Gayton McKenzie names potential sponsors for South African F1 Grand Prix
Speaking to parliament on Tuesday, he said after meetings with the management of F1, the 'crucial one' would happen in the next two weeks and would be attended by potential sponsors ready to fund the event, which reputedly costs about R2bn.
Expected to take place in 2027, it would be the first F1 race to be held in South Africa since 1993, a grand prix won by Alain Prost in a Williams.
McKenzie's comments come after Kyalami was recently given the green light for upgrades by the FIA, the organisation that runs F1 racing.
Kyalami owner Toby Venter revealed last month the FIA had accepted final design proposals to upgrade the 4.5km circuit from Grade 2 to Grade 1 status, the international standard required to host Formula One racing.
The upgrade requires no change to the circuit layout and focuses on enhancing run-off areas, barrier systems, debris fencing, kerbs and drainage.
'When we hosted the Fifa World Cup, we put our country on the map to host big events, and we should not turn back now,' McKenzie told parliament on Tuesday.
'What will be different this time is that government will not be expected to pay. Companies such as MTN, MultiChoice, Heineken and many more have raised their hands and will be present with us in the meeting with Formula One management at the end of the month.
'We've even had patriots saying whenever you need help come to us, one of them being the richest man in the country, Johann Rupert.'
In December McKenzie set up an F1 bid steering committee to consider submissions from local promoters and three were received: one from Kyalami and two from Cape Town.
While no official announcement has been made about which bid was successful, it is all but certain that Kyalami, which hosted its first F1 race in 1967 and has long held a prominent place in local motorsport, is the preferred option.
Several attempts to bring the Grand Prix back to the country were thwarted due to the high cost of hosting the event.
As a motorsport fan, McKenzie has campaigned for the country to be on the F1 calendar since his appointment as sports minister in July 2024. He said F1 can't be considered a world championship if it misses an entire continent.
Morocco and South Africa have hosted world championship grands prix in the past, Casablanca in 1958, South Africa in East London in the 1960s and Kyalami 20 times between 1967 and 1993.
McKenzie kick-started the process when he met Formula One CEO Stefano Domenicali at the Azerbaijan Grand Prix in September.
He said many laughed when he said Formula One should come back to South Africa.
'To those who say the country can't afford to host the F1, I'm saying the country can't afford not to host it,' he said, referring to the economic benefits he believed the event could bring in terms of tourism and temporary job creation.
It is not known how much tickets would cost, but they are likely to be expensive. The cheapest adult ticket at this year's Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne was about R2,000.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
From TMO madness to English ‘pies' — why did they have to go and make things so complicated?
Several huge sports events suffer from complex rules, leading to anticlimactic viewing. Somewhere in a time long ago (2002 to be precise), my oldest child drove me slightly crazy by constantly demanding a particular song by Avril Lavigne. The chorus of that hit came echoing back this weekend as I attempted to indulge in what I thought would be a cornucopia of top-level, global, highly competitive sport – the second Test between the Wallabies and British & Irish Lions, England versus India Test cricket, the climax of the Tour de France and the Belgian Formula One Grand Prix. As each of those events progressed (or didn't) in increasingly bewildering ways, I found myself channelling Lavigne and singing loudly: 'Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated?' At one point I was switching between elite F1 drivers doing the first four laps of the mere 44 they were going to be allowed in a 20-minute uncompetitive procession behind a safety car, elite cyclists drifting through the countryside drinking champagne and elite cricketers arguing about whether they should be on the field at all given that the Test was grinding towards a draw. The day before, the thrilling series-deciding second rugby Test between the Wallabies and Lions ended up, inevitably, with everyone watching lengthy slow-motion TV replays to determine whether the Lions' last-gasp try would stand. What we saw was a highly dangerous assault on a Wallaby neck or a perfect clean-out, depending entirely on your bias. My conclusion was that it was probably both. It was legitimate but shouldn't be. And it was definitely anticlimactic and unsatisfactory. The entire thing was the apex of the television match official (TMO) madness which has descended on rugby and means its myriad complex laws are being second- and third-guessed all the time. The authorities need to be asked the Lavigne question. 'Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated?' Judgement calls TMO's should be for groundings over the try line and seriously dangerous or foul play which the on-field officials have not seen (an important qualification). Leave the rest to the judgement of the guys with a whistle and flags. If the occasional marginally forward pass, tiny knock-on, head-on-shoulder contact or truck-and-trailer side-entry channel block (I made that up but it could be a thing for all I know) gets missed, then so be it. If the disciplinary committee post-match wants to reassess dangerous-play calls and impose bans, then that's okay, but let's not stop the game for a Supreme Court hearing. Meanwhile, back