FIFA Rumored to want US/Canada to Replace Qatar as host venue for 2022 World Cup

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I wonder if it's because the Seahawks refuse to remove the turf and the Mariners of course will still be playing.

FWIW, these are the stadiums being used for the Copa:



I'd be shocked if Stanford is still there once the 49ers get their new park built. And I'd also be shocked if Jerry Jones doesn't lobby for the final to be played at his playground.

I think there are a lot of nfl stadiums that aren't really wide enough for soccer. I know this is a problem with Fed ex field, which is likely why RFK is in the hunt for the Copa America.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I think there are a lot of nfl stadiums that aren't really wide enough for soccer. I know this is a problem with Fed ex field, which is likely why RFK is in the hunt for the Copa America.

That's true, but we know that Seattle's and Vancouver's both are. I'd have a hard time believing Cowboys Stadium couldn't accommodate it.

[Senator Clay Davis]

FedEx Field is also one of the worst fields in America (just ask RGIII's knee), and RFK is actually in DC and not Landover, MD.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

FedEx Field is also one of the worst fields in America (just ask RGIII's knee), and RFK is actually in DC and not Landover, MD.

That's true, but I think it is usually good until the bermuda grass goes dormant around October.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I've seen this posted a couple times. Are any of these sources at all credible? I haven't seen anything on more mainstream sites.

I think it has a good chance of happening. Blatter has already admitted publicly that giving the games to Qatar was a mistake, and this was before the corruption scandal blew up.

The rumour also seems to come from several sources, and is pretty specific at this point.

I think Canada/US double bid is in part because USA had the games pretty recently. I doubt they would give it to just US. 1994 is too close.

As to the size of the stadiums, Germanys stadiums were in the 45-50k range mostly, South African stadiums were mostly in around 40k. FIFA will want some 65+ stadiums for the finals and such, but generally speaking the World Cup is not a gate driven event. FIFA mostly just wants full stadiums and a good atmosphere, the money is in TV.

With the way the game is growing right now in the US, FIFA is probably creaming at the idea of giving them another World Cup.

What's interesting is that if this happens, it would make it much easier to move the 2018 games too.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Tyler

If this gets approved, look for Toronto to get the funding from the feds they need for a brand new 65-70k NFL-ready stadium

I doubt it. The Feds won't give them money if it could hurt the CFL's existence.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Itse

I think it has a good chance of happening. Blatter has already admitted publicly that giving the games to Qatar was a mistake, and this was before the corruption scandal blew up.

The rumour also seems to come from several sources, and is pretty specific at this point.

I think Canada/US double bid is in part because USA had the games pretty recently. I doubt they would give it to just US. 1994 is too close.

As to the size of the stadiums, Germanys stadiums were in the 45-50k range mostly, South African stadiums were mostly in around 40k. FIFA will want some 65+ stadiums for the finals and such, but generally speaking the World Cup is not a gate driven event. FIFA mostly just wants full stadiums and a good atmosphere, the money is in TV.

With the way the game is growing right now in the US, FIFA is probably creaming at the idea of giving them another World Cup.

What's interesting is that if this happens, it would make it much easier to move the 2018 games too.

I doubt it, if it were to happen I would imagine that Qatar would want their money back and FIFA isnt in the habit of giving refunds.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Itse

As to the size of the stadiums, Germanys stadiums were in the 45-50k range mostly, South African stadiums were mostly in around 40k. FIFA will want some 65+ stadiums for the finals and such, but generally speaking the World Cup is not a gate driven event. FIFA mostly just wants full stadiums and a good atmosphere, the money is in TV.

In America, as mentioned, there are 20+ stadiums than can handle 65,000+ people already built, so no new building expenses required. They won't go to smaller venues just for the hell of it, they'll go to the established venues, all of which because they were built for the NFL or NCAA, will have 65,000+ seats in it. 1994 is still the most attended World Cup ever even though it was played under the 24 team system. They averaged 69,000 fans a match, and they have even more venues now.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

In America, as mentioned, there are 20+ stadiums than can handle 65,000+ people already built, so new new building expenses required. They won't go to smaller venues just for the hell of it, they'll go to the established venues, all of which because they were built for the NFL or NCAA, will have 65,000+ seats in it. 1994 is still the most attended World Cup ever even though it was played under the 24 team system. They averaged 69,000 fans a match, and they have even more venues now.

Yeah, the US could easily host every game in a stadium with over 90,000 capacity.

[Tyler]

Originally Posted by Fire

I doubt it. The Feds won't give them money if it could hurt the CFL's existence.

If a dependency of getting a few billion from the feds is that MLSE needs to buy the Argo's and build them a run of the mill $200M stadium to ensure the franchise survives, they'll do it.

