Johannesburg - The controversy swirling around South Africa’s 2010 World Cup has deepened further with fresh claims that Fifa allegedly identified serious issues with South Africa’s bid two weeks before choosing it as the host nation – but did nothing about it.
This was because football’s world governing body was more concerned with putting on a good “TV show” when it named South Africa as the winning bidder, according to a new report, which also says the tournament has left the country with “an oversupply of underutilised stadiums”.
The report says South Africans are still shouldering the financial burden of the tournament years down the line.
The research, published by a British academic days before nine Fifa officials were charged with decades of corruption, appears to undermine the idea that the organisation has been a positive force in Africa – a factor that played a key part in Sepp Blatter’s re-election as president, on Friday.
The disclosure comes as South Africa is still reeling from a $10 million scandal that has all but tarnished the country’s acclaimed status as a credible 2010 World Cup bid winner.
Danny Jordaan, who spearheaded South Africa’s 2010 bid, refused to comment on the report on Sunday. He referred enquiries to Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula, who also declined to comment.
“I am not going to comment on Fifa,” Mbalula said on Sunday.
The latest twist came as pressure mounted on Fifa president Sepp Blatter to quit over the corruption scandal. Britain has called on Europe to consider boycotting future World Cups, if Blatter doesn’t quit.
John Whittingdale, the British government minister with overall responsibility for sport, renewed calls for Blatter to step aside on Sunday, saying all options should be considered when it came to pressurising him to resign, including boycotting the World Cup.
Blatter has, meanwhile, downplayed the impact of the scandal on one of the world’s most powerful sports bodies.
The report found that only 15 days before the tournament was awarded to South Africa in 2004, Fifa officials noted that the estimated budgets put forward by the bid committee were wildly optimistic.
South Africa claimed that the cost per seat of each new stadium would work out at $636 (R7 727 at today’s exchange rates) – whereas rival bidders Egypt, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia priced theirs at between $1 818 and $2 691.
Fifa also appeared to realise that South Africa would not raise as much money through the sale of tickets as it estimated.
“In the inspection group’s opinion, the total amount of ticket sales revenue ($467 459 448) will be very difficult to reach,” they said. Ticket sales reached only $300m.
The paper, published in the journal Project Management, was produced by Dr Eamonn Molloy, who has spent 10 years studying the impact of “mega projects” on countries that hold sports tournaments.
“There was a bit of a Field of Dreams belief which is that if you build stadiums people will come and use them – but history shows us that virtually never happens,” Molloy said.
“Fifa was quite happy to proceed knowing that (South Africa’s) bid book proposals were way too optimistic.”
According to its accounts, Fifa made $2.35bn from the tournament, mainly from selling television rights, while South Africa spent $4.9bn – two-thirds of which was spent on building the stadiums.
Molloy added that even if the immense corruption allegations levelled at Fifa were put to one side, the organisation’s business model appeared to be “profoundly flawed” and did not work in the interests of developing countries. “It invests a little bit and extracts 10 times as much – I don’t think that’s a good deal,” he said.
“Fifa’s strategy is clearly profit-maximising and exploitative.
“Any claims that it has a net benefit in any of the countries where it hosts the World Cup – there’s no evidence to suggest that. There’s strong evidence to suggest it ends up costing those countries significant amounts of money.”
In South Africa, many of the stadiums left behind were “overdesigned” and contained expensive equipment which had to be maintained at taxpayers’ expense, even though some of it was never used.
Meanwhile, Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula again distanced the government from the reported $10m bribe paid to secure the 2010 World Cup bid. He said whatever money that might have changed hands between South African and Fifa officials – whether in the form of a bribe or not – was not public money.
“We remain concerned at the ongoing media speculation which only plays into the hands of those whose objective it is to tarnish the good name and integrity of our country. We reject these falsehoods with the contempt they deserve,” Mbalula said on Sunday.
But he contradicted Jordaan, who admitted to the $10m, which he said was paid to the Confederation of North, Central American and Caribbean Association Football in 2008, as South Africa’s contribution towards their football development fund.
Independent on Sunday and The Star