S.Africa. Sport is Racist

Original Post Date: 2003-12-18  Posted By: Jan

From the News Archives of: WWW.AfricanCrisis.Org
Date & Time Posted: 12/18/2003 5:09:12 AM
S.Africa. Sport is Racist

[Note. This article pretty much tells it like it is – except for this. The Government came along and meddled in rugby, forcing black players in – is it any wonder that the South African national team then put on its worst performance ever in the world cup? But nobody will actually say it OUT LOUD… though I know many think it…

What surprises me, is that non-whites feel that people should be BANNED FOR LIFE for “showing racism” in sport. Clearly, I, like other whites, find this view rather extreme. But since the majority hold it… I assume it is not extreme!! Jan]

Public Gives Rugby Red Card Over Racism

Perceptions of prejudice are determined by race of supporters and players.

This is significantly above the levels for other popular South African sports.

These details emerged from an inquiry conducted for Business Day’s Barometer feature by the customised research division of ACNielsen, using its monthly Omnibus syndicated survey.

A nationwide sample of 3274 urban and rural adults, forming a statistically correct representation of the entire 16-years-andolder population, were interviewed face-to-face, in their own homes during late October and early November, using a computer-assisted personal interviewing technique.

Rugby’s position at the top of the racism list emerged from the survey’s first question.

Respondents were asked how racist they believed each of nine sports to be, using the categories “very racist”, “a little racist”, “not very racist” and “not at all racist”.

Rugby was deemed “very racist” by 37% of respondents more than double the next highest score, cricket at 15% and as “a little racist” by 17%.

In the other seven sports, cricket was rated as racist by 33% of respondents, compared with 20% in golf, 16% in tennis, 15% in swimming, 14% for horse racing, 14% for soccer and 10% in athletics. In every case, 20%-30% of respondents had no opinion .

Not surprisingly, replies varied according to the race of the respondent. Thus 41% of black respondents classified rugby as very racist, against 14% of whites. This was partly because whites who were critical were less forthright.

Coloureds and Indians were more critical than blacks. They scored the same as black respondents, with 41% saying “very racist”, but more coloureds and Indians said rugby was “a little racist”, giving total percentages of 66% and 62% respectively.

Soccer turned the rugby pattern on its head. One in five of the white respondents charged it was “very racist” against 4% of blacks. (Coloureds and Indians occupied middle ground, at 14% and 12% respectively.)

The total of the “very racist” and “a little racist” categories was 37% among whites and 8% among blacks.

Nikki Quinn, director of research in ACNielsen’s customised division, said the results suggested that public perceptions of racism in sport was strongly influenced by the colour of the participating players.

“Whites see soccer as racist’ because teams are predominantly black, but blacks don’t. Switch black and white in this sentence, and it would apply to rugby.”

The view that rugby was a racist sport was held more strongly in cities than in the country, more among men than women, and more among the young than the old. Afrikaans speakers were least likely to pick the “very racist” option.

The feeling that rugby was “very racist” was most widespread in Eastern Cape (45%), North West and Northern Cape (44%), and least in KwaZulu-Natal (30%). Including respondents who said the sport was “a little racist” brought Western Cape to the top (62%), with Gauteng at 60% and Eastern Cape at 58%.

When respondents were questioned on specific teams the charge of racism became less widespread. The number of people regarding the Springboks as “very racist” was 28%, against 37% for rugby overall. All races contributed to this view: among blacks the proportion dropped to 31% from 41%, and among whites to 9% from 14%.

Respondents were similarly probed about eight provincial teams. In all cases, criticism declined still further. The percentage of people ascribing some degree of racism to each team were: Bulls 23%; Natal Sharks 23%; Western Province 21%; Lions 21%; Free State Cheetahs 20%; Griquas and SW Districts Eagles 19% each; and Mpumalanga Pumas 18%.

Respondents were reminded of the inquiry into racism in the Springbok team. They were asked what punishment or sanction, should be imposed on a player or administrator found guilty.

Overall, 24% of respondents suggested banning for life would be appropriate, while 15% opted for a two-year ban and 16% for a one-season ban. A fine and no further sanction was selected by 14%, while 8% said a reprimand would be sufficient.

White respondents differed noticeably from this overall pattern. Nearly a half (49%) opted for the fine or reprimand, which allowed the player or administrator to continue on the team. Only 11% advocated a total ban, compared with 26% of blacks, 23% of coloureds and 20% of Indians.

Finally, respondents were asked their views on the appointment of three black players, Breyton Paulse, Lawrence Sephaka and Ashwin Willemse, to the South African World Cup squad.

In each case the largest group of respondents believed they were selected solely for their talents on the field. Only one person in five or fewer said the players were selected on the basis of race.

“These results contrast with the response to our opening question, in which 55% claimed that rugby is racist’. It suggests the negative perception may be fuelled more by the actions and attitudes of individuals than by the actual higher level management of the game,” said Quinn.

Source: AllAfrica.com
URL: http://allafrica.com/stories/200312170287.htm…br>

xxxxx Sign Up