Only way to halt player exodus is for SA Rugby to contract top 120

There appears to be much sympathy from the local media for the claims of departing Springboks that the national contracts deny them security.

Robbie Kempson, in explaining his reasons for going to Ulster, said his decision made business sense as his contract would offer greater security than having to "slug it out on an annual basis for a national contract".

Pieter Rossouw, although admitting that the chance to be a player/coach figured heavily, also pointed to security, or lack of it, as one of his reasons for leaving.

Both players were echoing the sentiments expressed again and again by former Stormers goalkicking supremo Braam van Straaten, who used the word security to explain why he won't return to South Africa during his playing career.

While it is easy to feel sorry for these players, and it is hard to deny that they made the right decisions from a business point of view, there are also a number of misconceptions that do need to be cleared up.

For a start, the reports that Kempson and Robbie Fleck had been dropped from their national contracts were factually inaccurate. Both players were included (listed under players who were injured) on the contracted list sent out by the Springbok management late last year.

Like everyone else on that list, they were contracted until the end of May and were to be paid until that date.

Fleck, who has not played since last August, may well still be contracted after May by new coach Rudolf Straeuli. But it is important to note that when the last batch of contracts were drawn up, it was understood that Fleck would be back playing Super 12 rugby in May. It was assumed by Harry Viljoen that he would then be back in the contracted stream of active players which will be drawn up at the conclusion of the Super 12.

Straeuli may of course see Fleck differently and I do feel sympathy for players who decry the rapid turn-over of coaches. Such a frequent change of boss would make any employee nervous.

But it is important to remember that the money that comes from the national contracts is not the only payment players receive. Their main contracts are with the provinces. In this sense Kempson and the other WP Boks should feel no less secure than most of the rest of us - they are contracted by WP until the end of 2003.

In the case of Van Straaten, the insecurity which prompted him to consider overseas options may have had more to do with his contract with WP than his deal with the national body.

It will be recalled that at the end of 2000, WP only contracted Van Straaten for a further 12 months. This was understandable given Van Straaten's relegation to the WP bench after the emergence of Chris Rossouw as the new flyhalf sensation and a perception that his style of play might not suit Province in the long term.

Like his then teammate Dan van Zyl, it was also arguable that he was at an age where at any stage he could fall into the category of players considered to have had their best days behind them.

When Van Straaten suddenly started kicking goals for the Springboks and establishing himself as a realistic option at inside centre, the WP hierachy had a rethink, but by then it was too late. Van Straaten had signed for Leeds.

When the last international season started, Van Straaten was not in the squad that Viljoen called up for the training camp at Plettenberg Bay. It was clear that Viljoen had no intention, at least at that stage, of using him.

As it turned out, the goalkicking crisis prompted a reluctant SOS in August. However, the point is that Van Straaten, even had he not played a test in 2001, remained on the contracted list (albeit demoted a level) and would have been paid even if he had not played a test for the entire season.

It was the same with Pieter Rossouw. Gavin Passens, who was then injured but had been on the previous Bok tour and was considered useful by Viljoen, was also retained in the contracted group.

I am told that in England the system works very differently. There the players get paid for every appearance in a test and for their appearances at squad sessions. So the bulk of the England players "secure" money comes from the clubs, while their extra earning potential is determined by how many test matches they play.

Unlike here, a player who is left out of the squad called up for a training camp is automatically excluded from the payments made out by the RFU. In South Africa no players are summarily dropped from a contracted group, they are phased out through the grading system. You drop from Level A to Level B, and then Level B1 and so on...

At a time when the lure of the pound is so strong and most of the provincial unions clearly lack the big financial clout to compete, the English system is probably not the way to go. SA Rugby does need to find ways to keep the top players loyal, and hence the national contracts.

But the best way to provide the "security" the players are looking for would be to do what SA Rugby MD Rian Oberholzer has been wanting to do ever since I first met him - namely to follow the New Zealand and Australian lead by signing the top 120 players.

In that way the Super 12 contract is built into the national contract. While a player will obviously be paid more if he is a test player, being contracted by the national body to play Super 12 rugby will give him a better chance of earning a salary compatible with what is being offered overseas. Most importantly, it will provide security for those times that he is not deemed to be playing well enough to be in the Springbok playing squad.

At least then we would also be getting away from the present ridiculous situation where theoretically players can be paid by the Bok management to do nothing. Informatively, in Nick Mallett's last year in charge Louis Koen, who played one test, was paid the same amoung for the period as Corne Krige, who played 11.

Conversely it also does away with the demand on provinces to battle it out with the powerful English clubs for the right to pick up the tab for players that they may only see for a tiny proportion of the year.

The reason Joost van der Westhuizen was contracted by SA Rugby during the tug- of-war with Newport last year was because the Bulls union did not have the money to dish out to a player they were hardly going to see. As players representative Rob van der Valk put it in a recent interview, what we would have if SA Rugby followed the New Zealand lead would be a win-win situation. If the provincial unions want to retain their top players it is high time they also see it that way.