The Political Question
Politics and sport have always been uneasy team-mates. But rugby, possibly second only to cricket, is the game that has regularly become caught up in controversial international issues and affairs.
© TopFoto.co.uk
© Museum of Rugby, Twickenham
www.rfu.com/microsites/museum
Before the second world war, Japan’s militaristic governments frowned on rugby and other "foreign" sports and traditional martial arts were actively encouraged. Though rugby continued to be played, it was renamed with a Japanese title that translated as "the fighting game".
The second world war brought a shameful episode in French rugby history. In December 1941, in a blatant act of capitulation - not to mention collaboration - Head of State General Philippe Petain signed an order drafted for him by the French Ministry of Sport which banned rugby league. All league assets were seized and handed over to Rugby Union (they were never returned), grounds taken over and players "invited" to play rugby union; those who didn't were blacklisted. The league game was prevented from calling itself rugby right up until the mid-1980s - instead, it was referred to as Jeu de Treize (Game of Thirteen, the number of players in a rugby league side).
For a country so wrought with conflict and turmoil, Ireland’s rugby game has remained remarkably untouched by sectarian or political problems. One notable exception was in 1972, when Scotland and Wales pulled out of their fixtures in Dublin because of alleged terrorist threats.
Apartheid
It was South African rugby which became increasingly embroiled in controversy as, for decades, it mirrored the State-sanctioned system of apartheid. South African rugby had separate teams and governing bodies for whites, "coloureds" and "blacks".
While its team played against international sides containing non-white players, these same players were not allowed to compete in South Africa. This mostly affected the New Zealand Maoris, as the New Zealand rugby authorities tamely refused to consider any Maoris as eligible for tours in South Africa. Inevitably, it was New Zealand who were the first major international team to take a stand against apartheid: they turned down an invitation to tour South Africa in 1967.
But international opinion was building against apartheid and sport was not immune. When South Africa's Springboks toured Britain in 1969-70, they were greeted by anti-racist protests. The following year, their tour to Australia was marked by similar demonstrations in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. In Queensland, State Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen declared a state of emergency so the Springboks' matches could be played. In 1981, the Springbok Tour to New Zealand was again marked with protests.
In the early 1970s, national teams from both New Zealand and France did play in South Africa with a number of non-white players but majority opinion frowned on such excursions. In 1977, the segregated South African rugby bodies amalgamated and, four years later, fly-half Errol Tobias became the first non-white South African to represent his country when he took the field against Ireland.
© TopFoto / EMPICS
However, controversy stills dogs the game: in July 2006, Springbok rugby coach Jake White told the press he had been unable to pick some white players for his squad "because of transformation" - a reference to the ANC government’s policies attempting to redress the racial imbalances in national sport. The policy was denounced by Donald Lee, the opposition Democratic Alliance spokesperson on Sport & Recreation, who said, "The ANC's insistence on racial transformation sends the message to black South Africans that they are not capable of making our sides on merit. Certainly that is how black sports players interpret being selected as a 'quota player'."