Qatar World Cup: Is it worth it despite being the most expensive FIFA World Cup ever?

The World Cup is taking place now, twelve years after FIFA's stunning and controversial decision to award Qatar the hosting rights. It is now the priciest ever due to the Gulf state's enormous investment.

Numerous experts and reports estimate that the expenses have surpassed $200 billion (€199 billion). To put that in perspective, the most expensive previous World Cups were the ones held in Brazil in 2014 and Russia in 2018, both of which came in under $15 billion.

In order to get the small Middle Eastern country ready to host the biggest sporting event in history, the government of Qatar spent $500 million every week on infrastructure projects, including improvements to roads, hotels, stadiums, and airports. This was according to the country's minister of finance in 2017.

A Deloitte analysis claims that Qatar, a country with a population of about 2 million and only about 225,00 Qataris, spent more than $200 billion on the 2022 World Cup. That works out to $100,000 per capita, as opposed to $350 for the Sochi Games, $73 for Brazil, and $54 for South Africa. Qatar spent 286 times more per capita on the World Cup than Russia would for the Sochi Olympics, the most expensive Olympics ever. The nation has spent 1,852 times more per capita than South Africa did in 2010 to put on the same event.

Gianni Infantino, the president of FIFA, predicted that the World Cup in Qatar would be the best World Cup ever in an interview. Despite the massive investment from the Qatari government and ongoing assurances from FIFA, the world cup has come under fire for all the wrong reasons.?

Why is the World Cup in Qatar drawing so harsh criticism from critics throughout the world while being the most costly World Cup ever?

The wellbeing of migrant workers and the Qatari government's attempts to hide this issue were one of the main causes of the world cup's controversy.

Numerous sources state that since the World Cup was granted, up to 6,500 migrant workers from Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka have died in Qatar.

Since December 2010, an average of 12 migrant workers from these five south Asian countries have died each week, according to a study from The Guardian.

Qatar and FIFA both contest that figure. Qatar acknowledges the deaths of 37 workers that were "non-work-related" but claims that just three people have died as a direct result of working on World Cup construction sites.

The World Cup is seen by Qatar as a "great chance to strengthen welfare standards," and the country's officials claim that worker conditions have improved as a result: The nation implemented a set of Workers' Welfare Standards in 2014, establishing new protections (although advocates say the new regulations are not always enforced).

The opposition to homosexuality in Qatar has drawn criticism as well. Since homosexuality is illegal in the conservative Muslim nation of Qatar, some soccer players have expressed concern for the fans travelling there, particularly lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and women, whom rights organizations claim are subjected to discrimination under the country's laws.

But the World Cup organizers have emphasized time and time again that everyone is welcome in the competition, regardless of sexual orientation or background.

Former international and Qatar World Cup ambassador Khalid Salman claimed that homosexuality "damages the intellect."

He continued by saying that more than a million people are expected to visit Qatar for the World Cup and that they should "respect our rules here."

While the Danish soccer team will attend the competition without their families in a show of protest against the nation's human rights record, the Australian soccer squad has spoken out against Qatar's record on same-sex couples and human rights.

Is this all worthwhile considering all the fuss around the World Cup and the money the Qatari government is spending? Any country that has hosted such sizable sporting events ever reaped the rewards?

It used to be considered highly prestigious to host any of the big sporting events, especially the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup. It was a privilege that would contribute to a nation's or a city's legacy. It can be a significant time for both economic change and national symbolism.

Why, then, have many developed Western economies over the past few years chosen not to submit bids for such significant events, and in some circumstances, even withdrew their proposals?

Hosting a major sporting event attracts attention from around the world, boosts tourism revenue, and gives a city or nation the chance to renovate or enhance its infrastructure. But it also entails a significant financial commitment and danger.

The Olympic Games were put on their current economic trajectory in 1976 after a pivotal incident that upended their finance scheme. Montreal held the Summer Games in that year. The city of Montreal racked up a debt of $2.8 billion, after officials estimated the cost of the games would be $124 million. It took three decades for Montreal to pay off this debt.

The 2014 FIFA World Cup in Brazil was extremely expensive. It was the most costly FIFA event ever, reaching US$15 billion with cost overruns of at least 75%. The 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio were projected to cost US$4.58 billion, but actual expenses were roughly 50% more. Both mega-events were regarded as being bad investments. Brazil saw its worst economic downturn in 25 years, with cuts to healthcare and education as well as weeks-long periods of unpaid police work.

Brazil made significant investments in 12 host cities' stadium construction or renovations. Brazil spent $3.6 billion on stadium building alone, which makes it the single largest expenditure. Due to the fact that there is currently little to no demand for football stadiums of the highest order in the majority of the towns where they were built, the new stadiums are also the investment with the least long-term sustainability.

These stadiums are now unable to make any money. In fact, the $900 million National Mané Garrincha Stadium in Brazil, which hosted the World Cup, is now being used as a parking lot.

These sporting mega-events have historically shown that there is little evidence connecting them to increased economic activity, either directly or indirectly over the short or long term. Overall, former studies greatly overestimate the alleged economic advantages of hosting an event. In reality, the expenses incurred in planning the event surpass the actual advantages.

Mega-events seem to have a favorable impact on visitor growth and the host city's reputation as a tourist destination in terms of tourism. Even so, this beneficial effect frequently falls far short of expectations and is conditional. There is accumulating evidence of a pre-event rather than post-event impact, with the majority of the influence on visitor increase appearing to be concentrated in the four years prior to and following the event. In actuality, the beneficial effects of mega-events fade over time. Similar to this, hosts experience quick image fading after the event after experiencing a transient surge in consciousness and perception. The beneficial effects of tourism also seem to be influenced by a number of other factors.

In conclusion, the benefits for the host nation are modest, aside from the pride that comes with hosting the event. Countries are spending a lot of money as standards and expectations rise. Evidence, however, indicates that there are few or no economic advantages to doing so. Additionally, the potential cost of these massive events, which includes spending on social development and fundamental infrastructure, should be taken into account. The event should only take place in developed economies, barring a change in the income sharing paradigm.