On Monday, the PSL rescheduled the abandoned Betway Premiership match between SuperSport United and Golden Arrows — a staggering three months after its initial postponement.
This curious twist of fate has stirred controversy and left many questioning the league’s commitment to their own rules, after the PSL appeared to throw their NSL Handbook out of the window with this call.
The handbook is the definitive guide to match protocols and regulations, dictating a more timely resolution to such interruptions as loadshedding.
The original encounter took place in late February. It was interrupted at half-time, with both teams locked in a stalemate at 1–1, when the stadium lights unexpectedly went out, plunging the game into darkness.
Under Rule 14.16 of the NSL Handbook, it is stipulated that matches interrupted by loadshedding or other causes of inadequate lighting must be resumed within 48 hours at an agreed-upon time and venue. However, the fixture’s resumption has been delayed for three months, raising concerns over fairness in the league’s operations.
The match, now scheduled for 12pm on Thursday, could determine SuperSport’s fate in the PSL relegation/promotion play-offs — a scenario that places significant weight on the outcome and raises questions about compliance with NSL procedures.
Mathematically, Golden Arrows could still reach the coveted Top 8 if they win the match with a mammoth margin of six goals.
The handbook explicitly underscores the necessity of a backup generator, highlighting the importance of maintaining functionality during unforeseen power failures.
SuperSport United, as the host club, may argue that they do not own the stadium. However, in hiring the venue, they are responsible for ensuring that it meets all PSL match-day requirements — including the provision of backup power.
To date, no action has been taken against SuperSport. The PSL must ensure that clubs hiring stadiums are never again left vulnerable to the uncertainties of power shortages.
This latest development sets a concerning precedent for match resumptions beyond the previously established 48-hour window — sparking speculation over whether such timeframes remain enforceable, despite their inclusion in the handbook.
