Jacob's games.

It has been a busy summer of sport, yet notoriously quiet on the footballing front. Few high profile transfers and the only events taking place are the Women’s World Cup, which frankly does not draw the same audience as the men’s game and the Copa America, which is locked away on ESPN. A year has passed since the World Cup was played in South Africa, where Spain went on to become the champions after a fierce final against the Dutch. So, is this a good time to judge the legacy of Africa’s first finals and what will the consequences be for the Rainbow Nation?

The recent history of South Africa is fascinating to observe from the outside. After spending decades in the international wilderness through its racial Apartheid laws, it was under the leadership of Nelson Mandela who governed South Africa through a period of uncertainty and united a nation that had been living with the consequences of racial segregation laws since 1948. Mandela recognised the importance of sport in bringing people together and its significance in the public imagination. In Mandela’s memoirs there are plenty of references to sport whilst he was incarcerated on Robben Island, perhaps most famously his love affair for the great tennis rivalry of Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe. Mandela famously handed over the William Webb-Ellis trophy to Francois Pienaar after South Africa beat New Zealand in the 1995 Rugby Union World Cup final.

This was not the last tournament the country was to host; South Africa hosted the ICC Cricket World Cup in 2003 and also held the Indian Premier League in 2009 after security fears in India from the Mumbai bombings. South Africa has a proud history of cricket and rugby and inevitably, these tournaments do not expect hundreds of thousands of fans from around the world to visit. South Africa’s opportunity to host football’s biggest event was twofold. One, FIFA President Sepp Blatter is a fan of expanding the game into new areas of the world and the unifying qualities it brings, which a rebranded country like South Africa would love. Secondly, Blatter owed FIFA’s African delegation a favour as their bloc vote helped him become FIFA President.

Politically South Africa has changed since the early years of Mandela rule. Now under the Presidency of Jacob Zuma, South Africa’s African National Congress (ANC) party is struggling in the polls and has an identity crisis. No longer is it seen as the unifying party, but is swarming with a new breed of young black politicians, most notoriously Julius Malema, who are more interested in business and patronage, rather than welfare and equality. Last month saw the ANC lose control of Cape Town in regional elections. Many say it is no longer a party of the people and prefers to look after its own elite.

Football is very much a black person’s game in South Africa. The ranks of its cricket and rugby sides are swarming with white stars, despite the constitutional laws of positive discrimination that ensure that teams are not full of certain races. A World Cup in South Africa was a political statement not just to the world, but to black South Africans as well.

Yet, costs to host the tournament spiralled and supposedly reached $3.5 billion dollars, more than three times more than original predictions. Many cities such as Cape Town and Durban are left with stadia that remain empty. Port Elizabeth has yet to host another match since the ending of last year’s tournament. South African club teams are reluctant to relocate because of the extortionate rental fees (Ajax Cape Town were quoted $100,000 a game despite attendances reaching fewer than 8,000) and inevitably a weaker Rand has meant going to watch football is more expensive. It is true that in Portugal and South Korea, stadia were demolished after they held tournaments, but in a country where 50% of people live under the poverty line, where basic educational, health and welfare are every day issues, it does seem like a waste of money. Crime is a notorious issue in its cities, yet the federal Government struggled to pay the wages of its police force.

FIFA likes to acknowledge the good that football can bring, but it is at an exceptional cost. Legacy is an important thing to consider and many deemed the tournament to be a great success, but for the average black South African living in a township, how much did it cost their future?

FIFA: Back the bid?

Panorama and Andrew Jennings added another act to the joke that is FIFA yesterday. It is not the first time it has been smeared for corruption allegations.

We are indeed amidst the closing stages to see who will host the FIFA World Cup in 2018 and 2022, and if votes go our way it could possibly be in England. Anyone who ever reads Jennings’s excellent website Transparency in Sport will be aware of the activities behind the scenes at FIFA. The real question should be, would we really want to host it and really, who gains most?

The world of politics and diplomacy is always a bit shady (as we know from wikileaks) but why does no one ask any questions of FIFA? Sepp Blatter must be the only President of an organisation who does not declare his wage, yet politicians invite him to the corridors of power in an attempt to persuade him to consider their bid. A man who started as a lawyer working for Adidas, now holds the highest seat in international football, but opposes transparency or reform. The ‘beautiful’ game has become ‘tarnished’.

Blatter’s legacy is supposedly to help the expansion of the game throughout the world and use football as a tool to unite people. The South African World Cup was the first occasion to bring the ‘beautiful game’ to the African continent. No one questions the merits of the event, but why aren’t people a bit more sceptical of all things ‘unifying’ and ‘legacy’. No one questioned whether Africa could host a competition (IPL, the Rugby World Cup, the African Cup of Nations) but in meeting FIFA’s strict criteria, was it necessary to build new stadia and the infrastructure? The answers suggest no; since the tournament, several of the stadiums lay empty and recent matches have only filled tiny proportions of the ground. The improved transport links will lay foundations for future economic benefits, but it doesn’t fill the hotels built to cater for prospective tourists.

Since the Athens Olympics in 2004, the Olympic stadium and other supporting arenas have become wastelands. Since Euro 2004 in Portugal one of the stadiums was knocked down because of high maintenance costs. Both Spain and Portugal are the favourites for the upcoming bid, yet Spain too has dozens of stadium that are half built or under-prepared. These will be sorted out if the bid is won, but why should stadiums of such magnitude be built, under executive orders and government submission, only to be left redundant a month later? It is all put in perspective if both Iberian countries are apparently on the verge of collapse, this isn’t FIFA’s problem.

I understand the power of sport and the impact it can have on society. I do not buy this idea that through spending billions will you achieve this acclaimed legacy. It certainly makes a country feel better but it is not the only solution. If England wins the bid then it will continue to be no questions asked and will purely highlight this country’s great sporting tradition and capacity to hosting global events. FIFA and its bandwagon will be a part of this and no further questions will be asked.