South Africa was rightly shunned by world rugby when the Springboks barred qualified players from the chance to play Test rugby for their nation. Yet South Africa has revived the practice and World Rugby is silent; indeed, tacitly approves.
South Africa was only symbolically ‘democratic’ under the rule of the Nationalist Party; the system was corrupt, resting on a false belief of inherent, heritable racial characteristics, and moral superiority.
A series of apartheid programmes sought to slice and dice various communities into divided camps of antipathy. Sport was used as an evil fulcrum, instead of a mechanism of hope, to rise up.
Isolation trumped the practice; rejoining world sport was supposed to bring with it an adherence to global standards.
But South Africa’s democracy is still corrupted, by the new one-party rulers, in the African National Congress’ overt goal of absolute demographic representativity. This should pose grave consequences for South Africa’s sporting teams.
Quotas based on race have no place in sport if Olympic charters or governing bodies’ mission statements are to be believed. South Africa is a key member of World Rugby; perhaps other members are loathe to criticise?
Obviously, South Africa’s shameful history of robbing talented athletes of the chance to shine on the world stage places an extraordinary responsibility on bodies such as SARU to find more ways to develop rugby in townships and as yet unreached disadvantaged communities.
South Africa’s government has been woeful in adding opportunities for the least privileged in the country; corruption can have a profoundly negative effect on social mobility, economic advancement, and the kinds of truly sustainable growth a downtrodden society needs.
Has the ANC neglected sport in the poorest sectors on purpose? Or was it just a question of poor priorities? Does the ANC believe in rugby as a unifying, uplifting device?
If the ANC really wants more elite black rugby players, why aren’t there more?
There are many more factors that may cause a lag time in a changing racial composition of the Springboks.
First, rugby is more expensive to develop into a league-quality sport than soccer. There are many more technical, strength, and body type requirements in rugby; safety is an unavoidable duty.
Second, it is a very rough sport, and many parents who did not themselves grow up in a rugby culture may be reluctant to let their boys play this code. I am not aware of any effective legal device in South Africa to ‘force’ a family or community to embrace a sport.
Third, elite sport entertainment is big business; rugby is up against sophisticated competitors. Cricket, soccer and MMA all know how to attract teenage boys in better, faster, more lasting ways than rugby. Even golf and tennis have superior marketing strategies.
But chasing an elusive proportionality with a hard racial quota in all of South Africa’s national sports teams is not the answer to a grass-roots marketing, development, and competition problem.
The question I have is how racial quotas in South Africa, of all places, are acceptable to the international sporting community.
Almost every international sporting body prohibits racial discrimination and government interference in sport:
South Africa’s very own constitution (at Section 9[4]) and the core values of equality, human rights and non-racialism forbid discrimination on grounds of race and ethnic origin.
Racial quotas contravene the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, which authorises numerical targets, but specifically prohibits quotas.
Rugby players are employees. Racial quotas for labour are squarely wrong.
Sport must be accessible to all South Africans, but this needs to be done through development, not imposing blanket quotas that cap the numbers of minority communities in South Africa who may dearly love a particular sport (such as Indians who embrace cricket as a defining cultural characteristic, or Coloureds who love rugby, but are not considered ‘ethnic black African’).
Those different cultural tastes and interests are difficult to engineer around. Do we want that? Isn’t that the beauty of a rainbow nation?
South Africa should field the best possible teams in every sport in which we compete. Then we will be proud of our sports stars because they are ours, not because they belong to a particular race.
Racial quotas should isolate South Africa again, and definitely are a source of division, rather than national unity.
Hertryk
Guest
I whole heartedl;y agree... absolutely ... Well voiced Biltonbek..:) SARU cannot do it on their own..
Harry Jones
Expert
Thanks for the (mostly) excellent post, Mr Brink.
George Brink
Guest
I read an absolutely huge amount of verbal diarrhea spewed forth on this subject and in parts this article joins that category. If you look at the make up of the South African rugby, cricket, hockey, swimming and many other teams, they accurately follow the make up of the schools that have invested in the rugby fields, cricket pitches, water based hockey pitches, swimming pools etc. Those facilities are almost completely absent in the mainly black and rural areas. Until the facilities are available for kids to be engaged and encouraged at an early age in the sports, you cannot hope for transformation. If the ANC Government is truly committed to transformation then give the sporting bodies the land to develop the facilities in the black and rural areas. The Sports will find the graders to level the ground, the landscapers to grass it, the committed coaches to instill a love of the sport in kids and to develop them into world class players. The sports will find the money and volunteers to make it work, but they cannot begin to even start without the land. The One Thousand Hockey Legs project in India is a perfect example of this. When they have acquired land near a school the NGO has done the rest and the schools have reaped the benefits in increased attendance, better learning practices and the development of top class Hockey teams in areas where Hockey, the national sport of India, was almost dead. Out there tare future Olympians who haven't yet been introduced to the sport in which they will represent their country. Give the sports the land and they will find these Olympians.
Harry Jones
Expert
Also, my use of the word "shameful" came in the context of describing apartheid, which I lived through and combatted. Here was the quote: "Obviously, South Africa’s shameful history of robbing talented athletes of the chance to shine on the world stage places an extraordinary responsibility on bodies such as SARU to find more ways to develop rugby in townships and as yet unreached disadvantaged communities."
Harry Jones
Expert
Neil, it's a good debate to have. It goes to the questions about "what is sport?" and "how sport can be part of progress" and "the morality of sport." There is always a moral dimension, but it's not abundantly clear what the "right side" is at times. Particularly when addressing and attempting to correct past damage from corruption of principle, distortion of democracy, and unsustainable systems. I hope I haven't come off as someone who doesn't grapple honestly with those issues; rather than being someone who is overly simplistic, I believe my friends and family would tell you I see too many dimensions at times. But in the end, we all have to fasten ourselves to some set of noble principles and rise above mere self-interest. Thanks for taking the time to read my little essay, which was directed more to people outside SA. I learned a lot from their comments. I'll continue to write on the subject, which I believe is important, and upon which I can claim a fair amount of expertise, having been involved in the struggle for full democracy and lowered corruption (shameful corruption) in SA my whole life.
NeilB
Guest
Wow Harry you've waded into a debate that has many more dimensions than you realise! I'm a white male Saffer living in SOuth Africa and a victim of economic employment quotas called Black Economic Empowerment, and I still can't say it's wrong. It's an attempt to do the right thing and there are good consequences and bad. Sport quotas are not as simple as you make out. They are more like targets as you would have business targets. And they get used by people at all ends of the spectrum to promote their own political agendas. Your use of strong words like "shameful" are an attempt to show yourself to be on the right side of the moral fence on this issue. I'm afraid there is no such thing and you should probably visit and investigate before you speak again on the matter. A good place to start would be to read the open letter that SARU published today.
Harry Jones
Expert
An Open Letter to South Africa from the President of SARU 9th September 2015 Thirty-one proud South Africans, their coach and management team will climb aboard a flight to London on Friday to set off on a great adventure with one goal in mind: to bring back the Rugby World Cup for their fellow South Africans. They are the pride of our nation – and those are the words of the Minister for Sport and Recreation, Mr Fikile Mbalula, who spoke so passionately and brilliantly in support of the team at their farewell banquet on Tuesday evening. Those players will move heaven and earth to make our country proud; they will throw their bodies into those places where the contest is at its fiercest and their chests will be bursting with pride at the honour of representing every single one of their fellow countrymen. Not one of those players selected himself and yet there are those who wish them ill, and even to fail, as some form of protest against rugby and what they perceive to be our transformation record. Many opinions have been aired over recent weeks and I have listened to them with growing frustration. I have been frustrated because the good story we have been telling has been falling on deaf ears; and we do have a good news story to tell. Let us get one thing absolutely clear: Our sport is massively transformed from where it was in 1992. The idea of an “exclusive”, “white-dominated” game is frankly laughable. What we are is a successful, high performance sport in a competitive global environment; we are a responsible South African corporate citizen and we are a business. We fully realise that to stay relevant and vibrant in our country we need to evolve. So, no one needs to lecture us about the importance of transformation – we got there long ago. For instance, where were the critics almost three years ago when we became the first sport in SA to hold a national transformation indaba (in November 2012)? We invited the MECs for sport of all nine provinces as well as the sports minister and SASCOC leadership to the occasion as we began to map the way forward. We even set out our intentions in a Transformation Declaration. We audited our game and we workshopped and wrangled and we fine-tuned our planning for two years and our General Council of 14 provinces ratified the plan in December 2014. Two months later we presented it publicly; published it on our website; printed a 60-page handbook for all our provinces and in May we signed an MOU with SASCOC and the Department of Sports & Recreation to deliver on that plan. We did that not because anyone was burning jerseys or taking us to court but because we could clearly see the way forward and knew exactly what needed doing. And it wasn’t just about numbers in the Springbok squad. Our Strategic Transformation Plan has six dimensions (demographics, access, social responsibility, performance, corporate governance and capacity building); it has 71 measurable key performance indicators; it has targets for every aspect for every year to 2019 – we have nailed our colours to the mast. So in the week that we were first lambasted for being an elite, white sport we opened our 32nd mobile gym for black schools and clubs in Pacaltsdorp; we inaugurated our fifth ‘Boks for Books’ library in an under-privileged school in Stellenbosch and we were named sports federation of the year in awards for women’s sport. Did that rate a mention? Was any of that weighed in the scales of criticism of ‘evil’ SARU? All anyone was interested in was the fact that there were eight black players in a squad of 31 when 84% of the under-18 population is black African. It makes no sense does it? Well here’s some more statistics for you. In our most populace province of KZN, 97% of schoolboys NEVER play rugby. And the proportion is the same in Limpopo, North West and Mpumalanga – four of our biggest provinces where only 3% of boys have access to rugby at school. It’s hardly any better in Gauteng, Free State, the Northern Cape and even the Eastern Cape where around 85% of boys NEVER have access to rugby at school. And if you don’t start at school you will never become a Springbok. Only in the Western Cape – where 46% of schools play rugby - can the game really be called a ‘national sport’. Only about 10% of schoolboys ever see a rugby ball at primary school and by the time we get to high school that rugby playing population has dwindled to a fraction at the 1st XV level. It is from that tiny subset of potential players that Springboks emerge. But we are not down hearted because rugby is very good at identifying talent and we now we can achieve our targets. Our game thirsts for outstanding players and whether one emerges in a township school or from a traditional rugby school you can be sure the system will find him and nurture him. And we now have a thoroughly worked out five-year plan on which we can be judged and with which we are aligned with our government. The transformation train has left the station and it is the critics that have been left on the platform. Rugby is definitely on track. Let us turn now to that aeroplane and those young men and their management who will do duty against Japan in Brighton on 19 September with the sole intention of bringing joy to this country. I would urge all supporters to demonstrate their true feelings towards the team, in the way that the team shows its loyalty to our country - by wearing their Springbok jerseys to the shop, the office, the factory, the mine or on the farm on Friday. The team leaves that evening carrying our hopes with them; join me in showing them that they have our unqualified support. Mr Oregan Hoskins President South African Rugby Union
Ettienne, been going through this article again, and your attitude has been rather agressive on this topic, so I would like to know how you berate me for saying the public doesn't care about the make up of thr Springbok team as long as it is the best players. You suggest I am out of touch and cannot speak for the public, however when you say many others have the viewpoint they want a more representative side it is OK? Firstly how many are the many others? 10, 400, 1 million? If so, do you speak for the public? What makes your viewpoint "in touch" and mine not? Seconldy suggesting many has a viewpoint, or a "want" is not the same as "demand" To assist you with a bit of comprehension, I walk into McDonalds wanting a BigMac, is different to demanding a Big Mac. Finally, we all want the same thing, a springbok side that is selected on merit, it would be wonderful to have a Springbok side that is representative (which by virtue of thr ANC can change from month to month) so we can all start looking past the colour issue. Some believe it is SARU's responsibility to develop grass roots and others like myself believe government has a responsibility to develop healthy young bodies and minds, education is not only about academics, but that's just me.
Roger, as you state, there are many White South Africans in the stands and controlling the game, but tehre are as many South Africans in the stands and in management that would love SA sport ingeneral to be more representative as well. People who have no issue with the colour of a player's skin. The one fundamental difference between team sport and individual sport is that in individual ort there is nowhere to hide, you are either good enough to achieve at international level or you are not. Whereas in team sport you can mix and match and still be competitive. I am no politician, in fact I hate politics with a passion, I only have my conscience. I believe live and let live, opportunity for all and tolerance for everyone. I am for quotas in domestic sport as that can provide opportunities for everyone, I am however against quotas at international level simply because national honours should still encourage elite performance for the rewards it brings. We have a culture of entitlement in our country, hence the corruption and open hand nature of so many, Our first priority must be education, that education is what will change the landscape and economy of South Africa, job creation is going to accelerate when educated young people can be innovative and become entrepenurial. But education has to do with more than academics, sport is necessary for balanced education, so government must invest in schools for balanced education, including mind and body.
Edward Pye
Roar Guru
So, non-quota based solutions to making SA rugby more inclusive: Funding at lower levels Transformation Grants Elite training academies Black African Team
open eyes
Guest
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe the reason there are not that many black players who reach top level rugby is because not all blacks want to play rugby? If you have a large portion of the black population that is not really passionate about playing the game it can explain why small numbers of them reach the top level. However if the reality is that there are plenty of black players as good as or better than the lighter skinned players then by all means they should be on the pitch. To settle this never ending debate of who should make the the squad perhaps the best black team could face the best white team. That would show everyone who generally is better at the game (a good old pissing contest). Once that is settled we can go back to normal by just taking the best players, irrespective of skin color. I really hope I haven't offended any sensitive souls as it really isn't my objective. I am not south african but I love south africa and have visited your country many times and lived there for 2 years. I had great admiration and awe for nelson mandela but your zuma guy is disgrace to the legacy of the anc.
Roger
Guest
Apologies if the point I am going to make has already been raised, saw the article just now and thought I might be able to offer a unique perspective as a black South African. In any case my point is, quotas while not ideal are necessary because of the lingering link between rugby and Afrikaner nationalism. Now while it might be nice to think if the ANC government could do more to fund rugby at the grass roots this would increase the pool of black players from which a national team could be selected and hence solve this whole representative team issue organically. This belief I think is naive. There are still far too many people who control the game in RSA allied with many in the stands who would like to keep rugby in South Africa as a bastion of white identity and would hence regardless of how many talented black players come through will continue to favour white players over black players.
Andy
Guest
etienne, I have really enjoyed your contributions. I can only hope that there are many South Africans that see things the way you do.
etienne marais
Guest
Bennalong, By virtue of the fact that we have had to define what you mean by "traditional democracy" the inherent implication is that democracy is an evolving concept, I am sure you will agree. The different elements contained within the framework of the evolving philosophy behind democracy, has been expanding, particularly in modern times, as we have moved towards constitutions which are based on the values of human rights culture. Restorative justice is one such element. In the South African context, affirmative action is an instrument of restorative justice that finds its raison d'être in the massive, systemic inequality of access to opportunities that was (and is) the intentional (and sometimes unitentional) consequence of the Apartheid system. It is inconceivable that this inequality could ever have been remedied without the intervention of some form of "affirmative action". Whilst I concede that the effectiveness and fairness of some measures are debatable (in both policy and execution), for me, the principled requirements behind restorative justice trumps the more litteral and absolutist expressions of "democracy" and "discrimination". I did not arrive at this conclusion in a hurry; it is the product of years of evolution in thought and study on history, human nature, and empirical understanding. Since, in defining "traditional democracy", you cite England, I will leave you with some of the thoughts of Winston Churchill on democracy: "Many forms of government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."
bennalong
Guest
Etienne Marais, By traditional democracy I refer to modern western democracy which arose over time in England but developed significantly in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and was advanced significantly in America. The abolition of slavery by the English was part of this thinking and was quite revolutionary given that slavery existed throughout history and still exists in the third world now (and in greater numbers than in colonial times), including parts of Africa. If all you say when questioned is " I'm in favour of affirmative action, where warranted" the obvious question is who makes the value judgement? Slavery existed in part because of discrimination against people, often of different appearance. This is what you propose but you call it 'affirmative action' without realising that you are espousing a subjective assessment that is discriminatory. One group profits at the expense of another. Its a game of relative power. It is regressive unless it give to all in similar need, regardless of race, sect tribe or creed.
etienne marais
Guest
Perhaps I misunderstood you Harry; I understood you to imply that "most [now] anti-quota Saffas were most probably anti-apartheid when opposition came with a huge price" (pre-94). And that would certainly represent historical revisionism. But my apologies, if I misunderstood you.
Harry Jones
Expert
It's the consistent principled position: one man one vote in 1970 and best man for the job in 2015.
James in NZ
Guest
Fifa probably foolishly think sports are supposed to bring people together instead of dividing them.
etienne marais
Guest
"most probably were anti-apartheid when opposition came with a huge price" Really? Some evidence for this very bold statement would be welcome.
etienne marais
Guest
"Good post. Specifically what could SARU do?" Harry, in a similarly themed discussion last year, I mentioned to you that I find it astounding that we (the Rugby fraternity, including SARU) have no idea why there is a massive fall-off in player of colour participation from the senior school level to the club level. We all speculate and pontificate, but the simple truth is we just do not know the operative forces behind this problem. I suggested, at the time, that SARU should commission at least three different and independent PhD-level dissertations at three universities in the big three provinces, to determine why this is happening. As a choke point, it would seem, this phenomenon is currently the biggest problem hampering rugby transformation. How SARU has not conceived for themselves to embark on this exercise at least six years ago, when the problem was first identified, is simply mystifying. If not incompetence, then what? So, in answer to your question, this is extremely urgent research that they need to commission. Start there and see what we learn. Incidentally, there was an M-level dissertation by a Stellenbosch student earlier this year, in which his research also suggested that the bottom-up approach (which is the only workable solution) is failing somewhere, and he identified certain systemic shortcomings. I'll see if I can find his paper.