As we are now less than a year away from World Cup 2014, and as the Confederation Cup begins today in Brazil, it was all too predictable that discussions would begin on this sticky wicket:
The issue of stadiums around a World Cup, their cost and, more specifically, their looming dis-use and burden after the fact, is already topical around Brazil.
As it should be … because this will always be a problem, although far more so in lesser developed countries.
This story from Bloomberg begins digging into the numbers involved, at the costs versus the return and the concern over whether too many of the 12 stadiums hosting matches will become “White Elephant” burdens?
Remember Romario, the Brazilian scoring wiz who helped his country to the 1994 World Cup crown here in the United States? He is now a member of Brazil’s Parliament, and here is what he says in the Bloomberg piece:
“I find it ridiculous. Obviously they didn’t do a financial viability study for these stadiums for after the tournament.”
As I mentioned, this is no new problem – although it is less a factor in places like the United States or Germany, where less money is required to improve facilities and infrastructure to meet the big event needs.
For this piece two-plus years ago at Goal.com, here is what South African-born author and journalist For Neal Collins said about the 2010 World Cup’s legacy of empty stadiums. “The white elephants, 10 magnificent football stadiums lying empty and unused , serve as a constant reminder of the expensive legacy of the FIFA World Cup.”
Not all are completely useless, of course, but the under-use of too many of them in subsequent years was a problem that was far too predictable.
Sports Illustrated’s Grant Wahl also used the “White Elephant” theme to expand on the empty legacy in this piece back in 2010. The United States was playing a friendly in Cape Town at the time – but the significance wasn’t lost, as it was just the third event hosted in the massive facility since the World Cup hade come and gone five months earlier.