Private practice
9 May 2008
Private ownership would change the face of South African rugby.
Russell Crowe is known around the world for his Oscar-winning performance in Gladiator, but in South Sydney he is most famous for saving their rugby league club. On 19 March 2006, the club members voted to allow Crowe and wealthy Australian businessman Peter Holmes á Court to buy 75% of the club for A$3 million (R15 million at the time), leaving 25% with the club members. The duo had needed 75% of the 4 000-member vote and they got 75.8% (32 more votes than required).
When Crowe and Holmes á Court took over, the South Sydney Rabbitohs were on the verge of bankruptcy. Since returning to the 16-team National Rugby League (NRL) Premiership, they had finished among the bottom-three teams for five consecutive seasons, including three wooden spoons. In other words, they were the NRL’s equivalent of the Border Bulldogs (who finished last in the 2007 Currie Cup First Division).
The Rabbitohs’ new owners spared no expense in attempting to turn things around, ranging from Armani suits for the players to a A$20 million stadium upgrade. More importantly, they signed several leading international players and recruited a top-class head coach. (Incidentally, Crowe also axed the team’s cheerleaders, replacing them with a drumming band after fans, including his wife, complained about the ‘inappropriate’ pre-match entertainment.)
In 2007, the Rabbitohs won their first three games of the season – their best start since 1972 – and were competitive in every Premiership game. They finished seventh on the log and qualified for the eight-team play-offs for the first time since 1989. That success has not come cheap, however. In January this year, the new owners reported a A$4 million loss in the first full year of private ownership – more than they paid for their 75% share of the club.
“Business-wise, we took a hit in the first year,” admits Holmes á Court, “but that’s in comparison to going out of business. From my knowledge of the organisation’s books, the club would have relocated or folded. Now we are in a position to really grow the business.”
Although Crowe and Holmes á Court have promised to sell the club back to the members for A$1 if they bail out, expect them to be around for a while.
“You’ve got to take a long-term view about owning a sports team,” says Holmes á Court, whose three-year business plan will conclude at the end of 2009. “Russell and I are taking an inter-generational timeline and view this as a long-term investment.”
That was evident when Crowe helped the club find a new sponsor just before the 2008 season began. He personally approached four banks, and National Australia Bank eventually signed a three-year, A$3.5 million (R26 million) deal.
South African rugby desperately needs a gladiator or two of its own. Nine of our 14 unions are virtually bankrupt – Border, Eastern Province, Free State, Griquas, Golden Lions, Griffons, Leopards, Pumas and SWD Eagles. The rest just about broke even in 2007.
Imagine if South African billionaire Patrice Motsepe, current owner of Premier Soccer League side Mamelodi Sundowns and the richest black man in Africa, bought a big stake in Border rugby and threw cash at the likes of Schalk Burger and Bryan Habana. How long would it be before Border were promoted to the Currie Cup Premier Division? How long would it be before they won the Currie Cup and then demanded a Super 14 franchise based in East London? Or imagine if Johann Rupert, another South African dollar-billionaire (who loves rugby), invested heavily in a team such as Western Province (who he supports). They would be almost unbeatable with their current structures and his financial clout.
However, Motsepe probably wouldn’t be happy to own just 75% of a rugby team. In 2003, the mining entrepreneur bought 51% of the shares in Sundowns and became the club president. The following year, he bought the remaining 49% shares because he wanted total control. All in all, he paid R65 million for the club, more than double its value.
Motsepe, for instance, couldn’t realistically hope to own 100% of a Currie Cup team because the provincial unions hold shares in their commercial companies (for example, the Natal Sharks (Pty) Ltd is a wholly owned subsidiary of the KwaZulu-Natal Rugby Union).
‘I can tell you now that the KZNRU will never sell its shares in the Sharks company [60%], because that’s where it generates all its income,’ says Sharks CEO Brian van Zyl. ‘The union has always shown good returns, even when the Sharks were struggling. Why would it sell its shares to a private investor?’
