Boks: Time for home truths

The use of overseas-based players will be the exception rather than the rule

TOO disruptive and too costly.

Following a shambolic Springbok tour of the UK and Italy, those are factors SA Rugby have to weigh up in determining whether to strictly limit the use of the overseas-(European)-based players from next season.

SA Rugby bosses are now asking whether the effort and cost warrant their continued involvement?

“Providing it is in the test window, players only arrive five days before a test. For training camps, they join on a Sunday and leave on a Tuesday and it is a costly exercise to bring them in for two days only,” said an insider who did not want to be named.

Then there is the ubiquitous red tape. “You have to advise that you are going to select them in terms of regulations nine and 23. Regulation nine is the actual release and regulation 23 is the medical insurance,” the source said.

“You can imagine the risk if someone who earns R10-million a year abroad, sustains a recurring injury and is out for nine months. The union will be liable for loss of income of about R6million to R7-million. That makes it prohibitive.

“Insurance is expensive. It is in the region of R15 000 a week. That covers training and playing. Obviously, the players’ flights and accommodation are paid for. It becomes very expensive to bring them in.”

The source said a moratorium on the selection of overseas players has increasingly become a necessity. “It is the way to go because it doesn’t cheapen the jersey. It basically means that the players who will be selected are people who want to be selected to play for South Africa.

“If you are 21 years old, you are not going to seek greener pastures and your top players will probably be coerced into not going abroad.”

French rugby player agent Damien Dussault disagrees.

“Players will still leave. The fact is everybody is unhappy. In 2014 I spoke to three black players and three white players in Port Elizabeth. The white players were saying transformation is squeezing them out, the black players are saying they are not getting an opportunity,” said Dussault, who heads the Digidust sports agency.

“In New Zealand being an All Black means everything. It meant something to be a Springbok maybe 10 years ago.

“I don’t think you can blame the overseas players for your defeats. You lost a close game in the semifinals of the last World Cup with overseas-based players in the team. What’s wrong now?” Dussault asked.

Naas Botha, South Africa’s first bigname export in the 1980s, asked the

People want to know if this review process that they are embarking on has integrity

same question. He also agreed that the ills afflicting the Springboks can be found elsewhere.

He believes SA Rugby needs to make an unambiguous ruling on eligibility. “If they’re trying to blame the overseas players, I think they are looking in the wrong place.

“These problems existed before. Nobody forced the selectors to select foreign-based players. Why is it an issue now? There are other things that play a bigger role. The fact of the matter is we weren’t good enough and those factors need to be addressed.”

The former Bok captain added: “This year, I don’t think it would have mattered who was selected and who not [sic]. Just look at our results and how we played. That should be the crux.

“People want to know if this review process that they are embarking on has integrity. Do they really care about rugby? The Boks are sinking and we’ve got chaos ahead. Our rugby is in dire straits.”