Jump to content

After 2014 And 2016, What Will Brazil Bid For?


Recommended Posts

Some strucutures should be used in both events: Maracanã Stadium, Media and Telecomunications center, Hotel rooms investment, transports investments...the world cup of 2014 also provides a test for any special security scheme, transportatin scheme, I see more positives things in hosting the both than negative. That's why in the past Mexico ( 1968, 1970), USA (1994, 1996) Germany (1072, 1974) had host the both events...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I think technically, as we've said before, as long as the man power and the money is there hosting the two events so close oughtn't be a problem and there are certainly big advantages as you've outlined above.

The risk, the size of which none of us can measure unless we have a direct link into the minds of individual IOC members, is whether they want their event to follow so closely behind the world cup. That's a trickier question to answer and simply saying Mexico, Germany and the USA did it (although the first two did it the other way around) does not answer the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
simply saying Mexico, Germany and the USA did it (although the first two did it the other way around) does not answer the question.

That's true... We can't compare the situations... It was in different decades...

But considering the economic situation of Brazil (1,9% growth last three months), and the perspectives, we can say Brazil can afford with the organization and the cost of both events in a row...

No doubts, as the PanAms, Brazil can earn much money (It was published in Brazilian newspapers lately).

Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubts, as the PanAms, Brazil can earn much money (It was published in Brazilian newspapers lately).

Really? How mucht was the profit of the PanAms 07? Did it make any profit?

What's the source?

I disaprove some tactics of some people against Rio's bid too. Like this thread, for example... However I also believe this discussion should be fair and truthfull both ways.

We know Rio 2007 didn't make any profit. It was spent 9 times more than planned... It is true, though, it left some legacy. Questionable ones, but left...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? How mucht was the profit of the PanAms 07? Did it make any profit?

What's the source?

I disaprove some tactics of some people against Rio's bid too. Like this thread, for example... However I also believe this discussion should be fair and truthfull both ways.

Why should you disapprove of this thread? Why, aside from it being light-hearted, it is a serious question. After a city/country has like hosted the TWO biggest sports events extant on the planet in a span of 720 days, what will you guys go after? :blink: Anything else would be a let-down.

I don't see what is so objectionable about that? Why? Does it expose a weakness of the Rio bid? :blink: Obviously, it does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
No.

That is why i think this thread is useless.

Just remember 94 and 96...

And I'm against Rio's bid, but I'm in favour of reasonable arguments... ;)

'94-'96 does NOT compare. The 1994 World Cup committee/organization really did NOT have cross-overs for Atlanta 1996. As a matter of fact, Atlanta was not even a 1994 venue; and ALL of the 1994 venues were already existing stadia. So there was NO huge infrastructure layout for 1994; therefore the organization did NOT have to sign up too many sponsors for 1994; leaving many available for Atlanta 1996. And the US is/was big enough (and even in the mid-90s when there wasn't the economic troubles there are now) so as there would be NOOO keen competition for top sponsors.

Whereas Rio is going to be the key city for BOTH 2014 and 2016 -- which may have its good points, but at the same time, its negatives. But--and we've tried to explain this before--say if you were a major sponsor and you've committed $40 million to World CUp, you would NOT want to pay a similar amount to participate in 2016 BECAUSE your exposure would only be in the 1.5 years leading up to 2016...whereas you would probably have 3 years in the build-up to 2014.

Look at it from the sponsor's point of view: you would already have set aside a BIG budget for sponsorship and advertising for 2014 (which as some of you will admit, is a bigger deal for Brazil than 2016 is), therefore you would have less to spend for 2016. And usually, the 2 organizations (either because of IOC/FIFA regulations) will not allow cross-overs or doubling up of advertising...meaning say, one ad cannot say "Sponsor of World Cup 2014 and the 2016 Olympics." It dilutes the brand.

Therefore, the 2016 organization will be severely disadvantaged in this regard. So, in other words, probably the best and biggest Brazilian companies will probably line up for 2014 rather than for 2016. If Brazilian companies are going to be savvy about their finances and advertising budgets, they will NOT want to lay out the same amounts for the returns AND the exclusive exposure that 2014 or 2016 may bring. Those that might want to sponsor both will, and the IOC knows this more than anyone else, will probably have a smaller budget for 2016 since (i) there is a smaller exclusive build-up time to it; and (ii) the World Cup will have more of an impact on Brazil rather than the Olympics which would be mainly Rio's show. (Not unless the top companies budget the same amounts for both...but the IOC is cautious about that.)

But of course, most of the Brazilian supporters are going to be blind to this or they'll probably say "it's our money, what do you care?" Probably not; but I am just explaining, especially to you, feheva, since you asked...from an objective marketing POV, how the economic/sponsorship dynamics vis-a-vis a tight 2014-10216 scenario (in Brazil) will work out. Also, remember the costs of the 1968-70, 1972-when was the earlier German world cup?, and 1994-96 are NOWHERE near where they ARE today when you will need every dollar so at least you don't end up in the sinkhole.

Oh well... :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
And the US is/was big enough (and even in the mid-90s when there wasn't the economic troubles there are now) so as there would be NOOOO keen competition for top sponsors.

Whereas Rio is going to be the key city for BOTH 2014 and 2016

If Brazilian companies are going to be savvy about their finances and advertising budgets, they will NOT want to lay out the same amounts for the returns AND the exclusive exposure that 2014 or 2016 may bring.

Oh well... :(

Again, I'm not supporting Rio's bid, but I still think this is not an issue.

You are assuming the revenue from sponsorship comes only from locals companies. In international events, global sponsorships are expected. In the whole world there are a lot of conpanies. Some would like to sponsor the WC (Not the americans, but certainly Brazilians and Europeans) and others the SOG (Americans big time!). For example, when the Brazilian football team plays in another country in South America, in the pitch, at least 50% of the ads are from Brazilian companies, even though the event is not in Brazil. The same thing happens the other way round...

Rio will host the WC final and some more matches... That's all... Do you think Berlin was the key city of last WC? Maybe had a little more importance than the others...

You are also assuming the world will still be going through this economic crisis in 5-7 years time. Why? The world is already recovering...

I believe the mecanics of a WC and SOG are completely different, that is why it wasn't a issue for USA to host 94 and 96 and NOT because Atlanta wasn't a host city or because USA wasn't going through an economic crisis.

I simply don't agree with most of your assumptions, in which you base most of your predictions on this matter, that's all! ;)

Oh well? :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, I'm not supporting Rio's bid, but I still think this is not an issue.

You are assuming the revenue from sponsorship comes only from locals companies. In international events, global sponsorships are expected. In the whole world there are a lot of conpanies. Some would like to sponsor the WC (Not the americans, but certainly Brazilians and Europeans) and others the SOG (Americans big time!). For example, when the Brazilian football team plays in another country in South America, in the pitch, at least 50% of the ads are from Brazilian companies, even though the event is not in Brazil. The same thing happens the other way round...

Rio will host the WC final and some more matches... That's all... Do you think Berlin was the key city of last WC? Maybe had a little more importance than the others...

You are also assuming the world will still be going through this economic crisis in 5-7 years time. Why? The world is already recovering...

I believe the mecanics of a WC and SOG are completely different, that is why it wasn't a issue for USA to host 94 and 96 and NOT because Atlanta wasn't a host city or because USA wasn't going through an economic crisis.

I simply don't agree with most of your assumptions, in which you base most of your predictions on this matter, that's all! ;)

Oh well? :huh:

Oh well, that's fine. Think what you will.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, for me it is not just sponsorships, but to me it would be very challenging building and updating stadia in 10 different venues, and then implementing construction on so many additional venues for the SOG. Now, I know that some of these venues will improve preparations for 2016, but it just seems to be more risky and challenging task.

If I were an IOC member, I would think long and hard about spacing out the two a bit. But that is just me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know, for me it is not just sponsorships, but to me it would be very challenging building and updating stadia in 10 different venues, and then implementing construction on so many additional venues for the SOG. Now, I know that some of these venues will improve preparations for 2016, but it just seems to be more risky and challenging task.

If I were an IOC member, I would think long and hard about spacing out the two a bit. But that is just me.

What I tried to interpret was what I think the IOC is weary of in terms of Rio's bid. Sponsorships are VERY important. I think (off the top my head) they (including in-kind services and merchandise) they would account for 25-28% of the revenues of an OCOG. But if the city/country does not mind stepping in to fill the corporate shortfall, then fine...let the party begin. B)

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know, for me it is not just sponsorships, but to me it would be very challenging building and updating stadia in 10 different venues, and then implementing construction on so many additional venues for the SOG. Now, I know that some of these venues will improve preparations for 2016, but it just seems to be more risky and challenging task.

If I were an IOC member, I would think long and hard about spacing out the two a bit. But that is just me.

It is a valid concern... If Rio wins BOTH committees should clearly bare this in their minds in order to run both events smoothly!

But again, the IOC have taken this risk before...

I think my government should put all this money somewhere else and therefore the games should come to Rio.

But I also believe that the proximity of the events is not THE (or one of) reason why Rio shouldn't host the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ops!

Sorry!

:P

It is a valid concern... If Rio wins BOTH committees should clearly bare this in their minds in order to run both events smoothly!

But again, the IOC have taken this risk before...

I think my government should put all this money somewhere else and therefore the games should not come to Rio.

But I also believe that the proximity of the events is not THE (or one of) reason why Rio shouldn't host the games.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know, for me it is not just sponsorships, but to me it would be very challenging building and updating stadia in 10 different venues, and then implementing construction on so many additional venues for the SOG. Now, I know that some of these venues will improve preparations for 2016, but it just seems to be more risky and challenging task.

If I were an IOC member, I would think long and hard about spacing out the two a bit. But that is just me.

Soaring,

If you looked at both projects you would understand why the EC did not point the effort to build the venues as a risk. In fact, they have considered it a strength.

All capital investment for stadia for the 2014 WC will come either from local governments or from private investors. The stadia are owned either by football clubs or by the local governments and they will be the ones handling the projects.

The only overlap in capital investment for venues is for Maracana. But this will actually make the stadium and its surroundings redy for the SOG 2 years before the event, since FIFA standards are actually higher than the IOC's. Besides, part of the infrastructure investments will be also ready for 2014.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The question suggests that a 2-year span is too soon to have 2 great events at the same place. Many here have already proven you wrong with examples of the past... and it does not matter if Atlanta was a venue or not, that's just an excuse, the USA hosted both events. Besides, leaving Rio outside of the World Cup would be unthinkable. ///

Then, the topic implies we would be left with a hangover and emptiness feeling after staging both... please, make me laugh ! Listen, my friend, come to Rio and see what we do every single year celebrating the biggest party IN THE WORLD.... there's no room for this feeling in this city, we are too busy HAVING FUN !!! As long as there's soccer, samba and carnaval we will never be down !

Link to post
Share on other sites
there's no room for this feeling in this city, we are too busy HAVING FUN !!! As long as there's soccer, samba and carnaval we will never be down !

This kind of post really doesn't help much in the discussion here...

About the rest... Sponsorship is not a deal for Rio.

Global partners are already taken place and local sponsorship is showing it will be not a problem. Why?

Example: Itau Bank (2nd biggest bank in Brazil - top 20 in the world) is already a official sponsor of WC. Bradesco (3rd biggest bank in Brazil) announced sponsorship for 2016 Rio Games.

Oi (Biggest Telecom Company in Latin America) will sponsor WC, Embratel (2nd in Brazil Telecom company) is already a Rio 2016 sponsor...

and go on...

5 years before World Cup and with no guarantees of SOG in Rio, Brazil shows it first partners... I can't see it like a huge problem, but as a some concern only...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rio can bid for Winter Games!!!! LOL

Last sunday, Botafogo beach held a snowboard presentation in a artificial track built in the sand of the beach...

Rio 2030... Winter games is also possible!!! LOL

(sarcasm mode on) but info about snowboard track in Rio is true:

http://globoesporte.globo.com/Esportes/Not...TE+DOMINGO.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rio can bid for Winter Games!!!! LOL

Last sunday, Botafogo beach held a snowboard presentation in a artificial track built in the sand of the beach...

Rio 2030... Winter games is also possible!!! LOL

(sarcasm mode on) but info about snowboard track in Rio is true:

http://globoesporte.globo.com/Esportes/Not...TE+DOMINGO.html

It was wonderful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rio can bid for Winter Games!!!! LOL

Last sunday, Botafogo beach held a snowboard presentation in a artificial track built in the sand of the beach...

Rio 2030... Winter games is also possible!!! LOL

(sarcasm mode on) but info about snowboard track in Rio is true:

http://globoesporte.globo.com/Esportes/Not...TE+DOMINGO.html

But, honestly, if Brazil presented such a bid, Baron would die. We all love Baron because he loves Rio. I have said that. He pretends not to show it, but it is more obvious each day: this is a love affair.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^^^^^

That would be a good one. There's all that portuguese heritage here and portuguese bakery owners have/had large mustaches. Can you imagine? Mustaches in the shape of Sugar Loaf?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...