Van Zyl says that 100% private ownership isn’t possible in South African rugby because we aren’t truly professional. ‘Look at the national body,’ he explains. ‘You still have Saru, which controls amateur rugby, and SA Rugby (Pty) Ltd, which is the professional arm. The same situation applies in most provincial unions.’
Private ownership is already part of South African rugby, albeit on a small scale. South African Investment Limited (Sail) owns 50% of the Blue Bulls, 24.9% of Western Province and 5% of the Griffons. SuperSport owns 40% of the Sharks and 24.9% of the Cheetahs. Last year, Royal Bafokeng Sports Holdings (RBSH) acquired a 49.9% share in the Leopards and financial control of the union.
It’s a common misconception that Sail, SuperSport or RBSH could not buy more shares (and more power) in their unions. According to the International Rugby Board, they could increase their investment if they got written consent from Saru and the provincial unions in which they have invested.
Of course, Sail, for example, would not be able to own 100% of the Blue Bulls Company without buying the shares of the Blue Bulls Rugby Union (BBRU). Even if the BBRU was keen to sell its shares (which is highly unlikely), it would have to get permission from the clubs that make up the union.
SA Rugby magazine asked Bulls CEO Barend van Graan if he would support a move towards total private ownership. At first, he didn’t want to talk at all, saying we should rather speak to Sail. He finally relented, however, and admitted he was part of the team that worked on the Accenture report for Saru (which recommended private ownership).
Another misconception about private ownership is that it’s against Saru’s constitution, yet nowhere in the 70-page document does Saru forbid a private company or individual from owning more than a 50% stake in a union. Border CEO Leon Botha, when contacted by SA Rugby magazine, thought private investors could own only 49%. When told they could own more, Botha admitted he ‘would have to be crazy to turn someone like Motsepe away if he wanted to pump millions into Border rugby’.
Although provincial CEOs are tight-lipped when it comes to discussing private ownership, Saru president Oregan Hoskins is a vocal supporter of it.
‘My personal view is that private ownership is inevitable when you consider how sport is evolving,’ Hoskins says. ‘We need to change a few mindsets in South African rugby. When Sail approached Saru recently and said they were looking to invest in [English Premiership club] Saracens, we gave them our blessing. With so many South Africans in London, we think some good can come out of it.’
Hoskins dismisses concerns that the government would be unhappy about 100% private ownership of rugby teams because it would not be able to enforce transformation effectively. ‘Government already ensures that transformation takes place in the private sector, so I don’t see how privately owned rugby teams would be any different,’ he says.
Though South African rugby has been slow to take up private ownership, New Zealand is set to embrace it. The New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) recently met to discuss the state of the game and what could be done to reverse the player drain that has seen the likes of Luke McAlister and Carl Hayman sign lucrative contracts with UK clubs. One of the topics that came up for discussion is the private ownership of Super 14 franchises that currently belong to the NZRU.
‘Like it or not, the involvement of [millionaire businessman] Eric Watson in the Warriors [New Zealand’s NRL team] has generated excitement and interest as has Russell Crowe at the Rabbitohs,’ says Rob Nichol, head of the New Zealand Players’ Association. ‘We have to be bold to look at ways we can involve private capital and give them a stake in the game.’
Nichol says players should also be allowed to move across the three Super 14 nations. The Waratahs, for example, could sign Dan Carter from the Crusaders. Sydney has plenty of wealthy businessmen who would want to invest in a player such as Carter, so the Waratahs would be able to match, or come close to, what a UK club could offer him. While playing for an Australian team, Carter would still be eligible for the All Blacks and would still be involved in a tournament watched by New Zealanders.
Of course, if South Africa followed that route, there would be nothing to stop a local investor from buying a big stake in the Stormers and bringing Carter to Cape Town. Would Stormers fans care if a foreigner started ahead of a promising local player if it meant their team could win the Super 14 not just once but three years in a row? Winning is all that matters in sport these days. And winning is a lot easier when your team’s owner has deep pockets.
However, one of New Zealand’s leading businessmen, Craig Norgate believes the consequences will be catastrophic if their Super 14 teams are owned by foreigners.
