How much money do World Cup hosts make?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 พ.ค. 2024
- Try The Athletic for FREE for 30 days: theathletic.com/tifofootball
📖 Tifo's new book, "How to Watch Football" is now available to pre-order internationally: linktr.ee/tifobook
Hosting a World Cup is an expensive business, it will come as no surprise. Qatar are spending an estimated $220billion to host the 2022 World Cup. But are they likely to make that money back?
What is the benefit of hosting? What are the potential revenue streams? And is it all worth it?
Abhishek Raj explains, Philippe Fenner illustrates.
Follow Tifo Football:
Twitter: / tifofootball_
Facebook: / tifofootball
Instagram: / tifofootball_
Listen to the Tifo Football podcast:
The Athletic UK: bit.ly/TifoPodChannel
Apple Podcasts: bit.ly/TifoFootPod
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/06QIGhq...
Watch more Tifo Football: Tactics Explained: • Tactics Explained | Ti...
Finances & Laws: • Finances & Laws | Tifo...
Tifo Football Podcast: • Tifo Football Podcast
Most Recent Videos: • Most Recent Videos | T...
1 Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Tifo ...
About Tifo Football:
Tifo loves football. We create In-depth tactical, historical and geopolitical breakdowns of the beautiful game.
We know there’s an appetite for thoughtful, intelligent content. For stuff that makes the complicated simple.
We provide analysis on the Premier League, Champions League, La Liga, Serie A, Bundesliga, World Cup and more.
Our podcasts interview some of the game’s leading figures. And our editorial covers football with depth and insight.
Founded in 2017 and became a part of The Athletic in 2020. For business inquiries, reach out to tifo@theathletic.com.
Music sourced from epidemicsound.com
Additional footage sourced from freestockfootagearchive.com
#WorldCup #Qatar #FIFA - กีฬา
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.75[1/2] ชวนแร็ปเปอร์เที่ยวประแสแบบไม่ต้องตามกระแส](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/J5ds2AxDp24/mqdefault.jpg)
The $200bn figure referenced in the video is in relation to Qatar's spending on the National Vision 2030 project, as opposed to solely World Cup infrastructure. The World Cup has accelerated this spend, but a Qatari spokesperson has said that - aside from $6.5bn spent on tournament-specific infrastructure - the remaining money was ‘already committed to existing projects which would have happened with or without the World Cup'.
Lucky for them they won the World Cup, otherwise spending 200 billion would begin to seem silly
I don't think it's the correct thing to blame Qatar for hosting though.
Ay 5:00 you said 2010 world cup Brazil my boy
@@jerryrodriguez867 so what
I'd like to see a video of how much FIFA makes with the World Cup
''How much money did Sepp Blatter make?'' Is what I'm wondering.
Money, properties and what not they must have given them
More than all of us fans 😅
What is the problem for Blatter getting money? Because even If it were you, you will love having that chance of getting what Blatter hv got
@@sokanettv9645 Just because you want the chance to be corrupt, doesn't mean everyone else does.
@@sokanettv9645 if you can justify corruption then what else can anyone say really
No wonder Fifa wants a World Cup every 2 yrs.
What does fifa do with all the money !?
I don't care what anyone says, I'd love a World Cup every 2 years, meaning the continental tournaments also happen every 2 years. It would mean there is football every summer. Need football when the club season is over.
@@MahmoudKhaled thats the real question!!!! they are not uplifting or promoting football or trying improve football in non playing football countries, a governing body is taking away all the money and doing nothing, i hope nobody goes to ask for hosting WC again let the corrupt fifa officials handle it
@@cgopie1 I am glad nobody cares what you think or like. 😂😂😂
@@cgopie1 if you need football matches every part of the year you need to go outside. Think of the players and the exhaustion they’d face. It also takes away from the spectacle
So FIFA nearly spends nothing and gets most of the revenue without paying tax. Yeah that makes sense.
