In less than a week time, two brand new arenas opened in Europe. On Monday, Athletic inaugurated their new San Mamés with a match versus Celta de Vigo, and today it was the turn to OGC Nice to unveil their new Allianz Riviera in a match against Valenciennes.

However, if we compare both situations, there are few similarities. The case of Bilbao is one that makes many football fans bemoan modern day football as the old Estadio San Mamés was one of Europe’s most iconic stadiums. The oldest top-flight stadium of Spain made great fame with its patched-together stands, the arch over the main stand, and the fanatic home crowd right on the pitch. It got demolished just before it turned 100 years old.

Modern day football is not for the nostalgic though, and the case for a new stadium was easy to make. There is also not much wrong with the new San Mamés. Its exterior is outright stunning and makes for a splendid sight towering over the river Nervión. The interior ticks all boxes of what a modern stadium should look like with great sightlines, modern facilities, and the small middle tier that caters exclusively for the hospitality crowd. There are clear resemblances with the Emirates Stadium and Estádio da Luz, both examples of best practices in modern stadium design, not least because of the waving top line of the upper tier.

That said, apart from its exterior, there is little that distinguishes it from your average modern arena, and one remains with the feeling that Athletic’s fans deserved something a little more unique. 

One thousand kilometres east in the south of France, Nice fans will have no such feelings. The Allianz Riviera is a magnificent new arena: an impressive exterior and roof formed of one part, excellent facilities and stands right on the pitch, and a distinctive small upper tier just to give it something of a different touch. Compared to the old, mostly uncovered, and dilapidated Stade du Ray, this is a massive leap forward.

While it is always hard to say goodbye to a stadium that has been a home for many years, few Nice fans will find it difficult to make the move. If one must find any gripes, then it is that it will take a little longer to get to the out-of-town Allianz Riviera in comparison with the central Stade du Ray. The rather odd name Allianz Riviera is something to get used to as well, but simply the result of all logical combinations with sponsor name Allianz already being taken (Brazilian Palmeiras had to resort to Allianz Parque). 

The big challenge for Nice lies in getting the Allianz Riviera to fill up. Their attendances at Stade du Ray were among the lowest of the league, but the Allianz Riviera had to have a capacity of 35,000 to be able to serve as a venue for the 2016 European Championships. Nice is a large city with a considerable amount of football tradition though, and that a new stadium can do wonders for attendances proved Lille when they moved into their new Stade Pierre Mauroy a year ago.

Athletic, on the other hand, will have no problems to pack their new San Mamés. The stadium is currently only two-thirds finished, which means a limited capacity of 35,000 for this season – about their average attendance at the old San Mamés. The new stadium will be a guaranteed sell-out in its first season and no tickets will go on public sale. In its second season, capacity will rise to 54,000, which will prove more challenging, but far from unattainable. 

Both teams got off to a good start at their new home with a 3-2 home win for Athletic and Nice beating Valenciennes with a convincing 4-0.

(Photo credits: San Mamés – Flickr user antxoa | Allianz Riviera – @villedenice)

Bilbao and Nice move into new modern homes

Some of you may already have noticed a gradual decline in the frequency of new posts. As is so often the case when a blog is merely a hobby, other commitments roar their head and and writing new articles moves down the priority list.

That’s why we have decided to turn the upcoming month (or two) into an official summer break and get back into the game when the new season kicks off in early August. The time we spend on stadiumguide.com in the meantime will then be fully dedicated to updating the ticket and travel details of the stadiums in our guide.

That’s not to say that it will be a summer without stadium news. We have said goodbye to Bilbao’s San Mamés a few weeks ago and are eagerly awaiting what the new San Mamés will look like.

Nice’s Allianz Riviera and Ghent’s Arteveldestadion are other stadiums that will be completed around the start or early in the new season, as is Haifa’s Sammy Ofer Stadium.

Brazil has in the end managed to complete all stadiums in time for the Confederations Cup, but the rest of the World Cup stadiums need a good few more months to get completed. In fact, it is a non-World Cup stadium – the Palmeiras Arena – that is the next large stadium to open in Brazil.

Once Nice’s Allianz Riviera gets completed, eyes will move on the projects in Lyon and Bordeaux, where construction works have finally started. Marseille’s Stade Vélodrome already has one new stand and a roof, while works also continue of Saint-Etienne’s Stade Geoffroy-Guichard.

The 2018 FIFA World Cup can also record its first completed arena with the opening of a spectacular new stadium in Kazan. Stockholm’s new Tele2 Arena is neither too shabby, and fans of Poland’s Górnik will be getting a taste of what their new stadium will look like when the first new stands open.

We also promise you to give you the low-down on last season’s attendances in La Liga, Serie A, and some of Europe’s smaller leagues.

Overall, there is a lot to get excited about and we’ll be happy to get you the latest updates again once the new season kicks off.

(Photo via Skyscrapercity)

Summer break

The Dutch Eredivsie is the first of Europe’s major leagues to finish. We have once more collected the attendances and will present you our findings below.

We will be a bit more to the point than last year, when we presented our conclusions in an extensive article, and instead just keep to a few bullet points followed by the charts.

