SuperSport's influence on South African rugby, perceived or otherwise, is likely to be a rallying point at next month's SA Rugby elections.
The Sunday Times has learnt that several smaller unions have become disillusioned with the TV pay channel's role in the sport. They argue that SuperSport's minority share interest in the Sharks and the Cheetahs provides it a platform to influence major rugby decisions. They also lament the broadcaster's lack of enthusiasm to televise matches in the Currie Cup's First Division. 
The small unions' dissatisfaction is likely to reverberate at next month's elections when incumbent president Mark Alexander will be challenged by Leopards strongman Andre May.
Francois Davids, SA Rugby's deputy president, will be opposed for the position by Jan Marais of the Griffons.
"Some of the unions are concerned about the undue influence that is being wielded by entities outside SA Rugby. That is why they have asked me to make myself available," said Marais.
While Marais was reluctant to go into detail, it is easy to connect the dots. Another source, who did not want to be named, said the pay channel had for some time been wielding its power behind the scenes. It is the sole broadcast rights holder of rugby in the country, which makes it not just the biggest investor in the sport, but also the entity that is most at risk.
"We refute the allegations of some so-called 'smaller' rugby unions," SuperSport said in a statement. "We are unable to, and do not influence rugby decision-making. We hold only a minority shareholding in two of the 14 rugby unions. We assist those unions with their administration and expend significant cost and management time in doing so."It perhaps begs the question why a broadcaster would expend so much money and energy if it got little in return?
"They basically get unions, where they have a stake to vote in a way that suits their agenda," a source, who did not want to be named, said.
"They are all about selling decoders and they don't particularly care about the provinces. Besides, it is a conflict of interest because what happens when the broadcast deal is up for negotiation? I think SA Rugby has been hijacked."
SuperSport's role in rugby came under scrutiny last year when labour federation Cosatu drew attention to what it believed was a monopoly in the build-up to the test against the All Blacks at Newlands. The trade union federation argued that free-to-air channels needed a slice of the action.
A major part of the disaffected unions' concerns, however, centres on SA Rugby's disbursement of the broadcast funds. Although the figures have yet to be finalised, provinces who anchor Super Rugby franchises can expect no less than R32-million a year while the rest will get R17-million. Marais is under the impression the latter figure is R10.4-million.
He says the disbursement is well short of what had been promised.
"It basically means we don't have money to sustain women's rugby, while we are only able to afford a single round in the Currie Cup," said Marais. "My fear is that they are trying to phase us out."
Marais and those who back him face a tall order at the elections. The five major provinces, as well as Griquas, the Pumas and South Western Districts, are likely to back Alexander.
The source that we cannot name had reservations about the May/Marais ticket.
"I don't know how they think they can win. I doubt two white candidates will be elected to those positions. Their unions are reliant on handouts from SA Rugby. If you ask me, I think their candidacy is an attempt to take rugby back to the Afrikaner."
A source at one of the big franchises was blunt in his pre-election assessment: "I can understand the small unions wanting more. However, is the question about their financial wellbeing, or should the question be 'what is your contribution to the Springbok team?'"
Alexander is attending Sanzar meetings in London and was not available for comment.
SA Rugby's elections are scheduled for April 6...