That's how every big company behaves when starting business in developing nations
This is exactly what UEFA does with the Champions League. The Super League project essentially wanted to bypass UEFA's useless middle man role so that the clubs would earn a bigger share - they are the ones paying player wages, stadium costs, security etc. after all. Yet UEFA shot down any avenues for this to change, using a coalition of pseudo-fans and media who are themselves aligned with the status quo.
@@pritapp788 problem with that wasnt the missing uefa label for us fans but that it would have been a closed system without the need to qualify for participation.
@@pritapp788 UEFA is bad but the super league was worse
@@pritapp788 What "psuedo fans" looool
Right now, the IOC is finding it hard to get hosts for the Olympics due to this unfavorable hosting terms. It's going to happen to the FIFA world cup soon enough. I can't fathom why the hosts cannot get a percentage of the other revenue streams FIFA monopolizes to make the hosting worthwhile
the simple answer is that they currently don't have to offer that revenue percentage as they still have nations queueing up to host it. You're probably right though - they may have to start offering these sorts of terms in future, especially if they're not gonna take the sportswashing money from the likes of Qatar due to fan pressure in future.
The World Cup is better overall as it includes the whole country rather than just one city
Also because it’s only one sport (and the most popular at that) it’s easier (ish) to spend money in rather than having to build arenas to host small sports like fencing or ping pong for example
After introduction of 48 teams, it's going to be exactly like olympics...
Why not rotate the World Cup between the three and a half southern hemisphere nations that could host it in the northern summer months; Australia/New Zealand, South Africa and Argentina? Each would be able to satisfy the prime time TV slots across the three most populous regions (Europe/Africa, North/South America, Asia) and give everyone wishing to see a World Cup a guaranteed nearby host every 12 years. Planning and investment could then be designed with both the tournament and local infrastructure needs in mind with debts able to be spread across two or more tournaments instead of just one.
For most football fans, getting to a World Cup and going to matches will always be an economic bridge too far. The best they can really hope for is one played in their timezone with games scheduled at school day friendly times. The host nation is otherwise irrelevant when a 55" 4k screen can be bought for a mere USD200.
The street price for one ticket in the outer to a group stage fixture not involving a top ten ranked nation.
Or country who try to improve their image will apply to host a world cup. Same with Qatar. This could lead to that the world cup could be more often in undemocratic country.
(South African here) 2010 having of positive impact over time is more attributable to preconceptions about Africa and how the ideas changed. The country is beautiful, has beautiful people, and there's plenty to do AND our currency is relatively weak. As such, the WC opened people around the world to the country as a tourist destination because the next time they come it'll be cheaper (no WC tax and not buying tickets for games) and they can come during our summer as well. Additionally, hosting the WC meant our ineffectual government couldn't slip up so they put their best foot forward - they have continued to disappoint since.
South Africa was by far the best show the world cup has offered. The only time where I thought it was actually a cultural phenomenon with the Vuvuzelas, music and general atmosphere.
@@Smitt01999 waka waka and wavin’ flag 😍
@@Smitt01999 yea, best kind of country for a World Cup.
Spitting facts
the way i saw it, we had a expensive party but at least we benefitted from what was spent unlike now where they steal everything
That is BS that host country doesn't get a share of ticket sales... Not even 10%!? Fifa is corrupt!
And that everything is tax-exempt. Absolutely disgusting.
0:10 a reminder that the 2022 edition was assigned to Qatar back in 2010 as well. It feels like ages ago
I feel so old, I was only 10 at time.
@@soccer68541 happy 22nd birthday 🎉
all I can say about South Africa hosting that 2010 World Cup is that it was the greatest time I've ever experienced.
This isn't about the world cup but rather the euro 2012 in Poland and Ukraine. I live in one of the cities where a new stadium and infrastructure was build to host the euros and while a lot of people complained about it being a waste of money. The new infrastructure and especially the new roads and motorways build helped massively, for example some places outside the city it used to take up to 30 to 40min to drive into the city but thanks to the new roads in now takes around 15 min to get to the centre. It's one of those things that's easily taken for granted because it's such a minor thing that people are used to they don't take into account that it was due to us co-hosting the euros. Although the roads around the stadium are still a huge headache to get around.
Okey yes, but if FIFA isn’t contributing anyway, countries could just do big infrastructure renovation. No need for FIFA.
That subtle inclusion of Bergkamp goal in the background..🙌🏻🙌🏻😍
No country really makes money from the world cup if we're being honest
I always wanted India to host The Olympics, FIFA World Cup and a many other events... But But.., It looks like it would be better to have a Strong Football League with big stadia, so that we don't need to spend big on Infrastructure when the time comes 😂😂😂
stadiums
I'm not an expert on the (massive) country of India, but if Brazil is anything to go by, I don't imagine it'll go too well for a country with developing infrastructure, huge, dense population etc
India tried hosting the 2010 commonwealth games. It didn't go well.
India currently are bidding to host the Asian Cup I believe.
Lmao most of money will be lost to corruption. Nah dont want us to host such an event.
I totally expected the Russia point to be: "After the 2018 WC, Russia reported they finally had enough money and goodwill to start expanding their territory once more"
Well granted Zelensky only got elected in 2019.
Broo💀
Retaking what theirs. Isnt football all about history from ages ago?🤣🪦
@@eavyeavy2864 Not theirs. Never was. Ukraine is its own nation with its own history and culture, despite what Ruzzian propaganda might have you think.
fifa is finessing the whole world
Same as UEFA, that's why they are against the super league.
fifa is going to run out of nations that will bid for the world cup very soon. unless they want to have a gulf country host every other world cup, witch would destroy any semblance of a global tournament and ruin there already diminished image, they're going to have to open up some revenue and taxation to entice countries outside of the dozen or so that always bid
Maybe they could start making it like Euro 2020? You have multiple stadiums across the World hosting games, but then one of those stadiums hosts the final stages
The IOC have already found this out, as the list of countries willing to sign up for an Olympics gets shorter each time.
I think it'll be more of a problem for the Olympics. I dont think this World Cup gravy train will slow down anytime soon.
Not if its multiple countries hosting them which is what we're seeing starting with the USA/CAN/MEX one where stadiums are already built. They just need to be co hosted in countries with stadiums already in place
@@jeromeclemente3672 yeah, I mean, we know that Los Angeles will host the 2028 ones because only them and Paris were bidding for 2024 so they got the next one to the loser, and Brisbane was awarded the 2032 Olympics 11 years in advance, so they have more time to do anything
Forgot to mention the additional costs of all those FIFA bribes 😀
Fifa is not charity
They need money
@@uddiwiw8277 Just like the poison jab companies
@@uddiwiw8277 yea but what to they do with it? No taxes and they keep 100% of the billions of dollars from tickets, tv rights, shirt sales etc, while not spending a single dollar on building stadiums or paying for anything. They are literally just sitting and getting billions of dollars for free.
@@uddiwiw8277 no way you're defending FIFA?, Look how Brazil and South Africa still have empty abandoned stadiums. FIFA is greedy and the host country takes on most of the cost.
How many empy abandoned stadium? Brazil govt is stupid, why they build in the city that doesn't have top team even tho they know that they're so many team in sao paulo?
South Africa being said to greatly benefit is partly true… If you look twelves on (today). We have declined incredibly. The infrastructure isn’t as well maintained anymore.
Definitely a few white elephants but, Soccer City, Mose Mabida and Green Point are all in good use and well maintained
@@vitshn Cape Town also still has MyCiti busses running, which has been amazing since 2010
The gautrain is too expensive for the poor to commute with too. And the stadiums don't attract crowds that would fill their capacity, except with National team matches
I have to add that I meant Springbok (rugby) matches. I am unaware of Bafana (football) attendances. The Springboks had 98.91% capacity over the 6 games played locally in 2022 so far. The league attendances is nowhere near that
@@jan7539 Check the attendance for the Bafana match vs Sierra Leone this past weekend.
Quick answer is no. The book Soccernomics cover this very well. South Africa 2010, Brazil 2014, Poland/Ukraine 2012 spent billions and saw very little income. Same can be said for the Olympics.
FIFA spends nothing on the WC and keep most if not all of the profits... INSANE!
Good video guys! I think what we're missing is 'why do countries do it then?' Which is the obvious next question. From a perspective of local politics, it seems that these mega sporting events mostly serve as an opportunity to allow for an upward transfer of wealth, especially in developing nations. That's how many view the Olympics so it would have been great to see if the World Cup was any different
Ego and graft (corruption)
From who to who exactly
@@EvilFinian pauper 3rd world
@@eavyeavy2864 the way it worked in London was to force land sales via changes in the law, then use government backed loans to develop on the new area, and finally sell off the facilities after the event took place. So it was moving money from poor communities to wealthy investors all facilitated by the government.
‘’Courage taught me no matter how bad a crisis gets ... any sound investment will eventually pay off."
Making it out at a young age is quite difficult. I started a side hustle at 17, saved up and made some good investments. l'm 28,live on my own and having a good life for myself. Big ups to you and everyone out there trying
Sounds like plan, how do you put money to work?
@@mav3420 Yes it sure is. I put in money in investments and get profits. That 's how I make more money without working. This does not sound new to you right ?
@@casinosimsek2027 Thanks for replying me, I've heard so many people talk about investment but none had said how to do it right.
Am hoping on you can explain more on how you make extra income from investments
2010 world cups in Brazil and South Africa must of being quite a year 🐧🤣🤣🤣🤣
I also noticed that 😅😅😅
Another factor is if the county is already a big footballing nation, England Spain Germany etc. all of them won’t have to spend money on infrastructure as its already there ready to use!
It's not also a problem for countries that just can afford it. Like South Korea and Japan in 2002 or United States in 1994. Even if in the second example many stadium were just deconstructed.
Brazil in 2014 is interesting example, because I think it can be banned big football nation, but there were many doubts if they can afford it.
@@skoczek777 But I mean how many more countries are there that can afford it and arent a big football nation yet? China maybe, but that would get as much criticism as Qatar. Perhaps Australia or Canada, but that might be it. WCs in europe are just the easiest and most obvious solutions
@@skoczek777 yeah that’s why i said etc they were the first 3 that came to mind, Brazil is the weird one, I think I remember seeing someone people wanted and some people didn’t so with confit in interests it probably was going to work out great for them
@@skoczek777 here in Brasil the problem was not to afford it. It is because Brasil is big, right? So in the north and center of the country football is not a big thing, and they decided to make the World Cup in all regions of Brazil, that would mean build an stadium in the middle of Amazon or in the Pantanal and those stadiums wouldn’t be self sufficient in the following years because games wouldn’t happen there. Brazil had a almost ready infrastructure but corrupt government wanted to build new stadium so they can steal money. That is why Brazilians were mad about it
@@Nat.ali.a What do you mean by: "here in Brasil the problem was not to afford it" Brazil after WC was in 3.5B debt...
Would love to hear a part 2, what happens after world cup and country losses
The world cup in SA was a major economic boom to even countries around the region. Hug tracks of cement used to go to SA during the construction of stadium.
Fifa should agree revenue sharing deals with the host nations. Winners should receive money invested into their respective footballing system.
I would love to know what fifa actually spends all its money on…other than handing out to its officials.
Would be great to see the estimates of what countries lost each World Cup financially. A chart of the profit/loss to show the scale of the issue. To actually estimate the losses of each country.
A relevant but maybe smaller point is how suicides drop during these major events. A crude analysis would show the costs of losing the extra people that year too. It’s an interesting point in itself tho somewhat sensitive.
