+x+x+x"In the current environment, this has been a screamer of a goal for the Australian economy."He said he hoped a Matilda's win tonight would "keep working its magic on our economy".A state-by-state breakdown is below. - New South Wales: $2.98 billion- hosting 11 matches
- Victoria: $2.30 billion- hosted 6 matches
- Queensland: $1.55 billion- hosting 8 matches
- Western Australia: $663.2 million- hosted 5 matches
- South Australia: $160.9million- hosted 4 matches
Those numbers are taking the piss. The only legitimate boost to the economy comes from international tourists, and there are only a few thousand of those. Even if they each spend $10k in Australia, that's a few tens of millions for the whole tournament. Nothing to sneeze at but certainly not in the billions. Interstate tourists shouldn't count because it's just robbing Peter to pay Paul. And locals obviously don't count because if they didn't spend the money on the WWC, they would just spend it on something else. Haha. Those figures are always rubbery. I heard FIFA say 1 in 5 fans are international. Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Sort of. You're buying a plane ticket, getting accommodation, food and drinks, merch etc. Stuff you wouldn't do if you stayed home. So it may not be as high as what they're saying but it'd be significant. Buying plane tickets etc. doesn't suddenly make you richer. If you didn't spend your money on that you would probably do it on something else, or invest it or whatever. From a national perspective, the only genuine economic boost is from international tourists (plus players, officials, etc.) who came here for the WWC, and who otherwise wouldn't have come to Australia. Everything else is money that would have been in the economy anyway. From a state perspective, it might be good for NSW if fans came from Victoria to watch a match, but then it's correspondingly bad for Victoria. And since there are matches all over the country, it's pretty much a wash.
|