New South African Race Quota

article Link : http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/2014/04/07/hard-line-taken-on-white-sport

Looks like the current 50/50 quota of black and white players has been increased to 60% black, 40% white for the 'Boks, effective immediately.

As somebody who doesn't follow southern rugby to the same extent as northern, I have no idea if this will make a genuine difference? Will it effect the team?

Is it a positive move, or reverse discrimination?

It's discrimination, pure and simple as far as I'm concerned.

Moreover, I'd be very interested in any stats that show the real balance in terms of representation in the current SA first XV. What are the implications as such for players who deserve a place on merit and not skin colour (to anyone who knows or has an idea)?

Seems like a bit of a backwards move alright. You can't fight for equality by promoting inequality. Or perhaps that's too simple a way to look at it.

Either way, seems as though a lot of South Africans are opposed to the idea, black and white alike.

Is that genuinely true???!!! Surely not.

Surely the best players for the position is the best....and if that person is black, white, yellow, green or flamingo pink then they will be chosen.

Having quotas is a huge issue for me in South African Rugby, as it is here in the UK in the Police forces etc...as it can lead to performance levels being dropped to accommodate people who are not of the required level just to meet quota levels....

Imagine people like that running the country! No wonder Whites are fleeing South Africa.

Well if that did happen it wouldn't take long for the Boks to slide down the rankings.

True or not...I'm for it. Short term pain for long term gain. The South African situation is unique and needs unique, and drastic, solutions.

Those who basked in the glory of a hundred years of pure bred sides, now get to have their ancestors pay for that luxury.

Mandela's forgive and move on policies saved many, many lives and avoided an all out Civil war, and if that sector of the community feels things are not moving fast enough towards real equality, the they're right.

Nothing can result from this that remotely compares with the previous century and just like the NBA, NFL and baseball percentage trends between the 50's and today, in 50 years they'll be wanting quotas the other way.

In short, if you introduce laws like that, be prepared to face the consequences...and this is nothing in comparison to what it could have been.

Besides, with the talent available they'll get over it, particularly in the backs.

I read the article and also the comments below it and it made me sad.
Is this prompted by some future election in SA? Back to rugby, I thought the positive descrimination was at vodacum cup and below?

Racial discrimination without a doubt. It's why so many boer's leave South Africa.

profitius wrote:Imagine people like that running the country! No wonder Whites are fleeing South Africa.

Well if that did happen it wouldn't take long for the Boks to slide down the rankings.

Aye...

On second thought I think its a great idea. If we campaign enough we can help usher in the full "transformation" in time for when Wales tour  

Mixing politics and rugby is never a good thing, the best players should play regardless of colour.

It is election season in South Africa, the politicians have to take the attention off the incompetence of the manner in which things are going.

Unfortunately, it usually works and they remain in power with all their BS.

It is just a way to avoid accountability.

Taylorman, if government do pursue it, rugby in SA will die.

whocares wrote:I read the article and also the comments below it and it made me sad.
Is this prompted by some future election in SA? Back to rugby, I thought the positive descrimination was at vodacum cup and below?

Yes, the comments just reinforce the problem. Can't change the attitude- though obviously it has changed a great deal, but its simply not fast enough, and probably never will be- because it needed to change yesterday, in fact 30-40-50 years ago. 'We're doing this, we're doing that, Bok rugby will suffer'...minor matters in the overall scheme of things. For a hundred years there was a huge and massive shift one way, a deployment of all of SA's riches to one small percentage- this is a fraction of getting things anywhere near back to the centre.

Imagine how quick it would have been if a full Civil war would have broken out? Very different today I'd say.

Surely putting more money into developing young black athletes so that they have every opportunity to represent their country and earn a decent wage is the key, not quotas ?

Or more white south africans playing in Europe ?

Taylorman, firstly money and sport are two different issues alltogether.

As for the money, it has been flowing very fast to the previously disadvantaged, at an alarming rate.

However what hasn't happened is that the money has flown to the masses, those top dogs who has been on the gravy train in the last twenty years have very quickly become what they have despised about the rich white man.

As for sport, government has done nothing, and when I say nothing, I mean literally f...all about sport development in South Africa.

If you look at rugby in SA, any ventures, programs or development that has been undertaken has come under the auspices of private sector and the rugby community as a whole, nothing has come from government.

The identification of talent and the development of rugby talent for the previously disadvantaged (which in reality after twenty years no longer should be seen as previously disadvantaged) is done by schools and sports trusts set up by those involved in the sport and by garnishing corporate sponsorships and public donations as much as they can.

One of the reasons why so many young guys leave our shores is because they feel if they want to make a living out of rugby, it will be easier outside of our borders.

I have no problem with quotas, what I do have a problem with is that a government that has done near enough to nothing is now threatening to take national emblems, tournaments, etc away from those codes that do not comply.

If they have done their part in the grassroots development of sport, they can have a say in what is expected, what they basically want is that 10% of the rugby playing guys in SA must represent 60% of the team.

There are roughly 10 million whites and coloureds in SA where rugby is a way of life, rugby under african schools are not supported or developed by government hence those africans that do end up playing rugby comes from schools etc that have done the work to develop these guys.

I will be surprised if there are 10% of the rugby players in SA that are african.

The standard will drop dramatically if we have to have a 60/40 split.

Imagine how many players we will lose then?

Sad to see this.

I don't know enough of South African politics to really offer insightful comment, but I can see the culture of corruption amongst the people running South Africa. And I don't think sure any healing or reconciliation can come of this.

Biltong wrote:Taylorman, firstly money and sport are two different issues alltogether.

As for the money, it has been flowing very fast to the previously disadvantaged, at an alarming rate.

However what hasn't happened is that the money has flown to the masses, those top dogs who has been on the gravy train in the last twenty years have very quickly become what they have despised about the rich white man.

As for sport, government has done nothing, and when I say nothing, I mean literally f...all about sport development in South Africa.

If you look at rugby in SA, any ventures, programs or development that has been undertaken has come under the auspices of private sector and the rugby community as a whole, nothing has come from government.

The identification of talent and the development of rugby talent for the previously disadvantaged (which in reality after twenty years no longer should be seen as previously disadvantaged) is done by schools and sports trusts set up by those involved in the sport and by garnishing corporate sponsorships and public donations as much as they can.

One of the reasons why so many young guys leave our shores is because they feel if they want to make a living out of rugby, it will be easier outside of our borders.

I have no problem with quotas, what I do have a problem with is that a government that has done near enough to nothing is now threatening to take national emblems, tournaments, etc away from those codes that do not comply.

If they have done their part in the grassroots development of sport, they can have a say in what is expected, what they basically want is that 10% of the rugby playing guys in SA must represent 60% of the team.

There are roughly 10 million whites and coloureds in SA where rugby is a way of life, rugby under african schools are not supported or developed by government hence those africans that do end up playing rugby comes from schools etc that have done the work to develop these guys.

I will be surprised if there are 10% of the rugby players in SA that are african.

The standard will drop dramatically if we have to have a 60/40 split.

Imagine how many players we will lose then?

I appreciate that I'm looking at it from a distance and from a high rather than detailed view of things. But for me the numbers don't lie. Until whites make up the same (and in my view it will be ultimately less) percentages in the no.1 team sport of South Africa there will always be a problem. A simplistic view but no less valid.

In NZ, as in most countries around the world non whites make up a higher percentage of their team sports sides than their proportion of the population, simply because of their tendency to be attracted to and excel at both athletic and team pursuits. This is not true of Bok rugby- yet.

The fundamental idea that rugby will suffer is flawed- short term yes, in terms of results, but short term and particularly long term in terms of balancing the representation it will be stronger, I am 100% convinced of that.

For a hundred years we and others didnt agree with the way the sport was being run in SA. In one way...its now your turn to have that feeling. simplistic I know, but that remains the driver behind anything like this. Its powerful, and- unfortunately for some- all consuming.

Taylorman wrote:
I appreciate that I'm looking at it from a distance and from a high rather than detailed view of things. But for me the numbers don't lie. Until whites make up the same (and in my view it will be ultimately less) percentages in the no.1 team sport of South Africa there will always be a problem. A simplistic view but no less valid.

In NZ, as in most countries around the world non whites make up a higher percentage of their team sports sides than their proportion of the population, simply because of their tendency to be attracted to and excel at both athletic and team pursuits. This is not true of Bok rugby- yet.

The fundamental idea that rugby will suffer is flawed- short term yes, in terms of results, but short term and particularly long term in terms of balancing the representation it will be stronger, I am 100% convinced of that.

For a hundred years we and others didnt agree with the way the sport was being run in SA. In one way...its now your turn to have that feeling. simplistic I know, but that remains the driver behind anything like this. Its powerful, and- unfortunately for some- all consuming.

Maybe Whites are more attracted to and excel more at rugby!?!

So Taylorman, you agree that South Africa should be the dog's breakfast for the next generation?

Reverse racism is OK by you?

How long will be enough?

Should we say 27 years, 40 years?

Just asking cause we've had it for 20 years now.

profitius wrote:

Taylorman wrote:
I appreciate that I'm looking at it from a distance and from a high rather than detailed view of things. But for me the numbers don't lie. Until whites make up the same (and in my view it will be ultimately less) percentages in the no.1 team sport of South Africa there will always be a problem. A simplistic view but no less valid.

In NZ, as in most countries around the world non whites make up a higher percentage of their team sports sides than their proportion of the population, simply because of their tendency to be attracted to and excel at both athletic and team pursuits. This is not true of Bok rugby- yet.

The fundamental idea that rugby will suffer is flawed- short term yes, in terms of results, but short term and particularly long term in terms of balancing the representation it will be stronger, I am 100% convinced of that.

For a hundred years we and others didn't agree with the way the sport was being run in SA. In one way...its now your turn to have that feeling. simplistic I know, but that remains the driver behind anything like this. Its powerful, and- unfortunately for some- all consuming.

Maybe Whites are more attracted to and excel more at rugby!?!

My point was the opposite...In NZ we have 22% Maori and Pacific Islanders that make up the population, yet our rugby, League, netball sides (our big 3) have a much larger % of non whites. Most of our great players are of Pacific Island or Maori extraction to some extent- and that's certainly on the increase. The difference between SA and NZ is that for the last 100 years we embraced the idea of the entire nation playing our no. 1 and all sports, so it has had the chance to become embedded.

SA never took up that opportunity, hence the current situation.

Taylorman are you just sympathising with these folk who want to ruin rugby in SA for the sake of being an individual? You're coming across as a bit blinkered .

The Saint wrote:Taylorman are you just sympathising with these folk who want to ruin rugby in SA for the sake of being an individual? You're coming across as a bit blinkered .

I don't care how I come across. Its a view. We were called blinkered (and much worse) in the 80's when we were also ruining Bok and AB rugby via our protests. At a logistical level I don't see it as ruining, as reverse racism. I see it as a faster way to integrate the sport, simple as that. Of course those already on the nice side of the fence are going to have a 'protective view' of the status quo, hold a conciliatory view to appease the masses, until it reaches the point where it actually affects them.

I see 'blinkered' as those who care more about the sport than the chance to involve a greater number of people who have historically been withheld from participating purely on a legal basis.

If they're going about it the wrong way, then that's called an 'issue' and should be dealt with, but my view is that forceful measures are required to redress the past. Simple as that.

Taylorman wrote:

The Saint wrote:Taylorman are you just sympathising with these folk who want to ruin rugby in SA for the sake of being an individual? You're coming across as a bit blinkered .

I don't care how I come across. Its a view. We were called blinkered (and much worse) in the 80's when we were also ruining Bok and AB rugby via our protests. At a logistical level I don't see it as ruining, as reverse racism. I see it as a faster way to integrate the sport, simple as that. Of course those already on the nice side of the fence are going to have a 'protective view' of the status quo, hold a conciliatory view to appease the masses, until it reaches the point where it actually affects them.

I see 'blinkered' as those who care more about the sport than the chance to involve a greater number of people who have historically been withheld from participating purely on a legal basis.

If they're going about it the wrong way, then that's called an 'issue' and should be dealt with, but my view is that forceful measures are required to redress the past. Simple as that.

Taylorman, do you protest against other African countries? All over Africa there are people being butchered. Difference for people like you is its not the White man doing it.


What if the NZ government want to bring in quotas in NZ rugby?

profitius wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Saint wrote:Taylorman are you just sympathising with these folk who want to ruin rugby in SA for the sake of being an individual? You're coming across as a bit blinkered .

I don't care how I come across. Its a view. We were called blinkered (and much worse) in the 80's when we were also ruining Bok and AB rugby via our protests. At a logistical level I don't see it as ruining, as reverse racism. I see it as a faster way to integrate the sport, simple as that. Of course those already on the nice side of the fence are going to have a 'protective view' of the status quo, hold a conciliatory view to appease the masses, until it reaches the point where it actually affects them.

I see 'blinkered' as those who care more about the sport than the chance to involve a greater number of people who have historically been withheld from participating purely on a legal basis.

If they're going about it the wrong way, then that's called an 'issue' and should be dealt with, but my view is that forceful measures are required to redress the past. Simple as that.

Taylorman, do you protest against other African countries? All over Africa there are people being butchered. Difference for people like you is its not the White man doing it.


What if the NZ government want to bring in quotas in NZ rugby?

love it... find something thats worse as an argument ( and we don't need quota's...we pretty much did the right thing in the first place- not perfect, but not enough to warrant quota's)

Loved that one..."I will have to find a team from another country to support. If South AFrican sport teams are made up of political choices instead of skill, then they can no longer fit into the international sport category."

What have they been filling teams with in the last 100 years...? cupcakes?

If it is a 60-40 ratio, does that mean the Bafana Bafana (mentioned in the article) need to introduce more white players to the team?

What counts as 'white' or 'black' in terms of mixed heritage players ?

The ANC is on about African descent, the mixed races aren't seen as "black"


In other words what they are referring to for quota purposes is Xhosa, Zulu, etc.

I dont claim to be an expert on South African politics, apart from knowing that its very complex, perhaps I'm just simple but I really cant see much difference between racism and reverse racism.

I was told by South African friends you can only understand the situation in SA by living there.
I am and always have been against discrimination in any form on any grounds. But am realistic
enough to that Politicians rule the world.
Because of there vast Rugby reputation it has always been a political football,no pun intended
at election time.
It saddens me that teams will be picked not on ability but racial aspects,sadly if you sow
the wind you reap the whirlwind.
Sport should be above politics ,NOT as some form of propaganda about are way is best,
You cannot understand the Politics of a country unless you have lived there that applies
worldwide.
Discrimination is practiced in this Country too,when the right tie,handshake or rank of birth.
Means more than on ability,not being "One of us" still rules read your papers about sending
European immigrants home etc.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I dont claim to be an expert on South African politics, apart from knowing  that its very complex, perhaps I'm just simple but I really cant see much difference between racism and reverse racism.

Its a mad one. I mean saying we want more black African players in the national rugby team is obviously no where near as bad as things suffered by black South Africans under apartheid.

BUT....Mandella was about moving forward as a country by forgiving the wrongs done to his people. He asked the 90% white SA rugby team at the time to train in the townships and give opportunities to very poor young black kids to experience rugby. Seems the ANC have lost their way slightly.

Maybe the South Africans could have a "Zulu Springbok team" like we have the "Maori All Blacks"?

Bluedragon wrote:Surely putting more money into developing young black athletes so that they have every opportunity to represent their country and earn a decent wage is the key, not quotas ?

Spot on this is the only long term solution.
Unfortuantely making easy statements about quotas is cheaper, a headline gabber and gains more political advantage.
Discrimination is wrong which ever way it goes.
Quota are in themselves doomed to failure without improving the opportunities of all equally

aucklandlaurie wrote: Maybe the South Africans could have a "Zulu Springbok  team" like we have the "Maori All Blacks"?

Yeah, I'm sure that would go down well- an 'all black' B team...

But if they pulled their fingers out, trained real hard and concentrated on learning the game they could become the "All Black" A team and the other team could be the "All Whites", B team.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Maybe the South Africans could have a "Zulu Springbok  team" like we have the "Maori All Blacks"?

The traditional warrior of the Zulu is the Impi.

I suspect we will soon be called the Impis.

Biltong wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Maybe the South Africans could have a "Zulu Springbok  team" like we have the "Maori All Blacks"?

The traditional warrior of the Zulu is the Impi.

I suspect we will soon be called the Impis.

There has always been talk of changing the name of the Springboks hasn't there ? I'm surprised they didn't at the time considering what it used to represent to some people

aucklandlaurie wrote: Maybe the South Africans could have a "Zulu Springbok  team" like we have the "Maori All Blacks"?

ooh...even as a Wilbur Smith fan thats showing some naivety on a grand scale Laurie.

I think the dynamics are different today than when Mandela was paving the way. Mandela was about freeing South Africa, abolishing draconian laws in a sense that it truly was black and white.

20 years on and there are different forces at play. The lines are blurred and Mandela's run has ended. From the article my take is that there are those that believe South Africa's image to the rest of the world- Sport providing as high a profile as any other representation- should better reflect its ethnic make up. That they win or not is not a priority, whats important is the world sees South Africa in a certain way.

The effect of forcing players into the top sides is telling those that care about the game that change is here, and it starts at the top, and we don't care what you think. Whether its reverse racism or the equally abhorrent term 'Positive discrimination' is purely one for the beholder.

But long term, having these players regularly in the top sides forces change, forces those who are 'reluctant' to pursue the obvious percentages to do so, purely because they don't want their sport to die or their jersey embarrassed. i.e.- for the whites it might say, well, we're stuck with it, and if we want a better side, we better make sure we get the best ones in there, train them up, seek them out...drive the progress rather than figure out ways of avoiding quota's.

For the non whites the mere presence of their own in these sides can only have a positive impact- he's one of us, if he can do it, so can I. And over time the non whites will want to have the quota's removed themselves, to prove they don't need them.

But for now, there are those that think they do, and with that I say its a valid argument.

Taylorman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Maybe the South Africans could have a "Zulu Springbok  team" like we have the "Maori All Blacks"?

ooh...even as a Wilbur Smith fan thats showing some naivety on a grand scale Laurie.

I think the dynamics are different today than when Mandela was paving the way. Mandela was about freeing South Africa, abolishing draconian laws in a sense that it truly was black and white.

20 years on and there are different forces at play. The lines are blurred and Mandela's run has ended. From the article my take is that there are those that believe South Africa's image to the rest of the world- Sport providing as high a profile as any other representation- should better reflect its ethnic make up. That they win or not is not a priority, whats important is the world sees South Africa in a certain way.

The effect of forcing players into the top sides is telling those that care about the game that change is here, and it starts at the top, and we don't care what you think. Whether its reverse racism or the equally abhorrent term 'Positive discrimination' is purely one for the beholder.

But long term, having these players regularly in the top sides forces change, forces those who are 'reluctant' to pursue the obvious percentages to do so, purely because they don't want their sport to die or their jersey embarrassed. i.e.- for the whites it might say, well, we're stuck with it, and if we want a better side, we better make sure we get the best ones in there, train them up, seek them out...drive the progress rather than figure out ways of avoiding quota's.

For the non whites the mere presence of their own in these sides can only have a positive impact- he's one of us, if he can do it, so can I. And over time the non whites will want to have the quota's removed themselves, to prove they don't need them.

But for now, there are those that think they do, and with that I say its a valid argument.

The argument is valid up to domestic levels, if you enforce quotas on local tournaments it is still a fair competition for all involved, think of the financial impact it will make when the ARU and NZRU decides they no longer want SA in the Rugby championship.

Taylorman, You've probably considered this a lot more than me, but could we not see a scenario where players are picked for South Africa who arent even playing in Super xv franchises because they arent good enough? but because of their race they become token selections in the national team, that just doesnt seem right to me.

Biltong wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote: Maybe the South Africans could have a "Zulu Springbok  team" like we have the "Maori All Blacks"?

ooh...even as a Wilbur Smith fan thats showing some naivety on a grand scale Laurie.

I think the dynamics are different today than when Mandela was paving the way. Mandela was about freeing South Africa, abolishing draconian laws in a sense that it truly was black and white.

20 years on and there are different forces at play. The lines are blurred and Mandela's run has ended. From the article my take is that there are those that believe South Africa's image to the rest of the world- Sport providing as high a profile as any other representation- should better reflect its ethnic make up. That they win or not is not a priority, whats important is the world sees South Africa in a certain way.

The effect of forcing players into the top sides is telling those that care about the game that change is here, and it starts at the top, and we don't care what you think. Whether its reverse racism or the equally abhorrent term 'Positive discrimination' is purely one for the beholder.

But long term, having these players regularly in the top sides forces change, forces those who are 'reluctant' to pursue the obvious percentages to do so, purely because they don't want their sport to die or their jersey embarrassed. i.e.- for the whites it might say, well, we're stuck with it, and if we want a better side, we better make sure we get the best ones in there, train them up, seek them out...drive the progress rather than figure out ways of avoiding quota's.

For the non whites the mere presence of their own in these sides can only have a positive impact- he's one of us, if he can do it, so can I. And over time the non whites will want to have the quota's removed themselves, to prove they don't need them.

But for now, there are those that think they do, and with that I say its a valid argument.

The argument is valid up to domestic levels, if you enforce quotas on local tournaments it is still a fair competition for all involved, think of the financial impact it will make when the ARU and NZRU decides they no longer want SA in the Rugby championship.

Bismark could alwys come and play for the blues.

I agree with some of the comments above that commenting from afar is difficult. I was in SA recently and I was surprised that I saw less change than I expected in the 11 years since I was was last there. I'm sure the magnitude of the social problems are huge, but I could not see where the money has been spent.

I think that setting a quota is the lazy way to bring about change. Why would any government (regardless of it's roots) think that a quota is anything other than cosmetic. Sport may not be at the top of SA's list of worthy causes, but surely the only way to bring about real change is to fund grass roots rugby and encourage all peoples to play and develop equally? You can't right the wrongs of the past by making dumb decisions.

By the way - I never understand when people say that sport and politics shouldn't mix. Sport is part of the fabric of society and inextricably linked to politics.

You'll get your wish mate, the South African players will scatter to all corners of the globe, that is the reality.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Taylorman, You've probably considered this a lot more than me, but could we not see a scenario where players are picked for South Africa who arent even playing in Super xv franchises because they arent good enough? but because of their race they become token selections in the national team, that just doesnt seem right to me.

I think thats what they want. But look at it this way. Lets say when Auckland were at the top and they had all the best resources...makers of champions. Then they got told that for whatever reason, half the side had to come from 3rd div clubs- Massey, Silverdale, Helensville- all those types of clubs (in my day anyway) who hardly ever had an all Auckland player between them let alone an All Black.

Sure the Auckland side is going to suffer, sure there will be moaning and losses, but what is someone like Henry, Trapp and the like more likely to do when stuck with the problem. I reckon theyd get stuck into the players from those clubs- haul them in and give them the best training, resourcing, get the best out of them and for certain, get the best of them.

And what would that do for players of those clubs, people in those small towns? The impact would eventually be huge, especially if the quota remained in place.

Taylorman wrote:Loved that one..."I will have to find a team from another country to support. If South AFrican sport teams are made up of political choices instead of skill, then they can no longer fit into the international sport category."

What have they been filling teams with in the last 100 years...? cupcakes?

You filled many a team minus Maori for years to satisfy the S African way, you also sent a rebel NZ team there. So hop off the moral high ground.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Taylorman, You've probably considered this a lot more than me, but could we not see a scenario where players are picked for South Africa who arent even playing in Super xv franchises because they arent good enough? but because of their race they become token selections in the national team, that just doesnt seem right to me.

Indeed.

This just seems like a politically expedient short-cut to me. A short-cut that will never work. Its much harder to create an environment where the imbalance naturally changes (and slowly changes) so that black athletes are developed to the level required by the Springboks and get into the team on merit.

All this will do is breed resentment in the rugby community and in the long-term damage South African rugby. They should be all about trying to get black players access to the schools, universities, development programmes etc. that make South African players some of the best prepared and trained in world rugby and solve the problem from the grassroots up instead of from the top down.

Just wondering whats the approximate percentages of the last Bok squad?

The last test we played

Matchday 22
African 2 player
Mixed race 3
White 17

The 32 man squad for Ai's last year was 5 mixed race, 3 African and 24 White.

Its going to be a massive change once the quotas come in (if they do). Going from less than 10% up to 60% of the squad. I dont know much about SA politics (or rugby below SuperXV level) but those numbers do seem very low. I mean theres less African players there than Munster men in the Irish squad   . Joking aside I dont agree with quotas but something does need to be changed.

When would they be introduced if they ever are?

I don't know how they are going to do it, the problem is that a very, very small percentage of Africans play rugby, hence you are going to struggle to put out a strong squad of them.