BS Number Wise: Hosting the World Cup is no easy game for countries

Massive sporting tournaments burnish image of governments, but the bill comes in later

The expense and scrutiny associated with the football World Cup often sparks a debate on the merit of playing host.

Oil-rich Qatar, the current host, is 50th in football ranking despite the wealth of its citizens. While the correlation between wealth and football is limited, India has to make progress in both departments (chart 1).

Hosting the World Cup has its advantages. Five out of the last six hosts got more tourists in the year of the tournament (chart 2).

Research suggests that hosts usually lose money in major sporting events. Gigantic stadiums are often of little use after multinational events. Costs exceeded revenue by $50 billion, showed a September 2022 study of 43 events, including the Olympics and football world cups.

Image boosting is said to be one reason that countries, often ruled by autocrats, choose to host such events. ‘Sportswashing’ refers to countries using sports to deflect attention from unsavoury aspects of their regime. An analysis of football World Cup hosts based on ‘voice and accountability’ scores shows a steady decline since the mid-2000s (chart 3).

FIFA, the sport’s governing body, earlier this year lifted its ban on India’s football association. India’s governance indicators are better than the last two hosts of the World Cup but its team ranks below them at 106th spot.

For India, hosting an event like the World Cup will be a matter of pride. It will also attract scrutiny.