- Joined
- Aug 25, 2021
- Messages
- 13,036
- Reaction score
- 31,969
It's only 8.5 million square miles. But yes I also oppose tournaments being hosted by more than one country, I'm sure they're doing it for globalisation reasons. Obviously the US and Mexico have hosted world cups before. It's a nice way for Canada to be involved though as they wouldn't be able to host a WC by themselves.I still don't get that; I mean 3.8 million square miles isn't spread out enough? Lets triple that to 9.54 square miles. Fans and teams will love it! Frozen tundra, staggering elevations, and scorching desserts all included.
You're right about prices, though. Nothing quite like paying $180 for a room that was $70 yesterday.
I doubt Scotland, Wales, NI or the ROI would be allowed to host a Euro by themselves either.
For most of the WC games stadiums are supposed to have at least 40,000 capacity, for the quarters and semis 60 and for the final 80.
Canada has no stadiums over 60 and only three over 40, of which only one is set up for football:
Commonwealth Stadium - Edmonton - 56,302
Olympic Stadium - Montreal - 56,040
BC Place - Vancouver - 54,500
Mexican stadiums over 40, excluding one which is unsuitable for football as it is for bullfighting:
1 Azteca - Mexico City - 81,070
2 Olímpico Universitario - Mexico City - 58,445
3 Jalisco - Guadalajara - 55,020
4 BBVA - Guadalupe - 51,348
5 Cuauhtémoc - Puebla City - 47,417
6 Akron - Zapopan - 46,232
7 Universitario - San Nicolás de los Garza - 41,886
Apparently the US has eight football ('soccer')-ready stadiums with 80+ capacity:
Michigan Stadium - Ann Arbor - 107,601
Beaver Stadium - State College, Pennsylvania - 106,572
Ohio Stadium - Columbus - 102,329
Rose Bowl - Pasadena - 94,542
Sanford Stadium - Athens - 92,746
Cotton Bowl - Dallas - 92,200
MetLife Stadium - East Rutherford - 82,566
AT&T Stadium - Arlington - 80,000