Ex Supersport
Not too long ago the Bulls boasted a very strong playing group which dominated Super Rugby. However, with the exit of a host of big-name stars, the Pretoria-based side decided on a different recruitment model i.e. investing in the best young talent in South Africa.
While the rapid rise of the likes of Handré Pollard, Jan Serfontein and Jacques du Plessis vindicates the Bulls’ faith in the youth system, the latter player’s impending defection to Montpellier, France highlights the latest challenge facing the South African rugby system.
It’s a concern that the French have now targeted another market – the next generation.(These frogs disgust me!!!)
As a case in point, the 21-year-old flank-cum-lock has been groomed by the Bulls since the age of 16 and was basically paid by the union since school days. Du Plessis arrived as a rough diamond and has been polished into a glistening gem owing to time and expertise invested.
The question I’d pose is: How will any model that relies so heavily on developing the very best young players in the country survive if they are auctioned off to the highest bidder?
The likes of Paul Willemse and Du Plessis may publicly promise to come back but why would they opt to return if they are not in the mix and are earning 500 000 Euros a year? Roughlky R7,000,000)
Take former Stormers lock forward Francois van der Merwe, who plays for Racing Metro, as a prime example. He is so settled in France now having been there for numerous years that he can speak the language fluently, which obviously raises his market value substantially.
Is it not unfair that we are developing these players for somebody else to reap the rewards? (Very unfair but cowboys dont cry!)
Furthermore, why would our teams want to invest in young stars and develop them within our system if they are just going to be snapped up?
The reality is that junior academy systems are very expensive to run and there are top coaches working in said systems who invest heavily in the conditioning and skills development of players through one-on-one coaching sessions. The players in question come to you sans skills and conditioning and with just natural ability. As a coach, you mould them into well-conditioned, skilful athletes with a better understanding of the oval game.
I believe the core debate is actually one of a recruitment philosophy. The key question is: Can South Africa develop and keep its own talent? (DOESNT SEEM LIKE IT)
SUBSIDISING UNIONS TO RETAIN STARS
While I don’t have the definitive answer, the fact that SA Rugby seems prepared to subsidise the unions in order for them to retain the bulk of their star performers is fantastic news. (HMMMMM WILL THE SUBSIDY BE ENOUGH I DOUBT IT)
However, SA Rugby obviously cannot subsidise everybody and what then becomes of the Pukke/Leopards who have their playing stocks pillaged by teams with bigger cheque books?
The Kings’ duel acquisition of Luther Obi and Sylvian Mahuza, both of whom I worked with during my time with the Junior Springboks, has been a bone of contention as the Pukke moulded these players as juniors and developed them brilliantly within the Varsity Cup, and later for the Leopards. As bona fide stars they were basically cherry-picked by the Kings.
In my opinion, a substantial development fee – not a transfer fee – should have been paid to Pukke for their services. If that were the case, I believe it would encourage institutions such as Pukke and Shimlas, for argument’s sake, to invest more heavily in developing players.
If we want a really strong system, I believe rugby in the modern era has to be run like a business. Money can be made by recruiting and developing promising young players but governing bodies must put measures in place to reward feeder teams such as Pukke, the Leopards and the Cheetahs for that matter, who’ve been getting the short end of the stick.
If there was a specified form of remuneration for developing talent, I believe feeder teams would enjoy the best of both worlds. They would develop the players for themselves, and if and when the highest bidder comes calling they’ll benefit financially from having developed a prized product, which would in turn facilitate the development of another 20 players.
The whole idea of developing your own talent is that, for a while, you get a good player at a lesser salary because if you had to buy the player you would have to pay a fee of around R2.5 million. Whereas, if said player is developed in-house, there’s an increase in value of around 20 per cent per annum, thus it makes sense developing players within your system.
Do you believe a development fee would be the best way in which to reward feeder teams?
It would certainly help feeder teams but cut the budgets of lead teams trying to retain their star players from NH and Japanese parasites.
It will be interesting to see if assistance to unions to keep players will have any effect
