If you are visiting SA as a fan or tourist, please tell me what the atmosphere is like there now? Or if you are only observing the games elsewhere outside SA, what do you imagine the atmosphere is like based on what you have heard and read throught the media?
I'm in SA right now as a fan going to some games. The atmosphere is great, everyone seems excited to be hosting the world cup. Everyone I've encountered has been very helpful. When speaking to South Africans, everyone is cautiously hopeful that this will move the country forward. Some seem to think that in 15 years they will just have a bunch of dilapidated stadiums and a huge financial burden. Others see an opportunity for South Africa to increase its tourism by hosting similar events. Being here in Johannesburg it's amazing how many police there are everywhere, but one has to wonder if there's really the money to employ all these police once the games are gone. But back to your question, the atmosphere is electric here. Almost all the fans I've spoken to are having a great time. The locals are very much into it and everyone is taking part in one way or another.
Ah I would have loved to be there! Glad to hear you are enjoying it! Which games will you be seeing still?
I don't care wether they can afford these people or not. It's money they cannot afford to spend elsewhere. This is partially why the world cup is doing us a favour...its forcing SA to deal with crime by employing tons of police...they cannot just fire this police, and may as well will have to put them to good use As for gautrain workers and so forth, apparently they already made plans to extend the gautrain, so many workers that worked for the wc, will now be employed for further infrastructure extentions such as roads and a rail link to Durban.
I beg to differ. I found the atmosphere to be generally quiet and lacklustre. There simply aren't enough international visitors around. Jesus, they even started doing a mexican wave at Brazil v Portugal! That and the annoying sound of plastic trumpets did nothing to instill any sense of rivalry and banter amongst the fans. The V & A centre in Cape Town on non match days is like a morgue. Very disappointing! And as for Port Elizabeth, well............
They did the Wave at all 11 matches I attended. Deplorable stuff, I thought it had died in the late '80s.
The atmosphere is great. We were at the Spain - Portugal game in Cape Town last night.Atmosphere is brilliant at the stadium. Great to see the foreigners coming to our shores and enjoying themselves. The foreigners blow the vuvuzela even Expect the vuvuzela in the Premiership and MLS guys. Brilliant!!!
I accept it wasn't the best of days waether wise in Cape Town yesterday, but where was everybody before the game? I was at the V&A till about 4. Very dull.
Seems like the Soccer World Cup is not just about the soccer but party, party, party. My friend has just returned from Europe and everything stopped while the matches are on. Most SA's were actually working while the WC was (is) on. We just don't have the numbers that can wander the streets partying like in Europe. Ok - so what I am actually trying to say is that we don't do it here like they did in Germany etc - pity that the expectation of every World Cup is that it should be exactly the same.
I agree...which is why i have tried to focus on this board since i started writing here that people should put in travelling as a big part of their plans...and not just the games. The balance needs to be right. Tiring yourself by just seeing too many matches, doesn't make sense to me. Just coming for the games will surely disappoint many fans. If i was a foreigner, I would rather have seen 2 or 3 games less, saved costs on the games, and travelled for a few days longer, seeing SA... Eastern Transvaal Drakensberg Krugerpark Namibia etc. Some of these destinations ^ area complete reasons on their own why people would come to SA. So while people are IN SA watching soccer, why did they not plan this in? Many just wanted to see as many games as possible. If i had to go to a world cup in brazil, seeing all the games will not be my priority, but travelling would have been. Games and atmosphere would be a bonus. I would have focused on my own team, and if they fall out, travel the rest of my stay. But thats just me....
I think that seems like a positive turn out...but what will they do with the stadia, has there been mention of that by any of the persons responsible?
Sorry to hear you found the atmosphere dull, especially in Cape Town. I am from Cape Town and the V&A during the summer months pumps and in Winter it's totally different, that is true. As for PE well, I find it a tad boring throughout the year, with or without the world cup. Generally I think hosting a "summer sport event" in a country during the winter season does not offer the spectators or the players the best advantages and I think the the atmosphere may have been alot different if it was held during the summer in SA.
The people responsible? Soccer City obviously has a purpose, as a national stadium as does the Cape Town stadium. Soccer City may work as a club venue if seating is restricted to the lower level(s), but the revenues will be insignificant compared to maintenance costs. I think the Cape Town stadium has a shot at replacing Newlands as the Stormers (rugby) home, once economic reality sets in and the realization that it cannot pay its way as a soccer venue. The new Durban stadium was a colossal waste of money as the next door ABSA stadium could have been upgraded for 10% of the cost. The Port Elizabeth stadium is far too big for its catchment area. Of the 2 other new stadia, both are white elephants and I doubt either will receive proper maintenance but will be rehabbed for a future RWC!
True, true. The SA'ns can learn from the visitors that you CAN actually go outside and have a good time once the mercury has dropped below 10 though.
I know this may sound harsh. But as far as i'm concerned, they may demolish a couple of stadiums and it would still have been worth it. The indirect positive effects of the world cup on South Africa, will far outweigh any white elephants in my opinion. I would like to hear from England fans. England hosted the event in '66....did they build any stadiums for their world cup? Look at their premiership now... In the extreme long run, we will at least now have both rugby stadiums and soccer stadiums...so less fights about that should occur. If proper development structures of both sports (as well as athletics) are put into place and into practice, the stadiums will NOT go to waste. Imagine if people actually run on the track in Rustenburg and have proper athletic events there...Imagine Supersport United and Sundowns not having to share a stadium? Just like some derby teams in England doesn't need to... I still feel we built 2-3 stadiums too many...at a cost. But it is still worth it in the long run. A lot of people also developed skills and basically got education because of their work on stadiums... One of the most important factors for SA now: They need to promote interest for the local PSL and rugby to a new level. People should attend matches...just by attending normal PSL games will make sure the stadiums are used properly. This would mean that the PSL standard should become higher. That comes back to development for new talent...
For info, we travelled to: Joburg, three times Cape Town, three times Port Elizabeth twice Durban Bloemfontien Rustenburg Nespruit We caught eleven planes, hired four cars. We spent two full days and one evening in Kruger, one full day at Addo elephant park, drove the length of the Garden Route, went to the top of Table Mountain, bus tour of Cape Town, Camps Bay, saw God's Window and the three rondavels, Storm River, Jeffreys Bay, Hermanus, etc Went shopping at Sandton City and Gateway Mall in Durban and V&A waterfront, along with a couple of nights out on Florida Road. We visited seven different stadiums. All in all I think we got around prettyt well! We stayed at ten different hotels/B&B's
As I'm with a charity doing work in South Africa, I know the government underfunds its schools, which really will be beneficial in the long-run, no contest. Some things like investments in roads and security will be beneficial long after World Cup is over, but but as it stands, the government is willing to put millions in a stadium that could have been better spent. What forces make this happen? I'm saying corruption. The money didn't just go to build stadiums - they went to people. What are the long-term benefits? This isn't too far from China and the Olympics, where China spent much much more than they could possibly recoup from the boosted economy resulting from the event.
Some neutral economists predict a positive growth because of the wc. They mentioned something like 1% GDP in a very short period of time...They almost seemed surprised or excited. I don't deny that you will find corruption. You would even find corrupt people in some churches, but that doesn't mean the whole church and its effects will be void. So even if some are corrupt, it does not mean the country won't benefit from the good elements of the WC effects. For example, where i work, we indirectly got a big deal because of the world cup. That means instead of having to fire someone, they hired someone. No one in my company is corrupt, yet we benifitted...see? I think charities need to take this in the right way. Sure the governments could have funded their charities right? But that would mean instead of getting people into systems back to society, away from the charity and receiving end, the government to me has been proactive in solving some issues as to why people are in charity institutions in the first place. For example...a person who may have ended up in your charity, didn't need to, because they got a job to build somewhere. That puts something on their cv. That limits the need for that person to be in a charity locale...see where i'm going with this? Instead of putting and ambulance at the bottom of chapmans peak, incase someone drives off the cliff, a barrier is built instead.
I don't know how you guys managed all that. I can now understand your dis-interest to return soon, because you have seen so much...and more than enough for now. I'm sure in the long run, you will want to return to some of the good memories you had here. But as for now, I'm sure to you there is no place like home... Any place that you liked in particular?
What you're saying about job growth makes total sense to me, and no doubt jobs were created. Yet I don't agree with the chapman's peak analogy at all. This is kind of a digression but I just want to clear up a misconception first. I think I should not have used the word charity because there's a stigma to it. The popular conception is that charities do hand outs to the most needy, which makes it more like welfare than an investment for the future. This conception might be justified. I can speak best for my own organization (www.aspringofhope.org), which builds wells at rural schools, and to make a long short short, it's making up for how poorly these schools are financed by the government (they're public schools). So anyway, I didn't mean to hint that the millions should have gone to charities instead. I was using schools as an example of something that could have been funded with the stadium money. I don't have a problem arguing that $100 million invested in education would have made society better off than $100 million invested in a stadium. Maybe I sounded a little cynical, but it just seems like a corporation has something to gain immediately from the government spending but money put towards education is an investment that's kind of lost until the long-run when the education pays off for the kids. I don't have intimate knowledge about this kind of stuff but it seems that corporation can pay someone off to make a deal (not that they all are) but a school doesn't have that kind of leverage so they don't get the money they need. How fair am I being?