1
Rugby needs football-like transfer system says SA Rugby boss
By
Ian Cameron
Rugby union’s future might depend on adopting a transfer system more akin to football- that’s according to SA Rugby chief executive Rian Oberholzer.
ADVERTISEMENT
Speaking on the latest episode of To The Last Drop, Oberholzer claims there is a critical need for domestic clubs to financially benefit from developing players, given the ongoing outflow of talent to international leagues.
Oberholzer noted that hundreds of South African players depart each year for contracts in the United States, Europe, Japan, Australasia, and even Russia. This drain, he argued, places an unsustainable strain on South African rugby’s talent development, a sector that currently yields minimal return on investment for clubs as players leave the country.
The veteran administrator also provided insights into South Africa’s potential competition structure, emphasizing that the nation cannot afford to maintain only four professional teams.
“We must be careful not to think that we can only have four professional teams in South Africa. The player drain will be so much bigger,” stated Oberholzer.
“We already have a huge outflow of players [from South Africa] into America. If you do your homework there, there’s nearly 100 players playing there in America. There’s a hell of a lot of players playing in France, in the second division and even the third division and now players are in Russia as well.
“Because of our talent pool and massive community structures, we produce a lot of players who want to play and see themselves as professionals. Can we put a structure in place where we can accommodate a majority of them? I think yes. I think we have to look at the number of professional players we have, we have to look at the salaries and the salary caps.
ADVERTISEMENT
“A very important part of a professional that we have not really grasped in rugby yet is the transfer system… where clubs get compensated for the development of players and when you want to buy my player, can you transfer them, so a player because an assets as opposed to a liability.
“At this moment in team players are liabilities in South Africa in rugby, not assets. The quicker we can have a proper transfer system in place – similar to what they do in football for example – the quicker we will resolve a lot of our other problems.
“The players who go from a smaller union and move to a big union and there’s no compensation for the smaller union. And for South African teams that [have] South African players that get contracted to international teams in France and Japan for example and the local provinces get no compensation for that.
“I think those are the type of issues we still grapple with twenty years [30] after professional,” said Oberholzer.
ADVERTISEMENT
Presenters Brenden Nel and Liam Del Carme questioned Oberholzer on various pressing issues, including SA Rugby’s proposed equity deal with the Ackerley Sports Group (ASG). Oberholzer emphasized the importance of this equity agreement to stabilize the game’s financial foundation, pointing to ASG as the preferred bidder due to its solid proposal.
Watch the highly acclaimed five-part documentary Chasing the Sun 2, chronicling the journey of the Springboks as they strive to successfully defend the Rugby World Cup, free on RugbyPass TV (*unavailable in Africa)
I'm sorry, but this is so contradictory. SA opened themselves up to picking overseas players due to a dire financial situation, and an inability to centrally fund every player. So, where exactly will they find the money to fund even more teams? An investment firm is only a stopgap measure, not a permanent solution.
Let's say they bring some teams back to Super Rugby in 2026, and add some others to the URC. That would entitle them to financial support from other unions (in Super at least, don't know about the URC), but still wouldn't bring them enough financial compensation long-term to support either endeavour.
Wish I could have time to read. Too many teams are like South Africa's were they are representative hybrid teams, therefore don't have extended contract lengths. That needs to change, and the clubs buying need, or more so the players being sought after, need to be in demand.
Paying a transfer fee was one way for a club to 'buy' the chance to sign a player over a team that didn't want them as much but who the player would have preferred to sign for (for less money). But the club needs to hold the rights and with 3 year contracts youlre only holding the rights for two years and theres plenty of other fish in the see that the small amount of buying clubs and look for that other year of player who are free to sign elsewhere for next season.
Transfers already exist in this sense. Unsure if the article went into these sorts of environments for it to happen? Frisch got brought this year right? Hoskins Sotutu will need to be brought out from NZR if he wants to sign with the prem/england.
I agree. A transfer system is best. It would go a long way in stopping clubs of going broke. It would benefit clubs and players. It does have its limitations, but it's more beneficial than current structures
Agreed. We need to take care of our assets. Of which the small unions are one of them.