[Itse]

As I said, I don't see them giving the games to just USA so quickly after 1994. It will be a split event or a different host.

If they split the games, I don't see them doing it different from Ukraine/Poland and Japan/South Korea, both of which were 50/50 (or close, too lazy to check right now) at least in the group stage. I don't see the difference in stadium sizes in the US and Canada entering that discussion.

If Canada has two ~65k stadiums, you only need two more stadiums. If you have something above 40k, you're fine.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Itse

As I said, I don't see them giving the games to just USA so quickly after 1994. It will be a split event or a different host.

If they split the games, I don't see them doing it different from Ukraine/Poland and Japan/South Korea, both of which were 50/50 (or close, too lazy to check right now) at least in the group stage. I don't see the difference in stadium sizes in the US and Canada entering that discussion.

If Canada has two ~65k stadiums, you only need two more stadiums. If you have something above 40k, you're fine.

Germany got two World Cups 32 years apart. This would be 28 for the US, so it's not outrageous.

[Senator Clay Davis]

A 50/50 split would require Canada to (most likely) build two new stadiums, on top of possibly building a new one in Toronto. Good luck selling the need to build three new stadiums with taxpayer money. It's very difficult getting taxpayer money for hockey arenas so getting them for soccer stadiums? Virtually impossible.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by The Big Chill

They'd be crazy not to use Vancouver if Canada were a host. It's a beautiful venue, a beautiful location, a great surrounding area, and will easily be filled with fans.

No it's not. BC Place is a 1980s concrete tube with a beautiful roof.

That said, Vancouver's advantage is soccer savvy fan base. It's disadvantage is the proximity of Seattle, which is a better option. In truth, I think "Canada" in this context means Toronto. Maybe Edmonton given the size of Commonwealth Stadium.

[Resolute 14]

Oh, and here's a pipe dream... Government funded new stadium in Montreal that is converted to a ballpark for a restored Montreal Expos.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by nik-

Germany got two World Cups 32 years apart. This would be 28 for the US, so it's not outrageous.

...I'm older than I think

Anyway, good point.

[_Q_]

The most recent FIFA events that were split between two countries were the 2002 Japan/ Korea World Cup and the 2012 Ukraine/Poland Euro. In both events, both host nations had an equal number of venues on their side of the border. Also, games are always spread out through the host nation(s).

From this, I can assume a Canada/US World Cup would include something like 6 Canadian cities and 6 American cities if they're going with 12 venues as they did this year. Even if they stray from convention, I can see it being a 5/7 or even a 4/7 split in favor of the Americans. What's being discussed in here, ie. using only two Canadian cities or just having games being played on the east coast won't happen.

If it were to be 6 Canadian cities, I would guess they would be Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. Remove Winnipeg if they're going with 5 and remove either Calgary or Edmonton if they're going with 4.

Also of note is in Japan/Korea they used 10 venues in each country for a total of 20. There's nothing set in stone that says that it can only be 12 cities hosting. With talk of expanding the World Cup to 36 or 40 teams, I can easily see more than 12 cities hosting a Canada/USA world cup.

[Mango]

Originally Posted by _Q_

If it were to be 6 Canadian cities, I would guess they would be Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal. Remove Winnipeg if they're going with 5 and remove either Calgary or Edmonton if they're going with 4.

Investors Group Field in Winnipeg is brand new and a fantastic facility. I believe it's 33k capacity and the CSA had a great experience there in May. I think it would definitely make the cut for smaller venue.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

In America, as mentioned, there are 20+ stadiums than can handle 65,000+ people already built, so no new building expenses required. They won't go to smaller venues just for the hell of it, they'll go to the established venues, all of which because they were built for the NFL or NCAA, will have 65,000+ seats in it. 1994 is still the most attended World Cup ever even though it was played under the 24 team system. They averaged 69,000 fans a match, and they have even more venues now.

Ticket prices for stuff are generally higher in Canada then the states even comparing the dollar. If you ever want to check it out look at the music tours. Or compare NBA prices outside of New York to NHL prices in Canada. Even the NFL charges less for premium seats than hockey in Canada.

I would bet at a minimum you could get 25% more per tickets in Vancouver than your could in Dallas. Probably closer to 50% more. I doubt the difference in ticket revenue would be substantial between a Solider field and a BC place. You have to remember that the number of premium seats is roughly equal in all stadiums and the extra 20-50k are lower cost seats. So selling the first 25-30k for 50% more makes up a lot of the gap.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

[Vancouver's] disadvantage is the proximity of Seattle, which is a better option.

If FIFA is looking to create "pods" that can easily be travelled between, the proximity to Seattle would be an advantage for Vancouver.