South Africa was very nice to five white men this week. And for good reason: they came from world soccer group Fifa.
The group was fêted and fanfared during their seven-day tour of South African cities. On their agenda was time with Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Archbishop Tutu, Credo Mutwa, Prof Phillip Tobias and King Goodwill Zwelithini.
There was an evening trip to Soweto on Friday; Tuesday dinner with industry captains at Anglo American’s Vergelegen wine estate. Wednesday morning — must be Robben Island.
In short, the delegation from Fifa got the ”full treatment”.
The reason of course is that the five visitors, as inspectors of our stadiums, hospitals and transport infrastructure, hold the keys to staging the soccer World Cup in South Africa in 2010.
But hosting the event is not about sport as such. High-league money is at stake. A country may have the facilities to host the Cup, but Fifa also wants assurance that its target of $3-billion will be met.
World soccer is big business not just for Fifa. It’s also big stakes development for any country’s international profile, investment prospects, tourism reputation, etc. Consultants reckon the event could contribute R30-billion to South Africa’s GNP.
Hence, a full six years before ”fighting” commences on the football fields, we are one of four country contestants orchestrating a war-like mobilisation of resources towards a single-minded goal. Hence our roll-out of red carpets and masterful showing off of infrastructure, services … and celebrities.
For us, the event is about even bigger stuff than dollars and/or development. It’s also about developing the ”nation”. For some commentators, recalling the 1995 Rugby World Cup, it is a prime project to further South Africanise us.
”Us?” What about the women? Soccer, no surprise, is mainly an all-boy affair. Yet, even if the World Cup in this country concentrates on cross-race male bonding, that’s still something not to be sniffed at.
This is especially the case if measured as progress against the past. When in 1963, Fifa temporarily lifted its blacklisting of the whites-only Fasa, that narrow-minded body announced it would send an all-white side to the 1966 World Cup in England, and an all-black one to Mexico in 1970.
So, staging the World Cup, even if it brings only boys together, will be another milestone beyond our divided history. Pampering foreign white men this week could pay dividends in unity between our local men down the line.
This nation-building prospect is one reason why our Government has pledged to do what it takes to help secure the contest. This includes making commitments like:
- Guaranteed telecoms infrastructure, at no specific cost to the users who will only pay for services;
- Work permits and tax exemption available to Fifa;
- Hotel prices for Fifa being frozen six months ahead of the actual staging of the contest;
Both Government and the 2010 Bid Committee have also been at pains to convince Fifa that the global body will make profits in South Africa. The money message has been underlined to the visiting inspection team, and is also central to the ”Bid Book”, an impressive three-volume tome that sets out South Africa’s case.
Accordingly, the Bid Book never mentions the words ”Fifa World Cup” without also appending the superscript letters ”TM”. Concern about trade marks and intellectual property rights is also intrinsic to the publication’s references to sponsors like Adidas, BMW, Coca Cola and others.
Here’s how the book promises them protection against ”ambush marketers”:
- A task team will be set up to operate ”at grassroots level”;
- Corporate legal advisors and commercial crimes experts will head the initiative;
- There will be task team staff at each venue, using 2-way radio systems;
- Volunteers will serve as trained ”spotters” to identify offenders;
- A media campaign will try to educate potential ”ambush marketers of the serious consequences of breaching the rights of Fifa and their commercial affiliates”.
And you thought the World Cup was about soccer stars? Wrong. It’s first and foremost about corporate brands — even more so than the Cricket World Cup.
Where there are sponsors, there needs to be brand exposure. So, the Bid Committee takes media coverage very seriously. A total of 28 750 media people are catered for in the planning. There is a strong eye to media events as well, such as the opening and closing ceremonies, the Fifa congress and the draw for the final.
Proclaims the Bid Book: ”Official events will be seamless, spectacular, distinctly African, and shall match the highest global standards.”
Another kind of brand at play in the World Cup hosting stakes is that of nation states, in our case ”South Africa”. After our over-confidence in seeking the 2006 cup — when several other African countries deserted our cause — there is a newfound sensitivity.
Thus, even while competing with Morocco, Egypt and Libya to hold the 2010 Cup, the Bid Committee dubs South Africa as ”Africa’s stage”.
And, placing the bid in continental context, President Thabo Mbeki argues that the successful hosting of the Cup in Africa will ”provide a powerful irresistible momentum” to the ”resolute African Renaissance”.
The Bid Committee espouses a similar pan-African view. For them, the bad guy in the match is not an African leader, but rather French President Chirac who recently threw his country’s sizeable weight behind the bid by Morocco. (Morocco being a country that has refused to join the African Union).
For media representations, with their classic affinity for simple oppositions, if the frame for the bid should steer clear of ”South Africa versus Africa”, at least there’s the alternative of ”Africa versus France”.
Subtly, however, South Africa’s superiority as a brand within Africa is promoted. Thus, the Bid Book highlights how — in implicit contrast to African rival states — this country enjoys a ”mature media environment” underpinned by the constitutional right to free speech and press freedom.
Cynically capitalising on South African democracy? Perhaps. On the other hand, the democratic South African brand has a certain power.
Take a press briefing last week, where a presentation by the Bid Committee featured a slide (in need of editing) which read: ”Media should avoid negative headlines on crime or HIV”. It added for good measure: ”Street poles should express positive messages about South Africa”.
Challenged about this pitch for media ”boosterism”, committee leaders Irvin Khoza and Danny Jordaan were quick to say it was merely their ”in-house wish list”. Added Khoza: ”We cannot prescribe to the media”.
The World Cup will make a lot of money for Fifa; it will do fine marketing for sponsor brands. It will bring infrastructural and other material gains to at least some South Africans. It will help unite many in our male society.
If it also affirms this country as a haven of media freedom, that is one brand benefit that all of us can celebrate. All-in-all, pulling out the stops for Fifa visitors will have been a pretty worthwhile investment.
E-mail Guy Berger directly if you have a question about this article.
Guy Berger is head of Journalism and Media Studies at Rhodes University and deputy chair of the South African National Editors Forum (Sanef). He was recently nominated for the World Technology Awards.