More creative measures needed

It may not be fanciful to suggest that the two big rugby stories of the past weekend are linked in some way.

To inform those who have just returned from a weekend on Mars, the South African Rugby Union President’s Council announced on Thursday that overseas based players will henceforth not be eligible for Springbok selection. The player’s association then struck back by saying they would take the matter to court as players had negotiated with overseas clubs in the understanding they would still be considered for national duty.

Then came the news that Saru president Oregan Hoskins wished to make it his organisation’s target to select seven black players in the starting team for the 2011 World Cup, with Rapport even quoting a document sent to provincial unions stipulating that in future there should be 12 black players in a squad of 22.

Where the link between all of this comes in is when we turn to the issue of what drives players to negotiate with overseas clubs in the first place, something that appears sometimes to be either overlooked by the administrators or just ignored.

You cannot complain if you are accused of hypocrisy when you criticise Gary Botha’s decision to play overseas in one breath and then with the next state that there will be seven black players in the starting line-up at the next World Cup, effectively meaning there will be a place for only eight white players.

It is a fact that most of the players being sought by overseas clubs at the moment are white players. It is also a fact that most of the first class players challenging for places in the national team also just happen to be white. Logic says that given this scenario, limiting the number of places available to white players means an awful lot of them are going to miss out.

Isn’t it only natural then that a lot of these players, hearing and reading about the uncertain future their bosses are outlining for them, are sitting ducks for overseas clubs who can offer them a secure future and lucrative payment? And if the number of places available to them in the national team is limited, then excluding overseas Boks becomes less of a deterrent.

This is not for a moment a criticism of the drive to transform. The transformation of rugby is a non-negotiable. But the administrators also need to look at it from the player’s viewpoint, to understand why they are heading to the northern hemisphere. It is not just the money, there are many other factors in play.

Although it was a knee-jerk reaction, I do have sympathy for Saru’s plight. They have to be seen to be doing something to keep players in the country. As always though the timing of the announcement was terrible, and as the SARPA president said, what the administration are effectively saying to players like Victor Matfield is we don’t want you next year but in the meantime go out and win the World Cup for us.

This announcement has given rise to another of those distractions that the Springboks can do without. Most importantly, you have to question the likely effectiveness of it given that you would imagine the intent of the decision was not to punish Matfield and Smit, but to keep young players yet to play for the national team in the country.

So far only players who have already played for the Springboks have been lured back. There is no precedent of an uncapped youngster going overseas and then being selected for the Boks purely on the form he displays in Europe.

So the decision for the young player is already an obvious one, regardless of whether there is a ban on overseas players playing for the Springboks: He knows that if he goes overseas his chances of playing for the Boks are minimal. Clyde Rathbone and Pat Barnard must have known this, it didn’t stop them.

So what does this ban on overseas players actually achieve, apart from weaken the Springboks? The rugby bosses need to find more creative ways of making it attractive for players to stay, such as the introduction of third party contracts such as the one Lote Tuqiri recently signed with the Waratahs, the ARU and Vodafone, and perhaps a restructuring of the way the game is run and managed.

Most provincial union chief executives would agree with the contention that there are too many professional players in South Africa. The system needs to be more streamlined. Maybe if this happens, and an elite five franchise system was created for professional rugby, the country could become more competitive in the market-place.