Tuesday 12 April 2011

An opportunity lost

I remember when I was about 10 years old in China, Beijing was making a bid to host the 2008 Olympic games. Everyone in China started learning English, from taxi drivers to senior citizens. TV kept on showing the government’s intentions on investing in huge infrastructural projects etc. I used to wonder why the city goes through so much trouble to host these big sporting events. Now I know: it’s the associated economic impacts.
According to an economic impact report prepared by Horwath Asia Pacific Ltd, hosting RWC 2011 would generate more than NZ$1.15 billion in total economic activity, and pump more than half a billion of actual dollars into the NZ economy. The RWC will also provide the NZ government with an additional $112million in tax revenue*.
It is also one of the most direct methods of attracting tourist. Based on our neighbour Australia’s experience of hosting RWC 2003, NZ can expect to attract up to 6600 international supporters, 2500 international media, and up to 2500 corporate and VIP guests throughout the Tournament. Using a more recent example, though further away: RWC 2007 in France brought in 350000 additional visitors to France and pumped in up to £2.1 million into their economy*.
There are also other indirect socio-economic benefits associated with hosting these sporting events. One of the most significant is the construction of new infrastructure and improvement of existing infrastructures. Such public works may not occur, or would have otherwise not occurred as soon. In other words hosting these events can speed up the overall social-economic development of a city/country.
In New Zealand however, there has been very little infrastructural improvements associated with the World Cup. In fact the single biggest infrastructural investment had been the expansion of Eden Park so that it meets the capacity requirement of the IRB. Other public works around the country seemed to have been happening at the same slow pace as they have always been in this country.

It is not as if the country does not need any new infrastructure. If the RWC - the biggest even in the country's history - can't bring about some changes to the status quo, what will? (Source: NZ Herald)


Overall the event is expected to cost NZ$310million to run and generate NZ$280million in ticket sales (yes, that’s from average $500 semi-final tickets and $750 final tickets)**. The budget may seem big, but let’s compare it to some of the other sporting events around the world.
For the London Olympics there is a budget of £5.3billion to cover building the venues and infrastructure for the Game. Various other costs include an additional contingency fund of £2.7billion, security and policing of £600million, VAT of £800million***.
London gearing up for 2012 (Source: Guardian.co.uk)

Back in 2008, it is estimated that US$40 billion had been spent on hosting the Beijing Olympic Games, which makes it the most expensive Olympic game by a wide margin. The construction of the six main venues alone used up 2.1 billion. In fact the Games was so extravagant that the London Olympic committee declared straight after the opening ceremony that London will not be able to, and will not attempt to match the extravagance of the Beijing Olympics.
“LONDON—How can London, host of the 2012 Olympic Games, possibly compete with China? How can it top the eye-popping pyrotechnics, the cast of thousands, and the architectural gem of a stadium that were part and parcel of the successful Beijing 2008 Olympics?”****”
The Bird's Nest towards its completion (Source: Beijing Olympics 2008)

I know that Rugby World Cup is not at the same level as the Olympics but it is still the 3rd largest sporting event in the world. I think that the central government should have maybe taken some risks, borrow some money and use RWC 2011 as a fuse to kick-start some large infrastructural projects. The country, and especially Auckland will grow and we will need these soon or later. Really, the RWC has been an opportunity lost for the country. Let us hope that at least we can win the Cup.

Sources:

Saturday 2 April 2011

The Council's Extra Investment

Auckland Council has agreed to make up an almost $3 million shortfall in funding for its three extra Rugby World Cup games despite protestations from some councillors that the Government should foot the bill. Auckland will now hold an extra two quarterfinals at Eden Park and a pool game at North Harbour Stadium.

Councillor Mike Lee said Auckland ratepayers were "at the bottom of the food chain and they are the losers in this, really". He would have been one of the councillors who had voted against the council fundings. However I tend to prefer Lens's attitute more. Len has indicated that most of the funding will come from cuts to other areas. The mayor also said that Auckland has no other option but to fund the games.

Councillor Calum Penrose said he's opposed to the funding because he thinks the government should pick up the tab. Penrose said Auckland ratepayers have already paid $100 million towards the Rugby World Cup. Meanwhile, there has been a backtrack from the council on plans to cut $14 million in funding for the arts and rescue services.
Personally i think the Council is realistically the only organisation that has the ability to fund the extra three games. It would be unfair expect the central government to provide the funding as the extra revenues associated with the three extra games are only likely to benefit Auckland.

As i have mentioned in my earlier posts, it is most unfortunate that the Christchurch has lost the opportunity to host RWC games, but Auckland can benefit from the decision. Just think of the extra revenue that will likely to be associated with hosting the extra games. Party Central for one is likely to benefit from the extra visitors who will go their and spend after watching the games.

Source:

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/auckland-ratepayers-cough-up-extra-matches-4095503
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/rugby-world-cup/4834926/Auckland-Council-approves-extra-RWC-funding