But in saying that The Union game had more diversity in their colour palate, which I like to call the crowd. And I do think this article should have been moderated itself. It seems one has jumped onto a debate that has too much political tension as well as code thuggery involved.

“The true following of football in South Africa has been clearly reflected by the FIFA 2010 World Cup.” (Nothing new here; most people have known this since before the end of the apartheid era).

“Not only is football the biggest sport in South Africa, it is the only sport with true support among the 80 percent (40 million) black population there.” (Really? It is the only sport all 40 million blacks support? None of them like rugby, or cricket, or track and field? What about the Coloureds? The Indians? Do we know what all of them truly support? Do their views even matter in this ‘essay’? What about the Whites? If they like soccer in South Africa, does that make them traitors to their ‘race’/colour?)

“Rugby union remains a pillar of the old apartheid regime, so beloved by the likes of Danie Craven.” (Remains? This implies it still exists. Last anyone checked, South Africa have had a couple of elections, and have been ruled by Xhosas and Zulus. NB: Danie Craven died many years ago, but for the sake of this ‘sentence’, what was “beloved” by Craven: the rugby or the apartheid regime? Question for the writer: was he a member of the Broederbond? Discuss)

“Contrast the thousands of black faces in the crowds and in the streets with the almost exclusively white South African union crowds.” (Really? Doesn’t it depend on where the game is held? If in Pretoria or Jo’burg, then yes there will be more whites, if in Cape Town, more blacks and coloureds. If you had a cricket game in north India, you would get more Gujaratis, Sindhis etc; if you held it in Calcutta, you’d get more Tamils. Etc)

“The dribble we are fed that rugby union is the main sporting code of South Africa is shown up for being a mere wish of that code in competition with the real sporting choice for Africans: football.” (Rugby union is the most SUCCESFUL sporting code in South Africa; hence more people identify with it, and are proud of it. Blacks used to hate it because it symbolised the oppressors but not any more. (Not all, obviously, but increasing numbers. It is also a class thing: the more affluent blacks/coloureds such as Habana identify with it more than those denied access to the sport.) When South Africa wins the football World Cup, or at least win the African Nations tourney again, then you will get more support from all sections of society. South African football was on a high in the mid-90s but wasted the opportunity. That is the problem with its football, nothing to do with apartheid and oppression.)

“Unless rugby union really confronts its own past in South Africa in a meaningful and honest way, that sport will never move forward except among its Afrkiaaner-dominated following.” (South African rugby is on a high at the moment and has been growing from strength to strength. The sport, along with most sectors of society, has confronted its past, probably when the country held its Truth and Reconciliation proceedings in the 1990s. Of course, there are still pockets of resistance, such as the AWB and Eugene Terreblanche and the likes, as well as people like Julius Malema. NB: The right spelling is ‘Afrikaner’. Afrikaans is their language.)

By the way, I am not South African.

SARU is constantly trying to improve its relations with black South Africans.

Would you call Football a pillar of the old racist Australia (against aborigines)? The AFL has been very proactive in embracing indigenous Australians.

I am not on either the Union or soccer side. I follow football. But your article was clearly written in an hour with very little research. You are now trying to pass the burden of proof onto the readers.
I suggest you write a follow up article that actually covers all the issues dicussed in the comments. People like reading the article to find out about the topic, not the comments.

1. Soccer
2. Soccer
3. Soccer

Now, what’s your point and why do we care?

facts are facts, ignored or otherwise.

As for Union fans in this country, yeah a lot of em do, but they’ve still got nothing on the soccer ranks and their “world game” crap. I personally like the NRL, but I’ll watch Rugby Union and the AFL. At least the three contact sports in this country aren’t all up themselves in the way soccer is.

A statement like this should be backed up with a journal article. It is a very bug accusation to make. Rugby Union has made very big strides in embracing the ‘new South Africa’.
Please have a read of the media articles that i have linked to near the bottom of page 1, they should be very good at improving your good discussion skills on the topic.

Any changes regarding black athletes made by the South African Rugby Union have almost inevitably and universally been under intense pressure from the South African government. The government has said as much on numerous occasions.

“With the arrival of the new multiracial South Africa, the term ‘Springbok” was deemed obsolete. It was seen as being a reminder of the days when whites only were allowed in South African teams. When they returned to the international scene, teams from the republic were to be known only as South Africa…”

Very much like South African union generally…espousing high ideals, and falling well, well short.

Hopefully he (and his pseudonyms) are banned permanently.

Back to the issue at hand:-

Craven did in fact refer to rugby league players as “reptiles” and did his best to kill off rugby league in SA. Well said Akazie.

Rugby union also was a highly reluctant participant in the overthrow of apartheid as the structures of apartheid had made the Springboks the best union team in the world (with the New Zealanders). Craven’s desperation to restart traditional union tours lay behind any meagre attempts to entertain dialogue with black leaders.

The 1995 Rugby World Cup was full of window dressing such as Rob Andrew’s famed appearance before a group of rugby league players in Soweto (the players were Widnesian David Southern’s doing I understand).

Mandela’s appearance – contrary to the Invictus line – was due to his clear grasp of union’s role as a pillar of apartheid. He grasped the symbolism of his appearance; unlike many union supporters watching on.

The FIFA World Cup and the story of black football in South Africa clearly show that soccer remains the big sport in that country despite the fact the people who follow it have been treated like vermin for decades on end. While this is still changing, some would argue at a snail’s pace, soccer in South Africa still lives with the impact of a racist past in that country. Sporting attendances are one mere reflection of it.

Think about it.

For the record, I have travelled to Africa – including South Africa – extensively.

It is clear that futbol is no.1 sport in South Africa, and that is never in dispute.

However by labelling rugby as a pillar of the apartheid regime is appalling, and I cannot believe this sort of rubbish was even allowed to be published by the editors.

Franklin Black, I challenge you to say this article to the likes of Tendai Mtawirra, Bryan Habana, JP Pieterson, the Ndungane brothers, Breyton Paulse, Chester Williams, Jongi Nokwe, Guthro Steenkamp, Ashwin Willemse, Zane Kirchner, Conrad Jantjes and many other black/coloured players.

It is easy to be a hard man over the internet, albeit a very poorly informed one.

1. It is hardly a common claim by normal rugby folk that rugby is the number one participant sport in SA.
2. It does have outstanding attendance figures.
3. They have gone a long long way in adjusting their approach from the position 20 years ago which is a recognised mistake and they do have a long way to go. It isn’t the only sport with a questionable history supporting corrupt regimes. What is North Korea doing in any international competition?