|
Presidents
Council
Posted by Desmond - 8 August 2007 |
| |
The recent announcement by the Presidents Council that players
contracted overseas will not be eligible to play for South Africa
has shocked Rugby World Cup preparations. The announcement that Gary
Botha at the age of 25 will be playing overseas was perhaps a slap
in the face for Oregan Hoskins and company. SA Rugby has responded
by moving quickly to ensure that players at the World Cup are not
lured by lucrative contracts from overseas scouts at the World Cup.
I believe that such decisions are against the free market system and
as such have no place in the modern game.
Although many will argue that the opportunities at home are
plentiful there are those that will say that in the current
environment it is hardly surprising that youngsters are signing
overseas contracts. Players at the business end of their careers
often sign contracts to enhance their income prior to retirement and
there is nothing wrong with this, however when youngsters do the
same it is testimony to the fact that the game in South Africa is
not professionally administered across all sectors. Gary Botha may
not be guaranteed selection for South Africa after the RWC
irrespective of his location; Bismark Du Plessis may already be
stepping ahead of him as first choice hooker. Personally I think
that his decision is driven by the recent outbursts from ill
informed politicians.
The threat to enforce a minimum of 10 black players in the national
team will have startled the players at the beginning of their
professional careers, if enacted it represents nothing more than a
repeat of failed affirmative action policies of the past. Sure there
is an absolute need for representation in South Africa and the
business community has achieved great success in this regard, but at
what cost. Anybody who tells me that leaving is purely financial has
failed to grasp the reality of the South African situation, I
personally left South Africa at the end of 1996 to pursue career
opportunities denied me at home. I challenge any politician to prove
to me that the affirmative action of the late 1990’s did not deny me
opportunities. Some will call this hypocritical but at the end of
the day free enterprise has ensured that there are opportunities for
people who are denied by the process of addressing the imbalances of
the past.
At what cost do we continue to force people into a situation where
in order to fulfil their god given potential they are forced away
from home, not all cases are the same and I have no argument with
Matfield, Smit and Montgommery who have given heart and soul to the
South African game. We lose the experience that comes with their
decision to play overseas, Smit and Matfield still have a great deal
to offer the national team and their availability going forward
would have been to the benefit of youngsters of all backgrounds. In
the past the poor performances of the national team sparked a debate
to allow foreign based players to represent the team, this has often
been a failure if you consider the contributions of players like
Andre Snyman who has earnt a lot of money from playing overseas and
being contracted by SA Rugby. Bobby Skinstad came home to earn the
right to play for the Boks again and perhaps this is the best way to
demonstrate your ability.
One of the reasons for the decision could be the increase in depth
in South African rugby, the team that played the overseas leg of the
Tri Nations proved that there is real depth back home and this is
despite the exodus overseas. On face value there is great reason for
continued optimism but think of the cost if players of colour go
overseas at their prime. Will the position be reversed if a Bryan
Habana or a JP Pietersen went overseas to earn money that perhaps
they would not earn in South Africa? Ashwin Willemse is well aware
that he may not be selected on ability alone should Jake White step
down as coach, but there is no doubt that having him remain in South
Africa is good value in terms of developing role models. Young black
players in this country are certainly getting opportunities at the
school boy level and this is great for the game, failure to increase
player representation at Currie Cup and Super 14 level is forcing
the hand of my favourite politicians.
The All Blacks have so much depth that they can afford to select
only those players that play the game in New Zealand, something that
South Africa can not claim at this point in time and are unlikely to
be able to do for several more years. Professionalism is about
building the game and increasing its popularity and to do this you
need cash and this comes from success at the school, club,
provincial and country levels. If the board of SA Rugby does not
understand this then it is they that should be affirmed and not the
people that play the game week in and week out. There are many
employees at SA Rugby that would not be in the same position in many
other countries and there is truth to the argument that they should
be measured on their performances as it has arguably come on the
back of those denied opportunities in the past.
Over the next couple of months many more senior players will
consider the lucrative opportunity of club rugby in Europe and
elsewhere and this is not a problem as long as there are sufficient
role models at home to pass on their experiences at all levels of
the game. We have seen Jake White build a team over a number of
years following the debacle of the 2003 World Cup and now for some
reason I think that the administrators might be throwing the baby
out with the bathwater, what good will it do for SA Rugby if the
next coach has to build from a similar position after the current
World Cup. |
|
