Swimming SA, private body in court in fight for the soul of local water polo

A private organisation wanting to uplift water polo has told the Cape Town high court Swimming South Africa (SSA) has failed to advance the sport locally, especially “at an elite level”.

SSA, the national federation responsible for the aquatics disciplines of swimming, water polo, diving and artistic swimming, is seeking an interdict against newly launched South Africa Water Polo (SAWP), an NPO.

SSA’s action, in which 14 respondents have been named, is being heard on Wednesday.

In heads of argument SSA is accusing SAWP, the first respondent, of trying to usurp its functions and interfering in the running of the sport.

It says its status as the only national aquatics authority is recognised by the National Sport and Recreation Act, the South African Sports Confederation and Olympic Committee (Sascoc) and the international governing body World Aquatics.

SSA also cited a legal precedent to bolster its argument that only a single federation could run a sport in the country. “[SSA] is the only national federation for the sport of swimming recognised locally as well as internationally”.

SSA agreed that, hypothetically, a separate body could be created, but only with its blessing.

SSA said the respondents had been invited to work within the structures of the association to contribute to the administration of water polo but “they made unreasonable demands and refused to engage in good faith”.

SAWP has countered that it established itself as a voluntary organisation to advance a sport it alleges has been poorly managed by SSA.

Its long-term intention is to become the national federation for water polo, but its first-choice avenue was engaging SSA. Failing that it planned to apply for recognition with World Aquatics.

“[SSA] does not have an exclusive right in perpetuity to govern or administer the sport of water polo in South Africa, it has no right to prevent [SAWP] from taking steps to legally acquire that right,” SAWP said in heads of argument before the court.

SAWP argued only international federations had the right to accept or reject members, adding in many countries the individual aquatics disciplines were run independently of each other, notably top water polo nations such as Hungary, Serbia, Croatia and Australia.

“SSA is administratively outdated: it has failed to evolve and advance water polo in South Africa, particularly at an elite level,” SAWP argued.

“These failures have resulted in the parlous, shambolic and neglected state in which water polo finds itself in South Africa, with a lack of meaningful transformation, poor administration, a dearth of fundraising initiatives and a non-existent high performance programme.”

One of the 14 respondents in the case, coach Duncan Woods, wrote in an affidavit that the failures included not appointing a coach for the national men’s team and not establishing selection committees and selection criteria that meant teams were not selected in good time and therefore ill-prepared.

Late selections also meant players had little time to raise large amounts of money to fund their travel costs to competitions abroad.

SAWP argued the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland had upheld the autonomy of international federations to decide on its own memberships.

“An international federation alone has the right to decide who to admit as a member to represent a particular country or territory; not the government or national Olympic committee of the country or territory.

“[SAWP] is not prohibited from applying to World Aquatics as a national body.”

SAWP, claiming it represents the “overwhelming majority of the water polo playing community”, denied a claim it had passed itself off as a national federation.

Its actions of engaging with clubs, players and the media while developing a high-performance programme could not be seen as a hindrance.

“[SSA] has no right to prevent a group of water polo players voluntarily getting together to discuss ways of improving the sport or their own performance. This is merely a manifestation of SAWP's constitutional rights to freedom of association.”

Sascoc is the 14th respondent, though CEO Nozipho Jafta submitted a supporting affidavit for SSA saying the umbrella body recognised only SSA. SAWP have argued Sascoc did not participate in the build-up to the hearing and her affidavit should be disregarded.