A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
060725pcsport SPORTS AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE & EDUCATION AND RECREATION SELECT COMMITTEE 25 July 2006 2010 FIFA WORLD CUP SOUTH AFRICA SPECIAL MEASURES BILLS: ADOPTION Co-Chairpersons: Mr B Komphela (ANC)[NA] and Mr B Tolo (ANC)[NCOP] Documents handed out: 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13- 2006] (Reintroduced) 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13- 2006] (Reintroduced) as adopted Second 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B16- 2006] Second 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B16- 2006] as adopted SUMMARY The Committee was briefed by Mr Danny Jordaan, CEO of the Local Organising Committee, before finalising both bills. Mr Jordaan noted that the 2006 World Cup had been awarded in 2000. Germany had completed six stadiums in 2005 and two stadiums a few months before the event in 2006. There would be a lot of stories should SA complete one of these stadium as late as 2010. People already knew that SA was behind even before it could put a spade into the ground. The intention was to complete four stadiums in 2008, two in 2009 and none in 2010. It was not correct to say that there would be no economic impact because the Cricket World Cup had failed to have any significant impact. There would be opportunities for business to engage tourists as FIFA would not accommodate, feed or transport the fans. The local industry would be responsible for providing such services. The clean stadium requirement had an exclusive use period which was 15 days before the match to 5 days after the match. It was not from the Confederations Cup right through to the end of the World Cup as written in some newspapers. The naming rights was a separate issue but linked to the commercial rights bought by FIFA partners. The period attached to the naming rights was three months to the opening match until a week after the final match in that stadium. The Local Organising Committee said that Cape Town had decided to go ahead with the building of the Green Point stadium. The existing stadium would be demolished to give way to the new stadium. There would be less environmental impact by demolishing the existing stadium and building a new one on the site. R3, 8 billion for the stadium included costs of infrastructure around the stadium. The actual cost of the stadium was within the cost estimate agreed upon with the technical team and this was in the vicinity of R1, 6 billion. It should be understood that the cost of Infrastructure around the stadium would probably be higher than the cost of the stadium itself. There should be an agreement amongst the national government and the cities as to from where the other funding would come. Tickets for the tournament would be divided into one third for the local SA market, one third for the international market and one third for competing teams, sponsors, partners and the FIFA family. There was an opportunity that tickets not sold on the international market could come back to the local market. When FIFA determined prices, it did take local market conditions into consideration. However, the main issue was about quantity and not price. If about a million tickets were available on the local market with people buying two tickets each, there would be 500 000 ticket sales in a market of about 44, 5 million people. This meant that 44 million people would not be able to buy tickets regardless of the price. The reality was most people would be unable to buy tickets due to the quantity issue and not the price. FIFA, the LOC and the partners that would be allowed to sell their goods would control certain perimeters around the stadiums. The perimeter would be based on the physical design of the stadium and would be for FIFA approved activities only. The stadium in Leipzig (Germany) was very similar to Ellis Park because it was based within a housing community. The perimeter that FIFA had established was principally the walls of the stadium. Leipzig was a fantastic lesson for South Africa because the walk from the city to the stadium was about one and a half kilometres and there were concessions all along that walk. The perimeter that would be created would not be one that would stretch for kilometres. The issue was the distance from the stadium. There were all sorts of opportunities for the LOC, host cities and councils to co-ordinate plans to create opportunities for local small businesses. FIFA believed that this had to be organised and there should be areas specifically set up so that they could be managed effectively. The concessions within the stadium were largely subject to negotiation between the LOC and the stadium itself. The exclusive areas around the stadiums would not be established until it was clear what other things would be built around the stadium. FIFA wanted to prevent ambush marketing outside the stadiums and it was not trying to close "the corner shop". Some shops had been operating for ages and it would be unfair to expect them to close. This would not happen since FIFA was very aware of the communities around the stadiums. However, it would be annoyed by a corner store that had been there for ages and all of a sudden gets painted in Pepsi logos, for instance. Every country had its unique transport challenges. SA should look at each match plan, accommodation and transport issues and integrate them in order to arrive at a solution. An impression had been incorrectly created that there would be 350 000 people going to a stadium all at the same time. There was a fixed number of people who would go to a stadium and the number would depend on the capacity of the stadium. Transport was a very complicated issue for any event. Questions raised by members included the following: - What was the current status of the Green Point Stadium? - Were there any safety valves to ensure that there would be no over-pricing in relation to the building of the stadiums? - Would unemployed and poor people be able to purchase tickets? - What would happen to privately owned stadiums where State money had been used? Would the owner compensate the State? - Whether the LOC had a team of experts that would look at the transport needs of the fans given the state of the public transport infrastructure. The transport infrastructure was not geared towards what was expected in 2010. Germany had railway stations near airports and stadiums and this was not the case in SA. MINUTES Mr Komphela noted that the Committee had to sacrifice its three weeks of constituency work so that it could process the bills. He thanked members for their co-operation and the public for their input on the bills. All the departments involved had been very supportive of the process from the beginning. The bills were aimed at enabling the country to host a successful event in 2010. It was important to ensure that the final product from the Committee would not slow the country's efforts to host the event. Members of the Committee had always pleaded that Mr Danny Jordaan should appear before the Committee because they had many unanswered questions. It was up to the Committee to decide how to process the bills and no amount of media pressure would compel the Committee to change its decisions on the bills. The Co-Chairperson, Mr Tolo, said that Parliament was committed to passing the bills which should enable FIFA to host the World Cup in a very friendly manner. The NCOP would participate in public hearings in Mpumalanga the following day. People wanted to know how they would benefit from the World Cup. They had indicated that SA had hosted the Rugby and Cricket World Cups but they could not see the benefits of hosting such events. The Soccer World Cup was the biggest sporting event in the world and there must be a legacy after it. People should be able to show what they had gained because of the event. It was for this reason that the Committee had decided to call Mr Jordaan so that he could elaborate on how people would benefit. Briefing by the Local Organising Committee (LOC) Mr D Jordaan (CEO: LOC), Mr M Parker (2010 FIFA World Cup Organising Committee: Legal Adviser), Mr M Gleeson, Mr L Mpahlwa (Member of Technical Team), Mr A Brown (FIFA-SA) and Mr M Palmer (Head: FIFA- SA) attended the meeting. Mr Jordaan made the presentation. He commented that it had been said that this was the meeting in which all the questions would be answered. The requirement for making a bid for any major event was to submit an economic impact assessment to the government. A study had been commissioned to investigate if there would be any positive economic impact on the country given the transformation agenda of the country. The impact assessment report was a pre-condition even before the government could consider supporting the bid. The report had been accepted and all that had to be done now was to ensure that there was delivery against the research findings. One should ensure that the research findings were true and delivered upon. The conclusion in Germany was that there was overwhelmingly positive outcomes both in economic and national pride terms. The results were also positive in the other countries that had hosted recent world cups. SA should ensure that the results were also positive in 2010. He welcomed representatives of big business and noted that there were no representatives of the labour movement. Most of the questions that had been raised dealt with the event itself. A cumulative audience of 40 billion people had watched the World Cup in Germany. About 1, 3 billion people had watched the final and three million tickets had been sold. More than eight million people had watched the games in fan parks. He proceeded to outline the structure of the Local Organising Committee and its budget. 90% of the LOC's expenditure went to black economic empowerment companies. The unveiling of the emblem in Berlin was put together by two black companies and a lot of issues were raised about the experience of the companies. It was shown that 2010 would be an African world cup. There had been a lot of discussions on South Africa's readiness to host the event. He compared Germany 2006 and South Africa 2010. The 2006 World Cup was awarded in 2000. Germany completed six stadiums in 2005 and two stadiums a few months before the event in 2006. There would be a lot of stories should SA complete one stadium in 2010. People already knew that SA was behind even before it could put the spade into the ground. One could do nothing before the right to host the event had been granted. The intention was to complete four stadiums in 2008, two in 2009 and none in 2010. The Athens Olympic Stadium was completed a few weeks before the Olympics. The Wembley Stadium was supposed to be completed for the 2006 FA Cup Final and the final had since been moved to the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff. The stadium might be completed in September or next year and it seemed that the world had no problem with it. Germany was not an example that SA could follow. SA would be hammered if it were complete stadiums in the year of the event. South Africa had completed the unveiling of the emblem in 2006 (i.e. four years before the event). Germany had unveiled its emblem two years before the event. The host cities agreements had been signed and the cities had conducted some exhibitions in Germany. This had never happened in FIFA history yet SA was "behind" schedule. Mr Jordaan said that the Soccer World Cup could not be compared to the Cricket and Rugby World Cups. The Cricket World Cup had 18 500 visitors. Brazil had 30 000 fans and England had 70 000 to 100 000 supporters. There were a million people in the first week of the World Cup in Germany. It was therefore not correct to say that there would be no impact because the Cricket World Cup failed to have any significant impact. There would be opportunities for business to engage tourists. FIFA would not accommodate, feed or transport the fans. The local industry would be responsible for providing such services. Three million people went into the stadiums in the recent World Cup. A whole range of restrictions applied inside the stadiums. The interesting picture was that more than eight million people went to fan parks and bought whatever they wanted. From a business perspective, the question was whether one wanted to capture the market of three million people or that of eight million people. People could buy food and beverage concessions some companies like Coca-Cola. He said that a lot of jobs would be created from the World Cup. FIFA had given an amount of R130 million to SAFA. An amount of R65 million would go to the building of the SAFA House and R75 million would go to the building on the South African national team. The building of the SAFA House had seen the creation of 300 jobs. An amount of R7, 2 billion would be paid to the government in taxes. FIFA had also allocated a huge amount of money to the LOC. There was also $200 million for the African Legacy Programme. The commercial partners of FIFA would make adverts and promotions and other services. One of the Coca-Cola adverts was an international advert made in SA. A question had been raised as to why there was no black economic empowerment company as a national supporter of the 2010 World Cup. One wondered why a BEE company would want to pay FIFA over $100 million for world-wide rights. Mr Jordaan said that the clean stadium requirement had an exclusive use period which was 15 days before the match to 5 days after the match. It was not from the Confederations Cup right through to the end of the World Cup as written in some newspapers. He used the Vodacom Challenge that Involved Orlando Pirates, Kaizer Chiefs and Manchester United football clubs. One did not see an MTN board in the stadium during the tournament because it was a Vodacom event. The Absa final had to be played in the Absa stadium in Durban and not at the FNB stadium in Johannesburg. None of the experiences were foreign to SA since they were done every week. The naming rights were a separate issue but linked to the commercial rights bought by FIFA partners. The period attached to the naming rights was three months to the opening match until a week after the final match in that stadium. He said that there were also the issues of advertising and ambush marketing. Companies would have to pay should they want to put their signs on buildings. In Korea-Japan there was a bus that carried spectators to a stadium for free. The bus was painted "Puma" and the question was why should Puma pay anything because it was the bus was transporting people for free. The issue was that Puma was not a sponsor of the event. There was a truck parked outside a stadium in Karlsburg and it was advertising a certain brand of beer despite the fact that Budweiser was the sponsor. The truck was just parked there, locked and the driver was nowhere to be found. The space above the stadiums was another source of problems. There was nothing in the space above the stadiums at the moment. A lot of things would be seen in the space above the stadiums during the World Cup. People would claim that they just wanted to wish a team good luck. It was hoped that the stadiums for the Confederations Cup would be complete by December 2008 and all other stadiums by June 2009. All stadiums would be handed over to FIFA by December 2009. The FNB was the venue for the opening and the final matches. It would cost R1, 6 billion to have the stadium in the desired state. The cities that would not host any matches could host training and base camps. Some of the neighbouring countries would also benefit from hosting some of the teams during their training camps. Discussion Mr Komphela thanked Mr Jordaan for the presentation that cleared a lot of issues that the Committee had been concerned about for some time. Mr C Frolick (ANC) was confident that the LOC would display total commitment when it started to deal with key issues. He said that some of the Members of the Committee were privileged to attend some of the meetings that the LOC had with the host cities. He asked how regularly did the engagement with host cities take place and what types of issues normally cropped up during the meetings. There had been a lot of reports about certain stadiums in the press. What was the current status of the Green Point Stadium? A member of the Committee said that a lot had been said about the construction of stadiums and the costs of construction. The country might be taken for ride and ripped off by construction companies if it was not vigilant. He asked if there were any safety valves to ensure that there would be no over-pricing. Mr Mpahlwa replied that the technical team had a mandate to engage with the cities particularly around planning for the stadiums. Meetings were held on monthly basis and the LOC called cities forums to discuss contractual issues. Technical team discussed issues like designs, construction and costs. The official information received on Friday in relation to the Green Point Stadium was that a decision to go ahead with the stadium was made. The design team had indicated that the design process had slowed down but not stopped despite the investigations by the City of Cape Town on other suitable sites for the stadium. There was an environmental impact assessment (EIA) that had recommended the golf course site but the City of Cape Town had decided that the stadium should be constructed at the site of the existing stadium. The existing stadium would be demolished to give way to the new stadium. There would be less environmental impact by demolition the existing stadium and building a new one on the site. He corrected media reports that said that the City of Cape Town was short of R3 billion to build the stadium. The LOC had put a technical team in place. The team had a quantity surveying component that was looking at the issue of cost. In addressing the issue of over-pricing, the team would give all the cities guidelines on breakdown of costs. R3, 8 billion in Cape Town included costs of infrastructure around the stadium. The actual cost of the stadium was within the cost estimate agreed upon with the technical team and this was in the vicinity of R1, 6 billion. It should be understood that the cost of Infrastructure around stadium would probably be higher than the cost of the stadium itself. There should be an agreement between the national government and the cities as to where the other funding would come from. The funding from the national government was for the stadium. The costs of the FNB and eThekhwini stadiums were in the vicinity of R1, 8 billion each. There were very strict guidelines for costing and programme management. Mr Mpahlwa said that the funding had been transferred to the Development Bank of Southern Africa (DBSA). The Technical Team had to verify all the costs before the DBSA could make any payment. The team was the watchdog of the construction industry and it would verify all the invoices and claims from the contractors before any payment could be made. Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) was concerned that the host cities agreements were confidential to the Committee. A member of the Committee noted that three million tickets would be sold. There was a high rate of unemployment in the country and most of the disadvantaged people liked soccer. He asked if such people would be able to purchase the tickets. One should consider the current inflation rate when answering this question. The stadiums might be empty in 2010 should something not be done about unemployment. Mr Palmer replied that there were three million tickets in Germany. Indications were that the tickets would be in the same range in 2010. The tickets would be divided into one-third for the local market sold in SA, a one-third for the international market and one-third for the competing teams, sponsors, partners and the FIFA family. There was an opportunity that tickets that had not been sold in the international market could come back to the local market. FIFA had a historic basis of a range of prices starting with prices that were very relevant to the local market as was the case in Germany. 35 Euros was the cheapest ticket. People did not understand that the issue was about quantity and not price. If one thought about a million tickets being available to the local market and people buying two tickets each, there would be 500 000-ticket sales in the market of about 44, 5 million people. This meant that there would be 44 million people who would not be able to buy tickets regardless of the price. The tickets should be made available at various prices but people should remember that quantity was the real issue. One could price the tickets at R10 each but this would still not mean that 25 million who could afford them would but them. He said that there was pressure to make prices low and to make them make accessible to unemployed people. The problem was that expectations were being raised for those people. The reality remained that most of them would not be able to buy tickets due to the quantity issue and not the price. This was one of the major public relations issues that had to be spread throughout SA. He was in no way apologising for the limited number of tickets that would be available. There would still be no enough tickets should each of the stadiums had a capacity of 500 000 people. FIFA was receptive to working in terms of the local market. There were 59 million people in Germany who could not buy tickets regardless of how much money they had. There was a population of 60 million people and only one million tickets were available. It was not desirable to have tickets that were very affordable but then create enormous disappointment amongst football fans. The majority of people in Germany watched the games in fan parks. Mr Brown replied that the number of tickets would be dictated by the capacity of the stadiums. The number of tickets was around three million. A structure would be set up to deal with the pricing and sale of tickets. It would be composed of FIFA and the LOC in order to reflect the nature of the event. The reason behind this was fairness and equal access. In 2006 tickets were sold on the Internet, directly to the participating teams and the games. The format of the sale for the 2010 tickets would be decided by the ticketing sub-committee with the advise of FIFA, various stakeholders and the LOC. Mr D Lee (DA) said that Parliament was busy making laws to sort of accommodate agreement with FIFA. He asked if South Africa would be able to comply with the agreements if the Bills were to become law. Mr Parker replied that SA had a very favourable legal and regulatory regime for the hosting of major sporting events. The intellectual property laws were amongst the best in the world. There were little measures in the Bills in respect to intellectual property. The security laws were also very comprehensive. The bills were very short and only dealt with additional measures related to the FIFA guarantees. Many of the FIFA guarantees would be covered by existing legislation and the Departments had already done an analysis of whether the guarantees were covered by existing legislation. A report was sent to FIFA in 2004 and FIFA was very impressed with the report. Mr B Holomisa (UDM) focussed on the upgrading of private stadiums. What would happen to privately owned stadiums where State money had been used? Would the owner compensate the State? He understood that some stadiums would be built from the scratch. Mr Jordan referred to the cost breakdown per stadium. The issue was more about the funding of the stadiums and whether the stadiums would lose money or business. The FNB was a national stadium. An amount of R40 million each was budgeted for the Ellis Park Stadium and Loftus Stadium and R80 million was budgeted for the Free Stadium. The community owned the Royal Bafokeng stadium. One should look at the amount of rental that the stadium would be paid and then sit down and engage in discussions. It was well known that one could not use state money to enrich individuals. One would then have to take the amount of rental and any value that would be added to the stadium into account. This issue was related to the cost of the clean stadiums and advertising requirements. Currently the stadiums probably had a revenue of R25 million per year. The World Cup would be a month long event and one should take a business decision. This would involve saying that the revenue was R25 million and that an amount of R40 million could be made over a month. The contracting parties to the stadium should sit down and plan the way forward. Every stadium that had signed an agreement to host world cup matches felt that that it made business sense to make the stadium available for one month to FIFA. Municipalities owned the other stadiums and money would go to councils. Mr Komphela asked who owned the FNB stadium. Mr Jordaan replied that it was owned by the Stadium Development Trust that was formed in 1985. The revenue and profits from the stadium should go to the development of football and not to any individual pocket. The reality was that the stadium had suffered losses from 1985 because of the number of matches played there per year. One could not run such a big stadium by five or six matches per year. There were commercial issues that had to be addressed. There should be an anchor team to support the stadium. Kaizer Chiefs had anchored the stadium for a long time and was now in the process of building its own stadium. Mr F du Toit (Home Affairs) asked what was the number of visitors expected to come into the country specifically for the World Cup. The Department was at the moment using a number projected by Grant Thornton. The projection was 925 000 and was based on the number of people who went to France and Korea-Japan world cups. Today the Committee was told that the number would be 350 000. The Grant Thornton's projection included everyone that would come to South Africa for any business but there was still a very big difference between the two figures. Mr Jordaan replied that the number of visitors would depend on the teams that would qualify for the event. There were teams with 30 000 supporters and others with 2000 supporters. There would be a low turn out should big teams like Nigeria, England, Brazil, Argentina and Netherlands not qualify for the event. The LOC did not look at Germany or France 1998 given the distance that most people would have to travel to get here. The only world cup that one could look at was Korea-Japan which had 270 000 visitors. It was important for the participating teams to have big stars in order to attract big crowds. Fans should have a feeling that their team could win the tournament. Italy and France started the last tournament virtually with no supporters. Fans started to flock in once they realised that their teams had a chance of winning. At the same time one had a large number of Brazilian fans going home. Some people could not supporter any team other than their national team. It would be very important for the South African national team to compete effectively or else South Africans would go home in their own country. A member asked what progress had been made in relation to the hospitality programmes and the upgrading of the Bed and Breakfast establishments in the townships. Mr T Louw (ANC) asked who would do the further building of the FNB stadium. The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism had recently said that SA was still six hundred hotels short. Would those hotels be built and would there be enough accommodation in 2010? There were stories that business would build the eThekwini Stadium. He asked if this was the case and if