Publications
Partners
Five of the country’s smaller rugby unions this week took legal steps to have the SA Rugby Union (Saru) withdraw its budget for 2018.
Lawyers representing the Leopards, Boland, the Falcons, the Griffons and Border have written a letter in which they argue the budget is unconstitutional. According to the unions, the approved 2016/20 funding model was not taken into account when the 2018 budget was drawn up, which they say is required by clause 6.11 of the governing body’s constitution.
City Press’ sister publication, Rapport, understands that the non-franchises this year received 52% less – about R11 million – than last year. Saru only awarded R10.4 million to every one of the six smaller unions.
The Griquas and the Pumas, who Saru awarded franchises to last year, got 44% less than last year.
The other six franchises had their budgets cut by 10% since last year.
The Leopards, the Griffons, the Falcons, Border and Boland, who have appointed attorney Hannes Peyper and Kemp J Kemp SC to their legal team, are upset for various reasons, including the fact that they have to help carry the R148 million that it will cost Saru to have the Cheetahs and the Kings participate in the Pro 14 competition this year and 2019.
The non-franchises have been plunged into a desperate bid to stay afloat by the budget cuts. They fear that they may not be able to meet all the league obligations of their senior and younger teams.
The SWD-Eagles were part of initial talks between the so-called smaller unions, but later withdrew.
This year’s budget was approved on December 8 by seven of the 12 unions that are entitled to vote.
The non-franchises had already expressed their unhappiness by then, and voted against the budget.
The budget is approved by Saru’s financial committee, then refined by the executive committee and then approved by the general board.
Saru, which did not comment on Rapport’s inquiry, had earlier indicated in written communication to the disgruntled unions that it had not taken the 2016/20 funding model into account when drawing up the budget. At the same time, Saru denied that it had acted unconstitutionally in doing so.
The funding model was drawn up during a Saru strategic session on December 11 2015 and approved by a meeting of the general board.
According to the funding model:
- Every one of the country’s six franchises had to receive R28 million annually. A further R3 million would be allocated to each if they concluded a development plan with one of the eight so-called smaller unions;
- The non-franchises were to receive R15 million annually;
- Every union was to received an increase of R1 million from TV rights from 2017 onwards;
- R2.5 million would be awarded to the non-franchises that participate in the premier league of the Currie Cup series;
- Unions that did not present tests would receive R1.25 million each year; and
- Every union would receive R3.35 million in travel allowances every year.
Saru must begin negotiating with the unhappy parties, who met in Durban earlier this week, before May 25. If a solution is not found, the matter will be referred to mediation, and possible arbitration or court action could follow.
