Up and under narrative beyond a rugby scapegoat
by Lyn Snodgrass,
2015-11-16 05:52:15.0
THE narratives of South African rugby are complex and profoundly intertwined with the politics of race, ethnicity and identity. This is why there are competing and divisive storylines in the communal memory of the nation’s rugby history.
These evoke collective emotions of anger and humiliation for many, and deep pride for some. But, as with all deep-rooted conflict, rugby is not only about "identity politics" and participation. It is also about fierce competition for status, power and resources.
Since Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer and his team brought home the bronze medal from the Rugby World Cup, debates around the sport, and his future, have reached a new pitch. South Africans were disappointed by the team’s performance. But they are also angry at continued economic and social injustices. These two emotions have created a tense environment.
The reason for this is that the country is experiencing a paradigm shift in its political landscape, demonstrated by widespread student protests, from the #RhodesMustFall campaign earlier in the year to the recent victory of #FeesMustFall.
The threat of escalated conflict is the worst since SA’s first democratic elections, with deepening inequalities, severe unemployment and poor economic growth. In this mix, rugby is under intense scrutiny for its slow pace of institutional change. This is why the impending negotiation for renewal of Meyer’s four-year contract has become part of a highly politicised national conversation.
A #MeyerMustFall Twitter campaign, instigated by ex-Boks who see Springbok rugby as in decline, reflects the prevailing protest mood of SA. And trade union federation, the Congress of SA Trade Unions, has demanded Meyer be removed for poor performance and alleged racism in his team selections. It also wants half of the national side to be made up of players of colour, rising to 60% of the majority black Africans come the 2019 Rugby World Cup. And it threatened to protest against the lucrative sponsorships that underpin the sport if the targets weren’t met.
From the onset of democracy, South African rugby was destined to be contested terrain. Illustrative of the deep cleavages in South African society, it is the sport most identified with Afrikaner nationalism and colonial elitism.
But despite its divisive baggage, the sport has the ingredients to be the catalyst for deep transformation that speaks to unity and nation-building. Nelson Mandela knew this. Hosting and winning the 1995 Rugby World Cup was a pivotal event in the psyche of SA’s new democracy.
Mr Meyer, like all coaches, is the media face of South African rugby. He alone bears the brunt of scathing criticism, and is now the scapegoat for all the country’s rugby woes. The danger is that he is simply a repository for displaced anger and a distraction from the complexity of the real challenges facing the sport.
The issues of transformation are multifaceted, systemic and intractable. South African rugby is accused of racism, maladmini-stration and a bloated bureaucracy not in keeping with modern rugby management. More importantly, it has been unable to harness and adequately develop grassroots support — schools and clubs in marginalised communities — where the potential for its growth lies.
Rugby in SA is potentially worth billions of rand and its importance to the economy, global branding and nation-building immense. But its audience and following is ageing. Its success, possibly survival, depends on expanding its support base beyond the 20%, mostly white, of the population who say they are interested in the sport.
It is clear rugby’s future lies far beyond the #MeyerMustFall debates.
• Lyn Snodgrass is associate professor and head of the Department of Political and Conflict Studies at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
This article first appeared on The Conversation
Heyneke Meyer is the media face of South African rugby. He alone bears the brunt of scathing criticism, and as such is blamed for SA’s rugby woes. Picture: AFP PHOTO/FRANCK FIFE
THE narratives of South African rugby are complex and profoundly intertwined with the politics of race, ethnicity and identity. This is why there are competing and divisive storylines in the communal memory of the nation’s rugby history.
These evoke collective emotions of anger and humiliation for many, and deep pride for some. But, as with all deep-rooted conflict, rugby is not only about "identity politics" and participation. It is also about fierce competition for status, power and resources.
Since Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer and his team brought home the bronze medal from the Rugby World Cup, debates around the sport, and his future, have reached a new pitch. South Africans were disappointed by the team’s performance. But they are also angry at continued economic and social injustices. These two emotions have created a tense environment.
The reason for this is that the country is experiencing a paradigm shift in its political landscape, demonstrated by widespread student protests, from the #RhodesMustFall campaign earlier in the year to the recent victory of #FeesMustFall.
The threat of escalated conflict is the worst since SA’s first democratic elections, with deepening inequalities, severe unemployment and poor economic growth. In this mix, rugby is under intense scrutiny for its slow pace of institutional change. This is why the impending negotiation for renewal of Meyer’s four-year contract has become part of a highly politicised national conversation.
A #MeyerMustFall Twitter campaign, instigated by ex-Boks who see Springbok rugby as in decline, reflects the prevailing protest mood of SA. And trade union federation, the Congress of SA Trade Unions, has demanded Meyer be removed for poor performance and alleged racism in his team selections. It also wants half of the national side to be made up of players of colour, rising to 60% of the majority black Africans come the 2019 Rugby World Cup. And it threatened to protest against the lucrative sponsorships that underpin the sport if the targets weren’t met.
From the onset of democracy, South African rugby was destined to be contested terrain. Illustrative of the deep cleavages in South African society, it is the sport most identified with Afrikaner nationalism and colonial elitism.
But despite its divisive baggage, the sport has the ingredients to be the catalyst for deep transformation that speaks to unity and nation-building. Nelson Mandela knew this. Hosting and winning the 1995 Rugby World Cup was a pivotal event in the psyche of SA’s new democracy.
Mr Meyer, like all coaches, is the media face of South African rugby. He alone bears the brunt of scathing criticism, and is now the scapegoat for all the country’s rugby woes. The danger is that he is simply a repository for displaced anger and a distraction from the complexity of the real challenges facing the sport.
The issues of transformation are multifaceted, systemic and intractable. South African rugby is accused of racism, maladmini-stration and a bloated bureaucracy not in keeping with modern rugby management. More importantly, it has been unable to harness and adequately develop grassroots support — schools and clubs in marginalised communities — where the potential for its growth lies.
Rugby in SA is potentially worth billions of rand and its importance to the economy, global branding and nation-building immense. But its audience and following is ageing. Its success, possibly survival, depends on expanding its support base beyond the 20%, mostly white, of the population who say they are interested in the sport.
It is clear rugby’s future lies far beyond the #MeyerMustFall debates.
• Lyn Snodgrass is associate professor and head of the Department of Political and Conflict Studies at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University
This article first appeared on The Conversation
Change: 0.68%
Change: 0.76%
Change: 0.53%
Change: 0.77%
Change: 1.08%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.68%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: -0.36%
Change: -0.23%
Change: -0.65%
Change: -0.43%
Change: 0.10%
Data supplied by Profile Data
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Change: 0.00%
Data supplied by Profile Data