Publications
Partners
Rob Houwing
Do you, like me, get the warm feeling as the World Cup reaches roughly its midway stage in match-tally terms that much more is going right than wrong in the tournament?
I made the point earlier this week that one ingredient seemed to be belatedly but happily joining the mix: an increasingly healthier calibre of soccer itself.
And if that element stays in place, obviously it will go a long way to making 2010 a classic in the 80-year history (encompassing 19 tournaments, including South Africa) of the World Cup.
Of course it is difficult to define what actually constitutes a “best ever” tournament in soccer’s premier four-yearly get-together.
Some will inevitably be inclined to measure it in strict financial terms and such areas as worldwide television audiences – and as the years go by these figures naturally tend to go more consistently up than down.
But there is a more agreeable case for saying that the manner in which a World Cup captures the imagination and affection of the host nation should really be the essential barometer.
And in that department 2010 is really coming up trumps as we speak. Personally, I was so pleased that South Africa bowed out with pride very much intact after the win against France – it ought to help to a robust degree in keeping local enthusiasm for the tournament as a whole at high levels.
My two recent English journalist guests for a week noted how even upmarket restaurants were hoisting big-screen televisions to cater for patrons’ insistence, while a couple of traditional “rugby and cricket” pubs I took them too near my home were mostly jam-packed with regulars and others savouring the beautiful game for a change.
On my Highveld and Lowveld travels for the first week of the tournament, I tended to experience only smiles, politeness and enthusiasm from the various World Cup volunteers, police and security people, even if my occasional requests for assistance were not always met with quite the required degree of aid.
The bravely-convened minnow venues have attracted good volumes of spectators, even if the park and rides seemed immeasurably more efficient and co-ordinated at Nelspruit – what a delight of a stadium! – than they were in my once-off at Rustenburg.
There appears to be an encouraging second wind of visitors to the tournament from abroad, helping slowly repair initial estimates that had proved too ambitious in a recessionary climate.
And South African support itself has been quite wonderful, going a long way to ensuring virtually full stadiums even for relatively unappealing ties, on paper, at some massive venues and in winter conditions not hugely conducive to sitting still for two or three hours.
Whether they condone the now-trademark drone of the vuvuzelas or not, I am getting feedback from friends and family in countries like Holland and England that commentators (television and print alike) are glowing in their observations of genuine cup “fever” on our shores.
Sometimes we also worry too much about little things: a Cape Town newspaper pointed, for instance, to a supposedly paltry turnout of some 200 or so at the Grand Parade Fan Fest location for the recent Portugal v North Korea match in the city.
But there was a near-capacity crowd of 64 000 at the game itself, and who would want to be standing in an open-air, big-screen environment anyway when cold, penetrative rain is bucketing down?
Those English guests who had been with me at the Fan Fest only the night before, for the Brazil v Ivory Coast fixture upcountry, had marvelled at the vibrancy of a crowd of several thousand on a chilly Sunday night that was at least dry.
They told me that in their visit to the German-staged World Cup in 2006, they had been to one screening at a Fan Fest spot in Hannover which sported only a few dozen people watching in fair weather.
There have been some grumbles around media arrangements, but much of this area has seemingly been in the hands of FIFA people, not always commanding the best English, flown in from Europe for the tournament.
One area, I believe, is a more genuine concern: the tendency in some instances to rip off foreign tourists at the World Cup.
Frankly, we locals should unite pretty strongly in exposing such reported practices as watering holes doubling or trebling their prices for people with “foreign-sounding” accents. That is a dangerously subjective tactic anyway, by my book.
It is immoral and greedy, and the argument that it is return justice for South Africans who suffer at the pocket abroad holds no water – the rand not being as strong as the pound or dollar is plain economic reality.
Are European pubs or hotels, say, to adopt a sliding scale of cheaper prices for South Africans, Malaysians, Aussies and Papua New Guineans respectively?
During my 1 400km road-trip, after flying from Cape Town to Johannesburg, I experienced some inconsistencies (to put it politely) in local pricing for myself.
Luckily the company was paying but I noticed, for instance, that they spent R550 for one night’s bed and breakfast for me in a Nelspruit guest house and R1 660 for another near Rustenburg.
And guess what? The former one was appreciably more modern, panoramic and comfortable than the latter, including the not unimportant matter during a World Cup of having a television free of the severe “fuzz” and much more limited channel bouquet I experienced at the latter.
Let’s not cloud, to our valued guests from abroad, the prospect of this being an all-embracing World Cup humdinger and brilliant advertisement for South Africa and its people.
Like it or not, South Africa, with its great distance from most affluent nations and justified bad press in some areas, needs to retain its image as a relatively cheap destination if it is to keep tourists and their wallets coming long after the World Cup dust has settled …
Rob is Sport24's chief writer
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
Do you, like me, get the warm feeling as the World Cup reaches roughly its midway stage in match-tally terms that much more is going right than wrong in the tournament?
I made the point earlier this week that one ingredient seemed to be belatedly but happily joining the mix: an increasingly healthier calibre of soccer itself.
And if that element stays in place, obviously it will go a long way to making 2010 a classic in the 80-year history (encompassing 19 tournaments, including South Africa) of the World Cup.
Of course it is difficult to define what actually constitutes a “best ever” tournament in soccer’s premier four-yearly get-together.
Some will inevitably be inclined to measure it in strict financial terms and such areas as worldwide television audiences – and as the years go by these figures naturally tend to go more consistently up than down.
But there is a more agreeable case for saying that the manner in which a World Cup captures the imagination and affection of the host nation should really be the essential barometer.
And in that department 2010 is really coming up trumps as we speak. Personally, I was so pleased that South Africa bowed out with pride very much intact after the win against France – it ought to help to a robust degree in keeping local enthusiasm for the tournament as a whole at high levels.
My two recent English journalist guests for a week noted how even upmarket restaurants were hoisting big-screen televisions to cater for patrons’ insistence, while a couple of traditional “rugby and cricket” pubs I took them too near my home were mostly jam-packed with regulars and others savouring the beautiful game for a change.
On my Highveld and Lowveld travels for the first week of the tournament, I tended to experience only smiles, politeness and enthusiasm from the various World Cup volunteers, police and security people, even if my occasional requests for assistance were not always met with quite the required degree of aid.
The bravely-convened minnow venues have attracted good volumes of spectators, even if the park and rides seemed immeasurably more efficient and co-ordinated at Nelspruit – what a delight of a stadium! – than they were in my once-off at Rustenburg.
There appears to be an encouraging second wind of visitors to the tournament from abroad, helping slowly repair initial estimates that had proved too ambitious in a recessionary climate.
And South African support itself has been quite wonderful, going a long way to ensuring virtually full stadiums even for relatively unappealing ties, on paper, at some massive venues and in winter conditions not hugely conducive to sitting still for two or three hours.
Whether they condone the now-trademark drone of the vuvuzelas or not, I am getting feedback from friends and family in countries like Holland and England that commentators (television and print alike) are glowing in their observations of genuine cup “fever” on our shores.
Sometimes we also worry too much about little things: a Cape Town newspaper pointed, for instance, to a supposedly paltry turnout of some 200 or so at the Grand Parade Fan Fest location for the recent Portugal v North Korea match in the city.
But there was a near-capacity crowd of 64 000 at the game itself, and who would want to be standing in an open-air, big-screen environment anyway when cold, penetrative rain is bucketing down?
Those English guests who had been with me at the Fan Fest only the night before, for the Brazil v Ivory Coast fixture upcountry, had marvelled at the vibrancy of a crowd of several thousand on a chilly Sunday night that was at least dry.
They told me that in their visit to the German-staged World Cup in 2006, they had been to one screening at a Fan Fest spot in Hannover which sported only a few dozen people watching in fair weather.
There have been some grumbles around media arrangements, but much of this area has seemingly been in the hands of FIFA people, not always commanding the best English, flown in from Europe for the tournament.
One area, I believe, is a more genuine concern: the tendency in some instances to rip off foreign tourists at the World Cup.
Frankly, we locals should unite pretty strongly in exposing such reported practices as watering holes doubling or trebling their prices for people with “foreign-sounding” accents. That is a dangerously subjective tactic anyway, by my book.
It is immoral and greedy, and the argument that it is return justice for South Africans who suffer at the pocket abroad holds no water – the rand not being as strong as the pound or dollar is plain economic reality.
Are European pubs or hotels, say, to adopt a sliding scale of cheaper prices for South Africans, Malaysians, Aussies and Papua New Guineans respectively?
During my 1 400km road-trip, after flying from Cape Town to Johannesburg, I experienced some inconsistencies (to put it politely) in local pricing for myself.
Luckily the company was paying but I noticed, for instance, that they spent R550 for one night’s bed and breakfast for me in a Nelspruit guest house and R1 660 for another near Rustenburg.
And guess what? The former one was appreciably more modern, panoramic and comfortable than the latter, including the not unimportant matter during a World Cup of having a television free of the severe “fuzz” and much more limited channel bouquet I experienced at the latter.
Let’s not cloud, to our valued guests from abroad, the prospect of this being an all-embracing World Cup humdinger and brilliant advertisement for South Africa and its people.
Like it or not, South Africa, with its great distance from most affluent nations and justified bad press in some areas, needs to retain its image as a relatively cheap destination if it is to keep tourists and their wallets coming long after the World Cup dust has settled …
Rob is Sport24's chief writer
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
