7 ms·

Apparently, hosting a World Cup has become a net negative to a country. The costs (significant and increasing) go to the government and the profits go to FIFA a

by iwwr 11y ago

Apparently, hosting a World Cup has become a net negative to a country. The costs (significant and increasing) go to the government and the profits go to FIFA and the sponsors.

btdollar 11y ago
Just like with the Olympics. Does FIFA force the government to pass censorious laws as well?
xasos 11y ago
Yep, its really sad. It also applies for events like the Olympics, where infrastructure improvements are mandatory, and costs far outweigh any profit they may receive.
- iaskwhy 11y ago
  Which is why I support all these competitions to follow Euro 2020's idea: 13 cities in 13 countries. This one, the costs per nation are much lower and we stop seeing nations building new huge stadiums which are then completely empty and unused most of the time (like some of those built in Portugal in 2004).
  - jmngomes 11y ago
    "huge stadiums which are then completely empty and unused most of the time (like some of those built in Portugal in 2004)" Not "some of those built in Portugal in 2004" but actually most of them are currently being used way below capacity. And some of them are actually causing financial problems for the local governments, as the stadiums generate little to no revenue and the maintenance costs are huge. But everyone involved in getting them built, apart from the guys laying down the bricks, profited hugely from this absurd and pharaonic decision, and the taxpayers didn't really complain properly (and still don't).
- Ntrails 11y ago
  Counterpoint - the infrastructure stays around. The stadiums get used and re-used, transport improvements benefit locals in perpetuity, tourism/trade brings in money to the economy, not to mention there are general "morale" reasons to host. These are not profit making events to host, or at least they ought not to be. The benefits are varied and certainly not trivially reducible to profit/loss on the event itself.
  - nissehulth 11y ago
    Lots of stuff built is just a giant money pit and nobody benefit from it after the games. http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?articleId=USRTR30UOB http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?... http://www.businessinsider.com/sochi-olympics-ghost-city-2014-8?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/sochi-olympics-ghost-city-201... http://distractify.com/culture/sports/haunting-images-of-abandoned-olympic-venues/ http://distractify.com/culture/sports/haunting-images-of-aba...
    - Ntrails 11y ago
      Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability?
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability? Not really. While there might be some cases where some of the infrastructure is something where the operating/maintenance costs would be justified but which didn't get built because of the up-front capital costs, and where hosting a special event which happened to need the same infrastructure might provide an excuse (or an otherwise-unavailable source of funding) for the capital costs, that's rather exceptional. Normally, the most of the infrastructure needed for the event consists of things for which the operations/maintenance costs would not be justified once the event is over.
        mynameisvlad 11y ago
- abandonliberty 11y ago
  The taxpayer cost of the Vancouver Winter Olympics distributed over the number of taxpayers in the workforce was around $8000/pp. Best 8000$ party I ever threw.
  - limeyx 11y ago
    ...that you probably didn't even get to go to !
    - mynameisvlad 11y ago
      If you were actually in Vancouver, you'd know that this statement is incorrect. While yes, the actual events were very limited (I only got to go to a medal ceremony, for example), the whole city was alive. There were massive TVs all over the city, showing the games. There were celebration zones, with live streams during the days and big-name concerts and fireworks at night. There were the country and province pavilions, showcasing the best of Canada and the world. There were things to do literally all over the city for this two week period. And all this was completely free of charge, with access by anyone. The absolute best part was the excitement of it all. People across the country were united in their love for Canada, the streets were filled with people at all times, cheering on the athletes. It was an incredible sight. So yes, while the actual events were hard to get to, there was more than enough for everyone to do, and it was, as OP put it, a massive party. I'd easily do it again for $8000.
      - Schwolop 11y ago
        Well said. This is similar to how Sydney felt during the 2000 Olympics. One of the few times I've really felt connected to my fellow citizens in that sort of way.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Not necessarily. In some places you can host Olympic games without throwing money away, even getting a profit. Take for example the proposed Olympic Games 2024 Hamburg and Kiel: Kiel hosts the largests sailing event worldwide every year, and hosted the Handball world cup before – and, due to having the best european team in Handball, we also have often large matches. Hamburg has also lots of other sports which are done on worldcup level. Combined, we have the infrastructure done to host more than half of the Olympics RIGHT NOW. You could host more than half of the Olympics right tomorrow, without any additional constructions. And Kiel has also been co-host of the Olympics two previous times, each of them producing a net-profit and developing a complete new district out of the investments – the facilities built for Olympia 1972 are still in use today. What are we going to build for Olympia 2024? Nothing new – we’ll update existing infrastructure and stadiums, improve public transport (which would have been done anyway, and is already being built today), and add some new living quarters for the contestants – which could be used as cheap student housing afterwards, as both Hamburg and Kiel are facing a crisis where not enough affordable apartments for students exist. Reusability quota: 100%. We’d have no losses, only profits, and it’d be cheap, too.
  - tzs 11y ago
    The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics were similar. It and surrounding areas had the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum with a 92k capacity and the Rose Bowl with a 103k capacity available, and numerous smaller professional arenas, and a large number of college and university facilities. For Olympic Village they used the University of Southern California. Only two new permanent facilities were built for the games: Olympic Velodrome at California State University, Dominguez Hills and the Olympic Swim Stadium at the University of Southern California. Both of those received heavy corporate sponsorship which covered most of the costs. Overall, the Los Angeles Olympics made a profit of around $200 million. I lived in the area at the time (Pasadena, to be precise), and the Olympics were remarkable unobtrusive. Mot people expected traffic to be really terrible during the Games, but enough people apparently took vacations or arranged to work at home or shifted their schedules that my daily freeway commute during the games was actually much faster than it had been before.
thrillgore 11y ago
This is a growing trend with all sports, especially when it comes to new stadium agreements.
jmngomes 11y ago
I'd venture in saying that the costs actually go to the taxpayer, as the government will simply cut on actually relevant things to build stadiums. As to who reaps the profits, I wouldn't neglect decision makers within governments, as usually the companies that are involved in building and promoting the whole thing have to be "friendly" to get the contract...
slg 11y ago
This is highly dependent on the host nation. The biggest factor is that they have already invested a large amount in infrastructure and/or will continue to make use of the facilities after the event. The 94 Cup in the US and the 2006 Cup in Germany are the two most recent examples. It is very hard for developing nations like South Africa, Brazil, or Qatar to have any chance of turning a net profit.
- mikeryan 11y ago
  Brazil at least also has the Olympics coming up so one would hope some of the infrastructure put in place for the World Cup will transfer over. Who knows though.
  - slg 11y ago
    I'm not so sure how beneficial that will be. Some of the previous investments will carry over, but it will be more limited than one might first expect. The Olympics is a different kind of event and is focused on a single metro area or region while the World Cup is nationwide. Any money spent outside Rio and the surrounding area for the World Cup will be of little use for hosting The Olympics.
  - wldcordeiro 11y ago
    Who knows, I saw something recently about some of the stadiums built for the world cup being used as parking lots.
mark-r 11y ago
I live less than a mile away from the golf course hosting the Ryder Cup next year. I am NOT looking forward to it. The Ryder Cup isn't as big as the World Cup, but it's considered bigger than the Super Bowl[1]. Thankfully they don't need to build any stadiums, but I'm sure we'll be stuck with all the incidental expenses. [1] http://www.startribune.com/hartman-2016-ryder-cup-chairman-says-event-is-bigger-than-super-bowl/291172691/ http://www.startribune.com/hartman-2016-ryder-cup-chairman-s...

by iwwr 11y ago

Apparently, hosting a World Cup has become a net negative to a country. The costs (significant and increasing) go to the government and the profits go to FIFA and the sponsors.

btdollar 11y ago

Just like with the Olympics. Does FIFA force the government to pass censorious laws as well?

xasos 11y ago

Yep, its really sad. It also applies for events like the Olympics, where infrastructure improvements are mandatory, and costs far outweigh any profit they may receive.

iaskwhy 11y ago
Which is why I support all these competitions to follow Euro 2020's idea: 13 cities in 13 countries. This one, the costs per nation are much lower and we stop seeing nations building new huge stadiums which are then completely empty and unused most of the time (like some of those built in Portugal in 2004).
- jmngomes 11y ago
  "huge stadiums which are then completely empty and unused most of the time (like some of those built in Portugal in 2004)" Not "some of those built in Portugal in 2004" but actually most of them are currently being used way below capacity. And some of them are actually causing financial problems for the local governments, as the stadiums generate little to no revenue and the maintenance costs are huge. But everyone involved in getting them built, apart from the guys laying down the bricks, profited hugely from this absurd and pharaonic decision, and the taxpayers didn't really complain properly (and still don't).
Ntrails 11y ago
Counterpoint - the infrastructure stays around. The stadiums get used and re-used, transport improvements benefit locals in perpetuity, tourism/trade brings in money to the economy, not to mention there are general "morale" reasons to host. These are not profit making events to host, or at least they ought not to be. The benefits are varied and certainly not trivially reducible to profit/loss on the event itself.
- nissehulth 11y ago
  Lots of stuff built is just a giant money pit and nobody benefit from it after the games. http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?articleId=USRTR30UOB http://www.reuters.com/news/picture/ghosts-of-olympics-past?... http://www.businessinsider.com/sochi-olympics-ghost-city-2014-8?IR=T http://www.businessinsider.com/sochi-olympics-ghost-city-201... http://distractify.com/culture/sports/haunting-images-of-abandoned-olympic-venues/ http://distractify.com/culture/sports/haunting-images-of-aba...
  - Ntrails 11y ago
    Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability?
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > Surely that's a question of implementation not inevitability? Not really. While there might be some cases where some of the infrastructure is something where the operating/maintenance costs would be justified but which didn't get built because of the up-front capital costs, and where hosting a special event which happened to need the same infrastructure might provide an excuse (or an otherwise-unavailable source of funding) for the capital costs, that's rather exceptional. Normally, the most of the infrastructure needed for the event consists of things for which the operations/maintenance costs would not be justified once the event is over.
      - mynameisvlad 11y ago
abandonliberty 11y ago
The taxpayer cost of the Vancouver Winter Olympics distributed over the number of taxpayers in the workforce was around $8000/pp. Best 8000$ party I ever threw.
- limeyx 11y ago
  ...that you probably didn't even get to go to !
  - mynameisvlad 11y ago
    If you were actually in Vancouver, you'd know that this statement is incorrect. While yes, the actual events were very limited (I only got to go to a medal ceremony, for example), the whole city was alive. There were massive TVs all over the city, showing the games. There were celebration zones, with live streams during the days and big-name concerts and fireworks at night. There were the country and province pavilions, showcasing the best of Canada and the world. There were things to do literally all over the city for this two week period. And all this was completely free of charge, with access by anyone. The absolute best part was the excitement of it all. People across the country were united in their love for Canada, the streets were filled with people at all times, cheering on the athletes. It was an incredible sight. So yes, while the actual events were hard to get to, there was more than enough for everyone to do, and it was, as OP put it, a massive party. I'd easily do it again for $8000.
    - Schwolop 11y ago
      Well said. This is similar to how Sydney felt during the 2000 Olympics. One of the few times I've really felt connected to my fellow citizens in that sort of way.
kuschku 11y ago
Not necessarily. In some places you can host Olympic games without throwing money away, even getting a profit. Take for example the proposed Olympic Games 2024 Hamburg and Kiel: Kiel hosts the largests sailing event worldwide every year, and hosted the Handball world cup before – and, due to having the best european team in Handball, we also have often large matches. Hamburg has also lots of other sports which are done on worldcup level. Combined, we have the infrastructure done to host more than half of the Olympics RIGHT NOW. You could host more than half of the Olympics right tomorrow, without any additional constructions. And Kiel has also been co-host of the Olympics two previous times, each of them producing a net-profit and developing a complete new district out of the investments – the facilities built for Olympia 1972 are still in use today. What are we going to build for Olympia 2024? Nothing new – we’ll update existing infrastructure and stadiums, improve public transport (which would have been done anyway, and is already being built today), and add some new living quarters for the contestants – which could be used as cheap student housing afterwards, as both Hamburg and Kiel are facing a crisis where not enough affordable apartments for students exist. Reusability quota: 100%. We’d have no losses, only profits, and it’d be cheap, too.
- tzs 11y ago
  The 1984 Los Angeles Olympics were similar. It and surrounding areas had the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum with a 92k capacity and the Rose Bowl with a 103k capacity available, and numerous smaller professional arenas, and a large number of college and university facilities. For Olympic Village they used the University of Southern California. Only two new permanent facilities were built for the games: Olympic Velodrome at California State University, Dominguez Hills and the Olympic Swim Stadium at the University of Southern California. Both of those received heavy corporate sponsorship which covered most of the costs. Overall, the Los Angeles Olympics made a profit of around $200 million. I lived in the area at the time (Pasadena, to be precise), and the Olympics were remarkable unobtrusive. Mot people expected traffic to be really terrible during the Games, but enough people apparently took vacations or arranged to work at home or shifted their schedules that my daily freeway commute during the games was actually much faster than it had been before.

thrillgore 11y ago

This is a growing trend with all sports, especially when it comes to new stadium agreements.

jmngomes 11y ago

I'd venture in saying that the costs actually go to the taxpayer, as the government will simply cut on actually relevant things to build stadiums. As to who reaps the profits, I wouldn't neglect decision makers within governments, as usually the companies that are involved in building and promoting the whole thing have to be "friendly" to get the contract...

slg 11y ago

This is highly dependent on the host nation. The biggest factor is that they have already invested a large amount in infrastructure and/or will continue to make use of the facilities after the event. The 94 Cup in the US and the 2006 Cup in Germany are the two most recent examples. It is very hard for developing nations like South Africa, Brazil, or Qatar to have any chance of turning a net profit.

mikeryan 11y ago
Brazil at least also has the Olympics coming up so one would hope some of the infrastructure put in place for the World Cup will transfer over. Who knows though.
- slg 11y ago
  I'm not so sure how beneficial that will be. Some of the previous investments will carry over, but it will be more limited than one might first expect. The Olympics is a different kind of event and is focused on a single metro area or region while the World Cup is nationwide. Any money spent outside Rio and the surrounding area for the World Cup will be of little use for hosting The Olympics.
- wldcordeiro 11y ago
  Who knows, I saw something recently about some of the stadiums built for the world cup being used as parking lots.

mark-r 11y ago

I live less than a mile away from the golf course hosting the Ryder Cup next year. I am NOT looking forward to it. The Ryder Cup isn't as big as the World Cup, but it's considered bigger than the Super Bowl[1]. Thankfully they don't need to build any stadiums, but I'm sure we'll be stuck with all the incidental expenses. [1] http://www.startribune.com/hartman-2016-ryder-cup-chairman-says-event-is-bigger-than-super-bowl/291172691/ http://www.startribune.com/hartman-2016-ryder-cup-chairman-s...