Motion: Developing country should not host worldwide
tournaments such as the World Cup.
Positive Description:
THIS HOUSE BELIEVE THAT Developing country should not
host worldwide tournaments such as the World Cup.
Developing country and advanced country are significantly
different. According to “wikipedia”, A
developing country, also called a less-developed country, is a nation with a
lower living standard, underdeveloped industrial base, and low Human
Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries.
Criteria for what is not a developed country can be
obtained by inverting the factors that define a developed country: people have
lower life expectancy, people have less education, people have less money
(income). The development of a country is also measured with statistical
indexes such as income per capita (per person) (gross domestic product), life
expectancy, the rate of literacy (ignoring reading addiction), et cetera. There
are many developing countries in the world, such as: Indonesia, Philipine,
Bolivia, Burma, Brazil, South Africa, etc.
I am sure that I, and many people in the world are crazy
about football championship, especially the World Cup because football is the
most famous sport in the world. According to sporteology.com (http://sporteology.com/top-10-popular-sports-world/),
football is the most famous sport in the world. The terminology of “famous”
here is measured from “the most watched”, and “the most played”.
Yeah, it is a fact that many people play it, and often
they have a big passion to be a great football player like their idol.
According to wikipedia, The FIFA World Cup, often simply
called the World Cup, is an international association football competition
contested by the senior men's national teams of the members of Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the sport's global governing
body. The championship has been awarded every four years since the inaugural
tournament in 1930, except in 1942 and 1946 when it was not held because of the
Second World War. The current champions are Germany, who won their fourth title
at the 2014 tournament in Brazil.
Though World Cup is a great festivy in the world, where
billlion people watch it either directly in stadium or via television, the developing countries should not host
worldwide tournaments like World Cup. Those countries should more concern to
the prosperity of the citizen first.
The latest World Cup in Brazil is an example how worse a
developing country to host an international tournament such as World Cup. There
are many conts for this event. Many protestors demontrate in the street, get
injures, as well as arrested by police. As stated from wikipedia, “before the
opening game of the World Cup on 12 June, police clashed with protesters in São
Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and several other host cities. Tear gas was used on
crowds in São Paulo.”
Wikipedia also reports that “While covering the protest
on June 12, CNN Reporter Shasta Darlington and CNN producer Barbara Arvanitidis
were injured. Barbara Arvanitidis was directly hit on the wrist by a tear gas
bomb whilst they were reporting the indiscriminate use of riot weapons.”
I got other facts, taken from wikipedia showing the cons
of Brazil people for the mega event of World Cup. Prior to the World Cup, on
January 2014, Protesters clashed with the military police in central São Paulo.
108 people were arrested by military police and a further 20 arrests were made
by civil police, totaling 128 arrests before midnight of that Sunday.
On the 27th of May, 25,000 protesters caused traffic
congestion in central Brasḯlia, near the Monumental Axis. Among the protesters
were 300 aboriginals who went to the capital to protest against changes in laws
regarding indigenous land. The protest ended in a confrontation with the
military police, where a cavalryman was struck by an arrow.
On the 30th of May, 200 protesters marched from the
Monumental Axis to the football stadium before ending the demonstration
peacefully. The following day, military police in São Paulo began using
specialized suits of armor referred to colloquially as 'Robocop', which were
intended to maintain control over protests during the World Cup.
On June 3rd, a group of about 50 protesters in Goiânia
gathered in front of the hotel where the Brazilian team was staying prior to an
exhibition match against Panamá. The protesters were connected with trade
unions and left wing political groups, with pickets demanding fair pay for
professors and health professionals.
Then, my friend, Tomi
Fajar Ramadhan will provide other positive arguments refers to this motion.
1st Positive Argument
Countries and cities spend much money to participate in
the bidding process to host world sporting events. Along with the pride and
glory and the opportunity to showcase one’s cities, nation, and culture, there
is the perception that such events will create an economic windfall in that
country. Whereas this may be the case for developed nations, the prize for
hosting soccer’s World Cup can turn into fool’s gold for developing countries
and emerging markets.
Many countries have big expectation to host the
international tournament such as World Cup. The great chance to enter the final
chart and the improvement of infrastructure facility are often promoted to the
citizen. Unfortunately, it is just a lie. For example, the rumors of Brazil
government who promise the significant of growing economy is debated from its
economy expert self.
Nowadays, the CNN Reporter, Charles Riley, reports that
some days before the World Cup in Brazil, the Brazil economy had already fell.
The citizen problems had already risen too. From the problem of unproductive
employment, the expensive infrastructure building of poor area, the high
inflation which insists the central bank to increase the interest rate some
time. Stock Exchange Indek of Bovespa fell to more 7 percent than the previous
year.
Additionally, based on the opinion summary of more than
116 economy experts all over the world, the Brazil economy growing after World
Cup is estimated only increase 0, 2 percent. This is a small number, reminding that
the Government had already spend billions dolar to establish infrastructure.
The central bank confess that, the growing economy of
Bruto Domestic Product in Brazil at that time only decreased 1,7 percent. This
belongs to small number if we compare it with the event of world cup 2010 in
South Africa. Corruption, bad birocrachy, and protest only made bad the
celebration of world cup.
2nd Positive Argument
It is not right for a developing country, for example, to
host international tournament like the World Cup. I strongly believe that the
world cup which had already conducted in Brazil raised cons for people in the
world, especially for the Brazil ctizen, which is a country where the richest
10% of Brazilians receive 42,7% of the nation’s income, while the poorest 34%
receive less than 1.2% despite the positive efforts to cut poverty by the
Workers Party (the current party of power).
The indication of con started to arise during last year’s
Confederations Cup (eventually won by Brazil) when thousands of people took to
the streets in protest, initially against a rise in bus fares, but it soon
snowballed into a protest about wider issues of money wasted and corruption
around the World Cup. This protest shows
us that actually citizen expects government to give a better life in Brazil.
Then, wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_protests_in_Brazil)
states that The 2014 protests in Brazil were public demonstrations in several Brazilian
cities in response to the 2014 FIFA World Cup and other social issues. The
spending of billions of public money on stadiums for the World Cup is the main
concerned of the protests as Brazil belongs to the developing country which
still has complicated issue problems.
3rd Positive Argument
In my opinion, from the view of multilateral
relationship, the developing country which host international tournament is
called as a cruel country. It is like in an idiom from Indonesia “Menari di
atas penderitaan orang lain”. It is not good to celebrate a mega party, such
as World Cup as an international tournament while there are many citizens who
are suffering from starvation, low
salary, unemployment, etc. And it is not fair if the citizen of developing country
can not watch the world cup where it is held in their own country because they
have no much money to buy ticket, but foreign people can watch it.
4th Positive Argument
There have also been considerable problems which have
been unique to Brazil. Tens of thousands of residents of Rio’s favelas are
being driven out to the city periphery in order to cater for the World Cup and
the Olympics in 2016. Advocates of
favela families have estimated a displacement of around 170,000 people (the
government claims 20,000). The Brazilian government has also launched theFavela
‘Pacification’ programme in order to reclaim these areas from drug lords and
criminals which may seem to be a laudable aim. However, in reality, this
programme isdesigned to hide the violence and drive the drug gangs away from
the places that will be popular during the major global events Rio is hosting.
Critics have also claimed that it doesn’t seek to integrate marginalised people
into society and it doesn’t work towards long-term solutions. In most cases
pacification projects are endless military occupations that fail to protect the
people.
4th Positive Argument
After the World Cup 2002 most of Japan’s stadiums now lie
unused and in Poland (host of Euro 2012) they have also beenleft with
unprofitable five star hotels which had to be built for officials and teams. If
the modern country like Japan experienced unprofitable as told before, so the
developing contries hosting world cup would experience it too. As quoted from
the website: (http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/11/ugly-side-beautiful-game/) The new infrastructure is beneficial to
locals, but after the World Cup, all the extra hotels and stadiums are sitting
idle, as South Africa has not been able to generate or maintain the level of
tourism that it experienced during the tournament. The construction of these
state-of-the-art stadiums is not sustainable, as ticket revenues alone were not
able to make up for the costs of yearly maintenance. These costs are falling on
local, potentially cash-strapped municipalities that don’t need a
state-of-the-art stadium. It was also
occured in Brazil.
If you wanted to regenerate an area why don’t you simply
spend money on regeneration projects instead of sporting mega events?
Besides, FIFA, football’s governing body, has imposed
conditions on Brazil as hosts of the World Cup, which grant huge tax breaks to
the World Cup Sponsors. This means Brazilians will lose €200 million that could
otherwise help lift millions of
Brazilians out of poverty. This lost tax monies could help improve basic public
services like healthcare, education and sanitation. (http://www.givemygoalstoabetterworld.blogspot.co.uk/)
Reply
Brazil is a worse example how a developing country had a
big passion to host the World Cup. With the low education and health, this
country spent more than billion dollar to build the stadium facilities. The
matter arose because the government take the money from tax and it had been
corrupted.
Brazil is a proof of the worse country to host world cup,
how if FIFA pointed Indonesia as the host of World Cup? I strongly believe that
if Indonesia host the world cup, the subjects who will get the profit are
corruptor and FIFA.
Many countries have big expectation to host the
international tournament such as World Cup. The great chance to enter the final
chart and the improvement of infrastructure facility are often promoted to the
citizen. Unfortunately, it is just a lie. For example, the rumors of Brazil
government who promise the significant of growing economy is debated from its
economy expert self.
Protesters against the World Cup march in the center of
Rio de Janeiro, 16 May 2014, this protest is caused by Perceived injustices
around 2014 FIFA World Cup expenditures, forced removals of poor habitations,
wikipedia says that the number of protestors is over 1 million, injures 42
people, and arrested 234 on 16 May.
The new infrastructure is beneficial to locals, but after
the World Cup, all the extra hotels and stadiums are sitting idle, as South
Africa has not been able to generate or maintain the level of tourism that it
experienced during the tournament. The construction of these state-of-the-art
stadiums is not sustainable, as ticket revenues alone were not able to make up
for the costs of yearly maintenance. These costs are falling on local,
potentially cash-strapped municipalities that don’t need a state-of-the-art
stadium.
Solution
The main solution for this problem is, if a developing
country wants to host in an International tournament such as World Cup, the developing
country should fix social problem, such as: low education of the citizen,
security, the job employee opportunity, corruptor, etc. The point is : it is ok
having passion to host the International Tournament such as World Cup but it
will be better if the modern country is the host. I believe that the risks can
be minimilized if the modern country host the Worl Cup.
Negative Description
THIS HOUSE BELIEVE THAT Developing country should not
host worldwide tournaments such as the World Cup.
Developing country and advanced country are significantly
different. According to “wikipedia”, A
developing country, also called a less-developed country, is a nation with a
lower living standard, underdeveloped industrial base, and low Human
Development Index (HDI) relative to other countries.
According to wikipedia, The FIFA World Cup, often simply
called the World Cup, is an international association football competition
contested by the senior men's national teams of the members of Fédération
Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), the sport's global governing
body. The championship has been awarded every four years since the inaugural
tournament in 1930, except in 1942 and 1946 when it was not held because of the
Second World War. The current champions are Germany, who won their fourth title
at the 2014 tournament in Brazil.
It doesn’t matter that Brazil is the world's seventh
largest economy in 2013, or that it has one of the best football teams in the
world. No last-minute wonder goal will rescue the trophy this time round.
“Sport has the power to change the world. It has the
power to unite people in a way that little else does. Sport can create hope
where once there was only despair. This is true, sport can have this power.”
Therefore, I argue that to be a host an international tournament such as World
Cup is a prerogrative all countries, either developing country or modern
country.
The mega event World Cup truly has great magnificient for
the world. Many countries have great passion to enroll although are not active
participant because their national team do not succeed from the qualification
or do not enroll their national team at all.
There is a something unique prior to the World Cup, each
country wants to host this mega event although the condition of its country
belongs to the poor or developing contry, like South Africa and Brazil or the
quality of its national team is poor, like Indonesia.
All countries want this mega event held in its country.
Indonesia had already enrolled to FIFA to host the World Cup although the
capability of National Team is low.
And then, I find that there are benefits when a country
host an International Tournament, such as World Cup. According to the website :
amirbuton.wordpress.com, the primary
reason why a country wants to host World Cup is because of the great chance to
create a work field, tourism, devisa income, contributing to the economy,
income tax, growing economy. On the other words, hosting the World Cup is a
great chance to invest and promote its country internationally.
Negative Arguments
Based on the information from amirbuton.wordpress.com, As
the host of World Cup 2010, South Africa had spent 28 Million Rand to establish
infrastucture, such as stadium, mass transportation, telecomunication, harbour
infrastructure, tourism, culture, security, fund operational, immigration,
etc. In the first impression, many
people assume that South Africa will not succeed to host the World Cup 2010 as
from the view of economy, South Africa is believed can not hold that tournament.
The poor condition of South Africa lead perception that fund which must be
spent will disadvantages that country itself.
According to the vibiznews.com, South Africa had spent 40 millions Rand
or 42,5 billion rupiahs to build stadium, transportation infrastructure, and to
fix the airport. However, South Africa get great advantages from this
tournament, that is the world public accountant reveals that the World Cup contributes 0,5 percent of Bruto Domestic
Product. The World Cup significantly also brings up the growing economy, that
is 4-6 percent in thirdmonth when the World Cup running.
From that fund, South Africa Government had targeted the
415.000 job opportunities, 450.000 spectators, 483.250 international tourists,
7,2 million dollars USA as economy contribution, 2,4 million dolars US of
income tax, 1 million dollar US of devisa income, 12 million dollars US of
investation profit, and 0,5 percent of growing economy, and other benefits such
as the chance to promote its country and social benefits.
Additionally, the tourism sector also increased 20
percent, higher than the previous day in that year. The improvement also
happened in food and beverage industry sector that increase 10,4 percent than
in 2009, restaurant is 14,4 percent, food seller is 9 percent, bar is 20,5
percent, retail is 7,4 percent and other income sectors is 28,5 percent. The
World Cup also attracts more than 1,4 millions along the tournament run.
Based on the journalists,
Stefan Syzmanski and Kuper in the website suppersoccer.co.id, whenever a
country proposes to host international tournament such as World Cup, the nation
politician predicts the bombastic economy. They dream about the arrival of
people who are crazy about shopping, free promotion about cities to the TV
watcher around the world, and the long period benefit from tourists’
travelling. I believes that stadium will
attract many people from outside city to watch this competition. Most
spectators from out side city will buy hot dog and bear, watching the
competition, and go home. It is hard to say as a competition. A mall center or
movie theater or even hospitals will spend much more money locally.
However, the Kuper and Szymanski’s theory is solely
occured on rich countries. For developing countries, hosting an International
Tournament such as World Cup can bring wealthy.
According the data in vibiznews.com,
the selling rate of hotel in Rio de Janeiro when the World Cup was running,
increased 100 percent to be 1.077 Real or 1,5 millions rupiahs per night.
Based on these facts, we find that World Cup brings
amazing benefits for the host. We wish Indonesia can host the World Cup
too.
Reply
As stated by vibiznews.com,
South Africa had spent 40 millions Rand or 42,5 billion rupiahs to build
stadium, transportation infrastructure, and to fix the airport. However, South
Africa get great advantages from this tournament, that is the world public
accountant reveals that the World Cup
contributes 0,5 percent of Bruto Domestic Product. The World Cup
significantly also brings up the growing economy, that is 4-6 percent in
thirdmonth when the World Cup running.
the tourism sector also increased 20 percent, higher than
the previous day in that year. The improvement also happened in food and
beverage industry sector that increase 10,4 percent than in 2009, restaurant is
14,4 percent, food seller is 9 percent, bar is 20,5 percent, retail is 7,4
percent and other income sectors is 28,5 percent. The World Cup also attracts
more than 1,4 millions along the tournament run.
According the data in vibiznews.com,
the selling rate of hotel in Rio de Janeiro when the World Cup was running,
increased 100 percent to be 1.077 Real or 1,5 millions rupiahs per night.
Based on these facts, we find that World Cup brings
amazing benefits for the host. We wish Indonesia can host the World Cup
too.
