Printable View
I share your doubts. Not many people make vacation destination plans for Kitzbuhel or Lake Placid just because they once hosted the Winter Olympics. And not many vacationers make the UK, Greece, or LA their destination because they once hosted the Summer Olympics.
Sports (as economic stimulus) may be nearing its end, similar to World Fairs. :bulb:
No but that's not their raison d'être in the first place so is moot.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Especially since the Stanley Cup requires no additional preparation, and is played in the home stadiums of the teams that are in the finals...Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Yeah, like CL and SB. They are quite similar events that all make a huge surplus for the one who can held it.
CL Final is in a pre-set stadium not related to the teams in the finals.
CL finals aren't played at the teams home grounds though. We had the UEFA cup finals in my city a few years ago, which meant tens of thousands of Spanish and English supporters swarming the center :up: great atmosphere, and I'm sure hotels, bars, restaurants all had a great weekend. No additional preparations aside from closing a few streets and other crowd control stuff. I'm pretty sure it was profitable, plus a lot of city promotion. I'm not sure how the location was determined though. But yeah, nothing like Olympics or WC.
I suppose that if the venues that are newly built, or upgraded, are actually used after, it may cost a lot but not be a complete waste, and national pride, unity, city/country promotion aren't worthless either.
Does the IOC keep as much of the revenue as FIFA?
I'm pretty sure both the SB and CL are not played in the home stadiums of the finalists (though there's an outside chance that one of the finalists might get lucky). Regardless, no new infrastructure is built for the events. Only Olympic and World Cup scam artists require substantial new infrastructure.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
I said similar not the same. And where was the last years CL final :p
Oh good, at least one gets the point: Existing infrastructure, in stadiums usually used by clubs of the same league (Wembley was an exception rather than the rule).Quote:
Regardless, no new infrastructure is built for the events. Only Olympic and World Cup scam artists require substantial new infrastructure.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-...24-709898.html
I hope that mangled sentence is a mistranslation. A debate on a vote for an assembly to debate about reform. :eek:Quote:
SAO PAULO--Embattled Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff on Monday pledged her administration to a search for solutions to long-standing national problems and will propose a national plebiscite on a constituent assembly to consider political reforms.
"We need a public debate on a plebiscite for a constituent assembly on political reform," she said in a televised speech during a cabinet meeting. "Political reform has been on the nation's agenda for many years."
Are you mocking the democratic process Dread? :confused:
No, just couldn't help notice the particularly drawn-out statement being made. She's not even calling for a vote, but calling for a debate over whether there should be a vote to possibly empower a group of people to then vote on doing something.
Read your own constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Consider it akin to having a debate leading to a referendum about whether a constitutional convention should be called.
I know. I would just expect someone trying to look decisive to actually call for the constituent assembly, instead of calling to talk about the possibility of calling a constituent assembly.
Who're you kidding? Sports routinely need new "infrastructure". US stadiums and arenas are heavily 'subsidized' by tax payers. Whether it's for state universities, AAU, semi-pro or professional sports, it's huge business. And it's not just for basketball, football, and baseball...but also tennis, swimming, cycling...even car racing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Try reading the first sentence in bold again. Concentrate on going through the entire sentence this time.
:donkey: Your last sentence is just plain wrong, Loki. It's not just World Cup or Olympic 'scam artists' that require substantial new infrastructure.
FOR THE EVENTS. No new stadium or other infrastructure is built specifically for the Super Bowl, Stanley Cup Finals, or Champions League Finals.
Yes it is. Name another event that requires substantial new infrastructure (whereby substantial is typically multiple new stadiums).Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Support for building a universities sports equipment is normally done as support for that university not as support for an event.
My turn to challenge your reading skills. :donkey: "Sports" encompasses more than your few examples. Routine EVENTS are often used to justify new building and beefing up infrastructure (roads, bridges, parking garages, public transit, sewerage, etc.) And it's not limited to major league sports wheeling and dealing for new stadiums/arenas (with threats to move their franchise to a more "subsidy-friendly" competing state). It happens at the student athlete, amateur, and semi-pro level, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
States use sports, and sporting events, as economic stimulus all the time. Taxes and infrastructure are tethered to entertainment and sports....with education/academics used like feeders/farms. Examples:
A Texas county will spend millions on a new HS football stadium (because it's grooming ground for Texas university football, Bowl "events", and entry into NFL) but they'll eliminate academic programs and/or cut teacher salaries to pay for it.
States with existing facilities will spend millions to improve and attract "sport events" and its sponsors. We use things like Pan-Am Games, Goodwill Games, Para-Olympic Games, Special Olympics, and everything in-between....but it all begins at the youth level, using public facilities, most often found at public education sites.
Rand, the British system is vastly different from the US. You don't use or fund university sports (or athletic scholarships) like we do. I was an Indiana resident when the Pan-Am Games was used as a precursor to hosting future Olympic Trials. They built Natatoriums, Gymnasiums, Cycling arenas....even in venues 100 miles away...which meant building new roads/highways, adding public transit buses and light rail.
None of what you've described remotely sounds like the same league as WC or OG hosting.
That actually isn't necessarily true. Having a maintenance/construction push on infrastructure, especially roads is fairly common before an event of that size. The stadium also has to have a minimum capacity for the city to be chosen. I know of several examples where cities built, or rebuilt stadiums in order to fulfill those criteria.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Now, I'm not sure many cities would say they specifically built a stadium or maintained roads just for a single event, but it is absolutely a consideration.
