Should the public boycott Rugby Games?

The following from News24:-

“Former Springbok prop Ockie Oosthuizen says the time has come for shareholders, fans and sponsors to boycott South African rugby.

Oosthuizen, 61, played nine Tests for the Springboks between 1981 and 1984. He was also Transvaal's captain.

The former prop was so upset following last Saturday’s first ever home defeat to Ireland that he took to Facebook to write a heartfelt letter.

Saturday’s result was one of the “lowest points ever in SA Rugby’s history”, according to Oosthuizen.

“I was privileged to play for South Africa over a four-year period, even though it was in the apartheid era and time of isolation. But all that mattered to us was to play the game we loved and enjoyed.

“In spite of that, politics had a big influence on the game and we saw the full effects of that during the 1981 tour to New Zealand.

“Since then the game has turned professional and money has played a bigger role. However, in spite of that, politics still dominate the game.

“We have to compete in the highly competitive world of professional rugby against countries who are free of political interference. They are able to at all times compete with their best teams without interference from their governments.

“Furthermore, we have to compete in a highly competitive environment with the rest of the world while there is prescribed to us who we should pick - while at the same time we are expected to compete with the best in the world and win.”

According to Oosthuizen, the top brass at SA Rugby are just there for own personal gain and he has called on the privatisation of the professional arm of rugby.

“The time has come for all stakeholders, like shareholders, players, rugby supporters, sponsors etc. to withdraw their participation, attendance and involvement from the game… until the professional arm is fully privatised and rugby in South Africa is restructured to function just like a public company with the ‘corporate governance’ that goes with it.

“Amateur rugby can be funded by the professional arm and government and that’s where development should take place, not at international level where we have to compete professionally. At that level we have to win at all costs, because that’s all that matters!

“I feel there is only one way in which the message can be conveyed loud and clear to SARU and their media partners and that is an overall boycott, especially at a Test match!

“It will very quickly make SARU, the media and sponsors realise that the game needs to be restructured to adapt to the business norms of the rest of the world and mainly free of political interference!”

This ex-player is making a valid point bearing in mind rugby is now a business and that competitiveness is what counts.   Only the best professional players based on merit should be selected to play.

The problem is that SARU has never adjusted to manage a professional game environment and is still run on an amateur basis – while the government is prescribing political selection rules which trump merit selections.   Players should be selected on merit only – if all the team selected on a merit basis are Black they would have the support of all real rugby lovers.    It is clear that  the Government does not fulfil their duty to support sport development (all team sporting codes) in schools and ensure that  development  of players commence on a wider basis than at present – the imbalances of the present scenario will be corrected in future.    

The IRB rule book on racial discrimination reads as follows:

In terms of By-Law 3 of the IRB rules and regulations, the IRB is compelled to prevent any form of racial discrimination in rugby. IRB Regulation 20 also stipulates that any action which may be construed as racial discrimination will be regarded as misconduct. In terms of By-Law 7, not only is a country’s international team bound to this; the provincial rugby unions resorting under a country’s board must adhere to these principles as well. In terms of By-Law 9.4(r) the IRB may institute disciplinary steps against any rugby body that violates these rules.

From what I understand- SARU is a private organisation. 

The Chiefs have taken a 21-0 halftime lead against Wales as they seek to spoil Warren Gatland's homecoming in Hamilton.

The Welsh coach was a Waikato stalwart during his playing days but no amount of local knowledge was enough to stop the Chiefs from scoring three unanswered tries to seize command of the match.

Missing their All Black contingent, the Chiefs were far more clinical in a disjointed opening half, forced to live off less possession and worse field position but striking through Brad Weber, Tom Sanders and Dominic Bird.

The first demonstrated Stephen Donald - captain for the night - still had plenty of life left in his legs, showing good strength in the tackle and picking a perfect pass to set away his halfback.

The second try was all about the force of the Chiefs forwards close to the line while the third demonstrated the home side's persistence, with Donald being denied by the TMO only for Bird's physicality to prove far too much for a stretched opposition.

All those qualities were largely lacking from the tourists, who spent plenty of time in attack but came away with nothing to show for their efforts. And that was more about the tourists' profligacy than the Chiefs' defence, with Wales on several occasions appearing to pick the wrong option with the line in sight.

Not even the late inclusion of a few test starters could help Wales find any fluency, with injuries seeing captain Sam Warburton, Taulupe Faletau and Jamie Roberts all called up to the 23.

I'd join a boycott .

If the Springboks lose 50% of the matches- I will stop watching them.