more than just 80 minutes
Columns
sarugby.com
Privatise Rugby in South Africa
Tuesday, November 17
Submit
I received a very interesting email this morning from one of my friends in the Economics game telling me about an article that one of his acquintances had written on the privatisation of rugby in South Africa.
I was immediately interested as for some time I've seen the privatisation of rugby in this country as the only way to create a fully professional industry out of the sport and for the game to compete with the clubs and markets overseas.
I was put over to a blog called Human Action (www.humanaction.co.za) and this article by Freeman - which really hit the nail on the head for me.
He has kindly given permission to us reproduce the article here on SARugby.com.
Rucks, Mauls and Freedom
It’s time to privatise rugby in South Africa. Nothing has been more frustrating in the so-called “professional era” of rugby union since 1995 than to watch the sport turn into the epitome of crony corporatism. In many ways, rugby union in South Africa is a great illustration of what’s wrong with the so-called “capitalist” system: It has the guise of a free market, but in reality is riddled with government intervention, corporate back-slaps, and forced enterprise.
Rugby’s “governing body” SARU represents everything that’s wrong with the sport in South Africa today. SARU determines how many players are allowed to be “professional”, subsidises failing unions like the Pumas, Leopards, Eagles, Elephants, and Boland Cavaliers, dictates selection policies, and siphons off huge revenues in the process.
Ask yourself, why does the Mpumalanga Pumas play their rugby in Witbank instead of the provincial capital Nelspruit? Simple. Witbank is near to the major city pf Pretoria, where all the players want to live and pursue bigger careers and the chance of making it into the Blue Bulls. The Pumas is basically a feeder system for the Bulls, propped up by SARU who derives is main revenues from teams like the Bulls.
It is a fake, centrally planned system. In a free market, the best players would play in areas where it would be commercially viable to sustain a good team. Those areas would generally be the large cities, such as Pretoria, Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town and Bloemfontein. But why just have one team per city? The Johannesburg/Pretoria metro area could probably sustain 3 or 4 strong clubs. Instead of just having the Lions, Johannesburg may also have, say, the Randburg Rhinos.
Cape Town might have a team based in the city and one or two based elsewhere, all buying top players and being highly competitive. Who knows, maybe a city like Port Elizabeth manages to get a strong competitive professional team? Maybe not. But the point is the market should decide.
We should get rid of the terms union and provinces and just use the term clubs. Professional club rugby in South Africa would see the game progress in leaps and bounds. There would be more money available and a proper league structure that clubs could agree to adhere to. This way SA would have a proper divisional structure of promotion and relegation, creating a feeder system for the top league.
Nelspruit could have a team, but it might just be in the 2nd or 3rd or 4th division. Would those Nelspruit Nightingales players get paid? Doesn’t really matter, the market would decide. Half the team might get paid, the other half not. Some would be paid more than others. Others might get paid a half-salary and work another job part time.
The development of new young players would not have to be overseen by SARU. Clubs would be sending scouts into the rural areas to spot talented youngsters, give bursaries or contracts, and conduct free training camps etc.
Racism in rugby would not have to be ‘monitored’ by SARU. Clubs would make the best commercial decisions as to who to pick and who not to pick. A management team of a club could discriminate as they saw fit. If they reject highly skilful black players on racist grounds, non-racist teams would snap them up and win trophies as a result.
Abolishing SARU and deregulating the sport would be the healthiest development ever in SA rugby. New exciting teams, higher profits, and excellent entertainment would follow. Racism in rugby would diminish not increase, and the Springboks would be even better.
The Springboks, South Africa’s national team, could also be privatised. Supporters, clubs, investors could take shareholding in the Springboks. The team would have to abide by IRB rules when it comes to playing internationals, but could otherwise be wholly privately owned and run. Once private ownership is established, shareholders could privately and freely decide to limit shareholding only to SA citizens or companies if they so wished. Selection of the board, CEO and coaching staff would be done by shareholders. Profits for the Springboks could be reinvested in community development, used to build stadia, used to pay players better salaries, and distributed among shareholders.
Political interference is ruining SA rugby. SA is the reigning World Champion in spite of, not because of, SARU’s administration and regulation of the game. The politicians are so intent on regulating rugby because, just like with most other areas of economic regulation, it is a viable and profitable business that makes a lot of money. If the government is really so interested in developing sport for the benefit of the people, why is a game like waterpolo ignored?
Enough of this crony corporatism. It’s time to privatise rugby in South Africa.
Article written by Freeman and reproduced courtesy of www.humanaction.co.za
Have your say on the matter in the comments section below.
Login / Register
user poll
Who will be SA's top side in the 2010 S14?
Results Votes: 11190  |
Designed and Implemented by DigIT Solutions
All content supplied by SARugby.com
Photographs supplied by Gallo Images/Getty Images.
All logos and trademarks are the property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2005 Fat Pig Productions CC The logos and trademarks used on this site are the property of their respective owners We are not responsible for comments posted by our users, as they are the property of the poster Advertise with SARugby.com | Legal Notices |
 |
On the up side, by having the old system it always ensure that the Springboks are put first and not the club. This idea would actually create a club versus country scenario.
I also think that they will not get a way from the 'Quota' system as in SA you need to have at least 70% black people in your company. What would a club do if they only have one black person playing on the wing?
I agree in the concept of having big franchises in the Big Cities. So far it has done well for Cricket.
Companies are all but democratic in any case & with the whole BBBEE system, we might see even more interference depending off course on who the majority shareholders are.
Either way, I don't see something like this ever happening...Africa isn't really renowned for their politicians being willing to give up their power!
Why doesn't some 1 write an article on how to make it happen!! Rather than just how good it may be....
But why don't we look into rugby league? It is already a parallel industry whch is much more privatised. If League can draw the crowds, why not? All we want is to play the game (with a variation) we love, without political interference.
Compliant BBBEE scorecards are required for certain government tenders, but companies are not forced into any shareholding mix yet if they operate out of this sphere.
The parallel Rugby League setup could potentially even become a feeder for Union, if they can compete with the League salaries
using football as an example, the commercial gains may be outstanding, but the (fully private) english premiership hasn't equipped england's national team to win anything of note in decades. this despite having more money and, arguably, talent (foreign at the expense of local?) playing in the league than any other country. actually, come to think of it, commercial gains aren't necessarily all that flash given just how many english football clubs - including the very best and biggest - are flaunting distinctly negative balance sheets.
i sincerely agree that professional sport should be as just that, a business. my point is that there is more than just the bottom (dollar) line at stake rugby fans in this, or any other, country. i think it's debatable whether full privatisation would cater to these needs.
a centrally controlled system has the potential to work very well... effective administrators are the issue, not necessarily ownership. these two are hardly mutually exclusive; it's no coincidence that new zealand rugby is historically the strongest in the world despite it's small population. yes, they have an amazing rugby passion, but as an outsider it seems to me that the interest is maintaining strength and rugby consistency throughout the country.
Vodacom Cup during same time
Tri Nations home and away only
then Currie Cup and so on...
If Rob Wagner would lose his job if WP were relegated i'm sure the union wouldn't have put up with his poor performance for this long!
It could be structured like the English premier league. Bottom 3 teams get relegated, top 2 in division 1 get promoted with a play-off system for the teams that finish 3-6. Would generate a real buzz! Also top 5 teams in premier division would qualify for the Super 14.
Look at a club like Despatch, one of the best in South Africa in the 80's, and now a big ZERO! Our club rugby being strong could only lead to better quality players!
SA wouldn't find itself diluted of good players in the way English football has since in the UK it's about the money earned and I doubt that SA would eclipse the UK on what it can pay. In fact as with some football teams, they have players playing abroad to choose from as well as local talent, giving them a bigger pool of players to choose from.
How BEE and AA would affect this is still a possible issue but then that could be swallowed up in the admin side more than the players side (possibly).
All the same, it's a good idea.