Consider the World Cup’s other stadiums.
As soon as you enter Atlanta’s Mercedes-Benz Stadium, you feel like you are in a Jackson Pollock fever dream. The home of the Dallas Cowboys appears to have landed in Arlington from outer space. The inspiration behind it? Not the Maracanã nor Wembley, but the Pyramids of Giza.
Houston boasts a behemoth of a sporting structure to be proud of. Seattle’s World Cup venue oozes charm. Inside Los Angeles’ SoFi Stadium, your jaw rarely leaves the floor. It’s the sensation designers of Manchester United’s new ground are desperate to replicate.
The New York-New Jersey Stadium – just rolls off the tongue, doesn’t it – needs a rebranding, from MetLife to MehLife. Given its competition in the US, it is not fit to host the greatest sporting spectacle of all on 19 July.
The location
First of all, it is not even in New York. Not even the same state. You can see the city skyline from the stadium, but that is where the affiliation ends.
There just isn’t anything else near the MetLife. East Rutherford is not somewhere you automatically think of as a sporting utopia.
Americans have the ultimate penchant for the gargantuan, which is why so many of its arenas are out of town. Few others are quite so marooned as the MetLife.
Money, money, money
There are cheaper ways to get there than the New Jersey Transit from Penn Station, but the fastest route – for the journey that is equidistant to the Kings Cross to Wembley Jubilee Line trip – hits supporters’ pockets hard, in a World Cup that has already broken the bank.
It was revealed before the tournament started that the local transport body was planning to charge a whopping $150 (£114) return for the journey. Organisers later climbed down and said they would reduce prices after such a severe backlash. But how close would they get to the regular $12.90 (£9.80) for the trip?
The final figure, which someone thought was acceptable, is $98 (£74). Imagine if Transport for London put tube fares up to £74 for a single journey for the FA Cup final? Outrageous.
Charmless facilities
In Dallas or Atlanta, when temperatures get too much, the roof is closed and air conditioning gets pumped in to ensure the best possible contest. In East Rutherford, there isn’t even anywhere to shelter from the rain. In the press box as England toiled against Panama, the only solution offered was a plastic sheet to go over your head.
If it had the magic of an old Olympic stadium, like the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, which was built in 1922, then the MetLife architects could be forgiven. But the MetLife is only 16 years old. Why doesn’t it have any of the modern facets every other arena comes with? Especially in the US.
Should the weather for the final be wet, it will certainly dampen moods. Everyone had no choice but to sit through an at-times tepid England victory in rather uncomfortable ponchos. The atmosphere suffered as a result.
A pitch fit for the World Series, not World Cup
“It is a very fast pitch, very short and almost feels a bit like astroturf and a bit uneven, different layers to the grass,” Thomas Tuchel said after England’s win, clearly as taken aback as we were at the poor pitch quality for such an important venue.
It looked like it had been relayed that morning for that game. The weather has remained unsettled since, only adding to concerns that the playing surface will have deteriorated further.
We are not talking mud patches of the 1970s here. But this is the US, where everything is bigger and better. The playing surface, like with everything else associated with the MetLife, isn’t even on par with every other host city.
from Football - The i Paper https://ift.tt/Da4L0pd
Post a Comment