Pros and Cons of hosting Soccer World Cup

[Barkly St End]

Is that the same Hawthorn that plays 5 'home' games a year in Tasmania? I've been to the MCG many times, yet i've never been to Tasmania. How does that work?

Is it five home games?
dunno, you're the Hawthorn supporter
and now we still have Richmond and Collingwood to worry about
10 weeks is still looking exceedingly generous from the AFL's point of view
especially when the FFA have offered nothing except their open hand

 

[Stevie80]

In short, considering the FFA has put forward nothing in relation to the WC bid, apart from their own hand, I'm amazed that people would still criticise the AFL on its generosity in providing the MCG.

Are you talking about the same AFL, that as future owners of Etihad Stadium, ensured that the new rectangular stadium in Melbourne be built with a capacity of less than 40k to ensure to no world cup matches could be played there.

Yes, i know the AFL have a vested interest in Etihad and their own code, but seriously, i still don't understand why we can't have both a world cup and an afl season.

 

[TheOz]

Is it five home games?
dunno, you're the Hawthorn supporter
and now we still have Richmond and Collingwood to worry about
10 weeks is still looking exceedingly generous from the AFL's point of view
especially when the FFA have offered nothing except their open hand

Richmond can play their home games at Etihad, they already play a few there anyway.

Collingwood, well they can finally not get the insidious advantage of playing at one stadium for 3/4 of their games for an entire season, the travel will make up for the lack of travelling for the two decades prior to 2022.

 

[Stevie80]

Is it five home games?
dunno, you're the Hawthorn supporter
and now we still have Richmond and Collingwood to worry about
10 weeks is still looking exceedingly generous from the AFL's point of view
especially when the FFA have offered nothing except their open hand

1 preseason + 4 regular season = 5 games

I can't spend all day on this forum, but the first argument was about Melbourne losing MCG games and then Hawthorn, both of whom sell games interstate.

Richmond and Collingwood probably don't sell home games (i dont know for sure but lets assume they don't), so yes they will be disadvantaged. They will also be compensated.

Lets not forget in 2006 no games were held at the MCG for 3 weeks, meaning each MCG tennant played home games at a different venue. Yes, 3 weeks in 2006 is not the same as 10 in 2022, but the precedence has been set, and the AFL had no problems at the time.

And it was only 10 or so years ago that Hawhtorn and St Kilda played home games at Waverley, proving that alot can change over time, so who knows if Melbourne, Hawthorn, Richmond and Collingwood will still want to use the MCG as their home in 2022.

 

[tonk]

Are you talking about the same AFL, that as future owners of Etihad Stadium, ensured that the new rectangular stadium in Melbourne be built with a capacity of less than 40k to ensure to no world cup matches could be played there.

Yes, i know the AFL have a vested interest in Etihad and their own code, but seriously, i still don't understand why we can't have both a world cup and an afl season.

I think it was the 'developers' of Colonial Stadium that insisted there be a capacity limit on the size of 'any' new stadiums being built in Melbourne. This restriction expires in the next couple of years. Amazingly the 'bubble dome' has foundations that would support an up grade but someone forgot to tell the guy who built the roof.

 

[Subprime]

Are you talking about the same AFL, that as future owners of Etihad Stadium, ensured that the new rectangular stadium in Melbourne be built with a capacity of less than 40k to ensure to no world cup matches could be played there.

Yes, i know the AFL have a vested interest in Etihad and their own code, but seriously, i still don't understand why we can't have both a world cup and an afl season.

Oh no, its the AFL's fault again.

You realise Docklands stadium was developed in the late 1990's and the conditions of its development were worked out at that time. That's long before any soccer WC bid.

You also realise it was built on under a BOOT scheme so that the party that benefits from any non-compete clauses during the relevant period is the stadium operator and not the AFL.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Pros:
- Massive investment into Australia's sporting facilities. ALL sports will benefit from this.
- Massive investment into Australia's infrastructure. Public transport, hotels, roads, tourist precincts, etc will have big $$ pumped into them. As a result it will create jobs and potentially increase our standard of living.


Cons:
- Simpletons who believe Australia should be a one-code country (be it AFL or NRL) will have a sook and dwell on perceived (but false) cons associated with soccer.

Good that you can make stuff up.
How will the likes of Swimming or Gymnastics or Basketball benefit from a local WC? Something tangible please, not just a great vibe they will get.
There will be huge costs on infrastructure, and more huge costs changing a lot of stuff back to how it was. ( Come on - what is your evidence that a significant permanent infrastructure upgrade will occcur).

I agree that it will be a windfall for Hotels, most of which will enjoy being able to send such a massive profit overseas to their head offices.

 

[Stevie80]

Oh no, its the AFL's fault again.

You realise Docklands stadium was developed in the late 1990's and the conditions of its development were worked out at that time. That's long before any soccer WC bid.

You also realise it was built on under a BOOT scheme so that the party that benefits from any non-compete clauses during the relevant period is the stadium operator and not the AFL.

You do realise that as future owners/operators with a vested current interest, the AFL could have said "don't worry about that original condition, we waive our right to any future claim and you can build a 40k seat rectangular stadium".

 

[Subprime]

You do realise that as future owners/operators with a vested current interest, the AFL could have said "don't worry about that original condition, we waive our right to any future claim and you can build a 40k seat rectangular stadium".

Riiight...so how do you think the current owners would feel about that?

Keen to give money away?

Or not?

 

[Stevie80]

Good that you can make stuff up.
How will the likes of Swimming or Gymnastics or Basketball benefit from a local WC? Something tangible please, not just a great vibe they will get.
There will be huge costs on infrastructure, and more huge costs changing a lot of stuff back to how it was. ( Come on - what is your evidence that a significant permanent infrastructure upgrade will occcur).

I agree that it will be a windfall for Hotels, most of which will enjoy being able to send such a massive profit overseas to their head offices.

In regards to infrastructure, if for example there is a upgrade to say the privately owned Melboure and/or Sydney airport based on expected increases in traffic, i doubt they would 'undo' the upgrade after the world cup and demolish a new terminal after spending $$$ to build it in the first place.

I'm no expert however, and i guess unlike yourself, i don't have evidence that a significant permanent infrastructure upgrade will not occcur.

Is your concern that foreign investors will beneift. Perhaps companies like BHP and RIO to name a few need to stop operating here as they too send some profits overseas. Perhaps foreign companies like Nike, Adidas, Sony, Toyota & Coca-Cola should also stop selling their products in Australia and advertising at AFL games because they too will send "massive profits overseas to their head offices".

 

[SaintsSeptember]

You do realise that as future owners/operators with a vested current interest, the AFL could have said "don't worry about that original condition, we waive our right to any future claim and you can build a 40k seat rectangular stadium".

Stadium Management are the operators of the Stadium. They are a Commercial company with ( I assume ) business profits as a goal.
They would not forgo the conditions which they operate under without appropriate compensation, any more than Coka Cola would agree to not sell their product in Coles to give Pepsi a fair go.
If they did they would be lynched by their shareholders.

I dont think the AFL would have had any rights to change the conditions.

The new stadium would have made more sense if "easily expandable " was more of a priority than " architecurally significant" though.

 

[Stevie80]

Riiight...so how do you think the current owners would feel about that?

Keen to give money away?

Or not?

Not keen at all, that was never the argument. The argument was 'there was a condition in place' and my response was the condition could be altered/removed.

 

[Subprime]

Not keen at all, that was never the argument. The argument was 'there was a condition in place' and my response was the condition could be altered/removed.

The condition is worth something & not currently owned by the AFL & therefore not in their control.

Anything could happen if only someone is willing to foot the bill.

Unless of course you live in fantasyland.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

In regards to infrastructure, if for example there is a upgrade to say the privately owned Melboure and/or Sydney airport based on expected increases in traffic, i doubt they would 'undo' the upgrade after the world cup and demolish a new terminal after spending $$$ to build it in the first place.

I'm no expert however, and i guess unlike yourself, i don't have evidence that a significant permanent infrastructure upgrade will not occcur.

Is your concern that foreign investors will beneift. Perhaps companies like BHP and RIO to name a few need to stop operating here as they too send some profits overseas. Perhaps foreign companies like Nike, Adidas, Sony, Toyota & Coca-Cola should also stop selling their products in Australia and advertising at AFL games because they too will send "massive profits overseas to their head offices".

I think , I'll go and tell my boss to buy a heap of equipment to upgrade the business, because we might get some new customer's in the future, and he can't prove that we won't.
You see the flaw in this way of thinking.

My personal view is that the costs of Stadiums and such will blow out to a huge degree, and as such the government will be reluctant to spend any money on upgraded infrastructure such as public transport.

Similarly Airport operator's will only upgrade facilities if they see an ongoing need for it. They don't care if it's temporarilly a nightmare for travellers for a few weeks.

 

[Stevie80]

I think , I'll go and tell my boss to buy a heap of equipment to upgrade the business, because we might get some new customer's in the future, and he can't prove that we won't.
You see the flaw in this way of thinking.

The flaw in my way of thinking is identical to the flaw in your way of thinking.

My reference point to the World Cup generating benefits comes from the IBISWorld Report, perhaps if you commisson IBISWorld to prepare a report on the improvements your business will generate with with new equipment, your boss may agree.

 

[Barkly St End]

The flaw in my way of thinking is identical to the flaw in your way of thinking.

My reference point to the World Cup generating benefits comes from the IBISWorld Report, perhaps if you commisson IBISWorld to prepare a report on the improvements your business will generate with with new equipment, your boss may agree.

We've already picked massive holes in that report, imagine what the economic boffins from Treasury would do to it.

I trust the Commonwealth Treasury and no one else - but we all understand, we are never, ever going to see anything out of our Treasury on this subject.

Have you worked out why yet?

 

[jiphoc]

As an expat Saffa with family still over there who have just gone through hosting a WC I can say that word is DO NOT GO FOR THE FIFA WC.

When you host the WC FIFA technically almost will have more power over your country then the government. Prices on everyday items will increase as FIFA look for there share. If you want to rent a room out then that will have to be approved with FIFA. If it is not approved then any contract would be deemed void. Any media output is very heavily filtered. Thus the reason why you never here about any of this. If you are after cheap hotel or hostel rooms/ beds then you are out of luck because FIFA will control the prices in which those rooms can be asked for. You think public transport is bad now? Wait til FIFA get control of the transport system (which they will). If you are looking to go anywhere which is not a WC match then well lets just say you are better off driving or even walking.

As for people going on about how much money you make. This is FACT. Any figures stating int he millions and millions that can be made by hosting the WC are figures that are BEFORE FIFA will take there huge cut in any profits.

 

[Barkly St End]

As an expat Saffa with family still over there who have just gone through hosting a WC I can say that word is DO NOT GO FOR THE FIFA WC.

When you host the WC FIFA technically almost will have more power over your country then the government. Prices on everyday items will increase as FIFA look for there share. If you want to rent a room out then that will have to be approved with FIFA. If it is not approved then any contract would be deemed void. Any media output is very heavily filtered. Thus the reason why you never here about any of this. If you are after cheap hotel or hostel rooms/ beds then you are out of luck because FIFA will control the prices in which those rooms can be asked for. You think public transport is bad now? Wait til FIFA get control of the transport system (which they will). If you are looking to go anywhere which is not a WC match then well lets just say you are better off driving or even walking.

As for people going on about how much money you make. This is FACT. Any figures stating int he millions and millions that can be made by hosting the WC are figures that are BEFORE FIFA will take there huge cut in any profits.

thanks for confirming our suspicions

 

[Stevie80]

thanks for confirming our suspicions

I have no idea how your suspcions are therefore confirmend.

I honestly have family who have lived in Germany all their life and thought the 2006 world cup was very successful to the local economy, particularly my cousin who owns a bar in Munich. They hope Australia gets the world cup, as it will give them an added reason to visit us again.

Should Australia host the world cup solely on the recommendaiton of my family? The answer is no.

Should Australia not host the world cup solely on the recommendaiton of someones family who live in South Africa? The answer, again, is no.

As an aside, i love how you can pick massive holes in the IBIS report, however you are yet to produce anything substantial other than making outlandish claims. IBIS have taken the time to prepare a report covering all aspects of the pros/cons of hosting the world cup, and it came back to be positive. Until you or Commonwealth Treasury come up with anything to the contrary, i'll stick with IBIS.

 

[Oberfuhrer Abetz]

 

[Subprime]

I have no idea how your suspcions are therefore confirmend.

I honestly have family who have lived in Germany all their life and thought the 2006 world cup was very successful to the local economy, particularly my cousin who owns a bar in Munich. They hope Australia gets the world cup, as it will give them an added reason to visit us again.

Should Australia host the world cup solely on the recommendaiton of my family? The answer is no.

Should Australia not host the world cup solely on the recommendaiton of someones family who live in South Africa? The answer, again, is no.

As an aside, i love how you can pick massive holes in the IBIS report, however you are yet to produce anything substantial other than making outlandish claims. IBIS have taken the time to prepare a report covering all aspects of the pros/cons of hosting the world cup, and it came back to be positive. Until you or Commonwealth Treasury come up with anything to the contrary, i'll stick with IBIS.

There's been quite a few articles posted on this board over the months regarding the poor economics of the soccer WC. Here's one from the Financial Times on what some of the world's leading sports economists have to say:

"Unfortunately, the economic story is wrong. Barely any academic economist believes that countries get richer from hosting sports tournaments. South Africa has been told this: when its finance ministry flew in three eminent foreign sports economists for a workshop, they argued that, at best, the World Cup would not reduce South Africa’s economic growth. The country expects 500,000 foreign visitors for the tournament, or fewer than it receives in an average month. Much of the money to be made from them will not be made by South Africans. Few township-dwellers will even get near the World Cup: Cape Town is struggling to afford a bus link from the townships to its world-class stadium. In Rudi Boon’s documentary Trade Mark 2010, he shows traders in Cape Town being told that Fifa won’t let them use even the number “2010” or the words “World Cup” on goods they sell during the tournament."

 

[Admiral Byng]

As an aside, i love how you can pick massive holes in the IBIS report, however you are yet to produce anything substantial other than making outlandish claims. IBIS have taken the time to prepare a report covering all aspects of the pros/cons of hosting the world cup, and it came back to be positive. Until you or Commonwealth Treasury come up with anything to the contrary, i'll stick with IBIS.

I can't believe anyone can look at that report and just assume that all spending is a good thing. If it is the taxpapyer that is paying it, that is an awful lot of extra taxes to pay, or a lot of spending on other things we'll have to do without, or a bit of both. I find the figures quite scary.

 

[Barkly St End]

the things we have to deal with on a daily basis on BF

 

[scotto_01]

pro's

*biggest sports event in the world in australia, for australians to enjoy
* massive infux of tourists to the country, bringing $$$ into the local economy
* improved roads, public transport, ect to run alongside the world cup
*intenational recognition for australia
*upgraded sporting facilities, both major stadiums and training facilities
* massive boost to australian football and the a-league

also

Originally Posted by mustapha
Pro:

It will really annoy the likes of Barkly St End and figjam.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

pro's

*biggest sports event in the world in australia, for australians to enjoy - Except many of them will not. Basically the whole of Australia will be subsidising entertainment for those who enjoy watching Soccer, a much lesser percentage of the public than that which would enjoy at least some of the aspects of the Olympic games for example.

* massive infux of tourists to the country, bringing $$$ into the local economy - May recoup a small portion of the costs.
* improved roads, public transport, ect to run alongside the world cup - Not sure that this will happen unless someone throws a heap more $$$ into the pot.
*intenational recognition for australia - Good cred for those going backpacking in the couple of years afterwoods , but otherwise??? Cmon Crocodile Dundee and Steve Irwin have put us there before, without COSTING money.
*upgraded sporting facilities, both major stadiums and training facilities . THere are whole threads regarding the white elephants that may be built.

* massive boost to australian football and the a-league
Once again it seems the soccer supporters think it is OK that the rest of Australia should finance their personal intersts.
also

Nothing really new here, just the normal rantings.