News

Save the endangered Springbok

October 14 2008

Here we go again. Bitter politicians sticking their subjective noses were it doesn't belong, making foolish accusations coupled with fallacious statements that could bring South Africa's most recognised and respected sporting symbol to an end.

In astonishing remarks made at the National Sports Congress in Durban last week, Butana Khompela told delegates that the Springbok - South Africa's long standing rugby emblem which has been represented for over a century - should be abolished.

Why? This was Khompela's reasoning for it: "The Springbok divides us. We have a responsibility to unite our country on one national emblem."

Unite our country? Perhaps I was colourblind when the Springbok bus trickled through hundreds of thousands of cheering South Africans - black and white - after the side's Rugby World Cup victory in Paris last year.

In 1995, it was exactly the same - millions of proud South Africans coming together to cheer on the bearers of the Springbok badge, heroes to all and villains to none... unless, of course, your name is Butana Komphela.

The fact is that the Springbok is intrinsic to rugby, a fact accepted all over the world as the symbol of South African rugby and, indeed, revered by many thousands of South Africans.

When Bryan Habana's parents think about the Springbok emblem it will certainly not be because of apartheid, but because of their son's unbelievable performances for the Springboks.

If former State President Nelson Mandela could proudly wear a Springbok jersey with the number six on the back, there could be nothing distasteful about the emblem. In fact it was 'Madiba' - an avid supporter of the Boks - who campaigned for the Springbok emblem to be kept when it was first called to be executed by politicians.

When the players sing the national anthem with their hand on their heart, it is clear that the emblem shows how far South Africa have come as a nation.

So there's no surprise then that the issue is a very emotive one in the country, and while Khompela and his fellow parliamentarians are campaigning hard for the removal of the emblem, they can't deny the Springbok team's World Cup victories in 1995 and 2007 were responsible for uniting a country behind the national side.

The Springbok is a lot more than a sporting emblem. They've done more to instill pride and unity across the racial spectrum than many other individuals and institutions.

Surely this is how the Springbok emblem should be perceived - and probably is perceived by a large percentage of the population - except those still living in the past, armed with enough power to kill off what they distinguish is a symbol that represents racism.

Funny then that the Springbok was first used in the first decade of the 20th century (1906), well before the old Nationalist government put the laws of apartheid into effect.

Just because the harsh policies of a country were in such a terrible way as to discriminate and stop people from achieving their goal, it does not mean it is the fault of the Springbok emblem.

The old South African flag - not the Bok logo - was the symbol of that Nationalist government and the majority of the white population had no qualms with quashing that symbol.

Springbok supporters as well as the team itself detest anyone who brings the old flag into stadiums and the last idiot that did got a public tongue-lashing from skipper John Smit during the post-match presentation.

Khompela's argument, that it is time for South Africa to be united under one emblem, is also laughable. Few nations have a single insignia. The All Blacks wear a Silver Fern, while other New Zealand teams display different versions of that country's indigenous frond. None go by the name All Blacks.

In Australia, they have the Wallabies (rugby union), the Kangaroos (rugby league) and the Socceroos (soccer), while their world-beating cricketers have no real nickname, wear the coat of arms of Australia and revel in owning a baggy green cap.

The English rugby team sport a rose as their badge, but are not known as the "Roses", while the cricketers have a badge consisting of a crown and three lions rampant and their football team has just the three lions.

If they do want a standard emblem for all sporting codes, it's the Springbok that should be used.

The Springbok has earned its right to be the sporting symbol of South Africa. It is a symbol of success and excellence, and is an internationally recognised marketing brand, more so now than ever before since being endorsed by the country's two former presidents after winning the last World Cup.

The springbok itself is an animal which boasts a black stripe, a brown stripe and a white stripe... its about the only animal that can represent a Rainbow Nation!

Last year, when a similar debate arose, SA Rugby said that the commercial value of the brand was too great to contemplate giving up and that it would fight to retain it should such a decision be taken.

SARU do roll over and play the good son to politicians more often than not but they know exactly where the bulk of their cash comes from - merchandising.

If the Springbok were to be changed, the costs involved in changing the emblem and then trying to sell that emblem to the public will be far too steep. Factor in the loss of revenue over that period from people not buying the merchandise anymore and SARU would be in serious financial trouble.

Factor in the likelihood of people using the 'past' Springbok emblem as a symbol of resistance against new sports parliamentary policy, and SARU could be in cultural trouble as well.

Frankly, Komphela and his motley crew of grudge-bearing supporters have far more to worry about in South African sport than an emblem: The Olympic effort was a shambles and the football side is in a big mess - you certainly don't see either of them uniting a nation anytime soon.

Perhaps Komphela is a big Bafana Bafana fan and jealous that football hasn't quite hit the high notes like the Springboks have on the world stage?

In saying that, this is the same Khompela who threatened to confiscate passports if the Springbok team sent to the 2007 Rugby World Cup was short on black members.

Why not confiscate the national football team's passports sent to an overseas tournament due to the lack of white players? I'll tell you why, because South Africa's national teams are represented by South Africans - not blacks or whites.. at least that's how it should be.

The Bok emblem has been accepted by millions as a South African symbol that could heal rather than widen deep rifts in society. To get rid of it is like wiping out everyone and everything it represented - including two World Cups.

Keep the Springbok, it's a pride and joy for all who support it and belongs to all of us... not just to political interfering clowns.

By Dave Morris