That being said, I agree with the thrust of your argument. There is a considerable difference in scale between the Olympics/World Cup and the Super Bowl.
Well, like I said....our "systems" are very different. Feel free to disagree, but UK publicly funded infrastructure, transit, and education/academics doesn't rely on Sports like the US does. Does Oxford University give full scholarships for really great boat rowers?
Hey, fellow Hoosier. ;) Does the larger argument need to be limited by scale, when we're debating principle?Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Edit: That's my attempt to bring this back to the OP and Brazilian protests. It's almost a no-brainer when 1/3 or 1/4 of any populace isn't fully employed, and can't rely on "higher education" (and its educational debt) to improve their economic situation.
As Kerbie said, While 1 in 2 Brazilians don´t have basic sanitation. They spent 3,5 billion from tax payers to build new or reform old football stadiums!! No wonder they are upset.
I don't agree in principle with public funding being used for private events period, including subsidizing the construction of stadiums.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
However, that was not what is being argued. The World Cup and Olympics require vast investments of resources that will often either not be used again, or used infrequently. The Stanley Cup, Superbowl, and other large events typically use existing infrastructure that might be augmented slightly, not constructed from whole cloth, as is often the case with the Olympics and World Cup.
Seems to me the "main argument", as outlined in the OP, revolves around millions of people being pissed off by politicians....who make legislative (and tax) decisions favoring their main donors, instead of serving the general populace. That's not a model for fair, just, democratic representation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
US voters/constituents share a similar beef with Brazilians. But we're more likely to be blinded by intent as an expression of principle.
With respect to the World Cup there's no need to have major "investment" for that either. Most host nations could/should have a number of pre-existing World Class football stadiums for their clubs.
It is a bit of an ego trip for FIFA/The IOC that there should be development.
You mean soccer stadiums. :p The US doesn't have soccer "clubs" like the UK...we have soccer "teams" that are hinged to public education facilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Please explain. If "host nations" should have World Class facilities already in place, in order to win the bid....then venues would rarely change.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
No I mean football, that's one of the F's in FIFA.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
They wouldn't need to but in order to stroke the ego of FIFA/The IOC bids normally include development that would only happen if they win the rights to host.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
To be fair, almost no countries have enough stadiums of the right size and safety and service class. There's a stadium ranking by FIFA or UEFA, and for example the Netherlands only has four in the highest class, as far as I know. Only those are, for example, eligible for CL or EL finals. And those are still too small for a world cup final. A world cup simply brings out far greater numbers of fans than most clubs in the world.
For example, in my hometown, PSV is one of the biggest clubs in the Netherlands (almost always top three) and the stadium seats 35k. Enough for most matches they have, but too small for a world cup.
And ggt, that is simply not true, you have major league soccer, not related to education facilities as far as I know.
To give her the benefit of the doubt, pro US soccer is laughably small, I would not be surprised at all if some of the teams played in educational stadiums. On the flip side we have plenty of college sports teams that use pro stadiums.
I only know LA galaxy, and just because they signed Beckham to be honest :p Looked it up, and their stadium is located on a campus, but not owned by it, nor are the main tenants. Which makes me wonder why it's even on a campus in the first place..Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
That's why IIRC if the Netherlands has sought to host the World Cup they've sought to do so in tandem with another nation. It's not that your stadiums alone are too small and new ones will be built, its that your nation is :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Plenty of World Class English, German etc clubs for it to be hosted with no development necessary
Aye, but for the world cup bid this stadium, for example, would have to be upgraded to 45k. And yeah, England and Germany are probably okay (though I'm not even sure they have enough), you need eight stadiums I think), but most countries don't. If you host it in, say, South Africa, or Poland/Ukraine, you're bound to have to improve a bunch of stadiums, or build new ones. And in those countries, improving infrastructure and other facilities isn't really unwarranted, either. My main annoyance is that FIFA gets all the profits, while the country pays the expenses - it would make a lot more sense to me if the investments required from the host are paid by the revenue of the event it's for.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't think any new stadiums were built for Euro 2000 over here, not sure about upgrades, but probably no upgrades that weren't useful/wanted anyway.
edit: checked, Germany had more than enough, but the requirement for FIFA is 40k seats for each stadium, which only two stadiums have over here (Ajax and Feyenoord). Champions League finals need 70k, apparently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/28/wo...ngress.html?hpQuote:
RIO DE JANEIRO — One politician was elected to Brazil’s Congress while under investigation for murder after having an adversary killed with a chain saw. Another is wanted by Interpol after being found guilty of diverting more than $10 million from a public road project to offshore bank accounts.
And Brazil’s highest court, the Supreme Federal Tribunal, convicted another congressman of having poor female constituents, who could not afford more children, surgically sterilized in exchange for their votes...
Lovely. Reminds me of Suriname, their president was convicted in absentia to 11 years for drug trafficking, is currently wanted by Europol, and is on trial for conspiracy to 15 murders, of which he allegedly killed two himself. And that's just the tip of his criminal iceberg..
Loki, your quote is probably topped by this tidbit:
Quote:
In 1963, Senator Arnon de Mello shot dead a fellow legislator on the Senate floor, only to escape imprisonment, since the killing was considered an accident because he was aiming at another senator.
it is a diversion strategy, to say to the people, "hey we will do something about it". The poll will cost 250 million dollars, not gonna happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Now, according to the government's proposal is intended to give a period of two weeks for the population to understand the full range of complex issues surrounding reform of the political system, electoral and party. This referendum will ask what?
Just impossible...