Resources expended to secure "rents" (or "surpluses") are essentially wasted when you consider a "winner-takes-all" decision such as "Where to have the World Cup"
. This is because the resources expended in bidding for the World Cup, such as promotional campaigns, lobbying efforts, and infrastructure development, do not result in a tangible benefit for the losing countries or cities. In other words, the resources spent by unsuccessful bidders could have been better utilized in other areas that would have a more immediate and direct impact on the community.
Furthermore, the winner-takes-all nature of the decision means that the benefits of hosting the World Cup are concentrated in one location, while the costs are distributed among all the competing bidders. This can lead to a situation where the hosting country or city is left with a significant financial burden, as they must foot the bill for organizing and hosting the event, while the other bidders have nothing to show for their efforts.
In conclusion, while securing "rents" or "surpluses" can be a common strategy in competitive bidding processes, it is important to consider the inefficiencies and waste that can result from winner-takes-all decisions like where to host the World Cup. It is crucial for policymakers and decision-makers to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of participating in such competitions, and to prioritize the efficient allocation of resources for the greater good of society.