The 2010 World Cup: An African or South African event?

    Last night I attended a lecture at the London School of Economics that briefly touched upon the cultural and political context of past World Cups and explored expectations for the 2010 World Cup.  The speakers were David Goldblatt, author of The Ball is Round: A Global History of Football, and Fayari Mugazi, a former sports presenter on Zimbabwe Broadcasting who joined the BBC World Service in 1999.

     Some interesting points about the World Cup’s past political circumstances, according to Goldblatt:

• The 1934 WC in Italy was the first time the event was viewed in a political context.
• The WC in Argentina in 1978 was the first time substantial effort was dedicated to perception, as the Argentinean junta hired a PR company, the same one that works for Phillip Morris.
• Columbia gave up the 1986 WC due to the drug war they were having.  Mexico, who has exercised the capability to conceal domestic strife, hosted instead.

     The primary point of the talk, however, was about the 2010 WC, namely how it could have been, and was supposed to be, an African WC that South Africa happened to be hosting.  Indeed, Mugazi said that everywhere he went within Africa, everyone was excited.  However, he expressed some disappointment that the event has not been made fully accessible to all Africans. Initially it was hoped that many teams would not only stay in South Africa but make visits to neighbouring countries as well.  This has not happened. 

     Also, as a means of getting more Africans to watch the WC, FIFA gave tickets to different nations to sell.  Mugazi gave the example of Tanzania, which was given 2000 tickets but only sold 40 of them.  If the prices were lowered just for Africans, this situation would be at least partially rectified, but again, this has not and will not happen. FIFA has allowed South Africa to offer differential pricing for South Africans, but have not extended this courtesy to tickets being sold elsewhere in Africa. A surprising decision, considering the South Africa boasts a GDP higher than its neighbours.

     Perhaps the worst aspect of all this, and the one that hits closest home, given the organization for which I work, is the lack of philanthropy and charity associated with this WC.  When I asked what they had seen in regards to this WC and charity work, Mugazi replied, “I haven’t seen any to be honest.” 

     The largest sporting venue in the world, indeed one of the most effective means of getting the global community peacefully together, and he could not say he’d seen any significant instances of giving.  What a shame.  And this isn’t an instance of there not being charities to give to, as Goldblatt pointed out:

There are plenty of fantastic projects around Africa doing fantastic work with football and development, but no one is giving them any money.

     To end on a more upbeat note, Goldblatt also stressed that the World Cup, more than anything, is an opportunity to tell a story.  I believe this statement of his summarizes both the grandeur of the World Cup and the ignominy that the potential of the 2010 edition is not anywhere close to being met:

The miracle of the World Cup is the sheer number of people that get together and watch sport… falling in love with other people, places and stories.

     Here is a review for The Ball is Round.

Advertisement