The-Shot.Net Writers Club - (South) Africa 2010

With few hours to go to decide which of the five bidders will be awarded the World Cup in 2010, frantic last-minute efforts to persuade voters are stepped up. Although five countries – Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Morocco and South Africa – are bidding to host the first ever World Cup in Africa after more than seventy years of the tournament, insiders believe that the contest is between the latter two, with South Africa the apparent favourite. A definite minus for Morocco, which already had bid to host the World Cups in 1994, 1998 and 2006, is that the country has a weak infrastructure and would most likely not be up to the logistics of hosting a World Cup. (This was one reason why Nigeria, who initially also were in the running, withdrew as bidders in September 2003.)

As for the former three, Egyptians are proudly campaigning under the motto "Uniting People", rather appropriate for the first country to represent the continent – at the World Cup in 1934. To some it is a forgone conclusion who will be celebrating a historical announcement by FIFA President Sepp Blatter on May 15 in Zürich. Not so, says Nicholas Maingot of the FIFA media office. "We don't know that now. It's an open bid for all African countries, and there have of course been inspections and assessments." There has been speculation on Africa's ability to host the event, but that was later ascribed to dirty politicking by the contenders themselves. The media have recently quoted Germany's 2006 World Cup organising chairman, Franz Beckenbauer, as saying that Africa was not ready yet. The Kaiser has denied this, and reiterated his support for South Africa. FIFA also believes Africa is ready. In the words of Maingot: "If we have taken this decision that the FIFA World Cup organisation has to rotate between the different continents, it is because we firmly believe that Africa has the ability to organise the World Cup, and we also are here to help the local organising committee." (To be sure, no-one was keen to rekindle memories of the voting fiasco of July 2000, which nearly scuttled Blatter's re-election campaign for 2002, he having won his first mandate essentially on the promise of bringing the World Cup to Africa.)

Surely, dirty politicking is not new to World Cup bidding as it later turned out after the 2006 fiasco from the South African point of view. It transpired that there were shady deals by German bidding sponsors behind Germany's successful bid for 2006. Only ten days before the decision, Daimler-Chrysler, Bayer, BASF and Siemens had announced investments and joint ventures in Thailand and South Korea worth about U$ 2 billion, and eight days earlier, Germany delivered 1,200 anti-tank grenade launchers to Saudi Arabia. The loss to Germany by South Africa by 12 votes to 11, hit economic expectations of South Africa severely. Amongst other immediate consequences, on July 7 the rand slid by more than 6 cents to U$ 6.85 after the announcement. On Wednesday, July 5, it had stood at U$ 6.73, partly due to optimism that South Africa would win the bid. The World Cup was expected to bring in an estimated U$ 2.5 billion to the host country. No wonder South Africa's bid chaiman, Irvin Khoza, travelled to Brussels to consult with Belgian lawyer Jean-Louis Dupont on the possibility of legally challenging FIFA's decision. (Dupont had successfully sued UEFA on behalf of Belgian footballer Jean-Marc Bosman, which resulted in lifting restrictions on the movement of players while outlawing transfer fees for out-of-contract players.)
Not that South Africans were not aware before hand about their impending loss. FIFA executive committee member Chuck Blazer of the USA had pointed out earlier that Dempsey would never have voted for South Africa.

Despite hosting the African Cup of Nations with moderate success, Tunisia's bid is as good as lost because they intend to co-host with neighbours Libya and FIFA won't hear of co-hosting at the moment. This leaves Egypt to fight it out with co-favourites Morocco and South Africa. There had also been suggestions that the rest of North Africa might withdraw at the last minute to throw its weight behind Morocco's bid. Danny Jordaan, Chief Executive of the South African bid committee, is not bothered, though: "It does not matter if there are ten countries against us. For FIFA, one country has to win, and this country has to be African. Our aim is simple, and that is to get 13 of the 24 votes on the FIFA
executive committee."

In view of the recent terror attack in Madrid, in which several Moroccans were implicated, the voting executive may wonder just how safe a World Cup in North Africa would be. South Africa's Achilles' heel has always been the high crime and endemic HIV/AIDS, although the South African authorities have always maintained that this was no issue when South Africa has hosted the 1995 Rugby World Cup, the 1996 African Cup of Nations and the 2003 Cricket World Cup without incident – along with the UN-sponsored conference on racism and the World Summit on Sustainable Development (the last two attended by world leaders, including Tony Blair of the UK).

These successes are South Africa's trump card, but will they carry the day? In view of the others' weaknesses, it would seem that this time South Africa will have only themselves to blame if they lose out. Whether South Africa wins or not, though, Africa will stand to gain – in the short run at any rate. Let the ablest country host the event; and the ablest country it should be, for their task goes beyond the World Cup. They will also go on the unstated mission of showing the world that, yes, Africa is every bit up to the logistics and organization not just on the continental, but on the global stage. Nigeria successfully hosted the 1999 World Youth Championship, but they did not convince. There's ways and there's ways of doing something, and that, in the end, is what Africa must show the world come 2010: excellence.