- Joanne
In order to host a World Cup, countries have to go through an arduous bidding process, competing against other nations for the prize of hosting the biggest sporting spectacle on Earth. However, more is promised than just a month long festival of football. When any major sporting event takes place, a lot is said about the legacy that it will leave behind once all the spectators have went home. This is especially true for the World Cup. The hosting nation often builds new stadiums, infrastructure and accommodation. In return for this, an economic stimulus is promised. A World Cup is meant to leave permanent benefits for the host nation, in terms of job creation, increased participation in football and public facilities. But does this happen? We’ve analysed some of the key outcomes of the previous four World Cups to find out.
During
the 2002 World Cup, co-hosted by South Korea and Japan, South Korea’s national
side miraculously made it the the Semi Final’s, narrowly losing 1-0 to a 75th
minute Michael Ballack strike. The event was hailed as a success for its
seamlessly smooth operations and excellent football, but what effect did this
have on both of the host countries? Tourism to Japan increased after the
tournament. The Japanese public opinion of South Korea reached an all time
high, helping to heal long standing issues between both countries, stemming
from WW2. Although football is popular in Japan today, baseball remains the
nations favourite pastime. The tournament reportedly cost a combined total of
$7.5b to host, with an estimated economic impact of $11.86bn, making the
tournament a financial success. This was the first time the World Cup was
hosted across two countries.
The 2006
World Cup in Germany was widely praised as a tremendous success for the nation.
According to the German government, tourism revenue increased by around $400m
during the tournament, helping to boost the Germany economy. Also, a staggering
500,000 new jobs were created in the lead up to the tournament. The city of
Cologne reported that their visitor numbers after the World Cup increased by
between 7& and 10%. Another tangible benefit was that in preparation for
the tournament, the German government invested the sum of €37b in
infrastructure such as roads, transportation and facilities, so that the
country could facilitate the surge in visitors. This is something that the
German people still benefit from today. The German League also benefited by
being awarded $70m, which was in turn put into grassroots development, so that
young Germans could dream about playing in a World Cup one day themselves.
South
Africa spend around $4bn on the 2010 World Cup, investing the money in six new
state of the art stadiums and upgrading infrastructure such as roads and
airports. FIFA generated a staggering $3.36bn from the event and awarded South
Africa with $100m to fund grassroots projects around the country.
Unfortunately, the South Africa World Cup has done nothing to improve the
fortunes of the nations national team. Nicknamed Bafana Bafana, the team failed
to qualify for Russia 2018, finishing bottom of their qualifying group with 4
points from 6 games. The national league still suffers from poor attendances,
excluding the countries two major teams, Orlando Pirates and the Kaiser Chiefs.
The estimated average cost of a tourist attending South Africa for the World
Cup is estimated to be $13,000. The Cape Town stadium hosted five first round
matches, and went on to host a second round, quarter final and semi final
throughout the tournament. The stadium cost a reported $600m with the nations
total spending for stadium construction and reburbishment topping $1.4bn. This
left many South African’s wondering if they money could be better spent
elsewhere in the country.
Widely
criticised for leaving Brazil with several expensive but dormant stadiums, the
2014 World Cup is one that divides opinion. Brazil exited the tournament in a
humiliating 7-1 defeat to Germany in the Semi Final, leaving the Selecao’s
dream of winning the World Cup on home soil in tatters. Despite initial
concerns, the 12 World Cup stadiums were ready on time for the opening ceremony
to begin. However, now lies several near-abandoned stadiums which struggle to
host any football at all. The most expensive stadium, adding up to a total cost
of $550m, is located in Brasilia and is being used as a parking space for
buses.
No comments:
Post a Comment