Springbok emblem back on 'endangered' list
The emblem, traditionally used by national rugby teams and so gracefully embraced by the late President Nelson Mandela, continues to be a bone of contention for current government officials and politicians.
This week African National Congress member of parliament Strike Ralegoma again called for the Bok emblem to be removed from national team jerseys – to be replaced by the Protea.
Ralegoma made the call during a meeting of South Africa's parliamentary portfolio committee on sport and recreation.
"For successful transformation, all national teams must play with a single emblem," he said.
"The Protea is used by all other sports as the emblem, but there is SARU [South African Rugby Union] that will use the Springbok. It is important that we have a single logo."
This is not the first time the Springbok logo has been under threat.
During the World Cup there was outrage from some quarters when the logo was moved from the front to the right hand side of the jersey to comply with tournament regulations.
The logo is just one of many issues that will confront newly appointed Springbok coach Allister Coetzee – who has to meet a 50 percent quota of black players in the squad before the World Cup in Japan, in 2019.
And SARU also came under fire from government over the dominance of male representatives on the national body.
As SARU president Oregan Hoskins sat alongside CEO Jurie Roux, they were backed by union representatives from all over the country – all male.
Committee Chairperson Beauty Dlulane immediately jumped on board and questioned Hoskins as to why there were no women present, suggesting that their role remained "in the kitchen".
Dlulane was then backed by numerous politicians, who shared her sentiments.
Hoskins said afterwards that he was not surprised by the concerns over gender representation, but did offer an explanation.
"We've got to look seriously at gender representation in our structures at the highest level," Hoskins said.
"It's going to be a challenge, but we're going to have to do it.
"It was discussed in our previous meeting, but we have fixed terms so we have top discuss it in our structures and see how we're going to address it going forward.
"You can't just take a member out when he's in his term and say 'we've got to replace you with a female' … you don't do that … it's unconstitutional."
