全球聚焦南美洲 巴西世界杯能赚钱吗

Patrick Bond, a professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s School of Built Environment and Development Studies in South Africa, estimates that the country spent about $2.5 billion on stadiums that, because they are underused, require some $18-24 million in annual maintenance and operation subsidies.
然而，举办世界杯的好处还是显而易见的。最近，在一篇名为《公共集资的私人收益》的研究中，密歇根大学（University of Michigan）的体育管理教授史蒂芬o斯茨曼斯基（ Stefan Szymanski）和联席作者巴斯蒂安o德拉特（Bastien Drut）发现，世界杯过后的5年时间中，世界杯举办国球队赛事的上座率上升了15-25%；据作者估计，在2014年世界杯后的5个赛季内，巴西俱乐部的收入至少能增加1.82亿美元。

In response to this ‘white elephant’ problem, a South African union proposed turning one uNPRofitable stadium into low-income housing, while in the Brazilian city of Manaus, a judge has suggested converting a new local stadium into a prison after the tournament.
在另一篇名为《举办世界杯，观众将来自何方？》（If you host it, where will they come from?）的报告中，斯茨曼斯基和联席作者发现，在南非2010年世界杯赛事期间，到访的非邻国游客为20万出头，而当年到访南非的非邻国游客接近50万，分别增长8.1%和18.7%。

Still, there are some clear benefits to holding a World Cup. In a recent study titled, “The private benefit of public funding,” University of Michigan sport management professor Stefan Szymanskiand co-author Bastien Drut found that soccer teams in countries that hosted World Cups saw an increase in attendance of 15-25% in the five years afterwards; the authors estimated that clubs in Brazil would see increased revenues of at least $182 million in the five seasons after the 2014 games.
世界杯也会给个人带来利益。在一篇于世界杯过后发表的报告中，南非政府声称，体育场建设带来了6.6万个工作岗位，创造了9亿多美元的工资收入。

In another recent report titled “If you host it, where will they come from?” Szymanski and his co-authors found that the 2010 World Cup in South Africa attracted a little over 200,000 extra visitors from non-neighboring countries during the tournament, and almost 500,000 during the year, increases of 8.1% and 18.7% respectively.
但是对于那些质疑大修体育场的人士来说，问题并不在于钱，而是在于钱的去处。

There are benefits on an individual scale as well. In apost-World Cup report, the South African government claimed that stadium construction created 66,000 jobs that generated over $900 million in wages.
邦德说：“天知道真正的开销是多少。土地的价值又是多少？还有机会成本呢？如果我们把钱投在住房上，那么动乱可能就会少很多。”

But for those who question the stadium booms, the issue is not the spending, but what it buys.
邦德表示，如果他的祖国少选几座城市，少建几所新场馆，那么就可以打造“一个有更多非洲民众参加的世界杯，而不是一个最赚钱、靠富人和奢华场馆装点的世界杯。”

“Who knows what the figures really were,” says Bond. “What was the value of the land? And what are the opportunity costs? Let’s say we spent that money on housing. We would probably have many fewer riots.”
斯茨曼斯基说，世界杯被看作是一个针对游客的奢华赛事，这种观念才是结症所在。

Bond says that, had his country been content with having fewer new stadiums in fewer cities, it could have created “a more African-scaled World Cup rather than the most profitable World Cup with the richest taking and the most glorious stadiums.”
他说：“世界杯并不在于去体育馆观看。它是一个全球性的电视盛会。与其在最先进的、对国家来说毫无长期效益可言的巨型场馆中举办最为光鲜亮丽的世界杯，倒不如去呼吁将世界杯交由有能力举办世界杯的国家去举办，而且不要求承办国对此进行投资。因为转播权仍是价值连城，而且赞助商仍愿意为此掏腰包。”

Szymanski says that the real problem is the way in which the World Cup is conceived as a luxury event for visitors.
从目前来看，国际足联似乎不大可能放弃其这种声势浩大的竞标模式，因为其目的是为了把世界杯交给那些为推广足球运动而做出最大努力的国家。因此，在国际足联做出改变之前，一切都会照旧。

“The World Cup is not about going to a stadium to watch. It’s a global television spectacle,” he says. “Instead of putting on the most lavish World Cup you could imagine in up-to-date stadiums with huge pieces of infrastructure that have no plausible long-term value to the nation, you need to say we’re going to award it to a country that deserves to host it and we’re not going to require it to invest. The broadcast rights would still be worth a lot of money and sponsors would still pay.”
斯茨曼斯基说：“基本上，每一届世界杯和奥林匹克运动会都会上演同一个故事：最初，在赢得赛事举办权之后，民众对此鼎力支持。接踵而至的是对按期完工的巨大担忧和巨额的成本增加。然后，赛事拉开了帷幕，最后取得了圆满成功，而且也博得了人们的喝彩。然而，几年之后，人们会问，‘我们从中得到了什么？’”