Hosting a major finals will always seem terribly expensive but the cost of next summer's World Cup in Brazil is already too great.
A crane at the construction site for a stadium in Sao Paulo collapsed yesterday, causing damage to the structure but also killing two people. The stadium - which was known locally as "Itaquerao" - is intended to host the opening match of the tournament and five further games.
Work was scheduled to be completed within the next month and industrial conglomerate Odebrecht SA, which had been commissioned to carry out construction, stated recently that the arena was 94% complete. Pictures immediately following the accident have suggested that the damage caused by the crane could now set work back some time.
Such a comment seems somewhat caustic given the deaths of two workers, but there had already been growing concerns about how ready Brazil will be to host the World Cup. Other improvements - to such as public transport - are already under scrutiny. It is common for outside observers to spend the interim months speculating about whether a stadium will be complete on time, if the host country can deliver, but once local authorities confirmed the fatalities, nobody much cared.
It will take time for Brazil to gather itself, and its momentum, although the enthusiasm among local football supporters was already dissipating. Many have regarded the tournament as a missed opportunity to bolster the country's existing infrastructure more impressively.
"I think the matches broadcast to the world will be a great show and there will be no problems," said Marcelo Proni, an academic at the University of Campinas who studies preparations for major sporting events. "But the public money being spent on readying the country could be better spent elsewhere. Brazilians will be delighted to host the World Cup but that will be because of the party, not because money is being spent wisely."
Brazil was awarded the right to host the finals in 2007 but there was a delay of almost two years before a decision was made on which cities would host the 64 games and then 12 were selected. That is higher than in previous tournaments and initial promises from the government that public funds would not be tapped have not been kept. In addition, there have been estimates that at least two of the stadiums, in Manaus and Cuiaba, will be finished late.
Furthermore, the government's Federal Audits Court has stated that at least four of the stadiums will be white elephants by the time the World Cup is over, since five of the selected host cities will not have a first division football team playing at the grounds. "There may be demonstrations [about how the competition is being handled] but the dynamics of the World Cup will not be hindered by the Brazilian people's exercise of their right to peaceful demonstration," said Flavio Dino, the president of tourism board Embratur.
There was no obstacle to FIFA's intention to focus on the football either, with Thierry Weil, the marketing director for the governing body confirming that all 1.1m tickets had been sold during the initial two purchasing windows. "As expected, the level of interest was impressive," he said. "This clearly shows the huge appeal of attending the World Cup live in Brazil."
New plans are now being considered which will allow nations from the Asian and Oceania football confederations a better chance of attending a finals at all. Proposals surround the two bodies combining World Cup slots - with both regions suffering heavy defeats in the intercontinental play-offs last week. Asia currently has four automatic qualifying berths, with the fifth-placed team going into a play-off, while Oceania teams can only qualify through the play-off.
The plans appear to have the backing of Sepp Blatter, the FIFA president. "This is something that we should look at for the future," he said.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article