The Pros and Cons of Mega-Sports Events: Do Massive Sporting Events Actually Benefit the Hosting Country?
- Arjun Shekdar
- 5 days ago
- 5 min read

By Arjun Shekdar
We all know and love the FIFA World Cup, the Olympics, the Super Bowl. What do these two have in common? They’re never hosted by the same country/city back to back. For example, in 2022, the FIFA World Cup was held in Qatar, while next year, it’ll be hosted by the big three of North America – the United States of America, Canada, and Mexico. But why are these events hosted in different countries instead of having one permanent place? Why wouldn’t one country want to always host? There seems to be 100% positives in hosting, so why not always host? Let’s get into the pros and cons of hosting huge international events.
What are the Best Things About Hosting These Events?
There’s many different answers to this question, but we’re going to focus on three. economic growth, global profile, and infrastructure development.
When it comes to these massive sporting matches and tournaments, not only are the spectators being benefited by the pleasure of watching, but those who host are also winning. They’re winners because of the economic growth they receive for the event. Even though Argentina won the last World Cup, Qatar won economically. The World Cup increases tourism in the hosting country, it assists with job creation in areas of hospitality and construction, and new advertising investments help the local economy and create tax revenues. After the FIFA World Cup in Qatar, it was revealed that between tourism spending and broadcasting revenue, there was between US $1.6-$2.4 billion contributed to the economy of Qatar. On February 9, 2025, the city of New Orleans, Louisiana, hosted Super Bowl LIX between the Kansas City Chiefs and the Philadelphia Eagles. Although the Eagles came out on top in that game, the real winner was the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans. In just one day for the big game, they generated US $1.25 billion for the state economy. These large events bring in so many tourists with their promotion, making the host the real winner of the game.
This ties in to the concept of global profile, where previously hosting a large event can bring in a higher amount of tourists and broadcasting than there was before the event. We know part of economic growth is bringing in tourists for the event, but what about after the event? Well, that’s where global profile comes into play. You see, the cities and countries that are able to host these games increase their status and profile in the world, increasing tourism there even if there’s no sports to be played or watched. There is more to global profile, of course, such as the creation of more business opportunities and helps the host to enhance their diplomatic relations. Their global/national standings, depending on the circumstance, get boosted so much by just volunteering to host one event. That’s right, it can change an economy and its standing with just one event.
Last but not least, is infrastructure development. This is when the necessary organizations, buildings, etc., are created to help the society function. But what does this have to do with sports? Well, when a place hosts one of these events, after the victories of economic growth and global/national profile, more victories are added with infrastructure development. Because of the growth and profile boosts, more investments towards infrastructure are made. There are many different aspects of infrastructure being boosted, such as transportation, communications, general public services, and sustainable improvements for the host. The impact on a city, state, region, country, even a continent that one event has is incredible. It makes a great impact on a local economy, potentially the global economy. So, if a location grows as a whole, attracts tourists and looks better to the world, and is able to achieve infrastructure development, then why wouldn’t they always host?
What are the Worst Things About Hosting These Events?
There may not be as many cons as pros, but it’s quality over quantity when it comes to this topic. Hosting an event sounds great right? Unfortunately, it’s not all sunshine and rainbows. There are two main downsides to hosting; misplaced priorities and short-term vs. long term economic impact.
Being the home of a large event, bringing in people all from the state, country, and other countries is great. As the one throwing the party, you’ve got to make it perfect. Unfortunately, you do too much in order to make it “perfect” that you end up making it everything but perfect. The spectators are finding your party great, but you forgot to move the vase, and someone ends up breaking it. The hosts will prioritize the wrong thing(s) over the right thing(s), and regret it when it’s too late. They’ll put the event over other public needs, which can lead to infrastructure being hurt. Now that you contributed to the vase breaking, you learn that the benefits of a sporting event aren’t evenly distributed between those who take part in it. This is a common mistake that hosts of events make. They focus too much on making it so perfect for the tourists and spectators, that they make it horrible for the most important people, themselves. If it wasn’t for them, the event wouldn’t happen, but they fool themselves into ruining their home, which is exactly why we can’t have nice things.
While economic growth and the growth of profile is inevitable, is it really worth it? Of course it is… Right? These are both short term impacts on the economy. Give it a matter of years, months, weeks, days even, before the tourism and broadcasting rates are down. The party has now ended, and the mess made by your guests has to be cleaned up by no one but yourself, and it’ll most definitely take forever. When you look at the short-term and the success of the party, you feel great about it. When you look at the long-term and the aftermath of the party, nothing but instant regret flows through your head. The countries and cities that hosted these events feel great when they see how well their event did, but after the event, it slows down long-term economic growth for them. Not just the growth, but also sustaining that, to keep growing, all because of one event.
Do Massive Sporting Events Actually Benefit the Hosting Country?
To answer this question, both yes and no. It really depends on how you look at it, short-term or long-term. When you look at it from the short-term, the answer is absolutely yes. You’re getting praise, help, resources, support, everything you could need and want from hosting. But looking at the long-term, you’d have to say no. Your economy could slow down in growth, it’d be harder to sustain growth, your own people won’t be too happy with you, it gets ugly. The final verdict comes down to technicalities, but either way, it leans more towards “no.” Growth in the short-term won’t be enough to maintain with the effects of the long-term, even if carefully managed. That’s why most cities and countries are always one and done when it comes to hosting these large events.
Sources:
Comments