Can Africa actually host in 2010?

[FunGuy]

my point exactly

[FunGuy]

crime is high in South africa but has been going down slightly since 2000

[DoyleG]

South Africa was given a test early on to see if it could host a major sporting event, in 1995.

They hosted the Rugby World Cup that year. A year after the big elections and the chaos that was going on. Forget about the murder going on, terrorisim was going on at the time.

The torunament was a huge sucess with Ellis Park being filled for the fianl, which South Africa won.

For several years as well the F1 racing circuit had a stop in South Africa.

[GoHawks4]

The Rugby World Cup is not the Fifa World Cup, let's not even compare those.

[FunGuy]

here is an interesting article i found about white europeans immigranting and retiring in cape twon, and about crime and aids in SA, i found it interesting, it may make some of you chanche your mind about SA i hope, but i douth it

http://www.escapeartist.com/international/0800_south_africa.html

[superdave]

Originally posted by gfhh
With all due respect Thomas
You're new around here, so I'll give you a little tip.

Flannigan isn't "due" any respect.

[GoHawks4]

Ouch Dave, very ouch.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by GoHawks4
The Rugby World Cup is not the Fifa World Cup, let's not even compare those.

It proves they can host a major event. Very little separates both events.

They can host it. Live with it!

[Beez]

Japan and South Korea can absorb the cost of 20 white-elephant stadiums built to boost their nations' egos for a month, then fall into disrepair.

Africa doesn't have the luxury of wasting all that money on an event that will come and go in an instant.

The concept of sport as a national (or continental) vehicle for gaining worldwide credibility or stature is both stupid and dangerous.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Beez
Japan and South Korea can absorb the cost of 20 white-elephant stadiums built to boost their nations' egos for a month, then fall into disrepair.

Africa doesn't have the luxury of wasting all that money on an event that will come and go in an instant.

The concept of sport as a national (or continental) vehicle for gaining worldwide credibility or stature is both stupid and dangerous.

South Africa has the stadiums already there to host the event. It will be more of bring the others up to standard than building new ones. The cost will be minimal at best. They figures will be compariable to USA 94 than 2002.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by DoyleG


It proves they can host a major event. Very little separates both events.



Very little separates the Little League World Series and the World Cup or Olympics. Anchorage, Alaska has hosted three LIttle League World Series, so I propose that the next three World Cups are hosted there.

[BenReilly]

Originally posted by FunGuy
here is an interesting article i found about white europeans immigranting and retiring in cape twon, and about crime and aids in SA, i found it interesting, it may make some of you chanche your mind about SA i hope, but i douth it

http://www.escapeartist.com/international/0800_south_africa.html

You've lost all credibility with this link, "I’ve seen no evidence of an AIDS plague anywhere in Africa." These types of lies are killing millions of people.

[superdave]

Originally posted by DoyleG
It proves they can host a major event. Very little separates both events.

heh heh heh...comparing the Rugby thingie to the World Cup is like comparing, I dunno, the US and Canada.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by DoyleG


South Africa has the stadiums already there to host the event. It will be more of bring the others up to standard than building new ones. The cost will be minimal at best. They figures will be compariable to USA 94 than 2002.

To your earlier post. The reason the rugby world cup was incident free had nothing to do with your implication that the country can successfully host a major event. Firstly soccer is predominantly a black sport in the RSA. Rugby, even more so is predominantly a white sport. Most violence has occurred at soccer not rugby matches. It will be a major effort to keep a world cup clean from violence in the RSA particularly outside the stadium grounds.

If we follow your premise here's my short list of stadia if the RSA could host a WC.

Finals and opening match FNB Stadium (90,000), Johannesburg
Ellis Park (63,000) Johannesburg
ABSA Stadium (55,000) Durban
Loftus Versfeld (52,000) Pretoria
Newlands (50,900) Cape Town
Odi Stadium (60,000) Pretoria
Johannesburg Stadium (37,500) Johannesburg

You will need at least 1-3 more stadia. 8-10 venues.

All stadia are going to require communication centers and modifications for the press boxes. Over and above that, all stadia and press areas are going to require additional communication and power infrastructure and transportation. I don't know, but I would imagine that hotels should be plentiful for tourists. All stadia will also have to be all seaters and many will require a partial canopy.

That said, I see a lot of capital expenditure for a country with many pressing social and economic problems. Furthermore, the security will be quite large given the volitilty in the country as well as threats of external violence or terrorist threats.

Why with all of the domestic problems and the uncertainties regarding foreign and domestic attendence for a SA World Cup would be reason enough to think this proposal through.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by Beez
Japan and South Korea can absorb the cost of 20 white-elephant stadiums built to boost their nations' egos for a month, then fall into disrepair.

Africa doesn't have the luxury of wasting all that money on an event that will come and go in an instant.

The concept of sport as a national (or continental) vehicle for gaining worldwide credibility or stature is both stupid and dangerous.

Great post Beez.

[FunGuy]

Ok ben the writer in that article was not dening the aids epedemic he was saying that throught his travels throughtout the continents, aids wasn't seen as a major concern of people, and hospitals weren't being overloaded with the sick or dying in the streets, he said that the ppl were more corncern about more imediate events in their life, and more people were dying from non- aids related illnesses like malaria. my main point about the article was not the aids stuff but about what he wrote after and about a recent wave of european immigrant going to and retiring in SA beacuse it's has a better value for the buck.

[FunGuy]

mostly to cape town, as for the infastructure which seems to keep coming up, SA has all the communication, and transportation system to handle the cup

[Khansingh]

FunGuy, I'm not making the blanket statement that South Africa shouldn't ever host the World Cup. I just think that, given the more pressing social and economic problems facing that country, it would be irresponsible for her government to spend the billions necessary to stage such an event at this time. Perhaps it would be socially just if Europe and America, as a gesture of reparation, provided the funds to stage RSA '14. But for the South African Government to spend the huge sums required for something as trivial as the World Cup when a staggering percentage of her adult population is infected with AIDS, when half of her population live in poverty, when three-tenths of her workforce is unemployed, is totally criminal. Along the same proportions of Apartheid itself. In principle, a South African World Cup is a splendid idea, but the costs are unfortunately prohibitive. Again I'm not saying South Africa has to earn the privilege. Rather that she has deeper problems to solve before that should happen.

[DoyleG]

Originally posted by Alberto
To your earlier post. The reason the rugby world cup was incident free had nothing to do with your implication that the country can successfully host a major event. Firstly soccer is predominantly a black sport in the RSA. Rugby, even more so is predominantly a white sport. Most violence has occurred at soccer not rugby matches. It will be a major effort to keep a world cup clean from violence in the RSA particularly outside the stadium grounds.

Wake up!!! They can host a major event and they can sure as hell host the World Cup. The sports in South Africa still has racist tendencies, but they are integrated. As for the incident at Ellis Park, that was dues to too many tickets being sold, not fan violence. But I guess you and the other Americans don't see it that way. If you had been watching Tri-Nations matches on TV, you would have seen the mix of South African audiences.

Originally posted by Alberto
If we follow your premise here's my short list of stadia if the RSA could host a WC.

Finals and opening match FNB Stadium (90,000), Johannesburg
Ellis Park (63,000) Johannesburg
ABSA Stadium (55,000) Durban
Loftus Versfeld (52,000) Pretoria
Newlands (50,900) Cape Town
Odi Stadium (60,000) Pretoria
Johannesburg Stadium (37,500) Johannesburg

You will need at least 1-3 more stadia. 8-10 venues.

It's becoome obvious to you that South Africa does have the stadia. You forgot to add venues in Bloemfontein and Pietersburg. Port Elizabeth could also be considered. You seem to forget that USA 94 was hosted with less stadia than what was needed.


Originally posted by Alberto
All stadia are going to require communication centers and modifications for the press boxes. Over and above that, all stadia and press areas are going to require additional communication and power infrastructure and transportation. I don't know, but I would imagine that hotels should be plentiful for tourists. All stadia will also have to be all seaters and many will require a partial canopy.

Since when do stadiums need a canopy. The Citrus Bowl didn't have a canopy. Neither did the Rose Bowl, Stanford Stadium, or Soldier Field. The South African stadiums are better prepared than US stadiums. Your points are really pathetic.

Originally posted by Alberto
That said, I see a lot of capital expenditure for a country with many pressing social and economic problems. Furthermore, the security will be quite large given the volitilty in the country as well as threats of external violence or terrorist threats.

I take one look at the US and see no difference.

Originally posted by Alberto
Why with all of the domestic problems and the uncertainties regarding foreign and domestic attendence for a SA World Cup would be reason enough to think this proposal through.

What seem to upset you is that a country you consider to be AIDS-infested and uncivilized is going to get the Cup before your little USA. You and the other Americans on the thread who are acting like idiots are nothing but a bunch of bastards.

[dcc134]

Originally posted by DoyleG


Wake up!!! They can host a major event and they can sure as hell host the World Cup. The sports in South Africa still has racist tendencies, but they are integrated. As for the incident at Ellis Park, that was dues to too many tickets being sold, not fan violence. But I guess you and the other Americans don't see it that way. If you had been watching Tri-Nations matches on TV, you would have seen the mix of South African audiences.



It's becoome obvious to you that South Africa does have the stadia. You forgot to add venues in Bloemfontein and Pietersburg. Port Elizabeth could also be considered. You seem to forget that USA 94 was hosted with less stadia than what was needed.




Since when do stadiums need a canopy. The Citrus Bowl didn't have a canopy. Neither did the Rose Bowl, Stanford Stadium, or Soldier Field. The South African stadiums are better prepared than US stadiums. Your points are really pathetic.



I take one look at the US and see no difference.



What seem to upset you is that a country you consider to be AIDS-infested and uncivilized is going to get the Cup before your little USA. You and the other Americans on the thread who are acting like idiots are nothing but a bunch of bastards.


Take a long deep breath. It is going to be alright. There are good points on either side.

RSA has many many problems, just like the US where the same crime/murder stereotypes existed during much of th 70's and 80's. However, the situation always seems worse on paper than it is in real life.

In defense of the Rugby WC, it is a pretty big tournament outside of the US, and could serve as fair indicator of their ability to hold a large event. Many of the same needs are required.

In defense of Americans questioning the ability of RSA hosting the 2010 WC, there are valid points on this side as well. The AIDS epidemic is real and is ravaging the young population, and much of the problem is the government has been extremely slow even admitt they had a problem.

I have no problem with an Africa or RSA WC. The problem I have, which has been touched on before, is the notion that it is their "turn" when no country is really ready to invest in such an event.

Maybe the people of SA want to spend the money on the WC, but I wonder if it wouldn't be wiser to spend it on Aids drugs and prevention. No wait, silly me, they can just cry to the drug companies and get them for free.