Hosting the World Cup is almost a sure thing Unlike the Olympic Games, which are either a huge loss or struggling to break even, hosting the World Cup is almost a sure thing. The last few World Cups have almost always had an input-output ratio of more than 1:2. The lowest was the 1998 World Cup in France, where US$1.5 billion was invested and US$2.5 billion was produced. The highest was the 2002 World Cup in Korea and Japan, where US$ 6.5 billion was spent and US$ 34.6 billion was produced.
Before the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, many South Africans complained that the government had invested too much in the tournament and the public opinion was not favourable. But after the tournament, the South African government alone made over US$4.9 billion from the World Cup.
The best example of this was in Brazil. 2014's World Cup in Brazil saw FIFA make a net profit of over US$2 billion, with Brazil earning over US$14 billion in direct and indirect revenue. And two years later, the 2016 Rio de Janeiro Olympics not only became the worst Olympics ever,
but it lost a lot of money.
The World Cup is now held on a rotating system across continents, but despite this, the huge financial stakes still make each World Cup the most competitive sporting event within each continent.
The World Cup has a clear pulling effect on national development
The Olympic Games is a city-based event, usually held in no more than two cities. The World Cup, on the other hand, is a special event held on a national basis. In 2014 Brazil chose 12 standardised football stadiums in 12 cities and this year Russia has prepared 12 stadiums in 11 cities. 2006 will see the number of teams expand to 48, requiring more cities to host and a greater impact on the development of the host country.
Hosting the World Cup has a clear pulling effect on the development of a dozen cities in the host country. The influx of fans into a country places a high demand on
accommodation and food in the various cities hosting the tournament. These fans also have to follow the teams from city to city in the host country, placing high demands on transport and collaboration between cities in the host country, something that the Olympic Games can't match.
A significant boost to the international image and standing of the host country
Due to the huge international impact of the World Cup, the host country must be in the global spotlight before, during and after the event. During the tournament, the heads of state of the participating countries visit the host country in large numbers. A world-renowned home diplomacy will bring great international influence to the host country and help to improve its international standing.
Earlier this year, Russia faced a collective siege from the US, Europe and other Western countries, but because Russia was about to host the World Cup, the diplomatic conflict between Russia and the West, although intense,
did not reach the point of tearing up. Although the UK and Iceland have made the decision to politically boycott the World Cup, they are only officials not attending the World Cup and do not dare to boycott the tournament outright.
In addition, the World Cup will bring a large number of foreign fans into the host country, which will help to improve the international image of the host country by providing a more direct understanding of the country. The positive effects of a good international image on the host country, such as increased tourism and foreign investment, are long-term and sustainable.
因篇幅问题不能全部显示，请点此查看更多更全内容