Springbok Team for the 2014 Internationals

RugbySARU to get quota clarity2014-04-14 14:09 Fikile Mbalula (Gallo Images)Related Links

• Ex-cricketers upset at Mbalula
• FF+: Quota proposal arrogant
• THIS stat 'killed' the Cheetahs

Cape Town - The SA Rugby Union (SARU) will meet with sports minister Fikile Mbalula to get more clarity on the government's new transformation policy.

Mbalula recently threatened to withdraw national teams from competing internationally when he said athletics, cricket, football, netball and rugby are falling behind with transformation and development.

He wants to see 60% black representation in teams and warned of harsh punishment if there was any form of resistance to these measures.

If any resistance was met, Mbalula said, government could withdraw funding to bodies that fail to comply, withdraw national colours to federations holding back, rule that utilising bidding and hosting regulations to be illegal, de-register any body which fails to transform and bar sponsorship to anyone hostile to transformation.

However, several sporting codes - including rugby - were unsure as to what Mbalula meant when he said the requirement would come into effect "immediately".

According to the Rugby365 website, SARU hopes to get more clarity on the subject at a "report back meeting" on Monday - where the minister and the Eminent Persons Group, who has monitored national federations, will be present.

Among the questions raised were whether the

 minister was insisting on 13 black players in 

Super Rugby squads with immediate affect and the Springboks from June.

Mbalula said the resolutions of the recent meeting 

had to be implemented before the new government administration took office after the 

May 7 general elections.

This could see the government preventing the 

Springboks from taking to the field against a

 World XV and Wales in June if there are not 

13 black/non-white players in the squad.

Hopefully Monday's meeting will shed more light

 on when the minister expects these drastic

 changes to take place...

HAVE YOUR SAY: Will the 'quota' issue in SA sport ever be resolved? Is there any point in even trying to do so? Send your thoughts to Sport24.

 Sharbok refer to my post its time the world stood up to this.Man what a loonie wee frikkie is!!
Love this to be posted on all the sporting forums in the world!!!

When Robert Mgube came into power in Zimbabwe he had the support of the international community. He was given a honorary doctrine in economics and had a decent start. Over time he also enforced a transformational policy which became more aggresive until he was supporting the take over of white farms. Many white people became refugees in England and South Africa, and now days their are not many left. 
Mgube has since run the country into the ground, and is more like a dictator that is more concerned with being the ruler than actually ruling. The once great farms are now meagre in comparison. He can hide his own incompetence and get votes in his fake rigged election by targetting the white minority as the owners of the what wealth is left. The politicians answer to poor people votes- is to take from the advantaged whites, until their is none left. Robert Mgube is now n violation of most human rights legislated by the international community.Where does this leave the international community now as they helped bring him into power? Good thing they dont have oil...

 Yeah, African despots beget African despots regardless of how benign and benevolent they may initially appear. Tribal loyalties and greed inevitably rear themselves and their peaceful, inclusive ideologies soon give way to totalitarian regimes. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. 
I don't think its fair to condemn the international community for supporting Mugabe, after all he was hugely popular for his revolutionary work against the powerful white minority as leader of ZANU PF. He was elected by his own people, with an overwhelming majority, to lead the newly independent Zimbabwe in 1980. Regardless of what the rest of the world may have thought of him back then he did have a legitimate mandate that the international community was required to recognise.

 The UN and the Commonwealth have done their level best to negotiate a peaceful resolution with sanctions, expulsion and freezing offshore accounts. The problem with the UN and the international community at large is that it doesn't matter who they endorse in Africa, eventually they will turn in to a depraved lunatic dictator. Mandela is the rare exception although the ANC appear to be living up to the perception about well meaning Africans becoming deranged despots.

@nukefreekiwi- In America and the other richest countries, something like 1% of people own more than a third of the wealth.
Richest in America1% of population owns 35% of the wealth
Poorest in America80% of population owns 11% of the wealth
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

Perhaps Russia, South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) put sanctions on America and insist their wealth is distributed more evenly. 
Or England should be forced to abolish their outdated class system where only rich schools play rugby,and taught to speak a higher level of language.
Under any economic system like capitalism or communism,  the majority of the wealth is owned by a small minority. Maybe this is actually better for the economy, and therefore in societies best interest- who knows. 
I suppose having a vote in politics is better than nothing, but it means very little in economics. Especially when these economies have gotten worse by removing the minority owners of wealth that built it to it highest level. I have never voted in my life, I would rather have more money than the right to vote. The colonial countries helped created the situation in the beginning, and still perpetuate this through neo-colonialism.  
America has been free to let their society develop with a minority dominating the majority in the name of freedom and equality. 
England are still hammering on with their outdated class system where people are segregated- with only rich school playing rugby. This is of very little difference to racial inequalty. 
The international community do not seem to recognise that like in their own countries, a minority has managed to control most of the wealth. 
It is only majority rules that is recognised, not the minority that have been able to control the majority of wealth. You have lived in Africa before, so you know that it is not as if all white people were rich, or that wealth was shared out equally. 
The difference is that where their is colonial majority they will allways win the vote over the minority indigenous population, so race is not a factor. So effectively the minority is marginalized, by the majority, who get marginalized by the rich minority. While I am sure that better systems should have been put in place in the past, to make a better current day and future between all indigenous populations and the colonists around the world, I would be interested in seeing how the colonialists had dealt with the situation if they were the minority in America- in today's era.
Or if in England the upper class had to share their land and wealth with the working class because it was deemed by the international community that they do not have a legitimate right of ownership, that the majority working class should own the land.
I suppose if Africa could have had a minority owning most of the wealth that was not just colonialists but also indigenous, things might have been different. Although it has not really happened this way, so if white people in Africa own wealth then it is not recognised as legitimate. This I think is what the politicians are using through sport quotas and transformation to leverage votes. 
That if 80% of the population are indigenous, then if 80% of the team is not indigenous- that is due to inequality in the past which needs to be transformed through quotas to rectify the balance. 

 Errm, whats your point? I don't recall where I ever advocated the equitable redistribution of wealth nor do I recall ever promoting the capitalist doctrine, as practised in the US and the UK, as an ideological xanadu.  
What I did say was that I thought it was unfair to attribute Mugabes dictatorship to the international community when he was the democratically elected leader in the early 80s.  
I think you'll find that many of those honorary doctorates have been revoked in protest against his totalitarian regime. Many wealthy, first world nations have publicly condemned Mugabe and Zimbabwe has since been relegated to a pariah state like South Africa was until the abolition of apartheid. Sanctions have their place in diplomacy.  If anyone should understand the power of sanctions and international isolation, South Africans can.

 Lets not forget that Mugabes policies are no less abhorrent and offensive than apartheid.

What the international community do not recognize is that redistribution of land and wealth in Africa seems like a certainty until their are no remaining colonists left. Zimbabwe is a current example, but it is not the first time. 
In America the majority are the colonists, not the indigenous red Indian population.
While I not favour either of the oppressive regimes of Apartheid or Mugabe, or any others around the world-I would be interested in seeing how the minority that owns most of the power/wealth and land in England and America deal with the same situation. -Also how the majority in America and England would deal with the opportunity to seize land from the minority. 
Does the majority in England/USA have the right to sieze the land from the minority? If so, then the international community could enforce sanctions on the America and England.

Fortunately the majority in the US and the UK have the ability to voice their opinions about the inequitable distribution of wealth at the ballot polls. If there is enough support for expropriating and/or Nationalising the land then they are welcome to do it. Democracy allows the majority to do whatever they damn well please. 

Because of poor Governance the discussion here has taken a political angle.   Lets face facts - there are certain issues in human nature that mitigate against the makority of people.  
That goes back thousands of years.   The term democracy ia derived from ancient Greece and is used by most as a way to get the uninformed to mislead them to vote for the, as so-called democracy.  Yet Aristotle - realizing the negatives - said that democracy is a bad form of Government.
The Communists using the ancient Jewish financial system from biblical days 0 says all people are equal - irrespective of intellectual differences and then went on to establish the most murderous regime ever in the history of mankind.
Can people really trust any form of Government as really working in favour of the ordinary people?   Whomsoever who believe that must also believe the moon is made of green cheese.   The demagogues takes control and manipulates the system to benefit themselves - not the rest of the people.
In some cases the manipulation is easier than in others.  In Africa it is virtually complete.   Ballots are a farce and results manipulated - in Europe and North America it is not so easy - but it is still done through media control and political shenanigans.
Sharkbiok write about the British monarchy - but the reason for survival of monarchies - widely popular in some countries - stems from two factors namely -
*  a distrust of politicians in general and the dirtiness associated to party politics; and
*   the need of people to have role models they can look up to.
The latter is hard to change.  In countries like Austria and Hungary many people are still harkening back to the Habsburg monarchy after a century of different governments.  The issue is not that they were better in governance - it was that they were better role models for the ordinary people.
Back to the present situation in South Africa.  The constitution guarantees non-racialism - yet after a decade of looting by the ANC the population is restless and there are daily service delivery protest in many of the poor townships,   The ANC is getting worrieds those protests will culminate in voters voting against them - so the answer is easy - blow the race trumpet,   The amount of racist attacks on the  Whites are happening every day.   The Whites are to blame for everything - the Nkanfla theit is White propaganda - Zuma and his cadres did  not steal anything.  The Whites sent their aged people to Old age homes because they refuse to care fore the aged - our own people take care of the aged.   The Whites keep dogs - they treat dogs better than they do their employees.
It is now the turn of sport to take a beating.   The country is in the top echelons in world rugby and cricket - sporting codes in which most participants are in fact White and Coloureds.  But the Coloureds have politically aligned themselves to the same party as supported by the majority of the Whites and they are also heavily discriminated against - so they are not really the flavour of the month.   
The real issue is the ANC realizes that the ordinary people  must be influenced and the target is easy - the minority population groups.   Racial hatred must be stirred up and could perhaps help them.  
It is not the racial player ratio issue the ABC makes it out to be - they do not really care about sporting achievement - they are only interested in political survival.  
     .