RECAPS
EXTRA TIME
YANKS ABROAD LOCKER ROOM
 
USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #1
Thursday August 4, 2016 3:17pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,304
So I went and looked through the countries that have the infrastructure (Stadiums) to be able to host a World Cup at the drop of the hat.

Of course Brazil and South Africa do.
China has way more than enough stadiums, however their issue could be hotel accomadations and closeness to airports for some of their stadiums, but I'm pretty sure they would still have enough to be able to host.

UK and Germany do.
That's it for oversea's.

The USA has enough to where they could do this:
Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana could do a joint bid and host it tomorrow.
Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, and Florida could do the same.
Ohio, Mich, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois could do the same.
Cali, Oregon, Arizona, and Washington could do the same.
DMV, Carolina's, Tenn, and KY could do the same.
Penn, NY, NJ, Conn, and Mass could do the same.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
recycledhumans
DFWTX
Post #2
Thursday August 4, 2016 4:58pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 1,467
What criteria are you using for determining if a stadium is "big enough" to host one of these events? I would argue that France and Spain are just as capable as Germany.

Out of curiosity, did you think of the topic in the light of the Russian Olympic doping scandal, and think maybe they get sanctioned and somehow lose the World Cup?

TheTruth
Post #3
Thursday August 4, 2016 5:09pm

Joined Dec 2013
Total Posts: 949
We'll we've had these discussions before. FIFA and IOC competing to be the most corrupt fuckheads. Nothing will move an inch unless sponsors start throwing around their weight. But then other sponsors will just jump right in. We're fucked. I'd love to grab some of those exec committee guys by the neck and start to squeeze.

Real Sports does a good job of exposing those criminals but nothing ever happens. I'd love for prominent us players and soccer officials to start speaking up. Lando? But so much too lose so I guess I don't blame them for being pussies. Very sad. We just somehow need to get Deloitte to audit every nickel that those cocksucking, Armani suit wearing, lake Como living, 17 year old prostitute fucking, panerai wearing cunt bags have.

Dave
Post #4
Thursday August 4, 2016 5:19pm

Joined Jul 2014
Total Posts: 644
A number of countries have enough stadiums large enough that they "could" host the World Cup. FIFA only requires that there are 8 stadiums with seating for 40K spectators. But that is only one of many requirements.
Other major considerations include national infrastructure (Hotels, Transportation, Training facilities, Security, communications, etc....). With these additional considerations factored in there are significantly fewer countries that could host a WC with short notice....
England, Germany, & France are the major ones in Europe who could do it by themselves. Other nations could do it if they teamed/cooperated with another country.
Brazil & Argentina could do it in S. America...but both would likely need financial assistance.
The US is one of the few countries in the world who could do it at nearly the drop of a hat. We have a ton of stadiums, hotels, transportation, communications, etc.... The only thing we'd need any real amount of time to organize would be the security aspects.

goods
Post #5
Thursday August 4, 2016 5:45pm

Joined Mar 2014
Total Posts: 280
Brazil and Argentina have to many political issues. Thsee Olympics could prevent any major tournament from going there for a long time.

France, Germany, and France all could but they have external issues that they may not want to deal with it.

The USA has shown it could handle it quite easily. Cities like NY, LA, DC, NO, Chicago, Houston and now MN, can do it easily they all meet certain security guidelines plus have been doing events this big for a while. Would not even take a lot of security ramp up.

(Chicago has had its own issues and probably would not want to deal with it)

kicksNgiggles10
Birmingham
Post #6
Thursday August 4, 2016 6:27pm

Joined Oct 2012
Total Posts: 565
I would like to see ATL included if we ever get to host again. New MLS team coming with the best venue in the southeast and a good point between, say Miami/orlando and Philly-NYC.

USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #7
Thursday August 4, 2016 7:25pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,304
Criteria I used was in order to bid you have to submit 16 stadiums with at least 40k capacity. So that 16 was the number I used. FIFA eventually knocks it down to 12 stadiums (could be and used to be less) that actually will host. Of those 16 at least 1 had to be 80k for the Final and opening day AND the 2 semi-finals had to be at least 60k.

France had 9 stadiums with 40k +
Italy had 8.
Indonesia had 8.
Iran at 7.
Mexico 8
Spain 10
Australia 10
The USA has over 100.

What I would like to see for a US bid is cities near each other paired up to host a Group (limit the travel).
Group A - Atlanta and Orlando
Group B - New York and Boston
Group C - Philadelphia and DC
Group D - Detroit and Chicago
Group E - Dallas and Houston
Group F - San Diego and Los Angeles
Group G - Portland and Seattle
Group H - San Francisco and Las Vegas

Each Stadium would host 3 games in the Group Stage.
Then have Phoenix host a Round of 16 and Semi-final
New York host the Final
Orlando, Boston, San Diego, Phoenix, Detroit, Houston, DC, and San Francisco host Round of 16.
Atlanta, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Seattle host Quarterfinals.
Phoenix and Dallas host Semi-Finals

Scheduling could go something like this:
Group A:
1 v 2 in Orlando
3 v 4 in Atlanta
1 v 4 in Orlando
3 v 2 in Atlanta
3 v 1 in Orlando
2 v 4 in Atlanta

Winner plays in Orlando, Runner-up goes to DC (max travel would be 3:45 plane, or 1,320 miles by car)

Group B:
Same schedule as above (one team stays in one location, one team travels twice).
Winner plays in Boston, Runner-up goes to Detroit (max travel would be 3 hours plane, or 645 miles by car)

Group C:
Same Schedule
Winner plays in DC, Runner-up in Orlando (max travel is like 2 hours plane, or 417 miles by car).

Group D:
Same Schedule
Winner plays in Detroit, Runner Up plays in Boston (max Travel is 3:15 plane, and 849 miles).

Group E:
Same Schedule
Winner plays in Houston, Runner-up in Phoenix (max Travel is 3 hours or 717 miles)

Group F:
Winner plays in San Deigo, Runner-up in San Francisco (max travel is like 2 hours plane or 360 miles).

Group G:
Winner plays in Phoenix, Runner-up in Houston (Max Travel is 2:15 plane and 519 miles)

Group H:
Winner plays in San Fran, Runner-up in San Diego (max Travel is 4:15 plane and 1,707 miles).

USA's trips in Brazil would have equaled 5,745 miles. Not very fan friendly.
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com
Know Nothing
Post #8
Thursday August 4, 2016 7:42pm

Joined Jan 2013
Total Posts: 1,008
Original post from USAGunner

Criteria I used was in order to bid you have to submit 16 stadiums with at least 40k capacity. So that 16 was the number I used. FIFA eventually knocks it down to 12 stadiums (could be and used to be less) that actually will host. Of those 16 at least 1 had to be 80k for the Final and opening day AND the 2 semi-finals had to be at least 60k.

France had 9 stadiums with 40k +
Italy had 8.
Indonesia had 8.
Iran at 7.
Mexico 8
Spain 10
Australia 10
The USA has over 100.

What I would like to see for a US bid is cities near each other paired up to host a Group (limit the travel).
Group A - Atlanta and Orlando
Group B - New York and Boston
Group C - Philadelphia and DC
Group D - Detroit and Chicago
Group E - Dallas and Houston
Group F - San Diego and Los Angeles
Group G - Portland and Seattle
Group H - San Francisco and Las Vegas

Each Stadium would host 3 games in the Group Stage.
Then have Phoenix host a Round of 16 and Semi-final
New York host the Final
Orlando, Boston, San Diego, Phoenix, Detroit, Houston, DC, and San Francisco host Round of 16.
Atlanta, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, and Seattle host Quarterfinals.
Phoenix and Dallas host Semi-Finals

Scheduling could go something like this:
Group A:
1 v 2 in Orlando
3 v 4 in Atlanta
1 v 4 in Orlando
3 v 2 in Atlanta
3 v 1 in Orlando
2 v 4 in Atlanta

Winner plays in Orlando, Runner-up goes to DC (max travel would be 3:45 plane, or 1,320 miles by car)

Group B:
Same schedule as above (one team stays in one location, one team travels twice).
Winner plays in Boston, Runner-up goes to Detroit (max travel would be 3 hours plane, or 645 miles by car)

Group C:
Same Schedule
Winner plays in DC, Runner-up in Orlando (max travel is like 2 hours plane, or 417 miles by car).

Group D:
Same Schedule
Winner plays in Detroit, Runner Up plays in Boston (max Travel is 3:15 plane, and 849 miles).

Group E:
Same Schedule
Winner plays in Houston, Runner-up in Phoenix (max Travel is 3 hours or 717 miles)

Group F:
Winner plays in San Deigo, Runner-up in San Francisco (max travel is like 2 hours plane or 360 miles).

Group G:
Winner plays in Phoenix, Runner-up in Houston (Max Travel is 2:15 plane and 519 miles)

Group H:
Winner plays in San Fran, Runner-up in San Diego (max Travel is 4:15 plane and 1,707 miles).

USA's trips in Brazil would have equaled 5,745 miles. Not very fan friendly.


That's the 2026 bid sorted then. All we have to do now is come up with the bribe

MSantoine
Post #9
Friday August 5, 2016 12:54pm

Joined Nov 2012
Total Posts: 3,605
I think that the World Cup, as well as the Olympics, need to stop this facade of "developing countries through sports". South Africa is no better off, Sochi is no better off, Qatar will not be better off. It should be a rotation between the following counties:

USA/Canada joint bid (pick half of USA, northern, east coast, west coast) and then the 3-4 big Canadian cities.
USA/Mexico- other part of USA and 2-3 Mexican stadiums.
Brazil/Argentina - stay away from Manaus and the rain forest. Stick to the south east part of Brazil with a couple Buenos Aires stadium.
UK/Ireland - Maybe not every time but play in Dublin every now and then as one of the cities. Maybe one time is 7 England stadiums and Dublin, next is 7 England and Belfast, then 7 England and Edinburgh, rinse and repeat
Spain/Portugal
Germany
Italy/Austria - Mainly Italy, a few games in Vienna
France/Belgium- Mainly France, a few games in Brussels
Russia (Maybe not as often but every now and then)
Japan/South Korea
China (see Russia)
Australia

Thats 11 potential hosts, 50 years to go to each spot. Every other World Cup in Europe. Something like US, Spain, Japan, UK, Brazil, Italy, Australia, France, US, UK, China... Rinse, repeat, substitute Russia for China next cycle. Every 20 years or so allow a country/region to submit a bid for entering the next rotation but only if they already can prove they could host it that summer. If one host has issues they are bounced from rotation until they can prove those issues are resolved. Eventually Northern Africa, maybe South africa, maybe some more Asian countries will get there acts together and actually do what the world cup states they are trying to do.

USAGunner
West Palm Beach
Post #10
Friday August 5, 2016 4:57pm

Joined Jul 2013
Total Posts: 1,304
MSantoine, I'm all for that. Although I'd say the USA should host more regularly than that. We bring in the $, the fans, and put on too good of a tournament to only host so few times.
I'd also forget about co-hosting with Canada and Mexico. Mexico can host their own. Canada isn't worth it. Instead I would do a One region of the USA (East Coast), then the next time USA (West Coast).
I also don't know about Brazil hosting that often. I'd say not until that government can get it's act together. Maybe a South America joint Bid.

2026 - East Coast USA
2030 - UK
2034 - Japan/South Korea
2038 - Spain/Portugal
2042 - South America
2046 - France/Belgium
2050 - West Coast USA
2054 - UK
2058 - China
2062 - Germany
2066 - Australia
2070 - Italy/Austria
2074 - South America
2078 - East Coast USA
2082 - UK
2086 - Russia
2090 - Spain/Portugal
2094 - Japan/SK
2098 - France/Belgium
2102 - West Coast USA
2106 - UK
2110 - South America
2114 - China
2118 - Germany
2122 - Australia
2126 - Italy/Austria
www.westpalmbeachchurchofchrist.com

David Wagner and Huddersfield Town are on the brink of history as they look to achieve promotion to the Premier League.
RECENT POSTS
YA lineup prediction vs. T&T
vom Steeg lands at Fortuna
Good week for young Americans
SønderjyskE passes on Ebobisse