Read slowly,read carefully
Sporting infrastructure is only 8% of the spending
92% ($31,500,000,000) of the spending is outside sport and is Nation building for ALL AUSTRALIA
You guys are doing your best to prevent future infrastructure being built in Australia
You guys are trying to prevent construction jobs,rail upgrades,roadworks,hotels,business links,tourism growth
Its the most insular,pathetic stance I've ever come across-and what for-because football will take 31 days out of your precious lives,and grown a few %.
Get the hell over it and support Australia
Read slowly,read carefully
Sporting infrastructure is only 8% of the spending
92% ($31,500,000,000) of the spending is outside sport and is Nation building for ALL AUSTRALIA
You guys are doing your best to prevent future infrastructure being built in Australia
You guys are trying to prevent construction jobs,rail upgrades,roadworks,hotels,business links,tourism growth
Its the most insular,pathetic stance I've ever come across-and what for-because football will take 31 days out of your precious lives,and grown a few %.
Get the hell over it and support Australia
Throwing around some very big numbers - - do you know where they came from??
The 'cost' of holding the games was put at around $2.9 billion.
This 'spending' is $35 billion compared to the $9 billion that the Sydney Olympics allegedly generated.
Don't imagine for a minute that event revenues will somehow offset or pay for the construction expenditure. And the construction expenditure accounts for over 75% of that $35 billion 'spending' you're trumpeting. Where's the money coming from??
IBISworld break it down like so:
IBISWorld forecasts that the 2022 FIFA World Cup in Australia would produce the following football-induced spending:
Industry
Spending ($ millions)
% of total spending
Construction
26,800
75.4
Transport operators
1,500
4.2
Retailers
1,859
5.2
Merchandisers
463
1.3
Licensed venues
2,772
7.8
Bookmakers
188
0.5
Hotels
1,490
4.2
Restaurants
490
1.4
Total
35,562
100
The construction industry would be the biggest winner of Australia hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup, with IBISWorld forecasting spending totalling $26.8 billion on a wide range of major infrastructure projects, including building new stadia, upgrading existing stadia, enhancing air, rail and road links, improving telecommunications networks and beautifying the ten host cities and their environs.
"
New stadia would be built in Blacktown, Canberra and Perth, major upgrades would take place to existing stadia in Adelaide, Geelong, Gold Coast, Newcastle and Townsville, while Sydney Football Stadium and Stadium Australia, the 2000 Olympics site, would get minor refurbs," said Mr Bryant.
I guess for such big numbers - this is the key line.
"
While some of the infrastructure spending has been planned and would be brought forward should Australia's World Cup bid be successful, much of it is dependent on Football Federation Australia convincing a majority of the 24 members of FIFA's Executive Committee to come play in 2022."
Well, we know major stadia in Perth, Adelaide, Geelong and Gold Coast are happening anyway irrespective of WC. And yet they've included these expenditures in full.
Seems like they're doing all they can to inflate the figures, and their claim is 'bringing forward' of projects. Now, that may or may not be the case with perhaps a Melb rail link to the airport and I've said all along if the WC bid were won and that helped that project happen - - then I'd be happy - I'm easy to please.
I'm not anti the whole thing - - I just want honest accounting here.
75% of this 'spending' is construction. Firstly, how much of this seriously would happen anyway? And how much is just a trivial displacement of spending that could/would be used more usefully elsewhere (i.e. Fed funds for local beautification??? - I hope not.)
But, as we AFL folk have pointed out all along - the AFL and NRL help make stadia expenditure far from 'white elephant' territory that has occured in Japan, and might be seen as the result in Sth AFrica and has thwarted Sydney (i.e. under used venues, cost too much to maintain). That's a good thing. We've already crossed that river. Spending should be able to be pretty well directed. However, 12 years is a long time b/w now and then - - a lot of these projects would be happening anyway. Brought forward - perhaps??
Anyway - You seem to confuse questioning with being anti something.
Isn't that rather a facist attitude??
btw - some of IBISworlds assumptions.
http://www.ibisworld.com.au/pressrelease/pressrelease.aspx?prid=233
Retail spending up $1.86 billion - all the TVs, personal media devices etc - and $463 million on licensed merchandise - alas, in Germany, home of Addidas, they reap a far greater GDP benefit. In Sth Korea, home of LG, Samsung etc - they reap a far greater GDP benefit. In Australia, we'll just get the retailer margin on it and ship the other profits back off shore. So, work out the profit margins we get to keep here?
$1.5 billion for transport operators - assuming a lot of bus hire and internal air travel. Probably fair - depending how much various teams get shunted around such a large nation......this though is a double edged sword - massive distances might be a turn off for people with such great TVs are purchased according to the previous assumption!!!!
500,000 international visitors each spending $9000.
Keep mindful, that for NSW alone in the Year ending Jun 2010, received 2.8 billion international overnight visitors. So, for NSW alone, that's over 230,000 a month. NSW claims 52.7% of visitors, so, nationally, about 5.5 million visitors annually. Div by 12, that's about 460,000 per month.(source Tourism NSW :
http://corporate.tourism.nsw.gov.au/Sites/SiteID6/objLib12/Total-NSW-YE-Jun-10.pdf)
Totalling 63.2 million 'nights' in NSW. NSW claims 34.6% of the night in Australia market. So, annually, roughly 190-200 million international visitor 'nights' in Australia.
Note - QLD claims just under 2 million international visitors for 2010, and about 39 million 'nights'. (
http://www.oesr.qld.gov.au/products/tables/international-tourism-visitors-no/index.php)
I'm just trying to work out, if this 500,000 international visitors for the month of the FIFA WC does little more than replace the normal tourism flow (roughly 460,000 - although, perhaps June/July are the low months) then, the benefits are overstated - - if it ADDS to it, then fine. But let's be clear - is it attracting 500,000 to add 100,000?? People not coming for the WC won't come during it, because, it'll be too crowded and too expensive. Normal activity and spending is put on hold, diverted elsewhere, or redirected into major event related spending and claimed to be 'additional spending'!!!
Let's be careful about throwing around massive numbers and claiming everything. IBIS world has made zero mention of displacement.
(and how much would be offsetting regular expenditure on day to day items or......AFL/NRL/ARU and therefore subject to compensation?)