Rugby does need Stofile

As one of the first to put Mike Stofile’s nickname among colleagues, Mad Mike, into the public domain, it might surprise some readers that I may be prepared to defend the former South African Rugby Union deputy president.

The reaction to Stofile’s outburst after losing the Saru election to Oregan Hoskins was understandable. Everyone in South African rugby is getting tired of the race card, and how it too often gets used to champion individual, rather than national causes.

It was Stofile who opted not to run for the deputy presidency, a position he should have easily retained had he put it to the vote. So to cry foul by pointing to the lack of black people in the leadership triumvirate as an “indictment” of South African rugby was stretching the truth just a bit.

What Stofile was effectively doing was saying “If I am not going to be the president then I will remove myself from rugby governance”. Where Stofile was wrong though was in that the move didn’t just remove him as an individual from the South African rugby decision making process. He removed what was, despite all the criticism of his tendency to put his feet in his mouth with his public comments, a very important lobby and voice in the process.

Hoskins’s reaction to Stofile’s rant about “no place for black people in SA rugby” was understandable. His response to the question in the press conference afterwards was spot on: “I can’t understand why Mr Stofile says that because I consider myself a black person. As I was born and bred in Africa, I also consider myself an African”.

Smart response, but everyone knew what Stofile meant when he said what he did. So let’s not pretend otherwise. We saw during the celebrations of last year's World Cup triumph what a massive potential market there is in his consistuency. It should not be ignored.

What we should ask is whether Stofile has a point. Mluleki George ran for the presidency during Louis Luyt’s time, lost badly and disappeared from rugby. Silas Nkanunu became president after Luyt but it was at a time when all the power was held by the chief executive, Rian Oberholzer, and the presidency became no more than a ceremonial function.

In my own view there is no doubt that the various provincial delegates and office-bearers made the right choice by going for Hoskins. Stofile is just too brash to be a president, his public criticisms of Jake White and John Smit last year painted him as one who lacked the statesmanlike qualities needed for the position.

But while his views may never have been popular, Stofile’s main focus, that being the rate at which transformation is progressing in South African rugby, does need to be championed. For instance, while I did not agree with his attacks on Smit and White, he was probably spot-on when he attacked the selection of Chiliboy Ralepelle as Bok captain in a festival fixture in England on the basis that it was tokenism.

Tokenism is something that South African rugby is eminently capable of if there isn’t someone with integrity, someone who understands the cause and what it is all about, who is intensely passionate about meaningful transformation, around to ensure that it doesn’t happen.

Now that the main watch-dog and pro-transformation rabble-rouser is out of the mix, those who are left must not become complacent and think that because Mad Mike is out of the picture they can fool the people. The people are too clever to be fooled.

Stofile should also have been too clever to be duped into thinking that somehow he could continue pushing the cause of his people from outside of the rugby structures. As deputy president he was in a position of considerable influence, he was in a position to influence the chief decision-maker and others around him.

Hoskins and those he made life difficult for may not miss Stofile, but in time rugby may do. It should be of concern to the administrators that Stofile, or someone of his ilk, is not there to ensure that some important perspectives are not missed when decisions are made.