| Beneath the glitter of the World Cup | Send to a friend |
| Friday, 02 July 2010 09:16 |
 Do the current and long-term gains from hosting the World Cup warrant the billions of Rand that South Africa pumped into the soccer spectacular? KAMAU MUTUNGA looks at the figuresBy the time the first whistle in the South AfricAąMexico World Cup opener was blown, preparations for the global soccer fest had wolfed down over $6 billion (Sh486 billion), money sourced from Fifa and South Africa’s public coffers. In the din of a million vuvuzelas, does South Africa have any business hosting the World Cup just to prove that “Africa can make promises, keep those promises and deliver on them?” Obviously, the event will reverse stereotypes of the “dark continent” besides South Africa remaining in global consciousness for years. While such intangible benefits are priceless, South African taxpayers will be paying for this World Cup for decades. And, examined closely, the psychological “feel-good factor” is not as significant as wrestling the vast, serious and more urgent socio-economic challenges facing the 16-year old democracy. Cynics are also asking whether Pretoria could have spared the $1 billion (Sh81billion) spent on the 10 swanky World Cup stadia on socio-economic projects, had it been denied hosting rights. Most people in South Africa, the continent’s biggest economy, live in seedy conditions. They need more schools than stadia, better sanitation than electronic scoreboards, cheaper clinics than fast trains, improved housing than sports hostels, and more drugs in hospitals. So, are the economic and psychological benefits of hosting “The Greatest Show on Earth” greater than reversing effects of 40 years of Apartheid education policy, for instance? South Africa’s illiteracy rate stands at 24 per cent of the population aged over 15 years whilw township schools have poorly-trained teachers according to the United Nation’s Human Development Report 2009. Dropout rates stand above 50 per cent, and despite the government allocating 20 per cent of its budget to educational programmes, about 30 per cent (six to eight million) adults are functionally illiterate. One out of every four adults is jobless in a country with one of the highest inequalities anywhere. To redress economic inequalities occasioned by Apartheid, the South African government, in 2008, introduced the Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), a pragmatic growth strategy to empower disadvantaged South Africans through transfer of ownership, management and financial control of companies, and multi-level transference, employment equity and preferential procurement. But, half of the 50 million South Africans survive on less than $1.25 (Sh100) a day. According to the United Nation’s Human Development Report 2009, South Africa is globally ranked 129 out of 182 countries, in Human Poverty Index (HPI), the indicator of a country’s standards of living. The Rainbow Nation, where about 50 cash dispensers are raided monthly, has one of the world’s highest crime rates in the world according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). It is ranked first for assaults, second for murder (Johannesburg has been dubbed the murder capital of the world), and rape per capita. An estimated 500,000 rapes are reported annually. With all these socio-economic goals to score, including fighting an HIV/Aids and TB pandemic, an estimated R1.2 billion (Sh12 billion) was spent on building the 64,100-seater Green Point Stadium, near Khayelitsha Township. Khayelitsha has three government clinics and no running water for its over 1.5 million residents. As part of its official social responsibility campaigns for what Fifa boss Sepp Blatter called “The greatest World Cup in history,” Fifa created “20 Football for Hope Centres for 2010” equipped with public health, educational and sporting facilities in 20 African countries. Khayelitsha got one centre, but residents threatened to set up shacks outside Green Point on the eve of the World Cup “to show the world how they live.” The UN classifies South Africa as a middle-income country with an abundant supply of resources, well developed financial, communications, energy, transport infrastrutcure and one of the top 20 stock exchanges in the world. But Mthobeli Zona, the deputy chairperson of a local pressure group in Khayelitsha told South Africa’s Sowetan newspaper: “We live in dirty and smelling places. We have no jobs. We live shameful lives. There are no toilets here. There is no electricity. We have to pay R20 (Sh200) a month to use other people’s toilets.” And for all the R1.2 billion (Sh12 billion) spent, The Green Point Stadium hosted only five World Cup matches. Green Point is one of five stadia built from scratch including Cape Town Stadium, Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium in Port Elizabeth, Durban Stadium, Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit, and Peter Mokaba Stadium in Polokwane to host the “love story between Blatter, Fifa and the continent.” The billions spent on building new, instead of upgrading old stadia make little sense considering the squalid conditions of residents next to them. The Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban roughly cost R1.8 billion (Sh18 billion) according to South African Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan. Yet, at the nearby Cato Crest Township, hundreds of thousands of residents have no access to affordable electricity. Just before the World Cup, over 200 shacks were destroyed by a fourth fire blamed on a paraffin stove reported the Green Left Weekly. Moses Mabhida is a 70,000-seater stadium, yet Durban is a city of two soccer teams with a few thousand fans, according to a website. The 40,000-seater Mbombela stadium cost R600 million (Sh6 billion), while the 45,000-seater Peter Mokaba Stadium cost $154 million (Sh1.1 billion). A community school had to be bulldozed, and students moved to container classrooms, to make way for Mbombela stadium. And by October last year, residents rioted, as the school had not been replaced, according to the Mail&Guardian. Apart from hosting future sports tournaments and music concerts, stadia have little by way of economic benefits once the referee blows the final whistle. And few countries, it seems have learnt from Spain. Aware that huge tournaments leave many abandoned structures, Spain invited experts to redesign the stadia constructed for the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. Engineers reconstructed athlete’s hostels, apartment style, and put them up for sale. The seaside Olympic Village was refashioned into a mall housing trendy hotels, art galleries, banks and ritzy restaurants. This post-planned Olympic hospitality generates 14 per cent of Barcelona’s annual tourism revenues, an increase of two per cent after the Games, according to the Los Angeles Business Journal. It is not clear what South Africans will use the stadia for besides sports and gala events. But Fifa considered many factors before awarding the hosting rights. They included South Africa’s capacity to accommodate 450,000 visitors, transport systems, hospitality, information and communication technology, and world-class sports facilities. Infrastructure To meet Fifa requirements, the South African government spent $1 billion (Sh81 billion) on new and upgrading old stadia, $8 million (Sh648 million) on public transport infrastructure, while security, accommodation, branding and marketing swallowed $2 billion (Sh162 billion), according to Danny Jordaan, head of the Local Organising Committee (LOC). This spending earned South Africa several economic free kicks. The World Cup helped to generate 160,000 new full-time and part time jobs, according to Jordaan. For instance, an estimated 8, 000 extra police officers and 2,000 civilians were recruited to provide security while suppliers and contractors smiled all the way to the bank. The gross economic impact of the event, according to global audit firm, Grant Thornton, was expected to claw the R93 billion (Sh930 billion) ceiling, with 63 percent expected to be generated before June 11, the kick off date, and 38 percent after July 11, when the World Cup ends. According to Deloitte Worldwide, the accounting firm, host nations on average experience at least, a 0.3 per cent rise in GDP during major tournaments. But hosting the world cup doesn’t necessarily translate into economic development. When Mexico hosted the 1970 edition its economy grew by 6.9 per cent, but fell to 4.2 per cent after the tournament, according to Soccerphile website. (West) Germany didn’t fare any better. Its economic growth nosed south by negative 1.5 per cent from 0.2 per cent after hosting the 1974 World Cup. Irony Italy followed the same grim script after Italia ‘90. Its economy fell by 0.6 per cent from 2 per cent to 1.4 per cent. Same for the USA. The world’s biggest economy shrunk from 4 per cent to 2.4 per cent after hosting the 1994 World Cup. France followed suit four years later when its economy dropped to three per cent from 3.5 per cent after France ’98, when it won the World Cup on home soil. Only the economies of Argentina and Spain grew from -3.4 to 7.1 and from 1.2 to 1.8 per cent respectively when they hosted the ’78 and ’82 editions of the tourney respectively. Mexico’s too grew from -3.7 to 1.7 per cent after Mexico ‘86. The post-World Cup benefits or lack of them to South Africa are yet to be seen but the irony of squalour versus big budget sports events was seen in Angola this year. The oil-rich nation hosted the 27th edition of the Africa Cup of Nations in January. Three decades of civil war and its negative effects notwithstanding, Angola forked out $1 billion (Sh81billion) to put up five world-class stadia, refurbishing one from scratch, building new hotels and roads. All that in a country in need of new schools, electricity, sanitation, water and hospitals. Angola is Africa’s second biggest oil producer after Nigeria, and the world’s fifth largest diamond exporter. But despite the massive wealth, over 60 per cent of Angolans live on less than a dollar (Sh81) day. And the 2010 Fifa World Cup has just placed a magnifying glass on the socio-economic creases on South Africa’s post-apartheid fabric. Africa Insight is an initiative of the Nation Media Group’s Africa Media Network Project. Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites           |
Latest News
Most Read
Gallery