World Cup Stadium rip off? Not so simple an equation

Posted by Jonathan in STADIUM on 03-17-10    No Comments


In case you hadn’t heard, there’s a bunch of big ole soccer games expected to go on in South Africa later this year; FIFA will hold its World Cup in the land of the Cape of Good Hope. Here is the full list of stadiums. Already ,the event is getting some bad press. CNN is talking up how some of the fields are not done yet. And the New York Times is pointing out how stadiums are doing nothing to help the poor.

So I figured, it’s time for an honest look under the fiscal hood.

Right away, there is much that makes the World Cup unique. First, this is an event where participants are paid to win. Take a look through this Wikipedia post, and you’ll see that the winning team takes home a cool $30 million, and most every organization that advances gets a solid 8-figure deal.

Simply sum all that money up and you get nearly $480 million. That compares rather decently to the $1 billion spent for the event so far. In soccer, money really does flow out to the teams, and eventually the fans that support them. Imagine what college basketball would be like if the NCAA paid its teams to win its big time tournaments.

What South Africa spent on the games is actually dirt cheap when compared with other world sporting events. The $15 billion Beijing dropped on the Olympics is the current leader. And the London games will probably come in at about half that — still six times better than what South Africa is spending.

Now all this is so much bean counting, but you see the point: In any practical, dollar-for-dollar measure, the World Cup, while not cheap, is a bargain compared with other international sports mega events. And while the world has to figure out how to better share its wealth, the fact is, the World Cup actually makes some economic sense.

It’s not perfect. But World Cup soccer is no worse than any other sporting event.

And in many ways, it is better.



Leave a Comment