BF2S Forums Hosting International Sporting Events in Poor Countries

Turquoise wrote:

As the developing world rises in power, prosperity, and influence, more and more sporting events like the World Cup and the Olympics are being held more frequently in poorer countries.

However, it seems that every time this happens, the local poor are disenfranchised more than normal or are otherwise whisked away to "keep up appearances".   While there are lesser examples of this in wealthier countries, it seems a lot more stark in the developing world.

The justification for holding these events in developing countries is often one regarding prestige, but it seems like the cost to the poor of these countries is rather high.

What do you guys think?

china really isn't a poor country man...

greece didn't really whisk anyone away

england isn't really poor.

we must wait till 2016 in rio to see if this is true, but then again Brazil is part of the BRIC as well...

but yeah, you should say developing not poorer because all of the BRIC (well maybe not the R) have much higher growth rates in the economy than the US.

Phrozenbot wrote:

Trotskygrad wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

As the developing world rises in power, prosperity, and influence, more and more sporting events like the World Cup and the Olympics are being held more frequently in poorer countries.

However, it seems that every time this happens, the local poor are disenfranchised more than normal or are otherwise whisked away to "keep up appearances".   While there are lesser examples of this in wealthier countries, it seems a lot more stark in the developing world.

The justification for holding these events in developing countries is often one regarding prestige, but it seems like the cost to the poor of these countries is rather high.

What do you guys think?

china really isn't a poor country man...

greece didn't really whisk anyone away

england isn't really poor.

we must wait till 2016 in rio to see if this is true, but then again Brazil is part of the BRIC as well...

but yeah, you should say developing not poorer because all of the BRIC (well maybe not the R) have much higher growth rates in the economy than the US.

China is terrible. No one said England was poor. No one cares about Greece.

Maybe SA?

well what I meant is what most people don't consider china to be poor despite like 90% of the population is peasants with shit quality of living.

anyways...

SA, didn't see that one.

yeah I guess that they had to do a bunch of cleaning up, but I think they gained more than they lost.

Trotskygrad wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

As the developing world rises in power, prosperity, and influence, more and more sporting events like the World Cup and the Olympics are being held more frequently in poorer countries.

However, it seems that every time this happens, the local poor are disenfranchised more than normal or are otherwise whisked away to "keep up appearances".   While there are lesser examples of this in wealthier countries, it seems a lot more stark in the developing world.

The justification for holding these events in developing countries is often one regarding prestige, but it seems like the cost to the poor of these countries is rather high.

What do you guys think?

china really isn't a poor country man...

greece didn't really whisk anyone away

england isn't really poor.

we must wait till 2016 in rio to see if this is true, but then again Brazil is part of the BRIC as well...

but yeah, you should say developing not poorer because all of the BRIC (well maybe not the R) have much higher growth rates in the economy than the US.

Growth rates don't matter compared to standard of living.  Anything not considered developed is poor in my opinion, since the majority of hosts considered are developed countries rather than developing ones -- and for good reason.

Developing countries should focus on more important things than hosting sporting events.  They still need to reach developed status and deal with their massive poverty issues.

Instead, it seems like allowing them to be hosts just gives them an excuse to push their poor around.

uruguay hosted the first world cup

According to someone I know who was at the 1968 Olympics, and involved in military work, it was CIA snipers doing a lot of the shooting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlatelolco_massacre

DrunkFace wrote:

Those same sporting events bring in far more wealth to the country, and by "keeping up appearance" as you put it, will encourage tourism for years after the event. They create jobs and advertise the country to the rest of the world all while making a profit. Small price to pay imo, assuming the extra revenue goes into developing the country.

I really don't see much evidence for that.  Hell, few professional sports teams even accomplish that on a smaller level.

Take, for example, NFL teams.  I don't know of a single NFL team that truly brings in big money for a city on a level that actually makes a significant contribution to the local economy other than maybe the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers.  The majority of successful sports teams are based in cities that are already huge and would remain huge and mostly unaffected economically if one of their respective teams left.

I find it hard to believe that the Beijing Olympics made any lasting impression on the tourism for China.  I'm sure it was psychologically pleasing for the Chinese themselves in terms of prestige, but economically, it was probably little more than a blip that lasted that summer.

I don't see how Brazil's Olympics will do that either.

It's kind of funny...  A lot of people were upset when Chicago didn't win for hosting the upcoming 2016 Olympic Games, but after finding out how much it would have cost to get the city ready for that, they should be happy.