In September 2001 Minister of Sport and Recreation Ngconde Balfour had the following to say about South African sport: “The current state of affairs in a number of National Federations is characterised by in-fighting, a perceived lack of unity, resistance to transformation, prejudices and bias and a lack of commitment towards rural communities, the promotion of women and the disabled—”
Things haven’t changed much in the last three-and-a-half years. Hardly a week goes by without there being another race explosion within the ranks of South African rugby. The national soccer team appears to be in constant dispute with its appointed coach, who changes more often than underwear. On the upside, of course, such tension in is not limited to this country. The current cricket test series to the West Indies was plagued by a number of top-flight West Indian players refusing to play due to disputes (relating to sponsorship deals) with the West Indian Cricket Board. And the entire Canadian ice hockey season was cancelled due to a players’ strike.
But ultimately it’s South Africa that we care about, so what available mechanisms are there in local sport should disputes arise, and how valuable is the media in the dispute resolution process?
For labour matters, the labour legislation obviously gives players and unions an opportunity to approach the CCMA for relief. Moreover, the High Court can be a worthwhile stop for those in contractual or other commercial disputes. But both of these processes are long, expensive and fan the media’s desire for controversy and conflict.
The much ignored National Sport and Recreation Act may provide a more helpful mechanism. This act allows for an initial internal step between the disputing parties before full-blown litigation arises. In terms of the act, every sporting body in South Africa must provide for dispute resolution procedures in its constitution. In the event that the dispute cannot be resolved internally the matter may be referred to the South African Sports Commission (SASC). The SASC can then deliver a judgement that best serves the interests of the sport. While this decision may be open to review it would, in many cases, also help avoid unnecessary litigation.
The SASC was created in terms of the South African Sports Commission Act. Its role, amongst other things, is the following: to manage, promote, and co-ordinate the provision of sport and recreation and to improve the quality of international sports events that are hosted by South Africa; to ensure participation in international events; to ensure the provision of resources, i.e. to provide information, financial and logistical support for the development of athletes; and to develop and implement policy.
So the SASC plays a supportive rather than a regulatory role in South African sport. And it is probably from this position alone that real results can be achieved. Unless there are vague and concealed interests, no sporting body or sporting icon wants to be seen to be frustrating national sporting interests for petty or personal reasons.
Accordingly, if the SASC became more involved in dispute resolution in terms of their mandate, if more cases were referred to them and if they made it a more transparent and media friendly process, it would no doubt allow for many disputes to be resolved before protracted legal processes are entered into. The nature of this process would be portrayed and perceived as conciliatory rather than litigious. It might just provide the proper platform for sporting bodies and the media to work together for the national sporting interests. A dream?
Greg Hamburger is an attorney at Rosin Wright Rosengarten, a firm specialising in entertainment and media law based in Johannesburg. Visit the firm’s website at www.rwr.co.za