Public money in sport: officials' perks cheat young athletes

South African sport is not just a matter of medals and national pride. It is a matter of public money, public trust and the fair treatment of the young people who carry the flag abroad, often at their own expense. When lottery funds and government contributions meant to develop athletes are allegedly spent on overseas trips and other perks for officials, the loss is felt by every citizen whose money that was, and by every aspiring sportsperson who never gets the support they were promised.

The scale of the problem is hard to ignore. Hardly a week goes by without a tipoff reaching Daily Maverick Sport about alleged corruption in South African sport. This week it was squash. Other weeks it has been swimming, water polo, cycling, diving, netball, athletics or road running. The pattern in the claims is strikingly consistent: a handful of senior officials allegedly run a federation as a personal fiefdom, spending scarce resources on travel and jollies while asking athletes to pay their own way to international events. Daily Maverick has reported on many of these cases, though limited resources mean not all can be covered.

The consequences fall on real people. The case of Olympic champion Tatjana Smith shows how badly things can go wrong, and also what it takes to put them right. Smith won the 200m breaststroke at the World Aquatics Championships in Fukuoka, Japan, in July 2023. On 16 August that year, Swimming South Africa told her it was withholding her $35,000 prize money because she had competed in the wrong kit. The money was only paid more than a year later, around the time of the 2024 Paris Olympics. The interest it had earned in the meantime was released only after her lawyers demanded it and Daily Maverick reported on the matter. SSA paid her R75,000 in interest and apologised to her at a briefing to Parliament’s Sports Portfolio Committee, where acting president Zikie Molusi conceded that the withholding of her prize money “should never have happened”. Smith has said she still does not feel safe in her own federation.

Smith got her money because she had lawyers and the media on her side. Most athletes have neither. Approaching the media is usually a last resort for frustrated athletes, and media pressure has only occasionally had consequences for officials. Yet the underlying truth is simple: no one has ever paid money to watch an official guzzling at the free lunch buffet or snoozing through a committee meeting. TV rights holders, fans and sponsors pay to watch athletes performing at their peak. The job of any federation, in the plainest terms, is to do everything in its power to support athletes in fulfilling their potential, through coaching expertise, world-class facilities, funding and structural support. It is not rocket science. Very few federations appear to take that mandate seriously.

Meanwhile, the wider system is in visible trouble. In August, the World Aquatics integrity unit provisionally suspended SSA’s president, Alan Fritz, and chief executive Shaun Adriaanse, over potential violations including abuse of power. SSA’s planned high-performance centre in Franschhoek, funded with tens of millions of rand of lottery and other money, is under investigation by the Special Investigating Unit because there is nothing to show for it. The federation’s own annual report shows athletes are carrying a growing share of the cost of competing for South Africa. In 2025 SSA spent R15.44-million on high performance, of which athletes paid R9.53-million, while the federation and its partners, including government and sponsors, contributed R5.91-million. The athletes’ share rose by R2.4-million on the previous year.

Elsewhere the picture is similar. In September, Sascoc suspended its president, Barry Hendricks, after retired judge Basheer Waglay found prima facie grounds to refer anonymous complaints of alleged safeguarding breaches to Sascoc’s judicial body. Sascoc has said the suspension is not a finding of wrongdoing. Weeks earlier, Hendricks had told Parliament that the state of the national federations saddened him. Athletics South Africa’s disciplinary panel found its suspended president, James Moloi, guilty of misusing funds after a forensic report into unauthorised credit card spending, and he has subsequently been fired. World Athletics gave ASA six months to adopt a new constitution and hold fresh elections or face sanctions, which could include suspension, and ASA has responded swiftly to the directive. With the Los Angeles Olympics less than two years away, the timing is uncomfortable. In September, Safa delegates elected Danny Jordaan to a fourth term as president by 157 votes to 82. Jordaan faces charges of fraud and theft involving more than R1.3-million of the association’s money and is due in court in November. He has not been convicted and is presumed innocent. Netball, karate and basketball are also dealing with suspensions and internal disputes.

Against this backdrop, the argument for athlete power becomes urgent. Some sports, such as cricket, rugby and football, already have well-organised player bodies. The South African Cricketers’ Association and MyPlayers in rugby provide a blueprint for security and certainty in contracting and remuneration, which is ultimately what all athletes want and deserve. But the moment has come for an independent, national body representing the interests of all athletes, removed from Sascoc and the individual federations. Hypothetically, it could take the form of an independent non-profit association for all national-team athletes, plus a registered union section for athletes who are employees, such as contracted rugby and cricket players. Funding would be a challenge, but Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie could put his money where his mouth is and commit to funding such an organisation, which could also seek commercial partnerships. It would need membership criteria such as automatic and free entry for national representatives, an athlete-elected board and published audited accounts. Nor would it have to be in opposition to Sascoc; it could work alongside the Sascoc Athletes’ Commission, which would keep its seat inside Sascoc while the new outside body held the system to account.

There is precedent. In Germany, 45 athletes founded Athleten Deutschland in 2017 despite open scepticism from the national Olympic committee. It now receives state funding independent of that committee, which also answers the objection that a state-funded body cannot be independent.

Real change may come at a short-term cost to athletes, such as missing out on a major event. It might require boycotts of high-profile events or more public speaking about the roadblocks placed in their way. That is a heavy ask of young, aspiring world-class athletes who simply want to compete and be the best they can be. But too many of them are being robbed of those dreams by self-serving officials who cling to power over numerous terms of office, sometimes against the limits of their own constitutions. Athletes are not only in a sporting contest but in a fight for their very existence at the highest level against incompetence and greed. For the public whose money sustains this system, and for the athletes it is meant to serve, the status quo cannot go on for much longer. The choice is theirs.