In addition to good quality rugby for television viewers to engage with, the restart of the Guinness Pro14 brought a much-needed potential buffer to what one local franchise coach has called a tsunami that could blow SA rugby apart.
There were two occurrences before the kickoff of each of the four Pro14 matches played this past weekend. First there was a moment’s silence observed to mark the loss of life suffered during the Covid-19 pandemic and to honour those who have worked on the front line to protect people from the disease.
Then there was a Unity Moment which involved the players standing in a circle before kickoff to demonstrate that, in the words of Pro14, rugby stands united against racism and to emphasise the sport’s core value of solidarity and respect.
I didn’t see anyone showing their individualism during the Unity Moment, but the Pro14 organisers made it clear that “during this time the players are free to express themselves in a manner they deem appropriate”.
A common-sense alternative is what Pro14 has brought to the divisive debate that has arisen out of the different perceptions, driven no doubt by the extremes on both sides of the SA political spectrum, of what the Black Lives Matter (BLM) issue is really about. It was again thrust into the headlines this week after the choice made by SA players in the Gallagher Premiership not to go down on a knee as a demonstration of support for BLM.
Players are not islands, they do follow social media and will have seen the volatile debates that are heating up Twitter.
Admittedly it didn’t look good that, when sportsmen were given a choice in the matter, it was mainly white South Africans who chose to exercise that choice. It was understandable that the sports minister got into a froth about it, because he probably shares my perception, as stated in this column two weeks ago, that BLM is antiracism, nothing more than that.
But that word “perception” is important. It is all about perception. While I stick to my central point made in that previous column that SA Rugby should not be hijacked by a right-wing agenda and kowtow to what was once seen as their guaranteed market, maybe there was also some over-simplification.
The BLM I see is the one supported by people like Michael Holding, who did it so passionately and emotionally on television during the recent Test series between England and the West Indies. Nobody who watched Holding and his fellow cricket commentator Emily Rainford-Brent speaking can be left under any illusions — there is a problem that needs to be addressed globally.
What they were talking about, I think, is the ethos of BLM. To me, it seems crazy that anyone takes seriously the agenda-driven conspiracy theorists who work in the right-leaning media in the US.
Unfortunately, some people do, and the minority who looted during BLM protests in the US didn’t help the overall cause. Like mask wearing was in that country, the BLM issue became politicised. Players are not islands, they do follow social media and will have seen the volatile debates that are heating up Twitter.
While they do have a responsibility as public figures to promote the antiracism drive, for there surely can be no debate about that, at the end of the day they are just kids who are good at sport. It would be understandable if they are reluctant to be seen to be taking sides on an issue which in some sections of their home country is being perceived as more than just what it is.
The sports minister’s demand to know why they didn’t kneel like most of their teammates conjures up images of the state’s role in society that are disturbingly Orwellian. I agree with Sale Sharks coach Steve Diamond that he should butt out of his team’s business. At the same time though, it would be good to hear what the likes of Faf de Klerk and Lood de Jager have to say.
It will probably be that they agree fully with the antiracism message — they are after all wearing antiracism T-shirts and also showing their solidarity with their kneeling teammates by linking with them — but don’t want to be seen to be part of a politically driven agenda.
The message being put out by Pro14 is less ambiguous than that encapsulated in the words that proclaim the BLM identity. What they ask their players to do runs much less risk of them becoming pawns in a game being played by politicians. If players refused to stand in a unity circle, then there is a serious issue, just as there would be a serious issue if they really do have a problem with the anti-racist mission.
There would also be a problem if a unity circle wasn’t seen to be good enough. If there was insistence that antiracism has to be BLM and nothing other than that, then there should be questions asked of the motives of those who make that demand.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.