drinking water from the water pumps that transports water directly from the nile. people line up carrying barrels and jerry cans to be filled with water. this is the only source of drinking water from the nile for citizens of sham bonding. the agricultural plane in the nile coast, it is extremely difficult to get water through residential areas all the way down here. the area is very hazardous and there are sounds of gunfire and shelling, etc. despite these risks, people flock here to be provided with drinking water in the midst of bullets and shells. we wish people safety. hopefully, the situation goes back to what it was and security prevails again for people to be able to go on with their lives and get rid of that suffering or nationals are continuing to fly and find a way out of students including boarding boats added to saudi arabia also among those who have biased escape is what lead marco, who fled to paris. i recounted to all the horrors he witnessed in the country called me and stopped sunday. my house is not far away from the military days or

early in the morning about a, a and i woke up with a, a lot of bullets everywhere. there is no water. okay. i thought, you know, a lot of that is no. i live in a lot of places. there is no food. there is baby. there is no more. i saw a woman's give a bit of babies. child is born in the in the ground i made the plan was quite proper. we have to bring all over the day, maximum one cup like that into chess. fought before that i need to dream. know what to do. how could, how could they, i am very, very far as my parents, my family, my neighbors,

my eyes and i saw looked into it, my neighborhood, a child 6 years old, 6 years old. it's father died before 5 years. he's. he's along with his mother. he's in a side he's home, he's playing with his tablet or phone bullies out here. what. what the child did this war. it's a kind of innocent people. my m a c h, a, u t. a 30 next christie. i is on the cost of

everything. i will be back top of the i with more than special news. ah, ah, the global sports industry is worth over $500000000000.00 today. when north america leading the market and africa expected to be the fastest growing region. the olympics and fee for world cup are $2.00 major sporting events where countries can come together as well as to show off their capabilities on the world stage. but how much does it actually cost to host $1.00 of these gigantic events that's going to be broadcasted to billions of people worldwide? i'm christy, and you're watching the cost of everything. and today we're going to be looking at the economic impact of global sporting events, like the world cup and the olympics,

and how it really affects the host city. the world cup is held every 4 years and is the most popular international sporting competition washed by over 3500000000 people. that is even more than the super bowl or the olympics fans travel from all over the world to follow their favorite teams and a month long tournament. it was also one of the most lucrative sporting events in the world with the total revenue generated by the event estimated to be over $14000000000.00 through broadcasting right sponsorships, ticket sales, like the olympics. the world cup post is determined by a bidding process where host countries submit their plan on how they intend to run host and accommodate all the players and tours. as it is such a high viewership,

that fee for world cup has a significant economic impact for both the whole country and for the global economy . during the tournament, the whole country gets a boost and tourism, which leads to an increase in local economic activities such as job creation. in addition, indirect economic benefits include increased media exposure, sponsorship deals, and the sale of merchandise and memorabilia. these factors can help to promote the whole country brand and attract further investment guitar, who host to the 2022 world cup is reported to spend over $220000000000.00 on the construction of a new metro system. roads. the new airport neighborhoods and even an entirely new city and 7 new stadium. for comparison sake, russia spent about $11000000000.00 in 2018. nice country is hosting a world cup than tens of billions on preparations from building infrastructure,

hotels, advertising, campaign, ticket, sales, security, etc. and much of that is often not recouped in terms of hard cash. instead, you get tv right, sold to broadcasters around the world, ticket sales, marketing rights, and an influx of tourism. over a 1000000 overseas visitors are expected during the month long torment, which increases sales or hotel restaurant tours and over drivers. but these benefits are very short term and often do not outweigh the costs. hotel prices rise during the sell out event. wages of service workers do not necessarily go up by the same amount. this means the returns to capital are greater than those to labor. posting a world cop is also an exercise in political capital and soft power. it gives the world a window into that country to show off how new its infrastructure is,

how lucrative it is in order to attract future business. investments for our host country is about pride and honor and publicity, more than it is about money. and while it welcomes foreign tourism, at the same time they get to spread its own cultural influence around the world to foreigners, to make them more aware of its traditions and customs. the hope and promise of hosting is that in the long run, the money spent on hosting builds capacity for that country's economy to expand new rows and transport projects will also provide economic benefits. in terms of dollars, guitar has estimated that it will make $17000000000.00 in revenue after hosting the world cup accounting for $1200000.00 visitors and the sale of $3000000.00 tickets for matches. that is a far cry from the initial investment, but it hope that about $40000000.00 people will seek to visit the country in the

future after it's heavy media exposure. so now a spring in victor matheson, editor at the journal, a sports economic and professor at the college of the holy cross. so now is hosting the world cup great for the whole country or the whole country when it comes to tourism. so it is actually generally pretty good for your tourism sector and your tourism sector only. so if you look something like a cutter cutter certainly had somewhere in the vicinity at least $500000.00 additional hotel room nights because of the world cup. probably a few more than that. we look back to things like rio, rio, had maybe 200000 addition, additional hotel room nights. we definitely see that again, a smaller event here, the u. s. like the super bowl, again, identifiable as big tourism events. the question is whether the tourism is enough

to pay for all the other bills that come along with hosting these mega vents. now taxing businesses is a common way to raise funds to help pay for these fee for matches and these taxes will still exist for years after fif was done. so what happens to the businesses after that? can they still survive? right, so it all depends on how much you've spent to do this, right. so cutler, for example, spend somewhere in the vicinity of $200000000000.00 in preparations for this. that's more than not just any other mega event in history. that's more than every other world cup, for example, in history, all put together, it's more than 4 times what the most expensive olympic games ever cost. so this is, this is something that there's no way you can possibly get any sort of reasonable return out of this. on the other hand, the united states, canada, canada, and mexico are hosting the next one. and they're going to spend essentially nothing

on new stadiums, at least. so when you keep your costs down, you have the possibility that these can be paid off with reasonable taxes over a reasonable amount of time. but it's impossible when you're spending in the end, the billions of dollars like tokyo spent for the olympics like real spend for the world cup and the rest of brazil spent for the world cup or in again in the hundreds of billions like cuts are spent for the last world cup. now it's really remarkable and unprecedented here. why would guitar spend so much money on it? well, certainly for a country, this was a prestige project. nothing, nothing else. it was we have the money and we want to host this event. it's the same sort of thing of why would anyone spend $250000.00 on a gold plated custom lamborghini? well, because you can, there's no of, there's obviously no financial return on that for you. but it's all about showing

off your country showing off your wealth more realistically, at least for some, some countries. it is an investment in infrastructure and future tourism. it's a way to advertise your city or advertise your country. and in those cases, it's possible that it can work, but even most of those cases, it's a pretty big gamble. the event must have morphed into something different. i mean, since the country spend so much money and must have been a completely different experience. yes, so i wasn't there for the event i was, i was in the country a few years before that in the run up for this again. what's, what's astounding in cutters case is, this is a country that's roughly the size of the state of connecticut. and in the u. s, with about half the number of people is about the amount of infrastructure. so this is a country with literally one stadium in place when they are awarded the games that

was up to the caliber that they needed for the world cup. they were bidding against the u. s. and when the u. s. put in their bid, we have $79.00 different stadiums across the country that we said could be ready for a world class event. within 3 weeks. they had one stadium in the entire country to do this and the course had to build another 9 stadiums from scratch and, and again, when, when you're doing that sort of spending on things that don't have a long run value for your life, stadium stadiums are not a good long run investment. again, there's just no way that you're doing this for any sort of plausible economic reason. and the economics of hosting things like fif on the olympics are so bad. then why do politicians play such significance on hosting and fight to has the right to host? well, so there's a couple different reasons, right? so 1st of all, just because it's a disaster or can't be a disaster for a city as a whole, or a countries a whole doesn't mean that there's not special interests within the city who could

benefit from that. so for example, no, no better time to be a hotel owner than during a mega event. so there's no doubt that certain sectors and of course, so those are the sort of sectors that may have the ear of the president or the mayor, or the prime minister of the heavy construction industry loves these, right? because you have to build all those stadiums and those airports and those hotel, so they love this. so one thing it can, it can be a giveaway to the special interests, just because it's not good for the country as a whole. doesn't mean that there's not influential people who can benefit. so that's number one. and of course the other reason here is, is it's just a show for ego, right? we've seen this again and again i, china, when they hosted the summer olympics again, this was a way to project power, right? basically soft our were sports washing right? ah, when we have obviously guten,

posting both at the winter olympics in sochi, as well as the world cup in 2018. again, this is an a time for hootin to show off of his political power and say, look how important russia is. we're hosting the world's most important sporting events. look at how strong a leader i am and i could bring these things to you. so certainly up front i'd is an important piece there, as well as sometimes it's not always bad either. so it's, for example, south africa, the 1st big sporting event they did when they, when they emerged from decades, carbide was hosting the rugby world cup. and that was actually a wildly successful and really bringing together whites and blacks in the country. as you know, to be able to refer something, not as a white south african, but as a said, they're going to be left with a much expanded presentation that works a much better international airport. now mind you,

it's an international airport that's built to handle the sort of crowds you get during the world cup. ah, not during regular regular business. right now they're gonna have a nice hotel sector that's significantly improve over their old hotel sector about again, that's again going to be a sector that's rarely use to capacity. and at least in the united states, you need to fill up a hotel room about 70 percent of all nights to make it make it so that that hotel can stay in business. it's unlikely that a bunch of these hotels are going to be having ongoing business sets enough to fill up those hotel rooms night after night after night. which is what you need to actually have these things makes sense from an economic standpoint. again, additional additional roads, additional mass transit it again, additional tours facilities. they're going to be left with a bunch of things. but almost almost certainly of much of it is going to be way out sized for the, for the economy itself. i'm

a cutter has been put on the map in a way that wasn't in the past. busy although again, that's not necessarily good either because a lot of what people know about cutter is that it is a very, very conservative society, a repressive towards women, no alcohol, i was, i had serious issues with my group workers during the building phases. so again i, some people say there's no such thing as bad publicity, but it's not entirely clear that that's true. and you sound like make their make their matheson must stick around with us because after the break we will analyze how costly it is to organize and execute the winter and summer olympics. don't go away. ah ah

ah ah ah welcome back to the cost of everything. while the olympic games have become the biggest sporting event in the world, attracting thousands of athletes to come together and compete and win pride for their home country. these games have come under immense criticism over the last decade. for much of the 20th century, the olympics was just a manageable burden for their host countries. games were publicly funded with the advanced countries, better position to bear the cost due to their larger economies. however, once there was a jump in viewership and television, broadcasting revenue hosting cities began to grow more ambitious,

creating more expensive plans to demonstrate their progress on the world stage. host cities organizing the events need to invest millions into creating specialized sports facilities. you limping village and venues large enough to host the opening and closing ceremonies. infrastructure cost range anywhere from hundreds of millions of dollars to tens of billions of dollars, depending on what infrastructure needed to be upgrade or built out. operational costs make up a smaller but still significant chunk of the host, the limbic budget, which includes security and what is problematic or the so called white elephants or expensive facilities that because of their specialized nature, have limited post olympic. you need often impose costs for years to come, such as the birds and stadium in from the beijing olympics, which was the $500000000.00 crown jewel center piece of the event that now stands

empty. aside from hosting a few cultural exhibitions and the occasional concert, much of the time this uniform venue stand empty. meeting up to the games. china husband, $43000000000.00 under 2008 olympics at the time. more than 3 times more than any other olympic other venues go unused and will likely be demolished. many of the residential developments that were built up to house the extra core. the crowds are also standing empty. now these building had almost 0 economic long term benefit. post olympic financial problems are common for host cities as spending billions to host a 2 week event almost never makes a profit. the city usually spending years paying off at the limbic debt and is often left with unused venue and white elephant main stadiums. athens also when billions over its plan budget of $1600000000.00 for the 2004 summer olympics and

the greek citizens were left to pay for everything. in the aftermath, after tourism died down, there just wasn't any use for most of the building stadiums. and course it's these huge abandoned investments have been especially painful as they all contributed to greece's financial crisis. gang wong, south korea, which was responsible for the 2018 games is expected to incur $8500000.00 of annual deficit due to the upkeep of unused facility. and now we're going to welcome back victor matheson. thank you so much for coming back selector, how many countries had netted an actual profit from hosting the olympics? and one of the benefits are there to be gain from hosting? yeah, so uh the united states as them very well several times when we hosted the world cup in 1094, i was still to the stay the most successful world cup in terms of average

attendance. we didn't build any new stadiums. we spent a little bit of money up putting a new coat of paint on, on a couple stadiums. we installed grass in the, in the indoor silver dome in detroit, a. but again, we spent almost nothing on this and yet attracted a tens of thousands of visitors from across the country. i, the, the organizers ended up with a big profit fif, ended up with a bunch of money. the money that of the united states netted on profit from selling tickets is still part of the us soccer foundation. been billed soccer fields in disadvantaged neighborhoods. so that's great. and again, is because the united states was able to host an event without having to spend billions tens of billions or again, hundreds of billions of dollars on new infrastructure. same thing happened in 1984 in an los angeles. when we hosted the summer olympics, there was very unique about that games is that when it came time to award the a vent to a ho city was angelus was the only city that was willing to be the host in 1084.

and therefore, it could dictate the terms of the event to the i o. c rather than the other way around. and they said, hey, we're not building any new stuff. we're going to use the rose bowl. we're going to use the coliseum stadiums that were had that had been used 50 years earlier at the, at the last time. the yellow with that los angeles, at most of the games are they didn't build new dorm side, any, any athlete village they built the handed right over to you, c, l, a and u u. s. c. so they ended up having with the entire cost of the games was only about $1500000000.00 in today's dollars. that may seem a lot, but in, you know, in comparison just the stadium for the tokyo olympics, they've never got to code it. might you but just the stadium costs over $1500000000.00. so the entire,

her $984.00 summer olympics cost less to host than just building the national stadium for the tokyo games. and when you can keep costs down like that, it's possible to make a profit. and in reality, los angeles actually did come away with a healthy profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars. but that only was the case because they didn't spend multiple multiple billions or tens of billions putting the event on. now how does the government recoup the extra costs from spending on the olympics or the citizens on the hook for it? and do taxes usually go up leading up to these events like the olympics? yeah, so the i o c. and certainly people as well requires some sort of backups. so even up a private entity says that they're going to put on the olympics. it requires a public back up that says if there any overruns that the government guarantees that this event will go on. in all cases we have huge over runs and,

and we have billions of dollars that cannot possibly be recovered just through things like hotel rentals and ticket sales and merchandise and things like this. so that does mean that the countries are on the hook for that. for example, montreal, which hosted in 1976. ah, they took them 30 years to pay off the debts from their stadium building projects. and of course they were going to use their olympic stadium for a baseball team. and by the time they actually got done paying for the stadium, that baseball team, the montreal expos had already moved out of town. and now the washington methods, which event has been the most wasteful. it seems like today, every country just keeps on trying to top each other building the big is the, the biggest that just to show off. there's no doubt that the carter said every record. i mean, i could have been standing here sitting here

a few years ago and say, wow, so she was a disaster, you know, and thing. there is no way that so she could, could be, there's no way you could do worse. and so she and of course cut her said here, hold my beer, of course they didn't because it was cutters, interest, and they lympics has been waning as viewership is down quite a bit in recent years. is this model of hosting still as prestigious as a once was thought of to be? yeah, so i would say probably is still fairly prestigious. again, i don't know what the tv numbers are in every country in the world, but again, the opening ceremonies of the, of the olympics tend to be the highest rated sporting event in the united states in any given year outside of the nfl. so that means that they don't draw more than championships baseball, hockey or basketball or soccer. so you know, this really is a fairly prestigious event and i think that remain so and of course the world cup

itself, we don't like people. we don't like what happened in color, but we all tune in because it's the world's sport. and again it showcases the greatest players from. busy all across the country and it's is one great chance to unabashedly route for your country, no matter what. right. so it's the one chance we're fans of barcelona and real madrid can come together and route for spain or, or, you know, man, city and man, united fans instead of being angry with one another on the street can get together and the power and toast to the success of england, so, you know, there's, there's nothing like it on the planet. but again, it's, it certainly shouldn't be seen as any sort of great economic driver because in most cases, especially if you've got to build a bunch of stadiums, there's no way you're going to make your money back on this. thank you so much, victor, for time and insight today. it's been a pleasure. so our hosting city's

a winners or losers in the sporting scheme. i mean, on the one hand, the city gets a temporary boost in tours and recognition. it gets to exports culture out and the city will undergo a major investment to build up the public transport and hotels, to house the expected inflow of tourism. but on the other hand, many cities are left with a band and stadiums and arena's afterwards that were a complete waste of taxpayer money. the city is left with debt and once a temporary boost and tourism is gone, it's like nothing ever changed. in fact, researchers have found the impact of tourism is mixed as the security crowding and higher prices that the olympic spring dissuade. many visitors, sidney vancouver and barcelona also flight increases and tourism. after they hosted of aging london and salt lake city, all saw decreases and tourism. after years after the olympics,

ultimately there is little evidence for an overall positive economic impact with no long term impact on the hosting countries g d p. so now a consensus has grown amman, economists that the olympic games need reforms to make them more affordable and also less corrupt. i'm christy, i thanks for watching and we'll see you back here next time on the cost of everything. ah, ah ah, i'm extension and i'm here to plead with you whatever you do, you do not watch, minute show. why watch something so different opinions that you won't get anywhere

else working with please. if you have the state department, the cia weapons, bankers, multi $1000000000.00 corporations, choose your facts for you. go ahead, change and whatever you do. don't watch my show, stay mainstream because i'm probably going to make you uncomfortable. my show is called direct impact. but again, you probably don't want to watch it because it might just change the way you think for over nice artillery strikes, why you claim to leave for civil instead and to others wounded in the russian border region of according to local officials, also heard in the stories that shape the week we are at the construction site they're taking is 1st nuclear power plant for you and this is multi $1000000000.00 joint between and for right most. 3rd, here is a 1st nuclear power plant built by a russian company with these official status as

a to can feeds leaders take part in the operational sort of money by a.