Why have a parliamentary sports portfolio committee?

What is the purpose of the parliamentary sports portfolio committee of Butana Komphela and company? What does it achieve — other than controversy from statements that regularly stir up a furore, normally with a racist flavour? It never refers to anything meritorious about what is being done.

The committee’s statements seem intended to remind us as South Africans only that it exists. Perhaps it is trying to justify its existence — because, just as we are about to forget about these “sporting wise men”, one of them comes up with some absurd remark to cause an uproar.

In the past, it was always committee chairman Komphela who made the controversial statements. Now his vice-chairman, Cedric Frolick, is entering the fray, as if to remind us that there are other members in the committee, too — or perhaps to take some pressure off his beleaguered chairman.

But, whatever the reason, their untimely and irresponsible statements do our sport no good at all. It also does not help promote the morale of our talented sportsmen and women. Neither are their pronouncements well received by local sports supporters, and they must surely evoke some adverse comment in the boardrooms of the sponsors who plough millions of rands into the various sports.

It is ridiculous that Springbok coach Peter de Villiers has become the latest target of the committee. He has invoked the wrath of Frolick because he apparently continues selecting members of Jake White’s World Cup-conquering squad. In particular, Frolick has singled out the inclusion of Fourie du Preez (instead of Ricky Januarie) at scrumhalf and Percy Montgomery (instead of Conrad Jantjes) at fullback in the starting line-up to play New Zealand in a Tri-Nations Test at Newlands on Saturday.

Although he is careful not to mention the word “race” and his criticism is ostensibly all about form (in Montgomery’s case he says it is a sentimental decision to allow him to gain his 100th cap), he is clearly unhappy because white players have been given preference over players of colour. He says De Villiers “must realise he will be measured according to his ability to transform the team and to make it representative of the country’s population for the 2011 World Cup.” A veiled threat …?

It is ridiculous to use the transformation tag to criticise De Villiers, especially taking into consideration the background to his eventual appointment as Springbok coach.

I hate to admit it, but I actually do agree with him about Montgomery’s selection for sentimental reasons. I feel Monty should have been dropped when he was no longer the first choice at fullback a few Tests ago and, on form alone, he should not have been able to notch up his 100 caps. But this was hardly a case of his being given preference over players of colour. Two other members of the victorious World Cup squad, Frans Steyn and Ruan Pienaar, could have been employed quite aptly in Monty’s role (on the bench). But, obviously, neither would have met Frolick’s transformation requirement.

Then, of course, Frolick was also in the thick of things last month when his chairman criticised the racial make-up of the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc), accusing it of being dominated by whites and Indians who did not understand transformation and lacked vision.

He supported Komphela, saying Sascoc was unable to deal with issues of transformation, because it remained an elitist organisation that was out of touch with ordinary sports organisations. He further accused it of regarding international travel as more important than the development of sports.

Was it mere coincidence that these accusations were made at a time when most South African Olympic teams were preparing to go to Beijing? What perfect timing! How inspiring (not) for the athletes could all these shenanigans about the controlling body have been? How much — if anything — did this “wise man’s” comments contribute to South Africa’s medal tally (or non-tally)?

I just wonder why President Thabo Mbeki did not enter the fray to snuff out any uncertainty that there may have been among our Olympic teams.

Last year, he came to the rescue after the brouhaha that followed ramblings by Komphela and others regarding the racial mix of the Springbok team for the Rugby World Cup. Remember the empty threats to have players’ passports confiscated? While that threat never materialised, we certainly started losing talented players who sought greener — less politically fraught — pastures in the northern-hemisphere countries.

At a rousing farewell, Mbeki told the Springboks to forget all the controversies “that we, as politicians, always raise. Don’t worry about them — just play rugby!” They did and brought back the William Webb Ellis trophy.

I wonder what similar encouragement from him to our Olympians could have achieved.