It`s been a disappointing world cup, and I don`t just mean for England. The 2004 announcement of South Africa winning the bid to host led to predictions of a massive leap forward for the whole continent, as the World Cup was expected to raise Africa`s profile, increase levels of tourism, bring in revenue in prize money and foreign currency, provide investment and give it a greater sense of pride and identity.
Six years and sixty (?) matches later we have two anthems sung by a Somali-Canadian and a Columbian, a tournament dominated by European teams with Ghana the sole African representative past the group stage, inter-African xenophobia in Johannesburg… Time will tell but I think it`s already safe to say that hosting the World Cup was not South Africa`s holy grail.
Suzy
Last statistics I heard were that the tournament was costing South Africa £11 billion to stage but bringing in £14 billion worth of tourism, investment etc.
Whilst I agree that it has not been the ‘Holy Grail’ I think that it has had massive effect on the country not least in terms of morale. Let us face it, usually all we hear from Africa are stories of dejection, poverty and pestilence. This past month, however, Africa has been awash with smiling faces and optimism. People in Africa have been united in hope, for their teams to do well, but also for the tournament to be successful. Now whilst the problems of Africa should absolutely not be ignored and it would be criminal to look at this tournament and say ‘Africa is fine’. Yet many of these people have been witness and something of which they are immensely proud. I don’t think that is in anyway a non-achievement.
I think the World Cup has proven to be a huge success for South Africa. Indeed, it allegedly made profits of 400m. What is clear however is the extent to which SA was exploited by the corrupt sleaze-merchants that are FIFA. Sepp Blatter and his cronies have made 700m from the tournament (but can’t afford goal-line technology?!?!) , and will not have to pay a penny of tax from that to SA – a precondition for them hosting the World Cup. The exploitation of Africa is still strong.
Alright, between the two of you and this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/12/world-cup-2010-real-legacy consider me to be sitting here munching up most of my words!
Increased national pride, improved national unity, and 41,000 extra police on the streets… I guess it`s a beautiful game after all ^^
Whilst I appreciate your humility Suzy (it is something that is all too rare in any form of political discussion) may I take you to task on your use of the guardian as a reliable source. I don’t do it because I am picking on you particularly, but because the Guardian tends to be read by lots of Labour memebrs despite it being a paper that, quite frankly, makes no sense whatsoever. This is, after all, a paper, that after years of supporting the Labour Party decided in the run up to the last election to support the Liberal Democrats. This it did citing as its motive the Liberal Democrat’s support for proportional representation. Yet immediately after the formation of the Con-Dem coalition, this paper decides to renounce that allegiance. That to me does not make sense. Firstly, why drop your party immediately after it gains power for the first time in 60 years, just because it goes into coalition with a party you don’t like. Firstly, it suggests that the Guardian supported the Lib Dems because it thought the Liberal Democrats would win the election outright. If it thought this, then quite frankly it did so contrary to the vast majority of the evidence and was relying on a swing that was unlikely even to the most ardent and politically naive Liberal Democrat. Moreover, The Guardian’s switch is more staggering considering its support for PR (which as we said earlier, was the reason it gave for switching its allegiance from Labour to the Lib Dems.) Proportional Representation almost universally leads to the formation of coalitions, so for The Guardian to declare its support for the Lib Dems because of their support for PR, then weeks later to renounce that support because of the Lib Dems going into a coalition, which would be more, not less, likely to occur with PR, is frankly bonkers logic.
The Guardian is repeatedly held up and used by members of the Labour Party or people on the left as this beacon for sensible left of centre journalism. But in reality, this paper is just as unprincipled and flippy floppy in its nature, as any of the red tops or Murdoch press engine. But at least the red tops do not pretend to be sensible. So I implore any self-respecting left or centrist person with an interest in political journalism which is not sensationalist but fair, sensible not senseless, to read the Independent, not the Guardian. Even the Telegraph, though a right-wing paper with which I have many disagreements, is at least consistent and sensible in what it says, even if I disagree with it. If you want a challenge, rather than mindless spouting, read that. But do not quote the Guardian pretending that it is anything other than TWADDLE!