The official Soccer World Cup 2010 Thread
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of those 10, only 5 (call it 6 with Soccer City) are new builds and most will do just fine after the World Cup. The only stadium's with serious concerns going forward are Nelspruit, Polokwane and Port Elizabeth. Cape Town was a concern but will do okay.
"The 2010 World Cup is already immendly profitable, and has cost less (in real terms) than any recent World Cups. "
Nobody yet knows how much it has cost or how profitable it has been because it isn't even over and final accounts have to be submitted, so your last statement is just hot air and quite unsubstantiated.
Just a few quotes from the local press showing what a massive scam and confidence trick this has been, and there's plenty more :
Pretoria - With only 58 days left before the 2010 Fifa World Cup, Fifa's accommodation agent Match has dumped another 300 000 bed nights on the market.
This means that Match now holds only 600 000 of the 1.9 million bed nights it originally reserved for the World Cup.
Sake24 previously reported that Match released 450 000 bed nights, including timeshare units and practically all of the Kruger National Park stock.
The industry had hoped that the 900 000 bed nights Match had held on to would be taken up, but Fifa's agent indicated that this would not necessarily be the case.
Johannesburg - FIFA's claims in 2009 that host cities were short of about 50 000 beds each for the World Cup tournament were misleading and caused private home owners to waste money on renovations, estate agents said on Tuesday.
According to some of the estate agencies responsible for property rentals to foreign visitors during the tournament, only a fraction of the rooms purportedly needed for the promised tourists have been let out.
"The perception fed to us by Match and FIFA was totally wrong," said Sherril Baard, founder of 2010 Property Rentals. "We kept being told that every area was 50 000 beds short."
According to Baard, only 40% of their properties were rented out to visitors, attained by a realistic pricing strategy.
FIFA's accommodation agent, Match, relinquished more than 450 000 of the bed nights it initially reserved for local hotels and guest houses this year.
"Initially, I think FIFA created a hype through the expectation that half a million tourists would be coming to SA," said Seeff Properties chairperson Samuel Seeff. "The global financial crisis and the airlines pushing their prices up also frightened people away."
According to Seeff, only 10% of properties on the group's books were leased out.
"The hype surrounding potential property rentals to rich tourists for the World Cup has left many property owners out of pocket," said TPN MD Michelle Dickens.
According to Rivonia property owner Dave Light, the initial hype came from estate agents. "I was approached by an estate agency...that said I could get R14 000 per day for my 12-sleeper house."
Three weeks before the start of the World Cup, Light eventually leased his property out to a French security team for R3 500 per day for 56 days.
Another estate agency, Street Smart Properties, only secured rental for 10 of the 100 properties on its books, and then not even for the full World Cup period.
Baard said last year her agency was inundated with calls from home owners who wanted to make a killing during the tournament.
"By the end of 2009, all the people who had done all that footslogging (taking pictures, upgrading their houses, making them beautiful) had been left in the lurch," said Baard.
Baard said all 2010 Property Rentals' Johannesburg properties have been let, but none in Cape Town where the agency is based. "People just don't want to fly to Cape Town - it's too far and too expensive.
"If we ever get the Olympics we're going to have the same abortion as this," said Baard.
Johannesburg - An enormous property project that would have provided 78 500 dwelling units for the World Cup soccer tournament appears to have been a hoax.
Katota, a company owned by Ghanaian businessman Joseph Eshun, undertook to buy and complete almost 100 residential developments from developers for nearly R50bn.
There are less than two weeks left before the soccer spectacle and not a single Katota project has been completed.
And the developers, whose selling activities have come to a halt while they wait for Katota, are still waiting for their money.
Several have since been liquidated.
Cape Town - It's ridiculous to be asked to pay R599 for an official replica Bafana Bafana shirt: and that's the word from the workers who make it.
"From a factory price of about R100, R150 and the final product in the retail stores being sold for R599, we think that's a disservice to South Africans,” SA Clothing and Textile Workers' Union (Sactwu) general secretary Andre Kriel said on Thursday.
Johannesburg - "Brand police" will patrol 2010 Soccer World Cup stadiums to make sure the Fifa brand is not hijacked, the world football body said on Thursday.
No brand other than Fifa will be allowed in the commercial restriction zones in and around stadiums countrywide.
This means that Match now holds only 600 000 of the 1.9 million bed nights it originally reserved for the World Cup.
Sake24 previously reported that Match released 450 000 bed nights, including timeshare units and practically all of the Kruger National Park stock.
The industry had hoped that the 900 000 bed nights Match had held on to would be taken up, but Fifa's agent indicated that this would not necessarily be the case.
Johannesburg - FIFA's claims in 2009 that host cities were short of about 50 000 beds each for the World Cup tournament were misleading and caused private home owners to waste money on renovations, estate agents said on Tuesday.
According to some of the estate agencies responsible for property rentals to foreign visitors during the tournament, only a fraction of the rooms purportedly needed for the promised tourists have been let out.
"The perception fed to us by Match and FIFA was totally wrong," said Sherril Baard, founder of 2010 Property Rentals. "We kept being told that every area was 50 000 beds short."
According to Baard, only 40% of their properties were rented out to visitors, attained by a realistic pricing strategy.
FIFA's accommodation agent, Match, relinquished more than 450 000 of the bed nights it initially reserved for local hotels and guest houses this year.
"Initially, I think FIFA created a hype through the expectation that half a million tourists would be coming to SA," said Seeff Properties chairperson Samuel Seeff. "The global financial crisis and the airlines pushing their prices up also frightened people away."
According to Seeff, only 10% of properties on the group's books were leased out.
"The hype surrounding potential property rentals to rich tourists for the World Cup has left many property owners out of pocket," said TPN MD Michelle Dickens.
According to Rivonia property owner Dave Light, the initial hype came from estate agents. "I was approached by an estate agency...that said I could get R14 000 per day for my 12-sleeper house."
Three weeks before the start of the World Cup, Light eventually leased his property out to a French security team for R3 500 per day for 56 days.
Another estate agency, Street Smart Properties, only secured rental for 10 of the 100 properties on its books, and then not even for the full World Cup period.
Baard said last year her agency was inundated with calls from home owners who wanted to make a killing during the tournament.
"By the end of 2009, all the people who had done all that footslogging (taking pictures, upgrading their houses, making them beautiful) had been left in the lurch," said Baard.
Baard said all 2010 Property Rentals' Johannesburg properties have been let, but none in Cape Town where the agency is based. "People just don't want to fly to Cape Town - it's too far and too expensive.
"If we ever get the Olympics we're going to have the same abortion as this," said Baard.
Johannesburg - An enormous property project that would have provided 78 500 dwelling units for the World Cup soccer tournament appears to have been a hoax.
Katota, a company owned by Ghanaian businessman Joseph Eshun, undertook to buy and complete almost 100 residential developments from developers for nearly R50bn.
There are less than two weeks left before the soccer spectacle and not a single Katota project has been completed.
And the developers, whose selling activities have come to a halt while they wait for Katota, are still waiting for their money.
Several have since been liquidated.
Cape Town - It's ridiculous to be asked to pay R599 for an official replica Bafana Bafana shirt: and that's the word from the workers who make it.
"From a factory price of about R100, R150 and the final product in the retail stores being sold for R599, we think that's a disservice to South Africans,” SA Clothing and Textile Workers' Union (Sactwu) general secretary Andre Kriel said on Thursday.
Johannesburg - "Brand police" will patrol 2010 Soccer World Cup stadiums to make sure the Fifa brand is not hijacked, the world football body said on Thursday.
No brand other than Fifa will be allowed in the commercial restriction zones in and around stadiums countrywide.
Last edited by Capetonian; 13th Jun 2010 at 23:11.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Soccer stadiums 'not viable in the long run' - Mail & Guardian Online: The smart news source
Soccer stadiums 'not viable in the long run'
JUSTINE GERARDY | PORT ELIZABETH, SOUTH AFRICA - May 23 2010 09:22
The World Cup has brought Port Elizabeth a stunning new landmark in its oceanside stadium, but questions remain about who will fill the stands once the global football fans leave.
"In the South African case, all the stadiams were either renovated or constructed by the government. That means that the commercial consideration was never primary," said economist Stan du Plessis of Stellenbosch University.
"Some of these stadiums are simply not going to be in a position to cover their running costs. In that sense, they will be loss making."
South Africa has poured about R20-billion ($2,6-billion), multiples of the original estimates, into 10 stadiums in nine cities to showcase Africa's first World Cup.
White elephant fears often dog major sporting events with Athens 2004 Olympics facilities said to be rusting away amid early rumbles about London 2012.
In South Africa's smaller towns like Nelspruit and Polokwane, and distant cities like Port Elizabeth, local officials are already wondering how to keep their new world-class stadiums running.
Port Elizabeth's R2-billion, 46 000-seater hopes to lure a top football or rugby team to offset its annual R18-million running costs.
"I don't think you can ever get the money back on the stadium," said Stephan Pretorius, chief executive of the stadium's private management firm.
Hungry for sport
"The stadium is built really for the community. The idea would be that we make the stadium as successful as possible. People here are very hungry for sport and they are very hungry for events and concerts."
The building boom shielded South Africa from the global recession, and the tournament is expected to boost the economy by 0,5% this year.
But concerns about the stadiums themselves extend even to Cape Town, the priciest pitch at R4,5-billion, in Fifa's preferred location on prime property amid premier tourist sites.
A developing country like South Africa did not need new mega-stadiums, argues Andrew Jennings, author of Foul! The Secret World of Fifa: Bribes, Vote-Rigging and Ticket Scandals.
"Who is going to pay the bill? South Africa," he said. "It is a saga of greed from Fifa, they don't care about South Africa."
"There has been a shameless exploitation of South Africans. They have been left with white elephants, it is now for taxpayers to pay the bill."
Durban city manager Mike Sutcliffe has called for an urgent post-tournament look at sustainability, saying all host cities face "huge funding issues".
"If I'm battling in a big city, I'd hate to know what my colleagues are doing in Polokwane and Mbombela [Nelspruit]," he recently told lawmakers.
Polokwane in undeveloped northern Limpopo -- host to a R1,3-billion stadium with annual bills of up to R17-million -- has already turned to the treasury for more cash.
"At the moment we'll need that type of funding to let our programmes run through effectively. We need it now. Unfortunately we can't wait until the end of the World Cup," said the city's 2010 director Ndavhe Ramakuelue.
Both Polokwane and Port Elizabeth have shrugged off white elephant labels.
But according to Du Plessis, only Durban and Johannesburg's Soccer City have promising chances. Though he stops short at dishing out whites elephant labels.
"These stadiums are actually built for something very specific.
They will host a great World Cup. So in that respect they are not a white elephant," he said.
But "a number of them will simply not be viable in the long run". - AFP
JUSTINE GERARDY | PORT ELIZABETH, SOUTH AFRICA - May 23 2010 09:22
The World Cup has brought Port Elizabeth a stunning new landmark in its oceanside stadium, but questions remain about who will fill the stands once the global football fans leave.
"In the South African case, all the stadiams were either renovated or constructed by the government. That means that the commercial consideration was never primary," said economist Stan du Plessis of Stellenbosch University.
"Some of these stadiums are simply not going to be in a position to cover their running costs. In that sense, they will be loss making."
South Africa has poured about R20-billion ($2,6-billion), multiples of the original estimates, into 10 stadiums in nine cities to showcase Africa's first World Cup.
White elephant fears often dog major sporting events with Athens 2004 Olympics facilities said to be rusting away amid early rumbles about London 2012.
In South Africa's smaller towns like Nelspruit and Polokwane, and distant cities like Port Elizabeth, local officials are already wondering how to keep their new world-class stadiums running.
Port Elizabeth's R2-billion, 46 000-seater hopes to lure a top football or rugby team to offset its annual R18-million running costs.
"I don't think you can ever get the money back on the stadium," said Stephan Pretorius, chief executive of the stadium's private management firm.
Hungry for sport
"The stadium is built really for the community. The idea would be that we make the stadium as successful as possible. People here are very hungry for sport and they are very hungry for events and concerts."
The building boom shielded South Africa from the global recession, and the tournament is expected to boost the economy by 0,5% this year.
But concerns about the stadiums themselves extend even to Cape Town, the priciest pitch at R4,5-billion, in Fifa's preferred location on prime property amid premier tourist sites.
A developing country like South Africa did not need new mega-stadiums, argues Andrew Jennings, author of Foul! The Secret World of Fifa: Bribes, Vote-Rigging and Ticket Scandals.
"Who is going to pay the bill? South Africa," he said. "It is a saga of greed from Fifa, they don't care about South Africa."
"There has been a shameless exploitation of South Africans. They have been left with white elephants, it is now for taxpayers to pay the bill."
Durban city manager Mike Sutcliffe has called for an urgent post-tournament look at sustainability, saying all host cities face "huge funding issues".
"If I'm battling in a big city, I'd hate to know what my colleagues are doing in Polokwane and Mbombela [Nelspruit]," he recently told lawmakers.
Polokwane in undeveloped northern Limpopo -- host to a R1,3-billion stadium with annual bills of up to R17-million -- has already turned to the treasury for more cash.
"At the moment we'll need that type of funding to let our programmes run through effectively. We need it now. Unfortunately we can't wait until the end of the World Cup," said the city's 2010 director Ndavhe Ramakuelue.
Both Polokwane and Port Elizabeth have shrugged off white elephant labels.
But according to Du Plessis, only Durban and Johannesburg's Soccer City have promising chances. Though he stops short at dishing out whites elephant labels.
"These stadiums are actually built for something very specific.
They will host a great World Cup. So in that respect they are not a white elephant," he said.
But "a number of them will simply not be viable in the long run". - AFP
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sun International.
I have a friend who is a Food and Beverage manager with Sun International. They have been told by FIFA that they are only allowed to promote and push Heineken beer during the world cup.
I am sure Heineken will not put this money back into the local community, a huge chunk will go to FIFA and Sun international as a partner in this monopoly and predatory business deal.
Not in the spirit of the world cup or in the interest of the local people...... but rest assure, I will personally keep the Windhoek sales up.
I am sure Heineken will not put this money back into the local community, a huge chunk will go to FIFA and Sun international as a partner in this monopoly and predatory business deal.
Not in the spirit of the world cup or in the interest of the local people...... but rest assure, I will personally keep the Windhoek sales up.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beta Light, I think you friend is talking rubbish! Budweiser is the official beer, its the only beer you can get at any FIFA sanctioned event during the games! Heineken has nothing to do with Budweiser!
Capetonian, there are considerable issues around the long run sustainability issues with the stadia, I accept that. However, what I suggested is that we will have fewer issues than other previous hosts since we used fewer stadia and more existing stadia than any recent host!
ByAirMail, as an economist I would love to see those links!!! I raise the question about where you get this data since it has been discussed many times amongst economists yet nobody has actually produced any data to support the speculation. That said, it would be natural to think that the large majority of tax is paid by a minority of people since more than 60% of income is earned by less than 10% of South Africans. Fortunately, we live in a democracy and votes are allocated in proportion of income!!! By the way, if you believe everything on CNN you would probably also believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction! Oh you would also believe that not one of the stadia would be ready (they all were months before the World Cup started) amongst many other things!
Capetonian, there are considerable issues around the long run sustainability issues with the stadia, I accept that. However, what I suggested is that we will have fewer issues than other previous hosts since we used fewer stadia and more existing stadia than any recent host!
ByAirMail, as an economist I would love to see those links!!! I raise the question about where you get this data since it has been discussed many times amongst economists yet nobody has actually produced any data to support the speculation. That said, it would be natural to think that the large majority of tax is paid by a minority of people since more than 60% of income is earned by less than 10% of South Africans. Fortunately, we live in a democracy and votes are allocated in proportion of income!!! By the way, if you believe everything on CNN you would probably also believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction! Oh you would also believe that not one of the stadia would be ready (they all were months before the World Cup started) amongst many other things!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately, we live in a democracy and votes are allocated in proportion of income!!!
On another matter, previous World Cups have not been held in one party states where most of the population live below the poverty line, with disease, malnutrition, crime, inadequate security and health facilities, overpopulation and mass illegal immigration.
Therefore the money wasted on stadia and peripherals becomes far more critical in the case of South Africa.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi evanb,
You are probable correct that it is Budweiser and not Heineken, I was jet lagged and had a couple of the Namibian ones at the time. The conversation at the time was not so much the brands, but the absolute domination of FIFA during the world cup and if there is any benefit to anyone but FIFA and their selected partners.
You are probable correct that it is Budweiser and not Heineken, I was jet lagged and had a couple of the Namibian ones at the time. The conversation at the time was not so much the brands, but the absolute domination of FIFA during the world cup and if there is any benefit to anyone but FIFA and their selected partners.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to be accused of jumping on the anti bandwagon, but saw lots of footage on the T.V. regarding this and it does make one wonder about the uniting power of the world cup:
Riot police disperse hundreds of protesters outside World Cup stadium after match
Riot police disperse hundreds of protesters outside World Cup stadium after match
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beta, fair game, however, I am staying at a Sun International property in PE at the moment and there is no Budweiser here ... but anyway!
Capetonian, yes, previous world cups have been held in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, and the next one is in Brazil again ...
Capetonian, yes, previous world cups have been held in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, and the next one is in Brazil again ...
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capetonian, yes, previous world cups have been held in Brazil, Argentina and Mexico, and the next one is in Brazil again ...
You haven't answered the question I asked you at 0736. Are you running out of steam?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You didn't ask a question, but as I was indicating, several countries with similar social and economic problems have hosted world cups before. One of these countries is about to host it for the second time.
Sure the issue of how to allocate monetary resources is a legitimate debate. However, the last time I checked we don't live in a one party state. Its a democracy and the large majority of citizens would rather that money be spent on the world cup. Surely if they didn't want this they would vote out the government? Or are you suggesting that our elections are a sham?
Sure the issue of how to allocate monetary resources is a legitimate debate. However, the last time I checked we don't live in a one party state. Its a democracy and the large majority of citizens would rather that money be spent on the world cup. Surely if they didn't want this they would vote out the government? Or are you suggesting that our elections are a sham?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked you to explain your statement: Fortunately, we live in a democracy and votes are allocated in proportion of income!!! I'm waiting.
However, the last time I checked we don't live in a one party state.
Are you seriously suggesting that there will ever be another ruling party than the ANC? The elections have been a charade.
Its a democracy and the large majority of citizens would rather that money be spent on the world cup.
Can I take it that you have personally polled a sufficient number of them to validate this sweeping statement. That you have said to them : "Would you like to live safely and with better security and health services, education and job prospects for your children, or would you rather that South Africa hosted a World Cup which you will probably not be able to afford to attend anyway?
Surely if they didn't want this they would vote out the government? Or are you suggesting that our elections are a sham?
And how would they do that? By not voting ANC? And then?
Who are you trying to fool? Can I have some of whatever you've been drinking or smoking please, it seems to induce a feeling of euphoria.
And do you really think that Argentina, Mexico, and Brasil are valid comparisions with South Africa?
However, the last time I checked we don't live in a one party state.
Are you seriously suggesting that there will ever be another ruling party than the ANC? The elections have been a charade.
Its a democracy and the large majority of citizens would rather that money be spent on the world cup.
Can I take it that you have personally polled a sufficient number of them to validate this sweeping statement. That you have said to them : "Would you like to live safely and with better security and health services, education and job prospects for your children, or would you rather that South Africa hosted a World Cup which you will probably not be able to afford to attend anyway?
Surely if they didn't want this they would vote out the government? Or are you suggesting that our elections are a sham?
And how would they do that? By not voting ANC? And then?
Who are you trying to fool? Can I have some of whatever you've been drinking or smoking please, it seems to induce a feeling of euphoria.
And do you really think that Argentina, Mexico, and Brasil are valid comparisions with South Africa?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked you to explain your statement: Fortunately, we live in a democracy and votes are allocated in proportion of income!!! I'm waiting. Typo, it should have said arn't allocated in proportion of income, sorry!
However, the last time I checked we don't live in a one party state.
Are you seriously suggesting that there will ever be another ruling party than the ANC? The elections have been a charade. Just because another party might not win an election it doesn't mean we live in a one party state. And yes, I am suggesting that at some point in the future someone other than the ANC might be in power, not anytime soon but its certainly possible. On what grounds are the elections a charade?
Its a democracy and the large majority of citizens would rather that money be spent on the world cup.
Can I take it that you have personally polled a sufficient number of them to validate this sweeping statement. That you have said to them : "Would you like to live safely and with better security and health services, education and job prospects for your children, or would you rather that South Africa hosted a World Cup which you will probably not be able to afford to attend anyway? Yes, I work in a market research firm that does polling and we have been doing this for a long time and there is a lot of support for the world cup.
Surely if they didn't want this they would vote out the government? Or are you suggesting that our elections are a sham?
And how would they do that? By not voting ANC? And then? By voting for another party ... that is what elections are about.
Who are you trying to fool? Can I have some of whatever you've been drinking or smoking please, it seems to induce a feeling of euphoria.
And do you really think that Argentina, Mexico, and Brasil are valid comparisions with South Africa? I lived in Brazil for 8 years ... its a country that shares remarkable similarities to South Africa. It has large scale poverty and inequalities of income. A strange history of race relations. Massive crime, etc.
However, the last time I checked we don't live in a one party state.
Are you seriously suggesting that there will ever be another ruling party than the ANC? The elections have been a charade. Just because another party might not win an election it doesn't mean we live in a one party state. And yes, I am suggesting that at some point in the future someone other than the ANC might be in power, not anytime soon but its certainly possible. On what grounds are the elections a charade?
Its a democracy and the large majority of citizens would rather that money be spent on the world cup.
Can I take it that you have personally polled a sufficient number of them to validate this sweeping statement. That you have said to them : "Would you like to live safely and with better security and health services, education and job prospects for your children, or would you rather that South Africa hosted a World Cup which you will probably not be able to afford to attend anyway? Yes, I work in a market research firm that does polling and we have been doing this for a long time and there is a lot of support for the world cup.
Surely if they didn't want this they would vote out the government? Or are you suggesting that our elections are a sham?
And how would they do that? By not voting ANC? And then? By voting for another party ... that is what elections are about.
Who are you trying to fool? Can I have some of whatever you've been drinking or smoking please, it seems to induce a feeling of euphoria.
And do you really think that Argentina, Mexico, and Brasil are valid comparisions with South Africa? I lived in Brazil for 8 years ... its a country that shares remarkable similarities to South Africa. It has large scale poverty and inequalities of income. A strange history of race relations. Massive crime, etc.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the hold
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
evanb
I did a "lite" search on Google and this was the first to come up. It is not close to the original program, about a 5 minute insert during a program on CNN about the W.C. It was either on Thursday or Friday, approx. 15:00 Bangkok time on C.N.N. in Asia.
If all else fail I'll e-mail CNN and ask them for a link. I'll P.M. you with a copy of the e-mail to them.
In the mean time, from a "lite" search on google asia:
World Cup in 2002, Money and David Beckham
It was hoped that the World Cup would be a boost to local economies. That didn’t happen. Some businesses had less business than usual during the event. Hotels that were expected to reap big profits had to cut prices because of last minute cancellation caused by foreign travel companies that were unable to convince soccer fans in their countries to spend the money to go to an expensive Japan.
More than $4.5 billion was spent to build 10 new stadiums, many of them in small cities in the middle of nowhere. After the World Cup was over many of the stadiums had difficulty finding tenants and resorted to hosting weddings, flea markets and youth soccer tournaments and even selling turf said to have been walked on by Beckham, earning only a fraction of the millions of dollars needed just to cover annual maintenance costs. Some stadiums were designed only for soccer so they couldn’t be used for baseball games or concerts. The town of Toyota spent $40 million on a new stadium that wasn’t even used on the World Cup. The lost money was covered by tax payers and long-term government bonds.
It was also hoped that World Cup would generate more long term interest and money for local soccer leagues. That didn’t happen either. While television revenues rose, gate receipts actually went down.
The only person to make out really well was David Beckham. He was paid millions of dollars for endorsements for products including cell phones, chocolate-covered almonds, beauty products and used cars. When he returned to Japan a year after the World Cup was over and was received like a rock star. On television I once saw four Beckham commercials in a row, each for a different product. He reportedly made $3.6 million from TBC (Tokyo Beauty Center) ads alone. On his appeal, one Japanese female fan said, “I devote my whole life to Beckham” and said Japanese women like him so much because he is “so caring and kind.”
from:
SOCCER IN JAPAN - Japan | Facts and Details
If all else fail I'll e-mail CNN and ask them for a link. I'll P.M. you with a copy of the e-mail to them.
In the mean time, from a "lite" search on google asia:
World Cup in 2002, Money and David Beckham
It was hoped that the World Cup would be a boost to local economies. That didn’t happen. Some businesses had less business than usual during the event. Hotels that were expected to reap big profits had to cut prices because of last minute cancellation caused by foreign travel companies that were unable to convince soccer fans in their countries to spend the money to go to an expensive Japan.
More than $4.5 billion was spent to build 10 new stadiums, many of them in small cities in the middle of nowhere. After the World Cup was over many of the stadiums had difficulty finding tenants and resorted to hosting weddings, flea markets and youth soccer tournaments and even selling turf said to have been walked on by Beckham, earning only a fraction of the millions of dollars needed just to cover annual maintenance costs. Some stadiums were designed only for soccer so they couldn’t be used for baseball games or concerts. The town of Toyota spent $40 million on a new stadium that wasn’t even used on the World Cup. The lost money was covered by tax payers and long-term government bonds.
It was also hoped that World Cup would generate more long term interest and money for local soccer leagues. That didn’t happen either. While television revenues rose, gate receipts actually went down.
The only person to make out really well was David Beckham. He was paid millions of dollars for endorsements for products including cell phones, chocolate-covered almonds, beauty products and used cars. When he returned to Japan a year after the World Cup was over and was received like a rock star. On television I once saw four Beckham commercials in a row, each for a different product. He reportedly made $3.6 million from TBC (Tokyo Beauty Center) ads alone. On his appeal, one Japanese female fan said, “I devote my whole life to Beckham” and said Japanese women like him so much because he is “so caring and kind.”
from:
SOCCER IN JAPAN - Japan | Facts and Details
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: bush
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And do you really think that Argentina, Mexico, and Brasil are valid comparisions with South Africa?
Yes. For example Mexico 1986 (when they held WC) had less total GDP and GDP per capit than SA today. The country was run by "Institutional Revolution Party" for the last 60 or so years. Technically socialist party but practically a cleptocratic party. And they attacked brutally whoever theatened their power. Mexico had recently defaulted its loans. Violent, drug-trafficing related crime was not *yet* an big issue it is in mexico today, but the corrupt police force was already happy to turn a blind eye if shared part of drug profits. Mexico city was the most polluted city of the time. Large parts of rural Mexico were effectively lawless, hijackings on road were and still are common. Some areas of mexico have gone down a lot since, with a low-intensity civil war in chiapas today. Just a month ago some western aid workers were killed in ambush by pro-goverment militia. Unlike the gaza ship thing that incident went completly ignored by global press..Mexicans may not have vuvuzelas but mariachis get damn close in noise level
During 1978 world cup, Argentina was run by dictator who got in power via coup, Jorge Videla. He is still wanted, among other human rights violations, for the 10000-30000 people he made "disappear" during his regime.
And don't get me started with history of Brazil and it's favelas... Try watching "Cidade de Deus" some day. I'm sure you'd rather choose living in Gugulethu over any Rio Favela.
Yeah, we got it already, SA is no (west!) europe, but anyone claiming that SA is the only country with big social problems to have organized WC is either being ignorant of recent history or racist. It isn't even the only country to waste lots of money in making a big sports event - recent greece olympics comes into the mind.. Reading this and the other "SA sucks!" threads here I think SA takes the title of "Only country full of whiners to organize WC"
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because another party might not win an election it doesn't mean we live in a one party state. And yes, I am suggesting that at some point in the future someone other than the ANC might be in power, not anytime soon but its certainly possible. On what grounds are the elections a charade?
Yes, I work in a market research firm that does polling and we have been doing this for a long time and there is a lot of support for the world cup.
The disparity of living standards between the Latin American countries you refer to and South Africa is not on the same scale. There are some valid similarities but the comparison does not stand up to scrutiny, as you would know if you've really lived in South Africa.
Nothing you have said has the ring of truth or real knowledge of the situation.
but anyone claiming that SA is the only country with big social problems to have organized WC is either being ignorant of recent history or racist.
Last edited by Capetonian; 15th Jun 2010 at 07:46.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Asia
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
keitaidenwa
Once again I am with Capetonian on this one. I worked in Chilli, South America, for an extended period of time. This took me around South America, including Brazil over night's. With Brazil and other South American country's there is no surprises. What you see is what you get.
My grype with 2010 was the promises we made and the promises made to us. I think when the FIFA members vote they were hoping that they giving a developing country a chance. Our wonderful Statesman Madiba did his magic, and we got the 2010 W.C. We promised FIFA and the World first world standards and huge development to the country's poorest.
As Madiba got older and Mbeki showed his incompetence I changed my mind from being pro World Cup to having reservations. Then came a president that had his hand so deep in the weapon procurement cookie jar, and got away on a technicality, and by the way, he is so happy that his H.I.V. test is negative!!
I then realize the W.C. is not what we need. We have bigger issues to deal with. In between Julius M reared his head, and is now temporarily gagged, but he'll be back.
Brazil and South America never pretend. We all know their short comings and they admit to it. FIFA knew who and what they were getting into with South America. But this time they betted on Madiba and an Invictus moment, what they got is a nightmare for there spin doctorsand P.R. department.
What will we get? Long term debt.
My grype with 2010 was the promises we made and the promises made to us. I think when the FIFA members vote they were hoping that they giving a developing country a chance. Our wonderful Statesman Madiba did his magic, and we got the 2010 W.C. We promised FIFA and the World first world standards and huge development to the country's poorest.
As Madiba got older and Mbeki showed his incompetence I changed my mind from being pro World Cup to having reservations. Then came a president that had his hand so deep in the weapon procurement cookie jar, and got away on a technicality, and by the way, he is so happy that his H.I.V. test is negative!!
I then realize the W.C. is not what we need. We have bigger issues to deal with. In between Julius M reared his head, and is now temporarily gagged, but he'll be back.
Brazil and South America never pretend. We all know their short comings and they admit to it. FIFA knew who and what they were getting into with South America. But this time they betted on Madiba and an Invictus moment, what they got is a nightmare for there spin doctorsand P.R. department.
What will we get? Long term debt.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beta, I agree with a lot what you said in your last post. I am just not convinced that we promised FIFA much in the way of development. We promised that they would make money out of it and there is little doubt that they have made a fortune. I think that my abrasiveness on this is that the world media, including South Africa, spent nearly 10 years talking about failure and how it won't happen, i.e. the stadia won't be ready, the infrastructure won't be ready, that FIFA will move it to Australia, that everyone who comes will be raped and murdered. Now when almost none of this has materialised they have moved on to it costs too much, that the money was better spent elsewhere, that the stadia and infrastructure are all white elephants, etc. The British media love bashing South Africa - they have done it since the 31 May 1961. When Sky News run out of negativity they start with the Vuvuzela!!! The fact of the matter is that South Africa has pulled it off, the World Cup has started, and so far been a success in many ways and has cost significantly less than it would have cost elsewhere in the world. Lets leave the speculation about the future for a while and enjoy it while it lasts. If they knock down one of the stadia in a few years because it is not being used and costs too much I will happily eat my words then, the same for the genuine improvements in infrastructure, particularly transport ... but why can't you let people enjoy it!
I am off to watch Portugal versus the Ivory Coast - later!
I am off to watch Portugal versus the Ivory Coast - later!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: South Africa
Age: 59
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck with Pres Blatter
SA pilots go to court: Sport: Sport: 2010 World Cup: National News
Just read this on News 24, good luck with Pres Blatter
Just read this on News 24, good luck with Pres Blatter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: In transit
Age: 70
Posts: 3,052
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
evanb : It's not over yet. Even if nothing goes wrong - and I hope that will continue to be the case - there will be massive costs to cover, and other long term negative effects.
Let's review this when it's over, and then again in say 5 years time.
Let's review this when it's over, and then again in say 5 years time.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In the hold
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasonably safe so for exept for the odd burglary. But then we would not know as the police don't release crime fgures and hotels encourage guests to have crime investigated in house.
On check in our crew and passengers are warned not to venture anywhere before checking with hotel staff, hotels provide transport to safe areas, and spectators prefer to stick to known safe areas with lots of other people around e.g Sandton Square.
On check in our crew and passengers are warned not to venture anywhere before checking with hotel staff, hotels provide transport to safe areas, and spectators prefer to stick to known safe areas with lots of other people around e.g Sandton Square.