The cost of transformation

Sarah Boomgaard

How much are we willing to pay for the transformation of our rugby squads?

What if you could not afford to support your team? What if you have been a diehard supporter of this team for decades but suddenly you did not have the financial means to see them play anymore? Rugby has become increasingly inaccessible to South Africans. Rugby and cricket are amongst the least accessible sports to members of the public; not only are they expensive to play but even the ability to enjoy a game from the comfort of your couch has become increasingly difficult.

Rugby is not available to watch on any free to view channels in South Africa. To watch the Springboks or even your favourite club rugby team, one needs to have DSTV. Moreover, as rugby is generally only available on channel 201, one requires DSTV Premium – the most expensive package DSTV has to offer. SuperSport’s fairly recent decision to include Xhosa rugby commentary is admirable and definitely a step in the right direction. However as the majority of Xhosa speakers cannot afford the package the channel which rugby is available, SuperSport’s efforts to provide more linguistically and culturally inclusive commentary prove fruitless.

DSTV packages on offer with the sports channels available to each package.

Rugby is not available on any other DSTV channel, with the exception of SuperSport Blitz which showcases 5 minute highlights of various matches across a variety of sports. Five minutes is nothing. Five minutes is not enough to capture someone’s interest and we desperately need to capture people’s interest. Capturing the interests of the community would allow the rugby watching audience to grow, which would result in a more inclusive support base which in turn would help to establish a more diverse talent pool.

It may perhaps seem far-fetched to link transformation to the price of DSTV subscriptions, but the relationship is not all that difficult to understand. If people in impoverished communities, which in South Africa are predominantly people of colour, are unable to watch to rugby they will never grow to become rugby fans. If rugby fans are limited to the predominantly white affluent segments of the population, these segments will continue to make up the dominant rugby playing public. Politicians cannot continue to bemoan the slow pace of transformation without providing the general public access or the ability to watch rugby. Rugby needs to make its way to inexpensive − if not free − channels. The Springboks tests in particular should be made available to watch on SABC. It only makes sense that the public should be available to watch our national rugby team on our national broadcaster. This would allow for a strengthening of the rugby culture in our poorer communities.

Graph 1: Season ticket prices correct at 19/06/2017

The prices of rugby tickets have also become problematic. Season ticket prices are borderline ludicrous. On average the Blue Bulls charge more per season ticket, more than any other union, where one can pay as much as R3900 for a Blue Bulls season ticket as can be seen in Graph 1 (right). The least expensive season tickets can be found in the Free State, the home of the Cheetahs. Generally ticket prices have also risen over the last few years, with inflation being the only apparent source of this increase. Most stadiums have not made any noticeable renovations which might explain the continued hikes in ticket prices. Despite DHL Newlands’ desperate need of renovation, it appears that Western Province Rugby has only upgraded their ancient sound system and splashed some red and yellow paint across the stadium to accommodate their sponsors, DHL. Yet a Stormers/ Western Province Rugby season ticket can cost you between R1700 and R2700.

Graph 2: Super Rugby ticket prices correct at 19/06/207

Single match day tickets for Super Rugby games share more or less the same relationship between prices and respective unions as season tickets do. Once again, the Blue Bulls ask the most for their tickets whereas the Cheetahs ask the least (illustrated in Graph 2, right). The average price for a Super Rugby ticket is R114. While this may not seem like a lot of money to some people, for others it is choice between rugby tickets and food. I am by no means advocating for fee free tickets. Rugby unions need to earn an income and tickets are an easy way to do this. However, it would be prudent for rugby unions to make cheaper tickets available, even if these seats are limited to the lower sections of the stands behind the posts.

Access to the Springboks is almost impossible for poorer members of the community. A Rugby Championship ticket or a ticket to an international test can cost up to R650 at stadiums across South Africa. However, one need only pay R100 to see Bafana Bafana. The vast gap in proficiency, style or skill between the Springboks and Bafana are often cited as the primary reasons for the price discrepancy. Nevertheless the implications of the price of rugby tickets extends so much further than the “quality for money” argument. We are trying to build an inclusive national squad; one which is truly representative of the demographics of South Africa.

Forfeiting SuperSport’s broadcasting rights. Diminishing rugby union’s incomes. These are great asks. They require immense sacrifice. Yet the sacrifice we continue to make today is that much greater. If we continue to allow DSTV to hold exclusive broadcasting rights, if we continue to alienate the underprivileged through expensive tickets; the cost is immeasurable. We risk so much more than money. We risk the future of rugby in South Africa. We continue to sabotage all attempts to make transformation a reality. We could hold countless rugby clinics in traditionally black communities. We could invite numerous underprivileged schools to attend Super Rugby matches. It will not bring about change at the required pace. These are once off events in children’s lives. Without the development of a thriving rugby culture in impoverished communities, transformation will ever remain a pipe dream.

Show me the money!

The economic implications of South Africa hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2023

Sarah Boomgaard

Last month SA Rugby Union delivered their bid to host the 2023 Rugby World Cup. Jurie Roux, CEO of SARU, was extremely proud of the 827 page, 8.2kg document outlining why South Africa is the ideal country to host the tournament.

Roux highlighted the fact that South Africa would be able to use the existing infrastructure left over from the 2010 Soccer World Cup which would allow for a maximisation of profits. Roux made further predictions regarding the economy and he believes that South Africa could see “a R27.3 billion direct, indirect and induced economic impact on South Africa; R5.7 billion [of which flowing] to low-income households [and] an estimated R1.4 billion tax benefit to government.” Similar fantastical predictions were made when South Africa bid for and eventually hosted the Soccer World Cup in 2010. Yet seven years later, South Africa’s economy doesn’t seem significantly different.

During the Soccer World Cup, there was a sense of euphoria. The statistics were certainly hopeful. Tourism was expected to skyrocket, alcohol, food and beverage sales were also expected to increase. The opportunity for job creation was frequently highlighted. The tourism sector indeed saw a significant increase of 20%, while alcohol and food and beverage sales also enjoyed a slight increase. However South Africa’s unemployment rate remains at 27%. During the build up to the Soccer World Cup unemployment rates decreased from 2008-2009. However many of the jobs created by the tournament were temporary and following the World Cup, unemployment rates continued to rise in South Africa.

Given the unsustainable economic momentum of the 2010 Soccer World Cup, one has to wonder whether Roux’s promises of a better tomorrow are justified. Speaking to Dr Djiby Thiam, a Senior Economics Lecturer at the University of Cape Town, it is clear that those in need will not be the recipients of the wealth which the 2023 Rugby World Cup is predicted to generate. Dr Thiam stresses that South Africa’s financial woes cannot be solved by hosting the tournament. Should South Africa win the bid, the tourism sector will most likely flourish.  However the impoverished will not be the direct recipients of the surge in the tourism sector as the “the implications will be very much narrowed” says Dr Thiam. The profits “will be going towards those who already have the capital to invest in guest houses or hotels.”

While the rich will be main benefactors of the income generated by the Rugby World Cup, this does not mean that we will not see any ramifications for the poor. In terms of poverty reductions, Dr Thiam thinks that we would see “some implications for the poor, when it comes to investing in infrastructure.” Additionally beyond improvements in infrastructure, the State will be able to collect income and value added taxes from the wealthier segments of the population who would be earning and spending more during and in the build up to the Rugby World Cup. The increased income for the State in the form of taxes can then be reallocated to the poor.

The reallocation of these profits will be complicated. Dr Thiam explains that “reallocation does not only mean money” arguing that this is only one part of the solution. “It means [creating] drivers for change. Drivers for change are education, service delivery and from there not only will we have a higher GDP, but we can expect a GDP that is much more inclusive of the country.”

The government can indeed use the increase in taxes to supplement education, health care, etc. However let us not forget that SARU would also earn a tidy sum of money from the International Rugby Board. I propose that most, if not all, of the money which SARU receives from the IRB should be placed in an independently run sovereign fund. This fund would be used to finance rugby clinics in underprivileged communities, providing financial support for schools with budding rugby programs in impoverished areas and establishing better financial and tactical support for women’s rugby in South Africa. Should SARU restrain themselves and be cautious with the allocation of their own bonuses, transformation would not be a hope for the distant future, but 2023 could be the start of a realistic and necessary change in SA Rugby.

So what do you say, SARU? Don’t boost your bonuses, boost our teams.

Forgotten legends of a history lost

Sarah Boomgaard

“I was very disappointed,” Salie Fredericks replies when I ask him about the 1995 Rugby World Cup.  Most of us hold the memory of the 1995 Rugby World Cup in our heart. It’s the moment South Africa united. Forever preserved in our minds as the moment in which rugby belonged to everyone. The moment when sport transcended boundaries of race, class, and gender. It is therefore difficult, and almost confusing, to hear that others may not regard this moment in the same esteem as the general public continues to. “No, I was disappointed” Frederick repeats, his eyes glistening.

Salie Fredericks at his home in Cape Town.

Earlier, Fredericks was all smiles as he recounted his childhood and rugby career. Fredericks was born in 1943 in the heart of District Six. He shared a two bedroom home with his parents and nine siblings. He fondly recalls the early days of his rugby career and casually namedrops rugby legends such as Dan Qeqe, Noortjie Khan, ‘Goolie’ Abed and Ismail Baderoen. However these fond memories are intertwined with the jarring memories. The Group Areas Act forced the Fredericks’ family to relocate to Lavender Hill and the rest of his community cruelly strewn across the Cape Flats.

As Fredericks began his rugby career, he increasingly became more politically aware. He recognised the injustice which people of colour faced. He knew that a South African team comprised only of white players was not a true reflection of South Africa and believed that they should instead be referred to as the “White SA team”. He knew that players of colour were certainly as good, if not better than their white counterparts and only failed to make the “national” team because of politics and lack of opportunity. Fredericks says that even the style in which the White SA team played was “off putting” and relied only on power and brawn. This is something the Springboks have struggled with to this day. Every new Springbok coach at the beginning of his term promises to move towards an expansive playing style. However, after a few weeks this approach is abandoned and the team returns to the same “kick, charge, tackle, repeat” formula they have grown accustomed to. Yet Fredericks – and many other veterans of coloured rugby in South Africa – insist that they had captured the expansive style in their day.

Players of colour, like Fredericks, were able to flourish despite racist legislation purposefully designed to keep them from reaching their full potential. Fredericks attended very few games at Newlands when the white only teams played. He accompanied his father to watch the University of Cape Town. He also attended matches with his coach who had taught him that they would be able to “learn something” from the white teams.  Fredericks would attend his last game at Newlands in 1974 and would only return ’95 World Cup to watch the would-be legends.

Dr Danie Craven revered as one of South Africa’s rugby legends, a patron. Today, Craven has a stand in Newlands Rugby Stadium and an entire stadium in Stellenbosch dedicated to him, as well as an “impressive” 2805 word Wikipedia page dedicated to him. Yet when Fredericks speaks of him, he describes Craven as his “worst enemy”.  Craven had once stated, “Over my dead body will a non-white player wear a Springbok jersey.” Years later, Fredericks boldly asked him for an apology. Craven was unremorseful. Yet we continue to glorify this man and his racism in public spaces.

Apartheid is not an event with a clearly marked beginning and ending. Apartheid is a structure resulting from centuries of colonial oppression. It was specifically designed to alienate, disparage, and degrade the majority of the population. Many tools were used to combat the injustices of the regime. One such tool was rugby. Therefore, it is erroneous to presume that rugby is a white man’s game, rugby is not and was never the sole property of the white man. Even at the height of Apartheid, rugby was used as a political tool, to unite the masses, to transcend boundaries. Fredericks too remembers how he was told to use rugby to unite people of colour in the Cape. Rugby’s ability to bring people together was not born at the ’95 World Cup where President Mandela handed Francois Pienaar the Web Ellis trophy. Rugby’s powers for unification reaches far back into the history of black rugby. It is therefore difficult to dissociate rugby from politics. Furthermore any attempt to separate rugby and politics would deny the legacy and memory of generations of rugby activists who were able to use rugby as a tool and a symbol for solidarity.  Many of these activists played under the South African Rugby Union (SARU).  SARU produced many talented players, including Fredericks himself and current Springbok coach, Allister Coetzee. Despite their ability to produce talented players, SARU would have no representatives in the Springbok team in ’95. The only player of colour representing South Africa at the ’95 World Cup was Chester Williams. Williams had played for a team which for various reasons, the non-white rugby community still harbours ill feelings towards.

As a country, we still have a far way to go. Transformation is seen as a burden, not an opportunity. We have the opportunity to change the face of rugby, by engaging with alienated, poverty stricken communities created by racist legislation like the Group Areas Act. Yet whenever the “T word” is dropped, it is regarded with the ugliest of connotations. There be no need of talk of “quotas”. Perhaps it is time to transform our mind-sets. I look at the legend before me; one without his own stand at Newlands Rugby stadium, without his own Wikipedia page. “So disappointed,” he says once more. I realise, that I too, am bitterly disappointed.

Long Live the Kings

Sarah Boomgaard

David versus Goliath. Heart versus money. The Kings versus the Sharks. The Southern Kings’ victory over the Sharks last Saturday was a historic moment. It marked the Kings’ first ever victory over a South African team in the Super Rugby Tournament. The Kings were admitted into the competition in 2013 under unusual circumstances. They replaced the then long-struggling Lions and were given one year to prove themselves. They were subsequently relegated after they failed to build momentum in their preliminary year. To this day the Kings have only won 22% of their Super Rugby matches. However, this year we have seen the Kings grow as a team as their position in the competition. However their sudden spark may prove too little too late as their place within the tournament has once again come under threat.

Last month SANZAAR announced that two South African teams and one Australian team would be eliminated from the Super Rugby tournament. Although SARU has not officially revealed which teams would be axed, the most likely contenders are the Cheetahs and the Southern Kings. Interestingly, both of these unions are situated in provinces which are also home two of South Africa’s top rugby playing boys schools; Grey College in Bloemfontein and Grey High School in Port Elizabeth. The two schools have produced a total of almost fifty Springbok rugby players (admittedly the majority are Grey Bloem alumni). Yet potential superstars rarely go on to play for the Cheetahs or the Kings. A thriving (and profitable) Rugby Union in their perspective regions would go a long way to allow these provinces to hold on to their home grown talent. It has already been decided that two South African will not proceed in the Super Rugby tournament in 2018, but could we not save one of these teams, thereby giving schoolboys a local team to aspire to play for?

If the decision were mine, I’d advocate to keep the Kings. The Cheetahs have performed poorly since 2006. They peaked in 2013 where they managed to finish sixth out of fifteen teams. Other than that, the Cheetahs have failed to make into the top half of the log each year. While the Southern Kings have not fared much better, this is their third year of competing in Super Rugby whereas the Cheetahs have had more than a decade to ignite their union. This year the Kings have already secured more victories than they did last year. They outscored the Sharks four tries to two last weekend in front of twenty thousand people. They have accomplished all of this without a sponsor and virtuously no support from SARU. Their squad is comprised of players deemed too old, too young or “just not good enough” to cut it at the bigger unions. The Kings have shown they are capable of brilliance. If they were to exercise greater discipline and cut down on their penalties, they could be a very special team. As it stands, the Kings have the same amount of log points as the top Australian team.

Super Rugby log correct at 14/05/2017

It is highly unlikely that SARU would eliminate the Bulls in order to save the Kings. The Bulls are better established, have multiple sponsors and are “just going through a building phase”. While that may be true, it seems not only cruel but illogical to cut out the Southern Kings just as they’re beginning to flourish. I have already spoken about the potential for transformation represented by the Kings and Eastern Cape rugby as a whole. Should the Kings be eliminated come 2018, as is likely the case, it would be difficult hear or sympathise with politicians and SARU bemoan the lack of transformation at Springbok level. SARU have had multiple opportunities to change the face of SA Rugby and by continuously ignoring Eastern Cape Rugby, they have not only done little to aid transformation, they have actually hurt or sabotaged it. Eastern Cape Rugby is the future of black rugby in South Africa. The sooner SARU is able to recognise this, the better for the Kings, the better for the Springboks and the better for South Africa.

Cutting the Kings

Sarah Boomgaard

Two South African Super Rugby teams will be cut from the competition in 2018. SANZAAR, the international board that oversees the Super Rugby tournament, announced that the tournament will be restructured going into 2018. The new structure would see that South Africa cuts two teams and Australia cut one from the competition.

The restructuring will reduce the tournament from the current eighteen team format, to a fifteen teams, comprised of three conferences. In 2018, Japan’s Sunwolves moves to the Australian conference, while Argentina’s Jaguares will make up the fifth team in the South African conference.

The Southern Kings are the South African team most likely to be cut from the competition. The Cheetahs will possibly have the option to merge with the Lions to reform the Cats. The Southern Kings have struggled with the intensity of the tournament since 2013 when they were first admitted and since their readmission last year. However, their struggle does not necessarily mean that they should be callously cut from the competition.

The Southern Kings present a unique opportunity for the transformation of SA Rugby. A number of exceptional players of colour have come out of the region. Townships in the Eastern Cape have developed a rugby culture, which is practically non-existent in other provinces who tend to favour soccer. A well-developed Southern Kings union would be immensely beneficial to the transformation of SA Rugby.

Politicians have bemoaned SARU about the slow pace of transformation in SA Rugby. SARU will then throw around platitudes containing the words “grass roots”, yet there has been little to no investment in rugby in the Eastern Cape. The best players get poached by the bigger unions consequently the union has only been able to act as a feeder to the wealthier unions as they try to pad their teams with players of colour.

When the Kings pushed for a spot in Super Rugby, they were given one year to prove themselves. They replaced the Lions and were told that at the end of the year, they would play the Lions once more. The winner would then go on to play Super Rugby the following year. The Kings were given five months to sign players, contact potential sponsors to properly organise themselves and get ready for the daunting task of facing the top best provincial Rugby Union teams in the world. After a magical start, they soon floundered and have struggled to keep up with the pace of Super Rugby ever since.

Finding a sponsor also began difficult for the Kings. When they struggled to obtain sponsorship, salaries could not paid and the union was eventually liquidated. The lack of a sponsor hurt the Kings significantly. The Kings have struggled to attract world class players and coaches.

Instead of investing in Eastern Cape rugby, it seems that not only has little attempt been made to protect them, but the Southern Kings were vilified when they replaced the Lions in 2013, thus making them the perfect scapegoats for being cut in the restructuring of the tournament. The Lions performed poorly from 2002 to 2014, were consistently in the bottom three of the log, and remain the only team to have gone the entire Super Rugby tournament without managing a single victory. Yet the Lions never faced the same level of uncertainty or disdain that the Kings have. Despite their poor performance, their spot in the competition was secure until 2013 and there were no consequences for their unmemorable performance. The Southern Kings struggling as they have in 2013 and 2016, have had no such luxury. Their place in the competition has been under continuous threat since their admission.

Although SANZAAR has given its own reason for the reduction of the competition, SARU should do better to ensure the future of the Kings so that should the opportunity arise when they could be readmitted, they are top competitors and not easy points for the other teams.

Engaging the community

Sarah Boomgaard

Sport is a universal language. It is not and has never been about the activity itself. Keeping your body healthy is important but the reason that the sports industry is as profitable as it is, is because people love watching it – perhaps even more than they enjoy playing it. The love of the game speaks to us on a psychological level, transcending boundaries in unprecedented manners. One need look no further than the ’95 Rugby World Cup. The iconic image of former President Nelson Mandela wearing his Springbok replica jersey handing the Webb Ellis trophy to Francois Pienaar is engrained in the minds of rugby fans around the world. Particularly as rugby had and still has close ties to the Afrikaaner identity, the image of South Africa’s first black president handing a trophy to a white Afrikaaner transformed the image to become a symbol for reconciliation and unity. However the use of sport as a tool of unification does not only take place at a national or international level, sport is able to bring together people within the same communities.

Sport transcends boundaries of race, class and religion. Everyone has to play by the same set of rules. However, this does not mean everyone walks onto the pitch on equal footing. The effects of Apartheid are still felt today with many communities left divided. The gap between impoverished and affluent areas are vast with infrastructure in the former practically non-existent. The lack of infrastructure is merely one of a multitude of reasons for the slow pace of transformation, particularly with regards to rugby as rugby posts are more expensive than soccer goal posts that can and have been substituted with beacons for formal goal posts in underprivileged communities. Nevertheless these hurdles do not negate the positive effects that sports can have on communities; both privileged and impoverished.

Rugby is an integral instrument of community development. Due to its team dynamic and its nature as a contact sport, rugby is able to bring people closer within, and across neighbourhoods. Unlike soccer and cricket, rugby calls for players to constantly invade each other’s personal space not only by way of tackling but through rucks, line outs, scrums, and mauls. By constantly invading one another’s personal space it makes it incredibly difficult for players to hold on to their biases and prejudices. Consequently, they are more likely to see their teammates as individuals thereby deconstructing their preconceived stereotypes. Tournaments provide teams with the opportunity to interact with people of different communities which leads to preconceived prejudices being further dismantled. This is particularly important as Apartheid created neighbourhoods that perpetuated stereotypes based on race as well as class. The continuous cross-community interactions facilitated through tournaments are an integral part of breaking down these social barriers.

Social barriers and prejudices can also be broken down through spectatorship, particularly with regards to rugby. Although rugby is intertwined with the Afrikaans culture, the increase in spectatorship amongst people of colour is undeniable. This presents an interesting opportunity to bring together spectators from all walks of life, allowing them to share in the joy or heartache of their favourite team’s success or failure unites people of vastly different backgrounds. Once again this helps to break down the notion of “us and them”. The proverbial “them” is the opposing team and their supporters, and then, there is just us – the thousands of people united by something as simple as a rugby match. The unity being described here can be seen on any given Saturday at Newlands Rugby Stadium. It is a common occurrence to see a group of men and women of a multitude of races debating the coach’s team selection before the game and celebrating (or drowning their sorrows) together after the final whistle.

I will not insinuate that a host of rugby tournaments will magically end racism and discrimination. Nothing is that easy. However sports and particularly rugby, have a lot of potential to bring people together – and when people are brought together, in the right environment, they have the opportunity to realise that perhaps we are not so different after all.