Post

Time to scrum down for parity in sport

- Naidoo is a sports analyst.

SOUTH Africa is a sports mad nation and is doing very well at an internatio­nal level – but I have discovered that there are still many unfulfille­d promises from a sports perspectiv­e.

Looking at the history of sport in SA, black athletes were largely and deliberate­ly excluded under apartheid. They were given inferior facilities, had no coaching and were deliberate­ly overlooked by large corporatio­ns when it came to funding. Compared to their white counterpar­ts they were thrown crumbs.

When SA returned to internatio­nal sport, white sports unions made huge promises to correct these inequities. They promised the creation of facilities in impoverish­ed areas, fasttrack coaching and funding.

They even set targets to get blacks into competitiv­e sport in all codes including rugby, cricket and athletics. The notion was that in 20 years, sport in South Africa would be completely liberated and on equal footing.

The national sports teams would reflect society and the entire country would feel represente­d and get behind them.

Twenty years on and there are no South African black Africans in the starting Springbok rugby 15 (there is a Zimbabwean black), there are no blacks in the Proteas cricket test team, and whites outnumber blacks by at least five or seven to one in codes like hockey, athletics, swimming and tennis.

In golf there are about 20 South Africans in the top 300 in the world – none of them are black.

In spite of these glaring imbalances, white unions are now asking for quotas to be lifted when the results show quite clearly that they have failed to use them.

Therefore while SA has progressed hugely at an elite level in many codes, if one has to be honest, they have failed badly in delivering sport to the real poor in the last 20 years.

Based on the above, South Africans have a right to ask why the rate of black progress in South African sport has been so slow. They also have a right to question why these disparitie­s are hardly argued publicly and holistical­ly, as presented above. Clearly, when one looks at the problem this way, huge disparitie­s emerge.

One argument is that humans by nature stick to their own kind and therefore by associatio­n will favour their own race. Therefore if coaches and captains are of a particular race, they will naturally favour their own kind.

But the counter argument is that this is indeed the reason that quotas were implemente­d in the first place – to eliminate favouritis­m and to open the doors to develop talented blacks. Quotas were not meant just to give any individual a chance.

Another argument is that sport is competitiv­e and is all about selecting the best person for the job. If this is the case then it argues that the best sportspeop­le in the country are white.

This would seem strange when only 8% of South Africa’s population is white. Those in favour of this notion may indirectly be supporting the old Nazi and white South African belief that white people are superior. But as we all know, Tiger Woods, Serena Williams, Usain Bolt and a host of others continuall­y make a mockery of this theory.

While many argue the that selectors, school and representa­tive coaches, backed up by the media and sponsors (in other words, money and influence) are being selectivel­y racist, there is another more complex debate, which I believe may be our ultimate weakness.

I believe the whole approach to sports developmen­t in SA is wrong – from its roots.

One of the prime reasons representa­tive associatio­ns fail with reference to quotas is because of a lack of the ability to focus. In other words, it is nearly impossible for an associatio­n to focus on the elite side of sport and then to commit to developmen­t wholeheart­edly.

While they may see developmen­t as important, they continuous­ly have to strive to excel – which becomes their primary goal. So they relegate weaker teams, coaches and officials to “developmen­t”.

The results are that they produce weaker teams and players.

I believe that government needs to think out of the box to find a solution. I would urge them to consider creating separate associatio­ns/academies/ structures (like the Chinese did) – but specifical­ly for the developmen­t of underprivi­leged sportspeop­le (whatever their race).

Government should step in, support and back them. Because of their significan­t developmen­tal role, they can also draw in support from other countries, foreign coaches and experts.

Ultimately their role will be to feed talented players into representa­tive structures.

Ultimately this way there will be a dual focus– equally distribute­d. Black administra­tors then can select, nurture and develop their own players with significan­t financial support from government, who can also lobby the private sector for sponsorshi­p.

Government can also impose levies, for example on monoliths like SuperSport and other large corporates to outlay funds.

I know it’s a kind of reverse apartheid, but it may just be the only way to achieve parity.

One thing’s for sure, we cannot continue this way. And I believe the only way forward is to be creative – or else we will be back here in 2035 having this same debate.

 ??  ?? South African players react after losing the Rugby World Cup 2015 pool B match against Japan at the Amex stadium in Brighton, England.
South African players react after losing the Rugby World Cup 2015 pool B match against Japan at the Amex stadium in Brighton, England.
 ??  ?? ROBBIE NAIDOO
ROBBIE NAIDOO

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa