The ludicrous narrative for a Korean World Cup in 2022

The voting for the rights to host upcoming FIFA World Cups in 2018 and 2022 take place on Thursday, December 2nd. Hardly a transparent process, the voting process is rife with secrecy and corruption, leaving no real clues as to whom the World Cups will be awarded.

The 2018 bids are from Russia, England, Spain/Portugal, and Belgium/Netherlands. The 2022 bids are from Qatar, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and the United States. An executive summary of those bids, as evaluated by FIFA, is available here.

What's troubling, somewhat, is to hear the extent to which FIFA president Sepp Blatter is pushing a certain political agenda for these two Cups, which he deems as potential "legacy" tournaments, as outlined in this Wall Street Journal article:

"2018 would open Russia to the rest of the world, banishing the ugliness of the Iron Curtain once and for all. 2022, so the narrative goes, would help unify North and South Korea. Such is the power of soccer that, according to the theory, South Korea would happily share its World Cup with its neighbor to the North. That part's not implausible, but the imagined narrative goes further: North Korea would open up in time for 2022, ridding itself of an authoritarian regime (by that point, Kim Jong Il, the Dear Leader, might have made way for his designated successor, Kim Jong Un) and turning the event into a celebration of soccer-propelled international brotherhood."

Woefully optimistic at best and delusional at worst, could the power of Sepp Blatter's narrative - along with the executive committee members willing to do his bidding - deliver the 2022 Cup to South Korea, co-hosts (with Japan) in 2002? Lest we forget, it was also Blatter's doings that delivered a World Cup to Africa, which although deserved for South Africa progress as a nation, did not deliver in reality what FIFA's rhetoric had promised - as noted previously on this blog here, here, and here.

World Cup power broker and FIFA President Sepp Blatter

All in all, considering recent events in the Korean peninsula, such a pie-in-the-sky scenario for a Korean World Cup in 2022 seems preposterous. But, in truth, no less preposterous than FIFA's back-room-dealing, under-the-desk-note-passing, bribe-inducing, and country-colluding voting process in the first place.

Euro 2012 Mascots Unveiled

How strange is this video introducing the new mascots for Euro 2012, the European soccer championships, to be held jointly by Poland and the Ukraine?

Seriously. These animatrons, of course, look a whole lot better when manifested in material form:

Yikes. Why international sports organizations insist on giving children nightmares via their mascots is beyond me.  At least, however, the new Poland/Ukraine mascots are a tad less creepy than their 2012 Olympic counterparts, Wenlock and Mandeville.

Yowza. Names for the Euro 2012 freaks have yet to be determined, as FIFA holds a fan voting competition to determine whether they will be called one of the following: Slavek and Slavko, Siemko and Strimko, or Klemek and Ladko.

The triviality of the spectacle, does it matter?

New logo video for the 2014 World Cup in Brazil

This whole presentation is both interesting and weird at the same time.

And the logo, I guess it looks fine.  I'm not as blown away by it as Paulo Coelho but, then again, I'm no Paulo Coelho.

More posts will come.  The rigors of schoolwork and dissertation aren't mixing so well right now, but hopefully they'll even out soon.

The Daily Show tackles the World Cup

The following is a great piece from Daily Show correspondent John Oliver, who uncovers the commercialization and gentrification of the World Cup in Africa.  Just enjoy.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
World Cup 2010: Into Africa - Goal Diggers
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

Rough week for South Africa, mega-profits for FIFA

Wednesday, on the 35th anniversary of the Soweto Uprising, now commemorated as South African Youth Day, the country had a bit of a rough go of it, to say the least.  Not only did their beloved Bafana Bafana fall to Uruguay by an embarrassing 3-0 scoreline, but their team will be without their first-choice goalkeeper, Itumeleng Khune, for their next game (against France) after he was shown a straight red card in the 76th minute.  The loss means that the team needs something just short of a miracle to progress out of the group stage and make the second round.

The problems for South Africa, however, don't end there.  In Durban today, approximately three thousand South Africans showed up outside Moses Mabhida Stadium to protest the government's lucrative spending to stage the World Cup tournament.  With 40% of the country's population living on less than $2 per day, much of the criticism in the build up to the World Cup has centered on whether the South African government should have spent money, specifically, on stadiums that will become obsolete after the tournament ends.

The Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit, for example, a 43,500-seat stadium built specifically for this month's tournament cost the nation's taxpayers about $140 million and will host just four World Cup matches.  That's a cost of about $35 million per game!  Known as the "Giraffe Stadium," there's no denying the beauty of the facility, but many of the residents in the surrounding areas (just a hundred yards in some cases) suffer from a lack of electricity, paved roads, proper housing, and clean water.

The orange trusses that support the roof of the Mbombela Stadium

were designed to look like giraffes.

