South Africa is not yet in a place where the benefit of hosting the Olympics will be greater than the expenditure, says Brij Maharaj.
Durban - Recent media reports have suggested that the government is considering making a bid to host the Olympic Games in 2024 or 2028, and that Durban could be the host city.
South Africa did not bid for the 2020 games because the government “decided to allow more time to focus on social priorities such as poverty”. Presumably, by 2024 problems of poverty would be solved.
Clearly, the lessons of Fifa 2010 have not been learnt. Perhaps government officials and politicians have amnesia about the lingering hangover of Fifa 2010, where the cost of stadiums had virtually doubled from R8.4 billion to R16.2bn without any public oversight.
There have been legitimate concerns that the escalation in the costs of the stadiums resulted in the diversion of funds from more urgent social needs such as housing, health care and education.
Notwithstanding the government and Fifa’s promises, the different 2010 projects paid rhetorical lip service to reducing the socio-economic inequalities in South Africa, and addressing the needs of the poor. No consideration had been given to the sustainable viability of the stadiums after the World Cup, and they were likely to be “white elephants” and a burden on taxpayers who have to shoulder maintenance costs.
As the Anti-Privatisation Forum warned in 2010: “The massive amounts of public funds used to build new stadiums and related infrastructure for this World Cup have only served to further deny poor people the development and services they have been struggling for over many years… This World Cup is not for the poor – it is the soccer elites of Fifa, the elites of domestic and international corporate capital and the political elites who are making billions and who will be benefiting at the expense of the poor”.
The Durban Social Forum similarly asserted that “the ANC government delivers world class facilities and infrastructure to the rich that the majority of South Africans will never enjoy… Vulnerable children, traders, the poor, homeless, shackdwellers, refugees… are forcibly removed so tourists won’t see them… Our government has sold its citizens out for a gigantic, short-term publicity stunt and we must not let them forget their responsibilities”.
Why would cities compete to host the Olympic Games? One view is that neo-liberal global restructuring has forced cities around the world to compete for investments in an international market in order to boost declining economies. Some of the more prominent urban promotion strategies include stimulating investment in businesses through the provision of incentives and marketing the city as a tourist and sporting destination.
Sport, which was once viewed as a form of entertainment, has now emerged as an important political, social and economic force. A good example in this regard is the competition to host the Olympic Games.
A common argument is that the Olympic Games provide opportunities for development by attracting foreign investment. Bidding to host global events like the Olympics has become an important local economic development (LED) strategy and has forced cities to compete nationally and internationally. There is a view that hosting events such as the Olympic Games offers the “possibility of ‘fast track’ urban regeneration, a stimulus to economic growth, improved transport and cultural facilities, and enhanced global recognition and prestige”.
Although such events do produce benefits, the international experience suggests that the privileged tend to benefit at the expense of the poor, and that socio-economic inequalities tend to be exacerbated. The urban poor have suffered most from the restructuring and adjustment strategies and bear the brunt of reduced subsidies, increased cost of food and services, reduced wages, increasing unemployment, and reduced social expenditure.
The success of Los Angeles in 1984 has created a vague belief that staging the Olympic Games is the same as “having a licence to print money, as well as offering many beneficial social spin-offs in areas such as housing, tourism and transport”.
However, the Olympic Games is a short-term event which often has long-term consequences. Los Angeles, and more recently, Atlanta, did make a profit – but remain the only Games since the modern Olympics began in 1896 to break even without government subsidy. The general experience is that in most countries the taxpayer picks up a heavy bill for the Olympics.
South African cities have not been immune to these global trends. The move toward democratisation in South Africa opened cities to international pressures such as globalisation and the need to restructure local economies in order to promote economic growth. In Durban prominent LED strategies would be the construction of the International Convention Centre and the uShaka Marine Park (and ratepayers continue to subsidise the losses of these enterprises). Durban also had a reputation for important sporting activities such as the July Handicap, the Comrades Marathon and several surfing events.
Until 1990, the target market for such audiences was largely national and white. However, since then there has been an aggressive attempt to market Durban as a city with the potential to host world-class sporting events.
These strategies emerged as Durban grappled with rapid population growth, a slow economic growth rate, housing backlogs, an increasing number of informal settlements, escalating poverty, high unemployment rates and an inadequate supply of basic services to the majority of the population. Durban’s focus on sport was largely influenced by the notion that an entrepreneurial approach to urban governance could help boost investment and generate economic growth. Great emphasis was placed on local economic development strategies driven by public-private partnerships.
However, a major issue was whether the poor would benefit from such partnerships.
In 1999 consultancy firm KPMG argued that marketing Durban as a sporting city was just one example of urban regeneration. It reinforces civic pride among residents, giving them an opportunity to participate and enjoy a sense of ownership. It can also be classified as a special event that creates a spectacle and draws tourists, creates media hype and raises the profile of an area.
However, a major concern was that the different sporting events in Durban (as well as planned future ones) paid rhetorical lip service to reducing the socio-economic inequalities in the region, and addressing the needs of the poor; were largely driven by corporate interests; and were underwritten with public funds, with limited or no public participation. Urban redevelopment research clearly shows that traditional LED approaches has done very little to improve the living conditions for the majority of urban dwellers. It has, in fact, increased inequality and urban dualism. There are many reasons for the failure of these projects, all of which centre around the unequal relationship between the elite and the poor.
The international experience suggests that mega-sporting events were organised largely by the private sector, with little or no accountability to citizens or elected officials, although its decisions were likely to have major public policy implications.
The nature of urban governance associated with these events is “characterised by less democratic and more elite-driven priorities”. Sporting mega-events should create zones of opportunity for those who had been historically disadvantaged; integrate the city so that urban resources are accessible to all citizens; and ensure popular participation in the planning process. Greater emphasis should be placed on policies that sustain growth through redistribution.
This will also require a more direct intervention by the state than that currently envisaged.
* Brij Maharaj is a professor of geography at the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
** The views expressed here are not necessarily those of Independent Newspapers.
The Mercury