Brew Review // Morning Brew // Update

EDITOR’S NOTE

Good morning, and Happy World Cup Week. The quadrennial tournament kicks off on Thursday with Mexico vs. South Africa, while the US debuts on Friday against Paraguay. To help you prepare for the 39-day event—and to better understand the global ~~football~~ soccer landscape that powers it—we’ve got you covered with a special edition that’s all about “the beautiful game.” Read on to learn about the economic impact of the World Cup, why the US men’s team isn’t better, the most valuable clubs in the world, and more.

ECONOMIC GOOOOOALS

Is hosting the World Cup worth it?

An inflatable on a roof in Chicago during the 1994 World Cup. Eugene Garcia/Getty Images

Beyond allowing residents to learn the results of matches based on the screams outside their windows, how much does hosting the World Cup truly benefit its host cities and countries?

According to FIFA, a lot. The Mundial organizer says that fans from around the globe are flocking to cities across the US, Mexico, and Canada to watch this year’s games and will rack up local bar tabs, boosting economic growth. It estimates that the tournament could inject up to $9.6 billion into the US economy.

But detractors say the event that turns everyone into a huge soccer fan for a month is an unjustified drain on local coffers. Cities have signed on to pay for security and transportation, while reportedly agreeing not to receive any game-day revenues and to comply with restrictions on corporate sponsorship revenue. Meanwhile, FIFA stands to rake in $11 billion selling TV rights and controversially priced tickets.

Saddled with mounting spending, some localities are trying to offset expenses by charging fans as much as $100 to get to games via public transit.

Own goal

Many experts doubt that FIFA’s financial estimates are accurate. One economist told ProPublica that the group’s projections imply that each fan creates as much as $7,000 in economic benefit. Plus, skeptics note that the gains from visitor spending are typically concentrated in the hospitality industry. And, even then, hotel owners have complained of underwhelming bookings for the tournament.

Meanwhile, there’s some evidence that suggests hosting the global football festival can actually harm local economies. A widely cited study estimated that host cities across the US took a collective hit of as much as $9.3 billion from hosting the 1994 World Cup:

Its authors explain that World Cup disruptions can drive away non-soccer-related events, like conferences.
To avoid game-day mayhem, some locals might avoid visiting neighborhoods where matches take place, meaning they won’t spend money there.

But…the US isn’t building any new stadiums for these games, and the $625 million that the federal government is spending to compensate cities’ World Cup expenses pales in comparison to the billions that previous host countries Qatar and Russia poured into shiny new infrastructure.—SK

☕ Soccer Brew