South Africa Shouldn't Lose the World Cup

News from FIFA today announces that chief Sepp Blatter has spoken to three unnamed countries about possibly replacing South Africa for the 2010 World Cup. Officially the announcement states that it would only occur if a 'natural catastrophe' would prevent the African nation from hosting the world's most important sporting event. But it seems the real reason for the 'Plan B' scenarios are due to the increasingly likely security issues and shortcomings in stadium and infrastructure construction. While the countries remain anonymous at this point, one must assume that England is one, based on it's plethora of enormous and modern grounds. Spain is another likely location as Barcelona and Madrid each have monstrous stadia up to the task of hosting such an event.

The best example of this kind of a situation is the 2004 Olympic games in Athens. For years leading up to the games, concerns were voiced over the speed with which venues were being constructed. Many feared shoddy construction and incomplete infrastructure. On top of all this, there were great security fears as Greece is not always the safest of places and Athens is notoriously dirty and sometimes dangerous. These premature criticisms lasted nearly to the opening ceremonies. But once the games began, the host city and nation gracefully put on the games without incident.

Things should go similarly in South Africa. Great cities such as Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg will host many games, as well as other lesser cities. The new Durban Stadium will hold 70,000 fans and sit near the Golden Mile. Green Point in Cape Town will be built to hold 70,000 and the Newlands pitch, usually used for rugby union, can be used in the off-chance that Green Point is not complete. Ellis Park in Johannesburg will be revamped and the gleaming new Soccer City stadium will be the host of the final with almost 95,000 seats. Three new stadia will be constructed and others renovated, each holding at least 40,000. While some of these are in fact behind schedule and over cost, this is simply the world in which we now live. Were there stadia being renovated and constructed in the US or UK (Wembley Stadium anyone?) isn't it safe to say that they too would face similar issues?

While there have been severe riots and security struggles in Jo'burg this year, there is no guarantee that there will be in two years. And like in Greece four years ago, the populace will eventually understand the unbelievable value of hosting the Cup and the even greater stigma that would come if the country had it stripped less than two years away. Things may be behind schedule now, but they will be satisfactorily complete when the opening kick takes place at Soccer City in Jo'burg on June 11, 2010.

FIFA has done enough to humiliate and alienate African countries over the years. The last thing they need to do is bar Africa from its crowning athletic achievement in the waning days before it hosts. While it is not a referendum on Africa as a whole, this tournament is vitally important to the growing importance of the sport on the continent. It cannot be taken away.

England and Spain are surely attractive sites and would bring in the requisite fans and intensity. But this is Africa's turn on the world's stage, for the very first time. Mr. Blatter, do not undermine their efforts with more announcements of this nature.

Since it is Summer After All

Over the weekend my grandmother gave me a terrific piece of baseball memorabilia: the 1953 Gillette World Series Record Book. Inside are all kinds of interesting factoids like Box Scores for every All-Star game to that point, synopses of every World Series to that point and other finers points of the game like how to score and a glossary of baseball terms.

Most interesting to me, however, were the pictures of every Major League stadium from that season and the dimensions of the field and heights of walls. Below are the three stadia still in use today. Of course at the time this book was published, each of the fields were older than twenty-five years.

Stadia

Coming to you live from Starbucks on Gervais Street in downtown Columbia...

Just a few thoughts and grades of the state of stadia in baseball this year:

Really love to see the new Nationals stadium open. Of course I wish I hadn't spent two years watching the Nats play in RFK instead of the gem they have now, but I digress. Even though the Nats clearly suck and are in a very competitive division for whenever they are able to play closer to .500 ball, having a gleaming new stadium makes a huge difference in overall perception. A good example of this is the Pirates new stadium, PNC Park. When PNC opened, fans came by the thousands to check out the new park, despite the fact that the Pirates were horrible. The general view of the franchise was uplifted as analysts, players and general fans saw the new stadium as an impetus for change within the organization. Of course, that hasn't proven to be true over the longer-term, but that initial push for several years can make a big difference if handled correctly.

Washington Nationals Park gets an A in my book, at least for now.

Moving on to New York where two shite ballparks will be closed out this year. Starting with the Mets, I'm pretty happy to see Shea close it's doors. Having been to one game there, it was not a place that made me feel better about myself. And I was there with some of my best friends in the world. But there was a certain charm to it as well mostly contained in the attitudes and fervor of the fans. It wasn't like going to a Dodgers or Braves game where the fans were really not that interested in what happened on the field. Rather, the Mets fans were passionate both in support of the Mets and against whomever they played. The new Mets park will be a beautiful throwback and will draw capacity crowds for years to come. Sadly though, it will go by the name of Citi Field. Whereas Shea was named for the man who made baseball in Queens possible, this new stadium will be named after a stupid financial services company. It's not like the Mets are short on cash. Just makes me sad.

Citi Field gets a C - great layout, terrible name

In that respect, the Yankees (or Yinkees, to quote a great, old Kornheiser line) are getting it right. The new Yankee Stadium is being created out of the mold of the original structure, before the terrible "improvements" undertaken during the early Steinbrener years. It will be called Yankee Stadium and will ensure that kids going to their first game will remember basically the exact same view as generations of fans have since the 1920s. I really like the idea of building a new stadium that mimics a classic, instead of trying to recreate a fictionally "classic" layout. I love the throwback parks, but the routine is getting a little tired now that half the league play on such fields.

NEW Yankee Stadium gets an A, provided it doesn't do like NEW Comiskey Park that eventually became US Cellular Field. Yuck.

Finally, a wee note on the sad state of sports in Cleveland. Apparently drawing from the Cavaliers precedent in taking Gund Arena (named after blind owner Gordon Gund) and turning it into Quicken Loans Arena, the Indians have spun Jacobs Field, named after the owner that helped turn the franchise around, into Progressive Field. Just weak. Maybe they don't make as much cash as the Mets, but were the Indians really struggling over the past fourteen years when they've been in that stadium?

Jacobs Field (I refuse to call it Progressive, kind of like I always refer to the Washington Bullets and LA Rams, though those are less purposeful than my going-out-of-the-way disdain for Progressive) gets a C - still a great place to watch a ballgame but the name just sucks the life out of it.