Yet sports can actually play a role in economic development, helping poorer countries. An example of this, one could argue, is the World Cup being held in South Africa. Theoretically, all of the sales and economic stimulus that follows an event like the World Cup or the Olympics is supposed to boost the local and regional economy. But does it actually work?
Well, for one, there are aspects of the whole effort like this. Perhaps part of the idea was to spur the local economy, but bringing in Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and whoever made all of the official memorabilia will likely lessen the realization of that idea because a lot of the tourist dollars (or rand in this case) will be taken back when everyone packs up their things and goes home. Nonetheless, there's still all of the hotel rooms filled, cars and busses rented, and local food consumed by World Cup spectators, and other locally-oriented spending. So the effect exists, but it's not capitalized upon as much as it could be.
But is even that enough? An event like this is in a sense a one-shot injection of tourist activity. What about the places that consistently rely on tourist activity for their local economies? Las Vegas is an arguably successful and pretty familiar example for many young Americans. Mexico does pretty well, too, with attractions like Tijuana, Cancun, etc. But despite the enormous size of the tourism industry worldwide, it doesn't always work. Japan, for example, has had problems with their tourism industry. Besides the fact that it's not a guaranteed boost, tourism can fundamentally change, even destroy, the local character of a place. On the other hand, tourism can be used constructively, to aid the local economy and to preserve the local character, if it's done right. It's a careful balance.
Coming back to South Africa, if long-term tourism has such mixed results, how much benefit can be expected from a month of soccer or two weeks of Olympic competition? Estimates actually suggest that a lot can be expected. But the expected direct return can be quite less than the investment required to host an enormous international athletic event. Therefore, the hope is the indirect and long-term benefits: improved infrastructure as part of preparations for the event, positive international exposure, tourists who return because of their enjoyable first experience, etc.
Overall, it seems like there are a lot of possible pitfalls in relying on tourism, especially a single athletic event--as large and internationally important as it may be--but there is also a lot of potential to foster economic opportunities in former colonial countries whose infrastructure was long neglected, whose resources were taken without regard for their environments, and whose peoples were kept in poverty--even in slavery. And given that this year's World Cup is the first in Africa, the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro will be the first in South America, and that there has never been an Olympics in Africa, it seems that this opportunity is unfortunately, grossly underutilized. Sure, there may be reasons for this--fear of crime, the resources needed to put together a successful hosting application--but the fact that something is difficult is not a reason to avoid it and the potential benefits of an action make it worth doing.
