Importance of hosting the World Cup
Ever since its conception in 1930, the World Cup was mainly hosted in the American and European countries. However, Africa and Asia won the 2002 and 2010 bids respectively, while Brazil hosted the 2014 tournament. Countries spend millions bidding for the world cup and hosting the event in the name of it being an investment and an opportunity to boost a nation’s profile. However, this expectation is not always the case because the returns accruing from the intended ‘economic boost’ are far outweighed by the costs. Host states have to substantially alter its budget to fund the event and the costly preparations at the expense of national issues.
The sporting tournament is expected to accrue a number of benefits to a host country's economy, including an influx of tourism, creation of employment, improved infrastructure and a higher global profile. A country does gain from hosting the tournament, but not as much as anticipated. Consider South Africa, for instance, which hosted the 2010 World Cup. At the time, the state had a number of national issues to resolve such as poverty, crime and drugs. Instead, $ 4.1 billion was refocused from its priorities towards a short term sporting event at the expense of creating employment, facilitating education, funding sustainable infrastructure and mitigating social problems.
In preparation for the 2010 sporting tournament, South Africa bore the costs of upgrading and constructing its facilities in conformity with FIFA standards. The event was anticipated to boost its economy by creating business opportunities. Even so, South African entrepreneurs and manufacturers were served with injunctions by FIFA stopping them from making their own World Cup merchandise. FIFA proceeded to outsource the same from China. The tournament earned the football federation an estimated $ 3.5 billion in profits; this left a smaller portion of revenues for the wider South Africa. In any case the rest was substantially garnered by large conglomerates and a few individuals. This imbalance in benefit-sharing further consolidated the economic position of the upper and middle classes at the expense of the lower segments.
Brazil hosted the 2014 World Cup and in preparation the country spent $ 600 million in renovating the Maracana stadium alone. The country also had to upgrade roads, airports and hotel capacities to cater for the teams, visitors, and media. In effect, these developments translated into modernized sporting facilities, hotels and generally improved infrastructure. However, having world class stadiums that accumulate continual maintenance costs over a short-term event is far from beneficial to any economy. South Africa’s case is good illustration since it currently has idle facilities and hotels built in the event’s capacity. At least Brazil won its bid to host the 2016 Olympics and is located in a vibrant football region, which gives it regular opportunities to use its upgraded stadia.
Countries continue to compete for the opportunity to host the World Cup for prestige and to boost their economies. For the most part, the global sports event fails to accrue the anticipated economic impact on a host state because of the costs of modernizing its facilities. Even though a nation’s profile is raised, the financial profits from the event do not ripple through its economy as substantial profits are pocketed by major foreign players. After the tournament, the country is left with unnecessary world class sporting facilities, which continue to prejudice vital national segments such as education and health because of maintenance costs.