By NATE NGUYEN
Hosting a world event brings in billions of dollars in revenue, but is it worth hosting a world event like the Olympics or even the World Cup? At first, the idea seems great. Attracting millions of fans all around the world to tour the country, book hotels and purchase souvenirs might assist the economy, but the country host is not the one making profit; only the organization hosting the event is actually doing so.
For example, Brazil is ranked in the top ten best places to visit in the world, yet 21.4% of Brazil’s population lives at or below the poverty line. In 2014, Brazil hosted the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) World Cup, attracting millions of fans all around the world to see 32 teams play in 12 different stadiums. While the World Cup took place, over 200,000 Brazilians took their rage towards the streets of Brazil because the Brazilian government raised taxes to spend billions of dollars on stadiums that would be used only occasionally. Brazil could have spent that money on improved education and healthcare, which the people of Brazil demanded during their protests.
Brazil’s investment in a world event feeds the organization, not the country, with more wealth. The 2014 World Cup made over $3.51 billion, of which FIFA acquired a $2.61 billion dollar profit, yet FIFA only gave around $350 million to Brazil and other supporting countries. Comparably, the Olympics Committee, not the country that hosts the games, estimates $4.85 billion in revenue for the coming 2016 summer Olympics.
Hosting a world event is a bad investment because at the end of the day, the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Once again, the people of Brazil will be footing the bill for Olympic stadiums, when their hard-earned money could be better spent in other areas. Brazil is blinded by attracting more foreigners into the country, and is not actually interested in helping people in the favelas.