Potential Stadia for Englands 2018 World Cup Bid
FIFA have certain rules and regulations for stadium selection in World Cup bids. There will need to be at least ten stadiums put forward all with 40,000 capacity or above, plus at least two stadia must be 60,000 plus capacity, for the opening match, the semi-finals and the final of the World Cup. A further current regulation is that only two of the stadiums can be in the same city.We expect some of the following stadia to be used in 2018 if England are successful with their bid:
These are just a list of potential venues at present, FIFA’s two stadia per city rule, means many London based grounds may not be included even though the stadiums are of a very high quality. Also currently some stadiums lack the necessary access for the media and press, whilst there are also many stadiums which aren’t yet at a suitable capacity but by 2018 they could easily be large enough for World Cup games.
Opening game, Final, Semi Final, Quarter Final, Knock-out phase, Group phase:
Semi Final, Quarter Final, Knockout phase, Group Phase:
 |
Old Trafford, Manchester
Capacity 76,312
Team: Manchester United |
 |
New Anfield, Liverpool
Capacity 61,000
Team: Liverpool |
Knockout phase, Group phase:
 |
Villa Park, Birmingham
Capacity 43,300
Team: Aston Villa |
 |
St Mary’s Stadium, Southampton
Capacity 30,000
Team: Southampton |
 |
Madjeski Stadium, Reading
Capacity 24,200
Team: Reading |
 |
Pride Park, Derby
Capacity 30,000
Team: Derby County |
 |
Ricoh Arena, Coventry
Capacity 32,000
Team: Coventry City |
 |
Kingston Communications Stadium, Hull
Capacity 25,400
Team: Hull City |
Bid Information
March 7, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Robert Grant said:
The stadiums are totally rubbish. We should hold the world cup in Italy
March 23, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
JJ said:
England has some of the best Stadia in the World
March 29, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Jonathan Liddell said:
England is the best place to hold the world cup because we are hold the olympics in 2012 so everyting will be ready and the grounds do not need to be built because they are built and are some of the best in the world.
April 2, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Tony said:
what never inculde twickenham ??? as it has a 82,000 capacity it is also considered the 3rd biggest ground in england
April 2, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
Dom said:
The final should be held at the KC Stadium, not Wembley. If we did that we would definitely get the 2018 World Cup.
April 3, 2007 @ 7:46 pm
Chris said:
Why is Forest’s ground not on there. It can seat just over 30,000, not 25,000 like a couple of those
April 5, 2007 @ 11:29 pm
alex said:
The RFU would never let Twickenham host football. Those stadia are alright but FIFA would want to spread the tournament out through all of England. Expect new stadia in the South West, and (very) North West, and maybe in the West.
Sunderland, Milton Keynes and Hull are all crap cities so I’d rather new stadia were build in nice cities like Bristol or Plymouth. 2018 is plenty of time for this to happen.
April 10, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
Kip Mcqueen said:
It looks like there shall be fantastic stadiums available for the 2018 world cup bid. However there are some stadium plans that this website does not mention.
Liverpool are looking to increase the preposed capacity of their new 61,000 seated stadium to possibly as high as 75,000 (more likely 65,000). Newcastle United intend to increase St James Park to 60,000. Everton plan on moving to a new 55,000 seat stadium, as do Birmingham City. Tottenham and Chelsea have also been thinking about moving to new or expanding existing grounds to 55,000+. Aston Villa also plan on expanding Villa park to 51,000 seats.
As like the above comment I to would like there to be a spread around the country. Hopefully cities like Bristol, Plymouth, Brighton and Norwich will be considered for new stadiums in the bid.
April 11, 2007 @ 6:54 pm
Tom said:
“Sunderland, Milton Keynes and Hull are all crap cities so I’d rather new stadia were build in nice cities like Bristol or Plymouth. 2018 is plenty of time for this to happen.”
Have you ever been to Plymouth…its a dump mate!! Im a Sunderland fan living in Bristol so can see both sides of the argument. Yes Bristol is a lovely city but with two league teams who can command little more than 10,000 fans each week there is no point in building a 50,000 capacity stadium here or in Plymouth. The SOL is widely recognised as fantasitic satdium with the potential to expand way beyound 50,000 to meet the demands of SAFC and a potential 2018 bid. I hasten to add that you have probably never been to half the places you’d dismiss as crap and have failed to understand that nobody cares about football in the South West as there too busy egg-chasing (playing rugby). Both Saint James’ Park and SOL are fantastic arena’s that would add massively to any decision FIFA might make about bringing football home.
April 18, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
Ranting Yorkshireman said:
I’m all for a competiton in England but this stadia is pathetic. Wheres Elland Road? Wheres St. Andrews? Wheres Twickenham? Wheres The Riverside Stadium?
I’m shocked that such stadia as the KC stadium in Hull and the Majedski Stadium are on this list. FIFA are not going to be attracted by tiny 20,000 seater stadiums, they want more of your 35,000. As Tom rightly said on April 11th, this is about bringing football home. And right now we re below par. I dont think this stadium list shows we understand the huge scale of this competiton.
April 18, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
r0w said:
Yeh some of the info up there needs updating, like updated pics of Wembley, Old Trafford, Stadium of Light and capacity info such as New Anfield will prob be nearer 80,000 and St James Park being expanded to over 60,000. Milton Keynes should defently be up there as it is the fastest growing and most modern city in the UK with a gorgeous stadium nearly completed. I also believe Home Park in Plymouth should be expanded or even a new stadium to be built for 2018 as there needs to be a venue in the south west.
I reckon it should be
Final - Wembley 90,000
Semi Finals - Old Trafford 76,000 (prob 95,000 by 2018)
- New Anfield 75,000 - 80,000
Other Knockouts - Emirates Stadium 60,000
- St James Park 60,000
- Stadium of Light 49,000
- City of Manchester Stadium 48,500
- Villa Park 43,300 (plans to expand to 52,000)
Group Games - St Marys 32,000 (upgrade to 40,000+)
- MK Stadium 30,000 (upgrade to 40,000+)
- Plymouth 21,000 (upgrade to 40,000 or build a new stadium)
- Walkers Stadium 32,000 (upgrade to 40,000+)
- Ricoh Arena 32,000 (upgrade to 40,000+)
April 22, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
Michel Kelly said:
Milton Sodding Keynes!!!!
Also, someone somewhere mentioned Twickenham, like the RFU will allow that to happen.
Liverpool will never go to 75,000, they will not get the planning permission.
Should include Hampden Park and Millenium Stadium for truly ‘British’ World Cup
April 26, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Utd we are said:
Do u know what, I am fed up with reading abusive comments about Milton Keynes. Has anybody who makes ignorant comments like the last one actually been there.
As to the Stadium MK. It is a 32,000 all seater with fantastic access, and FIFA 4* facilities. It has been built so that it can be expanded to 42,000 with minimal building work.
Also this is an ENGLAND bid for the World Cup. So why make it British. I don’t hear the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliment wanting to include England in their joint bid for the Euro Championships.
April 27, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
r0w said:
I think we could use the New Pompey Stadium now. 36,000 and it looks stunning! ………oh well c ya later St Marys then.
Yeh MK is the fastest growing city in the UK and will be huge by 2018 and with a new stadium it would be stupid to overlook it
April 27, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
Tom said:
I really dont know how we can be considered ‘below par’. The list of high class modern stadia in England is far superior to the vast majority of countries that will potentially bid. We have more foreign money being pumped into our game every year and the stadiums which are being built and are in the planning office are amazing. By 2018 we will have at least 6 stadiums 50,000 plus, Wembley, New Anfield, Emirates, Old Trafford, SOL (after developement can be 55,000) and Saint James’. These are modern, world class arena’s before we even consider the great plans that lower league clubs have for 35000 ish. On stadia there uis no way England can be overlooked, we just have to hope that politics and reputations dont get in the way.
April 30, 2007 @ 11:09 am
Ashley Giles said:
Pompey?HaHa!They would never hold it there!Even at a new ground(Thats if they get the permission,which they wont).Milton Keynes may be fast-growing but its rough no rougher than Wembley though I suppose.
April 30, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Kip Mcqueen said:
For the 2006 Germany world cup, cities had to bid against each other in order to be a host city. Although cities like Manchster, Newcastle, London and Liverpool are guaranteed stadiums in our 2018 bid, I hope that the other smaller cities have a similar bidding competition to select the best hosts.
Its been mentioned that people want a British World Cup I believe fifa have said they do not want any future co host World Cups. However just after the recent euro 2012 winning bid by Poland & Ukraine, Scotland & Wales put forward there interests in being hosts for the euro 2016. This euro bid could make up for them not being able to co host with England in 2018.
I feel that the main European rival to host the 2018 World Cup would be Spain. Below is a list of both the English and Spanish stadiums that could be used in their bids.
England:
London: Wembley 90,000
Emirates 60,432
Manchester: Old Trafford 76,312 (Possible expansion up to 96,000)
Liverpool: Stanley Park 61,000 (Possible expansion to 75,000)
Birmingham: Villa Park 51,000 (Shall be expanded to this size by 2012)
Newcastle: St James Park 60,000+ (Plans been announced to expand from 52,387)
Sunderland: Stadium of Light 48,707 (Can be expanded up to 72,000)
Portsmouth: New Stadium 36,000 (Hopefully add seats to 40,000, built by 2009)
Sheffield: Hillsborough 40,000 (A revamp and slight expansion needed)
Leeds: Elland Road 40,296 (A revamp needed)
Bristol: New Stadium 40,000 (New ground for Bristol City)
Leicester: Walkers Stadium 40,000 (Needed to expanded from current 32,500)
Other large stadiums that might be used instead of those above, only 1 city can have 2 Stadiums:
Birmingham: City of Birmingham Stadium 55,000
Manchester: City of Manchester Stadium 47,726
Liverpool: New Everton Stadium 55,000
London: Expanded Stamford Bridge 55,000
Spain:
Madrid: Bernabeu 80,354
Estadio La Peineta 73,700 (Was planned stadium for 2012 Olympics)
Barcelona: Camp Nou 98,787
Valencia: New Valencia Stadium 75,000 (Built by 2009)
Seville: Estadio Olimpico de la Cartuja 72,000
Bilbao: Estadio San Mames 56,000 (Built by 2012/2013)
Zaragoza: Nueva Romareda 42,500 (Built by late 2007)
San Sebastian: Gipuzkoarena 42,400 (Built by late 2007)
La Coruna: Estadio de Riazor 40,000 (Need to be expanded from 34,600)
Malaga: Estadio La Rosaleda 40,000 (Needs expansion from 37,200)
Murcia: Nueva Condomina 40,000 (Needs expansion from 31,200)
Elche: Estadio Manuel Martinez Valero 40,000 (Needs expansion from 38,800)
Other Stadiums that could used instead of those above, only 1 city can have 2 stadiums:
Madrid: Estadio Vicente Calderon 57,500
Barcelona: Estadi Nou Sarria 41,000 (Planned stadium)
Seville: Estadio de Lopera 55,500
Seville: Estadio R. Sánchez Pizjuán 45,000
April 30, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
Ashley Giles said:
We may have the stadia but can our Police cope with what will most probably be mass riots
May 8, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Jason said:
To make this short there are 114 American Football Stadiums in 108 Cities with capacities of 40,000 + in the US. 10 of them are 90,000 + capacity with a total of 24 with 80,000 + capacity. So, if you want to argue over what small stadium cities should get the bid for England, just hand the bid to the US where we still hold the capacity record for a World Cup and will bring in the fans.
May 12, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Dabbs said:
Best would be a UK bid
Wembley: 90,000 (5*)
Old Trafford: 76,000 (5*) (potentially 95,000 by 2018)
Millenium Stadium: 74,500 (5*)
New Liverpool Stadium: 65,000+ (5*)
Celtic Park: 61,000 (working on 5* status)
Emirates: 60,000 (5*)
City of Birmingham Stadium: 55,000 (planned)
Hampden Park: 52,000 (5*)
St James Park: 52,000 (potential expansion to 60,000)
Stadium of Light: 49,000 (expandable to 72,000)
Villa Park: 43,000 (planned expansion to 51,000)
That would be 11 stadia that if all expanded would be at least 50,000 capacity each, geographically fairly well distributed and all with the potential to have a 5 star UEFA rating. Also these are all roofed stadia which helps reduce the impact of the weather.
May 14, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
Jason said:
No to be critical Dabbs but I see 2 problems in your bid. First, England does not want a joint bid with Wales and/or Scotland. Second, you have 2 cities with 2 stadiums (London, Birmingham) which currently is not allowed. Replace Villa Park, Hampden Park, and Millenium with Ewood, Elland Road, and The Madejski Stadium. I wouldn’t mind England getting the World Cup but because of the United States large stadiums it deserves a bid too.
May 15, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
Jaffar @ Qatar said:
The best English Bid would be:
2 Stadia in London
- Wembley
- Emirates
8 Stadia in Core Cities Group:
- Manchester (North West)
- Liverpool (North West)
- Newcastle (North East)
- Sheffield (Yorkshire)
- Leeds (Yorkshire)
- Birmingham (West Midlands)
- Nottingham (East Midlands)
- Bristol (South West)
2 more stadia (Optional):
- Southampton (South East)
- Norwich (East Anglia - Can be replaced with a better candidate)
May 21, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
J Alex said:
We could host a better world cup than America! The stadiums over there are hours appart in England we will have better known FOOTBALL stadia and all will be within 5 hours of eachover!
I would say already Wembley, Emirates, Old Trafford, St James, Stanley Park, Eastlands, Stadium of Light and Villa Park are ready to host world cup football with the new Portsmouth and MK grounds as well, Hillsbourgh could host international football as could the walkers, ricoh and elland road stadiums.
Personally I would love the Millenium stadium in Cardiff to be used as it is one of the best stadiums in the world.
May 28, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
Rich said:
Why not use the new Olympic Stadium instead of the Emirates?
It has 20,000 more seats, much better trasnport facilities, and also, if London is the biggest city in Europe what’s the point in having both stadiums in the north of the city? Spread it around!
Also, the bloke responsible for the successful German bid said that the cities with the best tourist ‘package’ should get the nod ahead of the big stadiums in shitty towns (ie Sunderland)
June 5, 2007 @ 8:46 am
Kasbah said:
hey - if you’re going to include hull, MK and reading on the list then where is the Walkers Stadium in Leicester? if it’s pushed up from 32,500 to 40,000 by 2018 then it would be ideal to host a match due to the one stadium per-city rule meaning that city of manchester stadium, st andrews (birmingham), evertons new stadium, and many in london are unable to be used.
michel kelly - an all british world cup would be nice. but have you forgotten that we aren’t british for the purposes of football? fifa wouldn’t allow us to use scotish and welsh stadiums. besides, we can’t go on to fifa about preserving our independence from each other in football and then unite whenever it suits us!
Rich - as for the olympic stadium, it is actually going to be reduced in capacity after the olympics, so it won’t be that big in future.
June 5, 2007 @ 8:52 am
Kasbah said:
London: Wembley, emirates
Birmingham: Villa Park
Manchester: Old Trafford
Liverpool: New Anfield
Newcastle: St James Park
Sunderland: Stadium of Light
There are your obvious stadiums i think. most of those being in the north though I would then expect more of a distribution to the south for the smaller stadiums used in the early rounds:
Leeds: Elland Road (yes i know it’s up north - i said more of a distribution, not all stadium in the south)
Sheffield: Hillsborough
Southampton: St Mary’s (something south of London!)
Leicester: Walkers Stadium
Nottingham: City Ground
Ipswich: Portman Road (spread the games out to the east)
There you have 12 cities….oh hang on 13 stadiums. well even so, maybe Leicester won’t be used (Leicester fan so DAMN!!) but still, a fair distribution of games throughout the country, with only a few stadia needing to be updated to the 40,000 minimum, and no resorting to rugby stadiums!
June 11, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
parker said:
rich you idiot have you ever been to sunderland it has far more to offer than you think and all our fans are friendly and loyal it is the 11th largest city in the uk and im very proud of where i come from so do one.
June 21, 2007 @ 5:31 am
John said:
The KC stadium may not be the biggest but its one of the most modern with a slightly more atractive design than your bog standard bowls,and it will be made bigger.
As for some of you suggesting Ellend road and forests ground ,they are old dumps.
Not all the games will attract huge crowds so the largest stadia are not always the best,Arsenals may be huge but its ugly and is crap for atmosphere.
June 21, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
hull city till i die said:
the kc staadium is ace and it willbe raised up 2 50,000 because of city getting bought.& i thoght mkdons capacity was 5000, have they moved???
June 27, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
Dermot said:
England is the perfect candidate for 2018.
July 3, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Kip Mcqueen said:
In my opinion the KC Stadium does not stand a chance, neither would milton keynes. This proposed world cup should be about promoting English touristic attractions. Its the cities and what they can offer that is more important then the stadiums.
· ‘The status of a club is not important. It is to do with the tourist and cultural package of a venue.’ - Horst Schmidt, vice-chairman of the 2006 World Cup organising committee.
Here is what I feel the FA would settle on if they wanted to promote the best of England to the world.
LONDON:
Wembley Stadium, 90,000. Group stages, Quarter Final, Final.
Emirates Stadium, 60,432. Group Stages, Round of 16, Semi Final.
SOUTHERN ENGLAND:
Bristol, New Stadium for Bristol City 40,000. Group stages, Round of 16.
Portsmouth, New Stadium 40,000. To be built by 2009 hopefully add 4,000 extra seats to meet minimum capacity. Group stages, Round of 16.
MIDLANDS:
Birmingham, Villa Park 51,000. To be expanded by 2012. Group stages, Round of 16, 3rd/4th place match.
Nottingham, New Nottingham Forest Stadium 50,000. To be built by 2014. Group stages, Round of 16.
EAST ANGLIA:
Norwich, New Stadium for Norwich City 40,000. Group Stages, Round of 16.
YORKSHIRE:
Sheffield, Re-developed Hillsborough 45,000. Group Stages, Round of 16.
Leeds, New Stadium for Leeds United 50,000. Plans have been announced in past for new stadium but Leeds would have to get back to Premiership. Group Stages, Quarter Final.
NORTH WEST:
Manchester, Old Trafford 96,000. There have been plans to expand to this capacity in the future but it would be hard. Group stages, Round of 16, Semi Final.
Liverpool, Stanley Park 78,000. To be built by 2009 can be expanded from the initial 68,000 capacity. Group Stages, Quarter Final.
NORTH EAST:
Newcastle, St James Park 60,000+ to be redeveloped in the near future. Group stages, Quarter Final.
July 17, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
Alex said:
I hope only a few current English stadia are used in the bid. Stadiums in London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle are important, but FIFA will want to spread the tournament over the whole country. So I expect new stadia in smaller cities like Portsmouth, Bristol, Leeds etc because they are nice places for tourists to visit, even if the stadium capacity has to be reduced after the tournament.
July 18, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
Steve Coppell said:
The Madejski Stadium, Reading is being rebuilt to be over 40,000 by summer 2009.
Portsmouth are building a new floating stadium too. So that or St Marys, Southampton.
The two most populated footballing places in the south outside London will be needed- for games like Saudi vs Tunisa etc in c40,000 Stadia.
(Dont see that game getting 100,000 in a USA WC Mr Yank!)
Then use obvious- Wembley, Old Trafford, Stanley Park or Kirkby, Emirates
and St James, Stad of Light, City of Manchester and we only have to build one new one! Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield or Bristol to bid for it!
July 22, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Luke said:
Hello,
just thought that I would say… Nottingham Forest are expecting a new 50,000 seater, modern, good looking and its near enough close close to get to from north and south!
surely this will be a great stadium for the bid!
(if you havent guessed im a forest fan myself)
July 22, 2007 @ 10:14 pm
mullet said:
okay, okay, the KC may not be the biggest stadium in the country but was built the option in mind of increasing the capacity to around 32,000. Some of the grounds being mentioned instead of the KC would take ALOT of work to refurbish and get up to scratch.It just doesnt seem worth the effort to do up the City Ground etc when increasing the capacity of this stadium was likely in time anyway. Also, just because Hull City are a lower championship side and the ground is just 24,000 at present, it makes an improvement to some of the areas being suggested. The World Cup is also an advert for the world and though Elland road is much bigger, the KC is much more aesthetically pleasing and as near new. It is probably still the most start of the art of the new grounds (although obviously improvements to the premiership grounds over the last few years still give them the edge). Despite the floods over the last months which will set us back 2 years or so (still enough time for the world cup) Hull is making leaps and bounds and much money is being pumped into the joint. Despite people’s reaction to the place and what they’ve heard it is making vast strides and the opportunity to host one or even two lower order world cup cups games would again do wonders for a resurgant city. By the way the city is coming at the minute by 2018 (11 years away remember) it may be a top 10 city and the team may have tasted premiership football for the first time, who knows. Its a beatiful ground deserving at least a Mexico vs Iran type fixture, we aint asking for the final or to see brazil get off at the ground just a couple of games to make us feel part of the whole experience as hull is isolated enough! Hull will come good, just you see…
July 27, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
Mike B said:
Reading will only be expanding their stadium if they remain in the Premier League. They will have to get over 2nd. season syndrome first. As for the rest, sorry guys but much of it is pure flying piggery.
July 28, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Mike said:
It should be……..
Wembley (London)
Emirates Stadium (London)
Villa Park (Birmingham,West Midlands)
New Nottingham Forest Ground (Nottingham,East Midlands)
Old Trafford (Manchester,North West)
(New) Anfield (Liverpool,North West)
St James Park (Newcastle,North East)
KC Stadium (Hull,East?)
Hillsbrough (Sheffield,Yorkshire)
Elland Road (Leeds,Yorkshire)
New Bristol stadium? (Bristol, South West)
St Marys (Southampton, South)
A mix of new grounds and tradional grounds, like Villa Park and Hillsbrough and fairly well spread out around the country
July 29, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
Beano said:
Wat about the maze being built in belfast it will have a crowd of 50,000 and it will have state of the art technology such as highlights of the match throughout the match on every seat!!!! and stamford bridge is getting a proposed new stadium with a 68,500 stadium in earls court
July 29, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
Mike said:
It’s got to be an all english world cup for FIFA to allow it.
Sorry Celts
July 29, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
beano said:
wat about japan/korea 2002????????? norn iron should be considered seriously
July 30, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Mike said:
Check out the Observer website. and look at “Ebgland 2018″ on search engine and you will find it suggests unusual place as Host Cities such as…
Bristol
Plymouth
Brighton
Wolverhampton
Middlesbrough
Go now
July 30, 2007 @ 4:45 pm
Jimbo said:
I think we should have 16 stadiums. Every group would be split up regionally such as e.g
“Group A- London
Group B- East Midlands
Group C- Manchester
Group D- North East
Group E- Birmingham
Group F- South West
Group G- Liverpool
Group H- Southern England/East Angila
The seeds in the group would have the larger stadium.
Then 8 stadiums could be dropped and be left with eight for the knockout round like Wembley, Old Trafford, New Anfield, Emirates and so on
August 5, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
beano said:
the maze is the way forward in football stadiums
August 9, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
alex said:
Robert Grant has no idea. we will have up to 8 stadiums
(wembley, Old Trafford, Emirates, New Anfeild, Chelsea,
City Of Manchester, St James’ Park and Stadium of Light)
over 45000 capacity. HOW THE HELL IS ITALY A BETTER
PLACE TO HOLD THE WORLD CUP???
Spain might be a potential rival though…
August 9, 2007 @ 11:03 pm
lukas said:
I thought you should let you all know that you can’t just pick the best stadiums in England. A stadia taking part in the world cup had to be over 40,000 capacity. Also 1 city can only have 1 stadia apart from 1 city (that will be London). This also means that the world cup will be all over the country, not just in 1 place.
August 12, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Dermot said:
I think that there should be a 48 team world cup. Here how the places would be alotted:
14 UEFA
10 AFC
10 CAF
5 North America
5 South America
1 New Zealand and Oceania
1 HOST
1 Holders
1 Wildcard.
Stadia:
London Wembley
London Olympic Stadium
Manchester Old Trafford
Liverpool New Stadium
Everton (Outside City)
Newcastle St. James
Sunderland
Middlesbourgh
Nottingham New Stadium
Reading
Birmingham Villa Park
Blackburn
Milton Keynes
Coventry
Portsmouth
Southamton
Plymouth
Derby
Sheffield New Stadium
Leeds
Bristol New Stadium
The Final tornament:
1st Round
2nd Round
3rd Round
1/4 finals at St. James, Stadium of Light, Liverpool and Wembley
1/2 finals at Old Trafford and Olympic Stadium
3rd Place Play off at Villa Park
Final at Wembley
August 14, 2007 @ 10:16 pm
alex said:
no… emirates instead of olympic stadium because…
o/s will only hold 26,000 by 2018
it has a running track around it
it was never really designed for football use
it seems a stupid rule to have 2 gronds per city, it means that you would have the madjeski over stamford bridge, upton park, riverside, white hart lane etc. same with the K/C stadium. And stadium MK. And Pride Park. And st marys. you get the picture.
August 18, 2007 @ 10:28 pm
Oscar Mejia said:
Congratulations! Your idea is great! I was surfing on the net when it came to my mind to think about the potential stadia for England 2018, when I found this site. I’m writing from Barranquilla, Colombia. I’m a fan of World Cup, and I always wonder which would the possible venues be for this tournament,although I’ve read the Olympic Stadium (2012) will be partially demolished up to a capacity of 25,000. Well, time will tell us.
Bye
August 24, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
dand said:
FIFA will only let grounds over 40,000 host world cup games since 2002. UEFA 30,000 for European championships. It may well be that only one stadium per city, but this may change to 2 per city pending on clubs may want to share matches if in same city. By 2018 it may well be 50,000 minimum for world cup games.
The likely stadiums will be
Wembley 90,000
Old Trafford 91,000 (extra tier and corners on final stand and railway station built under the stadium) £180 million.
New Anfield 80,000 (re-submission of plans)
St James park 77,000 (extra tiers to other two stands)
New Goodison 71,000 ( corners filled in on new stadium)
Stadium of light 66,000
Emirates 60,432
New St Andrew/city of birmingham stadium 60,000
Villa Park 51,000
The Riverside 44,800
Pride Park 44,600
Molyneux 42,000
Hillsborough 40,000
Elland Road 40,000
certainley can’t see Hull or MK hosting wc games, heck getting to the Prem before 2018 is unlikely for both these clubs.
August 29, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
England 2018 - Bring Football Home!!! said:
Right whoever mentioned Blackburn and Leeds must be mad! If we do host the World Cup we have to make it the best ever!! And we can start by building state of the art modern stadiums: Wembley, Old Trafford & The Emirates with New Anfield, St.James Park & more following on. We also have top facilities at training grounds which nations could use near the relevant stadiums. And if the Olympics go well then that and The Commonwealth Games in Manchester will prove that we can host major events! So surely we are a better bet than Spain (poor policing) and the USA & Australia (a country that calls it Soccer does not deserve to host it). And hopefully we wont have to qualify having won the previous tournament - or maybe not!!
September 1, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Michael said:
48 teams would never work. too many teams like Oman, Guinea and New Zealand. I tested it and came out with this
Group 1: England, Ecuador, Egypt, Serbia
Group 2: Holland, T&T, Mali, South Korea
Group 3: Czech Rep, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Japan
Group 4: France, Canada, Morocco, Ukraine
Group 5: Mexico, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Russia
Group 6: Argentina, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Australia
Group 7: Brazil, Panama, Cameroon, Sweden
Group 8: Portugal, Uruguay, Guinea, Oman
Group 9: Germany, USA, Tunisia, Uzbeksitan
Group 10: Spain, Paraguay, Senegal, Greece
Group 11: Romania, Mexico, Nigeria, Iran
Group 12: Italy, Chile, Ghana, China
September 3, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
aaron said:
old trafford will never get to be 96,000 as they arnt allowed to be bigger than wembley and liverpools will never go above 65,00 theres no chance of them reaching 75,000 so the 4 semi finals will be wembley 90,000 old trafford maybe 80,000 new anfield 65-70,000 and st james park 60,000/emirates 60,00 depends wich looks better when st james done
September 3, 2007 @ 7:23 pm
lukas said:
Liverpool’s new ground will get over 75,000. The owners and designers have said it will be 78,000 - 79,000. Also that doesn’t include filling in the corners of the ground, so if they really wanted it could be extended bigger again to get like 90,000 I think but I could be wrong.
September 13, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
Kip Mcqueen said:
To aaron- I have never heard of any rule saying an english football ground can’t have a larger capacity then that of Wembley. Although it would be odd if Old Trafford did have more seats then Wembley, I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t do it if they have the demand and can afford the expansion.
Also there can’t be 4 semi finals in a World Cup. However I feel the quarter finals could go to St James Park (Newcastle) 60,000+, Wembley (London) 90,000, New Elland Road (Leeds) 50,000 and New Anfield (Liverpool) 78,000. The semi finals could go to Old Trafford (Manchester) 76,000+ and Emirates Stadium (London) 60,000. The 3rd 4th place played at Villa Park (Birmingham) 51,000, and the final played at Wembley (London) 90,000. This way most of the large stadiums are used and there is a good geographic spread around the major English cities for the final important matches.
September 22, 2007 @ 1:01 am
Mark said:
Wembley 90,000
Old Trafford 85,000 Extended
Twickenham 82,000 In talks with RFU
Liverpool (New) 78,000
Stadium of Light 64,000 Extended
St James Park 60,000 Extended
Everton (New) 60,000 Outside of Liverpool
Birmingham (New) 55,000
Darlington Arena 52,000 Extended.
Nott Forest (New) 50,000
Walkers Stadium 45,000 Extended
Pride Park 44,000 Extended
St James’ Park can only have one more stand extended as the buildings behind the Leazes End are Listed Buildings.
Darlington Arena has the potential to be extended if access to and from the stadium meets FIFA’s requirements.
Birmingham City are building a new stadium if granted permission which will have a higher capacity than Villa Park so would be a better contender.
September 30, 2007 @ 10:20 am
Mike said:
I have had a change of tune. Why go to places like Leeds, when we could promote the whole British Isles by spreading the games out. Here are my venues.
Definate(England): Wembley, Emirates, Old Trafford, New Liverpool Ground, St James Park, Villa Park
Celts: Hampden Park, Celtic Park, Edinburgh, Cardiff, Croke Park (82,000?!), New Belfast Ground.
but for group matches go to places in England which i have not included.
Nottingham
Sheffield
Bristol
East Anglia?
Southampton
OR split the draw into two like 2002 (A-D Celts, E-H England) so we don’t have to invest in new stadia ( except for East Angila, Bristol, Birmingham, Belfast) and do the Britsih Isles proud
October 1, 2007 @ 11:13 am
Jimmy said:
I think the stadiums should be
Wembley
Twickenham (its a lot bigger than the Emirates, and, as Wembley and the Emirates are in the north London,it would be fairer if there was one stadium in the southern part of London) but if RFU dont allow football there then the Emirates
Old Trafford
New Liverpool Stadium
St James Park
Stadium Of Light
New Forest Ground if it gets past planning stages, if not then Pride Park
Walkers Stadium ( should be increased to 45000 by 2018)
Villa Park
Elland Road
Hillsborough
October 4, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
Mike said:
Everyone has a thing about Sunderland it’s a dump for god sakes….
October 6, 2007 @ 7:40 am
Mike said:
LONDON:
Wembley Stadium, 90,000. Group stages, Quarter Final, Final.
Emirates Stadium, 60,000. Group Stages, Round of 16, Semi Final.
SOUTHERN ENGLAND:
Bristol, New Stadium for City and Rovers 45,000. Group stages, Round of 16.
Southampton, St Mary’s 52,000. Stadium has been built so it can be upgraded to this. Group Stages, Round of 16.
MIDLANDS:
Birmingham, Villa Park 51,000. To be expanded by 2012. Group stages, Round of 16.
Nottingham, New Nottingham Forest Stadium 50,000. To be built by 2014. Group stages, Round of 16.
EAST ANGLIA:
Norwich, Re-developed Carrow Road 40,000. Group Stages, Round of 16.
YORKSHIRE:
Sheffield, Re-developed Hillsborough 45,000. Group Stages, Round of 16.
Leeds, Re-developed Elland Road 50,000. They would have to rebuild the West Stand (with loans from government) Group Stages, Quarter Final
NORTH WEST:
Manchester, Old Trafford 76,000. Group stages, Round of 16, Semi Final.
Liverpool, Stanley Park 68,000. Group Stages, ¾ place play off.
NORTH EAST:
Newcastle, St James Park 58,000+ to be redeveloped in the near future. Group stages, Quarter Final.
October 7, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
George Grey said:
Group A: London
Group B: East Midlands
Group C: North East
Group D: Yorkshire
Group E: South West
Group F: North West
Group G: South East
Group H: West Midlands
October 20, 2007 @ 6:52 am
Mike said:
‘The status of a club is not important. It is to do with the tourist and cultural package of a venue.’ - Horst Schmidt, vice-chairman of the 2006 World Cup organising committee.
Here is what I feel the FA should settle on if they wanted to promote the best of England to the world.
London- Wembley Stadium
London- Emirates Stadium
Manchester- Old Trafford
Liverpool- New Anfield
Birmingham- Villa Park
Newcastle- St James’s Park
Leeds- Elland Road
Nottingham- City Ground
Bristol- New Venue
Norwich- Carrow Road
Blackpool- New Venue
Brighton- New Venue
The reasons behind this is there are nine regions in England- London, North West, West Midlands, North East, Yorkshire, East Midlands, South West, South East. I think having Blackpool and Brighton as venues will be very popular with fans.
Main Places not included:
Sunderland- crap
Everton/Man.City- One stadium in city except London
Sheffield Wed- One venue in Yorkshire
Southampton- dull- Brighton better
October 29, 2007 @ 1:41 pm
Jeremy Orbell said:
I think one thing that could scupper England is the fact that most of the stadiums are here already. By 2018 they will be the best part of 20 years old and the suggested new ones seem unlikely to be sustainable. 45,000 in Bristol? City haven’t played in the top flight for nearly 30 years.
I read today about that it’s theoretically CONCACAF’s turn in 2018 but there’s only USA, Canada and Mexico that could realistically stage it.
I know Europe has it a lot but it’s the heart of the world game. If it went to CONCACAF you have the prospect of USA having held it twice in 24 years when they don’t care about the sport, Mexico staging it for the third time, all post ‘66 and Canada? They’ve not made the finals since a dismal display in 1986.
Also another America’s WC would be in the same time zone (roughly) as 2014.
The rest of the World would undoubtedly disagree but I think there should be a form of rotation: Europe, ROW, ROW, Europe, ROW, ROW etc…
October 29, 2007 @ 3:33 pm
Stevie Coppell said:
Those advocating new stadia in towns like Norwich Bristol Plymouth etc should remember that Reading’s Madejski is being upgraded to 32,000 in Summer 2007 and 40,000 in Summer 2008. It is also a UEFA 5 star venue and has hosted numerous European rugby finals and FIFA internationals.
I think there should be an internal bidding process in the regions.
LONDON- 1 from Emirates, Stamford, Olympic Stadium, White Hart Lane
SOUTH- 2 from Madejski, New Pompey, St Marys, Falmer (Brighton)
MIDLANDS- 2 from Villa Park, Pride Park, Walkers, Ricoh Arena, MK Dons
NORTHWEST- 2 from New Anfield, Goodison Park, City of Manchester Stadium, Reebok Stadium
NORTHEAST - 2 from St James’, Stadium of Light, Riverside
That makes 9, plus Wembley, Old Trafford and a new stadium in Birmingham makes 12.
October 29, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
David said:
Why do people keep saying about having stadiums in Scotland, NI, Wales etc etc. It’s England bidding… people saying ‘unite the british isles or whatever’.. shut up…. If we did like have a stadium in Wales and Scotland.. then it wud be a 3 country bid. The football team is England… not Britain… so therefore the Bid is foe England. We are quite capable of holding the ebst world cup ever without other countries. And also, All scotland want to do now is become their own country and not be in UK… so they shouldn’t be included in a ‘British Ilses or whatever u ppl say’ world cup. England will be the ones payin for it! so the stadiums shud be in ENGLANDDDD!!!
Glad to have gotten that of my chest
October 30, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
nigel said:
I personlay think
Definate:
wembley=final
old trafford=semi
emirates=semi
new anfield=3/4
probaly:
st james
villa park
elland road
new pompey/saint
nottingham/foxes/rams
Bristol/plymouth
sunderland
around london ie : revamp , reading or watfor
October 30, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Alex said:
You have to take into consideration that tourist destinations and places of interest will feature, and not only quality of stadia, which means I would prefer to see the following happening whereby two stadia in one region are twinned for pool matches and one of them chosen for knockout stage matches:
London - 2 stadia (Emirates, Bridge, Olympic?) with Wembley for start/end only, to keep the pitch in pristine condition
Manchester-Liverpool (Old Trafford, Stanley Park) - 2 stadia
Portsmouth-Southampton (obvious) - 2 stadia
Midlands (Villa, Derby, Brum) - 2 stadia
North East (St James’ Park, Light, Riverside?) - 2 stadia
Yorks region (Leeds, Sheffield) 2 stadia
Which means Spain, the US and even China have an edge in the photogenic stakes, but England would win hands down if it were about the game itself… Although the sound of ringing tills may yet persuade FIFA to come to these shores.
If only there were call for stadia in the Lake District or Cornwall, England might stand a better chance! Still, can’t fault the enthusiasm. Not met a single person against it yet.
October 30, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
steven dormer said:
With the thames gateway project underway to revamp areas to the east of london and essex theres a chance that west ham could be re housed in a new stadium and if its in essex than that counts as outside the city so theres another ground for the fa to consider.Furthermore milton keynes stadium is actualy realy good and state of the art. The access into the ground are good and theres room to expand. The problems with america and oz is that the cities are too spaced out and like what happened to the irish in 94 was that they had to fly all over the place to watch there team. In the uk are grounds are built for footie not athletics etc. Spain would be a threat i feel as they have good football pedigree. Australia are an emerging nation as the last world cup proved and they have a good recent history at hosting sporting tournaments. What needs to happen is a big injection of cash should we win the rights to host the tournament and build facilities that can cope and look good.
October 31, 2007 @ 5:29 pm
boypathos said:
I think it is long over due that England hosts the World Cup in 2018. But unlikewhat we are doing for 2012 a more concerted effort should be made to spread the benefits around the nation as a whole…
8 groups I think could be based in
North East Newcastle and Sunderland
North West the two new staduim of Liverpool and Everton
Manchester Old Trafford and Man City
Yorkshire Elland Road and a Sheffield staduim
Midlands Villa Park and Pride Park
South Southampton and Portsmouth the new one already proposed
West I would include Millennuim and the only new one for Bristol
Scotland (why not, it will be part of the UK, still I hope) Glasgow Edinburgh
Note how I have avoided London … it would make alot of sense in terms of security, avoid too many opposing fans and spread economic benefits to the rest of country for once…
The final of course would be played at Wembley….
October 31, 2007 @ 5:52 pm
boypathos said:
just to clarify and correct my above post….
I am not proposing a joint bid with the Scottish and Welsh bid but trying to spread the economic benefit and cultural experience for the fans…I was in montpelier for France 98 and it reaaly made a difference o hav a small city base that for the duration lived and breathed football …
Also i overlooked thefifa rule about stadia in one city… so North West becomes Old trafford and New Anfield … and listening to my learned freinds on this site…
A central region… the MK dons and Norwich …based on my montpellier small city experience…
October 31, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
Martin said:
I’m all for it, but we need real imagination if England is actually to win this bid. The retrofitted, dull styles of StMary’s, Pride Park, Riverside are functional but they are simply not footballing stadiums.
Designs for new stadiums in alternative areas other than London need serious consideration
October 31, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
steven dormer said:
Let the welsh on board and use cardiff. Its an excelent stadium. Old trafford and cardiffi for the semis and wembley for the final.
The stadia should be
wembley
millenium cardiff
old trafford
new anfield
new stadia in birmingham
st james park
emirates
stadium of light
notts forrests new ground
and new pompey ground
October 31, 2007 @ 9:58 pm
boypathos said:
further…
for the group stage each of the 4 teams in each group get assigned to a stadium not involved in the matches from the lower leagues where they can train, the town can adopt that nation and general cultural activities take place…the nation could play some warm up games there …again spreading the benefit as wide as possible…
as an example…
having agreed the north west will have new Liverpool and Old Trafford as assigned stadia…the four teams will be allocated Tranmere, Chester, Blackpool, Oldham
the yorkshire group could include …Doncaster, Huddersfield, Grimsby York,
i could go on …. its keeping me entertained….
November 1, 2007 @ 8:26 am
Georgester1993 said:
What is important about the stadiums picked is the capacity and transportation links. Also it needs to be considered if the area is suitable like are the surrounding roads small that you’d end up with a traffic jam lasting into the night.
For convenience, all group games will be kept in certain areas like already mentioned avoiding a lot of hassle.
But I do think Wembley and Old Trafford will be certainly included.
I hope Villa Park gets picked! Come on England! 2018, Here we come!
November 1, 2007 @ 5:07 pm
Jeremy Orbell said:
The only benefit I think of including Hampden and the Millennium is that it would demonstrate the importance of Britain as a whole in establishing the game. Hampden is a historic venue in its own right, the Millennium is vast with a retractable roof and the UK is essentially - whether we like it or not - the same country ruled from the House of Commons with the same monarch.
We do have a Scottish PM let’s not forget - where else could you get that situation and not be up in arms?
Remember that Wales staged the FA Cup for six years and Cardiff has won the thing. Queen’s Park, who play at Hapden, has taken part in the competition too so I think it would benefit the overall bid.
However, it could also deflect focus with some political infighting which could be a reason for FIFA committee members not to vote for us. It may be too high a risk to persue - Wales and Scotland can’t be included as co-hosts either - FIFA don’t want two, let alone three!
November 1, 2007 @ 7:12 pm
Kieren Myers said:
why not elland road
coz by then we will be in the premiership and it will be bigger or if we are lucky we could get that 60 thousad seater which we wanted all that time ago
and stadiums like villa park and stadium of light would have rotted away
November 2, 2007 @ 7:31 pm
haider said:
i just ask ,how about twickenham stadium in london,can be used for world cup 2018.
November 2, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
haider said:
i just ask ,how about olymbik stadium in london stadium in london,can be used for world cup 2018.
November 3, 2007 @ 11:57 pm
Will said:
People are forgetting that only 1 city can have more than 1 stadium on the roster. This is necessary to ensure the diversity of the competition. They would possibly make an exception, but neither Liverpool nor Manchester would have the anything approaching the required hotel facilities to cope with potentially 4 sets of fans
The bid will be split among governmental regions. 2 in the NW, 2 in the NE, 2 in Yorks, 2 in the Mids, 2 in London
Then expect one stadium in the East and one on the South coast.
At this point, the bid could feasibly add ‘token’ stadiums, such as a second Manchester or Liverpool stadium but more likely expect something in the SW (Bristol), if they can deliver it
The quality of the stadiums now may suggest that an alternative roster would be better, but remember, there will be huge grants available for redevelopment and the probable locations NOW will not necessarily have the same stadiums in 2018
Local politics will also play a big part
Expect Sheffield to get a new stadium, Leeds will redevelop on the West side and if Bristol can crunch the numbers, that city will be represented too
I expect the stadia will be as follows
Emirates, Wembley
Old Trafford, New Anfield
Elland Rd, Sheffield*
Birmingham*, the City Ground
Stadium of Light, St James’
St Mary’s or Portsmouth*
Bristol*
*denotes host city but not stadium
There could then possibly be games hosted at the City of Manchester Stadium, Everton, Ipswich* or Norwich*
IF Scottish or Welsh stadia are considered, they would most likely be granted a knockout game, as would the CoMS and/or Everton, but these options would not be included within the bid, they would seek special dispensation after the fact
November 11, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
Hans said:
Wembley, London
Old Trafford, Manchester
New Anfield, Liverpool
St James’, Newcastle
Twickenham/Emirates, London
Villa Park, Birmingham
Elland Road, Leeds
Hillsborough/Bramall Lane, Sheffield
St Mary’s, Southampton
New Stadium, Nottingham
New Stadium, Bristol
New Stadium, Norwich
12 stadiums, all big cities represented, all regions represented - including East Anglia. Some people are forgetting no one wants to go to Sunderland, Hull, Leicester etc
November 15, 2007 @ 11:40 am
SkyBlueLee said:
I can’t see why the Ricoh isn’t too popular. It’s got a great atmosphere, is a popular new ground, has terrific facilities (hotel, casino, restaurants etc) and has hosted U-21 games before. Plus, Coventry is quickly becoming a popular city for tourism.
It certainly should be in above MK Dons and Forest.
November 27, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Graham Smith said:
The capacity of grounds for all but the biggest games will not matter if the greedy FA come up with the same ludicrous pricing and ticketing arrangements as appertained in Euro 96. A quarter-final at Villa Park attracted 26000!
Also whoever said Milton Keynes has good transport links has only been by car. It is 25 minute walk from Bletchley station and it took me an hour to reach MK Central after a 3pm game. Worst ground in England to reach on (local) public transport
December 15, 2007 @ 9:35 am
Mike said:
We should give groups to regions across Britain. It wil be sensible to do as follows
London (Wembley, Emirates)
East Midlands (Nottingham, Sheffield)
South West (Cardiff, Bristol)
North East (Newcastle, Leeds)
West Midlands (Birmingham, Coventry)
North West (Manchester, Liverpool)
Scotland (Glasgow, Edinburgh)
Southern (Plymouth, Southampton)
AND they are all places that people would want to go to watch WC Matches
December 23, 2007 @ 9:47 am
Tobias said:
These stadiums should be used if England got the World Cup 2018!!
Wembley Stadium - London
Emirates Stadium - London
Old Trafford - Manchester
City Of Manchester Stadium - Manchester
New Anfield - Liverpool
St. James Park - Newcastle
Stadium Of Light - Sunderland
Riverside Stadium - Middlesbrough
St. Marys Stadium - Southampton
Villa Park - Birmingham
Elland Road - Leeds
Madejski Stadium - Reading
New Stadium - Bristol
Hillsborough - Sheffield
December 24, 2007 @ 11:34 am
chris said:
OK some factors have not been taken into account here.
Only one city can have 2 venues. All must be minimum of 40,000 capacity and it is also likely to be 8 grounds used, so therefore it would probably be like this.
Wembley
Emirates
New Anfield
Old Trafford
St James Park
Villa Park
New proposed Notts Forest ground (40,000 capacity)
Then one from:
Bramall Lane (officially planned to be 40,000 by time of world cup with a new Kop to be started in 2008 and and additional tier to the main stand to follow) However location will be an issue as the ground is in the city centre.
Hillsbrough / Elland Road - both already large enough but will need extensive remodelling due to restricted views and dated facilities - particularly at Hillsbrough. This will cost the FA a lot of money as Leeds needs 3 stands and Hillsbrough needs 2.
Elland Road is most likely as the location is considerably better and Leeds already run shuttle bus schemes for games so they are quite well drilled.
Another possibilty is Pride Park at Derby, they plan to do it up to 40,000 and its located out of town which is deemed as ideal.
It wont be reading or sunderland. Reading is too close to london, and although Sunderland is definitely worthy it is to close to newcastle/ St Marys is far too small. City of Manchester would be great but the ‘one city with 2 stadia rule’ means it will miss out. Riverside does not even come close due to capacity, location, local infrastructure.
Bristols proposed 30,000 ground will be to small and frankly it will probably be characterless and basic.
December 24, 2007 @ 11:40 am
chris said:
also it is and ENGLAND bid not UK so the scottish and welsh grounds will not be eligible despite how good some of them are.
December 24, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
chris said:
futher to my first point, i correct myself up to 16 stadia could be used rather than 8. But there is still the minimum of 40,000 problem plus infrastructure.
Wembley will host all England games so the likes of: Emirates, New Anfield,Old Trafford,St James Park,Villa Park and the largest potential 8th ground could be split one per group so that the game between to the 2 seeded or larger teams per group will be held there with the exception of Englands games.
This would open the door to the more ‘dark horse’ stadiums but 1 city with 2 stadium rule means some fantastic grounds would miss out such as Evertons new ground (if EVER built) and city of manchester. I genuinely think that the city of birmingham ground will never be built i can see a potential expansion there but not a new 55,000 seater.
Realistically though the FA will build the likes of plymouth to 40,000. Only clubs with potential to achieve this sort of crowd will get it.
January 2, 2008 @ 8:53 pm
kieren myers said:
i think that they should use twickenham because its got a good atmosphere and is just as good as any football stadium
plus that when elland road has got the upgrades and a new lick of paint that should be on the list
January 21, 2008 @ 7:50 am
Dave said:
To Be Honest Id Love to see a stadium in kent
priestfields all the way for the final
February 4, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
steve said:
Due to the rules only one city can have more than one stadium, so, that rules out City of Manchester Stadium (Eastlands). Two stadiums could probably be used in London, Wembly and either Twickenham or Emirates (or maybe the new expanded White Hart Lane). Only one of either the new Anfield stadium (Stanley Park) and the new stadium for Everton can be used, meaning at least FOUR of England’s biggest Stadia cannot be used…
February 10, 2008 @ 1:02 pm
mrslampard said:
bristol is a shit place milton keynes is great but i should be held at the mighty stamford bridge xoxoxox
February 11, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
John said:
MadStad for the final! Only kidding!
Mind you, it will be AT LEAST 38,000 by then, (I hear rumours of 48,000 by 2015??) so is a strong candidate for some of the slightly earlier rounds (QFs, perhaps?)
February 11, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
John said:
December 24, 2007 @ 11:40 am
chris said:
also it is and ENGLAND bid not UK so the scottish and welsh grounds will not be eligible despite how good some of them are.
Not necessarily. The bid for a predominently “England” World Cup can just as easily include a match or two at the Millennium, or Hamden/Ibrox/Celtic, if the bid organisers decide so. (This frequently happens in RWCs (Take last year, for example - How exactly are Cardiff and Edinburgh in France??) In fact, this could prove politically expedient with the head-honchos at FIFA.
February 18, 2008 @ 10:36 am
Kip Mcqueen said:
To John: Well Cardiff and Edinburgh are not in France, but for France to get the 2007 rugby world cup they had to get the welsh and scottish RFU votes otherwise England would have been host. They did get their votes but had to strike a deal with them, which involved games being played in their capitals.
To Mrs Lampard: Bristol is not a ’shit place’ as you put it, infact its probably the nicest large city in England, and I expect it will be part of a 2018 bid, unlike Milton Keynes and Stamford Bridge. London’s 2nd stadium is most likely going to be the Emirates with 60,432, as Stamford Bridge can be only expanded to 55,000 at most. The only Stadiums that could replace the Emirates in London are West Hams new stadium which would be newer and maybe a fraction bigger, or if Tottenham get WHL expanded larger then 60,432 or have a new stadium built.
February 20, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
Stuart G said:
Its amazing how talk of a few games (64) in the summer of 2012 strikes great conversations that last months.
I would love for the RFU to let Twickenham host three football games, 1. England group game, 2. Last 16 games, 3. A semi-final to allow Wembley off hosting a Semi
February 20, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Stuart G said:
Another amazing comment.
WORLD CUP 2012 IN LONDON!!
The 12 stadias
1. Wembley
2. Twickenham
3. Emirates
4. White Hart Lane
5. Stamford Bridge
6. Upton Park
7. Selhurst Park
8. Craven Cottage
9. 2012 Olympic Stadia
10. Loftus Road
11. Vicarage Road
12. The Valley
PS, am only joking
February 21, 2008 @ 4:37 pm
Mike said:
All this could be overruled if Premier League’s infamous ‘Game 39′ goes ahead
February 22, 2008 @ 8:51 am
Stuart G said:
Would the world cup work with 13 stadiums. please reply
February 22, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
Kip Mcqueen said:
In the analysing stadiums bit like plymouth and liverpool, PLEASE would someone do Molineux. It’s just like Villa Park and Hillsborough, steeped in Football history
March 2, 2008 @ 9:44 am
woodsy said:
Not sure if you people realise but FIFA allow only 2 stadium for 1 city and the others have to be spread around. Games cannot be held in either Wales or Scotland as this would mean giving all 3 countries direct qualification and UEFA and FIFA will not allow that. All stadiums must hold at least 45,000.
I think the WC should go to Australia in 2018. We have held the Olympics, Rugby World Cup, Commonwealth games and to be honest no in one Europe really likes the English and it would be alot safer for all fans to hold the event on the other side of the world.
March 10, 2008 @ 5:11 pm
Jess said:
Seriously….Why Sunderland? It really isn’t anything special.
Wembley,
Villa Park,
Everton,
Man City,
St James,
St Andrews,
Elland Road(?),
Old Trafford,
New Anfield,
Emirates,
New Pompey,
Bournemouth (holds just under 40,000)
March 23, 2008 @ 8:22 pm
Connor said:
The stadia should be (not in any particular order)
1: Old Trafford ( with south stand redo it would be 96,000 by then)
2: Wembley
3: Twickenham
4: Croke Park
5: Murrayfield
6: new Everton
7: Milleniun Stadium
8: new Liverpool
9: Villa Park
10: St. James’ Park
11: Stadium of Light
12: Maybe Elland Road if Leeds can afford to redo it
March 25, 2008 @ 9:26 pm
Leonardo Ferreira said:
Portugal will participate with Spain in FIFA 2018 world cup, and we have more possibilities to win the bid. We have better and biggest stadiums than England and we are knew by all the world by our fabulous organizations and tourism…
Thanks… But england project is very good…
April 1, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
John Madejski said:
Madejski Stadium will hold 38,000 by 2012.
April 2, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Pseudinho said:
Stadiums must be atleast 40,000 capacity. I do think England should be the next European country to get the World Cup. Plus only one city can have two stadiums. This is how I see World Cup bids panning out.
2010 - South Africa
2014 - Brazil
2018 - England
2022 - USA
2026 - China
2030 - Uruguay
2034 - Spain
2038 - Australia
2042 - Canada
2046 - Italy
2050 - AFRICA
2054 - Mexico
2058 - France
2062 - Argentina
2066 - Japan
2070 - Germany
2074 - USA
April 7, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Russ said:
Please can someone tell me why everyone is assuming that St James Park can be expanded to 60,000. It cannot. It has an underground station at one end preventing the extension of the Gallowgate end. Behind the east stand is the listed structure of Leazes Terrace. They would need to move Stadia to get a bigger ground. And all this is information was told to me by a NUFC ST holder. Get this notion of 60,000 out of your heads.
April 28, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
ChrisG said:
What about Hillsborough Stadium?? Just short of a 40.000 capacity and possible investment by a new takeover for the club, this stadium has a lot of potential to match its rich history
April 30, 2008 @ 11:35 am
simon said:
st james can be extended to 60000 it would just involve either strengthening the station or relocating it, the club already have plans for this. either way it would still be way above the 40000 requirement and one of the most impresive stadiums in the country along with old trafford.
the main stadia should be
wembley
emirates
old trafford
new liverpool
st james park
villa park
stadium of light
elland road
possibly hillsbrough
then made up by smaller stadiums with room for expansion
i think it is also important to include some of the older historic stadiums that actualy have atmosphere rather than the new plastic ones
May 3, 2008 @ 9:09 pm
Donald said:
Why can’t the bid concentrate on cities instead of just simply large stadia? Sunderland have got a huge stadium but the place is a ****hole! Tourist-friendly cities like Bristol, Portsmouth, Nottingham would be great choices if some temporary stands were added to current stadia to boost the capacity to the 40,000+ mark.
May 4, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
Mike said:
I made a comment on 04/10/2007 quoting “Everyone has a thing about Sunderland it’s a dump for god sakes….”
I went to Sunderland for West ham’s game up there in March and yes the place was not the same as London or Manchester. But unlike Coventry and Leicester, i found the sunderland people to be quite freindly and these qualites would be pleasent for American and Korean tourist (hopefully) visiting our country in 2018. I retract my comments about Sunderland mad previously and should definatly be a part of the 2018 bid.
May 8, 2008 @ 1:07 am
Taxtim said:
Professional football was pioneered in the north of England which is why there is still a bias to greater stadiums and success than the south.
I’d like to see some representation for the south west though and think only one stadium per city is necessary (except London due to size).
I’ve tried to think of travel proximity in the following suggestions, and can’t think of anything more fare :-
Wembley
Emirates
UPGRADED
Old Trafford
new Anfield
St James’s
Elland Road
Molineux
City Ground
St Andrews
Bristol (possibly new)
No doubt there would be grants to upgrade stadia (U) and that would easily allow for five or more of 60,000 capacity.
May 28, 2008 @ 5:16 pm
numpties said:
it’s not a two stadia per city limit, it’s ONE stadium per city except the main city and it is a 40,000 minimum
so:-
Elland Road 40,242 Leeds United
1) Wembley 90000
2) Old Trafford 76,313 Manchester United
3) Emirates 60,000 Arsenal
4) St James’ Park 52,387 Newcastle United
5) Stadium of Light 48,300 Sunderland
6) Anfield 45,522 Liverpool (New Stadium TBA)
7) Villa Park 43,300 Aston Villa
9) Hillsborough Stadium 39,859 Sheffield Wednesday
10) St Mary’s 32,500 (52,000 after upgrade) Southampton
11) Riverside 35,100 (42,000 after upgrade) Middlesbrough
12) Pride Park 33,597 (40,000 after upgrade?) Derby
13) Ricoh 32,500 (40,000 after upgrade) Coventry
14) Walkers Stadium 32,500 Leicester City (39,000 after upgrade)
no Chelsea, no City of Manchester under current FIFA rules
May 29, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
I said:
well to be honest the madjeski is nowhere near good enough for the world cup. if we were to host it now
1 Wembley Stadium 90,000 England national football team National stadium N/A Largest stadium in the country, most expensive stadium in the world. Holds current world record for the most covered seats.
2 Old Trafford 76,212 Manchester United Premier League 1 Largest football stadium in the Premier League. Nicknamed the Theatre of Dreams by Sir Bobby Charlton. Hope of expanding the stadium to about 96,000,which if done will make it the biggest stadium in England.
3 Emirates Stadium 60,355[1] Arsenal Premier League 2 Also known as Ashburton Grove. Largest club stadium in London.
4 St James’ Park 52,387[2] Newcastle United Premier League 3 Plans to upgrade to 60,000 seats [3]
5 Stadium of Light 49,000[4] Sunderland Premier League 4 Was the largest new club stadium built in England since 1923 when it opened in 1997. Has planning permission for extension of South Stand to take capacity to about 55,555. The stadium’s third tier will eventually be extended round the East Stand, pending improvements in local infrastructure, taking the capacity to 67,500.
6 City of Manchester Stadium 47,726[5] Manchester City Premier League 5 Also known as Eastlands or abbreviated as COMS; the stadium was originally built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games. Afterwards it was given a £35 million conversion by Manchester City FC to transform the ground for football use, a new stand and 10,000 seats were also added. The stadia was also the venue for the 2008 UEFA Cup Final. The City of Manchester Stadium’s pitch is also the widest in English football[6]
7 Anfield 45,522 Liverpool Premier League 6 Proposed move to Stanley Park Stadium, with initial 61,000 capacity with the potential to rise to around 80,000
8 Villa Park 42,573 Aston Villa Premier League 7 Plans to increase capacity to at least 51,000 seats [7]
9 Stamford Bridge 42,360 Chelsea Premier League 8 Examining possible moves to Earl’s Court.
10 Goodison Park 40,569 Everton Premier League 9 Everton are currently looking at moving to a new 55,000-capacity ground.
Good old wikipedia.
Anyway this shows that we still have it least 10 grounds over 40,000 which are all grounds that could stage games for the 2018 world cup
Rules of 1 ground a city is abit of a pisstake and i can’t see why they would enforce this rule? Its not as if we’ve got more than 2 stadiums in each city apart from london
June 6, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
James said:
Two stadia per city is what is required not one! Thats Official!
The following Stadia will be used giving the Right Spread Across the Country as requested byu FIFA.
(Capacity shown is likey estimates, not potential or what ifs, or maybe)
London - Wembley 90,000
Emirates 60,000
Birmingham - Villa Park 53,000
Coventry - Ricoh Arena 32,000
(Depends if they move again) Mk Dons - 30,000
Manchester - Old Trafford - 81,000
City Stadium - 48,000
Liverpool - New Anfield - 65,000
- Kirby - 55,000
North East - St James Park - 51,000
Stadium of Light - 49,000
Southampton - Stadium of Light - 30.000
June 12, 2008 @ 7:22 pm
ash said:
where is sincil bank in lincoln dat should defo b considered also, if it is only 2 stadias per city wembley nd hu cos u hav loads of mint stadiums. Olympic, emirates or stanford bridge>?
June 16, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
Stu said:
I think we will definitely see at least one new 40k stadium in a city or town that probably dosn’t have a local club that is ever likely to fill it after the world cup, I’d say Bristol is a prime candidate.
London - Wembly and Emirates.
Birmingham - Villa Park after renovation or New Birminham City Stadium
Manchester - Old Trafford, whatever size it happens to be at the time.
Liverpool - New Liverpool Stadium.
Leeds - Renovated Elland Road or new stadium, this would need money Leeds United don’t look like their going to have anytime soon. As a Leeds fan I hope this happens, I have to concied that despite being a 40k stadium Elland Road is a little tatty and wouldn’t have a chance of hosting any games as it is but I think it would make sound sense commercially to host games in Leeds since it seems that potential tourism is going to be a deciding factor and I think in that sense Leeds is up there with any of the other major cities.
Newcastle - St James’ whatever size it is at the time.
Bristol - I recon a new 40k stadium will get build there to represent the south-west.
Nottingham - New 50k stadium if it gets built. The most tourist friendly city in the East Midlands so it would represent this area (never been to Derby, but I have been to Leicester and Nottingham is nicer IMO).
Portsmouth - New stadium. Either there or Southampton to represent the South coast, I think the momentum would be with Portsmouth.
Wild cards could be Ipswich or Norwich to get East Anglia in on the act since the clubs ability to fill 40k seat after the tourniment probably won’t matter.
Sheffield could come into the reconing especially if a new or improved stadium in Leeds never materialises. Bramall Lane is supposed to be getting an increase to around 40k sometime in the future, but I don’t think that’ll be enough because it’ll still look poor. Some tasteful renovation to Hillsboro would be spot on tho.
I think the way Hull as a city is perceived at present the KC Stadium could be redeveloped is such a way as to make the San Siro look like The Shay in Halifax and it still wouldn’t have a chance. I just can’t see peoples prejudices changing enough in time.
I think there could be some real surprises when they anounce the stadiums, I think it’s possible they will go with Wembley as the only stadium to be used in London for example. And I think there will be one stadium at least that will never get anywhere near full capacity again after the tourniment.
Anyway we’ll see eh.
June 17, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
Charlie Brown said:
Portman Road should be considered as East Anglia’s Venue, due to it being larger and having better facilities than Carrow Road in Norwich. And it has the added advantage of being used as an International venue, being used for an England Friendly match, which was considered a great success for the FA.
It is important for the venues to be spread evenly throughout the country, meaning that East Anglia, should have one venue, leaving Ipswich and Norwich to battle it out!
June 19, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
tommy said:
WC 2018 should not be hosted by England. It should be held in Croatia because Croats know how to play football. English players don’t know how to play football!
P.S. Zagreb, October 2006 :
CRO - ENG 2 - 0
London, November 2007 :
ENG - CRO 2 - 3
TRAGEDY, HUGE TRAGEDY, CATASTROPHE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GO CROATS!!!!!!!!!!
I HOPE THEY WILL WON EURO 2008!
June 21, 2008 @ 12:35 pm
Haitham said:
England have the best stadiums, the best league, the best players in the world. Italy are shit, they always have and they always will.
July 3, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Mike said:
What does anyone think about regioanl groupings (London, NW, SW, Yorks…) instead of just 10-12 standard venues?
July 24, 2008 @ 7:23 pm
jonathan morson said:
i think england should host the 2018 world cup but im not sure about those stadiums e.g. the KC stadium holds 25,000 as does the madjeski but leicester citys walkers stadium holds 32,000 as does the shitty ground (forest) why use those crap stadiums when we have 2 great ones in the midlands also wembley would be much easier to get to if it was in the middle of the country so why not have it there???????????UP THE FOXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
July 31, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
Kees Dijk said:
why the BeNeLux bid would be the weakest of the 3 known bids (UK, Russia, BeNeLux)?
There are a lot of advantages: the distances between the host cities are small, the performance of Euro 2000 was excellent and the stadiums (some of them must be build or extended) are modern and meet all safety requirements!
The following cities :
Belgium
*Brussels: new stadium will be build (min 60.000)
*Antwerpen: new stadium will be build (min 50.000)
*Brugge: new stadium to will build (min 42.000)
*Luik:new stadium will be build (42.000)
*Genk: now 25000;will be extended to 42.000
*Charleroi:now 25.000;extended to 42.000
Holland
*Rotterdam:new stadium will be build (90.000)
*Rotterdam:Feyenoord stadium:52.000
*Amsterdam:Arena:now 52.000;will be extended to 75.000
*Amsterdam:Olympisch Stadion:now 22.500;if necessary can be extended to 44.000
*Eindhoven:Philipsstadium:now 36.500;will be extended to 45.000
*Enschede:Grolsch Veste:now 24.000; will be extended to 42.000
*Heerenveen:Abe Lenstra Stadium:now 26.000;will be extended to 42.000
August 7, 2008 @ 6:59 am
Mike said:
I think there are strong calls for England,Benelux,Russia and Portugal/Spain. It will be intresting to see who UEFA back.
August 7, 2008 @ 7:05 am
Mike said:
The big debate on this is about Sunderland. thoughts?
August 7, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
George SFC said:
Southampton’s St Marys Stadium holds 32,600 all seater which is rated a 4* but say they get back into the premiership they have already brought planning permission to upgrade the stadium to a 52,000 all seater stadium added two tiers to the Icthen Stand and The Northen Stand so hopefully it will be ready to host games if England get the world cup 2018.
August 12, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Lee said:
I think there should be groups like this
Group A: London: Wembley, Emirates
Group B: South: New Portsmouth, Southampton
Group C: Midlands: Villa Pak, and Moleniux,MK,Derby,or forest
Group D: NorthWest: Anfield, Old Trafford
Group E: Yorks: Elland Road, Hillsbrough
Group F: NorthEast: Newcastle,Sunderland
I dont know what else to put in because i am not sure which grounds are being extended and whatnot
August 13, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
john said:
I think Sunderland shud definitly be used because it is already a world class stadium and also it has planning permission to be extended to 64,00 if needed for the world cup. Also, who wants shitty stadiums such as KC and Reading when you need to have the biggest and best grounds
PS: Is it true about the rule where you can only have one city with two stadiums
August 13, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Noel said:
England has a strong bid because each stadium can be reached by car, train and coach in under 8 hours, or less than 1 hour by domestic flight.
This ensures that the country will be able to accommodate the need to spread the stadiums around the country to different cities. A total of 9 cities will be used from 10 stadiums. Other countries may struggle to find the required number of cities needed to host the event.
England and the cities listed have the experience of hosting major football events year round and knowing what special requirements are needed when it comes to the management and policing of thousands of football fans.
Here’s my list, by order of capacity:
London - Wembley Stadium (Group Stages, Last 16, Quarter-Finals, Semi-Finals, Final)
Manchester - Old Trafford (Group Stages, Last 16, Quarter-Finals, Semi-Finals)
London - Emirates Stadium (Group Stages, Last 16, Quarter-Finals)
Liverpool - New Anfield (Group Stages, Last 16, Quarter-Finals, Third Place Playoff)
Newcastle - St James’ Park (Group Stages, Last 16)
Sunderland - Stadium Of Light (Group Stages, Last 16)
Birmingham - Villa Park (Group Stages, Last 16)
Leeds - Elland Road (Group Stages, Last 16)
Sheffield - Hillsborough (Group Stages)
Southampton - St Mary’s Stadium (Group Stages)
Coventry - Ricoh Arena (Group Stages)
Leicester - Walkers Stadium (Group Stages)
Potentially the list of stadiums required could be 12, the bottom two would be included if this is the case.
All these stadiums have an international airport within 15 miles, except for Hillsborough (best not to miss it out).
Other potentials would be the City Of Birmingham Stadium, New Nottingham Stadium and a new Bristol/Plymouth stadium, but these are still on the drawing board.
Minimum capacity for stadiums is 45,000 - Villa Park and below would need expansions until 2018. These stadiums have a realistic demand to expand.
Stadiums that missed out:
City Of Manchester Stadium - Manchester would only be allowed to have one stadium.
Twickenham - Owned by RFU, football has never been traditionally played there, London already has two venues.
Stamford Bridge - Currently unable to host major internationals due to a lack of space and access problems around the ground, this isn’t going to improve in the future.
Goodison Park - Poor outdated facilities, and likely to be closed before 2018.
White Hart Lane - Poor transport links and no current confirmed plans to upgrade.
Upton Park - Average transport links, poor location, potential closure after 2013.
Riverside Stadium - Already two venues in the North East, no real demand for expansion after the World Cup.
Portsmouth New Stadium - Even if built would be at least 9,000 under minimum capacity with no known expansion plans. Southampton has superior transport links, and an expansion of St Mary’s is far more realistic.
Norwich / Ipswich, East Anglia Stadium - Expansion to the minimum capacity of the 45,000 would be difficult at both locations, while there would be questions as to both cities abilities to host such a major international event as well as the future demand for the stadium after the World Cup.
New Everton Kirby Stadium - Like the COMS, due to only one city being able to have two host stadiums, the new Everton stadium would miss out to the larger New Anfield.
Well, that’s the masterplan as I see it. Hope we do wonders for that bid.
August 14, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
Mike said:
really, London is the only city which could have two stadiums. So Man c,everton and west ham WILL miss out
August 21, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
Fozz said:
Are you sure about Man City……I always thought Man Utd were in either Salford or Manchester, which lies outside the City limits, and Eastlands was in the City Limits
Here is the Stadiums I would use
Wembley
Emirates(But if a deal could be struck with the RFU, I’d utilise Twickenham)
Villa Park
Old Trafford
New Anfield
New Forest Ground
Stadium of Light
St James’ Park
Stadium:MK
New Pompey Stadium
New South West Stadium
KC Stadium
I would put The Walkers, An East Anglia Stadium and another North West Stadium in Reserve
August 25, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
bob said:
why does any1 want 2 go 2 middlesbrough its a shithole i shud know i live in the north-east all it has is factorys and besides tht sunderland and newcastle have by far better stadiums than boro
September 6, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
adam said:
Just to remind everybody that Fifa has a limit on world cup venues at 40 000-45 000 and also just one venue per city if not an agreement is made. Here is what I think the venues they should play at:
(with capacity in 2018, some are not approves to expand like ex St James Park that has some buildings in the way to expand etc)
Wembley Stadium, London 90 000
Emirtates Stadium, London 60 000
Old Trafford, Manchester 96 000
Stanley Park Stadium, Liverpool 73 000 “(not built yet)
St James Park, Newcastle 60 000
Stadium of Light, Sunderland 69 500
Villa Park, Birmingham 51 000
New Nottingham Stadium, Nottingham 50 000 “(not built yet)
Elland Road, Leeds 58 500
Walkers Stadium, Leicester 55 000
(found on wikipedia….so some facts can be wrong!)
Final: Wembley
Third Place: Emirates
Semi 1: Old trafford
Semi 2: Stanley Park”
Quater-final 1: Villa Park
Quater-final 2: Stadium of Light
Quater-final 3: Elland Road
Quater-final 4: St James Park
Last 16 1: Wembley
Last 16 2: Emirates
Last 16 3: Stanley Park
Last 16 4: Old Trafford
Last 16 5: Walkers
Last 16 6: New Nottingham Ground
Last 16 7: St James Park
Last 16 8: Stadium of Light
Group A: Stanley Park
Group B: Emirates
Group C: St James Park
Group D: Stadium of Light
Group E: Wembley
Group F: Walkers
Group G: Old Trafford
Group H: Elland Road
September 22, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
alex said:
Why are so many people misssing out Leeds? Its the third biggest city in England and its one of the best it is always winning awards for tourism and its also near York which every tourist always wants to go to. Also do you really want to show off places such as Coventry, Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Leicester, Derby and Hull off to the world? Sure Elland road needs work but if the city got the world cup this would happen by rebuilding the west stand also Leeds are one of the only teams which would sell out a 50,000+ stadium after the world cup once we are back in the Premier League.
October 2, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
safc said:
the stadium of light already has planning permission to extend the stadium to 64,000
October 13, 2008 @ 1:53 pm
Frank said:
Why are people keep saying St James Park is being extended? There is no chance of this happening at all.
The Stadium of Light has planning permission already to be extended to 55,000 and was in the 2006 wold cup failed bid with a capacity over 60,000.
If England won the world cup bid the Stadium of Light could be built up to well over 60,000 at a cost of less than £20 million.
October 15, 2008 @ 10:34 pm
Jumba said:
I read a comment earlier that said Twickenham could be used. The RFU should allow it because Rugby Union has been played at Wembly (along with NFL). It is stupid to suggest that Old Trafford could not be bigger than Wembly in 10 years, MUFC have been expanding it for the past 10 years already. would be nice tho to see pride park get used as well as Reebok stadium
October 19, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
joe smith said:
You only need 8 staiums to host a world cup not 10,000
By the way, the US is where the world cup should be, there are plenty of American footaball stadiums to go around that are in MUCH better shape than St. James Park, Stadium of Light, Elland Road, etc.
In the US the problem would be which stadiums to cut!
If the US hosted the world cup every stadium would have luxury boxes for optimum revenue and over 60,000 capacity for every stadium w/o renovation.
November 1, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
michael leigh said:
what about the “northumberland development project” - spurs new stadium to be built by 2013, will seat at least 60,000 (hopefully they’ll put in a few extra so its bigger than emirates) and will be a world class state of the art venue. why is reading and hull and mk dons etc. in there? there should be a minimum capacity of 45,000 to be used in world cup. there are already 7 stadiums this size + stamford bridge could be expanded slightly + spurs new stadium will be done by then + there will be new stadiums built specifically for the world cup if we got it anyway. this rule that the stadiums have to be spread out is the biggest load of crap - the truth is that most of the biggest and best stadiums are in london so why put them out the way for the madjeski stadium which can’t even hold 25,000. london is the capital and the biggest and the most easily accessible city in the U.K so it would make sense to put most of the games in london. if “madjeski stadium”or any stupid small stadiums are chosen over great modern stadiums like spurs new one, i won’t go….
November 2, 2008 @ 10:50 pm
andrew said:
The Emirates will never host a World Cup match, and neither will Eastlands - FIFA puts a limit of one stadium per city on the world cup, so (I assume) only Wembley could host London based WC matches
November 4, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
Kieran said:
What’s the point of 24,000 seater grounds? I know they want to spread it out which is why there was talk of games at Ipswich and Bristol(I think they’d build a new stadium) and these would both 30,000+
And in all fairness, Why reading and Hull? Reading is close to London so it would be more worthwhile to have one IN london in a WORLD CLASS stadium like emirates or the spurs development. And Hull is just too small and not that far from some real stadiums.
November 8, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Shaun said:
IPSWICH’S PORTMAN ROAD should be a definate stadium for 2018. It’s the ONLY 31,000+ seater in East Anglia and we are therefore more equipped to host world cup games than Derby, Chelsea, Reading or Hull whom are all close to other, better stadiums.
IPSWICH/PORTMAN ROAD FOR 2018.
November 8, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
Shaun said:
Norwich’s stadium is too small, and there are sections within the stadium where you can’t actually see the whole pitch.
If the FA are going to choose a stadium from the East, their only realistic option is Ipswich. It’s the only option that makes sense.
-bigger stadium
-lower crime-rate
-more succesful history
-World Cup winning manager Sir Alf Ramsey managed at Ipswich, as well as Sir Bobby Robson (both of whom have statues dedicated to them outside of the ground)
-better pitch (former wembley groundsman does the pitch)
-once again, BIGGER STADIUM with every seat in clear view of the pitch. Unlike Norwich’s Carrow Road.
IPSWICH FOR 2018.
November 10, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
Charlie Brown said:
Yes, Portman Road should be considered, for all of the reasons given above.
And it cannot be underestimated, that it has held an international match in the past, with great success!
It should be East Anglia’s venue for 2018, due to the relatively small amount of work needed to build it up to required standards.
Carrow Road just hasn’t the prestige or History holding big events and football teams, as Portman Road.
Choosing Portman Road would also honour the greatest manager England has ever produced, of which there is a statue to commenerate BOTH of them outside the ground.
Its tradtional, steeped in history, and if the Wolrd Cup came to Portman Road, it would be a fitting tribute to Our greatest footballing sons.
November 18, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
lee howard said:
how about bramal lane about to be redeveloped to 40,000 better then hillsbrough