‘There’s no doubt there would be considerable interest in owning a Super 14 team,’ says Norgate. ‘But most of it would come from wealthy overseas interests. They are probably the only ones who could pay the type of money [to buy and fund a team]. And we would end up surrendering one of New Zealand rugby’s last remaining strategic advantages.
‘They would want to own a team for vanity reasons like they all seem to do over the world. I’m not sure what the teams would sell for but it would be plenty – several millions of dollars – so that would be attractive [to the NZRU]. But the price in the long run would be too high.’
By Simon Borchardt
This article first appeared in the May issue of SA Rugby magazine. The June issue is on sale Wednesday, 14 May.
38 Comments
9 May 2008, 07:07 am
Have long said that’s the way to go. Like UK clubs – it’s the way to go.
No “dragons” this time, thank the pope.
B
9 May 2008, 07:09 am
Err… Souths are still close to bankruptcy and only continual ‘top-ups’ are saving them… and guess what… they’re still gobshite and at the bottom of the log!
But I take your point… privatisation could dramatically change the face of RSA rugga… but the smart RSA money is already investing in clubs oversea’s… a prudent investor would stay the hell away from any entities hedged to govt interference, ineptness and downward spiral….
9 May 2008, 07:18 am
Simon, I catch your drift and I agree but the Rabbitohs is a poor example, they had their first win of the season last weekend for a 1-7 stat…
O’Neill also mentioned private ownership a few weeks back and if not mistaken the ARU approved it already. I mentioned at the time it was one of the most important announcement in a long time but nobody picked up on it.
9 May 2008, 07:18 am
#2 bryce_in_oz: Well said! Russell Crowe’s Bunnies are entirely Russell Crowe’s own pleasures and problems. He isn’t going to be interfered with by Kevin Rudd or a hall full of yowling boomerang-throwers from Redfern, making silly demands and threats. Who’d want a piece of the action in SA where the regime’s race auditors like Komphela and Stofile demand that you spend your money as they “democratically” tell you to do?
9 May 2008, 07:20 am
Hey Bryce SNAP!
9 May 2008, 07:20 am
The only way to go if we want our teams to be managed by business people instead of the old guard that are sold on emotional decisionmaking.
9 May 2008, 07:26 am
#6 AB – Join RUGBY SUPPORTERS VOICE:
The problem is you can’t do it without the approval of same said ‘old farts’..sorry guard!
9 May 2008, 07:28 am
#4 TheTackler: I wrote this article before the current NRL season began. Until then, the Rabbitohs had shown a lot of improvement.
9 May 2008, 07:29 am
#7 Koos: Koos luckily they (the old farts) are so sold on having their backpockets filled, that it should not be that difficult!
9 May 2008, 07:35 am
#9 AB – Join RUGBY SUPPORTERS VOICE:
I am not so sure, its not the money but the power they like…
9 May 2008, 07:42 am
I ALSO THINK ITS THE FUTURE, JUST LOOK AT SOCCER
9 May 2008, 07:58 am
Yip and private owned sports brands will def be more focused in keeping talent were its needed.
9 May 2008, 08:21 am
It’s only a future when we can be assured of there being no political interference in sport, which aint gonna happen in this country fast.
9 May 2008, 08:28 am
I think, as things and their value currently stand, I could sell some odds and ends out of my garage on Saturday – old surfboard, some tools, home gym and a bookshelf – and be in a position to buy 100% of the Lions.
Might still want that surfboard though, so **** it.
9 May 2008, 08:35 am
Nice idea, but would paying our players top dollar keep them in our system???
Our players want a healthy system void of interference and this is not likely to happen for the next 10 years atleast…..
It is a sad state SA Rugby is in considering the talent and the potential to DOMINATE world rugby…
9 May 2008, 08:37 am
My vrou tjek ook mos nou rugby. As ek saans vi ha se “Touch! Crouch! Engage!” dan tjune sy net “Advantage over, Roll away! Stay on your feet! Hands Off!
9 May 2008, 08:40 am
#16 Snoek: As long as you enter “through the gate” you should be fine.
9 May 2008, 08:42 am
#17 katman:
I need to go to bed with a rule book!!
9 May 2008, 08:44 am
i know we have won the world cup…but honestly if the khompela’s and stofile’s were not interfering, if quotas were not an issue, if grassroot development and funding was top notch, if our rugby structures from school to national sides were efficient, if we had coaching structures just like any other major rugby nation, the Springbok Emblem would be flying much higher than the AB Silver Fern…
If only…
9 May 2008, 08:49 am
snoek…
the ball carrier must bind
9 May 2008, 08:58 am
The so-called long-term, visionary perspective advocated in this article is in reality full of holes and will kill rugby as we know it.
So Rupert buys WP, and pours billions into them. Big deal, within a year or two, another billionaire, with even MORE money buys the Sharks, and WP’s advantage evaporates. Then the musical chairs start and pretty soon players are hopping and jumping between unions (and countries) too fast for ANY union to even identify with them.
And we all know the eventual outcome. All the big money sits in Aus and Europe. So eventually, we WILL end up with inferior players in SA.
Any way you look at it, a purely commercial approach will ALWAYS see SA losing out. Like the NZ businessman said, the smaller countries need to protect the few strategic advantages they have left. SARU and the unions need to retain some influence that cannot be overruled by someone who simply has enough money to have his way.
The long term strategic interest of SA and NZ is that rugby does NOT grow as a global sport. In fact, if anything, we should hope like hell that soccer erodes the interest in rugby in France. And that Japan remains largely ignorant of the sport. The more overseas viewers start tuning in, the more overseas clubs will be able to offer our top players.
So we should under no circumstances be assisting the IRB in their quest to expand the game globally. In fact, we should be working as hard as possible to undermine their efforts. But these kinds of truths seem to be beyond the grasp of the strategic planners of the game in our country.
Or else name the real benefits that an expanded global game will provide to the SA rugby supporter. I’m waiting.
9 May 2008, 09:09 am
Very good article Simon and been saying the same thing for years. I am also glad to see the Border guy saying he would be stupid to turn cash away and that is exactly what needs to happen in SA Rugby and in provinces like Border – imagine how powerful these historically smaller union will or can become and then Tacitus you can then have a very competitive Currie Cup once again.
Like the Border guy however I am also surprised that no-where in SARU’s constitution does it state unions cannot be privately owned – but like the NRL situation, the members, or amateur stakeholders will obviously need to vote on this…
I reckon people underestimate the buying power of individuals in SA – there is certainly enough money in this country to make this feasible but of course, there would be some international interest too – for me this then comes down to unions and perhaps a clause from SARU stating that local investors should get preference when unions decide to privatize, just so we don’t sell our souls to the highest bidders.
As for government involvement, it is a private company, they cannot stop a company privatizing and like mentioned in the article, there are already measures in place to ensure so-called transformation takes place across all levels, even private enterprises.
What excites me most about this is the possible, or probable equal distribution of playing talent across South Africa – rugby can for once be used as a marketing tool with a Habs playing in the Eastern Cape getting thousands of kids from all backgrounds to take up the game – and yes, Habs is my little white nephew’s hero and all his tjoms’ as-well.
With playing numbers in SA, and the absolute boom effect this will have in our rugby we will also see thousands of players identified so I see no real problem in a Carter being bought to come and play in SA – with our playing numbers and the inevitable fast tracking of our 140 000 players (last figures I saw) we would not be in situations where we sit with one local fly-half in Peter Grant being the only hope for the Boks in SA.
Players will also consider going abroad more then and take it from someone that has been out of SA, you don’t want to leave, but circumstances make you leave or leaves you with very little options. With this sort of plan, top players would be offered top dollar.
The sooner this happens the better in my view.
9 May 2008, 09:10 am
#21 Tacitus: Yeah and keep the game controlled by the old boy’s club hey Tac?
9 May 2008, 09:16 am
what happened to Rupert starting a London rugby club ? Bobby was suppposed to head up the venture. why did that fail?
9 May 2008, 09:17 am
#21 Tacitus: Your old-school loyalty diatribe would have had far more credibility had you not forsaken your Pretoria roots for the lure of the East London dollar.
9 May 2008, 09:17 am
Its not about the old boys club. In fact, I have little love for the so-called “old boys.”
But the alternative would not be Habana playing for Border (what a waste that would be in any case), no, it would be Habana playing for Kerry Packer in Sydney or Brisbane.
9 May 2008, 09:20 am
We need a bit of both. It’s is just plain wrong that amateurs should govern professional outfits. In Joburg the clubs own the GLRU, and the clubs are run by amateurs … meaning the Lions are run by amateur … and the results prove it.
But I’m also very reluctant to release rugby to the forces of the flat globalized world. In this flat world SA has a clear disadvantage … especially with politicians wanting to run and ruin the show.
9 May 2008, 09:25 am
It doesn’t matter how rich a local investor may be, in a purely commercial rugby world he will always be at a roughly 17-1, disadvantage agaist Australian rivals, which becomes a whopping 15-1 against European rivals.
No contest there. At the moment, we are still able to get someone like Matfield back for barely half the money he could earn in Europe. Why? Well, a combination of his desire to play for the Boks and his sense of belonging at the Bulls.
If he was merely playing for the Anton Ruper Super Kings, all that would count would be the highest bid, meaning he would have stayed in France.
9 May 2008, 09:28 am
That was supposed to be 7-1, not 17-1. Typo.
9 May 2008, 09:38 am
Tac let me ask the following couple of questions;
What does it mean to you when you read that 9 out of our 14 unions are bankrupt, with the rest just breaking even? Do you think this will improve if we undermine private investment and stop the game of rugby going global?
What does it mean to you when figures show that less and less kids are taking up the game of rugby in the last 5 years with figures in fact dropping dramatically? You think this is going to imporve if we just plonk along under the current structures?
Out of all the major playing countries, why is rugby only regarded as the national sport of that tine little island called New Zealand? Do you think rugby could ever become the national sport in SA, Aus and other countries if we continue the way we do?
Why do you think small unions are continually failing, and the big unions on a downward curve? Could it perhaps be that the current solution being simply to throw money at the problem hoping it will fix itself or go away? And amateurs running a professional business?
Traditions and history should help us grow the game of rugby to ensure its future in SA and around the world, not undermine it.
Players and coaches are taking the game up today because it is a future, a job, a profession – it is not like it was pre-1996 where doctors, accountants and dentists did this as a past time after work. For us to make rugby not only sustainable, but avoid the death of the game on the global scene, we need to adapt to these changes and one of this is to start operating like a professional business and create the medium for guys to not only succeed in rugby, but wanting to take up the game.
A well thought out system can not only ensure we hold onto our top guys, but that we produce amazing talent across SA and actually become a world power in the game of rugby.
Of course don’t jump into this blindly – think it through, with the major focus of retaining our assets first off but also growing the game as a professional sport.
Any sport is built around emotion first, and this should be no different – but we cannot stay stuck on past structures when the future, or even current situation of the game demands growth.
Maybe then, numbers (both at stadiums and TV audiences) might actually increase, rather than decrease as is currently the case.
9 May 2008, 09:43 am
We are able to get Matfield back because he does not want to go in the first place, and the reason he left was because we do not have the above mentioned structures in place.
I left the country for a while, and missed it terribly. Circumstances dictate decisions, change that.
To me by staying in a little cocoon wanting to protect what little we have left is similar to the mentality displayed around Africa at the moment including this country. Which is also where the little saying like; “Only in Africa” come from – because of our limited mindsets not wanting to grow, but simply wanting to fall back on what worked before, even if it was 20 years ago.
For us to change the game of rugby dynamically to work in this environment, we need dynamic mindsets – not limited ‘low-risk’/fall back on what worked in the past mindsets.
With this cocoon mindset of wanting to undermine globalisation we are not only limiting ourselves as a nation, but the sport of rugby too.
9 May 2008, 10:01 am
Pissant
I understand your point of view. Totally. But I simply do not agree on your list of priorities.
1. I don’t believe that interests of the global sport should be put above the interests of the local rugby supporters.
2. I don’t believe rugby needs to be our national sport in order for us to be a successful rugby nation. Aus has won two world cups, and generally outperform our teams in the Super 14, with only a fraction of our player base.
3. To expand on point 1, I believe that the expansion of the sport globally is actually a severe THREAT to South African rugby. We are a little fish in a big economic ocean, but the one area where we are able to stride among the giants of this world is in the sport of rugby. NZ is in exactly the same boat as we are.
To put it differently, SA and NZ rugby have been competing WAY above their weight class in terms of economic strength. As soon as money becomes the basis of competing, we will be relegated to mid-tier nations.
Or rather, we will be able to compete as national teams, but our supporters will have to be satisfied with second rate players in all provincial rugby competitions – including the Super 14.
How many of the Brasilian World Cup stars play in the Brasilian domestic soccer competitions? I don’t know, because I don’t follow soccer with any real interest, but almost every name I see at the World Cup plays for some club in Europe. Why would it be any different for South Africa in a rugby context?
In a sense we are the equivalent of a tiny state in medieval Europe, that has to resort to Machiavellian schemes and maneuvres in order to ensure our survival amongst the superpowers of the world.
In our case, this need is exacerbated by the threats we face INTERNALLY from politicians who want to push their political agendas at the expense of our rugby supremacy.
We need to be innovative, yes, but it is not as simple as merely throwing it all open to let money dominate everything. That way lies certain ruin.
To loosely quote a prominent figure from history: “I don’t know if we will still be here in 100 years time. I suspect not, but if so, then let us be able to say at the end that we did everything in our power to try and preserve that which we held dear.”
That is the way it is for rugby in SA as well.
9 May 2008, 10:25 am
Tac let me answer your post according to the points you raised.
I think point 1 will be illustrated a bit later.
Point 2: The reason Aus is so successful in my view, not only as a rugby nation but as a sporting nation is largely because of their total pro-approach to sport and rugby – with the academies and institutions they have in place (read structure) to identify and mould young sports stars into international stars. Take the money in cricket for instance and this new IPL in India. It is a known fact that the money in cricket lies in the Asian countries – or so I have been told – but then do you see Aus losing their dominance or grip on world cricket?
Point 3, Economically we are not the best in the world – I mean that is a given, but just look at the current trends in World Rugby where we lost some major players, and New Zealand also being in the same boat also losing their stars with local support in sheer numbers dropping dramatically. It is clear something needs to be done – similar perhaps to what was done in the Matfield scenario where the Bulls had to work together with SARU to not only raise the funds for Matfield to make it financially viable for him, but also provide him with the security he needed.
As for the Brasilian example and coming back to point one – stopping an exodus of players overseas will never completely stop, we can only offer alternatives to players – and looking at local Brasilian soccer, have you seen the massive support and massive numbers that pitch up for local games? And how big the following for the sport is over there? And how successful they are with their international club champs?
Again, innovation with responsibility is required – to simply sit by idlely wont solve anything, in fact I reckon it is going to become worse. We need to apply a system (pro system) to ensure not only the future growth of the game, but make sure it does not die out completely.
This to my mind requires a professional approach to the current dilema.
9 May 2008, 10:46 am
Pissant
Certainly we can’t sit still. But that doesn’t mean that selling it all to the highest bidder is the only alternative.
But I come back to what is seemingly your fundamental motivation – to get millions of South Africans to become rugby supporters.
What does that add to the value I’m getting from watching a rugby game on a Saturday afternoon? Or to the value that any other CURRENT supporter is getting? The answer is, ZERO.
Rugby is not a humanitarian cause. It is not the Universe’s gift to the poor and destitute. It is a game to be enjoyed by those who WISH to enjoy it. Currently, my sporting satisfaction is maximised by a full Loftus in the Super 14, or a full Kings Park when the Boks play.
It will not add one shred of enjoyment for me if 10 million extra supporters are added to the mix. Just like I cannot fathom why the Indian Premier League is gracing our television screens. What do I care if Harbajan Singh hits a century in Rawalpindi (which may in fact be in Pakistan, and not India, but that shows how much I really care.)
Point is, whose interests are being pursued here? Why should the average supporter be happy if the IRB has made $100 million extra due to millions of viewers added in Asia? Does it change my Saturday experience one iota? Not in the slightest.
Soccer has millions of supporters in SA. We see how much good it does them. Why should rugby follow suit?
9 May 2008, 11:02 am
Tac I think the answer is simple.
How did you establish and subsequently grew your love for the game, which I am sure you played as-well or perhaps still play?
You were introduced to it, probably by your parents or family or even the school you went to – point being, you interest in the game of rugby was created by someone, either a hero, or inhereted through family or culture.
Some of us went on to become professional players, or even Springboks. Some became administrators and some coaches – others, or the majority, became supporters of the game paying your monthly subscription to magazines, TV stations, tickets at stadiums or jersey’s.
So your question could be answered quite easily, by creating a massive interest in the game and grow the numbers across all levels (cultures, age, etc) we will no doubt ensure the game lasts for another 100 years in this country – and is that not the point?
When you and I are gone rugby must still be there, or as your famous quote you had in your earlier posts said; “to make sure that we preserve what we hold dear”
What is rugby, or any sport, without support?
And no-one is talking about it being a humanitarian cause, but it is also not a right – it is a privelage – one open to anyone who loves the game or falls in love with the game – no matter where you are, or who you are.
You will only WISH to enjoy something if you have a love for it, how does one create that love? For everyone?
I also picked up a lot of ‘me’ and ‘I’ in your post, and not to sound condescending but mate, this is not about you – it is about the game.
Again as your quote you highlighted suggest, we must do our damnest to ensure the game survives, even the day when we are gone.
And as far as soccer in SA goes – that is even more badly managed than rugby with cartel’s everywhere.
Good structures need good management – in no way can we even think about going the route I suggest if we do not have the right people to manage it.
9 May 2008, 11:59 am
Pointing out the “me” and “I” references in my post is not condescending, Pissant, it is perceptive. Because it cuts down to the heart of the matter. Rugby is important only insofar as it means something to me or you or the next guy.
It is NOT simply about ensuring that rugby remains healthy 100 years down the line. Rugby fulfills certain emotional requirements in the lives of the fanatical fans that form the heart of its supportbase. Its not simply about watching a ball being passed from the hands of one guy to the next, or about a scrum technique being wonderfully exhibited. Preserving this rather strange ritual for future generations is really not a big priority in its own right.
Instead, what is important, isabout what rugby means in the context of your frame of reference. Rugby is merely an extension of the ancient tribal instincts of interclan warfare. After all, seeing a Leicester Tiger centre take a gap – no matter how technically exquisite his sidestep – doesn’t mean nearly the same from an emotional perspective as seeing Jean De Villiers or Jacque Fourie do the same.
So when you speak academically about the need to preserve rugby for future generations I say to what purpose? It is not about rugby, it is about the fulfillment of that emotional need to see your team win, or your players outplay the opposition. The medium through which it happens has little value in itself. American football fulfills that need just as well for an American, as does cricket to an Indian.
Rugby is merely the vehicle through which we experience that fulfillment. My love for rugby is not tied to it nature, but rather to the close ties it has to the culture and history that I form part of. And it is in that context that I would want to preserve it. Believe me, no matter how good they are, I will not switch on the TV to watch the future Nigerian Super Eagles play in a World Cup Fnal against the Rwandan Leopards, because such a matchup would carry no emotional attachment for me.
So what am I saying?
I am saying that we are not talking here about a universal goal shared by all, but rather about protecting specific interests. The interests of people like me will not be served simply by making sure that rugby has a sustainable future. Because it is not about rugby in the end. It is about everything associated with it, going back for almost 100 years. And what rugby MEANS to the supporter.
9 May 2008, 13:20 pm
Moderation???
9 May 2008, 15:11 pm
Pissant for President of SA Rugby!
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.