Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Noble Savagery: Racial Ideology and Reportage of the 2010 World Cup [The title change
Guy Berger
<a>Abstract
The 2010 World Cup in South Africa entailed a substantive volume and variety of media
examines a selection of the reported discourse around this issue. To the extent that the content
was evidently deemed fit for publication, the discourse is “mediated,” even though much is
often verbatim from sources rather than subjected to specifically journalistic significations.
However, by being made manifest within the media, the discourse’s assumptions are
promoted uncritically in the public arena. As such, there is currency to simplistic notions of
identity and race, and elisions between “South Africa” and “Africa.” Assumptions of a
uniform continent informed by “noble savage” imagery inform much of the discourse, with
paradigm. This creates a challenge for journalism to produce more complex representations
<a>Keywords: Africa, FIFA, ideology, journalism, media, nation, noble savage, race,
[Please see comment regarding the notes with Web addresses that I have inserted between the
1
<a>Introduction
In For all soccer World Cup events, much discourse is nationality colored and accordingly
partisan (see Kuper, 1994). Likewise, ideology that links soccer and masculinity is inevitably
reinforced by male-centered sports events such as the Fifa World Cup for men (see Creedon,
1994; Meân, 2010). The World Cup is also an occasion for renewed constructions of fandom
around football events is racism by (European) football supporters (Back et al., Crabbe, &
Solomos, 1999; McDonald, 2010). However, such topics would likely characterize the World
Cup event no matter where it is held. As important as they are for consideration, this article
focuses in upon what is more specifically generated by the actual location of this 2010 mega
event (see Czeglédy, 2009). It considers what the “symbolic geography” of the 2010 Cup
mean in terms of the observation that “media events have the power to redefine the
In this regard, the WC2010 competition has been signalled in relation to two
explicitly and implicitly inter-related locations. It is frequently remarked that 2010 marks the
novel experience of the World Cup being staged on the continent of Africa—an observation
that is accompanied by much verbiage about the event coming to “African soil.” The
connotations of this phrase (appearing even in Kenyan media1) articulate with notions of
ownership of “the land,” which in turn hark back to a preindustrial age (and to the bulk of
rural Africa) and also to the emotive issue of the restoration of title to indigenous peoples
after a brutal period of colonial confiscation and theft. These are common threads in African
nationalism and national liberation. Seen against this historical backdrop, the reference to
“African soil” in relation to the World Cup implies that the location of the 2010 event
constituted a belated but deserved recognition of the worth of a vast hitherto neglected and
2
exploited place. It entails a sense of profound justice for the residents of a region being
The phrase also feeds the notion that the 2010 World Cup is about “the promise of
prosperity and the arrival of African nations on the world stage” (Burnett, 2009, p. 10). As
expressed by former South African president Thabo Mbeki in 2009: “May the reward brought
by the FIFA World Cup prove that the long wait for its arrival on African soil has been worth
it.”2 The same sentiment was expressed, albeit more garishly, in 2010 by FIFA’s Sepp Blatter
100 days before the scheduled start of the games: “The FIFA World Cup in Africa is a love
story—a love story between the African continent and myself which began when I was the
technical director of FIFA. It has come a long way in a long time. . . . When this country was
awarded the World Cup, there was a lot of work to do. We had to convince people that one
day we would give back something to Africa. Africa has given so much to the world and to
the world of football. I’m very proud and very happy that this love story is coming to the
‘wedding celebration.’”3
Blatter seamlessly equates “this country” with “Africa” in his remark, but the rhetoric
aside, the exact location was, of course, not Africa as a whole. It was a single country at the
southern tip of a very disparate larger entity—which and this entity in turn is a category that
entails a conflation of social with geographical characteristics. This fusion between the
How the connection came to be created should be understood against the background
of post-apartheid South Africa having overcome its international isolation to not just
reintegrate with the rest of the world (including countries on the African continent), but to
also punch above its weight internationally and above that of other African states (and often
3
This phenomenon is partly a legacy of the global participation in the campaign against
apartheid, in which most African countries were united against the last bastion of white
democracy with an advanced constitution and a viable economy, it was widely seen as a fresh
breeze blowing on the continent. The role of Nelson Mandela, the first president of post-
apartheid South Africa, was part of this, and as an enduring icon of the country’s promise, it
was to be expected that, despite being retired, he was mobilized as a contributing factor in
persuading FIFA to award South Africa the rights to host the Cup, and to publicize the event
thereafter.
Especially in its first decade of democracy, South Africa was arguably a symbol of
how a broader Africa could overcome problems of despotism and underdevelopment. Indeed,
Mandela’s immediate successor, Thabo Mbeki, played a major role in keeping South Africa’s
international and especially African profile at a high level—for example, through peace-
keeping efforts around Africa, the reform of the discredited Organisation of African Unity,
into the African Union, and the launch of the “New Partnership for African Africa’s
Development” (NEPAD) program. Under Mbeki’s leadership, South Africa also maintained
prominent involvement in the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, and the G20. In
addition, post-apartheid South Africa succeeded in hosting several major sporting and other
international events. World-class convention centers have been built in the major cities, and
the tourism industry has grown enormously in the past decade. These factors set the stage
for why in 2004 South Africa could win the bid, in the name of the continent, to be the
location of the World Cup in 2004 2010 (even though internal FIFA politics also played a
part in working towards this ultimate outcome) (see Van der Merwe, 2009).
However, notwithstanding the list of achievements, an amount of gloss had also worn
off the “Rainbow Nation”rainbow nation by the 2004 award date, and the tarnishing
4
continued thereafter. Mbeki’s support for the dictatorial regime in neighboring Zimbabwe
and his denialism over of HIV/Aids accounted for part of this. Social problems such as crime,
poverty, and (more recently) violent xenophobia towards other Africans also marred the
country’s image. Closer to the 2010 staging, economic mismanagement leading to disruptions
of electrical power damaged the standing of the country as transcending Africa’s chronic
black-out problems. Racial abuse and political intimidation (including of the judiciary)
From a media point of view, adding to the negatives were legal and administrative
restrictions such as the 2009 Film and Publications Act Amendment Bill, and the gagging of
state prosecutors from speaking to journalists in 2010. Weighing in more broadly have been
clouds of corruption hanging over leading politicians, including cronies of the state president
sex life, which has fed into a stereotype of rampant black male libido. For instance, tabloid
reportage in the United Kingdom included that on March 2, 2010, when the Daily Mail
wrote: “Jacob Zuma is a sex-obsessed bigot with four wives and 35 children. So why is
It can therefore be legitimately posited that prior to the FIFA WC2010, post-apartheid
South Africa had entered an image phase that no longer differed from the perceived wider
African pattern of incompetent and authoritarian governance. Instead, by 2010, South Africa
had in several ways come to more closely resemble the image of many of its fellow countries
on the continent. No longer sheltered by an image of exceptionalism, the country thus became
susceptible to being placed in the same basket of negative judgments about much of the rest
of Africa.5
5
Parallel to this, the long-burning disaster in Zimbabwe, the violence in Kenya early in
2008, piracy off Somalia, and major tensions in Sudan did nothing to modify negative
perceptions of the continent as a whole. On the contrary, these phenomena lent themselves to
reinforcing a blanket image of a uniformly troubled entity. It can be posited too that the
demise of rhetoric (and the reality) around the African Renaissance, NEPAD, and the African
Peer Review Mechanism would have generated a sense of defeatism and cynicism in its wake
that may well have been less pronounced than if hopes had never been raised around these
In sum, prior to the World Cup, South Africa was a candidate for acquiring the
stubborn connotations of Africa being a vast black hole, where what little is known about the
totality is that wild and tribal identities provoke violence, that rapacious and corrupt Big Men
wield power, and that ordinary people on the continent are ravaged by conflict, poverty,
In Thus in this context, two countervailing discursive tendencies may be said to have
coexisted ahead of the Cup. One was a hangover leftover (but weakening) romanticism about
South African success, and the other was a growing “Afro-pessimism” about its failings.
Examples of the two are easily identified in the media (see below), and they are clearly
article, the World Cup build-up in effect presented these two views as alternatives—indeed,
as being the opposite extremes of desirable and undesirable representations. However, the
pair can just as easily be analyzed as twin dimensions of a single basic stereotype of (male)
“noble savagery.”
6
By way of exploring some of the factors that may have shaped the representations around
South Africa and Africa in the context of the Cup, one can consider possible dynamics
relating to the kinds of stories and language that surfaced in the media. The occasion of the
Cup fits with what Whannel (2002) has dubbed a “mega media event” which serves as a
“media vortex” that goes beyond narrow football coverage as such. Research in Finland into
coverage of the 2005 IAAF World Championships (Nylund, 2009, p. 126) shows that “what
caught the attention of the international press were the sports rather than the host city or
country.” This experience contrasts with frequent remarks that South Africa more broadly
than the soccer matches will would be the center of world attention (see, e.g.,
al.Broere, and de Bode (2010, p. 19), who state: “In the run-up to the World Cup and during
the event, Africa will be centre stage for a while instead of being forgotten.”
The truth probably lies between the two perspectives. Certainly, the anticipated
television audience, the numbers of visiting media, and the broad palette coverage were much
hyped by proponents of the Cup. However, for reasons related to South Africa’s unique
history, as well as the linkage to Africa more broadly, the Finnish experience of narrow-based
foreign coverage is not directly applicable to South Africa. Furthermore, it can be argued that
in the particular circumstances of questions whether the hosting would be successful, even a
narrow framing of the games inevitably also encompasses logistics, infrastructure, and
services. and tThese matters also reflect more broadly as generalizable information about
An earlier example of this phenomenon was occurred during the 2009 Confederations
Cup contest in South Africa, where the Egyptian team was reported to have been robbed. The
story, although the facts of the case were never entirely resolved, spun off into many other
angles. One was the wider narrative of crime in the country, including Brazil’s team also
7
being robbed, as expressed in the statement: “The incident made international headlines, amid
persistent concerns over high crime rates in South Africa in the run-up to the World Cup next
year.”6 Whether the theft was authentic or not was another issue raised. A further angle was
about male behavior, and dealt with whether the team had entertained sex workers in their
rooms, giving rise to headlines like “Carousing Egyptians Caught with Pants Down”7 and a
range of misogynistic labels as regards the alleged female thieves. A fourth aspect was the
Egyptian counter accusation that the prostitute story was a smear intended to divert attention
from the main issue of security.8 Similarly, and therefore unlike the Finnish case, the 2010
Cup could not but resonate more widely than the specifics of the matches themselves.
Another dynamic impacting on coverage of the World Cup relates partly to news
flows and agenda setting. This is not to generalize too much or to replicate stereotypes about
“Western” coverage, as if that was were homogeneous. However, visiting journalists would
inevitably have been informed to some extent by local coverage that they would either have
replicated or followed up on, even though also highlighting angles of relevance to their home
media constituencies. This was portrayed in a particular way by the Deputy Minister of
Police, Fikile Mbalula, with regard to the Egyptian burglary story noted above. According to
Mbalulahim: “Even with the Confederations Cup, the people who were promoting the story
of the Egyptians, exposing it and blowing it out of proportion, was the SA media and yet
when you come at an international level they feed that [on – GB] negativity.”9 It might have
been the case that some visiting journalists would have inevitably practiced “parachute
journalism”—i.e., poorly informed reporting that draws upon stereotypes and secondhand
representations (often produced by colleagues in the “pack,” and especially local journalists).
On the other handAlternatively, a different news flow direction has also been suggested.
Thus, government minister at the time Essop Pahad said in 2008: “We are aware that negative
stories will, from time to time, emerge in the international media. But the critical question
8
is[—]will the media in South Africa simply parrot those stories”?10 (see also Eberl, 2009).
The point emerging from this is that news flow itself does not mean that a news agenda is
either “positive” or “negative” in terms of representations. The bigger issue, rather, and
especially from the vantage point of this article, is the way the representations constitute a
given value-laden character, and how this plays between the country and the continent.
It can be argued that dominant news value traditions mean that many journalists—
local and domestic—are adherents of the media mind-set where “negative” stories such as
conflict and crime are top candidates for making the news. It is also the case that a number of
visitors observers would also have been interested in inclined towards confirming the story of
South Africa as rainbow revolution that ended up being mired in the dirt—the familiar myth
about youthful hopes being replaced by adult disillusion (see Lule, 2001). The general
negative image of Africa would have also lent itself to expectations of negative news coming
At the same time, there were certainly forces at work urging journalists to adopt a
“positive” news agenda. These include the activities of public relations agencies seeking to
influence coverage in favor of the event, its organizers, the host country, and the wider
continent.11 For example, the South African government stated: “CNN International which
has been working with South Africa Tourism and the 2010 LOC [Local Organizing
Committee – GB] for over 2 years on the bigger 2010 story, demonstrating clear
commitment to the Games far beyond and long before the phenomenal spectacle of football
matches being played across our nation.”12 The BBC was also reported to have agreed (in
exchange for cut-price rental of Cape Town broadcast premises) to “endeavour to include, if
and when, relevant references to the Western Cape.”13 In short, then, it is unlikely that there
would have been specific tendencies for coverage to align more with “negative” or with
9
The same assessment can be made as regards to whether nationality factors would
have influenced the tone of coverage. It has been observed in regard to Finland hosting the
2005 IAAF contest (Nylund, 2009, p. 138) that: “The more the newspapers wrote about the
event, the more speculations there were about future success. Due to its patriotic aspect,
sports news diverges most from the ideals of journalistic neutrality.” However, it is arguable
that most South African journalists would not have easily relinquished their professional
independence to become “patriotic” fans of the Cup. The then editor of City Press
newspaper, Khathu Mamaile, told a discussion group on the topic in 2008 that the media
would not conceal negatives, but would report on them alongside the positives. He indicated
about us that we want the world to know and how do we become the information leaders
when it comes to telling the world about the process of organising the World Cup?”14 An
sentiments colored the coverage in any highly noticeable way (even if there could have been
more investigative journalism into the costs and contracts around the Cup). One exception
was SABC, which had official broadcaster status and was thus implicated as an uncritical
promoter of the event. In general, however, it is safe to say that within the Cup-related
coverage by independent South African journalists, not much actually interrogated the
Overall, it can be stated that, whether emanating from local or foreign sources, and
whether dealing with “positive” or “negative” news values or mind-sets, or whether domestic
journalists were vulnerable to “patriotic” influences, much reported discourse around the Cup
certainly reflected particular ideological assumptions regarding the identity of the event
about the interconnection of country and continent were bound up with assumptions related
10
to race (conceived as origin in turn signalled by skin color), and a background of a global
Part of the original “pitch” by South Africa in bidding to host the World Cup was the
argument that this would be the first time the tournament would come to “Africa.” One of the
broader significances of this claim is that the notion that the continent is a place where people
(i.e., male youth) are deemed to be soccer crazy. “Images of African boys, shoeless, chasing
balls on an unkempt surface has for decades been the staple assignment of visiting
photojournalists,” writes Hawkey (2009, p. 57). Also significant, Africa is the source of a
large number of top players (who, however, leave to work abroad) (Hawkey, 2009, p. 10).
