by
Isabelle
Ouvrard/SEPA.Media
/Getty
Images)
There
are
moments
when
a
story
is
so
absurd
it
stops
being
about
the
story
itself
and
starts
revealing
something
much
bigger. The
reported
plan
to
charge $150
for
a
round-trip
train
ticket from
Penn
Station
to
MetLife
Stadium
during
the
World
Cup is
one
of
those
moments.
It
is
easy
to
frame
this
as
a
transit
pricing
issue.
It
is
not.
It
is
a
liability,
accountability,
and
fairness
issue
hiding
in
plain
sight.
Let’s
start
with
the
basics.
New
Jersey
Transit
estimates
it
will
cost
roughly
$48
million
to
safely
move
tens
of
thousands
of
fans
to
and
from
matches.
At
the
same
time,
FIFA
stands
to
generate
approximately
$11
billion
from
the
tournament.
The
governing
body
of
global
soccer
is,
by
any
measure,
one
of
the
most
commercially
successful
entities
in
sports.
Yet
when
it
comes
to
the
infrastructure
required
to
make
the
event
function,
the
message
appears
to
be:
not
our
problem.
That
framing,
however,
is
incomplete.
Because
this
did
not
happen
by
accident.
It
is
almost
certainly
the
product
of
negotiated
agreements.
New
Jersey
wanted
the
World
Cup.
It
wanted
the
global
spotlight,
the
economic
boost,
and
the
prestige
that
comes
with
hosting
one
of
the
world’s
biggest
events.
And
in
securing
that
opportunity,
it
likely
agreed
to
terms
that
limited
FIFA’s
responsibility
for
infrastructure
costs
like
transportation.
That
matters.
Because
it
shifts
this
from
a
story
about
FIFA
avoiding
responsibility
to
a
more
complicated
reality:
public
officials
made
a
calculated
decision
about
who
would
ultimately
bear
these
costs.
Governor
Mikie
Sherrill
has
taken
the
politically
intuitive
position
that
taxpayers
should
not
subsidize
a
global
event
that
generates
massive
private
revenue.
On
its
face,
that
sounds
right.
But
the
solution
being
floated,
dramatically
increased
fares
for
fans,
raises
a
different
question:
who
exactly
is
being
asked
to
absorb
the
cost
of
this
imbalance?
Because
it
is
not
really
“FIFA
fans.”
It
is
families.
It
is
workers.
It
is
people
who
already
paid
for
tickets,
travel,
and
lodging,
now
being
told
that
access
itself
comes
with
a
premium
toll.
And
in
many
ways,
they
are
being
given
very
little
choice.
For
an
event
of
this
scale,
the
lack
of
transportation
options
is
striking.
Why
are
there
not
more
park-and-ride
locations
beyond
American
Dream
and
Clifton?
Why
are
there
not
more
private
shuttle
operators
allowed
to
enter
the
market
and
set
competitive
pricing?
Why
is
the
system
structured
in
a
way
that
effectively
funnels
attendees
into
a
limited
set
of
public
transit
options
and
then
dramatically
raises
the
cost
of
using
them?
This
is
not
how
people
typically
attend
events
at
MetLife
Stadium.
Under
normal
circumstances,
fans
have
a
range
of
choices.
Here,
those
choices
appear
to
be
constrained
in
ways
that
make
the
pricing
issue
feel
less
like
a
necessity
and
more
like
a
forced
outcome.
That
is
where
the
issue
moves
from
economics
into
something
more
familiar
to
those
of
us
in
the
civil
justice
system.
It
becomes
a
question
of
who
bears
the
burden
when
a
system
is
designed
in
a
way
that
externalizes
its
costs.
We
see
this
all
the
time
in
personal
injury
law.
A
corporation
profits
from
an
activity
but
structures
its
operations
so
that
the
foreseeable
risks
are
borne
by
someone
else.
When
something
goes
wrong,
the
defense
is
almost
always
the
same:
the
costs
were
necessary,
the
system
is
complicated,
the
responsibility
is
diffuse.
Sound
familiar?
Here,
nothing
has
“gone
wrong”
in
the
traditional
sense.
No
accident.
No
injury.
But
the
underlying
structure
is
strikingly
similar.
The
entity
with
the
greatest
control
and
the
greatest
financial
upside
has
managed
to
position
itself
furthest
away
from
the
operational
costs
that
make
the
event
possible.
At
the
same
time,
the
public-sector
response
deserves
scrutiny
as
well.
New
Jersey
operates
with
a
state
budget
approaching
$60
billion.
Against
that
backdrop,
$48
million
in
transportation
costs,
for
an
event
expected
to
generate
significant
economic
activity,
job
creation,
and
global
visibility,
is
not
an
existential
burden.
It
is
a
policy
choice.
Instead,
the
state
has
drawn
a
hard
line
here,
while
routinely
absorbing
or
allocating
funds
for
other
priorities
with
far
less
direct
economic
return.
That
does
not
mean
taxpayers
should
blindly
subsidize
the
World
Cup.
But
it
does
raise
a
fair
question:
why
this
line,
and
why
in
this
way?
Because
what
we
are
really
seeing
is
a
layered
transfer
of
cost.
FIFA
negotiates
to
limit
its
exposure.
The
state
declines
to
absorb
the
expense.
The
burden
drops
to
the
individual,
who
is
given
fewer
alternatives
and
higher
prices.
That
is
not
accountability.
That
is
displacement.
There
is
also
a
longer-term
concern
that
should
not
be
ignored.
When
global
events
normalize
this
kind
of
cost
structure,
it
sets
a
precedent.
Future
host
cities
will
face
the
same
pressures.
Public
agencies
will
enter
negotiations
knowing
that
critical
infrastructure
expenses
may
not
be
covered.
And
the
public
will
increasingly
be
asked
to
bridge
the
gap.
At
some
point,
the
question
becomes
unavoidable:
who
is
the
World
Cup
actually
for?
If
access
to
the
event
requires
not
just
a
ticket,
but
a
willingness
to
absorb
inflated,
event-specific
costs
across
the
board,
the
answer
starts
to
shift.
It
becomes
less
about
a
global
celebration
of
sport
and
more
about
a
premium
experience
for
those
who
can
afford
every
layer
of
entry.
That
is
a
policy
choice,
whether
anyone
wants
to
call
it
that
or
not.
There
is
still
time
to
correct
course.
FIFA
could
absorb
transportation
costs,
or
at
least
share
in
them.
The
state
could
expand
access
points,
open
the
door
to
private
transportation
solutions,
and
treat
mobility
as
part
of
the
event
infrastructure
rather
than
a
bottleneck.
What
should
not
happen
is
the
quiet
acceptance
of
a
model
where
the
most
profitable
actor
and
the
public
sector
both
step
back,
leaving
the
individual
to
carry
the
load.
Because
if
that
model
holds
here,
it
will
hold
elsewhere.
And
eventually,
the $150
train
ride will
not
look
ridiculous
at
all.
It
will
look
normal.
That
is
the
real
problem.
Michael
J.
Epstein,
a
Harvard
Law
School
graduate,
is
a
trial
lawyer
and
managing
partner
of The
Epstein
Law
Firm,
P.A., a
law
firm
based
in
New
Jersey.