Thursday, June 10, 2010

A world cup too far...

So the party is about to begin in less than 24 hours, the greatest sporting event that takes place every 4 years is about to unravel. It truly is a world cup unlike the cricket one, where a handful nations are competitive enough. So what's different about this cup, brazil aren't the talented team they used to be. They seem more to be a well oiled machine rather than the flamboyant and brilliant team we all had recognised it to be in the past. Argentina is still an enigma..despite the forward lineup consisting of greats like messsi, tavez, higuain, tevez and milito..their temprament is a problem. Azzzurri have grown too old and england still suffer from the hype associated with EPL. Thus it would be like another cup except the "fact" that it's the first time that the dark continent is the host and what better place than south africa to host the cup.

World cup is expected to be different with the profound impact of the Vuvuzela on the players and visiting spectators. Some call it irritating, but then you have to accept it as part of the local culture. The success of the cup depends on the local population as much as it depends on spectators visiting from other countries. Unlike europe where there's equal participation among indiviiduals from different nations, the success of this cup depends upon the support of the local population.

Going by the response... the hype and enthusiasm seems to be missing. There could be many reasons for it...some find the tickets to be steeply priced or the mode of disbursement absurd where majority don't have access to credit cards and thus the online access to them. But aren't we missing the real fact... football traditionally game of blacks in south africa should have been welcomed with great enthusiasm which is missing. Flash back to 1996 when rugby a game considered to be of the elite population had such a profound impact on the population there. The country had recently come out of the apartheid when Nelson Mandela used the event to bring harmony among the black and white. He found it to be a instrument which could help overcome the racial divide among it's population. People were made part of the event, unlike the 2010 world cup where shanty's and local population have been forced to move out of their present locality for the cup.

One major factor which can be attributed to the difference between 1996 and 2010 is the leadership at the helm in South Africa. 1996 was when Mandela made an impact not only on the nation but a sporting event as a whole. His clean image and struggle to end years of discrimination had paid dividence and he used the rugby world cup to bring people close. Fast forward to 2010 when the man at the helm Jacob Zuma is the opposite of what mandela was, neither is he consdered honest nor his off the work news held him in the highest regards. He has failed to bring his population together for the cup. His appeal and charisma is pale when compared to madela. Sporting events are no showpieces, there influence on the population today and generations ahead can be profound if handled the right way. What's important is the after effect they leave behind on the people. Rugby world cup in 1996 helped remove the animosity among it's population. I am afraid too say this one would just pass as another sporting event leaving behind white elephants unless the local population is made part of the event.

Do we want africa to loose it's best chance to host a cup....which would have no impact... the question seems to worry me a lot...perhaps the start in another 24 hours could answer my worries....

No comments: