National Stadium

default_28

default_28

Starter
I don't know if this has been discussed before but its the off season so might as well bring it up....

England has Wembley Stadium. It's their national stadium. It hosts international soccer and rugby as well as domestic league championship matches and NFL games. Also hosts concerts and event of that nature, but is not the home stadium of any club team.

My question is would that work in the US. Could we build a state of the art facility that was a neutral site? It would host every Superbowl, college football national championship, international soccer matches, Wrestlemania etc. Maybe non-conference college football if a neutral site is wanted. Outdoor hockey games.

Where would it be located? DC? New York? A warmer city?

Do fans like going to different cities each year for the Superbowl and national championship or would it be nice to have a place that was specifically designed to host these sort of events and the crowd that they draw?

 
No way. At best it would be a regional stadium.

America is far too large with a much to poor of a transportation system to make it happen.

Really the need isn't there either. America has at least half a dozen facilities that compare to Wembley, while England only has Wembley.

 
London is the capital of England and is also it's largest city. (our capital is the 25th largest city in the country)

London has a population of over 8 Million people no other city in England has even 3 Million people and only 2 cities outside of London even have a population over 1 Million. Those two cities are Birmingham -103 miles from London and Manchester - 165 miles from London.

(The US has 9 cities over 1 Million in 6 different states, reaching from New York to California and from Illinois to Texas)

The entire country of England is 50,346 square miles of land area. That is roughly the size of Alabama. (the 27th largest state in the US). - For Comparison Nebraska at 77,122 square miles is the 15th largest state and nearly 27,000 square miles larger than England.

So in short, No.

 
Blackshirt316 said:
London is the capital of England and is also it's largest city. (our capital is the 25th largest city in the country)

London has a population of over 8 Million people no other city in England has even 3 Million people and only 2 cities outside of London even have a population over 1 Million. Those two cities are Birmingham -103 miles from London and Manchester - 165 miles from London.

(The US has 9 cities over 1 Million in 6 different states, reaching from New York to California and from Illinois to Texas)

The entire country of England is 50,346 square miles of land area. That is roughly the size of Alabama. (the 27th largest state in the US). - For Comparison Nebraska at 77,122 square miles is the 15th largest state and nearly 27,000 square miles larger than England.

So in short, No.
Click to expand...
I get that America is much larger than England but does that really make a difference? They plan the site of the Superbowl years in advance. If they had planned on it being in Phoenix this year and it was two NE teams they still would have had it Phoenix. Travel is involved regardless of whether you change the site of the game or not. It's fairly common to see both teams in a championship come from the same side of the country.

I don't see travel as the real issue to the question. More do we want a venue that is only used on occasion, that is as neutral as possible, for large events? Do we want to go to the same city every year instead of boosting the economy of different cities?

 
We have several great stadiums and I prefer having a variety to having one national stadium. For example it would be tough to live in L.A. and have a national stadium in NYC.

 
With our free market system it would never happen. With the amount of revenue a city gets for hosting such an even, this issue will always be a bidding war. If it were to happen, it would be best to have massive indoor facility in a most central region, hence, Omaha. chuckleshuffle

 
It sounds kind of neat but really doesn't make much sense. The political battle to land it would be huge. It seems better to spread the economic benefit around the country to different venues. State of the art doesn't stay state of the art for very long, so what do you do in 10-15 years when it's not? When international soccer matches and wrestlemania are your 3rd and 4th reasons, it seems to me the demand for something like this isn't all that high. And because of the huge windfall to the lucky area to get it, I don't see this as a good use of federal money.

I just don't see any good reason why we need such a facility. If we just didn't have a good place to host such events it might, but we've got dozens of them across the country.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top