Australia’s Brett Holman, center, celebrates with fellow team members Harry Kewell, left, and Mark Bresciano, right, after scoring a goal during the World Cup Group D soccer match between Ghana and Australia at Royal Bafokeng Stadium in Rustenburg, South Africa, on Saturday, June 19, 2010. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)
Australian football’s date with destiny looms large on the horizon now that the 2010 World Cup is over. On 2 December, FIFA announces the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 tournaments. Should Australia land the 2022 World Cup, it’ll be a game changer for the sport in this country.
Forgetting the inevitable and enormous wave of patriotic fervor and party atmosphere that would accompany us hosting teams and fans from 31 countries around the world (just ask South Africans what that’s like), there would be a huge economic benefit.
According to the business information research and analysis group IBISWorld, a World Cup on our shores will result in $35.56 billion of spending across our economy, compared to the estimated $9.1 billion of spending during the Sydney 2000 Olympics.
Not a bad return for the $11.37m of taxpayer-funded money being spent to bid.
According to Simon Hill of Fox Sports, “South Africa welcomed nearly 400,000 visitors during the World Cup – in total, the tournament’s contribution to the nation’s GDP was 93 billion rand ($14 billion) – enough to add half a percentage point to its annual growth (estimated to be three per cent this year).”
And unlike the 2000 Sydney Olympics, those benefits, economic and otherwise, will be spread across the country, from Adelaide to Townsville.
But the benefits will be more intrinsic to Australia’s sporting prowess leading into and following the World Cup.
For the FFA, it will provide the chance to create a 12-year blueprint to drastically alter the structure of the game, invest in youth development and solidify the structures around the A-League and state leagues, with the ultimate goal of being in a position to follow the example of Uruguay, Italy, Germany, Argentina, England and France and win a World Cup at home. In fact, the number of countries to win at home should act as even more of a spur to use this opportunity to invest in the possibility of winning a World Cup.
If you want proof of the unifying power of sport and the difference an investment in hosting major events can make, look to the new world champions, Spain, with decades of regional divide being replaced by the united celebration of their sporting successes.
So often the underachiever, Spain is now, arguably, the number one sporting nation on the planet.
In addition to their European and World Cup football titles (not to mention Barcelona’s recent success at club level), Spain is champions in basketball (winners of the 2006 FIBA World Championship’s and silver medalists from the 2008 Beijing Olympics), tennis’ Davis Cup, and silver medalists in men’s field hockey – successes in arguably four of the most global sports.
Rafael Nadal is the world number one in tennis and rattling off Grand Slams; Alberto Contador is set to claim his third consecutive Tour de France; Pau Gasol has established himself as a key ingredient in the Los Angeles Lakers’ NBA dynasty; Fernando Alonso has won two Formula 1 championships this past decade and could have had more; and Jorge Lorenzo is well on his way to the MotoGP title.
Spain is reaping the rewards of the huge investment and spending that went into the 1992 Barcelona Olympics, in terms of facilities, infrastructure and youth development (several government and corporate funded scholarships, etc). It’s also the inevitable result of increased interest in sport from youngsters and their parents that comes with hosting such a major sporting event.
Following their World Cup victory, Spain has conquered the final (and most difficult) sporting frontier.
The expression “last frontier”, used so fervently by Craig Foster (who else?) and others, is fitting in Australia’s case.
Australia has conquered so many of the sporting world’s frontiers; from numerous Olympic disciplines, the America’s Cup, rugby World Cup, hockey World Cup, Davis Cup, Formula 1 and motorbike world championships, etc, etc.
And even in those frontiers that remain elusive, in the far reaches of the sporting world, Australians are close to conquering them or increasing in competitiveness – think the Tour de France, American motorsports, basketball and more.
But the football World Cup is the one that counts the most and will be the most difficult to win for a country hamstrung by its stunted history.
It won’t be easy.
Look at Holland; a nation that revolutionised how the game was played in the 1970s and has been lauded for its youth academies, which have produced an endless stream of talent, yet has never won a World Cup.
Stephen Samuelson, sports editor of smh.com.au, recently wrote a controversial piece summed up best by its title: “AFL is a dead-end sport that hinders us on global stage.”
While I disagree with his dismissal of the importance of the AFL to Australian society and culture, he is right to suggest there is more to gain in terms of Australia’s international reputation and prowess by producing the next Tim Cahill, Mark Webber, Cadel Evans and co, rather than channeling funds and focusing only on our domestic codes and producing their next crop of stars.
Hosting a World Cup will help provide that impetus and investment for football in Australia; a goal to work towards in developing the game so the Socceroos are in a position to challenge for the World Cup come 2022.
And as IBISWorld, South Africa and Spain have proved, football won’t be the only winner.
Kurt
Roar Pro
KB. Wow, that is a knock out blow. I present serious, peer reviewed papers by respected economists and you present a press release from the German tourism board. I guess that's game set and match to you then.
Australian Football
Roar Guru
No Proof---BB lampooned any suggestion. I asked you to give a quote from BB that he was seriously considering the idea... There is NONE ! ! Stop the lies... _____ AF
Michael C
Roar Guru
AF (KB),....are you there??? we get sick of this same old argument over and over and over again, please stop making inflaming comments, and then running away when a proof is provided. please check out the time line, the links, the statements, and acknowledge it. Otherwise, we'll only ever be spinning our wheels which is tiresome for everyone (especially theRoar editors I dare say!!).
Australian Football
Roar Guru
"That's a very, very expensive option and it's not necessarily one that we propose to push forward with," he said. You see it was never a serious option that BB endorsed or was considering.. He lampooned the idea from some unauthorised suggestion from an AFL inspired journo no doubt. Even the most ardent Football supporter could see that was never a consideration. In a later TV news report he explained that the only work to be done was to corporate boxes, media facilities, and the players dressing rooms.
Michael C
Roar Guru
Jimbo - as per usual, you miss the point entirely, it's not about an attack on a single code - - however, it's a caution for a 'single code' major event. FOr Germany - - no chance of it backfiring, for South Africa......well, that's yet to be seen.
jimbo
Roar Guru
Yes, football is sending lots of countries broke and is responsible for the world global financial crisis. After Portugal goes broke, it will be Germany next and then South Africa, who were foolish enough to hold a football world cup, which only leads to financial ruin. Their economies would have been saved if they played Aussie Rules instead. :)
Michael C
Roar Guru
AF - time frame for you. Dec 7 - 2009 : ANDREW DEMETRIOU: We are led to believe that the MCG would need to be decommissioned for around about 16 weeks. That is because they want to put some seating in on the lower bowl. I mean, if that is true that would put our season in jeopardy and that is something that we need to get some clarification on. Dec 8 - 2009 : Football Federation Australia, which is bidding for the World Cup in 2018 or 2022, was forced to back away from a $130 million plan to reconfigure the MCG into a rectangular playing field. FFA boss Ben Buckley, a former senior AFL executive, said the proposed $130 million reconfiguration was just one option. "That's a very, very expensive option and it's not necessarily one that we propose to push forward with," he said. So - - Demetriou states 'IF' the MCG reconfig is true, then season would be in jeopardy. That's a conditional statement. And - - Buckley admits it is but one (expensive) option. And, how do the soccer heads react?? This is where it started getting distorted, Dec 12 - 2009 Stan Lazaridis - For Demetriou to say the World Cup could put three or four AFL clubs out of business is uncalled for. Now - - Demetriou never said unconditionally that a WC was putting clubs at jeopardy, Demetriou spoke of the conditional situation around the extended loss of the MCG (and Docklands). Given that everyone was fine over the MCG for no more than 8 wks (and the AFL willing to hand over for up to 10 wks).....no problem there. And Docklands,.....well, funny that there's still people who blame the AFL that Vic only has 2 venues,....and yet, never was it suggested that there would be more than 2 venues and one of those (back in 2008) was assumed to be AAMI park......ah well!!!
Michael C
Roar Guru
try again, Fears Portugal may be next to fall in debt crisis
st penguin
Guest
yeah, some people did arrange to go on holidays - and regretted it!
Australian Football
Roar Guru
When did Ben Buckley ever say he would rectangularise the MCG for the Football World Cup..? Give me some evidence that was a realistic option that the FFA were ever considering.. Give me a quote.. It was a fabrication and belief of the AFL press.
"The AFL (in the guise of Andrew Demetriou) stated that they may have to cancel an entire season if the World Cup bid was won by Australia, because there would be nowhere to re-schedule games if the MCG was out of action for 12 weeks." Half-true. Note, the the qualifier "may" was contingent on the rectangularisation of the MCG; an option which has since been scrapped. Any resultant "hysteria" as you put it, is the fault of the sensationalist and subjective ramblings of the Fourth Estate. Many so-called 'journalists' have inaccurately reported this saga, but don't worry I'm clarifying it for you. If you actually read what Andrew Demetriou said about that 'potential cancellation', you'll find that he backs up everything he says with objective reasoning; he does not descend into emotional and loaded arguements; there was absolutely nothing hysterical about what A.D. said in regards to the season cancellation. Demetriou never said it was an absolute, and went to great paints to explain the conditions under which a cancellation MAY occur. Also, Demetriou is very careful in what he says, notice the avoidance of absolute qualifiers and a preference for relative qualifiers. If you think he is anti-soccer, bad luck for you, because he is doing a brilliant job at maintaining plausible deniability. You seem to need education on some basic English, because you failed to pick up on these points Andrew was making. Allow me to enlighten you: http://changingminds.org/techniques/language/modifying_meaning/qualifiers.htm http://www.memidex.com/absolute-qualifier But I digress, getting back to your flawed explanation of the 'potential cancellation' of an AFL season: this has been explained hundreds of times, yet you persist in deceptively framing the story omitting crucial facts, why do you do it? Apaway let me ask you a serious question: why do you continue to push this dishonest version of events? You've been repeatedly called out on this particular topic, yet you continue to lie. Don't be dishonest, tell the full story apaway. "The contention was that IF Australia won the World Cup bid, the AFL had 12 years to come up with alternative venues for the time that the MCG..." Yep and I reject this contention. This is a poor excuse to lay the heavy-lifting onto the AFL, 'let them sort it out, they've got twelve years'. It is not AFL's World Cup, it is Soccer's WC and as such it is not incumbent upon the AFL to figure out stadia scheduling and other financial concerns, for a rival competitor's tournament. That task is incumbent upon the FFA. If they don't like it (not having the upper hand), then they can provide their own funds & stadiums, that is fair. Like I mentioned before I do not hold to this '12 years' arguement, so far no one has explained why '12 years' is a sufficient answer to real concerns TODAY. Note, I have seen this excuse used in arguement against the AFL, not just in reference to the MCG scheduling, but ALSO in reference to other points of concern regarding the WC bid. This is most frequently observed on 442 & TWG. So you see, your contention only covers one aspect of this lame excuse, which has been used multiple times in attempt to railroad genuine AFL concerns. Let me repeat that a third time, just so even you of all people can get it: "12 years to come up..." has been used on several occasions(even here on The Roar); not just the anecdote you refer to. I'm attempting to refute this utterly ridiculous line, once and for all. This is not how business works folks, you don't just put sh!t off for 12 years and hope it works out for the best.
Australian Football
Roar Guru
Kurt, see link..... http://www.germany-tourism.de/pdf/DZT_WM_Bilanz_Bro2008_Eng.pdf I have done what you have asked and my independent research of the 2006 FIFA world cup shows it was a resounding success on all fronts.. Maybe now you can shut your trap up on the negatives and focus on the benefits of hosting the World Cup here in Australia. _____ AF
st penguin
Guest
If it makes you feel better Kurt, I did take the bait and started reading economics papers for the first time since uni. Unfortunatley it reminded me why I didnt stick with economics - with so many differnt variables and the inability to conduct a controlled study it is virtually impossible to prove anything!
st penguin
Guest
go easy Norm, we've all been there!
Roger
Roar Rookie
Well, the thing is, whether intentional or not, it kind of sounds like you're saying that because the evidence is lacking, it's incorrect to state that there would be any economic benefits. I don't agree, especially when you consider both the direct and the indirect including the multiplier effect of every dollar spent. Now, before you jump on me for mentioning the multiplier effect, I understand that calculating it is fraught with difficulty. However, just because the exact value is difficult to calculate doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Yes, the evidence base to support the economic benefits is poor, but this doesn't mean we can dismiss any economic argument for hosting a WC.
Roger
Roar Rookie
Thanks for clarifying. In regards to additional visitor numbers, it would presumedly be quite easy to calculate by comparing the total number of visitors for the month of the WC, and perhaps a month either side to include those tourists who have specifically avoided the WC and those who arrived early, and compare the figures to the same 3 months in previous years. Surely someone has done this? Seems like a fairly straight forward figure to calculate.
Kurt
Roar Pro
Roger Your statement of my position is incorrect. In his article Adrian lists some claimed economic & financial benefits of hosting the world cup. I have argued that there is no evidence to support these claims and as such the argument is flawed and unproven. That's it. If I wrote an article entitled "World Cup will bankrupt Australia and lead to economic collapse" then I would be obliged to present evidence in support of this contention. However I'm not arguing that, I'm simply saying that the economic arguments presented in favour of mega events such as the Olympics and WC are flawed and lack support amongst serious economists. If others want to argue that we should host the WC because it will be a brilliant party and will help Australian soccer then fine, go ahead, make that argument. Just don't claim non-existent, unsubstantiated economic benefits.
Roger
Roar Rookie
Immediate conclusions? I have read all of your posts, and even looked up your references. So.... what did you mean by "Remember, knowledge is not something to be afraid of" then? Because that kind of sounds a little bit condescending to me. Please share what you meant, rather than jumping to conclusions about what I read.
Kurt
Roar Pro
Roger I make no comment about the education levels of soccer fans. Your responses above indicate you didn't even take the time to read my posts, and jumped to immediate conclusions about the points I was trying to make. Take the time to re-read them and get back to me. Now excuse me as I gallop away...
Kurt
Roar Pro
Roger My point is that there is no empirical evidence to support the contention that mega-events such as the World Cup bring the economic benefits that are claimed in advance. I make no broader claims about whether or not we should host the event, and accept that there may be non-economic arguments for hosting - e.g. - feel good factor, national pride etc. As I made it clear in my post I was specifically addressing those claimed economic benefits. Regarding visitor numbers, again my point is not that there will be no additional visitors during the WC, but rather that in order to calculate the net impact of visitors you need to factor in both those that come because of the event and those that don't come for the same reason. You can't just say 500,000 WC visitors each spending $9000 equals $4.5 billion spending and leave it at that. To understand the economic impact of the event you then need to subtract the spending that won't be done by those who would have come if the event was not being held. The end result will still most probably be a positive result, but far less than the claimed initial figure. Hope this is clear enough.