The 2010 Champions League final will be held at the Bernabéu, home to the team that has won Europe’s top club competition on more occasions than anyone else, Real Madrid.
The Spanish stadium has hosted the final three times, most recently in 1980, and was battling for this honor with Wembley and the Olympiastadion in Berlin. It can hold just over 80,000 people and will surely be filled to capacity come May 2010.
Personally, I think this event should always be held at a neutral venue, at least as long as UEFA wants to keep the final a one-off affair instead of a two-legged tie. If Real Madrid were to reach the final in 2010, something not out of the realm of possibility given Real Madrid’s perennial status as a world power, it would be a huge advantage and one that isn’t fair in the least.
UEFA also announced that the 2010 UEFA Cup final will be held at Hamburg’s HSH Nordbank Arena, formerly (and more commonly) known as the AOL Arena.
This stadium was also used in the 2006 World Cup and, with its UEFA 5-star rating, is eligible to host the Champions League final as well. It’s new; construction took two years to complete and was finished in 2000, and Hamburg SV routinely plays to crowds of over 50,000.
In other UEFA-related news, the 2009, 2010 and 2011 Super Cup matches will be played at the Stade Louis II in Monaco, as has become the custom. The 2010 UEFA European Under-19 Championship was awarded to France, and the same year’s U17 event to Liechtenstein, while Nyon, Switzerland will stage the 2009 UEFA European Women’s U17 Championship.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
What exactly would be a neutral venue and how would you nominate it in advance?
Personally, I don’t see a problem with the Final being held at the Bernebeau…anymore than it was a problem when it was held at Old Trafford a couple of years ago.
A neutral venue would be one named in that large period of time before the Round of 16 begins and immediately after the conclusion of the Group Stage. The stadium selected wouldn’t be home to any of the 16 teams left in the competition. Sure, this limits the available pool of stadiums, but it would be just too big of an advantage for a team to have the final in their own ground.
Logistically, I’m not sure if this would be possible given that there would be only five months of advance notice where the final would be, but it could still be feasible. Fans have enough time to buy tickets and book travel arrangements in that time, and the clubs that make the final would still get their allocation to distribute.
I have a problem with them knocking Wembley out of the running because of tax reasons. If Wembley was the right choice (and I’m not saying it is), why worry about tax?
http://soccershout.com/2008/03/29/priorities-spectacular-european-final-or-protect-players-income/
Wont’ happen.
The neutral venue.
Why?
Too much money around advertisement.
The location of the final needs to me known more than a year in advance, so it could never be selected after the group phase. I don’t think the home possibility is a problem, it is not like the partisans get all the tickets because UEFA and sponsors control so many. Let’s be realistic, as in all sports the best atmosphere is in earlier rounds, I’m sure a AFC final in Denver or Buffalo is more wild than any superbowl; it is just the way it is in sports. And it’s not like one finalist doesn’t get a home advantage anyway, if the final is in Paris, for instance, this is better for London teams than Italian ones. But it you’re planning to go to the final (and it is high on my list to do one day), you need to know where you’re going well before hand, and the host city needs time to prepare.