World Cup of myths that proved the impossible
By Davidde Corran, 13 Jul 2010 Davidde Corran is a Roar Expert
Related coverage
- Football news
- World Cup Favourites news
- World Cup Roar of the Crowd Competition news
- Football World Cup - South Africa 2010 news
On Sunday night at Soccer City, Sepp Blatter cut a lonely and forlorn figure. In fact most of the television cutaways to the FIFA President throughout the tournament showed a surprisingly dour and solitary figure. Such a sight of the usually cheerful Blatter was all the more surprising considering this World Cup is his presidency’s greatest achievement.
Despite many sideways looks from the global football community, the Swiss national was the first to believe in South Africa’s candidacy to host a successful World Cup.
Yet whatever the reasons and motivations, Blatter was right. A World Cup in South Africa worked.
All those doubts, suspicions and concerns were ultimately proven wrong. Possibly more so than any other, this World Cup was one of myths.
The myth that South Africa would be an unsafe host. The myth that the Jabulani ball would be an unmitigated disaster. The myth that this would be a boring World Cup because Brazil v Portugal was a relatively uninspiring dead rubber.
The myth that Joga Bonito even exists any more. The myth that the stadiums wouldn’t be ready. The myth that Australia would beat Germany (46,00 people voted in a Fairfax poll on the topic with 75% voting that they would). The myth that South Africa’s infrastructure would go into meltdown. And most importantly of all the myth that an octopus can predict the future, clearly he in fact determines it.
While everyone has their interpretation, the overwhelming sense is this World Cup was a success. So much so that South Africa is now being touted as “plan B” for Brazil 2014 (good to see we’ve learned nothing from this experience eh?).
But I’d warn you to be wary of the reports you read. Too many journalists spent the whole tournament cooped up in the comfort of South Africa’s most cosmopolitan city, Cape Town, to fully comprehend what the World Cup experience was really like.
Down on the ground in the mining town of Rustenburg or for the “average” South African in dwindling heartland towns like Kimberley, the World Cup was an entirely different beast.
Be cautious of claims from jaded journalists who were torn on whether they wanted the Socceroos to find success or whether they’d prefer to return home early, and don’t waste time on those who weren’t even in South Africa but decide to wax lyrical on the country based on hear-say.
There’s even cause to query those of us who actually managed to get out of the city the side they were reporting on was based in.
In just under six weeks I’ve driven around 9,000 kilometers, been to World Cup host cities, small provincial towns that put up teams during the tournament and stunning coastal spots that had nothing to do with the World Cup but were a joy no less. Yet don’t take my word as gospel either.
This is just my experience in South Africa.
World Cups, like anything stay true to the tried and true mantra of “you only get out of them, what you put in”.
I went into this World Cup simply with hope. Hope that myself and everyone else would be safe, hope that the Socceroos would do well (because in my heart of hearts I didn’t believe in Verbeek’s system) and hope that I’d enjoy myself.
Only the Socceroos left me hanging.
Of course the experience of traveling around a country working and also enjoying what’s on offer as a fan and tourist differs to those who spent their whole time here slaving away. Most of all though my World Cup experience is different to those back home who got up in the middle of the night to follow the tournament.
When you’re sacrificing sleep and have work the next day, a tight 1-1 draw doesn’t have the same pull. All of a sudden the fascinating tension isn’t quite so absorbing.
So, as South Africa moves from enjoying the present to contemplating a World Cup-less future, a tournament many tried to spruik as “nation-defining”, what next for the host nation?
I’ve read and heard all sorts of different ideas over the last days and weeks from South Africans keen to prolong the increase in national pride.
One of those came from a marketing company suggesting Football Friday, where employees around the country are allowed to wear football colours to work at the end of each working week, be replaced with Fly the Flag Friday.
The truth is such seemingly superficial ideas won’t matter though. Slowly things in South Africa will return to normal.
The government will continue to try and keep wages low so companies can employ as many people as possible, the various ethnic groups will continue to hold one another in mild but gradually evaporating suspicion and the country’s natural beauty will remain breathtaking.
In 2004 when it was announced that South Africa would host the 2010 World Cup far too many South Africans were brain washed into thinking this would help bring their country’s poorest communities out of the mire. This was apparently going to be the tournament in which everyone became wealthy.
But as the last players, journalists and fans depart the Rainbow Nation, this World Cup, just like all the others, made a lot of people happy, mildly entertained a number more and helped a few rich people get even richer.
Just another one of those busted World Cup myths.
Enjoy sports? Enjoy a bargain? All Sports Online has your favourite sporting brands at up to 70% off. Online only, premium quality sporting goods and merchandise at discounted prices. Get a deal now.
Do you have what it takes to become a sports writer? Write for the roar
Football articles
- Phoenix need more than flash in the pan crowds (133)
- ‘New football’ fans may help save the game in Australia (124)
- Does Tasmania have a case for A-League inclusion? (119)
- What happened in Port Said was not a football riot (118)
- Magilton struggling to make a mark (68)
- Does the A-League need an injection of humour? (44)
- Socceroos screwed over by FIFA, again (41)
- Heavy-handed Bernstein the trouble for English football
- Victory, Mariners deliver hope, glory and entertainment (6)
- Sydney and Perth eye A-League crunch game
- Victory beat Mariners with Kewell winner
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (97)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (9)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Heavy-handed Bernstein the trouble for English football (0)
- Melbourne Victory vs Central Coast Mariners: A-League live scores, blog (97)
- Liam Miller: Bargain buy of the A-League season? (9)
- Zambia plays Cup of Nations final in memory of their fallen (7)
- Capello’s resignation ends an awkward marriage (8)
- Redknapp the best bet to clean up Capello’s England mess (2)
- Melbourne derby reveals tale of two journeys (3)

True Tah said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:06am | Report comment
Good article Davidde, but I dont think any journalist would have gone to Kimberley, there were no world cup games being played there.
Davidde Corran said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:35am | Report comment
No but Uruguay were based there plus a GIANT freaking hole!
AndyRoo said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:48am | Report comment
Very apt in regards to the media.
Phutbol said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:03am | Report comment
I thought you were going to tell us why Sepp looked so down, but you just started with that and didnt go anywhere with it?
Davidde Corran said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:09am | Report comment
Am rather tired as it’s into the early morning here so simply put my reasoning is: Blatter looked down, he shouldn’t of as World Cup was his shining achievement because this tournament was a success despite what everyone else “feared”, in fact all these fears and myths turned out to be wrong, and so on.
Phutbol said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:35am | Report comment
Fair enough. For what its worth I think it’s probably more to do with the coming post-mortems. Ball, dive, ref, video in no particular order.
Davidde Corran said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:23pm | Report comment
Good point, Phutbol. Some of Blatter’s antiquated views were very much exposed at this tournament.
Art Sapphire said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:48am | Report comment
Davidde – you should read some of post-mortem nonsense coming from people who did not got to SA.
Fink called it a “noble failure”. How would he know?? He was not there.
Negative reactions to the staging of this world cup is symptomatic of the cynical, self obsessed, selfish tv watchers we have become.
Roger said | July 13th 2010 @ 11:23am | Report comment
Well said!
Jesse Fink said | July 13th 2010 @ 3:31pm | Report comment
No, I wasn’t there. So what? The last World Cup I was a married man with a wife and kid, who I took with me. Now I am a single dad with equal custody of my child and a responsibility to take care of her, feed her and take her to school. Easy to go around flinging dirt at people when you don’t know the circumstances, isn’t it, Sapphire? The World Cup is made for TV, which is why they yanked all the native grass that had been laid and put in the nice green stuff for European audiences. As a TV viewer of the World Cup this time, I am entitled to have an opinion on what I saw, as is Davidde.
Roger said | July 13th 2010 @ 4:57pm | Report comment
Sorry to hear about your personal situation Jesse.
Also, well done for fronting up on here.
I think the issue with your blog is that your focus is almost entirely on the negative aspects of the competition. If you don’t like the game, or are too pessimistic to enjoy it now, perhaps it would be better to either stop watching it, or stop writing about it. The negativity is getting old, and I’d like to either see some considered viewpoints that incorporate some of the positives, or some actual solutions to the issues identified.
Like I said in another post, it’s very easy to be negative and an expert after the fact. Offer some insight before the fact, along with some vision, and that’d be a big improvement.
As people will say, you are entitled to offer your opinion – which you do. But we’re also entitled to offer ours, which we do. For the most part, it appears many do not agree with you.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 13th 2010 @ 5:14pm | Report comment
I rather suspect that Jesse is still receiving hate mail from the Muscat blog as the number of comments that relate to the author rather than the content and the fact that his blogs are constantly cross-referenced on other sites.
Davidde Corran said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:27pm | Report comment
Ben, it always disappoints me when readers “play the man and not the ball”. Some of the comments on Fink’s blog disagreeing with him don’t actually raise any valid points but just slam him for “always being wrong and so on”.
Jesse Fink said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:49pm | Report comment
Sapphire, you wrote “171 responses to your poorly thought out, badly researched piece of negativity”. Most of which, last time I looked, praised me for having the balls to air an opinion that was contrary to Les Murray and actually articulated what they were thinking but hadn’t seen expressed. So you can pick out a negative comment? Wow! What faculties you have! I can too. Here’s one: “I enjoy reading your work Fink, you seem to have your own opinion of things, which tends to be against the grain. Once again you have lived up to your rep.” Or this: “Jesse, I am glad your analysis is closer to reality than Les’s. Mr Murray has become boring to listen to and a lot of his views in his article ‘Four glorious weeks’ are an expression of romance rather than truth.” Do I have to pull out more for you? It’s a BLOG. People are allowed to have an opinion; I’m happy to see some that are contrary to mine. What I don’t abide is abuse, which I cop on YouTube, forums and other sites by gutless people who aren’t prepared to put their real names and faces to the bile they dish out. I’m not here to win a popularity contest. I write what I think and if you don’t like it, don’t read it, or read and comment and say why. You also say “family always comes first”, which then would explain why I wasn’t in South Africa in the first place, wouldn’t it? I’m not “feeling sorry for myself” and to say that to me is an insult. You don’t know me. So don’t speak for me. I am explaining to you and other readers why I wasn’t in South Africa to stop all the stupid speculation about why. As for your link, I would suspect the reason American audience figures went up is because the USA drew with England 1-1 in its opening match and made the second round and after its good showing at the Confeds Cup the American people thought the team was a chance. As well as the Mexicans making the second round once again and playing against Argentina. The USA didn’t made the second round at Germany 2006. In fact it didn’t win a game. Audience figures aren’t the same as fans anyway. Don’t confuse the two.
Art Sapphire said | July 13th 2010 @ 11:14pm | Report comment
I come back from a night out and, Jesse, you are using my words in your post and my post was even published.
I don’t think that is particularly fair.
I deserve a right of reply.
This is what I wrote that got it all started – “Fink called it a “noble failure”. How would he know?? He was not there.
Negative reactions to the staging of this world cup is symptomatic of the cynical, self obsessed, selfish tv watchers WE have become.”
See the word WE. I was making a general observation and used your piece as an example.
You then turn up on this blog to single me out and then accuse me of flinging dirt.
Davidde even agreed with me. He said “Art, Indeed I have. Some of those articles is what inspired my piece
I didn’t know Davidde was inspired by pieces like yours. Maybe, he should have pointed that out in his piece.
It would have saved us a whole load of trouble. Good Night.
Davidde Corran said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:25pm | Report comment
Art, Indeed I have. Some of those articles is what inspired my piece.
100% agree with your last point by the way. Football is still about the fan experience at the ground. TV audiences only matter for FIFA’s bank balance.
Nacho said | July 13th 2010 @ 10:55am | Report comment
Nice.
I have read that Fink rubbish. Cannot believe it even made it onto the Internets.
Ando said | July 13th 2010 @ 2:13pm | Report comment
More and more I am becoming convinced that SBS/TWG should drop Fink. He has lost the majority of his integrity and it seems he has few admirers left.
Jesse Fink said | July 13th 2010 @ 3:36pm | Report comment
You’re entitled to your opinion. But how have I lost my integrity? Please elaborate. You tell me how taking a view that is opposite to that of my employer is not integrity? Or writing blogs about the World Cup bid that I know are not going to be popular with certain people who matter and can make or break my career? Or publicly apologising to Brett Holman? I have never had my opinion bought and I don’t kowtow to vested interests. Mate, you wouldn’t know the first thing about my integrity.
Greg said | July 13th 2010 @ 3:58pm | Report comment
I think Ando might mean credibility rather than integrity.
Either way I disagree; at least Jesse has the guts to write a blog, and his apology to Brett Holman does show both integrity and credibility. Jesse seems to have developed a nasty band of haters.
Jesse, your reference to Art Sapphire as ‘Sapphire’ is a classic!
Art Sapphire said | July 13th 2010 @ 5:02pm | Report comment
Looks like you got a fan for life there, Jesse
Roger said | July 13th 2010 @ 5:03pm | Report comment
But Greg, in all honesty – how could the doubters not apologise to Brett Holman? I mean, really, what choice is there? He was that good.
Ando said | July 13th 2010 @ 9:21pm | Report comment
Greg,
Correct I meant credibility rather than integrity. Poor choice of words.
Jesse,
Apologies for using the word integrity. It wasn’t what I meant to say and has obviously struck a nerve, so I’m sorry for the offense that was caused.
After receiving this response I’ve spent a bit of time thinking over my attitude to your articles Jesse. Just know that I’ve been reading your HTO blog for over a year (and still do) so I’m not some random hater. I think that over the last few months I’ve come to disagree with a large number of your blogs (not the style, just some opinions), seeing them as at times being more for the shock-value then anything.
Thanks for replying to this because you’ve made me realise that just because I disagree with your comments or writings doesn’t nessecarily mean that I should question you as a person.
Sorry again,
Ando
Zac Zavos said | July 13th 2010 @ 5:13pm | Report comment
Ando – it’s all so easy to sit and criticise a journalist from the end of your computer.
Guys like Jesse Fink deserve more respect. They front-up week in week out with interesting, insightful and informed opinions about the sports we love. It’s hard stuff and they open themselves up for undue criticism.
You may not agree with what he writes; that’s fine. But play the ball not the man.
The way Jesse has responded shows the character he has.
Art Sapphire said | July 13th 2010 @ 5:22pm | Report comment
Zac – how about posting my reply to Jesse.
Its being awaiting moderation for quite a while. The content is sound.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 13th 2010 @ 5:29pm | Report comment
let’s try to keep the focus on the points in Davidde’s excellent blog.
Davidde Corran said | July 13th 2010 @ 7:28pm | Report comment
Agree 100% with Zac. Whether you agree with Jesse, Foz and all the other open and honest football writers and commentators or not, their contribution to the game in Australia is crucial. Vigorous debate is what the game needs.
apaway said | July 13th 2010 @ 11:21am | Report comment
David
While Sepp eventually “believed” in South Africa, wasn’t it he who used his casting vote to eliminate them from the race to host the 2006 tournament. The infamous Charlie Dempsey “abstain from voting” affair?
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 13th 2010 @ 12:27pm | Report comment
This is a very good article, Davidde. I thoroughly enjoyed South Africa and indeed believe you are correct that you get out of it what you put in. South Africa opened her arms and those of us prepared to enjoy the full embrace are better people for the experience.
In all wonderful experience which has hopefully achieved the aim which is changing global perceptions of a country, and to some measure a continent.
Ben of Phnom Penh said | July 13th 2010 @ 12:39pm | Report comment
Interestingly there were no fatalities at the FIFA World Cup and no major crime at any of the fan-fests or venues…… yet two people died during the celebrations in Madrid.
Point Blank said | July 13th 2010 @ 8:20pm | Report comment
There is a bigger chance of tourists being attacked in Spain and Germany then there are of South Africa, that is a statisical fact. The fears raised by uninformed reporters and scare-mongers were either based on an agenda or merely through sheer ignorance. Here are two references:
http://www.eturbonews.com/15121/uk-foreign-office-south-africa-safer-tourists-spain-or-germany
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=vn20100325042054212C645868
In fact, over 80% of crime in South Africa is commited in the townships (slums), considering that the majority of South Africans still live in these horrendeous conditions if you seperate the percentages you’ll find that crime affecting other parts of South Africa, although still very high, are not far off any other developed countries. So there really is no suprise that there were no fatalities as a result of crime at fan fests.
There were fatalities though, there was an American who died when he was run over by a car as well as another American who fell while climbing Table Mountain. There were also, I believe, three deaths from heart attacks.