Whose World Cup is this?
The World Cup is never just football.
It is joy. It is money. It is memory. It is politics wrapped in national colours. It is the sound of a country believing, even when the scoreboard has not yet caught up with the dream.
That is where Nqaba Mabece begins his latest Anchor Point reflection: with Bafana Bafana back on the World Cup stage. South Africa may not have had the start fans wanted, but for
Nqaba, the moment opens a much bigger conversation. Not only about Bafana, but about FIFA, power, scrutiny and who gets to belong in football’s biggest room.
His reflection moves backwards before it moves forward.
South Africa’s 2010 World Cup remains one of the country’s great modern memories. It was a tournament built under doubt. Before a ball was kicked, South Africa was told about crime, infrastructure, winter weather and all the reasons it supposedly could not host the world. That doubt was not just logistical. It carried something deeper. Nqaba calls it Afro-pessimism.
And yet, South Africa delivered.
The stadiums were built. Public transport systems were improved. The country welcomed the world. More importantly, South Africa showed that Africa could host a global spectacle with its own rhythm, its own flavour and its own sense of relevance.
That matters because the World Cup is not only a sporting event. As Nqaba recalls through Tokyo Sexwale’s framing, hosting the tournament can represent one of the biggest dollar-based investments a country can experience in a 30-day cycle. In other words, the World Cup is big business. Countries fight for it because the tournament brings prestige, infrastructure, visibility and money.
That is why scrutiny matters.
Nqaba’s central argument is not that host nations should be free from criticism. His point is that criticism should be consistent. South Africa was questioned. Brazil was questioned. Russia was questioned. Qatar was questioned. But now, he asks, where are the same voices when difficult questions are raised about the United States as a host?
The episode turns sharply when he reflects on the controversy around Somali referee Omar Atan, who, according to Nqaba’s monologue, was denied entry into the United States despite being part of FIFA’s tournament machinery. For Nqaba, this is not a small administrative issue. It goes to the heart of who gets access, who is protected, and whose participation is treated as negotiable.
Then he brings the question home.
What would the global reaction be, he asks, if South Africa behaved the same way? If a European or North American referee was denied entry after securing a visa? Would FIFA remain quiet? Would global media treat it with the same restraint?
That is the power of the episode. It does not allow football to hide from politics. But it also refuses to surrender football to politics entirely.
By the end, Nqaba returns to joy. Cabo Verde’s performance, Bafana’s return, African nations writing themselves into the story, and the simple truth that happiness still belongs to ordinary people.
“Happiness is free,” he says. “It’s ours.”
In a tournament shaped by money, power and politics, that may be the most important reminder of all.
Catch up on all Anchor Point episodes here: https://www.enca.com/anchor-point-we-didnt-vote-adopt-potholes-2-april-2026