South Africa and England are favourites in the race to host the 2006 World Cup. Denis Campbell gives an English view of the bid battle
It’s man against boy, statesman against striker, the champion of South Africa’s black majority against the champion of Walker’s cheese and onion crisps.
Nelson Mandela, the 80-year-old who ended apartheid, and 18-year-old soccer sensation Michael Owen are about to join sport’s biggest battle -over who should stage the 2006 football World Cup.
South Africa hopes Mandela’s charisma and global appeal will rub off on its bid and is lining up its newly retired president to give the campaign a boost.
He is expected to visit Switzerland next month to deliver South Africa’s bid document to the headquarters of Fifa, football’s international ruling body. The move is designed to woo the 24 Fifa delegates who will choose the 2006 host.
Owen will perform the same task on behalf of England’s bid team, handing over a 700- page, highly detailed document. He will be joined by two stars from football’s golden age: Sir Bobby Charlton and Sir Geoff Hurst.
The rival camps hope that the lifetime’s heroism and youthful exuberance of their respective celebrity `bid postmen’ will score brownie points with Fifa’s hierarchy in Zurich. “Fifa’s bigwigs are so self- important. They love the idea of important or glamorous people beating a path to their door,” said one insider.
The involvement of Mandela and Owen shows the race for 2006 is heating up. Owen, scorer of a wonder-goal against Argentina in last year’s World Cup, is the latest high-profile backer of England’s bid after Tony Blair, Elton John and Geri Halliwell.
Germany, the other leading contender, is sending Franz Beckenbauer and Jurgen Klinsmann, the two football legends who act as ambassadors for its bid.
The submission plans come amid increasing signs that England will win the race. Confidence is high in the bid team of Hurst, Charlton, sports minister Tony Banks and bid director Alec McGivan. They spent all last week in Los Angeles lobbying Fifa’s annual congress.
South Africa’s position may be slipping due to the Fifa delegates’ preoccupation with the country’s crime record. They fear that the murder, rape and robbery statistics may tarnish the tournament.
And one of the 24 Fifa executive committee members who will make the decision said last week he could not see Germany picking up any support outside the votes of the eight European delegates. If true, Germany would in fact win only six votes as one of the eight – Switzerland’s Sepp Blatter, the Fifa president – has pledged to back South Africa and another – Scotland’s David Will – supports England. The winner will have to attract 13 votes.
England’s hopes have been boosted since Uefa, European football’s governing body, watered down its insistence that all eight should back Germany. England now hopes to secure between three and five of the European votes.
Banks has told MPs he would now be surprised if England did not win 2006. He believes that South Africa’s crime figures will make Fifa regard it as too risky a venue.
The bid team is presenting England as the “no-risk, reliable choice for 2006”. It hopes that with problems emerging in the 2002 finals hosted by Japan and South Korea, Fifa will want a safe pair of hands.
But McGivan has admitted that Fifa’s decision last week to delay the vote from next March until July could let England’s rivals make up ground on its bid.
South Africa’s case
The favourite on emotional grounds.
Spending on bid: 11-million.
Pros: Political correctness. Africa deserves the World Cup. It’s Africa’s turn since it is the only continent to have never staged a World Cup. Sepp Blatter, the Fifa president, and many of the 24 bigwigs who will award 2006 have already backed South Africa. Hosted 1995 Rugby World Cup without serious problems and will stage 2003 Cricket World Cup. So why not football’s showpiece?
Celebrity backers: Nelson Mandela.
Cons: Rampant crime is South Africa’s Achilles heel. Murders, robberies and rapes are almost hourly occurences. Will deter fans. Many grounds are in high-crime areas – the FNB stadium, where the opening match and World Cup final would take place, is on the edge of Soweto. In a recent outburst against England, bid leader Danny Jordaan claimed – falsely – that fans had been killed during a Manchester United vs Liverpool match. Football is a mainly black game in South Africa; whites are uninterested. Most blacks are poor and so won’t be able to go to games.
England’s case
Second favourite, and “a safe pair of hands”.
Spending on bid: 9-million.
Pros: Government support; Fifa likes that. England is the natural choice as it invented the game and is “the home of football”. Ground improvements already complete and have produced modern, all- seater stadiums. The 320-million new Wembley stadium will be “world’s best”.
Celebrity backers: 1966 Wembley hat-trick hero Sir Geoff Hurst; Sir Bobby Charlton; Gary Lineker; Prince Charles; Tony Blair.
Cons: England’s popularity internationally is low. Football yobs could cause trouble at next year’s European Championships. Ex- Football Association chair Bert Millichip agreed in the early Nineties to back Germany for 2006 in return for Germany helping England secure Euro 96. They did their bit; England’s decision to do the dirty by then pursuing 2006 is widely resented. Accused of attempted bribery recently when it offered to spend 4- million bringing schoolchildren to the tournament.