Local Organising Committee on Legacy Programme following 2010 World Cup

Sports, Arts and Culture

14 March 2011
Chairperson: Mr BM Komphela (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

As part of the legacy programme resulting from the 2010 Football World Cup, the South African Football Association had identified 52 sites for artificial surface football fields. The programme had been administered by the 2010 Organising Committee. Funds had been secured from the Lottery. To date eight had been completed, of which four had been handed over to the communities. Another nineteen were presently under construction. The facilities would be used as centres for both football and general youth development. Clubhouses would be provided at each site.

Members were assured that the question of maintenance had been considered. There were many examples of good facilities that had gone to ruin due to a lack of maintenance. The cost of use to the community would be reasonable and business opportunities would be developed. The importance of cooperation with local authorities was emphasised. Although the structures created for the World Cup would soon be wound up, the unit associated with this programme had been asked to continue with their oversight role under the auspices of the South African Football Association.

Meeting report

The Chairperson recalled that the legacy projects were a big part of the planning for the 2010 World Cup. Many people were posing questions about how much progress had been made. It was not just a windfall of money for those involved in organising the tournament. He voiced his appreciation at all the Members who had attended the funeral of the Director-General, who had passed away suddenly.

Presentation by Local Organising Committee
Mr Greg Fredericks, Head of Legacy, 2010 Organising Committee (LOC) said that his delegation would be talking solely on the legacy aspect of the provision of football fields. He introduced the members of his delegation. The presentation would focus on the Football Turfs programme. The plan was to create 52 facilities. This number was based on the number of South African Football Association (SAFA) districts. SAFA had to find the funds as the funds forwarded by FIFA were solely for organising the tournament. A presentation had been made to the Lottery which had already funded the first 27 fields.

Mr Fredericks said that it was more practical to install artificial surfaces. It was difficult to grow and maintain grass fields in some areas. There had been much research on the different surfaces available. The fields were weather resistant. They were also more suitable for covered stadiums. There was easy maintenance and lower cost. Fewer fields were needed because of the longevity. Playing conditions were consistent and constant.

Mr Fredericks said that the LOC had consulted with SAFA provincial and regional structures. Agreement was reached on the location for the turfs. FIFA's mission was kept in mind in developing the facilities. The fields would be completed with clubhouses, changing rooms and ablution facilities, perimeter fencing and training floodlights. Proper maintenance and management was needed. A development programme was needed to accompany the turfs. The first of these had already been held. The LOC wished to involve some of the former legends, some of whom were destitute. The Netherlands would invest heavily on coaching in a three year programme. There would be cooperation with the Dreamfields programme run by Mr John Perlman.

Mr Fredericks said that youth programmes would be instituted on the lines of academies set up overseas. Young people did not have opportunities to develop themselves and became involved in strikes. Better opportunities could be afforded as a result of youth development programmes. The envisaged programme would make better leaders of the youth. A service provider would present the programme. Companies such as Microsoft SA were helping to equip the youth facilities. There was a greening aspect to the programme. Solar energy and water conservation were part of the programme. Local authorities were involved. The facilities could serve as administrative areas for the hubs. Small businesses could operate from the facilities. Converted containers could be used as business premises. The LOC was talking with relevant departments and major companies. The goal was to show the community that there was value in the project. Many projects built at great cost by government had been vandalised and were in a poor condition.

Mr Fredericks said that eight facilities had been completed and nineteen were under construction. Pabelello was the first to be handed over on 8 October 2010 and three others had been handed over since then. Each facility would have a Facility Management Committee (FMC). An FMC would consist of a maintenance and management coordinator, a football development coordinator and a community development coordinator. The issue of ownership had been addressed. In almost all cases the land belonged to local authorities. Good management was needed.

Mr Fredericks said that 260 laptop computers had been provided by FIFA together with television sets and other audiovisual aids. There had been some training. A seminar on facility management had been held. The real strength of any body was what was happening at grass roots level. Administration was often lacking due to a lack of resources. International class facilities were being put down in rural areas. He listed the locations of the various turfs. The first 27 had been identified but funding was still needed for the remaining 25 fields. At one of the facilities the local authority had asked the LOC to assist with procurement of facilities for other codes.

Mr Fredericks presented Members with pictorial reports on the facilities which had already been completed. The non-inclusion of stands was an issue that was often raised by the communities. A community liaison officer worked with the contractors to ensure that the community benefited from the construction phase. Each clubhouse would house a youth education centre, SAFA offices, ablutions, kitchen, storage and clubhouse. There would also be a security room. The SAPS would be offered the use of these rooms for satellite stations or Community Policing Forum (CPF) operations.

Mr Fredericks said that 450 jobs had been created at the construction sites. Each facility would have four security staff and one community liaison officer. Some of the World Cup speed fencing was being recycled at the facilities. MUSCO lighting had donated one set of floodlights at the Limpopo facility.

Mr Fredericks said that the surrounds at some of the facilities were not being maintained. The FMCs did not seem to be operating properly. The LOC had now reached the end of its life. SAFA had asked that the legacy programme should be maintained. The biggest challenge concerned facilities. SAFA was establishing an infrastructure development trust, and the legacy programme would move to that once the LOC had been wound up.

Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) asked about agreements reached with local authorities. People were charged exorbitant amounts to use the facility, and the fields often became white elephants as a result. All legends must be included. Some had returned to the rural areas at the end of their careers. He asked if the security measures being put in place would prevent vandalism. This was happening in all areas. The lifetime of a facility was about three months due to the damage being caused. He asked if there was any commitment to maintain the facilities by local authorities.

Mr Fredericks said that they would rely on legends in the areas for their programmes.

Mr L Suka (ANC) was concerned about the marketing strategy. Nothing was being told to the disabled community. These people were treated like orphans. Local media could have been used to spread information. The problem was even worse in the deep rural areas. Access should not be difficult. The people had to benefit. Another issue was funding. He asked why the Lottery wanted to provide the funding while FIFA had left funds in the country for such projects. The Lottery had never been in the equation. He would have liked to see more detail on the partnerships mentioned in the presentation. He asked if the programmes were sustainable and if there was a clear programme. He asked how many permanent jobs had been created and about the time frames for implementation of the programme. He wanted to know what areas had been identified for the remaining locations so that Members could inform their constituents. He asked what the output of the seminars had been. A lot was happening in the Transkei area but facilities were lacking. This had led to the demise of the Umtata Bushbucks club.

Mr Fredericks replied that the programme had been promoted through the media. Erecting a noticeboard was a good idea. All the funding had come from the Lottery. The initial idea was to approach each of the competing countries. The Lottery had provided R127 million. On average the facilities cost R6.3 million, including the clubhouse and maintenance equipment. The contractor would assist with maintenance and training for one year. The FIFA Legacy Fund of $80 million would go into a trust. People running football and social projects could apply to the Trust. The LOC wanted people who were experts in youth development to run these programmes. There were many NGOs who specialised in this type of work. They would be meeting with a group soon. Many organisations concentrated on just one issue such as HIV/AIDS. The LOC wanted to see a broader approach. The first 27 clubhouses should be completed by the end of June, depending on weather.

Mr Zola Dunywa, Legacy Football Co-ordinator, LOC, said that spreading the information was important. Memorandums of understanding had been signed with local authorities for maintenance and allocation of land. Land ownership would be subject to a partnership between local authorities and football. There had not been a culture of ownership in the past. This was why the FMCs had been created. It was a tough task to involve everybody. People had to be convinced that they owned the facilities. Some were created in existing municipal stadia. Often, the existing facility was in poor condition. All had to be involved in the maintenance. Sub-committees should address the usage of the facilities. Programmes had to be drawn up and evaluated. They would also continue to be used as fan parks. They would be hubs and would generate their own operating revenue.

Mr Fredericks said that in the past, agreements had been signed but not adhered to. This was the reason for the FMCs. Vandals targeted property they perceived belonged to the local authority. It must be made clear that the facility belonged to the community. The LOC was still looking at the venues for the remaining 25 facilities. Only football had been considered, but for the next phase dual purpose facilities would be considered. Quality was the issue. Money had been wasted in the past on poor quality work. On the FMC, one person would focus on football, one on non-football activities, one on maintenance and one on cleaning.

Mr Joe Carrim, Legacy Manager – Turfs, LOC, said that the surface was not weed-resistant, but long term weed-killers were used. He would like to see a medical aid facility. Already the concept of a double storey clubhouse had been trimmed to a single storey. They were looking at making the best of what they could afford. Where, for example, decent changing rooms were already in place, these would not be duplicated. They had met with Safmarine on the question of containers. FIFA was not excited about this prospect, and were more keen on the small business option.

Mr Carrim said that the cooperation with Dreamfields had been good. In some cases, community advisers lived amongst the community to understand the requirements of the community. Engagement on pilot projects would continue. Outside expertise would be valued.

Mr Fredericks said that a culture of dependency would not be advisable. The facilities should pay for themselves.

Mr D Lee (DA) had recently visited the KwaNobuhle stadium in Uitenhage. It had been erected as part of the arms deal. It was a good initiative, but the wrong approach was followed. The community was not involved, and the stadium had been located a long way from the community. A person had been appointed to manage the facility but it had gone to ruin. Mr David Adams, after whom one of the facilities had been named, had done a lot for sport in Queenstown. He did not know that this development was part of the legacy process. This information should be made public. Maintenance was the crux of the issue. It was good to have SAFA involved, but the community had to be involved as well. The municipalities were best placed to maintain facilities. He asked if the councils were taking the lead. Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG) funds were being allocated. He asked what the cost was. Eight had been built and there was money for another 27. He asked how much had been allocated. He noted the presence of Mr Roelf Meyer in one of the photographs, and asked what his involvement was.

Ms G Tseke (ANC) said that communities would benefit. They needed to be informed and be given ownership. She was concerned about the facility in Mpumalanga. The location given actually covered two different areas.

Mr G MacKenzie (COPE) was also concerned about costs. He asked who owned the facilities – SAFA, the municipalities or some private organisation. He asked if qualified coaches were being provided and if other codes had been consulted. It might be better to wait so that material used for the turfs would be suitable for multiple codes. He asked who the four members of the TMC would be and what level they would occupy. He asked if there was provision for a medical room in the clubhouses. This went to the heart of the Bill passed the previous year. He asked if the LOC was aware of a portable stand folded into a shipping container. He had visited the Uga district in southern KwaZulu-Natal where a stand had been built at the field where Algeria had trained before the World Cup. The mayor told Mr MacKenzie that the municipality could not maintain the facility. There had been a joint venture between rugby and football in the area to enable the codes to share the facility.

Mr Carrim said that they would look into the containerised stands.

Mr J van der Linde (DA) asked if all the existing facilities would be completed with the clubhouses. In the Western Cape, three areas had been identified in one province, but three other areas were mentioned in a different part of the presentation. There should be provision for other codes in the facilities. Maintenance could be costly.

Ms T Lishivha (ANC) was concerned about youth development. She asked if the elderly would also be given skills training such as computers. She asked about the royal family representatives in some communities. She asked what role these people played as local government was already involved.

The Chairperson said that the ideal situation would be a multi-purpose facility. The Rugby World Cup had left no legacy although there had been a huge legacy from the Cricket World Cup. It was wrong for the mayor to say that the municipality was not responsible for the facility, but not for the security. Vandalism was becoming a huge problem. The Committee had visited a facility in North West. A R10 million investment had simply disappeared.

Mr Fredericks said that the LOC element had learned the lessons of poor maintenance. They would take the responsibility for ensuring that proper maintenance took place. They would also consider security. It was not enough merely to have a caretaker in place. Programmes needed to be ongoing. A non-football person would focus on the youth development, The elderly would also be involved in programmes.

Mr Carrim described the agreement signed with local authorities. Once SAFA had identified the site, it was his job to meet with municipalities. The local authorities had to commit themselves to maintaining the facility. The contractor had to develop the site as they found it. The spending on small, medium and micro-enterprises (SMMEs) had to be 10%. The community liaison person was in place to look after the interests of the community. In Makado, the ground was still deemed to belong to the royal family. This was why the local king was involved. Hopefully proper agreements would be put in place. In some places the municipality wanted the land to be transferred to them first.

Mr Carrim said that the major concern was the maintenance programme. An online logging system would be used for maintenance. The computer room became a critical component in this reporting chain. Reporting would give a record of usage and maintenance. It was not difficult to operate the system. The challenge was in ensuring that the system was kept up to date. Microsoft would help with the computer training. There were two pilot sites being used for this partnership.

Mr Lee said that the Committee wanted to see things continuing. They had learned from the mistakes of the past. He supported the establishment of a Trust.

Mr Suka said that the presentation seemed to indicate that Queenstown and Mount Ayliff were the same place.

Mr Fredericks said that the reference was to two separate sites.

Mr van der Linde asked what was happening in Beaufort West.

The Chairperson said that the communities should be kept informed.  If there was an extended mandate then the LOC could look at places not hitherto considered. Matjiesfontein was an example. The facility built there earlier was still being used. However, the community was small and maintenance costs were a heavy burden. This was one example of a community that needed this sort of investment. Some of the locations mentioned were in townships and urban areas, and it was important to know exactly where these were located. Members would like to visit the sites but proper notice was needed.

The Chairperson said that the Minister would present the budget on 22 March. There would be extended budget hearings on 23 March. The Sport and Recreation budget would be debated in the National Assembly on 13 April.

The meeting was adjourned.


  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: