Boston 2024

[Ron Newman]

For the winter games, wouldn't Manchester and Concord, NH, be a better host region than Boston? So much closer to the mountains.

 

[BostontoLancaster]

For the winter games, wouldn't Manchester and Concord, NH, be a better host region than Boston? So much closer to the mountains.

True, but neither have an advantage over Boston in any other regard. Although not as large as the Summer Olympics, the Winter Olympics still attract a sizable tourist contingent and require excellent infrastructure, public transit, and a bevy of hotel rooms. Unless I am mistaken, neither Manchester nor Concord would be able to handle the influx of people. Proximity is important, but as others have already noted, a Boston Winter Olympics would not be the first one to have the host city be located 2-3 hours from some of the events in the mountains.

That being said, I would imagine New Hampshire (Manchester in particular)--along with Providence, Rhode Island and the western MA cities--would prove important in contributing to the Olympic experience. Boston alone would be unable to host every single event; in truth, any Boston Olympics (Summer or Winter) would be more of a New England Olympics, with events spread out between Boston and its metro area, southern New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and possibly even the Cape and central/western MA. That's how most cities do it and I can't imagine Boston would be an exception.

 

[Equilibria]

That being said, I would imagine New Hampshire (Manchester in particular)--along with Providence, Rhode Island and the western MA cities--would prove important in contributing to the Olympic experience. Boston alone would be unable to host every single event; in truth, any Boston Olympics (Summer or Winter) would be more of a New England Olympics, with events spread out between Boston and its metro area, southern New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and possibly even the Cape and central/western MA. That's how most cities do it and I can't imagine Boston would be an exception.

You can fit more in the immediate area than one would expect. Here's a map I did a few months ago accounting for all of London's events, and I went out of my way to try to expand the boundaries (I'm not sure if anyone else has done this exercise - if so, take this as one of many brainstorms):

http://goo.gl/maps/LK8po

The advantage to consolidation of venues is that it makes everything easy to get to for tourists and athletes. Obviously, some venues need to be further out (whitewater, for instance, or the start of the marathon). You also want to try and keep distant venues along key highway corridors, so that a single reserved lane on a road (Route 2 in this case) can service as many of them as possible.

 

[BostontoLancaster]

You can fit more in the immediate area than one would expect. Here's a map I did a few months ago accounting for all of London's events, and I went out of my way to try to expand the boundaries (I'm not sure if anyone else has done this exercise - if so, take this as one of many brainstorms):

http://goo.gl/maps/LK8po

The advantage to consolidation of venues is that it makes everything easy to get to for tourists and athletes. Obviously, some venues need to be further out (whitewater, for instance, or the start of the marathon). You also want to try and keep distant venues along key highway corridors, so that a single reserved lane on a road (Route 2 in this case) can service as many of them as possible.

Fair points, Equilibria. Thanks for pointing this out. Now that I think about it, I had seen this map when you originally posted it.

I only have one critique having to do with the marathon. The Boston Marathon course would never be deemed acceptable for an Olympic event. Despite its status as perhaps the world's premier marathon, it is a non-sanctioned course and athletes cannot set world records, qualify for the Olympics, or anything else. That's why the Boston Marathon has its own certification process for "Boston Qualifying Marathons" and why, when Geoffrey Mutai won in 2011, he was denied a world record. His time of 2:03:02 is recognized as the course record and as the fastest a man has ever run 26.2 miles. However, it is not the official world record. This is because the Boston Marathon violates two international requirements:

1. The course is point-to-point. I forget the specific rule, but official courses must be roughly a loop, with the finish line located within a certain distance of the start line so as to mitigate any advantage one might gain from a tailwind.

2. Hills. Despite the legendary Heartbreak Hill and a host of other formidable upward hills, the Boston Marathon course has too much downward elevation change, which violates international rules and regulations. I cannot remember the precise limit; let me do some research and I will try to find the specific numbers for point one and two. Hopefully I can find it online so I can share the source.

Boston hosted the Women's 2008 Olympic Marathon trials in April of that year, the day before the Boston Marathon. While it would seem like a good idea to have them run the historic Bostom Marathon course, the BAA had to design a special course that meandered through downtown Boston and ended at the traditional finish line. (Link from the USATF website: USATF 2008 Women's Olympic Trials.) I'm not sure if Boston would use the same course, but it would have to be different from the Boston Marathon course.

