ever since the game went professional, the new zealand rugby union has been fully funding the four national teams; the all blacks, the junior all blacks, the maori all blacks and the womens team.
however, money is tight these days-the public haven't responded to rugby for ten months of the year and a 150% increase in prices-so they claim that they are only able to fund two teams this year. the all blacks, of course, and the junior all blacks.
the womens team accepted this-i guess they're used to being underfunded-but maori were very upset.
after a couple of months of complaints, phil kingsley-jones and billy bush set about arranging a tour of south africa culminating in a game against the springboks.
the nzrfu objected as they "own" the maori all black "brand", jones and bush dealt with this largely by ignoring it, but now there is a bigger problem.
apparently south africa rugby has a rule that they won't play against racially selected teams-a rule added, in part, due to the protests against the springboks in the 70s and 80s.
ironic, huh.
UPDATE: jim anderton has, reportedly asked nelson mandela to intercede with the sarfu to make the game go ahead.
lost: a sense of proportion. if found, return to j anderton
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Now this just made me smile. Actually, this is probably a naive question but ... I can understand parallel development in human services. A Maori only health care agency respecting Maori principles makes sense but why the Maori All Blacks?
ReplyDeletei think it came out of the maori battlion
ReplyDeletebut the really ironic part of this story is that its popularity was due to the reaction of the apartheid era springboks refusing to let "coloured" players tour there
when the boks tourned nz, the nz maori match was seen as a battle against apartheid (take that whitey)