Depending on who you ask about this year's FIFA World Cup, sentiments reflect either the best of times or the worst of times.
As host cities begin to wrap up World Cup festivities, people are weighing the pros and cons of this year's tournament. While the energy was high and there was no shortage of events, many question whether the same experience could have been created with a smaller price tag.
FIFA, the global governing body of soccer, has faced scrutiny over its organizational policies after host cities faced hefty bills associated with meeting the organization's strict branding and hosting requirements.
While some cities sought private sponsors to help shoulder the financial burden, the City of Toronto used mostly public funding to host six matches. Relying on city and provincial assistance, the city's budget was estimated at $380 million — a figure that has become a source of division in the city.
Toronto City Councilor Josh Matlow fought to keep fan zones free for residents after FIFA attempted to introduce admission fees for an event initially promoted as free. He is also raising concerns about other promises he says were broken.
"We didn't see a spike in hotel stays, we didn't see a significant adjustment to our city with respect to economic development or great benefits to our small businesses," Matlow said. "Was it worth the hundreds of millions of tax dollars?"
Original tourism projections boasting increased hotel bookings, higher foot traffic and revenue growth don't appear to be coming to fruition. The Greater Toronto Hotel Association said in a recent release that bookings during the last week of June were down more than 10% compared with the same week last year.
According to Vijay Setlur, a marketing instructor at York University's Schulich School of Business, Toronto, unlike fellow host Vancouver, did not properly leverage its assets to create a larger experience.
"I think if Toronto were to have had a more robust street festival, similar to Vancouver, that's specifically with the World Cup in mind, I think the impact on local businesses could have been stronger," Setlur said.
Setlur also said when evaluating these numbers, people should consider the aversion theory.
"This could be a similar scenario when cities are talking about 300,000 people in the city. People hear that and don't think of it as positive. They think, 'I need to stay away from there,'" Setlur said. "In a way, it's almost like there's a countereffect. You have people coming in, but then you've got people staying away because of those people coming in."
Matlow also commented on the lower-than-expected numbers.
"Those projections were wildly wrong, so I just don't see how the city is reaping the rewards for its investments," he said.
However, after taking stock of all factors and possible outcomes, Setlur said there are some priceless opportunities that came from hosting the tournament.
"To be able to reach a billion people would require a significant amount of advertising spending. But Toronto, just by hosting the World Cup, is able to have scenes of the city aired to an audience of as much as a billion people," Setlur said. "That's a great investment because that didn't involve any spending on the part of Destination Toronto."
Setlur said that benefit should be measured over the long-term rather than by immediate returns because it could inspire future tourism and strengthen Toronto's ability to compete for other major events, such as the Olympics.
York University associate professor Sarah Zipp said the long-term impacts of the tournament can be seen in legacy investments, particularly in infrastructure.
"They've also done a lot to enhance public transportation, and Toronto has improved and expanded its bicycle-sharing system," Zipp said. "They're hoping to do a lot in promoting public transportation and alternate modes of transportation."
But with a few additional soccer pitches, transit improvements, a stadium upgrade with temporary fixtures and a larger financial burden than before, can the city justify the cost and the outcome?
With FIFA receiving all revenue generated by the matches, including stadium concessions and fan festival revenue, Zipp acknowledged the downside of hosting large sporting events and the influence of organizations such as FIFA.
"We're examining the increased commodification, commercialization and politicization of sport, particularly by entities like FIFA and the IOC. The impact of these movements is overall very negative," Zipp said.
In the aftermath, many are left with questions, including Matlow, who wonders what could have been done differently.
"Could we have had just as much fun hosting big events, big festivals, investing in our communities where they celebrate, without spending half a billion dollars on hosting six matches that have left our city financially worse off once the tournament leaves town?" he asked.
It's a question that is likely to continue being asked once the last match is played, FIFA fever cools and more data becomes available from host cities.
