Growing concern over R1bn Tottenham sponsorship deal
Public concern is growing over SA Tourism’s plan to spend nearly R1bn on sponsoring Tottenham Hotspur, a football club in London.
The Minister of Tourism, Lindiwe Sisulu has confirmed that a proposal is on the table, but has denied she has had any personal interest in the deal, reports Daily Maverick.
In a statement released by Sisulu yesterday, she termed the controversial R1bn proposal to sponsor Tottenham Hotspur a ‘memorandum of understanding’ between Spurs and SA Tourism.
Sisulu claimed that the proposal is ‘non-binding’.
This conflicts with the impression given by the documents in the possession of Daily Maverick, which give clear timelines for the deal – including an upfront fee payable by 31 March 2023.
A Powerpoint presentation in the name of acting SA Tourism CEO Themba Khumalo states that ‘all deliverables associated with this project’ must be completed by the end of March in order to ensure ‘a valid expense against savings identified in the current year budget (rather than possibly returning it to National Treasury)’.
It states that the deal will be ‘100% activated on 1 July 2023’.
Sisulu also stated that the proposal is yet to be approved by the Treasury.
It is understood, however, that the plan is for an agreement to be signed by the end of this week, reports the DM.
Following the publication of the Daily Maverick report on the matter, public outrage has been building over the proposed expenditure, with some comparing it to the short-lived plan by the Department of Sport, Arts & Culture to erect a giant SA flag in Pretoria at a cost of R22m.
Brand Africa chairman Thebe Ikalafeng called the proposal an ‘irresponsible use of tax’, on the grounds that SA is ‘already a known and leading destination in Africa’.
Terming the deal a ‘vanity investment’, Ikalafeng suggested the funds should be put towards ‘safety for travellers, lights and maintenance’.
The Freedom Front Plus stated yesterday that the party will be lodging a complaint about the proposed deal with the Public Protector, and suggested that the funds ‘must rather be used to mitigate the detrimental effects that the Covid-19 regulations had on small to medium-sized tourism enterprises’.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