Sorry for the rant about the small detail...otherwise the map looks great! I only took a special interest in this event because I'm a distance runner myself, although not nearly good enough to qualify for Boston at the moment (it is a goal of mine, however).

 

[Equilibria]

Fair points, Equilibria. Thanks for pointing this out. Now that I think about it, I had seen this map when you originally posted it.

I only have one critique having to do with the marathon. The Boston Marathon course would never be deemed acceptable for an Olympic event. Despite its status as perhaps the world's premier marathon, it is a non-sanctioned course and athletes cannot set world records, qualify for the Olympics, or anything else. That's why the Boston Marathon has its own certification process for "Boston Qualifying Marathons" and why, when Geoffrey Mutai won in 2011, he was denied a world record. His time of 2:03:02 is recognized as the course record and as the fastest a man has ever run 26.2 miles. However, it is not the official world record. This is because the Boston Marathon violates two international requirements:

1. The course is point-to-point. I forget the specific rule, but official courses must be roughly a loop, with the finish line located within a certain distance of the start line so as to mitigate any advantage one might gain from a tailwind.

2. Hills. Despite the legendary Heartbreak Hill and a host of other formidable upward hills, the Boston Marathon course has too much downward elevation change, which violates international rules and regulations. I cannot remember the precise limit; let me do some research and I will try to find the specific numbers for point one and two. Hopefully I can find it online so I can share the source.

Boston hosted the Women's 2008 Olympic Marathon trials in April of that year, the day before the Boston Marathon. While it would seem like a good idea to have them run the historic Bostom Marathon course, the BAA had to design a special course that meandered through downtown Boston and ended at the traditional finish line. (Link from the USATF website: USATF 2008 Women's Olympic Trials.) I'm not sure if Boston would use the same course, but it would have to be different from the Boston Marathon course.

Sorry for the rant about the small detail...otherwise the map looks great! I only took a special interest in this event because I'm a distance runner myself, although not nearly good enough to qualify for Boston at the moment (it is a goal of mine, however).

I had never considered that before! Is that only an issue for the "Marathon" event (i.e. can the triathalon still use the course)? If you can't run on that route, then the Marathon route would still work for road cycling, and the BAA alternate course would be fine for the Marathon. (EDIT: Here's the wacky route they used: http://www.rrm.com/boston/map.htm)

Out of curiosity, who cares if the route is point-to-point? Is it so that the same timing devices can be used at both ends of a record attempt?

MORE EDIT: I've updated the map with 2 road cycling courses (it seems that 30 miles is the required distance). One is from Upton-Copley along the Marathon route, the other is from the New Hampshire Border to Beacon Park, with the Battle Green and Harvard Square along the way.

 

[BostontoLancaster]

Out of curiosity, who cares if the route is point-to-point? Is it so that the same timing devices can be used at both ends of a record attempt?

Sorry, I should have been more clear in explanation of the point-to-point part. The governing body's concern in regards to point-to-point courses has to do with records and has little to do with how the race itself is run (sorry). A runner who runs a point-to-point race such as the Boston Marathon with a moderate to strong tailwind the entire way will have a significant advantage over a runner in a different event that uses a loop or has a point-to-point course pointing into the wind. This same justification is used for the second point regarding hills. Going downhill is a significant aid when running a race. I find this point more dubious than the first one because the governing bodies don't take into account the number of uphill stretches on a course, they simply total up the decline in altitude over the course.

Here's an example: The current world record for the men's marathon is 2:03:38, a time recorded by Patrick Makau of Kenya at the 2011 Berlin Marathon. Mutai's 2:03:02 2011 Boston Marathon time is obviously faster. However, Mutai ostensibly benefited from two things: the significant number of downhill stretches on Boston's course and, that year, there was a strong tailwind coming from the west and blowing out to sea. It's fair to say that, without that tailwind, Mutai's time would have been slower.

With marathons, it's obviously impossible to standardize the conditions. The courses, elevations, and climates are all way too variable across the globe. For records and international record keeping, these rules were put in place to help bring some semblence of fairness to the process. Records are obviously a big deal in the Olympics (both Olympic and world records) and each sport in the Olympics is technically organized and run by their respective international governing bodies (the marathon falls under the IAAF's jurisdiction). Not everyone likes these rules, but I don't see them changing anytime soon and the IAAF has never made an exception to date, so I have a hard time believing they'd make an exception for Boston (especially since they've already stood firm in the two instances I mentioned in my earlier post...the women's qualifying and Mutai's 2011 time).

