2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006]: deliberations

Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report


13 June 2006

Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)

Documents handed out:

2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006] (reintroduced)


Changes to the wording of the Bill were discussed.  Provision was made for the Minister of Sport and Recreation to consult provincial Members of the Executive Council in the identification of stadiums. The duration of protection measures for sponsors was set at six months after the end of the tournament. 

The Committee Members questioned how and when regulations referred to in the Bill would be promulgated.  The possibility and undesirability of members of the public displaying the old South African flag at matches was discussed.  Consultation with the Department of Arts and Culture was needed to set up events outside of the match programmes.

Many business opportunities would be created.  It was estimated that R30 billion would be generated during the tournament.  Questions were asked regarding the copyright aspects of the tournament’s name.  The position of businesses in competition to FIFA sponsors was discussed, especially where their premises fell within the proximity of identified stadiums.

Some discussion was still needed on issues around the consumption, importation and distribution of liquor, and would be conducted at the next meeting.


2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill: Deliberation

The Chairperson said that this meeting was a follow-up on the meeting held the previous day.

Mr Gideon Boshoff (Legal Services, Sport and Recreation SA (SRSA)) raised the issue of concurrent jurisdiction between provincial and national government.  In Clause 2, he proposed that the phrase “after consultation with the relevant MEC” should be inserted after the phrase “purposes of the Act”.

The Chairperson said that provinces may or may not agree with the decision of the Minister, but that the result would nevertheless be from a process of consultation.

Mr B Solo (ANC) suggested that this amendment also be applied in Clause 3 (1).  He asked what the consequences of the proposed change would be.

Mr Boshoff replied that the Minister would receive written confirmation from the Local Organising Committee (LOC).  After this he would consult with the relevant MEC.  The change was only relevant in this clause, as the concurrent competencies of national and provincial government were addressed there.  The change was not needed elsewhere.

Mr T Louw (ANC) reminded the Committee that this was only a temporary Bill to cover events during 2010.  It would be repealed after the World Cup.  The stadiums had already been identified, and it was now necessary to formalise the process.  The MECs had already agreed to the stadiums, but he asked if this would now give them the chance to accept or reject the decisions.

Mr Boshoff said that SRSA would be advised by the Minister when he had received notification of the identification of the stadiums.  The MECs would then decide if they concurred with this decision.  After this consultation, the Minister would make rulings should there be any disputes.

Mr Louw said that this had already been done.

The Chairperson said that he was not comfortable with the wording in the Bill as it stood.  There was the possibility that the Minister could make an arbitrary decision.  He agreed that the consultation process should be written into the Bill.  Without it there was also a possibility that the authority of the provincial governments could be undermined, and this might be seen as unconstitutional.

Mr Louw warned that the MECs should not be given the option to reject any decisions on stadiums.

Mr Komphela said that consultation was the correct process, but the Bill did not need to specify that the MECs agreed or not during the process.

Mr Solo said that the long title of the Bill should legitimise all agreements.  Co-operation was needed between the various levels of government, and consultation was needed at all levels.

Mr Louw mentioned that some of the stadiums belonged to municipalities.

The Chairperson said that the MEC would have greater powers than the municipality.  The host city agreements ceded the stadiums to the terms of provincial and national agreements.  Provinces and municipalities were the owners of the venues, and their authority could not be undermined.  The host cities had signed agreements and so signaled their acceptance of what would happen in the stadiums.

Mr Solo said that the MECs should ensure that the municipalities performed their duties effectively, and should provide support where necessary.

Mr Boshoff said that SRSA was trying to bring the provisions of the Bill in line with the Constitution.  The process had already happened, but it was necessary to capture this in the Bill to achieve harmony with the Constitution.

The Chairperson was happy that this issue was raised, and that some form of understanding had now been achieved.  He felt that this channel needed to exist.

Mr Louw said that all three spheres of government should be catered for as equal partners.

Mr Boshoff said that Mr Petra Bouwer should be attending the meeting the following day, and the issue could be revisited then.

The Chairperson was comfortable with the current approach.

Mr Boshoff then turned to Clause 12, regarding the proposed traffic free zones.  In Clause 12 (2), regarding the powers of a peace officer to deny unaccredited persons access to designated areas; he suggested that the word ‘may’ should be changed to ‘must’.  The current wording offered too much leeway in the interpretation of the law.  Similarly in Clause 12 (3), regarding the removal of illegally parked vehicles, the word ‘may’ should also be changed to ‘must’.

Mr Louw said that a peace officer should act strictly, and would interpret the current wording as ‘must’.

The Chairperson said that the removal of illegally parked vehicles was needed to guarantee the free flow of traffic.  A peace officer should not have any discretion in such a case, although some discretion should be used for emergency vehicles such as ambulances.  In such cases there should be some discretion used in the implementation of the Act.

Mr Louw said that there should be no discretion left to a peace officer in this regard, except for emergency vehicles.

The Chairperson said this proposal should be revisited.

Mr David Joubert (South African Police Services (SAPS) Director) said that this issue had been considered and discussed.  He had no problem in changing the word to ‘must’.  Some discretion was involved, and this was an empowering provision.  The word ‘may’ allowed for too wide a discretion for a peace officer, but ‘must’ still allowed a limited discretion.

Mr Boshoff said this could open a can of worms.  A broad range of vehicles could be regarded as emergency vehicles, and this could lead to an unbalanced situation.  Thorough motivation was needed if discretion was to be used. 

This point was emphasised by Mr Komphela, although he said that the need for discretion could be balanced by having correct permits for emergency vehicles.

Mr Joubert said that in an emergency other principles would be relevant.

Mr Gideon Hoon (State Legal Advisor) pointed out that there would be regulations.  These would be promulgated by the Minister of Safety and Security.  These regulations could include specific mention of which emergency vehicles would be allowed into the designated areas.

The Chairperson asked when the regulations could be expected.  The Committee was not happy unless they had sight of the regulations.  These were normally channeled through the Director-General of a department.  The Committee needed to see these before they were promulgated and those which would be prepared by other departments.

Mr Boshoff agreed with this, and said that there should be a consultation process.  Any extension of the Bill should be interrogated.  The departments would have to address this issue.  Apart from specific regulations, some of these should be available by the end of 2007.  SRSA would consult with the Committee, and this process would coincide with any amendments to the eventual Act.  On the question of the difference between the wording of ‘may’ or ‘must’, he referred to the Mwepe enquiry into the disaster at Ellis Park.  Illegally parked cars had blocked ambulances.  The traffic free zone was an extremely important proviso.

Mr J Masango (DA) referred to Clause 12 (4).  He asked what the “necessary changes” were as mentioned in the Bill.

Mr Hoon said that the changes were not to the Special Measures Bill.  Provisions were made for regulations in terms of this Bill to be included.

The Chairperson said that parts of the Bill were derived from existing law, so the “necessary changes” were provisions in terms of existing law.

Mr Joubert asked if regulations drawn up by the Minister of Safety and Security would be sent to the SAPS.

Mr Boshoff referred to Clause 14.  The Minister of Safety and Security would be able to make regulations in his sphere of influence.  However, SRSA was part of the Bill and should be consulted.  Therefore Safety and Security should consult with SRSA in this regard.

Mr Joubert read the relevant Section 305 (6) of the Road Traffic Act as alluded to in Clause 12 (4) of the Special Measures Bill.  In the Road Traffic Act, reference was to a traffic officer but to a peace officer in the Special Measures Bill.

The Chairperson said that regulations should be formed on the basis of the original Act.

Mr Boshoff then turned to Clause 2.  No fixed timeframe was set for the duration of the protection granted to the event.  The Minister of Trade and Industry had decided to set the limit of this period at six months.  This would be inserted to make the wording of the Clause read “… longer than one month but not longer than six months”.

The Chairperson said that if it was necessary to go beyond six months then this could be changed.  However, the Bill could not provide for an open-ended period.

Mr Boshoff referred to Clause 5.  There was a discrepancy over the use of the word ‘spectators’.

The Chairperson said that this issue had also been raised by the Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG).  This would be discussed by Mr Bouwer.

Mr Boshoff said that the sub-paragraphs in the Bill referred to the relevant Sections of the Immigration Act.  The Department of Home Affairs would have to pronounce on this issue.  He suggested that the phrase “ … as a spectator … “ should be deleted wherever it was found.  It would make more sense if this phrase were omitted.  As it was, the Bill would only apply to spectators rather than the wider category of visitors expected.  Home Affairs would have to make an input on this, and rewording might be necessary.

Prof Denver Hendricks (Director-General: SRSA) said that the opinion of DPLG was that ‘fans’ might be a more appropriate term.  The term ‘spectator’ could be interpreted as only persons in possession of a ticket for a match.