The protest came just days after riot police in Durban used tear gas and rubber bullets to dissipate a protest by local security guards who claimed that they had been underpaid for their services.  According to the New York Times, the guards were promised about $200 per day for a 12-hour shift; instead, on their first day of work, they received just $27 for their workday in and around the Mabhida Stadium in Durban.  As a result of that protest on Monday, security guards in Durban and at other stadiums throughout South Africa have gone on labor strikes and forced FIFA to ask police to take over security at venues in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and Port Elizabeth.

Adding to this already-volatile situation, earlier this week, South African energy officials asked their citizens to "reduce their consumption of electricity" to ensure the tournament does not face any energy disruption.  Even though each of the country's 8 World Cup stadiums have backup generators, there is still a concern that the country's union of energy workers could strike at the state-owned energy company responsible for producing most of the country's electricity.

FIFA president Sepp Blatter illustrating how much he cares about

South Africa's financial situation.  About yay-much.

At the end of the day, a consistent level of anger has been leveled at FIFA, soccer's governing body, which demanded the South African government spend upwards of $4.3 billion to build new facilities and the infrastructure required for hosting a tournament of this magnitude.  And while South Africa will struggle with the lingering financial issues of staging the tournament, FIFA is set to reap profits of up to $2.5 billion from the sale of broadcast rights, marketing, and tickets for the tournament.  The best part? As an officially-registered charity in Switzerland, FIFA will pay $0 in taxes on that profit.

The opportunity for ESPN this summer in South Africa

South Africa and FIFA have assembled an impressive collection of stadiums for use this summer in the upcoming World Cup.  Four, in particular, are especially impressive.  They are the Mbombela Stadium, the Green Point Stadium, the Durban Stadium, and the Soccer City Stadium.  Of those four, the Soccer City stadium is the only renovated facility while the rest are brand new and ready just in time for the World Cup's opening kick on June 11th.  For context, here are some photos:

Mbombela Stadium

Green Point Stadium

Durban Stadium

Soccer City Stadium

With ESPN (and other global networks) providing an unprecedented amount of coverage of this year's World Cup, I simply want to receive coverage of the games, but also the real (financial, cultural, or otherwise) impact of the games on the country and people of South Africa.  So, to start, this commercial is laying it on pretty thick.

Ok, ESPN needs to hype the event and grab viewers (although that, as we saw in 2006, shouldn't be a problem).  But, I will be disappointed (like blog, The Offside Rules) if we hear nothing about the continuing human rights violations taking place in South Africa as a direct result of the World Cup.

For instance, just 12 miles from Cape Town's $585 million Green Point Stadium lies a "temporary relocation area" known as Blikkiesdorp or "Tin Can Town."  A British photographer recently published a news article in order to publicize what is basically an apartheid camp for about 15,000 people displaced because government officials did not want them surrounding Cape Town's impressive new stadium.

Tin Can Town outside Cape Town, South Africa.

According to the photographer, who doubles as an eviction activist, Blikkiesdorp is a place where you have no address (and thus, rarely can find employment), no schooling, and no health services.  This is just the tip of the iceberg, however, as food is scarce, health problems are pervasive, and a 10 p.m. curfew is maintained by armed police.

Now, the facilities here, our photographer admits, "If you compare Blikkiesdorp with slums like the ones the residents lived in before, it might look better at first." "But," he continues, "when you go there and see the oppression, you think you'd rather be somewhere with life, where you can go out after 10, cook outside, build, [and] have a registered address."

Armored police vehicles patrol the perimeter of Blikkiesdorp.

His photos were supplemented earlier this month by UK newspaper The Guardian, which chronicled Tin Can Town with input from residents.  One such resident described it thusly,

"It's a dumping place.  They took people from the streets because they don't want them in the city for the World Cup.  Now we are living in a concentration camp.  It's like the devil runs this place.  We have no freedom.  The police come at night and beat adults and children.  South Africa isn't showing the world what it's doing to its people.  It only shows the World Cup."

And another resident sums up the situation poignantly, "I know we were moved because of the World Cup.  They don't want people to see shacks on the road in South Africa.  They want everything perfect for the World Cup."

If the South African government (and/or FIFA) thinks it right to make these people invisible, then I hope that ESPN puts some of those E:60 reporters to good use to bring these kinds of images and stories to light.  Because even if Bono proudly narrates in the advertisement above that "it's not about human rights," in Blikkiesdorp, it most certainly is.

Are you interested in (World) cup size upgrade?

So, what happens when you're hosting the World Cup in three months and you've yet to sell out the tickets for all of the matches?

Even worse, you're not just a few short, but more like 650,000 short.  With 2.95 million tickets available, that's 22% of tickets for the World Cup unsold - just four short years after Germany received almost 5 times as many ticket requests as seats (15 million applications :: 3.4 million seats).

Built on top of a former gold mine, will Johannesburg's Soccer City 

Stadium be a quarter empty come June?

Even (more?) worse, of the 570,000 total tickets you allocated to countries playing in the World Cup, almost 330,000 are still unsold; so, about 58% of the people you invited to your party have opted to stay at home and watch in 3-D rather than brave adverse conditions in South Africa like unfinished roads, insufficient electricity for stadiums, taxi driver protests, and elevated levels of violent crime.  Of course, if these stay-cationers really wanted to make the trip to South Africa, they could have figured something out - like, say, hire Canadian bodyguards.

No, they're not that kind of Canadian bodyguards.

Let me just reiterate that this kind of thing is completely unprecedented for a World Cup and so, the question remains, what are you to do?  The first thing?  Don't panic.  And South African government officials are holding firm.  Gauteng (the country's most populous province and home to 3 World Cup Stadiums) Premier Nomvula Mokonyane has insisted that the country is ready:

"In spite of negative reports emanating from known and unknown sources hell-bent on besmirching the image of our country.  I am confident that South Africa is ready to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup....We are a country that is intolerant of crime, a country that is prepared to make sure that this World Cup becomes a legacy.  Believe us, we have gone an extra mile compared to other countries that have hosted."

Men on horseback patrol outside the Cape Town Stadium as part of

a security test on Monday.  Comforted yet?

The second?  Get creative. According to the Wall Street Journal, while government officials are looking to up the visitor turnout to South Africa by trying to rein in backpacker groups and Christian evangelists who would be "eager to speak to large crowds of soccer fans," some local businesses are coming up with their own ideas.

One solution from a cosmetic surgery center in Cape Town: offer breast enhancement packages complete with accommodations and transportation to World Cup matches.  Surgical Bliss in Cape Town, which is known for their medical tourism, takes pride in combining plastic surgery visits with "amazing holiday opportunities" that the area offers.  According to Times of India, the World Cup package is designed to entice more female fans to tournament and, in total, costs about $9000.

Over 130,000 American fans have already bought tickets for the World Cup - second only to the host nation South Africa.  No word yet on whether the intriguing offer from Surgical Bliss will help boost - among other things - that number.

The World Cup is Coming to the US, but not Chicago or SF...

The US had to submit its final sites to FIFA for consideration for the 2018 or 2022 World Cup.  Of the 18 nominated cities, 21 stadiums were nominated.  Sadly, the qualifications for bid cities and stadiums had very little to do with anything besides stadium size and thus, the ability to sell a boatload of tickets - and at premium prices (the more suites the better - US Soccer thanks you, Jerry Jones!).  The map looks like this.

When If the USA's bid is accepted by FIFA, 9 to 12 venues will make the final cut.  So, which cities are likely to make it?  Here is my guess for the ten cities that will make it:

Seattle (Qwest Field - 68,056)

Los Angeles (Rose Bowl - 89,109)

Denver (INVESCO Field - 75,165)

Phoenix (Univ. of Phoenix Stadium - 71,362)

Dallas (Cowboys Stadium - 91,600)

Miami  (LandShark Stadium - 80,240)

Washington, D.C. (FedEx Field - 89,690)

Philadelphia (Lincoln Financial Field - 69,111)

New York (New Meadowlands Stadium - 84,046)

Boston (Gillette Stadium - 73,393)

Average stadium seating capacity = 79,177 = $$$$

It's hard to imagine any of the domed/turfed stadiums (Indianapolis, Houston, Atlanta) making the cut, even though several of those are fairly new.  I also ruled out San Diego, Tampa Bay, Nashville, and Kansas City for less-than-ideal and not-so-new stadiums (especially when compared to Phoenix and Dallas).  I was tempted to add Miami to that list since LandShark Stadium will be ancient by the time 2022 comes around, but it seems that Miami will be a sporting mainstay for a long time (see this year's NFL ProBowl and SuperBowl).  I also wished that I could add Baltimore to that list, but I cannot picture any scenario in which the Capital is snubbed.

When FIFA last visited the States in 1994, the tournament featured just 24 teams (now up to 32) and set a total attendance record of 3.6 million - a record that still stands to this day.  Estimates place this future World Cup (the US is favored to be named as host of the 2022 Cup) as breaking all sorts of attendance records (somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million), as just about all of the stadiums in the above cities can seat 70,000 or more fans.  By contrast, just two of the ten World Cup 2010 venues in South Africa surpass the 70,000 seat mark.

According to US Soccer, these cities and their stadiums offer "unique distinctions for the United States bid...[including] new venues with retractable roofs that offer climate certainty and the newest amenities catering to fan experience and game performance such as Cowboys Stadium."

My, what a big stadium you have...

What's uncertain about the climate in an American summer?  Or, by 2012, will there be such a constant string of tornadoes, hurricanes, mudslides, and any number of natural disasters plaguing the globe that the availability of playing indoors would deliver genuine relief in the form of climate certainty?

Well, at least the US Bid Committee was upfront with their presentation.  There was no hiding the rationale behind these stadium selections, because as most bid countries (whether for the World Cup or Olympics, etc.) have realized about the bidding process with international sports organizations like FIFA or the IOC, it's all about the benjamins, baby.