Re: What Kasmati really said. So Sydney Games were a success. A lot of investment and revitalization on the city, all investments spendt returned with profit to the economy and still left jobs and social legacies to the society.
It's going to go great. There's no doubt about it. Nearly every country that hosts the World Cup makes a tremendous amount of revenue. Brazil is a beautiful country; I don't think it's going to be the slightest problem.
Revenue isn't the point.. The point is having a real football world cup, not some stupid football-like tournament in countries that don't consider football as their most important sport. You see in South America, football is a religion, it is a way of life. Since there is a lot of poverty, people see football as a 'ladder' to fame and fortune, a way out of poverty.. And since there is a lot of poverty, people's football team is EVERYTHING to them, in my case, going to the stadium every single sunday was normal.. I would have traveled to Madrid if I had had the money, just to see my team play a match.. My team, Peñarol, has sold out in every single Copa Libertadores match this year, it's crazy, and I'm talking about 60,000 people per match.. In Febuary, we played against Independiente in Argentina, which is considered the South American all times derby, and 5,000 Peñarol fans traveled to Buenos Aires, stayed 7 hours singing and drinking wine and beer in the city center, and then went all together to the stadium, it's just our religion, our 'drug'.. It's way different from Euro football or Mexican football.. Especially in Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay.. Besides, alot of Argentinian and Uruguayan barras, along with the Brazilian torcedores, will travel to the World Cup.. They aren't your normal national team fans, trust me.. Football here is a way of life, it's something that you are willing to lose your job or fight with your girlfriend just to watch your team.. There is a saying in my country that says : '' You can change your wife, you can change your house, but you can't change your football team''
Re: What Kasmati really said. There is no doubt that the Sydney games were a successful party. The problem is that we have had an almighty hangover paying for the bloody thing. A lot of the jobs that were generated during the games were McJobs and were filled by backpackers etc. Obviously there was a lot of employment in construction prior to the games but the fact is most of those were diverted from other projects which were delayed and which in some cases were abandoned altogether as the cash had run out. It is problematic whether Sydney needed another football stadium or another indoor arena. We have a few of those already - perhaps not as big but big enough given that folks in Sydney are generally not huge attenders of live sporting events (compared on per capita basis to other Australian cities). Whilst the Aquatic Centre in Olympic Park was a terrific amenity, we do have a couple of dozen Olympic sized pools in the metro area (almost every local government area has at least one and where I live we have four) and there are probably around 100 surf and harbour beaches (all free access) within a hour or sos drive of anywhere in the metro area - so it was icing on a pretty good cake.
For what it's worth the Barcelona games left a strong legacy behind in Barca and the London games will leave behind an even bigger one in London. A vast swathe of horrible decaying post industrial land is being transformed into thousands of new homes for low income workers, the largest public park created in London since Victorian times. Stratford city centre is being totally regenerated, one of the largest shopping centres in Europe is being built there, Eurostar trains go through there now and the underground/overground stations have been entirely remodelled. All of this in a part of East London which has been neglected since the year dot. So big events can be useful drivers of regeneration. The World Cup is different though, it's just plonking new stadiums down across a country. Infrastructure such as roads and airports may also benefit but the World Cup doesn't leave behind half the legacy that a successfully run Olympic games can leave (Barcelona, Sydney, London.... not Athens or Beijing! )
Its interesting to note that the South African Premier Soccer League averaged 7,639 fans per game the season before the world cup. This season after the world cup, the league is averaging only 3,935 fans. All those new stadiums seem to have done little to help the sport in Sth Africa.
That's really unfortunate, since the chances of making it in any professional sport are vanishingly small. It's not really different with the American underclass- they think that a career in basketball or football is a more realistic way out of poverty than education. I question giving events like the Olympics and the WC to countries like South Africa and Brazil. The money spent is mostly going to enrich the politically and economically connected, and once the party is over the poor people in society won't really see any positive changes to their life. The money being spent on these events would be much better spent on education and infrastructure.
I don't agree.. A World Cup boosts a countries economy, attracts a lot of tourists, creates more invesments in the country.. I think before and after this World Cup, you will see a big change in Brazil and maybe, just maybe, a slight change in a few countries next to Brazil such as Uruguay, Argentina, Colombia, Paraguay.. What I don't like about modern World Cups (and football in South America) is that they are 'selling' the beautiful game to rich Americans and Europeans, just to get more money.. For example, Boca Juniors this year only allows Boca Jrs members to buy tickets, and member inscriptions are closed, so if your not a member, you can't go to a home game.. And why are they doing this ? Just to have half of the stadium for tourists.. You pay a fourtune, you have a nice tour, blablabla, and because of that most of the fans can't get in the stadium... I hope football here doesn't result in a Euro-Usa football structure..
So are you saying that BJ's games at the Chocolate Box have been turned to the football equivalent of those folkloric attractions you find at tourist destinations - you know - the ones that provide an "authentic" experience (eg http://youtu.be/FVP2RPZifkw ). How embarrassment. What's next a sausage train (http://youtu.be/KdBGuhfboZk )?
There's very little concrete evidence of any of this actually happening as a result of the World Cup.
And most of these "jobs" are either temporary or low wage that will vanish after the tournament is done...
There are construction jobs before the WC and then the temporary jobs created during. If the stadium continue to be used after the event, I guess you can count those jobs. The final number of permanent jobs is probably in the hundreds. That's a crappy return on the money invested. And I don't buy the infrastructure argument. If the infrastructure in question (upgraded roads, new airport etc.) was a good idea without the WC, then it should have been funded regardless of whether or not a given country got the WC. Let's be honest- Brazil is hosting the WC because they love soccer and it's a fun party. Politicians like a spectacle like this for the same reason Roman Emperors used public money for spectactles in the Coliseum and the Hippodrome: because it's popular with the masses, and not because it's a good investment of public money. But after the party is over, Brazil will continue to have favelas full of people living in squalor. How many new houses and how much education could have been paid for by the money that will go towards this big party?
on the other hand, what value does hosting the world cup have to the individual in that country? rich or poor? having experienced the world cup a mere 5 minutes from my house in 1994 and running into superstars on the street and talking to them - the value is a lot. and i would say that even for the favelados, it will be the same. those memories will bring a lot of happiness and irregardless of the outcome of 2014, that year will always be known as the World Cup year, even if the government could have spent the money on other programs.
I guess it depends on your definition of "value." If we're talking about financial value, I'm sure plenty of connected wealthy people will make good money off this WC. For poor people, any "value" will strictly be emotional. So, yeah, poor people in Brazil will certainly enjoy the WC and I certainly don't begrudge a poor kid in the favelas getting a little happiness in his life. I do question a political leadership that is willing to spend public tax dollars in a way that will mostly end up in the pockets of their rich friends and that will do little, if anything, to solve the problems of Brazil's poor. It would take an exceedingly brave Brazilian politician to say "No, the money the WC would cost us would be much better spent in other, less glamorous ways." But I doubt Brazilian politicians have any more spine than other members of that species.
All through history there has been politicians in poor countries that promise a better future if money is spent in promising projects that will enhance the conditions of life of the poor (very pretty on paper), but afterwards those same poor people see that the once promising project ends up only filling the politicians and the rich mans pockets, and their miserable life continues exactly the same or even worse than what it was before (harsch on reality). The WC's value being host, as you said, is emotional, but for those who have had the opportunity to live through one, will never forget it and it is tangible in the minds of them as they live it, and no one will ever take that away from them. You could give a poor guy a house, but afterwards due to debts, you can take it away from them. How could you take away from them the experience of hosting a WC ?, only by not granting them the host of it. For a nation who lives football as a part of life, as Brazil does, a WC is worthless and priceless. No matter how much it costs, it will always feel as cheap in regards to whatever you gain with it. More so, if they end up wining the damn thing, .......once again. For Brazilians, the coins best spent in whatever posible to be spent on, are those that enable them to host and helps them win the WC at home soil. (for a nation accustomed to win the WC, it`s a "football dream" never realized before,, for them)
The main benefit of Brazil hosting the WC AND the Olympics, IMO, is for reputational awareness and "branding." I think it's necessary to understand that Brazil is relatively isolated from the world's population and financial centers by both geography and language. Being the center of the world TWICE in two years really helps reduce these barriers. Plus their tourism sector needs a boost. All this stuff helps attract foreign investment and economic growth. I was upset Chicago lost the Olympic bid to Rio not because I wanted to see archery competitions, but rather because Chicago isn't a well known entity in China, Brazil, India. In a global market, investments are made not only by cost, but by comfort level with a city/country/culture. Brazil is the 7th largest economy in the world ight now, and I'm guessing by 2016 millions more will start to understand regional differences, the Tupi oil fields, etc, etc. This stuff goes way beyond sports and stadiums. As Qatar knows, hosting puts you front and center. I would argue it wasn't unitl the Olympic Games that Barcelona and Sydney became places everyone knew.
Right. The only thing it's proven to do, is to make the people of the host country happier for a year or two.
Well Brasil finally has a plan for favelas improvements, and probably just because of the WC and Olympics. For years favelas were abandoned, probably without the WC and Olympics would take a lot of years to projects like that, and infrastructures projects get out of the paper. The point is that this events brings alot of public and private investments, this investments catalyze the speed of things, and justify the custs of these investments. Most of jobs creates are not temporary, when a country gain international visibility the country receives alot of more tourist and foreign investiments, this legacy remains and this boom economy continues after the events, so the jobs remain.
Again, I'm not aware of any evidence that hosting a WC (or an Olympics) has a long-term economic impact on a country. Job creation is very minimal. And I seriously doubt that a WC entices anyone to invest in a country who wouldn't have otherwise invested.
"On average, World Cup hosts have seen a negative impact on economic growth in the year of the event. With the World Cup games lasting about one month in total, the distraction of such a large sporting event might be enough to slow economic growth. But there is a silver lining. The data suggests that host countries might recover nicely in the two years immediately following the World Cup with average growth rates that are higher than the years immediately preceding" http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/worldcuppdf.pdf