After it became clear to the world, who hosts the 2026 world cup, it may have been established that Africans “hate” Africa progress. We all know the g...
After it became clear to the world, who hosts the 2026 world cup, it may have been established that Africans “hate” Africa progress.
We all know the glory; the prestigious football tournament brings to a nation and to an extreme the continent whose nation will be given the nod to host the world cup. If the benefit of hosting a world cup is establish, then why did some Africa nations voted against their own at the FIFA Executive congress which was held in Russia last Wednesday? Does the action taken by these African nations who rejected Morocco’s bid cement the long-standing notion that Africans do not crave for Africa’s progress?
It looked pretty interesting when Morocco firmly sent a bid to host the 2026 world cup tournament. As an African I was joyful that hopefully after seeing South Africa host a successful world cup in 2010, an African nation (Morocco) had sent a strong signal that our continent is also capable of taking another world cup hosting challenge.
South Africa 2010, a tournament which saw Spain winning was organised to the shocking of the world as very few people thought, an African country could host a world cup. Several pundits convinced the world about why a prestigious tournament should not be gambled with. After the tournament was hosted most pundits described the 2010 world cup hosted by South Africa as one of the best world cup tournament organised in its history.
Morocco’s bid to host the world cup in 2026 became unpopular to the Electorate at the conference as they amazingly endorsed a rather “United bid” to be hosted by three countries, namely U.S.A., Canada and Mexico, the first of its kind. My “beef” is not the fact that Morocco lost the bid, but the many African nations who did not vote for their own.
Benin Republic, Botswana, Cape Verde Islands, Guinea, Lesotho, Liberia, Mozambique, Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Zimbabwe were the CAF member-countries which did not vote for Morocco. These are eleven countries out of the 52 African countries who were present. This led to Morocco losing overwhelmingly by a margin of 65-134 representing 33% -67% votes in favour of the United Bid.
Danny Jordan who led South Africa 2010 bid virtually begged Africa’s and the world to vote for South Africa, in spite of any challenge anyone holds against his nation. In a sharp return South Africa delegation who went to The FIFA Congress held on Wednesday was led by same Danny Jordan who didn’t vote for Morocco. It is not noted that South Africa didn’t vote for their African sibling because of Political reasons dated back in 1976. The case of Liberia is different as the reason they didn’t support their own is deemed to be due to their long-time affiliation with U.S.A, a Colony – Colonial master relationship.
One reason for the United Bid winning against the Moroccan bid was the profit the tournament will present in terms of finance. It is expected that the United bid comprising of (U.SA., MEXICO and CANADA) will produce about $11 billion while Morocco’s bid is likely to be $7.2 billion. Isn’t it overwhelming that Morocco, an African country can produce a near amount of what the United bid presents, judging from their strong economic background?
My take is that, had all African nations voted for Morocco, they would not have won, but the African solidarity signal the continent would have sent across would have been appealing and massive to prove a point.
By Samuel Amoesi
The writer is a sports journalist