By Julian Bennetts in Sao Paulo
Fernando's voice was loud and clear over the throng of a humid Sao Paulo bus at rush hour.
"I can't stand the north, man," he shouted, loud enough for people to turn around and look at us. "They have all these stadiums, all this money spent on them – and for what? We have hospitals where you have to wait eight hours to be seen by a doctor. We need the money, not them."
Considering our bus was stuck in a queue caused by congestion at the local hospital, it was hard to argue with my local guide's interpretation of events.
He is not alone in his opinions. Spend just a few days in the teeming metropolis of Sao Paulo and you will find plenty of people who feel the same way as Fernando.
To them, northern Brazil – which includes the cities of Recife, Natal, Fortaleza and the Amazonian outpost of Manaus – is alien territory. And now Fernando and his southern compatriots are financing their enjoyment of the World Cup.
The north-south divide is in part historical. The economic centres of Brazil have always been Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, in large part due to the number of European settlers who made their homes there.
The Dutch briefly controlled the north-east coastline between 1630 and 1654 but in general the foreign influence has always been stronger in the more temperate south of the country.
WORLD CUP SOCIAL HUB
Keep up with all the latest news from Brazil and get involved in the debate on Twitter with our new World Cup Social Hub
This disparity doesn't bother those in the south – why should it? - but they are up in arms over the massive investment in northern stadiums, many of which will never be fully utilised after the World Cup.
The Arena da Amazonia, where England faced Italy last Saturday, was built at a cost of around 250 million euros. After the tournament, the local team Nacional will call it home.
Nacional have not been in the top flight of Brazilian football since 1985 and the chances of them selling out a game at the 46,000-seat arena have been described as "laughable".
The worst example of all is Brasilia. The stadium there cost 663m euros to build, making it the second most expensive in the world after Wembley. In this case there isn’t any local side at all to take it over after the tournament.
World Cup Infographics
Uncover the statistics behind the World Cup with our new Unibet infographic series
The Selecao's progress would normally have the country gripped but the resentment of Fernando is shared by many. And the one question Brazilians are asking time and again is ‘why there are 12 host cities?’ In 2010, only 10 stadia were used and while Germany also had a dozen in 2006, the majority of those were already in place.
One theory is that it is political. President Dilma Rousseff faces an election in October and many see the massive expenditure on stadiums as an attempt to target the north of the country. By ensuring the north plays a full part in the World Cup, the theory goes, she is more likely to win their votes.
She rejects all such arguments, stating: "We did this, above all, for Brazilians."
Her deep unpopularity, however, implies that not many people believe her claim that that the 8.1 billion euros that has been spent on the tournament will benefit the entire country.
Her support is at 34 per cent, according to the latest opinion polls, but her rivals are hardly doing any better, with 30 per cent of Brazilians currently having no preferred candidate in the upcoming elections.
The most astonishing statistic in a newly released poll is that 72 per cent of the population are upset with the way the government runs the country.
Against this backdrop the World Cup rumbles on.
Brazil is a country divided; economically, socially and politically. The World Cup may just exacerbate those problems rather than solve any of them.
Maybe one day, Fernando's bus can reach its destination and the anger won't be quite so raw.