Hosting FIFA World Cup on the basis of Economic, Environmental and Social Perspective
The World Cup is called for the fact that it is a worldwide competition. The term “world” is derived from the Old English word “woruld,” which means “humanity.” The term “cup” is derived from the Old English word “cuppe,” which means “small vessel for holding liquids.” A trophy featuring a sculpture carrying a big cup was the initial reward for winning the World Cup. The Hosting World Cup by FIFA is an international football event held every four years among senior men’s domestic leagues from nations that are participants of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the championship’s administrative organization (FIFA). Every championship draws millions of television viewers, making it the biggest athletic event on the planet. Countries qualify for the World Cup by competing in international competition for three years ahead of the actual event. Once the final 32 teams have accepted, they will compete in the host country’s final tournament. These tournaments span roughly a month and take place in various places around the host country. The Hosting World Cup by FIFA is now the world’s most successful international football competition and the most-watched visited and followed the athletic event. Every year, thousands of people across the globe tune in to watch the World Cup, which has a larger audience than the Olympic Games. Countries frequently fight ferociously for the privilege to Hosting World Cup by FIFA World Cup finals in football. This report deals with the categorization of FIFA World Cups in mega-events by performing detailed discussions and undertaking research to add to the current material (Fett, 2020). A significant positive trend is included to compensate for the events’ impact. Several authors have studied FIFA Hosting World Cup tournaments extensively in the past. This paper examines the relevance of mega-events in determining infrastructure expansion by evaluating their effects in a sample of cities worldwide, using the globalization of gigantic as a preliminary step (Müller & Gaffney, 2018). It’s especially curious about the similarities and variances in effect.
The World Cup is considered football’s peak of triumph, with past winners including Pele, Bobby Moore, and the late Maradona. Whereas the event’s primary goal is to give pleasure to football fans throughout the world, its commercialization has had long-term consequences for several countries. There are some perspectives. They are as follows:
- The Economic Impacts: The economic impact of hosting the world cup is usually lower than expected. Places lacking the requisite infrastructure may be well off not making proposals because most cities have ended up heavily in debt after hosting the games (WILLS, 2019). Even though the World Cup is one of the most-watched sporting events, few contemplate the economic impact it may have, and even fewer analyze the potential that it may be detrimental to the host nation. Whereas the competition is just two months long, the planning required to create and construct all of the infrastructures and arrange the event takes over a decade.
The most noticeable consequence of hosting the World Cup is the host country’s general economic development and rise in expenditure. The World Cup requires stadiums to meet specific capacity and infrastructure criteria, resulting in many temporary jobs in the country. The overall rise in spending on different characteristics, such as equipment, is continued, adding to the host country’s GDP. The 2002 World Cup, co-hosted by South Korea and Japan, demonstrated these impacts.
Cities that host the Olympics earn temporary jobs due to infrastructural upgrades that will benefit them in the long run. For example, for lifestyle management, Rio built 15,000 extra hotel rooms. For the 2014 Olympics, Sochi spent roughly $42.5 billion on non-sports infrastructure.
It has been suggested that both the planning and the execution of the Word Cup result in increased economic activity. Moreover, it has been recommended that this higher level be maintained long after the event has ended (Sturgess & Brady, 2006). Stakeholders who hold this viewpoint argue that the host must make significant expenditures in sports-related infrastructure and other types of infrastructure to prepare for the event. Three sorts of funding would be used to make these investments:
- investments by supranational organizations;
- investments by private stakeholders; and
- investments by government stakeholders.
World Cup would provide the host with information that would not otherwise be provided, which is an implied assumption as to why these investments would lead to higher economic growth. The logic is that if the incident hadn’t happened, an increase in the national and some private stakeholders would have decided not to invest in the country or would have achieved so on a much lesser level. Furthermore, it is suggested that a political stalemate would have impeded the proper deployment of available public resources in these capital projects.
According to the reasoning for more excellent economic activity, structural reforms would likely serve as a growth engine for the local economy, as the needed building materials require internal and external outputs from other local businesses. Moreover, these initiatives would create new jobs in the local sector in the near term because these initiatives may necessitate a significant amount of work. As a result, these additional jobs may increase expenditure in the region, creating a multiplier impact across the economy.
FIFA stipulates that proposals to Hosting World Cup contain significant tax breaks for the organization. When Germany hosted the 2006 World Cup, it paid FIFA an approximate $272 million in tax breaks, with South Africa and Brazil following likewise in 2010 and 2014. The agreements create tax-free zones around the World Cup sites, with FIFA’s business partners immune from income and sales taxes.
Hosting World Cup country greatly exaggerates the net economic effect of hosting one-time athletic mega-events such as the World Cup. Because of the negative interest expenses and crowded out of other economic activities, the overall direct impact is likely to be zero-sum at best. Other countries are drawn to the host country in the hopes of future trade. It also aids in their economic development.
- The Impacts from Environmental Perspective: Environmental preservation must be handled seriously, although FIFA’s track record on conservation is mixed. Looking back to 2014, Brazil’s so-called “Green Cup” looked intended to be the most ecologically friendly World Cup ever, even attempting to reverse the harm inflicted by former hosts South Africa.
Hosting World Cup are always forthright with their sustainability plans, but one must consider the impact that mass building, no matter how green, may have on the local ecosystem and the world. With plumes of black smoke glistening and land getting ripped up to make way for a plethora of brand-new stadiums, one would question how seriously Russia is taking things.
Not only was the 2014 World Cup the most expensive ever, but FIFA’s carbon footprint estimate was shockingly high in comparison to its previous incarnation: it is estimated that Rio 2014 produced 2.72 million tonnes of CO2, whereas the 2010 World Cup in South Africa released into the atmosphere 1.65 million tonnes, far less than the purportedly environmentally friendly Brazil. The carbon dioxide released into the air while Rio 2014 was approximately comparable to the CO2 produced by 560,000 automobiles in a year.
A look ahead to 2022 has environmentalists worried. Due to the games currently happening in the height of summer, the projected Al Bayt stadium was expected to employ ‘advanced air-conditioning equipment to offer healthier, more open fields for the teams and visitors. This conditioning technology was crucial in securing Qatar’s hosting rights; while the concept of a carbon-neutral stadium is appealing in concept, the building of such equipment would be harmful to the environment. It’s difficult to envision the games remaining carbon neutral in Doha’s scorching 40-degree+ temperatures.
Although we wait to see if Qatar can keep its environmental commitments, one former host country tries to push a standard that has yet to be surpassed. Germany’s hosting of the tournament in 2006 has long been recognized as one of the most ecologically conscious tournaments ever. It also marked the first time FIFA started to measure its environmental effect.
- The Impact on Social Perspective: There are few socio-cultural impact studies on athletic mega-events, and there is minimal literature on the qualitative impacts on the host nation’s people. However, numerous historical instances, such as the 1995 Rugby World Cup in South Africa and the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Germany, show how big athletic events can foster social togetherness and help the nation’s economic development. It was challenging for citizens and stakeholders to predict if the 2010 FIFA World Cup would build social identity and cohesiveness in the country or add to complex social divides and bad nationalism such as racism due to South Africa’s complicated past (VISSER, 2015). This research examines the socio-cultural influences of the 2010 FIFA World Cup on host people who live in Cape Town and compared the preferences and views of 400 respondents before and after the event using a geographically based simple random sampling method to provide a framework for systematic reviews. 288 South African citizens were questioned in separate research in Cape Town during the mega-event, using a suitable sampling approach to augment patriotic identity, country development, and nationalism.
The 2018 World Cup has caused a significant fracture in Iran’s glass ceiling. For the first time, women were permitted into Azadi Stadium to witness the Iranian national team take on Spain in a television telecast. In Iran, women are not allowed in stadiums, and many women and men have protested this ban (Hermann, Plessis & Coetzee, 2012). Although the legislation hasn’t been modified yet, it’s a good thing overall path for Iranian women’s justice.
The World Cup excitement in Russia has only gone down, yet the backlash against the Qatar Cup 2022 has already begun. Regarding FIFA’s statement, it will provide environmentally friendly stadiums designed following sustainability criteria outlined in the Global Sustainability Assessment System.
The FIFA World Cup is the world’s most prestigious sporting event. Every four years, members of the FIFA Federation Internationale de Football Association participate in the World Cup. The FIFA Council selects the host nations. A voting procedure is utilized to decide which of the bidding countries will be chosen as the host country. It is a widely popular event globally, and the hosting country is selected through a bidding process before being granted accreditation to host the tournament. Hosting the events has several pros and downsides, including economic, social, and environmental ones. When weighing the benefits and drawbacks of organizing such an event, many study designs may be used. Increased chances to promote products and services created or generated there traded internationally are among the advantages that might result. Coca-Cola, for example, would have a fantastic opportunity to advertise its products to the general public and acquire recognition.
FIFA’s World Cup Task Force has now publicly suggested late November to late December as the preferable choice for the 2022 World Cup. That suggestion will virtually probably be adopted at the next FIFA Executive Committee meeting in Zurich. FIFA has made significant progress in putting that commitment into action and strategically. The integrating human rights respect across its activities. Since its creation in early 2017, the FIFA Human Rights Advisory Board has attended that procedure. Its eight expert members come from the UN system, labor unions, civil society organizations, and FIFA corporate partners. The board meets twice a year with officials from the FIFA management to give advice and formal recommendations to FIFA. FIFA does not compensate its members financially for their efforts. FIFA’s Human Rights Strategy and the FIFA Operational Update on Human Rights from May 2017 guide its attitude to human rights.
- FIFA has improved the incorporation of human rights into the day-to-day operations of various other sectors and issues. The growing leadership of the Member Associations’ Division on human rights-related topics, as seen by establishing the FIFA Guardians child protection program and resource for governing bodies, is a crucial example in this regard.
- As an international sports organization, FIFA should take its duties seriously and strives to set a positive example for others, putting sustainability at the core of all it does, as stated in its vision for the future. It is a vital job for FIFA and the Local Organizing Committee to effectively organize the world’s largest single-sport event, the FIFA World Cup, in a more sustainable way.
FIFA’s stated governance principles, internal controls, corporate responsibility, and how they are implemented in practice should all be appropriately addressed. FIFA’s governance principles should also look at the organization’s code of conduct and legal structure.
Email: [email protected]