PRESENTATION TO THE PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE.
Those
who are in charge of sport in this country are not interested in the
development of sport among the youth but in their egos. South African sport
lacks a master plan, whose function would be to show the way regarding the
growth of the sport and how this growth should take place, what measures would
have to be taken for the growth and how the growth should be managed. Managed
in terms of how should the resources be applied. One would believe that this
amendment Act is responding to some of these concerns.
South African sport across the board still puts too much emphasis on the role
of the administrators and not on the role of the individual sport persons and
what is expected of them. Sometimes government needs to act ruthlessly in
dealing with administrators in the same way governments in other parts of
Africa deal with their administrators. In other words government should request
an explanation on why a representative team did not qualify for a world events,
or performed unsatisfactorily at a International event. It has happened too
often in this country that certain sporting codes do not qualify for major
world events or do not perform satisfactorily at major world events but no
questions are asked by government and the public at large.
During the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens the South African Volleyball team did
not qualify, yet Volleyball receives funding for development from the government
and at the same the executive members of Volleyball South Africa where at the
Olympic Games in Athens. On their return they were not asked to provide the
Department of Sport doling out the money for development, the reason for not
qualifying. The South African Under 23 football team did not qualify for the
Olympic Games and yet no one requested the South African Football Association
for an explanation and how they are going to make sure that this team qualifies
in future. Recently South Africa did not qualify for the FIF A World Cup in
Germany and this has been accepted as just another phenomenon, that some
countries that hosted the World Cup did not qualify for the World Cup in the
four years preceding them hosting the World and this is rubbish. The South
African Athletic team did not bring a single medal from the Track and Field
World Championships and yet nobody has requested them to account for this less
than convincing performance. Whose role it is to develop the sports master
plan? What is the role of the Ministry of Sport and the Department in this mess
we find ourselves?
We seriously need to revisit our strategies for the growth and development and
government needs to be involved. Whatever the workshop will produce we need a
strategy that will be all encompassing and stem the tide of under performance.
I took a look at the Bill and made the following observations:
The National amendment Act No. 110 of 1998.
1 (d) the change of definition in 'National Federation' does not say what the
earlier definition was.
(i) SASCOC cannot by any stretch of imagination, be a non-governmental
organization when it falls within the ambit of the Ministry of Sport and the
Department of Sport and Recreation. And are funded by Government.
(e) Schools Sport in my view cannot be treated in the same vein as the
Commonwealth and Olympic bodies or a federation. School sport cannot be
left to its own devices. It should fall directly under SASCOC for purposes of
uniformity in terms of the countries Sports Master Plan. In other words Ussassa
should scrapped and be replaced with a sub-committee at SASCOC.
Section 2
2 (b) the section is treating the function of SASCOC lightly. They cannot be
said to be developing guidelines for the promotion and development of high
performance sport, but should be entrusted with the development of 'Sports
Master Plan’ with deliverables and milestones.
(c) this part of the Bill is vague.
(d) this section might also be deemed vague.
Section 3
Services level Agreements are a good thing but it is not SASCOC that should be
implementing but the federations.
Section 4
1 (a) it is confusing that the Minister should from time to time determine the
general policy with regard to sport and recreation. This is rather strange as
these needs to be a National Policy Framework. This might open the policy up to
different interpretations.
(b) One is not sure why SASCOC should playa role in determining the building of
sports facilities. The need for facilities is normally determined by the
Federations and then become the function of the local government and the people
who are organizing sport in that locality, SASCOC could playa role in
determining the standards.
Section 6.
(c) 2 National Federations should take full responsibility for the safety issues
in their sport. SASCOC should than playa guiding role.
Section 7.
This function is already performed by the Hospitality and Sport SETA. Does this
mean that SASCOC will take over this function from the Federation especially
technical officials and the education of officials. Who can be better suited in
training these officials than the federations. The area that would really need
assistant would be the education of officials in soliciting sponsorship and
marketing. This will also have to be contained in strategic document as part of
their strategic intent.
Section 9
It is strange that this function should relegated to SASCOC when the is
supposedly holding a series a Minmacs throughout the year with his provincial
colleagues. Probably should SASCOC develop a Master Plan then these aspect can
be part of that plan, provincial departments and Sport and Recreation South
Africa should be part of the development team on the plan. The each of these
entities will then have no choice but to work according to the master plan.
Section 10.
SASCOC should develop a funding policy which should make up part of the
regulations. Or should adopt the principles of the PFMA.
Section 11.
A National Colours Board should be a separate body or a sub-committee of
SASCOC. A separate body would give credibility to the national colours. The
body should also monitor the proper application national colours and not what
we have come to see where the green used in cricket is different from the green
used in soccer and Rugby and vice versa. A set of guidelines on the application
and use of the national colours should be developed and no deviation should be
entertained.
Section 13.
SASCOC cannot be expected to deal with disputes as there could be a conflict of
interest as many members of the Board of SASCOC have serious attachments to
various federations. This function should also be left to an independent
entity, with no links to SASCOC.
Note (b)
This part is rather confusing as the Minister should only intervene after the
matter has been exhausted by SASCOC and the Independent Dispute resolution
body. Ministerial intervention should be as a last resort.
Sections 13A and l3B.
13b is vague what statistics are we referring to. In as far as I am concerned
it could be anything.
Conclusion.
In conclusion one thought that there should an unambiguous definition of
Transformation come out of this Bill. We have seen over the last twelve years
that this aspect of our democracy in sport has been misinterpreted sometimes
purposely by people who resist transformation for their own ends. We also have
not been able to communicate what we mean by transformation. Many still believe
that transformation is euphemism for black faces in National teams, which
definitely is not necessarily the case, our sports administrators and probably
all of us, have been largely been sleep walking through naked racism in sport
in this country and very little has taken place in transformation.
Transformation should be such that, people in an organization should see and accept
the need for transformation and assist the process. If we do not address this
aspect of our sport then we will spend most of our time getting involved in
pitch battles rather than addressing the development of our athletes.
Presented by Dumile CG Mateza of Dumile Mateza and Associates