Here's a news flash:
All those big, gleaming stadiums South Africa is building ... might not be particularly useful after the 2010 World Cup.
They might even be, in the expression used by contemptuous critics of big sports events, "white elephants." A waste of precious resources in a country ravaged by AIDS and dealing with an enormous gap between rich and poor.
Who says so? The maker of a documentary about South Africa and the 2010 World Cup. And some of the people he interviewed in the film.
It is tempting to dismiss the man behind the documentary as a sports killjoy. But he is pressing right on the sore spot of our consciences when a nation spends lots and lots of money on ... games.
How appalling this all is generally is a function of how rich a country is.
Or how poor it is.
By African standards, South Africa is fairly well off. Per capita annual gross domestic product (GDP) is $5,700, according to the CIA World Factbook figures.
By global standards, however, South Africa is significantly below the global mean of $9,100 and miles behind First World countries where per capita income is $40,000, $60,000 or more -- and where it is far more equitably distributed.
If it's the United States or Japan putting on a big event, there are complaints. Certainly, that money could be used in a better way. But wealthy countries can put on big events basically in the margins of their economy. It isn't an either/or proposition, usually.
When the country is less wealthy, the choices that were made ... begin to seem harder to defend.
In South Africa, Fifa-approved stadiums were, basically, nonexistent. So South Africa built a bunch of them, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. Billions, actually.
The documentarian asks the questions of the righteousness of all this, and he has a number of South African politicians decrying the financial outlay for football.
Those are fair questions. And sports fans can react in a couple of ways.
1. This is the World Cup/Olympics. We don't care if someone starves.
2. Sure, that country is spending a lot of money on stadiums (or infrastructure or hotels), but the attention brought to the country by this big event will pay for the outlay, down the road, in tourism or in intangibles like "respect" or "face." (This was how China approached the 2008 Olympics. "This is our coming out party, and we don't really care if the Bird's Nest and the Water Cube are empty for the next five years.")
Many of us find ourselves whipsawed between those two concepts. Feeling a bit guilty ... that we are enjoying this ridiculously expensive event so much.
Read more!
Monday, December 14, 2009
Sunday, December 13, 2009
England Gets One Royally Sweet Home Base
Our favorite South Africa 2010 World Cup soccer source, the Johannesburg Times, is on the case again.
This time, the Joburgers have the specifics about the palatial digs where England will be based during South Africa 2010. (Crowing that they walked straight in, after English reporters were rebuffed.)
As the Times points out, the Royal Bafokeng Sports Complex actually was built for a king and includes first-class on-campus facilities as well as two royal suites and four presidential suites.
The Times describes it like this:
The Royal Bafokeng is "the most coveted team base on the World Cup list, since it offers luxury, seclusion, altitude and superb training facilities. England will have 10 match-quality football pitches and a high-tech gym right on their doorstep."
The Times suggests that England's early qualifying enabled it to get a jump on other rivals when it came to securing lodging and practice fields. And now that the team's first match is in Rustenburg, which is nearby, the whole set-up is nearly perfect.
Even the infamous English WAGS (wives and girlfriends) won't have far to travel to see the lads -- on those rare days they will be allowed to see the lads -- because Sun City, the Las Vegas of the region, is only "20 minutes away."
The Times also pokes a little fun at England's imperious Italian coach, Fabio Capello, wondering who will take the other royal suite - once Fabio has nabbed one. And at David Beckham, whom, the Times titters, "will be thrilld by the hotel's abundance of giant mirrors."
Wonder where the likes of Slovenia, Algeria and North Korea will be staying. Someplace far less posh, no doubt. Read more!
This time, the Joburgers have the specifics about the palatial digs where England will be based during South Africa 2010. (Crowing that they walked straight in, after English reporters were rebuffed.)
As the Times points out, the Royal Bafokeng Sports Complex actually was built for a king and includes first-class on-campus facilities as well as two royal suites and four presidential suites.
The Times describes it like this:
The Royal Bafokeng is "the most coveted team base on the World Cup list, since it offers luxury, seclusion, altitude and superb training facilities. England will have 10 match-quality football pitches and a high-tech gym right on their doorstep."
The Times suggests that England's early qualifying enabled it to get a jump on other rivals when it came to securing lodging and practice fields. And now that the team's first match is in Rustenburg, which is nearby, the whole set-up is nearly perfect.
Even the infamous English WAGS (wives and girlfriends) won't have far to travel to see the lads -- on those rare days they will be allowed to see the lads -- because Sun City, the Las Vegas of the region, is only "20 minutes away."
The Times also pokes a little fun at England's imperious Italian coach, Fabio Capello, wondering who will take the other royal suite - once Fabio has nabbed one. And at David Beckham, whom, the Times titters, "will be thrilld by the hotel's abundance of giant mirrors."
Wonder where the likes of Slovenia, Algeria and North Korea will be staying. Someplace far less posh, no doubt. Read more!
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Coaches: Getting What You Pay For?
If you wonder what World Cup coaches are worth ... here is a not-quite complete list of what they are being paid.
This originated in the Spanish daily newspaper Marca (presumably rendered in euros), then went to the Guardian in England (rendered in pounds sterling), and that is where I saw it.
And now we convert it from pounds into dollars.
Note: Five of the six nations deemed most likely to win at South Africa 2010 ... are in the top six in the coach pay scale.
The contender not in the top six in the salary standings? Brazil. Coach Dunga is 11th. Maybe the theory there is that anyone can coach Brazil.
The list:
Fabio Capello, England, $9.93 million
Marcelo Lippi, Italy, $3 million
Bert van Marwijk, Netherlands, $2.71 million
Otmar Hitzfeld, Switzerland, $2.61 million
Joachim Loew, Germany, $2.31 million
Vicente del Bosque, Spain, $2.21 million
Carlos Quieroz, Portugal, $2.01 million
Pim Verbeek, Australia, $1.99 million
Javier Aguirre, Mexico, $1.81 million
Carlos Alberto Parreira, South Africa, $1.81 million
Dunga, Brazil, $1.23 million
Diego Maradona, Argentina, $1.21 million
Takeshi Okada, Japan, $1.21 million
Ricki Herbert, New Zealand, $1.121 million
Otto Rehhegel, Greece, $1.15 million
Paul Le Guen, Cameroon, $960,000
Marcelo Bielsa, Chile, $853,000
Vahid Halilhodzic, Ivory Coast, $743,000
Raymond Domenech, France, $723,000
Huh Jung-moo, South Korea, $603,000
Note: The only non-threat to win the Jules Rimet Trophy among the top six earners is Hitzfeld (Switzerland). And the only serious contender outside the top 10 is Dunga.
Look at how much more England pays Capello than any other nation pays its coach. Will England get full value? (Anything less that a championship, it would seem.) Or might it been able to find someone competent (perhaps even Fabio himself) for maybe half what it is lavishing on him?
Note, also, how little France pays Domenech. Perhaps that explains his longevity despite what appears to be near-universal national loathing.
Also interesting: How much non-elite Australia and New Zealand pay their coaches.
Verbeek is a guy with some chops, but who knew Australia the Soccer Nation had that kind of cash to lavish on the Dutchman? And New Zealand? It doesn't have a serious pro league ... but it can spend more money on Ricki Herbert than Otto Rehhegel gets from Greece? Herbert's job involved mashing the minnows in Oceania, then beating Bahrain. Meanwhile, Rehhegel already has a Euro Cup championship (2004) on his resume and survived a tough European qualifying campaign and led his team to a home-and-home playoffs victory over the Ukraine.
Go figure. Rehhegel probably was trying to figure it out, when he saw the list.
If anyone has salary information on coaches not listed, above (such as Bob Bradley of the United States), feel free to let us know.
Read more!
This originated in the Spanish daily newspaper Marca (presumably rendered in euros), then went to the Guardian in England (rendered in pounds sterling), and that is where I saw it.
And now we convert it from pounds into dollars.
Note: Five of the six nations deemed most likely to win at South Africa 2010 ... are in the top six in the coach pay scale.
The contender not in the top six in the salary standings? Brazil. Coach Dunga is 11th. Maybe the theory there is that anyone can coach Brazil.
The list:
Fabio Capello, England, $9.93 million
Marcelo Lippi, Italy, $3 million
Bert van Marwijk, Netherlands, $2.71 million
Otmar Hitzfeld, Switzerland, $2.61 million
Joachim Loew, Germany, $2.31 million
Vicente del Bosque, Spain, $2.21 million
Carlos Quieroz, Portugal, $2.01 million
Pim Verbeek, Australia, $1.99 million
Javier Aguirre, Mexico, $1.81 million
Carlos Alberto Parreira, South Africa, $1.81 million
Dunga, Brazil, $1.23 million
Diego Maradona, Argentina, $1.21 million
Takeshi Okada, Japan, $1.21 million
Ricki Herbert, New Zealand, $1.121 million
Otto Rehhegel, Greece, $1.15 million
Paul Le Guen, Cameroon, $960,000
Marcelo Bielsa, Chile, $853,000
Vahid Halilhodzic, Ivory Coast, $743,000
Raymond Domenech, France, $723,000
Huh Jung-moo, South Korea, $603,000
Note: The only non-threat to win the Jules Rimet Trophy among the top six earners is Hitzfeld (Switzerland). And the only serious contender outside the top 10 is Dunga.
Look at how much more England pays Capello than any other nation pays its coach. Will England get full value? (Anything less that a championship, it would seem.) Or might it been able to find someone competent (perhaps even Fabio himself) for maybe half what it is lavishing on him?
Note, also, how little France pays Domenech. Perhaps that explains his longevity despite what appears to be near-universal national loathing.
Also interesting: How much non-elite Australia and New Zealand pay their coaches.
Verbeek is a guy with some chops, but who knew Australia the Soccer Nation had that kind of cash to lavish on the Dutchman? And New Zealand? It doesn't have a serious pro league ... but it can spend more money on Ricki Herbert than Otto Rehhegel gets from Greece? Herbert's job involved mashing the minnows in Oceania, then beating Bahrain. Meanwhile, Rehhegel already has a Euro Cup championship (2004) on his resume and survived a tough European qualifying campaign and led his team to a home-and-home playoffs victory over the Ukraine.
Go figure. Rehhegel probably was trying to figure it out, when he saw the list.
If anyone has salary information on coaches not listed, above (such as Bob Bradley of the United States), feel free to let us know.
Read more!
Friday, December 11, 2009
Keeping Track of Injuries Ahead of SA 2010
From a macro perspective, this is one of the great mysteries ahead of South Africa 2010.
Which players are hurt?
Fans are likely to have a pretty good idea about the physical form of the players from their home team. And they may have an idea about the injured elite players in the top professional leagues in Europe.
But when we try to keep track of the middling or fringe-first-XI guys for 32 nations (one of which is secrecy-shrouded North Korea) ... well, we're going to be guessing.
In this case, Ghana has lost its best player, Michael Essien, for at least two months with a torn hamstring. (And my study of torn hamstrings is that two months is a very, very optimistic time frame for a return.)
The London Times tells us about Essien's injury here.
Get well soon, Mr. Essien.
The bigger topic ... is about how we will get close to the World Cup and make projections based on a team showing up with its first XI. And could be badly misinformed because several key players are hurt and we don't know it.
Here is just one example:
The United States may be the planet's elite sports nation. But when it comes to its soccer team, otherwise well-informed fans in other parts of the world don't really know more than a few names of players on the U.S. team.
And the United States's chances in the World Cup are, at the moment, typically forecast by others ... based on the assumption that the first XI it used there for that runner-up finish in the Confederations Cup will be the same it uses at the World Cup.
However, that is not the case.
Two of the first XI are on the shelf at this moment. One, Charlie Davies, who scored in the crucial match against Egypt, nearly died in an automobile accident in October. He suffered numerous broken bones and almost certainly won't play in South Africa -- and maybe never again. And how many non-Americans know that?
The other seriously injured U.S. player in central defender Oguchi Onyewu whose knee exploded in the latter stages of the World Cup qualifying match vs. Costa Rica, in November. Onyewu has a higher profile than most of the U.S. players, being under contract with AC Milan (albeit lashed to the bench there, before he was hurt) ... but it seems safe to assume most of the soccer world is unaware that he will not really begin his comeback until spring and may not be back in form by June 11.
And that is just one nation.
Multiply the not-quite-aware factor by 32, and you begin to see the really extraordinary level of Not Knowing (among pundits and fans alike), about what to make (and expect) of this, that or the other World Cup contender.
Because we won't, and can't, know who is hurt.
Complicating this further? The dearth of accurate information that World Cup teams will allow to leak out about its players and their injuries as we get close to the Big Event. As if it weren't already difficult enough to keep track of (say) Paraguay's guys -- even if we read Spanish-language publications from the country.
We will attempt here, as we get closer to this, to keep track of the players who suffer major injuries. But that injury report will most assuredly be skewed toward the big soccer nations and players in the major leagues.
Very good players, very important players, competing or club teams back in their home nation ... they could be in a full body cast, and we may not know about it until the opening match, when Team X takes the field without Player No. 11. Read more!
Which players are hurt?
Fans are likely to have a pretty good idea about the physical form of the players from their home team. And they may have an idea about the injured elite players in the top professional leagues in Europe.
But when we try to keep track of the middling or fringe-first-XI guys for 32 nations (one of which is secrecy-shrouded North Korea) ... well, we're going to be guessing.
In this case, Ghana has lost its best player, Michael Essien, for at least two months with a torn hamstring. (And my study of torn hamstrings is that two months is a very, very optimistic time frame for a return.)
The London Times tells us about Essien's injury here.
Get well soon, Mr. Essien.
The bigger topic ... is about how we will get close to the World Cup and make projections based on a team showing up with its first XI. And could be badly misinformed because several key players are hurt and we don't know it.
Here is just one example:
The United States may be the planet's elite sports nation. But when it comes to its soccer team, otherwise well-informed fans in other parts of the world don't really know more than a few names of players on the U.S. team.
And the United States's chances in the World Cup are, at the moment, typically forecast by others ... based on the assumption that the first XI it used there for that runner-up finish in the Confederations Cup will be the same it uses at the World Cup.
However, that is not the case.
Two of the first XI are on the shelf at this moment. One, Charlie Davies, who scored in the crucial match against Egypt, nearly died in an automobile accident in October. He suffered numerous broken bones and almost certainly won't play in South Africa -- and maybe never again. And how many non-Americans know that?
The other seriously injured U.S. player in central defender Oguchi Onyewu whose knee exploded in the latter stages of the World Cup qualifying match vs. Costa Rica, in November. Onyewu has a higher profile than most of the U.S. players, being under contract with AC Milan (albeit lashed to the bench there, before he was hurt) ... but it seems safe to assume most of the soccer world is unaware that he will not really begin his comeback until spring and may not be back in form by June 11.
And that is just one nation.
Multiply the not-quite-aware factor by 32, and you begin to see the really extraordinary level of Not Knowing (among pundits and fans alike), about what to make (and expect) of this, that or the other World Cup contender.
Because we won't, and can't, know who is hurt.
Complicating this further? The dearth of accurate information that World Cup teams will allow to leak out about its players and their injuries as we get close to the Big Event. As if it weren't already difficult enough to keep track of (say) Paraguay's guys -- even if we read Spanish-language publications from the country.
We will attempt here, as we get closer to this, to keep track of the players who suffer major injuries. But that injury report will most assuredly be skewed toward the big soccer nations and players in the major leagues.
Very good players, very important players, competing or club teams back in their home nation ... they could be in a full body cast, and we may not know about it until the opening match, when Team X takes the field without Player No. 11. Read more!
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Algeria May Pay Costs of Fans to Go to SA 2010
That's one way to get 5-10,000 friendly fans in the stands.
Pay for them to get there.
Algeria famously charged nothing for about 11,000 of its fans to fly to the Sudan for the special playoff match against Egypt ... the one Algeria won, 1-0, putting it into the finals in South Africa.
Now, the government apparently is considering a reprise of that generosity for the finals, during which the Algerians will play two countries that have lots of fans paying their own way -- the United States and England.
The Guardian, an English newspaper, has some details on Algeria's planning.
The question not quite answered in the story is whether Algeria actually intended to let 11,000 fans show up, on its flag-carrier airline, at Sudan. Notice the wording about how the fans crowded onto the flights, and most were never charged a fee. Was that a plan? Or a mini-stampede that got out of control?
This time, 3,000 seats have been "blocked out" for Algeria supporters. Will that turn into another freebie? It's a much longer flight, from Algiers to South Africa than it is from Algiers to Khartoum. Much bigger expense, per flight.
Seemingly, Algeria will need all the help it can get. Algeria hasn't been in the World Cup since 1986, and was not favored to survive Egypt in the special playoff. It generally is regarded as the weakest team in Group C, which includes little Slovenia.
Several thousand sympathetic fans traveling at government expense ... that would go a long way towards making Algeria feel more at home in South Africa.
Just don't look for too many other governments to follow suit. Read more!
Pay for them to get there.
Algeria famously charged nothing for about 11,000 of its fans to fly to the Sudan for the special playoff match against Egypt ... the one Algeria won, 1-0, putting it into the finals in South Africa.
Now, the government apparently is considering a reprise of that generosity for the finals, during which the Algerians will play two countries that have lots of fans paying their own way -- the United States and England.
The Guardian, an English newspaper, has some details on Algeria's planning.
The question not quite answered in the story is whether Algeria actually intended to let 11,000 fans show up, on its flag-carrier airline, at Sudan. Notice the wording about how the fans crowded onto the flights, and most were never charged a fee. Was that a plan? Or a mini-stampede that got out of control?
This time, 3,000 seats have been "blocked out" for Algeria supporters. Will that turn into another freebie? It's a much longer flight, from Algiers to South Africa than it is from Algiers to Khartoum. Much bigger expense, per flight.
Seemingly, Algeria will need all the help it can get. Algeria hasn't been in the World Cup since 1986, and was not favored to survive Egypt in the special playoff. It generally is regarded as the weakest team in Group C, which includes little Slovenia.
Several thousand sympathetic fans traveling at government expense ... that would go a long way towards making Algeria feel more at home in South Africa.
Just don't look for too many other governments to follow suit. Read more!
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
South Africa, Zulus and Bulls
As of 10 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, no trains had jumped the rails and no planes had skidded off runways in South Africa, but that won't stop us from giving more attention to an undeniable reality of the 2010 South Africa World Cup.
It isn't going to be your typical First World World Cup of recent vintage. (Thinking Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, the United States, Italy.) This is a different culture at a different place in its history. It may someday resemble Western Europe or North America, but right now it doesn't.
Which leads us to today's topic ... the ritual slaughter of a bull by young Zulu warriors, in South Africa. With their bare hands.
Now that's not something I think you will see in France. Though they do force-feed geese to make foie gras out of their livers.
But back to the bulls and the Zulus.
This story appeared in the New York Times. It notes that animal rights people objected to what apparently is a very old Zulu tradition ... and how that objection ticked off a lot of people in South Africa (and not just Zulus). It smacked of racism and colonialism, they said.
The story notes how the South African judiciary was asked to rule on the killing-a-bull-with-our-bare-hands thing, and decided it was OK. With the ruling judge saying something like "I don't want to be responsible if something bad happens to the Zulu king because I banned this ceremony," which doesn't quite strike me as a legal opinion that would rival something Coke or Taney would have authored, in terms of depth of analysis.
And the author of the story does his best to explain how it all went down, even though reporters were pushed some distance away from the ceremony.
The point being, again ... this will be a different World Cup than any that has come before it. And not just because it is 2010. Read more!
It isn't going to be your typical First World World Cup of recent vintage. (Thinking Germany, Japan, South Korea, France, the United States, Italy.) This is a different culture at a different place in its history. It may someday resemble Western Europe or North America, but right now it doesn't.
Which leads us to today's topic ... the ritual slaughter of a bull by young Zulu warriors, in South Africa. With their bare hands.
Now that's not something I think you will see in France. Though they do force-feed geese to make foie gras out of their livers.
But back to the bulls and the Zulus.
This story appeared in the New York Times. It notes that animal rights people objected to what apparently is a very old Zulu tradition ... and how that objection ticked off a lot of people in South Africa (and not just Zulus). It smacked of racism and colonialism, they said.
The story notes how the South African judiciary was asked to rule on the killing-a-bull-with-our-bare-hands thing, and decided it was OK. With the ruling judge saying something like "I don't want to be responsible if something bad happens to the Zulu king because I banned this ceremony," which doesn't quite strike me as a legal opinion that would rival something Coke or Taney would have authored, in terms of depth of analysis.
And the author of the story does his best to explain how it all went down, even though reporters were pushed some distance away from the ceremony.
The point being, again ... this will be a different World Cup than any that has come before it. And not just because it is 2010. Read more!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Traveling Around SA Is, Uh, an Adventure
OK, yes, there's crime. The second-highest murder rate in the world -- both as a percentage and in raw numbers. (Trailing only narco-state Colombia in each category.)
And, yes, some teams are going to bring their own paramilitary security forces (as detailed in the previous entry on this blog).
And we hate to keep coming back with bad news, but this actually is news. As in "just happened."
A couple of examples why it is difficult and dangerous to travel a significant distance, inside South Africa: A plane crash and a train crash.
First, the train crash.
It occurred Monday on the passenger line between Johannesburg and Cape Town -- which is only the most important rail line in the country.
South Africa already had a reputation for barely functioning rail. Slow, expensive, doesn't take you where you want to go. (Sounds like the United States.)
And now trains are running into each other?
Be careful, England fans, trying to get from Game 1 in Rustenburg to Game 2 in Cape Town.
Here is the link to the plane crash ... which was "only" an Airlink commuter plane running off the runway in a place called George.
What I don't get is how 35 people were "ejected" but only one hurt. This also happened Monday. Yesterday.
Anyway, a day later, the transport minister says he is considering grounding the Airlink fleet. A day after dismissing the off-the-runway thing as no big deal. Hmm.
Also, this probably is a good place to mention that Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated is on the record as saying he will do whatever he can to tar the reputation of South Africa's main airline, South African Airways, which he dealt with, apparently, during the Confederations Cup. He said he hated it on just about every level.
So, if you are going, and you need to commute any distance around the Texas-sized country ... well, good luck. Trains spotty and dangerous. Planes spotty and dangerous. Driving in a big country with some second-tier roads and lots of crime? Sounds dangerous, too.
Not all teams will be dragged around the country during South Africa 2010. The U.S., for example, has all three of its group matches in a fairly small area in the northeast.
But if you have to make that Joburg to Cape Town trip ... again, consider yourself warned. Read more!
And, yes, some teams are going to bring their own paramilitary security forces (as detailed in the previous entry on this blog).
And we hate to keep coming back with bad news, but this actually is news. As in "just happened."
A couple of examples why it is difficult and dangerous to travel a significant distance, inside South Africa: A plane crash and a train crash.
First, the train crash.
It occurred Monday on the passenger line between Johannesburg and Cape Town -- which is only the most important rail line in the country.
South Africa already had a reputation for barely functioning rail. Slow, expensive, doesn't take you where you want to go. (Sounds like the United States.)
And now trains are running into each other?
Be careful, England fans, trying to get from Game 1 in Rustenburg to Game 2 in Cape Town.
Here is the link to the plane crash ... which was "only" an Airlink commuter plane running off the runway in a place called George.
What I don't get is how 35 people were "ejected" but only one hurt. This also happened Monday. Yesterday.
Anyway, a day later, the transport minister says he is considering grounding the Airlink fleet. A day after dismissing the off-the-runway thing as no big deal. Hmm.
Also, this probably is a good place to mention that Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated is on the record as saying he will do whatever he can to tar the reputation of South Africa's main airline, South African Airways, which he dealt with, apparently, during the Confederations Cup. He said he hated it on just about every level.
So, if you are going, and you need to commute any distance around the Texas-sized country ... well, good luck. Trains spotty and dangerous. Planes spotty and dangerous. Driving in a big country with some second-tier roads and lots of crime? Sounds dangerous, too.
Not all teams will be dragged around the country during South Africa 2010. The U.S., for example, has all three of its group matches in a fairly small area in the northeast.
But if you have to make that Joburg to Cape Town trip ... again, consider yourself warned. Read more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
