这的确可能是正确的，毕竟政府增加支出可以提高GDP。不过，世界经济论坛出版的《包容性增长与发展报告》显示，相比之下包容性增长更为重要。这意味着，人们应当为了提高生活质量，而在经济增长和更广泛、可持续的改进方面进行投资。
很不幸的是，建设、运营体育类基础设施的花费较高，需要占据较为稀缺、价值高昂的土地，同时使用频率较低，难以覆盖维护成本。对于中位劳动者来说，体育馆并非经济福利中必不可少的选项。如果说联赛是建设并非改善国家实体基础设施的理由，那为什么不直接减少体育馆的数量、以更低的成本获取同样的利益呢？
在经济学家Andrew Zimbalist反对举办大型体育赛事的理由中，他举了几个例子，称一旦联赛结束，主办城市就很少使用场地球馆了，而这些场地球馆也就像鸡肋一样，“食之无味、弃之可惜”。据报道，在2010年南非世界杯开始之前，住在联赛举办地附近的低收入居民都被依法驱逐，以改善国家形象。这一报道引发了诸多质疑：将钱花在改善贫困社区上会不会更好一些？
巴西成本最高的世界杯场馆现在已经成了一个停车场，而整个国家为世界杯所投入的成本预计达到110至140亿美元。巴西联邦审计法院总结称，为世界杯所支付的公共开支将“足以覆盖两年的国家社会福利项目”。世界杯的预计经济影响为30至130亿美元，而与之相比后，纳税人的投资回报较为合理这一点还很难说。
2
联赛能提高主办地整体旅客人数、旅游收入？
大型体育赛事必然会吸引数千体育迷们，不过，他们也有可能扰乱原本建立好的游客流，并造成热门的地点和景点的交通瘫痪。至于联赛能否提高整体旅客人数，现有证据表明，并不。
在北京和伦敦奥运会举办后，该城市的同比游客人数下降。对于英国最热门的博物馆大英博物馆，2012年奥运会举办期间，其游客数量相比于2008年下降了22%。奥运会举办后，英国政府估计称，“大量常规游客因潜在的过度拥挤、扰动和价格上升选择避开英国。”
即便在游客人数上升的情况下，主办国也不一定能够获得帕累托收益，因为吸引游客也是需要投入成本的。在2010年南非世界杯举办之前，人们预测将有45万游客为该比赛来到南非，但实际游客数量只有该数字的三分之二。虽然人数减少，但游客的花费却提高了25%。但对此的代价却是，南非政府的获客成本是每人1.3万美元，总共花费相当于南非所有劳动人口一周的工资总额。
人们确实也很难预测旅客的钱会流入哪里。在满座赛事开展期间，宾馆价格暴涨，但服务业工人的工资却不一定以同样的幅度上涨。这意味着，资本回报率很可能高于劳动力回报率。分析家预测，举办2018年俄罗斯世界杯的经济利益主要来源于旅游业，但该利益可能十分微不足道，“相当于统计误差。”
3
地方组织者能赚到钱还是FIFA能赚到钱？
发达经济体现有的体育、住宿和交通基础设施一般不需要过多进行过多升级维修，因此在从竞争者身上获取财务盈余方面，他们应当具有相关优势。洛杉矶举办的1984年奥林匹克竞赛经常被认为是一场成功且获益颇多的竞争，而伦敦奥运会则获得了52亿美元的收入。
对于组织方来说，收入流的获取渠道多种多样，包括门票收入、货物销售、赞助费、许可协议等，其中最大的收入流来自于电视转播权。在这些体育赛事的收益中，管理部门所占比例越来越高。因此，即便是最高效的地方组织者也很难赚到钱。
《经济学家》称，国际奥林匹克委员会能够获得奥运会电视收入的70%，而1960年至1980年期间只有4%。足球的管理部门FIFA（国际足球联合会）从2014年世界杯中获取了近50亿美元的收入，其中约50%都来自于电视转播权，虽然FIFA基本上没有为联赛的举办付出任何代价。
4
举办世界杯是完美没有意义的吗？
上述理由并不表示举办世界杯是完全没有意义的。在少数几个能让全世界人民联合在一起的活动中，大型体育赛事是其中之一。体育能够有效地在为社会分化建立桥梁。最近举办的冬季奥运会表明，体育有能力克服差异，让朝鲜和韩国的运动员在同一旗帜下共同前进。
同时，让这些赛事完全受制于严苛的数字和数据是不公平的。比赛能够让人心情愉悦，而且令人振奋的成功故事也能激励儿童及成人，让他们参与到体育中。高盛曾表示，世界杯主办国和获胜国的股市都会上涨，至少在短期内如此。
到最后，很多体育比赛主办国都不再那么关注比赛成本了。对他们来说，世界杯或者奥运会是一个向全世界其他国家发出的信号。比如，中国正在将体育行业作为外交政策的延伸。中国在世界舞台上的地位也会有所提升。2008年奥运会开始后，大量投资涌入中国足球界，并将在2022年北京举办的冬季奥运会之后持续下去。
有一项研究甚至表明，曾主办奥运会的国家的贸易额有所上升。此外，对于曾竞选举办奥运会但未能成功的国家，其贸易额也会有所上升。这意味着，相比于比赛本身，比赛真正重要的价值是传达这样一个讯息：该国是开放贸易的。
对于今年夏天的俄罗斯来说，现在还很难断定，主办方这个角色到底是出于国家建设战略，或者仅仅是由于事态发展。当俄罗斯竞选主办今年的世界杯时，俄罗斯首都莫斯科刚刚主办了欧冠决赛，其国家队也晋级了欧洲锦标赛半决赛。会不会是普京总统一时兴奋过了头？
最后，在足球领域，举办世界杯是否值得这个问题完全可以归结为，情感是否能够战胜理智。那么，谁会是最后的赢家？正如英格兰中场球员Paul Gascoigne所言：“我从未预测过任何事，以后也不会。”
（本文转载自世界经济论坛网站。作者为Stefan Hall ，世界经济论坛信息与娱乐系统倡议项目参与主管；编译：叶枫。原文标题为“主办世界杯能带来经济效益吗？”）
以下为英文原文
Does hosting a World Cup make economic sense?
"Among all unimportant subjects", said Pope John Paul II, "football is by far the most important".
While the former pontiff may have recognized an almost religious fervour in the beautiful game's followers, he probably didn’t consult many economists before making his pronouncement. That’s because the general consensus is that hosting a World Cup is not really worth the investment. Although it’s tempting to accuse economists of being bad sports, most of the evidence suggests they are right.
Organizers of this summer’s World Cup in Russia have predicted that the total economic impact of the tournament could be as high as $30.8 billion by 2023. The anticipated effect is created by spending on construction and general investment. Indeed, the case is often made that hosting a World Cup, or any other major sporting event, can boost a nation’s economy by attracting tourists, initiating important infrastructure projects and showcasing countries and cities as good places to do business. But the costs of achieving those noble goals appear to outweigh the economic benefits they produce. Why?
Opportunity cost
The first reason is simply the opportunity cost of hosting a major sporting tournament. The money spent on new or upgraded infrastructure is likely to be more wisely used in long-term investments in critical areas of the economy. Large-scale construction is typically justified on the grounds that it will boost economic growth in the short term, and improved infrastructure will bring long-term gains to society.
Though this may be true - an increase in government spending should lead to a rise in Gross Domestic Product - the World Economic Forum’s Inclusive Growth and Development Report argues that focusing on inclusive growth is more important. This means spending to deliver both economic growth and broad-based, sustained improvements to living standards.
Unfortunately, sporting infrastructure is expensive to construct and run, takes up scarce and high-value real estate, and is often difficult to use with enough frequency to cover maintenance costs. A stadium is not really essential to the economic well-being of a median worker. So if tournaments are a convenient excuse to construct and improve tangential national infrastructure, why not derive equivalent benefits at a lower cost by eliminating stadia from the equation?
In his argument against hosting mega sporting events, economist Andrew Zimbalist lists examples of the white elephants left barely used in host cities once tournaments have ended. Before the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, low-income residents living in settlements near tournament sites were reportedly evicted in an attempt to improve the country’s image on the national stage, leading many to question whether the money would have been better spent on improving impoverished communities instead.
Brazil’s most expensive World Cup stadium is now a parking lot, and the country’s preparations for the World Cup cost an estimated $11-14 billion. The National Court of Auditors of Brazil concluded that public spending on the World Cup would be "enough money to pay the entire country’s annual Bolsa Familia [social welfare] bill twice over". When measured against an expected economic impact of $3-13 billion, it’s hard to argue that taxpayers saw a fair return on their investment.
Changing tourism patterns
Major sporting events certainly attract thousands of sports fans. But they may disrupt established tourist flows and end up driving traffic away from popular sites and attractions. As to whether these tournaments boost overall tourist numbers, the evidence may point to the contrary.
In both Beijing and London, year-on-year visits decreased in their Olympic years, in 2008 and 2012 respectively, while the UK’s most popular museum, the British Museum, saw 22% fewer visitors during the month that the games were held. The British government's own evaluation after the Olympic Games concluded that "there was substantial displacement of regular visitors who were deterred by the potential for overcrowding, disruption and price rises".
Even when tourism does increase, it doesn’t necessarily produce a pareto gain, because there is a spend associated with attracting visitors. Before the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, it was predicted that around 450,000 tourists would enter the country for the tournament. In the end, only two thirds showed up. Despite the reduced numbers, visitor spend increased by almost a quarter, but at a cost of acquisition to the South African government of up to $13,000. For roughly the same amount, the country could have paid the wages of the entire working age population for a week.
Indeed, it’s hard to determine where the money that tourists spend ends up. Hotel prices rise during sell-out events, but wages of service workers do not necessarily go up by the same amount, meaning the returns to capital are likely greater than those to labour. Looking ahead to Russia, analysts anticipate that economic gains from hosting the 2018 World Cup will mainly benefit the tourist industry, but have described them as being so negligible that they are "equivalent to that of a statistical error".
Increasing share of revenue going to governing bodies
Advanced economies should have the edge in generating a financial surplus from competitions, given that their existing sporting, hospitality and mobility infrastructure usually requires only minor upgrades. The 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles are frequently cited as a successful and profitable competition, and the London Olympics produced $5.2 billion in revenue.
There are multiple revenue streams that exist for organizers, including gate receipts, merchandise sales, sponsorships and licensing agreements, but by far the biggest income flow comes from television rights. However, the governing bodies behind sporting events are taking an increasing share of these spoils, making it harder for even the most efficient local organizers to make money.
The Economist shows that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) now takes more than 70% of television revenue from the Games, up from 4% between 1960 and 1980. Soccer’s governing body FIFA generated almost $5 billion in revenue from the 2014 World Cup, about half of which came from television rights, despite them contributing nothing to the costs of staging the tournament.
The flip side
All this doesn’t mean that hosting World Cup is completely pointless. Major sporting events are one of the few things that really bring the planet together. Sport is a powerful tool to bridge societal divides. The most recent Winter Olympics showcased the ability of sport to mend differences when athletes from North and South Korea marched under a common flag.
And it’s not completely fair to reduce these events to hard numbers and statistics. Tournaments have a feelgood factor, and inspiring stories of success can encourage children and adults to take up sport. Goldman Sachs has even shown that the stock market goes up in both the host country and the country that wins the World Cup - at least in the short term.
Ultimately, many sporting hosts are not too focused on the cost of the events. They use a World Cup or an Olympics to send a signal to the rest of the world. China, for example, is developing its sports industry as an extension of its diplomatic policy. As its economy diversifies, its role in the international arena is growing. A process that started with the 2008 Olympics was followed by huge investment in Chinese football, and will continue long beyond the 2022 Winter Olympics, which Beijing is hosting.
There is even a suggestion that this might work, with one study showing that nations hosting an Olympic Games experience an increase in trade. But even countries that bid to host but lose see their trade go up, suggesting that the message they are open for business, rather than the tournament itself, is what really counts.
For Russia this summer, it’s hard to work out whether its role as World Cup host is part of a nation-building strategy or simply a matter of circumstance. When the country began bidding to host this year’s tournament, its capital Moscow had just hosted the Champions League final and the national team had advanced to the semi-finals of the European Championship. Could it be that President Vladimir Putin simply got caught up in the buzz?
In the end, as in football, whether you think the World Cup is worth the expense might come down to whether your heart rules over your head. As for who will win it? As former England midfielder Paul Gascoigne said: “I never predict anything and I never will”.
— END —返回搜狐，查看更多