Undoubtedly, the 2010 World Cup in South Africa was a success from a philosophical standpoint. The first World Cup on the African continent drew gobs of good publicity, exposed the diversity and the wonders of South African culture to the world and ended with a victory by Spain, who play some of the most visually pleasing soccer in recent memory.
However, amidst all the euphoria and vuvuzela?filled celebrations, the real effects of holding the World Cup in such an underdeveloped country were lost in the shuffle, and without proper examination, the same outcomes threaten the next three World Cups.
Firstly, the investment and construction required to hold a World Cup in a non?Western country are enormous, and beyond what one would initially expect. Not only do numerous, expensive stadiums need to be built - five in the case of South Africa, at the cost of over $1 billion - but public transportation needs to be drastically improved to handle increased traffic. Indeed, the sheer enormity of the project almost swamped South Africa, and there were whispers even until 2009 that the country would not be ready to host the tournament and that FIFA would have to move the Cup to Europe or North America.
But why is this important, especially considering World Cup 2010 was a success? Because not only is such massive investment drastically misplaced, it is wildly unfair. When all the numbers were totaled, South Africa, a country with dire social problems, spent over $4.7 billion on construction, while FIFA raked in revenues of $3.5 billion. South Africa is also now left with so?called "white elephants" huge stadiums that cannot possibly be filled to capacity by local sports, and sit empty while citizens live in abject poverty nearby.
The same exact thing is happening now in Brazil, and will happen in Russia in 2018 and Qatar in 2022. These countries are not even close to ready to host a World Cup, to say the least. Most pressingly, just two and a half years prior to the tournament, Brazil remains woefully unprepared; the legendary Brazilian striker Pele said simply that the country is "not ready" and echoed fears that the showcase Maracana stadium will not be renovated in time and that the country's transportation system will be overwhelmed with visitors.
Russia and Qatar are in exactly the same situation: they both need nine to 11 new stadiums - and upgrades to the stadiums they already have - and massive improvements to public transportation, all at the cost of billions of dollars. Meanwhile, FIFA continues to cash in, already signing record?setting deals for the television rights to the 2014 Cup.
In essence, FIFA is engaging in legal highway robbery. As long as soccer remains wildly popular and attracts large attendances - and it doesn't look like that's changing anytime soon - developed and underdeveloped countries alike will continue to bid for the World Cup. Then, under the mantle of "spreading the World Cup around," FIFA will saddle countries in urgent need of social development with the bill for unnecessary sporting infrastructure expansion, while continuing to rake in money themselves.
The benefit of holding a World Cup in a developing country is really just all mental, a figment of the imagination. Sure, for a month, visitors and visibility increase, and everybody gets a nice story to tell their grandchildren about when they saw the best in the world play right in their backyard.
But the bottom line is that these countries should not be holding the tournaments at all: They are unprepared, and the investment required to make them prepared isn't worth it. FIFA should go back to deciding World Cup host based on merit, rather than trying to create feel?good stories that saddle poor countries with massive debts.
--
