I was reviewing data about the 1994 FIFA World Cup, which took place in the United States, and got curious about something.
In every other World Cup thus far, selected venues are stadia inside the host country's biggest / most influential municipalities. For example, the 2006 cup in Germany had its final match in Berlin, while using cities such as Munich, Hamburg and Köln as venues. The final match of the 1998 cup in France was held in Paris, and other host cities included Lyon, Marseille, and Nice.
However, look at the 1994 cup. The final match was held at the Rose Bowl, in Pasadena, California. One of the semifinals took place in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Palo Alto, Pontiac, and Foxborough are examples of other host cities.
I should note that, according to FIFA, the official world cup venue names for these towns are much more recognizable. The Rose Bowl venue in Pasadena is listed as Los Angeles. The East Rutherford venue is New York/New Jersey. Palo Alto, Pontiac, and Foxborough are respectively San Francisco, Detroit, and Boston.
Still, that strikes me as very odd. Aren't there international-level sporting venues inside such megalopolises as NYC and Los Angeles? If there are, why would they choose such less populous locations as venues?
EDIT: I've noticed that New York american football teams play at the very same Giants Stadium that was used in the World Cup, in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Isn't it quite a pain for people to drive all the way to another city (let alone another state) to follow a local team's home matches?
Central Park in New York City is about 10 miles from Giants Stadium. Basically, East Rutherford, NJ abuts NYC to the point that the "city" just continues.
The Rose Bowl in Pasadena is in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. My university, UCLA, plays there and my hometown (if you would call it that) is less than a mile away. There's the Staples Center in LA but I don't think we have any nice outdoor stadiums in the city and that may be why they chose Pasadena. Also, Pasadena is home to the Rose Parade, Caltech (which manages NASA's nearby Jet Propulsion Laboratory), and has the iconic oldies song "The Little Old Lady From Pasadena" named after it. I'd say choosing Pasadena is not too off for an international event. The city itself is pretty major but is just overshadowed by LA. If Pasadena was in the Nevada desert, you'd read more headlines about it.
First of all, in the U.S., it's usually just "stadiums".
Second, yes, there's a lot of joking/*****ing about the New York Giants playing in New Jersey. But this has more to do with the cultural disdain New Yorkers feel for their neighbors than any geographical inconvenience. As others have said, the stadium is for all intents and purposes in the same city; it's not really a big deal.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The city itself is pretty major but is just overshadowed by LA. If Pasadena was in the Nevada desert, you'd read more headlines about it.
I think Pasadena is pretty well-known either way... but seeing how L.A. is among the most recognizable cities worldwide, I thought it would be weird to actually host such an event at the former instead of the latter.
Quote from Nis »
Central Park in New York City is about 10 miles from Giants Stadium. Basically, East Rutherford, NJ abuts NYC to the point that the "city" just continues.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
But as others have said, the stadium is for all intents and purposes in the same city; it's not really a big deal.
Yeah, that kind of explains it. I read a bit more into it and noticed that Wikipedia doesn't even call East Rutherford a town, but rather a "borough" and a "inner-ring suburb of NYC". The way people treat municipalities/ boroughs/ metropolitan areas vary from culture to culture, so that's probably why it seemed weird to me.
I definitely understand why FIFA called those venues "Rose Bowl, Los Angeles" and "Giants Stadium, New York" though, which seemed to bother some American wikipedia posters. As global cities, those names are much more appealing to an international audience.
Also, the city hosting the event wants to make sure traffic to and from the playoffs isn't a choking mess. This is why many stadiums are being built a little bit outside the major cities, so stadium traffic runs smoothly and doesn't shut downtown completely down 30 minutes before kickoff/start.
So for about the same size investment you get a bigger stadium, more parking spaces, and a suburb gets a huge economic boost and possibly also a transit spur.
And for most college sports fans, LA is completely forgotten while Pasadena is a household name.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
In every other World Cup thus far, selected venues are stadia inside the host country's biggest / most influential municipalities. For example, the 2006 cup in Germany had its final match in Berlin, while using cities such as Munich, Hamburg and Köln as venues. The final match of the 1998 cup in France was held in Paris, and other host cities included Lyon, Marseille, and Nice.
However, look at the 1994 cup. The final match was held at the Rose Bowl, in Pasadena, California. One of the semifinals took place in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Palo Alto, Pontiac, and Foxborough are examples of other host cities.
I should note that, according to FIFA, the official world cup venue names for these towns are much more recognizable. The Rose Bowl venue in Pasadena is listed as Los Angeles. The East Rutherford venue is New York/New Jersey. Palo Alto, Pontiac, and Foxborough are respectively San Francisco, Detroit, and Boston.
Still, that strikes me as very odd. Aren't there international-level sporting venues inside such megalopolises as NYC and Los Angeles? If there are, why would they choose such less populous locations as venues?
EDIT: I've noticed that New York american football teams play at the very same Giants Stadium that was used in the World Cup, in East Rutherford, New Jersey. Isn't it quite a pain for people to drive all the way to another city (let alone another state) to follow a local team's home matches?
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
[card=Jace Beleren]Jace[/card] = Jace
Magic CompRules
Scry Rollover Popups for Google Chrome
The first rule of Cursecatcher is, You do not talk about Cursecatcher.
Second, yes, there's a lot of joking/*****ing about the New York Giants playing in New Jersey. But this has more to do with the cultural disdain New Yorkers feel for their neighbors than any geographical inconvenience. As others have said, the stadium is for all intents and purposes in the same city; it's not really a big deal.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Yeah, that kind of explains it. I read a bit more into it and noticed that Wikipedia doesn't even call East Rutherford a town, but rather a "borough" and a "inner-ring suburb of NYC". The way people treat municipalities/ boroughs/ metropolitan areas vary from culture to culture, so that's probably why it seemed weird to me.
I definitely understand why FIFA called those venues "Rose Bowl, Los Angeles" and "Giants Stadium, New York" though, which seemed to bother some American wikipedia posters. As global cities, those names are much more appealing to an international audience.
*****
ricklongo and RicardoLongo on MTGO
*****
Visit my gaming blog: http://www.gamingsweetgaming.blogspot.com
****************
Check out Rick's Picks, my PureMTGO article series
****************
So for about the same size investment you get a bigger stadium, more parking spaces, and a suburb gets a huge economic boost and possibly also a transit spur.
And for most college sports fans, LA is completely forgotten while Pasadena is a household name.