Pittsburgh loses out on hosting World Cup (personal, person)

[Pitt Chick]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

The poor planning was in building Heinz Field with too few seats.

Not poor planning at all!

As Copanut says, it was deliberate planning to maintain demand. Seems to work well too...

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by COPANUT

Joe,

I tend to agree with you are most points, however... The Rooneys did not want a stadium with 80-90K seats. They wanted to keep it smaller so demand would always be there. Its easy to get 65 thousand drunks there every game, but were to you find another 15K?

I know that, but the Rooneys didn't pay for the stadium, we did (or, at least, $202 million of the $281 million that it cost to build it), therefore, as the majority stakeholders in the field, the design should have reflected the best interests of the region, not the Rooneys.

Keeping up a waiting list for season tickets and keeping the seats packed are not the legitimate goals for the taxpayers if the demand is unmet.

Also, State College has a population of 38,000 and Penn State about 40,000 but the stadium holds 107,000! Notre Dame has a student population of about 11,000 and the stadium holds 80,000 people.

Seems like somebody on the Stadium Authority didn't do their homework.

[BrianTH]

Because the Steelers have a legal monopoly, it ends up being in their interests to restrict output of their product (in this case, seats at Steelers' games) in order to maximize their profits.

So yeah, it is unfortunate, but it really goes back to allowing major league sports franchises to have legal monopolies in the first place.

[JoeLeaphorn]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

So yeah, it is unfortunate, but it really goes back to allowing major league sports franchises to have legal monopolies in the first place.

Yes, except that other cities didn't make the same deal. So other cities had politicians who represented their constituents, not just the franchisees.

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by JoeLeaphorn

I know that, but the Rooneys didn't pay for the stadium, we did (or, at least, $202 million of the $281 million that it cost to build it), therefore, as the majority stakeholders in the field, the design should have reflected the best interests of the region, not the Rooneys.

Keeping up a waiting list for season tickets and keeping the seats packed are not the legitimate goals for the taxpayers if the demand is unmet.

Also, State College has a population of 38,000 and Penn State about 40,000 but the stadium holds 107,000! Notre Dame has a student population of about 11,000 and the stadium holds 80,000 people.

Seems like somebody on the Stadium Authority didn't do their homework.

Penn State only needs to fill that stadium a maximum 5-6 times of year as does Notre Dame. The Rooney's made sure the stadium had a lower capacity, you could look it up.

The local government will always kiss the Rooney's butt. I'll have to check the facts, but I believe it was 17 months from when the Rooneys said they wanted a new stadium till when it was finished. Contrast that with over 5 or so years when Mario wanted one and he even had one that could be given to the city for FREE.

Don't know if you were around in the 80's when the Steelers weren't doing so well, they sold out, but they averaged about 10K empty seats, something the NFL powers that be don't like to see.

[IheartRobots]

There was no chance that the World Cup would be in Pittsburgh. Soccer is not one of the US's strong points.

As well, there's no recognition for soccer in Pittsburgh. It's known for American football...not european "football".

[Goodjules]

Originally Posted by ajl777

U.S. trims 13 more stadiums from World Cup list - U.S. Soccer - ESPN Soccernet

If only our leaders would have invested effort in campaigning for this instead of the G-20.

Why make them choose? I say they could have campaigned for both!

[ajl777]

It doesn't matter if Pittsburgh is interested in soccer. Every game would sell out and bring all kinds of visitors who I'm sure would be very impressed with Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh could use the impending windfall to build up infrastructure aka rail to the city and certain neighborhoods in the next ten years. The stadium sits vacant 90% of the year. This would put us more on the map then Super Bowl and Stanley Cup wins.

[Copanut]

Maybe they could bring back Co Prins and The Pittsburgh Phantoms.

[Sideblinded]

Originally Posted by Drover

Oh BS. Yes, Friday traffic sucks but the only way it took you 4 hours is if you took surface streets the entire way, probably in a pouring rainstorm. Plus, here's something that Pittsburgh doesn't have that makes Pittsburgh somewhat ill-equipped to handle major international events that draw hundreds of thousands of people: if you had taken Metra, you could have been there in an hour.

I hope you are not calling me a liar, or BS'r. (I may be off by 15 minutes though.) We took Amtrak and rented a car downtown, while visiting family and friends in Wisconsin, and Illinois.

It was the worse/worst (?) traffic I have seen mid day in years and YES, it was that bad. I am glad you had a smooth commute the same day and time I drove from Barrington to Union Station. Moderator cut: personal attack

Anyway, I do love Chicago and Pittsburgh, and this thread is confusing.