The idea of building a legacy was mainly used by national federations when requesting to host significant competitions or justifying the resources expended during the event. Some football clubs have begun to apply this language of late, as some teams map out plans for the future. It is generally believed that the provision of better facilities and an increase in spending can have a significant positive and long-term effect on clubs and therefore, create a legacy. However, when we compare the strength of the teams of countries that have hosted the world cup before and after the event, only a few nations can boast of having long-lasting success as a result of hosting the world cup.
Clubs must know that superficial alterations made within the team members either to satisfy the fans or attract investors rarely help the club to achieve sustained success. It may seem that this point is common knowledge; however, we cannot overemphasise it.
All the national teams that have experienced continued and true improvements did so because they set out lucid and strategic visions. Examples of these teams include the current Icelandic and Belgian teams, as well as the 1970s Dutch team. Providing new pitches for training and having new commercial endorsements are good, but they don’t improve the performance of the team as much as intelligently designed developmental goals set in vital units of the club.
Money cannot buy good legacy. In other words, you cannot substitute strategic planning with the release of more funds. For instance, the correlation between the wage bill and performance in terms of points in the Premier League is 82%. If we were to divide the clubs in the League into rich and poor, the correlation is 57% for the rich teams and 38% for the poor teams. This means that an increase in salary doesn’t necessarily mean an increase in results and performance