By David Owen
I came upon a prescient article from the Washington Post today.
It was about a West African country where poverty was said to be fuelling a resurgence of Muslim fundamentalism.
“People want schools, they want medical attention for their children,” a local sociologist was quoted as saying.
“But who is listening to them?
“Islamists, who provide them with water and fertiliser to believe the solutions are found in religion.
“And many see violence as the only resort.”
There was also said to be “widespread bitterness” over the decision to “spend nearly $100 million over five years to build five stadiums and other infrastructure” to hold the Cup of Nations.
Yes, the country is Mali and the article was written as long ago as 2001, in the wake of the “9/11” terrorist attack on the United States.
And, while it would plainly be preposterous to blame a football competition for what has been happening there in recent weeks, coming across the article today – in the run-up to Sunday’s 2013 Cup of Nations final in Johannesburg between Nigeria and Burkina Faso – did spark some pretty searching questions over the sport’s investment strategy on the continent.
Football can be a real force for good in Africa.
The Boots for Africa campaign strikes me as an example of a simple idea that did some real good; the Craig Bellamy Foundation in Sierra Leone illustrates the sort of bridges that this most global of sports can build; Patrick Vieira is one of a number of Africa-born players who have supported grass-roots initiatives on the continent.
But I wonder if those Malian stadia were really the most sensible use of funds in what is a desperately poor country.
I wonder how many Malian lives have been changed significantly for the better over the decade or so since that 2002 Cup of Nations infrastructure was built.
Nor is this an arcane historical point, or merely an attempt to look wise after the event: it is pertinent to raise the same sort of questions about the nature of football spending in recent years in South Africa, host of the 2013 Cup of Nations.
South Africa is a much wealthier, more populous place than Mali.
Its gleaming crop of new football stadia was built, of course, for the 2010 FIFA World Cup.
This at least offered the Rainbow Nation the opportunity to strut its stuff for a month as the absolute centre of world attention, a status whose benefits are both potentially incalculable and hard to calculate.
Even allowing for that, I have never been able to understand how the new stadia, with two or three exceptions, could possibly pay their way over the longer term.
The present Cup of Nations, remember, is something of a bonus, having been awarded initially to Libya – a country which, ironically, whatever its other problems, could certainly have used, and probably afforded, the infrastructure the tournament would have delivered.
It could be argued, indeed, that there is a far stronger case for adopting UEFA boss Michel Platini’s grande idée of a continent-wide tournament played at the best existing venues in Africa than there is in Europe.
In fact, I think African football decision-makers should give serious thought to doing just that – except that the African model should be flexible enough to allow one or two new stadia to be built for each new tournament, in locations where they are demonstrably needed.
If Europe can no longer afford the luxury of sporting white elephants, then Africa certainly can’t.
Meanwhile, if anyone can tell me about how useful, or otherwise, that Malian Cup of Nations infrastructure has proved to be, I would be grateful.
David Owen worked for 20 years for the Financial Times in the United States, Canada, France and the UK. He ended his FT career as sports editor after the 2006 World Cup and is now freelancing, including covering the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the 2010 World Cup and London 2012. Owen’s Twitter feed can be accessed at www.twitter.com/dodo938