The impact of the 2010 Soccer World Cup on Bidvest Rental and Products.

MBA University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 2012.The South African government and by extension the South African taxpayer spent in excess of R17 billion in building and renovating new and existing stadia and an additional R117 billion on infrastructural development in preparation for the FIFA 2010 Soccer World Cup (Sunday Times, June 2010). A number of authors have questioned whether the anticipated benefits of hosting mega sporting events like the Soccer World Cup justify the associated expense, claiming that these events have little or no significant direct nor indirect impact on the economy of the host nation (Vogel, 2002; Crompton and Lee, 2000). Matheson and Baade (2004) added that hosting mega sporting events is an even worse investment for developing nations. As far back as 2007 the initial euphoria surrounding South Africa being awarded the rights to host the World Cup had begun to quietly subside and make room for more sober reflection around the economic implications of hosting the event (Pillay and Bass, 2008). At a micro economic level, South Korean residents believed that the anticipated economic benefits of the 2002 Soccer World Cup were either less than expected or, in some instances, did not materialise at all, (Kim, Gursoy and Lee, 2004). In line with the contention by Brenke and Wagner (2007) that the Soccer World Cup is too small an event to significantly influence a national economy, this study sought to examine the economic impact of the 2010 Soccer World Cup on Bidvest Rental and Products, a large national company operating within the services industry in South Africa. This study used a descriptive quantitative design. Potential respondents were taken from senior management at Bidvest Rental and Products. Data was collected using the survey method in the form of a questionnaire emailed to respondents. The findings of the study supported the widely held assertion by researchers on the economic impact of mega sporting events namely, the anticipated significant revenue gains did not materialise and the little employment that was generated was overwhelmingly of a temporary nature