The Legacy of the 2010 South African World Cup

Date: 18th May 2011 at 7:55 pm
Written by Josh Sheridan

However, an average of just 6,108 spectators attended Premiership matches in the opening two weeks of the current campaign, having recorded a total of 7,639 for the same period the year before. History suggests that hosting nation’s domestic leagues enhance attendance figures the year following a World Cup, evidenced by the German Bundesliga recording a colossal average attendance of 39,975, substantially higher than any other European league, in the 2006/2007 season succeeding the 2006 tournament. A notable factor in maintaining these impressive results has been the ability to offer fans unbeatable value, with entrance to most top-flight games costing 10Euros and match-tickets which double as free rail passes. Regrettably, the admission fees at most South African Premier League fixtures have increased, and in some cases doubled, from an average of 20Rand to 40, perhaps going some way to explaining why attendances have actually dropped this season, rather than increased to the same extent as previous hosts.

What’s more, the future of Cape Town’s £400million Green Point Stadium lingers in the balance, following the withdrawal of a French-based consortium who had agreed in January of last year to lease the stadium from the city for a 30-year period following the World Cup. The South African SAIL Group and the Stade de France, amalgamated within the Business Venture Investments 1317 consortium, were awarded the long-term contract to operate the venue and to ensure that it remained a sustainable and multi-purpose arena after the 2010 tournament. But in October, the Stade de France retracted their management duties, leaving the stadium in desperate need of support from either the provincial or national government. “We would be irresponsible to not face up to this reality,” explained Morne du Plessis, executive director of the SAIL/Stade de France consortium. “And yes, we made mistakes in the cost assumptions and income opportunities of the stadium.”

It could be argued that FIFA negated their duty of care in regards to the long-term development of South African stadia seeing as the organization pocketed the majority of income raised from global sponsorship deals, media rights and ticket sales. In the stadiums themselves, only official FIFA sponsors, such as Budweiser, were allowed to sell products, despite South Africa being an enormous producer of beer, a potentially lucrative revenue stream which was ignored by international football’s governing body. Additionally, the ten World cup sites were not assembled to the same specifications as other countries’ federations, in that they boast far fewer hospitality suites which prevents the generation of new clients. But perhaps the most conclusive implication that South Africa have failed to deliver sustainable football facilities is the debate which advocates the transfer of rugby, South Africa’s most popular sport, from the Newlands stadium in Cape Town to the Green Point Stadium. In a defeatist sense, this clearly appears to be the most feasible long-term solution, as Newlands no longer represents a suitable arena to support Stormers and Western Province rugby fixtures as well as frequent football and national rugby matches.

Even though this process is necessary to keep the stadium open and used, it demonstrates a destructive departure from the venue’s original purpose. South Africa isn’t suffering from any administrative obstructions that we haven’t previously witnessed with prior World Cup hosts, and the South African Football Association has, to a large extent, achieved what it had initially inspired to. Despite enduring inexorable cynicism, police and the local organising committee were almost entirely vindicated in their assertion that the World Cup would be free of serious crime and disorder. For all the original concerns in a country renowned for violent criminal activity, the belief that they would succeed by swarming public areas with over 40,000 dedicated police proved more prescient than those who predicted a far more tasteless scenario. It is believed that around half-a-million tourists visited the country during the tournament, with as many as 350,000 first time visitors, of which 90% claimed they would return, according to Philip Scheiner of South Africa Migration International. That alone, in terms of helping change the perceptions of potential return visitors, will be hugely beneficial in terms of tourism and inward investment in the future.

Discussion on the pervasive hum of thousands of vuvuzelas will continue, but it would be difficult to argue that South Africa failed to provide a colourful, vivacious atmosphere, evinced most prominently when Siphiwe Tshabalala scored for the hosts against Mexico in the competition’s opening game. Although the tone of succeeding matches relaxed somewhat, mainly due to domestic fans who were relatively new to football, the organizing committee had succeeded in introducing wealthy, predominantly white, middle classes to the sport. Since most observers regard constructive legacies as an imperative contemplation for bidding nations for the world’s grandest events, the 2010 South African World Cup can certainly be considered with much distinction.

The aspiration for nation-building proved to be far more than empty rhetoric, as the united hysteria during the tournament continued to the traditionally ferocious Soweto derby of this season, where Orlando Pirates and Kaizer Chiefs fans celebrated together; an unprecedented occurrence. “If you said South Africa – people used to say two things: Nelson Mandela and crime. Now they say Nelson Mandela and the World Cup,” said Danny Jordaan, CEO of the 2010 World Cup, when asked whether the image of South Africa had been improved. And this is where the World Cup has provided its biggest legacy for South Africa. The deliverance of significant infrastructure, organized security and all in the face of overwhelming contempt has altered the perception of the country and the continent. The rationale for hosting the World Cup was to encourage the opinion of South Africa as a country which can deliver on its guarantees, and this has unquestionably been accomplished.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter

Pages: 1 2

Rate this article

1 votes Vote!!
 

Leave a Comment



Your Comment:

Subscribe to our VIP mailing list

Enter Security Code:

If you want your picture to display next to your comments you can join our VIP Lounge where you can add your profile image, support your team and connect with other fans.