• » Comments (2)
  • Print Story
  • Send to Friend
  • Contact Us
  • Bookmark
 

Is South Africa Ready For World Cup 2010?

Our African correspondent, Awenlimobor Sylvester, asks whether or not having the 2010 World Cup in South Africa is such a good idea after all...

May 26, 2008 6:29:18 PM

World Cup 2010 official logo
Photo Gallery
Zoom
World Cup 2010 official logo
The recent xenophobic violence that has erupted in South Africa has once again cast further reservations over the worthiness of the country to successfully host the 2010 World Cup.

When they were given the hosting rights to the tournament few years ago, there was much joy and excitement all over the continent, but recent events - including the uncertainty over the completion of the several stadia across the country - have seen the celebrations dampened considerably.

The World Cup is an event designed to foster unity amongst nations - it is an event that seeks to bring peace. When a potential host country of the tournament begins to exude characteristics that are contrary to the spirit of the game, then there is really a cause for concern. Such is the case with the recent, tragic violence that strikes the country.

I, being an African, am definitely in favor of the tournament coming over to our continent, but I would not be particularly inclined towards hosting it amidst the current social ambience that prevails in South Africa at present.

Problems

South Africa had always had its problems with crime and social instability, but there was this blind optimism that maybe, just maybe, the country could overcome - or at the very least control - the national malaise to enable a successful hosting of the tournament. And thanks to some excess sentimentalism on the part of FIFA bigwig Sepp Blatter, it wasn’t so hard to see the land of the Amazulus coming out favorites to successfully host the tourney in 2010.

But with about two years left before kick-off of the games, nobody is sure that Blatter made the right decision anymore. Trouble still reigns and the stadia are unready, with the "dress-rehearsal" Confederations Cup looming.

His decision is looking less and less wise, especially given the wealth of other options in the continent. If it was to be Africa, why not the more serene regions of North Africa? Why not Egypt or Morocco? They both put forward bids, after all, but South Africa won by a unanimous tally of 14 bids. (Libya and Tunisia also entered a joint bid, but this was disallowed.) That South Africa won so convincingly might have been down to the fact that they lost by just one vote to Germany four years prior for the 2006 games - surely not a valid reason to select a host country!

In any case, it has become obvious that Blatter goofed in his adamant choice for this unready host. A country that cannot guarantee peace and stability even to its own citizens surely cannot be expected to do the same for 32 foreign teams, fans from all over hte globe, the media and tournament workers.

Contingency?

Whgat's more, I am seriously aggrieved that the World governing body has not begun preparations for a contingency plan. There has to be a plan B that is not South Africa! This is, though, a point Blatter would chose to differ on: no way would he admit the need for such a thing. But for Pete’s sake, if the FIFA boss really wants a successful tournament, he has to put the South Africans on their toes and stop feeding them with the idea that they must host the tournament at all costs. Perhaps the shock of having it taken away might speed up stadium construction a bit, even if it can't fix South Africa's underlying issues.

As for where 'plan B' is to be situated, let me put it this way: I, as an African, would rather not see the World Cup in Africa at all than see a disastrous tournament being staged in the continent. Can Blatter say the same?

Awenlimobor Sylvester, Goal.com
Thank you for your comment!
Please enter your name
Please enter your location
Please share your comment!
Your Say (2)
 
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement