Andrew Muchineripi soccer It has not been the greatest of years for Southern Africa countries when it came to bidding for football tournaments, with South Africa, Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe experiencing the pain of rejection. The most bitter blow came in July when Germany pipped South Africa 12-11 in controversial circumstances for the right to stage the 2006 World Cup tournament. New Zealand-based Scottish octogenarian Charles Dempsey, who was representing Oceania, abstained from voting after England were eliminated instead of carrying out his mandate and switching to South Africa. To say the rainbow nation was stunned would be the understatement of the year. It was a bitter lesson in never taking for granted a result in sport, be it on or off the field. A more recent, but far less publicised, blow to the region was a decision by the African Football Confederation (CAF) to award the 2004 Nations Cup to Tunisia. The other bidders were Zimbabwe and a joint challenge from Zambia and Malawi, with the latter hardly doing their chances any good by entering the race almost as the gun was fired.
Tunisia received nine of the 13 votes, Zimbabwe three and Zambia/Malawi one – and the general consensus was that by far the best applicant had carried the day. That is not the way Kaizer Motaung, a former star, chair of Kaizer Chiefs, and one of the most respected officials in South African football, saw it, though. “The CAF executive is dominated by French- and Arabic-speaking people who come mostly from the northern part of the continent. There is a terrible imbalance within the structures of the organisation,” he says. Motaung believes the South African Football Association (Safa) needs to establish a presence and play an active role on policy issues and the regional body, Cosafa, must boost its image. He also gave CAF a rap on the knuckles, saying the 2006 World Cup bid was lost due to indecision within the Cairo-based organisation whether to back South Africa or Morocco. So, does Motaung have a case? Does language dictate who hosts the premier football competition on the continent? Why is Safa not involved at the highest level of African football, and what about the Congress of Southern African Football Associaitons (Cosafa)? I cannot back Motaung when it comes to the 2004 Nations Cup vote because Tunisia offered so much in terms of stadiums, infrastructure and, most important, political stability. The North Africans already have five international-class stadiums – two in Tunis and one each in Bizerte, Sfax and Sousse – and another 60E000-seat stadium is being built for the 2001 Mediterranean Games. Compare these statistics with Zambia (no stadium remotely close to international standard), Malawi (one stadium close to international standard) and Zimbabwe (two stadiums close to international standard). Add the nega-tive international publicity generated by so-called war veterans seizing farms, and Southern Africa was always playing against a strong wind. Many CAF officials undoubtedly had long memories and remembered that Malawi withdrew from hosting the 1984 finals and Zambia withdrew from hosting the 1988 finals for financial reasons. Zimbabwe had the 2000 Nations Cup taken away from it because of tortoise-like preparations and half-hearted government backing regarding financial guarantees – an issue CAF treats with extreme seriousness. Okay, nine of the 13 voters hail from French-speaking countries, but there were only two North African representatives, a Moroccan and a Tunisian, so regional bias hardly came into it. The absence of South Africa, and Nigeria and Egypt for that matter, from the CAF execu-tive committee is a source for deep concern, especially considering minnows like Chad hold a place. However, it is up to the Southern Africa nations to change that if they are unhappy with Ismail Bhamjee of Botswana or Leo Mugabe of Zimbabwe. South Africa cannot impose themselves, they must woo the voters.
Bhamjee-led Cosafa appears to be a well- organised organisation with the Castle Cup undoubtedly the best-run and richest regional competition on the continent. What Malawi, Zambia and Zimbabwe must realise is that hosting rights are usually awarded to countries with the best facilities, not those who promise the best facilities. So get building and bid for the 2006 finals.