Abstract
This study analyses and evaluates the role of SACOS in South African sport between 1982 and 1992. This analysis reveals that SACOS was marginalised by 1992. Whilst its role is discussed, this study sets out to explain how and why SACOS was marginalised. How did it come about that the vanguard of the sport struggle found itself in this position in 1992? The role of SACOS and its subsequent marginalisation is explained through the discussion of:
1) the prevailing political conditions in South Africa between 1982 and 1992;
2) the prevailing conditions of South African sport between 1982 and 1992; and
3) the position SACOS occupied in South African sport between 1982 and 1992.
This study offers a broad historical overview of South African sport before 1982 and the development of SACOS. The purpose of this broad historical overview was to demonstrate that SACOS was a major factor in SA sport before 1992 and to highlight the role it played.
The structure, policies, membership and leadership of SACOS were discussed to gain an understanding of the nature of the organisation and the people who drove it. Thereafter the actions and influences of various role players were discussed and the effects of these influences on SACOS. [The major role players identified in this study were the SA government, the international sporting community, SANROC led by Sam Ramsamy, establishment sport, the NSC, the broader liberation movements and big business.]
This was followed by a discussion in which SACOS, its policies and its philosophy, was evaluated against the actions of the various role players and the changing political environment. The relationship SACOS had with various role players is described to illustrate how it came to occupy the peripheral position from which it had no influence.
The central question that was addressed was whether or not SACOS, through its policies, contrived to marginalise itself. The study reveals that SACOS was in no position to determine the agenda for SA sport, that its principled stance stood no chance in the pragmatic politics of the day and that its marginalisation was effected more by external factors than its hard line policies.
Prof. G. Verhoef