Barcelona play at the Nou Kamp. Manchester United's home is Old Trafford. The singing of 'You'll never walks alone' is a famous characteristic of Liverpool's Anfield Stadium. In other words, every big club in the world are well known for having and owning their own home stadium.
A location associated with the club's colours and successes – a meeting place for adoring fans to witness their beloved team in action.
But in South Africa things are a little different. Arguably, Mzansi's biggest team, Kaizer Chiefs, don't have their own stadium. Yes, they are associated with FNB Stadium as being the club's home, although Chiefs don't physically own the ground and the building blocks of its makeup.
In other words, Chiefs haven't built their own castle - a place which will stand as a shrine to its power and influence in the African game. It perhaps makes sense financially to take smaller games to different provinces because it brings you more support from Chiefs' fans in different regions. Yet, is that the right way to go about things?
In fact the Glamour Boys faithful will see their team often play 'home' matches across the nine provinces of Mzansi. However, it still remains there is not one dedicated 'spiritual home' that Chiefs' supporters can really call their own.
Should Chiefs get their own stadium like other big clubs in world football? On the other side of the argument, could a case be made that Chiefs are a national brand and must play across the country to really stay in touch with their millions of fans?
