It's Time To Keep The Olympics & Soccer World Cup Out Of The Third World
It really is time to keep the Olympics and Soccer World Cup out of the third world.
They simply cannot afford to pay for them and it is their citizenry which is suffering so that the Federation of International Football Associations (FIFA) and the Internal Olympic Committee (IOC) can put on a big show for their own egos. And for lots of money.
FIFA and IOC are encouraging Third World countries to make financial bids to host these games at levels far beyond their economic means.
In the last decade the Olympics and World Cup have been awarded to a number of countries which cannot afford to pay for them. Estimates are now that hosting these events costs a country approximately $10 billion dollars. Greece, South Africa, Brazil and even China cannot afford to pay this amount. Not while so much of their population is struggling for daily survival.
Although survival is not an issue in Greece, the hosting of the Olympics nevertheless served to catalyze an economic collapse which will take at least a generation to repair. In South Africa and China it resulted in the destruction of large longstanding neighborhoods and the resettlement of the poor away from the now empty show stadiums.
This is far too much social destruction for a television sporting showpiece lasting less than a month. Particularly since the average citizen in these countries cannot afford to witness the spectacle in person and is left with no economic improvement as a result.
In general it is often third world countries which are bidding to host these events in order to satisfy the ego of local politicians. These politicians are utterly unconcerned at witnessing their starving citizens living next to empty billion dollar stadia.
FIFA and IOC are constantly in bed with the wrong political partners. Instead of creating a sporting celebration they are creating a social disgrace.
FIFA and IOC are themselves authoritarian and they have no conscience when it comes to partnering with authoritarian event hosts.
It is time these international sporting committees, FIFA and IOC, showed some social responsibility when awarding their games to countries. Whenever they go to the second or third world it is the local public who pays for their games with more poverty, and the local political elites who profit with bribes and status.
With the size of these games now, they require first world economies to be economically viable.
In future if the local public of a hosting country cannot pay for them via media and ticket sales, (most of which are made to global corporations to be given as corporate gifts), then they should not be held in that country.
The final cost of hosting the Olympics or World Cup to any host country should be zero to the general citizenry of that country.
Here's an article on the subject:
South Africa's World Cup is a disgrace
South Africa is already the most unequal country on the planet. Now 'the greatest marketing opportunity of our time' is making it worse.
The Guardian, London.
Thursday 6 May 2010 11.00 BST
Examine the latest available Human Development Index (HDI) figures – a measure of education, life expectancy and standard of living – and you will find that the 2010 World Cup hosts are ranked 129 out of 182 UN member states. Or a whole 19 places below both Gaza and the West Bank. The effect of the blockade of the former is not yet included in the retrospective reports but the discrepancy between South Africa's GDP and HDI makes it, as its Gini coefficient score also reveals, the xbusrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5181018">most unequal country on the planet.
Much is, rightly, made of corruption. But little is said of how xasianewsnet.net/news.php?id=10509&sec=3">market state policies fashion business opportunities out of public sector needs. Neoliberalism has turned 16 years of "freedom" into a Trojan horse of disconnections, evictions and more shacks fashioned from corrugated iron and plastic. Over a period of 14 years, the calculated that 34.1% of South Africans lived on less than $2 a day. The 2009 version now estimates 42.9% do.
But as atrocious as these figures are, one statistic takes the breath away. Life expectancy has, according to the South African Medical Research Council, fallen by 13 years in a similar period. Read that again. It's an apocalypse attributable not only to Thabo Mbeki's , but to the way income inequality and poverty continue to impact the disease.
It's instructive, then, that in its, the conservative Heritage Foundation gave South African government expenditure a rare approving score noting that, as a percentage of GDP, it was "relatively low". The corollary is that South Africans are so often protesting the absence of any public service that the country has been labelled the "capital of protest". Against these realities, the spending of close to (about £3bn pounds) on a football tournament is testament to there being no concern for the national welfare among its decision makers.
For if there was, it would have been clear that mega-events laid on for the benefit of tourists, while reaping financial rewards for an investor class, have few payoffs for the populace. Temporary, low-skilled and poorly paid jobs do not constitute a solution to South Africa's attritional expanded unemployment rate, which post-2010 will witness a zero-sum increase. Nor do feelgood factors translate into effective investment in the longer term. On the contrary, as Orli Bass and Udesh Pillay of the Human Sciences Research Council insist, there is "scholarly consensus" that the multiplier for a mega-event will be lower than that for spending on local goods and services.
More pressingly, poor South Africans cannot eat a legacy discourse. With an education, health, housing and jobs crisis so severe it can only, indeed, be compared to the aftermath of a scriptural catastrophe, the government's spending on the World Cup exacerbates an already extreme state of affairs. We should be outraged that a country with such a brutal history of forced removals has, in order to create the right brand attributes, evicted the urban poor and rounded up the homeless. Dumped into so-called "temporary relocation areas" and "transit camps" (during the preliminary draw street children were even held in Westville prison) these disowned South Africans make a mockery of the struggle against apartheid.
How apt, therefore, that among the brands that will benefit from this beautification strategy, will be a company that refused to disinvest during the darkest days of the old regime and which now, as an official partner of Fifa, gives it name to the Coca-Cola Park stadium? But not just anyone will be allowed to participate in what President Jacob Zuma calls the greatest marketing opportunity of our time". Informal traders – a significant part of the working poor – are subject to a verbatim "exclusion zone" from the bonanza in the fan parks, fan walks and stadiums. For them, the World Cup may as well be happening on another continent.
While 2010 Organising Committee CEO, Danny Jordaan, compares the staging of such an event to a "second liberation", we shouldn't be surprised if those who are struggling for a meaningful notion of citizenship continue their public protests during the tournament. Undoubtedly, they will be deemed unpatriotic for disrupting the whole PC-PR-Potemkin village atmosphere. They will horrify the press whose accreditation with Fifa hangs on not engaging in conduct that detracts from the sporting focus. The police will, as is routine, shoot at them with buckshot, rubber bullets and teargas.
Nonetheless, they would be right to try using the leverage afforded by this vanity project to remind the world that they – and not its elites – are South Africa's best hope for a much-needed sense of reality.
- If you wish to complain about this article go here: I'm outraged!
- If you wish to compliment Lee Vidor on this article go here: I'm inraged!
- If you wish to go back to Serious Fun to find another lovely article go here: Yes Lee, take me back to Serious Fun to read another article, I feel smarter already.
If you wrote the article then well done and thank you. It's a great article.
If you wish me to remove it from this site then just ask me. I can do it if you don't want people to read it.
Lee, Please remove my article from your web page. I am the copyright owner and I don't wish to be associated with someone like you. Even though people are prepared to pay a fortune for that.
An Irritated Copyright Owner.