World Cup, South Africa 2010 – Facing up to Responsibilities

The World Cup is a major event for South Africa. Appropriately enough, it is being celebrated as an international vote of confidence not only in the country, but also the continent. While stories of despair often dominate news from Africa, many of the continent’s economies are booming, and many countries are undergoing democratic transition now.

South Africa has a particular significance for the international community. Its miracle-like transformation from being a state that systematically discriminated against the majority of its citizens to a state with a constitution that provides real protection to economic, social, and cultural rights, in addition to civil and political rights, is an important benchmark in the development of the global struggle for human rights. It is in that regard that the steps the cup’s organizers have taken to ensure that the event goes through smoothly are particularly troubling.

South Africa has closed its border with Lesotho during the month-long festivities, which is a severe restriction on the free movement of the Basotho people. While every nation has the right to guard its borders, and can impose restrictions at certain times, imposing such indiscriminate restrictions is wrong: not everyone who commutes between Lesotho – a landlocked country surrounded by South Africa where a third of the population are HIV positive and the economy is virtually bankrupt, – and its larger neighbour is a football fan, or likely to disrupt the championship.

Many are workers, and such restrictions prevent them from realizing their right to work, or earning an income. Vuyani Tyhali, a trade unionist and initiator of the Lesotho People's Charter Movement, points out that when Japan play Cameroon in the World Cup on 14 June in Bloemfontein, the sound of fans blowing their vuvuzela horns will almost be audible in Maseru. Yet Basotho, with their worthless travel documents (and a team that is ranked 152nd in the world), will not be able to attend.

There are also major concerns about trafficking of women and children. Whenever a large event takes place, businesses and traders see the influx as an opportunity to do business. Sex workers are also drawn to such events – some come out of choices, some are sold by impoverished families in exchange for goats across the Zimbabwean border, for example, many more are forcibly trafficked by gangs.

South Africa’s 1996 constitution expressly forbids slavery, but it has no specific law against human trafficking in all its forms. Aid groups estimate that some 38,000 children are trapped in the sex trade. This is a form of modern-day slavery from which the South Africa government cannot shy away.

A Time Magazine journalist reported in January this year: "During a three-week investigation into human-trafficking syndicates operating near two stadiums, I found a lucrative trade in child sex. The children, sold for as little as $45, can earn more than $600 per night for their captors."

One trafficker told the Time magazine reporter: "I'm really looking forward to doing more business during the World Cup." The reporter goes on to add: "We were speaking at his base overlooking Port Elizabeth's new Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium. Already, he had done brisk business among the stadium's construction workers."

During the run-up to the World Cup, several organizations have pointed out the treatment of workers in construction projects. Large stadiums are being built, and in some cases that has led to eviction of people from their homes, to make way for the facilities.

“We’ve already witnessed a brutal crackdown on shack dwellers, street traders, homeless people, street children, sex workers and the organized poor that is likely to get worse as evictions escalate and the police do more shooting-to-kill in the run-up to the World Cup,” Richard Pithouse, an academic at Rhodes University, wrote back in 2009.

Immigrants who are making their way to South Africa to look for work in the construction sector have been attacked. Thousands of informal traders will lose access to income due to FIFA’s "exclusion zones" around all the World Cup stadiums which only allow for approved businesses. Meanwhile, widespread concerns remain about the condition in which the footballs and World Cup merchandise merchandise are being made within global supply chains of the sporting goods industry and other sponsors.

At the end of it, the workers in the construction industry in South Africa scooped a 12% salary increment by leveraging their strike on completion of FIFA 2010 World Cup stadiums. Other sectors have used the FIFA 2010 World Cup as a point of leverage. While it is anticipated that corporations shall benefit from the fun and sport of football lovers, it becomes apparent that competitions such as the World Cup and Olympics expose various dialectics that can be used by both business and society to make much needed progress towards better dignity for all and good returns for business.

None of this resembles the promise of a clean, healthy competition that was expected when South Africa was chosen to host the World Cup. The Government’s obligations are clear enough. But sports events of this magnitude are major marketing opportunities for the world’s large corporations. What are the responsibilities of the construction companies, the sponsors, the hotel chains, the privately-owned media when it comes to these mega-sporting events?

They too bear a burden of responsibility to respect the rights of the host country citizens, the migrant workers, the factory workers in their global supply chains producing World Cup merchandise, and to protect against abuses to the greatest extent possible. It is also important to look at the responsibility of FIFA, as the world-governing body for the sport, in this mix. In a 2009 report on the impact of major international sporting events on the right to adequate housing, and the related right to non-discrimination, the UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing Raquel Rolnik notes the following:

"Overall, FIFA procedures lack information accessible to the general public. Transparency and accountability are crucial to guarantee that the event will not undermine, but enhance, the human rights of local populations. In addition, although FIFA regularly issues rules of conduct applicable to each bidding process, there is no normative framework applicable to all bids. Guidelines for all bidding procedures must be adopted by FIFA. As no housing concerns have been introduced to the FIFA bidding process, there seem to be no means to assess and ensure candidates’ compliance with the right to adequate housing."

In the run-up to the World Cup in South Africa, there have been campaigns for improved access to water and sanitation, responsible tourism, promotion of basic education, some of which have been supported by the private sector and NGOs, and they have established a link between football, social responsibility and the respect of human rights.

Companies associated with the World Cup, as with other major sporting events, must ensure that workers they employ are treated fairly, and their rights to a fair wage, to organize, to bargain collectively, and against exploitation are respected. Manufacturers must ensure that in their supply chain there is no exploitation of workers in developing countries, and no use of exploitative child labour or forced labour. Construction companies, catering companies, and other service businesses should not encourage practices that restrict trading opportunities for small traders and other businesses. They should also make sure that they are not in any way complicit in trafficking of women or children.

The private sector needs to enter into dialogue with host governments, and governing bodies, such as FIFA, raising concerns of where companies’ responsibility to respect international human rights standards may be compromised by the states’ lack of willingness to protect its citizens. Ignorance or inaction are tantamount to complicity.

When apartheid ended in South Africa, it joined the international community of open, democratic countries. Such countries do not erect walls with their neighbours; nor do they prevent their poorest and vulnerable citizens from practicing their trade legally. The peaceful transition of South Africa was meant to be an example of removing barriers and opening frontiers.

Tear down those walls.