The Protests In Brazil 2013 Soccer

The Confederations Cup of 2013 will be remembered for the good soccer that is being played on the field as well as for the soccer protests by thousands of Brazilian fans across the country who disapprove of the big money that is being spent by the government to host the 2014 World Cup.

These protests conjure up memories of Occupy Wall Street and the Arab Spring in 2011 except that in the case of the former the protests were non-violent and in the latter case they were directed at one person.

The usual protests in Brazil are about the most marginalized groups such as indigenous people and favela dwellers dispossessed in the name of development- losing land, houses, livelihoods and lives while private fortunes are being made.

President Dilma Rousseff is very popular among the poor but the soccer protests are led by a different class- the traditional middle class. On the streets well-educated people from central, urban areas shout that they have been sold a lie.

While TV shows inaugurations of costly, lavish football stadiums, people felt their lives were getting worse by the day while outsiders such as the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) are coming in and lining their pockets at their expense.

A look at the economics of the World Cup shows that the protesters have a valid point.

Next summer Brazil will host the World Cup, a month long nation tournament to crown the champion of soccer. The World Cup will cost the nation $15 billion and the promised legacy of infrastructure development is still nowhere to be seen (Broken Promises And Corruption Fuel Brazil Protests, by Rogerio Simoes, CNN, June 2).

Countries spend vast amounts of money to participate in the bidding process to host the World Cup. The notion that the World Cup will provide an economic bonanza for the host country is illusory in the case of the developing countries.

FIFA makes demands on the host country but offers no real support in return.

South Africa 2010

At the South Africa World Cup FIFA made over $3 ½ billion dollars from TV and other World Cup related rights. South Africa had to pay all of the costs (estimated to be $4.1 billion) to build stadiums, hotels and other local infrastructure.

22,000 jobs were created but were only temporary contract jobs and new infrastructure lay idle after the World Cup as ticket revenues could not make up for costs of maintenance which fell on cash strapped local municipalities who don't need a state of the art stadium (The World Cup: How FIFA Benefits While Host Countries Lose Big, by Presidio Economics, November 17, 2011).

Brazil 2014

Professor Chris Gaffney of Universidade Federal Fluminese in Brazil has predicted that Brazil is going to experience the same pain.

The costs of renovating and constructing 12 stadiums are already over budget. The renovation of the Maracana, the Mecca of modern soccer, will cost $600 million and even if it balances with expected revenues, each spectator will spend $1000 per game which will price out the majority of Brazilian fans.

Airports and hotels will be improved or built and together with transportation costs which were initially to be privately funded have incurred costs overruns and will be put on the taxpayers' shoulders (The World Cup: How FIFA Benefits etc.).

Inequitable Distribution Of Profits

Every team in South Africa got $9 million for participating ($1 million as a contribution to preparation costs and $8 million even if was eliminated at the group stage (FIFA World Cup 2010 - Money Makes The World Cup Go Round, by Swiss Rambler, June 16, 2010, Bleacher Report).

Since 32 countries participate in the final and half the berths are reserved for Europe it means that half of these revenues or $144 million went to the richest continent and the 5 other Confederations had to make do with the rest. In effect wealth is being redistributed from the poor countries to the rich ones. No wonder European clubs can buy Cristiano Ronaldo for $131 million, 21 year old Neymar for $75 million and pay Carlos Tevez $400,000 a week (after tax).

Under FIFA's biding system, choosing the venue for the World Cup depends on which country is willing to lay out the most money.

England, a nation with plenty of well established soccer stadiums bid for the 2018 World Cup. It finished last in the voting losing to a Russian bid which included plans for at least 9 new facilities.

The US was thought to be favorite for 2022 Cup with proposals including only stadiums already in place, some essentially brand new. But Quatar was picked as host with a plan including building 9 new stadiums with the extra costs of having to be cooled because of extreme temperatures in the Middle East.

What FIFA Needs To Do

Unless FIFA reforms the way it organizes and runs the World Cup the protests are not going to go away and will follow the event wherever it goes.

It should therefore do the following:-

First, it should stop choosing venues on the basis of who can lay out the most money and award the World Cup to the country which offers the most potential for the development of the game. Countries like India and regions such as Central America and the Caribbean come to mind where there is a great passion for the game but lack the required initial outlay.

Second, FIFA should reimburse the host country of at least half of its' preparation costs and join with that county in investing in infrastructure that will provide permanent benefits for the locals. This would help FIFA to fulfill its stated aim of taking the World Cup to areas where there is a passion for the game but is in need of development.

Lastly, the number of berths reserved for European countries should be reduced. In footballing terms they do not deserve as much as one-half of the places. This change would also help to redress some of the inequities in the distribution of the profits and make the event more attractive to prospective host countries.

Victor A Dixon 
June 27, 2013

Victor A Dixon
Born and grew up in Jamaica
Attorney, Social Scientist & Author
Lived in 5 countries
Particular interest in culture and development of South America and the Caribbean
Bilingual in English and Spanish
Married and lives in Florida

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Victor_A_Dixon

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/7825157