The World Cup is coming to town!
This massive soccer event, held every four years, is one of the biggest sporting events
in the world.
After a qualification phase, thirty-two teams will compete in a tournament until one hoists
the championship trophy!
The event is watched by over half a billion people every time, with the final match being
watched by more than one in ten people around the globe in 2018.
That’s a massive draw - to say nothing of the masses of fans who will be lucky enough
to watch it in person!
So clearly, it’s a great honor to host it and countries must be lined up to compete
for the right!
Wrong.
Hosting the World Cup is a tricky affair, and fewer and fewer countries are interested
these days.
It’s a massive financial investment, it’s not clear it’ll pay off in the long run,
and many countries aren’t set up for it.
So this year, the World Cup is being hosted in…Qatar, a small but wealthy country on
the Arabian peninsula.
It gained the privilege after an extensive lobbying campaign, and this put the little-known
country into the public eye for the first time for many people.
But this exposure wasn’t purely positive.
Because the Qatari World Cup may be the most controversial in the history of the sport.
For one thing, the event is being held in November for the first time ever, as it’s
usually held in the summer.
This is because Qatar gets brutally hot in the summer - it’s a desert nation near the
equator, after all.
Attempting to host it during summer time would have likely resulted in many athletes - and
spectators - passing out from heatstroke.
Even in November, the temperature is unlikely to dip below 79 degrees Fahrenheit during
day matches - a brutal prospect for athletes.
This not only meant changing the schedule for the World Cup, it affected the ongoing
European League running at the same time.
And there are other major issues with the new host country.
Qatar is ostensibly a constitutional monarchy, political freedoms are limited and the laws
are highly restrictive.
The country maintains a strict ban on homosexuality and former FIFA head Sepp Blatter once advised
that gay fans and players should avoid sexual activity when visiting.
Additionally, Qatar is infamous for having a massive population of temporary workers,
many of whom operate in dangerous conditions.
Reportedly, at least 6500 migrant workers have died since the hosting rights of the
World Cup was awarded to Qatar.
Why were they working so hard?
Because Qatar doesn’t have a soccer infrastructure!
The country doesn’t have a long history of soccer, so they don’t have any stadiums
capable of hosting massive World Cup matches.
It’s estimated that it’ll cost over 200 billion dollars to build the hotels, stadiums,
and other facilities needed to pull off this World Cup - which is almost a hundred times
what it cost other countries like South Africa to prepare for their World Cup.
So with all these problems, why is this event happening in Qatar?
Because almost everyone else shook their heads and backed away slowly.
On paper, hosting the World Cup does have a lot of advantages!
You’re bringing in a massive tourist audience, and if they have a good time they may come
back for future sporting events or just to tour the area.
You’ll be doing a lot of business in foreign trade as well, as countries will want to be
represented there.
And that doesn’t include the domestic boom!
Even the most soccer-crazy countries will need a lot of new infrastructure, because
the stadiums that host local play just aren’t big enough for World Cup matches.
And that means a lot of construction, and a lot of new jobs for the working stiffs - probably
with a lot of overtime!
So what’s the downside?
It turns out…a lot.
For one thing, as much as it seems like governments just print money, there’s a limit to what
they can draw from the treasury - and the discretionary spending needed to outfit a
country for the World Cup can far outstrip that annual budget.
That means that countries often need to go into debt to set themselves up - and then
they need to hope that the boost in tourism they get from the World Cup will offset it.
Will it work?
Well, the more expensive part the setup is, the less likely it is that the country will
make its money back, which means that Qatar might be in for a rude awakening in 2023.
But hey, at least they’re left with permanent improvements, right?
This is true, but only to a point.
The many hotels and housing facilities that are built for the World Cup will be useful
after the event - but only if the country sees a boost in its tourism sector after the
event.
This is a great resource that countries that already have a thriving tourism sector can
benefit from, but countries that don’t experience high levels of tourism will see these hotels
stay mostly empty until another big event comes to town.
And then there are the stadiums - massive beasts that often find themselves mostly empty
and degrading in the years after the World Cup, with no matches of this size likely to
be playing in the country again.
Some use them to host national matches anyway, no matter how awkward the empty seats are.
And the less infrastructure a country has, the more challenging it becomes.
Qatar is the most extreme case, and the amount it spends on its World Cup is almost five
times the total amount spent by every other country who’s hosted the World Cup since
1990 - combined!
But every country faces financial challenges when they host the World Cup - because for
the biggest sporting event in the world, it’s surprisingly difficult to make any money.
Even the most successful World Cup will leave the country in the hole - because they don’t
get much of the money from the biggest moneymakers of the World Cup.
Who does?
Let’s meet the big man.
This is FIFA, the French named Federation International de Football Association, a massive
international governing body covering multiple types of soccer - or football, for everyone
but the United States.
It was founded in 1904 and now has 211 national associations divided between six regional
confederations reflecting the continents.
They organize the World Cup, they choose who gets it every four years, and they make sure
that the country’s efforts are up to their standards.
And in exchange…they take most of the profits!
The World Cup makes its money primarily by three revenue streams - ticket sales for in-person
matches, broadcasting rights for the billions of people watching it at home, and advertising
rights at matches, which gives advertisers the biggest platform in the world.
And all three of these revenue streams go directly back to FIFA, making the countries
attempt to raise money during the event through…concessions sales?
It’s a little more complicated than that, but countries usually try to harness the power
of local tourism to offset the costs.
FIFA does help to pick up the tab - but not even close to entirely.
The money that FIFA provides to host countries will vary, with FIFA providing just under
two billion dollars to Qatar for their World Cup.
That included close to half a billion that would go to the winning teams in prize money
- which makes the funding Qatar received less than a single percent of the total spending
on the event!
However, for other countries, it might easily be around fifty percent of the total spending
- which is helpful, but still puts them in the hole.
World Cups usually bring in close to five billion dollars in revenue for FIFA - which
makes it a win for the organization, but not necessarily for the home country.
But at least FIFA is an honest broker, right?
Hold up!
Because everything World Cup-related has to go through FIFA - and that’s an increasingly
dicey prospect.
FIFA has been getting larger and larger since it was founded in 1904 to govern European
football leagues, and now it’s a massive organization - and the larger something is,
the easier it is for corruption to sneak under the radar.
The organization used to alternate hosts between Europe and South America, but in 2002 held
its first World Cup in Asia and its first in Africa in 2010.
Now, any member country can host a World Cup, and countries that are interested submit bids
which are voted on by FIFA’s council.
But it turns out that not everything is this simple.
In 2015, a massive scandal broke around the world as US federal prosecutors revealed a
massive corruption conspiracy climbing up to the highest levels of FIFA.
Fourteen people were indicted over charges including wire fraud, racketeering, and money
laundering - and there had been prior guilty pleas!
It turned out that there had been massive collusion involving several major soccer organizations
to trade influence and divide up events.
It was already a major scandal - and then seven current FIFA officials were arrested
in Switzerland on charges of receiving $150 million dollars in bribes!
The investigation spread around the world, and led to the then-current FIFA head Sepp
Blatter being removed from office and barred from FIFA activities for eight years.
While he was cleared of criminal charges, it was the biggest disgrace in FIFA history.
So have they cleaned up their act since?
It depends on who you ask.
FIFA denies that there is any bribery going on in the current administration and that
all World Cup bids are approved based on their merits - but companies that bid are told how
to win FIFA’s favor, and it normally involves a commitment to heavy investment.
The richer a country is, the easier a time they’ll have with this.
In the aftermath of the controversy, FIFA appointed an independent ethics investigator
who looked at the bids and checked into bribery allegations - and cleared Russia’s 2018
bid of any wrongdoing.
However, many people argued that the report was incomplete, and there was still a lot
of doubt around the process.
Those doubts would only increase in 2022.
So how did Qatar get the World Cup, exactly?
Many candidates dropped out because of all the negatives, and that cleared the path.
The small kingdom lobbied heavily and the oil-rich nation was willing to massively invest
in the infrastructure required for the event- but that still left many logistics issues
to figure out along the way.
It was an odd selection that left many scratching their heads - and in 2020, a whistleblower
from Australia published a book that confirmed the suspicions around why FIFA picked Qatar.
Bonita Mersiades, who spearheaded Australia’s own bid for the 2022 cup, claimed that Qatar-based
Al Jazeera offered a bribe of 100 million dollars for Qatar to secure the cup, and that
it was approved by a major FIFA executive who was later expelled for corruption.
Later leaked documents refuted the $100 million price tag - it was reportedly $400 million!
However, the documents couldn’t be fully authenticated and an investigation is ongoing
while the preparation for the World Cup continues.
But not everyone will be attending.
Organizing a world event has become trickier than ever before, and hosting dozens of clubs
on your soil can be a balancing act, a sometimes dangerous one too.
And this is more true in 2022 than ever before.
There’s always the chance of two countries with a nasty political beef facing off and
forcing a forfeit when one refuses to play.
This is common in other sports, where athletes from countries like Iran are paired against
Israeli athletes and refuse to compete.
This isn’t likely to happen on the big stage - neither Iran nor Israel are global powerhouses
in soccer, nor are the other nations that refuse to recognize Israel.
But the world hasn’t become more peaceful since the last world cup.
After a 2018 World Cup in Russia, you’d think everyone would be glad to be out of
there.
After all, Russia is notorious for arresting tourists and even famous athletes who come
to the country on often-sketchy charges.
But then came the invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, and soon Russia’s very presence in
the event was a firestorm!
Many people called for Russia to be banned entirely from sporting events, while others
said it wasn’t fair to punish the individual athletes.
FIFA tried to find a middle ground and banned any official matches from being played in
Russia - only for teams from several European nations to say they wouldn’t compete against
Russia.
Facing a massive storm, FIFA eventually decided to ban Russia from the World Cup entirely
- leading many to call this hypocrisy because countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia were
allowed to compete despite their massive human rights violations!
And of course, there’s the home country.
Qatar is having a bumpy ride of its own as it tries to get ready to host the Cup, including
Paris and other French cities announcing they would be boycotting the broadcast in protest
of the human rights violations taking place in Qatar.
While local French soccer fans will likely be able to get ahold of their favorite sport’s
big matches via streaming, it’s another massive black eye for FIFA that the organization
definitely doesn’t need.
So why couldn’t they get anyone else to take over?
For one thing, once contracts are signed, there would be years of legal wrangling if
Qatar had the World Cup taken away late in the process.
Much of the infrastructure was already built when the controversy ramped up, and it would
cast a cloud over the entire proceedings.
And few countries would be able to take over on short notice, unless they already had the
infrastructure ready from a previous World Cup.
And obviously, the previous 2018 host was flat out for a lot of reasons!
Even if they took the event from Qatar, they may not be able to find another host.
Because many rich countries have learnt that hosting such a big event is not worth it from
another global sporting phenomenon.
It used to be that the Olympics were the most prestigious sporting event in the world, as
the global games took over a major city for several weeks and brought the world together
to watch dozens of events every two years between the Summer and Winter events.
But now, the bidding process has been taken over by allegations of money-trading, the
events have been plagued by accusations that they coddle human rights-abusing nations,
and the cities that host are often left deeply in debt - just like the World Cup.
But in terms of infrastructure, the hit that countries hosting the Olympics take is often
even bigger.
This event requires a massive structure called an Olympic Village be built.
It can lead to the expulsion of countless buildings and their residents, and when the
games are done…it just sits there!
There’s no real use for an Olympic Village after the games, and the Olympics certainly
aren’t coming back any time soon, so the cities are left to try to figure out what
the heck to do with it.
So is there any way to win back the crowd?
FIFA and the Olympics both need willing host cities.
Some have said that the Olympics should commit to permanent host cities - maybe Athens, in
a tribute to the games’ origins.
But FIFA is trickier, as the organization has so many members and interests.
So experts have discussed how they can make hosting the World Cup more appealing again
- and it all comes down to the fact that the event really isn’t about the host city anymore.
In fact, it often feels like the host city is paying for the privilege to host a massive
event that doesn’t really benefit them!
And a focus on local issues might just save FIFA.
Right now, the bids are submitted by countries that pick a city to host - but the actual
people in the city often have little say.
This means the city gets a huge federal infrastructure project that leaves them with less living
space, more cramped quarters, and a bunch of unwanted guests.
Some cities want to boost their profile by hosting an event, especially if they’re
not a city that’s a household name like in the case of Lake Placid hosting the Olympics.
But that boost doesn’t usually last.
Ideally, picking cities with already-massive soccer stadiums and providing money for upgrades
might be the safest move - but that would limit the number of cities and countries that
could host the World Cup.
But would that be a bad thing, necessarily?
If the Qatar and Russia World Cups, both first-time hosts, have taught FIFA anything, it’s that
sometimes a World Cup just doesn’t belong in a country that isn’t a soccer nation.
Not only does it not have the infrastructure needed for such an event - especially obvious
in Qatar’s case - but it might not have the fanbase needed to support it.
On the other hand, if a FIFA World Cup host has a huge soccer market like Brazil or France,
the odds are those massive stadiums would still find use after the event.
After all, a stadium filled up to 50% capacity isn’t great - but it’s a lot better than
10%.
And then there’s the big elephant in the room.
A country or city might want to host the World Cup - but does its people?
You’ll often see people in major cities protesting against new developments because
they think it’ll make the city overcrowded or bring in a different element that won’t
fit in.
These people are often called NIMBYs - Not in My Back Yard - and they can make building
even a new apartment building a herculean task.
A massive soccer stadium and associated buildings has a far larger infrastructure impact on
a city, and concerns are larger and pull in even people who may usually be development-friendly!
As awareness of this impact gets more widespread, cities could find their World Cup bids stopped
in their tracks by angry protestors.
So how can FIFA fix this problem and get more cities and countries back in the game?
The answer might be rather counterintuitive to a massive organization - they might need
to be willing to make a little less money.
FIFA makes several billion dollars from every World Cup, primarily from ticket sales, advertising,
and broadcast rights.
Offering a profit-sharing arrangement to willing hosts might make prominent countries more
willing to invest in new infrastructure.
Also, scheduling smaller tournaments over the years in places that have previously hosted
a World Cup might help to keep the revenue stream flowing rather than leaving those giant
stadiums vacant.
But could an Olympic solution work for the World Cup?
Conversations have centered around making a permanent home for the Olympics, but that’s
trickier with FIFA.
Only a few countries have hosted the World Cup more than once - Brazil, Italy, France,
and Mexico.
Germany is included if you count Easst and West Germany as the same country.
Additionally, in recent years FIFA has started splitting hosting duties between neighboring
countries - Japan and South Korea jointly hosted in 2002, and the 2026 World Cup will
be hosted by the trio of the United States, Mexico, and Canada!
While finding a single home for the World Cup won’t be nearly as easy as it might
be for the Olympics, it’s clear that some countries are far more up to the task than
others - and a heavy FIFA investment in them could avoid any future boondoggles.
But does this hint at a bigger problem for FIFA?
The process of selecting host cities has clearly gotten out of control, with accusations of
corruption spinning into international criminal conspiracy.
But despite that, interest in the World Cup is as strong as ever.
Will Qatar see the same level of attendance of past World Cups?
We’ll see - but if not, it’s Qatar who will be seen as a cautionary tale, not FIFA.
FIFA will likely see the same massive viewership numbers around the world as millions of soccer
fans breathlessly watch to see who hoists the trophy.
And that means that ultimately, FIFA will be able to find a place to host its World
Cup- even if they might have to change their business model to make it worth for a host
nation.
Want to know more about FIFA’s dirty little secrets?
Check out “How Much Does The World Cup Cost?”
for a more in-depth look, or watch “Soccer Player Killed for Scoring a Goal” for one
of the sport’s darkest days.