Some countries aren’t up to hosting big sporting events

When the England cricket team flew home from Mumbai in the wake of the terrorist attacks, it seemed as though the concept of sport transcending politics went with them. Whether or not they decide to return to India for the Test series - and the country's airports are on high alert following intelligence pointing to possible hijack attempts - they have made it clear that the subcontinent is not top of the list of places they would like to be visiting.

Security experts and armed guards will make incongruous travelling companions for entertainers like Andrew Flintoff and Kevin Pietersen, who will now see more of the Indian Army than they will of the Barmy Army during the series.

In an uncertain world, the idea that the global and unifying nature of sport can be reflected in all the venues at which it is practised no

longer holds true.

Militants from Pakistan are being blamed for the Mumbai outrage, and that country is fast becoming a no-go zone for Western sports teams. Earlier this year the ICC Champions Trophy tournament scheduled to take place there was cancelled after England, Australia and New Zealand expressed grave reservations about the security situation. South Africa went one step further and said its team would not take part.

They had good reason: in 2002 a suicide bomber struck outside the New Zealand team hotel in Pakistan, ­ killing 11 people. The Kiwis cancelled their tour and Australia followed suit. In 2006, South Africa flew home from a tournament in Sri Lanka after a bomb blast in Colombo near where they were staying. And the Aussies pulled out of another Pakistan tour in March of this year.

However, the problems are not just related to cricket in Asia. In 2010 South Africa is due to host the biggest sporting event on the planet: ­ the football World Cup. But its ability to do so safely and successfully remains in doubt.

The problems of the Athens Olympics are as nothing compared to those in South Africa. Even today, only 18 months from kick-off, suggestions linger that the event may have to be switched to another country.

The benefits of a successful tournament for South Africa, and indeed the continent, would be great ­ but there are plenty of unanswered questions. Will the stadia be up to scratch ­ or even finished? Will the players and spectators be safe in one of the most dangerous countries in the world? Will South Africa's infrastructure be able to cope?

If Abkhazia erupts the 2014 Winter Olympics could take place in a warzone

Fifa says preparations are on track. But South Africa must still invest US$16bn in its transport system and somehow finish its stadium building programme in the middle of a global economic crisis.

Looking further ahead, the 2014 Winter Olympics have been awarded to the town of Sochi in Russia. But it lies just miles from the border of the disputed region of Abkhazia where there have been politically motivated bombings. Furthermore, should the turmoil in the Caucasus escalate, the town could find itself in a warzone.

Sports administrators must keep in mind that while everyone is welcome to join the party, not just anyone can host it.

As for the 2012 Olympics, yes suicide bombers have struck London before. But the Australian cricketers who were already in the country when the July 2005 tube bombing occurred decided to stay on for the Test series - without the need for armed escorts.