Talk:Soccer-specific stadium

Expansion Teams

Are Tor, Phi, Hous, Milw actual expansion teams or are they just proposed stadiums if the MLS expands to thoes cities. Perhaps it could clarify a bitSmith03 16:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Starfire Sports Complex

I have found no informstion about the exsistance of this so-called "stadium".
205.188.117.8 22:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

opening dates

Everything points to Red Bull Arena opening in 2008, including the latest press reports. --Scaryice 03:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

St. Jonh's Stadium

I've got nothing against King George V but it isn't a national soccer stadium. They usually go to Edmonton when it is soccer.65.94.185.198 23:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

James Griffin Stadium

I removed James Griffin Stadium, home of the USL's Minnesota Thunder and Minnesota Lightning, from the list. Per the photos on the page, it looks like it's more of a football primary stadium. Limasbravo (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

Something should be said about other parts of the world (many European coutries, Argentina, etc.) which for decades have had stadiums solely used for football. --ChaChaFut (talk) 05:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The term itself, however, is used mainly in North America and in other countries were soccer is not the number one sport and were soccer teams have had to borrow grounds from other sporting clubs. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The article isn't about football (soccer) stadiums in general, though. The article's title is a term used in the US, and its scope is North America only, -and any expansion would damage the clarity/focus of the article. IMO the worldwide template should be removed and a concealed note at the top say to discuss the matter on the talk page first, perhaps... Lethesl 05:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the tag for the above reasons. Willy turner (talk) 17:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Qwest Field is soccer specific?

I've started a discussion over here about how I think Qwest Field is actually a soccer-specific stadium. Unfortunately the definition of what an SSS actually is (in this article) is (currently) completely unreferenced which makes it difficult to know whether my claim is right or wrong (thus my addition of {{refimprove}} at the top) . I've begun a search for references to help correct this and am keeping notes here. I welcome anyone else's further thoughts and contributions (especially references) as we try to get to the bottom of this. Thanks! --SkotyWA^Talk|_Contribs 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Expanding the definition

It's pretty clear (to me, anyway) that there's a bit of a disconnect between this page, which purports to be a definition of the term "soccer-specific stadium", and what some of us actually believe that definition to mean.

The main definition on the page does not, in my mind, include enough of the newer stadiums in North America. For example, both Qwest Field in Seattle, Washington and the new Cowboys Stadium in Arlington, Texas specifically included soccer in their designs prior to construction.

My contention is that stadiums such as these are, in their own way, every bit as much a "soccer stadium" as the so-called "soccer-specific" stadiums in the article. When we say "SSS" we're talking about structures that are often built for other uses as well as for soccer.

At what point does use of a stadium for other purposes make that the "primary" purpose of a given structure? To say "soccer-specific" almost implies that a stadium is only for soccer, yet many of these SSS are actually multi-use facilities (ie, used for rugby, lacrosse, concerts, etc). See this article for an architect discussing having to take into account other use considerations for so-called "soccer-specific" stadiums.

I believe that we should expand the definition a bit and include some text that describes these other venues and the influence that soccer had on their design. Accordingly, I have added a paragraph and arbitrarily created the term "soccer hybrid stadium". (Hey, someone's got to be the first to use a term.) I cited references for the claim that these stadia were designed for soccer and created a separate table following the "current MLS stadium" table for listing these stadiums.

I'm not aware of any besides Qwest Field and Cowboys Stadium that are in this "soccer hybrid" category and would appreciate people chiming in with references. I believe Gillette Stadium in Foxboro, Massachusetts was designed with soccer in mind as well as football but have been unable to find anything to cite saying so. Enumclaw (talk) 07:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the definition of SSS as used in this article is that of its primary usage in published sources. If you can produce reliable publish sources which support your expanded definition of SSS, then by all means include them in the article. But you can't make up yor own terms, as that is definitely Original Research, and not permitted in WP. We can't just change accepted definitions because we don't like or agree with them - it has to follow accepted usage or usages.

That newer large multipurpose stadiums have been designed for soccer does not make them soccer specific, or even hybrid stadiums in the sense that a staduim designed for both baseball and football would be a hybrid, though I've never seen the term used that way. The only real necessity in playing soccer in an American football stadium is that the field be large enough for a regulation soccer field. Even so, the dimensions are similar enough that soccer has been played on the smaller Am. Fottball fields anyway. If we want to make up terms, then soccer-inclusive might work, but I'm not going to include it in the article either!

Anyway, such a major change in the definition of the term and scope of the article needs to be discussed beforehand. SO, per WP:BRD, I've removed the additions from the article. Please gain a consensus to include such material before readdong it. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well this article as it currently sits is original research anyway. I put that tag citations tag at the top of the article back in May 2009. Multiple sources can be found for Qwest where it's made clear that the stadium was designed for soccer and football however there are none with call it a "soccer-specific stadium". The conclusion I came to a while ago is that "soccer-specific stadium" is essentially just a marketing term for MLS teams who get their own stadium built. The fact is most of these "soccer-specific stadiums" actually have a stage at one end which essentially makes them a contradiction. They're designed for concerts as much as they're designed for soccer. Frankly, I'd like to see this article deleted since it's been almost a year and no one has improved it with verifiable sources. It's been 100% WP:OR for over a year now. --SkotyWA^T_C 08:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, according to WP:BRD, there's no requirement to discuss the scope of the article beforehand. And as Skotywa points out, there are as many actual references in the article to the "definition" of SSS as there are to anything I wrote.

The point is pretty simple: What defines a "soccer-specific stadium"? It cannot be the uses that stadiums are seeing, because the current SSS are used for more things than soccer (concerts, rugby, American football, etc). And apparently, according to you, it cannot be whether or not the stadium was designed for soccer, because these newer large multipurpose stadiums were designed for soccer just like the smaller places (say, Red Bulls Arena or Toyota Park) were, with sightlines, field considerations, etc taken into account. Likewise, the smaller SSS were designed with other uses in mind, so plainly they're not ONLY for soccer; can they really be "soccer-specific" in that case?

In short, from my point of view, I've put forth just as much proof (more, actually, since I quoted articles that backed up what I was saying) that the larger stadiums are every bit as much "soccer-specific" as the smaller ones are. As Skotywa points out, since nothing else in the article is backed up with references, in theory the entire article should be deleted; even the most basic assertion, that "soccer-specific stadium" is a term, is not backed up by citation.

I feel that the addition I made was a reasonable attempt to point out newer, larger facilities that were designed for soccer use and were built with that intention. In the absence of other dissenting views, and since the addition doesn't actually contradict anything in the previous version of the article, I'm not really understanding what your objection is (other than the "original research" objection, and that can be reworked.) Enumclaw (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Soccer-specific is by design. If a soccer-specific stadium loses it's soccer team, and it starts being used for concerts only, is it no longer a soccer specific stadium? That is preposterous. A stadium is either designed and built for soccer (soccer-specific) or it is not and it has to be adapted. To think that stadiums can become soccer-specific and then stop being soccer-specific just based on how they happen to be used at some point in time is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.193.145 (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

It does not cease to be a SSS, but it does cease to be listed here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeld-Wen Field

Before I just add it, is there any good reason that Jeld-Wen field isn't on this list?

One can quibble with whether the definition this article is using is correct or not, but Jeld-Wen certainly seems to meet the definition that's being used. It was "fundamentally redesigned for soccer" and it's "primary function is to host soccer matches". Save a half dozen college football games a year, that's basically all it's used for. It probably hosts 40 professional soccer games between the men's and women's teams. It was not originally built for soccer, but neither was Buck Shaw (which is on the list) and in any case the definition in the description makes it clear that it doesn't have to have been built for that purpose. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dys Claimer (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not soccer-specific. I removed it yesterday after reviewing them all. Jen-Weld is home to three teams, only two of them are association football and if 1/4 of the games are college football and it wasn't designed specifically for soccer but was retrofitted for it, and used to host a baseball team in the past, it's really not appropriate to list it here. The fact that it doesn't even call itself a soccer-specific stadium is a big red flag too. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem I guess is that it seems to be soccer-specific by the definition that you're using in the actual article. The article states that a SSS is "a sports stadium either purpose built or fundamentally redesigned for soccer (association football) and whose primary function is to host soccer matches, as opposed to a multipurpose stadium which is for a variety of sports including soccer. "

Jeld-Wen was in fact "fundamentally redesigned" for soccer. It was not a minor change to the building. It underwent a massive renovation that made it impossible to use for baseball any longer. There are (for example) now stands where left field used to be. The renovation was done for the explicit purpose of making the stadium suitable for a Major League Soccer team. It certainly seems to have been "fundamentally redesigned". And this was clearly done for soccer. I guess we can argue over what "fundamentally" means...

Likewise, the definition says that the "primary purpose" of the stadium "is" (note the present tense in the definition) to host soccer matches. Again, it is beyond dispute that this is the primary purpose of the stadium at this time. The stadium hosts 40 or so professional soccer matches per year. It hosts about 6 college football games per year. That's far fewer than 25%. That is clearly the primary purpose. And in any event, the specific description in the article calls out the fact that a soccer specific stadium may be used to host other events specifically including American football.

It is true that the stadium made certain accommodations in the redesign to make it possible to continue hosting football there - the major one being the use of artificial turf - but that's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things.

The situation at Jeld-Wen is essentially the same as with Buck Shaw, which is why I brought that stadium up in my comment. Both stadiums were built for other sports, and both were significantly redesigned for the explicit purpose of making them suitable for a Major League Soccer team. Buck Shaw used to host both baseball (until 2005) and American football for Santa Clara University. Near as I can tell, the only real difference between their situations is that Santa Clara's football team folded in 1992, so they don't use the stadium any more. Surely *that* can't be the issue.

The other concern I have is simply consistency with other Wikipedia articles. If you go to the article "List of Major League Soccer Stadiums" it specifically notes Jeld-Wen as a soccer specific stadium (and strangely does NOT include Buck Shaw.)

Anyway, if you want to change the description, that might be appropriate. But right now you have a list that seems to me to be at odds with the description above it. If you want the definition to be that you can't be a SSS if you play American football there, then you might want to remove the line in the description that says exactly the opposite. Dys Claimer (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It was added back. I left it because the article changed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not there right now.

By all accounts, it should be. I'm adding it back in. Offside Trap (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Offside_Trap

Mexico is part of North America

Mexico and Central America are part of North America, therefore, any list of soccer-specific stadiums in North America would have to include stadiums in Mexico, Costa Rica, Honduras, etc...

I understand the authors of this article are referring only to the US and Canada, but that is an incorrect definition of North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.149.78 (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, so can you list the stadiums you'd like to see added, with reliable sources telling us that they are Soccer-specific stadiums. HiLo48 (talk) 04:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

First, depending on whose system you use Central America isn't always considered part of North America.

Second, this isn't about North American stadiums but about Soccer-specific stadiums and in Mexico they play football, or more specifically, fútbol. I'm fairly certain that they play football in Central America too. You'll notice that we don't include fields in the United Kingdom, Europe or South America or Asia, only because they don't use the term "soccer" there. If Jamaica or other nations where it's known as "soccer" want to add articles, that would be fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And as it states:

The term "football-specific stadium" is sometimes used in countries where the sport is known as football, although it is not as common in countries where football is the dominant sport and thus football-specific stadiums are quite common

I don't think it's appropriate unless a reference can be supplied that calls a Mexican or Central American stadium either a soccer-specific or football-specific stadium. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

This article seems confused as to whether it's about stadiums specifically built for soccer, or association football, or football (the soccer version). Of course, they're all the same thing, but some of the posts above are written as if the article is only about places where the game is primarily called soccer. I recently added a {{cn}} tag to the claim that the term is used in Australia, where I reside (and South Korea, but I'm no expert on that country). You see, for Australia, as well as there being no sourcing for the claim I tagged, the really avid fans are all part of a very strong campaign to re-brand the game as football. The campaign is hitting some hurdles, as anyone who has the time and energy to read Talk:Soccer in Australia and its archives will see, but it's certainly what some of the hard core fans are demanding. Does this mean that no stadium in Australia will ever make it to this article? Is this article really dependent on that arbitrary line of what the game is called. To discuss even the Mexico situation,, which triggered this topic, we need to sort this out. HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The real question is, "What is the purpose of this article?"

