We are not alone
In case you've forgotten, Alaa Abdel-Ghani reminds us that there are four other countries bidding to host the 2010 World Cup
Enough about Egypt. For a change, let's shift the spotlight to the other World Cup hopefuls to see what they have that we don't. And to prove that we are, after all, good sports.
If the criteria to stage a World Cup rested solely on how good a football team is, then Morocco's chances would be as good as anybody's. It has made four World Cup appearances -- more than any other bidding country -- and was the first African country to reach the second round of a World Cup.
Ultimately, though, the litmus test is not soccer prowess, else the 1994 edition would not have gone to the unappreciative people of soccer, the Americans. What counts is what the bidding nations can physically deliver and here is where Morocco might falter. Its bid rests largely on promises of construction. Time has proven, however, that it will not lift a finger, even in its own cause, until it sees its name up in lights. Three bids behind it and still no sign of construction promise -- a fact that has made FIFA wary enough not to take Rabat too seriously. Morocco's attitude has also left it somewhat behind; it will need to start building, as only Casablanca and Rabat have suitable venues.
Still, Morocco has some advantages. It will use its long soccer history, its security and its proximity to Europe -- which remains the financial focus of the game -- in an attempt to win votes. And it has recruited Alan Rothenberg, who ran the hugely successful USA 94, to put it all together for them.
Perhaps above all, Morocco has the support of two powerful FIFA executive members, France's Michel Platini and Spaniard Angel Villar Llona, both of whom are among the 24 people who will vote to see who stages the World Cup. The two countries will benefit economically from a Moroccan World Cup because of their geographical proximity. For them, Morocco would almost be an extension of southern Europe. Teams could thus easily set up training camps in Spain and France -- one of the things FIFA looks for when deciding on a World Cup venue.
Platini, the former famed French midfielder, has publicly, plainly said, "Morocco is better placed." French Federation President Claude Simonet feels likewise, saying his "heart and eyes are turned to Morocco".
Morocco's biggest cheerleader is French President Jacques Chirac, who said in October that France is "paying a debt" by supporting the Moroccan bid after his country beat the North Africans by four votes in the race to stage the 1998 World Cup.
Morocco is a resilient kingdom. This is its fourth attempt (1990, 1994, 2006) at a World Cup and consequently it is well- versed with the process. In a sense, all it had to do was dust off its bid book from the previous campaigns and re-submit it to FIFA. It is keeping its fingers crossed that the refined dusting technique, and French backing, will be enough.
The most fascinating game is being played by Libya and Tunisia. But the game is not football and the two countries are not playing against each other. In fact, they are on the same team. Sepp Blatter, FIFA president's announcement that the days of co-hosting were over -- following Japan and South Korea -- was promptly ignored by Libya and Tunisia. While the countries will present separate bids, they say they will try to convince FIFA to choose them as joint hosts. They claim Blatter never flatly rejected that 2010 could not be jointly hosted, and indeed, in Tunisia last year Blatter did say: "Nothing would prevent the exception made for the co-hosting of the World Cup between Japan and South Korea be revisited."
But even if a joint bid is accepted, the task of Tunisia and Libya is mountain high. Tunisia has always been perceived as the cheap, bumpkin neighbour to the far more sophisticated Morocco. But in all fairness, Tunisia is better than that. Its infrastructure is already in place, roads are good, and Tunis is a direct three-hour flight from London.
Tunisia boasts six international- standard grounds and a proven record at hosting trouble-free soccer tournaments. It has qualified for three World Cups and right now is hosting the African Nations Cup of 2004.
And though this next bit of information will not impress the FIFA inspection team one bit, Tunisia was the site where one of the Star Wars movies was shot.
The bad news is that it is hard to imagine that such a big event could be held in such a small country of less than 10 million people.
All the money in the world will not make Tunisia bigger. But $6 billion can do a lot of other things. That's the amount of money Al-Saadi Gaddafi -- the man heading Libya's 2010 World Cup bid -- has said his country is prepared to spend on upgrading their facilities to FIFA standards (to be sure, the secretary-general of the Libyan Football Federation upped the ante, saying Libya is ready to spend up to $9 billion, the biggest figure in the history of the World Cup).
Al-Saadi is an international player, president of Libyan club Ittihad, vice president of his country's federation, and, most importantly, son of Dad. There is no doubt Al-Saadi can extricate the said money from the coffers of his oil-rich country. The money will be used to build eight modern stadiums and have them complete by 2008, in addition to 32 stadiums for training purposes.
As for co-hosting, Al-Saadi, who received the blessing of Tunisian President Zine Al-Abidine Ben Ali before announcing the joint bid, talked about the advantages of two instead of one.
"The cultural, religious and political closeness between neighbouring Libya and Tunisia are pluses for the joint bid," Al-Saadi was quoted as saying. "Our joint bid reflects the aim of FIFA and the United Nations of using sport as a tool in bringing nations together, promoting the values of education, health, peace and development," said a communiqué jointly issued by both federations.
Tunisia and Libya anyone?
After being deprived of the 2006 finals by Charles Dempsey's abstention, South Africa has reason to be confident, but no reason to be over-confident.
Dempsey was the Oceania representative on the FIFA executive who ignored instructions from his federation to back South Africa. Instead, he abstained on the crucial final vote, which meant Germany secured a 12-11 victory.
Had Dempsey voted as instructed, it would have been a tie -- which South Africa would probably have won through the deciding vote of Blatter, who had declared his backing for the South Africans.
A few days later, Dempsey stepped down as president of the Oceania Football Confederation, two years before his contract expired (Oceania officials said Dempsey would have been sacked had he not resigned).
To this day, the reason for the abstention remains unclear. To say the vote was contrived in Germany's favour might not be easy to prove in a legal challenge. Dempsey had spoken of "intolerable pressure" by supporters of the competing bids, including attempts to bribe him. Earlier reports of death threats were denied.
Dempsey was never seen or heard from again, but South Africa has never forgotten, which is why it may still be a bit red-faced after confidently predicting the 2006 competition was in the bag. In truth, South Africa blew the Dempsey affair out of proportion. It probably lost the battle long before the vote, after FIFA was persuaded more by Germany's ability to attract bigger and better sponsors and thereby help replenish its embattled coffers. Just as political, sentimental and historical favourites Athens lost out to Coca- Cola's home city of Atlanta for the 1996 centennial Olympics, Germany's economy triumphed over South Africa's. FIFA was simply not convinced that its financial interest would be better served by South Africa than Germany.
Which is why South Africa's strategy in the 2010 campaign has been to prove its commercial competence; to prove to FIFA it has the commercial and sponsorship capacity within its domestic market. Consequently, it has been furiously courting local backers and a myriad of new sponsors to the FIFA house.
South Africa is aiming to get 13 out of the 24 FIFA votes. The target is ambitious but probably untenable. The country has a huge AIDS problem, geographically it's far from everything -- it's a 12-hour flight from soccer fans of Europe, and its crime rate is frightening. While abstinence from hanky-panky can help prevent AIDS and jet planes can take care of the farthest corners, what can you do about a country that has, by some accounts, the highest level of violent crime of any country in the world, outside of a war zone?
South Africa's campaign team has promised that 10 per cent of its budget would be used to tackle the crime menace. But deprived blacks in dusty townships who believed that once they were free they would share in their country's wealth, are posing a severe socio- economic problem that surveillance cameras and police batons cannot treat.
On the bright side, the country's facilities are in place and would require modification rather than construction to be ready for the World Cup. The hosting of the 2003 Cricket World Cup, the 1995 Rugby World Cup and the 1996 African Nations Cup could count in the country's favour.
The Rainbow Nation also has some big- name rooters. Franz Beckenbauer has said he is confident South Africa will be chosen. The backing of the German legend means an assurance of at least one vote from Germany football boss Gerhard Mayer-Vorfelder.
And of course the nation is riding high on Nelson Mandela's global reputation. The former president has travelled to Zurich to meet Blatter to press the South African case, and during the 2006 vote, he rang Dempsey to try and persuade him to vote for South Africa. Mandela also welcomed the FIFA inspection team, receiving them at Robben Island where he spent 18 years in prison.
South Africa constantly claims that it is the only 100 per cent African country among the bidders, thus giving it the right to stage this first-ever Africa-only World Cup, no questions asked. How that, and Mandela's magic, will play out, only 15 May will tell.
