After being so many times what about football in SA, the issue was checked.
It is another example of excellent men's dedication for short term gain, nothing mid or long term. It is all about immediate gratification.
Several reasons rugby was favoured over football in SA: one is that rugby is way less competitive than football and making a statement in football is way harder. SA would not have won a football WC, competition is too harsh.
Another is that other african countries play football, contrary to rugby and considering the political project, losing to non white teams was a possibility. Therefore had to be avoided.
Now, this short term thinking seriously backfires and weighs on SA as a burden.
Because rugby in SA is all outs, there is no in. It is a black hole that keeps sinking resources with no prospect to recoup anything. Expensive stadiums, expensive trainings, all this with no return.
In football, at least, there are transfer fees. Other african nations manage to get players to play for wealthy clubs, getting money in return.
One half million pounds, one million euros there, there are ins.
But taking the path of football would have required hard work, dedication and patience, not rushing the low hanging fruits.
No WC but an economy that could have been sustainable.
Instead, SA is stuck with expensive and useless infrastructures, that cost a lot and bring nothing but debt.
Thinking of it, it seems that climate change will increase drought in SA, considering that crops that were introduced might be water intensive, SA had better solid spending was made on an efficient irrigation system.
It might be the case. It might not be.
