The 2013 Confederations Cup will be remembered for the good football being played on the pitch as well as the football protests by thousands of Brazilian fans across the country who disapprove of the large amount of money the government is spending to host the Confederations Cup. World 2014.
These protests evoke memories of Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring in 2011, except that in the case of the former the protests were non-violent and in the latter case they were directed at one person.
The usual protests in Brazil concern the most marginalized groups, such as indigenous people and favela dwellers, arranged in the name of development, losing land, houses, livelihoods and lives while private fortunes are made.
President Dilma Rousseff is hugely popular with the poor, but the soccer protests are led by a different class: the traditional middle class. In the streets, well-educated people from central urban areas shout that they have been sold a lie.
While television shows the openings of expensive and luxurious football stadiums, people feel that their lives are getting worse by the day, while outsiders, such as the International Federation of Football Association (FIFA), come in and line their pockets at your expense.
A look at the World Cup economy shows that the protesters have a valid point.
Next summer, Brazil will host the World Cup, a month-long national tournament to crown the soccer champion. The World Cup will cost the nation $15 billion, and the promised legacy of infrastructure development is still nowhere to be seen (Broken Promises and Corruption-Fed Protests in Brazil, by Rogerio Simoes, CNN, June 2).
Countries spend large amounts of money to participate in the bid process to host the World Cup. The notion that the World Cup will provide an economic boon to the host country is delusional in the case of developing countries.
FIFA makes demands of the host country but offers no real support in return.
South Africa 2010
At the World Cup in South Africa, FIFA earned more than $3.5 billion from television and other World Cup-related rights. South Africa had to pay all the costs (estimated at $4.1 billion) to build stadiums, hotels and other local infrastructure.
22,000 jobs were created, but these were only temporary contracts and the new infrastructure sat idle after the World Cup as ticket revenues were unable to offset maintenance costs which fell on cash-strapped local municipalities not they need a state-of-the-art stadium (The World Cup: How FIFA Profits While Host Countries Lose Big, by Presidio Economics, Nov. 17, 2011).
Brazil 2014
Professor Chris Gaffney of the Universidade Federal Fluminese in Brazil has predicted that Brazil will experience the same pain.
Renovation and construction costs for 12 stadiums are already over budget. The renovation of the Maracanã, the mecca of modern soccer, will cost $600 million and even if balanced with expected revenue, each spectator will spend $1,000 per game, putting most Brazilian fans out of business.
Airports and hotels will be upgraded or built and, along with transport costs that were initially to be privately financed, have incurred cost overruns and will fall on the shoulders of taxpayers (The World Cup: How FIFA Profits, etc. .).
Inequitable distribution of profits
Each team in South Africa received $9 million for participating ($1 million as a contribution to preparation costs and $8 million even if eliminated in the group stage) (FIFA World Cup 2010 – Money Makes The World Cup Go Round, by Swiss Rambler, June 16, 2010, Bleacher Report).
Since 32 countries participate in the final and half of the places are reserved for Europe, it means that half of this income or $144 million went to the richest continent and the other 5 confederations had to make do with the rest. In effect, wealth is being redistributed from poor countries to rich ones. It’s no wonder European clubs can buy Cristiano Ronaldo for $131m, 21-year-old Neymar for $75m and Carlos Tevez for $400,000 a week (after taxes).
Under FIFA’s bidding system, the choice of the World Cup venue depends on which country is willing to shell out the most money.
England, a nation with many well-established soccer stadiums, submits a bid for the 2018 World Cup. It finished last in the vote, losing to a Russian bid that included plans for at least 9 new venues.
The US was thought to be the favorite for the 2022 Cup with proposals that included only stadiums already installed, some essentially new. But Quatar was chosen as the host with a plan that included the construction of 9 new stadiums with the additional costs of having to cool them due to the extreme temperatures in the Middle East.
What FIFA needs to do
Unless FIFA reforms the way it organizes and runs the World Cup, the protests are not going to go away and will follow the event wherever it goes.
So you need to do the following:-
First, it should stop choosing venues based on who can spend the most money and award the World Cup to the country that offers the most potential for game development. Countries like India and regions like Central America and the Caribbean come to mind where there is a great passion for the game but the required initial outlay is lacking.
Second, FIFA should finance the host country at least half of its preparation costs and join that country in investing in infrastructure that will provide permanent benefits to the hosts. This would help FIFA meet its stated goal of bringing the World Cup to areas where there is a passion for the game but need development.
Lastly, the number of berths reserved for European countries should be reduced. In soccer terms they don’t deserve even half of the seats. This change would also help correct some of the inequalities in the distribution of profits and make the event more attractive to potential host countries.
Victor Dixon
June 27, 2013
