losers

The 16 host cities across the US, Canada and Mexico have been welcoming an influx of fans and tourists boosting hospitality, hotels and local businesses.

But while the Scots drank Boston dry and have won the heart of the city and its people, experts say the long-term economic benefits are minimal.

Fifa estimated some $41bn would be added to the global economy, of which $17bn would boost the US economy alone, with 185,000 jobs created, mostly in hospitality and accommodation.

But Alexander Budzier, a fellow in management practice at Oxford University and chief executive of project management company Oxford Global Projects, says the long-term economic benefits of hosting such a big sporting event just do not materialise.

Host cities actually typically see a big drop in visitors, he says, as many seek to avoid the tournament chaos.

And while there may be a spike in hiring, he argues it is typically only for lower-paid jobs in hospitality. “It creates jobs, but it does not create wealth,” he says.

Official figures show that hiring in US pubs, bars and restaurants ramped up ahead of the tournament in May, but the boom was short-lived.

The only “worthwhile” economic benefit, Budzier argues, is the regeneration projects that can be done, such as the redevelopment and housing built in Stratford in London following the 2012 Olympic Games.

But due to much of this World Cup using existing stadia, hotels, training complexes and travel infrastructure, “there won’t be any economic benefits from development”.

So who are the losers, besides fans who have forked out high prices for tickets to see free-flowing, entertaining football – only for the game to be stopped in each half?

Well, World Cup debutants Curacao were in dreamland after equalising to make it 1-1 against Germany shortly before a first-half drinks break in Houston on Sunday.

However, the smallest nation ever to play at the World Cup, by size and population, were not the same when play resumed and lost 7-1 after the drinks break allowed the Germans to regroup.

The Czech Republic were on top during the first half against South Korea, but the hydration break abruptly ended that spell of pressure, and when play resumed, they lost momentum.

Despite taking the lead, they ended up losing the game 2-1.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands led Japan 2-1 going into the second-half hydration break in Arlington, Texas, on Sunday. They failed to hold on and drew 2-2.

Hydration breaks are not always the cause of these momentum shifts, of course.

But the further we go into the tournament, the more it should become clear whether the interruptions are becoming a major factor.

Former Arsenal and England forward Ian Wright made it clear where he stood on the breaks.

“I just think it’s another way of getting adverts into it from an American point of view,” he said.

US broadcaster Fox US overran adverts, external during a hydration break in the opening match of the tournament between Mexico and South Africa.

“They’ve used the fact that it’s for the players, but it’s not for me,” added Wright.

While the breaks have their detractors, there are others who believe they are a positive introduction.

“I am always interested in the health of my players. I think it’s the right measure, a pause, freshen up and continue,” said Spain boss Luis de la Fuente before his side’s opening game against debutants Cape Verde on Monday (17:00 BST).

That match is taking place in Atlanta where the venue has a retractable roof and is temperature controlled.

“Tomorrow, it’s chilled temperatures in the stadium,” added De la Fuente on Sunday.

“Throughout the week, we’ve seen huge temperatures. It’s very difficult to be exposed to these temperatures for so long when you’re working.

“In my opinion, the best thing to do is to drink lots of water. Take a break, let them breathe for a few seconds.

“It’s not going to be that hot [on Monday] but we need to let them breathe and then one or two minutes to give them a couple of directions.”