• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

New race quotas for SA rugby

I don't see it that way. Rugby is not for the rich in the same way soccer is for the poor. The overall image of South Africa across the globe is that all the blacks are poor and all the whites are rich. Some black people have a higher education and more favorable laws towards them. The reason so many blacks are still poor, is because of their lack of motivation/attitude. This causes them to still live in shacks or poor maintained houses.

Rugby is not an expensive sport. Not any more expensive than soccer/football. The reason rugby is not popular among the black population is because the uneducated blacks still see rugby as a symbol of Apartheid and refuse to watch or play the beautiful game. They rather focus on soccer/football which is more of a symbol for the blacks and something that 'binds' them dating back to the days of oppression.

So, with so many black people despising rugby, resulting in only 15 or 20% being black in the higher leagues, how fair is it to have a quota system, forcing the teams to have 33% black people in the starting line-up?
 
@Conrad Smith
Pretty much spot on, rugby isn't economically accessible to most black people, due to the wealth inequalities that exist with this country. I'm as liberal as they come but the government continues to get policy wrong. Much like Black Economic Empowerment, affirmative action and the like the government enacts top level policy expecting some sort of change without developing the infrastructure required. It's all well and good to gift black jobs and playing positions to black players but if you don't have the grass-roots policies to alleviate poverty, create jobs and foster rugby in black kids from a young age - then it doesn't accomplish anything long term, other than making the white minority bitter and inclined to emigrate.

Even the most conservative white people in SA love to see a black player do well, we all want to see them succeeding but it doesn't help to just take the spot away from a white player, if you take an apple away from a white guy and give it to a black guy, the net gain is nothing for the country. What we need to do is plant more apple orchards.
 
I don't understand how rugby is more expensive that football.

Literally all you need is something you can throw...
 
57 percent of U11 to U19 players are black. (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...targets-schools-to-produce-black-players.html)

Yeah, yeah, there's a couple of years where some black people are picked over some white people on the account of race and representation. But there's something wrong that runs much deeper if teams find it difficult to make this quota in the coming years, if you consider that the youth setup is predominantly black.
 
No matter how you twist this, it's still racism. Discriminating/favoring one group of people over the other based on skin color and nothing else. 30 years ago it was called "Apartheid", now it's "Quota system".

Where is the quota system for soccer, which is predominantly a black sport?
 
I don't understand how rugby is more expensive that football.

Literally all you need is something you can throw...

It's simple, if you want to be a professional rugby player you need dietary supplements such as:


Whey protein:

130814100538379010.jpg


Creatine:


130814100530739017.jpg


And things like for example: shoes powerlifting (If you lift weights lifting a professional rugby player in the gym, then you should use these special shoes but you can injure)

130814100542573062.jpg


Average body of a professional football player:

130814101440277256.jpg


Average body of a professional rugby player:

130814101437717002.jpg


So... yeah, rugby training is more expensive and harder than football training.

Regards
 
******** man. The beauty of rugby, is that it's a sport for everyone. Tall, short, chubby, skinny...
 
No matter how you twist this, it's still racism. Discriminating/favoring one group of people over the other based on skin color and nothing else. 30 years ago it was called "Apartheid", now it's "Quota system".

Where is the quota system for soccer, which is predominantly a black sport?
You're making the argument to be more simple than it actually is. What perspective do you want to look at it from? Objectivism? Collectivism? It's a classic, deep-rooted philosophical issue here. In this case, what matters more, the rights of the group or the rights of the individual?

Generally, I'm not convinced by either in its entirety. To ignore the rights of the individual to an extreme, and you end up with a 1984-like nanny state, and the issues are obvious. But I think that modern culture has gone too far in the other direction: in some cases it would be wrong to uphold the right of the individual over the right of the group. eg, I don't think it's morally acceptable that people earn their market worth, rather than their actual contribution to society. The disparity in wages between Premiership football players and teachers, for example, is criminal. The fact that Premiership teams then ship the cost onto the consumer, I find to be wrong. I'm happy for the state to put very high taxes on the ridiculously rich, because to not do this would be to marginalise the poor. Should there be people who starve in the world, when others can actually pay to eat gold? Even worse is that by having money, you can invest and make money, without lifting a finger. Just by being rich, you can grow your wealth way past people's earning capacities. That's not even market worth, that's pure and simple plutocracy.

To bring it back to the matter at hand, I believe there has to be some compromise, and this is a decent one. It isn't a quota that is unattainably high, and it doesn't go beyond the actual make up of black people in the country, or involved in the youth setup. Nor does it force people unable to fill the role into the role. (For example, it isn't like forcing 5 year olds into the setup. Black people in theory should be better than white people at the sport, especially in the forwards.) In that sense, I don't believe it transgresses on the individual to the extent to call it a racist policy. But it also goes some way to redressing the balance.

Overall, it's a difficult issue, but I do think that it's probably a decent policy in the long-term.
 
******** man. The beauty of rugby, is that it's a sport for everyone. Tall, short, chubby, skinny...

Yeah but professional rugby is a sport for the few, is very demanding, not everyone can withstand the bumps at that level, you have to be very well trained to play that intensity.

It's like any high-performance Olympic sport such as athletics and swimming, few people can reach that level of training.


For example, an Olympic swimmer like Michael Phelps eats about 12,000 calories in its most intense training, is inhuman, he's an alien. Not many people can reach that level of training.


Regards
 
Last edited:
The situation is disgraceful, but... it will take a generation or two for karma to even out ather the apartheid era. Nothing much to be done.
 
@Conrad

No you don't, do you think Fijians grow up taking protein shakes and creatine?

And those shoes.... they are weightlifting shoes, there's no such thing as a powerlifting shoe.
I doubt many rugby players own a pair in any case.

You are simply ignorant of what a young player actually needs, most kids are actively discouraged from going to the gym until they are at least 16-17.

May I ask where you are actually from? You're understanding of rugby culture seems to be strangely disconnected from the reality...
 
Last edited:
@Conrad

No you don't, do you think Fijians grow up taking protein shakes and creatine?

And those shoes.... they are weightlifting shoes, not powerlifting shoes.
I doubt many rugby players own a pair in any case.

You are simply ignorant of what a young player actually needs, most kids are actively discouraged from going to the gym until they are at least 16-17.

May I ask where you are actually from? You're understanding of rugby culture seems to be strangely disconnected from the reality...

Haloti Ngata (American footballer - Tongan ancestry) - 1.93 m and 154 kg:

130814111751225106.jpg


Jonah Lomu (Tongan ancestry) - 1.96 m and 126 kg:

130814111752461379.jpg


Tuilagi brothers (Samoans):

130814111754231514.jpg


Pacific Islanders are a special breed, they have good genetics impressive, such as Jamaica in athletics. Jamaica only has 2 million people, yet they are leaders in athletics.

A normal person who want to deal with these monsters, you need the highest level training to compete as equals.

Also, let me tell you something, the conception of poor is not the same in all countries. In developed countries like England or Australia, poor conception is very different to that of a developing country like South Africa.

The African poor is much poorer than the European poor, there is no comparison, so to you my comparison is exaggerated.

regards
 
Last edited:
The rule sucks.

But it's a reaction from the infinitely ****tier situation that was apartheid (or at least, racism in general). It's a way (whether we disagree with it or not) to try and equalise things. Basically, people in SA are paying for the sins of the past. Rightly or wrongly.

Like I said, I don't necessarily support it. But it does stem from history.



EDIT:

You have an obsession with the "physicality" of athletes. lol
 
Last edited:
Yeah but professional rugby is a sport for the few, is very demanding, not everyone can withstand the bumps at that level, you have to be very well trained to play that intensity.

It's like any high-performance Olympic sport such as athletics and swimming, few people can reach that level of training.


For example, an Olympic swimmer like Michael Phelps eats about 12,000 calories in its most intense training, is inhuman, he's an alien. Not many people can reach that level of training.


Regards

That would be a sensible point of view if 17 year olds were fully physically developed. But they're not, so it isn't. Generally bulk is put on when a player enters an academy or is playing for a serious school side, so if they have the talent early it isn't an issue at all.
 
That would be a sensible point of view if 17 year olds were fully physically developed. But they're not, so it isn't. Generally bulk is put on when a player enters an academy or is playing for a serious school side, so if they have the talent early it isn't an issue at all.

I'm talking about professional players and those who aspire to be. A teenager who wants to play the IRB Junior World Cup requires professional preparation, you saw how kids are now?

Ardie Savea - 1.90 m and 89 kg:

130814114501855783.jpg

He's only 19!
It's a highly trained child, a poor child African development wouldn't have that if he doesn't have the resources to train high level.

You quite clearly have no idea what you are talking about Conrad.

Ok buddy

Regards

You have an obsession with the "physicality" of athletes. lol

Well, this sport is very physical, is a contact sport. Much depends on the physical you have like NFL.


regards
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Conrad you come out with some weird stuff man.

This rule is complete rubbish. It is racist pure and simple, as is any rule based on ethnicity.
 
If anything, this quota system should be invoked at the lower levels... If they're good enough to make a Vodacom Cup squad, then surely their lack of money isn't the problem.
 

Latest posts

Top