These are our findings:

• The Eredivisie recorded a modest attendance growth of +0.62% to reach an average of 19,636 visitors per match. This growth, however, was primarily a function of the promoted clubs adding more spectators than the clubs that relegated. The 16 teams that played Eredivisie in both seasons noted a decline in attendances of -1.35 % [chart 1].
• Things don’t look good at all at club level, where 12 out of 16 clubs recorded declines in attendances. ADO Den Haag, VVV Venlo, and, surpisingly considering their excellent season, FC Utrecht provided the worst figures with all declines in the double digits. Holland’s big clubs were the exception and did relatively well [chart 2 and 3].
• If it comes to filling up stadiums, the province of Overijssel is king. The three clubs with the highest fill rate, i.e. Heracles Almelo, FC Twente, and PEC Zwolle all come from this north-eastern province. Traditional always-sell-outs like Groningen, Heerenveen, and NEC have dropped the ball this season and witnessed increasing numbers of empty seats [chart 4].
• Overall, 87.9 % of all available seats were filled this Eredivisie season and 29.4% of all matches sold out, which is significantly lower than last year’s 37.3% [chart 5].
• With more free capacity becoming available, logic states that attendances should move up and down more, which we see has indeed been the case in the Eredivisie this season. Whereas last season’s attendances typically moved 8% up or down from one match to the other, this has increased to 9% this season. ADO Den Haag’s fans are the most fickle with typical movements of 20% up or down, ranging from a high of 14,009 versus Ajax to a low of 8,254 versus Roda JC [chart 6].
• Holland’s “Big 3” were, as usual, the teams that drew the biggest crowds away from home with hardly any other team causing notable attendance bumps on the road. ADO Den Haag followed up on previous seasons by once again being the least appealing club to come to town [table “” not found /]
  
  .

It is hard to draw firm conclusions from this data, but it is clear that the Eredivisie is in a bit of a rough spot if it comes to attendances. No wonder, of course, considering the continuing poor economic environment, which has also resulted in various new stadium projects and developments having stalled.

That’s not to say that the Eredivisie is in a bad place – their crowds are far superior to those in comparable medium-sized leagues such as Portugal, Russia and Belgium, and on a similar level as those in France.

Whether attendances will decline further in the upcoming years or bounce back up again is impossible to predict, but one expects attendances to keep hovering around present levels. Real gains can only be made again once Dutch clubs attract back the neutral football fans that have been scared away with club card and safety requirements and when renewed economic growth frees up the finances for another round of stadium development.

Chart 1: league attendance average 2012-13 vs 2011-12 (growth percentage in brackets)

Chart 2: club average attendances and ranking 2012-13.

Chart 3: club average attendances 2012-13 vs 2011-12 (growth percentage in brackets)

Chart 4: club fill rates 2012-13 (average attendance divided by stadium capacity)

Chart 5: number of sold out matches 2012-13 vs 2011-12 (sell out = fill rate of 97% or higher).

Chart 6: volatility of attendances (average attendance movement from one match to the next).

Table 1: appeal of clubs away from home (fill rate, position compared to other clubs, and extra spectator draw in absolute numbers)*

* read more about the methodology of above table here.

The 2012-13 Eredivisie season in attendances

While it is not uncommon for shiny new stadiums to get built in places where you would not expect them, there is something even more special going on in Iraq right now: an actual stadium boom.

The Arab country, still recovering from the war, has decided to put some of its oil money in a massive overhaul of its stadiums, resulting in a total of seven new stadiums under construction right now and many more planned. We will therefore take you on a journey through the country to see what is going on.

We start our trip in the southern city of Basra, Iraq’s second largest city with an estimated population of about two million inhabitants.

Over there, a massive new sports complex, Basra Sports City, is on the brink of being completed. The centerpiece is a stadium with a capacity of 65,000 seats, which is complemented with a small stadium with about 10,000 places, training facilities, and a few luxury hotels.

The complex was meant to serve as the venue for the 2013 Gulf Cup of Nations, but it was later decided to give Iraq a little more time to prepare. As a result the tournament was moved to Bahrein, and Basra gets to host the next version.

The project has come at the significant cost of $500 million, all financed by Iraqi’s Ministry of Youth and Sports.

The complex was scheduled to be completed right now in March 2013, but it will probably take a few more months for the last details to be finished.

This is what the almost-completed stadium looks like:

And the smaller stadium next door has already been completed:

These two stadiums, however, are not the only new stadiums that are getting built in Basra at the moment. There is one more: a 30,000 all-seater for Iraqi Premier League club Alminaa SC.

Construction of this new stadium started in 2012 and is expected to come at a cost of just under US$ 100 million. 

The new Al Minaa Stadium is scheduled to get completed in the end of 2013. It looked like this in the middle of 2012:

Up north, but still south of Baghdad, there are a few more stadiums that are in a similar stage of construction. First of all, there is the Holy Al Najaf Stadium in the city of Najaf.

Holy Al Najaf Stadium is another stadium with a planned capacity of 30,000 seats, has a similar price tag as Al Minaa Stadium, and has been designed by the same architecture firm that also designed both stadiums in Basra: 360 Architecture.

Whereas both Basra stadiums are equipped with a running track, a feature still very common in new stadiums in developing countries, Najaf’s new stadium will come without one.

In fact, the stadium had originally been planned to also hold a track, but after criticism following both Basra stadiums it was decided to go for a version without track.

The exterior of the stadium is of particular beauty, and is inspired by the city’s famous Imām Alī Mosque.

The stadium is expected to be completed early 2014, and will serve as the home of Premier League club Najaf FC.

Then there is a new stadium in the city of Karbala, again with a capacity of about 30,000, and again without running track, though it is not exactly clear whether the below rendering has been replaced by a more current one in the meantime.

Construction is well under way and expected to be completed in 2014. Karbala has a Premier League team as well.

Not far from Karbala lies the province of Babil, home to what is left of the ancient city of Babylon and the largest city Hillah. Here, works have just started on a new stadium that will get built with the help of Spanish architects and contractors.

This new 30,000 all-seater is going to look like this:

One thing all these stadiums have in common that they look like stadiums that could have gotten built in Europe. Instead of going the Chinese way and built an uncovered oval stadium with running track, the Iraqi stadiums are almost all completely covered and various come without athletics track.

We continue our journey to Baghdad as it would not be a proper stadium boom without the capital participating.

Over there, works have just started on a new stadium in the Al Sadr area of the city. Again, capacity will be around 30,000, and again, the design seems to tick all boxes of what a modern stadium needs.

If all well, Al Sadr Stadium should be completed by 2015.

There are various more stadiums planned at the moment: another 30,000-seater in the Russafa area of Baghdad; a few other smaller ones in and around the city; four 30,000-seaters in Nasiriyah, Al Anbar, Diwaniyah, and Diyali; and a 20,000-seater in Al Kut. There are furthermore more tentative plans for new stadiums in the north of Iraq in the cities of Mosul and Erbil.

Iraq’s stadium boom goes further than just the top though as there is also much development on a local level, where new facilities are getting built, often with artificial pitches.

But the big flagship project has to become Baghdad’s Al Tajeeat Olympic Stadium. This project goes back a while, but now finally seems to gain traction.

First plans were made when normality returned to the country in 2009. On year later, in 2010, plans were presented for a stadium with a capacity of 100,000 spectators and a design competition was announced.

Then the Ministry of Sport decided to build three stadiums instead of one in Baghdad (we have mentioned the other two already), which meant that the proposed capacity of the Olympic Stadium was scaled back to about 60,000 seats.

The exact status of the project is not known at the moment, nor is the final design that has been chosen. Some preliminary works have been performed on the site though, which means that there might be something in the air.

This is one of the proposals that have made the rounds:

What all these projects have in common, big and small, is that they are financed by the Iraqi Ministry of Youth and Sport, which means with public money.

This leads to the automatic question whether this, right now, is an investment the country should be making. After all, aren’t there worthier causes than building new sports stadiums for a country that just suffered a war?

Probably yes, though one has to bear in mind that Iraq hardly has any decent sports infrastructure at the moment. Stadiums are small, basic, and often crumbling, which includes the present Al-Shaab national stadium (see photo at the top).

 The current upgrade will turn the stadium infrastructure of Iraq into one of the best of the Middle East, which will increase the attractiveness of the domestic league and make it a prime candidate to host more future international tournaments. The inherent potential the country has can therefore finally get fulfilled.

It also says something about the effectiveness of the Ministry of Youth and Sport, at least in this area, who have managed to simultaneously get this many large projects up and running. It has not only been words, but stadiums are actually getting built (with the caveat that they still have to get completed).

That said, whether this is worth an investment that is going to approach US$ 2 billion is another question, one that can only get answered in a decade or two.

The Iraqi stadium boom

Here’s the New York Times on the proposed new MLS stadium in Flushing Meadows – Corona Park in the New York borough Queens:

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Major League Soccer officials are talking about a new soccer stadium, partly as a way to help rejuvenate the park.

The 25,000-seat stadium would replace a large, gummy pond once referred to as the Pool of Industry, and the league has promised to completely restore the park’s raggedy public soccer fields before it breaks ground on a new facility. One argument for having a major league team in Queens is that many New Yorkers who came from soccer-mad nations now live nearby and would presumably support a local franchise. Another is that it could provide a source of revenue to help fix up the park.

The assertion that immigrants will be keen to support a local team particularly stands out. It is something that was also mentioned at the time when Houston’s BBVA Compass Stadium got presented, and has also come up in the New England Revolution’s new stadium debate.

Is this true though? Will immigrants adopt a new or extra home team to support in their new country? While I am not aware of any extensive research that has been done on this, I highly doubt this is the case.

London, for example, is another place with a large immigrant population, but few have adopted one of the London teams as their own and even fewer have bought season tickets for such team.

The typical audience at an English league match, even in areas with a large immigrant population, is still predominantly white British male, mixed up with some groups of tourists taking in a Premier League match.

Few football fans moving abroad change teams, and rather prefer to watch their home country team’s matches on television or over the Internet than head to the stadium to make a new team their own. Even second generation immigrants often stick with the team of their father or roots instead of finding a new team in the country they live.

In fact, in developing football countries it is not untypical that even locals support one of the European giants instead of their team around the corner. And even in parts of Latin America, which does have a long-standing football culture, many fans choose to support Barcelona or Madrid over their local club, regularly justifying this by their Spanish ancestry.

It is therefore highly doubtful that Queens’ immigrants will be flocking to the new stadium, which will likely instead cater for a more typical football crowd coming west from Brooklyn and Manhattan.

That’s not to say that building a new stadium in Queens is a bad idea, but do it for the right reasons.

(Photo credits: © Flickr user CaptainKidder)

Will immigrants flock to Queens’ new stadium?

Oh, how times can change. Let me give the word to Peter Storrie, ex-chairman of Portsmouth FC:

Portsmouth is moving into a new dawn with the backing of owner Alexandre Gaydamak and these are very exciting times for the club both on and off the field.

The new stadium, along with plans for the club’s new training ground at Titchfield, is proof of where we want Pompey to be – playing at the highest level and in a stadium that is reflective of a top Premiership side.

This was April 2007, said during the presentation of one of Pompey’s many stadium plans, though arguably the most ambitious of all.

The announcement came off the back of a two-year-long silence, which had fans anxiously await whether the previous set of plans were going to be realised.

These previous plans did not envision a complete new stadium, but a relatively modest redevelopment of Fratton Park.

Fratton Park had been the home of Pompey since they got founded in 1898. The stadium got further developed in the 1920s and 1930, which included the construction of the present main stand designed by Archibald Leitch. It, like so many English stadiums, reached its peak in the early 1950s, from where is was a slow slide downhill toward the 1980s. In contrast with so many other English stadiums though, it hardly got redeveloped in the 1990s, with only a new all-seater stand at the Fratton End to show for.

First plans for a new stadium had been made as early as 1970 when Pompey chairman John Deacon wanted to build a new stadium on an old airfield. The 1970s were no good times for building a new stadium in England though, and nothing came of it.

Chairman Jim Gregory was the next chairman to have a go at a new stadium, this time in the more stadium-friendly early 1990s. He set his eye on the site of the St. John’s playing fields in the north of the city, but later learnt that building a new stadium and breeding Brent Geese do not go well together.

Things got more serious though, when Milan Mandarić took reign in Portsmouth, and in 2003 plans were presented for a massive overhaul of Fratton Park. The redeveloped stadium was matched with and financed by a residential and retail development dubbed Pompey Village.

The pitch of Fratton Park would get turned 90 degrees, two new stands built, and the existing main stand and relatively new West Stand redeveloped. This would result in a capacity of about 35,000 seats.

This is what Mandarić said at the time:

We wanted to create a development that was modern, stylish and impressive to complement the new stadium and I believe that is exactly what we have achieved.

…

But for our wonderful football fans we are creating a magnificent stadium accompanied by a lovely development that will be eye catching and thoroughly modern.

He furthermore added:

And the wonderful concept behind Pompey Village means that the club will be able to stand self sufficiently on those two feet without in later years being crushed under a [debt] burden that cripples it.

Turned out they did not need a new stadium to achieve that.

The project was generally well-received, and while initial hopes of works starting in early 2004 were unrealistic, the club did obtain planning permission in the end of 2004. Works were scheduled to begin in the next year, but then the two-year-spell of silence set in, broken occasionally by meaningless statements like:

At this time there is nothing more to add. The club is aware that fans are keen to know what the latest is. As soon as we have any more details we will inform the fans.

Then, in January 2006, French businessman Sacha Gaydamak arrived at the club, and a few months later became the sole owner. This prompted the hope that things would speed up, which in turn proved to be in vain.

This led a commenter on a Portsmouth bulletin board to remark:

This subject is become more long winded than the Spinnaker Tower.

If only he knew how much more long-winded the subject would become.

Suddenly, in April 2007, everything changed when Peter Storrie made that announcement that Portsmouth would be moving to a new stadium. Off were the plans for Pompey Village, and instead some spectacular drawings were shown of a new stadium in Portsmouth’s city centre at a location called The Hard.

Gaydamak had assigned renowned architects Herzog & De Meuron, who had just completed the Allianz Arena, with the task to design a state-of-the-art stadium on a site that would get dredged up from the harbour, and which lay squeezed in between the Naval base and the regenerated Gunwharf Quays.

The stadium would be able to hold 36,000 spectators and the £600 million project was to get financed by 1,500 luxury apartments on the site and the development of the old Fratton Park land.

From the architects:

Portsmouth historic asset is its Docklands, they formed the city, they were its foundation and still sustain its economy. The wateredge is the heart of the city. It’s more recent but other great asset is its football. It too provides its own energy for the city and the community. With this project these two existing ingredients are combined to create a new contemporary icon for Portsmouth. The energies of the past are joined together in order to make the future city attractive for its residents and visitors. Waterfront, football and housing converge to form a unique public space, moving the city and its people back to the water. This is a contemporary move but one which is born from tradition, the English tradition of a Football Club being integrated within its neighbourhood.

The accompanying renderings:

It, however, seemed as if Portsmouth had forgotten to talk with local council members as these were little enthusiastic about the project. They even managed to come up with a list of 40 concerns, including the impact on the city’s skyline as the beloved Spinnaker Tower would have to share this with the new stadium.

It came therefore as little surprise that only six months later the club announced to opt for a different site instead, this time at Horsea Island further toward the north of the city.

Herzog & De Meuron kept their job though, and described the new project like this:

Portsmouth’s historical asset has traditionally been its connection with the water, and more recently football has become the other great asset of the city. Horsea Island will allow the football stadium to become a visual icon at the gateway to the city, creating a new identity for both Portsmouth and Pompey. It is perfectly situated on the water next to the confluence of the main access roads, allowing a dramatic first view of the stadium with the city behind.

They even dared to mention the earlier deal-breaking Brent Geese:

The site is recognised as being rich in biodiversity, and of particular interest are the Brent Geese that currently use the site to nest and rest. To foster and encourage this use two green corridors are provided connecting the new urban park with the water.

The design for the The Hard site had been purposely asymmetric due to its location, but this was not necessary for the new site and shortly after some new drawings were presented:

While not being presented with another list of 40 concerns, council members were still not overly convinced of the reshaped plans. In particular the inclusion of retail development worried council members, who feared adverse affects for the retailers in the city centre.

Then the credit crisis set in and financing of the £100 million project turned out too difficult for the now debt-stricken club. New exits from the M275, necessary to reach the stadium by car, also proved to be a problem point.

So in March 2009, two ambitious new stadium projects later, the club went back to the start when they announced to shelve the Horsea Island plans and instead focus on redeveloping Fratton Park. Exactly, the same plans that Milan Mandarić had announced in 2003.

We all know that it went from bad to worse for Pompey since then, and presently nobody is even considering any form of stadium redevelopment. After all, Fratton Park is still reasonably adequate for League One football.

But these stadium sagas never end, and when the day comes that Portsmouth inevitably bounces back and new plans are presented, people will look back at the 2000s and wonder what might have been if things had gone a little different.

(Photo credits: Fratton Park photo by www.bbmexplorer.com)

Pompey’s broken dreams

The Chinese are expanding their influence in developing countries by offering them investments in infrastructure in return for access to their raw materials. These infrastructure projects regularly involve building new stadiums.

From Frank Dikköter’s review on a book about China’s dealings in the developing world:

From the copper mines of the Democratic Republic of Congo to the natural gas holdings of Turkmenistan, a giant octopus extends its tentacles, trading finished products for natural resources. In South America 90 per cent of exports to China are unprocessed or barely processed natural resources. The proportion is about the same for Africa. China not only extracts, it also constructs. In what the authors call ‘stadium diplomacy’, dozens of ‘friendship stadiums’ are presented as gifts to countries around the world. Critics characterise them as Trojan horses used to conquer local markets.

Various stadiums have been built this way in Africa, but also, for example, Costa Rica’s new national stadium. The designs seem to have a lot of similarities. Check for example Mozambique‘s and Togo‘s new national stadiums.

While beneficial for local sports fans, the projects offer little benefits for workers:

‘They fed us rotten rice. We were working for fourteen hours or more each day. They didn’t pay us the salary stipulated in our contracts. We were slaves. That’s what our boss told us and that’s how we felt.’ These are the words of Chinese labourers recruited in Gabon to work for a Chinese construction company. Local workers generally fare no better. While the sign over the entrance of the Maputo National Stadium proclaims that ‘friendship between China and Mozambique will prevail like Heaven and Earth’, the Chinese companies pay their local employees too little to meet even their basic needs.

China is building new stadiums abroad

It is the end of December, which means that it is tradition to look back at the year we are about the finish. In our case, it means looking back at what happened in the fascinating world of football stadiums. Indeed fascinating, and there is so much to talk about that you’d better make yourself a cup of tea and sit back for 10 minutes.

The year 2012 came off the back of a prolific 2011 in terms of new stadium openings. While lacking a major tournament, instant classics such as Juventus Stadium, Türk Telekom Arena, and Arena Naţională all saw the light. On top of that, most of the venues that would get used during the Euros this year already celebrated their opening in 2011.

The exception was Warsaw’s contribution to the tournament, Stadion Narodowy w Warszawie. Plagued by delays and even deadly incidents, the arena officially opened in the end of January, but then it still took another month for it to be safe enough to host football.

One of our first articles of the year dealt with some good news for Valencia. We all remember that their new stadium project had fallen victim to the financial crisis and works on their half-finished stadium had halted in 2009, but suddenly there was a glimmer of hope that works could resume. In fact, the club ambitiously announced that this would surely happen in 2012. Well, we expect few people to be surprised that as of today no builders have been sighted yet at the construction site.

Whereas Valencia’s broken dreams are a perpetual agony for many Valencia fans, few Atlético fans will mind if their ambitious new stadium plans end a similar fate. Which they probably will. These plans were actually presented late 2011, and the club immediately sent some excavators to the site of the old Estadio La Peineta to do some show-demolishing, but none have returned since.

It was not all doom though in Spain, as construction on Athletic’s Estadio San Mamés Barria progressed relatively smoothly, and Real Madrid presented some amazing renderings for the redevelopment of Estadio Santiago Bernabéu.

Barcelona, on the other hand, postponed a possible reconstruction of Camp Nou, but might get spurred on again through jealousy of their rivals.

Still, 2012 is more a year of failed projects than a year of grand successes. Few amazing new renderings were presented, and few shovels broke ground for new projects.

Expectations were particularly high for the Italian Serie A. Off the back of the success of Juventus’ new arena, which had been sold out over almost the entire 2011-12 season, it was hoped that more clubs and cities would finally get the courage to start the big overhaul the hopelessly dilapidated Italian stadiums need so much.

In fact, many clubs announced their intention to do a Juventus and move to a new and modern arena. Club presidents of – just to name of few – Napoli, Catania, Palermo, Brescia, and Lazio all stated that a new stadium was pretty much a done deal if it were up to them, but they just needed the signatures of the local legislature. None came and none are expected soon in these cases.

Nobody really knows what is going on with Fiorentina’s stadium plans.

Udinese, as always overperforming, was the only Serie A club to get stuff done and proudly presented plans for the redevelopment of Stadio Friuli. Planning permission is in the bag, but they still need to find the money.

The two highest-profile projects were arguably those of Inter and AS Roma. Inter even sold a stake in the club to finance a new stadium, but planning still seems to be in the early stages. Roma appeared closer to a breakthrough and seemed to be closing in on a site, but while club directors keep stressing that an official announcement is imminent, it has been much talk but little walk thus far.

Then there is Cagliari, a familiar story to those who follow this site. Fed up with a lack of progress on the Karalis Arena and the poor state of Stadio Sant’Elia, club president Cellino first send the team to play in Trieste, and then decided to build a makeshift stadium in a nearby municipality.

Stadio Is Arenas was hastily build over the summer, but failed to get safety clearance for the start of the season and the first matches were therefore played behind closed doors. This caused Cellino to throw a massive tantrum.

While the state of English stadiums is almost the exact opposite of that in Italy, there are still a good few Premier League aiming for improvement. Unfortunately, little concrete progress was made in 2012.

Chelsea were most in the news with their bid for the Battersea Power Station site, but it got rejected and they are now back looking at other sites in West-London. That is a shame, because the renderings they later presented looked stunning.

Spurs have kept focusing on building a new stadium right next to White Hart Lane, but only baby steps were made this year. West Ham, in the meantime, have put all their eggs in the basket of moving to the London Olympic Stadium and received good news earlier this month when they got selected preferred bidder. There is still a long way to go though.

The best news from London came arguably from Fulham, who got permission to build a new stand in place of the Riverside Stand.

Up north, Liverpool started the year ever in doubt between redeveloping Anfield or building a new stadium at nearby Stanley Park. They then suddenly got interested in some  renderings from 2003 they found in some dusty drawer, but as the year went by it became increasingly clear that redeveloping Anfield was their preferred option. The official announcement was made in November.

Liverpool still faces a struggle to get planning permission though, something that Swansea already has overcome. Works to expand the Liberty Stadium with an extra 11,000 seats will likely start next summer.

Prospects look good as well for Bristol Rovers’ new stadium plans, with all that remains is for Sainsburys to get permission to build a supermaket on the site of the Memorial Stadium. It is still all misery for rivals Bristol City though.