government would pump some money into the stadium. There were questions in relation to the Jamaican team and the use of marijuana. The question was how SA would deal with their problem should they qualify for the 2010 World Cup. Mr Brown replied that hospitality was referring to the suites, ticket class and the food and beverages at the games. The question raised was more about accommodation for the fans who would come into the country in 2010. FIFA and the relevant stakeholders had been looking at the accommodation offering in the country. This was tied to the statement that SA was short of hotels. The reality was that it was not the German World Cup that would come to SA. The question was whether one expected a million people in the first week of the event. The answer was in the negative. Germany was land locked and was in the middle of Europe. People had the option to suddenly decide to drive a few hours across the borders and participate in the event. This was not expected to happen in SA. The number of people expected was around 300 000. The issue of accommodation was related to the match schedule. There would be 64 matches in different venues. People tended to look at accommodating five matches at the same time at the same place. The match schedule was not in this way. People would probably spend three hours within the stadium and the rest of the time as guests of the tourism industry. A number of hotels were being built and there was company that had indicated that it wanted to build five hotels per year. He said that in Germany there was an inventory of 55 000 rooms for the official accommodation services. Those rooms were held within hotel chains because this was the predominant accommodation industry in the host cities. It was clear that what SA had to offer was very strong Bed and Breakfast, lodges and resorts. FIFA was working very hard to increase the inventory of rooms in order to be able to manage the problem. The industry was co-operating very well in this regard. There would be enough accommodation to host both the Confederations Cup in 2009 and the World Cup in 2010. Mr Palmer replied that all teams would be treated equally. All of the 32 teams that would take part in the event would be expected to abide by the laws, protocols and customs of the country. The teams were very good visitors in Germany and the Germans were good hosts. He was sure that the same environment would prevail in SA in 2010. A member of the Committee said that he understood the dubious role played by the media in the country. The tendency was to reflect everything in a negative form that sometimes confused the society. A person who was in Europe or America would take the information in the press as the real situation on the ground. People were very keen to know the truth. He asked if the LOC had a strategy to ensure that all South Africa were taken on board and given proper information. What strategy would be employed to try and bring the media into the game and ensure that they reported positively? Mr R Reid (ANC) said that the President had said that some people had made it their personal responsibility to discredit the country. He wished that the slide that showed the readiness of the country to host the event could be made available to the prophets of doom, whoever they were. Ms K Nagiah (Agriculture: Legal services) asked what kinds of concessions were available and when they would be made available to the public. Mr Palmer replied that FIFA had specific strict criteria for the stadiums and surrounding areas. The criteria were based on the host city and stadium agreements. FIFA and the LOC and the partners that would be allowed to sell their goods would control certain perimeters around the stadiums. The perimeter would be based on the physical design of the stadium. The perimeter of the FNB stadium would be further away from the stadium than the perimeter of Ellis Park stadium. It was impossible to stick a fence through the middle of people's houses that surrounded Ellis Park. FIFA would not even consider doing this. The stadium in Berlin was a best example in dealing with this issue because it had large amount of land around it and had a secure perimeter. The perimeter was for FIFA approved activities only. The stadium in Leipzig was very similar to Ellis Park because it was based within a housing community. The perimeter that FIFA had established was principally the walls of the stadium. Leipzig was a fantastic lesson for South Africa because the walk from the city to the stadium about one and a half kilometre and there were concessions all along that walk. The perimeter that would be created would not be one that would stretch for kilometres. The issue was the distance from the stadium. There were all sorts of opportunities for the LOC, host cities and council to co-ordinate plans to create opportunities for local small businesses. FIFA believed that this had to be organised and there should be areas specifically set up so that they could be managed effectively. He said that the concessions within the stadium were largely subject to negotiation between the LOC and the stadium itself. There was no attempt say that people who normally sold their products within their stadiums should leave. The exclusive areas around the stadiums would not be established until it was very clear as to what other things would be built around the stadium. FIFA was trying to deal with ambush marketing outside the stadiums. It was not trying to close the corner shop. Some shops had been operating for ages and it would be unfair to expect them to close. This would not happen since FIFA was very aware of the communities around the stadiums. However, it would be annoyed by a corner store that had been there for ages and all of a sudden gets painted in Pepsi logos, for instance. It was important to allow people to continue with their lives and businesses with a minimum of disruption. People might like the disruption in the form of 70 000 people walking past their shops. FIFA was aware of the need to make opportunities available and these would be negotiated once the stadium plans had come to fruition. Mr E Roberts (ABSA) said that there was a lot of focus on the build up to the 2010 event. He asked for more information on the legacy that FIFA intended to leave behind. 2010 was Africa's world cup and ABSA, as a proud sponsor of soccer, was interested in knowing how it could assist in ensuring socio-economic transformation was extended to all parts of the country. He also asked for more elaboration on the hospitality programmes and opportunity that would be extended to various organisations particularly in relation to accommodation and suites in stadiums. Mr Louw said that the Cape Town issue was confusing to everyone. On Sunday the Mayor was on SAFM and she was asked to explain issues around the stadium. She said that she had met with the LOC and had put the cost analysis to them. She indicated that she had told the LOC that the City could only contribute R400 million and that the R3, 8 billion would come from somewhere. She was explicitly asked if the R3, 8 billion was for the building of the stadium. She had responded that the R3, 8 billion was for the building of the stadium only and had not mentioned anything other than that. He asked the LOC to clarify the issue for good. Mr Frolick said that anything that was not very clear should be taken up with the relevant authority. Communication should go out to correct the statement about the R3, 8 billion that had stolen the headlines. Somebody should be educated on this process and people should not be allowed to rely on just one newspaper article to send out messages like that. The LOC should do something about this issue. Mr Mpahlwa replied that people should be cautious as they moved forward. The LOC had received the figures on Friday (21 July 2006) and had not yet verified them. The LOC normally avoid going to the public with information that it had not verified. The initial information available indicated that the costs of building the stadium were around R1, 6 billion. He appealed to the Committee to give the LOC some time to verify the figures. The City had given the figure of R3, 8 billion but had lumped a lot of issues together and some of them did not belong to the construction of the stadium. The cities were embarking on business plans which would be submitted to National Treasury. The plans would be submitted at the end of July and would indicate how the cities would finance the stadium and how much they would need from Treasury. There would be a feedback process that would be concluded at the end of October 2006. Treasury would then request the final budgets which the technical team would verify and confirm. He warned against going out to the public and saying that the Mayor and the LOC had given different figures. The technical team was going through the process of the official verification of the costs. He said that most of the information contained in the presentation had already been published in newspapers. The LOC would not go public with stadiums it had not verified. Some of them did not reflect the designs that FIFA wanted. For instance, FIFA did not want a stadium that would cast a shadow on the field. FIFA was not happy with such stadiums in Germany. The stadium in Durban had bars on top of it and there would be shadows all the time. The technical team had not verified that stadium and could not go public with it. The costs had not been checked and there had been no interaction in terms of the design and related issues. He confirmed that the processes were in place and the planning was on course. It was believed that all the cities would be able to host the games as expected. The Chairperson said that the fact that LOC did not correct negative statements published in newspapers created the impression that the statements were correct. It would be better to correct the information. It was for the first time that the Committee was getting the correct information. Mr Palmer replied that FIFA had a policy that that said that it should not talk about the 2010 World Cup whilst the 2006 event was still in progress. The LOC had been very disciplined in joining FIFA in that policy. There had been some confusion and pessimism because FIFA and the LOC had chosen not to respond to the media statements. The same would apply in2010 should the 2014 host have issues. FIFA had gone on the offensive in the last ten days with the media and there was still a lot of work to be done. The discussion on the role of the media was interesting. The 2010 World Cup belonged to everyone and this included the media. The media was expected to be supportive of the event but would be uncomfortable with being told what to do. Now that FIFA was available to talk to the media, the media should talk to FIFA before launching any stories. The most notable statement was the nonsense that the event would be moved to Australia. The media would have realised that it was impractical for the event to go to Australia had they spoke to FIFA or done their research. It would have been moved to another country and not Australia if it were to be moved at all because there were only four years to go before the event. Australia could not prepare for the event in four years and the best thing would be to send it to a truly soccer playing nation with ready stadium. The games would be played in cricket fields if it were moved to Australia. There were a couple of rugby fields in Australia but the majority of them were cricket shaped stadiums. The reality was that the media would always do its job and run bold sensational headlines. Mr Komphela said that Mr Palmer had addressed very critical issues. There had been concerns on whether FIFA would force corner shops to close just because they happened to fall within certain parameters. An official from SAPS asked if there was any consultation with relevant stakeholders on the safety features of the stadium. There should be operational rooms and disaster management in the stadiums. He also asked if the appointment of the Director of Safety would take place on 1 August 2006. SAPS wanted to liase with that person as soon as possible. Mr Jordaan replied that the appointment would be announced on 1 August 2006. Mr Mpahlwa replied that the LOC was dealing with stadium teams in the design review process. For example, the disaster management plan of the Port Elizabeth stadium had been reviewed. The disaster management plans of the stadiums would be discussed with the police and everyone would have a clear understanding on them. Mr M Tyamzashe (Executive Director- Stakeholder Relations: Vodacom) said that the presentation was billed as one that would answer all questions. The issues of clean stadium and naming rights were not clearly addressed. Mr Jordaan only spoke about the period in which FIFA would have control over the stadium. Mr Palmer had addressed the issue of commercial activities around the stadiums. The Loftus Stadium had villages in which commercial activities took place. He wondered how such areas would be dealt with. Mr Palmer replied that naming rights were contained in host city and stadium agreements. He was not liberty to disclose the contents of the agreements save to say that the provisions were adequate to ensure that the event would be run effectively. They would also protect the rights of sponsors, FIFA, LOC and the stadium owners. He said that he did not know about the villages in the Loftus stadium although he had gone there to watch a game between Sundowns and Kaizer Chiefs. There was a need to look at each stadium individually. There might be outlets that might have to be closed. The most perfect example would be a commercial outlet built as part of the stadium as was often the case in Europe. This had posed problems in the Champions League. The stores had to be closed during the Champions League because they were not sponsors of the tournament. Such stores, if any, would have to close during the World Cup. Normal businesses that operated down the street were entitled to operate and would not be closed. Mr B Dlamini (IFP) asked if the LOC had a team of experts that would look at the transport needs of the fans given the state of the public transport infrastructure. The transport infrastructure was not geared towards was expected in 2010. Germany had railway stations near airports and stadiums and this was not the case in SA. Mr Jordan replied that the transport issue also had to do with the kind of teams that would qualify for the event. One should not compare 2010 to Germany 2006 or Korea-Japan. Japan was an island and the only way to go to Japan from Korea was by flight. One could take a boat and run the risk of arriving there after the tournament. The opening ceremony in the United States of America was held in Chicago and there were matches played in Miami. One had to fly via New York en route to Miami. The distance was like flying from Johannesburg to Accra, Ghana. Every country had its unique transport challenges. SA should look at each match plan, accommodation and transport issues and integrate them in order to arrive at a solution. Mr Palmer replied that an impression was created that there would be 350 000 people going to a stadium at the same time. There was a fixed number of people who would go to a stadium and the number would depend on the capacity of the stadium. Transport was a very complicated issue for any event. Mr Holomisa said that SA had been given some money to prepare Bafana Bafana for the 2010 World Cup. He asked if the SA Football Association had a plan in terms of which the money would be used. He asked for an outline of such plan if it existed. He also asked what percentage would go to the development of football, salaries and related expenditures. Mr Jordaan replied that he was the CEO of the LOC and his responsibility was to prepare the environment for the 32 teams that would compete in the event. Issues relating to Bafana Bafana could be best addressed by SAFA. Mr Holomisa said that the LOC was part of FIFA and should be able to guide the Committee on how it expected SAFA to spend the money. Mr Komphela said that the issue raised by Mr Holomisa was a concern for the whole Committee. It was good that FIFA had given SAFA some money but the issue was what was SAFA going to do with the money. There were no plans in place and the view was that the money would go to salaries and not the development of the team. Mr Jordaan replied that the money was not part of the LOC's budget but was in the budget of SAFA. He was not the accounting officer of SAFA. The LOC was a completely separate legal entity from SAFA. It might be better for the Committee to call the accounting officer of SAFA to come and deal with the issue. He had his views on the matter but felt that it was inappropriate for him to answer on behalf of SAFA. The Chairperson said that he had seen people working in the rain on a Sunday in Germany. He wondered how labour issues were structured in Germany. There was a big train station that was not yet open 60 days before the event and it was said that it would open in time. The station indeed opened before the World Cup. There were 26 construction companies from China that were registered in the country. They would bring 300 people from China should they get the construction contracts. There were labour issues that should be sorted out. There were people who were very committed to defending the workers. There was also the issue of the Police and FIFA stewards. The Bill referred to peace officers and these were limited to the police. There was a proposal to extend peace officers to cover other people who would be declared as peace officers for the purposes of the tournament. He said that he did not see police officers in the stadiums in Germany. They were mostly found outside the stadium. Only stewards were visible in the stadiums. Would this be the case in SA? He said that he fancied the idea. He said that the issue of volunteers was very nice. Would volunteers be deployed in their own provinces or across provinces? The Committee had received very good input during the public hearings. Absa and Vodacom were saying that they had built relationships with the people of South Africa particularly in sport. They had said that it seemed that they would have no role to play in the event even though they were interested in becoming part of the event. It seemed that their participation would rest on their negotiation with FIFA. MTN was a small company in SA and Vodacom, a giant, seemed to have been muscled over by MTN. Mr Mpahlwa replied that there had been engagements on labour issues. It was made clear that procurement processes for the stadium would be driven by the statutes of the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB). This meant that companies that would be engaged should be registered with the CIDB. Mr Palmer replied that the LOC would normally recruit volunteers from within a sensible location or distance. There would be no precedence for bring volunteers from one part of the country and then have to house them. Volunteers in the Sydney Olympics came from all over Australia but had to stay with relatives. The volunteer programme would be open nationally and people would be responsible for their own accommodation. He said that security in the stadium was a complex issue. Each of the countries that had hosted the World Cup was responsible for security. FIFA did not have the resources to deal with security issues but had a lot of experience in football matches around the world. It would support the LOC and the police in every way. The German model worked very well. The first thing they did was not to segregate the fans. It appeared that the management in stadiums in Europe had progressed a long way and any the violence or hooliganism was rarely seen in the stadium. Hooliganism was now confined to outside the stadiums. Germany used stewards but there was a strong police presence outside the stadium. Police officers were found inside the stadium by "invitation". SA should decide how it wanted to deal with the issue and FIFA would support the government as long as it was engaged in the process. FIFA would support the use of stewards in the stadium and the no segregation of fans should it be shown that the arrangement would work well. Mr Jordaan replied that Parliament would play a role in the tournament even though it was not a commercial affiliate of the event. Many corporates would participate in various programmes without having to use the marks of the FIFA family. Vodacom were the sponsors of Bafana Bafana and would be entitled to do what they wanted to do. Vodacom had already taken one of the opportunities and one hoped that they would build a good national team. They could support football development and train coaches. It was pleasing to hear that many companies were eager to support the country. An official from SAPS said that SAPS was already moving towards the direction of deploying more officers outside the stadium as opposed to inside the stadium. This could be seen during the Vodacom Challenge. A member of the Committee lamented the fact that the Board of the LOC was male dominated. Mr Jordaan replied that the blame should be put on all stakeholders who nominated members. Labour had nominated a male member. The government had to nominate members and it was unfortunate that the relevant portfolios (Finance, Transport, the Presidency, Sports and Recreation and Safety and Security) were headed by males. Business also nominated males. Football nominated one female, Mrs Natasha Tsichlas, only because she was involved in football. 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B13-2006] (Reintroduced) Mr G Boshoff (Director: Legal Services, SRSA) took the Committee through the Bill. Clause 7 Traffic-free zones Mr Boshoff said that there was a proposal made by Ms H Zille that had a bearing on clause 7(1)(b)(I). She was of the opinion that the clause was not correct. She proposed that the addition of the words "after consultation with all relevant stakeholders" off which the relevant municipality would be one. He agreed with the suggestion. The Committee also agreed with the proposal. Clause 8 Search and seizure Mr Boshoff said that the Department of Agriculture had submitted that the clause should be mandatory and the word "may" should be replaced by "must". The decision was to leave it as "may" because it might necessitate the searching of the President of the country. The Committee agreed. Clause 9 Regulations Mr Boshoff said that the clause dealt with the concern around consultation. Mr T Geldenhuys (SAPS) said that there might be a need to amend regulations within a short period of time depending on the developments on the ground. This would allow the Minister to make regulations without having to refer them to the Committee. He proposed that reference to the Minister of Safety and Security should be deleted from clause 9(6). Mr Boshoff said that the point raised dealt with exceptional circumstances. He asked what would happen under normal circumstances. He wondered if the proposal should not be limited to emergencies. Mr Geldenhuys replied that the regulations would relate to safety and security. They would not deal with substantive issues. The regulations would in any event be tabled in Parliament and the Department would amend anything should Parliament feel need the need to do so. The Chairperson asked where the consequences of not including the proposal. Mr Geldenhuys said that there might be problems should the proposal not be included. Parliament might be in recess during the World Cup and this would make it difficult to amend the regulations The Chairperson said that the reference should be deleted should it not allow the Minister to move speedily. Mr P Bouwer (Executive Manager, Department of Provincial and Local Government) asked if sub-clause (4) should also be changed. The Committee agreed that sub-clauses 4 to 6 should not refer to the Minister of Safety and Security. Mr Holomisa asked if sub-clause (6) could not be amended so that it referred to a state of emergency. South Africa had a Constitution and one should not create an impression that the Minister would be allowed to do as he pleased. Mr Boshoff said that sub-clause (6) could be amended to provide that the Minister should be able to act only after obtaining permission from Parliament. Mr Bouwer asked who would determine the necessity or state of emergency. What would happen should Parliament be in recess? Mr Erasmus asked who would give the exemption. Mr Bouwer said that the process could be challenged in court if not properly done. Mr Dlamini said that the clause provided that the Minister "may" and this meant that the Minister was not forced to do anything. He was of the view that the proposal by Mr Geldenhuys did not make any sense. Mr Boshoff said that the word "may" in the clause was related to the discretion given therein. Sub-clauses (4)-(6) would kick in once the Minister had decided to make regulations. The "may" should in some instances be read as a "must". Mr E Mtshali (ANC) proposed that the legal team should be given five minutes to sort out the problem. Mr Boshoff said that the legal teams had agreed to delete reference to the Minister of Safety and Security. Mr Holomisa said that the regulations were designed to help everybody who would be involved in the tournament. There were four years in which to develop the regulations. SA had an image of not applying the same tactics of crowd control tactics as applied in other countries. They police were very quick to open fire. Mr Boshoff recommended that the police, when drafting regulations, should submit the regulations to Sports and Recreation and Parliament out of their free will. Mr Dikgacwi disagreed with the view. Mr Komphela ruled that the clause should not be further amended. Reference to the Minister of Safety should remain. The police knew what to do in the case of emergency without referring to the Bill. Mr Frolick agreed with the Chairperson. There were other security structures that were in place that could deal with safety issues in relation to the World Cup. Short title Mr D Erasmus (Home Affairs) said that the Committee should look at saying that the Act would come into operation by proclamation in the government gazette. There might be problems in enforcing the law should all the regulations not be in place. The Committee agreed to the proposal. Mr Boshoff also pointed out changes made to the memorandum on the objects of the Bill so as to make it reflect changes made to the Bill. Second 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Bill [B16- 2006] Clause 1 Definitions Mr Boshoff said that the definitions of "commercial affiliate" and "liquor" had been deleted. The definition of liquor was deleted because clause (3) had also been deleted. The deletion of clause (3) would necessitate numerical changes in the clauses. Clause 2 Extension of Minister of trade and Industry's power under Merchandise Act, 1941 Mr Boshoff said that the clause referred to a period not later than six months following extensive debate and submissions on the clause. The whole of clause three was deleted. Clause 4 Accreditation of foreign medical contingents and approval of medicines, Scheduled substances and medical devices Mr Boshoff proposed a new sub-clause to deal with the approval of medicines, Scheduled substances and medical devices. The clause was designed to ensure that there would be transparency. The Chairperson read the motion of desirability of the two bills and the Committee agreed that the Bills were desirable. The Committee unanimously adopted the Bills. The meeting was adjourned.
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.