Dive into the controversy that rocked South African cricket this year. From David Teeger’s shocking demotion as U19 Proteas captain to Cricket South Africa’s handling of the fallout, these in-depth articles by Marius Roodt, Terrence Corrigan, and Craig Snoyman uncover the untold stories behind the headlines.
Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.
The seventh BizNews Conference, BNC#7, is to be held in Hermanus from March 11 to 13, 2025. The 2025 BizNews Conference is designed to provide an excellent opportunity for members of the BizNews community to interact directly with the keynote speakers, old (and new) friends from previous BNC events – and to interact with members of the BizNews team. Register for BNC#7 here.
The consequences of politicking in cricket
In a recent controversy, U/19 Proteas captain David Teeger faced backlash for dedicating an award to the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). Although an independent inquiry found no reason for sanctions, Cricket South Africa (CSA) stripped Teeger of the captaincy, citing vague safety concerns. CSA has faced criticism for its handling of political issues, including its support for the Black Lives Matter movement. The recent announcement of a hard cap on white players in national XIs by 2030 has raised concerns about CSA prioritising politics over cricket development.
By Marius Roodt*
It’s not often that the name of the U/19 Proteas captain is in the headlines. At the end of last year this was the case, with David Teeger, the current skipper of the U/19 team, seeing his name in publications across the country.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t for cricketing reasons, but rather for comments he made after he had been awarded the ‘Rising Star’ accolade at a Jewish Achievers Award dinner towards the end of last year. Teeger was quoted as saying: ‘I’m now the rising star, but the true rising stars are the young soldiers in Israel. And I’d like to dedicate [my award] to the state of Israel and every single soldier fighting so that we can live and thrive in the diaspora’.
The Palestinian Solidarity Alliance laid a complaint with Cricket South Africa (CSA), the sport’s governing body. This led to Teeger’s remarks being discussed at a CSA board meeting, where it was decided that an ‘independent inquiry’ would be instituted, led by well-known advocate, Wim Trengrove. Subsequently, this inquiry found that there was no reason to sanction Teeger in any way but it’s alarming that it came to this point.
As Anton Harber noted in the Daily Maverick while a person may disagree with what Teeger said, his comments were not hate speech. As Harber argued: ‘he (Teeger) did not celebrate genocide or express a bloodthirsty desire for revenge’.
What is more alarming has been CSA’s reaction to what Teeger said. Implementing an inquiry, as the body has done, seems to be a complete overreaction.
As it stands, Teeger is not an employee of or contracted to CSA, indeed he has played only three professional cricket matches, all for the ‘SA Emerging’ XI (basically an U/19 Proteas team). He was, at the time of his comments, also, technically a schoolboy, only having written matric last year.
CSA should have simply said: ‘We’ll have a word with the youngster, while everyone calms down to a panic.’
Political views
That said, sportsmen who do represent their country should, perhaps, keep their political views to themselves.
No current Protea, Springbok, or Bafana Bafana player tells people who they will be voting for this year or expresses their political views.
I, for one, would find it hard to still support the Proteas if, say, Lungi Ngidi expressed his support for Julius Malema and said that he too believed that, in truth, white and Indian South African were simply interlopers in this country.
At the same time, Jewish South Africans would probably feel equally uncomfortable if a Muslim Springbok or Protea said that what Hamas did on 7 October was a justified reaction to colonial occupation.
It can also be questioned whether Teeger’s remarks in support of the IDF are equivalent to supporting Hamas. I would argue they are not, but this would be a view that other South Africans disagree with, which could make it difficult for them to support a team that Teeger captains.
But as Teeger is not currently contracted to the Proteas, it’s unclear what formal codes of conduct he has transgressed.
And, when it comes down to it, Teeger’s statements were fairly milquetoast.
But it is unclear why Teeger has been taken to task for these statements. CSA seems to hold no official position on the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, and even if it did, it must be asked whether one of the national side’s players would then be expected to support it.
And it now seems that CSA has bowed to pressure from somewhere, and has stripped Teeger of the captaincy, making some vague claims about ‘safety’. But if you think CSA cannot sink lower in your estimation, read on.
Dabbled
CSA has dabbled in politics before. At the height of the Black Lives Matter movement CSA were supportive of what – when it comes down to it – is a political movement. There is a difference between saying ‘black lives matter’ and ‘Black Lives Matter’ – the first expresses a sentiment most right-thinking people agree with while the latter is supportive of what seems to have been in large part a cynical money-making scheme.
Before various games Proteas players were expected to show their support for Black Lives Matter through various ways, either through the customary ‘taking the knee,’ holding a fist up, or standing at attention. When critics said that the various ways the Proteas were expressing support for the movement made the team look disunited and lost, a directive was issued which said that all the Proteas had to take the knee during the 2021 Cricket World Cup. When wicketkeeper-batter, Quinton de Kock, refused to take a knee he was withdrawn from the playing XI of the morning of a match. This led to claims on social media that De Kock was a racist and probably played at least some part in his subsequent decisions to make himself unavailable for the Proteas in Test and ODI cricket (he is still available for the national T20 side).
But it cannot be right that CSA can dictate to players what their views on an issue must be. South Africa is a diverse country and even if it were not it is unlikely that eleven people from whatever background are going to have identical views on political and social issues.
But the ham-fisted way CSA deals with politics should not surprise anyone, given the rudderless manner it has dealt with the vexed transformation of sport, especially compared to their rugby counterparts, the Springboks.
Hard cap
The recent announcement that CSA envisions a hard cap of four white players in any national XI by 2030 makes one think that the body is more interested in playing politics than doing the hard work of making cricket a growing and sustainable game, and ensuring that the Proteas remain one of the world’s best teams.
Evidence of how these hard quotas have poisoned the game of cricket in this country was before a recent match between SA U/19 (the side which Teeger captained) and their Indian counterparts. Before a match between the two sides the team sheets were shared on X (formerly Twitter). These team sheets generally include players’ names, numbers, who are the designated captains and wicketkeepers, and occasionally their playing role, such as whether they are batters, bowlers, or all-rounders. Bizarrely the South African team sheet included the race of players.
It is not clear why this was necessary information to provide ahead of the match against the Indian U/19s. At provincial level it is a requirement to list the race of players on team sheets, which have to be submitted to CSA to ensure that teams meet the body’s racial diktats (at least six of a playing XI must be of colour, with three having to be ‘black African’).
This in itself has caused problems with teams being reported to match referees for not meeting the requisite racial requirements, when in fact they have, when a player an opposing team was thought to be coloured, for example, said he actually consider himself black African.
Pencil tests
How long until a pencil will have to be part of a South African cricketer’s equipment, along with a bat and a helmet?
Some could argue that this quota system in cricket is a necessary evil, given this country’s history of discrimination and exclusion, but it must be asked why a person’s race needs to be written down on the team sheets of the U/19 national side. What purpose does this serve, exactly?
Despite this cricket is still in relatively rude health. The Proteas continue to give a good account of themselves, and the SA 20 competition, which recently began its second edition, exceeded all expectations last year, by turning a profit and, for the first time in years, igniting public interest in a South African domestic cricket tournament.
And much of this success seems to be despite CSA, rather than because of it.
Imagine what shape cricket would be in if CSA focused on the actual game instead of the peripheral politics around it. Perhaps the Proteas could finally look to secure that elusive first World Cup trophy?
A man can dream, can’t he?
*Marius Roodt is currently deputy editor of the Daily Friend and also consults on IRR campaigns.
This article was first published by Daily Friend and is republished with permission
Appeasement in advance: Terrence Corrigan on David Teeger’s demotion as u19 Proteas captain
In the midst of South Africa’s sports fervour, the demotion of David Teeger as captain of the U19 Cricket team sparked controversy. Teeger, an observant Jew, faced backlash for praising the Israel Defence Forces during a ceremony. Despite being cleared of violating cricketing codes, he was removed due to potential protests and security concerns, leading to accusations of antisemitism. The move raises questions about sports administration’s politicisation in South Africa and the effectiveness of preemptive capitulation to perceived threats, signalling a troubling acceptance of coercion through violence in the country.
By Terence Corrigan*
Sports-mad South Africa has a voracious appetite for news of all types about the affairs of its pitches, courts, and fields, and an emotional response to match. Where it intersects with another national fixation, politics, the intensity of feeling ramps up exponentially. To use a rather lame pun, sport is no game in this country.
The latest illustration of this has been the demotion of David Teeger from the captaincy of the U19 Cricket team. The background is well known: Teeger, an observant Jew, received an achievement award in October last year, on which occasion he praised the soldiers of the Israel Defence Forces: ‘And I’d like to dedicate [my award] to the state of Israel and every single soldier fighting so that we can live and thrive in the diaspora.’
This was, of course, in the wake of fighting that erupted after Hamas’s attack on Israel on 7 October. The situation in this corner of the world has the capacity to incite a unique level of passion wholly out of proportion to South Africa’s ability to influence it (or for that matter, out of proportion to the country’s understanding of it). Following (inevitable) complaints about his words – complaints that the national governing body, Cricket South Africa (CSA), endorsed – the matter was subjected to an investigation by Wim Trengove. Teeger was comprehensively cleared. Trengove found that while it may have been controversial, what Teeger said hadn’t violated any cricketing codes of conduct.
Demonstrations
Around a month later, Teeger was removed as captain. According to CSA, this was because he was likely to be the ‘focus’ of demonstrations that ‘could result in conflict or even violence, including between rival groups of protestors.’
Its statement read: ‘CSA has a primary duty to safeguard the interests and safety of all those involved in the World Cup and must accordingly respect the expert advice of those responsible for the safety of participants and spectators. In all the circumstances, CSA has decided that David should be relieved of the captaincy for the tournament. This is in the best interests of all the players, the SA U19 team and David himself.’
Noble sentiments. A hard-headed exercise of the fiduciary duty that CSA owed to the game and its supporters, and also showing admirable concern for the young man whom the organisation had earlier believed to have contravened its standards of behaviour.
As it happens, this was met by a great deal of cynicism, much of it expressed in accusations of antisemitism. The CSA board chairman, Lawson Naidoo, hit back that that was not deserving of a response. No, this really was about security. ‘People don’t understand the situation,’ he told News24, ‘We get advice from experts and it’s not our position to second guess them. The threats emanate from opportunistic elements who seek to maximise potential disruptions.’
Naidoo didn’t choose to share more so that people could in fact understand the situation to which he was privy, but media enquiries cast doubt on his account. Sources in the state security services and in the private security sector revealed no apparent knowledge of any threats. All of this raised the question whether the demotion was in fact really about punishing Teeger for his unpalatable views. Not able to get him on a legality, they went after him on a practicality.
Hardly inconceivable
This is hardly inconceivable. South African sports administration has been a politicised affair since the 19th century, when Cecil John Rhodes intervened to prevent Krom Hendricks from touring England in 1894. CSA under its current leadership has not been averse to following in Rhodes’s footsteps, as it did when the board instructed the Proteas team to ‘take the knee’ ahead of a game against the West Indies in 2021.
At the time, CSA was worried that a failure of the team to genuflect in lockstep might create an ‘unintended perception’ that not all the players were fully onside with the Black Lives Matter movement. Here, CSA actually mandated political speech, seemingly oblivious to the fact that citizens of a free democracy have every right (nay, a duty) to evaluate and express their political stances on the basis of their own convictions. Or that any gesture performed under instruction lacks moral conviction.
CSA’s conduct was the stuff of despots. Still, as Naidoo put it at the time: ‘Diversity can and should find expression in many facets of our daily lives, but not when it comes to taking a stand against racism.’ Or perhaps when it comes to the politics of the Middle East, too.
Nevertheless, CSA’s claims that it is acting out of security concerns merits more attention than it has received. CSA and Naidoo believe that they’ve done the sport and its spectators a service. Having acted against the ‘focus’ of protestors’ wrath, they have ensured that the cricketing world can look forward to a smooth and peaceful tournament. Perhaps – though it is not apparent whether Teeger’s demotion will be sufficient to mollify some of the more excitable of the country’s activist community.
Capitulating
But did CSA do society a service or a disservice by its actions? Pre-emptively capitulating to supposed demands – rather than, say, hiring more guards for crowd management – to forestall the violence that was supposedly in store communicates a very specific message: threats work. Threaten violence and we’ll surrender in advance. This is the case whether any threat was actually made or not.
In this, CSA’s conduct is both sadly familiar and utterly destructive. Coercive violence can have no place in a constitutional democracy; such a system relies on a suite of institutions to provide avenues for the non-violent pursuit of political goals and to mediate the conflict that this inevitably generates. Debate and argument with the intent to persuade, or the use of an impartial legal system to compel, are the operative tools; a willingness to accept loss a condition. Violence is the strategy of the spoiler and the despot, aspirant or incumbent.
South Africa has no lack of these. At times, this has been the tactic of the taxi industry, of worker unions, of student activists, of the Economic Freedom Fighters (‘Fighters Attack!’) and the so-called construction mafia. A threat to do damage is made to obtain concessions. After a hurried meeting with the local ‘business forum’ or the ‘Central Command’, the victim makes a declaration about the bounteous opportunities for cooperation and pledges to do better in future. And the extortionist has secured an implied warning to others.
Of course, it needs to be recorded that (from the perspective of those on the receiving end of intimidation) this may seem the only route to go. After all, consequences for lawlessness are all too often light, ineffective, or might be forgone altogether. The more erudite and skilful interlocutors save an inch of face by dressing their appeasement up as an exercise in empathy in the face of weighty issues and deep emotions and the imperative of moving forward together.
Effective tool
The real message, though, is that in South Africa, violence is an effective tool. This message may be ‘unintended’, but it is clear to anyone listening to it.
One can’t help but remark in conclusion that Naidoo also serves as the Executive Secretary of the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution. This was launched with much fanfare in 2010 by a colloquium of the great and the good to – as its name suggests – ‘advance’ constitutional government. Central to this was to encourage understanding and active participation in constitutional governance. As its website says: ‘Once constitutional rights are claimed by the many, then ordinary people will undertake extraordinary acts to assert their rights, and protect and advance the Constitution.’
*Terence Corrigan is the Project Manager at the Institute, where he specialises in work on property rights, as well as land and mining policy.
This article was first published by Daily Friend and is republished with permission
CricketSA are covering up the Teeger matter
The Teeger matter in South African cricket reveals alleged misconduct by CricketSA and Gauteng Central Lions, involving corporate governance breaches and selective enforcement. David Teeger’s charge for supporting the Israeli army sparked controversy over contract violations and double standards. Despite legal efforts to address concerns, CricketSA remains unresponsive, prompting questions about fairness and governance in South African cricket. Accusations of malfeasance and double standards have intensified the controversy.
By Craig Snoyman*
CricketSA and the Gauteng Central Lions have chosen to cover up what I regard as their malfeasance in the Teeger matter.
They have chosen to sweep under the carpet issues of corporate governance, fraudulent misrepresentations and violations of media contracts I contend employees and South African cricketers have breached.
David Teeger was charged with bringing cricket into disrepute by making a statement in favour of the Israeli army at a private function. He was not under contract at the time. Five complaints were lodged with the Gauteng Central Lions. Following the Lions’ initial position that it would send out letters to the complainants acknowledging their concerns, the matter was escalated. CricketSA became involved. The same five complaints that had been sent to the Lions now formed the basis of a charge brought against Teeger by CricketSA.
Of the complaints lodged, one emanated from Lenasia Cricket Club. Another came from Diadora, a sponsor of Lions cricket. There is a very clear link between these two complainants. The chairman of the Lenasia Cricket Club is one Azhar Saloojee. The person lodging the complaint on behalf of Diadora is also Azhar Saloojee: the same person. The complaint by Diadora South Africa stated that they ‘will not tolerate Mr Teeger playing in any tournament sponsored by Diadora’.
In its response, Diadora’s head office in Italy responded by stating that Diadora had no directors in South Africa, and disassociated itself from the statement made by Saloojee, stating that Saloojee was not authorised to make such a statement. The statement about Teeger was made by Saloojee in his personal capacity. So Saloojee, the chairman of Lenasia Cricket Club and subject to the jurisdiction and sanction of CricketSA, falsely misrepresented facts to Gauteng Lions and CricketSA and went as far as threatening CricketSA.
From the Lions’ level, the matter was elevated to the CricketSA level, using the same complaints as those lodged with Gauteng Lions. There is nothing in the constitution of either the Gauteng Lions or CricketSA (the South African Cricket Board) which provides for a matter which has been launched at franchise level to be dealt with at a national level. The ‘acknowledgement of complaint’ letter was discarded, and Teeger was charged at a national level.
New complaint statements used in the charge against Teeger were those of Mohammed Moosajee, the president of the Gauteng Lions, Jonathan Leaf-Wright, the CEO of the Gauteng Lions, and Pholetsi Moketi, the CEO of Cricket South Africa. For these members to have provided statements, they needed to have received the prior approval of their respective boards. Moosajee acknowledged that he did not have permission from the Lions, but still irregularly submitted an affidavit in his personal capacity. Moosajee and Moketi, having charged Teeger for a statement made in favour of Israeli soldiers, failed to see the irony in their submitting their own views of the history of ‘the occupation of Palestine’ and the condemnation of the Israeli Defence Force. As no Board approvals were given, all these statements were unauthorised and irregular. There is no provision for executives to express their personal political opinions or to submit their own voluntary statements in disciplinary charges.
Further overt politics was brought into sport by the Palestinian Solidarity Alliance, which went into detail about the ‘genocidal war against the Palestinians’. In all, each of the complainants was given the right to express their opinions ̶ some virulently political ̶ against the statement uttered by Teeger.
Nonetheless, Teeger was charged with unbecoming conduct and statements detrimental to the game of cricket in violation of the Lions’ and CricketSA codes of conduct. Teeger was not subject to any social media contract which prevented him from making a statement to the media. His statement was not made to the media but was made at an awards ceremony at a private function.
Employees and cricketers on contract are, however, prevented from making public statements without the approval of the relevant cricket authority. Hashim Amla, an employee of the Gauteng Lions, as well as contracted SA cricketers Kagiso Rabada and Tabriz Shamsi, have all expressed their opinion of the Israel-Hamas war on social media. Each expressed an opinion in favour of the Palestinians. Each has a social media contract preventing them from expressing these opinions publicly. No action has been taken against them.
In an endeavour to have CricketSA explain its position concerning the above issues and take the necessary corrective measures, or explain why these were not necessary, legal correspondence was entered into. First, there was correspondence with CricketSA and Gauteng Lions and thereafter with their legal representatives.
After initial stonewalling by CricketSA, and non-substantive correspondence by their legal representatives, a final response was received, stating that ‘there is no legal obligation on our client to either provide the information that your client seeks or to take any of the measures demanded’.
So CricketSA, the custodian of cricket in South Africa which has undertaken to promote, advance, and administer the game of cricket in South Africa and adhere to the general principles contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, saw fit to charge Teeger because he expressed his constitutional right to freedom of expression. It apparently sees no reason to explain why it is not adhering to general principles of fairness and good labour practices – at least, certainly not to a mere stakeholder member of the public.
The same CricketSA, which swore to respect and recognise the penalties laid down by members of Cricket South Africa, apparently sees no reason to take measures where, in my view, numerous clearly identifiable offences arising out of the Teeger matter are chargeable in terms of CricketSA’s rules and regulations, and probably even in terms of South Africa’s criminal law.
While Lawson Naidoo, the chair of CricketSA’s board, may say that accusations of antisemitism are ‘not deserving of a response’, let’s see how he responds to accusations of malfeasance and double standards now that the matter has gone public. Double standards where Jews are involved usually suggest antisemitism.
Craig Snoyman* is a practising advocate of the South African High Court.
This article was first published by Daily Friend and is republished with permission
Read also:
