Leading Article: A South African win
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.THE RACE to win the right to host the 2006 World Cup is hotting up. Yesterday saw the five bidding nations, including England, put their case to Fifa, soccer's governing body. Obviously, it would be wonderful to have all the excitement (and the associated revenue) coming home to the sport's birthplace. But, assuming its game plan is up to scratch, the prize should go to South Africa. The African continent has never hosted the tournament; a decision in its favour would be a huge boost for the sport there, together with a recognition of the strides made by such vibrant teams as Cameroon, Nigeria and South Africa itself. It would also aid the development of the post-apartheid nation, and serve as an incentive to get its notorious crime rate down.
But if Fifa decides the South Africa infrastructure is too rudimentary, let's hope for an English victory - no doubt after going into extra time against our German opponents.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments