South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee: briefing
NCOP Education, Sciences and Creative Industries
14 June 2006
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND RECREATION
14 June 2006
SOUTH AFRICAN SPORTS CONFEDERATION AND OLYMPIC COMMITTEE: BRIEFING
Chairperson: Mr B J Tolo (ANC, Mpumalanga)
Documents handed out:
SASCOC Annual
Report 2006
SASCOC Briefing to
the select committee on education and recreation
SUMMARY
The President of the SA Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee briefed
the Committee on the organisation’s background, structure, mandate, objectives
and challenges, and operational requirements for restructuring. It placed
special emphasis on the Vision 2014 project for development and transformation
in ‘high performance sports. The subsequent discussion covered, among others,
issues of provincial inclusion especially at the rural level; concerns over
accountability of federations; funding and transformation; skills development
and demographic representation in sport. Overall it was felt that sports should
gain a greater priority in the national budget and public focus.
MINUTES
Presentation by the President of the South African Sports Confederation and
Olympic Committee (SASCOC)
The Chairperson welcomed the delegation from SASCOC and invited Mr Moss
Mashishi, the president of SASCOC to begin the presentation.
Mr Mashishi thanked the Select Committee for the opportunity to address them
and introduced his colleagues, Ms Hajera Kajee the first vice president, and Mr
Mark Alexander the second vice president. His presentation began with a brief
reflection on the background of SASCOC, which considered its function as
responsible for the macro-sport structure of “high performance” sports
differentiated from mass based sports for recreation purposes. It further
highlighted SASCOC’s genesis as an umbrella organisation composed of previous
micro-structures (see documents) in order to eliminate duplication of roles and
present a coherent body for national high performance sports. Mr Mashishi’s
presentation also looked at SASCOC structure; emphasised its mandate;
considered objectives and challenges; looked at its successes and future
projects and finally considered operational requirements for restructuring. A
special component of his presentation entailed a brief look at Vision 2014, the
guiding document for transformation and development in sports at a national
level. The presentation on Vision 2014 considered mid to long term goals,
funding, the National Academy system, school sport, and the issue of corporate
governance and sound administration. Generally Mr Mashishi called for more
funding and an end to the marginalisation of sport congruent to the President’s
request for sport in South Africa to be taken more seriously. There was also a
general emphasis on SASCOC as a unified and uniform body addressing the
challenges facing high performance sports in South Africa. (See documents for
relevant detail).
Discussion
Ms J Masilo (ANC, North West) was concerned about the lack of focus on rural
schools and asked whether these schools and rural areas were considered for the
Commonwealth Games. The concern was also raised about equal consideration of
athletes across provinces. Provincial implementation of the Love Life Games was
also questioned.
Ms H Lamoela (DA, Western Cape) reiterated the concern over rural areas
specifically related to facilities for schools in these rural areas.
Essentially she questioned whether SASCOC will be addressing these challenges
with regard to school infrastructure.
Ms N Madlala-Magubane (ANC, Gauteng) requested that documents should be
provided before meetings for proper review. She then asked whether the United
Sports Association of South Africa (USASA) still existed or were they still in
the process of disbanding.
Mr Mashishi, considering the issue of support for rural schools by SASCOC,
argued that the provisional framework for Vision 2014 emphasised the role of
provincial academies. He maintained that through the network of academies
SASCOC could reach all the constituencies of the country. However, he pointed
out that SASCOC did not have the resource capacity to build the infrastructure
needed by these schools but there is an awareness that SASCOC neede to liase
with the relevant provinces to work out what needs to be done in this respect.
Mr Mashishi argued that the role of SASCOC was to put in place programmemes and
raising resources and funding to provide high level coaches, but there was
still a need to work closely with provinces and councils to provide facilities
for schools who require them.
In terms of the composition of the Commonwealth delegation, Mr Mashishi
highlighted that close work is being done with the various sports federations
in selecting the best athletes to represent South Africa. He also alluded to
the Talent Identification programmeme where academies and schools play an
important role. He maintained SASCOC was also looking at a programme to fully
fund the athletes identified who lacked the resources for adequate athletic
development. With regard to USASA, Mr
Mashishi said that they had severed relations with USASA as it was no longer
recognised by the government as the primary structure for school sport. Mr
Mashishi also pointed out that USASA elected to extend their mandate by two
years, but SASCOC has subsequently “closed the chapter” with USASA.
Ms F Mazibuko (ANC, Gauteng) asked what remuneration is provided for the
president and the vice presidents. Secondly on transformation she argued that
the emphasis on transformation is quite repetitive but it was still very
important. She asked to what extent SASCOC was ensuring that other
nationalities are also represented in the various sports. Ms Mazibuko also
found that the funding models for sports were not equally distributed across
gender. She asked to what extent SASCOC was engaging federations to reduce
these disparities. She was also concerned with the fact that netball was only
considered a demonstration sport at the Commonwealth Games. Ms Mazibuko asked
what input SASCOC had in the format of the Commonwealth Games. Fourthly Ms
Mazibuko asked how many sporting codes were considered under SASCOC mandate.
Fifthly Ms Mazibuko asked why it was necessary to import foreign coaches.
Finally Ms Mazibuko asked if SASCOC were involved with federations on a
provincial level as well as national level.
In response to the first question Mr Mashishi maintained that the board of
SASCOC was composed of volunteers and were not paid for their services. On the
issue of transformation, Mr Mashishi acknowledged the repetitive nature of this
concern; however he pointed out that the majority of sport leadership in South
Africa have actually bought into transformation. He further maintained that
there are particular structural issues that need to be addressed in order to
effect transformation. The biggest issue in this respect was the issue of
resources. Mr Mashishi emphasised that there is a need to associate
transformation with resources as an input-output relationship i.e. the amount
of resources invested in transformation will see the relative proportional
level of transformation take effect.
He found it difficult to quantify the cost of transformation. For Mr Mashishi
this issue tied into the trivialisation of sport that needed to be addressed.
He argued that sports leadership’s responsibility was accountability for their
relative mandates, budgets and plans. Mr Mashishi reiterated that SASCOC’s
mandate was fundamentally the responsibility of high performance sports and not
recreation. Addressing Ms Mazibuko’s question on the number of sporting codes,
Mr Mashishi said there were 58 federations that were members of SASCOC. With
regard to international coaches, Mr Mashishi acknowledged the skills shortage,
but argued that it was the intention of the Accelerated Shared Growth
Initiative of SA (ASGISA) to address these shortages. He argued that this needs
to be addressed in a sustainable manner, but in the intermediate term the
reality was that we were dependent on foreign coaches to maximise the performance
of the athletes. Mr Mashishi reiterated that SASCOC had not yet engaged with
provincial structures, but he acknowledged the need for co-operative
relationships with these structures. At present, he maintained that SASCOC only
dealt with national structures relating to high performance sports. Finally on
the issue of the Commonwealth programme, he maintained that input from the
member nations, especially from the host country, was considered when drawing
up the sporting roster.
Mr M Thetjeng (DA, Limpopo Province) asked whether SASCOC and its affiliates
are providing programmes that deal with the issues raised by the Select
Committee specifically related to skills development and service providers. He
argued that it was difficult to find service providers to provide an apt
service with regard to skills development and sport in general. Secondly Mr
Thetjeng pointed out that there is a disparity between the provision of
facilities and resources, using the example of abandoned or decaying
infrastructure because of the lack of resources to use them.
The Chairperson asked if SASCOC has any leverage to ensure that the federations
acted correctly on their respective mandates. On the issue of the shortage of
skills, he asked what plans are in place to address the skills shortage. He
also agreed on the lack of resources and stressed that this needs to be
addressed. Finally the Chairperson asked what is being done with regard to the
important issue of doping in sports.
Mr Mashishi maintained that there were limited numbers of service providers,
but argued that there was a relevant procurement policy in place for these
service providers to get involved in procuring significant skills and
empowerment programmes. With regard to the issue of underutilised facilities, Mr
Mashishi argued that at a general level there is a lack of national
co-ordination to procure agreements on maintenance and resources for
facilities. He reiterated an integrated approach from talent identification to
international participation and a continuous process of development. He pointed
out that because SASCOC presented a united front it is able to deal with
government and their relevant issues as a common body. With regard to leverage,
Mr Mashishi argued that SASCOC is an “umbrella co-ordinating structure” and
member federations are autonomous and are responsible for their respective
programmes. SASCOC only provides a platform for federations to operate; however
SASCOC has the right to intervene if important issues such as transformation
are not addressed. He further maintained that the government charter for sport
would be an important instrument in establishing sport ethics and intervention
mechanisms for non-compliance. With regard to skills plans, Mr Mashishi pointed
out that plans vary according to the respective federations; however it depends
on the ability to implement these plans which relates again to the amount of
resources available. Mr Mashishi referred the question of funds granted to
SASCOC to Mr Alexander.
Mr Alexander said that the Department of Sport and Recreation last year granted
SASCOC R9.7 million and the National Lottery R26.4 million. Their expenses were
about R40 million with a revenue of R39 million. With regard to the deficit of
R1million, Mr Alexander said the South African Games and the Commonwealth Games
were responsible because the funding had not been received in time.
Mr Mashishi said that there was a big gap between the required budget and the
budget granted to SASCOC. The ideal budget was R400 million but only 10% of
this was granted. With regard to the issue of doping, Mr Mashishi said that
SASCOC was very tough on this matter and vehemently discouraged athletes from
using performance-enhancing drugs. He argued that this was partly an issue of
awareness.
Mr Thetjeng commented that the sports budget should be increased and agreed
that not enough money was granted to SASCOC for addressing the issues related
to high performance sports.
The Chairperson reiterated the concern for the marginalisation of sport.
Ms Mazibuko, with regard to SASCOC mandate, asked to what extent SASCOC could
discipline federations. With regard to quotas, she asked if SASCOC was
concerned with addressing these quotas at the level of federations. Finally Ms
Mazibuko asked what “mind sports” were.
Mr Mashishi responded that the interpretation of statutes made taking legal
action against transgressor or non-compliant federations unhelpful. He argued
that the basis of SASCOC’s authority have yet to develop. With regards to
quotas, Mr Mashishi maintained that targets should be set and maintained;
however there was no prior reference for sport evaluation, which makes
implementation difficult. He argued for realistic goals of accountability and
affordability. Finally he responded that “mind sports” were games such as chess
that is not physically but mentally challenging.
The Chairperson thanked the delegation for its presentations and interactions
and the meeting was adjourned.
Audio
No related
Documents
No related documents
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.