The way the final cost of the Olympics goes up every day and the world cup would be backed by Gorden Brown(taxman)
2007-02-12 23:48:59 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Sports ➔ Football ➔ Other - Football
we cant afford it
2007-02-13 11:11:19 · answer #1 · answered by Frihah Anti-Milanist 4lyf! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The olympics were always going to be a financial disaster, but the politicians view of reality is clouded by the status it gives them.
Ok they will create lots of jobs, and lots of opportunities for terrorists, and then a bit of tourism, and maybe some of what is left will be of benefit to the community.
Football now is bigger than religion, and the stadiums built like cathedrals of worship. Thus there is far more interest and as a result, lots of money
I think the world cup bid is the better bet, as we already have the sports facilities.
So what do we get from the WC? a month's worth of rowdy tourists to drink lager and do battle with the local fans.
2007-02-13 00:03:27 · answer #2 · answered by ArskElvis 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The reason for the huge cost of the Olympics is the building of the infrastructure (Venues, athlete's village etc) All the grounds are up and running for the World Cup already and any upgrading will be undertaken by the clubs (Liverpool moving to new ground, Everton as well maybe, Tottenham looking to increase capacity, Chelsea likewise)
2007-02-13 01:40:20 · answer #3 · answered by Blueboy26 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i'd style of opt for to have the international Cup in the Benelux, yet realistically it truly is going to be England. it is purely through the North Sea from the position I stay, and England fairly a lot has each and every of the venues. i do not see why Holland and Belgium would choose 5 or 6 40,000+ seaters each and every, and what would Luxembourg opt for with a stadium that length!? it isn't any longer as if they are going to by surprise have a more constructive team.
2016-11-27 19:54:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hosting the World Cup would be cheap in comparison to Olympics. We have the necessary infrastructure already in place. Stadiums such as the New Wembley, Emirates Stadium, Old Trafford, the new Liverpool stadium.. I need not go on.
2007-02-13 01:12:45 · answer #5 · answered by Chianti Man 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I have always enjoyed going to the world cup, but I will never support the bid if life is going to become even more astronomically exepnsive than it is now. Politicians, rich yahoos, and people who are willing to pay for it should fund it. All the so- called "additional revenue" is definitely not gonna affect my pay cheque. I'll go to enjoy it anywhere, but I'm not gonna spend the next decade paying up increase debt for something I don't even need.
2007-02-13 00:03:31 · answer #6 · answered by alphacharlie 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Gordon Brown is just pandering to the football fans and hoping that they will vote for him at the next election. How come he can find the money for sport but England is going bankrupt and the NHS is destitute and pensioners are living in poverty, but never mind, we can all watch football!
2007-02-12 23:58:59 · answer #7 · answered by Lynda Lou 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
football is a hell of a lot more interesting than the olympics and by then Wembley should be just about ready.
2007-02-12 23:52:24 · answer #8 · answered by agius1520 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it would be nice to host both events but the World Cup will bring more prestige and $$$.
Who even remembers who hosted the last olympics???
2007-02-13 01:30:19 · answer #9 · answered by azsoccerfan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well i think that we should hold the world cup after all we were the ones that brought football to where it is now and football is way more interesting than any olympics
2007-02-13 03:40:12 · answer #10 · answered by mackembitch69 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
yes, it may cost a big pile to put on, but it brings in hundreds of times that in generated revenue and advertising. kudos costs.
2007-02-12 23:53:13 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