South Africa 2010 Looking Grim To Mildly Disastrous

In a totally idealistic way, pegging South Africa to host the World Cup in 2010 is a stroke of genius. The continent is booming with interest in the game; Europe is being flooded with African talent; and the national teams from Africa can compete with any in the world. Bringing that home to South Africa — long one of Africa’s most stable countries, but not one without its own share of problems — is, in the most abstract of ways, heartwarming. Africa needs a lot of things and major, first-world economic events are one of them.

That said, the 2010 World Cup in South Africa is experiencing some nearly disastrous early returns. Costs for the event have skyrocketed to around $1.2 billion, four times the amount designated when S.A. won the bid, and for that money, four stadiums with December 2008 deadlines are still only half-built. What’s worse is the corruption: Early in January, a South African whistleblower who ratted on the corruption surrounding one of the stadiums was shot and killed in his home by two masked men. Add the global economic crisis to the fear that people wouldn’t show up in South Africa in the first place, and you’ve got what Spencer at TSB is calling a “stillborn affair.”

It might be a little early for that designation, but FIFA president Sepp Blatter — no stranger to corruption either, that FIFA — has long said he has a backup plan if S.A. can’t pull it off. That would be sad, not just because South Africa has a legitimate chance at a monolithic choke-hold on the world’s attention, something it desperately needs, but also because it would strike right into the heart of most Westerners’ already-ugly views of the continent in general. Oh, Africa again. AIDS and diamonds and corruption, that place. Can’t get it together over there, can they? If what Africa needs is a World Cup (as opposed to, say, the World Bank forgiving some countries’ debts), what it definitely doesn’t need is that World Cup to fail.

Posted at 10:31 am
on January 26th, 2009
Tags: Africa 2010, Other Sports, Soccer, South Africa, World Cup

Viewing 2 Comments

DavidMunk 1 year ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

Remember, the World Cup has had to switch countries once before - in 1986, when it was taken from Columbia and given to Mexico (who had hosted 16 years before). That's what happens when, between you winning the bid and you actually hosting, your country turns from a (relatively) stable democracy into a corrupt drug-fueled feudal system. So yeah, South Africa not hosting would suck, but if they don't get it together you can expect it to be moved. South Africa is hosting the Confederations Cup this June, which is considered sort of a mini-World Cup test run . . .so we'll see.

reply edit flag

1 /people/DavidMunk/ /people/DavidMunk/following/ http://davidmunk.tumblr.com/

Djarum Black 4 days ago 1 point
Please login to rate.

Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

South Africa has a legitimate chance at a monolithic choke-hold on the world’s attention, something it desperately needs, but also because it would strike right into the heart of most Westerners’ already-ugly views of the continent in general. Oh, Africa again. AIDS and diamonds and corruption,

reply edit flag

1 /people/Djarum_Black/ /people/Djarum_Black/following/ http://www.lexcigarettes.com/