Ken Borland

Watching South African rugby on television at the moment may be a bit like being in a canoe stuck in a stagnant backwater – the still water means not much is happening – but there is a deadly waterfall up ahead if the Independent Communications Authority (Icasa) get their way.

Icasa, which regulates broadcasting in this country, are concerned that subscription TV, i.e. Multichoice, have a monopoly on showing live sport in this country and they want to make the market more competitive. To do this, they propose that broadcast rights can only be bought for a maximum three-year period, there are to be no exclusive deals and rugby’s properties must be split and dispersed between as many broadcasters as possible.

But as SA Rugby so ably illustrated in their presentation to Icasa during public hearings this week, these so-called remedies will have the exact opposite effect. Because they will have such a drastic economic impact on the sport, for whom the sale of television rights makes up 58% of their income (sponsorship, which largely depends on TV exposure, makes up another 26%), the market won’t be competitive at all because professional rugby, already brought to its knees by the Covid-19 pandemic, will all but cease to exist.

Spreading the rights around may sound like a lovely socialist plan in an ideal world, but in the real world of free market economies, and the absence of any other broadcaster remotely capable of doing and paying what SuperSport does, rugby is in the canoe going over the Victoria Falls if they can no longer sell their rights as a single package, in long-term, exclusive contracts.

Given the abysmal record of almost all parastatals in this country, I have a healthy scepticism when it comes to them poking their noses around wherever they sniff money or gravy. But I was squirming with discomfort when, following SA Rugby’s presentation, one of the Icasa councillors asked if the federation would consider producing movies, documentaries or news if they could no longer do rugby.

I was so shocked by the sheer idiocy of the question, coming from someone who is no doubt earning a healthy slab of taxpayers’ money and is in a position to draft laws for the people of this country, that I fired off a derogatory tweet. Shortly thereafter, after a rant by the Chairperson about people disrespecting authority on social media, I was removed from the virtual meeting.

It’s a bit like asking a company that specialises in making hand sanitizers if they wouldn’t mind switching to car manufacturing because the government wants to fiddle with the market.

As SA Rugby CEO Jurie Roux pointed out, it costs millions of rand to build a competitive rugby system that will find a player with talent in the grassroots pipeline, take them through the youth age-levels, through provincial and franchise rugby and hopefully then to the Springboks. That money largely comes from the sale of television broadcast rights and sponsors who are willing to pay for the exposure they get on TV.

Apart from their clearly undemocratic and anti freedom of speech tendencies, Icasa also failed to do a Regulatory Impact Assessment before drafting their findings, according to SA Rugby’s legal counsel, Ngwako Maenetje SC. He also accused Icasa of paying scant regard to a written submission SA Rugby had previously made, which gave a thorough indication of the dire financial impact the proposed regulations would have on rugby.

A court date undoubtedly beckons for Icasa if they continue with this idiocy.

Roux also mentioned SA Rugby’s mandate is to produce compelling content and the current standard of the Currie Cup has been a subject of much discussion recently. It certainly has not been a top-class spectacle, but there have been mitigating factors for that such as the heat, humidity and rain at this time of year and the disruptions caused by Covid outbreaks.

But a look at the laws of the game could help. I like a suggestion made by coaching gurus Nick Mallett and Swys de Bruin that being able to mark a kick anywhere in the field should be considered, scrum infringements should initially just be free kicks and the attacking side should not be held to the same offsides lines as the defence.

SA Rugby on Thursday submitted to the Independent Communications Authority of South Africa (Icasa) that their remedies proposed in their draft findings into the broadcasting of sport by subscription television will lead to a severe reduction in the investment by these broadcasters in professional sport and will ultimately cost the Springboks the chance of adding to their 2019 World Cup victory.

Icasa have proposed that broadcast rights should not last longer than three years, that there should be no exclusive deals and that the rights should be split between multiple packages and broadcasters.

But in public hearings held virtually on Thursday, SA Rugby CEO Jurie Roux said the ‘remedies’ would be an unreasonable burden on the federation and would mean they are likely to lose their fight for survival in these times of Covid uncertainty, while Senior Counsel Ngwako Maenetje said Icasa would be acting “irrationally” and ultra vires (beyond their powers) if they enforced the changes.

“If the regulations go through in their current format then we may never see a day like the 2019 World Cup win again. SA Rugby needs to produce compelling content that is commercially viable so we can develop the game from grassroots level to winning national teams. We are 99.7% self-funded, we only get 0.3% of our income from government, and broadcast rights bring in R752 million,” Roux explained on Thursday.

According to the SA Rugby presentation, broadcast rights make up 58% of their income, and sponsorships, which are largely dependent on TV exposure, make up another 26%.

“We are in a daily fight for survival, we are in financial difficulty having made losses between 2016 and 2018. We recovered a little profit in 2019 on the back of the World Cup and we looked forward to capitalising on that but no-one could have predicted what happened in 2020. Covid has pushed us into survival mode and had a massive detrimental effect. We’ve had to cut our budget by R1.2 billion.

“It has made insolvency a real and present danger, we’re on the brink, and if we had not been able to capitalise on broadcast rights, we would have been bankrupt by now. Exclusivity is the main source of our revenue and with less money it means there will be less rugby until we have to close our doors and only have club rugby. And then nobody will be interested in the game,” Roux said.

Judging by the presentation of Maenetje SC, Icasa would probably face court action if they enforce the regulations.

“No Regulatory Impact Assessment was conducted by Icasa, which makes the proposals irrational, they did not inform themselves of the adverse effect of these remedies. These effects are not proportional because they place such a burden on the rights holder, rather than broadcasters, such that they will not be able to sustain themselves. Icasa have paid scant regard to the dire impact we explained in our written submissions.

“By weakening one side of the equation you do not grow competitiveness in the market, SA Rugby will no longer be in a position to provide premium content and there will be an adverse impact on public interest. These remedies are irrational, not lawful and unconstitutional. They do not encourage investment so they undermine the Icasa mandate and exceed the statutory powers of Icasa,” Maenetje said.

Icasa launched their inquiry into subscription television services to ensure the broadcast market is sufficiently competitive, but Roux says “these remedies will have the completely opposite effect to their noble intentions”.

“The obligation is on the broadcasters and not on the rights-holders, which is where Icasa are acting ultra vires. There was no discussion of the economic impact in their draft findings,” Maenetje says.

Rugby in the age of Covid-19 will be a non-spectator sport but at least there are some signs that action will return to the fields and our television screens soon.

New Zealand, thanks to their excellent leadership and general good behaviour of their citizens, are once again being the world-leaders and the great news came out of the Land of the Long White Cloud this week that prime minister Jacinda Ardern is set to announce an easing of their Lockdown to Level 2 on Monday, which allows for the resumption of competitive sport.

Rugby – and more particularly SuperRugby – has been in quarantine since mid-March, but now it looks likely that New Zealand’s franchises will return to action perhaps as early as the first weekend in June. NZ Rugby chief executive Mark Robinson said the players would need three to four weeks of training to be ready for contact and to put on the sort of spectacle rugby fans are so desperate to have back in their lives.

The competition will be called SuperRugby Aotearoa and will involve New Zealand’s five franchises – the Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes, Crusaders and Highlanders. They will play each other home and away over 10 weeks, with two matches every weekend. But all matches will be played in closed stadiums.

South African rugby fans will have to be more patient, however. While New Zealand this week reported no new Covid-19 cases, South Africa is still living with a pandemic that is still causing more cases (437 announced on Friday) and deaths each day. We’re just going to have to accept New Zealand once again having a headstart on us.

While it is obviously disappointing that spectators won’t be able to watch live at the venues, the first priority has to be to get rugby on the go again, even if it is just on television. To that end, WorldRugby this week put out a statement from their medical experts that all rugby should be played behind closed doors. Even then, they say a minimum of 167 people (58 players, eight stadium operations staff, 41 people working for television, 16 medical personnel, 10 administration staff and four security guards) would be needed at a stadium to put on a high-level game of rugby, so that can’t happen until government allows gatherings of 200 people.

There are also conditions attached to the return to training, which initially will have to be non-contact with masks, and moving from pairs to small groups to full squads.

It looks likely that the two Tests the Springboks were meant to host against Scotland in July will now be played in the summer, but the Rugby Championship is still scheduled to be played in August/September. If our domestic franchises only return to action in July (which is probably the best-case scenario), then the All Blacks will have a massive conditioning advantage over the world champions. But the cash-strapped sport’s need to return to international action is so urgent that those imbalances just have to be accepted.

An additional problem in this country once rugby returns behind closed doors is access to the games. Not being able to go to the stadium is one thing, but most rugby fans cannot afford pay-TV, especially in ever-tighter economic times. Should at least some matches not be broadcast on free-to-air television?

One of the major axes I have to grind with SA Rugby is how they have allowed potentially their most valuable brand after the Springboks, the Currie Cup, to wither into near insignificance. Hopefully when our four SuperRugby franchises plus the Free State Cheetahs and Southern Kings, play their replacement tournament later this year it will spark the revival of the greatest domestic competition.

One only has to watch the sheer passion and intensity on display in the re-runs of Currie Cup finals from early in the last decade to realise what it meant to the players, even the Springboks who were allowed to take part back then. Hopefully once crowds are allowed to attend as well, they will show similar enthusiasm.

The SuperBowl is a television extravaganza and one of the major sporting events of the year, and yet in this country only a minority of sports fans seem to pay much attention to it. But there is one South African sporting legend who is a keen follower of gridiron and American sport in general.

Naas Botha has had a fascination for American Football since his groundbreaking move to the United States in 1983 when he tried out as a placekicker for the Dallas Cowboys. It was a sensational move by the best flyhalf in the world of rugby, from the amateur game to the different world of American pro sport.

While it helped Botha establish himself as a true professional athlete, since 1995 and the end of amateurism in rugby union, there has been little interest by other rugby players in playing American Football.

But Botha believes it won’t be long before a top-class player is lured by the promise of a massive payday in the United States.

“The problem I had when I went over was that I turned up with nothing, with no track record. Half of the people there didn’t even know where South Africa was and they thought we were wandering around with lions. The whole structure of American Football means College football is very important and they take all your stats from there.

“It would be much better now for a player to go over. The rest of the world has a much better knowledge of American Football now and I think a lot more people involved in gridiron know about rugby. Thanks to social media, I think a lot of them will even know about Handre Pollard for instance.

“Organisations like Laureus also bring a lot more attention to American sports. World sport is at a different level these days: in the U.S. they know about our top rugby players and South Africans know about what opportunities there are outside the country. Look at how many players are in France or England; compare that to when I went to play in Italy in 1987 and there was such a big hoohaa,” Botha told The Citizen.

Kicking in American Football is of course not just about distance and accuracy: Botha estimates you have about 1.2 seconds to kick a field goal and it requires a different frame of mind compared to slotting conversions and penalties in rugby. Plus one has to get used to being allowed to be tackled without the ball in gridiron, hence all the protective equipment.

It was thanks to the innovative Dallas Cowboys coach Tom Landry, considered a legend in American Football after 29 years at the helm of the Texan franchise, that Botha played gridiron. But it was the presence of another Cowboys stalwart, Rafael Septien, that prevented the Springbok hero from making more of an impact. Botha was brought in as the back-up kicker, but Septien rarely broke down and so his appearances were limited.

Another South African placekicker, Gary Anderson, had better fortune and became one of the NFL’s leading all-time points-scorers with the Pittsburgh Steelers, even playing against Botha once.

It remains a regret for Botha that during those couple of years of gaining splinters on the bench, he did not take up other offers that came his way, particularly from College (university) teams.

“It was a great experience, being with a big team like the Cowboys, but I was just there at the wrong time. I hung around with the Cowboys, but I should have taken one of the university contracts I was offered. I could’ve taken my experience with the Cowboys with me, built a reputation and a stats base and worked my way through the ranks, but I didn’t know the set-up then,” Botha said.

As it was, he caught game time with the Dallas Harlequins in the national championship, inspiring them to their only triumph in that second-tier competition.

So what of this year’s SuperBowl?

Botha remains a Dallas Cowboys fan and was gutted when they lost 26-21 to the Green Bay Packers in the playoffs, but he concedes the New England Patriots have what it takes to claim their fourth SuperBowl title.

“I’m still a Cowboys fan and how they lost that playoff I don’t know, they blew it. I’ve watched both the Patriots and the Seahawks this year, they’re two very good sides, both very balanced. But I went for a mini-training camp with the Patriots and they are the team to beat, they’ve been fantastic lately,” he said.

What really intrigues SuperSport’s long-time rugby analyst about American Football though is what it can teach those running rugby in South Africa.

“The United States is where sport is at a different level, they’ve shown how professional sport should be run, why try and reinvent the wheel? They have franchises and I wonder if our top rugby teams should not be privately owned? Why postpone it any longer? The unions all have schools, junior and women’s rugby all to look after as well.

“In gridiron, players are on $50 million contracts, in baseball it can be $200 million. Here, if a union wants to keep Bryan Habana, they need to offer R30 million over three years but nobody can afford it. Do we really want to see all the top South African players based overseas?”