Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Essay option #7 Given the financial cost, should the World cup be moved to…
Essay option #7 Given the financial cost, should the World cup be moved to a permanent venue?
-
hook
in the latest world cup held in qatar, they have spent a total of 229 billion dollars
-
-
thesis statement
The world cup should not be held in a permanent venue, because it decreases diversity removes opportunities for national teams, which inhabits economic developments.
argument#2
Although the World cup costs a lot of money it brings enjoyment and competition through country's and brings many groups of diversity.
Having the problem of the cost is mostly solved already due to the world cup being every four years. Because the world cup is every four years it allows country's to prepare, organize and save up for it.
The cost of the world cup is mostly controlled by the host. Because of this the host want's to represent his country and make it as nice as possible. The host is in charge of making the supply of food, the drinks, the seats, the costs. This makes it the host'd decision which he can make reasonable price.
The player's can also experience many new places. Because of this the player's can have a fun time exploring when they're not playing and enjoy wherever it is they are.
If the world cup was in the same spot it would almost get boring because many teams won't get the advantage of automatically qualifying which makes it almost the same teams every time. this would also draw football to a one country sport because of having no major events in different country's. Many premier league teams travel to verse their opponents in different cities or country's but this limits it to the same cities and country's every time which makes the major football country's feel like a minority to the sport.
The world cup being in different places benefits the players as well as it can be there automatic qualification if it's at their home country. This means that the players that usually never make it because there team is bad, have a chance to finally be in the top 16.
argument #3
The one problem is if the country or city doesn't have a stadium or a big enough stadium. But they probably wouldn't host if they don't have one.
one of the major reasons it would stay a permanent venue is because of the cost. This is actually better for the country that's hosting because they will receive lot's of tourism and millions will be spent for tickets which is to the country's advantage. It is also an advantage because they get a automatic qualify this means that they will play at home, this leads to having more support and a better chance to win!
Having the world cup in different spot will lead to more tourism and money for which ever country is hosting. This is an advantage for their country because it will attract every football fan in the area.
having a permanent venue for the World Cup would have lots of benefits, including using less money to spend for the hosts of the world cup. While also it would be bad by limiting the diversity of host countries and cultures. The world cup in different places gives a chance for lots of people to go, if its in there country. Some people really love the world cup but can't afford or don't have enough time to travel all the way to a different country.
-
-
-
-