Premier Soccer League Commission Controversy; SA Professional Footballers’ Union: briefing

Sports, Arts and Culture

16 October 2007
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report


16 October 2007

Mr B Komphela (ANC)

Documents handed out:
South African Football Players’ Union booklet

Audio recording of meeting


Neither the Premier Soccer League nor Boxing South Africa was present at the meeting, having tendered apologies. It was agreed that new dates would be set as important issues had to be discussed. Regarding the Premier Soccer League, there were concerns about the amount of commission received by members of the executive. Boxing South Africa had presented its Annual Report to Parliament but the Committee wished to interrogate them on certain issues. Members were in agreement that the apologies were acceptable under the circumstances, but stressed that the meetings must be held at the first available opportunity.

Executive members of the South African Professional Footballers’ Union briefed the Committee on their activities. They represented all the players in the Premier Soccer League and First Division. They were very concerned at the poor remuneration of players. Not only were salaries as low as R1 000 per month at some clubs, but players received no benefits such as pension funds or medical aid schemes. The Union was also striving to run education programmes to prepare players to further their careers either in the sport or other sectors after they finished playing.

Structures were needed for proper negotiations. One of the major challenges was that the Premier Soccer League was controlled by club owners who put the interests of the clubs ahead of those of the players. The Union felt that the players were entitled to a share of broadcasting rights.

Members queried the number of foreign players and administrators. It was agreed that even three foreign players in a team was too much, but at the same time the Union stood by its policy of representing all players active in the South African leagues including foreign players. A lot of discussion was held on the possibility of strike action, but the Union stressed that this option would only be a last resort if negotiations failed.

The Union was running an HIV/AIDS awareness campaign. There were no comparable programmes being run by clubs or the League itself. The Union did not represent female players at present as it was only representing professional players. However it was trying to assist women in establishing a professional league and was considering including amateur players of both genders in its membership. There would also be female representation on the next executive.


The Chairperson noted that there had been three items on the Committee’s agenda for the day. The Premier Soccer League (PSL) had been invited to attend to discuss the hefty commissions being paid to PSL sponsorship committee members. Boxing South Africa (BSA) had tabled their Annual Report, and he noted that the Auditor General had given an unqualified report for the first time in several years. The third item was a briefing by the South African Professional Footballers’ Union (SAPFU).

However, the Chairperson said that the PSL had been invited on 10 October 2007, but had sent a letter of apology on 12 October. The Chairperson read out the letter. The PSL regarded the matter as being very important, and their Chairperson, Mr Ivan Khoza, had wanted to attend in person. However, he was already committed to a meeting with the 2010 World Cup Local Organising Committee on the day requested by the Committee, and was also leaving later that day to attend the final of the Rugby World Cup in France. In terms of parliamentary rules, it was acceptable for a body invited to attend a Committee meeting to tender an excuse the first time. The meeting with the PSL would be arranged at the first opportunity after Mr Khoza’s return on 31 October.

Mr D Lee (DA) noted that the invitation had been sent late. He agreed that it was possible that the PSL members did have other arrangements already in place. The 2010 World Cup was getting close, and certain people would be playing a key role. There were major issues of money and development which needed to be addressed. He could provide the Committee with examples of how money should be spent, and this should go to development projects rather than people. He thought that the Committee must accept the PSL’s apology, but the meeting must be rescheduled as soon as possible.

Mr D Dikgacwi (ANC) supported the issue of the apology tendered by the PSL.

Mr E Lucas (IFP) said that it was only fair to accept the apology, within reason. It was an important issue, and he hoped it would be addressed sooner rather than later.

The Chairperson said that the meeting with the PSL would be arranged for the first Tuesday following 1 November 2007. All PSL committee members were accountable, but he accepted the bona fide status of the letter. All persons concerned would probably be advised of the new date by the end of that day. It was a disturbing matter, and was part of a continuing saga of self-enrichment. Members of the PSL had given themselves a R7 million bonus after South Africa had been confirmed as the host of the 2010 World Cup. He suspected that the awarding of the broadcast rights for local football to SuperSport was based more on avarice than the supposed intransigence of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC). It was all about the commission payable on the sponsorship. Radio rights had not been part of the deal, and there had been no radio commentary for several months now.  Only community radio stations had commentary and not the public broadcaster.

Mr Komphela said that a letter had been sent to BSA to remind the body of its accountability to Parliament in terms of the Boxing Act. A reminder of the date of this meeting had been sent on 10 October 2007, as BSA was expected to present its Annual Report to the Committee. On 15 October at 11h05 a letter had been received from Mr Josh Steyn of BSA stating that the body could not make the meeting. Its Chairperson, Adv Dali Mpofu, was overseas and only planned to return on 16 October. There had been no prior written response nor had there been any discussion with Mr Komphela.

BSA had an obligation to come to Parliament. They had suggested that they do this on 30 October 2007. They apologised for the late response. The Chairperson said that he had sent a letter to Adv Mpofu about the matter, but this had probably been received by administration staff in the Advocate’s absence. As Chairperson of the BSA Board, Adv Mpofu must lead the delegation. The date suggested by BSA was chosen as Adv Mpofu was already scheduled to address Parliament on matters related to the SABC on that day.

Mr Komphela feared that this proposal might not do justice to Adv Mpofu’s dual role, and this was not the proper day. The meeting with BSA would have to be scheduled for another day. The Committee had issues with BSA regarding programmes which had not been implemented. There were issues arising from the Annual Report and the strategic plan. These related to the development of boxing. The issue of the Auditor General was important, as this could not be the sole terrain of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr Dikgacwi agreed that the meeting with BSA should be on a different date to Adv Mpofu’s other meeting at Parliament. Although the Auditor General had given the BSA Annual Report a clean bill of health, there were still some matters of concern. He said that clarification was needed on where the BSA activities were taking place.

Mr Lee agreed. If a special day was set aside, then only the BSA should present to the Committee on that day. He asked when the invitation had been sent.

The Chairperson said that the invitation had been sent as soon as BSA had tabled its Annual Report. There had been a reminder of the date of the meeting on 10 October. The Report had not been tabled before the latest recess period.

Mr Lucas wanted to agree. He recalled a previous occasion when Adv Mpofu had had business with the Portfolio Committee on Communications, and had failed to attend this
Committee’s meeting.

The Chairperson said that the BSA and PSL delegations would be seen on separate dates. They had to deal with the PSL before the matter was moved from the public domain. It was an urgent matter. He said that the delegation from the SAPFU was still on its way from the airport. An important issue was payment, with recent reports suggesting that some players were paid as little as R1 000 per month.

Briefing by South African Football Players’ Union

The Chairperson welcomed the SAFPU delegation. He quoted the DA, which had described the players as being trapped in poverty.

Mr Sipho Ndzuzo (General Secretary, SAFPU) said that he had retired as a player two years previously. He introduced the members of his delegation, who were all former players as were most of the executive members. The President was Mr B Baloyi, the Vice President Mr P Ndlovu and the Second Vice President Mr S Maruma. All of these were current players. He said that it was a privilege to be in Parliament, but expressed his sadness at the failure of the national Under 23 team to qualify for the 2008 Olympic Games. There were various challenges. He wished the rugby team well for the forthcoming World Cup final.

He explained that SAPFU had been established as a trade union in 1997. Its vision was to lead the development of football, and its mission was to create a holistic approach. There were signed agreements with the PSL. An organisational rights agreement enabled it to negotiate with players, and a recognition agreement recognised the status of SAPFU. The practicality of these agreements was an issue. SAPFU was affiliated both to the Congress of Trade Unions of South Africa (COSATU) and the Federation of International Professional Footballers (FIFPRO).

Mr Ndzuzo said that the SAFPU engaged with the PSL on employment conditions for players. The regular change of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) at the PSL had caused delays. The aims of the SAFPU included the development of football, the recognition of football’s place in the economy and the development of talent. There were a few challenges. One of these was the lack of a registered bargaining council. A bargaining chamber had been formed during 2006, and a constitution was in place. The challenge was that the PSL was not registered as an employer organisation whereas SAFPU was. Both parties sat in the chamber, but the executive of the PSL was not represented. The delegates therefore always had to take matters back to the PSL Executive before decisions could be taken. A registered bargaining council was needed. This would allow legal industrial action to be taken if needed.

Mr Ndzuzo said that another challenge was the exploitation of players. There were some PSL clubs which only paid their players R1 000 per month. The SAFPU had commissioned Naledi to conduct research on minimum wages. Their opinion was that the minimum wage should be R12 000 per month. A challenge was that benefits were not included. There was no pension fund, no provident fund, no life skills education, no medical aid nor any bursaries. Members of SAFPU were told by their clubs to concentrate on playing the game.

Mr Ndzuzo said that a further challenge was that the PSL was run by club owners. This led to conflicts of interest. This made it difficult to satisfy the interests of the players. The organising rights agreement had only been signed when there had been an independent person in the Chair of the PSL. Agreements with both the PSL and South African Football Association (SAFA) were not respected. There was a co-operation agreement with SAFA. During 2002 and 2003, there had been an agreement that SAFPU would not speak out on issues during the months leading up to the announcement of the 2010 World Cup host country. There was no relationship with SAFA despite requests for meetings. Players were not represented on the 2010 organising structure, and they felt left out. Club owners and SAFA were represented. The SAFPU felt the need for player representation.

He said that there was a problem with the tendency of rich club owners to buy and sell clubs. This was making football a joke. Rich clubs would never be relegated as they would simply buy out another club to maintain their status in the league. This would kill the spirit of promotion and relegation.

Mr Ndzuzo said that SAPFU was looking for a percentage of the amount paid for broadcast rights. R1.6 billion had resulted from the deal between the PSL and SuperSport. Players were not funded by the PSL, and there were no sponsors. Programmes were in place to educate members of the SAPFU in order to make their lives sustainable. A percentage of the broadcasting rights would help this development initiative. In other countries it was common to channel 10% of television rights to player organisations, which was used to fund medical aid, pension and sustainability schemes. The channelling of a percentage of this money could be used to promote the welfare of the players. Investments could be done through the possible creation of a commercial wing to generate funds.

Another challenge was the lack of consultation. The National First Division had been split into two streams. Players had heard this through the media, and there had been no consultation. They felt they were not been taken seriously. They asked the support of the Committee and all South Africans.

The next challenge seen by Mr Ndzuzo was the number of foreign players in the PSL. A quota was needed, and the players felt this should be a maximum of three foreigners per team. At present no criteria were being applied. It was too easy for foreign players to get in. There should be a criterion such as a certain number of international caps before a foreign player could be accepted. There were complaints that South Africa was not producing enough strikers, therefore clubs would go and buy strikers elsewhere.

On the issue of HIV/AIDS, he said that SAPFU had presented to the Treatment Action Campaign and to the Sport MinMEC. They were looking to educate former players to spread the word on the virus to all clubs in the country, and players should take the message into the community.


Mr Reed said it had been mentioned that some players only earned R1 000 per month. He asked what the average was. It had also been said that the PSL was run by the club owners. He asked what was being done to rectify this situation.

Ms M Ntuli (ANC) asked about the benefits. She asked if benefits were done on a communal or a step-by-step basis. It was an offence for an employer not to provide a medical aid scheme. There was no pension fund after such a long period. She asked if skills were taught in terms of talent. There should be life skills training and bursaries. She asked if these were also linked to player talent. In South Africa there was also a balancing act with Affirmative Action and other initiatives. She had the impression that female players were excluded from the organisation.

Mr Dikgacwi returned to the question of foreigners, and noted that their Deputy President was from Zimbabwe. He thought this was a South African union, not an African one. The question of foreign officials had not been touched on. The PSL had been reliant on Mr Trevor Phillips. He wondered if there were not any South Africans who could do his job. He asked what SAFPU’s opinion was on this. Players should consider going into administrative careers after their playing days. He asked if any former players were in administrative positions but had been overlooked for higher office. Clubs had five or six foreign players, and they were blocking upcoming local players. This was particularly the case with strikers and goalkeepers. He was also concerned with the number of players registered at the clubs. Some had up to 46 players on their books. This meant that promising players were not getting game time. The SAPFU and PSL should meet on these issues, and a response was needed.

Mr Lucas was pleased to be speaking to the SAPFU as he had not been aware of them. He asked how the union was financed, particularly with reference to the glossy publication which they had provided to the Committee. South Africans had always loved the game, despite the poor facilities which they had to tolerate. SAPFU could play a large part in improving facilities. He felt that R12 000 a month was not an exorbitant amount of money, given a player’s short career span. He agreed that the situation where club owners controlled the PSL could lead to conflicts of interest. They could not be both referees and players. On the question of HIV/AIDS, youngsters started playing without the disease. They tended to contract it during their playing careers. Football was a contact sport, and players often sustained bleeding wounds. There was not enough time for fellow players to don gloves before assisting with such injuries. He asked why football players should be contracting the disease. They should be role models.

Mr Louw said the purpose of a trade union was to represent its members. This Union had a co-operation agreement with the PSL. He asked if they could elaborate on this, and what benefits were provided for the members. SAPFU was not directly represented on the 2010 Local Organising Committee (LOC), but COSATU was. Therefore SAPFU was represented by extension. He observed that all the executive members were male. He asked if the union also represented female players. This was an important issue, and he asked if the union had the support of the players. If the players were earning peanuts, he asked what the union was doing about it. He asked why they had not resorted to strike action.

Mr Dikgacwi had heard an interview with Mr Ndzuzo on Radio Metro, when he had been asked to name the clubs paying R1 000 per month. He did not answer this question as he did not want to reveal their names. The exploitative clubs were thus being protected, which meant the union was not doing its job. SAPFU had undertaken to tell the nation, but had not done so yet. They should tell the Committee who the clubs were, then they could deal with them.

Mr Thulagauyo Gocoshubelwe (Deputy General Secretary, SAFPU) said that the average salary was the subject of a survey which had been commissioned. Naledi had done the research. It had shown that 51% of players earned a monthly salary of less than R10 000. There were no extra benefits. Accommodation and education should be seen as rights, not benefits. Only 4% of players were top earners with monthly salaries of more than R20 000, while 18% fell into a bracket of between R11 000 and R15 000.

Mr Ndzuzo said that the PSL was run by the club owners. He believed the solution lay in the league being run by independent people with the necessary expertise. SAPFU needed to be there to represent the players. In terms of skills and talents, there was a lot of work within the sports sector. Some players could follow academic courses, while others could focus on sports journalism and administration. While many chose coaching as a career, not all good players made good coaches. This was not holistic development. There needed to be focus on a player’s career after his playing days. This aspect was still lacking. By presenting life skill courses, all players would benefit.

Mr Ndzuzo continued that the primary focus with the female players was on development. This also applied to persons with disabilities. There was a partnership with women’s soccer. At the moment the SAFPU only represented professional players as they could afford to pay monthly subscriptions. Women were still amateurs, and only received some allowances when on international duty. They were helping the women’s game to become professional. There were also programs to reach out to persons with disabilities. This included a form of crutch soccer.

Mr Ndzuzo said that the union also represented the foreign players active in the country. Every African player became a brother once he was signed for a local club. If there was discrimination against the foreign players, then they would not be able to represent them. Peter Ndlovu was married to a South African woman so was now a citizen. As far as the foreign officials were concerned, they were all united in the cause of football. They had never thought about the number of players at a club. Clubs signed the players and made their own decisions in this regard. The only solution was to get the programmes running so that players could make informed choices about where to go. In his career he had had the option of playing for Kaizer Chiefs or Orlando Pirates, but had preferred to play for Manning Rangers where he had more game time.

He said that SAFPU’s finances came from member contributions. Each paid 1% of his monthly salary. This was used to cover operations of the organisation and legal costs, and there were between five and ten cases each month. There was a grant from FIFPRO. It was still a challenge to implement programmes.

Mr Ndzuzo said that SAFPU had presented on the HIV/AIDS issue. It was represented on the South African National AIDS Council (SANAC) committee for the sport and entertainment sector.

He said that there were various agreements. The organisational rights and representation agreements were with the PSL. There was a co-operation agreement with SAFA regarding the national players. They were an affiliate of COSATU but had a responsibility to the players before COSATU. They were also an affiliate of FIFPRO, and had an international mandate. Players should be part of all decisions. They knew that COSATU represented the labour movements on the LOC, but the players had particular issues. He mentioned the example of the wage dispute of the Togo team at the last World Cup. They did not want to see strikes. These were an option, but every other option should be explored first. He was worried that Parliament would call them to account if they did strike.

Mr Ndzuzo said that all the members were males, which was due to professionalism. He thought that there could be an arrangement to collect smaller fees from female and male amateur players. They could then see the challenges of the professional game.

Mr Gocoshubelwe said that Benoni Premier United was the club that paid members R1 000. Ajax Cape Town paid their players between R2 000 and R3 000, and Black Leopards between R5 000 and R6 000. There were many more. These would be made public. Most of the low paying clubs were in the First Division. SAPFU recommended a basic salary of R6 500 in the First Division and R12 000 in the Premier League. They had the support of 80% of their members, and had consulted nationwide.

The Chairperson said that strike action was fine, but only as a last option.

Mr Louw said that SAPFU should make a noise about foreign officials. They were very quiet on the issue. Making noise was the job of the union, even if they knew their position was nonsense and the noise-making was just a means of getting attention. Some programmes were being run parallel to the efforts of clubs. Prioritised programmes should be driven by the union. He could not understand why so-called operation agreements were needed when there was a recognition agreement in place. One was with the PSL and one with SAFA. This was a dilution of power.

Mr Lee observed that some players had agents who strived to get better deals for players. He asked why this was necessary, and if SAPFU had relationships with agents. He asked if the membership of SAPFU was in terms of individuals or clubs. Exploitation was mentioned in the same breath as club owners. Clubs owned people. This was reminiscent of slavery. Decisions at the PSL could break the hold of club owners on the organisation. He noted that SAPFU wanted 10% of broadcast rights. He asked if they had had any input in the negotiation process.

Mr M Solo (ANC) appreciated the union’s presence. He asked if there were any comparative studies within international federations. There was huge support from the private sector. Normal business practice was for a company to close shop if it became unviable. There were different skill levels in the different leagues, and therefore different minimum wages were applicable. There were so many clubs, and he asked if all structures of SAFA had been considered. All needed to be recognised, and a body was needed to express their views. If all were unionised there would be a better platform. South Africa was in many aspects a first world country. This could be seen by looking at the cricket and rugby structures, and even at the PSL level in football. Development was a concurrent responsibility. There should be programmes and partnerships at all levels. It was worrying that there was a lack of strikers and goalkeepers. There was a huge number of players. The resources were there. The union needed to take them seriously and organise them. The Committee wanted to help.

He said that there was a challenge to the country. Poverty was a major problem, with players often having to support extended families and also often having to migrate from their homes to football centres. A career path was needed. There had to be experts in their own field to provide training. Players’ post-career options should not be limited to coaching. Structures should be set up to get the administration up to standard. There should be a culture of self-respect. Salaries were a serious issue to members, and career-pathing was needed.

Mr Ndzuzo said that clubs did not have HIV programmes. They only took their players to speak at orphanages or similar social responsibility visits.

The Chairperson asked if the eighteen PSL clubs were not helping the government to increase consciousness. He asked if any clubs had an HIV programme.

Mr Ndzuzo confirmed that no club had a programme, although they might get their players to comment on the issue from time to time. There was a recognition agreement with PSL and a co-operation agreement with SAFA. SAFA was the top dog, and the PSL was just a wing of SAFA. The players were individual members of SAPFU. There was no relationship with agents. There had been discussions with SAFA and some had been given accreditation. SAPFU was not happy with agents. Some of them styled themselves as business managers. According to FIFA there was no such term, and they should be referred to as agents. SAPFU was trying to catch all of these agents working illegally. Some did not know how to fulfil their jobs. Some agents earned more than the players. Then needed help from the PSL. Only players should negotiate with clubs.

He said that the players had been left out of the broadcast rights discussion. It was the members of the SAPFU that appeared on television. The PSL was only a third party. All three parties should be involved.

Mr Ndzuzo said that SAPFU was looking to mobilise within the amateur clubs. Potential members should understand contracts which they would sign. Funds were needed to develop these skills. Advanced driving training had also been discussed due to the number of players being killed in road accidents. SAPFU should show that they care by arranging some form of advanced driver training.

Mr Dikgacwi asked about tax issues. Did the players pay their tax or was this left to the clubs? There had been so many threats of strikes. This could be a serious problem in 2010. There was a need to pick up issues. There needed to be a whole package of skills training, not just bits and pieces.

Mr C Frolick (ANC) said he had listened with interest to the challenges faced by SAPFU. He asked what progress there was with establishing a PSL for women. This had been promised some years before, but nothing had happened. Potentially good players were being stifled. He hoped that the players would join with the Committee to move towards an equitable situation. The discrimination against female players was horrific and inhumane. It was gender discrimination.

Mr Ndzuzo replied that the HIV programme being run by SAPFU was called “One Man Can”. It focussed on how an individual could change a situation. The union was aware of the discrimination against women. There would be a national congress during June 2008. He promised the Committee that there would be women on the executive after this congress. They would display their seriousness on the issue. On the question of tax, most players were not individual taxpayers. Some clubs paid tax on their behalf. The PSL had helped to remedy the situation by providing workshops on the Unemployed Insurance Fund (UIF) and income tax. Some clubs deducted the dues from the players but did not pay them over to the South African Revenue Service. There was a move towards registering the players rather as individual taxpayers. Some players had been told they were not registered for UIF benefits when they had tried to claim. A strike was a possibility, but there would be national consultation before it would be considered.

Mr A Mlangeni (ANC) said that SAPFU was showing patriotism. With 2010 approaching he would not like to see South Africa’s position jeopardised by a strike. It was good that there was a union to represent the players. It was very important to avoid strikes as there were negative impacts. Strikes were an extreme measure to be applied only in the event of the failure of negotiations. He liked their approach. If the players were not satisfied with their employers, then there should be negotiations. Strikes destroyed the economy.

Mr Louw understood what a union was. It was an organisation to represent members, and all of them were patriots. However, they should not be so patriotic as to allow their members to suffer. The context of strike action should be appreciated. 2010 would come and go, but this did not mean that players could not demand what was rightfully theirs. The 2010 World Cup should not be used as a red herring. Justice must be done for the members. The union must represent its constituents according to the wishes of its members. He asked why the PSL and SAFA were so arrogant. They should act in the interests of their members.

The Chairperson said that government was bold enough to talk about issues. There had been a case where boxers from the Western Cape had made a presentation to Parliament as they were suffering. They had subsequently been sued. However, he made it clear that parliamentary privilege applied. Thus they must not fear repercussions from the PSL when making statements to the Committee.

He said that government was not a business. It did not generate money. Conditions had to be made conducive for people to operate. The PSL was a business, and was subject to the provisions of corporate governance and other laws. If they undermined their workers, the Committee would speak out on the issue. Workers’ rights could not be obliterated. He was happy that there was a representative from the Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA) present to hear the briefing.

The Chairperson said that the issue of HIV had been raised at MinMEC. This was a bread and butter issue. More education regarding HIV was needed. Players enjoyed the trappings of fame, but they also had responsibilities. LoveLife was not dealing with the issues. He was shocked to hear that clubs and the PSL in general was not involved. They would have to work hard to please the Committee.

Mr Komphela commented on the booklet distributed by SAPFU, which contained the vision and mission of the union. They were leading the development of football. It did not speak specifically to projects. The target was the same as the vision. It would be a contradiction if representation was only at a professional level. The PSL was the top level, and was exposed. SRSA should help with skills development. There should be an emphasis on life after the game. The Sector Education and Training Authority could help. A business plan was needed. Government’s emphasis was on development in sport. The union must deal with all issues which would help, and it could be a cruel world.

The Chairperson said that the programmes being run by SAPFU were very good. They were not programmes that asked for big things, but SAPFU was dealing with programmes that would be advantageous to all.

He said that there were other issues with SAFA such as the question of foreign players. The Committee had enjoyed international exposure. There was tight control of foreign players in Europe. Players had to have a certain number of international caps in order to qualify to play for European clubs. In South Africa foreign players simply walked into clubs. Even three foreign players in a team were too much. There was also evidence of players using fake curricula vitae. The union was quiet on this issue. There was a lack of respect for the organisation’s own administration. This undermined the laws of the country. There would no longer be any short cuts. Having five foreigners at a club and three on the field made a huge impact on local players.

The Chairperson asked why white administrators found it so easy to attract money for the PSL but not their black counterparts. This was a fact.

He said that there had been an agreement with the Tottenham Hotspur club. There was a feeling of killing off the colonial powers, as had been seen at the Rugby World Cup. He could never deny the South African-ness of the Springbok rugby players despite the fact that rugby was not transformed. He could not blame the players. The sickness lay in the administration. The Committee would remind the leaders of the injustices still present. The sport would not grow without transformation.

Mr Frolick said that an important point should be put on record. The ANC had moved a motion without notice to wish the South African rugby team well at the World Cup. Members of the Committee had visited the team at their hotel to convey this message to them. There must be no confusion between support for the team and the need for transformation. Administrators had to agree to this.

The meeting was adjourned.


No related


No related documents


  • 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: