Euro 2024 Germany

SuperDave84 wrote: Spain is close to perfect though: two stadiums in Madrid (Real already want to renovate the Bernabeu again plus the new Atletico one), two in Barcelona (a renovated Nou Camp and the new Espanyol stadium), cash for Valencia to finish the new stadium there, the new San Mames in Bilbao, one or both in Seville.... that's seven or eight of the ten there already, all ready to go. You might need to renovate a few more to get the capacity over 40k but the largest ones are already there and ready to go. In terms of facilities, it has huge amounts of tourist accommodation, airports everywhere, and the largest high speed rail network in Europe (and one they continue to invest in, despite the recession). They need to renovate a couple of stadiums but that's it. I'm sure Turkey would take a heap more than that.

Isn't there now a UEFA/ FIFA rule that you can't have two stadiums in one city for a major tournament any more?  That's why for Euro 2016 (and indeed France '98) the Stade de France is officially in Saint Denis and not Paris. 

Bob Hoskins wrote: GB 1HughJarse wrote: UEFA made a profit of €890 million on Euro 2016 in France. Ministry of Sport in France said France spent €200 million (incl. doubling the original spend estimate on security) in total on the tournament. But they made €1.2 BILLION in spending/tourist related income. So it's actually a money spinner to host. All depends on how much you have to spend updating stadiums/infrastructure. I was very skeptical of those figures. Seems a very low spend for such a huge tournament. How come the Olympics seems to be a big loss for countries that host them?? http://www.thelocal.fr/20170110/euro-2016-gave-france-billion-euro-boost-to-economy

newrynyuk wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: Spain is close to perfect though: two stadiums in Madrid (Real already want to renovate the Bernabeu again plus the new Atletico one), two in Barcelona (a renovated Nou Camp and the new Espanyol stadium), cash for Valencia to finish the new stadium there, the new San Mames in Bilbao, one or both in Seville.... that's seven or eight of the ten there already, all ready to go. You might need to renovate a few more to get the capacity over 40k but the largest ones are already there and ready to go. In terms of facilities, it has huge amounts of tourist accommodation, airports everywhere, and the largest high speed rail network in Europe (and one they continue to invest in, despite the recession). They need to renovate a couple of stadiums but that's it. I'm sure Turkey would take a heap more than that. Isn't there now a UEFA/ FIFA rule that you can't have two stadiums in one city for a major tournament any more?  That's why for Euro 2016 (and indeed France '98) the Stade de France is officially in Saint Denis and not Paris.

I think you are allowed one.

Sure Espanyol's stadium is not in Barcelona. And the Olympic stadium in Madrid might not be in Madrid, either, which is Atletico's new one.

To spread the burden and ability to reach more fans I would be in favour of one "major" host nation and a few "sub" host nations.

Bitored wrote: Bob Hoskins wrote: GB 1HughJarse wrote: UEFA made a profit of €890 million on Euro 2016 in France. Ministry of Sport in France said France spent €200 million (incl. doubling the original spend estimate on security) in total on the tournament. But they made €1.2 BILLION in spending/tourist related income. So it's actually a money spinner to host. All depends on how much you have to spend updating stadiums/infrastructure. I was very skeptical of those figures. Seems a very low spend for such a huge tournament. How come the Olympics seems to be a big loss for countries that host them?? http://www.thelocal.fr/20170110/euro-2016-gave-france-billion-euro-boost-to-economy Has a lot to do with the diversity of sports at the Olympics which require an array of arena`s and infrastructure. Hosting a football tournament is pretty straight forward.  You either have or will have 10 odd good stadia to host it. With the Olympics you need waterways, archery courses, Olympic size pools, Rugby league pitches etc etc. The majority of which will never be used again after the Olympics roll out of town.

Plus football fans travel in huge numbers, both for the duration, and for individual games.

I mean, how many people go from Ireland for a Euro or World Cup Finals, versus an Olympic games?

Besides, the organisers need to provide an awful lot more diamond-encrusted watches, luxury hotel rooms and bulging brown envelopes etc for an Olympics than for a World Cup or Euros, since they're all there, not just the teams who qualified...

Don't see the point of "sub" groups in neighbouring countries, not when Germany could host it on their own.
If it is in Germany, they would want all 24 teams fans spending money in Germany. After all the Germans would have spent millions upgrading stadiums/providing facilities etc, so those individual German cities would want maximum games in their turf, why go to all that trouble and expense for maybe 1 group game and 1 knockout match (because other countries got token matches), when they could have say 3 group matches and a knockout match.
Euro 2020 will show us if spreading games around works or not.

GB 1HughJarse wrote: Don't see the point of "sub" groups in neighbouring countries, not when Germany could host it on their own. If it is in Germany, they would want all 24 teams fans spending money in Germany. After all the Germans would have spent millions upgrading stadiums/providing facilities etc, so those individual German cities would want maximum games in their turf, why go to all that trouble and expense for maybe 1 group game and 1 knockout match (because other countries got token matches), when they could have say 3 group matches and a knockout match. Euro 2020 will show us if spreading games around works or not.

Zinedine Kilbane 110 wrote: And given the size of Europe I dont think the sub hosts have to be beside Germany. Why not Ireland, its a few hrs flight which is nothing.

Fans should not be expected to go to the time, trouble and expense of flights in order to watch games in the tournament.

One of the joys of Euro2016 is that many fans travelled around France to watch games involving teams other than their own.

So if eg Germany were only to be the main host (as opposed to sole host), then fans should at least be able to travel to other sub-hosts by car, bus and train.

I mean, it's not as if there is any shortage of land neighbours who could do the job i.e. Austria, Belgium, Czech Rep, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland (we needn't count Luxembourg!)

newrynyuk wrote: Do bear in mind that the European Championships will be 24 teams, not 32 or 48.  So it should still be just about manageable to be hosted in one country.  At most it will be two countries co-hosting.  None of this sub-hosting nonsense that we will see in 2020.

Agree, though I do accept that with 24 teams, you will probably be limited to the same small number who could host 24 teams on their own, i.e. England, Germany, Spain, Italy, Russia, France, and possibly Poland and Turkey?