Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Brazil and soccer cyber attacks

Brazil, it seems, in being plagued. By soccer, no less, or what the rest of world calls football. The World Cup is only days away and facilities aren't ready while protesters have been everywhere, questioning whether the Brazilian government should pay what it is for a sporting event while ostensibly not being about to offer basic public services. Now a hacker organization is threatening cyber attacks against the event's sponsors as part of that protest.

We could debate the minutiae all day long, but we surely can agree that no government ought to pay towards the support of sporting events. This we argue is simple principle: sports, being for private enjoyment, are no province of a government. Further, and we do realize that this point is even more debatable, there are questions as to what types and what degree of public services should be supplied by government. If either issue were addressed rightly, they would be a lot more cash to see to human needs generally.

Be all that as it may, we cannot condone hacking into corporate sites. Whatever monies they put up they put up of their own choice, and there is no causal connection between between Coke and Budweiser and Brazilian poverty. As to the general welfare of the Brazilian people, well, that's ultimately for Brazil to address. But huge sporting events are notoriously poor deals for nations, as any study of the Olympics will attest. So the real problem here is the mixing of ideals in ways which don't actually help anyone. Except, perhaps, the already well off.

Corporate welfare, and world wide soccer surely qualifies as such, is as wrong as corporate welfare in the United States. The haves should not receive government privilege, especially on the questionable grounds of helping the have nots. It only creates greater jealousies. Such will not ameliorate the poverty issues. Nor, in the long run, the well off.

Report this ad