Springbok rugby is a hot commodity right now, with four world cup crowns to our name and a team that has captured the imagination of the public. Given South African Rugby (Saru’s) manifest value, it is unsurprising that the proposal to sell a 20% equity stake for R1.3bn has aroused controversy.
This week sports minister Gayton McKenzie stepped into the fray, requesting that the meeting to vote on the proposed deal be postponed. As a result, the decision on whether to accept the offer from US-based Ackerley Sports Group has been delayed, pending more clarity on its details.
To the extent that this does not jeopardise or scuttle the proposal, the delay is necessary to set the public’s concerns to rest.
This will allow a more rational reception from rugby lovers and the country at large. With this broader buy-in, the deal will presumably then proceed with the public behind it
That four franchises and some provincial unions have taken on equity partners in recent years strongly suggests that bringing in capital and international marketing expertise is the way of the future. The All Blacks have already taken on an equity partner, so we’re in good company at least.
However, questions remain. In terms of the deal, or from what we know about it, a new Saru commercial rights company will be dominated by the US investors, whose job it will be to leverage the Springbok brand internationally. Ackerley’s nominees will have a majority on the board of the new company, which is a worry to some commentators.
Due to their success on the field, one might argue the Springboks have “outgrown” South Africa, and that an injection of expertise and capital from further afield is vital for their continued success.
This week’s postponement offers an opportunity for the finer details of the proposed equity deal to be placed before the public. This will allow a more rational reception from rugby lovers and the country at large. With this broader buy-in, the deal will presumably then proceed with the public behind it.
As things stand now there are too many unanswered questions and suspicions. The broader question of whether this is beneficial to South African rugby needs an unequivocal answer before signatures can be put to paper.
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.