The document discusses challenges with sports infrastructure in Belgium, including lack of government financing, NIMBY opposition, strict environmental regulations, and high budgets. It notes specific difficulties faced by clubs like Antwerp and Anderlecht. The importance of new stadiums for economic benefits and competing internationally is addressed. Comparisons are made between stadiums in Belgium and other countries in terms of capacity, age, and rankings. Examples from France like the Stade de France and Lille provide models for new developments through public-private partnerships.

1. A state of the field in Belgium

2. 1. Difficulties in Belgium
2. Importance and opportunities
3. Comparison
4. Cases
 Difficulties in Belgium
 Antwerp
 RSC Anderlecht
 How things should be done
 Stade de France
 Lille OSC

3. 1. Difficulties in Belgium
2. Importance and opportunities
3. Comparison
4. Cases
 Difficulties in Belgium
 Antwerp
 RSC Anderlecht
 How things should be done
 Stade de France
 Lille OSC

4. Bicycles were needed to impress the FIFA, because our stadiums failed to do it.

5.  Lack of government finances
 The “nimby” syndrome
 Strict regulation for environmental planning
 Huge budgets

6.  Lack of government finances
• Sports infrastructures plan
 Artificial grass
 Simple halls for multifaceted sports
 Simple swimming pools
 Polyvalent sports centres

7.  The “nimby” syndrome
• Not in my backyard
• Arguments:
 Increased traffic
 Harm to local, small businesses
 Loss of residential property value
 Environmental, light and noise pollution
 Increase in crime
• Example in Belgium: “De Witte Pion”

8.  Strict regulation for environmental planning
• Little place left
• A lot of rules for construction
 Huge budgets
• PPP solution?
 Public authority
 Private company

9. 1. Difficulties in Belgium
2. Importance and opportunities
3. Comparison
4. Cases
 Difficulties in Belgium
 Antwerp
 RSC Anderlecht
 How things should be done
 Stade de France
 Lille OSC

10.  Economic vitality
 New jobs
 Tourists
 Compete with other big clubs
 Youth academy
 Sponsors

11. 1. Difficulties in Belgium
2. Importance and opportunities
3. Comparison
4. Cases
 Difficulties in Belgium
 Antwerp
 RSC Anderlecht
 How things should be done
 Stade de France
 Lille OSC

12.  Capacity
• Belgium: Koning Boudewijnstadium - 50.093 places
• France: Stade de France - 81.338 places
• The Netherlands: Amsterdam ArenA - 52.960 places
• England: Wembley - 90.000 places
• Germany: Signal Iduna Park - 80.552 places

14.  Year of opening
Most recent new stadium
• Belgium: Jan Breydelstadium - 1975
• France: Stade de France - 1998
• The Netherlands: Gelredome - 1998
• England: Wembley - 2007
• Germany: Allianz Arena - 2006

15. 2010
2000
1990
1980
1970
1960
1950
Jan Breydelstadium Stade de France Gelredome Wembley Allianz Arena

16.  Top 60 greatest stadiums
• Belgium: 1 stadium(53)
• France: 3 stadiums (5, 26, 58)
• The Netherlands: 2 stadiums (45, 48)
• England: 6 stadiums (2, 10, 24, 41, 57, 60)
• Germany: 12 stadiums
(7, 13, 16, 22, 30, 33, 39, 42, 47, 52, 56, 59)

17.  Some big stadiums
• May Day stadium (North-Corea) 150.000 places
• Salt Lake stadium (India) 120.000 places
• Salt Lake stadium (India) 120.000 places
• Azteca stadium (Mexico) 105.000 places
• Bukit Jalil stadium (Malaysia) 100.200 places
• Camp Nou (Spain) 99.354 places

18. 1. Difficulties in Belgium
2. Importance and opportunities
3. Comparison
4. Cases
 Difficulties in Belgium
 Antwerp
 RSC Anderlecht
 How things should be done
 Stade de France
 Lille OSC

20.  Demands of
Patrick Vannoppen
 No sharing
 No investment

21.  Demands of the city
 Only for two clubs
 Private investors

22.  Solution
• Play together
• Admission
 Why construction of new stadium?
• Good for football in Antwerp
• Charisma
• Landmark
• Economics

24.  Ideas new stadium
• New stadium 40.000 places
 No agreement
• New stadium on other location
 Not an option anymore
• Renovate and extend the existing stadium
 Agreement

25.  The project
• Renovation of the stadium
• Extension of the stadium to 31.000 seats
• Construction of a car park
• Construction of new multifunctional sportshall
• Other surrounding works in the areas

26.  District
committee
against project
• Disproportion
• 43 meters high
• Capacity 31.000 places
 Increase of 20%
 More problems

27.  Disadvantages
• More vandalism
• Parking problems for the inhabitants
• Problems to go home
• Merchants lose money
• More sounds and visual nuisance
• A parking with 8 floors

29.  FIFA World Cup 1998
 Why Saint-Denis?
• Close to capital
• Accessibility
 A86 & A1
 RER, bus & underground
• Develop northern Paris
• Spread sport infrastructures

30. • Needed: € 364 million
• 48% Consortium
 Bouygues
 GTM Entrepose
 SGE (now Vinci)
• 52% Gouvernment
 Each civilian: € 3

31. • All-seater
• 80 000
• Mobile stands
• Hanging roof
(13 000 ton)
• 2 giant LED-screens

33.  Lille
OSC
 EURO 2016
 “New Stade de France”
 Under construction
 Public Private Partnership
 Leverage-effect
 Main objective:
Gain more incomes

34.  Foundation stone laid 27th of September 2010
 Opening planned for 4th of July 2012
 Capacity: 50. 186 spectators
 Total costs: € 324 million (+ hotel and restaurant)
 Less expensive than foreseen
 Key role for sustainability