The sOccketball is an invention by a bunch of American college kids, aimed squarely at the sub-Saharan African market. It just got a Popular Mechanics Breakthrough Award. The problem? It’s useless, and the idea that Africans can’t look after themselves is supremely condescending. I explain why in today’s Daily Maverick column: Let’s return the beads

The second parallel for FIFA president Sepp Blatter is King Leopold II of Belgium, aka Leopold of the Congo. In it, I wrap up my series on FIFA with the observation that FIFA may claim philanthropic intent, but is intent only on exploiting Africa, and its racism is very thinly veiled. FIFA’s heart of darkness.

One consequence of speaking to people in the tourism industry is an acute appreciation for exactly how badly FIFA and its marketing partner, Match, are exploiting South Africans, and giving South Africa a bad reputation for international guests into the bargain. Here’s the column: Who’s ripping off whom?

Ever since the first “2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa Special Measures Act”, no. 11 of 2006 was passed, and FIFA began calling for volunteers for the Confederations Cup rather than employing people like civilised companies do, the whole World Cup thing has left a sour taste in my mouth. It’s annoying to watch your government hijacked, and your country and its people exploited, by people who think they’re too good for the rules by which the rest of us play.

So here’s an idea: Boycott FIFA.

For those not familiar with the South African power utility Eskom, here’s a taste.

Thabo Mbeki, presumably in an effort to appear even-handed, has lashed out against the nicknames of our national football teams. One of football’s big three, Jomo Sono, former coach of the national side and owner of the Jomo Cosmos club side, agrees.

They squads are fondly known among supporters as Bafana Bafana (the boys), Banyana Banyana (the girls), and for the junior team, Ama-glug-glug (in imitation of a famous advertisement by their sponsor, Sasol). Likewise, the Springbok rugby squad is often referred to as Ama-boko-boko. Even the paraplegic teams haven’t escaped the trend: they’re known as Ama-kroko-kroko. This is both funny and endearing, and has done a lot to raise their profile among sport fans.

But these names are disrespectful, Mbeki believes. This all appears to stem from the controversy around the name of the rugby Springboks. As the second story above makes clear, there’s a perception that “the national sides used to be known as the Springboks during the whites-only apartheid era which ended in 1994, but most of the teams have since adopted new monikers such as the Proteas in cricket.”

The last part is true. Only the rugby squad were excepted from the Proteas rule. But I fail to see what the Springbok emblem, colours, name or history have to do with Apartheid.

The South African rugby union side was called the Springboks long before isolation, long before Apartheid, and before even the Union was formed in 1910.

In 1906, as the programme alongside shows, they not only played as the Springboks, but delivered a Zulu-derived war cry. (Accounts differ, but the Springbok war cry may even have predated the New Zealand team’s famous Maori-inspired war dance, the Haka.)

“The public should participate in a plan where we look for new names for our national teams,” Mbeki is quoted in the article as saying on a local radio station. “I’m not saying we must call all our national teams Springboks, but we have to change the names, the emblems and the colours the teams wear, so that they can be recognised as representatives of South Africa.”

Firstly, I don’t know what name would be more recognisable than the Springbok. It’s a famous African animal, and is far better known that the pretty but relatively obscure Protea.

Second, and more importantly, the public were involved, and they decided on Amabokoboko, Bafana Bafana and Banyana Banyana. What the politicians call the teams is their own problem. Please don’t feign “consultation” and “participation” and all that tripe when you’ve just told people that the names they chose are disrespectful and insufficiently patriotic.

If they want to call all national colours “Proteas”, fine. I’d be sorry to see the Springbok symbol go, because it’s a strong rugby brand with a long history, but they’re South African colours and I guess the government that issues them gets to call them whatever they want.

But what officials don’t get to mess with is the nicknames teams get from their supporters.

On the other hand, perhaps we should ban the word “Bucs”. Bucanneers! How unoriginal. And who’s ever heard of an African side being named after French outlaws who made bacon in the Caribbean anyway? They’re Orlando Pirates, and don’t you forget it. Anyone — especially Amakhosi — who calls them Bucs should get a fine, or perhaps an hour or two in the stocks outside the stadium. Speaking of Amakhosi, they aren’t. They’re Kaizer Chiefs. Besides, honkeys confuse it with Ezenkosi, and that makes Jomo cross.

Look people. It’s simple. You’re being disrespectful and unpatriotic, and The Honourable State President Mr Thabo Mbeki says so. He’d have wagged his finger, if he could, but he was speaking on radio.