The article is pretty short, and discusses the factors to focus on, but if you just want the ending:
Sports events can deliver meaningful short-term revenue, reputational exposure and long-term benefits, but those outcomes are neither automatic nor evenly distributed.
Thoughtful policy design, transparent evaluation and binding community and environmental safeguards determine whether a World Series run or a World Cup week becomes a fleeting headline or a lasting city asset.
The main benefactor of the World Cup will be FIFA, not host cities. As The Economist noted in its review of economist Andrew Zimbalist’s Circus Maximus, there is “little doubt that under current conditions, prudent city governments should avoid the contests at all costs.”
The main benefactor of the World Cup will be FIFA, not host cities.
By “benefactor”, they mean “beneficiary”?
To the surprise of no one, especially the organizers of these things.
They’re just an excuse to feather nests.
So, in other words, no.
Sports are the opiate of the masses, of course gov’t’s waste public funds on these things.
Its to sporatic in my opinion. Year over year festivals and where people are like. I would love to see X event they hold in Y city. I feel those have a more beneficial effect. Like anything though I don’t want any tax break bs for this stuff.
I mean, sports don’t produce anything. Tourism and entertainment in general is wasting resources. You might get to shift the resources from tourists pockets to yours, but you didn’t manufacture anything useful.
