Africa’s bid to host the World Cup for the first time is undermined by the Confederation of African Football’s refusal to choose either South Africa or Morocco as the better candidate
Connie Selebogo, Nawaal Deane, Merryman Kunene, Thebe Mabanga and Jubie Matlou
When the Federation of International Football Association gets to vote for the host of the 2006 World Cup on July 6, Fifa officials will have only two countries in mind: South Africa and Germany.
At this stage in the game Morocco can arguably be dismissed as merely a spoilsport. On two previous occasions the arid North African country has made attempts to host the prestigious soccer tournament. It failed both times. It has little to show in terms of infrastructure – two developed soccer stadiums is all it has for the 32 participant teams. Its only selling point for the bid is its close proximity to Europe.
However, Morocco’s passion for the World Cup took unexpected turns in the past week when the country’s football association barred one of its elite teams, Raja Casablanca, from taking part in the Vodacom Challenge that pits the best of the continents against those of South Africa.
Morocco’s insistence to stay in the race has split the African vote: between the continent’s northern Arab bloc and sub- Saharan Africa, which is predominantly black. The Confederation of African Football (CAF) is mum as to which country it would back during the Fifa voting process between South Africa and Morocco – a clear indication of a split within its ranks.
CAF’s voting dilemma would come to a head if the federation is required by Fifa to vote as a bloc, as opposed to voting as individuals – a move that would force the federation to choose between its two affiliates.
Morocco refused to follow on the tracks of Ghana, Egypt and Nigeria – which all withdrew their bids in favour of a single, strong African bid.
Ishmail Bhamjee, CAF official, refused to be drawn into the argument, referring all queries to CAF headquarters in Cameroon.
“We have just been provided with the technical reports relating to the capacity of each bid country to host the tournament. On that basis, I cannot comment. All other officials involved in the process have been barred from speaking about the bids,” Bhamjee said.
Secondly, Morocco’s bid also implies that Arab delegates on the Fifa executive panel are likely to cast their votes for Germany, if Morocco fails to make it to the second and third rounds of the voting process.
A single bid from Africa would probably have Arab support.
On the flip side, English hooliganism during the Euro 2000 soccer tournament in Holland and Belgium had an unintended effect of uniting the European vote in support of Germany. The English effectively have no chance; they are out of the race.
According to Danny Jordaan, South Africa’s World Cup Bid chief executive officer, it appears the south-south relations in international politics could come handy for South Africa.
“I am sure we will hear good news from the Brazilians within the next few days,” Jordaan said, hinting at an agreement for Brazil to withdraw from the race in return for South African support for 2010.
South Africa is pulling out all the stops to secure the bid. Former president Nelson Mandela is expected to fly to Zurich to make a final plea.
The ace up Mandela’s sleeve would be the argument to use the soccer tournament as a catalyst for the regeneration of Africa as powerhouse of progress and development, as encapsulated by the fashionable concept of an African renaissance to give the continent a chance to stand on its feet.
Secondly, Fifa’s affirmative vote for South Africa would also have far-reaching political undertones.
If South Africa is expected to take a lead in all aspects of public life, politically and socio-economically, the world must provide the necessary incentives and investment – and being allowed to host the World Cup is one such incentive.
In terms of a track record, South Africa has the infrastructure; from sport facilities to transport and communications networks in its major centres, as well as an established and reputable hotel and hospitality industry.
As for experience, South Africa counts in its favour the successful hosting of international sports events such as the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the 1996 Africa Cup of Nations and the 1999 African Games.
Germany hosted the World Cup in 1974 and has little grounds on which to base its claims for another chance particularly as Africa has yet have a turn.
Instead, the Germans have based their bid on affordability, cheap ticketing and accommodation for fans, and a tournament held with short distances between venues. Its transport network is also very impressive and has been a backbone of their bid – selling an easy World Cup for supporters and players alike.
Passion for the game is regarded as an essential ingredient for a successful tournament. This is true, but passion alone will not do.
Alan Rothenberg – chair of the United States organising committee for the 1994 tournament and head of the current technical inspection team – would be advised to remember that before his country hosted the World Cup, opinion polls indicated some Americans did not know that an event of this magnitude was taking place in their backyard. The US tournament went on to become the most successful yet.
This kind of an event could bring enormous benefits to the host nation, such as improved infrastructure, employment opportunities, foreign investment and advertising/marketing opportunities.
The South African Bid Company’s consultant, Grant Thornton Kessel Feinsten, indicated that the event would require direct expenditure of R9,7- billion, a sum that includes money to be spent on upgrading the stadiums and infrastructure. In return, the event would add about R16,4-billion to South Africa’s gross domestic product. It is also estimated that the South African Revenue Service would rake in R3,3- billion in taxes. The World Cup can create about 130E000 jobs.
However, the expected spin-offs of the tournament do not always come directly to the host country. Experience has shown that it is Fifa that dominates trade, more than local entrepreneurs, through its marketing wings and multinational sponsorship deals with companies such as Coca-Cola, Mastercard and Macdonalds.
Rothenberg says: “It became a situation where we had to go out and get business in a hurry.”
Business Week reports that US organisers got all the revenue from ticket sales and, after difficult negotiations with Fifa, they won the right to sign up less lucrative sponsors as “marketing partners”.