When South Africa won the right to host the 2010 Fifa World Cup many of us danced in the streets (in a manner of speaking). Finally, we had won the right to host a really major international sporting event (no offence to rugby and cricket, but those World Cups were Micky Mouse compared to the Fifa event.)
We all remembered the Zapiro cartoon published after Cape Town lost the bid to host the 2004 Olympics to eventual host city, Athens: A dejected Capetonian dragging a “Cape Town 2004″ banner behind him is seen saying: “Athens se ma se….” Now it would be our time to shine on the international stage – and make some money too.
How naive we were.
We did not realise that Fifa was a rather shadowy body with authoritarian tendencies. We did not realise then that the Fifa fat-cat executives cared little about South Africa and its people and very much about making obscene profits while placing impossible demands on the host country.
Fifa demanded that the Cape Town soccer stadium be built in Greenpoint and not where it was needed in Athlone because it would look good on TV – and the city jumped. Fifa demanded that host cities do something about “the homeless problem” – and once again the host cities jumped, embarking on probably illegal action to intimidate the most vulnerable and marginalised in our society and arresting and intimidating the homeless.
Now we learn that Fifa is imposing impossibly draconian conditions on journalists who wish to be accredited with Fifa.
Fifa’s terms and conditions for the accreditation of journalists state that news organisations may not “harm the reputation of the Fifa World Cup” or “engage in conduct which expresses … charity or ideological concern (sic) related views, which could impair the enjoyment of the Fifa World Cup by other spectators, or detract from the sporting focus of the Fifa World Cup”.
Well, I have news for Fifa: these conditions are most probably unconstitutional. Unlike in many other constitutional democracies, our Bill of Rights does not only apply to the state. Because the drafters of the South African Constitution understood very well how individuals and powerful organisations like Fifa could infringe on the rights of ordinary citizens, it ensured that the Bill of Rights applied not only vertically (protecting us from abuse of power by the state) but also – in certain circumstances – horizontally (protecting us from the abuse of power by private individuals and institutions).
This does not mean that I cannot chase someone from my house if he or she makes a racist statement on the grounds that I would be infringing on that person’s right to freedom of expression. After all, limiting a person’s freedom of expression to say what he or she likes in my private home will have no consequences for our democracy, for the free flow of information and for the public’s right to know what is going on in the country.
It does mean, however, that Fifa is probably constitutionally prohibited from imposing such draconian restrictions on journalists.
The difference between my two examples is that Fifa is an extremely powerful body and holds a near monopoly on providing access to journalists to report effectively on the World Cup. Journalists who do not get accreditation from Fifa would be at a distinct disadvantage when reporting on the World Cup and they are therefore placed in an untenable position: either agree to the Fifa censorship or lose out.
But if journalists cannot report fairly and accurately about Fifa and the World Cup because they are forced by Fifa to censor themselves, the right of the general public to be fully informed about the World Cup and to be told both the good and the bad things about it would be severely limited. I suspect this kind of censorship that Fifa wishes to impose therefore unconstitutionally limits the right to freedom of expression and a free media guaranteed in section 16 of the Constitution.
Lawyers for the big media houses have written to Fifa to point this out to them, so the ball is now in Fifa’s court. One suspects they will play hardball and will try and intimidate the media to enforce their censorship on everyone. After all, Fifa is used to getting its way. Hopefully the media will stand its ground and will go to court on behalf of the nation as a whole to ensure that our news on the World Cup is not censored in the way.
This World Cup is not a private affair. Billions of Rand of public money have been spent on the World Cup in building stadiums and upgrading infrastructure and much more of our money will be spent on security for the event. South Africans therefore have a right to know about both the good and the bad things about the World Cup and about Fifa.
If Fifa demands from the government that it arrest protesters or remove the homeless from the streets, journalists should be free to report on this and should not fear that their accreditation will be revoked if they tell us about it.
Obviously Fifa would not like this – just as governments generally do not like this. But luckily we live in a constitutional democracy where even a bully like Fifa has to play by the rules. Let the games begin.
Well said Pierre. Agreed wholeheartedly. I think the moving of homeless people — out of sight out of mind — is the most disgusting and cynical thing I’ve encountered in a long time.
I agree…but also disagree. Yes, FIFA do have draconian measures; yes, they do make huge demands of the host country; yes, they make all the HUGE profit from the competition.
But… We knew (or could have known, if we had bothered to look) at the time of bidding for the games, about almost all these issues. I am also not convinced that FIFA forced the Greenpoint location on us. The bid was won with Newlands as the main Cape Town Stadium. Only later were FIFA offered Greenpoint (which of course they jumped for, given the photogenic nature of the location). But it was offered by us first, and I am sure had we not offered it, we could have stuck to the details of the original bid, as accepted at the time.
As far as the draconian measures for journalists; yes, I (as a supporter of Freedom of Expression) am very uncomfortable with this. But (here we go again!) no one is going to force any journalist to become accredited. Of course, FIFA will entice journalists to sign up, with amazing facilities, and access to different people and places. If a journalist does not sign, then she / he can still go to the matches (along with the general public), and exercise his / her right to write whatever they want. Surely this is the same as working for almost any large organisation? If I publically stated that my boss was corrupt, and useless, then I would expect to be looking for a new job very quickly. If FIFA is giving all sorts of benefits to journo’s then surely in the same way, they can ask for something in return (i.e. protection for their product – which is worth millions to them). If, for example I built a car, then I could offer it to journo’s to test drive. Ideally, I would not restrict what they wrote, but I may put a requirement to have editorial rights on their articles, so as not to portray my car in a bad light. If it was a nice red Ferrari, and the drive included some of the best race tracks in the world, then some journo’s may decide that the offer was reasonable, and take it. Others (like say BBC’s Clarkson) may tell me to shove my offer, and go out and purchase my car from the dealer, and then write a dismal road test report. Of course it is a cynical move, and FIFA should be exposed from doing so…but if you don’t like it, then don’t sign.
Hear hear!!!
Prof agree with you 100%
Guy Davies says:
January 29, 2010 at 10:00 am
“Of course, FIFA will entice journalists to sign up, with amazing facilities, and access to different people and places”.
Seem to me that they are looking for PR people in exchange for “all sorts of benefits”.
I have no doubt that there will be takers!
I firmly believe that Fifa are just short of a Mafia operation and I remain unconvinced that our country stands to gain much as we could from the tournament.
Prohibiting street hawkers and businesses to operate within a certain radius of the stadium is not only excessive, it also limits the economic benefits that could have been gained.
As usual, Zapiro says it best: http://www.mg.co.za/zapiro/all. (The link may not pull the correct cartoon as the site updates occasionally.)
Yes, FIFA are a tough operation (and too tough at times, I feel). But they have a product that is worth millions to them, and they are just doing everything they can to protect it.
I ought to ‘declare an interest’; I do not work for FIFA, but my company has worked on several FIFA related projects. I believe that this huge global event will be good for South Africa in the long run. The event itself will only make money for FIFA (and it will make bucketfuls of the stuff). Our gains will only come later, as the world sees South Africa (either as visitors, or through the TV) for the first time, and (hopefully) they will be impressed with what they see, and be tempted to choose South Africa as a future holiday destination. When I travel overseas, I am regularly amazed with the preconceptions that many (educated) people have about South Africa (no, all the towns do not look like Soweto, and no, all the countryside does not look like the Kruger. We do not have to go to work in Land Rovers, dodging the Lion & Elephant on route from our mud huts).
This is a money making event for FIFA, and a marketing window opportunity for South Africa. FIFA have so many requirements, they almost cannot fail. We, however, could easily lose… I don’t think we will though…
I am glad that South Africans are waking up to see the FIFA and the world cup for what they are. I still do not believe that a third world country like ours can benefit from hosting such a demanding event. Money has been made by construction companies and FIFA makes money in marketing, rights , advertising, Match(accomodation & Travel) and buckets load of money. Only to give SA just more than a billion rand to SAFA. By the time this party starts we would have spend more than R18 billion excluding Gautrain. The visistors will not contribute much to our retail figures and hence the economic benefit will be minimal.
