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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.