This is just a much worse version of AWS. Obsession with maintaining some degree of physical control over infrastructure drives many organizations to absolute insanity. Skip the hybrid nonsense. Find a CTO with some balls.
It takes a CTO with cojones to actually own your infrastructure.
A decent part of that is probably important to be working on the day of a football match. They already own a suitable building, probably with decent backup power, so running their own servers seems both more reliable and cheaper than renting.
Otoh, if they only need the servers to run while guests are attending matches (and other events), it looks like they do about one event a week from their calendar [1]. Why pay to have the server 24/7 if you only use it for maybe 6 hours a week.
With that kind of utilization, cloud may well be cheaper.
Reliability you can argue either way. Onsite has the benefit that there's no external network causing problems; however for a site like that, you're likely to have redundant high capacity internet providers so that's less of an issue. Certainly, when there are server issues, having them onsite provides more agency, but I don't think that means it's more reliable.
Well... thank the current US administration for that one. The move they did with that ICC judge, cutting him off from anything digital, was a wakeup call for us Europeans that we can take nothing for granted any more.
Not to mention there are many scenarios where cloud connectivity is not an option.
I can think of a lot of easier ways.