During times of strife and hardship it is understandable that you would turn to the past in search of forgotten moments of bliss. In search of such moments, you cannot help but indulge in the wonderful collective memory of the 2010 FIFA World Cup. The vivid memories of joy and pride felt by South Africans as it was announced that their country would host the 2010 FIFA World Cup continues to unify South Africa in a way that only football could achieve. The eruption of vuvuzelas as Tshabalala scored the opening goal against Mexico can still be faintly heard in the unlit streets of Soweto. However, over a decade later, South Africans are still being charged for these fond remembrances through taxes and environmental impacts. This calls for a reevaluation of the World Cup legacy in all its true, less blissful glory.
Chapter One: The Hollywood Pass
Those with good memories will recall the unified movement of South Africans on 15 May 2004 as they searched for their TV remotes to increase the volume of Sepp Blatter’s melodic announcement of the proud host of the 2010 World Cup. South Africa is granted the Hollywood Pass on a fool’s gold Blatter. The ANC, having just won the general elections that April through questionable campaigning, were quick to identify themselves as the face of the unifying tournament rather than the face of the Oilgate Scandal.
During this time of celebration, the hidden immoral temptations of public officials and private sectors could not weigh down South Africans’ shared hope that the World Cup would bring prosperity to our beloved country. Everyone cheered as the former president Thabo Mbeki promised that the state would ensure the World Cup be remembered as a moment when Africa stood tall and turned the tide of centuries’ of poverty and conflict. It is this characteristic of inherent hopefulness and elation that connects South Africans with the game of football in a way that reveals the undeniable perfection of hosting the World Cup in South Africa. However, immoral temptations are dangerous when acted on and do not seem to occur in isolation.
Eleven years later, South Africans would come to understand the irony of Mbeki’s speech. A corruption case conducted by the United States Department of Justice found that South Africa had paid $10 million to FIFA in bribes to secure the right to host the World Cup. Nine years had passed since Mbeki had declared that the World Cup would mark South Africa’s progress away from poverty and conflict. During those nine years, Mbeki resigned from office due to allegations of interfering in the corruption case against former president Jacob Zuma, and South Africa’s poverty rate increased to 60%. The memories of laughing crowds and the humming of “Waka Waka” began to fade as the preliminary unrestful roars of the #FeesMustFall movement began to make their way into the streets of South Africa.
Chapter Two: Behind Closed Doors
The knowledge that South Africa would be the proud host of the World Cup left South Africans shivering with anticipation for all the opportunities such an event would bring. While individuals hustled to afford tickets and made plans with their loved ones to join them in watching their favourite teams play, it was up to the government to ensure that South Africa would be ready for the big day.
The government ultimately spent more than R30 billion in preparation for hosting the first FIFA World Cup held on African soil. In 2004, the FIFA Inspection Group suggested that three existing stadiums were suitable to host the World Cup and that five existing stadiums would have to undergo renovations. South Africa chose to ignore these findings, instead choosing to construct five new stadiums and renovate one existing one. There seems to be no reasonable explanation for this choice, the government acting like a toddler who chooses to wear a new Halloween costume even though their one from last year remains in perfect condition, unused in their drawer. However, in the case of the World Cup, using last year’s Halloween costume would have saved the South Africans R1.1 billion. Of the five stadiums set to be constructed and completed by 2009, only the Royal Bafokeng Stadium was to be privately funded and privately owned.
In 2006, the plan was set in motion as construction of the Moses Mabhida Stadium began in Durban. This stadium met its goal of completion by 2009, with the total cost amounting to R3.4 billion. In 2007, construction began on the Mbombela Stadium, the Peter Mokaba Stadium, and the Cape Town Stadium, all within three months. The total costs for each stadium varied considerably; while the Mbombela Stadium cost R140 million in total and the Peter Mokaba Stadium cost R1.2 billion, the Cape Town stadium surpassed both with a total cost of R4.5 billion.
While these stadiums seem to have nothing in common, they share one common feature not physically detectable by the naked eye: their foundations have been soiled by corruption. Four years after their completion, during June of 2013, these crooked foundations would be uncovered when 15 construction companies agreed to pay fines for the collusive tendering of the stadiums’ construction. These companies paid a collective R1.46 billion for rigging the tenders by artificially inflating building costs for all the World Cup stadiums – an amount that has yet to be fully paid.
These twists and turns took place behind closed doors, away from the innocently ambitious eyes of the South African citizens playing football at their local clubs and taking out bank loans for their brilliant business plans linked to the World Cup. South Africans might not have skipped to the bank had they known that they would be financially burdened due to the amendment of several revenue laws, allowing for the generous tax breaks given to FIFA. If citizens were aware that on 7 June 2010, Bheki Cele approved the R47 million budget for SAPS accommodation during the World Cup, they might have invested in hotels rather than their own goals.
Chapter Three: Ghost Goal
It seemed that even before the 2010 World Cup had commenced, the South African government and the various private sectors involved in preparations were patting each other on the back for a job well done. The idea that the World Cup would prove to be an economic loss seemed unimaginable. Due to the nature of South Africa, particularly the vibrant liveliness of its citizens, the 2010 FIFA World Cup was on track for such social success that it would be fixed in both South African and football history for centuries. The World Cup took place from 11 June to 11 July. All South Africans needed was one month to make the 2010 World Cup the fourth most attended World Cup in history. On 11 July 2010, Spain emerged as the victors, breaking their world cup duck during the first World Cup on African soil. A decade has passed since then, and South Africans cannot help but wonder in which stadium all the prosperity and success that the government spoke of is hiding. What has South Africa gained from 13 years of babysitting FIFA’s one-month stands?
The World Cup held several positive outcomes, such as the revamped roads, street lights, new parks, clean streets, and developed infrastructure and transport. However, the challenge posed by the World Cup is the maintenance of such outcomes. South Africans have grudgingly covered exorbitant maintenance costs and losses through generously forced taxes. SARS’s statement that the event was not a profit-making exercise seems detached from the reality of South Africa’s tax usage and FIFA’s $631 million surplus.
Between 2010 and 2015, the Moses Mabhida Stadium required R2 million in maintenance costs every month. This stadium became the municipality’s responsibility in 2013, making a loss of R34.6 million that year alone. While reports reflect successful usage of the Mabhida Stadium as the venue for football games, concerts and even bungee jumping, tales of undisclosed employees reveal a different story. With annual maintenance costs of around R80 million, identical to those of Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium, employees and residents report being evicted from the stadium due to cracked infrastructure, poor design with weakening pressure points and uninhabitable living conditions. The State’s FIFA dream of shooting for the stars is best reflected by Mabhida’s Sky Car, which has been broken since 2017.
The most controversial of FIFA and South Africa’s one-month stands is the Cape Town Stadium, holding similar characteristics to a burnt-out child prodigy. This stadium embodies what a state will do in the name of fame rather than community development and sustainability. Before settling on Green Point Common as the location of the semi-final stadium, many viewed the existing Athlone Stadium as the ideal position for football fun and future prosperity. Athlone, surrounded by the infamous Cape Flats, was the location initially proposed as the ideal stadium. It seemed a no-brainer, with most fans living in the area embodying the passion, spirit and worthiness of a first-world football stadium. Along with this, securing Athlone would lead to various socio-economic improvements for this impoverished area, as funding would be allocated to roads, transport, and hotels. This made FIFA’s insistent rejection of the Athlone Stadium heartbreaking.
Instead, FIFA preferred the construction of a heavenly white elephant mystically overlooking Table Mountain, forcefully excluding the Cape Flats. This construction was approved because of the then minister’s agreement with Stade de France, a French company that managed some of the top international stadiums, to operate the stadium for 30 years after the World Cup. However, shortly after the World Cup final, Stade de France backed out of this agreement, stating that their shareholders refused to support the “projected substantial losses” of the Cape Town Stadium. This French revelation led to South Africans picking up the tax, attempting to cover an annual loss of R55.1 million. Not to mention the 227 124 litres of weekly watering that is required to maintain a grass field such as Greenpoint Stadium.
Tax expenditure is not the only consequence that South Africans continue to experience. While the sunlight continues to touch the stadiums on their glistening mountains, South Africans remain in the dark. During preparations for the World Cup, Eskom spent R84 million in energy generation, transmission, and distribution. However, former Eskom chief Tshediso Matona stated that the increase in loadshedding over the past years is partly due to the strain on the national grid, causing a backlog in maintenance due to providing power during the World Cup and national elections. Although Pravin Gordhan reported that the World Cup added 0.4% to national economic growth (roughly R38 billion that year), this does not make for a sustainable project. A decade after the World Cup, South Africa’s gross domestic product growth decreased from 3.4% to 0.153%. Additionally, inflation increased from 4.0% to 4.2%, and government debt increased from 34.7% to 62.23%.
The 2010 FIFA World Cup remains a historic event, responsible for the creation of millions of beautiful and unifying memories for South Africans. However, the costs of maintaining these memories through tusked monuments and financial expenditure leads you to ask: at what cost should you externally preserve a memory? Is a unifying memory better than unifying infrastructure and sustainable development? What does it mean when a state provides more financial protection to these concrete white elephants than the living African elephant?
