OT: FIFA World Cup expanding to 48 teams, expansion worth $1billion

mouser

Business of Hockey
Jul 13, 2006
29,285
12,586
South Mountain
As it stands, Toronto does not have a stadium that meets current World Cup requirements:

- 40,000 minimum
- grass playing surface
- no temporary grandstands

Temporary grass has been done before. It's always been more of a P/L event decision then a technical obstacle. Hosting some World Cup games should make it easily worth the cost to install tempory real turf.
 

Nino33

Registered User
Jul 5, 2015
1,828
441
IMO the expanding of the number of teams is an absolutely horrible idea, and will only make the tournament less than it was
 
  • Like
Reactions: BM14
Nov 6, 2007
3,009
0
Temporary grass has been done before. It's always been more of a P/L event decision then a technical obstacle. Hosting some World Cup games should make it easily worth the cost to install tempory real turf.


I believe last time they installed real turf at Rogers Centre it was for a short period of time. They didn't need to worry about prolonged sunlight, irrigation, airflow, drainage. They plopped the sod down for a couple days then tore it up.

Assuming all 10 games are in Toronto, I'd expect they'd need to keep the grass alive for at least two weeks. Something that would be next to impossible in the current Rogers Centre.


All I'm saying is, as things stand currently there is no stadium in Canada that meets the current World Cup hosting requirements.

So, either CONCACAF/Soccer Canada convinces FIFA to loosen their requirements, or Toronto or another city improves their current stadium infrastructure. Based on the current fiscal situation in large cities across Canada, I'm betting on the former.
 

Inkling

Same Old Hockey
Nov 27, 2006
5,655
679
Ottawa
Assuming all 10 games are in Toronto, I'd expect they'd need to keep the grass alive for at least two weeks. Something that would be next to impossible in the current Rogers Centre.

They certainly all won't be Toronto, but if they managed to do it in the Pontiac Silverdome in 1994, I'm sure they could do it in the Rogers Centre. BMO with temporary seating might still be the better option though.

I imagine that BC Place is a shoe-in. Toronto as a city will be a shoe-in for matches, but could be either the Rogers Centre or BMO. Apart from that there's no really good venue in Montreal, Edmonton is a good option and stadium, and Winnipeg is doable.
 

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
The thing about temp grass at Rogers is you gotta figure out how the Blue Jays make it work as it impacts them the most. Every CFL stadium could makedo with temp grass, but I've just heard it would make logisitics hard on the Jays.

At the same time, Canada's biggest city arguably doesnt really have a great stadium when compared to the rest of the country.

If I had to choose, I'd give Vancouver our marquee games. I've Canadian Voyageur fans that have argued that Vancouver turns out better for the NT than Toronto. (Not my opinion, just what you read lurking other forums)

I also didnt know FIFA didnt allow temp grandstands until reading a few posts up. That would require concessions from FIFA on some stadiums if you went with them. I just frankly think the BigO sucks, and dont really want to display it to the world.
 

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
Is the new Roughriders stadium still going ahead? For some reason I thought it was stalled. But yeah, that's what I meant. No slight to Winnipeg intended. I only brought it up because you guys have a damn beautiful stadium. I just don't see the organizers wanting to go outside of the Big 3 (Toronto/Montréal/Vancouver) for such a major event.

Yeah, its actually been open for about a year now. They've probably had 6 university games and a few concerts I think. Roughriders didnt want to risk construction delays so give a really big timeframe for the move.
 

jason2020

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
5,596
1
I'm guessing BMO Field, actually. They packed 40,100 in there for the Centennial Classic and if they get creative with the north side temporary stands, might be able to fit a few thousand more. Rogers Centre only seats 47,000 for soccer, by comparison. Not sure where else is available. Investor's Group Field in Winnipeg is probably the nicest stadium in the country but is in... well... Winnipeg. McMahon and Commonwealth Stadiums look a bit run down, Lansdowne (TD Park) Stadium and Tim Hortons Field are too small, and is FIFA interested in the multipurpose bowl-type stadiums in Vancouver and Montréal? It wouldn't surprise me to see all 10 games in Toronto.

Td Stadium can be expanded to around 40,000 for special events however I think by 2024 I think massive expansion will have to happen maybe as high as 50,000 seat total.
 

Deleted member 93465

Guest
Whoever mentioned FIFA doesn't allow temporary stands obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

Case in point: Corinthians Arena in Sao Paulo for 2014.

As long as those stadiums in Canada add grass for the duration of tournament, they're all good to go.

Have no doubt games will be split with Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver. I'm guessing a split of 4/3/3, or 5/3/2.
 

Heldig

Registered User
Apr 12, 2002
16,885
10,230
BC
IMO the expanding of the number of teams is an absolutely horrible idea, and will only make the tournament less than it was

Totally agree.

As a fan I will just wait until the tournament is whittled down to the final 16 anyway.
 

jason2020

Registered User
Sep 24, 2014
5,596
1
Whoever mentioned FIFA doesn't allow temporary stands obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

Case in point: Corinthians Arena in Sao Paulo for 2014.

As long as those stadiums in Canada add grass for the duration of tournament, they're all good to go.

Have no doubt games will be split with Toronto/Montreal/Vancouver. I'm guessing a split of 4/3/3, or 5/3/2.

Soccer Canada has been impressed with Ottawa how they support international events world under 20/womens world cup etc so I think they will try and get atleast one game in Ottawa.
 

htpwn

Registered User
Nov 4, 2009
20,530
2,607
Toronto
The thing about temp grass at Rogers is you gotta figure out how the Blue Jays make it work as it impacts them the most. Every CFL stadium could makedo with temp grass, but I've just heard it would make logisitics hard on the Jays.

At the same time, Canada's biggest city arguably doesnt really have a great stadium when compared to the rest of the country.

If I had to choose, I'd give Vancouver our marquee games. I've Canadian Voyageur fans that have argued that Vancouver turns out better for the NT than Toronto. (Not my opinion, just what you read lurking other forums)

I also didnt know FIFA didnt allow temp grandstands until reading a few posts up. That would require concessions from FIFA on some stadiums if you went with them. I just frankly think the BigO sucks, and dont really want to display it to the world.

It would not surprise me. Toronto's loyalties are more divided.

Italy and Portugal games would be wild here.

Yeah, its actually been open for about a year now. They've probably had 6 university games and a few concerts I think. Roughriders didnt want to risk construction delays so give a really big timeframe for the move.

Oh **** really?:laugh: Last news I heard, it was on the drawing board and now its built?!? Looks very nice, indeed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: my name is Bob

Howie Hodge

Zombie Woof
Sep 16, 2017
4,422
4,027
Buffalo, NY
Pontiac Silver Dome 1994 World Cup...

mp,550x550,gloss,ffffff,t_3u1.jpg
pontiac-silverdome-detroit-world-cup-finals-usa-22-june-1994-HAEK29.jpg
alexi-lalas-1994-world-cupjpg-5761b8995cf6ee8c.jpg
 

Terrier

Registered User
Sep 30, 2003
10,437
6,198
Newton, MA
Visit site
Wonder if there are any financial conditions in the FOX World Cup broadcast contract for the US missing.


Wondering that myself. Think of all the hipster pubs that won't be getting U.S. soccer crowds next summer(i.e., my favorite, the Phoenix Landing in Cambridge, Mass.).


 
Last edited:

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
Wonder if there are any financial conditions in the FOX World Cup broadcast contract for the US missing.

This whole thing is an interesting experiment now.....how well does a WC without the USMNT do? Interest in that team acts as a lead-in for the whole thing.

Or do you just go all-in on featuring Mexico to the fans in the USA??

Slightly comparable, but how does the Euro tourney fare?
 

Rocko604

Sports will break your heart.
Apr 29, 2009
8,562
273
Vancouver, BC
I would imagine interest will be like in Canada, where fans latch on to whatever country their ancestors may have come from. Like myself, who is looking forward to England's 3 and out.

Although, the hipsters will probably just cheer for Iceland.
 

KevFu

Registered User
May 22, 2009
9,007
3,239
Phoenix from Rochester via New Orleans
The financial implications of USA missing out are little to FIFA, except maybe a slight drop off in advertising dollars I suppose, but most of the huge money FIFA advertisers are international (McDonalds, Coke, etc).

The real hit is for FOX. They spent the money for TV rights in the USA, and getting advertisers to spend on a lower-rated tournament could be tough.

But at the same time, people will watch because it's the biggest sporting event in the world, even though we aren't in it.
2014 USA-Portugal drew 18.2 million viewers on ESPN. The Final drew 17.3 million. So you're probably looking at only 2/3 the ratings for the entire WC, and four windows with a drastic drop.

Fox is going to need England and Mexico to have deep runs.
 

Blackhawkswincup

RIP Fugu
Jun 24, 2007
186,842
20,299
Chicagoland
I would imagine interest will be like in Canada, where fans latch on to whatever country their ancestors may have come from. Like myself, who is looking forward to England's 3 and out.

Although, the hipsters will probably just cheer for Iceland.

No one in US is going to watch soccer just because ancestors came from country involved in tournament

The US missing is a huge step back for game in US and Fox is going to lose a lot of $$$
 

The Zetterberg Era

Ball Hockey Sucks
Nov 8, 2011
40,957
11,577
Ft. Myers, FL
The financial implications of USA missing out are little to FIFA, except maybe a slight drop off in advertising dollars I suppose, but most of the huge money FIFA advertisers are international (McDonalds, Coke, etc).

The real hit is for FOX. They spent the money for TV rights in the USA, and getting advertisers to spend on a lower-rated tournament could be tough.

But at the same time, people will watch because it's the biggest sporting event in the world, even though we aren't in it.
2014 USA-Portugal drew 18.2 million viewers on ESPN. The Final drew 17.3 million. So you're probably looking at only 2/3 the ratings for the entire WC, and four windows with a drastic drop.

Fox is going to need England and Mexico to have deep runs.

Most Mexico fans are not going to watch the English broadcast so that doesn't help Fox at all.

The final drawing less than a group game in the US to me speaks to just how big a drop off this might be.

FIFA rakes in money out of the US for the World Cup. It was the biggest spender in the last cycle in terms of what was reported. This is a disaster for a lot of parties. They cannot be happy, my guess is they are not real happy to be without the Netherlands either. The advertisers being international doesn't cover the fact they will view the package as less valuable because of the likely decline in one of your biggest targets in terms of advertising. Now a lot of these are already sold so FIFA is lucky there, but they won't be bargaining from the same position with the knowledge they are out from here on out. The two biggest economies in the world are now not a part of this tournament, I fail to see how that is a good thing for FIFA

It is still going to be a massive event, but I think the impact of them not being there will be felt.
 
Last edited:

cutchemist42

Registered User
Apr 7, 2011
6,705
220
Winnipeg
Interesting to be lurking the various soccer boards today. Not sure if its over-reaction, but some are really attacking how the whole USSF system is set-up, from MLS down to pay-to-play. Some thinking MLS has too much input into the USMNT and other sentiments. It is interesting to see this come out today on r/MLS where lots are saying this is a lost generation. Like hockey, how shallow of a talent pool are they drawing from?



 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->