Australia’s Confederations Cup bid the help of the four major football codes

[telsor]

If you mean 2014, Brazil was already in a shaky position financially before they hosted the World Cup, and there were many protests as they had to spend millions to build brand new stadiums and upgrade facilities, infrastructure amenities, etc. It cost them reportedly $40 billion to host the event, and there were accusations public funds were misused. That is why they are in recession, not because they hosted the event, but because they spent huge amounts of money they didn't have in order to do it. Any suggestion otherwise is unfair.

As I stated, it is estimated that we would make $35 billion dollars in our economy by hosting the event. I hardly see that as a bad thing.

Cost $40Billion, make $35Billion.....Remind me how this is a good thing?

(and remember, it would cost us more because we actually pay construction workers reasonably well and have safety standards).

 

[WagonBang]

That is absolutely not what I am saying. In fact, I've said the exact opposite numerous times.

If FIFA refuses to do as you have suggested, why was the FIFA run Asian cup held at multi-sport venues like AAMI Park? Every other venue used was primarily a Rugby ground, so where you got that idea from, I have no idea.

AFC Asian Cup is not run by FIFA. It's run by the Asian Football Confederation. The requirements for this event was a minimum 20k all seater stadium. That's why we had a 22k sellout in Newcastle for the Semi Final as they can't sell tickets on the Grass Hills.

You left out one valuable piece of evidence, the fact Fifa won't host an event anywhere where there is rival sport
That's what cost australia it's World Cup bid

Would you expect a business to stop running for upwards of a month whilst a competitor does a promotional tour of its local market?

That's effectively what you're saying
It's not the afl and nrl being afraid of competition, it's Fifa

You do know that's only for International Sporting events like the Australian Open Tennis, F1 Grand Prix, ICC Cricket World Cup etc. AFL and NRL arent International Sporting events and CAN continue.

 

[QuietB]

If you mean 2014, Brazil was already in a shaky position financially before they hosted the World Cup, and there were many protests as they had to spend millions to build brand new stadiums and upgrade facilities, infrastructure amenities, etc. It cost them reportedly $40 billion to host the event, and there were accusations public funds were misused. That is why they are in recession, not because they hosted the event, but because they spent huge amounts of money they didn't have in order to do it. Any suggestion otherwise is unfair.

As I stated, it is estimated that we would make $35 billion dollars in our economy by hosting the event. I hardly see that as a bad thing.

$35b

So for a 4 week tournament, that is $1.25b per day. If they all spend $1,000 each per person per day that is 1.25m people a day

How the hell do they come up with these figures

 

[telsor]

Secondly, you have to stop listening to Roy masters for your news. There is a clause that no competing sports can be held in conjunction with the World Cup, BUT this does not mean what you think. As we saw during the us World Cup, none of their domestic comps were banned, and similar has happened elsewhere. Mehta this cause is about is rival round ball comps - it's all about ensuring no one steals their thunder during their biggest comp.

To be blunt, most of the Exco wouldn't know what Aussie rules is, and the other half know, but don't give a ****.

They don't see our game as a rival to it, because on the world stage (which they play on) afl is as relevant as curling

So they wouldn't care about a sport that would be getting more locals in the crowds than they would get? (going by the Asia cup...avg 20K, 2014 AFL avg 33K) and bigger domestic TV ratings (and thus, more news coverage/commentary)?

 

[Riccardo11]

$35 billion ....really?

I recall looking up studies on the economic impact of major sporting events when the soccer WC cup bid was on.

The general conclusion as I recall was that they were generally a drain on the countries hosting them as the tourists did not arrive in the predicted numbers and they didn't spend the dollars forecast, also costs were higher too.

The study I have quotes that.

For comparison, on a smaller scale, the recent Asian Cup turned a profit of $18-$20m on ticket sales alone.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-football-events/story-fnqk652f-1227208193001

 

[Riccardo11]

$35b

So for a 4 week tournament, that is $1.25b per day. If they all spend $1,000 each per person per day that is 1.25m people a day

How the hell do they come up with these figures

http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/178981/australia-2022-world-cup-would-generate-36-billion

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So they wouldn't care about a sport that would be getting more locals in the crowds than they would get? (going by the Asia cup...avg 20K, 2014 AFL avg 33K) and bigger domestic TV ratings (and thus, more news coverage/commentary)?

They wouldn't care about it because they are looking at filling the stadia for their matches

A rival soccer tournament may dilute this, but afl/nrl/nrl/Nhl/nba wouldn't

 

[Subprime]

The study I have quotes that.

For comparison, on a smaller scale, the recent Asian Cup turned a profit of $18-$20m on ticket sales alone.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-football-events/story-fnqk652f-1227208193001

Right back at you...

Coates, who teaches economics at University of Maryland, Baltimore County and is the immediate past president of the North American Association of Sports Economists, is back with a stern warning for certain people with soccer fever. As it seems the U.S. is going hellbent for leathertrying to land an upcoming World Cup, he wants to get ahead of the cheerleading to make clear how the economics will actually play out. His new paper, “World Cup Economics: What Americans Need to Know about a US World Cup Bid,” is an attempt to challenge “the rosy assumptions being made by U.S. bid leaders, and I hope it will force proponents to be more forthcoming with answers about what we can really expect from a U.S. World Cup.”

Coates’s central claim:

Despite bid organizers’ claims, the World Cup won’t be a boon for the American economy; in fact, it will likely cost the United States billions of dollars in losteconomic impact. For example, economic estimates in support of the 1994 U.S. World Cup were later shown by economists to have been off by up to $14 billion. Far from having a positive economic impact, the last World Cup we hosted, a so-called major success, had a negative impact on the average U.S. host city of $712 million. Yet no one is discussing these figures despite the current economic troubles we face. … Few analysts who aren’t in the employ of the event boosters have ever found such events to pay for themselves in a purely dollars and cents view.

The recently completed South Africa World Cup is hardly an exception, with the bulk of the trouble lying in the gap between optimistic projected costs and actual costs:

The proposed budget for the 2010 games was about $225 million for stadiums and $421 million overall. Expenses have far exceeded those numbers. Reported stadium expenses jumped from the planned level of $225 million to $2.13 billion, and overall expenses jumped similarly from $421 million to over $5 billion.

And don’t forget the “ruins of modern Greece” — i.e., the abandoned facilities from the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. You think Greece might be feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse about now?

http://freakonomics.com/2010/07/19/should-the-u-s-really-try-to-host-another-world-cup/

 

[Riccardo11]

Right back at you...

Coates, who teaches economics at University of Maryland, Baltimore County and is the immediate past president of the North American Association of Sports Economists, is back with a stern warning for certain people with soccer fever. As it seems the U.S. is going hellbent for leathertrying to land an upcoming World Cup, he wants to get ahead of the cheerleading to make clear how the economics will actually play out. His new paper, “World Cup Economics: What Americans Need to Know about a US World Cup Bid,” is an attempt to challenge “the rosy assumptions being made by U.S. bid leaders, and I hope it will force proponents to be more forthcoming with answers about what we can really expect from a U.S. World Cup.”

Coates’s central claim:

Despite bid organizers’ claims, the World Cup won’t be a boon for the American economy; in fact, it will likely cost the United States billions of dollars in losteconomic impact. For example, economic estimates in support of the 1994 U.S. World Cup were later shown by economists to have been off by up to $14 billion. Far from having a positive economic impact, the last World Cup we hosted, a so-called major success, had a negative impact on the average U.S. host city of $712 million. Yet no one is discussing these figures despite the current economic troubles we face. … Few analysts who aren’t in the employ of the event boosters have ever found such events to pay for themselves in a purely dollars and cents view.

The recently completed South Africa World Cup is hardly an exception, with the bulk of the trouble lying in the gap between optimistic projected costs and actual costs:

The proposed budget for the 2010 games was about $225 million for stadiums and $421 million overall. Expenses have far exceeded those numbers. Reported stadium expenses jumped from the planned level of $225 million to $2.13 billion, and overall expenses jumped similarly from $421 million to over $5 billion.

And don’t forget the “ruins of modern Greece” — i.e., the abandoned facilities from the 2004 Summer Olympics in Athens. You think Greece might be feeling a bit of buyer’s remorse about now?

http://freakonomics.com/2010/07/19/should-the-u-s-really-try-to-host-another-world-cup/

And yet, despite that, our Asian Cup exceeded financial expectations. Maybe, just maybe we are slightly different than the US and South Africa? Again, the issue wasn't the cost, but the projected financial windfall was overestimated. So maybe we don't do that?

A major problem in Greece is crumbling infrastructure built at great cost for the Olympics that they failed to make use of after the games ended. We have never had that issue after the major events we have hosted, and, given the facilities available to us, are unlikely to anytime soon.

 

[Hoops]

Dunno, was pretty disappointed that the AFL were acting like pigs when we had bid for the 2022 WC. I know 'lol soccer' and all but it's the world's biggest sporting event, even bigger than the Olympics; it would have put Australia on the map, would have given us an excuse to spend heaps of money building and upgrading our current stadiums and current public transport, and would have grown sport in Australia for sure. I think that was way worth the hindered/shortened AFL season for sure. Hell even the NRL claimed they would have stood out of the way. There were so many benefits and too many were just thinking it was bad because 2022 (one year!!) would have probably sucked for Australian football.

you are so wrong. This is what happened

1. FFA announced that it would bid for the WC
2. AFL obligingly said it would give up the MCG for up to 10 weeks and work with the FFA in securing other grounds except Etihad.
3. NRL chief executive David Gallop said under the current proposal it would be impossible to run a rugby league season around the World Cup’s demands- But lets pour hate on the big bad AFL
4. The FFA entered a bid which included Etihad
5. FFA were not forthcoming with details when asked the AFL if they will be requiring Etihad.
6. The AFL said the season could be lost if it did not have access to Etihad and the MCG.
7. AFL accussed of scaremongering and not supporting the WC bid

It's a myth that just keeps growing and growing.

read this good article by soccer and football lover Gerard Whateley
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-11/codes-at-war-over-world-cup-bid/2576188

 

[QuietB]

And yet, despite that, our Asian Cup exceeded financial expectations. Maybe, just maybe we are slightly different than the US and South Africa? Again, the issue wasn't the cost, but the projected financial windfall was overestimated. So maybe we don't do that?

A major problem in Greece is crumbling infrastructure built at great cost for the Olympics that they failed to make use of after the games ended. We have never had that issue after the major events we have hosted, and, given the facilities available to us, are unlikely to anytime soon.

Really? you think homebush is not a massive white elephant now?

 

[Colonial]

Really? you think homebush is not a massive white elephant now?

It gets filled about the same as the MCG each year...

 

[Hoops]

It gets filled about the same as the MCG each year...

the MCG would get 3 times the patrons as ANZ each year

 

[Subprime]

And yet, despite that, our Asian Cup exceeded financial expectations. Maybe, just maybe we are slightly different than the US and South Africa? Again, the issue wasn't the cost, but the projected financial windfall was overestimated. So maybe we don't do that?

A major problem in Greece is crumbling infrastructure built at great cost for the Olympics that they failed to make use of after the games ended. We have never had that issue after the major events we have hosted, and, given the facilities available to us, are unlikely to anytime soon.

Right so the $35b figure isn't an overestimated projected financial windfall in your eyes, its rock solid is it?

There are major costs in hosting these events wherever you go in the world and other economists have pointed this out previously. It can't be fobbed off. The USA had existing infrastructure in place and there was no disruption to the NFL (whose stadiums were used) yet the 1994 soccer WC cost the host cities money.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Umm no. Take a look at germany with all rhe running tracks around the field. Having it an oval made no difference

Yes. It's about sight lines and distance from the pitch, seating arrangements (no standing room), media facilities and a whole host of other things, a lot more than just the shape of a running track.

 

[QuietB]

It gets filled about the same as the MCG each year...

Firstly I doubt that. And that is one of the venues there.

 

[BobbyMorri]

$15M for a month wont cut it.

isnt the AFL all big and mighty. i came up with a random number.

in saying that, the fact that the total revenues of most AFL clubs is only 35-70 mil, which includes pokie money for Victorian clubs. revenue of the AFL is 1/2 a billion. revenue, not profit.

In comparison The new perth stadium is costing 1 billion.

Either know your role, or build a stadium for yourself. no sport can thrive in this country without government support.

 

[telsor]

isnt the AFL all big and mighty. i came up with a random number.

in saying that, the fact that the total revenues of most AFL clubs is only 35-70 mil, which includes pokie money for Victorian clubs. revenue of the AFL is 1/2 a billion. revenue, not profit.

In comparison The new perth stadium is costing 1 billion.

Either know your role, or build a stadium for yourself. no sport can thrive in this country without government support.

If the Soccer will make so much money, then what's the problem with a decent compensation package?

 

[Parkerman]

If the Soccer will make so much money, then what's the problem with a decent compensation package?

If the soccer use any of the stadiums that the AFL own, I'm sure the AFL will receive one.

Otherwise the AFL negotiators aren't doing their job.

 

[telsor]

If the soccer use any of the stadiums that the AFL own, I'm sure the AFL will receive one.

Otherwise the AFL negotiators aren't doing their job.

It's not just the 'owning', it's the disruption to the AFL season that would need significant compensation.

 

[Parkerman]

It's not just the 'owning', it's the disruption to the AFL season that would need significant compensation.

IMO, what would be a significant compensation to the AFL (and NRL) would be a drop in the ocean for FIFA (together with the FFA). It would be up to the AFL/NRL negotiators to get the best deal for any disruption to their seasons.

Unless the AFL/NRL have 100% control over their grounds, it might be best to accept an out of sync season, get on the front foot and make the most of a once in a lifetime revenue opportunity.

 

[BobbyMorri]

If the Soccer will make so much money, then what's the problem with a decent compensation package?

and if the AFL is so full of money, why cant the AFL build their own stadiums so their would be no disruption.

 

[Colonial]

Firstly I doubt that. And that is one of the venues there.

1stly I don't. MCG what 3 to 4 times a year? Same as ANZ.

Secondly, it was in reply to comments about ANZ.

 

[Colonial]

and if the AFL is so full of money, why cant the AFL build their own stadiums so their would be no disruption.

We wouldn't still be waiting on the world cup to finish so the bloody season can start

 

[NUFC Tiger]

And the government's run by popularity. What government is going to piss off millions of AFL and NRL supporters so we can have a 3rd rate tournament which will get a lot less support?

This 1000 times. It is political suicide. No one cares about the confederations cup. No one will allow their local code to be affected by it.

While there could be a potential upsetting of fans of the other codes due to the likely disruptions, its probably worth mentioning that not everyone in the country necessarily follows sport and there may well be plenty of non-sports affiliated people who would like to see Australia play host.

What about people involved in the tourism, retail and hospitality industries for example? Hosting would mean employment and money for workers and business owners alike.

Even before getting to the hosting stage, chances are there would need to be a lot of pre-tournament work completed (particularly if stadiums need to be renovated/expanded or existing infrastructure needs updating) so you'd likely seen job creation in the construction industries too as well as improvements to things like roads and public transport to ensure they are up to scratch (as a regular commuter for work, I'd love to see Melbourne sort out its train system lol).