Transformation demands alive and well in SA.

Johannesburg - South Africa's Olympic boss, Gideon Sam, has called on rugby unions and role players in the sport to make transformation a top priority.
Sam, the president of the SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc) was addressing the SA Rugby Union (SARU) transformation indaba in Johannesburg on Tuesday.

“Let transformation not be the poor cousin of all your programmes," Sam said.

"Don’t let it lie down there, the transformation issue, so that it must come back from time to time to breathe life into it."

Sam said it was important that representatives from provincial rugby unions steered transformation to ensure there was an even playing field in the sport.

SARU chief executive Jurie Roux hoped the indaba would lead to a watershed moment for rugby in the country.

The transformation workshop was attended by provincial rugby union presidents and chief executives, SARU management, sports portfolio committee chairperson Richard Mdakane and sports minister Fikile Mbalula.

So unoficially there are no quotas, then what are we supposed to read into this.

What frustrates me is these veiled demands that are supposed to deny the requests and demands for transformation, but then by the same token it is demanded.

It is like saying, we aren't enforcing quotas onto you, but we aren't satisfied with you efforts for transformation.

Do they not understand the danger in forcing and fast tracking players into professional rugby if they aren't good enough?

I have no problem with transformation, in fact I welcome it, but let it happen naturally, we are already behind the 8 ball, do we really need another issue that deter us from reaching our potential?

If government wants transformation, then get the bloody schools on track, that is where the talent is going to come from, not from the professional teams.

They have done nothing for rugby at the traditional non rugby schools, do they expect SARU to use private money to develop grounds and infrastructure in an excess of 24500 public schools?

What do they mean by 'transformation'?

Well that's the thing.

Call it an unofficial quota system.

They won't tell you how many non whites must be representing each team, but they will keep telling you when they aren't satisfied yet.

This way they keep their side clean by denying there is quotas.

So they're being racist basically.

They don't see it that way, to them it is justifiable to re address the past no matter the end result.

What peeves me off is the fact that this is sport, and by doing what they are, results come second to their agenda's

What an idiot, in effect he's saying that they need to create an uneven playing field to ensure an even playing field.

Does that mean they're going to get more white South Africans into the Soccer team?

Biltong wrote:

Johannesburg - South Africa's Olympic boss, Gideon Sam, has called on rugby unions and role players in the sport to make transformation a top priority.
Sam, the president of the SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc) was addressing the SA Rugby Union (SARU) transformation indaba in Johannesburg on Tuesday.

“Let transformation not be the poor cousin of all your programmes," Sam said.

"Don’t let it lie down there, the transformation issue, so that it must come back from time to time to breathe life into it."

Sam said it was important that representatives from provincial rugby unions steered transformation to ensure there was an even playing field in the sport.

SARU chief executive Jurie Roux hoped the indaba would lead to a watershed moment for rugby in the country.

The transformation workshop was attended by provincial rugby union presidents and chief executives, SARU management, sports portfolio committee chairperson Richard Mdakane and sports minister Fikile Mbalula.

So unoficially there are no quotas, then what are we supposed to read into this.

What frustrates me is these veiled demands that are supposed to deny the requests and demands for transformation, but then by the same token it is demanded.

It is like saying, we aren't enforcing quotas onto you, but we aren't satisfied with you efforts for transformation.

Do they not understand the danger in forcing and fast tracking players into professional rugby if they aren't good enough?

I have no problem with transformation, in fact I welcome it, but let it happen naturally, we are already behind the 8 ball, do we really need another issue that deter us from reaching our potential?

If government wants transformation, then get the bloody schools on track, that is where the talent is going to come from, not from the professional teams.

They have done nothing for rugby at the traditional non rugby schools, do they expect SARU to use private money to develop grounds and infrastructure in an excess of 24500 public schools?

I can understand your frustration as a South African rugby fan, but I think the way you've reported this quote is slightly misleading. It's not as though the Olympic boss just came out with this quote out of nowhere - he was speaking at a conference specifically dealing with transformation in South African rugby. In that context, I would read the quote as praising the work of SARU in keeping the issue of transformation on the agenda, rather than being a caution that informal quotas aren't being met.

You say that they need to get the schools on track. From reading a report of this workshop, it seems as though this was identified as an issue, with the Chief Exec of SARU specifically talking about growing the sport from grassroots levels.

You also say:

Biltong wrote:They don't see it that way, to them it is justifiable to re address the past no matter the end result.

What peeves me off is the fact that this is sport, and by doing what they are, results come second to their agenda's

I don't think it's such a bad thing to recognise that some things are more important than sport. I'm sure that as a South African rugby fan, you believe that the results of the team are the be-all-and-end-all. I completely understand and sympathise with that view. I think that one could make a strong case, however, that rugby and South African society would both benefit from the game being more representative of the whole of South African society.

Jbeadles, I quoted it directly from a SA website.

As far as transformation and sacraficing sporting excellence, I completely disagree with you.

The way I see transformation.

1. Let government put their money where their mouths are. I spoke to a black mate of mine who provides me lots of info about soccer, government etc.

He says the biggest problem with rugby in tradional non rugby schools is that the teachers fight against it and there is no funding for development of structures and facilities.

2. let the talent that flows from there then filter into clubs, vodacom cup teams and currie cup teams. That is where there is then a level playing field. because it is only domestic teams that compete against one another.

3. when these players step up to Super rugby and International rugby, there are two reasons why it must be based on meirt only. Firstly safety. When a player who is not good enough, technically astute or strong enough for the rigors of that level, they can get serious injuries. so it is a safety aspect firstly.

It also boils down to sporting excellence to gain sponsors, television revenue and bums on seats.

If we hamper our ability to compete at the levels where we compete against other nation's super franchises or teams, it will influence the financial viability of the professional sport.

4. We have all seen it, a player is selected for a team that we as supporters beleive he is not the best, there is an uproar becuase it weakens a team, especially when it comes to skills and defences.

5. Why do you think we lose so much talent to overseas nations?

Becuase of this exact reasons.

I struggle to post on these kinds of threads because I don't want to pretend I fully understand the situation.

But what you say makes sense to me biltong, start at the school and grass roots level and build from there, it just makes sense. Anything else smacks of impatience and unnecessarily forcing the issue.

If certain non-white (if I can use the term) players are not good enough, too bad. There'll be more Habanas and Pietersons without the need to be heavy handed about it. Trying to be the worlds best is hard enough without having to contend with heavy regulation and subsidy schemes, false economy.

Surely the main aim is to get the kids involved in sport (in general), not to prove a point, if that is in fact what the whole thing is about(?).

jbeadlesbigrighthand wrote:
I don't think it's such a bad thing to recognise that some things are more important than sport. I'm sure that as a South African rugby fan, you believe that the results of the team are the be-all-and-end-all. I completely understand and sympathise with that view. I think that one could make a strong case, however, that rugby and South African society would both benefit from the game being more representative of the whole of South African society.

So you think its ok to use South African rugby as a political tool?

Gideon Sam made his comments in a conference about transformation in rugby, which is fair enough. The problem is that the 'transformation' issue a complicated one, that is in many cases the symptom of broader societal problems, and solving it is, in many respects, beyond the scope of SARU. For instance: virtually all SA professional rugby players (black and white) come from a very small selection of private and elite government schools. They are virtually all from the same middle-class echeleon of society. The vast majority of South Africans, and the even vaster majority of black South Africans, are not middle class and do not go to these schools. In fact in 90% of SA schools, no sport is offered at all (let alone rugby), and it is through school rugby (rather than club rugby) that junior players feed into the provincial teams.

Hence, one of the key factors determining access to top level rugby is access to top-level schools, which is an economic question and a bit beyond SARU's powers to fix. The government (which cannot even get the academic part of the school system working, let alone the sporting side) may respond by saying that SARU should develop extra-school club rugby in poorer areas, and this may help spread the game, but the quality of coaching, equipment (think how important gyming is to the modern game), nutrition, etc, in townships is never going to match that of the elite schools, and thus even if the playing of rugby spread to the townships (which it is doing more and more), it would be the rare township player who'd be able to match the legions of rugger-buggers churned out of the elite schools.

Regarding the question of whether some social issues may be more important than sport: I agree, that some issues are more imprtant, but the way the transformation issue has played out in South African sport (in in SA in general) makes me question whether the 'quota' system is the right way to go about it. Broadly speaking in SA the transformation issue has given rise to a mediocracy (rather than a meritocracy) whereby, whether one is actually competent in a role, is of no concern in detrming whether one should assume that role. However, in the competitive world of sport, where the opposition seek to exploit your weaknesses, competence becomes essential. The incompetent in rugby will definitely fail, will possibly get injured and will end up having their confidence shattered if they are promoted above their ability (and if this happens at national level, national confidence also takes a dive).

It has been interesting to note, that success in sport, in SA, attracts a multi-racial following regardless of the race of the sportsmen/women. The Blue Bulls, for a long time the most succesful SA domestic team, report that 60% of their fan-base is non-white. This is astounding if you consider that 20years ago, the Bulls were the icon of far-right racist white South Africa! Their, multi-racial following is not because the team is 'transformed' either, the players are mostly white. It is because they are (were) good, possibly the best club in the world for a few years. People in the Northern Tranvsaal (the Bulls homeground) white and black, enjoyed supporting a team that was the best. Likewise, with the boks when they win world cups, they are suddenly hailed as African heroes. So while transformation is important, I think that in the case of rugby, excellence is also important, because South Africans of all races want to have one area where they can mix it with the best in the world. That makes us all proud...

Great post MrFishpaste.

Overall I think it sounds encouraging. In 20 years a lot seems to have happened. I still remember when Chester Williams was 'unique'.

But it is, even in rugby terms, a major overhaul in this area.

Fully agree that the development must occur in schools as that is the future, and in 20 years there will be a different face of SA rugby again.

But having faces at the top level on a consistent basis on an ever increasing basis is also a must as they serve as the role models for the next generation. Their actual abilities to play the game as well or better than those who might be in their place is at this time still secondary to them being there as role models for entire generations, whether people want to admit it or not. An ability to play well is a perception, and if the youth continue to see these players on a regular basis, the flow on effect cannot be measured, and certainly not underestimated.

Besides, SA rugby is shooting itself in the foot in other respects so it has more than this issue to contend with.

Fact is the fast tracking will always be too slow for some who hold this opinion strongly because it should have happened 100 years ago in their opinion, so in that respect, transformation is well overdue, and that opinion to an extent must also be respected, as it holds more water than the results of a few test loss wins as an argument.

At some point the number of black players will overtake the number of whites in the professional rugby scene purely because of the population ratio- anyone who denies that is a fool, and globally, the presence of darker skinned players more than represent their population ratio on the whole. In NZ pacific islanders and maori make up for less than 20%, in the states the numbers are far less yet look at the numbers.

As with anything in life, balance is required, too much of anything- good or bad, is inevitably bad.

And while its good to have these arguments as a reminder, its also good to be able to remain competitive, something SA are still managing to do admirably with the many obstacles they are facing.

Looking at the numbers...

NZ- 22% Maori and pac. Island
USA- 14% african american
SA- 79% 'coloured'

so you'd have to assume that all things being equal, and given the trend since 1990 where only one or two appeared for the Boks, the numbers are increasing exponentially already looking at todays sxv and Bok sides.

So I agree Biltong, time to lay off the pro sides and focus on the schools and youth, push them through on merit. The momentum is already well and truly there already... the transformation demanders need to realign their strategies to where they might be more useful...

I think you got it wrong there Taylor,

Our census results just came out yesterday or the day before.

SA is
79% black African (our terminology seem to change every year)
8.9% 'coloured'
8.8% 'white'
2.5% 'asian/indian'

Only the 2nd and 3rd group really play rugby. I think the governments problem is that there is really no representation of the 79% and the majority of those that do fall in that group so far have been from Zimbabwe.

I can only think of Chilliboy, the Ndungane brothers and Lwasi Mvovo that played for the Springboks that were South African and from the majority of the population. There might be a few others that only played 1 or 2 games that I can't think of now.

The problem there though is that all the schools where most of the majority find themselves don't play rugby at all. Okay, I have only been to a few, but I still think that that is the case in most the schools.

O, and on the soccer comment, the national team is actually also over represented by the minorities, but all the minorities on average have got better access to better infrastructure, so that isn't really surprising.

The only thing they can do to advance transformation is to make accessibility to rugby easier for everyone, and for that they need to change how sport (and rugby)is being neglected in our schools.

Correct Fern, the reality is simple, government must develop school sport, that is their responsibility, my son is in a form C school, so it is semi private. This means us as parents fork out a lot of money for whatever they need to develop their structures.

We just recently built abolutions and dressing rooms with a catering hall at the school, all funded by parents.

Now the fully public schools can't do that, they need government assistance, firstly education was one of their priorities, so the question is why is our education system not improving as that is the future of our nation.

It has been 18 years sonce our free elections, that is a hell of a long time to do nothing.

80% of our population is not playing rugby, 24500 public schools need development.

Assume 70% of those don't have infrastructure, how is it that after 18 years there is still nothing?

Imagine we can get those communities passionate about rugby, our market will grow, there will be 5 times more omeny, and 5 times more professional teams.

We can easily run 30 or so pro teams, but the development starts at the bottom.