Why the US should host the World Cup in 2014
by denz on May 5, 2010 5:31 PM MDT
Email
PrintOK, I know the tournament has been award to Brazil, and if they made their decisions based on qualify of play then nobody would doubt them. However given this weeks announcement by FIFA that Brazil is far behind:
FIFA has selected 12 Brazilian cities to hold games at the next World Cup, but Valcke says the sole candidate country for 2014 was already falling behind deadline
s
We know that the last couple years have been tough on economies around the globe and Brazil is no different, and like South Africa which will spend billions in hope of finding a way to long term make a profit, they will fail and money that should have been spend to create long term jobs, schools, hospitals, and things to improve the overall standard of living will be long gone.
I love that FIFA is trying to allow all the nations of the world take part in hosting the games, but anyone who thinks putting on these spectacular events is profitable isn't paying close attention. Host countries and cities do get a huge boost from PR that will sometimes create tourism revenue in the future, but that is far from a guarantee.
More after the jump:
So if FIFA really wants to do the sport justice, then use nations that don't have to spend billions on new stadiums and leverage what already exists. This was done in Germany, could easily be done in the US, UK, and many other nations. One only has to look at the ticket sales for the 2010 World Cup:
Briefing MPs, Local Organising Committee CFO Farouk Seedat said 107 576 tickets for the event had been sold to the general public in the United States. The second-highest number of sales was in the United Kingdom (63 835) followed by Germany (29 733) and Australia (26 488).
By comparison, public ticket sales in South Africa's "top two" neighbouring countries, Mozambique and Botswana, were 1 474 and 1 257 respectively
.
It is clear that despite having little shot at winning the World Cup, we didn't even make it out of our group 4 years ago that in the United States there is both the desire and the means to support the World Cup.
Now I know that there are many out there (including one of my fellow SB Nation bloggers) who isn't worried and points to all the chaos that everyone thought about South Africa and how things now seem to be right on track. He has a point about how many in the "West" want things done months, years in advance for events like this, while some other cultures are fine wrapping up the details a couple weeks before. He is right, very right.
I do however think that the issues of social responsibility of nations spending money that many don't have on events like the Olympics, the World Cup, and other huge events is a very risky thing. One has to ask could the money be better spent? Wouldn't it seem to be the "responsible" thing do to in a world that has some serious economic issues to not impose this type of spending and often debt on others when there are nations who can host the World Cup without impacting national debt levels?
11 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
This would be a quick and easy way to piss off 200 million people
At a minimum, and probably much more than that. If you really want to create a long-lasting, probably multi-generational resentment towards the US on the part of anyone Brazilian or sympathetic to Brazil, by all means go ahead and steal the World Cup away.
Many, many countries have experienced delays and various other problems in getting ready for the World Cup, but somehow it always seems to come together anyway. You may see yourself as doing a favor for Brazil, but go and ask the man in the street in São Paulo or Rio how they felt about your charity and see if they agree. I’d make your your life insurance policy were paid up first, though.
True
I know it would upset almost everyone who lives there, but think of all the people that if you gave them the choice of you can have a month of the World Cup being here, or a real school for your kids, a better home, a better job. Yes a lot would still chose to host the World Cup. I am saying it was wrong to ever award the games to a country that simply can’t afford to host it without taking money away from projects that are much more important.
The short term boost of national pride will be great for Brazil and I have no doubt that they will be ready to host, but that doesn’t in my mind change the fact that it was simply wrong to award the World Cup to a nation that has much bigger fish to fry, the same is true in South Africa. FIFA has done the people of both nations no favors long term, but rather allowed attention to be taken away from real issues and replaced with short term solutions.
Love/Hate
I love your posts in the past.
I think you are way off base here. Besides starting a war, which is a given…;-)
The US isn’t exactly rolling in it. Maybe we have the infrastructure in place already, but what about State and Local goverments? Asking a federal govt ( that is the biggest part of the IMF) for money on the one hand, while using the other hand to put police in place for a World Cup game to stop Germans for fighting is that much better ?
I just don’t think it is FIFAs place to get that political. IF a country wants to host is they should be given a fair shot based on their ability to host it and the desires of FIFA.
This was meant to start some conversation
Ability to host? So if it wasn’t a political decision and was based only on the ability to host, why would South Africa (with huge issues with crime and poverty, and needing to spend billions on infrastructure), or Brazil (again issues with crime and poverty, needing to spend billion on upgrades) selected above nations that have issues but wouldn’t need to spend anywhere near that amount of money on upgrading stadiums?
Can anyone really tell me that the choice of South Africa or Brazil wasn’t political? They were chosen because there is a desire to spread the game to every continent, in social terms, that is the very core of a political decision. I am not saying it isn’t right but I am saying FIFA in this attempt to “play fair” is putting undue pressure and obligations on nations that of course want to host, it is the jewel in the crown of the government to host, but may long term do more damage to the people of those nations than good.
It may be unfortunate that nations like the US, Germany, UK, and others have spent billions building stadiums vs. spending that money on better healthcare, education, or jobs for their people. I think it is more unfortunate that someone is asking nations that are struggling even more with their economies to now spend that kind of money on building stadiums that there wasn’t a demand for before the event. At least in the nations that already have those facilities there usually is a business model to support them, how many of these stadiums being built will in the future be left hosting events for a couple thousand people.
I don’t know but in a day and age when so many people are pushing all of us to live a wiser lifestyle, to make decisions that are better for everyone and not just ourselves, isn’t this an issue worth looking at. I think FIFA made nothing but political decisions their rotation of the World Cup over the last 20 years has been only political. Sometimes doing what is right, is harder than doing what seems right. I think having the World Cup in South Africa, Brazil, Turkey, Qatar, all seem right, but is it right?
Remember this is just an opinion
I welcome everyone to oppose, or support the idea. My main reason for posting this is to get us thinking about what really should be important. Is spending billions on football stadium appropriate, when the local economy can’t sustain them?
Is spending millions on football stadia appropriate?
How much did Utah spend in tax-payer dollars on the Olympics? How much public money was spent on Rio Tinto? Maybe they were financially successful, I honestly have no idea, but if they were they are the exception to the rule. The U.S. spends billions on sports facilities and sporting events and yet we still have failing schools and plenty of other societal ills. If we want to talk about spending public money on private entertainment, I think it’s a worthwhile discussion. I don’t think we need to focus it on what other countries decide to do with their money. Without getting too political with this, it might be worthwhile to look at ourselves before we go around telling others to do as we say, not as we do.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 6, 2010 9:56 AM MDT up reply actions
35 million
Rio Tinto got an extension of a TRT (hotel room tax) that was due to expire. The rest came from private money, so a 3 to 1 ration, the public money was used for the upgrades to public things like roads, sewage, and such.
Some communities chose to finance stadiums, but most stadiums are built with more private funds than public funds now days. One only need to look at the billion dollar baby in Texas, which the local government chose to add several hundred million to, but Jones still ended up with over 850 million of his own money invested.
It may be too political of a topic, but one that I think sports fans have to think of. Many people had no problem with saying the Olympics shouldn’t have gone to China because of human rights violations, but I have been surprised over the last few years how many oppose the World Cup going where countries are still getting aid money.
I do think it is a topic worthy of discussion, it again isn’t meant to offend and I could easily have used the UK in the title as the US. I do think that the decisions made by FIFA are done with politics in mind and thus should be open to debate and discussion.
You do raise a great point, and I would say how many schools spend money on stadiums (go to texas and see some of their high school ones) while they have to layoff teachers? I just think you have to say that it is clear that two things are true: The US has a lot of people despite the economy willing to buy tickets to the world cup, more than any other nation, and the US has the stadiums in place to host a World Cup without spending money on upgrades or building new ones.
Those two things are true, they just aren't immediately relevant
It’s not our choice what Brazil does with their money. It’s not FIFA’s choice. Either it’s an open bidding process or it’s not. FIFA can’t be in the business of awarding bids and then pulling the rug out if some stuff is behind in schedule four years out. You’re specifically talking about taking the bid away from Brazil and giving it to the US or some other highly developed country. I think that’s the height of paternalism gone wrong. If you want to have a discussion about how the bidding process works, I’m all for that. But what I strongly disagree with is the idea of changing host countries based on the things you mention.
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 6, 2010 2:50 PM MDT up reply actions
I’d love to see the World Cup in the US every 20 years. We all would. But I don’t know if that is in FIFA’s best interest either. If Brazil or South Africa put together a really excellent proposal, with billions of dollars of construction funds ready to go, then they should have the chance to compete to host the World Cup.
Who is FIFA to say that those funds would be better spent building roads or schools instead?
by Martin Shatzer on May 6, 2010 2:43 PM MDT via mobile reply actions
exactly
Because if it's not Love | Then it's the bomb ... | That will bring us together
by Jeremiah Oshan on May 6, 2010 2:46 PM MDT up reply actions
So there is no moral responsibility
If that is the case then, Brazil or South Africa if based solely on stadiums and ability to host the World Cup would never be able to compete with the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, and other nations with stadiums already in place. It is the new movement to rotate host continents, instead of awarding it to the best bid, that is the cause of the issue.
If FIFA were not making political based decisions, I would say fine but they announced that they were awarding 2014 to Brazil and told other nations not to apply for it. Their whole system, like the Olympic system is wrought with corruption and political favors.
I would say they would be excellent proposals if those nations were not receiving international aid money (Brazil to a much less extent- and Brazil is a giver and receiver of aid). So would you have favored an apartheid South Africa hosting? Politics do play into the decision making process, and that is the reality of it.
I do believe that Brazil will be ready, they will find a way of that I have no doubt, and like South Africa I believe they will put on a great World Cup. I do believe that there must be some consideration for not only the willingness to host (I am sure North Korea or Iran would love to host) but those whom doing so doesn’t impose financial hardship beyond a reasonable and socially acceptable level. I would believe based on real time currency that the 94 World Cup is still the most profitable in the history of the World Cup.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
