Shawn Kelley | World Cup, world class controversy

The World Cup is one of the largest sports event in the world. Thirty-two countries from the Americas, Europe, Africa and Asia vie for title of the world’s best football club. As such, the event draws a lot of viewership and controversy. While this cup is certainly no different, it has seemingly set the bar a little higher as far as controversy is concerned. Sure, there is the upset of top-rated Spain getting knocked out, as well as Uruguay player Luis Suarez biting an opposing player (and, with any sense of justice, being banned from the rest of the cup). I also believe not enough attention has been given to the support the Japanese team received. Brazil may get the limelight, but it’s also home to the largest population of Japanese outside Japan, most of whom would’ve loved to see Japan move on to the next round.

The biggest controversy of this cup has to be the cost. Not just in terms of how expensive this one was — average figures show the cost of this World Cup as $11 billion, making it the most expensive ever and almost three times as expensive as the last World Cup — but also in terms of how it will affect Brazil’s economy.

Brazil is in a precarious situation right now. Whilst they won the World Cup bid seven years ago, partly on the strength of their economic stability, they have since had a recession. Few other places in the world can have the poor, living in squalor and favelas, and within a few blocks have the super rich, living opulently in sprawling estates.

A lot of attention was called to the new stadiums being built, costing Brazil — and its taxpayers — close to $3.5 billion. Many cried out, saying the money would’ve been better spent on social programs. It’s an easy cry to make, and I agree with them in part. However it is not the whole truth, which shows that Brazil spends close to $90 billion on social programs a year — about a 200-to-1 ratio on money spent on the stadiums. It is a better question to ask if the stadiums were necessary. For example, the Arena de Amazonia in Manaus was rebuilt, costing about $300 million. Only four games will be played at the stadium. While future games could be played at the stadium, it is too large to truly serve the community. Games in that area typically attract around 1,000 attendees, while the stadium can seat 42,000.

Yet another question certainly looming in many people’s minds is what happens when the Olympic Games comes to Rio in 2016? Many of the stadiums built for the cup weren’t finished until days before the event started, despite having seven years notice. Will the same work ethic be in play when the world’s largest sports event comes to Brazil, or will the government and people have learned a lesson from the cup and the embarrassment of being so far behind schedule?

With that said, I believe Brazil holds a bright future if they can plan well enough ahead to take advantage of the opportunities given to them. While statistics show that World Cup host economies have out-performed the world economy by around 4% the year following a cup, they also show the hosts have underperformed by the same margin the year after that — except that Brazil will be hosting the Summer Olympics that year. The added economic boost could keep their head above water, provided they allocate funds into infrastructure and growth programs.

Of course if the government bungles it, Brazil could be headed towards a devastating economic downturn.

So while Brazilian fans cheer their team on the field, hoping to prove themselves a football powerhouse, I am cheering for them to show they can be an economic one as well.

Shawn Kelley is an LPS sophomore from San Diego studying English and Japanese. His email address is skelley@sas.upenn.edu.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.