Posted by 
A battle between businesses and the council appeared to loom tonight over the costs of hosting World Cup matches in Bristol.
Council tax payers in the city will not foot the bill for hosting World Cup matches, if Bristol’s bid is accepted by the Football Association (FA).
That was the message sent out by the ruling Liberal Democrat cabinet, as they formally recommended the city’s bid to be a host city for the 2018 tournament.
However, according to the head of the Institute of Directors (IoD) in the city, corporate Bristol would expect the council to pay its fair share of the £17million costs.
Businesses, which are projected to benefit by up to £150m according to a report produced by the FA, will be expected to contribute most – if not all – the costs of hosting matches through an extra business rate.
This, said deputy leader Cllr Simon Cook, was fair considering council budgets were having to be cut and service delivery could not be compromised.
But Nick Sturge, from the IoD, said that while businesses were supportive of the bid and would expect to contribute, the whole community – including business – needed the council to invest.
“If I was a business facing the proposal to increase the rates because I would benefit, I would expect the council to share in that investment. The council would benefit because there would be more businesses thriving and so business rates would increase.
“An equitable relationship – with the council investing some and business investing some – would be, I think, the business proposition.”
Cllr Cook told the cabinet that World Cup was about “having pride and confidence in Bristol and to realise the next generation’s potential”.
But, he added: “The costs could not be raised out of council revenue budgets. Service delivery cannot be compromised. At a time when we are cutting budgets, we could not ask the people of Bristol to pay more – especially when the benefits would go to businesses.
“I have always been clear that the bid for World Cup host city status is about being ambitious for Bristol. It is simply the world’s biggest tournament, and the evidence from Germany [who hosted the event in 2006] shows that there is a very clear benefit not only in terms of the wealth brought in during the event but also before and after.”
Mr Cook added that should Bristol City Football Club become a Premier League side before 2018 then the costs of extending the original 30,000-seat stadium – which the club hopes to have built in Ashton Vale – to the 40,000-seat minimum requirement for World Cup matches would be borne by the club.
This would reduce the costs on the council by up to £8m, leaving £9m to be found from businesses in the city.
He did though acknowledge the £250,000 bill which the council will have to pay to the FA to in marketing costs towards England’s bid and about £100,000 to fund the city’s project team in the run-up to FIFA’s decision next year on which countries will host the tournament.
Cllr Gary Hopkins, executive member for environment and community safety, said that areas outside of the city – which the report agreed on by the cabinet tonight said would share in the benefits – should also be encouraged to help with the costs.
And he expressed concern at the lack of control the city had regarding the planning issues for the proposed new stadium – the costs of which Bristol City FC say are around £92m – and the deal with Sainsbury’s to redevelop the existing Ashton Gate ground.
“We have no control over planning permission or the intentions of Sainsbury’s,” he said. “We are doing our bit and must rely on the club to do its bit.”
He added that the Banksy exhibition during the summer – which has been seen as a success for the city and saved some businesses during the recession this summer – cost the council money as business rates are kept by central government.
“We need to rely on the government to play fair with us on this,” he said. “Bristolians can’t lose out.”
The bid for host city status was unanimously agreed by the cabinet, with only Cllr Charles Bolton from the Green Party speaking to voice concerns over the environmental impact of the tournament.
“The climate change impact us the one thing that worries me about the bid,” he said. “It doesn’t sit very well with me where we agree 40% CO2 emissions cuts one week and then agree to get tens of thousands of poeople flying in for a three-week party.”
A Bristol team will travel to Wembley stadium on Thursday to present the city’s bid to the FA, who will announce their choices for host cities on December 16.
Further reading
We are obviously delighted to hear points of view about a possible
extra business rate from anyone in the city’s business community. But
Nick Sturge cannot get away with saying that, even without such a rate
being imposed, the city council would automatically benefit ‘because
there would be more businesses thriving and so business rates would
increase’. As Nick well knows, no matter how well business in the city
is doing, the money we collect each year in business rates all goes to
the government. However much or little it is, we keep none of it.
Ministers reallocate the nation’s business rates back to local
authorities on a per capita basis. However, the extra business rate that
the council may consider imposing towards World Cup costs is a different
matter. The proceeds of such a tax would in this case accrue directly to
the council, so long as it was all spent on the project it was raised
for.
Simon Cook, Deputy Leader, Bristol City Council
[...] last night’s meeting saw disagreements between politicians and business leaders over who should foot the bill for the [...]