The corruption in FIFA is well documented and uplifting the poor is not one of their priorities. Leading economists in our country are starting to send warning signs about the exaggerated benefits of hosting this cup. SA will never know what might have happened if we spent MORE than R18 on our infrastrctural needs rather than building stadiums that might end up as white elephants.
Let the games begin!!!!!!!!!!!
There is huge Babalaaz ON THE WAY!!!!!!!
http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page329569?oid=343235&sn=2009+Detail&pid=287226
Latest from FIFA is that Figures for foreign visitors have been revised from 800 000 TO 500 000.
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1109081
Zakumi
Ahh! Fifa! Are we only now finding out? And what did we expect, now really.
Story of the day folks is Cwele’s wife on drug charges. The Hawks sure wouldn’t make these charges if they didn’t think they had the evidence to make it stick, right? So now, what will Simelane decide…. do I have the spelling of his name right, can’t bother checking, the man is so bent.
Friday night, all you party players out on the town. My chance to ramble here with a glass of wine on my privileged erf with all its beauty in the Western Cape, my thanks to those who came before who made this possible.
We know things have to change, absolutely, undeniably, the very survival of all the people of SA is at stake, well to a degree, the poor have always been with us according to JC, and those we have laughed at about Zim (can never happen here) may be right. At least I can swim.
I recall one of your earlier posts Prof where you were so attacked on ‘so-called’ unpatriotic comments, ho hum, that you apologized, and I understand why you would do that. When facing a Godfather who can place the black hand on your door (a Mafia town symbol, where I grew up by the way) and which guarantees your eventual death, well one has to make a sensible apology.
The most damaging ramifications of all this rampant all encompassing corruption, is the development and daily encouragement of hate and anger, racist assaults, et al, that is growing exponentially, and understandably considering the circumstances… between black and white, and who gets the privilege of pillaging and thieving.
Are we, many of us, simply behaving like a ‘poes’, rather than defending the rights of Democracy? Are we worried about our wealth, of being driven into the sea, losing our understandably precious homes, property, assets? Or are there sufficient reasons we should shut up and just accept, ‘this is Africa’. Are we the new Jews hated for their wealth, ability and professionalism?
As a former westerner, I’m disgusted, and yet trying to remain positive. My life is so good here. I love the mix of cultures and colour and move within all of it with pleasure and appreciation.
But the anger and hate is growing. And interestingly, for the first time, the JSE is not following the global moves. This has not been considered yet by our local analyst(s) but my thoughts are that the global community, aware of the truly absurd levels of criminal corruption supported by the state of SA, is now getting cold feet, already the trends have changed for the worse. Take my word for it, I track it daily.
Where government becomes criminal, investment ends by all but the criminal.
My fear is that the anger cum fruiting hate is growing daily. Somehow we have to diminish this, while yet firming the rule of law. Question: Is it even possible?
Enjoy your Friday, and all the best in not having a hangover, or worrisome guilt.
If we wonder whether ANY of FIFA’s requirements or demands would be reasonable, we should consider how many FIFA World Cup™ tournaments they have organised and compare that to how many South Africa has. They have their exploitation tactics distilled to a fine art by now, and every 4 years they get another country with stars in their eyes to serve as host for their parasitic feeding.
There is no opportunity for making any money without FIFA taking a cut. Greed masquerading as good is the worst greed.
We who follow news reports and subsequently the immediate comments which the internet has graciously made possible, we are aware of those who are amateur spin doctors, and I would not be surprised if they were paid, modern versions of those committed to disinformation, or wannabe spin doctors, who will excuse the ruling elilte of anything in hope of their own advancement. As for myself, I don’t even read their posts, by checking the writer’s name in advance.
Thinking opponents are obvious and need to be read and responded to. They are trying to understand and in them we need put some faith that they might actually understand and act on it. It is clear that there is a portion of the black middle class, probably Christian oriented, who are starting to doubt, as well they should.
Anger enduced hatred for the wrongs by our criminal elite, which we are justified in responding to with indignity, are not the answer. I don’t believe that those who did not have opportnity, education, or values imprinted, can be expected to right things. Why would we expect it of them.
So here’s the challenge…. like Spiderman (don’t laugh please) those who have been given power (and our power is unquestionable, if not political) have a responsiblity to utilize such power for the benefit of all.
Are you up to it?
One of the facets of South Africa of which I am most proud is our ability to take on foreign “first world” influences, and adapt them to our particular “local flavour”. We don’t blindly embrace what is dangled in front of our eyes; instead we strip out the good lessons, discard the bad, and mix it all up with our diverse cultural spirit into a better fitting result.
That’s the process that has left us with arguably the “best” or most equitable constitution of the modern world.
Shouldn’t we be adopting the same approach towards FIFA and the World Cup. We should be debating and challenging, not listening meekly and accepting. We should be publicly pointing out the holes in the arguments, the disparities between commercial interests and human rights.
If needs be, we should be boycotting, protesting, and obstructing.
This is the first “African World Cup”. For the sake of the ongoing health of the tournament, for the sake of the spirit and vitality of the global game, it is as important for Africa to stamp its mark on the tournament, as it is for the tournament to leave an impression on South Africa.
Perhaps it can be expressed most simply in die taal van die Kaap:
FIFA se p**s !
It’s our beautiful game.
“According to the report, South Africa sells weapons to, among others, Sudan, Gabon, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Algeria, Egypt and Central African Republic. Not all of these are engaged in war, rebellion or oppression but arms can easily transit through to war-torn areas.
What should worry South African authorities is that several of the required permits for the arms sales as well as the verification of the end- user – to prevent sales to criminals or rogue states – are missing.”
http://www.citypress.co.za/Content/SouthAfrica/News/2168/537640b838f8435caaa2e7ebfc3fc16a/31-01-2010-02-00/Arms_control_chaos
Surprised were selling weapons to Sundan, where the Arabic North that controls the state is persecuting blacks in Dafur and waging war against the black South.
Dear Prof
I can’t agree with you more on this topic. As a matter of fact I find it extremely difficult to find something in the past that you have mentioned that I don’t agree with.
As a street photojournalist for Demotix I recently highlighted the issue of street kids and how hard they struggle just to survive. It can be found here:
http://www.demotix.com/news/230753/street-kids-south-africa
An article which appeared in The Times “Zakumi: Chinese workers earn R23 a day” elaborates on human rights and the abuse thereof. It can be found here:
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/article283081.ece
Then Andrew Jennings who wrote “Foul!” experienced great difficulties in trying to report on the workings of FIFA. His website can be found here:
transparencyinsport.org
Regards
I agree.
An example:
FIFA’s lawyers, Spoor & Fisher (www.spoor.com), wasted no time in misusing the Counterfeit Goods Act (CGA)(13/1997) to close down informal Soweto traders who made up their own 2010 trinkets to sell at the roadside. The Spoor website tells us that their senior partner, Owen Dean, drafted this legislation for the govenment.
The problem with the 1997 CGA is that it grants Anton Piller relief (and powers) to the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI) inspector, armed with the court order, to act on a complaint by obtaining an affidavit from a complainant and then asking a Magistrate to grant a raid order in chambers.
The raid then takes place without Sheriffs or supervising attorneys. The CGA does not provide for the Respondent to be given a copy of the affidavit on which the raid order is granted. A court file is not opened and the affidavit/s and other documents remain with the DTI who refuse to hand them over but refer one to the complainant’s attorney – who invariably refuses to give out anything. (Which means that one will have difficuly challenging such a raid.)
I have first hand experience in which a raid order was obtained under false pretenses for an ulterior motive and the respondent was unable to take the matter further.
But then I suppose that there is much that is unconstitutional and otherwise unjust in our beloved country. I realise that the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (108/1996) is merely a transitional document and probably wont see itself through to 2020. Perhaps it is merely ‘tourist legislation’ designed to impress visitors to our country. Really sad.
I find it strange that Pierre is bringing up this topic 5 months before the event and at a time when it is almost after-the fact(!). Now why didn’t you make a fuss before or at the time SA won the bet? Surely, these would have been the best times to have made South Africans realise about the so-called “draconian” and evil FIFA? Makes no sense trying to question the issue at this late stage and crying about spilt milk. Bad timing Pierre!
Pierre, another issue: the World Cup is a call for tender from the FIFA; meaning that each country applying to host such event must be fully aware of the conditions and obligations placed on it when submitting an offer to host such event. Now, given that SA did in fact read and comply with these conditions of tender, one can hardly accuse the FIFA from being “false” as you are attempting to do in this article.
Certainly, the question of hosting a play in a stadium in Green Point as opposed to Athlone are two different issues. First, there is the question of better safety and security in either stadium (more specifically, a lack of safety and security as in the case of Athlone). Second, naturally every country hosting such an event of such a dimension would want to “put its best foot forward” and present itself from its best side – which country wouldn’t want to do this? To maintain anything else would be arguing past the reality and lateral logic. Did you think that Germany, when it hosted the world cup, built stadiums in socially problematic areas like Muelheim or Neukoeln in Berlin to present itself? And it wasn’t because FIFA had “coerced” Germany into building stadiums elsewhere either. So, very much in the same manner, I assume it is out of a pure sense of accountability towards people from abroad (and locally) that a decision in favour of Green Point was taken – and rightly so too. After all, we also have a responsibility in terms of safety and security towards those visitors coming to SA to support the World Cup. After all, Athlone is not exactly the safest place for foreigners to sojourn, let alone it being the most interesting place to host an international event? It is folly to therefore maintain and expect FIFA or South Africa to hold events of such magnitude in places like Athlone. Furthermore, what was so “needed” in terms of the stadium being built in Athlone? Assuming the stadium had been built in Athlone, would the safety and security factors have been increased, what would the so-called benefits have been (in terms of your argument) to the people in this area? Your argumentation in this respect is completely untenable and spurious, to say the least.
Germany as a first world country and a football nation required less upgrade of its facilities and as a result they did not spend as as much as we did nor did they re-direct substatial money from social spending. The size of their economy can affort to host a 30 days party (World Cup) without denying their citizens much services. A few individuals decided to respond to this tender to host 2010 and they knew where to pick up benefits.
In the papers this weekend there was an article about provinces/metros buying emergency and health equipment that is kept under lock and key for the world cup. This reminds me of a parent who can host a 5 star party in a marquee behind a shack for a day and spend a substatial money on visitors rather than changing the circumstances of his/her family.
Gwebecimele:
It is true that Germany is a first world country as opposed to SA being a developing country and it may be that Germany needed “less” money to upgrade their stadiums. It does however not change the fact that the places where the games were held were safe places and places not located near/in socially problematic areas – and this is the point here.
@ Andy.
Agreed.
But the people of SA did not know the conditions and obligations of hosting the WC and only a few are starting to realise the false promises.
@ Gwebecimele: As Andy stated above, it was our obligation to read and understand the terms and conditions of holding the event, when we put our bid in. I am sure that they were looked at, at that time (they were certainly available to anyone who wanted to look), and agreed to. If our local committee failed to pass this information on to the public in the build up to the bid, then we can hardly blame FIFA?
To me, it seems that people are forgetting what FIFA is. It is a business. A rich and powerful business. It has a product (the Soccer World Cup), that South Africa said it wanted to hold. FIFA has an obligation to its shareholders, and employees but to no one else, other than the usual obligations of any other large business. There is only really one reason for being in business…and that is to make money. If you don’t do that you will not be in business for very long! They are only interested in maximising the potential profits from their product, and protecting their product. They have no real interest in the lives of the average South African, or the revenue potantial of small businesses close to the stadium. They have basically said to South Africa, “if you want to host this tournament, then these are our conditions”. South Africa signed. If we didn’t want to then there was a list of other countries that wanted to.
Of course they are going to play hardball, and look after their product, of course they are going too try to make it as attractive as possible for sponsors. I agree it is a little heavy handed to censor the media as they do, but it is not unusual for big business to act in this way. Many companies & indeed important people would ask for editorial rights before agreeing to be interviewed, or making information available to the media. It is not unusual, and it is not sudden.
Guy DAVIES, are you sure you are Guy DAVIES and not Rob DAVIES who is the Minister of Trade & Industry?
http://www.whoswhosa.co.za/user/4745
Can anyone link us to the clauses of the terms and conditions for the media stipulating that journalists are not allowed to report negatively about FIFA?!
http://www.thoughtleader.co.za/gavinfoster/2010/03/29/shake-off-the-2010-world-cup-hangover-with-sepp/
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=105014
SAA promised 45000 return tickets bookings now reduced to 1000.
Get ready for the hangover.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article384508.ece/Weve-sold-our-flag-to-Fifa-at-the-expense-of-the-poor
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1130103
And now the omnipotent body even wants free citizens to ask for permission before holding a party!
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?from=rss_News&set_id=1&click_id=79&art_id=vn20100413044016879C948384
How can we rent out a country for free (R1 bn guaranteed profit) for a month to a group of idividuals with questionable interests.
From a Bussines Day letter;
WE ARE just starting to see the full horror of what the government signed away in its determination to land the event that starts at that stadium between Soweto and Johannesburg on June 11. (We can’t risk using “2010”, of course, or “soccer” or even “world cup”, because those trademarks may belong to Fifa and we have no desire to be had up for ambush marketing!)
That Fifa and its friends and relations are the major beneficiaries of World Cup soccer is no secret. You pay, they profit; that’s the package you sign up for when you agree to host the tournament, and you just hope it brings some long- term benefits.
Even so, it’s hard not to wonder whether SA got ripped off more than other, richer countries were when it signed those World Cup contracts. Were we too gullible, too desperate to land the tournament to stand up to Fifa’s sharp lawyers?
Not necessarily. In every country, it’s the government that negotiates the contracts, but businesses (and consumers) that take the rap. Did the government ask business what those draconian ambush marketing conditions would mean? Probably not.
But businesses are fighting back, and winning in unexpected ways. Kulula got more international airtime out of Fifa’s attempt to stifle its quirky ad campaign than it could ever have hoped for. Even businessman Grant Abrahamse, who is contesting Fifa’s bid to banish his vuvuzela keyring holder in court, is getting priceless publicity. And news that Fifa is investigating 50000 cases of ambush marketing in SA, compared with only 3700 in Germany four years ago, suggests either that South Africans have more of a sense of humour than Germans — or that they are simply feistier.
The next question is what happens when Fifa effectively takes over SA, in terms of its contract, from the last week of May. During the World Cup, Sepp Blatter will in effect be SA’s president. So could you rein in Julius please while you’re at it, Mr Blatter?
i am just so very tired of the motley assortment of political and sporting “leaders” who are simply spitting on our precious, hard-earned freedom.
It is profoundly disturbing to realize that the majority of SA citizens are simply unaware of their rights.
Whatever happens, we as ordinary citizens must realize that ultimately we are governed by our Constitution, definitely not FIFA, not the ANC, the DA or anybody else.
After more than 15 years, we really do need to begin to understand what the word “freedom” really means.
i fully intend attending the World Cup matches. i will most definitely exercise my freedom and my rights and:-
Wear what i like
Eat what i like
Drink what i like
Buy shirts and other memoribilia from vendors who do not have FIFA licences.
I have an abiding sense that organized crime, in all it’s various forms, is ruling our lives.
Too many lives were lost, too many families destroyed for us to not make a serious attempt to personally protect our hard-earned freedom. If we do not. Then we too will be ranked amongst those who disrespect the concept of freedom.
We must guard our constitution, and the human rights enshrined within it, with everything we have.
FIFA does not pay tax
FIFA to be exempt from taxes
2010-04-16 07:49Email | Print
Jerome Valcke (Gallo)
Brasilia – Brazil agreed on Thursday to exempt FIFA and its partners from taxes for any goods and services related to the 2014 Soccer World Cup.
Brazilian Sports Minister Orlando Silva said the deal was reached in his meeting with FIFA secretary-general Jerome Valcke. Brazilian Planning Minister Nelson Machado and the president of the Brazilian Football Confederation (CBF), Ricardo Teixeira, were also present.
Silva said the television network that officially broadcasts the tournament will also be tax exempt.
“The decision to exempt FIFA is based on the assessment that Brazil stands to win a lot more by the stimulating effect on the economy. Releasing tax money will have a smaller impact than what is set to be generated by the economy and will be collected through taxes,” the minister noted.
Silva said the deal is still pending ratification by Congress. The tax exemption is expected to be valid January 2011-December 31, 2015, more than a year after the World Cup ends.
For a view of the real world in which FIFA lives, try the web site named transparencyinsport created by the British investigative journalist Andrew Jennings:-
http://www.transparencyinsport.org
Real beneficiaries of 2010
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1136539
Let the games begin!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1136917
Personally can’t wait for this party to be over then we can go back to real issues.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2010-04-30-cape-town-bullied-by-blatter-mbeki
Let Blatter drink and bath in our SA water for the duration of the worldcup.
I believe he is not even prepared to drink bottled water Bonaqua by Coca Cola, sponsor of world cup.
This is what happens when you hold a 5 star party in a shack.
http://www.watersolutions.co.za/tag/green-drop-report/
http://www.ewn.co.za/articleprog.aspx?id=39759
Let the games begin!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.timeslive.co.za/opinion/columnists/article454596.ece/So-what-happens-afterwards-
One tv , one light.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20100518111054693C976928
Cost of low self-esteem
ROGER SINCLAIR Published: 2010/05/18 07:38:22 AM
Monday’s brilliant and insightful column by Peter Bruce (The Thick End of the Wedge, May 17) provides a possible explanation to a problem I am facing and about which I planned to write to you today.
At the weekend I received our May Eskom electricity account. It was 50% higher than the previous month and more than double the amount for the same period two years ago. I suppose this is to ensure the so-called wealthy carry the brunt of the increase, minimising the effect on the indigent. I have no problem with that; it is the magnitude of the increase that shocked me. If it continues like this for the next two years of the planned 35% per annum increase, the cost of electricity in our home in 2012 will be over four times what it was in 2008.(Our rate per kilowatt-hour has risen from 34c to 80c for the bulk of our consumption)
We all know Eskom was denied the funds it requested 12 years ago to invest in new equipment and that we are now paying a price for this. That money was spent instead on the arms deal (about R60bn); Gautrain (about R25bn); and the World Cup (about R30bn). When our country was in such desperate need for teacher training colleges, schools, improved health services, housing, water and electricity, our leaders thought it preferable to spent this vast amount of money on projects that would boost their self-esteem. It is highly unlikely any of these three will contribute to the long-term welfare of the vast majority of South Africans, who will still be poor and unhoused when these projects are behind us.
Thank you Mr Bruce for explaining why this is.
Roger Sinclair
Morningside
http://www.iss.co.za/uploads/Mono169.pdf
Join the face book group ‘FIFA rules must change’ If enough of us stand up then maybe the draconian laws on vendors and advertisers and all those already doing business around the stadium can be changed!!! Maybe Brazil can get it right!!!
JABULANI SIKHAKHANE: Fifa requirements don’t scratch where SA itches
JABULANI SIKHAKHANE Published: 2010/05/24 07:39:12 AM
Jabulani Sikhakhane
mabheki65@mweb.co.za
REPORTS last week of yet more deaths of babies in public hospitals are a reminder of how threadbare the promise is by our political leadership that the hosting of the 2010 Fifa World Cup will leave a lasting legacy.
It’s a shame that a country that invests more than R1bn in building and upgrading existing healthcare infrastructure in order to meet the requirements set by the gods of world soccer is nevertheless incapable of preventing the deaths of its babies .
Soon after the death of six infants at the Charlotte Maxeke Academic hospital hit the headlines last week, a report came through of 11 deaths at the Natalspruit hospital. Later in the week, the SABC reported that 200 premature babies had died between January and this month at the Nelson Mandela Academic hospital in the Eastern Cape because of poor ventilation and oxygen systems.
Nurses in Johannesburg hospitals, the Sunday Independent reported yesterday, have warned that more babies may die if the government does not move fast to improve the quality of healthcare facilities. They said autoclaves (sterilisers) at Charlotte Maxeke’s neonatal unit had not been tested for months. Autoclaves, which prevent infection by equipment, ought to be tested daily .
Contrast the causes of these deaths with the huge investments that this country has had to make as well as the time and effort that public health leaders have dedicated to meeting Fifa’s requirements. Such effort could have been focused on rallying public healthcare workers to ensure that unnecessary deaths are reduced.
“In the health sector, we invested over R1bn in buildings, emergency vehicles, medical equipment, training of essential support staff and health professionals over the last four years,” the late deputy minister of health Molefi Sefularo said last month. “We are confident that 2010 World Cup will leave a great legacy as all the resources that were made available to us, all assets that we acquired and systems that we have put in place will remain in the health sector long after the tournament for use by all South Africans.”
As the continued deaths of babies illustrate, not all South Africans will benefit from the World Cup-related investments in public health infrastructure. This is because our political leaders have missed the golden opportunity of using the hosting of the World Cup as a lever to mobilise the entire public healthcare system to improve its services.
Also, Fifa’s healthcare requirements bear no relation to the country’s most pressing healthcare problems. As the Lancet’s Series on SA published last year argued, SA “faces a convergence of several health challenges. In addition to HIV and tuberculosis epidemics, a very high burden of morbidity and mortality results from violence and injury, chronic diseases, mental health disorders, and maternal, neonatal, and child mortality.”
The series also pointed out that the combination of acute and chronic diseases spanning all age groups and socioeconomic strata “imposes a massive burden on an already weak and underdeveloped public healthcare delivery system struggling to overcome poor administrative management, low morale, lack of funding, and brain drain”.
It noted too that SA’s public healthcare expenditure was skewed toward tertiary hospitals: 30% is spent on supertertiary hospitals in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Durban. “Although these hospitals have important regional referral and educational roles, health needs are countrywide and most will not be met by high-level centralised services.”
The series called for a comprehensive primary healthcare system targeted to the needs and available resources of the country. Such an approach, Lancet said, called for attention to the social determinants of health and the building capacity for delivery of cost- effective interventions to the poorest and most vulnerable individuals.
“The perspective of the healthcare service needs to change from focusing on servicing of immediate medical needs to becoming responsible for maintaining community health. A district model of care would bring service management closer to the community, and create an increasingly democratic and equitable health service.”
The series suggested that the lives of almost 50000 newborn babies and children could be saved in 2015 if SA reached high and effective levels of prevention of mother-to- child transmission of HIV, as well as intrapartum and newborn care. Improvement in these areas would help the country meet the Millennium Development Goals, a key watermark for socioeconomic development agreed to by world leaders in 2000.
It is doubtful how close to these goals SA’s compliance with Fifa standards for public healthcare will get the country . For sure, SA may win worldwide acclaim for meeting Fifa requirements, but such acclaim will be meaningless as long as this country’s public healthcare system continues to fail the poor .
- Sikhakhane is a freelance writer.
Now that we have rented out the venue, we have no say.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/article466568.ece/2010-LOC-in-court-over-tender-information
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article464252.ece/World-Cup-hospitals-face-crisis
Fantastic content, well crafted I must say.
I believe South Africa needs more money to buy weepans and ganja. Peace.
Helpful info. Lucky me I discovered your website accidentally, and I am surprised why this coincidence did not came about earlier! I bookmarked it.