The jury is not out on this one: Africa should be hosting the World Cup in 2006. The continent is long overdue, having made a significant contribution to world soccer in the past 20 years.

The problem is Africa -- and South Africa -- does not represent the kind of image or market that FIFA's sponsors are looking for. The perception is that Africa -- and South Africa -- is a bad place full of bad people.

Nelson Mandela's successor as South African president, Thabo Mbeki, made two significant diplomatic blunders in the months before the World Cup vote.

First, he made the assertion that AIDS was not caused by the HIV virus, a statement that was ridiculed the world over as being quite simply wrong. Secondly, he supported Robert Mugabe as the Zimbabwe prime minister fueled a campaign of murder and violence against white farmers in Zimbabwe.

In a report in The Daily Mail, a South African soccer fan was quoted as saying after the loss of the 2006 World Cup: "We've got Mugabe to blame for this."

In truth, neither of Mbeki's miscalculations was fatal to the South African cause -- the country's murder rate was probably it's worst selling point -- but they added to the perception some people have that Africa is not ready to host major events such as the World Cup.

Recent news stories have only contributed to the notion that Africa is not capable of hosting the World Cup.

For example, a Reuters report out of Johannesburg stated: "Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe has put postcolonial land distribution firmly on the African agenda, but the way he has done so has badly dented international confidence in the future of the continent. . . .

"Zimbabwe's slide into social and economic collapse has scared off many investors, and it has brought the political and military instability that many consider endemic to Africa to the northern border of the continent's showpiece society, South Africa.

" 'The real problem is the contagion effect. The perception that what is happening in Zimbabwe may at some point in the future happen here (South Africa),' said Michael Novak, the International Monetary Fund's assistant director for Africa."

A Newsday report had this to say: "We are on the precipice of a new African era. And yet, the largest city (Johannesburg) in the strongest country on the continent is a mess. And the nation itself is not far behind."

Sorry, where do you want that World Cup?

In many people's minds, South Africa is still regarded as the only place in Africa that can stage the World Cup, partly, I suspect, because some people still see South Africa as a "white man's" country. South Africa has already hosted the rugby World Cup very successfully and will have the cricket World Cup in 2003 and really there is little doubt that it is capable of hosting the soccer World Cup.

The error in people's thinking has always been that it deserves the World Cup. Read the following newspaper extracts:

"South Africa should have got the World Cup because nobody in Germany or in England really needs the World Cup." -- Bill Bradshaw in The Observer.

"The rich get richer and a country deserving a shot in the arm gets another kick in the pants." -- Dan Moscoe, The Japan Times.

South Africa should have been given the World Cup because "hosting the tournament would have given a huge boost to a country that is struggling to avoid economic mayhem and a slide toward the chaos of its northern neighbors." -- editorial, The Sunday Times.

"This was a chance to mark Africa's contribution to the game. . . . There was a feeling that the time had come to give something back to Africa." -- editorial, The Japan Times.

This latter quote is nearer the truth. In the last 20 years Africa has made a huge contribution to world soccer and the continent fully deserves to host the World Cup. But South Africa?

I don't think so. OK, it qualified for the last World Cup and won the African Nations Cup, but South Africa has never made a significant impact on world soccer or the World Cup in the same way that, for example, Ghana or Cameroon or Nigeria has. If Africa wants to host the World Cup, surely these are the kind of countries that deserve it. The problem is these countries are probably not capable of hosting the World Cup on their own. That makes Blatter's rejection of further cohosted World Cups all the more surprising.

There was a semi-serious proposal a year or two back suggesting that eight African countries cohost the World Cup, each taking one first-round group. This was not as dumb as it sounds. For poorer, less-developed regions radical solutions should be found to help them host major events.

African unity might also be a good idea.

One major, major point has been overlooked in the controversy surrounding the 2006 vote: Morocco. South Africa was not the only African bid for the 2006 tournament. Morocco tried very hard to host the World Cup and its credentials were every bit as good as South Africa's.

In fact, Morocco's bid deserved to be treated with more respect than it was. It may have been slightly weakened in that it had to promise a lot in terms of infrastructure and stadiums, but it could boast a country just a few miles away from Europe and with one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

Morocco's soccer credentials are as good as South Africa's and its new leader, King Mohammed VI, is making a much more positive impression on his society and the world than South Africa's erratic President Mbeki.

More than that, a Moroccan World Cup in 2006 presented FIFA with the chance of a unique treble: the first African World Cup, the first Arab World Cup and the first Moslem World Cup. It represented a massive opportunity for FIFA to expand its Eurocentric and ethnocentric horizons. It was another opportunity lost.

What has the vote for the 2006 World Cup taught us? Not very much that's new, and that's the sad thing about it. Oliver Holt in The Times put it bluntly: "It became embarrassingly obvious that the whole bidding process had been an utter waste of time. . . .

"It is a process heavy with ingratiation and the most hollow flattery, a system that destroys sincerity and encourages duplicity. It helps voters to accept favors from the bidders, knowing that their vote is expected in return. Unfortunately, the voters are shameless enough to accept favors from everybody."

Unfortunately, the voters are the top men in FIFA, the people who control how soccer is run, who gets what and when and how much they have to pay for it.

The cost of Germany getting the 2006 World Cup was the alienation of an entire continent where soccer is the sport for millions and for whom soccer is a momentary escape from the pain of their harsh existence.

Quite simply, it cost too much.