“The Unofficial Carrier of the You-Know-What.” Such read an advertisement by low-cost South African airline kulula.com (also known as Kulula Air). They followed that up with an ad suggesting use of their services “Not Next Year, Not Last Year, But Somewhere In Between.” These advertisements are an obvious and rather comical marketing ploy by the airline to gain publicity through the incitement of some controversy.
The ads may seem harmless, but they do underscore a key issue here: to how much are FIFA legally entitled? They sent a letter to kulula.com demanding they remove the ads, which the airline has done, citing FIFA’s “stringent rules.” A spokesperson from the airline said FIFA also forbade them from using images of soccer balls, vuvuzelas, South African flag or the Cape Town stadium as well as the words “South Africa” in future ads. FIFA released a statement denying this, saying they prohibit the use of a combination of these images.
Though it is commendable that the organization has shown a willingness to embrace a new and exciting venue such as Africa for this WC, FIFA’s influence on it and all South Africa goes far beyond construcuting a soccer tournament and engaging in an amusing advertising tiff with a minor airline; FIFA’s authority and protection have actually been written into South African law. In 2006 the “2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Act” was passed, and it has been utilized to its full extent in a few cases.
Take the case of two Dutch women who wore orange dresses to Soccer City Stadium. They have been accused of “ambush marketing” on behalf of Bavaria (a Dutch brewery). Wearing the dresses has been deemed “promoting unauthorized activities inside an exclusion zone” and “unauthorized possession of a commercial object.” Perhaps even more shocking is the fact that these are criminal offenses, and the two women face up to six months in prison. As of now, FIFA are considering suing Bavaria.
Does FIFA really need this protection? A FIFA spokesperson recently said the company expects $3.2 billion in provisional income from this WC, and FIFA plan to invest 75% of this in “football development” (according to The Mail & Guardian). In fact, secretary-general Jerome Valcke recently said, “We have increased our income 50% since 2006 in Germany.” Meanwhile South Africa will have spent roughly R63 billion (or around $8.37 billion) on hosting the event. South Africa foregoes much in the way of income due to the tax breaks it has granted (or been forced to grant, if you take into account that this was one of the conditions to which South Africa had to agree in order to host this WC) FIFA’s commercial affiliates, including broadcast agencies, service providers, licenses, and merchandise partners.
What is sad is the amount of perception management demanded by FIFA. They wanted the stadiums built in the more affluent areas—a much cheaper refurbishment of an old stadium in Athlone was declined in favour of a new stadium that features Table Mountain as a backdrop instead of lower-class neighbourhoods—leading many to wonder just how representative of South Africa this WC is. And what will become of these massive endeavours (the stadiums) that have seen their cost estimates increase almost nonstop? Would it not have been more sensible to build smaller stadiums or renovate and refurbish older facilities?
Ah, but what is sensible and useful for South Africa does not appear to factor into the inner workings of the 2010 World Cup… I’m sorry, the 2010 FIFA World Cup (wouldn’t want to infringe on their turf). Coming from the U.S. and the afterthought that is Major League Soccer (our professional league), I did not know much about FIFA or the political facets of the WC. Now I fear I’m too aware, and while FIFA should be lauded for giving (South) Africa a shot, I’m afraid that what should be the most beautiful event in sport and a real opportunity for a developing country (and continent) to showcase itself to the world and be proud could be marred by greed and corporate excess.
I guess the only enjoyable recourse is to sit back and watch the on-field product while trying to ignore some of the realities that lay behind it. Good luck in 2014, Brazil. If no lessons are learned from 2010, you’ll need it.
(Normally I like to post a video related to a recent WC match in this space, but quality highlights are hard to come by on Youtube, so I’ll just post a video of a group of Dutch women performing their “ambush marketing” scheme.)
