I sat this week in the rather opulent surroundings of the Cape Town International Convention Centre listening to South African government ministers and high-ranking Fifa officials debrief the media on what both parties claimed was an ”excellent” workshop to kick off preparations for the 2010 World Cup.
Behind the obvious political-speak, I saw real passion, desire and, most importantly, sound planning to make this the best World Cup yet — something that would not only provide the South African economy with a massive boost, but also change the rest of the world’s perception of the African continent.
I believe that the issues facing this country over the next four years and beyond are understood by both parties, and that there are realistic blueprints in place to address these and leave a legacy that will benefit all South Africans for years after the final is over.
But perhaps South Africa’s biggest challenge in the lead-up to 2010 lies in courting the myopic international media who have, in part, already written off the country’s chances of hosting a successful tournament — despite all evidence to the contrary.
An all-too-typical example of this was an article that appeared this week on a usually reputable American sports website. It was just another instance of sensationalist journalism, using the bare minimum of so-called facts to question whether South Africa is a worthy host for the tournament.
This particular journalist from that peace-loving, bastion of good morals and ethics that is the United States used outdated statistics and stereotypes to attempt, it seems, to convince readers that the great US of A is ready to step in and fill the breach left by those poverty-stricken, murderous, HIV-infected Africans who have no hope in hell of meeting the standard required by the Western world for 2010.
The journalist in question quotes a United Nations report that states that more than half of South Africans live below the poverty line — painting a picture of mud huts, squalor and no way out for the young generation.
However, he ignores such sources as the CIA online factbook that, on its South African page last updated on October 17 this year, states: ”South Africa is a middle-income, emerging market with an abundant supply of natural resources; well-developed financial, legal, communications, energy and transport sectors; a stock exchange that ranks among the 10 largest in the world; and a modern infrastructure supporting an efficient distribution of goods to major urban centres throughout the region.”
See how the liberal use or ignorance of the facts can skew an argument? Is not one of the major spin-offs of hosting the tournament the hope that it will provide a sizeable boost to the economy and job creation as a whole? Conservative estimates predict about R21,3-billion added to the South African GDP, as well as a massive update of our material and technical infrastructure, which should mean a more buoyant economy and opportunities for all South Africans to prosper.
Crime and transport
Crime and our transport infrastructure are thrust forth by the American columnist as further reasons why this peasant state should not host the World Cup — two issues that are being actively addressed by the government in the lead-up to the tournament. I am not so blinkered to suggest the menace of crime should be downplayed, but it should not be used as an excuse to remove the tournament from our shores.
The additional recruitment and training of law-enforcement officers — as well as active programmes to eradicate corruption in the police force — is under way. Of course there are problems in South Africa — we are an emerging democracy that is still coming to terms with our newfound freedoms and have fallen victim to opportunists who would exploit this transition. The World Cup can only speed up the will of lawmakers to deal with the issues at hand.
The writer then goes on to misquote Sepp Blatter and Franz Beckenbauer about so-called concerns they had with South Africa’s readiness for the tournament — concerns that were subsequently cleared up in the international press — and launches an astonishing attack on ”one of the most controversial sports ministers in Africa”, Nigerian Dr Amos Adamu, who sits on the Fifa executive committee and will play an active role in the world governing body’s preparations for the tournament.
Why is Adamu so controversial? Because he dares to challenge Fifa to allow more money to flow into the development of African football — the poorest confederation in the world — at the expense of the infinitely richer European and North American associations. Scandalous.
Herein lies the crux. What the writer seems to believe is the most damning indictment of the South African World Cup is that Fifa will lose money as, ”for the first time, Fifa is having to almost wholly subsidise this World Cup”.
What absolute rubbish. True, Fifa is funding Safa House, new headquarters for the South African Football Association and the nerve centre of the World Cup, to the tune of R60-million — mere pocket-change to the organisation. But just this week South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel announced planned government expenditure of R14,9-billion on the event, with no additional input from Fifa, which stands to make billions out of the event having already signed up 25% more revenue in marketing and sponsorship rights than it did for Germany in 2006.
While it may seem as though I am picking on this particular media man to illustrate the damage of lazy and, one would have to assume, unscrupulous journalism, it is merely symptomatic of a larger problem worldwide, where sensationalism sells newspapers and garners page impressions for websites.
People opining on matters they know nothing about, or picking up scraps from unfounded news stories, will not stop the World Cup from coming to South Africa in 2010 — nor will it dampen the spirit of South Africans who know we will make this the best World Cup yet.
But it does mean that there needs to be a concerted effort from the local organising committee and Fifa itself to promote the positive aspects of this tournament to the world — as well as the good it will bring to South Africa and our fellow Africans on this beautiful continent.
I leave you with the words of Fifa director of communications Markus Siegler, who said this week in Cape Town at the highly successful 2010 Fifa World Cup kick-off workshop: ”Plan A is to hold the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. Plan B is to hold the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. And Plan C is to hold the 2010 World Cup in South Africa.”
Nick Said is editor: special projects for Kick-Off magazine