Serufho, addressing journalists, indicated Botswana will need at least five stadiums that meet CAF requirements, while neighbours, Namibia have to provide three quality facilities.
Last year, the two countries announced a joint bid for the 2027 tournament. The initial projection was that Botswana and Namibia needed six stadiums, with one that has a 40,000 capacity.
Gaborone, Maun, and Francistown were mentioned as possible venues, with Kasane in the picture as well. For now, Botswana has three ‘upgradable’ facilities being the Obed Itani Chilume Stadium, the National Stadium, and the Lobatse Sports Complex.
But Serufho’s revelation on Tuesday that Botswana will need five and not four stadiums could provide fresh heads for the technical bid committee headed by veteran administrator, Ashford Mamelodi. The Botswana government has proposed P1.1 billion for hosting the soccer showpiece, but with added requirements for co-hosting, the figure could balloon considerably.
A facilities audit has been conducted in both Botswana and Namibia by a South African consultant with a report due next week. However, it all points to both countries spending heavily to get the hosting rights. “Hosting AFCON finals requires huge amounts of financial investment and a joint bid with Namibia presented the most viable option. Co-hosting will be less demanding on resources and would strengthen Botswana, Namibia bilateral relations,” the Minister of Youth, Gender, Sport and Culture, Tumiso Rakgare told Parliament this week.
But Rakgare said the benefits of hosting outweigh the costs. “Mr Speaker, the benefits of hosting the 2027 AFCON are many and would span across nearly all sectors of the economy,” Rakgare said. He envisages that winning rights to host the tournament will see Botswana attract 30,000 tourists during the month-long competition.
“Over the four weeks, the arts/entertainment industry would stand to make unprecedented amounts of money within the shortest possible space as both locals and visitors alike would enjoy cultural activities daily, on the sidelines of the finals,” Rakgare added. Despite the odds, particularly the astronomical amounts involved in the bid process, authorities, including President Mokgweetsi Masisi have underlined the importance of hosting. However, the requirement of a fifth stadium could throw spanners in the works.
The expansion of the tournament from 16 to 24 teams has also increased the workload and ultimately the budget for hosting nations. Guinea was forced to withdraw its hosting rights after it emerged the country needed $800 million (P10 billion) to organise the 2025 showpiece. As Serufho pointed out, the construction of a fifth stadium, depending on the location, could necessitate the building of a new airport or the upgrade of existing facilities. Botswana and Namibia do not have a 40,000-seater stadium which might see the construction of a new facility or alternatively a massive upgrade to the existing one. The Obed Itani Chilume Stadium is the biggest stadium in Botswana with a 27,000 capacity followed by the National Stadium (25,000) and the Lobatse Sports Complex (20,000).
The facilities audit might recommend the building of a new 40,000-capacity stadium instead of upgrades to the existing facilities. However, it is acknowledged the benefits could outweigh the cost of hosting. By hosting AFCON in 2019, Egypt reportedly made $83 million (about P11 billion), while last year’s final between Senegal and Algeria attracted a global television audience of 90 million. But the demands for hosting could prove out of reach for most African nations, battling with other national priorities.
