Springbok sponsors finally tackle Mr Big

THERE IS no option, he has to go... end of story? Louis Luyt, the tycoon who controls South African rugby, has heard it all before, and defiantly ignored it. But this time it comes in a language he understands, for the business world has finally turned against him.

The unequivocal "Louis must go" statement was made by Russell Macmillan, chief executive of M-Net Supersport, the station which holds the broadcasting rights in South Africa for the lucrative Super 12 and Tri-Nations rugby series. It followed the South African National Sports Council's threat to ban the national rugby team from international competition, and prevent it using the Springbok emblem, if the executive of the South African Rugby Football Union (Sarfu), and its president, Mr Luyt, do not resign.

The NSC's patience snapped after Sarfu's refusal to co-operate with a government inquiry into alleged mismanagement, racism, nepotism and financial irregularities in rugby, the near-religion of white Afrikaners. This led to President Nelson Mandela spending two days in a Pretoria court, defending his political decision to launch the inquiry.

For many the President's "humiliation" was the lowest point in rugby's already ignominious decline. That heady day in 1995 when Mr Mandela donned the Springbok jersey after South Africa cemented its triumphant return to the international scene by winning the Rugby World Cup is long forgotten. The "nation-building" sport has again become a racial battleground.

No one denies Big Louis has made rugby a successful business. But too little is being done, it is argued, to take the game to the townships or bring blacks into play. He is accused of treating the game as a private fiefdom - like a "dictator", Mr Mandela said - and of concealing details of lucrative contracts he and his son-in-law, Rian Oberholzer, Sarfu's chief executive, negotiate.

The decision on Sarfu's court battle with the government is due in two weeks, and the rugby union may win. But the sponsors, who finally entered the fray last week, say Mr Luyt will not win the wider war. "We warned Louis Luyt not to contest the appointment of a commission of inquiry in court," said Mr MacMillan. "We need the goodwill of government... but it has been destroyed... We can kiss rugby goodbye unless Luyt resigns." Alan Knott-Craig of Vodacom, a cellular network firm which is one of the biggest sponsors, said: "This issue is not about what is legally right or wrong, but what is morally right and wrong."

While the game might survive the loss of the current Sarfu administration, desertion by sponsors would kill it. Major backers such as Nike and Winfield cigarettes now say Sarfu must co-operate with the investigation, whatever the court decides. "We are deeply concerned about the continuous allegations regarding the lack of openness, transparency and accountability in Sarfu's administration," Winfield said. Nike said it would review its 25m rand (pounds 3m) sponsorship if Sarfu did not play ball with the government.

Reverberations are being felt across the southern hemisphere. If South Africa is removed from the series, the 1.65bn rand deal between Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and Rupert Murdoch's News Corp would be seriously threatened, according to Peter Jenkins of the Australian newspaper. "That money is the lifeblood of professionalism in Australia," he wrote.

Sarfu and the NSC meet on Tuesday to discuss the crisis, and significantly Mr Luyt will not be among the four-member delegation.

Since the 1980s what Big Louis wanted in South African rugby, Big Louis got. But now business has spoken, he might recognise echoes of the end of apartheid, when the multinationals told the white regime the game was up. Surely, observers say, even he can hear the final whistle.