World Cup in Atlanta, Georgia 2026.
This post was written by a student. It has not been fact checked or edited.
One of the cities that will host the World Cup 2026 is Atlanta, Georgia.
Since the world cup will be in Atlanta, there is going to be a bunch of tourists, thousands probably even millions of people coming to the city. That means we've got 4 years to fix all crime, air pollution, and traffic. And the city of Atlanta will use a lot of money to fix these problems.
So there are benefits of the world cup being placed here in Atlanta. Atlanta has the opportunity to make electric transport so there wouldn't be to much air pollution. People just can't come and live in hotels rent free, they'll have to pay money to stay. They can't come and wait for the finals without eating, they have to go to restaurants and pay money to eat. So is that way Atlanta would have a lot of money, which they could use to fix some problems in Atlanta.
The cost of Hosting the world cup in Atlanta include more air pollution. Since a lot of tourist will come to the city or state they'll need to travel. Trains, Fuel Vehicles, and Buses causes a lot of pollution. And since Atlanta is known for traffic there's going to be more traffic and a lot of air pollution.
So know you know that there is costs and benefits in hosting a world cup. A benefit is that Atlanta would make money. A cost is air pollution which causes illness.
Comments (6)
A good look at both pros and cons. On the air pollution side, what measures could the city take in the next 4 years to try and reduce the impact more traffic would have?
You are right blithesome_snake. Atlanta will have a lot to do to prepare for the upcoming world cup. They will need to find solutions to a lot of problems. Another problem I think Atlanta may have is that after the world cup, the infrastructure used may be at right of being abandoned. There are many stadiums now in the world that have been abandoned. Some of them are the West Ham Stadium, Strahov Stadium and many others. The stadium in Atlanta might face the same fate so to solve this problem, I feel several things can be done.
The stadium can be turned into a home for homeless people and refugees. According to www.bloomberg.com, "In 2017 and 2018 Atlanta resettled the highest number of refugees of any U.S. city". In response to this the stadiums can be turned into shelters or even elementary school buildings for refugee and homeless children. What do you think about this blithesome_snake?
I think hosting it in usa is good because they dont care much about the game so this could bring popularity to make football more popular there (plus they can finally call it football instead of soccer)
I don't think the cost of hosting should go only on the receiving city. Why we don't ask that all the investments go towards only sustainable initiatives? For example, tourists moved only by electric busses. For every person that buys a ticket, one tree is planted, fountains for water installed in the city, so there is less use of plastic.
This approach is to make everyone accountable and work together to make tourism in general sustainable.
What's your view?
What Valeria @ PA suggested is a really nice approach. But how will these sustainable initiatives be implemented? It seems to me a little magical! I believe, for these measures to be carried out, massive support will be required. There will be thousands of tourists. The government will have to work hard in favour of these measures. Moreover, it may needan allocation of a budget. The cost should not bear down on Atlanta, but how is it made sure that everyone follows these sustainable actions?
I whole-heartedly support the idea but it may be unrealistic.
Blithesome_snake
You said, "Atlanta will have the opportunity to make electric transpot so that there wouldn't be much air pollution and that people will have to pay for what they will eat and where they will stay so in that way the country will earn a lot of money to fix these problems." But don't you think that the money these people will spend on their food and snacks will go to the restaurant owners and the money they will spend to get accommodation and where to sleep will go to the hotel owners and yes I know that the government will earn from the taxes they will pay but the country will have to wait for when the world cup starts and that is 4 years from now so as per now they have to get another source to get money. So I thought maybe the government can apply a loan for a minimum amount of money then also use some of the country's taxes and also use money earned from the government parastatals( government founded businesses) to fix these problems then when world cup starts they can earn that money back through the tourism sector and incase the suggestion of electric transport goes through and they work on it they will also earn much more money and they will be able to even pay their debts and even develop the country more.
That's what I thought all along then when I went ahead to make more research about world cup and I found out that FIFA WORLD CUP has sponsors e.g Adidas, Coca cola and many others that fund this event so Atlanta wouldn't have to suffer with all the expenses when the sponsors are also there. Then Atalnta can also use the same amount Russia put in to organize 2018 world cup $16billion dollars because the event still went smoothly and was a success even though they put a minimum amount of money compared to the one Qatar put in $229. And if they do this they can use the rest of the money to solve a lot more problems like poverty, illiteracy, Dr shortages and also be able to improve on the infrastructure of the country, create for the jobless more jobs hence leading to the development of the country. But you might also find that country might also want to make sure that the event is very perfect and that it is remembered by everyone that's why they might also want to put in more money even compared to Qatar. I know it will be up to the country to make their choices though i still wanted to give my opinion.
I don't think the cost of hosting should go only on the receiving city. Why we don't ask that all the investments go towards only sustainable initiatives? For example, tourists moved only by electric busses. For every person that buys a ticket, one tree is planted, fountains for water installed in the city, so there is less use of plastic.
This approach is to make everyone accountable and work together to make tourism in general sustainable.
What's your view?