OpinionWhy host the Fifa World Cup? The sacrifices seem to outweigh the gains
Chicago’s polite refusal to play host when the tournament goes to the Americas in 2026 makes sense when the scale of the outlay in Russia is considered
Whom would you trust more, Russian President Vladimir Putin or Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel?
Whereas Putin is revelling in the attention that Russia is receiving as host of the 2018 World Cup, Emanuel has informed the US Soccer Federation and Fifa that Chicago has no interest in serving as a host city when the tournament comes to North America in 2026. Canada and Mexico will each host 10 matches, and the United States will host a further 60. So why is the third-largest US city taking a pass?
To understand what it means to host a global sporting event, consider that Putin’s government spent US$51 billion to US$70 billion to stage the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, and is projected to spend at least US$14 billion hosting the current World Cup, which runs through July 15.
Russia’s budget provided for the construction of seven new stadiums – including one in St Petersburg that cost about US$1.7 billion – and renovations to five other venues. And that does not account for expenses for training facilities, lodging, expanded infrastructure and security.
Chicago, having already hosted the opening ceremony and first match of the 1994 World Cup, has adopted quite a different mindset. Emanuel’s spokesman, Matt McGrath, recently issued a statement alleging that Fifa was demanding something tantamount to a “blank check”, including an “open-ended ability to modify the agreement … at any time and at their discretion”.
Moreover, Fifa would have required that Soldier Field – home to the Chicago Bears NFL team – be taken out of use for two months before the tournament. In the end, Emanuel’s office concluded that “the uncertainty for taxpayers, coupled with FIFA’s inflexibility and unwillingness to negotiate, were clear indications that further pursuit of the bid wasn’t in Chicago’s best interests”.