Even although South Africa itself has relatively few such success stories, there are arguably
still enough to associate with wider African experiences. For those who follow football
closely, the South African bid can also be seen against the background of a FIFA history that
was not especially friendly to countries on the continent. According to Hawkey (2009, p.
124), “it was slow burner” with FIFA long obstructing African participation in the World
Cup. The organization refused to even grant a single automatic place amongst the 16 finalists
in the 1966 Cup, and it allowed African countries only 2 of 24 places in the tournament by
1982. Earlier, FIFA had not only refused to recognize the team fielded by the Algerian
national liberation movement, but even threatened to expel any member country who played
against those representing the (then) rebel French colony (Hawkey, 2009, p. 119). There is,
in short, a history of “Africa” with regard to FIFA. The South African “pitch” in co-opting
the African thematic to its cause may have resonated with FIFA’s need for redress against
this backdrop. A different perspective, however, and though only occasionally reflected in
the media, is that it suited FIFA to exploit “new turf” for its core business, and a region
11
comprising developing countries (i.e., Africa) was more susceptible than developed states to
At any rate, the proponents of the Cup took great pains to continuously emphasize
their elision between South Africa and Africa in the perceived historical delay in staging the
tournament (somewhere) in Africa. According to the South African government: “As the host
of the 2010 FIFA World CupTM, South Africa stands not as a country alone—but rather as a
representative of Africa and as part of an African family of nations.” It continued: “From the
beginning of the bid process South Africa committed that the 2010 World Cup would be an
African World Cup. The bid book proclaimed: ‘Africa’s time has come, and South Africa is
ready.’”15 What this means, in the expressed view of the South African government, is that
the event is also different to from other large sporting events in South Africa because “the
legacy benefits are not to be confined to the host country.” Indeed, there have been reports of
a degree of real planning to ensure a spread of benefits to the wider Southern African region
and beyond. Seven A number of areas were designated for collaborative projects—covering
inter alia culture, telecommunications, football support and development, and peace and
nation building. [Please supply the seventh area in the previous sentence.] FIFA itself has
also promoted several projects around the wider continent under the titles “Win in Africa
with Africa” and “Football for Hope Centers.” The extent to which these initiatives actually
materialized is not the issue here (as important as it is), but rather the way that the reported
intention served to substantiate the constructed coincidence of South African and rest-of-
Africa benefit.
The language therefore was that the event was not just a “South African,” but an
“African,” World Cup. In this, it can be noted that—perhaps as a function of the weakness of
the national team (Bafana Bafana)—that the project prior to the tournament was not generally
12
theme in the build-up period therefore was not to pin a case on unifying South Africans as
fans of a squad that would symbolize the hopes of one particular nation against other nations.
Rather, it was, in effect, an attempted mobilization qua Pan-African identity. It is the case
that some efforts (with some success) did go into the construction of national traditions like
the “Football Friday” (where South Africans were encouraged to wear any—and not
necessarily the national team’s—soccer jersey at the end of each working week), the “diski
dance,” and the use of makarapa hats or vuvuzela trumpets during matches. However, ahead
of the contest actually commencing, much of the discourse was about a wider level of identity
For South Africa to be presented as a stand-in symbol for the continent more broadly
only “works,” however, inasmuch there is a reductionism where Africa can be treated as a
singular entity— i.e., a semantically meaningful signifier. The question then is what is being
signified. Much has been written about “Africa” as if the term had a clear-cut and coherent
meaning with a referent that is a meaningful entity. However, French (20052004, p. xiii) has
written: “Africa eludes us; it is so clearly outlined on the map, and yet so difficult to
define. . . . The continent is simply too large and too complex to be grasped easily. . . .