More heartbreak in Scotland, where Aberdeen saw their new stadium plans, which seemed all but confirmed, suddenly go up in smoke.

The British highlight of the year must therefore be sought down the leagues in Rotherham, where the local football club opened the splendid New York Stadium. Brighton & Hove Albion, in the meantime, did their best to further improve the already attractive The Amex.

Newcastle United also made some headlines during the year when owner Mike Ashley decided to rename St James’ Park to Sports Direct Arena, opening the way for a permanent name sponsor. Fortunately, when that name sponsor came in the form of Wonga, they were smart enough to make some friends and name the stadium back to its original name.

There has been very little going on in the German Bundesliga this year as fans are already used to sponsor names and most clubs already play at satisfactory arenas. Freiburg and Greuther Fürth are the exceptions, though the latter decided to shelve their plans as they were pretty pleased with the redevelopment works they had performed on the Trolli Arena over the summer.

Some new stadiums were opened though, but all in the lower leagues with Kickers Offenbach and Rot-Weiss Essen the most notable cases.

Few excitement in Holland either, where smaller clubs VVV Venlo and Heracles Almelo struggled to close the deal for a new stadium, and De Graafschap saw their plans rejected by the local council.

That is, until Feyenoord announced to want to demolish De Kuip, which had just celebrated its 75th birthday, and replace the iconic stadium with a new and more modern one. Fans were not pleased and massively backed an alternative proposal for adding a third tier to the existing stadium. In vain, probably.

Europe’s big league with the most stadium activity must have been France, which makes sense of course, because they will have to deliver at least 10 suitable venues for the Euro 2016 tournament. But man, is it proving a challenge to get to that number.

Nancy had already passed on the option to stage Euro matches before the year had begun, and Lens have struggled all year to get their project to renovate Stade Bollaert-Delelis off the ground. Its status as a playing venue is still not clear. Toulouse presented ambitious renovation plans early in the year, but later had to admit that a small renovation of Stadium de Toulouse is all that is financially possible.

Bordeaux’s Futur Stade was another problem child, but the project now finally seems to be going in the right direction. Olympique Lyonnais have also finally obtained planning permission for their Grande Stade and have started some early groundwork on the site.

Paris Saint-Germain’s new rich owners also fancied something newer and shinier than Parc des Princes, which would have ruled the stadium out for Euro 2016, but in the end were convinced to postpone any major plans until after the tournament.

That said, the redevelopment works on Marseille’s Stade Vélodrome progressed nicely, Saint-Etienne already opened one new stand of Stade Geoffroy-Guichard, and Nice’s new stadium has been growing quickly. Nice have also already announced a name sponsor for their new stadium, with Allianz adding another naming rights deal to their portfolio. As Allianz Arena and Allianz Stadium had already been taken, they ended up with Allianz Riviera.

France furthermore provided one of the real highlights of the year in the opening of the Grand Stade Lille Métropole.  Finally a proper home for Lille OSC, and it might also bring the occasional pop megastar to the north of France.

There are many similarities between Lille’s Grand Stade and Sweden’s new national stadium, the Friends Arena. They are both multifunctional, have retractable roofs, consist of three tiers (with a fashionable small middle tier), and have capacities of around 50,000. The Friends Arena got off to a fantastic start in November when Zlatan Ibrahimovic decided to use the occasion to show off his skills.

Unfortunately, the opening of the Friends Arena also meant the end of one of Europe’s classic old grounds, Råsunda Fotbollstadion. The host of the 1954 World Cup final will get demolished in the upcoming months.

Just like France, Russia also feels the pressure of delivering sufficient venues for a major tournament, but unlike the French do not seem to be too bothered by that. With much time to spare works are already well under way on five venues. Nothing finished yet in 2012, but the organising committee did confirm the definite list of twelve host cities and that a redeveloped Luzhniki Stadium will host the final.

Brazil is in a similar situation, but with four years less to get the job done. In good tradition panicky reports have already warned that Brazil will never get all venues and infrastructure finished in time, but we all know by now that everything will be ready come 2014.

In fact, two redeveloped venues already opened this month: first the Arena Castelão in Fortaleza and a week later Mineirão in Belo Horizonte. Then there is the Grêmio Arena, which was the first to open this month, but while it complies with all FIFA standards, is not even a playing venue at the World Cup.

But despite these early successes, 2013 will become the real year of Brazilian football stadiums.

It was relatively quiet in the rest of Latin America this year. Argentine football stadiums could definitely need an upgrade, but it was only Unión de Santa Fe that presented something of a concrete plan. It however remains to be seen whether they can find the money now that they are on the brink of relegation.

Money will also be an issue for San Lorenzo and their dream return to their home barrio Boedo, and we really don’t know how serious to take the announcement of Boca Juniors to build a brand new stadium next to La Bombonera.

In neighbouring Chile, La “U” seems to be a little closer to their desired new stadium, but nobody would be surprised if they end up in the same archive as previous versions.

This was also what the San Jose Earthquakes feared when local residents kept protesting the construction of their new stadium, but all ended well for them when they received the definite approval in February. The club then made something nice of the groundbreaking by inviting 6,000 people over to turn it into a world record.

It has been a prolific year for the Major League Soccer in any case as one new stadium and another redeveloped one opened: first Houston’s BBVA Compass Stadium and then Montreal’s Stade Saputo.

The MLS hopes to add another New York stadium to that list, and while initially investigating a rather spectacular location on the river Hudson, seemed to have instead gone full in on a location in the Queens borough.

The move from natural grass to artificial turf failed to gain momentum during 2012 with San Siro contemplating but ultimately rejecting an artificial pitch, and Mexican Chivas moving back from artificial to natural.

The 2012 Champions League final got played in Munich, whereas the Europa League final was hosted by the Arena Naţională in Bucharest. Kiev’s NSC Olimpiyskiy hosted the football highlight of the year in the Euro 2012 final, whereas the African version was held in Gabon and Equatorial Guinea.

The French Ligue 1 tried to expand their brand by having the Super Cup played at New York’s Red Bull Arena, but while previous overseas ventures had proved highly successful, few New Yorkers got excited by the fixture between Lyonnais and Montpellier.

The European Super Cup, traditionally played at Stade Louis II in Monaco, will also go on the road with UEFA announcing that the 2014 edition will be played at Cardiff City Stadium and that the European Cup winners will have to travel to Tblisi the year after.

Whereas this announcement went by almost unnoticed, UEFA’s idea that the 2020 tournament will get played spread out over multiple countries created much more press, and a lot of controversy.

Despite the struggling economies on the European continent, attendances held up well. In fact, the German Bundesliga clubs welcomed record crowds at their stadiums. The other European leagues held up well with more or less similar numbers as the season before, though things look gloomy for the Italian Serie A, where attendances once more plummeted.

The attendance picture was mixed in the rest of the world, with record numbers in the MLS, a recovering Japan, China that is about to equal the averages of Ligue 1, and a serious decline in the Brazilian Série A.

Still, fans have become increasingly uneasy with rising ticket prices, excessive security theatre, and the obligation to sit down during a match. German fans have been particularly vocal in the last few months, fearing that they might lose their particular football culture, but also fans of various Belgian clubs have staged protests against increasing ticket prices.

In England, in the meantime, momentum seems to be growing for the reintroduction of standing areas, something that is already increasingly happening in the Netherlands, though still at a small scale.

Overall, 2012 was neither a spectacular nor a dull year in terms of stadiums, though one cannot help but feel that the upcoming years will be a lot more austere than the previous ones. New stadiums will continue to get built, but mostly limited to countries that need to because they are organising a major tournament, and future versions of this annual review may well be a lot shorter.

(Photo credits: Grand Stade Lille – Wiki user Liondartois, Stadio Is Arenas – Wiki user DerfelDiCadarn87, New York Stadium – Rotherhamlad1983, BBVA Compass Stadium – Houtexusa)

2012 review – the world of football stadiums

Both the Brazilian Série A and Japanese J-League season have ended, and we have therefore put the attendances of their seasons in a few charts. No extensive analyses this time, but just some charts.

The average Brazilian league attendance dropped with 13.6% from 14,989 spectators per match in 2011 to 13,196 in 2012. Broken down by club it looks like this:

Corinthians lead the table, followed by São Paulo and Grêmio. If we compare these numbers with those of last year, we get the following chart:

What strikes are the large swings from last year to this year’s season. One reason for this is that various clubs have moved away from their regular home stadium to a temporary home while construction works are under way. Attendances also seem to be strongly correlated with performance on the pitch, but some movements seem very random.

Flamengo and São Paulo drew the biggest crowds away from home. On average, Brazilian clubs sold 41% of all tickets, but various clubs used more than one stadium so it is hard to get a reliable number here.

Now to Japan. The J-League attendances bounced back from a poor last year to an average of 17,573 spectators per match. They have been higher though in previous years.

It looks like this if split up by club:

Urawa Reds are lonely at the top with an average of 36,634, followed by Albirex Niigata and FC Tokyo. If we compare these numbers with the 2011 season, it looks like this:

The differences are relatively modest, with the most gains for league winner Sanfrecce Hiroshima. Urawa Reds drew the biggest crowds away from home, followed by Kashima Antlers and Gamba Osaka.

On average, J-League clubs filled 59% of seats during the season, but just as in Brazil several clubs changed stadium depending on the opponent.

We earlier already published a more in-depth analysis of attendances on the recently finished 2012 US Major League Soccer season.

(Photo credits: © Bruno Cantini via Club Atlético Mineiro)

Four Brazilian and Japanese attendance charts

Today, UEFA made clear that the 2020 European Championships will get played at an estimated twelve different venues all over Europe. Reactions were almost entirely negative, with talk about nightmare logistics, increased costs for fans, and the over-commercialisation and lost soul of football.

I, however, kind of like the idea of a spread out tournament and find many aspects in its favour, especially considering the circumstances of these particular Euros. I will therefore try to make the case that this is actually one of UEFA’s better ideas, or at least a necessary evil.

That is a little too much credit for UEFA though, because they are for a large part to blame that it has come this far. After all, they decided to expand the tournament to 24 countries, which was a terrible idea.

The reason for this is that a larger tournament needs more stadiums. In 2012, eight stadiums were sufficient for Poland and Ukraine, but ten is now the new minimum for a 24-country tournament. What’s more, minimum capacities keep getting increased, with 35,000 to 40,000 seats now more or less the bottom.

This means that small and middle-sized countries are practically ruled out from hosting it. Even a Holland-Belgium combination like in 2000 would not meet the current standards, and other smaller country match-ups would find it hard to get to ten venues.

In the past, countries such as Portugal and the Poland + Ukraine combination were willing to make sizeable investments to build these new arenas, but the economic crisis has made this all but impossible. Even France is currently struggling to get sufficient venues built or redeveloped for the upcoming Euros.

This basically leaves us with England and Germany that have enough large venues ready, but England is currently aiming for bigger tournaments, and Germany was not interested. Spain and Portugal have bid together in the past, which might just work, but another frequent bidder, Italy, cannot invest in new stadiums right now. Russia is already hosting the 2018 World Cup.

The result was that UEFA was left with only three “bids” for the 2020 tournament. Actually, there was only one proper bid from Turkey, and then concrete interest from an Ireland-Scotland-Wales matchup and a Georgia-Azerbaijan combo. This did not make UEFA happy.

The Ireland-Scotland-Wales tournament would weigh heavily on three cities (Dublin, Glasgow, and Cardiff), would still require investments in new venues, and with three countries involved require significant coordination costs. Georgia and Azerbaijan are obviously not ready yet for such tournament.

That left Turkey, who were the dreamt candidate, but also bid for the Olympics in the same year. Both UEFA and IOC do not allow the host country to organise two major tournaments in one year, and Turkey did not want to give up their Olympics bid. UEFA did not want to wait, and decided to make contingency plans in spreading the tournament out over the continent.

While fans were not enthusiastic, the idea did catch on with the local FAs. It would provide a good stream of revenue, would pose little risk, and involve little organising. England quickly came out in favour and offered Wembley Stadium to host the semi-finals and final, and when Germany came on board it was pretty much a done deal.

The 12-country format has of course implications for host countries as well as fans, but few as bad as fans seem to think, and some outright positive.

Let’s start with the host countries:

• A spread-out tournament gives smaller countries the chance to host Euro matches. Organising the tournament was never really in the cards for Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, but the Aviva Stadium, Millennium Stadium, and Hampden Park are all perfectly fine to host a few matches.

• There is fewer investment in stadiums and infrastructure required. As much as we all love the sight of those shiny new stadiums during a tournament, they do cost a lot and hardly justify the investment in the long term. Remember those stunning Portuguese stadiums, or more recently the Arena Lviv? Most are half-full at best or stand empty. Most smaller cities also do not need the large new airports that get built for the tournament. In an economic boom, some risky investments can be justified, but should we now really waste taxpayers’ money on this?

It is not such a bad deal for the fans either:

• The new format has been dubbed a logistical nightmare, but is this really the case? We’ve got multi-lane motorways and high-speed trains crossing the continent, and extensive networks of low-cost and traditional airlines. It is much easier to travel from London to Paris or Madrid than it is to travel from Kiev to Donetsk or Istanbul to Trabzon (the Eurostar alone takes 13,000 people a day from London to Paris). Europe has long adjusted to a massive amount of business travellers and tourists crossing the borders, so a few thousand more will hardly make a difference.

• Fans fear that transport prices may go up, but this is not necessarily the case. Many fans fly in with charters anyway (and did so at previous tournaments) so do not count. As mentioned before, tens of thousands of people travel these routes every day so a few thousand more has relatively little effect on demand. There is often intense competition on the routes between the capitals so there is less opportunity to raise prices. What’s more, frequent travellers that are flexible are often able to find creative solutions. Avoid the hours when businessmen travel, and why fly directly on Madrid if you can get to Valladolid or Zaragoza much cheaper and catch a quick train from there?

• The same is true for accommodation. Prices skyrocketed in Poland and Ukraine, because there was little supply and much demand. London, Paris, and Rome have enormous supply, and a few thousand more people will therefore affect prices little. Other tourists may also stay away as we’ve seen during the Olympics in London. Sure, Western Europe is expensive, but a combination of Lisbon, Madrid, and Rome is likely cheaper than three weeks in London or Stockholm.

• There is, of course, the type of football fan who travels with his team and gets to explore new countries this way. They may lose out, especially if they already know Europe’s major capitals. It will also be harder to get together in one place and travel to the games from there. On the other hand, fans that do not like to travel get to see matches close to home, or may find catching a plane to Berlin more convenient than travelling to Aveiro, Toulouse, or Gdansk.

• Another argument is that the people in a host country usually get caught by the excitement, a special sense of occasion arises, and the tournament gains in momentum and gets a magic touch. Italy 1990 is a prime example, though this momentum is usually lost rather quickly if the host nation stumbles out. It is a valid argument though, and it is likely that this special home nation feeling gets lost. We have to wait and see what it gets replaced with.

• What has not been mentioned yet, but is actually a very big positive for fans, is that the venues will be much larger than in the past. The average capacity of the venues in previous tournaments has hovered between 35,000 and 45,000, and many fans complained about the small venues in Austria and Switzerland. Average capacity is expected to rise to around 50,000 for Euro 2016, but this will more likely be around 70,000 in the new format. This means 20,000 to 30,000 extra available tickets. Sure, UEFA will undoubtedly take good care of their corporate friends, but a good amount will stick with the real fans.

Overall, the concerns in terms of transport and costs are likely much exaggerated, and the spread-out format offers clear benefits in availability and accessibility. Sure, it has got massive financial benefits for UEFA and local FAs, but at the expense of the fans? Not particularly, and it will definitely be beneficial for the taxpayers.

Right now it seems that all venues get a minimum of four matches, which is decent, and that two venues relatively close to each other will be assigned to each group. The semi-final and final will likely be held in the same country, which means that the only real travelling pain is in the round of 16 and quarter-final stage.

The main problem is therefore not something very tangible, but more of a feeling. We all get that excitement when a tournament is about to begin: we get first reports from the ground, the English press publishes horror stories, we slowly start to learn about an unknown culture, get to know cities we had never heard of before, see the images of fans taking over the squares and camp sites (or are there ourselves), we admire the new and shiny stadiums, see the desire in the eyes of the home fans, and then next the pure disappointment when it is not meant to be. This will be lost, and there is a certain sadness in it.

On the other hand, we will have monumental venues like Wembley Stadium, Estadio Santiago Bernabéu, Olympiastadion, Estádio da Luz, Stade de France, and Stadio Olimpico hosting matches, which will be great. Sure, we already know these from the Champions League, but won’t an England versus Germany at the Bernabéu be great?

It remains to be seen how the excitement on the ground pans out, and while it may not match that home nation feeling, it may just as well be that this feeling gets duplicated and there will be parties all over Europe’s capitals. That is not that bad, is it?

(Photo credits: Flickr user Wonker)

The case that a spread out Euro 2020 is not such a bad idea