The FIFA World Cup is one of the most premium sporting events across the globe attracts billions of viewers and helps to create a legacy for host countries. However, hosting such a grand event is certainly not free; it is mostly accompanied by many controversies about the justification of investing in such activities. Despite skepticism over the astronomical spending and how little it can benefit its citizenry, the Saudi Arabian attempt to host FIFA World Cup 2034 can be discussed by the following aspects on why the country may not be a feasible host, along with the financial and social losses that may counterbalance the profit.
High Costs of Infrastructure
For instance, Qatar spent over $6.5 billion on stadiums for the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Similar costs, if not higher, can be expected for Saudi Arabia. This would mean increased transportation networks with more airports, roads, and public transport in Saudi Arabia for the influx of international visitors. These projects are costly and put a strain on the national budget. Temporary structures that include fan zones, security installations, and hospitality suites increase costs. They soon become redundant as they do not last long after the event is completed, and the resources are wasted.
Economic Burden on Citizens
While the government may argue that hosting the World Cup will spur economic growth, the reality is usually different from the foretold promises. Mass events tend to lead to inflation in the host cities, which directly influences the prices for consumption by average citizens.
Although proponents of hosting argue that it creates jobs, most of the jobs created are temporary and only in the construction and tourism sectors. These jobs do not contribute to long-term stability or meaningful economic uplift of the population.
NCDs result in significant productivity losses, estimated at Int$ 75.7 billion, about 4.5% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
Lacking Football Culture and Engagement
This lack of intrinsic enthusiasm could impact both domestic support for the event and the post-tournament utilization of facilities. The weak football culture has raised concerns regarding what will be done with the stadiums and the facilities after the World Cup. For instance, Qatar faced similar challenges after 2022 where most of the stadiums were unused or dismantled. Hosting a World Cup is often justified by the potential to inspire local communities. However, in a nation where football is not a dominant pastime, the event may fail to generate lasting enthusiasm or engagement among citizens. Despite high-interest levels—65% of Saudis reportedly follow football—there remains skepticism about whether this interest translates into a robust football culture capable of nurturing homegrown talent.
Environmental Concerns
Saudi Arabia’s climate is not conducive to hosting an event like the FIFA World Cup. Extreme heat and arid conditions would require expensive cooling technologies and environmentally unsustainable practices.
Cooling technologies and grass pitches require a lot of water in the desert. In Saudi Arabia, where freshwater resources are scarce, this could compound the environmental and water scarcity issues.
Most of the environmental fixes for such an event are only temporary and don’t address long-term sustainability. The environmental impact of hosting the World Cup could be permanent and negative for the region.
Opportunity Cost: Neglecting Citizen Needs
The most pressing issue is the opportunity cost of hosting the FIFA World Cup. The billions spent in preparation could be better spent on pressing domestic issues. Saudi Arabia lacks affordable housing for its growing population. Spending the funds on housing projects would make a greater difference in the lives of citizens. A much-needed investment is healthcare modernization with full gaps between modern and medieval conditions. Probably the investment can provide long-run benefits to the population, not this World Cup benefit.
Limited Long-Term Economic Benefits
Advocates of hosting the World Cup often point to tourism and international exposure as huge advantages. However, these benefits are often exaggerated.
Short-term tourism boom: Tourism may experience a short-term boom during the World Cup, but the long-term impact is usually minimal. The visitors attracted by the event are not necessarily repeat tourists, especially in a country with restrictive social and cultural policies.
Reputational Risks: Hosting an international event opens up the possibility of scrutiny. Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and restrictive policies may deter some international visitors and sponsors, which would limit the event’s economic potential.
Debt Accumulation: Most countries have seen long-term debt after hosting big events. For instance, Brazil and South Africa are struggling with financial issues and underutilized infrastructure after hosting the FIFA World Cup.
Human Rights and Social Issues
Saudi Arabia’s human rights record and restrictive social policies may overshadow the event. Hosting the FIFA World Cup is not just about financial and logistical readiness; it is also about aligning with global values of inclusivity and equality. In the year 2022, Saudi Arabia executed 196 individuals. Notably, on 12 March, it carried out the biggest mass execution of 81 men, the largest in several decades. Saudi Arabia is second worldwide in terms of its application of the death penalty.
Migrant worker exploitation: Construction for event packages will likely utilize migrant workers, as previous cases in the region, like Qatar’s World Cup, have exposed the mistreatment of migrant workers.
Social restrictions: The country’s conservatism, especially regarding women’s rights and LGBTQ rights, could be at odds with the general culture of the World Cup, pushing away fans and supporters.
Conclusion
Short-term prestige is the most probable gain for its citizens, but long-term implications might be much higher than benefits. Excessive spending on infrastructure to the neglect of urgent domestic needs, for example, is a great risk involved in hosting the World Cup. The social policies of the country and the environmental issues it faces are also relevant in questioning whether the country is a good host.