at the venerable Spa-Francorchamps F1 circuit (a legendary track beautifully set in the Ardennes Forest which could soon be replaced by a soulless expansion venue in Thailand), the torturous rules of that sport were, yet again, getting in the way of a decent contest. Rain was causing issues but watching cars parked for an hour in sunshine and then not compete for one-10th of the shortened 'race' before a 'rolling start', which is nothing like the drama of a normal start, probably made cautious sense somewhere in a rule book but made none at all to an average punter like me. I still do not understand what happened to Lewis Hamilton back in 2021 when he was cruising to a world title over Max Verstappen until some random behind him crashed and his substantial lead was wiped out by the safety car and some drivers were 'unlapped' and some changed tyres but he couldn't. F1 measures things to milliseconds on lap times and milligrams of vehicle weight and yet cannot contrive a system where a safety car means the gaps remain the same as they were before it came out. And then we have the compelling yet bizarre dance that is the Tour de France. So many questions. Why don't they race properly for most of the final day? Why do the main riders stop when a leader crashes? Why are some teams complaining that one team 'wins too many stages'? Why is it unacceptable to attack in a particular way but not in others? Why is the best rider on the day often reined in to help his teammate rather than going for the stage win? In short, 'why'd you have to go and make things so complicated?' And then, the world-champion sport on rules and etiquette complexity, Test match cricket, really kicked in. England were frustrated on the final day at Old Trafford by some superb rearguard batting from India, which gained them a draw and kept an excellent series alive. Once a decisive outcome was impossible, the English team felt everyone should shake hands and get off work early. India captain Shubman Gill, rightly, was having none of it because he wanted his not-out batters to reach their hundreds and to tire out his opponents (who had invited this fate by putting them into bat after winning the toss) before the decisive Test starting on Thursday. The English then sulked and bowled what we used to call 'pies' – part-timers delivering rubbish. It was an unedifying and completely uncompetitive spectacle. And one that is almost impossible to explain to anyone other than a Test cricket tragic.
The Herald
2 hours ago
- The Herald
Stats should have earned me awards nominations: Sundowns' Rayners
Soccer 'For me, the best player in the league was Lucas, I think I'm second after Lucas' 29 July 2025 Iqraam Rayners of Mamelodi Sundowns. Image: Richard Huggard Mamelodi Sundowns striker Iqraam Rayners admits being disappointed after he was overlooked for nominations for the Premier Soccer League Awards. Rayners had an outstanding campaign in his first season with Sundowns after joining them from Stellenbosch FC, contributing 14 goals and nine assists in 26 matches as he helped the club win their eighth successive Premiership title. He was not nominated for any of the awards despite having an impressive season and feels he deserves to be among the nominees. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐢𝐭𝐜𝐡𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐏𝐨𝐝𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐚 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐠! 🎙🔥We are back with another episode after an incredible season, joined by Iqraam Rayners as he reflects on a standout season, discusses the PSL awards & looks ahead to the upcoming campaign! 🙌 The… — Mamelodi Sundowns FC (@Masandawana) July 28, 2025 The TV-only PSL Awards will be broadcast on SuperSport on Tuesday night (7pm). 'I'm a bit disappointed because [with] what I did last season I had a good campaign with a good team, good players helping me,' Rayners said on Sundowns' Pitchside Podcast. 'The coaches believed in me, so I was disappointed when I saw the players nominated. I think my stats from last season were good enough to be in a lot of nominations.' The Bafana Bafana striker believes Sundowns teammate Lucas Ribeiro was the best player this past season. Rayners feels he should have been second in the pecking order of nominations. 'For me, the best player in the league was Lucas. I think I'm second after Lucas,' he said. 'My stats were the second best, so I was disappointed.' SowetanLIVE
Mail & Guardian
3 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
The mask of apartheid
The new apartheid is decentralised, encrypted in algorithms, and cloaked in the language of economic rationality and legal formalism and it's not only in South Africa. Photo: File Despite South Africa's transition to democracy in 1994, apartheid has quietly entrenched itself within the private sphere. While the responsibility of managing the state lies in public hands, real power increasingly resides in private institutions and markets. Today, privilege is governed by price. The market now sets the boundaries of opportunity. Financial barriers have replaced legal ones as instruments of exclusion. Something as simple as an application form is often accompanied by a fee — a form of economic regulation. These financial mechanisms now perform the same function once carried out by explicitly racist laws. Surcharges, income thresholds, qualification criteria and premium pricing have become the new tools of modern segregation. Apartheid persists not just in memory, but in the cost of a car, a house, a job, a university placement, a medical aid scheme, an insurance policy, or a loan. Where the state once enforced exclusion through law, private actors now enforce it through economics. Policing racial statutes was costly — politically, morally and financially. Financial exclusion, by contrast, appears neutral and carries no overt moral burden. By replacing legal barriers with economic ones, segregation has shifted from being a public burden to a private one, shielded from constitutional scrutiny and public accountability. Unlike the centrally governed apartheid state, this new system of exclusion is maintained by a decentralised network of private actors. Although many apartheid-era laws were abolished after 1994, apartheid endures in South Africa's common law — particularly in the law of contract and property — which continue to structure economic relations and access to resources. Law is not merely a matter of statute; it is embedded in legal practice, judicial culture and precedent. Apartheid, therefore, survives not only in what the law says, but in how the law is applied. It lives outside the statutory framework — in the everyday transactions that define who belongs, who benefits and who is left out. This entrenchment of exclusion has also been accelerated by digital technologies. The rise of surveillance systems and racial categorisation tools — foundational pillars of the apartheid state — has been replicated through data-driven infrastructures. Unlike apartheid-era mechanisms, these technologies exist largely beyond South Africa's control. Their global proliferation coincided with the country's transition to democracy but ultimately complicated that transition. Technological segregation now operates through algorithms — mechanisms that appear neutral but function with embedded bias. These algorithms reshape the public sphere, determine access to essential services such as credit, healthcare, education and employment, and quietly reproduce systems of exclusion by amplifying existing inequalities. For instance, biased data sets and opaque decision-making processes can disproportionately deny marginalised groups access to loans, jobs or even housing. As the economy became increasingly digitised and financialised, power shifted further away from the democratic state toward international tech and financial corporations that control these platforms and infrastructures. These corporations operate with limited accountability, often beyond the reach of national regulatory frameworks, further entrenching inequality. In this way, apartheid has been encrypted into a new, digitised form — a system where exclusion is maintained not by explicit laws, but through coded algorithms and data-driven governance that perpetuate racial and economic divides. Since 1994, apartheid has become fractalised. Once visible on grand, institutional scales, its logic now manifests in smaller, more diffuse forms. What was once a centralised system of segregation is now scattered across everyday life — in housing, education, employment and finance. This fractalisation makes apartheid easier to survive, but harder to see. Its invisibility renders it more difficult to confront, allowing structural inequality to persist under the guise of normalcy. The system of apartheid and exclusion is not confined to South Africa's borders. In occupied Palestine, similar structures of racial and economic segregation are enforced through a combination of state power and private interests. Here, apartheid is maintained not only through physical barriers like walls and checkpoints but also through economic control, land confiscation, and pervasive surveillance technologies, many developed and sold by global corporations. This entanglement of public authority and private capital in Palestine echoes South Africa's experience, highlighting how modern apartheid adapts across contexts. It reveals a transnational pattern in which racial domination is sustained through intertwined legal, economic, and technological systems, perpetuating dispossession and inequality on a global scale. Legally, the persistence of apartheid in its modern, privatised form reflects deep continuities in South Africa's legal system. While apartheid-era statutes were formally repealed, the foundational principles embedded in common law — particularly in property, contract, and corporate law — continue to structure economic and social relations in ways that reproduce racialised inequality. These legal doctrines were developed to protect wealth, land, and capital accumulation for a privileged few and remain largely unchallenged in courts today. Moreover, judicial culture and precedent frequently uphold these doctrines under the guise of neutrality and formal equality, masking the structural biases they perpetuate. Without a fundamental transformation of the legal order, beyond mere statutory reform, to interrogate and dismantle the inherited values and practices that sustain exclusion, the law risks becoming a silent enabler of privatised apartheid rather than an instrument of justice and redress. Apartheid has not ended; it has evolved and multiplied its forms. No longer enforced solely through overt laws and state apparatus, it now thrives in the interstices of market mechanisms, digital technologies and legal frameworks that appear neutral but remain deeply exclusionary. Recognising these continuities and transformations is essential if we are to confront and dismantle the systemic inequalities that persist in South Africa and beyond. Only through holistic efforts that address economic structures, technological governance, and the very foundations of our legal system can we hope to realise the democratic promise of equality and justice at home and in solidarity with those, like Palestinians. Sõzarn Barday is a writer and attorney based in South Africa and has a particular interest in human rights within the Middle East. Opinions shared represent her individual perspective.
