Criticism that SA’s bid is not African enough lies behind the latest row, write Julian Drew and Stefaans Brmmer
THE furore around Cape Town Olympic bid chief Chris Ball’s “nepotism” and autocratic style was sparked by outside criticism that the bid is not African enough.
Intervention last week by a Cabinet sub- committee, and a strategic media leak by Minister of Sport and Recreation Steve Tshwete, were intended to send a clear message: the African National Congress-led government is in control and the bid is an African one.
While Cape Town did well to reach the final stage of the 2004 selection process, there has long been a concern that the bid company does not reflect the demographic make-up of the country, particularly at senior management level.
The bid company’s – and the government’s – attempts to sell the Cape Town bid as a potential victory for all of Africa have only served to emphasise the chasm between intent and reality.
Last year a senior International Olympic Committee (IOC) member from Africa was quoted in Sport Intern, a quasi-mouthpiece for sports power-brokers and IOC members published in Germany, as saying: “That is not really a South African bid, and certainly not an African bid, but rather a bid from Cape Town, which is still a stronghold of whites.”
Things came to a head in April when Ivory Coast IOC member Louis Guirandou N’Diaye, on a visit to Cape Town, told several people connected to the bid that it was too white. This was a determining factor in the formation of a Cabinet sub-committee in May – chaired by Tshwete and featuring several high-ranking ANC Cabinet ministers – to lobby political support for the bid.
It was this sub-committee which on Tuesday last week “reined in” Ball. Careful leaks to the Sunday press suggested Ball had been “hauled over the coals” by Tshwete and his sub-committee over the impression that Ball had indulged in nepotism, and over the bid’s lack of African content.
Ball was also, according to the reports, warned to stay away from politically sensitive issues such as the bid company’s recent endorsement of an anti-crime initiative involving the “reformed” gangster organisation Community Outreach (Core).
Tshwete, whether or not he was the original source of the leak, used the opportunity to emphasise that Ball would no longer be running a white show. “He is still at the helm, but he needs some hands on deck. He should not be steering this ship alone,” City Press quoted Tshwete as saying.
Ball maintained the media outburst was “a misunderstanding” and “nothing has changed in terms of my decision-making and authority”. Upset at the allegations of nepotism (his daughter Lucy had acted as photographer when IOC members visited Cape Town and his son Andrew as an escort to IOC members), Ball said: “Voluntarism is an essential part of Olympism and all the families of people in the bid act as volunteers.”
Ball admitted the lack of black people in upper management was a problem. “We have tried hard to get additional senior black people on the bid. That’s been a serious topic of discussion between Steve Tshwete, myself and the government for the past 18 months and I think it has become an issue that is being resolved [by the sub- committee].”
By Tuesday, it was clear the Tshwete media intervention had partially backfired when he and National Olympic Committee president Sam Ramsamy issued a joint statement saying that the weekend’s reports on the voluntary involvement of Ball’s family were regrettable.
Although Ball’s management style and personality have long caused unease in bid circles, both Tshwete and Ramsamy remain publicly committed to his leadership. “It’s a very difficult job and he has had to stay very focused. On the balance, he’s done an extremely good job,” Ramsamy said.
Ball has been accused of being autocratic and a “control freak”, but it may well be that it is these traits which have seen the bid progress as far as it has. Such perceptions are exacerbated by Ball’s austere and conservative banking background, which is at odds with the consultative approach of some bid participants’ “struggle” background.
Said Ball: “You’ve got 10 important decisions to make every day. You can’t afford the luxury of walking around and going through committees. You’ve got to get the job done.”
While Ball successfully fended off the nepotism charges, questions remain about some of his appointments.
One of his first appointments in 1995 was that of sports marketing firm API to handle marketing for the bid. API’s then MD, Stewart Banner, is the father of Ian Banner, a business associate of Ball’s during his London days. Like many other contracts, the bid company did not put the work out to tender.
Said one bid insider: “Priority jobs are always given to people trusted as peers by Ball … which has caused damage to the bid.”
Replied Ball: “You look around and you find where the real talents are, and if somebody comes to you and says, `These are the unquestioned talents,’ you use them.”
Many factors, including Ball’s abrasive style and perceptions that there is no real commitment to some of the black empowerment clauses in the bid charter, has led to an exodus of key personnel.
“The sad thing is that the really passionate people have thrown in the towel and now the only people left are the `Yes Chris, no Chris, anything you say Chris’ kind of people,” said a professional associated with the bid.
Ball’s judgment has also been questioned on occasion; for example, when he caused outrage in Rome with remarks about Rome using “dirty tricks” against Cape Town.
A similar faux pas was his endorsement of the Olympic Peace Initiative with Core. Designed to reassure the IOC that something was being done about crime, it backfired and was later, embarrassingly, dropped.
To what extent the latest row will affect the bid’s chances remains unclear. Those who have most to lose argue that the harm is not irreversible.
Said Ramsamy: “We are hoping it’s not going to damage the bid and the matter will be quickly forgotten. We’ve got a few months to go still, and we can correct the situation.”