This article was a really good read today. Amongst the things I was thinking about it we are all trying to justify our own existence, including myself, and sleep well at night — but how many of us truly have the kids’ interests as a priority, and how many of us are seeing them as a means to profiting in some way or another?
Amongst the interesting things is that the more dependent school rugby becomes as a source of income, the greater the need appears to be to control the narrative around what is ethically right and wrong. It starts to feel like there is a constant process of justification, where the more uncomfortable realities are either softened, blurred, or redirected — often by shifting blame elsewhere.
Another thought I had was about the revenue stream and its potential. In the same way I have said school rugby needs a central governing body, it ideally needs a collective structure to help schools regain control of their own product and, in doing so, maximise the commercial and broadcasting value that sits within it.
If the WPPL, the two SWD big guns, Grey College, the Eastern Cape boys’ schools, the top six Gauteng boys’ schools, the Noordvaal Cup Premier League schools, and KZN’s tier one programs came together, that would form a powerful and still manageable collective of around 45 schools. You could even add a handful of other schools that consistently draw strong audiences to reach a round number of 50.
That kind of consolidated bargaining power would fundamentally change the equation. It would allow schools to either attract major corporate sponsors collectively or sell broadcasting rights as a unified product to the highest bidder. Either way, the key shift is control — and with it, a far more structured and transparent flow of revenue back into the schools that generate the product in the first place.
@Snelvuur (Comment #25) Is that 2016 team a typical PR team though?…or a once in a generation golden team….but you make a great point.
@Kaya 85 (Comment #24) Ja, but I’m just trying to illustrate that it’s not necessarily a trade-off between doing well in sport and doing well academically. I actually think excellence feeds excellence, which is why schools that invest in all sports and culture generally also have a better rugby programme than those that invest solely in rugby at the cost of all else.
@Snelvuur (Comment #20)
That is an impressive cream of the crop team…
@Bungee (Comment #19) I think that FIFA type compensation is a very good idea …would like to find out more
Dit is merkwaardig, en iets waarvan elke skool kan droom.
@Snelvuur (Comment #20)
Ek weet die 14 het by Kovsies gaan swot. Laas wat ek met hom gesels het was hy besig met sy derde jaar in onderwys (vir my vertel dat hy die vorige jaar 3 modules ook nog ge-Cum het, wat ek nie so seer glo nie, maar ja)
@buitestaander (Comment #18) My matriekjaar se eerstespan – graad/beroep per posisie: 1. Rugbyspeler by die Sharks 2. CA – founder van Old School 3. Teologie geswot; Dominee 4. Springbok + Ingenieur 5. MCom in rekeningkunde en finance 6. Dux- leerder: BRekLLB + nagraadse diploma in Rekeningkunde 7. Ingenieur 8. Prokureur 9. Rugby agent 10. Springbok 11. BSc graad 12. BA graad 13. BCom graad 14. No degree 15. Pro rugby speler
Interesting piece on SA Rugby mag where the SARU High Performance GM wants a FIFA style youth compensation to be brought into rugby.
JJ Kotze (fisio), Ben Jason Dickson (siviele ingenieur) – huidige top-spelers wat nie by Gr12 gestop het nie. Dickson en Riley Norton was 90%+ leerders, en beide was hoofseun. Ook Kade Wolhuter het rondom 90% gedraai. Daar sal egter altyd manne wees wie se hoofvak rugby is. Die eerste hokkiespan wemel egter tradisioneel van top-presteerders.
@Snelvuur (Comment #15)
Paul Roos is just behind the boerie curtain with affluent parents, that is the difference. I bet the top 20, maybe 5 play rugby and none in the top 5 teams…
If Jannie could become a doctor surely so could Jurenzo
@OUD ANKER (Comment #13)
But I think that’s where there’s a disconnect too: most of the “rugby schools” also offer far superior academic opportunities than “normal” schools. I’ll use PRG as an example simply because I know its stats best – consistently top 5 in rugby (and top 3 in hockey), but 15-20 guys of the 240 matric class have an average over 90% and +- 60/240 have an average above 80%. It’s very similar across the other “rugby schools”. Which “normal” school’s boys achieve close to that level? And yes, all of the rugby players aren’t necessarily top achievers, but it’s also not so that none of them are. E.g., in my matric year, 3 of the top 5 academic achievers were also first team rugby players.
@OUD ANKER (Comment #13) BOOM, education is the primary purpose of schools. If you want to be a profressional rugby player, go to a rugby academy
@Snelvuur (Comment #7) I hear what you say, but it is all about unrealistic expectations. That 10 year old king expected to become king, most of todays 1st team school players expect to get a provincial contract or expect to become a Springbok. The reality is that ONLY a handful as a % EVER makes it as a pro rugby player. Affies was mentioned in one of the posts. When last did Affies produce a Springbok…..? vs. the number of boys that went through their system. How many of these boys neglected their academics during school to be on a rugby field and then leave school highly disillusioned. School remains in the first place an ACADEMIC institution and unfortunately MANY parents and even SCHOOLS have forgotten this when the rugby program is discussed.
@Bungee (Comment #9)
Agreed on professional coaches, they don’t understand the child as a whole, they see them as a commodity. Back in the good old days of teachers coaching, they truly understood each kid and their individual pressures. Oh Johnny, I know it’a an accounting exam tomorrow and you need extra time, you can leave practice early….
@Grasshopper (Comment #8)
I agree that primary school games should definitely not be televised at all! I would probably have tv starting from u16 level onwards, or have the lower ages password protected for parents of the team members only!
@agter_die_pale_pa (Comment #3)
Excellent post and points made. I like it!
I think the only part of the current model that is not in the best interest of the child is the coaches who are so high paid and faces job insecurity based on performance. But the rest of the current model is really good. This idea mentioned in the comments of having school/academy mixes just seems stupid to me! Rather just split the two completely if you want to go down that route.
@Snelvuur (Comment #7)
Agreed, but at a certain age when they are mature enough to understand that. Being ‘live’ on TV aged 10 is not right. I would make it over 16 only….
I think what’s often lost in these debates is an analysis of what is really in the kids’ best interest. It is automatically assumed that playing in front of a large audience is not in their best interest, but doing that directly correlates to better development as a player capable of handling pressure situations and, undoubtedly, mean that those kids are more likely to pick up a proper contract after school. Would it be more in their interest to play low-key fixtures and not get a contract? I don’t think so. The reality of sport (and life) is that you are in the limelight – young grandmasters in chess play in front of far larger audiences at a far younger age; heck, a few hundred years ago kids could become king and make decisions at a younger age than we now watch them play rugby. Obviously, the pressure can be extreme, but I don’t think the solution is to remove the pressure – one should rather teach kids how to deal with that pressure and provide them with all the love and support they need to be able to do so.
@agter_die_pale_pa (Comment #5)
Yep, agreed. The ‘elite’ squad that has different learning times and schedules for academics, gym sessions, physio etc….
@Grasshopper (Comment #4)
A big differences between my suggestion and the UK will be that the academies are run by the schools, and not the unions. You need to protect the history between schools and keep the schoolboy talent in the schools’ systems. They have earned the right over decades. You call it the “Hoërskool Whatever Rugby Academy”, which is just the commercial name for their combined A teams run in a NPC owned and run by the school. They play all over the country against the best, while the rest of the school plays in the big local derbies against their traditional foes, vital for the broader community especially in the platteland.
@agter_die_pale_pa (Comment #3)
Agree with you on Academies OR the A teams being more ‘professional’ and the rest for fun. In the UK and most other countries the best are not in the schools programmes, they are in the clubs. That is why England schools can’t compete with SA schools when they tour. I can tell you though that a Saracens U18 team would push all the top SA schools. The same applies to netball and others, my daughters club team would slaughter her school team. They train & play 6 days a week in the club, it’s crazy. The Academies and A teams then do need controls like drug & age testing. PLUS I do think a ‘league’ or round-robin set of fixtures needs to be set-up. Top 20 in League A, 20-40 in League B and 40-60 in League C with promotion and relegation…..that will stop stupid mismatches and 100+ scores….
Sorry for the long post..
The two camps are getting more and more vocal about where SBR is, and should be, heading. The Graeme/Kingswood issue last year, Selborne internal clashes between the HM and the rugby program (which happens to include a World Cup winning coach..), the strongly worded letter from Hilton recently, and this can of worms are bound to burst open. Both sides have positives and negatives, myself still grappling within the massive grey area. Not all schools have the means to keep up with the current model, so it also becomes a social-economic debate, which is a very sensitive one.
I fear that the beast (or maybe beast is not the right word) have been fed too much already and you will not stop it, so how do we as adults protect the interests of the children, whilst providing them with an opportunity to pursue opportunities with their God-given rugby talents and potentially make millions? The constant pressure to perform in full view of the outside world is the main catalyst. The high expectation of all stakeholders involved drives schools to make certain decisions. One can understand, especially in South Africa, why a school needs a strong rugby program, it remains one of the biggest attractions for new intake. But the pressure have, in some instances, became too much, and level heads are needed.
The only solution I keep coming back to in my head, is one that is in practice already being applied in many schools, so call it what it is. Split rugby in schools into “academies” for the talented boys wanting to pursue a career in rugby, and the rest, whereby the remaining majority of boys can enjoy the game and what it teaches young kids, protecting the rich history between schools build over many decades’ derbies.
I think one can have a deeper look into Affies’ model (and no, I am not affiliated to Affies at all). Their A-teams are pro-machines, but they do massive work to give all of their almost 30 teams opportunities to play against hand-picked, evenly-matched opposition. Not to beat the best there are, but to just play ball, doesn’t matter you the opposition is. Just this week, their lower teams played Wagpos, teams posing for photos together after match. These boys don’t want to become pro-players, they just want to play.. no trophies, no log points, no rankings. But should they develop through the years, the opportunity is right there on his doorstep. For the boy who stopped growing at 15, no need to leave the school, leave the school’s rugby academy and complete your education while helping the 4th team to win or two.
There may just be a common middle-ground, where A-teams are semi-pro and play like-minded “academy-schools” for rankings, trophies etc, coached by World Cup-winning coaches, and the rest of the school plays friendlies, coached by the same bloke who in the morning learned them about complex mathematical equations or the wrongs of WW2. They only play for the pure love of the game and their school, and camaraderie, without the pressures of not getting a contract after matric or potentially costing a coach his bread-and-butter.
Many individual sports have gone this way globally. If you really have talent, you go on your own path (which is a cut-throat one in any discipline from a very young age), outside the mainstream kids doing it for fun. Why not SBR in SA? Maybe over-simplifying the complexities, but one thing I know, is that the tilt towards professionalism has been too rapid to not have some sort of opposite reaction, whatever it may be. Good luck to all the Solomons out there!
Now if only we could go back to telegrams, horse-drawn carriages and playing rugby with leather balls the world would be a better place…
Great article Beet, there definitely needs to be more control here. A body that looks after the Top 50 schools and the kids wellbeing. At the moment it’s a complete free for all, the wild west. Basically the Gangs of New York with some iffy gang leaders who have ‘win-at-all-costs’ mentality. Equal distribution of ad funds, child protection & psychology, mentorship, drug testing, age testing, transparent fund reporting. In adult life it’s the strongest survive, but in this case it’s children. I cringe at u11 and u13 rankings plus ‘live’ coverage of these games, not appropriate in my view. Sport is about having fun, making friends, learning to get up when knocked down, the camaraderie & the ‘gees’, but all should be in a protected environment free from public judgement, especially under16. An agreement should be signed by all participating headmasters and adhered too. I would hate to know the real levels of drug abuse happening…..