Should I Stay Or Should I Go?

                                                    Written By Robert Amanze
                                 

New football stadiums seem to be in vogue these days as every club appears to want one. The benefits for a club when they move to a new stadium are quite clear to see. The prospects of increased attendances, more room for corporate hospitality, better experience for fans, more areas for retail and catering, increased non-match day facilities etc. For example, over the last few weeks, Tottenham and West Ham have been squabbling over the ownership of the Olympic stadium post the 2012 Olympics. Both clubs have been wise and canny enough to see the potential for greater revenue and increased turnover from the move to Stratford. This brings me onto a topic that is quite close to my heart, the future home of Liverpool Football Club.

After a tumultuous battle to become the owners of Liverpool FC, New England Sports Ventures are now faced with their first big challenge (some will argue that it’s the position of Roy Hodgson, but that’s for another discussion). So far, John W. Henry has been very tight-lipped about any plans surrounding the new stadium. Perhaps he is scared to make any broken promises like his native predecessors? This heightens the fact that the eventual decision whatever it may be, cannot be rushed and requires careful strategic planning. At present there would seem to be three options available to NESV.

Option 1: Redevelop Anfield

When NESV acquired the Boston Red Sox in 2002, they were faced with a similar dilemma to the one currently in place at Liverpool i.e. an iconic stadium that was fast becoming a relic. NESV decided to redevelop Fenway Park instead of building a new stadium elsewhere. The idea of redeveloping Anfield has its plus points. It will cost NESV far less to increase the capacity of Anfield (which currently stands at 45,000).

Obviously if money can be saved in the building of a new stadium then it will be done. NESV are business men after all. The romantics will also argue that Anfield holds too many fond memories. 

Why move when you can expand upon history and tradition? 

Option 2: Stanley Park

George Gillett and Tom Hicks got a lot of things wrong during their three year tenure as owners of Liverpool Football Club. One of the most cringe-worthy, was Gillett’s infamous “a spade in the ground within 60 days” statement (not long after their takeover in 2007), referring to the construction of a new stadium on Stanley Park. Three years on and that spade has done nothing but gather dust.

The short move to Stanley Park would do a lot of the things I alluded to in my very first paragraph. Liverpool as a city would be invigorated by the regeneration opportunities a new multi-million pound stadium could provide.

Option 3: Ground Share

It might not be the most popular decision with the fans but there is a mounting possibility that Merseyside rivals Liverpool and Everton may consider a ground share. From NESV’s perspective it provides the best of both worlds. The luxury of a new stadium constructed with only half the additional costs. Kopites and Toffees would find the notion of sharing a stadium difficult to comprehend but other major European clubs such as AC Milan and Inter Milan, as well as Roma and Lazio have ground shared for well over 60 years. However a loss of individual pride and identity may prove to be problematic.

Personally, I cannot see anything other than a move to Stanley Park for Liverpool. Staying at Anfield is not viable in the long-term as capacity and future re-development will be severely restricted. Why expand Anfield to cater 60,000 people (its proposed maximum capacity) when the club could possibly sell-out 70,000? Quite simply, staying at Anfield limits any future growth. The thought of Liverpool sharing a stadium with bitter rivals Everton is even more irrational. One of the primary contributors to a football clubs wealth is its assets, such as a stadium. It is estimated Milan council, take five million Euro’s in rent from AC and Inter each year. Also, non-ownership of the San Siro means each club is restricted in what it can generate or do on non-match days. Nor can either club undertake re-structuring without the other clubs consent.

These are just some of the factors John W. Henry and co, will have to consider when deciding the future home of Liverpool Football Club. As the new custodians of the club, it is a decision they cannot take lightly. NESV will be wise to not raise the ire of Liverpudlians. We all know what happened to the last group of Americans who dared to do that.

Premiership Buyouts

With the recent high profile off the field ownership and financial troubles Liverpool Football Club have been engulfed in, it appears that the Tom Hicks and George Gillett tumultuous three year reign has come to a dramatic end. A conclusion that saw the club embroiled in court room battles, injunctions,
£1 billion lawsuits claims and counter claims, personal accusations, and the very serious the threat of the club going into administration loomed large.

A possible fate during a period of leadership that had brought one of English Football brightest institutions steeped in success and tradition to its crumbling knees, and a shadow of its former established glorious past. A grim outlook that has been replicated on the pitch with the humbling defeats to lowly League 2 outfit Northampton in the Carling Cup, and Premier League new boys Blackpool respectively. It could be easy to remark on what has occurred and pick the bones over the whole sorry episode, but for this article a different direction is going to be taken.

With this post I am going to refer to something I wrote almost four years ago during my Masters studies in a discussion forum over the state of English football, and to a degree the sport as a whole and what it represents in the early 21st Century. Also reviewed was the worrying and increasing dependency of finance within the game.

The reference to the proposed Liverpool takeover at the time in the piece was that of two suitors, Dubai International Capital, and what proved to be the sucessful bid from Tom Hicks and George Gillett. With the consistent talk of Manchester United's financial situation and visable protests, the literal transformation of the Manchester City's fortunes, and Portsmouth being the first Premier League club to go in to administration within this four year timeframe, I pose this question once read, has much changed regarding the sport and the highlighted issues mentioned?
Like always enjoy folks!!!

From my perspective the current trend that seems to be taking place or is about to take place in English football regarding club ownership, is quite a delicate and complicated situation that is not easy to unravel. Liverpool FC is the most recent club to be the subject of a takeover bid. Arguably this would present an instant short-term resolution and a bright rosy future for the club but I have my reservations. As a fan of the club without doubt the initial appeal of the proposed takeover would place the club in a stronger position where they could compete with the present market setter’s Chelsea in terms of economic resources off the pitch and naturally on-pitch by attracting the big-name star players. Although this may not guarantee an immediate change of Liverpool’s fortunes on the playing field from possible title-contenders to actual annual champions, without question it would put the club on par if not surpass some of the world’s top clubs. Clearly all this talk of Premiership clubs being taken over is not a coincidence but clearly a direct relation to what has occurred at Chelsea FC, and their resulting dominance.

Despite waning public standing amongst football fans of Chelsea, what cannot be disputed is Roman Abramovich’s commitment to the club, and presenting him as a genuine football fan. Which introduces the question how or what makes a genuine football fan? Is it merely because a person states that they follow a particular team, buy the clubs memorabilia, or regularly attend matches no matter the distance or cost? Well whatever the basis maybe, Abramovich may forward his case stating he brought the club outright. In doing so he instantly wrote off the club’s pending £80 million debt, and has spent heavily on attaining the best human resources available be it players, management and administrative staff.

If that’s not enough we the football viewing public regularly see him on our television screens always watching his prestigious acquisition every time they play. Aside from Chelsea, recent reports have suggested that Abramovich now plans to commit £20 million to his native Russia and its national football team in developing state-of-the-art facilities in which current players will use and help develop talent in future players. It could be said that this gives evidence to Abramovich’s keen interest in football. Perhaps Chelsea’s benefactor is an isolated case, but this brings me to my initial concern with the sudden interest of such individuals and Premiership clubs. Do these people really have a genuine interest in football and the well being of the clubs they are proposing to buy?

As a Liverpool fan I am not that bothered what nationality is stated in the passport of the owner now or in the future, all that concerns me is are they going to do right by the club. The Premiership has a rich cosmopolitan flavour with many players, managers and their nationalities represented in the league. On a separate note I feel that this has heightened the playing standard set in England so in theory why can’t the same be said of overseas owners and investors. My fear is that we might have a situation where such grouped individuals are merely looking to strip the tenuous but prosperous investments some clubs may retain, just to line their own pockets or any other drastic act that is detrimental to the clubs future. I suppose I say this because my worry is that football is our national game and although globally popular I am always concerned do these individuals recognise what these clubs mean to people. Due to the fact they do not live or have not grown following a club and the English football culture. I understand that the way the game is at present, it is no longer just a game.

A statement that which brings me reference to one of the articles I focused on ‘Play Element In Contemporary Sport’ by Johann Huizinga. In which he refers to the loss in free spirit play displayed in sport. This sentiment is a suitable description trend appearing in English football. Top-level soccer is no longer about playing the game; it is big-time business on all fronts with mere participation was sidestepped long ago and winning and losing is now taking a back seat. But is the imminent future and success of clubs pending on finding a rich individual, overseas or over wise? Is the league table going to resemble a financial rich list with the wealthiest owner at the top in an ascending order?

Sport, Who’s Game Is It Anyway?

For its excitement and possible moments of illusion, sport is loved and revered by many for the drama it can produce. When acted out, its existence can engross us at some stage in our lifetime, probably all be it at varying levels of ties and interest. That aside, it is hard to completely ignore, and safe to say we all feel that we can instantly recognise it when it is occurring. But with that said, what is sport, and more tellingly how do we define what constitutes as a sport? The Oxford Dictionary defines sport as:

“an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment:”

With this description, it largely promotes sport with key components, physicality and competition. But is this an accurate description of what sport is? Reviewing the increasingly popular online information form known as Wikipedia, it provides a more expansive description of sport as:

“an organized, competitive, entertaining, and skillful physical activity requiring commitment, strategy, and fair play, in which a winner can be defined by objective means. It is governed by a set of rules or customs. In sports the key factors are the physical capabilities and skills of the competitor when determining the outcome (winning or losing). The physical activity involves the movement of people, animals and/or a variety of objects such as balls and machines or equipment. In contrast, games such as card games and board games, though these could be called mind sports and some are recognized as Olympic sports, require primarily mental skills and only mental physical involvement. Non-competitive activities, for example as jogging or playing catch, are usually classified as forms of recreation.”

Despite both explanations holding altering assessments and quantity amounts, what both definitions have shown is that to be a sport the disciple must be organised, with physical attributes, and skill elements shown under the guise of competition with regulations. So by this meaning where does much thought of recreational practises such as surfing, wall climbing, and simply throwing a pebble fit into sports' criteria if framed in competition? Do ballet, body-building and martial-arts qualify comfortably? Does this not open up the theorem that anything to be can be interpreted as a sport, as long as a human-being can perform it or arrange it, with mental or physical skill exhibited if staged within a contest? With that said, let me pose to you the question can competition quizzes, staged shopping contests, and even reality television shows that pit competitors for prizes of singing and modelling contracts be counted? Do international versions of shows like Pop Idol, X Factor, Britain’s Got Talent, and Britain Next Top Model tally? As we live in a more interactive world with social media and technology becoming more of a staple feature in our lives, can on-line and interactive computer games in tournament play threaten the existence of what one could currently define as a sports event?

These are a lot of questions I have thrown up but from a personal standpoint, I have always understood sport to be an organised exercise where unrelenting physicality is shown and displayed, regardless of a winner or winners being declared. However on reflection, by my own thought process this could exclude activities like snooker, which I have never once contemplated could be disregarded as a sport. With this, I have come to re-define my definition of what classifies as a sport. Physical elements do not necessarily have to be shown in tremendous droves and witnessed to fall into what we are discovering is a tenuous category. In its own right, mental agility in a discipline can also be associated within sport’s definition, and with this I have come to consider darts as a sport.

With the 15 times World PDC Champion Phil Taylor sweeping all before him and performances one can admire in awe, I realised it holds the same technical skill, training, and practise needed to achieve the desired purpose of consistently making the intended targets and activity objective. It may not be on a billiards table, but likewise to snooker, dart and its operations work within the confides of small spaces and margins but on a dartboard. In addition, the swift mathematics needed by the players when calculating scoring to win a leg, and ultimately the match as a whole can not be overlooked. With darts similar union to the social public house as snooker, by comparison there is not a strong vocal discussion to discount snooker as a sport so why is darts any different? After all is it not a smaller version of archery, and that is seen not just as a sport but a fixture in the world biggest sporting event, the Olympics.
Or have I fallen foul of a combination of one man’s dominance, and the activity’s progressive television exposure and popularity to deem darts as a sport? Especially when considering its stereotype perception of large overweight men (women play also) with ties of excessive alcoholic drinking, when in the main most attach sport to be health, fitness, and the peak of human form. Or perhaps is sport a question of image? If your activity fits into an imaginary classification that no-one can conclusively depict but feel it is apparent, your event is keenly welcomed to the umbrella that is sport.

We all have our initial thoughts about what sport is, ranging from how much variation of skill and movement is required to execute the event, to a definitive victor being highlighted when pit against a system of numbers either by score or clock. To some quantifying sport as a checklist with aspects that needs to be ticked before we can even acknowledge the occurrence as a sporting occasion. Or is simply a case that it is a sequence of events, where we can take such a criteria list and recognise all points mentioned to also include how popular it is, how much crossover media attention it garnishes and can generate, and does it fit into an image society asserts or what we are told as a society? However let me present this thought, do we merely summarise it as an undefined entity that is bigger than any straightforward meaning and just celebrate its mere essence, form, and existence.

Big Brother’s Big Bye Bye

As an announcement, “You have been evicted, please leave the Big Brother house’’ has been bellowed to the nation for a decade through our television sets, this proclamation is now being referred to Big Brother as an entity, as it is being evicted from our screens forever. A moment that for many could not have come sooner, yet equally some have dreaded. A TV show that seemingly splits public opinion, much in the same fashion that it systematically divides its residents from the house each week during the course of a series. However, with the show drawn to a close, how will the programme be remembered?

I was a college student when Big Brother was a little lad in its own right, as it burst on to the scene and communal consciousness back in the year 2000. So in some perverse way it has been my big brother during my adult years. Yet very few thought it would snowball into the juggernaut it became when ‘Nasty’ Nick Bateman was unraveled for his treachery and deceit during the show’s original run. This for me and probably for many others it is what triggered attention to watch the programme in its first instance. Dubbed primarily as a social experiment backed then, for some reason or another that element of the show had been well and truly lost over the years, and was seen to provide tense and edgy entertainment. Elements that ultimately will define the show’s existence during its ten year stretch, and probably contributed to its final demise. Bringing storms and controversy, one could see it as a hot potato to the powers that be at Channel 4 which they no longer wanted to handle. We have seen live fights, tantrums, sex, police and political involvement, and even international incidents, along with a steady gathering of detractors that have longed and championed a campaign for its end. I’m partially am one of these hecklers during its later years after being a long time fan after being disillusioned from the show’s sense of direction. However, after watching its ultimate series and recapping on past housemates and moments, it is easy harp on the negatives but even easier to forget and overlook its achievements.

Despite its weirdness and oddities Big Brother has compelled us throughout its term. Seen as the epicenter of what has become the mainstay era of reality television, its success has helped generate a plethora of established reality TV shows. Programming like X Factor, I’m A Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here, Strictly Come Dancing, Popstars, Britain’s Got Talent, and Pop Idol just to name a few that all owe a debt of gratitude to the Channel 4 show for paving the way. Changing the face of British television as we know it, in opposition, yes it has helped dilute the quality and variety of programming that is on offer. TV stations seemingly look for any avenue to produce sometimes cheap and tacky reality shows to attract any kind of interest and lucrative phone voting and advertising revenue, based to some degree of the back of Big Brother. There is a place for all types of programming and undoubtedly reality television has its niche, just perhaps not so oversaturated. Maybe in time a more balanced assortment of programming can be availed to viewers, but this perhaps is set for another discussed point in time.

Aside from this and what became circus freak showings, Big Brother has given a discussion platform to important topical issues that effect people and British society as a whole. Clashes in culture as well as cultural exchanges and understandings have occurred during differing series, whilst bringing to light sexual gender and sexuality, bullying, tourettes, anorexia, physical disabilities, class diversions, political views, human privacy intrusion and what is socially tolerant in a 21st century Britain. It has helped redefine the status of racism within a multicultural nation and religious beliefs, and at the same time giving birth to what is a celebrity culture in the UK. Housemates enter as relative nonentities, to overnight personalities being plastered on glossy magazines, being the subject of TV interviews, and model shots. Who can forget Chantelle Houghton ‘Living the Dream’ and viewing the life of sassy Bermondsey girl in Jade Goody. Names that roll of the tongue, and when they left the house we wanted to know everything about them. Thus proving that dreams can come true and even the unknown can make it, and have their time in the sun no matter how short-lived it may be.

Additionally what cannot be unnoticed is its sense of emotional attachment. As a show that lasted for so long, it naturally provided attachment as it meant so much to many and cannot fathom living through a summer without it, and a sporadic celebrity edition during the winter months. Some have come to live, eat, drink, breathe, and even sleep Big Brother as fans sample every last ounce of the round the clock coverage it outputs. With its departure, a hole will be left as it fanatics look for this void to be filled. Though gone, what can be assured is that Big Brother has forever cemented its place in the annuals of British television history. It was ground breaking, revolutionary, and an innovator in many different fields both on and off screen. So as the dust settles and although no more, it presence will still resonate through related programmes and the genre it helped stem, as well as the legacy that it leaves behind as an occurrence. Big Brother will you ever return, well I guess like your motto states, “You decide”.

For The Greater Community

As the new football season looms ever closer the traditional curtain raiser takes place at Wembley Stadium with double winners Chelsea, facing the team that they piped to the winning post in the league, Manchester United in the FA Community Shield. On paper such a showdown always gets the mouth watering with intrigue and excitement. However over the years, the FA Community Shield (formerly Charity Shield) has lost its sparkle and shine as the showpiece occasion to kick off the English club campaign.

With finance increasingly dictating proceedings in football, and the lure of Europe’s Champions League engulfing club football almost entirely and the cash cow it can generate, traditional football values have somewhat been diluted. Of which includes the international scene as we saw during the World Cup this summer, with some sub-standard performances of teams with great pedigree. However that discussion is for another day, but what we are left with are Community Shield contests fast becoming nothing more than just another uninspiring pre-season game. A sight that resembles mutton dressed as lamb, with not much style or substance.

As a youngster this annual fixture was something that I looked forward to with delight aside from its status of marking the beginning of a new season. A uniquely distinctive occasion at Wembley with a trophy at stake, surely that in itself would be good reasoning enough. Displaying a retained sense of history, and tradition that is in the DNA of the English game appealing to all fans the world over. In no way is it comparable to the FA Cup and its little brother the League Cup, but amongst such competitions it held its prestige as the two best teams in the land intensely locked horns.

Further compounding its newly bland status is for the third occasion in four years Chelsea and Manchester United will contest the crown, as the trophy has always featured a team from the perceived ‘big four’. A monotonous streak that dates back to 1995 then champions Blackburn faced that year’s FA Cup winners and northwest neighbours, Everton. With such repetition, the fixture is in dire need of revamping to promote and attract both fans and TV viewers alike. One radical suggestion would be trialling a ‘North verses South’ contest not dissimilar to the NBA’s All-Star game. Two teams comprising of players from clubs located in north and south of England. Players get selected to play by an FA online poll voted by the globe’s football community to make up the starting XI’s, match day squads, and manager. With no more than three players from any one club being featured at any given time, thus turning a rapidly decaying match-up into a new innovative event that regenerates attention. Or perhaps introducing a straight poll where one outfield player is chosen from each of twenty Premier League teams along, with participating goalkeepers. Complete with selected managers of each team picking seven players of their choosing to make up the match day squad.

Perhaps far-fetched, but either way we as supporters can interact with our celebrated stars, a connection that is becoming more and more distant in the modern game. Imagine the endless possibilities, Rooney and Torres leading the line upfront together, John Terry knocking it forward to midfield general Cesc Fabregas. Prospects where we see the best of the best compete in a dream team scenario, for the fans by the fans, surely is that not what community is all about?

3D Or Not To 3D, That Is The Question!

With big-budgeted blockbuster movies being presented in 3D, and large global TV companies shamelessly ramming programming in 3D format down our throats, one would find it hard to avoid the emerging presence of this technology. With the worldwide success of James Cameron’s film Avatar, it has been noted as being the catalyst in heralding the 3D age into the public consciousness. Having personally seen a snapshot of its capabilities during the football World Cup in South Africa, there is no doubting that its features offer an enhanced and exciting dimension (pun intended) to our viewing pleasure. However are the tech boffins and marketers that reside at Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic just to name a few, right to unleash this form of broadcast scenery so soon after people are just getting acquainted with High Definition.

Many homes have invested in the purchase of High Definition television sets and in certain cases quite heavily, yet are now being told by those associated with television and its output that there is a new advancement on the block that is going to become the standard. All described with the usual mundane rhetoric of mind-blowing picture quality I might add. Surely is this not a clear case of commercialisation flexing its domineering muscles ensuring buyers part with more finances within a colossal recession, which quite simply is not fair on the public consumer. A declaration to shoppers that their new and expensive TV investment has become ancient overnight and re-investment is needed merely just to keep up with the latest fad around.

Although around for almost sixty years, many are more likely to remember 3D’s first real global beginning was a brief and hugely unsuccessful foray back in the 1980’s. An induction that has been relegated to nothing more than cameo, as 3D was not in great public demand and did not take off. Maybe it had something to do with those somewhat goofy illuminous red and green spectacles that had to be worn to reap its full potential, who knows. However, technical gimmicks come and go at a whim, and this type of forcefulness we are experiencing to transfer to 3D is far too overbearing especially when technology is transient in its nature. Whatever happened to mobile phones answer to the internet and the WAP technology? Where are the over hyped features that were going to change the way we used our cellular phones? Ladies and gentlemen, the answer is it was confided to the scrapheap quicker than Usain Bolt can run the 100 metres.

So for all those seemingly unperturbed and welcome this new technical development, this is perfectly within your rights. However, for those who are not as enthusiastic, a television is a television. As long as you are getting to view your programme of entertainment, it should not matter if your TV’s character does not come marauding into your living room and flying on to your lap. Well, unless it is Beyonce or Megan Fox, this might just change matters entirely.  

Euro Dash Or Euro Trash?

With an extra bumper edition of international sporting events taking place this summer, some could have forgotten a little matter of the European Athletics Championships taking place in Barcelona’s Olympic stadium. A site that brought memories of Britain’s past glories of the 1992 Olympic Games of Linford Christie, Sally Gunnell, and a heavily injured Derek Redmond determined to cross the finish line symbolising the spirit of the Games. As the nation builds up to its own moment in the sun as Olympic hosts in 2012, the six day European Championships were seen as an important pre-cursor for athletes to fine tune themselves on the rapidly approaching road to London. The expected stellar performances of the truly world-class Phillips Idowu, Jessica Ennis, and Mo Farah to galvanize their fellow team members. The squad produced a record tally haul of nineteen medals and a respectable third place position on the medal table, the question now leaves where this leaves Britian and its athletes in the run up to sports greatest show on earth in two years time.

Some quarters have dubbed British athletics in a state of good health as a result of their showing in Spain. A claim to a degree cannot be doubted as it was a positive display and readdressed the poor return of one gold medal four years ago in Gothenburg; however the recent performance needs to be put into sharp context. This was a European competition with many of the globe’s leading stars absent, such as the mighty USA and Carribeans nations thus leaving the door for some average athletes to appear to look like world-beaters. This is always going to be an accusation thrown at the championships and its winners regardless of European nationality, but it is not without merit.

The powers-that-be within British athletics and the athletes themselves, should not see this one-time showing as an important watershed overturning years mediocrity because of what was accomplished. An immense amount of work needs to be put into place for the squad to be in a position to even compete with their international counterparts on and off the track. The distinct lack depth across the board in events is of major concern, and more pertinently the championships showed a massive void of British women competitors in a number of disciplines. With two years until the eyes of the world are fixed firmly over Stratford’s Olympic park, it is clear such issues are not going to be resolved within such a time-frame. However, the key issue raised was how to turn overnight winners into consistent top-level performers on a grander stage such as 2012, and for the many years to come after that. A reality that many overlook in Britain, where there is a clear inability of being able to develop time and again, leading sporting athletes regardless of momentary triumphs. After all sport is not just for the 2012 Olympics, it is for life.

Africa's 1st World Cup

With the sound of the vuvuzela becoming a distant echo, soccer’s great road show has passed for another term as it slowly embarks on its four-year voyage to Brazil and Rio’s Maracana stadium. But what can we make of the 2010 World Cup and Africa’s first staging of the globe’s grandest solo sporting event.

Having the privilege of being in South Africa during the tournament, one could see at first hand the celebration, colour, pageantry, and diverse cultures coming together as a festival type atmosphere had transfixed the rainbow nation as football’s biggest prize was being contested. Awash with hype and excitement, the competition was set alight by wonder strike from Bafana Bafana’s infectiously named Tshabalala in the giant ‘calabash’ arena known as the Soccer City stadium. However, the early round of matches were tentative if not uninspiring, watered down of any clear and apparent quality with only fleeting moments of brilliance. A theme that tended to lend itself during the tournament’s duration, posing thoughts that the FIFA 2010 World Cup did not live up to its preliminary top billing of on field excellence.

