Why we’ll lose the World Cup

It’s Saturday evening. 9pm. The World Cup final. Fifteen men in green and gold line up to face fifteen men in white. It’s a showdown of epic proportions — England want to avenge past humiliations; South Africa are equally hungry and need to prove their worth as “past World Cup winners”.

In the UK, millions of Britons (and expat South Africans) are glued to their screens. Halfway round the world on the tip of Africa, millions others join in. Everyone holds their breath. The ref blows his whistle. For eighty minutes these men give their all while we sit on the edge of our seats. Then the final whistle goes, and it is all over.

South Africa have lost the final. England are awarded the Webb Ellis Trophy for 2011, snatching victory from the reigning champions in green and gold.

OK, so the heading of this blog is deliberately misleading and provocative. But I’ve got your attention now, and what I have to say is important.

Even if we do win the World Cup on Saturday — and I think we will — we’re still likely to lose it in 2011. Let me explain …

Once the tournament is over and messages of congratulations from every opportunist member of Parliament and government have been dispatched simultaneously to the team and the media, the dust will settle. And Jake White, the deserving hero of the tournament, will be scanning the Careers section of the Sunday Times looking for a new job.

We’ll then enter a new era of South African rugby. Politicians and administrators, increasingly frustrated with a lack of transformation in the game, will turn up the heat, impose more and more restrictions on team selection and try and fast-track transformation at a level of the game where it simply will not work.

Don’t get me wrong — I also think that transformation in the sport has been too slow. There are one or two black stars in the Bok team but it is inexcusable and embarrassing to us as a nation that, today, 17 years after we had the first taste of freedom and 13 years after our first elections, the team does not feature more black players. And its not an issue of window dressing — the team should feature black players who deserve to be there because, had we been serious about transformation over the last 17 years, we would have groomed plenty of young talent who could today hold their own on the world stage. But we have failed to do so.

The youngest member of the team is Francois Steyn, and he is a phenomenon. He was two and a half years old when Nelson Mandela was released from prison. Where are all the other kids who were born in 1987? Why was there no talent scouting for young black talent at the time when Francois and his peers were first picking up a rugby ball at Grey College in 2000, six years after our first election? Who should have been doing that scouting? The answer is simple — those charged by the minister of sport with transforming and leading the game … the official structures, provinces and national body.

The fact is that the provincial rugby unions and South African Rugby Union (Saru) have failed dismally to produce a development programme that makes a difference. Had they done so, we’d be seeing a difference in the national team. So today, embarrassed at their lack of progress, they look for scapegoats. And they escalate transformation to the highest level of the game where inexperienced and badly coached players of all races will quite simply get thumped, demoralised and cast aside, regardless of their potential. And where, for political expediency, they can say the word “quota” and grab a few headlines.

The most recent financial statements available on Saru’s website are from 2005. In that year they generated income of R355-million, mostly from sponsorships and the sale of TV rights. They spent 9% of their income, or R32-million, on “development”. Fair enough — that’s a whack of cash and should go a long way. Except it hasn’t. The team is still largely white. Incidentally they also spent R19,4-million on sponsorship commissions. I’m not saying anything, just pointing it out.

South African rugby fans want the best team to take the field so that we can win Tests and the World Cup. We don’t care what colour the players are — just look at how Bryan Habana has become Loftus’ golden child, embraced by even the most hardened Blue Bulls supporter. It’s not about the colour of a player’s skin. It’s the colour of the jersey that counts. So we’ll shout and scream and burst several blood vessels along the way. It’s our job to get behind them — it’s what fans do.

And the national coach wants his team to win. Jake White has picked the best possible squad to take to France (oh just shut up Luke Watson fans, we’ve heard you), and will likely succeed because of it. Had he been given a pool of equally talented black players who had been groomed as long as the white players had been, and exposed to top coaching and first class competition, he would have taken them. It’s his job to pick the best team from what’s available — it’s what coaches do.

But you don’t just matriculate and get into the national team. You play club rugby, you turn out for your province. That’s where you get exposure to fierce competition, proper coaching and mentoring by more experienced players. The fact that we have so few players of colour in the national team is not Jake’s fault, nor is it the fans’ fault. It is because talented youngsters from disadvantaged backgrounds aren’t getting spotted, sent off to Saru funded academies and coached by the best the country has to offer. Saru is to blame. It’s their job to grow the game. And they’re not doing it.

So let’s enjoy the euphoria if we win on Saturday night. And let’s share the pain if we don’t. Either way, our team did us proud. But if Saru insists on fulfilling its development mandate on national level, ignoring transformation and change where it really counts and where it is actually meaningful, then don’t expect to feel the same way in four years time.