Someone will make a buttload of money off the World Cup. But FIFA is in a position to structure things in such a way that the profit will primarily go to FIFA and, probably to a lesser extent, to its sponsors. The questions are 1) How many of those sponsors are meaningfully American companies? and 2) Are there enough other ways for the people and the cities involved to get at the money being made? If not, the money made will leave the US when the Cup is over. I mean, in South Africa FIFA convinced the government to set up enormous exclusion zones to keep local entrepreneurs from selling anything anywhere near the stadiums. FIFA even convinced the government to relocate poor people to settlements that bordered on internment camps. When one factors in tax dollars spent (and maybe opportunity costs) it's not easy to see how most poor, working-class, and middle-class South Africans actually profited out of the World Cup. I'm not saying they didn't; I'm just saying that it's far from clear that they did. The US bid would, in some ways, be proportionately less costly than South Africa's (we'd have to build far fewer stadiums, and we'd have a use for the ones we did build). So it's entirely possible the US could make money off a WC. On the other hand, it's entirely possible that FIFA could take the lion's share and that transnational corporations could take the lionesses' share and move it to accounts in the Grand Caymans, leaving the rest of us with the hyena's share. Or just a bunch of dry bones to gnaw on.
But the WC is in no way meant to be a capitalist, free market event. The people who make money off of it are the politically connected who can get the lucrative contracts and who can bribe the appropriate people in their soccer federation or FIFA to make sure their city is picked as a venue. In most cases, the expense in a given location is mostly borne by taxpayers, while the profits are pocketed by individuals (and FIFA, of course). You're doing a good job of making the point of why people in a given city might not want to have their city host WC matches. If KC needs a mass-transit system, that's one thing. But to use the WC as a way to back-door in using tax dollars for things you want is dishonest. If the various infrastructure expenses could stand on their own merits, they wouldn't need the WC to justify them.
I don't get how it could really be such a financial drain. The stadiums, hotels, and pretty much everything else already exist. We don't have to build a damn thing to make this happen. Most of the stadiums likely to host these games are pretty new and aren't going to require major renovation to be ready in twelve years time.
First off, let me say that I'm not particularly enamored with FIFA (I mean, who is, other than FIFA) - they seem to make (lots of) money while providing very little in the ways of an actual service. That being said, FIFA isn't the only one who does this, just the org that does it in this situation. Now, I'm not entirely down with how FIFA selects sponsors for an event, but assuming that FIFA isn't restrictive of American companies (one would hope they would actually be somewhat more amicable to American sponsors for an American WC) then it's up to the American companies to get a piece of the pie, and I would hope that they would be lining up around the block for the opportunity since they would be best suited to capitalize on a WC that happens to be in their own country. Oh, the SA WC was a completely different bag (baby)... I never really got on board with the concept of putting it in a developing country like that. I just think that it is entirely possible for a US WC to be a positive impact on the US economy, especially if the country, its people and its corporations all try to be intelligent and make money off of the situation. There's money to be had and, yes, FIFA will get its share... but there should be more than enough to go around outside of that to make the smart and opportunistic a good amount as well. I'm not saying that FIFA and the 'well connected' won't make their money off the event, but does that change the the fact that money will go to local business on account of the event? I am saying that a WC draws a lot of people and that the smart entrepreneurs will find a way to make money off of those people while they're here. Hey, I'm just showing how even grocery stores can try to capitalize on a WC, I consider that most of the substantial price increases would come in the form of products and services that would be consumed and utilized by the influx WC crowd - namely car rentals & hotels (and associated taxes). Restaurants would probably simply settle for the increase in business and wouldn't need to raise costs.... But sure, hosting the WC is going to cause some amount of inconvenience, but so any other major event that a city might host. If those tax dollars come from WC-related tourism and not from the residents, what's the problem? Even if it's not wholly funded through the tourists, KC would get the system at a discount. In any case, I don't see how a WC would allow me any 'me' any more leeway in getting tax payers to pay for what I want - I'm pretty sure that the city charter doesn't have any verbage such that residents must vote on new taxes unless those new taxes are related to a World Cup. I would like KC to get a mass-transit system and I believe that hosting a WC would cause the rest of the city to agree having one is a good idea (due to hosting stipulations or whatnot, most likely). Still, the point stands that, even if local taxpayers do foot the bill for the infrastructure improvements required to host, as long as those infrastructure improvements are applicable to non-WC hosting periods then the taxpayers/city still gets to keep the benefit of that infrastructure after the WC is gone. So while I think you can count that expenditure as a cost of hosting the WC, you have to at least be fair and put an offsetting amount which signifies the benefit that the city receives from having that improvement in the long run. While I agree that this offsetting amount is probably less than the total outlay for the improvement, it does mitigate the costs of infrastructure improvements.
1994 brasil's players were spending like crazy, maxing out thier credit cards... add in the 5 star hotels they stay at for a month, some ones making a killing..
The United States has few direct costs. We don't have to build new stadiums or airports or hotels or hospitals to win the bid. Increased police presence and the like can't really be all that costly. There's also the argument that any additional revenue is really just a reallocation of funds. I.E. Americans spending disposable income on the cup would've spent it on something else, and that there's no real increase in foreign travel, just different travelers. Will Fifa really suck billions out of the economy that it wouldn't already have? Even if all tickets were bought by Americans and all money went back to Fifa, that's still under a billion dollars. So for a county like the U.S., I don't see how hosting the World Cup could be a boondoggle. For countries without an extensive sporting infrastructure, I could see it, but there is one thing I think people need to keep in mind. Sure, building stadiums that won't be used much and certainly not to capacity is a waste. But much of the cost of hosting a World Cup is spent on upgrading infrastructure, and those costs I bet are worth it. Does anyone think Brazil is going to regret their current spending of billions to have decent airports and roads? So it seems to me the only thing nations need to do to prevent hosting the World Cup from being a "boondoggle" is be smarter about stadium development. Look at London and the Olympics - they built a 80,000 seat stadium that can be downgraded to 25,000 seats after the event is done. If they settle on a tenant (like West Ham or Tottenham) they could keep the stadium mostly in tact. It seems like this, and what Qatar is planning on doing if they win the bid, is the best model. Build the big stadiums, but downgrade them after so there isn't expensive to maintain mostly unused behemoths. The legacy will also be stronger as many seats can be donated (or sold) to other nations.
qatar is gonna host what??? http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia-and-Oceania/Qatar-LOCATION-SIZE-AND-EXTENT.html "Comparatively, the area occupied by Qatar is slightly smaller than the state of Connecticut. "
I think this argument is a bit of a red herring. If certain infrastructure improvements are a good use of taxpayer money, then they should happen regardless of whether or not a country gets to host the WC. But if those improvements wouldn't have happened but for the WC, then to me that says that they weren't important enough on their own to get built. Is the money Brazil spends on infrastructure for the 2014 WC being spent in the best way for Brazil's eocnomy? I doubt it- most likely, it will be spent in the ways that are best for the 2014 WC. But that's not the same thing.
the poor in brasil will never see any of that money, just like the poor anywhere rarely see any of the money, even in the good ole us of a... elitists make the decisions... always have, always will
The argument is that if this event will happen then it will create the political impetus for this positive externality to also occur. What you aren't understanding is the link between the two. We should be spending more than twice as much as we do on infrastructure but other political priorities such as wars and tax cuts and prescription drug benefits got in the way. If the world cup is important enough to happen then it should (according to your logic that importance = will/should occur). If that importance rubs off on some of our $2 trillion dollar infrastructure deficit all the better.