As in politics, a week can be a long time on the football scene. Last Thursday the Premier Soccer League (PSL) showcased its success as a brand by signing a multibillion-rand deal with pay-television channel SuperSport.
Then the South African Football Association (Safa) lost the man who had — in the three months he spent there — breathed hope into the almost comatose body of the association.
S’bu Mngadi, chief executive of SA Football (Safa’s commercial wing), left earlier than his already brief contract stipulated, thanks to an attack by Safa president Molefi Olifant.
SA Football is a legal entity wholly owned by Safa. It is mandated to help the national teams maximise their commercial potential.
At the time of his appointment, Mngadi told the Mail & Guardian he intended to hold the job for six to nine months because he had ”an exciting life outside of football”.
In a letter leaked to several Sunday newspapers, an aggressive Oliphant reminded Mngadi that the control of all football matters remained the province of the association.
”You are further reminded that in terms of the decision of the national executive committee, all footballing matters remain vested in the office of the chief executive of the national association.”
The last part of the statement raises the question: What, then, is the role of SA Football and what are its powers?
SA Football’s acting chief executive, Mwelo Nonkonyana, told the M&G this week that the two organisations still had to agree on a cooperation pact.
A Safa insider said the agreement had been ready to sign for some time now, but the process was being held back to spite Nonkonyana, who was not the preferred choice of the football bigwigs.
Safa CEO Raymond Hack and Mahomed Mubarak, the association’s vice-president and chairperson of the finance committee, sit on the board of the commercial wing with Nonkonyana and should therefore have been aware of the board’s overstepping its mandate, and been able to prevent it.
”Hack is useless. Mubarak would never stand in an open election. He has lost even the support of Southern KwaZulu-Natal [the Safa province he comes from]. This fellow [Mngadi] was the correct person for the job. He is an independent thinker who sets out to do his job and only afterwards goes to the board to report. It is something that the [Safa hierarchy] was not used to,” said the insider.
Another Safa official, sympathetic to the association’s bosses, defended Mubarak and Hack’s passive stance and said Mngadi was acting on his own and did not consult colleagues when he made decisions. ”Nobody in the commercial wing knew that we were playing Colombia. Other than the fact that we are playing Zambia next [in an Africa Cup of Nations qualifier], nobody knows who Bafana’s next opponents will be. I would not call Mngadi a flop, but show me one contract he signed or one cent he brought to the association.”
That view runs contrary to Nonkonyana’s assessment of Mngadi’s brief tenure. When Mngadi’s departure was announced, Nonkonyana praised him for growing Bafana’s commercial value and initiating sponsorship negotiations with three multinationals ”after assuming control only of Safa’s commercial properties on May 1 2007”.
Another SA Football official, conversant with machinations at the commercial wing, denied that Mngadi had failed. ”The board of directors met on June 6 and are on public record singing praises of the superior quality of Mngadi’s work. Their glowing assessment of his performance is recorded in the minutes and transcripts of the board meeting. The directors asked him to extend his contract by three months, the terms of which he was supposed to negotiate with a board sub-committee led by Nonkonyana,” said the official.
”It’s ironic that your Safa source accuses him of not signing a single contract when Safa had steadfastly refused to hand over any operational and legal authority for Safa’s commercial properties. Oliphant’s letter confirms this much.”
The M&G was unable to speak to those involved. Mngadi declined to comment; Oliphant was said to be at a workshop; Mubarak said he would comment only after tabling his views at the board meeting; and Hack did not respond to messages left on his cellphone.