A reason for all the anger

Several years ago the then Springbok flank Wahl Bartmann was interviewed on television news about his transfer from a Pretoria military base to one nearer Johannesburg during his national service.

"The problem is that I am a No6, not a No7 flank, and in Pretoria they want me to be a No7," explained the unhappy Bartmann in his attempt to justify the fuss about his quest to get military authorities to grant him a return to the Transvaal team. I remember wondering what the many other national servicemen who wished for a transfer for reasons of a more compassionate nature, but who never received it, must have thought about that. Here was a bloke being granted a move to his base of choice because he wanted to wear a different number on his rugby jersey.

It would be understandable if there were many South Africans who had similar thoughts when watching Boots and All the other night. When you consider what the average person earns, it did seem obscene to hear South African Rugby Players Association chief executive Piet Heymans refer to "small contracts" of R25 000.

There can be no denying that Sarfu president Brian van Rooyen came out on top in the television debate. Make no mistake, he is a shrewd politician, argues logically, and knows how to manipulate information to suit his ends.

Afterwards I thought to myself that if it were not for the 10 or 20 things he has done in the last three months that I disagree with, he would make a damn fine president. In many ways he is far superior to some of his predecessors.

He did make it appear that the players were being greedy, and his argument that there was a new coach in charge which made it impossible to grant contracts was a compelling one. At least if you ignored the fact that it was his organisation that keeps appointing the wrong coach and then having to sack him.

When Van Rooyen added everything up, it left you wondering why the players needed additional national contracts on top of what they earned from the provinces etc.

In the past I have been a little frustrated at the player tendency to constantly bemoan their fate. For instance, I was critical of Robbie Kempson when he took a pop at Sarfu when he left for Ulster two years ago. This was because the organisation he was criticising was the same one that forked out a small fortune to pay for the operation that enabled him to play again and thus take up his new contract.

But ultimately those who are running the game in this country have to accept one simple fact which transcends what they might feel about the individual player demands. The players are clearly unhappy, and judging from how frequently this contract issue blows up, they have been unhappy for quite a long time now.

Anyone who knows anything about business knows that a company MD can expect a lot less from his workers when they are unhappy. An unhappy work-force has to affect the end product, it is as simple as that.

Van Rooyen therefore has to face a reality which perhaps his predecessor as the chief decision maker in South African rugby administration, former SA Rugby MD Rian Oberholzer, failed to grasp - there is no way forward for the game until the players are satisfied and have confidence in those who determine their futures.

Considering how he has vested most of the power back in the 14 elected provincial presidents, I thought Van Rooyen made a startling admission on Boots and All when he pointed out that he and his four right hand men did not have the time available to put out the several fires that are currently burning. This, he said, was because they do not work full-time in rugby.

How must the players feel when they hear that? For most modern rugby players, the game is their sole livelihood. They do not have other day-jobs to fall back on when their rugby careers go pear-shaped.

To my mind, that is a massive weakness in the new structure, for it stands to reason that the full-time employed managing directors and chief executives of the provincial unions have a better understanding of the game and the challenges it faces than the elected officials.

They are certainly more respected by the players, who cannot be blamed sometimes for viewing provincial presidents as people who are only really visible at cocktail parties and who are not involved in the day to day business of rugby as much as the MDs are.

Those who believe that players are greedy for wanting national contracts should consider how they would feel if they worked for an organisation that annually offered these contracts, and the extra money, and then suddenly turned around and withdrew them.

Whichever way you look at it, that equals a loss in earnings. How many people do you know who would accept that from their company and not get upset about it?

The previous administration offered national contracts, and there must have been a reason for that. Those players who may now be angry because they made long-term career decisions, and perhaps turned down lucrative offers from elsewhere, or who committed money based on promises that they may have been made, do have a right to be miffed.

It would also be right for the players to feel Van Rooyen is wrong when he says publicly that they did not deserve contracts based on World Cup performance.

Not all the players performed badly as individuals, and someone like Bakkies Botha should certainly feel he has a right to view himself as part of the core of the Springbok team.

And if that is not the case, then it just illustrates the player point about the problems associated with Sarfu's inability to choose the right coach and then stick with him.