Tweet
CWC good, say Jamaicans: 57% state that games will not influence their voting
published: Sunday | May 27, 2007
Daraine Luton, Sunday Gleaner Reporter
Although some cricket analysts may have deemed it to be the worst Cricket World Cup (CWC) ever, for most Jamaicans the staging of cricket's showpiece event was good for the country. However, many Jamaicans also believe the more than US$100 million ($6.8 billion) invested in the tournament could have been better spent.
good for Jamaica
These are the findings of a recent Gleaner-commissioned Bill Johnson poll: 61 per cent of 1,008 persons surveyed by Johnson and his team of researchers earlier this month said that the hosting of the tournament was good for Jamaica, more than doubling the number (27 per cent) who believed the hosting of the event was not good for the country. Twelve per cent did not offer an opinion.
Staged for the first time in the Caribbean, Chris Dehring, the managing director for the event, had promised that the Caribbean would deliver the best Cricket World Cup ever.
Jamaica started the ball rolling on March 11 with a lavish opening ceremony at the Trelawny multi-purpose complex and then produced the perfect environment for a West Indies victory at Sabina Park in the tournament's opener.
Tournament overshadowed
However, with the mysterious death of Bob Woolmer first casting a dark shadow over the tournament, and then the embarrassing end to the final in Bridgetown, Barbados, even Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive officer (CEO) fears the tournament may be remembered for the wrong reasons.
Although Government spent more than US$100 million to host the cricket tournament, Finance Minister Dr. Omar Davies admitted that the country would earn less than 10 per cent of that amount in direct income. When Johnson's team polled members of the public, 43 per cent of respondents said that the investment was a bad way of spending taxpayers' money, while 38 per cent saw the spending on the CWC as a good thing.
But should the major political parties think of winning votes from the CWC, they should think twice. Most respondents - 57 per cent - told Johnson's polling team that the staging of the tournament would not affect the way they vote in the imminent general election; 19 per cent said that they were less likely to vote for the PNP because of the way the government handled the CWC, while 17 per cent said they were now more likely to vote for the party. Seven per cent of the sample said they did not know.
The Cricket World Cup was expected to transfer several benefits to Jamaicans, especially to the art and craft sector. However, with several culture events failing, the verdict is still out as to whether Jamaica benefited from the hosting the event.
Pat Francis, then president of JAMPRO, had said that the World Cup was expected to generate US$700 million in long-term revenue, in addition to the US$9 million from ticket sales from the 20,000 visitors coming to Jamaica.
It is still uncertain how well Jamaica did in this regard, but tourism interests have pointed to a marked decrease in visitor arrival over the period.
published: Sunday | May 27, 2007
Daraine Luton, Sunday Gleaner Reporter
Although some cricket analysts may have deemed it to be the worst Cricket World Cup (CWC) ever, for most Jamaicans the staging of cricket's showpiece event was good for the country. However, many Jamaicans also believe the more than US$100 million ($6.8 billion) invested in the tournament could have been better spent.
good for Jamaica
These are the findings of a recent Gleaner-commissioned Bill Johnson poll: 61 per cent of 1,008 persons surveyed by Johnson and his team of researchers earlier this month said that the hosting of the tournament was good for Jamaica, more than doubling the number (27 per cent) who believed the hosting of the event was not good for the country. Twelve per cent did not offer an opinion.
Staged for the first time in the Caribbean, Chris Dehring, the managing director for the event, had promised that the Caribbean would deliver the best Cricket World Cup ever.
Jamaica started the ball rolling on March 11 with a lavish opening ceremony at the Trelawny multi-purpose complex and then produced the perfect environment for a West Indies victory at Sabina Park in the tournament's opener.
Tournament overshadowed
However, with the mysterious death of Bob Woolmer first casting a dark shadow over the tournament, and then the embarrassing end to the final in Bridgetown, Barbados, even Malcolm Speed, the ICC chief executive officer (CEO) fears the tournament may be remembered for the wrong reasons.
Although Government spent more than US$100 million to host the cricket tournament, Finance Minister Dr. Omar Davies admitted that the country would earn less than 10 per cent of that amount in direct income. When Johnson's team polled members of the public, 43 per cent of respondents said that the investment was a bad way of spending taxpayers' money, while 38 per cent saw the spending on the CWC as a good thing.
But should the major political parties think of winning votes from the CWC, they should think twice. Most respondents - 57 per cent - told Johnson's polling team that the staging of the tournament would not affect the way they vote in the imminent general election; 19 per cent said that they were less likely to vote for the PNP because of the way the government handled the CWC, while 17 per cent said they were now more likely to vote for the party. Seven per cent of the sample said they did not know.
The Cricket World Cup was expected to transfer several benefits to Jamaicans, especially to the art and craft sector. However, with several culture events failing, the verdict is still out as to whether Jamaica benefited from the hosting the event.
Pat Francis, then president of JAMPRO, had said that the World Cup was expected to generate US$700 million in long-term revenue, in addition to the US$9 million from ticket sales from the 20,000 visitors coming to Jamaica.
It is still uncertain how well Jamaica did in this regard, but tourism interests have pointed to a marked decrease in visitor arrival over the period.
