70 replies to this topic

[Sir Rols]

Sigh!

I feel a bit like Bad Santa stealing away all the presents when I argue against South Africa's 2020 chances here, and like AthensFan (and as I've said often enough before), nothing would make me happier than to see SA emerge as a powerful contender and winner of that hosting.

But the way I see it is this.
All bids and selections are risks - be they London, Paris and New York or Rio, Durban and Delhi. Some are more widely perceived "risks" than others, and would always be scrutinised more heavily on that front. It may not be fair or accurately reflect real capabilities, but it would be so. And as well as that, bids from the Rios or CT/Durbans or Delhis of the world will also inevitably be more heavily scrutinised around the world within the context of social legacy, responsibility and sustainability than "First Worlder" hostings. Germany's 2006 World Cup hosting, for example, didn't spark the rush of international articles and features pondering whether it was a wise and beneficial and socially responsible investment for the nation, as South Africa 2010 did. Or that Rio will or even has sparked compared to London.

If you look at the state of the Commonwealth Games at the moment, with the train wreck of Delhi looming, I'd be pretty sure the CGF are now far more reassured that they have Glasgow in their pocket already as their next hosting, than if they had gone with Abuja. Again, fairly or unfairly and reflective of reality on the ground or not, Glasgow would surely be perceived in many circles as a far securer insurance policy for the future of the CGF than Abuja would seem to offer straight after Delhi now.
Just a year ago exactly, a strong sentiment on this board, and in the world media, and in the bookies markets, was that the IOC was a risk adverse organisation that would unlikely stray beyond "alpha" cities with highly developed and advanced infrastructure and had the resources and wherewithall to provide new and impressive sports venue facilities just for the games. Rio was always perceived as more of a a leap of faith than the others. In the wash-up, the IOC took that leap of faith. There is still strong debate here and elsewhere on the wisdom of that decision, and there will continue to be so till 2016. I hope and expect Rio will put on a spectacular and successful games, and I sure hope and expect the lead-up to its games will be smoother and more transparent than Delhi is having now. But its still far to early to be sure if it will be so. So many things could sour. If, God Forbid, in early 2016 things don't seem so rosy and secure, I would guess that the IOC would be happier to have the likes of a Rome or Tokyo or Madrid or Berlin their back pocket for the handover ceremony than, I'm sorry to say, Durban. I don't doubt that Durban would be just as capable of hosting the games as those earlier cities, but if the preparations and execution of 2016 ended up becoming mired in worries and recriminations and pointed questioning of the the IOC's decision to go there, such worries would transfer greater pressure and scrutiny on an upcoming South African hosting than an upcoming French or Italian or Japanese one. Maybe not fair, but it would be so.

I think there is a strong appetite for the Games to go to Africa, and it was inevitable that in the immediate euphoria post this year's World Cup, the notion was going to fire a lot of enthusiasm. But the debate that the likes of Nawal are now sparking was inevitable too - social responsibility and sustainability are the issues South Africa is going to have to address head-on in any campaign it mounts in the near future. Eventually, I think it will win. But I think the ground and expectations are now being prepared that it's not going to be immediately.