Before and during the Brazil 2014 World Cup, protests were rife as a percentage of the citizens were displeased with the levels of investment that had gone into hosting a global football party. The event came and went, the world watched as Germany lifted the famous trophy and after 30 days, the world, especially FIFA, went back to its business leaving Brazil to make sense of its post-World Cup drama.

The White Elephant Effect

The most visible expenditure Brazil incurred during the World Cup was the construction, and renovation in some cases, of stadiums. The danger with the construction on such a grand scale is not if they are pretty enough to host the World Cup but if the local football economy can sustain and justify the existence of these stadiums afterwards. Brazil might be a huge footballing country but even in many parts of the country, clubs struggle to attract large enough crowds. Perhaps not surprising to most, only eight months after the World Cup, news emerged that Mane Garrincha stadium in Brasilia, Brazil’s most expensive to construct and the world’s second morst expensive, behind only Wembley, is now being used as, amongst many other things, a bus depot. In a bid to put the staidum to use, the stadium caters to state visits, serves as an office to government employees and also a bus depot.

Mane Garrincha cost a staggering £350 million to construct, three times more than originally budgeted, and after the World Cup the stadium’s monthly maintenance costs are almost £130,000. With a capacity of 72,000 and local clubs who can only manage to pull average crowds of 5,000, Mane Garrincha has evolved from magnificent World Cup venue to a classic white-elephant project.

World Cup spending versus public sector spending

The wisdom behind spending so much on a stadium with little or no utility after the World Cup again raises questions around Brazil’s spending. In truth, most of the protests around the World Cup were not against the event itself, they were against the fact that so much had been spent, in questionable circumstances too, on what could cynically be described as a jamboree in comparison with other pertinent issues in Brazil. The total cost of hosting the World Cup in Brazil, according to Forbes, stood at $8 billion, about 57% of the country’s entire education budget for 2014 which was pegged at $14 billion. The government’s readiness to spend so much on the World Cup while dragging its feet on the nation’s substandard public services was always going to leave a bad taste and it must be even more head-scratching for the citizens who will struggle with balancing thoughts of knowing that other public services are in dire need in critical injection of funds.

To host or not to host?

The bottom line for many countries, especially those with emerging economies, is that sports events, especially on the scale of the World Cup are tricky roads to tread. The downsides of hosting the event seemingly outweigh the somewhat fabled positives. Generally, the advantages the World Cup offers in intangible terms is a mythical increase in national profile and more tangibly, economic impact along the lines of tourism, job creation and stimulation of local businesses (Scottish businesses won over $766 million of the total contracts for the 2014 Commonwealth Games).

The tourism boom during global sports events is undeniable- according to Ernst and Young, Brazil had an influx of 2.48 million more people in 2014 than it did in 2013- as is the effect the event will have on creating jobs but the argument to be had is if the effects are long-lasting enough to justify the expenditure incurred to put the event together. FIFA, in comparison, do not bear the major costs of hosting (FIFA’s biggest expenses at the 2010 World Cup was $348 million in prize money for participating member associations and $326 million to South African organizing committee) but rake in incredible profits with the 2010 World Cup yielding $2.36 billion in profits.

Usually, the question on everyone lips is this: should countries fall over themselves to host major sporting events? Perhaps, the more important question is this: can they afford it?