Should second world countries be allowed to host major world events?

[Vic Vinegar]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/footba...ngland-and-italy/story-fnkjl6g2-1226953221369

And its not the first time. South Africa was slammed just months out from the tournament in 2010 for being unprepared. The Sochi Winter Olympics weren't exactly a world beater either:

http://news.distractify.com/culture/sochi/

I don't recall these kinds of problems with Sydney in 2000, with London in 2012. With Germany in 2006. Or when Korea and Japan hosted the World Cup in 2002.

We can only pray that Russia gets its s**t together by 2018.

 

[Donners]

Even aside from the quality of the tournament, couldn't the money be better spent on more urgent needs within the country?

I would love to put a "Muntu Builds Stadiums" image from The Simpsons here, but the interwebz have let me down appallingly.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

Even aside from the quality of the tournament, couldn't the money be better spent on more urgent needs within the country?

I would love to put a "Muntu Builds Stadiums" image from The Simpsons here, but the interwebz have let me down appallingly.

That's what I think. Wasting billions on a tournament in the hopes it will gloss over social/economic problems in one's country is ridiculous.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

FIFA and IOC profit. The host countries never do.

The world watching = brilliant opportunity for all protests

 

[MrCharisma]

A good chunk of Brazilians don't even have a sewerage system, maybe they should work on that first.

 

[kickazz]

The "Second World" pretty much stopped existing after the worldwide fall of communism.

To answer the gist of the thread, I think it is good for poorer countries to have these events as well. You could say their money could be better spent, but the same goes for money spent by wealthy countries on events. The events create jobs, inspire people, enrich the corrupt and could be considered overindulgent wherever they are held.

 

[Vic Vinegar]

A good chunk of Brazilians don't even have a sewerage system, maybe they should work on that first.

Exactly. I would rather this money be spent genuinely helping these people, not the rich elite who could'nt give a s**t either way.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Even aside from the quality of the tournament, couldn't the money be better spent on more urgent needs within the country?

I would love to put a "Muntu Builds Stadiums" image from The Simpsons here, but the interwebz have let me down appallingly.

I would love this, as I have a number of Brazillian friends with their own family and friends still in the country, but one wonders if it will ever happen.

The corruption in Brazil is on a scale difficult for us to imagine, even given the dodgy behavior of our own politicians who seem to be doing their best to sell us down the river.

Government spending means more cash for paramilitary units like BOPE, who are little more than state sponsored mass murderers.

The "Second World" pretty much stopped existing after the worldwide fall of communism.

To answer the gist of the thread, I think it is good for poorer countries to have these events as well. You could say their money could be better spent, but the same goes for money spent by wealthy countries on events. The events create jobs, inspire people, enrich the corrupt and could be considered overindulgent wherever they are held.

The second world is not really a thing. A redundant term not used in academia, or by policy makers. I suppose you could call Brazil one of the BRIC block industrialized developing nations.

As for these events being held in countries like Brazil, it is a terrible idea. They don't really create jobs or bring wealth at all. In fact incur multi billion costs, that even wealthy countries like Germany struggle with. FIFA earnings are tax free and all major marketing, sponsorship, merchandising, sales goes through FIFA and FIFA approved contractors, nearly all of which are international. It's a huge scam that has been written about extensively. Yet to host the cup it is costing Brazilian tax payers 11.3 billion upwards, for minimal economic return.

 

[telsor]

One thing to remember though is that if they spent $2Billion (no idea of actual number) on this, it's not like that money could have been spent on the poor.

Most of that money comes from TV rights, extra tourism, ticket sales, etc etc etc. So no world cup, no $2Billion.

Sure, the government probably provided some funding, but you're probably only talking something $100Million lost for 'good' programs...not insignificant, but hardly a panacea either.

 

[Borry]

Have the Olympics too in 2016.

 

[Pie eyed]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/footba...ngland-and-italy/story-fnkjl6g2-1226953221369

And its not the first time. South Africa was slammed just months out from the tournament in 2010 for being unprepared. The Sochi Winter Olympics weren't exactly a world beater either:

http://news.distractify.com/culture/sochi/

I don't recall these kinds of problems with Sydney in 2000, with London in 2012. With Germany in 2006. Or when Korea and Japan hosted the World Cup in 2002.

We can only pray that Russia gets its s**t together by 2018.

If they can afford to bribe the OIC and/or FIFA they should have the same rights as any Western country.
It annoys me though, there is no outcry over how incompetent Australias attempt "buy" the world cup was.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

One thing to remember though is that if they spent $2Billion (no idea of actual number) on this, it's not like that money could have been spent on the poor.

Most of that money comes from TV rights, extra tourism, ticket sales, etc etc etc. So no world cup, no $2Billion.

Sure, the government probably provided some funding, but you're probably only talking something $100Million lost for 'good' programs...not insignificant, but hardly a panacea either.

Errrr you have no idea right?

11.3 billion and counting.

Also no, they don't make the money back. All of FIFA's profits are tax free. They license everything as well, not the host nation. TV rights, marketing, promotion, sales of merchandise, all associated food and alcohol sales. They also have agreements protecting their vendors, and affiliates who are usually international but swoop in to operate and take local business.

The government also signs agreements to close down vendors within a certain radius of matches, which the taxpayers have to compensate for the duration. Advertising and signage also has to be covered unless FIFA approved within that protected space.

Basically, FIFA is a giant cash vacuum that swoops down and bleeds host nations before pissing off. The only benefit, is the prestige, which is of dubious merit outside of political and sports circles and a small but in no way compensatory bump to tourist spending in the local economy.

 

[telsor]

Errrr you have no idea right?

11.3 billion and counting.

Also no, they don't make the money back. All of FIFA's profits are tax free. They license everything as well, not the host nation. TV rights, marketing, promotion, sales of merchandise, all associated food and alcohol sales. They also have agreements protecting their vendors, and affiliates who are usually international but swoop in to operate and take local business.

The government also signs agreements to close down vendors within a certain radius of matches, which the taxpayers have to compensate for the duration. Advertising and signage also has to be covered unless FIFA approved within that protected space.

Basically, FIFA is a giant cash vacuum that swoops down and bleeds host nations before pissing off. The only benefit, is the prestige, which is of dubious merit outside of political and sports circles and a small but in no way compensatory bump to tourist spending in the local economy.

I said I was making numbers up as illustration, but hey, if you make me research.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/...cklash-of-brazils-public-relations-black-eye/

$11.5B in costs, with $3.6B in taxpayer money going into it.

Where does the other $7.9B come from?

I'm not suggesting it's a positive. I'm saying it's not like the whole $11.5B could have been spent on 'other things'. Oh, BTW, half the spend has been on transport (trains, airports and stuff), which is good, right?...Yes, it was meant to be 2/3, but they overcommitted.

BTW, Brazil is a massive economy and growing rapidly (serious massive oil fields off the coast among other thigs), yes, they have massive inequality in wealth distribution, but $3.6B isn't such a big deal.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I'm not suggesting it's a positive. I'm saying it's not like the whole $11.5B could have been spent on 'other things'. Oh, BTW, half the spend has been on transport (trains, airports and stuff), which is good, right?...Yes, it was meant to be 2/3, but they overcommitted.

Some of which is of dubious utility, most of which isn't finished.

I think the message from the protests has been, if you can't deliver quality health care, you can't stem government corruption and you can't make utilities or transport affordable, then why wast billions on the WC.

 

[telsor]

Some of which is of dubious utility, most of which isn't finished.

I think the message from the protests has been, if you can't deliver quality health care, you can't stem government corruption and you can't make utilities or transport affordable, then why wast billions on the WC.

They have the olympics in 2 years, I dare say they'll keep working on it.

Hell, spend the money on law enforcement....to stop both crime (yes, white collar as well) and tax avoidance (black economy estimated at 37% of the total)....If you made the black economy pay taxes, you'd have ~50% more government revenue with which to tackle health care, etc.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

They have the olympics in 2 years, I dare say they'll keep working on it.

Hell, spend the money on law enforcement....to stop both crime (yes, white collar as well) and tax avoidance (black economy estimated at 37% of the total)....If you made the black economy pay taxes, you'd have ~50% more government revenue with which to tackle health care, etc.

Law enforcement are as responsible for the crime, murder and drug trafficking as the gangs. Maybe moreso.

Anyway, what I want to know is how can free to air SBS on limited funds produce such an amazing app and online livestreaming service, with multi stream functionality, perfect HD, brilliant interface with all the stats, matchups, tactics, zoom functionality, six angles etc. yet the AFL and Telstra fail so miserably.

Sometimes non taxpayer funded equivalents with big budgets just don't do it better.

 

[telsor]

Law enforcement are as responsible for the crime, murder and drug trafficking as the gangs. Maybe moreso.

Anyway, what I want to know is how can free to air SBS on limited funds produce such an amazing app and online livestreaming service, with multi stream functionality, perfect HD, brilliant interface with all the stats, matchups, tactics, zoom functionality, six angles etc. yet the AFL and Telstra fail so miserably.

Sometimes non taxpayer funded equivalents with big budgets just don't do it better.

SBS, being unhindered by commercial considerations, has a bigger budget for the task.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

SBS, being unhindered by commercial considerations, has a bigger budget for the task.

Really?

I doubt that strongly.

 

[telsor]

Really?

I doubt that strongly.

yeah, maybe not, but it certainly doesn't need to earn them money, and the more you try to do, the tougher a program becomes.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

yeah, maybe not, but it certainly doesn't need to earn them money, and the more you try to do, the tougher a program becomes.

You should check it out, really impressive, both the website and the app.

 

[telsor]

You should check it out, really impressive, both the website and the app.

Soccer doesn't really interest me, and I don't see much point in looking at an app just to see it.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Soccer doesn't really interest me, and I don't see much point in looking at an app just to see it.

Oh well your loss, just missed a historic flogging.

 

[telsor]

Oh well your loss, just missed a historic flogging.

Nah, I watched the *real* world cup semi final....Aus 5-1 over Arg to make the final.

 

[Slax]

If you only ever hold major sporting events in 1st world countries the events themselves will start to lose their appeal, especially the Olympics, which is already overrated.

 

[SterlingArcher]

I'm not sure what the deal with FIFA and the regulation of stadiums is, but I'd assume at least the World Cup stadiums will be used in the future for Brazilian league matches, international friendlies i.e. there is a use for them, even if they did spend big on some.

Come the Olympics there will be mega-pool facilities and facilities for a world class diving competition Brazil, the diving powerhouse. Or track cycling. Or whatever sport Brazil will fork out $$$ to build a facility for with a very low output from their own people for future use...no wonder the people are ****ed off when education and normal everyday things we take for granted are put on the backburner

N.B. Yes I know it's a little more complicated than that, but it doesn't surprise me that Brazil went for the WC, soccer-mad nation and I guess the politicians would have thought 2 positive outcomes 1) $$ in their pocket and 2) raise morale...