Should South Africa have racial quotas for rugby?

[Caligastia]

I have been thinking about this lately because I was talking about it with a professional rugby player from South Africa. The topic came up when I commented on South Africa's poor rugby performance in recent years. The player I spoke to blamed it partly on racial quotas.

Here is a link to a discussion on the BBC website:

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/low/english/talking_point/newsid_413000/413504.asp

These posts probably sum up my opinion the best:

SHOULD THERE BE RACIAL QUOTAS FOR RUGBY?

Certainly not. There is no more patronising way to try and even things out there. Think of the players and the treatment they could possibly receive trying to mix. The logical way to get Black players into SA rugby is by combining the domestic league system. They have started gradually doing that with their Cricket. Another point is that sports are a parochial phenomenon. Take Australia for instance. Rugby League is the predominant sport in my region, AFL in Victoria, Soccer with the Italian, Greek and Slavic citizens.
Justin Deegan, Australia

When my daughter was at university one of the brighter African students told her that she bitterly resented "equal opportunities" job adverts because it was a euphemism for saying 'This job will go to a black.' She told my daughter that if she got a good job no one would know whether she got it because she was the best person for the job, or because she was a black girl. The same will surely apply to sport and rugby. How sure of himself is the black rugby player going to feel when he can never know for certain whether he was included in the rugby team because he was the best, or because of the colour of his skin?
Joan, Zimbabwe

Racism is not being able to look further than the colour of one's skin. Therefore introducing quotas is racist - the whole idea of equal rights is to disregard race at a categoriser. Pick the best man (or woman) for the job. Positive discrimination is still racism.
Ross Parker, UK

Some of you may be confused by references to "Springboks" and "All Blacks". The Springboks are the South African national rugby team and the All Blacks are the New Zealand national rugby team.

[Caligastia]

*bump*

[chequita guevara]

All white people are stupid!

I knew a white person once, and he was stupid, and he agreed with me.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Haven't read the article, Cal, but I am against racial quotas. They have kind of the desired effect, but stir up a lot of resentment at the same time, from both groups they favour and those they don't. The Maori/Pacific ISland student quotas and scholarships available at my (Victoria) University stir up enough for concern, and this is little ole NZ, hardly a very racist country!


A much better solution is to change the attitudes of the SA selectors, SA society and get more Africans into rugby. Of course, if you can do all that, you should win several Nobel Prizes.

[Caligastia]

Yeah, I gotta agree with you about the maori/pacific islander quotas. I know a lot of fellow kiwis who resent that and I just dont think its worth it. Do you remember the Springbok tour of 81? you may be a little bit young to remember, but there was such a protest that the game was like a sideshow.

Keep politics out of sport I say.

[MrWhereItsAt]

It was mentioned in a history class - and every time the Boks tour here. And yeah, I'd be a little surprised if I remembered anything at the age of 1.

And it's true too that the quotas piss off those who they are aimed at as well. I know ppl who use the quotas (they'd be stupid NOT to), but don't like it because they see some of their friends struggling to get into the same courses, despite the effort some put in being far greater than those who actually get the places.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia
Yeah, I gotta agree with you about the maori/pacific islander quotas. I know a lot of fellow kiwis who resent that and I just dont think its worth it. Do you remember the Springbok tour of 81? you may be a little bit young to remember, but there was such a protest that the game was like a sideshow.

Keep politics out of sport I say.

Sorry, old son, I don't think you can keep politics out of sport. It's more than arguable that the sporting boycotts played a very important part in the dismantling of apartheid. What's more, sport has long been a tool of the politicians. Hitler, for example.

Your question about the quota system, though, is a good one. It has been argued that quotas are form of reverse racism. Seems to me that it's attacking the problem from the wrong end. The Springbok problem, to me, seems more to have parallels with the English cricket problem - the grassroots have been neglected. Tend to the grassroots - of all colour - and they might get somewhere.

And as far as their Super 12s are concerned, they simply have too many teams for their population. As do New Zealand.

[MrWhereItsAt]

That Super 12 point is a fair one. I would say that OZ had too few (and NZ is denying more ), but from our performances for the last coupla years I must agree. BUT, this year seem sto be different...

I don't know all that much about the racial spread in OZ teams, finbar - what are they like? I saw the ACT/NSW game a night or two ago and the most obvious one is of course that little bastard Gregan (good fun to watch, though). The NZ teams are highly mixed with Maori and Islanders, and this may be the greatest advantage of having so many teams.

[DaShi]

Re: Should South Africa have racial quotas for rugby?

Originally posted by Caligastia
I have been thinking about this lately because I was talking about it with a professional rugby player from South Africa. The topic came up when I commented on South Africa's poor rugby performance in recent years. The player I spoke to blamed it partly on racial quotas.

Here is a link to a discussion on the BBC website:

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/low/english/talking_point/newsid_413000/413504.asp

These posts probably sum up my opinion the best:





Some of you may be confused by references to "Springboks" and "All Blacks". The Springboks are the South African national rugby team and the All Blacks are the New Zealand national rugby team.

1

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by finbar
And as far as their Super 12s are concerned, they simply have too many teams for their population. As do New Zealand.

Well I wouldnt argue against the Chiefs being phased out, but could Australia handle another team? I dont think so. Not enough talent to go round...

[finbar]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
That Super 12 point is a fair one. I would say that OZ had too few (and NZ is denying more ), but from our performances for the last coupla years I must agree. BUT, this year seem sto be different...

Australia should have one more team. The South Africans should lose at least one team, possibly two. It would improve the standard of the competition enormously. Too many of the South Africans teams are sub-standard and not only because of the quota system. They (a) simply don't have the population; and (b) rugby isn't the national religion it is in New Zealand (see below). In fact, soccer is by far the most popular sport - and first choice - in South African non-white communities.

I don't know all that much about the racial spread in OZ teams, finbar - what are they like? I saw the ACT/NSW game a night or two ago and the most obvious one is of course that little bastard Gregan (good fun to watch, though). The NZ teams are highly mixed with Maori and Islanders, and this may be the greatest advantage of having so many teams.

For starters, wee Georgie is actually of - if I recall correctly - Namibian origin, with one white parent. I forget which.

Andrew Walker - ACT winger/full back - is aboriginal. Jim Williams, recently retired ACT No 8, is aboriginal. There are a number of other aborigines in the Australian Super 12 teams. There are even more aborigines playing in the National Rugby Leage competition, though the combined numers - Rugby and League - wouldn't equate with the Maoris and Islanders in the NZ teams. Then again, the relative percentages in the respective populations wouldn't equate either.

Part of the problem is that Rugby in Australia still carries the Private School/privileged background label. The aborigines playing representative rugby have mainly crossed over from League.

In general, NZ has an overall advantage in that Rugby is, effectively, a national religion. Here, Rugby competes with League (in the traditional Rugby states) and Australian Rules in the non-Rugby/League states. And, in South Africa, it competes - unsuccessfully - against soccer in the non-white communities. That's the real problem the South African rugby people have to confront.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Well I wouldnt argue against the Chiefs being phased out, but could Australia handle another team? I dont think so. Not enough talent to go round...

I don't necessarily think NZ should lose a team. NZ's problem, I think, is cyclical. And one of attitude. Witness the whole World Cup debacle.

The problem with the Super 12 competition is the easy-beat South African teams. Australia could easily field another very competitive team comprising just the players now playing elsewhere in the world because there weren't enough spots available within the existing number of teams. And Rugby, here, is moving with incredible momentum. More and more quality players will become available. Not to mention the talented League players who are realising League is a mindless game played in two small territories in the world with absolutely no standing on the world stage.

[ravagon]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
The NZ teams are highly mixed with Maori and Islanders, and this may be the greatest advantage of having so many teams.

The big difference here though is that the Maori/Island NZers are actually good and have earned their places!
One SA player a couple of years back, after playing the NZ Maori team, was heard to remark that it was just like playing the #@$%ing allblacks!
I don't know about the Australian rugby union teams at provincial/suburban level, as WA doesn't seem to cover that as much in favour of Aussie rules, but the Aussie rules teams don't seem to have many players of aboriginal descent (or players recognized as being of aboriginal descent). Whether because of its lack of popularity maybe, rather than a lack of ability?

Australia could easily field another very competitive team comprising just the players now playing elsewhere in the world because there weren't enough spots available within the existing number of teams.

I think the point here though was that Australia would have to scrape together players from all over. Another team would not be representative of the area they hailed from.
Additionally, if SA lost teams based on their merits (or lack thereof at present) it would pretty soon be back to an all (or almost all) Aus/NZ makeup. ie: Not nearly as interesting internationally.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Well, I wouldn't blame NZ's recent years' lack of rugby success on the attitude of the Admin, but the World Cup stuff is just an amazing demonstration of their stupidity.

Rugby carries a Private school aura to it in Oz?









Here rugby players (although not quite as much the pros) are, although basically worshipped, considered to be generally rather stupid.

Christian Cullen was a couple of years above me at my college, and his nickname was "bottle" - empty from the neck up. His amazing playing skills (OK, in the recent past) ensured his graduation from seventh form though.

The ones that are smart (or at least of average intelligence) end up as regular TV figures, you tend not to hear what happens to the rest.

[finbar]

Originally posted by ravagon
I don't know about the Australian rugby union teams at provincial/suburban level, as WA doesn't seem to cover that as much in favour of Aussie rules, but the Aussie rules teams don't seem to have many players of aboriginal descent (or players recognized as being of aboriginal descent). Whether because of its lack of popularity maybe, rather than a lack of ability?

There have been a number of aboriginal Aussie Rules players over the years - going back to the early 1970s - and the numbers are growing. Many, in fact, have come out of the West. I think it's mainly a matter of opportunity.

I think the point here though was that Australia would have to scrape together players from all over. Another team would not be representative of the area they hailed from.

Football teams - of any code - hardly ever reflect their players' origins anymore. A sad thing to some extent, I think. Australian Rules has lost a lot of its meaning - to me, anyway - since it has turned into a corporate exercise.

In terms of the Super 12 teams - the ACT Brumbies team is made up of largely New South Wales players who were rejected by NSW. Which only reflects on the judgement of ther NSW authorities at the time. The make up of the New Zealand Super 12 teams have, to an extent, been dictated by the All Blacks selectors - moving players around to maximise opportunities.

Additionally, if SA lost teams based on their merits (or lack thereof at present) it would pretty soon be back to an all (or almost all) Aus/NZ makeup. ie: Not nearly as interesting internationally.

There's nothing terribly interesting about seeing teams being thrashed. It's also bad for the thrashed team - its players and supporters - and the overall game itself.

South Africa, unfortunately, has big problems with its Rugby. They lose their best players to Europe because they - the SA Union - can't match the money that European teams offer. In fact, it's said that most of the current Springboks side will be gone before the next World Cup. Add the fact that Union is only the natural first choice amongst the white community and you've got a difficult situation. But one thing's for sure - having your teams regularly thrashed does nothing for the future of the game in your country.