What are the strongest examples for the developing countries hosting question?

Brazil 2014 (about 11.5 billion US dollars, roughly 85% public, including 3.6 billion on stadiums; the 550-million-dollar Brasilia arena became a bus parking lot; 61% of Brazilians in a 2014 Pew poll called it unwise) and South Africa 2010 (about 3 billion in public spending, no profit, against FIFA's roughly 631 million surplus). Together they show white elephants and the regressive host-pays structure.

Should I just argue developing countries should not host?

No, that is too flat. Condition the answer on capacity: a host that folds spending into needed infrastructure and secures fair terms can benefit, while one that buys oversized prestige at the cost of basic needs should not. The stronger move questions the word 'allowed' itself, since no gatekeeper is entitled to forbid sovereign states.

How do I handle the word 'allowed' in this question?

Treat it as the operative term. 'Allowed' implies a gatekeeper deciding for sovereign nations and casts poor states as wards needing protection. Reject that framing, then relocate the real problem to the events' financing, where costs fall on hosts and revenues flow to federations, so the fix is structural reform that applies to every host.

2016 A-Level GP Q4: Essay Outline (2 approaches)

Two ways to argue it

How to approach it. Judge whether developing countries should host major sporting events given the money involved, defining 'allowed', 'developing' and the real question of who decides, who pays and who benefits.

Option A · Conditions: capacity to capture returns

A developing country should host a major sporting event only when it has the governance, scale and planning to turn the spending into lasting infrastructure and standing, which a few can; for the many that cannot, the money buys debt and stadiums that rot, so the answer is conditional on capacity, not a blanket yes or no.

The argument, point by point

Hosting can be justified where the spending builds infrastructure a developing country needed anyway.
Why If the event accelerates transport, telecoms and urban regeneration that survive the tournament, the public money buys development with a deadline, so the cost is an investment rather than a sunk vanity.
Example Hosts that fold event spending into genuine national plans can leave usable transport and venues behind, the legacy case organisers always promise (host-legacy pattern, as_of 2026-06).
Then evaluate But this holds only where the spending tracks real need; built for the event alone, the same infrastructure becomes the white elephant, so the condition does the work.
Hosting can also deliver soft power and standing that a developing country cannot otherwise buy.
Why A successful event signals competence and openness to investors and tourists, so the prestige can convert into capital and visibility that outlast the closing ceremony.
Example Emerging economies have used global events to announce their arrival on the world stage and attract long-term tourism and investment when the execution was sound (soft-power pattern, as_of 2026-06).
Then evaluate Yet prestige is the most overclaimed benefit, easily lost to overruns, corruption scandals or a half-empty event that signals the opposite of competence.
The case against hosting is strongest where public money displaces basic needs and leaves white elephants.
Why In a poor state, every dollar on a stadium is a dollar not spent on schools or clinics, and venues sized for a global audience have no domestic use afterwards, so the opportunity cost is severe and the asset is stranded.
Example Brazil spent roughly 11.5 billion US dollars on the 2014 World Cup, about 85% of it public, including 3.6 billion on stadiums; the 550-million-dollar Mane Garrincha arena in Brasilia later served as a bus parking lot, and a 2014 Pew poll found 61% of Brazilians thought it was not a wise use of public money (widely documented; Pew 2014, as_of 2026-06).
Then evaluate The hinge: where the host lacks the scale to use the venues afterwards, the money is not invested but burned, and the poorest residents pay.
The distribution of gains usually favours the federation, not the host, which sharpens the warning.
Why The host carries the construction and security costs while the governing body keeps the broadcast and sponsorship revenue, so the financial structure is regressive by design and tilts against developing hosts.
Example South Africa spent about 3 billion US dollars of public money on the 2010 World Cup and booked no profit, while FIFA recorded a surplus of around 631 million US dollars from the same tournament (FIFA Financial Report 2010, as_of 2026-06).
Then evaluate But this is an argument for renegotiating the terms or hosting jointly, not a flat ban, so it conditions hosting rather than forbidding it.

Strongest counter & rebuttal

If only wealthy states may host, the developing world is permanently locked out of the prestige, tourism and pride that come with the world's biggest events, which is its own injustice and a paternalism dressed as prudence. But this overlooks that the harm of a botched mega-event falls hardest on the poorest residents of the host, so the answer is not to wave every developing country through nor to bar them all, but to host only where the capacity to capture returns is real and the terms are fair.

Measured conclusion

A developing country should host a major event when it can fold the spending into needed development, capture lasting standing and secure fair terms; it should not when the money buys white-elephant prestige at the expense of basic needs, so the verdict is conditional on capacity and contract, and Brazil and South Africa show both how it can go wrong and why the question is really about terms, not permission.

What makes this Band 1: Reaches the top band by refusing both a blanket yes and a blanket no, conditioning the answer on the host's capacity and the fairness of the terms, and using the Brazil and South Africa figures as load-bearing evidence of the downside.

Option B · Premise-rejecting: 'allowed' is the wrong frame

The question's real flaw is the word 'allowed', which presumes a gatekeeper entitled to permit or forbid sovereign nations and casts developing countries as wards to be protected from their own choices; the legitimate question is not whether they should be allowed but whether the events themselves are structured fairly, so the reform belongs to the federations and the financing, not to a permission slip for poor states.

The argument, point by point

Framing it as permission insults the sovereignty of developing states.
Why No body has the standing to forbid a nation from bidding, so 'should they be allowed' treats developing countries as incapable of judging their own interests, a paternalism that would be unthinkable applied to rich hosts.
Example Wealthy countries host events with vast public cost and contested benefit without anyone asking whether they should be 'allowed', which exposes the double standard in the question (host-cost pattern, as_of 2026-06).
Then evaluate But sovereignty does not guarantee wisdom, so rejecting the permission frame still leaves the real question of whether hosting is a good decision.
The genuine problem is not the host's poverty but the event's financial architecture.
Why The costs are loaded onto the host while the revenues flow to the governing body, so the same event that enriches a federation can bankrupt a host regardless of how rich the host is.
Example South Africa's public spending of about 3 billion US dollars in 2010 yielded no profit while FIFA took a surplus near 631 million, a structure that would punish any host, developing or not (FIFA Financial Report 2010, as_of 2026-06).
Then evaluate The complication for the question: if the architecture is the problem, restricting developing hosts fixes nothing and merely hands the events back to richer states on the same unfair terms.
Even the 'white elephant' problem is a design failure, not a developing-country failure.
Why Stadiums rot when they are built oversized for one event with no after-use plan, a planning fault rich hosts commit too, so the fix is mandatory legacy planning and right-sizing, not exclusion by income.
Example Brazil's overbuilt arenas, including the 550-million-dollar Brasilia stadium turned bus depot, were a planning failure that wealthy hosts have also produced, not proof that poor countries cannot host (widely documented, as_of 2026-06).
Then evaluate This relocates the fault: the question blames the host's development status when the evidence blames the bid terms and the planning.
The constructive answer is to reform the terms so that any willing host, rich or poor, can host safely.
Why Shared hosting, cost caps, revenue-sharing and reuse requirements remove the conditions that turn events into disasters, so the developing world is included on fair terms instead of barred for its own good.
Example Moves towards co-hosting and using existing venues, seen in recent bid requirements, show the reform path that makes the permission question obsolete (co-hosting trend, as_of 2026-06).
Then evaluate The reframe's payoff: the right reform is structural and applies to everyone, which is exactly what a question framed around permitting poor states cannot see.

Strongest counter & rebuttal

Even with fair terms, a country where millions lack clean water or schools faces an opportunity cost that no revenue-sharing fully answers, so there is a real prudential case for a poor state to decline, and pretending the financing reform makes hosting costless would be dishonest. But that is an argument for the host's own government to weigh against its priorities, not for an external gatekeeper to forbid it, so the reframe holds: the decision belongs to the sovereign state and the fairness of the terms, not to a permission granted from above.

Measured conclusion

Developing countries do not need to be 'allowed' to host; they need events whose financing does not bankrupt them and whose planning does not strand their stadiums, so the question aims at the wrong target, blaming the host's poverty for failures that belong to the federations and the bid terms, and the honest reform is structural and applies to every host alike.

What makes this Band 1: Earns the top band by rejecting the paternalistic 'allowed' premise, relocating the fault from the host's poverty to the event's financial architecture, then conceding the genuine opportunity cost without restoring an external gatekeeper.

How the two approaches differ

Option A accepts the should-they-host question and conditions the answer on the host's capacity to capture returns and secure fair terms. Option B rejects the word 'allowed' as paternalistic, relocating the problem to the events' unfair financial architecture so the reform applies to all hosts, not just poor ones. Both use Brazil and South Africa: A as evidence of the downside that conditions hosting; B as evidence that the fault is structural, which reframes the question entirely.

Developing countries hosting events

Want your essays marked like this?