This was supposed to be the most Instagrammable of rugby weeks. A World Cup final in one of the world’s most beautiful cities, two fine teams, a smoothly run sport at the top of its game. Instead, at the precise moment of maximum global exposure, there is ugliness, rancour and division that now threatens to fester for months after the tournament is finished.
The fundamental facts of the Tom Curry/Bongi Mbonambi controversy are now well documented, starting from the moment Curry approached the referee Ben O’Keeffe in the first half of last week’s semi-final between England and South Africa to ask: “Sir, if their hooker calls me a white cunt what do I do?” The ramifications are growing ever more toxic and, despite its best efforts, the sport’s governing body, World Rugby, clearly still has a serious problem on its hands.
The latest can of fuel on the fire came in the form of an explosive statement from the Rugby Football Union, in response to World Rugby’s decision not to pursue any charges connected with the case because of “insufficient evidence”. The RFU has not held back, going public with the revelation that Curry complained of being allegedly abused by the same player at Twickenham last November.
The RFU, Steve Borthwick and Curry are all aggrieved that the player’s voice had not been able to be heard by an independent disciplinary panel convened to deliberate on “these serious events”. Video footage from the Twickenham game between England and the Springboks appears to show Mbonambi making some choice remarks to Curry in the 42nd minute of the game. Let’s just say the hooker did not appear to be shouting out innocent tactical observations in Afrikaans.
Unsurprisingly, SA Rugby has welcomed the decision to take no further action, backing their player and, five days on from the event, added that “needless to say” the 32-year-old denied the allegations from the outset. “Any form of racism is abhorrent to SA Rugby and the Springbok team whose purpose is to do everything in its power to assist in uniting our diverse and multicultural nation,” the statement continued.
Amen to that. Equally, though, few are emerging with credit from what is a worsening mess. Of course, World Rugby did not want the affair to overshadow the final but there was always the option of delaying a final verdict pending a more detailed probe, removing at least some of the steam from the situation in the process. Statements that include the phrase “the matter is deemed closed unless additional evidence comes to light” do not necessarily suggest a forensic, no-stone-left-unturned investigation.
There are some other curiosities. If the RFU was certain Curry had been abused in November it could have said so publicly at the time. Admittedly there was plenty else going on – it was to be Eddie Jones’s final game as England head coach – but if there was pre-existing acrimony between the two players there was always a risk of it surfacing last Saturday. England were also already unimpressed with one or two individuals at World Rugby after Curry’s sending-off against Argentina and subsequent suspension last month. Some of that frustration may still be lingering.
Then there is Rassie Erasmus, the Springboks director of rugby, who had multiple opportunities this week to apply a little soothing diplomatic balm and explain publicly why the whole saga had been an unfortunate linguistic misunderstanding. Erasmus is not averse to a few mind games but, as the man in charge of a proudly multiracial squad on the eve of a monumental World Cup final against New Zealand, he opted to allow the furore to rage unabated in this instance.
The net result is that social media has been free to do its worst. Curry and his family have become the targets of significant social media abuse, for the “crime” of reporting what the Sale flanker felt was unacceptable behaviour. World Rugby, importantly, stressed Curry had made the allegations in “good faith” and that there was no suggestion of them being “deliberately false or malicious”.
England, though, were less than thrilled when training ground footage of Mbonambi and other South African players using the Afrikaans phrase “watter kant” – which translates as “which side” – just happened to emerge this week. Coincidence? To some English eyes there were echoes of 2018, when footage emerged of Erasmus pretending to encourage his players to tackle higher shortly after Owen Farrell had escaped a ban for a high tackle on South Africa’s André Esterhuizen at Twickenham.
Given South Africa’s victory over England in the 2019 World Cup final, a degree of natural antipathy between the sides is entirely understandable. Win a second successive World Cup this weekend and the Springboks will also consider this is not the ideal moment for other rugby nations to be lecturing them.
And, goodness knows, South Africa is a remarkable country, with unrivalled experience of uncomfortable racial tensions and the importance of respect. In a classy touch, Siya Kolisi, their inspirational black captain, rang Curry this week to offer his support in countering the social media trolls. Sadly it does not alter the fact that the Boks, World Rugby and the RFU have stumbled into a reputational minefield from which there is no swift escape.
Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.
