The devil’s in the detail

Article By: Rebekah Kendal

There is nothing new about Europeans raping Africa — it is the story of colonialism. This time, however, we invited them in and, having taken the abuse with a smile, have thanked them for it.

That is, after all, what is expected of us. Poor Africa. Indebted Africa. Lucky-to-even-be-considered-capable-of-hosting-a-major-event Africa.

In fact, we were so grateful that Sepp Blatter and his FIFA cronies enabled us to spend a significant portion of which was spent on useless stadiums preparing for this honour, that our president was willing to bestow on the FIFA boss South Africa’s highest honour for foreigners, the Order of the Companions of OR Tambo.

A friend of Africa? I think not.

Despite the pro-Africa enthusing and the general back-patting, FIFA is no friend of Africa. Despite all appearances to the contrary, FIFA has done Africa no favours in allowing it to host the World Cup. South Africa, on the other hand, has done plenty for FIFA. Not only has it managed (thus far) to pull off a successful World Cup — thus entrenching the façade of a beneficent FIFA — it has managed to fill the organisation’s already well-stocked coffers.

Prior to the World Cup, Sepp Blatter said: “Naturally, we might not have the same return of investment as we had at the last World Cup in 2006, but the world was a different place then. For FIFA, it’s not important to get money out of Africa, but it’s important to us that the Africans enjoy organising their own World Cup — and they will do.”

Bull.

Patronising tone aside — a throwback perhaps from that other form of colonialism — the assertion that FIFA wasn’t planning to extract as much money as it could from impoverished Africans is nonsense. If that were the case, FIFA would not have increased its income by 50 percent since the 2006 World Cup. It would not have forced South Africa to make so many concessions.

In 2006, FIFA collected $2.8-billion in revenue from the World Cup; the organisation expects its provisional income for the 2010 World Cup to be around $3.2-billion. Of that money, 75 percent will be invested into “development” (whatever that may mean) and the rest — almost $1-billion — will be pocketed as profit.

Now, it strikes me as a little peculiar that a company which had its not-for-profit tax-free status re-affirmed by the Swiss parliament in March can walk away with profits of almost $1-billion. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that our World Cup (yip, the one hosted in Africa) is expected to contribute an additional 0.5 percent to the Swiss GDP.

Unfortunately, the World Cup is likely to be a whole lot less profitable for South Africa. This is, in part, because of the ridiculous tax concession which the South African government agreed to. In a nutshell, FIFA, its subsidiaries, and foreign football associations are all exempt from paying income tax, customs duties, and VAT. So, while the South African taxpayer had to dish out billions so that FIFA could hold its World Cup (and, let’s be honest, the World Cup was never really Africa’s), we won’t be seeing any of the returns.

In an article published by the City Press, Sars spokesperson Adrian Lackay sums up the financial situation pretty succinctly: “From the perspective of what we spent as a country and from what the country stands to make in terms of revenue and profits it is almost negligible.

“Our approach to the World Cup has been that it was never going to be a revenue-raising exercise. Certainly it would be wrong to view the World Cup as a significant contributor in itself. The concessions we had to give to FIFA are simply too demanding and overwhelming for us to have material monetary benefits.”

And who, exactly, is to blame for those concessions? The South African government which, in its pursuit for acceptance as a world player, sold the country for a pittance? Sure.

But, even more so, FIFA. To take more than you should simply because you can is wrong. To do what the rest of the world has been doing to Africa for centuries under the guise of condescension is morally reprehensible. Particularly for an organisation which claims to not be about profit.