|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||
Take Mandela along to avoid losing your... |
Forcing the pace of change could trip sport bosses upSPORT is big business in today's world. Billions of dollars are being spent on things like television rights, clothing and equipment sponsorships, the salaries of players and transfer fees. This massive and growing business reflects deep economic trends as the millennium draws to a close. People have larger amounts of leisure time and more discretionary income than ever before. Sport was once primarily a form of recreation. Now it is a major form of entertainment, in an age when billions of people all over the world can afford to pay to watch their heroes in action. The aim of human labour, in a certain sense, is not to work but to enjoy leisure, and for many the best form of leisure is to watch sport either live or on the box. However, the key to success in the business of sport, as in all forms of business, is winning. If the golfer, boxer or tennis player does not win often enough he or she loses support, sponsorships and prize monies. If a team becomes an habitual loser, it faces commercial ruin and will disappear as its support wanes and fans are no longer prepared to pay to watch it in action. We all know that losing teams don't attract the crowds. Their financial support dwindles, they can no longer afford to groom young players, build new stadiums, pay coaches, physiotherapists and all the other paraphernalia that goes with modern professional sport. It would be well for the National Sports Council to bear all this in mind as it moves to persuade, and perhaps coerce, sports bodies to adhere to a 40% quota of affirmative action selections in our sporting teams. Imagine, for example, if the Chicago Bulls basketball team was forced to select a team which reflected the demographics of the US population. They would lose at least half of their best players, their fans would revolt and an enterprise in which hundreds of millions of dollars is invested would be threatened. Some 80% of America's best basketball players are black, some of whom earn annual rewards of R100-million and more. Now an argument can certainly be made for investment in bringing along youngsters from disadvantaged sectors of society. But would it be fair to them, and to the game they play, to send them in, for example, to play at international level when they will clearly be outclassed? There is no denying that whole generations were disgracefully denied opportunities, not only in sport but in every sphere of life, and that everything that can be done must be done to address these sins of the past. It has been argued here before that it should never be forgotten that gradualism is the key to long-term success. When the pace is artificially accelerated, it is to the detriment not only of society at large but to the very individuals who are supposed to be the beneficiaries. Mvuso Mbebe, chief executive of the NSC, says he hopes "equilibrium" can be achieved in SA sport. If by this he means a 40% affirmative action quota in national teams, then he must expect that our sport will suffer as spectator and commercial support will fall away if teams are forced to select on a quota rather than a merit basis. This is the harsh reality. While fair-minded people will not argue against the need to encourage and invest in disadvantaged young sportsmen and women, and will not doubt that Mbebe is well-intentioned, the dangers inherent in the proposals of the NSC are very clear. The interests of sport will be far better served by working with enlightened administrators such as Ali Bacher. Forcing the pace will merely disillusion black players not yet ready for the international arena and inflict lasting damage on the ability of our sports codes to generate the resources necessary to assist the disadvantaged to take their rightful place in national line-ups in the future.
|