World Cup gets much-needed drama

The first casuality of the WC. PORT ELIZABETH, South Africa (AP)—Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium could become a “white elephant” when the World Cup ends after Port Elizabeth’s bankrupt soccer club was sold to investors from outside the city. Current team owner Sipho Pityana said Monday the new buyers could move the team. Bay United Football Club general manager Lungsi Mooi told The Associated Press that about 30 players and 10 staff could lose their jobs if the Premier Soccer League first division team moves outside the area. “I have no doubt that without a full-time professional team in the province, the stadium will become a white elephant,” Mooi said. The 42,486-seat stadium was built especially for the World Cup and cost $159 million. Officially opened in late February, the stadium also has hosted two international rugby matches. The stadium is not configured for cricket, so only soccer, rugby and potentially concerts remain as options to keep the venue viable. Pityana said the team will release a statement later this week with the identity of the new owners. “All I can say now is that it has not been bought by a Nelson Mandela Bay-based businessman and I cannot say that it will stay in the city or not,” Pityana said. Mooi said there was not much prospect of the stadium staying financially viable if there was no permanent tenant. She said there is a local rugby team, but “it is not professional and plays at a lower level.” The stadium has hosted six World Cup matches and two more will be played there: Friday’s quarterfinal and the playoff for third place on July 10. Port Elizabeth has had some of the smallest crowds of any host city. FIFA announced an attendance of 30,597 for Uruguay’s 2-1 second-round victory over South Korea last Saturday, meaning almost 12,000 seats were empty. Its biggest crowd was 38,294 for Germany’s 1-0 loss against Serbia. A total of 31,513 attended South Korea when it beat Greece 2-0 in a Saturday lunchtime kickoff on the second day of the tournament.

Regarding the tickets, I'm sure many 'true' South African football fans would love to go to the games, but they seem to have been priced out and apparently you can only purchase them online, when very few of them will have an internet connection.

They definitely need a use it or lose it policy in regards to tickets. So many people would kill to be their but the tickets gone to the $$$ men.

Here in South Africa the demand for tickets has been great, but the greedy fatcat corporates should give back all their tickets. Round 2 is where attendance will be super. All in all it has been a safe and secure World Cup, as good as can be expected. Great to see so many Aussies at last nights games and also Yanks, traditionally not the ones you would expect in great numbers.

If the ball was only having an effect on goalies I think that wouldn’t be the end of the world though still a little off to introduce such a banana skin into a tournament that is so important. However it has been effecting general play and free kicks and that’s what makes it such a balls up. I don’t think the crowds issue will get much steam. I believe that they have sold most tickets but I can see why South Africa is one of those places where sold might not translate into attended when you look at where some of the stadiums are. Travel, security and the transport situation all play a part. I imagine a lot of corporate were allocated a lot more tickets than they needed. If South Africans could get tickets they would attend because the fan areas have been getting huge numbers. The tournament is normally judged just on the football and generally the later rounds. If the low goal average from the first round had not have picked up though it might have come to the fore earlier. None of the big teams look fantastic apart from Argentina, though in Holland’s just going through the motions has been enough. The Vuvezualas are probably another strike against as well for the armchair fans, if their’s a lot of penalty shootouts then I will call the tournament a poor world cup by world cup standards. Slovakia deserve to stand out like a sore thumb. Their game against NZ was only saved by a late goal to NZ but until that point Slovakia who were gifted a lot of possession and weren’t doing anything to write home about and doing it slowly too. You never know what you are going to get though. I thought Denmark and Cameroon were horrible to watch in their first round matches but they combined pretty well for their second round clash.

It all seems a bit odd......effectively an experimantal ball in the biggest tournament. Oh well - - goalies have a thankless task usually, why should that change.......just that it seems incongruous how steadfast FIFA can be over rules......and 1 ref or two, etc.....and yet we get this with, of all things, the ball!!!! Just seems really strange to me. btw - Is the tournament adjudged a success thus far?? So far, of 40 matches, 22 have been less than 40,000 attendees with a couple of 20+ K crowds. So far, 81.83% to capacity with avg crowd of 48,450 and avg capacity of 59,206. Nation by nation the BEST capacity nations have been : 90% : Italy, Korea DPR 88% : Netherlands, Brazil, Spain 87% :Argentina 86% : Germany, Australia, Portugal, RSA, England the worst 55% : Slovakia stands out like a sore thumb. 69% : Cameroon 70% : NZ 72% : Honduras, Slovenia the best avg crowds : Korea Rep 87.780 RSA 83,281 Mexico 76,62 the worst Slovakia 25,257 NZ 31,050 Chile 33,768

Reference to the wet conditions is because that ball looks like it would get slippery.

Well some of the teams have so so keepers but it's probably a combination of the ball (which gets late side swing) and the conditions (it's often a little bit wet). I think that's the effect they wanted in that if you drive the ball low it's going to be dificult...... but it doesn't make up for the fact it seems getting it to dip is too hard as I have seen very few shots go over the wall and then down again and none with any pace. The only goal direct from a free kick I saw was a low drive around the wall rather than over it.

I'd like to ask an ignorant question. With respect to this Jabulani ball (spelling???) - - - have we been seeing a lot more goals than usual from goalkeeper fumbles?? Schwarzer again seemed to fumble a longish ball that he had a good sighter of. The Ghanaian goalie likewise although his was on the volley which I gather goalies have been finding harder anyway. Or were the goalies just technically deficient?? At this stage, almost 1 in 3 goals seems to have come from a keeper error and a pretty straight forward tap in. That's not normal is it???

I only watched their game against us and while their final balls were pretty wasteful stuff happens when they play (chances, injuries, bad tackles and general craziness).

You enjoyed watching Ghana?? Best I could muster is their penalty taker is pretty good at taking pens.

Justice I think given the Slovenia game where their 3rd goal was ruled out. Will definitely watch the USA vs Ghana as I enjoyed the way both teams played when they played agaisnt us and the way the US drew with England.

Absolutely stunning game and stunning end!! I wish i was still in Vegas watching this game !! They top the group as well !! Well done USA !!