/ 10 August 2007

Legal eagle to help break rugby impasse

One of the country’s top legal eagles has been roped in to help break the impasse between SA Rugby and the players destined for the export market — but a ruling is not expected for a fortnight.

Piet Heymans, the chief executive of the South African Rugby Players’ Association (Sarpa), said on Thursday that a decision on whether SA Rugby is legally onside in barring players who do not participate in domestic competitions from playing for the Springboks will not be reached before then.

SA Rugby’s ruling, if left unchallenged, will preclude Test match participation beyond this year’s World Cup for celebrated Springboks such as John Smit and Victor Matfield, among others.

”It is actually quite an extensive process we have embarked upon,” Heymans said, while frantically organising an annual golf day for the Springboks.

It was rumoured last week that South Africa’s professional players would embark on a strike during the Currie Cup if rugby bosses did not soften their stance on the matter but, in a conciliatory statement earlier this week, SA Rugby and Sarpa announced that they would seek legal opinion to guide their future actions on the matter.

”We have jointly appointed someone from the legal profession who enjoys an inordinate amount of respect. This person is very highly regarded and we are confident that all angles will be thoroughly explored before a decision is reached,” Heymans said.

He was, however, loath to divulge the identity of the expert, but did indicate that it is ”someone who understands ‘new law”’.

Oregan Hoskins, SA Rugby’s president, was equally bullish that a solution, which would ultimately benefit the game, would be reached.

”It is an issue that has to be debated and interrogated extensively,” Hoskins said.

He believed the proceedings would be a test case for South African sport. ”We are breaking new ground here. I can’t think of a similar case that has been tested in court. No precedent has been set. This relates to the Competition Act and we don’t know the implications of this legislation in our society.”

Hoskins conceded there are pros and cons to the matter that make it far from an open-and-shut case, even if it is SA Rugby’s expressed wish to retain the country’s best talent for domestic competition.

He said there are many angles and layers to the argument that still need to be explored, but he raised one of the obvious ones.

”One of them involves the sponsors who want to see the Springboks participating in domestic competitions. By allowing foreign-based players to play for the Springboks, you would have a situation where the player is plying his trade in a different rugby culture and then is expected to come back here and suddenly fit in.”

Hoskins warned against the pitfalls, which have strained relations between other national football federations and their star players. ”We also don’t want a situation like in football where you are waiting, fingers crossed, at the airport for a player to arrive back. When he doesn’t pitch, you suddenly find out he has mysteriously strained a hamstring. It’s difficult,” Hoskins said.

Hoskins believed the matter raised a hullabaloo it did not deserve. ”The initial decision that was taken on August 2 was by no means groundbreaking. The ruling was always in place and it was simply relaxed to allow a couple of players to come back and play for the Springboks,” he said.

Although Hoskins is loath to admit it, SA Rugby seemed to soften its stance after meeting Sarpa president Hennie le Roux on Monday. He conceded, though, that SA Rugby’s actions are now de rigueur.

”Your decision really comes to nothing without proper consultation. Procedurally, we are doing the right thing. It’s like when you fire an employee for clear wrongdoing. He can be reinstated if proper procedure wasn’t followed,” Hoskins said.

Just as the matter, according to him, had been blown out of proportion, Hoskins believed the media has created the unfair impression that SA Rugby and Sarpa were at each other’s throats.

”It really surprised me how it was portrayed that SA Rugby and Sarpa were at loggerheads. We had discussions in which it was both parties’ objective to find a lasting solution for rugby in this country. Surely it is in our common interest to make this work?”

When it was put to him that having the core of the Springbok squad ply their trade abroad might help stabilise SA Rugby’s dwindling cash reserves, Hoskins seemed mildly receptive at first, but ultimately put forward a view that would drive bean counters to despair.

”Sure, not having them under contract locally and just paying them a match fee would save us money. There is no doubt about that, but money is not the only consideration here.”