Why Hosting a World Cup Doesn't Matter for Cities, and How it Can

Two major international decisions are being made today:
which countries will host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups. The selected hosts will
undoubtedly celebrate their victories, and look forward to the soft and hard
benefits of hosting this most watched of sporting events. The host countries
should also take care to prepare for negative impacts – short- and long-term
effects that play out in physical, social and economic ways. Who gets selected
is surely important in some ways, but when considering these mega-events in
terms of their potential impact on the places in which they're held, who hosts
the World Cup doesn't really matter.

It should, though. But because of the minimal requirements
made of the cities hosting World Cup matches, how cities prepare for the event
is hardly a concern to FIFA, soccer's international governing body.
Whether hosting the World Cup makes a city exponentially better or terrifyingly
less efficient is irrelevant to FIFA, based on how it guides the cities
intending to host this event. The long-term impact of the event is hardly
considered, and its potential to create the sort of vast civic improvement
projects often resulting from such international event hosting is ignored. By
not acknowledging the urban interventions made by host cities in preparation
for World Cup hosting, FIFA is essentially turning a blind eye to the possible
great things its event can bring to or inspire in cities.

This is an unfortunate reality, and one I've explored at
length in an academic-type article, included below. I wrote this article for an
international conference focusing on mega-events and cities, and it should be
stated very clearly that I am not an academic, nor am I really qualified to
write anything that portrays itself as academic work. My paper was not
peer-reviewed, as many articles are, and if it were it would likely be subject
to many, many edits and possibly a simple toss to the garbage bin. Either way,
I wrote this thing, and I feel like it makes some valid arguments/suggestions
about how FIFA can improve its requirements of World Cup host cities to
instigate more civic-minded and long-lasting positive urban impacts. The intent
is to change the way we and FIFA think about what a World Cup host cities can
and should be and do. These are topics I've been tracking on my newsblog World Cup Planning, and realities I've seen in South Africa during the 2010 World Cup and in Rio de Janeiro ahead of its hosting duties for the 2014 World Cup. I'm hopeful that by the time they pick the host of the 2026 World
Cup the ways cities prepare to host this major event will be more seriously
considered.

Here's the paper: 

Improving FIFA's World Cup Hosting Requirements to Create
Better Cities

Abstract

This paper examines the requirements set for cities hosting
the FIFA World Cup, focusing specifically on the event's potential for
significant urban change and the apparent indifference the event's requirements
have for that potential. By exploring the requirements set by the event's
governing body, FIFA, and reviewing the impact large sporting events of this
nature can have on cities and urban development, this paper suggests that FIFA
should place more emphasis on encouraging urban improvements as part of its
host city requirements.

Introduction

This paper will discuss the current rules and regulations
Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) has created for
prospective World Cup host cities, and how those rules could be improved to
correspond with and more purposefully direct host city investment towards
long-term infrastructural benefits. As it stands now, World Cup host countries
invest billions of U.S. dollars to prepare stadia, update transportation
networks and market their host cities to international travelers and sponsors.
But based on the requirements FIFA has set, host cities don't really have to do
very much: they need to have a stadium, training facilities, locations for
public viewing venues, and some modest adjustments to public transit systems on
game days. It's not surprising that most if not all host cities go above and
beyond these minimum requirements. Cities often view hosting duties for events
at the scale of the World Cup and the Olympics to be opportunities to invest in
citywide improvements – some of them vast. But FIFA's current rules do little
if anything to encourage this sort of broad-scale urban thinking; it just
happens organically. But it happens over and over again, and by keeping its
same or very similar host city guidelines, FIFA is ignoring the impact its
event has on cities. Arguably, the organization is concerned primarily with
football so it doesn't need to worry about the urban impact its tournament has.
But maybe it should. Due to the large investments cities and countries make,
the extensive and goal-oriented bid books they create to try to lure the
tournament to their land, and the potential for immense urban change as a
result of being selected, FIFA should be more aggressive about what sort of
urban environment is right for a World Cup. The cities already think of it that
way, so why shouldn't FIFA? By exploring the intricacies of the World Cup host
application process, the bid writing, the efforts of cities to play host and
the regulations that guide their preparations, this paper seeks to bring
greater attention to the potential for improvement in this process, which is
unofficially aimed at improving urban areas. Through an examination of FIFA's
World Cup host city requirements, pending bids for upcoming World Cup tournaments,
experiences in host cities of previous World Cup tournaments, and previous
scholarly work on the urban impact of mega-events like World Cup tournaments
and the Olympic Games, this paper will illuminate various ways that FIFA can
expand the impact of its tournament on future World Cup hosts by accepting that
its event has a major effect on the cities in which it takes place far beyond
the extent of the 30-day tournament.

Requirements for Hosting a World Cup

The FIFA World Cup is an international football tournament
held every four years. The current form of the tournament takes place over 30
days and is typically hosted by 8-12 cities spread across one country. Though
the event is relatively short, campaigns to win the right to host the event and
the completion of its related preparations can take years. For example,
countries are currently in the bidding process to host the 2018 and 2022 World
Cup tournaments. The 2010 World Cup host country, South Africa, was selected as
host in 2004, and work to prepare the country for the event began shortly
after. The bidding process can be an intense marketing effort, with bidding
documents running hundreds of pages and high-profile politicians and officials
adding their support to national efforts at securing hosting duties. Though the
event is considered a national event, much of the work and preparation filters
down to the individual cities hosting the actual matches of the tournament. The
2006 tournament in Germany took place in 12 venues in 12 cities. The 2010
tournament in South Africa took place in 10 venues in 9 cities. The 2014
tournament, to be held in Brazil, is expected to take place in 12 venues in 12
host cities. While these few cities have the responsibility of representing
their home countries during the event, they also see the benefit of being the
few chosen cities to experience the investment and excitement related to
hosting the event. Before discussing the potential positive impacts hosting
duties can provide cities, a better understanding is needed of what exactly is
required of cities interested in hosting part of the tournament.

Aside from various marketing efforts and guarantees of
cooperation with the various groups involved with running the World Cup, FIFA's
physical requirements for potential World Cup host cities are relatively few.
Much of the organization related to the World Cup is undertaken by an entity
known as the Local Organizing Committee (LOC), which is in charge of organizing
the bid and nationwide efforts of hosting the event. These include marketing,
ticketing, media management, finance, and general management of the
competition.^[i]
The actual governments of the cities hosting the event are less involved in the
broader scale of World Cup-related preparations, but are responsible for
certain physical preparations. The main physical preparation is the provision
of a FIFA-compliant stadium. Cities proposed as potential host cities typically
have a compliant stadium already, though some (or some business entity within
the city) commit to building new stadia should they be chosen as hosts. South
Africa, for example, built five new stadia for its 2010 World Cup, and
performed significant renovations on five others. The host city must also agree
to provide training sites to be used by teams ahead of and during the
tournament. Four proposed venue-specific training sites are required by FIFA,
which eventually chooses one per venue and one back-up.^[ii] The host
city is also required to maintain a controlled area around its World Cup
venues, enabling security and preventing unauthorized commerce, concessions or
promotional activities.^[iii]
This is mainly a security issue related to physical preparations. The city must
also provide venues for Fan Fests, public viewing areas to be operated by the
FIFA and the LOC. Aside from the stadia, the other major requirement of host
cities is related to transportation. Host cities are required to have a
detailed traffic management plan no later than three years prior to event
hosting. This plan is supposed to include information on how the city plans to
manage traffic around major thoroughfares and roads leading to the event venue
on match days, how it will provide public transit options and increased airport
capacity on match days and how it will provide parking on match days.^[iv]
These are not the only requirements FIFA has of World Cup host cities, but they
represent the most significant requirements of host cities. As will be further
explored in the literature review section, these requirements are far more
simplified than the actual preparations made by event host cities.

The competitive bidding process for World Cup hosting duties
helps to make the realities of hosting more intricate than the requirements
might suggest. There are currently five bids to host the 2018 World Cup:
England, Russia, the United States, and two joint bids from Spain and Portugal
and Belgium and the Netherlands. All five groups are also bidding for the 2022
World Cup, along with Australia, Japan, Qatar and South Korea. The host of the
2018 World Cup and the 2022 World Cup will be decided in December 2010. Because
of the competitive nature of the bidding process, potential host countries try
to make a good case that they will be the best possible host of the event. Much
of this case is based around the potential host's ability to provide the venues
for the event and to pull in enough spectators and sponsors to provide a
generous profit to FIFA. Increasingly, many bidding countries take the
opportunity in the bidding process to highlight other features, including
tourist destinations, cultural heritage, urban amenities and political
stability. The bid itself is contained in a bidding document, commonly referred
to as a bid book. Bid books can run hundreds of pages and are highly designed
and intricately detailed documents. For example, the main bidding document for
the joint bid between Spain and Portugal – one of four volumes – totals more
than 200 pages.^[v]
This document outlines the two countries' plans for hosting the event and the
impact they hope it will have on a variety of realms. In addition to
explanations of such basics as stadium provision, training sites, security
during the event, and financing, the bid also includes sections on
environmental protection and sustainable social and human development. The bid
also highlights the two countries' existing transportation infrastructure and
plans to expand it.

Hall's work in "urban reimaging strategies" observes an
increasing competitiveness amongst cities vying for large-scale events like the
Olympics, the World Cup and other conferences and gatherings. His research
suggests that cities are now placing their hopes of becoming "world-class
cities" on major event hosting duties.^[vi] Because of
this competitive aspect, the owners of such events have significant leverage in
terms of making requests and demands from bidders. The work of Getz argues that
groups like the International Olympic Committee have benefited from the strong
desire of many nations to be selected as host of an Olympic event.^[vii]
The countries bidding to host the 2018 and/or 2022 World Cup tournaments seem
to recognize the strength of the competition they face, and the power of FIFA
to select the country best able to play host. A promotional summary of
Australia's bid for the 2018/2022 bid (printed before the country withdrew from
the 2018 running) touts Australia as a friendly and safe country with a high
amount of middle class consumers. The document also highlights the stadia it
will either upgrade or build new for the tournament.^[viii] These are
common concepts for bidding nations to publicize. While they do argue that the
bidder is capable of hosting the event, they only hint at the potential
importance such hosting duties would have to the cities involved. However, it
can be argued that places bidding for such mega-events are indeed thinking
about these large-scale impacts. London, host of the 2012 Summer Olympics, has
created an Olympic Legacy Plan focused on creating both nationwide and local
benefits over the long term. As Smith explains, the plan targets a nationwide
goal of enhancing sport performance, increasing sporting opportunities for
youth and improving the national image. The plan also focuses more specifically
on improving the environmental sustainability of East London, site of the
Olympics, and encouraging an economic regeneration in the depressed area.^[ix]
That London's plan has more of an urban focus than Australia's is mainly a
product of that city already securing the right to host the 2012 Olympics.
Should Australia be granted hosting duties of the 2022 World Cup, it is likely
that a plan more focused on the urban legacy of the event would emerge. The
places hosting or planning to host major events like the World Cup understand
that they can create opportunities for urban improvements that might not
otherwise be available or politically viable. The upcoming literature review
section shows various ways event bidders have viewed their possible or achieved
hosting duties as opportunities for vast civic and urban improvement projects.

Literature Review

The urban impact of large-scale events has been discussed
extensively in academic literature, though much of the discourse on
sport-related events focuses on the Olympics. There are some significant
differences between the Olympics and the World Cup, the major one being that
Olympics take place in one city while World Cup tournaments take place in many
cities. The proximity of Olympic events therefore creates a concentrated
impact, and potentially citywide improvements or projects. Much of the
literature herein is related to Olympic impacts, but has a strong connection
with World Cup preparation and hosting as well. Though World Cups are more
distributed and infrastructure-focused, the efforts of individual host cities
are proportionately scaled-down but similar to Olympic host city efforts.

The potential of mega-events like these to catalyze urban
improvements first emerged during the 1960 Olympics held in Rome. As Liao and
Pitts explain, the clustering of the event venues in three separate areas
created a need for connectivity between. As a result, the city created a new
thoroughfare to connect the sites. The city also invested in non-Olympics
projects like a new water supply system, street lighting, urban landscaping and
other infrastructure projects. The major urban impact was the creation of a
vast street network connecting the center of Rome to the Olympic venues, all
three clusters of which were located on the city's outskirts.^[x]
This was a concentrated set of urban infrastructure projects that came to
foreshadow the impact of the Olympics on host cities. As Short argues, the
Olympic games went from being a small part of the World Fairs and Expositions
in the first half of the 20^th Century – then the dominant urbanizing
spectacle – to replacing those events as the new event with the capability to
"restructure, reimagine and represent the city".^[xi]
Interestingly, that status as a city reimaginer has evolved from an opportunity
to a justification. Many cities feel the need to include vast citywide
improvement projects like public transit development or housing creation to
justify the growing expenditures associated with hosting the modern Olympic
games.^[xii]
The same could be said of countries trying to host the World Cup. There also
exists, in Olympics and World Cups, the incidental benefit of an improved
global reputation. The large spotlight of media attention lured by these mega
sporting events gives the hosts not only a reason to develop itself physically
but a stage on which to show off its improvements.^[xiii] Swart
further argues that the successful hosting of a big event helps to secure a
place's reputation as an event host, thus creating future opportunities to host
other major events.^[xiv]
But much of the literature on cities as hosts of major events focuses on the
civic improvements these events enable. Not all of the literature looks fondly
on these investments, and history has shown that some investments in major
events like the Olympics have been poor decisions in the long-run. Athens serves
as the most potent example. After hosting the 2004 Summer Olympics, the city
struggled greatly to find further uses of the various Olympics-related sporting
infrastructure it had built. Unfortunate delays in construction nearly
quintupled the costs of building it.^[xv] Now, much of
that sporting infrastructure sits unused or abandoned. When construction is not
expensively delayed, however, big events like the Olympics and the World Cup
can play a big role in getting long-sought or long-needed projects off the
ground. With a hard-set deadline for beginning these events, existing plans can
be "fast-tracked" so that they'll be completed in time for the international
spotlight.^[xvi]

But Essex and Chalkley, among others, warn that the
opportunity to create eye-catching or importance civic works in time for these
events can also cause local officials to overlook or temporarily forget about
the pressing needs of underprivileged populations. This has been a major
criticism of the South African bid and hosting of the 2010 World Cup, and
remains a point of contention in the country even after the event has ended.
Various media reports include criticisms arguing that with roughly a quarter of
the country's working age population unemployed and millions in dire poverty, the
$4.3 billion (USD) spent by the South African government to host the World Cup
could have been used to address some of the country's social problems.^[xvii]
Of course, any discussion of the "legacy" of a mega-event like the World Cup or
the Olympics can be framed by a variety of interests. For example, as Hiller
discusses, the demolition of a housing project to make room for a sport venue
will be looked upon as a positive legacy for sports officials, but housing
advocates and the locals displaced by the demolition will look upon that
project as a negative legacy of the event.^[xviii] Preuss
and Holger argue that there are four ways major urban reconstruction related to
a mega-event can affect a city. The first is that scant resources will be
directed towards the event and away from more pressing social or civic
problems. The second is that event-related projects were already part of an
urban plan – a reality that can play out three ways, in their estimation: a)
that the host city is able to develop this pre-determined plan faster than it
would have had it not hosted the event; b) that the existence of the event
helps create political consensus around controversial or especially expensive
projects; and c) that some event-related projects or infrastructure will be
financed by groups outside the host city, like the federal government, sports
associations or from within the private sector. The third effect of
event-related urban reconstruction is the potential for "white elephants" –
those buildings or projects that are used for the event but unable to generate
use or revenue after the event. This is a reality that has spurred much more
consideration of temporary or capacity-flexible venues. The fourth effect is
that the existence of the event causes locals and officials to look at their
city in a different way, a way that considers the needs of the place both
during the event and after the event is over.^[xix] Their last
point, that the event will cause people to think more about the urban impact of
the event, seems to be increasingly accurate. During the 2010 World Cup in
South Africa, various groups and officials were observed to have specific World
Cup legacy policies or programs. The Cape Town Partnership, a collaboration
between the public and private sectors to improve the city's central business
district, used the upcoming 2010 World Cup as an opportunity in the late-2000s
to set up a city improvement district (also known as a business improvement
district). Because safety is a major concern in South African cities, a major element
of the city improvement district was to increase the presence of security
officers in the CBD. Andrew Boraine, chief executive of the Cape Town
Partnership, says that the influx of security in the CBD years ahead of the
World Cup helped to establish the area's safety in the minds of locals, and
that by the time of the World Cup it was seen as a place to safely experience
the event in public.^[xx]

Another of the major trends shaping urban
planning/development responses to major event hosting is the emphasis on
sustainability – in terms of the environment, but especially in terms of the
economy. Smith's work discusses the increasing importance of keeping economic
benefits within the local area of the event hosting, but acknowledges, as many
other authors have, that these mega-events tend not to bring major economic
benefits.^[xxi]
Keeping benefits local makes sense for residents in hosting areas, but for
events like the World Cup, with host cities around the country, there is an
implied feeling that the benefits should be nationwide. This was the case in
South Africa and in some cases the benefits could be considered nationwide:
improved airport capacity, increased national identity and pride, improved
tourism potential. But some have argued that the vast amount expended on stadia
directed money away from more wide-reaching improvements, like better public
transportation infrastructure and provision of water and electricity hookups to
informal settlements.^[xxii]
And, indeed, public transportation has become one of the major urban elements
associated with successfully hosting such mega events. Essex and Chalkley's
exploration of the history of urban impacts form the Winter Olympics argues
that an efficient transport infrastructure is an essential element in
successful events.^[xxiii]
In their examination of the history of urban developments related to the Summer
Olympics, Liao and Pitts highlight the new metro and tram lines built for the
2004 Summer Olympics in Athens, one of the few positive (albeit expensive)
legacies to come from that economically troubled event.^[xxiv] But even
the cost of this metro and tram is hard to link directly with the Olympics. As
mentioned earlier, the work of Preuss and Holger argue that long-planned
projects, though possibly spurred to construction by the event, may not
necessarily be considered event-related infrastructure.^[xxv] Perhaps
they are better considered pre-planned but event-enabled infrastructure. In
terms of accounting for the economic benefits and costs of mega-events, these
sorts of pre-planned projects are difficult to place in one column of the
ledger or another.^[xxvi]
However one wants to account for these legacies, it's easy to recognize the
fact that such civic improvement projects as public space creation or public
transit expansion have indeed happened. And it seems clear that host cities
will continue to include these sorts of long-lasting physical projects and
urban improvements in their event plans and preparations. But as Liao and Pitts
show, this inclusion of urban-oriented projects developed organically as the
Olympics increased in importance.^[xxvii]
It's hard to argue which influenced the other more over the years, but there is
a clear relationship between (1) the rise of the urban project-focused Olympics
beginning in 1960, (2) the increasing cost of these sorts of mega-events and
(3) the increasing competition amongst potentials hosts. As those three
dynamics continue to affect and react to each other, the amount of potential
hosts of mega events like the Olympics and the World Cup has decreased
significantly. Especially in the case of the Olympics, only the world's major
cities are capable of hosting such an expensive spectacle.^[xxviii] This is
true to a lesser extent of World Cups, as the high populations of temporary
residents are distributed among more cities. But even World Cups have a few
major city hubs. The 2010 World Cup in South Africa, for example, mainly
occurred in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and Port Elizabeth. Of the 64
matches, these four cities hosted 38. Johannesburg, with two World Cup venues,
hosted 15 matches, the most of any World Cup host city since Montevideo,
Uruguay was the sole host city during the first World Cup in 1930. The work of
Liao and Pitts suggests that the mega-ness of these mega-events is not likely
to decline, and therefore mega-cities will of necessity play their hosts.^[xxix]
They, and others, also discuss how the history of recent Olympic events has
shown that those cities that linked the event to a pre-held long-term plan were
most successful at creating well-used and needed public amenities that served
both the event and the citizens of the host city after the event ended.^[xxx]
Having long-term plans that do not necessarily rely on winning a mega-event
hosting bid tends to be a solid strategy that has a welcome side-effect of
being fast-tracked by the winning of a mega-event bid.^[xxxi] As
described in this literature review, there is a very strong connection between
hosting a mega-event and creating a long-lasting improvement to the function
and mobility of the host city.

Event Requirements

Despite the clear connection between urban planning-related
projects and the hosting of mega-events, the requirements for playing host have
not until recently taken a stronger role in encouraging that connection. This
is especially true of FIFA and its World Cup. The International Olympic
Committee, on the other hand, has gradually become more interested and invested
in the potential urban legacy its events can have on host cities. In 2000, the
IOC created the "Olympic Games Global Impact" – an effort to better understand
the overall impacts of the event on its host cities. The project covers a
time-span of 11 years, from bidding to two years after the event. The
evaluation focuses mainly on economic, environmental and social sustainability,
but urban effects are also recognized. Some have argued the two-year post-event
period is not long enough to assess the impact of event-related or -enabled
projects and urban improvements, but the evaluation methodology is largely seen
as a positive step towards accepting the urban impact the Olympics have
developed.^[xxxii]
The IOC's Olympic Study Commission decided in 2003 to focus more on the legacy
of the event. Now, hosts (beginning with London in 2012) are required to
consider legacy issues through all stages of event planning.^[xxxiii]
And the IOC has indicated its preference for a compact main Olympic site, both
for the convenience of attendees and for the reduced footprint of what had
become a sprawling and potentially urban-scarring event.^[xxxiv] In these
ways, the IOC is becoming more attuned to the impact its event carries. FIFA,
by comparison, has shown little similar concern. Even the once-a-year
single-game Super Bowl of American football receives bid books of 100 pages or
more arguing the reasons why a particular city (not just its stadium) should
host the game.^[xxxv]
And in a possible nod to the role of the urban realm in the experience of the
Super Bowl, the 2011 Super Bowl will take place in the brand new and light
rail-accessible Texas Stadium just outside of Dallas in Arlington, Texas.

Conclusion

The urban impact of mega-events like World Cup tournaments
and the Olympic Games is undeniable. As many have argued, this urban impact is
likely to continue in the coming years. But for the World Cup, the host city requirements
that guide the approach taken to hosting the event do not acknowledge the
potential hosting duties have to create long-lasting urban impacts. By
requiring only the most basic event-related urban improvements – many of which
are only required on match days – FIFA's rules miss the opportunity to inspire
longer-lasting urban impacts from what is increasingly a very expensive event
hosting job. But it's not that host cities and countries don't recognize this
potential. Past World Cup hosts and future World Cup hosts have taken notice of
the possibility to tie in major urban regeneration efforts with their hosting
duties. South Africa made long-needed major upgrades to airports in
Johannesburg (the busiest airport in Africa) and in Cape Town, and built a
completely new airport in Durban. Johannesburg and Cape Town also used the
World Cup as an opportunity to begin development of bus rapid transit systems
that began operations ahead of the World Cup and which continue to expand.
Johannesburg opened the first leg of a regional rail line, the Gautrain, just
days before the World Cup began. Brazil, which will play host to the World Cup
in 2014 has also made urban transportation a priority. Local and federal
funding totaling nearly $6.5 billion (USD) has been set aside for "urban
mobility" projects in the 12 cities chosen to host the 2014 tournament, part of
a roughly $19 billion (USD) effort to upgrade the country's infrastructure.^[xxxvi]
It's clear that host cities and countries are capable of taking the initiative
to create these sorts of long-lasting urban impacts. Because of that
initiative, it's arguable that FIFA doesn't need to say anything to make these
host cities act to leverage their hosting duties for vast urban improvement
projects. But it's also arguable that a future host could decide that it
doesn't need to create any long-term legacies and simply spends its billions of
dollars of funding on a huge party that lasts just 30 days. Rather, FIFA should
follow the lead of the International Olympic Committee in accepting the fact
that its event has a major urban impact that lasts for many years, and try to
encourage a more future-minded approach towards preparing for what is
essentially a temporary one-off event. By creating similar policies focused on
the footprint of the event, the legacy of the event, and the urban mobility
challenges and solutions it can create, FIFA could take more responsibility for
the long-term and potentially city-changing urban impact of what is one of the
biggest events any city will ever host. Such a change in host city requirements
would undoubtedly help to foster the creation of better host cities and more
equitable, long-lasting, and civic-minded city improvement projects.