the basic failure of the 2010 World Cup
I don't suppose anyone is seriously willing to argue that giving South Africa the opportunity to organize a World Cup was not a political decision - much like giving it to the United States back in 1994 or to Japan and South Korea in 2002. You may call it a piece of Political Correctness; you may, if you are more benevolent - and I am, in this case - call it an investment in the future of soccer in a continent where it is spreading like wildfire and has produced remarkable players and good teams for a quarter-century now. (Anyone remember Roger Milla and his magnificent Camerun side? Or George Weah? Or the excellent Nigerian side of the same period?)
However, the gamble has been a failure in the only way that matters, and may actually do harm to soccer in South Africa at least. One just has to look at the half-empty stadia for any game that does not involve South Africa to see that it has completely failed in attracting the visitors the country wanted, and that there are not enough soccer fans there to make the difference. To see rows of empty seats in games featuring Brazil is really beyond belief. This means that the expected ticket revenue will not materialize, and that South African football may end up out of pocket. I don't know how the finances add up, but by all accounts South Africa is in no condition to afford a money-losing international event in this time of economic crisis.
The facts are quite simple. From the moment it was decided that the 2010 World Cup should take place in Africa, only two countries were ever in the running: Egypt and South Africa. No other country in the continent could even pretend to have the organization, the number of stadia, and the infrastructure, to run the world's largest show apart from the Olympics. And even disregarding the small matter of terrorism, one would have to be quite insane to stage a football competition in Egypt in the summer; the USA were hot enough in 1994, when most teams suffered from heat exhaustion. At least South Africa would stage it in the austral winter, as soccer is meant to be played - in cold wind, occasionally in the rain, running up and down for ninety minutes.
But there is one thing that Sepp Blatter and FIFA had not thought of. South Africa is indeed a famously beautiful country, an ideal tourist destination, and would be a good place to stage a sports contest - except for one thing: it is the restaurant at the end of the universe. Almost literally. It is harder and more expensive to get there than almost anywhere in the world. It is not even very close to the Latin American heartlands of the game, Brazil, Argentina and neighbouring countries; as for soccer's other chief markets, Europe, Asia, North and Central America, it is literally at the other end of the world. Even the heartands of soccer in Africa - which means essentially West Africa and the Arab countries - are not much closer. It is probably easier to travel from Nigeria or Cameroon - let alone Egypt or Algeria - to Europe than to South Africa. Besides, the income of most African football fans places a journey to Johannesburg or Capetown well beyond their means; they could never replace missing European, Asian or American visitors. It is the kind of place where most people go once in their lifetimes, when they have saved enough. Staying there for weeks to watch a long competition is not even on the radar of the average football fan.
Sepp Blatter, a man I detest for many reasons, was quite right in seeing Africa - as he had previously seen North America and East Asia - as a field of natural growth for the game, to be cultivated and encouraged. But to give South Africa the World Cup was a step too far. From now on, keep it in places where the greatest players in the world won't have to play to half-empty stadia.
However, the gamble has been a failure in the only way that matters, and may actually do harm to soccer in South Africa at least. One just has to look at the half-empty stadia for any game that does not involve South Africa to see that it has completely failed in attracting the visitors the country wanted, and that there are not enough soccer fans there to make the difference. To see rows of empty seats in games featuring Brazil is really beyond belief. This means that the expected ticket revenue will not materialize, and that South African football may end up out of pocket. I don't know how the finances add up, but by all accounts South Africa is in no condition to afford a money-losing international event in this time of economic crisis.
The facts are quite simple. From the moment it was decided that the 2010 World Cup should take place in Africa, only two countries were ever in the running: Egypt and South Africa. No other country in the continent could even pretend to have the organization, the number of stadia, and the infrastructure, to run the world's largest show apart from the Olympics. And even disregarding the small matter of terrorism, one would have to be quite insane to stage a football competition in Egypt in the summer; the USA were hot enough in 1994, when most teams suffered from heat exhaustion. At least South Africa would stage it in the austral winter, as soccer is meant to be played - in cold wind, occasionally in the rain, running up and down for ninety minutes.
But there is one thing that Sepp Blatter and FIFA had not thought of. South Africa is indeed a famously beautiful country, an ideal tourist destination, and would be a good place to stage a sports contest - except for one thing: it is the restaurant at the end of the universe. Almost literally. It is harder and more expensive to get there than almost anywhere in the world. It is not even very close to the Latin American heartlands of the game, Brazil, Argentina and neighbouring countries; as for soccer's other chief markets, Europe, Asia, North and Central America, it is literally at the other end of the world. Even the heartands of soccer in Africa - which means essentially West Africa and the Arab countries - are not much closer. It is probably easier to travel from Nigeria or Cameroon - let alone Egypt or Algeria - to Europe than to South Africa. Besides, the income of most African football fans places a journey to Johannesburg or Capetown well beyond their means; they could never replace missing European, Asian or American visitors. It is the kind of place where most people go once in their lifetimes, when they have saved enough. Staying there for weeks to watch a long competition is not even on the radar of the average football fan.
Sepp Blatter, a man I detest for many reasons, was quite right in seeing Africa - as he had previously seen North America and East Asia - as a field of natural growth for the game, to be cultivated and encouraged. But to give South Africa the World Cup was a step too far. From now on, keep it in places where the greatest players in the world won't have to play to half-empty stadia.