- Joined
- Jun 18, 2010
- Messages
- 7,385
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
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?
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?