In May 2004, Fifa announced
that South Africa would host the
2010 World Cup. A delegation
led by former president Nelson
Mandela erupted in celebration.
Amidst a a few voices of concern
about the country's alarming
crime rate, HIV/Aids problems
and wealth inequality, the
decision was largely met with
acclaim.
The nation's journey from being
the pariah of the sporting world
to hosting the World Cup filled
us all with hope and optimism.
Six years on and 22 Fifa executive
committee members are set to
decide where the 2018 and 2022
World Cups will be held.
This small group of middle-aged
men have the power to make a
decision that will impact on
millions of lives - and lead to the
expenditure of billions.
Fresh in their memory will be the
2010 World Cup which has been
deemed both a success and a
failure depending on who you
speak to and how they define
what makes a World Cup
successful.
As a spectacle some would argue
South Africa 2010 was a failure.
With the noisy drone of
vuvuzelas suppressing the cheers
and jeers of the crowd it was
certainly not a treat for the ears.
Moreover the low-scoring
opening matches and a series of
superstars that failed to light up
the tournament also fuels the
belief that South Africa 2010 was
not a vintage World Cup.
But giving the World Cup to
South Africa was never about
providing the optimum conditions
for Lionel Messi to dazzle and
nor was it about convenience for
the core football market of
Europe.
The decision to award the World
Cup to Africa in the first place
was all about taking football into
a new market and creating a
legacy that will benefit a whole
continent.
So perhaps the true barometer
of whether World Cup 2010
delivered the goods is to
ascertain whether there are any
signs of that legacy in South
Africa today.
South Africa spent a whopping
38 billion rand (£3.7 billion) on
stadiums and infrastructure to
realise the vision of Africa's first
World Cup.
But what happened after Spain,
the tournament's winners,
packed up their boots and got
on the plane back to Madrid?
For Neal Collins, a South African-
born author and journalist, Fifa
have left behind them a
shameful legacy of empty
stadiums.
"The white elephants - 10
magnificent football stadiums
lying empty and unused - serve
as a constant reminder of the
expensive legacy of the Fifa
World Cup," says Collins.
The World Cup stadiums in the
northern cities of Polokwane and
Nelspruit lie empty and seem
doomed to remain so for many
years to come.
Collins says: "In Polokwane, the
new Peter Mokabe stadium,
capacity 45,000, sits unused next
to the old Peter Mokabe
stadium, capacity 20,000, which
was quite suitable for South
Africa’s northernmost city. In
rural Nelspruit, the Mbombela
Stadium has no suitors. Neithercity has a side in the local
Premier League."
In Durban the Moses Mabhida
stadium was recently snubbed by
neighbouring rugby team the
Sharks as its operators searched
for a new tenant, whilst cricket
bosses are unhappy that the
playing areas of all the new
stadiums are too small for their
sport.
Soccer City in Johannesburg
served as the flagship stadium of
the World Cup and largest sports
venue in Africa. The 95,000
seater venue underwent a £300
million renovation before the
World Cup and costs around
£250,000 a month to maintain.
WHY SOUTH AFRICA'S EMPTY WORLD CUP STADIUMS COULD BOOST ENGLAND'S 2018 BID
In May 2004, Fifa announced
that South Africa would host the
2010 World Cup. A delegation
led by former president Nelson
Mandela erupted in celebration.
Amidst a a few voices of concern
about the country's alarming
crime rate, HIV/Aids problems
and wealth inequality, the
decision was largely met with
acclaim.
The nation's journey from being
the pariah of the sporting world
to hosting the World Cup filled
us all with hope and optimism.
Six years on and 22 Fifa executive
committee members are set to
decide where the 2018 and 2022
World Cups will be held.
This small group of middle-aged
men have the power to make a
decision that will impact on
millions of lives - and lead to the
expenditure of billions.
Fresh in their memory will be the
2010 World Cup which has been
deemed both a success and a
failure depending on who you
speak to and how they define
what makes a World Cup
successful.
As a spectacle some would argue
South Africa 2010 was a failure.
With the noisy drone of
vuvuzelas suppressing the cheers
and jeers of the crowd it was
certainly not a treat for the ears.
Moreover the low-scoring
opening matches and a series of
superstars that failed to light up
the tournament also fuels the
belief that South Africa 2010 was
not a vintage World Cup.
But giving the World Cup to
South Africa was never about
providing the optimum conditions
for Lionel Messi to dazzle and
nor was it about convenience for
the core football market of
Europe.
The decision to award the World
Cup to Africa in the first place
was all about taking football into
a new market and creating a
legacy that will benefit a whole
continent.
So perhaps the true barometer
of whether World Cup 2010
delivered the goods is to
ascertain whether there are any
signs of that legacy in South
Africa today.
South Africa spent a whopping
38 billion rand (£3.7 billion) on
stadiums and infrastructure to
realise the vision of Africa's first
World Cup.
But what happened after Spain,
the tournament's winners,
packed up their boots and got
on the plane back to Madrid?
For Neal Collins, a South African-
born author and journalist, Fifa
have left behind them a
shameful legacy of empty
stadiums.
"The white elephants - 10
magnificent football stadiums
lying empty and unused - serve
as a constant reminder of the
expensive legacy of the Fifa
World Cup," says Collins.
The World Cup stadiums in the
northern cities of Polokwane and
Nelspruit lie empty and seem
doomed to remain so for many
years to come.
Collins says: "In Polokwane, the
new Peter Mokabe stadium,
capacity 45,000, sits unused next
to the old Peter Mokabe
stadium, capacity 20,000, which
was quite suitable for South
Africa’s northernmost city. In
rural Nelspruit, the Mbombela
Stadium has no suitors. Neithercity has a side in the local
Premier League."
In Durban the Moses Mabhida
stadium was recently snubbed by
neighbouring rugby team the
Sharks as its operators searched
for a new tenant, whilst cricket
bosses are unhappy that the
playing areas of all the new
stadiums are too small for their
sport.
Soccer City in Johannesburg
served as the flagship stadium of
the World Cup and largest sports
venue in Africa. The 95,000
seater venue underwent a £300
million renovation before the
World Cup and costs around
£250,000 a month to maintain.
No comments:
Post a Comment