Dead end for SA Rugby
6 Mar 2008
Saru will remain lost in a maze of mediocrity unless structural changes are made, writes Gavin Rich.
Um … it has been said so often before, so one almost hesitates to say it again. South African rugby is being held back by an administration that is self-serving and has an outdated structure for a modern sport in the professional era.
That is not just the opinion of one journalist. Consult Google and scan through the articles written about the local rugby power structure over the past decade. Just two months ago, as he packed his bags for a new life in Italy, Nick Mallett, one of the more successful Springbok coaches, took a swipe at the rugby politicians by saying that they were ‘capable of buggering anything up’.
For Mallett, the remarkable thing about the Springbok triumph at last year’s World Cup was his view that it was achieved despite the ‘self-perpetuating incompetence’ of the administrators. Mallett is in Italy because he refuses to get out on the grass and coach in South Africa while the current structure is in place.
And you could say that Jake White made the same decision. White was not fired. If he had applied for a continuance of his contract as Bok coach, and had forced the South African Rugby Union’s (Saru) hand by applying on time, public pressure would have made it impossible for White to be dropped.
But as White outlined in his book, he just grew tired of fighting with people who did not always have South African rugby’s best interests at heart. Better to go seek employment elsewhere than continue with the team that he had nurtured for four years and which, on several occasions, the administrators nearly forced him to abandon.
Then there was Morné du Plessis. Highly respected around the rugby world for his statesmanship and his astute brain and common sense, Du Plessis was elected to the board of directors of SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd in November 2003. By the end of January 2004, Du Plessis was gone.
‘I couldn’t stand the fact that all the rugby decisions were being based not on what was good for the game but on me giving you a little bit of this in return for a bit of that,’ said Du Plessis as he announced his resignation after attending a bosberaad.
Du Plessis’s departure robbed the South African rugby leadership of what would have been a rarity: a former Springbok in a high place. And it was the lack of any respected former players of the game that jarred the most when Dr Ismael Jakoet, secretary of both Saru’s President’s Council and the board of SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd, read out the names of the people currently in office.
The President’s Council consists of the following luminaries: Saru president Oregan Hoskins, deputy president Mike Stofile, vice-president Koos Basson, plus the two independent women elected onto the council, Viwe Qegu Tine and Mandy Kalako-Williams.
Then come the provincial presidents: Boet Fick (Blue Bulls), Jackie Abrahams (Boland), Cliffie Pringle (Border), Pat de Silva and Cheeky Watson (Eastern Province), Rautie Rautenbach (Valke), Harold Verster (Cheetahs), Jan Marais (Griffons), Jannie Ferreira (Golden Lions), Dawie Groenewald (Griquas), Peter Hazard (Sharks), James Stofberg (Leopards), Stag Cronjé (SWD),
Tobie Titus (Western Province) and Gert Grobler (Pumas).
So call out the names on that list who have played rugby at the highest level. Cheeky Watson, who has half a vote as joint president of Eastern Province, may or may not have been a Bok had he not turned his back on the old South African Rugby Board set-up. Otherwise, there is no-one.
Now call out the names of those who have first-class rugby coaching experience. Draw a blank? Thought so. And yet, this is the group that had to ratify the appointment of the new Springbok coach at a meeting in early January.
Apparently, the election was a cliffhanger, with one vote eventually separating new incumbent Peter de Villiers from unlucky former Bulls Super 14-winning coach Heyneke Meyer. Let’s just hope that deciding vote was an informed decision, but don’t bet on it. In many cases, it would have been no more informed than the opinions expressed on the local pub veranda at sundowner time on a Friday.
Let’s look now at the board of the company. It comprises chairman Mpumulelo Tshume, Hoskins, Stofile, Basson, Keith Parkinson, Piet Heymans, Basil Haddard and SA Rugby managing director Jonathan Stones, with the sponsor’s representative, former Sasol director Trevor Munday, being briefed by Stones.
Parkinson was elected as an independent at the last AGM and is an experienced administrator, but again there is a dearth of big-name former players. Heymans, as the representative of the SA Players’ Association, is the man who puts forward the views of the current players, but he is only one voice.
Brian van Rooyen was in charge when Du Plessis resigned – it was the beginning of his reign as Saru president. He owed the smaller unions for their help in winning the presidential election, and what those unions, or rather their elected officials, wanted was power.
So around the same time that the likes of Du Plessis were distancing themselves from the bartering that was going on, there was a quantum change in the way rugby was administered. Under the previous regime, chief executive Rian Oberholzer, who worked in the game on a daily basis, ran the show, and the board of SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd, the commercial arm, was all-powerful.
‘In my time the commercial arm had its own board of directors, which consisted of four independent directors, seven provincial union presidents and the president and deputy president of Saru,’ Oberholzer tells SA Rugby magazine. ‘We did this because we felt it was unworkable to have an 18- or 19-man committee running rugby in the professional era. We needed to be more streamlined, we needed to be quicker with our decision-making, we needed to be more professional and businesslike. For whatever reason, the system was changed after I left the organisation.’
Oberholzer didn’t say it, but the only logical explanation for the change was the ambitions of individuals, namely the presidents of the 14 provincial unions. There were too many of them who resented not being on the board of directors of the company; they wanted more power.
The upshot was that Saru’s President’s Council, and not the board of directors, became the highest decision-making body. The elected officials of the 14 unions became the chief honchos, and not the professionals.
Hence some of the jibes of former rugby people and other critics who label the administrators amateur, with the other charges usually involving terms such as ‘gravy train’ and ‘gin-and-tonic brigade’ because of the perception that the part-timers were in it for what they could get personally from the game.
‘I don’t really know what the board of the commercial arm does now; it seems to be a largely toothless body. I hear rumours that soon it will be done away with completely and absorbed under one umbrella body,’ says Oberholzer.
The problem, though, may not be so much that the presidents have day jobs and don’t generally devote themselves full time to rugby, for obviously there are some good men who give their hearts and souls to the cause, but that their status as leaders of their respective unions means national interests are too often subjugated to provincial ambitions.
All the presidents have the same voting powers, which effectively means that the smaller unions can hijack the process and force the hand of much larger money earners than themselves. For instance, the Potch-based Leopards, who early last year could afford only a part-time, semi-professional senior provincial team, has the same voting power as the Sharks and the Bulls, two of the biggest unions in world rugby.
The money made by the five big unions – the Sharks, WP, Lions, Blue Bulls and Cheetahs – has largely kept South African rugby afloat during increasingly troubled times. It was well documented that Province ran into financial dire straits last year, but without the bigger unions the game couldn’t survive in this country, and the cash-strapped smaller unions are drawing on the Saru reserves.
A couple of years ago SA Rugby magazine published the contents of a document drawn up in 2003 by a task team appointed to investigate the potential financial crisis that was looming and to come up with workable solutions.
‘One of the big conclusions we came to was that professional rugby is not sustainable with nearly 700 professional players. That figure needs to be much nearer 300, which is what it is in other countries,’ says Sharks chief executive Brian van Zyl. ‘All the chief executives agreed with this. They knew what they were working with, they knew how much money was available. It was a great pity the report was not taken more seriously as a lot of chickens have now come home to roost.’
What the task team found back in 2003 was that too many provinces were weighed down by player wage bills that were unrealistic in terms of their income and annual turnover. What was essentially needed was for some unions to shut down, but this would never be acceptable to the officials who have to make such a decision, for they would be voting themselves out of the position that brings them so many benefits. You could say such a move would go against human nature – not everyone is like FW de Klerk.
There is a massive problem, though, when provinces such as the Griffons, Valke, Leopards and Eagles, all of whom have an annual turnover of well less than R10 million, hold the same voting power and say over the affairs of South African rugby as provinces such as the Sharks and Bulls, who boast a turnover of more than R100 million.
The Griffons, for instance, have no more than 22 players on contract and 10 on junior contracts, while at EP a significant proportion of the players play for just a match fee because of the financial crisis at the union.
However, the status quo will remain because it doesn’t serve individuals to lose their power, and it also sometimes doesn’t favour the influential players behind the scenes that often draw the smaller provinces into a voting cartel when it is election time.
Dr Louis Luyt used to do it; Van Rooyen certainly relied heavily on the support of the smaller union bloc, garnered for him ironically by the unseen but nevertheless powerful (in those constituencies) helping hand of former Bok coach André Markgraaff. This has been responsible for some of the more bizarre decisions taken over the years, such as the virtual dissolution of the commercial arm when Van Rooyen took over, a mistake he later appeared to admit to.
The company is now back in business and, according to Jakoet, the governance of our rugby has become more professional, with a more clearly defined line between what the company does and what the President’s Council presides over.
‘It is very simple and it is all laid down in our constitution, where there is a cooperation agreement which specifically states what the company does and what the union does,’ says Jakoet. ‘All amateur rugby is handled by Saru, while in broad terms the commercial arm looks after professional rugby. These two bodies consult with one another. Decisions relating to the professional side of the game have to be ratified by the board, and decisions relating to the amateur side of things have to be ratified by the President’s Council.’
For instance, the competitions committee will report to the President’s Council as ‘amateur’ competitions such as Vodacom Cup and the U21 tournament are subsumed under it, but matters relating to the Currie Cup, a professional competition, are referred to the board. However, there is a lot of grey area, such as the constitutional amendment that stipulates that the national coach and the national selectors should be appointed by the President’s Council.
Effectively, the coach is appointed by Saru’s President’s Council, but after that he is employed by the board of SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd. Understandably this does create problems and it means that the hottest seat in South African rugby is occupied by a man who arrived there courtesy of the whims and bartering processes of men who, in the words of some who have been there, often make important decisions not in the boardroom but over a few drinks at dinner the night before.
By Gavin Rich
– This article first appeared in SA Rugby magazine. The April issue will be on sale from Wednesday, 12 March.
58 Comments
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
6 Mar 2008, 14:36 pm
Dragons!
6 Mar 2008, 14:46 pm
Gavin
I think that Groenewald from GW was a provincial centre, wasn’t he?
6 Mar 2008, 14:50 pm
We all know this and read about it every year and get our knickers in a twist. Noone ever does anything about it though. And it is one thing for Gavin Rich to finger all the problems and gravy training, but I would enjoy hearing solutions to the Presidents Council Plague by guys like Rich and Keohane who are a lot closer to the action than the average supporter.
Give us solutions. Don’t just stand around watching a house a burn and describe the colour of the flames!!!!
6 Mar 2008, 15:03 pm
For example, how do we get someone like Morne DuPlesis (and people of his stature and integrity) more involved in the admin of the game?
What steps can be taken to blunt (or preferably eliminate) the stranglehold of the small unions. How does one overhaul the structures and ensure that puppets like Hoskins, mavericks like van Rooyen and gunslingers like Stofile are kept away from positions of power in our game?
What amazes me is that the clowns running the show are not exactly rocket scientists. Why then can someone with major intellectual backing not form an organisation, council or frikken terrorist organisation for all I care that plots a way to knock these people out of power?
Seriously it cannot be that difficult to turn Saru into a proffessional organisation? The fact that the big unions have not found a way to put the minnows in their place also shows a distinct lack of leadership seeing as they are the breadwinners in the first place.
There are plenty of impressive names that I would love to see involved in the game that would make responsible rugby decisions. Wish some of them would work together and put a stop to the amatuer joke that is SARU.
6 Mar 2008, 15:12 pm
The solution is to join a rugby club, get voted in as chairman, get voted onto the provincial committee, get voted to chair your province and then vote to get rid of the PC. Quite simple really.
6 Mar 2008, 15:14 pm
Naaah Loosehead
With all the Polisie Koffie you have to drink to make it onto the PC you will be just as braindead as the rest of them once you get there and you won”t be any good to us then…..
6 Mar 2008, 15:23 pm
Need to dissolve the President’s Council as the decision-making body.
Let the CEO and MD to make decisions as they occupy the office on a daily basis. Give them powers to make the day-to-day rugby decisions.
6 Mar 2008, 15:23 pm
Sometimes the only way to a truly new beginning is death followed by resurrection.
6 Mar 2008, 15:25 pm
8
So what you suggesting? Flowerbomb them at a bosberaad?
6 Mar 2008, 15:26 pm
Flourbomb?!!!
6 Mar 2008, 15:33 pm
Good article – thanks.
Unfortunately it meranders to a suggested conclusion. And the mirrors the current attitude – no one actually comes out and says anything concrete, and demands action
6 Mar 2008, 15:49 pm
#9, no, they’re going to do it all by themselves … like a suicide bomber. Unfortunately such a death will affect us all for a time period, but if it results in a new creation based on healthy principles then let it be so.
6 Mar 2008, 15:58 pm
Good article but very depressing though.
From reading Mad Mike’s interview yesterday – he obviously agrees that rugby power in SA needs to be reconstructed.
Van Rooyen wanted to dilute SA rugby power to give the amateurs a greater say.
Mad Mike’s vision is different in that he wants to dilute the power of the big 6 by introducing a transformational element that is difficult to pin down (call it a third force if you like)
Some will argue that the transformational and amateur element are one in the same thing – but they will tell you different.
I agree that they are different, one is passionate about rugby but incompetent at administering a game professionally, whilst the other is passionate about transformation/demoncratisation/teaching the Boers a lesson but is also incompetent when it comes to running a professional business.
My conclusion is that the only way SA Rugby will prosper (it will always survive) is if the big 6 got their act together – behaved more professionally and stood together. Or someone with serious money convinced real rugby statesmen to get in and get involved.
A big problem with introduction of non-racial sport in SA was that the founders mistakenly assumed that in the future, those that seek power will always have the game at heart, be bright and not have their own petty agendas (on all sides).
6 Mar 2008, 15:59 pm
Go and see how many former all blacks are involved in NZ rugby.
A lot more than we have ex boks involved in our set up.
It is all about power and absolute power corrupts.
It is not about rugby.
If Morne could not change it then it is very difficult to do so, because you have to become one of them, before you can power your way to the top, by horse trading, lying, cheating and anything else that keeps your arse in the butter.
An honourable man like Morne is not cut out for that den of thieves.
The actual rugby is secondary to the power struggle.
6 Mar 2008, 16:18 pm
The only way to change this sorry state of affairs is through the rugby supporting public.Enough pressure from the fans will change the mindsets of these old farts.
Its a pity we cannot get a committee together that has rugby minded individuals on it, who will serve the game rugby before personal issues and agendas.
In my dream world, these guys will be able to appoint selectors who will have the balls to pick a team on purely on merit that all SA’s will support. This committee will also have the balls to appoint a coach on rugby merit only. They will also have the balls to change the structure of competition in SA to bring through young players of all colours, and will have the vision to take the game into the townships, so that we can have more Ashwin Willemse’s(his is a good rags to riches story).
Transforming rugby for rugby’s sake is the way to go, not transformation for transformation’s sake, because the latter will always be political, while the former will look to widen the pool and preach the gospel of rugby to the unconverted
6 Mar 2008, 16:19 pm
All supporters need to go on strike, toy-toy and smash up the SARU offices… that’s speaking their language…
6 Mar 2008, 16:22 pm
Can anyone list, or is their any public knowledge of the provincial presidents that voted pieter de villiers in as springbok coach. I’d just like to know who to hold accountable if he fails to do well with the boks.
6 Mar 2008, 16:24 pm
The great Depression has started
6 Mar 2008, 16:24 pm
Harlequin # 17,
Easy….. Stofile’s supporters plus Jannie Ferreira of the Lions
6 Mar 2008, 16:58 pm
I hope they all get hijacked!
6 Mar 2008, 16:59 pm
The million dollar question is: Why do we, the public, who is afterall paying their salary( directly or indirectly) putting up with this??
6 Mar 2008, 17:15 pm
Yes my father told me ab0out when you had a former Springbok in high places. Danie ripped so many hammies training the team and left the best player out of the three you lost in 1956.
6 Mar 2008, 17:32 pm
Raak ontsale van die kleiner unies!! Kyk watter 8 unies die sterkste (finansieel en spelersbasis) is, en stuur die res in hul moer. Dit is lagwekkend dat ‘n unie soos die Luiperds dieselfde stem het as bv die Sharks!! SA rugby is besig om vinnig te vrot, van die kop af!!
6 Mar 2008, 17:57 pm
The only way to sort this out is, unfortunately, in the governments hands. We complain day in day out yet we still buy supporters jerseys, season tickets, and watch every game on supersport.
No-one can FORCE these people out of their positions. Even if we financially cripple them, unfortunately.
The government and the IRB are the only bodies capable of ENFORCING change. I think the only thing to do is tell the government, that as a public, we are unhappy with the governing bodies. They are incapable of meaningful transformation. They are incapable of growing the sport and managing it correctly.
if the government WANTS transformation, we can use that as leverage to oust the current power structures, we need to offer government a solution as to how we want to run provincial rugby in this country, with all the support for proper transformation that we can muster, because the current company is incapable of doing it.
this afrigroup thing will never work, because they are seen as the enemy. we, as a public, must make the government think that it is SARU and the Presidents Council that is the enemy, and get presidential backing to institute new governing bodies that are then contracted by the IRB.
half this battle is already won! The government sees transformation is not working, and are feeling incapable of effecting meaningful change anyway.
we just need to give them a solution.
6 Mar 2008, 17:59 pm
hell, the government can even take them to court if we can prove poor corporate governance, and failure to meet stipulated transformation goals can be the primary focus of this.
6 Mar 2008, 18:03 pm
the only reason we get angry with the government, and this is kinda funny, is because they are constantly revving SARU about failed transformation.
we are constantly revving SARU about other stuff.
everyone hates SARU, we just need to convince the government to through legal means, make the necessary changes.
6 Mar 2008, 18:05 pm
and that doesn’t mean being anti-transformation … in fact, the only way to get government on our sides is to prove we are massively pro transformation, and that SARU are f.ing it up.
6 Mar 2008, 18:05 pm
Badeesh,
What you smoking & all ?
Rolling your rizzlers with dried marsala or something?
Look SARU is baaaaaaaaad……… but now seriaaasly bro, the gov’ment is about 20 times worse….. and all and all !
6 Mar 2008, 18:07 pm
but they are the only people who can disband SARU.
i wish i was high, then i wouldn’t give a **** about this. but seriously.
you want answers, you want ways of fixing this: that is the ONLY way to do it.
6 Mar 2008, 18:09 pm
What about giving massive support to a supporters organisation……….. and I mean massive support……
6 Mar 2008, 18:10 pm
keep ur enemies close, and all n all.
6 Mar 2008, 18:11 pm
man, i don’t want to have to vote every month on **** at the griquas team selection because i own stock in the company.
that model just doesn’t work, ask newcastle fc.
6 Mar 2008, 18:15 pm
Hey I’m not talking about voting for team selections…….. I’m talking a pressure group of supporters that is a million strong….
I’m talking collective bargaining of the highest order…..
I’m talking about us supporters saying….. f-you, you arseholes…….. WE ARE RUGBY !
6 Mar 2008, 18:16 pm
last thing, i’m sick to death of these articles. nothing ever get’s discussed that’s worthwhile.
it’s always the same, awww, saru suck, transformation sucks, everything f.ing sucks.
i suck for standing here posting to nobody.
6 Mar 2008, 18:18 pm
haha, then they’ll be like, thanks for buying that season ticket
oh, you guys didn’t, ok well, we are bankrupt now. sigh, it was fun while it lasted. sa now only has amateur rugby.
6 Mar 2008, 18:20 pm
let’s get a government grant to be a body for managing amateurs, it’s less than we’re used to, but hey, we can still golf three times a week …
6 Mar 2008, 18:21 pm
haha, but there are still 10 000 screaming idiots sitting in there boxes and season ticket chairs … woo hoo, golf 4 times a week this year!
6 Mar 2008, 18:23 pm
no, the supporters can do absolutely nothing.
if we stop funding, the game loses.
if we carry on funding, the ******** stay in power.
if the government refuses to do anything meaningful about transformation, bar enforce that the national team is sub-standard, then we all lose.
that’s my last post on this thread.
6 Mar 2008, 18:24 pm
What the farrrrkkkk are you talking about now…. & all & all ???
6 Mar 2008, 18:25 pm
What a novel
6 Mar 2008, 18:27 pm
i’m saying that … a supporters club can achieve absolutely nothing, even if by some miracle, we manage to financially cripple the game in south africa, it will be decades before we get back to where we were.
the only people who can fix this are the SA government. and the only way we can get them to do it, is by as a people, we completely back transformation and use SARU’s failure to do so as leverage for the government to disband the company.
6 Mar 2008, 18:31 pm
Well you’re talking **** Sherlock…..
6 Mar 2008, 18:36 pm
ok, brilliant deductive logic.
you get your million people together and shout out as loud as you can ‘we are rugby’ and see what changes …
robdylan, enjoy the game on saturday, your R200 ticket will help pay hoskin’s salary.
you guys are all terrible idiots and that is unfortunately the true problem with south african rugby. rant over. goodbye.
6 Mar 2008, 18:42 pm
Yeah buggeroff……….. government would farkkkk things up worse than SARU, you idiot !
6 Mar 2008, 19:01 pm
‘I couldn’t stand the fact that all the rugby decisions were being based not on what was good for the game but on me giving you a little bit of this in return for a bit of that,’ said Du Plessis as he announced his resignation after attending a bosberaad.
very good article by gavin rich, the only hope is if there is a clear-out and an entirely new structure put in place which makes it impossible for all these ‘alliances’ to form…clear them out and we’ll be no 1 again.
6 Mar 2008, 19:59 pm
I must say it was pretty funny the day I found out that the make up of the pc. I’m sure it was huge wtf moment for most of the muppets here too.
6 Mar 2008, 20:08 pm
46 should read: “the day I found the ethnic make up of the pc”
6 Mar 2008, 23:01 pm
Yeah so it offers no solution – but who has one?
I have said and will maintain, disband the collective power the big 5 has – have 6 franchises or even just 5 franchises (combining the Bulls and Lions with Midrand being their home base) and have a North (main unions – Bulls & Lions – smaller unions; Pumas, Valke, Leopards), East coast (Natal major union), Central (Cheetahs major union – smaller unions Griffons & Griquas), Southern and Eastern Cape (Border, EP and SWD) and Western Cape/coast (WP, Boland).
Have them play in the Currie Cup and Super 14.
Have the 14 unions, individually play in the ‘Lion Cup/Vodacom Cup/Whatever Cup’, grow this Varsity Cup thing (becuase its brilliant) and then get a similar club comp (national) going on the same principle.
Either that or keep the CC for the 14 unions and create a whole new Cup/Comp for the Franchise teams after the S14 – call it the Mandela Cup or whatever. Get it totally professional and importantly divorce it completely from any union – base it on a region basis.
Hell even make it open to investors/fans to buy into the franchises.
7 Mar 2008, 00:06 am
badeesh
Get some counselling, and get it quick.
Ypu need to collect some marbles, that is if you had any to start with………
7 Mar 2008, 00:11 am
GBS
I can just imagine this badeesh sitting in the ‘circle’ (circus) with the likes of Komphela!
Eeeeeeeeeessssh!!!
Badeeeeesh!
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.