國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the policy essentially creates bigger, less resourced and more peripheral slums via TRAs, which are never truly temporary. Their removal not only disjoints people from the city and their livelihoods but also guarantees that they are excluded and have no access to the mega-event or the benefits thereof. Political commentators and legal experts such as Marie Huchzermeyer of Wits University assert that not only is the act reminiscent and reinforcing of apartheid policy but it specifically reintroduced clauses from the 1951 Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, an act that was done away with in 1998 (IAI, 2009). This, again, highlights how FIFA policies can undermine a government’s sovereignty.
2.3 Socio-Economics
As stated in the opening chapter, with a gini co-efficient of 0.679, 57% of the population below the poverty line and 27.7% of urban residents living in slums, South Africa is amongst the very most unequal societies in the world (Cottle, 2010; Wyatt 2010). The above statistics translate into a very sensitive and complex society, within which development and opportunities are desperately needed. When a society reaches that level of desperation it is far more likely to engage in desperate acts such as those defined by our discussion of ‘millennial capitalism’. The hosting of the World Cup is, by definition, a perfect example of a millennial capitalist venture in which mass consumption and self-sacrifice are the prerequisites for a hope of prosperity. The fundamental issues with this notion, particularly when carried out in the developing world, is that ‘consumption’, ‘sacrifice’ and the hoped-for ‘benefits’ are never experienced in equal or even similar proportions by different groups within the society. For example, mass
consumption, whether it is of goods & services or of football matches, can only be enjoyed by
43
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
those with the resources and finances to do so. Those groups that do not have the resources are simply peripheral or excluded from that consumption, thus highlighting how the event is responsible for excluding groups and individuals that are not of sound financial standing. In similar light, when it comes to ‘sacrifice’, it is very seldom the upper echelons of society that suffer or sacrifice most gravely. Sacrifices made by societies in preparation for mega-events are most often made by poor, disenfranchised individuals and their communities. It is not very often, if ever, that one hears of a middle or upper-class neighborhood making way for a stadium, or a well-resourced, middle class school being raised to the ground so a car park can be established, as did happen in a South African township. If and when the organizers require people that are better off to make some sacrifices, this is usually done after some kind of bilateral negotiations, an agreement on reasonable compensation and the provision of a reasonable alternative or a guaranteed short-term time commitment. When dealing with poor disenfranchised communities, discussions and agreements are usually conducted unilaterally, and time-scale agreements are so negligible that even today, 5years after the World Cup, there are still people in what were meant to be Temporary Relocation Areas. Lastly, many of the benefits and positive spin-offs that we desperately hope for are also more likely to befall certain demographics and groups than others. We brag about the growth to the economy and increased GDP for the time period but we fail to acknowledge just how few individuals and corporations drew the bulk of that fiscal flow. We are quick to point to an increase in jobs but we ignore the fact that a vast majority of those are temporary, unskilled labour in activities like construction, which meant unemployment for many before the tournament even began. This is encapsulated in the fact that the final quarter of 2009 recorded an unemployment rate of
44
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
24.3% and 1 117 000 employed in construction, and by the first quarter of 2010 unemployment had risen to 25.2% and there had been a loss 110 000 jobs in construction alone (Cottle &
Rombaldi, 2013). This illustrates how we ignore indicators such as the amount of people that are displaced or lose their jobs and livelihoods due to the World Cup, and very often those are poor people. With the heavily skewed distribution of resources for and benefits of the World Cup, it is no surprise that many blame it for the exacerbation of inequality, as is evidenced by the fact that the wage gap in construction had a 2004 figure of 166 and that rose to 285 in 2009 (Cottle & Rombaldi, 2014). It is incredible to imagine that these are the ratios of pay difference between a hard laborer toiling 12hours a day and a paper-pushing executive who essentially
‘constructs’ nothing.
An event as large and costly as the World Cup takes many years of preparation and planning, as well as the input and expertise of the most qualified and committed individuals in their fields.
As a consequence, mega-events are notorious for their diversion of funds and expertise from development initiatives for impoverished groups that could desperately use the funds and attention to better their cause. When some of the most capable administrators and government structures are completely focused upon delivering a smooth and successful tournament, it inevitably leaves a financial and human-resource void in other municipal and government structures, particularly those that champion the rights and well-being of the poor.
This, in itself, highlights how event-associated developments and initiatives are praised for their achievements whilst they are simultaneously allowing for an exclusion of poor groups and an ever widening gap between the economic classes. With that said, it is worth noting that, in the aftermath of the World Cup, some of the specialist teams that were put together to organize
45
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
the tournament were kept together to pursue other developments and initiatives on the behalf of cities and municipalities. However, there is very little evidence to suggest that these teams were involved in projects that focused on the development of poor people and their socio-economic situation (Robbins, 2012).
On an economic front, South Africa’s hosting of the event is believed to have offset the pressure felt by the economic recession of two years prior and, of course, this is of great importance to all members of society, particularly the most poor. On the other hand though, the event adds enormous fiscal pressure on the municipalities and cities that host, often
indebting the city for many years to come. One of the obvious ways this happens is through the maintenance of infrastructure, particularly stadiums which run up bills as costly white
elephants. This diversion of, not only funds but expertise and human resources too, shows how the preparation, delivery and now the aftermath of the tournament can exclude poor groups from not only the benefits and fanfare of the tournaments during its month, but can exclude vulnerable groups and communities from their rightful funds, attention and administration for many years. When this scenario plays itself out it is undoubtedly the residents of the smaller cities that suffer the most, as it is their municipalities that are hit hardest by a brain-drain or a diversion of even a relatively small amount of funds and resources. It is therefore not surprising to find large number of poor people leaving their municipalities and cities in search of hope, opportunities and better government resources in one of the three big metropolises. Mega-events can be so devastating to the future of a state or a city’s economy that the 2004 Olympic games in Athens are often blamed for setting the foundation for their current economic crisis, whilst the Vancouver games in 2010 left the city $1 billion in debt (Berr, 2010)
46
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA was once quoted saying that football, as a global sport, had a
“duty to take on social responsibility in human development” (Kahn, 2010, para2). This
sentiment is one upon which elites and commoners sold and bought the World Cup respectively.
However, the recurring themes of cost-underestimation, benefits-overestimation and rampant socio-institutional exclusions and marginalization of the poor have become expected of mega-events as part of their strategy in garnering support for the event and the aforementioned millennial capitalist expenditure. In an emerging economy, the culmination of these factors has potential to be dire, as seen by the reinforced social divisions experienced by most South African cities. The manner in which the mega-event exacerbated the injustices of the past highlights how government , in partnership with FIFA, had used the event to devise a
development plan that did not encourage inclusivity or consensus whilst it actively repressed socio-spatial integration and privatized public spaces for private profit. If this event did not reinforce racial apartheid then it certainly did reinforce class apartheid. Strategies were sometimes so out of tune with the needs and wants of the population mean, even explicit attempts to be inclusive of the poor also missed the mark. For example, whilst acknowledging that a large proportion of the local population was completely priced out of the tournament, FIFA and the LOC admirably reserved 3% of total tickets at a reduced price of R140, with the hope that they would attract poor football lovers. However, there were several factors that were not carefully considered by the organizers. Firstly, at just US$20, these tickets were indeed a comparative bargain, but when we consider that R140/US$20 is 10% the average monthly salary of the masses, then the World Cup tickets, even at this discount, still remain out-of-reach for many. Secondly, the ticket application and purchasing procedure was highly
47
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
complex, confusing and frustrating for the best of us, whilst it also required the use of the internet and a credit card, which are resources low income earners are very unlikely to have access to, therefore further enabling their exclusion from the mega-event. There was also the less popular option of entering banks and filling out dossiers of application books and pre-purchasing as many tickets as you can afford, as this is increases your chances in the raffle that is World Cup ticket purchasing. This system is ideal for people with disposable income, people who can afford to have money held up for several months whilst FIFA distributes tickets accordingly. Even with the idea that one is unlikely to get all the tickets they apply for, hence they would get a good amount of their money returned, poor people, who make up a bulk of South African football supporters simply cannot afford to put aside that kind of money for sports tickets as many live from wage to wage and paycheck to paycheck. It is therefore no surprise that tickets to South African football matches traditionally cost a fraction of R140 at just R20-R30 ($2.8-$4) and are almost never purchased in advance. Furthermore, all
applications and ticketing systems were in English, which is not the first, second or even third spoken or written language for many millions of South Africans, thus highlighting how the system was insensitive to needs and exacerbated exclusions (Fletcher, 2010). An unfortunate consequence of this ticketing dilemma was people with the resources and means to do so, purchasing obscene amounts of tickets then reselling them on the black-market at an inflated price, thus further guaranteeing the exclusion of the poor.
48
‧
國立 政 治 大 學