A name is quite important for South Africans. We still don't know if Durban is now known as eThekwini, we look at the weather map and don't know how to find the temperature for Nelspruit because it's been changed to Mbombela and every time we try to take a drive down the Ben Schoeman highway to Pretoria (or is it Tshwane?) we wonder when it will become known as the Julius Malema highway. To make matters worse, it emerged this week that Bafana Bafana, may be forced to give up their name too.
GettyImages
Someone is going to need to buy a new scarf.
The issue here is not the rewriting of history, as it is with street and town name changes, but money. The South African parliamentary sports committee issued the directive for the name change after they learned that a local businessman, Stanton Woodrush, has registered Bafana Bafana as a trademark for his clothing company.
Since the South African Football Association (SAFA) lost a legal battle which started in 1997 to trademark the nickname, they can't stop Woodrush from using the words Bafana Bafana on his clothes and the only way to ensure that Woodrush doesn't benefit from associating himself with Bafana Bafana is to change the name of the national football team.
Bafana has long been considered an unsuitable name for the national football team and calls to have it changed are not new. In 2007, star player Jomo Sono told the BBC: "The name came from a journalist as a nickname in an article, when South Africa was readmitted to world football, and it stuck. It was relevant then, but now we need a name that is representative of the country."
At the time of that statement, Sono was not the only one calling for a name change. Then-President Thabo Mbeki said that he felt it was badly chosen and didn't symbolise anything, claiming: "What kind of a name is it? I don't think it is fit for a senior national team or for the hosts of the 2010 World Cup. Everyone knows the Springbok is an African animal but what does Bafana Bafana mean?''
To educate Mr Mbeki, Bafana is a Zulu word meaning "the boys". As Sono points out, it was it was an apt description of the South African team at the time. They were the new kids on the block, having been banned from the international game for almost three decades; a generation of players had been lost and the fresh faces could really be talked about as boys.
Now, the word 'boys' is not so pertinent. Despite being voted one of the most popular words of the World Cup, there are too many connotations of diminutiveness and unimportance to a term like 'boys'. The country has successfully hosted a World Cup, the so-called 'boys' did that country proud and beat former world champions France in the process, so they really should be allowed to be viewed as men. The Zulu word for men is Indoda, but the name Indoda Indoda doesn't have the same ring to it, does it?
Other sources of influence SAFA may turn to are the nicknames of other African teams. Nigeria are known as the Super Eagles, the Ivory Coast as the Elephants, Cameroon as the Indomitable Lions and Algeria as the Desert Foxes. Animal nicknames have real relevance to African teams because of the abundance of wildlife on the continent. Since two of the big five, lions and elephants, are taken, Rhinos, Leopards or Buffalos are still up for grabs. In fact, the World Cup mascot, Zakhumi, was a leopard, so maybe a name like Green Leopards would be a good idea.
If that doesn't work, perhaps SAFA can look to the African team that South Africans are most fond of, Ghana, for inspiration. After imposing the name BaGhana BaGhana on the Black Stars following their World Cup success, it would seem only fair for South Africa to model their new name on Ghana. In that case something astronomical like: Moon Children, Meteorites, Comets or even Shooting Stars. Speaking of shooting, some might say, given South Africa's relationship with crime, that it's a pity the name Chipolopolo has been taken by the Zambians. It means bullets.
Whatever SAFA decide to name the football team, they had better make sure that their new nickname is not owned by anyone else, particularly the South African sports ministry. Two years ago, SA rugby's usage of the Springbok emblem came under attack. The ruling African National Congress party wanted all national teams to wear the Protea flower as a symbol of unity and reconciliation. They saw the Springbok as too closely linked to the Apartheid era and a time of discrimination.
GettyImages
The rugby side go by 'Springboks'.
When that didn't work, the Sports Ministry claimed that SA rugby was using the emblem illegally, as the springbok was registered to the sports ministry. SA rugby insisted it had registered the symbol as its trademark in 1996. Weeks of finger pointing and public uproar followed before it was eventually decided to move the Springbok emblem to the right of the jersey so the Protea could sit comfortable on the left.
The flower is now worn by all the county's national sports teams and is also the nickname for the South African cricket team. If all else fails, SAFA can look in a horticultural direction for their new name. South Africa has a lot of flora exclusive to the country and it might suit the boys' yellow jerseys to be called something like the Namaqualand Daises. As long as they don't become as fragile as flowers the next time they step out to play, that name could suit them very well indeed.