World Cup Negativity

[Stretch]

i thin R140 is reasonably affordable - not as cheap as a regular football match ticket, but still within reach for a fair amount of south africansStretch2010-01-20 07:02:19

[Cheese]

How can we enjoy it or be positive about it when not all South Africans can afford to attend?

 

If you take that approach . How can all those peoplle on their Full carbon Dura Ace enjoy cycling if I have to ride an old Aluminuim model.

 

Wishing to have one in six months though

[HappyMartin]

How can we enjoy it or be positive about it when not all South Africans can afford to attend?

 

?

 

If you take that approach . How can all those peoplle on their Full carbon Dura Ace enjoy cycling if I have to ride an old Aluminuim model.

 

?

 

Wishing to have one in six months though

 

 

 

Just the way it is. I enjoy a good meal even though people are going hungry and yes, buy the bike, I did and love it. Sad but thats life.

[Tumbleweed]

No wonder it's been raining non-stop for a week!!!

 

 

 

and about to come down again...

[GoLefty!!]

 

 

 

 

 

 

How can we enjoy it or be positive about it when not all South Africans can afford to attend?

 

how can i have a hos when not all south african's can afford a house

 

how can i have anything when there is poverty in the world...

 

not a very good arguement Milky.

 

The ticket prices for the football wc  are low compared to germany 2006.

 

SA ticket sales will be slow since many europeans will feel the pinch of the recession for a while yet. tickets will only be taken up once they can pick and chose their own matches. for their teams. from April, ticket sales will pick up when the euros start buying.

 

[The Saint]

A few things. From someone in the hospitality industry.

 

 

 

1) Ticket sales were always expected to be low because of the location of South Africa. Getting here is not as easy as getting to Germany - pretty obvious!

 

2) It is not the hotels ripping the ring out of it but more the Travel Agents - there is a difference and most hotels have contracted their rooms to STO's based in countries which have qualified. ie. The Germans are getting their rates from one of their Local Travel agents and not a hotel based in South Africa.

 

3) The roads and Guatrain were never meant to be complete for the World Cup - things will be cleaned up and construction stopped for the period of the World Cup, the due date for completion was always 2011.

 

4) Anyone travelling to a world cup who does not expect prices to be inflated is delusional - the 3000% increase mentioned here is just as delusional.

 

5) The busiest period and the period which generates the most revenue is the period 6 months AFTER the event and not the period during the event.

 

6) TV coverage received showcasing the Country and its resources cannot be quantified to an amount of revenue it generates but estimates put it in the billions. And that costs US NOTHING.

 

 

 

The spin off of this event will far outweigh the expenditure - that's a no brainer

 

 

 

I think it was Joe who said stop bitching and enjoy the event, even if you don't like soccer (like me). I might even go to a game.

[Rob22]

Well said MuXmAn <?: prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 

It?s disappointing to see the amount of negative comments in this thread. This is going to be the biggest event our country has ever seen. Even if you don?t like soccer, get behind the event rather than moan.

 

I remember during the RWC in 95 how many non-rugby supporters got behind the Boks, this is what made the event so unifying. For this reason I will go to a game and support a great South African event.  

[Capricorn]

 

actually the spin off is not a no-brainer. provide evidence based on previous world cups and then adjust given the general state of each host nations economy. If you cant, then u just got sucker punched with hype.

 

and what the overly optimistic refer to as pessimism and negativity, is not so. Move away from a polarised viewpoint and rather choose to address it rationally, because in reality, building stadiums and hosting a great world cup is not the be all and end all. there is a price to pay upfront and afterward and in the real world beyond the hype, there is accounting to be done of those costs. So imho, the realists are simply asking what the real bottom line is, and if those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand wish to label things negativity, then so be it.

Doesnt change the fact that all aspects must be accounted for before we can call it an outright success. That said, each person with a stake in this will have a different set of accounting perspectives: On the one hand, for the fan, it's ticket prices versus the spectacle. On the other side: it's the citizens of this country and how much it cost us to sit with what,? AFTER the event. Some countries will have structured things so it worked out alright. but it's not formulaic and one method does not all countries-fit. Each of their own economic policies and business rules.

So i sincerely doubt anything about this kind of event is ?a no-brainer. Again, history can be used as an example, and history will validate or refute any concerns we may have had. WIsh some really smart hubber economists would come forward to give us an unbiased overview of what it takes to host this sort of event. Again, it definitely wont be a no brainer.

Capricorn2010-01-20 15:27:23

[kosmonooit]

from fin24.com:

World Cup 'waste of resources'

Jana Marais

 

Johannesburg - Next year's Fifa World Cup tournament could be a "shocking waste of South Africa's resources" and will not present the economy with the bonanza that government and Fifa would have us believe.?

 

This is the view of one of the world's top sports economists, Professor Stefan Szymanski, who is attached to the Cass Business School in London and co-author of the new book, Soccernomics.?

 

He said South Africa will be hosting a bumper party for the world. As it is the host, everyone will love South Africa and South Africans will feel very good about themselves. But, as with any party, there is a cost attached.?

 

Szymanski said what the tournament generates in revenue will not be enough to cover the costs. The biggest benefit will be the feel-good factor.?

 

Various economic studies done in the past following large events like the Olympic Games and the World Cup have found that these events have had a very limited positive effect on the local economies. They could even have a negative impact.?

 

Szymanski said the World Cup will also mean little for the South African tourism industry, with soccer fans merely replacing tourists that would normally come, but who now stay away because of the high cost of flights and accommodation.?

 

South Africa is already one of the world's best-known tourism destinations and visitor numbers have swelled dramatically since the end of apartheid. The country has a very well-known and specific tourism niche - its natural beauty. The World Cup will do nothing to change this, Szymanski said.?

 

The cost of staging the World Cup is estimated at R23bn. The actual agreement between Fifa and the South African government is confidential, but it appears that South Africa will have to pay for first-class flights and accommodation for Fifa's most important guests - which is a waste of limited resources, said Szymanski.?

 

Although some South Africans will derive benefit from the tournament, they are in the minority and the government could've used the money much more effectively to help the economy, he argued.?

 

For instance, billions are being spent on new stadiums and the surrounding infrastructure, while the money could be applied to other essentials. Szymanski argued that South Africa is not a rich country and cannot afford to just throw this money away. The business model must change. Wealthy countries like France and Germany can afford to spend money on stadiums, but it's a huge expense for a developing country - as will also be for Brazil in 2014.?

 

About 990 000 foreigners visited Germany during the 2006 tournament. The local organising committee showed an after-tax profit of €56.6m, thanks to good ticket sales and limited spending on stadiums - more than 60% of which were funded by clubs and the private sector. Fifa's profit in Germany was about €1.4bn.?

 

The SA government is financing the lion's share of the 2010 stadiums.

http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-25_2565059

 

No Brainer hey?

 

 

 

[The Saint]

Ja and we could argue that we spent millions on Zumas inauguration which could have been used elsewhere - common get real.

 

 

 

If these events were such a great loss to the economy then why do countries bid for them - because they have nothing better to do? Do you tender for a contract which is going to be a loss to your company?

 

 

 

Szymanski?? Is this guy even South African? Sounds to me like this is all a little marketing hype so he can sell a few books!!

 

 

 

 

[scotty]

from fin24.com:

World Cup 'waste of resources'

Jana Marais

Johannesburg - Next year's Fifa World Cup tournament could be a "shocking waste of South Africa's resources" and will not present the economy with the bonanza that government and Fifa would have us believe. 

This is the view of one of the world's top sports economists' date=' Professor Stefan Szymanski, who is attached to the Cass Business School in London and co-author of the new book, Soccernomics. 

He said South Africa will be hosting a bumper party for the world. As it is the host, everyone will love South Africa and South Africans will feel very good about themselves. But, as with any party, there is a cost attached. 

Szymanski said what the tournament generates in revenue will not be enough to cover the costs. The biggest benefit will be the feel-good factor. 

Various economic studies done in the past following large events like the Olympic Games and the World Cup have found that these events have had a very limited positive effect on the local economies. They could even have a negative impact. 

Szymanski said the World Cup will also mean little for the South African tourism industry, with soccer fans merely replacing tourists that would normally come, but who now stay away because of the high cost of flights and accommodation. 

South Africa is already one of the world's best-known tourism destinations and visitor numbers have swelled dramatically since the end of apartheid. The country has a very well-known and specific tourism niche - its natural beauty. The World Cup will do nothing to change this, Szymanski said. 

The cost of staging the World Cup is estimated at R23bn. The actual agreement between Fifa and the South African government is confidential, but it appears that South Africa will have to pay for first-class flights and accommodation for Fifa's most important guests - which is a waste of limited resources, said Szymanski. 

Although some South Africans will derive benefit from the tournament, they are in the minority and the government could've used the money much more effectively to help the economy, he argued. 

For instance, billions are being spent on new stadiums and the surrounding infrastructure, while the money could be applied to other essentials. Szymanski argued that South Africa is not a rich country and cannot afford to just throw this money away. The business model must change. Wealthy countries like France and Germany can afford to spend money on stadiums, but it's a huge expense for a developing country - as will also be for Brazil in 2014. 

About 990 000 foreigners visited Germany during the 2006 tournament. The local organising committee showed an after-tax profit of ?56.6m, thanks to good ticket sales and limited spending on stadiums - more than 60% of which were funded by clubs and the private sector. Fifa's profit in Germany was about ?1.4bn. 

The SA government is financing the lion's share of the 2010 stadiums.

http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-25_2565059

 

No Brainer hey?

 

[/quote']

That's pretty much what David Willams from Business Day and economist David Shapiro had to say. 

 

Very positive for our ability and readiness to hold the cup as far as stadium readiness, transport, security etc i.e short term but medium to long their confidence is not good.

[GoLefty!!]

and all economists are 50% right at any one time

 

So in the end, their opinion is just an opinion and really carries no weight.

 

also the comments about South Africa not being a rich country....wtf?

 

Again depends on how you look at wealth. GDP, sure we don't have the turn over of Most European Countries but we also don't have their expenses.

on a balance of payments perspective we are pretty good at managing our economy effectively, i.e. making our rands go as far as possible.

 

SA is also very successful at attracting foreign investment and looking into our strategic needs.

 

There are may diffferenct views on post event spin-off of the Olympics, or a FWC.

Most countries don;t see an immediate benefit but in the medium to longer term the skills gained does have a positive effect. So it all depends on what time frame you want to look at.

 

Accountants want the money tomorrow, investment bankers want it in the medium term but everyones happy if if we get it sometime and worth more than it was when we spent it.

 

Like I said, theres an arguement either way. For success or for failure, all depends on your point of view.

 

[Gasping]

That's pretty much what David Willams from Business Day and economist David Shapiro had to say. 

 

 

 

Sorry Scotty, I put no faith in economists. The finest economic minds in the world put us in the sh!t we are in now.

 

I would rather listen to the tea lady when it comes to these matters.

 

Not having a dig at you, just stating my opinion.

[scotty]

That's pretty much what David Willams from Business Day and economist David Shapiro had to say. 

 

 

 

Sorry Scotty' date=' I put no faith in economists. The finest economic minds in the world put us in the sh!t we are in now.

 

I would rather listen to the tea lady when it comes to these matters.

 

Not having a dig at you, just stating my opinion.

[/quote']

 

Its cool , just not read any articles on the real benefits other than the feel good clap hands benefit and for that i have a world cup shirt, mascot and RSA flag, will be rooting for firstly Bafana, then an African side and lastly which ever team is the underdog to win the world cup.

[Stretch]

will be rooting for firstly Bafana' date=' then an African side and lastly which ever team is the underdog to win the world cup.[/quote']

 

so according to that order, it appears that it is a forgone conclusion that bafana will not make it past the first round....or can bafana be all of the above?

[scotty]

will be rooting for firstly Bafana' date=' then an African side and lastly which ever team is the underdog to win the world cup.[/quote']
so according to that order, it appears that it is a forgone conclusion that bafana will not make it past the first round....or can bafana be all of the above?

Strange things can happen, miracles take a bit longer