The multibillion-rand 2010 World Cup stadium construction project, with its time frame of 18 to 34 months, was always going to cause disagreement in the very fragile relationship between politics and common sense.
In South Africa, where the difference between the two is often blurred, politics will always triumph. The bill for the stadiums has ballooned from R2-billion to R9-billion before work has even begun — as a result of inter-city rivalry and so that soccer can retain a “legacy” after the event.
It is now up to the government to see if the funds are available. It has already committed to begin releasing funds before the end of the month so that construction can start.
The Premier Soccer League (PSL) began voicing its displeasure after it was first announced that South Africa’s bid planned to upgrade most stadiums rather than build new ones. Football authorities questioned the government’s commitment to ensuring that soccer would have its own decent facilities post-2010.
PSL CEO Trevor Phillips, a long-time campaigner for better facilities, was vocal in questioning the wisdom of bringing the World Cup to South Africa if the tournament was not going to have knock-on effects for the game itself. One of the biggest complaints of fans and administrators was that the original plan would benefit rugby by upgrading its grounds, while soccer remained a poor relation — with Johannesburg’s FNB Stadium being the only venue designed exclusively for football, out of the country’s 50 000-plus-seater venues.
Phillips suddenly gained allies in the host cities who said they should be entitled to determine what infrastructure is needed in their individual areas.
Now it’s official: new stadiums will be built in Johannesburg, Nelspruit, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Cape Town. Four of the five will be built on their original sites, while the existing FNB Stadium at Crown Mines will be largely demolished to make way for a new stadium.
No wonder, then, that local organising committee (LOC) CEO Danny Jordaan sneers at, rather than shows concern about, the latest developments. His response to questions about how the bid could have been so grossly under-quoted is that the LOC is giving people what they want.
The original costs were pegged at just less than R2-billion for construction of new stadiums and the upgrade of existing ones. For example, Newlands in Cape Town and King’s Park (Absa Stadium) in Durban — traditionally rugby grounds — were going to get facelifts.
These plans were the basis on which South Africa won the right to the event. So what are the underlying reasons for the changes that have resulted in the bill escalating to more than four times the planned amount?
Jordaan throws the question back at the media and the public, saying: “It is you guys who asked what legacy the World Cup was going to leave for football. We listened to you, and are now doing the very thing you wanted. What is the problem now?”
In a country where the government has to justify public expenditure, the construction of five new world-class stadiums may appear profligate. Especially when compared with the need for better health facilities, provision of clean water and access to electricity for all, new education centres and improved public transport for millions of South Africans.
Soccer is by far the most popular sport in the country, although, as a result of the apartheid legacy, its facilities lag far behind those of cricket and rugby. By establishing and investing in the development of football infrastructure the government is trying to redress past imbalances.
The legacy of the World Cup, says Jordaan, lies not in the extent to which football emerges with superior facilities post-2010; it is in understanding that those facilities will be available to all South Africans.
The extent to which the lack of facilities is reflected in the crisis football is likely to find itself in, will be seen once construction begins in the next few months.
Although LOC chairperson Irvin Khoza says that though other sports have made their grounds available, the playing surface at most of these stadiums is not suitable for football.
Perhaps the World Cup presents an opportunity for sport’s administrators to find ways to work together, as one critic says, “on an equitable basis. World football trends show that the number of fans attending games is dwindling. To obviate the problem of exclusively labelling stadiums as rugby, cricket or football there should be a way to force different sporting codes to share the use and costs of these venues — lest, of course, we want them to be white elephants.”
While, as Jordaan says, the construction of new stadiums shows that the country is dealing with issues of transformation, this should not be at the expense of finding common ground.
The LOC rightly insists that the ownership of the upgraded rugby venues should be a point for discussion. Durban, however, is a prime example of competition between the sporting codes showing a victory for politics over sense.
The King Senzangakhona Stadium will be built for close to R2-billion on the site of the existing King’s Park soccer ground opposite the Absa stadium. This means that there will be two 50 000-plus-seater venues across the road from each other. Infrastructure limitations, such as security and parking, means it will be nearly impossible to host major rugby and soccer matches simultaneously. So one of these giant venues will perforce stand empty when the other hosts a game. If rugby had agreed to talk to football, a lot of money would have been saved too.
Housing is only ‘one half of the other’
How many houses can be built for R9-billion? According to the National Urban Reconstruction Housing Agency (Nurcha) more than 250 000 new houses — far more than the government builds in a year.
Government Reconstruction and Development Programme houses cost R35 000 and the people who qualify for them are low-income earners with a take home salary of less than R3 500 a month.
In a country with serious housing problems the figures create an easy argument that the cash earmarked for the construction of five new stadiums for the 2010 World Cup would be better spent on easing the two-million-unit housing backlog.
But what is a country without infrastructure and facilities? Where do the prospects of economic growth lie if they do not rest on the development of areas besides those of basic needs?
South Africa is already guaranteed more than R3,3-billion from television deals for the hosting of the 2010 spectacle. The figure will increase by several billion rands from other sources.
Projections are that there will be more than 1,1-million visitors in the country in that one month alone. The spending power of these visitors — likely to be in the region of R10 000 each — will boost the economy immensely.
There are also long-term spin-offs from international exposure that will affect tourism positively.
Institute for a Democratic South Africa (Idasa) analyst Steve Friedman says juxtaposing stadium expenditure against the housing problem is not necessarily the right approach to addressing the social problems facing the country.
“It’s one half of the other really. The question is not how many houses you can build, but whether you can show that the money spent on stadiums won’t help towards the creation of a better society where people make their own choices. You might as well suggest that you don’t hold elections because they cost a lot of money. Parliament costs money,” he says.
Unlike teams in most European countries South African football teams don’t own their own stadiums. As a result, fixtures on many occasions have to be rescheduled because of the unavailability of suitable venues. The PSL is hardly two months into the season and fixtures have already been reorganised because of the shortage of stadiums.
With extra facilities, individual clubs will have an opportunity to speak to their local municipalities — which will own the new stadiums — and enter into lease agreements.
The change in plans and designs, however, means about R15-million has been wasted. The LOC says it spent about that much on the original stadium images and designs, although most of the architectural work by big companies was done on a risk basis.
Where the extra R7bn will go
Johannesburg
Old: The FNB Stadium was to undergo an upgrade, with tiers of seating added to round out the venue. Capacity: 94 700
New: FNB will retain naming rights to the “African pot” (but not during the World Cup, when it is likely to be known just as Soccer City), thanks to an agreement brokered when the bank handed the stadium over to soccer authorities. The stadium will be the flagship for the World Cup, hosting the opening and closing ceremonies and the final. Capacity: 104 000
Cape Town
Old: The Newlands rugby ground was to be upgraded, with a few more seats and improved VIP and media facilities. Capacity: 40 000
New: Greenpoint Stadium will be demolished and an entirely new venue, with retractable roof, will be built on the site. Capacity: 70 000
Port Elizabeth
Old: A traditional-looking stadium, on a site 2km from the sea. Capacity: 49 500
New: A futuristic-looking stadium built on the same site, but with an entertainment precinct around it. Capacity: 45 000
Durban
Old: King’s Park rugby stadium (Absa Stadium) was going to have extra stands built at the goal ends to enclose the venue. Capacity: 60 000
New: The King Senzangakhona Stadium, to be built across the road from the Absa Stadium, on the site of the current King’s Park soccer ground. Capacity: 80 000
Nelspruit
Old: The Mbombela Stadium was going to remain open, with a substantial roof built over the main grandstand. Capacity: 40 000
New: The stadium will have a stylish roof, covering all stands, and some temporary seating. Capacity: 45 000 during World Cup, 30 000 afterwards.