South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee on preparations for Rio 2016 & transformation in big 5 sporting federations

Sports, Arts and Culture

23 February 2016
Chairperson: Ms D Dlulane (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee reported that it had set a performance target of 10 medals for the Olympic Games and 30 for the Paralympic Games. However, it might be a challenge to achieve the 30 paralympic medal target due to the fact that 3 members who got 14 medals in London 2012 would not be attending the games in Rio. As part of the preparations, one-on-one meetings were held with the national federations, and follow-up meetings are currently being conducted to finalise needs and logistics. There was a medical briefing on 30 November 2015, and all the logistcs determined from that meeting were being carried out. SASCOC was also collaborating with universities across the country to provide some relevant resources for training camps. Five universities have so far pledged to assist, the include the University of Pretoria, University of Johannesburg, University of North West, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, and the University of Stellenbosch. With regards to the Zika Virus, SASCOC was currently engaging with the Department of Health, as well as the Embassy and the Consulate on the issue. In addition, the Chief Medical Officers for both games were working with relevant institutions to gather more information. A total of 63 athletes in 7 sporting codes had qualified so far for the Olympics. SASCOC anticipated that the final team contingent would be 135 athletes and 60 coaches/code amangers for the Tio games. For Paralympic Games, only 25 slots have been qualified so far.

On transformation, SASCOC supported the Eminent Persons Group on Transformation (EPG) process, which included the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with both SRSA and the big 5 federations. Mr Tubby Reddy, CEO of SASCOC, had met with Mr Haron Lorgat, the CEO of Cricket South Africa, for an update on the transformation processes in his fereration. Due process had been followed with Gulam Bodi and cooperation was received from him in the investigation. SASCOC had engaged the SARU about matters pertaining to the organisation that had been reported in the media recently. SARU was dealing with the issue internally and SASCOC was awaiting the outcome of the court hearing on the matter between the institution and the SARU CEO.

Members asked about the criteria for marathon runners; the selection policy for sporting federations, the performance targets for the Olympics and Paralympics, the entity's marketing strategy, funding, allegations of impropriety against board members and transformation.

Meeting report

The Chairperson officially opnned the meeting and asked members of the Committee if they adoption the agenda, the members adopted the agenda. She handed over to the Mr Gideon Sam President of SASCOC to make the presentation. At the end of the discussion of the second last item on the agenda, the Committee agreed on adopting the minutes.

Briefing by SASCOC

Mr Gideon Sam, President of SASCOC, took the Committee through the presentation. He commenced by highlighting the entity’s mandate and emphasised that SASCOC sought to promote and develop high performance sport and act as a controlling body for the preparation of teams to multi-coded international games. Operation Excellence remained the flagship programme for support to athletes and coaches. Support was also given through the National Academy Support programme.

In terms of funding, the resources come from the National Lotteries, Sport and Recreation South Africa (SRSA), Nedbank (Paralympics), SASOL (Paralympics), 361 degrees (only apparel for Games), and the SAA (Flights). The budget projections for games delivery were as follows: R35m for Olympic Games, R25m for Paralympic Games and R10m for AU Region V Games. These figures were subject to change due to fluctuating exchange rates.

Mr Sam reported that South Africa finished second at the 11th African Games and SASCOC was pretty content with the results due to limited funding as compared to other countries. The medals received from the games were 122 in total, with 41 for gold, 41 for silver, and 40 for bronze. Swimming brought in the most medals in all categories, with 24 gold, 18 silver and 13 bronze medals. The challenges that were faced in these games included communication pre-games, the manual accreditation system and the systems during games time. 

On the selection policies for the Rio Olympics, the debate on continental qualification was still continuing. This was a challenge because there was only 6 months left to the games, but the robust debate still persisted. SASCOC maintained the policy as agreed with the national federations and all this information was available on its website.

SASCOC had set a performance target of 10 medals for the Olympic Games and 30 for the Paralympic Games. However, it might be a challenge to achieve the 30 paralympic medal target due to the fact that 3 members who got 14 medals in London 2012 would not be attending the games in Rio. As part of the preparations, one-on-one meetings were held with the national federations, and follow-up meetings are currently being conducted to finalise needs and logistics. There was a medical briefing on 30 November 2015, and all the logistcs determined from that meeting were being carried out. SASCOC was also collaborating with universities across the country to provide some relevant resources for training camps. Five universities have so far pledged to assist, the include the University of Pretoria, University of Johannesburg, University of North West, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, and the University of Stellenbosch. With regards to the Zika Virus, SASCOC was currently engaging with the Department of Health, as well as the Embassy and the Consulate on the issue. In addition, the Chief Medical Officers for both games were working with relevant institutions to gather more information. A total of 63 athletes in 7 sporting codes had qualified so far for the Olympics. SASCOC anticipated that the final team contingent would be 135 athletes and 60 coaches/code amangers for the Tio games. For Paralympic Games, only 25 slots have been qualified so far.

On transformation, SASCOC supported the Eminent Persons Group on Transformation (EPG) process, which included the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with both SRSA and the big 5 federations. Mr Tubby Reddy, CEO of SASCOC, had met with Mr Haron Lorgat, the CEO of Cricket South Africa, for an update on the transformation processes in his fereration. Due process had been followed with Gulam Bodi and cooperation was received from him in the investigation. SASCOC had engaged the SARU about matters pertaining to the organisation that had been reported in the media recently. SARU was dealing with the issue internally and SASCOC was awaiting the outcome of the court hearing on the matter between the institution and the SARU CEO.

Discussion

Mr D Bergman (DA) alluded to the criteria for the marathon runners, it was outrageously impossible to achieve and he asked for some clarity on this matter. The critera for the boys and girls hockey teams had to change especially when compared to the criteria used for the football teams. It seemed that SASCOC's focus was on the 2020 Olympics and all the other projects were treated as insignificant or not given the attention they should be given. Lastly, regarding the 10 medals targeted for Rio, seeing that SASCOC was taking few teams so the qualification was more stringent, he asked if the approach should be performance based instead of the target based just in terms of motivation, because a target of 10 medals was not a lot.

Mr M Filtane (UDM) made several inputs. First, he asked what the SABC's role was to help SASCOC communicate its message on its popular channels. Second, he noted that the Springboks had decided that they would no longer allow their players to go play oversees after the Currie Cup so that players could get adequate rest before the end of the year tournament to ensure that they were in peak performance. In line with this, was SASCOC in a position to find a regulatory way to force its athletes to rest and perhaps introduce some incentives for this? Third, based on the figures presented for the Rio Olympics, there were 135 competitors and 60 coaches, and the target was 10 medals; on a percentage basis the achievement percentage iwa less than 7.5% on a budget of R35 million. How would SASCOC convince anyone in the world that it needed to spend R35 million just to achieve 10 medals? He remarked that the backbone of top SA sports had always been the universities and SA Army. Government had a social duty to uplift societies to be competitive; otherwise the status quo would remain because the universities had not been very accomodating for blacks. Consequently, some strategies needed to be devised to address this.

Mr M Malatsi (DA) said that he had a slightly different view regarding the resources available for sports and recreational activities, because the country would never really have enough for anything more especially for sport activities. Therefore, this created room for creativity to look for funding in other avenues. SASCOC as compared to other federations received a sizeable amount of money from the National Lottery. Was there any more additional things internally that SASCOC could do to re-allocate resources into enhancing partcipation, athletes support and building competitive teams? Was there a plan to enhance austerity where it is possible, in specific line items? Was there scope to reallocate some of the funding and link it with outcomes in terms of performance so that contribution can be measured based on that, because the reality is that the lack of funding plea will never disappear. Also, the communication around the qualification standards was mishandled and could have been done differently.  It seemed as though opportunities for competitiveness at the highest level were being closed for certain codes even if they do not get to the semi-finals. If you are an aspirant player in a specific code you do see that there is a prospect of performing in the next Olympics because the previous team laid the foundation especially with codes that historically would not have that representation. The reality is that there are two appoaches; at the professional level its about winning and being competitive, but where most of the work is done is at amateur level which is essentially about enhancing the participation and for a country like ours we know the dynamics and the usefulness of using sport to enhance social cohesion.

Mr Malatsi sought clarity and detail on the relationship with the armed forces. In addition, what was the rationale behind the target for the Paralympic team when 3 of the dominant athletes at the previous Games would not be in Rio?  With regards to the target fot the Olympic team, when this was brought to the fore it was based on performances in certain codes, now with the addition of rugby 7s this represented a potential medal. What other categories were we aiming to win medals in? This would help the Committee understand some of the complexities in terms of resource allocation, because where you expect a medal the support structure has to be different than where you do not expect anything so that there was optimal support in terms of going to camp and other things.

Ms D Manana (ANC) said that the funding received from sponsors could makea big difference in sport. However, she voiced concern there were some board members that had conflicts of interest, because they were serving both sides. She referred to Mr Reddy, who was part of SASCOC and Volley Ball South Africa. The CFO was also working for two different sides. SASCOC had a project in which it was a main partner, called Ekhaya, which was meant to benefit the athletes. She queried about the funds. With regards to Road to Rio, SASCOC should shed some light on the national expectations because 6 medals was very low so perhaps the nation expected more than that. With regards to the issue of Luvuyo Manyonga, the high jumper from Paarl, she asked for the latest development on the athlete.

Mr P Moteka (EFF) asked in terms of preparation within the group of athletes that were going to Rio, how many came from the rural areas and if the numbers were few, what would be done to ensure that in the near future they become part of the teams in higher competitions like Rio. The country was divided between the better urban people and the neglected rural people, therefore, it must be ensured that every citizen of the country was benefiting out of it equally. Currently, rural kids were not looked after when it came to sport. Secondly, with regards to the cost of preparations for Rio, why are the rural kids not included in those figures? Whay was there poor support and development of clubs in those areas? This contributed to the exclusion of poor kids in these kinds of competition. In Polokwane when the school athletic competition took place, kids were lending each other running shoes to participate in the competition, and ended up performing very poorly because they were not used to proper sporting gear. Those were the real causes why those rural kids were always left behind.

Ms B Abrahams (ANC) said Mr Reddy has been embroiled in more alleged irregularities including the awarding of the contract to M & M Hiring for the Ekhaya and Commonwealth Games in Scotland. M & M Hiring was owned by Mr David Naidoo, and was given a contract with SASCOC with a budget of R4.2 million although allegedly R7.4 million was paid by SASCOC to Mr Naidoo's company. Many athletes could not go to the Commonwealth Games because of that allegation. Mr Naidoo refused to state how much the budget was and was quoted as saying that 'it is confidential, and SASCOC must answer that question'. SASCOC must now give an answer. When asked if Mr Reddy's son worked for the company, Mr Naidoo reportedly answered with these words 'what gives you the idea?' M & M Hiring had been responsible for a number of government events including the ANC Centenary, ANC 53rd conference as well as PSL and Volley Ball South Africa functions. Mr Reddy earned more than R2 million from SASCOC and travelled freely on SASCOC's account in business class. Also, Mr Alexander, who was the head of the Durban's Commonwealth bid for 2022 and Deputy President of SARU, was currently a director for a few companies and more over he had been a director of 7 other companies that had gone through voluntary liquidation. This should raise a concern to the Committee. Mr Alexander had been close to members of the Lotto Distribution Agency, and Dr Harold Adams was a key figure in making sure SASCOC and SARU received plenty of funds from the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDTF).

The Chairperson said that she appreciated her colleague’s remarks; however, they sounded like allegations and it remained unknown to the Committee where the information came from. The questions and the comments might be inappropriate for now as Mr Sam was only called to make a presentation relating to the agenda, but she would not prohibit him from answering or providing clarity on those comments.

Mr S Ralegoma (ANC) said that the funding was not enough and suggested that SASCOC should continue looking for sponsorships. Some athletes were a brand more than SASCOC itself; therefore it needed to make sure it became a brand. The Department of Sport and Recreation and Treasury needed to be lobbied to arrange some kind of tax that would benefit sport directly because funding would never be enough. The second area where SASCOC needed to carry out a lot of work had to do with the issue of criteria, because this created room for sensationalism where criteria had not been agreed to by all federations. SASCOC also had to be consistent in this regard. Lastly, on organising major events particularly the 2022 Commonwealth Games, he urged that SASCOC needed to be more transparent when answering questions.

Mr M Mabika (NFP) said that there was a document that was received with a number of shocking allegations, but the verification of the sources needed to be checked, and thereafter, a course of action should be taken. He asked if it would be possible for SASCOC to furnish the Committee with further information regarding the legitimacy of these allegations and where the document originated from.

The Chairperson intervened and said that that document had not been officially submitted to the office of the Chairperson. This needed to be done before it could be tabled. Therefore, the document was not up for discussion in terms of the Committee’s agenda. However, SASCOC may answer the questions if they may so wish. 

The Chairperson noted that South Africa was ranked second in the continent in terms of sport and recreation and Olympics although SASCOC operated on an unfunded mandate. She reiterated earlier concerns about SASCOCs inability to secure adequate funds to further its mandate.

Mr Sam replied that there were 3 documents that governed the sport movement in the country, and those documents must be studied in depth to understand what SASCOC was trying to achieve. Starting off with the last question, he said that SASCOC may not be funded but it did not want to let the country down. The Juniors went to Samoa and came home with a second place finish after Australia. This showed that SASCOC had not dropped the ball in terms of what it needed to do.

The Chairperson swiftly interrrupted, and asked the President to clarify the medals target formula in terms of their categories, i.e. Gold, Silver and Bronze.

Mr Sam replied that on the day a yellow card for the Sevens Rugby team could cost the country a gold medal. Similarly, an over-hit by one of the top golfers could cost the country a medal. So for the purposes of preparing the country, the target of 10 medals could be 6 gold medals, and if Chad Le Clos did not injure his shoulder there were two gold medals on the offering.

Mr Sam said that it was unpleasant to hear of such doings by the CEO of SASCOC. He promised that once the document is tabled then those who were responsible would have to account to the Minister and the Committee. If what the document suggested was true, then this was an indictment on SASCOCs audited financial statements. Those who had information had a responsibility to submit these to the Committee and the Minister. There was a process that needed to be followed when handling such allegations. Whatever was requested by the Minister, SASCOC would not hesitate to present it forward because there was nothing to hide. There would be an opportutnity to interrogate the entity’s finances when the annual report is submitted. In many cases, the federations were not able to fulfill the requirements of the Lotto and SASCOC would be asked to take funds on their behalf. For instance, the R17 million that SASCOC held on behalf of Athletics South Africa was because it was still waiting for reports from ASA and could not hand over the money until those reports were furnished. This whole transaction misrepresented SASCOCs allocations from Lotto. The R200 million that appeared in the books was not necessarily SASCOCs money. It would be in the best interest of SASCOC if Lotto would make it clear which amounts were allocated specifically to SASCOC. For example with Basketball South Africa, the lack of leadership forced SASCOC to ask for assistance from Supersport, then Lotto asked SASCOC to channel the funds allocated to Basketball South Africa responsibly. This was why SASCOC was complaining about the inadequate R35 million. The London rowing team alone was allocated millions of Rands. With the little that it had, SASCOC was able to take its athletes to win gold medals.

On the criteria issue, he said that after the Beijing Olympics where the country had won 1 silver medal with 298 athletes who were all well trained, kitted out and well fed, it was suggested that perhaps the criteria needed to be revisited. A criteria was agreed upon for London and this produced 6 medals. After London, it was suggested that the President's Council should devise a criteria for Rio and the same process was carried out, and the General Council made the final decision even though some people were unhappy about it. Now the same process had been conducted on a one-on-one procedure with every federation. At the time, the President of Hockey South Africa had agreed that the criteria was reasonable and acceptabl but had subsequently appealed to the Board and Council. Both structures declined the appeal. The criteria could not be changed or revisited half way through the qualification; however the debate should be initiated again after Rio. The whole system appeared to demotivate those who were still coming up.

About unfunded mandate, he wished that SASCOC could be given airtime of 2 hours on the SABC's popular channels. It would make a significant difference. It would solve half of the challenges faced by South African sport, because there were federations that would never make if they were not exposed. The sponsors often said that they wanted to see viewing figures, so how could that be done without television? As a result, SASCOC needed to think out of the box. He asked the Chairperson to allow 5 members of the Committee to attend the general council meeting on 9 April to see what was being done by SASCOC, because the Confederation was tired of waiting for the SABC to get airtime. In that general council, it would be revealed what was being done to provide the exposure needed by federations.

Mr Sam addressed the question relating to the resting of athletes. In April, SASCOC will call on all the stakeholders involved and ask about the training and resting requirements for all athletes. The R35 million funding was inadequate and other countries like New Zealand and Brazil spent a lot more on their athletes. SASCOC would not make demands, and could not take criticism either because the funding was not sufficient. It was unreasonable for people to expect too many medals because athletes from other countries were provided with adequate funding to be more competitive. The country needed to decide if it was just interested in recreational sport or it wanted to be a serious contender at competitive level. The country was battling with AU countries like Morocco, Algeria and Egypt, and even though it was tough it still made it to second place on the continent.

Mr Bergman suggested that the allegations brought up by some of the Members could be discussed after the visitors had left.

The Chairperson replied that the Committee had a long agenda. It called SASCOC to provide information on the issues outlined in the agenda and if the Members were not satisfied with the answers, they could then ask for further clarification on the issues presented.

Mr Moteka said that the slight commotion brought about by the allegations was an embarrassement with the visitors present. He urged that next time a discussion of such nature be held in private especially if the matter is not tabled on the agenda.

Mr Sam said there may be a perception regarding the 2022 Commonwealth Games bid. The bid committee had to be funded and whilst SASCOC was waiting on funding from the National Lottery it used its funds for the bid committee and that amount would be balanced out when funds from the National lottery were received. He assured Members that the athletes would not suffer a shortage of funds. They were vising all the camps to ensure that the athletes were well taken care of. About the Armed Forces, in the run-up to London, SASCOC went to the Armed Forces and asked for help with training, and they agreed to take up 103 boys and girls in a camp in Oudtshoorn.  There was a hope that this programme would include the boxers. However, it did not work because the demands of the army stated that they rotate from base to base, and so that significantly broke up the programme. SASCOC stood behind the target of 10 medals. SACOC continued to support Luvuyo Manyongo and he was now based at the University of Pretoria where the leadership of the High Performance Centre were looking after him However, he would not participate in the nationals because he was battling with an injury, and SASCOC did not want to take any chances with him.

On the question of sin tax incentives, he said there was a possibility that the tobacco sponsorship might pull out one of these days and that was sadly one of the contributing factors to deterring sport. As a result, a lot of federations might lose a lot of money, because where would that money come from. Lastly, with the tax incentives, it was solely a government issue. The challenge that persisted with rural sport was a structural challenge. SASCOC had opened up branches in all provinces to be closer to the federations and each district had a sports councillor but some districts were unfortunately bigger than others and that was also another challenge, particularly in the Eastern Cape. So those potential athletes in the rural areas always end up being left behind if they were not identified. SASCOC went to NMMU to open up an acadedmy that would stretch out to the rural areas to ensure that all the rural areas within the Eastern Cape were attended to and potential athletes were identfied.

Mr Bergman asked if transformation had anything to do with the hockey team's decision, seeing that it funded itself and could pretty much do whatever it deemed necessary.

Mr Sam replied that they took exception with the international president of hockey who accussed them of racism. SASCOC had never expressed any racist remarks nor conducted itself in any racist manner, and the hockey teams in South Africa had always been supported by SASCOC.

Mr Mabika asked if the athletes were being compensated and if so, how. Was it based on the medals they win for the country or was the compensation predetermined by the contracts that they sign?

Mr Malatsi asked how the break down of the resource allocation was determined for the specific codes where they were targeting medals for both the Olympics and Paralympics.

Ms Ezera Tshabangu, General Manager (High Performance), ackowledged that it would be a challenge to reach the targeted medals for the Paralympics given that the 3 of the major medal winners from London would not be going to Rio. In terms of the number of the athlets versus the medals, there were only 3 team sports and they brought 1 medal and that was about 48 athletes in the total of 135 athlets presented. In terms of resource allocation for preparation, SACOC was still allocating to athletes through Operation Excellence. R7 million was allocated to Rowing from October 2015 leading all the way to the Games so that they will be able to go to training camps. As for swimming, it was allocated R4.2 million for preparations and had provided a squad of 12 athletes and presented their focus and combinations in terms of relays. With regards to the MOU with federations in terms of the build ups to the Games, they were still responsible for funding of the preparation of athletes until those athlets were announced and handed over to SASCOC. At the moment SASCOC was not funding football, rugby and all other sport codes but rugby was getting funding through Olympics Solidarity in terms of preparation for the Games.

In addition Mr Sam said that there is an Opex monthly allowance that SASCOC gave to athletes. It was quite an involved process. With the invoices presented to SASCOC by the athletes, some athletes spend the allowance money on other necessities, which made it difficult for them to submit the invoices to SASCOC. The submission of the invoices was required by Lotto in order for SASCOC to account for the funds and be in a position to receive more funding.

Update on monitoring of compliance regarding transformation in the big 5 national federations (rugby, cricket, football, netball and athletics), Briefing on steps taken with regard to the match fixing in cricket

Mr Sam said that Mr Reddy had met with the CEO of CSA to find out if CSA had followed the correct procedures to deal with the match fixing allegations. In addition, yesterday the Minister had met with the representatives from cricket to look at the fall out from the incident and whether there were other people involved or not. The content of the discussion between the Minister and the CSA remained unknown but CSA had confirmed that the matter had been dealt with appropriately.

Transformation remained a tough issue but SASCOC had not given up on it. The Eminent Person's Group (EPG), represented by Dr Somadoda Fikeni, was driving the transformation process and had interacted with the big 5 federations in this regard. Each federation had presented to the Minister a way forward and the process was well underway. The federations were trying their very best to establish a solid movement for transformation. There was a question on how the provincial structures carry forward what rugby at the national level was bringing to it. If in the provincial federation there were issues about funding, then it was always going to be a problem. Currently, federations were beginning to understand that SASCOC was not going to compromise when it came to transformation. There had been some problems with karate, because karate had too many styles such as contact, non-contact and traditional. SASCOC had been pleading with Karate South Africa for years to bring to the table full contact style, of which the majority of the full contact players were black. The Board had decided that the matter was going to be taken up in the General Council meeting in April, where SASCOC would propose for a special category of membership so that it could accommodate the full contact style and other styles not currently accommodated, to come to the party.

Discussion

The Chairperson said that the Committee would appreciate it if perhaps quarterly reports would be submitted to it so it could be in the loop about what the federations were doing as far as transformation was concerned. She lamented that 21 years down the line, transformation remained a talk and MOUs continued being signed but implementation was still at a distance.

Mr Malatsi asked about SASCOCs internal approach of SASCOC. Did SASCOC wait for federations to approach it on a major issue such as transformation? He believed SASCOC should take it upon itself to take the initiate and be proactive when it came to tackling and intervening in matters.

Mr Bergman said that transformation was a reflection of leadership issues or major imperfections. The leadership in the administration needed to be more emphathetic to the situation at hand. Some players made it to national teams based on merit, therefore, they shouldn't get onto the field and face the double pressure; the pressure of performing and the pressure of having to prove that they were not a second class type of player. The issue of barriers to entry in certain sports was quite prevalent,. All sports were equal except some sports were more equal than others. For instance with hockey and cricket, sporting equipment was a requirement, so with people who were previously disadvantaged, regardless of race but in terms of money it was difficult to get into those sports unlike soccer where one could play even bare foot. He urged the Committee to look at transformation from a different perspective, instead of looking at in terms of colour but rather view it as equalising the playing fields across the board.

Mr Ralegoma said the EPG needed to be clear in terms of what it was looking for around the transformation barometer, because increasingly it appeared that the stakeholders were not moving along together. The Committee could assist the EPG in terms of checking whether the federations were complying with what they had committed to do. It was surprising that only 5 federations had signed when it was actually supposed to be 11. The EPG should submit a quarterly report to the Committee as it represented what the federations had agreed to in their respective indaba in terms of what they need to achieve as far as transformation was concerned. Transformation without addressing colour was not transformation really, because it must cater to the representation of people who were previously disadvantaged. If it did not address racial representation, that defeated the purpose of what transformation essentially and fundamentally meant within the context of the country. Transformation also dealt with the question or issue of the badge of honour. If a person was given a cap or a badge, that badge must really mean that the person it was given to was really passionate about his or her country and wanted to be associated with all its shortcomings. He then urged the Committee to look in depth into the meaning of badges, and these areas also needed to be interrogated if the country wanted to improve transformation. Transformation was about nation building, and so transformation put in its simplest form it meant that the badge must be common across all sporting codes. If it was the Protea then that protea badge needed to be spread across to all sporting codes. SASCOC, as a controlling body, needed to be stricter in terms of membership to some of the federations that were not assisting and the criteria for accepting membership needed to accommodate transformation as well and ensure that it was broken down to its most simplest interpretation. In terms of the way forward, the Committee needed to call the EPG and on fedarations that were not complying, SASCOC needed to assist the Committee with that and establish whether those federations should still be recognised or not.

The Chairperson said that she was hoping that SASCOC would cut straight to the chase regarding how far it was with transformation regarding the big 5, and also when the Committee was working on its strategy the point of transformation must be very clear. She asked what SASCOC's observation from April 2015 until this point.

Ms Manana said that the Committee was not a new Committee, and therefore, it was more than able to conduct its own research and table it forward and get some answers on that. It appeared that the EPG had done its work but implementation remained a problem.

Mr Filtane said he was uncertain whether SASCOC could enforce compliance on certain issues. He noted that a lot of rugby were lured by mega bucks to go and play in Japan or Europe. This created in a sense a vacuum for more players of colour to come to the fore. He asked if SASCOC was looking into that situation understanding that it may not have the power to enforce anything.

Mr Moteka emphasised that when the kids coming from the out skirts and the deep parts of the rural areas who often play sport bare foot come to know what hockey is then it can be deduced that transformation was becoming prevalent in South Africa. After 22 years there were still people and children who did not know of or not exposed to certain sports because somebody had resisted transformation. This was why the country was still battling with the issue of transformation. He alluded to the presentation that SASCOC was urging the federations to cooperate with the EPG process in a serious manner, so what iwa SASCOC going to do if the federation failed to cooperate, because in the previous 22 years some sporting codes had never agreed to transformation before.

Mr Themba Hlasho, SASCOC Board Member, replied to the last question, and said that the Minister and the President of SASCOC had a mandate to transform sport in the country. This was why there were resolutions that were taken on transformation and MOAs signed with federations. What had not been communicated was that after the transformation barometer had been analysed and there was non compliance, in the resolution, amongst others, there was a remedy and one of the remedies stated that the Minister of Sport and Recreation could de-register a federation that is not compliant, and SASCOC could do the same or refuse membership.

Mr Sam said that the EPG resided within the Ministry, SASCOC was a co-signatory to the EPG processes, so essentially EPG reported to SASCOC after it and the Ministry had sat down. SASCOC would only take a course of action if it needed based on what the report stated. The SASCOC needed to be interrogated, because it did not have the power to do and enforce things. SASCOC only acted based on the proposal of the Ministry in a case where there was a major issue with one of the federations. Even with regards to the logo of SA cricket, SASCOC had been engaging with the federation for so many years and that logo was not the country's logo with a badge on top. When SASCOC attempted to enforce changes with regards to these major issues it received significant amount of criticism. Therefore, if there was failure in these meagre things how could SASCOC possibly drive transformation.

The meeting was adjourned.

 

 

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: