Every five-years it is the same story: how beneficial is a World Cup for the host country’s economy? Tourism will increase, infrastructure will improve and the number of jobs will rise. Newspapers and experts are discussing it for many hours and everyone is enthusiastic. Normally it is not possible for an ‘underdeveloped’ country to create and organise an efficient social health care system. Nonetheless, for organising a World Cup, there are sudden financial resources available substantiated by the fact it is good for “us”. Although, now four years after the World Cup in Africa the reality is the opposite. Africa is left in deep debt and what is concerning about Brazil is that we can only wait to see what the future will bring.
The World Cup consists of 30 days with enormous and extended preparations, however how does the country look after the tournament? While additional hotels were built for extra rooms for the World Cup supporters; it now results in an oversupply of rooms. Besides the sudden advance of the tourist industry it barely creates permanent jobs in the capital city. All temporary jobs dissappeard at the same time the World Cup ended.
The World Cup in Brazil received massive international attention and financial injections. However the death of eight construction workers was less in the spotlight. In Brazil several options exist to play football for the locals. For instance on the street; in a hall or joining a soccer club. The last example has become an option for only the elite. The economic growth in Brazil 2007 resulted in the change to host the World Cup in 2014. Many citizens were enthusiastic until they discovered the ‘other’ side of hosting a World Cup. Researches had shown us that Africa, the previous host of the world cup, had an economic increase of 0,1 percent. Additionaly, the government has paid three billion dollar to ‘invest’ in the country. Street children and vagrants were moved away because they do not fit in a hosting image. A quarter of a million people were pushed to leave their houses and to keep tempers calm, while they were promised tickets. This situation is not characterized by pure democracy but by power to sustain normal processes of interaction. (Sklair)
(Robert W. Cox) In a production, in this case organising a world cup, there are always dominant and subordinate groups. The Fifa is the dominant group who forced a relative ‘underdeveloped’ country to organise the world cup. The government of the country is forced by the social environment to accept it with feasible privileges and disadvantages.
According to Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak (1995) hosting the World Cup by a government leads to Marx’ view which seeks to supplement Marxism thought the emphasizing of the responsibility for the hosting country and the associated causes. The class structure between the elites who are the target and the victims of the causes of global capitalism leads to a division in the country. The construction worker who is building the World Cup and the elite who is enjoying the World Cup are causes of production, just as the ones controlling it.
Boykoff, J. World Cup protesters fifa demands reform. The Guardian. [online] June 10th, 2014. Available [Accessed 18 November 2014 ]
Cox, R.W. Production, Power, and world order; social forces in the making of history. Chapter 1, The dimensions of production relations. p 17. [Accessed 21 November]
Molina, M. Waging Nonviolence. Truth-Out [online] June 16th, 2014. Available [Accessed 18 November 2014 ]
Saunders, G. SA 2010 fifa world cup a year in review r40bn well spent with some areas still to be leveraged. Grant Thornton [online] June 9th, 2011. Available [Accessed 18 November 2014]
Sklair, L. (2001) The transnational capitalist class, Chapter 2 : Globalizing class theory p. 23 [Accessed 13 December 2014]
Vermeulen, M. Wat doet een WK nu echt met een arm land?. De Correspondent. [online] July 8th, 2014. Available [Accessed 19 November 2014]