• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Football Discussion

The thing is, if you've already got a load of good stadia, why should it cost so much to host it? People buy the tickets and turn up to the stadia. The football teams get on a coach and turn up and play at the stadia. What's all the money being wasted on?
 
BarryZola said:
The thing is, if you've already got a load of good stadia, why should it cost so much to host it? People buy the tickets and turn up to the stadia. The football teams get on a coach and turn up and play at the stadia. What's all the money being wasted on?
Click to expand...

It's the infrastructure. Alot of very good stadiums around the world. They will usually only filled by locals. Not by thousands from abroad. You then need to make sure you can house all the supporters, press, TV crews. Never mind the actual football players, coaches. Then you will need to get various supporters teams etc around the place. Better rail networks, buses. Mean training new people. Some of stadia, even though they could be good. May need improving for FIFA regulations. Size of pitch access etc.

Cost of policing, stewards. Train them up for big occasions.
 
I don't buy it. It's a world cup. You host it, and people will find a way to turn up. Take the UK for example. The stadia is already there. Plenty of hotels and Air B&B for visitors to stay in. The broadcasters will surely pay for their staff to be housed etc. Policing etc shouldn't be much different from a normal English football weekend (in fact, they'll only have a few games to concentrate on any day instead of tens of football league matches). These costs of slightly tweaking such things should be chicken feed in the grand scheme of things for an already football established country (obviously I see why non-football countries require a large spending spree as they don't have the infrastructure to begin with). I still struggle to see where any substantial expenditure of money comes in.
 
Clubs pay the police to be in the ground and around the ground owned by the club. Cost of this is around £270k a season. The rest is payed for by us the tax payer. Which is alot of millions. During the summer. The tax payer saves as no games are on. Now, it will foot the bill. With there being an influx of foreign supporters in and around the gaff. London, as an example will be more of a target for terrorism and will most likely hold events during times the games aren't on. Usually police forces will put holiday bans on during this time and will need more police around during the day and at night. Especially if England are at home (which one would assume to be wembley) The overtime bill will be sky high. Remember, thousands will travel who won't be able to get in the stadia, never mind a hotel. Plus the tourism and those already in London around the summer months. Some cities won't have issue with tourism. Now have supporters of many nationality roaming around in bars and local parks. Never mind the massive influx of people now on the trains, underground and road network. Which barely cope during a rush hour.

I had a friend went to an event in Liverpool during Eurovision. There were people in crowd advising people not to take pictures of the skyline (event was near the royal liver building) my friend had a nosey at the skyline and could see snipers. Obviously, the fear of a Russia terrorist attack because Liverpool was borrowed by the Ukraine. I guess that will need to be replicated around this time.
 
OK, so extra policing costs, I accept that. That's not hundreds of millions of pounds though over a several week tournament. As for accommodation, it is what it is really. Fans just have to scramble for places nearest to the venue. Unlucky if you have to book somewhere further away from the stadium. Same with travel really, that's a fan's problem. Hire a car. Can't do that, get a train. Can't do that, book a taxi. We already have roads and railway lines. I'm just not seeing where it NEEDS (being the important word) to cost 100s of millions or even billions to have a football tournament be played in your country if you're reasonably developed and already have the stadia.
 
Qatar spent £200billion.

Russia £11.6 billion.

Hosting events in Brazil and Greece practically bankrupted the countries. Granted the Olympics had a bit to play.

I will say every country and FIFA delegates expect to be housed for free. The hotels will very rightly go (ahem) alot more than normal please.

Hire stadiums and training facilities. (Which the club's will obviously charge a premium.) All the cost of food and drink. Tickets and merchandising. FIFA will want a cut, mostly because the FIFA logo will need to be used.
I can imagine it's a very hefty bill, for very little reward.
 
Half the cost is the bribe to FIFA.

Plus you have to deal with the various sponsor demands, tickets for them. Half the time now tickets go to sponsor groups over actual fans.


Elsewhere, I see Darren England will be suspended from involvement from Liverpool games. Hardly fair that the rest of the league has to deal with his incompetence when he should be just flat out suspended.
 
Slugjc said:
Qatar spent £200billion.

Russia £11.6 billion.

Hosting events in Brazil and Greece practically bankrupted the countries. Granted the Olympics had a bit to play.

I will say every country and FIFA delegates expect to be housed for free. The hotels will very rightly go (ahem) alot more than normal please.

Hire stadiums and training facilities. (Which the club's will obviously charge a premium.) All the cost of food and drink. Tickets and merchandising. FIFA will want a cut, mostly because the FIFA logo will need to be used.
I can imagine it's a very hefty bill, for very little reward.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but like, it's the fans paying for tickets, merchandise and food etc. The government of the country isn't buying every fan food and drink whilst they're in the country. If anything (as promised when we try to get the Olympics etc) local businesses will actually make more money which is apparently good for the economy. Again, yeah, the FIFA delegates will want the fancy seats for free. Stadium hire, OK, that could potentially cost a few million (or maybe they're happy to have the paying customers so they don't have to be hired out at a huge cost?). But again, where are the hundreds upon hundreds of millions of pounds going when you already have the infrastructure in place? I simply won't accept that it HAS TO cost this much money in an already established footballing country (unless anyone can show me evidence to the contrary with a breakdown of where the hundreds of millions or indeed billions are LEGITIMATELY going). Not meaning to be a div, but I can't see it, unless it's just another way of funnelling money out of tax-payers pockets into various businesses that aren't really needed, for marketing, advertising etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D4n
BarryZola said:
Not meaning to be a div, but I can't see it, unless it's just another way of funnelling money out of tax-payers pockets into various businesses that aren't really needed, for marketing, advertising etc.
Click to expand...

BINGO.

You are using English standards with its Premier league, state owned, American billionaire, football grounds. With super dooper facilities already built and full stadiums left right and centre and 92 grounds to choose from.

To host a world cup you need 14 stadiums. All above 40,000 and 7 already built with the min requirements. If you are a South America country with not much oil and USA dollers floating around. It's going to take a lot to get the place spic and span.
 
Yeah, but my original point was that it shouldn't be costing you hundreds of millions or billions if you already have the stadia. My point still stands :)
 
My God...absolute robbery that Spain did thanks to that bribed referee. The Scotland goal was disallowed for what seemed like a non-existing foul before the VAR officials couldn't find any so they made a fake offside call in which the fact they didn't so any VAR replays just reeks of clear bias for Spain.

Plus, every Spanish tackle was fair game and every Scottish tackle was clamped down on. All the echoes of the infamous 1975 European final between Leeds vs Bayern Munich in which Leeds were cheated then and to top it off, Scottish supporters have been suffering police brutality there which given the Tartan Army's record for good behaviour is unprecedented.

Yes, that referee and that VAR team were Franco and his cronies in disguise.
 
QTXAdsy said:
My God...absolute robbery that Spain did thanks to that bribed referee. The Scotland goal was disallowed for what seemed like a non-existing foul before the VAR officials couldn't find any so they made a fake offside call in which the fact they didn't so any VAR replays just reeks of clear bias for Spain.

Plus, every Spanish tackle was fair game and every Scottish tackle was clamped down on. All the echoes of the infamous 1975 European final between Leeds vs Bayern Munich in which Leeds were cheated then and to top it off, Scottish supporters have been suffering police brutality there which given the Tartan Army's record for good behaviour is unprecedented.

Yes, that referee and that VAR team were Franco and his cronies in disguise.
Click to expand...
They played for the point. When they went 1-0 down, they should have changed things up. The VAR decision was highly questionable.
 
I think there is a huge ref bribing scandle going to occur anytime soon. Barca paying a ref to be an "advisor." Then we have the whole practice of full time English refs going to Qatar. We know who they own.

Part of me feels for Pep. If city are charged with these 115 counts and Barca are found guilty of this match officials thing. It could tarnish his whole reputation.
 
Scotland lose to far superior opposition who were playing at home.
The referee must have been bribed, and the football there is run by fascists.
You even sound like a Scotland fan.
Back to the big rubber duck fantasy, I prefer that one.
 
rob666 said:
Scotland lose to far superior opposition who were playing at home.
The referee must have been bribed, and the football there is run by fascists.
You even sound like a Scotland fan.
Back to the big rubber duck fantasy, I prefer that one.
Click to expand...
Whilst I whole heartedly concede that the massive conspiracy theories are OTT, I would state the fact a goad is ruled off for a foul during the match (via VAR), but subsequently turns into an off-side post match does need explanation.

In terms of 'sounding like a Scottish fan' (a term which I am assuming is conveyed with love and respect), you may want to search youtube for English fan reactions to losses. My favourite is the zelophobia, hate and conspiracy post France defeat in 2022... it clearly shows why England fans are generally unwanted at major tournament.
 
rob666 said:
It isn't a goal because it was offside.
If it was a foul as well, it still wasn't a goal, so what's the difference.
Click to expand...
If you were watching a game of football, featuring your team. You score an amazing free kick, the defending team protest the goal and therefore the referee reviews the goal. That shouldn't happen for a start as "only the referee" can decide VAR should review a decision.

The referee then reviews the footage with the VAR team looking for "a clear and obvious error". The referee then decides that a foul was committed by the defender on the keeper (something I am not convinced by) and dismisses the goal based on the foul (again, the bar for VAR was set at "serious missed incidents").

Post match, the foul has turned into an off-side. Again, questionable as the 'interfering in play' rule should come into play, and over and above that - if he was off, it was marganable and therefore not "clear and obvious".

So, if it were England. You were 1-0 up in a key game. You get a goal disallowed for a dubious foul. The foul then mysteriously turns into an off-side at some stage (after players were told it was a foul). You are telling me you wouldn't be asking questions? It would literally be headline news everywhere!
 
rob666 said:
If it was a foul as well, it still wasn't a goal, so what's the difference.
Click to expand...
The last post turned into a ramble, so for clarity - for VAR to rule out a goal it must be a "clear and obvious error". The difference is that if it wasn't clear it was either a foul or an offside. It wasn't "clear and obvious".

And... it was a wondergoal! Scott McTominey deserved to have that one on his score-card.
 
rob666 said:
It isn't a goal because it was offside.
If it was a foul as well, it still wasn't a goal, so what's the difference.
Click to expand...

It looked to be a perfectly good goal that was harshly ruled out for the slightest of touches on the goalkeeper (or possibly an offside).

It’s easy to understand why the Scotland fans are so unhappy with it, the game was 0-0 at the time and this would have given them the lead at a crucial time. But of course that’s football, sometimes you get some poor decisions going against you or something that is blatantly not right being allowed (ie Thierry Henry playing basketball in the build up to a goal against Ireland some years back).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top