Ditch that damn Bok!

Why give no name brands in parliament the ability to score cheap political points? Ditch the Springbok says Tank Lanning in his Sport24 column this week, and then watch it grow!

Tank Lanning

Drugs are heinous things. People that sell drugs are even more heinous.

Yet the drug trade, sadly, is truly monstrous. It’s a simple case of demand and supply.

One method of curbing this blight on society that is gaining traction amongst those that count, is legalising the drug trade in order to gain some hope of regulating it.

For every action, there is a reaction.

With the converse also being true, I am suggesting that we ditch the Springbok, thus removing the regulation of it’s consumption and growth.

My bet is that it will grow almost as fast as the drug trade!

And while drugs are heinous and bad, the springbok has the ability to continue to be a symbol of hope, unification and glory that Madiba wanted it to be.

By keeping it on the Springbok jersey, all we are doing is giving no name brands who do little other than sit in parliament the ability to score cheap political points by calling for it’s removal in election years.

Take it away, and they might actually have to do some work – like dream up ways to keep Craven Week players of colour in the system so new Bok coach Allister Coetzee has a bigger talent pool to call on.

Or lo and behold, try and come with ways to maintain our country’s infrastructure, tackle poverty, insure that education is a reality or even work out ways to stimulate the economy so as to create jobs!

“Bafana Bafana” is not on the national soccer kit. The word “Proteas” is not on the national cricket kit. “Ama Glug Glug” is not on the SA U23 soccer kit.

Why do we need the word “Springbok” on the national rugby kit for the team to be known as the Springboks, Boks, Bokke or even Ama Bokke?

In fact, would it not be tremendously fun to wear the replica kit with the springbok emblazoned on it in even bigger fashion than it ever was on the Bok jersey?

A cheeky way to pull a little zap sign at the people who are running the country into the ground, yet are happy to spend so much time getting a 5cm buck removed from a piece of clothing.

And unlike SAFA, who missed the boat twice on trademarking the term “Bafana Bafana”, SARU have indeed trademarked all things “Springbok”, so would continue to generate revenue from it. Revenue that could be used to indeed keep those talented Craven Week players in the system for a little longer!

I suggest this not out of spite, but out of love for an emblem that I truly do not see as divisive, instead one representative of all the good that sport can do for our country.

The Bok is dead, long live the Bok!


  1. Good point. #blitzbokke a good example. Used by commentators these days. Don’t think its on the jerseys…

  2. Excellent analysis. The only problem I have is that the racist blowhards in Parliament would count it as a victory!

  3. Gold mining and the Springboks put SA on the global map. These bastards have destroyed the former, must we let them destroy the latter? Give them an inch they take a mile. What next, no white players ever again?

    I say no, no 100 times no

  4. Well said Tank, how utterly childish that a symbol recoginsed and known world wide for excellence and power would be removed just because some politicians have agendas in stirring up hate. If you go into Junior schools and ask any rugby mad kid BLACK or white about what he would like to be one day and he will say “A SPRINGBOK RUGBY PLAYER” and he says it with a twinkle in his eye and passion in his voice. I can promise you that the youth of today do see the Springbok as a symbol of oppression, they see it as a symbol of strength and pride. Why dont these old farts in politics just shut up and let this country blossom instead of burying us all in negativity and shame. People dont want to be held back they want to prosper and live !!!!! Long live the Springbok !!!!!!

  5. Yep, saw the story re-surface on Planet rugby and my heart sank. I had to google this chap Rabada and see exactly what he has done for the country – the answer is not much. As you say a no name brand. If keeping the bok was good enough for Madiba then you would think these guys would move onto important things. Like how about removing badly performing presidents – at least the Bok emblem has not cost the country millions.

  6. I see our esteemed Sports Portfolio Committee also objected that there were no women on the board of SARU. This guy Rabada is clutching at straws but unable to realise what a fool he is making of himself.

  7. Godfrey: the name of the member of the Portfolio Committee on Sports is Ralegoma, not Rabada. The ANC has distanced itself from his statement.
    I do think Tank has a valid suggestion. I agree that the name is stronger than the symbol and will likely persist. The symbol could be re-established at a later stage.
    Still, I am not in favour of appeasement.

Comments are closed.