Mamelodi Sundowns are again involved in a vicious media battle with one of the country’s football governing bodies. The confrontation — between the team and SAFA (South African Football Association) — is around Katlego Mphela, whom Sundowns’ doctor declared injured and unfit to travel for Bafana Bafana’s friendly game against Australia, while SAFA’s doctor declared him “uninjured” and ready for national duty.
It appears that the report from SAFA’s doctor came after SAFA needed a “second opinion” to Sundowns’ claim that the said player could not travel with the national team.
The first question that arises on this matter, is whether a “second opinion” was even necessary, after Sundowns had provided SAFA with information that the player was injured and thus unavailable. Personally, this is the first time I have heard of a “second opinion” since many of our foreign based players have on many occasions been reported as injured and thus unable to honor the national call-up.
However, a brief background check reveals that there was actually a confrontation earlier in the week, where Sundowns (including Supersport United and Chiefs) declared that they will not release their players if it means they (the players) will miss the club’s fixture in the MTN 8 cup competition.
What then can we as football supporters read from this? Is a “second opinion” part of the regular process when dealing with these matters or was it an element of SAFA’s paranoia and distrust towards Sundowns given the earlier confrontation?
We at least expect that such processes should be known to both parties, such that when the incident arises, an element of distrust and paranoia is completely ruled of the equation.
This is after all not the first spat that Sundowns has gotten involved in with our football administrators. One Andrew Dipela — who was then the General Manager of the PSL (Premier Soccer League) – declared during a press conference that “if Sundowns want a street fight, they will get a street fight”.
This was also after the incident when Sundowns led the votes to participate in the annual Telkom Charity Cup tournament, but ended up having a fixture clash because they had to play a match away from home in the African competition on the same day.
The PSL arrogantly suggested that Sundowns split their squad into two teams so they could take part in both fixtures, which Sundowns refused to do for obvious reasons. This led to Sundowns being given an ultimatum and eventually kicked out of the popular charity tournament.
Adding even more drama to this matter was the fact that the charity tournament, which is usually played in the first week of August, was played in the second week because Chiefs, Pirates and Manchester United were playing pre-season “friendlies” in the first week. This led to many Sundowns and football supporters arguing that Sundowns was compromised to accommodate Chiefs and Pirates.
It is a cause for concern that over the years, since Patrice Motsepe — the billionaire — took over Sundowns, there has been such unusual confrontations between the team and the football governing bodies. As stakeholders in the football fraternity, the public does not expect to see people who run our football acting like “bitter rivals”, especially in the public domain.
One begins to wonder if this sudden acrimony does not rise from the fact that some individuals in charge of running our football also have their own teams participating in the PSL.
This apparent friction and “opposition” has in fact also included some PSL teams. It has happened on three separate occasions that when Sundowns intended to buy a player, some amount of controversy will immediately arise around the move.
First it was Ajax Cape Town who went to the media and made allegations that Sundowns was “poaching” their player and speaking to him behind their back. Next it was Supersport United, who claimed in the media that their player had been “paid” by someone from Sundowns to miss training sessions so his contract could be cancelled. Last it was Orlando Pirates, who claimed that someone had been “bribed” to convince their player not to renew his contract so he could sign with Sundowns.
Despite all these rumors being highly circulated and receiving prominence in the media, the allegations just seem to disappear as soon as the players concerned committed themselves to their respective teams.
It is my view that the public needs and is still awaiting conclusions on all these matters. Without any form of conclusion, one wonders again if the entire hullabaloo was not just a product of “football politics” or “professional jealousy”.
Only time will tell whether this is just a “co-incidence” or a question of “football politics”. But it is rather unusual that one team out of a group of 16 finds itself having to deal with such attacks on its brand name and image, which are in most cases launched through the media.
It will be interesting to see if this particular matter with SAFA comes to some tangible conclusion (unlike others). On the one hand, Sundowns could be exposed for being selfish and unpatriotic, while on the other hand SAFA could provide more evidence why they should be rated among the least favorite brands in South African football.
I have an idea whose side I believe in this matter, and it’s definitely not the organisation which took our beloved national football team from position 19 in the world down to position seventy-whatever.
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
