sport-for-development and the 2010 football world cup

Sport-for-Development and the 2010 Football WorldCup

Roger Levermore*University of Liverpool

Abstract

Sport – as both a grassroots and elite movement – has long been used in various capacities to assistin the ‘development process’ especially in lower income countries. For example, sport is believedto display traits that assist in the education process, highlight health awareness issues, unify diversecommunities and promote gender equality. Young people are the principal beneficiaries as sport isviewed as a particularly alluring vehicle to this generation. However, the relationship betweensport and development has intensified in recent years, particularly since 2005 – a year that theUnited Nations declared to be its Year of Development and Peace through Sport and PhysicalEducation. Sports mega events, especially but not solely, those held in lower income countries(such as the 2010 football World Cup hosted by South Africa) are notable for the rhetoric of the‘promise of development’ attached to them. In this article, I address the growing academic debateand use a reflection of the 2010 football World Cup as the context around which to reflect thebinary discussions evident. I take a critical stance that challenges the range of (often evangelical)support for sport-for-development. The article not only charts the perceived developmental bene-fits of the 2010 World Cup but also draws on my schooling in critical development studies tohighlight limitations associated with it. In so doing, the critique of the developmental benefits ofthe World Cup echoes more general concerns within the sport-for-development relationship.

1. Sport-for-Development

Sport – as both a grassroots and elite movement – has long been used in various capaci-ties to assist in the ‘development process’. This was especially so in lower income coun-tries as much as a means of attempting control of ‘subaltern’ populations as in trying toimprove standards of living (Guttmann 1994; MacKenzie 1984; Maguire 1999; Wagg1995). However, the relationship between sport and development has intensified inrecent years, particularly since 2005 – a year that the United Nations declared to be itsYear of Development and Peace through Sport and Physical Education – and acceleratedfurther by a cluster of international sporting events from 2008 that present developmentas a core aspiration. Its role continues to be of a dualistic nature; being seen in positiveand more harmful lights.

Today, sport-for-development is most associated with discrete educational, health, andconflict alleviation projects etceteras that are largely set in sub-Saharan Africa (Levermoreand Beacom 2008) run by Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) or sports volunteers with assistance (funding and equipment)from sports federations, clubs, religious organisations, governments, philanthropists or cor-porations. However, sports use to address poverty takes place around the world, in highand low-income countries alike. It also takes many other forms. For example, sport isused via publicising policy awareness campaigns (such as HIV or malaria), as part of facili-

Geography Compass 5/12 (2011): 886–897, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00460.x

ª 2011 The AuthorGeography Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

tating macro-economic ⁄ infrastructure projects and in corporate philanthropy ⁄ corporatesocial responsibility (CSR) programmes (Levermore 2010).1 The inclusion of the latter isan arguable one because of the tensions inherent in the way business has used CSR in afar from altruistic manner. To some, whatever benefits CSR might temporarily bringdevelopment are far outweighed by exploitation of workforces, pollution to the environ-ment, perversion of decision-making systems, complicity in corruption, and fickleness intransferring operations across borders (to mention a few). Yet, addressing the develop-ment of communities is increasingly recognised as one of the elements that can constitutecontemporary CSR (Blowfield 2005). Indeed, the World Business Council for Sustain-able Development (n.d., 3) defines CSR as a ‘continuing commitment by business tobehave ethically and contribute to economic development while improving the quality oflife of the workplace and their families as well as the local community and society atlarge’. Many businesses for a variety of reasons also proclaim addressing poverty andimproving standards of living around the world as being important to their overallobjectives and CSR focus. The sports industry is increasingly linking CSR to sport anddevelopment (Breitbarth and Harris 2008; Smith and Westerbeek 2007). For instance,Misener and Mason (2009, 770) note how athletic events hosted in Edmonton, Manches-ter and Melbourne ‘provided examples of symbolic attempts to foster community aroundthe sporting events strategies’. It is for these reasons that CSR through sport-for-develop-ment is included here as a category to be explored further.

Of increasing importance to the sport-for-development relationship (especially to themedia) are international sport events. These contain all the categorisations of sport-for-development noted above. The 2008 Summer Olympics Games, 2010 CommonwealthGames and 2012 European Football Championships are examples of events where devel-opment has been highlighted as an intended side effect. Yet, the 2010 football WorldCup hosted in South Africa has attracted especially widespread attention. The symbolismof the event taking place for the first time in a lower income country should not beunderstated. Indeed, the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) andthen South African president, Thabo Mbeki, hailed the tournament the ‘developmentWorld Cup’ for the African continent, stating:

[T]he successful hosting of the FIFA World Cup� in Africa will provide a powerful, irresistiblemomentum to [the] African renaissance … We want, on behalf of our continent, to stage anevent that will send ripples of confidence from the Cape to Cairo – an event that will createsocial and economic opportunities throughout Africa. We want to ensure that one day, histori-ans will reflect upon the 2010 World Cup as a moment when Africa stood tall and resolutelyturned the tide on centuries of poverty and conflict. We want to show that Africa’s time hascome.(South African Government, n.d.)

Even if this statement deliberately exaggerated the potential impact of the World Cupin order to appeal to those voting on who should host the tournament, suchannouncements have been met with tangible commitments linking development to the2010 event. International institutions such as the European Commission, UnitedNations, football clubs, NGOs, players’ unions, sport organisations, academic institutionsand other governmental bodies have formal development agreements linked to theWorld Cup. Examples include:

• The European Commission and FIFA signed a Memorandum of Understanding in2006 that promoted the use of football for development (EurActiv 2010).

Sport-for-development and the 2010 football World Cup 887

ª 2011 The Author Geography Compass 5/12 (2011): 886–897, 10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00460.xGeography Compass ª 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

• The UN General Assembly agreed a Resolution in December 2009 that supports effortsto ensure that the World Cup has a lasting development legacy (UN General Assembly2009).

• In April 2010, the ‘Vienna Action Plan’, supported by the list of actors noted above,agreed to ‘make use of the FIFA World Cup 2010 in South Africa and subsequent bigsporting events as mediums for promoting development’ (Football for Development2010).

Moreover, the World Cup took place in a country that has long viewed sport as a politi-cal tool; either as a form of protest or for unifying and developing society. Indeed, aniconic moment of Nelson Mandela’s presidency was his visible support of the South Afri-can (Springbok) rugby team at the 1995 rugby World Cup; a sport associated with thewhite ⁄ Afrikaaner population that was responsible for his incarceration (Burnett 2009).The 2010 event has been viewed as the most momentous occasion in South Africa’s heal-ing process in overcoming its apartheid legacy – second to the elections that took placein 1994 (The Economist 2010c).

Sport-for-development has aroused a range of (often evangelical) support and somecriticism. To its many advocates, sport is unchallenged in displaying traits that significantlybenefit the development process. Prominent amongst these are its ability to assist in theeducation process (literacy and attendance), highlight health awareness issues (anti-obesity,psychological, malaria, HIV ⁄Aids etceteras), unify diverse and often warring communitiesand promote gender equality. Young people are the principal beneficiaries as sport isviewed as a particularly alluring vehicle to this generation. By contrast, the sport-for-development literature – often drawing on critical development theory – notes the waythis relationship grossly exaggerates perceived benefits and furthers unequal power rela-tionships. I address in this article the growing academic debate and uses a reflection ofthe 2010 football World Cup as the context around which to reflect the binary discus-sions evident. It takes a critical stance that challenges the range of support for sport-for-development. It charts the perceived developmental benefits of the 2010 World Cup butalso draws on my experience of (and allegiance to) critical development theory to high-light limitations associated with it. In so doing, the critique of the developmental benefitsof the World Cup echoes more general concerns within the sport-for-development rela-tionship. The first section notes a significant level of limitations associated with criticaldevelopment studies’ reflection of sport-for-development in general and sports megaevents specifically. The second applies this debate to the 2010 football World Cup. Thediscussion is based on general research into sport-for-development alongside specificresearch surrounding the World Cup I undertook. It does so recognising its biases. Thearticle was written in the warm afterglow of the competition – an event I attended dur-ing its latter stages. This might tend to exaggerate some of the positive, if transient, bene-fits of the event. This is counter-balanced somewhat by recognition that critical theoryhas influenced my outlook, and this has resulted in a tendency to problematise thesport ⁄development relationship. The result is a balanced ‘snapshot’ of competing perspec-tives at this juncture and is of value because it illustrates the two-sided nature of thesport-for-development debate.

2. Critiquing Sports Relationship with Social and Economic Development

Core concerns of critical perspectives of the sport event ⁄development relationship areassociated with statements pertaining to the promised social and economic benefits associ-

888 Sport-for-development and the 2010 football World Cup


ated with sports mega events to (i) the way that claims about its benefits are exaggeratedand (ii) the unequal power relationships that are inherent in sports and development,which inevitably transfers into mega events.

Horne and Manzenreiter (2006, 10) are representative of many social scientists in stat-ing that ‘the forecasts of the benefits [of sport mega events] are nearly always wrong’ (seealso Szymanski 2011). This is the case for both attempting to measure the increases ininvestment, employment and tourism as well as gauging the impact on communities ofsport-for-development initiatives attached to sport mega events.2 This is partly due to thedifficulties of accurately gauging the impact of such events and programmes. Few followthe lead of Preuss (2004, 234) who argued vaguely that sports mega events ‘not onlybring immense sums of fresh money into a city, but also accelerate its infrastructuraldevelopment to up to 10 years’ as a ‘multiplier effect’ tends to surround sports events;further spending is stimulated by initial, direct spending invested at the start of an event.Measuring ‘urban economic impact is variable, intangible and ambiguous at best’ (Pillay2008, 335). Pre-event claims often fail to take into account displacement of regularspending and alienating non-sport tourists ⁄ regular business travellers. Moreover, for econ-omists, the ‘use of inappropriate multipliers are a primary reason why these impact studiesoverstate the true economic gains to the hosts of these events’ (Matheson 2009, 63).

Exaggerations of the quantitative development benefits is largely due to the politicalnecessity of convincing host country populations that the event will not overly burdengovernment finances, the displacement of development spending and an increase in taxa-tion (Rose and Spiegel 2011). Balanced debate is therefore largely silenced particularlyduring a tournament because events become ‘premeditated vehicles to articulate or signalkey messages regarding the host’ (Black 2007, 266). It should therefore come as little sur-prise that those articulating the development benefits (often termed the social and eco-nomic legacy) of sports mega events most are those with considerable vested interests intournaments, namely sports federation that organises the competition and ⁄ or politicians,national sporting organisations in the host country, partnering multinationals, internationalfinancial institutions and consultants.

In terms of unequal power relationships, sport-for-development and sports mega eventshave not been able to divorce themselves from the balance of power inherent in the glo-bal political economy. Concerns have been raised that both are driven by objectives thatare heavily influenced by high-income country priorities (Levermore 2011a). Sports fed-erations such as FIFA have been criticised for being an ‘instrument of neo-colonial domi-nation’ (Darby 2002, 168). They have also been accused of having politicallyunprincipled motives for supporting development initiatives. The International OlympicCommittee’s behaviour in this area for example,

is best understood with reference to the institutional environments it has inhabited. Rather thanadapting primarily because of ineffectiveness, the IOC has changed the meanings of its socialinterventions (often unwittingly) in order to secure legitimacy among its institutional peers andother exogenous actors in world politics (e.g. states, activist organisations, etc.)(Peacock 2011,477) (see also Torres 2011)

Sports mega events such as the Olympics and World Cup also result in the clearance ofcommunities away from stadia either forcibly or because of rising house prices (Al Jazeera2010). Unequal power relationships are also often manifested in negative stereotyping of‘developing countries’ by developed societies (Levermore 2004; Nauright 2010). Whatmakes this particularly perturbing is the ‘manufactured consent’ that surrounds megasports mega events. Such consent is supported by legislation that tries to protect the



unauthorised use of words such as ‘Olympics’; meaning, potential penalties are threatenedin order to suppress critical news stories (Horne 2007).

3. Case Study of the 2010 Football World Cup

The 2010 World Cup presented considerable evidence to support these critical view-points. Exaggerated claims were widely cited. In terms of economic benefits, the eventwas forecast by the international sport ⁄ politics ⁄ current affairs media, sport federations andthe South African government – all component parts of the ‘vehicles of legitimation’ – toproduce increases in a range of indicators from tourism, employment, infrastructuralinvestment, consumer confidence (Deloitte 2010) and overall macro-economic growth(Grant Thornton 2010; OECD 2008). Specific examples include predictions of anincrease in gross domestic product (GDP) of R51.1bn (US$7.46 billion) from 2006 to2010 with R7.2bn (US$1.05 billion) due to from extra tax and revenue collected (Mail& Guardian 2010f). Furthermore, South African Rand 20.5bn (US$2.98 billion) would bespent on infrastructure; this would be the main stimulus behind an increase in employ-ment of 368,000–415,000 (Marrian 2009). Additionally, 480,000–750,000 visitors, spend-ing US$1.29 billion were expected (Mail & Guardian 2010d).

Statistics released immediately following the World Cup claim to show some macrodevelopment benefits. For example, the World Cup was said to have been responsible foras much as 1% of the 2.3% growth rate in South Africa in 2010 (Mail & Guardian 2010f).Visa estimated that spending in South Africa using its cards increased by 65% comparedto June 2009 (Business Day 2010a). Aside from these figures, macro economic develop-ment was also perceived to have been improved. Business Day (2010b,c) claimed that theWorld Cup had made Africa in general, and South Africa in particular, attractive toinvestors from the USA and Europe. This ‘bolstering’ of South African ‘brand awareness’,has arguably tackled neo-colonial stereotypes of the country through media saturationand word of mouth by tourists returning to home countries; ‘in this sense it has been asuperbly marshalled exercise in spin’ (Calland 2010). This ‘rebranding’ was also applied tocities (such as Durban) as well as the country image (Roberts 2010). Similarly, the un-quantifiable ‘feel good’ impact, noted as ‘symbolic politics’ by Black (2007), supposedlycontributed to notions of unity especially in quelling the crime rate.3

The reality of these figures has been persistently questioned (Cornelissen 2011). Forexample, the anticipated amount of tourists was downgraded from 480,000 to 373,000 byearly June 2010 and 200,000 in July 2010 (Mail & Guardian 2010d). Instead of an increasein tourism, the World Cup probably deterred 50,000 tourists who normally travel toSouth Africa but were uninterested in the football and put off by the higher prices ofaccommodation, transportation and other services that accompanied the World Cup (TheEconomist 2010b). Particularly problematic, given the development context, was the lackof tourists travelling from African countries (Fakude 2010; Mail & Guardian 2010d).Therefore, the economic developmental credentials of the event have been doubted.Some of the infrastructure such as the high speed link between Johannesburg airport andSandton and stadia are either benefitting the already privileged in South Africa or will liedormant after the tournament. In economic terms, the cost of the tournament for theSouth African government considerably exceeded expectations – originally estimated atR2.3bn (US$0.326 billion) – was likely to have been closer to US$8.6 billion (The Inde-pendent 2010b). This compares to FIFA’s expected profits of US$2.5 billion (or 0.7% ofSouth Africa’s GDP) from the tournament (The Economist 2010a). In addition, not onlydid FIFA make profits that appeared unseemly to some but their conduct in South Africa



was also criticised; from perverting the countries legal system (Mail & Guardian 2010e;Osava 2010), flouting air regulations (The Star of South Africa 2010), corruption, restrictingtrade of local entrepreneurs (The Independent 2010a), benefitting excessively from blockbooking accommodation,4 and being overly protective of its wealthy official partners andWorld Cup sponsors (CNN 2010).5

Furthermore, social integration initiatives also appear to have been short-lived. Thisrelates both to the macro and micro social environments. A summary of discrete socialdevelopment initiatives attached to the World Cup have been recorded in the Appendix.Each relates to the categorisation of sport-for-development detailed above (dedicated pro-grammes, awareness campaigns and CSR ⁄philanthropic activities). It should be noted thatthe list is not exhaustive; those included are a reflection of the types of initiatives, cam-paigns and developments around which the World Cup have been credited with pro-gressing. It is important to document at this point that there is considerable crossoverbetween the categories. For instance, a dedicated programme can be supported by CSRto raise the awareness of health initiatives. Yet, the categories also hint at the complex‘patchwork’ of the sport-for-development movement in general and in South Africa par-ticularly. The first category – development programmes that use sport as a vehicle tofacilitate social or economic development – proliferated in pre-World Cup South Africa.Many (such as Grassroots Soccer) saw the event as an opportunity to showcase their workand publicise their activities (Table A1).

The notion that the World Cup might bring lasting social development to the countryhas been criticised for its simplicity and naivety. Worryingly for sport-for-developmentadvocates, some of the micro, dedicated sport-for-development programmes have beencriticised; in part because sport has a relatively low participation rate in South Africa(SRSA, n.d.) particularly of girls. The contradictions of specific programmes have beenhighlighted by many. First, Deshun Deysel of the Laureus Sport for Good Foundationnoted that the World Cup neglected to provide sufficient sporting opportunities for girls(Trialogue 2010). Second, programmes such as the 1Goal programme is criticised for lackof substance because ‘such high profile events are hard to reconcile with the realities ofschooling in South Africa’ (Mail & Guardian 2010c). Related to this is the contradictionof articulating unity and harmony when communities were forcibly evicted from touristareas and stadia, especially in Cape Town and Durban (Al Jazeera 2010). Such criticism isalso due to the xenophobic attacks on African migrants before and after the World Cup(Mail & Guardian 2010b,e; The Times of South Africa 2010). Some disagree with the depthof identity formation created by the World Cup, deriding it as being ‘fake nationhood’(Maseko 2010).

Third, CSR for development through sport programmes conduct virtually no evalua-tion and often fail to see the reason why measurement might be necessary. Those that dotend to fail to publicly disclose results (Levermore 2011c). Indeed, what is evident fromTable A3 was the extent of ‘disengaged’ and ‘distant’ initiatives that surround the WorldCup (such as Castrol, McDonalds and Sony) and therefore examples of CSR that aredescribed as being weak and unlikely to result in a ‘win win’ situation for society or busi-ness (Ponte et al. 2009). Table A2 in particular records more general campaigns that wereset up specifically with the World Cup in mind or have been short-lived because of thenature of the event. Some of these were aired and were soon apparently forgotten (suchas the call for a 90-min ceasefire). Others had very vague objectives in how the WorldCup would assist the campaign – such as the anti-Malaria initiative. This general trait islargely due to the way CSR is conducted as a short-term action surrounding a one-offevent (Muthuri et al. 2009).



Fourth, the environmental sustainability of the event was also criticised. Deloitte(2010) estimated that the carbon footprint of the World Cup was nine times that of Ger-many 2006 and twice that of the Beijing Olympics. This is because of further distances ofthose travelling to South Africa, and South Africa’s reliance on coal for 90% of itsenergy.

4. What Next?

This article has charted the extent to which the 2010 football World Cup in South Africahas been associated with promoting sport-for-development. A significant selection of pro-grammes, campaigns and CSR initiatives has been listed and the picture that emerges isof a tournament around which ‘sport-for-development’ has been a prominent theme. It isimportant to note that this development takes many forms ranging from perceived macroeconomic benefits to ‘sport plus’ projects. In some ways, the event has been used success-fully not least in demonstrating that a sports event should be associated with social andeconomic development. Indeed, many of those involved with sport-for-developmenthave invested considerable and sincere energies in their endeavours. Organisers for futuresports mega events – especially the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, a country with similarissues to South Africa in that the gini coefficient is significant, could well use the event asa template particularly in learning from any mistakes made (see, for example, Kuper2010).6 African governments are likely to use it as evidence that the African continent iscapable of hosting complex international sporting events. Morocco is due to bid for the2017 World Athletics championships. Furthermore, South Africa is likely to also bid forthe 2020 Olympics. However, in truth, the event has done little to demonstrate long-term substantive development for South Africa and even less for the African continent(Mail & Guardian 2010a). Exacerbating the lack of development transfer is that there werefew visitors from other African nations during the World Cup and there have been xeno-phobic attacks before and after. Such a conclusion feeds into continuing wariness ofsport-for-development by the mainstream development movement. There are still thosedevelopment specialists (such as the World Bank) who are not convinced by the sport-for-development argument.7 An opportunity to show substance to the case for sportsmega events to advance social and economic development was therefore missed.

Short Biography

Roger Levermore is Lecturer in International Development at the University of Liver-pool Management School. His research interests lie in how business and sport interactwith international development especially in southern Africa. Dr Levermore’s publicationsinclude Sport and International Development (London: Palgrave, 2008) and Sport andInternational Relations (London: Routledge, 2004).

Notes

* Correspondence address: Roger Levermore, University of Liverpool, Chatham Street, Liverpool L69 7ZH, UK.E-mail: [email protected].

1 Some also include what are termed ‘sport plus’ programmes. These focus mainly on the development of sportwith largely unintended social development repercussions (Coalter 2007). These have been excluded from this anal-ysis because their prime motive is not social and economic development of society.



2 Indeed, the sport-for-development movement has been disparaged for its lack of evaluation. Although evaluationfor sport-for-development programmes appears to be increasing (Levermore 2011b) the same cannot be said for theawareness or CSR initiatives that use sport-for-development purposes (Levermore 2011c).3 The Independent (2010c) claimed that crime had been reduced by 90% in major cities with reduction in inter-ethnic conflict also noticeable in the months preceding the tournament.4 SA hotels have to pay 30% of income to Match – a firm part-owned by marketing group, Infront – whose presi-dent is the nephew of Sepp Blatter, President of FIFA.5 There was also anecdotal evidence that sports federations, development agencies and NGOs re-directed theirenergies and finances from other low-income regions of the world to southern Africa because of the World Cup.6 The gini coefficient is used in development studies as a measure of statistical dispersion whereby the inequality ofwealth distribution is given a value of 0 expressing total equality and a value of 1 maximal inequality. Brazil hasconsistently ranked closer to the level of maximal inequality.7 This has been implicitly affirmed by ACP Courier (The Courier 2009); ‘few delegations have expressed interest inincluding sport projects in their bilateral programmes under the 10th European Development Fund (2008–2013).

References

Al Jazeera (2010). Human cost of the World Cup. 8 March. [Online]. Retrieved on 22 October 2010 from:http://english.aljazeera.net/sport/2010/03/20103816395976656.html.

Black, D. (2007). The symbolic politics of sport mega-events: 2010 in comparative perspective. Politikon 34 (3), pp.261–276.

Blowfield, M. (2005). Corporate social responsibility: reinventing the meaning of development? International Affairs81 (3), pp. 515–524.

Breitbarth, T. and Harris, P. (2008). The role of corporate social responsibility in the football business: towards thedevelopment of a conceptual model. European Sport Management Quarterly 8 (2), pp. 179–206.

Burnett, C. (2009). Engaging sport-for-development for social impact in the South African context. Sport in Society12 (9), pp. 1192–1205.

Business Day (2010a). Visa data show surge in World Cup spending. Business Day, 30 June, p. 2.Business Day (2010b). Foreign companies seek mergers, acquisitions in SA. Business Day, 6 July, p. 9.Business Day (2010c). World Cup a money magnet for rebranded Africa. Business Day, 8 July, p. 1.Calland, R. (2010). World Cup is a reminder of what’s possible. Mail & Guardian, 9 July, p. 15.CNN (2010). FIFA criticized for over-protecting 2010 World Cup sponsors. 29 April.Coalter, F. (2007). A wider social role for sport: who’s keeping the score? London: Routledge.Cornelissen, S. (2011). More than a sporting chance? Appraising the sport for development legacy of the 2010 FIFA

World Cup. Third World Quarterly 32 (3), pp. 503–529.Darby, P. (2002). Africa, football and FIFA: politics, colonialism and resistance. London: Frank Cass.Deloitte (2010). 2010 FIFA World Cup: a turning point for South Africa. Johannesburg: Deloitte, 11 June, p. 3.EurActiv (2010). Sport for development plan adopted ahead of World Cup. Posted 7 June. [Online]. Retrieved on

14 June 2010 from: http://www.euactiv.com/en/sports/sport-development-plan-adopted-ahead-world-cup-news-494939.

Fakude, T. (2010). 2010 World Cup not for all Africans. 15 April. [Online]. Retrieved on 25 May 2010 from:http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/20103258449139345.html.

Football for Development (2010). Drafted Vienna action plan: football for development. [Online]. Retrieved on 16 May2010 from: http://www.footballfordevelopment.net/documents.

Guttmann, A. (1994). Games and empires. New York: Columbia University Press.Horne, J. (2007). The four ‘knowns’ of sports mega-events. Leisure Studies 26 (1), pp. 81–96.Horne, J. and Manzenreiter, W. (eds) (2006). An introduction to the sociology of sport mega-events. In: Sports

mega-events: social scientific analysis of a global phenomenon. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 1–24.Kuper, S. (2010). South Africa’s football lesson. Financial Times, 30 October. [Online]. Retrieved on 12 April 2011

from: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/64d78af2-e16f-11df-90b7-00144feabdc0.htmls?ftcamp=rss#axzz1XRJzRrqs.Levermore, R. (2004). Sport’s role in constructing the inter-statal worldview. In: Levermore, R. and Budd, A.

(eds) Sport and international relations: an emerging relationship. London: Routledge, pp. 16–30.Levermore, R. (2010). CSR for development through sport: examining its potential and limitations. Third World

Quarterly 31 (2), pp. 223–241.Levermore, R. (2011a). Sport in international development: facilitating improved standard of living? In: Houlihan,

Barrie and Green, Mick (eds) Routledge handbook of sports development. London: Routledge, pp. 285–307.Levermore, R. (2011b). Evaluating sport-for-development: approaches and critical issues. Progress in Development 11

(4), pp. 339–353.



Levermore, R. (2011c). The paucity of, and dilemma in, evaluating corporate social responsibility for developmentthrough sport. Third World Quarterly 32 (3), pp. 551–562.

Levermore, R. and Beacom, A. (2008). Sport and development: mapping the field. In: Levermore, Roger and Bea-com, Aaron (eds) Sport and international development. Basingstoke, UK ⁄ New York: Palgrave, pp. 1–25.

MacKenzie, J. (1984). Propaganda and empire: the manipulation of British public opinion 1880–1960. Manchester: Man-chester University Press.

Maguire, J. (1999). Global sport: identities, societies, civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Mail & Guardian (2010a). Caught in the FIFA marketing ambush. Mail & Guardian, 25 June, p. 9.Mail & Guardian (2010b). A climate of threats. Mail & Guardian, 25 June, p. 12.Mail & Guardian (2010c). Giving education a sporting chance. Mail & Guardian, 25 June, p. 47.Mail & Guardian (2010d). The cup half full. Mail & Guardian, 2 July, pp. 10–11. [Online]. Retrieved on 20 August

2010 from: http://mg.co.za/article/2010-07-01-the-cup-half-full.Mail & Guardian (2010e). Xenophobia ‘‘prophets of doom’’ are right. Mail & Guardian, 2 July, p. 34.Mail & Guardian (2010f). World Cup adds 1% to SA annual growth. Mail & Guardian, 23 July. [Online]. Retrieved

on 20 August 2010 from: http://mg.co.za/article/2010-07-23-world-cup-adds-1-to-sa-annual-growth.Marrian, N. (2009). LOC: World Cup legacy secure despite financial crisis. Mail & Guardian, September 14.

[Online]. Retrieved on 12 March 2010 from: http://mg.co.za/article/2009-09-14-loc-world-cup-legacy-secure-despite-financial-crisis.

Maseko, Z. (2010). Rainbow-nation patriotism, pah! Mail & Guardian, 21 June, p. 16.Matheson, V. (2009). Economic multipliers and mega-event analysis. International Journal of Sport Finance 4 (1), pp.

63–70.Misener, L. and Mason, D. S. (2009). Fostering community development through sporting events strategies: an

examination of urban regime perceptions. Journal of Sport Management 23, pp. 770–794.Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D. and Moon, J. (2009). Employee volunteering and social capital: contributions to corpo-

rate social responsibility. British Journal of Management 20 (1), pp. 75–89.Nauright, J. (2010). Global games: culture, political economy and sport in the globalised world of the 21st century.

Third World Quarterly 25 (7), pp. 1325–1336.OECD (2008). South Africa: Economic Assessment Report. Paris: OECD.Osava, M. (2010). Power and passion put football above the law. Mail & Guardian, 19 July, pp. 22–23.Peacock, B. (2011). A secret instinct of social preservation’: legitimacy and the dynamic (re)constitution of Olympic

conceptions of the ‘good’. Third World Quarterly 32 (3), p. 4.Pillay, U. (2008). Mega-events as a response to poverty reduction: the 2010 FIFA World Cup and its urban devel-

opment implications. Urban Forum 19 (3), pp. 329–346.Ponte, S., Richey, K. A. and Baab, M. (2009). Bono’s product (RED) initiative: corporate social responsibility that

solves the problems of ‘‘distant others’’. Third World Quarterly 30 (2), pp. 301–317.Preuss, H. (2004). Calculating the regional impact of Olympic Games. European Management Sports Quarterly 4 (4),

pp. 234–253.Roberts, D. (2010). Durban’s future? Rebranding through the production ⁄ policing of event-specific spaces at the

2010 World Cup. Sport in Society 13 (10), pp. 1486–1497.Rose, A. K. and Spiegel, M. M. (2011). Do mega sporting events promote international trade? SAIS Review XXXI

(1), pp. 77–85.Smith, A. and Westerbeek, H. (2007). Sport as a vehicle for developing corporate social responsibility. Journal of

Corporate Citizenship 25 (7), pp. 43–54.South African Government (n.d.). Mbeki to Blatter. Letter in South Africa’s Bid Book, 2003. [Online]. Retrieved

on 14 July 2010 from: http://www.sa2010.gov.za/africa/legacy.php.SRSA (Department of Sport and Recreation, SA government) (n.d.). Sport development. [Online]. Retrieved on 9

February 2010 from: http://www.srsa.gov.za/KnowledgePage.asp?id=31.Szymanski, S. (2011). About winning: the political economy of awarding the World Cup and the Olympic Games.

SAIS Review XXXI (1), pp. 87–97.The Courier (2009). Kick off for EC sport for development projects. The Courier, Issue: XI, May ⁄ June.The Economist (2010a). Who profits most? The Economist, 15 May, p. 64.The Economist (2010b). An own goal? The Economist, 5 June, p. 21.The Economist (2010c). The price of freedom. The Economist, 5 June [Online]. Retrieved on 2 March 2011 from:

http://www.economist.com/node/16248589.The Independent (2010a). FIFA marketing rules spark frustration in SA. The Independent, 11 May, p. 56.The Independent (2010b). Hosts see red as World Cup bill soars – but Fifa is £1.7bn in black. The Independent, 9

June, p. 52.The Independent (2010c). The real winners of the 2010 World Cup: South Africa. The Independent, 12 July,

pp. 1–4.The Star (of South Africa) (2010). Fifa jet among airport hogs. The Star, 9 July, p. 2.The Times (of South Africa) (2010). Xenophobia redux. The Times, 8 July, p. 15.



Grant Thornton (2010). 2010 FIFA World Cup: visitors will stay longer and spend more. Johannesburg: Press release.Torres, C. R. (2011). Morally incompatible? An Analysis of the relationship between competitive sport and interna-

tional relations at the Olympic Games. SAIS Review XXXI (1), pp. 3–16.Trialogue (2010). Making CSI matter conference. May 2010. [Online]. Retrieved on 7 July 2010 from: http://

www.trialogue.co.za/conference2010_new.html.UN General Assembly (2009). 64 ⁄ 5. 2010 International Federation of Association Football World Cup in South Africa, 1

December.Wagg, S. (1995). Giving the game away. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press.World Business Council for Sustainable Development (n.d.). CSR: meeting changing expectation. Geneva, Switzerland:

World Business Council for Sustainable Development.

Appendix

Table A1. Discrete sport-for-development programmes

Name of programme Details of programme

FIFA Football for Hope festival A festival held towards the end of the World Cup in Alexandratownship, Johannesburg, where 32 sport-for-developmentprogrammes (such as Moving the Goalposts that promotes femaleempowerment in Kilifi, Kenya) meet to interact and showcase bestpractice in the field.

Kick4Life Lesotho-based initiative that uses football to educate young peopleabout HIV. Participated in the official ‘Festival 2010’ in Alexandratownship during the World Cup.

Grassroots Soccer:Sport-for-development NGOwhose focus is on usingfootball in education aboutHIV ⁄ Aids

Highlighted how useful the competition was to market the ‘powerof soccer as an educational tool’. An example was the genderequality awareness campaign addressed to men and boys (incombination with the Sonke Gender Justice Network, FamilyViolence Prevention Fund and the Ford Foundation). Also partneredwith Castrol for a specific CSR project (detailed in Table A3).

MADAboutArt & Tackle Africa:An ‘innovative arts-basededucation and narrativetherapy’ that advancesknowledge of HIV

The World Cup was used to co-ordinate more programmes and tapinto interest in football.

South African Sports Coalition(SASCOL):South African churches initiative

A project ran called The Ultimate Goal (TUG) that was an outreachinitiative (a pan-Church grouping) that includes the TshwaneLeadership Foundation that participates in human traffickersawareness campaign called ‘Mamelodi Outreach’

Table A2. Mass awareness campaigns

Title of campaign Details of campaign

39th Annual LegislativeConference for CongressionalBlack Caucus Foundation

‘Beyond the World Cup’ special session held to discuss opportunitiesbetween African Americans, Africans and other Afro-descendantpopulations such as joint business ventures and educationalexchange.



Table A2. (Continued).

Title of campaign Details of campaign

‘Win in Africa with Africa’ FIFA and South African government launched this initiative toensure that ‘the whole African continent benefits from theexposure granted by the world’s largest single-sport event duringthe 4-year period leading up to the 2010 World Cup’. Will provideadditional funding for African projects, including Football For Hope.

1Goal initiative ⁄ campaign Organised by an international lobby, ‘Education for All’. Raiseinternational awareness about those children not at school. Aninitiative with lead support by South African President, Jacob Zuma.

African Union and UNESCO have also signed up along with leadingfootball players ⁄ coaches.

Fight Against Malaria To promote messages such as proper net utilisation. Supported bythe World Economic Forum, Spanish national team and a lot more.

90-min ceasefire A call was made for this at the Beyond Sport summit, 2009 for it tobe adhered to around the world during the World Cup.

Football and Freedom Jointly supported by the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and theNGO Action for southern Africa (ACTSA); the chance to ‘tell thestory of southern Africa’ and to ‘reaffirm solidarity, celebratediversity and tackle racism’.

Table A3. CSR ⁄ philanthropy

Company Details of initiative

Castrol (official FIFAWorld Cup partner)

Castrol Skillz holiday Programme with Grassroots Soccer – ‘usesfootball as a platform to enhance HIV ⁄ Aids awareness amongstyoung people between the ages of 10 and 14’ during theWorld Cup.

Coca-Cola Funding of the World Cup trophy ‘parade’ through the Africancontinent and awarding the best celebration for a goal scoredby a player in the World Cup whilst also paying $1500 to its‘Water for Schools’ programme in Africa each time a playercelebrates scoring a goal.

Hyundai GoodWill Ball Road Show and ‘Football Stunt Contest’ as part ofits CSR programmes around the World Cup.

McDonalds MacDonalds – uniting customers through thrill of football – via‘special creative promotions, contests, ads and in-storeactivities’.

Also, Player Escort programme – escorting players on tothe pitch; ‘relationship with FIFA demonstrates our ongoingcommitment to promoting balanced, active lifestyles’

MTN (Official WorldCup sponsor)

The Y’ello Care programme runs annually for 21 days in May.This asks for volunteers from staff to engage with communityinitiatives that range from refurbishing buildings and plantingvegetable gardens. The theme for 2010 has beenfootball – with projects including building football pitches,providing apparel and equipment and conducting footballclinics.

Nike Football kits for World Cup made from recycled bottles(but sold in a plastic bottle!) (The UK Sports Network, 2010).



Table A3. (Continued).

Company Details of initiative

Sony Four projects listed under their ‘Dream Goal 2010’ programme.1. In partnership with UNDP, JICA and international ⁄ African

NGOs, Sony provide the technology ⁄ equipment to showmatches in sub-Saharan countries. The crowds attracted wereoffered counselling about HIV ⁄ Aids by UNDP ⁄ NGOs. The aimwas for 13,000 to attend with 1800 receiving HIV tests.

2. Support of Football for Hope (Sony products provided as aphilanthropic measure).

3. ‘For the Children’ Project; to invite 15,000 children to attenda World Cup match.

4. ‘Earth FC’; an initiative to support worldwide public viewing in‘Africa of the World Cup.

Visa As part of its improving financial literacy programme, the WorldCup was used to provide a football theme to literacy roadshows, which in 2010 targeted hospitality and tourism sectors.This included the ‘financial football’ video game that asksfinancial ⁄ mathematical questions. Five thousand tickets werealso given away free to communities unable to afford them.



sport-for-development and the 2010 football world cup

Documents