South Africa’s controversial FIFA World Cup delegation has raised a new question in Parliament, who decided who went to the World Cup, on what criteria, and where is the paper trail showing how those decisions were made?
The questions emerged during a lengthy Portfolio Committee on Sport, Arts and Culture meeting in which MPs repeatedly challenged Sport, Arts and Culture Minister Gayton McKenzie over the selection of fans, podcasters, journalists and influencers who formed part of South Africa’s World Cup programme.
The department’s own breakdown, released in July, listed 47 sponsor-funded “lucky fans” and 29 journalists, influencers and podcasters —76 people in those two categories combined.
The wider programme involved 151 participants, excluding a service-provider team.
But the parliamentary interrogation went beyond the numbers. It focused on the criteria used to determine who qualified, the role of sponsors, the use of so-called wild cards, and the extent to which ministerial discretion shaped the final selection.
McKenzie did not deny exercising his discretion. Instead, he defended it.
‘I use my discretion, ‘ he told the MPs.
Responding to questions about how artists and other participants were selected, McKenzie said the department drew on a database from which people were chosen.
“We use our discretion from the database because the department has many events,” he said.
He explained that the intention, was also to prevent the same artists from repeatedly receiving opportunities from the department.
But MPs pressed him on where that discretion came from, and what safeguards ensured it was applied consistently.
The issue sharpened further when the committee turned to the World Cup’s “wild cards.”
McKenzie gave a candid account of how the decision came about, describing the kind of exchange he imagined having with a sponsor: they offer funding, then ask what the department intends to do with it.
According to McKenzie, sponsors wanted the programme to be entertaining, and wild cards formed part of that arrangement.
“You tell them, they tell you, like, ‘All right, what kind of competitions will you have?’ You say to them, ‘This type of competition.’ I can’t say we can’t have wild cards. If I say we can’t have wild cards, I might not even get the money,” he said.
He insisted the wild cards were not intended to benefit his friends.
“I have never spoken to any of those wild card people. No, probably only Bota was a wild card, but I have not spoken to most of those people,” he said.
The exchange raises an important governance question, if sponsorship funding came with conditions or expectations about the programme, what exactly did the sponsorship agreements say?
The Committee asked the minister to table the sponsorship agreements so the committee could establish what had actually been agreed.
McKenzie agreed to do so, he said:”I will give you the contract that we have with all the sponsors.”
He added that some commitments agreed with sponsors had not materialised, while other things happened that were not necessarily part of the original agreement.
The department had publicly described the 47 fans as sponsor-funded participants, and has maintained that this component was not funded from the departmental budget.
But the parliamentarians demanded to know how people were selected.
A sponsor funding a participant’s travel does not, by itself, establish whether the selection process was transparent, documented and consistently applied.
The same issue surfaced when MPs questioned the inclusion of podcasters Lucian Godfrey and Izaiah Carelse.
McKenzie said both were successful independent podcasters with significant audiences.
“Izaiah runs a very successful podcast. Very successful. He’s got numbers. And the same with Lucian. They both run very successful, independent of the department, very well known,” he said.
That, he said, was why they were chosen.
But that explanation was challenged, the Committee said that there are many podcasters in the country, and asked what objective criteria had been applied.
The concern was heightened by questions about an alleged personal connection involving Carelse.
McKenzie acknowledged the reputational problem created when government makes selections without publishing clear criteria, recalling the concern that had been put to him, that government would be accused of choosing its own friends.
The committee subsequently requested records showing how participants had been selected, and McKenzie agreed the department should provide the records and minutes.
Another potential conflict was raised over journalists who adjudicated the Lucky Fans competition while also receiving funded travel.
McKenzie rejected the suggestion that they had been given travel because they were adjudicators.
He said they were already journalists who attended departmental briefings and had previously travelled with the department, some of them were then asked to assist with adjudication because they were available.
“They were already part of the journalists that would go, and we asked them, ‘Would you adjudicate for us? Some declined because of other professional commitments,” he responded.
But MPs questioned whether that arrangement created at least a perceived conflict of interest.
David Kgabo from the ANC put the concern directly, a journalist who wanted to travel to the World Cup could simultaneously be given responsibility for selecting the people who would benefit from the programme.
McKenzie responded that professionals are ordinarily expected to declare conflicts where they exist.
“Ordinarily, how it works when it comes with any professional person, you have to mention if you are conflicted,” said McKenzie.
But the MP’s concern was not simply whether an individual journalist had declared a conflict, it was whether the department had established a system capable of identifying and managing the appearance of a conflict before the selection process took place.
The most significant thread running through the exchange was not whether McKenzie was legally entitled to exercise discretion. It was whether the department could demonstrate how that discretion had been exercised.
“If I were to vouch for the department that it was truly transparent, I would not be able to do so,” said Eugene Mthethwa.
He argued that the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny was to ensure government systems survive beyond individual ministers, warning that heavy reliance on ministerial discretion risks making processes dependent on the personality and preferences of whoever holds the office.
McKenzie responded by promising to provide the relevant records, policies and agreements.
