Soccer & Society Vol. 13, No.

2, March 2012, 173187

Visualising modernity: development hopes and the 2010 FIFA World Cup
Kate Manzo*
School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcastle University, United Kingdom Inspired by writings in critical geopolitics and development studies, this paper explores the visual dimensions of the relationship between football and development through analysis of the 2010 FIFA World Cup (FWC) in South Africa. The aim is to show how futuristic notions of football now, development later rely on two visible icons of hope, namely spectacle (football tournaments and festivals) and infrastructure (mainly football stadiums but also public transport to a lesser extent). These are the visual aspects of an outward-oriented development model aiming to boost foreign investment and tourism by attracting media attention, showcasing modernity, and circulating positive images of Africa to the world. The achievement of these objectives is demonstrably limited by two principal factors. One is the nature of media coverage of South Africa. The second is the nature of the underlying modernist development model, which does not offer a recipe for the eventual human development promised by the South African state.

Introduction
[The] association between visuality and truth-telling strikes at the epistemological heart of Western modernity. . . . One might go as far as to argue that staging, imaging, surveillance, simulation, display and so on have become some of the foremost activities of state in a bid to sustain or acquire power through the cogency of the visual.1 Nations clamour to host the World Cup or Olympic games principally because such prestige sporting events represent global adverts, broadcasting to the world a countrys charms, competence and modernity. . . . For the organisers of the rst World Cup ever to be held in Africa, the pressure has been much higher than normal, with every aspect of the preparations, and South Africas tness to host the tournament, continually under scrutiny.2

Football is being widely linked to development in Africa, thanks in part to FIFAs award of the 2010 World Cup to South Africa. Steady growth has been seen in the semi-formal Development through Football sector, wherein increasing numbers of NGOs and the wider global civil society are embracing the universalistic social potentialities of football.3 In the words of the streetfootballworld Network, there is both hope for the future and condence that the . . . FIFA World Cup being staged in Africa for the rst time ever will strengthen the connection between football and social development even more.4
*Email: kate.manzo@newcastle.ac.uk
ISSN 1466-0970 print/ISSN 1743-9590 online 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14660970.2012.640500 http://www.tandfonline.com

174

K. Manzo

One article cannot do justice to the complexity of development thought and practice. This paper s focus is the visual dimensions of particular hopes for development through football in Africa. Its principal objective is to explore those dimensions through analysis of the 2010 FIFA World Cup (FWC) in South Africa. Central themes are visibility (the production of something to see as visual evidence that development is possible) and iconography, where the visible stands as a sign or representation of something that cannot by denition be seen (notably modernity).5 Throughout the paper, clear tensions are demonstrated between the pressing political demands of poverty alleviation (or human development) and the modernist understandings of development running through old-fashioned modernization theory to neo-liberal thought and practices of contemporary statecraft. Inspired by theoretical writings in critical geopolitics and development studies, the paper combines a review of academic writings on sports mega-events with original analysis of newspaper coverage of the 2010 FWC.6 Also included is an overview of modernist understandings of development. Together, these suggest that the modernist thought found in media, government and academia is ocularcentric: that is, it privileges the seen over the unseen and depends on visual data to comprehend and represent the world.7 By extension, modernist development theory valorizes visual evidence of progress while producing and celebrating such icons of modern technological prowess as football stadiums, big dams, and other ambitious infrastructure projects such as transportation networks. Substantively, the paper shows how futuristic notions of football now, development later rely on two visible icons of hope, namely spectacle (football tournaments and festivals) and infrastructure (mainly football stadiums, but also public transport infrastructure). These are the visual aspects of efforts to promote human development in the future, as opposed to efforts to alleviate poverty immediately. The featured role of the South African state, in this regard, is to orchestrate foreign investment and tourism by staging the 2010 FWC a sports mega-event designed to attract media attention, showcase modernity and generate positive images of Africa. The football stadium remains a key feature of analysis as it is both a site of spectacle and a form of infrastructure, thus encapsulating the two visible icons of hope just mentioned. Whether the ultimate development vision is of capitalist modernity, poverty alleviation and social equality, or an African renaissance, is a matter of perspective. Whatever the case, there are two signicant obstacles to success. The rst is the nature of media coverage of soccer-related events in South Africa. Second is the underlying outward-oriented development model: a mixture of old-fashioned modernization theory and a neo-liberal governance arrangement called the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) by the World Bank. I argue that the limits of this model remain evident despite its packaging as a type of mass popular spectacle8 and promises of eventual human development. In sum, the paper argues that the 2010 FWC will not deliver on its pan-African and populist promises because its national consequences are already demonstrably uneven. The reasons certainly lie in the South African states entanglements with transnational market forces and the actions of political elites, as others have suggested. The additional emphasis here on the effects of media representation and the visual aspects of modernist development exposes further limitations of sports mega-events development possibilities.

Soccer & Society

175

What is the attraction? Sports mega-events and development hopes

The central features of contemporary mega-events are rstly, that they are deemed to have signicant consequences for the host city, region or nation in which they occur; and secondly, that they will attract considerable media coverage . . . [Sports megaevents] are discontinuous, out of the ordinary, international and simply big in composition.9

Like the Olympic Games, the FWC is a huge occasion, a sports mega-event, that attracts substantial media interest as well as commercial opportunities.10 The size and scope of sports mega-events mean that many are involved in their production, hence the idea of a sport-media-tourism complex being at the centre of many development strategies.11 The burgeoning of a complex with global reach raises critical questions about patterns of benet, especially when the staging of megaevents diverts state spending from social welfare programmes.12 Despite the multiplicity of actors involved, sports mega-events can be conceived as a form of statecraft (or state-led development). The state provides both the regulatory framework and the nancial resources on which other actors (such as local authorities and commercial organizations) depend. The state thus remains the place to campaign.13 Also, outward-oriented place promotion is increasingly common: the branding of destinations as desirable sites for new investment and tourist consumption has included sport and sporting events as key elements of new economic development strategies.14 In addition, the burden of domestic legitimization inevitably falls on host states. Two different tactics are involved in this political marketing. State actors create a fantasy world of underestimated costs, overestimated revenues, underestimated environmental impacts and over-valued economic development effects.15 They also produce discourses and icons of hope that serve as both points of reference and acts of deferral turning contemporary spectacles and concrete infrastructure into symbols of future development.16 Despite evidence that forecasts of the benets are nearly always wrong,17 mega-events advocates pin their hopes for development on the driving force of positive imagery. Appealing images of a place are meant to attract not only tourism and foreign investment but also future events a seemingly winning combination and a recipe for social as well as economic development.18 The essentially forwardthinking and paradoxical character of all this is captured in forecasts of possible legacies, which are the greatest attraction but also form part of the known unknowns of sports mega-events.19 Without demonstrable benets, expressions of hope are merely articles of faith. Political legitimacy therefore depends on visibility, notably the engineering of mega-events spectacles and the infrastructure production their staging requires. A pertinent illustration is some South Africans online responses to the views of sports economist Stefan Szymanski. These respondents did not agree that the 2010 FWC would be a waste of national resources and merely offer a feel-good factor, instead arguing that the competition should be celebrated as a route to development. One preferred to have my taxes spent on tangible assets, i.e. stadiums, infrastructure than disappear into Government ofcials.20 Another predicted that the pain right now of funding this magnicent infrastructure would be worth it in the end: Future generations will benet a lot from this . . . To me there is no waste because I can see the potential benets.21

176

K. Manzo

Visibility is therefore not without political benet. The production of icons of hope is nonetheless doubly paradoxical. Firstly, the lavish displays designed to attract positive media coverage are equally catalysts to unwelcome media exposure. A front-page headline about the hidden victims of South Africas World Cup, for example, accompanied a report about forced evictions and the squalor the fans arent meant to see.22 The clear implication was that visibility and invisibility are opposite sides of the same coin, with host cities struggling to produce positive images while controlling media access to the disaffected. Secondly, icons of hope are inevitably divisive, attracting critical questions as much as admiration and applause. Academics such as Ngonyama23 are not alone in arguing that if host states can afford mega-events such as the 2010 FWC, why do they not fund poverty alleviation (such as housing projects) instead? According to one Guardian correspondent, for example,
the central question always legitimately asked of a country grappling to forge its postapartheid future and deal with entrenched poverty, particularly in the black townships, is whether South Africa should really be spending 800m in public money hosting a football tournament.24

A related concern is what happens to existing inequalities when funding previously allocated for a plethora of pressing socio-economic needs is withdrawn.25 As expressed by another South African online, the social justice concern about the 2010 FWC was that the FATCATS in the ANC will be the only ones to prot from this crazy spending spree. The South African poor will still have nothing!26 Furthermore, since only a selected few countries have the capacity to host sporting mega-events,27 the iconography of future development is simultaneously symbolic of past modernist development. Sports mega-events display the logic of capitalist modernity and are a signicant part of the experience of modernity.28 The 2010 FWC revived the question of how much it costs to be part of the modern capitalist world sport system.29 Modernist logic and experience are especially apparent with regard to stadium construction (which is discussed in more detail in the following section). So-called cathedrals of sport30 are among the products and symbols of technological prowess and advanced modernity.31 Massive stadiums are icons of modernity, even if academics cannot nd any signicant positive correlation between sports facility construction and economic development.32 In sum, critical analyses of sports mega-events suggest that economic development is at best an enabling factor; it is not an inevitable consequence. To imply otherwise is therefore politically risky. But as South Africas bids to host different World Cups demonstrate, the imagined form of development can extend to both nation-building33 and continental renaissance.34 Sporting cathedrals: football stadiums and the rst African World Cup
This is an African journey of hope hope that, in time, we will arrive at a future when our continent will be free . . . Nothing could ever serve to energise our people to work for their and Africas upliftment more than to integrate among the tasks of our Second Decade of Democracy and the African Renaissance our successful hosting of the 2010 Soccer World Cup.35

Soccer & Society

177

The launch of the Gautrain, along with state-of-the-art World Cup stadiums, is being championed as proof that South Africa is no longer travelling second class in the world.36

