Brazil's leftist government basically wanted to show the world its awesomeness the only way leftists know how: spend tons of tax dollars on global events (World Cup, Olympics) and screw silly things like industry. Add in some lovely corruption, and you had a recipe for disaster.
The only country that's suited for events like the Olympics and the World Cup is the USA, because we have the facilities and hotels already there (and even then, it's a dicey proposition). A country like Brazil spending millions upon millions on sports facilities that they'd use for a month is an economic disaster.
@ Tucanae: That's because the owners heavily suck at the tit of cities for profits (pay for my new stadium, taxpaying public); especially so in the USA where cities are much more at the mercy of sports teams than in Europe (Manchester United can't just leave Manchester at the blessing of the FA because they're throwing a tantrum over the city not permitting renovations to Old Trafford). And also because people actually want to see football, baseball, basketball on a regular basis and will pay to do so; it's not a novelty act like Olympic archery (pay a bunch for a facility, use once, never use again). At least with a football stadium, cities can get sponsorship deals and use them for other purposes to make money.
4 comments:
Don't forget the Greeks pioneered it - and promptly went bankrupt:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/gallery/2014/aug/13/abandoned-athens-olympic-2004-venues-10-years-on-in-pictures
Brazil's leftist government basically wanted to show the world its awesomeness the only way leftists know how: spend tons of tax dollars on global events (World Cup, Olympics) and screw silly things like industry. Add in some lovely corruption, and you had a recipe for disaster.
The only country that's suited for events like the Olympics and the World Cup is the USA, because we have the facilities and hotels already there (and even then, it's a dicey proposition). A country like Brazil spending millions upon millions on sports facilities that they'd use for a month is an economic disaster.
Depends I guess. I have yet to hear of a owner(s) of a major franchise (MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL) lose money on the deal.
@ Tucanae: That's because the owners heavily suck at the tit of cities for profits (pay for my new stadium, taxpaying public); especially so in the USA where cities are much more at the mercy of sports teams than in Europe (Manchester United can't just leave Manchester at the blessing of the FA because they're throwing a tantrum over the city not permitting renovations to Old Trafford). And also because people actually want to see football, baseball, basketball on a regular basis and will pay to do so; it's not a novelty act like Olympic archery (pay a bunch for a facility, use once, never use again). At least with a football stadium, cities can get sponsorship deals and use them for other purposes to make money.
Post a Comment