- The Washington Times - Thursday, June 10, 2010

Not since Nelson Mandela stepped out of Robben Island prison after decades of imprisonment and the walls of apartheid came down has South Africa been so much in the global spotlight. In the next 30-plus days, Africa’s economic powerhouse will engage in a rite of passage by hosting the FIFA World Cup soccer championship.

This is the first time the world’s biggest single sporting event has been held on the African continent.

No other tournament, not even the Olympics, quite transfixes the world as the World Cup. The 64 games, involving 32 national teams, 10 venues and nine cities, will be followed closely by fans in every corner of the globe. Thousands of journalists and a projected 373,000 foreign visitors are descending on South Africa. Nearly 2.9 million tickets have been sold, and an estimated worldwide audience of more than 1 billion will watch the championship game July 11 in Johannesburg. Outside of South Africa, most tickets have been purchased by American (132,000) and British fans.

But beyond its sporting impact, for South Africa, the World Cup is seen as another defining moment in the history of the developing nation.

“It was not FIFA who decided to give the 2010 World Cup to South Africa,” said Sepp Blatter, president of soccer’s world governing body. “Nelson Mandela, the world’s great humanist and charismatic leader, was the person who got the World Cup for South Africa.”

Soccer holds a special place in the South African sports firmament. It was a rare vehicle of black empowerment during the apartheid years, and repeatedly defied efforts by the white-run governments to prevent mixed-race matches and leagues. Mr. Mandela himself played soccer with fellow prisoners during his long confinement.

Even under apartheid, “soccer was a black-run sport, by and large - it was ahead of the curve,” Michigan State history professor Pater Alegi told the Associated Press.

As for the honor and headache of hosting the massive event, truth be told, it was Africa’s turn.

Previous World Cups were held in the Americas (including the United States), Europe and Asia. South Africa was awarded the event in 2004 after beating out a weak field of African rivals, including Libya and Egypt.

There was concern over the pace of preparations in South Africa, where World Cup organizers had to deal with labor strikes and the effects of the world economic recession.

“We want to explode the myth that there’s a contradiction between being African and being world-class,” chief organizer Danny Jordaan said in the book “Africa United” by Steve Bloomfield. “And it is a myth.”

The nation has spent more than $2.5 billion on building or updating stadiums. But against the backdrop of the finals, South Africa is still dealing with an image problem.

In a country where the unemployment rate hovers near 25 percent, crime is a major headache. The homicide rate is eight times worse than in the United States. South Africa has an estimated 5.7 million people infected with HIV, more than any other nation. And the nation’s polygamist president, Jacob Zuma, became embroiled in yet another sex scandal this week, after claims that one of his three wives is pregnant after an extramarital affair with her bodyguard, who has committed suicide.

For the 31 national teams that will join host South Africa, it has been a long two-year process of qualifying games to reach the tournament. The U.S. team had to play 16 games to reach the finals.

The World Cup is more popular than ever in the United States, where soccer has struggled to carve out a niche in the sports landscape.

“I think we’re going to see record television ratings,” said Kevin Payne, president of Washington’s D.C. United pro soccer franchise. “There is so much more interest in this World Cup and the U.S. team.”

One of the most-watched games will be between the U.S. team and England on Saturday at Rustenburg. The last time these teams met in the World Cup, the Americans pulled off one of the biggest upsets in the history of the game, beating England 1-0 in Brazil in 1950.

Unlike most of the other teams at the finals, the American team does not have the expectations of the whole nation on its shoulders. Still, ESPN is paying $100 million (including the rights to the 2014 finals in Brazil) and will cover every game, with a staff of more than 300 camped out in South Africa.

“The size and scope of this event and the groups of world broadcasters now that have assembled for this event, its spectacular,” said ESPN executive producer Jed Drake.

Don’t expect Mr. Mandela to be presenting the winning trophy to the home team as he did in 1995 when South Africa’s Springboks won the Rugby World Cup. Pundits are predicting that South Africa might be the first host nation not to advance from the four-team first-round stage. The team was drawn in a tough group with Mexico, France and Uruguay.

So who will win? An exhaustive study by the investment giant Goldman Sachs gives Brazil a 13.7 percent chance of beating Spain in the final. But take that with a pinch of salt. The study predicted Brazil over England in 2006, when it was Italy beating France in the final. The U.S. team comes in ninth in the study, with a 2.8 percent probability of being crowned World Cup winner.

“It’s not likely the U.S. will win the World Cup,” said Mr. Payne. “What is more important is that we win the right to host the World Cup.”

The U.S. is in bidding to host the 2018 or 2022 finals.

Copyright © 2018 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times is switching its third-party commenting system from Disqus to Spot.IM. You will need to either create an account with Spot.im or if you wish to use your Disqus account look under the Conversation for the link "Have a Disqus Account?". Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide