Spain reign, but what impact has the World Cup left on South Africa?


Our guest writer is John Hilary, executive director, War on Want

So, today, after a final encounter in Soweto’s Soccer City stadium, Spain bask in the glory of winning the World Cup for the first time.

Iker-Casillas-holds-aloft-the-World-Cup-trophy

But for many South Africans in the Soweto township and around the country, the tournament has been a bonanza for the rich at the expense of the poor – and the tournament’s critics have not remained silent. During its month-long span, communities have fought back against their exclusion from the FIFA competition. the Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign and the Anti-Privatisation Forum have spoken of the rising tide of resistance to what they see as a corporate invasion of their communities in the name of sport.

South Africa provides a stark example of the negative social impact of such global events. While the Pretoria government splashed out a staggering £3 billion to stage the Cup – the most ever spent by any host government – the country’s poorest communities have been shut out of any benefits that might accrue as a legacy from the tournament. Worse still, many have been adversely affected by direct assaults on their homes and their livelihoods, in a country which some reports now identify as the most unequal in the world.

Under pressure from FIFA, the South African government has cracked down on unlicensed vendors in and around the tournament stadiums. Thousands of informal traders who were counting on the World Cup to improve their life chances have been banned from these FIFA-imposed “exclusion zones”, and anyone caught selling goods marked “World Cup” or even “2010” without a licence risks arrest.

By contrast, FIFA has managed to secure tax-free bubbles for itself around key areas such as stadiums, media centres and even public viewing sites. Even before the first ball was kicked, FIFA had made a hefty £2bn on the tournament – the largest profit ever recorded in the run-up to a World Cup. Since South Africa was named tournament host, forced evictions have increased around stadiums, practice facilities and other tourist sites.

As reported by The Guardian, 15,000 people were removed from their homes around the England team’s training ground in Athlone to the infamous Blikkiesdorp camp miles outside Cape Town, while South Africa spent £400m at FIFA’s insistence on the brand new Green Point stadium, which will leave no legacy whatsoever to the people of the Western Cape; those who have been evicted have been offered no compensation for the livelihoods they lost along with their homes.

“Clearances” of poor or homeless communities have become commonplace in the run-up to colossal sporting events. Over 100,000 poor families have already been forcibly removed from their homes in Delhi in advance of the Commonwealth Games this October, and thousands more evictions look set to follow. Poor communities in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro are already being targeted in preparation for the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics to be held there.

Miloon Kothari, the former UN special rapporteur on the right to housing, has written a damning new report on the Commonwealth Games set for New Delhi. Kothari asked the question which goes to the heart of all mega sporting events: Which cities can truly afford to host these multi-billion dollar extravaganzas at a time of deep economic crisis and persistent poverty among their own populations?

With the 2012 Olympics coming ever nearer, London has its own story to tell. Activists involved in campaigns around the London games highlight the loss of jobs and businesses as a result of the forced removal of local firms and travellers’ settlements from the Olympic precincts. The enlightening Games Monitor website holds comprehensive information on this and other aspects of the games as they pertain to London and elsewhere.

Some communities choose to engage in outright resistance to huge sporting events in their localities, such as the coalition which fought against Chicago’s bid to host the 2016 Olympics; others are mobilising to reclaim the games for those most directly affected.

Yesterday also saw the final of the first Poor Peoples World Cup in South Africa, a free tournament open to all those who have been excluded from FIFA’s multi-billion dollar extravaganza. The tournament has brought surprising results from local teams that have taken on international identities for the duration. Somalia 3, Uruguay 0, for example, is not the sort of scoreline you’d expect in any other competition.

Maybe the world’s media should watch this alternative final outside FIFA’s corporate bubble. That way, the viewing public could get a glimpse of the social reality for those sections of South African society which have yet to taste the fruits of the victory over apartheid, 16 years on.

This entry was posted in Left Foot Forward and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.
  • Pingback: John Cowan()

  • Pingback: LockPickerNet()

  • Pingback: davejoyner()

  • Pingback: Llywarch apLlywarch()

  • http://www.actsa.org Tony Dykes

    World Cup and South Africa; Celebrate and Renew Solidarity

    I am unclear from John Hilary’s piece is he against all large, international sporting events? Does he think South Africa should not have hosted the World Cup or just done it differently? I don’t claim hosting the World Cup is or will be a panacea to many problems that South Africa faces, creating decent jobs, education, homes for all, the HIV/AIDS pandemic to name a few. Overcoming these major challenges is vital but development is not only about these tangible things but also about the intangible ones of hope, optimism, celebrating the achievement of a common purpose.
    The World Cup has just ended and yes there will be queries whether the expenditure was right, whether it was worth it but it has happened. It also showed that those activities the host was responsible for were done well. Most criticism has been directed toward FIFA. If South Africa can learn and apply lessons from the World Cup about the role of the state, having a clear unified purpose directed toward the goals of decent jobs, education, homes, of reducing poverty and gross inequality there may well be a better legacy than many predict. What is undeniably true is that the overwhelming majority of South Africans, black and white, poor and rich, women and men are proud their country 16 years after its first democratic election hosted, and by most accounts most successfully, one the largest multi-racial events in the world. Should we not celebrate with them and ask in solidarity how we can together help them deal with the legacy of apartheid, colonialism and support equitable, sustainable development which eliminates poverty and reduces inequality?

  • Pingback: War on Want()

  • Pingback: Justin Baidoo()

  • Pingback: alan mills()

  • Pingback: Alice Pilia()

  • Pingback: Games Monitor()

  • Pingback: NewLeftProject()

  • Pingback: RooftopJaxx()

  • Pingback: World Fair Trade Org()

  • Pingback: Solas()

  • Pingback: Rachel Walls()

  • Pingback: Environmental impact assessment: do the regulations apply to your project? | Environmental()

  • Pingback: Kick It Out()

  • Pingback: SOLIDAR()

  • Pingback: Javier Urtasun()

  • Pingback: Mr Richie()

  • Pingback: PambazukaPress()

  • Pingback: Abbas Goya » Football is clearly a communist conspiracy because study shows there is a serious decline in workers productivity during the Word Cup()

  • Pingback: LocaliseWestMidlands()

  • Pingback: LocaliseWestMidlands()

  • Pingback: Chris Williams()

  • Pingback: Sarah from Offside()

  • Pingback: Sandra N. ()

  • Joe Walsh

    I very much agree with Tony Dykes, is this article suggesting South Africa should never have had the world cup? yes by the evidence provided by the article and other that I have seen mistakes have been made and sustainable legacies have not been looked at as much as they should. But I don’t like this tone that South Africa should have been prevented from staging the tournament as the most popular sport on the planet it needed to go to Africa. This article almost appears to be suggesting that you are no taloud to welcome your doors to the world on such a scale and together embrace football and experience a melting of cultures and celebrations unless you have a modern developed country that could easily afford it. Also it comments a lot on the ecomic strain placed on South Africa but was there not any gained that can now be directed towards helping the people? Certainly Germany made a fair amount of money at the last world cup with all the visitors it had spending money, which it was able to pumb back into infrastructure and sports based community programmes.

  • Pingback: R Gordon()

  • Pingback: FIFA: A laughing stock that isn't funny anymore | Left Foot Forward()