South Africa is NOT a developing country. Its GDP per caita is larger than most central and Eastern European countries, and likely its Gini coefficient is similar to those of those countries. But nobody would bat an eye if, say, Romania were to host the next World Cup (indeed, Poland and Ukraine are vying to host the 2012 European cup and nobody is batting an eye). What this article boils down to is "What is a black country doing hosting a white man's sport." And that's a shame.

I lived in a South African village for two years, from 2004 to May of 2006 and played soccer with a local club team. We had no spikes ('macorks, in the local patois). We travelled to our matches in a tractor wagon.

For most of these young men, the 2010 World Cup is the only event in their mental date books. Everything else is either up in the air, or down in the grave.

These young men deserve the World Cup to be in their back yards. It's easy for me, an American, to say life isn't about only economic development; but it was barefoot South African soccer that convinced me it was so.

It is not central to his/her argument, but I thought I'm correct the first poster and point out that South Africa has a Gini coefficient around .6, placing it as one of the worst in the world.

The 2010 Cup seems to have created a number of curious yet meaningfull manifestations of the country' state of mind. True, the optimism of the immediate post bid victory has somewhat diminished and has been replaced by the Afro-pessism mentioned. Perhaps the authors misses a more meaningful such manifestation and its meaning: the growing sense in SA that 2010 may be the "beginning of the end" for the country, and its meaning. The argument runs as follows: 1) in the post reconciliation era (the post Mandela era) the government and the country as whole need tangible, national unifying, projects to be able to sustain itself politically and administratively. 2) 2010 is just that. 3) post 2010, and in the absence of an equivalent project (with its international visibility and the ensuing stakes), things will necessarily go bad: lack of investment in infrastructure and public service, crime, corruption, and so on. This perspective is more than just that, a perspective, particularly in the current uncertain times of the nearing end of the Mbeki era. Letting it take hold can have devastating implications on a country suffering from a crucial lack of skills and the continuing emigration of its most talented. The SA government needs to pay attention and seek to correct.

I wish SA the best. However,if it wishes to default for whatever reason, the US stand ready to take up the challange and home pitch advantage that goes with it.

The US should not host another World Cup until at least one South American country (eg Brazil, Colombia, Argentina) has hosted and then the Cup has gone back to Europe and/or Africa.

Romania, or any central European country, hosting a World Cup in the near future is as likely as me playing in one (i.e. not very). I mean, come on.

Looking forward to SA in '10 though.

Why should the USA have to wait for another European Country to host before hosting again? I agree that the 2014 host should likely be Brazil, but two European Countries have hosted the Cup since the USA in 1994, France in 98 and Germany in 06, with Asia in Japan and Korea in 02. I think that a North American Country, the USA, Canada or Mexico should be considered for 2018, or at the latest 2022....

This article seems to have an implicit contradiction. It says that the preparations are being dogged by 'Afro-skepticism' yet then also says that perhaps Africans would be better off not hosting the tournament because they need the government to solve social problems. Perhaps a successful World Cup will give more good publicity for Africa than it has ever seen before.

Doubts have already been proven wrong in the Carribean's hosting of next year's cricket world cup and that may help increase tourism and investment in that part of the world.

As far as wasted money goes, sports is better than war.

My suspicion is that the poor in South Africa are the first people to demand the world cup. The poor have been demanding bread and games since the waning days of the Roman republic.

To be sure, South Africa has its work cut out when it comes to poverty. But lets not be arrogant. Germany and the United States have their own unresolved issues with poverty.

I just returned to DC after living in Cape Town for a while, and I have to tell you all that people in SA are incredibly excited about the World Cup coming, and rarely did I hear discussion of the economic implications or the more pressing social welfare needs among a population of South Africans. Generally those conversations were among other Americans/foreigners there.

Anyone who enters Cape Town, and likely to other parts of the country as well, cannot avoid seeing the townships, as it borders the CT airport and you have to drive past kilometers of shacks to get into the city. All the people in the townships will, supposedly, be getting "real houses" rather than shacks so that they are not such a blight on the country when all the world's attention is there in 2010. I think it's a shame that it takes such an event to get the government to focus on the problem, but if the potential for embarassment is what it takes to improve those people's lives, then I'm all for the World Cup going to South Africa, and hopefully I'll be there to cheer on Bafana Bafana!

The question is why USA wants to promote world cup for?
They don't like football.They don't give a penny for football, they don't even call the sport by its name.
To make it worst, the US government is extremelly unpleasant in to provide visas and services to the tourists.
Let Brasil, Mexico, Africans,asians or europeans to organize the "soccer(?)"and leave the americans wit its own private World series nobody else knows about.

Regarding Gini coefficients:
Brazil and Paraguay, both past (and one likely future) World Cup hosts have comparable economies in terms of wealth distribution to South Africa. The Eastern European countries I mentioned are simply poorer. Thank you Stephen in Fairfax for adding more detail (not correcting as you supposed).

First, while the World Cup and the Olympics cannot change the direction of an economy, they have shown time and again to offer a gust of wind in the right direction. Second, the author suggestions that the money spent on the WC could be better invested in infrastructure; however, infrastructure is one of the largest investments of the SA 2010 WC preparations (namely highways). Finally, all tournaments of this scale in modern histroy bring on their "____-pessimism" (fill in the blank) including the Athens Olympics (construcction delays), Turin Olympics (construction delays) and Salt Lake City Olympics (construction and logistics) and the German World Cup (construction and tickets), South Korea/Japan World Cup (tickets and security), etcetera ad nauseum.

Bravo South Afria and good luck! I look forward to visiting in 2010.

What I would like to know is why the South African Football Association is adamant on paying Carlos Alberto Parreira $250,000 a month. The man is not worth that compensation. South Africa could have lured Ghana's former coach (now with China), at a much lower rate; and he would have done a better job molding the Bafana Bafana into a winning side. Bear in mind, Parreira had the best set of players at the last World Cup, but his poor managerial skills cost Brazil the World Cup.

It will be great for SA to host the world cup soccer but personally I don’t think we are ready and our government is not doing anything to stop the crime that is going on in this beautiful country. If our President says that people are over reacting, then you must know that he has no idea of goes on in his own country. The first and most important problem is the CRIME and if that gets solved everything else will follow.

Hello, visit my sites:

Hello, visit my sites:

Hello, visit my sites:

Hello, visit my sites:

Hello, visit my sites:

Hello, visit my sites: