Where are we at with the World Cup bid?
By Mister Football, 28 Feb 2010 Mister Football is a Roar Rookie
652 Have your say
Related coverage
- Football news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news
When the Federal Government established a taskforce in early January to take over the running of Australia’s World Cup bid from the FFA, it gave itself a deadline of the end of February to complete all stadium negotiations in readiness for the bid book which is due in May.
I’m not sure if anyone has noticed, but tomorrow is actually the last day of February (unless we’re in a leap year).
So what have we heard in the last six weeks or so about how the taskforce is going with this delicate exercise?
We’ve heard nothing.
In recent weeks, the only news we have heard that has anything to do with the World cup bid is that:
1. Etihad Stadium has confirmed that it has no interest in hosting World cup games (its management said as much back in November last year); and
2. The President of the AFC has urged all five member nations who are bidding for 2018/2022 to put forward one nation only (and no prizes for guessing which nation the Pres would think is the appropriate one to put forward).
So the public is left to surmise what to make of this impasse. These are my educated guesses.
State Governments
At least three state/territory governments have no interest in spending any money on anything to do with the World Cup, namely WA, SA and the ACT.
Why? For two reasons:
1. The cost, not only of stadium development, but everything to do with staging the World Cup, far, far surpasses any perceived benefit; and
2. Given that there is no World Cup bid without the participation of all three, there is actually no incentive for any of them to put their hand in their pockets, their view is a simple and proper one: if the Feds want it bad enough, let them pay for it 100%.
Dire Financial Straits
Following on from the last point, none of the State Governments, nor the Federal Government itself, is in any great shakes in relation to their respective budgets.
In fact, with an election round the corner, and a budgetary situation that shows no sign of improvement over the next four or five years, the Commonwealth is hardly in a position to splash the cash.
The various states are in an even worse position.
Administrative niceties
Strip away the emotion, the passion, the willingness to put in the hard yards, the longing for glory from so many quarters, and we’re left with the hard cold reality of putting the deal together.
And while the FFA continues to lobby for a blank cheque, and while the Prime Minister and his senior advisers are happy to promise it, fortunately for the taxpayer, we have learned officials from the Attorney-General’s department, the Finance department and the Treasury, advising their superiors that it’s not that simple.
There are processes to go through, not just to appropriate the necessary money, but to commit the Commonwealth to all those contingent liabilities that may ultimately go out up to fifty years.
What Minister would want to officially sign off on a guarantee that in dollar terms is greater than the annual Commonwealth budget?
Hopefully one day in the future we will recognise those public officials who ultimately saved the Australian taxpayer’s collective bacon.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (44)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (96)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (8)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (46)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Redknapp tight-lipped over England job
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (96)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (8)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (3)
- O’ so close for John: How JON almost landed the biggest job in sport (16)

mds1970 said | February 28th 2010 @ 6:18am | Report comment
It’s amazing how little information about how the government task force is going is getting out. If there’d been negotiations going on between various levels of government and with the other sporting codes, it’s remarkable how no-one’s been leaking to the media.
As for the bid itself, I think you’re right. Hosting the World Cup is a nice dream, but I just can’t see how it could possibly be viable.
Australia is possibly unique in the world in that its major sporting stadiums are already contracted to other sports during the months of May-July. So while locking in those dates isn’t an issue for most other countries, it is a serious setback and a probable deal-breaker here.
For starters, the AFL and possibly the NRL as well, already have long-term contracts in place with proposed venues. To get the World Cup, those contracts would need to be bought out – which won’t come cheap, but is a cost Australia has that no other bidding nation has.
In addition, as those sports have a considerable fan base (both the AFL and NRL are in the top 20 sporting leagues in the world for average attendances), a siginificant portion of fans of both sports don’t see kindly to the idea of being locked out of their normal venues and the subsequent financial hits to their sports. This undermines public support for the bid.
There’s also the issue of costs. The PWC report commissioned by the FFA indicated a net cost of $1.4 billion in tangible terms; and that’s assuming zero cost for security, non-stadium infrastructure and compensation to other codes and assuming no cost blowouts. Are such assumptions valid? And as for intangible benefits, these have been promised for events such as the Olympics, APEC and the World Youth Day and have never eventuated – and the Australian taxpayers have had their fingers burned too many times for that idea to have any credibility. And when government debt and deficits is a hot political issue, the government will struggle to justify writing a blank cheque for this event.
Hosting the World Cup would be nice. But the reality is that it’s too divisive and too disruptive. And the bottom line is we just can’t afford it.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:14am | Report comment
mds
good comment – thanks.
anthony said | March 1st 2010 @ 12:18pm | Report comment
NRL in top 20 sporting leagues in the world???? What a joke! Their average crowd is about level with English 3rd division. By contrast, the AFL is # 3 in the world……nof that soccer/league/union fans care to admit it
Mister Football said | March 1st 2010 @ 12:45pm | Report comment
I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch that the NRL would be in the top 20.
Afterall, I understand that the A-League is something like the 18th largest soccer comp in the world.
mds1970 said | March 3rd 2010 @ 6:52am | Report comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_attendance_figures_at_domestic_professional_sports_leagues
The NFL in America is easily the biggest. The Indian Premier League cricket comes in at number 2, but those are 2008 figures – the tournament was held in South Africa for security reasons last year, and therefore attendances were significantly lower. The German Bundesliga comes in at number 3, the highest ranking soccer league, with the AFL at number 4.
Australia, with its relatively small population, punches well above our weight. As well as the AFL, the 20-20 Big Bash cricket and the NRL all come inside the top 25.
The competitions that are being locked out of their stadiums for the World Cup, far from being globally insignificant, are among the top domestic sporting leagues in the world.
Mister Football said | March 3rd 2010 @ 7:18am | Report comment
You won’t get any argument from me on that score – the numbers tell the story.
Punter said | February 28th 2010 @ 6:25am | Report comment
YAWN, ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
An AFL supporter, one of Sheedy’s boys, writing an article on the Australian world cup bid.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:15am | Report comment
Punter
you might find it a yawn, but have read of mds’ first post – for another perspective.
Punter said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Mister Football, you writing about the football world cup bid, is like asking Nth Korea’s opinions of the US foreign policy.
Whether you are right or not, you have no credibility, because everyone knows your bias towards the WC bid.
My suggestion is stick to to discussing the AFL draft or salary cap or what crowds you will get this year.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:46am | Report comment
Yes, it’s true, I write about the WC bid from an AFL perspective, i.e. that if there is to be a WC it should not impinge on the AFL season nor cause financial harm to the AFL.
The little that we know at the moment is that a WC would impinge on the AFL season, and on top of that, it would cost taxpayers many billions of dollars.
That being the case, the WC bid is of major interest to all Australian taxpayers, be they AFL fans or not.
Putting all that aside, today was meant to have been the taskforce’s own deadline, mentioned specifically in Kate Ellis’ media release – so why shouldn’t all be waiting with baited breath for the outcome of the taskforce’s deliberations?
Punter said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:59am | Report comment
‘Cost taxpayers many billion dollars’????
Ummmm, sort of destroyed your own argument there. You are just trying to create fear, when none exist.
There is more chance of the NSW taxpayers footing the bill of the New AFL franchise is Western Sydney than the Australian taypayers on the WC.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 8:05am | Report comment
Punter said: “There is more chance of the NSW taxpayers footing the bill of the New AFL franchise is Western Sydney than the Australian taypayers on the WC.”
I honestly doubt that is the case, and by a long shot too.
Does anyone here seriously doubt that the taxpayer won’t be up for billions of dollars in hosting the WC?
My current best guess is in the vicinity of $6 billion to $9 billion – and that’s before factoring what might come of the Commonwealth providing guarantees for all contingent liabilities.
apaway said | February 28th 2010 @ 9:17pm | Report comment
Mr Football
If Australia did win a World Cup bid, it seems the best bet is 2022, as most of us believed. If that was the case, the AFL would have 12 YEARS notice in regard to any potential disruptions to their schedule. If they couldn’t come up with alternative plans in that time, they are the worst-organised sporting administration in the world.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 11:06pm | Report comment
What you miss, what all soccer fans seem to miss – is that there is zero compulsion on the AFL to allow the FFA free access to the grounds it controls during the time in question.
So one could put your statement around 180 degrees: if the FFA can’t sort itself out in 12 years, then it clearly doesn’t deserve to have a WC.
apaway said | March 1st 2010 @ 1:31pm | Report comment
No, I’m not missing that point at all. However, you are arguing from a financial standpoint. The gist of
your reply suggests that if the Federal Govt and the FFA want to host a World Cup, they should
build their own stadiums to accommodate it. That wouldn’t make any financial sense. Nor should the
FFA expect “free access” to AFL-Controlled grounds. (And they don’t, even though you seem to think
they do). What the FFA has every right to expect is that their WC bid is not hijacked by self-interest.
Sadly, I think it will be.
Michael C said | March 1st 2010 @ 1:43pm | Report comment
apaway -
12 years….but, the bid book has to be in by May. The AFL can’t sign off with the Fed Govt and FFA before May if there’s all these unknowns that the AFL (nor the NRL) could possibly justify signing off on.
It’s not incumbant upon the AFL to provide the FFA with a blank cheque.
The AFL has only dug their heels in around Docklands stadium – a firm position held since 2008.
The FFA opted to disregard the 100% dedicated and state funded brand new Swan St (Bubbledome)stadium and instead chose to fight the AFL for Docklands – and when made clear they would lose, the FFA threatened to take their bat and ball and go home by suggesting the AFL would cost Melbourne World Cup matches!?!?!!?!? talk about petulance.
If the FFA can’t organise a stadium built specifically for a WC (with foundations to go to 50,000) – - then how the heck can they be trusted to organised this whole event?…..simple…..they can’t, and the Fed Govt stepped in.
but- don’t forget – even just before xmas – Kate Ellis wasn’t talking ‘compensation’ and still reckons facility improvement is enough of a carrot. So, just how the Govt is going to craft that remains to be seen,
,as, we still don’t know for sure whether FIFA will enforce their host city exclusions – - so, we still don’t know just what the Fed Govt has to try to work around. And not knowing that means the question of compensation (via dollars or infrastructure or both) is very much unknown.
Blank cheques for soccer is not the job of AFL or NRL.
If this falls over ‘because of the AFL’, then A. that’s a crap anti-AFL cop out and B. it just shows how flimsy a bid it is to start with.
bever fever said | March 1st 2010 @ 7:00pm | Report comment
Just re-read your post MC and IMO it makes some very good points.
Mister Football said | March 1st 2010 @ 11:36pm | Report comment
The points MC makes in that post have been made over and over and over on these threads – but it doesn’t seem to sink in: the WC is not the AFL’s responsibility.
BigAl said | February 28th 2010 @ 5:28pm | Report comment
Punter – would you be the artist formerly known as Robbos ?
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:21am | Report comment
One small correction.
