built by now.

China and Australia's bid will both suffer because of their time zones. The Japan-Korea tournament struggled because TV audiences in Europe and America were lower than they would otherwise have been because, well, they were in the wrong time zone (I'm not passing a moral judgement and saying that this means that anyone east of Baghdad should never hold the World Cup here, by the way - merely pointing out that this will count against them). Australia can, I think, be discounted. I can't see a persuasive case for them - the argument of them having held the Olympics successfully is undone by the argument of "Why should a country of just 20m on the other side of the world with a limited footballing pedigree?".

England's biggest problems are two-fold. Firstly, there is an element of truth in Mad Jack Warner's comments about England being hated abroad. He overstated the case massively, but the FA have to persuade the other FIFA members that they are different people to those that were so wretched in bidding for the 2006 tournament and also overcoming prejudices that England is somehow a "bad" place. Secondly, they have to deal with where they are going to hold matches. England will not host the 2018 World Cup unless they can spread it around a bit - they won't be able to use both stadia in Manchester and Liverpool, and need to look to the south and the west (Bristol and Portsmouth or Southampton would be my suggestions).

If Europe unites behind England, they'll get the 2018 World Cup, and 2022 will then be considered a straight run between China, Australia and the USA. If they don't, it'll be a pan-European scrap with England starting as favourites with Russia and Spain.

Terry Duffelen said...

I think England have an excellent case because they will be a safe pair of hands.

The next two World Cups are going to non-G8 countries outside Europe. While few are unhappy at the prospect of the 2014 tournament going to Brazil, there is an element of risk financially for the next two tournaments plus concerns about infrastructure. Returning to one of the European power-houses would maintain confidence in FIFA‘s commercial partners and make the immensely influential European broadcasters happy. I genuinely think that they would not like to hold the World Cup out of European prime-time for two successive tournaments.

England, in an emergency, could hold a World Cup tomorrow, albeit with a lower capacity. With the increased transport infrastructure in London for the Olympics in 2012 and the new Wembley, London will be well placed to house two stadia, although the Emirates will need to invest heavily in their local infrastructure to be considered.

I think that Stadia in the North East, North West (including Manchester and Liverpool), the West Midlands and Nottingham in addition to the Capital will give the tournament the right spread. However, for 2006, a new stadium was built in Leipzig effectively as a regeneration project with no top or second flight club in the city. I think that there is a very strong argument to build a brand new stadium in Bristol where there are two passionately supported but unfulfilled clubs. A new ground for City and Rovers would tick the regeneration box which will go down well with FIFA and will provide a platform for sustainable top flight football in that part of the country which would make the money men very happy. The case could be further under-pinned if Gary Johnson and his boys can get into the Premier League next season. I reckon the Premier league suits would love to see a club from Bristol.

PS. I do not support any club from Bristol

Smart said...

So we are agreed then - ENGLAND it is.

And no, we ain't sharing it with Scotland... ;-)

Anonymous said...

The stadia will be:
1. Wembley
2. Emirates
3. Stanley Park (Liverpool's new ground)
4. Goodison Park (or Everton's ground outside of Liverpool)
5. Old Trafford
6. Brian Clough Stadium (Nottingham's new ground)
7. St.James Park (could maybe increase stadia inside it.)
8. Villa Park
9. Stamford Bridge
10.City of Manchester Stadium
11.Riverside
12.Millenium Stadium (even though it's in Cardiff) or Elland Road and Craven Cottage

Chris O said...

Thanks Tom. I must admit, I've had a look on the web and been unable to find evidence of the 'one stadium per city' rule you mentioned. Not that I disbelieve you - far from it, in fact it sounds just like the sort of over-bureaucratic approach FIFA would take. I just need to see it in writing to accept it for real...

Hi Peter... England may well have given more to the game than the USA, but to be fair FIFA have already shown their gratitude to England in that respect by allowing us to host the World Cup in 1966. And besides, the USA showed their commitment to take a greater involvement in world soccer by setting up the MLS and hosting the 1994 World Cup with great competency. And they beat England 1-0 in 1950...

Re: your comment about Scottish stadia being allowed, I think the FA have already resolutely confirmed that Scotland will play no part in any bid for 2018. On that basis, we can assume their bid will be 100% English, thereby meaning we can strikethrough the Millenium Stadium on your list, sadly.

Fair point about the 'soccer specific' stadia, 200percent. Re: discounting Australia, I think FIFA's mentality these days (with some justification) is to reinforce the 'world game' mantra by allowing the World Cup to be held in countries which (a) are capable of holding it, and (b) show an intent to develop their game (see USA above). As for the timezone issue, I can't see that being any reason to disconsider Australia or China. True, it may mean worldwide audiences might be down due to the greater concentration of TV viewers being in Europe, but that would presumably mean that you'd never allow countries like the USA, Mexico or Brazil the chance either?

Agreed on England having to spin some good PR to counteract Warner's bad-mouthing. Perhaps the new Portmsouth stadium could be the answer on the south coast of England, too?

I'm inclined to agree with you, Duffman. I think FIFA will want the tournament to return to Europe again after South Africa 2010 and Brazil 2014, so that would put England, Russia and possibly Greece in the driving seat?

I for one would love to see a purpose-built stadia for both Bristol City and Rovers to share (not that I support either myself). It'd be great for England's World Cup bid and for the two clubs in question. Not sure who'd stump up the money for it, though...?

Thanks everyone for your comments, by the way. Keep them coming in - it's great to hear your opinions on the subject!

Chrissy said...

I hope that if they do pick the US it's in a specific region because it would suck to go from LA to UT to NY or PA.

Also, if Philly gets their team by then and we should, we will have a kick ass stadium--in the ghetto!

Adam said...

Footie Bird -

Nice to see another Philadelphian on here!!

Smart said...

Nice to see a female on here!

Long time no speak FootieBird...

Unknown said...

I think 2018 is too soon for the US to host the World Cup again (but I hope we get it again within the next 20 years- England just deserves it first). However, in response to the blog post and also what 200percent said above, I would point out that the US stadium situation has changed a lot from 1994. There has been a stadium construction boom in the NFL, and many of the new stadiums have been built with hosting future World Cup matches in mind (i.e. they have fields wider than required for American football).

Chrissy said...

hiya smart

yeah I'm settling in at me new job so more time to farf around on the internets haha

Anonymous said...

even though it is very unlikely that mexico would host a world cup a 3rd time b4 england would get to host its second, many of the stadia in mexico are old, but have recently began to rebuild the stadia infrastructure there. these are just some of the new stadia that have been or are about to be built:
-Monterrey (Estadio Internacional)
Capacity 103,000
-(Guadalajara)Chivas Stadium (2008)
expandable to 55,000
-Torreon (New Corona Stadium)
40,000 when finished (open 2009)
these are just some of the stadia that could be used for a world cup coupled with the usuals: Azteca, Jalisco, and other new venues that were not around in 1986 in other cities. it is a very long shot that mexico will get the tournament in 11 years but the infrastructure will be there by then.

football gifts said...

Re: Peter
Stanley Park (Liverpool's new ground) not too sure if that will happen before 2018.

We Love SPAOTP!

  © Blogger template Psi by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP