World Cup for Whom and for What? a Look Upon the Legacy of the World Cups in Brazil, South Africa and Germany
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
World Cup for whom and for what? A look upon the legacy of the World Cups in Brazil, South Africa and Germany Marilene de Paula and Dawid Danilo Bartelt (Organizers) Christian Russau Glaucia Marinho Laura Burocco Mario Campagnani Renato Cosentino World Cup: for whom and for what? A look upon the legacy of the World Cups in Brazil, South Africa and Germany World Cup for whom and for what? A look upon the legacy of the World Cups in Brazil, South Africa and Germany Marilene de Paula and Dawid Danilo Bartelt (Orgs.) Christian Russau Glaucia Marinho Laura Burocco Mario Campagnani Renato Cosentino Translation ISBN 978-85-62669-11-8 Fal Vitiello de Azevedo Copyleft. Total or partial reproduction of Content Review articles is allowed, provided the original article World Cup for whom and for what? A look Marilene de Paula, Dawid Danilo Bartelt, is mentioned. upon the legacy of the World Cups in Brazil, Manoela Vianna Some of the photos are licensed using Cre- South Africa and Germany. ative Commons <http:// creativecommons. Book Cover, Graphic Design and Layout org/licenses/by-nc/4.0> Heinrich Böll Foundation Flávia Mattos The photos are marked with CC and their Rua da Glória, 190/701 - Glória authors’ names. CEP 20.241-180 - Rio de Janeiro/RJ - Brazil Tel. 55 21 3221 9900 Fax 55 21 3221 9922 [email protected] www.br.boell.org Organizers Marilene de Paula e Dawid Bartelt P324 Articles Glaucia Marinho, Mario Campagnani, Renato Paula, Marilene de. Cosentino, Laura Burocco, Christian Russau World Cup for whom and for what? A look upon the legacy of the World Cups in Brazil, Publishing Coordination South Africa and Germany. Marilene de Paula e Dawid Bartelt (organizadores). – Rio de Marilene de Paula Janeiro : Fundação Heinrich Böll, 2014. Publishing Assistant 168 p.; 24cm x 17cm Manoela Vianna ISBN 978-85-62669-11-8 1. Human Rights. 2. Megaevents. I. Paula, Marilene de, org. II. Bartelt, Dawid, org. III. Título Summary Introduction 7 Dawid Danilo Bartelt Brazil 12 Glaucia Marinho Mario Campagnani Renato Cosentino South Africa 60 Laura Burocco Germany 106 Christian Russau Conclusion 149 Marilene de Paula 6 Introduction Dawid Danilo Bartelt A look upon the legacy of the World Cups in Brazil, South Africa and Germany cal formats and language, are political in essence. social, health and education areas (for some, a Introduction They are flawed suppositions but uneducated mere question of logic), the huge social costs guesses, representative for legitimizing speeches are undeniable. with which the International Soccer Federa- It is in this perspective that this publica- tion (Fifa) and the respective governments ad- tion offers a comparative look between Brazil´s In 2010, Ernst & Young consultants, in a dress the populations of the countries about the World Cup preparations and the actual results partnership with Fundação Getúlio Vargas, World Cup legacy. of the two previous ones: South Africa (2010) published a study called “Sustainable Brazil: so- In order to discuss the social and economic and Germany (2006). We inquire HERE what cial and economic impacts of the Soccer World legacies, there are a series of methodological the mega-events bring to the hosting countries Cup 2014”. In this paper, the two renowned problems to be considered. For example: road populations, especially for the less favored by institutions state that the World Cup would in- infrastructure works are specific for the World public policies, the ones at the bottom of the ject R$142 billion in the Brazilian economy, Cup or would have been conducted anyway? social pyramid. It also inquiries in what mea- and would generate 3.63 million jobs a year, Elevated expenses compromise other budget sure the transformations caused by mega-events between 2010 and 2014, besides an income items from cities, states, or Federal, or will they or introduced in their names respect or restrain of R$63 billion for the population. Those es- be compensated, for example, through private – or even violate – rights assured by national timates are based in “comparable experiences” investments? How do we account for indirect and international legislation. The three articles and on “public organs financial planning”, as financing forms, like tax exemptions (of which make a comparison of financial and social costs, 9 well as “specific criteria” like the difference FIFA almost fully benefits) or subsidies? Are analyzing legal and financial exception regimes, between expenses made on scenarios with and public expenditures in the context of a mega- legislation changes, national and local interven- without the World Cup. Costs were evaluated event considered cost or investment? The an- tions in the economy of host countries. Chang- as stable, disregarding eventual “oscillations” in swers for these kinds of methodological ques- es in different levels are highlighted: on security the macro-economical environment. tions depend highly on political interests and legislation, on basic rules of social policies, on In March 2014, I asked a representative priorities. That means: in the name of which bidding and contract regimes, on budgeting from Ernst & Young if he would still stand for economical and social groups ARE these ques- legislation, which are structures of the instal- his prognostic. The answer was evasive – eco- tions made? lation of a mega-event in a country. It must be nomical conditions may have changed. But Besides, in the middle of the debate there considered the real costs of a mega-event are even with methodological reserves, and consid- are clear findings to be made. First of all: World hard to evaluate. There are different cost forms, ering that the Gross Internal Product growth Cups are expensive to the public vaults, and, hidden or indirect: tax exemptions or subsidies collapsed from 7.5% in 2010 to 0.9% in 2012, consequently, to tax payers of the hosting for Fifa and other companies, bidding and hir- estimates seemed absurd. Regarding job posts, country. Contrary to what President Lula an- ing processes that are manipulated, low interest for example, the concrete number broadcasted nounced in 2007, Brazil World Cup will not be loans, city debts by acquiring loans at market by the government is 24,500 workers employed “the private initiative World Cup”. About 20% interests. Not to mention corruption. in the stadium constructions. Evidently, these of costs are being funded by private companies. For this comparative study, we invited au- job posts are transient, and not structural. Second: regardless the polemic question of the thors with long history of work with the social These prognostics, dressed up in economi- high expenses compromising budgets in the movements in the countries about which they World Cup: for whom and for what? write. Christian Russau, German journalist and sented to the world a surprisingly festive, loose, activist in Berlin, and Italian International and tolerant German people. South Africa too, in Development Politics specialist Laura Burocco, a certain way, was able to present itself as the living in Johannesburg between 2011 and 2014, “rainbow nation”: modern and tolerant in the working for the South African Cities Network, year of 2010. Well, the Brazilians do not need to have already come and worked in Brazil. The prove to the world they like to party and dance, authors responsible for the Brazil chapter, Glau- and that they are a welcoming people. But the cia Marinho, Mario Campagnani and Renato protests against the mega-expenditures and the Cosentino, compose the communications team misery remain in the main areas of social poli- of the Human Rights Global Justice, and are tics, threatening to show counter-productive involved in the activities of the World Cup in images to the political marketing strategies. Rio de Janeiro and in the Popular Committee´s If we look at Fifa, the World Cup´s legacy National Articulation for the Cup (Ancop). will undoubtedly be positive. It does not cease Not for few times – and this was the case to impress how this private non-profit entity of Germany, and everything indicates it will be can impose its interests and rules over sovereign Brazil´s too – a World Cup serves the purpose states. It must be said that sovereignty restric- 10 of installing a new, more repressive security re- tions, at the end of the day, are only possible gime. The 2006 World Cup led to the biggest because the sovereign´s representatives (the security operation of the post-war period in people) allow them, because they meet their Germany, involving 250 thousand police of- interests. It must be analyzed if these are the ficers, the military, NATO fighter planes, pri- population´s interests. vate security, etc. According to members of According to official data of the organiza- organized rooter groups in Germany, repres- tion itself, Fifa´s income with World Cups has sion against rooters increased substantially right constantly increased: from US$3.9 billions in before the Cup in 2006. Repressive police be- Germany World Cup, in the period of 2003 to havior seemed to be one of the structuring fac- 2006, and US$4.2 billion in South Africa from tors that earned prominence in the other two 2007 to 2010, and it is estimated in US$5.4 bil- articles. In Brazil, during the June 2013 riots, lion for the Brazil World Cup. an unprepared, disproportionally violent police The enterprises responsible for the con- was seen, while the government and media re- struction or renovation of the 12 Fifa-standard cently engaged in criminalizing protests, afraid stadiums (justice be made that it demands only that they would ruin the party. After all, im- 8 home-stadiums and it was Lula´s government age benefits, and not economical effects, can be decision to raise the number to 12) are the oth- Picture credits, top to bottom: Felipe Werneck, Laura more profitable in the medium term.