Department of Sport and Recreation 2011 Budget: hearings with various stakeholders

Sports, Arts and Culture

22 March 2011
Chairperson: Mr BM Komphela (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee was satisfied with the budget allocation. Their one concern was the amount of money allocated to LoveLife. Members agreed. The Confederation would be prepared to do the same work as LoveLife, using athletes as advocates of HIV/AIDS awareness while also educating athletes. A meeting was needed with LoveLife and other concerned parties. The Committee stated that it would not approve of further funding for LoveLife from the Sports and Recreation budget in the next budget.

The South African Rugby Union was also satisfied with the budget. Their allocation from the Department was being used on a development programme in the Eastern Cape and for women's rugby. Members were complimentary of the work being done by rugby. One of the major problems faced was substance abuse, which occurred mainly in the former Model C schools. A threat to funding for rugby was the proposed ban on the advertising of alcohol.

Boxing South Africa was not satisfied with its budget allocation. It had a huge tax liability to be settled. The shortage of funding had forced it to suspend the successful Baby Champs programme. No money could be allocated for development. The staff complement was being kept small with more tasks being allocated to each person. Boxing South Africa did derive some additional income from tournaments and licence fees. They were concerned that their grant would be decreased in the following financial year.

Department officials explained that a special arrangement had been made for a once-off payment to settle the tax liability. If this was not considered then there would be an increase in funding over the following years. The Department did want to see greater financial accountability in Boxing South Africa before considering increased funding. Members suggested that Boxing South Africa tap into programmes run by the Department and by the amateur equivalent, the South African National Amateur Boxing Organisation. Although not a member of the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee, Boxing South Africa could make use of their programmes and international contacts.

ATKA (Pty) Ltd was a financial management company. Their suggestion was that a lump sum of money should be lent to the South African Football Association. This company would invest the money and make the interest available for the construction of 150 multi-purpose sports facilities.

Members had some scepticism. A major problem would be the maintenance of the facility after the offered five year maintenance contract was completed. There were some questions over the ownership of the company.

The Secretary of the Transformation and Anti-Racism Rugby Committee (TARC) told Members that black rugby had gone backwards since unity. There was no transformation. Many clubs had disappeared through mergers. White provincial authorities continued to control the game. He believed that a step towards reviving black club rugby would be to stage an Easter tournament for black clubs.

Members agreed about the plight of black rugby clubs. Transport was consuming resources and facilities were lacking. There was good work being done in some areas, but the playing fields were not equal. In retrospect, the promises of unity had not been fulfilled.

Meeting report

The Chairperson said that the Committee had not had enough time to interrogate the Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA) Strategic Plan the previous day. Time would be found for another meeting after the upcoming Parliamentary recess. The Secretary had been asked to complete the report on the budget hearings by 28 March.

The Chairperson said that the South African Football Association (SAFA) had a programme that would benefit grassroots football. Members were aware of the 52 artificial surfaces that would be built throughout the country. If Members had sufficient notice they would be happy to attend the hand-overs as the facilities were completed. Members represented poor areas in their constituencies. Facilities were needed in these areas. He was only nervous about the possibility of damage to the computer centres attached to the fields due to vandalism.

The Chairperson said that it was necessary for SAFA to explain how money granted by SRSA could best be used and where there were weaknesses.

Submission by South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC)
Mr Vinesh Maharaj, SASCOC Chief Financial Officer (CFO), said that on the whole the budget was aligned with the requirements of SASCOC. Their one concern was the amount of money being allocated to LoveLife as not much seemed to be happening with this organisation in terms of sport.

Discussion
Mr D Lee (DA) had only one question, which he would repeat during the day. He asked if there was any contact between SASCOC and LoveLife. R200 million would go to LoveLife over three years, more than to any individual federation.

Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) asked for clarification on the collaboration between SASCOC, LoveLife and the national federations.

Mr Maharaj said that SASCOC would look to meet the Acting Director-General (DG) of SRSA on LoveLife. He felt that athletes could spread the same message that LoveLife was trying to put out. Athletes would be role models, while at the same time there would be lifestyle education for athletes.

Mr Lee wanted to make sure that SASCOC had never had any dealings with LoveLife.

Mr Maharaj said they had not.

The Chairperson said that SASCOC were the custodians of sport. LoveLife was intruding on their area of competence. The budget for LoveLife was continuing to grow. He asked if there had ever been a meeting between the two parties.

Mr Lee said that LoveLife was also getting a lot of money from the provinces, money intended for sport.

Mr Maharaj said that there had been discussions with the late Director-General (DG). There had been no progress after the meeting, and there would be more interaction with the Acting DG. There was value to LoveLife's programmes which could be taken further by SASCOC.

Mr L Suka (ANC) said that there was a rule that funds followed function. His fundamental problem was that no service provider could be given such funds without oversight. The situation needed to be reviewed. A better response was needed on the use of public funds that could be put to a better purpose.

Mr G MacKenzie (COPE) said that LoveLife received more money than the combined grant to the national federation, and yet SASCOC did not know of a single event that they had staged. LoveLife held their games but SASCOC had no knowledge of them.

Mr Maharaj said that LoveLife was not a member of SASCOC.

The Chairperson was aware of that. LoveLife had good programmes. It was a question of co-coordinating the programme for an outcome to the liking of SASCOC.

Mr Maharaj said that this was what SASCOC was trying to achieve through their contact with the DG and Acting DG.

Mr J van der Linde (DA) said the Committee had met with LoveLife the previous year. The organisation needed to have a relationship with schools and SASCOC. There was partial penetration. LoveLife could not account for the grant to them.

Mr Dikgacwi proposed that a joint meeting was needed to iron out this issue.

The Chairperson was not comfortable in the way that LoveLife was operating, and the amount of money being given to them. It was funded by other Departments as well. It received approximately R30 million from SRSA. He felt that the money could better be used by sporting bodies. Members would be happy to see the grant to LoveLife being reallocated to SRSA. Given the disruption caused by the death of the DG, the Committee was prepared to allow the grant to LoveLife to go through for the current budget but would not approve of it in the following year. LoveLife events sometimes led to chaos. The view of the Committee was clear, but SASCOC had a different view. SASCOC could assist by shaping the LoveLife programme. There was zero impact at present despite the funds granted to it. The Kaiser Foundation was not active in the country yet.

Ms Lulu Sizani,
Chief Director: Corporate Services: SRSA, said that the contract with the Kaiser Foundation lapsed in 2004. National Treasury (NT) should explain why the grant was still being made. SRSA had written to NT in 2007. The late Minister Msimang-Tshabalala had written to request continuing funding for LoveLife. HIV/AIDS programmes should be organised.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was being asked to approve of something of which they did not know. The Committee would meet with the concerned parties as proposed by Mr Dikgacwi. NT would have to explain their interest in the Kaiser Foundation. He thanked SASCOC for their input. A firm recommendation would be made to the National Assembly that LoveLife must link up with SASCOC. The salary of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of LoveLife was not being bandied about in the media as was the case for Departmental officials. The LoveLife volunteers earned just R800 a month with no medical or other benefits. This situation could not be correct. The company of the CEO of LoveLife was doing all the projects on behalf of the organisation. He asked who was paying for their advertising. The ANC was paying up to R800 000 for an advertising billboard.

Submission by SARU
Mr Mark Alexander, South African Rugby Union (SARU), said that SARU supported the budget submission. More money was needed to support social projects. There was a move to ban the advertising of alcohol and tobacco products. In Australia the approach had been to levy more taxes on these products instead, and to channel this to sport. LoveLife worked with schools and not with SARU. SARU could not form an opinion on their programmes.

Discussion
Mr MacKenzie asked how much SARU would receive and how it would be channelled specifically to development projects.

Mr Dikgacwi understood the issue of increasing taxes on alcohol and tobacco products. Alcohol was being abused and this was a serious problem. A campaign was being held. He saw the need for the banning of such advertising. Alternate sources of funding were needed.

Mr Lee said that Members were interested in development at schools. He asked how much was being spent on development at school level.

Mr Alexander said that SARU received approximately R500 000, mainly for women's rugby. The game was most popular in the Eastern Cape. Sponsors were not interested in sponsoring administration and development. Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) had been signed with schools and universities. Two-way agreements were needed. A specific problem was the abuse of banned substances in schools, particularly the former Model C schools. He could not give the exact amount. but at least R35 million had gone into youth rugby. Schools were the lifeline of rugby.

The Chairperson asked if SARU had ever discussed the issue of schools' rugby with SRSA, as they had funds for school sport. The same applied to university rugby. Programmes could be co-ordinated. This might have a bigger impact. SRSA could spend their money on kit and equipment while SARU funds went to other requirements. Costs could be shared.

Mr Alexander said that this kind of collaboration had started in the previous year. It was an exciting development.

The Chairperson said that the bodies could leverage each other. Programmes would not be duplicated. He hoped that this would happen with other federations as well. He asked what role SRSA played in a tournament like the Craven Week.

Mr MacKenzie said that the Minister had presented the strategic plan the previous day. A controversial concept was the distribution of Lottery funding, as the Committee was not satisfied. He asked if there was a significant inflow of funding for rugby or if there were problems.

Mr Alexander replied that they had applied for a specific project, namely the upliftment of rugby in the Eastern Cape. Children there were not developing physically as quickly as in other provinces. Sport Science had been called in to investigate. Promising children would be placed in an academy. They would have the same access to development that was available in better resourced unions. The same professional services would be owned by the region and would be available to other codes.

Mr van der Linde said that Mr Alexander had made an important point. Many of the players in the Blue Bulls were in fact being taken from areas such as the Eastern Cape, South Western Districts and Boland. SRSA was investing approximately R450 million in mass participation. SRSA had a big project to uplift the standard of coaching. The programme was not working to its full potential. This was certainly the case in the Western Cape.

Mr Alexander said that there was good and regular contact with the new Minister. SARU was looking to tap into all sources.

Mr S Mmusi (ANC) said that a lot of money was going into school sports. Children in former Model C schools tended to abuse substances. He asked if it would not be a case of money only going to the former Model C schools to discourage substance abuse, rather than money being spent on schools where substance abuse was not a problem.

Mr Alexander said that there was no proper control. It was difficult to get into the Model C schools to conduct drug testing. Where players were sent off, the principals decided amongst each other what the suspension should be. SARU wanted better control.

The Chairperson had a problem with the way certain schools decided on what codes should be represented. There was a degree of autonomy but they still fell under the Department of Basic Education (DBE). The issue needed to be raised with the Minister of Basic Education. The culprits in substance abuse were in these schools. SRSA had a scientific support programme.

Mr Alexander said that the programme in the Eastern Cape was a joint responsibility of SARU and SRSA. The Minister was the patron.

Mr Andy Nesengani, Managing Director (MD), ATKA (Pty) Ltd, said that SARU had identified a problem. There was a suggestion that SARU work with the SRSA programme.

Mr Alexander said that young players would be tracked from Under 16 level. A proper supplement programme would be provided to foster physical growth. Bad nutrition was a problem.

The Chairperson said that SARU would not have been speaking the same language ten year's previously. This was a profound development. He was pleased in the movement towards reaching the majority of the people. There was no growth in the 10% minority.

Boxing South Africa (BSA) submission
The Chairperson said that an announcement over television coverage would be made soon. The Baby Champs programme had created a new generation of boxers. Boxing had been called a blood sport. He found wrestling to be even more violent and yet it was screened during prime viewing time.

Mr Loyiso Mtya, BSA Acting Chief Executive Officer (CEO), said that the situation of BSA was being turned around. BSA had been facing dissolution at one stage due to poor financial management. The Lottery had withdrawn its support as a result and Government was withholding its grants due to NT rejecting the financial reports. BSA had followed a process of introspection. One of the strong points was the fact that BSA was run by an Act of Parliament. However, BSA was doing nothing to develop itself. BSA looked at the Act to see where it could make itself stronger. It found that the doors were open to go to SRSA and the provinces. The first move was to look to improve its capacity in terms of performance and quarterly reports to SRSA. Crash courses were presented and templates for reporting were provided.

Mr Mtya said that the strategic plan had been prepared by BSA with the assistance of SRSA. The NT grant had been paid on time as a result. BSA was able to go back to the Lottery and demonstrate that it had the capacity to administer its funds. The Lottery made an award of R695 000 for the current year. There was an unqualified audit report in the previous year, just the second in ten years. It was not perfect, but BSA was moving in the right direction.

Mr Mtya said that relationships had been built with SRSA. This saved BSA from liquidation due to large debts. Provincial sports departments were able to give financial and other assistance. Only one promoter had substantial sponsorship enabling him to stage major tournaments. Other tournaments were reliant on provincial support.

Mr Mtya said that another big weakness was the attitude of people towards the sport. There were stories that boxing was dying, but there were also a lot of beautiful stories. One was the international relationships. BSA was allied to the six biggest international bodies. South Africa had 25 world champions recognised by these bodies. Seventeen ring officials were accredited internationally.

Mr Mtya said that the biggest challenge was that BSA could still not attract the kind of funds for proper growth. The organisation had never had a marketing and communication strategy since its inception as the Boxing Board of Control. Black children were only exposed to rugby and boxing in the Eastern Cape. In Gauteng it was soccer and boxing. Now children were exposed to all sports codes. Wide media coverage was needed to keep boxing in the public eye, but promoters only promoted their next tournament and not the sport itself. Current programmes were dependent on finance.

The Chairperson said that SRSA presented a budget on an element of boxing. If it was not sufficient, BSA should tell the Committee what was lacking. The Committee had made successful representations on behalf of the South African Institute for Drug-Free Sport (SAIDS) after specific problems had been raised. BSA had received an increased budget when it was bankrupt.

Mr Mtya said that the Baby Champs tournament had to be stopped due to financial constraints. This was where new talent was developed. It was also used to advance female boxers. Boxing was taken to the rural areas. Minority groups were attracted to the sport. Ring officials and promoters were also given chances to develop. Female boxing was adopted as a special project. This could only be presented at pro-am tournaments. It was still a challenge to get promoters to include female bouts. BSA was currently busy with a project to get boxing back into the schools. All former boxers in an area should be allocated to schools. These former boxers would provide basic coaching in the hope that those interested would graduate to clubs, and others would become ring officials, journalists or simply fans.

Mr Mtya said that provincial boxing was another project. This needed funding. Promoters put their money into what was already making money. Development from amateur to professional level needed funding. The Baby Champs league cost about R1.6 million. Local female boxers had no opposition so costly fights had to be organised against foreign opponents.

Mr Mtya said that BSA had conducted a strengths, weakness, opportunities and threat (SWOT) analysis. BSA had decided to stay with nine staff members, giving added responsibilities to the remaining staff. The workers were dedicated. Other projects involved the Department of Correctional Services (DCS). Some boxers who came from this programme were already national champions. There was also a project with boxers in the South African National Defence Force (SANDF). There were 109 recruits under this programme, 60% of whom were women.

Mr Mtya said that R6.8 million had been allocated in the budget. This was not enough. The Baby Champs tournament was not viable. It would cost about R1.6 million.

Discussion
Mr Suka appreciated the elaborate information. He read the SWOT analysis, and asked what the weakness of  “unreasonable political expectation” meant. There was a serious problem with the finances with huge liabilities. R4.5 million was needed to satisfy a long-standing tax debt. Only R1.4 million was allocated to development and R1.1 million for mass participation. Administration would take up R3 million. Very little was going to the core business. He asked what sources of revenue were available apart from Government funding and the Lottery. The areas where funding was required were not apparent in the document. There was no provision indicated for female boxing.

Mr Mtya was talking about BSA's own political mandate. This included transformation and female boxing. This included fighters, ring officials and promoters. There was an obligation to deliver but there was no funding. A fund should have been set aside for this purpose. Funding sources for BSA were the Lottery and Government grants. They received sanction fees for the staging of fights. BSA received 10% of the broadcast rights, sponsorship and gate takings. Boxers and promoters also paid licence fees. There were relationships with provincial and local government to execute the programmes of BSA. BSA was talking to all provincial officials. When these meetings were held, the provinces usually funded transport, security and medical services.

Mr Lee said that Mr Suka had read his notes, and they were therefore DA questions. He supported BSA but he wanted to see a better Strategic Plan document. In other countries boxing legends were revered. Muhammad Ali was a prime example. Most retired South African boxers became paupers. BSA had been appointed to look after the interests of retired boxers. This was why he had supported BSA. The situation could not be allowed where R4.5 million of the R6.5 million grant went straight back to the tax man. Only 13% was channelled to development. This is why Happyboy Malinga had died as a pauper recently. Money must be spent on the things that were really needed. He noted that there were boxers from DCS and the Army. He asked why there was not a similar initiative with the Police.

Mr Mtya said that support of boxers was a social obligation. A support programme had only started in 2005/06. Nothing had been done before. Boxers were regarded as businessmen and not sportsmen. In 2006 an assurance policy had been started to cover boxers against disability or death as a result of the sport. Boxers had been sent to university to develop their money skills. Lottery funding had been used to train eighty boxers during the previous year, but he feared that many of the boxers forgot the new skills all too quickly. A long term process was really needed. In other countries boxing was privatised and there was big financial support. BSA was run on a non-profit basis. At one stage BSA had gone to the convention in 2006 with a pension scheme for boxers, but the proposal had been rejected.

Mr Talifhani Khubana, Finance Officer: BSA, said that the overall budget was not enough to cover BSA's tax obligations. BSA needed R4.5 million to pay off its debt. The Auditor-General (AG) had raised the question of BSA not being a going concern. The trend with other federations as well was that the grant from SRSA fluctuated. A bigger budget might lead to BSA becoming over-ambitious in its plans. However, the funds being allocated were simply not enough. Inflation was having an effect. While BSA acknowledged the primary tax debt, it had made a Section 91(a) application for a waiver of interest and penalties. The late DG and the former Minister had agreed that SRSA should give the money to BSA. This would make BSA solvent.

Mr Khubana said that more funds in future would ensure the body's solvency. Budget constraints were not allowing BSA to invest in training and development. More grant funding was needed for this. Of the total budget of R6.8 million, only R2.3 million would remain for other needs once the tax debt had been settled. Planning had to be conservative to work within these constraints.

Ms S Lishivha (ANC) asked about the development of rural areas. She asked if any work was done with municipalities in the rural areas.

Mr Mmusi said that there were 25 champions at present. He wanted to check if BSA was aware of the whereabouts of the champions at present and their living conditions. If BSA was to compare itself with other countries, he asked if BSA was getting comparable amounts.

Mr Dikgacwi commented on the improved relationship with SRSA. He asked if BSA tapped into projects of SRSA such as mass participation for their own projects. They could also tap into development funds.

Mr Khubana agreed that BSA should approach SRSA and engage on the issues of training, development and mass participation. Another operational matter that was perhaps not relevant at this meeting was the relationship between BSA and the South African National Amateur Boxing Organisation (SANABO). More was needed to strengthen the relationship. Cooperation with SANABO was needed to maximise the potential of projects. SANABO was responsible for talent identification. BSA would need about R8 million to satisfy its requirements. The administration function included marketing.

Mr MacKenzie (COPE) said that the poor spelling in the document reflected the problems in BSA. The tax liability had been discussed the previous year. SRSA had offered to go to SARS. He asked what resolution there had been. The costs of only one of the five programmes had been listed in the document. He asked how much was needed to reach a state of solvency. This was the only relevant issue for this meeting. There should be some form of annuity for boxers, ideally as a portion of the purse. There should be medical insurance. The increase on the previous FY was R4.5 million. There was still a shortfall and he asked how it would be funded.

Mr Dikgacwi asked if the boxers had rejected the proposed deductions for support. He asked who determined the purses for fights, and how this was done. Managers and promoters took the bulk of the money while the boxers got peanuts. He asked what BSA was doing about the situation. There were many injustices to the boxers.

Mr van der Linde asked what the role of SANABO was. He asked if they worked together with SRSA. BSA could tap into that resource. BSA should be working with SRSA and SASCOC.

Mr Lee asked about the grant. SARU would love to get a grant of the size given to BSA. The difference was that SRSA ran the administration of BSA whereas SARU had to manage its own affairs. Other federations did not complain about fluctuations.

Mr Suka said that BSA did not function at provincial level. It had a national responsibility.

Ms Sizani said that the mandate of BSA must be aligned to the objectives of SRSA. SANABO was the more appropriate body to be aligned to the mass participation programme (MPP). SRSA could help with development and the integration of programmes.

Prof Paul Singh, Chief Director: Client Services and Support, SRSA, said that SRSA had approached NT on the tax issue. NT was clear that it was a matter of law and there could be no deviation. They were prepared to hear BSA's case on the fines levied, but the capital amounts were non-negotiable. Min Stofile was of the opinion that BSA would never have the capacity to pay the debt. A once-off increase to the baseline was made in order to pay the tax. BSA would be expected to keep its tax affairs in order in future. In future BSA must make provision in its budget to cover its tax obligations.

Prof Singh said that a clear mandate was needed for the development of boxing. BSA was a body to administer professional boxing. The mandate for development lay with SANABO. BSA had an MoU with SANABO. Regular meetings were held with SRSA. SANABO was an affiliate of SASCOC but not BSA. The rules of SASCOC only permitted the recognition of one body for each code. SRSA had spoken with the President of SASCOC. BSA could, however, become an associate member of SASCOC. SASCOC had access to worldwide resources to assist with development, BSA needed to approach the body for assistance.

Prof Singh said that a good understanding was developing around the MoU. There was a grey area around those boxers moving from the amateur to the professional ranks. There was a question over which body was expected to support boxers in this position. There were financial problems for individual boxers. Financial viability was needed to short cut development. He was aware that BSA had financial problems. NT had refused to allocate more funds. The allowance for tax was the only concession made. BSA must first prove that it could account for the state funds that were already allocated to it. BSA had to submit a well motivated budget and show that it could exercise financial control.

Mr van der Linde felt that the same expectations NT had from BSA should be applied to LoveLife.

The Chairperson was excited to see that SRSA was ensuring that discussions were happening. This was necessary to make sure that things were happening. It would not be beneficial to shut BSA down. He asked how much was being given to SANABO. That body must also account for its use of state funds to Parliament. He asked for a rough estimate for the minimum amount that BSA would expect from fight sanctions, gate takings and broadcast rights. It was a question of how to survive and service the tax obligations in the future. Discussion was needed between BSA and the promoters. According to a report published in the Financial Mail, promoters took 99% of the purse. This arrangement should be the other way around. Boxers were being ripped off. Mr Lee had in fact tabled a Private Member's Bill in this regard, but the ANC had in turn put forward an amendment to the Boxing Act. There would be public hearings on this matter. There was a question as to whether boxing should be nationalised or fully privatised. In the latter case, boxers would be at the mercy of the market. He agreed that the amount of money granted to BSA was fluctuating. Inflation was increasing but the grant was decreasing. He asked why this was happening. BSA should have a constant percentage increase.

Prof Singh replied that the grant to SANABO was approximately R400 000 per annum. The grant was made according to SANABO's business plan. He could not answer on the baseline. In the last Estimate of National Expenditure (ENE) the baseline was found to be the same. There was no reduction.

Ms Sizani said that increases in the budget were linked to inflation. It was not an ideal situation. Issues of corporate governance had been raised. SRSA would meet the BSA Board toward the end of May 2011. If money was not in safe hands then BSA would be at a disadvantage. The matter needed to be discussed. Money was being given to BSA to assist with their administration from SRSA's own funds.

Prof Singh said that the Budget Vote 20 document detailed the estimate of expenditure. If the special grant to settle the tax liability was excluded from the R6.8 allocation, then the actual grant to BSA for its operations was R2.3 million. This would increase first to R2.9 million and then to R3.1 million over the next two financial years.

The Chairperson said that the programme indicated an increase on the baseline. He asked what the political questions were behind SRSA's activities. The issue of transformation remained a worry.

Presentation by ATKA (Pty) Ltd
Mr Takalani Nesengani, Managing Director, said that many schools were in disadvantaged areas. Education was linked to sport, especially regarding discipline. A lot of money had to be spent to develop sport. ATKA employed capital rather than spending money. They preserved what they had. There was a windfall from hosting the World Cup. It would probably not happen in the country again in his lifetime. Legacy was something that was not earned. Leaders belonged to a generation and effected changes. Soccer was the most patronised sport in South Africa. There was a paradox in that schools were not adequately resourced. There were facilities and a lack of pride. Where facilities existed there was no maintenance. In a nutshell, previously disadvantaged pupils were being short changed.

Mr Nesengani said that the Lottery had contributed R171 million to finance 27 astroturf facilities. The target was 52. The project would run over three years. Computer training and lifestyle programmes would be included. He felt that other institutions should rather present computer training. He had a model for maintenance. He had been in discussion with First National Bank. His proposed solution was revolutionary and would create 1 200 temporary and 180 permanent jobs.

Mr Nesengani wanted to see SAFA commit R250 million. ABSA was the major sponsor, but did not need to be the sponsor of this project. The capital would be returned to the sponsoring bank five years later with the interest being used to finance the programme. R200 million would provide for 150 multi-purpose facilities with football as an anchoring code. He was looking at a football field with athletics track, long jump pit and shot putt area. The facility would include a changing room and administrative offices. A cricket field was a possibility. A court marked for tennis and netball would also be included. An integrated facility would reduce overall costs.

Mr Nesengani was shocked by what he had seen at a school in Naledi. School grounds were being used for dumping in some places while squatter camps were being built in other areas on school ground. A maintenance plan was included in the price. One of the proposed facilities would be handed over every four weeks for a five year period.

Mr Nesengani said that the second part of the plan would be to rope in soccer legends as sports teachers who would double up as facility managers. Training would be provided. The school governing body (SGB) would convene at times just to address sports issues. Different codes would be included. Some institutions presenting sports management courses could provide interns.

Mr Nesengani assumed that the R250 million would be forthcoming. ATKA would invest the money in a fixed investment with an attractive interest rate. Interest payments would finance the project. The investment would be reflected in the SAFA balance sheet and SAFA could use it as security for capital projects.

Mr Nesengani had the full support of some regional football bodies. The same model had been applied successfully in human settlements.

Discussion
Mr MacKenzie did not want to sound negative, but he was nervous when he heard big promises involving big money. Some hard questions had to be asked. He asked who the directors of ATKA were. He asked why SAFA could not do this themselves without the assistance of a middle man. He asked who owned the construction companies and who owned the property on which the facilities would be developed. He asked if the company was in competition with the company developing the current legacy project. He asked how much each facility would cost. He asked if rural areas would be included in the programme. If interest of 12% was achieved, the annual return would be R12 million before tax. If something sounded too good to be true, it often was. It was an incredible offer. He did not know of a bank that would allow funds to be used for three different projects. It was SAFA's money, but they should be very aware of the legal obligations.

Mr Nesengani said that ATKA was a not a bank. It was an asset management company. The figure of 6% was a minimum. In a capital investment, the interest portion did not impact on the capital amount. This could be used to secure loans. The money would be released in chunks. It would belong to SAFA. The monthly return would be about R1.5 million. Given the schedule it would be manageable. He wished to give the Committee options. ATKA had a construction company which helped to keep costs low. SAFA was not bound to accept it. People were marching on SAFA to demand better infrastructure. They knew about the legacy fund. SAFA was consulting with an infrastructure development specialist. There was competition namely the company being used by SAFA was laying astroturf. Not every school wanted this. It was not the best solution for all schools. The football pitches would be grass. The model could be duplicated easily. Another organisation could do the same thing. Laying grass would cost R120 000, change room maximum R200 000, R300 000 for a tennis court, the athletics track could be marked on the grass. He was one of four directors. This type of facility could easily be replicated in rural areas.

Prof Singh wanted to know if there had been consultation with SAFA at a national level, and with other federations whose codes would be included. As a national department, SRSA had a policy document containing norms and standards. He asked if that had been taken into account. There was a need for such facilities and the programme was an admirable idea. He asked who the custodian of the facility would be, especially in terms of maintenance. The Minister had discussed the concept of satellite schools where a number of schools would share facilities. He asked how the project would address these issues.

Mr Nesengani had made a presentation to the President of SAFA. He was not impressed with the management of the existing legacy project. Children could be trained to play soccer, but there was plenty of time for the coach to act as a maintenance manager. The DBE would be consulted in the process. The standards would differ. The soccer pitch would be much more expensive if all the standards were to be followed. Schoolchildren did not have to have an international standard pitch.

Prof Singh was referring to SRSA policy documents and not FIFA specifications.

Mr Nesengani understood the question. Sports authorities would be involved during construction.

The Chairperson said that there were specifications for even a basic facility. SAFA would work within these norms. He advised Mr Nesengani to approach SRSA for this information. Elements of emergency planning had to be included, not just specifications for the playing surface. If a facility was provided in a municipality, its Integrated Development Plan (IDP) would not include this facility. This interaction was important. He would like to exploit this offer, but he did not think the goal of rolling out a facility every four weeks would be reachable. There would be unintended consequences. He asked what the cost of a 400 m2 facility would be. He had made a rough calculation that a basic facility would cost approximately R600 000.

Mr Nesengani said ATKA would work on economies of scale. The average cost per facility was calculated at R1.6 million. Earthworks, drainage and irrigation were costly. This would cover a facility for nine or ten codes. They had spoken to Mr Carrim of SAFA on the question of IDPs. Mr Carrim had been of enormous help.

The Chairperson said that there was a service plan for five years. He asked what happened after that.

Mr Nesengani said that this was the second part of the project. They were in discussions with DBE on this matter.

The Chairperson asked what the minimum cost of maintenance would be after the five year period. In terms of the Municipal Infrastructure Grant, 6% of the cost of building a facility had to be put aside for maintenance. He was impressed by Mr Nesengani's honesty.

Mr Nesengani said ATKA had made a rough calculation. He anticipated that there would be a centralised form of maintenance. Equipment could be shared as well as staff. His estimate was R30 000 per school.

The Chairperson asked if this was a realistic cost for a rural school.

Mr Suka was impressed by the presentation. He said that the Committee would have to dissect the offer. Mr MacKenzie had raised fundamental issues. He had the impression that there had been no consultation with SRSA. There was an overlap with other Departments. Co-ordination was needed. SRSA should be at the centre of such an initiative. There was good intent to get things happening. He was getting the impression that the programme was aimed more at urban schools. He asked what the priority areas would be. Urban black schools were still disadvantaged but the position was worse in the rural areas.

Mr Nesengani had spent an enormous time in the townships. He estimated that 40% of Soweto children attended school at former Model C institutions. Facilities were a major draw card. Schools in Soweto were pathetic and no better than the rural schools. He had been at a school in Naledi where there were no working toilets nor any kind of sport facility.

The Chairperson said it was correct for ATKA to make a submission to the Committee but they needed to go to SRSA. Facilities belonged to Department of Public Works. This model had not been tested technically. NT or some other financial authority would also want to study it. He urged Mr Nesengani to check that there were no gaps in the plan. The maintenance costs must also be considered. SRSA would lobby for guaranteed funding from the Lottery. The facilities would become the property of DPW. He thought it was an ideal model but the viability must still be determined.

Transformation and Anti-Racism Rugby Committee (TARC) submission
The Chairperson thanked Dr Bhorat for the work of the Gift of the Givers in Libya.

Dr Asad Bhorat, Secretary of the Transformation and Anti-Racism Rugby Committee (TARC), said that he had been at a hospital in rebel territory. They had to retreat swiftly as Government forces took the area, but the people were united in their determination to rid themselves of an unwanted regime.

The Chairperson had been involved in a demonstration about transformation at Loftus Versveld. It had been unsettling. He wanted to know if TARC was satisfied that transformation would be addressed by the budget.

Dr Bhorat said that he wished to speak on the subject of black club rugby. The other subject was on those who loved the game but did not toe the line. TARC had been formed by clubs facing issues not faced by clubs in white areas.

The Chairperson asked Dr Bhorat to give his view on transformation. It was not just a colour issue according to some. He disagreed. Racism was based on colour. The Minister had opened the debate.

Dr Bhorat agreed with his sentiments. There was a move to avoid looking at demographics. It was glaringly obvious that black rugby had gone backwards. TARC was formed to highlight the issues of racism. This was seen on the field at club level. The objective was to make people aware of racism. All needed equal opportunities to participate, which was not happening. The game should be transformed at all levels. Individuals should be protected from racism, which was used to exclude and vilify people. It was tolerated at higher levels than in other parts of society.

Dr Bhorat said that TARC had become a thorn in the side of SARU. There was a plot hatched by the Golden Lions Rugby Union (GLRU) to destabilise Soweto rugby. A club had to go to the union to satisfy its needs. A David and Goliath relationship was created. This happened all over the country. There had been a coup'-d'etat. This process had now been reversed. The situation had reverted to TARC being in control of the club. He was pleased to report that.

Dr Bhorat said that a plan was being developed for Soweto schools. This would be the largest project in the country if not the world. The tide was turning. This was due to the commitment of a few people. It would be interesting to see what the changes actually were five years later. It was nineteen years since unity but the situation was still disastrous. TARC needed support in terms of black rugby clubs. There had been sixteen clubs in Soweto in 1992. This had withered away to a single club. Amalgamations had destroyed the clubs. Black clubs had a tradition. He asked that a tournament be held with the support of SRSA. This could be held over Easter to bring black clubs together. This would satisfy all the programmes of SRSA. It would be a simple step that would stop the rot. The second issue was a more difficult concept. Those who did not agree were sidelined from an organisation. Unions made an example of clubs and individuals. Only people who were prepared to conform were selected. This was used to maintain white domination.

Dr Bhorat said that the next question was how to bring the side-lined rugby fans together. Some structure might be created to protect the integrity of people. He pleaded that a start was needed by an Easter tournament for black rugby clubs. At present clubs had to beg unions for such a chance. The unions had taken the resources, which were to be equally shared by the 1992 resolution, for themselves. Pride could be restored.

Discussion
Mr MacKenzie agreed with some of what Dr Bhorat had said. He was involved in club rugby himself. Dr Bhorat was implying that there was a deliberate attempt by white people to keep black players, clubs and administrators out of the picture. He could not talk for other provinces, but spoke from experience. A successful merger was born out of two strong clubs. A merger between weak clubs was bound to fail, as had happened with some white clubs. In his home province of KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) the Friendship Games was a week long tournament for black players with the financial support of SRSA. The biggest problem was the shrinkage of black clubs. Transport costs consumed half of the funds allocated to the clubs and coaching was poor. Coaches were no longer at the schools and had not been replaced. Money was behind this. There was a transformation team in KZN which advised the union on constitutional matters. All the sub-unions from the rural areas were reporting a lack of black administrators. Support measures were put in place. This was a transparent situation. He was not sure if an all black tournament would help transformation. There would be loud criticism of a whites-only tournament. Merging black clubs into the system was problematic. In Zululand there was a white Afrikaans gentleman who had put together the most aggressive transformation package. He would still make a presentation to the Committee. He serviced about 687 black schools which fell outside the Sharks development programme. He used his own money for this. The fruits of this might be seen in five years. There were some bright spots.

Mr Dikgacwi said that Dr Bhorat was opening old wounds. There were eight clubs were he came from. When four of these clubs played, people flocked to the ground. When Kwaru and Western Province played it was the same situation. After 1992 these clubs were swallowed by white clubs. There were now just two coloured clubs in Oudtshoorn. He had a fight with SARU when Heidelberg was banned for fifteen years. Rugby was the only sport there. It was hard to defend what was happening. He asked why people were taken out of the system to be developed. People needed to be developed where they lived. He supported the proposed tournament. It would revive the clubs. There was no other entertainment in the townships.

Mr Suka wanted to speak from an informed position. The discussion needed to be taken forward. Such issues were discussed in the past. He felt that basic concepts of the past were being forgotten. Old ideologies should be rekindled. The second issue was very critical. The absence of sport in African areas should be addressed by events such as an Eastern tournament. He could not object to that. In the Eastern Cape there had been many outstanding players.
 
The Chairperson said that preparations should be made for 2012. This would co-incide with the 100th anniversary of the ANC. Teachers would have to buy in to the game. There should be a culture of involvement. Budget was needed for transformation. He asked if the budget of SRSA could change lifestyle. How could government be encouraged to tilt the balance towards participation in sport. Racism touched a nerve of the country. The Committee needed ammunition from Dr Bhorat to advance the cause of non-racism.


Mr Bongani Mkongi, Ministry of Sport and Recreation spokesperson, welcomed the presentation. The debate on transformation was being advanced. There was polarisation. He asked how Parliament and the Minister could assist in developing the dialogue on sport. Transformation was needed amongst coaches. Grassroots had to be addressed. A second question was the interpretation of access for all. This was in relation to the concept of participation for all. He asked what the role of the sports economy was in either boosting or hindering transformation.

Dr Bhorat knew about the challenges facing black clubs. Transport was a critical issue. However, there had been no resources in the past and clubs had survived. He asked what had changed. He took exception to the perception that traditionally black clubs were exclusive to blacks. Any white player was welcome at Soweto. Disadvantaged clubs faced their own challenges. They could deal with racism. There was a question on the ownership of transformation. He was pleased to hear about nineteen years of transformation in Zululand, but those who knew the situation should take the lead.

Dr Bhorat said that provincial unions had appointed Development Officers. These officials took instructions from the provincial bosses. It was not a case of black clubs pleading for help. They should be allowed to do what they felt best. There was passion involved with the black clubs. At the time of unity the playing fields were unequal. A vacuum had been created. What resources the black clubs had had been sucked out. The playing fields were still unequal. The Golden Lions Rugby Union had had a transformation plan in place for nineteen years and had spent millions of Rand, and yet could still not show a single locally born player. It was not a case of development. Black talent was being hijacked.

Dr Bhorat asked what the development plan was. Budget was needed. Transformation was not a natural process. There was a traumatic history. It was naïve to say that everything was now equal. He was glad that the debate had been re-opened. There had been muffled noises from the Ministry for the last five years. This Committee was at the forefront of transformation. There was a debate on quotas and demographics. It was clear that the job was not being done. It was not just about players. Transformation was needed in the boardroom, with medical staff, referees and coaches. Perhaps the focus was wrong. The boardroom was the biggest problem.

The Chairperson said that transformation was not a voluntary thing. People who had lived in heaven would not swap their lifestyle with those who had been living in hell. Transformation was change. In South Africa these changes had been sadly neglected. Access for all was not the same as participation for all. Issues must not be swept under the carpet. Women were still at the rock bottom of society. The role of sport in the economy was critical. Sport in the country was in the midst of a battle. When Pieter de Villiers had been appointed as coach of the national rugby team, sponsors SASOL had threatened to withdraw. Sponsors HSB and MRC had said that the international sevens rugby tournament should be relocated from George to Cape Town. Forces of the economy could be destructive. Elements could be included in the budget but there had to be some willpower exercised to make them effective.

Mr Komphela said that the viability of an Easter tournament for black clubs should be checked carefully. He agreed that transformation was being stalled in the boardrooms. It was in the interest of white clubs and officials to see black clubs merging. This reduced their voting power. Some comrades had traded principles for money. Closing the doors was a mistake. He wondered if the right direction had been taken during the unity talks in Lusaka.

Dr Bhorat said it was always easier to make the right decisions in hindsight. There had been euphoria in 1992. There had been a willingness to accept reconciliation. The black clubs should have asked for more. They had expected fair play. Unity was needed, but it had to be on an equal footing.

The Chairperson said that the issue would be raised during the debate on the budget vote. After seventeen years of democracy he asked what people were saying about the government.

Dr Bhorat could not answer this question. He feared he might lose his dignity if he were to voice his feelings. He was frustrated and angry at developments in sport. People felt that they had been excluded and forgotten by government, the Minister and the ANC. Rugby was still a white sport. It was different at the private and former Model C schools, but this was not the experience of the majority. People felt hopeless. People must stand up and take control of their situation.

The Chairperson asked if it was true that transformation was being retarded by a lack of facilities. He asked if this was a legitimate argument. He asked if the provision of facilities would be a catalyst for transformation.

Dr Bhorat said that one must be careful about isolating a single factor. There were multiple factors at play. Soweto had only one rugby field without a stadium to service four million people. The provision of decent facilities would be a starting point but was not the entire answer. Politics might be preventing capacity building.

The Chairperson said that the Committee was now at the end of its budget review. He instructed the Secretary to prepare the report. The next meeting would be on 29 March, which would be the first day of public hearings on the petition submitted to Parliament on the events in Athletics South Africa.

The meeting was adjourned.



Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: