Summary: SAFA briefing on Governance, Development, Transformation, Match-fixing & 2010 World Cup Legacy The President and

senior officials of the South African Football Association assured the Committee that there was no crisis in their organisation. Despite some sensational disclosures in the media, nothing was being hidden from the public. A new league had been launched for Under 13 and Under 15 boys and girls. Leagues would be established in all of the 311 local associations. The Association was controlled by the National Executive Committee. The financial year ran from July to June, and the financial statements for the current year would only be available later in the calendar year. The Association admitted a loss of R56 million in the previous year, which had reduced the cash reserves of R42 million. The current gap between assets and liabilities was R92 million. Members queried the sale of buses and other assets. There had been a negative turnaround of R111 million. The figures for the recent African Cup of Nations showed a loss. Members were told that sponsorships had been slashed. Members queried the nature of an organisation known as FTF, which seemed to be a source of internal conflict. Members were assured that this was no more than an informal discussion forum. The Association's budget had been reduced by R81 million to R271 million for the current year, but a cost savings drive had seen the current spending being under budget and a small surplus was expected for the year. Rumours of a rift between the Association and the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee were dismissed as media reporting on a perceived personality clash. South Africa had received 100 million US Dollars from the World Cup, of which 65 million US Dollars for development. The funds were ring-fenced, and controlled by FIFA. Unqualified audit reports had been received on the fund. Transport was a priority, and Mercedes Benz buses had been chosen due to their sponsorship. No funds had gone missing, and the Association was not bankrupt. There was a strong tie to school sport. Development was key to future success. The new Under 13 league would be used to do talent identification with the aim of establishing high performance squads in each province. Critical needs were developing thousands of coaches and better management of facilities. The Association had established a separate structure to concentrate on development and raising funds. The enquiry into allegations of match fixing was proceedings. Members were given copies of anonymous reports on alleged mismanagement of the Association, but the Committee would not discuss any report where there was no ownership. Members asked about the legacy fund, the Judicial Commission of Enquiry, why South Africa always failed in international competitions, the KPMG audit report and anonymous letters.


The Chairperson welcomed all present to the meeting. Good governance was essential for functioning sporting codes, and the South African Football Association (SAFA) had been in the news for the wrong reasons. There had been problems in several codes. Soccer was the most popular sport in the world and Members would like to discuss the real state of transformation. The development of sport was another issue to be addressed. Another issue was the legacy projects. He hoped that there would be frank and open discussion. The newspapers formed public opinion and it would be easy to conclude that SAFA was in crisis. There had been a report over the weekend about “SAFA's missing millions”. Members had done research and were well informed. Members were not necessarily swayed by the reports in the media, but some strong evidence had been put forward. Football was the national sport, and was played in every part of the country. Members were passionate about sport. The federations were the custodians of sport in the country. Briefing by SAFA Mr Kirsten Nematandani, President, SAFA, said that it was always an honour to address Parliament. Football played an important role in the lives of South Africans. The game was a national asset for which SAFA acted as custodians. Mr Nematandani told Members that there was no crisis. Newspapers had their own mission, which was to sell copies. People were alarmed by what they had read. He and his team would continue to address the challenges. Some documents had been distributed anonymously. SAFA accounted annually to its members. There was a high degree of interest. SAFA had been subjected to trial by media. The whole continent had celebrated the first World Cup on African soil, but everywhere in the world people were now reading reports suggesting African corruption and incompetence. The match fixing issue was now closed after the meeting in Zurich. The legacy trust and SAFA finances would be discussed. The financial statements were public documents. There was nothing sinister. SAFA could not be exempted from global financial realities. He trusted that Members would be happy that SAFA was in good hands. Members of his delegation were volunteers and served the country with dedication and dignity. They might now be questioning their involvement, especially considering the doubts being raised in their own families. There would be elections in 2013. Members knew well what could happen at these times. The truth would be revealed. He introduced the delegation. Mr Nematandani said that a competition had been launched the previous day for Under 13 and Under 15 players, both boys and girls. The time to talk was over and it was now time to act. There were clear policy documents. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) was bound in his financial decisions to SAFA policy and also held members of the National Executive Committee (NEC) responsible for their actions. He would never abuse his office. Mr M Dikgacwi (ANC) queried the absence of Dr Irvin Khoza. Mr Nematandani explained that Dr Khoza was primarily involved with league matters and was thus not invited to join the delegation on this occasion. The Chairperson noticed the dearth of ladies in the leadership.

Mr Dennis Mumble, CEO, SAFA, explained that the presentation had been adapted slightly after being sent to the Committee to address some major issues more effectively. Governance of SAFA was the most difficult of any organisation in which he had been involved. The NEC was given no leeway by its members. There were normally two meetings per year. SAFA consisted of 52 regions, covering every inch of the country. There were a number of local areas, coinciding with municipal boundaries. There were 311 functional local bodies after some amalgamations. Mr Mumble said that the NEC was the highest decision-making body. It was subject to the SAFA constitution. It was aligned to the constitution of the international football association (FIFA). Some of the contestation concerned the re-alignment. FIFA had drafted a standard constitution for all its 208 members. There were 23 SAFA committees. A re-assessment of the governance framework had led the NEC to reduce the number of members serving on these committees, and they had been re-organised into eight clusters. The clusters met quarterly before NEC meetings. Resulting policies were debated at NEC. There was an umbilical link to the SAFA Infrastructure Trust. SAFA had the most extensive development plan of all the national federations. Mr Mumble noted that the President had alluded to the rules and regulations to govern the sport and its processes. There was very little that would go unnoticed by the various structures. Mr D Lee (DA) questioned the financial information. The Legacy Trust had R471 million in the bank. The Chairperson asked Mr Lee to wait with this type of question until after the presentation had been made. Mr Dikgacwi was concerned that the meeting might run short of time. He called for a concise presentation. The Chairperson said that all issues should be clarified before the meeting ended. There seemed to be no questions on structure. Mr Nematandani said that there was a perception that SAFA was reporting issues to FIFA. SAFA would never talk ill of the South African government. This was a perception that had been created. The Chairperson asked where the transformation committee fell on the structure. Mr Mumble said that this would be explained during the presentation. SAFA's financial year (FY) started on 1 July. The audit for the current FY would only be completed in August for presentation to the annual conference in September. The delegation would attempt to give Members an overview of the current financial position since the report of July 2012. Mr Gronie Hluyo, Chief Financial Officer (CFO), said that SAFA had incurred a loss of R56 million in the FY ending 30 June 2012. SAFA had been building up reserves, or retained income. After covering this loss, SAFA was left with reserves of R42 million. The audit report had been

unqualified. Some assets had been impaired in terms of accounting practice. There had been significant depreciation due to the volume of assets held by SAFA. There were more current liabilities than assets, and the current gap was R92 million. However, the total assets outweighed the total liabilities by R42 million. Although most assets were in property and buses and other vehicles for the 53 regions, and could not easily be converted to cash, SAFA was not bankrupt. Discussion Mr M Rabotapi (DA) appreciated the buses and vehicles. He asked why the Mercedes Benz cars had been returned. Mr G MacKenzie (COPE) felt that there was a swing of R111 million between the 2010/11 and 2011/12 FY. This was an alarming turnaround given the turnover. If trade and other receivables were so much lower than trade payables, there was a serious problem. There was now a substantial overdraft. This was a hugely concerning debt trap. There was no doubt that SAFA was currently solvent, but another similar loss could wipe out the reserves. Mr Lee said that the buses were listed as an asset, but 22 had been sold. He asked if there had been a needs analysis done before they were bought. The buses should be used for development. He asked how many buses had been kept, and where they were located. It was worrying if they were not kept where they were needed. Mr M Hlwengwa (IFP) said that in a year where a country had hosted a major event, there had been a major loss. He feared that the hosting of the African Cup of Nations (AFCON) in 2013 might lead to another loss. It was a shocking situation. There was a dependency on accumulated assets. Vehicles and buildings were being sold off. SAFA House was built on government property. He asked how the R180 million turnaround had happened. Mr Lee added that there was a deficit of R6 million regarding AFCON. This tournament had come and gone. He asked if there had been a loss or a profit. Mr Dikgacwi said that a proper briefing was needed on finances. He asked how much had come in from the South African Breweries (SAB) and ABSA in sponsorships, and there were also broadcast rights. This was why he regretted the absence of Dr Khoza as he did not want to be seen as taking sides. He asked what FTF was, as it seemed it was an internal organisation that was fighting with SAFA. Meetings were scheduled, but FTF held their own meeting before the official SAFA meeting. He had a document available. He asked if there was unity or in-fighting in football. He had been interviewed on radio the previous week. The Chairperson asked Members to stick to financial issues in the current round of questions. SAFA was a transparent organisation and would make information available. He added his concern about the organisation’s liquidity. The media had quoted a figure of R92 million. Many issues had been raised, and SAFA now had the opportunity to explain the situation. The unqualified audit was good, but there were other issues to be explained. Mr MacKenzie said that at the last meeting with the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC), the figure of R92 million had been reported. SASCOC said that

it had asked Mr Mumble for an updated set of financial statements within a two week period but these figures had not been provided. Mr Nematandani said that the questions were valid. SAFA had met with SASCOC. Simply asking about 'finances' was too broad, and more specific questions were needed to be discussed at a future meeting. This had still to take place. Mr Mumble showed a history of SAFA's vehicle fleet over a 16 year period. The Mercedes Benz cars had been retained in the regions. Some cars had been sponsored by Mercedes Benz but had been returned at the end of the sponsorship. Mr Nematandani said that 27 cars were being driven by members leading the provincial associations. Mr Mumble said that Mercedes Benz had provided cars as part of the sponsorship. Of these, members of SAFA had bought three in a direct transaction with the company, and the rest had been returned. This included the Bafana Bafana bus and panel van. Ms L Njobo (ANC) said that Members needed clarity on the situation. The country needed to know what conditions had been attached to the sponsorship. She could not understand why the vehicles had to be returned. There might be unnecessary misunderstandings. Mr Mumble said that he had been in office for only four months and would ask his colleagues to assist with the financial questions. Mr Robin Petersen, CEO, SAFA Development Agency, had been CEO of SAFA in the previous FY. There was no secrecy about the financial documents. The 2011/11 FY had been a bumper year as it had included the profits from the 2010 World Cup. It was clear from the statement that the swing was only R115 million. Mr Hlwengwa apologised. He had meant to say 180 degrees and not R180 million. Mr Petersen said that there were significant differences between 2011 and 2012. A number of contracts had been given by sponsors because of the lead-up to the World Cup. Sponsorship revenue had declined over the two years. A major bank had withdrawn its sponsorship completely and all federations were struggling. This alone was a R16 million swing in revenue. The biggest contribution had come for the World Cup, the bulk of which was in equipment. Revenue had declined from R365 million to R312 million. SAFA was dependent on sponsorship. This down swing was predictable, but the adjustment was difficult. Mr Petersen said that a figure of R29 million for recovered World Cup tickets was included in the expenditure for 2011. The total expenditure for 2011 was R357 million and for 2012 R355 million. Some costs could not be cut. The SAFA mandate was to field the national teams, and there had been significant related expenses, particularly preparing the Banyana Banyana team for the Olympics. Development expenditure had increased by R13 million. Operating costs had matched inflation, while events and administration costs had declined. The budgeted revenue

was R354 million, but this had not been achieved. Mr Petersen said that the buses in question were from Hyundai for the World Cup. These 35 buses were not suitable for use in the regions so most of them had been sold. Smaller buses were more practical in the regions. The 22 sold by SAFA had only been disposed of in the current FY. They had been trying to sell them at book value since January 2012 but the asking price was way out of line with what they could be sold for. Their value was impaired by R16 million in what was no more than an accounting exercise in order to sell them. Mr Petersen said that costs of R6 million had been incurred on AFCON before the end of the 2011/12 books were closed long before the start of the tournament. He felt that this would fully explain the losses incurred. Administrative costs had been reduced by about R50 million. There even had to be some trimming of the development budget. This led to the R92 million liquidity gap. In the current liabilities, the biggest item was trade and other payables. Some consolation would come from many of the payments being accruals over a five or six year period where the regions had failed to make certain claims within the prescribed period. SAFA could no longer carry such liabilities and had now set a 12 month limit on claims. There were no creditors threatening to put SAFA into liquidation. The challenges were there but were being met in a responsible manner. The auditors had wanted assurances over the going concern status. These assurances had been provided. There was a turnaround plan in place. There had not even been an emphasis of matter on the going concern status as a result of these assurances. Some people liked to stir things up but nothing had been hidden from the auditors, members and the media. Chief Mwelo Nonkonyana, Vice President, SAFA, said that SAFA had approached government to assist with the hosting of AFCON. SAFA was indebted to government for this. The African federation (CAF) had also made a contribution. The R6 million was what was owed to government. He was still expecting the audited financial statements for AFCON and would be able to account fully then. Mr Hluyo said that the balance sheet was strong, with reserves of R42 million. Assets were more than liabilities, but SAFA was restructuring the balance sheet as there were more noncurrent assets than liabilities. Some assets, such as the buses, were being liquidated and some shares had been sold. At 30 June 2012, most cash was in the fixed assets. This was why the concern had arisen. SAFA was not bankrupt. Mr MacKenzie was concerned that expenses had stayed on par with previous years despite a reduction in income. He asked how many days the debtors were overdue for payment. Under football development, the total expenditure was R107 million over the previous two years. The President of SASCOC did not seem to be comfortable with this and had apparently referred the matter to the Minister. He asked if the sale of fixed assets would come back to bite SAFA. Mr Dikgacwi referred to the KPMG audit report. He asked for an explanation of the allowances and honoraria. On loans and borrowing, he asked who the beneficiaries were. Was it clubs or executive members? Mr Lee said that there was still uncertainty over the amount received from FIFA. Different

amounts were quoted. He asked what South Africa had received, when it was received and how it was spent. He had mentioned the meeting on his facebook page the previous night and had received many suggested questions from the public. A lady from the Boland wanted to know when the promised money for development would materialise. Mr F Mmusi (ANC) asked what was meant by a substantial amount of money. SAFA depended on sponsors such as ABSA and SAB. He asked how much these sponsorships were worth. Mr Mumble said that expenses were about 20% lower than in the previous year, but would only be confirmed when the FY was finished. Some R82 million of the R92 million liquidity gap had since been addressed. The budget was normally approved by the NEC but the constitution had been changed and the budget had been approved by the members for the first time. The projection for the current FY was a R2 million surplus. The Under 13 and Under 15 leagues had been launched the previous day but he had been unable to attend. There was a very well defined technical outcome from these leagues. He was hoping that this development would have attracted the most media interests despite advance notice being given. Mr Nematandani said that some of the questions would be answered later in the presentation. The legacy fund presentation specified the amounts. The budget was massive. Ms G Tseke (ANC) noted from the anonymous document that SAFA was paying exorbitant amounts for consultants despite have the staff to do the work. The KPMG noted that a plaintiff was making a claim with an interest rate of 115%. Mr Petersen said that the budget was not in the reports. The budget was R271 million in the current year as opposed to R355 million in 2012. He was satisfied with the age of debts. They were already R30 million under budget. The honoraria for NEC members were R115 000 per year, which he felt was modest for what they did. They worked full time. Allowances were for travel associated with SAFA work. Liabilities were for mortgage bonds and instalment payments. The allegations of consultants were spurious. There had been some use of consultants, but under strict control. He mentioned the example of labour specialists. Mr Nematandani said that no SAFA official would take a personal loan from SAFA. The Chairperson felt that Members were satisfied with the answers on the financial position. One of the problems facing SAFA was poor spectator attendance. The sponsorship issue was a big one. Mr Nematandani said that SAFA would be prepared to make all information on AFCON known when the figures were completed. The ABSA and SAB sponsorships had each been cut from R50 million to R20 million. Mr Mumble had engaged with SASCOC for two days. It might be that SASCOC was not strong enough in some areas. The media had latched onto personality issues. SAFA had no issue with SASCOC. SAFA had earned R270 million in broadcast rights from the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), only 10% of what was given to cricket and rugby. This was

why SAFA had made an agreement with satellite stations. Mr Mumble had said that the Minister had emphasised the importance of transformation in sport. Because of the country's history it was important to reflect the demographics. There was a clear need to transform and generate more native revenue instead of being reliant on sponsorships. The sponsorship for Bafana Bafana had been slashed from R100 million to R40 million. The approach had to be modernised. There was a massive administrative restructuring, leading to considerable savings. Staff had been reduced from 105 to 93. This was very tight given the mandates. The National Sports Plan (NSP) drove SAFA's planning. There was a focus programme on transformation, the top priority being racial and gender. It was a patriarchal sport. The new junior leagues had to be founded on gender equity. The 311 leagues would all require girls' teams to be included. The Chairperson asked how youth programmes were linked to school sport. He asked how SAFA compared to other major organisations and where there was room for improvement. Many products of development programmes were lost in the system. Members had been disappointed on some of their regional visits, particularly in Buffalo City. Maintenance of facilities was also a challenge. The Legacy of the 2010 World Cup Dr Danny Jordaan, Vice President, SAFA, had given Members copies of letters and other information relating to the Legacy Trust. There were three forms of 2010 FIFA World Cup Legacy. Reporting was to FIFA, and funding was from FIFA. The founding Trustees included Mr Jerome Valcke, Mr Nematandani and the then Director-General of the Department of Sport and Recreation (SRSA). He quoted from a report drafted by the Minister. There had been a profit of 100 million US Dollars. Of this, 10 million had gone to each of SAFA House, Bafana Bafana preparation and cars and buses. A further 5 million had been paid into the SAFA development programme. The remaining 65 million USD had amounted to R450 million and had been invested. Dr Jordaan said that transport was a major concern. No fewer than 50 players had been killed in road accidents the previous year. Teams often had to travel long distances and expenses were prohibitive. SAFA had provided 52 Mercedes Benz buses to the regions. SAFA had bought 26 Mercedes Benz cars for the use of regional presidents. The choice had been made because of the sponsorship from the company. It would have been wrong to have chosen another brand of vehicle. He asked why the facts were being totally distorted three years later. He felt that the proximity to the SAFA elections, just three months away, might be the reason for the issue to be raised. Dr Jordaan said that disbursement of funds was controlled by FIFA. There were unqualified audits for the duration of the World Cup. The 2010 had been adjudged the best World Cup in history. Every cent of over R3 billion spent had been accounted for. People making accusations should identify themselves. Six of the most senior Ministers had served on the Local Organising Committee (LOC) for the World Cup. The financial statements had been unqualified and approved by the FIFA congress. FIFA was aware of only full compliance with financial standards. SAFA should first investigate any claims and then refer them to FIFA. He did not

know what needed to be investigated as no money had gone missing. He had signed off on all financial transactions. Dr Jordaan said that FIFA had again written in February, reacting to certain press reports. FIFA had been consulted on all matters of compensation and grants. He asked who could have a different view. FIFA was anxious as it was their money and SAFA could not even identify the complainants. The expenses of the LOC were over 500 million dollars, which was above budget but had been covered by better than expected ticket sales. The expected 100 million USD profit had been delivered. After an event, the claims came flooding in. SAFA had faced a loss of R500 million in September 2010, but had worked through it. FIFA had wanted an agreement of 60/40 on profit sharing. SAFA had refused to accept FIFA taking 40% and FIFA had agreed provided the money went to development. FIFA had covered all operational expenses and there was no government money involved. Dr Jordaan said that a full asset disposal plan had been put in place. The only football entity that was a member of FIFA was SAFA. SAFA had come off worse. The first bid had cost R150 million and the second bid R170 million. SAFA owned the FNB Stadium, valued at R580 million. Government had stated that it could not invest in a stadium owned by a football organisation, and the then Minister Ngconde Balfour demanded that the stadium be handed over to government without any compensation. This had cost SAFA R580 million. Mr Mumble had said that the national football team was the only one which must always have their games televised on free-to-air television. SAFA had declined to accept much higher broadcast rights as this would have deprived the general public of the chance to watch the team. There had been negotiations with SuperSport, and granting exclusive broadcast rights to SuperSport would have generated considerably more income. This had been declined. The FNB Stadium was now owned by the City of Johannesburg. Dr Jordaan said that SAFA could not be considered bankrupt when it had so many assets. The legacy money was ring-fenced. He had all the financial statements since 2005. Every single penny was accounted for, hence FIFA's statement that this had been the best World Cup. If South Africa wanted to host another major event the FIFA brand must not be damaged. Dr Jordaan said that the whole country knew that Buffalo City was not a host city, but had put up FIFA branding. Mr Valcke was passionate about development and was often in South Africa to oversee programmes but was treated with contempt on his visits. Discussion The Chairperson said that the Committee could not deal with any matter raised by anonymous persons. Whistle blowers must go to the police. It would be damaging if Members were to consider such documents. While anonymous documents might alert Members to possible problems, any document considered had to be owned. Mr Dikgacwi understood what Dr Jordaan was saying, but Members had been presented with a file of various documents. It had come from SAFA. Accusations had been made in the file and people had been named. The Committee needed clarity. This was why he had earlier questioned unity within SAFA.

The Chairperson asked Members to restrict themselves to questions on the legacy programme until later in the meeting. It seemed clear that FIFA had provided the legacy funding for development and such funds could only be used with the permission of FIFA. Mr Nematandani said that the reputation of the country was at stake. The world was a global village and news travelled quickly. While there might have been losses, SAFA had made big sacrifices. They were still smarting over the loss of the FNB Stadium. SAFA wanted the stadium back. It belonged to the people. SAFA had hoped that the Committee could assist. In all other countries football bodies owned their own facilities. The plan had been to erect a hotel on the property to accommodate players. This would have saved costs. Mr Nematandani said that school sport was an associate member of SAFA. Their national office was at SAFA House. They received a grant from SAFA. This should apply to all age groups, but the Under 13 and Under 15 groups had been selected for fast-tracking. Only a few clubs succeeded and there were factors counting against clubs in areas such as Northern and Eastern Cape. Ms Njobo asked for clarification on the figure quoted for the legacy trust. She asked how people could apply for funding. She asked how it was distributed. The Committee visited areas where it felt there were legacy projects. Information was needed on who was responsible to maintain facilities. Mr Mumble said the manner of accessing the funds was detailed in the written presentation. Mr Greg Fredericks, the General Manager of the Trust, was also present to answer questions. The Chairperson asked how long it would take to develop a young player to become world class. The number of South Africans playing in the top leagues of the world had declined. He could only think of one South African at present. Development Plan Mr Petersen had presented the development plan the previous year. Implementation was often the problem in South Africa. Goals had been set high. South Africa should always be in the top three in Africa, and the top 20 internationally given the economic strength of the country and the standard of the domestic league. Consistency was needed. The were two big constraints, namely focus and finances. To do everything needed would cost at least R250 million per year. Additional funding had to be sourced. One of the challenges was finding someone to drive the programme. In consultation, SAFA had seen the need to develop a separate structure to concentrate on development. He had stepped down as CEO of SAFA to take the reins of the new body. Mr Petersen listed seven steps needed. He had gone to Italy and had seen how far behind South Africa was. It was scary. All national teams attended a facility with ten fields and accommodation, which had been going for 53 years. Various disciplines were included in the preparation, including nutritionists and psychologists. There had been an even bigger development in England.

Mr Petersen said that the first step was to develop a uniform national playing philosophy. The document was almost complete and would soon go to the technical committee. This would result in a standard approach to coaching. The second step was talent identification by developing a robust pipeline starting at Under 13 level. This had now been launched. Through that system a strong base of the talent pyramid would be developed. The bulk of the team for 2022 in Qatar would come from this new league. Each region would identify 1 040 players, who would be tracked and assessed. Provincial teams would be chosen leading to an elite pool of 180 players, consisting of twenty players from each province, which would be targeted for advanced high performance development. Mr Petersen said that the third step was building a national competitions framework. The Under 13 and Under 15 leagues were a step towards this. Proper competitions were needed at local level. Clubs needed to be developed. The fourth step was the most important. Research showed there were 3 million players. The ratio of coaches to players was 1:50 as compared to 1:16 in Italy. There was a need to train 15 000 coaches every year for the next three years, many of whom would be teachers. Coaching education would develop coaches, but would be an expensive process. There were recognised qualifications. Mr Petersen said that the fifth step was facility management. Having to rely on shared facilities was a hindrance. Administrators were needed in every local football association so that administration at the base was good. The sixth step was technology. An agreement had been signed with an international group of analysts. All players, clubs and local associations would be captured in a single data base. This would help to eliminate age cheating. The final step was high performance monitoring. A core need was to have nine provincial academies. 20 boys and 20 girls in each province should be placed into these structures. Mr Petersen said that further information was available in the presentation. What SAFA was doing was aligned to national government policy and the work of SRSA. He was trying to raise the needed R300 million. Companies were being targeted through CSA. R30 million had come from the legacy to start the junior leagues and fund women's football. There was also lottery funding. Mr Bobby Godsell had agreed to become a patron of the project. Although he had no prior interest in sport, he had labelled this as the youth project most likely to succeed. Discussion The Chairperson said that so many good projects seemed to disappear. Mr Dikgacwi asked how funding could be accessed. He had a letter from a club that was not receiving funding. Mr Nematandani said that there had been over 4 000 applications. If they were part of the junior league they would get some funding and playing kit. Mr Rabotapi wanted assurance that the legacy fund was only for development. Mr Nematandani replied that the requirements for applications were on the website. Any project

must make an impact on football development. The country could not revert to the pre-World Cup state. Ms Njobo always wanted to find out from SAFA why South Africa always failed in international competitions. Nice targets were presented, especially regarding coaches. The national team was failing. She asked where the problem lay. She wondered if too much pressure was put on the coaches. Match Fixing Mr Poobalan Govindasamy, NEC Member, SAFA, had visited Reunion on behalf of SAFA at a tournament involving Orlando Pirates. He had enjoyed the privilege of addressing the Parliament. The match fixing issue had been in the press for some time and SAFA had been working hard to get to the bottom of the matter. SAFA was against any form of unethical behaviour such as corruption, fraud and theft. SAFA had made a unanimous decision to ask government to help to investigate. Match-fixing had been an issue for some time. There had been some cases such as Operation Dribble. Mr Govindasamy was respecting the agreement with FIFA, and was asking government to assist with the Judicial Commission of Enquiry. If there were any casualties, so be it. The guilty needed to be identified so that SAFA could move forward. He urged the Committee to assist with the speedy establishment of the Commission. Discussion The Chairperson said that government was waiting for an independent commissioner to be appointed. Ms Njobo asked if government involvement in the enquiry could be seen by FIFA as government intervention. Mr Govindasamy said that FIFA was prepared to assist but government had the financial means to assist. The Minister had entered into a tripartite agreement with SAFA and FIFA. The Chairperson felt that government should go ahead with the enquiry. Mr Hlwengwa had recently received an informative book on the subject of conflicting interests at the 2010 World Cup. Mr Dikgacwi felt that the matter had not been handled properly. It had been a rush job. People had been suspended for four days and then re-instated. Mr Nematandani said that Members had been given copies of the anonymous document for their information. People were using this document as the basis for a call to investigate SAFA. He hoped that the image of SAFA would be restored. FTF was a philosophy adopted by a group of people to advance the cause of football. It was not a member organisation, but simply a forum of colleagues looking for change.

Mr Dikgacwi asked if FTF had the blessing of SAFA. Mr Nematandani compared the situation to Parliament, where there were different parties with their own mandates. FTF was not an official part of SAFA. Mechanisms were needed to take football forward. FTF issues were not discussed at SAFA and would not be found in the minutes. Mr Dikgacwi was unconvinced. The Chairperson said that any part of SAFA should be in the constitution. He asked who was eligible to be on the transformation team. He asked if FTF was a sub-committee or just a group of friends gathering on an informal basis. The matter had been raised as if a parallel structure had been created. Mr Nematandani said that FTF was not affiliated to SAFA and there were no membership forms. It was just a discussion group. The whole issue had been blown out of proportion in certain quarters. It was a way of thinking about how to change things for the better. There had been some despondency, but he wished to emphasise that SAFA was not in crisis. Media reports had been unfortunate. SAFA wished to move forward with energy. SAFA was relying on Parliament giving a positive report on the meeting. The Chairperson wished SAFA well in their turnaround strategy. He urged the delegation to continue to provide leadership. Members needed to be highly informed. Development of sport was important. Committee Business The Chairperson said that no decisions had yet been made on a planned oversight visit to the North West. The Committee Researcher said that the focus of the visit would be on facilities built by funds from the Sports Trust. Members would also investigate issues surrounding Sports Councils in the area. It would be scheduled during the following constituency week. The Chairperson instructed that Members be given copies of the draft programme. One week should be sufficient, and would include visits to the Free State and North West. When dealing with the“Big Five” federations meetings should start earlier as the time for discussion at the day's meeting had been too short. The meeting was adjourned.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful