South Africa Banned from hosting International Sporting Events by Minister

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Is it though? Really? That's what I don't get. Could you eplain it to me- the reasoning behind that logic. Is it a problem in the US that black players make up ~70% of the NBA but the national demographic is ~70% white?

because at no point were white players excluded from the NBA the way black players were in any of our sports and especially rugby in south africa... maybe in 50 years it would be considered racist for blacks to require 80% of the players be black but i doubt that would happen

as for new zealand, have asians ever been excluded from either the rugby or badminton teams

disproportionate population to representative team ratios is fine in a case where those ratios come out of cultural or regional differences, not when they are a result of one group being excluded from the sport either by law or practice in previous generations

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

it's ridiculous that whites only make up 20% of the population but 70% of the rugby team.

You are making a hell of an assumption there.
The question key question behind that statistic is "why". If you dont understand the underlying reason, leveling the number of players to the ones from the general population is nonsensical.

Simple example (minor assumptions here and there for ilustration purposes!).
Top 10 100 mts sprinters in the US are all blacks. Lets assume that the top 10 ice hockey players in the country are all white.
Following your logic the US should go to the Rio's Olympic games with both a weaker 100 mts rooster and a weaker ice hockey team.

You could argue natural talent for the XX, lack of interest, lack of cultural significance for someone to play a particular sport... the list is long.

I do not know the reasons in South Africa's case, but until you do, any solution is pretty much a shot in the dark.
Is there any evidence that suggest that race is a determining factor for a player making it (or not) to the national team?

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

You are making a hell of an assumption there.
The question key question behind that statistic is "why". If you dont understand the underlying reason, leveling the number of players to the ones from the general population is nonsensical.

Simple example (minor assumptions here and there for ilustration purposes!).
Top 10 100 mts sprinters in the US are all blacks. Lets assume that the top 10 ice hockey players in the country are all white.
Following your logic the US should go to the Rio's Olympic games with both a weaker 100 mts rooster and a weaker ice hockey team.

You could argue natural talent for the XX, lack of interest, lack of cultural significance for someone to play a particular sport... the list is long.

I do not know the reasons in South Africa's case, but until you do, any solution is pretty much a shot in the dark.
Is there any evidence that suggest that race is a determining factor for a player making it (or not) to the national team?

i'd say that excluding blacks from the top level of rugby for just under 100 years is probably the reason blacks are underrepresented in rugby, you will also see that i am against the quota system but i'll go with your attempt to compare rugby to ice hockey and track and field in the united states

first of all, whites have never been excluded from being on the track and field team... at one point black athletes were and once they were allowed to start participating they took over the teams through merit, not through a quota system and no white athlete has been denied a spot on the team due to their whiteness

on to ice hockey... since ice hockey is essentially only played in the northern midwest and new england areas... it's hard for us to get black players on the team or for them to grow up in areas where hockey is popular
this is because of a big old thing called slavery where we kept all of our black people in the south where the water never freezes... eventually there was migration of blacks up north but not to the rural midwest where hockey is at its largest
that being said the lack of blacks playing hockey in the united states is a concern, one that hockey should attempt to fix and every year you see more and more black players in the nhl

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

i'd say that excluding blacks from the top level of rugby for just under 100 years is probably the reason blacks are underrepresented in rugby,

Until you provide any evidence to support that, it is, again, a hell of an assumption. Could be right, i do not know, but neither do you and you are taking it at face value.

Could it be that maybe, just maybe, because they were excluded in the past they focused their interest on other sports and now that they have the possibility of playing it they are just not interested?

 

[nickdnz]

because at no point were white players excluded from the NBA the way black players were in any of our sports and especially rugby in south africa... maybe in 50 years it would be considered racist for blacks to require 80% of the players be black but i doubt that would happen

as for new zealand, have asians ever been excluded from either the rugby or badminton teams

disproportionate population to representative team ratios is fine in a case where those ratios come out of cultural or regional differences, not when they are a result of one group being excluded from the sport either by law or practice in previous generations

For the record; there was segregation of black and white soccer teams in South Africa as well. The fact Bafanna Bafanna are now almost entirely black - would suggest that there is in fact a cultural reason rugby isn't as popular among black South Africans.

But the point is that your replacing institutionalized racism of a majority, to the institutionalized racism of a minority, without creating meaningful change.

No Asian's have never been banned from sport in New Zealand.

However as has been pointed out; the reasons for black South African's not excelling in rugby is as much cultural. And yes that culture stems from racist policies; but is a black child more likely to want to play rugby, because he knows that by virtue of another racist policy he will have a chance to get a spot in the team - or would he prefer to play rugby because in his area there are infrastructure installed to become one of the best players?

Regardless of circumstances, saying player X should miss out because he is 'insert race', despite otherwise earning the opportunity he has committed his life to - is disgusting to me. It isn't a complicated issue. It should be a meritocracy, in which is made fair by trying to give equal opportunities to everyone.

 

[SomeOke]

The bottom line is the black majority was oppressed in South Africa for decades. 20 Years later the status quo has not changed all that much in terms of wealth distribution and because traditionally the wealthy play rugby, rugby is still seen as a symbol of inequality when the majority of the team is still white.

On the other hand we have a corrupt and inefficient government (historically common when revolutionaries become governors) that have failed to implement the necessarily grass roots policies and general lessening of inequality since they have been in power.

Now I understand both sides of the argument, the black people of this country fought oppression for years, and it's perfectly reasonable for them to expect that their national side better represent them and the demographics of this country.

On the other hand faith in the government and their policies is shockingly low in this country and many people have pointed out that quotas are probably not the best way to fix the imbalances currently present in our rugby. Note: It's important to realize that the government doesn't actually care about the rugby side, this is all about pandering to the majority for the upcoming elections and trying to prove that they care about fixing inequality in the easiest and most cost effective way.

Personally I'm against quotas, but we have to be realistic about the country we live in. I'm trying to remain positive, if this actually does induce more impoverished black children to follow their idols then that's obviously a positive result. Not to mention in the past some of our promising players have been overlooked for not fitting the large muscular white man stereotype of what a Springbok should be, in my opinion.

Basically I'm going to close my eyes, block my ears with my hands and wait for it all to be over.

 

[TRF_heineken]

because at no point were white players excluded from the NBA the way black players were in any of our sports and especially rugby in south africa... maybe in 50 years it would be considered racist for blacks to require 80% of the players be black but i doubt that would happen

as for new zealand, have asians ever been excluded from either the rugby or badminton teams

disproportionate population to representative team ratios is fine in a case where those ratios come out of cultural or regional differences, not when they are a result of one group being excluded from the sport either by law or practice in previous generations

i'd say that excluding blacks from the top level of rugby for just under 100 years is probably the reason blacks are underrepresented in rugby, you will also see that i am against the quota system but i'll go with your attempt to compare rugby to ice hockey and track and field in the united states

first of all, whites have never been excluded from being on the track and field team... at one point black athletes were and once they were allowed to start participating they took over the teams through merit, not through a quota system and no white athlete has been denied a spot on the team due to their whiteness

on to ice hockey... since ice hockey is essentially only played in the northern midwest and new england areas... it's hard for us to get black players on the team or for them to grow up in areas where hockey is popular
this is because of a big old thing called slavery where we kept all of our black people in the south where the water never freezes... eventually there was migration of blacks up north but not to the rural midwest where hockey is at its largest
that being said the lack of blacks playing hockey in the united states is a concern, one that hockey should attempt to fix and every year you see more and more black players in the nhl

Hold on.

Even during Apartheid, any race could play any sport they wanted in SA. Black people wasn't prevented from playing rugby. And the same applies to Indian and mixed race people.

What did play a factor was poverty, for example. Come to SA and drive through the rural areas, and you will see many soccer fields, but no rugby fields. Why?? Because to play soccer you just need a ball. And even during Apartheid many international organizations came to SA and the Rest of Africa, and brought soccer balls with them. It still happens all around Africa.

But where you are completely missing the point is that we have been a democratic state for over 20 years now. There was no quota or transformation system during Nelson Mandela's tenure as our president. He emphasised the importance sport plays in society and that everyone is equal in sport. And interestingly enough, we did have BEE in business during that period.

What is the crux of the matter is that certain races/cultures are drawn towards certain activities or sports. I was in poor-ish public primary school where we were 60% black and 40% white scholars. Yet our rugby teams were 95% White and our Soccer teams were 100% black. I'm a massive soccer fan, and I got a love for the sport because of my Dutch heritage (my Grandfather played for Utrecht), and he had an influence in me and my family enjoying the sport.

But ask most of the black people in SA, and they will say they PREFER soccer above any other sport. Just look at our stadiums when our soccer teams play. Soccer city stadium in Soweto that hosted the FIFA 2010 final can seat 95000 people is permanently sold out when the teams play there.

I have no problem whatsoever in having a transformation policy to assist young people getting into the sport. But using force, in an excessive manner as it is being used by our government is not the way to go. And everyone is starting to despise them for these drastic, unwanted measures.

 

[Icemn]

Good Read...

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/kiwi-scribe-questions-transformation-in-sa-rugby-20160503


Cape Town - A renowned New Zealand scribe fears that transformation in rugby will weaken the South African game to such an extent that SA teams will be unable to compete with the Kiwis.
CLICK HERE to read Mark Reason's full column on the Stuff.co.nz website
This comes after South Africa's sports minister Fikile Mbalula barred major sporting federations from bidding to host major international sporting events.

SA Rugby, as well as Cricket South Africa, Netball SA and Athletics South Africa, had revoked their privilege of “hosting and bidding for major and mega international tournaments in South Africa as a consequence of...not meeting their own set transformation targets,†said Mbalula.
The decision would be reconsidered at the next reporting of the Eminent Persons’ Group (EPG) report, which is expected in November.
The All Blacks are dominating their rivalry with the Springboks and New Zealand teams are bossing Super Rugby, but according to Mark Reason, a columnist for the Stuff.co.nz website, New Zealand rugby needs South Africa to be strong.
“South African rugby is at breaking point,†Reason wrote.
“The sports minister has threatened its international future. The best South African team finished a pitiful and humiliating seventh on last year's Super ladder. Most of the top players are in France and many of the astonishingly loyal fans are starting to wish they could join them. Most of New Zealand might not care right now, they might be gloating at the success of all their teams, but the NZR is terrified the bank may close its doors on them.â€
Reason explained why it’s essential for New Zealand rugby that South Africa remains strong.
“If South Africa goes down the gurgler, New Zealand wages will be slashed. South Africa underwrites the television money from Super Rugby and the Rugby Championship. They supply the population and the audiences. New Zealand needs South Africa to be strong. Ever since the game went professional South Africa has sponsored New Zealand rugby.
“Unfortunately I believe the South African government doesn't give a stuff about rugby. It only cares about how many black people are in the team. They call it transformation.â€
At present, Reason feels transformation is not making SA Rugby stronger and he does not see a change in fortunes for future Springbok teams when competing against the All Blacks.

“Transformation is happening, but it is the transformation of South African rugby into a second-rate sport. Unless the government puts rugby into more state schools, there will be no transformation. Football will remain the majority sport for black kids, and is there really anything wrong with that?
“The government shows no desire to transform its schools. It would cost too much. And so it passes the buck and New Zealand wins again on the pitch. Off the pitch there are not so many bucks left to pass. If South African rugby takes a bath, New Zealand rugby goes under, too.â€

 

[nickdnz]

I will add something; to call Mark Reason a 'renowned' anything other than a renowned sensationalist and antagonistic arsehole, is rubbish. He's one of the least credible rugby writers in New Zealand.

Not a lot of new information in that article either, although it remains terribly written.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

Hold on.

Even during Apartheid, any race could play any sport they wanted in SA. Black people wasn't prevented from playing rugby. And the same applies to Indian and mixed race people.

What did play a factor was poverty, for example. Come to SA and drive through the rural areas, and you will see many soccer fields, but no rugby fields. Why?? Because to play soccer you just need a ball. And even during Apartheid many international organizations came to SA and the Rest of Africa, and brought soccer balls with them. It still happens all around Africa.

But where you are completely missing the point is that we have been a democratic state for over 20 years now. There was no quota or transformation system during Nelson Mandela's tenure as our president. He emphasised the importance sport plays in society and that everyone is equal in sport. And interestingly enough, we did have BEE in business during that period.

What is the crux of the matter is that certain races/cultures are drawn towards certain activities or sports. I was in poor-ish public primary school where we were 60% black and 40% white scholars. Yet our rugby teams were 95% White and our Soccer teams were 100% black. I'm a massive soccer fan, and I got a love for the sport because of my Dutch heritage (my Grandfather played for Utrecht), and he had an influence in me and my family enjoying the sport.

But ask most of the black people in SA, and they will say they PREFER soccer above any other sport. Just look at our stadiums when our soccer teams play. Soccer city stadium in Soweto that hosted the FIFA 2010 final can seat 95000 people is permanently sold out when the teams play there.

I have no problem whatsoever in having a transformation policy to assist young people getting into the sport. But using force, in an excessive manner as it is being used by our government is not the way to go. And everyone is starting to despise them for these drastic, unwanted measures.

they might not have been excluded from playing the sport but they were excluded from the highest levels

and i have stated before that i am against quotas as they are a ****ty way to promote long term inclusion