Instead, we categorize and oversimplify, willy-nilly; ignoring that for the continent’s
inhabitants the very notion of Africanness is an utterly recent abstraction, born of Western
subjugation, of racism and exploitation.” This remark points to the fact that “Africa” is a
semantic construct with multiple extant meanings.16 One of these is a view that Africa is
about wildlife. Here, it is signalled that this is one of the last places in the world where
humanity’s pre-historical travails are still present in the highly visible and violent form of
predators killing other animals. This phenomenon is clearly something that can pose a threat
to humans in the process—although humans in the form of poachers also sometimes threaten
13
On its own, this image is often interpreted as generally positive, albeit scary, although
it is also negative as regards the role of African persons, especially those categorized as
considered in isolation of local people. When “Africa” is used to designate primarily people,
it tends to (silently) dissolve the coincidence of the term with a physical landmass, and refers
instead to dark-skinned persons who largely live south of the Sahara. The people categorized
thus are projected as different to humans elsewhere, and, by outsiders, as being exotic Others.
One rendition of this is the notion of a people who are untouched by the West’s culture of
individualistic atomization and materialism, and who instead still retain elements of an
untarnished state-of-nature character. This means a view of Africans as naïve and innocent,
and as bearers of natural capacity for music and dance—or, in the case of football, possessed
of an intrinsic racial affinity for the skills for the game (see McDonald, 2010). This picture,
although insulting and racist, is nevertheless generally painted positively. However, there is
also a negative interpretation whereby black Africans are seen as adherents of primitive
lifestyles and as people susceptible to supernatural beliefs rather than science and rationalism.
There are also, as noted earlier, negative assumptions about blackness also amounting to
As suggested above, South Africa prior to the Cup was no longer inviolate in terms of
being amalgamated into the negative constructions of (black) “Africa,” which was precisely
not the image of the continent that the Cup’s proponents sought to associate with South
Africa as a host country. The challenge for such proponents was to construct a connection
that would try to replace adverse connotations with different ones. In the words of Phil
Molefe, one of the SABC executives charged with the corporation’s relationship to the Cup,
“South Africa is the stage, but the entire continent is the theater.”17 The point of this metaphor
is to stress a particular interdependence between the two spaces with regard to a spectacle. A
14
good show, by implication, reflects its glory on the theater, and a good theater does the same
to the stage. However, the same kind of assimilation between part and whole was not
necessarily a feature of all World Cup rhetoric. As South Africa’s Danny Jordaan pointed out
during the attack in Cabinda on the Togolese team during the Africa Cup of Nations:
<ext>to To say what happened in Angola impacts on the World Cup in South Africa
is the same as suggesting that when a bomb goes off in Spain, it threatens London’s
ability to host the next Olympics. It is nonsensical for South Africa to be tainted with
what happens in Angola, which is not even one of our neighbouring countries.18
Luanda, Angola. Therefore, it seems if you fly from London, three-and-a-half hours
and land in Moscow, Russia, that anything, which happens between London and
Moscow from a security standpoint, should see that the Premier League would not
continue. It does not make any sense at all and I think we must be careful not to use
The difficulty for Jordaan lies in the rhetorical claim that South Africa is part of Africa, and
yet also then seeking to distance the country from negatives elsewhere on the continent. It is
not a case of South Africa just so happening to share the same land mass as Cabinda, as one
broadcast blogger wrote.20 Irrespective of explicit attempts to construct the stage-theater link,
(and in a “positive” way), it can be argued that there already existed an implicit “negative”
In this light, Jordaan’s arguments had to compete against the way that the continent is
Such a perspective of a homogenized Africa does not come from nowhere. It is related to a
15
unique and shared history of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, extensive (albeit varied)
colonization and often naked racial domination of people classified as “black.” It also
the notion of “African” is not always understood in terms of these material and historical
roots—but rather in terms of a racial register where “blackness” is treated not as a social
construct over a long history (see Van Wyk Smith, 2010), but as an intrinsic cause or at least
a feature assumed to have some explanatory agency. For Afro-pessimists, race is thus
responsible for the failures around Africa. For Afro-resisters, on the contrary, “black is
beautiful.” Clearly, this highly simplistic binary shares a common essentialistic approach to
the matter of skin color. It is in fact a particular rendition of the noble savage stereotype
discussed below.
The “gamble” of South Africa, as the host country for the World Cup playing the “Africa”
ticket, took place against all this background. The character of the part was partly dependent
on the whole in the first instance. However, the proponents of the event hoped to create and
highlight the positive readings of both the part and the whole. They sought to ensure that the
extant negatives of the overall continental branding would not predominate over national
specificity, yet they also hoped that national success could work to improve the image of the
continent as a whole.21 Thus, South Africa’s success in 2010 was often presented as being
central to the image of other countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. The idea was that “Brand
Africa” stands to benefit from “Brand South Africa,” with some discourse in South Africa
supporting this view by making reference to the Anholt-GfK Roper Nation Brands Index.22
Similarly, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon was reported as saying that the Cup
would have “great power” to present “a different story of the African continent, a story of
16
peace, democracy and investment.”23 Black Africa as a whole, it was proposed in this kind of
The expressed aspiration of South Africa’s hosting as benefiting “Africa” was also
explicitly and frequently stressed by South Africans—some of whom are mindful of resentful
perceptions amongst many around the continent that the South Africans behave like the
“Yankees” of Africa. Thus, the South African government’s point of view ahead of the
tournament was that hosting the games “will make the nation and continent proud.”24
Addressing the international media in August 2008, the then minister Pahad was reported as
<ext>getting out from underneath the welter of negative press coverage our continent
receives. It is about informing the world that Africa has much to offer, that our people
are ready to receive the world, ready to host those who come to the World Cup and
that when they come they will receive a wonderfully unforgettable African
experience.
In this quotequotation, “our people” are not portrayed as South African, but as providing a
generalized “African” experience—with the essentialist message being that there is a single
and positive “African experience” (most probably “black,” and which is directly available
many further reported remarks around the event. The Pan-African rationale was espoused by
former President president Thabo Mbeki, who stated: “We want, on behalf of our continent,
to stage an event that will send ripples of confidence from the Cape to Cairo—an event that
will create social and economic opportunities throughout Africa. . . . We want to ensure that
one day, historians will reflect upon the 2010 FIFA World Cup as a moment when Africa
17
stood tall and resolutely turned the tide on centuries of poverty and conflict. We want to show
This drive to affirm conceptual assimilation of South Africa and Africa, and its
implicit affirmation of blackness, rings somewhat hollow against, amongst other things, the
reality of xenophobic violence that peaked during 2008 and that still persists in parts of South
Africa. The drive also has to contend with, as argued earlier, the default (negative) linkage
between the image of the country and that of the continent. FIFA itself reinforced this with an
official reportedly saying, for example, that there would be no room for “African time” in
organizing the Cup, again an implicit racial reference being levelled in this.26 As
demonstrated by the Cabinda attack case during the 2009 Confederations, attention drawn to
which reinforce rather than replace perceptions of the continent and of the racial
FIFA itself is also a brand that is not wholly positive in terms of representing Africa.
The Gambia is a case in point. There, the tyrannical leader Yahya Jammeh co-opted a FIFA
public relations gimmick in 2009 to legitimize his personal despotism. He used the African
tour of the winners’ trophy for a public stadium spectacle, offending even FIFA by personally
holding the Cup. At least in the eyes of media-freedom advocates, this association discredited
some of the symbolism of the “beautiful game” being held in “Africa.” A regime with
journalists’ blood on its hands arguably transferred the stain to the trophy. Less dramatically,
in Zimbabwe, the contract to sell FIFA hospitality packages was awarded (without a tender)
to tyrant Robert Mugabe’s nephew Philip Chiyangwa, who is also the subject of international
co-owned by Sepp Blatter's nephew Philippe Blatter.27 In South Africa itself, FIFA’s
18
coverage to the effect that the government had sold the country out to foreign interests—an
The implication of these kinds of associations was that the Cup could potentially work
to confirm wider prejudices that the continent is not a destination to desire. It was initially
presented in some circles as a place to be avoided. One example of this kind of imagery is the
story of a German security expert saying that his country’s team should wear bullet-proof
vests during their visit.28 Likewise, British tabloid The Star wrote that “England fans could
be caught up in a machete race war at the World Cup in South Africa” in the wake of the
murder of Eugene Terreblanche.29 Another UK tabloid, The Sun, warned its readers not to
have casual sex while in South Africa, raising the spectre of HIV infection.30
At the other end of spectrum of imaging Africa, FIFA’s Sepp Blatter has presented a
different construction of the games. He is quoted as saying that Africa as a continent is unlike
“boring, boring, boring” Zurich.31 He continued: “In Africa, you have not only rhythm, but
you also have music, dance and, importantly, the ability to dream.”32 Some Africans
themselves have also espoused this view. For instance, Kenyan public relations expert Peter
Mutie has argued that the World Cup should be used to shape global perceptions of Africa by
highlighting that “Africans” are vibrant, energetic, capable, and warm, with governments
committed to political stability.33 Kgalema Motlanthe, at the time the South African
president, was reported in 2009 to have said that the true legacy of Cup would be showcasing
South African and African hospitality and humanity—to change, once and for all, perceptions
of our country and our continent among the peoples of the world.34
The discourse at work in all this is that of the “Noble noble Savagesavage” as applied
to people seen as “black.” The Blatter, Mutie, and Motlanthe remarks play to the “noble” part
of the couplet—Blatter’s expressing envy for a people presumed to be uninhibited and with
pre-modern, naïve, and childlike qualities. The bullet-proof vest and the AIDS and the sexual
19
danger stories underscore the “savagery” dimension: the threat of warlike people in a place
that is dark, unpredictable, and dangerous. In a nutshell, the two stereotypes signify “African”
and “blackness” as risky, incompetence, backward, on the one hand, and filled with warmth,
The point then is that prior to its commencement, the World Cup in South Africa was
frequently constructed in and via media as a choice between nobility and savagery
dimensions. However, the two aspects go hand in hand, and their binary character means a
logic in which if one side of the stereotype does not work, then the other kicks in. That
and contradictory realities that belie reduce escape easy or enduring reduction to a single
stereotype.
