|
05/05/2008 09:55
Gary Boshoff
It is not only South African rugby that is struggling to come to terms with the rapid commoditisation of the sport, but divisions and insecurity on how to respond to the fall-out from the professionalisation process in rugby are also emanating from New Zealand and Australia.
In recent weeks the eligibility of overseas-based players for the Springbok side resurfaced when the Springbok coach Peter de Villiers asked John Smit (now based in France) to stay on as captain for the 2008 season. Smit is apparently considering opting out of his overseas contract to return to South Africa.
Oregan Hoskins, president of SA Rugby, has stated in no uncertain terms that Saru has no restrictions on the number of overseas-based players that can play for the Boks. It seems as if De Villiers is not aware of this and maintains that he is only allowed to select a maximum of three. This with the incoming tours less than a month away! Different viewpoints on something that should be a cut and dry affair have become customary in Saru. When will this ever change?
Laissez faire approach
There are two schools of thought on the potential impact of a laissez faire approach to Springbok selection criteria on the one hand, as opposed to stricter regulations aimed at protecting the local game and competitions like the Currie Cup and Super 14, on the other hand.
The laissez faire approach (or the Hoskins approach) will see the removal of all restrictions for the selection of overseas-based South African players to the Springbok side - in practice this means that all 22 players selected can be foreign based.
I am a great supporter of a sober approach to the potential impact of globalisation on rugby union, however I am of the opinion that South African rugby has not reached the point where such drastic action is required.
Other than Australia and to a lesser extend New Zealand, South Africa has a vast pool of rugby players and will for a long time into the future be able to produce the bulk of the Springbok side through our locally-based players and competitions.
It would however be foolish to close the door completely. Jake White used this approach successfully when he brought Percy Montgomery and Jaco van der Westhuyzen back to South Africa.
Supply and demand
De Villiers is correct when he states that overseas-based players must really be on top of their game and clearly better than locally-based players before they will be considered for Springbok selection as reputation and previous achievements should count for nothing.
It also needs to be remembered that it is not as if the professional teams in the world will always be scrambling to recruit South African players. True to the market place, it will remain a question of supply and demand.
Therefore, as the quality of the game and that of players improves across the globe, competition for the limited number of commercial and professional opportunities available will increase. I therefore don't foresee a situation similar to Argentina or Samoa where almost 100% of their national team ply there trade in the European professional leagues.
Chris Rattue of the New Zealand Herald reports in one of the Sunday papers that a panic stricken New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) is flaunting its own regulations on the eligibility of overseas-based players in an apparent attempt to retain Daniel Carter's services for the All Blacks. It has been reported recently that Carter is about to sign an "unmatchable" deal with a French club.
Road to disaster
Presently eligibility criteria for All Black selection includes playing in the Super 14 competition. The NZRU plans to waive this criterion in Carter's case by categorising the circumstances as "extra-ordinary". This so-called "Carter Deal" is being described by Rattue as the start of the "disintegration of the domestic rule" (the regulation requiring All Blacks to play in the Super 14 competition).
The report is scathing of the NZRU's disregard for its own rules and warns that this "special dispensation" for key players like Carter will be "a road to disaster, a dismantling of what is left of the overstated All Black ideals and an invitation to let perceived star status create cliques in the Test side".
In fact, similar to New Zealand, we tend to idolise players to the point where we believe that they are irreplaceable. The past five years we've been told so many times by rugby journalists and ex-Springbok coaches how South African is losing its best players to European clubs, yet, despite this, we've managed to win the Rugby World Cup and the Super 14 in the same year! Goes to show that what is best is more often than not, just a matter of opinion.
It is clear from the above that the dynamics involved are far more complex than simply removing all restrictions to the number of overseas based players eligible for the Springbok side - in fact, in my view, the future of South African rugby has much more to do with those that remain behind, than those who choose to pursue the riches that the open market offers.
Gary Boshoff is a former Saru player and well-known rugby administrator.
Send Gary your thoughts
Disclaimer: Sport24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on Sport24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Sport24.
|
COMMENTS