pasion1 said:Its a good thing (especially the 2nd time after that earthquake and under such short notice) , you dont agree?
Thought u meant it in a bad way, point taken. And ur right.
This is a reminder of 3 IMPORTANT RULES:
1- External self-promotion websites or apps are NOT allowed here, like Discord/Twitter/Patreon/etc.
2- Do NOT post in other languages. English-only.
3- Crack/Warez/Piracy talk is NOT allowed.
Breaking any of the above rules will result in your messages being deleted and you will be banned upon repetition.
Please, stop by this thread SoccerGaming Forum Rules And Guidelines and make sure you read and understand our policies.
Thank you!
pasion1 said:Its a good thing (especially the 2nd time after that earthquake and under such short notice) , you dont agree?
ShiftyPowers said:A lot of the new football stadiums in America would be great sites for World Cup games, although there are definitely some problems. First of all, those two stadiums you posted, Seattle and Houston, use field turf instead of real grass. Obviously the preference isn't field turf even though I'm sure every soccer player has played on it before (I have). Secondly, football fields are much narrower than soccer fields. A lot of the lower level seats will have to be removed. Would be great for the US though.
Kibe Kru said:Arena da Baixada, our most recent stadium wouldn't be fit for World Cup because it is too small...
There's also Giants Stadium - New York, Invesco Field- Denver, Fed Ex Field - Washington DC that could also host games. Plus the stadiums in Houston, Glendale, and San Antonio all can be closed to keep the hot weather out.Bobby said:Pittsburgh (Heinz Field), Houston (Relient Stadium), Charlotte (Bank of America Stadium), Glendale (Cardinals Stadium), Pasadena (Rose Bowl), Los Angeles (Coliseum), Nashville (The Coliseum), Birmingham (Legion Field), Seattle (Qwest Field), Foxboro (Gillette Stadium), Salt Lake City (Rice-Eccles Stadium), Chicago (Soldier Field), and San Antonio (Alamodome).
These are all wide enough, and grass can be trucked in for the fields. Red Bull did it.
The only problem is alot of them are in the Southeast and Southwest, these places can be hell on earth in the summer. Particularly the Southeast during a humid spell.
ShiftyPowers said:First of all, those two stadiums you posted, Seattle and Houston, use field turf instead of real grass.
Kibe Kru said:As of today, Brazil has no condition to host a World Cup... our stadia are lame, Arena da Baixada, our most recent stadium wouldn't be fit for World Cup because it is too small... maybe the new Maracana (being reformed for Pan Am games next year), a possible new Corinthians stadium and Morumbi would be fit, but we'd need a lot more...
But that's not what concerns me the most... I'm worried more about the security...
True. http://www.houstontexans.com/reliant_stadium/history.phpAvalanche1996 said:Last time I checked, Reliant Stadium in Houston uses grass, and has used it since it opened.
CopeCOwBoy said:dude, canada hosting the world cup is a joke, im surprised we host it in 94 soccer is a joke in northamerica and nothing more, usaually only nerds play it in school around here while in the rest of the world its cool.
dsh said:True. http://www.houstontexans.com/reliant_stadium/history.php
Seattle's Qwest Field hosted a US-Venezuela friendly in 2003. Grass was specially installed for the occasion. I'd assume the same could be done for a World Cup.
That said, we just hosted the damn thing. Let someone else have it this time around. (Not sure about Canada, though...)