The whole soccer vs. football debate seems ridiculous here. We are talking about stadiums for a specific sport, regardless of what you want to call that sport. These stadiums share the same basic layout in any country on any continent, so to make an article about soccer-specific stadiums in the US and Canada only, or in North America only, makes no sense. There is nothing about these stadiums to distinguish them from stadiums in other countries. In fact, MLS goes out of it's way to say their stadiums are like modern stadiums 'in Europe.'

But I do think a soccer-specific stadium article would be useful as many of the largest or most popular "soccer stadiums" in the world were built with an athletics track around the field, which makes them less desirable as soccer stadiums. The Olympic stadiums in Berlin, Munich, and Rome come to mind, as well as many of the smaller Italian stadiums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.149.78 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no soccer v football debate, it's a debate as to whether the sport is the primary on in the country. In the United States and Canada, the sport is not the most popular one and so stadiums are built for the more popular sports: American Football and baseball in the United States and Canadian Football in Canada. That's the point. If a stadium is built specifically for association football, it's a big deal here. If a stadium isn't built specifically for association football in the other countries, that is big deal. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, there IS a soccer vs football debate in Australia, and the article says it's also about Australia. Nevertheless, if the article is really about soccer specific stadiums where soccer is not the major sport, maybe it should say so. HiLo48 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It does:

The term "football-specific stadium" is sometimes used in countries where the sport is known as football, although it is not as common in countries where football is the dominant sport and thus football-specific stadiums are quite common, or in countries where baseball is dominant (Far East, Central America and the Caribbean). The term tends to have a slightly different meaning in these countries, usually referring to a stadium without an athletics track surrounding the pitch.

If it needs to be more clear, feel free to make that happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Walter - That's buried at the end of a lead that's far too long anyway, and doesn't explicitly address the issue of what THIS article is about, which is still not clear to me, so I can't fix it. THAT'S the point. Are we really in agreement that this article is only about stadiums built specifically for soccer in countries where that's the major name of the game? If so, say so right at the beginning. But then, what about countries like Australia where the debate on the name is strong? Australia is mentioned in the first sentence! (Without a source, of course.) This really is a sloppy article. And what really does happen in South Korea? Do you know? IS the game called soccer, in Korean or English? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Then we should fix it. All of it. It's not whether it's called a soccer-specific stadium in Korea, it's whether stadiums are primarily built for association football or some other sport. If it's the former, it's not appropriate to list them here. If it's the latter is. The same goes for Australia even if they decide to adopt the term "football". Again, if this is not clear, we should fix it. Any suggestions? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Walter, let me make two points.

1. Encyclopedia articles are generally about specific things, not merely terms for things. If the basis for this entire article is that someone coined the term "soccer-specific stadium" and it's meant to only describe soccer stadiums in countries where soccer is not popular, I have to question whether or not that this article belongs in wikipedia at all.

2. If someone builds a baseball stadium in Brazil and calls it a "baseball-specific" stadium, does it suddenly merit a separate wikipedia article from every other baseball stadium? Is there a wikipedia article for all the baseball stadiums that exist in non-baseball countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.149.78 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

As for point two, which is really a reductio ad absurdum argument to support your first point, no. There are clear notability guidelines for what does and doesn't merit an article. If you decided to call one stadium a "baseball-specific" stadium it doesn't merit a separate article either here or on the Brazilian version of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Notability guidelines. Soccer-specific stadium merits an article because it's a term used to describe a class of stadiums specific to areas of the world where soccer is not the primary sport. That term is widely used in the sport in North America to mean that thing. That's why it has an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean in Mexico too? (See title of this section.) And what IS the Korean situation? You're busily telling other people to fix it, but don't seem to know the answers yourself. Without meaningful definitions, clearly stated, early in the lead, this article is pointless. And DON'T tell me to fix it, because I can't tell what those definitions are. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Not Mexico.

I didn't add South Korea so I don't know what that's about. It was here before my first edit. Ask Footwiks (Footwiks (talk · contribs)) who is still active at times. It's tagged now, along with Australia, but I wouldn't complain if it was removed completely.

I'm not telling other people to fix it, I'm saying I don't have a problem with the prose so I don't see anything to fix. If you see a problem, fix it. I've explained the definition several times so perhaps it's not the article's problem but your comprehension that's the root. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL. I don't think someone who excludes Mexico from North America is in any position to criticise others' comprehension. HiLo48 (talk) 03:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Good. I don't exclude it from North America so. Since my vehicle was built there and since it falls under North American Free Trade Agreement, I saved a lot of money. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Notable players who have refused to play on artificial turf

Since a lot of stadiums in the US have turf, I believe this fits best here.

• Thierry Henry (New York Red Bulls)
• Didier Drogba (Montreal Impact) --Abiete900 (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you think it should be listed, but this article is about soccer-specific stadiums, which, by definition have natural grass. Since turf is not the topic of this article, it is misplaced.

References

NCAA

Should we have a separate article listing all the NCAA soccer specific stadiums? The list on the current page is incomplete and there is a vast list of SSS's that exist at all levels of the collegiate game. Quidster4040 (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

How many NCAA stadiums are there? Perhaps the best option would be to list the stadiums that are over a certain capacity. That threshold could be 1,000 or 5,000. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

BMO Field?

I'm a little confused as to why it's not included in the table? It is mentioned in the preceding paragraph that some minor changes have been made to accommodate CFL, but if that is the reason for excluding it from the table then there are others that should be excluded as well? You could argue this overlaps with the Expanding the definition subject, but I would like to address BMO field in particular, as it was built specifically for soccer, with adaptations required for Canadian Football. Also, its absence here is inconsistent with this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_soccer_stadiums_in_Canada which has BMO Field in bold, denoting a soccer-specific stadium. So if we're truly going to exclude BMO from the definition of a soccer-specific stadium then the other page should be adjusted for the sake of consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.151.165 (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a soccer-specific field now that the Argos play there too. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

By that logic we need to remove the Stubhub Center now that an NFL team plays there FearNotMan (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:57, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

BBVA Compass also hosts gridiron. The definition of the ground as originally intended had little to do with whether or not the owners rented out the stadium to tenants in other sports, it simply meant that the stadium was designed specifically to the needs and dimensions of soccer with a soccer team as its primary tenant. Hell I'd wager that noone bothered to look up whether any of these grounds are also hosting lacrosse or other sports. Would that cause a change in classification? This is overcomplicating the definition. I understand that the idea is to avoid the question regarding Atlanta, or Seattle's stadiums, but both of those stadiums were designed as mixed-use stadiums. Not soccer specific. Simple. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• This was on both lists (current MLS stadiums, and former soccer-specific). I've deleted it from the latter. While they do play CFL games there, it's a complete kludge, with the stands not extending far enough north, and the end zones being astroturf, laid next to the grass soccer pitch. It's very clear that the stadium is designed for soccer, with it's use for Canadian Football as an afterthought. It's a soccer-specific stadium, not soccer-exclusive stadium. (and it never was soccer-exclusive, having hosted numerous Rugby Union matches over the years, including hosting the Rugby sevens at the 2015 Pan American Games. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
• Indeed it is still Soccer Specific. Yes it hosts CFL after some modifications, but that doesn't change that it's original purpose, and primary tenant was for and is Toronto FC. And it still fits all the other criteria the article lists for the classification. Someone on the List of Major League Soccer Stadiums also removed the SSS classification for this and Dignity Health Sports Park for some reason. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Fifth Third Bank Stadium

Fifth Third Bank Stadium is listed as both a current SSS for Atlanta United 2 and a past SSS due to a renovation to make it a multi-purpose facility. It needs to be removed from one of the sections. Is anyone familiar enough with the renovations to determine to the extend it was converted? FearNotMan (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

MLS Next Pro stadiums

Hey all, do MLS Next Pro stadiums warrant their own category? If so, what would be the best solution for stadiums like Belson Stadium or Seatgeek Stadium that are already listed in another section but are a home stadium for an MLS Next Pro team? Metaphortune (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2024 (UTC)