With lucrative contracts on offer, the temptation is great for Springbok players to switch to rugby league, especially those who weren't in the World Cup squad
RUGBY:Jon Swift
THE Jacques Olivier affair has had the effect of making the mantle of world champions start to fray at the edges. In the wake of the 24-14 victory over England at Twickenham - or more correctly the way that victory was achieved - rugby in this country should be on an absolute
The news that Olivier had already signed to play Australian rugby league for the Sydney Bulldogs showed all the more sordid edges of the professional side of sport.
Much has been made of the fact that Springbok manager Morne du Plessis quizzed Olivier on his links to rugby league before James Small was dropped in favour of the Northern Transvaal flyer. Du Plessis accepted Olivier's assurances that this was not so.Three things arise in this regard. First, the mega-buck contracts offered the World Cup squad do not automatically extend to other players who come into the team. Olivier is one of these.
This pay policy, adopted by the South African Rugby Football Union in a hasty measure to beat off league offers and player dissent, will continue to cause friction. Especially when men on the bench are in fact earning more out of South African rugby than those named for the starting line-up.
Second, while Olivier might have been somewhat remiss in hiding his long-term intentions, it is perhaps a little unfair to expect a player to step down from an international of as much import as the England Test at Twickenham because of commitments which were only due to start after the tour had ended.
Olivier erred in this, but for a young man who had fought as hard as Olivier to win back the place injury had robbed him of this error was entirely human. There can be no bigger incentive than playing for your country. Even if league forms had already been signed.
The third factor though is the one of probably the most significance to the game of rugby union in this country. Olivier is not going to get off the hook without a lot of legal wrangling and huge amounts of money changing hands ...
To explain this fully, it is best to examine the make-up of Super League, Murdoch's rival to the established Australian Rugby League.
Nine franchises had been signed up and Super League were looking for a 10th in the Sydney area. To facilitate this, they had taken the step of signing some of the top South African players without specifically designating them to a club. Into this category fell Christiaan
The Super League administrators released Scholtz from the contract he had signed when the player changed his mind about the move to league Down Under.
There is a major difference between Scholtz and Olivier. Scholtz had signed for the league itself and was to be allocated to a Sydney club depending on the final number of franchises
But with the Super League and the new union series involving South Africa, Australia and New Zealand under the SANZAR banner both relying on funding from media magnate Rupert Murdoch, Scholtz had an out.
Olivier, in contrast, has signed directly to the club ... not to the league itself. The club has signed the player. The club has paid the money. The club want him to play.
It will take some fancy legal egg dancing to get a release for Olivier. On the face of it, the courts will surely be called on to decide.
It would seem though that Olivier will have to get his province to buy him out of a very costly contract. And then pay him to play Currie Cup as well. With Northerns claiming substantial losses for the past season, this seems a shaky premise at best.
The precedent for one code having to pay the other was set when Cardiff had to pay Warrington for Welsh wizard Jonathan Davies to make the switch back from league to union.
There is also the problem of whether Olivier can now be considered a league player. Remember, there is no free gateway between the two codes in this country.
There is also the inescapable fact that there will be others joining Pieter Muller, Tiaan Strauss, Heinrich Fuls and Christian Stewart - who left this country on Wednesday - in the paid ranks in Australia.
It means that while the national side will continue as world champions until Wales in 1999, the composition of the Amabokoboko is certain to change. There are those who will drop out of the truly monumental side because of natural
And there are those who hold contracts from their provincial unions which will make a quick switch to league somewhat difficult. But there will still be those who go.
The institution of the players union - which Strauss and Olivier both represented from the start - was one sign of the dissatisfaction down the line from the Golden Boks.
The benefits to those who had played for South Africa - or indeed might conceivably play in the future - simply did not extend as far as they should in a fully professional era.
To expect Sarfu to put all the likely candidates on anything even approaching the same package as the World Cup squad is a financial impossibility. It is also a nonsense to even expect them to contemplate such a move.
But clearly our top players will continue to be the target of ever more tempting offers from the 13-man version of the game. Especially as our own currency continues to look jaded against what the rest of the world pays their mortgages
It is a huge dilemma. Performances as stirring as the win over England which confirmed this country's status as the world's top rugby nation will be expected each time the Bokke take the
Witness the displeasure of all concerned in the somewhat half-hearted 40-21 win over Italy the week preceding the triumph at Twickenham.
And this coming year South Africa has a schedule of 11 Test matches. This is made more daunting by the fact that two are against Australia and five against the All Blacks.
"How many sides beat the All Blacks five times in a row?" was the rhetorical question posed by coach Kitch Christie. How many indeed.
What now remains to be seen is whether Olivier - and some others on the Aussie league hit list - are around to help answer Christie's question.
0 Response to "Boks v bucks"
Post a Comment