However, these fixtures did not pass without incident or intrigue as the French team’s internal squabbles if not brought international public shame, it left observers compelled to see how unquestionable talent could seamlessly implode. An act that seemed infectious as murmurs circled of player revolts, and team disharmony being evident in the respective camps of Cameroon and England. A plot that did not aid England’s Robert Green and his all-American blunder, which seemingly began a series of unwanted cringe worthy moments for the World Cup goalkeepers. Excuses that many players placed on the hot to handle Jabulani ball, with numerous individuals claiming it behaved temperamentally in flight.

Shocks came in the form of Switzerland’s first win over eventual champions Spain, and Group F throwing up two massive surprises as expectant pre-tournament whipping boys New Zealand return home as unbeaten heroes, despite not progressing to the second round stage. A feat further enhanced by finishing ahead of then defending champions Italy, who in a feeble attempt to defend their crown were sent home winless and rock bottom of their group. Ever entertained by Argentina’s favourite son Maradonna and his touchline theatrics, and arguably the greatest miss ever witnessed from Nigeria’s Yakubu, this year’s contest kept us all gripped as the major stories continued to occur and the stakes began to increase.

Event organisers possibly feared for the desired success of the competition, as South Africa created an unwanted bit of history by becoming the first host nation to bow out of the group stage. Although a brave display was shown against in their final game against France, pride was the only feature that was won in the match. As fans tumbled out of Ellis Park saddened that their team’s participation was over, many beamed with satisfaction that their side that had come to represent so much, had came so far in such a short space of time. Undeterred, many-stood firm to show their support of the tournament in their droves, not passing up the opportunity to witness top stars like Messi, Kaka, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Van Persie strut their respective stuff.

However what ensued was not a showcase of football’s great and good, but the emergence of the unfamiliar, as new identities were dictating the dynamic of football presented. Germany’s young starlets posting comprehensive wins over England and Argentina left us spell bound. Uruguayan Golden Ball winner Diego Forlan elevated his reputation, re-enforcing what could have been he had got the ground running at Manchester United. New heights were found by Paraguay reaching the nation’s first ever quarterfinals in the tournament’s history, a summit that was also achieved by Africa’s sole remaining representatives in the knockout stages, Ghana.

Led by the finishing of Asamoah Gyan, the Ghanaian marksman completed a turnaround that saw him only last year seeking international retirement after a string of poor performances for his country. As, he maintained his African Cup of Nations form allied with Ghana’s adolescent talent; the team were cruelly denied a place in the semi-finals by Uruguay’s Luis Suarez. A striker who sought to showcase his goalkeeping prowess, palming a goal-bound header off the line to spare his team’s from certain elimination.

Questionable referee decisions added more fuel to the need of technology in games fire, as Mexico and England suffered terminally from poor moments of officiating. As the tournament began to reach its climax and the participants began to pack their bags exiting stage left, two remained to contest the showpiece final.

Dutch delight and Wesley Sneijder shone as Holland recorded six straight wins and negated a tricky path, which included toppling the mighty Brazil en route to the final. Booking a contest with a rejuvenated Spanish outfit that had picked themselves up from the canvas to get their World Cup dream back on track after a first match loss. In a very drab and jaded final with aggressive antics that resembled scenes one might see with the oval ball of rugby or a kung fu film, Spain eventually prevailed after extra-time to cue delirious scenes in Johannesburg and Madrid alike. Full reward to the Spanish conquerors and their expansive brand of football known as ‘tiki-taka’ to its people, their eye catching style of play had captured the imagination of many followers and transformed the country’s football fortunes. After being dubbed perennial underachievers over the years, the last three years has seen Spain record an impressive run of wins leading them to be crowned not only as European Champions, but also now as World Cup victors.

But ultimately the real winners proved to be the people of South Africa and the continent of Africa as a whole. The 2010 World Cup was not simply the staging of an international sporting event hosting a series of matches before it moves to another selected host on the FIFA conveyor belt. The month long extravaganza on Africa’s wintry southern tip facilitated a stage for Africans to showcase themselves to the World, as many visibly spoke ardently their honoured pleasure to be entered to the roll call of past states to have hosted the tournament. With warm welcomes and approachable nature, unseen was the crime carnival that many anticipated South Africa 2010 to be. What was on display was an efficient yet partisan operation that was energetic and brought smiles to fans of all the visiting nations, a vibrancy that can be embodied by the recognisable tone of the vuvuzela.