Is that only an issue for the "Marathon event (i.e. can the triathlon still use the course)? If you can't run on that route, then the Marathon route would still work for road cycling, and the BAA alternate course would be fine for the marathon.

I didn't notice this earlier, but I believe I have to offer one other correction to your map: Based on the map and on your comment here, it sounds like you're using the Ironman Triathlon distances (2.4-mile swim, 112-mile bike, 26.2-mile run). The Olympic Triathlon event uses a far shorter set of distances for its event:

Swim: 1.5K (a little shorter than 1 mile)
Bike: 40K (approximately 25 miles)
Run: 10K (6.2 miles exactly)

Alistair Brownlee of Great Britain won the 2012 Olympic triathlon with a time of 1:46:25. Ironman distances obviously take much longer than that. For Boston, I believe the BAA's annual 10K race course would be just fine. You'd likely have to adjust where the swimming portion of the Triathlon is, however. With the significantly shorter bike ride, the swim portion needs to be near or in the city. I don't know if the ocean is off limits for the Olympics or not, but I think this would be an acceptable Triathlon layout given the rules and regulations:

Swim: Start at ICA, swim 1.5k to some point on the city's shore;
Bike: No particular restrictions, it just has to be 40K and I would think it should end near or in the Common, because;
Run: The BAA 10k race starts and ends on Charles Street between the Common and the Public Garden. It's an out-and-back (which, for the IAAF's purposes, is the same as a loop) and is almost entirely on Comm Ave (BAA 10K Map).

The bike ride is where we could get really creative with the course. The only problem I could see with my proposal here is the swim; I'm pretty sure there's nothing stating the ocean can't be used, but I'd be more concerned with the lack of a beach to swim up to. Climbing out of the water onto a dock would never fly, for safety and competitive reasons.

Sorry for the long post, but I hope all this helps!

 

[bigeman312]

Interesting read:

http://www.bostonwinterolympics.com/index.html

 

[BostontoLancaster]

Interesting read:

http://www.bostonwinterolympics.com/index.html

It's definitely worth checking out. They're a formal group and their cause is real, but they have neither the momentum nor the legitimacy (at least right now) that the Boston 2024 committee has. Their biggest problem at the moment is that the USOC hasn't expressed much interest in pursuing to the 2026 Winter Olympics. The USOC is focusing on the Summer 2024 Olympics right now. That could change, however: The USOC is desperate for a successful bid (particularly after Chicago was spurned last time around) and if it feels like it can't mount a successful bid for the 2024 Summer Games, or if the USOC's nomination for those Games is rejected, it'll start soliciting bids for a US host in 2026. The Summer is a much higher profile Games, however, so if the USOC can choose, it would prefer the 2024 Summer Games. It'll never get both, so I predict the USOC's plans regarding 2026 won't be revealed until we know whether it can field a strong bid for the 2024 Games and whether or not that bid is selected or not.

 

[Proposition Joe]

You can fit more in the immediate area than one would expect. Here's a map I did a few months ago accounting for all of London's events, and I went out of my way to try to expand the boundaries (I'm not sure if anyone else has done this exercise - if so, take this as one of many brainstorms):

http://goo.gl/maps/LK8po

The advantage to consolidation of venues is that it makes everything easy to get to for tourists and athletes. Obviously, some venues need to be further out (whitewater, for instance, or the start of the marathon). You also want to try and keep distant venues along key highway corridors, so that a single reserved lane on a road (Route 2 in this case) can service as many of them as possible.

Gillette would never be used for football events. Also, what athletics events would occur at Franklin Park? I think, but am not sure, that all athletics events occur at the main stadium.

Its a pretty solid plan though. Only other thing I would comment on is the lack of events being placed in or infrastructure being put up in minority or low-income communities outside of the one marker on Franklin Park.

 

[Equilibria]

Sorry for the long post, but I hope all this helps!

You are awesome! I never knew any of that. I did use the Ironman distances, and the BRA course seems plenty photogenic. I wouldn't do the swim at the ICA, though. Not only is there no beach, but the airplanes flying 100 feet overhead would probably be distracting to the swimmers. Maybe in the Charles, or you could do it out at Walden Pond and bike in through Lexington.

Proposition Joe: Why can't Gillette be used for soccer? It's used for soccer all the time - it hosts an MLS team and I once saw a Gold Cup match there, so I know its acceptable for international play. By the way, not only would Gillette host soccer, but so would Metlife Stadium in NY, FedEx Field in DC, Lincoln Financial Field in Philly, and maybe stadiums in Chicago and the West Coast. Olympic soccer tends to get spread around - Boston hosted some in 1984 when the Olympics were in LA.

The only big downside with Gillette is the need to bus people out there, so the Gold Medal match would probably have to be at the main stadium (Fenway would be awesome, but it doesn't have the capacity). It's fine for some preliminary rounds, though.

My goal in building this set of venues was specifically to NOT make these games about perpetrating renewal on a low-income neighborhood. If we were to do so, it would mean building lots more venues from scratch and would be unlikely to leave much of a positive legacy other than crumbling hunks of concrete.

These Games should be about taking advantage of the considerable infrastructure we have already built framing the iconic Charles River Basin. Also, I'm worried about putting too much in Franklin Park because I don't want to mess with the Olmsted-designed landscapes. However, in London public parks hosted "Athletics", so I did the same here. I don't really know what that means...

 

[BostontoLancaster]

Proposition Joe: Gillette would be important to any successful Boston Olympics. It has hosted many international soccer events in the past...I have personally attended two CONCACAF Gold Cup Games for World Cup qualifying. Gillette is a big stadium that can host 70,000+ people. I think most people are in agreement that, if Boston was to host the 2024 Olympics, the ideal scenario is that as few large, permanent facilities be built as possible. Not having to build a massive stadium to host soccer matches would be a huge plus.

Equilibria: I'm glad to help! You were off to a really solid start, so I'm just nitpicking. One other nitpick, however: Golf is becoming an Olympic sport in 2016, so I can only assume it will still be on the docket in 2024. However, that shouldn't be a problem. I'm assuming The International Club or Granite Links would be more than suitable. I'll defer to others who have a better understanding of golf and which courses in the area are of the highest quality.

As far as your suggestion for the triathlon, I think that'd be cool idea. The bike route could take a historical route through Concord, Lincoln, Lexington, Arlington, and Cambridge before they get to the running portion. It could be a great way to show off the area's historical significance. I live in Lexington, and think it would be cool to see all the bikers come whizzing through the town center.

Also, Equilibria, is this your map: https://www.facebook.com/boston2024/posts/565763280128060? If so, it got noticed by the Boston 2024 committee and they posted it on their Facebook page. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like they posted a link back to AB.

 

[HenryAlan]

Any reasonable bid should make heavy use of Harvards land, as well as BU's adjacent facilities. Then across the river you have magazine beach and MITs athletic facilities. You could probably host the majority of events in this one triangle of the city, without too much new construction other then that which was going to happen anyway.

BU in particular would be great for housing athletes, their new dorms are stunning. Also remember, Harvard Stadium in the past seated almost 60k, and Nickerson seated 40k when it was Braves Field.

This would also make the transit issue less complicated. You fix the B-line (not impossible), add another G/L branch running from the airport to BU/Allston/Harvard (via Grand Junction), and beef up the Worcester line to serve as an EMU shuttle to downtown. That, combined with better signalling and rolling stock on the other lines would probably do the trick without breaking the bank.

 

[Ron Newman]

I'll defer to others who have a better understanding of golf and which courses in the area are of the highest quality.

The Country Club in Brookline? They hosted a Ryder Cup.

 

[Proposition Joe]

The turf at Gillette Stadium is terrible for football. Watching football at Gillette is embarrassing and it would not be suited for a televised international event, especially one that is supposed to be a part of the premiere sporting event in the world. Gillette does host the New England Revolution, but there is a reason why people are bitching to the team in order to get a Soccer Specific Stadium and why MLS actively tries to avoid nationally televising games from the stadium. When you begin to consider whether or not Gillette could be filled up for an Olympic match (because Olympic football is not the biggest draw and not the peak example of world football) you then also have to consider atmosphere problems because Gillette is a really terrible place for games if it isn't full or near full.

If you can host football games outside the region, then there is no reason not to do that instead of dealing with a suburban hell hole not suited or built for the sport you are trying to host. Any football games that can be hosted in Boston can be hosted in the main Olympic Stadium (and if by some miracle a SSS is built in Boston/Somerville/Revere they can be hosted there as well).

---

Golf would probably be held at TPC Boston, which hosts the Deutsche Bank Championship. Granite Links is an awful golf course. This is also assuming that Golf would be on the Olympic program in 2024. It is possible it falls flat on its face at Rio and get replaced by either wrestling or baseball.

Rugby will probably stick around though.

 

[Equilibria]

I'm glad to help! You were off to a really solid start, so I'm just nitpicking. One other nitpick, however: Golf is becoming an Olympic sport in 2016, so I can only assume it will still be on the docket in 2024. However, that shouldn't be a problem. I'm assuming The International Club or Granite Links would be more than suitable. I'll defer to others who have a better understanding of golf and which courses in the area are of the highest quality.

As far as your suggestion for the triathlon, I think that'd be cool idea. The bike route could take a historical route through Concord, Lincoln, Lexington, Arlington, and Cambridge before they get to the running portion. It could be a great way to show off the area's historical significance. I live in Lexington, and think it would be cool to see all the bikers come whizzing through the town center.

It's been pointed out on the FB page as well, and it's going on the map. I didn't really anticipate a rolling audience for this, so I actually need to update it now...

Also, Equilibria, is this your map: https://www.facebook.com/boston2024/posts/565763280128060? If so, it got noticed by the Boston 2024 committee and they posted it on their Facebook page. From what I can tell, it doesn't look like they posted a link back to AB.

Yeah! I broke anonymity and added the link. Answered a few comments over there too.

EDIT: I put Golf at The Country Club, added the new triathlon route, and moved Marathon Swim to Pleasure Bay.

 

[BostontoLancaster]

The turf at Gillette Stadium is terrible for football. Watching football at Gillette is embarrassing and it would not be suited for a televised international event, especially one that is supposed to be a part of the premiere sporting event in the world. Gillette does host the New England Revolution, but there is a reason why people are bitching to the team in order to get a Soccer Specific Stadium and why MLS actively tries to avoid nationally televising games from the stadium. When you begin to consider whether or not Gillette could be filled up for an Olympic match (because Olympic football is not the biggest draw and not the peak example of world football) you then also have to consider atmosphere problems because Gillette is a really terrible place for games if it isn't full or near full.

If you can host football games outside the region, then there is no reason not to do that instead of dealing with a suburban hell hole not suited or built for the sport you are trying to host. Any football games that can be hosted in Boston can be hosted in the main Olympic Stadium (and if by some miracle a SSS is built in Boston/Somerville/Revere they can be hosted there as well).

I would imagine the primary reason the MLS steers clear of the Revs for national television is because they're bad...same reason you'll rarely see Cleveland on Monday Night Football. Bad teams equate to poor ratings and lost revenue.

You won't get an argument from me that FieldTurf is better than a really good grass pitch. It isn't, and Gillette doesn't have the latest version anyway. I think the primary concern is that the IOC demands large-scale stadiums for soccer, regardless of whether or not they're actually full. Think at least 30,000. You also need at least five or six stadiums to handle the number of games. Let's include the Olympic Stadium, where do the others go? If you're ruling out Gillette based on FieldTurf, I believe BU, BC, Harvard, Northeastern's stadiums are all out as well. The capacity issues could be solved by installing temporary seating, but they're all FieldTurf or Astroturf.

One stadium that could prove useful is Harvard Stadium. It has the capacity already (30,323) and is grass as far as I know. It's not the most modern facility however. Any thoughts on additional stadiums? Most colleges use turf soccer fields to cut down on maintenance costs, so the "no FieldTurf" requirement complicates things a bit. That's two.

I can also assume that, assuming the Krafts are involved (would a Boston Olympics be successful without their cooperation?), they could build an appropriate stadium that would become the Revs' permanent facility afterwards. That's assuming the Revs play ball, however. Optimistically, that's three stadiums. Where would the other two or three stadiums be?

 

[BostontoLancaster]

Apologies for the double post, but today's Financial Times had an interesting feature article on Sochi and the financing of the upcoming 2014 Olympics: Before the Gold Rush.

FT keeps all its articles behind a paywall, so I pulled a few excerpts:

Against all odds, with months to go before the first events are due to start, the Olympic ski village of Roza Khutor, costing its sole investor Interros more than $2bn, is almost fully functioning.

Rows of tidy, picturesque hotels and ski-in, ski-out chalets glisten in the alpine mornings; ski lifts rumble up and down the mountainsides; and, just in case the mild climate fails to provide a winter, there is the largest snow-making operation in Europe, with 404 snow cannons. The organisers have saved 450,000 tons of last winter’s snow under specially designed thermal blankets that look like giant silver slugs slithering down the mountain side.

But for Mr Bachin the real test for success will come on March 17, just after the games end, when “we open the gate” to real estate investors. That is when Interros will learn the answer to the question: will the $2bn investment the company made turn a profit?

To get the city of 340,000 people in shape to host 6,000 athletes and several times that number of tourists in February, 1.3tn roubles ($43bn) have been spent on infrastructure – not including the sports facilities.

To bring tourists from the airport to the ski slopes in 40 minutes, for example, is a 48km road and railway that cost more than $8bn, one of the most expensive such transport links in the world.

“It would be cheaper to build the road with solid gold or caviar,” quipped Yulia Latynina, a Moscow talk radio host.

Anatoly Pakhomov, mayor of Sochi, defends the spending, saying the bulk of the investment is in infrastructure that has long been needed in the under-developed city. Many local people still have no running water in their homes and the roads are in poor condition.

“It would take us decades to build this on our own,” he says. “This is the only way the city can be modernised.”

Private investors have built much of the sporting infrastructure, which has allowed the Kremlin to claim it is not picking up the entire tab. However, those investors are financing 70-90 per cent of their projects with loans from state-owned banks, which may have to bear any losses.

There are signs that demand for Sochi real estate after the Olympics will be lower than projected, leaving many investors casting around for government assistance.

Vladimir Potanin, the main shareholder of Interros, says that he and other heads of private and state-owned industrial groups have asked the government for subsidised interest rates from Vnesheconombank, the state bank that has lent most of the money for building – and for their Olympic investments to be granted tax-free status.

“I am willing to do this simply as a present to the country,” he says “But for it to live on after the Olympics, it needs to be profitable.”

He says the main commercial problem is the sheer volume of real estate that “the market cannot swallow all at once”, meaning that prices are likely to be depressed.

There is a lot of other really good stuff in the article, but it has more to do with the Kremlin, Russian politics, and the relationship between Vladimir Putin's government and private enterprise than the Olympics. Still, I imagine Sochi is grappling with a lot of the same problems a Boston Olympics would, namely the need for massive infrastructure investments, what to do with all the housing that would immediately become available after the Olympics are over and the athletes leave, and how to get private companies to chip in without any guarantee of turning a profit after the Games. Should Boston make a serious run at this, studying what Sochi, Rio, Pyeongchang, and the yet-to-be-announced hosts of the 2020 and 2022 Olympics do will probably be quite helpful. If you have access to FT, it makes for an interesting read. (If you sign up for a free account, I believe you can read up to five articles per month.)

 

[Proposition Joe]

You can't really compare Sochi, Rio, or Beijing to Boston as those games have fundamentally different purposes for the host countries and the IOC.

For the IOC, they are new frontier countries where the IOC is trying to expand the number of potential future Olympics hosts and raise the profile of the games in new markets, especially emerging powers.

For the host countries, the games are national statements. The Olympics are always like this, but these countries are purposefully trying to make a big bang with their games as they are trying to introduce/reintroduce themselves as new powers on the global stage.

A Boston Olympics wouldn't be that, it would be a return to relatively modest games with lots of prebuilt amenities and the US doesn't need to do any dick waving with the games because it has a military for that.

Where would the other two or three stadiums be?

Any of the soccer specific stadiums between DC to New York, or the other American football stadiums in the region that have either natural grass or at least a hybrid natural grass-turf surface. Some of the football games at London were technically played in different countries after all (Scotland and Wales).

 

[fattony]

Any of the soccer specific stadiums between DC to New York, or the other American football stadiums in the region that have either natural grass or at least a hybrid natural grass-turf surface.

I bet you could play soccer in any football stadium from Boston to LA (and should play in the LA Coliseum - 93,000!) and you'd sell every last ticket. The US World Cup (1994) had the highest attendance of any World Cup ever and that was when they only the played 52 games. It went to 64 games in 1998 and yet still the attendance record hasn't been broken and the average attendance isn't even close.

For a country that "doesn't like soccer" Americans will show up in droves to watch for a special occasion. IOC will forgive turf in order to put butts in the seats of all our 70-80+ thousand seat stadiums.

 

[George_Apley]

Don't the Kraft's want to build a soccer stadium anyway? Why are we looking outside NE when this would be a great opportunity to build the Revs their own space?