QUOTE
The World Cup has been awarded to South Africa for 2010 ... but that decision is now under siege. When the Cup was awarded to South Africa, it was sort of a "make-up" for giving it to Germany in 2006 (think back: South Africa was the front-runner for the Cup back in 2000, and we were all shocked when FIFA instead returned it to Europe).
Originally, the South African Cup was to celebrate the fall of apartheid in the country as well as the promise that African soccer and society hold. The problem is, since South Africa's delegation, led by the charismatic Danny Jordaan charmed the FIFA Congress way back in 1998, things have rapidly gone downhill.
Today, South Africa has a lot of problems: Its society remains largely segregated, this time as a function of an economy where whites still control a majority of the country's cashflow; it has an appallingly high crime rate; it lacks basic services for some of its residents; and most of all, it hasn't got the infrastructure to host an event of this magnitude.
As a result, there has been a low-key campaign behind the scenes — involving some African delegates who don't wish to see their continent held up by the world's press as, well, a crime-ridden cesspool unable to take care of its citizenry — to get South Africa to bow out.
There is precedent for this (Colombia turned back the 1986 Cup; China had the 2003 WWC relocated after the SARS outbreak there) and there are countries who wish to host it. One of those, funny enough, is the USA which has been involved in some quiet discussions with FIFA that have made it clear the country is willing to step in to host if need be.
While this might make some howl, if one thinks about this from a FIFA perspective, it makes a great deal of sense. 1994 was the best-attended World Cup as well as arguably the highest-grossing if adjusted for inflation (final numbers on 2006 are unavailable, but FIFA forecasts a $40 million profit according to President Sepp Blatter). It also has a number of huge arenas ready to go, experience in event-management, and best of all, a fan base from around the globe ready to pack stadia.
Originally, the South African Cup was to celebrate the fall of apartheid in the country as well as the promise that African soccer and society hold. The problem is, since South Africa's delegation, led by the charismatic Danny Jordaan charmed the FIFA Congress way back in 1998, things have rapidly gone downhill.
Today, South Africa has a lot of problems: Its society remains largely segregated, this time as a function of an economy where whites still control a majority of the country's cashflow; it has an appallingly high crime rate; it lacks basic services for some of its residents; and most of all, it hasn't got the infrastructure to host an event of this magnitude.
As a result, there has been a low-key campaign behind the scenes — involving some African delegates who don't wish to see their continent held up by the world's press as, well, a crime-ridden cesspool unable to take care of its citizenry — to get South Africa to bow out.
There is precedent for this (Colombia turned back the 1986 Cup; China had the 2003 WWC relocated after the SARS outbreak there) and there are countries who wish to host it. One of those, funny enough, is the USA which has been involved in some quiet discussions with FIFA that have made it clear the country is willing to step in to host if need be.
While this might make some howl, if one thinks about this from a FIFA perspective, it makes a great deal of sense. 1994 was the best-attended World Cup as well as arguably the highest-grossing if adjusted for inflation (final numbers on 2006 are unavailable, but FIFA forecasts a $40 million profit according to President Sepp Blatter). It also has a number of huge arenas ready to go, experience in event-management, and best of all, a fan base from around the globe ready to pack stadia.