Since I wrote this yesterday, when I mention tomorrow being the end of February, I am obviously referring to today, being the tomorrow of yesterday.
But as they say: tomorrow never comes.
MV Dave said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:28am | Report comment
Not again…talk about crusades…give it a rest. The formal bid goes in 3 months…until then who cares (apart from you and the Sokkah haters).
BTW The bid itself has impressed many around the world and at last reading was second favorite overall and favorite for the rights to host the 2022 WC…
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:33am | Report comment
MVDave
thanks for the comments.
An article like this is timely because today is the deadline the taskforce gave itself when it took over the running of the bid from the FFA.
That’s the date that was mentioned in Kate Ellis’ media release, so it seems more than reasonable that I should revisit the whole venture.
People overseas might be impressed (I’m not too sure with what) but fortunately for taxpayers those people aren’t the ones signing the blank cheques (for the moment).
Jeb said | February 28th 2010 @ 9:11am | Report comment
putting aside for a second the self proclaimed timeliness of this “article”, the funniest quote here is “My current best guess is in the vicinity of $6 billion to $9 billion”. That’s a big vicinity mr football – clearly from someone in the know.
perhaps i missed it but maybe a more timely article would have been after Frank Lowy when on SBS’s the world game? What did you think of his assurance that both Adelaide and Perth would have stadiums for the world cup bid? and his insistence that we’d here about it in due course?
btw he government task force didn’t “take over” the wc bid from the ffa. Maybe assist?
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 4:29pm | Report comment
Jeb
This is what Kate Ellis’ own media release said:
“The taskforce of civil servants will do much of the detailed planning necessary to prepare the “bid book” – the 10,000-page blueprint for an Australian World Cup. ”
People can make their own conclusions as to what that means.
But one thing is for sure, Kate Ellis herself said that her own taskforce would complete all the work by the end of February.
Anyone see a problem there?
As for the costs, the PWC report commissioned by the FFA/Government estimate a cost of $2.9 billion for stadiums alone (both new ones and to upgrade existing ones). We all understand two things about this estimate:
1. it’s a starting point only; and
2. as mds says above, it excludes “security, non-stadium infrastructure and compensation to other codes” and assumes no cost blowouts.”
Now consider this: the Sydney Olympics began life as a $1 billion cost estimate, and ended up in reality costing six times as much.
Interestingly, South Africa has undergone the exact same journey: began as a $2 bill estimate ended up with a cost of $13 bill.
So – does anyone on here wish to truly contest that we’re not talking about a minimum cost range of $6 bill to $9 bill?
MIniumum folks – understand this point well – that’s the minimum cost range: $6 bill to $9 bill (in today’s dollars).
Turo said | March 1st 2010 @ 12:03am | Report comment
Our bid doesn’t even rate a mention in news reports in the UK or in the Netherlands. Does the world extend beyond NZ?
Mister Football said | March 1st 2010 @ 11:38pm | Report comment
In fact there have been quite a few news reports about our bid over the last few months in the foreign press – admittedly, very little of it has been flattering.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Since writing this article yesterday, I found the following article in the SMH:
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/football/asian-cup-no-sure-thing-as-decision-is-delayed-due-to-concern-over-cost-20100226-p90j.html
There is surprisingly little discussion anywhere on the significance of this news.
Gee, if the Asian Cup is too expensive, with only 16 teams and four venues required, how the hell is Australia meant to be a realistic chance of hosting the World Cup??
Marty said | February 28th 2010 @ 8:47am | Report comment
“Gee, if the Asian Cup is too expensive, with only 16 teams and four venues required, how the hell is Australia meant to be a realistic chance of hosting the World Cup??”
This may come as a surprise, but the World Cup is far more popular than the Asian Cup. Sure the Asian Cup is smaller and less costly to run, but in terms of attracting revenue it’s a totally different ball park. Would you rather see Bahrain vs Oman or Brazil vs Germany?
It’s hardly shocking news.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 4:34pm | Report comment
Thanks for the comment Marty.
Yes, you’re right, the World Cup will attract far more revenue than the Asian Cup.
But the issure reported here is that the cost of hosting the Asian cup is prohibitive.
The cost of hosting the Asian Cup is prohibitive???!!!
With 16 teams and 4 venues – and those venues already exist and are ready to go – but the cost will be prohibitive??
And then in the same breath we’re talking about the World Cup??!!
The revenue is greater for the World cup – but who gets all the revenue??!!
Certainly not the taxpayer who is forking out all the money!!
Tifosi said | February 28th 2010 @ 8:18am | Report comment
Australia’s chance of hosting the world cup will largely depend on how the Sth African one goes.
News that South Africa will be discounting tickets because they cant sell them is a stark reminder of why Australia will not be getting the World Cup in 2018.
FIFA are also saying they expect to break even on the tournament or make a small loss, compare that to the 150 million Euro profit they made in Germany.
(FIFA make the money from TV rights though 3.7 Billion US Dollars)
European fans are not travelling to Sth Africa and its not the security they are worried about, rather the huge cost that it would take for these fans to travel there.
Similar concerns will be raised for Australia which is even further away. Unless its in Europe, only countries with a large population base will be likely to hold the World cup.
As with the Stadia/training facilities.
FIFA have admitted that if the world cup was held today in sth africa it wouldnt be ready to host it. FIFA will never want a situation again where stadiums and training facilities need to be massively upgraded to host the tournament.
Expect Brazil 2014 to be the last tournament held in a developing nation.
They will want to walk in, make lots of money, then walk out.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 8:25am | Report comment
Tifosi
I agree that Brazil could well be the last time the WC is held in a developing nation. Brazil got it because it was the final act of the now defunct rotation policy (otherise, it may have been a very long time before it made it to Sth America).
The one exception is with 2030, being the 100th anniversary of the WC – my guess is that there would be a big push to get the cup to Sth America again – perhaps jointly with Uruguay/Argentina?
This is why I’m guessing that Australia will get its chance again around 2038 or 2050 – and by that stage Australia will have a population of around 30 million and soccer will actually control some of its own inferastructure (presuming the game continues to grow at its present rate).
Tifosi said | February 28th 2010 @ 8:39am | Report comment
Yeah i agree with the time assessment. Australia is a long way off on hosting. Not sure about Uruguay though.
The World Cup is now way beyond what most countries could handle.
I also looks like Jack Warner is using his influence again. Expect England to vote for USA.
http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/123350,england-make-a-meal-of-2018-bid.aspx
Mahony said | February 28th 2010 @ 10:18am | Report comment
More ill informed, speculative nonsense from a person on a football jihad. Fortunately, much calmer heads are actually running the bid in the FFA and among the various government agencies, central or otherwise. I walk past the statue in Mr Football’s avatar every day on my way to the train. The man imortalised in that statue would decry the lack of personal integrity displayed by this websites correspondant in his image. Shame on you.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 4:37pm | Report comment
Mahony
Surely you’re not suggesting that the real Mister Football would be supporting you on this one??!!
At least this time round you and Simmo have chosen not to be as vindictive and viscious as you were last time – that fills me with great confidence that I am most surely on the right track and that you would know that only too well, being in the exalted position that you find yourself, having to catch a train to work from West Footscray station.
Just don’t catch one back at night time (speaking to you as someone who was forced to catch the midnight train from St Albans to West Footscray many times in his youth).
mahony said | March 2nd 2010 @ 1:59pm | Report comment
I only suggest that the real Mr. Football was a man of great humility and personal integrity. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
As to my previous comments on this forum – what you did not like was having to make your conspiracy argument to someone who clearly understands how government works. I don’t think I was vicious, although I have been known to be so when provoked – indeed sufficiently so that a trip home on the train at night is of little concern to me.
Mister Football said | March 2nd 2010 @ 6:25pm | Report comment
I see that you continue to post comments without any reference to what I have written in this article,
Yes – I will draw my own conclusions from that.
mahony said | March 3rd 2010 @ 8:02am | Report comment
Nice try, but no banana. A debate with you is akin to yelling at a deaf man. You are an emotional child despite your chronological age. The evidence for this is in near every post you make on Australian football.
Joe FC said | February 28th 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
It is entirely proper when dealing with the appropriation of funds, and especially public monies, that a thorough cost-benefit analysis be undertaken. By definition this implies the use of professional and specialized technicians employing the appropriate skills and methodologies. Thus the pros and cons of a particular project can be both identified and scrutinised in an environment conducive to an intelligent and detailed assessment process. This turgid article fails comprehensively to meet that standard and reflects its author’s shallow self interest and limited cognitive capacity. It requires ability to participate in an informed debate. It requires nothing to masquerade one’s prejudice as such.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 4:41pm | Report comment
Joe FC
impressive stuff, except what have you concluded in your paragraph? Indeed, what argument have you put forward, that this article is “turgid”?
Many are here complaining – but not too many are referring to the exact points I have made!!
I guess the point I”m making must be rock solid!
Borked said | February 28th 2010 @ 11:37am | Report comment
It’s obvious that Australia is not yet in a realistic position to host the World Cup. The benefits of massive one off traveling circus events like the Olympics and the World Cup are an illusion. The costs in South Africa have sky rocketed as tickets remain unsold and anticipated tourism numbers have fallen. When even Germany at the heart of the soccer universe can’t crack a profit I have no doubt at all that hosting the soccer World Cup in Australia will result in a loss to our economy measured in the billions of dollars.
It’s selfish and narrow minded for some people to so willingly risk increasing hospital waiting lists, closing schools, leaving roads and infrastructure unbuilt or unmaintained for what? To fulfill their own personal ambition of watching an event on television that happens to be being held in the same city or country as themselves?
It’s also extremely foolish for people to rely on governments to produce legitimate reports developed by “professional and specialized technicians employing the appropriate skills and methodologies”. People with any management or political experience know full well such reports are manipulated to meet preconceived outcomes. Naturally, the consequences of the invariably negative outcomes fall onto someone else.
Australia doesn’t need the World Cup for exposure, Australia already has a very high profile and strong tourism industry. Neither do we need the World Cup for reasons on ‘status’, for only in the eyes of cultural cringers, neo-colonialists and skinheads does Australia lack ‘status’.
MV Dave said | February 28th 2010 @ 11:51am | Report comment
The German WC made over 135 million Euros profit! (use Google). Once l read that BS in the post l could guarentee what the rest would say…must be a boring world where you live! Oz has a very good chance of hosting the 2022 WC Bork…perhaps you should arrange some early holidays out of the country.
Borked said | February 28th 2010 @ 11:56am | Report comment
I used Google and what did I find: “Soccer World Cup Hardly Touched German Economy”
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2449448,00.html
MV Dave said | February 28th 2010 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
So you admit you were wrong…perhaps in future do some research instead of stating your hopes as fact. The German WC was extremely successful: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/ffprojects/ip-401_06e_tv_2658.pdf
Borked said | February 28th 2010 @ 10:37pm | Report comment
How ironic, there is nothing your linked document that describes the financial claims you’re making, but anyway you confuse the profits of FIFA with the economy of the host nation. In other words FIFA may have made a lot of money from the World Cup in Germany, but the Germans didn’t. FIFA would no doubt make a lot of money at Australia’s expense too if we give them the chance.
You might find this link helpful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 11:08pm | Report comment
That’s the bottom line – FIFA does very well out of it, the FFA will probably do well out of it – the taxpayer picks up the bill to the tune of billions of dollars.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 11:09pm | Report comment
It’s actually cheaper for the taxpayer to simply hand over $50 million to the FFA.
Oh, hang on, that’s already happened a few times.
Borked said | February 28th 2010 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
Oh dear, here’s another one.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/46140/world_cup_2006_economics.html?cat=3
“Now that the last penalty kick has been taken, predictions can be blown away and we sift through statistics. The most damning economic statistic from World Cup 2006? Despite visits from an incredible two million tourists (full-on double the expected number) spending 600 million (approximately US $766 million), the country’s Institute for Economic Research has new data showing that German economic growth will be approximately 0.25%, half the expected amount. Since Germany’s economic growth was predicted to be 1.6% this year, the overestimation of World Cup 2006 income is bound to haunt German politicos for a while.”
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 4:44pm | Report comment
Borked
you’re right, it’s very easy to find articles, written by Germans, that question the cost/benefit of staging the WC – and that was in the middle of Europe where 300 million prosperous soccer fans are within a day’s train ride away.
MV Dave is correct as well that FIFA made something lke 135 million Euros from the WC, and about one third of that was handed over to the German FA.
But this is the interesting thing – that one third share (some 45 million Euros) will not even cover 20% of the compensation the AFL will need for the interuption to its season (and that’s just for the use of the MCG).
Borked said | February 28th 2010 @ 10:47pm | Report comment
I am honestly surprised at the low the amount claimed. 135 million euros is hardly worth the effort. That’s a long way from the massive economic boost originally promised. There are much better ways to spend our money with a much better upside.
MV Dave said | March 1st 2010 @ 5:34am | Report comment
So from saying the German WC didnt make any money to now admitting it was 135 million Euros in profit…but now saying its not that much! Typical of the anti Sokkah brigade…why dont you just admit that you dont want the WC in Oz because you hate Sokkah…at least you will then have said something honest.
Borked said | March 1st 2010 @ 7:36am | Report comment
Even if you include profit of FIFA, the event still made a net loss overall. Semantic games cannot deny facts: The World Cup ran at a loss in the heart of Europe.
Mister Football said | March 1st 2010 @ 7:40am | Report comment
Yes – people have trouble separating out the profit FIFA might make (which is virtually guaranteed), and the huge loss the taxpayer will make.
Why is the FIFA profit guaranteed?
Because it keeps all the revenue – and the taxpayer meets all the costs and accepts all the risks – all of them – FIFA accepts zero risk.
And yet people try and make out how it’s meant to be some sort of huge boon to the average Australian!!
Punter said | March 1st 2010 @ 7:44am | Report comment
So we have gone from ‘costing taxpayers billions of dollars’ to a net overall lost?
I Wish you ‘Sheedy boys’ would get your facts right.
Borked said | March 1st 2010 @ 8:15am | Report comment
Punter,
Your disingenuous responses can’t disguise the facts. The World Cup in Germany ran at a loss. FIFA walked away with a profit. A World Cup in Australia would almost certainly cost taxpayers billions of dollars. They are not exclusive and contradictory statements.
Punter said | March 1st 2010 @ 8:23am | Report comment
Where are your facts Borked?
If every country is going to run at a loss, why are so many countries bidding for the WC?
Just come out & say it, go on, you don’t want the WC in Australia. Absolutley nothing to do with anything else apart from the fact that you don’t want the WC in Australia, pure & simple.
Borked said | March 1st 2010 @ 8:31am | Report comment
My statements are back by facts and logic which have already been posted and discussed. You on the other hand haven’t refuted a single point and continue to argue in non-sequiturs in an effort to avoid addressing the points raised. That a country bids for a World Cup, doesn’t automatically mean the World Cup is profitable, indeed different places will have different prospects.
You too could use some help from the following link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)
Michael C said | March 1st 2010 @ 9:02am | Report comment
I would find it astounding if anyone seriously felt they could present any of the German hosted 2006 FIFA WC metrics as a justification for Australia to host the FIFA WC.
There’s absolutely zero comparison – - they are diametrically opposed.
Germany is a massive soccer nation in the heart of Europe and accessible to all. Venues galore, a soccer nation – no hosting conflictions. A perfect host nation.
Australia is everything that Germany is not. i.e. a long way from anywhere, not a soccer nation, stuff all venues, major domestic conflictions, poor time zones etc
and FIFA, after all, generates 90% of their revenue from their WC every 4 years – - it’s not a gamble that FIFA want’s to take too many years running. (one wouldn’t imagine).
We know that FIFA gobble up the broadcast rights, the ticketing, the signage/advertising etc and leave stuff all for the local authorities and then channel a dividend effectively to the domestic soccer authorities. It’s hard to see how – and using Sth Africa presently as an example with sluggish ticket sales, prices being reduced and Australians being amongst the highest represented purchasors – it’s hard to see Australia as a nation being left enough scope to make enough money back on it all. But – I’m sure if this Govt with it’s fine track record says it’s possible……well, just like the Health system that is getting fixed before our very eyes…….
Mister Football said | March 1st 2010 @ 9:05am | Report comment
MC
and on top of everything you have said, even with all the advantages enjoyed by Germany – ultimately it’s bottom line was underwhelmiing to say the least.
Australians need to take a long hard look at the disaster that is about to unfold in South Africa (disaster in the sense that its taxpayers will be in debt for decades)
It’s worth recording that Canada only recenlty paid off its debt in relation to the 1976 Olympic games.
Punter said | March 1st 2010 @ 9:15am | Report comment
Borked, you statements are backed by facts, please tell where are your facts? Please show me your facts that Australia will losde billinons by hosting the WC in Australia? Please understand the difference between facts & opinions.
Michael C,
More people in Asia (yes near Australian timezone) watched the WC in Germany than any other region in the world. But like your fellow ‘Sheedy’s boys’, don’t let facts get in the way of your argument.
The US is not a Football nation, more people attended the WC in 94 than any WC.
Mister Football said | March 1st 2010 @ 9:18am | Report comment
Punter
the FFA’s own report said straight out: just expenditure on stadiums of $2.9 billion will result in a tagible loss of some $1.4 billion – and that’s before we factor in all the other costs!!
yes – the TV ratings are huge, massive, bigger than big – but the taxpayer doesn’t get one cent for that!!
The taxpayer foots the bill – and FIFA banks the money – that’s the two card trick.
Borked said | March 1st 2010 @ 11:02am | Report comment
Punter,
Once again, the evidence has already been presented and you have not refuted a single point. If Germany cannot profit from the World Cup given the advantages the sport enjoys relative to Australia, it is extremely unlikely that Australia would do better than Germany.
As posted by Mr Football, Australia needs to spend AT LEAST $2.9 billion to host the World Cup. Given the track record of Olympic and World Cup spending, it is very likely the final figure will probably double that amount at a minimum. As posted elsewhere in this discussion the cost of the Sydney Olympics and the World Cup in South Africa increased sixfold over the initial estimates. If that was repeated in this case, the costs would rise to over $17 billion.
I would like to ask you, how many hospital beds, schools and roads do you think acceptable to forgo so Australia can host a once off event for a sport in which, as has been demonstrated with supporting evidence, Australians largely aren’t interested?
Mister Football said | March 2nd 2010 @ 6:29pm | Report comment
That’s right – the experience from both the 2000 OLympics and SA 2010 is that there is a six fold increase in costs from the original estimate to the final outcome.
And remember this – the $2.9 billlion was for stadiums only!!
Michael C said | March 5th 2010 @ 10:03am | Report comment
Mr.Football -
135 mill operating profit before tax,
after tax and contribution to FIFA,
leaves 56.6 mill euros……so, the 135 million is rather misleading.
And that was the last FIFA WC with the local organising committee being entitled to gross receipts of ALL ticket sales.
From 2010 on, FIFA has reassumed responsibility for ticket sales and will establish a company named “2010 FIFA World Cup Ticketing Ltd” to this end.
So, Mr.Football, don’t let anyone ever again claim that 135 million ‘profit’ is in any way relevant to an Australian hosting of a 2018/2022 FIFA WC.
It’s all about FIFA now more so than ever before.
Michael C said | March 5th 2010 @ 9:49am | Report comment
Okay MVDAve – “The German WC made over 135 million Euros profit!”
referencing DCFC’s HM Treasury document – the German WC operating budget (not to be confused with total costs vs revenue including infrastructure etc) was €135 BEFORE TAX and BEFORE paying back the contribution to FIFA.
After these ‘incidentals’ – the figure as €56.6 – - which was left for the German Soccer association and league to share up. That is equivalent to £38 million.
Now – - minor point is that for German 2006, FIFA didn’t control the ticketing – this was the MAJOR source of organising committee operating revenue (the other 2 sources being some commercial rights around the tournament, regarding ‘activity permissible…determined by FIFA’, and income from FIFA….i.e. in Germany 2006, FIFA contributed such that England factored a future WC contribution as £110m in 2006 prices.
Now – the ticketing – in Oct 2007 FIFA announced the following :
Furthermore, the question of ticket sales for South Africa 2010 was discussed……Since the 2006 FIFA World Cup, FIFA has reassumed responsibility for ticket sales and will establish a company named “2010 FIFA World Cup Ticketing Ltd” to this end. In addition, on account of the distances involved, a programme for tour operators will be launched to enable certified and authorised companies to offer combined ticket and travel package deals.
So, FIFA has effectively taken over – - you can’t quote anything from Germany 2006 as being at all relevant.
Jeb said | February 28th 2010 @ 12:08pm | Report comment
i wasn’t aware that we (along with england, spain, usa, russia, japan et al) were bidding for the world cup in order to get exposure or because we lacked status. Rather, I think we’ll win it because of our status.
similarly i didn’t know that the choices were world cup or schools and hospital beds. we better cancel anything with fireworks now!
“australia is not yet in a realistic position to host the world cup” – i call cultural cringe.
best not to rely on government reports heh (let alone google), best to just make up your own mind without any basis, apart from predjudice.
Borked said | February 28th 2010 @ 12:22pm | Report comment
It has been a common theme among World Cup enthusiasts and soccer commentators that Australia was a insular backward country lacking status because people here generally don’t care about soccer and have objected to hosting the World Cup. We have also often been told what a boon the exposure would provide to Australia.
It’s disingenuous to compare the cost a few million dollars worth of fireworks to spending billions of dollars on the World Cup. The risks with respect to rewards are far greater and the cost of fireworks is more easily determinable before spending a cent. We won’t know the true cost of the World Cup until we are well down the road.
I don’t know how you conclude I am suffering cultural cringe, quite the opposite in fact. I am not against Australia hosting the World Cup, I really don’t care so long as it doesn’t take a disproportionate amount of taxpayer money. I think it would be far more sensible for the FFA to evolve and fund the development of soccer stadiums to the point where it is a much more financially realistic proposition.
bever fever said | February 28th 2010 @ 12:44pm | Report comment
Look i agree, when soccer pays off its own back and develops its own stadiums, and does not attempt to hijack and undermine stadiums from other codes then it can bid to its hearts content.
Jeb said | February 28th 2010 @ 1:09pm | Report comment
Most polls show australians generally want the world cup and its the biggest participation sport by a country mile, so i don’t think the soccer commentators refer to australia as backwards country. Rather they may be referring those that doubt the size and importance of the event. Happy to be shown wrong.
Re fireworks – happy for sarcasm to be taken literally, so i take your point.
so after the talk of schools, hospital beds, mending roads etc it comes down to get your own stadiums. THAT would be a waste.
Borked said | February 28th 2010 @ 2:49pm | Report comment
“Most polls show australians generally want the world cup..”
You mean online polls or real polls? Regardless, don’t make a wrong thing right.
“…and its the biggest participation sport by a country mile”
Nose picking has even more participants again. What is your point? Are you trying to claim soccer is so important to Australians that it’s ok to throw away billions of dollars?
“…may be referring those that doubt the size and importance of the event”
You’ve perfectly demonstrated the mentality that most soccer fans can’t seem to get past. I know this is hard for soccer fans to understand, but just because you care about something doesn’t mean everyone else does. There is no doubting the size and importance of the event TO PEOPLE IN PLACES THAT CARE ABOUT SOCCER. It means nothing to most Australians, like it means nothing to most Americans. Should Argentina be spending a lot of money to host the Stanley Cup because it means a lot to Canadians? Should the Polish be criticized for not recognizing the size and importance of the Superbowl?
It’s like collectors of ear wax abusing people for not recognizing the importance of an ear wax candle making competition. It’s not the people that don’t care about soccer that have the problem, it’s the people that care about soccer that continually overestimate themselves and seem to regard everyone not preoccupied with their hobby as contemptible and seem to believe they have some innate and unearned right to large sums of money.
“it comes down to get your own stadiums. THAT would be a waste.”
Not necessarily in all circumstances, I wouldn’t be against appropriate levels of government funding. Regardless, please explain how you consider organic growth, followed by a World Cup that is far less likely to be a burden on our economy is a waste?
Jeb said | February 28th 2010 @ 6:05pm | Report comment
“It (the world cup) means nothing to most Australians”. well there you have it – the totally unbiased fact as presented by borked.
What I think YOU’RE failing to understand is that the world cup and the socceroos are kinda popular here. I stated the obvious re participation numbers, polls to show that you are totally wrong in saying that “people here generally don’t care about soccer”. sorry to introduce some facts to counter your opinion.
Building soccer specific stadiums would be a waste as the main comp the a-league is played in summer and therefore can use nrl grounds. therefore building soccer stadiums for a one-off wc would be a waste of resources, money etc.
Borked said | February 28th 2010 @ 7:46pm | Report comment
Jeb,
You’ve drawn conclusions that obviously aren’t valid based on a few doubtless suspect data points (which in point of fact you haven’t referenced). Are you seriously suggesting that Australians care about soccer in any way to the degree they care about the NRL or AFL? Clearly they don’t, do we really need to go through all the statistics to prove that particular point?
Anyway, being “kinda” popular isn’t justification for the expenditure required. Field hockey is “kinda” popular too, should we be spending billions on that sport?
Stadiums should only be built or upgraded when the need is apparent and the revenue stream is sure to pay down the costs. The FFA have not yet been around long enough and have not yet proven they can draw the support necessary to pay for stadium development over the long term. You are right that one off special events do not justify the necessary spending, it is consistent week in week out attendances that build stadiums.
It is very reasonable to suggest that the FFA should grow themselves organically in the same way the NRL and AFL had to grow themselves. That the FFA can share facilities with the NRL only makes it easier, although I have heard suggestions that the FFA will be switching back to a winter season.
When the demand is consistent and strong enough to justify building or developing stadium infrastructure for soccer (and rugby), a World Cup bid should be launched, but not before. This would mean better and financially viable stadiums, it would mean they would actually be used by soccer after the event, it would mean a better experience for soccer supporters, it would mean a financially viable World Cup, it would ultimately mean a healthier FFA. Most important of all, it would mean you and other soccer fans would not have to listen to griping from people like myself.
The FFA are too impatient, soccer fans are too impatient. You’re crawling and want to be olympic sprinters without first learning how to walk. This bid is premature and will cost us a lot of money.
bever fever said | February 28th 2010 @ 8:27pm | Report comment
I agree with a lot what you say Borked, i think you make plenty of points that even the soccer jihadists can see, even if they wont admit them.
If i could ever be bothered to log in, i would give you a thumbs up.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 8:31pm | Report comment
Yes – it is premature.
The thinking is as follows:
1. if we get the WC, the taxpayer will pay for a heap of stadiums we’d otherwise never get
rather than
2. let’s build up the game to the point where we justify our own stadiums, and then go for the World Cup.
Bork said | February 28th 2010 @ 9:05pm | Report comment
@ borked:
i can’t believe that anyone doubts soccer is the most played game. anyway…
http://www.census.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/4156.0.55.001Feature%20Article1May%202009?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4156.0.55.001&issue=May%202009&num=&view=
I know you may not believe/understand that a lot of people play a game you may not like but please don’t argue that i make claims based on “few doubtless suspect data points”.
“Are you seriously suggesting that Australians care about soccer in any way to the degree they care about the NRL or AFL?” Answer is no and puzzled where you imagined i suggested that.
Jeb said | February 28th 2010 @ 11:13pm | Report comment
@ borked:
can’t believe you’d want references to show participation numbers. anyway…
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/4156.0.55.001Feature%20Article1May%202009?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=4156.0.55.001&issue=May%202009&num=&view=
maybe hard to believe for you, no? but not really a “few doubtless suspect data points”. Now what is YOUR opinion that we don’t care about soccer based upon? The fact you don’t like the game?
“Are you seriously suggesting that Australians care about soccer in any way to the degree they care about the NRL or AFL?” No, and i’m puzzled how you imagined i suggested it.
Punter said | March 1st 2010 @ 6:24am | Report comment
I find it funny that people compare the Stanley Cup or even the Superbowl to the WORLD (by this I mean the world is interested as opposed to the newspaper ‘world’ in world series) Cup
Borked said | March 1st 2010 @ 8:00am | Report comment
I love the ABS link. Obviously you want to focus on participation, because every other data point shows that Australians overwhelmingly prefer locally developed sports to soccer, but even so the data does not support your argument.
The glowing statistics for soccer participation break down when you remove ‘people kicking a ball around a park’, then it drops to fourth in participation. As far as disorganized sport is concerned, nearly every other code is behind ‘touch football’. That certainly convinces me that touch football is the second most important sport in Australia and we must immediately spend billions of dollars hosting the Touch Football World Cup.
Jeb said | March 1st 2010 @ 8:29am | Report comment
@ borked
so how does the data not support my argument, which is only that you are wrong to say that australians generally don’t care for soccer and the world cup. And whether you like it or not, whether you put your own deluded spin on them or not, the stats are there to show you that you are wrong. It’s a bit much to say show me the references and then say yeah but, but, but… you’ve got a track record of this.
where now is the data to support your argument. a vox pop amongst mates? maybe another time borked
Borked said | March 1st 2010 @ 8:40am | Report comment
Jeb,
Spin is trying to take people that casually wander down to the park to kick around a soccer ball, as some kind of measure of the popularity of soccer. I kick a soccer ball around a park sometimes, I’ve probably got three soccer balls in my garage, as would just about every person in Australia. Does that mean all those people really care about soccer? By these standards Touch Football is a sport for which Australians are extremely passionate.
As far as organized club sport goes, as far as match attendances go, as far as any real measure of support is concerned soccer is well behind every other code.
Michael C said | March 1st 2010 @ 8:46am | Report comment
Remember –
these ABS stats – you do realise they are statistical extrapolations based on surveys of generally b/w 5000 and 15,000 respondants,
it’s not ABSOLUTE data.
it’s indicative, a guide, and best seen over time to illustrate trends.
However – re the indicative element, we know that soccer generally wins on football code comparisons on the basis of the following :
males/females combined,
high levels of ‘non-organised’ activity
and
higher participation above the age of 35
as well as,
the obvious, that RL and AFL effectively cancel each other out in the main, and soccer comes through in a Stephen Bradbury manner, not really in front anywhere, but wins on the line.
Jeb said | March 1st 2010 @ 9:59am | Report comment
@ micheal c: thanks for pointing out (the obvious) that the abs figures are based upon a survey of a limited number. Let me know when absolute data comes through. A referendum to determine if australian care about soccer or wants the world cup perhaps? The great bork debate.
Sam said | February 28th 2010 @ 1:04pm | Report comment
There seem to be a lot of people poking holes in this article, but the one thing that popped out at me was the SA Govt not wanting anything to do with the WC. This is complete rubbish isn’t it? Since when? I thought one of the motivations behind spending money upgrading Adelaide Oval was so that it would meet FIFA requirements to host WC matches?
Tony said | February 28th 2010 @ 1:47pm | Report comment
I rekon it would be an absolute joke if the SANFL fell for the Adelaide Oval scam. A stadium no larger than Football Park of which all the best seats will be given to the Adelaide elites for relatively nothing, leaving plenty of existing Crows supporters in the outer or not in at all. It’s a horrible deal.
By the way, the SA government was conned by soccer when building the Hindmarsh stadium, so I would not be surprised if they don’t want to be involved again.
http://www.audit.sa.gov.au/00-01/h_contents.htm
Timmuh said | February 28th 2010 @ 4:43pm | Report comment
My understanding is that Adelaide Oval is being upgaded rgardless. It will be made FIFA compliant if the WC bid is successful, but whether any costs associated with that change will be using SA or Federal, or some mix, money is unclear.
Mister Football said | February 28th 2010 @ 4:49pm | Report comment
Sam
this is the interesting thing – the whole WC question has muddied the waters.
At some point, Adelaide will need a better oval – and whether that is a facility to be shared between cricket and aussie rules remains a bone of contention.
The reason why the WC has muddied the waters is that the SA Govt can now sit back and allow the Commonwealth to fund far, far more than woudl have been the case otherwise.
This is part of what I have said in my article – currently – there is zero incentive for any of the SA/WA/ACT Governments to put up one red cent.
The Feds need Adelaide, Perth and CAnberra far, far more than any of them need a WC.
Mister Football said | March 2nd 2010 @ 6:32pm | Report comment
Also Sam – you said: “There seem to be a lot of people poking holes in this article…”
Where are the examples of that?
Talk to any South Australian about the true situatioon in relatoin to AO.