...The stadiums symbolise the benefits and pitfalls of staging the World Cup. The government spent R12bn ($1.6bn, €1.3bn, £1bn) on them, but for all the acclaim the World Cup has brought to South Africa, it remains to some people a scandalous waste of money.
The Institute for Security Studies, in an April report highlighting failings in stadium procurement, said: “The building and future maintenance of stadia in various cities are likely to impact on their respective municipalities’ capacity to prioritise pro-poor spending and deliver services and infrastructure.
“In addition, the longer-term financial viability of several stadia remains questionable.” According to Ian Neilson, Cape Town’s deputy mayor and finance minister, the city had a simple choice. “The city had an option – be a part of the World Cup, and build a stadium to suit Fifa’s needs, or don’t be a part of the World Cup.”
The risks were on the low side. The national government stumped up the bulk of the R4.3bn cost – the city’s net contribution was no more than R800m. It also paid for Cape Town’s airport upgrade and transport.
As Mr Neilson argues, had Cape Town said No to the World Cup, “that money would have been spent somewhere else”. With more time, the municipal government would have planned a stadium located to suit the city’s disadvantaged population and its transport links, Mr Neilson adds.
They are left with a beautiful stadium in a stunning setting, but one that no one really knows how to make viable. At least there is some protection for taxpayers from excess costs – the consortium’s capital spending is capped at R5m a year and the city gets 30 per cent of revenues.
“There is always that white elephant risk,” Mr Neilson says. “But it depends on how you manage the asset. For Cape Town, there are positives around this stadium and its location that act to our advantage. If we can’t make it work, others won’t either.”
“One should question a government’s willingness to deliver housing for the poor when it builds a white elephant for the rich,” says Andre du Plessis of Cape Town-based InternAfrica, which campaigns for sustainable housing.
The Institute for Security Studies, in an April report highlighting failings in stadium procurement, said: “The building and future maintenance of stadia in various cities are likely to impact on their respective municipalities’ capacity to prioritise pro-poor spending and deliver services and infrastructure.
“In addition, the longer-term financial viability of several stadia remains questionable.” According to Ian Neilson, Cape Town’s deputy mayor and finance minister, the city had a simple choice. “The city had an option – be a part of the World Cup, and build a stadium to suit Fifa’s needs, or don’t be a part of the World Cup.”
The risks were on the low side. The national government stumped up the bulk of the R4.3bn cost – the city’s net contribution was no more than R800m. It also paid for Cape Town’s airport upgrade and transport.
As Mr Neilson argues, had Cape Town said No to the World Cup, “that money would have been spent somewhere else”. With more time, the municipal government would have planned a stadium located to suit the city’s disadvantaged population and its transport links, Mr Neilson adds.
They are left with a beautiful stadium in a stunning setting, but one that no one really knows how to make viable. At least there is some protection for taxpayers from excess costs – the consortium’s capital spending is capped at R5m a year and the city gets 30 per cent of revenues.
“There is always that white elephant risk,” Mr Neilson says. “But it depends on how you manage the asset. For Cape Town, there are positives around this stadium and its location that act to our advantage. If we can’t make it work, others won’t either.”
- Financial Times
1 comment:
For the indefinite future the taxpayer will feel Sepp Blatter's 2010 Soccer World Cup Cock chafing their asses
Post a Comment