Whilst I don't quite understand what you mean by "realigning the seats" I think it's got to be a whopping big fib! Ages ago I read on the Wembley website that 90,000 is highest capacity possible for a football stadium. Something to do with sightlines from the back row.



I agree. Whilst I don't want to get into crystal ball gazing too much, I believe 2018 will be in Europe, most probably England.

I disagree Egan. It would probably mean demolishing the stadium and rebuilding from scratch.
When (Apart from the USA) was the last time a host nation had a 100,000 capacity arena? Mexico 1986. FIFA's guidelines don't require such massive capacities.

According to themselves Wembley is physically going to be so much bigger than for instance the stade de france and there will be almost ridiculous amounts of legroom at all seats.
This has led to speculation that the capacity could be increased by wasting less space if the transport system turns out to work well.

I think its nonsense especially when suggested that a 150,000 capacity is possible, but then again I dont really understand what it means when wembley claims to create an accomodation area more than twice the size of existing 80,000 stadiums. It sounds as if they could theoretically get 190,000 seats with current standards, but that cant be possible

As for the world cup, I see no reason why it should go to England.

Would a world cup help stadium building in England the way Portugal has benefitted enormously from euro 2004? nope, they will build the venues they need whether or not they get the tournament.

Would a world cup boost football´s profile? erh.. not needed.

Would there be huge support? I actually dont think so. People spend a lot of time and money following their clubs where the level of play is similar to the world cup and few english will watch matches where they arent supporting one side. Crowds at euro 96 were poor with many venues getting far lower crowds for top euro games than the local club ever gets.

I would like to see it staged in places like USA,Canada, Australia,China,Brazil,Argentina,Russia,eastern europe or elsewhere where it either boosts the game or helps stadium building.
From Europe I would like to see a russian bid or an eastern bid, perhaps a 3-way Poland,Hungary,Czech.rep bid even if FIFA wouldnt like it

You're damn right FIFA wouldn't like that!

One reason for taking the World Cup back to England would be the same as the reason for taking the Olympic Games to Athens. Just as Athens is home of the Olympic Games, England is the home of football. Of course Athens tried to get the 1996 Games, which marked 100 years since the first Modern Games in Athens. Will the FA celebrate any significant anniversaries in 2018, 2022, 2026...?

Incidently, some people argue that the 2030 World Cup should be held in Uruguay to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the tournament.

Anyway, this is about England's stadiums not future World Cups!

Birmingham City are planning to build a stadium with both retractable seating and roof which would be modelled on the Melbourne Dome.
It will be shared with Warwickshire CCC and have a capacity of 60,000 for football and less for cricket.

However, currently its little more than an idea.

If you were given the task of selecting the venues for a world cup in England, which venues would you choose?

FIFA requires stadiums to have at least 40,000 seats for first round and quarterfinal matches and at least 60,000 seats for the opening match, semi-finals, the third place play-off and final. Obviously several stadiums in England could be expanded, but for the sake of this discussion, be guided by current and planned capacities.

• Wembley, London - 90,000
• Twickenham, London - 75,000 (1)
• Millennium Stadium, Cardiff - 74,500 (2)
• Old Trafford, Manchester - 67,700 (3)
• Murrayfield, Edinburgh - 67,500 (4)
• Celtic Park, Glasgow - 60,500 (5)
• Ashburton Grove, London - 60,000
• Stanley Park, Liverpool - 55,000 (6)
• St James' Park, Newcastle - 52,150
• Hampden Park, Glasgow - 50,670 (7)
• Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow - 50,420 (8)
• Stadium of Light, Sunderland - 48,300 (9)
• City of Manchester Stadium, Manchester - 48,000
• Anfield, Liverpool - 45,362
• Villa Park, Birmingham - 43,000 (10)
• Stamford Bridge, London - 42,420
• Elland Road, Leeds - 40,204
• Goodison Park, Liverpool - 40,120
• Hillsborough, Sheffield - 39,814
• Highbury, London - 38,500 (11)
• White Hart Lane, London - 36,240
• Riverside Stadium, Middlesbrough - 35,100

1. RFU headquarters
2. Welsh venue used for recent FA Cup finals
3. Proposed expansion to 75,000 and 92,000
4. Scottish venue, SRU headquarters
5. Scottish venue, Celtic FC home ground
6. Construction yet to commence
7. Scottish national stadium
8. Scottish venue, Rangers FC home ground
9. Planning permission to expand to 54,000 with final capacity of 63,000
10. Proposed expansion to 50,000
11. To be converted into housing

How many venues would you select? Germany 2006 will be contested by 32 nations, as were the 1998 and 2002 tournaments. There were 10 venues in 1998 and 10 each in Korea and Japan. The 2006 world cup will be played in 12 stadiums. How many venues would you select for a world cup in England?

The 1966 world cup was played in 7 English cities, with two venues used in London:

• Wembley Stadium (98,000) in London hosted Group 1 matches, a quarterfinal, semi-final, the third place playoff and the final.
• Goodison Park (62,000) in Liverpool hosted Group 3 matches, a quarterfinal, and a semi-final.
• Villa Park (51,000) in Birmingham hosted Group 2 matches.
• White City (45,000) in London hosted Group 1 matches.
• Old Trafford (37,000) in Manchester hosted Group 3 matches.
• Hillsborough (36,000) in Sheffield hosted Group 2 matches, and a quarterfinal.
• Roker Park (35,000) in Sunderland hosted Group 4 matches, and a quarterfinal.
• Ayresome Park (23,000) in Middlesbrough hosted Group 4 matches.

There were 8 venues for Euro 96:

• Wembley Stadium (80,000) in London hosted Group A matches, a quarterfinal, semi-final, and the final.
• Elland Road (43,000) in Leeds hosted Group B matches
• Old Trafford (43,000) in Manchester hosted Group C matches, a quarterfinal and semi-final.
• Hillsborough (41,000) in Sheffield hosted Group D matches, and a quarterfinal.
• Anfield (40,000) in Liverpool hosted Group C matches, and a quarterfinal.
• Villa Park (40,000) in Birmingham hosted Group A matches, a quarterfinal and semi-final.
• St James' Park (32,000) in Newcastle hosted Group B matches.
• City Ground (28,000) in Nottingham hosted Group D matches, a quarterfinal and semi-final.

Would you play any matches outside England? FIFA said that after the experiment of the joint hosting by Japan and South Korea, there would be no more co-hosting of the world cup. However, the FA has used the Millennium Stadium in Wales for the FA Cup final in recent years, so would you use the Cardiff venue or perhaps one of the big stadiums in Scotland?

Your spreads of venues is quite good james_

But would the F be so "generous" as to co-host the event when it can do so on its own.

Also, would FIFA be willing to grant co-hosting dutis to Scotland and Wales who have underperformed. I understand why they did it to Korea and Japan - they were "growth markets".

Still, nothing wrong with a bit of fun speculation.

Harmless fun is all that it is. Let's face it, England won't be hosting the world cup anytime soon, and when they do get the chance (2018 at the earliest) the stadium landscape in England will have changed substantially.

The venues I listed are football grounds in Britain with a capacity greater than 35,000. I haven't stated my choice of venues yet - I'm waiting to see what others have to say...

On co-hosting, FIFA have stated their preference, but I'm interested to see if anyone thinks matches should be played outside England.

I guess if you (pl) don't have any knowledge of (or interest in) English football, stadiums or geography, this task wouldn't be very appealling.

Obviously, you guys are mulling over your choices...

Did you know England's six largest cities (in decreasing order of population) are London, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Manchester?

...or that London, Birmingham, Sheffield, Liverpool and Manchester are the only cities to have hosted both the World Cup and European championships in England?

Would you give England's third largest city, Sheffield a guernsey? Remember, their stadium seats less than 40,000.

What about Birmingham? The country's second largest city has only got a measley 43,000-seater to its name...

Liverpool and Manchester are only 54 kilometres apart (that's less than Sydney to Gosford)... Would you give these cities a quarterfinal each?

Come on people... entertain me!

You'd have to look at a combination of population centres and soccer centres.

St James Park (Newcastle) should get a run for the latter. Newcastle and Man Utd for the semis with Wembley for the final. Or would yo have the last 3 games at Wembley?

Final:

1. Wembley, London (90,000)

Third Place Playoff:

1. Wembley

SF:

1. Old Trafford, Manchester (75,000)
2. Birmingham (new 60,000 stadium, Birmingham City as tenants)

QF:

1. Wembley
2. New Anfield, Liverpool (55,000-60,000)
3. St. James Park, Newcastle (52,000)
4. Hillsborough, Sheffield (50,000, rebuilt)

SR:

1. Wembley
2. Elland Road, Leeds (48,000 with another tier built on the stand opposite of the current two tier stand)
3. Stadium of Light, Sunderland (48,300)
4. St. Mary's, Southampton (40,000 with another one or two tiers being built)
5. City Ground, Nottingham (40,000 with the main stand rebuilt and some other upgrades around the ground)
6. KC Stadium, Hull (40,000 with seats added to the goal end tiers plus another tier built on the side opposite to the current two tier stand)
7. JJB Stadium, Wigan (40,000 with one tier added to each stand)
8. Riverside Stadium, Middlesbrough (40,000 with the two tiered stand continuing around the entire ground)

That's 13 venues, all of which can be shared around in the 48 group stage matches.

?

Wembley, New arsenal,Old Trafford, New Anfield and St.james must be 5 certainties. Birmingham too with either Villa Park or a new venue.

(the RFU dont want football but is believed to not want to stand in the way and would make Twickenham available if needed. But its not needed)

Beyond those six its impossible to say. There are so many towns/cities lying closely together which in a world cup scenario basically serve the same area.
I think the FA would want to spread matches around and not just look at stadiums.

Perhaps:

Leeds
Sheffield
Bristol
Hull
one of Nottingham/Leicester/Derby
Southampton
Plymouth
Reading
Coventry
Stoke
Norwich or Ipswich

I cant see them including wales or scotland. FIFA do not want 3 teams automatically qualified and none of those countries would want to risk their status as independent football nations.

Britain do not compete in the olympics for that reason, which seems to be a case of paranoia, but the four british nations do have some rather undemocratic rights in world football that they dont want highlighted and threatened. Its for instance very difficult to change the rules of the game in any way if Britain is united against it.

Very strange the way Britain is divided-up differently for different sports , though.

Thanks for responding!



I probably do the same as 1966 and 1996 – one semi-final for Wembley. The other semi-final I’d play at Old Trafford. I doubt anyone’s going to go against Wembley as the venue for the final.



Another well thought out football post!

I’m not sure I’d go for Newcastle, Sunderland and Middlesbrough – that’s three venues in the north-east. Also, I’m not sure why, but I not convinced about Hull and Wigan. Maybe it’s because I see them as rugby league strongholds (even though these cities are represented by football teams).

On the one hand, playing in Wigan and Hull would promote football in these cities and provide revenue for Hull City AFC and Wigan Athletic, but on the other hand, you’d be depriving clubs, like Bolton Wanderers, within the Greater Manchester area (in the case of Wigan).



I don’t think St James’ Park is a certainty. Birmingham is a must but they need to do something about a suitable venue.

Spreading the matches around seems like a sensible idea. These are my picks for the nine regions of England:

1. Greater London: Wembley Stadium and Ashburton Grove.
   You can’t leave Arsenal’s new ground out. Besides, London could easily get away with two venues despite what FIFA have to say.
2. South East: St Mary’s Stadium, Southampton
   
   Although there are no plans for an upgrade (that I’m aware of), just by looking at it, I get the impression it has been designed, like so many other similar stadiums, to be increased in size.
3. South West: Millennium Stadium, Cardiff
   Dark horse. It’s just a short trip down the M4 from Bristol, across the River Severn. I don’t think Wales would be entitled to automatic qualification if this stadium was used. Besides, Cardiff City play in the Championship and the venue has been used for recent FA Cups whilst Wembley is under construction.
4. West Midlands: Villa Park, Birmingham
   Second largest city in Britain, enough said.
5. North West: Old Trafford, Manchester and Stanley Park, Liverpool
   Select themselves.
6. North East: St James’ Park, Newcastle or Stadium of Light, Sunderland
   A 64,000-seat capacity Stadium of Light beat St James’ Park in my view.
7. Yorkshire and the Humber: Elland Road, Leeds or Hillsborough, Sheffield
   Need some serious work, but can’t be left out. Sheffield was used in 1966 and 1996 and is the fourth largest city in Britain. Leeds is the third. Tough call, but the two are within spitting distance, so I’m afraid I could only select one.
8. East Midlands: Pride Park, Derby or City Ground Stadium, Nottingham or Walkers Stadium, Leicester
   Shocking stadiums, but what can you do? I’d probably go with Pride Park.
   
   Like St Mary’s, I reckon it could be upgraded without too much fuss.
9. East of England: ???
   Urgh. Close enough to London to be overlooked I’m afraid.