The Chairperson said that DPLG would explain their reasoning at a later date.

Mr C Frolick (ANC) said that the term “spectator” should be narrowed down.  He mentioned that the LOC in Germany had made it possible for tickets to be transferred.  Persons could then enter a country and obtain a ticket subsequent to their arrival in South Africa.

Dr Roy Ngcobo (Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)) said that the expected economic impact of the tournament would be narrowed if only spectators as defined by FIFA were allowed into the country.

The Chairperson said that the argument was good, but the Committee should wait for advice from Home Affairs.

Mr Boshoff referred to Clause 6, in particular to Clause 6 (1) regarding liquor.  SRSA had no problem with the provisions regarding marketing and distribution.  They did have a problem should the normal South African legislation on consumption of liquor be relaxed.  The forthcoming Safety at Sports Stadiums Bill would contain restrictions on the consumption of liquor.  As the Bill stood, control would be lost over consumption.  He felt that the rules imposed by the Liquor Act should remain in force.

The Chairperson said this would be discussed with DTI.

Mr Frolick remarked on the duration of the matches.  Bars at the stadium would only be open during the half-time break and after the end of the match.  He therefore did not see that abuse would take place.

The Chairperson said that engagement would take place on what would be allowed at the public viewing areas.  He asked if the proposals were correct in terms of the law.

Mr Hoon replied that they were.  The last of the proposals had a guarantee attached to it.

Mr Frolick asked about the regulations regarding tobacco use.  He asked if smoking would be allowed in public places.

Mr Boshoff replied that the Safety at Sports Stadiums Bill would also address tobacco control measures.  These would be harmonised with national laws.

Prof Hendricks said that FIFA required the lifting of regulations regarding the advertising of tobacco products.

Mr Boshoff referred to Clause 7 regarding the importation of medicines and medical devices.  He did not want to delete Clause 7 (1) (a) (ii), but to amend it to read “… import and export permitted medical devices …”.

The Chairperson said this was necessary, otherwise visiting medical contingents would have to leave their devices behind on leaving the country.  There might also be taxation implications if this was not done.  This would allow the visitors to take back what they had brought in.

Mr Frolick referred to Clause 4 regarding national flags and anthems.  A related matter was the sale of memorabilia.  In the light of the court finding in the case of SA Breweries vs Laugh it Off, he was concerned that this would allow for the sale and display of the old South African flag.  An opinion needed to be expressed on this matter for the World Cup and for other events.  By allowing the old flag to be displayed, the aims and objectives of the Constitution could be defeated.  It would be unacceptable if the old flag were allowed to sneak in.

Mr Hoon said that national flags could not be prevented at any venue.  However, this could be addressed in the regulations.

Mr Boshoff said that the Bill made provision for the “flying of flags”.  It would be possible to prevent persons from flying the old flag, but the Bill could not prevent them from being in possession of it.

Prof Hendricks said he had raised the issue with the Department of Arts and Culture.  It was difficult to legislate against the old flag.  He would consult on this.

Dr Ngcobo said that an aspect of protecting the event was the prevention of ambush marketing.  This was an issue of enforcement. If there was no legislation, it would be difficult to deal with the issue.  Only the actual flying of the flag was addressed by the Bill.

Mr Frolick said that the World Cup would be played on an African stage.  In Germany, English fans had been prevented from displaying swastika symbols.  The regulations must say that the old flag would not be tolerated.  Some persons could use the old flag as a symbol to taunt others, and he feared that there could be terrible consequences.

The Chairperson said that this concern should be taken seriously.  SRSA should interact with the Department of Arts and Culture.  The views of the Committee should take precedence as flags could cause a problem.

Mr Solo said that education was needed around national symbols, norms and values.  Some people did not know the meaning of the flag.  Everything should be in law as South Africa was evolving into a real democracy.

The Chairperson said that recordings of the national anthem should be available at the venues.  The culture of the singing of the anthem should be inculcated.  This should start with sport.  The anthem should be sung properly or not at all.

Dr Ngcobo said that DTI’s main interest was to ensure the realisation of economic opportunities.  There needed to be a legacy side.  Interaction had been held with Mr Danny Jordaan of the LOC about the condition that the event had to be declared as protected.  The Minister was convinced that economic opportunities would accrue.  Some irrelevant reports had been received as well as some reports from previous World Cups.

Dr Ngcobo said it was clear that there would be opportunities downstream.  He likened the opportunities presented by 2010 to a pyramid.  The apex had already been taken by major concerns such as broadcast rights and big FIFA sponsorships.  However, opportunities abounded at the base of the pyramid.  Mr Jordaan had provided a social responsibility report and DTI had compiled its own report.  The main benefit would come from the construction industry, particularly the construction of stadiums.  Treasury and DTI would apply the 20/80% formula expressed in the Preferential Procurement and Black Economic Empowerment Acts.

2010 would be an opportunity for business services.  In Germany many call centres and data transmission centres had sprung up.  Social services would be beefed up, in particular those related to health care.  Incoming medicines would only be used for the team bringing them in.

The magnitude of attending crowds had to be appreciated.  Extraordinary measures would have to be taken by the Department of Social Development.

Dr Ngcobo said there would be some opportunity for local involvement with the distribution of liquor in the current framework.  Two provinces had their own liquor legislation in addition to the national Liquor Act.

The economic opportunities were not just the preserve of DTI.  The Committee would also have to promote opportunities.  People must be prepared to take them up.  The perception of opportunities would have to be translated into real opportunities.

He said that DTI was happy with the bill, but would have to clarify the measures concerning liquor.  He said that there were already some examples of ambush marketing.  He noted that there was already a lot of usage of the 2010 brand name.

Mr Frolick noted that the event had been declared protected, but asked if the name 2010  FIFA World Cup was also protected.  There had been four cases of the use of the 2006 brand name that had been referred to arbitration in Germany.  Government departments would have to serve national interests before FIFA interests.

Dr Ngcobo said that the specific name “FIFA World Cup 2010” would be protected.

Mr Frolick concluded that the unrestricted use of 2010 would be fine.

The Chairperson said nobody could own a number, and this had been confirmed by rulings in Germany.  The DTI needed to look into exactly what they would be protecting.  In a second case, the use of a football in a logo had been challenged. There had been a ruling that the term “2006 World Cup” was not the exclusive right of FIFA as other sports could also stage a 2006 World Cup.  However, the term “2006 Football World Cup” was protected intellectual property.  The term would have to be defined in South Africa.  In the event of disputes, ordinary citizens would appear in South African courts.  However, more high profile cases involving entities such as the municipalities would be heard in a Swiss court in Zurich.

Mr Frolick said that the protected event status would have an impact on other businesses.  A one kilometre radius would be drawn around stadiums which would impact on business premises in that area.  He asked if there would be any compensation granted to businesses finding themselves in this position.

Dr Ngcobo said that DTI might not have thought of this.  There had not been serious thought yet about the impact on small business, but of the impact on local economies of the crowds following games.  This aspect should be promoted, as these were the sort of activities he saw at the bottom of the pyramid.

The Chairperson asked what small and medium enterprises saw as opportunities.

Dr Ngcobo replied that tourism was a big opportunity.  There would be massive demand for bed & breakfast type accommodation.  Informal trade would be boosted.  Construction would be carried out mainly by local contractors.  However, the apex of the pyramid would be the preserve of big business.  The informal side would operate within given parameters, but would only benefit from spectator trade before and after games.

He said that DTI was working with municipalities.  If the cities were hosting games, they would be factored into plans.  Some proactive steps would be taken.

Mr Frolick asked about the impact on local big business.  He gave the examples of a Mercedes Benz dealership being located close to a stadium, or of the new stadium in Durban standing next to the current ABSA stadium.

Dr Ngcobo said that DTI had not yet progressed to that level of investigation.  There would be big implications for local business, but this would be a private matter between FIFA and that vendor.

Mr Frolick said that a delegation had visited Germany, and had found that the devil was in the detail.  FIFA moved in and started to police the stadium surrounds.  This should not be allowed to be left to the last moment.  He said that even tiny logos on hot air blowers in the bathrooms at stadiums had fallen foul of the FIFA inspectors.  He said that the Committee would depend on DTI to provide the detail.

Dr Ngcobo said that DTI envisaged a range of legal challenges.  He asked how the state could help.  If it was necessary to remove local businesses, he wondered how the loss of opportunities could be absorbed.  Specific state facilities should be provided.

The Chairperson said that visits to Germany and France should provide some detail.  He said that FIFA would probably want to close the Spur steakhouse operating in the stadium in Durban.  Such incursions on trade were against the laws of the country.  There needed to be a balance between the interests of FIFA and those of private citizens.  At the FNB stadium in Johannesburg, there were houses and a Shell garage within one kilometre of the stadium.  There had been a fifth court ruling in Germany where FIFA had wanted to evacuate residents living in a three kilometre radius of one of the stadiums.  He said that DTI would have to negotiate on the detail of FIFA’s requirements.

Prof Hendricks said that negotiations should be started at an early stage.  The exact meanings of agreements would have to be found, and there were massive expectations.  Africans were dealing with the crumbs.  An education process was needed to lower the expectations of the people to prevent later frustration and disappointment.

The Chairperson said that continuous and protracted education was needed.  Things would start happening as soon as the closing ceremony for the 2006 World Cup had been held.  The complexion of the country would change irreversibly over the following 36 months.  Close to R30 billion would be generated during the tournament.  A legacy of infrastructure must be left. 

He said that a four-year plan was needed.  Improvements would be seen in the lives of South Africans.  Airport and rail infrastructure would be upgraded, and public transport would be improved.  The Department of Arts and Culture was in Germany to investigate how the 2010 event could be made an African World Cup.

Dr Ngcobo said that there were important issues to be addressed, and that a legacy was needed from the tournament.  The challenge would be to develop appropriate strategies.  The DTI would investigate the remedies for the possible loss of revenue.  Regarding the informal economy, it was not only DTI’s mandate to promote development.  Provinces and municipalities needed to develop an integrated strategy to deal with matters such as ambush marketing.

He said that there would be a framework of local economic development, which would support local enterprises.  Partnership arrangements would have to flow from inter-governmental relationships.  Action was needed regarding the manufacture of souvenirs to prevent the influx of foreign-manufactured merchandise.  This would be an ongoing process.

The Chairperson said that the parliamentary programme would be to meet all stakeholders such as Arts and Culture and the DTI.  Cultural festivals should be held in outlying towns during the World Cup.  In Germany a town, outside FIFA’s area of control, was doing big business in World Cup related events.  He mentioned that a French stadium, from which a crowd of 110 000 could be evacuated in five minutes, had been built with a view to internalisation by inviting scholars to visit the site during the building process.  There had been careful consideration of the issues raised by the Rainbow Junction Development Company.  DPLG had agreed that is was ethically correct for Rainbow Junction to present to the Committee as they had a huge scope of operations.

Mr Barry Beukes (Legal Officer at the Department of Agriculture) said that Guarantee Four revolved around the control of alcoholic beverages.  Clause 6, in particular Clause 6 (2) (a) (ii) proposed to relax control over the importation of liquor for the event.  Current regulations determined that certification was needed on products defined under the Liquor Act.

Mr Boshoff said this was a difficult question to answer, and he hoped Mr MacDonald Netshitenzhe of DTI would be available at the next day’s meeting.

Dr Ngcobo said that the issue must be dealt with comprehensively.  It must also be looked at in conjunction with provincial legislation.

Ms Wendy Jonker (Assistant Director: Liquor Products, Department of Agriculture) asked if the provincial liquor boards should be present at the meeting.

The Chairperson said that the DTI was seen as the key player.  It now seemed that there were many other subtle players involved in the process.

Mr Beukes said that the Liquor Act was the responsibility of DTI, but the Liquor Products Act fell under his department.  It was his department’s function to do testing and certification on liquor products while DTI controlled distribution and licencing arrangements.

Dr Ngcobo said that interaction between Agriculture and DTI would happen the next day.  He agreed that Agriculture focused on the product and DTI on the trade.  The local producers may apply for tariff protection due to the influx of foreign products not normally available locally.  Only two provinces had their own Liquor Act, one of them being Gauteng.  Most of the World Cup activity would take place in Gauteng.  The national legislation could be used as a framework.  Mr Netshitenzhe was an expert on provincial legislation.

Mr Beukes said that his responsibilities included the correct labeling of products.  Factors such as sugar content had to be reflected on containers.

The Chairperson asked the Committee to propose a motion of desirability regarding the Bill.

Mr Hoon said that there might be a problem if this was done before the Bill was tagged.  The motion would be premature.  He expected a decision on the tagging at any moment.

The Chairperson said that the Committee should be finished with its deliberations the next day.  Rainbow Junction would present no fundamental changes.  He thanked the SAPS representative and released him from attending further deliberations.

The meeting was adjourned.




No related


No related documents


  • 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: