Glory at what price?

By C.H.

ONE week into the Rugby World Cup, New Zealand has lived up to its claim to be a “stadium of four million”. A spectacular opening ceremony in Auckland on September 9th saw massed formations of Maori warriors stomp out the haka war dance, while a fleet of waka (war canoes) filled the Waitemata harbor. (A plan to run a parade of sheep down Auckland's main thoroughfare later in the tournament has thankfully been scrapped). John Key, the country's genial prime minister, even gave us a Bushism (1:33).

There has been some fine rugby as well. Argentina and Japan put heavyweights England and France to the test. The start of the second week provided the first real upset, when Ireland shocked Australia with a 15-6 victory on September 17th. The 41-10 win of the host country's mighty All Blacks—currently ranked first in the world—over tiny Tonga was disappointingly narrow. But they put on a stronger showing in an 83-7 canter over Japan on September 16th. Their biggest challenge may be shouldering the weight of their countrymen's expectations: the All Blacks have not won a World Cup since New Zealand co-hosted the inaugural tournament in 1987.

None of this has come cheaply. Already suffering from both the tourism-busting world recession and a pair of traumatic earthquakes that devastated Christchurch, the rugby-mad second city, New Zealand has spent NZ$300m ($249m) on the event. Will hosting the Cup turn out to be a well-timed Keynesian stimulus, or an ill-advised boondoggle in a time of austerity?

A report released this week by Coventry University Business School offers some encouraging numbers. Its authors expect 95,000 foreigners to visit the country because of the event, principally from Europe and Australia, and total attendance at the 48 matches to reach 1.35m. Those fans will need to be lodged and fed—with 7.35m pies and sausages and 7.5 m litres of beer, the report predicts—leading to the creation of 10,000-15,000 jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries. It estimates the immediate net impact on New Zealand's economy at NZ$491m. New Zealand's central bank broadly agrees with these forecasts.

Estimating the longer-term benefits to the country is a much woolier calculation. The report projects that a legacy of sports-related tourism and the opportunity to do more hosting in the future could be worth NZ$1.44 billion. Indeed, New Zealand is set to co-host the 2015 Cricket World Cup with Australia, although it might well have secured that prize even if the rugby tournament were being played elsewhere. The country's time zone, small size and remote location mean it will always have to struggle to lure international events to its soil. Martin Snedden, the tournament's chief executive, has said he does not think New Zealand will ever get to host the Rugby World Cup again.

If that prediction holds true, then the Cup may wind up looking like a missed opportunity. Christchurch, the city that would have benefited the most from the event's economic stimulus, lost the seven matches it was to host because of the earthquakes. And Auckland, the country's congested economic capital, could well have used the tournament as a springboard for public investment, as London has done in its East End ahead of the 2012 Olympics. Instead, it has had to settle for stadium improvements and a few temporary party zones for fans.

The city's creaking infrastructure was painfully apparent on opening night. As revellers flocked in the thousands to the streets and waterfront, the city's trains backed up and ground to a halt along the single-corridor track from downtown to the main stadium. Thousands of ticketholders missed much of the opening ceremony and the first match. Perhaps the only thing that could mitigate their frustrations would be the return of the Webb Ellis Cup to Kiwi hands.