The entire tournament was a big “I told you so” to all the naysayers, critics and whiners who insisted that this backwater at the tip of Africa could never stage an event on this level. Did South Africa ever prove them wrong!

Unfortunately, a World Cup does not end with the last blow of a whistle. There is often a legacy of projects that comes about to facilitate it, and some may be of no practical use once the tournament itself ends.

The most obvious example is the stadiums, and within that context, the recent debacle over the management of the Cape Town Stadium is a handy bullet for the naysayers.

So the obvious question then is: Did we actually benefit from the 2010 Fifa Soccer World Cup?

The problem with this question is that many people want a straight-up, black or white, yes or no answer. And depending on who you ask, you could get either answer, or anything in between.

According to Michael Lynch, global head of Sponsorship Management for Visa, in the period leading up to the first kickoff and the first week of tournament matches, spending by international visitors using Visa-branded payment cards exceeded US$128 million. At the current exchange rate, that is R869m.

Comparing that with the same period in 2009, there was a 54% boost from US$83m (R563m).

It should be kept in mind that Lynch’s information pertained only to Visa cards and a specific period of time. The use of MasterCard, American Express and Diners Club cards was not included; neither is there any mention of direct cash transactions.

Reporting shortly after a board meeting of the 2010 local organising committee, the group’s chief executive officer Danny Jordaan stated that, in total, the event had boosted the local pantry to the tune of R93bn.

That is not an insignificant amount.

And when you consider that the national government put out between R33bn and R40bn (if you include local government spending) of taxpayers’ money, the immediate answer then is that, yes, we did come out on top. To the tune of R53bn.

It takes a bit of thought, but the fact is that the World Cup was never a straight transaction, where South Africa bought it for R40bn from Fifa and then sold it to fans for R93bn. This seems to be the type of logic that most laypeople apply when thinking about the World Cup.

And when looked at in such a narrow profit/loss way, it is easy to come out of the process with a negative perception because the man on the street is really seeing that R93bn.

The truth is that the R93bn represents additional revenue spread out among a host of different economic sectors – hospitality, retail, transport, etc. – all of which received a payday specific to their sector.

Looked at holistically, the World Cup bumped our nation’s gross domestic product by 0.5%. In the space of a mere month, that is a significant movement.

According to Gillian Saunders, director of Advisory Services for Grant Thornton Strategic Solutions, “The World Cup absolutely benefited us,” which she went on to define as:

1. Economic impact – the aforementioned 0.5%;

2. Infrastructure projects – roads, telecommunications and airport improvements;

3. National pride – a revitalised can-do attitude that boosts our other efforts if it can be sustained; and

4. Improved international profile – foreigners now have a much more positive view of South Africa as a both a holiday and business destination.

“And it’s that last one that’s most important,” stressed Saunders. “I have tons of clips and comments from foreign journalists, saying: ‘I used to be a cynic, but South Africa is an amazing place. You guys really pulled it off.’

“The foreign press is flooded with positive stories about South Africa. And that kind of improved, positive perception overseas leads to foreign investment.

“And we are seeing it already. Consider Walmart’s (the world’s largest supermarket chain) interest in entering the local market. Those kind of enquiries spring directly from the World Cup,” she added.

“As there is a stronger reputation, it is predictable that there is a stronger inclination to invest,” said Dr Dominik Heil, managing director of the Reputation Institute South Africa, further galvanising the benefits the World Cup has provided.

As further proof, consider the recent announcement by Noah Greenhill, senior general manager at the Johannesburg Securities Exchange, that R20bn in equities have been bought by foreigners so far this year. There can be no better validation than that.

In early September, South Africa for the first time broke into the Top 20 priority host economies for foreign direct investment, according to the “World Investment Prospects Survey 2010-2012” compiled by the United Nations. The annual survey lists the countries most likely to offer solid return on investment, and the World Cup’s influence in pushing South Africa into the 19th position should not be underestimated.

These encouraging movements offer positive proof that South Africa has seen beneficial outcomes from the event.

The issue, however, is that many of these benefits are not immediate. The cold, hard cash value of the World Cup is something that is unlikely to emerge so soon after the conclusion of the tournament.

As Saunders concluded, “The World Cup was an ad campaign. If we had spent the same amount of money on a traditional campaign, we wouldn’t have got nearly as much positive spin from it.”

And that is the best way to look at the legacy of the World Cup. We have changed the nation’s international perception, and that change in perception will make it much easier to do business going forward.

Zaid Kriel