No sport in South Africa receives direct, all-inclusive government support that guarantees full international travel, gear, and competition expenses for its athletes.
In South Africa, the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) and the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (SASCOC) do not directly fund individual athletes or cover the operational/travel costs of competing internationally for the vast majority of sports.
Instead, the government allocates limited grants (such as through the Winning Nation subprogramme) to national sports federations (governing bodies like Swimming South Africa, Athletics South Africa, etc.). These federations are legally independent entities responsible for managing their own codes, sourcing sponsorships, and distributing funds.
The significant public outcry, political debate, and media attention surrounding Tatjana Smith (née Schoenmaker) – South Africa’s most decorated Olympian – stem from a combination of high-profile administration crises, governance failures, and her decision to switch her sporting nationality to the Netherlands for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
The SA funding model creates significant challenges across the sporting landscape:
Lesser-known or smaller minority sports—such as martial arts variants, canoe polo, sport climbing, underwater sports, korfball, and various niche disability sports – receive virtually zero state allocation and minimal corporate sponsorship. Athletes representing South Africa internationally in these codes routinely have to pay entirely out of pocket for flights, accommodation, event entry fees, and equipment.
Even major Olympic and international sports that receive partial federation backing (such as swimming, hockey, and athletics), elite athletes frequently face heavy shortfalls. Public scrutiny often highlights instances where national competitors are required to self-fund tens of thousands of rands for international world championships or qualifiers because federation budgets and government grants fall short.
Government leadership (including the Department of Sport) maintains that while state grants are given to federations to assist with administration and development, it is structurally impossible for the state to directly finance the international travel and competition costs of individual athletes across all sports codes.
The Smith furore involves several key friction points:
As a four-time Olympic medalist (including two golds), her choice to walk away from South Africa to represent her father’s birth nation shocked the public and highlighted how elite athletes are driven away by systemic local frustrations.
The Swimming South Africa (SSA) federation has been plagued by deep controversies, including a scandal involving a mismanaged and abandoned high-performance training center in Franschhoek that allegedly swallowed over R50 million. This led to the provisional suspension of top SSA officials by World Aquatics’ integrity unit amid allegations of abuse of power and falsified documents.
Smith was involved in a public legal battle with Swimming South Africa after the federation withheld $35,000 in international championship prize money for over a year over a kit dispute (involving her wearing Speedo equipment instead of the federation’s mandated Arena brand). She and other athletes argued that restrictive federation apparel deals force them to forfeit personal commercial opportunities that fund their training, while providing little tangible support in return.
Her departure triggered a fierce political row. Opposition parties targeted Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie, questioning his oversight and use of ministerial powers regarding troubled sports federations—especially contrasted against heavy public spending on events and trips. While McKenzie maintained that national federations are independent bodies responsible for their own operations and funding, critics argued that government inaction is failing the country’s top competitors.
The Professionalisation of Sport has a Downside:
In South Africa, “Cinderella sports” refers to sporting codes that operate outside the commercial spotlight of the “Big Three” (rugby, cricket, and football). Because they generate minimal broadcast revenue and lack major corporate sponsors, they rely heavily on dwindling state grants, National Lotteries Commission (NLC) payouts, and athlete self-funding.
Federations for sports outside the Olympic programme receive negligible or zero annual allocations from the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture (DSAC) and SASCOC. Athletes representing South Africa internationally in these codes operate on a strict “pay-to-play” model – crowdfunding or paying out of pocket for flights, kits, accommodation, and entry fees:
Martial Arts & Combat Variants: Kickboxing, Muay Thai, Karate (non-Olympic cycles), Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and MMA.
Precision & Cue Sports: Darts, Snooker, Pool, and Ten-pin Bowling.
Minority Team & Court Sports: Korfball, Floorball, Ultimate Frisbee, Futsal, and Indoor Cricket/Netball.
Niche Water, Wheel & Outdoor Codes: Canoe Polo, Lifesaving, Underwater Hockey/Rugby, Ice Hockey, Figure Skating, Roller Derby, and Orienteering.
Mind Sports: Chess and Bridge (which rarely receive baseline funding unless the Sports Minister intervenes with an emergency once-off grant before a major tournament).
Even established Olympic federations are treated like Cinderella codes when compared to commercial giants. While their governing bodies receive modest state grants for basic administration, the money rarely stretches to cover international competition:
Field Hockey: Despite competing at the Olympics and World Cups, players regularly have to crowdfund tens of thousands of rands per tournament for flights and camps unless public pressure forces last-minute ministerial bailouts.
Aquatics (Artistic Swimming, Diving, Water Polo): Even under Swimming South Africa, non-marquee disciplines face severe shortfalls, with junior and senior squad members routinely billed R80,000 to R120,000 each to attend world championships.
Amateur Boxing (SANABO): Operates on a shoestring budget (historically around R1.2 million annually for over 700 clubs nationwide), leaving amateur boxers with almost no international travel support.
Gymnastics, Fencing, Archery, Wrestling, Weightlifting, and Table Tennis: Athletes in these technical disciplines almost entirely self-fund their international qualification campaigns.
Rowing, Canoeing, and Sailing: High equipment and logistics costs are borne primarily by athletes, parents, and private club sponsorships rather than state coffers.
Para-Sports: Outside of high-profile Paralympic medalists who qualify for SASCOC’s elite Operation Excellence (OPEX) stipends, athletes in codes like Wheelchair Basketball, Blind Cricket, Goalball, and Para-Cycling face chronic underfunding and steep out-of-pocket travel costs.
Women’s Leagues: Even in major sports like rugby, football (Banyana Banyana), and netball, domestic semi-professional structures and youth international tours consistently receive a fraction of the funding allocated to their male counterparts.
Sports Minister Gayton McKenzie and DSAC have reiterated that the government distributes annual administrative grants to recognized federations rather than directly funding individual athletes’ international travel. Because DSAC and SASCOC prioritize medal-yielding Olympic codes through targeted programs like OPEX, smaller federations—often hampered by governance issues and a lack of commercial appeal—are left to run their sports “out of the boots of their cars”
The reality hits even the young:
My eldest son wanted to be a rowing coach and his first year at university was spent very succesfully living that dream. Towards the end of his first year at NMU he said to me that he wanted to change course to his second choice – Accounting – as; “No matter how successful I am as a Rowing Coach in South Africa I will never be able to support and live a lifestyle that I have become accustomed to.” The rest is history and rowings loss, as I believe he would have been very successful as a rowing coach.
