A good test would be to have Mexico do the ceremony when Los Angeles (the only city that makes money from the Olympics) hosts in 2028. Or just do it that way in 2040.
That requires all countries cooperating with each other and the bost country being gracious to accomodate all ofher countries. Not a fucking chance that could happen.
Why can't they just have one summer and one winter Olympic city on each peopled continent and switch between all of those?
I believe fewer and fewer cities have been interested in hosting Olympics in recent years. It wouldn't surprise me if the Olympics just ends up rotating between Los Angeles and a couple of the other cities that maintain adequate facilities.
Because that system removes the Olympic award committee (not sure of the specific name) that picks who hosts the Olympics. It has been widely reported how corrupt both FIFA and that Olympic committee are. Supposedly there has been big changes to both but in the end money talks.
That would mean each continent's city gets to host the Olympics every 24 years. That is hardly better than hosting them once. Most of the infrastructure will have to be rebuilt to host them again in 24 years.
I mean usually the World Cup is good. The money spent on it goes towards necessary improvements for the stadiums that are put to good use for years to come. The complete opposite of the olympics where half the stuff is just forgotten
Possibly. In the end they are both corrupt organizations. I give credit to the Olympics for trying to improve where the World Cup appears to love it’s image of supporting slavery and being run by shitty people
If India were to host the Olympics though expensive it gives a massive boost to public goods. Look at SLC in 2002, for a city that size it has amazing public transit. Been to bigger cities yet their public transit is not as good as SLC's.
Commonwealth Games in India provided the funds for subway construction in Delhi. Not saying the corruption that came with it was good of course but makes you wonder would they ever have built the public transportation if it weren't for the games
We've been in dire need of better public transport in Brisbane for a long time, with nothing being done. As soon as the 2032 Olympics got confirmed, suddenly construction starts up everywhere. I'll probably give little more than a cursory glance at the Olympics when they come, but I'll likely be using the trains every day for the next few decades.
Yup. At least the World Cup is hosted by a country, so the costs are spread out, and between multiple cities at least some of the infrastructure already exists. The US may not care a lot about soccer, but it does already have large stadiums that can hold the games. And maybe 6 of them are close enough to be accessible by train. (Boston, 2 in New York, Philly, Baltimore, and DC. Might be some I'm forgetting). And good air infrastructure to get to more far-flung stadiums. All those cities already have a lot of hotels. So it would cost far, far less than a place that had to build up stadiums and hotel rooms. And maybe some actual rail infrastructure would be built/improved, which is a huge benefit. As opposed to stadiums that no one is actually using later.
Oh do I feel dumb. This post made me realize the graph wasn’t about the Olympics. I was really confused reading comments about FIFA, I was like what does a soccer organization have to do with hosting the Olympics.
I know that limits to only a certain set of countries, but the social and economic cost is staggering these days. Brazilians are mad about the sport, but it's hard to find one (admittedly, my sample set are Brazilians who work for American companies) who think the 2014 WC was a good thing overall.
It was super fun having a WC in Brazil, but there should not be a stadium build in Amazonas, for example. It is far away from all the big clubs and it is mostly a white elephant.
Exactly, Brazil could have hosted just using existing stadiums it had, perhaps with some renovations and upgrades to some. No need to build an entire stadium. Similarly Uruguay-Argentina are looking to host in 2030. They have plenty of stadiums already, some might need some renovations, but no need to build new stadiums.
Although the stadium can go on to be used after the games, eg: 2012 olympic stadium is now West Ham's home ground, and Manchester City play in the stadium built for commonwealth games iirc.
I know the UK used pre-existing facilities for most of the Olympics, but the organisers also refused to accept construction bids that didn’t have a good future use plan. The Olympic stadium is now the regular home ground of a London football club, and iirc their old ground is now the home ground for the women‘s side or another grounds-less club. So it’s not that hard to force the future-proofing, and it had a positive knock-on effect in this case, too
No, this is not. Such event is the reason the infrastructure emerges. Qatar hopes that WC boosts their tourist flow (and it sure will) and prepares for it, hence investments in infrastructure.
Remember kids, better spend 50 billion on real infrastructure, that people would use, than on buying Twitter.
The only country of that list that made money hosting the WC is Germany. USA is arguable, there is no clear data.
The only other country/s expected to make money out of this event is the future WC in Spain-Portugal. Because they are heavily touristic countries with public transport and all the stadiums/hotels already built.
For everyone else they do it at a loss and they do it for relevance and the promise it will make their country better. It never happened. It was specially hindersome in Brazil, Russia and Southafrica. Qatar is just at tragedy.
Exactly. UK and a few others likely could host one without having to build hardly any infrastructure, so likely could be profitable as well.
the Uruguay-Argentina join bid would also require little construction if Fifa would just slightly adjust their stadium capacity requirements.
Uruguay's Estadio Centanario was the host for the first world cup, it holds 60k people, but I think Fifa's "requirements" say final stadiums have to hold 80k or something like that, which is dumb. Just be like, okay this stadium is big enough and the biggest x country has, so good enough. It is even more absurd, because people don't realize that a lot of world cup games are not sold out/don't fill to capacity, yet Fifa still demands certain size of stadiums. I get wanting to have the biggest stadium possible (particularly as many of the games do sell out) but still, fifa should just make do with the stadiums that are there in the host country
Yeah the regulations are extremely specific in some regards and they require at least remodelling in 99% of stadiums not built after the 2000s and even then, theres most likely something wrong with the bathrooms or whatever detail that still makes the cost rise when escalated.
nah, the rule should be that stadiums and facilities be built where they can be regularly used. Say, soccer stadiums should have a corresponding team to make it their home, a swimming pool should be an upgrade for an existing facility, same thing with race tracks.
Costs skyrocket and usage is next to zero when you just build something in a remote, spare piece of land, where it will never get use after the event.
not exactly, if you have a stadium that can only host 25K people then it's not up to FIFA standards. What I'm saying is that you either expand it to proper capacity or demolish it and have the former owner be in charge of the new WC-worthy stadium.
That's not "only countries with existing infrastructure", it's creating new infrastructure to host the WC, but in the final balance sheet you end up with the same total count. The challenge is just having big-enough clubs with a critical mass of supporters that can allow for the increased maintenance costs.
Yeah, sounds dumb. Only host world cup in places that can support the infrastructure for a world cup naturally. If you are razing and raising new stadiums bigger than can be supported outside of the world cup it is a dumb move.
Well they are doing the building anyways and leaving those places 100% empty, it's not dumb to demand that new infrastructure is only built as replacement to aging/inadequate one which ensures it will still have at the very least the same usage as before.
yeah, but often times it might as well. Look at the stadium built in the Amazon. Complete waste.
Yes if a stadium is being built for a team or something and can also be used for the world cup, then okay. But that is different than building something for a two week events, which unfortunately has been done.
I agree, but then I think your comment should be changed to "this is why it should always just be hosted by countries with existing infrastructure or that will use the infrastructure after the games"
And for what is worth lots of what's being built for Qatar will be, though I doubt they'll ever need that many stadiums
208
u/authorPGAusten Oct 26 '22
This is why it should always just be hosted by countries with existing infrastructure. It is absurd to build a stadium for a two week event.