They don't, Brazil for example spent $13.5 billion on the 2014 World Cup that were only partly recouped. The rest is "maybe we will get more visitors in future years, publicity etc.". It's FIFA who pockets the income and profits, not the hosts.
i think hosting a world cup it never really about money it about promoting your country and boost tourism that helps the countrys economy
Tifo answers questions I never thought of asking!❤️
And that’s why the 2010 World Cup was one of the best in the history of World Cups
Vuvuzelas says Hi
@@solanumlinnaeanum2484 probably the best part of that World Cup edition😉
@@tankisomakhetha2836 Vuvuzelas should be cast into the 8th level of Dante's Inferno. Just one level above those god-awful 'clappers' that Leicester and Fulham had.
@@solanumlinnaeanum2484 😂😂😂
Edmonton was supposed to host matches for 2026, but the City withdrew their bid when FIFA refused to have knockout matches in the city. And FIFA refused other demands made by the city
Well made doc's! Keep up the great work 😎
South africa has never had a tourism issue, with its wildlife and weather. In the book Soccernomics,the author points out how most of the staduims are whites elephants,.The biggest teams in South Africa ( chiefs, pirates and sundowns) hardly reach 50% capacity on matchday unless playing amongst each other. This leads to taxpayers fitting the bill. Those thousands were temporarily jobs. The $2bn would best spent on schools, hospitals and universities which is long term.
For me when the construction corruption stories started coming out it was my first look into just how corrupt South Africa is, ANC politicians made big money
Disagree at least they spent that $2bn on tangible things. I don't trust that govt to spend it wisely without the public attention
Also the South africa Rugby team ( No.1 in the world ) uses these stadiums when they have their home games and often sell out these 60 000 sized stadiums...
The stadiums are also used for Events from Music to church conferences and also other sports like the Rugby league.
Thanks for covering RSA
I’d like to see this type of video about our 2026 hosting in North America.
2026 World Cup might be a different story, because many leagues have training facilities from the NFL which is not in season at that time. Also a large amount of hotels all across the country.
Costs will definitely be a lot less for 2026 for sure
It's absolutely criminal England/UK has only hosted the world cup once
Italy (atleast the Serie A clubs) would benefit from hosting one. Most stadiums are so run down that they need massive investments. Especially looking at possible host cities like Naples, Roma, Milan, Palermo, Verona.
I know there are projects for Milan and Roma but they don't appear to be starting anytime soon.
True, but who will fund those projects? FIFA doesn't provide any funding. It would need to be private funding - which is not as readily available as in England or Germany - or the worse solution of all: the taxpayer.
Hmm, seems like the conclusion from the video is that it's generally not a very profitable idea. I'm sure Italy generates plenty of tourism revenue; many of those cities may see negative tourism if they hosted WC games.
@@scepticrat i don't think that holds true for italy as most of its tourism in summer takes place in smaller beach towns/villages. I really think the amount of people not visiting a city like rome around a worldcup is neglible when compared to the long time benefits
@@pritapp788 yes the privat funding is not really there. As I said the Serie A clubs and the tifosi would benefit. It has to come from tax payers which is only really possible with such events. Is would see long term infrastructural benefits outweigh the costs though.
What's been going around my head a lot has been what will happen to Qatar's stadiums AFTER the event...Like, not sure Qatar or even Russia and South Africa recently have the league/footballing need for those stadiums...unless I'm unaware of something...Or, generally what happens to purpose-built stadiums like these in World Cup/Euro host sites? Maybe a video idea?
Fifa should and must share their revenue to the host next time. They are making billion every event
After watching this, I wonder why any country would host the World Cup 🤔
When the time comes you guys should do a comparison video on 2026 WC vs 2022 WC cost bc its complete 180 with one nation building all new stadiums to three countries barely needing to do any renovations
And add Chile/Argentina/Uruguay/Paraguay 2030 bid if it is successful. None of those countries has a stadium that meet FIFA standards to host the WC. And they just have less than 8 years to build/refurbish stadiums.
Cant wait for the World Cup 🥲🤩
I would have to wonder how much the 2026 World Cup is going to cost, I can imagine significantly less than the last two editions and maybe even less than Brazil, as the stadium infrastructure, training camps, and accommodations already exist or have been planned to or have already been built, especially in the US and Canada where many different forces are pulling for their cities to develop, and not just to prepare for the WC but after it’s over. Most of the spending would probably go towards supporting infrastructure, with only a few stadiums needing to be revamped some, accommodated for grass turf, and none have to be built from scratch compared to the past 4 editions of the tournament.
South Africa 🇿🇦😏 well the only people benefiting are the elite but unemployment is at an all time high and infrastructure is not maintained and improved but left to decay
We had a legacy fund set for SAFA by FIFA. Our football still got worse.
Unemployment has nothing to do with football events. hosting a World Cup is temporary
@@whitewitch2511 not surprised you’re calling yourself “white witch” 👀
I did a small project one semester on this related to the olympics the year I did my master’s in economics , it was unrelated to my actual dissertation but it was interesting to see that hosting these tournaments is a net loss as accepted in most research. More countries are looking towards the direction of joint hosting or not hosting at all. There is a lot of literature on the phenomenon, it almost certainly becomes a sideshow of soft power, and other geopolitical aims via sport, given who is left bidding.
Just after 5 minutes you mention building a stadium in Brazil for WC 2010. Just a heads up
Let's factor in that home-field advantage is a real thing. And aside from the normal home-field advantage phenomenon, you get treated as a #1 seed for group stage purposes. This is especially attractive to lower-tier teams. This year, Qatar is essentially able to kick a #1-tier team out of their group and replace them with a #4-tier team. This is obviously massive.
Missed out the biggest revenue stream. The under the table payment
The criteria for winning the hosting of the world cup should change. You should have a minimum of existing suitable stadia or require upgrades that benefit the club ie new stand etc, facilities that can upscale, training facilities and the infrastructure that could cope but might require temporary upscale for the tournament.
Rather than build a huge set of infrastructure that may not even be used fully post tournament. Saddling that country with debt which never goes down well with those who are not football fans.
FIFA is BIGGG on their alcohol ads. Qatar has ONE liquor store in the nation. Located in the capital, Doha of course. This is a giant friction point between the host nation and FIFA. Gotta wonder how this specific point will play out
Football is about business. The game is incidental. Yet another reason to watch amateur and non-league football.
I would rather the World Cup is never hosted by the UK. In any event with the increase in teams no single country will be able to afford it.
What's stopping people from rebelling and creating a new international football board that offers greater benefit to the host nation?
why does FIFA take all these money? for what? and what do they do with it?
Fifa spends nothing during the world cup while the host nation takes all the burden and gets approximately nothing? In this life, no balance😂😂😂
TLDR.
Host nations going into debt hosting the world cup and only South Africa can be considered the only profitable host in the past 2 decades.
I'm South African. The World Cup isn't worth it in my opinion. We are a struggling country and always seem to have money when things like World Cups or such events come up. But never when we have to feed the poor, build houses and get people education and basic things. The stadium are never full and just serve as a reminder that we can do better but just won't.
But thanks Tifo for continuously improving top level content and I absolutely love the voice-over performance. Keep up the great work and please make more videos that touch on African football.
Thats why I think Spain or Spain + Portugal should host the 2030 WC. Literally Spain does not have to build nothing. This would allow for any investment to go on just nice organization and especial events. It already has world-class stadiums and world class infrstructure. As it recieves a whopping 85 million tourist a year, it is used to large crowds. Plus, it has great accommodation and hoteal, great weather, and the 2nd largest high-speed train network in the world. Let's pray for Spain 2030!
Unfortunately they do, several stadiums owned by the local governments will need expensive upgrades and capacity increases.
Post World Cup in South Africa things went so wrong. High unemployment, crime getting out of control, corruption, Bafana Bafana being the laughing stock of football with never ending mediocrity, energy crisis and now under the microscope in tourism when a German tourist was gunned down. To say South Africa truly benefited from hosting the World Cup is an understatement.
Uyaphapha wena. there's no need for you to write nonsense
Hope all nation realize this and not bidding for world cup host at all until fifa share some of the money
Vamo lá pra mais um.
So basically fifa gets to keep all the money with 0 accountability.
What do they do with it??
The one thing I like about the 2026 world cup is that USA, Mexico, and Canada, already have the stadiums built (mostly NFL stadiums) and the Canada and Mexico stadiums 🏟 are already built, and won't be destroyed, I don't believe the airports in the 3 countries would need upgrades, and the host cities already have enough Hotels, can't wait for 2026!
Surely worth mentioning that in Russia the country may have lost money, but huge amounts were syphoned off for bureaucratic profit
So in summary, we learnt that FIFA is even more corrupt and predatory than we thought.
Personally the money spend to host a sporting event will supersede the money being generated for the event itself . Its just glamour and long term exposure for the cities and country that host the event which not easy to translate into dollar & cents.
Long story short: FIFA takes all the money, the host nation is left all the expenses and with intangible benefits.
I hope they develop some public transportation for the 2026 WC esp for the games being held in Texas, etc.
So if hosting the World Cup is not really profitable for the host nation, the next question is, why do they all want to host it? Especially rich nations, what do they really get from it?
woah then why are hosting countries offering up themselves
I wonder if 2026 will see a profit. We already have the stadiums. Idk how much will need to be spent on public transport and accommodations tho.
Your video missed out the most intresting bit... 'so why do countries want to hold the world cup?'
That's why to this day, The 94' WC is the most profitable World Cup.
nice video, so the question in my mind is, why would any1 actually host the fifa wc, ending with loss, qatar could buy 10 football clubs and pay social media influencers or smth to make ads, i dont get why Qatar even want to spend 220billion for nothing. - after reading the pinned comment, Qatar only spends 6.5bn bcause of the wc - exclusively, still i dont get why people would want to host the WC
How is this model fair for host countries? FIFA seems to be the one winning and the host countries losing.
Is it worth it?
For all the people taking a slice from the 220B laundry bin its of course worth it, like what kind of question is this?
It's going to be good for the USA in 2026 as they already have a well-developed infrastructure like venues, airports, hotels, and all other things needed for a massive event
So you have to ask, other than some kind of intangible, like prestige, why do countries even bother? And ironically, they actually have all the leverage. If every country just said 'f*** it' and didn't bid - then FIFA would have to rethink and potentially offer more equitable terms.
"Prestige" (or whatever word you might use, legitimacy might be another) might be intangible, but is still very important. Qatar doesn't host the WC to make money, but as an extension of their sports-washing program. It's why they also own PSG. They don't think they will make much money on making PSG a footballing superpower, but they believe it will make them more popular in the eyes of the rest of the world.
Russia hosted the WC for similar reasons. Russia has struggled with being viewed as a has-been for a while, and the WC then a quick successful war in Ukraine would make sure they would be considered a superpower again. (too bad for them, that the Ukraine part of the plan didn't work out).
The US motivation for hosting WC would be, I presume, a way to anounce to the world that football in the US is a real thing. The country might not make any money from it. But I believe that the owners of MLS would benefit greatly in the long term as they promote MLS both domestically and abroad. As US policy is 90% dictated by te ones with money, it doesn't matter that the country loses, as long as the billionaire owners of MLS clubs benefit.
Title should be how much Fifa makes. Cause the host country obviously don't
It just goes to show “sometimes countries just wanna big soccer party”.( in Joe voice).
This is why having a WC or Olympics in your country isn’t worth it. Your country doesn’t come out ahead. Honestly I’d rather not have the either of those in the USA ever again.
World cup is cheap when all the infrastructure is already there eg UK/US/France/Germany etc
IMHO, Australia, South Africa and (if they ever get their pesos in order) Argentina should become the permanent hosts of the World Cup on a rotational basis. All are southern hemisphere nations, which means the Cup would always be played in conditions suitable for the sport. It would make hosting the event economically viable as nations could plan upgrades to stadiums and infrastructure across twelve years and debt repayments across 24 years or more and while Argentina's a conquered territory for football, It's somewhat further down the totem pole in both Australia and South Africa, meeting FIFA's charter requirement of using the World Cup to promote the sport in regions where it gets little attention or love.
