FIFA and Mr Blatter have been positive about it stating that they are part of African football culture and its manufacturers defend criticism of them by stating that 'you only hate them, if you dont have one'.  But then again some manufacturers are hoping that some 500,000 of the things will be sold in South Africa by the time the World Cup 2010 comes around.   So whilst here in Europe we have horns, flags, jingoistic bands at England games and bagpipes at Scotland games why has there been the big backlash in Europe about the South African vuvuzela?

If you look at South African football as a whole it is a cultural time shift away from what you find in Europe.   Football paraphernalia on display at the Confederations Cup ranged from the makarapa - a decorated miner's helmet, tribal dances, massivly oversized colourful sunglasses to even a fan with an oversized Oxford English Dictionary.   Almost all of it visually was bizarre, strange and unsual.  The average African football fan's banner ranged from a pieces of basic cardboard with 'good luck' slogans on it to the makarapa helmet being designed with the colour and logo of their favourite team; 'bafana bafana' slogans to the names of favourite SA players.  In Bloemfontein behind one goalmouth saw many fans engaging in dances involving hand clapping, jumping and singing.  Maybe this, some of us thought, means that the vuvuzela is a Johannesburg only tradition? Alas not according to FIFA.

But while the flag and scarf can never be tagged as being unique to the European game both the vuvuzela and the makarapa would appear to be unique to South African football.    But  many pre-season tournament involving South African and Premiership sides take place in the country and its ususual as to why the use of the horn has never came to notice previously.    So far the makarapa has escaped almost all of the criticism from dissenters and instead blasts of derision  from all across Europe and North America have been launched at the vuvuzela and its buzzing noise.  Forums have been full of uncomplimentary jibes and podcasts have seen journalists analyse its significance come 2010. 

One problem is that although it has been called an 'instrument' its not really being used as a musical one at games to play any particular tune or song.   Describing the atmosphere in a stadium packed with thousands of fans blowing the vuvuzelas is difficult to describe as its simply a 'noise' with no rytham, chord or uplifting beat.    Up close it looks fun, would be appealing to children or drunk fans, but en masse the sound is more like a massive swarm of very angry bees or a baby elephant stuck in a turnstile.

Critics and oppenents of the vuvuzela have already suggested some more appropriate uses for the instrument. These range from the humerous such a hearing aid, a walking stick or a 4G mobile communication tool to the practical and time saving such as a petrol funnel, water sprayer or artifical rooftop guttering.    Moreover some have suggested mixing the humerous and practical and using the vuvuzela as a light saber ala Luke Skywalker.

Whilst there is then some substance to accusations that the instrument is blown haphazardly, noisily and can be distracting to players and coaches (both Bert Van Marjwik and Xabi Alonso have spoken out on it) the man at the top of the game Mr Blatter has spoken out in favour of the device.   We should not try to 'Europeanise' an African World Cup Blatter has said.  This is not Germany, this is Africa where rytham, dance and rytham 'is the way' says Blatter.  And he has a point as well for if the vuvuzela is outlawed will the brass band of the 'Great Escape fame' that follows England also be banned from games. If Scotland somehow navigate the groups and a potential play off will its supporters be banned from using the bagpipe an equally noisy if more 'musical' instrument?

This is where the argument becomes messy and cuts across the official, artificial and creative line. Essentially the current controversy over the vuvuzela at the Confederations Cup in South Africa is that it is an “artificial” noisemaker and not a musical instrument used by football fans for no other justifiable reason than it is part of African football tradition.  It is something  that 'fits in' with African traditions of dance, rytham and song.  However, this is largely an argument put forward by those commercial bodies who are mass producing and selling the product of the vuvuzela and FIFA who are eager to promote an African themed World Cup.   But the fact that it has become seen as simply a noise and an over commercialised nuisance leaves many questioning why it is allowed and whether its appearance at the real event will be worthwhile to the event and other commerical partners.  Will television channels really want this drone to dominate the event?  Will commercial partners who have important marketing messages to transmit really want to play second best to the all pervading noise of the vuvuzela?  For some the vuvuzela is like cigar smoke in a restuarant; unwelcome, inappropriate and anti-social.

Whilst there will be a a shift in the entire base of fan culture come the 2010 World Cup there will be a worldwide television audience and an estimated 500,000 fans from other countries travelling to South Africa for the event.    Most of these will be adults used to cultures and supporting streams completely different to that of the vuvuzela and there in lies the solution to what could become an irratating problem against the backdrop of a fantastic event. 

Yes, there will be Africans at every game but the vuvuzela and its use could be sactioned to be used at only South Africa group matches and not that of every single other game.   South Africa may be the hosts of the event but they are not represented in every game on the field of play.  A game between South Korea and Australia is as far from an African event as you can get and for the respective chants of the fan base of these countries to be drowned out by such an endless, unrythamic noise would be unfair and shortsighted.

So how does the world of football deal with the issue of the vuvuzela? Do we simply thank Sepp Blatter for rubber stamping its use or do we demand FIFA takes action on the back of fan, player and coach criticism and order that they be banned on mass?

What we are dealing with here is not a rattle, the air stick or a scarf or a banner or a flag.  Such fan items have a place in the stadia but they do not take over everything like the vuvuzela does.   People point to the vuvuzela originally being use by Africans as a 'call to arms' for a gathering.  But a church bell, the air raid horn and the load hailer was used in Europe for the same reason yet they are traditionally not allowed 'on mass' inside stadia.  

Its wrong for fans to be dominated and subjected to rules and regulations surrounding efforts to create or generate 'atmosphere'.  Once this concept starts it tends to lead to increased public disorder as rule makers, enforcers and supporters clash over what is right andf wrong.    Rather than a simple law that the vuvuzela be 'banned on mass' FIFA should instead encourage  them to be used at South Africa games only where  its use and appearance would be more acceptable to those at the game and those watching at home.    Cheap selling noisemakers have a place within the World Cup 2010 but surely it would be wrong for them to be the only noise remembered come the end of the tournament. Dancing, chants and other African cultural events are welcome but such an uncoordinated din of people manufacturing a plastic noise is not what we want to be the centre piece of the event across every single game.  FIFA and Mr Blatter needs to recognise that.