RUGBY CHAMPIONSHIP
Why Boks withdrew
There was no way the Springboks could be competitive in the 2020 Rugby Championship if they somehow managed to haul a 46man squad into the Australian bio-bubble. That is the main reason why SA Rugby formally withdrew the Boks from the tournament this week.
South Africa, New Zealand, Australia and Argentina Rugby (Sanzaar) have reverted to the original name, the Tri-Nations. That was the moniker of the tournament between 1996 and 2011, before Argentina joined in 2012. A new schedule has also been put in place.
For the Boks, though, who have made it clear for weeks that they were unlikely to go because of a slew of issues, it is both a relief and a problem.
It’s a relief because South African players simply aren’t in a physical state to compete with the All Blacks and Wallabies after six months of lockdown. It’s also a problem because it means the Boks won’t play a Test in 2020 and it’s unlikely they will find a window to play before the British & Irish Lions arrive for the 2021 tour next July.
It’s also a blow for the status of the tournament as the Boks are the reigning Rugby Championship and World Cup champions.
Insurmountable hurdles
Lack of clarity on travel protocols both out of South Africa and in Australia, and potential reputational damage for the Springboks were the major contributing factors to the decision. Unlike many reports claim, the financial blow is nowhere near as heavy as expected.
A Covid-19-specific collective broadcast deal done between the four countries months ago means that SA Rugby still shares in the broadcast pot even though the Springboks are not playing.
There are fewer matches thanks to the Boks’ withdrawal, which means a reduction in broadcast fees – mainly from SuperSport – as the South African contributor to the pot.
Rugby Australia (RA) and New Zealand Rugby (NZR) lose more than the Boks because SuperSport will continue to support SA Rugby financially, even though they are not going to Australia, as the two bodies are effectively commercial partners.
A DM168 source close to the tense negotiations in the last 72 hours confirmed that “NZR expressed concern. They said it cost them the chance of bringing someone else in to play. But their options were limited due to Covid anyway. We only got the return to play green light on 16 September and within 10 days the players were on the field. That is a fairly aggressive return-to-play approach.”
There was also an issue on the interpretation of government travel regulations and whether work permits, and not only visas, were needed for travel. Individuals are permitted to leave the country with relevant work permits, but as a sports team, the Boks would only normally travel with appropriate visas. A Springbok rugby player does not normally need a work permit to fulfil his job.
There was also no clarity from Australian Border Control about whether the arrival of two separate Springbok parties – one with players from the northern hemisphere and another from South Africa – would require different Covid-19 protocols.
These challenges were compounded by the fact that the 24 overseas-based players, who had been identified for potential selection (depending on Covid-19 status) and for whom visas had been applied, were based with European or Japanese clubs.
“With time essentially having run out, it left us with no option,” SARU CEO Jurie Roux said.
“Players in England, Ireland, France and Japan are subject to differing local regulations and travel protocols, and potentially imminent renewed lockdowns in some territories. It was unclear when they would be able to become functioning members of the Springbok squad in Australia. We understand that public safety concerns come first and there’s no way that we could expect short cuts to be found to get them out of their host countries and into the Springbok bubble.
“But the impact on our planning was profound and took us to a bottom line that we could not in fairness commit to being able to compete. This is a hugely disappointing outcome for our supporters and commercial partners, but the ongoing impacts of the pandemic in multiple dispensations mean we are unable to deliver a Springbok team without seriously compromising player welfare.
“Sanzaar and Rugby Australia have bent over backwards to make the tournament happen and it would have been unfair on them, their partners and state government to delay a decision any longer.”
Player welfare
Rassie Erasmus, director of rugby, said that his department had planned for every scenario.
“We worked out that the players needed a minimum of 400 minutes of game time before they could be ready for a Test match,” said Erasmus.
“The overseas-based players had started playing before us and they would have been getting close to that time by 7 November. But many of those have completed their programmes or have had Covid outbreaks, which has interrupted the planning. The Japanese-based players haven’t played any rugby at all, while the home-based players would be well short of 400 minutes by the time of kickoff.”
Individual players with under 400 minutes of rugby can be introduced into a squad if the bulk of that squad has met those minimum requirements, but it was impossible with zero players at the target. What’s more, there is an insurance liability for players with fewer than 400 minutes of game time.
SA-based players played their first competitive matches last weekend, 29 weeks after their last competitive match in Super Rugby in March. In contrast, New Zealand and Australia’s players contested a Test match on Saturday, 17 weeks and 14 weeks respectively after they resumed competitive rugby.
Roux said: “It has been an extremely challenging year and what started out as a two-week lockdown evolved into a global crisis; one of [the side effects of this] has been to decimate our rugby calendar.
“It seems impossible that the Springboks won’t play a Test match in 2020, but public health and safety have been the primary concern and we have been collateral damage, like so many businesses.
“All we can do now is enjoy our domestic competitions and find ways to be ready for the arrival of the British & Irish Lions in 2021.” DM168
The ongoing impacts of the pandemic in multiple dispensations mean we are unable to deliver a Springbok team without seriously compromising player welfare.