Like the profit that FIFA and its corporate sponsors will accrue, journalistic words on or about the forthcoming World Cup will be measured in the millions, if not the tens of millions. But who will lift the trophy for the most inspired, socially penetrating journalism is yet to be determined, though the Guardian’s four part series by Owen Gibson and David Smith along with Anna Kessel’s excellent piece in the G2 3/6/10 must be among the front-runners. The paradox facing all serious journalism concerning the South African World Cup is simple: can the much heralded advantages of Africa hosting its first World Cup out-play the obscenity of directing billions of pounds worth of scarce resources into building brand new stadia and related infrastructure when so many South Africans are still living in such dire poverty.

The Guardian journalists, Gibson, Smith and Kessel zoom in directly on this paradox which, when all the footy is done and dusted, is the only real story in town. Owen Gibson kicks off with a punchy piece entitled, ‘Money, jobs and prestige but will the legacy last?’ Gibson gets straight to the point when he reports:

‘The South African media has loudly questioned whether the World Cup will do more for FIFA, which has banked a record $3.2 bn in media and marketing revenues, and its sponsors than the host country and its people.’ Gibson adds, ‘Whether the sums add up when the country in question is a fast developing nation in which 50% of the population live in poverty remains open to a debate that will continue to rage once the curtain comes down in South Africa and attention turns to Brazil for 2014.’

Many promises have been made by FIFA regarding both a sporting legacy and a general economic and social legacy for South Africa and the continent as a whole but as we are beginning to learn from our London 2012 experience, legacy promises are much easier to make than to deliver. Gibson explains how South African football may very easily miss the legacy boat. The South African Premier League is underpowered, with most fans preferring the English game and the handful of decent players picked off by clubs abroad. The same remains true throughout Africa and although Sepp Blatter has been outspoken on the human costs of ‘trafficking’ young African players to Europe, the failure to build an infrastructure that might help them may come to be seen as one of the biggest holes in the World Cup’s promised legacy.

South African social campaigners have not been silent on the legacy question. Quoting activists from Cape Town’s Reclaim The City movement, Gibson tells us:

‘Some of the residents have been among the most vociferous critics of the World Cup. For them, FIFA’s slogan, ‘Celebrate Africa’s Humanity’ rings hollow. We have realised that the 2010 FIFA World Cup is meant not for the poor but for the rich. It has not brought any change into our lives or conditions in which we are living under’.

Gibson is at his most telling when he questions whether any global sporting event can really deliver on the pre-event hype. Gibson muses, ‘The World Cup will be seen not only as a celebration of how far the country has come since apartheid but also a test of the theory that international sporting events act as a means to turbo-charge infrastructure investment and leave a positive social and sporting legacy in all sorts of ways.’ Gibson adds, ‘Critics claim the notion that grateful developing nations should be forced to build venues at great expense in the belief it will accelerate development doesn’t add up. They claim money poured into making sure venues are ready, transport systems upgraded and visitors made to feel safe would be better spent on basic amenities.’

David Smith picks up the baton in the second part of the series in an article entitled, ‘Dreams of Glory on offer’ even if tickets aren’t.’ Zooming in on Soweto, South Africa’s biggest black township and iconic in respect to the anti apartheid struggle, Smith tries to gauge the pre-tournament mood of the local residents. Smith reports:

‘A generation after students joined the Soweto uprising, today’s young people are wearing Bafana Befana shirts and playing football in the parks. Some are so poor they go to school on an empty stomach. None can afford a match ticket for Africa’s first World Cup. But don’t try telling them it’s a bad idea.’

Smith gives the impression that the prevailing mood throughout Soweto is a positive one despite the endemic poverty. A quote from a local 19 year old local footballer reinforces this optimistic mood. ‘It’s a great thing to see top players from other countries playing and South Africa is going to benefit. In Soweto they have developed streets, parks and stadiums and some people have even got jobs.’

Smith concludes this part of his investigation with a very upbeat summation from Danny Jordaan the head of the South African organising committee. Smith sets out the wider context and then allows Jordaan to have the last word.

‘Ever since South Africa was awarded the World Cup six years ago, its organisers have faced accusations that the event will service only tourist and the middle class, with the huge investment excluding millions of poor blacks still living in shacks without jobs or basic services. But Danny Jordaan dismisses the notion that the sport should remain the preserve of the rich.’

Africa is entitled to all experiences and all events. No one must question or begrudge the fact that we are hosting our first World Cup on African soil. If you want to raise the social issue, ask them, ask those football fans who have no houses, no jobs. Ask them, ‘Do you want the World Cup in your country?’ You’ll hear an overwhelming yes because that is the lifeblood, that is the generator of hope, that is what puts a smile on many African faces. Football is a giver of hope and life and we must never argue that we must deny the fundamental pleasure and joy that football can bring. Football is the one expression where Africans can compete equally with anyone in the world.’

Although Jordaan’s words and intentions are obviously honourable, one cannot help feeling that his one dimensional view of African potential is counter-productive. Africa and its one billion citizens are more than capable of competing with their fellow humans in any and every sphere of human activity if only the G20 nations would create a level playing field. It’s all about creating fair and equitable trading systems and compensating the African continent for the five hundred years of European colonial pillage. That African are poor and Europeans are relatively wealthy is indubitably and inextricably linked. ‘It’s a pity David Smith didn’t have something to say about this.

Smith continues the series with an investigation from Nelspruit where he offers a balance to his somewhat overly optimistic piece from Soweto. Under the heading, ‘Inequalities of Nelspruit will test legacy of the tournament’, Smith paints a vivid picture of the juxtaposition between brand new, state of the art football stadia and the dispiriting poverty surrounding them. Smith elaborates, ‘There is a concern that has haunted Africa’s first World Cup since it was awarded six years ago: that the abiding image would be of multi-pound stadiums, surrounded by craters of squalor, hosting a western spectacle for western fans that mocked the plight of the poor.’

Smith continues, citing some local heartfelt grievances, ‘We’ll hear the sound from the stadium but won’t know what’s happening. We can’t go inside. We can’t afford tickets and they failed to invite us. Even my mother doesn’t know what’s inside the stadium. Is there grass or not? Are the seats blue? They didn’t give us a chance.’ The grievances pile up. They promised us they were going to build new houses, clean water, sanitation, tarred roads, infrastructure but it never happened.’ Smith finds no shortage of complainants. ‘Money disappeared into the wrong hands. The promised things didn’t happen. The government says education is a priority but it wasn’t for the community of Mataffin. They benefit tourists but we ended up losing our school. There will only be four games at the stadium. We lost our school, everything, because of four games.’

Smith rounds off with a damning indictment from a local human rights lawyer:

How are we going to use a stadium like this? We don’t have the cultural, social and sporting events to sustain it. There was supposed to be a precinct around the stadium to provide services a hotel, a gym but that didn’t happen. It might be a white elephant. People here feel betrayed and lied to and cheated. The promise of the World Cup was lost through corruption, double dealing and sleaze.’

This is good journalism on the part of Smith because, using the direct testimony of the local communities, we get a genuine snapshot of the World Cup conundrum. No World Cup tickets for the locals; schools demolished to make way for stadiums that may never be used after the World Cup; whole communities shunted aside to make way for the FIFA extravaganza; tantalizing promises made then quietly abandoned; yet throughout the country still a genuine enthusiasm for this world festival of football.

Smith concludes his fine investigation with a visit to Sandton, South Africa’s equivalent to the City of London and the West End rolled into one. It’s predominantly white and it reeks of money in the way that Soweto is predominantly black and reeks of poverty. Here Smith discovers that the white community, hitherto fanatical only about rugby and to a lesser extent, cricket, are finally catching the world soccer bug. This, Smith learns, can be a catalyst not only for national unity but for changing global perceptions of Africa.

Smith writes:

‘South Africa is Soweto and safaris, townships and tribes, but it is also Sandton. While the debate over the pros and cons of hosting the World Cup are likely to rage for years after the final on July 11th, there is a sense that it will be a game changer for the way the worldviews this country and this continent.’

Smith finishes his investigation with a defiant but upbeat quote from the South African President, Jacob Zuma:

‘We believe the prejudices that have been there are coming to an end and I think this World Cup will say a lot to the world as to how they look at Africa. The cup must come again and come again, so we’ll then be certain the world is no longer prejudiced against Africa.’

A powerful Guardian feature, written by Anna Kessel, appearing in the G2 magazine 3/6/10 covers much of the same territory as Gibson and Smith but has even more resonance because of her personal family links to the people she interviews. When Kessel asks if the World Cup will make a difference to their lives the reply is disheartening to say the least. ‘Has the World Cup helped us? No, it hasn’t helped. What can I say? I’m watching the World Cup at home, I’m not going to the stadium.’

Despite having a college diploma in tourism, Kessel’s black ‘sister’, the daughter of the Kessel family house-maid, has been unemployed for years and has little prospect of finding any type of employment. She tells Kessel, If you want a job now, even in Pick-n-Pay or Shoprite, you must take your CV to the agents. If the agents like you, they will give you a job. If they don’t like you your CV will stay there. But you have to pay the agent 20-30% of your takings every month. We all hoped everything would be better (after the World Cup) But as I see it, it’s not going to be better. It’s not possible.’

In perhaps the most poignant and revealing part of the story, Kessel offers to buy her South African family tickets for the World Cup but the offer is declined in favour of a far more pressing purchase; that of doors for their house in order that they may have a sense of security from the raging crime wave that is a daily part of South African life, the biggest fear being that their daughters may be hijacked and sold as sex slaves.

From the black impoverishment of Port Elizabeth to the white middle class security of Johannesburg and a visit to Anna Kessel’s white relatives. Here we learn some disturbing home truths. Kessel’s cousin gives her the low-down on FIFA.To think that the nephew of Sepp Blatter (the president of FIFA) actually runs Match. (Match is the company that has exclusive arrangements to sell accommodation and ticket packages to tourists.) Match got greedy and forced up prices, so then no one was renting. Then right at the last minute, Match said, ‘Sorry we couldn’t find anyone – we expected more people to come to South Africa. Everyone is complaining about it.’

Kessel’s cousin is equally damning concerning ticket prices and distribution. The ticket prices are crazy; they say they tried to help out the people who can’t afford it and made tickets available at 140 rand (about ¬£12.50, more than a day’s wages for most people) but I was in that queue and there were no tickets available at that price.

People like to moan. That is part of the human condition. They will moan in South Africa and they will moan in London in two year’s time. And when the World Cup turns up in Brazil in 2014 plenty of people will do plenty of moaning there. The job of quality journalism is to always try to see the bigger picture. When you read Gibson, Smith and Kessel in full, you feel they have reached beyond the day to day complaining that we all love to do. What is presented is a balanced picture of genuine grievance tempered by genuine enthusiasm for the coming festivities. There is no escaping the fact that for the majority of Black South Africans will remain marginalised not just by FIFA’s World Cup but by the entire global economy. Equally FIFA and the IOC could be applauded for voting to hold major sporting events in the developing world, which in fact is no more than a true reflection of the growing economic influence of the developing world. But to merely applaud FIFA and the IOC would be wrong. Having made the decision they must then ensure that social inclusion is a mandatory part of the package and not merely some fine sounding words. The G8 nations should have used South Africa 2010 as a spring-board for a massive development package to Africa comparable to the Marshell Aid package put together for war torn Europe in 1945 along with a total debt amnesty. That would have made 2010 a truly memorable event. They didn’t. As it now stands, some of the bleakest sentiments highlighted in the articles by Gibson, Smith and Kessel are completely justified.