The right to host the 2010 FWC was awarded to South Africa in 2004. Media coverage immediately echoed themes that (as illustrated in the Mbeki quote above) were apparent in South Africas second bid to become the FWCs rst African host.37 For example, in its coverage of the national celebrations that crossed racial divides, the Observer newspaper hailed the poignant images from Africa that showed the healing powers of football. It concluded that for Africa, the announcement was hailed as deeply symbolic and a major step in the regeneration of a continent.38 Several years on, the symbolic value of South Africa as a continental icon of hope remains a notable media theme. For example, as neighbouring states like Zimbabwe anticipated spinoffs from events in South Africa, readers of the Guardian were told that never before have the World Cup or the Olympics come to Africa. The forgotten continent, so often seen through the prism of war and famine, will get to show the world a different face.39 Until the spectacle of competition kicked off, that positive face had to come principally from stadium construction. Coverage of the 2010 launch of the highspeed urban Gautrain certainly praised its speed, comfort and cleanliness, but it also wondered who wins and who loses from an infrastructure project destined to serve mainly middle-class commuters and tourists. Instead of an icon of technological prowess, the Gautrain was represented as symbolic of a national transport divide rooted in the racial geography of apartheid.40 Stadium construction in South Africa has had a national as well as a panAfrican purpose. The building of ve new arenas in Johannesburg, Nelspruit, Port Elizabeth, Polokwane and Durban was critical to the South African governments objective of manufacturing and marketing an image of South Africa as a modern, technologically advanced, democratic, business-friendly, tourist destination.41 Such national venues, which are meant to have spectacular visual impact, simultaneously seek to re-craft the global image of the African continent as a whole.42 As others have noted, the challenge of making good on an African promise depends not only on positive media coverage of South Africa but also on perceptions that Africa can deliver in the global arena of mega-events.43 That, in turn, means answering those who question South Africas ability to complete the stadium and infrastructural needs in time and address the issue of safety and security.44 For South Africa to full its promises of development, it must therefore strive (paradoxically) to be seen as already modern and developed. In the end, the ten stadiums that some claimed would not be ready on time were universally praised.45 Commentators noted that they exemplied the very best German engineering and design as well as emphasizing their attractive appearance from a variety of vantage points including that of the television helicopters covering the football.46 Animal motifs and pan-African themes were equally remarked upon in the media. Mbombela Stadium in Nelspruit sports zebra-striped seats47 as well as sixteen orange pylons that supposedly recall giraffes, evoking the luxury game lodge aspect of African tourism.48 Soccer City in Johannesburg is a cavernous stadium modelled on an African calabash cooking pot,49 while Peter Mokaba Stadium in Polokwane boasts concrete and steel representations of the local, and unmistakable, baobab tree.50

178

K. Manzo

As much as the new sporting cathedrals are a pleasure to look at from any angle,51 their design features thus helped to recreate Africa as a place in the world that is most often understood as an object of humanitarianism or a destination for exotic tourism, with little in between.52 In this regard, the stadiums followed (rather than undermined) a precedent already set in South Africas bids for different FWCs. The pan-African imagery of painted masks and wild animals used in the 2006 bid was later displaced by images of young attractive people from a crosssection of ethnic groups.53 However, both bids arguably played up existing stereotypes of Africa.54 If the architectural look of stadiums is a relevant concern, their geography is of equal signicance. Even articles tagged as Arts and Architecture have wondered whether South Africas football stadiums are primarily a branding exercise, proving to the world that South Africa is a go-ahead, modern nation. A fundamental question concerns stadium location: how well do they serve local people, who in many cases will have to trek a long way to reach them?55 In a further example of how visibility and invisibility interact in a two-sided process, a report on the Nelspruit stadium found residents of a neighbouring township who crouch in the shadow of this gleaming monument to FIFA and wonder why.56 A local informant remarked that well hear the sound from the stadium but wont know whats happening . . . We cant go inside, we cant afford tickets.57 The ability only to hear the sound of invisible matches while viewing the Mbombela stadiums exterior clearly offers no local benet. Rather than being an icon of modernity and future development, the giraffe-themed stadium is a white elephant and a symbol of inequality and poverty when seen through the eyes of its neighbours.58 Once the 2010 FWC started, media interest predictably turned to stadiums interiors. The two broad areas of focus were spectators on the one hand and teams on the other. The former quickly drew media attention for two principal reasons. Firstly, they didnt show up in sufcient numbers. Predicted absenteeism due to low ticket sales in foreign markets59 was reported not only as a problem for FIFA and local organizers, but also because empty seats . . . look terrible on television.60 The football fans who did attend matches soon drew coverage for the sounds they made while blowing into the colourful instrument that its South African inventor had named the vuvuzela.61 Once known as Boogie-blasts,62 they sparked an international debate: were they an annoying irritant or joyful expression of African culture?63 As South African organizers encouraged visitors to export [vuvuzelas] back to their own countries,64 the British supermarket chain Sainsburys reported sales of 40,000 England-branded vuvuzelas by mid-June alone.65 Football clubs in the English Premier League moved swiftly to contain the global reach of African culture by banning plastic horns from future matches at their own grounds. Nonetheless, the persistent sight and sound of the vuvuzela during the 2010 FWC contributed as much to the African feel of the spectacle as the wildlife motifs in the stadium design did.66 The vuvuzela demonstrates that the term African World Cup is about more than just geography and patterns of benet; it is also about the distinctive sights and sounds that give a place cultural avour. Equally signicant to the African dimension of the spectacle was the performance of continental teams on the pitch. South Africas global image received an early boost from the crashing left-foot shot of Siphiwe Tshababala in the host nations opening match with Mexico, which

Soccer & Society

179

Figure 1. Vuvuzelas during the World Cup 2010. Photo: DJ Clark

produced more than the rst goal of the World Cup (in an eventual 11 draw) and attendant surge of national energy it also prompted admonishment of wealthy European lands for their steady angst over Africa and their unshakable assumption that the 2010 FWC would have been better staged elsewhere. The opening contests in such magnicent stadiums were arguably a match for anything any nonAfrican nation might have achieved.67 Sadly for South Africa, the team that did most to help chip away at the image we have in the west of war, famine and corruption68 was the Black Stars of Ghana, not Bafana Bafana. Once South Africa looked likely to become the rst hosts in history not to qualify for the second round, the national team was upheld as an icon of warped priorities and policy failures. Bafana Bafanas downhill slide since winning the Africa Cup of Nations in 1996 became indicative of the South African states failure to invest in grassroots structures while spending lavishly on hosting this tournament.69 The performances of Bafana Bafana thus refocused the medias critical gaze on the South African state. As for Ghana, only a controversial loss to Uruguay in the quarter-nals prevented the Black Stars from becoming the rst African team to reach a World Cup semi-nal. The media was divided over the professional foul by Uruguays Luis Suarez that denied Ghana a winning goal.70 Was it the biggest distortion of justice at any World Cup since West Germany eliminated France in the 1982 semi-nal or simply an instinctive reaction typical of 999 footballers out of 1,000?71 The poor Ghana camp on television was accused of patronizing the whole of Africa with its outrage: Africa good, the rest of the world bad, seemed to be the mantra this World Cup. If it is possible for a continent to be patted on the head, ITV and BBC managed it.72 Be that as it may, earlier press coverage of Ghana suggested an alternative interpretation. As the Black Stars progressed through the tournament carrying the hopes of a continent with them, the rest of Africa suffered in comparison to a team described as a neat corollary on the eld of a model Ghanaian state a beacon of democracy and stability in Africa as well as a leading investor in footballs grassroots.73 The UK-based World Development Movement added polish to Ghanas image by reminding non-partisan fans that the country had been ranked top of all the World Cup nalists in terms of social justice by the start of the

180

K. Manzo

tournament.74 The icon of African political and social development that emerged from the football spectacle was thus Ghana rather than the host nation. Mega-events and outward-oriented development: modernization, neo-liberalism and the Comprehensive Development Framework (CDF) Previous studies explain the uneven consequences of the 2010 FWC either in terms of neo-colonial relations between international actors and the South African state75 or as an outcome of the very way in which FIFA functions.76 Uneven national development has been linked to a FIFA model of tight organizational control within a wider context of sport corporatisation, commercialisation and general trends of sport politics.77 The frame of reference in this section is broader still. While endeavouring to avoid reinforcing contested images of Africa, the following analysis aims to highlight the persistence and limitations of modernist visions of development. A thorough review of modernization theory and neo-liberalism, both of which have been much critiqued in development studies,78 is not possible here. The purpose instead is to show how these bodies of thought remain current, despite the rise of purported alternatives such as good governance and rights-based development.79 The very concept of modernization implies movement along a path to modernity. As a model of development, modernization theory contains elements that are both visual and strategic. That is, it denes modernity by identifying the features of the already modern (so-called First World or high-income countries) while looking for ways to foster the progress of the rest.80 Two especially relevant components of that mode of theorizing pertain to size and temporality. As already discussed, mega-events are dened by the grandiosity of both spectacle and infrastructure which together signify such modern traits as technological prowess. The head of South Africas World Cup organizing committees description of Soccer City as not just a stadium, a monument for this country81 is telling here, for it recalls Nehrus condemnation of big-dam projects in India as another senseless round of temple building.82 His critique was not only of the politics of dam construction (notably the forced removals they necessitated) but also, more broadly, of the underlying outmoded approach to development, with its assumption that whatever is big, capital-intensive, modern and industrial is best.83 As much as size has been valorized, state-led big development is not the only conceivable option for modernist planners. The South African state, for example, has funded new bus networks and redeveloped Sowetos relatively small but symbolic Orlando stadium (which did not host any World Cup matches) even while investing heavily in iconic stadiums and high-speed trains. Big and small are not mutually exclusive. The state, by the same token, is not the only possible agent of change. Modernization theorists have viewed the individual or society as the engine of progress, the role of the state being only to facilitate diffusion through the population of the qualities of the modern man.84 Qualities such as the expectation of fair play85 and discipline are clearly closely related to the idea of sport itself as a carrier of modernity.86 Another relevant quality deemed of crucial importance for development is a societys time focus, the idea being that orientation toward the future implies the possibility of change and progress.87 From this perspective, development forecasts

Soccer & Society

181

Figure 2. Soccer City Stadium, Johannesburg. Photo: DJ Clark

and expressions of hope display a modernist logic of development one that can serve as a useful political distraction from todays problems of survival.88 The question of whether icons of modernity are an end in themselves or a means to development remains a matter of perspective. Big dam projects, for example, make sense if electricity generation is seen as vital to modern economic development.89 Soccer stadiums contrasting development rationale of international tourism through place promotion (i.e. service sector development rather than secondary manufacturing or capitalist agriculture) illustrates a different logic of comparative advantage that now appeals to many.90 In Africa, for example, Morocco and South Africa both put in bids for FWCs,91 while South Africa competes for the title of Mecca of tourism development in Africa with Kenya, which enjoys an abundance of wildlife, world-class beaches, and traditional cultures.92 Despite the evident allure of potential foreign exchange earnings, international tourism remains a double-edged sword for two reasons. Firstly, its complex matrix of advantages and disadvantages makes tourism promotion an inherently mixed blessing. Secondly, if international tourism is almost by denition controlled by interests outside the peripheral host countries then ofcial promotion is paradoxical a form of state-led development that only undermines the states own capacity to exercise sovereignty.93 The promotion of tourism through mega-events is thus conducive in the long run to the neo-liberal development agenda of market-based economic arrangements and minimalist states.94 Political restructuring has indeed been central to the World Banks neo-liberal policies of structural adjustment, which have treated the African state in particular as both a problem (when it intervenes too actively in markets) and a solution (when it reforms itself to facilitate neo-liberal prescriptions).95 Against a backdrop of criticism of those policies, the four governance principles now enshrined in the CDF supposedly mark signicant shifts in thinking about development since the 1990s.96 Three of those principles are ownership (participatory development agendas are devised and directed by governments), partnership

182

K. Manzo

(government-led development strategies are carried out via public-private partnerships), and evaluation (impact assessment based on measurable results). There is also the forward-looking notion of long-term vision, whereby development strategies are built on longer-term structural and social considerations (such as poverty alleviation) instead of short-term macroeconomic stabilisation and balance-of-payment corrections.97 The overall governance framework is thus indicative of the revised neo-liberal model identied by Kiely (1998), wherein checks and balances on state power are equated with good governance (or sound development management) and better government. Conclusion This paper began by linking visuality to Western modernity and practices of statecraft such as staging and display. The bulk of the paper explored central elements of the geopolitics of visuality, namely visibility and iconography, in relation to South Africas staging of the 2010 FIFA World Cup (FWC). Visibility and invisibility were shown to be opposite sides of the same geopolitical coin, with the South African state attempting to control the media spotlight. Spectacle and infrastructure, furthermore, were classied as icons of hope for future development as well as fundamental aspects of sports mega-events. Academic doubts about the development rationale of sports mega-events have resurfaced in a number of studies of the 2010 FWC. With much of the focus on the domestic politics and neo-colonial relations of the South African state (with FIFA, for example), the general consensus is that the staging of such a tournament is at worst a poor return on signicant nancial investments and at best a mixed blessing as a development strategy. This paper has reinforced those earlier ndings while adopting a different approach. The empirical frame of reference here was UK press coverage of soccerrelated events in South Africa, for two principal reasons. First and foremost, sporting tournaments are supposed to deliver development via place promotion and media advertising, so if positive coverage cannot be guaranteed then the development logic is awed. Secondly, broadsheet journalism was chosen as the site of investigation because it was expected to be reasonably balanced and objective. The press articles in the notes show that attention to the rst African World Cup has been extensive, varied and polyvocal. Coverage of the 2010 FWC has appeared under different subject headings (notably Sport but also International News and Arts and Architecture) and has been produced by various correspondents as well as sports journalists. The South African state therefore succeeded in its objective of attracting considerable media coverage. It also answered the so-called Afro-pessimists who doubted that an African state had the capacity to host a successful FWC. And yet, the limits of statecraft in attempting to control the international media gaze and pre-empt the wrong images have been equally clear.98 Probing questions about the national consequences of the 2010 FWC have continued to circulate in the UK media, alongside exposure of political struggles and uneven patterns of benet. In an ocularcentric world, the capacity to make visible is a form of political power and bad press relating to uneven development can thus serve positive political ends. Finally, the paper demonstrated that the underlying outward-oriented development model of sports mega-events is a paradoxical mix of state-led big

Soccer & Society

183

development and neo-liberal governance a model that, by its very nature, defers national development while delivering immediate benets to corporate interests and local political elites. The tenacity of modernist thought, at a time when poverty alleviation and human development are of pressing concern, guarantees that the term development will remain contested for some time to come. Notes
1. Macdonald, Hughes, and Dodds, Observant States, 4. 2. David Conn, New Stadiums, New Transport Infrastructure, The Guardian, April 2, 2010: 27. 3. Giulianotti and Robertson, Globalization and Football, 134. 4. Streetfootballworld, Development through Football, http://www.streetfootballworld.org/ managecontent/development-through-football-1 (accessed April 12, 2010). 5. My thanks to Ciraj Rassool of the University of Western Cape for drawing my attention to this distinction. 6. The key source is the Guardian newspaper and its Sunday afliate the Observer. Previous research shows that the Guardian devotes more column inches to Africa than any other British newspaper; it also contains the greatest number of different formats and the fewest news reports. See Scott, Marginalized, Negative or Trivial, 547. 7. Macdonald, Hughes, and Dodds, Observant States. 8. Biccum, Marketing Development, 1111. 9. Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology, 2. 10. Ibid., 5. 11. Nauright, Global Games, 1326. 12. Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology; Bolsmann and Brewster, Mexico 1968 and South Africa 2010. 13. Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology, 11. 14. Nauright, Global Games, 1333. 15. Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology, 10. 16. Bolsmann and Brewster, Mexico 1968 and South Africa 2010. 17. Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology, 9. 18. Nauright, Global Games; Swart and Bob, The Seductive Discourse; Cornelissen, Its Africas Turn; Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology; Alegi, A Nation to be Reckoned With. 19. Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology, 9. 20. Ear-dropper, quoted in Marais, World Cup Waste of Resources, December 2009: 2. http://www.n24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?Channel=News_Home&Away (accessed January 13, 2010). 21. Lebohang, quoted in ibid., 2. 22. David Smith, Sent Off , The Guardian, April 2, 2010: 1, 2627. 23. Ngonyama, The 2010 FIFA World Cup. 24. David Conn, New Stadiums, New Transport Infrastructure, The Guardian, April 2, 2010: 27. 25. Alegi, The Political Economy, 324; see also Swart and Bob, The Seductive Discourse; Ngonyama, The 2010 FIFA World Cup. 26. Realist, quoted in Marais, World Cup Waste of Resources. December 2009: 2. http:// www.n24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?Channel=News_Home&Away (accessed January 13, 2010), emphasis in the original. 27. Alegi A Nation to be Reckoned With, 398. 28. Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology, 1, 15. 29. Gerard, quoted in Alegi, Top Sports Economist Says, 2. 30. Dyreson, Prologue Cathedrals. 31. Alegi, The Political Economy of Mega-Stadiums, 324; see also Alegi, A Nation to be Reckoned With. 32. Alegi, The Political Economy of Mega-Stadiums, 324. 33. Horne and Manzenreiter, An Introduction to the Sociology.

184

K. Manzo

34. Swart and Bob, The Seductive Discourse; Cornelissen, Its Africas Turn; Cornelissen and Swart, The 2010 Football World Cup; Alegi, The Political Economy of MegaStadiums and A Nation to be Reckoned With; Bolsmann and Brewster, Mexico 1968 and South Africa 2010; Desai and Vahed, World Cup 2010. 35. President Thabo Mbeki to the FIFA executive committee, quoted in Cornelissen, Its Africas Turn, 1303. 36. David Smith, Train at Platform 4, The Guardian, June 9, 2010: 16. 37. South Africa also bid, unsuccessfully, to host the 2006 FWC, which was awarded to Germany. For analysis of both the 2006 and 2010 bids, see Cornelissen, Its Africas Turn and Bolsmann and Brewster, Mexico 1968 and South Africa 2010. 38. Observer, Smile that Says We Won the World Cup, The Observer, May 16, 2004: 1; see also Alegi and Bolsmann, South Africa and the Global Game; Desai and Vahed, World Cup 2010. 39. David Smith, Dream or Nightmare?, The Guardian, June 13, 2009: 2425; see also Paul Hayward, Rainbow Nation Declares, The Guardian (Sport), December 3, 2009: 67. 40. David Smith, Train at Platform 4, The Guardian, June 9, 2010: 16. 41. Alegi, A Nation to be Reckoned With, 399400. 42. Ibid., 410, 400. 43. Cornelissen and Swart, The 2010 Football World Cup, 120. 44. Bolsmann and Brewster, Mexico 1968 and South Africa 2010, 1292. 45. Owen Gibson, Empty Seats Forgotten, The Guardian (Sport), July 13, 2010: 7. 46. Jonathan Glancey, Perfect Pitch, The Guardian (G2), May 31, 2010: 1721, here 1819. 47. Ibid., 20. 48. Alex Duval Smith, Its Africas First World Cup, The Observer, February 1, 2009: 3637. 49. Owen Gibson, Countdown to a Carnival, The Guardian (Sport), November 18, 2009: 67. 50. Jonathan Glancey, Perfect Pitch, The Guardian (G2), May 31, 2010: 1721, here 21. 51. Ibid., 19. 52. Campbell and Power, The Scopic Regime, 190. 53. Bolsmann and Brewster, Mexico 1968 and South Africa 2010, 1292. 54. On the two bids see Cornelissen, Its Africas Turn. On stereotypes of Africa see Brookes, Suit, Tie and a Touch of Juju; Hawk, Africas Media Image; Mbembe, On the Postcolony; Piot, Remotely Global; Scott, Gender and Development and Paul Myers and David Smith. As the Football Begins, The Guardian, January 11, 2010: 3. 55. Jonathan Glancey, Perfect Pitch, The Guardian (G2), May 31, 2010: 1721, here 18. 56. David Smith, Inequalities of Nelspruit will Test Legacy, The Guardian (Sport), June 3, 2010: 45, here 4. 57. Quoted in ibid. 58. Ibid, 45. 59. The British medias explanations for low ticket sales were: fears of crime; high prices for tickets and accommodation; and inadequate public transport. There were also reported fears of terrorist attacks on South Africa in the wake of a lethal ambush on the Togolese team bus that travelled through Angola for the 2010 Africa Cup of Nations. See David Smith, World Cup Will Be a Bigger Target, The Guardian (Sport), January 11, 2010: 23; David Smith, South Africa Rolls out the Welcome Mat, The Guardian (Sport), September 11, 2009: 5; David Smith, World Cup Crime Fears Grow, The Guardian, September 23, 2009: 18; Owen Gibson, FIFA Investigates the Mystery, The Guardian, June 14, 2010: 3; Owen Gibson, South Africa Racing to Sell, The Guardian (Sport), April 15, 2010: 1, 67; Alex Duval Smith, World Cup Blow for South Africa, The Observer, May 23, 2010: 9. 60. Owen Gibson, FIFA Investigates the Mystery, The Guardian, June 14, 2010: 3. 61. Freddie Maake, I Invented the Vuvuzela, The Guardian (Weekend), July 10, 2010: 12. 62. Ibid. 63. Owen Gibson and Steven Morris, If You Want to Watch, The Guardian, June 16, 2010: 3.

Soccer & Society

185

64. Ibid. 65. Richard Wray and Simon Bowers, Game of Two Halves for Businesses, The Guardian, July 14, 2010: 25. 66. Stuart James and Rob Schatten, Not Coming to a Ground Near You, The Guardian (Sport), July 21, 2010: 4. 67. Paul Hayward, Angst Over Africa Reects, The Observer (Sport), June 13, 2010: 9. 68. Steve Bloomeld, quoted in David Smith, Africas Organisers Fly High, The Observer, June 27, 2010: 5. 69. David Smith, Lofty Dream of Africas Great Leap Forward The Guardian (Sport), June 22, 2010: 8. 70. Suarez was sent off for deliberate hand-ball in the dying seconds of the match, and Ghana was duly awarded a penalty. However, Asamoah Gyan failed to convert it and the match eventually went to a penalty shoot-out, which Uruguay won. 71. Richard Williams, Rise of Germanys Romantics, The Guardian (Sport), July 5, 2010: 89, here 8. 72. Martin Kelner, BBC Shades It, The Guardian (Sport), July 12, 2010: 7. 73. David Smith, Ghana Carries Hopes of a Continent, The Guardian (Sport), June 26, 2010: 10. 74. Steven Morris, People Came from Everywhere, The Guardian, July 2, 2010: 7. 75. Alegi, A Nation to be Reckoned With; Cornelissen, Its Africas Turn; Cornelissen and Solberg, Sport Mobility; Swart and Bob, The Seductive Discourse. 76. Desai and Vahed, World Cup 2010, 156. 77. Cornelissen, Footballs Tsars, 131; see also Ngonyama, The 2010 FIFA World Cup. 78. See for example Manzo, Modernist Discourse and the Crisis and Africa in the Rise; Brohman, Universalism, Eurocentrism; Scott, Gender and Development. 79. Kiely, Neo Liberalism Revised?; Manzo, Africa in the Rise. 80. Manzo, Modernist Discourse and the Crisis. 81. Jordaan, quoted in Guardian, Meanwhile in South Africa, The Guardian (Sport), May 4 and 5, 2010: 4. 82. Alvares and Billorey, Damming the Narmada, 13. 83. Idris, Preface, 4. 84. Inkeles and Smith, Becoming Modern, 166. 85. Harrison, Underdevelopment is a State of Mind, 180. 86. Mhlmann, The Role of Sport; see also Manzo, Learning to Kick. 87. Harrison, Underdevelopment is a State of Mind, 177. 88. Ibid. 89. McClelland, The Achievement Motive, 147. 90. Cornelissen, Its Africas Turn. 91. Ibid. 92. Reid, Tourism, Globalization and Development, 196. 93. Lea, Tourism and Development, 8. 94. Manzo, Africa in the Rise, 438. 95. Kiely, Neo Liberalism Revised?; Manzo, Africa in the Rise. 96. World Bank, Comprehensive Development, 1. 97. Ibid. 98. Macdonald, Hughes and Dodds, Observant States, 12.

References
Alegi, Peter. Top Sports Economist Says World Cup a Waste of Resources. Football is Coming Home, 2009. http://www.footballiscominghome.net/the-hosts/top-sport-economist-says-world-cup-a-waste-of-resources/ (accessed January 13, 2010). Alegi, Peter. A Nation to be Reckoned With: The Politics of World Cup Stadium Construction in Cape Town and Durban, South Africa. African Studies 67, no. 3 (2008): 397422. Alegi, Peter. The Political Economy of Mega-Stadiums and the Underdevelopment of Grassroots Football in South Africa. Politikon 34, no. 3 (2007): 31531.

186

K. Manzo

Alegi, Peter, and Chris Bolsmann. South Africa and the Global Game: Introduction. Soccer and Society 11, no. 1/2 (2010): 111. Alvares, Claude, and Ramesh Billorey. Damming the Narmada: Indias Greatest Planned Environmental Disaster. Penang, Malaysia: Jutaprint, 1988. Biccum, April. Marketing Development: Live 8 and the Production of the Global Citizen. Development and Change 38, no. 6 (2007): 111126. Bolsmann, Chris, and Keith Brewster. Mexico 1968, South Africa 2010: Development, Leadership and Legacies. Sport in Society 12, no. 10 (2009): 128498. Brohman, John. Universalism, Eurocentrism, Ideological Bias in Development Studies: From Modernisation to Neoliberalism. Third World Quarterly 16, no. 1 (1995): 12140. Brookes, Heather. Suit, Tie, a Touch of Juju The Ideological Construction of Africa: A Critical Discourse Analysis of News on Africa in the British Press. Discourse and Society 6, no. 4 (1995): 46194. Campbell, David, and Marcus Power. The Scopic Regime of Africa. In Observant States: Geopolitics and Visual Culture, ed. Fraser Macdonald, Rachel Hughes, and Klaus Dodds, 16795. London: I. B. Tauris, 2010. Cornelissen, Scarlett. Footballs Tsars: Proprietorship, Corporatism and Politics in the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Soccer and Society 11, no. 1/2 (2010): 13143. Cornelissen, Scarlett. Its Africas Turn! The Narratives and Legitimations Surrounding the Moroccan and South African Bids for the 2006 and 2010 FIFA Finals. Third World Quarterly 25, no. 7 (2004): 1293309. Cornelissen, Scarlett, and Eirik Solberg. Sport Mobility, Circuits of Power: The Dynamics of Football Migration in Africa and the 2010 World Cup. Politikon 34, no. 3 (2007): 295314. Cornelissen, Scarlett, and Kamilla Swart. The 2010 Football World Cup as a Political Construct: The Challenge of Making Good on an African Promise. Sociological Review 54, no. s2 (2006): 10823. Desai, Ashwin, and Goolam Vahed. World Cup 2010: Africas Turn or the Turn on Africa?. Soccer and Society 11, no. 1/2 (2010): 15467. Dyreson, Mark. Prologue Cathedrals of Sport: Mapping New Territories. The International Journal of the History of Sport 25, no. 11 (2008): 14206. Giulianotti, Richard, and Roland Robertson. Globalization and Football. London: Sage, 2009. Harrison, Lawrence. Underdevelopment is a State of Mind. In Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Inequality, ed. Mitchell Seligson and John T. PasseSmith, 17381. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, 1985/1993. Hawk, Beverley, ed. Africas Media Image. New York: Praeger, 1992. Horne, John, and Wolfram Manzenreiter. An Introduction to the Sociology of Sports Mega-events. Sociological Review 54, no. s2 (2006): 124. Idris, S. M. Mohd Preface. In Damming the Narmada: Indias Greatest Planned Environmental Disaster, ed. Claude Alvares and Ramesh Billorey, 4. Penang, Malaysia: Jutaprint, 1988. Inkeles, Alex, and David H. Smith. Becoming Modern. In Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Inequality, ed. Mitchell Seligson and John T. Pass-Smith, 15967. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, 1974/1993. Kiely, Ray. Neo Liberalism Revised? A Critical Account of World Bank Concepts of Good Governance and Market Friendly Intervention. Capital and Class 64 (1998): 6387. Lea, John. Tourism and Development in the Third World. New York and London: Routledge, 1988. Macdonald, Fraser, Rachel Hughes, and Klaus Dodds, eds. Observant States: Geopolitics and Visual Culture. London: I.B. Tauris, 2010. Mhlmann, Peter. The Role of Sport in the Process of Modernisation: The Kenyan Case. Journal of Eastern African Research and Development 22 (1992): 12031. Manzo, Kate. Learning to Kick: African Soccer Schools as Carriers of Development. Impumelelo: the Interdisciplinary Electronic Journal of African Sports 2 (2007): 113. http:// www.ohiou.edu/sportsafrica/JOURNAL/Volume2/learntokick.htm (accessed February 16, 2007).

Soccer & Society

187

Manzo, Kate. Africa in the Rise of Rights-based Development. Geoforum 34, no. 4 (2003): 43756. Manzo, Kate. Modernist Discourse and the Crisis of Development Theory. Studies in Comparative International Development 26, no. 2 (1991): 336. Mbembe, Achille. On the Postcolony. Berkeley and LA: University of California Press, 2001. McClelland, David C. The Achievement Motive in Economic Growth. In Development and Underdevelopment: The Political Economy of Inequality, ed. Mitchell Seligson and John T. Pass-Smith, 14157. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, 1968/1993. Nauright, John. Global Games: Culture, Political Economy and Sport in the Globalised World of the 21st Century. Third World Quarterly 25, no. 7 (2004): 132536. Ngonyama, Percy. The 2010 FIFA World Cup: Critical Voices from Below. Soccer and Society 11, no. 1/2 (2010): 16880. Piot, Charles. Remotely Global: Village Modernity in West Africa. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1999. Reid, Donald G. Tourism, Globalization and Development: Responsible Tourism Planning. London: Pluto Press, 2003. Scott, Catherine V. Gender and Development: Rethinking Modernisation and Dependency Theory. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1996. Scott, Martin. Marginalized, Negative or Trivial? Coverage of Africa in the UK Press. Media, Culture and Society 31, no. 4 (2009): 53357. Swart, Kamilla, and Urmilla Bob. The Seductive Discourse of Development: the Cape Town 2004 Olympic Bid. Third World Quarterly 25, no. 7 (2004): 131124. World Bank. Comprehensive Development Framework. 2009. http://www.worldbank.org/ cdf (accessed September 24, 2009).

Copyright of Soccer & Society is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.