2030 World Cup

[JamesM82]

7 hours ago, GordonS said:

Wembley 91,000.....

England don't need us for stadiums, so the only reason to include us would be if it would help their bid gain support. I don't think it would make any difference. We have no experience in bidding and are actually terrible for hosting other FIFA and UEFA competitions (something I should probably post about somewhere).

My personal view is that I wouldn't want us - Scotland or the UK - to host it anyway, it's not worth it in terms of economics or tourism, ticket prices will be disgusting and it means handing serious power to a shower of corrupt arseholes.

1) Thanks for making my point again - there aren't that many stadiums in England outside London well above 50,000. The expansion of Anfield is the only thing that has changed that recently.

2) Maybe not, but it couldn't hurt. England bids have been criticised in the past for arrogance. If they rock up again with pretty much the same bid and think that people will vote for them just because "it's our turn", they could be in for another shock.

3) You sound like someone who is rationalising "oh, I didn't want it anyway". Events like this only cost money if you spend a ridiculous amount on sports infrastructure, a common problem with the Olympics, but that's not being proposed here. The event is going to happen somewhere, so why not get a slice of the pie?

[Lurkst]

2 hours ago, JamesM82 said:

1) Thanks for making my point again - there aren't that many stadiums in England outside London well above 50,000. The expansion of Anfield is the only thing that has changed that recently.

2) Maybe not, but it couldn't hurt. England bids have been criticised in the past for arrogance. If they rock up again with pretty much the same bid and think that people will vote for them just because "it's our turn", they could be in for another shock.

3) You sound like someone who is rationalising "oh, I didn't want it anyway". Events like this only cost money if you spend a ridiculous amount on sports infrastructure, a common problem with the Olympics, but that's not being proposed here. The event is going to happen somewhere, so why not get a slice of the pie?

1) I think the capacity requirement for the World Cup is 35,000?

2) Very true. England is actually the smallest host of the World Cup in the past 60 years. A joint bid may carry more clout (admittedly Qatar has ridiculed that notion a bit).

3) Absolutely. Look at the success a relatively minor event like the Commonwealth Games was. Bringing the World Cup in part to Scotland could be a massive boost to the economy.

 

[Paco]

Been rare 'full-stop':

 

1930 - all 3 stadiums were in Montevideo _{(although one only held 2 games)}

1934

1938 - Paris _{(although Parc des Princes would have only held 2 games were it not for a replay)}

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966 - London _{(although White City only held 1 game)}

1970

1974

1978 - Buenos Aires

1982 - Madrid; Barcelona; Seville _{(although both only held 2 games)}

1986 - Mexico City

1990

1994

1998 - Paris

2002

2006

2010 - Johannesburg

2014

2018 - Moscow

 

Four of the Qatar 2022 stadia are officially in Doha, and looking at the map three more are effectively in Doha too - pretty much like Clydebank or Straiton hosting them here. Doha isn’t much bigger than Glasgow.

 

I think you also need to consider the impact of expanding the World Cup. One city with multiple venues is going to become much more common unless we constantly see three large countries budding. It’s worth saying that even with the genuinely vast number of options available to the ‘United’ bid, we’ll still see two venues in Texas, Florida and California, albeit in different cities, as well as Baltimore/Washington stadiums within 30 minutes of each other.

 

A look at Wiki also suggests the Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay bid for 2030 will have multiple venues in the same city, with as many as three being mooted for Montevideo. So I’m not surehow relevant history is for this one.

[JamesM82]

On 19/06/2018 at 09:59, Lurkst said:

1) I think the capacity requirement for the World Cup is 35,000?

2) Very true. England is actually the smallest host of the World Cup in the past 60 years. A joint bid may carry more clout (admittedly Qatar has ridiculed that notion a bit).

3) Absolutely. Look at the success a relatively minor event like the Commonwealth Games was. Bringing the World Cup in part to Scotland could be a massive boost to the economy.

 

That seems to have been upped to 40,000 for 2026, with 80,000 needed for opening match and the final.

https://www.ussoccer.com/stories/2017/08/15/15/11/20170815-news-wc2026-united-bid-committee-commences-outreach-for-potential-host-cities

[DA Baracus]

Villa Park, Stadium of Light, Anfield, Old Trafford, Etihad, St James Park; all are over 40k in capacity. So plenty of grounds outside of London that could host games.

[DA Baracus]

Also by the time 2030 comes around I'd imagine a few others will be there too. 

[HibeeJibee]

3 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

Villa Park, Stadium of Light, Anfield, Old Trafford, Etihad, St James Park; all are over 40k in capacity. So plenty of grounds outside of London that could host games.

Hillsborough, Goodison and Elland Road are also very close to 40k. Plus as you say numerous have visions for capacities over 40k... there will also be the Birmingham Alexander Stadium, with 25k but expandable to 50k for Commonwealth Games.

England's bid for WC 2018 shortlisted 15 stadiums... the 9 you and I've named, except Goodison; 3 stadiums in London (Wembley, Arsenal, Olympic); Nottingham; plus 3 "unorthodox" shouts in the shape of Milton Keynes plus newbuilds in Plymouth and Bristol. It's possible most or all of the last 3 would have been weeded-out to make the last 12. If they had to come up with 13 for a British tournament, they could no doubt return to the same 12 core venues - or 11 if only 2 were selected for London - and then add Bristol for geographic representation in the south-west, and somewhere "unorthodox" e.g. Bradford or Coventry.

Also - given its massive population, and the fact you've also got White Hart Lane, Stamford Bridge and Twickenham in addition to the 3 mentioned, it wouldn't be surprising if multiple venues were permitted from London in the same manner as Doha.

[DA Baracus]

3 minutes ago, HibeeJibee said:

Hillsborough, Goodison and Elland Road are also very close to 40k. 

Yup, and by the time 2030 comes around there's every chance they would be well over that, be it the teams naturally deciding to increase capacity or doing so as part of the bid

[algy]

I think a UK bid would have one very attractive feature. Put Scotland, Wales, and N.Ireland front & centre of the bid. Countries that on their own couldn't host the world cup, and probably couldn't combined. England then provides the extra infrastructure to host it, but tries to keep its nose out otherwise.

And there's how you sell it - the expanded world cup does just allow more teams to compete. It's so big that by and large that only joint bids are practical, so small & mid size nations can host it without getting lumbered with a load of white elephant stadia. They just use the likes of England, Germany, Italy, Spain etc for the 10-12 40k+ grounds that would never see a capacity crowd after the tournament and concentrate on improving their national stadium and perhaps a couple of clubs which can justify bigger grounds. It's the way you'd see a world cup final at Hampden Park - a ground that really ought to host one given it's importance to world football.

In the longer term, it'd help places like Morocco to host it, since they could use Spain for the dozen or so grounds they'd never use again.

[Dunning1874]

I don't see any point in anyone else bidding for 2030, particularly the home nations whose bid would inevitably lean heavily on the sentiment of their historical importance to football; that's not going to beat bringing the final back to Montevideo 100 years on.

[banana]

Wembley

Emirates

New White Hart Lane

Old Trafford

Ethiad

Stadium of Light

St James' Park

Anfield

Hampden

Ibrox

Murrayfield

Millennium Stadium

---

Bring a few Midlands-ish stadiums up to scratch / rebuilds, such as in Birmingham and Nottingham. Temporarily expand a few south coast stadiums, such as St Mary's and Brighton.

That's a solid 14 with a good spread.

[HibeeJibee]

5 hours ago, Dunning1874 said:

I don't see any point in anyone else bidding for 2030, particularly the home nations whose bid would inevitably lean heavily on the sentiment of their historical importance to football; that's not going to beat bringing the final back to Montevideo 100 years on.

Equally, there could be merit in playing the centenary tournament in the "home of football". Furthermore it's clearly going to be a stretch for Argentina-Paraguay-Uruguay given the financial, stadia infrastructure and similar requirements. Plus it wouldn't make as much money for FIFA as an England/GB bid nor the mooted China-Japan-Korea bid.

One obvious issue is they've been planning fewer than 16 venues... and the Uruguayans envisage 3 of 4 being in Montevideo, the Paraguayans both in Ascuncion, and the Argentinians several in Buenos Aires, which 'collectively' seems unlikely.

There's also an argument that your chance of winning is enhanced by bidding several times.
 

5 hours ago, banana said:

Wembley, Emirates, New White Hart Lane

Old Trafford, Ethiad

Stadium of Light

St James' Park

Anfield

Hampden, Ibrox

Murrayfield

Millennium Stadium

---

Bring a few Midlands-ish stadiums up to scratch / rebuilds, such as in Birmingham and Nottingham. Temporarily expand a few south coast stadiums, such as St Mary's and Brighton.

That's a solid 14 with a good spread.

Glasgow having 2 seems unlikely and neglecting Parkhead in favour of Ibrox even more so.

[forameus]

If they were given permission for 2 in Glasgow for any bid, the craven SFA would probably put both Ibrox and Parkhead forward rather than Hampden.  We can't offend either side now, can we?   Or more likely realise they can't drop Hampden, and they can't choose between the other two, so we just won't bid.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

On ‎23‎/‎06‎/‎2018 at 09:07, algy said:

I think a UK bid would have one very attractive feature. Put Scotland, Wales, and N.Ireland front & centre of the bid. Countries that on their own couldn't host the world cup, and probably couldn't combined. England then provides the extra infrastructure to host it, but tries to keep its nose out otherwise.

And there's how you sell it - the expanded world cup does just allow more teams to compete. It's so big that by and large that only joint bids are practical, so small & mid size nations can host it without getting lumbered with a load of white elephant stadia. They just use the likes of England, Germany, Italy, Spain etc for the 10-12 40k+ grounds that would never see a capacity crowd after the tournament and concentrate on improving their national stadium and perhaps a couple of clubs which can justify bigger grounds. It's the way you'd see a world cup final at Hampden Park - a ground that really ought to host one given it's importance to world football.

In the longer term, it'd help places like Morocco to host it, since they could use Spain for the dozen or so grounds they'd never use again.

Shame no one in hampden would get to see said world cup final due to it being an absolutely shite stadium

[algy]

9 hours ago, effeffsee_the2nd said:

Shame no one in hampden would get to see said world cup final due to it being an absolutely shite stadium

Was meaning more that money should be pumped in to making improvements to the Hampden Park & Windsor Park stadiums, which generally wouldn't receive a world cup windfall without some kind of joint hosting situation

[George Parr]

On 6/26/2018 at 08:47, forameus said:

If they were given permission for 2 in Glasgow for any bid, the craven SFA would probably put both Ibrox and Parkhead forward rather than Hampden.  We can't offend either side now, can we?   Or more likely realise they can't drop Hampden, and they can't choose between the other two, so we just won't bid.

Potential £ and FIFA clout are probably the only things the SFA care more about than the OF. I suspect they'd do literally anything to host a world cup match. 

[forameus]

8 minutes ago, Consolidate said:

Potential £ and FIFA clout are probably the only things the SFA care more about than the OF. I suspect they'd do literally anything to host a world cup match. 

What a conundrum for them though.  It'll be like a shit romantic comedy with the SFA just not able to choose between which party's boaby to sook.

[nsr]

The World Cup will go to whichever potential host nation does the best job of bribing FIFA officials, surely?

[Jamaldo]

You could brand an England/Scotland/Wales bid as the "Great British World Cup" or something like that. Northern Ireland don't have any grounds that meet capacity so I'm not sure they could be included.

I wouldn't even use Hampden. Use the two Old Firm grounds (fans will be closer to the pitch) and Murrayfield.

[Donathan]

The Japan/Korea world cup in 2002 was a truly joint bid with half the games in each country, however I could see future joint bids where you have a single primary host which gets the lions share of the games including the opening game, semi finals, final, but then a few more minor hosts who just donate 1-2 stadia each and host a few games and do not automatically qualify, a bit like the 1999 and 2007 rugby world cups which were technically hosted by Wales and France respectively but featured games in England/Scotland/Ireland/France (1999) and Scotland/Wales (2007)