Premier Soccer League Commission Controversy; SA Professional Footballers’ Union: briefing
Sport, Arts and Culture
16 October 2007
Meeting Summary
A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.
Meeting report
SPORT AND RECREATION PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 October 2007
PREMIER SOCCER LEAGUE COMMISSION CONTROVERSY; SA PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALLERS’
UNION: BRIEFING
Chairperson: Mr B Komphela (ANC)
Documents handed out:
South African
Football Players’ Union booklet
Audio
recording of meeting
SUMMARY
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.
MINUTES
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.
Discussion
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.
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.