<a>Conclusion
The challenge for the media during the Cup was whether more complex realities could be
appreciated and reflected in such a way as to disrupt both the negative and the romantic
clichés. In theory, reportage could have shown the huge diversity both within and between
South Africa and Africa. This is not just diversity with “races,” but also between economic
classes and between genders, between urban and rural, between law abiding and criminal, and
so on. A mix of noble and savage imagery does not achieve this: it remains within narrow
ideological parameters. At the same time, the realm of representation is not a self-contained
external reality that has a way of making itself known and helping to shape and change
understandings. The issue therefore around the World Cup was the extent to which
required exceptional reflectiveness on assumptions about the identity and locality of the Cup,
20
and an open-mindedness to different readings and representations that would go went beyond
This article has explored some of the image issues reflected in coverage of the 2010
World Cup. As argued earlier, there has been romanticism about South African
exceptionalism and success and as a beacon for the rest of the continent, and a rival “Afro-
pessimism” about both the country and the continent portrayed as a generalizable whole.
These are complex concepts, which both separate and integrate South Africa from other
African countries. The “positive” and the “negative” are also often presented as incompatible,
and as either/or alternatives. Yet, at the same time, it can be seen that they are equally
interdependent components of the “noble savage” stereotype inasmuch as they operate along
This Thus this observation helps to explain why both aspects have continued to be
manifested in media representations generated by the hosting of the 2010 World Cup in South
remote audiences would have played an active role in leaning towards one reading or the
other, or to combining the two extremes in an equally simplistic manner. The media
challenge, however, has been to give meaning to a reality that indeed can be characterized as
being contradictory, and as far more complicated than a simple “positive” or “negative” or
even a mixture of these two options. The challenge has been for discourse and reportage to
generate representations that show more clearly the range of realities entailed around this
mega event.
In addition to the noble savage stereotypes, a new image arguably entered the
discourse once the Cup commenced: that of world-class stadiums and super-modern visual
effects, luxury hotels, happy tourists, celebrity-worthy restaurants, and urban shopping malls.
Again, this is arguably a highly inadequate stereotype for comprehending South Africa, let
21
alone the broader continent. The coverage of the Cup is likely to have countered some of the
notwithstanding the bomb blast against fans watching the televised closing ceremony in
Uganda. However, whether the negative image has been replaced by other equally simplistic
reductionisms or whether they together all point people towards the reality of enormous
diversity and complexity is a topic that calls out for further research. [What a wonderful
Back, L., Crabbe, T., & Solomos, J. (1999). Beyond the racist/hooligan couplet: race, social
Berger, G. (2010). Africa and media imagery. Keynote presentation to: Pan African Media
Conference, Nation Media Group & Africa Media Initiative, Nairobi, 18–19 March, 2010.
%20conference.doc
Burnett, C. (2009). Making gender count beyond 2010. Gender and Media Diversity Journal.
7, 10–17.
Creedon, P. J. (Ed.). (1994). Women, media and sport: challenging gender values. London:
Sage.
Czeglédy, A. P. (2009). A World Cup and the Construction of African reality. In U. Pillay, R.
Tomlinson, & O. Bass (Eds.), Development and dreams: The urban legacy of the 2010
Football World Cup (pp. 281–295). Cape Town: HSRC Press.et al, (2009), pp. 281–295.
Dayan, D and Katz, E. (1992). Media Events. The live broadcasting of history. Cambridge,
22
[Retrieved date, please.]Eberl, N. (2009). Why's the international press digging for 2010 dirt?
http://www.bizcommunity.com/Article/196/147/37223.html
Fair, J. E. (1993). “War, Famine, and Poverty: Race in the Construction of Africa’s Media
Franks, S. (2005). “The neglect of Africa,” British Journalism Review, 16, 1, 59–64.
French, H. (2004). A Continent for the Taking: The Tragedy and Hope of Africa. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf.
Hawkey, I. (2009). Feet of the chameleon. The story of African football. Johannesburg: Wild
Dog Press.
Hundley, H. L., & Billings, A. C. (Eds.). (2010). Examining Identity in Sports Media.
London: Sage.
Lule, J. (2001). Daily News, Eternal Stories. The Mythological Role of Journalism. New
York: Guilford.
23
Meân, L. J. (2010). Making masculinity and framing feminity: FIFA, soccer and World Cup
web sites. In H. L. Hundley & A. C. Billings (Eds.), Examining Identity in Sports Media
http://www.teachingliterature.org/teachingliterature/pdf/multi/images_of_africa_michira.p
df.
National and International Press Coverage of the IAAF World Championships in Helsinki
Pillay, U., Tomlinson, R., & Bass, O. (Eds.). (2009). Development and dreams. The urban
legacy of the 2010 Football World Cup. Cape Town: HSRC Press.
Van der Merwe, J. (2009). The road to Africa: South Africa’s hosting of the ‘African’ World
Cup. In U. Pillay, R. Tomlinson, & O. Bass (Eds.), Development and dreams: The urban
legacy of the 2010 Football World Cup (pp. 18–32). Cape Town: HSRC Press.In Pillay, et
Van Wyk Smith, M. (2010). The First Ethiopians: The Image of Africa and Africans in the
Verwer, S., Broere M., & de Bode, C. (2010). Africa United. The road to twenty ten.
Whannel, G. (2002). Media Sport Stars: masculinities and moralities. London: Routledge.
[Please provide the Retrieved dates for the notes with Web addresses. The note will read:
24
1
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from
http://www.nation.co.ke/sports/football/-/1102/837432/-/11js04c/-/, and
http://www.nation.co.ke/magazines/football/Home%20of%20kids%20who%20aspire%20to%20be
%20great%20/-/1224/879196/-/2h6d4y/-/index.html
2
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from www.Fifa.com/worldcup/finaldraw/news/newsid=1143652.html
3
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from www.sa2010.gov.za/node/2868 and
www.southafrica.info/2010/100days4.htm
4
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1254748/Jacob-Zuma-
sex-obsessed-bigot--Britain-fawning-him.html
5
See “Alarming drop in SA’s media image.” Retrieved September 25, 2010, from
http://www.project2010.co.za/2010_World_Cup_media.asp?PN=8
6
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.sport24.co.za/Soccer/ConfedCup/Thieves-strike-
Brazil-hotel-20090622
7
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?
art_id=vn20090621054622695C561653
8
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://goal.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/reported-burglary-of-
egyptian-players-turns-tawdry/
9
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from
http://www.sabcnews.com/portal/site/SABCNews/menuitem.4db0398e8cee80702ea12ea1674daeb9/?
vgnextoid=9b865081520f3210VgnVCM10000077d4ea9bRCRD&vgnextfmt=print
10
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.imc.org.za/news-and-press-releases/16-ncp-news/1-
injecting-confidence-in-sa.html
11
See Nylund (2009, pp. 128–129) for how the then forthcoming IAAF in Finland was presented as an
event of great promise in terms of economic success and international publicity, and how domestic
coverage (using mainly male sources) was primarily positive or neutral with only 12 percent negative.
12
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.sa2010.gov.za/node/2603
13
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from
http://www.iolproperty.co.za/roller/news/entry/bbc_walks_out_on_ugly
14
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.imc.org.za/news-and-press-releases/16-ncp-news/1-
injecting-confidence-in-sa.html
15
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.sa2010.gov.za/african-legacy
16
See Fair (1993); Franks (2005); Golan (2008); Hachten (2004); Michira (2002).
17
[Please provide the year, in addition to the retrieved date.]Reported in Open Source, newspaper of the
puts-south-africa-on-its-heels/
19
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://theworldgame.sbs.com.au/news/408255/lets-not-get-
hysterical-277042
20
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://twghidden.sbs.com.au/scott-mcintyre/blog/408255/Let
%27s%20not%20get%20hysterical
21
See: “Is Africa misbranded?” Melissa Davis. 21 August 2007. Issued by Meropa Communications.
http://nation-branding.info/2009/03/11/south-africa-nation-branding-hopes/
23
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://allafrica.com/stories/200910221081.html
24
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.sa2010.gov.za/node/2603
25
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.imc.org.za/news-and-press-releases/16-ncp-news/1-
injecting-confidence-in-sa.html
26
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.project2010.co.za/2010_World_Cup_media.asp?
PN=8
27
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?
set_id=1&click_id=84&art_id=vn20100222065008749C381670
28
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?
art_id=vn20091022042619291C106841&click_id=2871&set_id=6, http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-
10-22-2010-a-safetyfirst-approach-from-the-germans
29
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/129402/World-cup-fans-
face-bloodbath/
30
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1018041.ece
31
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.sa2010.gov.za/en/node/1065
32
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://bundesligavibes.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/sepp-blatter-
grouse-over-zurich-and-profess-his-love-for-africa/
33
Retrieved September 25, 2010, from http://www.imc.org.za/news-and-press-releases/16-ncp-news/1-
injecting-confidence-in-sa.html
34
“We relish 2010 opportunity – SA President.” Retrieved September 25, 2010, from
http://www.Fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1017401/index.html