????在5月中旬與體育記者的會面當中，巴西總統迪爾瑪?羅塞夫（Dilma Rousseff）引用了一個當地的比喻，她說：“一旦美洲豹開始喝水，這個國家就會為之瘋狂。”意思是說世界杯一開始，巴西人就會將煩惱拋之腦后。

????迪爾瑪（人們經常以她的名來稱呼她）寄希望于用這場盛大的賽事來俘獲巴西人民的心，這一點是可以理解的，因為反對本屆政府在世界杯方面花費過高的抗議活動讓她頭疼不已。

????在去年6月舉行的聯合會杯足球錦標賽開幕儀式上，迪爾瑪和國際足聯（世界杯運營方）主席瑟普?布拉特（Sepp Blatter）遭到了反對人士的狂噓，因為這些人要求政府把錢花在改善教育、醫療和交通服務方面。

????今年5月，抗議者的憤慨引發了巴西另一波大規模游行，涉及18個城市，有些人還打著“國際足聯滾回去”的標語。其原因在于國家將錢花在了新體育館的修建上，而沒有用于解決低收入人群的住房問題。新場館的預計成本自2010年來上升了一半，達到了35億美元。

????《圣保羅頁報》（Folha de S?o Paulo）舉行的民意調查顯示，對于世界杯的支持人數已從2008年的79%跌至如今的4%。

????連巴西足球明星貝利（Pele）也開始對此感到忿忿不平。

????他最近在墨西哥城說：“很明顯，從政治上來說，大把的錢都用在了體育館的修建上。其中有些錢本應投到學校和醫院當中。”

????從歷史經驗來看，一旦第一場賽事開始之后，迪爾瑪的愿望便會實現，而且民眾的不滿情緒也會被愉悅所取代。但是這種幸福感遲早是會煙消云散的。然而對于一個急需改善基本面的發展中國家來說，一時的精神愉悅并不能解答花費數十億美元舉辦世界杯是否具有經濟意義這個問題。

????范德堡大學（Vanderbilt University）體育經濟學家約翰?弗羅曼（John Vrooman）說：“世界杯是一個臭名昭著、糟糕的經濟發展落腳點，對于發展中國家來說尤其如此。在以往的5個舉辦國中，4個都虧了錢”。南非在舉辦2010年世界杯后的經歷便證明了約翰?弗羅曼的觀點。

????與巴西一樣，南非新建和翻修了數家場館（南非總共10個，巴西12個）。而且，在巴西，多個體育場都分布在沒有重要職業球隊的城市，因此，世界杯過后這些場館也就沒有職業球隊去使用。

????南非體育記者尼爾?柯林斯（ Neal Collins）表示，“南非為世界杯所修建的大型場館如今基本上已變成了名副其實的白象（昂貴的擺設）。”

????夸祖魯納塔爾大學（University of KwaZulu-Natal）南非建成環境與開發研究學院教授帕特里克?邦德（Patrick Bond）預計，南非在場館建設方面花費了25億美元，因為這些場館使用率不高，而且每年的維修和運營補貼需要約1800-2400萬美元。為了解決“白象”問題，南非的一個工會建議將一個不賺錢的體育館改為低收入人群住宅。在巴西城市瑪瑙斯，一位法官建議在世界杯之后將當地的一座體院館改成監獄。

????然而，舉辦世界杯的好處還是顯而易見的。最近，在一篇名為《公共集資的私人收益》的研究中，密歇根大學（University of Michigan）的體育管理教授史蒂芬?斯茨曼斯基（ Stefan Szymanski）和聯席作者巴斯蒂安?德拉特（Bastien Drut）發現，世界杯過后的5年時間中，世界杯舉辦國球隊賽事的上座率上升了15-25%；據作者估計，在2014年世界杯后的5個賽季內，巴西俱樂部的收入至少能增加1.82億美元。

????在另一篇名為《舉辦世界杯，觀眾將來自何方？》（If you host it, where will they come from?）的報告中，斯茨曼斯基和聯席作者發現，在南非2010年世界杯賽事期間，到訪的非鄰國游客為20萬出頭，而當年到訪南非的非鄰國游客接近50萬，分別增長8.1%和18.7%。

????世界杯也會給個人帶來利益。在一篇于世界杯過后發表的報告中，南非政府聲稱，體育場建設帶來了6.6萬個工作崗位，創造了9億多美元的工資收入。

????但是對于那些質疑大修體育場的人士來說，問題并不在于錢，而是在于錢的去處。

????邦德說：“天知道真正的開銷是多少。土地的價值又是多少？還有機會成本呢？如果我們把錢投在住房上，那么動亂可能就會少很多。”

????邦德表示，如果他的祖國少選幾座城市，少建幾所新場館，那么就可以打造“一個有更多非洲民眾參加的世界杯，而不是一個最賺錢、靠富人和奢華場館裝點的世界杯。”

????斯茨曼斯基說，世界杯被看作是一個針對游客的奢華賽事，這種觀念才是結癥所在。

????他說：“世界杯并不在于去體育館觀看。它是一個全球性的電視盛會。與其在最先進的、對國家來說毫無長期效益可言的巨型場館中舉辦最為光鮮亮麗的世界杯，倒不如去呼吁將世界杯交由有能力舉辦世界杯的國家去舉辦，而且不要求承辦國對此進行投資。因為轉播權仍是價值連城，而且贊助商仍愿意為此掏腰包。”

????從目前來看，國際足聯似乎不大可能放棄其這種聲勢浩大的競標模式，因為其目的是為了把世界杯交給那些為推廣足球運動而做出最大努力的國家。因此，在國際足聯做出改變之前，一切都會照舊。

????斯茨曼斯基說：“基本上，每一屆世界杯和奧林匹克運動會都會上演同一個故事：最初，在贏得賽事舉辦權之后，民眾對此鼎力支持。接踵而至的是對按期完工的巨大擔憂和巨額的成本增加。然后，賽事拉開了帷幕，最后取得了圓滿成功，而且也博得了人們的喝彩。然而，幾年之后，人們會問，‘我們從中得到了什么？’”（財富中文網）

????譯者：翔

????In a mid-May meeting with sports journalists, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff used a local metaphor to say that once the World Cup began, Brazilians would forget their worries. “Once the jaguar drinks the water,” she said, “this country will go crazy.”

????That Dilma (as she is known) hopes that the local populace will get swept up in the spectacle is understandable, considering the protests she’s endured over her government’s spending on the event.

????At the opening ceremony for the Confederations Cup soccer tournament in Brasilia last June, Dilma and Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, which runs the World Cup, were booed by protesters demanding better education, healthcare, and transportation.

????This May, demonstrators angry that the country was spending money on new stadiums — whose estimated costs have risen by half since 2010, to $3.5 billion — instead of low-income housing held another wave of protests in 18 Brazilian cities. Some held banners saying, “FIFA go home.”

????Polls taken by the Folha de S?o Paulo show thatsupport for the World Cup has fallen from 79% in 2008 to 48% today.

????Even Brazilian soccer star Pele has begun to complain.

????“It’s clear that, politically speaking, the money spent to build the stadiums was a lot,” he said recently in Mexico City. “Some of this money could have been invested in schools, in hospitals.”

????If history is any guide, Dilma will get her wish and public discontent will turn into happiness once the first game starts. But that euphoria will pass. And it won’t answer whether spending billions to host a World Cup makes economic sense, especially for a developing country in dire need of basic improvements.

????“World Cups are notoriously bad economic development anchors, particularly in developing countries, and four of the last five hosting countries have lost money,” says John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt University sports economist.

????South Africa’s experience since hosting the 2010 World Cup illustrates Vrooman’s point.

????Like Brazil, South Africa built and upgraded several stadiums (10 in its case, compared to Brazil’s 12). And, as in Brazil, several were located in cities with no major professional teams to take them on after the Cup.

????“The great South African stadiums built for the World Cup are largely white elephants now, appropriate given the setting,” says Neal Collins, a sports journalist in South Africa.

????Patrick Bond, a professor at the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s School of Built Environment and Development Studies in South Africa, estimates that the country spent about $2.5 billion on stadiums that, because they are underused, require some $18-24 million in annual maintenance and operation subsidies.

????In response to this ‘white elephant’ problem, a South African union proposed turning one unprofitable stadium into low-income housing, while in the Brazilian city of Manaus, a judge has suggested converting a new local stadium into a prison after the tournament.

????Still, there are some clear benefits to holding a World Cup. In a recent study titled, “The private benefit of public funding,” University of Michigan sport management professor Stefan Szymanskiand co-author Bastien Drut found that soccer teams in countries that hosted World Cups saw an increase in attendance of 15-25% in the five years afterwards; the authors estimated that clubs in Brazil would see increased revenues of at least $182 million in the five seasons after the 2014 games.

????In another recent report titled “If you host it, where will they come from?” Szymanski and his co-authors found that the 2010 World Cup in South Africa attracted a little over 200,000 extra visitors from non-neighboring countries during the tournament, and almost 500,000 during the year, increases of 8.1% and 18.7% respectively.

????There are benefits on an individual scale as well. In apost-World Cup report, the South African government claimed that stadium construction created 66,000 jobs that generated over $900 million in wages.

????But for those who question the stadium booms, the issue is not the spending, but what it buys.

????“Who knows what the figures really were,” says Bond. “What was the value of the land? And what are the opportunity costs? Let’s say we spent that money on housing. We would probably have many fewer riots.”

????Bond says that, had his country been content with having fewer new stadiums in fewer cities, it could have created “a more African-scaled World Cup rather than the most profitable World Cup with the richest taking and the most glorious stadiums.”

????Szymanski says that the real problem is the way in which the World Cup is conceived as a luxury event for visitors.

????“The World Cup is not about going to a stadium to watch. It’s a global television spectacle,” he says. “Instead of putting on the most lavish World Cup you could imagine in up-to-date stadiums with huge pieces of infrastructure that have no plausible long-term value to the nation, you need to say we’re going to award it to a country that deserves to host it and we’re not going to require it to invest. The broadcast rights would still be worth a lot of money and sponsors would still pay.”

????For now, it seems unlikely that FIFA will turn its back on the most extravagant bids in order to offer the World Cup to the country that’s done the most to promote the sport. Until it does, the song will remain the same.

????“Pretty much every World Cup and Olympics fits into the same story: An initial outpouring of popular support when you win the event. Then huge concerns of meeting deadlines and huge escalations of costs. Then the event happens and it’s a great success and people love it,” says Szymanski. “Then a few years later, people say, ‘What did we get for this?’”