With South Africa within Europe's time zones, Australia in Asia's and Argentina in The America's, the World Cup will always play at a TV viewer friendly timeslot (and travel distance friendly location) once every twelve years, something that football fans of all locations and socioeconomic backgrounds will appreciate and be able to plan for.
And I would like to see a World Cup Final played in that gargantuan structure in Melbourne that the locals call "The G", just once... I saw Australia take on Italy in the 2000 Sydney Olympics in front of 95,000 spectators and it proved a venue fit for a much more important fixture than an Olympic group game.
Should one of those three hosting nations opt out or become unable to host, FIFA can always go back to the bidding process. My feeling is that they won't have to and that each tournament will be far better than the ones that preceded them
That’s not exactly fair to anyone who isn’t from one of those three countries
At least it isn’t the Olympics
3:42 Regarding the creation of jobs, it is debatable that government spending can increase the number of jobs. This is because like you said, it is paid by taxpayers, so what you are really doing is just reallocating jobs/resources in the economy, not actually creating them (becoming more productive). For example, money that we would've all spent in say, clothes (and same for all other sectors that we spend money in), is now being spent on public works, so the clothing sector suffers on growth and job creation. This doesn't show up in the stats, it only shows the new jobs created, but not the jobs that "could've been".
Cada vez que veo videos de este canal, cosa que me gustan, deseo con todas mis fuerzas no tener vida para ver a Inglaterra campeón de nada, menos que menos de una copa mundial.
Every time I watch videos of this channel, which I really like, I wish with all my might that I would never live to see England champion of anything, least of all a world cup.
@5:10 there is a mistake I think. 2010 in brazil :)
Wow, I knew FIFA was a racket, but this somehow made my distaste for it grow. I can’t believe they share NOTHING with the host countries!
I guess that's why most of the recent offers sent to FIFA are by multiple countries
The costs for specifically hosting the World Cup are $10bn not $220bn, most of the $220bn is for other purposes, Qatar wants to radically change it's country that money, better infrastructure, better connectivity etc., modernisation from top to bottom.
It's strange how barely anyone in journalism and media can get this easy fact right. Is Framing being used here??
It's all for the world cup.
More hotels, transport to the stadiums.
More touristy buildings.
Housing poor people out of sight.
Sports facilities for other sports.
Airports to absorb the fans.
Etc...
@@suh-guy these projects help with the world cup but would have been done regardless even if they would not hold the event as they said themselfs.
Qatar also wants to strenghten it's tourism sector which is underdeveloped compared to the UAE.
As always and surprising no one, I'm ashamed and sad about having had the unfortunate fate of being born a brazilian.
Sepp Blatter was once having dinner with world leaders and CEOs, he tells Gianni Infantino the most powerful person in this room is the US president and then him.
Due to rising capital costs it will only be hosted by countries with existing facilities-- this is for the better.
Honestly after watching this video, The world cup started looking like a scam to me. It feels like the same as these travel "influencers" that want to be given tickets and hotel room stays for free in exchange of "exposure".
Yep
what will they do with those stadia after the WC??
The ONLY benefit - incentive to improve infrastructure - is not even related to football at all. It just shows that leaders and governments need some stupid motivation to do something that they should be doing anyway.
Not Tifo’s fault, but goddamn I didn’t expect to end up being this sad and frustrated because of a football video.
I hope India never hosts world cup even if we start qualifying for it
It's probably gonna happen anyways. Maybe the Women's World Cup first though.
Build up a few good footballing generations. You have the population, talent potential and growing interest.
@@DamnedUnitedStand India are already bidding to host the Asian Cup. Only wait for AFC to decide tho.
So if it's such a loss-making event why is it so competitive in the bidding process?